Assessment of Groundwater Quality Index for Palar Basin Using

Remote Sensing and GIS, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh

A. Anil1*, K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy2 and R.Bhavani3
1
Research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, JNTUA, Ananthapuramu
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Siddhartha Institute of Engg&Tech, Puttur
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, JNTUA, Ananthapuramu

Abstract
The present work is aimed at assessing the water quality index (WQI) for the ground water of Palar basin. This has
been determined by collecting groundwater samples and subjecting the sample to a comprehensive Physico-chemical analysis.
The physico-chemical results were compared to the standard guideline values as recommended by the World health organization
(WHO) for drinking and public health in order to have an overview of the present groundwater quality. For calculating
Groundwater quality Index following 11 parameters have been considered: pH, Totalhardness, chlorides, Dissolvedsolids,
calcium, Magnesium, sulphate, Nitrate, Flouride, Alkalinity, and sodium. The WQI for these samples ranges from 55.85 to
191.26. The high value of WQI has been found to be mainly from the higher values of Total hardness, chlorides, Dissolved
solids, Magnesium and alkalinity in the ground water. Using GIS contouring methods with ArcGis 9.3 Spatial distribution maps
of pH, Total hardness, chlorides, Dissolved solids, calcium, Magnesium, sulphate, Nitrate, Flouride, Alkalinity, sodium and WQI
have been created. WQI was used to assess the suitability of groundwater from the study area for human consumption. From the
WQI assessment over 90% of the water samples fall in poor water categories. The analysis reveals that the groundwater of the
area needs some degree of treatment before consumption.
Key Words : Physico-chemical analysis, Water Quality Index (WQI), Geographical Information system,Spatial analysis, Palar
basin.

1. Introduction
Ground water occurs almost everywhere beneath the earth surface not in single widespread aquifer but in
thousands of local aquifer systems and compartments that have similar characters. Knowledge of the occurrence,
replenishment and recovery of groundwater has special significance in arid and semiarid regions due to discrepancy
in monsoon rainfall, insufficient surface waters and over drafting of groundwater resources. Ground water quality
depends on the quality of recharged water, atmospheric precipitation, inland surface water. Temporal changes in the
origin and constitution of the recharged water, hydrological and human factors, may cause periodic changes in
groundwater quality. Ascertaining the quality is crucial before its use for various purpose such as drinking,
agricultural, recreational and industrial use.Till recently, ground water assessment has been based on laboratory
investigation, but the advent of satellite Technology and Geographical Information system (GIS) can be a powerful
tool for developing solutions for water resources problems assessing water quality[1,2,3].
Water Quality Index(WQI) is an important technique for demarcating groundwater quality and its
suitability for drinking purpose. WQI is defined as a technique of rating that provides the composite influence of
individual water quality parameters on the overall quality of water for human consumption. WQI is a mathematical
equation used to transform large number of water quality data into a single number[5].The standards for drinking
purposes as recommended by WHO[4,5] has been considered for the calculation of WQI. Water quality index is one
of the most effective tools to communicate information on the quality of any water body. It is simple and easy to
understanding of water quality issues by integrating complex data and generating a score that describes water quality
status.
The main objective of the present work is to discuss the suitability of groundwater for human consumption
based on computed water quality index values.

1.1. Study Area

Chittoor District is one of the chronically drought affected rayalaseema district of Andhra Pradesh.
Administratively the district is divided into 3 revenue divisions which are further subdivided in to 66 mandals. The
important drainage basins are Bahuda, Pincha, swarnamuki, palar , ponnai and araniyar.
Palar basin lies between north Latitude 13052’ to 13038’ and East Longitude 79054’ to 790 45’ with a total
drainage 703 km2(Figure 1). It cover five mandals that is Chandragiri, somala, Puthalapattu.Irala and Pakala.This
region is influenced by semi arid climate. The mean temperature lies between to 30 ⁰C to 42 ⁰C . The Normal annual
rainfall over the study area is about 860 mm. The district is underlain by rocks of Archaean, proterozoic, jurassiic-
caraceous and Tertiary-Quaternary ages. The oldest rock in the area belongs to Migmatite Complex, representing by
migmatised quartzo-feldspar gneiss and are exposed in the northeastern part of the district. Older metamorphic
comprise amphibolites, hornblende-talc-mica-schist, fuchsite quartzite, calcsillicate rock, marble and banded
ferruginous quartzite. The older matamorphics occur as enclaves with peninsular Gneissic Complex (PGC). The
study area majorly covers granite gneiss rock type and dolerite dykes and quartz vanes are present. There are mainly
two types of soils present in the basin they are Red loamy soils and Stream courses are covered by black clay soils.

Figure 1: Location Map of the Study area

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemical Analysis: Water samples were collected in July 2016 from 50 boreholes capturing the deep aquifer
of Palar basin. The water samples were collected in clean polyethylene bottles. At the time of sampling, the bottles
were thoroughly two to three times rinsed with the groundwater to be sampled. In the case of bore wells and hand
pumps, the water samples were collected after pumping for 10 min. This was done in order to remove to
groundwater stored in the well. Each of the groundwater sample was analyzed for 11parameters such as pH, TDS,
Total hardness, Magnesium, Sulphate, Nitrate, Fluoride, Alkalinity, Sodium, Chlorides, Calcium. Using standard
procedure recommended by APHA[6].pH is determined by using pH meter. Total solids are determined by using
evaporation method. Total hardness, calcium, magnesium, alkalinity and chlorides are determined by titration
method. Nitrate is determined by Brusin Sulphonic acid method and sulphates are determined by Turbedometeric
method. Flouride is determined by SPANDS method.Sodium is determined by Flamephotometer method.e All the
water quality parameters was expressed in mg/l, except pH . The accuracy of the chemical analysis was verified by
calculating ion balance errors. The error were generally around 10% . Each parameter was compared to the desirable
standard limit of that parameter stipulated for drinking water as prescribed by the WHO for drinking and public
health purposes.
2.2. GIS Analysis: The study is carried out with the help of topographic sheets, ERDAS and Arcview GIS 9.3. The
toposheet of the Palar basin has a 1:50,000 scale and was digitized to the UTM coordinate system by applying the
on-screen digitizing method using ERDAS Imagine software. GPS is used to map the location of each sampling
borehole; and finally, the results of each parameters analysed were added to the concerned boreholes. Spatial
Analyst, an extended module of ArcGIS 9.3.,was used to find out the spatio- temporal behavior of the groundwater
quality parameters. The various thematic layers on hardness, pH and ionic concentrations were prepared using a
spatial interpolation technique through Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW). This contouring method has been used in
the present study to delineate the locational distribution of water pollutants or constituents. This method uses a
defined or a selected set of sample points for estimating the output grid cell value. It determines the cell values using
a linearly weighted combination of a set of sample points; and, it controls the significance of known points upon the
interpolated values based upon their distance from the output point, generating thereby a surface grid as well as
thematic isolines [11] . Groundwater quality classification maps for pH, TH, EC, TDS, Cl, SO 4 , HCO , NO , Ca,
Mg, Na and F from thematic layers, based on the WHO Standards for drinking water, have been created for Palar
Basin.

2.3. Estimation of Water Quality Index: For computing WQI, three steps were followed [7]. In the first step, each
of the 11 parameters (pH, TDS,TH, Cl, SO4 , HCO3 , NO 3, Ca, Mg, Na and F ) has been assigned a weight ( )
based on their effect on primary health (Table 1).

Table 1: Relative weight of chemical parameters

Chemical Parameters WHO Standards Weight( ) Relative Weight

pH 7.0-8.5 (8.5) 4 0.108

Total Hardness (mg/l) 100 (mg/l) 2 0.054
Chlorides (mg/l) 200 (mg/l) 3 0.081
Total Dissolved solids 500 (mg/l) 5 0.135
(mg/l)
Calcium (mg/l) 100 (mg/l) 2 0.054
Magnesium (mg/l) 30 (mg/l) 2 0.054
Sulphate (mg/l) 250 (mg/l) 4 0.108
Nitrate (mg/l) 50 (mg/l) 5 0.135
Flouride (mg/l) 1 (mg/l) 5 0.135
Bicarbonate (mg/l) 100 (mg/l) 2 0.054
sodium (mg/l) 200 (mg/l) 3 0.081
=37 0.999

Maximum weight of 5 has been assigned to parameters like total dissolved solids, fluorides and nitrate due to their
major importance in water quality assessment. Bicarbonate is given the minimum weight of 2 as it plays an
insignificant role in the water quality assessment [8]. Other parameters like calcium, magnesium, sodium and
sulphate were assigned a weight between 2 and 5 depending on their importance in the overall quality of water for
drinking purposes. In the second step, the relative weight ( ) of each parameter is computed using Eq. (1):

(1)

where, is the weight of each parameter, is the number of parameters. Weight ( ), calculated relative weight
 ( ) values and the WHO standards for each parameter are given in Table 1. In the third step, quality rating scale
(qi) was calculated for each parameter using Eq. (2):
(2)

is the quality rating, is the concentration of each chemical parameter in each water sample in mg/l and is the
WHO standard for each chemical parameter in mg/l

Table 2: Status of Water Quality based on WQI

WQI Range Status
< 50 Excellent
50-100 Good
100-200 Poor
200-300 Very Poor
>300 Unfit For Drinking

In WQI, the SI is first determined for each chemical parameter using Eq. (3)-which is then used to determine the
WQI as per the Eq. (4):

(3)
(4)

where, is the sub-index of th parameter. Values are usually classified into five categories (Table 2):
Excellent, good, poor, very poor and unfit for drinking[9,10].
2.4. WQI Contour Maps through GIS: GIS is a powerful tool for developing solutions for water resources
problems for assessing water quality, determining water availability, preventing flooding, understanding the natural
environment, and managing water resources on a local or regional scale [11]. Visiting every location in a study area
to measure the height, magnitude, or concentration of a phenomenon is usually difficult or expensive. Instead,
measure the phenomenon at strategically dispersed sample locations, and predicted values can be assigned to all
other locations. Input points can be either randomly or regularly spaced or based on a sampling scheme. The
interpolation tools are generally divided into deterministic and geostatistical methods. IDW, Spline, and Trend are
deterministic, while Kriging is a geostatistical method. The Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) referred to as
deterministic interpolation methods because they assign values to locations based on the surrounding measured
values and on specified mathematical formulas that determine the smoothness of the resulting surface. Determines
the cell values using a linearly weighted combination of a set of sample points and controls the significance of
known points upon the interpolated values. Groundwater quality classification maps for pH, TH, TDS, Cl, SO 4,
HCO3 , NO3 , Ca, Mg, Na and F from thematic layers, based on the WHO Standards for drinking water, have been
created for Palar Basin.

Table 3: Water Quality parameters Valuesfor collected Groundwater samples at various locations
TH SO₄²¯ Fluoride CL¯ TDS Ca²⁺ Mg²⁺ Na²⁺ NO₃¯ Alkalinity
----------------------------------------------------------------------- mg/l ---------------------------------------
Sample T(°C) pH
----
1 33.5 6.54 380 17.7 0.2 166 550 231 125 100 1.2 221
2 30 7.32 160 15.2 0.1 157 890 65 72 258.5 0.1 65
3 33 6.76 220 9.65 0.3 59 950 105 92 90 0.1 95
4 33 6.60 450 20.75 0.2 279 970 265 232 91.8 0.25 256
5 31 6.84 270 14.45 0.3 124 450 158 89 104.9 1.1 148
6 30 6.65 240 12.5 0.2 54 650 91 125 85.6 0 98
7 32 6.75 280 16.75 0.3 89 550 138 119 68 0 128
8 30 6.36 280 10.3 0.2 32 550 165 92 50.6 0.1 155
9 31 6.76 390 20.3 0.2 121 850 145 222 108.2 0.1 138
10 31 6.71 250 13.65 0.3 69 450 78 149 97.2 0.45 68
11 31 6.52 340 18.55 0.3 179 850 265 52 96.7 0.4 255
12 34 7.02 440 13.8 0.2 149 850 198 219 110.1 0 188
13 30 7.48 420 24 0.2 114 850 231 165 106.9 0 227
14 30 6.61 460 25.5 0.2 214 950 231 205 111.3 0.75 221
15 32 6.89 460 25.05 0.2 224 1050 298 139 106.1 0.8 258
16 29 6.87 470 25.2 0.1 214 950 231 215 137.8 1 221
17 31 6.85 460 19.65 0.2 164 950 248 189 53.4 0.25 238
18 33 6.55 260 12.25 0.2 49 550 165 72 39 0.6 155
19 31 6.77 260 11.95 0.2 54 550 148 89 45 0.6 138
20 31 6.28 280 10.95 0.2 124 550 165 92 42 0.45 155
21 32 6.43 210 12.05 0.3 29 350 98 89 41.4 1.2 88
22 32 6.84 450 22.95 0.2 109 950 198 229 105.7 0 188
23 31 6.44 460 29.35 0.2 114 950 215 222 83.5 0 205
24 32 6.95 440 23.85 0.2 119 1050 331 85 108.7 0.45 335
25 31 6.60 320 19.45 0.3 119 650 165 132 71.3 0 155
26 31 7.25 500 16.9 0.1 214 950 198 279 86.6 1.4 188
27 32 7.16 260 24.3 0.4 314 1050 315 72 191.1 1.6 305
28 30 6.39 450 33.2 0.1 184 950 181 245 105.3 0.9 171
29 30 7.23 260 12.7 0.2 41 450 148 89 39.4 1.1 138
30 30 7.02 380 15.85 0.2 132 850 198 159 97 0.25 188
31 32 6.75 280 7.2 0.2 49 750 131 125 47.6 0.6 121
32 30 6.78 440 19.7 0.2 114 950 181 235 83.6 0 171
33 32 6.83 460 20.15 0.1 116 950 198 239 110.9 1 188
34 31 7.18 250 10.85 0.1 47 550 148 79 42.6 0.5 138
35 31 6.85 380 13.7 0.2 121 750 181 175 69.6 1.2 171
36 31 6.68 440 25.35 0.2 134 850 198 219 94 1.1 188
37 32 6.85 280 10.45 0.1 119 550 131 125 125.9 0.7 121
38 30 7.20 280 6.75 0.1 39 550 131 125 50.9 1.6 121
39 30 6.79 260 6.3 0.1 39 550 265 12 58.1 1.7 255
40 30 6.78 280 2.7 0.1 44 550 98 159 48.2 0 88
41 30 7.10 420 11.1 0.1 131 750 165 232 69.2 0 155
42 30 7.20 340 36.75 0.1 199 850 231 85 113.3 0.7 221
43 32 7.26 490 36 0.2 204 1020 265 252 98.4 0 255
44 31 7.18 280 7 0.2 41 450 98 159 49.9 1.4 88
45 31 7.08 380 17.35 0.2 87 650 131 225 73.8 0.45 121
 46 31 7.11 360 17.8 0.2 89 750 181 155 82.7 0.1 171
47 31 7.26 470 16.35 0.3 161 950 231 215 58.1 1.6 221
48 30 7.44 610 26.5 0.3 399 1300 165 422 166.9 1.4 155
49 30 7.42 560 26.45 0.1 399 1150 265 272 176.5 1.6 255
50 30 6.84 500 16.7 0.1 224 1050 231 245 120.5 1.6 221

3. Results and Discussion

3.1.1 pH

pH is one of the most important operational water quality parameters with the optimum pH required often being in the
range of 7.0-8.5. The maximum permissible limit for pH in drinking water as given by the WHO is 8.5. The values of pH in the
groundwater samples collected varied from 6.28 to 7.48 with an average value of 6.88. This shows that the quality of groundwater of
the study area is within the desirable limit. Spatial distributions of pH concentrations are shown in Figure.2.

Figure 2: Spatial distribution of pH

3.1.2 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Concentration of dissolved solids in groundwater decides its applicability for drinking, irrigation or industrial purposes.
The concentration of dissolved matter in water is given by the weight of the material on evaporation of water to dryness up to a
temperature of 1800C. The values are expressed in mg/l. The major constituents of TDS include Bicarbonates (HCO 3) Sulphates
(SO42+) and Chlorides (Cl-) of Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium and Silica. Groundwater containing more than 1000 mg/l of total
dissolved solids is generally referred as brackish water. In the study area, the TDS amount ranges from 350 mg/l to 1300 mg/l with an
average of 781 mg/l . About 48% of the water samples fall under higher solids content often has a laxative and sometimes reverse
effect upon people whose bodies are not adjusted to them. The spatial distribution of TDS concentrations are shown in Figure.3.

Figure3: Spatial distribution of TDS

3.1.3 Total Hardness (TH)

Hardness in water is caused primarily by the presence of carbonates and bicarbonates of calcium and magnesium,
sulphates, chlorides and nitrates. Total hardness is a measure of calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) content in water and is
expressed as equivalent of CaCo3. Water with a hardness of less than 75 mg/l is considered as soft. Hardness of 75-150 mg/l is not
objectionable for most purposes. Minimum total hardness of 160 mg/l and maximum value of 610 mg/l . In general, hard waters are
originates in areas where top soil is thick and limestone formation is present. Hard waters cause excessive consumption of soap used
for cleaning purpose. Lathering does not take place until all hardness ions precipitate out. This precipitate adheres to surfaced of tubes,
sinks, dish washer and may stain clothing. The spatial distributions of TH concentrations are shown in Figure.4.

Figure 4: Spatial distribution of TH

3.1.4 Sulphate (So4)

Sulphates occur in natural waters at concentration up 50 mg/l. concentration of 1000 mg/l can found in water having
contact with certain geological formations such as concentrations of sulphate may be due to the presence of sulphide ore bodies like
pyrite, lignite and coal. Rain water has quite high concentration of sulphates particularly in areas with high atmospheric pollution.
Higher concentration of sodium sulphate in water can cause malfunctioning of the alimentary canal. The recommended upper limit is
200 mg/l in water intended to human consumption. Sulphate concentration ranges from 3 mg/l to 40 mg/l. The spatial distribution of
chloride concentrations are shown in Figure.5

Figure 5: Spatial distribution of Sulphate

3.1.5 Chloride (Cl)

Chloride is present in all natural waters at greatly varying concentration depending on the geochemical conditions. Major
sources of chloride in groundwater are the constituents of igneous and metamorphic rocks like gneisse and granite etc. Because of
sewerage disposal and leaching of saline residues in the soil, abnormal chloride concentrations may occur. Chlorides can only be
removed by reverse osmosis process and electrolysis. Water quality analysis of the samples collected indicates that the chloride
concentration ranges from 29 mg/l to 400 mg/l. The spatial distribution of chloride concentrations are shown in Figure.6
 Figure 6: Spatial distribution of Chlorides

3.1.6 Bicarbonates (HCO3)

Alkalinity is caused due to the presence of carbonates, bicarbonates and hydroxides of calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium.
Calcium carbonate is the most usual constituent that causes alkalinity. Bicarbonate is expressed in mg/l as caco 3 and the limit for
drinking water is 100 mg/l as caco3. Total Bicarbonate in the groundwater in the basin ranges between 65 mg/l to 335 mg/l . Excess
bicarbonate in water is harmful for irrigation which leads to soil damage and reduce crop yield. Water having bicarbonate less than
100 mg/l as caco3 is desirable for domestic consumption. High alkalinity in natural waters will favour of producers (algae and
phytoplankton groups) The spatial distribution of bicarbonate concentrations are shown in Figure.7.

Figure 7: Spatial distribution of Alkalinity

3.1.7 Sodium (Na+)

Major source of sodium content in the ground water is due to presence of salts. Desirable limit of
sodium content in the ground water is 200 mg/l . Sodium in the ground water basin ranges between 39 mg/l to
258 mg/l. Spatial distribution of Sodium concentrations are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Spatial distribution of Sodium

3.1.8Calcium (Ca 2+ )

Calcium occurs in water mainly due to the presence of limestone, gypsum, dolomite and gypsiferrous minerals.
Permissible limit of calcium is 75 mg/l. Calcium concentration ranges from 65 mg/l to 331 mg/l. The spatial distribution of calcium
concentrations are shown in Figure.9.

Figure 9: Spatial distribution of Calcium

3.1.9 Magnesium (Mg 2+)

Magnesium occurs in water mainly due to the presence of olivine, biotite, augite and talc minerals. Permissible limit of
magnesium is 30 mg/l. Water quality analysis of the samples collected indicates that the magnesium concentration ranges from 12
mg/l to 422 mg/l. The spatial distribution of magnesium concentrations are shown in Figure.10.

Figure 10: Spatial distribution of Magnesium

3.1.10 Flouride

Fluoride is found in all natural type of waters at different concentrations. The fluoride concentration in water is limited by
fluorite solubility, so that in the presence of 40 mg/L calcium it should be limited to 3.1 mg/L. It is the absence of calcium in solution
which allows higher concentrations to be stable. Excess fluoride intake causes different types of fluorosis, primarily dental and
skeletal fluorosis. BIS has prescribed 1 mg/l as the acceptable limit and 1.5 mg/l as the permissible limit for fluoride. The fluoride
concentration of all groundwater samples in present study is in the range 0.1–0.4 mg/l (Figure .11)
 Figure 11: Spatial distribution of Flouride

3.1.11 Nitrates

`Nitrate is the most important nutrients in an ecosystem. Generally water bodies polluted by organic matter exhibit higher
values of nitrate. In the present study water samples from the stations (s1 to s50) showed low concentrations of nitrate (0 to 1.7 mg/l)
well below permissible levels as per the standards.

Figure 12: Spatial distribution of Nitrates

4 .0. Conclusions
In the present investigation, an attempt was made to evaluate and to map the groundwater quality of C Basin. GIS makes
the groundwater quality maps in an easily understood format. It is shown that the majority of the samples presented a pH value within
the maximum permissible limit; water quality with respect to a pH value is within the limit. The TDS value of Palar Basin is very high
which results it is brackish water. In our study, spatial distribution map of TH shows that a majority of the groundwater samples falls
in the very hard category causes excessive consumption of soap used for cleaning purpose. Lathering does not take place until all the
ions causing hardness are precipitated. This precipitate adheres to surfaced of tubes, sinks, dish washer and may stain clothing. The
predominant cation trend in Palar Basin is Ca 2+ >Mg 2+ >Na +. Almost all groundwater samples exceed the maximum permissible
limit of magnesium; Sodium(Na) concentrations are within the maximum permissible limit. The abundance of the major anions in
Palar Basin is in the following order: HCO3- >Cl->SO4 - . HCO3 concentration is above the maximum permissible limit. Excess
bicarbonate in water is harmful for irrigation which leads to soil damage and reduce crop yield.

The Water Quality Index is a very useful and an efficient tool to summarize and to report on the monitoring data to the
decision makers in order to be able to understand the status of the groundwater quality; and to have the opportunity for better use in
future as well. The overall view of the WQI (Table 4) of the present study zone shows a higher WQI. But, only eleven locations had a
satisfactory result with a WQI below 100. This study demonstrates that the use of GIS and WQI methods could provide useful
information for water quality assessment.
 Figure 13: Spatial distribution of Water Quality Index

Table 4. Water Quality Index Values for different samples

Sample WQI Status

1 98.27 Good
2 72.993 Good
3 76.764 Good
4 140.395 Poor
5 74.854 Good
6 73.546 Good
7 78.205 Good
8 71.588 Good
9 113.502 Poor
10 73.157 Good
11 96.17 Good
12 122.14 Poor
13 114.357 Poor
14 130.422 Poor
15 126.950 Poor
16 132.595 Poor
17 124.515 Poor
18 67.386 Good
19 69.065 Good
20 75.072 Good
21 55.851 Good
22 125.739 Poor
23 126.374 Poor
24 117.94 Poor
25 89.77 Good
26 139.77 Poor
27 117.59 Poor
28 129.20 Poor
29 65.87 Good
30 107.03 Poor
31 80.038 Good
32 123.75 Poor
33 127.37 Poor
34 65.007 Good
35 104.109 Poor
36 121.605 Poor
 37 79.483 Good
38 73.363 Good
39 66.495 Good
40 113.325 Poor
41 98.362 Good
42 145.394 Poor
43 74.406 Good
44 103.806 Poor
45 98.59 Good
46 138.35 Poor
47 191.26 Poor
48 168.04 Poor
49 166.048 Poor
50 141.808 Poor

References

[1] Vasanthavigar, M., K. Srinivasamoorthy, K. Vijayaragavan, R. Ganthi, S. Chidambaram, P.Anandhan, R. Manivannan and S.
Vasudevan, 2010.Application of water quality index For groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-Basin,Tamilnadu,
India. Environ Monitoring Assess. DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-1302-1.

[2] Sargaonkar , A. and V. Deshpande, 2003. Development of an overall index of pollution For surface water based on general
classification scheme in Indian context,Environmental Monitoring and assessment, (89):43-67.

[3] Ravikumar, P., R.K. Somashekar and M. Angami, 2010. Hydrochemistry and evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation
and drinking purpose in the Markandeya River Basin, Belgaum District, Karnataka State, India. Environmental Monitoring
Assessment ,doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1399-2.

[4] WHO, 1996b. Water quality monitoring: A practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and
monitoring programmes.E and FN Spon, London,UK.

[5] WHO,2004. Guide lines for drinking water quality training pack,WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

[6] APHA (1995). Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water (APHA).

[7] Kumar, M., K. Kumari, A.L. Ramanathan and R. Sexena, 2007. A Comparative Evaluation of groundwater suitability for
irrigation and drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated districts of Punjab, Indian Environmental Geology [5]:553-574.

[8] Mouna Ketata-Rokbani, Moncef Guddari and Rachida Bouhlila,2011. Use of Geographical Information System and Water
Quality Index and Assess Ground water quality in EI Khairat Deep Aquifer (Enfidha,Tunisian Sahel), Iranica journal of Energy
and Environment , 2(2):133-144.

[9] Srinivasamoorthy, K,. M. Chidambaram, M.V. Prasanna, M. Vasanthavigar, A. John Peter and P. Anuradhan, 2008. Identification
of major sources controlling Groundwater Chemistry from a hard rock terrain- A case study from mettur taluk, salem district, Tamil
Nadu, India, J. Earthsystem science., 117(1):49-58.

[10] Subramani, T., L. Elango and S.R. Damodarasamy,2005.Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use
chithar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, Indian Environmental Geology 47:1099-1110.

[11] Asadi, S.S., P. Vuppala and M. Anji Reddy, 2007. Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Evaluation of Groundwater Quality
in Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Zone-5), Indian International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,4(1):45-
52.