SPATIO-TEMPORAL VARIATION IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY … · out using GPS to check the conditions of...

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 2.417, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 11, December 2015

164 www.jiarm.com

SPATIO-TEMPORAL VARIATION IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ON CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, INDIA USING GEO-

INFORMATICS TECHNIQUE

MANJUNATHA M.C* DR. BASAVARAJAPPA H.T**

*Research Scholar, Dept. of Studies in Earth Science, Centre for Advanced Studies (CAS) in Precambrian Geology,

University of Mysore, Mysuru, India **Professor, Dept. of Studies in Earth Science, Centre for Advanced Studies (CAS) in Precambrian Geology, University of

Mysore, Mysuru, India

ABSTRACT

Most of the villages in India depend mainly on groundwater for domestic

purposes which affect its quality. Unsustainable withdrawal/ over exploitation of

groundwater in various fields and drought conditions during extreme summer seasons have

depleting the water level in the study area. Groundwater quality is contaminated mostly by

anthropogenic (agricultural activities) and geogenic substances; are adversely affecting the

water at many regions. Efforts have been made to evaluate the seasonal variation (pre & post-

monsoon during 2011) in groundwater quality parameters of 50 groundwater samples in

Precambrian terrain of Chitradurga district. Intensive use of agrochemicals, sewage water,

polluted drain water and Municipal waste water has posed a serious threat to groundwater

quality through bore/ tube wells and Govt. pipeline water supply. All the samples are

analyzed with respect to World Health Organization (WHO) and Bureau of India Standards

(BIS). Lineaments are overlaid on land use/ land cover categories using IRS-1D, PAN+LISS-

III satellite image through GIS software’s to evaluate the possible threats/ locations of

groundwater quality such as rock-water interactions, agro-chemicals and storage &

movement of water. Ordinary kriging method is utilized in preparation of thematic maps of

groundwater quality parameters viz Fluoride (F-), Nitrate (No3), Chloride (Cl-), Potential of

Hydrogen (pH) and Total Hardness (TH). The final results highlight the seasonal variation in

groundwater quality analysis during the year 2011 in Precambrian hard rock terrain of

Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India.

KEYWORDS: Spatio-Temporal Variation; Water Quality; Kriging; Chitradurga District;

Geo-Informatics.


165 www.jiarm.com

1. INTRODUCTION

Water is the main source for domestic, engineering, industrial, agricultural and

multipurpose uses which affects its supply and demand due to rapid rise in population.

Groundwater pollution occurs when used water is returned to the hydrological cycle

(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a). Anthropogenic activities and inherent aquifer

material threat the groundwater resources & supply becoming a greater challenge in the

country. Growing urbanization, exploding population and intensive agricultural activities are

just some of the contributing factors (Partha P.A et al., 2011). Evaluation of groundwater

quality is a major task applied in the study area. Open unlined drains/ wells and waste

dumping sites on major lineaments act as source of pollution to the groundwater (Datta et al.,

1997). Groundwater quality maps are effective for identifying locations that involve the

threat of contamination/ to predict the concentration of pollutants at unmeasured locations

through geo-statistical techniques (Kumar and Ahmed., 2003; Liu et al., 2007; Liu et al.,

2009). Kriging method considers the spatial correlation between the sample points and is

mostly used for mapping spatial variability (Ella et al., 2001). Field visits have been carried

out using GPS to check the conditions of each land use/ land cover categories and geological

structures (lineaments) that controls the occurrence and movement of groundwater (Shankar

et al., 2011). Geographical coordinates and elevation of each sampling locations are recorded

using a handheld GPS (Garmin-12). Water samples are collected systematically from 50

locations and analyzed to determine the concentration of water quality parameters using

WHO and BIS (BIS., 1991; WHO., 2004; Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a). Geo

informatics encompasses Survey of India (SoI) toposheet, Satellite Imagery, GIS software

analysis and GPS tools in mapping and interpretation of various spatial variations in

groundwater quality maps with cost effective (Basavarajappa et al., 2014a).

2. Location of the study area

The study area lies in between 130 34' to 150 02' N latitude and 760 00' to 770 01' E

longitude with a total areal extent of 8,338 Km2 (Fig.1a).


166 www.jiarm.com

Fig.1 (a & b). Location map and Observation Well points map of the study area

It include six taluks namely Challakere, Chitradurga, Hiriyur, Holalkere, Hosadurga and

Molakalmuru with general ground elevation of 732 m above MSL sloping from West to East

(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2014b). The study area experiences a hot, seasonally dry,

tropical savannah climate which receives low to moderate rainfall. The maximum annual

rainfall recorded is 1094 mm (2010), while minimum is 345 mm (2003) and Temperature

ranges from 120 to 410C, may fall up to 90C (Manjunatha et al., 2015b).

3. Methods & Materials

3.1 Methodology

A total number of 50 representative groundwater samples collected in well points

from different parts of the study area during Pre-monsoon (March-April) and Post-monsoon

(Oct) periods (year-2011) to determine seasonal variation in water quality parameters (Fig.1b;

Table.1). The experimental values are compared with standard values recommended by

WHO and BIS (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a) (Table.2 & 3). Within India, several

groundwater related studies have been conducted to determine potential sites for groundwater

evaluation (Satyanarayanan et al., 2007; Gupta and Srivastava., 2010) and groundwater

quality mapping (Remesen and Panda., 2007; Nas and Berktay., 2010) using GIS.


167 www.jiarm.com

3.2. Materials

Thematic maps: Observation well points map (Fig.1b), Lineament overlaid on LU/LC map

(Fig.2) and Spatial Distribution maps (Fig.3 – 7).

Satellite data: Indian Remote Sensing (IRS)-1D, LISS-III (Resolution: 23.5m, year: 2008-

09), PAN (year: 2005-06, Resolution: 5.8m); PAN+LISS-III (2.3m resolution).

Sources of data: Bhuvan, NRSA, Hyderabad.

Software analysis: ArcGIS v10 & PCI-Geomatica v10.

GPS: A hand held GPS (Garmin-12) is used to demark the exact locations of observation well

points and to check the conditions of the land use/ land cover patterns during field visits.

4. Geology

The study area mainly comprises of gneisses, patches of Closepet granite and the

younger granite (Ramakrishnan B.P and Vaidyanadhan R., 2008). The quality of groundwater

is governed by the mineralogical composition of the rocks (CGWB., 2013). Geologically, the

study area confirms Archaeans and Dharwars as basement complex. Major litho-units

encountered during field visits are conglomerate, orthoquartzite/ quartz chlorite schist,

greywacke, metavolcanics, laterite, talc, sericite schist, shale, basic volcanic rocks, gneissic,

phyllite and numerous bands of iron formations (Ramakrishnan and Vaidyanadhan., 2008;

Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2014b). The general trend of the major litho units are

N200W and S200E and dipping both in East and West directions varying from 550 to 850

providing good sources in groundwater movement with respect to a specific direction (GSI

Memoir., 1981; Basavarajappa et al., 2014a). Soil types of the district comprise deep &

shallow black soil, mixed red & black soil, red loamy & sandy soil (Basavarajappa and

Manjunatha., 2014b). Geomorphic conditions play a significant role in controlling the surface

as well as groundwater horizons (Basavarajappa et al., 2013; Manjunatha and Basavarajappa.,

2015c). Dug wells are the ideal structures in weathered rocks (CGWB., 2007).

5. Lineament overlaid on LU/LC categories

Lineaments and fractures play a vital role in controlling the movement and storage of

groundwater in hard rock terrain (Ramasamy et al., 2005; Subash et al., 2010; Basavarajappa

et al., 2012). Though the study area is endowed with many secondary porosity such as

lithological contact and geological structures like unconformities, folds, faults, bedding

plains, fracture, joints, shear zones allowing the occurrence and movement of groundwater

noticed at many locations (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015b; Manjunatha and


168 www.jiarm.com

Basavarajappa., 2015c). Lineaments are extracted by visual interpretation techniques on IRS-

1D, PAN+LISS-III satellite images through PCI-Geomatica v10. There are 144 industries/

factories and 57 mining leases (manganese di-oxide, fuchsite quartzite, limestone, dolomite,

clay, copper, pyrite, barytes) are identified and observed to be operating in and around major

lineaments that act as groundwater contamination in the study area (Basavarajappa and

Manjunatha., 2015a).

Land is one of the most important natural resources. Land use/ land cover are

digitized using IRS-1D LISS-III satellite images in conjunction with collateral data like SoI

topomaps on 1:50,000 scale by considering permanent features such as National/

State/District highways, major temples, drainages, power-lines, railway tracks, settlements,

co-ordinates, forests and village boundaries (Manjunatha et al., 2015a). Visual interpretation

of IRS-1D PAN+LISS-III FCC of Band 3,2,1 on 1:50,000 scale is carried out and updated on

Google Earth Image in delineating the various LU/LC categories (Basavarajappa and

Dinakar., 2005). These classifications are carried out based on the standard schemes

developed by National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA, 1995; NBSS & LUP., 2013). The

LU/LC map provides information on existing land use/land cover pattern and their spatial

distribution as agricultural lands (6273.66 Km2), built-up land (94.22 Km2), forest cover

(741.18 Km2), water bodies (384.91 Km2), wastelands (841.65 Km2) and other lands (96.29

Km2) (Manjunatha et al., 2015a).

Lineaments overlaid on various LU/LC patterns reveal the possible threats/ locations

of groundwater such as agricultural activities; urban run-off; wastelands (especially waste

dumping sites); salt affected areas; mining/ industrial operations mainly on fractured, seepage

and catchment zones etc. Agricultural land covers an area of 6,273.66 Km2 (Kharif crop-

4269.58 Km2; Rabi crop-661.97 Km2; Double crop-774.46 Km2) which need huge amount of

agro-chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides and these form the basic contaminations to groundwater

quality through catchment, seepage, recharge, fracture zones (lineaments) (Fig.2)

(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a).


169 www.jiarm.com

Fig.2. Lineament overlaid on Land use/ land cover map of the study area

6. Results and Discussion

The main sources of anthropogenic activities noticed are the discharge of wastes such

as treated sewage/ solid waste, municipal wastewater, certain agricultural activities, mine

activities & wastes dumping, industrial operations, deep-well disposal of liquid chemical

wastes etc are being contaminating the soil and leaching into the groundwater. Chemicals

storage & spills, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, animal waste, synthetic detergents, paints,

solvents, oils, medicines, disinfectants, pesticides, batteries are being lost to the nearby tanks

through spillage, leakage/ improper handling and affecting the groundwater quality

(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a). Groundwater passing through different rock types

dissolves only a very small quantity of mineral matter due to the relative insolubility of the

rock composition (Todd., 1980). The characteristics of groundwater (hard or soft; mineralised

or non-mineralised) depend on the extent of reactions made with the country rock which vary

from place to place (Edmunds., 1994).

7. Assessment of Seasonal variation (Pre and Post-monsoon) in Groundwater quality

7.1 Fluoride

Sources of fluoride in bedrock aquifer systems include fluorite, apatite and

fluorapatite which occur as evaporites or detrital grains in sedimentary rocks or as

disseminated grains in unconsolidated deposits (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a).


170 www.jiarm.com

Circulation of water through the weathered products during irrigation dissolves and leaches

the fluorine to the groundwater. The variation of fluoride depends on the amount of soluble

and insoluble fluoride in source rocks, rock-water interaction with rocks and soil temperature,

rainfall, oxidation - reduction process (Mangukiya et al., 2012). The fluoride level in pre-

monsoon ranges from 0.22 - 2.57 mg/L in which 18% of total number of samples exceeds

their permissible limits with reference to WHO and BIS standards with an average of 1.06

mg/L (Fig.3a). In post-monsoon, it ranges from 0.0 - 2.99 mg/L in which 26% of total

number of samples exceeds their permissible limits (WHO & BIS standards) with an average

of 1.07 mg/L (Fig.3b). The fluoride concentration is beyond permissible limit at few villages

which causes body pain, knee pain and back pain (Mangukiya et al., 2012). Degree of

weathering and leachable fluoride in terrain is of great significance for the fluoride present in

groundwater than the mere presence of fluoride bearing minerals in rocks (Kumar and Singh.,

2000).

Fig.3. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon fluoride distribution of the study area

7.2 Nitrate

Natural concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater originate from the

atmosphere, living and decaying organisms. In pre-monsoon season, nitrate ranges from 4 -

324 mg/L, in which 48% of total samples over complies the permissible limit (WHO & BIS

Standards) with an average of 62.57 mg/L (Fig.4a). In post-monsoon, it ranges from 2 – 270

mg/L, in which 22% of total samples are above permissible limit with an average of 39.38


171 www.jiarm.com

mg/L (Fig.4b). High nitrate levels in the study area are the results leaching from industrial,

intense agricultural chemicals and sewage water on major lineaments (Basavarajappa and

Manjunatha., 2015a). The ability of nitrate to enter well water depends on the type of soil and

bedrock present, and on the depth and construction of the well (Abati T., 2005).

Fig.4. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Nitrate distribution of the study area

7.3 Chloride

Chloride in drinking water originates from natural sources, sewage, industrial

effluents, urban runoff containing saline intrusion (WHO., 2004). Chloride is present in

natural waters due to the dissolution of salt deposits, salting of roads, and effluents from

chemical industries. Its affinity towards sodium is high. The high concentration of chloride is

in groundwater is observed where the temperature is high and rainfall is less (Mangukiya et

al., 2012). Dissolving of the soil constituents had contributed the chloride into the

groundwater and also the soil characteristics play an important role in contributing the

chloride content in the groundwater (Shivasankaran, 1997). In pre-monsoon, chloride ranges

from 45.5 – 819 mg/L, in which 28% of total samples are above permissible limit (WHO &

BIS Standards) with an average of 216.32 mg/L (Fig.5a). While in post-monsoon, it ranges

from 42 – 693 mg/L, in which 22% of total samples are above permissible limit with an

average of 177.76 mg/L (Fig.5b). Chloride is often an important dissolved constituent in

groundwater contamination from sewage waste water, municipal & Govt. pipeline water


172 www.jiarm.com

supply, various types of industrial wastes (Hem., 1985; 1993) and intense application of

agricultural effluents on major secondary porosity such as lithological contact and geological

structures like unconformities, folds, faults, bedding plains, fracture, joints, shear zones

(lineaments) etc (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015a).

Fig.5. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Chloride distribution of the study area

7.4 pH

The alkalinity in most natural water is primarily due to the presence of dissolved

carbon species, particularly bicarbonate and carbonate (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha.,

2015a). Other constituents that may contribute minor amounts of alkalinity to water include

silicate, hydroxide, borates and certain organic compounds (Hem., 1985). Dissolved carbon

dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate are the principal sources of alkalinity, or the capacity of

solutes in water to neutralize acid. In pre-monsoon, the Potential of Hydrogen (pH) ranges

from 7.63 - 8.48 mg/L, in which all the samples are below the permissible limit (WHO & BIS

Standards) with an average of 8.15 mg/L (Fig.6a). But in post-monsoon, it ranges from 7.36 -

8.73 mg/L, in which 16% of total samples are above permissible limit with an average of 8.19

mg/L (Fig.6b). The pH of groundwater can also be lowered by organic acids from decaying

vegetation or by dissolution of sulfide minerals (Davis and DeWiest., 1966). For most

domestic and industrial uses, water having pH between 6 & 10 generally causes no problem

and below this range may be corrosive (Shankar et al., 2011).


173 www.jiarm.com

Fig.6. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon pH distribution of the study area

7.5 Total Hardness

Hardness is caused by polyvalent metallic ions dissolved in water principally

magnesium and calcium (Mangukiya et al., 2012).

Fig.7. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Total Hardness distribution of the study

area


174 www.jiarm.com

Table.1. Observed Groundwater quality values of Pre and Post-monsoon seasons (2011) of the study area Sl No

Observation well points

Well types

Latitude Longitude Pre-monsoon Post-monsoon F- NO3- Cl- pH TH F- NO3

- Cl- pH TH

Challakere Taluk 1. Challakere BW 14.3140 76.6492 0.63 185.0 819.0 7.63 735 0.80 44 189 7.78 470 2. Parasurampura MWS 14.2573 76.8837 0.29 18.0 210.0 8.32 340 0.50 10 42 8.10 140 3. Talaku GPL 14.4470 76.6830 1.22 53.5 147.0 7.91 360 1.15 2 91 8.34 260 4. Kammathmarikun

te MWS 14.2331 76.6621 1.41 52.5 56.0 8.25 235 1.77 4 105 8.30 250

5. T.N.Kote MWS 14.1972 76.8240 0.85 158.0 605.5 7.78 950 1.03 36 406 8.04 720 6. Budnahatti MWS 14.3666 76.6560 1.03 175.0 111.0 7.98 420 0.88 210 196 8.04 5007. Hosahalli GPL 14.4471 76.6622 1.27 17.5 73.5 8.45 160 1.26 9 63 8.45 250 8. Purlahalli MWS 14.2855 76.7986 1.95 88.0 115.5 8.03 390 2.43 50 77 8.19 360 9. Nagagondanahalli GPL 14.3755 76.8215 0.50 4.0 318.5 8.15 310 0.39 18 693 8.35 410 10.

Mylanahalli MWS 14.4444 76.8244 0.22 5.5 336.0 8.23 320 0 4 49 8.46 260

11.

Obalapura MWS 14.4702 76.9270 1.04 10.0 45.5 8.33 215 1.34 9 49 8.39 180

12.

Kaparahalli GPL 14.1645 76.6920 0.81 108.0 305.0 8.45 595 1.17 18 98 8.25 340

Chitradurga taluk 13.

Bharamasagara TW 14.3708 76.1927 0.83 45.0 336.0 8.14 580 1.44 36 287 8.36 440

14.

Hireguntanuru MWS 14.2126 76.2847 0.50 14.0 112.0 8.48 200 0.22 4 49 8.17 100

15.

Turuvanuru MWS 14.4023 76.4410 0.28 324.0 434.0 7.87 1100 0.42 270 406 7.36 1210

16.

Madakaripura GPL 14.2300 76.4390 1.98 70.0 143.5 8.09 440 1.90 39 182 8.21 420

17.

Kallahalli MWS 14.2493 76.5179 1.13 14.0 178.5 8.17 305 1.25 9 308 8.24 420

18.

Ganjigatte HP 14.1618 76.3351 1.14 52.0 94.5 8.26 255 1.50 27 70 8.14 260

19.

Bhahadurghatta MWS 14.4334 76.1779 1.42 9.0 238.0 8.26 480 1.00 2 231 8.28 400

20.

Vijapura MWS 14.2910 76.2825 1.24 10.0 112.0 8.42 320 1.88 4 49 8.73 250

21.

Belagatta MWS 14.3123 76.4556 0.42 162.0 196.0 8.02 700 0.51 90 147 8.12 450

22.

Chikkagondanhalli

MWS 14.3330 76.3331 0.83 12.0 238.0 8.16 460 1.51 18 147 8.01 450

23.

G.R. halli MWS 14.2894 76.3960 0.49 63.0 154.0 8.16 520 1.19 68 88 8.17 450

24.

Alagawadi MWS 14.2836 76.1511 0.45 4.0 182.0 8.28 360 0.31 6 147 8.06 410

Hiriyur taluk 25.

Gollahalli OW 14.1222 76.6544 1.12 117.0 175.0 8.03 350 1.50 136 84 8.53 250

26.

Bharamagiri GPL 13.9276 76.4972 1.19 115.0 287.5 7.76 575 0.46 18 336 7.97 700

27.

Bagganadu MWS 13.8665 76.6924 1.17 125.0 521.5 7.75 815 1.00 18 392 8.26 740

28.

Hiriyur TW 13.9412 76.6169 1.03 25.0 409.5 8.0 450 0.46 16 126 8.61 220

29.

Balenahalli HP 14.0219 76.6437 1.46 9.0 150.5 8.43 225 1.62 9 182 8.59 250

30.

Maradihalli MWS 14.1315 76.5279 2.11 40.5 210.0 8.13 300 1.47 27 154 7.79 430

31.

Harihabbe GPL 14.0567 76.8159 1.29 29.0 126.0 8.37 310 0.97 27 140 8.36 360

32.

Yalladakere GPL 13.7852 76.5680 0.53 8.5 126.0 8.04 490 0.49 14 119 8.48 410

33.

Yalakurlahalli MWS 14.0619 76.4541 1.02 137.0 248.5 7.99 660 0.80 54 203 8.61 440

34.

Guhelalu MWS 14.0483 76.5628 1.57 132.0 395.5 7.89 685 1.50 27 497 7.84 960

35.

J.Gollarahalli HP 13.8373 76.7472 0.72 123.0 325.5 8.04 625 0.29 81 385 8.02 670


175 www.jiarm.com

Holalkere taluk 36.

Horakedevapura GPL 14.0315 76.3286 1.15 54.0 154.0 8.26 500 0.49 4 77 8.17 300

37.

Kummanagatta HP 13.9801 76.2967 0.92 9.0 126.0 8.28 330 1.10 10 112 7.49 390

38.

Amruthapura MWS 14.1370 76.2446 1.37 6.0 49.0 8.47 280 0.91 4 49 8.15 330

39.

Sasaluhalla MWS 14.1966 76.1160 2.57 12.0 161.0 8.29 430 1.87 9 154 8.04 390

40.

Hirekandawadi MWS 14.1872 76.1980 0.69 9.0 168.0 8.28 380 0.29 9 161 8.01 460

41.

Chitrahalli MWS 14.1093 76.2668 0.70 15.0 206.5 8.07 440 0.54 9 134 7.98 400

Hosadurga taluk 42.

Kalkere GPL 13.7015 76.3182 0.49 109.5 297.5 7.97 725 1.08 18 91 8.19 490

43.

Heggere MWS 13.6048 76.4393 1.48 11.0 56.0 8.36 290 1.98 4 56 8.27 310

44.

G. Neralakere HP 13.7837 76.4686 0.27 125.5 325.5 8.11 585 0.27 178 357 8.56 360

45.

Narasipura MWS 13.8809 76.3002 2.05 54.0 105.0 8.28 270 2.99 60 105 8.40 310

46.

Siranakatte GPL 13.8861 76.4268 1.50 72.0 77.0 8.39 265 1.38 44 105 8.25 280

47.

Chikkabyladakere MWS 13.7022 76.5260 1.38 11.5 122.5 8.04 340 1.40 2 112 8.27 390

48.

Belaguru MWS 13.6235 76.2902 0.32 18.0 206.5 8.24 645 0.54 18 301 8.34 660

49.

Madadakere HP 13.8861 76.3863 1.62 71.0 91.0 8.14 285 0.87 150 168 7.72 430

Molkalmuru taluk 50.

B.G. Kere MWS 14.5924 76.6744 1.53 36.0 134.0 8.09 340 1.72 36 119 8.06 420

Note: BW- Bore Well; HP-Hand Pump; MWS-Municipal Water Supply; GPL-Govt. Pipe Line; TW-Tube Wells; OW-Open Well. Table.2 Comparison of observed values (Pre-monsoon) with Standard specifications for Groundwater as per WHO & BIS

Sl No

Parameters Min Max Average

WHO Standards

Sample numbers exceeding permissible limit

BIS Standards

Sample numbers exceeding permissible

limit 1. F- (mg/L) 0.22 2.57 1.06 1.5 8,16,30,34,39,45,46,49,50 1 - 1.5 8,16,30,34,39,45,46,49,50 2. NO3-

(mg/L) 4 324 62.57 50 1,3,4,5,6,8,12,15,16,18,21,

23,25,26,27,33,34,35,36, 42,44,45,46,49

45-100 1,5,6,12,15,21,25,26,27, 33, 34,35,42,44,

3. Cl- (mg/L) 45.5 819 216.32 250 1,5,9,10,12,13,15,26, 27,28,34,35,42, 44,

250-1000 -Nil-

4. pH 7.63 8.48 8.15 6.5-8.5 -Nil- 6.5-8.5 -Nil- 5. TH (mg/L) 160 1100 446.8 500 1,5,12,13,15,21,23,26,27,33,34,

35,36,42,44,48 200-600 1,5,15,21,27,33,34,35,

42,48 Note: Sample numbers 1 to 50 is considered as C1 to C50

Table.3 Comparison of observed values (Post-monsoon) with Standard specifications for Groundwater as per WHO &

BIS Sl No

Parameters Min Max Average WHO Standards

Sample numbers exceeding permissible limit

BIS Standards

Sample numbers exceeding permissible

limit 1. F- (mg/L) 0 2.99 1.07 1.5 4,8,16,18,20,22,25,29,

34,39,43,45,50 1-1.5 4,8,16,18,20,22,25,29,34,

39,43,45,50, 2. NO3-

(mg/L) 2 270 39.38 50 6,8,15,21,23,25,33,

35,44,45,49 45-100 6,15,25,44,49

3. Cl- (mg/L) 42 693 177.76 250 5,9,13,15,17,26,27, 34,35,44,48

250-1000 -Nil-

4. pH 7.36 8.73 8.19 6.5-8.5 20,25,28,29,33,44 6.5-8.5 20,25,28,29,33,44, 5. TH (mg/L) 100 1210 415 500 5,6,15,26,27,34,35,48 200-600 5,15,26,27,34,35,48

Note: Sample numbers 1 to 50 is considered as C1 to C50


176 www.jiarm.com

Table.4. Season-wise Rise and Fall analysis of Groundwater parameters in the study area (2011) Sl no Parameters Pre-monsoon Post-monsoon Season-wise Rise/ Fall

1. Fluoride 18% 26% Rise 2. Nitrate 48% 22% Major Fall 3. Chloride 28% 22% Fall 4. Potential of Hydrogen -Nil- 16% Major Rise 5. Total Hardness 32% 16% Major Fall

Fig.8. Graph depicting the Seasonal variations (%) of Groundwater parameters

Hardness may be divided into two types, carbonate and non-carbonate. Carbonate

hardness includes portions of calcium and magnesium, and certain amount of bicarbonates

(Biswajeet and Saied., 2011). Owing to fact that higher amount of hardness in the study area

comes mainly from the leaching of igneous rock and carbonate rocks (dolomite, calcite and

limestone). In pre-monsoon, TH ranges from 160 – 1100 mg/L, in which 32% of total

samples are above permissible limit (WHO & BIS Standards) with an average of 446.8 mg/L

(Fig.7a). While in post-monsoon, it ranges 100 – 1210 mg/L, in which only 16% of total

samples shows above permissible limit with an average of 415 mg/L (Fig7b). The adverse

effects of total hardness are formation of kidney stone and the heart diseases (Sastry and

Rathee., 1998). Nevertheless, groundwater chemistry is controlled by the composition of its

recharge components as well as by geological and hydrological variations (Narayana and

Suresh., 1989).

8. Conclusion

The available groundwater in the district is well suitable for human consumption and

application in various domestic fields except in few locations. Temporal variation in pH show

major rise; while NO3- & TH show major fall from pre-monsoon to post-monsoon. F- shows

minimum rise and Cl- show minimum fall from pre-monsoon to post-monsoon seasons


177 www.jiarm.com

(Fig.8; Table.4). Wide applications of chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides in

agricultural lands of the study area is the major factor that contributing the nitrate content in

the soil and rock formations by leaching through seepage, fractures and joints (major

lineaments) into the groundwater. Intensive supply of Municipal waste water, sewage/ drain

water, urban runoff, mining activities and various land use activities on catchment, recharge

zones (major lineaments) are observed to be minor threats to groundwater quality. The spatial

and time variant changes of groundwater quality are assessed through graphical

representations using ArcGIS v10. The final output maps are effective in identifying the

possible locations that threats the groundwater contamination and its mitigation.

Acknowledgement:

The authors are indepthly acknowledged to Prof. G.S. Gopalakrishna, Chairman,

Department of Studies in Earth Science, Centre for Advanced Studies in Precambrian

Geology, University of Mysore, Manasagangothri, Mysuru; Bhuvan, NRSC, Hyderabad;

Zilla Panchayath, Chitradurga; CGWB., Bengaluru and UGC, New Delhi for financial

support in the form of MRP No.42.73(SR)/2012-13, dt:12.03.2012.

Reference

1. Abati T., (2005). Water Sources and treatment, food forum, A publication of the Nigeria Institute of food science and Technology (NIFST), Vol.4, No.1, Pp: 49.

2. Basavarajappa H.T and Dinakar S., (2005). Landuse/ land cover studies around Kollegal, Chamarajanagar district using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques, Journal of The Indian Mineralogist, Special Vol.1, Pp: 89-94.

3. Basavarajappa H.T and Manjunatha M.C (2014b). “Geomatics Technique on Mapping and Reclamation of wastelands in Chitradurga District, Karnataka, India”, International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), Vol.5, Issue.7, Pp: 99-110.

4. Basavarajappa H.T and Manjunatha M.C (2015a). “Groundwater Quality Analysis in Precambrian rocks of Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India using Geo-informatics Technique”, Elsevier, Science Direct, Aquatic Procedia, Vol.4, Pp: 1354-1365.

5. Basavarajappa H.T, Balasubramanian A, Pushpavathi K.N and Manjunatha M.C (2012). Mapping and integration of Geological, Geomorphological landforms of Mysore district, Karnataka, India using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques, Frontiers of Earth Science Research, Gulbarga University, Edited Vol.1, Pp: 164-175.

6. Basavarajappa H.T, Dinakar S, Satish M.V, Nagesh D, Balasubramanian A and Manjunatha M.C (2013). “Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones in Hard Rock terrain of Kollegal Shear Zone (KSZ), South India using Remote Sensing and GIS”, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering (IJEE), Cafet-Innova, Vol.6, No.5, Pp: 1185-1194.

7. Basavarajappa H.T, Manjunatha M.C and Basavaraj Hutti (2015b). “Spatial data integration and mapping of groundwater potential zones on Precambrian terrain of Hassan district, Karnataka, India using Geomatics application”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol.6, Issue.5, Pp: 123-134.

8. Basavarajappa H.T, Manjunatha M.C and Jeevan L (2014a). “Application of Geoinformatics on Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones of Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India”, International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol.5, Issue.5, May, Pp: 94-10.

9. BIS (1991). Indian standard specification for drinking water, Bureau of Indian Standard, publication no. IS: 10501, New Delhi, India.


178 www.jiarm.com

10. Biswajeet Pradhan and Saied Pirasteh (2011). Hydro-Chemical Analysis of the Ground Water of the Basaltic Catchments: Upper Bhatsai Region, Maharashtra, The Open Hydrology Journal, Vol.5, Pp: 51-57.

11. CGWB (2007). Central Groundwater Board, Groundwater information booklet, Chitradurga District, Karnataka south western region, Bangalore, Pp: 1-21.

12. CGWB (2013). Central Groundwater Board, Groundwater information booklet, Chitradurga District, Karnataka south western region, Bangalore, Pp: 1-31.

13. Datta P.S and Tyagi S.K., (1997). Major ion chemistry of groundwater Delhi area: chemical weathering processes and groundwater flow regime, Geol.Soc.India, Vol.47, No.2, Pp: 179-188.

14. Davis De Viest., (1966). Hydrogeology, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Pp: 453. 15. Edmunds W.M., (1994). Groundwater chemistry and development, Groundwater quality, Eds. Nash, H

and McCall, G.J.H. Chapman and Hall. 16. Ella V.B, Melvin S.W and Kanwar R.S (2001). Spatial analysis of NO3–N concentration in glacial till,

Trans ASAE, Vol.44, No.2, Pp: 317–327. 17. GSI, Memoir (1981). “Early Precambrian Supracrustals of Southern Karnataka., Swaminath J and

Ramakrishnan M, A Geological Survey of India, Govt. of India, Vol-112, Pp: 163-198. 18. Gupta M and Srivastava P.K., (2010). Integrating GIS and Remote Sensing for identification of

groundwater potential zones in the hilly terrain of Pavagarh, Gujarath, India, Water Int., Vol.35, Pp: 233-245.

19. Hem J.D., (1985). Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply, Pp: 2254.

20. Hem J.D., (1993). Factors affecting stream water quality, and water-quality trends in Four basins in the conterminous United States, 1905-90; In Paulson, R.W., Chase E.B., Williams, J.S., and Moody, D.W., Eds., National Water Summary 1990-01; hydrologic events and stream water quality, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply paper-2400.

21. Kumar D and Ahmed S., (2003). Seasonal behavior of spatial variability of groundwater level in a granitic aquifer in monsoon climate, Current Science, Vol.84, No.2, Pp: 188–196.

22. Kumar P Kumari and LKR Singh., (2000). Environmental Biology, P.G. Dept. of Zoology, SK University, Dumka, Jharkand, Pp: 180-182.

23. Liu P, Su Y, Niu Z, Wu J (2007). Geo-statistical analysis and risk assessment on soil total nitrogen and total soil phosphorus in the dongting lake plain area, China, J Environ Qual, Vol.36, Pp: 935–942.

24. Liu X, Zhang W, Zhang M, Ficklin DL, Wang F (2009). Spatio-temporal variations of soil nutrients influenced by an altered land tenure system in China, Geoderma, Vol.152, Pp: 23–34.

25. Mangukiya Rupal, Bhattacharya Tanushree and Chakraborty Sukalyan (2012). Quality Characterization of Groundwater using Water Quality Index in Surat city, Gujarat, India, International Research Journal of Environment Sciences, Vol.1, No.4, Pp: 14-23.

26. Manjunatha M.C and Basavarajappa H.T (2015c). “Spatial Data Integration Of Lithology, Geomorphology And Its Impact On Groundwater Prospect Zones In Precambrian Terrain Of Chitradurga District, Karnataka, India Using Geomatics Application”, Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management (GJESRM), Vol.2, Issue.8, Pp: 16-22.

27. Manjunatha M.C, Basavarajappa H.T and Jeevan L (2015a). “Geomatics analysis on Land use land cover classification system in Precambrian terrain of Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol.6, Issue.2, Pp: 46-60.

28. Manjunatha M.C, Basavarajappa H.T and Jeevan L (2015b). “Climate change and its impact on Groundwater table fluctuation in Precambrian terrain of Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India using Geomatics application”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), Vol.6, Issue.3, Pp: 83-96.

29. Narayana A.C and Suresh G.C (1989). Chemical quality of groundwater of Mangalore city, Karnataka, Indian Journal of Environmental Health, Vol.31, Pp: 228-236.

30. Nas B and Berktay A., (2010). Groundwater quality mapping in urban groundwater using GIS, Environmental Monitoring Assessment, Vol.160, Pp: 215-227.

31. NBSS & LUP (2013). National Bureau of Soil Survey & Land Use Planning, Soil Resources Based Land Use of Hassan District, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Govt. of Maharashtra, India, Pp: 1-21.

32. NRSA (1995). Integrated mission for sustainable development, Technical Guidelines, National Remote Sensing Agency, Department of Space, Govt. of India, Hyderabad.

33. Partha Pratim Adhikary & Ch. Jyotiprava Dash & H. Chandrasekharan & T. B. S. Rajput and S. K. Dubey (2011). Evaluation of groundwater quality for irrigation and drinking using GIS and geo-statistics in a peri-urban area of Delhi, India, Arab Journal of Geosciences, DOI 10.1007/s12517-011-0330-7, Pp: 1-12.


179 www.jiarm.com

34. Ramakrishnan B.P and Vaidyanadhan R., (2008). “Geology of Karnataka”, A GSI Publications. 35. Ramasamy S.M., Nagappan, N and Selvakumar, R., (2005). Fracture Pattern Modeling and

Groundwater Hydrology in Hard Rock Aquifer System, Central Tamil Nadu, India. SM, Ramasamy (ed.), Remote Sensing in Water Resources, Rawat Publication, Pp: 121-136.

36. Remesen R and Panda R.K., (2007). Groundwater quality mapping using GIS: a study from India’s Kapgari Watershed. Environmental Quality Management. Springer 16, Pp: 41-60.

37. Sastri K.V and Rathee P., (1988). Physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of water of village Kanneli, (Dist. Rohtak) Haryana. Proc. Academic, Environmental Biology, Vol.7, Pp: 103-108.

38. Satyanarayanan M., Balaram V., Hussain M.S.A., Jemaili MARA., Rao TG., Mathur R., Dasaram B and Ramesh S.L., (2007). Assessment of groundwater quality in a structurally deformed granitic terrain in Hyderabad, India. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, Vol.131, Pp: 117-127.

39. Shankar K., Aravindan S and Rajendran, S., (2011). Assessment of Groundwater Quality in Paranavar River sub-Basin, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India, Advances in Applied Science Research, Vol.2, Pp: 92-103.

40. Shivashankaran M.A (1997). Hydro-geochemical assessment and current status of pollutants in groundwater of Pondichery region, South India, Ph.D. Thesis, Anna University, Chennai, Pp: 80-87.

41. Subash Chandra., Benoit Dewandel., Sushobhan Dutta and Shakeel Ahmed., (2010). Geophysical model of geological discontinuities in a granitic aquifer, analyzing small scale variability of electricity resistivity for groundwater occurrences. Journal of Applied Geophysics 71, Pp: 137-148.

42. Todd D.K., (1980), Ground water Hydrology, John Willey & Sons publishers, NewYork. 43. WHO., (2004). Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd edition, World Health Organization, Geneva.

SPATIO-TEMPORAL VARIATION IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY … · out using GPS to check the conditions of...

Documents

Transcript of SPATIO-TEMPORAL VARIATION IN GROUNDWATER QUALITY … · out using GPS to check the conditions of...