Figure 1
Selected areas affected by disastrous, environmental anthropopressure shown on a schematic map of the world. 1, The Aral Sea and the area; 2, Hazaribagh; 3, the northeast Pacific.
Figure 2
River basin and location of the Aral Sea [Micklin 2007, modified].
Figure 3
Changes in the water volume of the Aral Sea after I960 based on the observed and estimated values [Gaybullaev et al. 2012, modified]
Figure 4
Disappearing of the Aral Sea after the hydrotechnical regulations of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya (white line, estimated waterline in I960; the situation in 2001 and 2014 in the satellite imagery) [www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov, photo by NASA]
Figure 5
Land mammals seeking shelter in shipwrecks in the area of the former Aral Sea, now the Aral Karakum Desert [(a) Micklin 2007, photo by P. Micklin; (b) www.fly4free.pl, photo by M. Pitcher]
Figure 6
Physico-geographical location of Hazaribagh [www.google.com/earth]. 1, Hazaribagh; 2, the Himalayas; 3, the Bay of Bengal.
Figure 7
The contaminated Buriganga, the only river in Hazaribagh [Varene, Darblay 2012].
Table 1
Concentrations of selected metals in tannery sewage from Hazaribagh in comparison to the concentration limits (according to NEQS 2000) considered for directing sewage to inland waterways [Kabir et al. 2017, modified].
| Concentration [mg/L] Chromium [Cr] | Ferrum [Fe] | Lead [Pb] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 5,866.942 ± 1.02 | 1.37 ± 5.44 | 28.976 ± 6.68 |
| Sample 2 | 6,769.554 ± 1.59 | 108.556 ± 2.97 | 32.026 ± 6.92 |
| Sample 3 | 288.454 ± 1.87 | 98.292 ± 1.42 | 20.842 ± 4.88 |
| Sample 4 | 1,474.020 ± 4.99 | 14.26 ± 1.41 | 23.384 ± 2.53 |
| Sample 5 | 2,857.182 ± 3.23 | 41.952 ± 7.56 | 21.858 ± 2.33 |
| Sample 6 | 144.604 ± 2.21 | 64.392 ± 4.00 | 20.334 ± 2.50 |
| Sample 7 | 50.792 ± 1.22 | 23.57 ± 6.22 | 18.808 ± 4.09 |
| Sample 8 | 14.282 ± 1.17 | 30.732 ± 5.47 | 24.400 ± 1.21 |
| Sample 9 | 26.984 ± 6.57 | 19.512 ± 4.83 | 22.368 ± 5.68 |
| Standard acceptable limits for directing to inland waterways according to NEQS 2000 [www.elaw.org] NEQS 2000 [www.elaw.org] | 1.00 | 8.00 | 0.50 |
Figure 8
The area of polymer waste concentration (1) in the northeast Pacific between Hawaii (2) and the western coast of the United States (3) [based on Moore et al. 2005 and www.google.com/earth].
Figure 9
Plastic macrowaste found in the ocean (the northeast Pacific) [Sato 2014, photo by S. Lardeux].
Table 2
Average weight (kg) of marine waste (based on the size range) caught within 24 hours (22 November 2004) from three rivers in the southern California [Moore et al. 2011].
| Coyote Creek | San Gabriel River | Los Angeles River | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0-4.75 mm | >4.75 mm | 1.0-4.75 mm | >4.75 mm | 1.0-4.75 mm | >4.75 mm | |
| 4.06 | 257.59 | 106.86 | 18,429.41 | 3,851.81 | 1,175.42 | 23,825.15 |
Figure 10
Plastic waste in a dead seabird [Sato 2014],