American Chemical Science Journal 14(3): 1-9, 2016, Article no.ACSJ.25976 ISSN: 2249-0205

SCIENCEDOMAIN international

www.sciencedomain.org

Assessment of Quality of Groundwater in Parts of North-West Mandals of , ,

D. Sarada Kalyani1, V. Rajesh1, C. L. Monica1 and S. Srinivasa Rao1*

1Department of Chemistry, V. R. Siddhartha Engineering College (Autonomous), Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Authors’ contributions

Author SSR designed the study, performed the mathematical calculations and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Author DSK performed the experimental analysis of quality parameters for all the water samples. Authors VR and CLM were taken the responsibility of collection of water samples from various stations, and their preservation. Authors CLM and VR contributed in interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/ACSJ/2016/25976 Editor(s): (1) Anonymous. Reviewers: (1) Peiyue Li, Chang’an University, China. (2) A. O. Talabi, Ekiti State University, Nigeria. (3) Ashish Kumar, Agra College, Agra, India. Complete Peer review History: http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/14444

Received 28th March 2016 th Original Research Article Accepted 27 April 2016 Published 4th May 2016

ABSTRACT

Aims: To study the quality of groundwater in the selected mandals of Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh, India, in terms of drinking water quality parameters and to express the same in the form of water quality index that can be understood easily by the public. Study Design: The study includes i) collection of 20 groundwater samples from 5 different mandals, ii) Determination of 9 most significant quality parameters for all the water samples collected iii) Calculation of water quality index by incorporating data of multiple water quality parameters into a mathematical equation and iv) Assessment of water quality based on the water quality indices. Place and Duration of Study: Research Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, V. R. Siddhartha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India, during winter season between November and December 2015. ______

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected];

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

Methodology: Water samples were collected from the sampling sites and nine quality parameters were determined based on the well-known standard procedures. Taking the drinking water quality standards proposed by Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) into consideration, the subindex values were calculated, from which the overall water quality indices were obtained. Results: Results revealed that pH ranged from 7.45 to 8.30, dissolved oxygen from 7.0 to 8.7 and turbidity from 0.01 to 0.92. These three parameters are found to be within the permissible limits in case of all the twenty samples. Further, concentration of chloride is within the permissible value of 250 ppm for 15 samples. The other parameters (alkalinity, hardness, TDS, EC and fluoride) exceeded the permissible limits in many locations. The total hardness values were found to be within the limit at eleven stations, while the excess values were obtained at remaining nine stations. Total hardness is below the permissible limit for all the four stations belonging to Vatsavai mandal. The sample from Mullapadu of mandal exhibited highest values of chlorides, hardness, TDS and EC. The water quality index corresponding to the water from this station is found to be 36, the highest among all the twenty samples. Conclusion: The water quality index (WQI) values range from 5.4 to 36.0 in the present study. The acceptable limit of WQI is ≤ 50.0. Hence, it is concluded that groundwater from all the twenty stations is safe for domestic purpose. However, the sample from Mullapadu of Penuganchiprolu mandal exhibited the highest water quality index of 36 due to very high values of certain quality parameters.

Keywords: Water quality parameters; groundwater; Krishna district; volumetric analysis; water quality index.

1. INTRODUCTION at different places and different sources. Yogendra and Puttaiah [5] determined water Groundwater is believed to be relatively less quality index and suitability of an urban polluted when compared with surface water and waterbody in Shimago Town, Karnataka. They hence water required for domestic, industrial and concluded that the waterbody shows characters agricultural usage is fulfilled from mainly of eutrophication and unsuitable for domestic groundwater. But, due to continuous discharge of purpose. Sarala Thambavani and Uma waste water from industries and domestic Mageswari [6] reported water quality indices as sewage, groundwater is also getting polluted indicators for potable water. According to them, slowly and is becoming problematic for human the water quality rating at all the sampling sites health. Water quality can be considered as one studied by them is poor and hence the water was of the significant issues in water resource unsuitable for drinking purpose. Ramesh et al. [7] management. The water quality is difficult to reported a case study from Southern Tamil evaluate for large number of samples each Nadu, India, proposing an innovative approach of containing many parameters [1]. This difficulty is drinking water quality index. Shiow-Mey Liou and mainly due to the complexity of parameters that Co-workers [8] proposed a generalized water affect water quality, and the large variability of quality index for Taiwan. Ramakrishnaiah et al. parameters used to describe the water quality of [9] presented an assessment of water quality water resources [2]. index for the groundwater in Tumkur taluk, Karnataka state, India. They determined WQI of A water quality index (WQI) is a dimensionless as many groundwater samples as 269 and found number that expresses the quality of water in a that almost 99% of the samples exceeded the simple form by the aggregation of the WQI of 100, the upper limit for drinking water. A measurements of the selected parameters. water quality index applied to an international Considering the easiness of the use of WQI and shared river basin related to the Douro river was their scientific basis, WQIs became important reported by Bordalo et al. [10]. Vasanthavigar and popular tools for the assessment of water and Co-workers [11] studied the application of quality of water bodies [3]. Basically, WQI water quality index for groundwater quality attempts to provide a mechanism for presenting assessment in the Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, a cumulatively derived numerical expression Tamilnadu, India. The water quality index of a defining a certain level of water quality [4]. There degraded river in Asaol industrial area, Raniganj, are several reports in literature in which WQI was Burdwan, West Bengal, India, was determined by determined in order to assess the quality of water Chatterjee and Raziuddin [12].

2

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

It is with this background that the present limestones, shales and quartzites category and investigation of the quality of groundwater from location 4 belongs to charnockites. All the various mandals of Krishna district of Andhra remaining locations belonging to Vatsavai, Pradesh state, has been carried out. Penuganchiprolu, Nandigama and Chandarlapadu mandals comprise of granitic 2. METHODOLOGY gneisses.

The Krishna district is divided into 50 mandals, of For each sample of groundwater, 9 quality which 5 mandals located in North-West region of parameters were determined from which water the district were selected for the present study. quality index was calculated. Based on the The sources of water for domestic usage in these WQIs, the water quality status of each location is mandals are hand pumps and dug wells. From presented. In order to determine water quality each mandal, 4 locations, including mandal indices, the groundwater samples were collected headquarter, were selected, thus, making the from 20 locations in 5 mandals of Krishna district sampling size as 20 together for all the 5 of Andhra Pradesh, India. The locations include mandals. Krishna district is underlain by variety villages, agricultural and minor industrial areas. of geological formations comprising from the The map containing the selected mandals and oldest Archaeans to recent Alluvium. the locations are shown in Fig. 1. The details of Hydrogeologically, these formations were mandal-wise locations are listed in Table 1. The classified as consolidated, semi-consolidated samples were collected in cleaned brown glass and unconsolidated formations [13]. The bottles exercising necessary precautions. All the consolidated formations include crystallines chemicals used belong to AR grade purity. (Khondalites, Charnockites and granitic Double distilled water was used for the gneisses) and metasediments (limestones, preparation of solutions and reagents. The water shales, phyllites and quartzites) of Archaean and samples were analysed for various water quality Pre-cambrian periods respectively. The parameters (chlorides, alkalinity, hardness, TDS, semiconsolidated formations are represented by DO, pH, EC, turbidity and fluorides) as per the tertiary formations. The entire area chosen in the standard procedures [14,15] given in Table 2. present study, except locations 1 and 2, belongs The results of water analysis were compared to the consolidated formation, while the locations with the standard values recommended by the 1 and 2 belong to semiconsolidated formation Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and [13]. In specific, locations 1 and 2 are based on Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) [16] given in Gollapalli sandstones, location 3 belongs to Table 3.

Fig. 1. Location map

3

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

Table 1. Mandal-wise sample locations

Sampling station Sample no. Sample location Sample no. Jaggaiahpet mandal (M1) Mullapadu 11 Jaggaiahpet 1 Nawabpeta 12 Budawada 2 Nandigama mandal (M4) Chillakallu 3 Nandigama 13 Ramachandrunipeta 4 Magallu 14 Vatsavai mandal (M2) Munagacherla 15 Vatsavai 5 Raghavapuram 16 Allurupadu 6 Chandarlapadu mandal (M5) Kambampadu 7 Chandarlapadu 17 Makkapeta 8 Konayapalem 18 Penuganchiprolu mandal (M3) Muppala 19 Penuganchiprolu 9 Gudimetla 20 Konakanchi 10

Table 2. Water quality parameters, their units and analytical methods/instruments used

S. no. Parameter Unit Analytical method/Instrument 1 Chlorides (Cl–) mg/L Volumetric analysis – Argentometry 2 Total alkalinity (Alkalinity) mg/L Volumetric analysis– Neutralization with HCl 3 Total hardness (Hardness) mg/L Volumetric analysis – EDTA method 4 Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L Gravimetric method 5 Dissolved oxygen (DO) mg/L Winkler’s method 6 pH - Digital pH meter 7 Electrical conductivity (EC) µS/cm Digital conductivity meter 8 Turbidity NTU Nephelometer 9 Fluorides (F–) mg/L SPADNS method–UV-vis spectrophotometer

Table 3. Drinking water quality parameters, recommending agencies and unit weights

S. no. Parameter Standard value Recommended Unit weight agency 1 Chlorides 250 mg/L ICMR/BIS 0.00260 2 Total alkalinity 120 mg/L ICMR 0.00542 3 Total hardness 300 mg/L ICMR/BIS 0.00217 4 Total dissolved solids 500 mg/L ICMR/BIS 0.00130 5 Dissolved oxygen 5.0 mg/L ICMR 0.12998 6 pH 6.5-8.5 ICMR/BIS 0.07646 7 Electrical conductivity 300 µS/cm ICMR 0.00217 8 Turbidity 5.0 NTU BIS 0.12998 9 Fluorides 1.0 mg/L BIS 0.64992

th In order to calculate water quality index, 9 qi = subindex for the n water quality important parameters such as chlorides, total parameter alkalinity, total hardness, total dissolved solids, th Vi = Estimated value of the i parameter at a dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity, given sampling station turbidity and fluoride concentration were th th Si = Standard permissible value of the i selected. The subindex (qi) corresponding to i parameter parameter is a number reflecting the relative V = Ideal value of the parameter in pure value of this parameter in water with respect to o water (zero for all other parameters, except its standard permissible value. q value is i for pH and DO) (For pH and DO, V = 7.0 obtained from the following expression. o and 14.6 mg/L respectively)

qi = 100 x [Vi – Vo] / [Si – Vo]

4

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

Unit weight was calculated by a value inversely carbonate-rich soils, limestone, sedimentary proportional to the recommended standard value rocks as well as domestic solid waste [20]. The Si of the corresponding parameter. total hardness values were found to be within the limit of 300 mg/L at 11 locations, while the TH Wi = k / Si values in the remaining 9 locations exceeded approved standards. However, the hardness th Wi = Unit weight for the i parameter values in the four locations of Vatsavai mandal th Si = Standard value for the i parameter were within permissible limit. Hardness is one k = Proportionality constant among the important water quality parameters. Its excess beyond the above limit causes Finally, the overall water quality index was gastrointestinal irritation [21]. The detailed calculated by aggregating the subindex with the mandal-wise analysis of water quality obtained in unit weight linearly. the present study is described as below.

WQI = qiWi / Wi Jaggaiahpet mandal: Groundwater was collected at four locations in this mandal. The locations are 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Jaggaiahpet (mandal headquarter), Budawada, Chillakallu and Ramachandrunipeta. The water Results of the physicochemical parameters for all quality parameters namely chlorides, pH, DO and the groundwater samples are listed in Table 4. turbidity are within the permissible limits. Further, the subindex values (qi) of all the Jaggaiahpet sample has very high levels of parameter and for all the water samples are alkalinity, hardness, TDS and EC, when tabulated in Table 5. The product values of compared with the other three villages of the subindex and unit weight are presented in Table mandal. Interestingly, the sample at 6. From the measured quality parameters, it can Ramachandrunipeta has extremely low values of be observed that the parameter such as DO, pH chlorides, alkalinity and hardness, all within the and turbidity are within the permissible standard permissible values. The hydrogeological limits described by ICMR and BIS, while the category of Jaggaiahpet with higher values of other parameters such as chlorides, alkalinity, quality parameters is Gollapalli sandstones, while hardness, TDS, conductivity and fluoride are that of Ramachandrunipeta with lower values of found to exceed the limits. The extremely low quality parameters is Charnockites. values of turbidity even compared with the permissible value of 5.0 NTU indicates that all Vatsavai mandal: The locations at which the water samples contain very low suspended groundwater was collected in this mandal are and colloidal impurities. Conductivity of water is Vatsavai (mandal headquarter), Allurupadu, said to be a direct function of its TDS [17]. Thus, Kambampadu and Makkapeta. The water quality it is an index to the total concentration of soluble parameters namely chlorides, hardness, pH, DO salts in water [18]. In the present study, electrical and turbidity are within the permissible limits. conductivity of samples varied between 523 – Makkapeta village sample has very high levels of 8445 µS/cm. The TDS values are in the range alkalinity, TDS and EC, when compared with the 378-5680 mg/L, while the permissible limit of other three villages of the mandal. It is interesting TDS is 500 mg/L. to note that the Kambampadu sample has low values of chlorides, alkalinity, hardness and TDS. Concentration of chloride was observed to be With reference to hydrogeology, the entire within the permissible limit of 250 mg/L in many mandal has granitic gneisses. locations. The concentration of fluoride in the study area ranged from 0.76 to 1.49. Fluoride Penuganchiprolu mandal: The selected locations limit as per the ICMR and BIS are 1.0 mg/L, of collection of samples in this mandal are while it is 1.5 mg/L as per the WHO standards Penuganchiprolu (mandal headquarter), [19]. When the former standards are considered, Konakanchi, Mullapadu and Nawabpeta. The eight sample were found to have exceeded the water quality parameters namely pH, DO and limit, but as for the WHO standard, all the sample turbidity are within the permissible limits. Both fell within the permissible limit. Total alkalinity the mandal headquarter and Nawabpeta values of all the samples were found to exceed samples have hardness within the permissible the limit of 120 mg/L. The high alkalinity of values. Further, all the four samples have groundwater sample is due to release of ions like fluoride content within the maximum permissible hydroxide, carbonate and bicarbonate from limit of 1.5 ppm as proposed by WHO. Except

5

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

the above parameters, all other parameters of reference to EC and TDS, the water at this groundwater in all the locations of the mandal are location is not suitable for drinking purpose. High found to exceed the standard limits. The most TDS in groundwater affect people who are significant observation of the present study is suffering from kidney and heart diseases [22]. highest values of chlorides, hardness, TDS and With reference to hydrogeology, the entire EC for the sample collected at Mullapadu. With mandal belongs to granitic gneisses category.

Table 4. Physicochemical parameters of the groundwater samples collected from twenty different sampling stations

Sample [Cl–] Alkalinity Hardness TDS DO pH EC Turbidity [F–] no. 1 183 375 426 782 7.9 7.45 1429 0.05 0.88 2 75 130 218 446 7.6 7.71 722 0.07 0.89 3 75 293 267 414 8.5 8.00 808 0.02 1.43 4 18 176 217 416 7.0 7.89 523 0.37 1.12 5 89 224 292 548 7.7 7.77 801 0.10 1.15 6 104 187 257 604 7.8 7.75 907 0.10 0.85 7 69 223 173 378 8.1 7.85 623 0.69 0.88 8 159 434 227 842 8.2 8.30 1400 0.74 1.14 9 260 598 178 1394 7.7 8.09 2570 0.03 1.00 10 597 692 361 2870 8.4 8.24 4603 0.58 1.49 11 1094 551 886 5680 8.4 8.02 8445 0.15 1.36 12 79 281 183 540 8.7 8.08 856 0.21 1.40 13 210 328 316 1046 8.4 7.98 1696 0.05 0.76 14 297 282 292 1296 8.5 8.04 2227 0.92 1.00 15 483 129 569 1890 8.7 7.74 3080 0.42 1.23 16 249 187 539 1182 8.4 7.77 1633 0.77 0.89 17 89 375 306 868 8.4 8.08 1148 0.21 1.07 18 109 316 247 542 7.8 8.21 988 0.01 1.40 19 62 516 376 756 8.2 8.05 1154 0.21 1.22 20 225 188 475 1024 8.4 7.80 1266 0.58 0.77

Table 5. Subindex (qi) values corresponding to the parameters listed in Table 4

S. no. [Cl–] Alkalinity Hardness TDS DO pH EC Turbidity [F–] 1 73.2 312.5 142.0 156 69.79 30.00 476 1.0 88 2 30.0 108.3 72.6 89 72.92 47.33 240 1.4 89 3 30.0 244.1 89.0 82 63.54 66.67 269 0.4 143 4 7.2 146.6 72.3 83 79.17 59.33 174 7.4 112 5 35.6 186.6 97.3 109 71.88 51.33 267 2.0 115 6 41.6 155.8 85.6 120 70.83 50.00 302 2.0 85 7 27.6 185.8 57.6 75 67.71 56.67 207 13.8 88 8 63.6 361.6 75.6 168 66.67 86.67 466 14.8 114 9 104.0 498.3 59.3 278 71.88 72.67 856 0.6 100 10 238.8 576.6 120.3 574 64.58 82.67 1534 11.6 149 11 437.6 459.1 295.3 1136 64.58 68.00 2815 3.0 136 12 31.6 234.1 61.0 108 61.46 72.00 285 4.2 140 13 84.0 273.3 105.3 209 64.58 65.33 565 1.0 76 14 118.8 235.0 97.3 259 63.54 69.33 742 18.4 100 15 193.2 107.5 189.7 378 61.46 49.33 1026 8.4 123 16 99.6 155.8 179.7 236 64.58 51.33 544 15.4 89 17 35.6 312.5 102.0 173 64.58 72.00 382 4.2 107 18 43.6 263.3 82.3 108 70.83 80.67 329 0.2 140 19 24.8 430.0 125.3 151 66.67 70.00 384 4.2 122 20 90.0 156.6 158.3 204 64.58 53.33 422 11.6 77

6

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

Table 6. Product values of subindex and unit weight (qiWi) for all the parameters

S. [Cl–] Alkalinity Hardness TDS DO pH EC Turbidity [F–] no. 1 0.4758 2.0325 0.9244 1.0166 1.0268 0.5696 3.1009 0.0065 0.5719 2 0.195 0.7046 0.4731 0.5798 0.9878 0.5895 1.5667 0.0091 0.5784 3 0.195 1.5881 0.5794 0.5382 1.1048 0.6117 1.7534 0.0026 0.9294 4 0.0468 0.9539 0.4709 0.5408 0.9099 0.6033 1.1349 0.0481 0.7279 5 0.2314 1.2141 0.6336 0.7124 1.0008 0.5941 1.7382 0.013 0.7474 6 0.2704 1.0135 0.5577 0.7852 1.0138 0.5926 1.9682 0.013 0.5524 7 0.1794 1.2087 0.3754 0.4914 1.0528 0.6002 1.3519 0.0897 0.5719 8 0.4134 2.3523 0.4926 1.0946 1.0658 0.6346 3.038 0.0962 0.7409 9 0.676 3.2412 0.3863 1.8122 1.0008 0.6186 5.5769 0.0039 0.6499 10 1.5522 3.7506 0.7834 3.731 1.0918 0.63 9.9885 0.0754 0.9684 11 2.8444 2.9864 1.9226 7.384 1.0918 0.6132 18.326 0.0195 0.8839 12 0.2054 1.523 0.3971 0.702 1.1308 0.6178 1.8575 0.0273 0.9099 13 0.546 1.7778 0.6857 1.3598 1.0918 0.6102 3.6803 0.0065 0.4939 14 0.7722 1.5284 0.6336 1.6848 1.1048 0.6147 4.8326 0.1196 0.6499 15 1.2558 0.6992 1.2347 2.457 1.1308 0.5918 6.6836 0.0546 0.7994 16 0.6474 1.0135 1.1696 1.5366 1.0918 0.5941 3.5436 0.1001 0.5784 17 0.2314 2.0325 0.664 1.1284 1.0918 0.6178 2.4912 0.0273 0.6954 18 0.2834 1.7127 0.536 0.7046 1.0138 0.6277 2.144 0.0013 0.9099 19 0.1612 2.7967 0.8159 0.9828 1.0658 0.6155 2.5042 0.0273 0.7929 20 0.585 1.019 1.0308 1.3312 1.0918 0.5964 2.7472 0.0754 0.5004

Nandigama mandal: The locations at which all the water samples in the present study are groundwater was collected in this mandal are shown in Fig. 2. Nandigama (mandal headquarter), Magallu, Munagacherla and Raghavapuram. The water Table 7. Water quality index (WQI) and quality parameters namely pH, DO and turbidity corresponding water quality status [12] are within the permissible limits. The sample from Munagacherla has low alkalinity compared Water Water quality status with other locations of the mandal, but the same quality sample has highest values of chlorides, index range hardness, TDS, EC and fluoride within the 0 – 25 Excellent water quality locations of the mandal. The entire mandal 26 – 50 Good water quality comes under the category of granitic gneisses 51 – 75 Poor water quality hydrogeologically. 76 – 100 Very poor water quality  100 Unsuitable for drinking purpose Chandarlapadu mandal: Groundwater was collected at four locations in this mandal. The Fig. 2 shows that all the water samples from locations are Chardarlapadu (mandal Jaggaiahpet mandal, Vatsavai mandal and headquarter), Konayapalem, Muppala and Chandarlapadu mandal have WQI values less Gudimetla. The water quality parameters namely than 10, indicating excellent water suitable for chlorides, pH, DO and turbidity are within the drinking and other domestic purposes. The permissible limits. All the samples of the mandal samples from Nandigama mandal and have exceeded the permissible limit of alkalinity, Penduganchiprolu mandal (except the sample at TDS and EC. The sample at Gudimetla location Nawabpeta) have WQI values greater than 10. has lower alkalinity value, but higher values of However, as most of these samples have WQI chlorides, hardness, TDS and EC among the values below 25, they can be categorized to be locations of the mandal. The hydrogeological suitable for domestic purpose [12]. The sample category of all the locations of the mandal is from the station, Mullapadu exhibited the WQI granitic gneisses. value of 36, which still revealed that the water is of good quality. The high value of WQI for the The water quality index (WQI) values and water at this station is due to higher values of corresponding water quality status [12] are many parameters namely EC, TDS, hardness, shown in Table 7. The WQI values obtained for chlorides, etc.

7

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

Fig. 2. Water quality index values of groundwater samples

4. CONCLUSION COMPETING INTERESTS

1. The water quality parameters namely pH, Authors have declared that no competing DO and turbidity for all the water samples interests exist. are well within the permitted levels. 2. Most of the water samples exhibited EC REFERENCES and TDS values above the permitted values, while the alkalinity, chlorides and 1. Almeida CA, Quintar S, Gonzalez P, hardness values are higher than Mallea MA. Influence of urbanization and permissible levels only in some samples. tourist activities on the water quality of the 3. All water samples have fluoride potrero de los Funes River (San Luis- concentrations within WHO standard (1.5 Argentina). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007; mg/L) but exceeded ICMR and BIS 133(1-3):459-65. standards in few locations. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-9600-3 4. Water quality index values of the samples 2. Chapman D. (UNESCO, WHO, and indicate that all the groundwater sources UNEP). Water quality assessment. from the sampling locations are safe for London: Chapman & Hall; 1992. domestic usage. 5. Water sample from Mullapadu of 3. Sutadian AD, Muttil N, Yilmaz AG, Perera Penduganchiprolu with the highest WQI, BJC. Development of river water quality does not exhibit excellent water quality, but indices – A review. Environ. Monit. Assess. can be permitted for domestic usage. 2016;188(1):58. Similarly, the water sample from this DOI: 10.1007/s10661-015-5050-0 location exhibited highest values of 4. Miller WW, Joung HM, Mahannah CN, chlorides, hardness, TDS and EC. Garrett J. Identification of water quality differences in Nevada through index ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS application. J. Environ. Qual. 1986;15(3): 265-72. The authors are thankful to the Principal and the DOI:10.2134/jeq1986.0047242500150003 Management of the Institute for their 0012x encouragement and facilities to carry out 5. Yogendra K, Puttaiah ET. Determination of research work. water quality index and suitability of an

