International Research Journal of Earth Sciences______________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res.J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 8 Groundwater Quality Assessment in Lower Tamirabharani River Basin Tamil Nadu, India Senthilkumar M. and Jeyavel Rajakumar T.Department of Earth Sciences, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 8th September 2014, revised 12th October 2014, accepted 23th November 2014 Abstract For analyzing the multiple thematic maps at a time, GIS is a prevailing tool. GIS investigation is carried out in the present study area to locate the best quality of groundwater zones in Lower Tamirabharani River basin. Totally 48 Groundwater samples have been collected from various places of Lower Tamirabharani river basin. Groundwater study of the area, water samples were collected in an area of 1255.26 km and analyzed for major cations and anions. The values of analyzed Groundwater samples are compared with WHO water quality standards. It is observed that, most of the groundwater quality values are not suitable for drinking purpose. ArcGIS was employed, to understand the spatial distribution of incompatible zones. Attributes were linked in ArcGIS and spatial interpolation mapping was done. To locate the best quality groundwater domain, GIS analyses are supportive. The final integrated map reveals that good for groundwater quality zones covered in area about 113.73 Km. Moderate class combinations cover an area of 702.30 Km. Bad and very bad class of groundwater is not suitable for the drinking purpose and covers an area of 335.26 Km and 103.97 Km. The saline area is differentiating using the EC groundwater quality data. Totally 72.92% of the samples are suitable for irrigation purposes. Compare to SAR and sodium percentage, 91.67% of the samples are within the acceptable limit and the groundwater is suitable for irrigation purpose. Keywords:GIS (Geographic Information System); spatial distribution Map; SAR (Sodium Adsorption Ratio). Introduction Groundwater is an essential natural resource. Depending upon its usage and consumption it can be a renewable or a non renewable resource. Groundwater is the world’s most extracted raw material with withdrawal rate currently in the estimated range of 982km3/yearIn many nations, more than half of the groundwater withdrawn is for domestic water supplies and globally it provides 25% to 40% of the world’s drinking water. Among the various reasons, the most important are non-availability of potable water in surface and a general belief that groundwater is purer and safer than the surface water due to the soil cover protective qualities. The quality of groundwater is the resulting the processes and reaction that act on the water from the moment it squeeze in the atmosphere to the time it is discharged by a well. Therefore, determination of groundwater quality is important to observe the suitability of water for a particular utilize. The problems of ground water quality are more acute in areas of which dense populated and thick industrialized area have shallow groundwater tube wells. Geochemical studies of groundwater provide information about the possible changes in quality as development progress. With help of groundwater geochemistry the Suitability of groundwater for domestic and irrigation purposes is determined. Anthropogenic activities can alter the relative contributions of the natural causes and also introduce the effects of pollution. Geochemical processes in groundwater involve the interaction of country rocks with water, leading to the development of secondary mineral phases. The principles governing the chemical characteristics of groundwater were well documented in many parts of the world5-12,. This paper examines the possible chemical processes of groundwater interaction in hard rock terrain. GIS has come out as a powerful technology for instruction, for research, and for building the stature of programs13-17 have conducted GIS based study and interpretation of groundwater quality data. The present study of groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed for various parameters such as, EC, pH, TDS, Ca, Mg, HCO, Cl, Na and K etc., the analyzed results were in use into GIS environment. Spatial distribution maps were prepared for the above parameters in GIS. Analysis of multiple thematic maps overlay carried out to find the bat suitable zone with respect to all elements. Study Area: The major portion of the study area falls in Tuticorin district and parts of Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu. It lies between 8°26’35” and 8°54’09” N latitudes, and 77°38’50” and 78°8’22” E longitudes covering an area of 1255.26 Sq km (Fig.1). Eastern part of the study area is coastal International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 9 Figure-1 Study area of Lower Tamirabharani River basin and Sample locations zone of the Bay of Bengal. The coastal zone includes recent age of coastal sand, calcareous sandstone with and without shells, clay, and kankar. The calcareous sandstone is seen at Kurumbur, Kayamoli, Ammanpuram and a few other places. Western part of the study area is underline by the Archaean crystalline rocks. The Archaean complex includes ridges of quartzite, charnockite, calc-granulite and the basement peninsular gneiss. Methodology 48 groundwater samples from open and bore wells of various locations which are extensively used for drinking and also irrigation purposes in the Lower Tamirabharani river basin area were collected during pre-monsoon season (May 2013). Power of Hydrogen (pH) and Electrical conductivity (EC) were calculated within a few hours of collection by using Elico pH meter and conductivity meter. Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg) and Chloride (Cl) were determined using standard EDTA and silver nitrate in volumetric analysis18. Carbonate, Bicarbonate and sulfate were determined with standard sulphuric acid and gravimetrically by precipitating Barium Sulfate (BaSO) from Barium Chloride (BaCl2). By using Elico flame photometer Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) was determined and Iron (Fe), Fluoride (F) and Nitrate (NO) were determined by standard processor19 The base map was prepared with help of toposheet number 58 L/1, L/2, and 58 H/13, H/14 on 1:50,000 scale. Their points are added and analyzed in ArcGIS software. The maps prepared in ArcGIS are correlated one over the other to find the best combination for groundwater quality. Results and Discussion Water Quality Analysis for Drinking Purpose: Groundwater hydro-chemical analysis data of samples for the pre-monsoon season are represented in table-1. The pH values of water sample for pre-monsoon are in the range of 6.28 - 7.74 representing an acidic to alkaline in nature. The same as per the20 standards, all samples fall within the recommended limit except 1, 22 samples (6.5 - 8.5) for human utilize. The conductivity value of the samples varies from 196 - 9360 ΅Scm. The TDS value varies from 137.2 - 6552 mg/l during the pre-monsoon season. Most of the Samples showed abnormal values of Conductivity and TDS (samples no: 1, 2, 10, 17, 20, 22) falling within the permitted limits. The alkalinity value varies from 52 - 2520 mg/l during the pre-monsoon season in 2013. The presence of carbonates (Ca), bicarbonates (HCo) and hydroxides (OH-) are the most common parameters of alkalinity in natural water. Bicarbonates signify the major form since they are formed in extensive amounts from the action of carbonates upon the basic resources in the soil. The groundwater sodium concentration in the study area varies between 22 - 942 mg/l. It can be observed from the tables, that sodium concentrations are very high in the groundwater of pre- monsoon season and unsuitable for some of the domestic applications. The parameters such as Calcium, magnesium, nitrate, total dissolved solids and total hardness in the groundwater are inter-related. Most of the samples are indicate for normal values of calcium, magnesium and total hardness within permissible limits and thus the groundwater is not much hard. Based on the WHO standard 1, 2, 10, 17, 22, 26 and 30 samples are high concentration or contamination of groundwater for calcium, magnesium, nitrate, total dissolved solids and total hardness ions. The content chloride value range from 24 - 1560 mg/I. 81.25% of samples falls within the permissible limit for drinking purpose20. Iron (Fe) concentration of the groundwater ranging from 0 to 4.2 mg/l, but most of the samples fell in not potable category. Fluoride ionic concentration of the present International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 10 investigation reveals that 56% of the samples fell in potable zone. Spatial Analysis of Groundwater Quality for Drinking Use: It is an analytical technique associated with the location study and their associated attributes (like table analysis, classification, polygon classification and weight classification). The Parameters of pH, TDS, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, SO, Fe, F and NO are prepared as thematic maps to describe. These were reclassified and assigned suitable weightages for the spatial distribution map preparation are given results (table-2). Data and Maps Analysis for drinking purpose: Each thematic map such as power of hydrogen (pH) figure.2, total dissolved solids (TDS) figure-3, calcium (Ca) figure-4, magnesium (Mg) figure-5, sodium (Na) figure-6, potassium (K) figure-7, chloride (Cl) figure-8, sulfate (SO) figure-9, iron (Fe) figure-10, fluoride (F) Figure-11 and nitrate (NOfigure-12 provides certain clues for the quality of groundwater. In order to collect all these information unified, it is important to combine these data with appropriate factor. Therefore, numerically this information is integrated through the application of GIS. Various thematic maps are reclassified on the basis of their weightage assigned, and brought into the "Raster Calculator" purpose of Spatial Analyses tool for integration. A simple arithmetical model has been adopted to combine various thematic maps. The final (Domestic quality) map (figure-13) expose that 113.73 Km area fall under good category and 335.26 Km, 103.97 Km areas fallowed by bad and very bad category, the rest of the portion in moderate quality of groundwater Table 3. This methodology it is highly helpful to assessing the best quality groundwater zone in the study area. Table-1 Chemical Composition of Groundwater (Ionic concentrations are expressed in mg/L and EC in ΅Scm-1Station Ca Mg Na K Fe HCO3 CO3 SO4 Cl F pH EC* TDS K. Ratio RSC* SAR* Na% TH Pullaveli 716 178 880 90 3.5 2817.26 0.00 280 1380 3.2 6.28 8740 6118 0.76 -4.18 7.63 44.62 3580 Pazhayakayal 182 50 254 27 1.8 638.03 0.00 120 424 1.2 6.92 2480 1736 0.84 -2.71 4.30 47.14 910 Agaram 95 29 151 17 1.5 493.57 0.00 52 176 2.5 7.34 1452 1016 0.92 0.97 3.48 49.61 476 Arasankulam 49 18 78 10 0.3 305.25 0.00 36 64 2.8 7.56 719 503 0.86 1.08 2.42 48.13 246 Sakkamalpuram 58 20 90 11 0.3 299.19 0.00 64 88 3.5 7.58 844 591 0.87 0.40 2.62 48.33 288 Siruthondanallur 71 23 112 13 3.8 458.34 0.00 27 92 1.6 7.47 1062 743 0.89 2.06 2.95 48.90 356 Sethukkuvaithan 27 13 48 7 0.2 222.08 0.00 6 32 0.4 7.64 424 297 0.88 1.25 1.93 48.84 136 MelaAuthoor 48 17 70 9 4.2 285.86 0.00 28 64 0.4 7.59 638 447 0.80 0.88 2.20 46.16 238 Kattalankulam 62 21 96 12 0.3 386.81 0.00 28 84 0.6 7.44 896 627 0.86 1.50 2.67 47.92 312 Pandaravilai 220 59 359 38 2.5 712.18 0.00 150 624 2.2 6.89 3530 2471 0.99 -4.14 5.55 51.18 1100 Perunkulam 53 19 77 10 1.6 317.46 0.00 36 64 1.2 7.52 708 496 0.80 1.03 2.31 46.24 264 Petmanagaram 54 19 85 11 1.4 325.41 0.00 32 80 1.0 7.46 792 554 0.87 1.05 2.53 48.13 272 Srivaikundam 51 18 81 10 0.5 284.09 0.00 40 84 2.0 7.53 754 528 0.87 0.60 2.48 48.34 256 Mottachikudiyiruppu 47 17 71 9 1.8 282.74 0.00 32 64 1.4 7.42 651 456 0.82 0.85 2.25 46.79 236 Tholappanpannai 38 15 75 9 0.3 247.33 0.00 28 72 1.8 7.47 689 482 1.03 0.89 2.59 52.49 192 Sivaganapuram 78 25 112 13 0.3 433.21 0.00 65 96 0.2 7.33 1060 742 0.82 1.15 2.82 46.66 392 Manakkadu 184 50 266 29 2.4 717.79 0.00 90 424 2.8 7.02 2598 1819 0.87 -1.54 4.48 48.01 920 Piramayapuram 51 18 74 9 0 349.24 0.00 22 48 1.6 7.48 684 479 0.80 1.66 2.27 46.13 256 Varatharajapuram 51 18 75 10 3.0 292.86 0.00 30 76 1.4 7.54 691 484 0.80 0.74 2.29 46.36 256 Sivakalai 10 6 22 4 0 76.56 0.00 6 24 0.4 7.29 196 137 0.96 0.26 1.36 51.74 48 Therikudiyiruppu 11 9 32 5 0 101.52 0.00 12 32 0.6 7.35 264 185 1.11 0.39 1.77 54.78 56 Pitchivilai 842 208 942 96 1.8 3166.26 0.00 320 1560 1.2 6.35 9360 6552 0.69 -7.24 7.53 42.34 4210 Vellamadam 71 23 130 15 0.3 333.75 0.00 24 196 1.0 7.42 1242 869 1.04 0.02 3.43 52.58 356 Punnaiyadi 73 23 127 15 0.2 434.68 0.00 90 88 0.2 7.36 1214 850 1.00 1.56 3.32 51.54 364 Mookuperi 85 26 125 14 0.3 454.01 0.00 76 112 2.2 7.44 1185 830 0.85 1.04 3.03 47.47 424 Sundapuram 224 60 305 33 1.5 774.97 0.00 130 524 1.0 6.85 2990 2093 0.82 -3.39 4.67 46.69 1120 Thoppur 74 24 110 13 0.2 359.48 0.00 40 144 1.2 7.41 1039 727 0.84 0.22 2.84 47.39 372 Kulathukudiyiruppu 72 23 113 13 0.2 385.52 0.00 40 128 2.6 7.3 1070 749 0.89 0.81 2.96 48.82 360 Athinathapuram 54 19 89 11 0 343.06 0.00 85 36 1.4 7.28 825 578 0.90 1.34 2.63 49.07 272 Athalikulam 118 34 193 21 0.6 521.01 0.00 60 280 1.0 7.06 1872 1310 0.96 -0.20 4.02 50.58 592 Kuppapuram 94 28 166 19 0.2 314.16 0.00 68 288 1.2 7.42 1596 1117 1.03 -1.86 3.85 52.26 468 Serakulam 138 39 212 23 1.2 522.62 0.00 90 336 1.6 7.01 2060 1442 0.91 -1.54 4.10 49.27 690 Udayarkulam 144 41 230 25 0.8 566.39 0.00 110 340 0.4 6.94 2240 1568 0.95 -1.24 4.36 50.28 720 Vallakulam 50 18 76 10 0 291.28 0.00 27 76 1.8 7.67 696 487 0.83 0.83 2.34 47.22 248 Makilchipuram 66 22 89 11 0 408.98 0.00 29 68 0.2 7.42 833 583 0.77 1.64 2.44 45.12 328 Ariyanayagipuram 54 19 85 11 3.6 293.07 0.00 36 96 1.8 7.42 793 555 0.87 0.52 2.53 48.16 272 Kalvi 82 26 128 15 0.3 425.11 0.00 56 144 2.8 7.44 1224 857 0.90 0.74 3.16 48.90 412 Athichanallur 49 18 72 9 0 327.93 0.00 25 48 1.8 7.28 658 461 0.80 1.48 2.24 46.31 244 Achimadam 87 27 122 14 0.2 436.94 0.00 80 120 2.2 7.35 1155 809 0.80 0.59 2.92 46.23 436 Saithunganallur 118 34 196 22 1.4 558.89 0.00 40 276 2.6 7.37 1904 1333 0.98 0.48 4.10 51.15 588 Maruthakulam 69 23 96 12 0 438.26 0.00 36 64 1.2 7.42 896 627 0.79 1.90 2.56 45.73 344 Ulakudi 40 16 63 8 0 248.69 0.00 22 60 1.6 7.54 569 398 0.83 0.80 2.14 47.33 200 Karaimanakkadu 52 18 76 10 0 332.08 0.00 30 56 0.8 7.48 696 487 0.80 1.33 2.29 46.19 260 Nanalkadu 45 17 69 9 0.3 309.14 0.00 22 48 0.6 7.35 632 442 0.83 1.43 2.23 47.06 226 Kaliyavoor 65 22 92 11 0 362.07 0.00 90 52 1.8 7.4 856 599 0.80 0.93 2.52 46.02 324 Fatimakovai 26 12 47 7 0 204.47 0.00 6 36 0.2 7.62 410 287 0.90 1.07 1.92 49.32 128 Keelanatham 28 13 52 7 0 218.58 0.00 9 40 0.2 7.74 462 323 0.93 1.14 2.05 50.11 140 Palayanchettikulam 45 17 72 9 0.2 266.10 0.00 28 72 1.0 7.38 659 461 0.87 0.75 2.33 48.19 224 EC* – Electrical conductivity, RSC* – Residual Sodium Carbonate, SAR* – Sodium Adsorption, Ratio, TH* - Total Hardness International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 11 Table-2-Chemical Quality – GIS Spatial Distribution Results Elements Acceptable Area in Km 2 Allowable Area in Km 2 Not Potable Area in Km 2 Power of Hydrogen (pH) 1251.17 - 4.10 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 137.51 933.90 183.86 Calcium (Ca) 648.49 502.47 104.31 Magnesium (Mg) 876.88 253.91 124.47 Sodium (Na) 1122.14 - 133.14 Potassium (K) 160.19 - 1095.08 Chloride (Cl) 972.46 - 282.81 Sulphate (SO 4 ) 1255.28 - - Iron (Fe) 316.27 - 939.01 Fluoride (F) 754.53 - 500.75 Nitrate (NO 3 ) 1118.45 - 136.82 Figure-2 pH Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-3 TDS Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-4 Calcium Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-5 Magnesium Quality – Spatial Distribution Map International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 12 Figure-6 Sodium Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-7 Potassium Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-8 Chloride Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-9 Sulphate Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-10 Fe Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Figure-11 F Quality – Spatial Distribution Map International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 13 Table-3 Result of Final Groundwater Quality Zones Sl.No. Class Area in Km 2 1 Good 113.73 2 Moderate 702.30 3 Bad 335.26 4 Very bad 103.97 Figure-12 NO Quality – Spatial Distribution Map Water Quality Analysis for the purpose of Irrigation: Groundwater always contains assessable quantities of dissolved substances, which are called salts. The salts present in the water, besides affecting the growth of the plants directly, affect the soil structure, permeability and aeration, which indirectly affect the plant growth. The total concentration of soluble salts in irrigation water can be expressed for the purpose of classification (Table 4) as follows: less than 250 ΅ Scm-1were classified as low salinity area. These area’s crops yield is low. Second and third categories of groundwater are suitable for all crop cultivation and respectable yield. Final class of the groundwater must be not suitable for irrigational purposes due to very high salinity. The sodium or alkali hazard limit for irrigation is determined by the absolute and relative concentration of cations and is expressed in terms of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). There is a significant relationship between SAR values of irrigation water and the extent to which sodium is absorbed by the soil. If groundwater used for irrigation is high in sodium and low in calcium, the cation-exchange complex may become saturated with sodium. This can destroy the soil structure owing to dispersion of the clay particles21. SAR = NaCa+Mg (1) A simple method of evaluating high sodium water is the SAR. Calculating the SAR for given water provides a useful index of the sodium hazard of that water for soils and crops. A low SAR value (2 - 10) indicates little danger from sodium; 10-18 indicating medium hazards; high hazards are between 18 - 26 and very high hazards more than 26. The lower the ionic strength of the solution is greater the sodium hazards for a given SAR. The value of SAR in the groundwater samples of the study area ranges from 1.36 - 7.63 during pre-monsoon seasons (Table 5). Based on the table, the groundwater of the study area falls under the category of small danger except four samples (7, 20, 21, and 46). Water which have high sodium may produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in most soils and will require special soil management like good drainage, high leaching, and organic matter additions21. Calculating the Sodium Percentage; Na% = Na+KΧ100Ca+Mg+Na+K (2) All ionic concentrations are expressed in Millieqivalent per litre. The sodium percentage in the study area varies from 52.04 - 56.85. As per the Bureau of Indian Standards, 1991 standards, a sodium percentage of 60 is the maximum recommended limit for water in irrigation. The high value sodium saturation in the water samples directly causes calcium deficiency. Table-4 Groundwater Electrical Conductivity Classification for Irrigational PurposeSl. No. Conductivity (΅Scm - 1 ) Class No. of Samples Total No. of Sample Percentage 1 250 Low Salinity Zone 20 1 2.08 2 250-750 Medium Salinity Zone 4,7,8,11,14,15,18,19,21,34, 38,42,43,44,46,47,48 17 35.42 3 750-2250 High Salinity Zone 5,6,9,12,13,16,23,24,25,27, 28,29,35,36,37,39,41,45 18 37.50 4 2250-5000 Very High Salinity Zone 1,2,3,10,17,22,26,30,31, 32,33,40 12 25.00 International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 14 Table-5 Groundwater Classification for Irrigational PurposeSl.No. SAR Value Class No. of Samples Total No. of Sample Percentage 1 2 Good 7,20,21,46 4 8.33 2 - 10 Little danger 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,48 44 91.67 2 10 - 18 Medium hazards - - - 3 18 - 26 High hazards - - - 4 � 26 Very high hazards - - - Figure-13 Drinking Purposes Groundwater Quality Map Conclusions The parameters of groundwater quality in the study area with reference to the21 standards, were used to prepare the spatial distribution map. The final integrated map figure - 13 reveals that good for groundwater quality zones covered in area about 113.73 Km. Moderate class combinations cover an area of 702.30 Km. Bad and very bad class of groundwater is unsuitable for the drinking use and covers an area of 335.26 Km and 103.97 Km. The saline area is demarcated using the EC groundwater quality data. The 72.92% of the samples are suitable for irrigation purposes. With respect to SAR and sodium percentage, more than 91.67% of the samples are fall within the permissible limit and finally the groundwater is suitable for irrigation purpose. References 1.Nickson RT, Mcarthur JM, Shrestha B, Kyaw-Nyint TO and Lowry D, Arsenic and other drinking water quality issues, Muzaffargarh District, Pakistan, Appl Geochem, 55–68 (2005) 2.Mishra PC, Behera PC and Patel RK, Contamination of water due to major industries and open refuse dumping in the steel city of Orissa–a case study., J Environ Sci Eng,47(2),141–154 (2005) 3.Shivran HS, Dinesh kumar d and Singh RV, Improvement of water quality though biological denitrification., J Environ Sci Eng,48(1), 57–60 (2006) 4.Whittemore DO, Greggor KMM and Marotz GA, Effects of variations in recharge on groundwater quality, J Hydrol106, 131–145 (1989) 5.Frape S.K., Fritz P. and Mcnutt R.H., Water rock interaction and chemistry of groundwaters from the Canadian Shield, Geochem, Cosmochim. Acta,48, 1617–1627 (1984) 6.Garrels R.M. and Christ C.L., Solutions, Minerals and Equilibria. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y., 450 (1965) 7.Herczeg A.L., Torgersen T., Chivas A.R. and Habermehl M.A., Geochemistry of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin, Australia., Jour. Hydrology,126, 225–245 (1991) 8.Kimblin R.T., The chemistry and origin of groundwater in Triassic sandstone and Quaternary deposits, Northwest England and some U.K. comparisons., Jour. Hydrology,172, 293–311 (1995) 9.Pawar N.J., Geochemistry of carbonate precipitation from the grounwaters in basaltic aquifers, An equilibrium thermodynamic approach, Jour. Geol. Soc. India,41, 119–131 (1993) 10.Raju K.C.B., Importance of recharging depleted aquifers, State of the art of artificial recharge in India., Jour. Geol. Soc. India,51, 429–454 (1998) 11.Som. S.K. and Bhattacharya A.K., Groundwater geochemistry of recent weathering at Panchpatmali bauxite bearing plateau, Koraput district, Orissa., Jour. Geol. Soc. India,40, 453–461 (1992) 12.Swaine S. and Schneider P.J., The chemistry of surface water in prairie ponds, Am. Chem. Soc. Adv. Chem. Ser., International Research Journal of Earth Sciences____________________________________________________ ISSN 2321–2527 Vol. 2(10), 8-15, November (2014) Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. International Science Congress Association 15 106, 99–104 (1971) 13.Wicks C.M. and Herman J.S., The effect of a confining unit on the geochemical evolution of groundwater in the Upper Floridan aquifer system, Jour. Hydrology,153, 139–155 (1994) 14.Baker Thomas R. and Case Steven B., Let GIS be your guide, The Science Teacher,67(7), 24-26, http://kangis.org/ learning/publications/ science_teacher/ print/tst 0010_24. Pdf, (2000) 15.Longley Paul A., The academic success of GIS in geography: Problems and prospects, Journal of Geographical Systems, 2(1), 37–42 (2000) 16.Openshaw S.A., view on the crisis in geography, or using GIS to put humpty-dumpty back together again, Environment and Planning,23(5), 621-628 (1991) 17.Saraf A.K., Gupta R.P., Jain R.K. and Srivastava N.K., GIS based processing and interpretation of ground water quality data, Proceedings of Regional workshop on Environmental Aspects of Ground water Development, 17-19, Kurukshetra, India, (1994) 18.Volgel A.I., A Text Book of Quantitative Inorganic Analysis including Elementary Instrumental Analysis. 3rdEdn., Elbs/Longman, 121 (1968) 19.Apha (American Public Health Association) Standard methods for the Examination of water and wastewater, 19th eds. Public Health Association, Washington, DC,(1996) 20.WHO, Guideline for drinking water quality. Vol.1. Recommendation, WHO, Genero, 1-4 (2010) 21.Raghunath H.M., Ground Water. 2nd ed. New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers, New Delhi, (1987)