Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Suitability of Irrigation Purposes: A Case Study in the Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand

Singh, Kshitindra Kr.; Tewari, Geeta; Kumar, Suresh

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6924026

Journal of Chemistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 6924026 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6924026

Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Suitability of Irrigation Purposes: A Case Study in the Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand

Kshitindra Kr. Singh,^1,2Geeta Tewari,¹and Suresh Kumar³

Academic Editor: Pedro M. Mancini

Received06 Nov 2019

Revised01 Jan 2020

Accepted21 Jan 2020

Published21 Mar 2020

Abstract

In the present study, the groundwater quality for suitability in agriculture from Udham Singh Nagar district, Uttarakhand, has been evaluated. A total of 50 groundwater samples have been collected and analysed for pH, EC, TH, HCO₃⁻, CO₃²⁻, Cl⁻, SO₄²⁻, NO₃^–, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Na⁺ and K⁺. To assess the groundwater quality for irrigation purpose, parameters like sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), soluble sodium percentage (SSP), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), magnesium hazards (MHs), permeability index (PI), and chloroalkaline index (CAI) values have been calculated. In USSL diagram, most of the groundwater samples fall in the C2S1 category and were safe for irrigation purpose. Only seven groundwater samples fall in the C3S1 category, indicating medium to high salinity which is safe for irrigation purpose for all types of soils but with limited care of exchangeable sodium. On the basis of RSC, all groundwater samples were observed to be suitable for irrigation purpose. Piper diagram indicated that 50% of the groundwater samples belonged to the Mg²⁺-Ca²⁺-HCO₃⁻ type and 48% was classified as the Ca²⁺-Mg²⁺-Cl⁻ type. Durov diagram suggested possibilities of ion mixing and simple dissolution of ions from polluted soil.

1. Introduction

Groundwater plays an important role all over the world for the survival of both flora and fauna. India is one of the largest users of groundwater, particularly for drinking and agriculture purposes [1] Agriculture is one of the most important sectors of Indian economy. In rural areas, the major sources of groundwater for drinking and irrigation purpose are hand pump and tub well. According to a national sample survey, 56% households get drinking water from hand pump or tube well, 14% from open well, and 25% based on piped water [2]. Groundwater gets contaminated with a variety of pollutants such as domestic, agriculture, and industrial due to utilization of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical products [3]. The groundwater quality assessment based on different agriculture indices has been studied in different parts of world [4, 5]. There are a number of reports on the assessment of groundwater quality from Bangladesh [6], Cameroon [7], Ghana [8], Tamil Nadu [9–12], Madhya Pradesh [13, 14], Bhatina, South west Punjab [15] and Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh [16]. In Uttarakhand, irrigation water quality assessment has been done in Doon Valley [17], Nainital [18], Almora [19, 20], and Haridwar [21].

To the best of our knowledge, no study on the assessment of irrigation water quality has been undertaken from Udham Singh Nagar District of Uttarakhand with especial reference to dug well and hand pump water. Therefore, in the present study, an attempt has been made to determine the groundwater suitability for irrigation purpose from Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttarakhand.

2. Materials and Methods

Udham Singh Nagar district located in Tarai belt of Kumaun region and geographical area of the district is 3055 cm². It is situated between latitude 28°52′N and 29°23′N and longitudes 78°45′N and 80°08′N. The district Udham Singh Nagar covers Champawat and Nainital district in North region of Uttarakhand, south region with Pilibhit, Moradabad, and Bareilly district of UP, and Biznor district of UP on the west and Nepal on the east.

2.1. Collection of Samples

Fifty groundwater samples (hand pump and dug well) were collected in premonsoon season in the year 2018 from different sites of Khatima, Bazpur, Gadarpur, Kashipur, Jaspur Kicha, and Sitarganj blocks of Udham Singh Nagar district, Uttarakhand (Table 1; Figure 1). The samples were collected in prewashed polyethylene narrow mouth bottles (three times rinsed with same water to be sampled). Locations (longitude, latitude, and altitude) of sampling point were measured by using a global positioning system (GPS).

2.2. Chemical Parameters of the Samples

Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH were measured using a potable kit. The water samples were filtered with using 0.45 Millipore membrane filter paper for the separation of suspended solids. Sulphate (SO₄²⁻) content was determined by the UV spectrophotometric method, while chloride (Cl⁻) and bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻) content were measured by the titration method [22]. The detection of Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and total hardness (TH) was done by the titration method, while Na⁺ and K⁺ were estimated by the flame photometer method [22].

2.3. Evaluation of Irrigation Water Quality

The concentrations of different parameters were interrelated, and irrigation indexes like soluble sodium percentage (SSP), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), magnesium hazard (MH), permeability index (PI), and chloroalkaline index (CAI) were calculated to assess groundwater quality. USSL salinity, Wilcox, permeability index, and Gibbs diagrams were drawn with the help of Grapher free software to assess irrigation quality of collected water samples. Hydrochemical analysis was evaluated by drawing Piper and Durov diagrams using Aquachem (2004) software.

2.4. Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard (SAH)

Electrical conductivity and US Salinity Laboratory diagram helped in explaining salinity and alkalinity hazard in the study area.

2.5. Sodium Hazard (SH)

Sodium hazard was assessed by evaluating soluble sodium percentage and sodium absorption ratio and drawing Wilcox diagram.

2.5.1. Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP)

Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) was calculated by employing the equation given by Todd [23]. The ionic concentration was presented in meq L⁻¹:

2.5.2. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

SAR was calculated using the equation given by Raghunath [24]. The concentration of the ions was expressed in meq L⁻¹:

2.5.3. Carbonate and Bicarbonate Hazard (CBH)

Carbonate and bicarbonate hazard was assessed by evaluating soluble sodium carbonate.

2.5.4. Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC)

This was evaluated employing the following equation of Eaton [25]:

2.5.5. Magnesium Hazard (MH)

This was evaluated by the equation given by Szabolcs and Darab [26], where the concentration of each cation was expressed in meq L⁻¹:

2.6. Permeability Index (PI)

Permeability index (PI) was used to classify the irrigation water quality and was calculated by the formula given by Doneen [27]. The concentration of all ions was taken in meq L⁻¹:

2.7. Chloroalkaline Index (CAI)

Chloroalkaline index (CAI I and CAI II) was calculated by the formula given by Scholler [28]:

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. pH

The term pH expressed to describe the intensity of acidic and alkaline nature of a solution. The pH value of the groundwater samples in the study area lie in between 7.57 and 8.61. All the groundwater samples belonged to the safe limit for irrigation purpose [29].

3.2. Water Quality Based on the Absolute Ions

In the present study area, the concentration of cations lies from 20.0 to 140.0 mg L⁻¹ for Ca²⁺, 14.1 to 85.0 mg L⁻¹ for Mg²⁺, 0.4 to 62.0 mg L⁻¹ for Na⁺, and 0.0 to 55.2 mg L⁻¹ for K⁺ (Table 2). In irrigation water, the permissible limit for Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Na⁺, and K⁺ is 80, 35, 200, and 30 mg L⁻¹, respectively [30, 31]. On the basis of these permissible limits, 96% groundwater samples for Ca²⁺, 42% for Mg²⁺, 100% for Na⁺, and 100% for K⁺ were fit for irrigation purpose.

The permissible limit for anions HCO₃⁻ and Cl⁻ is 250 mg L⁻¹ [30, 31]. The values of HCO₃⁻ and Cl⁻ in the groundwater samples varied from 29.2 to 372.0 mg L⁻¹ and 8.2 to 252.4 mg L⁻¹, respectively (Table 2). The results on major anions revealed that 64% water samples as per the limit of HCO₃⁻ and 98% as per the limit of Cl⁻ were observed to be fit for irrigation purpose.

3.3. Total Hardness (TH)

In water quality, TH is an important parameter whether it has been used for domestic, irrigation, and industrial purpose. The presence of alkaline Earth metals causes hardness of water which prevents the lather with soap and increases the boiling point. Amount of calcium and magnesium ions in some of the collected samples was high. When calcium reacts with water, either CaCO₃ is formed in the form of limestone and chalk, or CaSO₄ is formed. The major source of Mg in groundwater is dolomite, CaMg(CO₃)₂. According to Sawyer and McCarthy (1967) [32], water can be categorized as soft (>75 mg L⁻¹), moderately hard (75 to 150 mg L⁻¹), hard (150 to 300 mg L⁻¹), and very hard (above 300 mg L⁻¹). In the present study, TH varied from 155 to 539 mg L⁻¹, indicating hard to very hard nature of water. Thirty-nine samples had hard category, while 20% samples (11 samples) had hardness higher than 300 mg L⁻¹, which is a desirable limit for drinking purpose (Table 2).

3.4. Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard (SAH)

The groundwater becomes saline if high salt content is present. The evaluation of salinity hazard is an important parameter of agriculture water as high salt content of irrigation water causes the soil to become saline, and it also adversely affects the salt intake efficiency of the plants. Electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solid (TDS) values are measure of salinity hazard of irrigation water. In the present study, the values of EC and TDS ranged from 353 to 1274 µS^–1 cm⁻¹ and 229 to 828 mg L⁻¹, respectively (Table 2). According to the limiting value [33] of TDS for water suitability for irrigation purpose, 28% groundwater samples belonged to the moderate category. Furthermore, the classification and distribution of groundwater samples with respect to salinity (EC) is given in Table 3. The water samples were classified into four groups on the basis of salinity [34]. Irrigation water quality based on salinity indicated that no water sample belonged to the excellent category (C1). Eighty-six percent of the samples belonged to the C2 class, and remaining 14% was found in the C3 class. On the basis of salinity, none of the samples were observed to be unfit for irrigation purpose.

3.5. United States Salinity Laboratory (USSL) Diagram

USSL diagram has been used to study the quality of groundwater suitability for irrigation purpose [35]. The SAR and EC values of water samples of Udham Singh Nagar District were plotted in the graphical representation (Figure 2) and found that 43 samples fall in C2S1 (medium salinity with low sodium category) and remaining 7 samples fall in C3S1 (high salinity and low sodium category). C3S1-type water cannot be used on soil with restricted drainage. Bhandari and Joshi (2013) reported that 98% of spring water samples from Almora district of Uttarakhand fall in C1S1, which indicated suitability of these samples for irrigation purpose [36].

3.6. Wilcox Diagram

Wilcox diagram is plotted for classification of water for irrigation suitability [37]. In this diagram, the EC was plotted against the percentage of Na. According to Wilcox classification, 86% of the water samples belonged to the excellent good category and remaining 14% groundwater samples fall in good category (Figure 3). Bahukhandi et al. [21] assessed ground and surface water quality of Hardwar district, Uttarakhand, and observed that, according to the US salinity diagram, most of the ground and surface water samples fall in C1S1 and C2S1 categories, while according to Wilcox diagram, large number of water samples was within excellent to good category [38].

3.7. Sodium Hazard (SH)

3.7.1. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

According to Gholami and Srikantaswamy [39], the alkali or sodium hazard can be expressed in terms of sodium adsorption ratio. Sodium hazard is the main parameter for assessment of groundwater suitability for irrigation purpose. Sodium-enriched groundwater is unsuitable for irrigation of agricultural lands. Biswas et al. [40] reported that excess sodium in water produces undesirable effect of changing soil permeability and water infiltration due to breakdown in the physical structure of the soil. In a previous study, the SAR values ranging from 0 to 10 were measured as excellent, 10–18 were measured as good, and values greater than 18 were measured as unsuitable for irrigation purpose [41]. In the present study, the SAR values ranged between 0.01 and 1.49 and, thus, were classified as the S1 level, which belonged to an excellent category for irrigation purpose (Table 4). Shahidullah et al. reported groundwater quality of Mymensingh district in Bangladesh and suggested that there was a linear relationship between sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and soluble sodium percentage (SSP) and also observed that groundwater could be safely used for long-term irrigation purpose [42]. Dudeja et al. have also reported that the groundwater of Doon valley in outer Himalaya, Uttarakhand, had suitability for drinking and irrigation purpose [17]. Seth et al. studied that Kosi river water in Almora district, Uttarakhand, could not be used for drinking purpose, while it was found to be suitable for irrigation purpose on the basis of SAR, %Na, and RSC [20].

3.7.2. Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP)

According to Nagarju et al., the percentage of soluble sodium is an important parameter in classifying irrigation water in terms of soil permeability [43]. Sodium ion present in irrigation water tends to be exchanged by Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺ ions present in clay particles. This exchange process reduces the permeability of soil and causes poor internal drainage and hardening of soil, which further adversely affects the soil quality and seedling emergence [44]. Additionally, high levels of sodium encourage combination of sodium with chloride and carbonates generating salinity and alkalinity in soils. Excessive soil salinity and alkalinity are harmful for plant growth and crop productivity. The classification of irrigation water based on soluble sodium percentage (SSP) is given by Todd [45]. He classified the irrigation water quality into 5 categories (excellent, good, permissible, doubtful, and unsuitable). In the present study, the soluble sodium percentage varied from 0.3 to 35.4%, which suggested that all the groundwater samples had excellent to good quality for irrigation purpose (Table 4).

3.7.3. Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC)

The quantity of carbonate and bicarbonate surplus to that of alkaline Earth metal ions (Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺) also influences the suitability of groundwater for irrigation purpose [37]. This surplus amount of carbonate and bicarbonate is called residual sodium carbonate (RSC). Higher RSC values indicate that much of the calcium and some magnesium ions get precipitated from the solution, and thus, the percentage of sodium increases in water and soil particles, which in turn increases the potential for sodium hazard. The RSC values of the collected water samples varied in between −4.92 and 0.72 meq L⁻¹. Based on the RSC values, all samples were found to be safe for agriculture purpose (Table 5).

3.8. Magnesium Hazard (MH)

In the natural water system, magnesium and calcium maintain a state of equilibrium. High value of any one of the cations can increase soil pH and reduces infiltration capacity of soil, which adversely influences the crop yield. As the content of magnesium was found to be high in the collected samples, magnesium hazard was evaluated in this study. If the value of magnesium hazard is more than 50%, the soil becomes alkaline and its opposite impact on crop yield can be observed [46].

According to Khodapanah et al., the water samples with MH values higher than the 50 are unsuitable for irrigation [36]. In the present study, MH values varied from 32 to 81, which indicated that 56% samples had MH values more than 50. In the study area, the elevated amount of magnesium might be due to dissolution of dolomite. In a study from Almora district [47], MH values of spring water varied from 0.39 to 38.37. Hence, these samples are observed to be unsuitable for irrigation (Table 4).

3.9. Permeability Index (PI)

On the basis of PI values, groundwater quality can be assessed for its suitability for irrigation purpose [48]. According to Singh et al., the concentration of Ca²⁺, Na⁺, Mg²⁺, and HCO₃⁻ influences permeability of soil profile [49]. Therefore, these cations and anions are used to calculate PI values of water to evaluate its quality. Xu et al. correlated high PI values with high amount of sodium and bicarbonate ions in groundwater [50]. The high levels of HCO₃⁻ and Na⁺ ions may be due the dissolution of carbonate from calcite and dolomite and the cation exchange process.

Nagaraju et al. classified water quality on the basis of PI into Classes I, II, and III. Classes I and II indicate good water quality for irrigation purpose (>75% and 25-75% permeability respectively), while Class III (up to 25% permeability) water is unsuitable for irrigation [43]. A high permeability index is associated with subsurface structural features, which facilitate widespread contamination of groundwater. As per the PI values, the groundwater samples of the study area fall in Classes II (29.05-72.75%) and were described as having excellent to good permeability [51] (Table 4 and Figure 4).

3.10. Spatial Distribution Maps

Geographical information system (GIS) is the special tool which is used to create spatial distribution maps, indicating suitable and unsuitable zones based on water quality parameters [52]. In the present study, spatial distribution maps were drawn for EC, TH, SAR, SSP, MH, and PI.

The spatial distribution map of EC is shown in Figure 5. This indicated that more than half of the study area was alkaline in nature. The spatial distribution map of TH suggested that central part of the study area had the high TH value (Figure 6). SAR distribution map indicated that majority of the locations was within the excellent zone (SAR 0.5–1.0) (Figure 7). Figure 8 is the spatial distribution map of SSP. This map suggested that the SSP values of all the samples were excellent to good. The spatial distribution maps indicated that groundwater collected from the central part of the study area was rich in hardness and salinity along with some small patches in the western region. The spatial distribution map of MH is shown in Figure 9, which indicated that the eastern part of the study area is having very low MH values as compared to the western part of the study area. The spatial distribution map indicated that the western region of the study area had the highest PI value. Most of the study area showed permeability index in between 40 and 50% (Figure 10).

3.11. Hydrochemistry

3.11.1. Piper and Durov Diagrams

Hydrochemical interpretation of the analysed samples has been attempted by plotting the data in the Piper and Durov [53] diagrams (Figure 11). In the Piper diagram, analysed chemical data are plotted in two triangular fields, which are ultimately projected into an upper diamond-shaped field. Similar groundwater samples can be identified using this diagram as they are plotted as a cluster. The data plots in the Piper diagram suggested that 50% samples were the Mg²⁺-Ca²⁺-HCO₃⁻ type along with 48% Ca²⁺–Mg²⁺-Cl⁻type and only two water samples belonged to the Ca-Na-HCO₃ water type. The data plots in Piper diagram and Durov diagram revealed that cations were dominated by Mg²⁺ followed by Ca²⁺ and Na⁺, while anions were dominated by HCO₃⁻, followed by Cl⁻ and SO₄²⁻ (Figure 11). The results of the study were similar to the reports on hydrogeochemical analysis of groundwater samples from India [54] and South Africa [55], where they observed that the alkaline earth metals were the dominant metal ions in groundwater samples. High levels of calcium may present naturally, but the dominance of sodium and magnesium ions is due to their dissolution from polluted rocks and soils [56].

(a)

(b)

3.11.2. Chloroalkaline Index

Scholler observed the change in the chemical composition of groundwater, and its flow can be represented by chloroalkaline indices CAI I and CAI II [28]. Positive value of chloroalkaline index revealed direct ion exchange between Na⁺ and K⁺ from water and Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ with the rocks. When the value of CAI is negative, ion exchange between Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺ from water and Na⁺ and K⁺ with rocks happens. The resultant value of CAI I was lying in between −7.7824 and 6.8758 and CAI II −0.0790 and 6.8213 (Table 4). These values indicated that 70% studied area belonged to negative category and 30% felt in the positive zone. Thus, the findings clearly indicated that exchangeable cations can also be used to indicate the chemical composition of groundwater of the study area.

3.11.3. Gibbs Diagram

Gibbs (1970) proposed a diagram for interpretation of the mechanism of major ion chemistry of groundwater samples [57]. The Gibbs diagram explains the three different fields, namely, precipitation dominance, evaporation dominance, and rock dominance. Gibbs ratio was calculated with the help of the following formula:The concentration of all ions was taken in meq L⁻¹.

Gibbs diagram was plotted in between Gibbs ratio (cation or anion) and total dissolved solid. In the present study area, the value of Gibbs ratio 1 ranged from 0.01 to 0.66 with an average value of 0.33. The value of Gibbs ratio 2 was in between 0.04 and 0.45 with an average value of 0.143 (Table 4). From Figure 12, it can be interpreted that most of the samples belonged to the rock dominance area, representing the influence of the rocks on groundwater aquifer.

4. Conclusions

The groundwater of Udham Singh Nagar district was alkaline and hard to very hard in nature. The values plotted on the USSL diagram suggested that the groundwater samples belonged to C2S1 and C3S1 categories, indicating medium to high salinity and low sodium hazard. The Wilcox diagram suggested that most of the groundwater samples fall in excellent to good category, and some water samples belonged to good category. On the basis of SAR, RSC, SSP, and PI, all the groundwater samples were observed to be suitable for irrigation purpose. Based on the MH values, 54% groundwater samples were found to be unsuitable for irrigation purpose. The most dominated cation was Ca²⁺ followed by Mg²⁺, Na⁺, and K⁺, while the order of domination of anions was HCO₃⁻ > Cl⁻ > SO₄²⁻ > NO₃^– > CO₃²⁻. Predominance of cations such as magnesium and calcium in the groundwater indicated pollution to anthropogenic activities. All the groundwater samples showed simple mixing of ions as no ion is predominant.

Data Availability

The data (raw process) used to support the finding of this study are included within the research article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Director CIMFR, Dhanbad, and Head, Department of Chemistry D. S. B. Campus, Nainital, for providing necessary laboratory facilities.

References

T. Shah, “Taming the anarchy, ground water governance in South Asia,” Qualitative Journal International Agriculture, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 204–207, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
NSSO, Morbidity Health Care and Condition to be Aged National Sample Survey. 60^th Round Ministry of Statistics and Programmed Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi, India, 2006.
S. K. Nag and A. Lahiri, “Hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes in dwarakeswar watershed area, India,” American Journal of Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 217–230, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Raihan and J. B. Alam, “Assessment of ground water quality in surnamganj Bangladesh,” Indian Journal . Environmental Health Science Engineering, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 155–166, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Sarkar and A. Hasan, “Water quality assessment of a ground water basin in Bangladesh for irrigation use,” Pakistan Journal of Bioigical Sciences, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1677–1684, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Baher and M. S. Reja, “Hydrochemical characteristics and quality assessment of shallow ground water in a coastal area of south west Bangladesh,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1065–1073, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Andrew, J. Shimada, T. Hosono et al., “Evaluation of ground water quality and its suitability drinking and agriculture uses in banana plain (Mbanga Njmabe,) of the Cameroon volcanic line,” Environmental Geochemistry and Health, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 559–575, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Ackah, O. Agymang, A. K. Anim et al., “Assessment of ground water quality for drinking and irrigation the case study of Tweimann Oyrifa community Ga east municipality Ghana,” International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3-4, pp. 185–194, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Ahamad, K. Longnathan, and S. Anathakrishnan, “A comparative evaluation of ground water suitability for drinking and irrigation purpose in Pugular area Karur district Tamilnadu, India,” Applied Science Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 213–223, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Nepolian, S. Chidambram, C. Thivya et al., “Assessment of hydrochemical and qualities studies in ground water of Villupuram district Tamilnadu, India,” International Research Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Samaahayira and A. C. Florrence, “Evaluation of ground water quality for irrigation purpose Rediyarchatram block of Dindigul district Tamilnadu, India,” International Research Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 34–39, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Ramamoorthy, S. Backiraj, and R. Ajithkumar, “Evaluation of ground water quality for drinking and irrigation suitability: a case study iun Marakkanam block Villupuram district, Tamilnadu, India,” Journal of Industrial Pollution Control, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 2159–2163, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. K. Tripathi, U. K. Mishra, A. Mishra, and P. Dubey, “Assessment of groundwater quality of Gurh Tehseel, Rewa district Madhya Pradesh, India,” International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 1–12, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
S. K. Mishra, U. K. Mishra, A. K. Tripathy, A. K. Singh, and A. K. Mishra, “Hydrogeochemical studies in Ground water quality in and sajjanpur area Satna district Madhya Pradesh,” International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
A. D. Sharma, S. M. Rishi, and T. Kessari, “Evaluation of ground water quality and suitability for irrigation and drinking purpose in south west Punjab, India using hydrochemical approach,” Applied Water Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 3137–3150, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Mahadev, A. Ahamad, J. Kushwaha, P. Singh, and P. K Mishra, “Geochemical assessment of ground water quality for its suitability drinking and irrigation purpose in rural areas of Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi UP,” Geology, Ecology and Landscapes, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 127–136, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Dudeja, S. K. Bartarya, and A. K. Biyani, “Hydrochemical and water quality assessment of groundwater in Doon valley of outer Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 181, no. 1-4, pp. 183–204, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. K. Jain, A. Bandopadhyay, and A. Bhadra, “Assessment of ground water quality for irrigation purpose district in Nainital Uttarakhand, India,” Journal of Indian Water Resources Society, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp. 8–14, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
N. S. Bhandari and K. Nayal, “Correlation study on physico-chemical parameters and quality assessment of Kosi river water, Uttarakhand,” Journal of Chemistry, vol. 5, no. 2, Article ID 140986, 5 pages, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Seth, M. M. Sharma, V. K. Gupta, P. Singh, R. Singh, and S. Gupta, “Application of technique in the assessment of ground water quality of Udham Singh Nagar UIttarakhand,” Water Quality Exposure and Health, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 199–216, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. D. Bahukhandi, S. K. Bartarya, and N. A Siddqui, “Assessment of ground and surface water quality Haridwar district, Uttarakhand,” International Journal of ChemTech Research, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 95–118, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, APHA, Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
D. K. Todd, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons Publications, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 3rd edition, 1995.
H. M. Raghunath, Ground Water, Vilely Easteren Ltd., New Delhi, India, 2nd edition, 1987.
F. M. Eaton, “Significance of carbonate in irrigation water,” Soil Science, vol. 67, pp. 112–133, 1950.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Szabolcs and C. Darab, “The influence of irrigation water of high sodium carbonate content of soils,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of ISSS, pp. 803–812, Tsukuba, Japan, 1964.
View at: Google Scholar
L. D. Doneen, “Salinization of soils by salt in irrigation water,” Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 943–950, 1964.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Scholler, “Geochemistry of groundwater,” in Groundwater Studies: An International Guide for Research and Practice, vol. 15, pp. 1–18, UNESCO, Paris, France, 1977.
View at: Google Scholar
R. S. Ayers and W. Westcat, Water Quality for Agriculture, FAO, Rome, Italy, 1994.
R. R. Duncan, R. N. Carrow, and M. Huckle, Under Standing Water Quality and Guideline to Management (An Overview of Challenges of Water Uses on Golf Course 21^st Century), USGA, Far Hills, NJ, USA, 2000.
Z. S. Safari and A. A. Safari Sinegani, “Aresenic and other water quality indicators of groundwater in an agriculture area of Qorveh Plain, Kurdistan, Iran,” American Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 548–555, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
G. N. Sawyer and D. L. McCarthy, Chemistry of Snitary Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1967.
FAO, Water Quality for Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAO, Rome, Italy, 1989.
L. A. Richards, Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline Alkali Soils: Agriculture, vol. 160, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washighton DC, USA, 1954.
US Salinity Laboratory, Staff Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soil, vol. 160, U. S. Dept. Agriculture, Washighton DC, USA, 1954.
N. Khodapanah, W. N. A. Sulaiman, and N. Khodapanah, “Ground water quality for different purpose in Eshtehard district of Tehran Iran,” Europian Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 36, pp. 543–553, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Bokhari and M. Khan, “Deterministic modelling of AI-madinah AI-munawarah groundwater quality using lumped parameter approach,” Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Earth Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89–107, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. V. Wilcox, Classification and Use of Irrigation Water Washington, vol. 19, US Department of Agriculture Circular), Washighton DC, USA, 1954.
S. Gholami and S. Srikantaswamy, “Analysis of agriculture impact on the Curvery river water around KRS Dam,” World Applied Science Journal, vol. 6, pp. 1157–1169, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
S. N Biswas, H. Mohabey, and M. L. Malik, “Assessment of the irrigation water quality of river Ganga in Haridwar district,” Asian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 16, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Herman, Groundwater Hydrology, International Student Edition), Boston, MA, USA, 1978.
S. M. Shahidullah, M. A. Hakim, M. S. Alam, and A. T. M. Shansuddoha, “Assessment of ground water quality in a selected area of Bangladesh,” Pakistan Journal Biological Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 246–249, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Nagarju, S. Suresh, K. Killaham, and K. A. Hudson-Edwards, “Hydrogeochemistry of waters of manampeta barite mining area Cuddapah Basin, Andhra Pradesh India,” Journal Turkish Journal Engineering Environmental Science, vol. 30, pp. 203–219, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
M. N. Tijani, “Hydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater in Moro area, Kwara state, Nigeria,” Environmental Geology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 194–202, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. K. Todd, Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons Publications, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1995.
A. Nagaraju, K. Sunil Kumar, and A. Thejaswi, “Assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation: a case study from Bandalamottu lead mining area, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, South India,” Applied Water Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 385–396, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. S. Bhandari and H. K. Joshi, “Quality of spring water used for irrigation in the Almora district of Uttarakhand, India,” Chinese Journal of Geochemistry, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 130–136, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Rawat, S. K. Singh, and S. K. Gautam, “Assessment of ground water quality for irrigation use: a Peninsular case study,” Applied Water Science, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 233–2657, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Singh, P. K. Srivastav, D. Singh, D. Han, S. K. Gautam, and A. C. Pande, “Modeling ground water quality over a humid subtropical region using numerical indices, earth observation datasets and X ray diffraction techniques, A case study of Allahabad district India,” Environmental Geochemical Health, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 157–180, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Xu, W. Feng, H. Qian, and Q. Zhang, “Hydrogeochemical characterization and irrigation quality assessment of shallow groundwater in the central-western Guanzhong basin, China,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 1492, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Domenico and F. W. Schwartz, Physical and Chemical Hydrology, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
M. A. Sheikh, C. Azad, S. Mukherjee, and R. Kumari, “An assessment of groundwater salinization in Haryana state in India using hydrochemical tools in association with GIS,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 76, p. 465, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Durov, “Classification of natural waters and graphic representation of their composition,” Doklady Akademii SSSR, vol. 59, pp. 87–90, 1948.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Ravikumar, R. K. Somashekar, and K. L. Prakash, “A comparative study on usage of Durov and Piper diagrams to interpret hydrochemical processes in groundwater from SRLIS river basin, Karnataka, India,” Elixir Earth Sciences, vol. 80, pp. 31073–31077, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Nyika, E. Onyari, M. Dinka, and S. Mishra, “Analysis of particle size distribution of landfill contaminated soils and their mineralogical composition,” Particulate Science and Technology, vol. 12, pp. 1–11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. M. Hussien and A. S. Faiyad, “Modeling the hydrogeochemical processes and source of ions in the groundwater of aquifers within kasra-nukhaib region (west Iraq),” International Journal of Geosciences, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1156–1181, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Gibbs, “Mechanism controlling world water chemistry,” Science, vol. 170, pp. 1081–1090, 1977.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Kshitindra Kr. Singh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

9532

Downloads

3066

Citations