evaluation of groundwater quality for suitability of irrigation...

Research ArticleEvaluation of Groundwater Quality for Suitability of IrrigationPurposes A Case Study in the Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand

Kshitindra Kr Singh 12 Geeta Tewari 1 and Suresh Kumar3

1Department of Chemistry DSB Campus Kumaun University Nainital India2Natural Resource and Environmental Management Group Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research Barwa RoadDhanbad India3Central Ground Water Board Patna India

Correspondence should be addressed to Kshitindra Kr Singh kkumarsingh4gmailcom

Received 6 November 2019 Revised 1 January 2020 Accepted 21 January 2020 Published 21 March 2020

Academic Editor Pedro M Mancini

Copyright copy 2020 Kshitindra Kr Singh et al is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

In the present study the groundwater quality for suitability in agriculture from Udham Singh Nagar district Uttarakhand hasbeen evaluated A total of 50 groundwater samples have been collected and analysed for pH EC TH HCO3

minus CO32minus Clminus SO4

2minusNO3

ndash Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ and K+ To assess the groundwater quality for irrigation purpose parameters like sodium adsorption ratio(SAR) soluble sodium percentage (SSP) residual sodium carbonate (RSC) magnesium hazards (MHs) permeability index (PI)and chloroalkaline index (CAI) values have been calculated In USSL diagram most of the groundwater samples fall in the C2S1category and were safe for irrigation purpose Only seven groundwater samples fall in the C3S1 category indicating medium tohigh salinity which is safe for irrigation purpose for all types of soils but with limited care of exchangeable sodium On the basis ofRSC all groundwater samples were observed to be suitable for irrigation purpose Piper diagram indicated that 50 of thegroundwater samples belonged to the Mg2+-Ca2+-HCO3

minus type and 48 was classified as the Ca2+-Mg2+-Clminus type Durov diagramsuggested possibilities of ion mixing and simple dissolution of ions from polluted soil

1 Introduction

Groundwater plays an important role all over the world forthe survival of both flora and fauna India is one of the largestusers of groundwater particularly for drinking and agricul-ture purposes [1] Agriculture is one of the most importantsectors of Indian economy In rural areas themajor sources ofgroundwater for drinking and irrigation purpose are handpump and tub well According to a national sample survey56 households get drinking water from hand pump or tubewell 14 from open well and 25 based on piped water [2]Groundwater gets contaminated with a variety of pollutantssuch as domestic agriculture and industrial due to utilizationof fertilizers pesticides and other chemical products [3] egroundwater quality assessment based on different agricultureindices has been studied in different parts of world [4 5]ere are a number of reports on the assessment ofgroundwater quality from Bangladesh [6] Cameroon [7]

Ghana [8] Tamil Nadu [9ndash12] Madhya Pradesh [13 14]Bhatina South west Punjab [15] and Sant Ravidas NagarBhadohi Uttar Pradesh [16] In Uttarakhand irrigation waterquality assessment has been done in Doon Valley [17]Nainital [18] Almora [19 20] and Haridwar [21]

To the best of our knowledge no study on the assessmentof irrigation water quality has been undertaken fromUdhamSingh Nagar District of Uttarakhand with especial referenceto dug well and hand pump water erefore in the presentstudy an attempt has been made to determine thegroundwater suitability for irrigation purpose from UdhamSingh Nagar district of Uttarakhand

2 Materials and Methods

Udham Singh Nagar district located in Tarai belt of Kumaunregion and geographical area of the district is 3055 cm2 It issituated between latitude 28deg52primeN and 29deg23primeN and

HindawiJournal of ChemistryVolume 2020 Article ID 6924026 15 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520206924026

longitudes 78deg45primeN and 80deg08primeN e district Udham SinghNagar covers Champawat and Nainital district in Northregion of Uttarakhand south region with Pilibhit Mor-adabad and Bareilly district of UP and Biznor district of UPon the west and Nepal on the east

21 Collection of Samples Fifty groundwater samples (handpump and dug well) were collected in premonsoon season inthe year 2018 from different sites of Khatima BazpurGadarpur Kashipur Jaspur Kicha and Sitarganj blocks ofUdham Singh Nagar district Uttarakhand (Table 1 Fig-ure 1) e samples were collected in prewashed polyeth-ylene narrow mouth bottles (three times rinsed with samewater to be sampled) Locations (longitude latitude andaltitude) of sampling point were measured by using a globalpositioning system (GPS)

22 Chemical Parameters of the Samples Electrical con-ductivity (EC) and pH were measured using a potable kite water samples were filtered with using 045 Milliporemembrane filter paper for the separation of suspendedsolids Sulphate (SO4

2minus) content was determined by the UVspectrophotometric method while chloride (Clminus) and bi-carbonate (HCO3

minus) content were measured by the titrationmethod [22]e detection of Ca2+Mg2+ and total hardness(TH) was done by the titration method while Na+ and K+

were estimated by the flame photometer method [22]

23 Evaluation of Irrigation Water Quality e concen-trations of different parameters were interrelated and ir-rigation indexes like soluble sodium percentage (SSP)sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) residual sodium carbonate(RSC) magnesium hazard (MH) permeability index (PI)and chloroalkaline index (CAI) were calculated to assessgroundwater quality USSL salinity Wilcox permeabilityindex and Gibbs diagrams were drawn with the help ofGrapher free software to assess irrigation quality of collectedwater samples Hydrochemical analysis was evaluated bydrawing Piper and Durov diagrams using Aquachem (2004)software

24 Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard (SAH) Electrical con-ductivity and US Salinity Laboratory diagram helped inexplaining salinity and alkalinity hazard in the study area

25 Sodium Hazard (SH) Sodium hazard was assessed byevaluating soluble sodium percentage and sodium absorp-tion ratio and drawing Wilcox diagram

251 Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP) Soluble sodiumpercentage (SSP) was calculated by employing the equationgiven by Todd [23] e ionic concentration was presentedin meq Lminus1

SSP Na+ + K+( )

Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+ + K+( 1113857times 100 (1)

252 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) SAR was calculatedusing the equation given by Raghunath [24] e concen-tration of the ions was expressed in meq Lminus1

SAR Na+

Ca2+ + Mg2+( 111385721113969 (2)

253 Carbonate and Bicarbonate Hazard (CBH)Carbonate and bicarbonate hazard was assessed by evalu-ating soluble sodium carbonate

254 Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) is was evaluatedemploying the following equation of Eaton [25]

RSC HCO3minus

+ CO32minus

1113872 1113873 minus Ca2++ Mg2+

1113872 1113873 (3)

255 Magnesium Hazard (MH) is was evaluated by theequation given by Szabolcs and Darab [26] where theconcentration of each cation was expressed in meq Lminus1

MH Mg2+

Ca2+ + Mg2+( 1113857times 100 (4)

26 Permeability Index (PI) Permeability index (PI) wasused to classify the irrigation water quality and was calcu-lated by the formula given by Doneen [27] e concen-tration of all ions was taken in meq Lminus1

PI Na+ +

HCO3

minus1113968

Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+( 1113857times 100 (5)

27Chloroalkaline Index (CAI) Chloroalkaline index (CAI Iand CAI II) was calculated by the formula given by Scholler[28]

CAI I Clminus minusNa+ + K+( )

Clminus

CAI II Clminus minusNa+ + K+( )

SO42minus + HCO3

minus + NO3minus + CO3

2minus1113858 1113859

(6)

3 Results and Discussion

31 pH e term pH expressed to describe the intensity ofacidic and alkaline nature of a solution e pH value of thegroundwater samples in the study area lie in between 757and 861 All the groundwater samples belonged to the safelimit for irrigation purpose [29]

32Water Quality Based on the Absolute Ions In the presentstudy area the concentration of cations lies from 200 to1400mg Lminus1 for Ca2+ 141 to 850mg Lminus1 for Mg2+ 04 to620mg Lminus1 for Na+ and 00 to 552mg Lminus1 for K+ (Table 2)In irrigation water the permissible limit for Ca2+ Mg2+

2 Journal of Chemistry

Na+ and K+ is 80 35 200 and 30mg Lminus1 respectively[30 31] On the basis of these permissible limits 96groundwater samples for Ca2+ 42 for Mg2+ 100 for Na+and 100 for K+ were fit for irrigation purpose

e permissible limit for anions HCO3minus and Clminus is

250mg Lminus1 [30 31] e values of HCO3minus and Clminus in the

groundwater samples varied from 292 to 3720mg Lminus1 and

82 to 2524mg Lminus1 respectively (Table 2) e results onmajor anions revealed that 64 water samples as per thelimit of HCO3

minus and 98 as per the limit of Clminus were observedto be fit for irrigation purpose

33 Total Hardness (TH) In water quality TH is an im-portant parameter whether it has been used for domestic

Table 1 Sampling sites along with the coordinates

S no Sample location Block Source of groundwater Longitude Latitude Altitude (m)1 Nagla KU1

Rudrapur

HP 2901861397 7951723429 1742 Khurpia KU2 HP 2893800460 7952050952 1583 Bara KU3 HP 2887547059 7958577626 1514 Kathangri KU4 HP 2886720898 7964385116 1485 Baghora KU5 HP 2893216090 7972764192 1636 Haldi KU6 HP 2902966348 7947521444 1847 Matkota KU7 HP 2900883778 7940033672 1678 Dungarpur KU8 HP 2910925542 7952622965 2359 Maharajpur KU9 HP 2894565023 7947518752 25310 Rudrapur KU10 HP 2897872029 7939966655 15311 Turka tishor KU11

Khatima

HP 2893867576 7972527877 15412 Jhankat KU12 HP 2894002867 7990025061 16213 Khatima KU13 HP 2892166172 7997217708 15514 Chakarpur KU14 SS 28969117 8001612670 16715 Pachpera KU15 SS 2891784380 799003284 12716 Deori KU16 HP 2899376716 7992128573 17017 Barhani KU17

Bazpur

HP 2920438305 7920892647 18418 Seekaniya KU18 HP 2903828582 7917878673 15019 Maseet KU19 HP 2908021447 7919893901 16320 Bazpur KU20 HP 2915936853 7915165552 17421 Bannakhera KU21 SS 2924025916 7915940395 19622 Hazeera KU22 HP 2919309604 7921226626 18923 Gumsani (KU23) HP 2913447556 7915176307 17724 Mohali jungle KU24 HP 2915465869 7926299815 18025 Sultanpur patti KU25

Gadarpur

SS 2915738948 7906430293 16826 Gularbhoj KU26 HP 2911357514 7930314093 16527 Gadarpur KU27 HP 2905569688 7923079049 16628 Dinehpur KU28 SS 2905331738 7932256362 17629 Gularbhoj KU29 HP 2911357514 7930314093 16530 Singhali KU30 HP 292178301 7917684401 20131 Jhagarpuri KU31 HP 2906149689 792233027 16032 Fatehganj KU32

Kashipur

HP 2909195119 7921388612 17733 Mandua Khera KU33 HP 2913092602 7894894251 16234 Kanakpur KU34 SS 2916310206 7897692242 17335 Kanchnal Gosai KU35 HP 2917990566 7898805976 16936 Nandrampur KU36 HP 291864069 790160997 17837 Dhakia Kalan KU37 HP 2920987463 790391834 16538 Bhimnagar KU38 SS 2924697166 790273784 18839 Chandpur KU39 SS 2927920450 7901905650 19940 Chaity more KU40 HP 2919604884 78977699178 17641 Manpur KU41 HP 2923402707 7896438855 16942 Hempur kechari KU42

Jaspur

HP 2930418079 7897646790 22943 Bharatpur KU43 HP 2924817043 7891853846 18644 Karanpur KU44 HP 2927077540 7892668359 18645 Haldua KU45 SS 2924366721 7888074054 18346 Narayanpur KU46 HP 2926560579 7885106087 18747 Patrampur KU47 HP 2933296726 7887312241 21148 Mandua Khera KU48 HP 2929226677 7882597353 19049 Birpuri KU49 SS 2931519877 7882405974 18650 Kasampur KU50 SS 2926969627 7880603843 187HP hand pump SS summer savil

Journal of Chemistry 3

irrigation and industrial purpose e presence of alkalineEarth metals causes hardness of water which prevents thelather with soap and increases the boiling point Amount of

calcium and magnesium ions in some of the collectedsamples was high When calcium reacts with water eitherCaCO3 is formed in the form of limestone and chalk or

India

Udham singh nagarlocation of sampling point

Kilometres

0 3000

Uttarakhand

Sampling point

N

EW

S

Figure 1 Location map of the sampling sites


CaSO4 is formed e major source of Mg in groundwater isdolomite CaMg(CO3)2 According to Sawyer and McCarthy(1967) [32] water can be categorized as soft (gt75mg Lminus1)moderately hard (75 to 150mg Lminus1) hard (150 to 300mgLminus1) and very hard (above 300mg Lminus1) In the present studyTH varied from 155 to 539mg Lminus1 indicating hard to veryhard nature of waterirty-nine samples had hard categorywhile 20 samples (11 samples) had hardness higher than300mg Lminus1 which is a desirable limit for drinking purpose(Table 2)

34 Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard (SAH) e groundwaterbecomes saline if high salt content is present e evaluationof salinity hazard is an important parameter of agriculturewater as high salt content of irrigation water causes the soilto become saline and it also adversely affects the salt intakeefficiency of the plants Electrical conductivity (EC) and totaldissolved solid (TDS) values are measure of salinity hazardof irrigation water In the present study the values of EC andTDS ranged from 353 to 1274 microSndash1 cmminus1 and 229 to 828mgLminus1 respectively (Table 2) According to the limiting value[33] of TDS for water suitability for irrigation purpose 28groundwater samples belonged to the moderate categoryFurthermore the classification and distribution ofgroundwater samples with respect to salinity (EC) is given inTable 3 e water samples were classified into four groupson the basis of salinity [34] Irrigation water quality based onsalinity indicated that no water sample belonged to theexcellent category (C1) Eighty-six percent of the samplesbelonged to the C2 class and remaining 14 was found inthe C3 class On the basis of salinity none of the sampleswere observed to be unfit for irrigation purpose

