When Jeremy Wade — the biologist-presenter known for the show River Monsters — shared a short, unsparing demonstration of a field water test on the Ganga River, it went viral fast. For many, the video was an immediate shock: a simple colour-change test that turned brown instead of pink, suggesting faecal contamination. For others, it was the latest visible sign of a problem they already suspected: sacred rivers under enormous pollution stress. At Genviss, this moment is a teachable one — not to point fingers, but to explain how and why such results matter, and what the realistic solutions look like.
Below we’ll walk you through what the test actually shows, what it doesn’t, why it’s a public-health and infrastructure issue, and where treatment systems and policy must improve — explained in plain language, but with enough technical detail to be useful for engineers and curious readers alike.
What did Jeremy Wade’s test actually show?
The field test shown in the video is a simple indicator test — essentially a quick chemical that reacts to organic matter and certain bacteria, changing colour under contamination. In controlled conditions, “clean” water turns a distinct bright colour (pink in this test); a brown or muddy reaction strongly suggests the presence of organic pollution such as sewage or faecal matter. News coverage of the episode is available here Times of India report on the video and Moneycontrol coverage.
These tests are valuable because they’re cheap, fast, and can be performed on the riverbank. But they are screening tools, not full lab analyses. A field test can indicate contamination exists and where to look next; it cannot replace a lab’s detailed counts of pathogens, chemical concentrations, or precise identification of contaminants. For confirmation, samples must be taken to accredited labs and assayed for indicators like E. coli and faecal coliforms, and for chemical pollutants if needed. There i
Watch: Jeremy Wade’s Full Documentary on the Ganges
In this official episode, biologist Jeremy Wade explores the Ganga River, its biodiversity, cultural significance, and rising environmental challenges including pollution and contamination.
Why faecal contamination matters — in plain terms
If a river contains faecal bacteria or untreated sewage, it’s not just an aesthetic problem:
- Human health risk: Pathogens in faecal waste (bacteria, viruses, protozoa) can cause diarrhoea, cholera, hepatitis, and other waterborne diseases. People bathing, washing clothes, or even touching such water can be exposed. The World Health Organization and multiple studies link faecal contamination in freshwater to significant disease burden in developing regions. (WHO resources on waterborne pathogens.)
- Ecosystem effects: High organic loading uses up dissolved oxygen when microbes break down waste; this can create low-oxygen zones that stress or kill fish and other aquatic life.
- Socioeconomic impact: Communities depending on river water for daily chores, agriculture, or tourism face long-term health and economic costs.
A visible colour change in a field test is a red flag: it signals contamination that should trigger careful follow-up and public communication.
Fecal Coliform Count (FCC): What the Numbers Mean
Water quality is commonly measured using Fecal Coliform Count (FCC) — bacteria that indicate contamination from human or animal waste. For safe bathing water in India, the acceptable limit is generally below 500 MPN per 100 mL (as per CPCB standards). However, viral discussions around Jeremy Wade mentioned levels of around 82,000 MPN per 100 mL in certain stretches — more than 160 times higher than the safe limit. Such high FCC levels signal untreated sewage discharge and significantly increase the risk of waterborne diseases, highlighting the urgent need for effective sewage treatment and monitoring.
Where contamination comes from — quick, real-world causes
In India (and globally), the most common sources feeding rivers like the Ganga are:
- Untreated or partially treated sewage from cities and towns. Many urban areas generate far more sewage than the existing sewage treatment plants (STPs) can handle.
- Industrial effluents that may contain organic waste, chemicals, or heavy metals. Some industries discharge into drains that ultimately reach rivers.
- Stormwater and urban runoff that carries rubbish, chemicals and animal waste.
- Mass gatherings and religious practices — these can add organic load and litter when large numbers of people bathe or perform rituals.
- Poor sanitation access in some rural areas, where open defecation or inadequate containment sends waste downstream.
Official bodies like India’s Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and national river-cleanup programs like Namami Gange have long documented these contributors; the gap between sewage generated and sewage treated remains a structural challenge.