8

Kalyani et al.; ACSJ, 14(3): 1-9, 2016; Article no.ACSJ.25976

urban waterbody in Shimoga Town, river in Asanol industrial area, Raniganj, Karnataka. In: Sengupta M, Dalwani R, Burdwan, West Bengal. Nature, editors. Proceedings of Taal 2007: The Environment and Pollution Technology. 12th World Lake Conference. 2008;342-46. 2002;1(2):181-9. 6. Sarala Thambavani D, Uma Mageswari 13. Krishna VSR, Ground Water Brochure, TSR. Water quality indices as indicators for Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh, Central potable water. Desalination and Water Groundwater Board, Ministry of Water Treatment. 2014;52:4772-82. Resources, Government of India; 2013. DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2013.834517 14. APHA, AWWA and WPCF Standard 7. Ramesh S, Sukumaran N, Murugesan AG, methods for the examination of waters and Rajan MP. An innovative approach of waste waters. 21st ed. American Public drinking water quality index- A case study Health Association (APHA), Washington, from Southern Tamil Nadu, India. DC; 2005. Ecological Indicators. 2010;10:857-68. 15. NEERI, Manual on water and waste water DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.01.007 analysis, National Environmental 8. Shiow-Mey Liou, Shang-Lien Lo, Shan- Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, Hsien Wang. A generalized water quality India; 1986. index for Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 16. BIS, Analysis of water and waste water, 2004;96(1-3):35-52. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi; DOI:10.1023/B:EMAS.0000031715.83752. 1993. a1 17. Harilal CC, Hashim A, Arun PR, Baji S. 9. Ramakrishnaiah CR, Sadashivaiah C, Hydro-geochemistry of two rivers of Kerala Ranganna G. Assessment of water quality with special reference to drinking water index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, quality. J. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. Karnataka State, India. E-Journal of 2004;10:187-92. Chemistry. 2009;6(2):523-30. 18. Purandara BK, Varadarajan N, Jayashree 10. Bordalo AA, Teixeira R, Wiebe WJ. A K. Impact of sewage on ground water: A water quality index applied to an case study. Poll. Res. 2003;22:189-97. international shared river basin: The case 19. WHO (World Health Organization), Water of the Douro River. Environ. Manage. Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health, 2006;38:910-20. WHO Press, Geneva; 2004. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0037-6 20. Rajurkar NS, Nongbri B, Patwardhan AM. 11. Vasanthavigar M, Srinivasamoorthy K, Water quality status of river Umkhrah at Vijayaragavan K, Rajiv Ganthi R, Shillong. Int. J. Environ. Prot. 2003;23:990- Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, et al. 8. Application of water quality index for 21. ICMR, Manual of standards of quality for groundwater quality assessment: drinking water supplies, 2nd edition, special Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, report series no. 44, Indian Council for India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010;171: Medical Research, New Delhi, India; 1975. 595-609. 22. Gupta S, Kumar A, Ojha CK, Singh G. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-1302-1 Chemical analysis of ground water of 12. Chatterjee C, Raziuddin M. Determination Sanganer area, Jaipur in Rajasthan. J. of water quality index (WQI) of a degraded Environ. Sci. Eng. 2004;46:74-8. ______© 2016 Kalyani et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history: The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/14444

9