Groundwater Quality Investigations – A Case Study

N.Varadarajan & B.K.Purandara

National Institute of Hydrology, Hard Rock Regional Centre, Hanuman Nagar 2 nd stage,
Belgaum-590001, Karnataka, India

email: nvarad@yahoo.com

Abstract: The rising salinity of groundwater used for water supply and irrigation is a major problem.
Indiscriminate use of fertilizers in certain areas has resulted in very high concentrations of some of the chemical
constituents in groundwater. Water quality investigations of groundwater in Gokak, Mudhol, Biligi and
Bagalkot taluks of Ghataprabha irrigation command of Karnataka, India have been studied during November
2006 and evaluated the suitability of water for drinking, domestic and irrigation purposes. The groundwater
samples were collected from 34 locations including 33 bore wells and 19 open wells. The parameters were
analyzed for pH, EC, TDS, Hardness, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Carbonate, Bicarbonate,
Chloride and Sulphate with the help of standard method of APHA. SAR and Na% values evaluated for irrigation
suitability. An attempt has also been made to classify the groundwater on the basis of Piper trilinear and
U.S.Salinity Laboratory classification.
Keywords: salinity, fertilizers, physico-chemical parameter, Piper trilinear, U.S.Salinity Laboratory
classification

Introduction

Groundwater is becoming an important source of water supply in many regions since there
has been a tremendous increase in the demand for fresh water due to growth in population.
The rapid growth of urban areas has adversely affected the groundwater quality due to over
exploitation of resources and improper waste disposal practices. The rising salinity of ground
water used for water supply and irrigation is a major problem. Therefore it is absolutely
necessary to ascertain the potability of water before it is used for human consumption.

There are many examples of salinity increase in various parts of the country, particularly
in canal command areas. Water logging is a common feature associated with many of the
irrigation commands of surface water projects. Indiscriminate use of fertilizers in certain
areas has resulted in very high concentrations of some of the chemical constituents in
groundwater. The objective of this study is to assess the quality of groundwater and to
classify the water in order to evaluate the water suitability for drinking, domestic and
irrigation purposes. Hence the present study aims to conduct detailed investigations on
groundwater quality in Gokak, Mudhol, Biligi and Bagalkot taluks of Ghataprabha irrigation
command of Karnataka, India.

Review of Literature

Recently various authors carried out extensive studies on ground water quality and its
suitability for various purposes. Application of agricultural chemicals, dumping industrial and
domestic wastes at the land surface or within the unsaturated zone may have considerable
impact on the groundwater quality. Rajamohan et.al.(1999) [7] carried out the groundwater
quality study of Kancheepuram district, Tamil Nadu and results shows that, the correlation
among the chemical parameters, silicate weathering and source for the nutrients is mainly by
agricultural activities. Varadarajan (2000) [14] carried out study of groundwater quality of
both open and bore wells in the Malaprabha sub basin in Belgaum District of Karnataka and
applied one dimensional solute transport model SWIMv2.1 to predict the movement of
contaminants through the unsaturated zone.

Durbude et al (2002) [2] mapped the ground water quality parameters in Ghataprabha
command area in GIS environment. Varadarajan et al (2003) [15] have studied the
hydrochemical characteristics of a Malaprabha sub basin and found the fluoride concentration
along the downstream of the sub basin. Tatawat et al. (2008) [11] investigated the quality of
ground water for Jaipur city, Rajasthan and its suitability for domestic and irrigation
purposes. Laluraj et al. (2005) [5] studied the ground water quality and sea water intrusion of
shallow aquifers of coastal zones of Cochin, India.
Study Area

The command area of Ghataprabha reservoir is located between 16 0 8 N - 16 48 9 N
latitudes and 74 26 43 E - 75 56 33 E longitudes covering the Belgaum and Bijapur
districts of Karnataka (Figure 1). The topography of the area is undulating with table lands
and hillocks typical of Deccan trap. General topographic elevation varies between 500 to 900
meters above msl with a gradual fall from West to East. The command area falls in the semi-
arid zone and is drought. Averages annual rainfall is about 700 mm with vide variation in
time and space.

The command area is underlain predominantly by sedimentary rocks of Deccan trap. Soils
in the left bank canal command area are rich in clay and bases due to hydrolysis, oxidation
and carbonation. However soils in the right bank canal command area is developed due to
weathering of sedimentary rocks. The hydrogeology is complex as Deccan traps occupy
major portions of the study area. River alluvium is found only along the course of rivers.
Groundwater occurs in the weathered and fractured hard rocks as well as in the vesicular
horizons in the traps. Unconfined to semi confined conditions are observed in weathered/semi
weathered rocks.

Materials and Methods

In order to assess the groundwater chemistry, groundwater samples were collected from 34
locations including 33 bore wells and 19 open wells during November, 2006. The water
samples from bore wells including hand pumps and open wells were collected by dip or grab
sampling method. The samples were collected from wells, which are being extensively used
for agriculture, drinking and other domestic purposes.

The pH, temperature and EC were measured at the time of sample collection using
portable kits (NPC 361-D). Total hardness, Calcium, Magnesium, Carbonate, Bicarbonate,
Chloride and Sulphate were analyzed in the laboratory by volumetric titration methods; while
sodium and potassium by Flame Photometry (Systronics). The chemical parameters were
analyzed in the laboratory by standard methods (APHA, 1985) [1]. The values of Sodium
Adsorption Ratio for each sample were calculated by Richards’s equation and the percentage
of sodium values were calculated by using the equations in Todd. The chemical parameters
analyzed were presented in the Table 1 and Table 2.

Results and Discussion

The concentration of cations, anions and other Physico-chemical parameters are shown in
Table 1 and 2. Physico-chemical parameters were compared with standards prescribed by
World Health Organization (WHO), Indian Council of medical Research (ICMR) and Bureau
of Indian Standards (BIS) as shown in the Table 3.

Groundwater Quality for drinking purposes

The pH value of water is an important indication of its quality and it is dependent on the
carbon dioxide-carbonate-bicarbonate equilibrium. The pH values are within the permissible
limit prescribed by WHO, ICMR and BIS. The result of the present study shows clearly the
dominance of bicarbonate and it ranges between pH 7.10 and 8.10. The carbonate ion is
dominant when pH is above 8.0. However, carbonate in most of the samples is absent. The
EC is an useful parameter of water quality for indicating salinity hazards. In the present study
area the EC values widely varies between 270 mhos/cm and 6920 mhos/cm at 25C. As
per the standards prescribed by WHO, the maximum limit of EC is 1400 mhos/cm. It is
observed that waters of high EC values are predominant with sodium and chloride ions. The
TDS value varies between 175 mg/l and 4490 mg/l. Waters can be classified based on the
concentration of TDS (Wilcox 1955) [16] as given below:

Up to 500 mg/l Desirable for drinking

500 to 1000 mg/l Permissible for drinking
Up to 3000 mg/l Useful for irrigation
Above 3000 mg/l Unfit for drinking and irrigation

Table 1. Chemical analysis data of ground water

Well No. CO3 HCO3 Cl SO4 Ca Mg Na K

1 BW 0 378 317 47 49 44.8 230 76
2 BW 0 246 45 106 30 17.5 128 10
OW 0 221 47 78 18 16.3 108 3.6
3 OW 0 226 390 152 36 21.5 320 16
BW 0 187 286 187 46 15.2 298 10
4 BW 0 178 137 43 37 12.3 108 3.6
5 BW 0 274 91 48 45 15.4 95 7.2
6 OW 61 649 686 77 45 56.5 85 15
BW 0 367 442 855 56.6 23 675 84
7 BW 0 343 189 132 65.8 21.6 220 96
8 BW 0 371 109 36 32 19.8 162 12
9 BW 0 342 243 50 76 59.3 137 12
10 BW 0 223 547 67 112 45.5 270 19
11 BW 22 438 79 47 23 16.2 180 6
OW 0 486 164 23 29 9.6 225 6
12 BW 0 308 117 45 20 32 144 4
13 BW 0 262 143 176 42 45 110 6
OW 0 418 726 98 99 88 462 88
14 BW 0 174 95 76 32.7 20.4 95 181
OW 0 212 52 77 31 22.5 88 105
15 OW 0 368 330 80 58 21.2 245 15
BW 0 374 142 52 65 20.8 135 4
16 OW 0 270 60 46 40 38 88 38
BW 0 167 34 22 19 6.1 67 6
17 BW 0 245 180 48 72 39 96 8
18 OW 0 460 506 70 31 34.7 387 4.5
BW 0 213 110 82 36.10 29 110 16
19 BW 0 440 570 78 89 44.6 346 61
20 BW 0 336 73 63 48 36.8 93 5
OW 0 320 47 50 25 26 108 4
21 BW 0 200 43 39 45.8 21.5 58 3
22 OW 0 189 63 25 50 17 47 5
BW 0 204 72 34 38.8 24 67 4
23 BW 0 260 91 40 60.4 15.3 98 2
OW 0 237 38 36 39.2 14.8 74 11
24 OW 0 246 45 34 33 20.6 82 4
BW 0 373 84 36 43 24 135 6
25 BW 0 187 29 24 33 12.1 47 3
 OW 0 105 30 38 24 10.2 30 8
26 OW 0 416 99 90 65.4 35 147 4
27 BW 0 162 29 21 25.9 12.4 40 2
28 OW 0 237 123 110 72.2 38.1 88 30
BW 0 337 616 77 37 18.8 429 6
29 BW 0 282 87 36 49 18.9 103 3
OW 0 342 285 32 48.6 24.6 196 20
30 OW 32 502 176 44 33.3 13.5 231 8
BW 0 229 124 30 48.9 18.4 84 5
31 BW 0 244 98 30 52.2 20.1 72 3
32 BW 0 198 59 46 48.9 16.1 57 2
33 BW 0 298 164 47 48 12.5 180 8
34 OW 0 435 926 74 91 37 522 28
BW 0 486 239 46 41.5 16.9 247 10

Table 2. Physico-chemical parameters of groundwater

Well No. Ph EC TDS Hardness SAR Na%

1 BW 7.2 1940 1240 306 5.72 66.10
2 BW 7.2 700 455 146 4.60 66.50
OW 7.4 640 403 112 4.40 68.20
3 OW 7.4 2280 1482 176 10.45 80.10
BW 7.6 2050 1312 179 9.73 78.80
4 BW 7.2 1320 870 144 3.93 62.70
5 BW 7.5 1410 917 180 3.12 55.10
6 OW 8.0 6200 4030 221 2.50 48.00
BW 7.8 3680 2390 236 19.10 87.00
7 BW 7.1 1850 1210 253 6.00 70.40
8 BW 7.5 1400 930 162 5.55 69.50
9 BW 7.1 1790 1140 432 2.86 41.90
10 BW 7.4 3120 1970 466 5.44 56.70
11 BW 8.0 1220 920 105 7.00 76.30
OW 7.5 2400 1520 112 9.26 81.60
12 BW 7.2 1260 820 180 4.65 63.70
13 BW 7.3 1350 890 288 2.80 45.90
OW 7.4 6920 4490 609 8.15 64.70
14 BW 7.2 980 620 165 3.20 72.60
OW 7.5 600 380 169 2.94 65.70
15 OW 7.4 4480 2840 246 7.00 70.40
BW 7.3 1540 1010 262 3.73 54.70
16 OW 7.4 760 510 252 2.40 48.30
BW 7.6 740 480 74 3.42 67.80
17 BW 7.2 1650 1120 368 2.26 39.10
18 OW 7.4 3450 2210 220 11.35 79.40
BW 7.5 920 630 200 3.30 55.40
19 BW 7.1 3150 2180 408 7.47 67.20
20 BW 7.2 1120 720 281 2.45 43.40
OW 7.5 1200 780 173 3.61 58.60
21 BW 7.3 590 380 202 1.17 39.10
22 OW 7.4 480 300 195 1.46 35.70
BW 7.3 620 360 247 2.08 43.50
23 BW 7.2 1030 660 213 2.92 50.30
OW 7.6 740 440 159 1.66 42.70
24 OW 7.1 820 530 166 2.76 52.30
 BW 7.2 1280 830 207 4.10 59.40
25 BW 7.4 450 290 131 1.17 44.40
OW 7.2 270 175 103 1.28 42.40
26 OW 7.1 2510 1610 306 3.65 51.40
27 BW 7.5 350 230 116 1.62 43.60
28 OW 7.9 1060 680 337 2.10 40.60
BW 7.5 2220 1440 170 14.30 84.70
29 BW 7.1 1120 720 200 3.17 53.30
OW 7.5 1480 980 222 5.72 67.00
30 OW 8.1 2580 1680 139 8.54 78.70
BW 7.3 940 610 198 2.60 48.90
31 BW 7.2 1350 870 220 2.15 43.00
32 BW 7.3 650 420 188 1.80 40.20
33 BW 7.4 2070 1350 171 6.00 70.00
34 OW 7.2 5130 3340 380 11.66 75.50
BW 7.5 2340 1240 173 8.15 76.00

Table 3. Standards for drinking water quality

S.No. Parameters WHO 2003 ICMR 1975 BIS 1999

1 pH 6.5 – 9.5 7.0 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
2 Electrical Conductance 1400 - -
3 Total Dissolved Solids 600 500 2000
4 Sodium - - -
5 Potassium - - -
6 Calcium 100 200 200
7 Magnesium 150 200 100
8 Chloride 250 200 1000
9 Carbonate - - -
10 Bicarbonate - - -
11 Sulphate 250 200 400
12 Nitrate 50 50 100
13 Total Hardness 500 600 600

Note: All values except pH and Electrical Conductance are expressed in mg/l
Electrical Conductance in µ mhos/cm @ 25˚C

Calcium, magnesium and total hardness in the water are inter-related. In the present study
total hardness varies from 74 to 609 mg/l and within the permissible limit prescribed by
WHO, ICMR and BIS except Well No.13 OW. Calcium concentration varies from 18 to 112
mg/l and all the samples are within the permissible limit prescribed by WHO, ICMR and BIS.
Magnesium concentration varies from 6.10 to 59.30 mg/l and all the samples are within the
permissible limit prescribed by WHO, ICMR and BIS. Sodium combines with Chloride gives
salty taste to the water. Moderate quantities have little effect on the usefulness of water for
most purposes. Sodium and potassium concentrations are varying from 30 to 675 mg/l and 2
to 181 mg/l respectively.

Carbonate and Bicarbonate concentration are varying from 0 to 61 mg/l and 105 to 649
mg/l respectively. The chloride content of groundwater may be due to the presence of soluble
chlorides from rocks. Further, chloride is a widely distributed element in all types of rocks in
one or the other form. Its affinity towards sodium is high. Therefore, its concentration is high
in groundwater’s where the temperature is high and rainfall is less. In the present study
chloride concentration varies from 29 to 926 mg/l and falls within the permissible limit
prescribed by WHO, ICMR, except Well Nos 1 BW, 3, 6, 10 BW, 13 OW, 15 OW, 18 OW,
19 BW, 28 BW, 29 OW, and 34 OW. Sulphate concentration varies from 21 to 855 mg/l and
Well No.6 BW exceeds the limit.

Chemical classification of ground water

Hill-Piper Diagram

The results of chemical analysis of groundwater are compared by trilinear diagram (Figure
2). Piper (1953) [6] trilinear diagram has been extensively used to understand problems about
the geochemical evolution of groundwater. The diagram consists of three distinct fields – two
triangular fields and a diamond shaped field. In the triangular fields, the percentage mill
equivalent values of cations (Ca, Mg and Na) and anions (Cl, SO 4 and HCO3) are plotted
separately. The overall chemical characters of the groundwater are represented in the
diamond shaped field by projecting the position of the plots in the triangular fields. The three
trilinear plottings will show the essential chemical character of a groundwater according to
the relative concentrations of its constituents. Piper’s diagram has been widely used to study
similarities and differences in the composition of waters and to classify them into certain
chemical types.

The trilinear diagram of this study is classified into four hydrochemical facies based on the
dominance of different cations and anions: facies 1: Ca2+ - Mg2+ - HCO3 – type I; facies 2: Na+
- K+- HCO3 – type II; facies 3: Na+ - K+- Cl- - SO42 – type III; and facies 4: Ca2+ - Mg2+ - Cl- -
SO42 – type IV. Figure 2 shows that, about 64% of the samples falls in type II: Na + - K+-
HCO3 – and type III: Na+ - K+- Cl- - SO42 – followed by 36% falls in type I: Ca2+ - Mg2+ -
HCO3 – and type IV: Ca2+ - Mg2+ - Cl- - SO42 –. This indicates that post monsoon samples are
enriched with sodium, bicarbonate and chloride types leads to salinity of groundwater.
Groundwater quality for irrigation purposes

Assessment of the suitability of groundwater for irrigation purpose requires consideration

of the total dissolved solids, the concentration of certain constituents and substances that may
be toxic to plants (Janardhana Raju et al. 2009) [3]. The important characteristics or
properties of groundwater to be considered for irrigation use are salinity, electrical
conductivity, sodium percentage and sodium adsorption ratio.

Salinity

The EC and Na concentration are important in classifying irrigation water. The electrical
conductivity values ranges from 350 µmhos/cm to 6920 µmhos/cm. A high salt content (high
EC) in irrigation water leads to formation of saline soil. This affects the salt intake capacity
of the plants through their roots. On the basis of electrical conductivity values, Richards
(1954) [9] classified irrigation water in to four groups as shown in Table 4. As per Richards
classification 12 samples are good, 27 samples are medium and 13 samples are high in
salinity. Groundwater samples falling in medium salinity hazard can be used, if medium
amount of leaching occurs. High salinity waters cannot be used on soil with restricted
drainage. Excess salinity reduces the osmotic activity of plants and thus interferes with the
absorption of water and nutrients from the soil (Saleh et al. 1999) [10].
Table 4. Irrigation water quality classification (after Richards 1954)

Salinity Hazard Alkali hazard

Electrical Number of Sodium Number of
Water Class Conductivity Samples Adsorption Samples
µmhos/cm Ratio (epm)
Excellent Up to 250 - Up to 10 47
Good 250 – 750 12 10 – 18 4
Fair/Medium 750 – 2250 27 18 – 26 1
Poor/Bad Above 2250 13 Above 26 -

Sodium percentage (Na%)

Sodium concentration is important in classifying irrigation water because sodium reacts

with soil to reduce its permeability. Excess sodium in waters produces undesirable effects of
changing soil properties and reducing soil permeability (Kelley, 1951) [4]. Sodium content is
usually expressed in terms of percent sodium. The values of percent sodium in this study area
ranges from 35.70 to 87.00 (Table 2). The sodium percentage was calculated as per Todd’s
(1959) [12] method:
Na  K
Na %   100
Ca  Mg  Na  K

(All ionic concentrations are in epm)

A maximum of 60% sodium in groundwater is allowed for agricultural purposes

(Ramakrishna, 1998) [8]. According to this 27 samples are within the allowable limit and
useful for irrigation purposes.

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

The relative activity of sodium ion in the exchange reaction with soil is expressed in terms
of a ration known as sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). It is an important parameter for
determining the suitability of irrigation water, because it is a measure of alkali/sodium hazard
for crops. The SAR values in the study area range from 1.17 to 19.10 (Table 2). As per this
value, 47 samples are in the study area falls under excellent quality as the values are below 10
and 4 samples are falls under good quality as the value ranges from 10 to 18. Also only one
sample shows medium quality as the value exceeds 18. SAR can be estimated by the formula:

Na
SAR 
Ca  Mg
2
(All ionic concentrations are in epm)

There is a significant relationship between SAR values of irrigation water and the extent to
which sodium is adsorbed by the soil. If the water used for irrigation is high in Sodium and
low in Calcium, then exchangeable calcium in soil may replace sodium by Base Exchange
reaction in water. This can destroy the soil structure owing to dispersion of clay particles.
Data is plotted on the U S salinity diagram [13] (Figure 3), in which EC is taken as salinity
hazard and SAR is taken as alkalinity hazard. The samples fall in the fields of C2S1, C3S1,
C4S1, C3S2, C4S2, C3S3, C4S3 and C4S4 with quality of medium to very high salinity
hazard and low to very high sodium hazard.

Conclusion
 It is observed from the chemical analysis of the samples for drinking purposes; about 44%
of groundwater samples exceed the permissible limit of EC and TDS prescribed by WHO.
The parameters like pH, carbonate, bicarbonate, Total hardness, calcium, magnesium,
sodium, potassium and sulphate are within the permissible limit prescribed by WHO, ICMR
and BIS. About 80% of the samples where the concentration of chloride is within the limit
prescribed by WHO, ICMR. According to Hill-Piper diagram, about 64% of the samples
falls in type II: Na+ - K+- HCO3 – and type III: Na+ - K+- Cl- - SO42 – and indicates that post
monsoon samples are enriched with sodium, bicarbonate and chloride types leads to salinity
of groundwater. On the basis of electrical conductivity values, as per Richards classification
12 samples are good, 27 samples are medium and 13 samples are high in salinity. According
to the value of sodium percentage, 27 samples are within the allowable limit and useful for
irrigation purposes. As per the SAR classification, 47 samples are in the study area falls
under excellent quality, 4 samples are falls under good quality and only one sample shows
medium quality for irrigation purposes. The US salinity diagram indicates that, all the
samples falls within medium to very high salinity hazard and low to very high sodium hazard.

Acknowledgements: Authors are highly grateful to Sh. R.D.Singh, Director, NIH, Roorkee
for granting permission to publish the paper. Authors are highly thankful to Dr.V.K.Choubey,
Sc. “F” & Technical Coordinator and Mr. B Venkatesh, Sc. “E1” & Head, Regional Center,
NIH, Belgaum for their cooperation and encouragement.

REFERENCES
[1] APHA (1985): Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. –
American Public Health Association, American Water works Association, Water
Pollution Control federation, Washington D .C. 16th edition.
[2] Dilip G.Durbude., Varadarajan. N and Purandara. B.K (2002): Mapping of Groundwater
Quality Parameters in GIS Environment – Proceedings on International Conference on
Hydrology and Watershed Management held at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University,
Hyderabad during 18 -–20, December, 568-577.
[3] Janardhana Raju N., Prahlad Ram and Sangita Dey (2009): Groundwater Quality in the Lower
Varuna River Basin, Varanasi District, Uttar Pradesh – Journal of the Geological Society of
India, Vol.73 (2):178-192.
[4] Kelley W.P (1951 ): Alkali Soils – their formation properties and reclamation, - Reinold
Publ.Corp, New York.
[5] Laluraj C.M., Gopinath G and Dineshkumar P.K (2005): Groundwater Chemistry of Shallow
Aquifers in the Coastal Zones of Cochin, India, - Applied Ecology and Environmental
Research, 3(1): 133-139.
[6] Piper, A.M. (1953): A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water
analyses. U.S. Geol. Survey Groundwater Note 12.
[7] Rajamohan N., Elango L., Ramachandran S and Natarajan M.(1999): Major Ion Correlation
in Groundwater of Kancheepuram Region,- Indian Journal of Environmental Protection,
Vol.20 (3):188-193.
[8] Ramakrishna, (1998): Groundwater – Hand Book, India, 556pp.
[9] Richard, L.A. (1954): Diagnosis and improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. – Agric.
Handbook 60, (U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, D.C., 160 pp.
[10] Saleh A., Al-Ruwath F. and Shebata M (1999): Hydrogeochemical processes operating within
the main aquifers of Kuwait, - Jour. Arid Environ, 42: 195-209.
[11] Tatawat R. K. and Singh Chandel. C.P (2008): Quality of Groundwater of Jaipur
City, Rajasthan, India and its suitability for Domestic and Irrigation purpose, - Applied
Ecology and Environmental Research, 6(2): 79-88.
[12] Todd, D.K. (1980): Ground water Hydrology. – John Willey & sons publishers, New
York:
[13] U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954): Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali
 Soils. – Handbook 60. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
[14] Varadarajan N. (2000): Groundwater Quality Evaluation and Modeling – a case study,
M.E.Thesis unpublished, Karnatak University, Dharwad. India.
[15 Varadarajan N and Purandara B.K (2003): Hydrochemical Characteristics of Groundwater –
A case study, - Journal of Ecology, Environment & Conservation, Enviromedia, Karad, India,
9(3): 253-262.
[16] Wilcox (1955): Classification and use of irrigation water, - U.S.Dept.of Agriculture. Circular
969.