International Research Journal of Environment Sciences________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 58 Assessment of Drinking Water Quality of Groundwater in Udhampur Industrial Zone of Jammu Province, J and K, IndiaKotwal Sumit and Slathia DeepikaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu-180 006, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 14th August 2015, revised 23rd September 2015, accepted 17th October 2015 AbstractThe present study deals with the effect of industrial effluents on the groundwater quality of Udhampur industrial zone in Jammu province, J and K. The ground water from hand pumps and springs in the industrial area is used for drinking and other domestic purposes by the local inhabitants besides its use for various industrial processes. Monthly water samples were collected from two hand pumps and two springs in the study area and the water quality was assessed by analyzing various physicochemical parameters during a period of one year viz. April, 2011 to March, 2012.For the present study, mean values of various water quality parameters were taken to assess site wise and depth wise variations in these two ground water sources. The study indicated that the ground water in both hand pumps and springs belonged to the Ca2+-HCOgroup with calcium and bicarbonate as dominant cation and anion. The collected primary data for various parameters has been analyzed statistically. Coefficient of correlation(r ) within the parameters of both hand pumps and springs has indicated strong positive correlations between parameters such as EC,TDS and turbidity; calcium and total hardness and; BOD and phosphate and strong negative correlation between pH and free CO; free CO2 and DO; and DO and BOD. The results of Paired t-test have revealed strong variations between the two groundwater sources in terms of parameters like water temperature, pH, turbidity, free CO, bicarbonate, BOD, chloride, magnesium, sodium, potassium, silicate, nitrate and sulphate. Water quality Index (WQI) has been calculated using twelve important water quality parameters and has shown water quality deterioration during monsoon season in both the ground water sources. The overall analysis of the data has revealed that most of the water quality parameters in both the ground water sources have exceeded the desirable limits but are within the permissible limit set by WHO and BIS. However, these may cross the permissible limits in future if proper preventive measures are not taken. Keywords: Coefficient of correlation(r), ground water quality, paired t-test, physicochemical parameters, water quality index. Introduction Groundwater constitutes 97 per cent of global freshwater and is an important drinking water source particularly in areas having either limited or polluted surface water resources. Besides it contributes in meeting the daily requirements of domestic, industrial and agricultural sectors. The rapid increase in agricultural development, industrialization and urbanization throughout the world has led to overexploitation and contamination of ground water, thereby, threatening its long-term sustainability. Groundwater quality variation of an area is a function of physical and chemical variations and is greatly influenced by geological formations and anthropogenic activities. The study of chemical budget of major ions has gained importance in ground water quality monitoring as it explains the origin of the ions in water and the level of the contamination by natural as well as anthropogenic sources. Discharge of untreated effluents and domestic waste water are considered to be the main anthropogenic factors responsible for ground water pollution and a number of research publications from various parts of the country are dedicated to the deteriorating ground water quality due to increasing industrial and waste water pollution4-5. Increase in concentration of various physicochemical parameters like BOD, COD, TDS, chloride, total hardness, sulphate, nitrate, iron and lead due to these activities not only pose serious threat to ground water but also to those using this water for drinking purposes6,7. There is an extensive literature stressing deterioration of water quality due to increased industrial activities8-11, risk of water-borne diseases due to contamination12-13 and the potential health hazards that may result from drinking contaminated water of the industries14-15. However, no such study has been carried out from this part of the country. Therefore, in the present study major ions have been determined so as to draw a conclusion on the natural or anthropogenic source of origin of these ions in the industrial area. Material and Methods Study Area: Udhampur is the fifth largest district of the J and K state situated in the southern part of the state and lies between 3234' to 3930' North Latitude and 7416' to 7538' East Longitude. Industrial area of Udhampur named as Integrated Infrastructure Development Project, comprises of more than 60 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 59 registered units comprising of cement factories, flour mills, oil refineries, petrochemicals etc.16. Most of the water supply for various industrial processes in the industrial area is through these ground water sources. Water Sampling and analysis: Monthly water samples were collected from two hand pumps and two springs located in the industrial zone of Udhampur for a period of one year viz. April 2011 to March 2012. The water samples were collected in poly-propylene plastic bottles and analyzed in chemical laboratory within four hours of their collection. Physicochemical analysis of water samples was done using standard techniques17. Air and water temperature were measured using mercury bulb thermometer (C); electrical conductivity, TDS, pH were measured by Century water/ soil analyser kit (CMK 731); turbidity was observed by turbidity meter (model 331 E); free carbon dioxide, carbonate and bicarbonate, DO, BOD, chloride, calcium, magnesium were analyzed by titration method; sodium and potassium by flame photometry and phosphate, silicate, sulphate and nitrate by double beam spectrophotometer. Also, the statistical tool SPSS version 17.0 was used to calculate coefficient of correlation(r) within various parameters of the two ground water sources. Paired t-test was computed using Microsoft Excel-2007. Weighted arithmetic index method has been used to calculate the water quality index18. WQI in the present study is calculated from the following equation: WQI =12n=1 W.qi 12n=1 Wi Where W is unit weight for the nth parameter and q is the quality rating18. Results and Discussion The analytical results of mean monthly variations in physicochemical parameters of groundwater samples collected from hand pumps and springs of Udhampur Industrial Zone and their comparison with various national/ international standards have been tabulated in tables 1-3. The statistical analysis of various parameters of these two sites viz. coefficient of correlation (r), paired students t test and water quality index (WQI) are shown in tables 4-7.Table-1 Mean monthly variation in water quality parameters of hand pumps in Udhampur industrial zone Parameter Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean SD A.T. (C) 22 34 34 35 35.75 35.25 31 24 23.5 21.5 25 23 28.67 5.92 W.T. (C) 23 22.5 24 24.25 25 26 27.75 23.75 24 22.5 24 24 24.23 1.48 EC(΅S/cm) 234.5 302.5 337.0 255.5 233.5 244.5 206.0 344.0 329.5 337.5 434.0 423.0 306.8 74.3 TDS (ppm) 142.2 184.5 204.7 155.4 141.7 148.6 125.1 206.7 199.8 205.4 260.9 256.4 185.9 44.55 Turb(NTU) 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.50 2.50 0.58 0.76 pH 7.44 7.64 7.39 7.30 7.35 7.19 7.34 7.63 7.67 7.57 7.41 7.04 7.41 0.19 FCO(mg/l) 14.50 13.16 14.71 35.70 18.41 20.79 14.62 19.73 18.18 16.01 18.40 29.41 19.46 6.68 DO (mg/l) 5.58 6.33 5.13 3.65 5.05 5.09 5.87 4.35 6.74 7.22 5.31 5.11 5.45 0.99 BOD (mg/l) 0.35 0.35 1.14 1.87 0.58 0.57 0.40 1.29 0.70 0.64 0.67 0.89 0.78 0.45 HCO(mg/l) 256.2 266.4 244.7 236.7 217.4 214.5 183.0 227.6 243.5 216.5 288.2 210.2 233.7 28.4 Cl(mg/l) 16.00 21.99 12.18 15.99 16.20 21.02 19.47 20.55 17.05 12.04 16.93 21.20 17.55 3.36 Ca2+(mg/l) 69.01 62.06 70.10 63.74 49.41 52.71 50.24 50.48 43.71 59.77 49.76 68.55 57.46 9.14 Mg2+ (mg/l) 15.10 7.52 22.49 15.94 17.56 13.12 9.31 24.98 28.50 15.61 21.09 9.72 16.74 6.51 TH (mg/l) 245.8 163.4 244.4 194.7 195.2 176.7 183.7 221.8 244.6 203.5 227.9 211.2 209.4 27.95 Na+ (mg/l) 20.50 27.00 29.45 30.05 27.45 27.80 16.45 23.40 22.65 16.85 24.10 25.35 24.25 4.53 + (mg/l) 2.50 3.15 3.70 4.20 4.20 3.25 2.45 3.40 3.30 3.35 3.50 3.75 3.40 0.55 PO4 3- (mg/l) 0.03 0.75 0.16 0.70 0.70 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.31 SiO(mg/l) 1.51 1.04 1.10 1.04 1.00 1.54 1.39 1.65 0.85 1.54 1.51 1.36 1.29 0.27 NO(mg/l) 1.13 1.35 1.11 1.43 1.51 1.15 1.79 1.14 0.53 1.06 1.09 1.91 1.26 0.37 SO2-(mg/l) 1.60 2.30 2.20 2.15 1.60 1.75 1.35 1.95 0.65 1.60 1.20 1.25 1.63 0.48 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 60 Table-2 Mean monthly variation in water quality parameters of springs in Udhampur industrial zone Parameter Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean SD A.T. (C) 22.5 33.75 36 35.5 35.5 35 29 23 22 20 24 22.5 28.23 6.47 W.T. (C) 20.5 20.75 22 24.25 21.5 25.5 26 22.5 23 23 20.5 19.5 22.42 2.05 EC(΅S/cm) 286.5 322.5 287.5 320.0 241.0 256.0 205.5 284.0 275.5 354.5 344.0 321.0 291.5 43.62 TDS (ppm) 173.6 195.6 175.6 193.7 146.2 155.3 125.7 172.4 164.8 216.0 207.7 186.8 176.1 25.96 Turb(NTU) 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.33 0.91 pH 7.15 7.45 6.86 6.35 6.40 6.89 7.17 6.80 7.11 7.02 6.87 6.91 6.91 0.31 FCO(mg/l) 42.49 25.08 55.43 93.31 88.74 31.81 24.87 34.86 31.37 43.40 47.88 51.77 47.58 22.57 DO (mg/l) 5.78 7.54 6.22 3.80 4.79 6.89 7.46 5.46 6.31 6.21 6.01 5.24 5.97 1.08 BOD(mg/l) 1.14 0.95 1.53 2.79 1.70 0.97 0.71 1.38 1.20 1.42 1.18 1.34 1.36 0.53 HCO(mg/l) 245.3 260.5 146.4 194.0 146.9 146.1 141.1 151.7 252.3 214.6 173.8 161.2 186.2 45.71 Cl(mg/l) 26.67 32.23 23.07 27.88 23.43 25.57 25.78 29.73 31.47 17.53 21.49 35.84 26.72 5.09 Ca2+(mg/l) 108.00 73.90 100.60 74.34 79.04 49.42 43.73 44.92 42.76 49.61 48.38 47.76 63.53 23.08 Mg2+ (mg/l) 8.77 5.67 22.75 11.43 12.63 9.13 6.77 18.80 23.32 11.71 9.59 7.48 12.34 6.04 TH (mg/l) 305.9 208.0 344.7 232.7 249.4 161.0 137.1 189.4 202.5 172.0 160.2 150.1 209.4 64.06 Na+ (mg/l) 21.90 37.10 34.20 31.00 30.35 33.40 19.90 25.35 23.95 21.25 25.25 25.45 27.43 5.62 (mg/l) 2.35 3.40 2.95 3.15 2.90 3.15 2.45 2.55 3.40 2.55 3.40 2.75 2.92 0.39 PO 3-(mg/l) 0.05 0.56 0.07 1.02 0.97 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.38 SiO(mg/l) 1.76 1.20 0.99 1.20 0.98 1.99 2.25 1.70 1.53 1.54 1.31 1.85 1.52 0.40 NO(mg/l) 7.63 7.43 6.80 8.10 7.69 6.70 6.38 5.68 3.53 3.80 6.85 7.90 6.54 1.51 SO2-(mg/l) 3.45 4.05 4.50 4.95 4.25 4.60 2.95 2.40 1.95 2.00 3.10 3.45 3.47 1.02 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 61 Table-3 Comparison of physicochemical parameters of two sites with various national and international standards MinMaxMinMaxWHO Desirable PermissibleBIS DesirablePermissible A.T. (0C) 21.5 35.75 20 36 - - - - W.T. (0C) 22.5 27.75 19.5 25.5 - - - - E.C.(mS/cm) 206 434 205.5 354.5 - 1500- 3000 TDS (ppm) 125.05 260.85 125.7 215.9 600 1000 500 2000 Turbidity 0 2.5 0 0.1 - - 5 10 pH 7.04 7.67 6.35 7.44 6.5-8.5 No relaxation 6.5-8.5 No relaxation FCO(mg/l) 13.155 35.7 24.87 93.30 - - - - HCO (mg/l) 182.96 288.235 141.1 260.5 300 600300 600 DO(mg/l) 3.65 7.22 3.79 7.54 - 5-7**- - BOD(mg/l) 0.345 1.865 0.71 2.79 - 5** - - Cl(mg/l) 12.035 21.99 17.5 35.8 250 600 250 1000 Ca2+(mg/l) 43.71 70.1 42.76 108.0 100 300 75 200 Mg2+ (mg/l) 7.52 28.5 5.67 23.34 30 15030 100 TH(mg/l) 163.35 245.82 137.1 344.7 100 500 300 600 Na (mg/l) 16.45 30.05 19.9 37.1 50 200 - - (mg/l) 2.45 4.2 2.35 3.4 10 12- - PO4 3- (mg/l) 0.02 0.75 0.02 1.02 - 0.1**- - SiO (mg/l) 0.85 1.65 0.99 2.25 - - - - NO (mg/l) 0.53 1.91 3.53 8.10 50 - 45 100 SO2- (mg/l) 0.65 2.3 1.95 4.95 250 400 200 400 *WHO (1997) standard, ** WHO (1992) standard Water and Air Temperature: Water temperature in hand pumps and springs showed narrow annual variation and ranged between 22.5C to 27.75C and 19.5C to 25.5C, respectively, while air temperature observed wide annual fluctuations ranging from a minimum of 21.5C and 20C during winter to a maximum of 35.75C and 36C during summer in the two ground water sources. Atmospheric temperature followed seasonal pattern of summer increase and winter decrease as reported by earlier workers19. However, water temperature observed comparatively low variations with slight increase during post-monsoon (September-October) and decline during winter in both the ground water sources. Comparatively narrow annual variations in water temperature indicated thermostatic characteristics of ground water as it comes out from sub-surface rocks20. WHO has not set any range for water temperature but it must be acceptable. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 62 Table 4 Coefficient of correlation(r ) within parameters of handpumps in Udhampur Industrial Zone A.T. (C) W.T. (C) pH EC (΅S/cm) TDS (ppm) Tur B(NTU) FCO(mg/l) HCO(mg/l) DO (mg/l) BOD (mg/l) Cl(mg/l) Ca2+(mg/l) Mg2+ (mg/l) Na (mg/l) (mg/l) TH (mg/l) PO4 3- (mg/l) SiO(mg/l) NO(mg/l) SO2-(mg/l) A.T. C) 1 W.T. C) 0.63 1 pH ** -0.90 * -0.72 1 EC ΅S/ cm ** -0.94 ** -0.84 ** 0.92 1 TDS (ppm) ** -0.94 ** -0.85 ** 0.91 ** 0.99 1 Turb (NTU) ** -0.35 ** -0.82 0.28 0.60 0.59 1 FCO2 (mg/l) 0.64 -0.02 0.28 -0.43 -0.43 -0.06 1 HCO(mg/l) -0.67 ** -0.99 * 0.76 ** 0.87 ** 0.87 * 0.80 -0.01 1 DO (mg/l) ** -0.83 -0.16 0.55 0.63 0.63 0.08 ** 0.95 0.21 1 BOD (mg/l) 0.27 -0.39 0.14 -0.02 -0.02 0.14 ** 0.91 0.36 * -0.75 1 Cl- (mg/l) 0.20 * 0.75 -0.55 -0.45 -0.45 -0.41 -0.61 * -0.73 0.37 ** -0.88 1 Ca2+ (mg/l) 0.02 -0.52 -0.16 0.20 0.21 ** 0.90 0.00 0.48 -0.12 0.03 -0.13 1 Mg2+ (mg/l) -0.64 -0.63 ** 0.90 * 0.70 * 0.70 0.09 0.13 0.66 0.19 0.49 * -0.76 -0.33 1 Na (mg/l) 0.60 -0.24 -0.37 -0.31 -0.31 0.39 ** 0.88 0.19 * -0.88 * 0.76 -0.54 0.52 -0.12 1 (mg/l) 0.32 -0.39 0.07 -0.05 -0.05 0.20 ** 0.92 0.36 * -0.79 ** 0.99 ** -0.86 0.12 0.42 ** 0.82 1 TH (mg/l) ** -0.86 ** -0.93 ** 0.89 ** 0.98 ** 0.98 0.68 -0.27 ** 0.95 0.48 0.14 -0.59 0.30 * 0.72 -0.13 0.1 1 PO4 3-(mg/l) 0.63 -0.18 -0.33 -0.35 -0.35 0.23 ** 0.94 0.13 ** -0.94 ** 0.85 -0.60 0.33 -0.01 ** 0.97 ** 0.9 -0.17 1 SiO- (mg/l) -0.48 0.35 0.18 0.18 0.17 -0.37 ** -0.90 -0.32 ** 0.86 ** -0.88 * 0.71 -0.41 -0.10 ** -0.97 ** -0.9 -0.01 ** -0.98 1 NO – (mg/l) ** 0.91 0.55 ** -0.97 ** -0.85 ** -0.84 -0.08 0.38 -0.59 -0.65 0.01 0.39 0.34 ** -0.86 0.56 0.1 * -0.7 0.49 -0.3 1 SO2-(mg/l) 0.64 -0.11 -0.59 -0.39 -0.37 0.49 0.58 0.06 * -0.73 0.42 -0.20 * 0.74 -0.48 ** 0.90 0.5 -0.23 ** 0.80 -0.7 * 0.7 1 *Significant at 0.05 level; **Significant at 0.01 level International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 63 Table 5 Coefficient of correlation(r ) within parameters of springs in Udhampur Industrial Zone A.T. (C) W.T. (C) pH EC (΅S/cm) TDS (ppm) Turb(NTU) FCO(mg/l) HCO(mg/l) DO (mg/l) BOD (mg/l) Cl(mg/l) Ca2+(mg/l) Mg2+ (mg/l) Na (mg/l) (mg/l) TH as CaCO3 (mg/l) PO4 3- (mg/l) SiO(mg/l) NO(mg/l) SO2-(mg/l) A.T. C) 1 W.T. C) 0.38 1 pH -0.60 -0.03 1 EC (΅S/cm) -0.62 ** -0.91 0.0 1 TDS (ppm) -0.62 * -0.90 -0.01 ** 0.99 1 Turb (NTU) * -0.76 0.29 0.46 0.06 0.08 1 FCO2 (mg/l) 0.58 -0.24 ** -0.90 0.18 0.18 -0.66 1 HCO(mg/l) -0.64 -0.95 0.20 ** 0.96 ** 0.96 0.01 0.03 1 DO (mg/l) -0.36 0.39 ** 0.90 -0.39 -0.40 0.52 ** -0.96 -0.23 1 BOD (mg/l) 0.45 -0.32 ** -0.93 0.30 0.31 -0.56 ** 0.98 0.13 ** -0.99 1 Cl(mg/l) 0.03 -0.62 0.41 0.27 0.25 -0.56 -0.12 0.48 0.14 -0.16 1 Ca2+ (mg/l) 0.45 -0.65 -0.33 0.33 0.32 ** -0.91 0.61 0.39 -0.56 0.56 * 0.71 1 Mg2+(mg/l) -0.67 -0.59 -0.17 ** 0.86 ** 0.87 0.39 0.20 * 0.73 -0.44 0.35 -0.24 -0.07 1 Na (mg/l) * 0.79 -0.26 -0.49 -0.08 -0.10 ** -0.99 0.68 -0.05 -0.54 0.58 0.52 0.90 -0.3 1 + (mg/l) -0.01 -0.39 -0.78* 0.56 0.58 -0.11 * 0.78 0.35 ** -0.90 ** 0.86 -0.39 0.23 * 0.7 0.1 1 TH (mg/l) 0.25 ** -0.80 -0.37 0.56 0.55 * -0.79 0.65 0.58\ -0.67 0.65 0.64 ** 0.96 0.2 * 0.7 0.4 1 PO4 3-(mg/l) * 0.70 -0.12 ** -0.95 0.03 0.03 * -0.71 ** 0.98 -0.17 ** -0.91 ** 0.95 -0.12 0.60 0.1 * 0.7 0.6 0.6 1 SiO(mg/l) -0.14 0.69 0.69 -0.66 -0.66 0.52 ** -0.85 -0.55 ** 0.93 ** -0.90 -0.13 -0.69 -0.5 -0.5 ** 0.8 ** -0.8 * -0.76 1 NO (mg/l) ** 0.85 -0.12 -0.46 -0.23 -0.23 ** -0.98 0.62 -0.18 -0.45 0.50 0.49 ** 0.83 -0.5 ** 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.69 -0.4 1 SO2-(mg/l) ** 0.96 0.12 -0.53 -0.43 -0.44 ** -0.91 0.62 -0.41 -0.43 0.50 0.28 0.67 -0.6 ** 0.9 0.1 0.5 * 0.73 -0.2 ** 0.9 1 *Significant at 0.05 level; **Significant at 0.01 level International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 64 Table 6 Paired Sample t-test for difference in concentration of various parameters of two sites Parameter Pair Mean N Std. Dev D.f T calculated P0.05 Remarks Air Temp C Site 1 28.667 12 5.922 11 1.39 0.193 NS Site 2 28.229 12 6.470 11 W Temp C Site 1 24.229 12 1.479 11 4.18 0.002 S Site 2 22.417 12 2.046 11 pH Site 1 7.412 12 0.192 11 5.96 0.000 S Site 2 6.911 12 0.309 11 EC (΅S/cm) Site 1 306.792 12 74.302 11 0.98 0.350 NS Site 2 291.500 12 43.619 11 TDS (mg/l) Site 1 185.925 12 44.555 11 1.01 0.334 NS Site 2 176.100 12 25.958 11 Turbidity (N.T.U.) Site 1 0.583 12 0.764 11 -2.83 0.016 S Site 2 1.333 12 0.913 11 FCO2 (mg/l) Site 1 19.465 12 6.679 11 -5.038 0.000 S Site 2 47.582 12 22.568 11 Bicarbonate (mg/l) Site 1 233.735 12 28.397 11 4.17 0.002 S Site 2 186.146 12 45.713 11 DO (mg/l) Site 1 5.451 12 0.988 11 -2.09 0.060 S Site 2 5.973 12 1.076 11 BOD (mg/l) Site 1 0.785 12 0.449 11 -6.91 0.000 S Site 2 1.357 12 0.527 11 Chl (mg/l) Site 1 17.549 12 3.361 11 -8.928 0.000 S Site 2 26.721 12 5.087 11 Calcium (mg/l) Site 1 57.460 12 9.138 11 -1.14 0.279 NS Site 2 63.535 12 23.075 11 Magnesium (mg/l) Site 1 16.743 12 6.508 11 5.20 0.000 S Site 2 12.335 12 6.044 11 Sodium (mg/l) Site 1 24.254 12 4.525 11 -3.96 0.002 S Site 2 27.425 12 5.615 11 International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 65 Parameter Pair Mean N Std. Dev D.f T calculated P0.05 Remarks Potassium (mg/l) Site 1 3.396 12 0.549 11 3.14 0.009 S Site 2 2.917 12 0.387 11 TH (mg/l) Site 1 209.414 12 27.954 11 0.00 1.000 NS Site 2 209.410 12 64.059 11 Phosphate (mg/l) Site 1 0.208 12 0.307 11 -0.692 0.503 NS Site 2 0.236 12 0.384 11 Silicate (mg/l) Site 1 1.292 12 0.270 11 -2.45 0.032 S Site 2 1.523 12 0.400 11 Nitrate (mg/l) Site 1 1.264 12 0.365 11 -14.07 0.000 HS Site 2 6.538 12 1.511 11 Sulphate (mg/l) Site 1 1.633 12 0.480 11 -7.81 0.000 S Site 2 3.471 12 1.022 11 Note- S= Significant, NS= non-significant, Table 7 Seasonal water quality index values for the two sites under study WQI Handpumps Status Springs Status Summer 50.97 Moderately polluted 49.67 Moderately polluted Monsoon 58.27 Moderately polluted 51.29 Moderately polluted Post monsoon 45.98 Fit for human consumption 41.13 Fit for human consumption Winter 51.98 Moderately polluted 45.92 Fit for human consumption pH and free CO: In the present study, low pH value in spring water (6.35-7.45) as compared to hand pumps (7.04-7.67) may be due to high free CO concentration in spring water. Seasonally, pH showed increase during summer (April-May) in both the ground water sources with monsoon (July-August) decline in spring water and summer (March) decrease in hand pumps. Strong negative correlation of pH with free CO in spring water (r=-.948; p0.01) indicates inverse relationship between the both the parameters which is already on record19. High free CO concentration in spring water may also be attributed to pollution caused by anthropogenic activities as these are open water sources and people use it for bathing, washing clothes and carry it for other domestic uses. The low pH in springs can also be related to presence of a cement factory nearby and also use of acid producing fertilizers like ammonium sulphate and super phosphate of lime as manure in the agricultural fields located in the catchment of these springs21. pH value in spring water was below the WHO22 recommended limit of 6.5 - 8.5 during monsoon. Electrical conductivity (EC), Total dissolved Solids (TDS) and Turbidity: Electrical conductivity/TDS varied between 206΅S/cm/125.1mg/l (October) to 434΅S/cm/260.9mg/l (February) in hand pumps and 205.5 ΅S/cm/125.7mg/l (October) to 354.5 ΅S/cm/216mg/l (January) in spring water. Seasonally, these parameters observed similar seasonal fluctuations throughout the year with winter (December-February) increase and post-monsoon (September-October) International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 66 decline in both the groundwater sources. EC has shown direct relationship with TDS and direct relationship between EC and TDS is already on record23. This is further supported by strong positive correlation of EC with TDS in both the groundwater sources (r= 0.99, r=0.99; p0.01). Turbidity varied between nil-2.5 NTU in both the ground water sources and observed winter increase similar to EC and TDS. Overall analysis of EC, TDS and turbidity for both the sites is well within the permissible limit of WHO24,25 and BIS26DO and BOD: Dissolved Oxygen varied between 3.65 to 7.22mg/l in hand pumps and 3.79 to 7.54 mg/l in spring water. Seasonally, DO observed an increase during post-monsoon (September-October) in both the ground waters with winter (December-January) decrease in hand pumps and monsoon (July-August) decline in spring water. Monsoon decline in DO may be due to infiltration of waste water of various industries units along with rainwater into the ground causing oxygen depletion. Dilution effect due to increase in subsurface discharge after monsoon during September-October may explain comparatively high DO record. Reduced microbial activity and high oxygen solubility at low temperature during winter may also explain December and January rise in DO. DO has shown an inverse relationship with free CO in the present study which is further supported by its strong negative correlation with both hand pump water (r= -.95; p0.01) as well as spring water(r= -.96; p0.01). Spring water showed higher BOD concentration (0.71-2.79mg/l) as compared to hand pumps (0.34- 1.86mg/l) as these are open water sources and are more prone to pollution. Seasonally, BOD observed high concentration during monsoon (July-August) and remained low during summer (April-May). Monsoon high record of BOD in spring water may be due to monsoon showers, when large quantities of dead organic matter infiltrate from top soil27. BOD is the indicator of organic load in a water body which is also confirmed by high concentration of phosphate in both the sites which also indicates anthropogenic pressures in water body. Strong positive correlation is observed between BOD and phosphate in the present study (r=0.85, r=0.95; p0.01). Overall analysis indicates that BOD range for hand pumps and springs is well within the permissible limit of 5 mg/L as prescribed by WHO24for drinking water. Cations: Among various cations, calcium showed dominance (43.71-70.1mg/l; 42.76-108 mg/l) followed by sodium (16.45-30.05mg/l; 19.9-37.1mg/l), magnesium (7.52-28.50 mg/l; 5.67-23.32 mg/l) and potassium (2.45-4.2mg/l; 2.35-3.4mg/l) in hand pumps and springs. In hand pumps, calcium, magnesium and total hardness almost paralleled in their seasonal pattern of increase and decrease and observed increase during summer (May-June) and declined thereafter upto October and again increased in winter with slight variations. In springs, only calcium and total hardness observed similar seasonal fluctuations with summer (June) peak and decline upto March. Magnesium, however, observed winter (November-December) increase. Hand pump water remained moderately hard (163.33-245.82mg/l). However, spring water was observed to be very hard during summer. In springs, calcium showed strong positive correlation with total hardness (r= 0.96; p0.01). Seasonally, sodium observed post monsoon (September-October) decline in both the ground water sources. Conservative nature of potassium may explain its low seasonal variation21. Sodium showed moderate degree of correlation with total hardness and potassium in springs (r= 0.77, r= 0.73; p0.05). Industrial and domestic wastes increase sodium and potassium concentration in ground water which otherwise are naturally occurring elements of groundwater. Increase in concentration of sodium and potassium as compared to earlier reports of NIH28 from Udhampur is therefore attributed to the increase in industrial units releasing effluents in the study area. Calcium and total hardness have exceeded the permissible limits of WHO25 in spring water.Anions: Anionic spectrum of groundwater showed dominance of bicarbonate (182.96-288.24 mg/l)/ 141.15 to 260.48 mg/l followed by chloride (12.035 mg/l to 21.99 mg/l)/ (17.53 mg/l to 35.84 mg/l), sulphate (0.65-2.3) and (1.95-4.95), silicate (0.85-1.65mg/l) / (0.99 to 2.25mg/l), phosphate (0.02-0.75mg/l)/ / (0.02-1.02mg/l), in hand pumps/ spring water, respectively. Hand pumps recorded lower nitrate concentration (0.53 to 1.91mg/l) as compared to spring water (3.53-8.1mg/l). High nitrate concentration in spring water during monsoon (July-August) may be attributed to the application of urea as a major inorganic fertilizer in the agricultural fields in the upper catchment of the spring which infiltrate along with surface runoff29. Variations in depth of hand pump and spring water may account for low nutrient concentration like nitrate and phosphate in hand pumps having allochthonous input which generally decreases with increasing depth. The present range of nitrate is well within the maximum permissible limit of 45 mg/L as has been set by WHO25 and BIS26for drinking water supplies. Phosphate values have exceeded the permissible limits in springs during most part of the year. Phosphate values reflected strong positive correlation with BOD, sodium and potassium in hand pumps (rBOD=0.85, rNa= 0.97, r= 0.90; p0.01) while in springs it showed strong positive correlation with BOD (rBOD= 0.95; p0.01). Comparatively high record of bicarbonate during maximum part of the year may be attributed to continuous absence of CO2-. Rise of bicarbonate with absence of CO2- is already on record19. The dissolved bicarbonate in the groundwater originates mainly from the biologically active layers of the soil where carbon dioxide is generated by root respiration and decay of humus that in turn combines with rainwater to form bicarbonate30. Bicarbonate showed strong positive correlation with total hardness in hand pumps (r= 0.95; p0.01) while weak positive correlation in springs (r=0.58). Silicate observed irregular trend of increase and decrease in hand pumps and springs, respectively. Sulphate was recorded higher during summer season and lower in winter months in both the groundwater sources. All the cations and anions in the present study have shown an increase as compared to earlier studies conducted by NIH28 on various springs and International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 67 wells located in the residential area of the town. Paired Student t test: Statistical analysis using paired sample student t test has reflected significant site wise variation between similar parameters of hand pumps and springs like water temperature, pH, turbidity, free CO, bicarbonate, BOD, chloride, magnesium, sodium, potassium, silicate, nitrate and sulphate which have their calculated values (tcalculated) greater than the tabulated values at p0.05 (table-6). The percolation of water into the soil is normally accompanied by filtration and the higher values of parameters like turbidity, BOD, chloride, nitrates and sulphate in spring water as compared to hand pumps may be due limnocrene nature of springs making them more prone to contamination from anthropogenic sources including both industrial and domestic. Water Quality Index (WQI): Twelve parameters viz., pH, TDS, total alkalinity, chloride, calcium, magnesium, total hardness, DO, BOD, sodium, potassium and nitrate were used for the calculation of WQI. Based on arithmetic WQI, ground water has been categorised into four categories18 viz. fit for human consumption (50), moderately polluted (50-80), excessively polluted (80-100) and unfit for drinking (&#x-3.3;ε ¦100). In the present study, WQI was observed to be high during monsoon season followed by winter, summer and post-monsoon in both hand pumps and springs (figure-1). The water quality index varied from moderately polluted to fit for human consumption during different seasons. Water quality index observation was high for springs as compared to hand pumps indicating more anthropogenic pressure on them resulting in their deteriorating water quality. Figure 1 Seasonal water quality index (WQI)variationsat two sites Conclusion The results of the analysis revealed that most of the parameters including various cations and anions in the present study have shown an increase as compared to the earlier studies conducted by NIH28 on various springs and wells located in the residential area of the Udhampur town. This clearly indicates that industrial growth in Udhampur has started affecting these ground water sources. Even though all the parameters have not crossed the permissible limits as per World Health Organisation22,24-25guidelines but they have almost reached the desirable limits and with the present pace of increase in industries in the study area they may soon cross the permissible limits if proper preventive measures are not taken. Seasonally, more contamination was observed during monsoon season which is in accordance with the studies conducted by earlier workers in different industrial areas. Also, these parameters have higher mean values at spring site as compared to hand pumps which may be due to open nature of these springs. This is also supported by results of paired sample t-test results which have revealed significant variation at the two sites among parameters such as water temperature, pH, turbidity, free CO, bicarbonate, BOD, chloride, magnesium, sodium, potassium, silicate, nitrate and sulphate. Water quality Index has indicated moderate pollution in ground water which may become unfit for drinking in the near future. Therefore, the authorities should take appropriate steps to check the ground water contamination in Udhampur Industrial area. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to Head, Department of Environmental Science, University of Jammu for providing necessary facilities during the present work. Financial assistance provided by Jammu University and University Grants Commission is gratefully acknowledged. References 1.WHO, Protecting Groundwater for Health: Managing the quality of drinking-water sources Ed. by Schmoll, O., Howard, G., Chilton, J. and Chorus, I., IWA Publishing, Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street, London, UK (2006)2.Subramani T., Elango L. and Damodarasamy S.R., Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Chithar River Basin, Tamil Nadu, India, J. Environ. Geol.47, 1099–1110 (2005)3.Subba Rao N., Seasonal variation of groundwater quality in a part of Guntur District, Environmental Geology, 49, 413-429 (2006)4.Jesu A., Kumar P.L., Kandasamy K and Dheenadayalan M.S., Environmental impact of industrial effluent in Vaigai River and the ground water in and around the River at Anaipatti of Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu, India, International Research Journal of Environment Sciences2(4), 34-38 (2013) 2535455565758595105115SummerMonsoonpost-monsoonWinterWater Quality Index(WQI) Handpumps Springs International Research Journal of Environment Sciences _____________________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(10), 58-68, October (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association 68 5.Siddiqui W.A. and Sharma R.R., Assessment of the impact of industrial effluents on groundwater quality in Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, India. E-Journal of Chemistry. http:// www.e-journals.net, 6(1), 41- 46 (2009)6.Deshmukh K.K., Environmental impact of Sugar mill effluent on the quality of groundwater from Sangamner, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India, Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 3(ISC-2013), 385-392 (2014) 7.Shaji C., Nimi H. and Bindu L., Water quality assessment of open wells in and around Chavara industrial area, Quilon, Kerala, Journal of Environmental Biology, 30(5), 701-704 (2009)8.Bhattacharyya R., Manoj K. and Padhy P.K., Hydrogeochemical evaluation of Groundwater of the steel city Durgapur, West Bengal, India, Research Journal of Chemical Sciences, 4(6), 1-12 (2014) 9.Nithul Lal K.P., Karthikeyan K., Praveesh V., Devi V. Suriyanarayanan S. and Vijay Kumar V., Drinking water quality assessment of ground waters of Bhachau - Kachchh, Gujarat, India with special reference to major anions and cations. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences, 3(5), 67-72 (2014)10.Yadav G., Pandey D.N. and Patel D.K., Assessment of ground water quality and its impact on health of people around Rewa City, MP, India, International Research Journal of Environment Sciences, 3(7), 70-72 (2014) 11.Shankar B.S., Balasubramanya N. and Maruthesha Reddy M.T., Impact of industrialization on groundwater quality – a case study of Peenya industrial area, Bangalore, India, Environment Monitoring Assessment, 142, 263–268 (2008)12.Kabbour B.B. and Zouhri L., Hydrochemical and bacteriological features of the groundwater: Southern border of the Rharb basin (Morocco), Hydrolog. Sci.–J.–des Sci. Hydrolog, 50(6), 1137-1149 (2005)13.Fapetu O.M., Comparative Analysis of Different Sources of Drinking Water in Abeokuta South L.G A., Ogun State (B.Sc. Thesis) UNAAB Abeokuta, Fawole MO, Oso BA: 44. Andhra Pradesh, India, Environ Geol., 49, 413-429 (2000)14.Jameel A.A. and Sirajudeen J., Risk assessment of physico-chemical contaminants in groundwater of Pettavaithalai area, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu – India, Environment Monitoring Assessment, 123, 299–312 (2006)15.Zaware S.G., Kumar V., Patil V. and Zaware P.S., Assessment of ground water quality and its impact on human health at Padghe in Raigad district, Maharashtra, India, International Research Journal of Environment Sciences,4(5), 57-61 (2015)16.http//www.udhampur.nic.in (accessed online on 20th September, 2010), (2015)17.APHA, Standard Methods: Examination of water and waste water. 20thEdn. American Public Health AssociationNW Washington, DC (1998)18.Brown R.M., Mc Cleil, Deininger R.A. and O'Conner M.F., A water quality index crossing the psychological barrier, Ed. By. H. Jenkis, Proceedings International Conference on Water pollution and research, Jerusalem, , 787-797 (1972)19.Wetzel R.G., Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems, Third Ed. Academic Press, London (2000)20.Saha S.K., Limnology of thermal springs, Narendra publishing house, Delhi,1-176 (1993)21.Jerome C. and Pius A., Evaluation of water quality index and its impact on the quality of life in an industrial area in Bangalore, South India, American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 1(3), 595-603 (2010)22.WHO, Guidelines for drinking water quality.2ndEdn.Vol.122 Geneva, 335 (1992)23.Rajappa B., Manjappa S., Puttaiah E.T. and Nagarajappa D.P., Physicochemical analysis of ground water of Harihara Taluk of Davanagere district of Karnataka, India, Advances in Applied research, 2(5),143-150 (2010) 24.WHO, Guidelines for drinking water quality. Vol.1 Recommendations, Geneva, (1997)25.WHO, Guidelines for drinking water quality.3rd Edn, Geneva (2008)26.BIS, Indian standard specifications for drinking water IS: 10500-91 (Bureau of Indian Standards) New Delhi, 1-4 (1991)27.Dutta S.P.S., Jandial N. and Khajuria M., Water quality at two spring sites and at sites before discharge into Nagrota Nullah, near Kashmir migrant quarters, Nagrota, Jammu, The Ecoscan, 4(2and3), 227-234 (2010)28.National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Surface and ground water quality evaluation in parts of Udhampur district, CS/ AR-28/99-2000, National Institute of Hydrology, Jal Vigyan Bhawan Roorkee (1999-2000)29.Bhat S.U., Pandit A.K. and Mudarith R., Limnological investigations of three freshwater springs of Pulwama district-Kashmir valley, Recent Research in Science and Technology, 2(2), 88-94 (2010)30.Drever J.I., The geochemistry of natural waters. 3rd Edn. Prentice Hall, New York (1997)