Water Quality, Exposure and Health

, Volume 2, Issue 3–4, pp 133–146 | Cite as

Double Correction Technique for Characterising Groundwater Quality Zones: A Case Study from Granitic Setting, India

  • Surendra AtalEmail author
  • Philippe Négrel
  • Hélène Pauwels
  • Cédric Mascré
  • Shakeel Ahmed


Today’s dual contamination (water–rock interaction and anthropogenic impact) in groundwater system is a common problem worldwide. Abundant amount of work has been carried out to assess groundwater quality; however, a very limited work is released towards delineation of fluoride zones by water–rock interaction (WRI) and anthropogenic causes.

For this reason, groundwater contamination problem has been taken up in a rural granitic hydrogeological setting of Andhra Pradesh, India. Agricultural activity, brick kiln factory and chicken farms are common anthropogenic sources available in the study area. A total of 53 groundwater and rainwater samples for monsoon months of the year 2006 have been collected and analysed. At various stages, corrections have been applied using chloride concentration limit (CCL) of 20 mg/l and fluoride concentration limit (FCL) of 1.88 mg/l. The results have proved that the dominant fluoride released by WRI action and anthropogenic action cover 15.1 and 21.7% area of the watershed, respectively. Also, present mixed state (WRI and anthropogenic causes) of groundwater quality covers the major portion of the watershed.

The results of these corrections have successfully discriminated groundwater samples based on present chemical constituents. Such studies are useful for creating awareness and planning remedial measures in contaminant watershed.


Groundwater pollution Dual contamination Correction factor Rainwater chemistry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. APHA (1992) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 18th edn. American Public Health Association, New York Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed S, Sreedevi PD, Sujatha D, Hashimi SAR, Subrahmanyam K, Saxena VK (2002) Time variant behavior of fluoride contents of the granites aquifers. IGC, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu Google Scholar
  3. Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EPA-600/2-87-035, 622 p Google Scholar
  4. Atal S (2009) Investigation of hydro-geochemical factors controlling excessive fluoride in granitic hard rock terrain: with special reference to Maheshwaram watershed, Andhra Pradesh. PhD thesis, Osmania University, p 251 Google Scholar
  5. Bricker OP, Jones BF (1995) Main factors affecting the composition of natural waters. In: Salbu B, Steinnes E (eds) Trace elements in natural waters. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–5 Google Scholar
  6. Chadha DK (1999) High fluoride ground water in India. Central Ground Water Board. Government of India, Faridabad, p 30 Google Scholar
  7. Datta PS, Deb DL, Tyagi SK (1996) Stable isotope (18O) investigations on the processes controlling fluoride contamination of groundwater. J Contam Hydrol 24:85–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denny SC, Allen DM, Journeay JM (2007) DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeol J 15:483–493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewandel B Gandolfi JM, de Condappa D, Ahmed S (2008) An efficient methodology for estimating irrigation return flow coefficients of irrigation crops at watershed and seasonal scales. Hydrol Process 22:1700–1712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drever J (1982) The geochemistry of natural waters. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 388 Google Scholar
  11. Durum WH, Haffty J (1961) Occurrence of minor elements in water. US Geol Surv Circ 445:11 Google Scholar
  12. Engerrand C (2002) Hydrogeology of the weathered-fissured hard rock aquifers located in monsoon areas: hydrogeological study of two watersheds in Andhra Pradesh (India). PhD thesis, University of Paris VI, France Google Scholar
  13. Falkenmark M (2005) Water usability degradation—economist wisdom or societal madness? Water Int 30(2):136–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster SSD, Hirata RCA (1988) Groundwater pollution risk assessment: a methodology using available data. WHO-PAHO-CEPIS Technical Report (Lima-Peru), 73 pp Google Scholar
  15. Gaciri SJ, Davies TC (1993) The occurrence and geochemistry of fluoride in some natural waters of Kenya. J Hydrol 143:395–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrels RM, McEnzie FT (1971) Evolution of sedimentary rocks. WW Norton, New York, 251 p Google Scholar
  17. Gotham E (1961) Factors influencing the supply of major ions to inland waters with special influence to the atmosphere. Am Geol Soc Bull 72:795–840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grosbois C, Négrel P, Fouillac C, Grimaud D (2000) Dissolved load of the Loire River: chemical and isotopic characterization. Chem Geol 170:179–201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GSI (2002) Geological map: Hyderabad quadrangle—Andhra Pradesh. Geological Survey of India Google Scholar
  20. Hem JD (1959) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristic of natural water. US Geological survey water supply paper no 1473, 269 p, Washinton, DC Google Scholar
  21. Hem JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristic of natural water. US Geol Surv water supply paper no 2254, 264 p Google Scholar
  22. Hem JD (1989) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural waters. US Geol Surv Water Supply Pap 2254:263 Google Scholar
  23. Jacks G, Bhattacharyaa P, Chaudhary V, Singh KP (2005) Controls on the genesis of some high-fluoride groundwaters in India. Appl Geochem 20:221–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim YJ, Hamm S-Y (1999) Assessment of the potential for groundwater contamination using the DRASTIC/EGIS technique, Cheongju area, South Korea. Hydrogeol J 7:227–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar D (2004) Conceptualization and optimal data requirement in simulating flow in weathered-fractured aquifers for groundwater management. PhD thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 263 p Google Scholar
  26. Likens EG, Bormann FH, Pierce RS, Eaton JS, Johnson NM (1977) Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  27. Lowe M, Butler M (2003) Groundwater sensitivity and vulnerability to pesticides, Herber and Round Valleys. Watsach County, Salt Lake City, UT, Utah Geological Survey Google Scholar
  28. Madhavan N, Subramanian V (2002) Fluoride in fractioned soil samples of Ajmer district, Rajasthan. J Environ Monit 4:821–822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahavi AH, Nouri J, Babaei AA, Nabizadeh R (2005) Agricultural activities impact on groundwater nitrate pollution. Int J Environ Sci Tech 2(1):41–47 Google Scholar
  30. Maréchal JC, Dewandel B, Ahmed S, Galeazzi L, Zaidi FK (2006) Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin with irrigated agriculture. J Hydrol 329:281–293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meybeck M (1983) Atmospheric inputs and river transport of dissolved substances. IAHS Publ 141:173–192 Google Scholar
  32. Milliot G (1970) Geology of clays. Springer, New York, p 429 Google Scholar
  33. Morris BL (1994) Tools in a national groundwater protection policy: the National Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping Programme in England and Wales. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Latin American Groundwater Hydrology Congress, 7–11 November 1994, vol 3, pp 121–138 Google Scholar
  34. Négrel P, Allégre CJ, Dupré B, Lewin E (1993) Erosion sources determined by inversion of major and trace elements ratios and strontium isotopic ratios in river water: the Congo basin case. Earth Planet Sci Lett 120:59–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Négrel P, Pauwels H (2003) Interaction between the different water bodies in catchments in Brittany (France): characterizing multiple sources in waters through isotopic tracing. Water Air Soil Pollut 151:261–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pandey OP, Agrawal PK, Chetty TRK (2002) Unusual lithospheric structure beneath the Hyderabad granitic region, eastern Dharwar Craton, South India. Phys Earth Planet Inter 130:59–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piper AM (1944) A graphical procedure in geochemical interpretation of water analysis. Am Geophys Union Trans 25:914–923 Google Scholar
  38. Rao NS (1997) The occurrence and behaviour of the groundwater in the lower Vamsadhara basin, India. Hydrol Sci J [J Sci Hydrol] 42:877–892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rhine Commission (1975) Rapport de la Commission Internationale pour la Protection des Eaux du Rhin contre la Pollution, Koblenz Google Scholar
  40. Roy S, Gaillardet J, Allégre CJ (1999) Geochemistry of dissolved and suspended loads of the Seine River, France: anthropogenic impact, carbonate and silicate weathering. Geo-chim Cosmochim Acta 63:1277–1292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shahid S (2000) A study of groundwater pollution vulnerability using DRASTIC/GIS, west Bengal, India. J Environ Hydrol 8:124 Google Scholar
  42. Smith PA, Scott HD, Fugitt T (1994) Influence of geographic database scale on prediction of groundwater vulnerability to pesticides. J Soil Contamin 3(3):1–14 Google Scholar
  43. Sreedevi PD, Ahmed S, Made B, Ledoux E, Gandolfi JM (2006) Association of hydrogeological factors in temporal variations of fluoride concentration in crystalline aquifers in India. Environ Geol 50:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Subba Rao N, Krishna Rao G, John Devadas D (1998) Variation of fluoride in groundwaters of crystalline terrain. J Environ Hydrol 6:1–6 Google Scholar
  45. Subrahmanyam K, Ahmed S, Dhar RL (2000) Geological and hydrogeological investigation in the Maheshwaram watershed, RR Dist, AP, India. Techical report no: NGRI-2000-GW-292 Google Scholar
  46. Sukhija BS, Nagabhushanam P, Reddy DV (1996) Groundwater recharge in semiarid regions of India: an overview of results obtained using tracers. Hydrogeol J 4:50–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Susheela AK (2000) A treatise on fluorosis, 1st edn. Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation, New Delhi Google Scholar
  48. Tegyey M (2001) Etude petrographique de 29 lames minces de Roches Provenant d’Inde, BRGM, France. Technical report, 45 p. CDG/CG/MT/jb/2001-NT-048 Google Scholar
  49. Viswanathana G, Jaswantha A, Gopalakrishnanb S, Sivailangoc S (2009) Mapping of fluoride endemic areas and assessment of fluoride exposure. Sci Total Environ 407:1579–1587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vörösmarty CJ, Meybeck M, Fekete B, Sharma K, Green P, Syvitski JPM (2003) Anthropogenic sediment retention: major global impact from registered river impoundments. Global Planet Change 39:169–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Widory D, Kloppmann W, Chery L, Bonnin J, Rochdi H, Guinamant J-L (2004) Nitrate in groundwater: an isotopic multi-tracer approach. J Contam Hydrol 72:165–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Surendra Atal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philippe Négrel
    • 2
  • Hélène Pauwels
    • 2
  • Cédric Mascré
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shakeel Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.Indo-French Centre for Groundwater ResearchNGRI (CSIR)HyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Water DivisionBRGMOrleansFrance

Personalised recommendations