Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology & Life Sciences

Volume 1, Issue 2, January 2012: 01-06

Journal’s URL: www.bepls.com
Online ISSN 2277-1808
Original Article [Accepted 25 January 2012]

Assessment of Surface Water Quality for Drinking and Irrigation

Purposes: A Case Study of Ghaggar River System Surface Waters
Sukhdev Kundu
Department of Environment Science, Shoolini University, Solan-H. P.
E-mail: drkunud24@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT
Assessment of water quality has been carried out to determine the concentrations of different ions present in the surface waters.
Quality of surface waters of Ghaggar River system was evaluated for its suitability for drinking and irrigation purposes. The
quality assessment was made through the estimation of temperature, pH, EC, TDS, CO32-, HCO3-, Cl -, SO42-, PO43-, F-, Na+, K+, Ca2+
and Mg2+. A total of 31 surface water samples were collected from different sources viz., Ghaggar River and its point sources
(tributaries, choes etc.). Based on these analyses, some irrigation parameters like % Na, SAR, RSC and PI were also calculated.
Keywords: Ghaggar River, Drinking, Irrigation, Point sources

INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is a major sector in the economic development of India, as it is the source of livelihood for
majority of population. The Ghaggar, a major river of Haryana originates from the Siwalik Hills of
Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. The Ghaggar River flows from east to west and then takes a
southwesterly course. During its westward journey, a number of streams, streamlets, drains and
tributaries debouch their load into the Ghaggar. After flowing through Morni Hills before entering the
plains, the Ghaggar River is joined by the Kaushalya Nadi in the foothills zone. The small streams viz.
Kaushalya, Jhajra and Ghaggar get combined together near Chandimandir to form the main Ghaggar
River. Further, at downstream sites various point and non-point sources are joining the Ghaggar River
and discharging their untreated effluents into it. The area under investigation lies between North
latitudes 30˚00′00″ to 30°50′00″ and East longitudes 76˚11′24″ to 77˚07′20″ Area under investigation
covers parts of different districts of Haryana and Punjab like Panchkula, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Patiala,
Ambala and Kaithal (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Site map of study area

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 1|P a g e ©AELS, India

 Sukhdev Kundu

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For qualitative analysis, surface water samples were collected from 31 different locations situated in
between Badisher-Koti (Panchkula) to Bhadshapur (Patiala) stretch in the month of May (2006).
These samples were collected in clean polythene bottle of two-liter capacity. At the time of sampling,
bottles were thoroughly rinsed two to three times with water to be sampled. The physical parameters
such as pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) and temperature were measured
in the field using water and soil analysis kit (Electronics India, Model 16 E). Rest of the characteristics
of water samples were measured in the laboratory immediately after transportation to the laboratory.
Chloride (Cl-), sulphate (SO42-), phosphate (PO43-), fluoride (F-), carbonate (CO32-), bicarbonate (HCO3-),
sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and total hardness (TH) were
estimated using standard procedures [1]. To ensure accuracy analysis was done in triplicates and
mean value was taken into consideration.
To ascertain the suitability of water for irrigation purpose is a complex matter. In isolation, it has not
been possible to have agreed criteria on a universal basis. Some of the analyzed chemical parameters of
water were used to calculate irrigational parameters. The various constituents viz., EC, Na+, K+, Ca2+,
Mg2+, CO3- and HCO3- have been utilized by various agencies and workers to ascertain the suitability of
the water for agricultural purposes. For agronomic aspects major parameters of water have been
clustered in two classes namely salinity and sodicity [2, 3, 4, 5] that may affect the soil, plant and
human directly and indirectly. The different formulae were used to determine irrigation related
parameters.
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) takes EC and relative proportion of Na+ to other cations into
consideration for rating of water for irrigation purpose [6]; Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) by Eaton
[7] takes values of calcium, magnesium, carbonate and bicarbonate into consideration; and % Na by
Wilcox method consider percentage ratio of cations Na+ and K+ to all other cations to classify water for
irrigation. The permeability index (PI) method also takes percentage ratio of Na+ and HCO3- to all other
cations for irrigational classification of water.

SAR = Na+/ √Ca2+ +Mg2+/2

RSC (meq/l) = (CO32- + HCO3-) – (Ca2+ + Mg2+)
% Na = [(Na+ + K+)] × 100 / (Ca2+ +Mg2+ + Na+ + K+)
PI = (Na+ + √HCO3-) × 100 / (Ca2+ + Mg2+ +Na+ + K+)

Where, ionic concentrations of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium are expressed in epm.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Suitability for drinking
The physico-chemical characterization of the surface waters samples is given in Table 1. The analytical
analyses with computed values and statistical values like minimum, maximum, mean and standard
deviation are given Table 2 by using SPSS [8]. In surface waters samples, temperature ranges from 30
to 40°C with a mean of 32.03°C. In general, in entire Ghaggar river system surface water samples
temperature values crossed the prescribed range of WHO [9] for drinking water. Very high
temperature can be attributed to the climate factors prevailing at the time of sampling along with
meager flow in the river as well as in point sources. During the observation river water temperature
was also influenced by point sources high temperature containing effluents mixing. River water
temperature was affected by point sources wastewaters high temperature. pH of water varied from 7.3
to 8.6. In our study, water was showing slightly alkaline nature. pH of almost all the water samples was
within the safe limits except two sites. The electrical conductivity (EC) (µmhos/cm at 25°C) varied in
the range from 325 to 1632 with a mean value of 807.52. At various sampling sites point sources
wastewaters were affecting the river water conductivity. EC has a wide applicability with respect to
agricultural uses. But for drinking point of view high conductivity denotes proportionately high value
of calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. Total dissolved solids (TDS) varied from 212 to 1052
mg/l with a mean value of 523.23 mg/l. Water containing less than 500 mg/l of dissolved solids is
suitable for domestic use. Although the mean values of dissolved solids in water samples were rather
similar to the proposed WHO drinking water standard. High concentration of salts of sodium, calcium
and magnesium is generally responsible for high concentrations of TDS. The sources of dissolved solids

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 2|P a g e ©AELS, India

 Sukhdev Kundu

in water are natural as minerals in soils and anthropogenic as agrochemicals. Bicarbonate contents
varied from 200 to 365 mg/l with mean of 274.74 mg/l. 97% samples showed the bicarbonate values
within the prescribed limits. Chloride occurs in all natural waters in widely varying concentration.
Chloride normally increases as the mineral contents increases [10]. Water containing more than 250
mg/l of Cl- ion has salty taste. In our study, chloride is ranged from 42.6 to 235.8 mg/l with a mean
value of 104.06 mg/l. In our study, chloride concentration remains well within the prescribed limit.
The concentration of sulfate varied from 20 to 558 mg/l with a mean value of 94.1 mg/l. 94% of the
samples were within the specified limit. According to Raghunath, sulfate causes gastrointestinal
irritation if exceeded 250 mg/l level [11]. The excess of sulfate (more than 250 mg/l) may also reason
bitter taste and may have laxative effect to human beings and livestock at further higher level [12].
Very high levels of sulfates have been associated with some brain disorders in livestock. The
concentration of phosphate varied from 0.8 to 38.8 mg/l with a mean value of 7.47 mg/l.
Fluoride at a lower concentration at an average of 1 mg/l is considered as an important constituent of
drinking water. Small concentration of fluoride has beneficial effect on human body but high
concentration causes dental and skeletal fluorsis. In our study, fluoride concentration ranged from 0.02
to 0.96 mg/l with a mean value of 0.353 mg/l. River fluoride concentration was influenced by point
sources discharge at various sites. The concentration of sodium varied from 22 to 375 mg/l with a
mean value of 76.29 mg/l. Further, 16% surface waters samples were showing sodium concentration
above the prescribed limit of WHO. In our study, potassium ranged from 4 to 272 mg/l with a mean
concentration of 18.57 mg/l. Concentration of potassium was highly fluctuated. Further, 42% samples
show high concentration of potassium above the specified limit for drinking.

TABLE-1 RESULTS OF PHYSICO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GHAGGAR RIVER SYSTEM SURFACE

WATER
S. N. Temp. pH EC TDS CO32- HCO3- Cl- SO4 2- PO43- F- Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ TH
Units (°C) µmhos/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
1 30.0 8.1 327 212 ND 265 56.8 20 0.8 0.09 22 4.6 37.8 13.6 150
2 30.0 8.2 453 290 ND 265 56.1 22 0.9 0.07 24 4.6 41.6 15.2 166
3 31.0 8.5 502 325 10 215 49.7 25 0.9 0.13 28 4.8 48.1 18.5 196
4 31.0 7.8 720 465 ND 205 65.9 25 1.5 0.06 30 5.5 60.2 25.6 256
5 31.0 8.1 325 213 ND 200 42.6 36 4.2 0.05 25 4.7 38.5 17.1 166
30 5.6
6 32.0 7.3 716 463 20 335 99.4 0.43 40 9.8 70.5 34.6 318
7 31.0 7.4 618 499 20 255 63.9 35 4.5 0.22 26 5.1 56.1 22.4 232
8 30.0 7.8 612 396 5 230 53.9 42 6.2 0.02 27 6.2 34.5 48.2 284
9 31.0 7.7 594 385 20 260 59.7 37 5.7 0.14 25 5.8 44.9 31.5 242
10 31.5 7.9 455 294 15 230 67.5 48 3.2 0.18 25 4.8 47.3 29.7 240
11 30.0 7.9 452 290 ND 215 61.5 65 2.9 0.16 24 4.0 46.1 27.6 229
12 30.0 8.0 410 265 10 205 63.7 53 3.4 0.28 26 6.1 46.1 36.1 263
13 31.0 8.1 984 631 ND 285 235.8 85 5.5 0.35 87 21.5 85.5 40.8 381
14 31.0 8.1 514 335 ND 235 110.9 68 3.2 0.18 57 18.4 73..3 31.2 311
15 29.8 7.7 775 503 10 240 106.5 57 3.0 0.20 32 7.4 62.9 30.6 283
78 15.8 0.89 227
16 32.0 8.2 1189 762 ND 250 121.4 72.0 65.6 24.8 266
558 12.6 0.96 234
17 32.0 8.2 984 635 5 265 113.6 65.0 63.3 27.3 270
99 5.1 0.87 254
18 30.5 8.2 1387 889 5 265 114.7 22.0 60.7 25.2 255
19 30.3 7.8 1409 912 ND 225 157.2 95 4.8 0.32 56 18.0 58.5 25.3 250
20 30.2 7.7 1380 885 ND 225 144.4 86 4.2 0.18 50 16.0 58.0 24.5 246
21 30.5 7.9 1066 693 ND 230 142.9 80 3.7 0.27 49 15.4 56.0 21.4 228
22 40.0 8.6 824 532 ND 240 90.4 454 38.8 0.88 46 28.4 62.5 24.6 257
23 35.1 8.6 813 525 ND 245 109.5 97 8.9 0.64 42 19.5 58.4 24.1 245
24 34.2 8.3 795 515 5 220 106.2 87 8.6 0.52 40 27.0 55.7 20.6 224
25 33.5 8.1 756 488 ND 225 106.1 92 16.3 0.33 42 30.0 53.4 33.6 271
26 32.6 8.3 750 481 ND 215 102.2 89 9.1 0.31 42 22.2 52.7 18.7 209
27 32.0 8.5 732 470 5 250 101.8 84 7.5 0.23 40 22.5 51.5 18.2 204
28 32.0 8.2 765 490 ND 225 100.5 78 7.2 0.25 39 27.8 50.2 23.4 222
29 37.0 7.8 1632 1052 15 365 220.1 107 22.4 0.74 375 27.0 47.3 31.7 248
30 35.4 8.0 1076 670 ND 335 165.4 94 7.6 0.53 285 25.0 52.5 29.8 254
31 35.2 8.0 1018 655 ND 260 135.5 91 7.3 0.48 46 24.6 50.6 28.5 243
WHO 6.5- 500- 125- 250 - -
(2004) 12-25 8.5 - 1000 - 350 250 200 20 100 50 500

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 3|P a g e ©AELS, India

 Sukhdev Kundu

TABLE-2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ANALYZED SAMPLES

Parameter
Mean Std. Deviation Min Max

Temp 32.03 2.384 30 40

pH 8.032 .3124 7.3 8.6
EC 807.52 337.86 325 1632
TDS 523.23 215.29 212 1052
CO32- 4.68 6.82 0 20
HCO3- 247.74 38.79 200 365
Cl- 104.06 46.89 42.6 235.8
SO 42- 94.10 114.00 20 558
PO43- 7.47 7.56 .8 38.8
F- .353 .274 .02 .96
Na+ 76.29 92.3 22 375
K+ 18.57 16.13 4.0 72.0
Ca2+ 53.57 10.48 34.5 85.5
Mg2+ 26.59 7.49 13.6 48.2
TH 245.45 45.57 150 381

TABLE-3 EVALUATION OF GHAGGAR RIVER SYSTEM SURFACE WATERS FOR IRRIGATION

LOCATION CATEGORY
S. ↓ EC PI
No. PARAMETER→ (µmhos/cm) % Na SAR RSC
Quality on the On the basis of
basis of %Na SAR (USSL,
(Wilcox, 1955) 1954)
Excellent to
1 Badisher-Koti 327 26.37 0.783 76.57 +1.334 good C2-S1
Excellent to
2 Bijdoli-Ki-Doli 453 25.79 0.806 71.40 +1.014 good C2-S1
Excellent to
3 Thapali-Narda 502 25.52 0.871 60.25 -0.062 good C2-S1
Excellent to
4 Burjkotian 720 22.15 0.820 48.99 -1.739 good C2-S1
Kambali-Kaushalya Excellent to
5 Nadi 325 26.55 0.845 65.68 -0.041 good C2-S1
Kalka Dobighat-Jhajra Excellent to
6 Nadi 716 23.78 0.974 50.30 -0.221 good C2-S1
Excellent to
7 Surajpur-Jhajra Nadi 618 21.32 0.741 54.84 +0.197 good C2-S1
Surajpur-Kaushalya Excellent to
8 Nadi 612 18.89 0.693 45.20 -1.772 good C2-S1
Excellent to
9 Amravati (J+K) 594 20.30 0.696 54.75 +0.470 good C2-S1
Chandimandir Excellent to
10 (J+K+G) 455 20.01 0.696 51.27 -0.544 good C2-S1
Excellent to
11 Panchkula S-3 452 20.00 0.688 56.51 -1.049 good C2-S1
Excellent to
12 Dafarpur 410 19.62 0.696 46.25 -1.582 good C2-S1
Mubarkpur-Sukhna Good to
13 Choe 984 36.20 1.932 52.11 -2.932 permissible C3-S1
Excellent to
14 Mubarkpur-Camp 514 32.18 1.406 51.03 -2.369 good C2-S1
Good to
15 Bhankarpur 775 21.67 0.819 47.66 -1.403 permissible C3-S1
Ibrahimpur-Dhabi Good to
16 Nallah 1189 68.80 6.055 78.33 -1.212 permissible C3-S1
Permissible to
17 Toana-Jharmal Choe 984 68.62 6.182 78.63 -0.899 doubtful C3-S1
18 Tepla 1387 69.46 6.913 -0.589 Permissible to

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 4|P a g e ©AELS, India

 Sukhdev Kundu

81.29 doubtful C3-S2

Good to
19 Devinagar 1409 36.68 1.539 58.63 -1.301 permissible C3-S1
Good to
20 Nanheri 1380 34.48 1.387 57.85 -1.211 permissible C3-S1
60.84 Good to C3-S1
21 Utsar 1066 35.63 1.412 -0.789 permissible
Surala-Dhakansu Good to
22 Nallah 824 34.61 1.246 55.64 -1.216 permissible C3-S1
Good to
23 Surala-D/S 813 32.40 1.182 57.19 -0.879 permissible C3-S1
Good to
24 Maru 795 35.41 1.177 58.75 -0.702 permissible C3-S1
Good to
25 Devigarh-D/S 756 32.31 1.106 51.66 -1.731 permissible C3-S1
Excellent to
26 Mohamdpur 750 36.41 1.260 61.77 -0.645 good C2-S1
Excellent to
27 Tatiana 732 35.26 1.219 64.72 +0.195 good C2-S1
Good to
28 Rattakhera 765 35.15 1.135 58.99 -0.743 permissible C3-S1
Ratanheri-Patiala Permissible to
29 Nadi 1632 77.40 10.38 88.24 +1.533 doubtful C3-S2
Permissible to
30 Ratanheri-D/S 1076 71.95 7.773 84.32 +0.406 doubtful C3-S1
Good to
31 Bhadshapur 1018 35.06 1.282 59.10 -0.610 permissible C3-S1

The concentration of calcium varied from 34.5 to 85.5 mg/l with a mean value of 53.57 mg/l. Calcium
concentration in the water samples remained well within the prescribed limit. Magnesium is an
important and common constituent of natural waters. Magnesium salts are highly soluble and tend to
remain in solution following the precipitation of calcium salts [13]. In water samples, magnesium
concentration is varied from 13.6 to 48.2 mg/l with a mean value of 26.59 mg/l. The total hardness
caused by carbonates, bicarbonates, sulphates of calcium and magnesium and chloride varied from 150
to 381 mg/l with a mean value of 245.45 mg/l. Soft waters are those with a hardness of less than 100
mg/l; moderately hard waters those with range of 100 to 200 mg/l; and hard waters those range >200
mg/l. In our study, 13% and 97% samples were found in moderately hard and very hard category,
respectively. A number of other diseases correlated with water hardness include nervous system
defects, various types of cancers and prenatal mortality [14].
Suitability for irrigation
Chemical quality of water is a significant factor to evaluate the suitability of water for irrigation [15].
The concentration and composition of dissolved constituents in water determine its suitability for
irrigation use. Suitability of water for irrigation purposes depended on the effect of some mineral
constituents in the water on both the soil and the plant [6]. The development and continuation of
successful irrigation engross not only the supplying of irrigation water to the land but also the control
of salt and alkali in the soil. Some major calculated parameters with respect to the use in irrigation are
given in the Table 3.
The total concentration of soluble salts in irrigation water can be expressed in terms of electrical
conductivity for purposes of diagnosis and classification. In general, water having conductivity below
750 µmhos/cm is satisfactory for irrigation. Water having a range of 750 to 2250 µmhos/cm is widely
used, and satisfactory crop growth is obtained under good management and favorable drainage
system. In our study area, EC (µmhos/cm) ranged from 325 to 1632 with a mean value of 807.5. About
55% of surface water samples lie between range of 750 to 2250 µmhos/cm and good for irrigation.
Based on percent sodium, most of the samples fall in excellent to good and good to permissible
category only 13% samples fall in permissible to doubtful category. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
specifies the degree to which irrigation water tends to enter into cation-exchange reactions in soil.
Sodium replacing adsorbed calcium and magnesium is a danger as it causes harm to the soil
composition and becomes compact and impervious. Table 3 showed that out of 31 surface waters
samples, 48% samples fall into C2-S1 category, showing medium salinity hazard and low alkali hazard
water class and 45% samples fall into category C3-S1, indicating high salinity hazard to low alkali

