Advertisement

Cumulative Probability and Water Quality Index (WQI) for Finding Drinking Water Suitability in a Tannery Belt (Southern India)

  • Nepal MondalEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)

Abstract

Groundwater quality is continuously getting polluted due to the increasing human activities and the rapid growth of urbanization in and around a tannery belt of Southern India, where around 80 functioning tanneries are discharging untreated effluents into open land and channels. Detecting and evaluating the effects of industrial and human activities are keys to finding the hydrochemical backgrounds and drinking water suitability. Thus, this paper deals with the cumulative probability distribution of analytical hydrochemical data, which was adopted to estimate the backgrounds on groundwater quality as well as quantify its abnormality. Results show two types of threshold values. The first threshold values of TDS, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+ ions are estimated at about 906, 182, 60, 160 and 5 mg/l, respectively, whereas 191, 280, 109 and  12 mg/l for Cl, \({{\text{HCO}}_{3}}^{ - }\), \({{\text{SO}}_{4}}^{2 - }\) and \({{\text{NO}}_{3}}^{ - }\) ions. They directly indicate the background levels of these ions. The second threshold values indicate the strong influence areas, mainly distributed in and around the tannery clusters. Furthermore, Water Quality Index (WQI) shows that there is no excellent groundwater type but about 59% of the samples are of poor quality for drinking water use.

Keywords

Groundwater pollution Cumulative probability Water quality index (WQI) Drinking water Tannery industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Mondal, N.C., Singh, V.P.: Hydrochemical analysis of salinization for a tannery belt in Southern India. J. Hydrol. 405(2–3), 235–247 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, J., et al.: Method for screening prevention and control measures and technologies based on groundwater pollution intensity assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 143, 551–552 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo, H.M., et al.: Contrasting distributions of groundwater arsenic and uranium in the western Hetao basin, Inner Mongolia: implication for origins and fate controls. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 1172–1190 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mondal, N.C., et al.: A diagnosis of groundwater quality from a semiarid region in Rajasthan, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 9(12), 602, 1–22 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peng, C., et al.: Identifying and assessing human activity impacts on groundwater quality through hydrogeochemical anomalies and \({{\text{NO}}_{3}}^{ - }\), \({{\text{NH}}_{4}}^{ + }\), and COD contamination: a case study of the Liujiang River Basin, Hebei Province, P.R. China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 3539–3556 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matschullat, J., et al.: Geochemical background—can we calculate it? Environ. Geol. 39, 990–1000 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caro, M.D., et al.: Hydrogeochemical characterization and Natural Background Levels in urbanized areas: Milan Metropolitan area (Northern Italy). J. Hydrol. 547, 455–473 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh, A.N., et al.: Assessment of groundwater quality using GIS—a case study of the Churu District of Rajasthan. Water Res. Manag. 5(4), 35–43 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mondal, N.C., Singh, V.P.: Need of groundwater management in tannery belt: a scenario about Dindigul town, Tamil Nadu. J. Geol. Soc. India 76(3), 303–309 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassen, A.S., Woldeamanuale, T.B.: Evaluation and characterization of tannery waste water in each process at Batu and Modjo Tannery, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Res. 8(2), 555732, 1–9 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Public Health Association (APHA): Standard methods for the examination of water & waste. 16th edn. Am. Public Health Assoc. (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sinclair, A.J.: Selection of thresholds in geochemical data using probability graphs. J. Geochem. Explor. 3, 129–149 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horton, R.K.: An index number system for rating water quality. J. Water Pollut. Cont. Fed. 37(3), 300–305 (1965)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization (WHO): Guideline of drinking quality. Washington, DC, World Health Organization (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorde, S.P., Jadhav, M.V.: Assessment of water quality parameters: a review. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 3(6), 2029–2035 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mondal, N.C.: Reconnoitering hydrochemical background using log-probability distribution in a Channel Island, Andhra Pradesh. In: 5th National Conference Proceeding on Water, Environment & Society, pp. 271–277, BSP Books Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth Process Modeling GroupCSIR-National Geophysical Research Institute & Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (AcSIR, CSIR-NGRI)HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations