See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351642437

Gradients of salinity in water sources of Batiaghata, Dacope and Koyra of Coastal District,

Article · May 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100152

CITATION READS 1 163

6 authors, including:

Molla Rahman Shaibur Shahnaz Parvin Jashore University of Science and Technology Jessore University of Science and Technology

85 PUBLICATIONS 640 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ishtiaque Ahmmed Md. Hasibur Rahaman Jessore University of Science and Technology Jashore University of Science and Technology

6 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 174 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

APPLICATION OF CERAMIC FILTER FOR IMPROVING SURFACE WATER QUALITY View project

Decolorization of anthraquinone dye Reactive Blue 4 by natural manganese mineral View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Molla Rahman Shaibur on 30 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Gradients of salinity in water sources of Batiaghata, Dacope and of coastal , Bangladesh

Molla Rahman Shaibur ∗, Shahnaz Parvin, Ishtiaque Ahmmed, Md. Hasibur Rahaman, Tusar Kumar Das, Sabiha Sarwar

Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry, Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore 7408, Bangladesh

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Salinity intrusion affects the soils and water for irrigation and drinking purpose severely in coastal Khulna District. Coastal region Therefore, current research was done to find out the salinity gradients in different sources of surface water e.g.-

EC river water, canal water, pond water, together with deep tube well water of Southern parts of Khulna District.

FAO Previously, these sources were used for irrigation and drinking purposes. Water samples were collected from Salinity selected Unions of Batiaghata, Dacope and Koyra Upazila of Khulna District, because these Upzilas were situated South to Northern part in the Southern parts and near to the Bay of Bengal. A total of 51water samples were collected to determine the physical and chemical parameters e.g.- turbidity, electrical conductivity, pH, total dissolved solids, salinity and 2 − 3 − the concentrations of iron (Fe), sulfate (SO4 ), phosphate (PO4 ), sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). The results showed that in most of the cases, the concentrations of the mentioned parameters were very high in the water sources as compared to the standard value set by Bangladesh Bureau of Statics and

World Health Organization. In Koyra, the salinity levels were 9500 mg L −1 in river water, 8535 mg L −1 in canal

water, 2541 mg L −1 in deep tube well water and 1560 was in pond water. Similarly, in the case of canal water

the salinity values were 8535 mg L −1 in Koyra, 7075 mg L −1 in Dacope and 4180 mg L −1 was in Batiaghata. It was found that the salinity was the highest in Koyra and was the lowest in Batiaghata, indicating that salinity increased from North to the South direction. This is because the Southern part is very near to the Bay of Bengal. Among the sources, river water contained the highest salinity and pond water contained the lowest. Salinity trend could be ranked as river water ≥ canal water ≥ deep tube well water ≥ pond water. Current study will be very effective to know the present scenario of salinity and to find out further effective solution in the coastal Khulna region of Bangladesh.

1. Introduction South and by on the West. The total area of the District is 4389.11 Km 2 . Khulna consists of 9 e.g. Batiaghata, Dacope, Salinity is a great problem in the coastal region of the world. Dighalia, Dumuria, Koyra, Paikgachha, Phultala, Rupsa and Terokhada Bangladesh is also not an exceptional country. It is situated near the ( BBS, 2011a ). Among them, Batiaghata, Dacope and Koyra Upazila were coast of Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh is the 12th densely populated coun- our study area, because these Upazila are the most saline prone areas try in the world with the population density of 1115.62 people per in Khulna District ( SRDI, 2010 ). These Upazilas are thought to be very Km 2 ( WB, 2018 ). There are 64 Districts in Bangladesh. Khulna is one much affected with the climate change ( BMD, 2014 ). of them. Geographically, it is in the South-Western zone of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is being affected with various types of cyclones It is located at 22°12’ to 23°59’ North Latitudes and 89°14’ to 89°45’ ( Shaibur et al., 2017a ). Due to super cyclone Sidr and Aila, many drink- East Longitudes. Khulna is bounded by Jashore and Narail Districts on ing water sources in coastal areas were inundated with saline water and the North, by on the East, by the Bay of Bengal on the became unusable for drinking purposes ( FAO, 2009 ; Mallaick al., 2011 ). Problems associated with coastal areas are primarily connected to conta-

Abbreviations: BBS, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; BMD, Bangladesh Meteorological Department; CIESIN, Center for International Earth Science Information in Network; CW, Canal Water; DoE, Department of Environment; DTW, Deep Tube-well Water; EC, Electrical Conductivity; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; GoB, Government of Bangladesh; IWM, Institute of Water Modeling; JUST, Jashore University of Science and Technology; MAR, Magnesium Adsorption Ratio; NTU, Nephelometric Turbidity Unit; PSF, Pond Sand Filter; PW, Pond Water; RW, River Water; SAR, Sodium Adsorption Ratio; SRDI, Soil Resource Development Institute; SSP, Soluble Sodium Percentage; TDS, Total Dissolved Solids; WB, World Bank; WHO, World Health Organization..

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R. Shaibur). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100152 Received 15 April 2021; Received in revised form 13 May 2021; Accepted 13 May 2021 2667-0100/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ) M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 1 Sample location with global positioning system (GPS) coordination of the different sources of water samples of Khulna District. Samples were collected as surface water (SW) and ground water (GW) from Batiaghata, Dacope, and Koyra Upazila.

SID SW Sampling Site GPS Coordination SID GW Sampling Site GPS Coordination

Union Location Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Union Location Latitude (N) Longitude (E)

Batiaghata Upazila

1 SW Jalma Jalma 22° 44 ’ 45.60 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 54.0 ’’ 1 GW Jalma Jalma 22° 45 ’ 43.20 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 55.20 ’’

2 SW Jalma Guptamari 22° 46 ’ 33.60 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 22.80 ’’ 2 GW Batiaghata Kismat Phultala 22° 43 ’ 44.40 ’’ 89° 34 ’ 1.20 ’’

3 SW Batiaghata Kismat Phultala 22° 43 ’ 44.40 ’’ 89° 34 ’ .26.40 ’’ 3 GW Ganga rampur Andharia 22° 41 ’ 9.60 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 8.40 ’’

4 SW Gangarampur Phultala 22° 41 ’ 16.80 ’’ 89° 33 ’ 46.80 ’’ 4 GW Surkhali Shukdara 22° 40 ’ 8.40 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 37.20 ’’

5 SW Gangarampur Andharia 22° 41 ’ 6.0 ’’ 89° 32 ’ 6.0 ’’ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

6 SW Surkhali Shukdara 22° 40 ’ 30.0 ’’ 89° 29 ’ 34.80 ’’ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

7 SW Surkhali Shukdara 22 41 ’ 34.80 ’’ 89° 29 ’ 2.40 ’’ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

8 SW Bajoa West bajoa 22° 33 ’ 45.4 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 50.38 ’’ 5 GW West bajoa West bajoa 22° 33 ’ 45.32 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 50.77 ’’

9 SW Bajoa Middle west bajoa 22° 33 ’ 47.09 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 53.08 ’’ 6 GW Middle west bajoa Middle west bajoa 22° 33 ’ 55.01 ’’ 89° 32 ’ 3.7 ’’

10 SW Dacope Shaberabad 22° 34 ’ 42.67 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 58.54 ’’ 7 GW Shaberabad Shaberabad 22° 34 ’ 44.33 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 59.26 ’’

11 SW Dacope Shaberabad 22° 34 ’ 54.26 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 40.14 ’’ 8 GW Shaberabad Shaberabad 22° 34 ’ 43.75 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 0.91 ’’

12 SW Chalna Gourkhati 22° 35 ’ 39.77 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 38.48 ’’ 9 GW Gourkhati Gourkhati 22° 35 ’ 43.12 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 33.91 ’’

13 SW Chalna Gourkhati 22° 35 ’ 39.77 ’’ 89° 30 ’ 38.48 ’’ 10 GW Gourkhati Gourkhati 22° 35 ’ 59.53 ’’ 89° 31 ’ 6.18 ’’

14 SW Sutar Khali Talirkona 22° 30 ’ 17.35 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 47.46 ’’ 11 GW Talirkona Talirkona 22° 29 ’ 52.91 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 46.09 ’’

15 SW SutarKhali Talirkona 22° 29 ’ 58.67 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 48.86 ’’ 12 GW Talirkona Talirkona 22° 29 ’ 54. 46 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 45.44 ’’

16 SW Kamarkhola Jaliakhali 22° 33 ’ 41.29 ’’ 89° 28 ’ 33.71 ’’ 13 GW Jaliakhali Joynagar 22° 32 ’ 42.72 ’’ 89° 27 ’ 14.29 ’’

17 SW Kamarkhola Kamarkhola 22° 34 ’ 1.7 ’’ 89° 29 ’ 46.75 ’’ 14 GW Kamarkhola Borojaliakhali 22° 33 ’ 58.93 ’’ 89° 27 ’ 30.02 ’’ Koyra Upazila

