Assessment of drainage water quality in pre-and post-irrigation seasons for supplemental irrigation use

Dimitris Alexakis & Dimitris Gotsis &

Spyros Giakoumakis

Received: 30 December 2010 /Accepted: 29 August 2011 /Published online: 14 September 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Knowledge on hydrochemistry is veryimportant to assess the quality of water for effectivemanagement of water resources or drainage waterreuse. On this basis, an assessment of water qualitywas conducted in the Agoulinitsa district in Pelo-ponnese (western Greece). Both drainage and irriga-tion channel water samples have been collected,treated, and subjected to chemical analysis. Acharacterization has been carried out using the Piper-trilinear diagram. Assessment of the water samplesfrom the point of view of sodium adsorption ratio,Na+%, and residual sodium carbonate indicated that60.0% and 83.3% of the drainage water samplesduring pre- and post-irrigation season, respectively, aswell as the irrigation channel water samples, arechemically suitable for irrigation use. Moreover,assessment of the water samples by comparing quality

parameters with the Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion guidelines indicated that 20.0% and 44.4% of thedrainage water samples collected during pre- andpost-irrigation season, respectively, as well as theirrigation channel water samples could cause slight tomoderate problems to the plants. On the other hand,80.0% and 55.6% of the drainage water samplescollected during pre- and post-irrigation season,respectively, could cause immediate development ofsevere problems to the plants growth.

Keywords Irrigation water . Drainage water .Waterquality . Agoulinitsa district

Introduction

Both the frequent drought episodes due to anticipatedclimate change and the gap between populationgrowth and demand for irrigation water of appropriatequality will, without question, continue to challengeus in the years to come (Alexakis and Tsakiris 2010).Moreover, irrigation practices have generated envi-ronmental impacts including reduction in the naturalwater flows and contamination of water withnutrients, other major ions, and trace elements. Waterquality assessment and understanding of the factorsaffecting water quality are very important baselinesfrom which effective management and sustainabledevelopment of water resources could be properlyachieved. The knowledge on hydrochemistry reveals

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-2321-2

D. Alexakis (*)Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards andProactive Planning and Laboratory of Reclamation Worksand Water Resources Management,School of Rural and Surveying Engineering,National Technical University of Athens,9 Iroon Polytechniou,157 73 Athens, Greecee-mail: dial@survey.ntua.gr

D. Gotsis : S. GiakoumakisLaboratory of Reclamation Works and Water ResourcesManagement, School of Rural and Surveying Engineering,National Technical University of Athens,9 Iroon Polytechniou,157 73 Athens, Greece

quality of water that is suitable for irrigation purposes.The quality of water is mainly controlled by geolog-ical structure and mineralogy of the watersheds, thechemical reactions that take place within the water-shed as well as the type of land uses and anthropo-genic activities (Alexakis 2008, 2011).

Numerous publications have concentrated on water-quality monitoring and assessment for drinking orirrigation uses (Kelepertsis et al. 2001; Stamatis et al.2006; Bathrellos et al. 2007; Saeedi et al. 2009;Aghazadeh and Mogaddam 2010; Hajizadeh Namaghiet al. 2010; Hamzaoui-Azaza et al. 2010; Palma et al.2010; Suthar et al. 2010). Furthermore, since waterresources management has become increasingly im-portant for sustainable development, it is necessary toassess the suitability of drainage water for agriculturaluse. According to Oster and Grattan (2002), irrigationwith drainage water is necessary in parts of the worldwith limited supplies of appropriate water.

The objectives of this study were to record thequality status of the Agoulinitsa drainage water and toaid the management and future development of waterresources in the studied area.

Study area

The study area is Agoulinitsa district surrounded bythe Ionian Sea in west part with an altitude rangingfrom −0.5 to −1.5 m below sea level (Fig. 1). TheAnemochori hills with an altitude up to 200 m arelocated in the northeastern part of the study area. Thearea lies between latitudes 37°32′–37°37′ N and

longitudes 21°26′–21°36′ E and, it is located at7 km southeast of Pyrgos city in Peloponnesepeninsula in western Greece. The total geographicalextends of the study area is about 30 km2.

Farms occupy over 70% of the Agoulinitsa district.The most usual agricultural crops in the study area arecotton, alfalfa, cereals, vegetable growings, apricots,citrus, and orange fruits. All the farmlands areirrigated by Alfios River via a diversion dam andsprinkler irrigation networks with a total length of768-km pipes. A 27-km long main irrigation channelcarries water from the dam to three pumping stationsalong it. The Agoulinitsa drainage network consists ofone pumping station nearby the coast and a totallength of 867 km unlined ditches of 1st, 2nd, and 3rdclasses that drain excess water from the cultivatedland to the sea (Fig. 1).

The irrigation season begins in April or early Mayand generally ends in September or October. Themean monthly precipitation in Agoulinitsa districtvaries from 4.3 mm during July to 167.0 mm duringNovember, while the mean annual precipitation is852 mm (Gotsis and Giakoumakis 2006; Gotsis2007).

Soils in the study area are derived from Quaternaryalluvial deposits. The Quaternary alluvial depositscover the study area, including lagoonal deposits,recent delta deposits, red clays, gravels, and sandymaterials. Soil infiltration rate vary between 0.04 and118 mm h−1 (Kalinskis 1959; Gotsis 2007).

Materials and methods

Monitoring parameters and analysis

Water samples were collected from locations withinthe study area as follows (Fig. 2): a total of 15drainage water samples (S01A, S02A, S03A, S04A,S05A, S06A, S08A, S09A, S11A, S13A, S14A,S15A, S16A, S19A, and S20A) were collected fromditches during pre-irrigation season (April 2010).Additionally, a total of 18 drainage water samples(S01S, S02S, S03S, S04S, S05S, S06S, S07S, S08S,S09S, S11S, S12S, S13S, S14S, S15S, S16S, S17S,S19S, and S20S) were also collected from ditches,and two irrigation water samples (S10S and S18S)were collected from the main irrigation channelduring post-irrigation season (September 2010). The

Fig. 1 Locality map of the study area showing pumpingstations, main irrigation channel, and drainage network

5052 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

sampling plan for this study was designed to collectsite-specific information relating to the influences ofagricultural activities near the sampling sites. Thelocations of water sampling sites were recorded in thefield by using a Garmin Geographical PositioningSystem. The water samples were collected as close aspossible to the center of the drainage ditches or of themain irrigation channel and stored in 250-mL newpolypropylene containers. Each container was com-pletely filled with water taking care that no airbubbles were trapped within it. During collectionand handling of the water samples, all possibleprecautions were taken to prevent contamination. Allcontainers were rinsed several times with samplewater prior to storage, and then they were kept in acooled plastic box at 4°C. The water samples weretransported to the laboratory within 24 h and thenwere stored in a fridge at the same temperature forfurther processing.

The water samples were transported to the Labo-ratory of Reclamation Works and Water ResourcesManagement of the National Technical University ofAthens and filtered through a 0.45-μm pore sizemembrane using a vacuum filtration system. Pre-weighted filters were dried and used for totalsuspended solids (TSS) determination. The standardsolutions were diluted in ultrapure water (resistivity18.3 MΩ at 25°C) prepared with a water purificationsystem (Zeneer Power I) supplied by Human Corpo-ration. The water temperature (T), dissolved oxygen(DO), conductivity (SPC), total dissolved solids(TDS), salinity (Sal), and pH were measured imme-diately after collection with YSI Professional Plus

portable temp/DO/CND/sal/pH meter. For the pH,conductivity, and salinity measurements, the electro-des were calibrated daily with reference buffersolutions.

Chemical analysis

Dissolved anions (Br−, Cl−, F−, NO2−, NO3

−, PO43−,

and SO42−) and cations (Li+, Na+, NH4

+, K+, Mg2+,and Ca2+) were measured by ion chromatography (IC)using a Dionex ICS-3000 system. The ion chromato-graph was equipped with Dionex Ion Pac® AS 23analytical column (4×250 mm) with AG 23 guardcolumn (4×50 mm) and CS 16 analytical column (5×250 mm) with CG 16 guard column (5×50 mm). Theflow rate of the eluents (4.5 mM sodium carbonate/0.8 mM sodium bicarbonate and 30 mM methanesul-fonic acid) in the instrument was kept at 1.0 mL/min.The injection volume was 10 μL. Certified standardsfrom Dionex were used for the calibration of theinstrument. Two standards with one set referencematerial were analyzed routinely. Bicarbonate(HCO3

−) was measured using a HACH digital titrator.A rigorous quality control program was imple-

mented during water chemical analysis, which includ-ed duplicate water samples, reagent blanks, andstandard solutions. Analyses were repeated until anaccuracy of 95–105% and precision of ±5% wereobtained.

The software code AqQA® by RockWare® wasemployed for the Piper-tri-linear diagrams. Thestatistical software code Microsoft® Excel was usedto study the geochemical dataset. The univariate

Fig. 2 Map showing locations of the water sampling sites of Agoulinitsa district for: a pre-irrigation season and b post-irrigationseason

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5053

summary statistics of the geochemical dataset werecalculated.

Statistical and spatial analysis

The software code ArcView 9.3 GIS® developed byESRI was used to create the simplified digitalgeochemical maps as well as to apply the query tothe geochemical dataset for the evaluation of waterquality for irrigation use. The query questions werecompiled by using the criteria given by Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO 1985). Topographicmaps of scale 1:50,000 from the Greek GeographicalMilitary Service covering the study area have beenscanned. The scanned and georeferenced images ofthe topographic maps were then inserted in the GIS asthe basic layers, showing the Alfios River, hills, andcities locations.

Results and discussion

General hydrogeochemistry

The univariate statistics summary of Agoulinitsawater quality dataset is tabulated in Table 1.Drainage water temperature during pre-irrigationseason varied between 10.8°C and 16.1°C withmean and standard deviation values of 13.39°C and1.37°C, respectively. The TDS of the drainage watersamples for pre-irrigation season varied between559.0 and 19,708.0 mg L−1 with a mean value of7,532.0 mg L−1. Based on these values, drainagewater samples for pre-irrigation season vary betweenfresh and saline (Table 2). Besides, the total hardness(TH) variation of the samples for pre-irrigationseason ranged from 270.92 to 3,404.52 mgCaCO3 L

−1 with a mean value of 1,445.41 mgCaCO3 L

−1.The 13.3% of the drainage water samples for pre-

irrigation season fall in the hard category whereas the86.7% of the samples fall in the very hard category(Table 2). The DO and TSS values ranged from 6.01 to7.00 mg L−1 and from 0.01 to 0.11 mg L−1, respec-tively. Moreover, the pH, SPC, and SAL values rangedfrom 7.20 to 8.18, from 862.0 to 30,330.0 μS cm−1 andfrom 0.43‰ to 18.84‰, respectively.

Drainage water temperature for post-irrigationseason ranged from 9.9°C to 13.3°C with mean and

standard deviation values of 11.33°C and 0.89°C,respectively. The TDS of the drainage water samplesfor post-irrigation season varied between 304.85 and11,934.00 mg L−1 with a mean value of3,191.47 mg L−1. Based on these values, drainagewater samples for post-irrigation season fall withinfresh and saline category (Table 2). The TH variationof the samples for post-irrigation season ranged from172.17 to 2,181.13 mg CaCO3 L

−1 with a mean valueof 752.30 mg CaCO3L

−1. The 50.0% of the samplesfor post-irrigation season fall in the hard category,whereas the other 50.0% in the very hard category(Table 2).

The TDS values present a wide variation for boththe pre- and post-irrigation seasons (Fig. 3); while thehigher TDS values were mainly recorded during pre-irrigation season to the sampling sites which arelocated near to the coast .This could be attributed tothe seawater intrusion. The low TDS values observedduring post-irrigation season could be attributed to thedilution effect. The DO and TSS values of thedrainage water samples for post-irrigation seasonranged from 9.70 to 13.13 mg L−1 and from 0.00 to0.10 mg L−1, respectively. The pH, SPC, and SALvalues ranged from 7.56 to 8.72, from 469.60 to18342.00 μS cm−1, and from 0.23‰ to 10.20‰,respectively.

Hydrochemical facies

The term hydrochemical facies is used to describe thequantities of water that differ in their chemicalcomposition. The facies are function of the solutionkinetics, rock–water interactions, geology, and con-tamination sources. Chemical data of the watersamples are also presented by plotting them on aPiper-tri-linear diagram (Fig. 4). Piper diagram pro-vides a convenient method to classify and comparewater types based on the ionic composition ofdifferent water samples. This diagram reveals thedifferent types of water in the Agoulinitsa districtduring both seasons.

Four main water types have been identified duringpre-irrigation season for the drainage water sampleson the basis of major ion concentrations (Fig. 4). Thefirst is Ca-Mg-HCO3 water type which corresponds to13.3% of the samples (S11A and S19A). The secondis Ca-Mg-SO4-Cl water type corresponding to 6.7%of the samples (S14A). The third is Na-Cl-SO4 water

5054 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

type which corresponds to 73.3% of the samples(S02A, S03A, S04A, S05A, S06A, S08A, S09A,S13A, S15A, S16A, and S20A). Finally, the forth isNa-HCO3 water type corresponding to 6.7% of thesamples (S01A).

On the other hand, three main water types havebeen identified on the basis of major ion concen-trations during post-irrigation season (Fig. 4). Thefirst is Ca-Mg-HCO3 water type which corresponds tothe 100% of the irrigation channel water samples(S10S and S18S) and to the 33.3% of the drainagewater samples (S01S, S03S, S04S, S11S, S13S, andS19S). The second is Ca-Mg-SO4-Cl water typecorresponding to 11.2% of the drainage water samples(S12S and S17S). Finally, the third is Na-Cl-SO4

water type which corresponds to 55.5% of the

drainage water samples (S02S, S05S, S06S, S07S,S08S, S09S, S14S, S15S, S16S, and S20S).

In the study area, the type of water thatpredominates during both pre- and post-irrigationseason is Na-Cl-SO4 type, which is mainly due tothe seawater intrusion in the unlined drainageditches.

Major anions and cations

In the pre-irrigation season, the mean values ofthe following water quality parameters: Br−, Cl−,F−, PO4

3−, SO42−, Na+, NH4

+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+,HCO3

−, TH, SPC, TDS, SAL, sodium adsorptionratio (SAR), and TSS were higher than the meanvalues of the same quality parameters recorded in

Table 1 Univariate statistics summary of Agoulinitsa water physicochemical dataset

Parameters Units Drainage water samples Irrigationchannelwater samplesPre-irrigation season (n=15) Post-irrigation-season (n=18)

Minimum Maximum Mean Standarddeviation

Minimum Maximum Mean Standarddeviation

S10S S18S

Br− mg L−1 0.17 27.26 9.87 10.27 0.01 19.98 4.04 6.22 0.04 0.04

Cl− mg L−1 47.48 11,022.48 3,662.78 4,050.07 4.81 5,345.88 1,221.10 1,608.81 5.63 6.16

F− mg L−1 0.19 0.75 0.47 0.17 0.10 0.70 0.27 0.17 0.11 0.11

NO3− mg L−1 0.08 5.08 1.26 1.31 0.01 68.99 5.45 16.01 1.97 1.88

PO43− mg L−1 0.01 2.67 0.75 0.89 0.01 1.54 0.26 0.46 0.01 0.29

SO42− mg L−1 60.95 1,455.40 643.71 483.96 22.87 688.17 244.49 243.83 36.52 34.42

Na+ mg L−1 46.18 5,243.90 1,827.34 1,860.03 4.98 3,256.55 770.84 989.49 5.67 6.00

NH4+ mg L−1 0.17 2.89 1.53 0.82 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

K+ mg L−1 1.88 165.90 61.59 64.46 0.66 82.42 22.6 25.59 0.84 0.94

Mg2+ mg L−1 17.13 584.83 219.80 217.90 8.98 359.99 89.44 102.57 10.85 10.96

Ca2+ mg L−1 65.11 399.13 216.35 98.19 54.08 589.00 153.69 131.30 39.85 42.35

HCO3− mg L−1 220.00 484.00 354.60 94.35 171.00 356.00 224.11 53.51 152.00 153.00

DO mg L−1 6.01 7.00 6.54 2.40 9.70 13.13 11.47 0.98 12.50 14.75

pH − 7.20 8.18 7.59 0.26 7.56 8.72 8.13 0.31 8.62 8.56

T °C 10.80 16.10 13.39 1.37 9.90 13.30 11.33 0.89 12.30 11.60

TH mg CaCO3

L−1270.92 3,404.52 1,445.41 1,092.13 172.17 2,181.13 752.30 673.89 144.28 150.96

TSS mg L−1 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00

SPC μS cm−1 862.00 30,330.00 10,920.87 10,238.97 469.60 18,342.00 4,908.52 5,386.50 441.10 437.70

TDS mg L−1 559.00 19,708.00 7,532.53 7,047.85 304.85 11,934.00 3,191.47 3,503.20 286.70 284.70

SAL ‰ 0.43 18.84 6.90 6.78 0.23 10.20 2.72 3.07 0.21 0.21

SAR − 1.17 39.07 17.41 13.63 0.16 30.97 9.41 10.00 0.21 0.21

%Na+ % 27.02 77.31 62.65 17.74 6.34 77.46 47.30 27.17 8.49 8.63

RSC − −63.99 0.86 −23.10 22.57 −38.08 −0.48 −11.37 13.01 −0.39 −0.51

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5055

Tab

le2

Classificationof

Ago

ulinitsawater

samples

basedon

TH,TDS,SAR,%

Na+,andRSC

Classification

scheme

Categories

Ranges

Sam

plenu

mbers

Percentageof

water

samples

(%)

Drainagewater

Irrigatio

nchannelwater

Drainagewater

Irrigatio

nchannel

water

Pre-irrigationseason

(n=15

)Post-irrigatio

nseason

(n=18

)Pre-irrigation

season

Post-irrigatio

nseason

THa

Soft

<75

––

–0.0

0.0

0.0

Mod

erately

hard

75–1

50–

–S10

S0.0

0.0

50.0

Hard

150–30

0S04

A,S19

AS01

S,S03

S,S04

S,S11S,S12

S,

S13

S,S17

S,S19

SS18

S13

.344

.450

.0

Veryhard

>30

0S01

A,S02

A,S03

A,S05

A,

S06

A,S08

A,S09

A,S11A,

S13

A,S14

A,S15

A,S16

A,

S20

A

S02

S,S05

S,S06

S,S07

S,S08

S,

S09

S,S14

S,S15

S,S16

S,S20

S–

86.7

55.6

0.0

TDS

bFresh

water

type

<1,00

0S11A,S19

AS01

S,S03

S,S04

S,S11S,S12

S,

S13

S,S17

S,S19

SS10

S,S18

S13

.344

.410

0.0

Brackishwater

type

1,00

0–10

,000

S01

A,S04

A,S06

A,S09

A,

S13

A,S14

A,S16

A,S20

AS02

S,S05

S,S06

S,S07

S,S09

S,

S14

S,S15

S,S16

S,S20

S–

53.3

50.0

0.0

Salinewater

type

10,000–1

00,000

S02

A,S03

A,S05

A,S08

A,S15

AS08

S–

33.4

5.6

0.0

Brine

water

type

>10

0,00

0–

––

0.0

0.0

0.0

SAR

cExcellent

<10

S01

A,S04

A,S11A,S13

A,

S14

A,S19

AS01

S,S03

S,S04

S,S06

S,S11S,

S12

S,S13

S,S16

S,S17

S,S19

SS10

S,S18

S40

.055

.610

0.0

Goo

d10–1

8S06

A,S09

A,S16

AS02

S,S05

S,S07

S,S09

S,S14

S–

20.0

27.7

0.0

Dou

btfull

18–2

6S05

A,S20

AS20

S–

13.3

5.6

0.0

Unsuitable

>26

S02

A,S03

A,S08

A,S15

AS08

S,S15

S–

26.7

11.1

0.0

%Na

dExcellent

toGoo

d0–20

–S01

S,S04

S,S1S

,S19

S,

S10

S,S18

S0.0

22.2

100.0

Goo

dto

Permissible

20–4

0S11A,S19

AS03

S,S12

S,S13

S–

13.3

16.7

0.0

Permissibleto

Suitable

40–6

0S01

A,S13

A,S14

AS16

S,S17

S–

20.0

11.1

0.0

Dou

btfulto

Suitable

60–8

0S02

A,S03

A,S04

A,S05

A,S06

A,

S08

A,S09

A,S15

A,S16

A,S20

AS02

S,S05

S,S06

S,S07

S,

S08

S,S09

S,S14

S,S15

S,

S20

S

–66

.750

.00.0

Unsuitable

>80

––

–0.0

0.0

0.0

RSC

cGoo

d<1.25

S01

A,S02

A,S03

A,S04

A,S05

A,

S06

A,S08

A,S09

A,S11A,S13

A,

S14

A,S15

A,S16

A,S19

A,S20

A

S01

S,S02

S,S03

S,S04

S,

S05

S,S06

S,S07

S,S08

S,

S09

S,S11S,S12

S,S13

S,

S10

S,S18

S10

0.0

100.0

100.0

5056 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

post-irrigation season due to seawater intrusion andmixing with seawater (Table 1). The geology andthe topography of the Agoulinitsa district alsosupport seawater intrusion to the Agoulinitsa drain-age ditches and mixing of drainage water withseawater. The mean value of NO3

− water contentduring pre-irrigation season was lower than themean value of the NO3

− content during post-irrigation season due to the leaching of nitrogenfertilizers.

Bromide (Br−) The concentration of bromide indrainage water range from 0.17 to 27.26 mg L−1

during pre-irrigation season and 0.01 to 19.98 mg L−1

during post-irrigation season. The high bromide watercontent in the Agoulinitsa drains is attributed to themixing of drainage water with seawater.

Chloride (Cl−) The chloride drainage water contentsranged from 47.48 to 11,022.48 mg L−1 during pre-irrigation season and from 4.81 to 5,345.88 mg L−1

during post-irrigation season. The high chloride watercontent recorded in the area is attributed to the mixingof drainage water with seawater.

Fluoride (F−) Fluoride concentration in the water ofAgoulinitsa district is quite low at all sampling sites;fluoride water content ranged from 0.19 to0.75 mg L−1 during pre-irrigation season and 0.10 to0.70 mg L−1 during post-irrigation season.

Nitrate (NO3−) Nitrate water content ranged from

0.08 to 5.08 mg L−1 during pre-irrigation seasonwhereas it varied between 0.013 and 68.99 mg L−1

during post-irrigation season. This increase isattributed to the agricultural practices and leachingof fertilizers ((ΝΗ4)2SO4) in the study area. Accord-ing to Rajmohan et al. (2009) and Vasanthavigar etal. (2010), nitrate contamination is strongly relatedto land use pattern. According to Freeze and Cherry(1979), under a nitrification process in the presenceof oxygen, ammonium is transformed into nitrate.The nitrate content of the drainage water samplesshowed a wide variation over the Agoulinitsadistrict (Fig. 5). High nitrate contents (varyingbetween 24 and 70 mg L−1) occurred especially inthe central part of the study area during post-irrigation season. Moreover, the wide spatial varia-tion of NO3

− water concentrations could also beTab

le2

(con

tinued)

Classification

scheme

Categories

Ranges

Sam

plenu

mbers

Percentageof

water

samples

(%)

Drainagewater

Irrigatio

nchannelwater

Drainagewater

Irrigatio

nchannel

water

Pre-irrigationseason

(n=15

)Post-irrigatio

nseason

(n=18

)Pre-irrigation

season

Post-irrigatio

nseason

S14

S,S15

S,S16

S,S17

S,

S19

S,S20

SMedium

1.25–2

.5–

––

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bad

>2.5

––

–0.0

0.0

0.0

TH

totalhardness,TDStotaldissolvedsolid

s,SA

Rsodium

adsorptio

nratio

,%

Na+

sodium

percentage,RSC

residu

alsodium

carbon

ate

aSaw

yeret

al.20

03bFreezeandCherry19

79cRichards19

54dWilcox

1955

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5057

explained by the different amounts of nitrogenfertilizers applied in the sub-areas of the Agoulinitsadistrict.

Phosphate (PO43−) The phosphate content in the

examined water samples ranged from 0.01 to2.67 mg L−1 and from 0.01 to 1.54 mg L−1 duringpre- and post-irrigation season, respectively. Phos-phorous is extensively used as fertilizer in the studyarea since it is an essential plant nutrient. The mainsource of phosphate in water of Agoulinitsa district isthe dissolution of phosphate fertilizers.

Sulfate (SO42−) The recorded sulfate concentration in

the drainage water samples varied between 60.95 and1,455.40 mg L−1 during pre-irrigation season whereasthe sulfate concentration during post-irrigation seasonranged from 22.87 to 688.17 mg L−1. The high sulfatecontent is the result of mixing with seawater anddissolution of nitrogen fertilizers ((NH4)2SO4) that areapplied to the cultivated land. Moreover, applicationof gypsum (CaSO4 2 H2O) may contribute sulfatecontent in drainage water through irrigation fromreturn flow.

Sodium (Na+) The sodium content ranged from46.18 to 5,243.90 mg L−1 and from 4.98 to3,256.55 mg L−1, during pre- and post-irrigationseason, respectively. The high sodium contentrecorded in the drainage water samples is the resultof mixing with seawater.

Ammonium (NH4+) Ammonium values in the present

study ranged from 0.17 to 2.89 mg L−1 and 0.01 to

0.05 mg L−1 during pre- and post-irrigation season,respectively. High ammonium concentration is indic-ative of contamination and the major source ofanthropogenic ammonium is agricultural effluentsand fertilizers applied in the Agoulinitsa district.

Potassium (K+) The potassium content ranged from1.88 to 165.90 mg L−1 and from 0.66 to 82.42 mg L−1

during pre- and post-irrigation season, respectively.The main sources of potassium in the waters of thestudy area include dissolution of potash fertilizers andmixing with seawater.

Magnesium (Mg2+) The magnesium water contentvaried between 17.13 and 584.83 mg L−1 duringpre-irrigation season, whereas it varied between8.98 and 359.99 mg L−1 during post-irrigationseason. The high magnesium water contents areattributed to seawater intrusion and mixing withseawater.

Calcium (Ca2+) Calcium concentrations rangedfrom 65.11 to 399.13 mg L−1 during pre-irrigation season and from 54.08 to 589.00 mg L−1

during post-irrigation season. The main sources ofcalcium in the waters of the study area includemixing with seawater and dissolution of carbonateminerals.

Bicarbonate (HCO3−) Bicarbonate concentrations

varied between 220.00 and 484.00 mg L−1 duringpre-irrigation season whereas they ranged from171.00 to 356.00 mg L−1 during post-irrigationseason. The bicarbonate water content recorded may

Fig. 3 Spatial variation of TDS (mg L−1) for: a pre-irrigation season and b post-irrigation season

5058 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

Fig. 4 Piper-tri-linear dia-gram depicting hydrochem-ical facies of the watersamples for: a pre-irrigationseason and b post-irrigationseason

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5059

be attributed to the dissolution of carbonate mineralsand mixing with seawater.

Evaluation of water quality for irrigation use

The Agoulinitsa water quality was evaluated based onthe calculation of chemical indexes like SAR, sodiumpercent (%Na+), and residual sodium carbonate(RSC), as well as by comparing water qualityparameters with the guidelines proposed by FAO(1985).

Sodium adsorption ratio

The SAR was defined by Richards (1954) as:

SAR ¼ NaþffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiCa2þþMg2þ

2

q ð1Þ

where all ionic concentrations are expressed inmeq L−1.

Based on the SAR values, it is observed that 40.0%of the drainage water samples for pre-irrigationseason are excellent for irrigation (Table 2). The20.0% of the drainage water samples are good forirrigation, whereas 13.3% are grouped within thedoubtful category. Finally, the 26.7% of the samplesare unsuitable for irrigation. Besides, for post-irrigation season, the 55.6% of the drainage watersamples are excellent for irrigation. The 27.7% of thedrainage water samples are good for irrigationwhereas the 5.6% are doubtful and the 11.1% areunsuitable for irrigation use. Moreover, both water

samples collected from the main irrigation channel areexcellent for irrigation.

Sodium percent

The % Na+ is obtained by the following equation:

%Naþ ¼ Naþ þ Kþ

Ca2þ þMg2þ þ Naþ þ Kþ � 100 ð2Þ

According to Tank and Chandel (2010), when theNa+ concentration is high in irrigation water, Na+ tendto be adsorbed in clay particles, displacing Mg2+ andCa2+ cations. Moreover, the permeability of the soil isreduced due to the exchange process of Na+ in waterfor Ca2+ and Mg2+.

Based on the sodium percent values (pre-irrigationseason), the 13.3% of the drainage water samples aregood to permissible for irrigation. The 20.0% of thedrainage water samples are permissible to suitable forirrigation; while the 66.7% are doubtful to suitable.Besides, for post-irrigation season, the 22.2% of thedrainage water samples are excellent to good and 16.7%are good to permissible for irrigation. The 11.1% of thedrainage water samples are grouped within the permis-sible to suitable category, whereas the 50.0% of thedrainage water samples are grouped within the doubtfulto suitable category. Moreover, water samples (S10S andS18S) collected from the main irrigation channel aregrouped within the excellent to good category (Table 2).

Residual sodium carbonate

The suitability for irrigation is influenced by theexcess sum of carbonate and bicarbonate in water

Fig. 5 Spatial variation of nitrates (mg L−1) for: a pre-irrigation season and b post-irrigation season

5060 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

Fig. 6 Hazard category map of the water samples for: a pre-irrigation and b post-irrigation season

Table 3 Categorization of irrigation water according to its hazard category (FAO 1985)

Category hazard and water quality parameter (units) I II IIINo problem Slight to moderate problems Severe problems

Salinity

SPC (μS cm−1) <700 700–3,000 >3,000

TDS (mg L−1) <450 450–2,000 >2,000

Infiltration

SAR and SPC (μS cm−1) SAR=0–3 SAR=0–3 SAR=0–3

SPC>700 SPC=700–200 SPC<200

SAR=3–6 SAR=3–6 SAR=3–6

SPC>1,200 SPC=1,200–300 SPC<300

SAR=6–12 SAR=6–12 SAR=6–12

SPC>1,900 SPC=1,900–500 SPC<500

SAR=12–20 SAR=12–20 SAR=12–20

SPC>2,900 SPC=2,900–1,300 SPC<1,300

SAR=20–40 SAR=20–40 SAR=20–40

SPC>5,000 SPC=5,000–2,900 SPC<2,900

Toxicity

Ion toxicity from root intake

Na+ (mg L−1) <69 69–207 >207

Cl− (mg L−1) <142 142–355 >355

B3+ (mg L−1) <0.7 0.7–3 >3

Ion toxicity from leaf intake

Na+ (mg L−1) <69 – >69

Cl− (mg L−1) <106 – >106

Special problems

NH4+ and NO3

− (mg L−1) <22 22–133 >133

HCO3− (mg L−1)a <90 90–520 >520

pH 6.5–8.4

a Only for sensitive plants and sprinkler irrigation

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5061

over the sum of calcium and magnesium. This isdenoted as RSC index which was introduced byRagunath (1987) and is calculated as:

RSC ¼ HCO3� þ CO3

2�� �� Ca2þ þMg2þ� � ð3Þ

where the concentrations are expressed in meq L−1.The calculated RSC values reveal that all the

Agoulinitsa drainage water samples as well as thewater samples collected from the main irrigationchannel are good for irrigation (Table 2). Accordingto Kumar et al. (2009), the increase of RSC inirrigation water is significantly harmful for plantsgrowth.

Guidelines for irrigation water

The irrigation water guidelines adopted by FAO(1985) tackle mainly four areas: salinity, infiltration,toxicity, and special problems (Table 3). According tothe FAO guidelines, the three hazard categories arethe following: (I) No problem, (II) Slight to moderateproblems, and (III) Severe problems.

The 0% of the drainage water samples of bothseasons are grouped within category I. The 20.0% and44.4% of the drainage water samples are groupedwithin category II for pre- and post-irrigation season,respectively, as well as both water samples collectedfrom the main irrigation channel.

Additionally, the 80.0% and 55.6% of the drainagewater samples are grouped within category III for pre-and post-irrigation season, respectively, indicatingimmediate development of severe problems for plantsgrowth (Fig. 6).

Concluding remarks

The hydrochemical analysis performed showed thatdrainage water of the study area for both pre- andpost- irrigation seasons is fresh to brackish, hard tovery hard, and slightly alkaline in nature. Drainagewater corresponded mainly to Na-Cl-SO4 type, whichis probably attributed to the seawater intrusion andmixing with seawater. On the contrary, the irrigationchannel water corresponded to the Ca-Mg-HCO3 typewhich is related to geology and lithology of the AlfiosRiver watershed. Assessment of the water samplesfrom the point of view of SAR, % Na+, and RSCvalues indicated that 60.0% and 83.3% of the

drainage water samples for pre- and post-irrigationseason, respectively, as well as both water samplescollected from the main irrigation channel, arechemically suitable for irrigation use. Moreover, theassessment of the water samples by comparing qualityparameters with the FAO guidelines indicated thatonly the 20.0% and 44.4% of the drainage watersamples are grouped within category 2 for pre- andpost-irrigation season, respectively, as well as bothwater samples collected from the main irrigationchannel. Additionally, the 80.0% and 55.6% of thedrainage water samples are grouped within category 3for pre- and post-irrigation season, respectively,indicating immediate development of severe problemsfor plants growth. Thus, in case of drainage waterreuse in the Agoulinitsa district for irrigation purpose,treatment should be applied in order to achieve thesuitable water quality.

References

Aghazadeh, N., & Mogaddam, A. A. (2010). Investigation ofhydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in theHarzandat aquifer. Northwest of Iran. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1575-4.

Alexakis, D. (2008). Geochemistry of stream sediments as atool for assessing contamination by Arsenic, Chromiumand other toxic elements: East Attica region, Greece.European Water, 21/22, 57–72.

Alexakis, D. (2011). Diagnosis of stream sediment quality andassessment of toxic element contamination sources inEast Attica, Greece. Environ Earth Sci. 63:1369–1383doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0807-9.

Alexakis, D., & Tsakiris, G. (2010). Drought impacts on karsticspring annual water potential. Application on Almyros(Heraklion Crete) brackish spring. Desalination and WaterTreatment, 16, 1–9. doi:10.5004/dwt.2010.1065.

Bathrellos, G. D., Skilodimou, H. D., Kelepertsis, A., Alexakis,D., Chrisanthaki, I., & Archonti, D. (2007). Environmentalresearch of groundwater in the urban and suburban areasof Attica region, Greece. Environmental Geology, 58, 11–18. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-1135-6.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations) (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAOIrrigation and Drainage paper 29 Rev 1.

Freeze, R. A., & Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gotsis, D. (2007). Estimation of irrigation and drainageplanning variables for the network of Agoulinitsa withthe use of experimental data. MSc Dissertation. NationalTechnical University of Athens

Gotsis, D. & Giakoumakis, S. (2006). Update of planningvariables for the irrigation network of Alfios in Ilia. 10th

5062 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063

Hellenic Hydrotechnical Association’s Conference. Con-ference Proceedings, 2:761–768.

Hajizadeh Namaghi, H., Karami, G. H., & Saadat, S. (2010). Astudy on chemical properties of groundwater and soil inophiolitic rocks in Firuzabad, east of Shahrood, Iran: withemphasis to heavy metal contamination. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1479-3.

Hamzaoui-Azaza, F., Ketata, M., Bouhlila, R., Gueddari, M., &Riberio, L. (2010). Hydrogeochemical characteristics andassessment of drinking water quality in Zeuss–Koutineaquifer, southeastern Tunisia. Environmental Monitoringand Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1457-9.

Kalinskis, A. (1959) Preliminary study for the development ofAlfios plain and Agoulinitsa-Mouria lagoons. InternalReport. Ministry of Public Works

Kelepertsis, A., Alexakis, D., & Kita, I. (2001). Environmentalgeochemistry of soils and waters of Susaki area, Kor-inthos, Greece. Environmental Geochemistry and Health,23, 117–135. doi:10.1023/A:1010904508981.

Kumar, S. K., Rammohan, V., Sahayam, J., & Jeevanandam, M.(2009). Assessment of groundwater quality and hydro-geochemistry of Manimuktha River basin, Tamil Nadu,India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 159,341–351. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0633-7.

Oster, J. D., & Grattan, S. R. (2002). Drainage water reuse.Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 16, 297–310.

Palma, P., Alvarenga, P., Palma, V., Fernandes, R. M., Soares, A.M. V. M., & Barbosa, I. R. (2010). Assessment ofanthropogenic sources of water pollution using multivar-iate statistical techniques: a case study of the Alqueva’sreservoir, Portugal. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-ment, 165, 539–552. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0965-y.

Ragunath, H. M. (1987). Groundwater (2nd ed.). New Delhi:Wiley.

Rajmohan, N., Al-Futaisi, A., & Al-Touqi, S. (2009). Geo-chemical process regulating groundwater quality in acoastal region with complex contamination sources:Barak, Sultanate of Oman. Environ Eart Sci, 59, 385–398. doi:10.1007/s12665-009-0037-1.

Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of salinealkali soils: Agriculture, vole 160. Handbook 60. Wash-ington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

Saeedi, M., Abessi, O., Sharifi, F., & Meraji, H. (2009). Develop-ment of groundwater quality index.Environmental Monitoringand Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0837-5.

Sawyer, G. N., McMcartly, D. L., & Parkin, G. F. (2003).Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science.New York: McGraw Hill.

Stamatis, G., Lambrakis, N., Alexakis, D., & Zagana, E. (2006).Groundwater quality in eastern Attica (Greece).HydrologicalProcesses, 20, 2803–2818. doi:10.1012/hyp.6072.

Suthar, S., Sharma, J., Chabukdhara, M., & Nema, A. K.(2010). Water quality assessment of river Hindon atGhaziabad, India: impact of industrial and urban waste-water. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 165,103–112. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0930-9.

Tank, D. K., & Chandel, C. P. S. (2010). A hydrochemicalelucidation of the groundwater composition under domes-tic and irrigated land in Jaipur City. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment, 166, 69–77. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0985-7.

Vasanthavigar, M., Srinivasamoorhty, K., Vijayaragavan, K.,Rajiv Ganthi, R., Chidambaram, S., & Sarama, V. S.(2010). Characterisation and quality assessment of ground-water with special emphasis on irrigation utility: Thiru-manimuttar sub-basin, Tamil Nadu. India. Arab J Geosci.doi:10.1007/s12517-010-0190-6.

Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classification and Use of Irrigation Water.Washington, DC: USDA. Circular 969.

Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:5051–5063 5063