Environ Monit Assess DOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3393-y
Assessment and spatial distribution of groundwater quality in industrial areas of Ghaziabad, India Savita Kumari & Anil Kumar Singh & Ashok Kumar Verma & N. P. S. Yaduvanshi
Received: 25 May 2013 / Accepted: 9 August 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract An attempt has been made in this study to evaluate the groundwater quality in two industrial blocks of Ghaziabad district. Groundwater samples were collected from shallow wells, deep wells and hand pumps of two heavily industrialized blocks, namely Bulandshahar road industrial area and Meerut road industrial area in Ghaziabad district for assessing their suitability for various uses. Samples were collected from 30 sites in each block before and after monsoon. They were analyzed for a total of 23 elements, namely, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Se, U, V, and Zn. In addition to these elements, some other parameters were also studied viz: color, odor, turbidity, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids and total suspended solid. The water quality index was also calculated based on some of the parameters estimated. Out of the 23 elements, the mean values of 12 elements, S. Kumari : A. K. Verma Department of Botany, M.M.H. College, Ghaziabad 201009, India S. Kumari e-mail:
[email protected] A. K. Verma e-mail:
[email protected] A. K. Singh (*) Natural Resource Management, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, New Delhi 110012, India e-mail:
[email protected] N. P. S. Yaduvanshi Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, India e-mail:
[email protected]
namely, Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cr, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Se, and U, were higher than the prescribed standard limits. The concentrations (in milligram per liter) of highly toxic metals viz., Al, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Se, and U, ranged from 1.33–6.30, 0.04–0.54, 0.005–0.013, 4.51–7.09, 0.14–0.27, 0.13–0.32, 0.16–2.11, and 0.10–1.21, respectively, in all groundwater samples, while the permissible limits of these elements as per WHO/BIS standards for drinking are 0.2, 0.01, 0.003, 0.05, 0.07, 0.01, 0.04, and 0.03 mg L−1, respectively. The EC, pH, and COD in all samples varied from 0.74–4.21, 6.05–7.72, and 4.5–20.0 while their permissible limits are 0.7 dS m−1, 6.5–8.5, and 10 mg L−1, respectively. On the basis of the abovementioned parameters, the water quality index of all groundwater samples ranged from 101 to 491, and 871 to 2904 with mean value of 265 and 1,174 based on two criteria, i.e., physico-chemical and metal contaminations, respectively while the prescribed safe limit for drinking is below 50. The results revealed that the groundwater in the two blocks is unfit for drinking as per WHO/BIS guidelines. The presence of elements like As, Se, and U in toxic amounts is a matter of serious concern. Keywords Contamination . Groundwater . Heavy metals . Water quality index
Introduction Groundwater is the major source of fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial uses and indispensable for our day to day existence but over time anthropogenic activities have resulted in degradation of its quality. For its sustainable use, both the quantity and
Environ Monit Assess
quality issues have to be addressed together. Most of the ground water pockets are contaminated due to unscientific disposal of domestic and industrial effluents. Large volumes of waste water are also indiscriminately discharged into the natural systems, particularly water bodies, by the domestic and industrial sectors. Primary anthropogenic accretion of heavy metals is through point (mines, foundries, smelters, and coal-burning power plants) as well as diffuse sources (combustion by-products and vehicle emissions). Human activities have altered the natural, physical and biological redistribution of the heavy metals. Such alterations have resulted in bio-accumulation of these metals in the plants (accumulation in the food-chain), animals and finally in different organs of the human body. Human health has, thus, become a casualty of the heavy-metal related pollution (Rattan et al. 2002). The level of heavy metals (Cd, As, Ni, and Hg) beyond permissible limits in groundwater can harm ecosystems, plants, and animals and cause health problems in humans (Bhagure and Mirgane 2011). In addition to mining, contamination of the environment by radioactive elements has also resulted from extractive industries, such as those for iron, phosphorus, coal, mineral sands and oil (Omotayo et al. 2011). Giri et al. (2012) evaluated the health risk due to intake of heavy metals through the ingestion of groundwater around uranium mining areas in Jharkhand, India and summarized that Fe and Mn exceeded the IS: 10500 standards in many locations while Zn crossed the limits in a few places only. Neither Pb nor Cu crossed the IS: 10500 limits. Mn, Zn, and Pb also exceeded the WHO standards at few locations. Cu did not exceed the WHO standards at any location while WHO provides no standard for Fe. The concentration of Ni also did not exceed the limits of 0.070 mg/l given by WHO (2011). The district Ghaziabad, a growing industrial city in Uttar Pradesh, India has thousands of various small, medium, large, and heavy industries which dispose their untreated effluents indiscriminately causing wide spread heavy metal contamination. It was reported recently that the ground water quality of Lohia Nagar industrial area of Ghaziabad had been adversely affected with chromium contamination. It clearly indicated significant effects of rapid urbanization and industrialization in the last few decades in Ghaziabad. It was also reported that Cr may have point anthropogenic source. It becomes a matter of great concern when the polluted ground water or untreated effluents are channelized for
growing seasonal vegetables or discharged into river system causing food chain contamination. Recently, Chabukdhara and Nema (2013) reported the health hazards associated with heavy metals in soils irrigated with ground water around industrial site in Ghaziabad. In view of the above, the present study was initiated to assess the physico-chemical quality of groundwater (water quality index) including concentrations of major, micronutrients, and other carcinogenic heavy metals and metalloids in pre and post monsoon seasons and identifying the hot spots using GIS.
Materials and methods Study area The district of Ghaziabad is part of the most agriculturally fertile belts of western Uttar Pradesh, India. Ghaziabad is a metropolitan city and part of National Capital Region. It lies between 28°26′ and 28°54′ North latitude and 77°12′ and 78°13′ East longitude. Bulandshahar road industrial area (BRI) and Meerut road industrial area (MRI) are two of the most important and heavily industrialized areas in the district. Both blocks house more than thousands of industries dealing mainly with paper, leather, iron, steel, plastic, dyeing, chemical, pharmaceutical, battery making, etc. Climate-wise, Ghaziabad is semi-arid with high variation between summer and winter temperatures. Summer (April to June) temperatures range from 30–43 °C while winter (November to January) temperatures range from 5–25 °C. Generally, the monsoon arrives at the end of June and lasts until September.
Groundwater sampling and analysis Groundwater samples were taken from 30 locations in each block before monsoon (February–March) and after monsoon (September–October). Samples were collected from three different types of sources, namely, hand pumps (n=19), deep wells (n=36) and shallow wells (n=5) ranging in depth between 140 to 250 ft. These waters are being used for multifarious purposes. Using Garmin GPS (etrex VISTA HCx), the longitude and latitude of each sampling location was recorded on the field. All pumps were run for 10–15 min, before the
Environ Monit Assess
actual sample was taken. The locations of the two blocks and sampling sites have been shown in Fig. 1. To prevent microbial contamination, four to five drops of toluene were added after sampling. The samples were analyzed for pH, EC, turbidity, BOD, COD, DO, total dissolved solids (TDS) and total suspended solids (TSS) using standard procedures. Na and K were estimated by flame photometer, Ca and Mg by EDTA method while concentrations of nineteen elements, namely, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Se, U, V, and Zn were determined by inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectroscopy (Model ICP-AES-9000, Shimadzu, Japan). The metals were estimated in the sample solution by aspirating the sample solution directly into plasma of the instrument. The instrument was standardized for the individual elements. Calibration curve was obtained for every metal ion using standard solution. Standard solutions were prepared from 1,000 mg/l stock solution of different metals of interest. The minimum concentration of metal that could be detected by the instrument was 10 ppb. Three replicates were taken for each parameter. The results obtained were evaluated in accordance with the norms prescribed under ‘Indian Standard Drinking Water Specification IS: 10500:91’ of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2003). The results obtained were plotted and contours drawn using Quantum GIS (1.7.0) and Surfer 3.2 software.
qn ¼ 100ðV n −V io Þ=ðS n −V io Þ
ð2Þ
where, qn Vn Sn Vio
quality rating for the nth water quality parameter observed value of the nth parameter sample Standard permissible value of nth parameter Ideal value of nth parameter in pure water (all the ideal values Vio=0 for drinking water except for pH=7.0 and dissolved oxygen (DO)=14.6 mg/l)
W n ¼ K=S n
ð3Þ
where, Wn Sn K
Unit weight for nth parameter Standard value for nth parameter Proportionality constant and derived from
h X i n K ¼ 1= 1=S i n¼1
ð4Þ
Sn and Si are the WHO/BIS standard values of the water quality parameter (Asadi et al. 2007). Based on the value of WQI (Ramakrishnaiah et al. 2009), (Vasanthavigar et al. 2010), the threshold limits are shown in Table 1.
Results and discussion
Water quality index
Physico-chemical properties
The water quality index (WQI) is a very useful and efficient method for assessing and communicating the information on overall quality of water (Pradhan et al. 2001; Asadi et al. 2007; Pius et al. 2011). WQI has been calculated from the point of view of the suitability of groundwater for human consumption. The computing of WQI based on three criteria, in the first criteria, seven physico-chemical parameters, namely, pH, EC, TDS, TSS, DO, COD, Turbidity, were used, in the second 23 elements (metals, heavy metals, metalloids, etc.) listed earlier were considered, and in the third criteria all 30 parameters were used. The calculation of WQI, using a weighted arithmetic index method (Brown et al. 1972) is given below:
The results of the 60 groundwater samples analyzed for physico-chemical and trace metals including radioactive elements are presented and discussed here. The statistical summary of the results on range, arithmetic mean, coefficient of range, coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and coefficient of standard deviation along with comparison of standard permissible limits of corresponding parameters are presented in Table 2. The construction of contour maps is one of the standard procedures used in water resources assessment in order to evaluate and predict natural variability and assess the risk regarding groundwater contamination in waste disposal industrial and other sites (Singh and Lawrence 2007; Pius et al. 2011; Fekri et al. 2012). This enabled locating the hot spots as far as contaminated ground water was concerned. The WQI and water quality rating of the different groundwater samples has been presented in Table 3.
WQI ¼
X
W n qn =
X
Wn
ð1Þ
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 1 Location map of study area
A perusal of the contour maps, presented in Fig. 2a to v indicates that the hot spots, their zone of concentrations beyond the critical limits, are highly variable spatially and in many cases, there are more than one in each block. These “hot spots” can be associated with the nature of industries that are located in the vicinity. For example, presence of paper, leather, iron, steel, plastic, dyeing, chemical, pharmaceutical. and battery-making industries can lead to toxic concentrations of elements like Al, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Se, indicating the nature of the industries functioning there. The contour maps
prepared based on WQI indicated that the “hot spots” are more or less similar except in case of Fig. 2u (WQI based on metal contamination) and Fig. 2v WQI based on (physico-chemical cum metal contamination). In these cases, water quality was in the non-usable category. The magnitude of physicochemical parameters and heavy metals higher than the prescribed permissible limits of WHO/BIS can have severe health consequences and these are discussed below. In the present study, almost all the samples were slightly acidic to slightly basic in nature as the pH of the samples varied from 6.05 to 7.72 (Table 2).
Environ Monit Assess Table 1 Water quality classification based on WQI value Water quality
WQI value
Excellent
300
91.66 % of samples were within the permissible limit (Fig. 2a), while 8.33 % samples were between pH 6.05 to 6.5. Pies et al. (2011) reported that the pH value below 6.5 caused corrosion of metal pipes resulting in the release of toxic metals such as Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu, etc. Also, groundwater with low pH can cause gastrointestinal disorders such as hyperacidity, ulcers, and burning sensation. In the study area, EC values ranged from 0.74 to 4.21 with an average of 2.27 dS m−1 (Fig. 2b) implying that all samples were above the prescribed permissible limit for drinking water. The total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration varied between 474 and 2,694 ppm (Fig. 2c). The highest value of EC and TDS were 4.21 dS m−1 and 2,694 ppm recorded in sample SM16 from MRI, while the lowest value of EC and TDS were 0.74 dS m−1 and 474 ppm recorded in sample SB37 from BRI. Chatterjee et al. (2010) observed that EC as well as TDS signify the inorganic contamination of water which may be due to the gradual deposition of salts over the years Shanker et al. (2008) have also reported TDS as high as 4,100 ppm in groundwater of an industrial area of Bangalore which indicated a very high load of salinity in water. Pies et al. (2011) stated that water with high TDS may induce an unfavorable physiological reaction and cause gastrointestinal irritation. In the present study area, COD values ranged from 4.50 to 20 ppm; 45 % samples were within the permissible limit of 10 mg/l while 55 % were beyond the permissible limit (Fig. 2e). Three samples, SB35, SB43, and SB44, had very high values of COD, i.e., 20, 19, and 19 mg/l, respectively, and were located in the BRI. According to Usha et al. (2008), where COD is higher than the standard, it indicates the presence of various chemical compounds in the water and reported COD values ranged between 16 to 440 mg/l in the lake water in Bangalore. DO regulates the metabolic process of biota and is an indicator of aquatic health. In the present study, DO concentrations varied from 1.29 to 5.2 ppm, which was within the permissible limit of 8.0 mg/l (Fig 2d). Similar results were
obtained by Shaikh and Mandre (2009) in Lote (Khed) industrial area district Ratnagiri, India. Turbidity values ranged from 0.11 to 6.42 with a mean of 1.92 NTU. It is pertinent to note that in this study area, turbidity in almost all samples falls within the permissible limits except for two samples (SM4 and SM19) (Fig. 2g). The TSS value ranged from 106 to 1,576 with a mean of 514 ppm (Fig. 2f); 56.66 % of samples were within permissible limit while 43.33 % beyond permissible limit of WHO. The sample SM31 with highest TSS value was located in BRI. According to EPA guidance, turbidity is caused by suspended matter or impurities that interfere with the clarity of the water. Once considered as a mostly aesthetic characteristic of drinking water, significant evidence exists that controlling turbidity is an effective safeguard against pathogens in drinking water. Major nutrients The concentrations of potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) ranged between 7.80 to 189.0 and 0.146 to 0.522 mg/l with a mean of 87.48 and 0.264 mg/l respectively, in both the industrial blocks. According to the Food Standards Agency (2003) drinking water guidelines, K and P limits are 12.0 and 2.2 mg/l, respectively. The study also revealed that there was a dramatic increase in K concentration at almost all BRI sites as compared to MRI. Potassium water softeners are being used as an alternative to sodium water softeners, in response to a perception that potassium is better for health. Vasanthavigar et al. (2010) found similar results in Thirumanimuttar sub-basin area and also mentioned permissible limit in groundwater as phosphate (PO4), i.e., 1.5 mg/l. In the study area, calcium (Ca) concentration in groundwater varied from 30.06 to 390.78 with a mean of 158.50 mg/l (Fig. 2k) indicating that 93.33 % of the samples were containing Ca higher than the permissible limit of BIS. It is a very important parameter for drinking as well irrigation as predominance of calcium and magnesium cations also affects the hardness in water. The samples studied were also contaminated in terms of magnesium (Mg) concentration as 76.66 % of samples were beyond permissible limit of BIS, the concentrations of which varied from 6.08 to 492.18 with a mean of 120.50 mg/l (Fig. 2n, Table 2). The highest concentrations of Ca and Mg were observed in samples SB24 and SB58, located in MRI and BRI, respectively. NDSU and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperation
Environ Monit Assess Table 2 Statistical summary of Groundwater Assessment of District-Ghaziabad (samples collected from Meerut Road Industrial Area (MRI) and Bulandshahar Road Industrial Area (BRI)) Sl. no Parameters
Range (n=60)
Mean
CR
CV %
SD
CD
WHO BIS standards guideline value
1.
pHa
6.05–7.72
7.09
0.12
4.73
0.33
0.05
7.0–8.0
6.5–8.5
2.
ECa
0.74–4.21
2.27
0.71
37.01
0.84
0.37
0.7b dS m−1
0.3 dS m−1
3.
COD
4.50–20.00
12.43
0.63
36.75
4.57
0.37
10 mg/l
10 mg/l
4.
DO
1.29–5.20
2.90
0.60
24.73
0.72
0.25
–
8.0 mg/l
5.
Turbiditya
0.11–6.42
1.92
0.97
96.74
1.86
0.97
5.0
5.0 NTU
6.
TDS
473.6–2694
1452
0.70
37.01
537.33 0.37
500 mg/l
500 mg/l
7.
TSS
106–1576
514.31
0.87
61.94
318.61 0.62
500 mg/l
–
8.
Ag (silver)
0.010–0.035
0.019
0.56
37.35
0.01
0.37
–
0.1 mg/l
9.
Al (aluminum)
1.330–6.300
2.756
0.65
51.23
1.41
0.51
0.2 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
10.
As (arsenic)
0.041–0.542
0.251
0.86
45.30
0.11
0.45
0.01 mg/l
0.01 mg/l
11.
B (boron)
0.000–0.094
0.030
0.99
75.29
0.02
0.75
2.4 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
12.
Ba (barium)
0.118–0.375
0.197
0.52
31.38
0.06
0.31
0.7 mg/l
0.7 mg/l
13.
Be (beryllium)
0.001–0.003
0.003
0.50
19.65
0.0
0.20
0.10b mg/l
0.004c mg/l 75.0 mg/l
14.
Ca (calcium)
30.06–390.78
158.50
0.86
41.32
65.49
0.41
–
15.
Cd (cadmium)
0.005–0.013
0.008
0.46
26.55
0.00
0.27
0.003 mg/l b
0.003 mg/l –
16.
Co (cobalt)
0.012–0.050
0.025
0.62
39.19
0.01
0.39
0.05 mg/l
17.
Cr (chromium)
4.499–7.088
6.003
0.22
8.14
0.49
0.08
0.05 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
18.
Cu (copper)
Not detected
–
–
–
–
–
2 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
19.
Fe (iron)
Not detected
–
–
–
–
–
0.3 mg/l
0.3 mg/l
20.
K (potassium)
7.80–189.0
87.480
0.92
37.05
32.41
0.37
12e mg/l
–
21.
Mg (magnesium) 6.08–492.18
120.50
0.98
100
120.87 0.98
125d mg/l
30.0 mg/l
22.
Mn (manganese)
0.000–0.350
0.040
1.00
197.39 0.08
23.
Na (sodium)
9.20–3887
1033.41
0.99
81.68
1.97
844.09 0.82
0.1 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
50.0 mg/l
–
24.
Ni (nickel)
0.141–0.273
0.178
0.34
12.97
0.02
0.13
0.07 mg/l
0.02 mg/l
25.
P (phosphorus)
0.146–0.522
0.264
0.56
37.68
0.10
0.38
2.2e mg/l
–
26.
Pb (lead)
0.133–0.322
0.220
0.42
18.94
0.04
0.19
0.01 mg/l
0.01 mg/l
27.
Se (selenium)
0.1592–2.111
0.291
0.86
88.50
0.26
0.89
0.04 mg/l
0.01 mg/l
28.
U (uranium)
0.100–1.210
0.619
0.85
37.97
0.24
0.38
0.03 mg/l
0.03c mg/l
b
29.
V (vanadium)
0.007–0.034
0.015
0.66
45.32
0.01
0.45
0.1 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
30.
Zn (zinc)
0.019–1.200
0.148
0.97
182.24 0.27
1.82
5.0 mg/l
5.0 mg/l
31. 32.
WQI based on
Physical parameters 101–491 265 0.66 Metals contamination 871- 2908 1174 0.54
33.96 29.56
90.00 0.34 347 0.30
Physico-chemical parameters
29.55
346
33.
870-2904
1172 0.54
0.30
Remark: hazardous/ unfit for drinking and human consumption
CR coefficient of range, CV % coefficient of variation, SD standard deviation, CD coefficient of standard deviation a
All units are in mg/l except pH, EC (dS/m), Turbidity (NTU) and WQI
b
FAO's recommendation for irrigation water http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T0234E/T0234E06.htm
c
EPA's Safe Drinking Water (US Environment Protection Agency): http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
d
USDA-CSREES (2010), http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/h2oqual/watsys/wq1341.pdf
e
Food Standards Agency May 2003, http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/vitmin2003.pdf
Environ Monit Assess Table 3 Water quality index (WQI) and water quality rating calculated on the basis of physicochemical parameters of groundwater in industrial blocks (pH, EC, COD, DO, TDS, TSS and Turbidity) Sample ID
Sample location
WQI
Water quality rating
Latitude
Longitude
SM1
28.8981
77.5503
276
Very poor
SM2
28.9186
77.5794
249
Very poor
SM3
28.9069
77.5967
374
SM4
28.9067
77.5969
366
SM5
28.9108
77.6058
SM6
28.9139
SM7
Sample ID
Sample location
WQI
Water quality rating
Latitude
Longitude
SB31
28.6817
77.6414
282
Very poor
SB32
28.6822
77.6503
256
Very poor
UFD
SB33
28.6825
77.6508
250
Very poor
UFD
SB34
28.6850
77.6497
351
UFD
275
Very poor
SB35
28.6883
77.6381
299
Very poor
77.6117
271
Very poor
SB36
28.6897
77.6467
241
Very poor
28.9122
77.6089
263
Very poor
SB37
28.7283
77.6650
101
Poor
SM8
28.9075
77.6100
288
Very poor
SB38
28.7431
77.6722
243
Very poor
SM9
28.9056
77.6119
244
Very poor
SB39
28.7483
77.6794
173
Poor
SM10
28.9028
77.6125
211
Very poor
SB40
28.7292
77.6147
408
UFD
SM11
28.9000
77.6211
261
Very poor
SB41
28.7322
77.6100
211
Very poor
SM12
28.8981
77.6306
183
Poor
SB42
28.7358
77.6114
134
Poor
SM13
28.8964
77.6314
133
Poor
SB43
28.7325
77.6172
163
Poor
SM14
28.8939
77.6281
273
Very poor
SB44
28.6808
77.6136
267
Very poor
SM15
28.8936
77.6283
282
Very poor
SB45
28.7078
77.5986
158
Poor
SM16
28.8917
77.6272
457
UFD
SB46
28.7094
77.5886
341
UFD
SM17
28.7194
77.6286
319
UFD
SB47
28.7192
77.5903
317
UFD
SM18
28.8956
77.6272
374
UFD
SB48
28.7156
77.5828
385
UFD
SM19
28.8897
77.6181
258
Very poor
SB49
28.7239
77.5733
295
Very poor
SM20
28.9075
77.6103
249
Very poor
SB50
28.7208
77.5711
207
Very poor
SM21
28.8950
77.6183
143
Poor
SB51
28.7336
77.5703
177
Poor
SM22
28.8953
77.6175
260
Very poor
SB52
28.7331
77.5567
174
Poor
SM23
28.9014
77.6197
180
Poor
SB53
28.8058
77.4881
152
Poor
SM24
28.8981
77.6092
264
Very poor
SB54
28.7897
77.4872
274
Very poor
SM25
28.8964
77.6072
235
Very poor
SB55
28.7781
77.5047
381
UFD
SM26
28.9047
77.6094
250
Very poor
SB56
28.7569
77.5417
389
UFD
SM27
28.9025
77.6108
132
Poor
SB57
28.7644
77.5578
162
Poor
SM28
28.9050
77.6053
231
Very poor
SB58
28.7544
77.5589
457
UFD
SM29
28.9033
77.6050
326
UFD
SB59
28.7422
77.5592
491
UFD
SM30
28.8878
77.5850
139
Poor
SB60
28.7464
77.5386
417
UFD
UFD unfit for drinking, SM sample taken from MRI, SB sample taken from BRI
(2011) have mentioned that Mg>125 mg/l may show laxative effects. Ramesh and Elango (2011) also analyzed cations Ca and Mg for suitability of groundwater in Tondiar river basin Tamil Nadu. In the present study area, aluminum (Al) concentration in groundwater varied from 1.33 to 6.30 mg/l with a mean of 2.756 mg/l. The highest value of Al was 6.30 mg/l recorded in sample SB51 from BRI (Fig. 2i).
Micronutrients In the both blocks studied, the concentrations of silver (Ag), boron (B), barium (Ba), and beryllium (Be) were less than the prescribed permissible limits of drinking water, varying from 0.010 to 0.035, 0 to 0.094, 0.118 to 0.375, and 0.001 to 0.003 with means values of 0.019, 0.030, 0.197, and 0.003 mg/l, respectively (Table 2),
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 2 a–v Distribution of various physic-chemical characteristics of groundwater along with water quality index (WQI) in two industrial blocks of Ghaziabad
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 2 (continued)
Environ Monit Assess
Fig. 2 (continued)
Environ Monit Assess
cobalt (Co) concentrations in all samples were also below the standard limits, varying from 0.012 to 0.050 with a mean of 0.025 mg/l. The groundwater in the study area was free from toxic level of copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) contamination as their concentrations were within the prescribed permissible safe limit of WHO, i.e., 2.0 and 0.3 mg/l, respectively. Giri et al. (2012) found similar results in case of Cu in mining areas of Jharkhand, India. The distribution and concentrations of manganese (Fig. 2o) varied from 0.0 to 0.350 with a mean of 0.040 mg/l in the two blocks (Table 2) in which 11.66 % of groundwater samples were higher than prescribed permissible limits of WHO, i.e., 0.1 mg/l. The sample with the highest concentration for Mn was SM2 from MRI. According to Haloi and Sharma (2011), Mn can promote iron bacteria in groundwater. Most of the samples had high of Na concentrations as 83.33 % of samples exceeded the prescribed WHO guidelines, i.e., the concentration varied from 9.20 to 3887 with a mean value of 1033.41 mg/l (Fig. 2p). The vanadium (V) and zinc (Zn) concentration in groundwater samples from the two industrial blocks, varied from 0.007 to 0.034 and 0.019 to 1.20 with a mean of 0.015 and 0.148 mg/l, respectively. Samples from both the industrial sites had V and Zn concentration within the prescribed safe limits of drinking water. Potentially toxic elements Arsenic (As) concentration ranged from 0.041 to 0.542 mg/l with a mean of 0.251 mg/l, indicating that all the samples without exception were above the prescribed permissible limit of WHO/BIS, i.e., 0.01 mg/l. The highest value of arsenic was 0.542 mg/l recorded in sample SB50 and SB51 from BRI (Fig. 2j). Smelting of non-ferrous metals and the production of energy from fossil fuel are the two major industrial processes that lead to arsenic contamination of air, water, and soil. According to Jarup (2003), its concentrations in water are usually