Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2012, 4, 1009-1023
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2012.412117 Published Online December 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jwarp)
Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution in the
Sediments of Euphrates River, Iraq
Emad A. Mohammad Salah1, Tahseen A. Zaidan2, Ahmed S. Al-Rawi2
1Department of Applied Geology, College of Science, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq
2Department of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Anbar, Ramadi, Iraq
Received September 15, 2012; revised October 19, 2012; accepted October 28, 2012
ABSTRACT
Fourteen bed sediments samples were collected from the Euphrates River in order to determine concentrations, seasonal,
spatial and contamination assessment of heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn and Cr. The mean con-
centrations are as follows: 2249.47 mg/kg for Fe, 228.18 mg/kg for Mn, 67.08 mg/kg for Ni, 58.4 mg/kg for Cr, 48.00
mg/kg for Zn, 28.16 mg/kg for Co, 22.56 mg/kg for Pb, 18.91 mg/kg for Cu and 1.87 mg/kg for Cd. To assess metal
contamination in sediments, sediment quality guidelines were applied. The mean concentration of Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe, Mn,
and Cr exceeded the USEPA guideline. The metal contamination in the sediments was also evaluated by appling en-
richment factor (EF), contamination factor (CF), geo-accumulation index (Igeo) and pollution load index (PLI). Based
on enrichment factor (EF), the Euphrates River sediments have very high enrichment for Pb, extremely high for Cd,
moderate for Zn, significant to very high for Ni, very high to extremely high for Co, moderate to significant for Mn and
significant to very high for Cr. According to contamination factor (CF), Cd and Cr are responsible for very high con-
tamination. According to Igeo, the Euphrates River sediments are moderately to strongly polluted by Cd. Based on PLI,
all sampling sites suggest no overall pollution of site quality.
Keywords: Heavy Metals; Euphrates; River Sediments; Pollution; Iraq
1. Introduction
River sediments are a major carrier of heavy metals in
the aquatic environment. Sediments are mixture of sev-
eral components of mineral species as well as organic
debris, represent as ultimate sink for heavy metals dis-
charged into environment [1,2]. Chemical leaching of
bedrocks, water drainage basins and runoff from banks
are the primary sources of heavy metals [3]. Mining op-
erations, disposal of industrial wastes and applications of
biocides for pest are other anthropogenic sources [4].
Heavy metals are serious pollutants because of their tox-
icity, persistence and nondegradability in the environ-
ment [5-8]. Polluted sediments, in turn, can act as sour-
ces of heavy metals, imparting them into the water and
debasing water quality [9,10]. To date, many researchers
have conducted extensive surveys of heavy metal con-
tamination in sediments [3,11-13]. The results demon-
strated that accumulation of heavy metals has occurred in
sediments of different regions. Limited surveys have
been undertaken to study distribution of heavy metals in
the Euphrates River sediments [14-16].
The aim of this work is to assess concentrations of the
heavy metals and degree of contamination in the Eu-
phrates River sediments.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The Euphrates River is one of the most important rivers
in the world. Along with the Tigris River, it provided
much of the water that supported the development of
ancient Mesopotamian culture. Euphrates River rise in
the highlands of Turkey and it is formed the Karasu and
Murat tributary rivers. Euphrates enters Iraq at AlQaim
city. During its passage through Iraq, the river crosses
more than 1000 km.The water resources in Iraq are con-
centrated to the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. The study
area is bounded by latitudes (33˚26'N to 34˚22'N) and
Longitudes (41˚8'N to 43˚20'E), Figure 1. The climate of
Iraq in summer, is dry and extremely hot with a shade
temperature of 43˚C during July and August, dropping at
night to 26˚C. The winter in Iraq is cold and rainy. Av-
erage annual rainfall is estimated at 154 mm but it ranges
from less than 100 mm in central plain and southern de-
sert in Iraq to 1200 mm in the north and north-east
mountainous regions, which have Mediterranean climate.
The climate of the western desert, including the study
C
opyright © 2012 SciRes. JWARP

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1010
Study
Area
Figure 1. Location map of study area.
area, is characterized by hot summer and cold winter.
This region also receives brief violent rainstorms in the
winter that usually total of 10 cm per year.
2.2. Sampling Collection and Analysis
Fourteen sampling sites were chosen for collection of
sediments along the Euphrates River (Figure 2, Table 1).
Sampling sites were localized exactly by GPS (Garmin)
locator. Auger tube was used for sediment sampling. The
sediments samples were collected in winter and spring
2012. The samples were placed in polyethylene bags and
transported to the laboratory under frozen condition (at
4˚C). The samples were dried in the laboratory at 104˚C
for forty eight hours, ground to a fine powder and sieved
through 106 μm stainless steel mesh wire. The samples
were then stored in a polyethylene container ready for
digestion and analysis. Closed vessel microwave assisted
acid digestion technique under high temperature and
pressure has become routine [17], which avoids the ex-
ternal contamination and requires shorter time and
smaller quantities of acids, thus improving detection lim-
its and overall accuracy of the analytical method [18]. 0.5
gram of sediment sample was put into the reference ves-
sel. Then 25 ml of mixture (HCL:H2SO4:HNO3, 3:2:2)
were added to reaction vessel which was inserted into the
microwave unit. The digested solution was cooled and
filtered. The filtered sample was then made up to 50 ml
with distilled water and stored in a special containers.
We used AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectrometry) in-
strument (Phoenix: 986) to detect and measure heavy
metal content in the sediment samples.
2.3. Assessment of Metal Contamination
To evaluate the degree of contamination in the sediments,
Figure 2. Sampling sites map.
Table 1. Details of sampling locations of Euphrates River.
Location
Site
No. Name of Site
Latitude-N Longitude-E
S1 Albagoz 34˚25'22.7'' 41˚01'08.0''
S2 Almanee 34˚22'53.6'' 41˚04'23.2''
S3 Alphosphate 34˚22'0.39'' 41˚08'02.3''
S4 Jbab 34˚28'09.1'' 41˚38'29.4''
S5 Rawa 34˚28'24.2'' 41˚54'38.5''
S6 Alkaser 34˚22'42.1'' 42˚01'05.9''
S7 Before Haditha Dam34˚17'01.5'' 42˚13'22.8''
S8 After Haditha Dam 34˚11'30.7'' 42˚22'18.4''
S9 Hajlan 34˚05'18.6'' 42˚22'08.1''
S10Albaghdadi 33˚51'35.1'' 42˚31'58.4''
S11Hit 33˚39'12.0'' 42˚49'01.6''
S12Aldowara 33˚38'27.3'' 42˚49'59.9''
S13Almohamadi 33˚33'51.3'' 42˚45'07.3''
S14Ramadi 33˚26'23.3'' 43˚17'53.5''
we used four parameters: Enrichment Factor (EF), Con-
tamination Factor (CF), Pollution Load Index (PLI) and
Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo).
Enrichment Factor (EF)
The enrichment factor (EF) of metals is a useful indi-
cator reflecting the status and degree of environmental
contamination [19]. The EF calculations compare each
value with a given background level, either from the lo-
cal site, using older deposits formed under similar condi-
tions, but without anthropogenic impact, or from a re-
gional or global average composition [20,21]. The EF
was calculated using the method proposed by [22] as
follows:


(1)
sample
b
ackground
EFMe FeMe Fe
where (Me/Fe) sample is the metal to Fe ratio in the
sample of interest; (Me/Fe)background is the natural

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1011
background value of metal to Fe ratio. As we do not have
metal background values for our study area, we used the
values from surface world rocks [23]. Iron was chosen as
the element of normalization because natural sources
(1.5%) vastly dominate its input [24]. Enrichment factor
categories are listed in Table 2.
Contamination Factor (CF)
The level of contamination of sediment by metal is
expressed in terms of a contamination factor (CF) calcu-
lated as:
mm
CFCSampleCBackground

(2)
where, Cm Sample is the concentration of a given metal
in river sediment, and Cm Background is value of the
metal equals to the world surface rock average given by
[23]. CF values for describing the contamination level
are shown in Table 3.
Pollution Load Index (PLI)
Pollution load index (PLI), for a particular site, has
been evaluated following the method proposed by [25].
This parameter is expressed as:
1n
3 n
F CF

12
PLICF CFC (3)
where, n is the number of metals.
Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo)
Enrichment of metal concentration above baseline
concentrations was calculated using the method proposed
by [26], termed the geo-accumulation index (Igeo). Geo-
accumulation index is expressed as follows:
geo2 mm
ILogC Sample1.5CB 

ackground 

(4)
where Cm Sample is the measured concentration of ele-
ment n in the sediment sample and Bm Background is the
geochemical background value (world surface rock av-
erage given by [23]). The factor 1.5 is introduced to in-
clude possible variation of the background values due to
lithogenic effect. Muller [27] proposed seven grades or
classes of the geo-accumulation index. These classes are
given in Table 4. The overall total geo-accumulation
index (Itot) is defined as the sum of Igeo for all trace ele-
ments obtain from the site [28]. The number of toxic
elements determined in a sediment sample and their re-
spective Igeo value would influence the Itot.
Table 2. Enrichment factor (EF) categories ( Mmolawa et al.
2011).
Enrichment factor
(EF) Enrichment factor (EF) Categories
EF < 2 Deficiency to minimal enrichment
2 ≤ EF < 5 Moderate enrichment
5 ≤ EF < 20 Significant enrichment
20 ≤ EF < 40 Very high enrichment
EF ≥ 40 Extremely high enrichment
Table 3. Contamination factor (CF) and level of contamina-
tion (Hakanson, 1980).
Contamination Factor
(CF) Contamination Level
CF < 1 Low contamination
1 ≤ CF < 3 Moderate contamination
3 ≤ CF < 6 Considerable contamination
CF > 6 Very high contamination
Table 4. Muller’s classification for geo-accumulation index
(Igeo).
Igeo ValueClass Sediment Quality
≤0 0 Unpolluted
0 - 1 1 From unpolluted to moderately polluted
1 - 2 2 Moderately polluted
2 - 3 3 From moderately to strongly polluted
3 - 4 4 Strongly polluted
4 - 5 5 From strongly to extremely polluted
>6 6 Extremely
3. Results and Discussion
The descriptive statistics of the data set pertaining to the
Euphrates River sediments, geochemical background
concentration and sediment quality guidelines are pre-
sented in Table 5. Intermetallic correlation, seasonal and
spatial variations were delineated in Table 6 and shown
in Figures 3 and 4. Results of this study were compared
with the other previous local and global studies, Table 7.
The enrichment factor (EF) is a convenient measure of
geochemical trends and is used for making comparisons
between areas [22]. The EF values of heavy metals in the
Euphrates River sediments were listed and Table 8 and
shown in Figure 5.
The contamination factor (CF) was used to determine
the contamination status of sediments of Euphrates River.
The calculated CF for various heavy metals in sediments
of Euphrates River is presented in Table 9 and shown in
Figure 6.
The PLI provides simple but comparative means for
assessing a site quality, where a value of PLI < 1 denotes
perfection; PLI = 1 presents that only baseline levels of
pollutants are presented and PLI > 1 would indicate dete-
rioration of site quality [25]. The PLI values for heavy
metals in the Euphrates River sediments are listed in Ta-
ble 10 and shown in Figure 7.
The geo-accumulation index (Igeo) was used to determine
the pollution level of sediments. The calculated Igeo values,
based on the world surface rock average, are presented in

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1012
Table 5. Concentration of heavy metals in the sediments samples of Euphrates river during the study period.
Geochemical Background
Metal Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
deviation World1
surface rock
average
Mean shale
concentration2
WHO3
SQG*
USEPA4
SQG*
CCME5
SQG*
Pb 8.02 32.69 22.56 7.37 16 20 - 40 35
Cd 0.87 2.35 1.87 0.45 0.2 0.3 6 0.6 0.6
Zn 14.96 130.25 48.00 31.25 127 95 123 110 123
Cu 10.35 30.52 18.91 5.59 32 11.2 25 16 35.7
Ni 39.98 103.98 67.08 19.36 49 68 20 16 -
Co 21.88 38.73 28.16 4.91 13 29 - - -
Fe 928.7 3441.05 2249.47 571.18 35900 46700 - 30 -
Mn 136.05 312.11 228.18 56.13 750 850 - 30 -
Cr 36.45 120.11 58.40 21.73 71 90 25 25 37.3
Values are in milligram per Kilogram (mg/kg); 1Martin and Meybeck [23]; 2Venkatesha Raju [3]; 3WHO [32]; 4USEPA [33]; 5CCME [17]; *Sediment quality
guidelines.
Table 6. Pearson’s correlation coefficient of heavy metals in Euphrates River sediments.
Metal Pb Cd Zn Cu Ni Co Fe Mn Cr
Pb 1.000
Cd 0.436 1.000
Zn 0.515 0.374 1.000
Cu 0.519 0.598 0.758 1.000
Ni 0.380 0.487 0.387
0.683 1.000
Co 0.472 0.032 0.577 0.234 0.053 1.000
Fe 0.610 0.522 0.595 0.617 0.318 0.084 1.000
Mn 0.047 0.699 –0.086 0.401 0.342 –0.485 0.208 1.00
Cr 0.441 0.580 0.808 0.574 0.421 0.668 0.451 –0.035 1.00
Marked correlations are significant at p < 0.05.
Table 11 and the variations are shown in F igure 8.
The concentration of Pb varied from 8.02 to 32.69
mg/kg, and mean value was 22.56 mg/kg. It was more
than the world surface rock average and the shale con-
centration as a background level. In comparison with
sediment quality guideline, the mean value did not ex-
ceed the limits, and this result shows that the Euphrates
River sediments are not polluted by Pb. Pb expressed a
strong positive correlation with Fe at 0.05 level. The
strong correlation indicates that the two elements have
common sources. In general, Pb concentrations in sedi-
ments were high during the spring than winter (Figure
3(a)). Pb concentration varies between 8.02 mg/kg at S6
and 32.69 mg/kg at S1, Figure 4(a). High values of Pb
concentration at S7, S8 (Haditha Dam), S12 (Heet city)
and S14 (Ramadi city) as well as S1 (AlQaim city) might
be due to increased human activity since these are town-
ship areas. Pb concentration was in a good agreement to
that reported in study of [14] for the upper region of Eu-
phrates River (same study area) and study of [29] for the
Euphrates River profile in Iraq (Table 7). It was less than
that recorded by [15] for two stations in Heet and
Ramadi cities. It was also less than the world rivers av-
erage [23].
The EF values for Pb in Euphrates River sediments
were ranged from 9.35 to 35.97. The EF values for Pb
were found to be greater than 20 in most of sampling
sites (Table 8), suggesting that these sites are classified
as very high enrichment for Pb. Rabee et al. [15] found
that the EF values for Pb in two stations in Heet and
Ramadi cities are 5.4 and 6.20, respectively. They classi-
fied these stations as significant enrichment for Pb. The

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1013
Table 7. Concentrations of heavy metals in the Euphrates river sediments (in mg/kg) in comparison to other local studies, for
other rivers and world river sediments averages.
River/Date of
sampling/
Location
Pb Cd Zn Cu Ni Co Fe Mn Cr Reference
Euphrates
1997 Iraq 19.5 0.08 30 24.6 125 - - 450 - [14]
Euphrates
2008 Iraq 39.1 0.73 - 46.6 29.1 - - 302.75 - [15]
Euphrates
1998 Iraq 19.5 3.6 91.16 45.25 182.91 48.6 - - 119.4 [29]
Euphrates
2004-2005
Iraq
0.59 11.2 67.66 14.14 0.37 8.24 661.7 37.7 0.47 [16]
Tigris Iraq 43.4 - 54.6 25.5 155.3 44.9 - - 865.4 [34]
Tigris 1993
Iraq 17.9 - 30.6 0.1 - 1.7 8.3 - 47.1 17.4 - 28.9105.4 - 125.5- - 451.3 - 565.6 - [35]
Tigris
2008 Iraq 7 - 90 0.3 - 1.3 - 5 - 55 6 - 30 - - 166 - 426 - [36]
Yangtze
2005 China 49.19 0.98 230.39 60.03 41.86 108.00[13]
Tapti India - - 1.17 - 6.06 0.52 - 4.07- - 1.88 - 5.716 - 8.9 - [37]
Buriganga
Bangladesh 79.8 0.8 502.3 184.4 - - - - 101.2 [38]
Cauvery
2007-2009
India
4.3 1.3 93.1 11.2 27.7 1.9 11144 176.3 38.9 [3]
World average 230.75 1.4 303 122.9 102.1 55.3 57405.9 975.3 126 [23]
Table 8. Enrichment ratio (ER) values of heavy metals in Euphrates river sediments.
Sampling
Site Pb Cd Zn Cu Ni Co Mn Cr
S1 26.92 143.23 5.06 8.93 26.29 33.27 4.69 13.77
S2 16.66 167.90 5.37 12.51 33.61 26.66 6.28 11.84
S3 24.59 189.95 4.97 11.97 31.00 30.18 6.34 11.48
S4 24.84 183.99 4.61 9.70 18.15 34.87 7.09 11.46
S5 21.05 157.96 5.47 10.57 18.42 28.82 6.28 10.42
S6 9.35 141.84 2.43 6.64 15.22 39.42 4.94 13.87
S7 35.97 176.22 4.53 9.95 20.88 49.01 4.60 14.47
S8 18.60 80.33 4.73 6.79 13.15 20.88 2.56 6.04
S9 30.82 168.15 4.55 12.50 48.40 90.60 7.01 19.84
S10 27.82 103.70 7.55 9.02 19.62 38.58 3.91 11.20
S11 21.62 172.13 3.44 5.61 19.54 27.69 4.48 14.52
S12 22.72 145.53 10.87 9.34 20.26 34.60 4.01 15.78
S13 15.77 164.02 4.81 9.16 14.82 35.04 5.59 12.39
S14 23.12 146.61 12.90 12.00 22.27 37.49 3.23 21.28

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1014
Table 9. Contamination factor (CF) for the heavy metals of Euphrates River sediments.
Sampling
Sites Pb Cd Zn Cu Ni Co Fe Mn Cr
S1 2.04 10.45 0.37 0.65 1.93 2.42 0.072 0.342 1.00
S2 1.05 10.6 0.34 0.78 2.12 1.68 0.063 0.396 0.74
S3 1.43 11.05 0.29 0.69 1.80 1.75 0.058 0.374 0.66
S4 1.43 10.65 0.26 0.56 1.05 2.01 0.057 0.410 0.66
S5 1.39 10.45 0.36 0.69 1.21 1.90 0.066 0.416 0.68
S6 0.50 7.6 0.13 0.35 0.81 2.11 0.053 0.266 0.74
S7 2.01 9.85 0.25 0.55 1.16 2.74 0.055 0.257 0.80
S8 1.78 7.7 0.45 0.65 1.26 2.00 0.095 0.245 0.57
S9 0.79 4.35 0.11 0.32 1.25 2.34 0.025 0.181 0.51
S10 1.47 5.5 0.40 0.47 1.04 2.04 0.053 0.207 0.59
S11 1.47 11.75 0.23 0.38 1.33 1.89 0.068 0.306 0.99
S12 1.63 10.45 0.78 0.67 1.45 2.48 0.071 0.288 1.13
S13 0.87 9.05 0.26 0.50 0.94 1.93 0.055 0.308 0.68
S14 1.83 11.65 1.02 0.95 1.77 2.97 0.079 0.257 1.69
Mean 1.40 9.36 0.37 0.58 1.36 2.16 0.062 0.30 0.81
Table 10. Geo-accumulation indices (Igeo) of heavy metals in Euphrates River sediments.
Sampling
Sites Pb Cd Zn Cu Ni Co Fe Mn Cr Itot
S1 0.44 2.79 –2.05 –1.21 0.35 0.69 –4.36 –2.13 –0.57 –6.05
S2 –0.51 2.81 –2.18 –0.94 0.49 0.16 –4.57 –1.92 –1.00 –7.66
S3 –0.07 2.87 –2.39 –1.12 0.26 0.22 –4.70 –2.00 –1.16 –8.09
S4 –0.06 2.82 –2.55 –1.43 –0.51 0.42 –4.69 –1.87 –1.17 –9.04
S5 –0.10 2.79 –2.05 –1.12 –0.30 0.34 –4.50 –1.85 –1.12 –7.91
S6 –1.60 2.33 –3.64 –2.12 –0.88 0.49 –4.80 –2.49 –1.01 –13.72
S7 0.42 2.71 –2.55 –1.43 –0.37 0.86 –4.74 –2.54 –0.89 –8.53
S8 0.25 2.35 –1.73 –1.21 –0.25 0.41 –3.96 –2.61 –1.37 –8.12
S9 –0.91 1.53 –3.83 –2.25 –0.26 0.64 –5.86 –3.05 –1.54 –15.52
S10 –0.03 1.87 –1.94 –1.68 –0.53 0.44 –4.82 –2.85 –1.33 –10.87
S11 –0.03 2.96 –2.73 –2.00 –0.18 0.33 –4.45 –2.29 –1.39 –9.78
S12 0.11 2.79 –0.94 –1.18 –0.04 0.72 –4.38 –2.38 –0.40 –5.70
S13 –0.78 2.59 –2.55 –1.59 –0.68 0.36 –4.76 –2.28 –1.13 –10.82
S14 0.28
2.95 –0.55 –0.66 0.85 0.98 –4.24 –2.54 0.17 –2.76

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL.
JWARP
1015
Table 11. Pollution load index (PLI) values for heavy metals
in Euphrates River sediments.
PLI Sampling
Sites
0.94 S1
0.83 S2
0.80 S3
0.74 S4
0.81 S5
0.52 S6
0.77 S7
0.79 S8
0.45 S9
0.64 S10
0.75 S11
0.96 S12
0.65 S13
1.15 S14
CF values for Pb in Euphrates River sediments varied
from 0.50 to 2.04 with a mean value of 1.4, Table 9.
Most sampling sites has CF greater than 1 and less than 3.
It was found that most sampling sites were moderately
contaminated by Pb except S6, S9 and S13 face low
contamination (Table 3). The Igeo values for Pb in major-
ity of sampling sites were less than 0 (<0), except S1, S7
and S14 were less than 1 (<1), Table 10. According to
Muller’s classification (Table 4), the calculated Igeo val-
ues for Pb indicate sediment quality be considered as
polluted for majority of sites and from unpolluted to
moderately polluted for S1, S7 and S14.
Cd concentration varied between 0.87 and 2.35 mg/kg
and mean value was 1.87 mg/kg. It was more than the
world surface rock average and the mean shale concen-
tration as a geochemical background level (Table 5). The
mean value of Cd concentration did not exceed the WHO
sediment quality guidelines and exceeded the USEPA
guidelines. According to USEPA, Euphrates River sedi-
ments were polluted by Cd. Generally, Cd concentrations
were highest during spring at downstream sites and high-
est during winter at upstream sites, Figure 3(b). The
mean value of Cd concentration has strong positive cor-
relation with Mn at 0.05 level. It has also good positive
Winter
Spring
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sa mpling Sites
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pb (mg/kg)
(a)
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
Cd (m g/kg)
Winter
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites
(b)
Spring
Winter
Spring
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13
Sampling Sites
S14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Zn (mg/kg)
(c)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cu (mg/kg)
(d)
Winter
S1 S2S3 S4S5S6 S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites Spring

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1016
Winter
Spring
S1 S2S3 S4 S5S6 S7S8 S9S10S11S12S13
Sampling Sites
S14
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Ni (mg/kg)
(e)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Co (mg/kg)
(f)
Winter
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites Spring
Winter
Spring
S1 S2S3 S4 S5S6 S7 S8S9S10S11S12S13S
Sa mpling Sites
14
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Fe (mg/ kg)
(g)
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
Mn (m g/kg)
(h)
Winter
S1 S2S3 S4S5 S6 S7S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Si tes Spring
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8S9S10S11S12S13
Sampling Sites
Winter
Spring
S14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cr (m g /kg)
(i)
Figure 3. Seasonal and spatial variations of heavy metals in Euphrates River sediments.
correlation with Cu and Cr at 0.05 level. The good and
strong positive correlations indicate that these heavy
metals have common contamination sources. Spatial
variation of Cd concentration was given in Figure 4(b),
the maximum value was 2.35 mg/kg at S11and the
minimum value was 0.87 mg/kg at S9. High values, were
recorded at S3 (near Phosphate Factory), S11 (Heet city)
and S14 (Ramadi city). These high values may be attrib-
uted to the anthropogenic activities such as urbanization,
industrialization and agricultural runoff. The mean value
of Cd concentration was more than that assessed by [14]
and by [15]. It was also more than that of the world rivers
average [23]. It was less than that reported by [29]. Al-
Bassam [30] suggested that anthropogenic sources may
have significant role in the enrichment of Cd in the Euphra-
tes River sediments. These sources include discharging of

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1017
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7S8 S9S10S1
Sampling Sites
1 S12S13S14
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Pb (mg/k g)
(a)
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Cd (m g/kg )
(b)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11
Sampling Sites
S12 S13 S14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Zn (mg/kg)
(c)
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Cu (mg/k g)
(d)
S1 S2 S3S4S5 S6S7S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Samp ling Sites
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S1
Sampling Sites
1 S12S13S14
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Ni (mg / k g )
(e)
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Co (mg / k g )
(f)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S1
Sampling Sites
1 S12S13S14
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Fe (mg/ k g )
(g)
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
Mn ( mg/k g )
(h)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sampling Sites

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1018
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11
Sampling Sites
S12 S13S14
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Cr (mg/ kg)
(i)
Figure 4. Spatial variation of heavy metals in Euphrates River sediments.
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
P o l l u ti o n L o ad In d ex (P LI)
S1 S2 S3S4 S5S6 S7S8S9 S10 S11S12 S13
Sampling S i te s
Pb
Cd
Zn
Cu
Ni
Co
Fe
Mn
Cr
S14
Enrichment Ratio (ER)
S1 S2 S3 S4S5 S6S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sam pling Sites
Figure 5. Enrichment ratio (ER) of heavy metals in Eu-
phrates River sediments.
Pb
Cd
Zn
Cu
Ni
Co
Fe
Mn
Cr
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5S6 S7 S8S9S10S11S12S
Sampling Sites
13 S14
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Contamination Factor
Figure 6. Contamination factor (CF) of heavy metals In
Euphrates River sediments.
irrigation water, rich in phosphate fertilizers, to the river
and discharging untreated municipal heavy water to the
river without treatment from highly populated cities.
Figure 7. Pollution load index values of sampling sites at
Euphrates River.
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Geo-accumulation Index
Pb
Cd
Zn
Cu
Ni
Co
Fe
Mn
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9S10S11S12S13S14
Sa mpling Sites
Cr
Figure 8. Geo-accumulation indices (GIs) of heavy Metals in
Euphrates River sediments.
The EF values for Cd in the Euphrates River Sedi-
ments varied between 80.70 to 189.95. The EF values of
Cd were greater than 40 for all sampling sites, suggesting

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1019
that these sites are classified as extremely high enrich-
ment (Table 8). The EF values for Cd in two stations in
Heet and Ramadi cites are 8.60 and 5.80, respectively
[15]. They classified these stations as significant enrich-
ment for Cd.
The contamination factor (CF) values for Cd varied
from 5.5 at S10 to 11.75 at S12 with a mean value of
9.36 (Table 9). All sampling sites has more than 6 (<6)
except S10 less than 6 (6>). According to [31], all sam-
pling sites were very high contaminated by Cd except
S10 faces considerable contamination.
The Igeo values for Cd in Euphrates River sediments
ranged from 1.53 to 2.96. All sampling sites has Igeo for
Cd more than 2 and less than 3 (2 < Igeo < 3) except sites
S9 and S10 more than 1 and less than 2 (1 < Igeo
< 2).
According to Muller’s classification (Table 4), the Igeo
values for Cd indicate that Euphrates River sediments are
moderately to strongly polluted for most sampling sites
and moderately polluted for S9 and S10. Rabee et al. [15]
found that the Igeo values for Cd in the Euphrates River
stations (Heet and Ramadi cities) indicate the sediments
were unpolluted to moderately polluted.
Zn concentration ranged between 14.96 and 130.25
mg/kg. The mean value was 48 mg/kg. It was less than
the world surface rock average and the mean shale back-
ground concentration as a geochemical background level
(Table 5). In comparison, it was found that Zn mean
value was below WHO, USEPA and CCME guidelines.
According to sediment quality guidelines, Euphrates
River sediments were unpolluted by Zn. Zn expressed
strong positive correlation with Cu and Cr, and good
positive correlation with Co and Fe at 0.05 level. There
are not clear differences in Zn concentration between
winter and spring, Figure 3(c). Zn concentration varies
between 14.96 at S9 and 130.25 at S14, Figure 4(c).
High values of Zn concentration were reported at S8 and
S12. Zn concentration at S14 was more than sediment
quality guidelines (Table 5). This indicates that Euphra-
tes River sediments at S14 was polluted by Zn due to
sewage water in Ramadi city. In comparison with previ-
ous studies (Table 7), We found that Zn concentration
recorded in this study was near to that estimated by [14]
and less than that assessed by [16,23,29].
The enrichment factor (EF) values for Zn in Euphrates
River sediments ranged from 2.43 at S6 to 12.9 at S14.
The EF values for majority of sampling sites were greater
than 2 and less than 5 (Table 8), suggesting that these
sites are classified as moderate enrichment for Zn. The
other sites, S1, S2, S5, S10, S12, and S14) are classified
as significant enrichment. These sites are in or near the
township area.
The CF values for Zn in the Euphrates River sediments
varied from 0.11 at S9 and 1.02 at S14 with mean value
of 0.37 (Tab le 9 ). Most sampling sites has CF less than 1
except S14 more than 1. It was found that most sampling
sites were classified as low contaminated and S14 faces
moderate contamination.
The Igeo values for Zn in all sampling sites were less
than 0 (<0), Table 10. These negative values indicate
that the Euphrates River sediments in the study area are
unpolluted by Zn.
Cu concentration varied from 10.35 to 30.52 mg/kg
and 18.91 mg/kg mean concentration was found. Mean
value was less than the world surface rock average and
more than mean shale concentration as geochemical
background level (Table 5). In comparison with sedi-
ment quality guidelines, the mean value did not exceed
the WHO and CCME guidelines and exceeded the
USEPA guidelines. According to USEPA, Euphrates
River sediments have little pollution by Cu. Cu corre-
lated significantly with Ni and Fe at 0.05 level. It has
also good positive correlations. Due to correlations, these
metals have common source.
Cu concentration mean was near to that reported by
[14] for the same studied area and less than that esti-
mated by [15] for downstream region of the study area.
Al-Bassam and Al-Mukhtar [29] reported Cu concentra-
tion for number of sites in the study area, greater than
recorded in this study. Cu mean value was also less than
that of the world rivers average [23].
Higher concentration of Cu was found during spring
than winter (Figure 3(d)). S14 showed higher concentra-
tion of Cu (30.52 mg/kg) and lowest concentration was
10.35 mg/kg at S9, Figure 4(d). We found high concen-
trations for Cu at sites located in and near the population
centers.
The enrichment factor (EF) values for Cu in Euphrates
River sediments vary from 5.61 at S11 to 12.50 at S9
(Table 8). All sampling sites has EF values more than 5
and less than 20, suggesting that Euphrates River sedi-
ments are classified as significant enrichment for Cu.
Rabee et al. [15] reported values for EF less than that
estimated in this study for two sites in the downstream
region of the study area.
The contamination factor (CF) for Cu in Euphrates
River sediments ranged from 0.32 at S9 to 0.95 at S14
with a mean value of 0.58. The CF values for Cu were
less than 1 (<1) at all sampling sites. According to [31],
all sampling sites face low contamination by Cu.
The Igeo values for Cu at the sampling sites were nega-
tive. According to Muller’s classification, Euphrates
River sediments at all sampling sites were unpolluted.
This result was in good agreement with results of [15].
The concentration of Ni value was between 39.98 and
103.98 mg/kg. Mean concentration was 67.08 mg/kg.
Mean value greater than world surface rock average and
less than mean shale concentration as background level.
According to WHO and USEPA guidelines, Ni concen-

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1020
tration mean exceeded the guidelines suggesting that
Euphrates River sediments are polluted by Ni. The sea-
sonal variation of Ni is shown in Figure 3(e). Ni concen-
trations of Euphrates River sediments vary between
39.98 mg/kg at S6 and 103.98 mg/kg at S2, Figure 4(e).
High concentrations were recorded at sampling sites in
and near urbanization centers such as AlQaim (S1, S2,
S3), Heet (S11, S12) and Ramadi (S14). In comparison
with previous studies, Ni concentration mean value was
less than reported by [14,29], Table 7. It was also more
than estimated by [15]. Ni mean value was less than
world rivers average.
The enrichment factor (EF) values for Ni in Euphrates
River sediments range from 13.15 at S8 to 48.40 at S9,
Table 8. Some sampling sites (S4, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11
S13) have EF for Ni more than 5 and less than 20. The
Euphrates River sediments in as significant enrichment
for Ni. Other sampling sites (S1, S2, S3, S7, S12, S14)
have EF values for Ni more than 20 and less than 40
suggesting that Euphrates River sediments are classified
as very high enrichment for Ni. Euphrates River sedi-
ments at S9 are classified as extremely high enrichment
for Ni. Rabee et al. [15] classified Euphrates River sedi-
ments at two stations in Heet and Ramadi cities as mod-
erately polluted for Ni.
The contamination factor (CF) values for Ni in Eu-
phrates River sediments ranged from 0.81 at S6 to 2.12 at
S2, with mean value of 1.36. Most sampling sites except
S6 and S13 have CF more than 1 and less than 3. Ac-
cording to [31], most sampling sites are moderately con-
taminated and S6 and S13 face low contamination by Ni.
The Igeo values for Ni at all sampling sites were nega-
tive except S1, S2, S3, and S14 were positive. According
to Muller’s classification, Euphrates River sediments
were unpolluted at most sites and from unpolluted to
moderately polluted at other sites. This result was in
good agreement with that of [15] for station at Heet city.
Co concentration ranged between 21.88 and 38.73
mg/kg. The mean value was 28.16 and 38.73 mg/kg. The
mean value was 28.16 mg/kg. The general acceptance of
Co is 4 - 20 mg/kg [3]. The mean value of Co concentra-
tion was more than the world surface rock average and
near to the mean shale concentration as geochemical
background level, Table 5. Co showed strong positive
correlation with Cr at 0.05 level. Co concentrations in the
sediments were highest during the winter than the spring,
Figure 3(f). Spatial variation of Co concentration was
given in Figure 4(f), and the maximum value was 38.73
mg/kg at S14 while the minimum value was 21.88 mg/kg
at S2. As well as S14, high values were reported at S1,
S7, S9 and S12. These sites locate in and near the ur-
banization centers, such as AlQaim, Haditha, Heet and
Ramadi. The Co concentration value was less than that
reported by [23,29]. It was also more than that the region
located at the downstream region of the study area [16].
The EF values for Co in Euphrates River sediments
were from 20.88 at S8 and 90.60 at S9, Table 8. Most
sampling sites have EF for Co more than 20 and less than
40, while S7 and S9 more than 40. According to Mmo-
lawa et al. [12], Euphrates sediments at sampling sites
are classified as very high to extremely high enrichment
for Co.
The CF values for Co in Euphrates River sediments
ranged from 1.68 at S2 to 2.74 at S7, with mean value of
2.16. At all sampling sites, the CF values for Co were
more than 1 and less than 3. According to [31], all sam-
pling sites were moderately contaminated by Co.
The Igeo values for Co at all sampling sites vary from
0.16 at S2 to 0.98 at S14, Table 10. According to Mul-
ler’s classification, Euphrates sediments were from un-
polluted to moderately polluted at all sampling sites.
The concentration of Fe in Euphrates River sediments
varied from 928.7 mg/kg to 3441.05 mg/kg and mean
value was 2249.47 mg/kg. The Fe mean value was less
than world surface rock average and mean shale concen-
tration as background level, Table 5. The mean value of
Fe exceeded the USEPA sediment quality guidelines.
Generally, during the spring, higher concentrations of Fe
were observed, Figure 3(g). Spatially, concentration of
Fe in Euphrates River sediments ranged from 928.7
mg/kg at S9 to 3441.05 mg/kg at S8, Figure 4(g). Fe
concentration of Euphrates sediments was less than of
the world rivers average [23] and more than that reported
by [16].
The contamination factor (CF) values for Fe in Eu-
phrates River sediments ranged from 0.025 at S9 to 0.095
at S8, with a mean value of 0.062. Because of the CF
values for Fe in all sampling sites less than 1, Euphrates
River Sediments face low contamination by Fe.
The Igeo values for Fe at all sampling sites were nega-
tive. According to Muller’s classification, Euphrates
sediments were unpolluted by Fe.
Mn concentration ranged between 136.05 and 312.11
mg/kg and mean value was 228.18 mg/kg. The mean
value of Mn was less than world surface rock average
and shale concentration as geochemical background level,
Table 5. Mn mean value exceeded USEPA sediment
quality guidelines. Except S8 and S9, others showed
higher values during winter than spring, Figure 3(h).
The concentration of Mn at S4 was the highest with
value of 307.9 mg/kg and the lowest concentration was at
S9 with a value of 136.05 mg/kg, Figure 4(h). Mn con-
centration was less than that reported in the local previ-
ous studies and the world rivers average, Table 6.
The enrichment factor (EF) values for Mn ranged from
2.56 at S8 and 7.09 at S4, Table 8. The EF values for Mn
at majority of sampling sites (S1, S6, S7, S8, S10, S11,
S12 and S14) were greater than 2 and less than 5. At

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1021
these sites, Euphrates River sediments are classified as
moderate enrichment for Mn. Other sampling sites (S2,
S3, S4, S5, S9, and S13), the EF values were more than 5
and less than 20 and Euphrates sediments are classified
as significant enrichment for Mn.
The contamination factor (CF) values for Mn in Eu-
phrates sediments varied from 0.181 at S9 to 0.416 at S5,
Table 9. At all sampling sites, the CF values were less
than 1. According to [31], Euphrates sediments at all
sampling sites were low contaminated. The Igeo values for
Mn at all sampling sites were negative. According to
Muller’s classification, Euphrates sediments are unpol-
luted by Mn.
Cr concentration varied between 36.45 and 120.11
mg/kg. The mean value was 58.4 mg/kg. It was less than
world surface rock average and mean shale concentration
as geochemical background level, Table 5. In compari-
son, it was found that Cr mean value exceeded WHO,
USEPA and CCME Sediment guidelines. With except of
S1, S4, S12 and S14, highest concentration of Cr was
observed in spring than winter, Figure 3(i). The highest
concentration of Cr was observed at S14 (120.11 mg/kg).
while the lowest concentration was 36.45 mg/kg at S9,
Figure 4(i). The high values of Cr was at township area.
Cr concentration mean was less than that estimated by
[29] for Euphrates River and the world rivers average
[23].
The EF values for Cr in Euphrates sediments ranged
from 6.04 at S8 to 21.28 at S14. All sampling sites have
EF more than 5 and less than 20, except S14 has more
than 20, Table 8. Euphrates sediments at all sampling
sites are classified as significant to very high enrichment
for Cr.
The CF values for Cr in Euphrates sediments varied
from 9.87 at S9 to 22.21 At S14 with mean value of
16.36, Table 9 . At all sampling sites, the CF values were
greater than 6, suggestion that sediments were very high
contamination.
The Igeo values for Cr at all sampling sites were nega-
tive except S14 was positive. According to Muller’s
classification, Euphrates sediments were unpolluted by
Cr at all sites except at S14 was from unpolluted to mod-
erate polluted.
The overall total geo-accumulation index (Itot) of the
entire study area for different metals were found to be
negative, Table 10. This suggests that concentration
mean of most heavy metals in Euphrates sediments are
lower than world surface rock average.
To effectively compare whether the sampling sites
suffer contamination or not, the pollution load index
(PLI), was used. PLI values of the analyzed samples
ranged from 0.45 to 1.15 with a mean value of 0.69,
Figure 8, Table 11. At all sampling sites, the PLI values
were less than 1 except S14 was greater than 1. Accord-
ing to [25], all sampling sites suggest perfection (or no
overall pollution), whereas S14 shows signs of pollution
or deterioration of site quality. Relatively high PLI value
at S14 (Ramadi city) suggests input from anthropogenic
sources.
4. Conclusions
To investigate the status of metal contamination in Eu-
phrates River sediments, Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn
and Cr concentrations were estimated in Fourteen sam-
pling sites. The order of the mean concentrations of
tested heavy metals: Fe > Mn > Ni > Cr > Zn > Co> Pb >
Cu > Cd. The correlation analysis of mean concentrations
showed good to strong positive correlations among Pb,
Cd, Zn, Ni, Co, Fe, Mn and Cr, suggesting that these
metals have common sources.
International sediment quality guidelines (WHO,
USEPA and CCME), enrichment factor (EF), contamina-
tion factor (CF), geo-accumulation index (Igeo) and pollu-
tion load index (PLI) were applied for assessment of
contamination. According to sediment quality guidelines,
Euphrates sediments were polluted by Cd, Cu, Ni, Fe,
Mn and Cr. The EF values suggest that Euphrates sedi-
ments were very high enriched for Pb, extremely high for
Cd, moderately for Zn, significantly for Cu, significantly
to very high for Ni, very high to extremely high for Co,
moderately to significantly for Mn and significantly to
very high for Cr. According to CF, Cd and Cr are re-
sponsible for very high contamination. The Igeo values
showed that Euphrates sediments quality was moderately
to strongly polluted for CD. According to PLI, all sites
suggest perfection or no overall pollution of site quality.
In general, Itot indices for most heavy metals were nega-
tive; this implies that mean concentration of heavy met-
als Euphrates sediments are lower than world surface
rock average. Considering all assessing criteria, Cd is
responsible for significant amount of heavy metal con-
tamination, while Co and Cr are responsible for moderate
to high contamination. S14 (Ramadi city) contains high-
est amount of heavy metals contamination and S9 (Ha-
jlan) contains lowest amount of heavy metal contamina-
tion.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Abbas, I. A. Norli, A. Aness and E. Azharmat, “Analy-
sis of Heavy Metal Concentrations in Sediments of Se-
lected Estuaries of Malaysia—A Statistical Assessment,”
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 153, No.
1-4, 2009, pp.179-185. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0347-x
[2] R. Bettinentti, C. Giarei and A. Provini, “A Chemical
Analysis and Sediment Toxicity Bioassays to Assess the
Contamination of River Lambro (Northern Italy),” Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 45,

