Article Versions
Export Article
Cite this article
  • Normal Style
  • MLA Style
  • APA Style
  • Chicago Style
Research Article
Open Access Peer-reviewed

Ground Water Quality Assessment of Bihdia Jajikona Block of Kamrup, Assam, India

Gitika Devi , Hari Prasad Sarma
Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences. 2020, 8(6), 355-366. DOI: 10.12691/aees-8-6-5
Received July 22, 2020; Revised August 24, 2020; Accepted September 02, 2020

Abstract

To study the appositeness of ground water for drinking and agricultural purpose, an investigation on chemical data of dissolved major and minor constituents in ground water of Bihdia jajikona block of Kamrup district was performed. Another aspect of the study was to study the seasonal variability of ground water quality. Twelve ground water samples were collected for three different seasons from common ground water sources i.e. tube well. The samples were analyzed using standard methods. The results of analysis carried out showed that high fluoride and iron concentration in ground water was the main concern for the appropriateness of groundwater for drinking reason. Significant seasonal variation was observed in case of fluoride concentration. The absolute ionic strength (meq/L) design follow by the request HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ > SO4> Clˉ > Mg2+ >Fˉ >K+ in pre-monsoon season HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ >Clˉ > SO42- > Mg2+ > K+ > in monsoon season and HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ >Clˉ > SO42- > Mg2+ > Fˉ > K+ in post monsoon season. From the piper diagram it was found that maximum samples belong to the Na+ -K+ -HCO3- followed by the Ca2+ -Mg2+ -HCO3- hydrochemical facies. As per the arrangement dependent on SAR values, all the samples were belonging to the class ‘excellent’. Fluoride and iron distribution map was prepared to identify the fluoride and iron endemic zone of the block using Geographic Information System (GIS). WQI values of the three seasons were found poor in 58.33% sample good in 33.33% sample and excellent in 8.33% sample.

1. Introduction

Groundwater, which is the most important fresh water resource, is the only source of drinking water in rural areas of Assam. Groundwater pollution is one of the most significant social and natural issues now a day. The quality of groundwater is deteriorated both by some natural and anthropogenic causes. Expanding tainting pace of surface water has squeezed the ground water assets prompting overexploitation 1. Anthropogenic exercises can accelerate the relative contributions of the natural causes of variations and also introduces the effects of pollution 2. Over exploitation and microbial and chemical contamination are the fundamental causes of groundwater quality debasement. Chemical composition of groundwater is one of the major factors which determine the appositeness of groundwater for domestic, industrial and irrigational use. Agricultural production is also dependent on the quality of groundwater in areas where groundwater is used for irrigation purpose. Alteration in chemical composition of groundwater may lead to water pollution which may further responsible for various diseases. Water in its natural state is free from pollution, but when man tampers with water bodies, it loses its natural conditions 3. The chemical compositions of groundwater also vary seasonally due to various climatic factors. Therefore regular assessment of groundwater quality in different seasons is very much essential.

1.1. Study Area

The present study area is the Bihdia jajikona block of Kamrup district of Assam, India. The study area is extending from 91°41ʹ6.794"E to 91°49ʹ27.105"E longitude and 26°20ʹ46.114"N to 26°26ʹ46.078"N latitude covering an area of 91.75Km2 with an altitude of 52m (above mean sea level) and a total population of 187639. The topography of the study area is plain area with major land use classes of built up area and agricultural area. The 99% source of the drinking water is tube well in the study area. The Bihdia jajikona block is composed of twelve gram panchayat and a total 74 number of villages. The study area has a subtropical climatic condition. The area experiences heavy rainfall and high humidity during summer season. Flood occurs every year in the study area. Figure 1 shows the study area along with the sampling points.

2. Materials and Methods

The Bihdia jajikona Block of Kamrup rural district is consist of twelve gram panchayat. Twelve ground water samples were collected one from each gram panchayat of the Block for three different seasons i.e. pre-monsoon (January-February), monsoon (June-July) and post-monsoon (October-November) in the year 2017. The sampling location along with its geographical coordinates and source type are shown in Table 1. Tube well is selected as ground water source for sampling as this is the most common ground water source used by local people in the study area. Water samples were collected in clean poly propylene bottles of 1L capacity. Before collecting the water samples, the hand pumps were pumped for 3 to 4 minutes to exclude the residual water and lowering the interference of oxygen. Standard methods and techniques were followed during collection, transportation, preservation and estimation of the different water quality parameters 4, 5. Temperature was measured using a mercury thermometer, pH was measured with a digital pH meter, Electrical Conductivity (EC) was measured with a digital EC meter and Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) was measured with the help of a water analysis kit (Eutech instrument PCD 650). EDTA titration method was applied to estimate the calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and Total Hardness (TH). Bicarbonate (HCO3ˉ) and chloride (Clˉ) were estimated by the titration method. Estimation of fluoride (Fˉ) was done by SPADNS method using UV-spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 570nm. Sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) were measured with Flame photometer (Model Systronics). Iron (Fe) was estimated by colorimetric method. Sulphate (SO42ˉ) was estimated by turbidimetric method using UV-spectrophotometer. Water samples were analyzed within a week from the date of sample collection at the chemical laboratory of environmental science department, Gauhati University. Statistical analysis was carried out using the software SPSS 16. Charge balance error (CBE) was calculated to check the accuracy of the analytical method. The following method was applied to calculate the CBE.

All the samples were found within the permissible limit of ±10%.

Spatial distribution maps of fluoride and iron in the study area were prepared in ArcGIS software (version 10) using the kriging method in the spatial analyst tool of Arc toolbox.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Hydrochemical Characteristics

The analytical results of the groundwater samples for three different seasons are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 along with descriptive statistical parameters like minimum, maximum, average, standard deviations and variance. The pH value of the sample ranges from 6.09 to 7.64 with an average value of 6.83 in pre-monsoon seasons, representing almost neutral nature of the ground water. In monsoon season it ranges from 6.08 to 7.9 with average value of 7.08 and in post-monsoon season, the pH value ranges from 6.41 to 7.8 with mean value of 7.07. Geology of the catchment area and the buffering capacity of water are the main factors that influenced the ground water pH value 6. According to WHO standards 7, pH value of ground water that ranges from 6.5 to 8.5, fall within the desirable limit for human consumption. Almost all the samples come within this limit. Temperature is basically important for its effects on certain chemical and biological reactions taking place in water and aquatic organisms 5. The mean temperature of the water samples in pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons are 21.16°C, 23.66°C and 22.36°C respectively. The conductivity value is used as criteria for expressing the total concentration of soluble salts in water. Higher conductivity means higher mineralization of water. Higher mineralization may impart unpalatable mineral taste to water and thus has a significant impact on the uses of water as potable 8. The Electrical Conductivity values vary from 259.7µs/cm to 359.6µs/cm in pre-monsoon; 264.4µs/cm to 343.3µs/cm in monsoon and 270µs/cm to 364.3µs/cm in post-monsoon seasons. In all the samples, conductivity values are within the permissible limit in three seasons. TDS values of the water samples ranges from 114.5ppm to 233.5ppm with 192.39ppm as the mean value in pre-monsoon season. In monsoon season TDS values vary from 149.2ppm to 229.1ppm and in post-monsoon season the TDS values vary from 109.8ppm to 231.4ppm. In pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon season TDS value of all samples are found within the WHO permissible limit 7. Hardness is the property of water which prevents the lather formation with soap and increases the boiling point of water 5. The total hardness of all the samples estimated is found between 38ppm to 72ppm in pre-monsoon season; 48ppm to 78ppm in monsoon season and 44ppm to 78ppm in post-monsoon season. The TH values of all the samples in all the three seasons are come within the WHO permissible limit 7.

The total ionic dominance (meq/L) pattern follows the order HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ > SO4> Clˉ > Mg2+ >Fˉ >K+ in pre-monsoon season HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ >Clˉ > SO42- > Mg2+ > K+ > in monsoon season but in post monsoon season it changes into HCO3- > Na+ >Ca2+ >Clˉ > SO42- > Mg2+ > Fˉ > K+. The cation dominance order is Na+ > Ca2+ > Mg2+ > K+ in all the three seasons, while the anion dominance order follows HCO3- > SO42- > Clˉ >Fˉ in pre-monsoon and HCO3- >Clˉ >SO4 >Fˉ in monsoon and post-monsoon seasons. No seasonal variation was found in the cation dominance pattern.