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 5|P a g e ©AELS, India

 Sukhdev Kundu

hazard. About 6% samples fall into category of C3-S2, showing high salinity hazard and medium
sodium hazard.
In addition to % Na and SAR, the excess sum of carbonate and bicarbonate in water over the sum of
calcium and magnesium also influences the suitability of water for irrigation. RSC was calculated to
find out the hazardous effects of carbonate and bicarbonate on the quality of water used for
agricultural purpose. In our study, RSC values varied from a minimum of -2.932 to +1.533 meq/l. RSC
values remained negative for most of the samples, thus showing that the water was either good or
within the limit (<2.5) for use in irrigation. The prolong use of high RSC containing water affects the
yields of crop [16]. PI values varied from 45.2% to 88.24%. WHO used a criterion for evaluating the
suitability of water for irrigation based on permeability index values [17]. Based on PI values, 81%
samples fall in class (25-75%).

CONCLUSIONS
Summing up, it was observed that some of the samples exceeded the prescribed limit of one or other
parameter. Samples showed high concentration or value of some of the sensitive parameters like
temperature, potassium, sodium and pH. River water at most of the sites was highly influenced by the
point sources pollutants at the joining points. In the study area, point sources generally carry
wastewaters of industrial and municipal and agricultural runoff. Some anthropogenic activities like
river bed mining, disposal of treated and untreated waste effluents from industries along with
agricultural wastes may result in deterioration of water quality of Ghaggar River System.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Author is thankful to University Grant Commission (UGC), India for providing financial grant through
Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Senior Research Fellowship (SRF). The author is also thankful to
Chairman, Department of Geology (CAS), Panjab University, Chandigarh, for providing laboratory
facilities.

REFERENCES
1. APHA (2005). Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 21th ed. American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, USA.
2. Rhodes, J.D. (1972). Quality of water for irrigation. S. Sci. 113(4): 227-234.
3. Ayers, R.S. & Westcot, D.W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture. FAO of the United Nations, paper 29, Rev.1, Rome, Italy.
4. WHO (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Report of a World Health
Organization Scientific Group. Technical Report Series 778, Geneva, 77pp.
5. Kuchanwar, O.D., Kale, C.K., Deshpande, V.P. & Dharmadhikhari, D.M. (1999). Irrigation water quality and farm
management decisions. Wat. Sci. and Tech. 40(2): 227-234.
6. Wilcox, L.V. (1955). Classification and use of irrigation waters. US Department of Agriculture Circular No. 969: pp19.
7. Eaton, F.M. 1950. Significance of carbonate in irrigation water. S. Sci. 69(2): 123-133.
8. SPSS (2000). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 10.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
9. WHO (2004). Guidelines for drinking water quality (3rd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
10. Dubey, N. (2003). A comparative status of quality of drinking water of Bhopal city filtration plants and groundwater
with special reference to heavy metals and organo chemical. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Barkatullah University, Bhopal.
11. Reghunath, H.M. (1987). Groundwater. Second (ed.) Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi, pp 563.
12. WHO (1984). Guidelines for drinking water quality. Vol. 2, Health criteria and supporting information, Geneva, WHO.
13. De, A.K. (1994). Environmental Chemistry. (3rd ed.), New Age International Ltd., New Delhi, 364pp.
14. Stocks, P. (1970). Incidence of congenital malformations in the regions of England and Wales. Bris. J. Pre. & S. Med. 24(2):
67-77.
15. Gupta, D.C. (1989). Irrigational suitability of surface water for agricultural development of the area around Mandu,
District Dhar, M.P. India. J. App. Hydro. II(2): pp 63-71.
16. Raju, N.J. (2006). Hydrogeochemical parameters for assessment of groundwater quality in the upper Gunjanaeru River
basin, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Env. Geol., Springer-Verlag 2006, 10.1007/s00254-006-0546-0.
17. WHO (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Report of a World Health
Organization Scientific Group. Technical Report Series 778, Geneva, 77pp.

BEPLS, Vol.1 [2] January 2012 6|P a g e ©AELS, India