Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology & Life Sciences Volume 1, Issue 2, January 2012: 01-06 Journal’s URL: www.bepls.com Online ISSN 2277-1808 [Accepted 25 January 2012]
Original Article
Assessment of Surface Water Quality for Drinking and Irrigation Purposes: A Case Study of Ghaggar River System Surface Waters Sukhdev Kundu Department of Environment Science, Shoolini University, Solan-H. P. E-mail:
[email protected] ABSTRACT Assessment of water quality has been carried out to determine the concentrations of different ions present in the surface waters. Quality of surface waters of Ghaggar River system was evaluated for its suitability for drinking and irrigation purposes. The quality assessment was made through the estimation of temperature, pH, EC, TDS, CO32-, HCO3-, Cl -, SO42-, PO43-, F-, Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+. A total of 31 surface water samples were collected from different sources viz., Ghaggar River and its point sources (tributaries, choes etc.). Based on these analyses, some irrigation parameters like % Na, SAR, RSC and PI were also calculated. Keywords: Ghaggar River, Drinking, Irrigation, Point sources
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is a major sector in the economic development of India, as it is the source of livelihood for majority of population. The Ghaggar, a major river of Haryana originates from the Siwalik Hills of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. The Ghaggar River flows from east to west and then takes a southwesterly course. During its westward journey, a number of streams, streamlets, drains and tributaries debouch their load into the Ghaggar. After flowing through Morni Hills before entering the plains, the Ghaggar River is joined by the Kaushalya Nadi in the foothills zone. The small streams viz. Kaushalya, Jhajra and Ghaggar get combined together near Chandimandir to form the main Ghaggar River. Further, at downstream sites various point and non-point sources are joining the Ghaggar River and discharging their untreated effluents into it. The area under investigation lies between North latitudes 30˚00′00″ to 30°50′00″ and East longitudes 76˚11′24″ to 77˚07′20″ Area under investigation covers parts of different districts of Haryana and Punjab like Panchkula, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Patiala, Ambala and Kaithal (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Site map of study area BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012
1|P a g e
©AELS, India
Sukhdev Kundu
MATERIALS AND METHODS For qualitative analysis, surface water samples were collected from 31 different locations situated in between Badisher-Koti (Panchkula) to Bhadshapur (Patiala) stretch in the month of May (2006). These samples were collected in clean polythene bottle of two-liter capacity. At the time of sampling, bottles were thoroughly rinsed two to three times with water to be sampled. The physical parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) and temperature were measured in the field using water and soil analysis kit (Electronics India, Model 16 E). Rest of the characteristics of water samples were measured in the laboratory immediately after transportation to the laboratory. Chloride (Cl-), sulphate (SO42-), phosphate (PO43-), fluoride (F-), carbonate (CO32-), bicarbonate (HCO3-), sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and total hardness (TH) were estimated using standard procedures [1]. To ensure accuracy analysis was done in triplicates and mean value was taken into consideration. To ascertain the suitability of water for irrigation purpose is a complex matter. In isolation, it has not been possible to have agreed criteria on a universal basis. Some of the analyzed chemical parameters of water were used to calculate irrigational parameters. The various constituents viz., EC, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, CO3- and HCO3- have been utilized by various agencies and workers to ascertain the suitability of the water for agricultural purposes. For agronomic aspects major parameters of water have been clustered in two classes namely salinity and sodicity [2, 3, 4, 5] that may affect the soil, plant and human directly and indirectly. The different formulae were used to determine irrigation related parameters. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) takes EC and relative proportion of Na+ to other cations into consideration for rating of water for irrigation purpose [6]; Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) by Eaton [7] takes values of calcium, magnesium, carbonate and bicarbonate into consideration; and % Na by Wilcox method consider percentage ratio of cations Na+ and K+ to all other cations to classify water for irrigation. The permeability index (PI) method also takes percentage ratio of Na+ and HCO3- to all other cations for irrigational classification of water. SAR = Na+/ √Ca2+ +Mg2+/2 RSC (meq/l) = (CO32- + HCO3-) – (Ca2+ + Mg2+) % Na = [(Na+ + K+)] × 100 / (Ca2+ +Mg2+ + Na+ + K+) PI = (Na+ + √HCO3-) × 100 / (Ca2+ + Mg2+ +Na+ + K+) Where, ionic concentrations of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium are expressed in epm. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Suitability for drinking The physico-chemical characterization of the surface waters samples is given in Table 1. The analytical analyses with computed values and statistical values like minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation are given Table 2 by using SPSS [8]. In surface waters samples, temperature ranges from 30 to 40°C with a mean of 32.03°C. In general, in entire Ghaggar river system surface water samples temperature values crossed the prescribed range of WHO [9] for drinking water. Very high temperature can be attributed to the climate factors prevailing at the time of sampling along with meager flow in the river as well as in point sources. During the observation river water temperature was also influenced by point sources high temperature containing effluents mixing. River water temperature was affected by point sources wastewaters high temperature. pH of water varied from 7.3 to 8.6. In our study, water was showing slightly alkaline nature. pH of almost all the water samples was within the safe limits except two sites. The electrical conductivity (EC) (µmhos/cm at 25°C) varied in the range from 325 to 1632 with a mean value of 807.52. At various sampling sites point sources wastewaters were affecting the river water conductivity. EC has a wide applicability with respect to agricultural uses. But for drinking point of view high conductivity denotes proportionately high value of calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Total dissolved solids (TDS) varied from 212 to 1052 mg/l with a mean value of 523.23 mg/l. Water containing less than 500 mg/l of dissolved solids is suitable for domestic use. Although the mean values of dissolved solids in water samples were rather similar to the proposed WHO drinking water standard. High concentration of salts of sodium, calcium and magnesium is generally responsible for high concentrations of TDS. The sources of dissolved solids BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012
2|P a g e
©AELS, India
Sukhdev Kundu
in water are natural as minerals in soils and anthropogenic as agrochemicals. Bicarbonate contents varied from 200 to 365 mg/l with mean of 274.74 mg/l. 97% samples showed the bicarbonate values within the prescribed limits. Chloride occurs in all natural waters in widely varying concentration. Chloride normally increases as the mineral contents increases [10]. Water containing more than 250 mg/l of Cl- ion has salty taste. In our study, chloride is ranged from 42.6 to 235.8 mg/l with a mean value of 104.06 mg/l. In our study, chloride concentration remains well within the prescribed limit. The concentration of sulfate varied from 20 to 558 mg/l with a mean value of 94.1 mg/l. 94% of the samples were within the specified limit. According to Raghunath, sulfate causes gastrointestinal irritation if exceeded 250 mg/l level [11]. The excess of sulfate (more than 250 mg/l) may also reason bitter taste and may have laxative effect to human beings and livestock at further higher level [12]. Very high levels of sulfates have been associated with some brain disorders in livestock. The concentration of phosphate varied from 0.8 to 38.8 mg/l with a mean value of 7.47 mg/l. Fluoride at a lower concentration at an average of 1 mg/l is considered as an important constituent of drinking water. Small concentration of fluoride has beneficial effect on human body but high concentration causes dental and skeletal fluorsis. In our study, fluoride concentration ranged from 0.02 to 0.96 mg/l with a mean value of 0.353 mg/l. River fluoride concentration was influenced by point sources discharge at various sites. The concentration of sodium varied from 22 to 375 mg/l with a mean value of 76.29 mg/l. Further, 16% surface waters samples were showing sodium concentration above the prescribed limit of WHO. In our study, potassium ranged from 4 to 272 mg/l with a mean concentration of 18.57 mg/l. Concentration of potassium was highly fluctuated. Further, 42% samples show high concentration of potassium above the specified limit for drinking.
TABLE-1 RESULTS OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GHAGGAR RIVER SYSTEM SURFACE WATER S. N. Units 1 2 3 4 5
Temp. (°C) 30.0 30.0 31.0 31.0 31.0
pH
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 WHO (2004)
8.1 8.2 8.5 7.8 8.1
EC µmhos/cm 327 453 502 720 325
TDS mg/l 212 290 325 465 213
CO32mg/l ND ND 10 ND ND
HCO3mg/l 265 265 215 205 200
Clmg/l 56.8 56.1 49.7 65.9 42.6
32.0 31.0 30.0 31.0 31.5 30.0 30.0 31.0 31.0 29.8
7.3 7.4 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.7
716 618 612 594 455 452 410 984 514 775
463 499 396 385 294 290 265 631 335 503
20 20 5 20 15 ND 10 ND ND 10
335 255 230 260 230 215 205 285 235 240
99.4 63.9 53.9 59.7 67.5 61.5 63.7 235.8 110.9 106.5
32.0
8.2
1189
762
ND
250
121.4
32.0 30.5 30.3 30.2 30.5 40.0 35.1 34.2 33.5 32.6 32.0 32.0 37.0 35.4 35.2 12-25
8.2 8.2 7.8 7.7 7.9 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.2 7.8 8.0 8.0 6.58.5
984 1387 1409 1380 1066 824 813 795 756 750 732 765 1632 1076 1018 -
BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012
635 889 912 885 693 532 525 515 488 481 470 490 1052 670 655 5001000
5 5 ND ND ND ND ND 5 ND ND 5 ND 15 ND ND -
265 265 225 225 230 240 245 220 225 215 250 225 365 335 260 125350
SO4 2mg/l 20 22 25 25 36 30
PO43mg/l 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 4.2 5.6
Fmg/l 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.05
Na+ mg/l 22 24 28 30 25
K+ mg/l 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.5 4.7
Ca2+ mg/l 37.8 41.6 48.1 60.2 38.5
Mg2+ mg/l 13.6 15.2 18.5 25.6 17.1
TH mg/l 150 166 196 256 166
35 42 37 48 65 53 85 68 57 78
4.5 6.2 5.7 3.2 2.9 3.4 5.5 3.2 3.0 15.8
0.43 0.22 0.02 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.28 0.35 0.18 0.20 0.89
40 26 27 25 25 24 26 87 57 32 227
9.8 5.1 6.2 5.8 4.8 4.0 6.1 21.5 18.4 7.4
70.5 56.1 34.5 44.9 47.3 46.1 46.1 85.5 73..3 62.9
34.6 22.4 48.2 31.5 29.7 27.6 36.1 40.8 31.2 30.6
318 232 284 242 240 229 263 381 311 283
72.0
65.6
24.8
266
558
12.6
0.96
234 65.0
63.3
27.3
270
99
5.1
0.87
254
95 86 80 454 97 87 92 89 84 78 107 94 91 250
4.8 4.2 3.7 38.8 8.9 8.6 16.3 9.1 7.5 7.2 22.4 7.6 7.3 -
0.32 0.18 0.27 0.88 0.64 0.52 0.33 0.31 0.23 0.25 0.74 0.53 0.48 -
56 50 49 46 42 40 42 42 40 39 375 285 46
22.0 18.0 16.0 15.4 28.4 19.5 27.0 30.0 22.2 22.5 27.8 27.0 25.0 24.6
60.7 58.5 58.0 56.0 62.5 58.4 55.7 53.4 52.7 51.5 50.2 47.3 52.5 50.6
25.2 25.3 24.5 21.4 24.6 24.1 20.6 33.6 18.7 18.2 23.4 31.7 29.8 28.5
255 250 246 228 257 245 224 271 209 204 222 248 254 243
200
20
100
50
500
113.6 114.7 157.2 144.4 142.9 90.4 109.5 106.2 106.1 102.2 101.8 100.5 220.1 165.4 135.5 250
3|P a g e
©AELS, India
Sukhdev Kundu
TABLE-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ANALYZED SAMPLES Parameter
Temp pH EC TDS CO32HCO3ClSO 42PO43FNa+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ TH
Mean
Std. Deviation
Min
Max
32.03 8.032 807.52 523.23 4.68 247.74 104.06 94.10 7.47 .353 76.29 18.57 53.57 26.59 245.45
2.384 .3124 337.86 215.29 6.82 38.79 46.89 114.00 7.56 .274 92.3 16.13 10.48 7.49 45.57
30 7.3 325 212 0 200 42.6 20 .8 .02 22 4.0 34.5 13.6 150
40 8.6 1632 1052 20 365 235.8 558 38.8 .96 375 72.0 85.5 48.2 381
TABLE-3 EVALUATION OF GHAGGAR RIVER SYSTEM SURFACE WATERS FOR IRRIGATION S. No.
LOCATION ↓ PARAMETER→
CATEGORY EC (µmhos/cm)
PI % Na
SAR
RSC
1
Badisher-Koti
327
26.37
0.783
76.57
+1.334
2
Bijdoli-Ki-Doli
453
25.79
0.806
71.40
+1.014
3
Thapali-Narda
502
25.52
0.871
60.25
-0.062
4
Burjkotian Kambali-Kaushalya Nadi Kalka Dobighat-Jhajra Nadi
720
22.15
0.820
48.99
-1.739
325
26.55
0.845
65.68
-0.041
716
23.78
0.974
50.30
-0.221
Surajpur-Jhajra Nadi Surajpur-Kaushalya Nadi
618
21.32
0.741
54.84
+0.197
612
18.89
0.693
45.20
-1.772
594
20.30
0.696
54.75
+0.470
10
Amravati (J+K) Chandimandir (J+K+G)
455
20.01
0.696
51.27
-0.544
11
Panchkula S-3
452
20.00
0.688
56.51
-1.049
12
410
19.62
0.696
46.25
-1.582
13
Dafarpur Mubarkpur-Sukhna Choe
984
36.20
1.932
52.11
-2.932
14
Mubarkpur-Camp
514
32.18
1.406
51.03
-2.369
15
775
21.67
0.819
47.66
-1.403
16
Bhankarpur Ibrahimpur-Dhabi Nallah
1189
68.80
6.055
78.33
-1.212
17 18
Toana-Jharmal Choe Tepla
984 1387
68.62 69.46
6.182 6.913
78.63
-0.899 -0.589
5 6 7 8 9
BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012
4|P a g e
Quality on the basis of %Na (Wilcox, 1955) Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Excellent to good Good to permissible Excellent to good Good to permissible Good to permissible Permissible to doubtful Permissible to
On the basis of SAR (USSL, 1954) C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C3-S1 C2-S1 C3-S1 C3-S1 C3-S1
©AELS, India
Sukhdev Kundu
81.29 19
Devinagar
1409
36.68
1.539
58.63
-1.301
20
Nanheri
1380
34.48
1.387
57.85 60.84
-1.211
21
1066
35.63
1.412
22
Utsar Surala-Dhakansu Nallah
824
34.61
1.246
55.64
-1.216
23
Surala-D/S
813
32.40
1.182
57.19
-0.879
24
Maru
795
35.41
1.177
58.75
-0.702
25
Devigarh-D/S
756
32.31
1.106
51.66
-1.731
26
Mohamdpur
750
36.41
1.260
61.77
-0.645
27
Tatiana
732
35.26
1.219
64.72
+0.195
28
765
35.15
1.135
58.99
-0.743
29
Rattakhera Ratanheri-Patiala Nadi
1632
77.40
10.38
88.24
+1.533
30
Ratanheri-D/S
1076
71.95
7.773
84.32
+0.406
31
Bhadshapur
1018
35.06
1.282
59.10
-0.610
-0.789
doubtful Good to permissible Good to permissible Good to permissible Good to permissible Good to permissible Good to permissible Good to permissible Excellent to good Excellent to good Good to permissible Permissible to doubtful Permissible to doubtful Good to permissible
C3-S2 C3-S1 C3-S1 C3-S1
C3-S1 C3-S1 C3-S1 C3-S1 C2-S1 C2-S1 C3-S1 C3-S2 C3-S1 C3-S1
The concentration of calcium varied from 34.5 to 85.5 mg/l with a mean value of 53.57 mg/l. Calcium concentration in the water samples remained well within the prescribed limit. Magnesium is an important and common constituent of natural waters. Magnesium salts are highly soluble and tend to remain in solution following the precipitation of calcium salts [13]. In water samples, magnesium concentration is varied from 13.6 to 48.2 mg/l with a mean value of 26.59 mg/l. The total hardness caused by carbonates, bicarbonates, sulphates of calcium and magnesium and chloride varied from 150 to 381 mg/l with a mean value of 245.45 mg/l. Soft waters are those with a hardness of less than 100 mg/l; moderately hard waters those with range of 100 to 200 mg/l; and hard waters those range >200 mg/l. In our study, 13% and 97% samples were found in moderately hard and very hard category, respectively. A number of other diseases correlated with water hardness include nervous system defects, various types of cancers and prenatal mortality [14]. Suitability for irrigation Chemical quality of water is a significant factor to evaluate the suitability of water for irrigation [15]. The concentration and composition of dissolved constituents in water determine its suitability for irrigation use. Suitability of water for irrigation purposes depended on the effect of some mineral constituents in the water on both the soil and the plant [6]. The development and continuation of successful irrigation engross not only the supplying of irrigation water to the land but also the control of salt and alkali in the soil. Some major calculated parameters with respect to the use in irrigation are given in the Table 3. The total concentration of soluble salts in irrigation water can be expressed in terms of electrical conductivity for purposes of diagnosis and classification. In general, water having conductivity below 750 µmhos/cm is satisfactory for irrigation. Water having a range of 750 to 2250 µmhos/cm is widely used, and satisfactory crop growth is obtained under good management and favorable drainage system. In our study area, EC (µmhos/cm) ranged from 325 to 1632 with a mean value of 807.5. About 55% of surface water samples lie between range of 750 to 2250 µmhos/cm and good for irrigation. Based on percent sodium, most of the samples fall in excellent to good and good to permissible category only 13% samples fall in permissible to doubtful category. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) specifies the degree to which irrigation water tends to enter into cation-exchange reactions in soil. Sodium replacing adsorbed calcium and magnesium is a danger as it causes harm to the soil composition and becomes compact and impervious. Table 3 showed that out of 31 surface waters samples, 48% samples fall into C2-S1 category, showing medium salinity hazard and low alkali hazard water class and 45% samples fall into category C3-S1, indicating high salinity hazard to low alkali BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012
5|P a g e
©AELS, India
Sukhdev Kundu
hazard. About 6% samples fall into category of C3-S2, showing high salinity hazard and medium sodium hazard. In addition to % Na and SAR, the excess sum of carbonate and bicarbonate in water over the sum of calcium and magnesium also influences the suitability of water for irrigation. RSC was calculated to find out the hazardous effects of carbonate and bicarbonate on the quality of water used for agricultural purpose. In our study, RSC values varied from a minimum of -2.932 to +1.533 meq/l. RSC values remained negative for most of the samples, thus showing that the water was either good or within the limit (