18 SW Amadi Amadi 22° 28 ’ 21.83 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 19.75 ’’ 15 GW Amadi Amadi 22° 28 ’ 18.19 ’’ 89°17 ’ 11.54 ’’

19 SW Amadi Gosh para 22° 28 ’ 17.8 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 1.9 ’’ 16 GW Amadi Gosh para 22° 28 ’ 13.22 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 2.76 ’’

20 SW Bagali Naranpur 22° 27 ’ 21.74 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 24.94 ’’ 17 GW Bagali Naranpur 22° 27 ’ 20.12 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 29.76 ’’

21 SW Bagali Kusudanga 22° 27 ’ 35.82 ’’ 89° 19 ’ 19.24 ’’ 18 GW Bagali Kusudanga 22° 27 ’ 34.78 ’’ 89° 19 ’ 21 ’’

22 SW Maharajpur Maharajpur 22° 22 ’ 11.53 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 3.46 ’’ 19 GW Maharajpur Maharajpur 22° 21 ’ 41.72 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 33.29 ’’

23 SW Maharajpur Mothbari 22° 22 ’ 50.95 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 37.04 ’’ 20 GW Maharajpur Mothbari 22° 20 ’ 31.85 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 43.59 ’’

24 SW Uttar Bedkashi Padma-pukur 22° 16 ’ 27.34 ’’ 89° 19 ’ 56.42 ’’ 21 GW Uttar Bedkashi Kathkata 22° 18 ’ 9.18 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 32.15 ’’

25 SW Uttar Bedkashi Gabbunia 22° 17 ’ 37.93 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 5.4 ’’ 22 GW Uttar Bedkashi Padma-pukur 22° 16 ’ 4.08 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 49.25 ’’

26 SW Dakshin Bedkashi Chora-mukha 22° 15 ’ 15.19 ’’ 89° 17 ’ 44.59 ’’ 23 GW Dakshin Bedkashi Dakshin bedkashi 22° 16 ’ 4.08 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 49.25 ’’

27 SW Dakshin Bedkashi Chora mukha 22° 15 ’ 47.41 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 29.2 ’’ 24 GW Dakshin Bedkashi Chora mukha 22° 15 ’ 10.04 ’’ 89° 18 ’ 11.74 ’’

N.B: GPS reading were taken on 30 March, 2018. SID = Sample ID.

∗∗ Indicated that data were not collected. gion of freshwater with saline water ( Shaibur et al., 2019c ) and included in the dry season (in winter) saline water intrusion takes place due to well field salinization, crop damage ( Shaibur et al., 2007 , 2008 ) and low pressure of fresh water from North to South resulting in high pres- surface water quality deterioration ( Karro et al., 2004 ; Shaibur et al., sure of saline water from the Bay of Bengal to the North. In the rainy 2019d ). In some areas of coastal Bangladesh, both shallow and deep tube season, saline water covered about 10% of country’s area, but in the wells are off-use due to high salinity and natural causes ( Islam et al., dry season it goes to 40% ( SRDI, 2010 ). This phenomenon is driven 2017a ; Shaibur et al., 2019d ; Mahmud et al., 2020 ). Additionally, by a number of climatological and anthropogenic factors including the soils of some coastal Upazila (e.g. Shyamnagar) of Bangladesh global warming, increasing of cyclones and tidal surges ( Shaibur et al., are saline even after few years of Sidr and Aila ( Shaibur et al., 2017a , 2017b ). The reduction of river water discharged increasing 2017a ). Increasing salinity in soils is the largest limiting factor for groundwater abstraction in excess of refresh ( Mall et al., 2006 ). In plant growth ( Rahman et al., 1993 ). Salinity intrusion in the fresh Bangladesh, about 97% of the population depends on groundwater soil or water is the great problem in the coastal areas ( Shammi et al., sources for drinking purpose ( Shamsudduha, 2013 ). It has been esti- 2016 , 2017 ) and the salinity is being increased during the last few mated that about 20 million people are living along the coast and are decades ( SRDI, 2010 ) and agricultural production of those areas is being affected by varying degrees of salinity ( Khan et al., 2011 ). Extensive decreased. withdrawal of groundwater for irrigation is lowering the water table in About 600 million people are currently living worldwide in low- the aquifer during dry season, changing the chemical composition of elevation coastal zones that are affected by progressive salinization water. ( CIESIN, 2010 ). Salinity intrusion causes due to a decrease of fresh water The factors contributing significantly for developing salinity in soils flow from upstream to lower stream ( Mallick et al., 2011 ; IWM, 2014 ). are tidal flooding during wet season (June to October), direct inunda- Other cause may be due to increase of sea level rise. Excess ground- tion by saline or brackish water and upward or lateral movement of water overdrafts could also be another cause of seawater intrusion saline water during dry season (November to May; Islam, 2003 ). This ( Zektser et al., 2005 ). Increase of salinity in groundwater and variation estimation indicates that Bangladesh has about 2.8 million ha of land of soil salinity are the major concern of the coastal areas of the coun- affected by salinity and poor-quality water ( Chanratchakool, 2007 ). The try ( Mallick et al., 2011 ; IWM, 2014 ). In general, groundwater contains salinity mainly found in Bagerhat, Barguna, Barisal, Bhola, Chandpur, macro and micronutrients essential for human health. Groundwater is Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, Feni, Gopalganj, Jashore, Jhalokati, Khulna, well protected from contamination ( Zektser et al., 2005 ). Lakshmipur, Madaripur, Narail, Noakhali, Patuakhali, Pirojpur, Satkhira It is evident that salinity is increasing day by day in the soils and and Shariatpur of the coastal and offshore lands ( Rasel et al., 2013 ). A water of Bangladesh ( IWM, 2014 ; SRDI, 2010 ; Shammi et al., 2016 ; moderate salinity in soils was found in some parts of Satkhira District 2017 ). Report showed that the salinity affected area in Bangladesh has ( Shaibur et al., 2017b ). By this time some studies were done related increased from 8330 km 2 in 1973 to 10,560 km 2 in 2009 ( SRDI, 2010 ). to salinity of coastal regions in Bangladesh but no specific relation was Salinity intrusion in coastal region of Bangladesh varies seasonally found related to the gradient of salinity in different sources and the di- ( IWM, 2014 ). In the rainy season (June–October) salinity intrusion is rection of salinity intrusion. Therefore, the present research was done minimum due to extreme flow of fresh water from North to South but (1) to find out the salinity levels in different sources of water and (2) to

2 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Fig. 1. Map of the study area, (a) map of Bangladesh, (b) map of Khulna District and (c) map of sampling points of Koyra, Dacope and Batiaghata Upazila. The doted points were the sampling points. These maps were created by using Arc Map GIS 10.5 on 12 April, 2020.

find out the gradients of salinity level in different geographical locations 2.2. Apparatus, water sample collection and preservation in coastal Khulna region. Bottles were cleaned with detergent and were soaked in 0.1 N HCl for 24 h. The bottles were washed again and rinsed with distilled wa- 2. Materials and methods ter properly. All bottles were oven dried at 55 °C for 24 h. A total of 51 samples [PW 10, CW 6, RW 11 and DTW 24] were collected from 2.1. Sampling site the study area. Following standard procedure, samples were collected in 500 ml plastic bottles and were kept airtight. The bottles were labeled The study was conducted in fourteen Unions under Batiaghata, Da- with sample number, name of the place, source, date etc. The parame- cope and Koyra Upazila of Khulna District ( Fig. 1 a,b,c). The reason was ters like turbidity, EC, pH and TDS were measured at the source points that the geo-spatial characteristics e.g. location and physical character- and were acidified with HCl. After that, the samples were kept in ice box istics are different. The area of Batiaghata Upazila is about 248.32 Km 2 and were brought immediately in the Environmental Chemistry Labora- located at 22°34’ to 22°46’ North Latitudes and 89°24’ to 89°37’ East tory, JUST. The samples were stored in the refrigerator (Walton, Model: Longitudes. The area of Dacope Upazila is about 991.57 Km 2 located WNH-3H6-0101, Kaliakoir, Gazipur) till further analysis. at 22°24’ to 22°40’ North Latitudes and 89°24’ to 89°35’ East Longi- tudes. Koyra is the largest Upazila and the Southern part of Khulna. The area is about 1775.41 Km 2 including 951.66 Km 2 in Sundarbans forest 2.3. Sampling time and environmental condition area. The main populated area of Koyra is about 263.0 Km 2 located at 22°12’ to 22°31’ North Latitudes and 89°15’ to 89°26’ East Longitudes The samples were collected from 16 March 2018 to 30 March 2018 ( BBS, 2011a ). The 51 locations were identified with location name and during the clear and sunny day. Humidity was moderate and tempera-

GPS coordination (Table 1). The GPS machine (Model: GPSMAP 78 s; ture was around 20–25 °C. The sampling time was between 10:30 am to India) was used for taking the GPS coordination. 5:30 pm. The samples were collected in March because, this was the dry

3 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 2 Comparison of turbidity and electrical conductivity among pond water, canal water, river water and deep tube well water with standard recommended values of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Health Organization. The values were also compared with the standard value of irrigation water quality recommended by Department of Environment, Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization.

Turbidity (NTU) EC (μS cm −1)

Drinking Water Quality BBS 2011b 10.0 300–1500 WHO, 1984 5.0 750 Batiaghata Upazila SID PW CW RW SID DTW SID PW CW RW SID DTW

1 SW 94.00 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 5.40 1 SW 1660 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 2830

2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 110.0 2 GW 5.90 2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 16,030 2 GW 2110

3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 115.0 3 GW 4.90 3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 17,810 3 GW 2250

4 SW 94.80 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 6.60 4 SW 1693 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 3080

5 SW ∗∗ 96.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 5 SW ∗∗ 12,000 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

6 SW 90.23 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 SW 1700 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

7 SW ∗∗ 98.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 SW ∗∗ 15,500 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ Av . 93.01 97.0 112.5 5.70 1684 13,750 16,920 2568 SD 49.74 47.33 54.91 3.09 900.40 6784.96 8272.09 1410.81 Dacope Upazila

8 SW 98.36 ∗∗ 107.03 5 GW 5.49 8 SW 2300 ∗∗ 19,920 5 GW 4270

9 SW 108.46 ∗∗ 98.70 6 GW 4.39 9 SW 2590 ∗∗ 20,950 6 GW 8120

10 SW 82.09 ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 GW 6.32 10 SW 1910 ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 GW 4850

11 SW ∗∗ 87.3 101.30 8 GW 6.00 11 SW ∗∗ 15,970 20,950 8 GW 5800

12 SW ∗∗ 90.4 103.54 9 GW 8.52 12 SW ∗∗ 12,240 20,950 9 GW 4790

13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 6.40 13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 5130

14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 11 GW 7.73 14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 11 GW 7850

15 SW 101.53 ∗∗ ∗∗ 12 GW 6.65 15 SW 2230 ∗∗ ∗∗ 12 GW 5030

16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 9.22 16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 4750

17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 11.33 17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 8910 Av . 97.61 88.85 102.64 7.21 2258 14,105 20,693 5950 SD 50.82 37.47 53.04 2.03 1176.86 6011.82 10,689.70 1681.26 Koyra Upazila

18 SW 91.84 ∗∗ 109.72 15 GW 4.56 18 SW 2600 ∗∗ 20,950 15 GW 6940

19 SW 108.77 ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 5.26 19 SW 2100 ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 6960

20 SW ∗∗ 87.80 103.47 17 GW 3.17 20 SW ∗∗ 16,180 20,950 17 GW 5180

21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 109.23 18 GW 9.15 21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 20,950 18 GW 5690

22 SW ∗∗ 90.21 124.00 19 GW 5.80 22 SW ∗∗ 19,910 20,950 19 GW 4960

23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 20 GW 4.41 23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 20 GW 5400

24 SW 111.10 ∗∗ ∗∗ 21 GW 9.25 24 SW 2810 ∗∗ ∗∗ 21 GW 8130

25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 22 GW 8.25 25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 22 GW 4920

26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 133.17 23 GW 10.44 26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 20,950 23 GW 5750

27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 13.8 1 27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 10,860 Av . 103.90 89.01 115.92 6.70 2503 18,045 20,950 6479 SD 50.43 37.53 61.64 3.24 1221.39 7659.07 11,041.62 1859.10 Irrigation Water Quality

DoE 1997 ∗∗ 2250

FAO 1976 ∗∗ 700–3000

MRV ∗ ∗∗ 1500

NB: Av . = Average; BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; CW = Canal Water; DoE = Department of Environment; DTW = Deep Tube-Well Water; EC = Electrical Conductivity; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; GW = Ground Water; MRV = Maximum Recommended Value; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit; PW = Pond Water; RW = River Water; SD = Standard Deviation; SID = Sample ID; SW = Surface Water; WHO = World Health Organization

∗ Haroon et al. 2014.

∗∗ Indicates the data were not taken. season and the salinity was the highest during this time. Usually, crops EC/TDS/Temperature tester (HANNA; Model HI 98,312; Waterproof cannot be grown during this dry season. In monsoon, the samples were IP57; Mauritius; Eaton et al., 2005 ). The pH was measured with a digital not collected because salinity goes down due to high rainfall and crops pH meter (EZODO; Model 6011; Waterproof IP5; Taiwan; Eaton et al., 2 − 3- are cultivated for having low salinity. 2005). The concentrations of SO4 , PO4 and Fe were measured with a Spectrophotometer (HACH; Model DR. 3900; USA) by using Powder 2.4. Preparation for analysis Pillow Procedure ( Eaton et al., 2005 ). The concentrations of Na and K were measured with a Flame Photometer (JENWAY; Model PEP7/C; Before analysis, all the instruments were checked and the efficiency UK). Calcium and Mg were measured using Titrimetric Method ( Huq and of the instruments was insured. The standard methods for drinking wa- Alam, 2005 ). ter analysis were followed ( APHA, 1995 ). Certified grade analytical ma- terials were used and the instruments were also calibrated by certified standard solutions or materials. Blank reading was taken in every case. 2.6. Calculation for the terminologists Additionally, ion balance error “IBE ” was also performed accordingly. The SSP or Na% was calculated to determine Na hazards in soil or 2.5. Sample analysis in water ( Todh, 1980 ) as:- ( )

Turbidity was measured with a HACH turbidity meter by the method N a + + K + × 100 Na% = ( ) (1) of USEPA 180.1. The EC, TDS and salinity were measured with an C a 2+ + M g 2+ + N a + + K +

4 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 3 Comparison of pH and total dissolved solids among pond water, canal water, river water and deep tube well water with standard recommended values of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Health Organization. The values were also compared with the standard value of irrigation water quality recommended by Department of Environment, Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization.

pH TDS (mg L −1)

Drinking Water Quality BBS 2011b 6.5–8.5 1000.0 WHO 1984 6.5–8.5 1000.0 Batiaghata Upazila SID PW CW RW SID DTW SID PW CW RW SID DTW

1 SW 7.70 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 7.30 1 SW 830 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 1015

2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 8.80 2 GW 7.10 2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 8015 2 GW 1055

3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 7.30 3 GW 7.90 3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 8905 3 GW 2125

4 SW 7.20 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 7.20 4 SW 1065 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 2540

5 SW ∗∗ 7.60 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 5 SW ∗∗ 6250 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

6 SW 7.50 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 SW 1640 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

7 SW ∗∗ 8.10 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 SW ∗∗ 7750 ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ Av . 7.47 7.85 8.05 7.38 1178 7000 8460 1684 SD 3.99 3.83 3.95 3.95 674.23 3443 4136.05 1051.23 Dacope Upazila

8 SW 7.30 ∗∗ 7.50 5 GW 7.80 8 SW 1150 ∗∗ 6960 5 GW 2135

9 SW 7.70 ∗∗ 8.60 6 GW 6.90 9 SW 1295 ∗∗ 10,475 6 GW 4060

10 SW 7.50 ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 GW 7.80 10 SW 2955 ∗∗ ∗∗ 7 GW 2700

11 SW ∗∗ 7.70 7.40 8 GW 7.10 11 SW ∗∗ 6985 10,475 8 GW 2900

12 SW ∗∗ 8.90 9.50 9 GW 7.40 12 SW ∗∗ 9120 10,475 9 GW 2395

13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 6.80 13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 7565

14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 11 GW 7.00 14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 11 GW 3925

15 SW 7.40 ∗∗ ∗∗ 12 GW 7.00 15 SW 3115 ∗∗ ∗∗ 12 GW 2515

16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 7.30 16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 7375

17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 8.85 17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 8055 Av 7.48 8.30 8.25 7.40 2129 8053 9596 4363 SD 3.86 3.51 4.30 0.62 1255.40 3432.32 5058.30 2366.37 Koyra Upazila

18 SW 7.60 ∗∗ 8.30 15 GW 7.30 18 SW 1800 ∗∗ 10,475 15 GW 3470

19 SW 7.40 ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 7.20 19 SW 1950 ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 3480

20 SW ∗∗ 8.40 7.90 17 GW 6.90 20 SW ∗∗ 8090 10,475 17 GW 2090

21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 7.80 18 GW 7.60 21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 10,475 18 GW 2845

22 SW ∗∗ 8.50 7.90 19 GW 7.30 22 SW ∗∗ 9500 7900 19 GW 7300

23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 20 GW 7.10 23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 20 GW 4700

24 SW 7.50 ∗∗ ∗∗ 21 GW 7.50 24 SW 4050 ∗∗ ∗∗ 21 GW 4065

25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 22 GW 7.50 25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 22 GW 4460

26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 9.70 23 GW 6.80 26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 10,475 23 GW 7875

27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 8.90 27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 9000 Av . 7.50 8.45 8.32 7.41 2600 8795 9960 4929 SD 3.62 3.56 4.42 0.58 1388.88 3723.16 5305.22 2321.97 Irrigation Water Quality DoE 1997 6.5 - 8.5 2100 FAO 1976 6.5 - 8.5 0–2000

MRV ∗ 6.5 - 8.4 1000

NB: Av . = Average; BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; CW = Canal Water; DoE = Department of Environment; DTW = Deep Tube-well Water; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; GW = Ground Water; MRV = Maximum Recommended Value; PW = Pond Water; RW = River Water; SD = Standard Deviation; SID = Sample ID; SW = Surface Water; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids WHO = World Health Organization.

∗ Haroon et al., 2014.

∗∗ Indicates the data were not taken.

The SAR value in irrigation water is used to quantify the relative 3. Results and discussion proportion of Na + to Ca 2+ and Mg 2 + by using the following formula where the ions were meq L −1 ( Richards, 1954 ; Alrajhi et al., 2015 ):- 3.1. Turbidity + Na SAR = √ (2) C a 2+ +M g 2+ In PW, the maximum turbidity was 111.10 NTU (24 SW) was in 2 Koyra and the lowest value was 82.09 NTU (10 SW) in Dacope. Almost The MAR is also known as magnesium hazard is calculated by using similar trends were found in case of CW, RW and DTW ( Table 2 ). The the following formula ( Ragunath, 1987 ):- BBS standard value of turbidity in drinking water is 10.0 NTU and the ( ) M g 2+ × 100 WHO standard value is 5.0 NTU (Table 2). Considering the standard MAR = ( ) (3) value of turbidity, the PW, CW and RW was not suitable for drinking 2+ 2+ Ca + Mg purpose. A very high concentration of turbidity was reported from the

2.7. Data analysis PW and DTW of Buri Goalini and Gbura Union (Shaibur et al., 2019d). The turbidity in the water of Nolamara beel was comparatively high

The samples were taken randomly with 3 replications. MS Excel was (Shaibur et al., 2017a). The high concentration of turbidity was most used for some descriptive statistics like: percentage, average and stan- probably due to the fact that the PW, RW, CW and beel water were dard deviation. All the data were analyzed using MS Word and MS Excel, being disturb continuously with the wind flow. The marginal concen- 2007 computer prominent program.

5 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152 tration of turbidity was reported from the PSF water of Buri Gualini Union ( Shaibur et al., 2019d ). The outcome showed that, the turbidity was higher in Koyra (South- ern part) as compared to the Northern part (Batiaghata). This may be due to the fact that the wind flow is higher in the Southern part as com- pared to the Northern part. The Southern part is very near to the Bay of Bengal ( Fig. 1 a). Water becomes turbid due to presence of high wind and suspended materials. High turbidity is caused by particulate matter in the water that either is not filtered adequately from the source or comes from re-suspended sediment in the distribution system. Almost normal concentration of turbidity was reported from groundwater of Satkhira, Khulna ( Das et al., 2021a , 2021b ) and Jashore ( Sarwar et al., 2020 ) re- gions. In this experiment, the turbidity in the DTW seemed to be good in all the mentioned Upazila. This was because the DTW could not be disturbed with the natural wind flow.

3.2. Electrical conductivity

In PW, the average EC in Koyra was 2503.0 μS cm − 1 , in Dacope the value was 2235.0 μS cm − 1 , and in Batiaghata the value was 1684.33 μS cm −1 ( Table 2 ). It means the gradients of EC values were Koyra ≥ Dacope ≥ Batiaghta. In case of DTW, the average highest EC was 6470.0 μS cm −1 in Koyra, the second highest was in Dacope and the lowest EC was again in Batiaghata. Similar trends were observed in CW and RW. Our results indicated that, the EC value followed the trend of RW ≥ CW ≥ DTW ≥ PW. The BBS standard value of EC in drinking water is 300.0 μS cm −1 to 1500.0 μS cm −1 and the WHO standard value is

750.0 μS cm −1. Therefore, considering the EC value none of the water Fig. 2. Salinity levels and iron concentrations. (a) Salinity levels varied with the sources were suitable for drinking purpose. In general, the EC value geographical position and sources of water, (b) Fe concentrations in 3 Upazila in ≤ 1000.0 μS cm −1 is the fresh water, the EC value ≥ 1000.0 μS cm −1 to Southern Khulna Districts. Bars with different letters are significantly different < ≤ 10,000.0 μS cm −1 is considered the brackish water. In saline water, the ( P 0.05) according to a Ryan–Einot–Gabriel–Welsch multiple range test. EC value is ≥ 10,000.0 μS cm −1 to ≤ 35,000 μS cm −1 and the value for hyper saline is ≥ 35,000.0 μS cm −1 . Considering these criteria, almost are salinity, EC together with other factors. The pH 6.0 to 8.5 is better all the samples of PW and DTW were brackish and the CW and RW were for the growth of agricultural crops ( Brady and Weil, 2010 ). saline and therefore were not suitable for irrigation. On the basis of EC values, the freshness of determined water sources could be ranked as PW 3.4. Total dissolved solids ≥ DTW ≥ CW ≥ RW. It means the salinity level was the lowest in PW and was the highest in RW. Depending on the EC value, the intensity could In PW, the highest TDS was 2600.0 mg L −1 in Koyra, the second be ranked as Koyra ≥ Dacope ≥ Batiaghata. The result showed that the highest was 2129.0 mg L −1 in Dacope and the lowest was in Batiaghata EC intensity increased from North to the South direction or decreased ( Table 3 ). Similar trends were found in CW, RW and DTW. If we consider from South to the North. High EC in water sources indicates the intrusion sources of water, then the TDS intensity can be ranked as RW ≥ CW ≥ of salinity. It was well established that intrusion of sea water increased DTW ≥ PW. It means the TDS were higher in RW and the lowest was in the salinity and EC in the fresh irrigation and groundwater significantly PW. In our study, the highest TDS might be responsible for the highest ( Sarkar et al., 2021 ). Increasing salinity and EC in the fresh groundwater degrees of EC in RW. The BBS and WHO limit value of TDS is 1000.0 mg is the indication of mixing seawater with groundwater ( Sarkar et al., L −1 . Therefore, the water could not be used as a source of drinking water. 2021 ). The DoE limit value is 2100.0 mg L −1 for irrigation water but the FAO Regarding EC, care must be taken when the EC exceeds the value limit value is 2000.0 mg L −1 . If we want to use the water for irrigation of 300 μS cm −1 , because for drinking water, EC is an indirect measure only some PW could be used in the mentioned 3 Upazila. Additionally, of the total salt content or TDS. The higher salt content the better the some DTW in Batiaghata Upazila could be used for irrigation. None of conduction of current ( State of California Website, 2009 ). The higher EC the samples of CW and RW were suitable for irrigation or drinking. This situation will be worse in the future as the salinity level in the coastal supposition was on the basis of TDS values. The higher concentration region is increasing day-by-day. of DTS was reported in the water samples of Beel Khuksia, Keshobpur, Jashore ( Shaibur et al., 2019c ). 3.3. Hydrogen ion concentration Some treatments such as addition of coagulants may be required to make the waters suitable for drinking purpose. The palatability of water

The pH of the samples was within the permissible limit of drinking with a TDS level of less than 500.0 mg L −1 is generally considered to be water quality ( Table 3 ). Therefore, considering the pH value most of good. Drinking water becomes significantly and increasingly unpalat- the water samples were safe for drinking. The standard value of pH in able at TDS levels greater than 1000.0 mg L −1. The presence of high drinking water is 6.5 to 8.5 for BBS and WHO ( Table 3 ). The exceptional levels of TDS is also being objectionable to consumers. result was found in very few numbers of samples ( Table 3 ). This higher pH may affect the other properties of the water samples. Generally, the 3.5. Salinity pH of water samples does not affect the consumer heath directly, but is important, because keeping pH in the right interval ensures the water to In PW, the highest salinity was in Koyra, the second highest was in be sanitary and clear. Considering the pH, these water sources could be Dacope and the lowest was in Batiaghata Upazila ( Fig. 2 a). Similar re- used for irrigation purpose. But the problems with these water sources sults were found in the case of CW, RW and DTW ( Fig. 2 a). Depending on

6 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 4 2 − 3 − Comparison of sulfate (SO4 ) and phosphate (PO4 ) concentrations among pond water, canal water, river water and deep tube well water with standard recom- mended values of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Health Organization. The values were also compared with the standard value of irrigation water quality recommended by Department of Environment, Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization.

