Advertisement

Water Quality, Exposure and Health

, Volume 2, Issue 3–4, pp 169–179 | Cite as

A Comparative Study on Hydrogeochemistry of Ken and Betwa Rivers of Bundelkhand Using Statistical Approach

  • Ram AvtarEmail author
  • Pankaj Kumar
  • C. K. Singh
  • S. Mukherjee
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we have studied the comparative hydrogeochemistry of the Ken and Betwa Rivers of Bundelkhand area, considering the importance of the Ken–Betwa River linking project (KBLP) in India. Factor analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) has been done to identify the highly correlated and interrelated water-quality parameters. All the physico-chemical parameters for both rivers are within the highest desirable or maximum permissible limit set by WHO (World Health Organization) except some anions viz. \(\mathrm{NO}_{3}^{-}\), Cl, \(\mathrm{SO}_{4}^{2-}\) and F at some sampling points. The Ken River showed a high spatial variability and significant ionic concentration due to the higher geological and pedological watershed richness as well as absence of pollution from anthropogenic point sources. The Betwa River showed a low spatial variability and higher mineralization due to the anthropogenic point sources that exist downstream. This preliminary study shows the spatio-temporal variability of the hydrogeochemical parameters of the Ken–Betwa River basin.

Keywords

Ken–Betwa River linking project (KBLP) Principal component analysis (PCA) Factor analysis Land use/land cover Rainfall 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmad SM (1984) Hydrogeological investigations for augmenting water supply in drought affected areas of Banda district, Uttar Pradesh. Central Ground Water Board unpublished report, Lucknow, India Google Scholar
  2. Alaez MCF, Alaez MF, Calabuig EL (1988) Variation in time and space of some physical and chemical variables in the Bernesga River, León, Spain. Ann Limnol 24(3):285–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington Google Scholar
  4. Avtar R, Singh CK, Shashtri S, Singh A, Mukherjee S (2010) Identification and analysis of groundwater potential zones in Ken–Betwa river linking area using remote sensing and geographic information system. Geocarto Inte 25(5):379–396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharya DS (1970) Geological and geophysical investigation of basaltic layer in Archaean terrain of eastern India. Bull Geol Soc Am 81(10):3073–3078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyacioglu H, Boyacioglu H (2007) Surface water quality assessment by environmetric methods. Environ Monit Assess 131:371–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8(3):559–568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis JC (2002) Statistics and data analysis in geology. Wiley, (ASIA) pte Ltd, Singapore Google Scholar
  9. Duan L, Hao J, Xie S, Zhou Z, Ye X (2002) Determining weathering rates of soils in China. Geoderma 110(3–4):205–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenway DR (1987) Vegetation and slope stability. In: Anderson MG, Richards KS (eds) Slope stability. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  11. Guissani B, Monticelli D, Gambillara R, Pozzi A, Dossi C (2008) Three way principal component analysis of chemical data from lake Como watershed. Microchem J 88(2):160–166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Helena B, Pardo R, Vega M, Barrado E, Fernandez JM, Fernandez L (2000) Temporal evolution of groundwater composition in an alluvial aquifer (Pisuerga river, Spain) by principal component analysis. Water Res 34:807–816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hem JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3rd edn. United States Government Printing Office, Washington Google Scholar
  14. Hunsaker CT, Levine DA (1995) Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. Bioscience 45(3):193–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jain SK, Agarwal PK, Singh VP (2007) Hydrology and water resources of India. Springer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  16. Jayaprakash M, Giridharan L, Venugopal T, Krishna SPK, Periakali P (2008) Characterization and evaluation of the factors affecting the geochemistry of groundwater in Neyveli, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Geol 54(4):855–867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazi TG, Arain MB, Jamali MK, Jalbani N, Afridi HI, Sarfraz RA, Baig JA, Shah AQ (2009) Assessment of water quality of polluted lake using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72(2):301–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krueger K (2007) Assessment of the India river linking plan: a closer look at the Ken–Betwa pilot link. MSc Dissertation, University of Michigan Google Scholar
  19. Kumar P, Kumar M, Ramanathan AL, Tsujimura M (2010) Tracing the factors responsible for arsenic enrichment in groundwater of the middle Gangetic Plain, India: a source identification perspective. Environ Geochem Health 32:129–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence FW, Upchurch SB (1982) Identification of recharge areas using geochemical factor analysis. Ground Water 20:680–687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li Y, Xu L, Li S (2009) Water quality analysis of the Songhua River basin using multivariate techniques. J Water Resour Prot 1(2):110–121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu CW, Lin KH, Kuo YM (2003) Application of factor analysis in the assessment of groundwater quality in black foot disease in Taiwan. Sci Total Environ 313:77–89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lovchinov V, Tsakovski S (2006) Multivariate statistical approaches as applied to environmental physics studies. Cent Eur J Phys 4(2):277–298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma H, Liu L, Chen T (2010) Water security assessment in Haihe River basin using principal component analysis based on Kendall tau. Environ Monit Assess 163(1–4):539–544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazlum N, Ozer A, Mazlum S (1999) Interpretation of water quality data by principal components analysis. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 23:19–26 Google Scholar
  26. Mukherjee S (1991) Ground water appraisal report Hamirpur district Uttar Pradesh, Remote sensing applications centre Uttar Pradesh: Lucknow. Unpublished technical report no RSAC; GED91:02, UPRSA, 881 Google Scholar
  27. NWDA (National Water Development Agency) (2007) Ken–Betwa link project feasibility report [Online]. Available: http://nwda.gov.in/index3.asp?sublink2id=23?. Accessed 25 April 2008
  28. Palma P, Kuster M, Alvarenga P, Palma VL, Fernandes RM, Soares AMVM, Alda M, Barcelo D, Barbosa IR (2009) Risk assessment of representative and priority pesticides, in surface water of the Alqueva reservoir (south of Portugal) using on-line phase extraction-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Int 35:545–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarbu C, Pop HF (2005) Principal component analysis versus fuzzy principal component analysis. A case study: the quality of Danube water (1985–1996). Talanta 65:1215–1220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma RP (1979) Origin of the pyrophillite—diaspore deposits of the Bundelkhand complex, central India. Miner Depos 14:343–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simeonov V, Stratis JA, Samara C, Zachariadis G, Voutsa D, Anthemidis A, Sofoniou M, Kouimtzis T (2003) Assessment of the surface water quality in Northern Greece. Water Res 37:4119–4124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh KP, Malik A, Sinha S (2005) Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti River (India) using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study. Anal Chim Acta 538:355–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh CK, Shashtri S, Mukherjee S (2010) Integrating multivariate statistical analysis with remote sensing and GIS for geochemical assessment of groundwater quality: a case study of Rupnagar District in Shiwaliks of Punjab, India. Earth Environ Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-010-0625-0 Google Scholar
  34. Souza ADG, Tundisi JG (2000) Hidrogeochemical comparative study of the jaú and jacaré-guaçu river watersheds, São Paulo, Brazil. Rev Bras Biol 60(4):563–570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wunderlin DA, Diaz MP, Ame MV, Pesce SF, Hued AC, Bistoni MA (2001) Pattern recognition techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality. A case study: Suquia river basin (Cordoba, Argentina). Water Res 35:2881–2894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang X, Wang Q, Liu Y, Wu J, Yu M (2010) Application of multivariate statistical techniques in the assessment of water quality in the southwest new territories and Kowloon, Hong Kong. Environ Monit Assess. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1366-y Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ram Avtar
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Pankaj Kumar
    • 2
  • C. K. Singh
    • 3
  • S. Mukherjee
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.School of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  4. 4.Institute of Industrial ScienceThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations