Journal of Global Resources
Volume 4 (01)January 2018
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 112-119

17
AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER: A CASE STUDY OF PALLIKARANAI WETLANDSCHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
Lopita Pal1, Sunil Kumar Singh2 and Madha Suresh. V3
1

Research Scholar, Department of Geography, University of Madras, Chennai, India

2Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Central University of Karnataka, Gulbarga, India
3Professor and Head, CNHDS, University of Madras, Chennai, India

Email: vmsuresh@unom.ac.in
Abstract: Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where thewater table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Starting
about thousands of years in urban areas of the world and typically a few hundred years ago inmost of the coastal areas, humanity has profoundly impacted, degraded or destroyed many
coastal wetlands worldwide by direct physical degradation and pollution. Wetlands are altered bypollutants from up streams or local runoff and, change the quality of water flowing out of them.
Metals or toxic organic compounds can kill wetland vegetation. This article is mainly concernedwith assessing the prevailing environmental condition of Pallikaranai Wetland, data relating towater quality and solid waste using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques. Twenty-four sample
points were taken from Pallikaranai wetland and the parameters such as pH, EC, TDS, TH, Ca,
Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO4, NO3. Also, the presence of Metals like Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn and Al wereplotted with the help of IDW Method to find the concentration of the Metal in the sample. From thestudy, it can be inferred that the concentration of most of the metals and organic compounds
exceeds the permissible limits prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards due to the increase in
the dumping of solid waste. The overall scenario of Pallikaranai Wetland is and it is thus
recommended to take necessary steps at the earliest to save the wetland from complete
destruction.
Keywords: Wetlands, Sewage disposal, Heavy metals, Geo-informatics
Introduction
Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table isusually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al., 1979). The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conceptual framework for ecosystems and human well-being
has recognized the importance of wetlands not only in the context of human wellbeing but also interms of providing a framework that supports the promotion and delivery of the Ramsar
Convention’s “wise use” concept (MEA, 2005). Starting about thousands of years in urban areasof the world and typically a few hundred years ago in most of the coastal areas, humanity has
profoundly impacted, degraded or destroyed many coastal wetlands worldwide by direct physicaldegradation and pollution (Streever, 2001; Zong et al., 2007; Wolanski, 2007). The degradationand loss of wetlands is more rapid than that of other ecosystems (MEA, 2005). Similarly, thestatus of both freshwater and coastal wetland species is deteriorating faster than those of otherecosystems. Generally, wetlands are altered by pollutants from up streams or local runoff and,change the quality of water flowing out of them (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007). Physical andeconomic water scarcity and limited or reduced accesses to water are major challenges facing
society and are key factors limiting economic development in many countries (MEA, 2005).
However, many water resource developments undertaken to increase access to water have notgiven adequate consideration to harmful trade-offs with other services provided by wetlands.
World Bank (1982), stated that the haphazard disposal of solid waste was not safe for humanhealth, and can spread disease.
This research paper is mainly concerned with assessing the prevailing environmental
condition of Pallikaranai Wetland, data relating to water quality and solid waste were collected
and analyses were done using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques to evaluate the extent of112

damage caused to the wetland. Wetlands are of great importance to man and nature as it purifies
water, reduces flood, stores water, prevents soil erosion and supports varied biodiversities (Smithet al., 1994; Massel et al., 1999). Starting about thousands of years in urban areas of the world
and typically a few hundred years ago in most of the coastal areas, humanity has profoundly
impacted, degraded or destroyed many coastal wetlands worldwide by direct physicaldegradation and pollution (Zong et al., 2007; Wolanski, 2007). Ironically, reduced coastal wetland
increases threat to human lives and at the same time the shoreline development exposes
population to coastal hazards such as tsunamis, erosion, flooding, storm and waves surges.
Added to this, these wetlands are store house of vivid biodiversity (Neill, 1958).
Study Area
The Pallikaranai Town Panchayat is located between (12° 54’ 29” N to 12° 58’13” N latitude and80° 11’ 32” E to 80° 13’ 59” E longitude). It falls under Perungudi and Pallikaranai villages in the
Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu. The total area of Pallikaranai Town Panchayat is 17.35
sq.km and it houses the famous Pallikaranai Wetland which has numerous varieties of flora andfauna. Major Part of the Wetland 3.17 sq.km is declared as Reserve forest and is under
Tambaram Range. The marsh land is occupied by Perungudi, Seevaram, Okkiyamthuraipakkam,
Karapakkam in the East, Shollinganallur and Jaladampatti in the south, Medavakkam, Kulathur,
Madipakkam, Puzhuthivakkam in the West and Vellachery and Chennai in the North (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Pallikaranai Location Map

Methodology: Water Analysis
To test the level of pollution in the area in comparison to BIS (1991), twenty-four points wereselected and water samples were taken from them in January, 2011 and inverse distanceweightage (IDW) method was adopted to map the area for the spread of the pollution from thepoint source to the surrounding area. The parameters tested were pH (Hydrogen Ion
Concentration), EC (Electronic Conductivity), TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), TH (Total Hardness),
Ca (Calcium), Mg (Magnesium), Na (Sodium), K (Potassium), Cl (Chlorine), SO4 (Sulphate), NO3(Nitrate). Also, the presence of Metals was plotted with the help of IDW Method to find theconcentration of the Metal in the sample. Some of the Metals which were analysed are Cr(Chromium), Cu (Copper), Fe (Iron), Mn (Manganese), Ni (Nickel), Zn (Zinc) and Al (Aluminium).
113

The mapping was done in ARC GIS environment and the presence of these pollutants wereplotted as Very High, High, Average, Low to very Low to show the spread of the pollutants in thewater.
Results & Discussion
Water analysis
The Physio-chemical parameters and heavy metal concentration in groundwater and surface
water samples collected during January, 2011 collected for the analysis. In all the samples theheavy metals such as cadmium, cobalt, mercury and lead were found to be below detectablelevel.
Hydrogen Ion Concentration – pH
The high concentration of pH value was recorded in the western section of the study area which
was measured around 8.8 and it exceeded the permissible limit of drinking water of 6.5 to 8.5
levels (BIS, 1991). Low Value of pH was found to be around 6.6 and it was present in the easternsection of the study area. Average value of pH was concentrated in the north and southern part ofthe study area, the average value of pH was recorded to be around 7.38 which were well within
the permissible limit. The pH value in the study area (Fig. 3a) was more or less in the permissible
limit and the value indicated that the water was more basic and it may be due to various reasons
from dumping of solid waste which had more of basic substances in it.
Electric Conductivity –EC
The permissible limit of EC recommended by United States Public Health Service is 300 μs/cm.
The highest conductivity recorded was 12,800 μs/cm, the average value measured was 4027.5
μs/cm and the lowest value measured was 800 μs/cm, all values were above the permissible limit.
The highest conductivity was found in water samples in the central and in the western section of
the study area. The high concentration in this area is because the surface water source is highly
polluted by the wastes coming from the residences concentrated in this area. It can be seen thatwestern section has highest to medium concentration of EC. Low to lowest conductivity is seen in
the northern and southern section of the study area (Fig. 3b).
Total Dissolved Solids – TDS
The amounts of TDS recorded were maximum (7789 mg/L) in the eastern section near theeastern boundary of Pallikaranai south of Seevaram between Pallikaranai andOkkiyamthuraipakkam boundary (Fig. 3c), the average value of 2466.5 mg/L was mainly
distributed in a small section in the eastern region and the lowest value of 489 mg/L was recorded
only in a small portion in the southern section which does not exceeds the permissible limit of 500
mg/L (BIS, 1991). From the observation of TDS, it can be easily inferred that the TDS in the study
is too high and is independent of the parent rock as value is constantly fluctuating. The leachatefrom the solid waste dump site, sewage from the settlements and huge amount of decaying ofvegetative and non-vegetative matter add to the TDS in the Study Area.
Total Hardness – TH
The average value of the total hardness recorded was 652 mg/L which was just near thepermissible limit (600 mg/L, BIS, 1991), but the highest value was measured to be around 1700
mg/L, whereas, the lowest value was 150 mg/L which was found in a small section in thesouthern tip of the study area. The highest values were concentrated in the eastern section in theborder between Pallikaranai and Okkiyamthuraipakkam (Fig. 3d). From the study of total
hardness, it can be inferred that though some area has too high concentration of Ca andmagnesium salts the overall scenario is not alarming as far as TH of water is considered in the
study area.
Calcium - Ca
According to the Bureau of Indian Standards the Permissible limit of Ca is 200 mg/L (BIS, 1991).
The maximum value recorded was 300 mg/L and the minimum was 18 mg/L. Two points of highlocation was found as shown in the map, one in the east and the other in the west. Major area inthe map (Fig. 3e) has average concentration (93.6 mg/L) of Ca. The average spread indicatesthat Ca and other metals are diffusing through the area.

114

Magnesium – Mg
Fig. 3f clearly shows very high concentration (340 mg/L) of Mg in the eastern section and it might
be due to industrial location in that region. The average value of 101 mg/L which is just near thepermissible limit of 100 mg/L (BIS, 1991) was found near the high concentrated area. Low to very
low of 24 mg/L was concentrated in major portion of the study area. Low concentration was
distributed in the central, eastern and western section whereas very low concentration was
distributed in a small section in northern and southern sections of the study area. In major part ofthe study area, the level of Mg is far below the permissible limit and that is not an area of concern
from health point of view.
Sodium – Na
The amount of Na in water sample is a matter of concern as Na is easily leached into the soil.
The maximum value recorded (2650 mg/L) was found in eastern border region of Pallikaranai. It
115

was distributed in a very small area, and surrounded by high to medium Na value which was
found to be around 677 mg/L, and was totally confined to the eastern section covering a small
area. The whole of central, eastern and the western section had a low concentration of Na
distribution, with small section in the central, a small part in the northern and major section in thesouthern section having very low concentration of Na (Fig. 3g). The lowest value of Na recorded
was 133 mg/L and it is below the permissible limit of 150 mg/L assigned by the Bureau of Indian
standards (BIS, 1991).
Potassium - K
According to the background document for the development of World Health Organization
guidelines, for drinking water quality (WHO, 1990), it was not considered necessary to establish ahealth-based guideline value for K in drinking water. The highest value of K recorded was 213
mg/L and it was concentrated in a small section in Seevaram town panchayat east of Pallikaranai.
In this region (Fig. 3h), moderate concentration of 32 mg/L of K was measured. In all othersections the concentration of K was as low as 1 mg/L of water might be due to the vegetation in
the dump yard which absorbs the Potassium for its growth.
Chlorine – Cl
A small portion of area had high concentration of Cl which was present in two small pockets in theeastern section, which was recorded to be 3687 mg/L and it was higher than the permissible limit(1000 mg/L, BIS, 1991). Low concentration of 1086 mg/L is concentrated throughout the study
area which is close to the permissible limit and very low concentration of 39 mg/L is present in asmall portion of the southern section (Fig. 3i). Cl does not spread by the movement ofunderground water and the high level of Cl recorded in few areas may be due to localized
reasons and for a short period of time.
Sulfate – SO4
The prescribed limit of SO4 in drinking water is 400 mg/L set by the Bureau of Indian Standards(BIS, 1991). The distribution of sulfate in the study area shows high concentration (900 mg/L) of
sulfate salt in the eastern section just south of Seevaram and is concentrated in a small area. The
average of all samples collected was 343 mg/L and it was found only near the high concentrated
region. Throughout the study area, low to very low concentration of sulfate was distributed. Low
value of about of 35 mg/L was recorded in the eastern and northern section (Fig. 4a).
Nitrate – NO3
The highest value of nitrate found in the water sample was 370 mg/L, the average of the entire
water sample was 54 mg/L and the lowest value recorded was 11 mg/L, whereas the permissible
limit is 45 mg/L (BIS, 1991). Though the maximum value of nitrate concentration in a particularregion has increased, the distribution of salt is highly localized in one particular area. The entire
study area (Fig. 4b) has very low distribution of nitrate except for the small region east of
Pallikaranai, where high concentration of nitrate was recorded and is confined to a small area
near Seevaram.
Chromium - Cr
The prescribed limit of Cr VI in drinking water set by the Bureau of Indian Standards is 0.05 mg/L
(BIS, 1991). In major number of samples (Fig. 4c) the level of Cr was found to be below
detectable limit, only in seven samples of the twenty-four samples Cr was detected. The highest
value detected was 0.07 mg/L and the lowest value detected was 0.013 mg/L. The average value
was found to be 0.03 mg/L which was below the permissible limit. Highest value of Cr was only
detected in one small area in the central section which was just above the permissible limit. Other
area showed less to very less value of Cr which was found to be below the desirable limit.
Copper - Cu
The central portion of Pallikaranai (Fig. 4d) showed high concentration (0.018 mg/L) of Cu which
was too low as per the Bureau of Indian Standards which has set 1.5 as the permissible limit in
the water (BIS, 1991). The average concentration of Cu in the study area is 0.012 mg/L. Thus, we
can easily infer that the area is free from Cu pollution.
Ferrous - Fe
The permissible limit of Fe according to the Bureau of Indian Standards in drinking water is 1
mg/L (BIS, 1991). High concentration (0.57 mg/L) of Fe can be seen in two regions of
Pallikaranai, one in the eastern section and the other in the central portion. One region extreme
116east of Pallikaranai (Fig. 4e) also showed high concentration of Fe. In all other areas, average tolow (0.012 mg/L) concentration of Fe was recorded. The average value of Fe in water was foundto be 0.225 mg/L which is far less than the desirable limit.

Manganese – Mn
Mn was found in 20 samples and in 4 samples it was below the detectable level. The maximum
value recorded was 2.507 mg/L whereas, the minimum value recorded was 0.008 mg/L. The
average calculated was around 0.505 mg/L. High concentration was isolated only in two small
sections in the eastern section of the study area. Moderate to low concentration of Mn was117

distributed in these sections only. One small patch of low concentration area was found in thewestern section (Fig. 4f). In all over the study area, the concentration was least, ranging between
0.5 mg/L and above, which was well above the permissible limit of 0.3 mg/L (BIS, 1991). It can beinferred from the study that even the region with the lowest concentration of Mn has values inexcess of the permissible level and it may lead to Mn poisoning if the level keeps increasing in
future.
Nickel - Ni
The highest value of Ni recorded in the water sample was 0.227 mg/L and the lowest value was
0.083 mg/L. In the study area (Fig. 4g), the north-east section showed high concentration of Ni. In
the rest of the study area the average concentration of around 0.16 mg/L of Ni was distributed.
The central section covering a small area had less concentration of Ni. It can be inferred from thestudy, that the study area has a concentration of Ni which is far more than that prescribed (0.02
mg/L) by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 1991) and it may be due to dumping of solid
wastes and sewage coming from the hospitals and households located in and around the
Pallikaranai marsh land.
Zinc - Zn
According to Bureau of Indian Standards, the permissible limit of Zn in drinking water is 15 mg/L
(BIS, 1991). Larger areas have very low concentration of Zn, but the concentration of Zn has
increased in the northern section and the overall average has decreased to 0.008 mg/L which isfar below the desirable limit. The highest amount of Zn in the sample was recorded to be 0.239
mg/L which is also far too less than the permissible limit (Fig. 4h).
Aluminum - Al
The amount of Al in water in the study area varied between 0.176 to 0.02 mg/L. The averageamount of Al in the study area (Fig. 4i) was found to be 0.108 mg/L which far exceeds thepermissible limits. The concentration of the metals in the map shows high concentration in thewestern side, it is the area where thick population is concentrated. In other areas theconcentration is average but it is far above the permissible limit of 0.03 mg/L (BIS, 1991). The
western area showing very low concentration has 0.02 mg/L which is just 0.01 mg/L low than thepermissible limit. Thus, we can conclude beyond doubt that the area under study is polluted with
Al.
Change Detection – Dump Site
The area under dump site saw a consistent increase from the year 1991 to 2011. The wetland in
the north-eastern section had been continuously used by the Chennai Municipality for dumping
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) being generated in the city. The dumping of MSW has not only led
to the reduction in the area under wetland but it has also polluted the water of the wetland. During
rainy season, the leachates from the dump site flow into the wetland and release harmful
chemicals into it. These chemicals pollute the wetlands and are a serious threat for the survival of
the living organism which finds its shelter in the wetland. The water quality of the adjacent area
has also been polluted due to the mingling of the polluted water with the underground water tablewetland (Fig. 5).
Figure 5: Dump Site

Dump Site

Area in %

1.50
1.00
0.50

Dump Site

0.00
1991

2001 2006
Year

2011

Conclusion
Wetlands are water-filters, and it has the inherent capacity to purify water. Pallikaranai Wetland
too fell in the same league in the past. From the study, it has been inferred that the wetland isshrinking in size and is gasping for its survival as it has been heavily polluted by the contaminantsfrom different sources. The Chennai Municipal Corporation has been continuously dumping the118

MSW in the Wetland. Adding to this the sewage from the settlements is drained to the
Pallikaranai Wetland, which has polluted the wetland to such an extent that the BOD of thewetland in some area is as high as 750 mg/L and the COD is 2261 mg/L. Thus, it can beconcluded that the Pallikaranai Wetland water is highly polluted and immediate action should betaken to save this wetland and its Biodiversity. It is thus recommended to take necessary steps at
the earliest to save the wetland from complete destruction. The most important step will be to stopusing the wetland as dumping site and realize it utility and change the perception of wetland andits rich biodiversity from a place to be used as a dumpsite to a place which can save humanity.
References
Baker J.M (1973). ‘Recovery of salt marsh vegetation from successive oil spillages’,
Environmental Pollution, 4, pp.223-230.
BIS (1991). Bureau of Indian Standards Drinking water specification, Ist. revision, ISS 10500.
Care Earth (2002). ‘Conservation of Urban Wetlands- Pallikaranai Marsh’, in Azeez P.A, S.
Bhupathy, J. Ranjini, R. Dhanya, P.P. Nikhil Raj (2007). Management Plan for the Ecorestoration of Pallikaranai Reserve Forest, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural
History.
Census of India (2001). Pallikaranai Population Census 2001. Retrieved fromhttp://www.census2011.co.in/data/town/803359-pallikaranai-tamil-nadu.html on 15/8/2013.
Cowardin L.M, V. Carter F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe (1979). Classification of Wetlands andDeepwater Habitats of the United States, Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
Finlayson M and M. Moser, ed. (1991). ‘Wetlands. Facts on File’, in Mitsch J. William and James
G. Gosselink (2007). Wetlands, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 37.
Massel S.R, K. Furukaw and R.M. Brinkman (1999). ‘Surface wave propagation in mangrove
forests’, Fluid Dyn. Res., 24, pp. 219-249.
MEA (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington: Island Press. Methods forenvironmental impact Assessment (1997). ‘Methodology of EIA, Chapter 3’, EIA for
Developing
Countries.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.doe.ir/portal/theme/talab/0DB/2BS/WMRA/SO/bs-wmra-so-1997.pdf on 18/4/2013.
Mitsch W.J and J.G. Gosselink (2007). Wetlands, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Neill W.T (1958). ‘The occurrence of amphibians and reptiles in saltwater areas and abibliography’, Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb, 8, pp.1-95.
Presser T.S and H.M. Ohlendorf (1987). ‘Biogeochemical cycling of selenium in the San Joaquin
Valley’, Environmental Management, 11, pp. 805-821.
Richardson C.J (1983). ‘Pocosin wetlands: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands?’,
Bioscience, 33, pp. 626-633.
Shaw S.P and C.G. Fredine (1956). ‘Wetlands of the United States, Their Extent, and Their Valuefor Waterfowl and Other Wildlife’, Circular 39, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Interior, pp. 67.
Smith III T.J, M.B. Robblee, H.R. Wanless, T.W. Doyle, (1994). ‘Mangroves, hurricanes andlightning strikes’, Bio sciences, 44, pp. 256-262.
Streever W (2001). Saving Louisiana? The battle for coastal wetlands, Jackson, MS: University
Press of Mississippi, pp 189.
WHO (1990). ‘Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking- water
quality.’ WHO Document Production Service, Geneva: WHO.
Wolanski E (2007). Estuarine Ecohydrology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 157.
World Bank (1982). Appropriate Sanitation Alternatives – Studies in Water Supply and Sanitation,
Kalbermatten J, ed. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Zoltai S.C (1988). ‘Wetland Environments and classification’, in national wetlands Working Group,
ed. Wetlands of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series 24, Montreal, Quebec: Poly
science Publication, pp.1-26.
Zong Y, Z. Chen, J.B. Innes, C. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Wang (2007). ‘Fire and flood
management of coastal swamp enabled first rice paddy cultivation in east China’, Nature,449, pp. 459-462.

119