3.2. Cation Chemistry

The calcium concentration in the study area ranges from 8.82ppm to 17.64ppm in pre-monsoon season, 9.62ppm to 18.44ppm in monsoon season and 9.62ppm to 19.24ppm in the post-monsoon season. In the three seasons, the calcium concentrations are found within acceptable limit. The magnesium concentration of the samples lies between 3.9ppm to 6.82ppm in pre-monsoon season, 5.36ppm to 8.77ppm in monsoon season and 4.39ppm to 7.31ppm in post-monsoon season. The concentrations of Magnesium in the ground water of the study area are found under the permissible limit of WHO 7. Sodium content in the ground water ranges from 29.18ppm to 42.7ppm in pre-monsoon season and in monsoon season it ranges from 28.78ppm to 43.11ppm. Again in post-monsoon season the sodium values ranges from 24.04ppm to 43.13ppm. The concentration of potassium varies 0.89ppm to 1.51ppm in pre-monsoon, 0.97ppm to 1.76ppm in monsoon and 0.89ppm to 1.5ppm in post-monsoon season. Both sodium and potassium content in the ground water of the study area are recorded under the WHO permissible limit. No distinctive seasonal variation occurs in the cation concentration of the groundwater.

3.3. Anion Chemistry

The bicarbonate concentration of the water samples in pre-monsoon season ranges from 140ppm to 200ppm. In monsoon season it ranges from 150ppm to 215ppm and in post-monsoon season the bicarbonate value ranges from 120ppm to 170ppm. The bicarbonate content in the groundwater of the study area is found within the WHO permissible limit in each season. Fluoride values in the water samples vary from 1.06ppm to 1.91ppm in pre-monsoon season and except three samples, fluoride concentration in other samples are recorded above WHO permissible limit. But in monsoon season, the concentration of fluoride decreases considerably and was recorded between 0.2ppm to 1.77ppm with an average value of 0.9ppm. In monsoon season due to heavy and continuous rainfall the ground water gets diluted which may be the reason of decreasing fluoride concentration. Again in post-monsoon season, fluoride concentration increases in some water samples and was recorded in between 0.78ppm to 1.79ppm with mean value of 1.37ppm. In five water samples, among the total twelve samples, fluoride concentration is found above the WHO permissible limit i.e. 1.5ppm. The mean values of sulphate in the three seasons are recorded as 10.85ppm (pre-monsoon), 9.78ppm (monsoon) and 12.77ppm (post-monsoon). The average concentrations of chloride are found 7.34ppm, 9.82ppm and 13.96ppm in the pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons respectively. The sulphate and chloride concentrations are also found within permissible limit. Among the anions fluoride shows greater seasonal variation.

3.4. Metal Ion

The iron concentration is ranges from 0.2ppm to 2.37ppm in pre-monsoon, 0.06ppm to 3.58ppm in monsoon and 0.18ppm to 2.75ppm in the post-monsoon season with the average values of 1.66ppm, 2.22ppm and 1.98ppm respectively. The iron concentration of 83.33% samples in pre-monsoon and 91.67% samples in monsoon and post-monsoon season is recorded above the WHO permissible limit. The ground water of the study area is highly iron polluted. This is however due to the red soil containing more ferric compounds, found in the surrounding hills.

3.5. Hydrochemical Facies

Hydro-Chemical facies were characterized as zones inside groundwater framework that decide particular mixes of anion and cation concentrations 9. This idea is extremely useful to build up a model for clarifying appropriation and beginning of head groundwater type 1. Piper trilinear diagrams were prepared utilizing major cations and anions to develop the hydro-geo-chemical regime 10. The trilinear cation plot represents abundance of cation species whereas the trilinear anion plot represents the abundance of anion species. The diamond shaped piper plot classified into four Hydrochemical facies i.e. 1) Ca2+ -Mg2+ -Cl- -SO42- 2) Na+ -K+ -Cl- -SO42- 3) Na+ -K+ -HCO3- and 4) Ca2+ -Mg2+ -HCO3-. From the piper diagram of the study area (Figure 2), it can be said that the cations are of sodium and potassium dominant and anions are of bicarbonate type. The diamond shaped piper plot shows the complete dominance of weak acids over strong acid and alkalis exceeding the alkaline earth. From the figure, it is clear that maximum samples belong to the Na+ -K+ -HCO3ˉ followed by the Ca2+ -Mg2+ -HCO3ˉ hydrochemical facies.

