loader
Skip to content
Gatha Cognition®

Hydrospatial Analysis Volume 6 (2022), Issue 1-2 · pp. 1-12

Original Research Paper Open Access Check for updates with Crossmark

Spatial Analysis of Groundwater Qualities in Vempalle Mandal of YSR District, Andhra Pradesh, India using Geospatial Techniques

  1. Department of Geology, Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa-516 005, Andhra Pradesh (India).

* Corresponding author: Srinivasa Gowd Somagouni, ssgowd@gmail.com

Published 24 Apr 2022 DOI https://doi.org/10.21523/gcj3.2022060101 Licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Download PDF Cite
Contents
  1. Highlights
  2. Abstract
  3. 1. Introduction
  4. 2. Study Area
  5. 3. Methodology
    1. 3.1 Water Quality Index (WQI)
    2. 3.2 Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index
  6. 4. Results And Discussion
    1. 4.1 pH
    2. 4.2 Electrical Conductivity
    3. 4.3 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
    4. 4.4 Hardness
    5. 4.5 Calcium
    6. 4.6 Magnesium
    7. 4.7 Carbonates (CO3-) and Bicarbonates (HCO3-)
    8. 4.8 Water Quality Index (WQI)
  7. 5. Conclusion
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. Abbreviations
  10. Article information
  11. References
    1. Figure 1. Study area
    2. Figure 2. Geology
    3. Figure 3. Geomorphology
    4. Figure 4. Drainage network
    5. Figure 4. pH with BIS limits
    6. Figure 5. pH
    7. Figure 6. Electrical Conductivity
    8. Figure 7. TDS with BIS limits
    9. Figure 9. Total Dissolved Solids
    10. Figure 8. Total hardness with BIS limits
    11. Figure 10. Total hardness
    12. Figure 11. Calcium with BIS limits
    13. Figure 13. Calcium
    14. Figure 12. Magnesium with BIS limits
    15. Figure 14. Magnesium
    16. Figure 15. Carbonates
    17. Figure 16. Bicarbonates
    18. Figure 17. Water qualities
    1. Table 1. Physico-chemical parameters
    2. Table 2. Electrical conductivity
    3. Table 3. Total Dissolved Solids
    4. Table 4. Relative weights (Wn) used to calculate the WQI
    5. Table 5. Classification of the Water Quality Index (Brown 1972)
    6. Table 6. WQI categories

Highlights

  • The study focused on analyses of water quality index (WQI) for semi-arid regions of Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India.
  • The acquired water quality index was compered with the BIS and WHO standards.
  • Four groundwater samples classified into very poor category and eighteen samples are unsuitable for drinking purpose.
  • The groundwater needs a proper water quality treatment for better human health in the region.
Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract

Abstract

The present study analyses the spatial variations of groundwater qualities in the Mogamureru basin of the Vempalle Mandal, YSR district of Andhra Pradesh, South India. Twenty-two groundwater samples from the post-monsoon season collected in January 2020 and tested in the laboratory for chemical analysis including Carbonate (CO3-), Bicarbonate (HCO3-), Magnesium (Mg2+), Chloride (Cl-), Calcium (Ca2+), Sodium (Na+) and Potassium (K+). The spatial variations in quality parameters mapped using interpolation technique in ArcGIS software. Water Quality Index (WQI) calculated for quality analysis and four groundwater samples classified into very poor category and eighteen samples are unsuitable for drinking purpose. The usage of groundwater for drinking purpose needs a proper water quality treatment for better health implications. The methodology adopted in this study has been found to be effective and can be used to establish strong water quality monitoring network in similar areas.

Keywords ComponentsGISGroundwaterSpatial DistributionWater QualityWQI

1. Introduction

In many countries, groundwater is a major source of water for domestic, industrial and irrigation purposes worldwide (Lapworth et al., 2020). Significant population growth and accelerated modernization have resulted in a massive increase in the demand for fresh water over the last few decades. According to Siebert et al. (2010), groundwater accounts for 43% of global irrigation water consumption (1277 km3) per year. One of the most pressing challenges of the twenty-first century appears to be ensuring adequate supplies of usable water to meet the needs of people and the environment (Gowd, 2005; Oki and Akana, 2016). Waterborne diseases account for nearly 80% of all human diseases, according to the WHO (2017) (Srinivasamoorthy et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019;  Adimalla et al., 2021; Panneerselvam et al., 2021). Therefore, water quality testing is essential for determining its suitability for various applications. The water quality index is one of the most effective methods for disseminating water quality information to concerned individuals and policymakers. As a result, it has become an important indicator for assessing and managing groundwater. As a result, it has become an important indicator for assessing and managing groundwater. In order to properly create new groundwater schemes and manage groundwater resources, it is necessary to analyze a groundwater flow system and map spatial variation of groundwater parameters (Manoj et al., 2017). Over the last few decades, a water quality index (WQI) has been used all over the world to assess both surface and groundwater quality in order to better understand the overall water quality of a water source (Tyagi et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2015; Seth et al., 2016; Bora et al., 2017;Vishnu Radhan et al., 2017;  Bhutiani et al., 2018; Dash et al., 2021). In recent years, groundwater quality has been assessed and monitored on a regular basis using GIS technology combined with the IDW interpolation techniques, which has proven to be a powerful tool for evaluating and analyzing spatial data of water resources (Balamurugan et al., 2020; Soujanya Kamble et al., 2020; Ram et al., 2021). It’s a quick and low-cost way to transform massive data sets into diverse spatial distribution maps and projections that show trends, associations, and sources of toxins and pollutants. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used in this study to assess the spatial distribution of various groundwater quality parameters (Ram et al., 2021). Groundwater samples have been collected during pre-monsoon (2020) and these samples analyzed using laboratory methods. The spatial variations of groundwater qualities estimated using interpolation technique in ArcGIS environment to study the groundwater suitability for drinking purposes using WQI

2. Study Area

The study region lies between 78º 24ʹ 32" to 78º 05ʹ 0" E and 14º 32ʹ 0" to 14º 35ʹ 30" N (SOI toposheets: 57J/06 and 57J/11) with an area of 168.21 km2 of the Vempalle Mandal, YSR district, Andhra Pradesh (Figure 1). A tropical climate observed with an average annual temperature of 34ºC and precipitation of 753mm per year. Brown and red soils as well as loam and shallow and deep clay loam soils are observed in the region. Groundnut, sunflower, red gram, Bengal gram, paddy, cotton, and Sesamum are among the crops produced.

Figure 1. Study area
Figure 1. Study area

According to Zachariah (1999), the Tadipatri and Vempalle formations are 1779 Ma and 1752 Ma, respectively, and the Pulivendula formation is 1817 Ma, according to Bhaskar Rao et al., (1995). The Papaghni Group’s Vempalle Formation in the Cuddapah Supergroup is mostly composed of basic flows, dolomite, quartzite, conglomerate, and shale (Figure 2). Residual hills, Pediment, Pediplain, Structural hills and valleys are examples of geomorphological terrain generated by denudational, fluvial, and structural sources (Figure 3). The depth of the water fluctuates between 10 and 50m (CGWB, 2014). The Mogamureru River, a tributary of the Papaghni River, rises from west to east and joins the Papaghni River in Animela village in Veerapunayunipalle Mandal, with a primarily dendritic drainage pattern (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Geology
Figure 2. Geology
Figure 3. Geomorphology
Figure 3. Geomorphology
Figure 4. Drainage network
Figure 4. Drainage network

3. Methodology

Twenty-two samples collected from villages in the Vempalle Mandal of the YSR district. One liter storage cans were cleaned and disinfected before being preserved with nitric acid. The samples were analyzed to determine ex-site and in-site characteristics such as alkalinity (carbonates and bicarbonates), chlorides, magnesium, calcium, electrical conductivity, pH, total dissolved solids, and total hardness (Table 1). In the laboratory, alkalinity, Cl-, and Mg2+ parameters are measured using the titration method, Ca2+ is measured using a flame photometer, pH is determined using a pH meter, and EC and TDS are assessed using conductivity meter. Parameters that are compared to the ranges of the Bureau of Indian Standards are also shown in the graphs. The weighted arithmetic technique was used to calculate the Water Quality Index. The parameters and WQI values showed on the maps using the IDW tool of Arc-GIS software.

Table 1. Physico-chemical parameters

S. No

Village Name

Longitude

Latitude

pH

EC

TDS

Ca2+

Mg 2+

CO32-

HCO3-

Cl-

TH

1

Vempalle

78.355721°

14.331964°

7.9

1020

600

50

65

15

85

350

68

2

Edupulapaya

78.377839°

14.332943°

8.5

968

575

125

82

47

69

110

87

3

A. Cherlopalli

78.388129°

14.320102°

7.5

1151

690

84

39

24

42

454

25

4

Ramireddypalle

78.407050°

14.338755°

8.5

1590

954

135

58

58

0

647

658

5

Ammaigaripalli

78.440434°

14.342626°

7.7

634

390

65

112

12

36

100

125

6

pamuluru

78.466688°

14.339588°

7.2

875

520

190

96

37

94

78

98

7

Alavalapadu

78.494623°

14.337503°

8

1350

800

150

35

45

54

441

358

8

Borlagondicheruvu

78.530698°

14.333185°

7.2

942

570

84

99

0

0

332

574

9

Naguru

78.458748°

14.357179°

8.8

1110

675

73

112

24

65

376

45

10

Musulreddypalli

78.455109°

14.372630°

7

954

590

100

58

29

38

320

39

11

T. Velamavaripalli

78.407051°

14.366983°

7.4

798

490

95

43

0

0

232

187

12

Alireddypalli

78.432104°

14.387316°

8.5

1105

670

120

120

0

0

410

354

13

Chinthalamadugupalli

78.396207°

14.404166°

7.5

1288

780

50

45

19

90

500

456

14

kattuluru

78.424502°

14.418699°

8

1006

612

174

65

46

68

195

291

15

kuppalapalli

78.402485°

14.430193°

7.6

748

460

32

54

35

85

230

257

16

pamuluru

78.420971°

14.450894°

8.5

967

590

71

100

21

36

290

457

17

Vempalli

78.381039°

14.451130°

7.7

1120

670

89

87

27

65

364

354

18

Tallapalli

78.401835°

14.455093°

7.7

990

600

150

30

38

102

270

254

19

Eguvathuvvapalli

78.410204°

14.381103°

7

600

500

55

60

17

0

200

74

20

Mallepalli

78.371232°

14.390213°

8

1000

650

90

118

25

70

420

550

21

mopurigaripalli

78.501485°

14.420752°

8.3

700

590

86

85

44

80

300

130

22

Nandipalli

78.512934°

14.440371°

8

620

750

35

125

35

100

445

200

3.1 Water Quality Index (WQI)

The Water Quality Index is unique measurement that identifies the root causes of contradictory water qualities. The suitability components of water for people used to calculate the WQI. pH, electrical conductivity, chloride, dissolved solids, hardness, sulphate, sodium, manganese, calcium, potassium, and magnesium were taken into account while computing WQI. The weighted computation by the WQI used in many kinds of research this type of estimates (Bouslah et al., 2017; Jamshidzadeh et al., 2018; Ekere et al., 2019; Chowdhury et al., 2021).

3.2 Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index

The weighted arithmetic water quality index clarifies the water quality according to the standard of quality by using the most commonly measured water quality factors. Numerous scientists have used this technique (Chauhan et al., 2010; Balan et al, 2012; Chowdhury et al., 2021) to calculate WQI (Rown et al., 1972; Xiao et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020; Ram et al., 2021):

\(K = {1 \over \sum({1 \over Si})}\)

where, k denotes steady-state proportionality, Si is standards of parameter.

The sub-index (Wi) was calculated by taking the parameter’s optimal (ideal) value:

\(Wi = {K \over Si}\)

The following formula used to calculate the sub-index (Qi).

\(Wi = 100 [{Vi-V0 \over Si-V0}]\)

where, Vi is concentrate of the parameter in analyzing water,  Si is standard desirable value of parameter, Vo is the parameter’s actual value in pure water (for natural water and Vo is 0 for hardness.

\(WQI= {\sum Wi Qi \over \sum Wi}\)

where, WQI is a number between 0 and 100 that indicates the quality of the water; Qi is a relative value of water specific to each parameter; i is represent the range of parameters.

4. Results And Discussion

4.1 pH

The quality and penetration rate of groundwater recharge, the rate of refilling water, and the interaction between water and rock in the aquifer all influence pH fluctuations in space and time. The recommended BIS limit for drinking purposes is 6.5 to 8.5 pH, and in the study area ranges from 7.0 to 8.8 (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4. pH with BIS limits
Figure 4. pH with BIS limits
Figure 5. pH
Figure 5. pH

4.2 Electrical Conductivity

Electrical conductivity defined as its ability to conduct an electric current. When salts or other chemical substances dissolve which divided into positive and negative ions. Electrical conductivity can be classed into four categories: excellent, good, permitted, and dubious (Tlili-Zrelli et al., 2018). The study region ranges from 600 to 1590 μS/Cm, with samples falling into the good and permissible categories (Table 2; Figure 7).

Table 2. Electrical conductivity

Water classes

EC

Samples

Sample

No.

%

Excellent

<250

-

-

Good

250-750

4

18

Permissible

750-2250

18

82

Doubtful

>2250

-

-

Figure 6. Electrical Conductivity
Figure 6. Electrical Conductivity

4.3 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

TDS is an abbreviation for total dissolved solids, which are inorganic and small amounts of organic components that are present in water as a solution. For drinking purposes, the BIS (2012) permissible limit is 500 mg/L to 2000 mg/L, with a range of 390-954 mg/L in the study region (Figure 10 and 8). Fresh water, slightly brackish water, slightly brackish water, brackish water, saline water, and braine water are the six forms of TDS (Ramaraju and Giridhar 2017). All samples were fallen into freshwater category and the TDS (Table 3).

Figure 7.  TDS with BIS limits
Figure 7. TDS with BIS limits
Figure 9. Total Dissolved Solids
Figure 9. Total Dissolved Solids

Table 3. Total Dissolved Solids

Water  Class

Concentration  of TDS (Todd 2005) mg/l

No. of Samples

Fresh water

10-1000

All

Slightly water

-------

-

Slightly-brackish water

1000-10,000

-

Brackish water

10,000-10,0000

-

Saline water

-----

-

Braine water

>10,0000

-

4.4 Hardness

Dissolved polyvalent metallic ions from sedimentary rocks such as limestone and dolomite are the most common causes of hardness in water, and the two main ions are Ca2+ and Mg 2+. Carbonate (temporary) and non-carbonate (permanent) hardness are two types of total hardness. For drinking purposes, the BSI (2012) permissible range is 200 mg/L to 600 mg/L TH, with a range of 25mg/L-658 mg/L in the study region (Figure 9 and 11).

Total hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) = Carbonate hardness + Non-carbonate hardness

\(Calcium \ Hardness = 20 { mg \over L} {\times} {{(100 \ Caco3)⁄Mm} \over (400 mg \ Calcium)⁄Mm} mg/L\)

\(Magnesium \ Hardness = 10 { mg \over L} {\times} {{(100 \ Caco3)⁄Mm} \over (24.31 mg \ Calcium)⁄Mm} mg/L\)

Figure 8.  Total hardness with BIS limits
Figure 8. Total hardness with BIS limits
Figure 10. Total hardness
Figure 10. Total hardness

4.5 Calcium

Calcium (Ca2+) may dissolve from rocks such as limestone and dolomite in the study area. For drinking purposes, the BIS (2012) permissible limit is Ca2+ 75 mg/L to 200 mg/L, whereas in the study area ranges between 32 mg/Land 190 mg/L (Figures 12 and 14).

Figure 11. Calcium with BIS limits
Figure 11. Calcium with BIS limits
Figure 13. Calcium
Figure 13. Calcium

4.6 Magnesium

Magnesium (Mg2+) is the most abundant element in the earth’s crust and is formed by the weathering of specific minerals such as dolomite. Magnesium, together with calcium, is necessary for water hardness. For drinking purposes, the BIS (2012) permissible limit is Mg2+ from 30 mg/L to 100 mg/L, and concentrations ranging from 30 mg/L-125 mg/L in the study area (Figure 13 and 15).

Figure 12. Magnesium with BIS limits
Figure 12. Magnesium with BIS limits
Figure 14. Magnesium
Figure 14. Magnesium

4.7 Carbonates (CO3-) and Bicarbonates (HCO3-)

Carbonates (CO32-), Bicarbonates (HCO3-), and hydroxide compounds, as well as Phosphates, Silicates, and Borates, make up the alkaline character of water. Carbonates are typically found in carbonaceous rocks such as limestone, and this sort of environment has a high alkalinity and hardness. CO3- and HCO3- concentrations in the research area range from 0-58 mg/L and 0-102 mg/L, respectively. Soft water has low alkalinity, while hard water has significant alkalinity Figure 16 and 17 shows a spatial distribution map of CO3- and HCO3- concentrations.

Figure 15.  Carbonates
Figure 15. Carbonates
Figure 16. Bicarbonates
Figure 16. Bicarbonates

4.8 Water Quality Index (WQI)

The value generated for the Weighted Arithmetic WQI technique can be used to calculate the water ecological popularity. Table 4 shows the water quality criteria for drinking purposes and the unit-weights allocated to each parameter used in calculating the WQI. Brown (1972) categorizes the WQI into five classes (Table 5). Four samples from villages namely Cherlopalli, T. Velamavaripalli, Kuppapalapalli, Tallapalli, and Eguvathuvvapalli classified into poor category and others falling into the unsuitable category (Table 6, Figure 18).

Table 4. Relative weights (Wn) used to calculate the WQI

Parameters

BIS standard (Vs)

Ranges

Unit weight (Wn)

pH

8.5

7.0-8.8

0.60

EC

300

634-1590

0.02

TDS

500

390-954

0.010

TH

300

25-658

0.02

Ca2+

75

32-190

0.10

Mg2+

30

30-120

0.20

TA

200

58- 102

0.03

Cl-

250

78-647

0.02

Σ Wn

1

Table 5. Classification of the Water Quality Index (Brown 1972)

Water Quality Class

Range

Grade

Possible Usage

No. of Samples

Excellent

0-25

A

Drinking, irrigation and industrial

-

Good

26-50

B

Drinking, irrigation and industrial

-

Poor

51-75

C

Irrigation and industrial

-

Very Poor

76-100

D

Irrigation

5

Unsuitable

>100

E

Proper treatment required before use

17

Table 6. WQI categories

Sample Id

Longitude

Latitude

WQI Values

WQI Category

V1

78.355721°

14.331964°

111.6

Unsuitable

V2

78.377839°

14.332943°

128.5

Unsuitable

V3

78.388129°

14.320102°

98.6

Very Poor

V4

78.407050°

14.338755°

126.2

Unsuitable

V5

78.440434°

14.342626°

131.4

Unsuitable

V6

78.466688°

14.339588°

132.5

Unsuitable

V7

78.494623°

14.337503°

107.3

Unsuitable

V8

78.530698°

14.333185°

126.8

Unsuitable

V9

78.458748°

14.357179°

147.7

Unsuitable

V10

78.455109°

14.372630°

104.1

Unsuitable

V11

78.407051°

14.366983°

94.8

Very Poor

V12

78.432104°

14.387316°

153.6

Unsuitable

V13

78.396207°

14.404166°

101.4

Unsuitable

V14

78.424502°

14.418699°

121.1

Unsuitable

V15

78.402485°

14.430193°

98.01

Very Poor

V16

78.420971°

14.450894°

135.8

Unsuitable

V17

78.381039°

14.451130°

126.9

Unsuitable

V18

78.401835°

14.455093°

98.3

Very Poor

V19

78.410204°

14.381103°

96.5

Very Poor

V20

78.371232°

14.390213°

146.9

Unsuitable

V21

78.501485°

14.420752°

109.7

Unsuitable

V22

78.512934°

14.440371°

126.1

Unsuitable

Figure 17. Water qualities
Figure 17. Water qualities

5. Conclusion

The BIS (2012) establishes the study for the evaluation of groundwater samples for drinking and irrigation purposes. The collected samples analyzed to determine ex-site and in-site characteristics such as alkalinity (carbonates and bicarbonates), chlorides, magnesium, calcium, electrical conductivity, pH, total dissolved solids, and total hardness. The weighted arithmetic technique used to calculate the Water Quality Index. The parameters and WQI values plotted to show spatial distribution using the IDW tool of Arc-GIS software.

The EC of groundwater is good in 18% of the samples and permissible in 82% of the samples. Most of the samples are permissible resulting in high EC values. Absolute TDS, hardness, calcium, magnesium bicarbonates, and carbonates classified into permissible limits. WQI estimated for 22.8% samples classified as very poor and 77.2% are unsuitable. Water collected from these samples contaminated due to mining in the region. Very poor quality groundwater is useful only for irrigation purposes.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BIS: Bureau of Indian Standards; CGWB: Central Groundwater Board; EC: Electrical Conductivity; GIS: Geographic information system; RS: Remote Sensing; TDS: Total Dissolved Solids; TH: Total Hardness; WHO: World Health Organization; WQI: Water Quality Index.

Article information

Received
22 Jan 2022
Revised
1 Apr 2022
Accepted
2 Apr 2022
Published
24 Apr 2022
Handling editor
Dr. Pramodkumar Hire
Journal
Hydrospatial Analysis, ISSN 2582-2969

References

  1. Adimalla, N., 2021. Application of the entropy weighted water quality index (EWQI) and the pollution index of groundwater (PIG) to assess groundwater quality for drinking purposes: A case study in a rural area of Telangana State, India. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80(1), 31-40.

    Crossref
  2. Balamurugan, P., Shunmugapriya, G. and Vanitha, R., 2020. GIS based assessment of ground water for domestic and irrigation purpose in Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India. Taiwan Water Conservancy, 68(2), 1-10.

  3. Balan, I. N., Shivakumar, M. and Kumar, P. D., 2012. An assessment of groundwater quality using water quality index in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Chronicles of Young Scientists, 3(2), 146.

  4. Bhaskar Rao, Y. J., Pantulu, G. V. C., Reddy, D. V., and Gopalan, K., 1995. Time of early sedimentation and volcanism in the Proterozoic Cuddapah basin, South India: Evidence from Rb-Sr age of Pulivendla mafic sill. Geological Society of India, 33, 329-338.

  5. Bhutiani, R., Ahamad, F., Tyagi, V. and Ram, K., 2018. Evaluation of water quality of River Malin using water quality index (WQI) at Najibabad, Bijnor (UP) India. Environment Conservation Journal, 19 (1 and 2), 191-201.

    Crossref
  6. BIS [Bureau of Indian Standards] 2012. Drinking water - specification (Second revision   May 2012),  New Delhi.

  7. Bora, M. and Goswami, D. C., 2017. Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index (WQI): Case study of the Kolong River, Assam, India. Applied Water Science, 7(6), 3125-3135.

    Crossref
  8. Bouslah, S., Lakhdar, D. and Larbi, H., 2017. Water quality index assessment of Koudiat Medouar Reservoir, northeast Algeria using weighted arithmetic index method. Journal Of Water And Land Development, 35, 221-228.

    Crossref
  9. Brown, R. M., McClelland, N. I., Deininger, R. A. and O’Connor, M.F., 1972. A water quality index- Crashing the psychological barrier. In Indicators Of Environmental Quality, 173-182,  Springer, Boston, MA.

  10. CGWB [Central Groundwater Board] 2014. Report on dynamic groundwater resources of India (as on March 2011). Central Groundwater Board, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India, Faridabad, 1-282.

  11. Chauhan, A. and Singh, S., 2010. Evaluation of Ganga water for drinking purpose by water quality index at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India. Report and Opinion, 2(9), 53-61.

  12. Chowdhury, R. M., Ankon, A A. and Bhuiyan, M. K., 2021. Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shitalakshya River Near Haripur Power Station, Narayanganj, Bangladesh. Journal of Engineering Science, 12(3), 45-55.

    Crossref
  13. Dash, S. and Kalamdhad, A.S., 2021. Hydrochemical dynamics of water quality for irrigation use and introducing a new water quality index incorporating multivariate statistics. Environmental Earth Sciences, 80(3), 1-21.

    Crossref
  14. Ekere, N. R., Agbazue, V. E., Ngang, B. U. and Ihedioha, J. N., 2019. Hydrochemistry and Water Quality Index of groundwater resources in Enugu north district, Enugu, Nigeria. Environmental Monitoring And Assessment, 191(3), 1-15.

    Crossref
  15. Gao, Y., Qian, H., Ren, W., Wang, H., Liu, F. and Yang, F., 2020. Hydrogeochemical characterization and quality assessment of groundwater based on integrated-weight water quality index in a concentrated urban area. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 260, 121006.

    Crossref
  16. Gowd, S. S., 2005. Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes a case study of Peddavanka watershed, Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh, India. Environmental Geology 48(6), 702-712.

    Crossref
  17. Jamshidzadeh, Z. and Barzi, M. T., 2018. Groundwater quality assessment using the potability water quality index (PWQI): A case in the Kashan plain, Central Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(3), 1-13.

    Crossref
  18. Lapworth, D. J., MacDonald, A. M., Kebede, S., Owor, M., Chavula, G., Fallas, H., Wilson, P., Ward, J.S.T., Lark, M., Okullo, Mwathunga, E., Banda, S., Gwengweya, G., Nedaw, D., Jumbo, S., Banks, E., Cook, P. and Casey, V., 2020. Drinking water quality from rural handpump-boreholes in Africa. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 064020.

    Crossref
  19. Li, P. and Wu, J., 2019. Drinking water quality and public health. Exposure and Health, 11(2), 73-79.

    Crossref
  20. Manoj, S., Thirumurugan, M. and Elango, L., 2017. An integrated approach for assessment of groundwater quality in and around uranium mineralized zone, Gogi region, Karnataka, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 10(24), 1-17.

    Crossref
  21. Oki, A. O. and Akana, T. S., 2016. Quality assessment of groundwater in Yenagoa, Niger delta, Nigeria. Geosciences, 6(1), 1-12.

    Crossref
  22. Panneerselvam, B., Muniraj, K., Thomas, M. and Ravichandran, N., 2021. GIS-based legitimatic evaluation of groundwater’s health risk and irrigation susceptibility using water quality index, pollution index, and irrigation indexes in semiarid region. In Groundwater resources development and planning in the semi-arid region, 239-268. Springer, Cham.

    Crossref
  23. Ram, A., Tiwari, S. K., Pandey, H. K., Chaurasia, A. K., Singh, S. and Singh, Y. V., 2021. Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) under GIS framework. Applied Water Science, 11(2), 1-20.

    Crossref
  24. Ramaraju, A. and Giridhar, M. V. S. S., 2017. Quality Assessment of Surface Water Bodies in and around GHMC. In National Conference on Water Environment and Society,  322.

  25. Rown, R.M., McCleiland, N.J., Deiniger, R.A. and O’Connor, M.F.A., 1972. Water quality index–crossing the physical barrier. In Proceedings in International Conference on water pollution Research Jerusalem,  6, 787-797.

  26. Seth, R., Mohan, M., Singh, P., Singh, R., Dobhal, R., Singh, K. P. and Gupta, S., 2016. Water quality evaluation of Himalayan rivers of Kumaun region, Uttarakhand, India. Applied Water Science, 6(2), 137-147.

    Crossref
  27. Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J.M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P. and Portmann, F.T., 2010. Groundwater use for irrigation- A global inventory. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 14(10), 1863-1880.

    Crossref
  28. Soujanya Kamble, B., Saxena, P. R., Kurakalva, R. M. and Shankar, K., 2020. Evaluation of seasonal and temporal variations of groundwater quality around Jawaharnagar municipal solid waste dumpsite of Hyderabad city, India. SN Applied Sciences, 2(3), 1-22.

    Crossref
  29. Srinivasamoorthy, K., Gopinath, M., Chidambaram, S., Vasanthavigar, M. and Sarma, V.S., 2014. Hydrochemical characterization and quality appraisal of groundwater from Pungar sub basin, Tamilnadu, India. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 26(1), 37-52.

    Crossref
  30. Tlili-Zrelli, B., Gueddari, and, M. and Bouhlila, R., 2018. Spatial and temporal variations of water quality of Mateur aquifer (Northeastern Tunisia): suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes. Journal of Chemistry.

    Crossref
  31. Tyagi, S., Singh, P., Sharma, B. and Singh, R., 2014. Assessment of water quality for drinking purpose in district Pauri of Uttarakhand, India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2(4), 94-99.

    Crossref
  32. Vishnu Radhan, R., Zainudin, Z., Sreekanth, G. B., Dhiman, R., Salleh, M. and Vethamony, P., 2017. Temporal water quality response in an urban river: a case study in peninsular Malaysia. Applied Water Science, 7(2), 923-933.

    Crossref
  33. WHO [World Health Organization] 2017. Global hepatitis report 2017. World Health Organization.

  34. Wu, Z., Zhang, D., Cai, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, L. and Chen, Y., 2017. Water quality assessment based on the water quality index method in Lake Poyang: The largest freshwater lake in China. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-10.

    Crossref
  35. Xiao, J., Wang, L., Deng, L. and Jin, Z., 2019. Characteristics, sources, water quality and health risk assessment of trace elements in river water and well water in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2004-2012.

    Crossref
  36. Yadav, K. K., Gupta, N., Kumar, V., Sharma, S. and Arya, S., 2015. Water quality assessment of Pahuj River using water quality index at Unnao Balaji, MP, India. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res, 19(1), 241-250.

  37. Zachariah, J. K., Rao, Y. B., Srinivasan, R. and Gopalan, K., 1999. Pb, Sr and Nd isotope systematics of uranium mineralised stromatolitic dolomites from the Proterozoic Cuddapah Supergroup, South India: Constraints on age and provenance. Chemical Geology, 162(1), 49-64.

    Crossref