35 United States Salinity Laboratory (USSL) DiagramUSSL diagram has been used to study the quality ofgroundwater suitability for irrigation purpose [35] e SARand EC values of water samples of Udham Singh NagarDistrict were plotted in the graphical representation (Fig-ure 2) and found that 43 samples fall in C2S1 (mediumsalinity with low sodium category) and remaining 7 samplesfall in C3S1 (high salinity and low sodium category) C3S1-type water cannot be used on soil with restricted drainageBhandari and Joshi (2013) reported that 98 of spring watersamples from Almora district of Uttarakhand fall in C1S1which indicated suitability of these samples for irrigationpurpose [36]

36 Wilcox Diagram Wilcox diagram is plotted for classi-fication of water for irrigation suitability [37] In this dia-gram the EC was plotted against the percentage of NaAccording toWilcox classification 86 of the water samplesbelonged to the excellent good category and remaining 14groundwater samples fall in good category (Figure 3)Bahukhandi et al [21] assessed ground and surface waterquality of Hardwar district Uttarakhand and observed thataccording to the US salinity diagram most of the groundand surface water samples fall in C1S1 and C2S1 categories

while according to Wilcox diagram large number of watersamples was within excellent to good category [38]

37 Sodium Hazard (SH)

371 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) According to Gho-lami and Srikantaswamy [39] the alkali or sodium hazardcan be expressed in terms of sodium adsorption ratio So-dium hazard is the main parameter for assessment ofgroundwater suitability for irrigation purpose Sodium-enriched groundwater is unsuitable for irrigation of agri-cultural lands Biswas et al [40] reported that excess sodiumin water produces undesirable effect of changing soil per-meability and water infiltration due to breakdown in thephysical structure of the soil In a previous study the SARvalues ranging from 0 to 10 were measured as excellent10ndash18 were measured as good and values greater than 18were measured as unsuitable for irrigation purpose [41] Inthe present study the SAR values ranged between 001 and149 and thus were classified as the S1 level which belongedto an excellent category for irrigation purpose (Table 4)Shahidullah et al reported groundwater quality ofMymensingh district in Bangladesh and suggested that therewas a linear relationship between sodium adsorption ratio(SAR) and soluble sodium percentage (SSP) and also ob-served that groundwater could be safely used for long-termirrigation purpose [42] Dudeja et al have also reported thatthe groundwater of Doon valley in outer Himalaya Uttar-akhand had suitability for drinking and irrigation purpose[17] Seth et al studied that Kosi river water in Almoradistrict Uttarakhand could not be used for drinking pur-pose while it was found to be suitable for irrigation purposeon the basis of SAR Na and RSC [20]

372 Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP) According toNagarju et al the percentage of soluble sodium is an im-portant parameter in classifying irrigation water in terms ofsoil permeability [43] Sodium ion present in irrigation watertends to be exchanged by Mg2+ and Ca2+ ions present in clayparticles is exchange process reduces the permeability ofsoil and causes poor internal drainage and hardening of soilwhich further adversely affects the soil quality and seedlingemergence [44] Additionally high levels of sodium en-courage combination of sodium with chloride and car-bonates generating salinity and alkalinity in soils Excessivesoil salinity and alkalinity are harmful for plant growth andcrop productivitye classification of irrigation water basedon soluble sodium percentage (SSP) is given by Todd [45]He classified the irrigation water quality into 5 categories(excellent good permissible doubtful and unsuitable) Inthe present study the soluble sodium percentage varied from03 to 354 which suggested that all the groundwatersamples had excellent to good quality for irrigation purpose(Table 4)

373 Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) e quantity ofcarbonate and bicarbonate surplus to that of alkaline Earth


metal ions (Ca2+ and Mg2+) also influences the suitability ofgroundwater for irrigation purpose [37] is surplusamount of carbonate and bicarbonate is called residualsodium carbonate (RSC) Higher RSC values indicate thatmuch of the calcium and some magnesium ions get pre-cipitated from the solution and thus the percentage ofsodium increases in water and soil particles which in turnincreases the potential for sodium hazard e RSC values of

the collected water samples varied in between minus492 and 072meq Lminus1 Based on the RSC values all samples were found tobe safe for agriculture purpose (Table 5)

38 Magnesium Hazard (MH) In the natural water systemmagnesium and calcium maintain a state of equilibriumHigh value of any one of the cations can increase soil pH and

Table 2 Chemical parameters of the collected water samples from Udham Singh Nagar district

Samplinglocation pH EC

(μS cmminus1)TH

(mgmiddotLminus1)Clminus

(mgmiddotLminus1)HCO minus

3(mgmiddotLminus1)

SO 2minus4

(mgmiddotLminus1)NO minus

3(mgmiddotLminus1)

CO 2minus3

(mgmiddotLminus1)Ca2+

(mgmiddotLminus1)Mg2+

(mgmiddotLminus1)Na+

(mgmiddotLminus1)K+

(mgmiddotLminus1)TDS

(mgmiddotLminus1)

KU1 779 1131 444 1270 3383 827 1939 0 588 722 620 270 735KU2 799 1274 539 2524 3567 167 2259 0 1400 460 420 16 828KU3 849 416 207 184 1960 238 001 9 320 310 180 12 270KU4 771 515 237 284 2300 189 032 0 420 320 183 10 335KU5 832 692 277 720 2952 227 001 3 500 500 200 56 450KU6 792 533 255 130 2370 252 982 0 420 365 100 120 346KU7 797 372 444 227 1530 190 500 0 400 188 90 17 242KU8 841 401 383 142 1599 290 874 6 420 240 72 16 261KU9 779 390 169 430 1292 216 085 0 440 180 83 09 254KU10 757 666 263 312 2560 584 1948 0 580 320 410 64 433KU11 832 744 286 1446 1760 472 1012 3 460 340 470 21 484KU12 805 1022 335 1134 3160 669 5466 0 380 850 125 00 664KU13 822 810 400 511 3220 409 048 0 820 400 340 11 527KU14 816 401 275 340 1625 164 007 0 500 141 120 13 261KU15 845 545 339 284 2450 02 006 9 280 470 84 07 354KU16 836 645 280 260 2790 282 134 3 520 380 234 95 419KU17 857 705 350 355 1661 1247 073 12 600 450 248 14 458KU18 797 850 504 766 3250 438 064 0 300 790 198 13 440KU19 779 766 275 709 2280 864 554 0 520 352 315 123 498KU20 84 955 239 142 2910 1500 1947 3 700 400 395 552 621KU21 786 750 275 227 3600 193 4597 0 540 352 300 124 488KU22 839 755 200 1418 3720 377 550 3 480 559 136 08 491KU23 825 710 360 1985 2370 781 007 0 500 352 376 124 462KU24 835 645 290 1701 3220 392 002 3 460 380 126 11 419KU25 806 481 224 1985 1730 577 523 0 560 242 124 07 313KU26 794 530 285 1418 2410 300 379 0 600 304 04 00 345KU27 833 460 259 1134 2337 87 573 3 400 243 163 13 299KU28 776 741 240 85 2290 1504 000 0 480 583 119 13 482KU29 838 635 190 2836 2880 302 012 6 600 340 120 13 413KU30 83 614 165 2552 2740 526 113 0 360 326 297 11 399KU31 815 602 200 2552 2330 496 008 0 400 450 194 15 391KU32 832 487 200 709 1870 14 015 3 320 283 161 12 317KU33 86 611 261 1701 2330 194 2900 15 400 387 314 13 397KU34 811 579 260 3404 1870 523 022 0 560 243 300 15 376KU35 795 390 220 1985 1720 112 056 0 440 194 98 16 254KU36 787 353 436 2552 1500 88 504 0 380 170 75 09 229KU37 808 392 155 2552 1570 117 636 0 360 267 75 08 255KU38 823 413 200 1985 1907 60 015 0 400 243 119 13 268KU39 859 690 215 13045 1800 59 007 12 460 356 186 113 449KU40 823 540 240 1418 2583 176 458 0 520 316 110 06 351KU41 813 576 230 1985 2490 68 3712 0 560 194 344 13 374KU42 775 920 198 13045 2580 558 018 0 940 488 153 10 598KU43 861 467 221 2836 1968 13 248 12 200 255 385 10 304KU44 804 555 160 2481 2645 16 037 0 460 207 485 10 361KU45 842 520 159 1134 2460 279 919 6 380 292 208 15 338KU46 845 600 349 2836 2330 330 1300 6 520 267 418 08 390KU47 846 540 360 3403 2152 66 713 6 360 340 221 10 351KU48 82 520 165 2268 2830 54 012 0 480 190 241 04 338KU49 816 560 198 241 3130 04 414 0 420 282 193 15 364KU50 855 395 221 283 161 02 012 0 300 206 243 12 257


reduces infiltration capacity of soil which adversely influ-ences the crop yield As the content of magnesiumwas foundto be high in the collected samples magnesium hazard wasevaluated in this study If the value of magnesium hazard ismore than 50 the soil becomes alkaline and its oppositeimpact on crop yield can be observed [46]

According to Khodapanah et al the water samples withMH values higher than the 50 are unsuitable for irrigation[36] In the present study MH values varied from 32 to 81which indicated that 56 samples hadMH values more than50 In the study area the elevated amount of magnesiummight be due to dissolution of dolomite In a study from

Table 3 Classification and distribution of water quality based on salinity

Level Salinity(microS cmminus1) Hazards and limitation Number of samples

C1 lt250 Low hazards and no detrimental effects on the plants and no accumulation insoil is expected No

C2 250ndash750 Stress can be shown by sensitive plants and salt accumulation in soil can beprevented due to moderate leaching 43 samples

C3 750ndash2250 Most plants affected by salinity (salt-tolerant plants are needed) carefulirrigation good drainage and leaching required

7 samples (KU1 KU2 KU12 KU19KU20 KU21 and KU42)

C4 gt2250 Unsuitable for irrigation except some highly salt-resistant plants excellentdrainage frequent leaching and intensive management required -

100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30

Figure 2 USSL salinity diagram indicating classification of water for irrigation

Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble

Permissible to doubtfulDoubtful to unsuitable

Unsuitable

5 10 15 20 25 30 350Total concentration (meqI)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500Electrical conductivity (EC) (microScm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m

Figure 3 Wilcox diagram showing classification of water for irrigation on the basis of percent sodium and EC


Table 4 Calculated parameters of irrigation water quality

Collection Sites SAR RSC SSP MH PI CAI I CAI II Gibbs 1 Gibbs 2KU1 127 minus333 276 67 4366 26369 30698 060 027KU2 078 minus492 148 35 3370 68758 68213 024 041KU3 054 minus063 164 61 5224 minus10530 02828 038 009KU4 052 minus096 148 56 4956 minus02270 05931 031 011KU5 048 minus167 133 62 4105 15321 18314 034 020KU6 027 minus121 127 59 4351 minus16560 01922 034 005KU7 029 minus103 109 44 4408 00401 04821 021 013KU8 022 minus125 80 49 4498 04823 02825 017 008KU9 027 minus156 95 40 5242 08963 10496 017 025KU10 107 minus133 261 48 5245 13332 04910 045 011KU11 128 minus211 292 55 2989 35656 34773 052 045KU12 026 minus371 58 79 4262 30301 31164 025 026KU13 077 minus210 170 45 5157 03935 11760 030 014KU14 038 minus099 132 32 4209 03821 07633 021 017KU15 022 minus095 68 73 4684 03209 07046 025 010KU16 060 minus105 181 55 3512 minus09856 04751 039 009KU17 059 minus357 143 81 3578 minus01145 07233 030 018KU18 043 minus267 101 53 4813 17459 20054 041 019KU19 082 minus176 235 49 459 11576 16411 046 024KU20 093 minus191 256 52 5414 minus77824 minus00790 057 005KU21 078 031 225 66 4036 minus18956 03933 044 006KU22 031 minus079 80 54 5131 minus11301 03065 023 004KU23 099 minus151 256 58 4767 minus29227 01445 050 008KU24 033 minus004 96 42 4179 minus07210 03716 023 005KU25 035 minus195 104 45 3639 minus04352 04003 001 010KU26 001 minus154 03 50 5668 minus03561 03960 031 006KU27 050 minus006 157 67 3185 minus20005 01333 022 005KU28 027 minus344 71 48 4268 minus20577 01363 018 004KU29 031 minus087 87 60 5912 01060 06898 046 009KU30 086 001 228 65 4280 minus11137 04585 034 009KU31 050 minus187 134 69 5300 minus05056 05164 035 010KU32 050 minus076 213 61 5073 16345 17628 045 027KU33 084 minus086 219 42 5011 minus24359 01563 036 007KU34 084 minus173 110 42 4988 minus04387 05884 021 015KU35 031 minus098 96 55 5232 minus02744 04011 018 010KU36 025 minus084 80 50 4467 02347 05857 019 015KU37 023 minus142 121 56 5045 minus02343 05943 025 014KU38 036 minus087 174 50 4188 minus04283 03872 039 009KU39 050 minus187 87 36 4472 33814 33154 018 042KU40 030 minus096 258 46 5971 minus08345 02894 039 005KU41 101 minus031 74 68 2905 minus21717 02230 015 007KU42 032 minus448 354 43 7275 34920 35362 066 034KU43 134 053 348 56 6867 minus13253 02749 052 013KU44 149 034 180 46 5602 minus23510 02096 037 009KU45 061 minus006 277 61 5706 minus26284 01065 045 004KU46 117 minus077 177 39 5110 minus14983 03723 039 011KU47 063 minus087 211 53 6396 minus00681 06910 033 014KU48 074 068 166 53 5908 minus10147 04144 034 007KU49 056 072 254 57 6305 minus06411 05103 046 007KU50 083 minus016 03 43 2905 minus05642 03867 046 015

Table 5 Classification of groundwater on the basis of RSC

RSC (meqmiddotLminus1) Quality Hazards Sampleslt125 Good Low with some removal calcium and magnesium from irrigation water 50 samples125ndash250 Doubtful Medium with appreciable removal of calcium and magnesium from irrigation watergt250 Unsuitable High with most calcium and magnesium removed leaving sodium to accumulate


Almora district [47] MH values of spring water varied from039 to 3837 Hence these samples are observed to beunsuitable for irrigation (Table 4)

39 Permeability Index (PI) On the basis of PI valuesgroundwater quality can be assessed for its suitability for

irrigation purpose [48] According to Singh et al theconcentration of Ca2+ Na+ Mg2+ and HCO3

minus influencespermeability of soil profile [49] erefore these cations andanions are used to calculate PI values of water to evaluate itsquality Xu et al correlated high PI values with high amountof sodium and bicarbonate ions in groundwater [50] ehigh levels of HCO3

minus and Na+ ions may be due the

Udham singh nagarElectrical conductivity map

(Microsiemenscm)lt500500ndash1000gt1000

N

EW

S

Figure 5 Spatial distribution map of EC

Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

120 100 80 60 40 20 0140Permeability index (PI)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)

Figure 4 Permeability index diagram classification of groundwater quality


dissolution of carbonate from calcite and dolomite and thecation exchange process

Nagaraju et al classified water quality on the basis of PIinto Classes I II and III Classes I and II indicate good waterquality for irrigation purpose (gt75 and 25-75 permeabilityrespectively) while Class III (up to 25 permeability) water isunsuitable for irrigation [43] A high permeability index isassociated with subsurface structural features which facilitatewidespread contamination of groundwater As per the PIvalues the groundwater samples of the study area fall inClasses II (2905-7275) and were described as having ex-cellent to good permeability [51] (Table 4 and Figure 4)

310 Spatial Distribution Maps Geographical informationsystem (GIS) is the special tool which is used to create spatialdistribution maps indicating suitable and unsuitable zonesbased on water quality parameters [52] In the present studyspatial distribution maps were drawn for EC TH SAR SSPMH and PI

e spatial distribution map of EC is shown in Figure 5is indicated that more than half of the study area wasalkaline in nature e spatial distribution map of THsuggested that central part of the study area had the high THvalue (Figure 6) SAR distribution map indicated that ma-jority of the locations was within the excellent zone (SAR

Udham singh nagarTotal hardness map

lt200200ndash300300ndash400

400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S

Figure 6 Spatial distribution map of TH

Udham singh nagarSar map

lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S

Figure 7 Spatial distribution map of SAR


05ndash10) (Figure 7) Figure 8 is the spatial distribution map ofSSP is map suggested that the SSP values of all thesamples were excellent to good e spatial distributionmaps indicated that groundwater collected from the centralpart of the study area was rich in hardness and salinity alongwith some small patches in the western region e spatialdistribution map of MH is shown in Figure 9 which in-dicated that the eastern part of the study area is having verylow MH values as compared to the western part of the studyarea e spatial distribution map indicated that the westernregion of the study area had the highest PI value Most of the

study area showed permeability index in between 40 and50 (Figure 10)

311 Hydrochemistry

3111 Piper and Durov Diagrams Hydrochemical inter-pretation of the analysed samples has been attempted byplotting the data in the Piper and Durov [53] diagrams(Figure 11) In the Piper diagram analysed chemical data areplotted in two triangular fields which are ultimately pro-jected into an upper diamond-shaped field Similar


20ndash30gt30

Udham singh nagarSodium map

N

EW

S

Figure 8 Spatial distribution map of SSP

N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20

Udham singh nagarMH map

29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime

28deg30prime 28deg30prime

Figure 9 Spatial distribution map of MH


groundwater samples can be identified using this diagram asthey are plotted as a cluster e data plots in the Piper di-agram suggested that 50 samples were the Mg2+-Ca2+-HCO3

minus type along with 48 Ca2+ndashMg2+-Clminustype and onlytwo water samples belonged to the Ca-Na-HCO3 water typee data plots in Piper diagram and Durov diagram revealedthat cations were dominated by Mg2+ followed by Ca2+ andNa+ while anions were dominated byHCO3

minus followed byClminusand SO4

2minus (Figure 11)e results of the study were similar tothe reports on hydrogeochemical analysis of groundwatersamples from India [54] and South Africa [55] where theyobserved that the alkaline earth metals were the dominantmetal ions in groundwater samples High levels of calciummay present naturally but the dominance of sodium and

magnesium ions is due to their dissolution from pollutedrocks and soils [56]

3112 Chloroalkaline Index Scholler observed the changein the chemical composition of groundwater and its flowcan be represented by chloroalkaline indices CAI I and CAIII [28] Positive value of chloroalkaline index revealed direction exchange between Na+ and K+ from water and Ca2+ andMg2+ with the rocks When the value of CAI is negative ionexchange between Mg2+ and Ca2+ from water and Na+ andK+ with rocks happens e resultant value of CAI I waslying in between minus77824 and 68758 and CAI II minus00790 and68213 (Table 4) ese values indicated that 70 studied

lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70

Udham singh nagarPI map

N

EW

S

Figure 10 Spatial distribution map of PI

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)

Figure 11 Classification of water samples according to (a) Piper and (b) Durov diagrams


area belonged to negative category and 30 felt in thepositive zone us the findings clearly indicated that ex-changeable cations can also be used to indicate the chemicalcomposition of groundwater of the study area

3113 Gibbs Diagram Gibbs (1970) proposed a diagram forinterpretation of the mechanism of major ion chemistry ofgroundwater samples [57] e Gibbs diagram explains thethree different fields namely precipitation dominanceevaporation dominance and rock dominance Gibbs ratiowas calculated with the help of the following formula

Gibbs ratio 1 (anion) Clminus + NO3

minus( 1113857

Clminus + NO3minus + HCO3

minus( 1113857

Gibbs ratio 2 (cation) Na+ + K+( )

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)

e concentration of all ions was taken in meq Lminus1Gibbs diagram was plotted in between Gibbs ratio

(cation or anion) and total dissolved solid In the presentstudy area the value of Gibbs ratio 1 ranged from 001 to 066with an average value of 033 e value of Gibbs ratio 2 wasin between 004 and 045 with an average value of 0143(Table 4) From Figure 12 it can be interpreted that most ofthe samples belonged to the rock dominance area repre-senting the influence of the rocks on groundwater aquifer

4 Conclusions

e groundwater of Udham Singh Nagar district was al-kaline and hard to very hard in nature e values plotted onthe USSL diagram suggested that the groundwater samplesbelonged to C2S1 and C3S1 categories indicating mediumto high salinity and low sodium hazardeWilcox diagramsuggested that most of the groundwater samples fall inexcellent to good category and some water samples

belonged to good category On the basis of SAR RSC SSPand PI all the groundwater samples were observed to besuitable for irrigation purpose Based on theMH values 54groundwater samples were found to be unsuitable for irri-gation purpose e most dominated cation was Ca2+ fol-lowed by Mg2+ Na+ and K+ while the order of dominationof anions was HCO3

minusgtClminusgt SO42minusgt NO3

ndash gtCO32minus Pre-

dominance of cations such as magnesium and calcium in thegroundwater indicated pollution to anthropogenic activitiesAll the groundwater samples showed simple mixing of ionsas no ion is predominant

Data Availability

e data (raw process) used to support the finding of thisstudy are included within the research article

Conflicts of Interest

e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

e authors are grateful to the Director CIMFR Dhanbadand Head Department of Chemistry D S B CampusNainital for providing necessary laboratory facilities

References

[1] T Shah ldquoTaming the anarchy ground water governance inSouth Asiardquo Qualitative Journal International Agriculturevol 50 no 2 pp 204ndash207 2009

[2] NSSO Morbidity Health Care and Condition to be AgedNational Sample Survey 60th Round Ministry of Statistics andProgrammed Implementation Government of India NewDelhi India 2006

[3] S K Nag and A Lahiri ldquoHydrochemical characteristics ofgroundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes in

Evaporationdominance

Weatheringdominance

Precipitationdominance

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3

ndash(CIndash + NO3ndash + HCO3

ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

Figure 12 Gibbs diagram for anion and cation against TDS


dwarakeswar watershed area Indiardquo American Journal ofClimate Change vol 1 no 4 pp 217ndash230 2012

[4] F Raihan and J B Alam ldquoAssessment of ground water qualityin surnamganj Bangladeshrdquo Indian Journal EnvironmentalHealth Science Engineering vol 6 no 3 pp 155ndash166 2008

[5] A A Sarkar and A Hasan ldquoWater quality assessment of aground water basin in Bangladesh for irrigation userdquo PakistanJournal of Bioigical Sciences vol 9 no 9 pp 1677ndash1684 2006

[6] M M Baher and M S Reja ldquoHydrochemical characteristicsand quality assessment of shallow ground water in a coastalarea of south west Bangladeshrdquo Environmental Earth Sciencesvol 61 no 5 pp 1065ndash1073 2010

[7] A A Andrew J Shimada T Hosono et al ldquoEvaluation ofground water quality and its suitability drinking and agri-culture uses in banana plain (Mbanga Njmabe) of theCameroon volcanic linerdquo Environmental Geochemistry andHealth vol 33 no 6 pp 559ndash575 2013

[8] M Ackah O Agymang A K Anim et al ldquoAssessment ofground water quality for drinking and irrigation the casestudy of Tweimann Oyrifa community Ga east municipalityGhanardquo International Journal of Ecology and EnvironmentalSciences vol 1 no 3-4 pp 185ndash194 2011

[9] J Ahamad K Longnathan and S Anathakrishnan ldquoAcomparative evaluation of ground water suitability fordrinking and irrigation purpose in Pugular area Karur districtTamilnadu Indiardquo Applied Science Research vol 5 no 1pp 213ndash223 2013

[10] M Nepolian S Chidambram Civya et al ldquoAssessment ofhydrochemical and qualities studies in ground water ofVillupuram district Tamilnadu Indiardquo International ResearchJournal of Earth Sciences vol 4 no 3 pp 1ndash10 2016

[11] S Samaahayira and A C Florrence ldquoEvaluation of groundwater quality for irrigation purpose Rediyarchatram block ofDindigul district Tamilnadu Indiardquo International ResearchJournal of Earth Sciences vol 6 no 5 pp 34ndash39 2017

[12] P Ramamoorthy S Backiraj and R Ajithkumar ldquoEvaluationof ground water quality for drinking and irrigation suitabilitya case study iun Marakkanam block Villupuram districtTamilnadu Indiardquo Journal of Industrial Pollution Controlvol 34 no 2 pp 2159ndash2163 2018

[13] A K Tripathi U K Mishra A Mishra and P Dubey ldquoAs-sessment of groundwater quality of Gurh Tehseel Rewa districtMadhya Pradesh Indiardquo International Journal of Scientific andEngineering Research vol 3 no 9 pp 1ndash12 2012

[14] S K Mishra U K Mishra A K Tripathy A K Singh andA K Mishra ldquoHydrogeochemical studies in Ground waterquality in and sajjanpur area Satna district Madhya PradeshrdquoInternational Journal of Scientific and Engineering Researchvol 4 no 2 pp 1ndash10 2013

[15] A D Sharma S M Rishi and T Kessari ldquoEvaluation ofground water quality and suitability for irrigation anddrinking purpose in south west Punjab India using hydro-chemical approachrdquo Applied Water Sciences vol 7pp 3137ndash3150 2017

[16] S Mahadev A Ahamad J Kushwaha P Singh and P KMishra ldquoGeochemical assessment of ground water quality forits suitability drinking and irrigation purpose in rural areas ofSant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi UPrdquo Geology Ecology andLandscapes vol 2 no 2 pp 127ndash136 2018

[17] D Dudeja S K Bartarya and A K Biyani ldquoHydrochemicaland water quality assessment of groundwater in Doon valleyof outer Himalaya Uttarakhand Indiardquo EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment vol 181 no 1-4 pp 183ndash2042011

[18] C K Jain A Bandopadhyay and A Bhadra ldquoAssessment ofground water quality for irrigation purpose district in NainitalUttarakhand Indiardquo Journal of Indian Water Resources So-ciety vol 32 no 3-4 pp 8ndash14 2012

[19] N S Bhandari and K Nayal ldquoCorrelation study on physico-chemical parameters and quality assessment of Kosi riverwater Uttarakhandrdquo Journal of Chemistry vol 5 no 25 pages 2008

[20] R Seth M M Sharma V K Gupta P Singh R Singh andS Gupta ldquoApplication of technique in the assessment ofground water quality of Udham Singh Nagar UIttarakhandrdquoWater Quality Exposure and Health vol 6 no 4 pp 199ndash2162014

[21] K D Bahukhandi S K Bartarya and N A Siddqui ldquoAs-sessment of ground and surface water quality Haridwardistrict Uttarakhandrdquo International Journal of ChemTechResearch vol 10 no 10 pp 95ndash118 2017

[22] APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWaste Water APHA Washington DC USA 1995

[23] D K Todd Ground Water Hydrology John Wiley and SonsPublications Hoboken NJ USA 3rd edition 1995

[24] H M Raghunath Ground Water Vilely Easteren Ltd NewDelhi India 2nd edition 1987

[25] F M Eaton ldquoSignificance of carbonate in irrigation waterrdquoSoil Science vol 67 pp 112ndash133 1950

[26] I Szabolcs and C Darab ldquoe influence of irrigation water ofhigh sodium carbonate content of soilsrdquo in Proceedings of the8th International Congress of ISSS pp 803ndash812 TsukubaJapan 1964

[27] L D Doneen ldquoSalinization of soils by salt in irrigation waterrdquoTransactions American Geophysical Union vol 35 no 6pp 943ndash950 1964

[28] H Scholler ldquoGeochemistry of groundwaterrdquo in GroundwaterStudies An International Guide for Research and Practicevol 15 pp 1ndash18 UNESCO Paris France 1977

[29] R S Ayers and W Westcat Water Quality for AgricultureFAO Rome Italy 1994

[30] R R Duncan R N Carrow and M Huckle Under StandingWater Quality and Guideline to Management (An Overview ofChallenges of Water Uses on Golf Course 21st Century) USGAFar Hills NJ USA 2000

[31] Z S Safari and A A Safari Sinegani ldquoAresenic and otherwater quality indicators of groundwater in an agriculture areaof Qorveh Plain Kurdistan Iranrdquo American Journal of En-vironmental Sciences vol 12 pp 548ndash555 2012

[32] G N Sawyer and D L McCarthy Chemistry of SnitaryEngineers McGraw-Hill New York NY USA 2nd edition1967

[33] FAOWater Quality for Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations FAO Rome Italy 1989

[34] L A Richards Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline AlkaliSoils Agriculture Vol 160 U S Department of AgricultureWashighton DC USA 1954

[35] US Salinity Laboratory Staff Diagnosis and Improvement ofSaline and Alkali Soil Vol 160 U S Dept AgricultureWashighton DC USA 1954

[36] N Khodapanah W N A Sulaiman and N KhodapanahldquoGround water quality for different purpose in Eshteharddistrict of Tehran Iranrdquo Europian Journal of Scientific Re-search vol 36 pp 543ndash553 2006

[37] A Bokhari and M Khan ldquoDeterministic modelling of AI-madinah AI-munawarah groundwater quality using lumpedparameter approachrdquo Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Earth Sciences vol 5 no 1 pp 89ndash107 1992


[38] L V Wilcox Classification and Use of Irrigation WaterWashington Vol 19 US Department of Agriculture Circular)Washighton DC USA 1954

[39] S Gholami and S Srikantaswamy ldquoAnalysis of agricultureimpact on the Curvery river water around KRS Damrdquo WorldApplied Science Journal vol 6 pp 1157ndash1169 2009

[40] S N Biswas H Mohabey andM L Malik ldquoAssessment of theirrigation water quality of river Ganga in Haridwar districtrdquoAsian Journal of Chemistry vol 16 2002

[41] B Herman Groundwater Hydrology International StudentEdition) Boston MA USA 1978

[42] S M Shahidullah M A Hakim M S Alam andA T M Shansuddoha ldquoAssessment of ground water qualityin a selected area of Bangladeshrdquo Pakistan Journal BiologicalSciences vol 3 no 2 pp 246ndash249 2000

[43] A Nagarju S Suresh K Killaham and K A Hudson-Edwards ldquoHydrogeochemistry of waters of manampeta baritemining area Cuddapah Basin Andhra Pradesh Indiardquo JournalTurkish Journal Engineering Environmental Science vol 30pp 203ndash219 2006

[44] M N Tijani ldquoHydrogeochemical assessment of groundwaterin Moro area Kwara state Nigeriardquo Environmental Geologyvol 24 no 3 pp 194ndash202 1994

[45] D K Todd Ground Water Hydrology John Wiley and SonsPublications New York NY USA 3rd edition 1995

[46] A Nagaraju K Sunil Kumar and Aejaswi ldquoAssessment ofgroundwater quality for irrigation a case study from Ban-dalamottu lead mining area Guntur district Andhra PradeshSouth IndiardquoAppliedWater Science vol 4 no 4 pp 385ndash3962014

[47] N S Bhandari and H K Joshi ldquoQuality of spring water usedfor irrigation in the Almora district of Uttarakhand IndiardquoChinese Journal of Geochemistry vol 32 no 2 pp 130ndash1362013

[48] K S Rawat S K Singh and S K Gautam ldquoAssessment ofground water quality for irrigation use a Peninsular casestudyrdquo Applied Water Science vol 8 no 8 pp 233ndash26572018

[49] S K Singh P K Srivastav D Singh D Han S K Gautamand A C Pande ldquoModeling ground water quality over ahumid subtropical region using numerical indices earthobservation datasets and X ray diffraction techniques A casestudy of Allahabad district Indiardquo Environmental Geochem-ical Health vol 37 no 1 pp 157ndash180 2015

[50] P Xu W Feng H Qian and Q Zhang ldquoHydrogeochemicalcharacterization and irrigation quality assessment of shallowgroundwater in the central-western Guanzhong basinChinardquo International Journal of Environmental Research andPublic Health vol 16 no 9 p 1492 2019

[51] P A Domenico and F W Schwartz Physical and ChemicalHydrology Wiley New York NY USA 1990

[52] M A Sheikh C Azad S Mukherjee and R Kumari ldquoAnassessment of groundwater salinization in Haryana state inIndia using hydrochemical tools in association with GISrdquoEnvironmental Earth Sciences vol 76 p 465 2017

[53] S A Durov ldquoClassification of natural waters and graphicrepresentation of their compositionrdquo Doklady AkademiiSSSR vol 59 pp 87ndash90 1948

[54] P Ravikumar R K Somashekar and K L Prakash ldquoAcomparative study on usage of Durov and Piper diagrams tointerpret hydrochemical processes in groundwater fromSRLIS river basin Karnataka Indiardquo Elixir Earth Sciencesvol 80 pp 31073ndash31077 2015

[55] J Nyika E Onyari M Dinka and S Mishra ldquoAnalysis ofparticle size distribution of landfill contaminated soils andtheir mineralogical compositionrdquo Particulate Science andTechnology vol 12 pp 1ndash11 2019

[56] B M Hussien and A S Faiyad ldquoModeling the hydro-geochemical processes and source of ions in the groundwaterof aquifers within kasra-nukhaib region (west Iraq)rdquo Inter-national Journal of Geosciences vol 7 no 10 pp 1156ndash11812016

[57] R J Gibbs ldquoMechanism controlling world water chemistryrdquoScience vol 170 pp 1081ndash1090 1977


longitudes 78deg45primeN and 80deg08primeN e district Udham SinghNagar covers Champawat and Nainital district in Northregion of Uttarakhand south region with Pilibhit Mor-adabad and Bareilly district of UP and Biznor district of UPon the west and Nepal on the east

21 Collection of Samples Fifty groundwater samples (handpump and dug well) were collected in premonsoon season inthe year 2018 from different sites of Khatima BazpurGadarpur Kashipur Jaspur Kicha and Sitarganj blocks ofUdham Singh Nagar district Uttarakhand (Table 1 Fig-ure 1) e samples were collected in prewashed polyeth-ylene narrow mouth bottles (three times rinsed with samewater to be sampled) Locations (longitude latitude andaltitude) of sampling point were measured by using a globalpositioning system (GPS)

22 Chemical Parameters of the Samples Electrical con-ductivity (EC) and pH were measured using a potable kite water samples were filtered with using 045 Milliporemembrane filter paper for the separation of suspendedsolids Sulphate (SO4

2minus) content was determined by the UVspectrophotometric method while chloride (Clminus) and bi-carbonate (HCO3

minus) content were measured by the titrationmethod [22]e detection of Ca2+Mg2+ and total hardness(TH) was done by the titration method while Na+ and K+

were estimated by the flame photometer method [22]

23 Evaluation of Irrigation Water Quality e concen-trations of different parameters were interrelated and ir-rigation indexes like soluble sodium percentage (SSP)sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) residual sodium carbonate(RSC) magnesium hazard (MH) permeability index (PI)and chloroalkaline index (CAI) were calculated to assessgroundwater quality USSL salinity Wilcox permeabilityindex and Gibbs diagrams were drawn with the help ofGrapher free software to assess irrigation quality of collectedwater samples Hydrochemical analysis was evaluated bydrawing Piper and Durov diagrams using Aquachem (2004)software

24 Salinity and Alkalinity Hazard (SAH) Electrical con-ductivity and US Salinity Laboratory diagram helped inexplaining salinity and alkalinity hazard in the study area

25 Sodium Hazard (SH) Sodium hazard was assessed byevaluating soluble sodium percentage and sodium absorp-tion ratio and drawing Wilcox diagram

251 Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP) Soluble sodiumpercentage (SSP) was calculated by employing the equationgiven by Todd [23] e ionic concentration was presentedin meq Lminus1

SSP Na+ + K+( )

Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+ + K+( 1113857times 100 (1)

252 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) SAR was calculatedusing the equation given by Raghunath [24] e concen-tration of the ions was expressed in meq Lminus1

SAR Na+

Ca2+ + Mg2+( 111385721113969 (2)

253 Carbonate and Bicarbonate Hazard (CBH)Carbonate and bicarbonate hazard was assessed by evalu-ating soluble sodium carbonate

254 Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) is was evaluatedemploying the following equation of Eaton [25]

RSC HCO3minus

+ CO32minus

1113872 1113873 minus Ca2++ Mg2+

1113872 1113873 (3)

255 Magnesium Hazard (MH) is was evaluated by theequation given by Szabolcs and Darab [26] where theconcentration of each cation was expressed in meq Lminus1

MH Mg2+

Ca2+ + Mg2+( 1113857times 100 (4)

26 Permeability Index (PI) Permeability index (PI) wasused to classify the irrigation water quality and was calcu-lated by the formula given by Doneen [27] e concen-tration of all ions was taken in meq Lminus1

PI Na+ +

HCO3

minus1113968

Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+( 1113857times 100 (5)

27Chloroalkaline Index (CAI) Chloroalkaline index (CAI Iand CAI II) was calculated by the formula given by Scholler[28]

CAI I Clminus minusNa+ + K+( )

Clminus

CAI II Clminus minusNa+ + K+( )

SO42minus + HCO3

minus + NO3minus + CO3

2minus1113858 1113859

(6)

3 Results and Discussion

31 pH e term pH expressed to describe the intensity ofacidic and alkaline nature of a solution e pH value of thegroundwater samples in the study area lie in between 757and 861 All the groundwater samples belonged to the safelimit for irrigation purpose [29]

32Water Quality Based on the Absolute Ions In the presentstudy area the concentration of cations lies from 200 to1400mg Lminus1 for Ca2+ 141 to 850mg Lminus1 for Mg2+ 04 to620mg Lminus1 for Na+ and 00 to 552mg Lminus1 for K+ (Table 2)In irrigation water the permissible limit for Ca2+ Mg2+











Rudrapur


Khatima


Bazpur


Gadarpur


Kashipur


Jaspur





India


Kilometres

0 3000

Uttarakhand

Sampling point

N

EW

S


















(μS cmminus1)TH



3(mgmiddotLminus1)

SO 2minus4


3(mgmiddotLminus1)

CO 2minus3




(mgmiddotLminus1)K+


(mgmiddotLminus1)












100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30


Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble


Unsuitable



0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m















N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)





































































Rudrapur


Khatima


Bazpur


Gadarpur


Kashipur


Jaspur





India


Kilometres

0 3000

Uttarakhand

Sampling point

N

EW

S


















(μS cmminus1)TH



3(mgmiddotLminus1)

SO 2minus4


3(mgmiddotLminus1)

CO 2minus3




(mgmiddotLminus1)K+


(mgmiddotLminus1)












100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30


Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble


Unsuitable



0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m















N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)






























































India


Kilometres

0 3000

Uttarakhand

Sampling point

N

EW

S


















(μS cmminus1)TH



3(mgmiddotLminus1)

SO 2minus4


3(mgmiddotLminus1)

CO 2minus3




(mgmiddotLminus1)K+


(mgmiddotLminus1)












100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30


Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble


Unsuitable



0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m















N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)











































































(μS cmminus1)TH



3(mgmiddotLminus1)

SO 2minus4


3(mgmiddotLminus1)

CO 2minus3




(mgmiddotLminus1)K+


(mgmiddotLminus1)












100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30


Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble


Unsuitable



0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m















N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)





































































100C1

Low

Med

ium

Hig

hV

hig

hS2

S3S4

S1

Salinity hazard

Sodi

um (a

lkal

i) ha

zard

Sodi

um ad

sorp

tion

ratio

(SA

R)

MediumLowC2

HighC3

VhighC4

250 750 22500

10

20

0

2

4

68

101214

16

18

2022

24

26

28

30

32

30


Exce

llent

to g

ood

Goo

d to

per

miss

ible

Dou

ble t

o un

suita

ble

Uns

uita

ble


Unsuitable



0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent s

odiu

m















N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)








































































N

EW

S


Class-II

Class-I

25

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y

75

max

imum

per

mea

bilit

y


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tota

l con

cent

ratio

n (m

eqI)









400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)


































































400ndash500gt500

N

EW

S



lt0505ndash1gt1

N

EW

S





311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)






























































311 Hydrochemistry



20ndash30gt30


N

EW

S


N

EW

S0 10

kilometers

gt50lt50

20


29deg30prime

78deg4

2prime78

deg42prime

80deg1

5prime80

deg15prime

29deg30prime










lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)


































































lt3030ndash40

40ndash5050ndash60

60ndash70gt70


N

EW

S


20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Na Ca HCO3 + CO3 Cl

Mg SO4lt= Na + M

gCl +

SO4

=gt

Piper diagram

80 8060 6040 4020 20

(a)

2040

6080

8060

4020

2040

6080 20

4060

80

Na + K

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3 + CO3SO4

700 900 1100 1300 1500Cond

686970717273747576

pH_f

ield

(b)






minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)































































minus( 1113857


minus( 1113857


Na+ + K+ + Ca2+( 1113857

(7)



4 Conclusions






Data Availability




Acknowledgments


References





Weatheringdominance


1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)

02 04 06 08 1 120CIndash + NO3


ndash)


Weatheringdominance


02 04 06 08 1 120Na+ + K+(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Tota

l diss

olve

d so

lids (

mg

Lndash1)




























































evaluation of groundwater quality for suitability of irrigation...

Documents