Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-1302-1
Received: 15 July 2009 / Accepted: 22 December 2009 / Published online: 21 January 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract An attempt has been made to understand the hydrogeochemical parameters to develop water quality index in Thirumanimuttar
sub-basin. A total of 148 groundwater samples
were collected and analyzed for major cations and
anions. The domination of cations and anions was
in the order of Na>Mg>Ca>K for cations and
Cl>HCO3 >SO4 in anions. The hydrogeochemical
facies indicate alkalis (Na and K) exceed alkaline
earths (Ca and Mg) and strong acids (Cl and
SO4 ) exceed weak acid (HCO3 ). 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. The overlay of WQI with chloride and
EC correspond to the same locations indicating
the poor quality of groundwater in the study area.
SAR, Na%, and TH were noted higher during
both the seasons indicating most of the groundwater locations not suitable for irrigation purposes.
Keywords Groundwater geochemistry
Anthropogenic Water quality index
Sodium percentage Sodium adsorption ratio
Introduction
Groundwater occurs almost everywhere beneath
the earth surface not in a single widespread
aquifer but in thousands of local aquifer systems
and compartments that have similar characters.
Knowledge of the occurrence, replenishment, and
recovery of groundwater has special significance
in arid and semi-arid regions due to discrepancy
in monsoonal rainfall, insufficient surface waters and over drafting of groundwater resources.
Groundwater quality depends on the quality of
recharged 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
groundwater quality.
Water pollution not only affects water quality
but also threats human health, economic development, and social prosperity (Milovanovic 2007).
River basins are highly vulnerable to pollution
due to absorption and transportation of domes-
596
tic, industrial, and agricultural waste water; therefore, it is significant to control water pollution
and monitor water quality (Simeonov et al. 2003;
Simeonova et al. 2003). Various geostatistical concepts are used for the interpretation of complex
data sets which allows a better understanding of
the water quality parameters (Kumar and Ahmed
2003; Suk and Lee 1999; Isaaks and Srivastava
1989). Assessing risk involves identifying the hazard associated with a particular occurrence, action,
or circumstance and determining the probability
of that hazard occurring (Smith 2001). Hence,
evaluation of groundwater quantity and quality is
important for the development of further civilization and to establish database for planning future
water resources development strategies.
The study area, Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, a
hard rock terrain receives major part of rainfall from northeast monsoon. The surface water
sources are generally precarious to get their supply during monsoon seasons and during nonmonsoonal periods people have to largely depend on
groundwater resources for their domestic, agricultural, and industrial activities. About 70% of study
area is dominated by local human activities and
agricultural activities, the rest by industries manufacturing chemicals, paints, dying, bleaching, and
bus body building which dispose industrial and
hazardous wastes nearby agricultural lands which
craft a major threat to the adjoining groundwater
environments. Therefore, the study of behavior of
aquifer in the study area results to be of priority
importance. Hence, it has been proposed to characterize the hydrogeochemical processes activated
in the study area, with reference to natural and
manmade activities and to classify water on the
basis of sodium percentage (Na%), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate
(RSC), total hardness (TH), and water quality
index (WQI). A complete test to determine the
WQI of a local body is vital to establish a continuing record for possible water remediation.
Study area
Thirumanimuttar sub-basin lies between North
Latitudes 10 58 and 11 48 and East Longitudes
77 53 and 78 28 with a total drainage of about
597
Fig. 1 Groundwater
sample location and
geology map of the
study area
Tamil N adu
India
77 55
78 25
11 45
12
54
11 45
11
55
56
51
49
22
14
15
18
21
17
25
16
26
19
27
7
8
50
23
24
13
53
52
10
20
5
3
4
72
74
33
30
31
38
32
48
46
63
34
29
43
59
58
62
LEGEND
Ultrabasic Rocks
57
Charnockite
60
61
Granitic Gneiss
73
65
Calc Granulite
28
66
68
Syenite
67
69
Sample Location
70
71
11 00
77 55
35
41
42
44
45
64
36
40
47
37
39
5
SCALE
78 25
10
11 00
598
Table 1 Statistics of
chemical parameters
(all in mg/l and EC in
S/cm) in groundwater
for PRM and POM
seasons, respectively
Parameters
pH
Ca
Mg
Na
K
HCO3
PO4
SiO4
Cl
SO4
NO3
F
TDS
EC
PRM (n = 148)
POM (n = 148)
Min
Max
Std. Dev
Min
Max
Std. Dev.
6.9
16
11.91
0.8
0.8
73.22
0.48
2
86.84
1
4
0.03
303
473
9.22
179.16
158.4
1,497
277
893.84
1.5
33
1,602.27
126.8
133
4.2
3,489.74
5,452.71
0.35
33.99
28.89
330.71
55.53
164.10
0.16
5.59
356.64
27.90
29.08
0.78
754.45
1,178.71
7.4
8
4.86
8
1
91.5
0.48
7
24
25
1
0.34
408
638
8.2
464
376.65
598
322
1,067.5
3.47
37
1,730
758
136
1
3,729
5,826
0.18
57.89
89.89
164.52
60.86
24.04
0.61
5.51
357.2
180.4
39.53
0.18
764
1,193
599
POM
PRM
Fig. 2 Box plots for major ions (in mg/L) in POM and PRM seasons respectively
and Christ 1965). Total hardness of the groundwater ranges from 36.951,508.33 mg/l as CaCO3.
Box plots were used to represent temporal concentration of the major ions (Fig. 2). The upper
and lower quartiles of the data define the top and
the bottom of a rectangle box. The line inside the
B
D
A-Calcium type
E- Bicarbonate type
LEGEND
C-Magnesium type
G- Chloride type
Fig. 3 a, b Piper trilinear diagram for POM and PRM seasons respectively
B G
600
Chemical parameters
Indian Standard
Weight (wi)
Relative weight
wi
,
Wi = n
i=1 wi
5
1
5
5
1
5
5
3
3
4
2
2
wi = 41
0.116
0.023
0.116
0.116
0.023
0.116
0.116
0.070
0.070
0.093
0.047
0.047
wi = 0.953
500
250
200
45
1
75
30
601
Parameters
ISI
Percent compliance
POM
PRM
limits
POM
PRM
pH
Sp. conductivity
(mS/cm at 25 C)
Total dissolved solids
Total hardness as
CaCO3 (mg/l)
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
Sulphate (mg/l)
Phosphate (mg/l)
Nitrate (mg/l)
Fluoride (mg/l)
Calcium (mg/l)
Magnesium (mg/l)
Sodium (mg/l)
Potassium (mg/l)
Silicate (mg/l)
6.58.5
100
98.6
7.08.0
97.30
85.14
500
300
97.29
59.46
36.50
1,000
28.38
32.43
250
200
45
1
75
30
40.54
48.65
67.57
60.23
85.14
9.46
29.73
100
66.21
45.95
59.46
25.68
250
250
50
75
30
200
40.54
66.22
32.43
85.14
9.46
48.65
29.73
100
68.92
59.46
25.68
51.35
n
i=1
wi
SIi = Wi qi
WQI = SIi
Wi
wi
n
where
Si
Percent compliance
For computing the WQI, the SI is first determined for each chemical parameter, which is then
used to determine the WQI as per the following
equation
where
is the relative weight
is the weight of each parameter
is the number of parameters
WHO
SIi
qi
n
Type of water
Excellent water
Good water
Poor water
Very poor water
Water unsuitable for drinking
purposes
602
140.63
72.51
126.52
126.86
112.21
43.51
92.18
61.40
117.67
91.32
114.30
53.29
61.33
163.89
95.45
139.72
105.94
53.40
124.23
88.14
70.57
156.01
96.77
120.08
61.87
260.47
63.45
62.15
138.57
298.96
73.22
37.94
123.86
204.88
73.30
165.87
162.39
PRM
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Excellent water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Very poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Very poor water
Good water
Excellent water
Poor water
Very poor water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
149.20
104.38
192.06
110.91
71.18
70.86
68.61
101.70
111.74
104.14
211.93
106.01
171.74
122.09
41.35
90.87
77.83
87.58
253.06
135.73
120.29
107.59
71.98
134.64
98.88
66.65
97.03
109.34
126.56
181.83
65.75
169.57
291.94
170.64
142.81
250.75
218.48
S. no. POM
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Very poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Excellent water
Good water
Good water
Good water
Very poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Very poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Very poor water
Very poor water
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
171.57
120.46
203.95
125.31
73.47
162.39
96.63
69.66
165.24
163.42
298.96
73.63
156.13
121.63
82.02
111.44
53.16
70.47
112.72
83.32
156.13
83.32
156.13
110.63
38.13
125.54
117.04
102.11
103.27
39.50
112.72
54.69
70.24
112.72
133.32
89.24
69.90
PRM
Poor water
Poor water
Very poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Very poor water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Excellent water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Excellent water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
139.73
120.03
184.19
153.44
156.96
85.21
249.01
84.36
90.96
133.24
139.63
231.82
251.97
199.48
199.42
87.12
108.34
68.89
223.16
85.94
105.18
82.44
93.55
74.13
158.21
76.38
127.36
94.71
110.43
92.80
103.68
95.02
74.93
116.03
199.87
93.79
96.21
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Very poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Very poor water
Very poor water
Very poor water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Very poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
Poor water
Poor water
Good water
Good water
603
Based on Na%, <35 meq/l in groundwater is suitable for irrigation purposes. During POM, Na%
is ranging from <0.5 to 94 and 74.32% of samples
represent over range and not suitable for irrigation. During PRM, three samples (7, 23, and 29)
recorded Na% within permissible limit and the
others exceed the permissible limit. The Na% was
higher during PRM when compared with POM,
due to long residence time of water, dissolution
of minerals from lithological composition, and the
addition of chemical fertilizers by the irrigation
waters (Subba Rao et al. 2002; Qiyan and Baoping
2002).
Sodium percentage
Sodium in soil is considered vital for determining
groundwater suitability for irrigation purpose because Na reacts with soil to reduce its permeability
and support little or no plant growth. Sodium content is usually expressed in terms of percentage
sodium calculated by:
Na% = (Na + K) 100
/ Ca + Mg + Na + K meq/l
Total Hardness
Water hardness has no known adverse effects;
however, some evidence indicates its role in heart
diseases (Schroeder 1960). Hard water is unsuitable for domestic use and it is a measure of the
calcium and magnesium content, customarily expressed as the equivalent of calcium carbonate.
Hardness of water is defined as the inhibition
of soap action in water due to precipitation of
magnesium and calcium salts such as carbonates,
sulfates, and chlorides. It can be temporary or permanent hardness. Temporary hardness is mainly
due to the presence of calcium carbonate and is
604
12
11
54
10
9
13
53
52
55
56
14
51
50
15
16
26
49 18 17
22
23
24
25
9
21 1
20
33
74
27
38
39
32
10
56
33
30
31
48
32
21
24
25
27
74
1100
800
72
1
35
34
37
36
40
41
29 7
5
59
3
42
4 58
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
5
4 63
73 28
8
66 6
5
64 6
67
69
70
71
5600
5100
4600
4100
3600
3100
2600
2100
1600
1100
600
8
6
53
52
14
15
19
20
33
30
31
48
3
16
26
49 18 17
22
S
71
-100
3
38
39
12
11
10
23
70
200
16
26
9
13
51
50
67
69
1400
19
20
74
56
L
CA
15
21
1700
54
10
40
14
51
50
55
LEGEND
35
34
37
36
500
7
53
52
24
25
27
41
49 18 17
22
23
29 7
5
30
9
1
5
2
3
4
43 58
48
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
5
3
4 6
73 28
12
6 68
5 6
54
64 6
11
9
13
55
72
38
39
32
300
72
1
37
36
250
200
35
34
150
40
41
29 7
5
9
5
2
4
43 58
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
45 63
73 28
6 68
5 6
64 6
100
50
0
67
69
70
71
Fig. 4 Spatial distribution map of a chloride, b EC, and c WQI of the study area during POM season
605
12
11
54
10
9
13
53
52
55
56
14
51
50
15
16
26
49 18 17
22
23
19
20
21
24
25
32
30
31
48
10
33
3
16
26
38
39
32
10
22
24
25
27
74
35
34
37
36
40
67
69
70
71
5400
4900
4400
3900
3400
2900
2400
1900
1400
900
400
290
33
30
31
48
3
16
26
19
20
38
39
32
240
14
51
50
21
50
53
52
15
49 18 17
23
72
41
29 7
5
59
3
42
4 58
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
5
3
4 6
73 28
6 68
5 6
64 6
9
13
56
350
12
11
54
1250
19
20
30
31
48
55
71
650
14
74
27
70
15
21
1550
67
69
51
50
24
25
E
AL
SC
950
53
52
22
LEGEND
40
29 7
5
9
5
2
4
43 58
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
5
4 63
73 28
8
66 6
5
4
6
6
49 18 17
23
10
41
9
13
56
35
34
37
36
12
11
54
55
38
39
33
74
27
72
190
72
1
140
35
34
37
36
90
40
41
40
29 7
5
59
43 58
42
44
60
47
62 1
46
6
45 63
73
64
65
28
8
66 6
67
69
70
71
Fig. 5 Spatial distribution map of a chloride, b EC, and c WQI of the study area during PRM season
606
Table 5 Summary of important hydrogeophysical parameters for groundwater in PRM and POM season (SAR, RSC and
Na% expressed in meq/L and TH is expressed in mg/l)
Sample No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
SAR
RSC
Na%
TH
POM
PRM
POM
PRM
POM
PRM
POM
PRM
5.05
2.21
6.71
2.47
2.70
0.11
0.16
9.76
5.65
6.98
36.68
5.65
10.96
2.83
1.18
0.82
0.58
5.07
25.78
2.10
2.61
6.84
0.02
7.57
11.79
0.18
3.17
2.60
18.22
7.04
3.76
11.03
36.90
4.33
2.87
21.92
28.15
8.46
0.02
19.67
9.06
6.12
4.29
25.98
0.14
0.21
2.85
7.93
10.51
19.01
15.59
31.92
2.74
3.03
3.03
8.39
3.86
1.05
1.91
26.89
6.69
8.39
8.77
1.91
43.29
21.67
20.88
13.01
11.62
21.68
41.21
6.77
8.14
1.15
30.13
1.85
7.41
8.33
1.82
2.17
15.69
2.57
13.12
3.03
11.75
2.62
12.40
12.40
37.76
21.58
11.75
9.80
2.82
12.40
19.51
12.01
41.24
44.23
15.69
2.60
8.14
21.72
1.48
7.29
12.23
5.60
0.61
6.05
3.09
6.23
3.05
2.63
11.78
6.23
1.73
0.86
1.48
2.71
2.13
3.03
9.18
7.68
1.10
3.42
3.30
3.86
1.60
1.76
0.95
3.11
10.42
2.71
2.00
2.33
5.88
11.26
10.29
0.19
5.50
0.08
9.66
5.55
0.98
8.65
2.62
2.89
5.07
4.55
6.06
1.75
9.99
2.84
0.14
0.37
2.06
6.04
5.57
2.56
1.32
2.82
1.61
0.35
0.54
2.56
4.67
1.61
4.75
6.72
2.44
3.54
5.85
0.27
11.58
0.27
4.89
4.95
11.99
1.86
28.67
0.84
2.01
1.70
16.35
1.85
2.13
3.23
10.72
2.09
5.86
5.86
7.02
0.11
10.72
2.67
4.54
5.86
3.35
4.08
4.72
6.25
16.35
1.46
4.89
0.16
53.85
30.17
53.31
35.08
43.60
2.34
3.86
79.91
62.59
63.89
93.75
64.90
72.58
41.74
32.01
16.81
12.90
63.74
88.80
28.44
36.70
67.97
0.68
66.65
81.94
5.82
45.10
38.41
89.25
60.70
53.23
72.08
91.05
42.67
34.65
84.40
90.21
68.75
0.43
85.51
61.12
54.23
57.09
77.65
2.85
4.56
34.72
64.84
63.33
78.61
72.37
86.10
43.62
38.80
38.80
69.66
61.94
18.04
40.59
90.58
63.98
69.66
77.25
40.59
89.28
76.42
86.43
82.32
82.12
87.08
95.35
71.58
61.16
18.38
82.17
39.09
48.47
75.98
38.24
21.12
68.28
40.69
88.66
38.80
64.82
41.62
72.37
72.37
88.02
86.99
64.82
70.61
44.92
72.37
87.58
79.98
88.87
89.45
68.28
41.24
61.16
87.11
445.90
604.32
851.50
510.00
286.57
515.00
404.50
148.50
277.59
218.47
143.50
228.50
416.55
368.50
154.03
409.50
368.00
198.58
253.50
674.50
495.00
231.00
314.00
346.76
158.98
208.03
357.30
415.50
111.50
485.61
209.70
436.27
311.50
812.92
704.73
400.00
205.50
344.00
695.50
256.50
459.04
632.31
188.94
315.50
533.50
467.50
577.29
387.56
909.50
581.96
317.05
237.30
273.10
506.28
506.28
307.76
104.66
480.73
190.02
123.25
267.03
307.76
116.25
190.02
121.42
128.78
237.18
163.02
102.50
189.54
76.06
178.29
540.54
400.01
150.16
202.50
1,508.33
157.39
209.99
433.05
982.63
310.53
36.95
506.28
631.17
298.05
508.17
508.17
159.60
191.28
631.17
343.64
258.13
508.17
153.55
171.02
133.77
116.31
982.63
303.04
540.54
188.90
607
Table 5 (continued)
Sample No.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
SAR
RSC
POM
PRM
15.67
4.08
3.97
0.42
30.08
3.22
3.44
3.46
2.91
0.07
6.83
0.02
7.46
2.18
4.68
2.63
6.05
5.06
4.22
5.59
29.34
2.58
0.35
9.54
13.33
8.77
11.00
13.33
5.47
8.14
5.47
8.14
12.14
13.12
20.73
11.59
13.00
12.80
13.12
13.33
8.77
11.09
13.33
7.48
34.59
10.98
POM
1.45
2.05
1.87
1.35
0.18
0.15
0.79
1.05
0.25
1.30
0.71
5.11
1.15
0.19
4.55
0.69
3.50
3.84
0.47
1.16
6.52
1.47
4.53
Na%
PRM
1.15
0.50
4.67
3.20
0.50
1.61
4.89
1.61
4.89
1.02
2.13
0.60
3.90
1.59
1.67
1.34
0.50
4.67
3.25
0.50
4.22
15.56
3.19
TH
POM
PRM
POM
PRM
77.98
55.97
51.82
9.12
90.45
47.89
45.85
41.07
43.61
1.95
50.90
0.34
64.67
38.31
55.87
37.90
44.17
51.63
57.72
58.96
91.48
38.62
7.12
72.59
76.96
77.25
80.76
76.96
58.52
61.16
58.52
61.16
71.14
88.66
83.35
72.18
72.78
72.41
88.66
76.96
77.25
81.01
76.96
63.38
82.08
80.71
467.62
237.56
326.58
427.50
231.00
297.63
391.72
207.50
347.30
267.50
397.50
505.50
377.43
248.26
340.00
270.52
247.99
227.99
226.50
358.15
146.77
415.50
485.54
222.53
289.96
116.25
144.93
289.96
299.40
540.54
299.40
540.54
224.15
36.95
269.71
435.22
195.40
201.71
36.95
289.96
116.25
142.43
289.96
441.01
96.86
145.44
Conclusion
The chemical composition of groundwater of the
study area is strongly influenced by effective
weathering and leaching action of feldspars and
magnesium calcite found in the litho units of
the study area along with anthropogenic activities
like industrial effluents, automobile emissions,
and phosphatic fertilizers in urban environments.
The hydrochemical facies infer groundwater samples irrespective of seasons fall in mixed Na-Cl
type with minor representations from Ca-Mg-Cl,
Ca-Na-HCO3, Ca-Cl, and Ca-HCO3 types. The
box plot indicates Mg, K, and SO4 are higher
during POM due to the effective leaching and
anthropogenic activities.
The WQI calculated for PRM exhibit poor
quality in greater percentage when compared with
POM indicating the effective ionic leaching, over
exploitation, and anthropogenic activities from
discharge of effluents from industrial, agricultural,
and domestic uses. The WQI compared with Cl
608
and EC observed high values same as WQI indicating the poor quality of groundwater along
the NE, NW, and southern parts of the study
area underlined by charnockite, calc, and granulite gneiss dominated by agricultural, industrial,
and domestic activities. Higher SAR, RSC, Na%,
and TH refers 75% of samples are not suitable
for irrigation purposes when compared with POM
due to long residence time of water, dissolution
of minerals from lithological composition, and the
addition of chemical fertilizers by the irrigation
waters. Water quality in the study area is slowly
reaching alarming stage so that proper planning
is essential in this venture to preserve the fragile
ecosystem.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by University Grants Commission, India Grant No. F.32-335/
2006(SR) dated 02.03.2007. The authors appreciate the two
anonymous reviewers to improve the study in the present
form.
References
APHA (1995). Standard methods for the examination of
water and waste water (APHA).
Avvannavar, S. M., & Shrihari, S. (2008). Evaluation of
water quality index for drinking purposes for river
Netravathi, Mangalore, South India. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 143, 279290.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) 10500 (1991). Indian Standard drinking water-specif ication (1st rev.,
pp. 18).
Datta, P. S., & Tyagi, S. K. (1996). Major ion chemistry
of groundwater in Delhi area: Chemical weathering
processes and groundwater flow regime. Journal of the
Geological Society of India, 47, 179188.
Edmunds, W. M., Carrillo-Rivera, J. J., & Cardona, A.
(2002). Geochemical evolution of groundwater beneath Mexico City. Journal of Hydrology, 258, 124.
Freeze, R. A., & Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Garrels, R. M., & Christ, C. L. (1965). Solutions minerals
and equilibria (p. 450). New York: Harper and Row.
Hem, J. D. (1985). Study and interpretation of chemical
characteristics of natural water. US Geological Survey,
Water Supply Paper No 2254.
Hem, J. D. (1992). Study and interpretation of the chemical
characteristics of natural water. Washington, DC: U.S.
Gov. Print. Office.
Howari, F. M., & Banat, K. M. (2002). Hydrochemical
characteristics of Jordan and Yarmouk river waters:
609
Pradesh, India. Environmental Geology, 49, 413429.
doi:10.1007/s00254-1005-0089-9.
Subba Rao, N., Prakasa Rao, J., John Devadas, D.,
Srinivasa Rao, K. V., Krishna, C., & Nagamalleswara
Rao, B. (2002). Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality in a developing urban environment
of a semi-arid region, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh,
India. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 59,
159166.
Subbarao, C., Subbarao, N. V., & Chandu, S. N. (1996).
Characterization of groundwater contamination using
factor analysis. Environmental Geology, 28, 175180
Suk, H., & Lee, K. (1999). Characterization of a ground
water hydrochemical system through multivariate
analysis: Clustering into ground water zones. Ground
Water, 37, 358366.
Taheri Tizro, A., & Voudouris, K. S. (2008). Groundwater
quality in the semi-arid region of the Chahardouly
basin, West Iran. Hydrological Processes, 22, 3066
3078.
Tiwari, T. N., & Mishra, M. A. (1985). A preliminary assignment of water quality index of major Indian rivers.
Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 5, 276
279.
Todd, D. K. (1980). Ground water hydrology (p. 535).
New York: Wiley.
WHO (1993). Guidelines for drinking water quality (2nd
ed., Vol. 1, p. 188). Recommendations, Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classif ication and use of Irrigation
water, U.S. Geological Department Agri Arc 969, 19.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.