International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2017, pp. 1165–1176, Article ID: IJCIET_08_08_125

Available online at http://http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY

USING MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL
TECHNIQUES AND GIS - A CASE STUDY
V.S.S.R. Gupta
Professor, Department of Basic Sciences and Humanities,
GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, India

R. Srinivasa Rao
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, India

K. Divya
P.G Student, Department of Civil Engineering,
GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
This study deals with the evaluation of spatial variations in the groundwater
quality in Rajam, Srikakulam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. The significant
physicochemical parameters such as pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids,
chlorides, total alkalinity, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness and sulphate were
assessed. Pearson’s Correlation technique, box plot, multivariate statistical tools such
as cluster analysis and principle component analysis were applied to groundwater
quality analysis. The groundwater samples were assessed for its applicability in
irrigation and drinking purposes and geographic information system techniques are
used for mapping consequence. The parameters analyzed were compared with Bureau
of Indian Standards (BIS) and WHO standards. Box plot analysis revealed that total
dissolved solids and electrical conductivity was strongly correlated. Correlation
analysis reveals that pH shows weak correlation (r<0.5) with chlorides (r>0.383).
Electrical Conductivity shows strong correlation (0.7<r<0.9) with Alkalinity
(r>0.886) and Total Hardness was moderately correlated (0.5<r<0.7) with Mg
(r>0.544), Cl (r>0.543), Su (r>0.508), but strongly correlated with TDS (r>0.863).
Whereas Mg (r>0.544), Cl (r>0.543) and SO4 (r>0.508) was moderately correlated
with Total Hardness (TH). SO4 was moderately correlated with Mg (r>0.664). Water
quality index (WQI) for each sample was also determined. It is found that
3,5,18,19,20,21 well point samples are fit for drinking and most samples are having
poor (50-100) quality for drinking. The data was analyzed with the help of Statistical
tools and found that water samples are contaminated with the weathering of
metamorphic rocks (charnockite, khondalite etc.,) present in the study area. Chlorinity

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1165 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

Index and Salinity Index are found to be in permissible limits and hence suitable for
irrigation purpose.
Key words: Groundwater, Spatial Variations, Physicochemical parameters, Pricniple
Component Analysis, Water Quality Index, Chlorinity Index, Weathering.
Cite this Article: V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya, Evaluation of
Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS - A Case
Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 2017, pp.
1165–1176
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=8

1. INTRODUCTION
Water is a life-preserving resource for all the living organisms and also other advancements in
the world. In developing countries like India, the demand for water has increased immensely
during the recent years because of population increase, urbanization, industrialization and
extraordinary rural exercises. Due to the deficient supply of surface waters, the majority of the
general population in India is depending primarily on groundwater assets for drinking,
mechanical and water system employments. Groundwater is the principal source that is
usually utilized for drinking, agriculture purposes in both rural and urban territories. Some
parts of the world face serious shortage issues of groundwater because consumption rate is
greater than replenishing rate. Multitudinous extensive towns and numerous urban areas in
India get water supply from groundwater for various uses through municipality water
networks, furthermore from a huge number of private boreholes. Around one billion people
are specifically needy upon groundwater assets in Asia alone and in India, majority of the
populace is dependent on groundwater as the main wellspring of drinking water supply.
Groundwater is believed to be much cleaner and pollution-free when compared to surface
water. But in the present scenario, due to rapid industrialization, large quantities of industrial
wastes and effluents are dumped out contaminating the groundwater. The quantity of dumping
pollutants by the industries, sewage waste etc., is greater than the quantity of purification of
the water. According to the latest appraisal of Central Pollution Control Board, nearly 29,000
million-liters/day of wastewater is generated from Class-I and class-II cities out of which
about 45% (about 13000 MLD) is generated from 35 metro-cities alone. Only about 30% of
the wastewater collection system exists through sewer line and about 7000 million liter/day
can be treated through treatment plants that are present until now. Therefore there is a large
gap between generation, collection and treatment of wastewater. Most of the uncollected and
untreated water finds its way to nearby water bodies or percolates into ground thereby
polluting the groundwater resources. Hence, there is a need for better management policies to
maintain the quality of groundwater which can be determined by its physicochemical
parameters. The water quality appraisal gives the clear data about the sub surface geologic
environment in which the water presents [1]. A lot of misuse of ground water has enormously
influenced its quality and amount.
In some parts of the world, heaps of studies have been carried out to evaluate the
geochemistry of groundwater [2],[3],[4]. A research on hydrochemistry and groundwater
standards of Singhari river basin of Chattapur district, Madhya Pradesh was carried out by
Jain [5]. Kaushik et al. assessed the groundwater quality of Ambala and Nilokheri Cities in
Haryana [6]. The evaluation of groundwater quality and its expediency for drinking and
agricultural use in the coastal stretch of Alappuzha district in Kerala was done by Sarath
Prasanth et al. [7]. Generally, for the assessment of groundwater resources, the analysis of
hydro chemical and biological characteristics of groundwater is also important

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1166 [email protected]

 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS
- A Case Study

[8],[9],[10],[11]. Several researchers proposed that the best representative tool is Geographic
Information System (GIS) for the mapping of spatial variations in groundwater quality and to
determine its suitability for drinking, agricultural and industrial needs [12],[13],[14],[15].
Hydrologic and geologic conditions have influence on change in the groundwater quality to
great extent over a period of time [16]. Improper disposal of waste and garbage is another
primary factor for groundwater pollution [17]. Several studies have been carried out on the
application of GIS and multivariate statistical techniques to evaluate and representation of
spatial variations in groundwater quality in best possible way [18], [19]. Evaluation of quality
of groundwater using several techniques has been carried out in different study areas
[20],[21],[22], [23],[24]. The quality of ground water can also be interpreted in terms of
Water Quality Index (WQI) [18],[19], [25],[26],[27],[28].
From the exhaustive literature survey it has been identified that the use of GIS and
Multivariate Statistical Analysis techniques for interpretation of groundwater quality for
various purposes is good. So the present study is carried out to apply the GIS and Multivariate
Statistical Analysis techniques to assess the suitability of groundwater quality for drinking
and irrigation purposes in Rajam town of Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh, India. The
major source of drinking water in the study area is the groundwater which is suspected to be
contaminated by industries in and around.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area: Rajam town encompassing an area of about 27.65 km² has been selected as the
study area. It is situated in the Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh State of India between
18.270N & 18.280N Latitudes and 83.380E & 83.400E Longitudes. The study area belongs to
tropical climatic zone with average annual rainfall of 1123 mm. The weather conditions of the
study area are 37°C, Wind SW at 14 km/h, 33% Humidity. Paddy, Sugarcane, Ground nut are
the major crops that are cultivated mostly in the area. Gneiss, Kondalite, Charnockite and
other metamorphic rocks are the Geological formations in the present study area.
Sample Collection and Analysis: The samples of groundwater are collected from 30 different
wells in cleaned and sterilized polythene bottles, filled without air bubbles with preeminent
care at each sampling site. Map of the Study area and the sampling point details are presented
in Figure1. The samples collected were labeled carefully and transported to the laboratory.
Double distilled water was used to prepare the reagents that were used for the
experimentation. Later, the samples were analyzed for ten parameters such as pH, Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS), Total Alkalinity (TA), Electrical Conductivity (EC), Total Hardness
(TH), Magnesium (Mg), Calcium (Ca), Chloride (Cl), Fluorides (F), Sulphates (SO4).
According to the standard procedures, the physicochemical parameters are estimated.
Statistical Analysis: The obtained complex data matrices are analyzed by using the
application of statistical tools to obtain the groundwater quality. It gives better idea of
possible sources which show predominant impact on groundwater system. It also contributes
the information of reliable handling of water systems. In the present study, the statistical
analysis such as Multivariate Statistical Analyses (Principle Component Analysis, Cluster
Analysis), were carried out using XLSTAT software and Boxplot designs were carried out
using Minitab software (Ver.14.0). Box plots help in assessing and comparing the
distributions. Based on its characteristics, variables and observations are portrayed using
Cluster Analysis (CA). Similarity between the samples is given by Euclidean distance and the
difference between the analytical values of the samples gives the distance. The information of
whole data set parameters is given by Principle Component Analysis (PCA) which explains
the variances of large set of inter correlated variables and modify them into uncorrelated

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1167 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

principal components. The Pearson’s correlation was carried out for correlation matrix
between the parameters. Correlation coefficient (R2) gives the percentage of variance between
the dependent and independent variables. High correlation coefficient ‘1’ represents a good
relationship between the variables and correlation coefficient value of ‘0’ represents no
relationship between the variables.

Figure 1 Map of study area

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The collected samples are analyzed for the presence of various physiochemical parameters
and later they are compared with IS: 10500 (BIS-2012) [29] and WHO-2011[30] standards as
shown in Table 1.
The usability of groundwater for drinking and irrigation purposes can be evaluated by
comparing the obtained physicochemical parameters with the standards suggested by BIS:
10500-2012 and WHO-2011. The drinking water should be free from physical parameters
such as odor, color etc. Also for irrigation purpose, the water should be free from excessive
dissolved ions for the normal good growth of plants and crops.
For the low tolerant crops, the chlorine content in the water should be within the
permissible limit. Hence, chlorine sensitivity is also determined by evaluating the chlorinity
index. The chlorinity index for the study area is portrayed in Figure 2. All groundwater
samples are found suitable for irrigation. (< 1000 mg /l).

Figure 2 Chlorinity index at the study area (well points)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1168 [email protected]

 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS
- A Case Study

Table 1 Comparison of parameters with BIS (10500-2012) and WHO (2011)

BIS (10500-2012)
Range of sample values
Parameters Acceptable Permissible WHO (2011)
obtained
Limits Limits
pH 6.5 8.5 7.5-8.5 7.23-8.38
Electrical
Conductivity - - 1500 537-1660
(µS/cm)
Total Dissolved
500 2000 500 225-400
Salts (ppm)
Total Hardness
200 600 200 335-585
(ppm)
Total Alkalinity
- - 120 153-299
(ppm)
Chlorides (ppm) 250 1000 250 67.45-244.95
Calcium (ppm) 75 200 75 23-76
Magnesium (ppm) 30 No relaxation 50 30-156
Sulphates (ppm) 200 400 250 7.15-11.84
Fluorides (ppm) 1 1.5 1.5 0.53-1.5

Similarly, salinity index is also evaluated by measuring the Electrical Conductivity (EC)
values for assessing whether the water is suitable for irrigation purpose or not. Figure 3 gives
the salinity index at the study area well points. According to Handa, (1969) [31], E.C values >
700 µS/cm are unsuitable for irrigation purposes. All our ground water samples are found
suitable for irrigation (< 700 µS/cm) as shown in the plot. The spatial distribution of
physicochemical analysis of collected groundwater samples are shown in Figure 4.
Ramkumar et al. suggested that high concentrations of magnesium reduces the soil quality
thus reducing the crops yield and also gives toxicity when it exceeds 50% of magnesium ratio
[32].
Statistical Analysis: For the samples collected in study area, the box plots are drawn and are
shown in Figure 5. From the figure it is observed that total hardness, total dissolved salts are
dominating factors whereas magnesium, chlorides, alkalinity and calcium are observed as
major ions in the sampling well points.
800
Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm)

700
600
500
400 limit
300 E.C (µS/cm)
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Well points

Figure 3 Salinity index at the study area (well points)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1169 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

Correlation matrix: Table 2 presents the correlation values that are obtained at all the well
points. The coefficient of correlation values are in the range of +1 to -1, which shows that
there exists a strong relationship between the variables and near the value ‘0’ shows that there
exists no relationship between the variables. After performing PCA on all 30 samples,
correlation matrix suggests that the correlation of pH shows weak correlation (r<0.5) with
chlorides (r>0.383). Electrical Conductivity shows strong correlation (0.7<r<0.9) with
Alkalinity (r>0.886) and Total Hardness was moderately correlated (0.5<r<0.7) with Mg
(r>0.544), Cl (r>0.543), Su (r>0.508), but strongly correlated with TDS (r>0.863). Whereas
Mg (r>0.544), Cl (r>0.543) and SO4 (r>0.508) was moderately correlated with Total Hardness
(TH). SO4 was moderately correlated with Mg (r>0.664). According to Barr and Newland
(1977) [33], three different sets of strong relationship exists between anions and cations in
groundwater as follows:
(i) High competitive relationship between ions with same charge but different valence
number.
(ii) High affinity between ions with same valency but different charges and
(iii) Noncompetitive relation between ions with same valency and same charge.
Obtained results also demonstrate the same i.e., Magnesium is strongly correlated
with sulphates and Calcium is weakly correlated with Fluorides
Multivariate analysis: Praus (2015) [34] proposed that, in order to reduce the loss of data and
to reduce the data into manageable data sets, multivariate analysis like Principle Component
Analysis (PCA) and Cluster Analysis can be used for monitoring of groundwater. In order to
evaluate different variables and the relation between them, PCA can be done as proposed by
Kuppusamy and Giridhar (2006) [35]. Eigen values are determined and are shown in Table 3.
A graph of Eigen values vs cumulative variability is shown in Figure 6. In order to explain the
source of variance in the data, the principal components are extracted based on the criteria,
whose eigen values are greater than 1 and are given in Table 4. Principal Component PC1
alone contributed to 32.401% of total variance, PC2 contributed to 54.688% of total variance,
PC3 contributed to 68.073% of total variance and PC4 contributed to 79.897% of total
variance. Based on the above contributions Magnesium, Calcium, Chlorine ions are found to
be predominant which may be occurred due to weathering of metamorphic rocks present in
the study area.
Based on the similarity of responses to several variables, the cases are grouped using the
cluster analysis. Figure 7 demonstrates the dendrogram of water quality parameters depending
on the distance between the variables and their positions. The cluster analysis suggests that
Total Hardness, Chloride, pH, Magnesium and TDS belong to same cluster. Whereas Mg and
SO4 are in same cluster and Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Alkalinity belongs to same
cluster of properties.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1170 [email protected]

 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS
- A Case Study

Figure 4 Spatial distribution of physicochemical analysis of collected groundwater samples and water
quality index

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1171 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

Figure 5 Box plots for physicochemical characteristics

Table 2 Correlation matrix

E.C T.H Mg Ca Cl TA So4 F TDS
Variables pH
(µS/cm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
pH 1 -0.022 0.162 -0.068 -0.074 0.383 -0.019 0.156 -0.179 0.220
E C (µS/cm) -0.022 1 0.342 -0.165 -0.035 0.353 0.886 -0.065 -0.180 0.149
T H(ppm) 0.162 0.342 1 0.544 -0.173 0.543 0.280 0.508 -0.041 0.863
Mg (ppm) -0.068 -0.165 0.544 1 -0.123 0.090 -0.216 0.664 -0.103 0.473
Ca(ppm) -0.074 -0.035 -0.173 -0.123 1 -0.246 0.205 -0.158 -0.293 -0.013
Cl (ppm) 0.383 0.353 0.543 0.090 -0.246 1 0.288 0.319 -0.071 0.456
TA (ppm) -0.019 0.886 0.280 -0.216 0.205 0.288 1 -0.197 -0.226 0.202
SULPHATE
0.156 -0.065 0.508 0.664 -0.158 0.319 -0.197 1 -0.064 0.426
(ppm)
F(ppm) -0.179 -0.180 -0.041 -0.103 -0.293 -0.071 -0.226 -0.064 1 -0.213
TDS (ppm) 0.220 0.149 0.863 0.473 -0.013 0.456 0.202 0.426 -0.213 1

Table 3 Eigen values of the variables

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10

Eigenvalue 3.240 2.229 1.339 1.182 0.690 0.524 0.413 0.241 0.097 0.046

Variability
32.401 22.287 13.386 11.824 6.901 5.239 4.132 2.405 0.969 0.457
(%)
Cumulative
32.401 54.688 68.073 79.897 86.799 92.037 96.169 98.575 99.543 100.000
(%)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1172 [email protected]

 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS
- A Case Study

Figure 6 Graph of eigen values vs cumulative variability

Table 4 PCA for the sample data

Parameters PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

pH 0.174 0.001 -0.123 -0.796
E.C(µS) 0.219 0.542 -0.133 0.222
T. H(ppm) 0.512 -0.025 -0.034 0.170
Mg (ppm) 0.317 -0.386 0.252 0.279
Ca (ppm) -0.103 0.189 0.664 -0.063
Cl (ppm) 0.387 0.122 -0.320 -0.262
TA (ppm) 0.183 0.594 0.024 0.181
SO4(ppm) 0.355 -0.342 0.087 0.037
F (ppm) -0.128 -0.182 -0.573 0.322
TDS(ppm) 0.471 -0.046 0.153 0.009
Eigenvalue 3.240 2.229 1.339 1.182
Variability (%) 32.401 22.287 13.386 11.824
Cumulative (%) 32.401 54.688 68.073 79.897

Dendrogram
-0.152199

0.0478005

0.2478005
Similarity

0.4478005

0.6478005

0.8478005
Obs10
Obs9

Obs1

Obs4

Obs8

Obs6

Obs3

Obs5

Obs2

Obs7

Figure 7 Dendrogram of water quality parameters

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1173 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

4. CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, physicochemical parameters of the samples collected from 30 well points
in the town of Rajam are evaluated and compared with World Health Organization and BIS
standards. It is found that Total hardness, Fluorides, Alkalinity exceeds the permissible
limits. Water quality index (WQI) for each sample was also determined. It is found that
3,5,18,19,20,21 well point samples are fit for drinking and most samples are having poor (50-
100) quality for drinking. The data was analyzed with the help of Statistical tools and found
that water samples are contaminated with the weathering of metamorphic rocks (charnockite,
khondalite etc.,) present in the study area. Chlorinity Index and Salinity Index are found to be
in permissible limits and hence suitable for irrigation purpose.

REFERENCES
[1] Raju NJ, Shukla UK, Ram P (2011) Hydrogeochemistry for the assessment of
Groundwater quality in Varanasi: a fast-urbanizing center in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ
Monit Assess 173:pp. 279–300
[2] Samira. I and Jurdy. I (2007) Assessment of domestic water quality: case study,
Beirut, Lebanon. Environ Monit Assess 135:pp. 241–251
[3] Siddiqui A, Naseem S, Jalil T (2005) Groundwater quality assessment in and around Kalu
Khuhar, super highway, Sindh, Pakistan. J Appl Sci 5(7):pp. 1260–1265
[4] Belkhiri L, Mouni L (2012) Hydrochemical analysis and evaluation of groundwater
quality in El Eulma area, Algeria. Appl Water Sci :pp. 127–133
[5] Jain PK (1996) Hydrochemistry and groundwater quality of Singhari river Basin district,
Chattapur (M.P.). Pollut Res 15(4):pp. 407–409
[6] Kaushik AK, Sharma HR, Bhupindar M (2000) Groundwater quality of Ambala and
Nilokheri cities in Haryana in relation to landuse. Environ Ecol 18(3):pp. 616–623
[7] Sarath Prasanth SV, Magesh NS, Jitheshlal KV, Chandrasekar N, Gangadhar K (2012)
Evaluation of groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in
the coastal stretch of Alappuzha District, Kerala, India. Appl Water Sci 2:pp. 165–175
[8] Fatombi, J.K., A.T. Ahoyo, O. Nonfodji and T. Aminou, 2012. Physico-chemical and
bacterial characteristics of groundwater and surface water quality in the Lagbe town:
Treatment essays with Moringa oleifera seeds. J. Water Res. Protect., 4: pp. 1001-1008
[9] Kulandaivel, A.R.K., P.E. Kumar, V. Perumal and P.N. Magudeswaran, 2009. Water
quality index of River Cauvery at Erode Region, Tamilnadu, India. Nature Environ.
Pollut. Technol., 8: pp. 343-346
[10] Senthilkumar, S. and T. Meenambal, 2007. Study of groundwater quality near Sipcot
industrial estate of Perundurai of Erode district, Tamilnadu. Nat. Environ. Pollut.
Technol., 6: pp. 741-744
[11] Ranjan, R.K., A.L. Ramanathan, P. Parthasarathy and A. Kumar, 2013. Hydrochemical
characteristics of groundwater in the plains of Phalgu River in Gaya, Bihar, India. Arab. J.
Geosci., 6:pp. 3257-3267
[12] Srinivasamoorthy, K., K. Vijayaraghavan, M. Vasanthavigar, V.S. Sarma and R.
Rajivgandhi et al., 2011. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in Mettur region,
Tamilnadu, India using drastic and GIS techniques. Arab. J. Geosci., 4: pp. 1215-1228
[13] Ravikumar, P., M.A. Mehmood and R.K. Somashekar, 2013. Water quality index to
determine the surface water quality of Sankey tank and Mallathahalli lake, Bangalore
urban district, Karnataka, India. Applied Water Sci., 3: pp. 247-261

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1174 [email protected]

 Evaluation of Groundwater Quality using Multivariate Statistical Techniques and GIS
- A Case Study

[14] Ravikumar, P. and R.K. Somashekar, 2013. A geochemical assessment of coastal

groundwater quality in the Varahi river basin, Udupi District, Karnataka State, India.
Arab. J. Geosci., 6: pp. 1855-1870
[15] Thiyagarajan, M. and R. Baskaran, 2013. Groundwater quality in the coastal stretch
between Sirkazhi and Manampandal, Tamil Nadu, India using ArcGIS software. Arab. J.
Geosci., 6: pp. 1899-1991
[16] Pandey, S.K. and S. Tiwari, 2009. Physico-chemical analysis of ground water of selected
area of Ghazipur city-A case study. Nat. Sci., 7: pp. 17-20
[17] Abinandan, S., B.A. Anand and S. Shanthakumar, 2014. Assessment of physico-chemical
characteristics of groundwater: A case study. Int. J. Environ. Health Eng., Vol. 3.
10.4103/2277-9183.131809
[18] Umamaheswari, J., Anjali, R., Abinandan, S., Shanthakumar, S., Ganapathy, G.P. and
Kirubakaran, M. (2015) Assessment of Groundwater Quality Using GIS and Statistical
Approaches. Asian Journal of Earth Sciences 8 (4): pp. 97-113
[19] Y. Srinivas, D. Hudson Oliver, A. Stanley Raj, N. Chandrasekar. (2013). Evaluation of
groundwater quality in and around Nagercoil town, Tamilnadu, India: an integrated
geochemical and GIS approach. Appl Water Sci 3:pp. 631–651
[20] Ramesh R, ShivKumar K, Eswaramoorthi S, Purvaja GR (1995) Migration and
contamination of major and trace elements in ground water of Madras city, India. Environ
Geol 25:pp. 126–136
[21] Sreedevi PD (2002) A case study on changes in quality of groundwater with seasonal
fluctuations of Pageru river basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J Environ
Geol 42:pp. 414–423
[22] Rajmohan N, Elango L (2005) Nutrient chemistry of groundwater in an intensively
irrigated region of Southern India. Environ Geol 47:pp. 820–830
[23] Sajil Kumar PJ, James EJ (2013). Physicochemical parameters and their sources in
groundwater in the Thirupathur region, Tamil Nadu, South India. Appl Water Sci 3:pp.
219–228
[24] Krishna Kumar S, Rammohan V, Dajkumar Sahayam J, Jeevanandam M (2011)
Assessment of groundwater quality and hydro geochemistry of Manimuktha river basin,
Tamil Nadu. J Environ Monit Assess, India
[25] Tiwari TN, Mishra M (1985) A preliminary assignment of water quality index of major
Indian rivers. Indian J Environ Prot 5:pp. 276–279
[26] Debels P, Figueros R, Urrutia R, Barra R, Niell X (2005) Evaluation of water quality in
the Chillan river (central Chile) using physicochemical parameters and a modified water
quality index. Environ Monit Assess 110:pp. 301–322
[27] Sandow M.Y and Adadow Y., (2010). An assessment of the origin and variation of
groundwater salinity in southeastern Ghana. Environmental Earth Sciences 61:pp. 1259-
1273
[28] Vasanthavigar M, Srinivasamoorthy K et al (2010) Application of water quality index for
groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India. J Environ
Monit Assess 171: pp. 595–609
[29] BIS, 2012. IS: 10500-Drinking Water Specifications. 2nd Edn., Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, pp. 1-11
[30] WHO, 2011. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 3rd Edn., World Health
Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 296-459

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1175 [email protected]

 V.S.S.R. Gupta, R. Srinivasa Rao and K. Divya

[31] Handa, B.K., 1969. Description and classification of media for hydro-geochemical
investigations. Symposium on Ground Water Studies in Arid and Semiarid Regions,
Roorkee, India
[32] Ramkumar, T., S. Venkatramanan, I. Anithamary and S.M.S. Ibrahim, 2013. Evaluation of
hydrogeochemical parameters and quality assessment of the groundwater in Kottur blocks,
Tiruvarur district, Tamilnadu, India. Arab. J. Geosci., 6: pp. 101-108
[33] Barr, D.E. and L.W. Newland, 1977. Hydrogeochemical relationships using partial
correlation coefficients. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 13: pp. 843-846
[34] Praus, P., 2005. Water quality assessment using SVD-based principal component analysis
of hydrological data. Water SA, 31: pp. 417-422
[35] Kuppusamy M.R., Giridhar V.V. 2006. Factor analysis of water quality characteristics
including trace metal speciation in the coastal environmental system of Chennai Ennore.
Environ Int. 32: pp. 174-179
[36] Ranjit N. Patil, Dr. P. B. Nagarnaik and Dr. D. K. Agrawal, Removal of Fluoride from
Ground Water by Using Modified Bark of Termina lia Chebula (Haritaki). International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp.21 – 30.
[37] Ranjit N. Patil, Dr. P. B. Nagarnaik and Dr. D. K. Agrawal, Removal of Fluoride from
Ground Water by Using Treated Bark of Phyllant hus Emblica (Amla) Tree. International
Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp.11 – 20.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1176 [email protected]