Assessment and spatial distribution of groundwater ...

Environ Monit Assess DOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3393-y

Assessment and spatial distribution of groundwater quality in industrial areas of Ghaziabad, India Savita Kumari & Anil Kumar Singh & Ashok Kumar Verma & N. P. S. Yaduvanshi

Received: 25 May 2013 / Accepted: 9 August 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract An attempt has been made in this study to evaluate the groundwater quality in two industrial blocks of Ghaziabad district. Groundwater samples were collected from shallow wells, deep wells and hand pumps of two heavily industrialized blocks, namely Bulandshahar road industrial area and Meerut road industrial area in Ghaziabad district for assessing their suitability for various uses. Samples were collected from 30 sites in each block before and after monsoon. They were analyzed for a total of 23 elements, namely, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Se, U, V, and Zn. In addition to these elements, some other parameters were also studied viz: color, odor, turbidity, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids and total suspended solid. The water quality index was also calculated based on some of the parameters estimated. Out of the 23 elements, the mean values of 12 elements, S. Kumari : A. K. Verma Department of Botany, M.M.H. College, Ghaziabad 201009, India S. Kumari e-mail: [email protected] A. K. Verma e-mail: [email protected] A. K. Singh (*) Natural Resource Management, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, New Delhi 110012, India e-mail: [email protected] N. P. S. Yaduvanshi Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, India e-mail: [email protected]

namely, Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cr, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Se, and U, were higher than the prescribed standard limits. The concentrations (in milligram per liter) of highly toxic metals viz., Al, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, Se, and U, ranged from 1.33–6.30, 0.04–0.54, 0.005–0.013, 4.51–7.09, 0.14–0.27, 0.13–0.32, 0.16–2.11, and 0.10–1.21, respectively, in all groundwater samples, while the permissible limits of these elements as per WHO/BIS standards for drinking are 0.2, 0.01, 0.003, 0.05, 0.07, 0.01, 0.04, and 0.03 mg L−1, respectively. The EC, pH, and COD in all samples varied from 0.74–4.21, 6.05–7.72, and 4.5–20.0 while their permissible limits are 0.7 dS m−1, 6.5–8.5, and 10 mg L−1, respectively. On the basis of the abovementioned parameters, the water quality index of all groundwater samples ranged from 101 to 491, and 871 to 2904 with mean value of 265 and 1,174 based on two criteria, i.e., physico-chemical and metal contaminations, respectively while the prescribed safe limit for drinking is below 50. The results revealed that the groundwater in the two blocks is unfit for drinking as per WHO/BIS guidelines. The presence of elements like As, Se, and U in toxic amounts is a matter of serious concern. Keywords Contamination . Groundwater . Heavy metals . Water quality index

Introduction Groundwater is the major source of fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial uses and indispensable for our day to day existence but over time anthropogenic activities have resulted in degradation of its quality. For its sustainable use, both the quantity and

Environ Monit Assess

quality issues have to be addressed together. Most of the ground water pockets are contaminated due to unscientific disposal of domestic and industrial effluents. Large volumes of waste water are also indiscriminately discharged into the natural systems, particularly water bodies, by the domestic and industrial sectors. Primary anthropogenic accretion of heavy metals is through point (mines, foundries, smelters, and coal-burning power plants) as well as diffuse sources (combustion by-products and vehicle emissions). Human activities have altered the natural, physical and biological redistribution of the heavy metals. Such alterations have resulted in bio-accumulation of these metals in the plants (accumulation in the food-chain), animals and finally in different organs of the human body. Human health has, thus, become a casualty of the heavy-metal related pollution (Rattan et al. 2002). The level of heavy metals (Cd, As, Ni, and Hg) beyond permissible limits in groundwater can harm ecosystems, plants, and animals and cause health problems in humans (Bhagure and Mirgane 2011). In addition to mining, contamination of the environment by radioactive elements has also resulted from extractive industries, such as those for iron, phosphorus, coal, mineral sands and oil (Omotayo et al. 2011). Giri et al. (2012) evaluated the health risk due to intake of heavy metals through the ingestion of groundwater around uranium mining areas in Jharkhand, India and summarized that Fe and Mn exceeded the IS: 10500 standards in many locations while Zn crossed the limits in a few places only. Neither Pb nor Cu crossed the IS: 10500 limits. Mn, Zn, and Pb also exceeded the WHO standards at few locations. Cu did not exceed the WHO standards at any location while WHO provides no standard for Fe. The concentration of Ni also did not exceed the limits of 0.070 mg/l given by WHO (2011). The district Ghaziabad, a growing industrial city in Uttar Pradesh, India has thousands of various small, medium, large, and heavy industries which dispose their untreated effluents indiscriminately causing wide spread heavy metal contamination. It was reported recently that the ground water quality of Lohia Nagar industrial area of Ghaziabad had been adversely affected with chromium contamination. It clearly indicated significant effects of rapid urbanization and industrialization in the last few decades in Ghaziabad. It was also reported that Cr may have point anthropogenic source. It becomes a matter of great concern when the polluted ground water or untreated effluents are channelized for

growing seasonal vegetables or discharged into river system causing food chain contamination. Recently, Chabukdhara and Nema (2013) reported the health hazards associated with heavy metals in soils irrigated with ground water around industrial site in Ghaziabad. In view of the above, the present study was initiated to assess the physico-chemical quality of groundwater (water quality index) including concentrations of major, micronutrients, and other carcinogenic heavy metals and metalloids in pre and post monsoon seasons and identifying the hot spots using GIS.

Materials and methods Study area The district of Ghaziabad is part of the most agriculturally fertile belts of western Uttar Pradesh, India. Ghaziabad is a metropolitan city and part of National Capital Region. It lies between 28°26′ and 28°54′ North latitude and 77°12′ and 78°13′ East longitude. Bulandshahar road industrial area (BRI) and Meerut road industrial area (MRI) are two of the most important and heavily industrialized areas in the district. Both blocks house more than thousands of industries dealing mainly with paper, leather, iron, steel, plastic, dyeing, chemical, pharmaceutical, battery making, etc. Climate-wise, Ghaziabad is semi-arid with high variation between summer and winter temperatures. Summer (April to June) temperatures range from 30–43 °C while winter (November to January) temperatures range from 5–25 °C. Generally, the monsoon arrives at the end of June and lasts until September.

Groundwater sampling and analysis Groundwater samples were taken from 30 locations in each block before monsoon (February–March) and after monsoon (September–October). Samples were collected from three different types of sources, namely, hand pumps (n=19), deep wells (n=36) and shallow wells (n=5) ranging in depth between 140 to 250 ft. These waters are being used for multifarious purposes. Using Garmin GPS (etrex VISTA HCx), the longitude and latitude of each sampling location was recorded on the field. All pumps were run for 10–15 min, before the


actual sample was taken. The locations of the two blocks and sampling sites have been shown in Fig. 1. To prevent microbial contamination, four to five drops of toluene were added after sampling. The samples were analyzed for pH, EC, turbidity, BOD, COD, DO, total dissolved solids (TDS) and total suspended solids (TSS) using standard procedures. Na and K were estimated by flame photometer, Ca and Mg by EDTA method while concentrations of nineteen elements, namely, Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Se, U, V, and Zn were determined by inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectroscopy (Model ICP-AES-9000, Shimadzu, Japan). The metals were estimated in the sample solution by aspirating the sample solution directly into plasma of the instrument. The instrument was standardized for the individual elements. Calibration curve was obtained for every metal ion using standard solution. Standard solutions were prepared from 1,000 mg/l stock solution of different metals of interest. The minimum concentration of metal that could be detected by the instrument was 10 ppb. Three replicates were taken for each parameter. The results obtained were evaluated in accordance with the norms prescribed under ‘Indian Standard Drinking Water Specification IS: 10500:91’ of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2003). The results obtained were plotted and contours drawn using Quantum GIS (1.7.0) and Surfer 3.2 software.

qn ¼ 100ðV n −V io Þ=ðS n −V io Þ

ð2Þ

where, qn Vn Sn Vio

quality rating for the nth water quality parameter observed value of the nth parameter sample Standard permissible value of nth parameter Ideal value of nth parameter in pure water (all the ideal values Vio=0 for drinking water except for pH=7.0 and dissolved oxygen (DO)=14.6 mg/l)

W n ¼ K=S n

ð3Þ

where, Wn Sn K

Unit weight for nth parameter Standard value for nth parameter Proportionality constant and derived from

h X i n K ¼ 1= 1=S i n¼1

ð4Þ

Sn and Si are the WHO/BIS standard values of the water quality parameter (Asadi et al. 2007). Based on the value of WQI (Ramakrishnaiah et al. 2009), (Vasanthavigar et al. 2010), the threshold limits are shown in Table 1.

Results and discussion

Water quality index

Physico-chemical properties

The water quality index (WQI) is a very useful and efficient method for assessing and communicating the information on overall quality of water (Pradhan et al. 2001; Asadi et al. 2007; Pius et al. 2011). WQI has been calculated from the point of view of the suitability of groundwater for human consumption. The computing of WQI based on three criteria, in the first criteria, seven physico-chemical parameters, namely, pH, EC, TDS, TSS, DO, COD, Turbidity, were used, in the second 23 elements (metals, heavy metals, metalloids, etc.) listed earlier were considered, and in the third criteria all 30 parameters were used. The calculation of WQI, using a weighted arithmetic index method (Brown et al. 1972) is given below:

The results of the 60 groundwater samples analyzed for physico-chemical and trace metals including radioactive elements are presented and discussed here. The statistical summary of the results on range, arithmetic mean, coefficient of range, coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and coefficient of standard deviation along with comparison of standard permissible limits of corresponding parameters are presented in Table 2. The construction of contour maps is one of the standard procedures used in water resources assessment in order to evaluate and predict natural variability and assess the risk regarding groundwater contamination in waste disposal industrial and other sites (Singh and Lawrence 2007; Pius et al. 2011; Fekri et al. 2012). This enabled locating the hot spots as far as contaminated ground water was concerned. The WQI and water quality rating of the different groundwater samples has been presented in Table 3.

WQI ¼

X

W n qn =

X

Wn

ð1Þ


Fig. 1 Location map of study area

A perusal of the contour maps, presented in Fig. 2a to v indicates that the hot spots, their zone of concentrations beyond the critical limits, are highly variable spatially and in many cases, there are more than one in each block. These “hot spots” can be associated with the nature of industries that are located in the vicinity. For example, presence of paper, leather, iron, steel, plastic, dyeing, chemical, pharmaceutical. and battery-making industries can lead to toxic concentrations of elements like Al, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Se, indicating the nature of the industries functioning there. The contour maps

prepared based on WQI indicated that the “hot spots” are more or less similar except in case of Fig. 2u (WQI based on metal contamination) and Fig. 2v WQI based on (physico-chemical cum metal contamination). In these cases, water quality was in the non-usable category. The magnitude of physicochemical parameters and heavy metals higher than the prescribed permissible limits of WHO/BIS can have severe health consequences and these are discussed below. In the present study, almost all the samples were slightly acidic to slightly basic in nature as the pH of the samples varied from 6.05 to 7.72 (Table 2).

Environ Monit Assess Table 1 Water quality classification based on WQI value Water quality

WQI value

Excellent

300

91.66 % of samples were within the permissible limit (Fig. 2a), while 8.33 % samples were between pH 6.05 to 6.5. Pies et al. (2011) reported that the pH value below 6.5 caused corrosion of metal pipes resulting in the release of toxic metals such as Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu, etc. Also, groundwater with low pH can cause gastrointestinal disorders such as hyperacidity, ulcers, and burning sensation. In the study area, EC values ranged from 0.74 to 4.21 with an average of 2.27 dS m−1 (Fig. 2b) implying that all samples were above the prescribed permissible limit for drinking water. The total dissolved solid (TDS) concentration varied between 474 and 2,694 ppm (Fig. 2c). The highest value of EC and TDS were 4.21 dS m−1 and 2,694 ppm recorded in sample SM16 from MRI, while the lowest value of EC and TDS were 0.74 dS m−1 and 474 ppm recorded in sample SB37 from BRI. Chatterjee et al. (2010) observed that EC as well as TDS signify the inorganic contamination of water which may be due to the gradual deposition of salts over the years Shanker et al. (2008) have also reported TDS as high as 4,100 ppm in groundwater of an industrial area of Bangalore which indicated a very high load of salinity in water. Pies et al. (2011) stated that water with high TDS may induce an unfavorable physiological reaction and cause gastrointestinal irritation. In the present study area, COD values ranged from 4.50 to 20 ppm; 45 % samples were within the permissible limit of 10 mg/l while 55 % were beyond the permissible limit (Fig. 2e). Three samples, SB35, SB43, and SB44, had very high values of COD, i.e., 20, 19, and 19 mg/l, respectively, and were located in the BRI. According to Usha et al. (2008), where COD is higher than the standard, it indicates the presence of various chemical compounds in the water and reported COD values ranged between 16 to 440 mg/l in the lake water in Bangalore. DO regulates the metabolic process of biota and is an indicator of aquatic health. In the present study, DO concentrations varied from 1.29 to 5.2 ppm, which was within the permissible limit of 8.0 mg/l (Fig 2d). Similar results were

obtained by Shaikh and Mandre (2009) in Lote (Khed) industrial area district Ratnagiri, India. Turbidity values ranged from 0.11 to 6.42 with a mean of 1.92 NTU. It is pertinent to note that in this study area, turbidity in almost all samples falls within the permissible limits except for two samples (SM4 and SM19) (Fig. 2g). The TSS value ranged from 106 to 1,576 with a mean of 514 ppm (Fig. 2f); 56.66 % of samples were within permissible limit while 43.33 % beyond permissible limit of WHO. The sample SM31 with highest TSS value was located in BRI. According to EPA guidance, turbidity is caused by suspended matter or impurities that interfere with the clarity of the water. Once considered as a mostly aesthetic characteristic of drinking water, significant evidence exists that controlling turbidity is an effective safeguard against pathogens in drinking water. Major nutrients The concentrations of potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) ranged between 7.80 to 189.0 and 0.146 to 0.522 mg/l with a mean of 87.48 and 0.264 mg/l respectively, in both the industrial blocks. According to the Food Standards Agency (2003) drinking water guidelines, K and P limits are 12.0 and 2.2 mg/l, respectively. The study also revealed that there was a dramatic increase in K concentration at almost all BRI sites as compared to MRI. Potassium water softeners are being used as an alternative to sodium water softeners, in response to a perception that potassium is better for health. Vasanthavigar et al. (2010) found similar results in Thirumanimuttar sub-basin area and also mentioned permissible limit in groundwater as phosphate (PO4), i.e., 1.5 mg/l. In the study area, calcium (Ca) concentration in groundwater varied from 30.06 to 390.78 with a mean of 158.50 mg/l (Fig. 2k) indicating that 93.33 % of the samples were containing Ca higher than the permissible limit of BIS. It is a very important parameter for drinking as well irrigation as predominance of calcium and magnesium cations also affects the hardness in water. The samples studied were also contaminated in terms of magnesium (Mg) concentration as 76.66 % of samples were beyond permissible limit of BIS, the concentrations of which varied from 6.08 to 492.18 with a mean of 120.50 mg/l (Fig. 2n, Table 2). The highest concentrations of Ca and Mg were observed in samples SB24 and SB58, located in MRI and BRI, respectively. NDSU and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperation

Environ Monit Assess Table 2 Statistical summary of Groundwater Assessment of District-Ghaziabad (samples collected from Meerut Road Industrial Area (MRI) and Bulandshahar Road Industrial Area (BRI)) Sl. no Parameters

Range (n=60)

Mean

CR

CV %

SD

CD

WHO BIS standards guideline value

1.

pHa

6.05–7.72

7.09

0.12

4.73

0.33

0.05

7.0–8.0

6.5–8.5

2.

ECa

0.74–4.21

2.27

0.71

37.01

0.84

0.37

0.7b dS m−1

0.3 dS m−1

3.

COD

4.50–20.00

12.43

0.63

36.75

4.57

0.37

10 mg/l

10 mg/l

4.

DO

1.29–5.20

2.90

0.60

24.73

0.72

0.25

–

8.0 mg/l

5.

Turbiditya

0.11–6.42

1.92

0.97

96.74

1.86

0.97

5.0

5.0 NTU

6.

TDS

473.6–2694

1452

0.70

37.01

537.33 0.37

500 mg/l

500 mg/l

7.

TSS

106–1576

514.31

0.87

61.94

318.61 0.62

500 mg/l

–

8.

Ag (silver)

0.010–0.035

0.019

0.56

37.35

0.01

0.37

–

0.1 mg/l

9.

Al (aluminum)

1.330–6.300

2.756

0.65

51.23

1.41

0.51

0.2 mg/l

0.03 mg/l

10.

As (arsenic)

0.041–0.542

0.251

0.86

45.30

0.11

0.45

0.01 mg/l

0.01 mg/l

11.

B (boron)

0.000–0.094

0.030

0.99

75.29

0.02

0.75

2.4 mg/l

0.5 mg/l

12.

Ba (barium)

0.118–0.375

0.197

0.52

31.38

0.06

0.31

0.7 mg/l

0.7 mg/l

13.

Be (beryllium)

0.001–0.003

0.003

0.50

19.65

0.0

0.20

0.10b mg/l

0.004c mg/l 75.0 mg/l

14.

Ca (calcium)

30.06–390.78

158.50

0.86

41.32

65.49

0.41

–

15.

Cd (cadmium)

0.005–0.013

0.008

0.46

26.55

0.00

0.27

0.003 mg/l b

0.003 mg/l –

16.

Co (cobalt)

0.012–0.050

0.025

0.62

39.19

0.01

0.39

0.05 mg/l

17.

Cr (chromium)

4.499–7.088

6.003

0.22

8.14

0.49

0.08

0.05 mg/l

0.05 mg/l

18.

Cu (copper)

Not detected

–

–

–

–

–

2 mg/l

0.05 mg/l

19.

Fe (iron)

Not detected

–

–

–

–

–

0.3 mg/l

0.3 mg/l

20.

K (potassium)

7.80–189.0

87.480

0.92

37.05

32.41

0.37

12e mg/l

–

21.

Mg (magnesium) 6.08–492.18

120.50

0.98

100

120.87 0.98

125d mg/l

30.0 mg/l

22.

Mn (manganese)

0.000–0.350

0.040

1.00

197.39 0.08

23.

Na (sodium)

9.20–3887

1033.41

0.99

81.68

1.97

844.09 0.82

0.1 mg/l

0.1 mg/l

50.0 mg/l

–

24.

Ni (nickel)

0.141–0.273

0.178

0.34

12.97

0.02

0.13

0.07 mg/l

0.02 mg/l

25.

P (phosphorus)

0.146–0.522

0.264

0.56

37.68

0.10

0.38

2.2e mg/l

–

26.

Pb (lead)

0.133–0.322

0.220

0.42

18.94

0.04

0.19

0.01 mg/l

0.01 mg/l

27.

Se (selenium)

0.1592–2.111

0.291

0.86

88.50

0.26

0.89

0.04 mg/l

0.01 mg/l

28.

U (uranium)

0.100–1.210

0.619

0.85

37.97

0.24

0.38

0.03 mg/l

0.03c mg/l

b

29.

V (vanadium)

0.007–0.034

0.015

0.66

45.32

0.01

0.45

0.1 mg/l

0.2 mg/l

30.

Zn (zinc)

0.019–1.200

0.148

0.97

182.24 0.27

1.82

5.0 mg/l

5.0 mg/l

31. 32.

WQI based on

Physical parameters 101–491 265 0.66 Metals contamination 871- 2908 1174 0.54

33.96 29.56

90.00 0.34 347 0.30

Physico-chemical parameters

29.55

346

33.

870-2904

1172 0.54

0.30

Remark: hazardous/ unfit for drinking and human consumption

CR coefficient of range, CV % coefficient of variation, SD standard deviation, CD coefficient of standard deviation a

All units are in mg/l except pH, EC (dS/m), Turbidity (NTU) and WQI

b

FAO's recommendation for irrigation water http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T0234E/T0234E06.htm

c

EPA's Safe Drinking Water (US Environment Protection Agency): http://www.epa.gov/safewater/

d

USDA-CSREES (2010), http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/h2oqual/watsys/wq1341.pdf

e

Food Standards Agency May 2003, http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/vitmin2003.pdf

Environ Monit Assess Table 3 Water quality index (WQI) and water quality rating calculated on the basis of physicochemical parameters of groundwater in industrial blocks (pH, EC, COD, DO, TDS, TSS and Turbidity) Sample ID

Sample location

WQI

Water quality rating

Latitude

Longitude

SM1

28.8981

77.5503

276

Very poor

SM2

28.9186

77.5794

249

Very poor

SM3

28.9069

77.5967

374

SM4

28.9067

77.5969

366

SM5

28.9108

77.6058

SM6

28.9139

SM7

Sample ID

Sample location

WQI

Water quality rating

Latitude

Longitude

SB31

28.6817

77.6414

282

Very poor

SB32

28.6822

77.6503

256

Very poor

UFD

SB33

28.6825

77.6508

250

Very poor

UFD

SB34

28.6850

77.6497

351

UFD

275

Very poor

SB35

28.6883

77.6381

299

Very poor

77.6117

271

Very poor

SB36

28.6897

77.6467

241

Very poor

28.9122

77.6089

263

Very poor

SB37

28.7283

77.6650

101

Poor

SM8

28.9075

77.6100

288

Very poor

SB38

28.7431

77.6722

243

Very poor

SM9

28.9056

77.6119

244

Very poor

SB39

28.7483

77.6794

173

Poor

SM10

28.9028

77.6125

211

Very poor

SB40

28.7292

77.6147

408

UFD

SM11

28.9000

77.6211

261

Very poor

SB41

28.7322

77.6100

211

Very poor

SM12

28.8981

77.6306

183

Poor

SB42

28.7358

77.6114

134

Poor

SM13

28.8964

77.6314

133

Poor

SB43

28.7325

77.6172

163

Poor

SM14

28.8939

77.6281

273

Very poor

SB44

28.6808

77.6136

267

Very poor

SM15

28.8936

77.6283

282

Very poor

SB45

28.7078

77.5986

158

Poor

SM16

28.8917

77.6272

457

UFD

SB46

28.7094

77.5886

341

UFD

SM17

28.7194

77.6286

319

UFD

SB47

28.7192

77.5903

317

UFD

SM18

28.8956

77.6272

374

UFD

SB48

28.7156

77.5828

385

UFD

SM19

28.8897

77.6181

258

Very poor

SB49

28.7239

77.5733

295

Very poor

SM20

28.9075

77.6103

249

Very poor

SB50

28.7208

77.5711

207

Very poor

SM21

28.8950

77.6183

143

Poor

SB51

28.7336

77.5703

177

Poor

SM22

28.8953

77.6175

260

Very poor

SB52

28.7331

77.5567

174

Poor

SM23

28.9014

77.6197

180

Poor

SB53

28.8058

77.4881

152

Poor

SM24

28.8981

77.6092

264

Very poor

SB54

28.7897

77.4872

274

Very poor

SM25

28.8964

77.6072

235

Very poor

SB55

28.7781

77.5047

381

UFD

SM26

28.9047

77.6094

250

Very poor

SB56

28.7569

77.5417

389

UFD

SM27

28.9025

77.6108

132

Poor

SB57

28.7644

77.5578

162

Poor

SM28

28.9050

77.6053

231

Very poor

SB58

28.7544

77.5589

457

UFD

SM29

28.9033

77.6050

326

UFD

SB59

28.7422

77.5592

491

UFD

SM30

28.8878

77.5850

139

Poor

SB60

28.7464

77.5386

417

UFD

UFD unfit for drinking, SM sample taken from MRI, SB sample taken from BRI

(2011) have mentioned that Mg>125 mg/l may show laxative effects. Ramesh and Elango (2011) also analyzed cations Ca and Mg for suitability of groundwater in Tondiar river basin Tamil Nadu. In the present study area, aluminum (Al) concentration in groundwater varied from 1.33 to 6.30 mg/l with a mean of 2.756 mg/l. The highest value of Al was 6.30 mg/l recorded in sample SB51 from BRI (Fig. 2i).

Micronutrients In the both blocks studied, the concentrations of silver (Ag), boron (B), barium (Ba), and beryllium (Be) were less than the prescribed permissible limits of drinking water, varying from 0.010 to 0.035, 0 to 0.094, 0.118 to 0.375, and 0.001 to 0.003 with means values of 0.019, 0.030, 0.197, and 0.003 mg/l, respectively (Table 2),


Fig. 2 a–v Distribution of various physic-chemical characteristics of groundwater along with water quality index (WQI) in two industrial blocks of Ghaziabad


Fig. 2 (continued)


Fig. 2 (continued)


cobalt (Co) concentrations in all samples were also below the standard limits, varying from 0.012 to 0.050 with a mean of 0.025 mg/l. The groundwater in the study area was free from toxic level of copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) contamination as their concentrations were within the prescribed permissible safe limit of WHO, i.e., 2.0 and 0.3 mg/l, respectively. Giri et al. (2012) found similar results in case of Cu in mining areas of Jharkhand, India. The distribution and concentrations of manganese (Fig. 2o) varied from 0.0 to 0.350 with a mean of 0.040 mg/l in the two blocks (Table 2) in which 11.66 % of groundwater samples were higher than prescribed permissible limits of WHO, i.e., 0.1 mg/l. The sample with the highest concentration for Mn was SM2 from MRI. According to Haloi and Sharma (2011), Mn can promote iron bacteria in groundwater. Most of the samples had high of Na concentrations as 83.33 % of samples exceeded the prescribed WHO guidelines, i.e., the concentration varied from 9.20 to 3887 with a mean value of 1033.41 mg/l (Fig. 2p). The vanadium (V) and zinc (Zn) concentration in groundwater samples from the two industrial blocks, varied from 0.007 to 0.034 and 0.019 to 1.20 with a mean of 0.015 and 0.148 mg/l, respectively. Samples from both the industrial sites had V and Zn concentration within the prescribed safe limits of drinking water. Potentially toxic elements Arsenic (As) concentration ranged from 0.041 to 0.542 mg/l with a mean of 0.251 mg/l, indicating that all the samples without exception were above the prescribed permissible limit of WHO/BIS, i.e., 0.01 mg/l. The highest value of arsenic was 0.542 mg/l recorded in sample SB50 and SB51 from BRI (Fig. 2j). Smelting of non-ferrous metals and the production of energy from fossil fuel are the two major industrial processes that lead to arsenic contamination of air, water, and soil. According to Jarup (2003), its concentrations in water are usually