International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Spatio-Temporal Assessment and Mapping of
Groundwater Quality in Mysuru Taluk,
Karnataka, India using Geo-Informatics
Technique
Vahid Sharifi1, S.Srikantaswamy2, Manjunatha M.C3, Javaid Ahmad Tali4
1
Research Scholar, Department of Studies in Environmental Science, University of Mysore,
Manasagangothri, Mysuru-570 006, Karnataka, India
2
Associate Professor, Department of Studies in Environmental Science, University of Mysore,
Manasagangothri, Mysuru-570 006, Karnataka, India
3
Research Scholar, Department of Studies in Earth Science, Centre for Advanced Studies in Precambrian Geology,
University of Mysore, Manasagangothri, Mysuru-570 006, Karnataka, India
4
Post-Doctorate Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi
ABSTRACT
Assessing the groundwater quality of a region will be a great importance in the field of environmental and socio-economic
management. Seasonal variations (Pre & Post monsoon during 2014) in groundwater quality are analyzed from 9 observation
well points and the exact locations are recorded using GPS and groundwater quality theme maps are digitized using GIS
software’s. All the samples are analyzed with respect to Bureau of India Standards (BIS) and World Health Organization
(WHO). Lineaments are overlaid on land use/ land cover patterns using IRS-1D, PAN+LISSIII satellite image through GIS
software’s to evaluate the possible threats/ locations of groundwater quality such as rock-water interactions, agro-chemicals
and storage & movement of water. Ordinary kriging method is utilized in preparation of thematic maps of each parameter
which provide better understanding of the present water quality scenario in the study area. The final results highlight the
seasonal variation in groundwater quality and its mapping of the study area using hi-tech tools of geoinformatics technique.
Keywords: Spatio-temporal variation, Water Quality, Kriging, Mysuru taluk and Geo-Informatics.
1. INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is a critical component of the nation’s water resources. The adequate water supply in terms of both
quantity and quality rises as increase in population and over demands/ exploitations, leading to water scarcity issues in
many parts of the country (Sundara Kumar., 2010). The present study demonstrates the spatial distribution of
groundwater quality and its changes over time either by naturally or under the influence of man (Wilkinson and
Edworthy., 1981; Ikem, A. et al, 2002). Groundwater quality can be influenced directly and indirectly by
microbiological processes which can transform both inorganic and organic constituents of groundwater through
geochemical processes (Chapelle., 1993). Groundwater pollution occurs when used water is returned to the
hydrological cycle (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015). Field visits have been carried out using a handheld GPS to
check the conditions of each land use/ land cover categories and geological structures (lineaments) that controls the
occurrence and movement of groundwater (Shankar et al., 2011; Manjunatha and Basavarajappa., 2015). Groundwater
bodies are always less accessible than surface water bodies and technically difficult to derive a real picture.
Groundwater contaminates mainly due to rapid increase in population, industrialization, mining operations,
application of fertilizers in agricultural fields and other manmade activities (Rao et al., 2012). The spatial variation in
groundwater quality maps of different parameters are derived using kriging tool in ArcGIS v10 by considering the
spatial correlation between each sample points (Ella et al., 2001).
2. METHODS
Mysuru taluk is situated in the northern part of Mysuru district. It is located between 12007’05” to 12027’13” N
latitudes and 76027’12” to 76050’10” E longitudes covering an area of 809.6 Km2 (Fig.1). The taluk has four hoblis
namely Kasaba, Ilavala, Varuna and Jayapura. The climate is semiarid tropical and the average annual rainfall of 798
mm with 55 rainy days (2014). Area under cultivation is about 69,170 ha, forest occupies about 3,216 ha mainly
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 18
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
concentrated in the western and southwestern part of the taluk. The major crops grown are cotton, ragi, vegetables and
mango which need the application of fertilizers/ pesticides in large agricultural fields.
Fig.1. Location map of the study area
Fig.2. Observation well points map of the study area
3. METHODS & MATERIALS
3.1 METHODOLOGY
Groundwater quality is assessed by measuring 14 different parameters including F- (Fluoride), NO3- (Nitrate), HCO3(Bicarbonate), Cl- (Chloride), Ca2+ (Calcium), Mg2+ (Magnesium), Na+ (Sodium), SO42- (Sulphate), Fe (Iron), K+
(Potassium), TDS (Total Dissolved Solid), TH (Total Hardness), pH (potential of Hydrogen) and EC (Electrical
conductivity) (Table.1; Table.2). The samples are collected from 9 well points in different parts of the study area during
Pre-monsoon (April-2014) and Post-monsoon (Dec-2014) seasons which were analyzed for various physico-chemical
properties with reference to BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards., 1991) and WHO (World Health Organization., 2004) to
determine seasonal variation in water quality parameters (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015) (Table.3; Table.4).
Within India, several groundwater related studies have been conducted to determine potential sites for groundwater
evaluation (Satyanarayanan et al., 2007; Gupta and Srivastava., 2010) and groundwater quality mapping (Remesen and
Panda., 2007; Nas and Berktay., 2010) using GIS.
3.2. MATERIALS
 Topomaps: 57D/7, 57D/8, 57D/11; 57D/12, 57D/13, 57D/14, 57D/15, 57D/16 of 1:50,000 scale.
Source: Survey of India, Bangalore.
 Thematic maps: Observation well points map (Fig.2), Lineaments overlaid on agriculture map (Fig.2)
Spatial Distribution maps (Fig.3 – 7).
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
and
Page 19
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
 Satellite data: Indian Remote Sensing (IRS)-1D, LISS-III (Resolution: 23.5m, year: 2008-09), PAN (year: 200506, Resolution: 5.8m); PAN+LISS-III (2.3m resolution).
Sources of data: Bhuvan, NRSA, Hyderabad.
 Software analysis: ArcGIS v10 & PCI-Geomatica v10.
GPS: A hand held GPS (Garmin-12) is used to demark the exact locations of observation well points in the study
area.
4. LINEAMENTS OVERLAID ON LAND USE/ LAND COVER PATTERNS
Lineaments and fractures controls the movement and storage of groundwater in hard rock terrain, are extracted by
visual interpretation techniques on IRS- 1D, PAN+LISS-III satellite images through PCI-Geomatica v10
(Basavarajappa et al., 2012). Agricultural land covers an area of 598.58 Km2 which needs the heavy applications of
agrochemicals, pesticides, fertilizers forming the basic contaminations to groundwater regions through seepage areas
(lineaments). Lineaments overlaid on agricultural lands reveal the possible threats/ locations of groundwater through
catchment, seepage, recharge, fracture zones (lineaments) (Fig.2) (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015).
Fig.3. Lineaments map of the study area
5. ASSESSMENT OF SEASONAL VARIATION (PRE AND POST-MONSOON) IN
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
5.1 FLUORIDE
Fluoride values ranges from 0.05 to 1.26 mg/L in pre-monsoon season with an average value 0.43. In post-monsoon, it
ranges from 0.70 to 0.51 mg/L with an average of 0.26 mg/L (Fig.4). All the samples are within the permissible limit
of WHO & BIS Standards. Sources of fluoride in bedrock aquifer systems include fluorite, apatite fluorapatite
(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015). The variation of fluoride depends on the amount of soluble and insoluble
fluoride in source rocks, rock-water interaction with rocks and soil temperature, rainfall, oxidation - reduction process
(Mangukiya et al., 2012).
Fig.4. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Fluoride distribution in the study area
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 20
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
5.2 BICARBONATE
Bicarbonate values in pre-monsoon ranges from 253.0 to 853.0 mg/L with an average value of 508.66 mg/L. In postmonsoon, it ranges from 514.0 to 750 mg/L with an average value of 621.88 mg/L.
5.3 NITRATE
In the study area, nitrate values range from 8.0 to 70.0 mg/L with an average of 29.55 mg/L in during per-monsoon
season. In post-monsoon, it ranges from 41.0 to 211.0 mg/L with an average value 124.33 mg/L (Fig.5). Almost 88% of
nitrate percentage has been recorded based on the WHO Standards from pre-monsoon to post monsoon seasons.
Nitrates themselves are relatively nontoxic, but high concentrations are due to the leaching/runoff from agricultural
lands, contamination from human/animal wastes as a consequence of the oxidation of ammonia and similar sources by
WHO (2004).
Fig.5. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Nitrate distribution in the study area
5.4 CHLORIDE
Chloride values range from 20.0 to 305.0 mg/L with an average of 105.88 mg/L in pre-monsoon season; in which 11%
of total samples exceeds permissible limit with referenced to WHO Standards. During post-monsoon season, it ranges
from 98.0 to 510.0 mg/L with an average of 235.66 mg/L; in which 44% of total samples exceeds WHO permissible
limits (Fig.6). Chloride in drinking water originates from natural sources such as sewage, industrial effluents, urban
runoff containing mainly saline intrusions (WHO., 2004). The high concentration of chloride is in groundwater is
observed where the temperature is high and rainfall is less (Mangukiya et al., 2012).
Fig.6. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Chloride distribution in the study area
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 21
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
5.5 CALCIUM
Calcium ranges from 35.0 to 138.0 mg/L with an average value of 78.22 mg/L during pre-monsoon season. In postmonsoon season, it ranges from 102.0 to 261.0 mg/L with an average of 145.33 mg/L (Fig.7). All the samples are
observed to be within the limit of WHO & BIS standards in pre-monsoon season, while only one samples exceed its
permissible limit and is recorded at Elwala observation well point.
Fig.7. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Calcium distribution in the study area
5.6 MAGNESIUM
In pre-monsoon season, the value of magnesium ranges from 0.0 to 87.0 mg/L with an average of 41.44 mg/L. But in
post-monsoon season, it ranges from 1.0 to 137.0 mg/L with an average of 73.77 mg/ L (Fig.8). Almost 44% of total
samples are exceeding WHO permissible limit in pre-monsoon season and rises to 66% in post-monsoon season.
Natural water contains magnesium and calcium which affects the hardness of groundwater based on dissolved
polyvalent metallic ions (Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015).
Fig.8. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Magnesium distribution in the study area
5.7 SODIUM
Sodium values in pre-monsoon ranges from 27.0 to 210.0 mg/L with an average value of 98.44 mg/L. During, postmonsoon season, it ranges from 78.0 mg/L to 289.0 mg/L with an average value of 161.22 mg/L (Fig.9). Only one
sample was exceeding its permissible limit in pre-monsoon season; while two samples exceed their limit in post-
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 22
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
monsoon season with referenced to WHO Standards. Groundwater for irrigational needs could be gauged by the
salinity-Sodium hazards (Balasubramanian and Sastri., 1987).
Fig.9. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Sodium distribution in the study area
5.8 IRON
The concentrations of iron in pre-monsoon season range from 0.02 to 2.09 mg/L with an average value of 0.26 mg/L;
while in post-monsoon season ranges from 0.02 to 0.51 mg/L with an average of 0.09 mg/L (Fig.10). Only two
samples were exceeding BIS permissible limit in pre-monsoon season; it has no effect in post-monsoon season. High
dissolved iron concentrations can occur in groundwater when pyrite is exposed to oxygenated water or when ferric
oxide or hydroxide minerals are in contact with reducing substances (Hem., 1985).
Fig.10. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Iron distribution in the study area
5.9 SULPHATE
The value in per-monsoon season ranges from 0.0 to 83.0 mg/L with an average of 38.33 mg/L; while in post-monsoon
season, it ranges from 35.0 to 85.0 mg/L with an average of 67.33mg/L. All the samples are with the permissible limit
of WHO and BIS Standards in both the seasons. The sulfate content in water is important in determining the suitability
of water for public and industrial supplies. Higher concentration of sulphate in water can cause malfunctioning of
alimentary canal and shows cathartic effect in human beings (Lenin Sunder et al., 2008).
5.10 POTASSIUM
During pre-monsoon season, potassium concentrations ranges from 10.0 to 100.0 mg/L with an average concentration
of 38.33 mg/L indicating 7 numbers of samples exceed their WHO permissible limit. In post-monsoon season, it ranges
from 1.0 to 21.0 mg/L with an average of 10.77 mg/L indicating 4 number of samples exceed their permissible limit
with referenced to WHO Standard (Fig.11).
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 23
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Fig.11. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Potassium distribution in the study area
5.11 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLID
In pre-monsoon season, the value ranges from 266.0 to 1503 mg/L with an average of 710.44 mg/L; while in postmonsoon season, it ranges from 801.0 to 1724 mg/L with an average of 1177.0 mg/L. Only one sample was exceeding
its permissible limit in pre-monsoon season, but it rises to 5 samples in post-monsoon season with referenced to WHO
Standards (Fig.12). As groundwater moves and stays for a longer time along its flow path, increased in total dissolved
concentrations and major ions normally occur (Norris et al., 1992) and higher TDS shows longer residence period of
water (Davis and De Viest., 1966).
Fig.12. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon TDS distribution in the study area
5.13 TOTAL HARDNESS
The value of total hardness in pre-monsoon season ranges from 172.0 to 692.0 mg/L with an average of 361.33 mg/L.
In post-monsoon season, it ranges from 352.0 to 948.0 mg/L with an average value of 655.77 mg/L. Only two samples
were exceeding their permissible limit, but it rises to seven samples during post-monsoon season with referenced to
WHO Standards (Fig.13). Groundwater is much harder than surface water and depends most on geological and
hydrological conditions (Narayana and Suresh., 1989). The hardness of water is mainly due to variation in calcium and
magnesium (Mangukiya et al., 2012). The adverse effects of total hardness are formation of kidney stone and the heart
diseases (Sastry and Rathee., 1998).
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 24
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Fig.13. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon Total Hardness distribution in the study area
5.12 POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH)
In pre-monsoon season, the value of pH ranges from 6.98 to 8.83 mg/L with an average value of 8.31 mg/L. In postmonsoon season, it ranges from 6.74 to 7.43 mg/L with an average of 7.18 mg/L. Five samples are exceeding the
permissible limit in pre-monsoon season, while in post-monsoon season all the samples record within the WHO
permissible limit (Fig.14). Natural water turns alkalinity mainly due to the presence of bicarbonate & carbonate
(Basavarajappa and Manjunatha., 2015) and other minor constituents include silicate, hydroxide, borates and certain
organic compounds (Hem., 1985). Water having pH between 6 & 10 have no problem, but below this range causes
corrosiveness in nature (Shankar et al., 2011).
Fig.14. (a) Pre-monsoon and (b) Post-monsoon pH distribution in the study area
5.14 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
In pre-monsoon season, EC values ranges from 496.0 to 2571.0 mg/L with an average of 1269.33 mg/L; while in postmonsoon season it ranges from 1426.0 to 2923 mg/L with an average of 2046.66 mg/L. EC is directly related to the
concentration of ionized substance, excessive hardness and other mineral contamination in natural water (Johnson C.
C., 1979).
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 25
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
Sl
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Table.1. Observed Groundwater quality values of PRE -monsoon seasons (2014) of the study area
Observation
Latitude Longitude F- NO3- HCO3- Cl- Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ SO42- Fe K+ TDS TH
Well points
Jayapura
12.2052 76.5531 1.26 16
478 36 59 29 94 30 0.05 20 553 264
Siddalingapura 12.3653 76.6613 0.09 35
505 143 96 31 124 46 2.09 40 798 364
Devalapur
12.2246 76.7002 0.09 45
314 104 83
0
91 26 0.02 10 516 208
Alanahalli
12.2993 76.7014 0.09 8
253 20 35 21 27
0 0.04 10 266 172
Bhogadi
12.3050 76.5964 0.26 20
654 90 77 56 95 39 0.07 45 749 416
Elwala
12.3562 76.5441 0.73 20
663 126 88 78 95 60 0.02 45 876 532
Kadakola
12.1933 76.6653 0.05 70
853 305 138 87 210 83 0.02 100 1503 692
Keelanapura
12.2530 76.8186 1.09 12
451 42 58 21 100 20 0.03 16 531 228
hebbal
12.3487 76.6123 0.26 40
407 87 70 50 50 41 0.02 59 602 376
Sl
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Table.2. Observed Groundwater quality values of POST -monsoon seasons (2014) of the study area
Observation
Latitude Longitude F- NO3- HCO3- Cl- Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ SO42- Fe K+ TDS TH
Well points
Jayapura
12.2052 76.5531 0.21 132 750 286 163 116 198 75 0.03 21 1436 872
Siddalingapura 12.3653 76.6613 0.15 41
622
98 102 65 93 52 0.05 9 801 516
Devalapur
12.2246 76.7002 0.07 77
514 104 107 46 115 71 0.02 9 816 452
Alanahalli
12.2993 76.7014 0.51 67
544 171 107 77 105 68 0.51 1 898 576
Bhogadi
12.3050 76.5964 0.28 211 706 283 160 137 120 75 0.04 9 1418 948
Elwala
12.3562 76.5441 0.43 182 711 358 261 3 281 65 0.03 21 1596 684
Kadakola
12.1933 76.6653 0.27 210 603 510 133 119 289 80 0.07 12 1724 802
Keelanapura 12.2530 76.8186 0.25 143 554 168 120 100 78 85 0.05 12 1013 700
hebbal
12.3487 76.6123 0.22 56
593 143 155 1 172 35 0.02 3 891 352
pH EC
8.83
8.27
6.98
8.64
7.75
8.53
8.72
8.82
8.32
991
1381
933
496
1437
1608
2571
940
1067
pH EC
7.31
7.35
7.43
7.35
7.22
6.91
6.74
7.35
6.96
2603
1469
1426
1622
2451
2603
2923
1787
1536
Table.3 Comparison of observed values (PRE-monsoon) with Standard specifications for Groundwater as per WHO &
BIS
Sl Parameters Min Max Average
WHO Sample numbers
BIS
Sample numbers
No
Standards
exceeding
Standards
exceeding
permissible limit
permissible limit
1. F0.05 1.26
0.43
1.5
-Nil1-1.5
-Nil2. NO38
70
29.55
50
-Nil45-100
-Nil3. HCO3253 853 508.66
4. Cl20 305 105.88
250
7
250-1000
-Nil5. Ca2+
35 138
78.22 75-200
-Nil75-200
-Nil6. Mg2+
0
87
41.44
50
5, 6, 7, 8
30-100
-Nil7. Na+
27 210
98.44
200
7
28. SO4
0
83
38.33
250
-Nil200-400
-Nil9. Fe
0.02 2.09
0.26
0.3-1
2
10. K+
10 100
38.33
12
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
11. TDS
266 1503 710.44
1000
7
500-2000
-Nil12. TH
172 692 361.33
500
6, 7
200-600
7
13. pH
6.98 8.83
8.31 6.5-8.5
1, 4, 6, 7, 8
6.5-8.5
1, 4, 6, 7, 8
14. EC
496 2571 1269.33
Table.4 Comparison of observed values (POST-monsoon) with Standard specifications for Groundwater as per WHO
& BIS
Sl Parameters Min Max Average WHO
Sample numbers BIS Standards Sample numbers
No
Standards
exceeding
exceeding
permissible limit
permissible limit
1. F0.07 0.51
0.26
1.5
-Nil1-1.5
-Nil2. NO341 211 124.33
50
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
45-100
1, 5, 6, 7, 8
9
3. HCO3514 750 621.88
4. Cl98 510 235.66
250
1, 5, 6, 7
250-1000
-Nil-
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 26
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Ca2+
Mg2+
Na+
SO42Fe
K+
TDS
TH
pH
EC
102
1
78
35
0.02
1
801
352
6.74
1426
261
137
289
85
0.51
21
1724
948
7.43
2923
145.33
73.77
161.22
67.33
0.09
10.77
1177
655.77
7.18
2046.66
75-200
50
200
250
12
1000
500
6.5-8.5
-
6
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
6, 7
-Nil1, 6, 7, 8
1, 5, 6, 7, 8
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
-Nil-
ISSN 2319 - 4847
75-200
30-100
200-400
0.3-1
500-2000
200-600
6.5-8.5
-
6
1, 5, 7, 8
-Nil-Nil-Nil1, 5, 6, 7, 8
-Nil-
Table.5. Season-wise Rise and Fall analysis of Groundwater parameters based on WHO standards
Sl no
Parameters
PRE-MONSOON
POST-MONSOON
Season-wise Rise/ Fall
1.
0%
0%
F-(mg/L)
2.
0%
88%
Major rise
NO3-(mg/L)
3.
HCO34.
11%
44%
Major rise
Cl-(mg/L)
5.
0%
11%
Rise
Ca2+(mg/L)
6.
44%
66%
Major rise
Mg2+(mg/L)
7.
11%
22%
Rise
Na+(mg/L)
28.
0%
0%
SO4 ( mg/L)
9.
Fe
10.
77%
44%
Major fall
K+(mg/L)
11.
11%
55%
Major rise
TDS(mg/L
12.
22%
77%
Major rise
TH(mg/L)
13.
55%
0%
Major fall
pH
14.
EC(μs/cm)
Fig.15. Line graph depicting Season-wise variation in Groundwater parameters
6. CONCLUSIONS
Groundwater is affected both by its quality and quantity during recent years in the study area. Fluoride and sulphate
remains unchanged throughout the year. Nitrate, chloride, magnesium, TDS and TH shows major rise in its values
from pre-monsoon to post-monsoon seasons; while potassium and pH shows major fall in major parts of the study area.
All the parameter values are well compared with BIS & WHO guidelines and spatial distribution of each parameter are
digitized using ArcGIS v10. Mysuru taluk covers almost 73% of agricultural land and this land overlaid with
lineaments act as a passage way for pesticides, fertilizers and other effluents directly to the groundwater. Geoinformatics tools are helpful in mapping and interpretation of various spatial variations of groundwater quality maps
with cost effective by recording exact location using a handheld GPS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The authors are indepthly thankful to Prof. H.T. Basavarajappa, DoS in Earth Science, UoM, Mysuru; Survey of India
(SoI), CGWB, Bengaluru; Department of Mines and Geology, Mysuru; Bhuvan, ISRO-NRSC, Hyderabad.
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 27
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
ISSN 2319 - 4847
REFERENCE:
[1.] Balasubramanian, A., Sastri, J.C.V., (1987). Studies on the quality of Groundwater of Tambraparni River Basin,
Tamil Nadu, India. Journal Association of Exploration Geophysics, Vol.8, Pp: 41-51.
[2.] Basavarajappa H.T, Balasubramanian A, Pushpavathi K.N and Manjunatha M.C (2012). Mapping and integration
of Geological, Geomorphological landforms of Mysore district, Karnataka, India using Remote Sensing and GIS
Techniques, Frontiers of Earth Science Research, Gulbarga University, Edited Vol.1, Pp: 164-175.
[3.] Basavarajappa H.T and M.C Manjunatha., (2015). Groundwater quality analysis in Precambrian rocks of
Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India using Geo-informatics technique, Elsevier, Science, Direct, Aquatic
Procedia, Vol.4, Pp: 1354-1365.
[4.] BIS (1991). Indian standard specification for drinking water, Bureau of Indian Standard, publication no. IS:
10501, New Delhi, India, Pp: 1-10.
[5.] Chapelle F.H. (1993). Groundwater Microbiology and Geochemistry, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, Pp: 424.
[6.] Davis S.N and R.J.M. De Wiest (1966). Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Vol. 463.
[7.] Ella V.B, Melvin S.W and Kanwar R.S (2001). Spatial analysis of NO3–N concentration in glacial till, Trans
ASAE, Vol.44, No.2, Pp: 317–327.
[8.] Gupta M and Srivastava P.K., (2010). Integrating GIS and Remote Sensing for identification of groundwater
potential zones in the hilly terrain of Pavagarh, Gujarath, India, Water Int., Vol.35, Pp: 233-245.
[9.] Hem J.D., (1985). Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Supply, Pp: 2254.
[10.] Ikem A., Osibanjo O., Shridar M.K.C and Sobande A (2002). Evaluation of groundwater quality characteristics
near two waste sites in Ibadan and Lagos, Nigeria. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, Vol.140, Pp: 307-333.
[11.] Johnson C. C. (1979). Land application of water-an accident waiting to happen Ground Water, Vol.17, No.1, Pp:
69-72.
[12.] Lenin M. Sundar and Saseetharan M.K. (2008). Groundwater Quality in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu along Noyyal
River,” Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, Vol.50, No.3, Pp:187-190.
[13.] Mangukiya Rupal, Bhattacharya Tanushree and Chakraborty Sukalyan (2012). Quality Characterization of
Groundwater using Water Quality Index in Surat city, Gujarat, India, International Research Journal of
Environment Sciences, Vol.1, No.4, Pp: 14-23.
[14.] Manjunatha M.C and H.T. Basavarajappa (2015). Spatio-temporal variation in Groundwater quality analysis on
Chitradurga district, Karnataka, India using Geo-informatics technique, Journal of International Academic
Research for Multidisciplinary, Vol.3, Issue.11, Dec, Pp: 164-179.
[15.] Narayana A.C and Suresh G.C (1989). Chemical quality of groundwater of Mangalore city, Karnataka, Indian
Journal of Environmental Health, Vol.31, Pp: 228-236.
[16.] Nas B and Berktay A., (2010). Groundwater quality mapping in urban groundwater using GIS, Environmental
Monitoring Assessment, Vol.160, Pp: 215-227.
[17.] Norris, R.D., 1992. In-situ Bioremediation of Groundwater and Geological Material. A Review of Technologies,
EPA/600/R-93/124 (NTIS PB93-215564). [Thirteen authors].
[18.] Rao, Mushini Venkata Subba, Vaddi Dhilleswara Rao and Bethapudi Samuel Anand Andrews (2012) Assessment
of Quality of Drinking Water at Srikurmam in Srikakulam District’, Andhra Pradesh, India,” International
Research Journal of Environmental Science, Vol.1, No.2, Pp:13-20.
[19.] Remesen R and Panda R.K., (2007). Groundwater quality mapping using GIS: a study from India’s Kapgari
Watershed. Environmental Quality Management. Springer 16, Pp: 41-60.
[20.] Sastri K.V and Rathee P., (1988). Physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of water of village
Kanneli, (Dist. Rohtak) Haryana. Proc. Academic, Environmental Biology, Vol.7, Pp: 103-108.
[21.] Satyanarayanan M., Balaram V., Hussain M.S.A., Jemaili MARA., Rao TG., Mathur R., Dasaram B and Ramesh
S.L., (2007). Assessment of groundwater quality in a structurally deformed granitic terrain in Hyderabad, India.
Environmental Monitoring Assessment, Vol.131, Pp: 117-127.
[22.] Shankar K., Aravindan S and Rajendran, S., (2011). Assessment of Groundwater Quality in Paranavar River subBasin, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India, Advances in Applied Science Research, Vol.2, Pp: 92-103.
[23.] Sundar Kumar K., P. Sundar Kumar, M.J. Ratnakanth Babu and Ch. Hanumantha Rao (2010). “Assessment and
Mapping of Ground Water Quality Using Geographical Information System”, International Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology, Vol.2, No.11, Pp: 6035-6046.
[24.] WHO., (2004). Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd edition, World Health Organization, Geneva.
[25.] Wilkinson W.B & Edworthy K.J (1981). Groundwater quality monitoring - money wasted? In: Quality of
Groundwater (Proc. Int. Symp;, Noordwijkerhout, March) Elsevier, Pp: 629-642.
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2016
Page 28