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1022
No. 1, 2003, pp. 72-78. doi:10.1007/s00244-002-0126-6
[3] K. V. Raju, R. Somashekar and K. Prakash, “Heavy
Metal Status of Sediment in River Cauvery, Karnataka,”
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 184, No.
1, 2012, pp. 361-373. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-1973-2
[4] M. Chakravarty and A. Patgiri, “Metal Pollution Assess-
ment in Sediments of the Dikrong River, N. E. India,”
Journal of Human Ecology, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009, pp.
63-67.
[5] S. Olivares-Rieumont, D. de la Rosa, L. Lima, D. Graham,
K. Alessandro, J. Borroto, et al., “Assessment of Heavy
Metal Levels in Almendares River Sediments—Havana
City, Cuba,” Water Research, Vol. 39, No. 16, 2005, pp.
3945-3953. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2005.07.011
[6] I. Brunner, J. Luster, M. Günthardt-Goerg and B. Frey,
“Heavy Metal Accumulation and Phytostabilisation Po-
tential of Tree Fine Roots in a Ccontamination Soil,” En-
vironmental Pollution, Vol. 152, No. 3, 2008, pp. 559-
568. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.07.006
[7] A. Idris, M. A. H. Eltayeb, S. Potgieter-Vermaak, R. Van
Grieken and J. Potgieter, “Assessment of Heavy Metals
Pollution in Sudanese Harbors along the Red Sea Coast,”
Microchemical Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, 2007, pp.104-112.
doi:10.1016/j.microc.2007.06.004
[8] S. Morin, T. Duong, A. Danbrin, A. Coynel, O. Herlory,
M. Baudrimont, et al., “Long-Term Survey of Heavy-
Metal Pollution, Biofilm Contamination and Diatom
Community Structure in the Rio Mort Watershed, South-
West France,” Environmental Pollution, Vol. 151, 2008,
pp. 532-542. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.04.023
[9] A.-P. Zhong, S.-H. Guo, F.-M. Li, G. Li and K.-X. Jiang,
“Impact of Anions on the Heavy Metals Release from Ma-
rine Sediments,” Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol.
18, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1216-1220.
doi:10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60065-X
[10] C. Atkinson, D. Jolley and S. Simpson, “Effect of Over-
lying Water pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity and Sedi-
ment Disturbances on Metal Release and Sequestration
from Metal Contaminated Marine Sediments,” Chemos-
phere, Vol. 69, No. 9, 2007 , pp. 1428-1437.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.068
[11] P. Harikumar and T. Jisha, “Distribution Pattern of Trace
Metal Pollutants in the Sediments of an Urban Wetland in
the Southwest Coast of India,” International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2010,
pp. 840-850.
[12] K. Mmolawa, A. Likuku and G. Gaboutloeloe, “Assess-
ment of Heavy Metal Pollution in Soils along Roadside
Areas in Botswana,” African Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2011, pp. 186-
196.
[13] Y. Wang, Z. Yang, Z. Shen, Z. Tang, J. Niu and F. Gao,
“Assessment of Heavy Metals in Sediments from a Typi-
cal Catchment of the Yangtze River, China,” Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 172, No. 1-4,
2011, pp. 407-417.
[14] T. Kassim, H. Al-Saadi, A. Al-Lami and H. Al-Jaberi,
“Heavy Metals in Water, Suspended Particles, Sediments
and Aquatic Plants of the Upper Region of Euphrates
River, Iraq,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Vol. 32, No. 9-10, 1997, pp. 2497-2506.
doi:10.1080/10934529709376698
[15] A. Rabee, Y. Al-Fatlawy and A. Abd Own, “Seasonal
Variation and Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution in
Sediments from Selected Stations in Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers, Central Iraq,” Iraqi Journal of Science, Vol. 50,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 466-475.
[16] F. Hassan, M. Saleh and J. Salman, “A Study of Phys-
icochemical Parameters and Nine Heavy Metals in the
Euphrates River, Iraq,” E-Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 7,
No. 3, 2010, pp. 685-692. doi:10.1155/2010/906837
[17] CCME, “Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Protec-
tion of Aquatic Life,” Technical Report, Canadian Envi-
ronmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Water Quality
Index 1.0, 1999.
[18] S. Valeria, C. Smith and A. Donovan, “Microwave Diges-
tion for Sediment, Soil and Urban Particulate Matter for
Trace Metal Analysis,” Talanta, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2003, pp.
715-723. doi:10.1016/S0039-9140(03)00131-0
[19] H. Feng, X. Han, W. G. Zhang and L. Z. Yu, “A Prelimi-
nary Study of Heavy Metal Contamination in Yangtze
River Intertidal Zone Due to Urbanization,” Marine Pollu-
tion Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 11-12, 2004, pp. 910-915.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.06.014
[20] I. Cato, “Recent Sedimentological and Geochemical Con-
ditions and Pollution Problems in Two Marine Areas in
Southwestern Sweden,” Striae, Vol. 6, 1977, pp. 1-150.
[21] K. Choi, S. Kim, G. Hong and H. Chon, “Distribution of
Heavy Metals in the Sediments of South Korean Har-
bors,” Environmental Geochemical Health, Vol. 34, No.
1, 2012, pp. 71-82. doi:10.1007/s10653-011-9413-3
[22] S. Sinex and G. Helz, “Regional Geochemistry of Trace
Elements in Chesapeak Bay Sediments,” Environmental
Geology, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1981, pp. 315-323.
doi:10.1007/BF02473521
[23] J. Martin and M. Meybeck, “Elemental Mass-Balance of
Material Carried by Major World Rivers,” Marine Chem-
istry, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1979, pp. 178-206.
doi:10.1016/0304-4203(79)90039-2
[24] V. Tippie, “An Environmental Characterization of Chesa-
peak Bay and a Framework for Action,” In: V. Kennedy,
Ed., The Estuary as a Filter, Academic Press, New York,
1984, pp. 467-487.
[25] D. Tomlinson, J. Wilson, C. Harris and D. Jeffrey, “Pro-
blems in the Assessment of Heavy-Metal Levels in Estu-
aries and the Formation of a Pollution Index,” Helgoland
Marine Research, Vol. 33, No. 1-4, 1980, pp. 566-575.
[26] G. Muller, “Index of Geoaccumulation in Sediments of
the Rhine River,” GeoJournal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1969, pp.
108-118.
[27] G. Muller, “The Heavy Metal Pollution of the Sediments
of Neckars and Its Tributary,” A Stocktaking Chemische
Zeit, Vol. 150, 1981, pp. 157-164.
[28] Z. G. Ya, L. F. Zhou, Z. Y. Bao, P. Gao and X. W. Sun,
“High Efficiency of Heavy Metal Removal in Mine Water
by Limestone,” Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, Vol.

E. A. M. SALAH ET AL. 1023
28, No. 3, 2007, pp. 293-298.
doi:10.1007/s11631-009-0293-5
[29] K. Al-Bassam and L. Al-Mukhtar, “Heavy Minerals in
the Sediments of the Euphrates River, in Iraq,” Iraqi
Journal of Geology and Mining, Vol. 4, 2008, pp. 29-41.
[30] K. Al-Bassam, “Environmental Factors Influencing Spa-
tial Distribution of Cadmium in the Euphrates River
Sediments in Iraq,” Iraqi Journal of Geology and Mining,
Vol. 7, 2011, pp. 29-41.
[31] L. Hakanson, “An Ecological Risk Index for Aquatic
Pollution Control a Sedimentological Approaches,” Wa-
ter Research, Vol. 14, No. 8, 1980, pp. 975-1001.
doi:10.1016/0043-1354(80)90143-8
[32] WHO, “Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality,” 3rd
Edition, World Health Organization, 2004, p. 515.
[33] USEPA, “US Environmental Protection Agency: Screen-
ing Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Haz-
ardous Waste Combustion facilities,” Appendix E: Toxicity
Reference Values, Vol. 3, 1999.
[34] A. Al-Juboury, “Natural Pollution by Some Heavy Metals
in the Tigris River, Northern Iraq,” International Journal
of Environmental Researc h, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2009, pp. 189-
198.
[35] A. Al-Lami and H. Al-Jaberi, “Heavy Metals in Water,
Suspended Particles and Sediment of the Upper-Mid Re-
gion of Tigris River, Iraq,” Proceedings of International
Symposium on Environmental Pollution Control and
Waste Management, Tunis, 7-10 January 2002, pp. 97-
102.
[36] M. Nameer, A. Rabee, A. Abd Own and Y. Al-Fatlawy,
“Using Pollution Load Index (PLI) and Geoaccumulation
Index (Igeo) for Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution in
Tigris River Sediments in Baghdad Region,” Journal of
Al-Nahrain University-Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2011, pp.
108-114.
[37] R. Marathe, Y. Marathe, C. Sawant and V. Shrivastava,
“Detection of Trace Metals in Surface Sediment of Tapti
River: A Case Study,” Archives of Applied Science Re-
search, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2011, pp.472-476.
[38] P. Saha and M. Hossain, “Assessment of Heavy Metal
Concentration and Sediment Quality in the Buriganga
River, Bangladesh,” Internationa Proceedings of Chemi-
cal, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Singa-
pore City, 26-28 February 2010, pp. VI-384 -VI-387.