Advertisement

Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 157–180 | Cite as

Modeling groundwater quality over a humid subtropical region using numerical indices, earth observation datasets, and X-ray diffraction technique: a case study of Allahabad district, India

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
  • Prashant K. Srivastava
  • Dharmveer Singh
  • Dawei Han
  • Sandeep Kumar Gautam
  • A. C. Pandey
Original Paper

Abstract

Water is undoubtedly the vital commodity for all living creatures and required for well-being of the human society. The present work is based on the surveys and chemical analyses performed on the collected groundwater samples in a part of the Ganga basin in order to understand the sources and evolution of the water quality in the region. The two standard indices such as water quality index and synthetic pollution index for the classification of water in the region are computed. The soil and sediment analysis are carried out with the help of X-ray diffractometer (XRD) for the identification of possible source of ions in water from rock and soil weathering. The dominant minerals which include quartz, muscovite, plagioclase, and orthoclase are reported in the area. The study further utilizes the multivariate statistical techniques for handling large and complex datasets in order to get better information about the groundwater quality. The following statistical methods such as cluster analysis (CA), factor analysis (FA), and principal component analysis (PCA) are applied to handle the large datasets and to understand the latent structure of the data. Through FA/PCAs, we have identified a total of 3 factors in pre-monsoon and 4 factors in post-monsoon season, which are responsible for the whole data structure. These factors explain 77.62 and 82.39 % of the total variance of the pre- and post-monsoon datasets. On the other hand, CA depicted the regions that have similar pollutants origin. The average value of synthetic pollution index of groundwater during pre-monsoon is 9.27, while during post-monsoon, it has been recorded as 8.74. On the other hand, the average values of water quality index of groundwater during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons are found as 217.59 and 233.02, respectively. The study indicates that there occurs an extensive urbanization with gradual vast development of various small- and large-scale industries, which is responsible for degradation in water quality. The overall analysis reveals that the agricultural runoff, waste disposal, leaching, and irrigation with wastewater are the main causes of groundwater pollution followed by some degree of pollution from geogenic sources such as rock and soil weathering, confirmed through XRD analysis.

Keywords

Water quality index XRD Synthetic pollution index Ganga basin Remote sensing and GIS Multivariate analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University and University Grant Commission, New Delhi, Grant No. (F. No. 42-74/2013(SR) for their technical and financial support, respectively. The views expressed here are those of the authors solely and do not constitute a statement of policy, decision, or position on behalf of NASA or the authors’ affiliated institutions.

References

  1. APHA (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Avvannavar, S. M., & Shrihari, S. (2008). Evaluation of water quality index for drinking purposes for river Netravathi, Mangalore, South India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 143(1–3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, R., & Srivastava, P. K. (2013). Reconstruction of contested landscape: Detecting land cover transformation hosting cultural heritage sites from Central India using remote sensing. Land Use Policy, 34, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, R., & Srivastava, P. K. (2014). Remote sensing based identification of painted rock shelter sites: Appraisal using advanced wide field sensor, neural network and field observations. In P. K. Srivastava, S. Mukherjee, M. Gupta, & T. Islam (Eds.), Remote sensing applications in environmental research (pp. 195–212). Society of Earth Scientists Series. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05906-8_11.
  5. Bennett, P., & Siegel, D. (1987). Increased solubility of quartz in water due to complexing by organic compounds.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis theory and practice (557 p). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chamley, H. (1989). Clay formation through weathering. In Clay sedimentology (pp. 21–50). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, K. (2002). Introduction to geographic information systems. New York.Google Scholar
  9. Clayton, J. L. (1988). Some observations on the stoichiometry of feldspar hydrolysis in granitic soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 17(1), 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole, H. (1970). Bragg’s law and energy sensitive detectors. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 3(5), 405–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, S., Hirata, R., Gomes, D., D’Elia, M., & Paris, M. (2002). Groundwater quality protection: A guide for water utilities, municipal authorities, and environment agencies. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gleick, P. H. (2000). A look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water International, 25(1), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gupta, M., & Srivastava, P. K. (2010). Integrating GIS and remote sensing for identification of groundwater potential zones in the hilly terrain of Pavagarh, Gujarat, India. Water International, 35(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, K., Ver Hoef, J. M., Krivoruchko, K. & Lucas, N. (2001). Using ArcGIS geostatistical analyst, vol. 380. Esri Redlands.Google Scholar
  15. Kacher, J., Landon, C., Adams, B. L., & Fullwood, D. (2009). Bragg’s Law diffraction simulations for electron backscatter diffraction analysis. Ultramicroscopy, 109(9), 1148–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaurish, F. W., & Younos, T. (2007). Developing a standardized water quality index for evaluating surface water quality. JAWRA, 43(2), 533–545.Google Scholar
  17. Krishna, A. K., Satyanarayanan, M., & Govil, P. K. (2009). Assessment of heavy metal pollution in water using multivariate statistical techniques in an industrial area: a case study from Patancheru, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 167(1), 366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu, D., Mausel, P., Brond, E., Iacute, Z., & Moran, E. (2004). Change detection techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 2365–2401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ma, J., Ding, Z., Wei, G., Zhao, H., & Huang, T. (2009). Sources of water pollution and evolution of water quality in the Wuwei basin of Shiyang river, Northwest China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1168–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merchant, J. W. (1994). GIS-based groundwater pollution hazard assessment: A critical review of the DRASTIC model. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 60(9), 1117–1128.Google Scholar
  21. Meybeck, M. (1987). Global chemical weathering of surficial rocks estimated from river dissolved loads. American Journal of Science, 287(5), 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitas, L., & Mitasova, H. (1999). Spatial interpolation. Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications, 1, 481–492.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, D. M., & Reynolds, R. C, Jr. (1989). X-ray diffraction and the identification and analysis of clay minerals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nesbitt, H., & Young, G. (1984). Prediction of some weathering trends of plutonic and volcanic rocks based on thermodynamic and kinetic considerations. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 48(7), 1523–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ouyang, T., Zhu, Z., & Kuang, Y. (2006). Assessing impact of urbanization on river water quality in the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 120(1–3), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patel, D. P., Dholakia, M. B., Naresh, N., & Srivastava, P. K. (2011). Water harvesting structure positioning by using geo-visualization concept and prioritization of mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis in the Lower Tapi Basin. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensin,1–14.Google Scholar
  27. Patel, D. P., Gajjar, C. A., & Srivastava, P. K. (2013). Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis: A remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environmental Earth Sciences, 69(8), 2643–2656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patel, D. P., & Srivastava, P. K. (2013). Flood hazards mitigation analysis using remote sensing and GIS: Correspondence with town planning scheme. Water Resources Management, 27(7), 2353–2368. doi: 10.1007/s11269-013-0291-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reynard, N. S., Prudhomme, C., & Crooks, S. M. (2001). The flood characteristics of large UK rivers: Potential effects of changing climate and land use. Climatic Change, 48(2), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shrestha, S., & Kazama, F. (2007). Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study of the Fuji river basin, Japan. Environmental Modelling and Software, 22(4), 464–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh, K. P., Malik, A., Mohan, D., & Sinha, S. (2004). Multivariate statistical techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality of Gomti River (India)—a case study. Water Research, 38(18), 3980–3992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh, K. P., Malik, A., & Sinha, S. (2005). Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti river (India) using multivariate statistical techniques—A case study. Analytica Chimica Acta, 538(1), 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh, S. K., Singh, C. K., Kumar, K. S., Gupta, R., & Mukherjee, S. (2009). Spatialtemporal monitoring of groundwater using multivariate statistical techniques in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 57(1), 45–54.Google Scholar
  34. Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., Gupta, M., & Mukherjee, S. (2012). Modeling mineral phase change chemistry of groundwater in a rural-urban fringe. Water Science and Technology, 66(7), 1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., Gupta, M., Thakur, J., & Mukherjee, S. (2014). Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem using support vector machine. Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(5), 2245–2255. doi: 10.1007/s12665-013-2628-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., & Pandey, A. C. (2013a). Fluoride contamination mapping of groundwater in northern India integrated with geochemical indicators and GIS. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply. doi: 10.2166/ws.2013.160.
  37. Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., Pandey, A. C., & Gautam, S. K. (2013b). Integrated assessment of groundwater influenced by a confluence river system: Concurrence with remote sensing and geochemical modelling. Water Resources Management, 27(12), 4291–4313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snow, J. (1856). Cholera and the water supply in the south districts of London in 1854. T. Richards.Google Scholar
  39. Srivastava, P. K., Gupta, M., & Mukherjee, S. (2012a). Mapping spatial distribution of pollutants in groundwater of a tropical area of India using remote sensing and GIS. Applied Geomatics, 4(1), 21–32. doi: 10.1007/s12518-011-0072-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Srivastava, P. K., Han, D., Gupta, M., & Mukherjee, S. (2012b). Integrated framework for monitoring groundwater pollution using a geographical information system and multivariate analysis. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57(7), 1453–1472. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2012.716156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Srivastava, P. K., Han, D., Rico-Ramirez, M. A., Bray, M., & Islam, T. (2012c). Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change investigation. Advances in Space Research, 50(9), 1250–1265. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.06.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Srivastava, P. K., Mukherjee, S., Gupta, M., & Singh, S. (2011). Characterizing monsoonal variation on water quality index of River Mahi in India using geographical information system. Water Quality, Exposure and Health, 2(3–4), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Srivastava, P. K., Singh, S. K., Gupta, M., Thakur, J. K., & Mukherjee, S. (2013). Modeling impact of land use change trajectories on groundwater quality using remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 12(12), 2343–2355.Google Scholar
  44. Stallard, R., & Edmond, J. (1987). Geochemistry of the Amazon: 3. Weathering chemistry and limits to dissolved inputs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (19782012), 92(C8), 8293–8302.Google Scholar
  45. Sun, H., Bergstrom, J. C., & Dorfman, J. H. (1992). Estimating the benefits of groundwater contamination control. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24, 63.Google Scholar
  46. Tiwari, T., & Mishra, M. (1985). A preliminary assignment of water quality index of major Indian rivers. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 5(4), 276–279.Google Scholar
  47. Vasanthavigar, M., Srinivasamoorthy, K., Vijayaragavan, K., Ganthi, R. R., Chidambaram, S., Anandhan, P., et al. (2010). Application of water quality index for groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 171(1–4), 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vega, M., Pardo, R., Barrado, E., & Debán, L. (1998). Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis. Water Research, 32(12), 3581–3592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vidyalakshmi, R., Brindha, B., Roosvelt, P. S. B., Rajakumar, S., & Devi, M. P. (2013). Determination of land use stress on drinking water quality in Tiruchirappalli, India Using Derived Indices. Water Quality, Exposure and Health, 5(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waller, R. M. (2001). Ground water and the rural homeowner. US Geological Survey (USGS).Google Scholar
  51. Wu, J., & Segerson, K. (1995). The impact of policies and land characteristics on potential groundwater pollution in Wisconsin. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(4), 1033–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
    • 1
  • Prashant K. Srivastava
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dharmveer Singh
    • 5
  • Dawei Han
    • 4
  • Sandeep Kumar Gautam
    • 6
  • A. C. Pandey
    • 1
  1. 1.K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, IIDS, Nehru Science CentreUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  2. 2.Hydrological Sciences (Code 617)NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterGreenbeltUSA
  3. 3.Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC)University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  5. 5.Department of ChemistryUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  6. 6.School of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations