International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 8, August 2018, pp. 155165, Article ID: IJCIET_09_08_017 Available online at http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=8 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY USING WATER QUALITY INDEX IN UNNAO DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA Vipin Kumar Swaroop Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow-226021, India N. B. Singh Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow-226021, India Apoorv Verma Civil Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow-226021, India ABSTRACT The aim of current research is to assess the groundwater quality in Unnao district which is located in the alluvial plain of River Ganges. Total 11 physico-chemical - - - 2- 2+ 2+ parameters were selected such as pH, Cl , NO3 , F , SO4 , TH, Ca , Mg , TDS, TA and Fe for determining their concentration in each block of the study area and were further utilized to compute Groundwater Quality Index (GWQI) of 16 blocks. Another parameter, Cr (VI) was also taken for determining its suitability of groundwater for drinking purpose, as Unnao district is a hub of numerous industries which increases the possibility of percolation of Cr (VI) into groundwater through pores. The analysis of the study reveals that the pH of all the samples were found to be well within the acceptable limit. Chloride concentration was detected above the desirable limit in 12.5% of samples and 25% samples were having access Fluoride concentration greater than the permissible limit. No samples were found to be contaminated with higher nitrate concentration prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). In 13% samples Sulphate concentration was found exceeding its permissible limit. Total hardness in 75% samples were found very high, only 6.3% samples shows higher calcium concentration than its prescribed limit, Mg2+ concentration was also found higher in 63% samples, about 43.75% samples were having TDS concentration more than its prescribed limit. In all the samples (16 samples) alkalinity was exceeding its prescribed limit by BIS. Iron was found greater than its permissible limit in 75% samples. Cr (VI) was detected above its limit in 12.5% of the total samples that were taken for analysis. The overall study concluded that none of the blocks found in the study area were having excellent groundwater quality while only 25% area belongs to the good water quality, 31.25% and 18.75% of the region were in the scale of poor and very poor water quality respectively and 25% of the area were detected where water is highly unsuitable for drinking.
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 155 [email protected] Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma
Key words: Bureau of Indian Standards, Chromium (VI), Groundwater Quality Index, Physico-chemical Parameter, Unnao District. Cite this Article: Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma, Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(8), 2018, pp. 155- 165. http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=8
1. INTRODUCTION It has been revealed from the past investigations that several man-made activities are responsible for deteriorating the quality of groundwater [1-7]. Due to continuous increase in the demand of water, the rate of groundwater utilisation has become exceedingly more than its recharge rate which eventually leads to lowering of groundwater table [8-9]. The threat of deterioration of groundwater quality is more in shallow wells than deep wells but eventually the water in deep wells also gets contaminated by vertical flow mechanism [10-13]. Major portion of y [14]. These underground reservoirs like aquifers, aquiclude etc. proves to be valuable, as they provide water to rivers in absence of no rainfall. In the present time, groundwater is facing serious threat of contamination. Only 12% of population in India receives good drinking water [15]. Use of groundwater quality index (GWQI) is considered as appropriate method for describing the water quality status in different classes which is simply represented by a score and this score gives the information of water quality of that particular area [16-18]. GWQI gives a clear understanding of various water quality issues by compiling data available in the form of physico-chemical parameters and generating a score that describes water quality [19]. The main aim of the study is to determine the suitability of the groundwater for human consumption based on the GWQI values and compliance of physico-chemical data with the Indian standards values. In the present study, we successfully applied GWQI equation to determine the groundwater quality status in the study area of Unnao district.
2. STUDY AREA
Figure 1 Location map of the study area in Uttar Pradesh state marked with red colour
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 156 [email protected] Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Unnao latitude. The area experiences subtropical climate with average annual rainfall around 850 mm. Since the city lies in the plain of River Ganges, therefore the type of soil found here is alluvial and is highly fertile in nature. The Geographical area of the district is approximately 4589 sq.km. Ganga and Sai are the main rivers of the district forming its western and southern boundary respectively. Unnao is known for its leather tanneries and numerous other small- scale industries which arouses the interest of various research scholars for study. Fig. 1 represents the study area of our research work.
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS Unnao district having 16 different blocks namely Asoha, Auras, Bangarmau, Bighapur, Bichia, Fatehpur Chaurasi, Ganj Moradabad, Hasanganj, Hilauli, Miyanganj, Nawabganj, Purwa, Safipur, Sikanderpur Karan, Sikanderpur Sirausi and Sumerpur. Total 16 samples were taken for the determining the concentration of 11 physico-chemical parameters such as pH, Chloride, Fluoride, Nitrate, Sulphate, Total Hardness, Calcium, Magnesium, Total Dissolved Solid, Alkalinity and Iron, another parameter, Cr (VI) was also taken for determining its suitability for drinking purpose, as Unnao district is a hub of numerous industries which increases the possibility of contamination of groundwater due to Cr (VI), from each block 1 samples has been taken and assigned a unique sample code such as U1, U2, U3, U4, U4, U5, U6, U7, U8, U9, U10, U11, U12, U13, U14, U15 and U16 respectively. All samples were brought to the environmental laboratory of I.E.T., Lucknow for determining the concentration of selected physico-chemical parameters by Indian standard methods (IS 3025) [20] listed in Table 1. Groundwater samples were collected using standardized polyethylene bottles with 1 litre capacity. It was ensured that all the sampling bottles were thoroughly washed with 2% dilute HNO3, in addition to it the bottles were also rinsed with distilled water before taking the samples. It was also assured that all the bottles were washed with sample water about 2-3 times before sampling. Selected physico-chemical parameters were measured within 24 hours of the collection of samples.
Table 1 Water quality parameters with their abbreviations, units and analytical methods used as per IS 3025 Variable Abbreviation Unit Analytical Method pH pH -- Electrometrically by pH meter -1 Chloride Cl mgl Titration by AgNO3 Fluoride F mgl-1 Spectrophotometrically using Zirconium Alizarin -1 Nitrate NO3 mgl -1 Sulphate SO 4 mgl Turbidity method Total Hardness TH mgl-1 EDTA Titration using Eriochrome Black-T Indicator Total dissolved Solids TDS mgl-1 Gravimetric method Calcium Ca mgl-1 EDTA Titration by using muroxide indicator Magnesium Mg mgl-1 EDTA Titration Iron Fe mgl-1 Spectrophotometrically Chromium (VI) Cr (VI) mgl-1 Atomic Absorption spectroscopy After the laboratory analysis the observed values are utilized for the computation of GWQI using equation 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Among 11 parameters physico-chemical parameters Iron was excluded in computation process. The GWQI has been evaluated using the standards of drinking water quality as recommended by BIS (10500:2012) [21]. The weighted arithmetic index method [22] has been used for calculation of GWQI which is mentioned below.
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 157 [email protected] Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma
V n Vio q n * 100 (1) S n Vio
th In equation (1), the variable qn represents quality rating corresponding to n water quality parameter, the measured value of nth parameter at a particular sampling location is given by th Vn, Sn represents the permissible value of n parameter as given by Indian standards and Vio represents the ideal value of nth parameter which is 0 for all parameters except few like pH, DO etc. The unit weight (Wn) of different water quality parameters is inversely proportional to their respective permissible value as prescribed by the BIS (10500:2012). It is calculated using equation 2.
K Wn Sn (2) th In equation (2), W n represents the Unit weight for the n water quality parameter, K th denotes the Proportionality constant and Sn represents Standard permissible value for the n parameter. The overall Groundwater Quality Index was computed by using equation 3.
Wn * q n WQI Wn (3)
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The groundwater samples (16 samples) were analysed for physico-chemical characteristics. The test results of samples are reviewed with respect to IS 10500:2012 [22] shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Range of physico-chemical parameters (minimum, maximum), mean, std. deviation, std. error and IS (10500:2012) acceptable limits Std. Std. IS acceptable Parameters Min. Max. Mean deviation Error Limits 2012 pH 7.02 8.37 7.91 0.32 0.08 6.5-8.5 Cl (mg/l) 20 325 106.15 103.43 25.86 250 F (mg/l) 0.39 1.6 0.7885 0.36 0.09 1.5 NO3 (mg/l) 3.46 36 15.23 11.34 2.84 45 SO4 (mg/l) 5.5 425 86.54 129.81 32.45 200 TH (mg/l) 167 421 240.13 61.18 15.30 200 Ca (mg/l) 19 89 50.19 20.74 5.19 75 Mg (mg/l) 21 49 33.44 8.12 2.03 30 TDS (mg/l) 256 1033 548.42 235.97 58.99 500 Alkalinity (mg/l) 209 445 340.94 80.03 20.01 200 Fe (mg/l) 0.09 1.7 0.62 0.48 0.12 0.3 Cr (VI)+ (mg/l) 0 0.92 0.07 0.23 0.06 0.05
3.1. Correlation Analysis Statistical representation of data depicts the degree of interrelationship between the two variables. Correlation analysis is done as it reveals the closeness of interrelationship between the selected parameters. The correlation coefficient found near to -1 or +1 indicates a linear relationship between that two parameters. Table 3 shows the Correlation matrix of different selected water quality parameters.
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 158 [email protected] Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Table 3 Correlation matrix of different water quality parameters - - - -2 +2 +2 +6 pH Cl F NO3 SO4 TH Ca Mg TDS Alkalinity Fe Cr pH 1 Cl- 0.27 1 F- -0.22 -0.03 1 - NO3 0.27 -0.04 -0.25 1 -2 SO4 0.23 0.87 -0.13 0.01 1 TH 0.02 0.54 0.02 0.28 0.70 1 Ca+2 -0.20 0.40 0.03 0.06 0.48 0.71 1 Mg+2 0.34 -0.01 -0.05 0.52 0.16 0.52 0.27 1 TDS 0.13 0.60 0.03 -0.19 0.70 0.45 0.31 -0.22 1 Alkalinity -0.39 0.54 0.33 -0.37 0.32 0.34 0.52 -0.24 0.43 1 Fe -0.33 -0.11 0.95 -0.29 -0.22 -0.11 -0.12 -0.28 0.07 0.29 1 Cr+6 -0.02 -0.07 0.13 0.15 -0.14 0.03 0.12 0.44 -0.11 0.18 0.01 1
3.2. Statistical Analysis of Parameters The quality of groundwater of study area was assessed as per standard specification given by - - - 2- BIS 2012. The variation of 11 physico-chemical parameters namely pH, Cl , NO3 , F , SO4 , TH, Ca2+, Mg2+, TDS, TA, Fe and Cr in different samples taken from each block of Unnao district is shown in Fig. 2. The test results reveal that pH of water samples in the study area varies from 7.02-8.37 with a mean value of 7.91. All the samples are found suitable in accordance with IS range of pH. Chloride in ground water originating from both natural and man-made sources indicates heavy pollution. The concentration of chloride in the study domain ranges between 20-325 mgl-1 . The minimum (20 mgl-1) concentration of chloride is observed in Sikanderpur Karan, while the maximum (325 mgl-1) concentration is observed at Asoha.
2 (a) Variation of pH 2 (b) Variation of Chloride 2 (c) Variation of Fluoride
2 (d) Variation of Nitrate 2 (e) Variation of Sulphate 2 (f) Variation of Total Hardness
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 159 [email protected] Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma
2 (g) Variation of Calcium 2 (h) Variation of Magnesium 2 (i) Variation of TDS
2 (j) Variation of Alkalinity 2 (k) Variation of Iron 2 (l) Variation of Chromium (VI) Figure 2 Variation of each parameter in 16 sampling station, 2 (a) Variation of pH, 2 (b) Variation of Chloride, 2 (c) Variation of Fluoride, 2 (d) Variation of Nitrate, 2 (e) Variation of Sulphate, 2 (f) Variation of Total Hardness, 2 (g) Variation of Calcium, 2 (h) Variation of Magnesium, 2 (i) Variation of TDS, 2 (j) Variation of Alkalinity, 2 (k) Variation of Iron, 2 (l) variation of Chromium (VI) The result revealed that 12.5% samples of chloride, 25 % samples of fluoride, 12.5% samples of sulphate, 75% samples of total hardness, 6.25% sample of calcium, 62.5% sample of magnesium, 43.75% samples of TDS, 100% samples of alkalinity, 75% samples of iron and 12.5 % samples of Cr (VI) are exceeding the acceptable limit prescribed by Indian Standards shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Percentage of individual parameters exceeding permissible limit
Sample code pH Cl F NO3 SO4 TH Ca Mg TDS Alkalinity Fe Cr (VI) U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 U11 U12 U13 U14 U15 U16 % of samples exceeding acceptable limit 0 12.5 25 0 12.5 75 6.25 62.5 43.75 100 75 12.5 Mark indicates that parameter required attention/ exceeding permissible limit prescribed by IS 10500: 2012
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 160 [email protected] Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India
The fluoride concentration is found within its acceptable limit in 12 blocks of Unnao district while in 4 blocks namely Bighapur, Purwa, Sikanderpur Sirausi and Sumerpur having concentration 1.51 mgl-1, 1.06 mgl -1, 1.08 mgl-1 and 1.6 mgl-1 respectively. It indicates a need for examination of more water samples to ensure the safety of public health. As per the given standard, 45 mgl -1 is the permissible limit of nitrate in drinking water. In our analysis, none of the block of the study area were found to be contaminated with higher nitrate concentration. The maximum nitrate concentration of 36 mgl-1 was observed at Safipur block though it was well within the acceptable limit. In our study area, only two blocks were observed having more than 200 mgl-1 of sulphate concentration which are namely Fatehpur Chaurasi and Asoha. Total hardness concentration (TH) in the study area ranged from 167 to 421 mgl-1 which clearly depicts that hardness concentration was found to be greater than the acceptable limit in 12 blocks. The hardness increases the soap consumption and also contributes to certain minor effects. The calcium concentration in the study area ranged from 19 to 89 mgl-1, only one sample crosses the permissible limit of BIS in Fatehpur Chaurasi block. The magnesium value ranged from 21 to 49 mgl-1. Out of the 16 blocks present in our area, there were 10 blocks where the magnesium concentration in the ground water sample were found to higher than the permissible limit. The maximum value of magnesium was observed at Fatehpur Chaurasi. The concentration of Total Dissolved solid ranges from 256 to 1033 mgl-1. The maximum concentration is found in Asoha block. Asoha block has a poor water quality with 67.31 GWQI score. The alkalinity concentration in the study area ranges from 209 to 445 mgl -1. The result clearly reveals that all of the samples with respect to Indian Standards were within the acceptable limit. The concentration of iron in the study area ranges from 0.1 to 1.7 mgl-1. The results clearly reveal that excluding 3 regions of the study area, all the samples exceeded the acceptable limit of 0.3 mgl-1 provided no relaxation in the upper permissible limit of iron concentration in drinking water. Cr (VI) was detected above its permissible limit at two sampling locations namely Bichhia block and Sikanderpur Sirausi, this may be due to illegal dumping of solid wastes in Bichhia block and along the national highway towards Kanpur in Sikanderpur Sirausi, where it was also observed from the samples that were taken, the water was slightly yellow in colour indicating the presence of Cr (VI). Table 6 gives the complete information about the concentration profile of each block along with GWQI score.
4.3. GWQI Analysis The value of GWQI of 4 blocks reveals that the quality of groundwater is highly unsuitable for drinking purpose. Further water quality status based on GWQI categorized as excellent water quality (GWQI<25), good water quality (GWQI=26-50), poor water quality (GWQI= 51-75), very poor water quality (GWQI=76-100) and unsuitable for drinking (GWQI>100) shown in Table 5. The graphical representation of total GWQI score in different categories shown in fig. 3 [23]. From the fig. 4 it depicts that the red colour in the graph highlights the
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 161 [email protected] Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma blocks where the water is totally unsuitable for drinking purposes, while the blue colour signifies that the groundwater quality is good in that particular block. Green and yellow colour histogram represents block having poor and very poor water quality respectively.
Table 5 Percentage status classification of groundwater quality using GWQI score Percentage of S. No GWQI Status Area 1 0-25 Excellent water quality 0% 2 26-50 Good water quality 25% 3 51-75 Poor water quality 31.25% 4 76-100 Very poor water quality 18.75% 5 100 & above Unsuitable for drinking 25%
Figure 3 Percentage wise distribution of groundwater quality
WQI Status of Different Blocks
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 4 Graphical representation of Groundwater Quality Index in different blocks
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 162 [email protected] Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India
Table 6 Overall concentration values of different physico-chemical parameters at different blocks with their respective GWQI score
+ S.No. Sampling Sample Code pH Cl F NO3 SO4 TH Ca Mg TDS Alkalinity Fe Cr(VI) GWQI Remarks Station 1 Asoha U1 7.84 325 0.67 6.2 381 270 72 22 1033 440 0.54 0 67.31 Poor 2 Auras U2 7.6 146 0.48 3.46 55.4 239 61 21 573 420 0.31 0.01 48.48 Good 3 Bangarmau U3 7.96 22 0.68 14.5 21 224 38 27 1004 350 0.75 0.004 67.78 Poor 4 Bighapur U4 7.0221. 4 1.51 3.6 5.5 275 75 31 489 445 1.6 0.04 130.98 Unsuitable 5 Bichia U5 7.9 67 0.9 23 17 250 62 47 450 389 0.55 0.92 88.15 Very poor 6 Fatehpur U6 8.15 319 0.72 25 425 421 89 49 899 389 0.28 0.03 77.22 Very poor Chaurasi 7 Ganj U7 7.91 51 0.39 29.5 28 169 20 31 379 209 0.2 0.02 43.6 Good Muradabad 8 Hasanganj U8 7.6 39 0.43610.1 29.8 206 48 33 286 389 0.09 0.002 45.6 Good 9 Hilauli U9 8.37 41 0.78 3.6 26 199 61 39 413 259 0.330.0023 79.32 Very poor 10 Miyanganj U10 7.98 39 0.4 29 49 215 61 35 409 251 0.17 0.011 46.05 Good 11 Nawabganj U11 8.3 135 0.7 12 175 272 31 39 650 301 0.42 0.023 70.41 Poor 12 Purwa U12 8.24 180 1.06 28 38 250 61 31 501 420 0.9 0 102.61 Unsuitable 13 Safipur U13 7.88 46 0.65 36 30 289 45 43 256 245 0.51 0.001 66.95 Poor 14 Sikanderpur U14 7.91 20 0.56 4.67 7.89 201 31 30 415.65 259 0.49 0 56.83 Poor Karan 15 Sikanderpur U15 8.04 212 1.08 3.8 65 167 19 29 478 400 1.1 0.1 101.048Unsuitable Sirausi 16 Sumerpur U16 7.9 35 1.6 11.3 31 195 29 28 539 289 1.7 0.03 143.11 Unsuitable 5. CONCLUSIONS The study concluded that the ground water in 4 blocks i.e. Bighapur, Purwa, Sikanderpur Sirausi and Sumerpur is highly unsuitable for drinking purpose as their corresponding GWQI values are more than 100. Due to the presence of chromium (VI) in two blocks above the permissible limit, it becomes the matter of concern for the safety of the inhabitants in that region as chromium is highly toxic to human beings. As mentioned above, only four blocks were in the domain of good drinking water, this also arises the need for ground water authority to take remedial measures in this regard. It can be overall concluded that the drinking water is quite unfit in certain areas but however with some adequate measures it can be prevented from further deterioration.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors are thankful to Technical Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP III) phase III and Ministry of Human Resource development (MHRD), Government of India, for providing research fellowship during the progress of research work. The authors are thankful to the Director, I.E.T., Lucknow for providing research facilities in institutional laboratory. The authors are also thankful to the Head, Civil Engineering Department for his kind support and encouragement.
REFERENCES
[1] Umar R, Khan MMA, Absar A (2006) Groundwater hydrochemistry of a sugarcane cultivation belt in parts of Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 49:9991008
[2] Raju NJ, Reddy TVK (2007) Environmental and urbanization effect on groundwater resources in a pilgrim town of Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, South India. J Appl Geochem 9(2):212223
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 163 [email protected] Vipin Kumar Swaroop, N.B. Singh and Apoorv Verma
[3] Singh UK, Kumar M, Chauhan R, Jha PK, Ramanathan AL, Subramanian V (2008) Assessment of the impact of landfill on groundwater quality: a case study of the Pirana site in western India. Environ Monit Assess 141:309321
[4] Jain CK, Bandyopadhyay A, Bhadra A (2010) Assessment of ground water quality for drinking purpose, district Nainital, Uttarakhand, India. Environ Monit Assess 166:663676
[5] Raju NJ, Shukla UK, Ram P (2011) Hydrogeochemistry for the assessment of ground water quality in Varanasi: a fast-urbanizing centre in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ Monit Assess 173:279300
[6] Oinam JD, Ramanathan AL, Singh G (2012) Geochemical and statistical evaluation of ground water in Imphal and Thoubal district of Manipur, India. J Asian Earth Sci 48:136 149
[7] Rajmohan N, Prathapar SA (2016) Assessment of geochemical processes in the unconfined and confined aquifers in the eastern Ganges Basin: a geochemical approach. Environ Earth Sci 75:1212. doi:10.1007/s12665-016-6017-3
[8] Tiwari VM, Wahr J, Swenson S (2009) Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2009GL039401
[9] Verma A, Pandey G. Study of Some Physico-Chemical Parameters of Groundwater in Gorakhpur District. International Journal of Engineering. 2013 Nov; 2(11).
[10] Lee JJ, Liu CW, Jang CS, Liang CP (2008) Zonal management of multipurpose use of water from arsenic affected aquifers by using a multivariable indicator kriging. J Hydrol 35:260273
[11] Nandimandalam JR (2012) Evaluation of hydro geochemical processes in the Pleistocene aquifers of middle Ganga plain, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ Earth Sci 65:12911308
[12] Jang CS, Chen SK, Kuo YM (2012) Establishing an irrigation management plan of sustainable groundwater based on spatial variability of water quality and quantity. J Hydrol 414-415:201210
[13] Zhai Y, Wang J, Huan H, Zhou J, Wei W (2013) Characterizing the groundwater renewability and evolution of the strongly exploited aquifers of the North China plain by major ions and environmental tracers. J Radio Anal Nucl Chem 296(3):12631274
[14] Mahapatra, S. S., Sahu, M., Patel, R. K., & Panda, B. N. (2012). Prediction of Water Quality Using Principal Component Analysis. Water Quality, Exposure and Health, 4(2), 93104.
[15] Kudesia, V.P. 1980. Water pollution. Pragati Prakasan, Meerut, India, pp. l-12.
[16] Tyagi S, Sharma B, Singh P, Dobhal R. Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index. American Journal of Water Resources. 2013 Aug; 1(3):34-8.
[17] Ketata-Rokbani M, Gueddari M, Bouhlila R. Use of geographical information system and water quality index to assess groundwater quality in El Khairat deep aquifer (Enfidha, Tunisian Sahel). Iran J Energy Environ. 2011 Jan; 2(2):133-44.
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 164 [email protected] Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using Water Quality Index in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India
[18] Vasanthavigar M, Srinivasamoorthy K, Vijayaragavan K, Ganthi RR, Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, Manivannan R, Vasudevan S. Application of water quality index for groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2010 Dec 1; 171(1-4):595-609.
[19] Reza, R., & Singh, G. (2010). Assessment of Ground Water Quality Status by Using Water Quality Index Method in Orissa, India, 9(3), 13921397.
[20] IS 3025, Methods of sampling and test (physical and chemical) for water and wastewater.
[21] BIS. (2012). Indian Standard Drinking Water Specification (Second Revision). Bureau of Indian Standards, IS 10500(May), 111.
[22] crashing the psychological barrier. In Indicators of environmental quality 1972 (pp. 173- 182). Springer, Boston, MA.
[23] Chaterjee, C. and Raziuddin, M.2002. Determination of water quality index (WQI) of a degraded river in Asanol Industrial area, Raniganj, Burdwan, West Bengal. Nature, Environment and pollution Technology, 1(2):181-189.
http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 165 [email protected]