Water Resources Management

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 4291–4313 | Cite as

Integrated Assessment of Groundwater Influenced by a Confluence River System: Concurrence with Remote Sensing and Geochemical Modelling

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
  • Prashant Kumar Srivastava
  • Avinash Chandra Pandey
  • Sandeep Kumar Gautam
Article

Abstract

There is growing evidence of escalating pollution threats to groundwater owing to change in mineral phase chemistry arose due to high anthropogenic activities. This manuscript primarily deals with the results of physicochemical parameters in relation to the hydro-geochemistry of groundwater influenced by two confluence river systems i.e. Ganga and Yamuna at Allahabad, India. The groundwater samplings was performed in two seasons namely pre-monsoon and post-monsoon respectively to explore the link of seasonality and impact of land use change on mineral phase and quality of groundwater in the region. Computation of saturation index for both the seasons was performed independently by WATEQ4F geochemical model. The analysis indicates that Halite and Brucite solutions showed a very high degree of under-saturation in both seasons indicated that they were largely affected by the dilution. The chemical categorizations of groundwater samples represented through piper diagram suggested a common composition and origin. It has been found that sodium, magnesium and calcium were the most dominant cations present in the groundwater of the study area. Most of the stations, the water facies during the pre-monsoon season was showing a Mg-HCO3 type (70 %) water while in post-monsoon season its dominant nature was Na-HCO3 type (50 %). The investigation of salinity hazard, residual carbonate and magnesium hazard indicates that groundwater during the both pre and post-monsoon for some of the stations were even not fit for irrigation purpose. At some stations high fluoride content were also reported having elevated concentrations of fluoride in the water samples as compared to WHO/BIS standards. The analysis of land use estimated from Landsat TM imagery and seriation analysis based on iterative performances of permutation matrix suggests that the main driving factors for hydro-geochemical changes are governed by the human induced factors followed by the natural processes.

Keywords

Land use Mineral phase Saturation index Satellite Seriation analysis Hydro-geochemistry 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Authors are thankful to the University Grant Commission, Delhi, for providing the financial grant for this research [Grant no. F. No. 42-74/2013 (SR)]. Authors express their special thanks to the Dr. Indresh Kumar, Assistant Technical Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Kanpur, India for analysis of the groundwater samples.

References

  1. APHA A (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association. Inc, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelo CAJ, Postma D (2005) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball JW, Nordstrom DK (1991a) User’s manual for WATEQ4F, with revised thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace, and redox elements in natural watersGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball JW, Nordstrom DK (1991b) WATEQ4F—user’s manual with revised thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace and redox elements in natural waters. US Geol Surv Open File Rep 90:129–185Google Scholar
  5. Ball JW, Nordstrom DK, Survey G (1991) User’s manual for WATEQ4F, with revised thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace, and redox elements in natural watersGoogle Scholar
  6. Berner RA (1981) A new geochemical classification of sedimentary environments. J Sed Res 51(2)Google Scholar
  7. Bharose R, Lal SB, Singh SK, Srivastava PK (2013) Heavy metals pollution in soil-water-vegetation continuum irrigated with ground water and untreated sewage. Bull Environ Sci Res 2(1):1–8Google Scholar
  8. Caraux G, Pinloche S (2005) PermutMatrix: a graphical environment to arrange gene expression profiles in optimal linear order. Bioinformatics 21(7):1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey M, Fretwell B, Mosley N, Smith J (2002) Guidance on the use of permeable reactive barriers for remediating contaminated groundwater. National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre report NC 1: 51Google Scholar
  10. Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, Prasanna M, Srinivasamoorthy K, Vasanthavigar M (2012a) Major ion chemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes controlling groundwater in and around Neyveli Lignite Mines, Tamil Nadu, South India. Arab J Geosci 1–17Google Scholar
  11. Chidambaram S, Prasanna M, Singaraja C, Thilagavathi R, Pethaperumal S, Tirumalesh K (2012b) Study on the saturation index of the carbonates in the groundwater using WATEQ4F, in layered coastal aquifers of Pondicherry. J Geol Soc India 80(6):813–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox MAA, Cox TF (2008) Multidimensional scaling. Handb Data Vis 315–347Google Scholar
  13. Datta P, Tyagi S (1996) Major ion chemistry of groundwater in Delhi area: chemical weathering processes and groundwater flow regime. J Geol Soc India 47:179–188Google Scholar
  14. Domenico PA, Schwartz FW (1990) Physical and chemical hydrogeology, vol 824. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Doneen LD (1964) Notes on water quality in agriculture. Department of Water Science and Engineering. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaton FM(1950) Significance of carbonates in irrigation waters. Soil Science 69(2):123–134Google Scholar
  17. Garrels R, Christ C (1965) Minerals, solutions, and equilibria. Minerals, solutions, and equilibriaGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs RJ (1970) Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science (New York, NY) 170(3962):1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs RJ (1972) Water chemistry of the Amazon River. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 36(9):1061–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbs RJ (1977) Clay mineral segregation in the marine environment. J Sed Res 47(1)Google Scholar
  21. Gowd SS (2005) Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes: a case study of Peddavanka watershed, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 48(6):702–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta M, Srivastava PK (2010) Integrating GIS and remote sensing for identification of groundwater potential zones in the hilly terrain of Pavagarh, Gujarat, India. Water Int 35(2):233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishaku I, Ahmed A, Abubakar M (2011) Assessment of groundwater quality using chemical indices and GIS mapping in Jada area, Northwestern Nigeria. J Earth Sci Geotech Eng 1(1):35–60Google Scholar
  24. Jeevanandam M, Kannan R, Srinivasalu S, Rammohan V (2007) Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality assessment of lower part of the Ponnaiyar River Basin, Cuddalore district, South India. Environ Monit Assess 132(1–3):263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kenoyer GJ, Bowser CJ (1992) Groundwater chemical evolution in a sandy silicate aquifer in northern Wisconsin: 1. Patterns and rates of change. Water Resour Res 28(2):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar M, Kumari K, Ramanathan A, Saxena R (2007) A comparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated districts of Punjab, India. Environ Geol 53(3):553–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakshmanan E, Kannan R, Kumar MS (2003) Major ion chemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes of ground water in a part of Kancheepuram district, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Geosci 10(4):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd J, Heathcote J (1985) Natural inorganic hydrochemistry in relation to groundwater: an introduction. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. McIver JP, Carmines EG (1981) Unidimensional scaling, vol 24. Sage Publications, IncGoogle Scholar
  30. Mukherjee S, Shashtri S, Singh C, Srivastava P, Gupta M (2009) Effect of canal on land use/land cover using remote sensing and GIS. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 37(3):527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nurmi P, Ahonen L, Tuovinen OH (2009) Thermodynamic modelling of iron solubility in sulphide mineral leaching. Adv Mater Res 71:441–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pal R, Poonia S (1979) Dimensions of gypsum bed in relation to residual sodium carbonate of irrigation water, size of gypsum fragments and flow velocity. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 27(1):5–10Google Scholar
  33. Patel DP, Srivastava PK (2013) Flood hazards mitigation analysis using remote sensing and GIS: correspondence with town planning scheme. Water Resour Manag 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11269-013-0291-6
  34. Patel DP, Gajjar CA, Srivastava PK (2012) Prioritization of Malesari mini-watersheds through morphometric analysis: a remote sensing and GIS perspective. Environ Earth Sci 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-2086-0
  35. Piper A (1944) A graphical procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analysis. Trans Am Geophys Union 25:914–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raju NJ (2007) Hydrogeochemical parameters for assessment of groundwater quality in the upper Gunjanaeru River basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Environ Geol 52(6):1067–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramesh K, Elango L (2012) Groundwater quality and its suitability for domestic and agricultural use in Tondiar river basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Monit Assess 184(6):3887–3899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Soil Sci 78(2):154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson FN (1991) Geochemistry of ground water in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico, and CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott CA, Megdal S, Oroz LA, Callegary J, Vandervoet P (2012) Effects of climate change and population growth on the transboundary Santa Cruz aquifer. Clim Res 51(2):159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sharif M, Davis R, Steele K, Kim B, Kresse T, Fazio J (2008) Inverse geochemical modeling of groundwater evolution with emphasis on arsenic in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, Arkansas (USA). J Hydrol 350(1):41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sharma U (2003) Impact of population growth and climate change on the quantity and quality of water resources in the northeast of India. Int Assoc Hydrol Sci Publ 281:349–357Google Scholar
  43. Sharma NK, Bhardwaj S, Srivastava PK, Thanki YJ, Gadhia PK, Gadhia M (2012) Soil chemical changes resulting from irrigating with petrochemical effluents. Int J Environ Sci Technol 9(2):361–370. doi: 10.1007/s13762-012-0039-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh S, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Mukherjee S (2012) Modeling mineral phase change chemistry of groundwater in a rural–urban fringe. Water Sci Technol 66(7):1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh S, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Thakur JK, Mukherjee S (2013a) Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem using support vector machines. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-013-2628-0 Google Scholar
  46. Singh S, Srivastava PK, Pandey AC (2013b) Fluoride contamination mapping of groundwater in Northern India integrated with geochemical indicators and GIS. Water Sci Technol Water Supply. doi: 10.2166/ws2013160 Google Scholar
  47. Srivastava PK, Mukherjee S, Gupta M (2008) Groundwater quality assessment and its relation to land use/land cover using remote sensing and GIS. Proceedings of international groundwater conference on groundwater use—efficiency and sustainability: groundwater and drinking water issues, Jaipur, India, 19–22Google Scholar
  48. Srivastava PK, Mukherjee S, Gupta M (2010) Impact of urbanization on land use/land cover change using remote sensing and GIS: a case study. Int J Ecol Econ Stat 18(S10):106–117Google Scholar
  49. Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Mukherjee S (2012a) Mapping spatial distribution of pollutants in groundwater of a tropical area of India using remote sensing and GIS. App Geomatics 4(1):21–32. doi: 10.1007/s12518-011-0072-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Srivastava PK, Han D, Gupta M, Mukherjee S (2012b) Integrated framework for monitoring groundwater pollution using a geographical information system and multivariate analysis. Hydrol Sci J 57(7):1453–1472. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2012.716156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Bray M, Islam T (2012c) Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change investigation. Adv Space Res 50(9):1250–1265. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2012.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Srivastava PK, Kiran G, Gupta M, Sharma N, Prasad K (2012d) A study on distribution of heavy metal contamination in the vegetables using GIS and analytical technique. Int J Ecol Dev 21(1):89–99Google Scholar
  53. Srivastava PK, Singh S, Gupta M, Thakur JK, Mukherjee S (2012e) Modeling impact of land use change trajectories on groundwater quality using remote sensing and GIS. Environ Eng Manag J (In Press)Google Scholar
  54. Stallard R, Edmond J (1983) Geochemistry of the Amazon 2. The influence of geology and weathering environment on the dissolved load. J Geophys Res 88(C14):9671–9688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szabolcs I, Darab C (1964) The influence of irrigation water of high sodium carbonate content of soils. In: Proceedings of. pp 802–812Google Scholar
  56. Toran LE, Saunders JA (1999) Modeling alternative paths of chemical evolution of Na-HCO3-type groundwater near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Hydrogeol J 7(4):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trivedy R, Goel P (1984) Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies, vol 215. Environmental Publications, KaradGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner RE, Rabalais NN (2003) Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River Basin for 200 years. Bioscience 53(6):563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tyagi S, Datta P, Pruthi N (2009) Hydrochemical appraisal of groundwater and its suitability in the intensive agricultural area of Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 56(5):901–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walter A, Frind E, Blowes D, Ptacek C, Molson J (1994) Modeling of multicomponent reactive transport in groundwater: 1. Model development and evaluation. Water Resour Res 30(11):3137–3148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilcox L (1955) Classification and use of irrigation waters. US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
    • 1
  • Prashant Kumar Srivastava
    • 2
  • Avinash Chandra Pandey
    • 1
  • Sandeep Kumar Gautam
    • 3
  1. 1.K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, IIDS, Nehru Science CentreUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  2. 2.Water and Environment Management Research Centre, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  3. 3.School of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations