Você está na página 1de 28

GROUND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS USING GIS

ABSTRACT:

Assessment and mapping of quality of groundwater is extremely important because the physical
and chemical characteristics of groundwater determine its suitability for agricultural, industrial
and domestic usages. Geographic information system (GIS) is an efficient and effective tool in
solving problems where spatial data are important. Geographical Information System can be an
effective and powerful tool for mapping, monitoring, modelling and assessing water quality, and
detecting environmental changes, determining water availability, preventing flooding and
managing water re-sources on a local or regional scale. In the present study the spatial variations
in ground water quality is carried out in the Peenya industrial area of Bangalore district in India.
This interpolation has been done by using the Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) technique. In
the present study ground water samples were collected from 30 locations in the study area. The
ground water quality information maps of the entire study area have been prepared using GIS
spatial interpolation techniques for all the parameters during both the pre and post-monsoon
seasons of 2017. The results obtained in the study and the spatial database established in GIS
will be helpful for monitoring and managing ground water pollution in study area. The water
quality index ground for the groundwaters have also been calculated and it is found that WQI
exceeds 100 (the limit for safe drinking water) at 12 out of the 30 sampling stations during pre-
monsoon and 13 stations during post-monsoon, that is, 40 % and 43.33 % of the samples during
these seasons are deemed unfit for potable purpose without suitable treatment.

Keywords: Geographic information system, Groundwater, Inverse distance weighting, Quality,


Spatial distribution, Water quality index

1. Introduction
Water is one of the most essential natural resources for eco-sustainability and is likely to become
critically scarce in the coming decades [1]. About one-third of the world’s population relies on
groundwater for drinking purposes. Due to population explosion, industrial improvement and
agricultural development, extraction of groundwater has increased [2]. Variations in availability
of water in time, quantity and quality can cause significant fluctuations in the economy of a
country [3]. Hence, the conservation, optimum utilization and management of this resource for
the betterment of the economic status of the country become paramount [4]. The safe and
sustainable use of groundwater requires a regular evaluation of its quality [5]. This calls for
proper practical mechanisms to safeguard the natural quality of groundwater.
It is in this connection that a quality evaluator is assessed to give a composite picture of the
groundwater status in the form of water quality index

The Water Quality Index (WQI) is considered as an effective tool to convey the information
about overall water quality in a comprehensible and useful manner [6]. A water quality index
(WQI) may be defined as a rating reflecting the composite influence of a number of water quality
parameters on the overall quality of water. The main objective of WQI is to turn complex water
quality data into information that is understandable and useable by the public. WQI based on
some important parameters can provide a simple indicator of water quality. It gives the public, a
general idea of the possible problems with water in a particular region. Thus, a water quality
index synthesizes complex scientific data into an easily understood format [7].
Therefore, the present study focuses on the groundwater quality analysis of Peenya industrial
area using GIS including spatial interpolation for groundwater quality evaluation In addition,
water quality indices of the study area has also been evaluated to identify the suitability of water
samples for human consumption and domestic utility.

1.1 Spatial interpolation method for groundwater quality evaluation

As many professionals point out, groundwater quality mapping over extensive areas is the first
step in water resources planning [8] and groundwater can be optimally used and sustained only
when the quantity and quality is properly assessed [9]. The spatial distribution of quality
groundwater shows some heterogeneity and the measurement of quality parameters at every
location is not always feasible on account of time as well as cost of the data collection.
Therefore, prediction of values based on selectively measured values is one alternative while
minimizing errors and enhanced rate of calculation accuracy. Geographical Information System
(GIS) is a leading tool and has great potential for use in environmental problem solving in
several areas, including engineering and environmental fields [10]. The usage of geospatial
technologies has smartly reduced the complexities involved in the evaluation of natural resources
and their related environmental concerns.
Due to the emergence of geostatistical analyst as an innovative tool to fill up the gap between
geostatistics and GIS, many researchers widely used it for the analysis of spatial variation of
groundwater characteristics [5].
Several researches have been undertaken to compare different interpolation methods in a variety
of situations, using GIS in areas such as groundwater depth, groundwater contamination,
groundwater quality, etc. [11,12]. Kriging, Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), and Radial Basis
Functions (RBF) are three well-known spatial interpolation techniques commonly used for
characterizing the spatial variability and interpolation between sampled points and generating
prediction maps [13].

Local polynomial method and IDW were the best methods to estimate EC and pH, respectively
in a study carried out in Hamedan-Bahar plain, west of Iran [14]. But according to [15], kriging
and co-kriging methods are superior to IDW.

In an other study, total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrate (NH3–N),
biochemical and chemical oxygen demands (BOD and COD) and pH were measured from seven
sampling points to examine the water quality of Bertram River, a main stream in the rapidly
growing tourist destination of Cameron Highlands, Malaysia [16]. They preferred IDW method
for the generation of water quality surface data as it is more intuitive and efficient. IDW method
has also been used in water quality index zonation and in the production of spatial distribution
maps of water quality parameters [17].
The IDW makes predictions using a linear weighted combination based on the inverse of the
distance between the points [18]. It is computationally fast and has the ability to accommodate
barriers that reflect the linear discontinuity in the surface.

The present study investigated the best interpolation method by using IDW to illustrate the
spatial distribution of the water quality parameters in the groundwaters of Peenya. In addition,
the water quality indices of the study area have been evaluated to assess the comprehensive
water quality status.
2. Details of the Study Area

Bangalore city lies between North Latitude 1205212111 to 13061011 and East Longitude 770014511
to 7703212511 covering an area of approximately 400 square km. The study area, Peenya
Industrial area, is covered in part of the Survey of India Toposheet No 57 H/9. The area
covering about 40 square kilometres lies to the Northern part of Bangalore city and houses more
than 2100 industries dominated by chemical, leather, pharmaceutical, plating and allied
industries.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Sampling, Geodatabase and analysis

A total of 30 sampling stations were selected in the study area as illustrated in Figure 1. The
samples were collected by composite sampling method during pre-monsoon and post- monsoon
seasons of the year 2017 and a GPS Survey was done. These samples were drawn from the open
wells, bore wells, hand pumps and municipal water supply schemes, which are being extensively
used for drinking and other domestic, industrial and agriculture purposes. The samples were
collected in two litre PVC containers, sealed and were analyzed for 20 major physico-chemical
parameters in the lab. However, for the calculation of WQI, only 10 parameters (for which the
B.I.S limits have been stipulated) have been considered. The location map of the study area with
the sampling stations have been presented in figure 1, while the details of the sampling
locations/sources and latitude /longitude details have been presented in table 1.
The physical parameters such as pH and Electrical Conductivity were determined in the field at
the time of sample collection. The chemical characteristics including metals were determined as
per the Standard methods [19] for the examination of water and wastewater (APHA, 2002). The
results obtained were evaluated in accordance with the standards prescribed under ‘Indian
Standard Drinking Water Specification IS 10500: 2003’ of Bureau of Indian Standards [20]. The
results of the physico- chemical analyses have been presented in table 2.

3.2 Concept of IDW Interpolation methods

Spatial interpolation is the process of using points with known values to estimate values at other
unknown points. In GIS, spatial interpolation can be applied to create a raster surface with
estimates made for all raster cells. The results of interpolation analysis can then be used for
analysis that cover the whole area.

There are many interpolations methods. In the present study area interpolation method called
Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) has been used.

The sampling locations were captured as latitude / longitude data in degrees, minutes, and
seconds (DMS) Format. The data was converted to decimal degrees (Long DD and Lat DD) for
all sampling locations. Sorting this in Excel format file, it was exported as text file structure.
This converted text file structure was used for the analysis. The spatial analyst tool in the GIS
Software was employed for interpretation of data. The results were stored as Raster files upon
analysis [3].
Figure 1: Location map of Peenya Industrial Area with Sampling Stations
Table 1: Details of Sampling Stations along with the Latitude and Longitude
Steps of IDW Method employed in Arc Map 10.1 Software

1 Click the point layer in the ARC MAP table of contents that contains the attributes you are
interested in.

1 Start Geostatistical wizard


2 Under the methods section, choose Inverse Distance Weighting, which is located under
Deterministic methods
3 The lower portion of geostatistical wizard shows information about inverse distance
weighted interpolation. A dialogue box is seen
4 Under the input section, choose the data field that you want to interpolate. In addition we can
specify a weight field, this will weigh the data values and alter the interpolated values
5 Click next
6 Modify the power value, which can vary between 1 and 100.
7 Specify the output path
8 Set the environmental settings so that latitude and longitude is distributed overall
9 Once you are satisfied with the model, click finish. A Method Report window appears.
10 Click ok to produce the surface
11 The method report contains window a summary showing the dataset, attribute, interpolation
method and parameter values used to create the surface.

A typical out put of …………………is shown in Figure 2


3.3 Development of water quality index

In the formulation of a WQI, the importance of various water quality parameters depends on the intended
use of water. This paper attempts to evaluate the water quality indices from the viewpoint of suitability of
water for human consumption. The ten parameters chosen for the present study are shown in the first
column of table 2. The second column of this table gives the drinking water standards for these
parameters as recommended by the BIS. The method of evaluating the WQI has been briefly discussed
here.

In the first place, the more harmful a given pollutant of water, the smaller in magnitude is its standard for
drinking water. So the unit weight Wi for the ith parameter Pi is assumed to be inversely proportional to its
recommended standard Si (i=1, 2,…..,n) and n= no. of parameters considered= 10 in the present case).
Thus,

Wi= K / Si , --------------------------------------(1)

where the constant of proportionality K has been assumed to be equal to unity for the sake of simplicity.
These unit weights Wi, for the 10 water quality parameters used here are shown in the last column of
Table 4, where pH has been assigned the same weight as chloride.

The quality rating qi for the ith parameter P is given, for all other parameters except pH, by the relation

qi =100 (Vi / Si ) ----------------------------------(2)

Where Vi is the observed value of the ith parameter and S is its recommended standard for drinking water.
For pH, the quality rating qpH can be calculated from the relation

qpH =100[(VpH~7.0)/1.5] -------------------------(3)

Where VpH is the observed value of pH and the symbol “~” means simply the algebraic difference
between VpH and 7.0.

Finally, the water quality index (WQI) can be calculated by taking the weighted arithmetic mean of the
quality rating qi, thus,

WQI= [ Σ (qi Wi ) / ΣWi] ------------------------(4)

where both the summations are taken from i=1 to i=10 (the total no. of parameters considered).
Table 2: Water Quality parameters their standards and unit weights

Parameter (Pi) Standard (Si) Unit weight (Wi)

pH 6.5-8.5 0.004

Total Hardness 300 0.003

Calcium 75 0.013

Magnesium 30 0.033

Chloride 250 0.004

Nitrate 45 0.022

Sulphate 200 0.006

TDS 500 0.002

Fluoride 1 1

Iron 0.3 3.33

ΣWi = 4.4183

4 Results and Discussions

4.1 Results of physico- chemical analysis

The results of the physico- chemical analysis of the groundwater samples of Peenya industrial
area during the pre and post-monsoon seasons is presented in tables 3 and 4 respectively. Out of
the thirty samples analysed, 22 samples (73.33%) were found to be non-potable as per Bureau of
Indian Standards. The critical constituents for the non potability of the samples are total hardness
and nitrates, each of which accounted for 43.33% non-potability whilst sulphate and total
dissolved solids accounted for 40% and 16.67% of non-potability, followed by other parameters
such as magnesium and calcium, as a result of which 30 % and 26.67% of the samples were
found to be non-potable. Fluorides accounted for 23.3%, of non-potability, while pH was outside
the permissible limits in 16.67% of the samples examined. Iron contributed to the non- potability
of 10% of the samples.
The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of nitrates in the study area during pre-
monsoon season are found to be 319 mg/L, 10 mg/L and 52.97mg/L respectively and 344 mg/L,
12 mg/L and 61.74 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. Beyond 45 mg/L, nitrates
may cause methemoglobinemia or blue baby disease in infants. It may also be carcinogenic in
adults [21] .

The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of total hardness in the study area during pre-
monsoon season are found to be 3070 mg/L, 98 mg/L and 771.7 mg/L respectively and 3040
mg/L, 128 mg/L and 792 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. The maximum,
minimum and mean concentrations of calcium in the study area during pre-monsoon season are
found to be 591 mg/L, 28 mg/L and 161.43 mg/L respectively and 596 mg/L, 25 mg/L and
160.64 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. The maximum, minimum and mean
concentrations of magnesium in the study area during pre-monsoon season are found to be 408
mg/L, 7 mg/L and 89.76 mg/L respectively and 412 mg/L, 92.64 mg/L and 10 mg/L
respectively during post-monsoon season. The calcium and magnesium salts which impart
hardness are also obviously higher in these areas.

The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of TDS in the study area during pre-monsoon
season are found to be 3848 mg/L, 248 mg/L and 1203.4 mg/L respectively and 4010 mg/L,
300 mg/L and 1271.67 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. Waters with high TDS
(>2000mg/L) are of inferior palatability and may induce an unfavourable physiological reaction
in the transient consumer and gastro intestinal irritation [22].

The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of sulphate in the study area during pre-
monsoon season are found to be 880 mg/L, 20 mg/L and 234.67 mg/L respectively and
934mg/L, 24 mg/L and 251.9 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. Higher
concentration of sulphate (>250 mg/L) may cause cathartic action and malfunctioning of
alimentary canal and gastrointestinal irritation in human beings. High concentration may also
induce diarrhoea [23, 24].

The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of fluorides in the study area during pre-
monsoon season are found to be 6.12 mg/L, 0.38 mg/L and 1.46 mg/L respectively and 6.12
mg/L, 0.4 mg/L and 1.507 mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season. High concentration of
fluoride causes dental fluorosis, which is nothing but disfigurement of the teeth and dental
mottling or spotting of teeth [25]. Hence, it is essential to maintain fluoride concentration
between 0.6 to 1.2 mg/L in drinking water and the upper limit is 1.5mg/L (BIS 10500, 2003).
Intake of excess fluoride causes dental, skeletal and non-skeletal fluorosis. Gastrointestinal
complaints, constipation and intermittent diarrhoea and flatulence in expectant and lactating
mothers, hardworking young adults, foetus and children may be some of the other disorders
associated with excess fluorides.

The maximum, minimum and mean concentrations of iron in the study area during pre-monsoon
season are found to be 1.44 mg/L, 0 and 0.252 mg/L respectively and 1.51 mg/L, 0 and 1.51
mg/L respectively during post-monsoon season.
The desirable limit of iron as per BIS 2003 is 0.30 mg/L and maximum permissible limit
1.0mg/L. Beyond this limit, taste and appearance are affected and has adverse effects on
domestic uses such as staining of clothes and utensils. If the concentration of iron exceeds 0.3
mg/L, it affects water supply structures as well as promotes iron bacteria [26] . The higher values
may be due to rusting of casing pipes, non-usage of borewells for long periods and disposal of
scrap iron in open areas due to industrial activity [27].

The average values of the various physico-chemical parameters of groundwater sampling


locations collected during pre and post –monsoon seasons of the year 2017 for the study area are
presented in the figures 3 and 4 respectively in the form of bar charts. The major physico-
chemical parameters mapped in these figures are TH, Ca, Cl, NO3, SO4 and TDS. From the
figure 5, it is observed that by comparing the pre-monsoon and post monsoon season
concentrations, the values are more or less similar, with a slight increasing trend in the post
monsoon season.

The spatial distribution maps for the key parameters during pre and post monsoon seasons have
been presented from figures 6 to …….
Table 3: Results of Pre-Monsoon Physico-Chemical Analysis of Groundwater Samples

Total Hardness,mg/l as
Sample no

TDS, mg/l
NO3, mg/l

SO4, mg/l
Mg, mg/l

Fe, mg/l

Cl, mg/l
Ca ,mg/l

F, mg/l
CaCo3
PH

1 7.72 1030 208 124 1.14 330 17 603 1530 2.9


2 6.05 607 128 70 1.02 220 64 308 976 1.4
3 7.41 456 102 49 0 208 34 170 840 0.8
4 8.1 139 36 12 0 40 10 152 342 2.1
5 7.9 695 145 81 0.24 350 68 406 1442 1.3
6 7.94 772 130 109 0.14 504 82 210 1468 0.6
7 7.96 1155 214 151 0.18 598 319 192 2110 0.76
8 7.78 716 142 88 0.14 274 83 62 902 0.38
9 5.12 596 131 66 0 440 58 32 919 0.61
10 6.14 378 92 36 0 210 42 113 670 2
11 6.41 319 80 29 0 150 11 60 484 1.4
12 6.11 2960 514 408 0 2038 136 504 3848 5.88
13 7.11 3070 591 388 0.04 1680 101 358 3420 6.12
14 7.06 502 86 70 0 422 42 40 880 0.6
15 7.01 1212 222 160 0.38 582 36 588 1978 0.42
16 7.18 1050 228 117 0.22 452 20 524 1642 0.4
17 7.8 432 124 30 0.04 220 18 93 719 1.4
18 7.24 294 75 26 0.1 148 42 65 580 0.14
19 7.7 398 130 18 1.44 80 58 220 624 1.42
20 7.48 404 78 51 0.04 140 18 138 680 0.44
21 8.2 546 120 60 0.8 410 20 106 937 1.3
22 7.9 626 162 54 0 320 24 68 902 1.9
23 6.89 310 91 20 0.36 244 81 52 698 0.74
24 7.01 1446 336 148 0.52 360 34 880 2148 0.38
25 7.59 1348 270 164 0.22 808 52 806 2575 0.93
26 8.3 372 100 30 0 150 54 63 688 1.3
27 7.01 124 30 12 0.36 100 10 30 300 2.3
28 6.52 583 148 52 0.1 160 17 104 740 1.4
29 6.9 514 102 63 0 240 28 73 812 1.39
30 7.1 98 28 7 0.08 60 10 20 248 1.2
Table 4: Results of Post-Monsoon Physico-Chemical Analysis of Groundwater Samples

Total Hardness,mg/l as
Sample no

TDS, mg/l
NO3, mg/l

SO4, mg/l
Mg, mg/l

Fe, mg/l

Cl, mg/l
Ca ,mg/l

F, mg/l
CaCo3
PH

1 7.72 1074 216 130 1.26 356 22 640 1600 2.96


2 6.07 620 140 66 1.15 242 80 322 1030 1.42
3 7.42 458 98 52 0 230 40 190 870 0.8
4 8.1 172 44 15 0 50 12 170 370 2.2
5 7.92 716 152 82 0.27 410 86 442 1560 1.27
6 7.97 840 142 118 0.22 600 114 228 1610 0.66
7 7.96 1242 234 160 0.2 710 344 216 2300 0.8
8 7.79 738 128 102 0.2 304 104 80 970 0.4
9 5.12 590 128 66 0 440 58 32 920 0.61
10 6.16 406 100 38 0 240 54 120 740 2.1
11 6.4 322 88 25 0 172 16 66 510 1.38
12 6.11 2996 522 412 0 2120 164 542 4010 5.92
13 7.14 3040 596 378 0.08 1860 122 380 3630 6.12
14 7.07 538 74 86 0 470 40 50 940 0.66
15 7.02 1262 236 164 0.38 640 40 604 2080 0.48
16 7.2 1084 230 124 0.42 508 22 540 1730 0.44
17 7.82 372 110 24 0.08 244 20 98 700 1.5
18 7.24 322 80 30 0.18 124 38 68 560 0.22
19 7.72 432 140 20 1.51 98 56 242 670 1.44
20 7.5 388 80 46 0.06 168 22 138 700 0.45
21 8.21 542 112 64 0.84 396 18 114 920 1.4
22 7.9 670 160 66 0 360 24 68 940 1.9
23 6.88 318 88 24 0.45 270 98 62 770 0.8
24 7.02 1502 352 152 0.55 412 40 934 2290 0.48
25 7.57 1418 288 170 0.27 904 58 880 2780 0.98
26 8.22 356 100 26 0 164 68 80 730 1.32
27 7.02 128 25 16 0.44 110 16 27 320 2.4
28 6.54 536 136 48 0.17 182 26 110 740 1.42
29 6.92 542 110 65 0 264 36 90 860 1.44
30 7.12 136 38 10 0.05 74 14 24 300 1.32
Pre monsoonConcentration
1500

1000

500

0
TH Ca cl NO3 SO4 TDS

TH Ca cl NO3 SO4 TDS

Figure 3: Average values of major physico-chemical parameters during pre-monsoon season

concentration
1400
1200 TH
1000 Ca
800 cl
600
400 NO3
200 SO4
0 TDS
TH Ca cl NO3 SO4 TDS

Figure 4: Average values of the major physico-chemical parameters of water samples collected
during post-monsoon season

1400

1200

1000

800 Pre
monsoonConcentration
600 Post monsoon
concentration
400

200

0
TH Ca cl NO3 SO4 TDS

Figure 5: Comparison of Pre and Post Monsoon Analysis with Respect to Average Values
Spatial Distribution Maps of various physico chemical parameters of pre- monsoon season
Spatial Distribution maps of various physic chemical parameters of post Monsoon season
4.4 Results of Ground Water Quality Indices

A sample calculation of WQI for the first sampling station (pre-monsoon) is shown in detail in
Table 4. In this table, 10 water quality parameters are listed in the first column, while their actual
values are given in the second column. The third column in table shows the quality ratings q for
these parameters, while the last column gives sub-indices (qiwi). The water quality index for the
first sampling station is calculated and shown in the last row of table and found to be equal to
357.07. In the same way, the Water quality indices for all the 30 sampling stations of Peenya
industrial area have been calculated using the ground water quality data using the equations 1-4
during both the pre-as well as post-monsoon seasons and the complete results have been
presented in Table 5.

The numerical value of the water quality index, as formulated in the previous section [Equations
2 and 3], implies that the water under consideration is fit for human consumption if it’s
WQI<100, and is unfit for drinking without treatment if it’s WQI>=100. Moreover, the larger the
value of WQI, the more polluted the water concerned.

From Table 5, the overall quality of the ground water of this area is reflected in the average value
of WQI, which is found to be 100.52 and 112.0 during the pre and post-monsoon reasons
respectively. It is found that WQI exceeds 100 (the limit for safe drinking water) at 12 out of the
30 sampling stations during pre-monsoon and 13 stations during post-monsoon, that is, 40 % and
43.33 % of the samples during these seasons are deemed unfit for potable purpose without
suitable treatment.
Table 4: Sample calculation of the water quality index for sampling station-1

Parameter (Pi) Observed Value (Vi) Quality rating (qi) Sub index (qiwi)

pH 7.72 48 0.192

Total Hardness 1030 343.33 1.03

Calcium 208 277.33 3.60

Magnesium 124 413.33 13.64

Chloride 330 132 0.528

Nitrate 17 37.78 0.831

Sulphate 603 301.5 1.809

TDS 1530 306 0.612

Fluoride 2.9 290 290

Iron 1.14 380 1265.4

WQI = [ Σ (qi.wi) / Σ wi ]= 357.07


Table 5: Water quality indices for the groundwaters of Peenya Industrial area during
pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons
Sampling Water Quality Index (WQI)
station Pre-monsoon Post-monsoon
1 357.07 388.86
2 291.46 324.72
3 20.50 20.65
4 48.33 50.74
5 93.80 100.97
6 53.57 75.73
7 71.41 78.01
8 47.87 63.96
9 17.12 17.10
10 47.34 49.84
11 33.09 32.64
12 148.91 150.34
13 163.52 173.67
14 16.50 18.23
15 111.29 112.90
16 69.27 120.67
17 43.52 55.65
18 29.93 51.91
19 395.87 414.01
20 22.11 27.30
21 233.09 245.45
22 45.69 46.01
23 109.21 133.47
24 145.87 155.98
25 83.45 97.55
26 31.48 32.00
27 143.14 165.65
28 59.23 77.22
29 34.07 35.40
30 47.74 43.10
Average 100.52 112.00
Conclusion

The water quality parameters of Peenya industrial area were analyzed for better
understanding using spatial analysis tools of ArcGIS software. The spatial distribution of
interpolated maps for the parameters TH, Ca, Cl, NO3, SO4 and TDS during the year 2017
have been presented in this paper. The IDW maps showing the spatial distribution of the
above mentioned physico-chemical parameters were developed using GIS, which facilitated
in identifying the potential zones of drinking water quality.

References

Hajalilou, B., and Khaleghi, F., (2009), Investigation of hydro geochemical factors and
groundwater quality assessment in Marand Municipality, northwest of Iran: a multivariate
statistical approach. Journal of food, Agriculture and environment, 7(3 and 4), pp 930-937

M.H.J.P. Gunarathna, M.K.N. Kumari and K.G.S. Nirmanee Evaluation of Interpolation


Methods for Mapping pH of Groundwater Volume V, Issue III, March 2016 IJLTEMAS

Water quality analysis of Bhadravathi taluk using GIS – a case study Rajkumar V. Raikar1,
Sneha, M. K2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Volume 2, No 4, 2012

Singh, P. K., Singh, U. C., and Suyash Kumar. (2009), An integrated approach using remote
sensing, GIS and geoelectrical techniques for the assessment of groundwater conditions: A
case study, GIS development e-magazine, 5(35), available at
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/nrm/water/ground/iars.htm.
Syed Umair Shahid1, Javed Iqbal, Sher Jamal Khan A comprehensive assessment of spatial
interpolation methods for the groundwater quality evaluation of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan

NUST Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-13

R. Shabbir and S.S. Ahmad, “Use of geographicinformation system and water quality index
toassess groundwater quality in Rawalpindi and Islamabad”, Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, vol. 40, 2015, pp. 2033-2047.

Bangalore S Shankar and Latha Sanjeev. (2008) “Assessment of water quality index for the
groundwaters of an industrial area in Bangalore, India”, International Journal of
Environmental Engineering and Science, Vol.28, No.6, pp 911-915.

Todd, D.K., (1980). Groundwater Hydrology. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
USA.

Kharad, S.M., Rao, K.S., Rao, G.S., (1999). GIS based groundwater assessment model,
GIS@development, Nov–Dec 1999.
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/nrm/water/ground/watg0001.htm. Accessed 21
July 2015.

Goodchild, M.F., (1993). The state of GIS for environmental problem-solving. In Goodchild,
M.F., Parks, B.O. and Steyart, L.T. (Eds.) Environ. Modeling GIS, New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 8–15.

Chao,T, Chou, M., Yang, C., Chung, H., and Wu, M., (2009). Effects of interpolation
methods in spatial normalization of diffusion tensor imaging data on group comparison of
fractional anisotropy. Magnetic resonance imaging, 27(5), pp. 681-690.

Chiang, P., Musa, G., Hsieh, D., Liou, D., Wen, C., Chan, T., Chen, H., (2010). Spatial
interpolation of cadmium contamination of agricultural soils in Changhua County, Taiwan.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 40(4), pp. 322-336.
Zandi, S., Ghobakhlou, A. and Sallis, P., (2011). Evaluation of Spatial Interpolation
Techniques for Mapping Soil pH, 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation,
Perth, Australia, 12–16 December 2011.

Maroofi, S., Toranjeyan, A., and Zare Abyaneh, H., (2009). Evaluation of geostatistical
methods for estimating electrical conductivity and pH of stream drained water in Hamedan-
Bahar Plain. Journal of Water and Soil Conservation 16 pp. 169-187.

Mehrjardi, R.T., A. Akbarzadeh, S. Mahmoodi, A. Heidari and Sarmadian, F.,(2008).


Application of geostastical methods for mapping groundwater quality in Azarbayjan
Province, Iran. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 3: 726-735.

M. Aminu, et al., “A GIS-based water qualitymodel for sustainable tourism planning of


BertamRiver in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia”,Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 73, 2015,
pp.6525-6537.

K. Rina, et al., “Characterization and evaluation of processes governing the groundwater


quality inparts of the Sabarmati Basin, Gujarat using hydrochemistry integrated with GIS”,
Syed Umair Shahid et al. 6 12 Hydrological Processes, vol. 26, 2012, pp. 1538-1551

S.U. Shahid and J. Iqbal “Groundwater qualityassessment using averaged water quality
index: acase study of Lahore City, Punjab, Pakistan”,Proceedings of World Multidisciplinary
EarthSciences Symposium.

APHA (2002). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, twentieth
edition, American Public and Health Association, Washington D.C.
BIS (2003). Bureau of Indian Standards IS: 10500, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi, India

Basappa Reddy, M. (2003). Status of groundwater quality in Bangalore and its Environs.
Report, Department of Mines and Geology, Bangalore.

Ranjit Singh, A. J., & Ajit Kumar, T. T. (2004). Water quality analysis of drinking water
resources in selected villages in Tirunelveli district. Indian Journal of Environmental
Protection, 24, 48–52.

Hariharan A.V.L.N.S.H. (2002) “Evaluation of drinking water quality at Jalaripeta village of


Visakapattanam district, Andra Pradesh”, Nat.Envt and Poll. Tech, Vol.1, No.4, pp.407-410.

Ranjani B., Das P.K. and Bhattacharya K.G. (2001) “Studies on interaction between surface
and groundwaters at Guwahati, Assam”, Jour of Envt. And Poll, Vol.8, No.4, pp.361-369.

Kaza Somashekar Rao., Raju V.A., Singanan M., Sheshagiri Rao and Chakravarthy. (1994)
“Studies on the quality of water supplied by the municipality of Kakinada and groundwaters
of Kakinada town”, Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, vol. 14, No.3, pp.167-169.

Sawanth C.P., Saxena G.C. and Shrivatsava V.S. (2000) “Trace metals in and around an
Industrial belt”, Ecology, Environment and conservation, Vol.6, No. 1, pp 135-137.

Shankar B.S and Usha H.S. (2007) “Environmental degradation due to industrialization- a
case study of Whitefield industrial area of Bangalore, India ”, Journal of Environmental
Engineering and Science, Vol.24, No.9, pp1348-1352.