Printer Friendly

Assessment of water quality for drinking & irrigation purposes in selected watersheds of himachal pradesh, India.

The Study Area

The study area covers the selected watersheds of Himachal Pradesh. Geographically these selected watersheds lies between viz. (i) Jagla Watershed three villages located in watershed occupies an area of 752.86 hectare (77[degrees] 00' 77[degrees] 15' E Longitude and 32[degrees] 30' 32[degrees] 45' N latitude), reference to Survey of India toposheet no 52H/2, 52H/3 from Lahaul & Spiti district (Upper Greater Himalayan Region) with low annual rainfall of ranges from minimum 182.7 mm in (2006) to maximum 554.4 mm in (2003) from 1999 to 2009, high snow fall and snow covered the whole valley for almost half year. (ii) Phallan watershed seven villages located in watershed with an area of 702.12 hectare (77[degrees] 00 ' 77[degrees] 15' E longitude and 31[degrees] 45' 32[degrees] 15' N latitude), reference to Survey of India toposheet no 53E/1, 52H/4 from Kullu district (Mid Mountains Region) receive annual rainfall ranges from minimum of 733.4 mm in (2002) to maximum of 1446 mm in (2008) from 1999 to 2009. and (iii) Gulhari Dagroh Khad watershed seven villages located in watershed occupies an area of 490.58 hectare (760 45' 77[degrees] 15' E longitude 30[degrees] 45' 31[degrees] 00' N latitude) reference to Survey of India toposheet no 53F/1, 53B/13 from Solan district (Shivalik Region) receive annual rainfall ranges from minimum 813.1 mm in (2004) to maximum 1492.1 mm in (2008) from 1999 to 2009. In all the watershed villages major type of water for drinking and irrigation purposes is spring water.

[FIGURE I OMITTED]

[FIGURE II OMITTED]

[FIGURE III OMITTED]

Material and Methods

For the above study 16 water samples of drinking water and tank water for irrigation purposes were collected around these watershed villages from all the three regions of Himachal Pradesh during pre monsoon period (April - June 2008). The samples were collected in 1000 litre plastic bottles which were pre cleaned with concentrated hydrochloric acid followed by rinsing in tap water and finally with distilled water (2). After collection, they were stored in refrigerator until analysis as per the standard methods (1, 7). The surface water and ground water of all watersheds was assessed for its drinking and irrigational suitability. The samples were analyzed for the pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) and major ions. pH and temperature were measured at the site of sample collection, & in laboratory, HC[O.sub.3.sup.2-], C[O.sub.3.sup.2-], [Ca.sub.2+], [Mg.sup.2+], & [Cl.sup.-], were analyzed by titration, N[O.sub.3.sup.-], S[O.sub.4.sup.2-], P[O.sub.4.sup.3-], and [F.sup.-] by colorimeter, [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] were measure by flame emission photometer. These parameters were compared with standard limits and were found to be within the safe limit suitable for drinking purpose a/c to (3) standard. For irrigation purpose the important constituents that influence the water quality for irrigation are total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), sodium absorption ratio (SAR), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), sodium percentage (Na%) based on U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff 1954 & Wilcox, 1955. (8)

Result and Discussion

The analytical results were compared with the standard specification (3, 10). The ranged values of analyzed parameters are given in Table I. On the basis of the parameters the suitability criteria for irrigation purpose were determined.

The samples were analyzed for 14 physico-chemical parameters namely, pH, EC, TDS, Carbonate, Bicarbonate, Chloride, Calcium, Magnesium, Flouride, Nitrate, Phosphate, Sulphate, Sodium and Potassium. Detail of all the watershed are given in table I & analytical results compared with the standard specification in the study area is given in table II. All the water samples range in the study area are fit for drinking purposes with standards prescribed according to Indian Standard Institution (4) & World Health Organization (9) standard.

Suitability of surface water for Irrigational purpose

The water quality used for irrigation is essential for the yield and quantity of crops, maintenance of soil productivity, and protection of the environment. At the same time, the quality of irrigation water is very much influenced by the land constituents of the water source. The important parameters affecting the suitability of groundwater for irrigation purposes are: total dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (RSC), sodium percentages (Na%).

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

Salt of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium present in the irrigation water may prove to be injurious to plants. When present in excessive quantities, they reduce the osmotic activities of the plants and may prevent adequate aeration. The total dissolved solids in the waters were estimated from their specific conductance values by multiplying with a factor of 0.64 which is taken as the conversion factor for most natural waters (8).

According to the classification given by (5), surface water in the study area is mostly non saline (Table IV).

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

The salt concentration is generally measured by the determining the electrical conductivity of water. It is related to TDS by the equation:

TDS(in mg/l)/EC x 106 (Micro-mhos/cm)=0.64

Where, the EC is expressed as micro-mhos/cm. On the basis of electrical conductivity, the irrigational classification is given in Table V. The range of electrical conductivity of the investigated area below 250 umhos [cm.sup.-1] i.e. low saline water entirely safe for irrigation (sample number 1 - 8, 11 & 14) and in (sample no 9, 10, 12, 13, & 15 - 21) is between 250 - 750 [micro]mhos/cm i.e. moderately saline, suitable for irrigation safe under practically all condition indicates that the EC values comes under WHO (1984) guideline of range 1400 [micro]mhos/cm.

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

SAR gives the clear idea about the adsorption of sodium by soil. Sodium adsorption ratio is the proportion of sodium to calcium and magnesium, which affect the availability of the water to the crop. SAR is computed by the equation:

SAR = [Na.sup.+]/[square root of ([Ca.sup.++] + [Mg.sup.++] / 2)]

Richard (1954) classified the irrigation water with SAR (in ppm) as: less than 10 as excellent, between, 10-18 as good,18-26 as fair and greater than 26 as of poor quality. The United States of Salinity Laboratory's (USSL) classification of the water is based on the EC and SAR (Table V & Fig. V). The U.S. Salinity Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture, 1954 has proposed a diagram in which EC is taken as index of salinity hazard and SAR as an index of sodium hazard. The majority of the water samples examined in the present investigation fall under the category of C1S1 & C2S1class, indicating excellent to good typed water which can be used for irrigation (6). SAR values of the study area varies from 0.02 ppm to 1.66 ppm. Based on the SAR values alone, the ground water samples come under excellent categories (Wilcox; 1955) (Table V Figure IV).

Percentage of sodium (%Na)

The sodium percentages in the study area ranges from 6.50 to 44.11 ppm (Table V & Figure IV) and the percent sodium content is computed by the equation:

% of Na = [(Na + K)] / [(Ca + Mg + Na + K)] x 100

Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)

According to Richard (1954), the residual sodium carbonate is determined by the formula (Table V):

RSC = (HC[O.sub.3.sup.-] + C[O.sub.3.sup.2-]) - (Ca + Mg)

If the RSC exceeds 2.5 ppm, the water is unsuitable for irrigation. If the value is between 1.25 to 2.5 ppm, the water is of marginal quality; while the value is less than 1.25 ppm or negative value, probably safe for irrigation. The RSC value in the study area ranges from -0.16 to 6.18 ppm, sample no 12 & 21 are unsuitable for irrigation while all other samples are safe for irrigation.

[FIGURE IV OMITTED]

[FIGURE V OMITTED]

Conclusion

Comparing to the standard limits, the constituents of the sampled water are within the permissible level and hence the surface water is considered to be suitable for drinking & irrigation purpose. The SAR values of the study area are to be less than 10 and TDS is less than 1500 could be utilized for irrigation. On the basis of U.S. Salinity laboratory diagram, the groundwater samples fall in the class C1S1 & C2S1 indicating low sodium hazards to crop and hence suitable for irrigation.

Acknowledgements

The author is very thankful to UGC for research assistance. Geology Department Panjab University Chandigarh for carrying out the physico chemical parameters test. Prof G. S. Gill & Asstt. Prof U. N Roy for research guidance. Member secretary & scientists Himachal Pradesh State Remote Sensing Centre (HPRSC) Shimla Himachal Pradesh for preparation of location maps of study area by using ARC INFO and ERDAS software.

References

[1] APHA (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public health Association, Washington, D.C.

[2] Hem JD (1975) Study and interpretation of chemical characteristics of natural water (3rd ed.) U.S.G.S. Water Supply paper. 1473, p: 364.

[3] IS: 10500 (1991 & Amendment 1993) Indian Standard Drinking water specification B15, New Delhi.

[4] ISI (1983) Indian Standards Institute - Indian Standard specification for drinking water IS 10500.

[5] Rabinove CJ, Longfort RH and Brook JW (1958) Saline water resource of North Dakota U.S. Geol. Surv. Water supply. paper 1428, p. 72.

[6] Richard LA (1954) Diagnasis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Agric. Hand book, 60,U.S.Dept ,Agric., Washington D.C.p:160

[7] Trivedy RR and Goel PR (1986) Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies environmental publications, Karad, p: 215.

[8] U.S. Salinity Laboratory staff et al (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils: U.S. Deptt. Agr. Handbook. 60.

[9] WHO (1984) Guidelines for drinking water quality. World Health Organisation. Vol 7, Recommendations, Geneva, WHO. pp: 130.

[10] WHO (1992) Guidelines for drinking water quality recommendations. World Health Organisation, Geneva.

Harish Chand * (1), G. S. Gill 2, U. N. Roy (3) and Parul Virk (1)

(1) Dept. of Environment and Vocational Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Inida

(2) Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Inida

(3) National Institute of Technical Teachers Training Research, Chandigarh, Inida

* E-mail: hctrscevs@yahoo.co.in
Table I: Analytical Result of chemical analysis of samples collected
from study area.

S. Temp pH EC m/ TDS C[O.sub.3 HC[O.sup.-]
No [micro] mg/l .sup.2-] mg/l
 cm mg/l

1. Jagla Watershed Source: Sample 1-3 Drinking Water

1 11 7.94 160 104 0 45
2 15 7.66 169 110 0 80
3 9 8.03 173 112 0 80

2. Phallan Watershed Source: Sample 4-10 Drinking Water Sample 11
Tank Water

4 22 8.06 192 125 0 90
5 20 7.98 223 145 0 115
6 18 7.88 172 111 0 65
7 20 7.98 223 145 0 115
8 19 8.02 152 99 0 75
9 20 8.15 280 182 0 135
10 18 8.33 405 263 0 150
11 22 8.18 235 235 0 140

3. Gulhari Dagroh Khad Watershed Source: Sample 12-16 Drinking Water
Sample 17-21 Tank Water

12 22 7.84 292 189 15 320
13 25 7.5 290 186 10 150
14 25 7.82 228 148 0 150
15 22 7.88 383 248 0 175
16 26 7.29 421 273 0 145
17 26 7.78 263 170 0 140
18 28 7.44 451 292 0 205
19 29 7.83 320 207 0 155
20 25 7.95 277 179 0 150
21 27 7.92 326 211 175 175

S. [Cl.sup.- [Ca.sup.2+] [Mg.sup.2+] [F.sup.-] N[O.sub.3
No mg/l] mg/l mg/l mg/l .sup.-]
 mg/l

1. Jagla Watershed Source: Sample 1-3 Drinking Water

1 21.3 18.43 3.411 0.54 0.9
2 28.4 19.23 1.949 0.65 0.1
3 21.3 21.64 1.461 0.33 1

2. Phallan Watershed Source: Sample 4-10 Drinking Water Sample 11
Tank Water

4 21.3 36.87 4.87 0.3 1
5 21.3 36.07 3.89 0.21 1.6
6 21.3 29.65 2.92 0.24 1.2
7 21.3 36.07 3.89 0.21 1.6
8 21.3 23.24 0.48 0.34 1.8
9 28.4 47.29 3.4 0.36 0.4
10 28.4 64.12 0.48 0.57 0.2
11 49.7 66.53 5.36 0.27 7.7

3. Gulhari Dagroh Khad Watershed Source: Sample 12-16 Drinking Water
Sample 17-21 Tank Water

12 21.3 47.29 6.82 0.3 0.6
13 21.3 48.09 19.49 0.3 0.3
14 42.6 30.46 5.84 0.31 1.3
15 42.6 56.11 4.38 0.09 5.3
16 35.5 51.30 8.77 0.12 0.2
17 35.5 39.27 6.33 0.04 1.7
18 71 57.71 7.79 0.18 1
19 42.6 44.88 9.25 0.2 0.9
20 49.7 35.27 7.79 0.1 0.9
21 42.6 41.68 5.36 0.2 1.4

S. P[O.sub.4 S[O.sub.4 [Na.sup.+] [K.sup.+]
No .sup.3-] .sup.2-] mg/l mg/l
 mg/l mg/l

1. Jagla Watershed Source: Sample 1-3 Drinking Water

1 0.18 32 1.7 30.5
2 0.44 75 2.7 30
3 0.56 29 2.5 29.5

2. Phallan Watershed Source: Sample 4-10 Drinking Water Sample 11
Tank Water

4 0.07 8 2.1 30.7
5 0.51 9 1.6 30.3
6 0.02 2 1.3 23.5
7 0.51 9 1.6 30.3
8 0.17 30 0.4 27.2
9 0.1 12 2.7 26.2
10 1.34 30 9.6 19.2
11 2.03 18 3.9 3.6

3. Gulhari Dagroh Khad Watershed Source: Sample 12-16 Drinking Water
Sample 17-21 Tank Water

12 0.58 18 15.1 9.6
13 0.31 3 21.1 12.9
14 0.11 8 18.1 0.3
15 0.16 7 13.9 11
16 0.39 6 22.4 17.4
17 1.43 25 14.3 15.8
18 0.14 25 50.9 17.9
19 0.09 6 28.9 15.4
20 0.2 16 29.4 19
21 0 3 33.2 16

Units = mg/l

Table II: Analytical results compared with the standard specification
area.

 Parameters Range in WHO 1984
 the Study
 Area

Physical

1. Odour Odorless Unobjectionable odour
2. Turbidity - 5
3. EC 152-451 1400
([micro]mhos/cm)
4. TDS 104-292 1000

Chemical

1. pH 7.29-8.33 6.5-8.5
2.Bicarbonate 45-205 -
(HC[O.sub.3])
3. Carbonate 10-175 -
(C[O.sub.3])
4. Chloride 21.3-71 250
(Cl)
5. Calcium 18.43-66.53 75
(Ca)
6. Magnesium 0.48-19.49 50
(Mg)
7. Fluoride 0.04-0.65
(F)
8. Nitrate 0.1-7.7 50
(N[O.sub.3])
9. Phosphate 0.09-2.03 -
(P[O.sub.4])
10. Sulphate 2-75 400
(S[O.sub.4])
11. Sodium 0.4-50.9 200
(Na)
12. Potassium 0.3-30.7 55
(K)

 Parameters ISI (1983) Desirable limits as
 per IS:10500, 1991
 & 1993
 Highest Maximum
 Desirable Permissible
Physical

1. Odour - - unobjectionable
2. Turbidity - - 5
3. EC - - -
([micro]mhos/cm)
4. TDS 500 1500 500

Chemical

1. pH 7.0-8.5 6.5-9.2 6.5-8.5
2.Bicarbonate 300 600 -
(HC[O.sub.3])
3. Carbonate - - -
(C[O.sub.3])
4. Chloride 250 1000 250
(Cl)
5. Calcium 75 200 75
(Ca)
6. Magnesium 30 100 30
(Mg)
7. Fluoride 1.0 1.5 1.0-1.5
(F)
8. Nitrate - 45 45
(N[O.sub.3])
9. Phosphate - - -
(P[O.sub.4])
10. Sulphate 150 400 200
(S[O.sub.4])
11. Sodium - - -
(Na)
12. Potassium - - -
(K)

Units = mg/l

Table III: Range of total dissolved solids for irrigation use (after
Robinove et al., 1958).

Classification Total Dissolved Sample no. (Study Area)
 Solids (mg/l)

Non saline < 1000 Sample no 1-21
Slightly saline 1000-3000 Nil
Moderate saline 3000-10000 Nil
Very saline > 10000 Nil

Table IV: Quality of irrigation water in relation to EC (after
Richard, 1954).

S. Electrical Type of Water Suitability for
No. Conductivity Irrigation
 ([micro]mhos
 /cm)

1 Below 250 Low saline water Entirely safe
 (1)
2 250-750 Moderately Safe under practically all
 saline (2) condition
3 750-2250 Medium to high Safe only with permeable
 salinity (3) soil and moderate
 teaching
4 Above 2250
i 2250-4000 High salinity Unfair for irrigation
ii 4000-6000 Very high Unfair for irrigation
 salinity
iii Above 6000 Excessive Unfair for irrigation
 salinity class

S. Sample no
No.

1 1-8, 11,14

2 9, 10, 12,
 13,15-21
3 Nil

4
i Nil
ii Nil

iii Nil

Table V: Classification of surface water based on EC and SAR and value
used to plot in USSL diagram.

S. Location Source EC in Percentage
No [micro]m/cm Sodium
 at 25[degrees] (%Na)
 C (ppm)

1 Jagla D.W 160 41.56
2 Nukar D.W 169 44.11
3 Khangsar D.W 173 41.82
4 Phallan D.W 192 28.11
5 D-Phallan D.W 223 28.47
6 Jindi D.W 172 27.64
7 Liani D.W 223 28.47
8 Shallang D.W 152 37.26
9 Shilagran D.W 280 22.96
10 Bagarpokan D.W 405 21.89
11 Jindi T.W 235 6.50
12 Gadiana D.W 292 23.59
13 Sanguli Khurd D.W 290 23.76
14 Jindo D.W 228 28.43
15 Sanguli Kalan D.W 383 21.89
16 Chattera D.W 421 30.19
17 Sanguli Khurd T.W 263 29.25
18 Gahar T.W 451 43.14
19 Sanguli T.W 320 35.48
 Kalan
20 Gulhari T.W 277 42.35
21 Chattera T.W 326 42.36

S. Sodium Category Residual
No Absorption Sodium
 Ratio Carbonate
 (ppm) (RSC) (ppm)

 Quality On Basis of
 on Basis SAR
 of % Na (USSL,1954)
 (Wilcox)

1 0.09 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -0.46
2 0.15 Excellent to Good C1-S1 0.19
3 0.14 Excellent to Good C1-S1 0.11
4 0.08 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -0.76
5 0.06 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -0.23
6 0.06 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -0.65
7 0.06 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -0.23
8 0.02 Excellent to Good C1-S1 0.02
9 0.10 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.42
10 0.32 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.78
11 0.48 Excellent to Good C1-S1 -1.46
12 0.54 Excellent to Good C2-S1 2.82
13 0.64 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -1.21
14 0.78 Excellent to Good C1-S1 0.45
15 0.48 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.29
16 0.76 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.90
17 0.55 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.18
18 1.66 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.16
19 1.02 Excellent to Good C2-S1 -0.46
20 1.16 Excellent to Good C2-S1 0.05
21 1.28 Excellent to Good C2-S1 6.18
COPYRIGHT 2010 Research India Publications
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Chand, Harish; Gill, G.S.; Roy, U.N.; Virk, Parul
Publication:International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences
Date:Jul 1, 2010
Words:3271
Previous Article:Evaluation of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes in Anandpur Sahib Block of Rupnagar District, Punjab, India.
Next Article:Seasonal variation of soil radon in Kolkata, India--a correlation study with meteorological factors.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters