Research Journal of Chemical Sciences ______________________________________________ ISSN 2231-606X Vol. 2(7), 79-81, July (2012) Res.J.Chem.Sci. International Science Congress Association 79 Short Communication Water Quality Monitoring of Groundwater Resources around Sugar Factory, Near East-West Champaran Border, Bihar, IndiaRanjan Rakesh PG Department of Chemistry, M.S. College, Motihari, BRABU Muzaffarpur, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in Received 23rd March 2012, revised 27th March 2012, accepted 2nd April 2012Abstract Ground water is an essential and vital component of our life. It is used for drinking, irrigation and industrial purposes etc. but due to fast urbanization and industrialization, ground water resources are under stress. The present investigation has been carried out to know the ground water quality around sugar factory of East and West Champaran Bihar. The parameters monitors was within the permissible limits prescribed by WHO, USPHS and BIS. Key words: Ground water, vital, East and West Champaran. Introduction Water quality is of vital concern for mankind as it is directly related with human welfare. Groundwater is water that is found underground in the cracks and spaces in soil, sand and rock and its supplies are replenished, or recharged, by rain and snow melt. In some areas of the world, people face serious water shortages because groundwater is used faster than it is naturally replenished. In other areas groundwater is polluted by human activities. Groundwater is used for drinking water by more than 50 percent of the world’s population, including almost everyone who lives in rural areas. The largest use for groundwater is to irrigate crops. Hence, quality of ground water is very important. Generally it is polluted by anthropogenic sources (i.e. domestic waste, garbage, fertilizers and industrial waste) and acid rain. So it is necessary to monitor regularly to minimize the pollution. The present investigation reveals the quality of ground water around sugar factory near Sagauli (E.Champaran) and Majhaulia (W.Champaran). The location selected for investigation is due to the people residing around were totally depends upon Bore wells. Material and Methods Ground water sample were collected from four different spots (S1, S2, S3 and S4) of two places around sugar factory near East-West Champaran, Bihar, India. The sampling spots are about 1 to 1.5 km from sugar factory. All the monitoring work has been carried out during September-2011 to February-2012 in the laboratory. The parameters pH, EC, TDS, hardness, DO, COD, free NH, iron and chloride etc. were monitored. All these parameters were monitored by using standard methods and instruments available in the laboratory. Results and Discussion All the data obtained in the investigation is given in table-1 (Sagauli- S1 and S2) and table-2 (Majhaulia- S3 and S4). pH: It indicates the contamination and acidification of water. pH at spot S1 and S2 were vary from 7.1 to 7.9 and at spot S3 and S4 it was also 7.1 to 7.9 but the months were different. EC: Conductivity gives an idea of the total solids content of water. Its value ranges from 635 to 772 ppm at spot S1 and S2 while at S3 and S4 it was 672 to 775 ppm. TDS: Total dissolved solids (TDS) are the total amount of moving charged particles dissolved in a given volume of water. High TDS results in undesirable taste which is salty, bitter or metallic. High TDS indicates hard water. Its value varied from 310 to 395 at spot S1 and S2 while at spot S3 and S4 was 315 to 361. Hardness: Hardness indicates the concentration of Ca and Mg ions. Its value ranges from 252 to 305 at spot S1 and S2 while at spot S3 and S4 it was from 277 to 331. DO: It is the amount of oxygen dissolved or carried in the water. Its value observed from 4.3 to 5.6 at spot S1 and S2 while from 4.8 to 5.3 at spot S3 and S4. Its value more than 6 indicates the water quality is good. COD: It indicates the amount of organic pollutants in water. Its value was found that more than tolerance limits i.e. from 35 to 60 ppm at spot S1 and S2 while at spot S3 and S4 was from 36 to 62 ppm. Free NH: Its value was found less than 1 ppm at all spots. At spot S1 and S2 it was from 0.04 to 0.35 ppm while from 0.09 to 0.27 ppm at spot S3 and S4. Research Journal of Chemical Sciences __________________________________________________________ ISSN 2231-606X Vol. 2(7), 79-81, July (2012) Res.J.Chem.SciInternational Science Congress Association 80 Chloride: Its concentration above normal values indicates pollution. At all spots its value was under permissible limit prescribed by WHO. Value observed at spot S1 and S2 was from 109 to 245 ppm while at spot S3 and S4 from 115 to 247 ppm. Iron: Its value was also found less than 1 ppm at all spots. At spot S1 and S2 it was from 0.02 to 0.9 ppm while from 0.3 to 0.9 ppm at spot S3 and S4. ConclusionAll the parameters monitored was within the permissible limits except COD which was slightly higher than normal value prescribed by WHO, USPHS and BIS. The data obtained in this investigation was surprisingly not much polluted, even though the monitoring spots are within the 1km to 1.5km radius from the sugar factory. So the ground water of monitoring spot can be used for domestic and irrigation purposes. References1.Ranjan Rakesh, Analysis of Abiotic Parameters of river Sikrahana, near Motihari, Bihar, India, Asian J. Exp. Chem., 6(2), 93-95 (2011) 2.Vaishnav M.M. and Dewangan S., Assessment of water quality status in Reference to statistical parameters in different Aquifers of Balco Industrial Area, Korba, C.G. India, Res. J.Chem.Sci., 1(9), 67-72 (2011) 3.Iwuoha G.N. and Osuji L.C., Changes in surface water physic-chemical parameters following the dredging of Otamiri of Nigeria, Res. J.Chem.Sci., 2(3), 7-11 (2012) 4.Matini L., Tathy C. and Moutou J.M., Seasonal groundwater quality variation in Brazzaville, Congo, Res. J.Chem.Sci., 2(1), 7-14 (2012)5.Deshpande S.M. and Aher K.R., Evaluation of ground water quality and its suitability for drinking and agriculture use in parts of Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, MS, India, Res. J.Chem.Sci., 2(1), 25-31 (2012)6.Malik G.M., Joshi M.P., Zadaiya S.K. and Raval., Study on physico-chemical characterization of some lotic system of south Gujarat,India, Res. J.Chem.Sci., 2(1), 83-85 (2012)7.Sinha Madhu Rani et al, Physicao chemical examination and quality assessment of ground water (Hand-Pump) around Patna main town, Bihar state, India, J.Chem.Pharm. Res., 3(3),701-705 (2011)8.Pandey Sandeep and Tiwari Sweta, Physico-chemical analysis of ground water of selected area of Ghazipur city-Acase study, Nature and Science, 7(1), 17-20 (2009)9.Jinwal A. and Dixit A., Pre and post monsoon variation in physic-chemical characteristics in ground water quality in Bhopal, India, Asian J. Exp.Sci., 22(3), 311-316 (2008) 10.Parikh Ankita N. and Mankodi P.C., Limnology of Sama Pond, Vadodara city, Gujrat, Res. J. Recent Sci., 1(1), 16-21 (2012)11.Patil Shila G., Chonde Sonal G., Jadhav Aasawari S. and Raut Prakash D., Impact of physic-chemical charecteristics of Shivaji University lake on phytoplankton communities, Kolhapur, India, Res.J.Recent Sci., 1(1), 56-60 (2012)Table-1 Sagauli Spot (S1 and S2) Sep-2011 to Feb-2012 Months ParametersSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb PH S1 S2 7.6 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.1 7.2 7.5 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.7 EC S1 S2 758 772 742 696 695 705 687 675 660 635 642 640 TDS S1 S2 315 362 323 351 395 380 310 333 345 325 357 345 Hardness S1 S2 295 305 301 300 287 297 276 260 262 252 261 262 DO S1 S2 5.2 5.6 4.9 4.3 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.0 COD S1 S2 35 42 52 40 60 45 55 60 63 47 71 58 Free NH3 S1 S2 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.22 0.18 0.35 0.27 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.15 Iron S1 S2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 Chloride S1 S2 235 240 231 205 245 195 125 137 117 125 109 111 Note: All data expressed in ppm except EC which is expressed in mm/cm Research Journal of Chemical Sciences __________________________________________________________ ISSN 2231-606X Vol. 2(7), 79-81, July (2012) Res.J.Chem.SciInternational Science Congress Association 81 Table-2 Majhaulia Spot (S3 and S4) Sep-2011 to Feb-2012 Months ParametersSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb PH S1 S2 7.8 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.2 7.1 7.6 7.3 EC S1 S2 772 775 761 730 720 745 695 710 702 695 680 672 TDS S1 S2 345 375 352 345 340 361 325 331 318 315 321 329 Hardness S1 S2 302 310 300 297 295 277 275 298 300 315 325 331 DO S1 S2 4.9 4.7 5.3 4.9 5.0 5.2 4.8 5.1 4.9 4.8 5.1 4.8 COD S1 S2 42 39 48 51 39 36 55 42 62 49 58 52 Free NH3 S1 S2 0.21 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.23 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 Iron S1 S2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 Chloride S1 S2 247 236 232 207 227 178 205 198 124 126 115 121 Note: All data expressed in ppm except EC which is expressed in mm/cm