Nature Environment and Pollution Technology ISSN: 0972-6268 Vol. 13 No. 3 pp. 547-552 2014 An International Quarterly Scientific Journal Original Research Paper Groundwater Quality Evaluation in , , Based on Water Quality Index

G. Maheswaran and K. Elangovan* VSA School of Engineering and Management, NH-47 Main Road, Uthamasolapuram, Salem 636 010, Tamil Nadu, *Department of Civil Engineering, P.S.G. College of Technology, -641 004, T. N., India

ABSTRACT Nat. Env. & Poll. Tech. Website: www.neptjournal.com Groundwater is considered a vital natural resource due to its significant use for drinking, irrigation and Received: 2-12-2013 industrial purposes. Groundwater has been a big variant in quality and quantity with respect to time Accepted: 16-1-2014 and space. So the quality of groundwater has been assessed in Salem district. A detailed study was made in the study area for the quality of groundwater for drinking in premonsoon and postmonsoon Key Words: based on the Water Quality Index (WQI). Groundwater samples were collected in sixty six locations in Groundwater quality both premonsoon and postmonsoon in the year 2007. Various physicochemical tests were carried out Water quality index and WQI was calculated based on pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, total alkalinity, total hardness, Salem district nitrate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, iron and fluoride. The comparison between the premonsoon and postmonsoon reveals that in premonsoon season 56.06 %, and in postmonsoon 65.15 % of the water samples were fit for drinking. The groundwater quality was found to be unfit for drinking in 22.72% of the samples in premonsoon and 18.18% of the samples in postmonsoon.

INTRODUCTION assets of the country like water (Rakesh Kumar et al. 2005). Groundwater is one of the most important natural resources Salem district is one of the fast developing districts in required for human consumption, domestic purposes, irri- the State of Tamil Nadu. It has its importance due to the gation, industrialization, urbanization, etc. (Rokade et al. availability of mineral deposits like magnesite, bauxite, 2004). Overexploitation and unabated pollution of this vi- limestone, etc. Rate of urbanization is also high and tal resource is threatening our ecosystems and even the life intensive agriculture is also carried out in this district. These of the future generation (Madhan Jha et al. 2007). amounts to high demand for quality water in this district. So Groundwater is available in various permeable geologic an attempt has been made to assess the quality of formation called aquifers which can store and transmit water. groundwater in this district. Groundwater is not available in the same quality and quan- Quality of groundwater cannot be assessed by a single tity everywhere. It varies depending upon the geological, parameter. So it is usually assessed by Water Quality Index geomorphological, type of soil and the amount of water (WQI). Water quality index relates a group of water quality mined. The increase in population, industrialization and parameters to a common scale and combines them into a the pressure for development in agriculture has led to the single number in accordance with a chosen method of com- overexploitation and pollution of groundwater in most of putation (Chaturvedi et al. 2008). WQI implies that the water the places. under consideration is fit for human consumption if its WQI India receives annual precipitation of about 4000 km3 is less than 100 and is unfit for drinking without treatment if including snowfall. Out of this monsoon rainfall was of the its WQI is greater than or equal to 100 (Shankar & order of 3000 km3. Rainfall in India depends on southwest Balasubramanya 2008). Water quality index is a very useful and northeast monsoons. As per the international norms, if tool for communicating the information on overall quality per capita availability is less than 1700m3 per year then the of water (Pradhan et al. 2001). So in the present study WQI country is categorized as water stressed and if it is less than was used to assess the quality of groundwater in Salem 1000 m3 per capita per year it is categorized as water scarce. district. In India per capita surface water availability in the year STUDY AREA 1991 and 2001 was 2309m3 and 1902m3 and these are projected to be reduced to 1401m3 and 1191m3 by the years Salem district lies in the western part of Tamil Nadu, lo- 2025 and 2050 respectively. Hence, there is a need for proper cated between 11°15’-12°00’ north latitudes and 77°35’- planning, development and management of the greatest 78°50’ east longitudes. The total geographical area is about 548 G. Maheswaran and K. Elangovan

Fig. 1: Location map and administrative blocks of the study area.

5207 sq.km out of which the Stanley reservoir covers an during the month of January 2007 (postmonsoon) and May area of about 164.5 sq.km. The study area is bounded by the 2007 (premonsoon) in cleaned polythene bottles by grab districts Dharmapuri in the north, Namakkal in the south, sampling method (samples collected at a particular time Erode in the west and South Arcot in the east. and place). The samples were collected and tested by the The district has a maximum and minimum temperature procedures prescribed in IS 3025-1983 which is for methods of 40°C and 13°C. The rivers Cauvery, Vashista Nadhi, of sampling and testing (physical and chemical) for water Swedha Nadhi, Sarabhanga Nadhi and Thirumanimuthar flow and wastewater. A statistical summary indicating minimum, in the district. The topography of this district is hilly terrain maximum, mean and standard deviation of the geochemical with undulating plain terrain. The western, central and parameters in the premonsoon and postmonsoon was also southern parts of the district is covered by undulated plains, made. and eastern and northern parts with hills. Important hills in Suitability of the groundwater samples for drinking in the district are Shevaroys, Kalrayan, Pachamalai, Palamalai both the seasons was interpreted based on the water quality and Chitteri hills. The highest peak of this district is index for drinking water. WQI was calculated based on pH, Solaikarudu in Shevaroys hills. The mean sea level of this turbidity, total dissolved solids, total alkalinity, total place is 1649m. hardness, nitrate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, iron and The climatic condition of this district has been sub-tropi- fluoride cal with a moderate humidity and temperature. The district Determination of Water Quality Index (WQI): Water Qual- experiences hot climate from March to June but it would be ity Index was calculated by the below mentioned procedure. pleasant from November to February. The district receives Step 1: The unit weight (w ) was calculated as given below: rainfall from both northeast and southwest monsoon. The n maximum rainfall was received from northeast monsoon K w  (October-December). The average annual rainfall of the dis- n S trict is 979.65mm. n Where, K - Constant of proportionality MATERIALS AND METHODS th Sn - Standard value of the n parameter The quality of groundwater in the study area was assessed Step 2: The quality rating (qn) was calculated by the by collecting groundwater samples from 66 locations. The following formula: sampling locations were designated starting from P1 to P66 VV which is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. q  n id n SV The sample numbers and their corresponding village n id Where, V - Observed value of the nth parameter; V - Ideal names are given in Table 1. Water samples were collected n id

Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014  Nature Environment and Pollution Technology GROUNDWATER QUALITY EVALUATION IN SALEM DISTRICT 549

Table 1: Details of the sampling locations.

Sample Sample Sample No. Location No. Location No. Location

P1 Chitirapattypudur P23 Redimaniyakaranur P45 Kuppanur P2 Mulakkadu P24 Ariyanur P46 Poovanur P3 Kovilpalayam P25 Veerapandi P47 Aramanur P4 Kunjandiyur P26 Vembadithalam P48 Nadupatti P5 Potaneri P27 Arisipalayam. P49 Vellalapatti P6 Veerakkal P28 Seelanaickenpatty P50 Aayilpatty P7 P29 Kattukottaipudur P51 Valapady P8 Kattuvalavu P30 Gajalnaickenpatty P52 Ethappur P9 Erangnapattypudur P31 Hasthampatty P53 Pedhanaickenpalayam P10 Kudiraikaranur P32 Edappady P54 Ramanathapuram P11 Kailasanathar Temple P33 P55 Karutharasapalayam P12 Kovilvellar P34 Vaigundam P56 Thandavarayapuram P13 Jodukuli P35 Talaiyur P57 town P14 Thevatipatty P36 Magudanchavadi P58 Manjini P15 Thoppur P37 Attaiyampatty P59 Sadasivapuram P16 Kadayampatty P38 Kakapalayam P60 P17 Danishpet P39 Kalarampatty P61 Anayampatti P18 Poosaripatty P40 Gorimedu P62 Rayarpalayam P19 Kuppur P41 Kuralnattam P63 Illupalanatham P20 Uthamacholapuram P42 Panamarathupatty P64 P21 P43 Mallur P65 Deviakurichi P22 Karukalvadi P44 Achankutapatty P66 Morur

N

P15 # P12 # # Stanley reservoir P13 P16 P8 # # P17 P1 # # Structural Hill # # # P14 P2 P4 P5 P9 P18 # # # # # # P3 # P10 P19 # P20 Structural H ill P6 # P44 Mettu r # P7 # P46 # # P45 P49 P21 # # P11 Om alur P47 # Stru. H ill # P31 # P40 P48 # P22 # Ayothia pattinam P27# # # P53 P54 Ed app ady Salem # P39 P51 P52 # P23 # # # P24 P28 P57 P29 P65 # Structural H ill # # # P32 P26 P30 # P56# # # # P36 # # # P64 P25 P41 P50 # # P33 P35 # # P43 P42 # # P37 # # P58 P59 P38 # # P55 Sankari # # P63 Structual Hill P34 # # P60 P61 # P62 P66 # Gangavalli Struc tural H ill

Legend

# Sample Locations Boundary

Fig. 2: Base map showing the sampling locations in the study area.

th th value of the n parameter (7.0 for pH and 0 for all other Where, qn- Quality rating of the n parameter parameters). th wn- Quality Unit weight of the n parameter Step 3: The WQI was calculated by the below mentioned Determination of unit weight: The WQI was calculated formula. based on eleven influencing parameters in the study area and their unit weights are given in Table 2. The different (qn w n )  WQI    categories of water for drinking based on WQI are depicted w n  in Table 3.

Nature Environment and Pollution Technology  Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014 550 G. Maheswaran and K. Elangovan

77°45' 78°00' 78°15' 78°30' 78°45'

N

W E 12°00' 12°00'

9

0 S 50 0 0 6 8 4 5 1 5 0 6 6 5 1 70 8 9 3 0 1 5 0 15 3 0 20 3 4 0 5 3 8 3 5 6 5 1 0 0 6 4 5 0 5 5 5 5 00 1 9 0 1 1 3 80 0 0 5 5 451 7 4 4 0 0 1 2 7 9 1 1 0 0 5 8 5 1 Yercaud 0 0 5 0 5 7 4 40 8 5 5 2 1 5 4 5 16 0 5 1 0 Mettur5 0 7 70 4 50 5 5 3 11°45' 0 3 0 11°45' 55 175Omalur10 2 5 1 5 55 0 P.N0 .Palayam 0 5 0 5 5 40 55 5 1 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 7 0 0 5 3 0 2 0 2 5 6 1 5 Salem 0 1 0 0 5 6 2 3 035 5 5 0 2 5 4 5 4 5 0 5 6 35 35 7 5 3 4 5 2 85 3 0 0 5 0 2 3 5 0 0 3 4 3 0 99 40 5 301 0 7 75 95 1 5 3 4 0 0 15 5 5 0 5 5 2 2 5 2 1 3 55 1 0 25 2 0 1 0 100 60 30 5 1 2 Attur 1 9 8 5 5 5 5 11°30' 2 7 5 11°30' 0 5 2 70 1 0 20 5 6 Sankari 5 1 2 5 1 4 1 1 0 0 5 6 0 8 75 WQI Postmonsoon 7 5 8 0 - 25 G7 angavalli 0 26 - 50 8 51 - 75 0 76 - 100 11°15' 101 - 595 11°15' Boundary 0 40 80 120 Kilometers

77°45' 78°00' 78°15' 78°30' 78°45'

Fig. 3: Spatial distribution of WQI (postmonsoon).

77°45' 78°00' 78°15' 78°30' 78°45'

N

W E

S 12°00' 12°00' 6 5 5 0 6 1 5 5

4 1 0 6 0 0 5 8 5 6 160 6 5 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 7

0 1 5 5 8 1902 7 5 7 0 1 7 5 1 0 0 4 5 5 9 8 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 1 5 5 85 5 6 5 5 1 08 5 0 0 9 7 5 5 3 1 5 4 1 1 0 1 1 4 3 Yercaud 5 5 0 0 0 4 5 4 4

4 1 7 6 1 5 45 0 5 1 0 2 5 9M5ettu1r 0 1 7 5 1 5 1 9 5 11°45' 7 5 1 11°45' 0 2 1 0420 50 5 O4 m0alur 2 0 1 0 3 8 4 0 6 5 3 6 0 155 1 9 45 1 5 1 4 5P.N.Pal4ayam 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 2 7 5 4 5 14 5 5 8 90 5 4 0 1 4 27S0alem 5 5 8 14 0 0

2 1 1 9 5 0 1 2 7 3 3 0 8 2 4 1 5 0 5 5 5 9 0 7 6 35 1 5 5 1 8 252 120 2 5 8 5 0 9 1 5 5 5 0 6 5 0 6 0 2 3 5 5 3 55 7 3 13 5 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 2 3 0 90 5 5 0 0 5 6 4 9 0 8 70 5 7 3 0 5 5 5 1 6 6 5 3 5 85 0 0 1 0 6 5 5 Attur 6 3 2 2 5 2 5 0 0 0 5 11°30' 3 0 11°30' 0 5 40 40 3 5 4 5 6 4 Sankari 2 5 2 0 5 15 0 4 2 3 WQI Premonsoon 0 0 0 - 25 4 Gangavalli 26 - 50 4 51 - 75 0 76 - 100 101 - 940 11°15' Boundary 11°15'

0 40 80 120 Kilometers

77°45' 78°00' 78°15' 78°30' 78°45' Fig. 4: Spatial distribution of WQI (premonsoon).

The value of Sn was based on the desirable limits of all conductivity was 542 to 16500 µmhos/cm, pH was 7.02 to the parameters based on IS: 10500-1991 (Indian Standard 8.16, total alkalinity was 200 to 776 mg/L, nitrate was 5 to Drinking Water Specification). 558 mg/L, chloride was 36 to 4900 mg/L, total hardness was 136 to 3940 mg/L, sulphate was 10 to 650 mg/L, calcium RESULTS AND DISCUSSION was 25 to 1195 mg/L, magnesium was 6 to 533 mg/L, Table 4, indicating the statistical summary of the analysed sodium was 33 to 2643 mg/L, potassium was 4 to 291 mg/L, parameters in premonsoon and postmonsoon, reveals that iron was 0 to 3.8 mg/L and fluoride was 0.3 to 3.6. Maximum during premonsoon the minimum and maximum value of values were observed for chloride, calcium and sodium in total dissolved solids was 216 and 11550mg/L, electrical the premonsoon.

Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014  Nature Environment and Pollution Technology GROUNDWATER QUALITY EVALUATION IN SALEM DISTRICT 551

Table 2: Water quality parameters with their standard value and unit for drinking purpose. weights. Standard values are in mg/L except pH and turbidity. The overall result of the water quality index in the study S. Parameters Standard value Unit area reveals that in premonsoon 56.06 % and in postmonsoon No. based on IS (Sn) Weight (Wn) 65.15 % of the water samples had WQI rating less than 50 and were fit for drinking purpose. 1 pH 8.5 0.025899 2 Turbidity, NTU 5 0.044028 The following locations resulted with WQI rating greater 3 Total Dissolved Solids 500 0.00044 than 50 and less than 100 during premonsoon: Chitirapattu- 4 Total Alkalinity 200 0.001101 5 Total Hardness 300 0.000734 pudur, Kattuvaluvu, Eragnapattypudur, Poosaripatty, 6 Nitrate 4 5 0.004892 Kuppur, Uthamacholapuram, Karukalvadi, Kattukottai- 7 Chloride 250 0.000881 pudur, Aayilpatty, Achankutapatty, Ariyanur, Pedhanaicken- 8 Calcium 7 5 0.002935 palayam, Thandavarayapuram, Manjini, Anayampatti, 9 Magnesium 3 0 0.007338 1 0 Iron 0.3 0.733805 Illupalanatham , Kovilvellar, Magudanchavadi and 1 1 Fluoride 1 0.220142 Kudiraik-aranur. The following locations resulted with WQI rating greater Table 3: Categories of Water Quality Index. than 50 and less than 100 during postmonsoon: Nangavalli, Kattuvalavu, Kuppur, Redimaniyakaranur, Kattukottaipudur, S.No Water Quality Index Description Gajalnaickenpatty, Kakapalayam, Poovanur, Ethappur, 1 0-25 Excellent Pethanaickenpalayam and Illupalanatham. 2 26-50 Good During premonsoon the following sampling locations 3 51-75 Poor 4 76-100 Very poor were found to be unfit for drinking purpose (WQI greater 5 Greater than 100 Unfit for drinking than 100): Mulakkadu, Kovilpalayam, Kunjandiyur, Nangavalli, Thevatipatty, Danishpet, Gajalnaickenpatty, During postmonsoon the minimum and maximum value Hasthampatty, Gorimedu, Kuralnattam and Sadasivapuram of total dissolved solids was 343 and 11808 mg/L, electrical were influenced by iron, Redimaniyakaranur, Mallur and conductivity was 499 to 16940 µmhos/cm, pH was 6.96 to Edappady were influenced by fluoride, and Ethappur by 8.01, total alkalinity was 196 to 712 mg/L, nitrate was 5 to electrical conductivity. 315 mg/L, chloride was 32 to 5020 mg/L, total hardness During postmonsoon, the following sampling locations was 188 to 4450 mg/L, sulphate was 12 to 400 mg/L, calcium were found to be unfit for drinking purpose (WQI greater was 30 to 1414 mg/L, magnesium was 12 to 632 mg/L, than 100): Potaneri, Eragnapattypudur, Thevatipatty, sodium was 17 to 2275 mg/L, potassium was 2 to 249 mg/L, Poosaripatty, Uthamacholapuram, Omalur, Karukalvadi, fluoride was 0.2 to 4.8 and iron was 0 to 2 mg/L. Maximum Mallur, Achankutapatty, Thandavarayapuram, Manjini and value was observed for chloride, calcium and sodium in Anayampatti. postmonsoon. During premonsoon maximum number of samples which The WQI ranges from 7.66 to 947.71 in premonsoon and were unfit for drinking purpose were located (13 out of 15 5.83 to 598.39 in postmonsoon. The comparison between samples) on the western part of the study area and only two premonsoon and postmonsoon is given in Table 5. samples were located in the eastern part, and during Spatial distribution of groundwater quality for drinking postmonsoon maximum number of samples which were unfit in the entire study area was represented with contours using drinking purpose were located (9 out of 12 samples) on the GIS software Arc view 3.2a. So the suitability of groundwater western part of the study area and only three samples were for drinking in a block can be visualized easily. The spatial located on the eastern part of the study area. distribution of WQI for postmonsoon and premonsoon are Based on the spatial distribution of WQI, groundwater shown in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively. was found to be potable for drinking in both the seasons in In premonsoon and postmonsoon, 43.94 % and 34.85 % Pedhanaickenpalayam, Valapadi, Magudanchavadi, of the samples resulted with WQI rating greater than 50. The Konganapuram and major portions of Sankari blocks. number of sampling locations which fall under poor cat- Groundwater was not potable for drinking in both the egory in premonsoon was three, and in postmonsoon was seasons in Omalur, Nangavalli, , four. Eight samples in premonsoon and two samples in and blocks. Groundwater was found to be postmonsoon fall under very poor category and 15 samples potable in any one of the seasons in Gangavalli, Attur and in premonsoon and 12 samples in postmonsoon were unfit major portions of Thalaivasal, Panamarathupatty,

Nature Environment and Pollution Technology  Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014 552 G. Maheswaran and K. Elangovan

Table 4: Statistical summary of the analysed parameters (premonsoon and postmonsoon). Values in mg/L except pH.

S. Parameters Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation No Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post monsoon monsoon monsoon monsoon monsoon monsoon monsoon monsoon

1 TDS 216 343 11550 11808 1448 1498 1445 1451 2 Electrical Conductivity 542 499 16500 16940 2085 2149 2057 2080 3 pH 7.02 6.96 8.16 8.01 7.61 7.44 0.25 0.20 4 Alkalinity 200 196 776 712 393 401 132 110 5 Nitrate 5 5 588 315 54 52 72 46 6 Chloride 36 32 4900 5020 393 400 626 633 7 Total Hardness 136 188 3940 4450 566 516 491 509 8 Sulphate 10 12 650 400 66 75 82 58 9 Calcium 25 30 1195 1414 143 125 154 165 10 Magnesium 6 12 533 632 62 54 69 74 11 Sodium 33 17 2643 2275 220 247 328 303 12 Potassium 4 2 291 249 29 29 40 33 13 Iron 0 0 3.8 2 0.25 0.225 0.66 0.44 14 Fluoride 0.2 0.2 3.6 4.8 1.11 1.09 0.79 0.78

Table 5: Comparison of Water Quality Index between premonsoon and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT postmonsoon for drinking purpose. The authors sincerely thank the management of VSA School S.No Description Percentage of sampling locations of Engineering and Management, Salem and PSG College of Premonsoon Postmonsoon Technology, Coimbatore for the support they have rendered. 1 Excellent 24.24 37.88 2 Good 31.82 27.27 REFERENCES 3 Poor 16.67 10.61 Chaturvedi, G.B., Mishra, B.B. and Tewari, D.D. 2008. Water quality 4 Very poor 4.55 6.06 index of groundwater near industrial areas of Balrampur, U.P. 5 Unfit for drinking 22.72 18.18 Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 7(2): 331-335. IS 10500-1991. Indian Standard Drinking Water Specification. Bureau , Salem, Veerapandi, Edappady and of Indian Standards, New Delhi, pp. 2-4. blocks. Madhan K. Jha, Alivia Choudhury, Chowdary, V.M. and Stefan Peiffer 2007. Groundwater management and development by integrated remote sensing and geographic information systems: Prospects CONCLUSION and constraints. Water Resources Management, 21(2): 427-467. Pradhan, S.K., Patnaik, Dipika and Rout, S.P. 2001. Water quality According to Water Quality Index in premonsoon and index for the groundwater in and around a phosphatic fertilizer postmonsoon 24.24 % and 37.88 % of the samples respec- plant. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 21: 355-358. tively were found excellent for drinking purpose and 31.82 Rakesh Kumar, Singh, R.D. and Sharma, K.D. 2005. Water resources % and 27.27 % of the samples respectively were found good of India. Current Science, 89(5): 794-811. Rokade, V.M., Kundal, P. and Joshi, A.K. 2004. Water resources for drinking development action plan for Sasti watershed, Chandrapur district, Spatial distribution maps of Water Quality Index Maharastra using remote sensing and geographic information reveal that only five blocks (Pedhanaickenpalayam, system. Journal of Indian Society for Remote Sensing (Photonirvachak), 32(4): 359-368. Valapadi, Magudanchavadi, Konganapuram, Sankari) in Shankar, B.S. and Balasubramanya, N. 2008. Evaluation of quality the study area were potable for drinking in both the indices for groundwater of an industrial area in , India. monsoons. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 7(4): 663-666.

Vol. 13, No. 3, 2014  Nature Environment and Pollution Technology