Similar water quality and climate-related pressures have been examined in our previous articles on Rising Ammonia Levels in the Yamuna River and India’s Water Crisis.
Where treatment systems typically fail — the technical gap, simply stated
Understanding where things break down helps us see the solution path. These are the common technical and operational failures:
- Insufficient treatment capacity. Many cities were designed for smaller populations; as demand grew, STPs became overloaded. If inflow exceeds capacity, untreated or partially treated wastewater bypasses treatment and enters the river.
- Aging infrastructure & poor maintenance. Pumps, pipes and treatment basins need regular maintenance. When maintenance lags, systems lose performance and often leak raw sewage into the environment.
- Missing tertiary treatment. Primary (settling) + secondary (biological) treatment reduce solids and organic load, but tertiary processes (filtration, disinfection like UV or chlorination, nutrient removal) are required to remove pathogens and fine pollutants. Many plants lack full tertiary stages due to cost and operational complexity.
- Sludge management problems. Treatment generates sludge that must be handled safely. Improper sludge disposal can reintroduce contaminants into land and water.
- Weak monitoring and data transparency. Without real-time monitoring and public reporting, problems go unnoticed until visible events (like foam, odour, or a viral test) reveal them.
These gaps are fixable — but they require investment, operational discipline, and the right technology mix.
What modern treatment looks like — options that make a difference
For engineers and decision-makers, the technical toolbox is already rich. For general readers, here’s what matters and why:
- Primary treatment: removes large solids and settleable material. It’s basic but essential — think of it as the first coarse filter.
- Secondary biological treatment: uses microorganisms to consume dissolved organic pollutants. This is where most biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is removed. Activated sludge systems, trickling filters, and aerated lagoons are common approaches.
- Tertiary treatment (the safety layer): includes fine filtration, nutrient removal (nitrogen/phosphorus), and disinfection (UV lamps or chlorination). This is the step that significantly reduces pathogens and makes water safer for reuse or release.
- Decentralised and modular systems: Small, local treatment units (for neighbourhoods, institutions, or industries) reduce the burden on major STPs and are faster to deploy.
- Real-time monitoring & automation: IoT sensors for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and conductivity — combined with dashboards — let operators detect problems early and act before contamination spreads.
- Hybrid and advanced tech: Membrane filtration, advanced oxidation, and constructed wetlands offer options when standard treatment isn’t enough. Costs vary, but the right design can be cost-effective over the long run.
In short: combining robust primary and secondary steps with effective tertiary treatment and modern monitoring gives the best chance to stop faecal contamination from reaching rivers.
What immediate actions communities and authorities should take
A viral test like Jeremy Wade’s does two useful things: it raises public awareness and it creates urgency. Practical steps that can and should follow:
- Rapid confirmatory testing. Collect formal samples and run lab assays for E. coli, faecal coliforms, and key chemical indicators. Transparency around results builds trust.
- Targeted source tracking. Identify which drains, outfalls, or neighborhoods are contributing the most pollution and prioritize fixes there.
- Increase temporary treatment capacity. Deploy modular decentralized units where STPs are failing, to reduce the immediate load.
- Improve operations & maintenance. Fix pumps, unclog sewers, and strengthen maintenance contracts to restore existing plant performance.
- Public communication & behaviour change. Inform residents about water safety and discourage risky water use until contamination is controlled.
- Longer term: upgrade to tertiary treatment and monitoring. Invest where it counts, and make data public.
Many of these steps are already part of policy discussions; the challenge is consistent execution and financing.
Final thought — sacred rivers need modern solutions
The Ganga is more than a river — it’s a cultural and spiritual artery for millions. That status should be a reason, not an obstacle, for better science and engineering. The viral field test is not an attack on tradition; it’s a call to action: to combine respect for culture with the full force of modern water science.
If Genviss can play a role, it’s in helping design pragmatic treatment solutions that fit local realities: modular units where space is tight, reliable tertiary systems where pathogen removal is critical, and monitoring systems that give communities timely, trustworthy information.