3.6. Classification of Groundwater Samples

Depending on Clˉ, SO42ˉ and HCO3ˉ concentrations (meq/L), the water samples were classified and in all the three seasons the classes were normal chloride (Clˉ < 15 meq/L), normal sulphate (SO42ˉ < 6 meq/L) and normal bicarbonate (HCO3ˉ = 2-7 meq/L) types 1, 4, 11, 12. 100% sample comes under normal chloride and normal sulphate type in all seasons. 100% samples in pre-monsoon and monsoon season and 83.33% samples in post-monsoon season come under normal bicarbonate type.

3.7. Base-exchange Indices

Using base-exchange indices groundwater samples were further classified applying the following equation 12.

Here, if r1 <1, the groundwater sources are of Na+ - SO42ˉ type and if r1 >1, the sources are of Na+ - HCO3ˉ type. In pre and post monsoon seasons all the samples are classified as Na+ -HCO3ˉ type and in monsoon season about 8.33% samples are classified as Na+ -SO42ˉ type and 91.67% as Na+ -HCO3ˉ type.

3.8. Meteoric Genesis Indices

The groundwater sources can also be classified based on meteoric genesis index using the following equation 1, 13.

Here r2 < 1 indicates that the ground water source is of the deep meteoric water percolation type, whereas r2>1 indicates that it is shallow meteoric water percolation type. The r2 values show that 8.33% groundwater samples are deep meteoric percolation water and 91.67% are shallow meteoric percolation water during the monsoon season and 100% water samples are shallow meteoric percolation water type in pre and post monsoon seasons (Table 5).

3.9. Evaluation of Groundwater Quality
3.9.1. Suitability for Drinking and Domestic Purposes

All the water quality parameters of the three seasons are compared with the permissible limits of BIS 14 and WHO 7. Fluoride and iron are the major concern regarding the drinking water of the study area. In pre-monsoon season maximum samples exceed the permissible limit. Thus, the groundwater sources in the study area are not suitable for drinking purpose and it demands for alternative sources of drinking water.


3.9.2. Suitability for Irrigational Purposes

In the study area groundwater is used for irrigation only in the winter season due to scarcity of rainfall. Therefore, its suitability for irrigational purposes was also studied.


3.9.3. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

High sodium concentrated ground water is not suitable for irrigation. The sodium in irrigation water is absorbed by the soil and the degree of absorption is determined by SAR using the following equation 15.

In all the three seasons the groundwater samples of the study area falls under the class 1 category of SAR.i.e. no sodium problem (Table 6).

Residual sodium carbonate (RSC): RSC is another parameter for studying suitability of irrigation water. When total carbonate concentration exceeds the total calcium and magnesium concentrations, the water quality is diminished 1. RSC is calculated using the following equation 16.

The water is considered suitable for irrigation if RSC value is > 1.25 meq/L. RSC values between 1.25 and 2.5 meq/L indicates that the water is of marginal quality. RSC value above the 2.5 meq/L is considered as unsuitable for irrigation. In the study area RSC values of pre-monsoon water samples are found between 1.25 and 2.5 meq/L indicating the marginal quality of water for irrigation. In monsoon season 8.33% samples are found suitable and 91.67% samples are found marginal quality water for irrigation. In post-monsoon season, 58.33% samples are recorded as suitable and 41.67% samples as marginal quality water for irrigation purposes. In the pre-monsoon season, RSC values are found between 1.25 and 2.5 meq/L indicating the marginal quality of water for irrigation.


3.9.4. Percent Sodium (Na %)

It is also an important parameter to classify the groundwater samples for irrigation purpose. It is calculated by the formula proposed by Doneen 17 as under,

The percent sodium ranges between 48.96% to 64.16%; 47.92% to 65.67% and 44.95% to 62.16% in pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons respectively. A high sodium percent causes deflocculation and both tilth and soil permeability impairment 18. Ground water sample classification to find their irrigation suitability is determined by using plots of EC vs. percent sodium in all the three i.e. pre-monsoon, monsoon and post monsoon periods (Figure 4).

Kelly’s index (KI): KI is calculated by the following equation,

Irrigation water with KI<1 is suitable for irrigation, while KI value >1 is considered unsuitable 19. In the study area, except one sample in pre-monsoon and three samples in both monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, all other samples are found > 1, i.e. unsuitable for irrigation purpose.

Magnesium ratio (MR): calcium and magnesium maintain a state of equilibrium in most waters 20. Szabolcs and Darab proposed a magnesium hazard value for irrigation water, which is calculated as a percentage using the following equation.

MR >50% is considered as unsuitable for irrigation 21. In the present study the MR is exceed the limit of 50% in two samples (16.67%) in the monsoon season and one sample (8.33%) in post-monsoon and rest of the samples are found suitable for irrigation.


3.9.5. The US Salinity Laboratory’s Diagram

The US Salinity Laboratory’s diagram 22 is broadly utilized for rating the irrigation waters. In this diagram, SAR values are plotted against electrical conductivity (µmhos/cm). The subsequent diagram is classified into 16 regions that are utilized to rate how much a specific water may offer ascent to saltiness issues and undesirable ion-exchange effects in soil. The Percentage distributions of collected ground water samples of all the three seasons are presented in the US Salinity Laboratory diagram (Figure 3) to study irrigation appositeness of the ground water in the study area. During pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, all the sampling points fall in C2S1 (100% of the samples) group (Figure 3). The ‘Good’ category waters can be used for irrigating different crops grown on different soils with little or no danger of harmful levels from exchangeable Na+. The ‘Moderate’ category waters can be utilized to irrigate salt-tolerant and semi-tolerant crops under suitable drainage conditions. The ‘bad’ category waters are generally undesirable or unsatisfactory for use in agriculture and should not be used on clayey soils of low permeability. However, this type of water can be used to irrigate high salt tolerance plants, when grown on previously salty soils to protect against further decline in fertility 23.


3.9.6. Mechanism Controlling Ground Water Ion Chemistry: Gibbs Plot

To represent the ratios of Na+: (Na+ + Ca2+) and Clˉ: (Clˉ+ HCO3ˉ) versus total dissolved solids (TDS), Gibbs proposed a diagram which is now broadly utilized and this diagram was prepared depending on the data obtained from the analyzing of 135 water samples around the world 23, 24, 25, 26. These diagrams were designed to find out the connections between water composition and the mechanism controlling water chemistry. Furthermore, it is also used to assess the functional sources of dissolved chemical constituents including atmospheric precipitation, rock dominance and evaporation crystallization. Data from ground water samples during all the periods are plotted in Gibbs diagrams (Figure 5). The distribution of all the sampling points of the three seasons in the Gibbs diagram shows that ratio of Na+: (Na+ + Ca2+) and Clˉ: (Clˉ + HCO3ˉ) are spread in the rock dominance zone. This indicates that chemical weathering process and mineralization in the study area may be one of the main causative factors in the ground water’s chemical composition evolution 26.


3.9.7. Suitability for Industrial Purposes

To study the suitability of water for industrial uses the scale forming property and corrosive nature of the water is generally evaluated. If the water is neither scale forming nor scale removing, then it can be said as suitable for industrial purposes and water saturation index can be used to determine whether calcium carbonate is precipitating or dissolving or in equilibrium state 1. Langelier saturation index (LSI) and Ryznar stability index (RSI) were computed to ascertain the suitability of water for industrial use.


3.9.8. Langelier Saturation Index (LSI)

It is the difference between the water’s measured pH (pHw) and the calculated pH when that water is in equilibrium with calcium carbonate (pHs) 1, 27. It is calculated by the given formula.

Where pHs is calculated as pHs = (9.3+A+B) – (C+D).

Here, constants A= (Log10[TDS] -1)/10; B= -13.12 X Log10(°C+273) + 34.55; C= Log10[Ca2+ as CaCO3] - 0.4 and D= Log10[alkalinity as CaCO3].

The negative LSI value indicates that the solution is under saturated with CaCO3. Therefore CaCO3 dissolves. The positive value suggests that solution is supersaturated with CaCO3 and scaling may take place. Neutral LSI value indicates that the solution is at equilibrium with CaCO3 and it is neither scale forming nor scale removing. The LSI values are shown in Figure 6(a). All the samples are under saturated with dissolved CaCO3.


3.9.9. Ryznar Stability Index (RSI)

RSI is calculated as, RSI= 2(pHs) – pHw, where pHs is the pH at saturation in calcium carbonate and pHw is the measured water pH. Generally RSI is depending on the saturation of CaCO3 in water and it results the positive values. RSI indicates the corrosion scale potential [< 6: scale formation (CaCO3 deposition); > 7: formation of no corrosion protective films and > 8: corrosive nature (CaCO3 dissolution)] 1, 27. RSI values are shown in Figure 6(b) and according to RSI index all the samples are of corrosive nature.


3.9.10. Spatial distribution of Fluoride and Iron

In the study area higher concentration of fluoride and iron in ground water is the main problem of drinking water. Spatial distribution maps of fluoride and iron in the study area help to identify the distribution of these two elements in the groundwater of the study area (Figure 7). It also helps to find out the fluoride and iron polluted zone of the study area in all the three seasons.


3.9.11. Water Quality Index

WQI is defined as a rating that reflects the composite influence of different water quality parameters 28 (Sahu and Sikdar 2008). WQI is calculated for assessing the suitability of water quality of an area and the influence of natural and anthropogenic activities on the hydrochemistry of the ground water 29. The WQI is calculated following the method used by Ravikumar et al., 2013 30. Depending on the calculated WQI values, the ground water of the study area is classified into five types namely, excellent water (WQI<50), good water (50>WQI<100), poor water (100>WQI<200), very poor water (200>WQI<300) and water unsuitable for drinking (WQI>300). In the present study, the computed average WQI values of the three seasons are found poor in 58.33% sample good in 33.33% sample and excellent in 8.33% sample. The WQI values of all the seasons are presented in Table 7.

4. Conclusion

The groundwater of the Bihdia jajikona block of Kamrup district is not suitable for drinking purposes as fluoride and iron content is found higher than permissible limit in most of the samples. Dissolution from fluoride containing minerals is the main reason behind the increase fluoride concentration. Therefore alternate source of drinking water is the best solution for this problem in the study area. Supply water is available in the study area but due to the lack of awareness, local people use supply water only for domestic purposes, not for drinking. For drinking people only concentrate in groundwater. No significant seasonal variation was seen in the groundwater quality. Only fluoride and iron shows significant seasonal variation. Fluoride content in groundwater is related to the ups and down of the groundwater table. Therefore seasonal monitoring is required. On the other hand, the groundwater of the study area is found suitable for agricultural and industrial use.

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to the Department of Science and Technology (DST), for the financial assistance.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

[1]  Singh, V. K., Bikundia, D. S., Sarswat, A., & Mohan, D. (2012). Groundwater quality assessment in the village of Lutfullapur Nawada, Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(7), 4473-4488.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[2]  Mazac, O., Kelly, W. E., & Landa, I. (1987). Surface geoelectrics for groundwater pollution and protection studies. Journal of Hydrology, 93(3-4), 277-294.
In article      View Article
 
[3]  Asadi, S. S., Vuppala, P., & Reddy, M. A. (2007). Remote sensing and GIS techniques for evaluation of groundwater quality in municipal corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-V), India. International journal of environmental research and public health, 4(1), 45-52.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[4]  APHA, A. WEF (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater 19th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association.
In article      
 
[5]  Trivedy, R. K., & Goel, P. K. (1984). Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies. Environmental publications.
In article      
 
[6]  Weber Jr, W. J., & Stumm, W. (1963). Mechanism of hydrogen ion buffering in natural waters. Journal-American Water Works Association, 55(12), 1553-1578.
In article      View Article
 
[7]  World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (Vol. 2). World Health Organization.
In article      
 
[8]  Jain, P. K. (1996). Hydrogeochemistry and Ground Water Quality of Singhari River Basin-Distt. Chhatarpur (MP). Pollution Research, 15, 407-409.
In article      
 
[9]  Younger, P. L. (2009). Groundwater in the environment: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
In article      
 
[10]  Piper, A. M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 25(6), 914-928.
In article      View Article
 
[11]  Schoeller, H. (1935). Utilite de la notion des exchanges de bases pour le comparison des eaux souterraines. Société Géologie Comptes Rendus Sommaire et Bulletin, série, 5, 651-657.
In article      
 
[12]  Soltan, M. E. (1998). Characterisation, classification, and evaluation of some ground water samples in upper Egypt. Chemosphere, 37(4), 735-745.
In article      View Article
 
[13]  Soltan, M. E. (1999). Evaluation of ground water quality in dakhla oasis (Egyptian Western Desert). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 57(2), 157-168.
In article      View Article
 
[14]  BIS, (2012). Drinking Water Specification, Second Revision IS:10500: 2012. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
In article      
 
[15]  Wilcox, L. (1955). Classification and use of irrigation waters (No. 969). US Department of Agriculture.
In article      
 
[16]  Eaton, F. M. (1950). Significance of carbonates in irrigation waters. Soil science, 69(2), 123-134.
In article      View Article
 
[17]  Doneen, L. D. (1962, June). The influence of crop and soil on percolating water. In Proc. 1961 Biennial conference on Groundwater recharge. (pp. 156-163).
In article      
 
[18]  Karanth, K. R. (1987). Ground water assessment: development and management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
In article      
 
[19]  Sundaray, S. K., Nayak, B. B., & Bhatta, D. (2009). Environmental studies on river water quality with reference to suitability for agricultural purposes: Mahanadi river estuarine system, India–a case study. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 155(1-4), 227-243.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[20]  Szabolcs, I. (1964). The influence of irrigation water of high sodium carbonate content on soils. Agrokémia és talajtan, 13(sup), 237-246.
In article      
 
[21]  Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
In article      
 
[22]  Allison, L. E., & Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils (No. 60). Soil and Water Conservative Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
In article      View Article
 
[23]  Rao, N. S. (2006). Seasonal variation of groundwater quality in a part of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geology, 49(3), 413-429.
In article      View Article
 
[24]  Gibbs, R. J. (1970). Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science, 170(3962), 1088-1090.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[25]  Raju, N. J., Shukla, U. K., & Ram, P. (2011). Hydrogeochemistry for the assessment of groundwater quality in Varanasi: a fast-urbanizing center in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 173(1-4), 279-300.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[26]  Marghade, D., Malpe, D. B., & Zade, A. B. (2012). Major ion chemistry of shallow groundwater of a fast growing city of Central India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(4), 2405-2418.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[27]  Singh, K. P., Malik, A., Mohan, D., Singh, V. K., & Sinha, S. (2006). Evaluation of groundwater quality in northern Indo-Gangetic alluvium region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112(1-3), 211-230.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[28]  Sahu, P., & Sikdar, P. K. (2008). Hydrochemical framework of the aquifer in and around East Kolkata Wetlands, West Bengal, India. Environmental Geology, 55(4), 823-835.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Raj, D., & Shaji, E. (2017). Fluoride contamination in groundwater resources of Alleppey, southern India. Geoscience Frontiers, 8(1), 117-124.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Ravikumar, P., Mehmood, M. A., & Somashekar, R. K. (2013). Water quality index to determine the surface water quality of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake, Bangalore urban district, Karnataka, India. Applied water science, 3(1), 247-261.
In article      View Article
 

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2020 Gitika Devi and Hari Prasad Sarma

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Cite this article:

Normal Style
Gitika Devi, Hari Prasad Sarma. Ground Water Quality Assessment of Bihdia Jajikona Block of Kamrup, Assam, India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 6, 2020, pp 355-366. http://pubs.sciepub.com/aees/8/6/5
MLA Style
Devi, Gitika, and Hari Prasad Sarma. "Ground Water Quality Assessment of Bihdia Jajikona Block of Kamrup, Assam, India." Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences 8.6 (2020): 355-366.
APA Style
Devi, G. , & Sarma, H. P. (2020). Ground Water Quality Assessment of Bihdia Jajikona Block of Kamrup, Assam, India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 8(6), 355-366.
Chicago Style
Devi, Gitika, and Hari Prasad Sarma. "Ground Water Quality Assessment of Bihdia Jajikona Block of Kamrup, Assam, India." Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences 8, no. 6 (2020): 355-366.
Share
  • Figure 7. Spatial distribution maps of fluoride [(a) pre-monsoon (b) monsoon (c) post-monsoon] and iron [(d) pre-monsoon (e) monsoon (f) post-monsoon]
  • Table 5. Classification of groundwater samples based on Soltan classification, Base Exchange index and meteoric genesis index
  • Table 7. Water Quality Index (WQI) values of the sampling points of the study area on three seasons and their average WQI values
[1]  Singh, V. K., Bikundia, D. S., Sarswat, A., & Mohan, D. (2012). Groundwater quality assessment in the village of Lutfullapur Nawada, Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(7), 4473-4488.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[2]  Mazac, O., Kelly, W. E., & Landa, I. (1987). Surface geoelectrics for groundwater pollution and protection studies. Journal of Hydrology, 93(3-4), 277-294.
In article      View Article
 
[3]  Asadi, S. S., Vuppala, P., & Reddy, M. A. (2007). Remote sensing and GIS techniques for evaluation of groundwater quality in municipal corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-V), India. International journal of environmental research and public health, 4(1), 45-52.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[4]  APHA, A. WEF (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater 19th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association.
In article      
 
[5]  Trivedy, R. K., & Goel, P. K. (1984). Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies. Environmental publications.
In article      
 
[6]  Weber Jr, W. J., & Stumm, W. (1963). Mechanism of hydrogen ion buffering in natural waters. Journal-American Water Works Association, 55(12), 1553-1578.
In article      View Article
 
[7]  World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (Vol. 2). World Health Organization.
In article      
 
[8]  Jain, P. K. (1996). Hydrogeochemistry and Ground Water Quality of Singhari River Basin-Distt. Chhatarpur (MP). Pollution Research, 15, 407-409.
In article      
 
[9]  Younger, P. L. (2009). Groundwater in the environment: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
In article      
 
[10]  Piper, A. M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 25(6), 914-928.
In article      View Article
 
[11]  Schoeller, H. (1935). Utilite de la notion des exchanges de bases pour le comparison des eaux souterraines. Société Géologie Comptes Rendus Sommaire et Bulletin, série, 5, 651-657.
In article      
 
[12]  Soltan, M. E. (1998). Characterisation, classification, and evaluation of some ground water samples in upper Egypt. Chemosphere, 37(4), 735-745.
In article      View Article
 
[13]  Soltan, M. E. (1999). Evaluation of ground water quality in dakhla oasis (Egyptian Western Desert). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 57(2), 157-168.
In article      View Article
 
[14]  BIS, (2012). Drinking Water Specification, Second Revision IS:10500: 2012. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
In article      
 
[15]  Wilcox, L. (1955). Classification and use of irrigation waters (No. 969). US Department of Agriculture.
In article      
 
[16]  Eaton, F. M. (1950). Significance of carbonates in irrigation waters. Soil science, 69(2), 123-134.
In article      View Article
 
[17]  Doneen, L. D. (1962, June). The influence of crop and soil on percolating water. In Proc. 1961 Biennial conference on Groundwater recharge. (pp. 156-163).
In article      
 
[18]  Karanth, K. R. (1987). Ground water assessment: development and management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
In article      
 
[19]  Sundaray, S. K., Nayak, B. B., & Bhatta, D. (2009). Environmental studies on river water quality with reference to suitability for agricultural purposes: Mahanadi river estuarine system, India–a case study. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 155(1-4), 227-243.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[20]  Szabolcs, I. (1964). The influence of irrigation water of high sodium carbonate content on soils. Agrokémia és talajtan, 13(sup), 237-246.
In article      
 
[21]  Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome.
In article      
 
[22]  Allison, L. E., & Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils (No. 60). Soil and Water Conservative Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
In article      View Article
 
[23]  Rao, N. S. (2006). Seasonal variation of groundwater quality in a part of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geology, 49(3), 413-429.
In article      View Article
 
[24]  Gibbs, R. J. (1970). Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science, 170(3962), 1088-1090.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[25]  Raju, N. J., Shukla, U. K., & Ram, P. (2011). Hydrogeochemistry for the assessment of groundwater quality in Varanasi: a fast-urbanizing center in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 173(1-4), 279-300.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[26]  Marghade, D., Malpe, D. B., & Zade, A. B. (2012). Major ion chemistry of shallow groundwater of a fast growing city of Central India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(4), 2405-2418.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[27]  Singh, K. P., Malik, A., Mohan, D., Singh, V. K., & Sinha, S. (2006). Evaluation of groundwater quality in northern Indo-Gangetic alluvium region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112(1-3), 211-230.
In article      View Article  PubMed
 
[28]  Sahu, P., & Sikdar, P. K. (2008). Hydrochemical framework of the aquifer in and around East Kolkata Wetlands, West Bengal, India. Environmental Geology, 55(4), 823-835.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Raj, D., & Shaji, E. (2017). Fluoride contamination in groundwater resources of Alleppey, southern India. Geoscience Frontiers, 8(1), 117-124.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Ravikumar, P., Mehmood, M. A., & Somashekar, R. K. (2013). Water quality index to determine the surface water quality of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake, Bangalore urban district, Karnataka, India. Applied water science, 3(1), 247-261.
In article      View Article