INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 2, No 2, 2011

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing Association

Research article ISSN 0976 – 4402

Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of cantonment area, , Chadetrik Rout1, Arabinda Sharma2 1 Civil Engineering Department, M.M. University, , Ambala 133207, Haryana, India 2 Civil Engineering Department, BRCM College of Engineering & Technology, Bahal-127 028, Bhiwani, Haryana, India [email protected], [email protected] doi:10.6088/ijes.00202020050

ABSTRACT

Water is a vital resource for human survival. In the present study, the physico-chemical characteristics of groundwater of area were assessed for its suitability for drinking purposes. A total of 26 water samples were collected from deep aquifer based tube wells from different parts of Ambala Cantonment area. In order to assess the ground water quality, the water samples were analyzed for different physico-chemical properties, e.g., pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), calcium, magnesium, total harness (TH), sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, total alkalinity (TA), chloride, fluoride and sulphate concentrations. The results were compared with the standards prescribed by World Health Organization (WHO) and Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS). All the physio-chemical parameters were found to be in the prescribed permissible limit. The correlation matrix was also calculated for different parameters of drinking water. From the pH values it is clear that the ground water of the study area is alkaline in nature and the total hardness varies in between 116.6-129.4 mg/l, which indicates that water in the deep aquifer is moderately hard. Hence it is suggested to the cantonment localities to soften the tube well water before consumption.

Keywords: Drinking water, fluoride, de-ionized water, WHO, BIS, Physico-chemical

1. Introduction

Water covers 78% of the earth’s surface, yet water available for human use is limited. Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water for more than 98% of the populations in Haryana, India. Being a basic need of human development, health and wellbeing, safe drinking water is an internationally accepted human right (WHO, 2001), which has been enlisted as one of the ten targets in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As a decentralized source of drinking water and myriads of other services for millions of rural and urban families, groundwater as a natural resource plays a crucial role which, accounts for nearly 80 per cent of the rural domestic water needs, and 50 per cent of the urban water needs in India (Kumar et al., 2005). Groundwater pollution unlike others is very critical, as once an aquifer becomes polluted, it is very difficult, expensive and time consuming affair to clean it up and may remain unusable for decades. Haryana is one of the Indian states where endemic fluorosis has been reported as an alarming health problem. The groundwater quality has been investigated in some part of Haryana including Hisar (Kaushik et al., 2002; Khaiwal and Garg 2006), Jind region (Mor et al., 2003; Meenakshi et al., 2004), Fridabad and (Kaushik et al., 2004). Meenakshi et al., (2004) reported the fluoride content in rural habitations of Jind district between the ranges of 0.3 and 6.9 mg/l. Therefore, the primary objective of this investigation is to find out the physico-chemical parameters and fluoride (F-)

Received on September 2011 Published on November 2011 933 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India concentrations in deep tube wells water in order to explore their suitability for human consumption and domestic use by the Ambala Cantonment population.

Ambala district of Haryana lies between 30° 10’- 31° 35’ N latitudes and 76° 30’ - 77° 10’ E longitudes. Total geographical area of the district is around 1574 km2. The district area falls in the Yamuna sub-basin of Ganga basin and is mainly drained by three non-perennial streams such as The Markanda & its tributaries, The Dangri (Tangri) & its tributaries and The Ghagghar & its tributaries. The ground water exploration revealed the presence of three aquifer groups down to a depth of 450 meters comprising fine to medium grained sand, clay, silt and kankar with occasional gravel. The height from the sea level is 900 feet. The average gradient of the water table is of the order of 1m/km. The overall flow of ground water is from north-east to south-west direction. The Cantonment Board has constructed tube wells of varying depths ranging from 175m to 400m for drinking water supply to Ambala Cantonment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Sample Collection

Total 25 ground water samples were collected, from deep aquifer based tube wells covering the entire (Ambala cantonment) area, from 25 different locations. Water samples were collected directly from the tube wells after running the water for about 3-5 minutes. All the samples were collected on 2nd October, 6th November and 4th December, 2010. Water samples were collected in precleaned, sterilized, polyethylene bottles of one liter capacity. The first sample was collected from the tube well of Khukhrain Bhawan, Opp. Subhash park and the last sampling was done from the tube well of Anaj Mandi, Ambala Cantonment.

2.2 Analytical methods

The water samples were analyzed at the Department of Civil Engineering in Environmental Engineering Laboratory (M.M University, Mullana). The water samples were analyzed for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved solids (TDS), total calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), total hardness (TH), sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), total - - 2- alkalinity (TA), chloride (Cl ), fluoride (F ) and Sulphate (SO4 ). All the reagents used in the present study were of analytical reagent grade and de-ionized water was used for experimental purpose. All the precautions were taken as given in APHA, AWWA, WPCF (2003), for sampling and analysis. The details of the sampling sites and results are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 1 : Sampling locations of Ambala Cantonment area

Sample Sampling Locations Approx. Age (Years) No. Depth (feets) as on Dec,2010 1 Khukhrain Bhawan, Opp. Subhash park 335 5 2 PWD (B&R) 335 4 3 Satadium 400 0.5 4 Ambedkar Park Tubewell 400 1 5 Main W/W T/W No. 1 335 10

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 934 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

6 Rangia Mandi 400 1 7 Shastri Colony 335 6 8 Hathi Khana Mandir 335 5 9 Dushahra Ground 400 9 10 Dina Ki Mandi 400 1 11 Subhash Park 335 9 12 Near Tool Room 175 22 13 Housing Board Colony 335 3 14 Aggarsain Nagar 340 6 15 Rani Bagh 340 3 16 Arya Nagar 400 18 17 Ajit Nagar 330 3 18 Matidas Nagar 335 10 19 Golden Park 400 15 20 Dr. Anita Bhushan 300 13 21 MC Colony Near Civil Hosp. 330 10 22 Indira Park 335 6 23 PWD Rest House 400 5 24 B.I. Bazar , Lalkurti 400 5 25 Anaj Mandi 335 5

Table 2: Values and concentration of various water parameters in groundwater samples of Ambala Cantonment (Continued)

Sample No. pH EC TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ TH Na+ 15. 7.52 0.77 490.81 51.27 13.80 119.8 32.23 16. 7.88 0.69 439.66 71.62 28.98 120.4 31.73 17. 7.89 0.57 361.80 48.91 23.51 126.7 17.96 18. 7.96 0.74 470.65 57.35 21.54 124.6 17.50 19. 7.91 0.62 393.87 68.68 20.75 124.6 22.47 20. 6.92 0.45 282.54 74.22 23.15 123.2 15.31 21. 7.69 0.66 419.43 67.19 22.84 128.9 26.84 22. 7.39 0.75 477.65 53.14 23.51 123.7 35.49 23. 7.19 0.33 208.25 74.61 22.21 120.6 06.33 24. 7.15 0.41 258.49 82.25 14.64 124.6 16.26 25. 7.70 0.22 138.82 57.82 21.77 126.8 05.25

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 935 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

Minimum 6.92 0.22 138.82 18.71 10.34 116.6 5.25 Maximum 8.12 0.77 490.81 82.25 28.98 129.4 35.49 * Units of all the parameters are in mg/l except EC (µS cm-1) and pH

Table 2: Values and concentration of various water parameters in groundwater samples of Ambala Cantonment (Continued)

Sample No. pH EC TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ TH Na+ 1. 7.22 0.50 310.45 19.62 10.64 116.6 17.54 2. 7.81 0.62 394.85 26.23 21.08 124.1 23.13 3. 7.98 0.42 262.83 32.33 13.92 121.9 31.62 4. 7.42 0.37 234.87 68.82 10.34 123.6 28.76 5. 7.48 0.51 323.46 28.66 13.15 119.5 26.62 6. 7.93 0.41 260.44 54.38 12.87 122.6 13.87 7. 7.11 0.31 193.48 62.63 13.72 121.9 12.55 8. 8.12 0.34 213.62 18.71 10.62 124.3 11.48 9. 7.26 0.60 381.54 78.52 12.30 129.5 28.82 10. 7.78 0.66 419.42 45.95 11.85 119.9 09.14 11. 7.65 0.72 455.80 75.90 20.88 122.8 11.36 12. 7.86 0.59 372.68 72.46 24.95 126.4 11.67 13. 7.55 0.62 391.83 73.93 13.31 123.9 25.53 14. 7.32 0.53 334.22 62.43 15.47 129.4 15.82

Table 2: Values and concentration of various water parameters in groundwater samples of Ambala Cantonment (Continued)

Sample + 2– – – – K CO3 HCO3 TA Cl F 2– No. SO4

1. 2.64 10.53 124.57 120.28 17.46 0.24 32.33 2. 2.68 12.68 122.33 179.49 19.82 0.70 72.57 3. 1.35 11.75 121.62 185.56 17.56 0.30 76.63

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 936 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

4. 2.64 09.44 118.29 135.61 15.88 0.71 81.22 5. 1.37 11.72 129.15 139.33 10.28 0.85 39.18 6. 1.98 06.29 127.93 184.84 15.72 0.59 93.75 7. 2.35 04.14 116.47 103.77 7.96 0.80 81.57 8. 2.28 07.55 128.38 187.70 14.68 0.45 95.73 9. 2.48 09.83 121.34 122.45 07.83 0.54 71.88 10. 2.65 11.38 124.56 166.22 17.55 0.74 81.83 11. 1.80 12.59 112.55 158.62 09.72 0.56 77.28 12. 2.55 11.85 119.66 180.18 10.36 0.14 92.15 13. 2.50 11.82 118.90 149.44 27.84 0.42 102.57 14. 2.75 10.91 124.48 126.82 28.28 0.25 68.74

Table 2: Values and concentration of various water parameters in groundwater samples of Ambala Cantonment (Continued)

15 K+ CO 2– HCO – TA Cl– F– SO 2– . 3 3 4 16 2.26 3.59 123.4 147.75 38.36 0.74 90.31 . 17 3.15 6.36 120.2 180.31 48.04 0.18 89.82 . 18 2.54 10.82 122.4 182.34 18.36 0.19 99.55 . 19 1.67 8.16 126.9 184.66 09.56 0.18 91.73 . 20 1.58 7.44 121.3 183.47 16.12 0.15 97.64 . 21 1.49 5.51 117.4 90.83 19.4 0.90 91.97 . 22 2.46 4.64 124.5 162.38 17.4 0.40 88.19 . 23 2.26 4.48 118.5 127.22 16.52 0.31 87.34 . 24 2.11 11.38 123.7 110.5 18.12 0.24 84.54 . 25 2.22 9.61 129.2 105.8 57.80 0.79 71.48 . 2.43 8.84 130.3 165.36 27.88 0.21 94.92

Minimu 1.35 3.59 112.55 90.83 7.83 0.14 32.33 m Maxim 3.15 12.68 130.30 187.70 57.80 0.90 102.57 um

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 937 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

Table 3: Comparison of water quality parameters of groundwater of Ambala Cantonment area with drinking water quality standard (Indian and WHO)

Range of samples BIS Standards WHO Parameters Acceptable Maximum Minimum Maximum Limit limit limit pH 6.92 8.12 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.2 6.5-9.2 EC 0.22 0.77 300 - - TDS 138.82 490.81 500 2000 500 TA 90.83 187.7 200 600 - TH 116.6 129.4 300 600 100 Na+ 5.25 35.49 50 - - K+ 1.35 3.15 - - - Ca+2 18.71 82.25 75 200 75 Mg+2 10.34 28.98 30 100 150 2– CO3 3.59 12.68 75 200 75 – HCO3 112.55 130.3 30 - 150 Cl– 7.83 57.80 200 1000 200 F– 0.14 0.90 1.0 1.5 1 2– SO4 32.33 102.57 200 400 200 *Units of all the parameter are in mg/l except EC (µS cm-1) and pH.

There is some inter-dependence between the physico-chemical parameters; they may be related by the method of least square principal. While keeping parameters as independent variable (X), remaining parameters are treated as dependent variables (Y) and they can be related as given below.

Y = AX + B …….(1)

Where A and B are constants

Values of A and B can be calculated with the help of following equations XY  XSY A  ……(2) X 2  XSX

B  Y  AX ..….(3) The degree of fitness of the equation is determined by the factor, correlation coefficient (r). And the correlation coefficient (r) between the variables X and Y is given by the well known relation.

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 938 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

XY  XY r  ……(4) 2 2 [(X  XX) (Y  YY) The correlation coefficient (r) will have a value from -1 to 1. Negative sign represents that the two variables do not have similar trend of variation where as positive value represent similar tend. More will be the accuracy of fitness if r is more close to unity. Zero values means there is no relationship between X and Y and both are independent to each other.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Hydrogen Ion Activity (pH) pH is a term used to express the intensity of acidic or alkaline conditions. It is the expression of hydrogen ion concentration, more precisely, the hydrogen ion activity. pH is an important parameter in assessing the water quality. Acidic conditions will prevail as pH value decreases and alkaline conditions will prevail as the pH value increases. The BIS limit for drinking water is 7.0-8.5 shown in Table 3. pH value in analyzed water samples varied from 6.92 to 8.12. The low pH does not cause any harmful effect (Boominathan and Khan, 1994). The results show that all the water samples were within permissible limits.

3.2 Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current is governed by the migration of solutions and is dependent on the nature and numbers of the ionic species in that solution. This property is called electrical conductivity. It is a useful tool to assess the purity of water. The permissible limit for electrical conductivity (EC) is 300 µS cm-1. EC of the collected samples ranged from 220 to 770 µS cm-1.

3.3 Total Dissolve Salts (TDS)

The electrical conductivity of water samples correlates with the concentration of dissolved minerals or with what is commonly known as the total dissolved salts of water samples. The acceptable range of TDS is 500 mg/l. The range of TDS of analyzed water samples varied between 138.82 to 490.81 mg/l as shown in Table 2. The highest TDS value was observed at location no. 15. All the water sample are non-saline as per the salinity classification (Table 4) suggested by Robinove et al. (1958). So, it can be concluded that in case of non-availability of any other water-source, groundwater of studied areas is suitable for drinking purposes from salinity point of view.

Table 4: Classification of groundwater on the basis of salinity values (Robinove et al., 1958)

TDS (ppm) Description No. of Samples <1000 Non-Saline 25 1000-3000 Slightly saline 0 3000-10,000 Moderately Saline 0 > 10,000 Very Saline 0 Total 25

3.4 Calcium (Ca2+) and Magnesium (Mg2+)

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 939 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

The calcium and magnesium are the most abundant elements in the groundwater. Calcium may dissolve readily from carbonate rocks and lime stones or be leached from soils. However, dissolved Mg2+ concentration is lower than Ca2+ in the groundwater. Other sources include primarily industrial and municipal discharges. Calcium is an essential nutritional element for human being and aids in maintaining the structure of plant cells and soils. Mg2+ is a constituent of bones and is essential for normal metabolism of Ca2+. Its deficiency may lead to protein energy malnutrition.

The acceptable limits of Ca2+ and Mg2+ are 75 mg/l and 30 mg/l respectively. The estimated Ca2+ content from collected water samples ranged from 18.71 to 82.25 mg/l and Mg2+ concentration ranged from 10.34 to 28.98 mg/l as shown in Table 2. Around 12% of water samples showed Ca2+ concentration above the acceptable limit while in case of Mg2+, all samples were below the acceptable limit. Higher concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+ were observed at location no. 24 and 16 respectively.

3.5 Total Hardness (TH)

In groundwater hardness is mainly contributed by bicarbonates, carbonates, sulphates and chlorides of calcium and magnesium. So, the principal hardness causing ions are calcium and magnesium. The acceptable limit of total hardness is 200 mg/l. The hardness of analyzed water samples varied from 116.6 to 129.4 mg/l as CaCO3. The highest value of total hardness was observed at location no. 14, as shown in Table 2. In ground water, in case of non- availability of alternate water source, Ca2+ and Mg2+ upto 200mg/l and 400mg/l respectively, can be accepted (Ministry of Rural Development, India). If these components are present in high concentration, than this leads to encrustation in water supply structure and adversely affect use of water.

Durfor and Becker (1964) have classified water as soft, moderate, hard and very hard as given in Table 5. As per this classification most of the samples comes under moderate to hard category. On the basis of this classification it has been observed that no water samples are soft, 23% are moderately hard, 73% are hard in nature.

Table 5: Classification of water on the basis of total hardness (Durfor and Becker, 1964)

Total Hardness (mg/l) Nature of water 0-60 Soft 61-120 Moderate 121-180 Hard >181 Very

3.6 Sodium (Na+) and Potassium (K+)

Practically all sodium compounds are water soluble and tend to remain in aqueous solution. Water in contact with igneous rocks will dissolve sodium from its natural source. Higher concentration of Na+ ion in drinking water may cause heart problems. Higher Na+ ion in irrigation water may cause salinity problems. Excessive amount of Na+ ion in groundwater normally affects the palatability of water. The permissible limit of sodium in drinking water as prescribed by BIS is 50 mg/l. The range of Na+ ions in water samples varied from a minimum of 5.25 to 35.49 mg/l (concentration in excess of 200 mg/l give rise to unacceptable

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 940 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India taste). At room temperature, the average tastes thresh Guideline sodium is about 200 mg/l. No health base guideline values have been derived (WHO, 2006). On comparison with BIS standards, Na+ concentration of all samples was found to be within the permissible limit.

Potassium is an important cation and plays a vital role in intermediately metabolism. K+ is an essential nutrient for both plant and human life. However ingestion of excessive amounts may prove detrimental to human beings. The K+ concentration of analyzed water samples varied from 1.35 to 3.15 mg/l as shown in Table 2.

2– – 3.7 Carbonate (CO3 ) and Bicarbonate (HCO3 )

Carbonates and Bicarbonates in water are present mainly in association with Ca2+ and 2+ 2– – Mg .The acceptable limit of CO3 and HCO3 is 75 mg/l and 30 mg/l respectively. The – carbonate content of analyzed water samples varied from 3.59 mg/l to 12.68 mg/l and HCO3 content varied from 112.55 mg/l to 130.30 mg/l as shown in Table 2.

3.8 Total Alkalinity (TA)

Alkalinity of water is its acid neutralizing capacity. The alkalinity of groundwater is mainly due to carbonates and bicarbonates. The acceptable limit of alkalinity is 200 mg/l and in the absence of alternate water source, alkalinity upto 600 mg/l is acceptable for drinking. The phenolphthalein alkalinity of most of the water samples is zero but the total alkalinity of analyzed water samples varied from 90.83 to 187.70mg/l as given in Table 2. Total alkalinity of all samples was below the permissible limit. It is itself not harmful to human being (Pande and Sharma, 1999).

3.9 Chloride (Cl-)

Chloride is an anion found in variable amount in groundwater. Chloride may present naturally in groundwater and may also originate from diverse sources such as weathering, leaching of sedimentary rocks and infiltration of seawater etc. The maximum permissible limit of chloride in potable water is 250 mg/l. It produces salty taste at 250mg/l to 500mg/l (Trivedy and Goel, 1984). In the analyzed water samples, the concentration of chloride varied from 7.83 to 57.80 mg/l. The chloride content of the water sample when compared with BIS standard then it was found that all samples showed concentration within the permissible limit. The maximum Cl– concentration was observed at location no. 24, as shown in Table 2.

3.10 Fluoride (F-)

The sources of fluorides are mainly, industries of iron, steel production, petroleum refining and phosphate fertilizer. Higher concentration of fluoride causes bone and dental fluorosis. The BIS permissible limit for fluoride in groundwater is 1mg/l as given in Table 3. However, in temperate region this limit is 1.5 mg/l, where, water intake is low. Fluoride (F-) varied from permissible limit for F concentration is 1-1.5 mg/l according to WHO (2003). Fluoride concentration less than 0.8 mg/l leads to dental caries. Hence it is essential to maintain fluoride concentration between 0.8 to 1.0 mg/l in drinking water. The concentration of fluoride in groundwater samples varied from 0.14 to .90 mg/l as shown in Table 2. Fluoride concentration in all these samples found to be well within permissible limit. Khaiwal and Garg (2006) reported relatively high ranges of fluoride contamination, i.e., 0.03–16.6 mg l-1 in groundwater of Hisar region of Haryana.

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 941 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

2– 3.11 Sulphate (SO4 )

Sulphur in groundwater is normally present in sulphate form. Sulphate may enter into groundwater through weathering of sulphide bearing deposits. The acceptable limit of sulphate is 200 mg/l. The sulphate content in analyzed water samples varied from 32.33 to 102.57 mg/l as shown in Table 2. All the samples found to be well within permissible limit.

However the physico-chemical parameter of water varies from place to place of the world. Meenakshi et al. (2004) reported high concentrations of fluoride (up to 46 mg/l) in villages of Haryana) in ground water. Habuda-Stanic et al. (2007) reported high concentrations of iron, manganese, ammonia, organic substances and arsenic, in eastern Croatia. Singandhupe et al. (2006) reported the overall quality of irrigation water was good and was suitable for irrigation as well as domestic use in Hirakud command area of Orissa, India. Similar study in Kohdasht city of Lorestan, Iran showed water quality parameters were within the permissible limits of the WHO (Jafari et al., 2008). Karavoltsos et al. (2008) also reported sodium, fluoride, sulphate, nitrate and conductivity were lower than the upper limits by 2℅ of the total number of samples analyzed in Greece. Similar results were reported by Akpoveta et al. (2011) from borehole water in Benin University, Benin, Nigeria and found within WHO limit. et al. 3- - 2- 3- + 2+ 2+ (2003) reported pH, EC,TDS, Ca, Mg, Na, K, HCO ,Cl , As, SO4 , NO ,Fe3 , Zn , Mn , Cu2+, P5+ and B3+ in ground water in different aquifers of Khagrachari, Bangladesh found some were within and beyond the safe limit. The water quality varies depend on type of soil, climate and human activities. Compare to other studies in another part of the world this water has good property for drinking. Study in Ghana, Africa showed low pH in some ground water sources (Akoto and Adiyiah, 2007). Venkat Kumar et al, (2011) reported the cations and anions of underground water of Tiruchirapalli city, India were above the maximum, desirable for human consumption. Luckily, with reference to analyzed parameters during this research, all harmful components for human health were in a good state.

3.12 Correlation analysis

Correlation matrix was prepared to find out the relation between different parameters are presented in Table 6. The highest correlation is observed between total dissolved solids and electrical conductivity (0.9998). There is also positive correlation of total hardness and calcium (0.404), the total alkalinity and bicarbonate (r = 0.194), electrical conductivity & total dissolved solids with sodium (r =0. 489 and r =0.491) and some extent to magnesium (r = 0. 305 and r =0.309).

Table 6: Correlation Matrix of various physico-chemical parameters

pH EC TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ TH Na+ pH 1 EC 0.2270 1 TDS 0.2317 0.9998 1 Ca2+ -0.3541 0.0887 0.0921 1 Mg2+ 0.1642 0.3055 0.3093 0.3480 1 TH 0.1020 0.0124 0.0170 0.4040 0.2475 1 Na+ 0.0280 0.4890 0.4911 -0.0614 -0.0348 -0.0506 1

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 942 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

K+ -0.0111 0.0823 0.0843 0.0720 0.0821 0.1397 -0.0083 2– CO3 0.1329 -0.0701 -0.0743 -0.1395 -0.1041 0.0044 -0.2686 – HCO3 0.2258 -0.3057 -0.3010 -0.3843 -0.1880 0.0180 -0.2418 TA 0.9911 0.2621 0.2666 -0.3279 0.2033 0.1183 0.0438 Cl– -0.1244 0.0212 0.0235 0.2351 0.1090 -0.0843 0.1617 F– -0.4297 -0.1303 -0.1278 -0.0281 -0.4340 -0.2462 0.0304 2– SO4 0.3964 0.0701 0.0780 0.4107 0.4021 0.3804 0.0988

Table 6: Correlation Matrix of various physico-chemical parameters ( continued)

+ 2– – – – 2– K CO3 HCO3 TA Cl F SO4 pH EC TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ TH Na+ K+ 1

2– CO3 0.0406 1 – HCO3 -0.0020 0.0610 1 TA 0.0143 0.1534 0.1942 1 Cl– 0.3251 -0.1421 0.2361 -0.1184 1 F– 0.1665 0.1204 0.0351 -0.4411 0.0364 1

2– SO4 0.0529 0.3419 0.1641 0.3875 0.0816 0.2374 1

4. Conclusion

In this study characterization of the physiochemical parameters of groundwater from twenty five tube wells at different locations in Ambala Cantonment area was carried out. To assess the quality of ground water each parameter was compared with the standard desirable limits prescribed by World health organization (WHO) and Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS). From the study it can be concluded that groundwater is safe for drinking purposes from the point of 2+ 2+ + + 2– – – – view of levels of pH, EC, TDS, Ca , Mg , Na , K , CO3 , HCO3 , TA, Cl , F and 2– SO4 . But the total hardness varied in between 116.6-129.4 mg/l, which indicates that water in the deep aquifer is moderately hard. So, it is suggested to the cantonment localities to soften the tube well water before consumption. Further research to carry out detailed mapping and hydrological studies for existing water sources to show flow lines and hydro-geochemical survey in that area. It is also necessary to find out the source of contaminants which is due to soil types, industrialization, water chemistry and other human activities.

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 943 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

5. References

1. Akoto O. and Adiyiah, J., (2007),”Chemical analysis of drinking water from some communities in the Brong Ahafo region", International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), pp 211-214.

2. Akpoveta O.V., Okoh, B.E., Osakwe, S.A., (2011), "Quality assessment of borehole water used in the vicinities of Benin, Edo State and Agbor, Delta State of Nigeria", Current Research in Chemistry, 3, pp 62-69.

3. APHA, AWWA, WPCF, (2003), "Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater", 20th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

4. Boominathan, R. and Khan, S.M., (1994), "Effect of distillery effluents on pH, dissolved oxygen and phosphate content in Uyyakundan channel water", Envionmental Ecology, 12 (4), pp 850-853.

5. Durfor, C.N. and Becker, E., (1964) "Public water supplies of the 100 largest cities in the United States", In Geological Survey Water-Supply, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, Paper No. 1812, pp. 364.

6. Islam, M.J., Uddin, S.M.H., Zaman, M.W., Mahmood, R.I., Rahman, M.S., (2003), "Toxicity assessment of ground water in different aquifers of Khagrachari in Bangladesh", Asian Journal of Plant Science, 2, pp 257-260.

7. Jafari, A., Mirhossaini, H., Kamareii, B., Dehestani, S., (2008), "Physicochemical analysis of drinking water in kohdasht city lorestan, Iran", Asian Journal of Applied Science, 1, pp 87-92.

8. Kaushik, A., Kumar, K., Kanchan, Taruna, Sharma, H.R., (2002), "Water quality index and suitability assessment of urban ground water of Hisar and Panipat in Haryana", Journal of Environmental Biology, 23, pp 325-333.

9. Kaushik, A., Kumar, K., Sharma, I.S., Sharma, H.R., (2004), "Groundwater quality assessment in different land-use areas of Faridabad and Rohtak cities of Haryana using deviation index", Journal of Environmental Biology, 25(2), pp 173-180.

10. Khaiwal, R. and Garg, V.K., (2006), "Distribution of fluoride in groundwater and its suitability assessment for drinking purposes", International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 16, pp 163–166.

11. Kumar R., Singh, R.D., Sharma, K.D., (2005), "Water Resources of India”, Current Science, 89(5), pp 794-811.

12. Meenakshi, Garg, V.K., Kavita, Renuka., Malik, A., (2004), "Groundwater quality in some villages of Haryana, India: focus on fluoride and fluorosis", Journal of Hazardous Material, 106B, pp 85–97.

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 944 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011 Assessment of drinking water quality: A case study of Ambala cantonment area, Haryana, India

13. Habuda-Stanic, M., Kules, M., Kalajdzic, B., Romic, Z., (2007), "Quality of groundwater in eastern Croatia: The problem of arsenic pollution", Desalination, 210(1- 3), pp 157-162.

14. Mor, S., Bishnoi M., Bishnoi, N.R., (2003), "Assessment of groundwater quality of Jind city" Indian Journal of Environmental Portal, 23, pp 673-679.

15. Pande, K.S. and Sharma, S.D., (1999), "Studies on water quality index for Ramganga River at , Uttar Pradesh", Pollution Research, 18(3), pp 327-333.

16. Robinove, C.J., Langford, R.H., Brookhart, J.W., (1958), "Saline water resource of North Dakota", In US Geological Survey Water Supply, Paper No. 1428, pp 72.

17. Singandhupe, R.B., Patnaik, J., Ashwani, K., (2006), "Changes in water quality of ground water, irrigation return flow due to canal water and lithology in Hirakud command of Orissa, India", International Journal of Soil Science, 1, pp 218-226.

18. Sakellari, A., Mihopoulos, N., Dassenakis, M., Scoullos, M.J., (2008), "Evaluation of the quality of drinking water in regions of Greece", Desalination, 224(1-3), pp 317-329.

19. Trivedy, R.K. and Goel, P.K., (1984), "Chemical and Biological Methods for Water Pollution Studies", Environmental Publications, Karad, India.

20. Venkat Kumar, N., Mathew, S., Swaminathan, G., (2011), "A new hybrid method for assessment of subsurface water for potability- a case study of Tiruchirappalli City, S. India", Singapore Journal of Scientific Research, 1, 38-48.

21. WHO, (2001), "Water health and human rights", world water day. http://www. Woldwater day. org/ thematic/hmnrights.html#n4.

22. WHO, (2003), "Guidelines for drinking water quality", Geneva, Report No: WHO/SDE/WSH 03.04.

23. WHO, (2006), "Guidelines for drinking water quality" Geneva, Report No: WHO/SDE/WSH 06.07.

Chadetrik Rout, Arabinda Sharma 945 International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 2 No2., 2011