Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
GeoloGy, ecoloGy, and landscapes, 2018 Vol . 2, no . 2, 127–136 https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2018.1452485 INWASCON OPEN ACCESS Geochemical assessment of groundwater quality for its suitability for drinking and irrigation purpose in rural areas of Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), Uttar Pradesh a a b a c d Sughosh Madhav , Arif Ahamad , Ashutosh Kumar , Jyoti Kushawaha , Pardeep Singh and P. K. Mishra a b s chool of environmental s ciences, Jawaharlal nehru University, new d elhi, India; d epartment of Geology, Banaras Hindu University, c d Varanasi, India; p .G.d .a.V. c ollege, University of d elhi, new d elhi, India; d epartment of chemical engineering, Indian Institue of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 11 January 2018 This study is aimed to assess the groundwater excellence within the rural areas of Sant Ravidas a ccepted 25 February 2018 Nagar (Bhadohi), Uttar Pradesh, India. In the current work, estimation of groundwater excellence indices has been done to recognize the water quality for the appropriateness of groundwater KEYWORDS resource for drinking and agricultural use. Twenty groundwater samples were collected and Groundwater; water quality; investigated for diverse geochemical parameters viz, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total drinking water; WQI; hardness, cations and anions. The groundwater of the study region is neutral to slightly alkaline irrigation in nature. Piper’s diagram classification shows that majority of the samples belong to CaMgHCO hydrochemical facies. Gibbs plot specifies that majority of samples falls in rock dominance. The water quality index shows that the entire sample is under excellent water category. On the basis of TDS, all the samples are within the range of desirable to permissible for drinking and agriculture purpose. Forty percent samples of the study region are having nitrate content more than permissible limit (>50 mg/l) which is not fine for individual use. Poor drainage, domestic waste and use of N fertilization on farming land may be the main sources of nitrate in groundwater of the study region. On the basis of different water quality indices, groundwater of the study region is fit for agricultural use. Introduction groundwater assets, near about 65% of the total agri- cultural land is irrigated by groundwater (Foster & Water is the most precious natural resource among all Garduño, 2013; Raju, 1998). Earlier groundwater was natural resources found on the Earth. Earth is known considered safe as compared to surface water but nowa- as a blue planet due to the presence of abundant water days due to improper waste management pollution load on its surface (Iqbal & Gupta, 2009; Maruyama et al., increases in groundwater also (Iqbal & Gupta, 2009). 2013). In previous few decades, there has been unprec- Natural water is a vibrant chemical system including edented amplify in the requirement for fresh water sup- in its composition a composite group of gases, mineral ply is owing to a tremendous increase in population, and organic essences in the form of true solutions, and industrialization, urbanization, and intense agricul- suspended and colloidal matters as well (Nikanorov & tural activities (Dhanasekarapandian, Chandran, Devi, Brazhnikova, 2009). The chemistry of subsurface water & Kumar, 2016; Raju, Shukla, & Ram, 2011). Due to is controlled by many natural as well as anthropogenic unplanned urbanization and rapid industrialization, factors. Natural factors which have control over water this scarce resource has reached a point of crisis (Singh, chemistry include precipitation pattern and amount, geo- 2002). Due to insufficient availability of surface water logical features of watershed and aquifer, meteorological which is further aggravated by pollution, urbanization, factors, and various rock–water interaction processes in and industrialization, and also due to the notion that the aquifer (Arnade, 1999; Raju, Patel, Reddy, Suresh, groundwater is pollution free, the majority of the popu- & Reddy, 2016; Singh, Raju, & Ramakrishna, 2015). lace in India depends on groundwater assets for drinking Human activities which influence the water chemistry and household, industrial, and agricultural uses (Raju include dumping of solid waste, domestic and indus- et al., 2011). trial waste, and mining and agricultural activities (Hem, In India, there is a majority of the rural population 1991; Raju, 2007; Singh, Raju, Gossel, & Wycisk, 2016; depending mainly on groundwater. Globally, irrigated farming is the largest abstractor and chief user of Todd, 1980). As and F contamination in groundwater is CONTACT arif ahamad firstname.lastname@example.org © 2018 The a uthor(s). published by Informa UK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an open a ccess article distributed under the terms of the creative c ommons a ttribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 128 S. MADHAV ET AL. due to the natural minerals found in the rocks around Study area aquifer while NO , heavy metal, and pesticide contam- Location ination is due to human activities. In a shallow aquifer, NO is a common pollutant. Point and nonpoint source e s Th amples were collected from the rural areas of Sant are responsible for nitrate pollution (Postma, Boesen, Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) region which is the floodplain Kristiansen, & Larsen, 1991). Application of fertilizers of the Ganga River. Figure 1 shows the sampling location and manure are the non-point source while septic tank, map of the study region. The dependency of entire area domestic sewage, and dairy lagoons are a point source on the groundwater is the main reason behind the choice (Arnade, 1999; Hubbard & Sheridan, 1994). of this particular study area. Groundwater is being used Groundwater quality acts a crucial role in ground- in domestic, agricultural as well as commercial purposes water security and excellence preservation. Hence, in this area. evaluation of the groundwater quality is essential not only for use by present generation but also for future Geology and hydrogeology consumption. Groundwater resources of the alluvial e Th study region is situated in Indo-Gangetic plain plains in the Indo Gangetic basin show a qualitative underlain by the quaternary alluvial sediment from and quantitative descent through time (Haritash, Pleistocene to recent age made up of fine to coarse- Kaushik, Kaushik, Kansal, & Yadav, 2008; Kumar, grained sand, clay, and clay with Kankar. Alluvial Kumari, Ramanathan, & Saxena, 2007). Therefore, plain of the study region is geologically divided into monitoring of groundwater quality is essential in any three distinct zones, i.e., older alluvial upland (upper basin or population area which affects the fittingness Pleistocene to recent), newer alluvial plain (middle to of water for household, industrial and agriculture use. upper Pleistocene), and Holocene to Recent active chan- Many researchers have worked on hydrochemical fea- nels and floodplains. The underlying unconsolidated tures, groundwater pollution, and its quality status for near surface of most of the Gangetic plain, comprise utilization in drinking and agriculture purposes in var- Pleistocene to recent alluvial sediments, are generally ious basins and urban regions (Ahamed & Loganathan, potential aquifer. Due to the presence of alternative sand 2017; Alaya, Saidi, Zemni, & Zargouni, 2014; Gowd, and clay layers, a multilayer aquifer system is found in 2005; Patel et al., 2016; Raju, Ram, & Gossel, 2014; the study region. The groundwater of the study region Raju et al., 2016; Singh, Tewary, & Sinha, 2011; Umar, founds under phreatic condition. The shallow ground- Ahmed, Alam, & Khan, 2008). In the current study, water in the back swamp deposit (clay and Kankar beds) an effort has been made to calculate the groundwater is generally unconfined and static water level is only a quality indices for the aptness of groundwater resource few meters below the water level (at about 20–60-m for drinking and agricultural purpose and identify the depth) (Mohan, Srivastava, & Rai, 2011; Raju, 2012; influences of natural and anthropogenic actions on Shukla & Raju, 2008). groundwater chemistry. Fieldwork Twenty groundwater samples were collected to evaluate groundwater chemistry. In the current study, prior to data assortment, a selection measure was established to aid in the recognition of proper sampling sites for the groundwater quality evaluation. Those hand pumps were chosen for collecting the samples, which were active and functional and constantly in employ for human inges- tion and other daily use functions. For collection, con- servation, and investigation of the samples, standard methods APHA 2005 were followed. Samples were collected in Polyethylene containers cleansed with sampled groundwater before filling and adequately labeled. Groundwater samples were col- lected aer fl ft ushing water 5–10 min in order to elimi- nate the intervention of the stagnant water in the metal shell and to even out the electrical conductivity (EC). Groundwater samples were stored at 4 C to evade any Figure 1. l ocation map of the study area. s ource: a uthor. key elemental modification. GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 129 Laboratory analysis [(Na + K) / (Na + K + Ca)] and anions [Cl/(Cl + HCO )] against TDS. Gibbs plot specifies that all the sample of Electrical conductivity (EC), pH, and total dissolved the study region is from rock dominance (Figures 3a and solids (TDS) were calculated using pH and conductivity 3b). In alluvial plains, the rock–water interface is the key meters aer c ft alibration of the meter with standard buff - procedure that controls the chemistry of groundwater ers of respective parameter. The samples were filtered (Alam, 2013; Raju et al., 2011). by 0.45-μm Millipore filter paper in vacuum filtration unit to eliminate suspended sediments. The samples Estimation of water quality for different uses were then examined for key cations (Ca, Mg, Na, and K), anions (HCO , Cl, F, SO and NO ), hardness, and 3 4, 3 Categorization of groundwater for domestic uses dissolved silica. The chemical analysis was carried out as Water excellence acts a vital function in determining per the procedure is given in APHA (2005). The inves- the standard of human health. Groundwater contami- tigative data obtained were practice for comprehen- nation is a worldwide problem that has economic and sive geochemical investigation. The interionic relation human health impact (World Health Organization graphs, Wilcox (1948) diagram, US Salinity Laboratory [WHO], 1997). Groundwater quality of a particular (1954) diagram, and Doneen Permeability Index Plot area reflects input rain, water–rock interaction as well (1964) were prepared using Microsoft Excel Version as human activities as agriculture, domestic and indus- trial waste of that area (Patel et al., 2016; Raju et al., 2016). As the groundwater chemistry is very dynamic Results and discussion may possess different water quality in very close Hydrogeochemical facies proximity and varies to seasonal and climatic factors (Ackah et al., 2011; Raju, 2007), analysis of groundwa- Piper trilinear diagram is used to categorize the water ter excellence is significant to deduce aptness of sub- facies on the basis of dominant ions (Piper, 1944). In surface water for household and agriculture uses. The piper diagram, major ions are plotted in two base trian- water used for human consumption should be “safe gles as major cations and major anions. Piper trilinear and wholesome,” i.e. odorless, colorless, good in taste, diagram is used to categorize the water facies on the basis and free from harmful chemical agents and pathogen of dominant ions. Analysis of Piper diagram reveals that (Jinwal & Dixit, 2008). Physicochemical parameters alkaline earth and bicarbonate are the dominant ions in of groundwater of the study region judge against with the study area (Figure 2) and major water type of study guidelines suggested by WHO (1997) to deduce the area is the CaMgHCO type. aptness of groundwater for human consumption and domestic purpose. Gibbs plot All the samples are alkaline in nature having pH and TDS values within the permissible limit as prescribed by Gibbs (1970) proposed two diagrams to understand WHO (1997). According to Davis and De Wiest (1966) the hydrogeochemical procedures with reverence to categorization, all samples are permissible for drinking atmospheric precipitation, rock–water interaction, and use. According to Freeze and Cherry (1979) catego- evaporation over the administration of geochemistry of rization, all the samples t fi into a freshwater category. groundwater. Gibbs plots are the graph of ratio of cations Figure 2. Trilinear diagram showing the relative cation and anion composition of groundwater samples. 130 S. MADHAV ET AL. Majority of the parameters are within the permissible Water quality index (WQI) limit according to WHO (1997). The concentration of WQI is a central parameter to find out the groundwa- NO in 40% of samples is above the permissible limit ter excellence and its aptness for human consumption laid down by WHO (1997) (Table 1). The high value of (Avvannavar & Shrihari, 2008; Mishra & Patel, 2001). Nitrate in the study region may be due to poor drainage WQI describes as a method of ranking that gives the of domestic waste and runoff of agricultural effluents combined control of major water quality parame- (Majumdar & Gupta, 2000; Singh, Mishra, Madhav, ters on the whole excellence of water for human uti- Kumar, & Singh, 2013). lization (Singh et al., 2016). The standards for human Figure 3a. Mechanism controlling groundwater chemistry (Gibbs I). Figure 3b. Mechanism controlling groundwater chemistry (Gibbs II). Table 1. Ranges of chemical parameters and their comparison with World Health organization (1997) standard for drinking water. World Health Organization (1997) Permissible Sample No. (% Samples) Exceeding permis- Parameter Min. Max. Mean limit sible limit pH 7.40 8.20 7.78 9.2 – ec (μs/cm) 622 2034 1037 – – Tds (mg/l) 312 998 529.55 1500 – Hardness (mg/l) 192 502 320.7 500 – ca²⁺ (mg/l) 28 120 65.70 200 – Mg²⁺ (mg/l) 17.56 62.44 38.16 150 – na⁺ (mg/l) 34.6 149.6 62.56 200 – K⁺ (mg/l) 1.51 6.51 2.72 12 – HCO (mg/l) 196 424 303 600 – SO (mg/l) 25.80 65.10 48.30 600 – cl (mg/l) 32.00 128.0 47.55 600 – F (mg/l) 0.38 1.20 0.69 1.5 – NO (mg/l) 17.50 86.70 47.55 50 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17 (40) sio (mg/l) 29.40 42.60 34.44 – – 2 GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 131 consumption as suggested by WHO (1997) have been firstly SI value should be concluded by the subsequent taken for the estimation of WQI. Firstly, special weights equations, where, (w ) in a scale of 1 (slightest consequence on water qual- SI = W × q (3) i i i ity) to 5 (highest outcome on water quality) was allo- cated to every elemental parameter, on the basis of their supposed impact on primary health and their relative WQI = SI magnitude in the quality of drinking water (Sener & (4) Davraz, 2013). The parameters having serious health impact and whose occurrence above the critical con- SI is the sub-index of the ith parameter; q is the qual- i i centration amount could result in confined usage of the ity ranking depends on the amount of ith parameter. resource for household and drinking purposes were WQI standards are divided into five categories: Excellent given the highest weight five (Varol & Davraz, 2014). (<50), Good (50–100), Poor (100–200), and Unsuitable e hig Th hest weight of 5 has been allocated to the param - for drinking (>300) (Sahu & Sikdar, 2008; Singh et al., eters like nitrate, TDS, chloride, and uo fl ride because of 2016). The WQI value of the study region ranges from their foremost significance in water excellence evalua- 14.28 to 29.23. e Th entire water samples are excellent tion (Srinivasamoorthy et al., 2008). The least weight water types on the basis of WQI (Table 3). of 1 is given to the bicarbonate, as it acts an irrelevant function in the water excellence evaluation. For other Categorization of groundwater for agriculture use parameters like calcium, magnesium, sulfate, sodium, e a Th mount and composition of dissolved elements and potassium, specific weight was allocated between in water establish its excellence for agricultural use. 1 and 5 depending on their significance in water excel- Excessive concentrations of dissolved ions in farming lence evaluation. Weight and relative weight of different water alter soil configuration, permeability, and aera- physiochemical parameters is given below in Table 2. tion that directly distress plant development (Masood, e r Th elative weight (W ) has been worked out using Sumbul, & Mohd, 2012; Rao et al., 2002). Excessive salt the equation: in irrigation hinder the growth of a plant by physical i means as restricting the uptake of water through alter- W = ∑ ation in osmotic pressure and/or by chemical means as (1) altering the metabolic reactions. (Todd, 1980). Drainage i=1 is an important factor associated with plant growth. If a soil is open and fine plowed, irrigation with the generous where W is relative weight, w is the weight of each i i amount of saline water may lead to the production of parameter, and n is a number of parameters. Then, a the crop, but a poorly drained area may fail to grow the quality rating (q ) for each parameter is determined by satisfactory crop even when irrigated with good-qual- dividing its concentration in each water sample by its ity water (Todd, 1980; Raju, Ram, & Dey, 2009). The limits values given by the WHO and the result is mul- parameters like EC, salinity, percent sodium (%Na), tiplied by 100: sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), RSC, permeability index (PI), and magnesium ratio are important to establish q = C ∕S × 100 (2) i i i the fitness of groundwater for agricultural use (Mitra, Sasaki, Enari, Matsuyama, & Fujita, 2007; Selvakumar, where q is the quality rating, C is the amount of every i i Ramkumar, Chandrasekar, Magesh, & Kaliraj, 2017; physiochemical parameter in every water sample (mg/l), Wang, 2013). and S is the drinking water standard for each chemical parameter (mg/l) as stated by WHO. To compute WQI, Residual sodium carbonate It is used to know about the harmful consequences of Table 2. chemical parameters and their relative weight. carbonate and bicarbonates on the excellence of water Permissible limit for agricultural purpose (Eaton, 1950). RSC can be esti- World Health Organi- mated by the formula given below: Parameter zation, 1997 Weight Relative weight Tds 1500 5 0.128 RSC = CO + HCO 3 3 Bicarbonate 600 1 0.026 chloride 600 5 0.128 − Ca + Mg All values in meq/l sulphate 600 4 0.103 n itrate 50 5 0.128 On the basis of RSC basics, water can be categorized into Fluoride 1.5 5 0.128 three categories such as safe (<1.25 meq/l), marginally c alsium 200 3 0.077 Magnesium 150 3 0.077 suitable (1.25–2.5 meq/l), and unsuitable (>2.5 meq/l). s odium 200 4 0.103 In the present study, it was found that all the samples fall potasium 12 2 0.051 silicate 17 2 0.051 into the safe category (Table 4). 132 S. MADHAV ET AL. soil permeability as a consequence soil becomes hard to Electrical conductivity and percentage sodium plow and inapt for the seeds germination (Jeevanandam EC and Na participate a crucial function to determine et al., 2012). Percent Sodium (%Na) is an expression to the fitness of groundwater for agricultural purpose. The find the Na content in irrigational water. The percent higher amount of Na in agriculture water will increase sodium is obtained by the formula given below: the Na content to the cropland which leads to changed % Na =(Na + K)∕ Ca + Mg + Na Table 3. Type of water based on WQI in the study region. × 100 All values in meq/l SN WQI Water type Wilcox (1948) projected a scheme to categorize ground- 1 20.91 excellent water for agricultural use based on percent sodium and 2 27.35 excellent electrical conductivity in form of a diagram. Wilcox 3 17.01 excellent 4 18.77 excellent (1948) classified the water in five distinct degrees of 5 23.29 excellent suitability for irrigation such as excellent to good, good 6 26.73 excellent 7 29.23 excellent to permissible, permissible to doubtful, doubtful to 8 26.04 excellent unsuitable, and unsuitable. When classified on the basis 9 21.04 excellent 10 17.22 excellent of percent sodium alone, out of 20 samples, 6 samples 11 24.02 excellent were excellent to good, 13 are good to permissible, and 12 22.27 excellent 13 19.82 excellent 1 is doubtful to unsuitable (Figure 4). 14 18.82 excellent 15 24.44 excellent 16 19.20 excellent U S Salinity Diagram (1954) 17 21.25 excellent 18 14.28 excellent More comprehensive agricultural fitness investigation 19 18.25 excellent 20 19.44 excellent can be obtained by scheming a USSL diagram. The US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram is employed broadly Table 4. a gricultural suitability of groundwater samples in the study region. S. No. SAR % Na RSC Kelly’s index Mg ratio Permeability index Gibbs I Gibbs II 1 2.31 42.81 −1.14 0.73 28.68 64.84 0.51 0.39 2 4.43 61.32 0.79 1.51 44.57 80.98 0.74 0.41 3 2.21 41.38 −0.81 0.69 38.58 64.58 0.53 0.40 4 1.18 26.57 −1.94 0.35 69.75 51.28 0.54 0.36 5 1.18 26.36 −2.48 0.35 73.69 49.23 0.58 0.37 6 1.62 27.98 −2.34 0.38 56.27 48.15 0.47 0.29 7 1.36 23.97 −3.09 0.30 40.36 43.41 0.35 0.32 8 0.81 17.31 −2.28 0.20 36.99 41.81 0.25 0.17 9 0.77 16.97 −1.73 0.20 45.90 43.24 0.27 0.14 10 1.95 40.07 0.07 0.65 59.95 68.29 0.63 0.30 11 1.72 30.42 −1.49 0.43 43.20 52.19 0.43 0.25 12 1.16 22.42 −1.60 0.28 55.32 46.08 0.39 0.19 13 1.40 28.29 −1.58 0.39 36.09 52.40 0.38 0.27 14 1.47 30.98 −1.02 0.44 55.48 57.08 0.50 0.23 15 0.96 21.58 −2.78 0.27 62.85 44.59 0.43 0.27 16 1.06 23.86 −0.77 0.31 50.79 52.41 0.39 0.17 17 1.19 26.06 −1.68 0.34 65.12 51.35 0.50 0.22 18 1.12 29.25 −0.24 0.40 63.66 63.92 0.53 0.20 19 2.05 38.68 −1.76 0.61 35.83 59.69 0.50 0.46 20 1.49 29.63 −1.16 0.41 27.81 54.05 0.37 0.27 These bold value shows the sample unsuitable for irrigation as per kelly and magenisum hazard indices. Figure 4. classification of groundwater samples on the basis of electric conductivity and percent sodium (Wilcox, 1948). GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 133 Figure 5. classification of groundwater samples in relation to salinity hazard and sodium hazard (after Us s alinity laboratory diagram 1954). Figure 6. d oneen permeability Index plot (1964). for classified agricultural water where SAR is plotted Based on this classification, most of the groundwater beside EC (Richards, 1954). Here, SAR is a catalog of samples fall in class 1 and rest of the samples fall in class sodium hazard and EC is a catalog of salinity hazard. 2 types; thus, all the samples are appropriate for agricul- e a Th nalytical data plotted on U. S. Salinity Laboratory tural uses (Figure 6). diagram reveal that all the water samples lie in the field of C2S1(Suited for all plants but drainage should be good) Kelly index and C3S1(Require drainage or dangerous to soil) cate- For the irrigation, purpose water is also classified on gories (Figure 5). the bases of Kelly index. If Kelly index is more than1 it indicates an excess of sodium; on the other hand, Kelly Permeability index index less than 1 signifies deficit of Na in water (Kelly, Doneen (1964) developed a PI-based diagram to catego- 1951). On the basis of Kelly index, water is categorized rized the water for irrigation. Long-term irrigation water into three classes. If the value of Kelly index is less than imposes the impact on soil quality. Sodium, calcium, 1, water is suitable for irrigation. If the Kelly index is magnesium, and bicarbonate ions present in water inu fl - between 1 and 2, water is marginally suitable, and when ence the soil permeability (Raghunath, 1987). Kelly index is more than 2, water is unsuitable for irri- PI can be calculated by the formula given below: gation (Srinivasamoorthy, Gopinath, Chidambaram, Vasanthavigar, & Sarma, 2014). KI is computed by the PI =[(Na + HCO )∕(Ca + Mg + Na)] � � formula: × 100 All values in meq/l 134 S. MADHAV ET AL. agricultural use. The outcomes obtained from the study KI = Na∕(Ca + Mg) (All values in meq/l) will be helpful to recognize the groundwater quality Kelly index of the entire sample varies from 0.20 to 1.51. condition for efficient management and consumption As all the samples posses KI value less than 1, they are of groundwater resources for drinking and irrigation suitable for irrigation, except one sample which is mar- use. The groundwater samples having high nitrate con- ginally suitable (Table 4). centration need remedial measures before potable uses. Bioremediation, physical adsorption, reverse osmosis, and solar distillation are some of the helpful techniques Magnesium hazard for nitrate elimination for safe drinking water. Generally, calcium and magnesium ions in groundwater possess a state of equilibrium (Raju et al., 2011). Szabolcs and Darab (1964) recommended a magnesium hazard Disclosure statement value of water for agriculture purpose. Magnesium haz- No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. ard value can be obtained by following formula: Magnesium Ratio =(Mg∕Ca + Mg) References × 100 (All values in meq/l) Ackah, M., Agyemang, O., Anim, A.K., Osei, J., Bentil, If the groundwater posses the magnesium ratio above N.O., Klatch, L., … Hanson, J.E.K. (2011). Assessment of 50, it seems to be unsuitable for irrigation purpose and groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation: The study application of such water will adversely influence the of Teiman-Oyarifa Community, Ga East Municipality, Ghana. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology harvest yield by increasing the basic nature of soil (Raju and Environmental Sciences, 1(3–4), 186–194. et al., 2011; Sreedevi, 2004). The magnesium ratio values Ahamed, A.J., & Loganathan, K. (2017). Water quality concern of the studied samples range from 24.01 to 65.18. Out in the Amaravathi River Basin of Karur district: A view of 20 samples, 10 samples are not t f fi or agricultural use at heavy metal concentration and their interrelationships on the basis of magnesium ratio (Table 4). using geostatistical and multivariate analysis. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes, 1(1), 19–36. Alam, F. (2013). Evaluation of hydrogeochemical parameters Conclusion of groundwater for suitability of domestic and irrigational purposes: a case study from central Ganga Plain, India. e co Th nventional hydrogeochemical techniques Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7, 4121–4131. doi:10.1007/ and quality indices are used to find out the status of s12517-013-1055-6 groundwater quality for its utilization to drinking and Alaya, M.B., Saidi, S., Zemni, T., & Zargouni, F. (2014). agriculture purpose. It can be concluded that the geo- Suitability assessment of deep groundwater for drinking and irrigation use in the Djeffara aquifers (Northern chemistry of the study region is controlled by both nat- Gabes, south-eastern Tunisia). Environmental Earth ural and anthropogenic factors. Groundwater of the Sciences, 71(8), 3387–3421. study region is neutral to slightly alkaline in nature, APHA. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of because of the influx of HCO ion in the groundwater water and waste water. (21th ed.). Washington. aquifer, which is produced by the reaction of the CO Arnade, L.J. (1999). Seasonal correlation of well present in soil space and rainwater. From the piper tri- contamination and septic tank distance. Ground Water, 37(6), 920–923. linear diagram, it is viewed that 90% samples belong Avvannavar, S.M., & Shrihari, S. (2008). Evaluation of water to CaMgHCO water type and rest is of mixed type. quality index for drinking purposes for river Netravathi, Hydrogeochemistry discloses that the order of cation Mangalore, South India. Environmental Monitoring and abundance is Ca > Na > Mg > K. All the water samples Assessment, 143(1–3), 279–290. have pH value within the permissible limit perceived by Davis, S.N., & De Wiest, R.J.M. (1966). Hydrogeology. Vol. 463. New York, NY: Wiley. WHO (1997). On the basis of TDS, the entire samples Dhanasekarapandian, M., Chandran, S., Devi, D.S., & Kumar, were within the range of desirable to permissible for V. (2016). Spatial and temporal variation of groundwater drinking purpose. Sixty percent samples of groundwater quality and its suitability for irrigation and drinking in the study region are fit for drinking purpose with little purpose using GIS and WQI in an urban fringe. Journal of precaution as most of the parameters are within the per- African Earth Sciences, 124, 270–288. missible limit set by WHO (1997). Nitrate pollution is a Doneen, L.D. (1964). Notes on water quality in Agriculture, published as a Wate Science and Engineering Paper 4001. major issue in the study region, as 40% samples possess Department of Water Science and Engineering, University the nitrate concentration more than the WHO (1997) of California. permission limit. The main source of NO in ground- Eaton, F.M. (1950). Significance of carbonate in irrigation water is domestic sewage and animal excreta water and water. Soil Science, 69(2), 123–133. excess fertilizer input. Aer ft calculating various indices Foster, S., & Garduño, H. (2013). Groundwater-resource governance: Are governments and stakeholders and ratios which are widely used in the research to assess responding to the challenge? Hydrogeology Journal, 21(2), the fitness of groundwater for agriculture purpose, it can 317–320. be concluded that nearly all of the samples are safe for GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 135 Freeze, R.A., & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater (p. 604). Patel, P., Raju, N.J., Reddy, B.S.R., Suresh, U., Gossel, W., & Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wycisk, P. (2016). Geochemical processes and multivariate Gibbs, R.J. (1970). Mechanism controlling world’s water statistical analysis for the assessment of groundwater chemistry. Science, 170, 1088–1090. quality in the Swarnamukhi River basin, Andhra Pradesh, Gowd, S.S. (2005). Assessment of groundwater quality India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(7), 611. for drinking and irrigation purposes: A case study of Piper, A.M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical Peddavanka watershed, Anantapur District, Andhra interpretation of water-analyses. Transactions, American Pradesh, India. Environmental Geology, 48(6), 702–712. Geophysical Union, 25, 914–923. Haritash, A.K., Kaushik, C.P., Kaushik, A., Kansal, A., & Postma, D., Boesen, C., Kristiansen, H., & Larsen, F. (1991). Yadav, A.K. (2008). Suitability assessment of groundwater Nitrate reduction in an unconﬁned sandy aquifer: for drinking, irrigation and industrial use in some North water chemistry, reduction processes, and geochemical Indian villages. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, modeling. Water Resources Research, 27(8), 2027–2045. 145(1–3), 397–406. Raghunath, H.M. (1987). Ground water. New Delhi: New Hem, J.D. (1991). Study and interpretation of the chemical Age International. characteristics of natural water. (3rd ed., p. 263). Jodhpur, Raju, K.C.B. (1998). Importance of recharging depleted India: Scientific publication 2254. aquifers: State of the art of artificial recharge in India. Hubbard, R.K., & Sheridan, J.M. (1994). Nitrates in Journal of the Geological Society of India, 5, 429–454. groundwater in the Southeastern USA. In D.C. Adriano, Raju, N.J. (2007). Hydrogeochemical parameters for A.K. Iskandar, & I.P. Murarka (Eds.), Contamination of assessment of groundwater quality in the upper Gunjanaeru ground waters, Science Review (pp. 303–345). Northwood. River basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, South Iqbal, M.A., & Gupta, S.G. (2009). Studies on heavy metal ion India. Environmental Geology, 52(6), 1067–1074. pollution of ground water sources as an effect of municipal Raju, N.J. (2012). Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes solid waste dumping. African Journal of Basic & Applied in the Pleistocene aquifers of Middle Ganga Plain, Uttar Sciences, 1, 117–122. Pradesh, India. Environment Earth Science, 65(4), 1291– Jeevanandam, M., Senthilkumar, M., Nagarajan, R., 1308. Srinivasalu, S., Manikandan, M., & Prasanna, M.V. (2012). Raju, N.J., Patel, P., Reddy, B.S.R., Suresh, U., & Reddy, Hydrogeochemistry and microbial contamination of T.V.K. (2016). Identifying source and evaluation of groundwater from Lower Ponnaiyar Basin, Cuddalore hydrogeochemical processes in the hard rock aquifer District, Tamil Nadu, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, system: Geostatistical analysis and geochemical modeling 67, 867–887. techniques. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(16), 1157. Jinwal, A., & Dixit, S. (2008). Pre- and post-monsoon variation Raju, N.J., Ram, P., & Dey, S. (2009). Groundwater quality in physico-chemical characteristics in groundwater in the lower Varuna river basin, Varanasi District, Uttar quality of bhopal “e Th City of Lakes” India. Asian Journal Pradesh, India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, of Experimental Sciences, 22(3), 311–316. 73, 178–192. Kelly, W.P. (1951). Alkai soils – their formation properties and Raju, N.J., Ram, P., & Gossel, W. (2014). Evaluation of reclamation. New York, NY: Reinold Publ. Corp. groundwater vulnerability in the lower Varuna catchment Kumar, M., Kumari, K., Ramanathan, A.L., & Saxena, area, Uttar Pradesh, India using AVI concept. Journal of R. (2007). A comparative evaluation of groundwater the Geological Society of India, 83(3), 273–278. suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in Raju, N.J., Shukla, U.K., & Ram, P . (2011). Hydrogeochemistry two intensively cultivated districts of Punjab, India. for the assessment of groundwater quality in Varanasi: Environmental Geology, 53(3), 553–574. a fast-urbanizing center in Uttar Pradesh, India. Majumdar, D., & Gupta, N. (2000). Nitrate pollution of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173, 279–300. groundwater and associated human health disorders. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1387-6 Indian Journal of Environmental Health, 42(1), 28–39. Rao, N.S., Rao, J.P., Devdas, D.J., Rao, K.V.S., Krishna, C., & Maruyama, S., Ikoma, M., Genda, H., Hirose, K., Yokoyama, Rao, B.N. (2002). Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater T., & Santosh, M. (2013). The naked planet Earth: Most quality in a developing urban environment of a semi-arid essential pre-requisite for the origin and evolution of life. region, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of the Geological Geoscience Frontiers, 4, 141–165. Society of India, 59, 159–166. Masood, A., Sumbul, R., & Mohd, A. (2012). Hydrochemical Richards, L.S. (1954). Diagnosis and importance of saline investigation and quality assessment of ground water in and alkali soils. Washington, DC: US Department of rural areas of Delhi, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, Agriculture Handbook 60. 66, 97–110. Sahu, P., & Sikdar, P.K. (2008). Hydrochemical framework Mishra, P.C., & Patel, R.K. (2001). Quality of drinking of the aquifer in and around East Kolkata Wetlands, West water in Rourkela, Outside the steel township. Journal of Bengal, India. Environmental Geology, 55(4), 823–835. Environment and Pollution, 8(2), 165–169. Selvakumar, S., Ramkumar, K., Chandrasekar, N., Magesh, Mitra, B.K., Sasaki, C., Enari, K., Matsuyama, N., & Fujita, M. N.S., & Kaliraj, S. (2017). Groundwater quality and its (2007). Suitability assessment of shallow groundwater for suitability for drinking and irrigational use in the Southern agriculture in sand dune area of northwest Honshu Island Tiruchirappalli district, Tamil Nadu, India. Applied Water Japan. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 5(1), Science, 7(1), 411–420. 177–188. Sener, E., & Davraz, A. (2013). Assessment of groundwater Mohan, Kshitij, Srivastava, A., & Rai, P.K. (2011). vulnerability based on a modified DRASTIC model, GIS Groundwater in the city of Varanasi, India: Present status and an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method: The and prospects. Questiones Geographicae, 30(3), 47–60. case of Egirdir Lake basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydrogeology Nikanorov, A.M., & Brazhnikova, L.V. (2009). Water Journal, 21(3), 701–714. chemical composition of rivers, lakes and wetlands. Types Shukla, U.K., & Raju, N.J. (2008). Migration of the Ganga and Properties of Water, 2, 42–80. river and its implication on hydro-geological potential of 136 S. MADHAV ET AL. Varanasi area, U.P., India. Journal of Earth System Science, characterization and quality appraisal of groundwater 117(4), 489–498. from Pungar sub basin, Tamilnadu, India. Journal of King Singh, A.K. (2002). Quality assessment of surface and Saud University - Science, 26, 37–52. subsurface water of Damodar river basin. Indian Journal Szabolcs, I., & Darab, C. (1964). e Th influence of irrigation of Environmental Health, 44(1), 41–49. water on high sodium carbonate content of soils. In Singh, A.K., Tewary, B.K., & Sinha, A. (2011). Hydrochemistry Proceedings of 8th international congress of ISSS, Trans, II and quality assessment of groundwater in part of NOIDA (pp. 803–812). metropolitan city, Uttar Pradesh. Journal of the Geological Todd, D.K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology (2nd ed.). New Society of India, 78, 523–540. York, NY: Wiley. Singh, N.L., Mishra, P.K., Madhav, S., Kumar, S., & Singh, N. Umar, R., Ahmed, I., Alam, F., & Khan, M.M. (2008). (2013). Impact of river water on the ground water quality Hydrochemical characteristics and seasonal variations in in Varanasi District. Indian Journal of Scientic R fi esearch, groundwater quality an alluvial aquifer in parts of Central 4(1), 179. Ganga Plain, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental Singh, S., Raju, N.J., & Ramakrishna, C. (2015). Evaluation Geology, 58, 1295–1300. doi:10.1007/s00254-0081630-4 of groundwater quality and its suitability for domestic and US Salinity Laboratory. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement irrigation use in parts of the Chandauli-Varanasi region, of saline and alkali soils (p. 160) (Agriculture Handbook Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Water Resource and NO. 60). USDA. Protection, 7(7), 572. Varol, S., & Davraz, A. (2014). Assessment of geochemistry Singh, S., Raju, N.J., Gossel, W., & Wycisk, P. (2016). and hydrogeochemical processes in groundwater of the Assessment of pollution potential of leachate from the Tefenni plain (Burdur/Turkey). Environmental Earth municipal solid waste disposal site and its impact on Sciences, 71(11), 4657–4673. groundwater quality, Varanasi environs, India. Arabian Wang, S. (2013). Groundwater quality and its suitability Journal of Geosciences, 9(2), 131. for drinking and agricultural use in the Yanqi Basin of Srinivasamoorthy, K., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M.V., Xinjiang Province, Northwest China. Environmental Vasanthavihar, M., Peter, J., & Anandhan, P. (2008). Monitoring and Assessment, 185(9), 7469–7484. Identification of major sources controlling groundwater Wilcox, L.V. (1948). e q Th uality of water for irrigation use. chemistry from a hard rock terrain – A case study from Vol. 40. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Mettur taluk, Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Technology Bulletin 962. Earth System Science, 117(1), 49–58. World Health Organization. (1997). Guidelines for the Sreedevi, P.D. (2004). Groundwater quality of Pageru river drinking water quality, Revision of the 1984 guideline, Final basin, Cudapah district, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of the Task Group Meeting, 21–25 Sep 1992. Geneva: WHO. Geological Society of India, 64, 619–636. Srinivasamoorthy, K., Gopinath, M., Chidambaram, S., Vasanthavigar, M., & Sarma, V.S. (2014). Hydrochemical
Geology Ecology and Landscapes – Taylor & Francis
Published: Apr 3, 2018
Keywords: Groundwater; water quality; drinking water; WQI; irrigation
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.