2- 3- SO4 PO4

Drinking Water Quality (mg L −1) BBS 2011b 400.0 6.00

WHO 1984 250.0 ∗∗ Batiaghata Upazila SID PW CW RW SID DTW SID PW CW RW SID DTW

1 SW 209.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 244.0 1 SW 6.49 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 5.73

2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 700.0 2 GW 241.0 2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 9.00 2 GW 4.58

3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 320.0 3 GW 253.0 3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 9.35 3 GW 7.85

4 SW 236.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 257.0 4 SW 6.47 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 8.26

5 SW ∗∗ 400.0 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗ 5 SW ∗∗ 7.00 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗

6 SW 242.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗ 6 SW 6.76 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗

7 SW ∗∗ 380.0 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ 7 SW ∗∗ 9.10 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ Av . 229.0 390.0 510.0 248.75 6.57 8.05 9.18 6.61 SD 122.83 190.39 272.0 133.07 3.51 3.97 4.48 3.74 Dacope Upazila

8 SW 239.0 ∗∗ 441.0 8 GW 303.0 8 SW 7.63 ∗∗ 9.86 8 GW 3.54

9 SW 301.0 ∗∗ 427.0 9 GW 313.0 9 SW 6.26 ∗∗ 16.36 9 GW 6.55

10 SW 242.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 308.0 10 SW 8.17 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 5.55

11 SW ∗∗ 514.0 533.0 11 GW 316.0 11 SW ∗∗ 9.29 17.50 11 GW 2.25

12 SW ∗∗ 417.0 955.0 12 GW 259.0 12 SW ∗∗ 11.95 9.49 12 GW 11.90

13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 275.0 13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 9.30

14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 293.0 14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 8.75

15 SW 303.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 264.0 15 SW 8.18 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 10.17

16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 311.0 16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 10.60

17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 318.0 17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 12.45 Av . 271.25 465.5 589.0 296.0 7.56 10.62 13.30 8.10 SD 141.57 197.60 336.3 22.20 3.94 4.52 7.29 3.49 Koyra Upazila

18 SW 245.0 ∗∗ 436.0 18 GW 244.0 18 SW 8.30 ∗∗ 20.71 18 GW 10.60

19 SW 255.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 19 GW 241.0 19 SW 6.70 ∗∗ ∗∗ 19 GW 8.90

20 SW ∗∗ 420.0 625.0 20 GW 311.0 20 SW ∗∗ 12.20 9.70 20 GW 4.60

21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 621.0 21 GW 257.0 21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 13.20 21 GW 9.50

22 SW ∗∗ 593.0 737.0 22 GW 311.0 22 SW ∗∗ 12.90 21.34 22 GW 8.30

23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 331.0 23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 9.11

24 SW 328.0 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 285.0 24 SW 8.90 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 8.40

25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 336.0 25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 4.20

26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 997.0 26 GW 321.0 26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 23.20 26 GW 10.30

27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 344.0 27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 12.80 Av . 276.0 506.5 683.2 298.1 7.97 12.55 17.63 8.67 SD 135.02 217.42 385.4 38.77 3.89 5.29 10.08 2.61

Irrigation Water Quality (mg L −1)

DoE 1997 ∗∗ ∗∗

FAO 1976 ∗∗ ∗∗

MRV ∗ 50.0 1.50

NB: Av . = Average; BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; CW = Canal Water; DoE = Department of Environment; DTW = Deep Tube-well Water; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; GW = Ground Water; MRV = Maximum Recommended Value; PW = Pond Water; RW = River Water; SD = Standard Deviation; SID = Sample ID; SW = Surface Water; WHO = World Health Organization.

∗ Haroon et al., 2014.

∗∗ Indicates the data were not taken/available. the geographical positions of the 3 Upazila, the salinity gradient could The salinity increased in an alarming rate in Khulna region that be ranked as Koyra ≥ Dacope ≥ Batiaghata. It meant that the salinity mostly affected water quality in that region. Average salinity is higher at intensity decreased from South to the North. This is possible, because the coastal region in dry season than the monsoon. This is most probably Koyra is the Southern part of Khulna District and is directly connected to due to lack of freshwater flows from upstream to downstream. Normally, the Bay of Bengal via the river. Sea water can easily penetrate to Koyra salinity builds up from October to the late May and remains higher dur- via river and can make the water saline. From our result, it could also ing the dry season (February to May). At the end of May, salinity level be said that the intensity of salinity increased from North to the South drops sharply due to upstream flows and rainfall ( IWM, 2014 ). We got direction in Bangladesh. Again, if we consider the sources of water, the higher salinity in water samples because we collected the samples in sources could be ranked as RW ≥ CW ≥ DTW ≥ PW. This is because, RW the pick season (March 2018). Increasing salinity resulting in invitation is directly connected to Bay of Bengal, canal is connected with rive. Pond of exotic plant and animal species which ultimately deteriorating the generally contained rain water but it was also saline. This may be due ecosystems for native species ( Shaibur et al., 2019c ; Abdullah et al., to the fact that the PW may receive the salinity from surrounding saline 2021 ). As the salinity increased therefore it was supposed to adjust with soils. Our PW contained more than 4 times salinity and therefore the PW the changing condition ( Shaibur et al., 2019f ; Ahmed et al., 2020 ). also not suitable for irrigation. Deep tube wells of Jashore Municipality The result suggested that construction of embankment is very neces- contained very low concentration of salinity ( Shaibur et al., 2012 ). The sary around the Khulna District to protect the intrusion of saline water in cause was that Jashore is far from the Bay of Bengal as compared to to the land. The experience of Bhola ( Ahmed et al., 2020 ) and Jashore Koyra (Khulna). District ( Shaibur et al., 2019c ) could also be implemented to prevent

7 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 5 Comparison of sodium (Na) and potassium (K) concentration among pond water, canal water, river water and deep tube well water with standard recommended values of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Health Organization. The values were also compared with the standard value of irrigation water quality recommended by Department of Environment, Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization.

Na K

Drinking Water Quality (mg L −1) BBS 2011b 200.0 12.0 WHO1984 200.0 30.0 Batiaghata Upazila SID PW CW RW SID DTW SID PW CW RW SID DTW

1 SW 221.04 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 202.43 1 SW 45.15 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 72.77

2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 268.77 2 GW 215.80 2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 63.64 2 GW 34.94

3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 590.08 3 GW 229.69 3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 92.94 3 GW 52.88

4 SW 204.80 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 232.38 4 SW 31.57 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 61.19

5 SW ∗∗ 330.51 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗ 5 SW ∗∗ 61.64 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗

6 SW 213.08 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗ 6 SW 56.53 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗

7 SW ∗∗ 414.00 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ 7 SW ∗∗ 70.27 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ Av . 212.97 372.26 429.42 220.08 44.42 65.96 78.29 55.45 SD 113.94 183.23 229.15 118.04 24.81 32.28 39.13 31.70 Dacope Upazila

8 SW 209.25 ∗∗ 620.16 8 GW 216.62 8 SW 41.77 ∗∗ 80.64 8 GW 44.28

9 SW 213.52 ∗∗ 601.48 9 GW 214.08 9 SW 52.49 ∗∗ 94.77 9 GW 47.42

10 SW 210.87 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 207.08 10 SW 48.48 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 80.96

11 SW ∗∗ 323.38 559.21 11 GW 210.16 11 SW ∗∗ 74.88 99.33 11 GW 58.62

12 SW ∗∗ 566.00 427.01 12 GW 203.96 12 SW ∗∗ 84.90 92.50 12 GW 66.93

13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 212.21 13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 49.62

14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 210.50 14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 50.51

15 SW 243.39 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 213.15 15 SW 57.60 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 59.18

16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 325.51 16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 67.39

17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 250.11 17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 81.01 Av . 219.25 444.69 551.97 226.34 50.09 79.89 91.81 60.59 SD 113.61 196.02 289.44 37.12 26.15 33.77 47.63 13.27 Koyra Upazila

18 SW 215.28 ∗∗ 601.99 18 GW 212.57 18 SW 46.56 ∗∗ 99.88 18 GW 48.98

19 SW 213.95 ∗∗ ∗∗ 19 GW 221.07 19 SW 54.98 ∗∗ ∗∗ 19 GW 56.39

20 SW ∗∗ 343.39 653.51 20 GW 207.61 20 SW ∗∗ 86.69 94.57 20 GW 75.58

21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 746.56 21 GW 216.49 21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 70.43 21 GW 66.31

22 SW ∗∗ 651.07 446.15 22 GW 232.11 22 SW ∗∗ 78.14 99.78 22 GW 58.22

23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 225.21 23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 79.98

24 SW 247.96 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 224.98 24 SW 59.88 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 61.88

25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 237.41 25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 60.34

26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 616.48 26 GW 249.64 26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 112.44 26 GW 73.69

27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 270.31 27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 85.34 Av . 225.73 497.23 612.94 229.74 53.81 82.42 95.42 66.67 SD 109.42 221.84 331.11 18.81 26.18 34.81 51.11 66.67

Irrigation Water Quality (mg L −1) DoE 1997 200 12.0 FAO 1976 0–40 0–20

MRV ∗ 230.0 20.0

NB: Av . = Average; BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; CW = Canal Water; DoE = Department of Environment; DTW = Deep Tube-well Water; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; GW = Ground Water; MRV = Maximum Recommended Value; PW = Pond Water; RW = River Water; SD = Standard Deviation; SID = Sample ID; SW = Surface Water; WHO = World Health Organization

∗ Haroon et al., 2014.

∗∗ Indicates the data were not taken/available.

salinity intrusion in Khulna District. The protection of the embankment the fact that the elements were entering in the water sources from sea. is also strongly suggested. Another point, the flow of distributaries in Presence of high concentrations of elements was the indication of mix- the upstream of the country should be increased by re-excavation of the ing the saline water of sea with the fresh groundwater and pond water rivers so that the upstream flow of water would be increased to down- ( Sarker et al., 2021 ). Shallow and DTW of Jashore, Satkhira and Khulna 2- stream, which may decrease the soil salinity. It is strongly believed that regions contained very low concentrations of SO4 (Shaibur et al., 2012, Farakka Barrage was mostly responsible for decreasing the river flow 2019 a , b; Das et al., 2021a ,b) from upstream to lower stream. India needs to take step to increase the water flow of Ganges River which may decrease the soil or water salinity 3.7. Concentrations of Na and K in the Southern part. It was found that PW, CW, RW and DTW contained higher concen- 2- 3 − 3.6. Concentrations of SO4 and PO4 trations of Na and K as compared to the recommended values of BBS, WHO, DoE and FAO ( Table 5 ). Sometimes the concentrations of Na and 2- 3 − It seemed that SO4 and PO4 concentrations followed the general K were 2 to 3 times higher in the water sources than that of the recom- trend like other parameter e.g. EC, TDS and salinity. The concentrations mended values ( Table 5 ). The high concentration of Na with the mean of both the elements were higher in RW and were lower in PW ( Table 4 ). value of 308.37 is also reported in groundwater collected form Dak- The high concentrations of these elements were most probably due to shin Bedkashi Union of Koyra Upazila ( Das et al., 2021b ). The elevated

8 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

Table 6 Comparison of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) concentrations among pond water, canal water, river water and deep tube well water with standard recommended values of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Health Organization. The values were also compared with the standard value of irrigation water quality recommended by Department of Environment, Bangladesh and Food and Agriculture Organization.

Ca Mg

Drinking Water Quality (mg L −1) BBS 2011b 75.0 30–35 WHO 1984 100.0 150.0 Batiaghata Upazila SID PW CW RW SID DTW SID PW CW RW SID DTW

1 SW 160.51 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 176.54 1 SW 110.93 ∗∗ ∗∗ 1 GW 120.05

2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 281.73 2 GW 98.71 2 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 172.91 2 GW 160.95

3 SW ∗∗ ∗ 494.56 3 GW 128.45 3 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 182.02 3 GW 109.11

4 SW 103.22 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 144.48 4 SW 71.14 ∗∗ ∗∗ 4 GW 215.52

5 SW ∗∗ 106.18 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗ 5 SW ∗∗ 118.22 ∗∗ 5 GW ∗∗

6 SW 128.45 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗ 6 SW 82.76 ∗∗ ∗∗ 6 GW ∗∗

7 SW ∗∗ 385.35 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ 7 SW ∗∗ 203.90 ∗∗ 7 GW ∗∗ Av . 130.73 245.77 388.15 137.05 88.28 161.06 177.47 151.41 SD 71.82 144.48 199.11 76.76 48.64 82.39 86.63 87.82 Dacope Upazila

8 SW 128.45 ∗∗ 476.74 8 GW 160.71 8 SW 107.54 ∗∗ 135.81 8 GW 127.29

9 SW 140.58 ∗∗ 303.19 9 GW 92.77 9 SW 135.72 ∗∗ 138.12 9 GW 159.26

10 SW 140.58 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 99.17 10 SW 78.01 ∗∗ ∗∗ 10 GW 154.51

11 SW ∗∗ 128.45 377.53 11 GW 188.96 11 SW ∗∗ 180.57 136.40 11 GW 150.86

12 SW ∗∗ 444.60 596.38 12 GW 112.41 12 SW ∗∗ 190.77 359.89 12 GW 159.53

13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 162.09 13 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 13 GW 161.87

14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 178.74 14 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 14 GW 150.29

15 SW 128.65 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 196.38 15 SW 125.89 ∗∗ ∗∗ 15 GW 161.92

16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 164.32 16 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 16 GW 168.01

17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 228.84 17 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 17 GW 222.93 Av . 134.57 286.53 438.46 158.44 111.79 185.67 192.56 161.65 SD 69.60 149.03 243.83 44.39 59.56 78.22 122.34 24.23 Koyra Upazila

18 SW 106.71 ∗∗ 512.19 18 GW 105.19 18 SW 131.87 ∗∗ 167.29 18 GW 158.22

19 SW 137.74 ∗∗ ∗∗ 19 GW 122.80 19 SW 232.81 ∗∗ ∗∗∗ 19 GW 151.04

20 SW ∗∗ 369.51 417.61 20 GW 160.71 20 SW ∗∗ 171.19 146.40 20 GW 207.54

21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 369.51 21 GW 200.86 21 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 238.28 21 GW 156.42

22 SW ∗∗ 385.19 497.96 22 GW 180.35 22 SW ∗∗ 216.17 172.81 22 GW 209.53

23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 209.16 23 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 23 GW 169.26

24 SW 194.17 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 171.10 24 SW 168.22 ∗∗ ∗∗ 24 GW 156.50

25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 153.48 25 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 25 GW 211.89

26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 565.90 26 GW 180.35 26 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ 298.38 26 GW 217.35

27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 264.32 27 SW ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ 27 GW 229.00 Av . 146.21 377.35 472.63 174.83 177.63 193.68 204.63 186.68 SD 73.65 159.15 254.52 44.91 89.13 82.35 115.66 30.79

Irrigation Water Quality (mg L −1)

DoE 1997 ∗∗ ∗∗

FAO 1976 ∗∗ ∗∗

MRV ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗

NB: Av . = Average; BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics; CW = Canal Water; DoE = Department of Environment; DTW = Deep Tube-well Water; FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; GW = Ground Water; MRV = Maximum Recommended Value; PW = Pond Water; RW = River Water; SD = Standard Deviation; SID = Sample ID; SW = Surface Water; WHO = World Health Organization.

∗ Haroon et al., 2014.

∗∗ Indicates the data were not taken/available. concentration of Na + in groundwater was mainly due to the mineral- 3.8. Soluble sodium percentage or Na% ization of montmorillonite, illite and chlorite ( Garrels 1976 ; Das et al., 2021b ). These higher concentrations of Na and K in groundwater might The average Na% in RW was 50.38. The value was 52.46 for CW, be responsible for the higher EC, TDS and salinity and made the water 46.84for DTW and 51.25 for PW, indicating that the soluble sodium unsuitable for drinking and irrigation purposes. In this experiment, the percentage was more or less similar in all those sources. Generally, 15% PW contained comparatively lower concentrations of these elements. A Na in GW is allowed for irrigation purpose ( Wilcox, 1955 ), but all the similar finding is also reported from the PW of Buri Goalini and Gabura samples of all sources contained higher concentrations of Na%. There- Unions of Syamnagar Upazila, Satkhira District ( Shaibur et al., 2019d ). fore, none of the sources and samples was suitable for agricultural crop Long time application of water containing high concentrations of Na production in dry season. As the sources were not suitable for irriga- and K as irrigation water may create problems to the soil as well as tion purpose and therefore no question of using the water sources for to the plants. Soil structure is severely destroyed by high concentra- drinking purpose, especially DTW. It was reported that about 40% wa- tions of Na and K ions ( Brady and Weil, 2010 ) which ultimately de- ter samples was unsuitable for irrigation in shallow coastal aquifer of creased plant growth ( Shaibur et al., 2007 , 2008 ). Therefore, the wa- Khulna District, Bangladesh ( Islam et al., 2017b ). ter of these sources was not being recommended for drinking and ir- For Koyra, the average Na% was 51.66%, for Dacope the value was rigation purposes. The leaching of K fertilizer through the agricultural 51.48% and for Batiaghata the value was 46.23%. Based on the Na% soils might be responsible for higher concentration of K in groundwater the gradient can be ranked as Koyra > Dacope > Batiaghata. This result ( Brady and Weil, 2010 ). clearly supports our EC ( Section 3.2 ) and salinity data ( Section 3.5 ).

9 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

3.9. Sodium absorption ratio 2021 ); in JUST campus and its surrounding areas ( Shaibur et al., 2019a ), in the water samples of hand tube well in Jashore sub-urban areas The average SAR value in RW was 7.99. The values were 7.01 for CW, ( Shaibur et al., 2019b ) and ( Sarwar et al., 2020 ). 4.23 for DTW and 7.71 for PW. The SAR values > 2 indicates that the We are assuming that the water samples in the Southern parts of the GW is not suitable for irrigation purposes ( Vasanthavigar et al., 2010 ; country contained relatively higher concentration of Fe, which needs to Ayuba et al., 2013 ; Islam et al., 2016 ). Considering the obtained and be investigated. On the contrary, a relative low concentration of Fe was recommended values, it was clear that none of the sources and samples reported from Chaugachcha Upazila ( Sarwar et al., 2020 ). was suitable for irrigation purpose. The SAR values showed that 100% collected samples were unsuitable for agricultural uses. 4. Conclusions In the case of RW, the highest SAR value 8.48 was for Koyra, 8.25 was for Dacope and 6.28 was for Batiaghta, indicating that the trend was The water sources as PW, CW, RW and DTW of Southern parts of as Koyra > Dacope > Batiaghata, which is supported by the EC, salinity Khulna District were not suitable for drink and irrigation purpose during 2 − 3 − and Na% data. the dry season. Most of the cases the concentrations of SO4 , PO4 , Na, K, Ca, Mg and Fe were higher than recommended value of these 3.10. Concentrations of Ca and Mg elements in drinking and irrigation water. The higher concentrations of the elements were responsible for the higher EC, TDS and salinity. This Our result showed that the Ca concentrations were much higher in result confirmed that the intensity of salinity decreased from Southern all the water sources ( Table 6 ). Among the sources Ca concentrations parts to the Northern parts of the country or the intensity of salinity were s much higher in RW and it was almost 2 to 8 times than the increased from North to the South direction. The salinity follows the permissible limit of BBS and WHO. The high concentrations of Ca 2 + general trends of Koyra ≥ Dacope ≥ Batiaghata. This was because, the and Mg 2 + in groundwater were mainly responsible from dissolution of Southern parts of Khulna is directly connected with the Bay of Bengal. clay minerals such as montmorillonite, illite and chlorite ( Garrels 1976 ; In different sources of water, the intensity of salinity follows the general Das et al., 2021b ). This was because the sources were very near to the trends of RW ≥ CW ≥ DTW ≥ PW. The higher salinity in RW was most sea Bay of Bengal and the rivers are directly connected with the sea. Low probably due to the fact that the river is directly connected with the Bay concentration of Ca (from 12.0 to 104.0 mg L −1 with the mean value of of Bengal and the canal is connected with the river. 55.63 mg L −1 ) was reported from deep tube wells of Satkhira Munici- pality in monsoon ( Das et al., 2021a ). Similarly, low concentration of Declaration of Competing Interest Ca (from 34.0 to 103.0 mg L −1 with mean value of 72.64 mg L −1 ) was also reported in dry season ( Das et al., 2021a ). We do not have obligation regarding above mentioned information. Similar to increasing Ca, Mg concentrations was also increased. Con- tradictory results were also reported. Low concentration of Mg was re- Acknowledgment ported from the PW, DTW, and PSF water of Buri Goalini and Gabura Unions ( Shaibur et al., 2019d ). Similarly, low concentration of Mg is Md. Zahid Hasan and Bablur Rahaman of Laboratory of Environmen- also reported from the shallow and DTW water of JUST Campus, its tal Chemistry, Department of Environmental Science and Technology surrounding areas ( Shaibur et al., 2019a ) and from Satkhira Munici- are gratefully acknowledged. pality ( Das et al., 2021a ). These differences were most probably due depth of water sources, sources of water, and also geographical posi- References tions of the water source. In this research, the higher concentrations of

Ca and Mg might be responsible for higher turbidity, EC, TDS and salin- Abdullah, H.M., Ahmed, S.M., Khan, B.M., Mohana, N.T., Ahamed, T., Islam, I., 2021. Agri- culture and fisheries production in a regional blending and dynamic fresh and saline ity ( Brady and Weil, 2010 ) and made the water unsuitable for irrigation water systems in the coastal area of Bangladesh. Environ. Chall. 4 (2021), 100089. ( FAO, 1976 ) and drinking purpose ( WHO, 1984 ). doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100089 . Ahmmed, I. , Shaibur, M.R. , Sarwar, S. , 2020. Adaptation strategies with changing climatic conditions: a case study of coastal Bhola district, Bangladesh. Environ. Biol. Res. 2 (2), 3.11. Magnesium adsorption ratio 11–21 . Alrajhi, A. , Beecham, S. , Bolan, N.S. , Hassanli, A. , 2015. Evaluation of soil chemical prop-

The MAR is the relationship between Mg and Ca concentration in erties irrigated with recycled wastewater under partial root-zone drying irrigation for sustainable tomato production. Agric. Water Manag. 161, 127–135 . water (Ragunath 1987; Ayuba et al., 2013). The excessive Mg in wa- APHA, 1995. Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Ed. ter affects the quality of soil which ultimately affects plant growth APHA. AWWA and WPCF, Washington DC, USA . ( Islam et al., 2016 ; 2017a ). The MAR value greater than 50 in irriga- Ayuba, R. , Omonona, O.V. , Onwuka, O.S. , 2013. Assessment of groundwater quality of Lokoja Basement Area, North-Central Nigeria. J. Geol. Soc. India 82, 413–420 . tion water is considered unsuitable for crop production (Kacmaz and BBS, 2011a. Statistics and Informatics Division, District Statistics of Khulna, Preliminary Nakoman 2010 ; Islam et al., 2016 ). In RW, the average MAR value was Results. Ministry of Planning, Dhaka. Bangladesh . 41.48. However, for CW the value was 52.34, for DTW the value was , 2011b. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Gov- ernment of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Bangladesh National Drinking Water

63.64 and for PW the value was 58.64. Considering the MAR values, Quality Survey, p. 2009 . for most of the cases the water sources were not suitable for irrigation BMD, 2014. Bangladesh Meteorological Department, Government of the People’s Republic purpose. In RW, the value of MAR is little bit lower, we do not know the of Bangladesh. Meteorological Complex, Agargaon, Dhaka, Bangladesh 1207 . reason but it was the result. Further investigation is needed regarding Brady, N.C., Weil, R.R., 2010. Elements of the nature and properties of soils. Pearson Education International, New Jersey, USA . this point. Considering the Na% and SAR value the RW was not suitable Chanratchakool, P. , 2007. Problems in Penaeus monodon culture in low salinity areas. for irrigation purpose. Aquac. Asia 8 (1), 54–56 . CIESIN, 2010. Low-elevation coastal zone rural-urban estimates. Available at. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/lecz.jsp . 3.12. Concentration of Fe Das, T.K. , Rani, K. , Mamun, A.M. , Haulader, M. , Shaibur, M.R. , 2021a. Determination and distribution of groundwater composition in deep aquifer of Satkhira municipality,

Iron concentration also follows the general trends of Na, K, Ca and Bangladesh. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. (Accepted). Das, T.K. , Shaibur, M.R. , Rahman, M.M. , 2021b. Groundwater chemistry at deep aquifer

Mg. Usually, Fe concentration was higher in Koyra as well as in RW in coastal Koyra upazila under Khulna district of Bangladesh. Curr. World Environ. ( Fig. 2 b). The higher Fe concentration might be responsible for higher (Accepted) .

EC and TDS in the Southern parts of Khulna District. The relatively , 1997. The environment conservation rules 1997. In: Bangladesh Gazette no. DA-1. Min- istry of Environment and Forest, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 1324–1327 . high concentration of Fe was also found in the drinking water supplied Eaton, A.D. , Slesceri, L.S. , Riee, E.W. , Greenberg, A.E. , 2005. Standard Methods for the in food stalls and restaurants of Jashore Municipality ( Shaibur et al., Examination of Water and Waste water, 21st Ed. Centennial Edition .

10 M.R. Shaibur, S. Parvin, I. Ahmmed et al. Environmental Challenges 4 (2021) 100152

FAO, 1976. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, Water Quality for Agriculture. Food and Agri- Science and Technology campus and its surrounding villages. J. Jess. Univ. Sci. Tech. culture Organization, Rome, Italy . 4 (1), 34–45 . FAO, 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy. Shaibur, M.R. , Amin, M.S. , Kawai, S. , 2007. Effect of potassium chloride on growth and Garrels, R.M. , 1976. A survey of low temperature water-mineral relations. Interpretation accumulation of metal micronutrients in rice seedlings grown hydroponically. Khulna of Environmental Isotope and Hydrochemical Data in Groundwater Hydrology. Inter- Univ. Stud. Bangladesh 8 (2), 245–252 . national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)„ Vienna, pp. 65–84 . Shaibur, M.R. , Anzum, H.M.N. , Rana, M.S. , Khan, M.A.S. , 2012. Assessment of supplied Huq, S.M.I. , Alam, M.D. , 2005. A Handbook on Analyses of Soil, Plant and Wa- water quality at Jashore Municipality (Pourashava), Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Env- ter: Bangladesh Australia Center for Environmental Research. University of Dhaka, iron. Res. 10, 69–87 . Bangladesh . Shaibur, M.R. , Hossain, M.S. , Khatun, S. , Tanzia, F.K.S. , 2021. Drinking water contamina- Islam, M.S. , 2003. Perspectives of the coastal and marine fisheries of the Bay of Bengal, tion by fecal coliform in food stalls of Jashore Municipality, Bangladesh. Appl Water Bangladesh. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46 (8), 763–796 . Sci. (Submitted) . Islam, M.A. , Zahid, A. , Rahman, M.M. , Rahman, M.S. , Islam, M.J. , Akter, Y. , Shammi, M. , Shaibur, M.R. , Hossain, M.S. , Sony, S.J. , 2019b. Drinking water quality of hand tube well Bodrud-Doza, M. , Roy, B. , 2017a. Investigation of groundwater quality and its suit- water at sub-urban areas of Jashore municipality, Bangladesh. J. Jess. Univ. Sci. Tech. ability for drinking and agricultural use in the south central part of the coastal region 4 (1), 11–22 . in Bangladesh. Expo. Health 9 (1), 27–41 . Shaibur, M.R. , Khan, M.H. , Rashid, M.S. , 2017a. Climate change may cause natural dis- Islam, S.M.D. , Bhuiyan, M.A.H. , Rume, T. , Azam, G , 2017b. Hydrogeochemical investiga- asters in Shyamnagar, Satkhira: the southwestern parts of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. tion of groundwater in shallow coastal aquifer of Khulna district, Bangladesh. Appl. Environ. Sci. 32, 101–110 . Water Sci. 7, 4219–4236 . Shaibur, M.R. , Rizvi, M.M. , Islam, M.K. , Shamsunnahar , 2019c. Salinity causes ecosystem Islam, S.M.D., Majumder, R.K., Uddin, M.J., Khalil, M.I., Alam, M.F, 2016. Hydrochemical disruption and biodiversity losses in Beel Khuksia: keshabpur, Jashore, Bangladesh. characteristics and quality assessment of groundwater in Patuakhali district, southern Environ. Biol. Res. 1 (1), 1–11 . coastal region of Bangladesh. Expo. Health doi: 10.1007/s12403-016- 0221-y . Shaibur, M.R. , Shamim, A.H.M. , Kawai, S , 2008. Growth response of hydroponic rice , 2014. Salinity in the South-West Region of Bangladesh. Institute of Water Modeling, seedlings at elevated concentrations of potassium chloride. J. Agric. Rural Dev. 6 Dhaka-Bangladesh, p. 1206 Bangladesh. House 496, Road 32, New DOHSMohakhali . (1&2), 43–53 . Kacmaz, H. , Nakoman, M.E. , 2010. Hydrochemical characteristics of shallow groundwater Shaibur, M.R. , Shamim, A.H.M. , Khan, M.H , 2019d. Water quality of different sources at aquifer containing Uranyl phosphate minerals in the Koprubasi (Manisa) area, Turkey. Buri Goalini and Gabura unions of , Bangladesh. Environ. Biol. Environ. Earth Sci. 59, 449–457 . Res. 1 (1), 32–43 . Karro, E. , Marandi, A. , Vaikm, R. , 2004. The origin of increased salinity in the Cambri- Shaibur, M.R. , Shamim, A.H.M. , Khan, M.H. , Tanzia, F.K.S. , 2017b. Exploration of soil an-Vendian aquifer system on the Kopl Peninsula, northern Estonia. Hydrogeol. J. 12, quality in agricultural perspective at Gabura and Buri Goalini union: shyamnagar, 424–435 . Satkhira, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Environ. Sci. 32, 89–96 . Khan, A.E. , Ireson, A. , Kovats, S. , Mojumder, S.K. , Khusru, A. , Rahman, A. , Vineis, P. , Shaibur, M.R. , Shamim, A.H.M. , Rizvi, M.M. , Amara, S.U. , Sarwar, S , 2019f. Local 2011. Drinking water salinity and maternal health in coastal Bangladesh: implications adaptation strategies with waterlogging condition in beel Kapalia region, Jashore, of climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 119 (9), 1328–1332 . Bangladesh. Environ. Biol. Res. 1 (1), 22–31 . Mahmud, A. , Sikder, S. , Joarder, J.C. , 2020. Assessment of groundwater quality in Khulna Shammi, M. , Rahman, M.M. , Islam, M.A. , Bodrud-Doza, M. , Zahid, A. , Akter, Y. , city of Bangladesh in terms of water quality index for drinking purpose. Appl. Water Quaiyum, S. , Kurasaki, M. , 2017. Spatio-temporal assessment and trend analysis of Sci. 10, 226 . surface water salinity in the coastal region of Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Mall, R.K. , Gupta, A. , Singh, R. , Singh, R.S. , Rathore, L.S. , 2006. Water resources and 24 (16), 14273–14290 . climate change. An Indian perspective. Curr. Sci. 90 (12), 1610–1626 . Shammi, M. , Rahman, R. , Rahman, M.M. , Moniruzzaman, M. , Bodrud-Doza, M. , Kar- Mallick, B. , Rahaman, K.R. , Vogt, J. , 2011. Coastal livelihood and physical infrastructure makar, B. , Uddin, M.K. , 2016. Assessment of salinity hazard in existing water re- in Bangladesh after cyclone Aila. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob Change 16 (6), 629–648 . sources for irrigation and potentiality of conjunctive uses: a case report from Gopal- Ragunath, H.M. , 1987. Groundwater. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, p. 563 . ganj District, Bangladesh. Sustain. Water Res. Manag. 2 (4), 369–378 . Rahman, S.A. , Hussain, M.S. , Parveen, Z. , Mohiuddin, A.S.M , 1993. Identifying character- SRDI, 2010. Saline Soils of Bangladesh. Ministry of Agriculture. Government Republic of istics of potential and actual acids sulphate soils. Bangladesh J. Soil Sci. 24, 41–49 . Bangladesh . Rasel, H.M. , Hasan, M.R. , Ahmed, B. , Miah, M.S.U. , 2013. Investigation of soil and wa- State of California website, 2009. Department of Water Resources, Online available ter salinity, its effect on crop production and adaptation strategy. Int. J. Water Res. at http://www.sjd.water.ca.gov/drainage/groundecmaps/index.cfm . [30 Novem- Enviro. Eng. 5 (8), 475–481 . ber,2009]. Richards, L.A. , 1954. In: Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils, 60. De- Todh, D.K. , 1980. Groundwater Hydrology. Wiley International Edition. John Wiley and partment of Agricultural Hand-Book, p. 160 Washington . Sons. Inc, New York . Sarkar, B., Islam, A., Majumder, A., 2021. Seawater intrusion into groundwater and its Vasanthavigar, M. , Srinivasamoorth, K. , Vijayaravan, K. , Rajiv-Gathi, R. , Chi- impact on irrigation and agriculture: evidence from the coastal region of West Ben- dambaram, S. , Anandhan, P. , Manivannan, R. , Vasudevan, S. , 2010. Application of gal, India. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 44 (2021), 101751. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101751 , water quality index for groundwater quality assessment: thirumanimuttar sub-basin, DOI: . Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 171 (1–4), 595–609 . Sarwar, S. , Ahmmed, I. , Mustari, S. , Shaibur, M.R. , 2020. Uses of weighted arithmetic WB, 2018. World Population Review. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org water quality index (WAWQI) to determine the suitability of groundwater of Chau- Wilcox, L.V. , 1955. In: The Quality of Water For Irrigation use, 1962. US Department of gachcha and Manirampur upazila, Bangladesh. Environ. Biolog. Res. 2 (2), 22–30 . Agriculture, Washington, DC, p. 19 Tech. Bull. . Shamsudduha, M. , 2013. Groundwater-fed irrigation and drinking water supply in , 1984. In: Guideline for Drinking Water Quality, 1211. World Health Organization, Bangladesh: challenges and opportunities. In: Zahid, A., Hassan, M.Q., Islam, R., GenevaSwitzerland, p. 27 20 Avenue Appia . Samad, Q.A. (Eds.), Adaptation to the Impact of Climate Change On Socio-economic Zektser, S., Loáiciga, H.A., Wolf, J.T., 2005. Environmental impacts of groundwater over- Conditions of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Alumni Association of German Universities in draft: selected case studies in the southwestern United States. Environ. Geol. 47, 396– Bangladesh,. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) . 404. doi: 10.1007/s00254-004-1164-3 . Shaibur, M.R. , Ahmmed, I. , Rumpa, S.S. , Parvin, S. , Hossain, M.S. , Rahman, M.M. , Sar- war, S. , 2019a. Physico-chemical parameters of groundwater at Jashore University of

11

View publication stats