Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 DOI 10.1007/s12517-016-2641-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Evaluating groundwater suitability for the domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes in Nanded Tehsil, Maharashtra, India, using GIS and statistics D. B. Panaskar 1 & V. M. Wagh 1 & A. A. Muley 2 & S. V. Mukate 1 & R. S. Pawar 1 & M. L. Aamalawar 1

Received: 19 December 2015 / Accepted: 15 August 2016 # Saudi Society for Geosciences 2016

Abstract Hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater and its suitability for domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes were evaluated in Nanded Tehsil. A total of 50 representative groundwater samples were collected from dug/bore wells during post monsoon season 2012 and analyzed for major cations and anions. The order of dominance of cation and anions were Na > Ca > Mg > K and HCO3 > Cl > CO3 > SO4 > NO3, respectively. The rock weathering and evaporation processes are dominant in controlling the groundwater quality in the study area. Electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solid (TDS) show high positive correlation with total Hardness (TH), Ca, Na, and Cl. As per the WHO and BIS standards for domestic water purposes, TDS, TH, Ca, Mg, Na, and Cl exceed the safe limits in 16, 22, 6, 18, 12, and 15 %, respectively; therefore, majority of samples show that the groundwater is suitable for drinking. The spatial distribution maps of physicochemical parameters were prepared in ArcGIS. The suitability of groundwater for agriculture purpose was evaluated from EC, TDS, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), and %Na which ranges from excellent to unsuitable, so majority of the groundwater samples are suitable for irrigation. The U.S. Salinity Laboratory (USSL) diagram shows that most of the groundwater samples are characterized as in high

* V. M. Wagh [email protected]

1

School of Earth Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, M.S, India

2

School of Mathematical Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, M.S, India

salinity-low sodium hazard type water (C3-S1). All the groundwater samples are suitable for industrial use except sample numbers 44 and 48. Thus, most of the groundwater samples from this study confirm the beneficial use of aquifers in the area for domestic, agricultural, and irrigation purposes. However, sample numbers 44 and 48 identify the two aquifers in the study area which are problematic and need particular remedial measures if they are to have beneficial use. Keywords Groundwater . Hydrogeochemical . Nanded . GIS . Agriculture . Statistics

Introduction Water is an essential natural resource for the survival of life and is vital for human health. Groundwater is an important source of water that meets the domestic, irrigation, and industrial requirements all over the world. On the Earth, 37 Mkm3 is freshwater; about 22 % exists as a groundwater and around 97 % is available for human consumption (Foster 1998). India is an agriculturebased economy, where majority of the population from rural and urban areas depends on groundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes. In India, overexploitation of groundwater without proportionate recharge, surplus use of chemicals in agriculture, and residues of pollutants from fertilizers and pesticides percolating into the subsurface in many parts of the country have resulted in deterioration of groundwater quality (Goyal et al. 2010). In addition, untreated effluents from industrial and domestic sectors have also polluted the groundwater to a considerable extent (Palaniswami and Ramulu 1994; Varade et al. 2013; Mukate et al. 2015). The right to use

615

Page 2 of 16

of safe drinking water is an elementary need for human health and development. In general, health and life expectancy of people are reported to be inauspiciously affected due to lack of the availability of clean and safe drinking water in many developing countries of the world (Nash and McCall 1995). The demand of groundwater has increased due to intensive agriculture, urban growth, industrialization, population growth, etc., which lead to depletion and risk of contamination of groundwater. Evaluation of groundwater quality requires determination of ion concentrations which decide the suitability for domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes. Chemical reactions such as weathering, rainfall, dissolution, ion exchange, and various biological processes commonly take place below the earth surface. Hydrogeochemical study is a useful

Fig. 1 Study area and sample location map

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

tool to identify these processes that are responsible for groundwater chemistry (Jeevanandam et al. 2007). The water quality depends upon the geological setting, natural movement of water, rock types, aquifer materials, climatic variation, residence time of water, and inputs from soil during percolation of water (Todd et al. 1980; Tóth 1999; Laurent et al. 2010). The investigation of water suitability for irrigation should focus on salt concentration, sodium content, nutrients rate, alkalinity, acidity, and hardness of water. Salinity problems lead to loss of soil fertility and crop yield productivity (Kirda 1997). The poor water quality affects crop yield as well as the physical condition of soil (Ayers and Westcot 1994). The high concentration of dissolved ions in irrigation water will influence plant growth and crop productivity (Ramakrishnan 1998).

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Table 1

Page 3 of 16 615

Physicochemical characteristics of groundwater in the study area

Sample number

pH

EC

TDS

TH

Ca

Mg

Na

K

CO3

HCO3

Cl

NO3

SO4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Min

8.00 8.20 8.30 8.10 8.20 8.20 8.30 8.00 8.00 8.20 8.40 7.90 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.30 8.30 8.40 8.40 8.50 8.40 8.40 8.30 8.20 8.60 8.20 8.30 8.00 8.40 8.20 8.40 8.30 8.40 8.40 8.50 8.00 8.60 8.70 8.80 7.80 8.20 8.50 8.20 8.60 8.80 8.40 7.80

1110.00 1574.00 1796.00 2118.00 2252.00 1740.00 1834.00 2620.00 2426.00 1542.00 882.00 43,800.00 1218.00 816.00 1308.00 954.00 1064.00 844.00 1054.00 1406.00 2134.00 1846.00 1710.00 896.00 1458.00 1072.00 1716.00 1402.00 892.00 1052.00 1184.00 2442.00 1134.00 1498.00 1026.00 1884.00 832.00 1200.00 942.00 58,200.00 3538.00 2332.00 1510.00 64,400.00 1606.00 1030.00 2036.00 2592.00 1878.00 1820.00 816.00

710.40 1007.36 1149.44 1355.52 1441.28 1113.60 1173.76 1676.80 1552.64 986.88 564.48 28,032.00 779.52 522.24 837.12 610.56 680.96 540.16 674.56 899.84 1365.76 1181.44 1094.40 573.44 933.12 686.08 1098.24 897.28 570.88 673.28 757.76 1562.88 725.76 958.72 656.64 1205.76 532.48 768.00 602.88 37,248.00 2264.32 1492.48 966.40 41,216.00 1027.84 659.20 1303.04 1658.88 1201.92 1164.80 522.20

142.00 212.00 248.00 298.00 152.00 88.00 328.00 142.00 510.00 246.00 316.00 364.00 204.00 164.00 182.00 176.00 194.00 104.00 226.00 238.00 218.00 266.00 320.00 154.00 268.00 164.00 340.00 90.00 164.00 190.00 242.00 262.00 182.00 206.00 144.00 350.00 104.00 222.00 156.00 374.00 236.00 140.00 106.00 946.00 312.00 174.00 326.00 104.00 138.00 232.00 88.00

31.26 7.21 12.83 56.11 12.83 21.64 40.08 30.46 70.96 28.06 100.20 120.24 40.88 40.08 36.07 27.25 29.66 18.44 17.64 16.83 14.43 16.03 40.88 35.27 36.07 24.05 55.31 8.82 12.02 20.04 12.83 36.87 19.24 22.44 23.25 32.06 16.83 24.85 16.83 16.03 16.03 17.64 28.86 352.70 32.06 24.05 52.10 5.61 11.22 18.44 5.60

15.59 47.27 52.63 38.50 29.24 8.28 55.55 16.08 65.04 42.88 16.08 15.59 24.85 15.59 22.42 26.31 29.24 14.13 44.34 47.75 44.34 55.06 53.12 16.08 43.37 25.34 49.22 16.57 32.65 34.11 51.17 41.42 32.65 36.55 20.95 65.78 15.11 38.98 27.78 81.38 47.75 23.39 8.28 16.08 56.53 27.78 47.75 21.93 26.80 45.32 8.30

72.00 96.00 104.70 133.40 180.00 144.00 70.80 194.80 227.70 69.60 46.60 342.30 26.50 24.80 47.80 26.60 17.20 60.90 26.70 44.20 146.90 74.20 44.90 24.40 24.60 46.50 24.00 108.10 26.00 27.20 18.20 183.70 47.30 72.90 46.20 49.80 48.60 44.60 45.50 630.20 347.40 250.80 179.90 147.10 70.40 27.40 73.60 289.20 184.20 107.20 17.20

2.80 3.40 2.90 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.20 3.30 2.20 2.10 2.20 2.20 2.80 2.10 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.00 2.20 3.30 2.50 2.20 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.10 8.60 3.30 2.00 2.00 2.30 3.60 7.50 2.10 2.20 4.70 3.20 3.50 3.10 3.30 2.20 2.10 3.20 2.10 2.00 2.10 2.10 3.30 3.00 2.00

20.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 20.00 10.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 30.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 40.00 60.00 10.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 70.00 80.00 20.00 0.00

140.00 290.00 280.00 190.00 210.00 200.00 170.00 210.00 210.00 160.00 230.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 190.00 140.00 120.00 110.00 130.00 180.00 130.00 210.00 130.00 90.00 100.00 180.00 130.00 210.00 200.00 90.00 190.00 180.00 180.00 190.00 130.00 110.00 230.00 210.00 200.00 300.00 290.00 310.00 180.00 80.00 90.00 150.00 130.00 460.00 280.00 190.00 80.00

102.95 113.60 142.00 298.20 227.20 159.75 213.00 157.00 212.15 149.10 142.00 453.10 198.80 117.15 188.15 113.60 142.00 124.25 92.30 124.25 213.00 177.50 351.45 95.85 198.80 95.85 198.80 149.10 71.00 92.30 92.30 159.10 99.40 113.60 78.10 170.40 63.90 163.30 85.20 270.75 134.90 181.05 173.95 1043.70 173.95 83.78 140.58 144.84 117.86 168.98 63.90

0.67 1.20 2.50 4.91 3.41 3.07 2.62 5.39 6.63 1.90 0.83 2.96 2.89 3.86 2.17 1.89 3.93 4.30 5.42 5.10 4.93 4.39 4.63 4.22 4.73 3.32 1.44 2.96 4.38 4.30 3.51 4.39 0.88 5.27 0.91 3.16 2.09 5.29 2.77 7.25 2.51 1.34 1.21 2.67 0.50 0.40 5.49 3.86 3.56 4.38 0.40

4.46 8.35 7.21 13.52 25.16 19.53 10.26 45.57 32.96 7.86 14.77 28.55 3.89 6.88 8.55 4.79 8.45 5.75 15.11 22.50 13.13 11.45 5.78 10.78 5.65 9.00 19.56 5.99 8.01 25.56 9.33 31.24 9.14 15.45 19.37 12.99 9.56 4.87 15.34 33.97 45.26 30.55 19.47 10.48 22.55 15.50 25.45 19.78 10.46 16.32 3.90

615

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 4 of 16

Table 1 (continued) Sample number

pH

EC

TDS

TH

Ca

Mg

Na

K

CO3

HCO3

Cl

NO3

SO4

Max Avg.

8.80 8.32

64,400.00 4792.40

41,216.00 3067.10

946.00 233.30

352.70 36.03

81.40 34.60

630.20 107.40

8.60 2.70

80.00 25.00

460.00 181.40

1043.70 175.50

7.20 3.30

45.60 15.70

All values are expressed in milligrams per liter except pH and EC (μS/cm)

Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of a pH, b EC, c TDS, d total hardness, e calcium, f magnesium, g sodium, h potassium, i chloride, j sulfate, k Nitrate, and l bicarbonate

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 5 of 16 615

Fig. 2 (continued)

Nanded Tehsil has been selected for the present study, where domestic, irrigation, and industrial water requirements are met through large-scale groundwater extraction. This area is one of the major tehsil and district headquarters of Nanded district where the demand of groundwater is accelerated in recent period due to population pressure and urban development.

Hence, the present study was carried out with the objective to evaluate the groundwater suitability for domestic, irrigation, and industrial purposes by confirming water quality standards. It is necessary to identify hydrochemical facies in order to understand the major water types in the study area. The multivariate statistical analysis tool is used to extract the affecting parameter

615

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 6 of 16

India (Chandramouli and General 2011). The minimum to maximum temperature in the study area ranges from 13 to 46 °C in winter and summer, respectively. The average annual rainfall in the area ranges from 900 to 1000 mm, where 88 % rainfall receives during southwest monsoon season (June–September) (CGWB 2013). The study area is mainly drained by Godavari and its tributary Asana River and also irrigated by the left bank canal of Siddheshwar dam of the Purna project in the Parbhani district. The study area is situated in the southeast part of Deccan volcanic province. Groundwater occurs in limited quantity in disproportionately distributed aquifers with secondary porosity caused by weathering, faulting, and fracturing of the Deccan trap rocks, while its movement is controlled by lithology, degree of weathering, and nature and intensity of the openings (faults, fractures, joints, etc.) (Rai et al. 2011). The geological formation is mainly composed of Deccan Basalt flows viz., vesicular, amygdoloidal, weathered, fractured, jointed, and compact basalt, etc. The calcite, quartz, and zeololites are secondary rock dominant minerals found in the study area (Wadia 1983). The shallow surface in the study area is composed of black cotton soil, rich in iron, lime, calcium, magnesium, etc., but deficit in nitrates and phosphates. The moisture and humidity preservation ability of the soil are good.

Fig. 3 Piper trilinear diagram

on ground water quality. The ArcGIS software is used to represent the spatial distribution map of groundwater quality by using inverse distance weighted (IDW) algorithm. Study area The study area lies in Nanded district of Marathwada region, which is one of the well-developed southeastern part of Maharashtra, bounded by latitudes with 19° 03′ to 19° 17′ N and longitudes 77° 10′ to 77° 25′ E (Fig. 1). The total geographical area of Nanded Tehsil is 1022.8 km2 and net agriculture area is about 82,740 ha. The area sustains a population of 1,366,174 according to 2011 census data of

Table 2 Parameters

pH EC TDS TH Ca Mg Na K Cl NO3 SO4

Materials and methodology The base maps of the study area Survey of India (SOI) toposheet numbers 56 E/5, 56 E/8 on 1:50,000 scales were scanned and digitized. These maps were used to

Comparison of water quality parameters with drinking standards of WHO (2004) and BIS (2003) WHO (2004)

BIS (2003)

Desirable limit (DL)

% of samples above DL

Permissible limit (PL)

% of samples above PL

Desirable limit (DL)

% of samples above DL

Permissible limit (PL)

% of samples above PL

6.5 1500 500 100 75 50 – – 200 – 200

100 52 100 96 6 18 – – 15 – 0

8.5 – 1500 300 200 150 200 12 600 – 400

12 – 16 22 2 0 12 0 2 – 0

6.5 – 500 300 75 30 – – 250 45 200

100 – 100 20 6 52 – – 10 0 0

8.5 – 2000 600 200 100 200 – 1000 100 400

12 – 16 2 2 0 12 – 2 0 0

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Table 3

Page 7 of 16 615

Classification of groundwater based on TDS (Davis and DeWiest 1966)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

Desirable for drinking Permissible for drinking Useful for irrigation

<500 500–1000 1000– 3000 >3000

0 26 21

0 52 42

0 1, 10, 11, 13–20, 24–26, 28–31, 33–35, 37–39, 43, 46 2–9, 21–23, 27, 32, 36, 41, 42, 45, 47–50

03

06

12, 40, 44

Unfit for drinking and irrigation

demarcate the boundary of the study area. The area was divided into grids for facilitating collection of representative groundwater samples. A total of 50 representative groundwater samples were collected from different dug/ bore wells during the post monsoon season of 2012. A GPS device (Explorist 500) was used to record the location coordinates. The sample location map is shown in Fig. 1. The pretreated plastic cans were used for the collection of groundwater samples. The plastic can were sealed and labeled systematically and brought to laboratory for physicochemical analysis. The pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were measured in situ by using a portable digital meter (Multi-Parameter PCS Tester 35) while the major ions (Ca, Mg, CO3, HCO3, Na, K, SO4, PO4, NO3, Cl) were determined by standard method recommended by APHA (1995). The spatial analyses of various physicochemical parameters were represented by using ArcGIS 9.3 software. The IDW algorithm was used to estimate the values between measurements. The IDW techniques calculate a value for each node based on surrounding point values within search radius defined by a user (Burrough and McDonnell 1998). The SPSS 22.0 software was used for the multivariate statistical analysis of physicochemical parameters.

Results and discussion The analytical results of all the parameters for the groundwater samples in post monsoon season 2012 are

Table 4

represented in Table 1. The concentration of major ions (Ca, Mg, Na, K, CO3, HCO3, Cl, SO4, NO3,) and important physicochemical parameters such as pH, EC, and total dissolved solids (TDS) were determined for the domestic, agricultural, and industrial suitability. The present study reveals that the abundance of major cation concentration is of the order Na > Ca > Mg > K, while anions is HCO3 > Cl > CO3 > SO4 > NO3 in groundwater. The spatial variation of physicochemical parameters in the study area is shown in Fig. 2. The Piper trilinear diagram (Piper 1944) (Fig. 3) illustrates that majority of the groundwater samples (58 %) represent Ca + Mg > Na + K hydrochemical facies (alkaline earth exceeds alkalis) while 42 % of the groundwater samples representing Na + K > Ca + Mg. However, weak acid (CO3 + HCO3) > strong acid (SO4 + Cl) representing 34 % samples and strong acid exceed weak acid characterize 66 % of the total samples. From the study, 18 % of the groundwater samples have been identified in the carbonate hardness zone caused by Ca and Mg of HCO3, and 10 % in non-carbonate hardness zone was due to Na and K presence. Whereas, non-carbonate alkali contains 24 % groundwater samples characterized by Na and K of Cl and SO4 ions, carbonate alkali include 2 % groundwater samples, and mixed water (46 %) represents by no cation-anion pair exceeding 50 % of their total ionic concentration. The comparison of water quality parameters with permissible limits prescribed by the World Health Organization (WHO 2004) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS 2003) is given in Table 2.

Classification of groundwater based on total hardness (TH) (Sawyer and McCarty 1967)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

Total hardness (CaCO3)

Soft Moderately hard Hard

<75 75–150 150–300

0 11 28

0 22 56

Very hard

>300

11

22

– 1, 6, 8, 18, 28, 35, 37, 42, 43, 48, 49 2–5, 10, 13–17, 19–22, 24–26, 29–34, 38, 39, 41, 46 7, 9, 11, 12, 23, 27, 36, 40, 44, 45, 47

615 Table 5

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 8 of 16 Classification of groundwater based on chloride content (Stuyfzand 1989)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

Chloride (Cl−)

Extremely fresh Very fresh Fresh Fresh brackish Brackish Brackish salt Hypersaline

<0.14 0.14–0.85 0.85–4.23 4.23–8.46 8.46–28.21 28.21–546.13 >564.13

– – 27 20 02 01 –

– – 54 40 04 02 –

– – 1–3, 10, 11, 14, 16–20, 24, 26, 28–31, 33–35, 37, 39, 41, 46–49 4–9, 13, 15, 21, 22, 25, 27, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 50 12, 23 44 –

The pH value varies from 7.8–8.8 with an average 8.32 (Fig. 2a) which clearly shows the groundwater in the study area is slightly alkaline. The aquifer in the study area comprises basalt which imparts alkaline nature to water. The limit of pH value for drinking water is specified as 6.5–8.5 (WHO 2004; BIS 2003). Most of the groundwater samples (i.e., 88 %) are within permissible limit designed by the WHO and BIS. The EC of the groundwater samples varied from 816 to 64,400 μS/cm with an average of 4792 μS/cm (Fig. 2b). The desirable limit of EC is 1500 μS/cm. The EC can be classified as Type I, (EC <1500 μS/cm), II (EC 1500–3000 μS/cm), III (EC >3000 μS/cm). As per above classification, 48 % sample falls in type I, 44 % samples comes in Type II; however, Type III contains only 8 % samples. The high concentration of EC reveals that, the salt enrichment in groundwater, and it basically depends on temperature, concentration and type of ions present in the groundwater (Hem 1985). TDS were calculated based on EC varied from 522.2 to 41,216.0 mg/l with an average of

3067.10 mg/l (Fig. 2c). As per the prescribed standards of the WHO and BIS, 16 % groundwater samples exceed the permissible limit. Using the classification described by Freeze and Cherry (1979) for the study area samples, 52 % of the groundwater samples are fresh water and 48 % of the samples are brackish. According to the Davis and DeWiest (1966) classification (Table 3) where 52 % samples are permissible for drinking, 42 % are useful for irrigation and only 6 % samples are unfit for both drinking and irrigation. The very high concentration of TDS in groundwater samples may be due to percolation of salts and domestic sewage into groundwater (Prasanth et al. 2012). Total hardness (TH) varied from 88.0 to 946.0 mg/l with an average 233.30 mg/l (Fig. 2d). As per WHO standards, 96 % samples are above desirable limit; however, 22 % sample surpass permissible limit. As compared with BIS standards, 20 % samples exceeds desirable limit and 2 % samples go beyond permissible limit. Sawyer and McCarty (1967) classified groundwater into four classes (Table 4), soft (0 %), moderately hard (22 %), hard (56 %), and very hard (22 %). The water

Drinking suitability

Table 6 Geochemical characterization of groundwater samples

Geochemical facies

Characterizations of groundwater quality

Samples

Percentage of samples

1 2 3 4 5

Alkaline earth (Ca + Mg) exceeds Alkalis (Na + K) Alkalis exceeds alkaline earths Weak acids (CO3 + HCO3) exceed strong acid (SO4 + Cl) Strong acids exceed weak acids Carbonate hardness (secondary alkalinity) exceeds 50 % that is by alkaline earths and weak acids Non-carbonate hardness (secondary salinity) exceeds 50 % Non-carbonate alkali (primary salinity) exceeds 50 % Carbonate alkali (primary alkalinity) exceeds 50 % No cation-anion pair exceeds 50 %

29 21 17 33 9

58 42 34 66 18

5 12 1 23

10 24 2 46

6 7 8 9

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Table 7

pH EC TDS TH Ca Mg Na K CO3 HCO3 Cl NO3 SO4 PO4

Page 9 of 16 615

Correlation matrix of physicochemical parameters pH

EC

TDS

TH

Ca

Mg

Na

K

CO3

HCO3

Cl

NO3

SO4

PO4

1.00 −.513 −.513 −.553 −.471 −.193 −.219 −.094 .459 .283 −.489 −.236 −.221 −.255

1.00 1.00 .679 .687 .077 .605 .031 .039 −.038 .780 .164 .219 .177

1.00 .679 .687 .077 .605 .031 .039 −.038 .780 .164 .219 .177

1.00 .850 .365 .177 −.081 −.174 −.260 .835 .152 .106 −.046

1.00 −.176 .070 −.057 −.162 −.322 .905 −.066 .000 −.027

1.00 .199 −.063 −.015 .070 −.023 .380 .175 −.036

1.00 .059 .310 .528 .277 .270 .653 .124

1.00 .164 .195 −.035 .088 −.128 .089

1.00 .602 −.126 −.129 .015 −.278

1.00 −.210 .033 .263 −.116

1.00 .066 .042 .079

1.00 .223 −.025

1.00 −.104

1.00

becomes hard due to presence of excess calcium and magnesium ions. The calcium content varies from 5.60 to 352.70 mg/l with an average 36.03 mg/l (Fig. 2e). The desirable limit of calcium for drinking water is 75 mg/l specified by the WHO and BIS. Only 6 % groundwater samples exceed the desirable limit; however, it is observed that sample number 44 have high calcium concentration (352.70 mg/ l). In humans, the higher calcium content can lead to abdominal ailments and encrustation and scaling sewerage and water supply systems. Magnesium content varied from 8.30 to 81.40 mg/l with an average 34.60 mg/l (Fig. 2f). The desirable limit is 50 mg/l designed by WHO, whereas, BIS defines 30 mg/l; it is observed that 18 % and 52 % groundwater samples exceed the limit, respectively. The concentration of sodium varies from 17.2 to 630.2 mg/ l with an average 107.4 mg/l (Fig. 2g). The maximum permissible limit is 200 mg/l specified by WHO and BIS which indicates that only 12 % groundwater samples exceed the permissible limit. In humans, the high ingestion of sodium causes high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis, odema, and hyperosmolarity, etc. (Prasanth et al. 2012). The potassium content shows a narrow range in between 2.0 and 8.60 mg/l with an average 2.70 mg/l (Fig. 2h). The permissible limit of potassium is 12 mg/l specified by the WHO. The results show that all groundwater samples from the study area are within permissible limit. The chloride shows a wide range (63.90 to 1043.70 mg/l) with an average 175.50 mg/l (Fig. 2i). The desirable limit of chloride for drinking water is 200 mg/l (WHO) and 250 mg/l (BIS), as compared with

drinking water standards of BIS and WHO; 15 and 10 % groundwater samples exceed the desirable limit, respectively. It is observed that sample number 44 exceeds the maximum permissible limit (1000 mg/l) prescribed by BIS. This sample is located near Tuppa industrial area, and such high concentration of chloride may be due to the discharge of domestic waste and industrial effluent. As per the Stuyfzand (1989) classification (Table 5), the majority of the study area samples (54 %) are characterized as freshwater and 40 % are brackish water. It is observed that very few groundwater samples fall into the brackish and brackish salt class, i.e., 4 and 2 %, respectively.

Fig. 4 Dendrogram

615

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 10 of 16

Table 8 Methodology for the calculation of various indices of groundwater for agriculture suitability

Index name

Formula

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) (Richards 1954)

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  SAR ¼ Naþ = Ca2þ þ Mg2þ =2

Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)

RSC = (HCO3− + CO32−)−(Ca2+ + Mg2+)

(Richards 1954) Magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR)

MAR = (Mg2+*100)/(Ca2+ + Mg2+)

(Raghunath 1987) Percentage sodium (% Na)

% Na = [(Na+ + K+)/(Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+ + K+)]*100

(Doneen 1962) Kelly’s ratio (KR)

KR = Na+/Ca2+ + Mg2+

(Kelley 1963) Chloro-alkali index I (CA I)

CAI-I = [Cl−(Na+ + K+)]/Cl−

(Schoeller 1965) Gibbs ratio (anion)

Gibbs ratio (anion) = Cl−/(Cl− + HCO3−)

(Gibbs 1970) Gibbs ratio (cation)

Gibbs ratio (cation) = (Na+ + K+)/(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

(Gibbs 1970) All the values are expressed in milliequivalents per liter

The sulfate concentration in the study area ranges between 3.9 and 45.6 mg/l with an average 15.7 mg/l (Fig. 2j). As per the specifications of WHO and BIS, the sulfate content of all the groundwater samples is within the desirable limit. The nitrate content shows variation between 0.4 and 7.2 mg/l (average 1.7 mg/l) (Fig. 2k) representing that all samples fall within the desirable limits of WHO and BIS. Carbonate values is observed from 0.0 to 80.0 mg/l (avg. 25.0). The bicarbonate values vary from 80.0 to 460.0 mg/l with an average 181.4 mg/l (Fig. 2l). The concentration of bicarbonate is derived from carbonate weathering and dissolution of carbonic acid in the aquifer (Kumar et al. 2006) (Fig. 3 and Table 6). The correlation matrix The correlation matrix is used to determine the degree of correlation among the different physicochemical

Table 9 Classification of groundwater samples based on electrical conductivity (EC) (after Richards 1954)

water quality parameters. It shows the dependency of variables with each other. The Karl Pearson’s correlation matrices are used to recognize the relationship of different variables (Table 15). The variables showing correlation coefficient (r > 0.7) are considered to be strongly correlated where (r) values between 0.5 and 0.7 indicate moderate correlation while r < 0.3 is weak. The correlation matrix was analyzed with cluster analysis using the SPSS (22.0) software. It is observed from Table 7 that there are high positive correlation between TDS and EC. It is also illustrated that EC and TDS show high positive correlation with TH, Ca, Na, and Cl. The calcium and chloride are also significantly correlated (r = 0.90); TH is highly correlated with Ca (0.85) and Cl (r = 0.835). The sodium (Na) is positively correlated with HCO3 and SO4 whereas CO3 is positively correlated with HCO3 (r = 0.602). pH is negatively correlated with most of the water parameters.

Sr. no.

EC range (μS/cm)

Water class

Sample number

Percentage of samples

1 2 3

Below 250 250–750 750–2000

Excellent Good Permissible

0 0 74

4 5

2000–3000 >3000

Doubtful Unsuitable

0 0 1–3, 6–7, 10–11, 13–20, 22–31, 33–39, 43, 45–46, 49–50 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, 32, 42, 47, 48 12, 40, 41, 44

18 08

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Table 10 Classification of groundwater based on TDS (Ayers and Westcot 1994 and UCCC 1974)

Page 11 of 16 615

Sr. no.

Class

Range

Sample numbers

Percentage of samples

1 2 3

Suitable Moderate Unsuitable

<450 450–2000 >2000

0 1–11, 13–39, 42–43, 45–50 12, 40, 41, 44

0 92 8

calculation of various indices for agricultural suitability are shown in Table 8.

Dendrogram The dendrogram analysis was performed using an average linkage method, and the results of the parameters are shown in three groups (Fig. 4). Many of the groundwater samples were classified in group I and II with good correlation between TH, Ca, Na, and Cl with EC and TDS. The group III contains EC and TDS parameters.

Agricultural suitability The quality of water used for agriculture affects the crop and soil productivity (Singh and Singh 2008). The suitability of water depends upon the concentration and composition of dissolved ions in water. To evaluate the suitability of water for agriculture purpose, some characteristics of water play a significant role such as (i) total concentration of soluble salts, (ii) relative proportion of sodium to other cations, and (iii) the bicarbonate concentration as related to the concentration of calcium plus magnesium (USSL 1954). By considering this, an evaluation of groundwater suitability for agriculture purposes in the study area has been carried out. The groundwater suitability for agricultural uses is based on various salinity indices such as sodium percentage (Na%), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), Kelly’s ratio, magnesium ratio, TDS, USSL diagram, etc. Salinity plays a vital role in determination of water suitability for agriculture and it is discussed subsequently. The methodologies for

Table 11 Classification of groundwater samples based on SAR (Richards 1954)

Electrical conductivity Higher EC affects the salinity hazard to water which diminishes the soil permeability and crop productivity. The increase in salt concentration results the continual moisture extraction by plant roots and evaporation. The use of water of moderate to high salt content may result in saline conditions, even where drainage is satisfactory (USSL 1954). Since, Richards (1954) classification (Table 9) signifies that 74 % samples of the study area are permissible for the agriculture and 18 % of study area samples are in doubtful category. The remaining 8 % of the study area sample (sample numbers 12, 40, 41, 44) have EC >3000 μS/cm; therefore, groundwater from those sample locations is unsuitable for agriculture. The higher content of EC is influenced by geological formations, agricultural activities, and leaching of domestic, animal, and industrial waste (Subramani et al. 2005). Total dissolved solids TDS is considered to be an important parameter in the assessment of groundwater suitability for agriculture. The high content of TDS leads to accumulation of salts around the crop root zone, and it causes the water stress condition in which crop is no longer able to extract water from the salty soil solution. Finally,

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

SAR

Excellent

<10

43

86

Good Doubtful Unsuitable

10–18 18–26 >26

6 1 0

12 2 0

1–7, 9–11, 13–39, 44–47, 49–50 8, 12, 41–43, 48 40 0

615

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 12 of 16

Table 12

Classification of water based on residual sodium carbonate (RSC) (Richards 1954)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of the samples

Sample numbers

Residual sodium carbonate

Safe Marginal Unsuitable

<1.25 1.25–2.5 >2.5

40 5 5

80 10 10

1, 3–5, 7–27, 30–36 2, 6, 29, 41, 43 28, 37, 42, 48, 49

uptake is appreciably reduced, the plant slows its growth rate, and overall crop yield is reduced (Ayers and Westcot 1994). As stated by Ayers and Westcot and UCCC classification (Table 10), it shows that majority of the samples (92 %) are moderately suitable for agriculture and only 8 % samples (numbers 12, 40, 41, 44) are unsuitable for agricultural purpose. These groundwater samples may be affected due to the extensive agricultural and industrial activities taking place in that area. Sodium adsorption ratio SAR is an important ratio used to measure the water suitability for irrigation because sodium concentration can reduce the soil permeability and soil structure (Todd 1980). It is the measure of alkali sodium hazard to crops (Table 11). The SAR value gives an idea about the extent of adsorption of sodium by soil. The sodium in the water can displace the calcium and magnesium in soil which results in long-term damage to the soil productivity. As per the Richards (1954) classification (Table 11), majority of the groundwater samples (86 %) comes under excellent water category for irrigation. It is observed that six (i.e.,12 %) samples having SAR value is in between 10 and 18 which fall in good category; however, only one sample (number 40) is doubtful for irrigation. Residual sodium carbonate Water with high concentration of carbonate (CO3 2− ) and bicarbonate (HCO 3− ) has the tendency to cause

Table 13

the precipitation of calcium (Ca 2+ ) and magnesium (Mg2+) which results water in the soil become concentrated, which leads to relative proportion of sodium (Na+) in the water and, as a result, sodium bicarbonate is increased (Sadashivaiah et al. 2008). RSC formula was defined by Richards (1954) (Table 8). According to Richards (1954) classification (Table 12), RSC value (<1.25) (80 %) groundwater samples are considered safe for irrigation. Water with RSC values (1.25–2.5) is a marginal class that includes 10 % samples; moreover, RSC values (>2.5) that show 10 % samples are supposed to be unsuitable for irrigation. Magnesium adsorption ratio Magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR) was proposed by Raghunath (1987). The MAR is the excess amount of magnesium (Mg2+) over calcium (Ca2+). As per classification, Table 13 suggests that majority of the samples (i.e., 82 % samples) are unsuitable for irrigation and only 18 % samples show their suitability for irrigation. Generally, the source of magnesium in groundwater is due to ion exchange of minerals from rocks and soils by water (Mukherjee et al. 2005). The high MAR (>50) results in increase soil alkalinity and affects the crop yield. Percentage sodium Percentage sodium is an important factor to identify the soluble sodium content of the water and also used to expose the sodium hazard. Sodium by the process of base exchange replaces calcium in the soil which in

Classification of irrigation water based on magnesium (Raghunath 1987)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

MAR

Suitable Unsuitable

<50 >50

9 41

18 82

1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 24, 43, 44 2–5, 7, 9–10, 13, 15–23, 25–42, 45–50

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Table 14

Page 13 of 16 615

Classification of irrigation water based on sodium percent (Doneen 1962)

Classification category

Class

Range Number of samples Percentage of samples Sample numbers

Percentage sodium (%Na) Excellent Good

0–20 4 20–40 23

8 46

Permissible for drinking 40–60 11 Doubtful 60–80 11 Unsuitable >80 1

22 22 2

turn reduces the soil permeability (Obiefuna and Sheriff 2011). The percentage sodium is calculated by Doneen (1962) (Table 8). Using the Doneen classification for irrigation potential (Table 14) on the study area groundwater samples, it is observed that groundwater in 8 % of the samples is in the excellent class (both for potable use and irrigation), most of the samples (46 %) are in the good category for both drinking and irrigation use, 22 % of the samples are from groundwater sources permissible for drinking and irrigation, 22 % of the samples are in the class of doubtful irrigation use, and only 2 % of the study area samples (number 48) are unsuitable for irrigation.

17, 25, 27, 31 7, 10, 11, 13–16, 19–20, 22–24, 26, 29–30, 33, 36, 39–40, 44–47 1–4, 9, 18, 21, 34, 35, 37, 50 5, 6, 8, 12, 28, 32, 40–43, 49 48

fer environment during its movement and residence period (Schoeller 1965, 1967). The positive chloro-alkaline index indicates that there is exchange of sodium and potassium from rock with calcium and magnesium and negative chloro-alkaline index indicates its reverse. In the present study, 62 % samples show positive value which confirms base exchange reactions between sodium and potassium with magnesium and calcium of the rock. Also, 38 % of the samples show negative values showing that calcium and magnesium are replaced by sodium and potassium.

Gibbs ratio Kelley’s ratio A Kelley’s ratio more than one (>1) suggests the excessive concentration of sodium which leads to undesirable effects of changing soil properties and reducing soil permeability (Kelley 1963) (Table 8). As a result, water with ratio >1 is unsuitable and <1 is supposed to be suitable for irrigation. It is observed that majority of the samples (64 %) are suitable for irrigation while 36 % are unsuitable irrigation (Table 15). Chloro-alkali index The chloro-alkali indices help to understand the chemical reaction taking place between groundwater and aqui-

Table 15

Gibbs diagram is used to establish the relationship of water composition and aquifer lithological characteristics. This diagram (Fig. 5) is predominantly used to represent the sources of chemical constituents in groundwater such as precipitation, rock, and evaporation dominance (Gibbs 1970) (Table 8). Most of the groundwater samples fall in the rock-water interaction category, and very few samples are found in evaporation dominance category. Due to the chemical weathering of aquifer media, the groundwater is greatly influenced by dissolution of rock minerals while the evaporation dominance shows the increasing ions of Na and Cl with relation to increasing TDS and agricultural fertilizers (Al-Ahmadi 2013).

Classification of irrigation water based on Kelley’s ratio (Kelley 1963)

Classification category

Class

Range

Number of samples

Percentage of samples

Sample numbers

Kelley’s ratio

Suitable

<1

32

64

Unsuitable

>1

18

36

2–4, 7, 10, 11, 13–17, 19, 20, 22–27, 29–31, 33–36, 38, 39, 44–47 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 21, 28, 40–43, 48

615

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Page 14 of 16

Fig. 5 Gibbs diagram for controlling factors of groundwater quality

Salinity hazard The U.S. salinity diagram (1954) is used for rating the irrigation water, in which EC is taken as an index of salinity hazard and SAR as an index of sodium hazard. The USSL diagram (Fig. 6) shows that majority of the samples (76 %) falls in C3S1 zone having high salinity and low sodium hazard; this water can only be used for semi-tolerant crops (Ahamed et al. 2013), and 12 %

C1

250

C2

C3

750

2250 C4

32

Sodium Hazard (SAR)

26

S4

19

13 A

A

S3

A

6

0 100

Industrial suitability The high concentration of bicarbonate (HCO−3), sulfate (SO2−4), and chloride (Cl−) causes the incrustation and corrosion action in industries (Anon 1983). Table 16 illustrates that only one sample from the study area (number 48) exceeds the limit HCO−3 (>400) and sample number 44 exceeds the Cl− (>500). Groundwater at all the remaining sample locations is safe for industrial use. Treatment methods like de alkalinization and desalinization are recommended to improve the soil condition. Other treatments include the boiling of water to mitigate conduit incrustation and the use of PVC pipes to reduce the corrosion (Rao et al. 2015). Table 16

A

AA A A A A A AA A A A A AAAA A AAA A A A A AA AAA A AA A A AA A A

samples are in C3S2 zone where high salinity and medium sodium hazards exist. The C 4S 2 and C 4S 3 zones representing 6 % of samples have very high salinity hazard and medium to high sodium hazard, respectively.

Classification of groundwater for industrial use

Chemical parameter

Safe limit (mg/l)

Percentage Sample of samples number exceeding the safe limit

Influenced activities

Bicarobnate (HCO−3) Sulfate (SO2−4) Chloride (Cl−)

>400 >100 >500

48 0 44

Incrustation Incrustation Corrosion

S2 S1

1000

Salinity Hazard (Cond)

Fig. 6 USSL classification of groundwater samples (USSL 1954)

2 0 2

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615

Conclusions The groundwater quality of Nanded Tehsil was evaluated for domestic, agriculture, and industrial purposes. The interpretation of hydrogeochemical analysis results of 50 representative groundwater samples from dug/bore wells in the study area reveals that groundwater is fresh to brackish and alkaline in nature. The order of dominance of cation and anions are Na > Ca > Mg > K and HCO3 > Cl > CO3 > SO4 > NO3, respectively. The groundwater is classified as moderately hard to very hard base on the total hardness (TH). A Gibb’s diagram shows that rock weathering and evaporation are dominant processes controlled the groundwater quality in the study area. The study shows that EC and TDS have a high positive correlation with TH, Ca, Na, and Cl. pH is negatively correlated with most of the water parameters. The dendrogram analysis classified water samples into three groups. For group I and II, there is good correlation between TH, Ca, Na, and Cl with EC and TDS and group III includes EC and TDS parameters. The evaluation of groundwater samples according to the WHO and BIS standards for domestic water purposes indicates TDS, TH, Ca, Mg, Na, and Cl exceed the safe limits in 16, 22, 6, 18, 12, and 15 %, respectively; therefore, many of the groundwater samples confirm their suitability for drinking. It is also observed that sample number 44 exceeds the chloride (Cl−) maximum permissible limit (1000 mg/l) prescribed by BIS; hence, it is unsuitable for drinking. This sample falls close to the Tuppa industrial area; such high concentration may be due to domestic and industrial waste. The suitability of groundwater for agriculture purpose was evaluated from EC, TDS, SAR, RSC, and %Na which varies from unsuitable to excellent category; majority of the groundwater samples are suitable for irrigation. Moreover, magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR) and Kelly’s ratio (KR) demonstrated that 82 % and 36 % of the groundwater samples in the study area are from sample locations which are unsuitable for irrigation purposes, respectively. The high magnesium content results increase soil salinity, and adverse effects on crop yield are probable in the study area. The plotting of data in the diagram of USSL suggests that most of the groundwater samples are characterize as high salinity-low sodium hazard type water (C3-S1). The irrigation of salt tolerance crop under favorable drainage condition is recommended to conquer salinity problems for irrigation purpose. With respect to industrial purpose, all groundwater samples in the study area have some beneficial use, except sample numbers 44 and 48. These samples

Page 15 of 16 615

are located in the vicinity of an industrial area. This study may assist in providing extended support to a new researcher, and here, more efficient remedial measures are required to overcome the declining groundwater quality. Thus, the present work reveals that the most of the groundwater samples show their suitability for domestic, agriculture, and irrigation purposes. However, there are few aquifers which are problematic and need particular remedial measures.

Acknowledgment The authors are thankful to Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded for funding this research under Minor Research Project. The authors wish to thank to anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.

References Ahamed AJ, Ananthakrishnan S, Loganathan K, Manikandan K (2013) Assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation use in Alathur Block, Perambalur District, Tamilnadu, South India. Appl Water Sci 3(4):763–771 Al-Ahmadi ME (2013) Hydrochemical characterization of groundwater in wadi Sayyah, Western Saudi Arabia. Appl Water Sci 3(4):721– 732 American Public Health Association (APHA) (1995) Water environment federation. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater 19 ANON (1983) Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Division, 1st Ed., Jain brothers. 450 p Ayers RS, & Westcot DW (1994) Water quality for agriculture. Rome: FAO,. 174p. FAO. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 29 BIS (2003) Bureau of Indian Standard specification for drinking water; IS:10500:91. Revised 2003. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Creating continuous surfaces from point data. Principles of geographic information systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford Central Groundwater Board (CGWB) (2013) Groundwater information Nanded district Maharashtra, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India. Nagpur, p 294 Chandramouli C, & General R (2011) Census of India 2011 Davis SN, Dewiest RJM (1966) Hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 463 Doneen LD (1962) The influence of crop and soil on percolating water. InProc. 1961 Biennial conference on groundwater recharge (pp. 156–163) Foster, S. (1998) Groundwater: assessing vulnerability and promoting protection of a threatened resource. Stockholm water symposium Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater., 1979. Printice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs Gibbs RJ (1970) Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 170(3962):1088–1090 Goyal SK, Chaudhary BS, Singh O, Sethi GK, Thakur PK (2010) GIS based spatial distribution mapping and suitability evaluation of groundwater quality for domestic and agricultural purpose in Kaithal district, Haryana state, India. Environ Earth Sci 61(8): 1587–1597

615

Page 16 of 16

Hem JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (Vol. 2254). Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Jeevanandam M, Kannan R, Srinivasalu S, Rammohan V (2007) Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality assessment of lower part of the Ponnaiyar River Basin, Cuddalore district, South India. Environ Monit Assess 132(1–3):263–274 Kelley WP (1963) Use of saline irrigation water. Soil Sci 95(6):385–391 Kirda, C. (1997) Assessment of irrigation water quality. Options Mediterraneennes. Serie A: Seminaires Mediterraneens (CIHEAM) Kumar M, Ramanathan AL, Rao MS, Kumar B (2006) Identification and evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment of Delhi, India. Environ Geol 50(7):1025–1039 Laurent M, François A, & Marie MJ (2010) Assessment of groundwater quality during dry season in Southeastern Brazzaville, Congo Mukate SV, Panaskar DB, Wagh VM, Pawar RS (2015) Groundwater quality assessment for drinking and irrigation purpose: a case study of Chincholikati MIDC area, Solapur (MS). India srtmu’s Res J Sci 4(1):58–72 Mukherjee S, Kumar BA, Koertvelyessy L (2005) Assessment of groundwater quality, South 24-Parganas, West Bengal coast. India J Environ Hydrol 13 Nash H, & McCall GJH (1995) Groundwater quality. In Groundwater quality. Chapman & Hall Ltd. Obiefuna GI, Sheriff A (2011) Assessment of shallow ground water quality of Pindiga Gombe Area, Yola Area, NE, Nigeria for irrigation and domestic purposes. Res J Environ Earth Sci 3(2):131–141 Palaniswami C, Ramulu US (1994) Effects of continuous irrigation with paper factory effluent on soil properties. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 42(1): 139–140 Piper AM (1944) A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses. Eos, Trans Amer Geophys Union 25(6):914–928 Prasanth SS, Magesh NS, Jitheshlal KV, Chandrasekar N, Gangadhar K (2012) Evaluation of groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in the coastal stretch of Alappuzha District, Kerala, India. Appl Water Sci 2(3):165–175 Raghunath HM (1987) Ground water. New Age International, New Delhi Rai SN, Thiagarajan S, Kumari YR (2011) Exploration for groundwater in the basaltic Deccan traps terrain in Katol Taluk, Nagpur District, India. Curr Sci 101(9):1198–1205 Ramakrishnan S (1998) Groundwater. Ramakrishnan, Chennai

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:615 Ramamurthy K, https://cultural.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/ Nanded/geo.html Rao PN, Rao SA, Rao NS (2015) Suitability of groundwater quality for drinking, irrigation and industrial purposes in the Western Delta region of the river Godavari, Andhra Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 86(2):181–190 Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Soil Sci 78(2):154 Sadashivaiah C, Ramakrishnaiah CR, Ranganna G (2008) Hydrochemical analysis and evaluation of groundwater quality in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India. Int J Environ Res Public Health 5(3):158–164 Sawyer CN, & McCarty PL (1967) Chemistry for sanitary engineers. InChemistry for sanitary engineers. McGraw-Hill Schoeller H (1965) Qualitative evaluation of groundwater resources. Methods and techniques of groundwater investigations and development. UNESCO Schoeller H (1967) Methods and techniques of groundwater investigation and development. Water Resour Ser 33 Singh V, Singh UC (2008) Assessment of groundwater quality of parts of Gwalior (India) for agricultural purposes. Ind J Sci Technol 1(4):1–5 Stuyfzand PJ (1989) A new hydrochemical classification of water types. IAHS Publ 182:89–98 Subramani T, Elango L, Damodarasamy SR (2005) Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Chithar River basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Geol 47(8):1099–1110 Todd DK (1980) Groundwater hydrology, 2 edn; New York Wiley Tóth J (1999) Groundwater as a geologic agent: an overview of the causes, processes, and manifestations. Hydrogeol J 7:11–14 U. S. Salinity Laboratory (USSL) (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soil; USSA handbook No. 60. Pp. 160 UCCC (University of California Committee of Consultants) (1974) Guidelines for interpretations of water quality for irrigation. University of California Committee of Consultants, Berkeley Varade AM, Yenkie RO, Kodate J (2013) Assessment of water quality in and around Hingna area of Nagpur District, Maharashtra for irrigational purposes. J Appl Geochem 15(4):488 Wadia DN (1983) Geology of India and Burma. Revised Edition WHO (2004) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: recommendations. Vol.1. World Health Organization