251

Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 8(1): 251-260, 2012

ISSN 1819-544X
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Evaluation of Groundwater Quality Using Linear Regression Model
1
Mohammad Muqtada Ali Khan, 2Rashid Umar, 3Md. Azizul Baten, 4Habibah Lateh and
4
Anton Abdulbasah Kamil
1
Faculty of Agro Industry & Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Locked Bag 36, Pengkalan
Chepa, 16100 Kota Bharu, KELANTAN DARUL NAIM, Malaysia.
2
Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, U.P. India.
3
Department of Statistics, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh.
4
School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

The present study was undertaken to analyzed chemical parameters of groundwater samples were collected
from representative sampling stations established over entire study area in post monsoon 2005, and pre monsoon
2006 periods from 37 locations in parts of the Central Ganga Plain. Eight parameters such as, TDS, HCO3, Cl,
SO4, Na, K, Ca, and Mg were selected as the groundwater quality variables in this study. Total dissolved solids
(TDS) were calculated by summing up the concentrations of all the major cations and anions. The
concentrations of Ca++, Mg++, Cl-, HCO3- and total hardness were determined by volumetric method. Ca++ and
Mg++ were determined by EDTA titration. For HCO3-, HCl titration to a methyl orange point was used. Chloride
was determined by titration with AgNO3 solution. Flame emission photometry was used for the determination of
Na+ and K+. Sulphate was determined by gravimetric method. The higher values of TDS, Na, K, and Cl were
recorded in pre monsoon 2006 compared to post monsoon 2005. On the other hand the higher values of Ca, Mg,
HCO3, and SO4 were observed in post monsoon 2005 than pre monsoon 2006. This showed clear impact of land
use on groundwater. The regression analysis between TDS-Na; TDS-K; TDS –HCO3; showed strong positive
relationship as r = 0.802, 0.715, and 0.786 respectively, and moderate positive correlation with Cl ions (r=
0.579) and very low positive correlation (r= 0.055, 0.324 and 0.330) with Ca, Mg, and SO4. All the estimated
chemical parameter values were found to be statistically significant in both pre and post monsoon years.

Key words: Groundwater, Quality, Linear regression Model, Correlation analysis.

Introduction

Quality of groundwater is nearly as important as its quantity and it is precious commodity for the survival
of flora and fauna. Groundwater is a precious natural asset, which requires a loving care. The quality of
groundwater of an area is a function of physical and chemical parameters that are greatly influenced by
geological formations and anthropogenic activities (Subramani et al., 2005). Groundwater system in the area has
a unique chemistry, acquired as a result of chemical alteration of meteoric water recharging the system (Back.
1966; Drever, 1982; Umar et al., 2006). The chemical alteration of meteoric water depends on several factors
such as soil–water interaction, dissolution of mineral species, duration of solid–water interaction and
anthropogenic impacts (Stallard and Edmond, 1983; Faure, 1988; Subba Rao, 2001; Chenini and Khemir, 2009).
Groundwater utilization has increased at an alarming rate over a period of three decades in the study area (Umar
et al., 2009).
It is well known fact that no straightforward reasons can be imputed for deterioration of water quality, as it
is dependent on several water quality parameters. There exist strong correlations among different parameters
and a combined effect of their inter-relatedness indicates the water quality. Different techniques have been used
in attempt to evaluate water quality, essentially based on chemical ions correlation (Piper and sholler diagram)
and some ions rapports to predict the origin of the mineralization (Bennetts et al., 2006; Pulido-Leboeuf et al.,
2003). Chemometric analyses were used to differentiate the water samples on the basis of their composition and
origin (Singh et al., 2005). The way of many researchers (for example, Aravinda, 1991; Singanan and Rao,
1995; Srivastava and Sinha, 1994; Biswal et al., 2001; Mishra et al., 2003; Mor-Suman et al., 2002; Keshvan
and Parameswari, 2005; Prajapati and Mathur, 2005; Patowary and Bhattacharya, 2005; Mahajan et al., 2005,
Dash et al., 2006) have been undertaken statistical analysis and assessed the ground water quality in different
parts of the country. A systematic statistical study of correlation and regression coefficients of the quality
parameters not only helps to assess the overall water quality but also quantify relative concentration of various
Corresponding Author: Mohammad Muqtada Ali Khan, Faculty of Agro Industry & Natural Resources, Universiti
Malaysia Kelantan, Locked Bag 36, Pengkalan Chepa, 16100 Kota Bharu, KELANTAN DARUL
NAIM, Malaysia.
E-mail: muqtadakhan@gmail.com<mailto:muqtadakhan@gmail.com>
 252
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

pollutants in water and provide necessary cue for implementation of rapid water quality management
programmes (Dash et al., 2006). In recent decades, multivariate statistical methods have been employed to
extract significant information from hydro chemical datasets in compound systems (Chenini and Khemir, 2009).
These techniques can help resolve hydrological factors such as aquifer boundaries, ground water flow paths, or
hydro chemical components (Liedholz and Schafmeister, 1998; Locsey and Cox, 2003; Seyhan et al., 1985; Suk
and Lee, 1999; Usunoff and Guzman-Guzman, 1989) identify geochemical controls on composition (Adams et
al., 2001; Alberto et al., 2001; Lopez-Chicano et al., 2001; Reeve et al., 1996).
The major problem with the groundwater is that once contaminated, it is difficult to restore its quality. The
net result is that the groundwater regime of the area has been affected detrimentally, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. Hence there is a need for and concern over the protection and management of ground water
quality. In this regard, multiple linear regression model is based on chemical properties of groundwater in
aquifer in study area, is given as an accurate tool to evaluate ground water quality, since it generates a minimum
data set of indicators (Doran and Parkin, 1996). Since the data obtained in this study had multivariate nature and
several of the variables were correlated. The present study attempts to employ a simple linear regression model
to evaluate ground water quality data in a sequential fashion.

Materials and Methods

Study Area:

The selected study area is lying between rivers Hindon and Krishni and measuring 650 km2 (29o05’N-
29o30’N: 77o20’E-77o32’E) is located in the western part of Muzaffarnagar district in the state of Uttar Pradesh,
India (Fig. 1). Sugarcane is the principal crop of the area. Groundwater is the major source of potable,
agriculture, industrial and other usage.

Fig. 1: Location map of the study area.

The area, on an average receives an annual rainfall of 588 mm and 697 mm as recorded at two rain gauge
stations. Rainfall is the main source for the recharge of the groundwater system. Drainage is controlled by the
two-north to south flowing rivers and elevation varies between 224 and 256 m above sea level (Khan 2009).
Geologically, the area is underlain by alluvial deposits of Quaternary age consisting of older and younger
alluviums. The thickness of the alluvium in the area is approximately 1.3 km (Singh, 2004; Kumar, 2005; Umar
et al., 2006). The Subsurface data available from shallow boreholes (Fig. 2) indicate that the top clay layer is
 253
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

persistent throughout the area and is underlain by a more porous and thicker granular zone intervened by several
clay lenses. The aquifer tends to behave as a monostratum to depth of about 120 m (Khan et al., 2010). The
granular zone is composed of medium to coarse sand and gravel and form about 60 to 75% of the total
formation encountered particularly in the upper central part of the study area. This area being a down faulted
area due to NE-SW Muzaffarnagar fault possibly became a dominant recipient of sand than the area north of
fault. Muzaffarnagar fault is an active transverse E-W fault passing through the river courses of Yamuna,
Krishni, Hindon, Kali and city of Muzaffarnagar (Umar et al., 2009; Bhosle et al., 2007).

Fig. 2: Fence diagram.

Methodology:

Water samples were collected from representative sampling stations established over entire study area for
chemical analysis in November 2005, and June 2006 from 37 locations, representing post- and pre-monsoon
periods, respectively. The depth of sampled hand pumps is 12-72 meter below ground level (m b.g.l). Eight
parameters such as, TDS, HCO3, Cl, SO4, Na, K, Ca, and Mg were selected as the groundwater quality variables
for analyses. The water samples were analysed as per the standard methods of APHA (1992). Total dissolved
solids (TDS) were calculated by summing up the concentrations of all the major cations and anions. The
concentrations of Ca++, Mg++, Cl-, HCO3- and total hardness were determined by volumetric method. Ca++ and
Mg++ were determined by EDTA titration. For HCO3-, HCl titration to a methyl orange point was used. Chloride
was determined by titration with AgNO3 solution. Flame emission photometry was used for the determination of
Na+ and K+. Sulphate was determined by gravimetric method. All the groundwater analysis was done in
Geochemistry Lab in the Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University, India.
Before handling the statistical models, the detection of outliers and the elucidation of trends, similarities
and dissimilarities among chemical properties of sampled water were carried out according to multiple linear
regressions through Figures 3- 6. The general purpose of multiple linear regression analysis is to quantify the
relationship between several independent or predictor variables and a dependant variable. This method is
 254
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

successfully used by different authors to establish statistical model (Ghasemi and Saaidpour, 2007). The
correlation coefficients and ANOVA among various constituents were calculated and a simple linear regression
model was employed in this study to observe the relationships among TDS and all major cations and anions in
groundwater during post monsoon 2005 and pre monsoon 2006 period.

Fig. 3: Histogram of Post monsoon 2005.

Fig. 4: Normal pp plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Post monsoon 2005).

 255
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

Fig. 5: Histogram of Pre monsoon 2006.

Fig. 6: Normal pp plot of Regression Standardized Residual (Pre monsoon 2006).

The proposed multivariate regression model for Post monsoon 2005 is as follows:
 256
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

Yi     X i   i

Where
Yi = Total dissolved solids (TDS) output variable in ground water of i-th time periods (post monsoon 2005 and
pre monsoon 2006).
X i = All major cations and anions (independent variables) in ground water of i-th time periods.
 = intercept of the regression model.
 = Vector of the parameters to be estimated.
 i = independent and identically normally distributed with mean zero and variance  2 .

Results and Discussion

The statistical evaluation from chemical data for the ground waters of the study area in the post monsoon
2005 and pre monsoon 2006 during two periods were summarized in tables 1-4, respectively. Regression
analysis was applied to investigate the relationships between TDS and major cations and anions water
properties. In this study, the eight variables were selected, as the [Na], [K], [Ca], [Mg], [HCO3], [Cl], [SO4],
were considered as independent variables and TDS as a dependent variable. The application of multiple linear
regression method and an analysis of variance were estimated as well as R² values were observed. The
descriptive statistical measures and the results of the regression analysis are presented in Tables 1-3.

Table 1a: Descriptive Statistics of Groundwater (Post Monsoon 2005).

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
TDS 429 1564 1029.62 272.225 -.224 -.409
Na 17 322 170.57 81.037 -.179 -.884
K 1 36 12.08 8.703 1.573 1.961
Ca 20 130 59.00 29.044 .487 -.716
Mg 4 152 34.49 27.222 2.535 9.023
HCO3 156 975 557.62 169.364 -.047 .322
Cl 9 182 54.46 44.159 1.106 .525
SO4 30 445 141.86 96.628 1.598 2.855

Table 1b: Descriptive Statistics of Groundwater (Pre Monsoon 2006).

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
TDS 513 1712 945.86 273.565 .810 .495
Na 78 378 203.57 77.005 .690 -.389
K 2 90 11.08 16.874 3.981 16.136
Ca 3 40 12.16 8.143 1.517 2.928
Mg 12 103 36.51 19.682 1.971 4.241
HCO3 245 831 441.68 150.056 .724 -.260
Cl 11 369 57.16 65.948 3.272 13.598
SO4 44 378 183.73 95.905 .425 -.976

Table 2a: Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Post Monsoon 2005).

TDS Na K Ca Mg HCO3 Cl SO4
Pearson Correlation TDS 1.000
Na .802* 1.000
K .715* .545* 1.000
Ca .055 -.211 .332** 1.000
Mg .324** -.033 .105 -.369** 1.000
HCO3 .786* .737* .359** .026 -.023 1.000
Cl .579* .355** .633* .301** .401* .122 1.000
SO4 .330** -.010 .420* -.076 .615* -.246*** .403* 1.000
* represent 1 % level of significant ** represent 5 % level of significant *** represent 10 % level of significant

Table 2b: Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Pre Monsoon 2006).

