Environmental Geology

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 553–574 | Cite as

A comparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated districts of Punjab, India

  • Manish KumarEmail author
  • Kalpana Kumari
  • AL. Ramanathan
  • Rajinder Saxena
Original Article


Punjab is the most cultivated state in India with the highest consumption of fertilizers. Patiala and Muktsar districts are two agricultural dominated districts of Punjab located in extreme south-east and south-west of the state. This paper highlights temporal variations of the groundwater quality and compares its suitability for irrigation and drinking purpose in these two districts. Water samples were collected in March and September 2003, representing the pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, respectively. Water samples were analysed for almost all major cations, anions, dissolved heavy metals and turbidity. Parameters like sodium adsorption ratio, % sodium, residual sodium carbonate, total hardness, potential salinity, Kelley’s ratio, magnesium ratio, index of base exchange and permeability index were calculated on the basis of chemical data. A questionnaire was also used to investigate perception of villagers on taste and odour. Comparison of the concentration of the chemical constituents with WHO (world health organization) drinking water standards of 2004 and various classifications show that present status of groundwater in Patiala is better for irrigation and drinking purposes except for a few locations with a caution that it may deteriorate in near future. In Muktsar, groundwater is not suitable for drinking. Higher total hardness (TH) and total dissolved solids at numerous places indicate the unsuitability of groundwater for drinking and irrigation. Results obtained in this forms baseline data for the utility of groundwater. In terms of monsoon impact, Patiala groundwater shows dilution and flushing but Muktsar samples show excessive leaching of different chemical components into the groundwater leading to the enrichment of different anions and cations indicating pollution from extraneous sources. No clear correlation between the quality parameters studied here and perceived quality in terms of satisfactory taste response were obtained at electrical conductivity values higher than the threshold minimum acceptable value.


Drinking and irrigation utility Groundwater Muktsar Patiala Punjab India 



Author (MK) thanks Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) India for financial grant through a junior research fellowship. The authors also acknowledge the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and TIFAC-ITSAP, Govt. of India for partial funding. First author also like to thank Ms. Rita Chauhan, for her able contribution in map preparation. At last we would like to thank anonymous reviewer and Dr. Roger Herbert Jr. for their useful comments.


  1. APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1467 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water Quality for Agriculture, FAO irrigation and drainage paper 29, Rev. 1. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  3. Catroll D (1962) Rain water as a chemical agent of geological process: a view. USGS Water Supply 1533:18–20Google Scholar
  4. Census of India (2004) Series 4, PunjabGoogle Scholar
  5. CGWB Report (2001) Unpublished report on ground water resources and development potentials of Muktsar district, PunjabGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig E, Anderson MP (1979) The effects of urbanization of ground water quality. A case study of ground water ecosystems. Environ Conserv 30(2):104–130Google Scholar
  7. Datta PS, Deb DL, Tyagi SK (1997) Assessment of groundwater contamination from fertilizers in the Delhi area based on 18O, NO3 and K+ composition. J Conta Hydrol 27:249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Datta SP, Biswas DR, Saharan N, Ghosh SK, Rattan RK (2000) Effect of long-term application of sewage effluents on organic carbon, bioavailable phosphorus, potassium and heavy metals status of soils and uptake of heavy metals by crops. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 48:836–839Google Scholar
  9. Domenico PA, Schwartz FW (1990) Physical and chemical hydrogeology. Wiley, New York, pp 410–420Google Scholar
  10. Eaton FM (1950) Significance of carbonate in irrigation water, soil sciences, vol 69Google Scholar
  11. FAO (1996) Food, agriculture, and food security: developments since the world food conference and prospects, World Food Summit technical background documentGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster SSD (1995) Groundwater for development: an overview of quality constraints. In: Nash H, McCall GJH (eds) Groundwater quality, 17th Special Report. Chapman and Hall, London United, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  13. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner-Outlaw T, Engelman R (1997) Sustaining water, easing scarcity: a second update, revised data for the Population Action International Report. Sustaining Water: Population and the Future of Renewable Water SuppliesGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta SK, Deshpande RD (2004) Water for India in 2050: first-order assessment of available options. Curr Sci 86:1216–1223Google Scholar
  16. GWREC (1997) Report of ground water resource estimation committee, Ministry of water resoursces, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. Handa BK (1975) Geochemistry and genesis of fluoride containing groundwater in India. Groundwater 13:275–281Google Scholar
  18. Hem JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. USGS, Water Supply Paper 2254:264Google Scholar
  19. Karnath KR (1989) Quality of ground water assessment development and management. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, pp 217–275Google Scholar
  20. Kelley WP (1951) Alkali Soils: their formation properties and reclamations. Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar M (2004) An integrated hydrogeochemical and isotopic study of NCR-Delhi, India [in English]. Mphil, Jawaharlal Nehru University, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar M, Ramanathan AL, Rao MS, Kumar B (2006a) Identification and evalution of hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment of Delhi, India. Environ Geol 50:1025–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar M, Sharma B, Ramanathan AL, Rao MS (2006b) Nutrient chemistry of Groundwater of National Capital Territory (NCT), Delhi, India. In: The conference proceedings of International Groundwater Conference (IGC-2006), New Delhi, India, February 1–4, 2006Google Scholar
  24. Kurumbein WC, Graybill FA (1965) An introduction to statistical models in geology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Marechal JC, Dewandel B, Ahmed S, Galeazzi L, Zaidi FK (2006) Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin with irrigated agriculture. J Hydrol 329:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metcalf and Eddy (2000) Wastewater engineering-treatment and reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller GT (1979) Living in the environment, Belmonol California, Wordsworth, p 470Google Scholar
  28. Mohan R, Singh AK, Tripathi JK, Chowdhary GC (2000) Hydrochemistry and quality assessment of ground water in Naini Industrial area, Allahabad district, Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Soc Ind 55:77–89Google Scholar
  29. Nash H, McCall GJH (eds) (1995) Groundwater quality. In: 17th Special Report. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Palaniswami C, Sree Ramulu US (1994) Effects of continuous irrigation with paper factory effluent on soil properties. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 42:139–140Google Scholar
  31. Patel KP, Pandya RR, Maliwal GL, Patel KC, Ramani VP, George V, (2004) Heavy metal content of different effluents and their relative availability in soils irrigated with effluent waters around major industrial cities of Gujarat. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 52:89–94Google Scholar
  32. Pettygrove GS, Asano T (eds) (1985) Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater: a guidance Manual, Lewis Publishers, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  33. Piper AM (1944) A graphical procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analysis. Am Geophys Union Trans 25:914–928Google Scholar
  34. Prasad R (1998) Fertilizer urea, food security, health and the environments. Curr Sci 75:667–683Google Scholar
  35. Ragunath HM (1987) Groundwater. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, pp 563Google Scholar
  36. Rajmohan N, Elango L (2005) Nutrient chemistry of groundwater in an intensively irrigated region of southern India. Environ Geol 47:820–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline alkali soils. US Department of Agriculture, Hand Book 60, pp 160Google Scholar
  38. Saleh A, Al-Ruwaih F, Shehata M (1999) Hydrogeochemical processes operating within the main aquifers of Kuwait. J Arid Environ 42:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sastri JCV (1994) Groundwater chemical quality in river basins, hydrogeochemical modeling. Lecture notes: refresher course, School of Earth Sciences, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  40. Sawyer GN, McCartly DL (1967) Chemistry of sanitary engineers, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 518Google Scholar
  41. Sawyer CN, McCarty PL, Parkin GF (1994) Chemistry for environmental engineering, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoeller H (1977) Geochemistry of groundwater, Chap. 15. In: Groundwater studies: an international guide for research and practice, UNESCO, Paris, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  43. Singh H (1983) Crop production in India. Agri Situation in India 38:635–639Google Scholar
  44. Singh KP (1994) Temporal changes in the chemical quality of ground water in Ludhiana area. Curr Sci 66:375–378Google Scholar
  45. Singh AK (2003) Water resources and their availability. In: Souvenir, National Symposium on Emerging Trends in Agricultural Physics, Indian Society of Agrophysics, New Delhi, 22–24 April 2003, pp 18–29Google Scholar
  46. Smil V (1999) Long-range perspectives on inorganic fertilizers in global agriculture. Second Travis P. Hignett Memorial Lecture, IFDC Lecture Series LS-2, IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Subramanian V, Saxena K (1983) Hydrogeology of ground water in Delhi region of India, Relation of water quality and quantity. In: Proceedings of the Hamberg symposium, IAHS publication no. 146Google Scholar
  48. Takshi KS, Chopra RPS (2004) Monitoring and assessment of groundwater resources in Punjab State. In: Abrol IP, Sharma BR, Sekhon GS (ed) Groundwater use in North-West India: workshop papers, Centre for Advancement of Sustainable Agriculture, New Delhi. pp 8–14Google Scholar
  49. USSL (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA, Handbook, vol 60, p 147Google Scholar
  50. Wenzel WW, Blum WEH (1992) Fluoride speciation and mobility in fluoride contaminated soil and minerals. J Soil Sci 153:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WHO (World Health Organization) (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. In: Report of a WHO Scientific Group: technical report series 778, WHO, Geneva, 74 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. WHO (World Health Organization) (1996a) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd edn. Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information, vol. 2 WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  53. WHO (1996b) Water quality monitoring: A practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes. E&FN Spon, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. WHO (World Health Organization) (2004) Guidelines for drinking-water quality: training pack. WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilcox LV (1955) Classification and use of irrigation waters. USDA, Circular 969, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manish Kumar
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kalpana Kumari
    • 1
  • AL. Ramanathan
    • 1
  • Rajinder Saxena
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Air and Water Science, Department of Earth SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Urban EngineeringTokyo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations