QUALITY ASSESMENT OF GROUND WATER FOR

IRRIGATION IN VISAKHAPATNAM DELTA

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
award of the Degree of
B. Tech
In
Civil Engineering
By

S.no Name Roll No

1 M. SUNIL VARMA 17L31A01B3
2 M. ANANTH 17L31A01D1
3 N. PURUSHOTTAM 18L35A0138
4 P. VINAY 18L35A0141

Under the guidance of

Mr. M.PADMAKAR

(ASSISTANT PROFESSER)

Head of the Department

Department of Civil Engineering

VIGNAN’S INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Affiliated to JNTU, Kakinada)
Visakhapatnam -530049
2017-2021
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
VIGNAN’S INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project report entitled as “Tittle Name (Capital letters with bold)”
being submitted by

S.no Name Roll No

1 M. SUNIL VARMA 17L31A01B3
2 M. ANANTH 17L31A01D1
3 N. PURUSHOTTAM 18L35A0138
4 P. VINAY 18L35A0141

in partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil
Engineering of the Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology: Visakhapatnam
(Affiliated to JNTU, Kakinada) is a record of bonafied work carried out under my guidance
and supervision, during the year 2020-2021

The results embodied in this project report have not been submitted to any other
University or Institute for the award of any Degree or Diploma.

(M.Padmakar)  (M.Padmakar) 

Project Guide Head of the Department

External Examiner

DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the thesis entitled, “Tittle “has been written by me and has not been
submitted either in part or whole for the award of any degree, diploma or any other similar
title to this or any other university.

S.no Name Roll No

1 M. SUNIL VARMA 17L31A01B3
2 M. ANANTH 17L31A01D1
3 N. PURUSHOTTAM 18L35A0138
4 P. VINAY 18L35A0141

Date:

Place:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have a great pleasure in expressing my gratitude to my guide,M.Padmakar ,
Department of Civil Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology
Visakhapatnam, for their esteemed guidance and consistence encouragement throughout the
work. It was very pleasant and inspiring experience for me to work under their guidance.
We express our sincere thanks to our central and department level project review
committee members, Department of Civil Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of
Information Technology, Visakhapatnam for their continuous evaluation and valuable
suggestions to complete the work qualitatively within time.

I am also thankful to thank all other teaching and non-teaching staff of our department
and our friends who have contributed directly or indirectly helped me during the thesis
work.

Date:
Place:

S.n Name Roll No

o
1 M. SUNIL VARMA 17L31A01B3
2 M. ANANTH 17L31A01D1
3 N. PURUSHOTTAM 18L35A0138
4 P. VINAY 18L35A0141

ABSTRACT

Quality of water is the most important factor for any use; be it domestic or any
other purposes .The aim of the present study was to assess the physic-chemical

characteristics of water collected from different types of water resources. In the

present study of water include physic chemical parameters are pH, Turbidity,

Conductivity, Total Dissolved Solids, Chlorides , Sulphates , Total Hardness,

Calcium, Magnesium, Total Alkalinity, Nitrates and Fluorides. The results of

this analysis were compared with the water quality standards of WHO , BIS and

CPHEEO s and in depth studies are to be carried out to decide suitability for

safe drinking and domestic use. It is possible that the concentration of the

dissolved impurities may increase further if the recommended norms for

discharging industrial effluents are not adhered.

KEY WORDS : Total hardness, Magnesium, Total Alkalinity, industrial

effluents.

CONTENTS
1. Introduction
Page No
1.1 Introduction 1
1.1 Ground Water 2
1.1.1 Importance of Ground Water 3
1.1.2 Causes 4
1.1.3 Estimated Depth to Ground Water 5
1.2 Aquifer 6
1.2.1 Types of Aquifers 7
1.2.2 Unconfined Aquifer 8
1.2.3 Confined Aquifer 9
1.3 Division of Sub-Surface Water 10
1.4 Study Area
2. Literature Review
2.0 Literature Review 12-16
3. Data Collection and Data Extraction /Material Collection

3.0 Material and Method 17

3.1 Physic- Chemical Analysis 18

3.1.1 Sampling method for physic-chemical analysis 19

3.1.2 Parameters Selection 20

3.2 pH 20

3.3 Total Hardness 21

3.4 Chloride 21

3.5 Alkalinity 22

3.6 Calcium 22

3.7 Conductivity 23

3.8 Magnesium 23

3.9 Drinking water standards 24

4. Methodology 25-41

5. Analysis and Results 42-43

6. Conclusions and Recommendations 44-47

Reference

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No Description Page No

1.1 GROUND SURFACE 5

1.2 CONFINED AQUIFER 6
1.3 DIVISION OF SUB SURFACE WATER 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Analytical method and equipment used in the study 19

Table 4.1: study of ph value 25

Table 4.2: study of conductivity of water samples 28

Table 4.3: study the water samples with magnesium hardness 30

Table 4.4: study the alkalinity of water samples of different zones 32

Table 4.5: the values for total hardness 35

Table 4.6: the values for the calcium ion concentration 38

Table 4.7: the chloride concentration ranges 40

 CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Ground water:

Ground water is the water located beneath the earths surface in soil pore spaces and in the

fractures of rock formation. A unit of rock or a consolidated deposit is called an aquifer when

it can yield a usable quantity of water.

1.1.1 Importance of groundwater:

 Ground water supplies drinking water for 51% of total Urban population and 99% of

rural population

 It helps grow our food.64% of groundwater is used for irrigation to grow crops

 It is an important component in many industrial processes.

 It is a source of recharge for lakes, rivers and outlands.

Ground water can be found almost everywhere. The water table may be deep or shallow and

may rise or fall depending on many factors. Heavy rains or melting snow may cause the

water table to rise or heavy pumping of ground water supplies may cause the water table to

fall.

1.1.2.Causes:

Ground water can be polluted by landfills, septic tanks, leaky underground gas tanks, and

from

over use of fertilizers and pesticides. If ground water becomes polluted , it will no longer be

safe to drink.

1.1.3.Estimated depth to groundwater:

Depth to water ranges from 0 ft below the surface along major rivers and streams to a

maximum estimated at more than 1,200 ft below land surface on the southern slopes of Larch

Mountain .
 The depth to water for nearly two-thirds of the study area analyzed was less than 100

ft. Areas where the depth to water exceeds 100 ft include the Tualatin Mountains, the

Boring Hills, and the foothills of the Cascade Range.

 Depth to water also exceeds 100 ft in the terrace deposits throughout much of

northern and eastern Portland area. Depths to water greater than 300 ft is limited to a

few high elevation areas and include parts of the Tualatin Mountains, the slopes of

Larch Mountain, the ridge extending southeast from Lake Oswego.

 Depths to water were deeper in areas with high elevations such as the Tualatin

Mountains, Boring Hills, and the foothills of the Cascade Range.

 Depths to water were shallower in low-lying areas along rivers and streams such as

the Columbia, Willamette, Clackamas, and Sandy Rivers and the water table in many

places is at or near land surface.

 The spatial correlation between the interpolated depth to water and the land-surface

elevation has a correlation coefficient (R value) of 0.73 indicating a relatively high

correspondence between the two; that is, as land-surface elevation increases depth to

water increases.

 These observations are consistent with the concept that depth to water typically is

greater beneath hills than valleys.

 The influence on the water table resulting from certain manmade features, where

overlying soil and rock have been removed creating shallow depths to water, can be

seen on the depth-to-water map .

 These include sand and gravel pits such as those south of the Portland International

Airport, north of Kelly Butte, west of Mount Scott, and along the west side of

Gresham as well as road cuts for Interstate Highway 205 in northeastern Portland area

and for the railroad through northern Portland, which parallels N. Portland Road.

Other influences due to manmade features can be discerned on the depth-to-water

map but are actually artifacts resulting from the processing of the digital elevation

model data.

 Other influences due to manmade features can be discerned on the depth-to-water

map but are actually artifacts resulting from the processing of the digital elevation

model data (see section, “Assumptions and Assessment of Errors”). No published

depth-to-water maps that cover an extensive part of the study area were located for

comparison with the current study.

 However, the USGS simulated ground-water elevation based on a regional three-

dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model (Morgan and McFarland,

1996).

 A simulated depth-to-water map can be developed by subtracting the simulated

ground-water elevations from the land-surface elevations used in the model. Output

data files from the USGS model are available online (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006)

and were analyzed to evaluate depth to water. Many of the wells and surface-water

features used in the model also were used for the current study.

 The comparison is extremely good for the central part of the study area, including the

areas of northern, northeastern, and southeastern Portland. Agreement also is

favorable in the area of the Boring Hills.

  However, the ground-water model results indicate a substantial depth to water along

the Willamette River; whereas, the current study uses a zero depth to water along the

Willamette River.

 This difference may be a function of the relatively coarse horizontal discretization

used for the ground-water model, which used a rectangular grid with cells 3,000 ft on

a side.

 Other areas of disagreement between the current study and the ground-water model

include the area extending from Troutdale southeast to Sandy and all areas south of

Sandy, where the ground-water model appears to substantially overestimate ground-

water elevation and, as a result, greatly underestimates the depth to water due to the

lack of available control data in this area.

 Depth Ground water table in Visakhapatnam Delta is 7.9 meters.

1.2. Aquifer:

 An aquifer is an underground layer of water bearing permeable rock or

unconsolidated materials from which ground water can be extracted using water well.

It is a layer of poroussubstrate that contains and transmits ground water.

 The study of water flow in aquifers and the characterization of aquifers is called

hydrogeology.

 The characterization of aquifers varies with the geology and structure of the substrate

and topography in which they occur. In general, the more productive aquifers occur in

sedimentary geologic formation.

1.2.1Types of Aquifers:

 Unconfined Aquifer

 Confined Aquifer

1.2.2. Unconfined Aquifer:

 An unconfined aquifer is close to the land surface, being under the direct influence of

the climatic factors (precipitations mainly, but temperature also).

 The groundwater fluctuations follow with a certain lag, depending on the depth and

the nature of the unsaturated zone, the variation of the fallen precipitations.

 The unconfined aquifers extend from the water table to the base of the aquifer,

represented by an impermeable boundary. Most of the unconfined aquifers are

formed by highly permeable layers (gravel, coarse or medium sand) and less

permeable formations (silt or clay) that do not cut the hydraulic continuity of the

permeable layers on a regional level.

 Unconfined aquifer or water table serves as the upper surface of the zone of

saturation .It is also known as the free, non-artesian aquifer.

 1.1 GROUND SURFACE

1.2.Confined aquifer:

 Confined aquifer is the one in which ground water is confined under pressure

greater than atmospheric by overlying, relatively impermeable strata. The static

pressure at a point within the artesian aquifer is equivalent of the water table in the

recharge area less the loss in head through the aquifer to the point under

consideration.

 Confined aquifer usually has relatively small recharges areas are compared with

confined aquifers. When water is drawn from artesian well, a local depression of

the piezometric surface well results.

 This decrease in pressure permits a slight expansion of the water and in some cases

compaction of the aquifer. Artesian pressure is sufficient to raise the water above
 ground level is called following cell.

1.2.Confined aquifer

1.3. Division of sub-surface water:

 1.3. Division

of sub-surface water

 Subsurface water

can be divided into two

zones, the zone of

aeration, or vamoose zone,

and the zone of

saturation. Within

the zone of aeration are

three belts, the belt of soil water, the intermediate belt, and the capillary fringe.

 The belt of soil water is that part, directly below the surface, from which water is

discharged into the atmosphere by plants or by direct evaporation from the soil.

 The water in this belt is of great importance to the agriculturist, for it is the water

near enough to the surface to be available to plant roots.

 The capillary fringe is a belt that overlies the zone of saturation and contains pores

some or all of which are filled with water that is continuous with the zone of

saturation but is held above that zone by capillarity acting against gravity.

 The thickness of the capillary fringe depends upon the texture of the rock or soil in

which it occurs, being greatest in fine-grained material having small pores. The

water in the capillary fringe is called fringe water.

 The intermediate belt of the zone of aeration is the part that lies between the belt of

soil water and the capillary fringe.

 Water that sinks into this belt is either drawn downward by gravity to the zone of

saturation, is retained within the belt by molecular attraction as a coating on

individual grains or a meniscus at grain contacts, or returns to the surface by

capillary or vapor flow. Water in the intermediate belt is called intermediate

vamoose water.

 Both the belt of soil water and the capillary fringe are limited in thickness by local

conditions, such as the character of vegetation and texture of rock or soil, but the

intermediate belt is not thus limited and may be absent or may be several hundred

feet thick.

 The top of the zone of saturation is marked by the water table, below which all

connected pore spaces are filled with water under hydrostatic pressure.

 Water within this zone is free to move under the force of gravity, and it is only from

the zone of saturation that wells are able to derive water. The water in the zone of

saturation is called ground water.

 Below the zone of saturation is the zone of rock flowage, in which temperature and

pressure are such that pores or openings cannot exist in the rocks.

 In this zone, far below the earth's surface, subsurface water exists only in the

molecular structure of the rocks and is called internal water.

1.4. STUDY AREA:

Visakhapatnam (Vizag), is a major port and the second largest city in the state of Andhra

Pradesh and the third largest city on the east coast of India after Kolkata and Chennai, with a

population of approximately 1.3 million. Visakhapatnam experiences a tropical savanna

climate. The city is nestled with greenery among the hills of the Eastern Ghats and faces the

Bay of Bengal to the east and is also home to the Eastern Naval Command of the Indian

Navy. Visakhapatnam is often referred to as Vizag is sometimes referred to as the “Goa of

the East Coast “.

 Visakhapatnam, more popularly as the Steel City of Andhra Pradesh, has some of the

best production facilities in the country. Today, Visakhapatnam has turned out to be a

major Industrial center in the entire South of India.

 Many Major and Minor industries are located in Industrial Zones such as the ones

near Gajuwaka and Industrial Estate areas, just to quote few. Industry estimates says

that investments to a tune of Rs. 30,000 crores would put in Visakhapatnam between

the years 2006 – 2013.

 The city also owes its economic growth to the availability of an Educated – speaking

work force, its development as centre for education and its potential in massive

industrial sector, tourism sector , retail & entertainment sector, sports sector and

capability o transportation by rail and road; air and water ways .

 The city was identified as one of the ten fastest growing cities in the world

economically and demographically. The city finds itself in a precarious situation, with

the sea on one side and hills on other three sides.

 Nestled in a natural bowl, yet the groundwater scenario is alarming due to high

pollution levels.
 Some of the metals are essential to sustain life – calcium, magnesium, potassium and

sodium must be present for normal body functions.

 Also cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum and zinc are needed at low levels

as catalyst for enzyme activities; however, excess exposure to heavy metals can result

in toxicity.

 The most common heavy metals that humans are exposed to are aluminum, arsenic,

cadmium, lead and mercury. These have been associated with carcinogenic diseases

like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, senility and prehensile dementia, illness or

symptoms cancer, abdominal pain and skin lesions, kidney damage and

hypertension.etc.

 Heavy metals in the environment are caused by air emissions from coal-burning

plants, smelters and other industrial facilities; waste incinerators; process wastes from

mining and industry; and lead in house plumbing and old house paints.

 Industry is not totally to blame, as heavy metals can sometimes enter the environment

through natural process. For example, in some parts of the U.S., naturally occurring

geologic deposits of arsenic can dissolve into groundwater, potential resulting in

unsafe levels of this heavy metal in drinking water supplies area.

 Once released to the environment, metals can remain for decades or centuries,

increasing the likelihood of human exposure.

 In addition to drinking water, we can be exposed to heavy metals through inhalation

of air pollutants, exposed to contaminated soils or industrial waste, or consumption of

contaminated food.

 Because of contaminated water, food sources such as vegetables, grains, fruits, fish

and shell fish can also become contaminated by accumulating metals from the very

soil and water it grows from.

 The present research was carried out to determine the physiochemical parameters and

levels trace metals in ground water. This planned work will be helpful to assess the

impact of industrial activities on the quality of surrounding ground water bodies.

 CHAPTER-II
LITERATURE REVIEW
 LITERATURE REVIEW

From a study conducted by Achy tan Nair (2005) on h assessment of the well water quality

of Benghazi, Libya it was recorded very high nitrate contents in some of the well waters,

which are concern.

Lang et al(2006) observed that the major anthropogenic components in the surface and

groundwater include K+, Na+,Cl-,SO42- and NO3 with Cal- and NO3 being the main

contributors to ground water pollution in Guiyang, China and its adjoining areas. The

seasonal variations in concentrations of anthropogenic components demonstrate that the

karsts ground water system is liable to pollution by human activities.

O. Kato t al., (2007) studies consisted of determination of the trace metals and some

physiochemical properties in drinking water samples from the Bring Amado region of the

Republic of Ghana, where drinking water samples are not treated before it is consumed. The

concentrations of most of the investigated parameters in the drinking water samples from

Brong Ahafo region were within the permissible limits of the World Health Organization

drinking water quality guide lines. There were no correlations between metal concentrations

in the drinking water samples.

Shittu, O.B., et al (2008) Physiochemical and bacteriological analysis were carried out on

well water, stream water and river water used for drinking and swimming purposes in

Abeokuta, Nigeria. The results obtained were compared with WHO and EPA standards for

drinking and recreational water. With the exception of Sokori stream and well water that did

not comply with Turbidity and Mg2+ standards respectively, all others were within the

standards set for Ph, Color, Total Solids, acidity, total hardness, Ca2+, hardness, chloride and

iron.
 One of the major sources of groundwater contamination is the surface impoundments used

by municipalities and industries, which dispose of wastewater without treatment to the

receiving bodies or used by farmers for agricultural purpose. This research work was carried

by Jakhrani (2009) to investigate the contamination level of groundwater determination of

physical and chemical properties and was observed that the groundwater quality is

deteriorated because of higher concentrations of electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids

and hardness as compared to WHO standards.

Li et al., (2009) studied the factors associated with chemical compliance of drinking water in

regional New South Wales, Australia. In particular, the findings of this study should prompt

mangers of water utilities to examine carefully the chemical quality of their drinking water

supply and identify opportunities for improvement. Water utilizes should review their data on

source water to determine whether there is need to optimize or add treatment processes.

Water samples were collected by Ocheri Maxwell (2010) from 26 rural community

boreholes and analyzed for iron concentrations as it affects the quality of water for drinking

in line with WHO drinking water standards for both rainy and dry seasons. Iron

concentrations in the boreholes were noted to be higher in the rainy season than in the rainy

season than in the dry season. The source of iron in groundwater may be attributed to

dissolution of iron minerals from rock and soils, corrosion effect of galvanized hand pump

components and land use activities.

Pearl Kaplan et al., (2011) presented Fat and Occurrence of Biochemically Active

Compounds during Drinking water treatment plants in North Carolina were collected and

analyzed using liquid chromatography- mass spectrometry or gas chromatography – mass

spectrometry for studying the presence and fate of BACs. This presentation will highlight the

complexities in safeguarding drinking water sources from anthropogenic contaminants

including the determination of BACs that remain unchanged through drinking water

treatment and the identification of transformation products of BACs resulting from

disinfection. The transformation of BACs during drinking water treatment is important to

guide future occurrence studies and direct policy decisions that protect the safety of drinking

water for consumers.

Indian finding, Water Quality survey of Rohtas district of Bihar was conducted by D.Ray et

al., (2000).Sample were collected from different sources and analyzed. 209 samples were

collected from 196 villages. Results of water quality survey identified the problems area in

respect of high iron, manganese, fluoride, nitrate and brackishness of water in the district.

Fluoride in very limited quantities is desirable for healthy growth of teeth and bones in

human beings and prevent dental caries, and in excess quantities causes the diseases mottle

enamel of teeth called Fluor sis. Paper discusses about the toxicity of fluoride in ground water

of chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. LingeshwaraRao (2000).

Ramanathan (2002) carried out study of Systematic sampling of groundwater in different

seasons from 1997 to 1999 in the entire periyar district of Tamilnadu. Groundwater is

colorless, odorless and is alkaline in nature. The water chemistry shows distinct variation in

space and time and shows the influence of the anthropogenic sources. SAR, RSC, Na%, CR,

TH etc shows that the water is generally good for domestic, agricultural purpose and is not

good for long distance transport. Here the Fluoride concentration is generally lower than

prescribed limit except few areas where the concentration exceeds 1.5ppm.

Ground water with higher concentration of magnesium causes laxative effect to human

beings and excess fluoride causes severe bone fluorosis (Mishra et al . 2003).
From a study of the ground water Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu it is found that low calcium

content and high alkalinity increases the fluoride level in water where as the lower the total

hardness, higher is the fluoride concentration. It shows that ground water has been

contaminated by industrial activity and application of large amount of fertilizer around the

area (Ramachandramoorty et al., 2004)

In the ground water samples of coal mining area of Assam , it is found that pH values were

lower than the WHO prescribed limit and the concentration of major cautions and anions

were appreciable (Potawary et al., 2005)

All physic-chemical parameters recorded in the study taken up by Sivagurunathan et al.,

(2005) showed higher values in summer season than inwinter season, except fluoride content

in groundwater.

Ram et al., (2006) observed the higher values of TDS, iron, total hardness, calcium hardness,

calcium and magnesium in the underground strata where the aquifer is available or due to

leaching of various pollutants through sides and bottom of unlined drain.

Ibrahim Bethesda (2007) collected groundwater samples from 18 wards of Coimbatore city

north zone, among which 2 samples were collected from 2 different locations from each

ward, total 36 samples. Water quality assessment was carried out for various physic chemical

parameters. Correlation coefficients were determined to identify the highly correlated and

inter related water quality parameters.

On 26th December, 2004 tsunami had major impact on quality of groundwater along the

south east coast of India, but especially in the tsunami-affected areas of the Nagapatinam

district of Tamil Nadu. Major pollution resulted primarily from increases in the salinity of

groundwater. Samples of groundwater were collected from 11 wells in this area and analyzed
chemically and the results observed by Ravi Shanker (2008) showed significant variations in

water quality parameters.

Ground water samples were collected by Gupta (2009) from different locations in the radius

of 25 km. of Kaithal city, Haryana (India), were analyzed for their physic-chemical

characteristics. On comparing the results against drinking water quality standards laid by

ICMR and WHO, it is found that some of the water samples are non-potable for human being

due to high concentration of one or another parameter.

For the study of different samples of groundwater Kiran Mehata (2010) collected samples

from the locations of Vadagamtaluka of Gujarat state of India and analyzed for their

physicochemical parameters for concentration of ions.

Its quality was compared with drinking water standards of ICMR and EU (1998). Correlation

and coefficient (r) were also calculated for these water quality characteristics and found Fe

positively correlated with many other parameters. Water sources have not been explored in

detail till date. It is clear from the literature survey that studies Physical, Chemical and

Bacteriological (MPN) tests So, far carried out on quality are quite inadequate for which a

systematic and holistic study has been undertaken.

 CHAPTER-III
DATA COLLECTION AND
DATA EXTRACTION
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Water sources are often linked by water resource management. Water resource

management needs to deal with both the aspects of water that quality and quantity.

 The main reason for such difficulty is that water quality is not exclusively a physical,

chemical and micro biological curve. It includes the social aspects also, which require

human judgments’ in terms of its acceptability.

3.1. PHYSICO -CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

3.1.1Sampling methods for physic-chemical analysis:

The time between sampling and analysis was tried to be kept at minimum. Samples in clean

glass or polythene bottles at a low temperature and in the dark were carried to the laboratory.

PH and DO tests are carried out immediately after sampling at the spot as they may change

during the transport and storage.

3.1.2Parameters Selection:

The physic-chemical analysis was performed following standard methods. The brief details of

analytical methods and equipment’s used in the study are given in the table below.
Table .3.1: Analytical method and equipment used in the study

SL.NO Physic-chemical Method Instruments/equipment’s

Parameter
1 Ph Electrometric pH meter

2 Conductivity Electrometric Conductivity meter

3 Alkalinity Titration by -
H2SO4

4 Total hardness Titration by -

EDTA

5 Permanent hardness Titration by -

EDTA

6 Chloride Titration by -
AGNO3

7 Calcium Titration by -
EDTA

3.2. ph:

PH may be defined as the negative logarithm of H+ ion concentration present in the solution.

The pH of fresh water is 7.5. Hydrogen ion concentration of the fresh water is an important

limiting factor.

Apparatus:

 Conical flask

 Beaker

 Magnetic stirrer

 Standard flask
  Tunnel

 Paper

 pH meter

Procedure:

 The pH meter was standardized against the buffer solutions of known pH values

and in the required range.

 The electrode was kept immersed in the sample taken in a beaker.

 Kept that electrode for few minutes in the sample ,after that record the pH of

that sample.

 pH electrode was rinsed thoroughly with every sample while taking

measurements.

3.3. Total hardness:

Hardness is caused by the soluble salts of calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sodium,

sulphates, chlorides and nitrates. The degree of hardness depends on the type and amount of

impurities present in water. The total hardness is representing by caco3 which is main

parameter of water. Total hardness range from 52-144mg/l.

Apparatus:

 Pipette

 Burette

 Conical flask

 Volumetric flask
Procedure:

 Take 20 ml of water sample and add 5 ml of buffer solution and add 2 or 3

drops of SBT indicator into the conical flask.

 Take 0.05M standardized EDTA in burette ,then titrate the EDTA solution with

water sample until blue color obtained.

 Then record the burette reading into the table.

Repeat the process for various water samples.

3.4. Chloride:

The presence of chlorine in water attributed to the dissolution of salts in soil, discharge from

sewage, industrial effluents, contamination from refuses and formation of lechate.

Apparatus:

 Burette

 Conical flask

 Volumetric flask

 pipette

Procedure:

 Take 10ml of water sample in conical flask then add 2 to 3 drops of potassium

chromate it appears yellow color

 Take 0.005N silver nitrate into the burette ,then titrate it with water sample until

it changes to pale red.

 Then record the burette reading into the table.

 Repeat the process for various water samples.

3.5. Alkalinity:

Alkalinity is primarily a way of measuring the acid neutralizing capacity of water. The ability

of water to act as a buffer is controlled in part by the amount of calcium and carbonate ions in

solution.ca++ and co3 ions have elevated hardness and alkalinity

Apparatus:

 Pipette

 Burette

 Conical flask

 Volumetric flask

Procedure:

 Take 25 ml of water sample in a conical flask and add 2 to 3 drops of

phenolphthalein indicator then it appears a pink color.

 Take 0.1Nsulphuricacid in burette ,titrate sulphuric acid with water sample in

conical flask until that pink color disappears.

 Then record the burette readings into the table.

 After that take another 25 ml of water sample in a conical flask and add 2 to 3

drops of phenolphthalein indicator then it appears a yellow color.

 Titrate the water sample with burette solution until yellow color

changes to pink color.

 Then record the burette readings into the table.

 Repeat the process for various water samples.

3.6.Calcium:

Calcium is the major constituent in various types of rock. It is one of the most common

constituent present in natural waters from 0-100 mg/l depending on the source and treatment

of the water.

Apparatus:

 Pipette

 Burette

 Conical flask

 Volumetric flask

Procedure:

 Take 20 ml of water sample and add 2 ml of NAOH solution and add pinch of

ammonium perpetrate indicator into the conical flask.

 Take 0.05M standardized EDTA in burette ,then titrate the EDTA solution with

water sample until blue color obtained.

 Then record the burette reading into the table.

 Repeat the process for several samples.

3.7.Conductivity:

Conductivity is defined as the ability or power to conduct or transmit heat , electrical or

sound. When an electrical potential difference is placed across a conductor, its movable

charges flow, giving rise to an electric current. Since the charge of ions in solution facilitates

the conductance of electric current.

Apparatus:

 Conical flask

 Beaker

 Magnetic stirrer

 Standard flask

 Tunnel

 Paper

 Conductivity meter

Procedure:

 The cell constant of the conductivity meter was adjusted by immersing the cell

in a standard 0.001M KCL solution .

 The cell was immersed in the sample taken in a beaker.

 Kept that cell for few minutes in the sample ,after that record the conductivity

of that sample.

 Conductivity cell was rinsed thoroughly with every sample while taking

measurements.

3.8.Magnesium:

Magnesium occurs in soil and rocks as magnesium dioxide and can be dissolved in natural

waters by the action of anaerobic bacteria . under reducing conditions ,manganese can be

leached from the soil and occurs in considerable concentrations in ground water.

Apparatus:

 Pipette

 Burette

 Conical flask
  Volumetric flask

Procedure:

 Take 20 ml of water sample and add 2 to 3 drops of ERICHROME BLACK T

indicator into the conical flask.

 Take 0.05M standardized EDTA in burette ,then titrate the EDTA solution with

water sample until blue color obtained.

 Then record the burette reading into the table.

 And again take another conical flask take MUREXIDE indicator with 20ml of water

sample .

 Titrate this solution against EDTA in burette to find the values compare this two

indicators values

3.9.Drinking water standards:

The Indian Standard for drinking water was adopted by the Bureau Of Indian Standards with

the following objectives:

 To assess the quality of water resource

 To check the effectiveness of water treatment and supply by the concerned authorities

 This standard was originally published in 1983. A comparative standards

recommended by WHO,BIS,ICMR..
 CHAPTER-IV
METHODOLOGY
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. pH :

pH may be defined as negative logarithm of H+ ion concentration present in the solution.

The ph of fresh water is 7.5. Hydrogen ion concentration of fresh water is an important

limiting factor .ph of the surface water and deeper water exhibits marked differences. In

the drinking water regime water , all chemical and biological reactions directly depend on

the ph of the system. The ph affects the degree of disassociation of weak acids and bases

so also the toxicity and persistence of numerous compounds and the activity of micro

organisms.

Table 4.1:In the present study ,ph value of different areas as follows:

ZONE AREA VALUE STANDARD AS

PER WHO
THUMMPALA WELL 6.98 6.5-9.2

DESPATHRUNIPALE 7.1 6.5-9.2

M MUNICIPAL
NAKAVANIPALM 7.15 6.5-9.2

BORE
RK PURAM 7.3 6.5-9.2

MUNICIPAL
MALKAPURAM 7.35 6.5-9.2

MUNCIPAL
MALKAPURAM BORE 7.3 6.5-9.2

MALKAPURAM WELL 7.55 6.5-9.2

GORRIVANAPALEM 7.18 6.5-9.2

MUNICIPAL
GORRIVANAPALEM 7.5 6.5-9.2
 BORE
GORRIVANAPALEM Sample
7.8 area Vs6.5-9.2
pH
12
WELL
10
SRIHARIPURAM 7.2 6.5-9.2
8
6
MUNICIPAL
SRIHARIPURAM
4 6.98 6.5-9.2
2
BORE0
pH

PH
SRIHARIPURAM AL AL LL AL RE 6.99 AL AL AL LL AL RE 6.5-9.2
AL AL RE LL LL AL LL LL LL RE
CIP CIP WE CIP BO CIP CIP CIP WE CIP BO CIP CIP BO WE WE CIP WE WE WE BO
I I A I R I I I I R I I LI LA NI M EM M M
UN UN T UN A UN UN UN EM UN A UN UN EM L U A A
WELL M M .J PE M AG M T M M PAL Y M AG M M PAL APA PA M UR PAL UR URA
A A R N R V N I M P P
V ET
SRIDHATHASAI
K I
A N GA O 7.3R P YA N A EM M
L UN A K M A N A R RKP
I
AG KA BORE P BH AY LO AD AL IPA 6.5-9.2
M A
RA . P R A R AN HU UR LK A HA
V I
NA Y.J AN KA NIN AI T CO AR AP N TH
NA AY S AT VA PA
T P A
M RRI SR
EL A 6.5-9.2 RK
SRIDHATHASAI
SH
E K 7.1LW N K A S G O
KA I GA NA D
E
RA
MUNICIPAL
Collected sample area

The desirable value of ph is 6.5-8.5 and maximum value is 9.2 as per WHO standards .

In the present study the ph of 59 samples from different areas is within permissible level. The

ph ranges from 6.97-9.97. the minimum is recorded in airport bore, sheelanagar municipal,

y.jpeta municipal. The maximum is recorded in anakapalle municipal, saradanagar municipal,

tummapala municipal., HB Colony municipal, railway colony municipal.

The acidic nature of almost all the samples may be due to the dissolved carbonates,

bicarbonates , hydroxides and low levels of calcium and magnesium . ph lower than 4 will

produce sour taste and higher value above 8.5 will produce bitter taste .ph below 6.5 starts

corrosion in pipes, thereby releasing toxic metals such as Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu are sensitive to the

variation of ph.
 Figure:4.1. pH

4.2.CONDUCTIVITY:

The amount and nature of many dissolved substance in water influences their ability to

conduct electricity. Treated water prior to distribution should have conductivity in the range

of 400-1500us/cm at 200 C. Specific conductance yields a measure of waters capacity to

convey an electric current. This property related to the total concentration of the ionized

substance in a water and temperature at which the measurement is made the nature of the

various dissolved substance, their actual and relative concentrations, and ionic strength of

water sample.

In the present study the conductivity of the water samples of different samples is as

follows

ZONE AREA VALUE(us/cm) STANDARD AS PER

WHO
THUMMPALA WELL 335 300-400 us/cm

DESPATHRUNIPALE 312 300-400 us/cm

M MUNICIPAL
NAKAVANIPALM 313 300-400 us/cm

BORE
RK PURAM 740 300-400 us/cm

MUNICIPAL
MALKAPURAM 700 300-400 us/cm

MUNCIPAL
MALKAPURAM BORE 220 300-400 us/cm

MALKAPURAM WELL 377 300-400 us/cm

GORRIVANAPALEM 1140 300-400 us/cm

MUNICIPAL
GORRIVANAPALEM 360 300-400 us/cm
 BORE

GORRIVANAPALEM 370 300-400 us/cm

WELL
SRIHARIPURAM 410 300-400 us/cm

MUNICIPAL
SRIHARIP 1199 300-400 us/cm

URAM BORE
SRIHARIPURAM 220 300-400 us/cm

WELL
SRIDHATHASAI BORE 390 300-400 us/cm

SRIDHATHASAI 310 300-400 us/cm

MUNICIPAL
RKPURAM BORE 330

Figure:4.2.conductivity

The recommended permissible limit for electrical conductivity (EC ) is 300 us/cm. by

analyzing the results 50% sample showed EC lower than permissible limit .The value ranges
from 209 -1199 us/cm. The maximum is recorded in sriharipuram bore whereas the minimum

value is recorded kakaninagar well.

4.3.MAGNESIUM:

Magnesium is a common constitutent in natural water . magnesium solids are important

contributators to the hardness to the water which break down when heated ,forming scale in

boilers. The magnesium concentration may vary from 0to several hundred milligrams.

Chemical softening, reverse osomosis,electro dialysis, or ion exchange reduces the

magnesium and associated hardness to acceptable levels.

In present study the water samples with magnesium hardness is as follows:

Zone name Value(mg/l) Standard as WHO

THUMMPALA WELL
18.5 30-100mg/l
DESPATHRUNIPALEM MUNICIPAL
18 30-100mg/l
RK PURAM MUNICIPAL
18 30-100mg/l
MALKAPURAM MUNCIPAL
18.5 30-100mg/l
MALKAPURAM BORE
100 30-100mg/l
MALKAPURAM WELL
125 30-100mg/l
GORRIVANAPALEM MUNICIPAL
125 30-100mg/l
GORRIVANAPALEM BORE
125 30-100mg/l
GORRIVANAPALEM WELL
16.5 30-100mg/l
SRIHARIPURAM MUNICIPAL 125
30-100mg/l
SRIHARIPURAM BORE
18 30-100mg/l
3200SRIHARIPURAM WELL
120 30-100mg/l
SRIDHATHASAI BORE
120 30-100mg/l
SRIDHATHASAI MUNICIPAL
125 30-100mg/l
RK PURAM
115 30-100mg/l
 PERMANENT HARDNESS

PERMANENT HARDNESS

Figure:4.3.MAGNESIUM

The desirable limit of magnesium hardness according to WHO is 30-100 mg/l .the value

ranges from 16-150 mg/l. the maximum value is recorded in parawada bore, y.jpeta bore,

sheelanagar bore, saradanagar municipal, newcolony municipal, nakkavanipalem bore. The

minimum value recorded in NAD bore SardaNagra bore.

There are known cases of magnesium passion. Large oral doses magnesium may cause

vomiting and diarrhea. High doses of magnesium in medicine and food supplements may

cause muscles slackening, nerve problems, depression, personality changes. As mentioned

before, it is unusual to introduce legal limits for magnesium in drinking water, because there

is no scientific evidence of magnesium toxicity. In other compounds, for example asbestos

magnesium may be harmful.

4.4.TOTAL ALKALINITY:

Total alkalinity is one of the few measurable quantities that can be used together with other

quantities to calculate concentrations of species of carbonate system(CO2, HCO3-, CO3-

 2
,H+,OH-). In natural waters , sodium is not normally present in appreciable amounts .

therefore, in natural waters, the alkalinity is equal to the carbonate hardness.

After water has been softened, a large amount of sodium remains in the treated water. In

softened water the total alkalinity is sum of the carbonate alkalinity plus sodium alkalinity.

Hardness is undesirable in that it consumes soap, makes water less satisfactory for cooking,

and produces scaling boilers and distillation units .

In the present study the alkalinity of water samples of different zones is as follows:

Zone name Mean Avg Value(mg/l) Compare value Standard as per

WHO(mg/l)
Methyl Phenolphthalein
orange(m) (t)
THUMMPALA WELL
275 300 P=(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

DESPATHRUNIPALEM
375 200 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

MUNICIPAL

NAKAVANIPALEM BORE
250 275 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

RK PURAM MUNICIPAL
250 250 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

MALKAPURAM MUNCIPAL
375 225 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

MALKAPURAM BORE
250 355 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

MALKAPURAM WELL
250 300 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

GORRIVANAPALEM
300 275 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

MUNICIP

GORRIVANAPALEM BORE
200 200 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l
GORRIVANAPALEM WELL
275 250 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

SRIHARIPURAM MUNICIPAL
250 370 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

SRIHARIPURAM BORE
230 300 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

SRIHARIPURAM WELL
250 375 P<(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

SRIDHATHASAI BORE
330 450 P>(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

SRIDHATHASAI MUNICIPAL
375 475 P=(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

RK PURAM
250 400 P=(1/2)t 200-600 mg/l

Sample area Vs Alkalinity

Alkalinity

ALKANITY METHYL
ALKANITY PHENOPTHALEIN

Collected sample area

The desirable value of alkalinity of drinking water is 200mg/l and permissible values

600mg/l .Thealkanity values ranges from 163-600gm/l

The presence of CO3-2 and OH-are the mostcomon cause of alkalinity in natural water.

However, HCO3-represents the major form since it is formed in considerable amount from the

action of CO32- upon the basic materials in the soil. P>(1/2)t=hydroxyl ions & carbonate ions
are present . P<(1/2)t= carbonate ions & bicarbonate ion are present . P=(1/2)t= carbonate ion

are present.

4.5.TOTAL HARDNESS:

Hardness is caused by the soluble salts of calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, sodium

sulphates, chlorides and nitrates. There are two kinds of hardness of water. ‘Temporary

hardness’ is caused by the bi-carbonates of calcium and magnesium, and ‘Permanent

hardness’ is caused by chlorides , sulphates and nitrates of calcium and magnesium in water.

The degree of hardness depends on the type and amount of impurities present in water.

Hardness also depends on the amount of carbon dioxide in solution. carbon dioxide

influences the volubility of impurities that cause hardness.

The hardness caused by carbonates and bicarbonates is called carbonate hardness. The

hardness caused by all other (chlorides, sulphates, nitrates)is called noncarbonated

hardness.

The total hardness is represented by CaCo3 which is a main parameter for the water. In

the present study , the values for total hardness varied as follows:

Zone name Value Standard as per

WHO
THUMMPALA WELL 205 100
DESPATHRUNIPALE 180 100

M MUNICIPAL
NAKAVANIPALM 175 100

BORE
RK PURAM 205 100

MUNICIPAL
MALKAPURAM 330 100

MUNCIPAL
MALKAPURAM BORE 295 100

MALKAPURAM WELL 360 100

GORRIVANAPALEM 405 100

MUNICIPAL
GORRIVANAPALEM 255 100

BORE
GORRIVANAPALEM 245 100

WELL
SRIHARIPURAM 255 100

MUNICIPAL
SRIHARIPURAM 455 100

BORE
SRIHARIPURAM 415 100

WELL
SRIDHATHASAI BORE 545 100

SRIDHATHASAI 430 100

MUNICIPAL
RKPURAM BORE 445 100
 Sample area Vs Total hardness (PPM)
Total hardness (PPM)

TOTAL HARDNESS (PPM)

Collected sample area

Figure:4.5.total hardness

4.6.CALCIUM

Calcium is a major constituent in various types of rocks. It is one of the most common

constituents present in natural waters ranging from zero to several hundred milligrams per

liter depending on the source and treatment of the water. Calcium is a cause for hardness in

water incrustation in boilers. It is necessary for bone formation, blood clotting and other

metabolic reactions. A low CaCo3 hardness value is a reliable indication that the calcium

concentration is low. However, high hardness does not necessarily reflect a high calcium

concentration.

In the present study, the values for the calcium ion concentration varied from:

Zone name Mean average value Standard as per

 WHO
Tummapala Well 72 58-180 mg/l

Desapatrunipalem m 70 58-180 mg/l

NakkavanipalemBo 80 58-180 mg/l

RK Puram Municipal 100 58-180 mg/l

Malkapuram 110 58-180 m

Municipal
Malkapuram Bore 104 58-180 mg/l

Malkapuram Well 120 58-180 mg/l

Gorrivanipalem 100 58-180 g/lmg/l

Municipal
GorrivanipalemBore 95 58-180 mg/l

Gorrivanipalem Well 100 58-180 mg/l

Sriharipuram 145 58-180 mg/l

Muncipal
Sriharipuram Bore 125 58-180 mg/l

Sriharipuram Well 100 58-180 mg/l

Sridattasai Bore 135 58-180 mg/l

Sridattasai Municipal 130 58.180 /l

 200 150 100 50 0
Calcium Sample area Vs Calcium

Collected sample area

Figure: 4.6.calcium

The standard limits for calcium hardness is 75 to 200 mg/l. in the present study the

calcium ion concentration ranges from 58-180 mg/l. the maximum value is recorded in

sheelanagar well, anakapalle bore, naravawell . the minimum value is recorded in NAD bore.

There do not occur much adverse effects in living systems and may not lead to encrustation in

water supply in the body and for domestic use.

4.7.CHLORIDES:

The presence of chlorides in water can be attributed to the dissolution of salts in soil,

discharges from sewage, industrial effluents, contamination from refuse, leachate and sea

water intrusion in coastal areas . Apart from taste problem, its excessive concentration in

drinking water is not harmful to human beings.

Chlorides occur naturally in all types of water but the concentration is very slow in natural

water. Higher values of chloride indicate pollution of water and give undesirable taste .
In present study, the chloride concentration ranges as follows:

Zone name Range Standard as per

WHO
Tummapala well 0.531 0.25-10 mg/l

Deshapatrunipalem 0.4043 0.25-10 mg/l

Municipal
Nakkavanipalem Bore 0.359 0.25-10 mg/l

New Colony 0.163 0.25-10 mg/l

Municipal
RK Puram Municipal 0.171 0.25-10mg/l

Malkapuram 0.168 0.25-10 mg/l

Municipal
Malkapuram Bore 0.173 0.25-10 mg/l

Malkapuram Well 0.265 0.25-10 mg/l

Gorrivanipalem 0.310 0.25-10 mg/l

Municipal
Gorrivanipale Bore 0.359 0.25-10 mg/l

Gorrivanipalem Well 0.443 0.25-10 mg/l

Sriharipuram 0.180 0.25-10 mg/l

Municipal
Sriharipuram Bore 0.116 0.25-10 mg/l

Sriharipuram Well 0.163 0.25-10 mg/l

Sridattasai Bore 0.537 0.25-10 mg/l

Sridatta sai municipal 0.386 0.25-10 mg/l

Rkpuram bore 0.28 0.25-10 mg/l

 Sample area Vs Chloride
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
CHLORIDE
Chloride

0.1
0

Collected sample area

Figure:4.7.chlorides

The desirable amount of chloride according to WHO is 250-1000 mg/l. the values ranges

from 30-560 mg/l. The maximum is recorded in saradanagar bore and the lowest in narava

municipal. As per present studies samples do not possess less than the minimum requirement.

Ground water samples for aquifer were free from chloride and widely distributed in nature as

salts of sodium, potassium, calcium and enter into natural water through dissolution of salt

deposits. The presence of chloride concentrations above 0.5 ppm in natural waters should be

considered as evidence of pollution.

CALCIUM
PERMANENT HARDNESS
TOTAL HARDNESS (PPM)
CHLORIDE

ALKANITY
CONDUCTIVITY
PH
SAMPLES
 CHAPTER-V
SUMMMARY AND

CONCULSION
 SUMMMARY AND CONCULSION

With the sput of population, there has been intense as well as wide range of human activities

in direct conflict with the nature. This has to put severe stress on the natural water bodies

yielding pollution load on surface and ground water. The quality of life of living organism

depends upon the quality of water available. Intake of poor quality of drinking water leads to

widespread prevalence of water borne diseases, which continue to pose serious public health

problems. Although a lot of study has been carried out on the issues of water quality, the

present investigation adds a new dimension and an additional support to the existing concept

on contamination of drinking water sources and their management.

Ground water is generally considered as least polluted compared to other inland water

resources .Nearly 90% of the people in rural area depend upon the ground water. However,

improper waste disposal and unscientific anthropogenic practices over the years have

adversely both surface and ground water quality.

In order to address the issue, the physicochemical characteristics of samples in viza .

A total of 7 water quality parameters namely pH, alkalinity, total hardness, calcium,

magnesium , chloride ,conductivity by the following analytical methods of APHA compared

with WHO stamdards values of drinking water

While comparing the values of ground water quality parameters with recommended

standards it is observed that total hardness, pH, alkalinity , calcium , chlorides ,magnesium

are within the permissible limits.

On the basis of physic-chemical parameters analysis , ground water quality parameters

were observed to be fluctuating in south zone area of Visakhapatnam. Much of ill health,
which affects the humanity, can be tracked to lack of safe and wholesome water source.

There can be no state of positive health and well being without safe, potable water. From

disease important water borne diseases in the study area were recorded as viral fever,

gastroenteritis, malaria , diarrhea , typhoid fever and hepatitis .

Clean water is not luxury but a necessity with sensible policies water sources can be

protected for future generations. MOEF has notified that uniform protocol to maintain

uniformity in the procedure for water quality monitoring mechanism by all monitoring

agencies, pollution control board and other such agencies under water quality assessment on

17th JUNE 2005. Since adverse health outcomes are associated with ingestion of

contaminated water, lack of access to sanitation , contact with unsafe water and inadequate

management of water resources , necessary integration measures and compensated actions

should be taken to ensure that the public do not suffer.

 Conclusion

• The quality of groundwater plays a significant role in the crop productivity and

human as well as cattle health.

• Chemically related properties such as pH, TDS, TH are also discussed.

• Dissolved oxygen content is within the permissible limit except in Matampalli village

and its range in study area is in between 4-8mg/l.

• pH value in the study area is slightly higher.

• Normal range of alkalinity in the area of study is 500-1000mg/l and the average value

is 680mg/l.

• Alkalinity is quite high and it shows higher resistance towards changes in pH.

• Sodium is slightly more than the permissible limit.

• The average value of sodium obtained is 235mg/l which is more than the permissible

value.
CHAPTER -6
REFERENCES
 REFERENCES

 Adeyeye,E.I and F.O Abulude,2004. Analytical assessments of some

surface and ground water resources and ground water resources in alewife,

Nigeria.j.chem.soc.nig.29:98-103.

 American public health association (1975): Standard methods for

enumeration of water and waste water, 14th ed., American public health

association, inc., New York

 Annan.(2000):we the peoples. The role of United Nations in

21stcentury.millinium reporter of secretarygeneral. United NationsNewyork,

NY,USA.

 Alpha(2005):Standard methods for examination of water and waste water

21stend. American public health association and water pollution control

federation, Washington D.C

 Asbrand.M.1996. Ground water model for clarification of pollution

dispersion in near surface and deeper ground water level in the area of

irrigated fields, South Berlin. Landschaftscntwickl Unweltforsch,101,204-

257.

 Bertouille,S.(1978). Fertility of red deer in relation to area,age,body mass,

and mandible length, Springer Berlin,87,98.

 Cheggour, M., Chafic, A. and Texier, H.(1999). Bioaccumulation de quells

elements metalliques chez 1”huitrecrassostreagigs (Thunberg)

enelevatedams la lagune de oualidia (maroc): role des

 facteuresecologiquesETbiologiques. Societyfracases de malacolgie. Haliotis

28:31-44.

 Ch.SubbaRao, B. SreenivasaRao and A.V.L.N.S.H.Hariharan (2010).

Analysis of heavy metals in groundwater from Guntur (Dt.A.P.) Ijpwr Vol1

Isuee 4 (sep-Dec)-2010.Issn0976-111 xs.

 Colonel, D.J. and M.H. Brand.(2001). Nitrate Leaching a containerized

Nursery crop receiving trickle or overhead irrigation (technical report

ground water quality. Journal of environment quality) 3o:1564-

1574

 CPCB 2001.Workshop on water quality criteria

 Davis, M.L. and G.P.Chou.(1992). “Epa approach to development of LDR

standards for contaminated soil and debris”. Journal of the air and waste

management association 42(2):145-151.

 Edmunds and medley. (1996). Groundwater geochemistry and health: an

overview,

 Environmental electrochemistry and health. Geological society special

publications, 113, pp. 91-105.

 Federal Environmental Protection Agency(1991). Guideline and standard

for environmental pollution control in Nigeria. FG Press 238 pp.

 Fudge, r. (1998). “Sources of halogens in environment, influences on human

and animal health.” Environmental geochemistry and health , 10(2), pp. 51-

61

 Foster, S,S,D, 1998 Impacts of urbanization on ground water . Proc. Synt.

Hydro biological process and water management in urban areas, Duisburg ,

FRG, April 24-28, D1-D24.

 Gray, N.F(1989) biological treatment of water . Oxford university press

,newyork.

 Hammer, M.J(1986):Lab chemical analysis in water and waste water

technology. 2nd edition. Wiley and sons. New York. Pp 30-46.

 Huang , Y.Z., quean X.C., Wang , G.Q., Xiao, B.Y., Ran D.D., Fang,

Z.Y.,Wu, J.Y., Su, R.J and Zhang, F.E..(1985). “Endemic chronic arsenics in

Xinxiang.” Chinese medical journal. 98(3), pp. 219-222.

 Jain,c.k(1996) evaluation of groundwater quality is district hardwar. Journal

of environmental pollution. 16(10): 730737. Joshi, k.m. 1982 . Heavy metal

pollution in India, status impact.

 Marian AsentamahNkanshah, Juliet ofosuah and Sandra boakye

(2011):Quality of ground water in kwacha west district of Ghana.

Environmental research journal 5(2): 31-37, 2011, ISSN:1994-5396© me

dwell journals , 9-2011

 M.A. Manado and C.A. (2009) Anyakora research journal environmental

and earth sciences 2(1):39-43, 2010 ISSN:2041-0492© Maxwell scientific

organization , 2009.

 M.Tariq, M.Ali and Z, Shah (2006): Department of soil and environmental

sciences, NWFP Agricultural university, Peshawar characteristics of

industrial effluents and their possible impacts on quality of underground

water . Soil an environ. 25(1): 64-69, 2006.

 Nasrullah (2006): Pollution load in industrial effluent and

groundwater of gadoonamaze industrial estate (Gaia) swab, neap

vol.1, no.3, September 2006 , in 1990-6145.