GEOCHEMISTRY OF GROUND WATER IN THE NORTH-WESTERN PART OF BURDWAN DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON DRINKING AND IRRIGATION QUALITIES
Submitted by
SUDIPTA BANERJEE, M.Sc.
THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN SCIENCE (ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE) OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN.
Supervised By
DR SRIMANTA GUPTA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN BURDWAN – 713104 WEST BENGAL 2013
Department of Environmental Science THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN GOLAPBAG, BURDWAN-713104 WEST BENGAL, INDIA Phone No. : (0342)26559255
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Sudipta Banerjee (M.Sc.) has carried out the research work entitled “GEOCHEMISTRY OF GROUND WATER IN THE NORTH-WESTERN PART OF BURDWAN DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON DRINKING AND IRRIGATION QUALITIES” under my supervision and guidance.
Mr. Sudipta Banerjee has fulfilled all the requirements (including course work and presentation of seminar talks) and followed the rules and regulations relating to the nature and prescribed period of research as lay down by the University. This thesis representing the results of original findings made by Mr. Sudipta Banerjee is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Ph.D. (Science) of the University of Burdwan. This work has not been submitted previously anywhere for any degree whatsoever by him or anyone else.
Date:....................
Dr Srimanta Gupta Assistant Professor
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A long work always comes with a long list of persons to thanks, but because a good work is always one that goes to the essential, although there are too many to list by name, a few deserve special mention; I will try to enhance this thesis by keeping the acknowledgments short. When I was approached to give a brief acknowledge to this present work, I was somewhat nonplussed and a bit puzzled as to what I could write about a long work that is being read by of people. I Express my heart-felt gratitude to my teacher and guide Dr Srimanta Gupta for his sincere guidance and inspiration throughout the research work. I appreciate his willingness to help me think through issues in different levels of this research work. People not involved with this research but contributed some way to it completion this thesis would have not been completed without the support of many people who have been very kind to me. Their advise, guidance, and patience have enriched my whole research experience. I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and thanks to respected Dr J.K. Datta, Dr A.R.Ghosh, Dr N.K. Mondal and Dr R.N. Saha and all other guest faculty of our department. I am also thankful to all the research scholars and Buddha da, Shankar da, Govinda da and Nurul da for their cooperation. I would like to express again my deep sense of gratitude and thanks to Mr Sumanta Nayek, Smt Satarupa Satpati and Miss Moupriya Roy. I offer special thanks to Mr Nihar Kumar Banerjee who helps to co-ordinate during my field work and sampling period. Special thanks go to Mr. Pranjit Roy for cartographic work and representation ideas and help in preparing this thesis. The last but not least I express my gratitude to my parents Mr Umapada Banerjee & Smt Shyandhya Banerjee for their affectionate blessing, support, encouragements and understanding throughout the years in the University. They always believing I could do whatever I set my mind to and for teaching me the importance of character and respect for the beauty of nature all around me that has led me down this path and my brother Mr Shuvankar Banerjee for his unwavering support for me. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to my wife Smt. Subrata (Chattopadhyay) Banerjee for her friendship, good wishes, moral support, advice, help and hard work during my research work and without whom it would not have been nearly as enjoyble. I would like to thank all those people who have contributed in some way, both directly and indirectly to the writing of this thesis. I apologize to anyone, who I have through oversight, not included in these acknowledgments. Date: Plaece:
Sudipta Banerjee.
CONTENTS Page Nos. FRONT PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Hydrogeological set up in West Bengal 1.2 Long term behaviour of water level 1.3 Chemical quality of groundwater 1.4 Hydrogeochemistry 1.5 Isotope signature of ground water studies 1.6 Groundwater quality 1.6.1 Drinking water suitability 1.6.1.1 Bacteriological quality of drinking water 1.6.2 Irrigation water quality 1.7 Application of Geographical information system (GIS) for ground water quality mapping
i-ii 1-16 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
2.0
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 2.1 Location and extent 2.2 Burdwan district- at a glance 2.2.1 Administrative division 2.2.2 Communication 2.2.3 Demography 2.2.4 Types of soil and its distribution 2.2.5 Land use, irrigation and cropping pattern 2.2.6 Climate 2.2.7 Positions of water supply 2.4 General geology of the study area 2.5 Hydrogeology of the study area 2.5.1 Archaean Formations 2.5.2 Gondwana Formations 2.6 Research problems definition 2.7 Objective of the present research work
17-30 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 22
3.0
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.1 Ground water hydrogeochemistry 3.1.1 Some important geochemical study in international level 3.1.2 Some important geochemical study in national level 3.2 Isotope and ground water recharge 3.2.1 Previous stable isotopic studies of Bengal basin groundwater 3.3 Microbial interference in ground water quality 3.4 Water quality defined via WQI an effective tool 3.5 Irrigation water quality 3.6 Interpretation of groundwater quality using multivariate statistical approach
31-96 37 38 45 57 60 61 63 67 73
3.7 4.0
GIS applicability for thematic mapping
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.1 Pre field collection of data 4.2 Sampling and preservation 4.2.1 Field based collection of data and spot evaluation 4.3 Physico-chemical analysis of major cations and anions 4.3.1 Estimation of pH and temperature 4.3.2 Estimation of Conductivity 4.3.3 Estimation of Total Dissolved solid Estimation of Total Hardness (Titrimetric 4.3.4 Method) 4.3.5 Estimation of Alkalinity (Titrimetric Method) Estimation of Sodium (Flamephotometric 4.3.6 Method) Estimation of Potassium (Flamephotometric 4.3.7 Method) 4.3.8 Estimation of Calcium (Titrimetric Method) 4.3.9 Estimation of Magnesium Estimation of Total Iron (Spectrophotometric 4.3.10 Method) 4.3.11 Estimation of Chloride (Titrimetric Method) 4.3.12 Estimation of Sulfate (Turbidimetric Method) Estimation of Nitrate Nitrogen 4.3.13 (Spectrophotometric Method) Estimation of Phosphate (Spectrophotometric 4.3.14 Method) Estimation of Silica (Spectrophotometric 4.3.15 Method) 4.3.16 Estimation of Fluoride 4.3.17 Estimation of Arsenic (As) Lade and cadmium 4.4 Water quality index (WQI) 4.5 Microbiological methods 4.5.1 Sampling procedure 4.5.2 Methodology 4.5.2.1 Standard plate count (SPC) 4.5.2.2 Most probable number (MPN Count) 4.5.2.3 Confirmative test for E. coli (T-7 Test) 4.5.2.4 Salmonella Sp 4.6 Stable isotope analysis 4.7 Statistical analysis 4.7.1 Student’s t-test for difference of means (Gurumani, 2005) 4.7.2 Factor analysis (Gupta et al., 2008) 4.8 GIS methodology 4.8.1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 4.8.2 Inverse Distance Interpolation (IDINT)
Page Nos. 77 97-122 97 97 97 97 97 98 99 99 100 102 102 103 104 104 105 106 106 107 108 108 109 109 111 111 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 115 115 116
5.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Data validation 5.2 General expression of the hydrogeochemical data General topography and water level fluctuation 5.3.1 (mbgl) 5.3.2 Temperature 5.3.3 pH 5.3.4 Electrical Conductivity (EC) 5.3.5 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 5.3.6 Total Hardness (TH) 5.3.7 Total Alkalinity (TA) 5.3.8 Sodium (Na+) 5.3.9 Potassium (K+) 5.3.10 Calcium (Ca2+) 5.3.11 Magnesium (Mg2+) 5.3.12 Iron (Fe2+) 5.3.13 Bicarbonate (HCO3-) 5.3.14 Chloride (Cl-) 5.3.15 Sulphate (SO42-) 5.3.16 Nitrate (NO3-) 5.3.17 Phosphate (PO43-) 5.3.18 Silica (H4SiO4) 5.3.19 Fluoride (F-) 5.3.20 Trace constituents 5.4 Hydrogeochemical facies 5.4.1 Hill Piper (1953) diagram 5.4.2 Base Exchange (base exch.) and Meteoric genesis (met.gen) 5.5 Identification of hydrogeochemical processes 5.5.1 Mechanism controlling ground water chemistry 5.5.2 Ion-exchange 5.5.3 Silicate weathering 5.5.4 Evaporation 5.5.5 Anthropogenic inputs 5.6 Thermodynamic approach 5.7 Stable isotope approach 5.8 Statistical analysis of hydro-geochemical data 5.8.1 Factor analysis 5.9 Drinking water suitability 5.9.1 Drinking water status with respect to physicochemical constituents 5.9.2 Drinking water status with respect to microbiological constituents 5.9.2.1 Escherichia coli 5.9.2.2 Salmonella sp. 5.9.2.3 Standard Plate Count (SPC) 5.9.2.4 Statistical scenario of both MPN and SPC
Page Nos. 123-243 123 123 123 124 125 125 125 126 126 127 128 128 129 130 130 131 132 133 134 134 135 136 137 137 139 139 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 147 147 148 149 150 150 152 154 154
5.10
5.11
Water Quality Index (WQI) 5.10.1 Temporal variation of WQI 5.10.2 GIS based scenario of WQI Irrigation water suitability 5.11.1 Water quality problems 5.11.2 Quality criteria for irrigation purpose 5.11.3 Irrigation water status in the study area 5.11.3.1 Salinity hazard 5.11.3.2 Permeability hazard 5.11.3.2.1 Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) and Residual sodium bicarbonate (RSBC) 5.11.3.2.2 Percent Sodium (% Na) 5.11.3.2.3 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 5.11.3.2.4 Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) 5.11.3.2.5 Magnesium Hazard 5.11.3.2.6 Mg2+: Ca2+ ratio 5.11.3.2.7 Na+:Ca2+ ratio 5.11.3.2.8 Kelley’s ratio (KR) 5.11.3.2.9 Total Hardness (TH) 5.11.3.2.10 Permeability Index (PI) 5.11.3.3 Toxicity problem 5.11.3.3.1 Chloride 5.11.3.3.2 Fluoride 5.11.3.3.3 Sulphate 5.11.3.3.4 Nitrate 5.11.3.4 Miscellaneous problems 5.11.3.4.1 pH 5.11.3.4.2 Total Iron (Fe) 5.11.4 Graphical methods of representing analysis 5.11.4.1 Wilcox diagram 5.11.4.2 US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram 5.11.5 Statistical summary
Page Nos. 155 155 155 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 160 161 162 162 163 163 163 163 164 164 164 165 165 165 166 166 166 166 166 167 167
6.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSSION
244-247
7.0
REFERENCES
248-320
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table2.5 Table3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 5.9 Table 5.10 a and b Table 5.11 Table 5.12 Table 5.13 Table 5.14
Groundwater resources in West Bengal. Comparison of the chemical composition of water. Relative abundances of the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes. Drinking water standard national and international perspective. Chemical characteristics of different types of soil. Monthly distribution of rainfall. Stratigraphic succession of Burdwan district Details of hydrogeological characteristics of Burdwan district Burdwan district at a glance List of selected studies carried out in different parts of the country (India) List of selected studies carried out worldwide in major cities on groundwater. Details of sampling locations along with altitude and latitude/longitude Analytical parameters along with the Indian standers and WHO limits Selected parameters and assigned weight of these parameters for the calculation of water quality index(WQI) Average physico-chemical characteristics of pre-monsoon samples (2007 - 2008). Average physico-chemical characteristics of postmonsoon samples (2007 - 2008). Statistical summary of groundwater samples collected for the study area during 2007 - 2008 along with distribution of groundwater samples (%) within the safe limit of drinking water standard. Distributions of Groundwater Samples (%) In The Subdivisions of Piper’s Diagram (Piper, 1954). Premonsoon Correlation matrix. Postmonsoon Correlation matrix. Premonsoon saturation indices of some selected minerals of the study area. Postmonsoon saturation indices of some selected minerals of the study area. Stable isotope (δ18O and δD) signature of premonsoon and postmonsoon groundwater samples (2008). Factor pattern (after varimax rotation). Microbiological characteristics of premonsoon and postmonsoon samples of groundwater (2007 - 2008). Block wise statistical summary of MPN. Block wise statistical summary of SPC. Overall summary statistics of microbiological data.
Page Nos. 12 12 13 13 23 23 24 25 26 82 88 119-120 121 121 168-170 171-173
174
175 176 177 178-179 180-181 182-183 184 185-186 187 187 188
Table 5. 15 Table 5.16 Table 5.17 Table 5.18 Table 5.19
Water Quality Index. Criteria for groundwater for irrigation water suitability during premonsoon (2007 - 2008 sessions). Criteria for groundwater for irrigation water suitability during postmonsoon (2007 - 2008 sessions). Statistical summary of irrigation water quality. Categorization of water quality for irrigation.
Page Nos. 188 189-191 192-194 195 196
LIST OF FIGURE Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2.a and b Figure 5.3.a and b Figure 5.4.a and b Figure 5.5.a and b Figure 5.6.a and b Figure 5.7.a and b Figure 5.8.a and b Figure 5.9.a and b Figure 5.10.a and b Figure 5.11.a and b Figure 5.12.a and b Figure 5.13.a and b Figure 5.14.a and b Figure 5.15.a and b Figure 5.16. a and b Figure 5.17. a and b
Hydrological map of West Bengal. Diversification of the factors that need to be monitored, arising from the increasing complexity of pollutants . Evolution of the number and variety of water quality descriptors. Location and extent of study area Types of soil and its distribution of Burdwan district, West Bengal. Land use and cropping pattern of Burdwan district, West Bengal. Climate of Burdwan district, West Bengal. Hydrogeological map of Burdwan district, West Bengal. Distribution of sampling locations of the study area The topographical variation of the study area.
Page Nos. 14 16 16 28 28 29 29 30 122 197
Water table fluctuation.
198
Spatial distribution of pH.
199
Spatial distribution of Electrical Conductivity (EC).
200
Spatial distribution of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
201
Spatial variation of Hardness (TH).
202
Spatial variation of Sodium (Na+).
203
Spatial variation of Calcium (Ca2+).
204
Spatial variation of Magnesium (Mg2+).
205
Spatial variation of Iron (Fe2+).
206
Spatial variation of Chloride (Cl-).
207
Pre monsoon Spatial variation of Sulphate (SO42-).
208
Spatial variation of Fluoride (F-)
209
Hydrogeochemical classification of ground water
210-211
Mechanism controlling groundwater chemistry.
212-213
Relationship between Ca2++Mg2++ and HCO3- +SO42in the ground water. Relationship between Ca2++Mg2++ and HCO3- +SO42in the ground water (1:1 line).
214 214
Figure 5.18. a, b, c and d Figure 5.19. a and b Figure 5.20. a and b Figure 5.21. a and b Figure 5.22. a and b Figure 5.23. a and b Figure 5.24. a and b Figure 5.25. a and b Figure 5.26. a and b Figure 5.27. a and b Figure 5.28. a and b Figure 5.29. a and b Figure 5.30. a and b Figure 5.31. a and b Figure 5.32.a and b Figure 5.33. a and b Figure 5.34.a and b Figure 5.35.a and b Figure 5.36.a and b Figure 5.37.a and b Figure 5.38.a and b Figure 5.39.a and b Figure 5.40.a and b Figure 5.41. a and b
Relationship between Ca2++Mg2+ and HCO3- in the ground water (1:1 line and 2:1 line). Relationship between Na++K++ and TZ+ in the ground water (1:0.5 line). Relationship between Ca2++Mg2+and TZ+ in the ground water (1:0.5 line). Relationship between Na+ vs. Cl- in the ground water. +
Page Nos. 215 216 216 217
-
Relationship between EC vs. Na / Cl in the ground water. Relationship between TDS vs. Ca+2 in the ground water. Relationship between TDS vs. Mg+2 in the ground water.
217 218 218
Relationship between TDS vs. Na+ in the ground water.
219
Relationship between TDS vs. SO42- in the ground water.
219
Relationship between TDS vs. Cl- in the ground water.
220
Relationship between TDS vs. NO3- in the ground water.
220
Relationship between Cl- vs. NO3- in the ground water.
221
Relationship between TDS with (NO3−+Cl−)/HCO3− in the groundwater.
221
Relationship between δD with δ18O in the groundwater.
221
Spatial variation of δ18O in the groundwater.
222
Schematic representation of clustering of different variable into a single factor.
223
Spatial variation of E. coli.
224
Spatial variation of MPN.
225
Spatial variation of Salmonella sp.
226
Spatial variation of Standard Plate Count (SPC).
227
Spatial variation of Water Quality Index (WQI).
228
Spatial variation of Percent Sodium (% Na).
229
Classification of irrigation water (After Willcox 1955).
230
Diagram for Classification of irrigation water (After U.S. Salinity Laboratory Stuff 1954).
231
LIST OF ANNEXURE Page Nos. Annexure- I Annexure- II Annexure- III Annexure- IV
Physico-chemical characteristics of premonsoon samples (2007). Physico-chemical characteristics of postmonsoon samples(2007). Physico-chemical characteristics of premonsoon samples(2008). Physico-chemical characteristics of postmonsoon samples(2008).
232-234 235-237 238-240 241-243
ABSTRACT Understanding the hydrogeochemical processes that govern groundwater quality is important for sustainable management of the water resource. A study with the objective of identifying the hydro-geochemical processes and their relation with existing quality of groundwater was carried out in the north-western part of Burdwan district (areas in between Damodar and Ajoy river basin) mainly dominated by coal mining and agricultural activities. The study approach includes conventional graphical plots and multivariate analysis of the hydrochemical data to define the geochemical evaluation of aquifer system based on the ionic constituents, water types, hydrochemical facies and factors controlling groundwater quality. Geologically, the study area comprises Quaternary alluvium made up of an alternating succession of clay, silty clay, and sand deposits. A total of 300 water samples were collected in pre and postmonsoon season of 2007 and 2008 from shallow aquifer of selected parts of the study area. The quality assessment was made by estimating pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, hardness, and alkalinity besides major cations (Na+, K+,Ca2+ and Mg2+) and anions (HCO3-, Cl-, SO42-, PO43-, F- and NO3-). The chemical relationships in Piper diagram identify majority of groundwater samples (95%) in premonsoon fall in the category of alkalies exceed alkaline earths (Na+-K+Cl--SO42- water type) but in postmonsoon it become reduced to 80% and this reduction in salinization ultimately leads to the process of reverse cation exchange. Based on the classification of meteoric genesis 69% and 96% of the sources of water during pre and postmonsoon are of sodium sulphate type with the base exchange value of <1 and the rest of sodium chloride type (base exchange >1). Ionic ratios and Gibbs diagram suggests that silicate rock weathering and minor contribution of evaporation and anthropogenic activities are the main processes that determine the ionic composition in the study area. Chloroalkaline indices reveals that in premonsoon there are an equal dominance of normal ion exchange and reverse ion exchange but in postmonsoon 64% samples show the dominance of reverse ion exchange. The chemical quality of groundwater is related to the dissolution of minerals, ion exchange, and the residence time of the groundwater in contact with rock materials. The results of calculation saturation index by computer program PHREEQC shows that nearly all of the water samples were undersaturated with respect to carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, aragonite, gypsum and anhydrite) and oversaturated with i
respect to silicate minerals (quartz and chalcedony). In majority locations amorphous silica lies in equilibrium condition. Stable isotope study (H and O) indicates a linear fit relation of all groundwater samples in both the seasons. Trend line lies slightly below the LMWL in both the seasons with a slope of 6. At most, factor analyses substantiate the findings of conventional graphical plots and provide greater confidence in data-interpretation. Thus, the study highlights the descriptive capabilities of conventional and multivariate techniques as effective tools in groundwater evaluation. Multivariate statistical analysis reveals that cation exchange and silicate weathering is the major dominant factor in controlling groundwater chemistry. According to drinking water suitability criteria, 60% and 37% pre and postmonsoon water samples are safe with respect to the recommended limit of total dissolved solids whereas regarding fluoride (F) 8% and 17% of pre and postmonsoon samples are beyond the maximum permissible limit. Microbiological analysis reveals that except Barabani and some portion of Jamuria I&II, Ranigang, Andal and Kaksa block most of the study area have minimum MPN level i.e. 0-50. Presence of E.Coli in premonsoon and postmonsoon is remain same i.e. 81% and in case of Salmonella sp. it is 21% in premonsoon water samples whereas in postmonsoon it reduced upto13%. Water quality index is one of the powerful tools to assess the status of drinking water suitability for human consumption. The cumulative effects of different parameters can be calculated to evaluate the drinking water quality of an area. In respect of areal coverage out of 1609.978 sq.Km.of total study area 235.945 sq.Km areas falls under poor category but in postmonsoon it increases upto 304.670 sq.Km. Regarding irrigation water suitability criteria majority of the samples fall within the safe limit with respect EC, RSC, SAR, Mg hazard, Mg2+:Ca2+ ratio and Kelly ratio. Apart from this majority of samples also free from pH, chloride, sulphate, fluoride, nitrate and iron hazard. Wilcox diagram reveals that almost 50% of water samples in both the season fall in the permissible category. US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram shows that during premonsoon the percentage of bad water increases due to enrichment of Na+ and EC concentrations. Statistical output indicates that there is evidence of seasonal effect on mean values of irrigation water quality.
ii
INTRODUCTION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Ground water is a precious and most widely distributed resource of the earth. The World‟s total water resources are estimated at 1.37×108 million ha-m (m hm). However only 0.6% of the global water resources are stored as ground water, out of which only about 0.3 % (41.1×104 m hm) can be extracted economically. In West Bengal net groundwater availability is 2.746 m hm. of which 0.081 million ha-m is the annual ground water draft for domestic and industrial use where a 1.084 million ha-m is the annual water draft for irrigation (Table 1.1). Main source of water in West Bengal is rain fall. Burdwan district, the study area of this research work, is one of the largest districts of West Bengal. 1.1
Hydrogeological set up in West Bengal: The state of West Bengal is covered
by diverse rock types ranging from the Archaean metamorphites to the Quaternary unconsolidated sediments. Approximately two - third area of the state is covered by alluvial and deltaic deposits of Sub – Recent to Recent time and the remaining part abounds in a wide variety of hard rocks. The entire West Bengal state can be grouped under two broad hydrogeological units, e.g. porous hydrogeological unit and fissured hydrogeological unit (Ray and Shekhar, 2009). In case of porous hydrological unit and in the zone of primary porosity nearly two-third of the state is occupied by a thick pile of unconsolidated sediments laid down by the Ganga-Brahmaputra river system, thickness of which increases from marginal platform area in the west towards the east and southeast in the central and southern part of the basin following the configuration of the Bengal Basin. These unconsolidated sediments are made up of succession of clay, silt, sand and gravel of Quaternary age overlying Mio-Pliocene sediments. The Quaternary sediments are made up of recent and older alluvium. Occurrence and movement of ground water in this hydrogeological unit is controlled by the primary porosity of the sediments. Whereas in the zone of secondary porosity a thick profile of in situ soft porous material developed as a disintegration product on the upper most part of the hard, consolidated rock due to weathering. Weathering imparted secondary porosity to the hard rock which either has been compact or fractured at different places under different set of conditions. Weathered mantle derived from upper part of parental hard rock, varying in thickness from <1 m to 5 m in extra-peninsular region
[1]
INTRODUCTION and from 5 to 15 m in peninsular region forms the depository of ground water as shallow aquifers in the area occupied by the hard rocks. Ground water in these depositories occur under unconfined condition and in general developed by medium to large diameter open wells, depth of which varies according to the thickness of the weathered rock available. In the Himalayan hilly terrain, groundwater development by open wells tapping the weathered residuum, cannot be done as ground water moves away from the higher elevation to lower elevation very fast, resulting in the open well getting dry soon. In case of fissured hydrological unit fractures, Joints and other fissures form the secondary openings, through which ground water moves down the gradient, and occurs mainly under confined condition. These are developed in the cleaved Proterozoic gneisses and schists, Gondwana Super group of rock and Siwalik rocks of Extra- Peninsular region in Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri districts to the north and Archaean to Proterozoic gneisses and schists in Peninsular region occurring in western part of Barddhaman, Bankura, Birbhum and northen part of Medinipur and entire Purulia districts and Gondwana and Purana sediments ( Susunia quartzite of Bankura) deposited in the intracratonic basins in the shield area and Rajmahal basaltic traps in the eastern fringe area of the shield. Hydrological map of West Bengal are represented in Figure 1.1. In West Bengal aquifer characteristic varies considerably from north to south and west to east. Out of 341 blocks, by and large most of the areas show aquifer under both water table as well as confined condition. 1.2
Long term behaviour of water level: By comparing the water level data for
data of April 2007 to April 2009, the entire state of West Bengal, in general, shows the rise (43.17%) and fall (58.11%) in water level. Fluctuation is recorded mainly within 2 m, though at few places 6.83% rise and 1.42% fall were recorded in the range of 2 - 4 m. higher magnitude of fluctuation (3.31% fall and 3.61 % rise) is also recorded sporadically in few wells. 1.3
Chemical quality of groundwater: Groundwater is, in general, neutral to
slightly
alkaline
type
and
Calcium-Magnesium-Bicarbonate
type,
Sodium-
Bicarbonate type in South 24 Parganas district and Calcium-Magnesium-Chloride type in Kolkata and some isolated patches. Specific conductance of ground water, in
[2]
INTRODUCTION o
general, ranges between <500 and 2000 micromhos/ cm at 25 C. However, specific conductance of the deeper aquifers in the southern part of the state lying in the coastal tract varies from 1000 to 2000 micromhos/cm at 25oC, whereas the upper aquifers in the same tract shows that the value of specific conductance increases towards southeast from 5000 micromhos/cm in the northwest to 20000 micromhos/cm at 25oC in the southeast. Chloride value has been found generally below 250 mg/L in the state except in the coastal areas where chloride content of the upper aquifers increases towards southeast direction ranging between 2000 and 6000 mg/L. Iron content in ground water in the entire state is in general less than 1.0 mg/L, except in some isolated patches of the most of districts, where ground water in near surface aquifers have iron as high as more than 3.00 mg/L, even more than 10.00 at few places. High concentration of arsenic (above the permissible limit of 0.05 mg/L) in shallow aquifers within 100 mbgl has been reported as sporadic occurrence in 79 blocks of eight (8) districts. In West Bengal, high concentration of fluoride (above 1.5 mg/L) in ground water has been observed in 8 districts (Ray and Shekhar, 2009). 1.4
Hydrogeochemistry: The Knowledge of hydrogeochemistry is essential to
determine the origin of chemical composition of ground water and the relationship between rock chemistry. The geochemistry of groundwater is useful not only to evaluate the water quality but also obtain information (such as, residence times, flow paths and aquifer characteristics) about the environments through water has passed and the extent of exposure to anthropogenic pollution. Comparative study of chemical composition of rainwater, groundwater and surface water are tabulated in Table 1.2. A comparison of the relative concentrations of the various ions in the rain water, groundwater and surface water, leads to the following conclusions: With the exception of NH4 + which is derived from the atmosphere, all other ions are enriched in the groundwater and surface water due to contact with rocks and soils. The enrichment is maximum in the case of Ca2+ Surface water is more enriched than groundwater in the case of K+ and Mg2+ and Groundwater is more enriched than surface water in the case of Na+, Ca2+, Cl-, SO42[3]
INTRODUCTION The number of water quality descriptors have rising exponentially. In the 1890s water qualities was described in the form of a few simple parameters, namely, dissolved oxygen, pH and fecal coliform. With the development of industry, energy sector and the modern high-input agriculture, the factors that need to be monitored have risen exponentially (Figure 1.2). The evolution in the number and quality of water quality descriptors are represented by Figure 1.3. Thus, the number of water quality descriptions used by several authorities of different nations has arisen to 100 and more are added. Currently, two levels of monitoring are employed. Most monitoring activities cover electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, total suspended solid (TSS) and major ions and nutrients (e.g. Phosphate, nitrate and ammonium) etc. Advanced monitoring covers organic and inorganic micro pollutant. Keeping the above facts in view, an attempt has been made to depict the hydrogeochemistry to assess the groundwater suitability for drinking and irrigation purpose. Geochemistry plays a much larger role in groundwater studies because of its importance in characterizing the natural systems. The low temperature, aqueous geochemistry that focuses on water/rock interactions in the unsaturated zone and below the water table in the aquifer(s) presents at a site. The water/rock interactions are the geochemical processes that are now using to better understand the chemical fact of subsurface conditions. Apart from the physical and biological processes active in the subsurface, geochemistry plays a major role in controlling groundwater composition and the movement of dissolved constituents. 1.5
Isotope signature of ground water studies: The use of stable isotope
methods in groundwater investigations is gaining widespread acceptance among hydrogeology professionals. Stable isotopes are those isotopes that do not undergo radioactive decay; so their nuclei are stable and their masses remain the same. However, they may themselves be the product of the decay of radioactive isotopes. In hydrological studies, the stable isotopes of interest generally relate to H and O. In term of water molecule itself, oxygen has 3 stable isotopes, 1
16
O,
17
O and
18
O; and
2
hydrogen have two stable isotopes, H and H (deuterium). The relative abundances of these stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen are given in Table 1.3. The stable isotopes of
18
O (oxygen-18) and 2H (deuterium) are used to provide information on
hydrological processes, including
groundwater surface water interactions. Oxygen [4]
INTRODUCTION and hydrogen stable isotopic ratios are measured by isotopic mass spectrometry. These stable isotope compositions are commonly reported relative to an agreed sample of ocean water, referred to as the Standard Mean Ocean water (SMOW), representing the largest and most equilibrated water body. Stable isotopic ratios of deuterium/ hydrogen (2H/1H) and
18
O/16O of water are conventionally expressed as
units of parts per thousand (per mil, ‰) deviation from SMOW. Isotopic fractionation of water molecules due to evaporation of sea water and subsequent precipitation in rainfall was recognized by Craig (1961). Based on about 400 water samples from rivers, lakes and precipitation, a linear relationship between deuterium and Oxygen-18 was established for average global meteoric waters. This relationship (δD=8δ18O+10) is known as the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) and provides a useful benchmark against which regional or local waters can be compared and their isotopic composition interpreted. The slope of this curve represents Raleigh fractionation due to repeated evaporation and precipitation, the intercept (termed the deuterium excess) is largely a function of the mean relative humidity of the atmosphere above the ocean water (Clark and Fritz, 1997). Local meteoric water lines can be established from isotopic analysis of local precipitation events. Comparison of the stable isotope data for surface water and groundwater samples relative to global or local meteoric water lines can provide information on processes. For example, isotopically light water molecules evaporate more efficiently than isotopically heavy water molecules. Due to this variability in isotopic vapour pressures, evaporation procedures residual water enriched in the heavier isotopes relative to the initial isotopic composition. Therefore water that has undergone evaporation lies to the right of local meteoric water line due to this enrichment (Coplen, 1993). The trend line for evaporation from surface water tends to have a slope between 4 and 6, with a slope less than 4 indicating evapotranspiration of soil water in the unsaturated zone (Allison, 1988). 1.6
Groundwater quality: Groundwater has always been considered to be readily
available high quality source of water for potable, agriculture and industrial use. However, with increasing demand, major changes in land use and a vast increase in the quantities and type of industrial, agricultural and domestic effluent entering the hydrologic cycle, the stress on groundwater resource are growing rapidly. It is impossible to consider the safe yield of groundwater system without considering both [5]
INTRODUCTION quantity and quality of resource. The natural chemical composition of groundwater is influenced predominantly by type and depth of soils and subsurface geological formations through which groundwater passes. Groundwater quality is also influenced by contribution from the atmosphere and surface water bodies. Quality of groundwater is also influenced by anthropogenic factors. For example, excessive use of fertilizer and pesticides in agriculture and improper disposal of urban/industrial waste can cause contamination of groundwater resources. Subsurface ground water quality is the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water. It is most frequently used by reference to a set of standards against which compliance can be assessed. The most common standards used to assess water quality relate to drinking water, safety of human contact and for the health of ecosystems. Drinking water or potable water is water of sufficiently high quality that it can be consumed or used without risk of immediate or long term harm. In most developed countries, the water supplied to households, commerce and industry is all of drinking water standard, even though only a very small proportion is actually consumed or used in food preparation. Most rural areas lack treatment facilities for drinking water. Though groundwater appears to be clean and safe as compared to the surface water, it need not necessarily be safe (Banks et al., 1998). Whereas surface water can be treated or reclaimed easily, the task is equally tough for groundwater remediation. Disposal of untreated sewage, effluents and indiscriminate use of agrochemicals has rendered the groundwater unfit for drinking (Bruce and McMahon, 1996). As per WHO report, pollution of water has been reported to cause 80% of human disease and 30% infant mortality in developing countries (Chakroborty, 1999). 1.6.1
Drinking water suitability: An adequate supply of safe drinking water is
universally recognized as a basic human need. Yet millions of people in the developing world do not have ready access to an adequate and safe water supply. The number of people without access to safe water in urban areas was rising sharply in developing countries as a result of rapid urbanization, much of which was occurring in periurban and slum areas. It is well known fact that potable safe water is absolutely essential for healthy living. Adequate supply of fresh and clean drinking water is a basic need for all human being on the earth. Ground water has become an important resource as drinking water from the ancient era. The quality of ground water is [6]
INTRODUCTION equally important as that of quantity. Degrading water quality is very much depending upon the excessive concentration of As, Fe, F or other cations/ anions. The urban environment quality is deteriorating day by day with the largest cities reaching saturation points and unable to cope with the increasing pressure on their infrastructure. Over large parts of the world, humans have inadequate access to potable water and use sources contaminated with disease vectors, pathogens or unacceptable levels of dissolved chemicals or suspended solids. Such water is not potable and drinking or using such water in food preparation leads to widespread acute and chronic illnesses and is a major cause of death in many countries. Reduction of waterborne diseases is a major public health goal in developing countries. Groundwater contains a wide variety of dissolved inorganic chemical constituents in various concentrations, resulting from chemical and biochemical interactions between water and the geological materials. Total 16 parameters based on Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS, 1991) are now tested in India for suitability of groundwater for drinking. However, for routine analysis, total 6 inorganic contaminants including salinity, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, iron and arsenic are important in determining the suitability of groundwater for drinking purposes in India. Drinking water quality with reference to BIS (1991), World Health Organization (WHO, 1984) and Indian Standard Institution (ISI, 1983) is represented in Table 1.4. Ground water quality and its suitability for drinking purpose can be examined by determining its quality index. Water quality index is a mathematical instrument used to transform large quantities of water quality data into single number which represent the water quality level or water quality index is define as a technique of a rating that provides the composite influence of individual water quality parameter on the overall quality of water. 1.6.1.1 Bacteriological quality of drinking water: Historically, water has played a significant role in the transmission of human disease. Typhoied fever, cholera, infectious hepatitis, bacillary and amoebic dysenteries and many varieties of gastrointestinal disease can all be transmitted by water. The occasional occurrence of water borne disease are outbreaks, however, points out the continuing importance of strict supervision and control over the quality of public and private water supplies. Contamination by sewage or human excrement presents the greatest danger to public health associated with drinking water and bacteriological testing continues to provide [7]
INTRODUCTION the most sensitive means for detection of such pollution. Although modern microbiological techniques have made possible the detection of pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa in sewage and sewage effluents, it is not practical to attempt to isolate them as a routine procedure from samples of drinking water. Pathogens present in water usually greatly outnumbered by normal intestinal bacteria, which are easier to isolate and identify. The presence of such organisms indicates that pathogens could be present; if they are absent, disease-producing organisms are probably also absent. It should be probably emphasized that no bacteriological analysis of water can take place of a complete knowledge of the conditions at the source of supply and throughout a system. Contamination is often intermittent and may not be revealed by the examination of a single sample. The most a bacteriological report can prove is that, at the time of examination, bacteria indicating fecal pollution did or did not grow under laboratory conditions from a sample of water. Therefore, if a sanitary inspection shows that a well is subject to contamination or that water is inadequately treated or subject to contamination during storage or distribution, then the water should be considered unsafe irrespective of the results of bacteriological examination. Traditionally, indicator micro-organisms have been used to suggest the presence of pathogens (Berg, 1978). Today, however, we understand a myriad of possible reasons for indicator presence and pathogen absence, or vice versa. In short, there no direct correlation between number of any indicator and enteric pathogens (Grabow, 1996). To eliminate the ambiguity in the term “microbial indicator”, the following 3 groups are now recognized: General(process) microbial indicators, Fecal indicators (such as E.coli) Index organisms and model organisms. Pollution indicator organisms: Almost from the time of their first isolation from faeces in the late 19th century, the coliform group of bacteria has been used as an indicator of the bacteriological safety of water (Department of National Health and Welfare, 1977). The coliform group merits consideration as an indicator of pollution because these bacteria are always present in the intestinal tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals and are excreted in large numbers in faecal wastes. Although [8]
INTRODUCTION the sanitary significance of some coliform strains is questionable, all members of the group may be of faecal origin, and it should be assumed that they are of faecal origin unless it can be proven otherwise. Finally, water is not a natural medium for coliform organisms, and their presence must at least be regarded as indicative of pollution in its widest sense. The faecal coliform group includes that portion of the total coliform group that is capable of forming gas within 24 hours in EC medium at 44.5°C or that produces a blue colony on m-FC broth within 24 hours at 44.5°C. This group comprises the genera Escherichia and, to a lesser extent, Klebsiella and Enterobacter. The organism most commonly thought of as an indicator of faecal pollution is Escherichia coli. Complete identification of E. coli in terms of modern taxonomy would require an extensive series of tests that would be impractical for routine water bacteriology. The detection and identification of the faecal coliform group in accordance with the simpler operational definitions given above are currently preferred. A membrane filter method has been developed for the direct enumeration of E. coli (Dufour et al., 1981) but it has not been extensively evaluated with drinking water. 1.6.2
Irrigation water quality: Irrigation can be defined as replenishment of soil
water storage in plant root zone through methods other than natural precipitation. All water sources used in irrigation contain impurities and dissolved salts irrespective of whether they are surface or underground water. However quality of water has meaning only with respect to its particular use. Water which can be considered good quality for household use may not be ideal for irrigation. In agriculture, water quality is related to its effects on soils, crops and management necessary to compensate problems linked to water quality. It is very important to note that not all problems of soil degradation like salinity, soil permeability, toxicity etc. can be related to irrigation water quality. Agriculture has profound effects on the rates and compositions of groundwater recharge. Irrigation and drainage have altered groundwater fluxes and flow patterns. In addition, agricultural contaminants have caused substantial changes in groundwater geochemistry and water-rock interactions, which have received somewhat less attention. Global trends indicate that agricultural effects on the hydrochemical cycle will continue to be important topics of research in the future (Tilman et al., 2001). The suitability of groundwater for irrigation is [9]
INTRODUCTION contingent on the effects of the mineral constituents of the water on both plant and the soil. Salts may harm plant growth physically by limiting the uptake of water through modification of osmotic processes, or chemically by metabolic reactions such as those caused by toxic constituents. Effects of salts on soils, causing changes in soil structure, permeability and aeration, indirectly affect plant growth. Specific limits of permissible salt concentrations for irrigation water cannot be started because of the wide variations in salinity tolerance among different plants; however field-plot studies of crop grown on soils that are artificially adjusted to various salinity levels provide valuable information relating to salt tolerance. An important factor allied to the relation of crop growth to water quality is drainage. If a soil is open and well drained, crops may be grown on it with the application of generous amounts of saline water; but on the other hand, a poorly drained area combined with application of good quality water may fail to produce as satisfactory a crop poor drainage permits salt concentration in the root zone to build up to toxic proportions. Today, the necessity of adequate drainage is clearly recognized in order to maintain a favourable salt-balancewhere the total dissolved solids brought to the land annually by irrigation water is less than the total solids carried away annually by drainage water. In place of rigid limits of salinity for irrigation water, quality is commonly expressed by classes of relative suitability. Most classification system includes limits on specific conductance (expressing total dissolved solids), sodium content and boron concentration. Sodium concentration is important in classifying irrigation water because sodium reacts with soil to reduce its permeability. Soil containing a large proportion of sodium with carbonate as the predominant anion is termed alkali soils; those with sulfate or chloride as the predominant anion are saline soils. Ordinarily, either type of sodium saturated soil will support little or no plant growth. Boron is necessary in very small quantities for normal growth of all plants, but in larger concentrations it becomes toxic. Quantities needed vary with the crop type; sensitive crops require minimum amounts whereas tolerant crops will make maximum growth on several times these concentrations. 1.7
Application of Geographical information system (GIS) for ground water
quality mapping: GIS is an effective tool for storing large volumes of data that can be correlated spatially and retrieved for the spatial analysis and is able to take [10]
INTRODUCTION temporal changes into account and to provide the final more reliable and current version of outputs (Chaudhary et al., 1996; Hrkal, 2001). Moreover, GIS makes the groundwater quality maps into an easily understood format. GIS has been used by scientists of various disciplines for spatial queries, analysis and integration for the last three decades (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998). The remote sensing, geographical information system (GIS) are one of the important assessment techniques have been used for a long time to study groundwater in term of its movement, quantity, and quality throughout the world. Remote sensing process has unique potentiality of vividly displaying the size, shape, pattern and spatial distribution of various confined and unconfined aquifer systems, their signature of addition or alteration and / or deformation and the morphogenetic landforms. Better interpretation of hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical data often requires that their spatial location be incorporated into the analysis. GIS can be used for storing hydro-geological data as well as their spatial locations in relational database (Shahid et al., 2000). It also provides the facility to analyze the spatial data objectively using various logical conditions. As a result, nowadays, GIS is widely used for study the spatial and temporal variation of hydrological and hydro-geological phenomena of large areas with more reliability. Blending of these methods and technologies has proved to be an efficient tool in groundwater studies. However, describing the overall water quality condition is difficult due to the spatial variability of multiple contaminants and the wide range of indicators (chemical, physical and biological) that could be measured.
[11]
INTRODUCTION Table 1.1: Groundwater resources in West Bengal (Source: Ray and Shekhar, 2009). Ground water resource
Quantity (m ham) 3.036 0.29 2.746 1.165 1.084 0.081
Total Ground Water Recharge Unaccounted Ground Water Discharge Net Ground Water Availability Gross Ground Water Draft for All Uses (as on March, 2004) Current Annual Ground Water Draft for Irrigation Current Annual Ground Water Draft for Domestic & Industrial Uses Stage of Ground Water Development (%) Annual Allocation of Ground Water for Domestic & Industrial Water Supply up to next 25 yrs Net Ground Water Availability for „Future Irrigation Use‟
42 0.124 1.532
Table 1.2: Comparison of the chemical composition of water.
Parameters Na+ K+ Mg+ Ca+ NH4+ ClHCO3SO42NO3-
Rain water (RW) (m mol-1) .070 .004 .009 .015 .12 .078 0 .074 .064
Groundwater (GW) (m mol-1) .03 .025 .089 .49 .005 .30 1.04 .15 .063
Surface water (SW) (m mol-1) .224 .033 .138 .334 – .162 .852 .086 –
GW/RW
SW/RW
4.29 6.25 9.89 32.66 .04 3.85 – 2.02 –
3.20 8.25 15.33 22.27 – 2.08 – 1.16 –
mg-1 data of Meybeck (1979) has been converted to m mol-1 by dividing the weight of the element or molecule.
[12]
INTRODUCTION Table 1.3: Relative abundances of the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes Hydrogen Isotope 1
H
2
H
Oxygen Abundance 0.99985
Isotope
Abundance
16
O
0.99757
17
O
0.00038
18
O
0.00205
Table 1.4: Drinking water standard national and international perspectives Parameter
pH Temp(°C) EC TDS TH TA Na+ K+ Ca+2 Mg+2 Fe As CO3-2 HCO3ClSO4-2 NO3PO4-3 H4SiO4 F-
Drinking water standard (permissible limit) BIS (IS 10500WHO (1984) ISI (1983) 1991) 7.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.5 - 8.5 *NG NG NG NG NG NG 500.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 300.00 300.00 NG NG 200.00 200 NG NG NG NG NG 75.00 75.00 75.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 1.50 1.00 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 NG NG NG NG 300 NG 200.00 250.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 200.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 NG NG NG NG NG NG 1.00 0.60-1.20 1.00
*NG: Not given
[13]
INTRODUCTION Figure 1.1: Hydrological map of West Bengal (Source: Ray and Shekhar, 2009)
[14]
INTRODUCTION
[15]
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.2: Diversification of the factors that need to be monitored, arising from the increasing complexity of pollutants (Source: Meybeck and Helmer, 1989).
Figure 1.3: Evolution of the number and variety of water quality descriptors (Source: Meybeck and Helmer, 1989).
[16]
STUDY AREA 2.0
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
2.1
Location and extent: Burdwan district lies in the western part of West
Bengal, covering an area of 7024 sq.km. The district is encompassed within N. Latitudes 22055 to 23051 and E. Longitudes 86048 to 88023 falling in the Survey of India toposheets of 73 I, M, N, 79 A and B. The district is aligned in NW-NE direction with narrow elongated stretch in the west and well spread out distended territory in the east. The district is bounded by Ajoy and Damodor rivers in the north and south respectively whereas river Ganga forms the boundary in the east. In the west the district is bounded by Dhanbad district, and north west by Dumka district of Jharkhand, and north by Birbhum district and on south east, south west and south by Hooghly, Purulia and Bankura district of West Bengal respectively. The collieries of Asonsol-Raniganj area occupy the western part of the district. The district head quarter is located at Burdwan town. Other important towns of the district are Barakar, Rupnarayanpur, Kulti, Burnpur, Asansol, Raniganj, Andal, Durgapur, Panagarh, Gushkara, Kalna, Katoya, Saktigarh, Memari etc. Present research work is confined to the north-western part of the district encompassing 10 blocks starting from Kanksa in the east to Salanpur in the west (Figure 2.1). 2.2
Burdwan district- at a glance
2.2.1
Administrative division: The district has five sub-divisions namely, Asansol,
Durgapur, Burdwan Sadar, Kalna and Katoya with head quarters in the respective town. There are total numbers of blocks is 32 and that of panchyat samitis are 32 present in this district. Total number of municipalities is 9 and that of Municipal Corporation is 2. 2.2.2
Communication: The district falls on the main line of eastern railway, of
which Burdwan and Asansol for two very important railway junctions. From Burdwan railway lines extend to Kalna and approach can be made through railway to Birbhum district and further onwards to North Bengal. Andal is another important junction for Ukhra (Pandabeswar) and Suri. From Asansol, one can reach Purulia by rail. The district also has the National Highway No.2 running form one end of the district to the other. Other important arterial roads, viz., to Katoya, Kalna, Nabadwip etc. or to Bolpur (Santiniketan) or to Purulia and Bankura (via Durgapur Barrage), lead away [17]
STUDY AREA from this highway. Besides these main roads, the district has a good network of all weather connecting roads with all block head quarters with the district head quarters. 2.2.3
Demography: As per 2011 Census, the total population of the district is
7723663 of which 3975356 Nos. male and 3748307 Nos. female are present. The sex ratio of this district is 943. The density of population of the district is 1100 per sq.km. 2.2.4
Types of soil and its distribution: Soils of the district can be classified into
three categories; namely Gangetic alluvium, Vindhyan alluvium and Laterite red soil. Gangetic alluvium occurs along the Ganga River, Vindhyan alluvium is found in the area between Ajoy and Damodar rivers in the central and eastern parts of the district and the third type of soil is found to occur in the undulating and coal field areas in the western part of the (Figure 2.2) district. The chemical characteristics of these soils are given in Table 2.1. 2.2.5
Land use, irrigation and cropping pattern: The latest available data on
land utilization (2007-2008) shows that maximum land of the district is being utilized for agricultural activities and for non-agricultural purpose also quite a large area of land is in use. Among all the districts in the state this district has got the most developed irrigation facilities and for this purpose use of surface water is more than groundwater. Surface water is being utilized through canal systems and also through river lift irrigation systems. Groundwater for irrigation purpose is being developed through heavy duty tube wells, medium duty tube wells, low duty tube wells and shallow tube wells. Among different types of crop maximum land area is being utilized for the production of paddy and among different types of paddy maximum and second highest area is being utilized for the production of aman and boro respectively (Figure 2.3). 2.2.6
Climate: Climatologically, the district enjoys in general, a moderate climate,
divisible into short, mild winter, hot, humid summer and a protracted rainy season. However, in the western part of the district i.e. in Durgapur-Asansol area, the summer is very severe, when hot Western Winds blow and temperature occasionally shoots up to about 450C. The general temperature range, however is much lower and it is recorded at 37 0C (in summer) to about 13 0C (in winter), but winter temperature as low as 6 0C is also recorded. The district receives reasonable amount of rainfall, [18]
STUDY AREA normal being given 1350 mm. the town of the Burdwan registers as much as 1528.6 mm. and Asansol has about 14710 mm of Rainfall. An isohyetal map of the district shows that rainfall increases towards west, as also in the south western part around Burdwan town (Figure 2.4). The area between Mankar and Mangalkot has rainfall less than 130 mm. in a year and the areas of Katoya, Monteswar and Kalna have rainfall less than1400 mm. yearly. The area of the district falling under D.V.C. irrigation system has been studied in respect of its evaporation rate and it was found to be about 150 cm/yr. The monthly distribution of rainfall is presented in Table 2.2. 2.2.7
Positions of water supply: The district was as many as 1956 problem
villages, of which 1649 numbers alone for in “Criterion-III” villages, i.e., the water used in such villages has excessive iron content, chloride, and fluoride. The rest of the villages suffers from lack of an immediate source “Criterion-I”, i.e., a source for the village list 156 km. away. Since, the total number of villages in the district is 2825; problem villages constitute about 70% of the total. All the important urban centers of the district, barring those lying in the water scarce portion of Asansol – Durgapur belt, are served by piped water supply from groundwater. Surface water from Barakar and Damodar river serves the cold-field areas, Asansol and Durgapur towns. According to P.H.E.D. sources existing water supply system of Asansol of municipality totals to only 2mgd, which is vastly inadequate for a population of 5.46 lakhs (as per 2001 seasons). 2.4
General geology of the study area: Barring a small part of the northern
portion of the extreme of the western part of the district (near Rupnarayanpur in Salanpur block), being occupied by metamorphic rock of Archaean age, major parts of the district (about 4965 sq.km.) is covered by alluvium (sedimentary rocks of Gondwana group in intracratonic basins); but the same western part is again covered (about 2063 sq.km.) by sedimentary rocks of Gondwana plain. The lower Gondwana group (of permo-carboniferous age) of rocks contains valuable resources of coal and it is known as Damuda coalfield or Raniganj coalfield. The alluvial blanket of Durgapur area and its southern and eastern extension were thoroughly investigated by Das (1968-69 and 1969-70), aided by exploratory drilling. The statigraphic sequence of this district is represented in Table 2.3.
[19]
STUDY AREA There are ten coal seams in the Raniganj coalfield, designated by different names in different parts of the field. Most of these seams are co relatable over long distances, being separated by alternating beds of sandstones and shales. Several intrusive of post Gondwana age traverse the sediments at many places. The intrusive are mainly basic and ultrabasic in composition and occur as dykes and sills. The basic intrusives mostly occur as dykes and among these the well known is Salma dyke, doleritic to gabbroic composition and thickness of it is as high as 35m. Ultrabasic dykes and sills are mostly thin and are considerably weathered at the surface. Recent studies by different departments have established the extension of Raniganj Gondwana basin around Durgapur where it forms a sub-basin known as Durgapur sub-basin and which is separated from the main Raniganj basin by a subsurface ridge around Andal. A substantial thickness of Panchet sediments occur over the Durgapur sub-basin in contrast to Raniganj basin. The study of lithological logs of different boreholes present in the area indicates the existence of Gondwana at the shallowest depth (34mbgl) at Parulia which gradually slopes towards east and occurs within the depth of 129mbgl at Kaksa and 108mbgl at Shibpur and ultimately ceases to exist beyond Panagarh. The Archaean basement is shallowest in the area between Domra and Paduma and its depth increases towards east (about 2.42km at Galsi) and west (about 2.8km around the center of Durgapur sub-basin). A number of cross faults traverses the area. Two sets of faults namely Bonbisnupur-Mohishila fault and JamuriaRaniganj fault are prominent in the district. In addition to these major faults there are another two sets of faults, one is in the west of Panuria to the north of Asansol, while the other set occurring parallel to Raniganj-Jamuria fault is located east of it and north of Andal. In addition to these there are numerous cross faults with varying degrees of throw and all these have affected the strata. 2.5
Hydrogeology of the study area: Hydrogeological condition of any area is
controlled by the geology and geomorphology of that area. The western part of the district is underlain by hard sedimentary rocks (Gondwana formation), a small area in its north being occupied by hard and consolidated formation of Archaean age. The western part of the district has got undulating topography. From hydrological point of view the district can be divide into three groups namely (a) consolidated Archaean metamorphics (b) semi-consolidated Gondwana [20]
STUDY AREA sedimentaries and (c) unconsolidated Tertiary and Quartenary sediments (Figure 2.5). Study area encompasses with consolidated Archaean and semi-consolidated Gondwana sedimentaries. Detail hydrological condition of the district as well as study area is represented in Table 2.4. 2.5.1
Archaean Formations: In major part of Salanpur block and in the northern
parts of Barabani and Jamuria-1 blocks groundwater is being developed from granites of Archaean age. Groundwater within it occurs under unconfined condition in the weathered zone. Thickness of the weathered zone generally ranges between 5m and 10m, though at places it is reported to be as high as 20m. The occurrence and movement of groundwater in the deeper levels are controlled by secondary porosities like joints; fractures etc. and these are generally restricted within 60 to 70m depths. Groundwater in the deeper levels occurs under semi-confined to confined condition. General potentiality of the weathered zone is better than that of the secondary porosities, except a few cases. Large diameter dug wells are the most feasible groundwater development structures for the weathered zone. Within Salanpur block in the southern part of the area occupied by granite there are a few NE-SW trending faults and in such areas there is possibility of getting potential secondary porosities at deeper levels and to develop groundwater from such type of secondary porosities bore wells are the only feasible structures. Depths to water level generally remain within 6mbgl. 2.5.2
Gondwana Formations: Among Gondwanas coarse sandstones are available
within Barakar and Panchet formations. Barakars are encountered in the northwestern corner of the district bordering the Archaeans and Panchets are available mainly in Asansol block. Among Gondwanas another important formation is Raniganj, which contain in addition to other rock types medium to coarse grained sanadtones and Raniganj formation is available over a large area spreading over Asansol, Barabani, Jamuria-I & II, Raniganj, Faridpur and Durgapur blocks. Barakar and Raniganj formations are traversed by a few NW-SE and NE-SW trending faults and also by dykes. From hydrological point of view, faults and dykes are of significance as the faults provide natural planes of seepage, while dykes have a tendency to impound water along up gradient direction.
[21]
STUDY AREA Groundwater within weathered zone which is limited to around 20m depth occurs under unconfined condition and at deeper levels it occurs under semi-confined and confined condition. Through groundwater exploration it has been established that at most of the places water yielding fractures exist within 100m depth and at few a few places fractures were encountered beyond 100m depth. Generally groundwater exploration is restricted down to a depth of 125mbgl. Panchet formation is one of the important hydrogeological units in Asansol block. The NW-SE trending faults appear to have better groundwater potentiality compared to the NE-SW trending faults. The yields of the exploratory bore-wells varies from 0.3m3/hr to 38m3/hr and that of transmissivity values of the aquifers vary from 50m2/day to 200m2/day. Burdwan district at a glance along with water resources are represented in Table 2.5 2.6
Research problems definition: Near the coal field area the depth of water
level is usually deep and declines considerably during the premonsoon period. Most of the study area suffers from chronic water shortage the dug well even dry up totally. Peoples in this study area most depend on dug well water both for drinking and irrigation purpose. Rapid urbanization, industrialization and coal mine activities leads to the change of land use pattern and ultimately reflected to the geochemistry of ground water. Except Gupta et.al., (2008) so far the geochemistry of groundwater and its suitability to drinking and irrigation purpose of the study area have not been studied in greater detail. 2.7
Objective of the present research work: The present research work is
carried out in order to determine the spatial and temporal variation of hydrogeochemistry at the north-western part of Burdwan district and to classify the water in order to evaluate its suitability for drinking and agricultural use. Entire research work is executed in the following four steps: Study of spatial and temporal variation of groundwater geochemistry Isotopic signature of groundwater geochemistry Evaluation of drinking and irrigation purpose suitability Thematic map generation demarcating areas suitable for drinking and irrigation purposes [22]
STUDY AREA Table 2.1: Chemical characteristics of different types of soil (Source: Gupta, 2009). Types of soil Gangetic alluvium
Vindhyan alluvium
Lateritic and red soil
Ca
Rich
Free CaCO3
Clay
P2O5
K
Org. Matter
High from surface downward
Fairly high, illite dominant clay mineral
Medium
Medium
Low to medium
-
Low Medium
Medium to medium high
Low
-
-
Some time Some time present, present kaolinite main clay mineral
Low
Low
-
Low
Most of the soils are low in nitrogen content and the soils are mostly acidic in reaction
Table 2.2: Monthly distribution of rainfall (Source: Gupta, 2009). Sl. No.
Month
Monthly distribution
1
October (Later half)
7.60cm.
2
November
15.24cm
3
December
12.70cm
4
January
7.60cm
5
February
15.24cm
6
March
17.75cm
7
April
20.32cm
8
May
25.40cm
9
June
25.40cm
[23]
STUDY AREA Table 2.3: Statigraphic succession of Burdwan district (Source: Kumar, 1985). Formation name
Lithological description Sand, ferruginous, silt, clay, greyish- yellow. Unconformity Sand, ferruginous, yellow, clay, laterite; calcareous nodules
Ajoy-Damodar
Bistupur
Age Holocene
Pliocene to Pleistocene
Unconformity Alinagar
Tilokch-Aandrapur parts)
(eastern
Sand, pebble, greyish white; clay, grey, sticky With occasional carbonaceous matter Unconformity Bluish grey clay stones, siltstones; sandstones, calcareous shales, calcareous sandstones, limestone (in eastern parts)
Miocene
Oligocene to Miocene
Khatpukur (western parts) Kuldiha
Durgapur
Panchet
Raniganj
Carbonaceous shales, claystones, grey and greyish black; within bands of lignite and layers of sand. (in western parts) Sand; red, green and white clays Unconformity Felspathic sandstones, coarse to very coarse grained, gritty and pebbly; occasional red and green shales and sandstones; also lenses of coal Felspathic sandstones, greyish green, medium to fine grained; shales, green shales Unconformity Felspathic sandstones, greyish white coloured, medium to fine grained; carbonaceous shales, grey shales; lenses of coal Unconformity Granite gneisses
Middle cretaceous to Oligocene
Middle Triassic cretaceous
to
lower
Lower Triassic
Permian
Pre-cambrian
[24]
STUDY AREA Table 2.4 Details of hydrogeological characteristics of Burdwan district (Source: Gupta, 2009).
Sand, silt and clay
Lithology
Hydrogeological Character Potential aquifers occur in the depth span of 50 to 110 m bgl. Thickness of aquifers ranges from 35 to 60m. Average depth to water level varies from 9 to 16 m bgl during pre monsoon period. Groundwater occurs under unconfined to semi-confined condition. Yield of wells varies from 150 m3 - 250 m3/hour with a draw down of 4 to 7 meter. Average transmissivity value ranges from 3000m2/day to 5000m2/day. Storativity values ranges from 1.38x10-3 to 3.3x 10-4
Sends of various grade, silt and clay Sediments of arenacreous and argillaceous facies associated with shale, coal seam, and basic intrusive Granite, Para and Ortho gneiss
Ground water occurs and circulates in 20 to 25 meter thick weathered and fractured mantle unconfined condition. This extends up to depth of 60m bgl. and some times up to 90 m bgl. Average depth to water level varies from 7 to 9 m bgl. During pre monsoon period. Groundwater occurs phreatic condition. Yield of wells varies from 0.25m3/hour to 4.5 m3/hour.
Archacan metamorp hics
Ground water occurs in weathered and friable sandstone under unconfined conditions. Aquifers are thin and discontinuous. Average depth to water level various from 10 to 17 m bgl. during pre monsoon period. Groundwater occurs under unconfined condition and deeper aquifers exhibit semi-confined to confined condition. Yield of wells varies from 25 m3/hour under favourable condition. Transmissivity value of sandstone aquifer ranges from 50m2/day to 200m2/day.
Pre Cambrian
Tertiary sediment
Potential aquifers occur in the depth span of 45 to 120 m bgl. Thickness of aquifers ranges from 25 to 50 m. Average depth to water level from 7 to 16 m bgl. During pre monsoon period. Groundwater occurs under unconfined condition and deeper aquifers exhibit semi-confined to confined condition. Yield of wells varies from 100 m3 – 180 m3/hour with a draw down of 15 to 13 meter. Transmissivity value ranges from 300 m2/day to 3000 m2/day. Storativity value ranges from 1x10-3 to 3.9x10-4 Sediments are often capped by laterites and older alluvium having, thickness of 20 to 40m. Aquifers occur within the depth of 200 m bgl. Average depth to water level various from 7 to 9 m bgl during pre monsoon period. Yield of wells varies from 63 m3/hour – 100 m3/hour. This may go up to 135 m3/hour where overlain by river valley alluvium. Transmissivity value ranges from 200m2/day to 700m2/day.
Gondwana and indurated sediments
Older alluvium consists of clay, sand- fine to medium and silt
The area shown in the coal belt is not a potential water bearing formation.
MioPliocene
Neogene Pleistocene sediments
Hydrogeological Unit/Sub unit Holocene terrace Holocene Meander Sediments Holocene Valley fills and Flood plains Pleistocene/ Early Holocene sediments
PermoCarboniferous
Quaternary
Age
[25]
STUDY AREA Table 2.5: Burdwan district at a glance (Source: Groundwater information booklet of Bardhaman district, West Bengal). Sl. No. 1.
2.
Items General information i)Geographical area (sq.km) ii) Administrative division (as on 2001) No. of sub-division No. of blocks No. municipal corporation No. municipalities No. of inhabited villages iii) Population (as on 2001 census) (with density of population) iv) Normal annual rain fall (mm) Geomorphology Major physiographical unites
Major drainages
3.
4.
Land use (sq.km.) (as on 2004-2005) a) Forest area b) Net area shown Major soil types
5.
Area under principal crops (sq.km.) As on 2004-2005)
6.
Irrigation by different sources (Areas & Nos. Of structures) Open wells Tube wells/Bore wells
Surface flow Surface lift (RLI) Total area irrigated by ground water Total area irrigated by surface water Gross irrigated area
Statistics 7024 6 31 2 9 2438 6895514 (982- per sq.km) 1442 (i)
Plateau area (extension of Chotonagpur area of Bihar) - the western most Asansol – kulti sector. (ii) Undulatory area – Asansol – Durgapur sector. (iii) Flat alluvium terrain – From Durgapur eastwards. The Ganga / vhagerati is the main river, with tributaries namely the Damodar, the Ajoy, the barakar, and many other small streams, viz. Kunur, Banka, khari, Brahmani, Behula, Ghea, Mundeswari, Kana, etc. from the main dranage system. 22.27 466.63 (a) Gangetic soil, which is found along the Ganga River (b) Vindhyan soil, between Ajoy and Damodar Rivers in the central and eastern parts. (c) Red soils occurring in the undulating and coal field areas in the western part of district. Total cereals : 6393.0 Total pulses : 15.0 Total fiber : 127.0 Total miscellaneous crops : 456.0
1.04 sq.km. area irrigated by 88 nos. of open wells 3170.63 sq.km irrigated by 51710 nos of shallow tube wells and 445.84 sq.km irrigated by 626 nos. of deep tube wells 243.55 sq.km irrigated by 1583 nos of surface flow 313.08 sq, km. irrigated by 4291 nos. of RLI 3617.51 sq.km. 556.63 sq.km. 4174.14 sq.km.
[26]
STUDY AREA Sl. No. 7.
Items Predominant geological formations
Statistics (a) (b)
(c) 8.
9.
10.
11
Hydrology Major water bearing formation Pre monsoon depth to water level during 2006 Post monsoon depth to water level during 2006 Long term water level trend in 10 years (1997 – 2006) in m/yr
Ground water quality Presence of chemical constituents more than permissible limit Type of water Dynamic ground water resources (2004) – in ham Annual replenishable ground water resources Gross Annual Ground water: a) For irrigation use b) For domestic & industrial use Projected demand for domestic and industrial use up to 2025 Stage of ground water development (%) Major ground water problems and issues
Up. Tertiary- Quaternary sequence of Alluvium, Laterite, etc. Up Paleozoic-Mesozoic-Tertiary sequence of Gondwana super group of sedimentaries. Archaean metamorphics, viz. granite gneiss, schist
Quaternaries & Tertiaries 0.74 to 19.95 m bgl in open wells and 2.95 to 19.03 m bgl in tube wells 0.22 to 11.63 m bgl in open wells 1.03 to 31.00 m bgl in tube wells Declining trend of water level to the tune of 0.01 to 1.0 m/yr shown by 64.04% of wells and rising trend of 0.01 to 0.66 m/yr shown by 35.96% of wells. Sporadic high content of Total Hardness (TH), Arsenic and Iron Ca-Mg-HCO3 type
303295 131900 123679 8221 12187 43.49 Geogenic quality problem of arsenic & iron in some parts, 6 Blocks categorized as semi- critical, decline in water level in North Western part of district, risk to man – made activities such as mining, industrialization, etc affecting both quality & quantity.
[27]
STUDY AREA Figure 2.1: Location and extent of study area.
Figure 2.2: Types of soil and its distribution of Burdwan district, West Bengal (Source: NATMO MAP).
[28]
STUDY AREA Figure 2.3: Land use and cropping pattern of Burdwan district, West Bengal (Source: NATMO MAP).
Figure 2.4: Climate of Burdwan district, West Bengal (Source: NATMO MAP).
[29]
STUDY AREA Figure 2.5: Hydrogeological map of Burdwan district, West Bengal.
[30]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.0
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Groundwater is a key buffer against drought and normal variations in rainfall. It plays as a decentralized source of drinking water for millions rural and urban families. In India, roughly 80 % of rural and 50 % urban domestic uses are met from ground water. It is a key resource for poverty alleviation and economic development. In case of agriculture as much as 70 – 80 % is dependent upon this invisible resource (World Bank, 1998; Moench, 1996). Groundwater irrigation has been increased from 6.5million hectors (M-ha) in 1950-1951 (CGWB, 1992) to 46 M-ha in 2000-2001. Water quality gets modified in the course of movement of water through the hydrological cycle, through the operation of the following process: evaporation, transpiration, selective uptake by vegetation, oxidation/reduction, cation exchange, dissociation of minerals, precipitation of secondary minerals, mixing of waters, leaching of fertilizers and manure, pollution and lake/sea, biological process (Appelo and Postma,1993). Most rural areas lack treatment facilities for drinking water. Though groundwater appears to be clean and safe as compared to the surface water, it needs not to necessarily be safe (Banks et al., 1998). Whereas surface water can be treated or reclaimed easily, the task is equally tough for groundwater remediation. Disposal of untreated sewage, effluents, and indiscriminate use of agrochemicals has rendered the groundwater unfit for drinking (Bruce and McMahon, 1996). As per WHO (1984) report, pollution of water has been reported to cause 80 % of human disease and 30 % infant mortality in developing countries (Chakroborty, 1999). Poor quality of water adversely affects human health (Wilcox, 1948; Thorne and Peterson, 1954; US Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954; Holden, 1971; Todd, 1980; ISI, 1983; WHO, 1984; Hem, 1991; Karanth, 1997). Several other studies have reported the adverse health effects of different pollutants like pesticides, arsenic, nitrate (Bruce and McMahon, 1996), fluoride (Chandrawanshi and Patel, 1999), hardness and iron etc. in groundwater (Soltan, 1998). Groundwater quality data gives important clues to the geologic history or rocks and indications of groundwater recharge, movement and storage (Walton, 1970). The knowledge of hydrochemistry is essential to determine the origin of chemical composition of groundwater and the relationship between and rock chemistry (Zaparozec, 1972). The hydrology and geochemistry of waters have
[31]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE been dealt with in the classic works of Stumm and Morgan (1981), Hem (1991), Drever (1988), Domenico and Schwartz (1990), Deutsch (1997). Adverse conditions increase investment in irrigations and health and decrease agricultural production, which, in turn, reduces agrarian economy and retards improvement in living conditions of rural people. Sub surface ground water quality is the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water. It is most frequently used by reference to a set of standards against which compliance can be assessed. The most common standards is used to assess water quality relate to drinking water, safety of human contact and for the health of ecosystems. Drinking water or potable water is water of sufficiently high quality that it can be consumed or used without risk of immediate or long term harm. In most developed countries, the water supplied to households, commerce and industry is all of drinking water standard, even though only a very small proportion is actually consumed or used in food preparation. Mineral water is also processed from ground water that has either naturally or artificially added minerals to alter its‟ taste or give its therapeutic values. Mineral water rich in some kind of beneficial mineral such as Ca2+, Mg 2+, Na+, K+ and Cl- thought to be beneficial to the health. Concentration of element in drinking water is very important in considering of biological entity. An adequate supply of safe drinking water is universally recognized as a basic human need. Yet millions of people in the developing world do not have ready access to an adequate and safe water supply. The number of people without access to safe water in urban areas is rising sharply in developing countries as a result of rapid urbanization, much of which is occurring in periurban and slum areas. It is well known fact that potable safe water is absolutely essential for healthy living. Adequate supply of fresh and clean drinking water is a basic need for all human being on the earth. Ground water has become an important resource as drinking water from the ancient era. Over the past few decades due to increase in usage for drinking and other purposes of use the quality of ground water is equally important as that of quantity. The urban environment quality is deteriorating day by day with the largest cities reaching saturation points and unable to cope with the increasing pressure on their infrastructure. Due to rapid
urbanization and the „J graph‟ of population causes a
[32]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE major draw down of ground water as a resource of drinking water so quality management has assumed a very complex shape. Over large parts of the world, humans have inadequate access to potable water and use sources contaminated with disease vectors, pathogens or unacceptable levels of dissolved chemicals or suspended solids. Such water is not potable and drinking or using such water in food preparation leads to widespread acute and chronic illnesses and is a major cause of death in many countries. Reduction of waterborne diseases is a major public health goal in developing countries. Scarcity of portable sub surface drinking water is a real-world problem, especially those that involve natural systems, are complex and composed of many non-deterministic components. These uncertainties are building up by developing or developed socio-economical frame work created by maximum countries around the globe. The regular depletion of these non-deterministic components may originate from randomness of over exploitation or from imprecision use of this resource. Due to lack of information and or careless behavior of modern man until recently, in the new era of science the drinking water problem rise mammoths‟ uncertainty, regardless of its nature or source has been treated using probability theory concepts. However, drinking water uncertainties associated with real-world systems are neither discussed nor cared in elsewhere. Ground water is present in pore space of sediments such as sand, gravel or in the fractured rock. Ground water quality data gives an important clue of the geologic history or rocks an indication of geochemistry of ground water. Ground water quality and its suitability for drinking purpose can be examined by determining its quality index. Water quality index is a mathematical instrument used to transform large quantities of water quality data into single number which represent the water quality level or water quality index is define as a technique of a rating that provides the composite influence of individual water quality parameter on the over all quality of water. Ground water has special significance in arid or semi-arid regions due to discrepancy in monsoonal rainfall, insufficient surface water and over drafting of sub surface water resource. Ground water quality depends on the quality of recharged [33]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE water, atmospheric precipitation, inland surface water and on sub-surface geochemical processes. Temporal changes in the origin and constitution of the recharged water, hydrologic and human factors, may cause periodic changes in ground water quality. In many areas, particularly arid and semi-arid zones, groundwater quality limits the supply of potable fresh water. To utilize and protect valuable water resources effectively and predict the change in groundwater environments, it is necessary to understand the hydrochemical characteristics of the groundwater and its evolution under natural water circulation processes (Lawrence et al., 2000; Guendouz et al., 2003; Jianhua et al., 2009). Groundwater some distance under our feet, available in most places around the world from a well, viewed by some people as having mysterious qualities, often not clearly understood but providing useful as well as ignored services is a vast resource being increasingly tapped for people‟s vital uses, becoming ever scarce, and growing in value. It constitutes both an economic opportunity as well as a challenge. The values of groundwater are not about an arcane science applied to a liquid substance. It is about people using this significant resource in a multitude of ways for everyday needs. It is about people‟s decisions regarding their use of groundwater and the factors that influence their choices. The usefulness of groundwater concerns information affecting the allocation of a resource that is largely not well understood by most people, and yet used directly or indirectly by much of the world‟s population, affecting some people‟s health and survival. All water is not the same this may seem obvious but is different depending on its temporal location in the hydrologic cycle, and, thus, is treated differently in societies‟ economic transactions. The largest available source of freshwater is groundwater, and is often an afterthought in developmental plans. In watersheds, it is the principal manifestation of the presence of water a distinguishing characteristic of the earth which is essential for all life even maintaining the flow of rivers and streams at times without precipitation. The quality of groundwater depends on the composition of the recharge water, the interactions between the water and the soil, soil-gas and rocks with which it comes into contact in the unsaturated zone, and the residence time and reactions that take
[34]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE place within the aquifer. Therefore, considerable variation can be found, even in the same general area, especially where rocks of different compositions and solubility occur. The principal processes influencing water quality in aquifers are physical (dispersion/dilution, filtration and gas movement), geochemical (complexation, acidbase reactions, oxidation-reduction, precipitation-solution, and adsorption-desorption) and biochemical (microbial respiration and decay, cell synthesis). Groundwater quality is influenced by the effects of human activities which cause pollution at the land surface because most groundwater originates by recharge of rainwater infiltrating from the surface. The rainwater itself may also have an increased acidity due to human activity. The unsaturated zone can help reduce the concentrations of some pollutants entering groundwater (especially micro-organisms), but it can also act as a store for significant quantities of pollutants such as nitrates, which may eventually be released. Some contaminants enter groundwaters directly from abandoned wells, mines, quarries and buried sewerage pipes which by-pass the unsaturated zone (and, therefore, the possibility of some natural decontamination processes). Groundwater resource has become vulnerable to depletion and degradation. Management of valuable groundwater resource is determined by its accessibility and utilisability in terms of quantity and quality. Due to imbalance between demand and availability, management approaches are facing various ethical dilemmas. A vital aid to good groundwater management is a well-conceived and properly supported monitoring and surveillance system. „Out of sight, out of mind‟ is a poor philosophy for sustainable development. The general neglect of groundwater resources in terms of national planning, monitoring and surveillance will only be overcome once effective monitoring is regarded as an investment rather than merely a drain on resources. For this reason monitoring systems should be periodically reassessed to make sure that they remain capable of informing management decisions so as to afford early warning of degradation and provide valuable time to devise an effective strategy for sustainable management.
An effective, efficient and sustainable
groundwater resources development and management, the planners and decision makers have future challenges to assess the inextricable logical linkages between water policies and ethical consideration. Groundwater importance and usefulness to society stems from their being relatively easy and cheap to use, as they can be brought [35]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE on-stream progressively with little capital outlay and boreholes can often be drilled close to where the water supply is needed; they are a resource that is organizationally easy to develop, as individuals can construct, operate and control their own supply, often on their own land; and many aquifers able to offer natural protection from contamination, so untreated groundwater is usually cleaner and safer than its untreated surface water equivalent. Groundwater needs to be carefully managed if its use is to be sustained for future generations. Proper management is required to avoid serious degradation and there needs to be increased awareness of groundwater at the planning stage, to ensure equity for all stakeholders and most important of all to match water quality to end use. A particular water management difficulty arises from the small scale and incremental nature of groundwater development because highly dispersed ownership/use needs imaginative regulatory and financial measures. In such cases there is often the problem that the generally high quality of much groundwater is not reflected in the value of the uses to which it is put. The proposed structure is essentially a pragmatic compromise between the short-term need for recharge enhancement structures to provide additional groundwater resources to rejuvenate existing village groundwater sources and the longer term reality that comprehensive resource administration at the local scale (including demand management for dry-season irrigated agriculture) will be required to achieve long-term groundwater resource and drinking water source sustainability. The systematic monitoring of groundwater levels, water well performance and quality, and recharge structure behavior is of prime importance to assess the effectiveness and guide the operation of any scheme of groundwater recharge enhancement. Moreover, soundly monitored operational experience at pilot level is of great value to the successful execution of statewide programs. Prior to construction, monitoring data on surface water flows and groundwater levels greatly aid site selection and structure design and the observation well network at this stage can be of low density over a large area. But after siting and design of feasible recharge structures this network will need to be fortified locally. The objective of the monitoring system should be to evaluate the impact of the recharge structure on the natural groundwater system, in terms of groundwater levels, flow directions and qualities changes – and thereby determine the physical efficiency and cost [36]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE effectiveness of the recharge enhancement measures. Even taking a „bottom-up approach‟ to groundwater resource management with stakeholders playing a central role, one has to be aware of the national and state framework in order: Not to propose local arrangements in flagrant contradiction of the overall framework and that run substantial risk of being cancelled by court decisions on user appeals That lessons can be learned which could inform state level and contribute to the formulation of more realistic water policy and regulation. 3.1
Ground water hydrogeochemistry The hydrogeochemical processes reveal the zones and quality of water that are
suitable for drinking, agricultural and industrial purposes. Further, they help to understand the changes in water quality due to rock–water interaction as well as anthropogenic influences. The geochemical properties of groundwater also depend on the chemistry of water in the recharge area as well as the different geochemical processes that are occurring in the subsurface. These geochemical processes are responsible for the seasonal and spatial variations in groundwater chemistry (Matthess, 1982). Groundwater chemically evolves by interacting with aquifer minerals or internal mixing among different groundwater along-flow paths in the subsurface (Domenico, 1972; Wallick and Toth, 1976; Toth, 1984). Therefore, spatial distribution of chemical species gives some idea about the direction of groundwater movement. Schuh et al., (1997) indicated that increases in solute concentrations in the groundwater
were
caused
by
spatially
variable
recharge,
governed
by
microtopographic controls. Generally, the weathering of primary and secondary minerals also contributes cations and silica in the system (Jacks, 1973; Bartarya, 1993). Geochemistry has contributed significantly to the understanding of groundwater systems over the last 50 years. Historic advances include development of the hydrochemical facies concept, application of equilibrium theory, investigation of redox processes, and radiocarbon dating. Other hydrochemical concepts, tools, and techniques have helped elucidate mechanisms of flow and transport in ground-water
[37]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE systems, and have helped unlock an archive of paleoenvironmental information (Glynn and Plummer, 2005). The water-quality parameters reflect the effect of diverse natural (topographical, climatological, geological, biological) and anthropogenic (type of land use, local pollution) environmental factors on groundwater quality (Backman et al., 1998). There is obvious temporal and spatial changes of groundwater quality during prolong time and of groundwater exceeded the drinking water standards as a result of non-point pollution caused by the expansion of cultivated land and mass use by human beings (Bokar et al., 2004). There is a dynamic relation between the groundwater quality change and the land use change seasonally (Yongjun et al., 2006).The hydrochemical patterns of the water are the major concerning part of the ground-water study. Interpreting hydrochemical patterns and their value for natural background groundwater quality determination play an important role (Mendizabal and Stuyfzand, 2009). Geochemical processes controlling the water quality vary with the topography and land use of the basin (Chkirbene et al., 2009). The geology of a particular area has a great influence on quality of water and its environment. Many a time ground water carries higher mineral contents than surface water, because there is slow circulation and longer period of contact with sediment materials in case of groundwater. Changes of groundwater quality with the passage of time have hydrologic significances. The quality also varies due to a change in chemical composition of the underlying sediments and aquifer (Shahnawaz and Singh, 2009). 3.1.1 Some important geochemical study in international level To under stand the hydrogeochemical facies of Groundwater in the Rio de las Avenidas sub-basin Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico a hydrochemical investigation was done. Two dominated facies were observed during the study. These were namely bicarbonate-sodium and bicarbonate-calcium type. The decreasing order of cation and anions were as follows: Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, and HCO3-, Cl-, SO42-, CO3-. The major contaminant of this area was waste water (Huizar-Alvarez, 1997). Because of the complexity in addressing groundwater, particularly when assessing their status, The European Commission issued its proposal for a groundwater directive in september 2003; The European Parliament adopted a [38]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE resolution which partially amended the original proposal. The accepted amendments focus on the close interrelationship between quantitative status of groundwater and pollution; the state of surface water status as a minimum reference condition; the need of protecting groundwater in its own right and as a primary source of drinking water and to continue the protection of regime. On june 2005 the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, adopted a common position (with the contrary votes of Germany, Hungary, Italy and Sweden) (Onorati et al., 2006). The chemical composition of well samples throughout the different areas of Iran was determined by Jalali, (2006, 2007 and 2009a, b) with the aim of evaluating the concentration of the background ions and identifying the major hydrogeochemical processes that control the groundwater chemistry. He reported that the similarity between rock and groundwater chemistries in the recharge area indicates a significant rock-water interaction. The different hydrochemical types and different water type appeared to be caused by the dissolution of mineral phases and would appear to be caused by anthropogenic activities, such as intense agricultural practices (application of fertilizers, irrigation practice); urban and industrial waste discharge, among others. Groundwater quality in five catchment areas in Isfahan province of Iran was assessed by measuring physicochemical parameters including major cation and anion compositions, pH, total dissolved solid, electrical conductivity and total hardness. Four water facies were determined and it was shown that alkali elements and strong acids were dominating over alkaline earth and weak acids. Statistical analysis including Mann–Whitney U test indicate that physicochemical parameters in three of the five investigated basins [Gavkhuni, Ardestan and Central Iran desert (CID)] were similar, while Karoon and salt lake basins display different characteristics. The result indicate that groundwater west of the province was suitable for irrigation, while in the central and eastern parts of the province the groundwater loses its quality for this purpose. It was concluded that mineral dissolution and evapotranspiration were the main processes that determine major ion compositions (Esmaeili and Moore, 2011). In order to evaluate the quality of groundwater in study area analyzed for various ions of the Harzandat plain is part of the east Azerbaijan province, which lies between Marand and Jolfa cities, northwestern of Iran. Chemical indexes like sodium
[39]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE adsorption ratio, percentage of sodium, residual sodium carbonate, and permeability index were calculated. Based on the analytical results, groundwater in the area was generally very hard, brackish, high to very high saline and alkaline in nature. The abundance
of
the
major
ions
was
as
follows:
Cl−>HCO−3>SO2−4
and
Na+>Ca2+>Mg2+>K+. The dominant hydrochemical facieses of groundwater was Na−Cl type, and alkalis (Na+, K+) and strong acids (Cl−, SO2−4 ) are slightly dominating over alkali earths (Ca2+, Mg2+) and weak acids (HCO−3 , CO2−3 ). The chemical quality of groundwater was related to the dissolution of minerals, ion exchange, and the residence time of the groundwater in contact with rock materials. Assessment of water samples from various methods indicated that groundwater in study area was chemically unsuitable for drinking and agricultural uses (Aghazadeh and Mogaddam, 2011). A rapid development in population and infrastructure was one of the main causes for temporal changes in shallow groundwater quality Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan area. A statistical study of historical groundwater quality data was undertaken by Kelly and Wilson (2008) to determine the effect of urbanization activities in shallow groundwater quality. In this area a major part of the subsurface shallow aquifers were vulnerable by surface-derived contaminants; these scientists also reported that the increase in developed land may be directly escalating the rate at which groundwater quality is being degraded. The problems of sub surface drinking water quality was not only associated with the developed continents. This prime problem was also found in different parts of African countries which were very poor in context of industrializations.
The
situations in Kenya and Nairobi were similar to other situations in Africa. The rapid urbanization amid economic degradation in these stats had resulted in an increased proportion of people living in absolute poverty in the urban areas. Therefore, poverty had increasingly become a crucial urban problem in Kenya leading to mushrooming of informal settlements in the urban parts of Kenya where the urban poor find shelter. A prolong suffering from poor water quality in these slum settlements was a very common phenomenon (Kimani-Murage and Ngindu, 2007).
[40]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE The neglect of rural areas in most developing countries in terms of basic infrastructures such as pipe-borne water and sanitation facilities, expose the villagers to a variety of health related problems such as water borne diseases. In most rural settlements in Nigeria, access to clean and potable water was a great challenge, resulting in water borne diseases. The qualities of the well water samples were not suitable for human consumption. Threats from pollution either from human life style manifested by the low level of hygiene practiced in the developing nations were one of the main causes for the degradation of quality of drinking water (Adekunle et al., 2007). Water samples collected and tests were carried out in the water samples for heavy metals (zinc, cadmium, arsenic, iron and lead) and physico-chemical parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, alkalinity, chloride, sodium and potassium) in Abeokuta, South-Western Nigeria. The geophysical examination revealed that the depths of all the wells were below the standard recommended depth for deep wells in the basement complex area. Generally water samples do not conform to WHO (1984) maximum desirable standard, especially for parameters like Zn, Pb and Cd, but were still within the highest desirable levels recommended by WHO (1984). And finally the report suggested that the water, from which the samples were taken, needed to be subjected to treatment for use in drinking purpose (Ufoegbune et al., 2009). The ground water of the Middle mountain catchments of Nepal not suitable for drinking purposes, microbiological contamination was of particular concern; in addition to the high nitrate and phosphate levels was one of the serious problems in this valley (Dongol et al., 2005). Different aquifers of Sa˜o Paulo State, Brazil, were studied and from piper diagrams it was clear that the waters were blended by different lithologies. Significant correlations were found among different major ions like nitrate, chloride and bicarbonate. And it was due to different anthropogenic activity (Tonetto and Bonott, 2005). To characterise groundwater and delineate relevant water–rock interactions that control the evolution of water quality a study was done in Offin Basin, Ghana. [41]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Results showed that the groundwater was, principally, Ca–Mg–HCO3 or Na–Mg–Ca– HCO3 in character, mildly acidic and low in conductivity. Groundwater acidification was principally due to natural biogeochemical processes. Arsenic and iron were the main cause for degradation of water quality in this study area (Kortatsi et al., 2008). The hydrochemistry of groundwater in the Densu River Basin, Ghana was studied for multipurpose approaches. The analytical results of groundwater was weakly acidic, moderately mineralized. The Chemical constituents were as follows: Na+> Ca2+> Mg2+> K+ and Cl−> HCO−3> SO2−4> NO−3. The four main chemical water types were Ca–Mg–HCO3, Mg– Ca–Cl, Na–Cl, and mixed waters (neither a particular cation nor anion dominates). It was also reported that the influence of different anthropogenic activities have an impact upon the ground water (Fianko et al., 2009, a). In the same year to established the hydrochemistry and identify the various sources of contaminants as well assess the physical and chemical quality a detailed study had been carried out on groundwater in rural communities in the Tema District of the Greater Accra region of Ghana. The groundwater was found mildly acidic (pH 4.3–7.4), brackish to fresh. The majority of groundwater clustered toward Ca–Mg– SO4 and Na–Cl facies. The elevated levels of NO3-–N, Cl−, and SO42- emanating from anthropogenic activities (Fianko et al., 2009, b). A hydrochemical evaluation was done in a coastal region (Khulna) of southwest Bangladesh. In this study Salinity, total hardness, and sodium percentage (Na %) indicated that most of the groundwater samples are not suitable for irrigation as well as for domestic purposes and far from drinking water standard. Results suggested that the sea water intrusion and hydrogeochemical processes were the major causes for the brackish nature of ground water of this region (Bahar and Reza, 2010). The shallow groundwater main source for drinking in Kabul, Afghanistan had received tremendous amounts of pollution due to a lack of proper waste disposal and sewage treatment. Common indicators were elevated concentrations of nutrients such as nitrate and faecal bacteria (Houben et al., 2009).
[42]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE A hydrogeological and hydrochemical study was conducted on a shallow alluvial aquifer, Wadi Wajj, in western Saudi Arabia to assess the influence of protection measures on groundwater quality. Hydrochemistry of the aquifer shows temporal and seasonal changes as influenced by protection measures and rainfall runoff. Both groundwater and runoff showed similar chemical signature, which was mostly of chloride-sulfate-bicarbonate and sodium-calcium type. Concentrations of many of the groundwater quality indicators (e.g., TDS, coliform bacteria, and nitrate) exceed US Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water standards. Heavy metal content was, within allowable limits by standards. The chemical analyses also suggest the strong influence of stream runoff and sewage water on the groundwater quality (Al-Shaibani, 2008). The Pisa plain, Tuscany – central Italy, contains a multilayered confined aquifer made up of Pleistocene sands and gravels. The results show that TDS was strongly influenced by HCO3- and Cl-. Three component mixing process affects the groundwater chemical composition. The mixing process had been identified as: (a) diluted HCO3- meteoric water, which enters the plain mainly from the eastern and northern sides of the study area; (b) Cl-rich water, which largely characterizes the shallow sandy horizons of the multilayered aquifer system and had been attributed to the presence of seawater, as also suggested by d18O data; and (c) SO42- rich groundwater, which was linked to the hot groundwater circulation within Mesozoic carbonate formations and, at first sight, seemed to affect only the gravelly aquifer (Grassi and Cortecci, 2005). Geophysical and hydrochemical surveys were carried out to investigate the hydrogeological conditions in one of the R´ıo Sucio microbasins, in central Nicaragua. Low ion concentrations and
18
O analyses indicate that the springs occur
close to their recharge areas and there was a relatively rapid groundwater circulation. Mercury (Hg) content in the springs was low, while comparatively high amounts of lead (Pb) were found (Mendoza et al., 2006). A detailed hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical characterization of the Nif Mountain karstic aquifer system in western Turkey was done. Based on the geological and hydrogeological studies, four major aquifers were identified in the study area
[43]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE including the allochthonous limestone in Bornova flysch, conglomerate-sandstone and clayey-limestone in Neogene series, and the Quaternary alluvium. Furthermore, hydrogeochemical data revealed that groundwater quality significantly deteriorated as water moved from the mountain to the plains. Elevated arsenic concentrations were related to local geologic formations, which are likely to contain oxidized sulfite minerals in claystones (Simsek et al., 2008). The ionic and isotopic compositions of urban groundwaters had been monitored in Seoul, South Korea, to examine the water quality in relation to land-use. The tritium contents and the absence of spatial/seasonal change of O–H isotope data support the mixing of recent recharge water within aquifer with high contamination susceptibility. The statistical analyses show a spatial variation of major ions in relation to land-use type. The major ion concentrations tend to increase with anthropogenic contamination, due to the local pollutants recharge. The TDS concentration appears to be a useful contamination indicator, as it generally increases by the order of forested green zone, agricultural area, residential area, traffic area, and industrialized area. With the increased anthropogenic contamination, the groundwater chemistry changes from a Ca–HCO3 type toward a Ca–Cl+NO3 type (Choi et al., 2005). A comprehensive hydrogeochemical study was carried out in the Paleozoic Basses-Laurentides sedimentary rock aquifer system in St. Lawrence Lowlands, Qu´ ebec, Canada. The regional distribution of groundwater types shows that the hydrogeological conditions exert a dominant control on the major ions chemistry of groundwater. The region displays significant variations of groundwater geochemistry and quality controlled by glaciation, Champlain Sea invasion, lithological rock diversity, and flow system scales. This situation leads to varied groundwater types and origins within a restricted area (Cloutier et al., 2006). A detailed groundwater investigation was done in The Zhangye Basin, located in arid northwest China. Detailed knowledge of the geochemical evolution of groundwater and water quality can enhance understanding of the hydrochemical system, promoting sustainable development
and effective management of
groundwater resources. Ionic ratio and saturation index calculations suggest that
[44]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE silicate rock weathering and evaporation deposition were the main processes that determine the ionic composition in this area. The suitability of the groundwater for irrigation was assessed based on the US Salinity Laboratory salinity classification and the Wilcox diagram. In the study area, the compositions of the stable isotopes values indicate that precipitation was the main recharge source for the groundwater system; some local values indicate high levels of evaporation (Wen et al., 2008). Groundwaters of Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan, were analyzed to determine the status of concentration of different physicochemical parameters. The physicochemical parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved salts (TDS), TH, HCO3-, NO3- , SO42- , PO42-, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe, F-, and Pb had been analyzed. The results showed that values of the tested parameters for EC, TDS, TH, HCO3-, SO42- and Na+ near the contaminated source were very high, which indicate the descent of standard norms of quality and protection procedures for the groundwater around this area (Ahmad and Qadir, 2011). 3.1.2
Some important geochemical study in national level In many parts of India, especially in the arid- and semi-arid regions, due to
vagaries of monsoon and scarcity of surface water, dependence on groundwater resource has increased tremendously in recent years. Viewed in the international perspective of „<1,700 m3/person/year‟ as water stressed and „<1,000 m3/person/ year‟ as water scarce, India is water stressed today and is likely to be water scarce by 2050 (Gupta and Deshpande, 2004). In India there were several work had been conducted for assess the qualitative status of the ground water in different area by the different researchers in the urban and rural populations in semi-arid regions in and around different municipal and urban area around the year. Different types of industrial effluent and landfill leachates (Srivastava and Ramanathan, 2008) on groundwater quality are the important causes for the degradation of the different constituents of ground water (Singh, 2004; Umar et al., 2006; Majagi et al., 2008). A number of studies on groundwater quality with respect to drinking and irrigation purposes had been carried out in the different parts of India (Subba Rao and Krishna Rao,1984; Balasubramaian et al.,1985; Subba Rao and Krishna Rao, 1988; [45]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Subba Rao et al., 1988; Subba Rao et al., 1988; Subba Rao and Venkateswara Rao, 1988; Subba Rao et al., 1988; Subba Rao, 1988; Subba Rao and Krishna Rao, 1989.a,b; Subba Rao, 1989; Raviprakash et al., 1989; Subba Rao and Krishna Rao, 1990.a,b; Subba Rao et al.,1991; Durvey et al., 1991;Subba Rao and Krishna Rao, 1991.a,b,c;
Madhusudhana Reddy et al.,1991; Subba Rao,1992; Subba Rao et
al.,1993; Subba Rao,1993; Madhusudhana Reddy et al.,1994; Madhusudhana Reddy and Subba Rao,1995; Venkateswara Rao et al.,1996; Subba Rao et al.,1996;Agrawal and Jagetia, 1997; Niranjan Babu et al., 1997; Subba Rao,1997; Subba Rao et al.,1997; Venkateswara Rao et al.,1997; Subba Rao et al.,1998; Madhusudhana Reddy and Subba Rao,1998; Subba Rao, 1998; Subba Rao et al.,1998; Subba Rao and Gurunadha Rao,1999; Subba Rao et al.,1999; Subba Rao and Prathap Reddy,1999; Subba Rao and Madhusudhana Reddy,1999; Subba Rao et al., 1999; Majumdar and Gupta, 2000; Subba Rao,
2000; Subba Rao and Madhusudhana Reddy,2000;
Dasgupta and Purohit, 2001; Subba Rao et al.,2001; Subba Rao et al.,2001;Sathi Babu et al.,2001; Subba Rao and Prathap Reddy2001; Madhusudhana Reddy and Subba Rao, 2001; Venkateswara Rao and Subba Rao,2002; Subba Rao et al.,2002; Subba Rao,2002a,b,c; Khurshid et al., 2002; Subba Rao et al.,2002; Subba Rao,2003.a,b; Subba Rao and John Devadas ,2003; Nagamalleswara Rao et al.,2003; Vasudev Rao et al.,2003; Subba Rao and Rao 2003; Subba Rao and John Devadas, 2004; Sreedevi, 2004; Subba Rao and Prathap Reddy,2004; Subba Rao et al.,2005; Pulle et al., 2005; Husain et al., 2005; Sunitha et al., 2005; Subba Rao and John Devadas, 2005; Subba Rao, 2006.a,b,c; Subba Rao et al.,2006; Subba Rao and Reddy, 2006; Subba Rao and Madhusudhana Reddy, 2006; Subba Rao et al., 2006; John Devadas et al.,2006.a,b; Janardhana Raju, 2007; Subba Rao et al., 2007; Subba Rao et al., 2007; Srinivasa Rao et al.,2007; John Devadas et al.,2007; Subba Rao,2007; Subba Rao 2008.a,b,c,d; Gupta et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2008; Subba Rao,2009.a,b; Vikas et al., 2009; Subba Rao et al., 2009; Subba Rao and Surya Rao,2010; Subba Rao 2011.a,b;Prasanna et al.,2011; Subba Rao et al., 2012; Subba Rao et al., 2012; Subba Rao,2012.a,b,c). Chemistry of groundwater was an important factor determining its use for domestic, irrigation and industrial purposes. Interaction of groundwater with aquifer minerals through
which
it
flows
greatly
controls
the
groundwater
chemistry.
Hydrogeochemical processes that were responsible for altering the chemical
[46]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE composition of groundwater vary with respect to space and time. In any area, groundwater had unique chemistry due to several processes like soil/rock–water interaction during recharge and groundwater flow, prolonged storage in the aquifer, dissolution of mineral species, etc. (Hem, 1985). Earlier studies reported the importance of hydrogeochemical studies of groundwater in a particular region (Sikdar et al., 2001; Apodaca et al., 2002; Tesoriero et al., 2004;Möller et al., 2007), and hydrogeochemical studies will help to create suitable management plans to protect aquifer as well as remedial measures for contaminated groundwater by natural and manmade activities(Subramani et al., 2010).The hydrogeochemical processes reveal the zones and quality of water that were suitable for drinking, agricultural and industrial purposes. Further, they help to understand the changes in water quality due to rock–water interaction as well as anthropogenic influences. The geochemical properties of groundwater also depend on the chemistry of water in the recharge area as well as the different geochemical processes that are occurring in the subsurface. These geochemical processes were responsible for the seasonal and spatial variations in groundwater chemistry. Groundwater chemically evolves by interacting with aquifer minerals or internal mixing among different groundwater along-flow paths in the subsurface. Therefore, spatial distribution of chemical species gives some idea about the direction of groundwater movement.
Generally, groundwater at the
discharge zones tend to have higher mineral concentration compared to that at the recharge zones due to the longer residence time and prolonged contact with the aquifer matrix. Reactions between groundwater and aquifer minerals have a significant role on water quality, which are also useful to understand the genesis of groundwater (Kumar et al., 2006). The Kali-Hindon in Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India was a watershed in the most productive central Ganga plain of India. Systematic study was carried out to assess the source of dissolved ions, impact of sugar factories and the quality of groundwater. The quality of groundwater is suitable for irrigational purposes but was rich in SO42- which was not best for human consumption and the graphical treatment of major ion chemistry helps to identify chemical types of groundwater. And Sugar factories are responsible sources for relative enrichment of SO42- in ground water (Umar et al., 2006). [47]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE A study was conducted for the analyzed the Nitrate–N and Fluoride concentrations in shallow and unconfined ground water aquifers of Ganges Alluvial Plain Kanpur district, Northern India. Among the three seasons (summer, monsoon and winter) no significant variation in water quality parameters was observed. Both the point sources (animal wastes derived from cows and buffaloes) and non point sources (extensive agricultural activity) were the major attributed for the nitrate contamination in ground water. And fluoride concentration in most samples was within the BIS maximum permissible limit (Sankararamakrishnan et al., 2008). In parts of the Central Ganga Plain, Western Uttar Pradesh, India the major ion chemistry of groundwater shows large seasonal variations in ground water chemical quality, so much so that at times the meteoric signature seems. The observed chemical variations may be attributed to sediment water interaction, ion exchange, dissolution mechanisms and anthropogenic influences such as application of fertilizers and effluents from sugar factories and paper mills (Umar et al., 2009). Shahnawaz and Singh in the year 2009 suggested that as at border line i.e. 0.05 mg/L in many parts of Piro and Jagdishpur Blocks of Bhojpur District, Bihar, it was a part of middle gangatic plain of India. And they also suggest that in this district the arsenic problem tend to grow with passage of time. Hence a scientific and periodic measure was required to combat this problem. An attempt had been made to understand the sources and processes affecting the quality of groundwater in southern slope of the Trombay Hilly region Maharashtra, India by monitoring the hydrochemistry of shallow and deep groundwater of this area. And all the measured parameters of the groundwaters indicate that the groundwater quality was good and within permissible limits set by (Indian Bureau of Standards 1990). Farther more, it was also reported that the Shallow groundwater was dominantly of Na–HCO3 type whereas deep groundwater was of Ca–Mg–HCO3 type (Tirumalesh et al., 2010). Hydrogeochemical investigations were carried out in the south-eastern part of the Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India, to assess the quality of groundwater for its suitability for domestic and irrigation purposes. The area falls under a semi-arid type of climate and consists of granites and pegmatites of igneous [48]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE origin of Archaean age. The results of the water chemistry showed that the concentrations of Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+, K+, CO3-2, HCO3-, SO4-2, NO3-, Cl- and F- ions were above the permissible limits for drinking and irrigation purposes. The pollution with respect to NO3-, Cl- and F- was mainly attributed to the extensive use of fertilizers and large-scale discharge of municipal wastes into the open drainage system of the area (Sujatha and Rajeswara Reddy;2003). In East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, India increase in iron (Fe) concentrations in the groundwater was observed. The main objective of the research work was to study the occurrence and distribution of iron in the groundwater with special reference to various geological formations and geomorphology (Rao, 2007). Groundwater in Palnad sub-basin was alkaline in nature and Na+-Cl– -HCO3
–
type around Macherla– Karempudi area in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh. The dominant features aquifer lithology was Calcareous Narji Formation. And water-rock interaction controls the groundwater chemistry of the area. Chloro-alkaline indices (CAI) are positive at Miriyala, Adigopula, Mutukuru, Macherla and Durgi suggesting replacement of Na+ and K+ ions from water by Mg2+ and Ca2+ ions from country rock through base exchange reactions. Negative CAI values were recorded at Terala, Rayavaram and Nehrunagar, which indicate exchange of Na+ and K+ from the rock as cation-anion exchange reaction (chloro-alkaline disequilibrium). Scanty rainfall and insufficient groundwater recharge were the prime factors responsible for high salinity in the area. Ground water of this region carries a high fluoride contamination. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and % Na+ in relation to total salt concentration indicate that groundwater mostly falls under doubtful to poor quality for irrigation purpose (Gupta et al., 2009). A Hydrogeochemical studies were carried out in the Penna–Chitravathi river basins, Anantapur districts of the Andhra Pradesh, India, to identify and delineate the important geochemical processes which were responsible for the evolution of chemical composition of groundwater. The groundwater in the study area was of Na+– Cl−, Na+–HCO3−, Ca2+–Mg2+–HCO3−, and Ca2+–Mg2+–Cl− types. The evolution of water
chemistry
was
influenced
by
water–rock
interaction
followed
by
evapotranspiration process. The ground water quality of the area was dependent upon
[49]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE the aquifer material mineralogy, semiarid climate, poor drainage system, and low precipitation (Reddy and Niranjan Kumar, 2010). Groundwater survey were carried out in the area of Gummanampadu subbasin located in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India for assessing the factors that were responsible for changing of groundwater chemistry and consequent deterioration of groundwater quality. The groundwater is a prime source for drinking and irrigation due to non-availability of surface water in time. The area is underlain by the Archaean Gneissic Complex, over which the Proterozoic Cumbhum rocks occur. The ionic relations also suggest that the higher concentrations of Na+ and Cl- ions were the results of ion exchange and evaporation. The influences of anthropogenic source was the other cause for increasing of Mg2+, Na+, Cl-, SO42- and NO3- ions. Further, the excess alkaline condition in water accelerates more effective dissolution of F--bearing minerals. Moreover, the water of the study area was not suitable for drinking with reference to the concentrations of TDS, TH, and Mg2+ and F-. The study recommends suitable management measures to improve health conditions as well as to increase agricultural output (Subba Rao et al., 2012). The present state of quality of the groundwater from lower part of Ponnaiyar River basin, Cuddalore District, South India was far from drinking water standard and not suitable for domestic purposes. The higher concentration of toxic metals (Fe and Ni) was one of the major causes of it. The results also reveal that the groundwater in many places was contaminated by higher concentrations of Cl- and PO4-2. The chemical composition of the groundwater was controlled by mixing of seawater, ionexchange reactions, dissolution processes and anthropogenic inputs. And above all the most serious pollution threat to groundwater of this region was from nitrate ions, which was associated with sewage and fertilizers application (Jeevanandam et al., 2007). Dominated geochemical signatures in the ground water of Kancheepuram district, Tamil Nadu, India was by calcium and bicarbonate ions. A large huge spatial and temporal variation was found among with in major ions such as Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+, K+, Cl-, HCO3-, CO32-, and SO42-. Ca-HCO3 and Ca-Cl-HCO3 type dominated facies were the main dominated phenomenon. Interpretation of hydrochemical data suggests
[50]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE that calcium carbonate dissolution, ion-exchange processes, silicate weathering, and mixing of aerosols were responsible for the variation in ground-water chemistry (Lakshmanan et al., 2003). Different important Physical and chemical parameters of groundwater were analysed to determined Hydrochemistry of groundwater in Chithar Basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Interpretation of analytical data was used to assess the quality of groundwater for determining its suitability for drinking and agricultural purposes. Concentrations of the chemical constituents in groundwater show spatial and temporal variations. Groundwater in the area was generally hard, fresh to brackish, high to very high saline and low alkaline in nature. High total hardness and TDS in a few places identify the unsuitability of groundwater for drinking and irrigation (Subramani et al., 2005). To identify the major process activated for controlling the groundwater chemistry an attempt had been made throughout the two different season, viz., premonsoon and post - monsoon in Mettur taluk NW of Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. The results of ground water chemistry shows sources of cations were dominated by silicate weathering and ion exchange processes. The plot for Na+ to Clindicates higher Cl- in both seasons, derived from different man made sources (fertilizer, road salt, human and animal waste, and industrial applications) (Srinivasamoorthy et al., 2008). To study the seasonal variation as well as Hydrogeochemical constituents of groundwater quality in Vedaraniyam Town, Tamil Nadu an investigation was done. The finding shows that the most of the area falls in Na-Cl type and according to USSL classification the ground water of this area moderately suitable for irrigation purpose. The sea water influence highly reflected in water quality of this area. (Ramkumar et al., 2010). A detailed investigation was carried out to evaluate the geochemical processes regulating groundwater quality in Cuddalore district of Tamilnadu, India. Groundwater samples were collected from the study area and analyzed for major ions. The hydrogeochemical evolution of groundwater in the study area starts from Mg– HCO3 type to Na–Cl type indicating the cation exchange reaction along with seawater [51]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE intrusion. The Br/Cl ratio indicates the evaporation source for the ion. The Na/Cl ratios indicate groundwater probably controlled by water-rock interaction, most likely by derived from the weathering of calcium–magnesium silicates. The plot of (Ca+Mg) versus HCO3- suggests ions derived from sediment weathering. The plot of Na+K over Cl- reflects silicate weathering along with precipitation. Gibbs plot indicates the dominant control of rock weathering. Factor analysis indicates dominance of salt water intrusion, cation-exchange and anthropogenic phenomenon in the study (Srinivasamoorthy et al., 2011). A study was conducted to evaluate the water quality of Kottur block, Thiruvarur district, Tamilnadu. Dominance of cations are in the following order Na+>Ca2+>K+>Mg2+ and Cl->SO42->HCO3->NO3- by anions in both the seasons. The analytical results shows higher concentration of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, sodium, chloride, and sulfate which indicate signs of deterioration but values of pH, Ca+2, Mg+2 and NO3- were within permissible limit as per World Health Organization standards. From the Piper trilinear diagram, it was observed that the majority of groundwater samples were Na-Cl and Ca-Mg-SO4 facies clearly indicates seawater incursion. In Wilcox diagram, most of the samples fall in low to very high sodium hazard and low to very high salinity hazard indicates moderately suitable for agricultural activities. Kelly‟s ratio and magnesium ratio indicates most of the samples fall in suitable for irrigation purpose (Ramkumar et al., 2011). Groundwater quality of Gulbarga District, Karnataka, India was extensively monitored for two years by Majagi et al., 2008. The study revealed that the water sources in the area were heavily polluted. The major water quality parameters exceeding the permissible limits during all the seasons were total hardness, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, alkalinity and MPN (Bacterial count) and other parameters had shown distinctive seasonal variation. A Systematic hydrogeochemical survey had been carried out by Devadas et al., 2007 for understanding the sources of dissolved ions in the groundwaters of the area occupied by Sarada river basin, Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh. Most groundwater was belongs to Na+:HCO3
–
facies due to chemical weathering of the
rocks. The occurrence of higher concentrations of K+, SO42–, NO3
–
and F– in the
[52]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE groundwater was attributable due to anthropogenic activities like extensive use of fertilizers in agricultural fields and high concentrations of Cl– and Na+ suggest a seawater intrusion in this area, whereas Cl–/Na+ ratios higher than the seawater value indicate that this process was accompanied by Na+-Ca2+ exchange. The quality and suitability of groundwater of Jaypur city of Rajasthan had been investigated by Tatawat and Singh Chandel (2008). Rapid urbanization and industrialization causes the scarcity and degradation of quality of groundwater. This study reflects the major ion concentration, their relative abundance and variation of ground water chemistry. In Ajmer district, central Rajasthan falls in the semi-arid tract of and was geologically occupied by Precambrian rocks (granites, pegmatites, gneisses, schists etc) where groundwater occurs under unconfined condition. Geochemical behaviour of groundwater from the study area suggests that Chemical weathering under arid to semiarid conditions with relatively high alkalinity, low level of Ca and long residence time of interaction seem to have favoured high concentration of fluoride in groundwater. Presence of fluoride bearing minerals in the host rocks and their interaction with water was considered to be the main cause for fluoride enrichment in groundwater. Decomposition, dissociation and dissolution were the main chemical processes responsible for mobility and transport of fluoride into groundwater (Vikas et al., 2009). The results of hydrochemical study revealed that most of the water samples were out of limit according to the WHO standards (1996) of Alwar districts, the eastern plains of Rajasthan. The potability of ground water is going to be deteriorated. There is a rigorous fluoride problem in various parts of Alwar region. Total hardness of the groundwater of the most of the study area was fall in the hard category. Higher concentration of EC, TDS, Cl−, F- and NO3− in the study area indicates sign of deterioration, which calls for at least primary treatment of groundwater before being used for drinking (Mudgal et al., 2009). Another site was selected for the hydro-geochemical investigation (Gambhir River basin in the Bharatpur District) in Rajasthan, India. A ground water hydrogeochemical study was carried out to understand the sources of dissolved ions [53]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE and assess the chemical quality of the ground water. Groundwater of this area had a chemical composition within the permissible limits suggested for drinking water. Only Nitrate was higher than the acceptable limit in some samples and it may be due to the use of fertilizers. Graphical treatment of the major ion chemistry helps in deciphering the chemical characteristics of groundwaters, which may then be used for grouping the samples to identify the trends of the chemical alteration of the meteoric water. Four groups had been identified in this basin groundwater system: (1) HCO3 enriched, (2) mixed type, (3) alkali-rich, high TDS type, and (4) HCO3 deficient. Possible aqueous species had been identified for these four groups of samples. In groups I and II, the species are Ca (HCO3)2, Mg (HCO3)2, NaCl, Na2SO4 and NaHCO3. Group III, in addition to these species, has abundance of KCl. Group IV has Ca (HCO3)2, NaCl, CaSO4, and rather rare species such as CaCl2, MgCl2 and MgSO4. Interpretation of the data reveals that feldspar and pyrite weathering reactions do not play a significant role in giving groundwaters their observed chemical characteristics (Umar and Absar, 2003). Quality assessment of water of Sambhar lake city and its adjoining areas Rajasthan was studied to determine the suitability for drinking, agricultural, and industrial purposes. The analytical results show higher concentration of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity sodium, nitrate, sulfate, and fluoride, which indicate signs of deterioration but values of pH, calcium, magnesium, total hardness, and carbonate were within permissible limits as per WHO (1996) standards. Chemical analysis of groundwater shows that mean concentration of cation was in order Na+> Mg2+>Ca2+>K+ while for the anion it is Cl− >HCO3- >NO3–>SO42– (Joshi and Seth, 2011). The study of phyco-chemical characterization and overall water quality or suitability of ground water for drinking purpose in Rampur district, Uttar Pradesh India had been done by Sindhu and Sharma in the year 2007. They reported that the water quality was very poor and unsuitable for drinking purpose and water may not be used for drinking as well as domestic purpose. The hydrogeochemical study of groundwater in Dumka and Jamtara districts Jharkhand, India had been carried out to assess the major ion chemistry,
[54]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE hydrogeochemical processes and groundwater quality for domestic and irrigation uses. The analytical results show the faintly alkaline nature of water and dominance of Mg2+ and Ca2+ In cationic and HCO3- and Cl- in anionic abundance. The concentrations of alkaline earth metals (Ca2+ Mg2+) exceed the alkali metals (Na+ K+) and HCO3- dominates over SO42-+Cl- concentrations in the majority of the groundwater samples. Ca–Mg–HCO3- was the dominant hydrogeochemical facies in of the groundwater samples, followed by Ca–Mg–Cl hydrogeochemical facies. The water chemistry of this area was largely controlled by rock weathering and ion exchange processes with secondary contribution from anthropogenic sources. The inter-elemental correlations and factor and cluster analysis of hydro-geochemical database suggest combined influence of carbonate and silicate weathering on solute acquisition processes. For quality assessment, analyzed parameter values were compared with Indian and WHO (1996) water quality standards. In majority of the samples, the analyzed parameters were well within the desirable limits and water was potable for drinking purposes. The calculated parameters such as sodium adsorption ratio, percent sodium ( % Na) and residual sodium carbonate revealed excellent to good quality of groundwater for agricultural purposes, except at few sites where salinity and magnesium hazard (MH) values exceeds the prescribed limits and demands special management (Singh et al., 2012). The coastal parts of India experiences severe degradation of water quality due to various anthropogenic activities. A study was done by Laluraj et al., (2005) in the costal aquifers of Kerala. Along with hydro-geochemistry they also reported that presence of micro biological contamination in dug wells indicated potentially dangerous fecal contaminations, which require immediate attention. Pathogenic microorgansims, i.e. illness-causing bacteria and viruses can enter groundwater as a result of anthropogenic influences, e.g. emissions of faeces, sewage and toxins. Most of the diseases caused by contaminated groundwater are attributable to the input of such microorganisms. The bacterial contamination of aquifers almost always concerns faecal contamination. The most important intestinal inhabitant of warm-blooded creatures was the bacterium Escherichia coli. This bacterium can only multiply within the intestines of its host and has a limited lifetime outside of its natural habitat of 40– 60 days. It was therefore a good indicator of recent faecal contamination. In Kabul [55]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE basin Afghanistan this indicator parameter ware studied by Houben et al., 2009 and here the reported fecal contamination were very high. A study was carried out to analyze groundwater quality of Nalbari district, Assam, India. Chemical analysis of the groundwater showed that mean concentration of cations in (mg/L) is in the order Ca2+>Mg2+>Na+>K+ while for anions it were HCO3->Cl->SO42->F-. The groundwaters of about 97% of the samples were found to be suitable for drinking purpose. The value of the sodium absorption ratio and electrical conductivity of the groundwater samples were plotted in the US Salinity laboratory diagram for irrigation water. Most of the groundwater samples fall in the field of C2S1 and C3S1 indicating medium to high salinity and low sodium water, which can be used for irrigation on almost all types of soil with little doubt of exchangeable sodium. The hydrochemical facies shows that the groundwater is CaHCO3 type (Sharma et al., 2012). A hydrogeochemical investigation was done southern part of district Bathinda of Punjab, India, during pre- and post-monsoon seasons of 2007. Negative values of chloroalkaline indices suggest the prevalence of reverse ion exchange process irrespective of the seasons. A significant effect of monsoon was observed in terms chemical facies as a considerable amount of area with temporary hardness of Ca2+– Mg2+ –HCO3- type in the pre-monsoon switched to Ca2+–Mg2+–Cl- type followed by Na+–HCO3- type in the post-monsoon. Evaporation was the major geochemical process controlling the chemistry of groundwater process in pre-monsoon; however, in post-monsoon ion exchange reaction dominates over evaporation. Carbonate weathering was the major hydrogeochemical process. The abundance of Ca2+ + Mg2+ can be attributed mainly to gypsum and carbonate weathering. Silicate weathering also occurs in a few samples in the post-monsoon in addition to the carbonate dissolution. Water chemistry was deteriorated by land-use activities, especially irrigation return flow and synthetic fertilisers (urea, gypsum, etc.) as indicted by concentrations of nitrate, sulphate and chlorides (Singh et al., 2011). In West Bengal and different parts of the India and Bangaladesh many works have done on groundwater quality particularly in relation to arsenic contamination (Das et al., 1994; Chatterjee et al., 1995; Bhattacharya et al., 1997; Nickson et al.,
[56]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2000; McArthur et al., 2001, 2004; Pal et al., 2002a, b; Anawar et al., 2002; Sengupta et al., 2004; Rahman et al., 2005; Ravenscroft et al.,2005; Bibi et al.,2006; Acharyya and Shah 2007; Bhattacharya et al., 2007; Pal and Mukherjee, 2009). The chemical characteristics of surface, groundwater and mine water of the upper catchment of the Damodar River basin were studied to evaluate the major ion chemistry, geochemical processes controlling water composition and suitability of water for domestic, industrial and irrigation uses. Water chemistry of the area reflects continental weathering, aided by mining and other anthropogenic impacts (Singh et al., 2008). 3.2
Isotope and ground water recharge Apart from hydrogeochemistry the study of different environmental isotopic
measurement were also carried out in order to predict the origin, recharge area and flow of ground water of the particular area. The residence time of the ground water can also be determined by environmental isotopes study. Both chemical and isotopic data are commonly used in order to understand groundwater movement, water–rock interactions and age in large sedimentary basins (IAEA 1981, 1983; Edmunds et al., 1987; Love et al., 1994; AL-Charideh and Abou-Zakhem, 2010). Hydrogeochemical and isotopic methods have been popular tools for groundwater research all over the world (Guendouz et al., 2003). Recently, Glynn and Plummer (2005) gave a comprehensive review of the significant contributions of geochemistry to the understanding of groundwater systems over the past 50 years. Furthermore, hydrogeochemical and isotopic methods had been successful as economical ways to study local and regional groundwater in alluvial fans, for example to determine groundwater types in the arid and semiarid environments (Schu¨rch and Vuataz 2000); to identify sources of groundwater; (Abd El Samie and Sadek, 2001; Matter et al., 2006; Plummer et al., 2004; Stimson et al., 2001); to evaluate the quantity of groundwater recharge (Abu-Jaber and Wafa, 1996; Ne´grel et al., 2003; Wood and Sanford, 1995); and to research the interaction of different waters such as deep and shallow groundwater (Dassi et al., 2005), surface and groundwater (Ne´grel et al., 2003), and the replenishment of groundwater (Zhang et al., 2005). These methods had provided insights into characteristics of recharge which are difficult and [57]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE expensive to obtain with physical-based methods. For example, in arid UAE and Oman, Tang et al., (2001) illustrated the spatial distribution of recharge to groundwater using hydrogeochemical and isotopic (Deuterium and oxygen-18) methods in five geomorphologic settings (mountain area, wadis, sand dunes, inland sabkhas, and coastal sabkhas). In NCP, hydrogeochemical and isotopic methods had been used to determine the chemical evolution of groundwater, to evaluate its past, current status and future, and to provide understanding for groundwater management (Chen et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2005). However, these works paid more attention to the spatial evolution, interconnection of individual aquifers, and vulnerability of groundwater from the piedmont, central plains, and littoral plain on a regional scale. Moreover, most of them were carried out in the central or north NCP rather than the southwest (Li et al., 2007). Radioisotopes were used to determine average groundwater residence times in the different aquifers and where applicable Different recharge areas and moisture sources were proposed based on environmental isotope data and tested for their consistency with the overall geochemical evolution of the groundwaters. It was shown that a sound understanding of groundwater evolution including quantification by geochemical modeling refines the conclusions obtained from isotope studies alone. The stable isotopes, deuterium (2H) and oxygen-18 (18O), and the radioactive isotope, tritium (3H), were rare components of the water molecule H2O, and can offer a broad range of possibilities for studying processes within the water cycle. Stable isotope data from these components of the hydrologic cycle can provide useful information on the relationship between rainwater and groundwater and among waters from different aquifers. Stable isotopes may also be used for estimating recharge rates directly according to techniques described by Saxena and Dressie (1984) and Allison et al., (1984). For a sustainable management of groundwater resources in this area, especially from the context of supply planning, there was the need for an understanding of the renewal rate, thus information about replenishment of the groundwater becomes fundamental. The main control was the balance between the rates of recharge and that of discharge, and these fundamentals were not clearly understood in this area, and indeed in most semi-arid and arid regions. In this study, an attempt was made to trace stable isotope signal from rainwater to groundwater and [58]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE in the different aquifers in order to demonstrate whether or not present day recharge was taking place in a qualitative sense (Goni, 2006). The recharge process to groundwater was very important to assess regional water resources in mountains. It was rarely measured in the field in semi-arid and semi-humid mountainous region. The proper simulation of this recharge requires detailed knowledge of hydrological processes integrating precipitation, soil water along the profile and groundwater. Stable isotopes (oxygen–18 and deuterium) were used to estimate regional recharge and evaporation and water vapor transport in soils and interaction of water vapor between soil and air (Barnes and Walker, 1989; Li et al., 2007). In arid regions, the assessment of available groundwater resources was key to the economic development and increased prosperity. In order to evaluate the existing groundwater resources and to develop improved water management strategies, it was primarily necessary to identify the dominant infiltration areas, sources of recharge and major groundwater flow paths as well as to estimate groundwater residence times. Many studies from semi-arid to arid areas had focused on the evaluation of recharge, its sources and spatial variability as well as the estimation of groundwater residence times by using mainly environmental isotopes and to a lesser extent hydrochemical data, e.g. chloride concentrations (e.g. Adar and Neuman, 1988; Edmunds and Gaye, 1994; Matter et al., 2006). The relationship between the stable isotopic and chemical composition of precipitation and groundwater was studied in the Nuaimeh area of the Ajloun Highlands in Jordan. The geochemistry and isotope content of the precipitation and groundwater in this area has provided useful information regarding the mechanism of recharge and residence time of groundwater. The isotopic composition values of precipitation and groundwater were almost identical. The spatial variation of stable isotopes in precipitation was mainly due to the effect of seasonal temperature, altitude and amount. The demand for water had increased tremendously in the last 20 years due to the increase in population, and the expansion of agricultural and industrial activities. To satisfy the increased need for water, new groundwater wells had been drilled at various locations in the basin, and the abstraction from all groundwater sources had increased beyond the perennial yield of the Yarmouk Basin. Chemical and isotopic analyses of precipitation in the study area were undertaken as a basis for [59]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE investigating the origin and subsurface history of groundwater in the study area (Bajjali, 2006). Deuterium, d18O, major ions and dissolved silica in groundwater from semiarid Mayo-Tsanaga river basin in the Far North Province, Cameroon were used to trace hydrogeochemical processes that control their concentrations and to explore for usability of the water. Waters from piedmont alluvium show low concentrations in major cations, which peak in Mg within basalt, Na within plain alluvium, and Ca within basalt and the sandy Limani-Yagoua ridge. The main processes controlling the major ions composition include the following: (1) dissolution of silicates and fluorite; (2) precipitation of fluorite and carbonate; (3) cation exchange of Ca in water for Na in clay; (4) and anthropogenic activities. The lowest and highest isotope ratios were observed in groundwater within the downstream sandy Limani-Yagoua ridge and the upstream graintes respectively. Variation in isotope ratios depends on altitude effect and on evaporation, which had insignificant effect on the water salinity. Maximum percent of the groundwater shows poor drinking quality but suitable for irrigation (Fantong et al., 2009). 3.2.1 last
Previous stable isotopic studies of Bengal basin groundwater: During the few
decades,
several
international
organizations
have
studied
the
hydrogeochemistry of the Bengal basin by using a variety of hydrogeologic techniques. Previous researchers (e.g. Dansgaard,1964; Gat and Gonfiantini, 1981; Dray, 1983; Krishnamurthy and Bhattacharya, 1991;Aggarwal et al., 2000; Basu et al.,2001; Stüben et al., 2003; Klump et al., 2006) had used stable isotopic techniques to understand hydrogeochemical processes in the region. Published studies on δ18O and δ2H distributions in the Bengal basin had been limited. Shivanna et al., (1999) reported that the aquifers in Murshidabad were connected, while there was limited connectivity between deeper and shallower groundwater in South 24 Parganas. They also showed that isotopic compositions of both the shallow groundwater and rivers were seasonally dependent, with maximum depletion occurring in December and maximum enrichment in May, probably because of enrichment by enhanced evaporation. Aggarwal et al., (2000) provided a detailed and systematic basin-scale study of Bangladesh, in which they discussed the
[60]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE mechanisms of as mobilization based on stable isotopic signatures. They also evaluated the effect of geomorphic and sea level changes on atmospheric isotope composition and hence recharge. Stüben et al., (2003) reported that the shallow groundwater of Behrampur, Murshidabad district was of meteoric origin. Klump et al., (2006) reported that the concluded from their study site that there was a difference in δ18O values between groundwaters above and below ~ 30 m from ground surface, suggesting mixing of chemically and isotopically distinct groundwater bodies at that depth in Bangladesh (Munshiganj). Zheng et al., (2005) studied of rainwater, surface water and shallow groundwater at Araihazar, Bangladesh. They discussed that the composition of precipitation falls on the GMWL and that the surface water bodies were significantly evaporated, resulting in a δ18O enrichment in the dry season. Aggarwal et al., (2000) suggested the isotopic composition of recharge in their Bangladesh study area to be ~ -4.5‰ for δ18O and ~ -30‰ for δ2H. 3.3
Microbial interference in ground water quality The contamination of natural water with faecal material from sewage and
agricultural runoff may result in an increased risk of disease transmission to humans (Geldreich, 1991; Wiggins, 1996). Diarrhoeal disease problems from contaminated water represent a serious hazard in developing countries and chronic one in developed countries. Human pathogenic microorganisms that were transmitted by water include bacteria (enterobacteriacae, Vibrio), viruses (hepatitis A), and protozoa Guardia sp. Most of these microorganisms usually grow in the human intestinal tract and reach to outside in the faeces. Faecal coliforms had been seen as an indicator of faecal contamination (LeChavallier et al., 1996) and were commonly used to express microbiological quality of water and as a parameter to estimate disease risk (WHO, 1984; Bartram and Wheeler, 1993; WHO, 1993). Most Probable Number (MPN) is a typical test for faecal coliform based on lactose fermentation using elevated temperatures and different medium formulations as described by the American Public Health Association (1998). Contaminated groundwater was the most commonly reported source of waterborne disease. Ground water flow and transport of microbial pollutant were neither readily observed nor easily measured. Both processes were [61]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE generally slow and ground water pollution trends to be insidious, can be wide spread and was invariably very persistent. The restoration of aquifers once polluted was excessively expensive and technically problematic (WHO, 1993). A high spatial and temporal variability of pollution was generally generated by the interaction of several factors, such as temporal distribution of precipitations (Celico et al., 2005) infiltration mechanisms, length of transport, dilution, dispersion (Matthess and Pekdeger, 1981), type of soil and its degree of saturation (Lance and Gerba, 1984), filtration (Iwasaki, 1937; Yao et al., 1971), adsorption (Maier et al., 2000) and retardation factors (Matthess et al., 1985). Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) fingerprinting was used to study in several groundwater wells in the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The results show that a clear separation of the microbial communities from the two chemical zones of the aquifer was present. And that the composition of the microbial communities can follow seasonal fluctuations in groundwater chemistry. Between summer and winter, community structure changed somewhat, and these changes were similar in magnitude and direction to changes in groundwater chemistry during the same period (Franklin et al., 2000). In order to provide a scientific basis for groundwater protection in the Tam Duong karst area in NW Vietnam, different types of field methods had been applied including hydrogeological framework investigations, tracer tests, and hydrochemical and a portable microbiological water testing kit and analyses. The hydrochemical and microbiological data from the study confirmed that the strong impact of the streams sinking was present into the swallow holes on the spring water quality (Nguyet and Goldscheider, 2006). Mecosta County, In Michigan, In general, groundwater quality was good, with below detection levels of E. coli, low total bacterial counts, and relatively low nutrient concentrations. No statistically significant associations were found between the bacterial numbers and land use or the physical/ chemical attributes measured (Steinman et al., 2007). In Pozzo del Sale Spring (southern Italy), a multidisciplinary field investigation was done. From the results of the investigation it was cleared that the [62]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Microbial contamination of fecal origin indicates the mixing of hyper- and low- saline water related to local infiltration (Celico et al., 2008). 3.4
Water quality defined via WQI an effective tool Water, a natural resource which has been used for different purposes, namely
for drinking, domestic, irrigation and industrial, mainly depends on its intrinsic quality hence it was of prime importance to have prior information on quality Assessment. The application of Water Quality Index (WQI) was regarded as one of the most effective way to communicate water quality. Horton (1965) suggested that the various water quality data could be aggregated into an overall index. The general WQI was developed by Brown et al., (1970) and improved by the Scottish Development Department (1975). The use of water quality indices can help to overcome communication problems between scientists and water managers or policymakers. However, their application should always involve the necessary prudence, as standardization and aggregation of the variables were subjective procedures accompanied by a loss of information. Therefore, the index can never be considered as a final quantitative assessment of water potability, but should be applied as a purpose-specific water management tool. The GWQI monitors the impact of agriculture on absolute groundwater quality, measuring it to drinking water standards and thereby directly evaluating potability. The resulting maps, being easily interpretable, could serve as a communication tool to inform the local population as well as governmental agencies of environment and agriculture about the water quality problems. The fact that groundwater in the upper aquifers was unsuitable for consumption in almost the entire mapped area was rather concerning, since many rural households, not connected to the municipal water supply system, rely on local groundwater for domestic use. A simple methodology based on multivariate analysis was developed to create a groundwater quality index (GWQI) and a composition index (GWCI) in Campina de Faro, south of Portugal. The aim of monitoring was study the joint influence of agriculture on several key parameters of groundwater chemistry and potability. Index maps were created, providing a comprehensive picture of the contamination problem and easily interpretable for people outside the scientific domain. In the case studies,
[63]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE the GWQI maps reveal that groundwater quality in the upper aquifers was extremely low, with an almost complete absence of potable water (Stigter et al., 2006). WQI was defined as a technique of rating that provides the composite influence of individual water quality parameters on the overall quality of water for human consumption. The water quality index (WQI), a mathematical instrument used to transform large quantities of water quality data into a single number which represents the water quality level. In fact, developing WQI in an area was a fundamental process in the planning of land use and water resources management. Assessing the water quality status for special use is the main objective of any water quality monitoring studies. This was farther developed by different scientists for different purpose in time to time. WQI is an important parameter for demarcating groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking purposes. (Dalkey, 1968; Liebman, 1969; Prati et al., 1971; O‟Connor, 1972; Harkins, 1974; Walski and Parker, 1974; Inhaber, 1975; Shaefer and Janardan, 1977; Couillard and Lefebvre, 1985; Tiwari and Mishra, 1985; House and Ellis, 1987; Sinha and Shrivastava, 1994; Subba Rao, 1997; Backman et al., 1998; Mishra and Patel, 2001; Naik and Purohit, 2001;Coulibaly and Rodriguez, 2004; Sahu and Sikdar, 2008; Avvannavar and Shrihari, 2008; Samantray et al., 2009; Rajankar et al., 2009; Saeedi et al., 2010). It can be used to monitor water quality changes due to effective leaching of ions, over exploitation of groundwater, direct discharge of effluents, and agricultural impact (Sahu and Sikdar, 2008; Ramakrishnaiah et al., 2009) in a particular water source in different season of the year (Vasanthavigar et al., 2010). Or it can be used to compare a water supply‟s quality with other water supplies in the region or from around the world. The results can also be used to determine if a particular stretch of water is considered as “healthy” (Rajankar et al., 2009).The water quality index (WQI) is a mathematical instrument used to transform large quantities of water quality data into a single number which represents the water quality level. In fact, developing WQI in an area was a fundamental process in the planning of land use and water resources management. For any city, a ground water quality map is important for drinking and irrigation purposes and as precautionary indication of potential environmental health problems (Chatterjee et al., 2010).
[64]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE For computing WQI assigned a weight for each of the chemical parameter according to its relative importance in the overall quality is one of the suitable method for the easy way to draw the original qualitative picture of any study area. Here the computed quality had been classified in to 5 different categories as per their quality rating. The WQI values were classify in 5 groups according to their numerical sum value - (< 50 excellent water, 50–100 good water, 100–200 poor water, 200–300 very poor water, > 300 Water unsuitable for drinking. (Sahu and Sikdar, 2008; Yakubo et al., 2009; Yidana and Yidana, 2010). Ground water samples were collected and analyzed from 40 villages of Gandhinagar taluka (Gujarat, India). The findings show the drinking water quality and irrigation water suitability of this region. As per ground water quality index Gandhinagar taluka, Gujarat, India was poor for drinking purpose as per Water Quality Index. Without prior treatment the water was not suitable for drinking purpose (Shah et al., 2008). A water quality index was calculated using water quality index calculator given by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) information system at Khaperkheda region, Maharashtra (India). The calculated results of WQI showed fair water quality rating in post monsoon season which then changed to medium in summer and winter seasons for dug wells, but the bore wells and hand pumps showed medium water quality rating in all seasons where the quality was slightly differs in summer and winter season than post monsoon season (Rajankar et al., 2009). Conventional graphical and statistical methods were used with water quality indices to characterize the hydrochemistry of groundwater from the northern part of the Volta region of Ghana. Water quality indices (WQI) were calculated for the samples using the concentrations of Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, NO3-, F-, and EC at the various sample locations. The WQI values indicate that groundwater from the study area was of excellent quality for drinking purposes. WQI values from groundwater samples were averagely higher than samples taken from surface water sources in the area. This implies that geology had an impact on the WQI of groundwater in the area (Yakubo et al., 2009).
[65]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE To assess the water quality index a study was done throughout the Tumkur taluk, Karnataka State, India. For calculating the WQI, the following 12 parameters had been considered: pH, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate, sulphate, total dissolved solids, iron, manganese and fluorides. The high value of WQI has been directly proporsonal with the higher values of iron, nitrate, total dissolved solids, hardness, fluorides, bicarbonate and manganese in the groundwater (Ramakrishnaiah et al., 2009). An attempt had been made to understand the hydrogeochemical parameters to develop water quality index in Thirumanimuttar sub-basin. A Water quality index rating was calculated to quantify overall water quality for human consumption. The PRM samples exhibit poor quality in greater percentage when compared with POM due to effective leaching of ions, over exploitation of groundwater, direct discharge of effluents and agricultural impact (Vasanthavigar et al., 2010). In order to assess the groundwater quality of Qazvin province, west central of Iran, simple methodology based on multivariate analysis a groundwater quality index (GWQI) was prepared. In the case study, the GWQI map reveals that groundwater quality in two areas was extremely near to mineral water quality. Created index map provides a comprehensive picture of easily interpretable for regional decision makers for better planning and management (Saeedi et al., 2010). To isolate the dominating factor which plays a significant role in the hydrochemistry of groundwater from the southern Voltaian sedimentary formation, Ghana, a hydrogeochemical Water quality index (WQI) study was prepared. The study reveals three main factors controlling the hydrochemistry. Silicate mineral weathering and reverse cation exchange were the most important processes affecting the hydrochemistry of groundwater at this part of the formation. The study reveals three main factors controlling the hydrochemistry. Silicate mineral weathering and reverse cation exchange are the most important processes affecting the hydrochemistry of groundwater at this part of the formation. Carbonate mineral weathering was the second most important process in the hydrochemistry (Yidana and Yidana, 2010).
[66]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.5
Irrigation water quality Irrigation can be defined as replenishment of soil water storage in plant root
zone through methods other than natural precipitation. All water sources used in irrigation contain impurities and dissolved salts irrespective of whether they were surface or underground water. Ground water resources are one of the major factors, particularly for the planning of the sustainable regional development of agriculture, as well as for socio-economic development in general. However quality of water has meaning only with respect to its particular use. Water which can be considered good quality for household use may not be ideal for irrigation. In agriculture, water quality was related to its effects on soils, crops and management necessary to compensate problems linked to water quality. It was very important to note that not all problems of soil degradation like salinity, soil permeability, toxicity etc. can be related to irrigation water quality. Agriculture had profound effects on the rates and compositions of groundwater recharge. Irrigation and drainage had altered groundwater fluxes and flow patterns. In addition, agricultural
contaminants
had
caused
substantial
changes
in
groundwater
geochemistry and water-rock interactions, which had received somewhat less attention. Global trends indicate that agricultural effects on the hydrochemical cycle will continue to be important topics of research in the future (Tilman et al., 2001).Agriculture had direct and indirect effects on the rates and compositions of groundwater recharge and aquifer biogeochemistry. Direct effects include dissolution and transport of excess quantities of fertilizers and associated materials and hydrologic alterations related to irrigation and drainage. Some indirect effects include changes in water–rock reactions in soils and aquifers caused by increased concentrations of dissolved oxidants, protons, and major ions. Groundwater records derived from multicomponent hydrostratigraphic data can be used to quantify recharge rates and residence times of water and dissolved contaminants, document past variations in recharging contaminant loads, and identify natural contaminantremediation processes. These data indicate that many of the world‟s surficial aquifers contain transient records of changing agricultural contamination from the last half of the 20th century. The transient agricultural groundwater signal had important
[67]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE implications for long term trends and spatial heterogeneity in discharge (Böhlke, 2002). The ground water geochemical flow in aquifer can also studied by the different water type (Martínez and Bocanegra, 2002). Chemistry of groundwater suggests that dominance of posses in different type of hydrochemical species from where we can easily assess the suitable for irrigation uses and the effect of over draw down for the agricultural use (Wen et al., 2008, Tyagi et al., 2009, Afroza et al., 2009, Kumar et al., 2009). Agriculture was a dominant sector in the economic development of India, as it was the source of sustenance for the majority of the population, and contributes 46% of the gross national product (Singh, 1983). The amount of water pumped by farmers from India‟s aquifers was greatly exceeding natural recharge in many areas. In the western part of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, where the recharge approach described here was initiated, rainfall ranges between 650 and 1,000 mm annually, but only 200 mm naturally percolate through the soil layer to replenish underlying aquifers. Most of this rainfall, which was concentrated during the 3 months of the monsoon, does not have time to be absorbed into already saturated soil and so runs off eventually flowing unused into the sea. If a fraction of this runoff could be stored underground through artificial recharge, the problem of declining water tables that plagues much of the region could be solved. About one billion people were directly dependent upon groundwater resources in Asia alone (Foster, 1995), and the dependence on groundwater had increased tremendously in recent years in many parts of India, especially in the arid and semiarid regions, due to the vagaries of monsoon and the scarcity of surface water. Even though the quantity and quality of water available for irrigation is variable from place to place in India, many groundwater exploitation schemes in developing countries like India are designed without due attention to quality issues. Rapidly shrinking surface water resources due to over-exploitation and resultant contamination with several chemical and biological agents all over the globe had shifted tremendous pressure on the groundwater resources, contributing to the complexity of its quality assessment. Furthermore, continuously reduced annual recharge of the groundwater aquifers over
[68]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE the decades had lowered the groundwater table, influencing the redox chemistry of the aquifer and solid–water interfaces, causing mobilization of several chemical constituents of the aquifer matrices. Usually, water quality gets modified in the course of movement of water through the hydrological cycle that depends on the natural and anthropogenic processes which can alter these systems by contaminating them or modifying the hydrological cycle. The composition of groundwater in a region can be changed through the operation of the processes such as evaporation and transpiration (evapo-transpiration), wet and dry depositions of atmospheric salts, selective uptake by vegetation, oxidation/reduction, cation exchange, dissociation of minerals (soil/rock–water interactions), precipitation of secondary minerals, mixing of waters, leaching of fertilizers and manure, pollution of lake/sea, and biological process (Appelo and Postma, 1993). A complete assessment of the suitability of water for irrigation was based on the evaluation of the total ionic content of the water as reflected by its electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR) as well as the temporal variation in the concentrations of specific ions such as sodium, calcium, chloride, and carbonate (Yidana et al., 2008). Like drinking, groundwater quality was an important criterion to decide the water for irrigation activities. Several researchers evaluated the suitability of groundwater for irrigation using various parameters, Based on these analyses, irrigation water quality can be estimated by means of sodium absorption ratio, % Na, residual sodium carbonate, residual sodium bicarbonate, chlorinity index, soluble sodium percentage, non-carbonate hardness, potential salinity, permeability index, Kelley‟s ratio, magnesium hazard/ratio, index of Base Exchange, and exchangeable sodium ratio Wilcox, and US Salinity Laboratory (USSL) classifications, etc. (AlBassam and Al-Rumikhani, 2003; Al-Futaisi et al., 2007; Elampooranan et al., 1999; Elango et al., 2003; Jeevanandam et al., 2007; Rajmohan et al., 1997; Subramani et al., 2005; Sujatha and Rajeshwara Reddy, 2003; Ravikumar et al., 2010; Nagarajan et al., 2010). The reduction in hydraulic conductivity that occurs during the application of treated wastewater to soils had been investigated by a number of researchers including Clanton and Slack (1987) and Abo-Ghobar (1992). The cause of the reduction in [69]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE hydraulic conductivity was attributed to chemical, physical and biological processes. The physical process of clogging of the soil by the coarse fraction of suspended solids had been found to be far more important in reducing the hydraulic conductivity than the other factors (Vinten et al., 1983). Soil hydraulic properties depend on the adsorbed cation composition and on the electrolyte concentration of the infiltrating solution (Quirk and Schofield, 1955; McNeal et al., 1968). Quality of water was assuming great importance with the rising pressure on industries and agriculture and rise in standard of living (Isaac et al., 2009). The quality of irrigation water can affect the soil fertility and productivity. Soil that was originally non saline and non alkaline may develop saline and alkaline character if excessive soluble salts or exchangeable sodium were allowed to accumulate in the soil as the result of improper irrigation or soil management practices, or inadequate drainage. In excessively irrigated farms or areas of sufficient rainfall, the soluble salts originally present in the soil or added to the soil with water are carried downward by the water and ultimately reach the water table and may affect the groundwater quality (Haritash et al., 2008). The impact of urbanization on the groundwater regime within a specific urban area depends both on its geographical location and the economic status of the city or even the country. Demand of ground water and the adverse impact of urbanization were world wide. The effects of urbanization on the groundwater regime in a fast growing medium-sized city in a developing country where the infrastructure developments were not in conformity with the rapid growth in population. Reduction in recharge, as conventionally assumed due to the impact of urbanization, could not, however, be well established. Instead, there was a rise in recharge as water use in the city grew from time to time and more and more water was supplied to satisfy the human needs. There was a general decline in groundwater levels due to increased groundwater utilization for irrigation purposes. Especially in dug wells, mainly due to misuse and disuse of these structures and poor circulation of groundwater (Naik et al., 2008). The concentration of nutrients in groundwater acts as an indicator to identify the influence of agricultural activities on the shallow subsurface environment. A study
[70]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE was carried out to assess nutrient concentration (nitrate, phosphate and potassium) and understand its spatial and seasonal variations in the groundwater of Palar and Cheyyar River basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Results of the study suggested that agricultural activities, including application of fertilizers, soil mineralization processes and irrigation return flow, are major processes regulating the nutrients chemistry in the groundwater of this region. Groundwater in the sedimentary formation had comparatively higher concentration of nutrients than the groundwater in hard rock formations which seems to be due to the adsorption of nutrients by the weathered rock materials (Rajmohan and Elango, 2005). The lower Varuna River basin in Varanasi district situated in the central Ganga plain was a highly productive agricultural area, and is also one of the fast growing urban areas in India. The agricultural and urbanization activities have a lot of impact on the groundwater quality of the study area. The river basin was underlain by Quaternary alluvial sediments consisting of clay, silt, sand and gravel of various grades. The hydrogeochemical study was undertaken in order to understand the sources of dissolved major ions. All samples were useful for irrigation purpose but having nitrate content more than permissible limit (>45 mg/l) which was not good for human consumption. Application of N-Fertilizers on agricultural land as crop nutrients along the Varuna River course may be responsible for nitrate pollution in the groundwater due to leaching by applied irrigation water. The other potential sources of high nitrate in ground water are poor sewerage and drainage facilities, leakage of human excreta from very old septic tanks, and sanitary landfills (Raju et al., 2009). Use of irrigation water is available from various sources in agriculture. To justify its suitability and/or adverse effect on environment and health
various
resources viz., canal, sewage pipe line, tube wells in confined aquifers, tube wells in unconfined aquifers, and wells in the Chaka block district Allahabad, India were chemically analyzed. The major aim of the study was to check its suitability for irrigation and to classify it according to amount of salts present, sodium adsorption ratio, SAR, residual sodium carbonate, RSC, and soluble sodium percentage, SSP etc. The analytical results reveal that the various constituents in the water samples were within the prescribed limits and can be used for irrigation purpose without any harm (Isaac et al., 2009). [71]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE In another hydrogeochemical study at Jaipur City, was done to know the suitability of groundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes. The physicochemical parameters of groundwater participate a significant role in classifying and assessing water quality. A preliminary characterization, carried out using the piper diagram, shows the different hydrochemistry of the sampled groundwater. This diagram shows that most of the groundwater samples fall in the field of calcium-magnesium-chloridesulfate type (such water had permanent hardness) of water. For better understanding of irrigation suitability the analytical data are plotted on the US Salinity Laboratory diagram, which illustrates that most of the groundwater samples fall in the field of C2S1 and C3S1. And the irrigation classification suggested that the ground water can be used for irrigation on almost all type of soil with little danger of exchangeable sodium. The irrigation chemical indices like %Na, SAR, and RSC were good for irrigation application (Tank and Singh Chandel, 2009). The suitability of groundwater for irrigation was evaluated in Markandeya River basin, Belgaum District, Karnataka State, India based on the irrigation quality parameters like boron, SAR, %Na, RSC, RSBC, SSP, non-carbonate hardness, potential salinity, permeability index, Kelley‟s ratio, magnesium hazard/ ratio, and index of Base Exchange. Maximum results show suitable for irrigation purpose (Ravikumar et al., 2010). A study was undertaken to assess the ground water quality as affected by monsoon rain in „Gohana‟ Block of Haryana state, which is located in a semiarid region of the country. The water samples were analyzed for pH, EC, major cations (Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+, K+), and major anions ( HCO3-, SO4-2, NO3-, Cl-) and specific irrigation water quality indices (SAR, RSC, Mg / Ca ratio) have been determined. Among different cations, Na+ was found as the most dominant cation, followed by Mg+2, Ca+2, and K+ during both premonsoon, and postmonsoon periods. SAR values of the groundwater collected from the area high for premonsoon period. Co-relation matrix indicated that EC was highly correlated with Cl-, Na+, Mg+2 and Ca+2. Overall, a marginal improvement of all most all the parameters of groundwater took place due to rainfall (Pradhan et al., 2011).
[72]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3.6
Interpretation of groundwater quality using multivariate statistical
approach Many of the hydrochemical characteristics and relative susceptibilities can describe and analysed via different statistical analysis. The fact that statistical techniques were becoming both more powerful and available and the obvious usefulness of in resolving many problems related to groundwater geology and hydro geochemistry. The use of statistical techniques in studying the causes of geochemical variations in aquifers can provide important results which cannot be derived in other ways. It was also clear that the different multivariate statistical techniques, such as cluster analysis (CA), principal component analysis (PCA), factor analysis (FA), and discriminate analysis (DA), were widely applied to evaluate groundwater quality through data reduction and classification and can help determine the various mechanisms causing chemical variation in the aquifers and the relative susceptibility of each aquifer to different types of pollution (Kaiser,1960; Joreskog et al., 1976; Johnson and Wichern,1982; Lawrence and Upchurch,1982; Abu-Jaber et al., 1997; Antonio and Pacheco,1998; Liu et al., 2003; Mahlknecht et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2005; Olobaniyi and Owoyemi, 2006; Marengo et al., 2008).Descriptive capabilities of conventional and multivariate statistical analysis has been successfully applied in a number of ground water evaluation and hydrogeochemical studies (Parinet et al., 2004; Mrklas et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2009). The relatively complex setting and geological history of the study area can be distinguished by two proven methods of multivariate analysis namely hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and factor analysis (FA). To identify the processes controlling the geochemical evolution of the Veeranam catchment Area, Tamil Nadu groundwater the HCA and FA were applied by Suvedha et al., (2009). Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater samples from Gooty area of Annata district Andhrapradesh were carried out by Sunitha et.al., (2005) in order to classify its suitability for municipal, agriculture and industrial use. Physico –chemical parameters and correlation co-efficient of groundwater of north –east libya was carried out by Nair et.al., (2005)
.Highly
significant
(P <0.004), moderately
[73]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE significant (P<0.01) and significant (P≤0.05) correlation between the parameters were worked out. A hydrogeochemical investigation was carried out in Yulin city. The water quality of the region was classified indifferent categories. A principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out in order to analyze the groundwater environment. The impact of leaching/eluviation of solid waste generated from coal mining, improper irrigation. In addition ground water geological and Hydrogeological conditions also cause changes in the water environment (Dong-lin et al., 2007). Hydrochemistry of groundwater of Mankanu Island were study to characterize the hydrogeochemical facies and hydrogeochemical models of groundwater on the basis of phyco-chemical properties. The application of factor analysis was shows the different sources of variation in the hydrochemistry and application of varimax rotation was ensure the clear definition of the main sources of variation in the hydrochemistry of the area. (Aris et al., 2007a, b) The use of factor analysis was proposed, as a first step, for identifying the processes influencing the hydrogeochemical variations in groundwater of a hard rock terrain in Andhra Pradesh, India. In factor analysis, three factors were obtained, and which explained characterization of groundwater quality and identified the sources for the presence of ions and its variations in concentrations and their geochemical processes. The spatial and seasonal variation of the hydrogeochemical processes associated with the factor variables in the groundwater quality of the study area were also analysed and evaluated (Rao Yammani et al., 2008). Principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out to determine the hydrochemical facies of groundwater in Serra Geral aquifer system (SGAS) southern Brazil, with high fluoride content and the distribution of hydrochemical facies show a close relationship between PCA clustering and the specific geological settings (Nanni et al., 2009). Hydrochemistry of groundwater in Ain Azel plain, Algeria was used to assess the quality of groundwater for determining its suitability for drinking and agricultural purposes. Interpretation of analytical data shows that Ca-Mg-HCO3 - and Ca-Mg-ClSO4-2 are the dominant hydrochemical facies in the study area. Factor analysis [74]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE generated three significant factors. Factor 1 includes EC, Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+ and Cl-, factor 2 has high loading values of K+ and HCO3- and the factor 3 includes SO42- and NO3-. The US salinity diagram illustrates that most of the samples fall in C3S1 quality with high salinity hazard and low sodium hazard. The groundwater of Ain Azel plain is low concentration of nitrogenous elements (NO3- and NO2-) and the higher concentration of trace elements (Pb+2 and Fe+2) may entail various health hazards (Belkhiri et al., 2010). In Darb El-Arbaein, analytical results of hydrogeological and hydrochemical investigation of different groundwater samples, the statistical analyses were performed (R-mode, Q-mode, correlation analysis, and principal component analysis) to classify on their depending chemical characters. The correlation investigation clarifies the relationship among the lithologic, hydrogeologic, and anthropogenic factors. Factor investigation revealed three factors, namely, the evaporation process– agricultural impact–lithogenic dissolution, the two main clusters that subdivided into four sub clusters were identified in the groundwater system based on Hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical data. The reflection of the impact of geomedia, hydrogeology, geographic position, and agricultural wastewater in ground water were clearly noticed. (Kashouty and Abdel-Lattif, 2011). South-eastern part of Cabo Verde archipelago, Santiago Island In order to understand the influence of the anthropogenic activities on the water quality and the main origin of the salts in groundwater, a statistical approach principal components analyses(PCA) was performed on the physico-chemical data. The results obtained indicate water– rock interaction mechanisms as the major process responsible for the groundwater quality (mainly calcium-bicarbonate type), reflecting the lithological composition of the subsurface soil. Also, anthropogenic contamination was identified, in several points of the island (Carreira et al., 2010). A comprehensive quantitative approach including statistical, principal component and gray relation analyses was done from 2000 to 2009 to assess the groundwater chemistry Tarim River lower reaches, Northwest China. The main findings were: (1) there were six types of groundwater chemistry in the lower reaches of Tarim River where Cl--SO4-Na+-Mg2+ was the dominant type all samples. There
[75]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE were linear relationships among chemical parameters, where TDS had significant multiple correlations with Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and Cl-, respectively. (2) Three principal components (PC1, PC2 and PC3) were extracted. They included comprehensive measurements for salinization, alkalinity and pH, respectively. Most parameters showed decreasing trends during the study period. (3) HCO3- was the most sensitive chemical parameter affected by the groundwater table followed by others (Xu et al., 2012). Multivariate statistical techniques, such as cluster analysis (CA), factor analysis (FA), principal component analysis (PCA), and discriminant analysis (DA), were applied for the evaluation of variations and the interpretation of a large complex groundwater quality data set of the Hashtgerd Plain, Iran. FA based on PCA, was applied to the data sets of the two different groups obtained from CA, and resulted effective factors explaining maximum % of the total variance in groundwater quality data sets of the measured clusters. The main factors obtained from FA indicate that the parameters influencing groundwater quality were mainly related to natural (dissolution of soil and rock), point source (domestic wastewater) and non-point source pollution (agriculture and orchard practices) in the study area. Overall, the results of this study present the effectiveness of the combined use of multivariate statistical techniques for interpretation and reduction of a large data set and for identification of sources for effective groundwater quality management (Nosrati and Eeckhaut, 2012). A multivariate statistical technique has been used to assess the factors responsible for the chemical composition of the groundwater near the highly polluted Adyar River. Basic chemical parameters of the groundwater have been pooled together for evaluating and interpreting a few empirical factors controlling the chemical nature of the water. Factor score analysis was used successfully to delineate the stations under study with the contributing factors, and the seasonal effect on the sample stations was identified and evaluated. Box-whisker plots were drawn to evaluate the chemical variation and the seasonal effect on the variables. R-mode factor analysis and cluster analysis were applied to the geochemical parameters of the water to identify the factors affecting the chemical composition of the groundwater. Dendograms of both the seasons gives two major clusters reflecting the groups of [76]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE polluted and unpolluted stations. The other two minor clusters and the movement of stations from one cluster to another clearly bring out the seasonal variation in the chemical composition of the groundwater. The results of the R-mode factor analysis reveal that the groundwater chemistry of the study area reflects the influence of anthropogenic activities, rock-water interactions, saline water intrusion into the river water, and subsequent percolation into the groundwater. The complex geochemical data of the groundwater were interpreted by reducing them to seven major factors, and the seasonal variation in the chemistry of water was clearly brought out by these factors. In the urban area, the Pb concentration is high due to industrial as well as urban runoff of the atmospheric deposition from automobile pollution (Venugopal et al., 2008). 3.7
GIS applicability for thematic mapping GIS is an effective tool for storing large volumes of data that can be correlated
spatially and retrieved for the spatial analysis and was able to take temporal changes into account and to provide the final more reliable and current version of outputs (Chaudhary et al.,1996;Hrkal, 2001). Moreover, GIS makes the groundwater quality maps into an easily understood format. GIS had been used by scientists of various disciplines for spatial queries, analysis and integration for the last three decades. The Remote Sensing, geographical information system (GIS) were one of the important assessment techniques have been used for a long time to study groundwater in term of its movement, quantity, and quality throughout the world. Remote sensing process has unique potentiality of vividly displaying the size, shape, pattern and spatial distribution of various confined and unconfined aquifer systems, their signature of addition or alteration and / or deformation and the morphogenetic landforms. Better interpretation of hydro-geological and hydrogeochemical data often requires that their spatial location be incorporated into the analysis. GIS can be used for storing hydrogeological data as well as their spatial locations in relational database (Shahid et al., 2000). It also provides the facility to analyze the spatial data objectively using various logical conditions. As a result, nowadays, GIS was widely used for study the spatial and temporal variation of hydrological and hydro-geological phenomena of large areas with more reliability. Blending of these methods and technologies had proved to be an efficient tool in groundwater studies. Remote sensing and GIS had been used [77]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE primarily for the mapping of topographical phenomena, extraction of land use/cover, urban growth monitoring (Epstein et al., 2002, Sudhira et al., 2004; Jat et al., 2007), Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping (Dimitriou and Zacharias,2006), mapping of groundwater potential (Khan and Mahorana, 2002; Shaban et al., 2005), indirect estimation of groundwater potential (Subba Rao, 2006) and recharge (Shahid et al., 2000; Shaban et al., 2005), change detection studies (Jat et al., 2008). These technologies had also been used in many studies for the impact assessment of urbanization on groundwater quantity and quality (Barber et al., 1996; Graniel et al., 1999; Jeong, 2001; Mapani, 2005; Jat et al., 2009). A number of studies were conducted to determine potential sites for groundwater exploration in diverse geological set ups using remote sensing and GIS techniques (Krishnamurthy and Srinivas, 1995; Kamaraju, 1997; Srivastava et al., 1997; Srivastava and Battacharya 2000; Dhiman and Keshari, 2006). Most of the groundwater studies based on GIS were concentrated on the preparation of hydrogeomorphological maps, interpretation of lineaments and integrated terrain analysis (Anbazhagan and Nair, 2004). Assessing the quality of groundwater was important to ensure sustainable safe use of these resources. However, describing the overall water quality condition was difficult due to the spatial variability of multiple contaminants and the wide range of indicators (chemical, physical and biological) that could be measured. This contribution proposes a GIS-based groundwater quality index (GQI) which synthesizes different available water quality data (Babiker et al., 2007). GIS can be used as a powerful tool for developing solutions for water resources problems for assessing water quality(Chen et al., 2007), determining water availability, preventing flooding, understanding the natural environment, and managing water resources on a local or regional scale (Asadi et al., 2007). A GIS based Irrigation water quality index had been proposed in a study at the Simav Plain located in western Anatolia, Turkey. This analytical methods depend upon five hazard groups: (a) salinity hazard, (b) infiltration and permeability hazard, (c) specific ion toxicity, (d) trace element toxicity; and, (e) miscellaneous impacts on sensitive crops. And outcome of study was the general groundwater fairly good and mostly suitable for irrigation purposes (Simsek and Gunduz, 2007).
[78]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Some groundwater relatad pollution for example the Arsenic pollution in west Bengal and Bangladesh was a well known phenomenon it can easily identify by detailed hydrochemical study of the As effected area and can also marked by means of GIS mapping (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2006). Remote sensing, evaluation of digital elevation models (DEM), geographic information systems (GIS) and fieldwork techniques were combined to study the groundwater conditions in Eritrea. Results show that groundwater occurrence is controlled by lithology, structures and landforms. The overall results demonstrate that the use of remote sensing and GIS provide potentially powerful tools to study groundwater resources and design a suitable exploration plan (Solomon and Quiel, 2006). A Geographical Information System platform was used in the Bhatsa and Kalu river basins in the Thane district in the western Deccan volcanic province of India. The results identified the potentiality of ground water in that area. The hydro geochemical quality of groundwater was suitable for domestic and irrigational purposes (Ravi Shankar and Mohan, 2006). A study on geo-environmental quality assessment in Jharia coalfield, India, had been attempted using multivariate statistical analysis and geographic information system (GIS) modeling techniques. Here Multicriteria Evaluation (MCE), a potential GIS tool, had been applied to the delineation of various degrees of stressed villages in terms of quality of life (QoL). The groundwater quality map of the study area represents the influence area delineation of various status categories of groundwater, viz. very poor, poor, good and very good (Sarkar et al., 2007). A Geographical Information System (GIS) based assessment of spatiotemporal behaviour of groundwater Hydrogeochemical quality had been carried out in the upland sub-watersheds of Meenachil River, parts of Western Ghats, Kottayam, Kerala, India. The aim of the study was used to assess the quality of groundwater for determining of quality and pictorially representation of its suitability. The spatial analysis of groundwater quality patterns of the study area shows seasonal fluctuations and these spatial patterns of physical and chemical constituents are useful in deciding water use strategies for various purposes (Vijith and Satheesh, 2007). [79]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Groundwater was a major resource for meeting huge domestic and agricultural requirements of Kaithal district in Haryana, India. Therefore, to evaluate its quality in terms of suitability for domestic and agricultural sectors a set of Spatial distribution maps were generated for hydrogen ion concentration, total dissolved solids, total hardness, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption ratio, residual sodium carbonate and percent sodium using the geographic information. Furthermore, from the GIS based pictorial representation of the study area it was very easy to demarcate into different groundwater quality zones for domestic and agricultural use by applying various national and international standards. It was reported from the study that the groundwater of the study area was predominantly hard, alkaline and saline in nature (Goyal et al., 2010). Another GIS based Groundwater quality assessment in Dhanbad district, Jharkhand, India was reported by Chatterjee et al., 2010. The aim of the study the spatial variation of groundwater quality based on an integrated analysis of physicochemical parameters and use of Geographic Information System (GIS). As groundwater was a vital source of water for domestic and agricultural activities in Thanjavur city, Tamil Nadu, India due to lack of surface water resources, groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural usage were evaluated by integrated groundwater suitability map. The irrigational suitability of groundwater in the study region was also evaluated and pictorially represented in irrigation suitability map (Nagarajan et al., 2010). By using the Geoinformation System the thematic maps were prepared to identify the contaminated sites of Dindigul, Tamilnadu, India. Results showed that most of the locations were contaminated by higher concentration of EC, TDS, K+, and NO3-. Majority of the samples were not suitable for domestic purposes and far from drinking water standards. However, PI values indicate that groundwater was suitable for irrigation (Dar et al., 2011). Analytical results of groundwater quality in Jada and environs indicated that the order of abundance of cation concentration were Ca2+>Mg2+>K+>Na+ while those of the anions were HCO3->Cl->SO42->NO3-. The groundwater quality was good for human consumption based on Revelle and Contamination indices but poses health [80]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE risk due to bacteriological contamination. EC, TDS and TH values indicated good quality water for irrigation practice. The chemical Index such as SAR, RSC, and KI, % Na, PI and MR were calculated. The results indicated that PI and MR values revealed groundwater quality that was unsuitable for irrigation practice. The geographical information system using Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) delineated areas of different groundwater quality status based on selected parameters (Ishaku et al., 2011).
[81]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Table3.1: List of selected studies carried out in different parts of the country (India) (Source: Subba Rao et. al., 2011). Researcher(s)
Year
Area
State
Jacks
1973
Coimbatore
Tamil Nadu
1977
Jaipur
Rajasthan
Bilas
1980
Varanasi
Kakar and Bhatnagar
1981
Ludhiana
Handa et al.,
1983
Faridabad
Sharma
1988
Bhopal
1989
Luknow
1989
Tirupati
Tamil Nadu
1994
Bhubanehwar
Orissa
Olania and Saxena
Sahgal et al., Sukhija et al., Mehta et al., Rao and Thangarajan
Uttar Pradesh Punjab Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh
1996
Chennai
Tamil Nadu
1996
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh
Niranjan Babu et al.,
1997
Sagarnagar
Andhra Pradesh
Rajmohan et al.,
1997
Subba Rao et al.,
1998
Elampooranan et al.,
1999
Kaushik et al.,
2002
Rohtak and Fridabad
Hariyana
Subba Rao
2002
PhirnagipuramMuppala Area
Andhra Pradesh
Subba Rao et al.,
2002
Guntur
Andhra Pradesh
Elango et al.,
2003
Kancheepuram
Tamil Nadu
Subrahmanyam
Nagai Quaid-EMilleth, Araku, Paderu, Chintapalli, Dharakonda Cauvery Delta,
Kerala
Main objective of the study Chemistry of groundwater Chloride and iron pollution Groundwater quality Metal pollution Chromium pollution Major ions and metal pollution Nitrate pollution Nitrate and bacterial pollution High iron hazards Groundwater decline, saline water intrusion and contamination Groundwater decline and contamination Groundwater quality Groundwater quality
Andhra Pradesh
Groundwater quality
Karnataka
Hydrochemistry Groundwater quality Geochemistry of groundwater Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality Hydrogeochemical processes of groundwater [82]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher(s)
Year
Area
State
Singhal et al.,
2003
Roorkee
Uttaranchal
Umar and Absar
2003
Gambhir River Basin
Rajasthan
Aravindan et al.,
2004
Khurshid and Zaheerudin
2004
Biswal et al.,
2004
Sreedevi
2004
Rajmohan and Elango
2005
Hussain et al.,
2005
Bhilwara district
Rajasthan
Reddy and Prasad
2005
Tadpatri
Andhra Pradesh
Kumaresan and Riyazuddin
2005
suburban area
Chennai city
Singh et al.,
2005
Gangetic plain
Uttar Pradesh
Subba Rao et al.,
2005
Visakhapatnam
Andhra Pradesh
Gopinath and Seralathan
2006
Muvatterpuzha River Basin
Kerala
Jeevanandam et al.,
2006
Ponnaiyar River Basin
Tamil Nadu
Kumar et al.,
2006
Delhi
Delhi
Laluraji and Girish Gopinath
2006
Muvattupuzha River Basin
Kerala
Nagaraju et al.,
2006
Mangampeta
Raju
2006
Gunjanaeru River Basin
Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh
Singh et al.,
2006
Indo-Gangetic Area
Uttar Pradesh
Subba Rao
2006
PhirnagipuramMuppala
Andhra Pradesh
Gadilam River Basin Yamuna River Basin
Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh
IARI farm,
New Delhi
Pageru River Basin Palar and Cheyyar River Basins
Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Main objective of the study Groundwater pollution Chemical characteristics of groundwater Groundwater quality Geochemistry of groundwater Ground water quality Groundwater quality Chemistry of groundwater Groundwater quality Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater Major ion chemistry Groundwater quality Impact of seawater on groundwater quality Chemistry of groundwater Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality Hydrogeochemical processes Groundwater quality Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater Hydrogeochemistry Groundwater quality Groundwater quality [83]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher(s)
Year
Area
Subba Rao et al.,
2006
Anantapur
Umar et al.,
2006
Muzaffarnagar
Subba Rao and Reddy
2006
Visakhapatnam
Pandit and Bhardwaj
John Devadas et al., Kumar et al., Khaiwal and Garg Manish et al., Pandian and Sankar
Raju Raju and Reddy
Rashid and Izrar Subba Rao et al., Subba Rao et al., Mukherjee et al.,
Mukherjee et al.,
Gupta et al., Mukherjee and Fryar
State Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Main objective of the study Groundwater quality Groundwater hydrochemistry Environmental impact assessment
Hydrogeological regime Hydrogeochemistry Sarada River Andhra 2007 and groundwater Basin Pradesh quality Muktsar and Groundwater 2007 Punjab Patiala quality Hydrochemical 2007 Hisar city Haryana survey of groundwater Groundwater 2007 Punjab Punjab quality Hydrogeochemistry Vaippar River 2007 Tamil Nadu and groundwater Basin quality Hydrogeochemistry Gunjanaeru Andhra 2007 and groundwater River Basin Pradesh quality Environmental 2007 Tirupati India impact assessment Hydrochemical Kushva-Yamuna Uttar 2007 characteristics of River Basin Pradesh groundwater Andhra Groundwater 2007a Guntur Pradesh quality VisakhapatnamAndhra Quality of 2007b Bhimunipatnam Pradesh groundwater Arsenic western Bengal West Bengal, 2007a contaminated basin India aquifers of the Regional scale stable isotopic 2007b West Bengal India signature and recharge Geochemistry of 2008 Burdwan West Bengal groundwater Western Bengal Groundwater 2008 West Bengal basin chemistry 2006
Jaipur
Rajasthan
[84]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher(s)
Year
Area
State
Reddy et al.,
2008
Anantapur
Andhra Pradesh
Shashikanth Majagi et al.,
2008
Gulbarga
Karnataka
Shahid et al.,
2008
Julana Block of Jind District
Haryana
Subba Rao
2008a
Visakhapatnam
Subba Rao
2008b
PhirnagipuramMuppala
Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh
Arumugam and Elangovan
2009
Tirupur
Tamil Nadu
Garg et al.,
2009
Southwest of Haryana
Haryana
Gupta et al.,
2009
MacherlaKarempudi
Andhra Pradesh
Krishna Kumar et al.,
2009
Manimuktha River Basin
Tamil Nadu
Manjusree et al.,
2009
Alappuzha
Kerala
Naik et al.,
2009
Koyana River Basin
Maharashtra
Partha Pratim Adhikary et al.,
2009
Raju
2009
Ramachandramoorthy et al.,
2009
Umar et al.,
2009
Venugopal et al.,
West Delhi
Delhi
Varuna River Basin RameswaramDhanushkodi Central Ganga Plain
Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu
2009
River Adyar
Tamil Nadu
Chidambaram et al.,
2010
PortnovaPumpuhar
Tamil Nadu
Dinesh Kumar and Singh Chandal
2010
Jaipur City
Rajasthan
Giridharan et al.,
2010
River Cooum
Tamil Nadu
Goyal et al.,
2010
Kaithal
Haryana
Uttar Pradesh
Main objective of the study Groundwater quality Chemistry of groundwater Groundwater quality Groundwater pollution Groundwater salinity Hydrochemical characteristics Hydrochemistry and water quality Geochemical assessment of groundwater Groundwater quality and hydrogeochemistry Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality Hydrogeochemistry Hydrogeochemical characterization of groundwater Groundwater quality Groundwater quality Groundwater hydrochemistry Groundwater quality Hydrogeochemical characteristics Hydrochemistry of groundwater Hydrogeochemical processes Groundwater quality [85]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher(s)
Year
Area
State
Mamta Goyal et al.,
2010
Unnao
Uttar Pradesh
Main objective of the study Groundwater chemistry
Mohan Viswanathan Prasanna et al.,
2010
Tamil Nadu
Hydrogeochemistry
Papiya Mandal et al.,
2010
Ravikumar et al.,
2010
Reddy and Niranjan Kumar
2010
Subba Rao and Surya Rao
2010
Subramani et al.,
2010
Chithar River basin
Tamil Nadu
Ravikumar et al.,
2010
Markandeya River Basin
Karnataka
Tirumalesh et al.,
2010
Trombay
Maharashtra
Abdul Jameel and Zahir Hussain
2011
Cauvery River Area
Tamil Nadu
Anita Joshi and Gita Seth
2011
Sambhar Lake area
Rajasthan
Deepali et al.,
2011
Nagpur
Maharashtra
Divya Dudeja et al.,
2011
Doon Valley
Uttarakhanda
2011
Dindigul
Tamil Nadu
Imran Ahmad Dar et al., Mithas Ahmad Dar et al., of groundwater
2011
Gadilam River Basin Yamuna River Basin Bangalore PennaChitravathi River Basins Varaha River Basin
Palar River Basin Brahmaputra River Basin
Mridul Chetia et al.,
2011
Nipunika Rani et al.,
2011
Gangetic Plains
Para R. Pujari et al.,
2011
Indore, and Kolkata
Delhi Karnataka
Groundwater quality Hydrochemistry of groundwater
Andhra Pradesh
Hydrogeochemical processes
Andhra Pradesh
Chemistry of groundwater Groundwater geochemistry processes Hydrochemistry and groundwater quality Groundwater quality and geochemical processes Quality of groundwater Hydrochemistry and groundwater quality Geochemical characterization of groundwater Hydrochemistry and groundwater quality Groundwater quality
Tamil Nadu Assam Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and
Hydrochemistry Groundwater quality Groundwater quality Groundwater pollution [86]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher(s)
Year
Area
State
Main objective of the study
West Bengal Raju et al.,
2011
Varanasi
Uttar Pradesh
Prasad et al.,
2011
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh
Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality Groundwater pollution
Shankar et al.,
2011
Tamil Nadu
Hydrogeochemistry
Prasanna et al.,
2011
South India
Hydrochemical characteristics
Vasanthavigar et al.,
2011
Paravanar River Sub-basin Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu Thirumanimuttar River Basin
Tamil Nadu
2011
Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District
Andhra Pradesh
Subba Rao et al.,
2012
Gummanampadu sub-basin, Guntur District
Andhra Pradesh
Thilagavathi et al.,
2012
Pondicherry region
Southeast India
Pathak and Limaye
2012
Rural area nearby Sagar city
Madhya Pradesh
Subba Rao et al.,
Groundwater quality Chemical characteristics of groundwater and assessment of groundwater quality Geochemistry and quality of groundwater groundwater geochemistry and water quality Assessment of Physico-Chemical Quality of Groundwater
[87]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Table 3.2: List of selected studies carried out worldwide in major cities on groundwater (Source: Naik et al., 2008). Researcher (s) Fleetwood Reeder et al.,
Year
Area
State City
1969
Stockholm Mackenzie river drainage basin
Sweden
Main Purpose of study Nitrate pollution
Canada
Hydrogeochemistry
Nitrate pollution
1972
Piskin
1973
Nebraska
United States of America (USA)
Long and Saleem
1974
Chicago
USA
Tryon
1976
Phelps County
Missouri, USA
Cross
1980
Halifax
Canada
Cruickshank et al.,
1980
Merida
Mexico
Bacterial pollution
Eisen and Anderson
1980
Milwaukee
USA
Sulfate, chloride and bacterial pollution
Katz et al.,
1980
Nassau County
Ku
1980
Long Island
New York, USA New York, USA
Martini et al.,
1980
Orvietto
Italy
Nelson et al.,
1981
Several cities
California, USA
1982
Munich
Germany
1983
London
Mcfarlane
1984
Perth
Flipse et al.,
1984
Long Island
Kimmel
1984
Long Island
USA
Metals and nitrate pollution
1984
Southern Delaware
USA
Land use impact
1985
Milan
Italy
Organic pollution
1985
New Jersey
USA
CHS, organic
Nemeth and Uduluft Marsh and Davies
Ritter and Chirnside Cavallero et al., Fusillo et al.,
United Kingdom (UK) Western Australia New York, USA
Sulfate and chloride pollution Groundwater quality Chloride in deicing salts
Nitrate pollution Metal pollution Bacteria and nitrogen species Chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents (CHS) Major ions pollution Groundwater levels Quantity and quality Nitrate pollution
[88]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
Krill and Sonzogni
1968
Wisconsin
USA
Thomson and Foster
1986
Bermuda
Bermuda
1987
Perth
Western Australia
Bacterial, chloride and nitrate pollution Impact on nutrient loads
1987
Liverpool
UK
Rising water table
Appleyard and Bawden Brassington and Rushton Dummer and Straaten
1988.
Bielefeld
W. Germany
Foster
1988
Several cities
S. America
Lloyd et al.,
1988
Birmingham
UK.
Marton and Mohler
1988
Bratislava
Czechoslovakia
Merkel et al.,
1988
Munich
West Germany
Razack et al.,
1988
Narbonne
France
Shahin
1988
Cairo
Egypt
1988
Tilburg
Netherlands
1988
Upper Rhime
W. Germany
Vossen and Huijsmans Zipfel and Horalek Atwood and Barber
1989
Perth,
Western Australia
Barker et al.,
1989
Ontario
Canada
Lerner
1989
Several cities
1990
Birmingham
UK.
Swan Coastal Plain Coventry Birmingham
Western Australia UK. United
Ford
Gerriste et al.,
1990
Gosk et al., Rivett et al.,
1990 1990a
Main Purpose of study pollution Organic pollution
Organic, EC, manganese and chloride pollution Nitrate, bacterial and metal pollution Major ions, metals and organic pollution Oil pollution Majors ions and metals pollution Sulfate and nitrate pollution Nitrate, major ions and metal pollution Cynide and organic pollution Organic pollution Groundwater quality Organic chemicals Groundwater recharge Major ions, metals, boron, phosphorous, silicon and cyanide pollution Groundwater quality CHS pollution Organic [89]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City Kingdom
Rivett et al.,
1990b
Longstaff et al.,
1992
Burston et al.,
1993
Knipe et al., O‟Shea Halliday
1993 1993 1993
Luton and Dunstable Coventry region Birmingham Wilkinson Nottingham
Khadka
1993
Kathmandu
Nepal
Bocanegra et al.,
1993
Mar del Plata
Argentina
Martinez et al.,
1993
Mar del Plata
Argentina
1993
Coventry
UK
Cox and Hillier
1994
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Foster et al.,
1994
London
UK
1994
Birmingham
UK
1994 1994
Birmingham Several cities
UK
1994
Jakarta
Indonesia
1994
Lima
Peru
Appleyard
1995
Perth
Western Australia
Otto et al.,
1995
Perth
Australia
1996
Gwellup wellfield
1996
Perth,
Nazari et al.,
Ford and Tellam Greswell et al., Lerner et al., Rismianto and Mak Rojas et al.,
Barber et al.,
Benkar et al.,
UK cities
UK
Main Purpose of study contamination Organic contamination
UK.
CHS contamination
UK
CHS pollution
UK UK UK
Rising water table Rising water table Sewer pollution Groundwater quality Groundwater decline, salt water intrusion and contamination Impact of urban solid wastes Groundwater pollution.
Western Australia Western Australia
General effects Groundwater recharge Inorganic contamination Rising water table Impact of sewers Groundwater decline and contamination Groundwater contamination Groundwater recharge and quality Groundwater quantity and quality Landuse changes and groundwater quality Trichloroethene (TCE) contamination [90]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
Grischek et al.,
1996
Dresden
Germany
Hasan
1996
Dhaka
Bangaladesh
Howard et al.,
1996
Southern Ontario
Canada
Lerner and Barrett
1996
Cities across
UK
Cox et al.,
1996
Brisbane
Australia
1996
Nottingham
UK
1996
Perth
Australia
Rivers et al., Sharma et al.,
Tirtomihardjo
1996
Jakarta
Indonesia
1997
Northern Chihuahua desert, TransPecos, Texas,
U.S.A
Armienta et al.,
1997
Zimapan
Mexico
Barrett
1998
Nottingham
UK
Butwell
1998
Ruwaishid, Irbid
Jordan
Coutinho
1998
Esslinger
1998
Fisher and Mullican beneath the
Fung Janet
Bridgetown, St. Michael Calgary, Alberta
Barbados Canada
1998
Beijing, Hubei
China
1998
Honolulu, Hawai
USA
Main Purpose of study Groundwater pollution Groundwater decline and contamination Urban impacts on national resources Several issues Various urban effects Nitrogen contamination Nutrient discharge Groundwater decline, contamination and land subsidence Hydrogeochemical evolution of sodium-sulphate and sodiumchloride groundwater Arsenic contamination Rising groundwater table and pollution Lowering water table and deteriorating water quality Groundwater contamination Groundwater contamination Groundwater decline and contamination Groundwater contamination
[91]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s) Keizer
Loehnert
Morrill
Year 1998
1998
Area Fredericton, New Brunswick Muenster, North-Rhine– Westfalia
State City Canada
Groundwater contamination
Germany
Groundwater contamination
1998
Tokyo
Japan
Baechler
1999
Sydney, Nova Scotia
Canada
Barrett et al.,
1999
Nottingham
1999
Kingston
Jamaica
Farah
1999
Khartoum
Sudan
Herrington
1999
Ta‟iz, Central Highlands
Yemen
1999
Albuquerque, New Mexico
USA
1999
Managua
Nicaragua
1999
Tomsk, West Siberia
Russia
1999
Lima
Peru
1999
San Antonio, Texas
USA
1999
Bijeljina
Bosnia
DrouinBrisebois
Houser Johansson et al., Lam Lok Petrou
Pokarajac
Main Purpose of study
UK
Ramkhalawan
1999
Port-of-Spain
Trinidad and Tobago
Stanley
1999
Mineola, New
USA
Groundwater recharge and contamination Groundwater contamination, salt water intrusion, etc. Groundwater recharge Groundwater decline and contamination Groundwater quality Groundwater recharge, salt water intrusion and contamination Groundwater quantity and quality Groundwater protection Groundwater table decline and contamination Groundwater contamination Groundwater extraction and land subsidence Wastewater and groundwater management Groundwater level decline, salt water intrusion and contamination Groundwater
[92]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
York Yang et al.,
Main Purpose of study recharge and pollution Groundwater recharge Groundwater evolution Urban water management
1999
Nottingham
UK
2000
Hat Yai
Thailand
2000
Several cities
Latin America
Campana and Tucci
2001
Porto Alegre
Brazil
Floods from urban development
Chan
2001
Tianjin, Hubei
China
Declining water table and land subsidence
Lawrence et al., Lee
Chebbo et al.,
Adams et al.,
Gutierrez
2001
2001
„Marais‟ Urban Catchment, Paris Sutherland in the Western Karoo
France
South Africa
Hydrochemical characteristics of aquifers Groundwater contamination and seawater intrusion
2001
Valletta
2001
Los BanosKettleman City, California
2001
Seoul
Korea
2001
Santa Barbara, California
USA
2001
Port Louis
Mauritius
Kouraa et al.,
2002
Benslimane
Morocco
Gray and Becker
2002
Ellenbrook, Perth
Australia
Contaminant flows
2002
Santiago
Spain
Contaminant loads and sewer systems
Larson et al., Lee et al., Lóaiciga and Leipnik Wellman
Diaz-Fierros et al.,
Malta
Urban wet weather pollution
USA
Land subsidence Groundwater budget Sustainable groundwater management Groundwater level decline and pollution Reuse of urban wastewater
[93]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
Kolokytha et al.,
2002
Thessalomini
Greece
Vandenschrick et al.,
2002
Sierra de Gador
South East Spain
2002
Melbourne,
Australia
Faye et al., Thomsen et al.,
2004
Thiaroye
Senegal
2004
Several cities
Denmark
Zanfang et al.,
2004
Hangzhau
China
Oren et al.,
2004
Arava Valley,
Israel
Zekster and Loaiciga
2004
Selected cities
southwestern USA
Angelakis et al.,
2005
Selected cities
ancient Greece
2005
Seoul
South Korea
2005
Brisbane
Australia
2005
Ankara
Turkey
2005
Barcelona
Spain
2005
Ejina basin
North western China
2005
Beijing
China
Sewage irrigation
Burian and Shepherd
2005
Houston
USA
Diurnal rainfall pattern
Chen et al.,
2006
Heihe River Basin
North-western China
Isotopic study on the recharge and
Vaze and Chiew
Choi et al., Cox et al., Ozeler and Yetis Vazquez-Sune et al.,
Wen et al., Liu et al.,
Main Purpose of study Water demand management Using stable isotope analysis (δD–δ18O) to characterise the regional hydrology Pollutant characteristics on urban road surfaces Urban development Groundwater protection Detection of nitrate sources in urban groundwater Contamination of groundwater Environmental impacts of ground water Urban wastewater and storm water technologies Hydrochemistry, land use effect Water Quality conditions Solid waste management Groundwater quality and quantity Hydrochemical characteristics and salinity of groundwater
[94]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
Zhu et al.,
2007
Minqin Basin
Northwest China
Mukherjee et al.,
2008
Meghna subbasin
Bangladesh
Rajmohan et al.,
2009
Barka
Sultanate of Oman
Zhou et al.,
2009
Qingtongxia irrigation areas of Yinchuan Plain
China
A study on water resources consumption by PCA
Lihe et al.,
2010
ordos plateau
People‟s Republic of China
Origin and recharge estimates of groundwater
2010
Nandong Underground River System
China
Groundwater hydrochemistry
Jiang and Yan
Halim et al.,
2010
shallow
Eastern region of Bangladesh
Wu et al.,
2010
Heihe River Basin
Northwestern China
Murad and Mirghni
2011
orthern part of Jabal Hafit
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Horst et al.,
2011
Colima State
Mexico
Ganyaglo et al.,
2011
Eastern region
Ghana
Tarki et al.,
2011
Djerid basin
southwestern Tunisia
Abid et al.,
2011
Turonian aquifer
Southern Tunisia
Main Purpose of study residence time of groundwater Hydrogeochemical and isotope evidence of groundwater Hydrogeochemical comparison and effects Groundwater quality
Principal component analysis of groundwater compositions Spatio-temporal variation of stable isotopes Isotopic variations of oxygen and hydrogen in groundwater salinity and sulphate contamination of groundwater Water quality assessment Geochemical and isotopic composition of groundwater groundwater geochemistry
[95]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researcher (s)
Year
Area
State City
Main Purpose of study
Pazand et al.,
2012
Meshkinshahr basin of Ardabil province
Iran
Groundwater geochemistry
Han et al.,
2013
Zhoukou
China
Gumma and Pavelic
2013
Ghana
Ghana
Skordas et al.,
2013
Trikala municipality
Central Greece
Organic contamination in groundwater Mapping of groundwater potential zones Groundwater hydrogeochemistry
[96]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.0
Methodology
4.1
Pre field collection of data: Identification of dug wells before sampling were
done with the help of Burdwan district map (Natmo; scale1:250,000) and Survey of India toposheets (No.73I/13, 73M/1, 73I/14, 73M/2, 73M/6, 73M/7, 73M/10). During selection of dug well Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) monitoring wells and State water Investigation Department (SWID) monitoring wells in the study area were taken into account. Detail sampling technique, preservation and chemical analysis are discussed below. 4.2
Sampling and preservation: Three hundred (300) dug well samples (75 dug
wells x 2 years x 2 seasons in every year) were collected in consecutive two years (2007 and 2008) with a temporal variation of pre-monsoon (May) and post-monsoon (November) in order to assess the spatio-temporal variation of groundwater quality following the standard guidelines (Hem 1991; APHA 1998). Details of sampling locations along with altitude and latitude/longitude are represented in Table 4.1. Spatial distribution of sampling locations in different blocks is represented in Figure 4.1. 4.2.1
Field based collection of data and spot evaluation: Latitude and longitude
of each well was estimated with the help of Gramin GPS 12. The water level (mbgl) of all dug wells was estimated by steel tape. pH, temperature and electrical conductivity (EC) were noted at the sampling site using portable meters. The samples were stored in pre-cleaned, distilled water rinsed plastic bottles. Rest of the characteristics of water samples were analysed in the laboratory immediately after transportation to the laboratory. Chemical analysis was done in triplicates as per the standard recommended methods (Eaton et al., 1995) using double glass distilled water and analytical grade (AR) chemicals. 4.3
Physico-chemical analytical methods of major cations and anions
4.3.1
Estimation of pH and temperature
Principle: According to the theory of electrolytic dissociation, when liquids have number of H+ ions just equal the number of OH- ions, the solution is neutral and when
[97]
MATERIALS AND METHODS +
-
H ions exceed OH ions the solution is said to be acidic; conversely, if OH- ions are in excess the solution is said to be alkaline. H 2 O → H + + OH − According to the law of mass action Concentration of H + ions × Concentration of OH − ions = K w (a constant )L Concentration of undissociated H 2 O
[H ] [OH ] = K +
Or,
−
H 2O
w
Otherwise /or [H+] [OH-] = Kw In pure water the number of H+ ions is equal to the number of OH- ions, the concentration of each ion type must be 1 × 10-7g ions per litre. If the concentration of H+ ions is more than 10-7, the solution is acidic, if less the solution is alkaline. Thus, technically pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration or the logarithm to the base ten of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration, i.e., [H+] log [H+]= pH = -
= 10-pH -pH log 10
[ ]
log H + Since log 10 = 1 log 10
Therefore, pH Or,
= -log [H+] pH = log
1 H+
[ ]
Procedure: pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration i.e., pH = -log [H+] and it were measured in field by portable pH meter. At the same time the temperature also measured by the same meter. 4.3.2 Estimation of Conductivity Principle: Conductivity is a measure of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electric current. This ability depends upon the presence of ions; on their total [98]
MATERIALS AND METHODS concentration, mobility, and valance; and on the temperature of measurement. Solutions of most inorganic compounds are relatively good conductors. Conductance, G, is defined as the reciprocal of resistance, R: G= 1/R Where the unit of R is Ohm and G is Ohm-1 some time written as mho. Conductivity of water samples were measured in field by portable conductivity meter. The EC is expressed in micromhos per centimeter (µS/cm) at 25° C. 4.3.3
Estimation of Total Dissolved Solid
Principle: A well mixed sample is filtered through an ash less filter paper, and filtrate is evaporated to dryness in a weighted dish and dried to constant weight at 1800C. Procedure: 50 ml of sample was taken in a pre weighted dish. The sample was evaporated in a water bath. After evaporation the residue was placed in hot air oven at 180 0 C unless the weight of the dish remains constant. mg of total disolved solids/L
(A - B) 1000 ml. of sample
Where: A= weight of residue + dish, mg and B= weight of dish 4.3.4
Estimation of Total Hardness (Titrimetric Method)
Principle: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and its sodium salts form a chelated soluble complex when added to a solution of certain metal cations. If a small amount of a dye such as Eriochrome Black T is added to an aqueous solution containing calcium and magnesium ions at pH 10±0.1, the solution become wine red. If EDTA is added as titrant the calcium and magnesium will be complexed and when all the calcium and magnesium has been complexed the solution turns wine red to blue, making the end point of titration. Magnesium ion must be present to yield a satisfactory end point. To ensure this, a small amount of mg-EDTA salt is added to the buffer; this automatically introduces sufficient magnesium and obviates the need for a blank correction.
[99]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Reagents: 1. 0.01(M) Na2H2 EDTA 2H2O solution 2. NH3 – NH4Cl buffer solution of pH 10 3. 0.5% Eriochrome Black T (EBT) indicator Procedure: 5 ml of the water sample was pipette out in a 250 ml. conical flask, 1 ml of NH3 –NH4Cl buffer solution and 3 drops of EBT indicator were added to it and the solution terns wine red. The solution was then titrated with the EDTA solution until wine red colour terns blue (APHA, 1998). Calculation: Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L
4.3.5
Burette reading 1000 1 ml. of sample
Estimation of Alkalinity (Titrimetric Method)
Principle: Alkalinity of water is its acid neutralizing capacity. It is the sum of all the titratable bases. The measured value may vary significantly with the end point pH used. Reagents: 1. Sulfuric acid (0.02N) 2. Phenolphthalein indicator 3. Methyl Orange indicator Procedure: Samples were analyzed in the laboratory after collection. 10ml of sample were taken in a flask and add 2-3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator. If a slight pink colour appears, phenolphthalein alkalinity is present. Solution was titrated against sulphuric acid until the solution becomes colour less (end point). The reading was noted, after that 2-3 drops of methyl orange indicator was added in the same flask and continues to titrate against sulfuric acid until yellow colour of solution terns orange (end point). The reading was noted as t which is the volume of titrant used for both the titrations (APHA, 1998).
[100]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Calculations:
Phenolphthalein alkalinity (as CaCO3 , mg/L)
Total alkalinity (as CaCO3 , mg/L)
p 1000 s
t 1000 s
where, p = Volume of titrant used against phenolphthalein indicator (ml); s = Volume of sample (ml); and
t = Total volume of titrant used for the two titrations (ml) The value of different forms of alkalinities (carbonate, and bicarbonate) in
terms of CaCO3 (mg/L) can be computed using following table. Value of carbonate and bicarbonate alkalinities. P = Phenolphthalein alkalinity; T= Total alkalinity Value of alkalinity expressed in CaCO3 Result
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
P=0
0
T
P<½T
2P
T – 2P
P=½T
2P
0
P>½T
2(T – P)
0
P=T
0
0
To compute the concentration of carbonate ( CO3 ), and bicarbonate ( HCO 3- ) ions the following calculations are employed: CO3 (mg/L) = Carbonate alkalinity x 0.60 (In CaCO3, mg/L).
HCO3- (mg/L) = Bicarbonate alkalinity x 1.2 (In CaCO3, mg/L)
[101]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.3.6
Estimation of Sodium (Flamephotometric Method)
Principle: The trace amount of Sodium can be determined by either direct reading or internal standard type Flamephotometer at a wavelength of 589 nm. Sample is nebulized in to gas flame under carefully controlled, reproducible excitation condition. Reagents: 1.
Double distilled water
2.
Standard stock sodium solution (1000mg/L)
3.
Intermediate standard sodium solution (100 mg/L).
Procedure: Different standard sodium (Na) solution of following concentrations (for calibration curve) was prepared from intermediate standard sodium solution (100 mg/L): 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mg/L. A blank solution was also prepared. The intensity of the different standard solutions was measured with a flame photometer (SYSTRONICS128) using a Na-filter (APHA, 1998). The intensity of the sodium in the unknown sample was measured in a similar manner by taking 5 ml. sample water in 50 ml. volumetric flasks and then diluted it up to the mark. 4.3.7
Estimation of Potassium (Flamephotometric Method)
Principle: The trace amount of potassium can be determined by either direct reading or internal standard type Flamephotometer at a wavelength of 766.5 nm. Reagents: 1.
Double distilled water
2.
Standard stock potassium solution
3.
Intermediate standard potassium solution (100mg/L)
Procedure: Different standard potassium (K) solutions (for calibration curve) of following strength (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mg/L) were prepared from the intermediate standard potassium solution.
[102]
MATERIALS AND METHODS A blank solution was also prepared. Intensity of the different standard solutions was measured with a flame photometer (SYSTRONICS-128) with a Kfilter (APHA, 1998) The sample water was analysed in the same procedure. 4.3.8
Estimation of Calcium (Titrimetric Method)
Principle: When EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid or its salt) is added to water containing both calcium and magnesium, it combines first with the calcium. Calcium can be determined directly, with EDTA, when the pH is made sufficiently high that the magnesium is largely precipitated as the hydroxide and an indicator is used that combines with calcium only. Several indicators give a colour change when all of the calcium has been complexed by the EDTA at a pH 12 to 13. Reagents: 1. Sodium hydroxide solution (8%) 2. Murexide indicator 3. EDTA solution (0.01M) Procedure: 50ml of the sample was taken in an Erlenmeyer flask and 1ml of sodium hydroxide solution and a pinch of murexide indicator were added. Titrate against EDTA solution until the pink colour terns purple (end point) (APHA, 1998). Calculation:
Calcium (mg/L)
T
400 V
1.05
where, T= Volume of titrant (m.); And V= Volume of sample (ml) To determine the calcium hardness to be expressed in mg/L as CaCO3 employ following formula is used.
Calcium hardness (mg/L, as CaCO3 )
T
1000 V
1.05
where, T= Volume of titrant (ml); and
V= Volume of sample (ml) [103]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.3.9
Estimation of Magnesium
Total hardness and calcium hardness of water as mg/L CaCO3 are determined. From these values magnesium content in calculated as given below: Magnesium (mg/L) = (T – C) x 0.244 where, T = Total hardness (mg/L, as CaCO3); and
C = Calcium hardness (mg/L, as CaCO3)
4.3.10 Estimation of Total Iron (Spectrophotometric Method) Principle: Iron is brought into solution by reducing to the ferrous form by boiling with acid and hydroxylamine and treated with 1, 10-phenanthroline at pH 3.2 to 3.3. Three molecules of phenanthroline chelate each atom of ferrous iron to form and orange-red complex. The colored solution obeys Beer’s Law. Total, dissolved or ferrous iron concentrations between 0.02 and 4.0 mg/L can be determined directly and higher concentrations can be determined by using smaller samples or dilution. Regents: 1. Conc. HCl (Hydrochloric acid) 2. Hydroxylamine Solution 3. Ammonium acetate Buffer 4. Phenanthroline solution 5. Stock Iron (II) Solution (200 mg/L) 6. Intermediate standard Iron Solution (10mg/L) Procedure: Different standard iron (Fe) solutions (for calibration curve) of different strength such as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 mg/L were prepared from intermediate standard iron solution (10mg/L). A blank was also prepared. . NH2OH. HCL solution, 10ml. ammonium acetate buffer solution and 4ml. Phenanthroline solution were added to each volumetric flask, and volume was diluted up to the mark with distilled water, the O.D was measured at wave length 510 mm after 10-15 minutes (APHA, 1998). Sample Analysis: 25-ml. Sample water was taken in a beaker and diluted to about 50ml. with distilled water. Then 2ml. Conc. HCl acid and 1ml. NH2OH. HCl solutions [104]
MATERIALS AND METHODS were added to it and heated to boiling until the volume reduced to 15-20 ml. Then cooled the solution at room temperature and transferred the whole solution to a 100 ml. volumetric flask. 10ml. Ammonium acetate buffer solution, 4ml. Phenanthroline solution were added to it and then diluted to mark with distilled water. The absorbance of this coloured solution against a blank solution was prepared at 510 nm wavelength. 4.3.11 Estimation of Chloride (Titrimetric Method) Principle: Dissolved chloride can be estimated chemically by titration with AgNO3 using potassium-chromate as indicator. AgNO3 reacts with the chloride in solution to form a white precipitate of AgCl. In the absence of Cl- ions in the solution Ag+ reacts with CrO42- to form brick red precipitate of silver chromate. This change in colour of the precipitation is used to indicate to the end point in chloride determination. Reagents: 1. 0.0141 (N) AgNO3 (Silver nitrate) 2. K2CrO4 (Potassium Chromate) Indicator Procedure: 5 ml. Sample was taken in a conical flask, then 2-3 drops of K2CrO4 indicator was added to it and solution was titrated against 0.0141 (N) AgNO3. The end point was marked by a brick red precipitate. The titrate volume was noted and the chloride content was calculated (APHA, 1998). Calculation:
mg Cl- /L
V
N
35.45 1000 S
where, V = Volume of titrate, ml N = Normality of titrant, ml S = Volume of Sample, ml
[105]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.3.12 Estimation of Sulfate (Turbidimetric Method) Principle: Sulfate ion is precipitated in an acetic acid medium with Barium chloride so as to form barium Sulfate crystals of uniform size. Light absorbance of the BaSO4 suspension is determined by comparison of the reading with a standard curve. Reagents: 1
Conditioning reagent
2
Barium chloride
3
Standard sulphate solution
Procedure: Take 100 ml of clear sample (not containing more than 40 mg/L of SO4) or a suitable aliquot diluted to 100ml in a 250 ml conical flask. Add 5.0 ml of conditioning reagent to it. Care should be taken not to add the conditioning reagent in all the samples simultaneously. This is to be added to each sample just prior to the further processing. Stir the sample on a magnetic stirrer and during stirring; add a spoonful of BaCl2 crystals. Stir only for 1 minute after addition of BaCl2. After the stirring is over, take the optical density reading on a spectrophotometer at 420nm, exactly after 4 minutes. Find out the concentration of sulphate from the standard curve was found out. Standard curve was prepared employing the same procedure described above, for the sample from 0.0 to 40.0 mg/L at the interval of 5 mg/L. 4.3.13 Estimation of Nitrate Nitrogen (Spectrophotometric Method) Principle: The colorimetric determination is based on Lambert-Beer’s law according to which molar absorbance (A) is related as: Log (I0/I=A=ξ cl where, I0 is the intensity of the incident light of wavelength γ, I is the intensity of the transmitted light, l is the path length (usually1cm), c is the concentration of the solute in the molarity, A is the molar absorbance (also called optical density of the medium, OD) and ξ is the molar extinction coefficient. The reaction between nitrate and brucine Sulphanilic acid reagents yields a yellow colour employed for colorimetric estimation the intensity of color is measured at 410nm. [106]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Regents: Standard Nitrate Solution (10mg/L) Brucine Sulfanilic acid H2SO4 acid reagent Procedure: Different standard solutions of following strength were prepared (for calibration curve) from the standard nitrate solution (10mg/L):0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0 mg/L. 2ml. of each standard solution was taken in corresponding beaker, 1ml. of brucine sulfanilic acid and 10 ml. of H2SO4 acid was taken in another beaker and then the contents of both the beaker was mixed for about 4-5 times. The beakers were then kept in cold dark place for 10 min. The 10 ml. of distilled water was added to each beaker and again were kept in the dark for 20-30 minutes. The absorbance was measured at 410 nm (SYSTRONICS, 169) (APHA, 1998). 4.3.14 Estimation of Phosphate (Spectrophotometric Method) Principle: Molybdophosphoric acid is formed and reduced by stannous chloride to intensely coloured molebdenum blue. This colour is directly proportional with the concentration of phosphate. Regents: 1. Stannous chloride solution (2.5%) 2. Ammonium molybdate solution (2.5%) 3. Conc. H2SO4 (Sulfuric acid) 4. Standard Phosphate Solution (10 mg/L) Procedure: Different standard solutions of following strength were prepared (for calibration carves) from the standard phosphate solution (10mg/L): 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 mg/L. A blank solution was also prepared. To each volumetric flask, 4 ml. ammonium molybadate solution and 2 - 4 drops of stannous chloride solution were added, a blue colour appeared, volume diluted up to the mark with distilled water and absorbance was measured at 690nm in spectrophotometer (SYSTRONICS, 169) (APHA, 1998).Sample water was also analysed in the same way. [107]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.3.15 Estimation of Silica (Spectrophotometric Method) Principle: Ammonium molybdate at low pH react with Silica. The intensity of yellow colour is proportional to the concentration of “molybdate reactive” silica. Reagents: 1. Ammonium molybdate regent. 2. Oxalic acid solution. 3. Hydrochloric acid (HCl).(HCl: Water)=1:1 4. Standard Silica solution. Procedure: 100 ml of clear sample or a suitable aliquot diluted to 100ml was taken in a 250 ml conical flask. Then 1.0 ml of 1:1 HCl and 2 ml ammonium molybdate solution was to it and was shaked well. After 5-10 minutes 2 ml Oxalic acid was added and mixes thoroughly. Then the O.D. reading was taken after 2 minutes but before 20 minutes in spectrophotometer at 410 nm. (SYSTRONICS, 169) (APHA, 1998) 4.3.16 Estimation of Fluoride Principle: The fluoride electrode consists of a single lanthanum fluoride crystal, the internal portion of which is in contact with a constant concentration of fluoride ion and an internal reference electrode. Upon contact of the external electrode surface with the test solution (standard or unknown) a potential difference is set up across the crystal, which is related to the fluoride ion concentrations in contact with the crystal surfaces. An external reference electrode in the test solution completes the circuit and allows measurement of the membrane or crystal potential. The relationship between potential and fluoride ion concentration is described by a form of the Nernst equation (E = E° - RT lnaF-), it is the log fluoride ion activity that is related to change in measured potential. Consequently, variations in ionic strength between samples and standards and among samples must be prevented. Similarly, since it is the free fluoride ion activity that yields the electrode response, formation of complex species (Al, Fe) or undissociated hydrofluoric acid must be prevented. The procedure is designed to maintain control of these problems. [108]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Interferences: Without the addition of a suitable complexing agent, polyvalent cations such as Al (III), Fe (III), Si (IV) will remove free fluoride ion from solution as soluble complexes. Similarly, if pH is not maintained above 5.0, the presence of molecular hydrogen fluoride and HF2- reduces the free fluoride ion concentration. Fluoride ion selectivity is extremely high with respect to most aqueous cations. However, if solution pH is not maintained below 8, hydroxide ion will begin to yield sufficient electrode response to interfere with the fluoride measurement since the relative response, F-: OH- is about 10:1. The electrode does not respond to fluoroborate (BF4-) directly. Reagents: 1. Standard Fluoride solution. 2. TISAB-III (a concentrated CDTA solution) Procedure: 20 ml of clear sample was taken in 100 ml plastic beaker. 2.0 ml of TISAB-III solution was added to it and shaked well. Then the concentration was directly measured in Fluoride ion selective electrode. For the calibration of the Ion selected electrode instrument different concentration of standard fluoride solution was used. The standard solution: TISAB-III ratio was same as sample (Slope value of ISE 57.52 – 59.02). For each set of complete analyses of water sample, is observed to be within the range of acceptability (±5%) used in most laboratories (Domenico and Schwartz; 1990). 4.3.17 Estimation of Arsenic (As) Lade and cadmium Arsenic
concentration
was
determined
by
Atomic
Absorption
Spectrophotometer (GBC Abanta); λ = 193.7 nm, sw = 1.0 nm, working range 30–190 µg/ml. 4.4
Water quality index (WQI): Water quality index is one of the powerful tools
to assess the status of drinking water suitability for human consumption. The cumulative effects of different parameters can be calculated to evaluate the drinking water quality of an area. The stapes are as follows:
[109]
MATERIALS AND METHODS In the first step, the permissible values of different parameters as per Indian standard and WHO standard were observed to select the parameters for calculating the Water quality index (WQI) (Table 4.2).Then among the total analyzed parameter, 13 parameters has been selected for assigned a weight (wi) according to its relative importance in the overall quality of water for drinking purposes (Table 4.3). The maximum weight of 5 has been assigned to the parameter like EC, TDS, Cl-, SO4-2, NO3- , F -due to there major importance and these parameters are the mainly pollution indicating parameters. And pH, Ca+2, Na+ which are given the minimum weight of 3 as these parameters are itself may not be harmful than previous ones. In the second step, the relative weight (Wi) is computed from the following equation Wi = wi / ∑wi
.................................... Eq. (4.1)
where ∑wi is the sum of the weights of all the parameters considered in relative weight calculation table. In this study, ∑wi =54. Table 4.3 presents the wi, Wi, and the INDIAN standard for each chemical parameter used in this study. In the third step, a quality rating scale, Qi, was computed for each parameter using following equation: Qi = (Ci / Si) x100 .................................... Eq. (4.2) Here Ci and Si respectively refer to the concentration of parameters present in the samples and the acceptable limits of INDIAN standard for each parameter, in mg/L. And Si Value for pH is considered as 7. In the fourth step, the water quality sub index, SI
i
was then calculated for each
parameter using Eq. (3). SI i = W i x Q i ...................................... Eq. (4.3) And in final step, WQI values Computed by means ofWQI = ∑ SI i ....................................... Eq. (4.4) Computed WQI values are usually classified into five categories as follows (Sahu and Sikdar 2008): ≤50 excellent water, 50–100 good water, 100–200 poor water, 200–300 very poor water, >300 water unsuitable for drinking. [110]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Other than pH and EC all parameter which are used to calculate the water quality index are in mg/L. 4.5
Microbiological methods
4.5.1
Sampling procedure: Samples for bacteriological examination are collected
in clean, sterilized, narrow mouthed neutral glass bottles of 250ml capacity. The bottles are sterilized in hot air oven at 160ºC for one hour or an autoclave at 1.02±0.03 Kg. cm-2 gauge pressure for 15 minutes. The samples are representative of the water to be tested and they are collected with utmost care ensuring that no contamination occurs at the time of collection or prior to examination. During sampling, the bottles are filled without rinsing and stopper of bottles is replaced immediately. Samples after collection are immediately taken to the laboratory for examination. In the laboratory, as immediate analysis is not possible, the samples are preserved at 4ºC up to 6 hours, but in no case more than 24 hours. 4.5.2
Methodology:
The analytical procedure of various microbiological
parameters viz. Standard plate count, most probable number, Confirmative test for E.coli and Salmonella test is carried out as per Aneja (2002). Chemical used for all the above mentioned bacteriological analysis are of analytical grade and instruments are of limit of precise accuracy. Brief discussions about the various methodologies adopted for different bacteriological parameters are outlined below. 4.5.2.1 Standard plate count (SPC): 20ml nutrient agar (Hi-Media) is pored in a sterilized petri plates. In that way for each sample 8 petri plates are made. The water sample is diluted upto 10-7. 0.1ml of diluated sample is speeded on each petri plates. The petri plates are incubated at 37ºC for 48 hours. After 48 hours the plates are taken out. The plates are examined using a colony counter. 4.5.2.2 Most probable number (MPN Count): The test involves incubation of predetermined quantities of water with MacConky’s broth (Hi-Media) contained in fermentation tubes. A fermentation tube is a single glass test tube containing a small tube, called Durham’s tube, and is an inverted position. After pouring the medium in the fermentation tube, all the air bubbles from the Durham’s tube are carefully removed. It is usual practice to inoculate fine fermentation tubes with 10ml, 1ml and
[111]
MATERIALS AND METHODS 0.1 ml samples of water. Therefore, the total fermentation tubes involved are 15, out of which five are of 25ml and ten are of 15ml capacity. With these quantities of sample the maximum coliform count is detected with extreme care using micropipettes. The tubes are incubated at 35º±0.5ºC and examined at the end of 24±2hours. If no gas visible in Durham’s tubes, the fermentation tubes are further incubated and re examined after 48±2hours. The formation of gas in any of tubes are considered to be a positive tubes in each set with different quantities of water, are entered in the standard MPN tables together the value of MPN. 4.5.2.3 Confirmative test for E. coli (T-7 Test): 20ml sterilized Tergitol-7(HiMedia) is pored aseptically in a sterilized petri plates. These plates are incubated at room temperature for several times. For solidification of the medium the plates are marked properly and are inoculated with coliform organism (+)ve. culture tubes. The plates are incubated at 37ºC for 16-18hours. 4.5.2.4 Salmonella Sp.: Experiment is conducted using lactose broth (Hi-Media) and the medium was sterilized. The sterilization is done at 15lbs for 15min at 121ºC. This sterilized medium is cooled down. After that it is distributed in sterilized 250ml conical flask. Each flask contains 90ml of the medium. 10ml of water sample is added aseptically. The flask is incubated at 37ºC for 18hours in still condition. 50ml of BSA, HEA and XLD medium (all Hi-Media make) are prepared and sterilized using the same method as described above. The medium is cooled down at 45ºC. It is poured on sterilized plates and kept for few hours. These plates are tricked using the water sample collected from various sampling locations. The plates were incubated at 37ºC for 18hours. The growth of the organism is checked after the incubation period. 4.6
Stable isotope analysis Stable isotopes were analyzed at the Physical research laboratory, Hydrabad.
For deuterium analyses, 3 ml of sample was trapped by liquid nitrogen under vacuum (< 10 mT) in pyrex break seals with 100 mg of zinc. Samples were baked at 500°C for 30 minutes before analysis on a Micro mass 602E mass spectrometer. Two standards were run for every eight unknowns and the data reduced by linear regression to account for variations in oxidation of zinc and changes in the reference gas. Oxygen isotopes were analyzed on a VG Iso gas Sira 12 mass spectrometer, using 1 ml sample [112]
MATERIALS AND METHODS aliquots. Samples were equilibrated with CO2 gas at 250C (Epstein and Mayeda, 1953) for 6 hours prior to analysis and for deuterium analyses were reduced to hydrogen gas using metallic zinc (Coleman et al., 1982). However, for samples with salinities > 10 ‰ TDS (total dissolved solids), equilibration times were increased to 36-48 hours to allow for the greater hydration sheath of ions in high salinity solutions. During a typical analytical run, 16-17 samples were run with 3 or 4 standards and the data corrected by linear regression on the standards. Reproducibility was typically better than 0.5 ‰ and 1‰, for δ18O and δ2H, respectively. The isotope ratios are expressed in delta values, δ, in units of per mil (‰) with respect to Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW). Deuterium excess is formulated by the following equation (Dansgaard, 1964): d-excess = δD – 8 δ18O…………………………………………………(4.5) 4.7
Statistical analysis
4.7.1
Student’s t-test for difference of means (Gurumani, 2005): A student’s (t)
test was carried out for testing significant difference between means of factors for preand post-monsoon periods against left sided alternative hypothesis, i.e., the mean of pre-monsoon is less than that of the other. The test statistic, which follows tdistribution with (n1+n2-2) degrees of freedom, is given by t=(X1-X2)/√(SP2/n11)+(SP2/n2-1); where SP2=(n1S12+n2S22)/(n1+n2) X1 is the mean variable of pre-monsoon, X2 is the mean variable of postmonsoon, SP2 is the variance of combined sample (Standard Error of difference between means of pre- and post-monsoon parameters), n1 is the number of observations on variable of pre-monsoon and n2 is the number of observations on variable of post-monsoon. If computed value is greater than critical value there is significant difference between means. 4.7.2
Factor analysis (Gupta et al., 2008): Multivariate analysis technique called
principal component analysis (PCA) has been widely used to identify possible sources of ground water pollution. Among multivariate techniques, PCA is often used as an exploratory tool to identify the major sources of groundwater contaminant. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that can be applied to a set of variables in order to [113]
MATERIALS AND METHODS reduce their dimensionality. In factor analysis (FA), a set of variables is first normalized as Xit as shown in Eq. (1) so that their variances are unity. Xit = (Cit –Ci)/di ........................................... (4.6) where Cit is the concentration of the variable i in the sample t, Ci and di are the arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the variable i for all samples included in the analyses. These common factors are typically characterized as pollutant source types in air pollution studies. The factor analysis model applied in the field of water pollution is given in Eq. (2). N
Xit =
LijSjt + Eit ........................................ (4.7) J 1
where Lij is the factor loading of the variable i in the source j with N number of sources, Sjt is the factor score of the source j for sample t and Eit is the residual of variable i in the sample t not accounted by the j sources or factors. In this study, FA was carried out on hydro geochemical parameters. The factors that have been determined are rotated to transform the initial matrix to easily interpret. The sum of the Eigen values is not affected by rotation but it will alter the Eigen values of particular factors and will change the factor loadings. The varimax rotation of the matrix was selected which attempts to minimize the number of parameters that have high loadings on a factor. This enhanced the interpretation of the factors. Factor analysis determines factor F in such a way so as to explain as much of the total variation in the data as possible with as few of these factors as possible. In factor analysis, Fi is the ith factor calculated by Eq. (3) as: P
Wij Xj = W1X1+Wi2Xi2+……+WipXip ......................................... (4.8)
Fi = i 1
where the w's are the factor weights (to be estimated from the data) chosen so as to maximize the quantity and the X's are the original variables in standardized form. The second factor F2 is such that weighted linear combination of the variables which is uncorrelatedwithF1 and which accounts for the maximum amount of the remaining total variation not already accounted for by F1. The higher the factor weight for a given variable, the more that variable contributes [114]
MATERIALS AND METHODS To the overall factor score and the higher the factor loading. Higher factor loadings of a particular element can help in identifying the possible sources. The factors obtained are rotated to achieve the meaningful underlying vectors with more interpretability. Factor analysis was performed by using the software package XL STAL, version 2011. 4.8
GIS methodology For thematic map generation Survey of India (SOI) toposheets (No.73I/13,
73M/1, 73I/14, 73M/2, 73M/6, 73M/7, 73M/10 ) of 1:50,000 scale and district map of NATMO (scale 1:2,50,000) were considered as base maps. Both the maps were georeferenced by using GEOMATICA V.10.1 software with latitude/longitude projection system with a datum level of India, Nepal (D076) with an output pixel spacing of 0d00'00.1900". SOI toposheets were georeferenced by using known GCPs and as well as collected GCPs from GPS (Germin 12). NATMO base map was georeferenced with image to image registration technique. Both these base maps were reprojected into UTM projection system. Different features such as block boundary, river, forest and road/rail were digitized by using these base maps. Seventy five (75) sampling points were downloaded into the Mapsource software directly from GPS. This file then saved as a .dxf format and was transferred to the Geomatica environment. Locational details, altitude, water level along with different physicochemical analysis were attached to this 75 spatial data as an attribute data. Then different thematic maps were generated by using various spatial interpolation techniques in the Geomatica V.10.1 software. Details of the spatial interpolation techniques are as follows. 4.8.1
Digital Elevation Model (DEM): DEM was generated on the basis of
sampling points, stored as a point layer along with attributes such as MPN, SPC etc. DEM was generated by using VEDIMINT algorithm in the Geomatica V.10.1 software. The output DEM was represented as a zonation map of physico-chemical parameters. Algorithm details
[115]
MATERIALS AND METHODS The algorithm consists of three major steps plus an optional step for processing 2D features: Step 1: scan conversion of 3D vector data; Step 2: initial interpolation of source elevations; Optional Step: scan in and initialize 2D vector data; Step 3: iterative smoothing of the interpolation values. In the first step, input vector lines/points are reprojected to the raster coordinates and burned into the raster buffer, with the elevations interpolated linearly between vector nodes. 2D layers are ignored in this stage. If multiple elevation values are scanned into a single pixel, the maximum value is assigned the pixel, and the pixel is marked as a cliff. In the second step, the elevation at each DEM pixel is interpolated from the source elevation data. The interpolation process is based on an algorithm called Distance Transform. Interpolation is made between the source elevations and elevations at equal-distance points from source locations. If 2D vector layers are present, they are scan converted into a flag buffer during the optional step. The 2D features are also initialized to prepare for use in the smoothing stage. In step 3, a finite difference method is used to iteratively smooth the DEM grid. The algorithm uses over relaxation technique to accelerate the convergence. During the iterations, the source elevation values are never changed, while the interpolated values are updated based on the neighbourhood values. The smoothing iterations can be terminated before reaching MAXITER passes, if the maximum change in elevation value during smoothing is smaller than 0.1, or if it increases between two subsequent passes. 4.8.2
Inverse Distance Interpolation (IDINT): For estimation of groundwater
quality of unsampled locations, spatial interpolation is required with a satisfying level of accuracy. Interpolation is based on the principle of spatial auto-correlation or spatial interdependence, which measure the degree of relationship between near and [116]
MATERIALS AND METHODS distance points. Spatial auto-correlation determines if values are interrelated. There are many spatial interpolation algorithms for spatial data sets. (Shepard, 1968), discussed in detail inverse distance weighting, (Deutsch and Journel, 1998) kriging and (Goodman and O'Rourke, 1997), discussed in detail about splines. There are two categories of interpolation techniques, deterministic and geostatistical. Deterministic interpolation technique creates surfaces based on the measured points or mathematical formulas. Methods such as inverse distance interpolation (IDINT) are based on the extent of the similarity of the cells while geostatistics interpolation such as kriging are based on statistics and are used for more advance prediction surface modeling that also include some measure of the accuracy of the prediction. Kriging is similar to IDINT in the sense that it uses a weighting mechanism that assigns more influence to the nearer data points to interpolate values at unknown locations. However, instead of using inverse distance weighting approach kriging uses variograms. As a measure of spatial variability, a variogram replaces the Euclidean distance by a structural distance that is specific to the attribute and the field under study (Deutsch and Journel, 1998). For special correlation, a perfect semivariogram is required for which parameters can be determined. The geochemical data in the study area are non-stationary because many of the closely located points have values drastically different from each other. Because of this reason, IDINT method has been used for interpretation of data points instead of kriging in order to generate maps of continuous maps of geochemical parameters. IDINT interpolation determines cell values using a linearly-weighted combination of a set of sample points. The weight is a function of inverse distance. The farther an input point is from the output cell location, the less importance it has in the calculation of the output value. Because the IDINT is a weighted distance average, the average cannot be greater than the highest or less than the lowest input. Therefore, it cannot create ridges or valleys if these extremes have not already been sampled. Also, because of the averaging, the output surface will not pass through the sample points. The best results from IDINT are obtained when sampling is well distributed to represent the local variation that needs to be simulated. In IDINT the measured values (known values) closer to prediction location will have more influence on the predicted value (unknown value) than those farther away. More specifically, IDINT assumes that each measured point has a local influence that diminishes with increase in distance. [117]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Thus, points in the near neighborhood are given high weights, whereas points at a far distance are given small weights (Lixin Li, 2004). The general formula of IDINT interpolation is the following (Johnston et al., 2001):
................................................... (4.9)
..................................(4.10) where w (x,y) is the predicted value at location (x, y), N is the number of nearest known points surrounding (x,y), are the weights assigned to each known point value wi at location (xi, yi), di are the Euclidean distances between each (xi, yi) and (x, y), and p is the exponent, which influences the weighting of wi on w, in the present study p value of 3 and starting search radius 650 m and maximum searching radius 3000 m.
[118]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Table 4.1: Details of sampling locations along with altitude and latitude/ longitude.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Block
Kaksa
Sampling point 1
12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19
Durgapur_Faridpur
9 74 75 10 11
21 67
Andal
20
68 69
22 23 24 25 26
Jamuria I &II
70
27 31
29 30 32 33
Barabani
28
36 37 38
Salanpur
34 35
Location
Longitude
Latitude
Altitude (m) 59
Silampur
87d26'05.8300"E
23d25'06.7187"N
Silampur (Owner Jaydeb Nag) Kaksa girls School Domra Health center Basudha (Owner Ganesh Saha) Malandighi health center Shibpur health center Naba gram (Owner Dayamayee Pal) Bed bahar,Thakurani Bazar (Owner Santi Bauri) Narayanpur (in side kali mandir) Amaljhora Katabaria health center Madhaiganj bazar Srikrishnapur (Owner Bonkubihari Das) Badyanathpur Balijuri Annapurna mandir Gogla gram panchayat Laudaha BDO office Gandhi more,G.T.Road, near Hanumanji Temple Piala Durgapur Barriage Ukhra Indian oil Petrol pump Siltalpur chora collery Pandabeswar, beside railway line Ramnagar collery near durga mandir Haripur (Haripur bazar west of ganesh temple) Dignala (near primary school) Ramprasadpur (Ownwer Somnath Sarkar) Ramprasadpur Anandamoye dham Andal More (Back side of Bharat petrol pump) Vijaynagar (Near Charitable dispensary) Jamsol kali mandir Patherchur Hijalgara (near Shib mandir) Ikra (Near Ikra rail station) Damodarpur (infront of Dr.B.M.Roy chamber) Chinchurbil (Owner Mihir Banerjee) Barabani (Near Barabani rail station) Domohani (Near Vivekananda Library) Churulia (near Kanchan Mondol's shop) Sarsatoli (Owner Sapan Maharaj) Rasunpur School Mirzapur ( On GourandiRunakuraghat road) Bolekunda (Owner Bharat Bauri) Kirtanshala, Dharaspur (Owner Sukesh Mondal) Upper Cashia (HCL Road) Rupnarayanpur Dendua (Near Dendua more)
87d26'06.8987"E 87d27'32.9603"E 87d27'22.3465"E 87d31'33.3279"E 87d24'23.3795"E 87d24'22.0375"E 87d25'10.2851"E
23d24'59.8695"N 23d27'32.0514"N 23d31'06.1252"N 23d35'59.1090"N 23d33'59.9890"N 23d37'22.7573"N 23d38'15.3838"N
58
87d24'10.7395"E 87d20'39.6542"E 87d23'15.0415"E 87d22'11.2354"E 87d20'15.5943"E
23d38'55.8125"N 23d28'12.5822"N 23d27'59.7334"N 23d36'55.3264"N 23d39'17.7177"N
53 61 65 59 92
87d21'37.7208"E 87d22'32.8506"E 87d19'23.9901"E 87d19'31.5908"E 87d18'38.1646"E
23d40'13.1066"N 23d40'25.8622"N 23d40'40.5845"N 23d41'48.0222"N 23d39'45.5070"N
87 82 78 73 94
87d17'29.1907"E 87d18'20.3116"E 87d18'39.7958"E 87d14'08.3252"E 87d13'13.7481"E 87d16'19.9569"E
23d32'19.8370"N 23d31'38.4604"N 23d28'52.7033"N 23d39'05.9127"N 23d39'48.6805"N 23d42'55.0404"N
74 88 69 114 116 84
87d15'26.5942"E
23d43'50.9068"N
100
87d11'43.7527"E 87d11'58.9913"E
23d40'38.4355"N 23d35'06.6804"N
121 81
87d11'26.1406"E 87d11'35.5150"E
23d34'12.7576"N 23d33'59.4564"N
78 80
87d12'30.6907"E
23d35'18.7203"N
85
87d07'52.7149"E 87d08'50.3176"E 87d08'10.1242"E 87d07'32.4663"E 87d06'54.2442"E
23d41'41.6030"N 23d43'04.5096"N 23d43'51.2608"N 23d43'13.0352"N 23d41'47.7872"N
110 134 126 136 129
87d05'32.1072"E 87d05'16.1686"E
23d42'40.2271"N 23d47'37.7090"N
129 125
87d01'14.1088"E
23d44'27.3128"N
111
87d01'32.2751"E
23d45'20.8704"N
153
87d03'00.4680"E 87d02'02.9415"E 87d02'29.4403"E
23d46'17.9841"N 23d47'48.8598"N 23d48'49.6620"N
147 160 139
86d59'34.7819"E 86d56'03.4204"E
23d49'36.9994"N 23d46'47.4101"N
148 145
86d55'59.1644"E
23d48'52.2039"N
143
86d52'10.8129"E 86d52'15.8548"E
23d46'59.9477"N 23d46'50.6897"N
154 154
80 62 60 61 68 48
[119]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Sampling point
Block
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Hirapur
40
Kulti
39
49
51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Asansol
50
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Ranigang
58
Location
Longitude
Latitude
Altitude (m)
Kalyaneshwari Barakar Railpar (In front of rail over bridge) Barakar (Near Barakar sub post office) Kultora Neamatpur Rail line dhaora Disherghar (Owner Krishna Das) Patmohona (in front of new variety stores) Chapradi (beside Hari mandir) Yogoda satsangha,Dihika (Damodar rail stn.) Rangapara (Owner Tarachand Raouth ) Hirapur (Inside Radhamadhavji temple) Talpakuria ( Radhanagar road, ward no-47) Fathepur, G.T.Road. Asansol (Near Raha lane more) Aradanga Rail quarter Ushagram (At the side of ECL quarter ) Chanda More, G.T.Road Bogra (Beside ECL office) Harabhanga health center ( Ranisayar-Nimcha rd.) Nimcha gram ( Ranisayar-Nimcha rd.) Ranisayar more (L.H.S. of G.T.Road) Chand danga ( Ranigang-Jamuria Road) GirJapara (Beside Ballavepur paper mill) Sahebgang, Ballavpur Ballavpur paper mill Ronai,(Owner Hanif) Mangalpur ( Mangalpur forest beat office)
86d49'53.4304"E
23d46'33.8402"N
113
86d49'03.3817"E
23d44'34.2798"N
122
86d49'02.7326"E 86d52'20.0080"E 86d52'45.6255"E 86d50'16.4384"E 86d49'34.3856"E
23d44'29.1445"N 23d43'10.8141"N 23d42'39.8260"N 23d41'41.3973"N 23d41'10.6449"N
123 138 148 113 105
86d53'24.8674"E 86d53'24.8926"E
23d40'45.6864"N 23d40'15.4829"N
134 124
86d54'27.2605"E
23d38'51.7591"N
105
86d55'17.9576"E
23d39'18.1648"N
120
86d56'20.4679"E
23d39'39.3354"N
116
86d56'16.7081"E 86d55'15.8834"E 86d58'46.9250"E 86d59'36.7772"E
23d41'11.3539"N 23d42'15.9615"N 23d41'02.5341"N 23d41'02.5384"N
131 137 138 112
87d00'13.9469"E 87d02'45.8872"E 87d04'05.6732"E
23d40'32.3353"N 23d39'58.2815"N 23d39'38.1164"N
110 116 114
87d03'52.6943"E
23d36'53.4114"N
100
87d05'31.0860"E 87d06'07.0132"E
23d38'06.2533"N 23d38'48.5470"N
119 127
87d05'52.4416"E
23d39'06.9495"N
123
87d07'04.0878"E 87d07'16.3447"E 87d07'21.5175"E 87d07'59.0516"E
23d36'04.9730"N 23d35'39.6187"N 23d35'09.7873"N 23d36'51.7593"N
114 94 88 93
87d08'54.7265"E
23d37'08.3059"N
98
[120]
MATERIALS AND METHODS Table 4.2: Analytical parameters along with the Indian standard and WHO limits. Parameter(mg/L)
pH EC TDS TH TA Na+ Ca+2 Mg+2 Fe CO3-2 HCO3ClSO4-2 NO3F-
Indian standards Acceptable Maximum Limits Limits 7.0-8.5 6.5-9.2 500 2000 300 1500 300 600 200 600 50 75 200 30 100 0.3 1 75 200 30 250 1000 250 400 45 1 1.5
WHO limits
6.5-9.2 1500 500 300 200 75 30 0.3 75 150 250 200 50 0.5
Table 4.3: Selected parameters and assigned weight of these parameters for the calculation of Water Quality Index (WQI). Parameter (mg/L) pH EC TDS TH Na+ Ca+2 Mg+2 Fe HCO3ClSO4-2 NO3F-
Indian Standard
Weight (Wi)
Relative weight
7.0-8.5 500 300 300 50 75 30 0.3 30 250 250 45 1 ∑wi
3 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 54
0.056 0.093 0.093 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 1
[121]
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Figure 4.1: Distribution of sampling locations of the study area.
[122]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1
Data validation: The analytical precision for the measurement of ions is
determined by calculating the Normalized Inorganic Charge Balance (Huh et al., 1998) which is defined as {∑cation+ - ∑anion- / ∑
cation
+
+∑
anion
-
} and represents the
fractional difference between the total cations and total anions (Edmond et al., 1995). As exemplified by Huh et al., (1998) the measured major ions (Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Cl-, SO4 2-, NO3-, HCO3-) are generally enough to give a charge balance. More than 98% of the groundwater samples showed a charge imbalance mainly in favour of positive charge excess but some inversely with a negative charge deficit. Maximum charge imbalance that is calculated is 99%. Positive charge excess higher than 98% with the database of the total dissolved solids (TDS) in groundwater, where the greater imbalance appeared during premonsoon periods. The unbalanced charges in those few samples could be related to the storage time before analysis or probably error in one of the analytical methods. The 6 no of wells that were sampled during two successive annual field trips showed insignificant change in their chemical analysis (less 8 %) and the averaged concentration of each chemical species are used in data presentation of these samples. 5.2
General expression of the hydrogeochemical data: Understanding the
quality of groundwater with its temporal and seasonal variation is important because it is the factor that determines suitability for drinking and agricultural (Subramani et al., 2009). The average analytical results, computed values and the statistical parameters like minimum, maximum, mean, median and the standard deviation values of water samples of the study area are given in (Table 5.1, 5.2 and Table 5.3). The detail year wise analytical data base is given in annexure I, II, III and IV. 5.3.1
General topography and water level fluctuation (mbgl): Topographically
the north-western part of the study area shows higher elevation i.e.120-160m (Salanpur, Jamuria I & II, Barabani, a major area of Asansol and upper portion of Hirapur) followed by moderate elevation i.e. 80m – 120m in the middle (Raniganj, Andal and some parts of Durgapur-Faridpur) and low i.e. 40m - 80m in the extreme south-eastern part (major part of Durgapur-Faridpur and Kaksa) of the study area. All
[123]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the elevation data mentioned above are measured from MSL reference level. The topographical distribution of the study area is represented in Figure 5.1. The mean water table (mbgl) in premonsoon and postmonsoon season is 6.51 and 4.37 respectively. During premonsoon it is found that most of the areas of Jamuria I & II and some parts of Asansol, Durgapur-Faridpur, Raniganj, Andal and north-eastern part of Hirapur block water table has declined more with a range of 10 – 21mbgl but during postmonsoon due to recharge water table reached up to 5- 10mbgl. No fluctuation is found in all the sampling locations of Salanpur block but minor fluctuation is noticed in Barabani and Kaksa block. Regional ground water flow is in the direction from NW and SE part of the study area towards the central part (Figure 5.2.a and b). 5.3.2
Temperature: The temperature of ground water widely depends upon such
things likely atmospheric temperature, terrestrial heat, exothermic and endothermic reactions in rocks, infiltration of surface water, insulation thermal conductivity of rocks, specific heat of rocks, rate of movement of groundwater, the degree of insulation in the zone of aeration, and anthropogenic interferences in ground water regimes. Some time water influx and mining may give rise to locally abnormal groundwater temperature. The temperature of shallow ground water (10 to 20 meters) is controlled by atmospheric temperature. Maximum temperature fluctuations occur when the water table occurs close to the ground surface. Large variation in the temperature of shallow ground water may be characteristic of areas of heavy recharge by surface water infiltration, such as in the vicinity of streams, canals and other influent surface water bodies. The amplitude of the fluctuations may decrease with the distance to the source of recharge. The solubility of different ions (+ ve and /or – ve) also depend upon the temperature of groundwater and some time the fluctuation of temperature in a large scale may also damage the quality and suitability of the water for drinking and irrigation purpose (Karanth 1997). In the study area the temperature varies from 25.70°C to 32.85°C with a mean of 29.54 ± 1.69°C in premonsoon and in postmonsoon the range is 18.35°C to 28.70°C with an average 25.23± 2.31°C. This type of lower value in postmonsoon is an indication of quick infiltration and shallow flow path (Ako Ako et al., 2011). [124]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.3.3
pH: Negative logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in moles per
liter is well known as pH. In pure water the dissociated molar concentration of H+ ions and OH- are present in equal proportion but in acidic condition the pH shifted from 7 to lower range (potentiality of H+ ions > OH- ions) and in alkaline condition it shows a grater value than 7 (potentiality of OH- ions > H+ ions). The pH of water provides an important piece of information in many types of geochemical equilibrium or solubility calculation (Hem, 1985). The values elaborate a trend of alkaline chemical reaction within the groundwater system. During the investigation, in study area the overall pH shows slightly alkaline in nature. In postmonsoon more than 64% of the samples fall > pH 7 and in premonsoon it drops down to 55%. The mean pH value in both pre and postmonsoon is 7.14 and 7.03 respectively. This low mean value in the postmonsoon indicates dilution due to influx of rainwater of lower alkalinity. Spatio-temporal distribution of pH is represented in Figure 5.3.a and b. Blocks like Andal, Durgapur-Faridpur and Kaksa have the pH level of 5.0 – 6.5. 5.3.4
Electrical Conductivity (EC): Conductivity denotes the capacity of substance
or solution to conduct the electric current. Conductivity measurement reflects the ionic concentration. The higher EC may be the attributed to high salinity and high mineral content at the sampling site. Sanchez-Perez and Tremolieres (2003) concluded that the higher EC of the water is result of ion exchange and solubilization in the aquifer. It depends upon temperature, concentration and the types of ions present (Hem, 1985). EC value ranges from 70.00 µS/cm to 2349.00 µS/cm and 65.00 µS/cm to 2493.50 µS/cm with a mean value of 813.69±447.67 µS/cm and 954.50±530.16 µS/cm during pre and postmonsoon season respectively thereby indicating premonsoon water is less conductive in nature than postmonsoon water of study area. From the spatial diagrams (Figure 5.4.a and b) it reveals that some parts of Kaksa, Durgapur-Faridpur, Andal and Barabani and major parts of Jamuria I & II, Raniganj, Asansol, Hirapur, Kulti and Salanpur are under marginal category with respect to both pre and postmonsoon EC level. 5.3.5
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): In drinking water quality study total dissolved
solids is an important indicator parameter. TDS further indicates the salinity behaviors of groundwater. Maximum values of TDS in premonsoon and postmonsoon are [125]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1324.54 mg/L and 1628.41 mg/L respectively whereas minimum values are 32.18 mg/L and 42.25 mg/L respectively with mean values of 434.97±248.18 mg/L and 619.01±343.77 mg/L respectively. Most of the blocks of north-eastern part of the study area such as Raniganj, Asansol, Hirapur, Kulti, and Salanpur show higher TDS value (>500mg/L) in postmonsoon but in premonsoon some patches of lower TDS levels (<500mg/L) are developed in these blocks. Seasonal variation is very less dominant in Kaksa and Durgapur-Faridpur blocks (Figure 5.5.a and b). 5.3.6
Total Hardness (TH): The principal natural sources of hardness in
groundwater are dissolved polyvalent metallic ions from sedimentary rocks, seepage, and run-off from soils. Calcium and magnesium, the two principal ions, are present in many sedimentary rocks, the most common being limestone and chalk. Hardness of water is expressed as an equivalent of calcium carbonate. Groundwater hardness in the basin generally does not exceed 100 mg/L and is commonly less than 50 mg/L. In areas where groundwater receives recharge from streams, hardness is greater. The qualitative degree or scale of hardness is subjective and would depend on source of groundwater. For example in areas where groundwater recharge is mainly from direct infiltration of rainfall, water may be considered hard if hardness is 100 mg/L, whereas in a coastal limestone area groundwater having a hardness of 100 mg/L may be considered as soft (Karanth, 1997). With this backdrop the investigation shows that the total hardness of the study area varies from 7.20 to 274.40 mg/L with a mean of 54.80±40.13 mg/L during premonsoon and in postmonsoon ranges from 4.00 to 334.00 mg/L with a mean 59.11±48.53 mg/L. This value shows a good variation from place to place. As a result of which it can be easily interpret that the water table aquifer contains a reasonable amount of hardness causing minerals. Spatio-temporal variation of hardness (Figure 5.6.a and b) shows that upper part of the Jamuria I & II block shows maximum concentration of hardness in both the season. 5.3.7
Total Alkalinity (TA): The capacity of water to accept H+ ions (protons) is
called alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure of the ability of the water to neutralize acids. The constituents of alkalinity, which may contribute to alkalinity, are OH-, CO32-, and HCO3-. In the study area HCO3- type alkalinity is the main source of alkalinity. Alkalinities of water neutralize the strong acid. Highly alkaline water often has a high [126]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION pH and generally contains elevated levels of dissolved solids. Generally, the basic species responsible for alkalinity in water are bicarbonate ion, carbonate and hydroxide ion. Present investigation of ground water quality of study area shows the ranges of bicarbonate vary from 4.80 to 91.20 mg/L with mean value 43.09 ± 23.20 mg/L in premonsoon. Carbonate is not detected in the study area. During postmonsoon value ranges from 3.20 to 136.00 mg/L with mean value 46.54± 25.81 mg/L. In all season, total hardness is more than total alkalinity which indicates that the ground water is characterized by noncarbonated hardness. 5.3.8
Sodium (Na+): Sodium bearing minerals like albite and other members of
plagioclase feldspars, nepheline, sodalite, glaucophane, aegerine etc. are not as widespread or abundant as the calcium and magnesium-bearing minerals. Weathering of these minerals releases primary soluble sodium products. Groundwater Na+ concentrations are not depleted relative to rainfall to the same extent as the other cations. The minor depletion of Na+ relative to Cl– is controlled by cations adsorption to exchange sites on clay mineral surface, and sometimes mainly in postmonsoon the exchangeable Na+ become soluble and increased the concentration at least 3 to 4 times than premonsoon. The Na+ desorption is most likely controlled by cation exchange for Ca2+ and/or Mg2+ ions. Most significant source of sodium in ground water is precipitate of sodium salts impregnating the soil in shallow water tracts, particularly in semi arid and arid region. Sodium content in groundwater ranges from about 1 mg/L in humid and snow-fed regions to over 100,000 mg/L in brines. In general there is a concomitant increase in Na+ and Cl-, the concentration of both increasing with TDS content (Karanth, 1997). Groundwater in well-drained areas with a good amount of rainfall usually has less than 10.00 to 15.00 mg/L of Na+. Sodium content shows a major range of variation throughout the study area, ranging from 5.95 to 314.20 mg/L with mean value 74.40±53.65 mg/L and 21.40 to 1030.30 mg/L with mean value 77.32 ± 118.72 mg/L during premonsoon and postmonsoon respectively. Sodium, higher in postmonsoon season, is derived from weathering of feldspar (plagioclase bearing) and also due to over exploitation of groundwater resources (Hem, 1985). Spatio-temporal variation of Na+ reveals that higher value (>200 mg/L) mainly concentrated some areas of Jamuria I & II during premonsoon but it became
[127]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION reduced to a small patch in postmonsoon (Figure 5.7.a and b) and also some areas in the Raniganj block shows high Na+ concentration during postmonsoon. 5.3.9
Potassium (K+): The common sources of K+ are silicate minerals viz.
orthoclase, microcline, biotite etc. in igneous rocks and some metamorphic rocks. Although potassium is nearly as abundant as sodium in igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks, its concentration in ground water is one-tenth or even onehundredth that of sodium. Parity in concentrations of Na+ and K+ is found only in waters with low mineral contents. Two factors are responsible for the scarcity of K+ in ground water, one being the resistance of K+ bearing minerals to decomposition by weathering (Karanth, 1997) and the other the fixation of K+ in clay minerals formed due to weathering. The elevated levels of soluble and exchangeable K+ in water table aquifer are not derived from the weathering of primary K+ -bearing minerals, because apart from some illite, none are present in the upper profiles of soil. Potassium is rapidly removed from the soil water as it migrates downwards. The amount of K + stored on clay minerals in the upper profiles is relatively low compared to Na+ and Mg2+. The concentration of K+ ranges from 1 mg/L or less to about 10 to 15 mg/L in potable waters, and from 100 mg/L to over several thousand mg/L in some brines. In the study area during premonsoon K+ value ranges between 0.80 to 64.15 mg/L with a mean of 9.48± 9.53 mg/L and during the postmonsoon ranges between 2.45 to 150.20 mg/L with a mean of 16.63± 22.53 mg/L. 5.3.10 Calcium (Ca2+): Calcium is an important element, which is present in everywhere in ground water. The major sources of in Ca2+ groundwater are some members of silicate minerals group like plagioclase, pyroxene and amphibole among igneous and metamorphic rocks and limestone, dolomite and gypsum among sedimentary rocks. Sandstones, shales and other detrital deposits usually contain calcium carbonate as cementing material. Behavior in natural aqueous systems is generally governed by the availability of the more soluble Ca2+ compounds and by solution–gas phase equilibria that involve carbon dioxide species, or by the availability of sulfur in the form of sulfate (Hem, 1991). Fresh water can contain only about 20 to 30 mg/L of Ca2+ at saturation point. However, in soil-air through which water has to pass before reaching ground water, the percentage of CO2 could be as [128]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION much as 1 to 5 due to organic processes. Hence the Ca2+ content can be as much as 70 to 110 mg/L. In the study area Ca2+ ranges from 4.00 to 140.00 mg/L with a mean of 33.37±22.63 mg/L in premonsoon and in postmonsoon value varies from 2.00 to 187.10 mg/L with mean value 37.99± 29.21 mg/L. Further, it is observed that the Ca2+ concentrations are low compared to other cations such as sodium in these ground waters. These lower values of Ca2+ and SO42- could be due to the reaction of Ca2+with SO42- and subsequent precipitation. Spatio-temporal variation of Ca2+ (Figure 5.8.a and b) shows that upper part of the Jamuria I & II block and small patches DurgapurFaridpur, Andal and Raniganj blocks show maximum concentration of Ca2+ (>75 mg/L) in both the season. 5.3.11 Magnesium (Mg2+): Magnesium is an important component of basic igneous rock such as dunite, pyroxenites and amphibolites; volcanic rocks such as basalt and metamorphic rocks such as talc and tremolite–schists; and sedimentary rock like dolomite. Although in igneous (also volcanic) and metamorphic rocks Mg2+ occurs in the form of insoluble silicates, weathering breaks them down into more soluble carbonates, clay minerals and silica. In the presence of carbonic acid in water, magnesium carbonate is converted into the more soluble bicarbonate (Karanth, 1997). In ordinary atmospheric conditions the solubility of magnesium carbonate in water, in the presence of CO2, is nearly ten times that of calcium carbonate. The cationexchange behavior of Mg2+ is similar to that of Ca2+. Both ions are strongly adsorbed by clay minerals and other surfaces having exchange sites. Dissolved Mg2+ exceeds Ca2+ in water once Ca2+ precipitates after reaching super saturation and accounts for higher Mg2+ concentrations than Ca2+(Hem, 1991). In ground water, Ca2+ content generally exceeds the Mg2+ content, in accordance with their relative abundance in rocks but contrary to the relative solubility of their salts. In the study area the Mg2+ concentrations is relatively much lower than the Ca2+ concentrations. During premonsoon season Mg2+ ranges from 0.20 to 32.79 mg/L with a mean of 5.23±4.90 mg/L and in postmonsoon it becomes 0.49 to 35.84 mg/L with a mean of 5.15±5.47 mg/L. Spatio-temporal diagram (Figure 5.9.a and b) depicts that in both the seasons almost all bocks have Mg2+ concentration of <30 mg/L except one location in Jamuria block.
[129]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2+
5.3.12 Iron (Fe ): Iron is one of the major constituents of rocks, next in abundance only to oxygen, silicon and aluminium. The important iron bearing minerals are pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas among silicates, pyrite and chalcopyrite among sulphides and magnetite, hematite among oxides. As oxide, carbonate and hydroxide iron is present in sandstones as the cementing matrix, in shales, and in small quantities in limestones. In igneous and metamorphic rocks, iron is present mostly in the form of complex silicate minerals. Iron present in the ground water in the form of ferric hydroxide, in concentrations less than 0.5 mg/L. Iron occurs in anaerobic ground waters at different concentrations. Higher concentrations of iron in water cause a noticeable (disagreeable) taste and staining and discoloration of pipes and pipefittings (Karanth, 1997). This investigation shows that the groundwater samples range between 0.02 to 2.38 mg/L with an average 0.29±0.34 mg/L and 0.01 to 0.42 mg/L with an average 0.11±0.08 mg/L during premonsoon and postmonsoon respectively. In premonsoon very small areas of kulti, Asansol and Raniganj blocks displays higher (>1 mg/L) concentration of Iron (Figure 5.10.a and b). 5.3.13 Bicarbonate (HCO3-): The primary source of HCO3- ion in ground water is the dissolved CO2 in rain which, as it enters the soil, dissolves more CO2. An increase in temperature and decrease in pressure causes reduction in the solubility of CO2 in water. Decay of organic matter may also release CO2 for dissolution. The bicarbonate concentration in groundwater is derived from carbonate weathering as well as dissolution of carbonic acid in the aquifers (Kumar et al., 2009). CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca2+ + 2HCO3- and CO2 + H2O → H+ + HCO3- ....... (Eq-5.1) Bicarbonate may also be derived from the dissolution of silicate minerals from country rocks by carbonic acid. A general reaction for the weathering of silicate rocks with carbonic acid is as follows: (Cations) silicates + H2CO3 →H4SiO4 +cations + clay ................................... (Eq- 5.2) The pH of the water indicates the form in which CO2 is present. Presence of carbonic acid is indicated when pH is less than 4.5, of HCO3- in pH between 4.5 to 8.2, and of CO32- in pH over 8.2. Water charged with CO2 dissolves carbonate [130]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION minerals, as it passes through soil and rocks, to give bicarbonates. Under usual conditions the HCO3- concentration in ground water ranges mainly from 100 to 800 mg/L. The bicarbonate is fairly constant because of only small variation in the partial pressure of CO2 in the interstitial pores of the rocks in the aeration zone. During premonsoon it ranges between 4.80 mg/L to 91.20 mg/L with mean of 43.09± 23.20 mg/L and in postmonsoon it varies from 3.20 to 136.00 mg/L with an average of 46.54± 25.81 mg/L. Groundwater samples with high values of bicarbonate ion characterizes the recharging zones of the study area. Carbonate alkalinity is not detected in this study area and this is also supported by mean pH of the water samples collected from the study area in both the seasons. Bicarbonate is slightly higher in the post-monsoon period indicating the contribution from carbonate weathering process. There is a slight variation in seasonal and spatial distribution and are very significant at certain locations, HCO3- is high due to contribution from carbonate lithology. 5.3.14 Chloride (Cl-): In ground water Cl− content varies from a few mg/L in snowfed region to over ten times that of ocean water in desert brines. In excess of Cl− in the water is usually taken as an index of pollution and considered as tracer for groundwater contamination (Loizidou and Kapetanios, 1993). It is presumable that bulk of the Cl− in ground water is either from atmospheric sources or sea water contamination. Sea water may also get trapped as connate water during the deposition of sediments. Desiccation of inland basins with initial fresh waters may give rise to highly saline waters. Solutions of halite and other evaporate deposits in sedimentary rocks also give rise to high Cl− contents in ground water. Chloride salts, being highly soluble and free from chemical reactions with minerals of reservoir rocks, remain stable once they enter into solution. Most Cl− originate from NaCl and chloride minerals like sodalite and chloroapatite. Which gets dissolves in water from rock and soil. But the Cl− content may exceed the Na+ due to base-exchange phenomena. Calcium and magnesium chloride water are rather rare. In the study area it ranges between 14.99 mg/L to 1057.96 mg/L with mean value of 115.61±139.36 mg/L and 9.88 mg/L to 1340.29 mg/L with mean 142.16±183.41 mg/L during premonsoon and postmonsoon respectively. Chloride content exceeds the Na+ in both the seasons which may attribute to base-exchange [131]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION −
phenomena. The average value of Cl in the post-monsoon is much more than that in pre-monsoon, which is perhaps due to the rising water table in the post-monsoon periods which dissolves more salts from the soils (Ramesam, 1982; Ballukraya and Ravi, 1999). Spatio-temporal variation of Cl− (Figure 5.11.a and b ) shows that upper part of the Jamuria I & II block and small patches of Andal and Durgapur-Faridpur contain maximum concentration (>250 mg/L) of Cl− in both the season. 5.3.15 Sulphate (SO42-): The sulphate content of atmospheric precipitation is only about 2 mg/L, but a wide range in SO42- in ground water is made possible through oxidation, precipitation, solution and concentration, as water traverses through rocks. The sources of SO42- in rocks are sulphate minerals, sulphides of heavy metals which are common occurrence in igneous and metamorphic rocks, and gypsum and anhydrite found in some sedimentary rocks. Apart from these natural sources, SO42can be introduced through sulphate soil conditioners. Sulphide minerals, when oxidized, give rise to soluble SO42-. In view of stability of dissociated SO42- ion in most environments where it occurs, and also the high solubility of SO42- of the common cations Ca2+, Mg2+ and Na+, SO42- can be present in high concentration in ground water. Locally abnormal concentrations of SO42- may characterize ground water traversing through zones of oxidation of sulphide-ore bodies, pyrite bearing shales, lignite, coal and gypsiferous beds. Although at ordinary room temperature the SO42- of calcium can be dissolved in water up to a concentration of about 1500 mg/L, waters containing chiefly Mg2+ and Na+, but little calcium may attain sulphate concentration exceeding 100,000 mg/L. At the other extreme, significant concentrations of sulphate cannot be expected in ground water containing cations like barium, strontium and lead as they form nearly insoluble SO42- and get precipitated (Karanth, 1997). The present investigation shows that the SO42- in water samples ranges between 0.40 to 271.34 mg/L with mean value 59.86±50.62 mg/L and 0.63 to 236.79 mg/L with mean value 81.61± 57.29 mg/L during pre and postmonsoon respectively. Sulphate is higher in premonsoon season process in metamorphic environment due to action of leaching and anthropogenic by release of sulphur gases from industries and utilities get oxidized and enter into the groundwater (Saxena, 2004). Sulfate ions are [132]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION also involved in complexing and precipitation reactions, which affect solubility of metals and other substances. These could be the reasons for lower SO42concentrations in these ground waters (Hem, 1991). Reduction of SO42- by bacteria and precipitation of gypsum may cause lower level of SO42- in the samples collected from coal mines areas of the study area. Spatio-temporal variation of SO42- (Figure 5.12.a and b ) shows that some part of the Jamuria I&II, and small patched of Raniganj and Andal block displays maximum concentration (>150 mg/L) of SO42- in both the season. 5.3.16 Nitrate (NO3-): Nitrogen is a very minor constituent of rocks, but is a major constituent of the atmosphere. The concentration of nitrogen in groundwater is derived from the biosphere (Saleh et al., 1999). Nitrogen is originally fixed from the atmosphere and then mineralized by soil bacteria into ammonium. Under aerobic conditions nitrogen is finally converted into nitrate by nitrifying bacteria (Tindall et al., 1995). Anthropogenic activities are mostly responsible for the increase in the nitrate concentration in groundwater which is derived from leachates from the landfill sites, recharge through unlined drains, infiltration of sewage effluents and industrial wastes and agriculture return flows (DeSimone et al., 1997; Hern and Feltz, 1998; Glen et al., 1999; Kumar et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2007). Ground water, when not polluted, contains less than 5 mg/L of NO3-, but polluted waste waters contain up to 100 mg/L. Present investigation reveals that during premonsoon it ranges between below detectable range to 24.56 mg/L with an average 4.77±6.06 mg/L and in postmonsoon also ranges between below detectable to 29.27 mg/L with a mean of 8.15±7.78 mg/L. The main source of nitrate in the study area is the application of fertilizer in the irrigation water. The common fertilizer applied is (NH4)2SO4. Through nitrification processes in the presence of oxygen, ammonia is transferred to nitrates, according to the reaction: 2O2 + NH4+ = NO3-+H2O ....................................................................... (Eq-5.3) Greater mineralization is generally associated with higher nitrate concentration. The high nitrate concentration may occur due to leaching of NO3– from fertilizers and
[133]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION biocides during the irrigation of agriculture land. In the study area the average value of nitrate is high in the postmonsoon due to the monsoon effect. 5.3.17 Phosphate (PO43-): Although, PO43- behaves differently than NO3- as it is strongly adsorbed by soil colloids, which greatly retards its downward movement. Further, groundwater usually contains only a minimal PO43- level because of the low solubility of native phosphate minerals and the well-known ability of soils to retain PO43-. The strong bond of PO43- with clay minerals and metal hydroxides, particularly iron hydroxide, as well as its involvement in the biological cycle, are generally responsible for low concentration of PO43- in groundwater (Rajmohan and Elango, 2005; Matthess, 1982). Despite the large anthropogenic inputs to the soil, PO43- is not a contaminant of concern in most aquifers because of limited mobility (MPCA, 1999). The present study shows that the values vary from below detectable range to 0.66 mg/L with mean value 0.05±0.10 mg/L in premonsoon and during postmonsoon the value ranges between below detectable to 0.45 mg/L with an average 0.05±0.08 mg/L. The PO43- in the study area is very low, may be because of phosphate adsorption by soils as well as its limiting factor nature due to which whatever PO43applied to the agricultural field is used up by the plants. In one area such as Talpakuria of Hirapur block elevated level of PO43- concentration is found in water samples. This may be due to contamination of domestic waste. 5.3.18 Silica (H4SiO4): Conventional and routine chemical analyses performed as part of hydrogeochemical studies of groundwater systems normally do not include silica. Silica released as a result of chemical breakdown of silicate minerals in rocks and sediments by chemical weathering is acquired by circulating groundwater and therefore the source of H4SiO2 in groundwater is almost exclusively and unequivocally a result of water– rock interaction. Relatively high silica content in groundwater, therefore, implies more intense water–rock interaction, which, in turn, may be related to various aquifer-related parameters, such as permeability, residence time and lithology. Hydrochemical geothermometers (based on silica and cation abundances) were used to determine source– reservoir temperature of ground water. A pronounced positive co-relation is obtained for H4SiO2 indicating that high temperature water dissolved more silica while circulating in deeper formation [134]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Stewart et al., 2007). In another study, silica concentration is used to distinguish rainfall, short residence time shallow groundwater from longer residence time deeper groundwater (Yousafzai et al., 2010). A number of silica geothermometers have been proposed. The one which seems to be appropriate for groundwater systems is given by (Fournier, 1983). This equation (Eq-5.4) takes into account the solubility of chalcedony and is given here: T°C = [(1032)/ (4.69 – log SiO2)] – 273.15 (SiO2 in mg/L) ................. (Eq-5.4). By virtue of these characteristics of silica, a groundwater sample with higher silica content would represent more water–rock interaction at a relatively high temperature level than a sample with lower silica content. Translating silica values to aquifer temperature provides an estimate to the depth of aquifer assuming normal terrestrial thermal gradient of 30°C/km (Giggenbach et al., 1985 and Geological Survey of India, 1991). Concentration of H4SiO2 in groundwater of this area varies from 10.17 to 47.37mg/L with a mean of 24.41±8.68 mg/L in premonsoon. In postmonsoon its average value is slightly increased 24.52±6.36mg/L (ranges from 9.93 to 39.67 mg/L). 5.3.19 Fluoride (F-): Fluoride is one of the main trace elements in groundwater, which generally occurs as a natural constituent. In general, fluoride derives mainly from the lithological sources (Hem, 1991). The country rocks, containing apatite, besides replacement of hydroxyl by fluoride ions in amphibole and biotite, are the sources of fluoride in the groundwater (Hem, 1991; Jacks et al., 2005). The rocks, in which fluoride is strongly absorbed in the soils, consisting mostly of clays, are also the source of fluoride (Subba Rao et al., 1998.b; Madhavan and Subramanian, 2002; Ayoob and Gupta, 2006). Higher concentration of sodium is an indicative of weathering of minerals (Ramesam and Rajagopalan, 1985). Weathering is a natural characteristic feature of semiarid climate, and intensive and long-term irrigation is an artificial factor that also causes weathering (Ramamohana Rao et al., 1993; Wodeyar and Sreenivasan, 1996). Free circulation of water caused by rainfall and/or irrigation in the weathered products dissolves and leaches the minerals, contributing fluoride to the groundwater (Subba Rao, 2008.d; Shaji et al., 2007).
[135]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION During premonsoon the value of fluoride lies between 0.03 to 2.06 mg/L with mean value 0.50±0.40 mg/L and in postmonsoon varies between below detectable limit to 1.93 mg/L with an average of 0.57±0.42 mg/L. The concentration of fluoride in groundwater is not uniform in the area. This may be due to the differences in the presence and accessibility of fluorine-bearing minerals to the circulating water and also due to the weathering and leaching activities. In the study area only some parts of Raniganj coal field shows the presence of higher concentration (>1 mg/L) of F- in the ground water in both the seasons (Figure 5.13.a and b). 5.3.20 Trace constituents: Certain metallic constituents such as arsenic, cadmium and lead are found in ground waters, in indeterminate quantities or traces generally not exceeding 1 mg/L. The trace constituents are distributed in a variety of rock types. Arsenic, lead and cadmium are generally associated with intermediate and acid igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks into which acid igneous rocks have intruded. Arsenic and lead occur in native state and also compounds. The common minerals of arsenic and cadmium are sulphides. Available data does not permit a comprehensive understanding of the distribution of these constituents in ground water in relation to the composition of aquifer materials. High concentration of lead and cadmium may be found in mine waters having a low pH. Ground water may acquire lead, cadmium and arsenic through industrial waste disposal. Lead is usually found in low concentration in natural waters because Pb containing minerals are less soluble in water. Concentration of lead in natural water increases mainly through anthropogenic activities. The present study reveals that arsenic concentration in the study area as ranges from below detectable limit to 13.69 µg/L, with an average of 0.83±1.87 µg/L in premonsoon and in postmonsoon it is shows below detectable limit to 6.18 µg/L with an average of 0.99±1.42 µg/L. Lead and cadmium is both very toxic metals commonly found in industrial workplaces. Lead and Cd are used extensively in electroplating, although the nature of the operation does not generally lead to overexposures. Exposures to Pb and Cd are addressed in specific standards for the general industry, shipyard employment, construction industry, and the agricultural industry. Buildup of Cd levels in the water, [136]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION air, and soil has been occurring particularly in industrial areas. Environmental exposure to Cd has been particularly problematic in Japan where many people have consumed rice that is grown in cadmium contaminated irrigation water. This phenomenon is known under the name itai-itai disease. Some sources of phosphate in fertilizers contain cadmium in amounts of up to 100 mg/kg, (Trueman, 1965; Syers et al., 1986). It can lead to an increase in the concentration of cadmium in soil (Taylor, 1997.a). Nickel-cadmium batteries are one of the most popular and most common Cdbased products, and this soil can be mined for use in them. The Pd and Cd both of these are very harm full to any leaving being (plant and /or animals). Throughout the study area both of these two heavy metals are far below from the recommended values of CPCB, 2001 (< 2mg/L for Pb and < 0.2 mg/L for Cd) in both seasons (premonsoon and postmonsoon). 5.4
Hydrogeochemical facies The term “hydrogeochemical facies” is used to describe occurrence modes of
groundwater in an aquifer that differs in their chemical composition. The facies are a function of lithology, solution kinetics, and flow patterns of the aquifer. Hydrochemical concepts can help to elucidate mechanisms of flow and transport in groundwater systems and unlock an archive of paleo-environmental information (Pierre et al., 2005; Ophori and Toth, 1989; Hem, 1992). Hydrochemical diagrams are aimed at facilitating interpretation of evolutionary trends, particularly in groundwater systems, when they are interpreted in conjunction with distribution maps and hydrochemical sections. 5.4.1
Hill Piper (1953) diagram: Classification of geochemical facies and
interpretation of chemical data of natural waters can be classified on the basis of dominant ions using the Hill Piper (1953) diagram. To know the hydrogeochemical regime of the study area, the analytical values obtained from the groundwater samples are plotted on Piper trilinear diagram. These plots include two triangles, one for plotting cations and the other for plotting anions. The cations and anion fields are combined to show a single point in a diamond shaped field from which inference is drawn on the basis of the hydrogeochemical facies concept. These trilinear diagrams are useful in bringing out chemical relationships among groundwater samples in more [137]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION definite terms than other possible plotting methods. Facies are recognizable parts of different characters belonging to any genetically related system. Hydrochemical facies are distinct zones that possess cation and anion concentration categories, and this concept helps to understand and identify the water composition in different classes. Back and Hanshaw (1965) suggested subdivisions of the trilinear diagram to define composition class, based on which the interpretation of distinct facies from the 0% to 10% and 90% to 100% domains on the diamond-shaped cation-to-anion graph is more helpful than using equal 25% increments. The Piper trilinear graphical representation of the chemical data of the representative samples from the study area for the both the seasons reveals the analogies, dissimilarities, and different types of waters in the study area, which are identified and listed in Table 5.4.The Figure 5.14.a and b clearly shows that majority of the premonsoon samples falls in the field of 2 (alkalies exceed alkaline earths), 4 (strong acids exceeds weak acids) and 7 [non-carbonate alkali (primary salinity) exceeds 50%] with minor representation of 5 (alkaline earths exceed alkalies), 6 [non-carbonate hardness (secondary salinity) exceeds 50%] and 9 (no one cation–anion pair exceeds 50%). During postmonsoon, most of the samples represent the same type only No 6 i.e. non-carbonate hardness (secondary salinity) exceeds 50% become absent. So in summary 95% of groundwater samples are of Na+ - K+ - Cl- - SO42- water type which comes down to 80% during postmonsoon and this reduction in salinization ultimately leads to the process of reverse cation exchange which may create Ca2+ - Mg2+ - Cl- type waters due to the removal of Na+ from solution for bound Ca2+. Sodium-chloride water type in study area is due to the low velocity of groundwater, ion exchange, long time contacts of water, and formations as well as the type of the rocks. Based on Cl-, SO42- and HCO3- concentrations, the ground water sources were categorized as normal chloride (<15 meq/L), normal sulphate (<6 meq/L), and normal bicarbonate (2 - 7 meq/L) water types (Soltan, 1998). Among the 75 ground water samples, about 97.33 % and 100 % is respectively categorized as normal chloride and normal sulphate, whereas 100 % are of normal bicarbonate type in the premonsoon. But in postmonsoon it becomes 96 %, 100 % and 100 % respectively.
[138]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.4.2
Base Exchange (base exch.) and Meteoric genesis (met.gen): According to
Matthess (1982) and Abdel Moneim (1988) Base Exchange and meteoric genesis equations are as follows: Base Exchange= (Na+ - Cl-)/SO42- meq/L………............................................. (Eq -5.5) Meteoric genesis= [(K++Na+)-Cl-]/ SO42- meq/L……….................................. (Eq-5.6) According to the classification of meteoric genesis, groundwater is of two types- deep meteoric water percolation type (Met. Gen<1), and shallow meteoric water percolation type (Met. Gen>1). 69% and 96% of the sources of water during premonsoon and postmonsoon are of sodium sulphate type with the base-exchange value less than one(1) and the rest of sodium chloride type (value >1). Based on the analysis for meteoric genesis, it is found that the sources having sodium sulphate type of water are of deep meteoric water percolation type and the other of shallow meteoric water percolation type. 5.5
Identification of hydrogeochemical processes
Reactions between groundwater and aquifer minerals have a significant role on water quality, which are also useful to understand the genesis of groundwater (Cederstorm, 1946). All the possible identified processes are explained below in detail. 5.5.1
Mechanism controlling ground water chemistry: To assess the functional
sources of dissolved chemical constituents, such as precipitation dominance, rockdominance and evaporation dominance, Gibbs diagrams are widely employed (Gibbs, 1970). It represents the ratios I and II of Na+/ (Na++Ca2+) and Cl− / (Cl−+HCO3-) respectively as a function of TDS. Various researchers followed this type of chemical relationships of groundwater in different parts of India (Moses, 1994; Raju, 2006.a). The chemical data of groundwater samples collected from study area are plotted in Gibbs diagram (Figure 5.15.a and b). With respect to ratio I and II both the figure show 92% and 96% of the samples respectively represent chemical weathering of rock-forming minerals are the prime influencing factor for groundwater quality during premonsoon, whereas, 8% and 4% of the remaining samples represent evaporation is the causative factor. But in postmonsoon percentage of samples representing evaporation dominance have been increased to 16% and 19% [139]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION respectively. In other way this kind of spreading of ratio can be interpreted as chemical weathering of rock-forming minerals is the main causative factor in the evolution of chemical composition of groundwater of study area, which is later influenced by anthropogenic activities. Anthropogenic activities also influence the rock dominance by increasing Na+ and Cl- and thus TDS. Most of the samples falling in evaporation zone are also found to have high concentrations of NO3- and Clsuggests the effect of anthropogenic input. This is also supported by significant positive correlation between TDS - Na+ (premonsoon r = 0.89, p < 0.05 and postmonsoon r = 0.50, p < 0.05) and TDS – Cl- (premonsoon r = 0.80, p < 0.05 and postmonsoon r = 0.68, p < 0.05) (Table 5.5 and 5.6). 5.5.2
Ion-exchange: Control on the dissolution of undesirable constituents in water
is impossible during the subsurface runoff, but it is essential to know the various changes undergone by water during their trend (Johnson, 1979). Ion exchange is one of the important processes responsible for the concentration of ions in groundwater. Chloro-alkaline indices 1 and 2 (CAI 1 and CAI 2) calculated for the groundwater samples of the basin strongly suggest the occurrence of ion exchange process. CAI 1= [Cl – (Na+ + K+)]/Cl− ............................................................ ..(Eq- 5.7) CAI 2= [Cl− − (Na+ + K+)/ (SO42−+ HCO3-+CO32−+ NO3-)] ............... .(Eq-5.8) (All values are expressed in meq/L) When there is an exchange between Ca2+ or Mg2+ in the groundwater with Na+ and K+ in the aquifer material, both the above indices are negative, and if there is a reverse ion exchange, then both these indices will be positive (Schoeller, 1965, 1967). Schoeller indices values of the study area revels that in pre-monsoon there are an equal dominance of normal ion exchange and reverse ion exchange but in postmonsoon 64% samples show the dominance of reverse ion exchange(Table 5.1 and Table 5.2). Several researchers (Prasanna et al., 2011) reported similar kind of phenomena in other areas of investigation. Groundwater with a base-exchange reaction in which the alkaline earths have been exchanged for Na+ ions (HCO3- > Ca2+ + Mg2+) may be referred to as baseexchange - softened water, and those in which the Na+ ions have been exchanged for [140]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the alkaline earths (Ca
2+
2+
+ Mg
-
> HCO3 ) maybe referred to as base-exchange-
hardened water (Handa, 1979) in the study area 92% of the collected water samples have higher HCO3- concentration than alkaline earths thereby indicating base exchange-softened water. 5.5.3
Silicate weathering: Silicate weathering is one of the key geochemical
processes controlling the major ions chemistry of the groundwater, especially in hard rock aquifers (Mackenzie and Garrells, 1965; Rajmohan and Elango, 2004; Kumar et al., 2006). In Ca2+ + Mg2+ versus SO42- + HCO3- scatter diagram (Figure 5.16.a and 5.16.b), the points falling along the equiline (Ca2+ + Mg2+ = SO42- + HCO3-) suggests that these ions have been resulted from weathering of carbonates and silicates (Datta et al., 1996; Rajmohan and Elango, 2004; Kumar et al., 2006). Most of the points, which are placed in the Ca2+ + Mg2+ over SO42- + HCO3- side, indicate that carbonate weathering is the dominant hydro-geochemical process, while those placed below the 1:1 line are indicative of silicate weathering. Figure 5.17.a and b reveals that in both pre and postmonsoon season silicate weathering is far more dominant than carbonate weathering. In the plot for (Ca2+ + Mg2+) versus HCO3-, the data point irrespective of seasons fall away from equiline 1:1 to 2:1, indicating predominance of alkali earth by silicate weathering over bicarbonate. Minor representations are also noted in bicarbonate zone due to the reaction of the feldspar minerals with carbonic acid in the presence of water, which releases HCO3 (Elango et al., 2003) (Figure 5.18.a,b,c and d). Silicate weathering can be understood by estimating the ratio between Na+ + K+ and total cations (TZ+). The relationship between Na+ + K+ and total cations (TZ+) of the area indicate that the majority of the samples in both pre and postmonsoon season are plotted near the Na+ + K+ = 0.5TZ+ line (Figure 5.19.a and b) indicating the involvement of silicate weathering in the geochemical processes, which contributes mainly sodium and potassium ions to the groundwater (Stallard and Edmond, 1983). Furthermore, weathering of soda feldspar (albite) and potash feldspars (orthoclase and microcline) may contribute Na+ and K+ ions to groundwater. Feldspars are more susceptible for weathering and alteration than quartz in silicate rocks. The (Ca2++Mg2+) versus TZ+ plot (Figure 5.20 a and b) for both seasons lie far below equiline with average equilibrium ratio of 0.40 to 0.35 indicating that alkalis are enriched twice to thrice the amount of Ca2+ and Mg2+ due to leaching from silicate [141]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION weathering which is dominant in the aquifer materials of the study area. In the groundwater of the study area K+ is however, not as abundant as that of Na+, due to its fixation in the formation of clay minerals. 5.5.4
Evaporation: Evaporation process is not only a common phenomenon in
surface water but also in groundwater system. In general, it is expected that the evaporation process would cause an increase in concentrations of all species in water. Na/Cl ratio can be used to identify the evaporation process in groundwater. Evaporation will increase the concentration of total dissolved solids in groundwater, and the Na/Cl ratio remains the same, and it is one of the good indicative factors of evaporation. If evaporation is the dominant process, Na/Cl ratio should be constant when EC rises (Jankowski and Acworth, 1997). The plot for Na versus Cl (Figure 5.21 a and b) shows that, majority of zones indicating Na derived from weathering from silicate bearing minerals. Since Cl is abundant in both the seasons and due to rare Cl bearing minerals in silicate terrain, it might have derived from Anthropogenic (human) sources of chloride include fertilizer, road salt, human and animal waste, and industrial applications. These sources can result in significant concentrations of chloride in groundwater because chloride is readily transported through the soil (Stallard and Edmond, 1983). The EC vs Na/Cl scatter diagram of the groundwater samples of the basin (Figure 5.22 a and b) shows that the trend line is inclined in both the season having higher inclined tendency in premonsoon, and Na/Cl ratio decreases with increasing salinity (EC) which seems to be removal of sodium by ion exchange reaction. This observation indicates that evaporation may not be the major geochemical process controlling the chemistry of groundwater in this study region or ion exchange reaction dominating over evaporation. However, the Gibbs diagrams (Figure 5.15 a and b) justify that evaporation is not a dominant process in this basin. The sodium versus chloride (Figure 5.21 a) plot indicates that most of the premonsoon samples lie slightly above the equiline. The excess of Na+ is attributed from silicate weathering (Stallard and Edmond, 1983) while the post-monsoon samples are lying below of it (Figure 5.21 b), indicates that the addition of Cl- in the postmonsoon may be due to water level rise which causes more salt dissolution from the soil. This is also supported by higher HCO3 values in groundwater due to reaction of feldspar minerals with carbonic acid might be one of the reasons for increase in EC [142]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (Jankowski and Acworth, 1997) in both the seasons. Na+ concentration is also being reduced by reverse ion-exchange which is explained in the earlier section. Hence Na+ and Cl- do not increase simultaneously. 5.5.5
Anthropogenic inputs: Many studies reveals that variation in TDS in
groundwater may be related to land use and also to pollution (Jalali, 2009; Han and Liu, 2004). The source of Cl−, SO42−, NO3− and Na+ ions are mostly agricultural fertilizers, animal wastes and industrial and municipal sewage (Jalali, 2009). The correlation of these ions with TDS can be used to indicate the influence of human activities on the water chemistry (Han and Liu, 2004; Jalali, 2009). Increase of Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentrations with increasing TDS (Figure 5.23. a and b, 5.24. a and b) in both the seasons support the anthropogenic input mainly domestic and industrial waste (Jalali, 2009). The Na+ concentrations show an increasing trend with increasing TDS (Figure 5.25. a and b ) in both pre and post-monsoon and in addition to the weathering of silicate minerals it may be related to the anthropogenic sources such as sewage, household waste, engineering work effluents, deicing road salt, etc (Williams et al., 1999; Choi et al., 2005). Both pre and postmonsoon SO42− appears to show a good trend of increasing concentration with increasing TDS (Figure 5.26. a and b). In absence of geological source the possible source of SO42− in study area is mainly industrial effluents and domestic sewage (Pitt et al., 1999; Choi et al., 2005). Cl− and NO3− show a good trend of increasing concentration with increasing TDS (Figure 5.27. a and b, 5.28. a and b ), suggesting same source and can be used as pollution indicators for anthropogenic input (Jalali, 2009) such as decaying organic matter, sewage waste, leakage of septic tanks, etc. (Subrahmanyam and Yadaiah, 2000). A correlation coefficient more than 0.35 between Cl− and NO3− in both the seasons indicate same source of these ions and also supports anthropogenic inputs (Back and Hanshaw, 1966; Piskin, 1973; Ritter and Chirnside, 1984; Pacheco and Cabrera, 1997). In the study area strong positive correlation between Cl− and NO3− (premonsoon: r = 0.66, p = 0.05; postmonsoon: r = 0.52, p = 0.05) have been observed suggesting common source mainly anthropogenic activities (Figure 5. 29. a and b). A positive correlation between TDS with (NO3− + Cl−)/HCO3− (Figure 5.30. a and b) molar ratios supports the anthropogenic inputs (Jalali, 2009).
[143]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.6
Thermodynamic approach
Saturation indexes are used to evaluate the degree of equilibrium between water and minerals. Changes in saturation state are useful to distinguish different stages of hydrochemical evolution and help identify which geochemical reactions are important in controlling water chemistry (Coetsiers and Walraevens, 2006; Drever, 1997; Langmuir,
1997).
The
saturation
indexes
were
determined
using
the
hydrogeochemical equilibrium model, PHREEQC for Windows (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999). The saturation index of a mineral is obtained from Eq- 5.9 (Garrels and Mackenzie, 1967). SI = log (IAP/Kt) .................................................................................. (Eq-5.9) where IAP is the ion activity product of the dissociated chemical species in solution, Kt is the equilibrium solubility product for the chemical involved at the sample temperature. An index (SI), less than zero, indicate that the groundwater is under saturated with respect to that particular mineral. Such a value could reflect the character of water from a formation with insufficient amount of the mineral for solution or short residence time. An index (SI), greater than zero, specifies that the groundwater being supersaturated with respect to the particular mineral phase and, therefore, incapable of dissolving more of the mineral. Such an index value reflects groundwater discharging from an aquifer containing ample amount of the mineral with sufficient resident time to reach equilibrium. Nonetheless, supersaturation can also be produced by other factors that include incongruent dissolution, common ion effect, evaporation, rapid increase in temperature, and CO2 exsolution (Appelo and Postma, 1996; Langmuir, 1997). In Table 5.7 and Table 5.8, the SI for some common calcite and silicate minerals such calcite, dolomite, aragonite, gypsum, anhydrite, chalcedony, quartz and fluorite are shown. In both the seasons all the calcite minerals are under saturated with respect to all the locations. But in case of silicate mineral, majority of locations amorphous silica lies in equilibrium condition or having a tendency towards approaching equilibrium. Except three to four locations majority shows quartz and chalcedony have oversaturated condition supporting major dominance of silicate weathering in the study area. In both the seasons fluorite also has a under saturated condition throughout the study area. [144]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.7
Stable isotope approach
The stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in the water molecule can be used as an indicator of various sources of ions to groundwater. Different environmental processes influence the isotopic composition of a substance through fractionation, or preferential incorporation, of a particular isotope of an element in one species or phase over another. The fractionation of stable isotopes is due largely to the associated mass differences, related bond vibration frequencies, and zero point energies (Criss, 1999). Additionally, fractionation processes generally result in isotopically lighter molecules statistically favouring the less dense phase and the heavier molecules favouring the denser phase, often in a predictable manner. In water, isotopically light molecules have a higher zero point energy, therefore requiring less energy Input for phase change from liquid to vapour than that of heavier water. Accordingly, during evaporation the water molecule with the least significant energy barrier for phase change will preferentially evaporate, resulting in residual water that becomes progressively heavier or enriched in δ18O and δ2H. Similarly, the heavy isotopes of water are the first to fall as rain, resulting in water vapour masses that become progressively lighter as one moves inland (continental effect) from a water source or to a higher elevation (Orographic rainout effect). Other factors that can influence the fractionation of δ18O/ δ16O and δ2H/ δ1H generally include temperature, diffusion, and the kinetic effects of humidity (Clark and Fritz, 1997). It should however be noted that plants take up water indiscriminately and thus further fractionation due to crop uptake of soil water does not appreciably occur (Appelo and Postma, 2005). Stable isotopes are useful in hydrogeological investigations for the very fractionation effects discussed above, which enable one to trace environmental phenomena. Additionally, the stable isotopes of water are useful tracers as they are conservatively trans-ported in most groundwater environments, due to the fact that they represent the water molecule itself and not a dissolved solute, which can be significantly influenced by water rock interactions, biotransformation, sorption, exchange-reactions, etc. The isotopic data show considerably wide variations, the results of measured δ18O ranging between -7.91‰ and −1.47 ‰ in premonsoon and in postmonsoon[145]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.23‰ to -0.98 ‰ and the δD values varied from -60.36 ‰ to -10.27 ‰ in premonsoon and in postmonsoon -46.18 ‰ to -18.24 ‰ is observed (Table 5.9). The magnitude of the kinetic fractionation in different water masses can be determined by the deuterium excess (Gupta and Deshpande, 2005). The deuterium excess (d-excess) is defined as a second order parameter that reflects non-equilibrium fractionation during initial evaporation from the ocean, evaporation at the land surface, or reevaporation and/or mixing along the arid mass trajectory (Merlivat and Jouzel, 1979).The deuterium excess in the collected groundwater samples varies widely from −10.54‰ to 10.43‰ in premonsoon and in postmonsoon -10.45 ‰ to 9.40 ‰ is estimated (Table 5.9) Regular measurements of δ2H and δ18O in rainfall in the study area do not exist. So due to proximity to study area, heavy isotope ratios in rainwater from Bengal basin are also presented as local meteoric water line (LMWL) for comparison with the groundwater. The global meteoric water line (GMWL) is also given as reference. The conventional δD versus δ18O diagram shows that the groundwater data plot to the right of the Global Meteoric Water Line of Craig (1961), defining a single trend with a slope of 6, which is consistent with evaporative slope of between 4 and 6 (Giggenbach, 1990; Clarke and Fritz, 1997; IAEA, 2007a, b). Most of the groundwater samples plot slightly below the LMWL (δD=7.24δ18O+7.73) in both the season. A linear fit relation of all groundwater samples δD=6.02δ18O-6.48 ‰ (n = 75, r2 = 0.85) in premonsoon and δD=5.008δ18O-11.45 ‰ (n=75, r2 = 0.79) in postmonsoon were observed (Figure 5.31 a and b). The slope of δ18O - δD regression line for pre and postmonsoon samples of study area is less than that of GMWL (δD=8δ18O+10) which is an indication that the water has undergone minimum degree of evaporation. From the spatial and temporal variation of δ18O (Figure 5.32. a and b) it also reveals that enriched δ18O occurs as patches in sporadic locations such as centre part of the Raniganj block, topmost part of Salanpur block and bottom most corner part of Kaksa block during premonsoon but in postmonsoon mainly restricted to some parts of Salanpur and Kulti block. Most of the study area shows the signature of recharge through precipitation. Recharge contribution from Damodar and Ajoy rivers flowing upper and lower most end of the study area may be revealed only after the analysis of river water samples.
[146]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.8
Statistical analysis of hydro-geochemical data
5.8.1
Factor analysis: The results of the factor analysis for the pre and
postmonsoon season hydro-geochemical data are summarized in Tables 5.10. a and b, and graphical representation of clustering of different parameters are represented in Figure 5.33.a and b respectively. For pre and postmonsoon seasons respectively two and three factors were identified which controls groundwater quality. In both the seasons there were very slight difference observed in terms of total variance, loading matrix and eigen value exhibited by the same factor, i.e. by factor 1 in pre and postmonsoon as well as in the percentage of variance explained by particular factors in corresponding seasons. In the pre-monsoon, Factor 1 accounts 41.31% variance in the data. The variable present in this factor are EC, TDS, TH, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, SO42and NO3- which indicates reverse ion exchange and silicate weathering. High loading of NO3- indicates fertilizer contribution. Factor 2 accounts for 13.54% of total variance, with the high loading for pH, HCO3- and F- which may attributed from dissolution of fluoride bearing mineral in alkaline environment. Moreover this factor has a weak loading of K+, Fe, As, PO43-. This factor seems to be attributed to the adsorption phenomena occurring in the topmost part (Clay layer) of water table aquifer due to leaching of irrigation water from agricultural field. In the post-monsoon season the three factors i.e. Factor 1, 2 and 3 which were found to be responsible for the variations in groundwater quality explains 38.51, 14.31 and 8.16% of variance respectively in the data. Here again factor 1 show high loading for EC, TDS, TH, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, SO42- , As and NO3-. This reveals that cation exchange and silicate weathering still remains a major dominance factor in postmonsoon also. Furthermore, high loading of NO3- in factor 1, provides hint of the huge amount of fertilizers being used in the area. Factor 2 includes variable like pH, HCO3- , SiO2 and F- showing silicate weathering and release of F- in groundwater. Factor 3 shows high loading for K+ and PO43- attributing towards the use of potash and phosphate fertilizer in agricultural land.
[147]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.9
Drinking water suitability The quality of groundwater depends on the composition of the recharge water,
the interactions between the water and the soil, soil-gas and rocks with which it comes into contact in the unsaturated zone, and the residence time and reactions that take place within the aquifer. Therefore, considerable variation can be found, even in the same general area, especially where rocks of different compositions and solubility occur. The principal processes influencing water quality in aquifers are physical (dispersion/dilution, filtration and gas movement), geochemical (complexation, acidbase reactions, oxidation-reduction, precipitation-solution, and adsorption-desorption) and biochemical (microbial respiration and decay, cell synthesis). Groundwater quality is influenced by the effects of human activities which cause pollution at the land surface because most groundwater originates by recharge of rainwater infiltrating from the surface. The rainwater itself may also have an increased acidity due to human activity. The unsaturated zone can help reduce the concentrations of some pollutants entering groundwater (especially micro-organisms), but it can also act as a store for significant quantities of pollutants such as nitrates, which may eventually be released. Some contaminants enter groundwaters directly from abandoned wells, mines, quarries and buried sewerage pipes which by-pass the unsaturated zone (and, therefore, the possibility of some natural decontamination processes). The results of analyses performed on a single water sample are only valid for the particular location and time at which that sample was taken. One purpose of a monitoring programme is, therefore, to gather sufficient data (by means of regular or intensive sampling and analysis) to assess spatial and/or temporal variations in water quality. The physical, chemical and biological parameters of the analytical results of groundwater were compared with the standard guideline values recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1984) for drinking and public health standards (Table 5.3). The table shows the most desirable limits and maximum allowable limits of various parameters.
[148]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.9.1
Drinking water status with respect to physico-chemical constituents: The
physico-chemical quality of drinking water varied drastically among different sites of study area. We referred the standard ranges for different chemicals in drinking water as prescribed by WHO (1984) and BIS (1991). The drinking water samples were free from color, odor and turbidity. The taste is slightly to moderately saline at some of sampling sites of Jamuria, Andail and barabani. Though pH has no direct effect on human health, but it shows close relations with some other chemical constituents of water. Values signify the amount of total dissolved salts, which in turn indicates the inorganic pollution load of water. There were large variations in EC values not only in the samples collected from different Blocks, but also in the samples collected from the same blocks. According to WHO, the maximum acceptable concentration of TDS in groundwater for a domestic purpose is 500 mg/L but a wide area fall greater values of TDS in both season. Hardness is a very important property of water from its domestic application point of view. Hard water causes problem in boilers in industries. The acceptable limit of total hardness (as CaCO3) is 300 mg /L (ISI, 1983), which can be extended up to 600 mg/L in case of non-availability of any alternate water source. The Jamsol area of Jamuria I & II block in postmonsoon is observed greater values of TH. The acceptable limit for alkalinity is 200 mg/L (BIS, 1991). Beyond this limit, taste becomes unpleasant. However, in the absence of alternate water source, the TA up to 300 mg /L is acceptable. Table 5.3 suggests that TA ranges in water from different block areas were within the maximum permissible limit, i.e., 300 mg/L, as prescribed by ISI,(1983). Although, sodium and potassium ions are naturally occurring ions in groundwater, but industrial and domestic wastes also add ions to groundwater. According to ISI, 1983 the permissible limit of Calcium is 75 mg/L. The concentration of Ca2+ in most of the samples is within the maximum permissible limit of WHO (1996), only 4% in premonsoon and 7% in postmonsoon fall beyond the permissible limit. Although, Mg2+ is an essential ion for cell functioning by playing role in enzyme activation, but at higher concentration it is considered as laxative agent. The recommended concentration for Mg2+ is 30 mg/L and in this study most of the samples showed within the safe limit. Iron is an important component and also essential element for human body. It mostly exists in nature in the form of oxides. The permissible limit of iron in drinking water is 0.3 mg/L, according to BSI, 1991. This [149]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION investigation shows during premonsoon 26% of samples have higher than the permissible limits. The Cl- and SO42- are considered important inorganic constituents of water, which may deteriorate the quality of drinking water at higher extents. The permissible limit of Cl- in potable water is 200 mg/L and in premonsoon 10% samples greater than the permissible limit and it increased up to 17% in postmonsoon. SO42- is a naturally occurring ion in almost all kinds of water bodies and plays an important role in total hardness of water. Moreover, its concentration of more than 150 mg/L is objectionable for domestic purposes (ISI, 1983). At higher concentration, SO42- may cause gastro-intestinal irritation particularly when Mg+2 and Na+ are also present in drinking water resources. In this study, SO42- concentration in premonsoon 5% samples fall beyond the permissible limit but it increased upto 11% in postmonsoon (Table 5.3). According to BIS (1991) the desirable limit of nitrate is 45 mg/L. Hazardous potential is 0.1 mg/L. Present investigation reveals that, though the samples are below the maximum allowable concentration but greater than the hazardous potential. According to BSI, 1991 the permissible limit of phosphate is 0.1 mg/L. The phosphate concentration is high than the permissible limits in some areas like Talpakuria(Hirapur block),Rasunpur (Barabani block), Sarsatoli (Barabani block) etc. According to WHO 1984, the permissible limit is 1.5 mg/L. This study area belongs to a low content of fluoride in both the premonsoon and postmonsoon season. 5.9.2
Drinking water status with respect to microbiological constituents
5.9.2.1 Escherichia coli: The bacteriological content is one of the most important aspects in drinking water quality. The most common and widespread health risk associated with drinking water is the bacterial contamination caused either directly or indirectly by human or animal excreta. This is why Coliform bacteria (E.coli) are considered “indicator organisms”; their presence warns of the potential presence of disease causing organisms and should alert the person responsible for the water to take precautionary action. Total Coliform does not necessarily indicate recent water contamination by fecal waste, however the presence or absence of these bacteria in water is often used to determine whether water infected or not. Sources of total and fecal coliform in groundwater can include: •
Agricultural runoff [150]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION •
Effluent from septic systems or sewage discharges
•
Infiltration of domestic or wild animal fecal matter Poor well maintenance and construction (particularly shallow dug wells) can
also increase the risk of bacteria and other harmful organisms getting into a well water supply. Both the average premonsoon and postmonsoon (2007 and 2008 session) microbiological data of 75 sampling stations and their statistical summary are represented in Table 5.11, 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14. Spatio-temporal variation of Escherichia coli: In coliform test the results of pre and post-monsoon samples of Kanksa block remain unchanged. Near about 81% of samples shown positive results form the test (the range of MPN/100 ml of sample is 2-910 in both pre and post-monsoon). In Durgapur and Faridpur block 90% of premonsoon samples are contaminated by E.coli whereas in post-monsoon it becomes reduced to 50% (MPN /100ml vary from 2-110 and 2-33 respectively during premonsoon and postmonsoon samples). But opposite trend is found in Andal block and Barabani block i.e. in premonsoon 55% and 83% respectively of collected water samples are E. coli contaminated whereas in postmonsoon it increased to 88 % and 100%. (Premonsoon MPN/100ml varies from 2-170 and 4-345 and in postmonsoon ranges from 2-350 and 46-240 in both the blocks). In Jamuria block the 85% of the premonsoon and 71% of the postmonsoon collected samples are contaminated by E.coli. (Premonsoon MPN/100ml ranges from 4-31 and postmonsoon samples it becomes 2-1600). In Salanpur and Raniganj block 100% of samples become contaminated in both pre and postmonsoon samples (in premonsoon samples the MPN/100 ml of samples shows the range of 12-31and 9-345 but in postmonsoon it becomes 7-26 and 9-240). The results of premonsoon coliform test in Kulti block displays 40% contamination whereas in postmonsoon it sharply accelerates to 60% (premonsoon and postmonsoon MPN/100ml value ranges from 2-14 and 2-26 respectively). In Hirapur block 87% and 75% of groundwater contaminated with E.coli in premonsoon and postmonsoon respectively. (MPN/100ml ranges from 2-170 and 2-21 respectively). 75% of premonsoon water samples of Asansol block shows
[151]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION positive in coliform test which raises up to 100% during post-monsoon (premonsoon and postmonsoon MPN/100ml ranges from 2-21 to 11-21 respectively). GIS based regional scenario of E.coli: Spatial variability of E.coli on the basis of presence and absence of it during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon and variability of MPN have been simulated by the application of GIS and represented in Figure 5.34.a and b, 5.35.a and b respectively. From the thematic map of MPN it is seen that in both seasons except Barabani and some portion of Jamuria I&II, Ranigang, Andal and Kaksa block most of the study area have minimum MPN level i.e. 0-50 as per WHO 1993. 5.9.2.2 Salmonella sp.: It belongs to the family Enterobacteriaceae. They are motile, Gram negative bacilli that do not ferment lactose, but most produce hydrogen sulfide or gas from carbohydrate fermentation. Originally, they were grouped into more than 2000 species. Salmonella infections typically cause four clinical manifestations: gastroenteritis (ranging from mild to fulminant diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting), bacteraemia or septicaemia (high spiking fever with positive blood cultures), typhoid fever / enteric fever (sustained fever with or without diarrhoea) and a carrier state in persons with previous infections. In regard to enteric illness, Salmonella sp. can be divided into two fairly distinct groups: the typhoidal species (Salmonella typhi and S. paratyphi) and the remaining non-typhoidal species. Symptoms of nontyphoidal gastroenteritis appear from 6 to 72 hrs. after ingestion of contaminated food or water. Diarrhoea lasts 3–5 days and is accompanied by fever and abdominal pain. Usually the disease is self-limiting. The incubation period for typhoid fever can be 1–14 days but is usually 3–5 days. Typhoid fever is a more severe illness and can be fatal. Although typhoid is uncommon in areas with good sanitary systems, it is still prevalent elsewhere, and there are many millions of cases each year. Salmonella sp. is widely distributed in the environment, but some species show host specificity. Notably, S. typhi and generally S. Paratyphi are restricted to humans, although livestock can occasionally be a source of S. Paratyphi. A large number of species, including S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis, infect humans and also a wide range of animals, including poultry, cows, pigs, sheep, birds and even reptiles. The pathogens typically gain entry into water systems through faecal contamination from sewage [152]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION discharges, livestock and wild animals. Contamination has been detected in a wide variety of foods and milk. Salmonella is spread by the faecal–oral route. Infections with non-typhoidal servers are primarily associated with person-to-person contact, the consumption of a variety of contaminated foods and exposure to animals. Infection by typhoid species is associated with the consumption of contaminated water or food, with direct person-to person spread being uncommon. Waterborne typhoid fever outbreaks have devastating public health implications. However, despite their widespread occurrence, non-typhoidal Salmonella sp. rarely causes drinking-waterborne outbreaks. Transmission, most commonly involving S. Typhimurium, has been associated with the consumption of contaminated groundwater and surface water supplies. In an outbreak of illness associated with a communal rainwater supply, bird faeces were implicated as a source of contamination. Salmonella sp. is relatively sensitive to disinfection. Control measures that can be applied to manage risk include protection of raw water supplies from animal and human waste, adequate treatment and protection of water during distribution. Block-wise distribution scenario of Salmonella sp.: In Kaksa block only 9% of the premonsoon collected samples are affected by Salmonella sp. whereas during postmonsoon it increased up to 27%. Near about 30% pre-monsoon samples show positive results in Salmonella test in the Durgapur_Faridpur block which becomes 10% in post-monsoon. In Andal block results of Salmonella sp. In both pre and postmonsoon seasons remain unchanged i.e. 11%. In Jamuria block 42 % of the premonsoon samples are contaminated by Salmonella sp. followed by 28% in postmonsoon. Same trend is followed in Barabani block also. In this block 83% premonsoon samples are contaminated by Salmonella sp. Followed by a reduced level of 33% during postmonsoon. In Salanpur and Hirapur block 25% and 12% respectively of premonsoon samples are found positive with respect to Salmonella sp. but totally found negative during postmonsoon. Total absences of this species in both the seasons are found in Asansol and Kulti block. In Ranigang block 10% samples of both the seasons are found contaminated by Salmonella sp. GIS based regional scenario of Salmonella sp.: On the basis of presence and absence of Salmonella sp. in drinking water zonation map (Figure 5.36.a and b) in both the [153]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION seasons showing the probable extension of contamination are being formulated by the use of GIS application. During premonsoon season northern portion of the study area (some part of Barabani and Jamuria blocks) is more contaminated by Salmonella sp. but during postmonsoon contaminated area significantly reduced and mainly restricted to nearby area of Ajay River in the North and Damodar River in the south. This reduction is mainly responsible due to the dilution of water by monsoonal recharge of water. 5.9.2.3 Standard Plate Count (SPC) Block wise scenario of SPC: In Kanksa block the SPC (10-6) value in both the season remains
similar
i.e.
9-310
in
premonsoon
and
4-302
postmonsoon.
In
Durgapur_Faridpur block SPC (10-6) ranges from 5-173 in premonsoon and reduced to 7-52 range in postmonsoon. In Andal Salanpur and Asansol block premonsoon range of SPC (10-6) value slightly increases in post-monsoon. But in Jamuria block substantial increments are found. Here SPC (10-6) ranges from 36-172 in premonsoon and 7-267 in post-monsoon. Barabani block shows the pre and postmonsoon SPC (106
) of 32-201 and 92-193 respectively. The result of SPC (10-6) test in kulti block is 27-
135 and 9-31 during pre and postmonsoon respectively. Hirapur block shows the range of SPC (10-6) 24-167 in premonsoon and 9-49 only in postmonsoon. In Raniganj block premonsoon range of SPC (10-6) is 27 – 149 whereas in postmonsoon it slightly increases to 19 – 167. GIS based regional scenario of SPC: On the basis of SPC pre- and post-monsoon zonation maps are represented in Figure 5.37.a and b. From both the maps it is clear that there is a slight temporal variation of SPC. 5.9.2.4 Statistical scenario of both MPN and SPC: Block wise statistical summary of MPN and SPC are represented in Table 5.12 and 5.13. To examine the effect of season on MPN and SPC t-tests are carried out for the combined data of pre- and postmonsoon. Results of the t-test for the combined data are shown in Table 5.14. The table value (critical value) at 148 degrees of freedom is 1.65 for left-sided alternative hypothesis. Since the computed values of t are greater than the critical value of 1.65 for MPN so, the difference of means between premonsoon and postmonsoon are
[154]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION significant at 5% level. Hence, the results clearly indicate that there is no evidence of seasonal effect on mean values of SPC but significant effect on mean values of MPN. 5.10
Water Quality Index (WQI) Water Quality Index is a very useful tool for communicating the information
on overall quality of water (Pradhan et al., 2001; Das Gupta et al., 2001 Asadi et al., 2007). In this research work WQI has been applied to evaluate the suitability of groundwater for drinking purpose. According to Sahu and Shikdar, 2008 WQI value ranging from 200 to 300 will be suitable for drinking purpose and >300 is unsuitable. In both the seasons no sample falls within the unsuitable category. Calculated outcomes of WQI are represented in Table 5.15. 5.10.1 Temporal variation of WQI: According to WQI in both the season i.e. pre and postmonsoon 50% of water samples belongs to good category and 25% and 22% belong to excellent category. Rest of the samples i.e. 24% and 26% are fall within the poor category in pre and postmonsoon season respectively (Table 5.15). 5.10.2 GIS based scenario of WQI: Spatial variability of water quality on the basis of excellent, good and poor category of it during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon and variability of excellent, good and poor category have been simulated by the application of GIS and represented in Figure 5.38.a and 5.38.b respectively. In respect of area calculation 460.754 sq.Km. found excellent category in premonsoon it reduced up to 306.583 sq.Km. in postmonsoon. 913.279 sq.Km. of study area fall with in good category in premonsoon but in postmonsoon it goes up to 998.725 sq.Km. The poor category of water found 235.945 sq.Km. in premonsoon and it also goes up to 304.670 sq.Km. in postmonsoon (Table 5.15). From the thematic map of WQI it is seen that in both seasons a major part of Kaksa and Durgapur_Faridpur block and a small patch like areas of Asansol, Andal, Barabani and Jamuria I&II blocks fall with in excellent category. A major part of Asansol, Andal, Barabani, Jamuria I&II, Ranigang, Kulti, Hirapur and Salanpur fall within good category in premonsoon and postmonsoon both. Maximun portion of Jamuria I&II, southern part of Kulti, Asansol, Andal, Raniganj and Barabani fall with in poor category.
[155]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.11
Irrigation water suitability Irrigated agriculture is dependent on an adequate water supply of usable
quality. Agriculture is the main user of water accounting for 80% of all consumption. For example, it takes about 1000 tons of water to grow one ton of grain and 2000 tons to grow one ton of rice. It is now generally recognized that the quality of groundwater is an important as its quantity. Water quality concerns have often been neglected because good quality water supplies have been plentiful and readily available. This situation is now changing in many areas. Conceptually, water quality refers to the characteristics of a water supply that will influence its suitability for a specific use, i.e. how well the quality meets the needs of the user. Quality is defined by certain physical, chemical and biological characteristics. In irrigation water evaluation, emphasis is placed on the chemical and physical characteristics of the water and only rarely is any other factors considered important. There have been a number of different water quality guidelines related to irrigate agriculture. Each has been useful but none has been entirely satisfactory because of the wide variability in field conditions. The quality of irrigation water can affect the soil fertility and productivity. Soil that is originally non saline and non alkaline may develop saline and alkaline character if excessive soluble salts or exchangeable sodium are allowed to accumulate in the soil as the result of improper irrigation or soil management practices, or inadequate drainage. In excessively irrigated farms or areas of sufficient rainfall, the soluble salts originally present in the soil or added to the soil with water are carried downward by the water and ultimately reach the water table and may affect the groundwater quality. There have been numerous studies and reports on assessment of irrigation water quality in various states of the country (Sarma and Rao, 1997; Singh and Parwana, 1999, Singh et al., 2005, Haritash et al., 2008), but the studies on assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation in north-western part of Burdwan district of West Bengal state are scanty (Gupta et al., 2007). In a country whose economy runs on agriculture and which supports 1/6th of world population, it becomes imperative to screen the quality of water for agricultural use and to suggest the preventive and remedial measures. In view of the facts, the present study is [156]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION undertaken to characterize and evaluate the suitability of groundwater in the northeastern part of the Burdwan district. 5.11.1 Water quality problems: Water used for irrigation can vary greatly in quality depending upon type and quantity of dissolved salts. Salts are present in irrigation water in relatively small but significant amounts. They originate from dissolution or weathering of the rocks and soil, including dissolution of lime, gypsum and other slowly dissolved soil minerals. These salts are carried with the water to wherever it is used. In the case of irrigation, the salts are applied with the water and remain behind in the soil as water evaporates or is used by the crop. The suitability of water for irrigation is determined not only by the total amount of salt present but also by the kind of salt. Various soil and cropping problems develop as the total salt content increases. Water quality or suitability for use is judged on the potential severity of problems that can be expected to develop during long-term use. 5.11.2 Quality criteria for irrigation purpose: Several chemical constituents affect the suitability of water for irrigation. Some of these are: The total concentration of soluble salts (which is broadly related to the specific conductance of water) The relative proportion of sodium to calcium and magnesium The concentration of other elements that may toxic to plant The relative proportion of bicarbonate to calcium and magnesium Whether a particular water may be used without deleterious effects or not depends also on factors not directly related to water quality, such as nature and composition of the soil and sub-soil, depth of water table, topography, climate, type of crop, etc. When present beyond certain limits, salts in water applied for irrigation may harm plant growth by toxicity, or by changing soil properties. Soils with low permeability, shallow water table, flat topography and arid climates favour accumulation of salts within the root zones of plants. Certain crops have greater salt tolerance than others.
[157]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.11.3 Irrigation water status in the study area Parameters important with respect to the use in irrigation are represented in Table 5.16 and 5.17. Statistical summary represented in Table 5.18. 5.11.3.1 Salinity hazard: A salinity problem exists if salt accumulates in the crop root zone to such an extent that the crop is no longer able to extract sufficient water from the salty soil solution and plant shows symptoms similar to those of drought such as wilting, or a darker, bluish-green colour. In such a stage, plant osmotic pressure increases and plants wilt permanently under 15 to 20 bar (Raghunath, 1987). So, salinity affects crop water availability and reduces crop yield which follows the equation (Mass and Hoffman, 1977) as: Y=100-b (EC-a) .................................................................................. (Eq-5.10) where Y is relative crop yield (%), EC, is salinity of the soil solution extract (dSm-1), a is salinity threshold value and b is yield loss per unit increase in salinity The total concentration of soluble salts in irrigation water can be adequately expressed in terms of electrical conductivity for purposes of diagnosis and classification. In general water having conductivity below 750µmhos/cm is satisfactory for irrigation. Water having a range of 750 to 2,250µmhos/cm is widely used, and satisfactory crop growth is obtained under good management and favorable drainage conditions, but saline conditions will develop if leaching and drainage are inadequate. In our study, (EC) (in µmhos/cm) varied from 70 to 2349 µmhos/cm with a mean value of 813 µmhos/cm during pre-monsoon and from 65 to 2493 µmhos/cm with a mean value of 954 µmhos/cm during post-monsoon. Spatial and temporal variations of EC in study area are represented in Figure 5.4.a and b. Prolonged irrigation with saline water also causes secondary problems as; crusting of seedbeds, excessive weeds, and nutritional disorders and drowning of the crop, rotting of seeds and poor crop stands in low-lying wet spots. One serious side effect of an infiltration problem is the potential to develop disease and vector (mosquito) problem. However, in respect of salinity, the pre and post-monsoon quality of the water samples in the study area is found good to permissible with an excellent patch in both Durgapur_Faridpur and Kaksa block. During pre-monsoon very small areas of
[158]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Jamuria I & II and Andal block fall in the doubtful category whereas in post-monsoon this category restricted to Jamuria I & II, Durgapur_Faridpur, Andal and Raniganj blocks. 5.11.3.2 Permeability hazard: It occurs when normal infiltration rate of soil is appreciably reduced and hinders moisture supply to crops, which is responsible for two most water quality factors as; salinity of water and its sodium content relative to calcium and magnesium. High salinity water increases infiltration rate. Conversely, low salinity water or water with high sodium to calcium ratio decreases infiltration (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Relative proportions of other different cations or balance of some cations or anions defined by SAR, SSP, RSC, %Na and Mg hazard etc. are also the indicators of permeability problem. 5.11.3.2.1 Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) and Residual sodium bicarbonate (RSBC): In water having a high concentration of bicarbonate, there is a tendency for calcium and magnesium to precipitate since the water in soil becomes more concentrated as a result of evaporation. This reaction ordinarily does not go to completion, but when it does, there is a reduction in the concentration of calcium and magnesium and a relative increase in sodium. The calcium and magnesium are precipitated as carbonates, and any residual carbonate (RSC) or bicarbonate hazard. The water with high RSC has high pH and land irrigated by such waters becomes infertile owing to deposition of sodium carbonate as known from the black colour of the soil (Eaton, 1950). Further, continued usage of high residual sodium carbonate waters affects crop yields. RSC is given by the relation: RSC (meq/L) = [HCO3- + CO32-] – [Ca2+ + Mg2+] .............................. (Eq-5.11) Where, all the cations and anions are expressed in meq/L. The USDA method (Richards, 1954) has established guidelines for modifying water quality classification based on RSC. RSC level less than 1.25 meq/L is considered safe, where as water with RSC of 1.25 – 2.50 meq/L is within permissible range and RSC value of water sample 2.50 meq/L or greater is considered too high making the water unsuitable for irrigation use. In the study area premonsoon RSC value ranges from -9 to -0.19 meq/L with a mean of -1.39 meq/L whereas in postmonsoon RSC value ranges from -11 to 0.07 meq/L with a mean of -1.56 meq/L. During pre and postmonsoon 100% of [159]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION samples have RSC values much less than 1.25 meq/L (safe for irrigation), which revealed that all samples are of safe categories for irrigation. Further the value of RSC is negative at all the sampling sites, indicating that there is no complete precipitation of calcium and magnesium (Tiwari and Manzoor, 1988.b). In the study area, the water samples contained almost nil amount of CO32-. But HCO3- content is found to vary from 0.08 to 1.49 with a mean of 0.71 meq/L during pre-monsoon and in post-monsoon it is found to vary from 0.05 to 2.23 meq/L with an average of 0.76 meq/L It is reported that irrigation waters rich in bicarbonate content tend to precipitate insoluble calcium and magnesium in the soil as their precipitates, which ultimately leaves higher sodium proportion and increase SAR values (Michael, 1978) as; 2HCO3-+Ca2+ = CaCO3-+H2O+CO2 .................................................... (Eq-5.12) It is reported that although ordinarily bicarbonate is not thought to be a toxic ion, but it is reported to cause zinc deficiency in rice and is severe when it exceeds 2meq/L in water used for flooding and growing paddy rice (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Gupta and Gupta (1987) defined RSBC (residual sodium bicarbonate) as; RSBC=HCO3- - Ca2+ ............................................................................ (Eq-5.13) RSBC of the samples ranges from -6.39 to -0.12 meq/L in premonsoon and -8.89 to 0.04 in postmonsoon, which is satisfactory (<5 mg/L) according to the criteria set by Gupta and Gupta (1987). 5.11.3.2.2 Percent Sodium (% Na): Soils containing a large proportion of sodium with carbonate as the predominant cation are treated alkali soils, those with chloride or sulphate as the predominant anions are saline soils. The role of sodium for irrigation is emphasize because of the fact that sodium reacts with soil and as a result clogging of particles takes place, thereby reducing the permeability (Todd, 1980; Domenico and Schwartz, 1990; Nagaraju et al., 2006). Percent sodium in water is a parameter computed to evaluate the suitability for irrigation (Wilcox, 1948; Tiwari and Manzoor, 1988.b). %Na can be calculated by the following relation:
[160]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Na
K
100
Ca 2
% Na
Mg 2
Na
K
.............................................. (Eq-5.14)
where Na, K, Ca and Mg are in meq/L As per Wilcox 1955 irrigation water having %Na value of 20 considered as excellent; 20-40 as good; 40 – 60 as permissible and 60 – 80 and >80 are considered as doubtful and unsuitable for irrigation use respectively. In the study area %Na varies from 40 to 80 with a mean of 61 during premonsoon and 38 to 89 with a mean of 61 during postmonsoon. Spatial and temporal variation of %Na in the study area is shown in Figure 5.39.a and b. 5.11.3.2.3 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR): This is used to express the another important chemical parameter for judging the degree of suitability of water for irrigation is Sodium content of alkali hazard, which is expressed in Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). SAR also influences infiltration rate of water. The SAR is computed, where the ion concentrations are expressed in meq/L, as shown below:
Na
SAR =
Ca
2
Mg
2
0.5
............................................................. (Eq-5.15)
2
There is a close relationship between SAR values in irrigation water and the extent to which Na+ is absorbed by soils. If water used for irrigation is high in Na+ and low in Ca2+, the ion-exchange complex may become saturated with Na+, which destroys soil structure because of dispersion of clay particles. The sodium hazard is expressed in terms of classification of irrigation water as low (S1 < 10), medium (S2: 10 to 18), high (S3: 18 to 26) and very high (S4 > 26). In study area SAR value ranges from 0.65 to 7.82 with a mean of 3.06 during pre-monsoon and 3.05 during postmonsoon. Low-sodium water can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little danger of developing harmful levels of exchangeable sodium. Medium-sodium water will present an appreciable sodium hazard in certain fine-textured soils, especially poorly leached soils. Such water may be used safely on coarse-textured or organic soils having good permeability. High-sodium water may produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in most soils and will require special soil management such as good drainage and leaching and addition of organic matter. In our study, 100% of the [161]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION sources of pre-monsoon water are having low value of SAR. During post-monsoon low category SAR value reduce to 98% and 1% of source water fall in the very high category of SAR. 5.11.3.2.4 Soluble sodium percentage (SSP): As per Eaton, 1950 soluble sodium percentage is represented as follows: SSP =[Na+/(Ca2++Mg2++Na+)]x100..................................................... (Eq-5.16) Considerable amounts of soluble sodium percentage are reported from study area. SSP values vary from 2 to 79 with a mean of 39 in pre-monsoon and in postmonsoon it varies from 36 to 89 with a mean of 57. Ideally, water intended for agricultural use should have a lower concentration of sodium ions and higher amount of calcium and magnesium ions. This is just the opposite of water for domestic use. Sodium is the dominant cation in much of the groundwater sources in the study area. Excessive amounts of this ion may cause a significant decrease in the permeability of agricultural soils receiving irrigation water. The presence of excessive amounts of sodium ion in groundwater is due to phenomenon of cation exchange as the water percolates through clay-rich sediments. With respect to SSP in premonsoon 49% of sources have fair category irrigation water whereas in postmonsoon it has increased to 93%. 5.11.3.2.5 Magnesium Hazard: Generally, calcium and magnesium maintain a state of equilibrium in most waters. In equilibrium more Mg in the water will adversely affect crop yields. According to Paliwal (1972) magnesium hazard (Magnesium ratio) is calculated as follows: Mg haz. =(Mg2+x100)/(Ca2++Mg2+) ................................................... (Eq-5.17) Magnesium ratio of more than 50% would adversely affect crop yield as the soils become more alkaline. In the study area about 98% and 100% of the sources have magnesium hazard less than 50 during premonsoon and postmonsoon respectively and the water from these sources are found to be suitable for irrigation. High concentration of magnesium can be attributed to dolomite, a chief mineral of sandstone and siltstone. The categorization of irrigation water on the basis of EC, %Na, RSC, SAR and Mg hazard is given in Table 5.19. [162]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2+
2+
5.11.3.2.6 Mg : Ca
ratio: At the same level of salinity and SAR, adsorption of
sodium by soils and clay minerals is more at higher Mg2+: Ca2+ ratios. This is because the bonding energy of magnesium is less than that of calcium, allowing more sodium adsorption and it happens when the ratio exceeds more than 4 (Michael, 1978). It is also reported that soils containing high levels of exchangeable magnesium causes infiltration problems (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). In the present study the ratio of Mg2+ and Ca2+ do not exceed 1 during pre and postmonsoon both. The result, thus, indicates a good proportion of Ca2+ and Mg2+, which maintains a good structural and tilth condition with no permeability problem of the soil in the study areas. 5.11.3.2.7 Na+:Ca2+ ratio: Presence of excessive sodium in irrigation water also promotes soil dispersion and structural breakdown when Na+: Ca2+ exceeds 3:1. Such a high Na+:Ca2+ ratio also results in severe water infiltration problem, mainly due to lack of sufficient Ca2+ to counter the dispersing effect of Na+. Excessive Na+ also creates problems in crop water uptake, poor seedling emergence, lack of aeration, plant and root diseases etc. (Ayers and Wastcot, 1985). This study revealed that 96% samples in pre-monsoon and 97% samples in post-monsoon have Na+ and Ca2+ ratio less than 3:1, indicating the groundwater suitable for crop production and not to create any problem mentioned above. 5.11.3.2.8 Kelley’s ratio (KR): Kelly (1963) expressed KR as; KR=Na+/ (Ca2++Mg2+) ........................................................................ (Eq-5.18) Mean Kelly’s ratio (KR) is found as 1.59 and 1.69 in pre-monsoon and postmonsoon respectively. Kelly (1963) suggested that this ratio for irrigation water should not exceed 1. Thus the KR in the study area is marginally below the recommended limit showing a meager imbalance of Na+ with Ca2+ and K+. 5.11.3.2.9 Total Hardness (TH): According to Raghunath(1987), total hardness is calculated as; TH= (Ca2++Mg2+) x50 ........................................................................ (Eq-5.19) Average TH of the samples is 104 and 115 meq/L during pre and post-monsoon respectively, which indicates the water as moderately hard (Raghunath, 1987).
[163]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.11.3.2.10 Permeability Index (PI): The soil permeability is affected by long-term use of irrigation water. Sodium, calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate content of the soil influence it. Doneen (1964) evolved a criterion for assessing the suitability of water for irrigation based on a permeability index (PI) where PI= [(Na+ + √HCO3-)/ (Ca2+ + Mg2+)] x100 ....................................... (Eq-5.20) Accordingly, waters can be classified as Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I and Class II waters are categorized as good for irrigation with 50-75% or more of maximum permeability. Class III waters are unsuitable with 25% of maximum permeability. Permeability index in the study area ranges from 54 – 103 with a mean of 79 during premonsoon and 44 – 108 with a mean of 77 during postmonsoon. Accordingly, all the samples fall into the Class I and Class II category of Doneen’s chart. 5.11.3.3 Toxicity problem: Presence of certain specific elements in soil or water creates some problems like toxicity. The usual toxic ions in irrigation water are sodium, chloride and boron. Toxicity problem is different from a salinity problem, which occurs within the plant itself and is not caused by water-shortage. It normally results when these ions are taken up by plants and accumulate in the leaves during water transpiration to an extent that results in damage to the plant, whose degree depends on time, concentration, crop sensitivity and crop water use. Toxicity often accompanies or complicates a salinity or infiltration problem although it may appear even when salinity is low (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Presence of Na+ content in the studied samples has already been explained before but boron content in the samples could not be analyzed. 5.11.3.3.1 Chloride: Chloride ion concentration also deserves due consideration, as according to Ayers and Branson (1975), when meq/L value of chloride in irrigation water is less than 4 is non-restricted, 4 to 10 moderately restricted and above 10 severely restricted for irrigation purposes. So chloride content more than 10, water is likely to affect crop production adversely. Chloride is not adsorbed or held back by soils, therefore it moves readily with the soil-water, is taken up by the crop, moves in the transpiration stream, and accumulates in the leaves. If the chloride concentration in the leaves exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injury symptoms develop such as leaf [164]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION burn or drying of leaf tissue. With sensitive crops, these symptoms occur when leaves accumulate from 0.3 to 1.0 percent chloride on a dry weight basis, but sensitivity varies among these crops (FAO, 1994). In pre-monsoon 80%, 17% and 3% of samples fall under the category of non-restricted, moderately restricted and severely restricted but in postmonsoon the values change into 67%, 29% and 4% respectively. 5.11.3.3.2 Fluoride: Fluoride on plant surfaces can be harmful to plants and grazing animals. Fluoride in the soil is generally not harmful. USDA 2008 recommended 1 mg/L maximum concentrations of fluoride in irrigation waters. Fluoride concentration of the collected samples varies between 0.03 to 2.06 mg/L with mean values of 0.50 mg/L and 0 – 1.93 mg/L with a mean of 0.57 mg/L during premonsoon and postmonsoon season respectively. So the irrigation waters are safe from this point of view. 5.11.3.3.3 Sulphate: A number of crops show sensitivity to very high concentrations of sulphates in the irrigation water, but it is likely that this sensitivity is related to the tendency of high sulphate concentrations to limit the uptake of calcium is associated. On the other hand, with relative increases in the absorption of sodium and potassium (Tiwari and Manzoor, 1988, b). Premonsoon and postmonsoon mean values of sulfate are 59 and 57mg/L indicating within the tolerance limit for irrigation purposes (ISI 1974; 1,000 mg/L). 5.11.3.3.4 Nitrate: Nitrogen is a plant nutrient and stimulates crop growth. Natural soil nitrogen or added fertilizer are the usual sources, but nitrogen in the irrigation water has much the same effect as soil-applied fertilizer nitrogen and an excess will cause problems, just as too much fertilizer would. If excessive quantities are present or applied, production of several community grown crops may be upset because of over-stimulation of growth, delayed maturity or poor quality. Sensitive crops may be affected by nitrogen concentrations above 5 mg/L. Most other crops are relatively unaffected until nitrogen exceeds 30 mg/L (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). The nitrate concentration of the study area ranges from 0 to 24 mg/L with a mean of 4 mg/L and 0 to 29 mg/L with a mean of 8 mg/L during pre and post-monsoon respectively, which indicate water, is free from nitrate-nitrogen hazard.
[165]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.11.3.4 Miscellaneous problems: Several other problems are also associated with low quality of irrigation water. Some of these are i) Excessive vegetative growth, lodging and delayed crop maturity ii) Deposition of bicarbonate, gypsum and iron as stains on fruits and leaves iii) Irrigation water with a pH outside the normal range may cause a nutritional imbalance or may contain a toxic ion iv) Reduced infiltration rate in soils leading to water stagnation in crop field and infestation of various crop disease. 5.11.3.4.1 pH: It is the indicator of acidity or basicity of water. The recommended normal range of pH for irrigation water is 6.5 to 8.4 and above this range it may cause a nutritional imbalance or may contain a toxic ion. The pH value of the water samples for all the locations were found to vary from 5.48 to 8.21 with an average of 7.14 in premonsoon and 5.48 to 7.79 with an average of 7.03 in postmonsoon. 5.11.3.4.2 Total Iron (Fe): Iron content in the collected samples studied ranges from 0.02 – 2.38 mg/L with a mean of 0.29 mg/L in premonsoon and 0.01 – 0.42 mg/L with a mean of 0.11 mg/L, which is far below the recommended limit of 5mg/L (Ayers and Westcot, 1985). Irrigation water containing excessive iron has harmful effect on soil as it clogs the soil pores and also may encourage the growth of iron bacteria which causes to change the certain form of dissolve iron to insoluble ferric state (Khan et al., 1989). Thus, the low Fe value (<0.11 – 0.29 mg/L) obtained in the study area indicated free of risk for the above mentioned problems. 5.11.4 Graphical methods of representing analysis: Most of the graphical methods are designed to simultaneously represent the total dissolve solid concentration and the relative proportions of certain major ionic species (Hem, 1989; Guler et al., 2002). Two accepted and widely used graphical methods, such as Wilcox diagram and US Salinity diagrams are adopted in the present study to verify the suitability of water quality in the study area for agricultural purposes. 5.11.4.1 Wilcox diagram: Percent sodium is plotted against conductivity, which is designated as a Wilcox diagram (Wilcox, 1955). The average data of pre and postmonsoon 75 samples (2007 and 2008 session) have been plotted on a Wilcox diagram (Figure 5.40.a and b). Based on figures it is observed that 46.67% and 53.33% of collected samples fall in the permissible and doubtful category and 1.3%, 49.3%, [166]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41.3% and 8% of samples fall in the good, permissible, doubtful and unsuitable category respectively. 5.11.4.2 US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram: The US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram (US Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954) is used widely for rating the irrigation waters. SAR is plotted against EC. The plot of chemical data of the ground water samples of the area in the US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram is illustrated in (Figure 5.41. a and b). During pre-monsoon 37.5% of the samples point all under C2S1, which is designated as good water, while 25% fall under C3S1, which is designated as relatively good water and 37.5% fall under C4S4 plot which is designated as bad water. During post-monsoon 25% of the sample point fall under C1S1, this is excellent water. 37.5% sample point fall under C2S1 which is good quality water. 12.5% sample point fall under C3S2, which is moderate water, and 25% sample fall under bad water category which is designated as C4S4 plot. During premonsoon the percentage of bad water increases due to enrichment of Na+ and EC concentrations. 5.11.5 Statistical summary To examine the effect of season on irrigation water quality t-tests are carried out for the combined data of premonsoon and postmonsoon. Results of the t-test for the combined data are shown in Table 5.18. The table value (critical value) at 148 degrees of freedom is -1.65 for left-sided alternative hypothesis. Since the computed values of t are less than the critical value of -1.65 for the variables, such as pH, EC, SSP, Mg. haz. the difference of means between premonsoon and postmonsoon are significant at 5% level. Hence, the results clearly indicate that there is evidence of seasonal effect on mean values of irrigation water quality.
[167]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.1: Average Physico-chemical characteristics of pre-monsoon samples (2007 - 2008).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
B.N
Andal
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
3.80 4.26 2.84 2.44 3.74 8.05 11.34 5.75 2.35 3.79 6.67 4.15 6.42 6.09 10.54 3.55 1.51 3.04 2.89 3.87 3.79 3.68 5.48 7.50 10.69 12.71 20.65 10.05 11.80 11.21
6.95 6.50 6.32 6.70 8.14 6.97 6.96 6.73 7.12 7.35 7.53 6.22 6.43 6.66 7.22 6.35 7.79 7.84 6.70 5.91 6.83 5.96 6.40 6.35 5.48 6.85 7.84 7.38 7.33 7.58
29.15 28.90 29.10 29.35 28.50 29.60 31.00 29.40 30.10 27.60 27.55 29.75 32.20 30.55 29.00 29.90 32.60 31.85 29.10 29.90 30.15 32.05 32.85 30.50 29.85 32.85 28.45 28.45 28.00 30.30
385 580 285 315 390 265 345 685 1037 1111 1070 70 105 325 539 474 457 275 665 120 275 515 520 843 445 850 2350 1155 1105 1215
219.86 219.86 128.70 160.88 193.05 144.79 150.15 370.01 553.95 590.95 557.70 32.18 53.63 182.33 283.14 267.05 237.56 144.79 327.11 64.35 144.79 337.84 273.49 458.49 252.04 439.73 1324.54 638.14 611.33 611.33
18.40 25.30 22.40 24.80 24.00 19.20 22.40 38.50 80.50 74.40 67.40 7.20 9.60 12.45 33.80 23.55 28.25 16.00 36.00 8.80 15.20 38.40 26.40 54.60 12.40 66.40 174.00 68.60 72.10 82.40
20.00 28.10 14.40 18.40 23.20 19.20 25.60 38.50 83.50 63.30 65.20 4.80 8.00 14.00 42.40 14.60 36.40 16.80 25.60 7.20 16.80 11.20 10.40 25.50 6.15 53.60 30.40 44.90 63.10 51.20
44.75 47.20 27.50 37.90 39.05 17.30 24.05 38.45 80.00 73.50 74.65 5.95 6.90 18.95 43.55 30.35 28.35 23.00 60.20 7.00 27.75 59.25 59.45 57.25 31.90 56.10 213.70 84.40 60.50 98.45
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
9.10 12.80 1.37 24.30 19.20 1.49 10.40 10.40 2.93 3.70 11.20 3.32 7.90 16.80 1.76 2.30 10.40 2.15 15.45 19.20 0.78 26.30 30.70 1.90 14.15 51.50 7.08 17.00 57.00 4.25 17.00 48.60 4.59 0.95 4.00 0.78 0.80 8.00 0.39 20.00 9.00 0.84 1.60 21.60 2.98 5.25 12.90 2.60 2.95 22.00 1.53 3.90 13.60 0.59 12.25 29.60 1.56 5.00 4.80 0.98 4.20 10.40 1.17 12.55 18.40 4.88 2.65 16.80 2.34 2.40 44.50 2.46 4.45 11.60 0.20 7.80 42.40 5.86 2.00 103.00 17.32 6.55 46.20 5.47 7.85 58.50 3.32 7.45 49.60 8.00
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3
H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
CA-I
CA-II
0.19 0.21 0.28 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.34 0.68 0.27 0.09 0.06 0.36 0.24 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.06
0.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.02 0.00 7.03 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.64 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.83 3.74 1.44
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.00 27.60 14.40 18.40 23.20 19.20 25.60 38.50 83.50 63.30 65.20 4.80 8.00 14.00 42.40 14.60 36.40 16.80 25.60 7.20 16.80 11.20 10.40 25.50 6.15 53.60 30.40 44.90 63.10 51.20
49.98 68.98 22.49 39.98 44.98 29.99 24.99 101.98 117.46 183.47 133.97 19.99 14.99 53.99 40.99 96.47 23.49 27.49 92.47 17.49 19.99 87.47 87.47 95.98 70.98 97.47 595.41 197.96 129.96 184.94
12.61 47.00 25.51 11.08 20.40 3.75 3.01 49.78 52.63 45.77 67.82 0.40 1.70 7.41 2.14 11.96 13.93 11.99 63.64 0.80 19.43 43.18 51.59 140.42 5.54 37.33 196.69 79.87 70.54 84.66
0.26 0.43 1.72 0.28 1.13 0.50 0.57 0.04 0.24 0.17 2.45 0.27 0.80 1.39 0.53 0.00 0.68 0.84 0.66 0.83 0.70 9.72 7.32 11.91 10.62 1.20 23.61 6.46 5.11 15.71
0.08 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
14.71 39.46 27.03 24.78 41.03 35.67 27.30 35.70 24.39 34.49 39.31 19.98 17.37 32.76 29.74 28.69 17.06 15.07 30.77 36.67 26.32 32.13 35.07 15.96 13.06 12.92 30.34 27.84 40.18 29.38
0.15 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.58 0.48 0.51 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.47 0.10 0.77 0.15 0.11 0.22 0.38 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.04 0.46 0.39 0.73 0.58 0.39
0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12
0.17 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.33 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.37 0.21 0.31 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.00 0.13 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.12
-0.22 0.26 -0.47 -0.38 -0.18 0.18 0.08 0.65 0.06 0.47 0.26 0.58 0.34 0.79 -0.60 0.56 -0.75 -0.16 0.12 0.64 -0.95 0.09 -0.02 0.10 0.36 0.19 0.45 0.37 0.34 0.22
-0.51 0.36 -0.37 -0.79 -0.28 0.38 0.11 1.13 0.08 1.21 0.38 3.61 0.80 2.98 -0.93 3.14 -0.55 -0.23 0.17 2.14 -0.78 0.17 -0.04 0.08 1.88 0.30 1.52 0.83 0.48 0.39
[168]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.1 Continued.
Jamuria-1 & II Barabani Salanpur Kulti
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
B.N
Hirapur
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
6.63 20.90 15.75 8.88 13.84 16.28 6.07 4.19 3.39 12.06 4.40 3.70 7.90 5.13 9.00 5.30 3.95 3.44 0.85 3.27 2.00 1.76 14.20 6.65 4.07 1.50 7.90 5.79 3.58 4.46
6.21 7.40 7.44 7.82 8.14 7.59 6.52 7.19 7.04 7.62 7.43 7.34 7.01 7.19 6.70 6.99 6.88 7.35 6.73 7.15 7.61 7.43 8.21 7.58 7.37 7.49 7.65 7.12 7.39 7.29
31.75 31.95 31.00 31.80 30.70 31.25 32.70 31.90 30.70 30.35 30.35 28.70 29.70 30.95 27.60 29.15 27.60 25.70 27.10 26.70 27.30 27.40 27.65 26.85 27.80 28.40 30.10 28.50 29.45 29.15
180 2279 1025 1366 400 1150 751 790 675 900 985 433 556 1200 1053 555 685 370 505 1490 880 755 843 931 675 955 746 1000 1010 1225
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
96.53 16.80 8.00 11.75 11.95 9.60 1.76 1280.03 274.40 36.10 225.25 9.65 140.00 32.79 573.79 60.50 84.80 116.00 5.50 30.30 7.37 741.10 83.70 59.40 176.60 8.55 48.40 8.61 155.51 28.80 30.50 30.30 3.60 16.80 2.93 627.41 94.40 69.60 82.50 6.50 40.80 13.08 408.62 42.30 7.80 34.60 1.10 31.30 2.68 412.91 61.60 58.40 59.30 6.20 35.20 6.44 332.48 76.80 51.20 68.60 27.15 21.60 13.47 734.66 108.00 23.20 75.00 26.05 40.80 16.40 487.99 60.80 37.60 73.40 64.15 43.20 4.29 233.81 22.20 33.90 36.85 6.75 17.00 1.27 296.01 29.80 21.60 46.85 6.10 20.80 2.20 622.05 86.40 52.00 63.65 11.60 40.80 11.13 550.19 63.20 36.20 97.25 7.80 43.90 4.71 278.85 32.00 32.00 58.40 5.65 20.00 2.93 359.29 36.80 33.30 72.20 7.85 19.20 4.29 305.66 43.20 47.20 50.75 4.80 21.60 5.27 289.58 32.80 35.20 40.95 6.35 21.60 2.73 772.20 89.60 70.40 157.20 38.80 56.80 8.00 482.63 45.60 64.80 106.30 5.80 30.40 3.71 396.83 55.20 58.40 58.40 5.35 35.20 4.88 459.03 41.20 34.40 77.00 8.30 31.50 2.37 505.15 49.90 56.00 90.30 1.85 30.50 4.73 327.11 38.40 40.00 66.55 8.30 22.40 3.90 520.16 54.50 59.30 72.75 9.50 38.30 3.95 408.62 45.50 41.20 40.70 5.50 33.80 2.85 525.53 68.80 79.20 74.70 6.25 40.00 7.03 530.89 60.00 52.80 100.45 16.30 39.20 5.08 654.23 73.60 76.00 130.90 6.40 48.00 6.25
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
0.05 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.28 0.36 0.19 0.23 0.40 0.65 0.45 0.19 0.43 0.39 1.65 0.38 0.64 0.27 0.26 0.56 0.17 0.21 0.28 0.52 0.50
2.92 0.00 1.63 1.15 0.00 1.41 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.52 2.75 0.65 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.69 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.22 0.26 2.42 1.73 0.61 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.00 24.99 4.94 36.10 1057.83 211.08 84.80 71.98 38.81 59.40 257.43 150.17 30.50 22.49 11.02 69.60 154.95 92.67 7.80 102.47 88.91 58.40 52.48 58.24 51.20 69.98 10.97 23.20 212.43 91.31 37.60 209.93 64.94 33.90 43.99 36.88 21.60 96.97 50.61 52.00 227.43 86.48 36.20 147.97 69.07 32.00 47.48 25.17 33.30 67.47 34.60 47.20 27.49 25.00 35.20 49.98 28.64 70.40 244.92 93.41 64.80 69.98 74.94 58.40 54.98 19.60 34.40 91.48 100.39 56.00 81.47 111.87 40.00 52.48 39.15 59.30 107.47 57.02 41.20 78.98 64.66 79.20 119.96 91.76 52.80 99.96 84.26 76.00 109.96 140.80
6.88 24.56 0.99 4.54 0.29 8.03 20.39 3.14 1.82 1.46 4.38 1.28 5.05 13.90 15.67 2.50 6.94 0.71 0.24 10.50 0.39 0.32 9.00 2.16 3.86 1.69 2.99 5.52 10.86 3.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.32 0.50 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.11 0.66
23.76 20.93 17.69 19.44 16.99 11.77 10.45 20.33 16.17 12.13 24.45 10.17 13.08 24.83 30.00 32.78 29.95 47.37 38.66 16.27 18.01 13.23 25.45 31.88 17.70 27.83 25.37 25.72 31.53 13.13
F-
Cd
Pb
CA-I
CA-II
0.05 0.37 0.33 0.88 0.58 0.23 0.15 0.45 0.31 0.21 0.28 0.53 0.57 0.79 0.97 0.49 0.50 1.54 0.48 0.36 0.56 0.51 0.80 0.64 1.09 1.20 0.36 0.21 0.88 0.61
0.13 0.126 0.127 0.126 0.116 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.131 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.11
0.254 0.277 0 0.115 0 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.27 0.122 0.17 0.00 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.11 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.26
0.71 0.68 -1.42 -0.03 -0.93 0.22 0.49 -0.64 -0.16 0.57 0.74 -0.15 0.31 0.61 0.03 -0.79 -0.54 -1.69 -0.15 0.15 -1.27 -0.55 -0.22 -0.69 -0.81 0.04 0.27 0.09 -0.40 -0.78
1.45 3.77 -1.30 -0.05 -0.81 0.30 0.61 -0.42 -0.29 1.47 2.14 -0.14 0.57 1.37 0.06 -0.97 -0.75 -1.00 -0.18 0.33 -0.95 -0.62 -0.20 -0.48 -0.78 0.05 0.29 0.09 -0.41 -0.57
[169]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.1 Continued.
Asansol
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
B.N
Ranigang
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
3.43 5.11 2.34 4.44 3.98 0.95 8.40 3.55 6.62 6.73 8.90 3.35 6.95 11.09 10.90
7.50 7.41 7.48 7.37 7.27 7.32 6.51 7.36 7.47 7.57 7.23 7.15 7.46 7.75 7.60
29.65 31.45 29.65 31.15 30.20 30.80 26.75 27.00 29.60 29.65 28.00 27.25 27.75 28.40 29.10
1050 895 1150 1015 1080 1125 485 963 835 480 1285 1113 1960 1135 1320
557.70 466.54 600.60 546.98 579.15 557.70 252.04 496.57 337.84 273.49 681.04 565.74 1056.41 627.41 681.04
76.80 66.40 60.80 63.20 65.60 52.80 30.00 45.85 60.00 32.00 99.00 80.10 149.60 55.80 92.00
64.00 91.20 72.80 64.80 64.00 76.00 28.40 59.40 60.80 32.00 60.90 80.10 81.70 57.70 64.80
72.30 89.50 122.85 92.50 113.30 157.10 27.30 154.70 64.20 34.90 84.30 118.85 314.20 152.90 108.40
5.30 12.70 8.80 4.45 4.25 15.80 3.60 6.00 4.35 4.10 7.30 6.45 2.55 5.80 21.75
28.00 40.80 40.80 35.20 35.20 30.40 20.30 25.80 36.80 23.20 70.60 56.00 104.00 32.30 40.00
11.91 6.25 4.88 6.83 7.42 5.47 2.37 4.89 5.66 2.15 6.93 5.88 11.13 5.73 12.69
0.45 0.67 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.63 0.17 0.24 0.26 2.38 0.15 0.29 0.55 0.09 0.29
0.00 0.81 1.02 0.00 2.03 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.12 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
64.00 91.20 72.80 64.80 64.00 76.00 28.40 59.40 60.80 32.00 60.90 80.10 81.70 57.70 64.80
114.96 99.97 124.96 104.97 102.47 114.96 48.98 127.97 62.48 32.49 171.96 132.46 308.95 119.96 172.44
110.28 23.75 83.86 61.93 103.92 63.92 43.17 61.84 42.50 29.43 108.06 71.50 271.34 96.34 77.95
0.40 2.52 0.19 3.41 4.54 2.69 2.67 0.78 1.89 0.31 11.60 0.95 20.24 6.59 19.83
0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04
16.67 22.15 19.07 13.76 22.54 22.46 29.95 21.39 22.08 17.27 25.01 15.52 28.05 35.67 16.70
F-
Cd
Pb
CA-I
CA-II
0.51 0.43 0.52 0.70 0.56 0.68 0.30 2.06 0.85 0.49 0.49 1.59 0.44 1.64 0.99
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.111 0.11 0.11
0.27 0.26 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.24 0.16 0.28
0.07 -0.27 -0.45 -0.32 -0.67 -0.98 0.21 -0.82 -0.52 -0.54 0.28 -0.34 -0.56 -0.92 0.14
0.07 -0.37 -0.54 -0.39 -0.59 -1.22 0.20 -1.30 -0.48 -0.43 0.40 -0.45 -0.67 -1.02 0.23
B.N stands for Block Name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
[170]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.2: Average Physico-chemical characteristics of post-monsoon samples (2007 - 2008).
Durgapur_Faridpur Andal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
Kaksa
SL.NO B.N
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
CA-I
CA-II
3.39 4.80
6.86 6.43
23.10 26.05
355 880
230.75 568.75
16.80 37.50
36.80 80.50
37.00 55.50
9.90 43.45
11.20 30.20
1.37 1.78
0.13 0.08
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
36.80 44.49 27.50 41.69 116.96 54.38
0.67 15.46
0.02 0.14
17.68 36.84
0.18 0.16
0.13 0.12
0.23 0.26
-0.08 0.61
-0.09 0.97
2.12
6.56
23.70
380
247.00
22.40
44.80
27.85
10.75
17.60
1.17
0.09
0.23
0.00
44.80
38.18
1.99
0.02
31.79
0.14
0.13
0.26
-0.31
-0.14
2.05 2.65
7.06 7.35
23.55 22.20
405 1365
263.25 887.25
21.60 64.00
43.20 38.95 5.45 96.80 109.45 68.60
15.20 42.40
1.56 5.27
0.16 0.11
0.36 0.51
0.00 0.00
43.20 45.49 19.03 96.80 226.96 140.80
0.83 3.09
0.01 0.22
22.56 37.68
0.17 0.35
0.12 0.12
0.28 0.19
-0.21 0.53
-0.24 0.74
4.55 5.64
6.64 6.22
23.90 24.20
265 185
172.25 120.25
16.80 7.20
15.20 8.80
21.95 22.70
12.80 4.40
0.98 0.68
0.12 0.08
0.00 0.13
0.00 0.00
15.20 8.80
1.15 0.40
0.02 0.01
31.56 22.46
0.45 0.03
0.13 0.13
0.27 0.26
0.05 0.25
0.10 0.76
4.90
6.99
26.05
1577
1019.53 64.50
69.60
85.60 150.20 43.80
5.05
0.26
0.40
0.00
35.33 210.96 125.62
7.14
0.07
28.05
0.30
0.12
0.29
1.02
1.83
1.65 4.00
6.69 7.27
25.45 27.50
2494 808
1628.41 104.10 39.10 114.10 62.85 519.35 49.60 73.40 26.45 16.10
34.50 34.90
16.98 3.59
0.16 0.06
1.08 1.66
0.00 0.00
29.29 232.93 155.62 11.86 36.99 78.98 36.42 0.05
0.00 0.14
27.68 10.46
0.38 0.61
0.12 0.12
0.18 0.22
0.49 0.67
0.82 1.09
6.00 2.38
7.37 5.66
26.90 24.75
1200 75
767.00 48.75
70.40 4.80
91.10 4.80
50.00 26.80
21.90 3.00
57.10 2.80
3.25 0.49
0.05 0.11
1.55 2.99
0.00 0.00
46.42 112.98 75.62 4.80 19.54 6.48
2.91 0.27
0.26 0.00
12.73 21.63
0.51 0.02
0.12 0.13
0.31 0.24
0.49 -0.98
0.66 -2.47
3.85 2.10
5.48 6.21
25.70 27.80
65 420
42.25 276.25
4.00 27.40
3.20 19.00
26.70 22.00
2.45 57.90
2.00 8.10
0.49 4.71
0.16 0.37
6.18 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.20 10.35
18.94 67.48
3.81 34.00
2.47 8.30
0.01 0.02
18.78 25.26
0.00 0.10
0.12 0.12
0.18 0.19
-1.06 1.27
-3.29 2.40
7.60
7.03
27.65
712
455.49
51.30
37.50
52.20
6.65
19.00
7.88
0.17
0.01
0.00
21.54
68.98
15.49
2.99
0.02
25.30
0.41
0.13
0.17
-0.08
-0.21
2.23 1.70
6.58 7.18
25.05 25.90
550 600
357.50 383.50
28.80 40.60
17.60 36.50
42.00 25.85
10.95 8.15
19.20 23.30
2.34 4.22
0.09 0.42
0.00 1.52
0.00 0.00
17.60 105.98 30.68 20.51 51.97 25.62
0.78 0.58
0.00 0.00
24.69 22.10
0.11 0.61
0.12 0.12
0.18 0.16
0.48 0.38
1.54 0.63
3.18 2.83
7.14 6.88
25.15 27.55
275 1090
178.75 708.50
19.20 63.20
17.60 36.00
26.95 73.95
6.05 8.20
12.40 50.40
1.66 3.12
0.06 0.12
1.22 2.83
0.00 0.00
17.60 19.50 22.05 36.00 174.98 144.55
1.06 0.61
0.03 0.01
14.16 22.70
0.15 0.13
0.12 0.12
0.11 0.13
-0.85 0.39
-0.61 0.53
3.08 3.53
6.26 6.96
25.50 25.35
145 335
94.25 217.75
8.80 22.40
12.80 22.40
29.30 31.55
7.30 6.35
5.20 13.60
0.88 2.15
0.15 0.15
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
12.80 22.40
0.63 36.53
1.46 1.65
0.01 0.01
29.28 18.66
0.17 0.41
0.10 0.12
0.17 0.28
-0.56 -0.88
-1.58 -0.49
4.98
5.71
26.25
550
357.50
28.00
12.80
50.90
10.75
18.80
2.24
0.10
0.00
0.00
12.80 109.63 23.41
15.50
0.01
34.52
0.25
0.12
0.13
0.37
1.22
6.62 7.14
6.22 6.32
26.75 26.90
500 855
325.00 555.75
21.60 45.60
6.40 16.00
49.95 64.80
4.65 4.75
13.20 34.40
2.05 2.73
0.10 0.14
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
6.40 16.00
77.79 49.26 13.13 97.23 140.28 18.14
0.00 0.01
33.47 38.23
0.32 0.14
0.13 0.12
0.15 0.15
0.06 0.02
0.10 0.01
7.98 9.14
5.66 7.77
26.70 28.15
470 940
305.50 611.00
19.20 66.40
5.60 44.00
41.40 51.70
10.25 9.65
13.60 38.40
1.37 6.83
0.36 0.12
0.00 0.86
0.00 0.00
5.60 75.34 6.70 44.00 105.28 84.49
17.21 5.51
0.01 0.03
39.67 25.05
0.26 0.67
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.25
0.28 0.33
1.15 0.38
6.45 9.45
7.11 7.57
27.40 27.20
2144 1015
1349.73 221.60 68.00 121.75 11.05 150.40 17.37 659.75 63.20 52.00 61.55 3.90 50.40 3.12
0.15 0.11
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
68.00 612.89 197.27 29.27 52.00 174.47 78.01 8.06
0.01 0.01
22.80 21.17
0.47 0.58
0.12 0.11
0.20 0.14
0.71 0.48
2.16 0.90
10.58
7.29
27.10
1220
793.00
88.00
71.20
72.40
3.75
62.40
6.25
0.10
0.00
0.00
71.20 146.98 80.91
9.66
0.01
25.89
0.57
0.11
0.18
0.26
0.36
9.10
7.67
25.95
1245
809.25
63.20
61.60
94.25
9.15
47.20
3.90
0.09
2.87
0.00
61.60 152.48 123.01 15.03
0.05
20.31
0.57
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11
3.25 9.40
Cl-
25.39
32.44 35.39
24.77 22.85
8.98 8.75
[171]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.2 Continued.
Barabani Salanpur Kulti Hirapur
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Jamuria-1 & II
SL.NO B.N
WL(m) 4.85
pH 6.63
T(°C) 26.70
EC 165
TDS 107.25
TH 8.80
TA 3.20
Na+ 28.25
K+ 15.05
Ca+2 5.20
Mg+2 0.88
Fe 0.10
As 0.11
CO3-2 HCO30.00 3.20
5.55 11.00
6.82 7.21
28.70 27.00
2159 1085
1398.64 334.00 27.20 693.88 44.60 56.00
322.45 91.00
33.00 187.10 35.84 13.45 20.90 5.78
0.15 0.13
1.62 4.01
0.00 0.00
3.50 6.29
7.11 7.65
27.55 26.55
2104 405
1374.75 164.50 46.40 1030.30 35.35 263.25 22.40 26.40 26.70 4.30
70.60 14.80
22.91 1.85
0.13 0.09
4.68 0.02
12.44
7.68
26.50
1380
897.00 110.40 54.40
86.60
7.40
46.40
15.62
0.08
3.50 4.81
6.83 7.41
25.45 27.00
800 825
520.00 536.25
47.20 55.20
10.40 48.00
41.90 51.45
16.75 8.25
33.60 36.80
3.32 4.49
0.05 0.11
2.45 7.76
7.04 7.14
26.45 26.25
635 1635
412.75 29.60 1062.75 97.60
35.20 48.80
68.65 108.80
32.60 71.85
17.60 75.20
2.93 5.47
3.53 2.76
7.24 6.91
26.25 24.80
955 495
620.75 321.75
52.00 26.40
36.00 39.20
54.75 41.80
62.70 5.05
37.60 20.00
3.68
6.96
25.45
610
403.00
30.10
27.10
33.10
7.25
4.38 7.05
7.17 6.86
24.10 26.15
1635 1102
1062.75 110.40 46.40 718.90 56.00 35.70
97.05 67.25
31.25 8.50
3.88 2.92
7.26 6.92
24.45 23.65
565 705
367.25 458.25
32.00 32.80
32.80 28.80
49.70 58.55
3.36
7.79
20.55
905
588.25
63.20
48.80
0.55 2.55
6.79 7.12
20.60 19.75
555 1600
360.75 34.40 1040.00 85.60
33.60 63.20
1.90 1.48
7.56 7.47
18.35 19.10
1265 795
822.25 516.75
60.80 53.60
4.10 1.79
7.26 7.44
20.10 23.95
1235 1083
802.75 728.81
3.53
7.36
20.25
915
2.08 2.00
7.48 7.40
24.95 22.70
1205 600
3.79 2.63
7.27 7.31
22.35 22.60
2.58
7.29
24.40
Cl9.88
SO4-2 5.68
NO310.93
PO4-3 H4SiO4 0.01 31.77
F0.11
Cd 0.12
Pb 0.23
CA-I -2.03
CA-II -1.63
29.92 1340.29 236.79 26.51 29.29 83.48 56.45 1.58
0.00 0.00
23.01 22.65
0.33 1.21
0.12 0.13
0.20 0.19
0.65 -0.53
4.21 -0.75
0.00 0.00
33.06 26.40
795.36 232.95 20.40 24.33 24.55 0.81
0.00 0.01
26.66 16.70
1.08 0.69
0.13 0.13
0.16 0.12
-0.96 -0.53
-3.75 -0.38
0.73
0.00
54.40
175.97 139.43 20.10
0.01
21.00
0.38
0.12
0.11
0.28
0.34
0.00 0.13
0.00 0.00
10.40 48.00
81.04 43.84
120.11 19.56 100.68 5.67
0.01 0.06
36.27 23.68
0.11 0.67
0.12 0.12
0.22 0.20
0.39 -0.64
0.30 -0.27
0.18 0.11
0.00 0.72
0.00 0.00
35.20 48.80
73.28 23.69 1.30 307.46 160.97 10.96
0.08 0.08
24.76 28.64
0.41 0.53
0.12 0.12
0.24 0.14
-0.04 0.67
-0.08 1.34
3.51 1.56
0.03 0.04
0.30 0.00
0.00 0.00
36.00 39.20
137.98 46.89
83.81 49.38
6.02 0.53
0.45 0.03
32.78 28.54
0.29 0.35
0.11 0.12
0.17 0.14
0.80 -0.28
1.28 -0.22
16.00
3.44
0.05
0.00
0.00
13.72
68.98
37.12
6.25
0.03
23.71
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.36
0.63
56.00 45.50
13.27 2.56
0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
46.40 18.08
235.46 153.07 24.69 141.96 105.77 20.35
0.14 0.05
29.47 26.59
1.04 1.02
0.12 0.12
0.19 0.28
0.48 0.32
0.74 0.46
4.00 20.50
24.00 26.40
1.95 1.56
0.03 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
32.80 28.80
45.59 63.79
47.27 68.52
2.67 10.31
0.02 0.02
29.04 26.53
0.72 0.59
0.12 0.13
0.30 0.31
-0.60 -0.12
-0.49 -0.11
56.25
3.65
31.20
7.81
0.05
0.75
0.00
48.80
62.94
98.01
6.64
0.02
34.31
1.93
0.13
0.25
-0.33
-0.20
34.90 106.40
29.05 29.30
23.20 53.60
2.73 7.81
0.12 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
33.60 63.20
44.39 50.45 1.07 203.97 124.49 15.14
0.09 0.05
27.73 24.02
0.58 0.56
0.13 0.11
0.24 0.32
0.38 0.33
0.29 0.48
63.20 50.40
99.65 47.50
5.15 4.40
36.80 32.80
5.86 5.08
0.06 0.06
0.70 2.98
0.00 0.00
63.20 50.40
125.98 118.30 59.64 32.10
0.99 0.80
0.01 0.00
25.67 15.12
0.56 0.76
0.13 0.11
0.26 0.22
-0.18 -0.16
-0.18 -0.18
77.60 58.40
48.80 64.80
71.15 66.25
3.15 16.15
58.40 45.10
4.68 3.25
0.04 0.06
2.53 1.62
0.00 0.00
48.80 32.02
101.88 132.10 15.20 121.46 114.64 6.93
0.00 0.13
24.09 9.93
0.26 0.67
0.12 0.12
0.27 0.23
-0.05 0.28
-0.04 0.32
594.75
52.80
48.80
62.40
2.60
29.60
5.66
0.02
0.00
0.00
48.80
84.63
64.20
9.46
0.00
22.75
1.30
0.12
0.14
-0.11
-0.11
755.63 390.00
55.00 39.20
59.30 35.20
43.85 36.30
14.65 6.70
44.20 28.00
2.64 2.73
0.03 0.03
2.39 0.00
0.00 0.00
29.32 35.20
142.46 52.39
77.85 38.35
0.00 1.75
0.33 0.01
27.46 17.20
1.25 0.37
0.11 0.12
0.29 0.24
0.62 0.05
1.18 0.05
1225 1080
796.25 702.00
72.00 56.00
51.20 52.80
70.75 72.50
11.30 17.80
51.20 36.80
5.08 4.68
0.04 0.01
2.11 1.01
0.00 0.00
51.20 52.80
198.46 113.75 11.42 107.78 76.59 15.58
0.11 0.12
25.79 31.84
0.53 1.06
0.13 0.13
0.29 0.22
0.50 0.11
0.83 0.13
1600
1040.00 93.60
74.40
101.95
5.50
60.00
8.20
0.01
0.00
0.00
74.40
143.47 189.66 13.64
0.02
17.37
0.84
0.13
0.11
-0.06
-0.05
[172]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.2 Continuted. SL.NO B.N
WL(m)
pH 7.24
T(°C) 21.70
EC 1135
TDS 737.75
TH 83.20
TA 65.60
Na+ 53.70
K+ 5.60
Ca+2 52.80
Ranigang
Asansol
52 1.97 53 3.43 7.24 26.05 930 604.50 49.60 58.40 73.20 12.65 45.60 54 1.55 7.35 25.45 1210 786.50 67.20 72.00 98.55 7.00 48.00 55 2.68 7.25 26.00 1050 682.50 61.60 63.20 81.45 3.90 36.80 56 2.99 7.28 27.40 1235 802.75 69.60 60.00 93.25 6.60 43.20 57 1.28 7.32 26.55 1185 770.25 57.60 76.80 103.20 13.55 35.20 58 9.57 6.69 27.75 540 341.25 28.20 32.00 21.40 8.40 24.60 59 3.75 7.14 27.55 1092 686.24 49.50 74.20 75.45 5.80 32.20 60 4.49 7.32 26.70 835 542.75 58.40 64.80 47.35 5.15 40.00 61 3.15 7.34 26.45 505 328.25 34.40 40.00 31.85 6.05 24.80 62 6.35 7.31 26.00 1380 897.00 94.40 72.00 83.30 4.65 75.20 63 0.98 7.23 26.35 1255 815.75 85.60 136.00 88.10 3.70 58.40 64 5.65 7.53 27.00 2219 1451.78 135.30 109.90 107.05 8.05 101.90 65 4.30 7.27 26.00 1111 715.33 45.00 48.80 71.00 7.15 30.00 66 7.35 7.67 27.30 1465 952.25 95.20 76.00 86.50 35.30 47.20 B.N stands for Block name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
Mg+2 7.42
Fe 0.04
As 2.78
CO3-2 0.00
HCO3ClSO4-2 65.60 127.67 123.24
NO31.09
PO4-3 H4SiO4 0.00 18.28
F0.80
Cd 0.13
Pb 0.00
CA-I 0.39
CA-II 0.39
0.98 4.68
0.10 0.19
2.65 2.06
0.00 0.00
58.40 69.24 38.35 72.00 160.47 92.90
4.44 1.41
0.02 0.05
16.44 25.62
0.67 0.72
0.12 0.13
0.00 0.13
-0.46 0.09
-0.50 0.13
6.05 6.44
0.08 0.05
2.03 0.30
0.00 0.00
63.20 99.98 87.73 3.66 60.00 124.98 122.44 20.48
0.01 0.01
25.26 21.60
0.94 0.71
0.13 0.13
0.25 0.15
-0.22 -0.10
-0.21 -0.09
5.47
0.03
3.58
0.00
76.80 202.46 56.82
3.00
0.04
20.93
0.82
0.14
0.23
0.27
0.63
0.88 4.22
0.01 0.04
1.77 0.00
0.00 0.00
14.84 57.99 46.77 16.01 38.11 116.38 104.93 1.26
0.01 0.03
22.08 21.36
0.23 1.26
0.11 0.12
0.17 0.12
0.56 0.05
0.62 0.05
4.49 2.34
0.12 0.16
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
64.80 133.53 48.41 40.00 128.61 34.66
4.10 1.50
0.01 0.01
18.97 19.45
1.09 0.44
0.11 0.10
0.23 0.19
0.49 0.66
0.86 1.71
4.68 6.64
0.10 0.13
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
72.00 165.47 130.28 17.70 136.00 222.45 102.56 0.39
0.01 0.01
25.65 18.06
0.45 1.65
0.13 0.11
0.17 0.14
0.25 0.40
0.28 0.58
8.15
0.25
5.44
0.00
57.67 283.45 206.25 11.83
0.03
18.20
0.44
0.13
0.21
0.44
0.65
3.66 11.71
0.05 0.13
0.00 2.57
0.00 0.00
25.03 148.96 112.81 18.11 76.00 204.96 141.93 22.05
0.01 0.08
22.82 26.36
1.32 1.80
0.12 0.12
0.14 0.26
0.31 0.51
0.42 0.64
[173]
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.3: Statistical summary of groundwater samples collected for the study area during 2007 - 2008 along with distribution of groundwater samples (%) within the safe limit of drinking water standard. Pre-monsoon Parameter (mg/L) mbgl(m)
Max 20.90
Min 0.85
Post-monsoon
Mean 6.51
SD 4.33
Max 12.44
Min 0.55
Mean 4.37
SD 2.58
t -test
Remarks
3.65
significant
Drinking water standard
pre-monsoon
post-monsoon
WHO(1984)
ISI(1983)
% of sample
% of sample
89
87
pH
8.21
5.48
7.14
0.54
7.79
5.48
7.03
0.50
1.24
Not significant
7.5-8.5
6.5-8.5
Temp(°C)
32.85
25.70
29.54
1.69
28.70
18.35
25.23
2.31
12.92
significant
NG
NG
EC
2349.50
70.00
813.69
447.67
2493.50
65.00
954.50
530.16
-1.75
significant
NG
NG
TDS
1324.54
32.18
434.97
248.18
1628.41
42.25
619.01
343.77
-3.73
significant
500.00
500.00
60
37
TH
274.40
7.20
54.80
40.13
334.00
4.00
59.11
48.53
-0.59
Not significant
100.00
300.00
100
99
TA
91.20
4.80
43.09
23.20
136.00
3.20
46.54
25.81
-0.86
Not significant
NG
NG
Na+
314.20
5.95
74.40
53.65
1030.30
21.40
77.32
118.72
-0.19
Not significant
200
NG
96
97
NG
64.15
0.80
9.48
9.53
150.20
2.45
16.63
22.53
-2.51
significant
NG
Ca+2
K
140.00
4.00
33.37
22.63
187.10
2.00
37.99
29.21
-1.08
Not significant
75
75
96
93
Mg+2
32.79
0.20
5.23
4.90
35.84
0.49
5.15
5.47
0.09
Not significant
30
30.00
99
99
+
Fe
2.38
0.02
0.29
0.34
0.42
0.01
0.11
0.08
4.42
significant
1.5
1
97
100
As
13.69
0.00
0.83
1.87
6.18
0.00
0.99
1.42
-0.56
Not significant
0.05
0.05
100
100
CO3-2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Not significant
NG
NG
HCO3-
91.20
4.80
43.08
23.21
136.00
3.20
40.34
23.98
0.71
significant
NG
300
100
100
Cl-
1057.83
14.99
115.61
139.36
1340.29
9.88
142.16
183.41
-0.99
Not significant
200
250
95
93
SO
271.34
0.40
59.86
50.62
236.79
0.63
81.61
57.29
-2.45
significant
200.00
150.00
95
89
NO3-
24.56
0.00
4.77
6.06
29.27
0.00
8.15
7.78
-2.95
significant
45.00
45.00
100
100
PO4-3
0.66
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.45
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.56
Not significant
NG
NG
H4SiO4
47.37
10.17
24.41
8.68
39.67
9.93
24.52
6.36
-0.09
Not significant
NG
NG
F-
2.06
0.03
0.50
0.40
1.93
0.00
0.57
0.42
-1.10
Not significant
1
0.6-1.2
92
83
Cd
0.14
0.11
0.12
0.01
0.14
0.10
0.12
0.01
0.54
Not significant
NG
NG
Pb
0.00
0.37
0.20
0.08
0.00
0.32
0.20
0.07
1.02
Not significant
NG
NG
4-2
NG not given
[174]
Table 5.4: Distributions of Groundwater Samples (%) In The Subdivisions of Piper’s Diagram (Piper, 1954). Area Facies and Water types
Sample fall (%) in Pre-monsoon
Post-monsoon
1
Alkaline earths exceed alkalies
5.33
20
2
Alkalies exceed alkaline earths
94.67
80
3
Weak acids exceed strong acids
--
--
4
Strong acids exceeds weak acids
100
100
5
Carbonate hardness (secondary alkalinity) exceeds 50% [Ca2+-Mg2+HCO3-]
--
--
Non-carbonate hardness (secondary salinity) exceeds 50% [Ca2+-Mg2+-Cl-SO42-]
1.33
--
7
Non-carbonate alkali (primary salinity) exceeds 50% [Na+-K+-Cl--SO42-]
94.67
80
8
Carbonate alkali (primary alkalinity) exceeds 50% [Na+-K+-HCO3-]
--
--
9
No one cation–anion pair exceeds 50% 4
20
6
[(a) Mixed Ca2+-Mg2+-Cl-; (b) Mixed Ca2+-Na+-HCO3-]
[175]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.5: Premonsoon Correlation matrix (Gurumani, 2005). Variables
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3
H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
pH
1
-0.17
0.46
0.46
0.38
0.54
0.42
0.04
0.38
0.34
0.11
0.05
0.54
0.23
0.35
0.03
0.10
-0.10
0.45
0.05
0.12
T(°C)
-0.17
1.00
-0.15
-0.15
-0.01
-0.25
-0.19
-0.02
-0.11
0.09
-0.23
-0.10
-0.25
0.05
-0.12
0.08
0.00
-0.37
-0.43
0.33
-0.23
EC
0.46
-0.15
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.63
0.89
0.14
0.92
0.77
0.07
0.17
0.63
0.80
0.87
0.64
-0.03
-0.09
0.31
0.03
0.15
TDS
0.46
-0.15
1.00
1.00
0.91
0.63
0.89
0.14
0.92
0.77
0.07
0.17
0.63
0.80
0.87
0.64
-0.03
-0.09
0.31
0.03
0.15
TH
0.38
-0.01
0.91
0.91
1.00
0.47
0.78
0.13
0.95
0.93
0.02
0.08
0.47
0.91
0.80
0.64
-0.07
-0.11
0.17
0.02
0.16
TA
0.54
-0.25
0.63
0.63
0.47
1.00
0.59
0.11
0.50
0.37
0.18
0.20
1.00
0.18
0.43
0.02
0.06
-0.12
0.49
0.01
0.17
Na
0.42
-0.19
0.89
0.89
0.78
0.59
1.00
0.07
0.80
0.66
0.12
0.17
0.59
0.68
0.84
0.54
-0.01
-0.07
0.38
-0.02
0.11
0.04
-0.02
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.07
1.00
0.10
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.10
0.14
-0.01
0.00
0.23
0.05
-0.09
0.11
0.03
0.38
-0.11
0.92
0.92
0.95
0.50
0.80
0.10
1.00
0.76
0.05
0.13
0.50
0.87
0.84
0.64
-0.05
-0.04
0.19
-0.02
0.17
K
+
+
Ca
+2
Mg
0.34
0.09
0.77
0.77
0.93
0.37
0.66
0.13
0.76
1.00
-0.01
0.03
0.37
0.85
0.65
0.56
-0.08
-0.19
0.13
0.06
0.13
Fe
0.11
-0.23
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.18
0.12
0.22
0.05
-0.01
1.00
0.34
0.18
-0.04
0.03
-0.03
0.11
-0.13
0.10
-0.10
0.19
As
0.05
-0.10
0.17
0.17
0.08
0.20
0.17
0.32
0.13
0.03
0.34
1.00
0.20
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.01
-0.09
-0.08
0.17
0.01
HCO3-
0.54
-0.25
0.63
0.63
0.47
1.00
0.59
0.10
0.50
0.37
0.18
0.20
1.00
0.18
0.43
0.02
0.06
-0.12
0.49
0.01
0.17
-
Cl
0.23
0.05
0.80
0.80
0.91
0.18
0.68
0.14
0.87
0.85
-0.04
0.07
0.18
1.00
0.71
0.66
-0.07
-0.04
0.06
0.07
0.11
4-2
0.35
-0.12
0.87
0.87
0.80
0.43
0.84
-0.01
0.84
0.65
0.03
0.06
0.43
0.71
1.00
0.66
0.04
-0.08
0.20
0.03
0.16
0.03
0.08
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.02
0.54
0.00
0.64
0.56
-0.03
0.07
0.02
0.66
0.66
1.00
-0.13
-0.06
0.02
0.05
0.03
SO
+2
NO PO
3-
0.10
0.00
-0.03
-0.03
-0.07
0.06
-0.01
0.23
-0.05
-0.08
0.11
0.01
0.06
-0.07
0.04
-0.13
1.00
-0.20
-0.02
0.02
0.07
H4SiO4
-0.10
-0.37
-0.09
-0.09
-0.11
-0.12
-0.07
0.05
-0.04
-0.19
-0.13
-0.09
-0.12
-0.04
-0.08
-0.06
-0.20
1.00
0.04
-0.43
0.07
F-
0.45
-0.43
0.31
0.31
0.17
0.49
0.38
-0.09
0.19
0.13
0.10
-0.08
0.49
0.06
0.20
0.02
-0.02
0.04
1.00
-0.19
0.04
Cd
0.05
0.33
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.02
0.11
-0.02
0.06
-0.10
0.17
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.02
-0.43
-0.19
1.00
-0.03
Pb
0.12
-0.23
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.11
0.03
0.17
0.13
0.19
0.01
0.17
0.11
0.16
0.03
0.07
0.07
0.04
-0.03
1.00
4-3
Values in bold are different from 0 with a significance level alpha=0.05
[176]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.6: Postmonsoon Correlation matrix (Gurumani, 2005). Variables
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3
H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
pH
1
-0.14
0.45
0.45
0.32
0.63
0.10
-0.04
0.35
0.23
-0.30
0.05
0.62
0.11
0.40
-0.02
0.20
-0.37
0.57
-0.09
0.02
T(°C)
-0.14
1.00
0.09
0.09
0.18
-0.02
0.15
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.05
-0.16
0.25
0.07
0.22
-0.02
-0.04
-0.09
-0.10
-0.26
EC
0.45
0.09
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.61
0.50
0.35
0.80
0.75
-0.04
0.24
0.53
0.68
0.91
0.54
0.14
-0.03
0.36
0.04
-0.06
TDS
0.45
0.09
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.61
0.50
0.35
0.80
0.75
-0.04
0.24
0.53
0.68
0.91
0.54
0.14
-0.03
0.36
0.04
-0.06
TH
0.32
0.18
0.83
0.83
1.00
0.38
0.53
0.18
0.95
0.92
0.02
0.19
0.39
0.92
0.82
0.58
0.00
-0.09
0.22
-0.03
-0.07
TA
0.63
-0.02
0.61
0.61
0.38
1.00
0.12
0.14
0.46
0.22
-0.12
0.18
0.87
0.19
0.48
0.02
0.26
-0.29
0.52
-0.01
0.00
Na
0.10
0.15
0.50
0.50
0.53
0.12
1.00
0.17
0.40
0.63
0.04
0.34
0.11
0.67
0.54
0.34
-0.06
0.04
0.20
0.11
-0.08
-0.04
0.08
0.35
0.35
0.18
0.14
0.17
1.00
0.14
0.21
0.26
-0.06
0.02
0.25
0.27
0.13
0.39
0.27
-0.11
0.01
0.17
0.35
0.17
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.46
0.40
0.14
1.00
0.76
-0.02
0.18
0.45
0.85
0.81
0.55
0.06
-0.12
0.18
-0.07
-0.06
K
+
+
Ca
+2
Mg
0.23
0.17
0.75
0.75
0.92
0.22
0.63
0.21
0.76
1.00
0.08
0.18
0.25
0.89
0.72
0.54
-0.08
-0.03
0.24
0.04
-0.08
Fe
-0.30
0.34
-0.04
-0.04
0.02
-0.12
0.04
0.26
-0.02
0.08
1.00
0.06
-0.18
0.09
-0.10
-0.04
-0.21
0.12
-0.22
-0.03
-0.08
As
0.05
0.05
0.24
0.24
0.19
0.18
0.34
-0.06
0.18
0.18
0.06
1.00
0.07
0.20
0.21
-0.06
0.01
-0.32
0.10
0.13
-0.08
HCO3-
0.62
-0.16
0.53
0.53
0.39
0.87
0.11
0.02
0.45
0.25
-0.18
0.07
1.00
0.20
0.46
0.04
0.11
-0.19
0.49
-0.04
-0.09
-
Cl
0.11
0.25
0.68
0.68
0.92
0.19
0.67
0.25
0.85
0.89
0.09
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.70
0.52
-0.01
0.00
0.11
-0.05
-0.06
4-2
0.40
0.07
0.91
0.91
0.82
0.48
0.54
0.27
0.81
0.72
-0.10
0.21
0.46
0.70
1.00
0.61
0.07
0.03
0.29
0.05
-0.10
-0.02
0.22
0.54
0.54
0.58
0.02
0.34
0.13
0.55
0.54
-0.04
-0.06
0.04
0.52
0.61
1.00
-0.07
0.31
0.09
-0.03
-0.06
SO
+2
NO PO
3-
0.20
-0.02
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.26
-0.06
0.39
0.06
-0.08
-0.21
0.01
0.11
-0.01
0.07
-0.07
1.00
0.13
0.08
-0.15
0.23
H4SiO4
-0.37
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.09
-0.29
0.04
0.27
-0.12
-0.03
0.12
-0.32
-0.19
0.00
0.03
0.31
0.13
1.00
-0.11
0.07
0.12
F-
0.57
-0.09
0.36
0.36
0.22
0.52
0.20
-0.11
0.18
0.24
-0.22
0.10
0.49
0.11
0.29
0.09
0.08
-0.11
1.00
-0.03
-0.02
Cd
-0.09
-0.10
0.04
0.04
-0.03
-0.01
0.11
0.01
-0.07
0.04
-0.03
0.13
-0.04
-0.05
0.05
-0.03
-0.15
0.07
-0.03
1.00
0.06
Pb
0.02
-0.26
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
0.00
-0.08
0.17
-0.06
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.09
-0.06
-0.10
-0.06
0.23
0.12
-0.02
0.06
1
4-3
Values in bold are different from 0 with a significance level alpha=0.05
[177]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.7: Premonsoon saturation indices of some selected minerals of the study area.
Salanpur
Barabani
Jamuria-1 & II
Andal
Durgapur_Faridpur
Kaksa
B.N
Kulti
SL. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Calcite
Aragonite
Dolomite
Gypsum
Anhydrite
Fluorite
Quartz (a)*
-2.04 -1.76 -2.27 -2.13 -1.86 -2.12 -1.74 -1.43 -0.90 -1.29 -1.15 -0.98 -1.04 -3.10 -2.58 -2.33 -1.49 -2.18 -0.94 -0.91 -0.75 -1.54 -2.07 -1.63 -2.85 -2.19 -1.71 -1.36 -1.16 -1.59 -2.18 -2.25 -1.50 -2.58 -1.15 -1.17 -2.53 -1.24 -0.97 -1.16 -1.01 -1.11 -1.15 -1.73 -1.11 -2.13 -1.20 -1.45 -1.59 -1.34 -1.71 -1.84
-2.19 -1.91 -2.41 -2.27 -2.01 -2.26 -1.89 -1.58 -1.05 -1.44 -1.29 -1.13 -1.19 -3.24 -2.73 -2.48 -1.64 -2.33 -1.09 -1.05 -0.90 -1.69 -2.22 -1.78 -3.00 -2.34 -1.86 -1.50 -1.30 -1.74 -2.33 -2.40 -1.65 -2.73 -1.30 -1.32 -2.67 -1.38 -1.12 -1.30 -1.15 -1.26 -1.30 -1.88 -1.25 -2.28 -1.35 -1.59 -1.73 -1.49 -1.85 -1.99
-4.76 -4.36 -4.80 -4.50 -4.43 -4.63 -4.59 -3.79 -2.39 -3.05 -2.51 -2.81 -2.82 -6.62 -6.19 -5.40 -3.55 -4.77 -2.61 -2.51 -2.19 -3.96 -5.22 -4.26 -6.10 -5.05 -4.08 -3.15 -2.85 -3.94 -4.65 -5.07 -3.99 -6.64 -2.88 -2.83 -5.50 -3.12 -2.91 -2.82 -2.36 -2.55 -2.77 -3.94 -2.42 -5.05 -2.86 -2.82 -3.29 -3.40 -4.26 -4.38
-3.03 -2.34 -2.80 -3.13 -2.72 -3.60 -3.46 -2.15 -1.97 -1.93 -1.94 -2.00 -1.89 -4.91 -4.00 -3.38 -3.59 -3.06 -1.58 -1.83 -1.18 -2.76 -2.99 -2.06 -4.55 -2.90 -2.33 -2.19 -2.15 -2.43 -2.41 -2.36 -1.61 -3.40 -2.16 -1.31 -3.50 -1.85 -1.79 -1.81 -1.23 -2.30 -1.64 -2.96 -1.85 -1.90 -2.04 -2.96 -1.87 -1.97 -2.47 -2.29
-3.27 -2.58 -3.04 -3.37 -2.95 -3.83 -3.69 -2.38 -2.21 -2.17 -2.18 -2.23 -2.12 -5.15 -4.24 -3.62 -3.83 -3.30 -1.82 -2.07 -1.41 -2.99 -3.23 -2.30 -4.78 -3.14 -2.57 -2.43 -2.39 -2.67 -2.65 -2.60 -1.85 -3.64 -2.40 -1.55 -3.74 -2.09 -2.03 -2.05 -1.47 -2.54 -1.88 -3.20 -2.09 -2.14 -2.28 -3.20 -2.11 -2.20 -2.71 -2.52
-3.21 -2.74 -3.84 -3.80 -2.76 -3.81 -2.64 -2.52 -1.54 -0.87 -1.22 -1.66 -1.68 -5.03 -4.73 -4.00 -1.99 -3.56 -1.59 -0.65 -1.65 -1.55 -3.15 -3.19 -3.22 -2.47 -2.43 -0.74 -1.32 -1.94 -3.37 -3.80 -2.68 -4.38 -1.79 -1.75 -4.24 -1.40 -1.49 -1.93 -1.73 -2.24 -1.29 -1.91 -2.48 -2.90 -1.90 -2.42 -2.57 -2.26 -2.01 -1.89
-0.86 -0.43 -0.59 -0.63 -0.41 -0.47 -0.59 -0.47 -0.64 -0.47 -0.80 -0.49 -0.43 -0.73 -0.79 -0.51 -0.55 -0.57 -0.63 -0.83 -0.57 -0.79 -0.85 -0.54 -0.46 -0.61 -0.55 -0.69 -0.68 -0.79 -0.52 -0.48 -0.82 -0.91 -0.91 -0.54 -0.65 -0.58 -0.42 -0.56 -0.70 -0.78 -0.74 -0.80 -0.95 -1.01 -0.72 -0.82 -0.94 -0.64 -1.02 -0.91
Chalcedony Quartz 0.00 0.43 0.26 0.23 0.44 0.38 0.27 0.38 0.22 0.38 0.06 0.37 0.43 0.13 0.07 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.02 0.28 0.06 0.01 0.32 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.16 0.18 0.07 0.34 0.38 0.04 -0.05 -0.06 0.32 0.21 0.28 0.44 0.30 0.16 0.08 0.12 0.06 -0.10 -0.15 0.14 0.04 -0.08 0.22 -0.16 -0.05
0.44 0.87 0.71 0.67 0.89 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.50 0.81 0.87 0.58 0.52 0.79 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.47 0.73 0.51 0.45 0.76 0.84 0.70 0.75 0.61 0.62 0.51 0.78 0.82 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.76 0.65 0.72 0.88 0.75 0.60 0.52 0.57 0.51 0.35 0.30 0.58 0.49 0.36 0.67 0.28 0.39
Continued. [178]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Asansol
Hirapur
B.N
Ranigang
SL. No 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Calcite
Aragonite
Dolomite
Gypsum
Anhydrite
Fluorite
Quartz (a)*
-1.23 -1.34 -1.67 -1.68 -1.46 -1.59 -0.99 -1.24 -1.17 -1.50 -1.32 -1.54 -1.17 -1.37 -1.05 -1.23 -1.02 -1.30 -0.95 -1.08 -1.17 -1.20 -1.18
-1.38 -1.49 -1.81 -1.83 -1.61 -1.74 -1.13 -1.39 -1.32 -1.65 -1.46 -1.69 -1.32 -1.51 -1.20 -1.38 -1.17 -1.45 -1.09 -1.23 -1.32 -1.35 -1.33
-2.75 -3.37 -3.88 -3.73 -3.26 -3.80 -2.54 -3.11 -2.92 -3.85 -3.16 -3.55 -3.04 -3.52 -2.57 -3.06 -2.65 -2.69 -2.42 -2.80 -2.78 -2.80 -2.83
-1.88 -1.92 -2.58 -2.48 -2.55 -2.49 -1.76 -2.02 -2.48 -1.88 -1.86 -2.37 -2.03 -2.00 -1.84 -1.88 -1.63 -1.92 -2.39 -1.88 -2.05 -1.85 -2.12
-2.12 -2.16 -2.82 -2.72 -2.79 -2.72 -2.00 -2.25 -2.72 -2.11 -2.10 -2.60 -2.27 -2.24 -2.08 -2.12 -1.86 -2.16 -2.62 -2.12 -2.28 -2.09 -2.35
-1.40 -1.17 -2.02 -2.04 -0.99 -2.00 -1.98 -1.79 -1.76 -1.47 -1.69 -1.29 -1.02 -2.10 -2.55 -1.30 -1.58 -1.94 -1.88 -1.75 -1.54 -1.76 -1.64
-0.63 -0.55 -0.51 -0.55 -0.35 -0.44 -0.81 -0.77 -0.90 -0.62 -0.52 -0.78 -0.58 -0.62 -0.61 -0.53 -0.91 -0.80 -0.68 -0.74 -0.89 -0.67 -0.67
Chalcedony Quartz 0.23 0.31 0.35 0.31 0.51 0.42 0.04 0.09 -0.05 0.24 0.34 0.08 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.33 -0.05 0.05 0.18 0.11 -0.03 0.19 0.18
0.67 0.75 0.79 0.75 0.95 0.86 0.49 0.53 0.40 0.68 0.78 0.52 0.72 0.68 0.69 0.78 0.40 0.50 0.62 0.56 0.42 0.63 0.63
[179]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.8: Postmonsoon saturation indices of some selected minerals of the study area.
Jamuria-1 & I I
Andal
Durgapur_Faridpur
Kaksa
B.N
Barabani
SL. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34
Calcite
Aragonite
Dolomite
Gypsum
Anhydrite
Fluorite
Quartz(a)*
Chalcedony
Quartz
-1.84 -1.42 -1.57 -1.64 -0.98 -2.14 -2.83 -1.40 -1.60 -1.68 -1.04 -1.38 -1.11 -3.27 -3.59 -2.55 -1.86 -1.95 -0.85 -0.68 -0.87 -1.79 -2.10 -1.32 -2.58 -1.97 -1.91 -1.46 -1.11 -1.49 -2.10 -2.56 -1.82 -2.57 -1.31 -0.66 -3.19 -1.13 -0.91 -1.11 -1.00 -1.73 -1.38
-1.99 -1.56 -1.72 -1.79 -1.13 -2.28 -2.97 -1.54 -1.74 -1.82 -1.18 -1.53 -1.26 -3.42 -3.74 -2.69 -2.01 -2.10 -1.00 -0.83 -1.01 -1.93 -2.25 -1.47 -2.73 -2.12 -2.06 -1.60 -1.25 -1.64 -2.24 -2.70 -1.96 -2.71 -1.45 -0.81 -3.34 -1.27 -1.06 -1.26 -1.14 -1.87 -1.53
-4.31 -3.78 -4.03 -3.98 -2.59 -5.11 -6.18 -3.45 -3.22 -3.98 -2.40 -3.46 -3.19 -7.02 -7.51 -5.05 -3.82 -4.53 -2.63 -2.03 -2.55 -4.03 -4.79 -3.56 -5.66 -4.46 -4.99 -3.52 -2.88 -3.73 -4.83 -5.64 -4.45 -5.85 -3.08 -1.98 -6.87 -3.18 -2.53 -3.02 -2.42 -3.73 -2.96
-2.76 -2.14 -2.43 -2.79 -1.70 -3.14 -3.59 -1.73 -1.76 -1.86 -1.65 -2.22 -1.77 -3.89 -4.26 -2.83 -2.82 -2.52 -1.48 -1.69 -1.23 -2.50 -2.78 -1.58 -4.65 -2.55 -2.22 -1.86 -2.08 -2.38 -2.64 -2.47 -1.71 -3.28 -1.87 -1.17 -3.69 -1.81 -1.73 -1.67 -1.12 -2.27 -1.54
-2.99 -2.37 -2.67 -3.02 -1.94 -3.38 -3.83 -1.96 -1.99 -2.10 -1.89 -2.45 -2.00 -4.13 -4.50 -3.06 -3.06 -2.76 -1.72 -1.93 -1.47 -2.74 -3.02 -1.82 -4.89 -2.79 -2.46 -2.10 -2.32 -2.61 -2.88 -2.71 -1.95 -3.51 -2.11 -1.41 -3.93 -2.05 -1.97 -1.91 -1.36 -2.51 -1.77
-3.12 -2.86 -3.15 -3.03 -2.13 -2.22 -5.03 -2.24 -2.16 -1.07 -0.66 -1.61 -1.60 -5.56 -3.00 -3.79 -2.20 -3.34 -1.65 -0.63 -1.60 -1.75 -3.21 -2.89 -3.44 -2.32 -2.58 -1.07 -1.08 -2.04 -2.63 -2.57 -2.96 -2.70 -1.54 -1.43 -3.82 -1.55 -1.49 -1.63 -1.75 -1.26 -1.14
-0.78 -0.46 -0.52 -0.67 -0.45 -0.53 -0.67 -0.58 -0.58 -0.67 -0.60 -1.01 -0.92 -0.69 -0.75 -0.62 -0.62 -0.63 -0.62 -0.77 -0.76 -0.68 -0.87 -0.67 -0.56 -0.75 -0.68 -0.70 -0.75 -0.74 -0.49 -0.50 -0.44 -0.43 -0.63 -0.66 -0.52 -0.70 -0.61 -0.72 -0.66 -0.67 -0.59
0.08 0.40 0.33 0.18 0.41 0.33 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.25 -0.15 -0.06 0.17 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.18 -0.02 0.19 0.30 0.10 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.37 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.23 0.19 0.33 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.26
0.52 0.84 0.78 0.63 0.85 0.78 0.63 0.73 0.72 0.64 0.70 0.30 0.38 0.61 0.55 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.69 0.53 0.54 0.62 0.43 0.63 0.74 0.55 0.62 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.81 0.80 0.86 0.87 0.68 0.64 0.78 0.60 0.69 0.59 0.64 0.63 0.71
Continued.
[180]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SL. No 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Aragonite
Dolomite
Gypsum
Anhydrite
Fluorite
Quartz(a)*
Chalcedony
Quartz
-1.85 -1.18 -2.00 -1.28 -1.69 -1.05 -1.41 -1.59 -2.13 -1.19 -1.64 -1.59 -1.63 -1.35 -1.60 -1.06 -1.20 -1.27 -1.11 -1.39 -1.36 -1.42 -1.49
-2.00 -1.33 -2.14 -1.43 -1.84 -1.20 -1.56 -1.74 -2.28 -1.33 -1.78 -1.74 -1.78 -1.50 -1.74 -1.20 -1.35 -1.42 -1.26 -1.54 -1.50 -1.57 -1.63
-4.33 -2.56 -4.72 -3.20 -3.88 -2.96 -3.57 -4.00 -4.64 -2.72 -4.24 -3.99 -4.20 -3.02 -3.84 -2.67 -2.91 -3.07 -3.04 -3.65 -3.15 -3.78 -3.70
-2.67 -1.66 -1.77 -1.80 -2.68 -1.44 -1.89 -2.29 -2.50 -1.56 -1.72 -2.24 -2.07 -1.89 -2.23 -1.65 -1.78 -2.30 -1.55 -1.70 -2.07 -1.85 -2.27
-2.91 -1.89 -2.01 -2.04 -2.92 -1.68 -2.13 -2.53 -2.74 -1.80 -1.96 -2.48 -2.31 -2.13 -2.47 -1.88 -2.02 -2.54 -1.79 -1.93 -2.31 -2.08 -2.50
-1.81 -2.02 -3.16 -1.55 -2.24 -1.55 -2.28 -2.32 -3.03 -1.08 -1.11 -1.62 -1.77 -0.71 -1.82 -1.61 -1.74 -1.44 -2.21 -1.49 -1.05 -0.93 -2.12
-0.80 -0.70 -0.47 -0.65 -0.63 -0.57 -0.51 -0.57 -0.65 -0.55 -0.60 -0.56 -0.60 -0.49 -0.58 -0.64 -0.62 -0.85 -0.64 -1.03 -0.67 -0.59 -0.79
0.05 0.15 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.21 0.30 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.37 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.01 0.21 -0.17 0.19 0.27 0.07
0.50 0.60 0.84 0.65 0.67 0.74 0.79 0.73 0.65 0.75 0.70 0.74 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.46 0.66 0.27 0.63 0.72 0.51
58
-1.15
-1.30
-3.02
-1.67
-1.91
-1.66
-0.61
0.24
0.69
59
-1.25
-1.39
-3.11
-1.93
-2.17
-1.16
-0.52
0.34
0.78
60
-0.96
-1.10
-2.50
-1.44
-1.67
-1.23
-0.78
0.07
0.52
-1.03
-1.17
-2.62
-1.62
-1.86
-1.28
-0.76
0.09
0.54
-1.08
-1.23
-3.55
-2.11
-2.35
-1.43
-0.81
0.05
0.49
63
-1.02
-1.17
-2.77
-1.78
-2.02
-1.41
-0.62
0.24
0.69
64
-1.18
-1.32
-2.85
-1.88
-2.12
-1.27
-0.62
0.23
0.68
65
-1.15
-1.30
-2.85
-1.71
-1.94
-1.47
-0.69
0.17
0.61
66
-1.11
-1.26
-2.75
-2.10
-2.34
-1.42
-0.70
0.15
0.60
Kulti Hirapur Asansol Raniganj
62
Salanpur
Calcite
61
B.N
[181]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 18
Table 5.9: Stable isotope (δ O and δD) signature of premonsoon and postmonsoon groundwater samples (2008). Premonsoon
Postmonsoon
δ18O
St.Dev.of δ18O of UMC
δD
St.Dev. Of δD
d- excess
1
-2.42
0.05
-29.95
0.47
2
-4.29
0.05
-33.59
0.56
3
-5.03
0.04
-36.03
4
-4.48
0.05
5
-4.59
0.03
-6.26
6
δ18O
δD
St.Dev. of δD
d- excess
-10.57
-1.56
0.02
-22.96
0.78
-10.45
0.75
-4.50
0.04
-32.90
0.43
3.09
0.46
4.17
-4.98
0.05
-36.48
0.57
3.32
-32.67
0.75
3.18
-3.66
0.03
-26.56
0.44
2.76
-30.99
0.52
5.73
-4.61
0.06
-32.86
0.48
4.05
0.03
-41.75
0.80
8.35
-5.88
0.06
-41.39
0.69
5.65 4.55
0.02
-38.32
0.65
7.40
-5.23
0.04
-37.33
0.82
-5.72
0.03
-38.52
0.61
7.25
-5.47
0.02
-38.28
0.61
5.47
9
-2.41
0.04
-21.14
0.81
-1.85
-0.98
0.08
-18.24
0.72
-10.37
74
-5.40
0.04
-39.35
0.59
3.86
-4.56
0.06
-38.08
0.52
-1.64
75
-4.55
0.07
-33.27
0.44
3.12
-4.78
0.07
-31.55
0.46
6.67
10
-5.44
0.03
-37.05
0.61
6.46
-5.20
0.04
-37.40
0.62
4.19
11
-6.86
0.05
-47.27
0.77
7.65
-6.23
0.04
-43.62
0.72
6.25
12
-5.72
0.06
-39.75
0.66
5.98
-5.31
0.06
-37.78
0.59
4.70
-3.00
0.05
-21.47
0.47
2.50
-2.48
0.04
-19.93
0.76
-0.10
-4.95
0.02
-33.85
0.80
5.72
-4.59
0.05
-32.89
0.54
3.85
-4.29
0.02
-34.04
0.45
0.24
-4.23
0.03
-33.50
0.80
0.31
-5.70
0.04
-41.02
0.70
4.59
-5.60
0.04
-39.58
0.71
5.25
-4.99
0.06
-35.91
0.89
4.04
-4.36
0.06
-34.39
0.90
0.49
72
-6.30
0.06
-39.98
0.51
10.43
-5.81
0.06
-39.68
0.86
6.81
73
-5.90
0.07
-45.44
0.75
1.78
-4.51
0.03
-42.50
0.55
-6.40
17
-5.61
0.04
-41.75
0.90
3.16
-5.62
0.05
-37.80
0.71
7.20
18
-4.97
0.04
-33.69
0.47
6.03
-4.98
0.04
-34.89
0.62
4.92
19
-4.61
0.02
-31.13
0.94
5.79
-4.81
0.06
-32.32
0.54
6.15
20
-5.92
0.04
-38.72
0.68
8.66
-5.70
0.05
-37.99
0.85
7.65
-5.41
0.04
-38.12
0.61
5.15
-5.15
0.06
-36.30
0.87
4.90
-4.78
0.04
-31.98
0.46
6.23
-4.51
0.03
-31.91
0.79
4.17
68
-5.68
0.06
-38.69
0.73
6.73
-4.70
0.05
-37.55
0.65
0.07
69
-5.34
0.04
-39.25
0.42
3.50
-5.47
0.07
-38.79
0.92
4.96
70
-4.02
0.05
-26.64
0.62
5.49
-4.17
0.04
-26.40
0.71
6.93
22
-6.29
0.03
-42.72
0.82
7.60
-5.80
0.03
-41.77
0.74
4.67
23
-4.66
0.04
-33.17
0.39
4.11
-4.39
0.06
-31.16
0.87
3.96
-5.22
0.03
-37.79
0.64
3.96
-3.83
0.03
-30.96
1.03
-0.33
-5.31
0.05
-38.80
0.67
3.66
-3.76
0.05
-30.79
0.73
-0.70
-5.74
0.04
-40.28
0.80
5.66
-5.34
0.05
-38.76
0.62
3.94
14 15 16 71
21 67
24 25 26
-5.49
0.05
-39.45
0.96
4.49
-5.33
0.06
-37.03
0.66
5.62
31
-6.20
0.04
-40.46
0.62
9.16
-5.40
0.03
-40.22
0.58
3.01
28
-5.79
0.04
-41.15
0.91
5.20
-5.20
0.05
-36.85
0.76
4.73
29
-3.77
0.02
-32.27
0.79
-2.08
-2.45
0.10
-23.63
0.98
-4.03
-5.83
0.02
-41.54
0.90
5.10
-4.65
0.04
-38.80
0.79
-1.57
-4.49
0.04
-31.38
0.92
4.53
-4.45
0.05
-31.17
0.85
4.46
-3.64
0.02
-28.93
0.60
0.19
-4.53
0.03
-28.50
-4.53
0.03
-32.14
0.90
4.11
-4.29
0.06
-31.70
0.62 0.55
7.77 2.62
30 32 33 34
Barabani
27
Andal
13
Durgapur_Faridpur
-5.72
8
Jamuria I &II
7
B.N
Kaksa
Sl.No.
St.Dev.of δ18O ofUMC
Continued. [182]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Premonsoon
Postmonsoon
δ18O
St.Dev.of δ18O of UMC
δD
St.Dev. Of δD
d- excess
δ18O
St.Dev.of δ18O ofUMC
δD
St.Dev. of δD
d- excess
-5.27
0.03
-37.21
0.97
4.95
-4.94
0.05
-35.42
0.88
4.08
-5.36
0.04
-37.15
0.56
5.70
-5.01
0.04
-34.96
0.82
5.11
-4.69
0.01
-36.27
0.32
1.25
-4.08
0.05
-31.31
0.56
1.30
-6.62
0.04
-47.50
0.66
5.45
-5.22
0.07
-32.40
0.42
9.40
39
-7.91
0.03
-60.36
0.83
2.91
-5.85
0.06
-46.18
0.48
0.63
40
-6.48
0.04
-47.98
0.66
3.88
-4.85
0.03
-37.12
0.81
1.67
-5.38
0.03
-38.82
0.86
4.20
-5.34
0.07
-38.94
0.42
3.81
36 37 38
41
0.03
-43.62
0.71
3.42
-5.27
0.03
-41.87
0.69
0.30
-6.49
0.02
-48.28
0.56
3.66
-5.30
0.04
-39.76
0.58
2.61
44
-5.02
0.04
-37.27
0.63
2.85
-4.89
0.03
-36.52
0.49
2.58
45
-6.63
0.04
-49.39
0.73
3.62
-5.31
0.06
-40.00
0.65
2.48
46
-5.42
0.04
-39.44
0.91
3.89
-4.55
0.03
-34.49
0.36
1.92
-4.67
0.03
-39.17
0.78
-1.78
-4.97
0.03
-37.73
0.60
2.00
-4.47
0.05
-35.27
0.70
0.46
-3.69
0.07
-31.26
0.25
-1.73
49
-5.02
0.04
-33.74
0.75
6.38
-4.54
0.05
-32.51
0.61
3.83
50
-5.75
0.04
-42.07
0.70
3.96
-5.22
0.03
-39.42
0.44
2.33
51
-4.35
0.04
-36.38
0.68
-1.54
-3.71
0.05
-31.92
0.83
-2.28
52
-4.54
0.03
-34.84
0.82
1.48
-4.10
0.06
-32.62
0.75
0.18
53
-6.22
0.03
-46.72
0.86
3.03
-5.28
0.03
-39.43
0.84
2.83
-5.25
0.06
-38.69
0.88
3.29
-4.44
0.03
-35.98
0.90
-0.48
47 48
54
-4.75
0.06
-34.78
0.64
3.25
-4.26
0.05
-33.16
0.87
0.89
56
-4.60
0.07
-38.33
0.69
-1.56
-4.61
0.07
-33.40
0.82
3.51
57
-1.47
0.05
-10.27
0.64
1.48
-3.66
0.04
-28.48
0.86
0.77
58
-5.51
0.05
-41.29
0.77
2.77
-4.24
0.07
-30.85
0.84
3.10
59
-2.94
0.04
-30.03
0.83
-6.48
-2.98
0.07
-27.41
0.96
-3.61
60
-5.41
0.09
-37.97
0.47
5.30
-4.50
0.05
-31.29
0.82
4.71
-4.87
0.06
-38.46
0.32
0.52
-4.39
0.03
-35.60
0.79
-0.52
-5.24
0.06
-37.29
0.51
4.61
-4.45
0.06
-34.48
0.50
1.16
-5.00
0.05
-39.61
0.82
0.40
-3.74
0.06
-32.48
0.57
-2.53
64
-5.11
0.07
-34.71
0.41
6.16
-4.57
0.05
-33.45
0.51
3.14
65
-5.78
0.09
-41.63
0.73
4.64
-5.83
0.03
-41.85
0.80
4.75
66
-5.11
0.04
-35.38
0.48
5.48
-4.58
0.04
-33.97
0.76
2.70
61 62 63
Ranigang
55
Hirapur
-5.88
43
Asansol
42
Kulti
35
B.N Salanpur
Sl.No.
The isotope ratios are expressed in delta values, δ, in units of per mil (‰) with respect to Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW).
[183]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.10 a and b: Factor pattern (after varimax rotation). (a)
Premonsoon Parameters pH EC TDS TH Na+ K+ Ca+2 Mg+2 Fe As HCO3ClSO4-2 NO3PO4-3 H4SiO4 FInitial eigen value Variability (%) Cumulative %
(b)
F1 0.249 0.893 0.908 0.958 0.768 0.068 0.913 0.855 -0.043 0.057 0.290 0.933 0.839 0.761 -0.093 -0.065 0.093
F2 0.608 0.422 0.380 0.196 0.463 0.146 0.249 0.122 0.312 0.236 0.815 -0.050 0.243 -0.178 0.161 -0.110 0.557
7.801
1.529
41.313 41.313
13.540 54.853
Postmonsoon Parameter(s) pH EC TDS TH Na+ K+ Ca+2 Mg+2 Fe As HCO3ClSO4-2 NO3PO4-3 H4SiO4 FInitial eigen value Variability (%) Cumulative %
F1 0.166 0.837 0.836 0.960 0.622 0.241 0.862 0.909 0.073 0.221 0.273 0.929 0.847 0.665 -0.042 0.035 0.171 7.119 38.515 38.515
F2 0.857 0.390 0.389 0.166 -0.013 -0.177 0.242 0.049 -0.361 0.127 0.686 -0.067 0.295 -0.168 0.195 -0.421 0.569 1.981 14.311 52.826
F3 0.059 0.265 0.264 -0.043 -0.035 0.896 -0.010 -0.052 0.055 -0.182 0.102 -0.043 0.180 0.093 0.438 0.391 -0.004 1.272 8.156 60.983
Values in bold correspond for each variable to the factor for which the squared cosine is the largest
[184]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.11: Microbiological characteristics of premonsoon and postmonsoon groundwater samples (2007 - 2008).
Barabani
Jamuria
Andal
Durgapur_Faridpur
Kaksa
Block
SAMPLING NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34
MPN/100ml. Pre 910 31 22 2 14 6 4 2 14 170 16 12 12 2 110 6 6 11 26 17 13 2 11 2 2 6 170 5 16 13 31 4 5 26 13 12 11 345 46 4 17 26 240
Post 910 31 14 2 11 11 8 140 2 170 17 2 33 33 2 2 2 2 17 13 13 12 2 14 14 2 170 345 12 13 2 2 9 22 1600 1600 94 180 180 94 46 63 240
SPC( 10-6) Pre 310 16 17 7 9 61 9 3 32 149 53 12 32 5 173 108 19 21 32 21 17 4 5 35 7 9 103 11 9 11 112 36 117 172 70 42 35 201 170 32 148 180 193
Post 302 13 17 4 6 7 28 105 7 151 32 9 52 49 7 7 11 9 27 19 21 15 7 19 21 5 93 127 29 21 8 7 21 31 205 267 165 169 157 131 92 102 193
E.Coli Pre P P P A P P P A P P P P P A P P P P P P P A P A A P P A P P P A P P P P P P P A P P P
Salmonella sp. Post P P P A P P P P A P P A P P A A A A P P P P P P P A P P P P A A P P P P P P P P P P P
Pre P A A A A A A A A A A P P A P A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A P P P A P P A P P P
Post P A A A A A A P A P A A A P A A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A P P A A A A A P P
Continued.
[185]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ranigang
Asansol
Hirapur
Kulti
Salanpur
Block
SAMPLING NO. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
MPN/100ml. Pre 31 12 17 14 13 2 14 13 5 170 9 16 63 17 2 17 14 14 26 2 9 21 21 9 9 63 17 13 14 240 12 345
Post 13 17 26 7 26 7 2 2 11 21 7 17 2 2 11 21 11 14 17 21 11 63 20 9 63 14 13 14 20 240 170 12
SPC( 10-6) Pre 108 113 107 42 135 32 27 27 32 49 47 53 167 112 24 87 93 39 47 43 28 73 37 29 27 32 28 31 27 149 31 108
Post 105 75 93 13 21 9 11 9 31 49 9 35 11 9 31 49 21 27 19 21 23 67 52 19 39 27 29 21 25 167 153 17
E.Coli Pre P P P P P A P A A P P P P P A P P P P A P P P P P P P P P P P P
Salmonella sp. Post P P P P P P A A P P P P A A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Pre P A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P
Post A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A
[186]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.12: Block wise statistical summary of MPN. MPN/100ml.
Block_Name Kaksa Durgapur _Farid pur Andal Jamuria Barabani Salanpur Kulti Hirapur Asansol Ranigang
max 910.00 110.00 170.00 31.00 345.00 31.00 14.00 170.00 26.00 345.00
Premonsoon min mean 2.00 108.27 2.00 21.50 2.00 25.22 4.00 14.57 4.00 113.00 12.00 12.00 2.00 9.40 2.00 38.50 2.00 14.40 9.00 74.30
SD 270.22 79.10 54.54 10.21 143.60 8.58 5.50 53.76 9.50 118.69
max 910.00 33.00 345.00 1600.00 240.00 26.00 26.00 21.00 63.00 240.00
Postmonsoon min mean 2.00 119.64 2.00 11.90 2.00 64.89 2.00 475.57 46.00 133.83 7.00 15.75 2.00 9.60 2.00 11.50 11.00 25.20 9.00 57.50
SD 268.50 12.51 117.73 768.79 77.27 7.97 9.91 7.67 21.45 80.96
Postmonsoon min mean 4.00 61.09 7.00 21.10 5.00 37.44 7.00 100.57 92.00 140.67 13.00 71.50 9.00 16.20 9.00 26.75 19.00 31.40 17.00 54.90
SD 92.95 16.88 42.64 108.97 108.97 40.90 9.65 16.85 20.12 56.44
Table 5.13: Block wise statistical summary of SPC. SPC( 10-6) Block_Name Kaksa Durgapur _Farid pur Andal Jamuria Barabani Salanpur Kulti Hirapur Asansol Ranigang
max 310.00 173.00 103.00 172.00 201.00 113.00 135.00 167.00 73.00 149.00
Premonsoon min mean 3.00 60.55 5.00 44.00 4.00 21.56 35.00 83.43 32.00 154.00 42.00 92.50 27.00 50.60 24.00 79.00 28.00 46.00 27.00 49.90
SD 92.90 53.73 31.91 52.09 62.58 33.77 47.25 45.85 16.67 42.64
max 302.00 52.00 127.00 267.00 193.00 105.00 31.00 49.00 67.00 167.00
[187]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.14: Overall summary statistics of microbiological data.
max 910.00
max 310.00
Premonsoon min mean 2.00 48.76
Premonsoon min mean 3.00
63.89
SD 123.32
SD 61.73
MPN/100ml. Postmonsoon max min mean 1600.00 2.00 94.07
SD 278.36
SPC( 10-6) Postmonsoon max min mean 302.00
4.00
54.07
t-test
Remarks
-1.86
Significant
1.34
Not Significant
SD 64.84
Table 5.15: Water Quality Index. Category with Range % Fall No. of Sample Area Calculation of Water Quality Index ( sq.Km) Total Study Area
Excellent (0 to 50) 25.33
Premonsoon Good Poor (50 to 100) (Above100) 50.67 24.00
Excellent (0 to 50) 22.66
Postmonsoon Good Poor (50 to 100) (Above100) 50.67 26.67
19
38
18
17
38
20
460.754
913.279
235.945
306.583
998.725
304.670
1609.978 sq.Km.
[188]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.16: Criteria for groundwater for irrigation water suitability during premonsoon (2007 - 2008 sessions).
Durgapur_Faridpur Andal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
Kaksa
Block
Mbgl(m.) 3.80 4.26 2.84 2.44 3.74 8.05 11.34 5.75 2.35 3.79 6.67 4.15 6.42 6.09 10.54 3.55 1.51 3.04 2.89 3.87 3.79 3.68 5.48 7.50 10.69 12.71 20.65 10.05 11.80 11.21
pH 6.95 6.50 6.32 6.70 8.14 6.97 6.96 6.73 7.12 7.35 7.53 6.22 6.43 6.66 7.22 6.35 7.79 7.84 6.70 5.91 6.83 5.96 6.40 6.35 5.48 6.85 7.84 7.38 7.33 7.58
EC 385.00 580.00 285.00 315.00 390.00 265.00 345.00 685.00 1036.50 1111.00 1070.00 70.00 105.00 325.00 539.00 474.00 456.50 275.00 665.00 120.00 275.00 515.00 520.00 842.50 445.00 850.00 2349.50 1155.00 1105.00 1215.00
B.EXCH 2.04 0.11 1.06 2.26 1.01 -1.20 5.44 -1.16 0.15 -2.08 -0.38 -36.85 -3.46 -4.53 16.54 -5.63 1.97 0.90 0.01 -11.41 1.59 0.12 0.11 -0.07 -5.33 -0.40 -1.83 -1.15 -0.70 -0.53
M.GEN 2.93 0.74 1.56 2.67 1.49 -0.44 11.74 -0.51 0.48 -1.62 -0.07 -33.92 -2.88 -1.21 17.45 -5.09 2.23 1.30 0.24 -3.69 1.86 0.48 0.17 -0.05 -4.35 -0.14 -1.82 -1.05 -0.57 -0.42
RSC -0.42 -0.63 -0.52 -0.53 -0.60 -0.38 -0.60 -1.06 -1.78 -2.16 -1.73 -0.19 -0.30 -0.29 -0.63 -0.62 -0.63 -0.45 -1.19 -0.20 -0.34 -1.14 -0.86 -2.01 -0.49 -1.72 -6.07 -2.02 -2.16 -2.29
RSBC -0.31 -0.51 -0.28 -0.26 -0.46 -0.20 -0.54 -0.90 -1.20 -1.81 -1.36 -0.12 -0.27 -0.22 -0.38 -0.40 -0.50 -0.40 -1.06 -0.12 -0.24 -0.73 -0.67 -1.80 -0.48 -1.24 -4.64 -1.57 -1.88 -1.64
SSP 25.52 20.78 35.70 44.61 22.65 20.39 6.55 14.60 44.08 28.19 33.57 7.69 2.36 11.28 30.09 30.48 12.35 6.63 18.55 9.26 18.31 52.98 37.28 18.52 3.71 35.72 72.05 41.73 19.75 53.25
SAR 3.18 2.79 1.94 2.56 2.42 1.28 1.46 1.82 2.77 2.53 2.74 0.71 0.65 1.62 2.33 2.02 1.58 1.66 2.92 0.76 2.18 3.17 3.60 2.26 2.54 2.14 5.13 3.13 2.08 3.42
% Na 74.37 71.23 65.80 67.70 65.92 53.84 58.50 58.14 54.93 53.21 56.78 51.76 42.64 72.04 59.40 62.91 51.69 60.22 64.62 57.48 68.12 68.71 72.02 51.29 71.62 50.40 58.74 58.22 47.02 58.81
Mg haz 1.98 1.56 11.18 13.33 2.49 6.01 0.43 1.60 13.18 4.29 5.87 2.07 0.26 1.07 5.56 7.10 1.43 0.34 1.12 2.69 1.79 17.55 4.43 1.85 0.04 10.97 39.51 8.77 2.55 17.51
KR 2.59 1.90 1.57 1.98 1.73 1.08 1.02 0.99 1.10 1.00 1.16 0.98 0.70 1.59 1.43 1.54 1.01 1.38 1.63 0.95 1.96 1.95 2.51 1.03 2.33 0.94 1.42 1.33 0.82 1.37
PI 93.38 86.98 85.99 88.60 86.34 90.70 81.89 73.40 70.11 65.97 70.76 103.19 90.54 97.07 84.80 83.09 81.65 88.30 77.33 103.80 95.03 77.13 82.91 63.84 86.01 67.05 63.06 70.48 62.65 70.10
TH 37.56 54.03 37.99 41.59 49.14 34.78 51.12 84.42 157.60 159.68 140.12 13.19 21.57 25.92 66.14 42.87 61.16 36.34 80.27 15.99 30.77 65.98 51.55 121.16 29.74 129.87 328.24 137.75 159.61 156.67
Mg2+:Ca2+ 0.18 0.13 0.46 0.49 0.17 0.34 0.07 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.16 0.32 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.33 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.34 0.19 0.44 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.09 0.27
Na+:Ca2+ 3.05 2.14 2.31 2.95 2.03 1.45 1.09 1.09 1.35 1.12 1.34 1.30 0.75 1.84 1.76 2.05 1.12 1.47 1.77 1.27 2.33 2.81 3.08 1.12 2.40 1.15 1.81 1.59 0.90 1.73
[189]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.16 Continued.
Jamuria Barabani Salanpur Kulti
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Block
Hirapur
SL.NO.
Mbgl(m.)
pH
EC
B.EXCH
M.GEN
RSC
RSBC
SSP
SAR
% Na
Mg haz
KR
PI
TH
Mg2+:Ca2+
Na+:Ca2+
6.63 20.90 15.75 8.88 13.84 16.28 6.07 4.19 3.39 12.06 4.40 3.70 7.90 5.13 9.00 5.30 3.95 3.44 0.85 3.27 2.00 1.76 14.20 6.65 4.07 1.50 7.90 5.79 3.58 4.46
7.19 6.70 6.99 6.88 7.35 6.73 7.15 7.19 7.04 7.62 7.43 7.34 7.01 7.19 6.70 6.99 6.88 7.35 6.73 7.15 7.61 7.43 8.21 7.58 7.37 7.49 7.65 7.12 7.39 7.29
180.00 2278.50 1025.00 1366.00 400.00 1150.00 751.00 790.00 675.00 900.00 985.00 433.00 556.00 1200.00 1053.00 555.00 685.00 370.00 505.00 1490.00 880.00 755.00 843.00 931.00 675.00 955.00 746.00 1000.00 1010.00 1225.00
-1.88 -4.56 3.73 0.13 2.98 -0.41 -0.75 0.91 4.42 -1.44 -2.02 0.47 -0.66 -2.03 0.04 2.29 1.72 2.75 0.62 -0.04 1.70 2.42 0.37 0.70 1.74 0.11 -0.34 -0.07 0.88 0.88
1.09 -4.50 3.91 0.20 3.38 -0.32 -0.73 1.04 7.46 -1.09 -0.81 0.70 -0.51 -1.86 0.18 2.57 2.00 2.99 0.90 0.47 1.79 2.76 0.47 0.72 2.00 0.32 -0.24 0.01 1.12 0.94
-0.49 -9.09 -0.73 -2.15 -0.58 -1.97 -1.65 -1.33 -1.35 -3.00 -1.89 -0.40 -0.86 -2.10 -1.98 -0.71 -0.77 -0.74 -0.73 -2.34 -0.76 -1.20 -1.20 -0.99 -0.78 -1.26 -1.25 -1.28 -1.51 -1.66
-0.35 -6.39 -0.12 -1.44 -0.34 -0.90 -1.43 -0.80 -0.24 -1.66 -1.54 -0.29 -0.68 -1.18 -1.60 -0.47 -0.41 -0.30 -0.50 -1.68 -0.45 -0.80 -1.01 -0.60 -0.46 -0.94 -1.01 -0.70 -1.09 -1.15
13.36 79.10 66.92 69.27 27.47 65.47 17.54 43.76 75.41 68.37 34.35 16.47 26.18 55.45 42.79 38.01 53.66 47.03 27.09 61.37 48.19 36.73 29.32 50.12 45.41 35.00 19.78 48.48 48.26 54.99
0.92 4.45 4.90 6.15 1.79 2.88 1.59 2.41 2.85 2.51 2.85 2.32 2.61 2.28 3.73 3.23 3.88 2.54 2.21 5.17 4.84 2.45 3.56 4.02 3.41 2.99 1.81 2.86 4.01 4.72
56.70 50.92 71.00 71.67 56.65 54.68 46.24 54.50 62.73 53.72 65.83 65.08 64.29 50.95 63.21 68.43 71.82 60.66 59.87 69.15 72.37 55.37 66.85 67.53 68.35 60.38 49.86 56.98 66.85 66.82
4.36 104.17 24.30 20.79 6.92 56.85 3.12 15.99 113.89 89.36 5.79 1.28 3.14 41.15 6.85 5.81 13.03 17.44 4.69 15.29 6.14 9.17 2.41 9.96 9.23 5.53 3.27 16.74 8.91 11.02
0.82 1.01 2.38 2.46 1.22 1.15 0.84 1.13 1.37 0.96 1.27 1.68 1.67 0.94 1.64 2.05 2.40 1.46 1.37 1.96 2.54 1.18 1.90 2.06 2.01 1.42 0.92 1.26 1.84 1.96
76.96 54.24 86.89 80.22 84.48 69.50 56.65 73.12 75.44 58.36 69.77 91.89 80.85 64.55 73.45 86.38 87.14 83.01 82.39 76.59 87.72 74.89 80.15 83.67 85.48 76.85 70.21 75.36 78.60 79.16
31.18 484.18 105.91 156.18 53.96 155.59 89.13 114.32 109.29 169.24 125.45 47.63 60.93 147.56 128.90 61.94 65.57 75.57 65.13 174.63 91.10 107.90 88.33 95.57 71.95 111.82 96.07 128.70 118.68 145.45
0.30 0.39 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.14 0.30 1.03 0.66 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.45 0.18 0.24 0.37 0.40 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.12 0.26 0.29 0.17 0.14 0.29 0.21 0.21
1.07 1.40 3.34 3.18 1.57 1.76 0.96 1.47 2.77 1.60 1.48 1.89 1.96 1.36 1.93 2.55 3.28 2.05 1.65 2.41 3.05 1.45 2.13 2.58 2.59 1.66 1.05 1.63 2.23 2.38
[190]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.16 Continued.
Asansol
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Block
Ranigang
SL.NO.
Mbgl(m.)
pH
EC
B.EXCH
M.GEN
RSC
RSBC
SSP
SAR
% Na
Mg haz
KR
PI
TH
Mg2+:Ca2+
Na+:Ca2+
3.43 5.11 2.34 4.44 3.98 0.95 8.40 3.55 6.62 6.73 8.90 3.35 6.95 11.09 10.90
7.50 7.41 7.48 7.37 7.27 7.32 6.51 7.36 7.47 7.57 7.23 7.15 7.46 7.75 7.60
1050.00 895.00 1150.00 1015.00 1080.00 1125.00 485.00 963.00 835.00 480.00 1285.00 1112.50 1960.00 1135.00 1320.00
-0.04 2.17 1.04 0.82 0.94 2.70 -0.22 2.42 1.16 0.98 -0.53 0.96 0.88 1.63 -0.09
0.02 2.83 1.17 0.91 0.99 3.00 -0.11 2.54 1.29 1.15 -0.44 1.07 0.89 1.70 0.25
-1.33 -1.05 -1.24 -1.26 -1.32 -0.72 -0.74 -0.72 -1.31 -0.81 -3.09 -1.97 -4.77 -1.14 -1.98
-0.35 -0.54 -0.84 -0.69 -0.71 -0.27 -0.55 -0.31 -0.84 -0.63 -2.52 -1.48 -3.85 -0.67 -0.93
68.80 49.56 51.31 56.28 63.13 66.95 18.58 67.78 41.46 18.81 37.24 47.23 70.68 66.06 71.15
2.89 3.45 4.84 3.74 4.53 6.89 1.53 7.32 2.60 1.86 2.56 4.04 7.82 6.52 3.82
57.99 62.32 69.56 64.09 68.03 78.63 51.45 80.29 55.78 54.88 48.49 61.94 69.23 76.55 63.43
68.67 12.97 7.92 17.98 21.20 13.33 3.74 12.58 11.81 2.69 9.22 8.37 16.14 13.80 54.58
1.32 1.53 2.19 1.74 2.08 3.48 0.98 3.98 1.21 1.14 0.90 1.58 2.24 3.19 1.55
75.51 79.40 82.71 79.69 81.60 90.34 78.06 91.65 74.41 78.61 60.13 74.76 74.98 87.28 74.09
118.83 127.49 121.87 115.92 118.33 98.33 60.38 84.49 115.10 66.72 204.65 163.91 305.24 104.17 151.99
0.70 0.25 0.20 0.32 0.35 0.30 0.19 0.31 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.29 0.52
2.25 1.91 2.62 2.29 2.81 4.50 1.17 5.23 1.52 1.31 1.04 1.85 2.63 4.13 2.36
[191]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.17: Criteria for groundwater for irrigation water suitability during postmonsoon (2007 - 2008 sessions).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
Block
Andal
SL. NO.
Mbgl(m.)
pH
EC
B.E XCH
MET. GEN.
RSC
RSBC
SSP
SAR
% Na
Mg HAZ
KR
PI
TH
Mg2+:Ca2+
Na+:Ca2+
3.39 4.80 2.12 2.05 2.65 4.55 5.64 4.90 1.65 4.00 6.00 2.38 3.85 2.10 7.60 2.23 1.70 3.18 2.83 3.08 3.53 4.98 6.62 7.14 7.98 9.14 6.45 9.45 10.58 9.10
6.86 6.43 6.56 7.06 7.35 6.64 6.22 6.99 6.69 7.27 7.37 5.66 5.48 6.21 7.03 6.58 7.18 7.14 6.88 6.26 6.96 5.71 6.22 6.32 5.66 7.77 7.11 7.57 7.29 7.67
355.00 880.00 380.00 405.00 1365.00 265.00 185.00 1577.00 2493.50 808.00 1200.00 75.00 65.00 420.00 711.50 550.00 600.00 275.00 1090.00 145.00 335.00 550.00 500.00 855.00 470.00 940.00 2144.00 1015.00 1220.00 1245.00
0.20 -2.07 0.68 0.12 -2.41 0.08 0.00 -0.64 -1.13 -0.58 -3.57 2.30 0.63 -0.80 0.21 -1.12 -0.98 0.25 -3.95 1.09 0.44 -0.70 -0.01 0.06 -0.18 -0.08 -4.36 -0.95 -0.41 -1.04
0.35 0.53 1.06 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.07 0.46 0.00 -0.36 -1.59 2.59 0.69 0.45 0.32 -0.85 -0.38 0.31 -3.47 1.45 0.53 -0.48 0.07 0.17 -0.03 -0.05 -4.25 -0.91 -0.37 0.17
-0.07 -0.33 -0.24 -0.18 -0.96 -0.47 -0.13 -1.46 -2.48 -0.83 -1.62 -0.10 -0.09 -0.48 -0.98 -0.86 -0.91 -0.47 -2.18 -0.12 -0.49 -0.91 -0.72 -1.68 -0.70 -1.76 -7.82 -1.92 -2.46 -1.67
0.04 -0.19 -0.14 -0.05 -0.53 -0.39 -0.08 -1.04 -1.08 -0.54 -1.36 -0.06 -0.05 -0.09 -0.33 -0.67 -0.56 -0.33 -1.92 -0.05 -0.31 -0.73 -0.55 -1.45 -0.59 -1.20 -6.39 -1.66 -1.95 -1.35
70.57 59.35 55.42 65.64 65.13 57.04 78.17 58.87 61.41 36.10 41.11 86.63 89.25 54.73 58.72 61.35 42.68 60.82 53.71 79.35 61.61 66.35 72.42 59.22 69.48 47.58 37.22 49.13 46.47 60.50
2.78 2.66 1.74 2.54 4.22 1.59 2.66 3.27 3.97 1.14 1.74 3.89 4.39 1.52 2.54 2.41 1.29 1.91 2.73 3.13 2.10 2.96 3.38 2.86 2.86 2.02 2.51 2.27 2.34 3.54
73.51 68.07 60.40 67.40 71.88 59.08 81.66 74.41 67.81 43.41 46.74 87.35 89.74 75.49 60.46 64.68 46.89 63.73 55.28 81.50 64.22 68.91 73.48 60.23 72.28 50.18 38.44 50.05 47.22 61.82
16.74 8.86 9.89 14.48 17.01 11.17 20.38 15.97 44.80 14.49 8.57 22.32 28.69 48.94 40.61 16.74 23.00 18.07 9.27 21.78 20.65 16.45 20.38 11.58 14.21 22.68 16.00 9.27 14.16 12.00
2.40 1.46 1.24 1.91 1.87 1.33 3.58 1.43 1.59 0.56 0.70 6.48 8.30 1.21 1.42 1.59 0.74 1.55 1.16 3.84 1.60 1.97 2.63 1.45 2.28 0.91 0.59 0.97 0.87 1.53
104.62 87.59 94.62 98.24 82.36 86.86 108.23 75.76 71.32 70.51 64.20 107.48 106.84 86.64 78.99 79.39 72.04 88.68 66.54 107.86 88.81 80.08 83.22 69.97 81.17 65.54 44.64 66.07 62.41 75.33
33.56 82.68 48.73 44.35 127.47 35.95 13.79 130.05 155.93 101.83 155.81 8.99 7.00 39.58 79.82 57.54 75.50 37.76 138.59 16.59 42.76 56.14 41.36 97.07 39.55 123.91 446.70 138.59 181.38 133.82
0.20 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.26 0.19 0.81 0.17 0.09 0.29 0.40 0.96 0.68 0.20 0.30 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.13 0.17 0.29 0.19 0.10 0.17 0.14
2.88 1.60 1.38 2.23 2.25 1.49 4.50 1.70 2.88 0.66 0.76 8.34 11.64 2.37 2.40 1.91 0.97 1.89 1.28 4.91 2.02 2.36 3.30 1.64 2.65 1.17 0.71 1.06 1.01 1.74
[192]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.17 Continued.
Kulti
Salanpur
Barabani
Jamuria I & II
Block
Hirapur
SL. NO. 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Mbgl(m.)
pH
EC
B.EXCH
MET.GEN.
RSC
RSBC
SSP
SAR
% Na
Mg HAZ
KR
PI
TH
Mg2+:Ca2+
Na+:Ca2+
4.85 5.55 11.00 3.50 6.29 12.44 3.50 4.81 2.45 7.76 3.53 2.76 3.68 4.38 7.05 3.88 2.92 3.36 0.55 2.55 1.90 1.48 4.10 1.79 3.53 2.08 2.00 3.79 2.63 2.58
6.63 6.82 7.21 7.11 7.65 7.68 6.83 7.41 7.04 7.14 7.24 6.91 6.96 7.17 6.86 7.26 6.92 7.79 6.79 7.12 7.56 7.47 7.26 7.44 7.36 7.48 7.40 7.27 7.31 7.29
165.00 2158.50 1085.00 2104.00 405.00 1380.00 800.00 825.00 635.00 1635.00 955.00 495.00 610.00 1635.00 1102.00 565.00 705.00 905.00 555.00 1600.00 1265.00 795.00 1235.00 1082.50 915.00 1205.00 600.00 1225.00 1080.00 1600.00
0.05 -13.34 0.14 32.53 0.18 -1.00 -0.48 0.81 0.20 -1.89 -1.81 0.47 -0.13 -0.96 -1.08 0.73 0.40 0.73 0.08 -0.55 0.64 0.24 0.11 -0.30 0.12 -2.29 0.03 -1.23 0.05 0.18
0.07 -12.87 0.17 33.85 0.22 -0.84 -0.04 0.98 0.38 -1.01 0.11 0.59 -0.08 -0.65 -0.86 0.82 0.69 0.83 0.32 -0.18 0.75 0.32 0.15 -0.07 0.15 -1.88 0.09 -1.09 0.23 0.24
-0.28 -11.84 -0.60 -4.65 -0.46 -2.71 -1.78 -1.42 -0.54 -3.40 -1.58 -0.48 -0.64 -3.13 -1.90 -0.82 -0.97 -1.40 -0.83 -2.28 -1.28 -1.23 -2.50 -1.46 -1.14 -1.45 -1.05 -2.13 -1.36 -2.45
-0.21 -8.89 -0.13 -2.76 -0.31 -1.42 -1.51 -1.05 -0.30 -2.95 -1.29 -0.36 -0.35 -2.03 -1.69 -0.66 -0.85 -0.76 -0.61 -1.64 -0.80 -0.81 -2.11 -1.19 -0.68 -1.23 -0.82 -1.72 -0.97 -1.77
78.74 53.31 72.27 89.23 56.59 51.13 48.32 50.37 72.74 52.97 52.38 61.75 57.11 52.07 54.11 61.42 63.79 52.67 52.34 58.25 65.16 50.15 48.40 53.37 58.29 44.05 49.33 50.87 58.67 54.73
3.02 5.66 4.54 27.26 1.74 2.81 1.85 2.13 3.99 3.27 2.29 2.42 1.96 3.03 2.63 2.62 3.00 2.33 1.83 3.59 4.03 2.04 2.41 2.57 2.75 1.73 1.75 2.52 2.99 3.27
82.95 54.76 73.91 89.42 58.79 52.36 53.59 52.61 77.34 60.99 64.79 63.35 60.05 56.37 55.88 62.51 67.99 53.60 62.06 61.85 65.83 51.47 49.04 56.69 58.87 48.51 51.90 53.11 61.90 55.50
21.78 24.00 31.32 34.85 17.12 35.68 14.00 16.74 21.52 10.70 13.35 11.40 26.17 28.10 8.49 11.82 8.88 29.21 16.26 19.36 20.78 20.32 11.68 10.60 23.97 8.95 13.86 14.05 17.35 18.38
3.70 1.14 2.61 8.29 1.30 1.05 0.93 1.01 2.67 1.13 1.10 1.61 1.33 1.09 1.18 1.59 1.76 1.11 1.10 1.40 1.87 1.01 0.94 1.14 1.40 0.79 0.97 1.04 1.42 1.21
93.42 55.85 89.77 90.97 88.64 63.95 59.26 70.33 91.24 62.98 69.27 88.97 83.54 62.82 68.26 82.25 81.00 71.92 77.92 71.06 80.46 72.20 62.39 72.46 77.49 66.82 73.06 66.01 75.98 68.36
16.59 614.24 75.93 270.38 44.55 180.00 97.48 110.28 55.95 210.10 108.26 56.32 54.07 194.31 124.06 67.91 72.29 109.96 69.12 165.85 115.90 102.71 164.98 125.87 97.13 121.12 81.10 148.62 111.08 183.42
0.28 0.32 0.46 0.53 0.21 0.55 0.16 0.20 0.27 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.35 0.39 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.41 0.19 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.12 0.32 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.23
4.74 1.50 3.80 12.72 1.57 1.63 1.09 1.22 3.40 1.26 1.27 1.82 1.80 1.51 1.29 1.81 1.93 1.57 1.31 1.73 2.36 1.26 1.06 1.28 1.84 0.86 1.13 1.20 1.72 1.48
[193]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.17 Continued.
Asansol
Block
Ranigang
SL.NO. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Mbgl(m.) 1.97 3.43 1.55 2.68 2.99 1.28 9.57 3.75 4.49 3.15 6.35 0.98 5.65 4.30 7.35
pH 7.24 7.24 7.35 7.25 7.28 7.32 6.69 7.14 7.32 7.34 7.31 7.23 7.53 7.27 7.67
EC 1135.00 930.00 1210.00 1050.00 1235.00 1185.00 540.00 1091.50 835.00 505.00 1380.00 1255.00 2219.00 1111.00 1465.00
B.EXCH -0.96 0.47 -0.13 0.34 0.16 -1.31 -0.31 0.00 -0.84 -0.88 -0.26 -0.58 -1.21 -0.29 0.14
MET.GEN. -0.85 0.59 -0.03 0.39 0.21 -0.94 -0.22 0.06 -0.77 -0.82 -0.23 -0.56 -1.13 -0.25 -0.11
RSC -2.17 -1.40 -1.60 -1.30 -1.70 -0.95 -0.78 -0.74 -1.30 -0.77 -2.96 -1.23 -3.95 -1.00 -2.07
RSBC -1.56 -1.32 -1.22 -0.80 -1.17 -0.50 -0.70 -0.39 -0.93 -0.58 -2.57 -0.69 -3.28 -0.70 -1.11
SSP 41.86 57.48 60.66 60.29 60.17 67.05 41.73 62.68 46.55 49.21 46.69 52.55 44.72 63.20 53.14
SAR 1.83 2.93 3.64 3.28 3.50 4.27 1.15 3.32 1.89 1.64 2.52 2.91 2.75 3.26 2.92
% Na 43.31 59.82 61.63 60.95 61.14 68.67 46.85 63.71 48.09 51.85 47.49 53.16 45.80 64.53 58.43
Mg HAZ 18.80 3.41 13.86 21.33 19.73 20.38 5.56 17.77 15.61 13.47 9.31 15.78 11.65 16.74 29.03
KR 0.72 1.35 1.54 1.52 1.51 2.03 0.72 1.68 0.87 0.97 0.88 1.11 0.81 1.72 1.13
PI 60.44 75.14 76.03 77.60 74.88 83.81 74.20 83.74 69.84 77.96 60.68 73.03 57.61 81.51 68.90
TH 162.24 117.79 139.03 116.70 134.28 110.30 64.99 97.70 118.27 71.51 206.89 173.01 287.76 89.90 165.94
Mg2+:Ca2+ 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.06 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.19 0.13 0.20 0.41
Na+:Ca2+ 0.89 1.40 1.79 1.93 1.88 2.56 0.76 2.04 1.03 1.12 0.97 1.32 0.92 2.06 1.60
[194]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.18: Statistical summary of irrigation water quality.
Parameter(s) pH EC B.EXCH M.GEN RSC RSBC SSP SAR % Na Mg HAZ. KR PI TH Mg2+:Ca2+ Na+:Ca2+
MIN 5.48 70.00 -36.85 -33.92 -9.09 -6.39 2.36 0.65 42.64 0.04 0.70 54.24 13.19 0.03 0.75
Premonsoon MAX MEAN 8.21 7.14 2349.50 813.69 16.54 -0.19 17.45 0.42 -0.19 -1.39 -0.12 -0.96 79.10 38.92 7.82 3.06 80.29 61.60 113.89 14.67 3.98 1.59 103.80 79.06 484.18 104.77 1.03 0.26 5.23
2.00
SD 0.54 447.67 5.26 5.03 1.32 1.00 20.50 1.49 8.23 22.22 0.64 10.16 73.03 0.16
MIN 5.48 65.00 -13.34 -12.87 -11.84 -8.89 36.10 1.14 38.44 3.41 0.56 44.64 7.00 0.04
0.85
0.66
Postmonsoon MAX MEAN 7.79 7.03 2493.50 954.50 32.53 -0.16 33.85 0.18 -0.07 -1.56 0.04 -1.13 89.25 57.85 27.26 3.05 89.74 61.06 48.94 18.16 8.30 1.69 108.23 77.20 614.24 115.98 0.96 0.24 12.72
2.15
SD 0.50 530.16 4.25 4.31 1.69 1.32 11.18 2.96 11.22 8.54 1.41 12.96 91.21 0.16
t-test 1.76 -2.48 -0.04 0.44 0.95 1.28 -9.89 0.05 0.47 -1.79 -0.80 1.38 -1.17 1.22
Remarks Significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
2.03
-0.81
Not significant
[195]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 5.19: Categorization of water quality for irrigation. Quality
EC range
Very good
250a
Good
250-750
Marginal poor Harmful
7502000 20003000 3000
<1000b 10002000 20004000 40006000 >6000
% Na 20a
RSC
SAR
<0c
0-10e <1.25
20-40
0-2.5
40-60
2.5-5.0
60-80
5.0-7.5
80
>7.5
MG Hazard
d
10-18
<50%f
1.25-2.5 18-26 >2.5
>50% >26
(a-Wilcox 1955. b-Bhumbla and Abrol, 1972. c-Bishnoi et al., 1984. d- Eaton, 1950. e- Richards, 1954. f-Paliwasl, 1972.)
[196]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.1: The topographical variation of the study area.
[197]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.2. a and b: Water table fluctuation.
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[198]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.3. a and b: Spatial distribution of pH.
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[199]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.4. a and b: Spatial distribution of Electrical Conductivity (EC).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[200]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.5.a and b: Spatial distribution of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
(a) Premonsoon
(b)Postmonsoon
[201]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.6.a and b : Spatial variation of Hardness (TH).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[202]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.7.a and b: Spatial variation of Sodium (Na+).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[203]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.8.a and b: Spatial variation of Calcium (Ca2+).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[204]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 5.9.a and b: Spatial variation of Magnesium (Mg2+).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[205]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.10.a and b: Spatial variation of Iron (Fe2+).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[206]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 5.11.a and b: Spatial variation of Chloride (Cl-).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[207]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 5.12.a and b: Spatial variation of Sulphate (SO42-).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[208]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.13.a and b: Spatial variation of Fluoride (F-).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[209]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.14.a and b: Hydrogeochemical classification of ground water (Piper, 1954).
(a) Premonsoon
[210]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(b) Postmonsoon
[211]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.15.a and b: Mechanism controlling groundwater chemistry (Gibbs, 1970).
(a) Premonsoon
[212]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(b) Postmonsoon
[213]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.16. a and b: Relationship between Ca2++Mg2++ and HCO3- +SO42- in the ground water. 10.00
10.00 meq/L 2-
6.00
HCO3 +SO 4
4.00
-
HCO3 -+SO 4 2- meq/L
8.00
2.00
6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
8.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
2+
8.00
0.00
10.00
2.00
4.00 2+
2+
6.00
8.00
10.00
2+
Ca +Mg meq/L
Ca +Mg meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.17. a and b: Relationship between Ca2++Mg2++ and HCO3- +SO42- in the ground water (1:1 line). 10.00
10.00
4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00
8.00
2-
6.00
6.00
-
HCO3 +SO 4 meq/L
HCO3-+SO 42- meq/L
8.00
4.00 2.00 0.00
2.00
4.00 2+
6.00 2+
Ca +Mg
meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
8.00
10.00
0.00
2.00
4.00 2+
6.00
8.00
10.00
2+
Ca +Mg meq/L
(b) Postmonsoon
[214]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.18. a, b, c and d: Relationship between Ca2++Mg2+ and HCO3- in the ground water (1:1 line and 2:1 line).
20.00
15.00 HCO3 - meq/L
HCO3- meq/L
20.00
10.00 5.00
15.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
5.00 0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
0.00
5.00
Ca 2++Mg2+ meq/L
10.00 2+
15.00
20.00
2+
Ca +Mg meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
40.00
30.00 HCO3 - meq/L
HCO3- meq/L
40.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00
10.00
20.00 Ca 2++Mg2+ meq/L
(c) Premonsoon
30.00
40.00
0.00
10.00
20.00 2+
30.00
40.00
2+
Ca +Mg meq/L
(d) Postmonsoon
[215]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
60.00
50.00
50.00
40.00
40.00
TZ meq/L
60.00
30.00
30.00
+
+
TZ meq/L
Figure 5.19. a and b: Relationship between Na++K++ and TZ+ in the ground water (1:0.5 line).
20.00
20.00 10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
10.00
20.00 +
+
Na +K
0.00
30.00
10.00
20.00 +
meq/L
30.00
+
Na + K meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.20. a and b: Relationship between Ca2++Mg2+and TZ+ in the ground water (1:0.5 line).
60.00
60.00 50.00
TZ+ meq/L
40.00 30.00
+
TZ meq/L
50.00
20.00
40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
10.00
20.00 2+
30.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
Ca2++Mg2+ meq/L
2+
Ca +Mg meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[216]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.21. a and b: Relationship between Na+ vs. Cl- in the ground water.
40.00 40.00
30.00
20.00 Cl- meq/L
Cl- meq/L
30.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
0.00 0.00
+
Na meq/L
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Na+ meq/L
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
Na/Cl meq/L
Na/Cl meq/L
Figure 5.22. a and b: Relationship between EC vs. Na water.
2.00 1.00
+
/ Cl - in the ground
2.00 1.00
0.00
0.00
0
1000
2000 EC μS/cm
(a)Premonsoon
3000
0
1000
2000
3000
EC μS/cm
(b) Postmonsoon
[217]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.23. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. Ca+2 in the ground water.
10 8
8
6
C a+2
10
Ca +2
6
4
4
2
2
0 0
0 0
500
1000
1500
500
2000
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
TDS(mg/L)
r = 0.92
r = 0.80
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.24. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. Mg+2 in the ground water.
5
5 4
3
3
Mg
Mg
+2
+2
4
2
2 1
1
0 0
0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
500
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
r = 0.77
r = 0.75
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[218]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
50
50
40
40
30
30
Na+
Na+
Figure 5.25. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. Na+ in the ground water.
20 10
20 10
0
0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
500
TDS(mg/L)
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
r = 0.89
r = 0.50
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
10
10
8
8
6
6
SO4 2-
SO4 2-
Figure 5.26. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. SO42- in the ground water.
4 2
4 2
0
0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
TDS(mg/L)
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
r = 0.87
r = 0.91
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
500
(b) Postmonsoon
[219]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
50
50
40
40
30
30
Cl-
Cl-
Figure 5.27. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. Cl- in the ground water.
20
20
10
10
0
0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
500
1000
TDS(mg/L)
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
r = 0.80
r = 0.92
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.28. a and b: Relationship between TDS vs. NO3- in the ground water.
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
NO3-
NO3 -
0.50
0.20
0.20 0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00 0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
r = 0.64
r = 0.54
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
500
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
TDS(mg/L)
(b) Postmonsoon
[220]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.29. a and b: Relationship between Cl- vs. NO3- in the ground water. 0.5 0.5
0.4 NO3 -
NO3 -
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0.3 0.2 0.1
0 0
10
20
30
40
0
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
-
Cl
-
Cl
r = 0.66
r = 0.52
p = 0.05
p = 0.05 (a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.30. a and b: Relationship between TDS with (NO3− + Cl−)/HCO3− in the groundwater.
80
Cl-+NO3 -/HCO3 -
100
80
Cl-+NO3 -/HCO3 -
100
60 40 20
60 40 20 0
0 0
500
1000
1500
0
2000
500
1000
1500
2000
TDS(mg/L)
TDS(mg/L)
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
Figure 5.31. a and b: Relationship between δD with δ18O in the groundwater.
δ18 O
18
δ O
0
-6
-4
-2
δD= 6.0203 δ18 O - 6.485
-10
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-25
-25
-50
-50
-75
2
R = 0.8545
δD
-8
δD = 5.008 δ18 O - 11.45 R² = 0.789
δD
0 -10
-75
-100
-100
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[221]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.32.a and b: Spatial variation of δ18O in the groundwater.
(a)Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[222]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.33. a and b: Schematic representation of clustering of different variable into a single factor.
1 0.75
TA HCO3pH
F-
Na+ TDS EC SO4-2 TH Mg+2 Ca+2 Cl-
D2 (16.43 %)
0.5 0.25
Fe
As
PO4-3
0
Pb K+
Cd
H4SiO4
-0.25
NO3T(°C)
-0.5 -0.75 -1 -1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
D1 (34.28 %)
(a) Premonsoon
1 HCO3-
0.75
F-
0.5
D2 (16.76 %)
TA pH
0.25
PO4-3 K+
0 Cd
Pb Fe
-0.25
As
T(°C)
TDS EC SO4-2 Ca+2 TH Mg+2 Na+ NO3- Cl-
H4SiO4
-0.5 -0.75 -1 -1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
D1 (31.28 %)
(b) Postmonsoon
[223]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.34.a and b: Spatial variation of E. coli.
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[224]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.35.a and b : Spatial variation of MPN.
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[225]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.36.a and b: Spatial variation of Salmonella sp.
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[226]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.37.a and b: Spatial variation of Standard Plate Count (SPC).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[227]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.38.a and b: Spatial variation of Water Quality Index (WQI).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[228]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure5.39.a and b: Spatial variation of Percent Sodium (% Na).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[229]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.40.a and b: Classification of irrigation water (After Wilcox; 1955).
[230]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 5.41. a and b: Diagram for classification of irrigation water(After U.S. Salinity Laboratory Stuff; 1954).
(a) Premonsoon
(b) Postmonsoon
[231]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- I: Physico-chemical characteristics of pre-monsoon samples (2007).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
B.N
Andal
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3
H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
3.50 4.50 2.86 2.10 3.84 7.83 11.16 5.81 2.30 3.68 6.24 4.20 6.00 6.37 10.47 3.36 1.55 3.07 2.77 3.88 4.11 3.55 5.68 7.26 11.90 12.60 21.31 10.90 11.60 11.41
6.80 6.25 6.38 6.55 7.93 7.02 6.90 6.80 7.20 6.98 7.30 6.30 6.12 6.25 7.05 6.32 7.62 8.16 6.90 5.73 6.65 5.22 6.70 6.20 5.30 6.82 7.67 7.60 7.50 7.40
28.26 28.29 29.00 28.90 28.30 29.40 29.10 29.34 30.19 27.40 26.80 27.29 32.10 30.00 27.30 28.00 32.51 30.05 28.50 28.91 30.81 32.04 32.80 29.65 28.72 33.10 27.39 27.19 27.99 29.57
380 590 297 327 385 270 367 680 1027 1120 1056 85 110 327 547 470 459 278 667 114 235 540 547 870 449 865 2375 1140 1059 1297
217.40 220.60 120.00 170.20 175.25 140.10 142.20 350.20 550.25 587.00 542.15 29.15 49.30 175.20 277.50 242.00 242.50 138.20 315.40 50.33 127.60 332.40 250.20 454.40 250.00 429.00 1320.00 650.00 605.23 607.00
19.20 26.40 20.20 23.80 25.00 20.20 22.20 39.40 78.60 76.20 62.50 6.50 10.20 10.20 35.50 21.20 30.20 18.20 34.00 9.20 16.20 35.40 28.40 58.00 10.40 70.20 182.50 72.50 65.40 79.40
20.80 27.40 12.80 17.60 22.40 17.60 22.40 38.60 87.40 62.20 63.90 5.70 7.00 13.60 45.20 13.20 38.80 14.10 27.20 8.00 18.60 12.80 11.20 23.70 7.10 52.80 33.30 48.40 67.00 47.40
45.10 48.20 25.10 35.10 40.25 18.20 25.10 35.25 74.60 72.40 76.40 6.10 6.70 19.10 42.10 28.40 26.50 22.30 55.20 6.20 26.50 62.30 55.40 52.40 28.50 54.30 220.50 80.90 56.40 94.60
8.50 26.20 10.20 2.80 8.20 2.10 14.20 22.20 16.20 16.80 15.40 0.80 0.70 22.10 1.40 5.20 2.30 3.40 11.20 5.20 4.10 11.20 3.10 2.10 4.20 7.40 1.90 7.20 7.20 7.90
10.20 18.40 10.20 11.00 15.40 10.10 18.20 31.10 48.20 55.20 45.50 3.00 7.40 8.20 20.10 12.10 20.10 13.60 29.50 4.20 10.00 16.20 14.40 42.20 9.80 40.80 100.50 42.10 52.30 42.50
2.20 1.95 2.44 3.12 2.34 2.46 0.98 2.03 7.42 5.12 4.15 0.85 0.68 0.49 3.76 2.22 2.46 1.12 1.10 1.22 1.51 4.68 3.42 3.86 0.15 7.17 20.01 7.42 3.20 9.00
0.20 0.20 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.19 0.30 0.70 0.30 0.10 0.06 0.37 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.07
0.20 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.05 0.00 6.50 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.00 1.90 4.02 1.38
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20.80 26.40 12.80 17.60 22.40 17.60 22.40 38.60 87.40 62.20 63.90 5.70 7.00 13.60 45.20 13.20 38.80 14.10 27.20 8.00 18.60 12.80 11.20 23.70 7.10 52.80 33.30 48.40 67.00 47.40
45.99 72.90 20.10 37.99 42.99 28.98 23.47 100.99 120.90 182.40 130.99 20.47 13.47 53.90 39.50 99.40 22.10 25.40 90.45 18.20 18.70 90.20 84.47 90.60 68.47 99.47 590.45 198.30 126.60 185.20
13.20 48.50 22.05 9.40 19.60 4.10 2.90 52.40 50.35 48.20 69.50 0.50 1.80 7.50 2.05 10.80 14.80 10.15 60.40 0.72 20.10 42.50 50.20 132.30 6.10 35.20 210.20 68.52 64.20 81.40
0.22 0.40 1.60 0.28 1.12 0.50 0.52 0.02 0.20 0.15 2.50 0.23 0.90 1.20 0.50 0.00 0.70 0.80 0.62 0.84 0.68 10.20 8.20 10.20 10.50 1.10 23.30 6.50 5.10 14.50
0.07 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
13.87 39.25 25.32 27.10 43.21 35.50 26.43 33.20 25.36 34.02 38.60 17.52 15.23 35.00 27.65 27.23 18.90 14.76 29.20 34.54 27.60 29.57 34.80 13.80 12.60 13.70 29.00 28.60 42.00 28.50
0.17 0.21 0.07 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.60 0.50 0.53 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.52 0.08 0.73 0.12 0.10 0.24 0.30 0.12 0.06 0.16 0.02 0.40 0.38 0.68 0.60 0.45
0.10 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12
0.16 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.35 0.20 0.10 0.22 0.32 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.29 0.19 0.16 0.11
[232]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- I Continued.
Kulti
Salanpur
Barabani
Jamuria-1 & II
B.N
Hirapur
SL.NO 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
WL(m) 6.27 21.90 14.80 8.20 14.04 16.52 5.72 4.03 3.57 12.16 4.19 3.46 8.15 5.07 8.88 5.27 3.41 3.25 0.93 3.90 1.82 1.90 14.00 6.70 4.39 1.60 7.16 5.55 3.59 4.69
pH 6.16 7.30 7.43 7.90 7.83 7.30 6.80 7.15 6.85 7.24 7.59 7.15 6.95 7.20 6.40 6.50 6.72 7.16 6.40 7.10 7.40 7.62 8.30 7.62 7.26 7.73 7.29 6.85 7.21 7.55
T(°C) 32.50 30.60 30.52 32.05 30.60 29.31 32.15 30.80 30.10 30.25 31.50 27.90 31.00 29.80 28.00 29.00 28.64 25.90 26.00 27.25 27.15 28.30 27.28 27.20 28.15 28.59 29.28 28.05 31.70 29.00
EC 197 2270 1094 1390 367 1190 764 780 680 870 989 464 559 1197 1050 570 690 390 497 1504 872 747 846 928 690 975 755 987 1106 1250
TDS 105.20 1250.00 582.10 725.00 125.00 650.00 410.00 415.00 326.24 740.15 485.00 220.65 305.30 615.00 536.50 295.20 352.00 295.40 275.50 795.50 476.20 410.00 465.00 515.00 330.00 500.10 400.60 535.20 510.40 640.30
TH 18.50 280.30 58.40 80.20 26.40 92.60 40.40 58.60 72.20 100.20 52.20 20.20 30.20 82.40 60.40 30.40 32.60 40.40 30.40 92.60 42.30 52.40 38.40 52.40 35.60 50.40 42.40 64.40 58.40 72.40
TA 8.00 38.70 80.90 66.10 32.40 73.80 9.35 65.90 53.00 27.00 41.40 39.20 20.50 49.80 34.50 27.50 36.50 49.90 31.20 63.40 51.20 59.20 38.30 54.00 32.40 56.20 36.20 68.80 58.00 78.40
Na+ 10.20 230.50 227.40 170.30 29.80 75.40 31.00 55.20 65.40 72.40 70.20 30.50 44.10 60.20 90.50 50.20 70.20 46.60 38.40 150.10 102.00 55.20 75.20 90.20 62.20 70.20 35.40 70.50 98.40 125.20
K+ 10.60 8.50 4.60 8.40 3.20 7.20 0.90 5.80 24.50 29.30 62.10 5.80 5.80 10.80 16.20 10.30 6.90 4.20 6.30 40.10 5.90 5.20 8.10 2.10 8.10 9.40 5.60 6.10 14.20 4.90
Ca+2 8.90 137.50 28.60 44.10 14.30 42.50 28.50 38.10 19.50 38.40 40.10 15.20 20.50 38.40 42.10 19.30 18.50 20.30 20.10 55.60 28.50 33.20 32.10 25.40 20.10 36.50 30.60 35.80 34.60 42.50
Mg+2 2.34 34.84 7.27 8.81 2.95 12.22 2.90 5.00 12.86 15.08 2.95 1.22 2.37 10.74 4.47 2.71 3.44 4.90 2.51 9.03 3.37 4.68 1.54 6.59 3.78 3.39 2.88 6.98 5.81 7.30
Fe 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.22 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.22 0.40 0.62 0.40 0.20 0.42 0.40 1.70 0.40 0.72 0.30 0.25 0.54 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.50 0.42
As 2.85 0.00 1.72 1.10 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.60 2.70 0.50 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.75 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.26 0.24 2.56 1.53 0.58 0.00
CO3-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HCO38.00 38.70 80.90 66.10 32.40 73.80 9.35 65.90 53.00 27.00 41.40 39.20 20.50 49.80 34.50 27.50 36.50 49.90 31.20 63.40 51.20 59.20 38.30 54.00 32.40 56.20 36.20 68.80 58.00 78.40
Cl22.10 1042.90 64.99 262.20 20.40 150.30 101.96 50.97 66.99 208.97 201.99 41.95 93.68 220.97 142.50 42.96 64.47 25.98 40.50 248.99 66.95 52.10 90.42 80.45 50.40 105.40 75.20 110.96 95.96 105.99
SO4-2 4.20 225.40 36.20 162.52 10.50 90.60 84.70 56.40 10.22 87.40 62.30 38.40 47.50 89.10 64.05 26.40 37.80 28.60 30.40 88.40 72.50 20.10 104.50 125.50 34.60 55.70 62.90 84.30 82.50 152.30
NO35.70 22.50 0.85 5.02 0.22 8.00 19.10 3.10 1.90 1.30 4.25 1.20 5.02 11.20 14.80 2.20 6.80 0.60 0.20 10.20 0.30 0.25 9.00 2.10 3.50 1.80 3.00 5.50 10.50 2.85
PO4-3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.25 0.45 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.18 0.03 0.10 0.59
H4SiO4 21.80 19.30 18.20 19.30 18.00 15.50 9.88 19.50 17.12 13.05 21.15 9.46 14.60 23.24 28.60 31.00 24.00 45.60 35.50 18.40 20.00 10.50 29.00 32.50 16.80 28.40 23.50 27.80 30.40 12.05
F0.02 0.30 0.40 0.90 0.70 0.29 0.13 0.49 0.35 0.28 0.19 0.58 0.50 0.64 1.03 0.53 0.43 1.47 0.39 0.34 0.57 0.46 0.73 0.69 1.13 1.24 0.26 0.19 0.83 0.70
Cd 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10
[233]
Pb 0.24 0.23 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.10 0.25 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.20 0.25
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- I Continued.
Asansol
B.N
Ranigang
SL.NO 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
WL(m) 3.46 5.16 2.31 4.30 4.20 0.88 8.70 3.72 6.60 5.80 9.10 3.61 6.80 10.42 11.05
pH 7.30 7.40 7.28 7.00 7.16 7.23 6.40 7.40 7.33 7.61 7.19 7.10 7.29 7.90 7.49
T(°C) 28.70 31.00 30.80 32.00 30.00 29.80 27.00 28.60 28.90 31.50 29.00 26.90 29.00 29.00 30.10
EC 1042 890 1174 1029 1069 1108 491 972 840 485 1207 1143 1961 1164 1308
TDS 550.45 470.20 572.50 560.20 590.10 545.20 221.40 510.20 330.70 258.40 670.20 540.60 1024.50 635.60 690.50
TH 72.20 64.40 58.40 60.40 62.40 48.60 25.40 42.40 55.40 30.40 108.00 75.60 142.40 52.40 80.40
TA 70.20 76.80 67.20 70.00 69.80 79.50 31.00 52.60 63.20 28.80 62.50 83.80 78.00 61.20 60.80
Na+ 70.20 85.40 120.20 90.10 105.20 140.20 25.40 142.60 58.20 35.10 82.10 110.20 305.00 148.20 110.20
K+ 5.10 10.10 8.40 4.10 4.10 16.20 3.20 5.80 4.10 3.80 7.10 6.10 2.10 10.50 20.50
Ca+2 24.60 45.60 43.50 32.60 37.80 28.60 18.10 27.50 33.20 22.40 72.60 52.40 112.80 30.60 36.80
Mg+2 11.61 4.59 3.64 6.78 6.00 4.88 1.78 3.64 5.42 1.95 8.64 5.66 7.22 5.32 10.64
Fe 0.42 0.70 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.70 0.15 0.20 0.22 2.40 0.16 0.30 0.52 0.10 0.30
As 0.00 0.70 1.01 0.00 2.01 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.53 0.00 0.00 2.05 0.10 0.00
CO3-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HCO370.20 76.80 67.20 70.00 69.80 79.50 31.00 52.60 63.20 28.80 62.50 83.80 78.00 61.20 60.80
Cl110.99 94.97 120.99 102.99 100.49 110.99 45.98 124.97 60.40 30.99 166.96 126.96 310.98 110.98 168.99
SO4-2 112.52 22.60 88.12 58.40 100.30 66.50 42.30 60.40 40.40 32.60 110.40 75.60 275.30 99.20 72.40
NO30.30 2.40 0.16 3.30 4.40 2.70 2.50 0.65 1.75 0.30 10.25 0.90 19.50 7.00 20.00
PO4-3 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03
H4SiO4 17.50 20.60 18.50 12.40 21.70 20.30 30.20 20.27 20.60 19.30 24.07 14.80 30.60 32.50 18.00
F0.45 0.47 0.43 0.68 0.51 0.70 0.20 2.11 0.93 0.53 0.48 1.52 0.40 1.80 1.02
Cd 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
B.N stands for Block name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
[234]
Pb 0.26 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.20 0.13 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.25
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- II: Physico-chemical characteristics of post-monsoon samples (2007).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
B.N
Andal
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
3.34 4.60 2.10 2.02 2.68 4.50 5.62 4.80 1.70 3.80 5.80 2.40 3.80 2.05 7.55 2.20 1.68 3.20 2.86 3.04 3.60 4.92 6.59 7.15 7.99 9.13 6.42 9.46 10.56 9.05
6.98 6.41 6.52 6.82 7.25 6.54 6.10 6.86 6.59 7.20 7.30 5.62 5.40 6.10 7.01 6.53 7.12 7.11 6.80 6.20 6.86 5.69 6.20 6.26 5.60 7.58 7.10 7.40 7.30 7.56
22.90 25.80 22.80 22.45 22.10 23.50 24.15 26.10 24.90 26.80 26.74 24.65 25.50 27.60 27.50 25.12 25.40 24.60 26.41 25.45 25.40 26.30 25.80 26.40 26.10 27.50 27.20 26.45 26.50 25.40
341.00 872.00 372.00 412.00 1320.00 230.00 178.00 1505.00 2487.00 810.00 1190.00 72.00 61.00 423.00 709.00 523.00 582.00 258.00 1106.00 137.00 330.00 542.00 498.00 872.00 462.00 975.00 2210.00 1008.00 1260.00 1227.00
227.40 572.49 240.50 260.38 870.25 170.30 110.90 1007.00 1602.15 510.40 754.80 44.50 40.90 275.85 421.86 370.50 364.20 172.90 710.20 90.50 211.50 340.00 322.00 528.30 300.18 627.27 1440.82 642.90 762.15 820.59
17.20 35.40 20.50 20.10 66.00 15.50 6.80 60.50 100.50 45.50 62.40 4.50 3.90 25.40 49.80 27.50 42.00 18.50 66.80 7.50 20.30 27.60 20.50 42.20 16.40 62.80 215.60 60.50 84.00 60.20
38.40 77.20 42.50 44.00 92.60 14.80 8.10 66.50 35.40 70.50 89.20 4.20 3.40 18.60 35.40 18.40 34.50 16.20 34.40 10.50 20.50 10.60 6.00 15.40 5.00 42.50 66.50 50.10 68.50 60.50
34.20 52.40 26.30 34.90 118.72 20.60 23.15 82.40 120.00 25.70 42.30 25.65 28.10 20.90 50.60 40.70 24.30 29.10 70.80 30.20 32.60 55.80 45.25 69.15 39.20 54.50 130.00 55.75 70.52 98.50
10.50 42.00 9.50 6.20 62.40 3.10 9.00 146.40 60.40 15.80 19.30 2.40 1.90 55.82 6.15 10.20 8.50 5.30 7.60 7.60 5.10 9.80 4.20 4.50 8.75 10.30 10.40 2.60 3.80 10.20
10.50 28.40 18.20 15.50 40.60 10.20 4.00 40.50 30.80 32.60 55.40 2.50 2.00 7.50 18.40 20.60 25.40 15.20 45.50 5.00 11.50 19.20 12.40 33.50 15.60 33.40 168.50 45.70 58.20 45.00
1.61 1.68 0.55 1.10 6.10 1.27 0.67 4.80 16.73 3.10 1.68 0.48 0.46 4.30 7.54 1.66 3.98 0.79 5.11 0.60 2.11 2.02 1.94 2.09 0.19 7.06 11.30 3.55 6.19 3.65
0.12 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.24 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.40 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.35 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.05
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.31 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.30 1.00 1.40 1.50 2.60 6.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00 1.10 2.50 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.65
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
38.40 77.20 42.50 44.00 92.60 14.80 8.10 66.50 35.40 70.50 89.20 4.20 3.40 18.60 35.40 18.40 34.50 16.20 34.40 10.50 20.50 10.60 6.00 15.40 5.00 42.50 66.50 50.10 68.50 60.50
42.99 110.49 23.99 42.90 230.49 30.96 33.99 205.80 225.49 75.99 120.49 18.40 17.50 65.96 66.39 100.49 49.59 15.99 180.59 26.79 20.49 103.96 70.20 91.60 77.49 112.96 642.20 183.49 154.25 160.60
25.26 50.40 34.02 18.50 152.46 6.48 8.50 122.40 162.20 33.50 78.50 5.40 3.60 33.90 14.82 28.77 26.24 20.10 156.20 0.40 38.40 22.50 48.30 134.55 7.30 80.65 205.40 72.52 78.40 130.80
0.51 16.32 1.82 0.72 3.10 1.11 0.38 7.05 10.80 0.03 2.87 0.25 2.44 8.65 2.35 0.68 0.43 1.05 0.50 1.55 1.76 16.34 12.84 18.24 18.53 5.10 28.40 8.10 9.40 16.20
0.02 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
16.60 34.25 29.85 23.42 38.20 33.50 19.38 27.42 26.82 9.10 11.50 20.73 17.30 24.55 24.60 22.70 20.84 15.10 21.30 30.40 17.64 33.25 32.42 40.20 37.70 24.15 22.40 20.42 24.36 19.80
F-
Cd
Pb
0.15 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.33 0.42 0.02 0.30 0.31 0.58 0.50 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.40 0.10 0.54 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.40 0.22 0.33 0.10 0.23 0.65 0.42 0.55 0.52 0.56
0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11
0.25 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.18 0.26 0.24 0.28 0.17 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.25 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.11
[235]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- II: Continued.
Jamuria-1 & II Barabani Salanpur Kulti
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
B.N
Hirapur
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
4.78 5.54 10.82 3.62 6.20 12.40 3.40 4.75 2.22 7.45 3.46 2.29 3.54 4.34 7.50 3.64 3.02 3.30 0.50 2.50 1.85 1.36 4.05 1.64 3.48 2.03 1.94 3.80 2.60 2.48
6.61 6.80 7.20 7.10 7.59 7.54 6.84 7.26 7.05 7.12 7.25 6.84 6.92 7.12 6.80 7.20 6.85 7.70 6.84 7.30 7.52 7.40 7.20 7.41 7.23 7.44 7.38 7.15 7.30 7.10
26.40 27.90 26.45 26.50 26.40 25.40 25.50 26.80 26.25 26.20 25.75 24.70 25.20 25.00 26.80 24.50 22.30 20.15 20.40 20.10 18.10 19.50 20.00 22.70 19.50 22.50 22.70 22.30 22.40 24.60
157.00 2219.00 1074.00 2210.00 392.00 1278.00 725.00 812.00 623.00 1578.00 982.00 492.00 602.00 1620.00 1009.00 567.00 702.00 900.00 547.00 1520.00 1192.00 760.00 1227.00 1072.00 902.00 1172.00 548.00 1177.00 1042.00 1538.00
100.30 1290.54 1370.00 1292.60 245.80 880.20 508.75 522.16 408.50 1053.50 613.66 308.75 394.50 1026.90 703.80 354.50 472.55 582.30 322.50 1008.00 804.50 526.85 785.50 715.40 604.50 781.51 384.60 790.20 687.15 1006.00
9.20 342.50 42.60 160.50 20.50 109.80 45.10 52.40 30.60 99.50 50.40 29.80 28.70 116.50 50.50 30.50 31.50 64.00 30.50 82.40 54.70 55.50 72.40 51.50 54.30 57.60 34.50 70.40 53.50 90.70
3.00 26.40 62.80 44.50 24.60 52.40 12.00 44.00 32.40 49.80 35.00 42.60 22.40 44.10 38.50 30.90 26.50 90.80 30.70 62.50 59.40 52.70 42.50 61.50 52.70 54.50 32.90 56.40 54.00 71.50
26.64 354.00 89.20 1170.60 24.30 84.20 45.20 56.40 72.80 125.00 60.20 45.50 30.00 95.40 62.50 48.50 55.30 52.40 31.20 112.00 103.00 45.50 62.35 75.40 60.20 42.70 39.60 85.40 75.50 92.50
14.90 30.60 14.40 38.10 4.20 6.60 18.90 8.60 30.50 65.50 60.40 5.00 6.80 29.40 9.20 4.10 20.00 3.70 28.50 28.40 5.00 4.10 3.50 17.20 1.80 15.40 5.60 10.25 18.50 5.00
5.00 205.50 17.20 62.40 15.60 44.50 30.50 35.40 15.20 72.60 35.10 18.70 15.60 52.40 43.50 23.00 28.00 33.50 20.40 51.40 32.50 30.40 55.20 42.50 27.60 46.00 25.20 46.50 40.10 54.60
1.01 32.88 6.10 23.54 1.18 15.67 3.50 4.08 3.70 6.46 3.67 2.66 3.14 15.38 1.68 1.80 0.84 7.32 2.42 7.44 5.33 6.02 4.13 2.16 6.41 2.78 2.23 5.74 3.22 8.66
0.10 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01
0.10 1.50 3.80 4.50 0.01 0.65 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.64 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.68 2.85 2.40 1.54 0.00 2.24 0.00 2.10 1.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.00 26.40 62.80 44.50 24.60 52.40 12.00 44.00 32.40 49.80 35.00 42.60 22.40 44.10 38.50 30.90 26.50 90.80 30.70 62.50 59.40 52.70 42.50 61.50 52.70 54.50 32.90 56.40 54.00 71.50
10.90 1426.20 72.49 810.96 22.40 162.80 72.50 40.15 70.59 310.60 140.59 47.96 66.50 242.96 133.99 44.60 62.50 61.05 42.89 218.99 129.80 57.48 100.60 133.99 80.49 132.99 46.96 210.47 112.96 140.96
5.50 240.16 55.18 224.10 22.40 127.49 118.46 105.60 22.99 154.60 80.10 45.28 33.40 170.24 100.22 45.26 66.50 95.40 48.70 128.37 115.56 33.20 125.46 108.50 60.82 76.40 36.10 110.80 70.50 192.50
10.54 27.82 1.34 19.80 0.70 19.80 18.70 5.40 1.24 10.20 5.81 0.44 6.24 25.80 19.65 2.80 10.20 6.51 1.03 15.15 0.87 0.62 16.72 6.48 8.86 0.00 1.02 10.34 16.54 12.90
0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.40 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.30 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.02
30.48 22.45 20.47 27.80 17.15 20.69 39.80 20.70 25.05 27.54 30.26 29.46 22.49 30.20 25.40 28.72 25.10 33.80 26.40 22.64 27.80 15.10 23.28 8.60 20.28 28.34 16.84 25.60 30.52 16.47
F-
Cd
Pb
0.10 0.32 1.11 1.01 0.55 0.31 0.10 0.60 0.40 0.51 0.20 0.31 0.12 1.02 1.01 0.70 0.49 1.90 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.70 0.20 0.61 1.20 1.19 0.30 0.62 1.02 0.81
0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.12
0.20 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.10 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.10
[236]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- II: Continued.
Asansol
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
B.N
Ranigang
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
1.86 3.41 1.50 2.64 2.84 1.26 9.43 3.55 4.41 3.10 6.32 0.95 5.62 4.30 7.23
7.14 7.10 7.30 7.20 7.14 7.30 6.64 7.11 7.28 7.30 7.28 7.20 7.48 7.24 7.71
20.40 25.80 25.70 25.45 26.30 26.40 26.80 27.10 25.80 26.20 26.40 26.10 26.50 24.70 25.40
1146.00 963.00 1354.00 1008.00 1126.00 1029.00 522.00 1043.00 873.00 490.00 1462.00 1210.00 2018.00 1015.00 1542.00
722.00 592.00 794.50 657.50 772.40 762.50 322.00 690.00 512.70 305.50 882.00 905.80 1372.50 726.40 1022.00
82.80 46.50 62.40 64.90 61.20 59.20 25.10 45.50 59.60 32.80 99.10 82.30 140.50 42.60 92.20
59.80 54.60 68.50 66.80 62.40 79.80 28.50 72.60 66.20 32.40 70.80 132.00 110.50 45.50 72.00
52.70 70.20 100.25 90.50 90.50 114.50 20.50 72.50 45.20 35.00 90.00 75.50 115.00 65.00 92.00
5.20 10.50 6.40 4.00 6.10 12.50 8.00 5.60 5.00 5.80 4.10 3.10 7.50 6.80 33.40
50.40 42.20 49.50 36.60 41.40 38.00 24.20 30.40 48.50 22.80 72.40 68.00 109.50 26.40 49.00
7.78 1.03 3.10 6.79 4.75 5.09 0.22 3.62 2.66 2.40 6.41 3.43 7.44 3.89 10.37
0.02 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.04 0.14
2.56 2.50 2.02 2.01 0.25 3.40 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 2.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
59.80 54.60 68.50 66.80 62.40 79.80 28.50 72.60 66.20 32.40 70.80 132.00 110.50 45.50 72.00
120.96 64.99 152.99 96.99 110.98 200.40 55.46 109.96 129.49 126.70 166.40 218.89 279.99 152.47 200.45
134.60 37.30 105.42 89.20 130.50 52.65 44.15 110.70 44.19 31.40 128.10 94.20 210.60 104.25 135.39
1.05 4.38 1.25 3.62 22.80 2.56 15.48 1.20 4.08 1.02 16.84 0.28 10.62 19.84 23.40
0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.09
18.40 15.82 24.34 25.20 19.76 19.54 20.20 23.50 19.40 18.54 24.10 16.80 19.55 20.26 27.62
F-
Cd
Pb
0.72 0.52 0.70 0.90 0.64 0.84 0.20 1.20 1.07 0.40 0.42 1.55 0.48 1.30 1.92
0.13 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11
0.00 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.24
B.N stands for Block name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
[237]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- III: Physico-chemical characteristics of pre-monsoon samples (2008).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
B.N
Andal
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3
H4SiO4
F-
Cd
Pb
4.10 4.02 2.82 2.78 3.64 8.27 11.52 5.69 2.40 3.89 7.10 4.09 6.83 5.80 10.60 3.74 1.47 3.01 3.00 3.85 3.47 3.80 5.27 7.74 9.47 12.82 19.99 9.19 12.00 11.01
7.10 6.75 6.25 6.84 8.34 6.91 7.02 6.66 7.04 7.71 7.76 6.14 6.73 7.07 7.39 6.38 7.95 7.52 6.50 6.09 7.00 6.69 6.09 6.49 5.66 6.88 8.00 7.15 7.15 7.76
30.04 29.51 29.20 29.80 28.70 29.80 32.90 29.46 30.01 27.80 28.30 32.21 32.30 31.10 30.70 31.80 32.69 33.65 29.70 30.89 29.49 32.06 32.90 31.35 30.98 32.60 29.51 29.71 28.01 31.03
390 570 273 303 395 260 323 690 1046 1102 1084 55 100 323 531 478 454 272 663 126 315 490 493 815 441 835 2324 1170 1151 1133
222.33 219.13 137.40 151.55 210.85 149.48 158.10 389.83 557.64 594.90 573.25 35.20 57.95 189.45 288.78 292.11 232.62 151.38 338.83 78.37 161.98 343.28 296.78 462.59 254.08 450.45 1329.08 626.28 617.42 615.65
17.60 24.20 24.60 25.80 23.00 18.20 22.60 37.60 82.40 72.60 72.30 7.90 9.00 14.70 32.10 25.90 26.30 13.80 38.00 8.40 14.20 41.40 24.40 51.20 14.40 62.60 165.50 64.70 78.80 85.40
19.20 28.80 16.00 19.20 24.00 20.80 28.80 38.40 79.60 64.40 66.50 3.90 9.00 14.40 39.60 16.00 34.00 19.50 24.00 6.40 15.00 9.60 9.60 27.30 5.20 54.40 27.50 41.40 59.20 55.00
44.40 46.20 29.90 40.70 37.85 16.40 23.00 41.65 85.40 74.60 72.90 5.80 7.10 18.80 45.00 32.30 30.20 23.70 65.20 7.80 29.00 56.20 63.50 62.10 35.30 57.90 206.90 87.90 64.60 102.30
9.10 24.30 10.40 3.70 7.90 2.30 15.45 26.30 14.15 17.00 17.00 0.95 0.80 20.00 1.60 5.25 2.95 3.90 12.25 5.00 4.20 12.55 2.65 2.40 4.45 7.80 2.00 6.55 7.85 7.45
15.40 20.00 10.60 11.40 18.20 10.70 20.20 30.30 54.80 58.80 51.70 5.00 8.60 9.80 23.10 13.70 23.90 13.60 29.70 5.40 10.80 20.60 19.20 46.80 13.40 44.00 105.50 50.30 64.70 56.7
0.54 1.02 3.42 3.51 1.17 1.83 0.59 1.78 6.73 3.37 5.03 0.71 0.10 1.20 2.20 2.98 0.59 0.05 2.03 0.73 0.83 5.08 1.27 1.07 0.24 4.54 14.64 3.51 3.44 7.00
0.18 0.21 0.28 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.39 0.66 0.24 0.08 0.05 0.35 0.24 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.04
0.23 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.02 0.00 7.03 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.64 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.83 3.74 1.44
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19.20 28.80 16.00 19.20 24.00 20.80 28.80 38.40 79.60 64.40 66.50 3.90 9.00 14.40 39.60 16.00 34.00 19.50 24.00 6.40 15.00 9.60 9.60 27.30 5.20 54.40 27.50 41.40 59.20 55.00
53.97 65.06 24.88 41.98 46.98 30.99 26.51 102.98 114.03 184.54 136.96 19.52 16.51 54.07 42.48 93.54 24.88 29.58 94.49 16.78 21.28 84.74 90.47 101.36 73.50 95.47 600.36 197.62 133.32 184.68
12.03 45.51 28.97 12.76 21.20 3.40 3.12 47.15 54.90 43.35 66.14 0.30 1.61 7.32 2.24 13.12 13.05 13.83 66.87 0.87 18.76 43.86 52.98 148.54 4.97 39.46 183.18 91.23 76.89 87.92
0.29 0.46 1.85 0.27 1.15 0.49 0.62 0.05 0.29 0.18 2.40 0.30 0.70 1.59 0.56 0.00 0.66 0.88 0.69 0.82 0.73 9.25 6.45 13.62 10.74 1.30 23.91 6.42 5.12 16.93
0.08 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
15.56 39.67 28.75 22.47 38.85 35.84 28.16 38.20 23.43 34.96 40.02 22.43 19.51 30.51 31.83 30.15 15.22 15.38 32.33 38.81 25.03 34.69 35.34 18.13 13.53 12.14 31.69 27.09 38.37 30.26
0.13 0.22 0.10 0.09 0.26 0.07 0.26 0.18 0.57 0.46 0.49 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.11 0.81 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.46 0.11 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.52 0.40 0.78 0.56 0.32
0.15 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.11
0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.31 0.24 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.22 0.32 0.21 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.00 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.14
[238]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- III Continued.
Jamuria-1 & II Barabani Salanpur Kulti
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
B.N
Hirapur
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
6.99 19.90 16.70 9.55 13.63 16.04 6.42 4.35 3.21 11.95 4.61 3.94 7.65 5.18 9.12 5.33 4.49 3.63 0.77 2.64 2.17 1.62 14.40 6.60 3.74 1.40 8.64 6.03 3.57 4.22
6.25 7.50 7.45 7.73 8.44 7.88 6.23 7.22 7.22 7.99 7.27 7.52 7.06 7.17 7.00 7.48 7.04 7.54 7.06 7.19 7.81 7.23 8.12 7.53 7.47 7.25 8.00 7.38 7.56 7.03
31.00 33.30 31.48 31.55 30.80 33.19 33.25 33.00 31.30 30.45 29.20 29.50 28.40 32.10 27.20 29.30 26.56 25.50 28.20 26.15 27.45 26.50 28.02 26.50 27.45 28.21 30.92 28.95 27.20 29.30
163 2287 956 1342 433 1110 738 800 670 930 981 402 553 1203 1056 540 680 350 513 1476 888 763 840.00 934.00 660.00 935.00 737.00 1013.00 914.00 1200.00
87.85 1310.06 565.48 757.20 186.03 604.83 407.25 410.83 338.71 729.18 490.98 246.96 286.72 629.10 563.89 262.50 366.58 315.93 303.65 748.90 489.05 383.65 453.06 495.30 324.23 540.23 416.65 515.85 551.38 668.15
15.10 268.50 62.60 87.20 31.20 96.20 44.20 64.60 81.40 115.80 69.40 24.20 29.40 90.40 66.00 33.60 41.00 46.00 35.20 86.60 48.90 58.00 44.00 47.40 41.20 58.60 48.60 73.20 61.60 74.80
8.00 33.50 88.70 52.70 28.60 65.40 6.25 50.90 49.40 19.40 33.80 28.60 22.70 54.20 37.90 36.50 30.10 44.50 39.20 77.40 78.40 57.60 30.50 58.00 47.60 62.40 46.20 89.60 47.60 73.60
13.30 220.00 4.60 182.90 30.80 89.60 38.20 63.40 71.80 77.60 76.60 43.20 49.60 67.10 104.00 66.60 74.20 54.90 43.50 164.30 110.60 61.60 78.80 90.40 70.90 75.30 46.00 78.90 102.50 136.60
11.95 9.65 5.50 8.55 3.60 6.50 1.10 6.20 27.15 26.05 64.15 6.75 6.10 11.60 7.80 5.65 7.85 4.80 6.35 38.80 5.80 5.35 8.30 1.85 8.30 9.50 5.50 6.25 16.30 6.40
10.30 142.50 32.00 52.70 19.30 39.10 34.10 32.30 23.70 43.20 46.30 18.80 21.10 43.20 45.70 20.70 19.90 22.90 23.10 58.00 32.30 37.20 30.90 35.60 24.70 40.10 37.00 44.20 43.80 53.50
1.17 30.74 7.47 8.42 2.90 13.93 2.46 7.88 14.08 17.71 5.64 1.32 2.03 11.52 4.95 3.15 5.15 5.64 2.95 6.98 4.05 5.08 3.20 2.88 4.03 4.51 2.83 7.08 4.34 5.20
0.03 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.20 0.24 0.40 0.69 0.51 0.19 0.44 0.38 1.60 0.36 0.56 0.24 0.27 0.57 0.15 0.21 0.31 0.54 0.57
2.92 0.00 1.63 1.15 0.00 1.41 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.52 2.75 0.65 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.69 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.22 0.26 2.42 1.73 0.61 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.00 33.50 88.70 52.70 28.60 65.40 6.25 50.90 49.40 19.40 33.80 28.60 22.70 54.20 37.90 36.50 30.10 44.50 39.20 77.40 78.40 57.60 30.50 58.00 47.60 62.40 46.20 89.60 47.60 73.60
27.88 1072.77 78.97 252.66 24.58 159.60 102.99 53.99 72.97 215.90 217.87 46.03 100.26 233.88 153.44 52.00 70.48 29.00 59.46 240.86 73.00 57.86 92.53 82.50 54.56 109.53 82.75 128.96 103.97 113.94
5.69 196.76 41.42 137.82 11.55 94.74 93.11 60.08 11.71 95.21 67.59 35.35 53.73 83.85 74.08 23.94 31.40 21.40 26.87 98.42 77.39 19.10 96.28 98.25 43.70 58.34 66.42 99.22 86.02 129.29
8.05 26.63 1.13 4.06 0.35 8.06 21.68 3.19 1.74 1.61 4.51 1.36 5.08 16.61 16.53 2.81 7.09 0.83 0.28 10.81 0.48 0.40 8.99 2.22 4.21 1.57 2.97 5.55 11.21 3.15
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.39 0.55 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.22 0.05 0.13 0.74
25.71 22.55 17.19 19.58 15.97 8.04 11.02 21.17 15.22 11.21 27.75 10.87 11.57 26.43 31.39 34.55 35.90 49.14 41.82 14.14 16.03 15.96 21.89 31.26 18.61 27.26 27.24 23.64 32.66 14.22
F-
Cd
Pb
0.09 0.45 0.26 0.87 0.46 0.16 0.17 0.41 0.26 0.14 0.36 0.49 0.64 0.93 0.92 0.46 0.56 1.61 0.56 0.38 0.56 0.56 0.87 0.58 1.04 1.16 0.46 0.23 0.94 0.52
0.14 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.12
0.27 0.32 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.29 0.14 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.12 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.32 0.30 0.38 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.27
[239]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- III Continued.
Asansol
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
B.N
Ranigang
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
3.39 5.06 2.37 4.58 3.75 1.02 8.10 3.37 6.63 7.65 8.70 3.09 7.10 11.75 10.74
7.69 7.42 7.67 7.74 7.37 7.40 6.61 7.31 7.61 7.53 7.27 7.20 7.63 7.60 7.70
30.60 31.90 28.50 30.30 30.40 31.80 26.50 25.40 30.30 27.80 27.00 27.60 26.50 27.80 28.10
1058.00 900.00 1126.00 1001.00 1091.00 1142.00 479.00 954.00 830.00 475.00 1363.00 1082.00 1959.00 1106.00 1332.00
564.95 462.88 628.70 533.75 568.20 570.20 282.68 482.94 344.98 288.58 691.88 590.89 1088.33 619.23 671.58
81.40 68.40 63.20 66.00 68.80 57.00 34.60 49.30 64.60 33.60 90.00 84.60 156.80 59.20 103.60
57.80 105.60 78.40 59.60 58.20 72.50 25.80 66.20 58.40 35.20 59.30 76.40 85.40 54.20 68.80
74.40 93.60 125.50 94.90 121.40 174.00 29.20 166.80 70.20 34.70 86.50 127.50 323.40 157.60 106.60
5.30 12.70 8.80 4.45 4.25 15.80 3.60 6.00 4.35 4.10 7.30 6.45 2.55 5.80 21.75
31.40 36.00 38.10 37.80 32.60
12.20 7.91 6.12 6.88 8.83 6.05 2.95 6.15 5.90 2.34 5.22 6.10 15.03 6.15 14.74
0.49 0.63 0.28 0.30 0.12 0.55 0.20 0.27 0.31 2.36 0.15 0.27 0.58 0.08 0.28
0.00 0.81 1.02 0.00 2.03 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.12 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
57.80 105.60 78.40 59.60 58.20 72.50 25.80 66.20 58.40 35.20 59.30 76.40 85.40 54.20 68.80
118.93 104.97 128.93 106.94 104.45 118.93 51.97 130.97 64.56 33.98 176.97 137.97 306.92 128.94 175.89
108.05 24.90 79.61 65.46 107.54 61.34 44.04 63.29 44.60 26.26 105.73 67.40 267.39 93.49 83.51
0.50 2.65 0.22 3.52 4.69 2.67 2.85 0.91 2.02 0.33 12.95 1.00 20.99 6.18 19.66
0.01 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05
32.20 22.50 24.10 40.40 24.00 68.60 59.60 95.20 34.00 43.20
15.85 23.71 19.63 15.11 23.37 24.63 29.70 22.51 23.56 15.25 25.96 16.25 25.51 38.83 15.40
F-
Cd
Pb
0.57 0.40 0.61 0.73 0.61 0.66 0.40 2.00 0.76 0.44 0.51 1.66 0.49 1.48 0.97
0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13
0.27 0.30 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.17 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.14 0.30
B.N stands for Block name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
[240]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- IV: Physico-chemical characteristics of post-monsoon samples (2008).
Kaksa Durgapur_Faridpur
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 74 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 71 72 73 17 18 19 20 21 67 68 69 70
B.N
Andal
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
3.39 4.80 2.12 2.05 2.65 4.55 5.64 4.90 1.65 4.00 6.00 2.38 3.85 2.10 7.60 2.23 1.70 3.18 2.83 3.08 3.53 4.98 6.62 7.14 7.98 9.14 6.45 9.45 10.58 9.10
6.73 6.45 6.59 7.29 7.44 6.74 6.33 7.12 6.79 7.33 7.43 5.70 5.55 6.31 7.04 6.63 7.23 7.16 6.96 6.31 7.06 5.73 6.24 6.37 5.71 7.95 7.12 7.74 7.28 7.78
23.30 26.30 24.60 24.65 22.30 24.30 24.25 26.00 26.00 28.20 27.06 24.85 25.90 28.00 27.80 24.98 26.40 25.70 28.69 25.55 25.30 26.20 27.70 27.40 27.30 28.80 27.60 27.95 27.70 26.50
369.00 888.00 388.00 398.00 1410.00 300.00 192.00 1649.00 2500.00 806.00 1210.00 78.00 69.00 417.00 714.00 577.00 618.00 292.00 1074.00 153.00 340.00 558.00 502.00 838.00 478.00 905.00 2078.00 1022.00 1180.00 1263.00
234.10 565.01 253.50 266.12 904.25 174.20 129.60 1032.05 1654.68 528.30 779.20 53.00 43.60 276.65 489.12 344.50 402.80 184.60 706.80 98.00 224.00 375.00 328.00 583.20 310.82 594.73 1258.63 676.60 823.85 797.91
16.40 39.60 24.30 23.10 62.00 18.10 7.60 68.50 107.70 53.70 78.40 5.10 4.10 29.40 52.80 30.10 39.20 19.90 59.60 10.10 24.50 28.40 22.70 49.00 22.00 70.00 227.60 65.90 92.00 66.20
35.20 83.80 47.10 42.40 101.00 15.60 9.50 72.70 42.80 76.30 93.00 5.40 3.00 19.40 39.60 16.80 38.50 19.00 37.60 15.10 24.30 15.00 6.80 16.60 6.20 45.50 69.50 53.90 73.90 62.70
39.80 58.60 29.40 43.00 100.18 23.30 22.25 88.80 108.20 27.20 57.70 27.95 25.30 23.10 53.80 43.30 27.40 24.80 77.10 28.40 30.50 46.00 54.65 60.45 43.60 48.90 113.50 67.35 74.28 90.00
9.30 44.90 12.00 4.70 74.80 3.40 9.80 154.00 65.30 16.40 24.50 3.60 3.00 59.98 7.15 11.70 7.80 6.80 8.80 7.00 7.60 11.70 5.10 5.00 11.75 9.00 11.70 5.20 3.70 8.10
11.90 32.00 17.00 14.90 44.20 15.40 4.80 47.10 38.20 37.20 58.80 3.10 2.00 8.70 19.60 17.80 21.20 9.60 55.30 5.40 15.70 18.40 14.00 35.30 11.60 43.40 132.30 55.10 66.60 49.40
1.08 1.82 1.75 1.97 4.27 0.65 0.67 5.14 16.68 3.96 4.70 0.48 0.50 4.97 7.97 2.95 4.32 2.47 1.03 1.13 2.11 2.40 2.09 3.29 2.50 6.38 22.87 2.59 6.10 4.03
0.14 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.42 0.18 0.11 0.45 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.38 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.12
0.01 0.00 0.25 0.41 0.61 0.00 0.16 0.50 1.16 1.92 1.59 3.38 6.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 1.34 3.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
35.20 83.80 47.10 42.40 101.00 15.60 9.50 72.70 42.80 76.30 93.00 5.40 3.00 19.40 39.60 16.80 38.50 19.00 37.60 15.10 24.30 15.00 6.80 16.60 6.20 45.50 69.50 53.90 73.90 62.70
45.99 123.43 26.80 48.08 223.44 33.93 36.79 216.12 240.37 81.96 105.47 20.68 20.37 69.00 71.58 111.48 54.35 23.00 169.36 22.75 25.20 115.30 85.37 102.86 73.18 97.60 583.59 165.44 139.70 144.35
29.74 58.35 42.34 19.57 129.13 11.47 9.00 128.84 149.05 39.34 72.74 7.55 4.01 34.10 16.17 32.59 25.00 23.99 132.89 0.85 34.67 24.32 50.22 146.02 6.11 88.33 189.15 83.50 83.42 115.22
0.82 14.60 2.16 0.94 3.07 1.19 0.42 7.23 12.92 0.08 2.95 0.28 2.49 7.96 3.63 0.88 0.74 1.06 0.72 1.36 1.54 14.67 13.43 18.05 15.89 5.93 30.13 8.01 9.91 13.86
0.02 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.31 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08
18.76 39.43 33.74 21.70 37.16 29.61 25.55 28.69 28.53 11.82 13.97 22.52 20.26 25.98 26.00 26.68 23.36 13.23 24.11 28.16 19.68 35.79 34.52 36.26 41.63 25.95 23.20 21.92 27.41 20.82
F-
Cd
Pb
0.22 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.38 0.47 0.05 0.30 0.45 0.64 0.52 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.42 0.13 0.68 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.42 0.28 0.31 0.17 0.30 0.68 0.52 0.62 0.62 0.58
0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09
0.22 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.19 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.26 0.21 0.14 0.19 0.11
[241]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- IV Continued.
Jamuria-1 & II Barabani Salanpur Kulti
22 23 24 25 26 27 31 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
B.N
Hirapur
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
4.85 5.55 11.00 3.50 6.29 12.44 3.50 4.81 2.45 7.76 3.53 2.76 3.68 4.38 7.05 3.88 2.92 3.36 0.55 2.55 1.90 1.48 4.10 1.79 3.53 2.08 2.00 3.79 2.63 2.58
6.65 6.84 7.22 7.11 7.71 7.82 6.82 7.56 7.03 7.15 7.22 6.97 6.99 7.21 6.92 7.31 6.99 7.87 6.74 6.94 7.60 7.54 7.32 7.47 7.49 7.51 7.41 7.39 7.31 7.48
27.00 29.50 27.55 28.60 26.70 27.60 25.40 27.20 26.65 26.30 26.75 24.90 25.70 23.20 25.50 24.40 25.00 20.95 20.80 19.40 18.60 18.70 20.20 25.20 21.00 27.40 22.70 22.40 22.80 24.20
173.00 2098.00 1096.00 1998.00 418.00 1482.00 875.00 838.00 647.00 1692.00 928.00 498.00 618.00 1650.00 1195.00 563.00 708.00 910.00 563.00 1680.00 1338.00 830.00 1243.00 1093.00 928.00 1238.00 652.00 1273.00 1118.00 1662.00
114.20 1506.74 17.75 1456.90 280.70 913.80 531.25 550.34 417.00 1072.00 627.84 334.75 411.50 1098.60 734.00 380.00 443.95 594.20 399.00 1072.00 840.00 506.65 820.00 742.23 585.00 729.74 395.40 802.30 716.85 1074.00
8.40 325.50 46.60 168.50 24.30 111.00 49.30 58.00 28.60 95.70 53.60 23.00 31.50 104.30 61.50 33.50 34.10 62.40 38.30 88.80 66.90 51.70 82.80 65.30 51.30 52.40 43.90 73.60 58.50 96.50
3.40 28.00 49.20 48.30 28.20 56.40 8.80 52.00 38.00 47.80 37.00 35.80 31.80 48.70 32.90 34.70 31.10 6.80 36.50 63.90 67.00 48.10 55.10 68.10 44.90 64.10 37.50 46.00 51.60 77.30
29.86 290.90 92.80 890.00 29.10 89.00 38.60 46.50 64.50 92.60 49.30 38.10 36.20 98.70 72.00 50.90 61.80 60.10 38.60 100.80 96.30 49.50 79.95 57.10 64.60 45.00 33.00 56.10 69.50 111.40
15.20 35.40 12.50 32.60 4.40 8.20 14.60 7.90 34.70 78.20 65.00 5.10 7.70 33.10 7.80 3.90 21.00 3.60 29.60 30.20 5.30 4.70 2.80 15.10 3.40 13.90 7.80 12.35 17.10 6.00
5.40 168.70 24.60 78.80 14.00 48.30 36.70 38.20 20.00 77.80 40.10 21.30 16.40 59.60 47.50 25.00 24.80 28.90 26.00 55.80 41.10 35.20 61.60 47.70 31.60 42.40 30.80 55.90 33.50 65.40
0.72 37.63 5.28 21.53 2.47 15.05 3.02 4.75 2.06 4.30 3.24 0.41 3.62 10.73 3.36 2.04 2.23 8.04 2.95 7.92 6.19 3.96 5.09 4.22 4.73 2.40 3.14 4.25 6.00 7.46
0.10 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01
0.13 1.74 4.22 4.87 0.02 0.81 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.01 0.00 0.73 3.11 2.65 1.70 0.00 2.54 0.00 2.13 1.03 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.40 28.00 49.20 48.30 28.20 56.40 8.80 52.00 38.00 47.80 37.00 35.80 31.80 48.70 32.90 34.70 31.10 6.80 36.50 63.90 67.00 48.10 55.10 68.10 44.90 64.10 37.50 46.00 51.60 77.30
8.87 1254.38 94.46 779.76 26.27 189.14 89.57 47.53 75.98 304.32 135.37 45.82 71.47 227.96 149.92 46.58 65.08 64.83 45.89 188.94 122.16 61.80 103.16 108.94 88.77 151.92 57.82 186.45 102.60 145.99
5.86 233.42 57.72 241.80 26.69 151.37 121.77 95.76 24.40 167.33 87.51 53.47 40.83 135.90 111.31 49.29 70.55 100.62 52.21 120.61 121.03 31.00 138.74 120.78 67.59 79.31 40.60 116.70 82.68 186.82
11.33 25.20 1.82 21.00 0.92 20.41 20.42 5.93 1.35 11.72 6.23 0.63 6.25 23.57 21.05 2.53 10.43 6.77 1.10 15.14 1.11 0.98 13.68 7.38 10.05 0.00 2.48 12.50 14.62 14.38
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.50 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.37 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.02
33.06 23.57 24.83 25.52 16.25 21.32 32.74 26.67 24.47 29.73 35.29 27.62 24.93 28.75 27.79 29.37 27.96 34.81 29.05 25.40 23.54 15.14 24.90 11.27 25.22 26.58 17.56 25.98 33.16 18.27
F-
Cd
Pb
0.11 0.35 1.31 1.15 0.83 0.46 0.12 0.75 0.41 0.55 0.37 0.39 0.22 1.05 1.03 0.74 0.69 1.96 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.81 0.32 0.73 1.39 1.30 0.43 0.45 1.10 0.86
0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14
0.27 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.22 0.35 0.24 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.12
[242]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Annexure- IV Continued.
Asansol
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
B.N
Ranigang
SL.NO
WL(m)
pH
T(°C)
EC
TDS
TH
TA
Na+
K+
Ca+2
Mg+2
Fe
As
CO3-2
HCO3-
Cl-
SO4-2
NO3-
PO4-3 H4SiO4
1.97 3.43 1.55 2.68 2.99 1.28 9.57 3.75 4.49 3.15 6.35 0.98 5.65 4.30 7.35
7.34 7.37 7.39 7.29 7.42 7.34 6.74 7.16 7.35 7.38 7.34 7.26 7.57 7.30 7.63
23.00 26.30 25.20 26.55 28.50 26.70 28.70 28.00 27.60 26.70 25.60 26.60 27.50 27.30 29.20
1124.00 897.00 1066.00 1092.00 1344.00 1341.00 558.00 1140.00 797.00 520.00 1298.00 1300.00 2420.00 1207.00 1388.00
753.50 617.00 778.50 707.50 833.10 778.00 360.50 682.48 572.80 351.00 912.00 725.70 1531.05 704.25 882.50
83.60 52.70 72.00 58.30 78.00 56.00 31.30 53.50 57.20 36.00 89.70 88.90 130.10 47.40 98.20
71.40 62.20 75.50 59.60 57.60 73.80 35.50 75.80 63.40 47.60 73.20 140.00 109.30 52.10 80.00
54.70 76.20 96.85 72.40 96.00 91.90 22.30 78.40 49.50 28.70 76.60 100.70 99.10 77.00 81.00
6.00 14.80 7.60 3.80 7.10 14.60 8.80 6.00 5.30 6.30 5.20 4.30 8.60 7.50 37.20
55.20 49.00 46.50 37.00 45.00 32.40 25.00 34.00 31.50 26.80 78.00 48.80 94.30 33.60 45.40
6.82 0.89 6.12 5.11 7.92 5.66 1.51 4.68 6.17 2.21 2.81 9.62 8.59 3.31 12.67
0.07 0.09 0.23 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.28 0.07 0.12
3.00 2.81 2.10 2.05 0.36 3.77 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.67 0.00 2.83
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
71.40 62.20 75.50 59.60 57.60 73.80 35.50 75.80 63.40 47.60 73.20 140.00 109.30 52.10 80.00
134.39 73.49 167.94 102.97 138.97 204.51 60.52 122.80 137.57 130.53 164.54 226.00 286.91 145.44 209.47
111.88 39.40 80.38 86.25 114.39 60.99 49.40 99.17 52.63 37.92 132.47 110.91 201.90 121.36 148.47
1.12 4.50 1.57 3.69 18.15 3.44 16.53 1.32 4.11 1.97 18.57 0.50 13.05 16.39 20.70
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.07
18.16 17.05 26.90 25.33 23.45 22.33 23.95 19.23 18.54 20.36 27.19 19.32 16.84 25.38 25.11
F-
Cd
Pb
0.88 0.83 0.74 0.98 0.78 0.79 0.25 1.32 1.11 0.49 0.47 1.74 0.39 1.34 1.67
0.13 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13
0.00 0.00 0.15 0.29 0.18 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.28
B.N stands for Block name WL(m) stands for mbgl Values are in mg/L, except arsenic, which is µg/ml. Conductivity is in µS/cm.
[243]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 6.0
CONCLUSION Water table fluctuation study reveals that most of the areas of Jamuria I & II
and some parts of Asansol, Durgapur-Faridpur, Raniganj, Andal and north-eastern part of Hirapur block water table has declined more with a range of 10 – 21mbgl but during postmonsoon due to recharge water table has reached up to 5- 10mbgl. The mean pH value in both pre and postmonsoon is 7.14 and 7.03 respectively. This low mean value in the post monsoon indicates dilution due to influx of rainwater of lower alkalinity. Blocks like Andal, Durgapur-Faridpur and Kaksa have the pH level of 5.0 – 6.5. Spatial distribution of EC reveals that
some parts of Kaksa, Durgapur-
Faridpur, Andal and Barabani and major parts of Jamuria I & II, Raniganj, Asansol, Hirapur, Kulti and Salanpur are under marginal category with respect to both pre and post monsoon EC level. Regarding TDS most of the blocks of north-eastern parts of the study area such as Raniganj, Asansol, Hirapur, Kulti, Barakar and Salanpur show higher TDS value (>500mg/L) in postmonsoon but in premonsoon some patches of lower TDS levels (<500mg/L) are developed in these blocks. Total hardness value shows a good variation from place to place. As a result of which it can be easily interpret that the water table aquifer contains a reasonable amount of hardness causing minerals. Spatio-temporal variation of hardness shows that upper part of the Jamuria I and II block shows maximum concentration of hardness in both the season. It is also found that in the study area samples that total hardness is more than total alkalinity which indicates that the ground water is characterized by non-carbonate hardness. Spatio-temporal variation of Na+ reveals that higher value (>200 mg/L) mainly concentrated some areas of Jamuria I and II during pre monsoon but it became reduced to a small patch in post monsoon and also some areas in the Raniganj block shows high Na+ concentration during post monsoon. Further, it is observed that the Ca2+ concentrations are low compared to other cations such as sodium in these groundwaters. These lower values of Ca2+ and SO42could be due to the reaction of Ca2+with SO42- and subsequent precipitation. Spatio[244]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION temporal variation of Ca
2+
shows that upper part of the Jamuria I and II block and
small patches Durgapur-Faridpur, Andal and Raniganj blocks show maximum concentration of Ca2+ (>75 mg/L) in both the season. Bicarbonate is slightly higher in the post-monsoon period indicating the contribution from carbonate weathering process. There is a slight variation in seasonal and spatial distribution and are very significant at certain locations. Spatio-temporal variation of Cl− and SO42- shows that some parts of the Jamuria I and II block and small patches of Andal, Raniganj and Durgapur-Faridpur contain maximum concentration (>250mg/L and >150mg/L ) of Cl− and SO42respectively in both the seasons. Nitrate and phosphate show the distribution of below detectable limit throughout the study area. Concentration of H4SiO4 in groundwater of this area varies from 10.17 to 47.37mg/L with a mean of 24.41±8.68mg/L in premonsoon. In postmonsoon its average value is slightly increased 24.52±6.36mg/L (ranges from 9.93 to 39.67 mg/L). In the study area only some parts of Raniganj coal field shows the presence of higher concentration (>1mg/L) of F- in the ground water in both the seasons. Within trace constituents, As, Pb and Cd are far below from the recommended values 0.05mg/L (WHO,1984) and CPCB 2001 (< 2mg/L for Pb and < 0.2mg/L for Cd) in both seasons (pre monsoon and post monsoon). Hydrogeochemical classification on the basis of Piper revels that 95% of groundwater samples belong to Na+ - K+ - Cl- - SO42- water type which comes down to 80% during post monsoon and this reduction in salinization ultimately leads to the process of reverse cation exchange which may create Ca2+ - Mg2+ - Cl- type waters due to the removal of Na+ from solution for bound Ca2+. Sodium-chloride water type in study area is due to the low velocity of groundwater, ion exchange, long time contacts of water, and formations as well as the type of the rocks. Based on Cl-, SO42and HCO3- concentrations, the ground water sources were categorized as normal chloride (<15meq/L), normal sulphate (<6meq/L), and normal bicarbonate (2 - 7 meq/L) water types (Soltan, 1998). Among the 75 ground water samples, about 97.33 % and 100 % is respectively categorized as normal chloride and normal sulphate,
[245]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION whereas 100 % are of normal bicarbonate type in the pre monsoon. But in post monsoon it becomes 96 %, 100 % and 100 % respectively. Bacteriological analysis also reveals presence of E.coli and Salmonella sp. in majority of the water samples in both the seasons. Chloroalkaline indices reveals that in premonsoon there are an equal dominance of normal ion exchange and reverse ion exchange but in postmonsoon 64% samples show the dominance of reverse ion exchange. The chemical quality of groundwater is related to the dissolution of minerals, ion exchange, and the residence time of the groundwater in contact with rock materials. The results of calculation saturation index by computer program PHREEQC shows that nearly all of the water samples were under saturated with respect to carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, aragonite, gypsum and anhydrite) and oversaturated with respect to silicate minerals (quartz and chalcedony). In majority locations amorphous silica lies in equilibrium condition. Stable isotope study (H and O) indicates a linear fit relation of all groundwater samples in both the seasons. Trend line lies slightly below the LMWL in both the seasons with a slope of 6. Both pre and post monsoon SO42− appears to show a good trend of increasing concentration with increasing TDS. In absence of geological source the possible source of SO42− in study area is mainly industrial effluents and domestic sewage. Cl− and NO3− show a good trend of increasing concentration with increasing TDS, suggesting same source and can be used as pollution indicators for anthropogenic input such as decaying organic matter, sewage waste, leakage of septic tanks, etc. A positive correlation between TDS with (NO3− + Cl−)/Na+ and (NO3− + Cl−)/HCO3− molar ratios in the study area supports the anthropogenic inputs. Multivariate statistical analysis also reveals that the geogenic factor is the major factor controlling the hydrogeochemistry of the study area which is sometimes dictated by evaporation and anthropogenic input. Drinking water suitability criteria is assessed by the aid of WQI. According to this index in both the season i.e. pre and postmonsoon 50% of water samples belongs to good category and 25% and 22% belong to excellent category. Rest of the samples
[246]
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION i.e. 24% and 26% are fall within the poor category in pre and postmonsoon season respectively. Regarding irrigation water suitability criteria, salinity of the pre and postmonsoon quality of the water samples in the study area is found good to permissible with an excellent patch in both Durgapur_Faridpur and Kaksa block. During pre-monsoon very small areas of Jamuria I & II and Andal block fall in the doubtful category whereas in post-monsoon this category restricted to Jamuria I & II, Durgapur_Faridpur, Andal and Raniganj blocks. Other criteria are such as RSC, SAR, Mg hazard, Mg2+ : Ca2+ ratio and Kelly ratio are well within the safe limit with respect to irrigation water suitability. Apart from this majority of samples also free from pH, chloride, sulphate, fluoride, nitrate and iron hazard. Wilcox diagram reveals that almost 50% of water samples in both the season fall in the permissible category. US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram shows that during premonsoon the percentage of bad water increases due to enrichment of Na+ and EC concentrations. Statistical output (t-test) indicates that there is evidence of seasonal effect on mean values of irrigation water quality. Furthermore, the Gibbs plot indicates that the chemistry of the groundwater of the study area is predominantly controlled by rock dominance; i.e. an interaction exists between the soil/litho units and the percolating water in the subsurface. Hence it can be concluded that the overall quality of ground water is controlled by lithology apart from local environmental conditions. Finally based on these studies, recommendations have been made to the local authorities to adapt conjunctive use of surface water with groundwater to stringently monitor and control low groundwater quality regions to ensure sustainable safe use of resources both for drinking and irrigation purposes.
[247]
REFERENCES 7.0 REFERENCES. Abd, E.l., Samie, S.G., and Sadek, M.A. (2001): Groundwater recharge and flow in the Lower Cretaceous Nubian Sandstone aquifer in the Sinai Peninsula, using isotopic techniques and hydrochemistry. Hydrogeol. J., 9:378–389. Abdel Moneim, A.A. (1988): Hydrology of the Nile Basin in Sohag Province. M.Sc. Thesis, Geol. Dept., Fac.Sci. Assiuit Univ., Assiut, Egypt. Abdul Jameel, A. and Zahir Hussain, A. (2011): Monitoring the quality of groundwater on the bank of Uyyakondan channel of river Cauvery at Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil
Nadu,
India.
Environ.
Monit.
Assess.,
DOI:10.1007/s10661-011-1910-4. Abid, K., Zouari, K., Dulinski, M., Chkir, N. and Abidi, B. (2011): Hydrologic and geologic factors controlling groundwater geochemistry in the Turonian aquifer (southern Tunisia). Hydrogeol. J., 19: 415–427. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-0100668-z. Abo-Ghobar, H.M. (1992): Losses from low-pressure center pivot Irrigation systems in a desert climate as affected by nozzle height. Agri. Water Manage., 21(12), 23-32. Abu-Jaber, N.S., and Wafa, N.A. (1996): Hydrochemistry of aquifers in the southern Dead Sea area, southern Jordan. Environ. Geol., 28:213–222. Abu-Jaber, N.S., El Aloosy, A. S., and Jawad Ali, A. (1997): Determination of aquifer susceptibility to pollution using statistical analysis. Environ. Geol., 31:94-106. Acharyya, S.K., and Shah, B.A. (2007): Arsenic-contaminated groundwater from parts of Damodar fan-delta and west of Bhagirathi River, West Bengal, India: influence of fluvial geomorphology and quaternary morphostratigraphy. Environ. Geol., 52:489–501. Adams, S., Titus, R., Pietersen, K., Tredoux, G. and Harris, C. (2001): Hydrochemical characteristics of aquifers near Sutherland in the Western Karoo, South Africa. J. Hydrol., 241:91–103.
[248]
REFERENCES Adar, E.M., and Neuman, S. P. (1988): Estimation of spatial recharge distribution using environmental isotopes and hydrochemical data, II. Application to Aravaipa Valley in southern Arizona, USA. J. Hydrol., 97:279–302. Adekunle, I.M., Adetunji, M. T., Gbadebo, A. M. and Banjoko, O. B. (2007): Assessment of Groundwater Quality in a Typical Rural Settlement in Southwest Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., 4(4), 307-318. Afroza, R., Mazumder, Q. H., Jahan, C. S., Kazi, M.A.I., Ahsan M.A. and ALMansur., M.A.(2009): Hydrochemistry and Origin of Salinity in Groundwater in parts of Lower Tista Floodplain, Northwest Bangladesh. J. geol. Soci. India.,74: 223-232. Aggarwal, P.K., Basu, A.R., Kulkarni, K.M., Froehlich, K., Tarafdar, S.A., Ali, M., Hussain, A. (2000): A report on isotope hydrology of groundwater in Bangladesh: Implications for characterization and mitigation of arsenic in groundwater. International Atomic Energy Agency-TC Project BGD/8/016, 64 p. Aghazadeh, N. and Mogaddam, A.A. (2011): Investigation of hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in the Harzandat aquifer, Northwest of Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess., 176:183–195. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1575-4. Agrawal, V. and Jagetia M. (1997): Hydrogeochemical assessment ofground water quality in Udaipur city, Rajasthan, India. In: Proceedings of national conference on ―Dimensions of Environmental Stress in India‖, Department on Geology, M S University, Baroda, India, pp. 151–154. Ahmad, Z. and
Qadir, A. (2011): Source evaluation of physicochemically
contaminated groundwater of Dera Ismail Khan area, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess., 175:9–21. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1489-1. Ako Ako, A., Shimada, J., Hosono, T., Ichiyanagi, K., Nkeng, G. E., Fantong, W. Y., Eyong, G.E.T. and Roger, N.N.(2011): Evaluation of groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking, domestic, and agricultural uses in the Banana Plain (Mbanga, Njombe, Penja) of the Cameroon Volcanic Line. Environ. Geochem. Health., DOI : 10.1007/s10653-010-9371-1.
[249]
REFERENCES Al-Bassam, A. M., and Al-Rumikhani, Y. A. (2003): Integrated hydrochemical method of water quality assessment for irrigation in arid areas: Application to the Jilh aquifer, Saudi Arabia. J. Afri. Earth Sci., 36: 345–356. AL-Charideh, A., and Abou-Zakhem, B. (2010): Geochemical and isotopic characterization of groundwater from the Paleogene limestone aquifer of the Upper Jezireh, Syria.
Environ. Earth. Sci., 59:1065–1078. DOI:
10.1007/s12665-009-0098-1. Al-Futaisi, A., Rajmohan, N., and Al-Touqi, S. (2007):
Groundwater quality
monitoring in and around Barka dumping site, Sultanate of Oman. The Second IASTED (The International Association of Science and Technology for Development) International Conference on Water Resources Management (WRM 2007). August 20–22, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Allison, G.B. (1988): A review of some of the physical, chemical and isotopic techniques available for estimating groundwater recharge. In estimation of natural groundwater recharge, ed. I. Simmers, pp 49-72. reidel, Dordecht. Allison, G.B., Barnes, C.J., Hughes, M.W., and Leancy, F.W.J. (1984): Effect of climate and vegetation on Oxygen-18 and deuterium profiles in soils. In: Proc Int Symp on Isotope Hydrology in Water Resources Development. IAEA-SM27020, Iso. Hydrol., 1983. IAEA Vienna, pp 105–124. Al-Shaibani, A.M. (2008): Hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of a shallow alluvial aquifer, western Saudi Arabia. Hydrogeol. J., 16: 155–165. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-007-0220-y. Anawar, H.M., Komaki, K., Akai, J., Takada, J., Ishizuka, T., Takahashi, T., Yoshioka, T., and Kato, K. (2002): Diagenetic control on arsenic partitioning in sediments of the Meghna River delta, Bangladesh. Environ. Geol., 41:816– 825. Anbazhagan, S. and Nair A. M. (2004): Geographic Information System and groundwater quality mapping in Panvel Basin, Maharashtra, India, Environ. Geol., 45:753–761.DOI:10.1007/s00254-003-0932-9.
[250]
REFERENCES Aneja, K.R. (2002): Experiments in microbiology plant pathology tissue culture and mushroom production technology. New Age International Publishers, India, 364. Angelakis, A. N., Koutsoyiannis, D., and Tchobanoglous, G. (2005): Urban wastewater and stormwater technologies in ancient Greece. Water Research, 39(1): 210–220. Antonio, F. and Pacheco, L. (1998): Application of Correspondence Analysis in the Assessment of Groundwater Chemistry, Mathematical Geol., 30(2):129-155. APHA (1998): Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 20th Edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC 20005-2605. Apodaca, L. E., Jeffrey, B. B., and Michelle, C. S. (2002): Water quality in shallow alluvial aquifers, Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorodo. J. Ameri. Water Reso. Associ., 38: 133–143.DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb01541.x. Appelo, C.A. and Postma D. (1993): Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution. Balkema, Rotterdam. Appelo, C.A.J and Postma, D. (1996): Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema. Appelo, C.A.J. and Postma, D. (2005): Geochemistry, Groundwater And Pollution. 2nd edn. AA Balkema, Amsterdam, pp649. Appleyard, S. J. (1995): The impact of urban development on recharge and groundwater quality in a coastal aquifer near Perth,Western Australia. Hydrogeology Journal, 3(2): 65–75. Appleyard, S. J., and Bawden, J. (1987): The effects of urbanization on nutrient loads in the unconfined aquifer underlying Perth, western Australia. In International conference on groundwater systems under stress, Brisbane. Australian Water Resources Council, pp. 587–595. Aravindan, S., Manivel, M. and Chandrasekar, S. V. N. (2004): Groundwater quality in the hard rock area of the Gadilam River Basin, Tamil Nadu. J. of the Geological Society of India., 63: 625–635.
[251]
REFERENCES Aris, A.Z., Abdullah, M.H. and Kim, K.W. (2007, a): Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater in manukan island,sabah. The Malaysian J. Analyt. Sci.., 11(2): 407 – 413. Aris, A.Z., Abdullah, M.H., Ahmed, A. and Woong, K.K. (2007, b): Controlling factors of groundwater hydrochemistry in a small island‘s aquifer. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 4 (4): 441-450. Armienta, M. G., Rodriguez, R., Aguayo, A., Ceniceros, N., Villasenor, G., and Cruz, O. (1997):
Arsenic contamination of ground water at Zimapan, Mexico.
Hydrogeol. J., 5: 39–46. Arumugam, K. and Elangovan, K. (2009): Hydrochemical characteristics and groundwater quality assessment in Tirupur Region, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Geol., 58: 1509–1520. Asadi, S.S., Vuppala P. and Reddy, M.A. (2007): Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-V), India. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 4(1): 4552. Atwood, D. F., and Barber, C. (1989): The effects of Perth‘s urbanization on groundwater quality: A comparison with case histories in the USA. In G. Lowe (Ed.), Swan coastal plain groundwater management conference (pp. 177–190). Perth: Western Australian Resource Council. Avvannavar, S.M. and Shrihari, S. (2008): Evaluation of water quality index for drinking purposes for river Netravathi, Mangalore, South India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 143: 279–290. Ayers, R.S. and Branson, R.L. (1975): Guidelines for interpretation of water quality for agriculture. University of Califonia Extension Mimeographed, (p.13). Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. (1985): Water quality for agriculture.FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper No.29. (Rev.1), pp: 1-109. Ayoob, S. and Gupta, A. (2006): Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 36(6): 433-487. DOI: 10.1080/10643380600678112. [252]
REFERENCES Babiker, I.S., Mohamed, A., Mohamed, A. and Hiyama, T. (2007): Assessing groundwater quality using GIS. Water. Resour. Manage., 21:699–715. Back, W. and Hanshaw, B. (1966): Hydrochemistry of the Northern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, with a section on Mayan water practices. In A. E. Weidie (Ed.), Field seminar on water carbonate rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (pp. 45–77). New Orleans Geological Society. Back, W. and Hanshaw, B.B. (1965): Advances in hydroscience. In: Chemical geohydrology (Vol. 11, p. 49). New York: Academic Press. Backman, B., Bodis, D., Lahermo, P., Rapant, S., and Tarvainen, T. (1998): Application of a groundwater contamination index in Finland and Slovakia. Environ. Geol., 36(1–2): 55–64. DOI: 10.1007/s002540050320. Baechler,
F.
(1999):
Urban
ground
water
database,
Sydney,
Nova
Scotia,Australia.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/sydney -ca.html. Bahar, Md. M., and Reza, Md. S. (2010): Hydrochemical characteristics and quality assessment of shallow groundwater in a coastal area of Southwest Bangladesh. Environ. Earth. Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0427-4. Bajjali, W. (2006): Recharge mechanism and hydrochemistry evaluation of groundwater in the Nuaimeh area, Jordan, using environmental isotope techniques. Hydro. J., 14:180–191. Balasubramaian, A., Sharma, K.K. and Sastri, J.C.V. (1985): Geoelectrical and hydrogeochemical evaluation of coastal aquifer of Tambraarni basin, Tamilnadu. Geophys. Res. Bull., 23:203–209. Ballukraya, P.N. and Ravi, R. (1999): Characterization of groundwater in the unconfined aquifer of Chennai City, India. J. Geol. Soc. India., 54:1–11. Banks, D., Midtgard, A.K., Morland, G., Reimann, C., Strand, T., and Bjorvatn, K. (1998): Is pure groundwater safe to drink? Natural contamination of groundwater in Norway, Geology Today, 14(3): 104–133.
[253]
REFERENCES Barber, C., Otto, C. J., and Bate, L. E. (1996): Evaluation of therelationship between land-use changes and groundwater quality in a water supply catchment, using GIS Technology: The GWELUP Wellfield, Western Australia. Hydrogeol J., 4(1): 6–19. Barker, J. F., Cherry, J. A., Reindard, M., Pankow, J. F., and Zapico, M. M. (1989): Final report: The occurrence and mobility of hazardous organic chemicals in groundwater at several Ontario landfills. Research Advisory Committee Project No. 118 PL for Environment Ontario, p. 148. Barnes, C.J. and Walker, G.R. (1989): The distribution of deuterium and oxygen-18 during unsteady evaporation from a dry soil. J. Hydrol., 112:55–67. Barrett, M. (1998): Urban ground water database, Nottingham, East Midlands, UK. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/nottingham.html. Barrett, M. H., Hiscock, K. M., Pedley, S., Lerner, D. N., Tellam, J. H., and French, M. J. (1999): Marker species foridentifying urban groundwater recharge sources: A review and case study in Nottingham, UK. Water Resources Journal, 33(14): 3083–3097. Bartarya, S.K. (1993): Hydrochemistry and rock weathering in a sub-tropical lesser Himalayan river basin in Kumaun, India. J. Hydrol., 146:149–174. Bartram, J. and Wheeler, D. (1993): Microbiological aspects of drinking water quality monitoring. Paper presented at Regional seminar of WHO on Drinking Water Quality 20-24 May 1993, Nicosa, Cyprus. Basu, A.R., Jacobsen, S.B., Poreda, R.J., Dowling, C.B., and Aggarwal, P.K. (2001): Large groundwater strontium flux to the oceans from the Bengal Basin and marine strontium isotope record. Science., 293: 1470−1473. Belkhiri, L., Boudoukha, A. and Mouni, L. (2010): Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Ain Azel plain, Algeria. J. of Geography and Regional Planning., 3(6): 151-157. Benkar, E., Davis, G. B., Appleyard, S., Barry, D. A., and Powar, T. R. (1996): Trichloromethane (TCE) contamination in an unconfined sand aquifer
[254]
REFERENCES underlying a residential area of Perth, Western Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 4(1): 20–29. Berg, G. (1978): The indicator system. In Indictors of Viruses in Water and Food (ed. G. Berg), pp. 1–13, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. Bhattacharya, P., Chatterjee, D., and Jacks, G. (1997): Occurrence of arsenic contaminated groundwater in alluvial aquifers from Delta plains, Eastern India: options for safe drinking water supply. Int. J. Water. Res. Dev., 13:79– 92. Bhattacharya, P., Welch, A.H., Stollenwerk, K.G., McLaughlin, M.J., Bundschuh, J., and Panaullah, G. (2007): Arsenic in the environment: biology and chemistry. Sci. Tot. Environ., 379:109–120. Bhumbla, D.R. and Abrol, I.P. (1972): Is your water suitable for irrigation? Indian Farming. 22(4): 15-17. Bibi, M.H., Ahmed, F., and Ishiga, H. (2006): Distribution of arsenic and other trace elements in the Holocene sediments of the Meghna River Delta, Bangladesh. Environ. Geol., 50:1243–1253. Bilas, R. (1980): Groundwater resources of Varanasi District, India: an assessment of condition, use and quality. The National Geographical J. of India., 26:81–93. Bishnoi, S.R., Brar, S.P.S. and Kumar, D. (1984): Underground water quality of Dhuri block, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab). Indian J. of Ecol., 11(2): 220-228. Biswal, A., Singh, A.K., Tadi, S.G. and Chandrasekharan, H. (2004): Assessment of ground water quality at IARI farm, New Delhi. J. of Water Management., 12: 40-46. Bocanegra, E. M., Martinez, D. E., Massone, H. E., and Cionchi, J. L. (1993): Exploitation effect and salt water intrusion in the Mar del Plata Aquifer, Argentina. In Custodio and Galofre (Eds.), Study and modelling of saltwater intrusion into Aquifers, Proceedings of the 12th SWIM, CIMNE, Barcelona, pp. 177–191.
[255]
REFERENCES Böhlke, J.K. (2002): Groundwater recharge and agricultural contamination. Hydro. J., 10:153–179. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-001-0183-3. Bokar, H., Jie, T. and Nian-feng, L. (2004): Groundwater quality and contamination index mapping in changchun city, china. Chinese. geogra. sci., 14(1):63-70. Brassington, F. K., and Rushton, K. (1987): Rising water table in central Liverpool. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 20: 151–158. Brown, R.M., McClelland, N.I., Deininger, R.A., and Tozer, R.G. (1970): A water quality index: Do we dare? Water. Sewage Works., 117: 339–343. Bruce, B.W. and McMahon, P.B. (1996): Shallow ground water quality beneath a major urban center: Denver, Colorado, USA. J. Hydrol., 186: 129–151. Bureau of Indian standards (BIS) (IS 10500: 1991): Indian standards on drinking water quality. Burian, S. J., and Shepherd, J. M. (2005): Effect of urbanization on the diurnal rainfall pattern in Houston (pp. 1089–1103). New York: Wiley. Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A. (1998): Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 333. Burston, M. W., Nazari, M. M., Bishop, P. K., and Lerner, D. N. (1993): Pollution of groundwater in the Coventry Region (UK) by chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents. J. of Hydrol., 149: 137–161. Butwell, B. (1998): Urban ground water database, Ruwaishid, Irbid, Jordan. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/ruwaishid.html. Campana, N. A., and Tucci, C. E. M. (2001): Predicting floods from urban development scenarios: Case study of the Diluvio basin, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Urban Water, 3, 1–2. Carreira, P.M., Marques J.M., Pina, A., Gomes, A.M., Galego, Paula. A., Fernandes, G. and Santos, F.M. (2010): Groundwater Assessment at Santiago Island (Cabo Verde): A Multidisciplinary Approach to a Recurring Source of Water Supply, Water. Resour. Manage., 24:1139–1159.DOI: 10.1007/s11269-0099489-z. [256]
REFERENCES Cavallero, A., Corradi, C., Felice, De., Grassi, P., (1985): Underground water pollution in Milan by industrial chlorinated organic compounds. In effects of land use upon fresh waters. Chichester: Ellis Harwood. Cederstorm, D.J. (1946): Genesis of groundwater in the coastal plain of Virginia. Environ. Geolo., 41: 218–245. Celico, F., Capuano, P., Felice, V.D. and Naclerio, G. (2008): Hypersaline groundwater genesis assessment through a multidisciplinary approach: the case of Pozzo del Sale Spring (southern Italy). Hydro. J., 16: 1441–1451. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-008-0305-2. Celico, F., Musilli, I., Varcamonti, M. and Naclerio, G. (2005): Microbial groundwater pollution in Italian carbonate aquifers. Giornale. Di. Geologia. Appli., 1: 213 –217. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (2001): Municipal solid waste annual report. Central Pollution Control Board, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi. CGWB (1992): Ground water. In: Proceedings of 3rd National water commission, Nagpur, India. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Government of India, India. Chakroborty, P.K. (1999): Need of applied research on water quality management. Indian J. Environ. Protec., 19(8): 595–597. Chan, L. (2001): Urban ground water database, Tianjin, Hubei, China. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/ UGD/Tianjin.html. Chandrawanshi, C.K. and Patel, K.S. (1999): Fluoride deposition in central India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 55(2): 251–265. Chatterjee, A., Mondal, B. and Roy Chowdhury, T. (1995): Arsenic in groundwater in six districts of West Bengal, India. The biggest Arsenic Calamity in the world Part I. Arsenic species in drinking water and urine of the affected people. Analyst, 120: 643–650.
[257]
REFERENCES Chatterjee, R., Tarafder, G. and Paul, S. (2010): Groundwater quality assessment of Dhanbad district, Jharkhand, India. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 69: 137–141. DOI: 10.1007/s10064-009-0234-x. Chaudhary, B.S., Kumar, M., Roy, A.K., and Ruhal, D.S. (1996): Applications of RS and GIS in groundwater investigations in Sohna block, Gurgaon district, Haryana, India. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 31, B-6, Vienna, Austria. pp 18–23. Chebbo, G., Gromaire, M. C., Ahyerre, M., and Garnaud, S. (2001): Production and transport of urban wet weather pollution in combined sewer systems: The ‗Marais‘ experimental urban catchment in Paris. Urban Water, 3: 1–2. Chen, J., Tang, C., Sakura, Y., Kondoh, A., Yu, J., Shimada, J. and Tanaka, T. (2004): Spatial geochemical and isotopic characteristics associated with groundwater flow in the North China Plain. Hydrol. Process., 18:3133–3146. Chen, Q., Zhang, Y. and Hallikainen M. (2007): Water quality monitoring using remote sensing in support of the EU water framework directive (WFD): A case study in the Gulf of Finland. Environ. Monit. Assess., 124:157–166. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-9215-8. Chen, Z., Nie, Z., i Zhang, G., Wan, Li. and Shen, J. (2006): Environmental isotopic study on the recharge and residence time of groundwater in the Heihe River Basin, northwestern China, Hydrogeol. J.,14:1635–1651 . Chen, Z., Nie, Z., Zhang, Z., Qi, J. and Nan, Y. (2005): Isotopes and sustainability of ground water resources, North China Plain. Ground Water., 43:485–493. Chetia, M., Chatterjee, S., Banerjee, S., Nath, M. J., Singh, L., Srivastava, R. B., et al. (2011): Groundwater arsenic contamination in Brahmaputra river basin: a water quality assessment in Golaghat (Assam), India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 173: 371–385. Chidambaram, S., Ramanathan, A. L., Prasanna, M. V., Karmegam, U., Dheivanayagi, V., Ramesh, R., et al. (2010): Study on the hydrogeochemical characteristics in groundwater, post- and pre-tsunami scenario, from Portnova
[258]
REFERENCES to Pumpuhar, southeast coast of India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 169: 553– 568. Chkirbene, A., Tsujimura, M., Charef, A. and Tanaka T. (2009): Hydrogeochemical evolution of groundwater in an alluvial aquifer: Case of Kurokawa aquifer, Tochigi prefecture, Japan. Desalination., 246: 485–495. Choi, B.Y., Yun, S.T., Yu, S.Y., Lee, P.K., Park, S.S., Chae, G.T. and Mayer, B. (2005): Hydrochemistry of urban groundwater in Seoul, South Korea: effects of land-use and pollutant recharge. Environ. Geol., 48: 979–990. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-004-1205-y. Clanton, C.J. and Slack, D.C. (1987): Hydraulic properties of soils as a affected by surface application of wastewater. Trans. ASAE, 30:683-687. Clark, I. and Fritz, P. (1997): Environmental Isotope in Hydrology. Lewis, Boca Raton, Fl. http://www.science.uottawa.ca/%7Eeih/. Cloutier, V., Lefebvre, R., Savard, M.M., Bourque, E´. and Therrien, R. (2006): Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater origin of the Basses-Laurentides sedimentary rock aquifer system, St. Lawrence Lowlands, Qu´ ebec, Canada. Hydrogeol. J., 14: 573–590. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-005-0002-3. Coetsiers, M., and Walraevens, K. (2006): Chemical characterization of the Neogene Aquifer, Belgium. Hydrogeol. J.,, 14: 1556–1568. Coleman, M.L., Shepherd, T.J., Durham, J.J., Rouse, J.E., and Moore, G.R. (1982): Reduction of Water with Zinc for Hydrogen Isotope Analysis, Anal. Chem., 993–995. Coplen, T.B. (1993): Uses of environmental isotopes. In Regional groundwater quality, ed. W.M. Alley, pp 227-254. van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Couillard, D., and Lefebvre, Y. (1985): Analysis of water quality indices. J. Environ. Manage., 21: 161–179. Coulibaly, H. and Rodriguez, M. J. (2004): Development of performance indicators for Quebec small water utilities. J. Environ. Manage., 73(3): 243–255. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.003.
[259]
REFERENCES Coutinho, W. (1998): Urban ground water database, Bridgetown, St. Michael, Barbados.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/bridgetown.ht ml. Cox, M. E., and Hillier, J. (1994): Impacts on groundwater resources by urban expansion: the Brisbane case, in IAH/IEA Conference on Water Down Under, Adelaide, International Association of Hydrogeologists, 2A: 267–270. Cox, M. E., Hillier, J., Foster, L., and Ellis, R. (1996): Effects of a rapidly urbanizing environment on groundwater, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 4(1): 30–47. Cox, M. E., Moss, A., and Smyth, G. K. (2005): Water quality condition and trend in North Queensland waterways. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 51(1–4): 89–98. Craig, H. (1961): Isotopic variations in meteoric waters. Science., 133:1702–1703. Criss, R.E. (1999): Stable isotope distribution: variations from temperature, organic and water-rock interactions. In: Ahrens TJ (Ed) Global earth physics: a handbook of physical con-stants, AGU Reference Shelf 1. Cross, H. J. (1980): Groundwater contamination by road salt, Nova Scotia, Canada. In R. E. Jackson (Ed.), Aquifer contamination and protection, UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology., 30: 354–368. Cruickshank, G., Aquirre, J., Kraemer, D., and Craviota, E. (1980): Bacterial contamination of the limestone aquifer beneath Merida, Mexico. In R. E. Jackson (Ed.), Aquifer contamination and protection, UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology., 30: 341–345. Dalkey, N.C.D. (1968): An objective water quality index, The Rand Corporation Harkins. J. - Water Pollut. Control Federa., 46: 588–591. Dansgaard, W. (1964): Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus., 16:438– 468. Dar, I.A., Sankar, K., Shafi, T. and Dar, M.A. (2011): Investigation of groundwater quality in hardrock terrain using Geoinformation System. Environ. Monit. Assess., 176:575–595. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1605-2.
[260]
REFERENCES Das, D., Chatterjee, A., Samanta, G., Mondal, B. and Roy Chowdhury, T. (1994): Arsenic contamination in groundwater in six districts of West Bengal. Analyst, 119: 168–170. Das, S: Report on the groundwater investigations in parts of Burdwan and Birbhum district, West Bengal. Cyclostyled G.S.I report (1968-69 & 69-70). Dasgupta, A.M. and Purohit, K.M. (2001): Status of surface and groundwater quality of Mandiakadar-Part II: agricultural utilities. Pollut. Res., 20(2): 219–225. Dassi, L., Zouari, K., Seiler, K.P., Faye, S. and Kamel, S. (2005): Flow exchange between the deep and shallow groundwaters in the Sbeı¨tla synclinal basin (Tunisia): an isotopic approach. Environ. Geol., 47:501–511. 18
Datta, P.S., Bhattacharya, S.K. and Tyagi, S.K. (1996): ― O studies on recharge of phreatic aquifers and groundwater flow paths of mixing in Delhi area‖. J. Hydrol., 176: 25-36. Deepali, M., Malpe, D. B. and Zade, A. B. (2011): Geochemical characterization of groundwater from northern part of Nagpur urban, Central India. Environ. Earth sci., 62: 1419–1430. Department of National Health and Welfare. Microbiological quality of drinking water. Environmental Health Directorate Publication 77-EHD-2 (1977). DeSimone, L.A., Howes, B.L. and Barlow, P.M. (1997): Mass-balance analysis of reactive transport and cation exchange in a plume of wastewater-contaminated groundwater. J. Hydrol., 203:228–249. Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G. (1998): GSLIB: Geostatistical software library and user's guide (2nd Edn). Oxford University Press, New York. Deutsch, W. J. (1997): Groundwater Geochemistry Fundamentals and Applications to Contamination Lewis. Publishers, New York. Devadas, D.J., Subba Rao, N., Thirupathi Rao, B., Srinivasa Rao, K.V. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2007): Hydrogeochemistry of the Sarada river basin, Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 52:1331– 1342. [261]
REFERENCES Dhiman, S.D. and Keshari, A.K. (2006): GIS assisted inverse geochemical modeling for plausible phase transfers in aquifers. Environ. Geol., 50: 1211–1219. Diaz-Fierros, T. F., Puerta, J., Suarez, J., and Diaz-Fierros, F. V. (2002): Contaminant loads of CSOs at the wastewater treatment plant of a city in NW Spain. Urban Water, 4: 3. Dimitriou. E. and Zacharias, I. (2006): Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping in a geologically complex area by using stable isotopes, remote sensing and GIS techniques. Environ. Geol., 51: 309–323. Dinesh, K. T. and Singh Chandel, C. P. (2010): A hydrochemical elucidation of the groundwater composition under domestic and irrigated land in Jaipur City. Environ. Monit. Assess., 166: 69–77. Domenico, P.A. (1972): Concepts and models in groundwater hydrology. McGrawHill, New York. Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W. (1990): Physical and chemical hydrology. Wiley, New York. Doneen, L.D. (1964): Notes on water quality in agriculture.Davis, CA: Water Science and Engineering, University of California. Dong-lin, D., Qiang, W., Rui, Z., Ying-xia, S., Shu-ke, C., Pei, L., Shou-qiang, L., Cen-cen, B., Zhen-qi, L. and Song-lin, H. (2007): Environmental Characteristics of Groundwater: an Application of PCA to Water Chemistry Analysis in Yulin, J. China Univ. Mining. Technol., 17(1): 73-77. Dongol, B.S., Merz, J., Schaffner, M., Nakarmi, G., Shah, P. B., Shrestha, S. K., Dangol, P.M. and Dhakal M.P. (2005): Shallow groundwater in a middle mountain catchment of Nepal: quantity and quality issues. Environ. Geol., 49: 219–229. Dray, M. (1983): Contribution of isotopic techniques in the determination of the relationship of surface water/groundwater in Bangladesh (Ganges and Brahmaputra area). Proc. National Symposium on River Basin Development. Dacca, Bangladesh, 158−170.
[262]
REFERENCES Drever, J. I. (1997): The Geochemistry of natural waters (p. 436). New Jersey: Prentice- Hall. Drever, J.I. (1988): The geochemistry of natural waters. 2nd.ed. New York PranticeHall. Drouin-Brisebois, I. (1999): Urban ground water database, Kingston, Kingston andStAndrew,Jamaica.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/k ingston.html. Dudeja, D., Bartarya, S. K. and Biyani, A. K. (2011): Hydrochemical and water quality assessment of groundwater in Doon Valley of Outer Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI:10.1007/ s10661-010-18237. Dufour, A., Strickland, E. and Cabelli, V. (1981): Membrane filter method for enumerating Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 41: 1152. Dummer, M., and Straaten, V. (1988): The influence of industrialization and hydrogeology on the quality of ground water and surface water in Bielefeld (case studies). Symp. on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, FRG, April 1988, pp. 423–428. Durvey, V.S., Sharma, L.L., Saini, V.P. and Sharma, B.K. (1991): Handbook on the methodology of water quality assessment. Rajasthan Agriculture University, India. Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S. and Greenberg, A.E. (1995): Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA, 19th Edn. Eaton, F.M. (1950): Significance of carbonate in irrigation waters. Soil Sci., 67: 123133. Edmond J. M., Palmer M. R., Measures C. I., Grant B., and Stallard R. F. (1995): The fluvial geochemistry and denudation rate of the Guayana Shield in Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 59: 3301–3325. Edmunds, W.M. and Gaye, C.B. (1994): Estimating the spatial variability of groundwater recharge in the Sahel using chloride. J. Hydrol., 156:47–59.
[263]
REFERENCES Edmunds, W.M., Cook, J.M., Darling, W.G., Kinniburgh, D.G., Miles, D.L., Bath, A.H., Morgan-Jones, M. and Andrews, J.N. (1987): Baseline geochemical conditions in the chalk aquifer, Berkshire UK: a basis for groundwater quality management. Appl. Geochem., 2:275–284. Eisen, C., and Anderson, M. P. (1980): The effects of urbanization on ground water quality Milwauke, Wisconsin, USA. In: Jackson. 378–390. Elampooranan, T., Rajmohan, N. and Abirami, L. (1999): Hydrochemical studies of Artesian well waters in Cauvery deltaic area, South India. Indian. J. Environ. Health., 41(2): 107–114. Elango, L., Kannan, R. and Senthil Kumar, M. (2003): Major ion chemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes of groundwater in part of Kancheepuram district, Tamil Nadu, Indian J. Environ. Geosci., 10(4): 157– 166. Elango, L., Suresh Kumar, S. and Rajmohan, N. (2003). Hydrochemical studies of groundwater in Chengalpet region, South India. Indian. J. Environ. Protect., 23(6): 624–632. Epstein, J., Payne, K. and Kramer, E. (2002): Techniques for mapping urban sprawl. Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens., 68:913–918. Epstein, S. and Mayeda, K. (1953): Variation of 18O Content of waters from natural sources, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 213–224. Esmaeili, A. and Moore, F. (2011): Hydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater in Isfahan province, Iran. Environ. Earth. Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1484z. Esslinger, P. (1998): Urban ground water database, Calgany, Alberta, Canada. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/calgary.html. Fantong, W.Y., Satake, H., Ayonghe, S.N., Aka, F.T. and Asai, K. (2009): Hydrogeochemical controls and usability of groundwater in the semi-arid Mayo Tsanaga River Basin: far north province, Cameroon. Environ. Geol., 58:1281–1293. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-008-1629-x.
[264]
REFERENCES FAO (1994): Water quality for agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Farah, E. A. (1999): Groundwater quality and hydrogeology conditions in the Khartoum area, Sudan. J. of Geosci., 42: 45–53. Faye, S. C., Faye, S., Wohnlich, S., and Gaye, C. B. (2004): An assessment of the risk associated with urban development in the Thiaroye area (Senegal). Environ. Geol., 45 (3): 312–322. Fianko, J.R., Adomako, D., Osae, S., Ganyaglo, S., Kortatsi, B.K., Tay, C.K. and Glover, E.T. (2009, a): The hydrochemistry of groundwater in the Densu River Basin, Ghana. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-0091082-7. Fianko, J.R., Nartey, V.K. and Donkor, A. (2009, b): The hydrochemistry of groundwater in rural communities within the Tema District, Ghana. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1125-0. Fisher, S.R. and Mullican, W.F. (1997): Hydrogeochemical evolution of sodiumsulphate and sodium-chloride groundwater beneath the northern Chihuahua desert, Trans-Pecos, Texas, U.S.A. Hydrogeol. J., 5: 4–16. DOI: 10.1007/s100400050102. Fleetwood, A. (1969): Urbant paverkat gundvatten. Vatten, 2/69,107–112. Flipse, W. I., Katz, B. G., Linder, J. B., and Markel, R. (1984): Sources of nitrate in groundwater in a sewered housing development, Central Long Island, New York. Ground Water, 22: 418–426. Ford, M. (1990): Extent, type and sources of inorganic groundwater pollution below the Birmingham conurbation. Unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Earth sciences, University of Birmingham. Ford, M., and Tellam, J. H. (1994): Source, type and extent of inorganic contamination within the Birmingham aquifer system, UK. J. of Hydrol., 156: 101–135.
[265]
REFERENCES Foster, S. S. D. (1988): Impacts of urbanization on groundwater. In Symposium on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April 1988, pp. D1–D24. Foster, S. S. D., Morris, B. L., and Lawrence, A. R. (1994): Effects of urbanization on groundwater recharge. In International Conference on groundwater problems in urban areas, London, 1993, Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 43–63. Foster, S.S.D. (1995): Groundwater for development: An overview of quality constraints. In: H. Nash, & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Groundwater quality (17th special report, pp. 1–3). London: Chapman & Hall. Fournier, R. O. (1983): A revised and expanded silica geothermometer. Bull. Geotherm. Res. Council, 11: 329. Franklin, R.B., Taylor, D.R. and Mills, A.L. (2000): The Distribution of Microbial Communities in Anaerobic and Aerobic Zones of a Shallow Coastal Plain Aquifer. Microbi. Ecol., 38:377–386. DOI: 10.1007/s002489900179. Fung, L. (1998): Urban ground water database, Beijing, Hubei, China. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/beijing.html. Fusillo, T. V., Hockreiter, J. J., and Lord, D. G. (1985): Distribution of volatile organic compounds in a New Jersey coastal plain aquifer. Ground Water, 23: 354–360. Ganyaglo, S.Y., Banoeng-Yakubo, B., Osae, S.,. Dampare, S. B. and Fianko, J.R. (2011): Water quality assessment of groundwater in some rock types in parts of the eastern region of Ghana. Environ Earth Sci., 62:1055–1069. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-010-0594-3. Garg, V. K., Suthar, S., Singh, S., Sheoran, A., Garima, M. and Jai, S. (2009): Drinking water quality in villages of southwestern Haryana, India: assessing human health risks associated with hydrochemistry. Environ. Geol. 58: 1329– 1340. Garrels, R., and Mackenzie, F. (1967): Origin of the chemical compositions of some springs and lakes. In R. F. Ground (Edn.), Equilibrium concepts in natural water systems. Washington: American Chemical Society Publications. [266]
REFERENCES Gat, J.R. and Gonfiantini, R. (1981): Stable isotope hydrology: deuterium and oxygen-18 in the water cycle. Tech Rep Ser N. 210, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Geldreich, E.E. (1991): Microbial water quality concerns for supply use. Environ. Toxicol. Water., 6: 209-223. Geological Survey of India, Geothermal Atlas of India, Special Publication No. 19, 1991.Geology, 40: 1084–1087. Gerriste, R. G., Barber, C., and Adeney, J. A. (1990): The impact of residential urban areas on groundwater quality: Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia, in: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Division of Water Resources Series. Report no. 3, 28 p. Gibbs, R.J. (1970): Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Sci. J., 170: 795– 840. Giggenbach, W. F., Gonfiantini, R., Jangi, B. L. and Truesdell, A. H. (1985): Isotopic and chemical composition of Parbati valley geothermal discharges, Northwest Himalaya, India. Geothermics, 12: 199–222. Giggenbach, W.F. (1990): Water and gas chemistry of Lake Nyos and its bearing on the eruptive process. J. Volc. Goethe. Res. 42: 337–362. Giridharan, L., Venugopal, T. and Jayaprakash, M. (2010): Identification and evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes on river Cooum, South India. Environ.Monit.Assess., 162: 277–289. Glen, E.P., Cohen, M.J., Morrison, J.I., Valdes-Casillas, C. and Fitzsimmons, K. (1999): Science and policy dilemmas in the management of agricultural waste waters: the case of the Salton Sea, Ca, USA. Environ. Sci. Policy., 2:413–423. Glynn, P.D. and Plummer, L.N. (2005): Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems. Hydrogeol. J., 13:263–287. Goni, I.B. (2006): Tracing stable isotope values from meteoric water to groundwater in the southwestern part of the Chad basin. J. Hydrol., 14: 742–752. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-005-0469-y.
[267]
REFERENCES Goodman, J.E. and O'Rourke, J. (1997): Handbook of discrete and computational geometry. CRC, Press, Boca Raton N.Y. Gopinath, G. and Seralathan, P. (2006): Chemistry of groundwater in the laterite formation of Muvatterpuzha river basin, Kerala. J. of the Geological Society of India., 65: 705–714. Gosk, E., Bishop, P. K., Lerner, D. N., and Burston, M. (1990): Field investigation of solvent pollution in the ground waters of Coventry, UK. In K.U. Weyer (Ed.), IAH conference on subsurface Contamination by immiscible fluids, Balkema Publ., Rotterdam. Goyal, S.K., Chaudhary, B.S., Singh O., Sethi, G.K. and Thakur, P.K. (2010): GIS based spatial distribution mapping and suitability evaluation of groundwater quality for domestic and agricultural purpose in Kaithal district, Haryana state, India, Environ. Earth. Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-010-0472-z. Grabow, W.O.K. (1996): Waterborne diseases: Update on water quality assessment and control. Water SA 22: 193–202. Graniel, C.E., Morris, L.B. and Carrillo, J.J. (1999): Effects of urbanization on groundwater resources of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. J. Environ. Geol., 37(4):303–312. Grassi, S. and Cortecci, G. (2005): Hydrogeology and geochemistry of the multilayered confined aquifer of the Pisa plain (Tuscany – central Italy). Appl. Geochem., 20: 41–54. DOI:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2004.06.005. Gray, S. R., and Becker, N. S. C. (2002): Contaminant flows in urban residential water systems. Urban Water, 4(4): 331–346. Greswell, R. B., Lloyd, J. W., Lerner, D. N., and Knipe, C. V. (1994): Rising groundwater in the Birmingham area. In W. B. Wilkinson (Ed.), Groundwater problems in urban areas (pp. 330–341). London: Thomas Telford. Grischek, T., Nestler, W., Piechniczek, D., and Fischer, T. (1996): Urban groundwater in Dresden, Germany. Hydrogeol. J., 4(1): 48–63. Groundwater information booklet of Bardhaman district, West Bengal. Pg: 1-15.
[268]
REFERENCES Guendouz, A., Moulla, A.S., Edmunds, W.M., Zouari, K., Shand, P. and Mamou, A. (2003): Hydrogeochemical and isotopic evolution of water in the complex terminal aquifer in the Algerian Sahara. Hydrogeol. J., 11:483–495. Guler, C. Thyne, G.D., McCray, J.E. and Turner, A.K. (2002): Evaluation of graphical and multivariate statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeol. J., 10: 455-475. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-002-01966. Gumma, M. K. and Pavelic, P. (2013): Mapping of groundwater potential zones across Ghana using remote sensing, geographic information systems, and spatial
modelling.
Environ.
Monit.
Assess.,
185:3561–3579.
DOI:
10.1007/s10661-012-2810-y. Gupta, A.K., Karar, K., Ayoob, S. and John, K. (2008): Spatio-temporal characteristics of gaseous and particulate pollutants in an urban region of Kolkata, India. Atmos. Res., 87:103–115. Gupta, S. (2009): Spatial and temporal variation of hydrogeochemistry and quality of groundwater in a part of Burdwan district, West Bengal, India. Project report. Sponsored by university grants commission of India. Gupta, S., Dandele, P.S., Verma, M.B. and Maithani, P.B. (2009): Geochemical Assessment of Groundwater Around Macherla- Karempudi Area, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, J. Geologi. Soci. India., 73:202-212. Gupta, S., Mahato, A., Roy, P., Datta, J.K. and Saha, R.N. (2008): Geochemistry of groundwater, Burdwan District, West Bengal, India, Environ. Geol., 53: 1271-1282. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0725-7. Gupta, S.K. and Deshpande, R.D. (2004):
Water for India in 2050: first-order
assessment of available options. Curr. Sci., 86:1216–1223. Gupta, S.K. and Deshpande, R.D. (2005): Groundwater isotopic investigations in India: what has been learned? Curr. Sci., 89(5):825–835. Gupta, S.K. and Gupta, L.C. (1987): Management of Saline Soils and Water. Oxford and IBH publ. Co. New Delhi, India. pp. 399.
[269]
REFERENCES Gurumani N. (2005): An introduction to biostatistics, MPJ Publishers, Chennai – 60005. Gutierrez, A. (2001): Urban Ground water database, Valletta, Malta, Malta. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/valletta.html. Halim, Md. A., Majumder, R. K., Nessa, S. A., Oda, K., Hiroshiro, Y. and Jinno, K. (2010): Arsenic in shallow aquifer in the eastern region of Bangladesh: insights from principal component analysis of groundwater compositions. Environ. Monit. Assess., 161:453–472.DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-0760-9 Halliday, D. (1993): Sewers as a source of groundwater pollution in the Nottingham District: School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, M.Sc. thesis, 158 p. Han, D. M., Tong, X. X., Jin, M. G., Hepburn, E., Tong, C. S. and Song., X. F. (2013):Evaluation of organic contamination in urban groundwater surrounding a municipal landfill, Zhoukou, China. Environ. Monit. Assess., 185:3413– 3444. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2801-z. Han, G. and Liu, C.Q. (2004): Water geochemistry controlled by carbonate dissolution a study of the river waters draining Karst-dominated terrain, Guizhou province, China. Chem. Geol., 204: 1–21. Handa, B. K., Goel, D. K., Kumar, A., and Sodhi, T. N. (1983): Pollution of groundwater by chromium in Uttar Pradesh. Technical Annual X, J. Indian Assoc. Water Pollution Control, pp. 167–176. Handa, B.K. (1979): Groundwater pollution in India. In: Proceedings of national symposium on hydrology. IAHS, Publ. Univ. Roorkee, India, pp. 34–49. Haritash, A.K., Kaushik, C.P., Kaushik, A., Kansal, A. and Yadav, A.K. (2008): Suitability assessment of groundwater for drinking, irrigation and industrial use in some North Indian villages. Environ. Monit. Assess.,145:397–406. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-0048-x. Harkins, R.D. (1974): An objective water quality index. J.–Water Pollut. Control Federa., 46: 588–591.
[270]
REFERENCES Hasan, M. K. (1996): Urban ground water database, Dhaka, Bangladesh. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/dhaka.html. Hem, J. D. (1985): Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3rd Edn., p. 2254,117-120). Jodhpur, India: Scientific. Hem, J. D. (1991): Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3rd Edn., p. 263). Jodhpur, India: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 2254, Scientific Pub. Jodhpur. Hem, J.D. (1989): Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. Water Supply Paper 2254, 3rd edition, US Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 263 pp. Hem, J.D. (1992): Study and interpretation of the chemicalcharacteristics of natural water. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov. Print. Office.Note no. 12. Hern, J. and Feltz, H.R. (1998): Effects of irrigation on the environment of selected areas of the Western United States and implications to world population growth and food production. J. Environ. Manag., 52:353–360. Herrington, J. (1999): Urban ground water database, Ta‘iz, Central Highlands, Yemea. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/taiz.html. Holden, W.S. (1971): Water treatment and examination. Churchill, London. Horst, A., Mahlknecht, J., Lo´pez-Zavala, M. A. and Mayer, B. (2011): The origin of salinity and sulphate contamination of groundwater in the Colima State, Mexico, constrained by stable isotopes. Environ Earth Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1008-x. Horton, R.K. (1965): An index number system for rating water quality. J.–Water Pollut. Control Federa., 37: 300–305. Houben, G., Tünnermeier, T., Eqrar, N. and Himmelsbach, T. (2009): Hydrogeology of the Kabul Basin (Afghanistan), part II: groundwater geochemistry. Hydrogeol. J., 17: 935–948. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-008-0375-1. House, M.A. and Ellis, J.B. (1987): The development of water quality indices for operational management. J. Water Sci. Technol., 19(9): 145–154. [271]
REFERENCES Houser, C. A. (1999): Urban ground water database, Albuquerque, New Mexico,USA.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/albuquerq ue.html. Howard, K. W. F., Eyles, N., Gerber, R. E., Smart, P., and Salvatori, S. (1996): The Oak Ridges Moraine of southern Ontario: A national resource threatened by urbanization. In E. Eyles (Ed.) Environmental Geology of Urbanised Regions: Geological Association of Canada. Hrkal, Z. (2001): Vulnerability of groundwater to acid deposition, Jizerske´ Mountains, northern Czech Republic: construction and reliability of a GISbased vulnerability map. Hydrogeol. J, 9:348–357. Huh, Y., Tsoi, M.Y., Zaitsev, A. and Edmond, J. M. (1998): The fluvial geochemistry of the rivers of Eastern Siberia: I. Tributaries of the Lena River draining the sedimentary platform of the Siberian Craton. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 62: 1657–1676. Huizar-Alvarez, R. (1997): Hydrochemistry of the aquifers In the Rio Las Avenidas Basin, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 96: 185–201. Hussain, I., Hussain, J. and Dhinsa, S.S. (2005): Groundwater quality variation in Bhilwara district, Rajasthan, Pollut. Res., 24(3): 723–725. IAEA (1981): Arid zone hydrology: investigations with isotope techniques. In: Proceedings of an advisory group meeting, IAEA, Vienna. IAEA (1983): Palaeoclimatic and paleowaters: a collection of environmental isotope studies. In: Proceedings of an advisory group meeting, IAEA, Vienna. IAEA a., (2007): Atlas of isotope hydrology. Africa–Vienna. ISBN: 978- 92-01072707-8 ImesJL. IAEA b., (2007): Global network of isotopes in precipitation (GNIP) Database IAEA/WMO, Vienna, Austria, http://www.isohis. iaea.org. Cited 22 April 2008. Inhaber, M. (1975): An approach to a water quality index for Canada. Water Resour., 9: 821–833.
[272]
REFERENCES Isaac, R.K., Khura, T.K. and Wurmbrand, J.R. (2009): Surface and subsurface water quality appraisal for irrigation. Environ. Monit. Assess., 159:465–473. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0643-5. Ishaku, J.M., Ahmed, A.S. and Abubakar, M.A.(2011): Assessment of groundwater quality using chemical indices and GIS mapping in Jada area, Northeastern Nigeria. J. of Earth Sci. and Geotechnical Engineering., 1(1): 35-60. ISSN: 1792-9040(print), 1792-9660 (online). ISI (1974): Indian standard tolerance limits for surface waters subject to pollution, IS: 2296. New Delhi: ISI. ISI (1983): Indian standard specification for drinking water. IS: 10500, Indian Standard Institute, India. Iwasaki, I. (1937): Some notes on sand filtration. J. Ameri. Water Works Associ., 29, 1591-1609, Middleburg, USA. Jacks, G. (1973): Chemistry of groundwater in a district in Southern India. J. Hydrol., 18:185–200. Jacks, G., Bhattacharya, P., Chaudhary, V. and Singh, K.P. (2005): Controls on the genesis of high-fluoride ground waters in India. Appl. Geochem., 20:221–228. Jalali, M. (2006): Chemical characteristics of groundwater in parts of mountainous region, Alvand, Hamadan, Iran. Environ. Geol., 51: 433–446. Jalali, M. (2007): Assessment of the chemical components of Famenin groundwater, western Iran. Environ. Geochem. Health., 29:357–374. Jalali, M. (2009, a): Geochemistry characterisation of groundwater in an agricultural area of Razan, Hamadan, Iran. Environ. Geol., 56: 1479–1488. Jalali, M. (2009, b): Groundwater geochemistry in the Alisadr, Hamadan, Western Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1007-5. Janardhana Raju, N. (2007): Hydrogeochemical parameters for assessment of groundwater quality in the upper Gunjanaeru River basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Environ. Geol., 52:1067–1074. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-006-0546-0. [273]
REFERENCES Janet,
(1998):
Urban
ground
water
database,
Honolulu,
Hawaii,
USA.
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/honolulu.html. Jankowski, J. and Acworth, R. I. (1997): Impact of debris flow deposits on hydrogeochemical process and the development of dry land salinity in the Yass River catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 5: 71–88. DOI: 10.1007/s100400050119. Jat, M.K., Garg, P.K. and Khare, D. (2007): Modelling of urban growth using spatial analysis techniques: a case study of Ajmer city (India). Int. J. Remote. Sens., 29(2):543–567. DOI: 10.1080/01431160701280983. Jat, M.K., Garg, P.K. and Khare, D. (2008): Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J. Appl. Earth. Observ. Geoinform., 10:26–43. DOI:10.1016/j.jag.2007.04.002. Jat, M.K., Khare, D. and Garg, P.K. (2009): Urbanization and its impact on groundwater: a remote sensing and GIS-based assessment approach. Environmentalist, 29:17–32.DOI:10.1007/s10669-008-9176-2. Jeevanandam, M., Kannan, R., Srinivasalu, S. and Rammohan, V. (2007): Hydrogeochemistry and Groundwater Quality Assessment of Lower Part of the Ponnaiyar River Basin, Cuddalore District, South India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 132: 263–274. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-9532-y. Jeong, C.H. (2001): Effect of landuse and urbanization on hydrochemistry and contamination of groundwater from Taejon area, Korea. J. Hydrol., 253:194– 210. Jiang, Y. and Yan, J. (2010): Effects of Land Use on Hydrochemistry and Contamination of Karst Groundwater from Nandong Underground River System, China.Water Air Soil Pollut. 210:123–141.DOI: 10.1007/s11270009-0229-z. Jianhua, S., Qi, F., Xiaohu, W., Yonghong, S., Haiyang, X. and Zongqiang, C. (2009): Major ion chemistry of groundwater in the extreme arid region northwest China. Environ. Geol., 57:1079–1087.
[274]
REFERENCES Johansson, P. O., Scharp, C., Alveteg, T., and Choza, A. (1999): Framework for groundwater protection: The Managua groundwater system as an example. Ground Water, 37(2): 204–213. John Devadas, D., Subba Rao, N., Thirupathi Rao B., Srinivasa Rao, K.V. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2006.b): Drainage Characteristics of the Sarada River Basin, Andhra Pradesh for Watershed Management. J. of Indian Academy of Geosci., 49: 1-6. John Devadas, D., Subba Rao, N., Thirupathi Rao, B., Srinivasa Rao K.V. and Subrhamanayam, A. (2007): Hydrogeochemistry of the Sarada river basin, Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geol., 52, 1331-1342. John Devadas, D., Subba Rao, N., Thirupathi Rao, B., Srinivasa Rao, K.V. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2006.a): Hydrogeomorphological Studies for the Location of Groundwater Potential Zones in the Sarada River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. Gondawna Geological Society, 21: 59-64. Johnson, C.C. (1979): Land application of water – an accident waiting to happen. Groundwater, 17(1): 69–72. Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (1982): Applied multivariate analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Johnston, K., Hoef, J.M.V., Krivoruchko, K. and Lucas, N. (2001): Using ArcGIS geostatistical analyst. ESRI Press. Joreskog, K.G., Klovan, J.E. and Reyment, R.A. (1976): Geological factor analysis: Elsevier, Amsterdam, 178 p. Joshi A. and Seth, G. (2011): Hydrochemical profile for assessing the groundwater quality of Sambhar lake City and its Adjoining area. Environ. Monit. Assess., 174:547–554. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1477-5. Kaiser, H.F. (1960): The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 20:141–151.
[275]
REFERENCES Kakar, Y. P., and Bhatnagar, N. C. (1981): Groundwater pollution due to industrial effluents in Ludhiana, India. In W. van Duijvenbooden, Glasbergen and van Lelyveld (Eds.), Quality of groundwater. Study in Env. Sci. 17: 265– 275. Kamaraju, M.V.V. (1997): Ground-water potential evaluation of West Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh State, India- A GIS approach. Ground. Water., 34(2):318–334. Karanth, K. R. (1997): Groundwater assessment, development and management. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill. Kashouty, M.E. and Abdel-Lattif, A. (2011): Multivariate statistical analyses of the groundwater system in Darb El-Arbaein, Southwestern Desert, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci., 4:1117–1130. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-010-0123-4. Katz, B. G., Lindner, J. B., and Ragone, S. E. (1980): A comparison of nitrogen in shallow groundwater from sewered and unsewered areas, Nassan County, New York, from 1952 through 1976. Ground Water, 18: 607–618. Kaushik, A., Kumar, K., Sharma, I. S., and Sharma, H. R. (2002): Groundwater quality assessment in different land use areas of Rohtak and Fridabad cities of Haryana using deviation index. J. of Environmental Biology., 25: 173–180. Keizer, J. (1998): Urban ground water database, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/fredericton.htm. Kelley, W.P. (1963): Use of saline irrigation water. Soil Sci., 95: 355-391. Kelly, W.R. and Wilson, S.D. (2008): An Evaluation of Temporal Changes in Shallow Groundwater Quality in Northeastern Illinois Using Historical Data. Illinois State Water Survey Center for Groundwater Science Champaign, Illinois. A division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and an affiliated agency of the University of Illinois. Khadka, M. S. (1993): The groundwater quality situation in alluvial aquifers of the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, 14: 207–211.
[276]
REFERENCES Khaiwal, R. and Garg, V.K. (2007): Hydro-chemical survey of groundwater of Hisar city and assessment of defluoridation methods used in India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 132(1- 3): 33-43. Khan, L.R., Dutta, S.C. and Biswas, M.R. (1989): Quality of groundwater for irrigation in the north-western region of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 14: 45-54. Khan, M.A. and Mahorana, P.C. (2002): Use of remote sensing and geographic information system in delineation and characterization of groundwater prospects zones. Indian. J. Remote Sens., 30:131–141. Khurshid, S. and Zaheerudin. (2004): Geochemistry of groundwater: an overview of sporadic fluoride and nitrate contamination in parts of Yamuna basin. J. of Applied Geochemistry, 6: 25–35. Khurshid, S.H., Hasan, N. and Zaheeruddin, (2002): Water quality Status and environmental hazards in parts of Yamuna–Karwan sub-basin ofAligarh– Mathura district, Uttar Predesh, India. J. Appl. Hydrol., 14(4): 30–37. Kimani-Murage, E. W. and Ngindu, A.M. (2007): Quality of Water the Slum Dwellers Use: The Case of a Kenyan Slum. J. Urban Health: Bull. the New York Acade. Medicine., 84(6). DOI: 10.1007/s11524-007-9199-x. Kimmel, G. E. (1984): Non-point contamination of ground water on Long Island, New York. In Groundwater contamination, studies in geophysics (pp. 120– 126). Washington, DC: National Academy. Klump, S., Kipfer, R., Olaf, A.C., Harvey, C.F., Brennwald, M.S., Khandkar, N.A., Badruzzaman, A.B.M., Hug, S. and Imboden, D.M. (2006): Groundwater dynamics and arsenic mobilization in Bangladesh assessed using noble gases and tritium. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40: 243−250. Knipe, C. V., Lloyd, J. W., Lerner, D. N., and Gresswell, R. (1993): Rising groundwater levels in Birmingham and the engineering implications. Construction Industry Research and Information Association Special Publication. 92, 114 p.
[277]
REFERENCES Kolokytha, E. G., Mylopoulos, Y. A., and Mentes, A. K. (2002): Evaluating demand management aspects of urban water policy – A field survey in the city of Thessaloniki, Greece. Urban Water, 4(4): 391–400. Kortatsi, B.K., Tay, C.K., Anornu, G., Hayford, E. and Dartey, G.A. (2008): Hydrogeochemical evaluation of groundwater in the lower Offin basin, Ghana. Environ. Geol., 53:1651–1662. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0772-0. Kouraa, A., Fethi, F., Fahde, A., Lahlou, A., and Ouazzani, N. (2002): Reuse of urban wastewater treated by a combined stabilization pond system in Benslimane (Morocco). Urban Water, 4(4): 373–378. Krill, R. M., and Sonzogni, W. C. (1968): Chemical monitoring of Wisconsin‘s groundwater. J. of American Water Works Association., 78: 70–75. Krishnamurthy, J. and Srinivas, G. (1995): Role of geological and geomorphological factors in ground water exploration: a study using IRS LISS data. Int. J. Remote Sens., 16(4):2595–2618. Krishnamurthy, R.V. and Bhattacharya, S.K. (1991): Stable oxygen and hydrogen isotope ratios in shallow groundwater from India and a study of the role of evapotranspiration in the Indian monsoon. In: Taylor, H.P., O‘Neil, J.R., Kaplan, I.R. (Eds.), Stable Isotope Geochemistry. A Tribute to Samuel Epstein. Special Publication No. 3, The Geochemical Society, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 187−194. Ku, H. F. H. (1980): Ground water contamination by metal plating wastes, Long island, New York, USA. In R. E. Jackson (ed.), Aquifer Contamination and Protection, UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology, 30: 310–317. Kumar, M., Kumari, K., Ramanathan, A. L., and Saxena, R. (2007): A comparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated districts of Punjab, India. Environ. Geol., 53: 553– 574. Kumar, M., Kumari, K., Singh U. K. and Ramanathan, A.L. (2009): Hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment of Muktsar,
[278]
REFERENCES Punjab: conventional graphical and multivariate statistical approach. Environ. Geol., 57:873–884. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-008-1367-0. Kumar, M., Ramanathan, A.L., Rao, M.S. and Kumar B. (2006): Identification and evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment of Delhi, India. Environ. Geol., 50: 1025–1039. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-0060275-4. Kumar, R. (1985): Fundamentals of historical geology and stratigraphy of India. Publisher: Wiley Eastern. ISBN 10. 0852267452. Kumar, S. K., Rammohan, V., Sahayam, J. D., and Jeevanandam, M. (2009): Assessment of groundwater quality and hydrogeochemistry of Manimuktha River basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 159: 341–351. Kumaresan, M. and Riyazuddin, P. (2005): Major ion chemistry of environmental samples around suburban of Chennai city. Current Sci. 91: 1668- 1677. Lakshmanan, E., Kannan, R. and Senthil Kumar, M. (2003): Major ion chemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes of ground water in a part of Kancheepuram district, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Geosci., 10(4):157–166. DOI:10.1306/eg.08220303011. Laluraj, C.M., Gopinath, G. and Dineshkumar, P.K. (2005): Groundwater chemistry of shallow aquifers in the coastal zones of cochin, india. Appl. Ecol. environ. Res., 3(1): 133-139. Laluraji, C. M. and Gopinath, G. (2006): Assessment on seasonal variation of groundwater quality of phreatic aquifers—a river basin system. Environ. Monit. Assess., 117: 45–57. Lam, A. (1999): Urban ground water database, Tomsk, West Siberia, Russia. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/ UGD/tomsk.html. Lance, J.C. and Gerba, C.P. (1984): Virus movement in soil during saturated and unsaturated flow. Appl. Environ. Microbio., 47: 335-337, Washington D.C., USA.
[279]
REFERENCES Langmuir, D. (1997): Aqueous environmental geochemistry (p. 601). Prentice Hall, Inc. Larson, K. J., Basagaoglu, H., and Marino, M. A. (2001): Prediction of optimal safe groundwater yield and land subsidence in the Los Banos-Kettleman City area, California using a calibrated numerical simulation model. J. of Hydrogeol., 242(1): 79–102. Lawrence, A.R., Gooddy, D.C., Kanatharana, P., Meesilp, M. and Ramnarong, V. (2000): Groundwater evolution beneath Hat Yai, a rapidly developing city in Thailand. Hydrogeol. J., 8:564–575. Lawrence, F.W. and Upchurch, S.B. (1982): Identification of recharge areas using geochemical factor analysis. Ground Water., 20:680–687. LeChavallier, M.W., Welch, N.J. and Smith, D.B. (1996): Full-scale studies of factors related to coliform regrowth in drinking water. Appl. Environ. Microbio., 62: 2201-2221. Lee, K. K., Kim, Y. Y., and Sung, I. H. (2001): Urbanization and the groundwater budget, metropolitan Seoul area, Korea. Hydrogeol. J., 9(4): 401–413. Lee, T. R. (2000): Urban water management for better urban life in Latin America. Urban Water, 2: 1. Lerner, D. N. (1989): Groundwater recharge in urban areas. Atmospheric Environment, 24B (1): 29–33. Lerner, D. N., and Barrett, M. H. (1996): Urban groundwater issues in the United Kingdom. Hydrogeol. J., 4 (1): 80–89. Lerner, D. N., Halliday, D., and Hoffman, J. M. (1994): The impact of sewers on groundwater quality. In W. B. Wilkinson (Ed.), Groundwater problems in urban areas (pp. 64–75). London: Thomas Telford. Li, F., Pan, G., Tang, C., Zhang, Q. and Yu, J. (2007): Recharge source and hydrogeochemical evolution of shallow groundwater in a complex alluvial fan system,
southwest
of
North
China
Plain.
Environ.
Geol.,
DOI:
10.1007/s00254-007-1059-1.
[280]
REFERENCES Li, F., Song, X., Tang, C., Liu, C., Yu, J. and Zhang, W., (2007): Tracing infiltration and recharge using stable isotope in Taihang Mt., North China. Environ. Geol., 53:687–696. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0683-0. Liebman, H. (1969): Atlas of water quality methods and practical conditions. Munich: R. Oldenburg. Lihe, Y., Guangcai, H., Zhengping, Tao. and Ying, Li.(2010): Origin and recharge estimates of groundwater in the ordos plateau, People‘s Republic of China. Environ Earth Sci.60:1731–1738. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0310-3. Liu, C.W., Lin, K.H. and Kuo, Y.M. (2003): Application of factor analysis in the assessment of groundwater quality in a Blackfoot disease area in Taiwan. Sci. of the Total Environ., 313: 77–89. Liu, W., Zhau, J., Ouyang, Z., Soderlund, L., and Liu, G. (2005): Impacts of sewage irrigation on heavy metal distribution and contamination in Beijing, China. Environmental International, 31(6): 805–812. Lixin Li, P.R. (2004): Interpolation methods for spatio-temporal geographic data. Computers, Environments and Urban Systems, 28: 210-227. Lloyd, J. W., Lerner, D. N., Rivett, M. O., and Ford, M. (1988): Quantity and quality of ground water beneath an industrial conurbation in Birmingham, UK. Proc. Symp. Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas, Duisberg, FRG, April 24–28. pp. 445–452. Lóaiciga, H. A., and Leipnik, R. B. (2001): Theory of sustainable groundwater management: an urban case study. Urban Water, 3(3): 217–228. Loehnert, P. (1998): Urban ground water database, Muenster, North-Rhine– Westfalia.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/muenster.htm. Loizidou, M. and Kapetanios, E.G. (1993): Effect of leachate from landfills on underground quality. Sci. Total. Environ., 128:69–81. DOI: 10.1016/00489697(93)90180E. Lok,
K.
(1999):
Urban
ground
water
database,
Lima,
Costa,
Peru.
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/lima.html.
[281]
REFERENCES Long, D. T., and Saleem, Z. A. (1974): Hydrogeochemistry of carbonate groundwaters of an urban area. Water Resources Research, 10: 1229–1238. Longstaff, S. L., Aldous, P. J., Clark, L., Flavin, R. J., and Partington, J. (1992): Contamination of the chalk aquifer by chlorinated solvents: A case study of the Lutan and Dunstable area. J. of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 6:541–550. Love, A.J., Herczeg, A.L., Leaney, F.W., Stadler, M.F., Dighton, J.C. and Armstrong, D. (1994): Groundwater residence time and paleohydrology in the Otway basin, South Australia: 2H, 18O and 14C data. J. Hydrol., 153:157–187. Maas, E.V. and Hoffman, G. J. (1977): Crop Salt Tolerance - Current Assessment. J. Irrig.And Drainage Div. ASCE 103(IR2): 115-134. Mackenzie, F.J. and Garrells, R.H. (1965): Silicates: reactivity with water. Sci. J., 1505:57–58. Madhavan, N and Subramani V. (2002): Environmetal impact assessment, remediation and evolution of fluoride and arsenic contamination process in groundwater
in
contamination,
―Groundwater
restoration,
resource
modeling
and
evaluation,
augmentation,
management‖
edited
by
M.Thangarajan. pp 132; Published by Springer. Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and Subba Rao, N. (1995): Hydrogeoenvironment of Industrial Pollution Zones in Visakhapatnam Area, India. J. of Environmental Hydrol., 3(2): 1-5. Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and Subba Rao, N. (1998): Impact of Urbanization on the Groundwater in a Part of Visakhapatnam. Environment and Ecology, 16(4): 757-759. Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and Subba Rao, N. (2001): Effects of Industrial Effluents on the Groundwater Regime in Visakhapatnam. Pollution Research, 20(3): 383-386. Madhusudhana
Reddy,
P.,
Subba
Rao,
N.
and
Reddy,
B.R.G.
(1991).
Hydrogeochemical Studies in Seethammadhara of the Visakhapatnam Urban Area. Indian J. of Environmental Protection., 11(8): 601-604. [282]
REFERENCES Madhusudhana Reddy, P., Subba Rao, N. and Reddy, B.R.G. (1994): Lead and Cadmium in the Groundwaters of Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of the Geological Society of India., 43(4): 471-474. Mahlknecht, J., Steinich, B. and Navarro de, L.L. (2004): Groundwater chemistry and mass transfers in the Independence aquifer, central Mexico by using multivariate statistics and mass balance models. Environ. Geol., 45:781–795. Maier, R.M., Pepper, I.L. and Gerba, C.P. (2000): Environmental Microbiology. Academic Press, San Diego, USA. Majagi, S., Vijaykumar, K., Rajshekhar, M. and Vasanthkumar, B. (2008): Chemistry of groundwater in Gulbarga district, Karnataka, India, Environ. Monit. Assess., 136:347–354.DOI 10.1007/s10661-007-9690-6. Majumdar, D. and Gupta, N. (2000): Nitrate pollution of groundwater and associated human health disorders. Indian J. Environ. Health., 42(1): 28–39. Mandal, P., Upadhyay, R. and Hasan, A. (2010): Seasonal and spatial variation of Yamuna River water quality in Delhi, India. Environ.Monit.Assess., 170: 661–670. Manish, K., Kalpana, K., Ramanathan, A. L. and Rajinder, S. (2007): A comparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated Districts of Punjab, India. Environ. Geol., 53: 553– 574. Manjusree, T. M., Josephy, S. and Thomas, J. (2009): Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality in the coastal sandy clay aquifers of Alappuzha District, Kerala. J. of the Geological Society of India., 74: 459–468. Mapani, B.S. (2005): Groundwater and urbanization, risk and mitigation: the case for the city of Windhoek, Namibia. Phys. Chem. Earth., 30:706–711. Marengo, E., Gennaro, M.C., Robotti, E., Maiocchi, A., Pavese, G., Indaco, A. and Rainero, A. (2008): Statistical analysis of ground water distribution in Alessandria
Province
(Piedmont—Italy).
Microc.J.,
88:
167–177.
DOI:10.1016/j.microc.2007.11.011.
[283]
REFERENCES Marsh, T. D., and Davies, P. A. (1983): The decline and partial recovery of ground water levels below London. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, 74: 263–276. Martinez, D. E., Bocanegra, E. M., Massone, H. E., and Cionchi, J. L. (1993): Groundwater impact of an urban solid waste disposal area in Mar del Plata, Argentina. In Nath and L. Candela (Eds.), 2nd International Conference on Environmental Pollution, Proceedings, Sitges, Spain, v. 1, pp. 232– 239. Martínez, D.E. and Bocanegra, E.M. (2002): Hydrogeochemistry and cation-exchange processes in the coastal aquifer of Mar Del Plata, Argentina. Hydrogeol. J., 10:393–408. Martini, E., Pialli, G., and Sabatini, P. (1980): Bacterial contamination beneath Orvietto, Italy. In R. E. Jackson (Ed.), Aquifer Contamination and Protection, UNESCO Studies and Reports in Hydrology., 30: 346–349. Marton, J., and Mohler, I. (1988): The influence of urbanization on the quality of ground water. Symposium on Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas, Duisberg, Germany, pp. 453–468, April. Matter, J. M., Waber, H. N., Loew, S. and Matter, A. (2006): Recharge areas and geochemical evolution of groundwater in an alluvial aquifer system in the Sultanate of Oman. J. Hydrol., 14: 203–224. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-004-04252. Matthess, G. (1982): The properties of groundwater. (1st Ed.). Wiley, New York, p 498. Matthess, G. and Pekdeger, A. (1981): Concept of a survival and transport model of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in groundwater. Sci. Total Environ., 21: 149159. Matthess, G., Foster, S.S.D. and Skinner (1985): Theoretical Background, Hydrogeology and Practice of Groundwater Protection Zones. Heise, I.A.H., 6, Hannover, The Netherlands. McArthur, J.M., Banerjee, D.M., Hudson-Edwards, K.A., Mishra, R., Purohit, R., Ravenscroft, P., Cronin, A., Howarth, R.J., Chatterjee, A., Talukder, T., [284]
REFERENCES Lowry, D., Houghton, S. and Chadha, D.K. (2004): Natural organic matter in sedimentary basins and its relation to arsenic in anoxic ground water: the example of West Bengal and its worldwide implications. Appl. Geochem., 19:1255–1293. McArthur, J.M., Ravenscroft, P., Safiullah, S. and Thirlwall, M.F. (2001): Arsenic in groundwater: testing pollution mechanisms for sedimentary aquifers in Bangladesh. Water Res. Res., 37:109–117. Mcfarlane, D. J. (1984): The effect of urbanization on groundwater quality and quantity in Perth, Western Australia, Ph.D. dissertation, 433 p. McNeal, B.L., Layfield, W.A. and Rhoades, J.D. (1968): Factors influencing hydraulic conductivity of soils in the presence of mixedsalt solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 32: 187-190. Mehta, B. C., Das, S., and Srivastava, S. K. (1994): Environmental hazards of high iron in groundwater of Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. Regional Workshop on Environmental Aspects of Groundwater Development, October, Kurukshetra, India. Mendizabal, I. and Stuyfzand, P.J. (2009): Guidelines for interpreting hydrochemical patterns in data from public supply well fields and their value for natural background
groundwater
quality
determination.
J.
Hydrol..,
DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.001. Mendoza, J.A., Dahlin, T. and Barmen, G. (2006): Hydrogeological and hydrochemical features of an area polluted by heavy metals in central Nicaragua. Hydrogeol. J., 14: 1052–1059. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-006-0098-0. Merkel, B., Grossman, J., and Uduluft, P. (1988): Effect of urbanization on a shallow Quaternary aquifer. Proc. Symp. Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas, Duisberg, Germany, April 1988. pp. 461–468. Merlivat, L. and Jouzel, J. (1979): Global climatic interpretation of the deuterium oxygen 18 relationship for precipitation. J. of Geophysical Research, 84:5029-5033.
[285]
REFERENCES Meybeck, M. (1979): Concentrations des eaux fluuiales en elements majeurs et opports en solution aux oceans. Rev. Geogr. Phys. Geol. Dyn., 21: 215- 246. Meybeck, M. and Helmer, R. (1989): The quality of rivers: from pristine stage to global pollution. Global. Planet. Change., 1: 283-309. Michael, A.M. (1978): Irrigation Theory and Practice. Vikas publishing House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, pp. 713. Mishra, P. C. and Patel, R. K. (2001): Study of the pollution load in the drinking water of Rairangpur, a small tribal dominated town of North Orissa. Ind. J. Environ. Ecoplann., 5(2): 293–298. Moench, M. (1996): Groundwater Policy: Issues and Alternatives in India, International Irrigation Management Institute, IIMI Country Paper, India, No. 2, Colombo, pp. 61. Möller, P., Rosenthal, E., Geyer, S., Guttman, J., Dulski, P. and Rybakov, M., (2007): Hydrochemical processes in the lower Jordan valley and in the Dead Sea area. Chemical Geol., 239: 27–49. DOI:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.12.004. Morrill,
P.
(1998):
Urban
ground
water
database,
Tokyo,
Japan.
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/tokyo.html. MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) (1999): Phosphorus in Minnesota‘s Ground Water, pp 2. Mrklas, O., Bentley, L.R., Lunn S.R.D. and Chu, A. (2006): Principal component analyses of groundwater chemistry data during enhanced bioremediation. Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 169: 395–411. Mudgal, K. D., Kumari, M. and Sharma, D.K. (2009): Hydrochemical Analysis of Drinking Water Quality of Alwar District, Rajasthan. Nature and Sci., 7(2):30-39.
ISSN
1545-0740.
http://www.sciencepub.net,
[email protected]. Mukherjee, A. and Fryar, A.E. (2008): Deeper groundwater chemistry and geochemical modeling of the arsenic affected western Bengal basin, West Bengal, India. Appl. Geochem. 23(4): 863-892.
[286]
REFERENCES Mukherjee, A., Fryar, A.E., and Howell, P., 2007a. Regional hydrostratigraphy and groundwater flow modeling of the arsenic contaminated aquifers of the western Bengal basin, West Bengal, India. Hydrogeology J., 15, 1397-1418. Mukherjee, A., Fryar, A.E., and Rowe, H.D., 2007b. Regional scale stable isotopic signature and recharge of the deep water of the arsenic affected areas of West Bengal, India. J. Hydrol. 334(1-2), 151-161. Mukherjee, A., Von Brömssen, M, Scanlon, B.R., Bhattacharya, P., Fryar, A.E., Hasan, M.A., Ahmed, K.M., Jacks, G. Chatterjee, D. and Sracek, O. (2008):. Hydrogeochemical comparison and effects of overlapping redox zones on groundwater arsenic near the western (Bhagirathi sub-basin, India) and eastern (Meghna sub-basin, Bangladesh) of the Bengal basin. J. Cont. Hydro. 99(1-4): 31-48. Mukhopadhyay, B., Mukherjee, P.K., Bhattacharya, D. and Sengupta, S. (2006): Delineation of arsenic-contaminated zones in Bengal Delta, India: a geographic information system and fractal approach. Environ. Geol., 49: 1009–1020.DOI:10.1007/s00254-005-0139-3. Murad, A.A. and Mirghni, F.M. (2011): Isotopic variations of oxygen and hydrogen in groundwater of carbonate aquifer in an arid environment Arab J Geosci., DOI: 10.1007/s12517-011-0325-4. Nagamalleswara Rao, Deva Varma, D., Satyanarayana, G., Durga Prasada Rao, A., Vasudev, K. and Subba Rao, N. (2003): Suitability of Coastal Magnetite for Ferrite Preparation. Current Sci., 84 (7): 936-941. Nagarajan, R., Rajmohan, N., Mahendran, U. and Senthamilkumar, S. (2010): Evaluation of groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Thanjavur city, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Monit. Assess.,DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1279-9. Nagaraju, A., Suresh, S., Killham, K. and Hudson Edwards, K. (2006): Hydrogeochemistry of waters of Mangmpeta barite mining area, Cuddapah basin, Andhra Pradesh, India. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 30: 203-219.
[287]
REFERENCES Naik, P. K., Awasthi, A. K., Anand, A. V. S. S. and Behera, P. N. (2009): Hydrogeochemistry of the Koyna River basin, India. Environmental Earth Sci., 59: 613–629. Naik, P.K., Tambe, J.A., Dehury, B.N. and Tiwari, A.N. (2008): Impact of urbanization on the groundwater regime in a fast growing city in central India Environ. Monit. Assess., 146:339–373. Naik, S. and Purohit, K.M. (2001): Studies on water quality of river Brahmani in Sundargarh district, Orissa. Indian. J. Environ. Ecoplan., 5(2): 397–402. Nair, G.A., Abadalla, I.M., Fadiel, M., Maftah, Al-Mariami A., Jalal, B.A. and Premkumar,
K.
(2005):
Physiochemical
parameters
and
correlation
coefficients of ground waters of north-east Libya. Poll. Res., 24(1): 1-6. Nanni, A., Roisenberg, A., Marimon, M.P.C. and Viero, A.P. (2009):
The
hydrochemical facies and anomalous fluoride content in the Serra Geral aquifer system, southern Brazil: a GIS approach with tectonic and principal component analysis. Environ. Geol., 58:1247–1255. DOI: 10.1007/s00254008-1624-2. NATMO: District resource maps. Nazari, M. M., Burston, M. W., Bishop, P. K., and Lerner, D. N. (1993): Urban ground-water pollution: A case study from Coventry, United Kingdom. Ground Water, 31(3): 417–424. Ne´grel, P., Petelet-Giraud, E., Barbier, J. and Gautier, E. (2003): Surface water– groundwater interactions in an alluvial plain: chemical and isotopic systematics. J. Hydrol., 277:248–267. Nelson, S., Kalifa, S., Baumann, F. (1981): Purgeable organics in four groundwater basins, Water Forum 81. American Society for Civil Engineers, pp. 411–418. Nemeth, G. B., and Uduluft, P. (1982): The effect of urban development and storm sewer drainage on ground water quality and ground water recharge. In R. E. Fratterstone and A. James (Eds.), Urban drainage systems, Pitman, pp. 3.103– 3.115.
[288]
REFERENCES Nguyet, V.T.M. and
Goldscheider, N. (2006): Tracer tests, hydrochemical and
microbiological investigations as a basis for groundwater protection in a remote tropical mountainous karst area, Vietnam. Hydrogeol. J., 14: 1147– 1159. Nickson, R.T., McArthur, J.M., Ravenscroft, P., Burges, W.G. and Ahmed, K.M. (2000): Mechanism of arsenic release to groundwater, Bangladesh and West Bengal. Appl. Geochem., 15:403–413. Niranjan Babu, P., Subba Rao, N., Chandra Rao, P. and Prakesa Rao, J. (1997): Ground water quality and its importance in the land developmental programmes. Indian. J. Geol., 69(4): 305–312. Nosrati, K. and Eeckhaut, M.V.D. (2012): Assessment of groundwater quality using multivariate statistical techniques in Hashtgerd Plain, Iran. Environ. Earth. Sci., 65:331–344. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1092-y. O‘Connor, M.F. (1972): The application of multi attributive scaling procedures of indices of value. Ann Arbor: Engineering Psychology Laboratory of the University of Michigan. O‘Shea (1993): Discussion on rising groundwater levels. In W. B. Wilkinson (Ed.), Groundwater problems in urban areas (pp. 363–364). London: Thomas Telford. Olania, M. S. and Saxena, K. L. (1977): Groundwater pollution by open refuse dumps at Jaipur. J. of Environmental Health (India)., 19: 176–188. Olobaniyi, S.B. and Owoyemi, F.B. (2006):Characterization by factor analysis of the chemical facies of groundwater in the deltaic plain sands aquifer of Warri, western Niger delta, Nigeria.)African J. Sci. Technol., (AJST) 7(1):73-81. Onorati, G., Di Meo, T., Bussettini, M., Fabiani, C., Farrace, M.G., Fava, A., Ferronato, A., Mion, F., Marchetti, G., Martinelli, A. and Mazzoni, M., (2006): Groundwater quality monitoring in Italy for the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Phys. and Chem. of the Earth., 31: 1004– 1014.
[289]
REFERENCES Ophori, D.U. and Toth, J. (1989): Patterns of groundwater chemistry, Ross Creek basin, Alberta, Canada. Ground Water., 27: 20–26. Oren, O., Yechieli, Y., Bo¨hlke, J.K. and Dody, A. (2004): Contamination of groundwater under cultivated fields in an arid environment, central Arava Valley, Israel. J. Hydrol., 290:312–328. Otto, C. J., Bates, L., and Barber, C. (1995): Effects of urbanization on Perth‘s (Western Australia) groundwater resources and quality. In Groundwater management and strategies using GIS and modeling, 26th International Association of Hydrogeologists Congress, Edmonton, 1995. Ozeler, D. U., and Yetis, G. N. (2005): Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environmental International, 32(3): 405–411. Pacheco, J.A. and Cabrera, A.S. (1997): Groundwater contamination by nitrates in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Hydrogeol. J., 5(2): 47–53. Pal, T. and Mukherjee, K.P. (2009): Study of subsurface geology in locating arsenicfree groundwater in Bengal delta, West Bengal, India, Environ. Geol., 56:1211–1225.DOI: 10.1007/s00254-008-1221-4. Pal, T., Mukherjee, P.K. and Sengupta, S. (2002a): Nature of arsenic pollutants in groundwater of Bengal basin—a case study from Baruipur area, West Bengal, India. Curr. Sci., 82:554–561. Pal, T., Mukherjee, P.K., Sengupta, S., Bhattacharya, A.K. and Shome, S. (2002b): Arsenic pollution in groundwater of West Bengal, India—an insight into the problem by subsurface sediment analysis. Gond. Res., 5:501–512. Paliwal, K.V. (1972): Irrigation with saline water. I. A. R. I. Monograph No.2 (New Series), New Delhi, 198. Pandian, K. and Sankar, K. (2007): Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality in the Vaippar River Basin, Tamil Nadu. J. of the Geological Society of India., 69: 970–982.
[290]
REFERENCES Pandit, M. K., and Bhardwaj, V. (2006): Urbanization impact on hydrogeological regime in Jaipur urban block: A rapidly growing urban center in NW India. The Environmentalist Journal, 26(3): 165–173. Parinet, B., Lhote, A. and Legube, B. (2004): Principal component analysis: an appropriate tool for water quality evaluation and management—application to a tropical lake system. Ecologi. Modelling., 178: 295–311. Parkhurst, D. L. and Appelo, C. A. J. (1999): User‘s guide to PHREEQC (ver. 2)—A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. USGeol. Surv.Water-Resources Invest. Rept, 99–4259. Pathak, H. and Limaye, S. N. (2012): Assessment of Physico-Chemical Quality of Groundwater in rural area nearby Sagar city, MP, India. Advances in Applied Science Research., 3(1):555-562.ISSN:0976-8610. Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., Ghanbari, Y. and Aghavali, N. (2012): Groundwater geochemistry in the Meshkinshahr basin of Ardabil province in Iran. Environ Earth Sci., 65:871–879. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1131-8. Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., Ghanbari, Y. and Aghavali, N. (2012): Groundwater geochemistry in the Meshkinshahr basin of Ardabil province in Iran. Environ. Earth Sci., 65:871–879.DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1131-8. Petrou, M. (1999): Urban ground water database, San Antonio, Texas, USA. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/san-antonio.html. Pierre, D., Glynn, L. and Plummer, N. (2005): Geochemistry and the understanding of ground-water systems. Hydrogeol. J., 13: 263–287. Piper, A.M. (1953): A graphic procedure I the geo-chemical interpretation of water analysis. USGS Groundwater. Piskin, R. (1973): Evaluation of nitrate content of groundwater in Hall County, Nebraska. Ground Water, 11: 4–13. Pitt, R., Robertson, B., Barron, P., Ayyoubi, A. and Clark, S. (1999): Stormwater Treatment at Critical Areas: The Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT).
[291]
REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wet Weather Flow Management Program, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R99/017. Cincinnati, Ohio. 505 pgs. March. Plummer, L.N., Bexfield, L.M., Anderholm, S.K., Sanford, W.E. and Busenberg, E. (2004): Hydrochemical tracers in the middle Rio Grande Basin, USA: 1. Conceptualization of groundwater flow. Hydrogeol. J., 12: 359–388. Pokarajac, D. (1999): Interaction of wastewater and groundwater management in the city of Bijeljina, Bosnia. Urban Water, 1: 243–255. Pradhan, S., Chadrasekharan, H., Jain, N. and Yadav, B.R. (2011): Characterization of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation in ‗Gohana‘ Block of Sonepat District, Haryana. J. of Agricultural Physics., 11: 63-70. ISSN 0973-032X. http://www.agrophysics.in. Prasad, R. K., Singh, V. S., Krishnamacharyulu, S. K. G. and Banerjee, P. (2011): Application of drastic model and GIS: for assessing vulnerability in hard rock granitic aquifer. Environ. Monit. Assess., 176: 143–155. Prasanna, M. V., Chidambaram, S., Senthil Kumar, G., Ramanathan, AL. and Nainwal H. C. (2011): Hydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater in Neyveli Basin, Cuddalore District, South India. Arab J. Geosci., 4:319– 330.DOI:10.1007/s12517-010-0191-5. Prasanna, M. V., Chidambaram, S., Shahul Hameed, A. and Srinivasamoorthy, K. (2010): Study of evaluation of groundwater in Gadilam basin using hydrogeochemical and isotope data. Environ. Monit. Assess., 168: 63–90. Prasanna, M.V., Chidambaram, S., Gireesh, T.V., Jabir Ali, T.V. (2011): A study on hydrochemical characteristics of surface and subsurface water in and around Perumal Lake, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, South India. Environ. Earth Sci., 64(5):1419–1431. Prati, L., Pavanello, R. and Pesarin, F. (1971): Assessment of surface water quality by a single index of pollution. Water. Resources., 5: 741–751. Pujari, P. R., Padmakar, C., Pawan, K., Labhasetwar, P. M. and Ganguly, A. K. (2011): Assessment of the impact of onsite sanitation systems on groundwater [292]
REFERENCES pollution in two diverse geological settings—a case study from India. Environ. Monit. Assess.,DOI:10.1007/s10661-011-1965-2. Pulle, J.S., Khan, A.M., Ambore, N.E., Kadam, D.D. and Pawar, S.K. (2005): Assessment of ground water quality of Nanded City. Pollut. Res., 24(3): 657– 660. Quirk, J.P. and Schofield, R.K. (1955): The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil permeability. J. Soil Sci., 6: 163-178. Raghunath, H.M. (1987): Groundwater. 2nd Edn., Wiley Eastern Limited. New Delhi, India, pp. 344-369. Rahman, M.M., Sengupta, M., Ahamed, S., Chaudhury, U. and Hassain, A. (2005): The magnitude of arsenic contamination in groundwater and its health effects to the inhabitants of the regions of Visakhapatnam Industrial Complex. Indian. J. Geol., 65(1): 35–43. Rajankar, P.N., Gulhane, S.R., Tambekar, D.H., Ramteke D.S. and Wate, S.R. (2009): Water quality assessment of groundwater resources in Nagpur region (India) based on WQI. E-J. Of Chem., 6(3): 905-908. Rajmohan,
N.
and
Elango,
L.
(2004):
Identification
and
evolution
of
hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment in an area of the Palar and Cheyyar River Basins, Southern India. Environ, Geol., 46:47–61. Rajmohan, N. and Elango, L. (2005): Nutrient chemistry of groundwater in an intensively irrigated region of southern India, Environ. Geol., 47: 820–830. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-004-1212-z. Rajmohan, N., Al-Futaisi, A., Al-Touqi, S. (2009): Geochemical process regulating groundwater quality in a coastal region with complex contamination sources: Barka, Sultanate of Oman. Environmental Earth Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665009-0037-1. Rajmohan, N., Elango, L. and Elampooranan, T. (1997): Groundwater quality in Nagai Quaid-E-Milleth District and Karaikal, South India. Ind. Water Resour. Soci., 17(3–4): 25–30.
[293]
REFERENCES Raju, N. J. (2007): Hydrogeochemical parameters for assessment of groundwater quality in the upper Gunjanaeru River Basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Environ. Geol., 52: 1067–1074. Raju, N. J. (2009): Groundwater quality in the lower Varuna River Basin, Varanasi District, Uttar Pradesh. J. of the Geological Society of India., 73: 78–192. Raju, N. J., and Reddy, T. V. K. (2007): Environmental and urbanization affect on groundwater resources in a pilgrim town of Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Journal of Applied Geochemistry, 9(2): 212–223. Raju, N. J., Shukla, U. K., and Ram, P. (2011): Hydrogeochemistry for the assessment of groundwater quality in Varanasi: a fast urbanizing centre in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 173: 279–300. Raju, N.J. (2006): Seasonal evaluation of hydrogeochemical parameters using correlation and regression analysis. Curr. Sci., 91(6): 820–826. Raju, N.J., Ram P. and Dey, S. (2009): Groundwater Quality in the Lower Varuna River Basin, Varanasi District, Uttar Pradesh, J. Geologi. Soci. India., 73: 178-192. Ramachandramoorthy, T., Sivasankar, V. and Subramanian, V. (2009): A seasonal quality assessment on potability of fresh shallow aquifers along the Rameswaram–Dhanushkodi coastal tract, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 159: 511–520. Ramakrishnaiah, C.R., Sadashivaiah, C. and Ranganna, G. (2009): Assessment of Water Quality Index for the Groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India. E-J. of Chem., 6(2): 523-530. Ramamohana Rao, N. V., Suryaprakasa Rao, K. and Schuiling, R. D. (1993) Fluorine distribution in waters of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol. 21: 84–89. Ramesam, V. (1982): Geochemistry of groundwater from a typical hard rock terrain. J. Geol. Soc. India., 23:201–204.
[294]
REFERENCES Ramesam, V. and Rajagopalan, K. (1985): Fluoride ingestion into the natural waters of hard-rock areas, Peninsular India. J. Geol. Soc. Of India., 26: 125-132. Ramkhalawan, V. (1999): Urban ground water database, Port-of- Spain, TrinidadandTobago.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/port ofspain.html. Ramkumar, T., Venkataramanan, S., Anitha Mary, I., Tamilselvi, M., and Ramesh, G. (2010): Hydrogeochemical quality of groundwater in Vedaraniyam Town, Tamil Nadu, India. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci., 2:44-48. Ramkumar, T., Venkatramanan, S., Anithamary, I. and Ibrahim, S.M.S. (2011): Evaluation of hydrogeochemical parameters and quality assessment of the groundwater in Kottur blocks, Tiruvarur district, Tamilnadu, India. Arab. J. Geosci., DOI: 10.1007/s12517-011-0327-2. Rani, N., Sinha, R. K., Prasad, K. and Kedia, D. K. (2011): Assessment of temporal variation in water quality of some important rivers in middle Gangetic plains, India. Environ.Monit.Assess., 174: 401–415. Rao Yammani, S., Reddy, T.V.K. and Reddy, M.R.K. (2008):
Identification of
influencing factors for groundwater quality variation using multivariate analysis. Environ. Geol., 55:9–16.DOI 10.1007/s00254-007-0958-5. Rao, G. V. V. S., and Thangarajan, M. (1996): Urban ground water database, Madras,India.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/madras.ht ml. Rao, N.S. (2007): Distribution of iron in the surface and groundwaters of East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 52:1455–1465.DOI: 10.1007/s00254-006-0584-7. Rashid, U. and Izrar, A. (2007): Hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in parts of Kushva-Yamuna basin, Muzaffarnagar district, UP. J. of the Geological Society of India, 69: 970–982. Ravenscroft, P., Burges, W.G., Ahmed, K.M., Burren, M. and Perrin, J. (2005): Arsenic in groundwater of the Bengal basin, Bangladesh: distribution, field relations and hydrogeological setting. Hydrogeol. J., 13:727–751. [295]
REFERENCES Ravi Shankar, M.N. and Mohan, G. (2006): Assessment of the groundwater potential and quality in Bhatsa and Kalu river basins of Thane district, western Deccan Volcanic
Province
of
India.
Environ.
Geol.,
49:990–998.DOI:
10.1007/s00254-005-0137-5. Ravikumar, P., Somashekar, R.K. and Angami, M. (2010): Hydrochemistry and evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in the Markandeya River basin, Belgaum District, Karnataka State, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1399-2. Ravikumar, P., Venkatesharaju, K., and Somashekar, R. K. (2010): Major ion chemistry and hydrochemical studies of groundwater of Bangalore South Taluk, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 163: 643–653. Raviprakash, S., Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1989): Fluoride in Groundwaters of Paravada Area near Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Hydrology J., XII (3): 108-115. Ray, A. and Shekhar, S. (2009): Ground water issues and development strategies in west bengal. Bhu Jal News., 24(1): 1-17. Razack, M., Drogue, C., and Baitelem, M. (1988): Impact of an urban area in the hydrochemistry of a shallow groundwater (alluvial reservoir), Town of Narbonne, France. Symposium on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April 1988, pp. 487–494. Reddy, A. G. S., Niranjan Kumar, K., and Venkat Rao, D. (2008): Seasonal and temporal variations in groundwater quality of north eastern parts of Anantapur District, AP. J. of Applied Geochem., 10: 103–112. Reddy,
A.G.S.
and
Niranjan
Kumar,
K.
(2010):
Identification
of
the
hydrogeochemical processes in groundwater using major ion chemistry: a case study of Penna–Chitravathi river basins in Southern India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 170: 365–382.DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1239-4. Reddy, N. B. Y. and Prasad, K. S. S. (2005): Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater in and around Tadpatri area, Anantapur District, AP. J. of Indian Association of Environmental Management., 32: 66–73. [296]
REFERENCES Reeder, S.W., Hitchon, B. and Levinson, A.A. (1972): Hydrogeochemistry of the surface waters of the Mackenzie river drainage basin, Canada. Factors controlling inorganic composition. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 36(8): 826865. Richards, L.A. (1954): Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Agricultural Hand book 60, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and IBH Publishing Co.Ltd.New Delhi, India, pp. 98-99. Washington DC. Rismianto, D., and Mak, W. (1994): Groundwater problems in Jakarta and their implications for piped water supply. Symposium Air Jakarta 1994, Pusat Pengkajian Perkotaan Universitas Tarumanegara, Jakarta (Indonesia). Ritter, W. F., and Chirnside, A. E. M. (1984): Impact of land use on groundwater quality in Southern Delaware. Ground Water, 22: 38–47. Rivers, C. N., Barrett, M. H., Hiscock, K. M., Dennis, P. F., Feast, N. A., and Lerner, D. N. (1996): Use of nitrogen isotopes to identify nitrogen contamination of the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer beneath the City of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Hydrogeol. J., 4(1): 90–102. Rivett, M. O., Lerner, D. N., and Lloyd, J. W. (1990a): Organic contamination of the Birmingham aquifer. J. of Hydrol., 113: 307–323. Rivett, M. O., Lerner, D. N., Lloyd, J. W., and Clark, L. (1990b): Chlorinated solvents in UK aquifers. J. of the Institution of Water and Environmental Management., 4: 242–250. Rojas, R., Howard, G., and Bastram, J. (1994): Groundwater quality and water supply in Lima, Peru. Groundwater quality (pp. 159–167). London, UK: Chapman and Hall. Saeedi, M., Abessi, O., Sharifi, F. and Meraji, H., (2010): Development of groundwater quality index. Environ. Monit. Assess., 163: 327–335. Sahgal, U. K., Sahgal, R. K. and Kaker, Y. P. (1989): Nitrate pollution of ground water in Lucknow area, U.P. In International workshop on appropriate methodologies for development and management of ground water resources in
[297]
REFERENCES developing countries (pp. 871–892). Hyderabad, India: National Geophysical Research Institute (February). Sahu, P., and Sikdar, P. K. (2008): Hydrochemical framework of the aquifer in and around East Kolkata Wetlands, West Bengal, India. Environ. Geol., 55: 823– 835. Saleh, A., Al-Ruwaih, F. and Shehata, M. (1999): Hydrogeochemical processes operating within the main aquifers of Kuwait. J. Arid. Environ., 42:195–209. Samantray, P., Mishra, B.K., Panda, C.R. and Rout, S.P. (2009): Assessment of Water Quality Index in Mahanadi and Atharabanki Rivers and Taldanda Canal in Paradip Area, Indian. J. Hum. Ecol., 26(3): 153-161. Sánchez-Pérez, J.M. and Trémolières, M. (2003): Change in groundwater chemistry as a consequence of suppression of floods: the case of the Rhine floodplain. J. Hydrol., 270: 89–104. Sankararamakrishnan, N., Sharma, A.K. and Iyengar, L. (2008): Contamination of nitrate and fluoride in ground water along the Ganges Alluvial Plain of Kanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 146:375–382.DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-0085-5. Sarkar, B.C., Mahanta, B.N., Saikia, K., Paul, P.R. and Singh, G. (2007): Geoenvironmental quality assessment in Jharia coalfield, India, using multivariate statistics and geographic information system. Environ. Geol., 51: 1177–1196. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-006-0409-8. Sarma, D.R.R., and Rao, S.L.N. (1997): Fluoride concentration in ground waters of Vishakhapatnam. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 58: 241-247. Sathi Babu, Y., Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (2001): Hydrochemical Studies of Coastal Aquifers in Parts of East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Groundwater Resources, Evaluation & Management, 213-224. Saxena, R.K. and Dressie, Z. (1984): Estimation of groundwater recharge and moisture movement in sandy formation by tracing natural Oxygen-18 and
[298]
REFERENCES injected tritium profiles in unsaturated zone. Iso. Hydrol., 1983. IAEA, Vienna, Proc Symp 1983, pp.139–150. Saxena, V. K. (2004): Geothermal resources of India (pp. 48–70). Allied. Schoeller, H. (1967): Geochemistry of groundwater—an international guide for research and practice (Chap. 15, pp. 1–18). UNESCO. Schoeller, H: (1965): Qualitative evaluation of groundwater resources. In Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigations and Development [C]. Pp.54– 83. UNESCO. Schu¨rch, M. and Vuataz, F.D. (2000): Groundwater components in the alluvial aquifer of the alpine Rhone River valley, Bois de Finges area, Wallis Canton, Switzerland. Hydrogeol. J., 8: 549–563. Schuh, W.M., Klinekebiel, D.L., Gardner, J.C. and Meyar, R.F. (1997): Tracer and nitrate movements to groundwater in the Norruem Great Plains. J. Environ. Qual., 26:1335–1347. Scottish Development Department (1975):
Towards cleaner water. Edinburgh:
HMSO, Report of a River Pollution Survey of Scotland. Sengupta, S., Mukherjee, P.K., Pal, T. and Shome, S. (2004): Nature and origin of arsenic carriers in shallow aquifer sediments of Bengal Delta, India. Environ. Geol., 45:1071–1081. Shaban, A., Khawlie, M. and Abdallah, C. (2005): Use of remote sensing and GIS to determine recharge potential zones the case of Occidental Lebanon. J. Hydrogeol., 12:94–102. Shaefer, D.J. and Janardan, K.G. (1977): Communicating environmental information to the public a new water quality index. The J. Environ. Edu., 8: 18–26. Shah, M.C., Shilpkar, P.G. and Acharya, P.B. (2008): Ground Water Quality of Gandhinagar Taluka, Gujarat, India. E-J. Of Chem., 5(3): 435-446. Shahid, M., Singh, A.P., Bhandari, D.K. and Ahmad, I. (2008). Groundwater quality appraisal and categorization in Julana Block of Jind District, Haryana. J. of the Indian society of soil sci., 56(1): 123-125. [299]
REFERENCES Shahid, S., Nath, S.K. and Patra, H.P. (2000):
Ground water assessment and
management within typical laterites around Salboni, District Midnapur (WB). J. Indian. Water Works., 32 (2):101–106. Shahin, M. M. A. (1988): Impacts of urbanization of the greater Cairo area on the ground water in the underlying aquifer. Proc. symp. hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April, pp. 517– 524. Shahnawaz, Md. and
Singh, K.M. (2009):
Ground Water Quality of Piro and
Jagdishpur Blocks of Bhojpur District: A Middle Gangatic Plain. Int. J. of Pharmaceu. Quali. Assur., 1(1): 9-12. Shaji, E., Viju, B.J. and Thambi, D.S. (2007): High fluoride in groundwater of Palghat District, Kerala. Curr. Sci., 92(2):240 –246. Shankar, K., Aravindan, S. and Rajendran, S. (2011): Hydrogeochemistry of the Paravanar River Sub-Basin, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India. E-Journal of Chemistry, 8: 835–845. Sharma, M. L., Herne, D. E., Byrne, J. D., and Kin, P. G. (1996): Nutrient Discharge beneath urban lawns to a sandy coastal aquifer, Perth, Western Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 4 (1): 103–117. Sharma, P., Sarma, H.P. and Mahanta, C. (2012): Evaluation of groundwater quality with emphasis on fluoride concentration in Nalbari district, Assam, Northeast India. Environ. Earth. Sci., 65:2147–2159.DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1195-5. Sharma, V. P. (1988). Groundwater and surface water quality in and around Bhopal city in India. Proc. symp. Hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April 1988, pp. 525–532. Shepard, D. (1968): A two dimensional interpolation function for irregular spaced data. Proc. 23rd National conference ACM pp 517-524 ACM. Shivanna, K., Sharma, S., Sinha, U.K., Nair, A.R., Navada, S.V., Ray, A., Talukdar, T., Mehta, B.C. and Ghosh, A.K. (1999): Arsenic pollution in ground water of West Bengal. Proc. Workshop on Groundwater Pollution and Its Protection with Special Reference to Arsenic Contamination. CGWB, Calcutta. [300]
REFERENCES Sikdar, P.K., Sarkar, S.S. and Palchoudhury, S. (2001): Geochemical evolution of groundwater in the quaternary aquifer of Calcutta andHowrah, India. J. Asian Earth Sci., 19: 579–594. DOI: 10.1016/S1367-9120(00)00056-0. Simsek, C. and Gunduz, O. (2007): IWQ Index: A GIS-Integrated Technique to Assess Irrigation Water Quality. Environ. Monit. Assess., 128:277–300. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-9312-8. Simsek, C., Elci, A., Gunduz, O. and Erdogan, B. (2008): Hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical characterization of a karstic mountain region. Environ. Geol., 54:291–308. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0817-4. Sindhu S.K. and Sharma A. (2007): Study on Some Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Ground Water of District Rampur- A Statistical Approach. E-J. Of Chem., 4(2): 162-165. Singh K., Hundal, H. S. and Singh, D. (2011): Geochemistry and assessment of hydrogeochemical processes in groundwater in the southern part of Bathinda district of Punjab, northwest India Environ Earth Sci., 64:1823–1833. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-0989-9. Singh, A.K., Mondal, G.C., Kumar, S., Singh, T.B., Tewary, B.K. and Sinha, A. (2008): Major ion chemistry, weathering processes and water quality assessment in upper catchment of Damodar River basin, India. Environ. Geol., 54:745–758. Singh, A.K., Mondal, G.C., Singh, T.B., Singh, S., Tewary, B.K. and Sinha, A. (2012): Hydrogeochemical processes and quality assessment of groundwater in Dumka and Jamtara districts, Jharkhand, India. Environ. Earth. Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-012-1658-3. Singh, H. (1983): Crop production in India. Agri. Situa. in Ind., 38: 635–639. Singh, K. P., Malik, A., Singh, V. K., Mohan, D. and Sinha, S. (2005): Chemometric analysis of groundwater data of alluvial aquifer of Gangetic plain, North India. Anal. Chim. Acta., 550: 82–91.
[301]
REFERENCES Singh, K.P. and Parwana, H.K. (1999): Ground water pollution due to industrial waste water in Punjab state and strategies for its control. Indian journal of Environmental Protection, 19(4): 241-244. Singh, K.P., Malik, A. and Sinha, S. (2005): Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti River (India) using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study. Anal. Chim. Acta., 538:355–374. Singh, K.P., Malik, A., Mohan, D. and Sinha, S. (2004): Multivariate statistical techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality of Gomti River (India): a case study. Water Res., 38:3980–3992. Singh, O., Kumar, V., and Rai, S.P. (2005): Water quality aspects of some wells, springs and rivers in parts of Udhampur district (J&K). Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 47(1): 25-32. Singh, P. K., Amrita, M., Dinesh, M., Vinod, K. S. and Singh, S. (2006): Evaluation of groundwater quality in northern Indo-Gangetic alluvium region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 112: 211–230. Singh, R.P. (2004): Groundwater management strategies, Rohtas District, Bihar,India. Bull. Eng. Geol. Env., 63:247–253. Singh, U.K., Kumar, M., Chauhan, R., Jha, P.K., Ramanathan, A.L. and Subramanian, V. (2007): Assessment of the impact of landfill on groundwater quality: a case study of the Pirana site in western India. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-9897-6. Singhal, D. C., Rov, T. N., Josih, H., and Seth, A. K. (2003): Evaluation of groundwater pollution potential in Roorkee Town, Uttaranchal. J. of the Geological Society of India., 62: 465–477. Sinha, D.K. and Shrivastava, A.K. (1994): Water quality index for river Sai at Rae Bareli for the pre monsoon period and after the onset of monsoon, Ind. J. Env. Prot., 14(5): 340-345. Skordas, K., Papastergios, G., Tziantziou, L., Neofitou, N. and Neofitou, C.(2013): Groundwater hydrogeochemistry of Trikala municipality, central Greece. Environ. Monit. Assess.,185(1):81-94. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2535-y. [302]
REFERENCES Solomon, S. and Quiel, F. (2006): Groundwater study using remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) in the central highlands of Eritrea. Hydrogeol. J., 14: 729–741. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-005-0477-y. Soltan, M. E. (1998): Characterisation, classification, and evaluation of some groundwater samples in Upper Egypt. Chemosphere., 37:735–745. Sreedevi, P.D. (2004): Groundwater quality of Pageru river basin, Cuddepah district, Andhra Pradesh. J. Goel. Soc. India, 64(5): 619– 636. Srinivasa Rao, K.V., Subba Rao, N., Murali Krishna, B., Subrahmanyam, A., John Devadas, D. and Thirupathi Rao, B. (2007): Temporal Changes in Groundwater Quality in an Industrial Area of Andhra Pradesh, India. Current Sci., 93: 1616-1619. Srinivasamoorthy, K., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M.V., Vasanthavihar, M., Peter, J. and Anandhan, P. (2008):
Identification of major sources controlling
groundwater chemistry from a hard rock terrain – A case study from Mettur taluk, Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117 (1):49–58. Srinivasamoorthy,
K.,
Vasanthavigar,
M.
and
Chidambaram,
S.
(2011):
Characterisation of groundwater chemistry in an eastern coastal area of Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu. J. Geol. Soc. India., 78: 549-558. Srivastava, A., Tripathi, N.K. and Gokhale, G.K. (1997): Basement topography and aquifer geometry around Ken Garden, India. Int. J. Remote Sens., 20(11):2295–2305. Srivastava, P.K. and Bhattacharya, A.K. (2000): Delineation of groundwater potential zones in a hard rock terrain of Bargarh district, Orissa using IRS Data. Photonirvachak- J Indian Soc. Remote Sens., 28(2):129–140. Srivastava, S.K. and Ramanathan, A.L. (2008): Geochemical assessment of groundwater quality in vicinity of Bhalswa landfill, Delhi, India, using graphical and multivariate statistical methods. Environ. Geol., 53:1509–1528. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-0762-2.
[303]
REFERENCES Stallard, R.F. and Edmond, J.M. (1983): Geochemistry of the Amazon, the influence of geology and weathering environment on the dissolved load. J. of Geophysical Res., 88: 9671–9688. DOI: 10.1029/ JC088iC14p09671. Stanley, G. R. (1999): Urban ground water database, Mineola, New York, US. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/mineola.html. Steinman, A.D., Biddanda B., Chu, X., Thompson, K. and Rediske, R. (2007): Environmental analysis of groundwater in Mecosta County, Michigan. Environ. Monit. Assess., 134:177–189. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-9608-3. Stewart, M. K., Mehlhorn, J. and Elliott, S. (2007): Hydrometric and natural tracer (18O, silica, 3H and SF6) evidence for a dominant groundwater contribution to Pukemanga Stream, New Zealand. Hydrol. Proc., 21: 3340–3356. Stigter, T.Y., Ribeiro, L. and Carvalho Dill, A.M.M. (2006): Application of a groundwater quality index as an assessment and communication tool in agroenvironmental policies – Two Portuguese case studies. J. Hydrol., 327: 578– 591. DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.001. Stimson, J., Frape, S., Drimmie, R. and Rudolph, D. (2001): Isotopic and geochemical evidence of regional-scale anisotropy and interconnectivity of an alluvial fan system, Cochabamba Valley, Bolivia. Appl. Geochem., 16: 1097–1114. Stüben, D., Berner, Z., Chandrashekharam, D. and Karmakar, J. (2003): Arsenic enrichment in groundwater of West Bengal, India: geochemical evidence for mobilization of As under reducing conditions. Appl. Geochem., 18(9), 1417−1434. Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J. (1981): Aquatic Chemistry. 2nd.Edn. New York, Wiley. Subba Rao N., Prakasa Rao, J., John Devadas, D., Srinivasa Rao, K.V., Krishna, C. and Nagamalleswara Rao, B. (2002): Hydrogeochemistry and Groundwater Quality in a Developing Urban Environment of a Semi-arid Region, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. J. of Geological Society of India., 59(2): 159-166. Subba Rao, N. (1988): Role of Hydrologist in the Development of Hydrothermal Resource Evaluation. Groundwater News, VII (5): 43-46.
[304]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N. (1989): Iodine in Different Environments. Indian J. of Environmental Protection., 9(7): 537-539. Subba Rao, N. (1992): Factors Affecting Optimum Development of Groundwaters in Crystalline Terrain of the Eastern Ghats, Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of the Geological Society of India., 40(5): 462-467. Subba Rao, N. (1993): Environmental Impact of Industrial Effluents in Groundwater Regions of Visakhapatnam Industrial Complex. Indian J. of Geology, 65(1), 35-43. Subba Rao, N. (1997): Studies on water quality index in hard rock terrain of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India (pp. 129–134). National Seminar on Hydrology of Precambrian Terrains and hard rock areas. Subba Rao, N. (1998): Groundwater Quality in Crystalline Terrain of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Visakha Science J., 2(1): 51-54. Subba Rao, N. (2000): Important considerations for the success of rainwater harvesting. Current Sci., 79(1): 7. Subba Rao, N. (2002.a): Geochemistry of Groundwater in Parts of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geol., 41 (5): 552-562. Subba Rao, N. (2002.b): Groundwater Chemistry in Two Different Hydrogeologic Environments. J. of Applied Geochem., 4(1): 61-70. Subba Rao, N. (2002.c): Summer approaches – digging for water recharging points. Current Sci., 82 (8): 905. Subba Rao, N. (2003.a): Groundwater Quality: Focus on Fluoride Concentration in Rural Parts of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Hydrological Sciences J., 48: 835-847. Subba Rao, N. (2003.b): Groundwater Prospecting and Management in an Agro-based Rural Environment of Crystalline Terrain of India. Environmental Geol., 43(4): 419-431.
[305]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N. (2006.a): Groundwater Potential Index in a Crystalline Terrain Using Remote
Sensing
Data.
Environmental
Geol.,
50:1057-1067.
DOI:
10.1007/s00254-006-0280-7. Subba Rao, N. (2006.b): Seasonal Variation of Groundwater Quality in a part of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geol., 49: 413-429. Subba Rao, N. (2006.c): Groundwater potential index in a crystalline terrain using remote sensing data. Environ. Geol., 50: 1067–1076.DOI: 10.1007/s00254006-0280-7. Subba Rao, N. (2007): Groundwater quality as a factor for identification of recharge zones. Environmental Geosci., 14: 79-90. Subba Rao, N. (2008.a): Groundwater Quality Monitoring in an Urban Area for Sustainable Development. Environmental Geosci., 5: 63-73. Subba Rao, N. (2008.b): Iron Content in Groundwaters of Visakhapatnam Environs, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 136: 437-447. Subba Rao, N. (2008.c): Factors controlling the salinity in groundwaters from a part of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 138: 327341. Subba
Rao,
N.
(2008.d):
Fluoride
in
groundwater,
VarahaR i v e r B a s i n , V i s a k h a p a t n a m D i s t r i c t , A n d h r a Pradesh, In dia.Environ. Monit.Assess., 152: 47–60. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0295-5. Subba Rao, N. (2009.a): A numerical scheme for groundwater development in a watershed basin of basement terrain: a case study from India. Hydrogeol. J., 17: 379-396. Subba Rao, N. (2009.b): Fluoride in Groundwater, Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 152: 47-60. Subba Rao, N. (2011.a): Guidelines for success of well site selections. Current Sci., 100: 1119-1120.
[306]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N. (2011.b): High-fluoride groundwater. Environ. Monit. Assess., 176: 637-645. Subba Rao, N. (2012.a): Indicators for occurrence of groundwater in the rocks of Eastern Ghats. Current Sci., 103: 382. Subba Rao, N. (2012.b): Need geological studies to probe land subsidence. Current Sci., 102: 382. Subba Rao, N. (2012.c): PIG: A numerical index for dissemination of groundwater contamination zones. Hydrological processes, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8456. Subba Rao, N. and John Devadas, D. (2003): Fluoride Incidence in Groundwater in an Area of Peninsular India. Environmental Geol., 45: 243-253. Subba Rao, N. and John Devadas, D. (2004): Evaluation of Groundwater Quality in Rural Areas of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geochem., 7: 27-32. Subba Rao, N. and John Devadas, D. (2005): Quality Criteria for Groundwater Use for Development of an Area. J. of Applied Geochem., 7(1): 9-23. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1984): Dug wells and Bore wells in Hard rock Aquifers of Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh – A Comparative Study. J. of Association of Exploration Geophysics., IV(4): 11-18. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1988): Trace Elements in Drinking Waters of Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh. Geophysical Research Bulletin., 26(4): 140-144. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1989.a): Absence of Biogenic Pollution in a Highly Urbanized Area – A Case Study of Visakhapatnam Area. Indian J. of Environmental Protection., 9(5): 370-371. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1989.b): Chemical Quality of Groundwater near Industrial polluted Zone in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Hydrology J., XII (4): 147-152.
[307]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1990.a): Intensity of Pollution of Groundwater in Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of the Geological Society of India, 6(6): 670-673. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1990.b): A Note on Geochemistry of Groundwaters in Rocks of Eastern Ghats. Indian J. of Geochem., 5(1&2): 4953. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1991.a): Groundwater Quality in Visakhapatnam Urban Area, Andhra Pradesh. Indian J. of Environmental Health., 33(1): 2530. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1991.b): Groundwater Chemistry for Location of Wells in Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh. Bhujal News, 6(3): 7-10. Subba Rao, N. and Krishna Rao, G. (1991.c): Relation of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation in Western Part of Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of Indian Academy of Geosciences., 34(2): 41-48. Subba Rao, N. and Madhusudhana Reddy, P. (1999): Chemical Concentrations in the Deep Aquifer Waters of an Industrial Urban Area of Andhra Pradesh, India. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sci., 18 F(1 & 2): 9-19. Subba Rao, N. and Madhusudhana Reddy, P. (2000): Importance of Groundwater Quality Management in Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh. Groundwater Resources, Assessment and Management, 55-62. Subba Rao, N. and Madhusudhana Reddy, P. (2006): Monitoring the Groundwater Quality in an Urban Area: An Environmental Impact Assessment and Management. J. of Applied Geochem., 8: 37-50. Subba Rao, N. and Prathap Reddy, R. (1999): Groundwater Prospects in a Developing Satellite Township of Andhra Pradesh, India, Using Remote Sensing Techniques. J. of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing., 27(4): 193-203. Subba Rao, N. and Prathap Reddy, R. (2001): Assessment of Groundwater Yield Using Electrical Resistivity Approach. Groundwater Resources, Evaluation & Management, 83-86.
[308]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N. and Prathap Reddy, R. (2004): Geoenvironmental Appraisal in a Developing Urban Area. Environ. Geol., 47: 20-29. Subba Rao, N. and Rao, A.T. (2003): Fluoride in Groundwaters in a Developing Area of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of Applied Geochem., 5 (2): 99100. Subba Rao, N. and Venkateswara Rao, S. (1988): Criteria of Recognition of Salt waters in Coastal Aquifers. Groundwater News, VII (9): 10-12. Subba Rao, N. and. Gurunadha Rao, V.V.S. (1999): Pathlines of Pollutant Migration in Groundwater of Visakhapatnam Urban Area. Hydrological Processes, 13: 1381-1389. Subba Rao, N., and Reddy, M. P. (2006): Monitoring the groundwater quality in an urban area: An environmental impact assessment and management. J. of Applied Geochem., 8: 37–50. Subba Rao, N., Chakradhar, G.K.J. and Srinivas, V. (2001): Identification of Groundwater Potential Zones Using Remote Sensing Techniques in and around Guntur town, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing., 29 (1 & 2): 69-78. Subba Rao, N., Gurunadha Rao, V.V.S. and Gupta, C.P. (1998): Groundwater Pollution due to Discharge of Industrial Effluents in Venkatapuram Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geol., 33(4): 289294. Subba Rao, N., John Devadas, D. and Bangaru Raju, I. (2006): Identification of Factors Controlling the Surface Water Quality Using Principal Component Analysis. J. of Applied Geochem., 8: 154-161. Subba Rao, N., John Devadas, D. and Srinivasa Rao, K.V. (2006): Interpretation of Groundwater Quality Using Principal Component Analysis from Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geosci., 13: 1-21. Subba Rao, N., Krishna Rao, G. and John Devadas, D. (1998): Variation of Fluoride in Groundwaters of Crystalline Terrain. J. of Environmental Hydrol., 6(3): 15. [309]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N., Krishna Rao, G., Sathi Babu, Y., Venkateswara S. and Suryanarayana, K. (1988): Hydrogeochemical Cycle in Visakhapatnam (AP). Geoviews, XVI (1-12): 21-26. Subba Rao, N., Niranjan Babu, P., John Devadas, D. and Krishna, C. (2002): Effects of Chemical Properties of Groundwater on Water Supply Systems and Domestic Uses - A Case Study from Sagarnagar, Visakhapatnam, India. Environmental Geochem.,5 (1 & 2): 9-11. Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2007): Principal Component Analysis in Groundwater Quality in a Developing Area of Andhra Pradesh. J. of the Geological Society of India, 69: 959-969. Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J., Alishah, Sh. and Krishna Rao, G. (1996): Chemical Hydrogeology of an Area around Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian J. of Geol., 68(2): 112-117. Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J., Chandra Rao, P., Niranjan Babu, P. and Krishna Rao, G. (1997): Hydrogeochemical Zoning in Crystalline Terrain and its Significance to Water Quality. J. of Geological Society of India., 49(6): 715719. Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J., John Devadas, D., Srinivasa Rao, K.V. and Krishna, C. (2001): Multivariate Analysis for Identifying the Governing Factors of Groundwater Quality. J. of Environmental Hydrol., 9 (16): 1-9. Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J., Nagamalleswara Rao, B., Niranjan Babu, P., Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and John Devadas, D. (1998b): A preliminary report on fluoride content in groundwaters of Guntur area, Andhra Pradesh, India. Current Sci. 75: 887–888. Subba Rao, N., Raviprakash, S. and Krishna Rao, G. (1988): Groundwater Pollution by Industrial Effluents in Visakhapatnam Area. Indian J. of Environmental Protection., 9(11): 835-838. Subba Rao, N., Raviprakash, S. and Krishna Rao, G. (1991): Specific Capacity of Large Diameter of Wells in Crystalline Rocks of Visakhapatnam Region, Andhra Pradesh, India. Hydrology J., VI (4): 241-246. [310]
REFERENCES Subba Rao, N., Saroja Nirmal, I. and Suryanarayana, K. (2005): Groundwater Quality in a Coastal Area – A Case Study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geol., 48:534- 550. Subba Rao, N., Sathi Babu, Y., Venkateswara Rao, S. and Krishna Rao, G. (1988): Impact of Environment on Sulphate Concentration in Groundwaters of Visakhapatnam Area. Indian J. of Environmental Protection., 8(6): 421-424. Subba Rao, N., Srinivasa Rao, G., Venkateswara Rao, S., Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and John Devadas, D. (1999): Environmental control of groundwater quality in a tribal region of Andhra Pradesh. Indian. J. of Geol., 71(4): 299–304. Subba Rao, N., Srinivasa Rao, K. V., John Devadas, D., Deva Varma, D., Thirupathi Rao, B.,Subrahmanyam, A. and Venkatakrishna, T. (2007): Quality of groundwater in the coastal area of Visakhapatnam-Bhimunipatnam, Andhra Pradesh. J. of Geochem., 22: 193-208. Subba Rao, N., Srinivasa Rao, K.V., Surya Rao, P., Venkat Rao, Ch., Arjunudu, K., Madhusudhana Reddy, P. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2009): Geochemistry of carbonate precipitation from the groundwater in a Coastal Region. J. of the Geology Society of India., 73: 651-656. Subba Rao, N., Subrahmanyam, A., Ravi Kumar, S., Srinivasulu, N., Babu Rao, G., Surya Rao, P. and Venkatram Reddy, G. (2012): Geochemistry and quality of groundwater of Gummanampadu sub-basin, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Earth. Sci., DOI: 10.1007/s12665-012-1590-6. Subba Rao, N., Surya Rao, P., Venktram Reddy, G., Nagamani, M., Vidyasagar, G. and Satyanarayana, N.L.V.V.(2012): Chemical characteristics of groundwater and assessment of groundwater quality in Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 184:5189–5214. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-2333-y. Subba Rao, N., Suryanarayana, K. and Krishna Rao, G. (1993): Nitrate Pollution of Groundwaters in Visakhapatnam Area, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Issues and Mineral Resource Development., :172-177.
[311]
REFERENCES Subba Rao. N. and Surya Rao. P. (2010): Major ion chemistry of groundwater in a river basin: a study from India. Environ. Earth Sci., 61: 757-775. Subrahmanyam, K. (1996): Urban ground water database, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,India.http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/hyderaba d.html. Subrahmanyam, K. and Yadaiah, P. (2000): Assessment of the impact of industrial effluents on water quality in Patancheru and environs, Medak district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Hydrogeol. J., 9(3): 297– 312. Subramani, T., Elango, L. and Damodarasamy, S.R. (2005): Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Chithar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Geol., 47: 1099–1110. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-0051243-0. Subramani, T., Rajmohan, N. and Elango, L. (2009): Groundwater geochemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes in a hard rock region, Southern India. Environ.Monit.Assess., DOI:10.1007/s10661-009-0781-4. Subramani, T., Rajmohan, N. and Elango, L. (2010): Groundwater geochemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes in a hard rock region, Southern India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 162:123–137. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-0090781-4. Sudhira, H.S., Ramachandra, T.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2004): Urban sprawl: metrucs, dynamics and modelling using GIS. Intl. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform., 5:29–39. Sujatha, D. and Rajeswara Reddy, B. (2003): Quality characterization of groundwater in the south-eastern part of the Ranga Reddy district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 44(5):579–586. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-003-0794-1. Sukhija, B. S., Reddy, D. V., and Saxena, V. K. (1989): Study of ground water pollution at Tirumala, Tirupati, India. Proc. international workshop on appropriate methodologies for development and management of ground water resources in developing countries (pp. 893–898). Hyderabad, India: National Geophysical Research Institute (February–March). [312]
REFERENCES Sunitha, V., Sudarsha, V. and Rajeswara Reddy, B. (2005): Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater, Gooty area, Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Pollut. Res., 24(1): 217–224. Suvedha, M., Gurugnanam, B., Suganya, M. and Vasudevan, S. (2009): Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Geochemical Data of Groundwater in Veeranam Catchment Area, Tamil Nadu. J. Geolo. Soci. India., 74:573-578. Syers, J.K., Mackay, A.D., Brown, M.W. and Currie, C.D. (1986): Chemical and physical characteristics of phosphate rock materials of varying reactivity. J. Sci. Food. Agric., 37:1057-1064. Tang, C., Machida, I., Shindo, S., Kondoh, A. and Sakura, Y. (2001): Chemical and isotopic methods for confirming the roles of wadis in regional groundwater recharge in a regional arid environment: a case study in Al Ain, UAE. Hydrol. Process., 15:2195–2202. Tank, D.K. and Singh Chandel, C.P. (2009): A hydrochemical elucidation of the groundwater composition under domestic and irrigated land in Jaipur City, Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-0985-7. Tarki, M., Dassi, L., Hamed, Y. Jedoui, Y. (2011): Geochemical and isotopic composition of groundwater in the Complex Terminal aquifer in southwestern Tunisia, with emphasis on the mixing by vertical leakage. Environ Earth Sci., 64:85–95. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-010-0820-z. Tatawat, R.K. and Singh Chandel, C.P. (2008): quality of ground water of Jaipur city, Rajasthan (India) and its suitability for domestic and irrigation purpose. Appl. Ecol. environ. research., 6(2): 79-88. Taylor, M.D. (1997a): Accumulation of cadmium derived from fertilisers in New Zealand soils. Sci. Total. Environ., 208:123-126. Tesoriero, A.J., Spruill, T.B. and Eimers, L. (2004): Geochemistry of shallow ground water in coastal plain environments in the southeastern United States: Implications for aquifer susceptibility. Appl. Geochem., 19: 1471–1482. DOI:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2004.01.021.
[313]
REFERENCES Thilagavathi, R., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M. V., Thivya, C. and Singaraja, C. (2012): A study on groundwater geochemistry and water quality in layered aquifers system of Pondicherry region, southeast India. Appl. Water Sci., 2:253–269. DOI: 10.1007/s13201-012-0045-2. Thomsen, R., Søndergaard, V.H., and Sørensen, K.I. (2004): Hydrogeological mapping as a basis for establishing site-specific groundwater protection zones in Denmark. Hydrogeol. J., 12(5): 550–562. Thomson, J. A. M., and Foster, S. S. D. (1986): Effects of urbanization on ground water of limestone islands: An Analysis of the Bermuda case. J. of Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists., 40: 527–540. Thorne, D.W. and Peterson, H.B. (1954): Irrigated soils. Constable and Company, London. Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D‘Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D. and Swackhamer, D. (2001): Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science., 292:281–284. Tindall, J.A., Petrusak, R.L. and McMohan, P.B. (1995): Nitrate transport and transformation process in unsaturated porous media. J. Hydrol., 169:51–94. Tirtomihardjo, H. (1996): Urban ground water database, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia. http://www,scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/jakarta.html. Tirumalesh, K., Shivanna, K., Sriraman, A.K. and Tyagi, A.K. (2010): Assessment of quality and geochemical processes occurring in groundwaters near central air conditioning plant site in Trombay, Maharashtra, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 163:171–184. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-0825-9. Tiwari, T.N. and Manzoor, A. (1988, b): River pollution in
Kathmandu valley
(Nepal) suitably of river water for irrigation. Indian J.of Environmental Protection.,8(4): 269-274. Tiwari, T.N. and Mishra, M.A. (1985): A preliminary assignment of water quality index of major Indian rivers. Indian. J. Environ. Protec., 5: 276– 279.
[314]
REFERENCES Todd, D.K. (1980): Groundwater Hydrology. Wiley International Edition, John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York. Tonetto, E.M. and Bonott, D.M. (2005): Hydrochemical relationships in groundwater from central Sa˜o Paulo State, Brazil. Environ. Geol., 47: 942–955. Toth, J. (1984): The role of regional gravity flow in the chemical and thermal evolution of groundwater. In: Proceedings of the 1st Canadian/American conference on hydrogeology, Banff, Alberta, June 1984. Trueman, N.A. (1965): The phosphate, volcanic and carbonate rocks of Christmas Island (Indian Ocean). J. Geol. Soc. Aust., 12:261-283. Tryon, C. P. (1976): Groundwater quality variation in Phelps County, Missouri. Ground Water, 14: 214–223. Tyagi S.K., Datta P.S. and Pruthi N.K. (2009): Hydrochemical appraisal of groundwater and its suitability in the intensive agricultural area of Muzaffarnagar district,Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 56:901–912. U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954): Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. U.S.D.A. Handbook No. 60, (p. 160). Ufoegbune, G.C., Lamidi, K.I., Awomeso, J.A., Eruola, A.O., Eruola, A.O., Idowu, A.O. and Adeofun, C.O. (2009): Hydro-geological characteristics and groundwater quality assessment in some selected communities of Abeokuta, Southwest Nigeria. J. Environ. Chem. Ecotoxicol., 1(1): 010-022. Umar, R. and Absar, A. (2003): Chemical characteristics of groundwater in parts of the
Gambhir
River
basin,
Bharatpur
District,
Rajasthan,
India,
Environ.Geol.,44:535–544. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-003-0789-y. Umar, R., Ahmed I., Alam F. and Khan, Md. M. (2009): Hydrochemical characteristics and seasonal variations in groundwater quality of an alluvial aquifer in parts of Central Ganga Plain, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 58:1295–1300. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-008-1630-4. Umar, R., Muqtada, M., Khan, A. and Absar, A. (2006): Groundwater hydrochemistry of a sugarcane cultivation belt in parts of Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar
[315]
REFERENCES Pradesh, India.
Environ. Geol., 49: 999–1008. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-005-
0138-4. Vandenschrick, G., van Wesemael, B., Frot, E., Pulido-Bosch, A., Molina, L., Stie´venard and Souchez, M. R. (2002): Using stable isotope analysis (δD– δ18O) to characterise the regional hydrology of the Sierra de Gador, south east Spain. J. of Hydrol., 265: 43–55. Vasanthavigar, M., Srinivasamoorthy, K., and Prasanna, M. V. (2011): Evaluation of groundwater suitability for domestic, irrigational, and industrial purposes: a case study from Thirumanimuttar river basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI:10.1007/s10661- 011-1977-y. Vasanthavigar, M., Srinivasamoorthy, K., Vijayaragavan, K., Rajiv Ganthi, R., Chidambaram, S., Anandhan, P., Manivannan, R. and Vasudevan, S. (2010): Application of water quality index for groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-1302-1. Vasudev Rao, P.H.V., Venkateswara Rao, S., Amminedu, E. and Subba Rao, N. (2003): Shelter-cum-bio-energy-belt along the Coast of Andhra Pradesh, India. Recent Advances in Environmental Sci.,: 193-210. Vaze, J., and Chiew, F. H. S. (2002): Experimental study of pollutant accumulation on an urban road surface. Urban Water, 4(4): 379–389. Vazquez-Sune, E., Sanchez-Vila, X., and Carrera, J. (2005).Introductory review of specific factors influencing urbangroundwater, an emerging branch of hydrogeology, withreference to Barcelona, Spain. Hydrogeol. J., 13(3): 522– 533. Venkateswara Rao, S. and Subba Rao, N. (2002): Iodide Levels in the Groundwaters in the Tribal Parts of Visakhapatnam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Applied Geochem., 4(1): 11-16. Venkateswara Rao, S., Krishna Rao, G. and Subba Rao, N. (1996): Factors Controlling Groundwater Quality in Parts of Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. of Indian Academy of Geosci., 39 (2): 33-39. [316]
REFERENCES Venkateswara Rao, S., Vasudev Rao, P.H.V., Krishna Rao, G. and Subba Rao, N. (1997): Significance of Water Resources Development in the Rural Environment with Reference to Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Geography and Environment, II: 94-115. Venugopal, T., Giridharan, L. and Jayaprakash, M. (2008): Groundwater Quality Assessment Using Chemometric Analysis in the Adyar River, South India. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 55:180–190. DOI: 10.1007/s00244-0079117-y. Venugopal, T., Giridharan, L., Jayaprakash, M., and Periakali, P. (2009): Environmental impact assessment and seasonal variation study of the groundwater in the vicinity of River Adyar, Chennai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 149: 81–97. Vijith, H. and Satheesh, R. (2007): Geographical Information System based assessment of spatiotemporal characteristics of groundwater quality of upland sub-watersheds of Meenachil River, parts of Western Ghats, Kottayam District, Kerala, India, Environ. Geol., 53:1–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-0060612-7. Vikas, C., Kushwaha, R.K. and Pandit, M.K. (2009): Hydrochemical Status of Groundwater in District Ajmer (NW India) with Reference to Fluoride Distribution. J. Geol. Soci. of Ind., 73:773-784. Vinten, A.J.A., Mingelgrin, U. and Yaron, B. (1983): The effect of suspended solids in wastewater on soil hydraulic conductivity: II. Vertical distribution of suspended solids. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 47, 408-412. Vossen, W. J., and Huijsmans, T. M. F. (1988). Groundwaterpollution by Tilberg‘s gas plant. Proc. symp. Hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April 1988, pp. 579–584. Wallick, E.I. and Toth, J. (1976): Methods of regional groundwater flow analysis with suggestions for the use of environmental isotope and hydrochemical data in groundwater hydrology. IAEA, Vienna, pp 37–64.
[317]
REFERENCES Walski, T.M. and Parker, F.L. (1974): Consumers water quality index. J. of the Environ. Eng. Divi., 100: 259–611. Walton, W.C. (1970): Groundwater resources evaluation. McGraw-Hill, New York. Wellman, D. (2001): Urban ground water database, Port Louis, Mauritius. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/-gwater/IAHCGUA/UGD/port-louis.html. Wen, X. H., Wu, Y. Q. and Wu, J. (2008): Hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in the Zhangye Basin, Northwestern China. Environ. Geol., 55:1713–1724. DOI: 10.1007/s00254-007-1122-y. Wen, X., Wu, Y., Su, J., Zhang, Y. and Liu, F. (2005): Hydrochemical characteristics and salinity of groundwater in the Ejina basin, northwestern China. Environ. Geol., 48:665–675. WHO (1984): Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. World Health Organization, Geneva. WHO (1993): Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization Press. WHO standards (1996): WHO, Geneva. ISBN: 92 4 154480 5. Volume 2 . Wiggins, B.A. (1996): Discriminate analysis of antibiotic resistance patterns in fecal streptococci, a method to differentiate human and animal source of fecal pollution in natural waters. Appl. Environ. Microbial., 62: 3997- 4002. Wilcox, L.V. (1948): The quality of water for irrigation use. US Department of Agricultural Technical Bulletin 1962, Washnigton. Wilcox, L.V. (1955): Classification and use of irrigation water. U.S.D.A. Circ., 969, Washington, DC, (p.19). Williams, D.D., Williams, N.E. and Cao, Y. (1999): Road salt contamination of groundwater in a major metropolitan area and development of a biologicalindex to monitor its impacts. Water Res., 34: 127– 138. Wodeyar, B. K. and Sreenivasan, G. (1996): Occurrence of fluoride in the groundwaters and its impact in Peddavankahalla Basin, Bellary District, Karnataka, India—a preliminary study. Current Sci., 70: 71–74. [318]
REFERENCES Wood, W.W. and Sanford, W.E. (1995): Chemical and isotopic methods for quantifying ground-water recharge in a regional, semiarid environment. Ground Water., 33:458–468. World Bank (1998), India: Water Resources Management Sector Review, Groundwater Regulation and Management Report, Washington D.C., pp. 98. Wu, J., Ding, Y., Ye, B., Yang, Q., Zhang, X. and Wang, J. (2010): Spatio-temporal variation of stable isotopes in precipitation in the Heihe River Basin, Northwestern
China.
Environ
Earth
Sci.,
61:1123–1134.
DOI:
10.1007/s12665-009-0432-7. Xu, J., Chen, Y., Li, W., Zhang, L., Hong, Y., Bi, X. and Yang, Y. (2012): Statistical analysis of groundwater chemistry of the Tarim River lower reaches, Northwest China. Environ. Earth. Sci., 65:1807–1820. DOI: 10.1007/s12665011-1161-2. Yakubo, B.B., Yidana, S.M., Emmanuel, N., Akabzaa, T. and Asiedu, D. (2009): Analysis of groundwater quality using water quality index and conventional graphical methods: the Volta region, Ghana. Environ. Earth Sci., 59:867–879. Yang, Y., Lerner, D. N., Barret, M., and Tellam, J. (1999): Quantification of groundwater recharge in the city of Nottingham, UK. Environmental Geol., 38(3): 183–198. Yao, K.M., Habian, M.T. and O‘melia C.R. (1971): Water and wastewater filtration: concepts and applications. Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(11), 1105-1112, Columbus, USA. Yidana, S.M. and Yidana, A. (2010): Assessing water quality using water quality index and multivariate analysis. Environ. Earth Sci., 59:1461–1473. Yidana, S.M., Ophori, D. and Banoeng-Yakubo, B. (2008): Hydrogeological and Hydrochemical characterization of the Voltaian Basin: the Afram Plains area, Ghana. Env. Geol., 53: 1213-1223. Yongjun, J., Daoxian, Y., Shiyou, X., Linli, L., Gui, Z. and Raosheng H.E. (2006): Groundwater quality and land use change in a typical karst agricultural region: a case study of Xiaojiang watershed, Yunnan. J. Geogra. Sci., 16(4): 405-414. [319]
REFERENCES Yousafzai, A., Eckstein, Y. and Dahal, P. S. (2010): Hydrochemical signatures of deep groundwater circulation in a part of the Himalayan foreland basin. Environ. Earth Sci., 59: 1079–1098. Zanfang, J., Yingxu, C., Feier, W., and Norio, O. (2004): Detection of nitrate sources in urban groundwater by isotopic and chemical indicators, Hangzhau City, China. Hydrogeol. J., 45(7): 1017–1024. Zaporozec, A. (1972): Graphical interpretation of water quality data. Groundwater., 10(2): 32-43. Zekster, S., and Loaiciga, H. A. (2004): Environmental impacts of ground water overdraft: selected case studies in the south western United States. Environmental Geol., 47(3): 396–404. Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., Su, J., Wen, X. and Liu, F. (2005): Groundwater replenishment analysis by using natural isotopes in Ejina Basin, Northwestern China. Environ. Geol., 48: 6–14. Zheng, Y., Datta, S., Stute, M., Dhar, R., Hoque, M.A., Rahman, M.W., Ahmed, K.M., Schlosser, P. and Van Geen, A. (2005, a): Stable isotopes (18O, 2H) and arsenic distribution in the shallow aquifers in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Eos Trans. AGU, 86(52), Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract H31B-1305. Zhou, D., Zhang, R., Liu, L., Gao, L. and Cai, S. (2009): A study on water resources consumption by principal component analysis in Qingtongxia irrigation areas of Yinchuan Plain. China J. Food, Agri. Environ., 7(3&4): 734 - 738. Zhu, G.F., Li Z.Z., Su, Y.H., Ma, J.Z, Zhang, Y.Y. (2007): Hydrogeochemical and isotope evidence of groundwater evolution and recharge in Minqin Basin, Northwest China, J. Hydrol., 333: 239– 251. Zipfel, K., and Horalek, U. (1988): Impacts on groundwater quality and groundwater use in a high populated and industrial urban region. Symposium on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas, Duisberg, Germany, April, pp. 607–616.
[320]