TDS Na K Ca Mg HCO3 Cl SO4
Pearson Correlation TDS 1.000
Na .909* 1.000
K .623* .535* 1.000
Ca -.422* -.524* -.230*** 1.000
Mg .394* .069 .261*** .034 1.000
HCO3 .776* .878* .357** -.580* -.051 1.000
Cl .451* .282** .532* .064 .743* -.015 1.000
SO4 .445* .158 .213 .030 .384* -.049 .145 1.000
* represent 1 % level of significant ** represent 5 % level of significant *** represent 10 % level of significant
 257
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

Table 3a: Estimated Chemical Parameters of a Linear Regression Model (Post Monsoon 2005).
95.0% Confidence Interval for B
Model Coefficients (B) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
(Constant) -.646 .703 .366 -2.084 .792
Na 1.007 .005 .000 .996 1.017
K 1.009 .025 .000 .957 1.060
Ca 1.013 .010 .000 .991 1.034
Mg 1.025 .012 .000 1.002 1.049
HCO3 .998 .002 .000 .994 1.001
Cl .990 .006 .000 .977 1.003
SO4 .995 .002 .000 .990 .999
R Square 1.000
Adjusted R Square 1.000
Durbin- Watson 1.758
a Dependent Variable: TDS

Table 3b: Estimated Chemical Parameters of a Linear Regression Model (Pre Monsoon 2006).
95.0% Confidence Interval for B
Model Coefficients B Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
(Constant) .806 .624 .207 -.471 2.082
Na .996 .006 .000 .983 1.009
K 1.006 .010 .000 .986 1.025
Ca .970 .017 .000 .934 1.005
Mg 1.001 .015 .000 .971 1.031
HCO3 1.001 .003 .000 .995 1.007
Cl .999 .006 .000 .987 1.010
SO4 1.000 .002 .000 .996 1.004
R Square 1.000
Adjusted R Square 1.000
Durbin- Watson 2.158
a Dependent Variable: TDS

Table 4a: Analysis of Variance (Post Monsoon 2005).

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 2667825.284 7 381117.898 823634.178 .000a
Residual 13.419 29 .463
Total 2667838.703 36
a.. Dependent Variable: TDS b. Predictors: (Constant), SO4, Na, Ca, Cl, HCO3, K, Mg

Table 4b: Analysis of Variance (Pre Monsoon 2006).

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 2694145.785 7 384877.969 890151.579 .000a
Residual 12.539 29 .432
Total 2694158.324 36
a. Dependent Variable: TDS b. Predictors: (Constant), SO4, Ca, Cl, HCO3, K, Mg, Na

The descriptive statistics of the analyzed water quality parameters were compared to both tables 1a and 1b.
Higher values of TDS, Na, K, and Cl were recorded in pre monsoon 2006 compared to post monsoon 2005. On
the other hand the higher values of Ca, Mg, HCO3, and SO4 were observed in post monsoon 2005 than pre
monsoon 2006. It is interesting to note that higher values of fifty percent of the parameters were found in pre
monsoon 2006, while rest fifty percent lower values observed in post monsoon 2005. This showed clear impact
of land-use on groundwater.
In the post monsoon 2005, total dissolved solids were detected in the range of 429-1564 mg/l with mean
value of 1029.62. Sodium and potassium contents were found in the range 17- 322 and 1-36 mg/l with the mean
value of 170.57 and 12.08, respectively. Calcium and magnesium contents were found in the range of 20- 130
and 4-152 mg/l and with their mean values are 59.0 and 34.49, respectively. Biocarbonate were found in the
range of 156- 975 mg/l with mean value is 557.62. Chloride and Sulphate level were observed in the range 9-
182 and, 30- 445 mg/l with the mean values in the 54.46 and 141.86, respectively. The moment characteristic
Skewness showed all the value under positive sides except TDS, Na and HCO3. Whereas Kurtosis showed the
most of the variables are positive except TDS, Na, and Ca. In particular, according to Table 1a (Post monsoon
2005), chemical property [K] was found to be comparatively better than other and on the other hand chemical
property [Ca] showed comparative better quality than all others in case of Pre-monsoon 2006 displayed in Table
1b. Among cations and anions properties, [HCO3] was found on an average more in quantity in both Pre
monsoon and Post monsoon seasons. From the Table 2a (Post monsoon 2005), it was investigated that the
highly positive Pearson correlation exist among all chemical properties except [Ca] with TDS. The regression
analysis between TDS-Na; TDS-K; TDS –HCO3; showed strong positive relationship as r = 0.802, 0.715, and
0.786 respectively, and moderate positive correlation with Cl ions (r= 0.579) and very low positive correlation
 258
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

(r= 0.055, 0.324 and 0.330) with Ca, Mg, and SO4 suggesting the aquifer chemistry to be mainly controlled by
TDS, Na, K, and HCO3.
In the pre monsoon 2006, total dissolved solids were detected in the range of 513-1712 mg/l with mean
value of 945.86. Sodium and potassium contents were found in the range 78-378 and 2-90 mg/l with the mean
value of 203.57 and 11.08, respectively. Calcium and magnesium contents were found in the range of 3-40 and
12-103 mg/l and with their mean values were 12.16 and 36.51, respectively. Biocarbonate were found in the
range of 245-831 mg/l with mean value was 441.68. Chloride and Sulphate level were observed in the range 11-
369 and, 44-378 mg/l with the mean values in the 57.16 and 183.73 respectively. Table 2b (Pre monsoon 2006)
showed the Pearson positive correlation among all chemical properties with TDS. The regression analysis
between TDS-Na; and TDS –HCO3; showed strong positive relationship as r = 0.909 and 0.776 respectively,
and moderate positive correlation with K ions (r= 0.623) and very low positive correlation (r= -0.422, 0.394,
0.451 and 0.445) with Ca, Mg, Cl and SO4 suggesting the aquifer chemistry to be mainly controlled by TDS,
Na, and HCO3. The moment characteristic skewness showed positive values while Kurtosis showed the most of
the variables are positive except Na, HCO3 and SO4.
The positive sign of the input coefficients and significant-values pertaining to these variables indicates that
there is a positive relationship between TDS and elements of ground water properties ([Na], [K], [Ca], [Mg],
[HCO3], [Cl], and [SO4]). The estimated equation for ground water in the study area for Post monsoon 2005 is:

TDS = -0.646 + 1.1007 Na +1.009 K+1.013 Ca+ 1.025 Mg + 0.998 HCO3 + 0.990 Cl+0.995 SO4 + ε1 (1)

The estimated equation for ground water in the study area for Pre monsoon 2006 is:

TDS = 0.806 + 0.996 Na +1.006 K+0.970 Ca+ 1.001 Mg + 1.001 HCO3 + 0.999 Cl+1.000 SO4 + ε2 (2)

Where, ε1 and ε2 are the errors of estimation in the statistical regression model.

It was observed that all the coefficients of input variables i.e. all water properties are statistically
significant. In case of Post monsoon 2005, almost all the variables of Pearson correlation coefficients were
found under 1-10% level of significance. The multiple R coefficients indicated that the multiple co-efficient of
correlation among major anion properties and TDS was found moderate (the multiple R > 0.99). According to R
square statistic, 100% for the total variance for the estimation of TDS is explained by the linear regression
model. The R square and adjusted R square was observed to be 100% fit in the model while Durbin Watson
showed 1.758. The lower band and upper band of 95% confidence interval was found positive it indicated all the
variables are fit to each other.
Again in case of Pre monsoon 2006, Pearson correlation coefficients values of all chemical properties were
observed under 1-10 % level of significance. The R square and adjusted R square is 100% fit in the model while
Durbin Watson showed 2.158. The lower band and upper band of 95% confidence interval was positive it
indicated all the variables are fit to each other.

Conclusion:

In this study we estimated regression equations for ground water in parts of Krishni- Hindon inter-stream,
western Uttar Pradesh, India for both post monsoon 2005 and pre monsoon 2006 periods using a linear
regression model. Higher values of TDS, Na, K, and Cl chemical parameters were recorded in pre monsoon
2006 and the lower values of Ca, Mg and SO4 were observed in post monsoon 2005. There was a strong positive
correlation between TDS-Na; TDS-K; TDS–HCO3 in post monsoon 2005 and the regression analysis between
TDS-Na; and TDS –HCO3; showed strong positive relationship as r = 0.909 and 0.776 respectively in case of
pre monsoon 2006. It was observed that almost all the coefficients of estimated chemical parameters were found
to be statistically significant in both post monsoon 2005 and pre monsoon 2006. In both monsoon periods, 100
percent of the total variance for the estimation of TDS was explained by the linear regression model.

Acknowledgment

The first author wishes to acknowledge the present support provided by Universiti Malaysia Kelantan. The
financial assistance also received by first author from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
New Delhi, Ministry of HRD, India is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to the Chairman,
Department of Geology, Aligarh Muslim University; Aligarh is gratefully acknowledged for providing the basic
facilities to carry out the research work.
 259
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

References

Adams, S., R. Titus, K. Pietersen, G. Tredoux, C. Harris, 2001. Hydrochemical characteristics of aquifers near
Sutherland in the western Karoo, South Africa. J. Hydrol., 241: 91-103.
Alberto, W.D., D.M. Del Pilar, A.M. Valeria, P.S. Fabiana, H.A. Cecilia, B.M. De los Angles, 2001. Pattern
recognition techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality, A case study:
Suquia River basin (Cordoba Argentina). Water Res., 35: 2881-2894.
Aravinda, H.B., 1991. Correlation coefficient of some physicochemical parameters of river Tugabhadra,
Karnataka. Pollution Research, 17(4): 371-375.
Back, W., 1966. Hydrochemical facies and groundwater flow pattern in northern part of Atlantic coastal Plain.
US Geol. Survey professional Paper, 498A.
Bennetts, D.A., J.A. Webb, D.J.M. Stone, D.M. Hill, 2006. Understanding the salinisation process for ground
water in an area of south-eastern Australi a, using hydrochemical and isotopic evidence. J. Hydrol., 323(1-
4): 178-192.
Bhosle, B., B. Prakash, A.K. Awasthi, V.N. Singh, S. Singh, 2007. Remote sensing-GIS and GPR studies of two
active faults, Western Gangetic Plains, India. Jour. Appld. Geophys, 61: 155-164.
Biswal, S.K., B. Maythi, J.P. Sehera, 2001. Ground water quality near ash pond of thermal power plant. Poll.
Res., 20(3): 487-490.
Chenini, I., S. Khemiri, 2009. Evaluation of ground water quality using multiple linear regression and structural
equation modeling. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 6(3): 509-519.
Dash, J.R., P.C. Dash, H.K. Patra, 2006. A correlation and regression study on the ground water quality in rural
areas around Angul-Talcher industrial zone. Indian. J. Env. Prot., 26(6): 550-558.
Doran, J.W., T.B. Parkin, 1996. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. In Doran, J. W.;
Jones, A. J. Eds. Methods for assessing soil quality. Madison, WI: SSSA, Special publication, 49: 25-37.
Drever, J.Ι., 1982. The geochemistry of natural waters. Prantice Hall, England Cliffs, N.J.
Faure, G., 1998. Principles and applications of geochemistry, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Ghasemi, J., S. Saaidpour, 2007. Quantitative structure– property relationship study of n-octanol–water partition
coefficients of some of diverse drugs using multiple linear regression. Anal. Chim. Acta., 604(2): 99-106.
Keshavan, K.G., R. Parameswari, 2005. Evaluation of ground water quality in Kancheepuram. Indian. J. Env.
Prot., 25(3): 235-239.
Khan, M., A. Muqtada, 2009. Sustainability of groundwater system in parts of Krishni-Hindon interstream
Western Uttar Pradesh: A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment. Ph.D. thesis, Aligarh Muslim
University, India.
Khan, M.M.A., R. Umar, 2010. Significance of silica analysis in groundwater in parts of Central Ganga Plain,
Uttar Pradesh, India. Current Science, 98(9): 1237-1240.
Kumar, G., 2005. Geology of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, Geological Society of India, Bangalore, 267-291.
Liedholz, T., M.T. Schafmeister, 1998. Mapping of hydrochemical ground water regimes by means of
multivariate statistical analyses. In Proceedings of the fourth annual conference of the International
Association for Mathematical Geology, October 5–9, Ischia, Italay, Ed. A. Buccianti, G. Nardi and R.
Potenza, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: International Association for Mathematical Geology, 298-303.
Locsey, K.L., M.E. Cox, 2003. Statistical and hydrochemical methods to compare basalt and basement rock-
hosted ground waters: Atherton Tablelands, northeastern Australia. Environ. Geol., 43: 698-713.
Lopez-Chicano, M., M.A. Bouamama Vallejos, B.A. Pulido, 2001. Factors which determine the
hydrogeochemical behaviour of karstic springs: A case study from the Betic Cordilleras, Spain. Appl.
Geochem., 16(9-10): 1179-1192.
Mahajan, S.V., K. Savita, V.S. Srivastava, 2005. A correlation and regression study. Indian. J. Env. Prot., 25(3):
254-259.
Mishra, P.C., K.C. Pradhan, R.K. Patel, 2003. Quality of water for drinking and agriculture in and around mines
in Keonjhar district, Orissa. Indian. J. Env. Health, 45(3): 213-220.
Mor-Suman Sisnnoi, M.S., N.R. Bishnoi, 2002. Assessment of ground water quality in Jind city. Indian. J. Env.
Prot., 23(6): 673-679.
Patowary-Kabila Bhattacharya, K.G., 2005. Evaluation of drinking water quality of coalmining area, Assam.
Indian. J. Env. Prot., 25(3): 204-211.
Prajapti, R., R. Mathur, 2005. Statistical studies on the ground water at the rural areas of Sheopurkalan, Madhya
Pradesh. J. Ecotoxicol. Env. Monit., 15(1): 47-54.
Pulido-Leboeuf, P., A. Pulido-Bosch, M.L. Calvache, A. Vallejos, J.M. Andreu, 2003. Strontium, SO4 2"/Cl”
and Mg2+/Ca2+ ratios as tracers for the evolution of sea water into coastal aquifers: The example of Castell
de Ferro aquifer (SE Spain). C. R. Geosci., 335(14): 1039-1048.
Reeve, A.S., D.I. Siegel, P.H. Glaser, 1996. Geochemical controls on peatland pore water from the Hudson Bay
Lowland: A multivariate statistical approach. J. Hydrol., 181(1-4): 285-304.
 260
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 8(1): 251-260, 2012

Seyhan, E., A.A. Van-de-Griend, G.B. Engelen, 1985. Multivariate analysis and interpretation of the
hydrochemistry of a dolomitic reef aquifer, northern Italy. Water Resour. Res., 21(7): 1010-1024.
Singanan, M., K.S. Rao, 1995. Chemical characteristics of Rameswaram temple town drinking water. Indian. J.
Env. Prot., 15(6): 458-462.
Singh, I.B., 2004. Late Quaternary history of the Ganga Plain. J. Geol. Soc. India, 64: 431-454.
Singh, K.P., A. Malik, V.K. Singh, D. Mohan, S. Sinha, 2005. Chemometric analysis of ground water quality
data of alluvial aquifer of Gangetic plain, North India. Anal. Chim. Acta., 550(1-2): 82-91.
Srivastava, A.K., D.K. Sinha, 1994. Water quality index for river sai at Raebareli for the pre monsoon period
and after the onset of monsoon. Indian. J. Env. Prot., 14(5): 340-345.
Stallard, R.E., J.M. Edmond, 1983. Geochemistry of Amazon River: the influence of the geology and
weathering environment on the dissolved load. J. Geophys. Res., 88: 9671-9688.
Subba Rao, N., 2001. Geochemistry of groundwater in parts of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ.
Geol., 41: 552-562.
Subramani, T., Elango L. Damodarasamy, 2005. Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and
agricultural use in chithar river basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Geol., 47: 1099-1110.
Suk, H., K.K. Lee, 1999. Characterization of a ground water hydrochemical system through multivariate
analysis: clustering into ground water zones. Ground Water, 37(3): 358-366.
Umar, R., I. Ahmed, F. Alam, M. Khan, A. Muqtada, 2009. Hydrochemical Characteristics and seasonal
variation in Groundwater Quality of an alluvial aquifer in parts of central Ganga Plain, Western Uttar
Pradesh, India. Environ. Geol., 58: 1295-1300.
Umar, R., M.M.A. Khan, A. Absar, 2006. Groundwater hydrochemistry of a sugarcane cultivation belt in parts
of Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India, Environ. Geol., 49: 999-1008.
Usunoff, E.J., A. Guzman-Guzman, 1989. Multivariate analysis in hydrochemistry: An example of the use of
factor and correspondence analysis. Ground Water, 27(1): 27-34.