1. INTRODUCTION
Every living being on earth needs water to live, hence, it is called, “Elixir of
life”. Water is essential for life forms including humans, right from the birth through
all stages of life, until it diminishes from earth. Life certainly cannot exist without
water. According to Routeledge (1998), 25% of the human body is made up of solid
matter while the remaining 75% is water. Therefore if our bodies are not continuously
supplied with water, our bodies become dehydrated and the vital organs will
deteriorate until they are no longer viable for human life (De Kok, 2001).
Water resources comprising of surface water (river and lakes) and ground
water support all living beings in various ways. Though water is available on earth in
huge quantity in the order of 1.4x109 km3, only 3% of the water is fresh water. Only
about 5% of the fresh water (or 0.15% of the total waters in the world) is readily
available for beneficial use (www.safewater.org). Fresh water is present on the surface
of the earth as in lakes, ponds, rivers, some bodies of underground water and many
kind of man – made fresh water bodies such as canals, ditches and reservoirs (Asthana
and Asthana, 2003).
Fresh water is a renewable resource, yet the world's supply of clean, fresh
water is steadily decreasing. The demand for water already exceeds supply in many
parts of the world and as the world population continues to rise, it is expected that this
situation will continue to get worsen. A shortage of water in the future would be
detrimental to the human population as it would affect everything from sanitation, to
overall health and the production of food grain(Gleeson, 2012).
1.1. Surface Water
Water that exists on surface of the earth is called surface water. Surface water
includes the streams (of all sizes from large creeks), ponds, lakes, reservoirs and canals
and fresh water wet lands. The definition of fresh water is water containing less than
1000 mg/L of dissolved solids. The amount of water in rivers and lakes is always
changing due to inflows and outflows. Inflows are from precipitation, surface run-off,
ground water seepage and tributary inflows. Outflows from surface water bodies
include evaporation, infiltration and percolation and withdrawals by people
(http://ga.water.usgs.gov).
1
1.2. Ground Water
Under the earth‟s surface, water exists as ground water and it can be brought
out through wells and bore wells. It is rich in dissolved minerals especially calcium
and magnesium salts. Ground water comes from rain, snow, sleet that soaks into the
ground. The water moves down into the ground due to gravity, pass between particles
of soil, sand, gravel or rock until it reaches a depth where the ground is filled or
saturated with water. The area that is filled with water just underneath the ground
water table is called as shallow groundwater and hundreds of feet below, is called as
deep ground water (Gray, 2006).
The major portion of fresh water which goes in to the earth‟s crust is retained
by its upper layers as soil moisture (about 1,650 km3). Only 500 km3 percolate down
to the ground water deposits. A large portion (about 120 km3) moves down to the
ground water table while 50 km3 of surface flow also end up as ground water.
Therefore, a total of about 670 km3 of fresh water enters the ground water annually. It
is up to this amount that we can withdraw fresh water from our sub- surface deposits
(Asthana and Asthana 2003).
1.2.1. Ground water quality
The quality of ground water is of great importance in determining its suitability
for a certain use (public water supply, irrigation, industrial applications, power
generation etc.). The quality of ground water varies from place to place, with the
depth of water table, and from season to season and is primarily governed by the
extent and composition of dissolved solids present in it (Gleeson et al., 2012).
1.2.2. Uniqueness of ground water
Ground water is highly valued because of certain properties:1. It doesn‟t suffer evaporative loss,
2. It‟s free from sediments, mud and is biologically clean (if not polluted by
human activities).
3. The absorption capacity is high during rainy season, which can be utilized
during summer season.
1.3. Water Resources in India
The total water resources available in India are 1850 km3, which is roughly 4%
of the world's fresh water resources. India receives about 4,000 km3 of fresh water as
precipitation every year. About 700 km3 of water thus received evaporate immediately
2
and are lost to the atmosphere. About 2,150 km3 reaches the soil, about 1,650 km3
retained as soil moisture while about 500 km3 permeate through the soil surface into
underground water deposits. Only 1,150 km3 of fresh water received annually are
retained on land surface (Sharma and Sharma, 1997).
To 1,150 km3 of fresh water which appear as surface water within India, 200
km3 of surface flow which comes from outside which may be added. The surface flow
is further enlarged by addition of 450 km3of fresh water from ground water flow while
about 50 km3s are added as run-off from irrigated areas. The surface loses almost 50
km3of its water which percolates down to the ground water deposits. The total surface
flow per year is about 18,000 km3, which are distributed along a number of river
basins (Asthana and Asthana, 2003).
1.4. Water Resources of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state of India, accounts for 4 per cent of the land
area and 6 per cent of the population, but only 3 per cent of the water resources of the
country. Most of Tamil Nadu is located in the rain shadow region of the Western
Ghats and hence receives limited rainfall from the south-west monsoon. The total
surface water potential of the state is 36 km3.There are 17 major river basins in the
State with 61 reservoirs and about 41,948 tanks. The annual water potential is of
46540 million cubic meters (MCM).The utilizable groundwater recharge is 22,423
MCM. The current level of utilization expressed as net ground water draft of 13.558
MCM (which is about 60 percent of the available recharge), while 8875 MCM (40
percent) is the balance available for use (TNDR, 2005).
1.5. Water Resources of Ariyalur District:
Ariyalur district is 29th district in Tamil Nadu. The Ariyalur Town is the
headquarters of Ariyalur. The district has Vellar River in the north and Kollidam River
in the South. The Marudaiyur River originates in Perambalur district and flows
through Ariyalur district and finally joins the River Kollidam. The river flows in the
southern boundary of Ariyalur district through Ariyalur and Udayarpalam Taluks. The
Ponnar main canal starts from Kollidam left bank at mile 47/6 of Lalgudi and runs
through Ariyalur and Udayarpalam Taluks. The total length of the Ponnar main canal
is 317 kms and 1,900 hectares of lands is irrigated by canal. The Siddhamalli reservoir
is situated in Karkudy village of Udayarpalam Taluk in Ariyalur district. The main
3
canal runs for a length of 9.8 km and an extent of 2,057 hectares, of lands are benefited
by this reservoir (District Census Hand Book: Ariyalur, 2001).
1.5.1. Drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
In Ariyalur Taluk, a major share of drinking water supply is met by ground
water. In many villages, the ground water is the one and only source of water for
drinking, irrigation, domestic and industrial uses. In these villages, the ground water is
pumped and stored in common over-head tanks for supply. As, the quality of the
drinking water greatly determines the health of the people, it is imperative to protect
the water from contamination.
1.5.2. Drinking water in Ariyalur Town
Before 1987, Cetti lake water was the one and only source for domestic usage
as well as for commercial use in Ariyalur Town. Two wells were constructed in Cetti
Lake and the water of those wells was pumped and supplied through the overhead
tanks. The municipality takes care of the lake.
Since 1987, the people of Ariyalur Town are dependent on the municipal water
supply and ground water for their domestic needs. People in Ariyalur Town are
supplied with water from Kollidamriver through Thirumanur Combined Drinking
Water Supply Scheme (TCDWSS). However, TCDWSS meets their drinking demand
only. As a result, people depend largely on ground water for other uses (Municipal
office in AriyalurTaluk, 2010).
1.5.3. Surface water bodies in the Ariyalur Town
In Ariyalur Town, surface water bodies are used only for irrigation. In the
southern region of the Town, people depend on the Chittheri lake and in the western
region on the Arasattaneri lake and Kurinjankula Eari for irrigation. These lakes
receive rain water during the rainy season (mainly from northeast monsoon).
4
Map-1.1: Ariyalur Township water bodies
1.5.4. Drinking water in the rural area of the Ariyalur Taluk
A tank is constructed centrally in Kollidamriver at Thirumazhapaddi. Totally
14 sumps are set from Thirumazhapaddi to Rayamburam village. Some part of the
study
area
that
include,
Sathyanagar,
Ammenabath,
Thamaraikulam,
Venkataramanapuram, Ottakovil, Kallamedu, Poyyadanallur, Rayampuram are
covered under the Thirumazhapadi Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme. But,
people say that this combined water is available only in nominal amounts.
In villages people use the water from thelakes, wells and hand pumps for
domestic purposes including drinking and irrigation in Ariyalur district. But,many
ponds and lakes are found dry mostly except during rainy season.
The information on drinking water sources of rural areas in Ariyalur Taluk was
collected from village Panchayat offices and compiled which is presented in table-1.1.
5
Table-1.1: Drinking water sources of rural area in Ariyalur Union
Rural areas
Numbers of
sources in
Ariyalur
union
Numbers of
sources spread
in study area
Numbers of
sources –
considered in the
present study
Overhead tanks for storage
of ground water
192
125
40
2
Hand pumps
288
189
-
3
Power pumps
195
133
-
4
Low power pumps
55
35
-
Total
730
482
40
Sl.
No.
Ground water sources
1
The information on drinking water sources of Ariyalur Town was collected
from Municipality office and compiled which is presented in table-1.2.
Table-1.2: Drinking water sources from municipal supply in Ariyalur Town
Urban areas (Municipality)
Numbers of
sources in
Ariyalur union
Numbers of
sources spread
in study area
Numbers of
sources–considered
in the present study
Overhead tanks
(TCDWSS)
5
5
5
2
Private
3
3
2
3
Sintex (Kollidam)
6
6
2
Total
14
14
9
Sl.No.
Water sources
1
1.5.5. Water withdrawal level in Ariyalur Taluk
Almost all the people of rural area in Ariyalur Taluk use ground water for their
daily requirements. Each village has two bore wells with tanks. However, from
questionnaire survey and field survey, the following inadequacies were observed:
No proper maintenance of the storage tank (regular cleaning is not
done)
6

Pipe lines are damaged either fully or partially

There are no head pipes

Water leakages occurs from tank

Stagnation of water around the taps

Solid wastes are dumped near the drinking water supply outlets
Quality of drinking water is a powerful determinant of health. When the quality
deteriorates, it affects the people‟s health. According to WHO, 3.4 million people die
due to water related diseases, making it the leading cause of disease and death around
the world. According to a study by UN, 4000 children die each day due to ingestion of
contaminated water. The report further says that 4 out of every 10 in the world,
particularly those in Africa and Asia do not have clean water to drink (voanews.com,
2009).
Despite increased access to drinking water, 21% of communicable diseases in
India were water related. 7,00,00 Indians died in 1999 due to diarrhea alone. Highest
mortality from India was seen in children under the age below 5 (WHO, 2002).
In the questionnaire survey, people reported that they were suffering from a
number of water-borne diseases including diarrhea in Ariyalur Taluk.
Due to the above two reasons, (ill maintenance of the community water
supply facilities and incidence of water-borne diseases), the assessment of drinking
water quality in Ariyalur Taluk gained importance. The awareness rally organized in
Ariyalur Taluk about water-borne diseases and the importance of safe drinking water
on July 14, 2011 (www.thehindu.com, 2011), also strengthened the need for drinking
water quality assessment in Ariyalur Taluk.
7
1.6. Aim and Objectives
In view of the above, the present study was undertaken with the aim of
assessing drinking water quality in Ariyalur Taluk and its compliance with drinking
water quality standards with the following objectives:1. To determine the water consumption rate by different users and especially for
drinking purposes.
2. To identify the source of water for domestic use at various places in Ariyalur
Taluk.
3. To determine water quality by analyzing water samples for physico-chemical
and microbiological characteristics and comparing with the standards and by
computing WQI.
4. To prepare GIS maps for spatial distribution water quality parameters in four
seasons.
5. To establish the relationship among parameters by analyzing correlation
coefficients of various parameters.
6. To find out the incidence of water-borne diseases in Ariyalur Taluk.
7. To ascertain variations in water quality spatially and seasonally using
multivariate analysis.
The findings of the present study with the above mentioned objectives may be of
great help to the authorities in protecting water from contamination and ensuring safe
water supply. The findings could be used to create awareness among public to protect
water and use safe drinking water.
8
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A large number of studies on water quality covering community water supply,
surface water and ground water with special emphasis on potability have been carried
out by several workers and various Government Agencies around the world including
India. Describing all of them may not be required and even, if described, it will make
this work a voluminous one. Hence, the review of literature is limited to the studies
that were deemed more relevant.
Availability of several studies in literature led to the publication of several text
books and reference books on water chemistry, water quality, water pollution etc.
(Varshney, 1981; Warren, 1985; James, 1985; Murty, 1994; Sharma, 2007;
Venkateswaralu, 1996; Gurjar, 1998; Pandey, 2000; Kudesia, 2000; Mishra, 2005;
Goel, 2010; Rastogi, 2010; John, 2012; Sinha, 2012).
Several studies on water quality of Rivers, Lakes, Watershed etc. in countries
outside India are available in literature (Damann, 1960; Hohn, 1969; Lack, 1971;
William, 1978; Starzecka, 1979; Marshall, 1980; Cushing, 1984; Golterman and
Meyers, 1985; Biney, 1987; Eyre et al., 1999; Dabyet al., 2002; Little et al., 2003;
Iwashita et al., 2003; Roussellier et al., 2003; Olia et al., 2004; Woli et al., 2004).
In India, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) established a nation-wide
network of water quality monitoring stations, called National Water Quality
Monitoring Network (NWMP) under the scheme, Global Environmental Monitoring
Stations / Monitoring of Indian National Aquatic Resource since 1977-78. It started
with 18 stations initially and grew to 2500 stations in 2011-12 in 28 States and 6
Union Territories. It covers 445 Rivers, 154 Lakes, 12 Tanks, 78 Ponds, 41 Creeks /
Seawater, 25 Canals, 45 Drains, 10 Water Treatment Plants, and 807 Wells. The
monitoring is done on monthly or quarterly basis in surface waters and on half-yearly
basis in case of ground water. The results are available with CPCB and published in
its website (www.cpcb.nic.in).
According to Allen et al (1980), urban water had been found to be safer than
rural water for drinking in many parts of the world.
China (2008) found in his study that Harbin, China affected by water shortage
problems and hence, it was suggested to use water sparingly and / or use domestic
appliances that use less water. Ajadi (2010) reported that metropolis in Nigeria
received inadequate water supply with poor water quality (without better treatment).
9
In Jaipur, India, it was found that the portion of population with middle income
and high income consumed greater amounts of water than people with low income
(Jethoo, 2011).
2.1. Water Pollution-Surface and Ground Water
Growth and development activities of society cause many changes including
housing, development of road networks, expansion of services etc. All these changes
are found to impact the precious water resources with water pollution (ENVIS, 2005).
The main cause for fresh water pollution is attributed to discharge of untreated sewage,
industrial effluent and agricultural runoff (Mullai, 2010). Such discharges increase the
nutrient levels (phosphorous and nitrogen) to eutrophication of lakes and rivers (Nair
et al., 2005). Eutrophication due to pollution was reported in ponds of Canchipur,
Manipur by Devi et al., (2004).
Mixing of sewage with water pipes at leaky water pipe joints is the common
cause of drinking water getting contaminated in urban areas (Allen et al., 1980).
Water pollution caused due to discharge of sewage/ industrial effluent/
agricultural runoff and miscellaneous sources have been studied and reported by
several workers. Release of industrial effluents in a haphazard and unplanned manner
without any treatment is one of the major causes of water pollution in urban industrial
environment of India. These effluents, which are released on to land and into various
surface water bodies, not only affect the water quality and soil, but also pollute the
ground water due to seepage (Rao and Prapurna,2005).
Disposal of treated and untreated industrial effluents containing hazardous
metals and inorganic and organic matter of toxic nature on land is most widely
practiced method in Indian cities (Wagh and Shrivastava, 2005).
Keshavarzi et al., (2006) reported that the water consumption level dependent
on the rural households, garden size, greenhouse size and garden watering times per
month with tap treated water in Ramjerd area, Iran.
Pushpendra (1994) and Chatarjee et al., (2007) reported that accumulation of
organic matter in fresh water bodies was high during summer in Western India.
Continuous discharge of sewage deteriorated water quality of lake.
Singh et al., (1999) reported that the Damodar River upstream of Nalkari
confluence was clean, but the water quality gradually deteriorated after joining Nalkari
and running further through the urban-industrial areas.
10
Bhosle (2001) found that the copper level of the river water exceeded the
standard in the river water Godavari at Nanded, Maharastra due to pollution. Increased
concentration of heavy metals (Cd, Cr, and Pb) at discharge points in a river in Bihar
was reported by Sandwar et al., (2006).
Sharma (1999) concluded that the water of River Yamuna at Agra was
unsuitable for domestic use and harmful for aquatic life due to pollution.
Bhuvaneswaran et al., (1999) found that the Adyar river was highly polluted at
certain stations which may likely affect the ground-water table.
Prakash et al., (2005) by comparing water quality at Krishnarajasagar Dam and
Dasanapura gauging station of River Cauvery reported that the river at both stations
received pollutants continuously during dry and monsoon season
Dash et al., (2010) reported that immersion of Durga Idol in Bramhani River
polluted the river with bio-degradable and non-biodegradable substance that include
clay, cardboard, bamboo, polyethylene, clothes, paper, wood, coconut, colors, paints
etc.
Umamaheshwari (2004) evaluated the water quality of River Thamirabarani and
found that downstream site was highly polluted due to various municipal and
agricultural farm wastes.
Rizwanreza (2010) reported that the water quality of Brahmani River was bad
and pose serious health hazards due to discharge of industrial waste water.
Jayasree (1999) reported that Noyyal river water quality parameters values were
greater than the standards due to pollution.
Saxena et al.,(2005) studied physico–chemical pollution on River Sengar at
district Etawah (U.P). They revealed that both during summer and rainy seasons, the
BOD was high due to organic pollution.
Yogeshpatil (2006) studied physico–chemical quality of Tapati River at
Deepanagar area, Maharastra. It revealed that the Tapati River widely fluctuated in
physico-chemical factors.
Vidhyarani et al., (2006) reported that Nambul River at Imphal, Manipur was
highly polluted by untreated domestic and household waste water.
Khapekar et al., (2006) investigated of Kanhan River at Nagpur, Maharastra and
found that the pollution level increased when compared to that of past.
Sreenivas et al., (2006) reported that the River Godavari at Bhadrachalam in
south India was polluted by untreated industrial effluents and sewage.
11
Rajamanickam et al., (2009)by monitoring the water quality of Amaravathy
River basin and ground water in Karur district reported that the river and ground water
quality deteriorated by bleaching and dyeing industries.
Harikumar (2006) estimated that the water pollution and assimilative capacity of
river Pamba, Kerala. Every year, during October to January increased pollution was
noticed in Pamba river basin at Kakkinada and Kochupamba.
Dwivedi (2003) reported that the river of Arunachal Pradesh, in hill region was
unpolluted and fit for drinking as it was natural stream water.
Khatavkar (1992) examined the river water quality of Maharastra India and
found that the Kolhapur site – 3 and Ichalkaranjini site – 5 were highly polluted.
Bath (1997) studies the pollution of Sutlej River and found that the downstream
of Nagal lake site II was polluted by domestic and industrial waste; Garhshankar
bridge site III and Ropar reservoir site IV were moderately polluted; and site 1 at
Nangal reservoir was not polluted due to absence of industrial waste.
Devi et al., (2005) studied water quality of Nambol River, Manipur with a note
on its aquatic bio-resources and declared that the downstream water quality was poor.
Jayaraman et al., (2003) reported that the water quality of Karamana River,
Thiruvananthapuram was good due to the proper water quality management practices.
Rajendran et al., (2001) conducted comparative study on pollution load of
temple ponds at Puthur, Vayaloor, and Rockfort in Trichirappalli and found that all
ponds were highly contaminated.
Yogeshshastri et al., (2004) by analyzing physico–chemical characteristics of
Nasik village pond concluded that the pond water was polluted and unfit for drinking
purposes.
Vikel (2006) found that the Lake Pichhola in Rajastan was in eutrophic
condition and hence, the water was not suitable for drinking purposes.
Nagargoje et al., (2012) analyzed water quality parameters of the Nazari dam of
Maharashtra and found that the COD was higher during pre- monsoon and lower
during summer.
Kumar (2006) monitored water quality of tropical lake of Udaipur city,
Rajasthan by analyzing physico – chemical characteristics for two years and concluded
that the water samples were fit for drinking and other purposes.
Hedge et al.,(2005) reported that the pond at Guruvayanakere and pond at
Belthengady, Karnataka were polluted by the sewage and agriculture run off.
12
Sathyanarayana (1998) estimated eutrophication factors (sulphates, phosphate
and nitrate) in the deterioration of water quality in Kakatiya canal- a drinking water
resources of Warangal, Andra Pradesh. The study revealed that the sulphate was low
during summer and high during winter; the phosphate was high throughout study
period; and nitrate was low throughout the study period.
Sirsath et al., (2006) found that the concentration of ions was minimum during
winter and the maximum during summer in a fresh water pond in Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu, India.
Udayakumar et al., (2006) analyzed physico–chemical and bacteriological
characteristics of water from Namakkal and Erode districts, Tamil Nadu, India and
found that the most of the physico–chemical parameters were within the limits except
in Orathapalayam dam; the bacteriological population was high in all the samples.
Maniraju et al., (2006) determined fluoride concentration of water in
Vrishabharathi river basin and declared that surface water was found unfit for drinking
purpose.
2.1.1. Ground water
Lokanand et al., (2007) reported that ground water in Mumai was highly
polluted due to industrial effluents.
Isaiah et al., (2003) correlated dental fluorosis with fluoride concentration in
ground water in Salem district and they found that 69.33% children were affected by
dental fluorosis.
Dasgupta (2003) analyzed water samples from pond, open well, tube well and
tap water near Rajgangpur railway station and Rajgangpur Industrial area. The results
revealed that the tap and tube well water was good, but the open well and pond water
was moderately polluted.
Chauhan et al., (1999) found that in ground water of Agra city, iron, zinc and
lead were maximum during winter; cadmium and nickel during summer and copper
during rainy season.
Prasad (1997) studied the ground water quality in an industrial zone and found
that high amount of minerals was present in water from most of the wells
Jameel (2006) reported that heavy metals concentrations of ground water in
Pettavaithalai area in Trichirapalli slightly exceeded limit, but not very bad.
13
Das et al., (2000) reported the fluoride hazards in ground water of Orissa and
the origin of fluoride was attributed to geological source.
Gupta (2010) evaluated the ground water quality around Kamadgiriparikrama
at Citrakoot and found that Ca++ and Mg++ were above the WHO and BIS standards.
Somasekhar et al., (1999) examined the ground water chemistry of
Channapatana Taluk by Regression and cluster analysis. The results revealed that the
Quality of 80% of wells were unsuitable for drinking in terms of hardness, 50% in
terms of magnesium and 20% in terms of nitrates and calcium.
Purandara et al., (2003) observed that increased salinity in ground water was
caused by the improper drainage treatment and sewage disposal.
Garget al., (1999) evaluated ground water quality in some villages of Jind,
Haryana and found that the groundwater was heavily loaded with inorganics to pose
serious health hazards if used for longer periods.
Tripathy (2003) determined the ground water quality in and around
Bhanjabihar area, Orissa and found that the samples were good and fit for drinking and
agricultural activities.
Suthar et al., (2005) reported that ground water at many places in Sri Ganga
Nagar, Rajastanwas unfit for drinking and domestic purposes.
Kumaravel et al., (2003) evaluated ground water contamination due to
municipal garbage based on age of dumping sites and types of soils and concluded that
the ground water was highly contaminated near the dumping site in sandy soil while
less contaminated near the dumping site located in clay soil.
Prajatpathi (2005) analyzed ground water quality in rural areas of Madya
Pradesh during summer, winter and rainy season using statistical tools. Most of the
samples were within the desirable limits except parameters like calcium during winter.
Mariyappan et al., (2004) analyzed of physico–chemical characteristics of
ground water in and around Sivakasi using water quality index and concluded that
twenty water samples were not fit for drinking purposes.
Rao et al., (2005) analyzed ground water quality of Nellore coast and reported
that the study area was saline and consists of high sodium chloride, magnesium
bicarbonate and sodium sulphate.
Singh et al., (2006) investigated a general survey of ground water for physicochemical parameters in Churu, Rajastan and found that the fluoride and nitrate
14
exceeded the standards. Vajpai et al., (2007)reported that the fluoride and nitrate
exceeded the WHO‟s standards in ground water of Korba.
Murugesan et al.,(2007) analyzed ground water quality in Madurai and found
that BOD values were higher than permissible limit.
Dhash et al., (2007) examined the ground water quality in rural areas around
Angul–Talcher industrial zone, Orissa. The results revealed that the dug well water
samples were not fit for the drinking purposes.
Tambekar et al., (2007) analyzed physico-chemical characteristics of ground
water in Amaravati city and computed water quality index that revealed that the water
samples were of fair quality.
Basvaraddi et al.,(2012) characterized ground water quality in and around
Tiptur Town, Karnataka by correlation and regression analysis. The results revealed
that the high degree correlation was found between EC & Chloride and TDS &
Chloride while low degree correlation was found between EC & Ca, TDS & Ca, and
Chloride & Ca. They concluded that ground water was free from contamination.
Singh et al., (1999) analyzed the contamination of ground water from industrial
effluents which were disposed of largely in open without proper treatment and found
that the presence of chromium and cyanide in groundwater was beyond permissible
limits.
Dexit (2003) reported high heavy metals concentration (Cd, Cu, Mn and Se) in
surface and ground water supply of an urban city in Delhi.
Shahnawaz et al., (2009) examined ground water quality of some blocks in
Bihar and found that all the parameters were within the permissible limit except
arsenic.
Prakash et al., (2006) analyzed ground water quality of Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore urban district and the samples were found to contain calcium, chloride, iron
and sulphate.
Adekunle (2007) analyzed ground water quality in a typical rural settlement in
southwest Nigeria and found that all the water samples were contaminated by
municipal waste dumps. Hence, it was concluded that well water samples were not fit
for human consumption before treatment.
Sohu et al., (2007) had examined ground water quality of villages of Sanganer
Tehsil with reference to fluorosis and found that the fluoride ranged from 0.4 to 6.4
mg/l and caused fluorosis (dental and skeletal).
15
Kodapanah et al., (2009) examined the ground water quality for different
purpose in Eshtehard district, Tehran, Iran. Based on sodium adsorption ratio (SAR),
they reported that all the samples were not fit for drinking and other household
purposes and some samples were not fit for irrigation purpose.
Kavitha (2010) analyzed the ground water quality in Erode district, Tamil
Nadu, India and computed WQI. The WQI results revealed that most of the samples
were moderately polluted.
Rani (2006) studied the hydrochemistry of ground water of Thirumanur area,
Tamil Nadu, India. The results revealed that the excess amount of hardness and nitrate
affected the village people. The discharge of wastewater from urban environment was
attributed to the contamination.
Jain et al., (1997) studied the quality of ground water in a Town in the East
Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh to evaluate its suitability for irrigation and
domestic applications. The higher values of certain parameters at various locations
indicated the influence of sea water and they made the water unsuitable for domestic
applications.
A study was carried out by Garode et al., (1997) to recorded fecal indicator
bacteria of several groundwater samples collected from different regions of Chikhali
Town Akola city. Higher MPN Counts were recorded in some samples.
Elampooranam and Rengaraj (1998 and 1999) collected ground water samples
from about 46 wells located in Nagapattinam and Thanjavur district and analyzed.
The result showed that in 20 wells, the recommended limits for drinking water quality
exceeded in one or the other parameters. Only a few water samples were found
unsuitable for irrigation.
Chauhan et al., (1999) monitored the seasonal concentration and speciation
studies of heavy metals in ground water drawn from various areas of Agra city. The
results indicated that iron, zinc and lead were found maximum during winter; copper
in rainy season; and cadmium and nickel in summer.
Dash et al., (1999) assessed the physico-chemical characteristics of
groundwater in the Hemgiri block of Sundargarh district and concluded that the
ground water was suitable for both domestic and irrigation use.
Buragohain et al., (2009) found out that the concentrations of aluminium, lead
and cadmium in ground water were significantly elevated. High concentrations of all
the metals were recorded in the dry seasons rather than in the wet season. Statistical
16
analysis of the data revealed non-uniform distribution of the metals in the area. The
metal contamination of ground water in the district followed the trend Al>Pb>Cd>As
in both of the seasons.
Singh and Chandel (2004) collected the ground water samples from various
hand pumps of eight adjacent localities of various industrial areas in Jaipur. The values
were compared with standards of ISI, ICMR and WHO. It was observed that the pH,
EC, Ca2+, Na+, K+, Mg2+, SO4- ,CO3-, HCO3- , Cl-, DO and BOD values were within
permissible limits of ISI, ICMR and WHO but NO3-, TDS, COD and WQI values
revealed poor water quality in most of the groundwater samples.
Rani and Babu (2008) carried out hydrochemical investigation of the coastal
area between Kollamkode and Kanyakumari. The groundwater of this area up to a
distance of 250m was found to be brackish to saline in nature. Concentration of anions
like nitrate, nitrite and sulphate were within the limit prescribed by WHO and the
phosphate concentration was above the limits, which may be due to saline water
mixing. Na+ and Cl- were fairly high, and so it could be deduced that for most of the
groundwater samples Na+ and Cl- originated from a common source.
Buragohain et al., (2009) carried out a study with respect to chromium,
manganese, zinc, copper and nickel contamination of groundwater in Dhemaji district
of Assam, India. Twenty groundwater samples were collected from tube well and ring
well in both dry and wet seasons. It was ascertained that a sizeable number of
groundwater samples contained chromium, manganese and nickel at toxic level.
Copper and zinc content of groundwater was found to be within the guideline value of
WHO. High concentrations of all the trace metals except for chromium were recorded
in the dry season than in the wet season. Statistical analyses of the data revealed that
the distribution of various metals in the study area was widely off normal. The metal
concentration of groundwater in the district followed the trend Zn>Mn>Cr>Cu>Ni in
both the seasons.
2.2. Drinking Water
The major sources of drinking water supply in our country are rivers streams,
wells, tube wells and bore well. About 10-15% of India‟s population gets piped,
filtered, clean drinking water and the rest have to depend upon unfiltered natural water
from rivers, ponds and tube wells. Even in those metropolitan cities and big Towns,
where people get piped filtered water from municipalities and corporations, the quality
17
of water is not good due to sewage contamination. Consequently, the majority of
people suffer from water borne diseases, especially in rainy seasons (Latif et al.,
1997).
Ramakrishnan et al., (1991)studied the physico-chemical parameters of five
drinking water sources at Thiruvannamalai. All parameters were found to be in the
permissible limit except Calcium and Magnesium.
Nagarajanand Priya (1999) had conducted ground water quality in
Thiruverambur village in Trichy district. Ten different water samples were collected
from hand pump, well water and pond water. The results revealed that TSS, Iron and
Magnesium values were higher than permissible limits.
Sangeetha (2000) studied ground water quality of seven villages around
Udaiyarpalayam, Tamil Nadu. The results revealed that some of the samples exceeded
the standard values.
Rani et al., (2003) had analyzed the drinking water quality of five rural places
in and around Thitakudi in Tamil Nadu. Most of the samples had high values of TDS
&alkalinity.
Dhankar (2004) had collected water samples from different sources like well
water, tank water, hand pumps and government canals in different regions of
Mahendergarh, Haryana. The results revealed that the tap water and hand pump water
were suitable for drinking purpose compared with other sources.
Rajan (2005) evaluated drinking water quality in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. The
study revealed that all the water samples were not fit for drinking purpose. The reason
was due to high level of electrical conductivity and inorganic salts.
Kumar et al., (2006) carried out the physico-chemical and bacteriological
analysis of drinking water in Tiruchirappalli and found that nine water samples were
fit for drinking purpose.
Narayana et al., (2005) investigated of drinking water quality of Basavanahole
tank with reference to physico-chemical characteristics. The results revealed that the
water quality parameters were within the permissible limit and hence, water samples
were fit for drinking and irrigation purposes.
Ranjana et al., (1997) reported that Darbhanga tube well drinking water was
good and safe drinking water in Bihar. Panda et al., (1998) found that Chandai
reservoir water quality was good and fit for drinking and domestic purposes.
18
Drusilla et al., (2005) reported that the Harihara stream water can be used for
irrigation, bathing, washing, but not for drinking.
Pandian et al., (2005) examined physico-chemical characteristics of drinking
water in selected areas of Namakal Town, Tamil Nadu, India. Physico-chemical
parameters and bacterial quality of coliform count varied in drinking water widely.
Subramani et al., (2005) analyzed ground water quality for drinking and
agricultural use in Chithar river basin Tamil Nadu, India. This analysis revealed that
the ground water was slightly alkaline and highly saline in nature. They concluded that
water was not fit for drinking and irrigation due to high hardness and TDS.
Devi and Belagali (2005) evaluated the water quality from different districts of
southern Karnataka. The results revealed that the physico-chemical parameters were
within the permissible limit, but the bacterial coliforms were excess in some samples.
Tambekar et al., (2005) carried out multiple anti biotic Resistance (MAR)
indexing to discriminate the source of fecal contamination in drinking water. The study
revealed that the non- human sources was low, but human sources was high.
Prajatpathi (2005) had done comparative study of drinking water of Sheopur
Town and adjacent villages. The bacteriological quality of ground waters in sheopur
and adjacents areas from hand pumps were suitable for drinking purpose, while open
well water was highly contaminated with fecal coliform.
Agarkar (2005) evaluated the status of drinking water quality in school in
Buldana district of Maharastra. The results revealed that the physico-chemical
parameters were within the permissible limit, but the microbiological parameters
exceeded the limits.
Peter (2002) estimated and projected deaths from water related diseases during
2000–2020. This paper exposed that the safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
were not provided to all people. He projected that there would be 76 million deaths
from water related diseases by 2020.
Mahananda et al., (2010) analyzed physico–chemical characteristics of surface
and ground water of Bargarh district, Orissa, India. The results revealed that the
surface water quality was above the permissible limit, but the ground water was below
the pollution level. So the ground water was fit for drinking, agriculture and industrial
purposes.
Wagh (2005) analyzed the impact of heavy metals on soils and ground water.
The heavy metals (Cu, Zn, & Fe) exceeded level in industrial area.
19
As bacterial contamination of water is common in many parts of the world,
especially in developing countries, Antipchuk et al., (1977) emphasized the need for
microbial investigation of water in order to ascertain the quality of water.
Patralekh (1991) reported that due to drinking of untreated pond water with
bacterial contamination caused intestinal disorders and water-borne diseases in Bihar,
India.
Bharat (1991) reported that the ground water and pond was contaminated by
bacteria from sewage in Aligarh. It was suggested that proper sewage treatment and
sterilization of vegetables before market were must.
Gowrishankar et al., (1998) from their evaluation of bacterial quality of rural
drinking water systems in Alwarkuruchi Town Panchayat situated at the foothills of
Western Ghats, declared that the total coliform and fecal coliform contamination was
very high in the pond water while it was very low in Town Panchayat water supply.
Kannan et al., (2001), proved bacterial contamination of potable water in
Rasipuram and Thiruchengode Taluks, Tamil Nadu, India, by isolating of Vibrio sp.,
Escheriachia coli, Salmonellasp.and Shigella sp.in many samples. They also found
that bacterial contamination was very high in open wells while it was low in bore
wells.
Chhabra (2003) established contamination of drinking water by coliforms in
Bikaner, Rajasthan, India and it was major cause for occurrence of water-borne
diseases.
Natural water body is not simply body of water alone. It is a system of living
organisms and their interactions and inter-relations among themselves and with nonliving components of water, soil, sediments, etc.
This system is called “aquatic
ecosystem”. The planktons are the minute living organisms that form the base for the
food chain and food web of any aquatic ecosystem. Therefore, their presence, their
diversity and abundance indicate the quality of water. Polluted waters normally have
less types and numbers of these organisms (Sinha and sinha. 1993).
Sinha et al (1993), from the analysis of pond water in Bihar, established a
relationship between physic-chemical parameters such as temperature, pH, DO,
chloride and phosphate and zooplankton density.
Murugan (1994) reported that zooplankton density varied diurnally with high
density at 6 a.m. and midnight in Maduranthakam Tank. Guptha (1993) reported that
20
zooplankton density was very high during night hours in a shallow pond in Udaipur,
Rajasthan, India.
Mruthunjaya (2004) found that plankton population dominated due to high
phosphate levels in Mysore Lake.
Pushpendra (1994) reported that zooplankton diversity varied seasonally (low
in September and high November, February and April) in a pond in Manglaore, India.
This variation was attributed to variation in acidity values of pond water.
Abdussaboor (1995) reported that zooplankton density was high during rainy
season (267/L) and low during summer (71/L) in a tropical pond.
Sedamkar and Angadi (2003), from their comparative study between two fresh
water bodies in Gulberga, India, established a relationship between the concentration
of certain physic-chemical parameters and the growth of phytoplankton.
Prasad (2003) used various algal indices to determine the organic pollution
level in a fresh water body in Thiruvannamalai, India and concluded that the water
body was highly polluted.
Sobha et al., (2006) found that water pollution due to saline water intrusion and
husk retting activity affected the rotifer‟s (zooplankton) population in Kadnamkulam
Lake in Southern Kerala.
2.3. Geology of Ariyalur
It has been estimated that 16250 ha were under minig in Tamil Nadu of which
3285 ha were in the district of salem followed by 3155 ha in cuddalore district. The
other districts which had fairly substantial area under this category include Namakkal,
Tirunelveli, Sivagangai and perambalur (Tonapi, 1980).Ariyalur is famous for its
cement industries in and around it. This is possible due to its immense limestone store
which is the potential raw material for cement industries. In particular Arasu, Birla,
Sakthi, Dalmia, Ramco, Chettinadu, Dalmia, Tamil Nadu cements etc. are situated in
Ariyalur. So Ariyalur is one of the busiest transport cities(District census 2011).
The rocks of the Ariyalur group are mainly sandstones and shell banks and
occupied a large area compared to the other two groups. Cuddalore sandstone (younger
tertiary rocks) are showing largely over the Ariyalur group of rocks which are indeed
responsible for the preservation of the cretaceous rocks. The cretaceous rocks of the
Ariyalur area in the Cauvery basin have been classified both lithostratigraphically and
biostratigraphically. Lithologically, they are divided into three groups, viz. Uttatur,
21
Trichinopoly and Ariyalur groups in the ascending order and these groups include
many formations.
Department of geology, Anna University in Chennai, studied on targeting
limestone and bauxite deposits in southern India by spectral un mixing of
Hyperspectral image data. This study revealed that to identified the bauxite deposited
area in the Kolli hills and the limestone deposited area in the Ariyalur in south India.
Sundaram and Rao (1984) recognized new formational units for the Uttatur and
Trichinopoly groups and they were Arogyapuram, Dalmiapuram and Karai formation
for the Uttatur group, Kulakkanatham and Anaipadi formations for the Trichinopoly
group. They retained the classification of Ariyalur group (Sillakudi, Kallankurichi &
Kallamedu formations – clubbing Ottakoil formation and Kallamedu formation into
one formation).
Sundaram et al., (2001) gave a detailed description of the lithostratigraphy of
the cretaceous rocks of Ariyalur, Vriddachalam and Pondicherry. ONGC has classified
the cretaceous rocks based only on the lithographic characters.
22
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
49 villages and one Town (Ariyalur Town) in Ariyalur Taluk of Ariyalur
District were selected for the present study. The details of Ariyalur district and
Ariyalur Taluk are described in the following sections.
3.1. Geographical Location of Ariyalur District:
Ariyalur district is the 29th district in Tamil Nadu, India. This district is
surrounded by Nagapattinam in east, Trichirappalli in the southwest, Thanjavur in
south and southeast, Cuddalore in north and northeast and Perambalur in the west.
(http://www.ariyalur.tn.nic.in/Distt/Profile/DisttProfileGenl.html)
Map-3.1: Ariyalur district map
As per the Government G.O.MS.No. 657 Revenue (Ra-1(1)) Department dated,
29.12.2000, Ariyalur district was formed from the composite Perambalur District
which was bifurcated from Trichirappalli in 1995. Ariyalur district was declared as a
separate district from 1.01.2001. It occupies an area of 1949 km2. It has 3 Taluks
(Ariyalur, Sendurai and Jayankondam), 6 Unions (Ariyalur, Andimadam, Sendurai,
Thirumannur, T.Palur and Jayankondam), 4 Towns (Ariyalur, Jayankondam,
Udaiyarpalayam and Varadarajanpettai), 212 villages and 165,569 Households. The
administrative offices are located at the headquarters, Ariyalur Town. The details of
Ariyalur District are presented in table-3.1.
23
Table-3.1: Details of Ariyalur District
Sl.
No
1
Taluk
Town
Panchayats
Sendurai
Urban/Rur
al
Houses
Total
24,858
Rural
24,858
Urban
0
Total
83,463
Rural
72,218
Urban
11,245
Urban
7,022
31,268
Urban
2,440
11,320
Population
Block
Villages
Sendurai
28
Jayankondam
36
Andimadam
37
102,741
3,58,467
Udaiyar
2
Jayankondam
Palayam
Udaiyarpalayam
Varadarajanpettai
3
44
T.Palur
Urban
1,783
8,575
Total
57,248
234,316
Rural
50,943
206,494
Urban
6,305
27,822
6,305
27,822
Ariyalur
32
Ariyalur
Ariyalur
Total
Urban
Total
165,569
Rural
148,019
Urban
17,550
Thirumanur
35
695,524
212
3.2. Geology of Ariyalur
Geologically, Ariyalur is fairly rich in limestone deposits. About 600 million
years ago, Ariyalur was under the sea and sea receded during late cretaceous period
resulting in the terrestrial ecosystem (Rani, 2005). Mineral deposits (celeste,
limestone, shale, sandstone, canker and phosphate nodules) occur at various places in
the district (Plate-3.1). Mineral and mining details are presented in table-3.2.
24
Plate-3.1: Mineral deposits in Ariyalur Taluk (Source: Arasu cements museum)
Table-3.2: Mineral and mining details for the year 1999-2000
Sl.No
Name of the
mineral
Quantity mined
Royalty/ Seigniorage fee
collected in Rs.
1
Limestone
38,80,325 Tones
70,25,39,000
2
Fire Clay
41,000
32,80,000
Lateritic
900 Lorry
3
62,175
Gravel
Loads+5 tractor loads
4
Kankar
-
-
5
River sand
-
-
Total Revenue
70,58,81,175
Source: (District Census Hand Book: Ariyalur, 2001)
3.2.1. Soil types in Ariyalur District:
The district consists of red sandy soil with scattered pockets of block soil. The
soil testing laboratory found that the major types of soil in the district are black cotton
soil (45,648 hectares), red soil (3,802 hectares) and clay soil (20.142 hectares) (District
Census Hand Book: Ariyalur, 2001).
3.2.2. Land use pattern in Ariyalur District:
The forest resources of this district are meager as compared to the state as a
whole. While 16.64% of the total geographical area of the state is under forest, this
district has only 6.85%. In this district forests are not only small in area but also poor
in quality. The chief forest product is fire wood (Caesuarians, bamboo, eucalyptus
25
hybrid) and to a lesser extent sandalwood and timber such as teak and rosewood are
the common trees. Land use pattern in Ariyalur District is presented in Table-3.3.
Table-3.3: Land use pattern of Ariyalur district
Classification
District (Area
in Hectares)
1
Forest
739.495
2
Barren and Uncultivable uses
8523.395
3
Land put to Non-Agricultural uses
32321.425
4
Cultivable Waste
3223.045
5
Permanent Pastures and Other Grazing Land
1291.285
6
Land Under Various Tree Crops and Woods not included
19222.505
in Net Area Sown
7
Current Fallow
11501.560
8
Other Fallow Lands
8367.750
9
Net Area Sown
107607.690
10
Geographical Area According to Village Papers
193398.150
11
Total Cropped Area
115120.525
12
Area sown more than once
7512.835
3.3. Agriculture
Agriculture is the major activity in this district. The principal crop is paddy.
Maize and cotton are grown as rain fed crops. Oil seeds such as groundnut and
sunflower and pulses like black gram, green gram and red gram are grown
considerably. The area under cultivation and the production are presented in table-3.4
and Agricultural products are presented in Table-3.5.
Table-3.4: Agricultural land in Ha. 2010-11 in Ariyalur District
Total Cultivated Area
115121
Net Area
107608
Area Sown more than once
7513
26
Table-3.5: Agricultural products in Ariyalur district
Sl.No
Crops
Area in ‘000’
Production in ‘000’
Tonne (2010-11)
1
Rice
25.211
92292.316
2
Sugarcane (cane)
7.500
2122537.500
3
Groundnut
12.058
29592.489
4
Ginelly
1.228
239.006
5
Cotton (Bales of 170
Kg lint each)
5.684
5.134
6
Onion
0.053
52331.393
7
Tapioca
0.245
92332.217
8
Cashew
30.458
7237.291
9
Chillies
1.214
1.573
10
Maize
9.996
14.674
3.3.1. Irrigation of Ariyalur district
Table-3.6: Major irrigation tanks in Ariyalur district
Sl.No.
Name of the Tanks
1
Rayampuram big tank,
2
Nakkambady tank
3
Kulumur big tank
4
Ponneri tank
5
Sengal tank
6
Sundakuli tank
7
Vannankkuliodai tank
8
Sripuranthan tank
9
Kokvaithattai tank
27
The major area in this district has only rain fed crop. Thirumanur and T.Palur
are only wet areas under the Cauvery delta. So, the cultivation depends mainly on the
wells and tanks. As per the 1999-2000 Censes, there were total number of tanks - 544,
open wells -10,274; and tube wells -7,059. Totally 24,594 hectares of land was
irrigated through these sources.
In Ariyalur District, 63 tanks are situated in Ariyalur, Udayapalayam and
Sendurai Taluks. An extent of 2,582 hectares of land is being irrigated by these tanks.
The major tanks haveay acuts. Sources of water for irrigation are presented in table-3.7
and important lake and ponds of Ariyalur district presented in table-3.8.
Table-3.7: Sources of water for irrigation
Irrigated Area (in Ha.)
Gross
NET
Government Canals
7840
7430
Tanks
4018
3943
Tube Wells
21225
18535
Other Wells
5817
4701
Total Area Irrigated
38900
34609
Table-3.8: Important Lakes and ponds of Ariyalur district
1
Ariyalur Block
NagamangalamAndiEari, KallankurichiEari, Ariyalur Sitheri,
VilankudiPeriyaEari,
VellurPeriyaEari,
ThelurPeriyaEari,
RayampuramEari, AgaramPeriyaEari, UppuodaiPeriyaEari.
2
ThirumanurBlock ArasanEari, Andiodai, VettakudiEari, ThoothurEari, ManodaiEari,
SukkiranEari, VannanEari.
3
Jayankondam
Block
PonEari, ValavanEari, PandianEari, VeeramangudiOdaiEari.
4
T.Palur Block
SripuranthanPeriyaEari,
SundakudiEari.
5
Andimadam
Block
KallankuliEari, KattathurPeriyaEari, Anikuthichan, SathanapattuEari,
VilanthaiPeriyaEari, Periya KrishnapuramPeriyaEari.
6
Sendurai Block
NakkampadiPeriyaEari, KulumurPeriyaEari, SenduraiPeriyaEari,
NallanayagapuramEari, EachankattuPeriyaEari, ThalavaiPeriyaEari.
KaraikurichiKovathattaiEari,
28
Table-3.9: Details of surface water resources and their present position
Sl.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Name of the
panchayat
Thavuthaikulam
Subrayapuram
Pudupalaiyam
Melakarupur
Valajanagaram
Venkadakrishnsp
uram
Name of the lake
Ayac
ut in
acre
Details in Under the
irrigation area
Irrigation lake
Supply
in m
Last
conservat
ion
process
Kalyanasellappattueri
3.69
Ammakulam
3.69
2009-2010
Thorattieri
42.33
Thavuthaikulam
42.33
17.6.2010
Udaiyaneri
9.16
Ammakulam
9.16
Still
processing
Kumaradieri
23.79
Rengasamuthira
m
23.79
2009-2010
Subbrayapurameri
12.66
Subrayapuram
12.66
2009-2010
Krishna puraththaneri
1.81
Pallkrishnapuram
1.81
March 88
Aadhithiravidareri
18.12
Pudupalaiyam
18.12
April 90
Palayaththueri
27.30
Pudupalaiyam
27.30
Still
processing
Chinneri
1.22
Karuppurpoyyur
1.22
April 87
Kallareri
3.73
Karuppurpoyyur
3.73
March 88
Kumarasamypillaieri
2.62
MelaKaruppur
2.62
April 89
Pudueri
8.53
Karuppurpoyyur
8.53
March 88
Narayanasamyeri
17.00
Valajanagaram
17
March 88
Sarvaikuttai
2.00
Valajanagaram
2
March 89
Sarvaikkaraneri
5.67
Valajanagaram
5.67
April89
Vadakkaiyaarueri
0.43
Valajanagaram
0.43
April89
Kaliyugavaradharajap
erumaleri
9.79
Valajanagaram
9.79
March 88
Ravuthanpattiperiyank
uttai
3.58
Ravuthanpatti
3.58
March 90
Sandhaanaeri
10.2
Ravuthanpatti
10.2
August 88
Venkadakrishnspuram
eri
0.24
venkadakrishnsp
uram
0.24
March 87
29
Marudhappaudaiyaane
ri
1.50
venkadakrishnsp
uram
1.50
April 88
Aalangudiyaaneri
6.63
venkadakrishnsp
uram
6.63
2008-2009
7
Siruvaloor
Perumaal redid eri
22.75
siruvaloor
22.75
2009-2010
8
Asthinapuram
Vellamuththueri
1.05
Asthinapuram
1.05
2008-2009
9
Periyanagalur
Alagappaudaiyareri
5.23
kattupiringiyam
5.23
2008-2009
China
arunaachalapadaiyachi
eri
5.94
kattupiringiyam
5.94
2009-2010
Melakaruppudaiyaarer
i
1.34
kattupiringiyam
1.34
March 87
Moongileri
1.71
Periyanagalur
1.71
April 87
Muniyankulam
0.92
kattupiringiyam
0.92
March 86
Muthupadiyachieri
1.47
Kattupiringiyam
1.47
April 87
Periyaarunachalapadai
yachieri
3.22
kattupiringiyam
3.22
March 87
Periyaeri
26.04
Periyanagalur
26.04
April 88
Ponnambalapadaiyach
ieri
0.70
kattupiringiyam
0.70
March 86
Pudhueri
1.83
periyanagalur
1.83
March 86
Pudhueri
2.30
kattupiringiyam
2.30
April 88
Kolaikuzhieri
19.86
Thelur
19.86
March 87
Nallaudaiyaneri
0.63
kudisal
0.63
March 88
Muthumoopaneri
2.56
kudisal
2.56
April 89
Periyaeri
39.16
mannuzhi
39.16
2009-2010
Alagappapadaiyachieri
2.01
reddipalayam
2.01
2010-2011
Appasamypadaiyachie
ri
2.01
reddipalayam
2.01
2011-2012
Aarumugamooppaneri
1.71
reddipalayam
1.71
2009-2010
China eri
10.68
reddipalayam
10.68
2011-2012
10
11
Thelur
Reddippalayam
30
12
13
14
Kayarlabath
Srinivasapuram
Kallangurichy
Ganapathimooppaneri
1.70
reddipalayam
1.70
April 88
Periyaeri
4.44
reddipalayam
4.44
2009-2010
Kakkarukuttai
9.81
Kayarlabath
9.81
March 88
Konaareri
5.34
Kayarlabath
5.34
2011-2012
Pukudaiyaaneri
3.41
Kayarlabath
3.41
March 88
China eri
3.32
Srinivasapuram
3.32
2009-2010
Paalaiyaneri
8.93
Srinivasapuram
8.93
2009-2010
Pudhueri
6.67
Srinivasapuram
6.67
March 90
Muniseeperi
2.97
Kallangurichy
2.97
March 88
Samberi
1.83
Kallangurichy
1.83
April 89
15
Manakkudi
Periyaeri
46.55
Manakkudi
46.55
2009-2010
16
Kaduhoor
Beemaneri
42.96
Kaduhoor
42.96
2010-2011
Konaarkulam
2.33
Kaduhoor
2.33
March 88
Muthukaruppupadaiya
chieri
1.12
Kaduhoor
1.12
March 89
Pudhueri
6.14
Kaduhoor
6.14
April 88
Pudhukalaareri
3.13
nuraiyur
3.13
Processing
Vannimudaiyaaneri
22.92
tlaiyarikudukadu
22.92
2010-2011
Ayanaathurpudueri
11.43
Ayanaathur
11.43
March 88
Alangarankuttai
1.71
Eruthukkaranpatt
i
1.71
March 88
Appakannueri
2.58
Mahalingapuram
2.58
March 89
Panchavarthasekavarth
aneri
6.1
Mahalingapuram
6.1
April 88
Vellarikuttai
2.89
Thamaraikulam
2.89
proccesing
Morakkarankuttai
3.16
Thamaraikulam
3.16
March 87
Kaanavaayankuttai
2.44
Thamaraikulam
2.44
March 87
Muthuveludaiyankutta
i
3.14
Thamaraikulam
3.14
April 88
17
18
Eruthukkaranpatt
i
Thamaraikulam
31
19
20
21
22
23
Ottakovil
Iluppaiyur
Rayampuram
Sennivanam
Govindhapuram
Nallappaudaiyankuttai
5.83
Thamaraikulam
5.83
March 89
Dhuraieri
0.68
Thamaraikulam
0.68
March 90
theluraaneri
0.66
venkadaramanap
uram
0.66
March 90
Karuppuudaiyaneri
3.82
kallamedu
3.82
March 89
Nallamuthupadaiyachi
eri
5.90
salaiyakurichi
5.90
April 87
Madhaarsahiperi
3.63
salaiyakurichi
3.63
March 87
Chinnaiyanudaiyareri
3.72
kallamedu
3.72
March 88
Vathiyalingudaiyareri
4.10
Ottakovilkuthur
4.10
April 87
Ottakoothurperiyaeri
3.80
Ottakovilkuthur
3.80
Processing
Karuppaiyaudaiyareri
2.86
Iluppaiyur
2.86
March 88
Kumarapudaiyaneri
1.51
Iluppaiyur
1.51
March 88
Poyyadhanallurperiyae
ri
44.78
Iluppaiyur
44.78
14.8.08
Vengurueri
51.86
Iluppaiyur
51.86
30.7.09
Aadhikudikadunaachi
muthueri
25.02
Aadhikudikadu
25.02
Processing
Chinnaiyaudaiyareri
2.33
kaveripalayam
2.33
March 86
Idaiyankulam
44.93
rayampuram
44.93
30.7.2009
Arasukulam
53.19
Sennivanam
53.19
April 88
Kulambankuttai
21.24
Sennivanam
21.24
13.8.09
Sellakuttaieri
18.10
mettupalayam
18.10
Processing
Sisayanganeri
0.73
Sennivanam
0.73
March 88
Letchumanapadaiyach
ieri
1.12
Govindhapuram
1.12
March 89
Parayankuttai
5.65
Govindhapuram
5.65
April 88
Rayampurathaaneri
5.92
Govindhapuram
5.92
5.3.09
Sekkapadaiyachieri
8.5
Jeyaramapuram
8.5
22.04.201
0
32
Udaiyareri
4.25
Govindhapuram
4.25
10.06.201
0
Karuppuudaiyareri
0.64
Jeyaramapuram
0.64
April 88
Ramasamyudaiyareri
2.05
Jeyaramapuram
2.05
March 89
Pachamuthuudaiyareri
1.0
mahalingapuram
1.00
processing
Rainfall details in Ariyalur District are presented in Table-3.10.
Table-3.10: Rain fall in Ariyalur district 2010-11
Monsoon
Normal(in mm) 1043.0
Actual(in mm) 1210.8
North East
514.4
759.1
South West
349.3
329.4
Winter Period
32.5
29.3
Hot Weather Period
101.8
93.0
3.4. Ground Water Resources at Ariyalur District:
In Ariyalur district, a major share of drinking water supply is met by ground
water. In many villages, ground water is one and the only source for drinking,
domestic, irrigation and industrial uses. Figure-3.1 shows the ground water levels in
Ariyalur District from 1991 to 2010. The ground water level increases in the Premonsoon season (http://www.twadboard.gov.in/twad/ariyalur_dist.aspx).
33
20
18
16
14
M
12
10
PreM
8
PostM
6
4
2
0
year
Figure-3.1: Average Ground water level in Ariyalur district
3.4.1. Geological features and their intrusion on the water quality
The entire Ariyalur district is covered by sedimentary formations of Cretaceous
and Tertiary age with alluvial formations mainly in the south.
3.4.1.1. Occurrence of ground water: Alluvial formations
The maximum thickness of ground water occurring under water table is 37
meters and the average thickness of the aquifer is between 12 and 15 meters, which
have good water bearing zones.
3.4.1.2. Tertiary formations
The tertiary formations occur on the eastern half of the district and have good
storage capacity. This area acts as the catchment for the Veearnam lake, situated in
Cuddalore district. In monsoon periods, areas around Veeranam lake experience
repeated flooding due to rapid surface water run-off form the catchment area. Most of
this flood water drains into the sea.
The ground water occurs in semi-confined
conditions and confined conditions with good ground water potentials in these aquifers
the specific capacity in the tertiary formations range from 40 to 1627 lpm/m/dd.
3.4.1.3. Cretaceous formation
Cretaceous formations comprises white sandy limestone and sand stones with
fossils, calcareous mottled sand stones with fossils, shell lime stones, clays, sand
stones with fossils, basal lime stones, clays and sand beds with fossils. Ground water
34
in the sandy clay lenses and fine sands underlain by white and black clay bed
constitutes phreatic aquifers in the depth which ranges 10.0 to 15.0 meters below
ground water level. Phreatic aquifers in the lime stone have more potential. The
specific capacity in the cretaceous formation ranges from 18.77 to 90.66 lmp/m/dd.
Ground water occurs in clay bound soil, sand lenses and fine sands. Apart from
these formations, the intrusions by limestone constituents the major aquifer. These
formations have good storage capacity due to porous nature and presence of cavities.
But in many locations this ground water is not utilized because of poor quality due to
the limestone deposition. The calcium carbonate are dissolution in the water tends to
increase the hardness (IWMP – IV- Project report Perambalur, 2010).
3.5. Population
The rate of growth of the population in Ariyalur district is very fast. It has
increased from 2,71,501 lakhs (1901) to 6,95,524, lakhs (2001), as per the Census
2001. Ariyalur‟s current population is 752,481 as per the next Census.
800000
752481
695524
636381
700000
572498
513704
600000
500000
437692
398231
400000
348381
308837
294621
306764
300000 271501
Persons
200000
100000
0
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Figure-3.2: Population growth in Ariyalur district (1991 to 2011)
(District Census Hand Book: Ariyalur, 2001; http://www.ariyalur.tn.nic.in/)
3.6. Flora and Fauna
The flora and fauna of this district are fairly rich and varied. The fruit trees
widely spread over are tamarind, mango and coconut. In the hilly tracts, jack and
oranges are grown. The varieties of timber found in the hilly region are teak, vanni,
35
malaivembu, manjakadambu and Bamboos. In Udayarpalam Taluk cashew trees grow
well.
As regards to fauna, big animals like elephants, bisons and tigers are not found
anywhere. All the game birds of the south are found in this district, though not in
plenty.
The Vettakkudi Karaivetti tank situated at 52 kms East of Perambalur Town in
Thirumanur block near Ariyalur, is a water flow refuge for many migratory birds over
30 species. Many rare species like coke, bareheaded goose (endangered), spoon bills,
pintail ducks, grey pelican, teals and other locally migratory species such as open
billed storks, painted storks, grey heron, darter, cormorants etc. visit this tank every
year between December-March in large congregation(District Census Hand Book:
Ariyalur, 2001).
3.7. Ariyalur Taluk
The Ariyalur Taluk one of the three Taluks of Ariyalur district occupies an area
of 67,650 ha and consist of two blocks viz., Ariyalur and Thirumanur. There are 96
revenue villages consisting of 238 villages in both the blocks.
Map-3.2: Location map of sampling sites
36
3.8. Study Area
In the present study, Ariyalur Town and 49 villages were randomly selected out
of 67 revenue villages of Ariyalur Taluk.
These villages distributed within
approximately 19km radius from Ariyalur Town.
Ariyalur Town occupies an area of 7.62 km2 with a population of 68,125. The
study area comprising 49 villages occupies an area of approximately 450 km2 with a
population of 2,34,316 and of 57, 248 households (Census, 2001).
After 1987, People in Ariyalur Taluk depend on the available ground water for
their diverse daily uses. However, people in the Ariyalur Town supplied with the
water from the “Thirumanur Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme” for drinking
purposes.
The municipality water supplied from Thirumanur is exclusively supply to
Ariyalur Town. It is located in Kollidam River bed of Manchamedu village in
Thirumanoor Taluk in Ariyalur district. In addition to this, the “Thirumazhapaddi
Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme” is providing water to 525 inhabitants for
village people located in Thirumazhapaddi (CDP, 2009).
Bore well is centrally located in Kollidam River; 14 sumps were constructed in
Kollidam River from Thirumazhapadi to Rayamburam.
3.8.1. Sampling Sites
Water samples were collected from 93 sampling points which covered
municipal water supply, water from public places, educational institutions, individual
houses from the Town and the villages. Samples were collected during all the four
seasons viz., winter (February), summer (May), SW Monsoon (August), and NE
Monsoon (October).
Samples were grouped 6 categories as follows:
1. Municipal water supply in Ariyalur Town– Samples were collected from the
drinking water outlets of the storage tanks
2. Public water supply in Ariyalur Town – Samples were collected from the
drinking water outlets found in public places
3. Water from educational institutions in Ariyalur Town – Samples were collected
from drinking water outlets in educational institutions
4. Random samples in Ariyalur Town – Samples from randomly selected
households
37
5. Drinking water samples from selected 49 villages – Samples from the drinking
water outlets of the storage tanks
6. Surface water in villages of Ariyalur Taluk–Surface water meant for drinking
The details of sampling locations in each category presented in table-3.11 to 3.16.
Table:-3.11: Description of municipal water samples collected in Ariyalur Taluk
S.No.
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Sources
1
Sambasivam
street
11o08‟14.307”N
79o04‟24.473”E
Kollidam,
G.W & KS
2
Municipality
office
11o08‟08.622”N
79o04‟37.873”E
Kollidam
3
Melaagraharam
11o07‟01.020”N
79o04‟14.740”E
Kollidam
4
Rajajinagar
11o08‟41.505”N
79o04‟27.174”E
Kollidam
5
Anna nagar tank
11o08‟00.525”N
79o04‟22.962”E
Kollidam&
G.W
Table-3.12: Details of public water sampling in Ariyalur Taluk
S.No. Location
Latitude
Longitude
Sources
1
Multipurpose
building
2
Bus
stand
Kollidam
11o08‟11.010”N 79o04‟38.251”E
(Ariyalur)
(TN)
3
Cetti lake
11o08‟08.828”N 79o04‟39.665”E G.W
4
Taluk office
11o08‟11.516”N 79o04‟36.742”E
Kollidam
(TN)
5
GH
11o08‟33.315”N 79o04‟09.764”E
Kollidam
(TN)
6
Railway station
11o08‟56.102”N 79o04‟07.377”E G.W
7
GH road tank
11o08‟37.444”N 79o04‟07.127”E
8
Bharathiyarnagar
11o08‟13.441”N 79o04‟51.630”E G.W
tank
11o08‟57.348”N 79o04‟42.694”E
Kollidam
(TN)
Kollidam&
G.W, KS
38
Table-3.13: Details of Educational Institutions water sampling in Ariyalur Taluk
S.No.
1
Location
Govt. Primary School
Latitude
11o08‟07.942”N
Longitude
79o04‟16.328”E
Sources
Kollidam
2
St.
Marry‟s
School
11o08‟05.573”N
79o04‟16.285”E
Kollidam
3
Nirmala Girls HSS
11o07‟56.139”N
79o04‟15.233”E
Kollidam
4
R.C. Nirmala Gandhi
11o08‟45.668”N
Midd. School
79o04‟18.912”E
Kollidam
5
C.S.I. HSS
11o08‟10.615”N
79o04‟29.348”E
G.W
6
Govt. HSS
11o08‟11.230”N
79o04‟32.453”E
Kollidam
7
Monfort Matriculation
11o08‟53.601”N
HSS
79o04‟42.626”E
G.W
8
Arasunagar
Matriculation HSS
11o08‟22.468”N
79o05‟54.972”E
G.W
9
Govt. Arts College
11o08‟46.276”N
79o04‟31.686”E
Kollidam
(TN)
10
Govt. I.T.I.
11o07‟44.704”N
79o05‟26.868”E
Kollidam&
G.W
High
Table-3.14: Description of Random water sampling details in Ariyalur Taluk
S.No.
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Sources
1
Milk Society
11 08‟25.273”N
79 04‟05.428”E
G.W
2
Alagappanagar
11o08‟21.679”N
79o04‟34.052”E
G.W
3
Vandikkara street
11o08‟17.838”N
79o04‟22.609”E
G.W
4
KaliammanKovil street
11o08‟27.776”N
79o04‟11.022”E
Open Well
5
Rajajinagar house
11o08‟36.714”N
79o04‟28.679”E
G.W
6
Min nagar
11o07‟40.647”N
79o04‟52.292”E
G.W
7
Sadaiyappar street
11o07‟57.838”N
79o04‟38.916”E
G.W
8
Kallakudi street
11o07‟51.865”N
79o04‟21.869”E
G.W
9
Melaagraharam
11o07‟58.139”N
79o04‟08.297”E
Bore well
10
Kurinchankula street
11o08‟11.040”N
79o04‟12.166”E
Open Well
o
o
39
11
West street
11o08‟22.196”N
79o04‟08.570”E
G.W
12
Arundhathiyar street
11o08‟30.799”N
79o04‟07.960”E
G.W
13
Ethirajnagar
11o08‟47.921”N
79o04‟05.626”E
G.W
14
K.K. nagar house
11o08‟52.672”N
79o04‟21.324”E
G.W
15
Sathyanagar
11o08‟53.266”N
79o04‟47.186”E
G.W
16
Periyarnagar
11o08‟30.487”N
79o04‟44.334”E
G.W
17
Bharathiyarnagar house
11o08‟16.173”N
79o04‟52.127”E
G.W
Table-3.15: Description of Rural water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
S.No.
1
Location
Thavuthaikulam
Latitude
11o06‟39.937”N
Longitude
79o04‟20.960”E
Sources
Kollidam, G.W
2
Varanavasi
11o05‟18.324”N
79o04‟38.943”E
Kollidam, G.W
3
Samathuvapuram
11o04‟38.914”N
79o04‟20.219”E
Kollidam, G.W
4
Keelapazhur
11o02‟35.040”N
79o04‟12.222”E
G.W
5
Ammakulam
11o06‟44.567”N
79o04‟51.867”E
Kollidam
6
Rengasamuthiram
11o05‟37.331”N
79o05‟30.348”E
G.W
7
Suprayapuram
11o05‟17.832”N
79o06‟00.820”E
G.W
8
Pallakrishnaram
11o04‟58.724”N
79o06‟06.198”E
G.W
9
Pudupalaiyam
11o05‟17.536”N
79o07‟56.118”E
G.W
10
Melakarupur
11o03‟46.463”N
79o06‟16.015”E
G.W
11
Valajanagaram
11o07‟29.494”N
79o05‟34.650”E
G.W
12
Venkada Krishna puram
11o07‟29.942”N
79o05‟59.961”E
G.W
13
Kurichinatham
11o05‟32.790”N
79o07‟44.151”E
G.W
14
Asthinapuram
11o06‟58.180”N
79o07‟23.517”E
G.W
15
k.kaikatti
11o07‟20.052”N
79o08‟14.669”E
G.W
16
Chinnanagalur
11o07‟30.604”N
79o09‟14.800”E
G.W
17
Periyanagalur
11o07‟42.554”N
79o09‟36.460”E
G.W
18
Mannuzhi
11o08‟19.055”N
79o09‟58.604”E
G.W
40
19
V.kaikatti
11o06‟46.290”N
79o10‟13.652”E
G.W
20
Reddippalayam
11o06‟35.114”N
79o09‟47.207”E
G.W
21
Ravuthampatti
11o08‟27.296”N
79o05‟11.437”E
G.W
22
Manaleri
11o07‟58.050”N
79o06‟11.975”E
G.W
23
Usean bath
11o09‟06.920”N
79o06‟13.761”E
G.W
24
MettuKudial
11o09‟51.070”N
79o06‟05.757”E
G.W
25
Srinivasapuram
11o09‟37.750”N
79o06‟49.139”E
G.W
26
Kallangurichy
11o08‟57.001”N
79o07‟15.636”E
G.W
27
Chinnamanakudi
11o08‟45.258”N
79o08‟12.367”E
G.W
28
Periyamanakudi
11o08‟58.850”N
79o08‟16.584”E
G.W
29
K.Poyyur
11o10‟06.283”N
79o08‟10.408”E
G.W
30
Poombadaiyanpatti
11o10‟10.563”N
79o08‟25.692”E
G.W
31
Thalaiyerikudikadu tank
11o10‟28.253”N
79o08‟15.748”E
G.W
32
Kaduhoor
11o10‟09.716”N
79o09‟05.283”E
G.W
33
Ayanathur
11o10‟09.831”N
79o10‟17.776”E
G.W
34
Koppiliyankudikadu tank
11o09‟18.414”N
79o09‟01.790”E
G.W
35
Kurumanchavadi
11o08‟58.826”N
79o04‟54.682”E
G.W
36
Ammenabath
11o10‟12.743”N
79o05‟28.388”E
G.W
37
Thamaraikulam
11o10‟29.785”N
79o06‟20.495”E
G.W
38
Venkataramanapuram
11o10‟33.331”N
79o06‟44.674”E
G.W
39
Ottakovil
11o11‟21.687”N
79o06‟41.446”E
G.W
40
Kallamedu
11o11‟12.129”N
79o07‟52.307”E
G.W
41
Salaiyakurichi
11o10‟56.754”N
79o07‟52.510”E
G.W
42
Poyyadanallur
11o12‟59.784”N
79o07‟29.245”E
G.W
43
Rayampuram
11o13‟06.998”N
79o09‟34.638”E
G.W
44
Sennivanam
11o12‟29.624”N
79o09‟44.517”E
G.W
45
Aadhikudikadu tank
11o13‟31.210”N
79o10‟35.416”E
G.W
41
46
Eruthukaranpatti
11o09‟12.251”N
79o04‟18.783”E
G.W
47
Mahalingapuram
11o09‟57.792”N
79o04‟37.782”E
G.W
48
Jeyaramapuram
11o10‟45.385”N
79o04‟35.604”E
G.W
49
Govindapuram
11o10‟58.366”N
79o04‟44.389”E
G.W
Table-3.16: Description of surface water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Sl.
No.
1
2
3
4
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Sources
Thalaiyeri kudikadu
11o08‟50.861”N
79o06‟53.981”E
Pond
Mines
11 10‟21.104”N
79 08‟28.312”E
Pond
Koppiliyan kudikadu
11 09‟18.294”N
79 09‟07.074”E
Pond
Aadhikudikadu
11 13‟23.141”N
79 10‟26.317”E
Pond
o
o
o
o
o
o
3.9. Samples collection and analytical methods
A total of 93 drinking water samples were collected from the above selected
locations in the Ariyalur Taluk within Ariyalur district. The sampling sites are listed in
table-3.12.Samples were collected in pre-cleaned polypropylene bottles with necessary
precautions (Brown et al.,1974). Parameters like pH, and EC were immediately
determined and DO was fixed immediately after collection. Samples were analyzed for
physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics using the standard methods
(APHA, 1998).
Details of parameters analyzed and the methods followed are presented in table-3.17.
42
Table-3.17: Details of estimation method of water quality parameters
Sl. No.
Parameter
Method
Instruments/Equipment
A. Physico-chemical
1
pH
Electrometric
pH Meter
2
Conductivity
Electrometric
Conductivity Meter
3
TDS
Boiling& Filtration
-
4
Alkalinity
Titration by Hcl
-
5
Hardness
Titration by EDTA
-
6
Chloride
Titration by AgNO3
-
7
Fluoride
SPADNS
8
Sulphate
Turbidimetric
UV-VIS
Spectrophotometer
Turbidity Meter
9
Nitrate
Ultraviolet screening
10
Phosphate
11
Iorn
Molybdophosphoric
acid
Colorimetry
12
Calcium
Titration by EDTA
UV-VIS
Spectrophotometer
UV-VIS
Spectrophotometer
UV-VIS
Spectrophotometer
-
13
Magnesium
Titration by EDTA
-
14
Sodium
Flame emission
Flame Photometer
15
Potassium
Flame emission
Flame Photometer
16
BOD
17
COD
5 days incubation at BOD Incubator
20oC followed by
titration
Digestion followed by COD Digester
titration
B. Microbiological
18
Fecal coliform
Multiple
fermentation
technique
tube Bacteriological Incubator
C. Heavy Metals
20.
Nickel
21
Lead
22
Cadmium
23
Chromium
Digestion followed by Atomic
Atomic spectrometry
Spectrometer
Adsorption
43
3.10. Water Quality Index
Water quality index is one of the most effective tools to communicate
information on the quality of any water body. WQI is a mathematical equation used to
transform large number of water quality data into a single number (StambukGilijanovic, 1999). It is simple and easy to understandable for decision makers about
quality and possible uses of any water body (Bordalo et al., 2001). It serves the
understanding of water quality issues by integrating complex data and generating a
score that describes water quality status.
3.10.1. Calculating NSF Water Quality Index
Water Quality Index for all the samples was computed using National
Sanitation Foundation water quality index, (NSF WQI) (http://www.waterresearch.net/waterqualindex.htm).
3.11. Global Positioning System
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space based satellite navigation
system that provides location and time information in all weather, anywhere on or near
the Earth, where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites.
GPS (Trimble Juno SB) was used to locate the latitude and longitude of the
sampling sites. GIS map plated by using that the latitude and longitude (map-3.2).
3.12. Geographic Information System
Geographic information system (GIS) is a system designed to capture, store,
manipulate, analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical data. In the
simplest terms, GIS is the merging of cartography, statistical analysis and database
technology.in the present study, the spatial distribution of water quality parameters
with their concentrations were platted on Ariyalur Taluk map using GIS technology by
the software ARCMAP-9.3.
It was used to made map of sampling site location and also plated to which
location have exceeded parameters.
3.13. Statistical Analysis
Karl pearson correlation coefficient were computed to correlate different water
quality parameters (Zar, 2004).
Multivariate analysis (Zar, 2004) was carried out to find out existence of
variation in water quality among the 6 categories and away 4 seasons.
44
3.14. Questionnaire
People were interviewed by questionnaire method to collect information an
details about various aspects the questionnaire used in the presented in appendix – to -.
17 houses were randomly interviewed; in each village, 3 houses were randomly
interviewed; the heads of the institutions (8 schools,1 college and 1 ITI) were
interviewed. The questionnaire survey was also carried out in industries. Water supply
and sanitation details were collected from water supply inchargers in Ariyalur Taluk.
Details about prevalence of water – borne and water related diseases were collected
from primary health care center in villages and from major hospitals in Ariyalur Town.
45
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The drinking water quality totally depends on the geological conditions, the
soil quality and ground water and surface water pollution of the area if any. Water
consumption by different users in Ariyalur Taluk has been estimated using
questionnaire survey. As already mentioned in materials and methods, the drinking
water samples were collected from 93 places covering the entire Ariyalur Taluk and
analyzed. These samples were grouped into 6 categories.
4.1 Water Consumption in Ariyalur Taluk
Using questionnaire survey method, the amount of water used by industries,
farmers for irrigation, educational institutions for drinking and other purposes and
households for domestic use were determined.
4.1.1. Industrial use
A total of 46,50,000 liter/ day of water is used by two industries in Ariyalur
Taluk. The average water consumption by one industry comes to be 23,25,000 liter/
day. There are 8 industries in Ariyalur Taluk of different sizes. If the average water
consumption of 2 industries is assumed as the average for all the industries, a total of
1,86,00,000 L/day is consumed by all the industries in Ariyalur Taluk approximately.
4.1.2. Agricultural use
Ground water is the major source for irrigation in villages in Ariyalur Taluk.
Water consumption for irrigation was estimated from the capacity of the pump set and
duration of running per day by a single farmer.
From the questionnaire survey, for calculation purpose, it has been assumed
that on average, 10 farmers in each village runs the pump set per day for 4 hours of
duration for six months for wetland crops.
Table-4.1: water consumption for irrigation in Ariyalur Taluk
Amount of water
For 49 villages
For entire
Taluk (67)
Liters per farmer
For 10 farmers in
average
1 day
14,400
1,44,000
70,56,000
96,48,000
6 months
25,92,000
2,59,20,000
1,27,00,80,000
1,73,66,40,000
Duration
The quality of ground water is determined comparing with water quality
standards IS: 2296 for irrigation (annexture-IV). All the water samples conformed to
46
the standard for irrigation for all the parameters except for pH in few samples. More
number of samples exceeded the standard for pH in northeast monsoon only.
4.1.3. Domestic water use
From the questionnaire survey, water consumption rate and different uses of
water in households of 49 villages and Ariyalur Town in Ariyalur Taluk were
estimated. The results are presented in table-4.2.
Table-4.2: Water consumption in Ariyalur Taluk
Place
Water consumption, L/ day/ household
Avg. No. of
persons/
Household
drinking
Cooking
bathing
House
cleaning
Gardening
Cloths
washing
5
11
15
93
34
59
79
(1.48)
(3.09)
(5.5)
(37.8)
(13.9)
(19.63)
(28.72)
5
13
15
89
28
Village
Total
291
Town
63
-
(1.80)
(5.30)
(7.84)
(31.6)
(10.6)
208
(18.04)
Average
Percapita consumption for drinking =2.4 L/day
Population details of Census-2011 are available only for the whole of Ariyalur
district. Taluk-wise details are not available in Census, 2011. Hence, details from
Census 2001 has been used in the present study. In Ariyalur Taluk, the total population
was 2,34,316 with the total houses of 57,248 (Census, 2001).
An average of 250 L/day/house of water is required in Ariyalur Taluk. As there
were 57,248 houses, total water requirement comes to be 1,43,12,000 L/day in entire
Ariyalur Taluk.
From questionnaire survey, water consumption in educational institutions was
determined and presented in table-4.3. An average of 11,229 L/day/institution is
required in Ariyalur Taluk. There are 117 educational institutions in Ariyalur Taluk.
The total water requirement comes to be 13,13,793 L/day.
47
250
Table-4.3: Water consumption details of educational institutions in Ariyalur Taluk
No. of institution
10
Avg. No. of staff per institution
46 (26.27)
Avg. No. of students per
institution
1236 (814.12)
Avg. water consumption, L/
day/ institution
Drinking
1910 (1564.5)
Gardening
1130 (1695.8)
Other purposes
79 (36.3)
Toilet use
8110 (8648.2)
Total
11229
Avg. waste water generation, L/ day/ institution
2710 (2143.4)
For drinking alone, 6,86,976 L/day is required in houses of Ariyalur Taluk;
2,23,470 L/day is required in educational institutions in Ariyalur Taluk. Thus a total of
9,10,446L /day of water is required for drinking purpose in Ariyalur. Percapita
drinking water consumption comes to be 2.4 L/day.
The average water consumption per day by various sector is presented in
figure-4.1.
Industry
Agriculture
Water
usage
Domestic
Drinking
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
L/day
Figure-4.1: Daily water consumption for various uses in Ariyalur Taluk
48
It reveals that industry has a very large share of water usage followed by
domestic sector. Quite surprisingly, lesser amount of water use for irrigation than that
for domestic sector was noticed.
4.2. Drinking Water Characteristics
Physico-chemical and microbiological characteristics of water samples in
Ariyalur Taluk are presented in figures-4.2a to-4.25j. From the results, permissible
limits for water quality parameters, the number of samples below and above of
permissible limits are presented in table-4.4 to-4.27.
4.2.1 Water from municipality supply
pH of water samples varied from 7.2 to 8.6. All samples had pH within the
prescribed range in all seasons except one sample in SWM. pH of this sample was 8.6,
i.e.,only 0.1 unit higher than the range.
Turbidity, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate and sodium of all samples in
all seasons were within the prescribed limits.
The EC ranged from 580 to 1180 µS/cm. There is no limit for electrical
conductivity for water.
The TDS of water samples ranged from 380 to 800 mg/L. As per BIS standards
for drinking water, 500mg/L is the desirable limit for TDS. Above this level,
palatability decreases and may cause gastro intestinal irritation (BIS: 10500, 1991). Of
the 5 samples of municipality water, one sample in winter, one sample in summer, two
samples in SWM and three samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
BIS standards prescribe 300mg/L, 75mg/L and 30mg/L as the desirable limits
for total hardness, calcium ion and magnesium ion respectively. Excess of these
values, may cause encrustation in water supply and adverse effect on domestic use
(BIS: 10500, 1991).
Total hardness ranged from 122 to 830 mg/l. Four samples in winter, 2 samples
in summer, 3 in south west monsoon and all the samples in northeast monsoon
exceeded the desirable limit for total hardness.
Calcium ranged from 22 to 196.4 mg/L. Two samples in winter, 4 samples in
summer and 1 sample in southwest monsoon exceeded the desirable limit for calcium.
Magnesium ranged from 21.4 to 138.5mg/L. Two samples in winter, 3 in
summer and all the samples in southwest monsoon exceeded the desirable limit for
magnesium
49
The total alkalinity values ranged from 110 to 550 mg/l. As per BIS, 200mg/L
is the desirable limit for alkalinity. Four samples in winter, all in summer, 3 in SWM
and 3 in NEM exceeded the desirable limit.
Potassium ranged from 1.6 to 13.8 mg/L. There is no limit prescribed for
potassium.
DO ranged from 3.9 to 7.7 mg/L. CPCB prescribed the standard for DO is >6.0
mg/L. All samples except one sample in winter and one in summer and one in
northeast monsoon met this condition.
COD ranged from 4 to 52 mg/L. Prescribed limit for COD is 10mg/L (WHO,
2004). Four samples in winter, all samples in summer, four samples in SWM and four
in NEM exceeded this limit.
BOD ranged from 1.2 to 13.4 mg/l. CPCB prescribes 2mg/L as the limit for
drinking water. Except one sample in SWM all the samples were found to exceed the
limit.
Fluoride ranged from 0 to 1.58 mg/l. Most of the samples had fluoride below
the standard. One sample in summer and one in winter slightly exceeded the standard.
Iron ranged from 0.01 to 1 mg/L. Desirable limit for iron is 0.3mg/L (BIS,
1991).One sample in summer and one sample in SWM exceeded this level.
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB (2008). However,
majority of water samples did not conform to drinking water quality standards (BIS,
1991).
Lead and cadmium were found to be within the limits. Chromium exceeded the
standard in one sample in winter and one sample in summer.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 3 samples were of “Medium”
and 2 samples were of “Bad” quality.
4.2.2. Water from Public Supplies
pH of water samples varied from 7.4 to 8.8. All samples had pH within the
prescribed range in all seasons. Two samples in NE monsoon and one sample in winter
slightly exceeded the range.
Turbidity, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, sodium, potassium and iron of all
samples in all seasons were within the prescribed limits.
50
The EC ranged from 552 to 1547 µS/cm.
The TDS values of water samples ranged from 410 to 950mg/l. Of the 8
samples of public water, 5 samples in winter, 4 samples in summer, 7 samples in
SWM and 5 samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
Total hardness ranged from 175 to 675mg/L. Seven in winter, 6 in summer and
7 in SW monsoon and all in northeast monsoon exceeded the standard (300mg/L).
Calcium ranged from 14 to 282.6 mg/L. All samples exceeded the desirable
limit except one in winter, 2 in SW monsoon and 4 in NE monsoon. Magnesium
ranged from 19 to 279.5 mg/L. Five samples in winter, 4 in summer, 6 in SW monsoon
and all in NE monsoon exceeded the standard for magnesium.
Total alkalinity ranged from 180 to 580 mg/L. All samples exceeded the
desirable limit in all seasons except one in NE monsoon.
The Chloride values ranged from 23.4 to 262.3 mg/l. All the samples were
within the permissible limit (250mg/L). One sample in winter and one sample in SW
monsoon slightly exceeded the limit.
DO ranged from 4.8 to 7.6 mg/L. Two samples in winter, 3 in summer, 4
samples in southeast monsoon and 2 samples in northeast monsoon did not conform
with the standard (>6 mg/L).
COD ranged from 8 to 67.2mg/L. Except 2 samples in summer and 1 in
northeast monsoon, all samples exceeded the prescribed limit of COD is 10mg/L
(WHO, 2004).
BOD ranged from 1.6 to 16.2 mg/l. Except one sample in winter, all samples
were found to exceed in all the seasons.
Fluoride ranged from 0 to 1.62mg/l. Two samples in winter, 4 samples in
summer and 3 samples in SW monsoon slightly exceeded the standard.
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB (2008). However,
majority of the samples did not conform to drinking water quality standards (BIS,
1991).
Lead, Chromium and cadmium were found to be within the limits except 2
samples in SW monsoon that slightly exceeded the limit for chromium.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 5 samples were of “Medium”
and 3 samples were of “Bad” quality.
51
4.2.3. Water from Educational institutions
pH of water samples varied from 7.2 to 8.7. All samples had pH within the
prescribed range in all seasons. One sample in SW monsoon and one sample in NE
monsoon slightly exceeded the range.
Turbidity, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, sodium and iron of all samples in all
seasons were within the prescribed limits.
The EC ranged from 630 to 1580 µS/cm.
The TDS values of water samples ranged from 410 to 960mg/l. Of the 10
samples, 8 samples in winter, 4 samples in summer, 9 samples in SWM and all
samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
Total hardness ranged from 75 to 1040 mg/L. One sample in winter,
4samplesin summer, 3 samples SW monsoon and all samples in NE monsoon had total
hardness below the standard value (300mg/L).
Calcium ranged from 14 to 282.6 mg/L. All samples exceeded the desirable
limit except 1 in winter, 2 in summer, 2 in SW monsoon and 7 in NE monsoon.
Magnesium ranged from 3.6 to 212.1 mg/L. Of 10 samples, nine samples in
winter, 1 sample in summer, 9 in SW monsoon and all in NE monsoon exceeded the
standard for magnesium (30mg/L).
The total alkalinity values ranged from 130 to 580 mg/L.As per BIS, 200mg/L
is the desirable limit for alkalinity. All samples exceeded the desirable limit in all
seasons except one in SW monsoon.
The Chloride values ranged from 51.5 to 457.3 mg/L. All the samples were
within the permissible limit (250mg/L) except two samples in winter, one sample in
SW monsoon and three samples in NE monsoon.
Potassium ranged from 2.3 to 16.6 mg/l.
DO values ranged from 5.2 to 7.5 mg/L. All samples except 1 in winter, 4 in
summer and 4 in northeast monsoon conformed with standard.
COD ranged from 8 to 52 mg/l. Of 10 samples, only two samples in summer
and one sample in SW monsoon were found to be below permissible limit.
BOD ranged from 2.4 to 14.5 mg/L. All samples were found to exceed in all
the seasons.
Fluoride ranged from 0 to 1.92 mg/L. Two samples in winter, 2 samples in
summer and 1 sample in SW monsoon slightly exceeded the standard.
52
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB (2008). However,
majority of the samples did not conform to drinking water quality standards (BIS,
1991).
Lead, Chromium and cadmium were found to be within the limits except one
sample in winter and one sample in SW monsoon for chromium which slightly
exceeded the limit.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 7 samples were of “Medium”
and 3 samples were of “Bad” quality.
4.2.4. Random water samples
pH of water samples varied from 7.1 to 8.8. All samples had pH within the
prescribed range in all seasons. Two samples in summer, one sample in SW monsoon
and two samples in NE monsoon slightly exceeded the range.
Turbidity, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate and iron of all samples in all seasons
were within the prescribed limits.
The EC ranged from 695 to 1574 µS/cm.
The TDS values of water samples ranged from 420 to 970 mg/l. Of the 17
samples, 13 samples in winter, 16 samples in summer, 16 samples in SWM and 16
samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
Total hardness ranged from 115 to 950 mg/L. Sixteen samples in winter, 11
samples in summer, 15 samples in SW monsoon and all samples in NE monsoon
exceeded the standard value (300mg/L).
Calcium ranged from 14 to 242.2 mg/l. Number of samples that had exceeded
the desirable limit were 14 in winter, 14 in summer, 10 in SW monsoon and 5 in NE
monsoon.
Magnesium ranged from 6 to 261.2 mg/L. Out of 17 samples, 11 samples in
winter, 7 samples in summer, 16 in SW monsoon and all samples in NE monsoon
exceeded the standard value for magnesium (30mg/L).
Total alkalinity ranged from 190 to 580 mg/L. All samples exceeded the
desirable limit in all seasons except one sample in summer.
The Chloride values ranged from 54.7 to 475 mg/l. Most of the samples were
within the permissible limit (250mg/L). Three samples in winter, six samples in
53
summer, seven sample in SW monsoon and four samples in NE monsoon exceeded the
limit.
Sodium ranged from 52.4 to 215.1 mg/l. WHO guideline‟s limit for sodium in
drinking water is 200mg/L (WHO, 2004). All samples were within this value except
one sample in NE monsoon.
Potassium ranged from 2.8 to 18.1mg/l.
DO values ranged from 2.3 to 7.2 mg/L. Six samples in winter, 16 samples in
summer, 12 samples in southwest monsoon and 12 samples in northeast monsoon did
not conform the standard value.
COD ranged from 4 to 52 mg/l. Except one sample in summer, 2 samples in
southwest monsoon and 4 in northeast monsoon, all samples were beyond the
prescribed limit for COD (10mg/L).
BOD ranged from 1.1 to 17.8 mg/L. All the samples were found to exceed in
all the seasons except one sample in SW monsoon and one sample in NE monsoon.
Fluoride ranged from 0 to 1.86 mg/l. One sample in winter, one sample in
summer and five samples in southwest monsoon slightly exceeded the standard.
Iron ranged from 0 to 0.31 mg/L. All the samples were within the permissible
value (0.3mg/L). One sample in SW monsoon slightly exceeded.
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB. However, majority of the
water samples did not confirm to drinking water quality standards (BIS, 1991).
Lead, Chromium and cadmium were found to be within the limits. One sample
in winter slightly exceeded the limit for cadmium and one sample in summer and one
sample in SW monsoon slightly exceeded the limit for chromium.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 12samples were found to be of
“Medium” and 5samples were found to be of “Bad” quality.
4.2.5. Water samples from rural areas
pH of water samples varied from 7.1 to 9.1. All samples had pH within the
prescribed range in all seasons. Two samples in winter, four in summer, one sample in
SW monsoon and 20 samples in NE monsoon slightly exceeded the range.
Turbidity, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate of all samples in all seasons were lower
than the prescribed limits.
54
The EC ranged from 549 to 1909 µS/cm.
The TDS values of water samples ranged from 340 to 1450 mg/L. Of the 49
samples, 39 samples in winter, 29 samples in summer, 31 samples in SWM and 44
samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
Total hardness ranged from 48.3 to 950 mg/L. Forty four samples in winter, 35
samples in summer, 27 samples in SW monsoon and 48 samples in NE monsoon
exceeded the standard value (300mg/L).
Calcium ranged from 20.04 to 260.2 mg/l. Forty four samples in winter, 42 in
summer, thirty one in SW monsoon and thirty samples in NE monsoon exceeded the
prescribed limit.
Magnesium ranged from 1.2 to 216.4 mg/L. Out of 49 samples, 36 samples in
winter, 15 samples in summer, 36 in SW monsoon and 45 samples in NE monsoon
exceeded the standard value for magnesium (30mg/L).
The total alkalinity values ranged from 100 to 1500 mg/L. All samples
exceeded the desirable limit in all seasons except 4 samples in summer, 2 in SW
monsoon and 3 in NE monsoon.
The Chloride anged from 14.2 to 382.9 mg/L. Seven samples in winter, seven
samples in summer, four samples in SW monsoon and ten samples in NE monsoon
exceeded the limit.
Sodium ranged from 22.8 to 290.5 mg/l. WHO guideline‟s limit for sodium in
drinking water is 200mg/L (WHO, 1996). Rural water samples were within this limit
except two samples in winter and two samples in summer.
Potassium ranged from 1.6 to 31.2mg/l.
DO values ranged from 1.8 to 8.7 mg/L. Many samples except 15 in winter, 34
in summer, 8 in southwest monsoon and 20 in northeast monsoon met the standard for
DO.
COD ranged from 4 to 84mg/l. Most of the samples were beyond the
prescribed limit for COD. Four samples in winter, one sample in summer, eleven
samples in southwest monsoon and eight samples in NE monsoon had COD below the
standard value.
BOD ranged from 1.0 to 18.7 mg/L. Rural samples were found to exceed the
standard in all the seasons except 7 samples in SW monsoon and 3 samples in NE
monsoon.
55
Fluoride ranged from 0 to 1.86 mg/L. One sample in winter, one sample in
summer and five samples in SW monsoon slightly exceeded the standard.
Iron ranged from 0.0 to 0.65mg/l. Majority of water samples were within the
permissible value (0.3mg/L). One sample in summer and one sample in NE monsoon
exceeded the standard.
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB. However, majority of the
water samples did not confirm to drinking water quality standards (BIS, 1991).
Lead, cadmium and chromium were found to be within the limits. Thirty one
samples each in winter, summer and SW monsoon slightly exceeded the limit for
cadmium. Two in winter, 5 in summer and 9 in SW monsoon slightly exceeded the
standard for chromium.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 29 samples were of “Medium”
and 20 samples were of “Bad” quality.
4.2.6. Surface water
pH of water samples varied from 7.4 to 8.8.Two samples in winter and 2
samples in northeast monsoon exceeded the range.
Turbidity, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, fluoride and sodium of all samples in all
seasons were lower than the prescribed limits.
The EC ranged from 610 to 1470 µS/cm.
The TDS values of water samples ranged from 400 to 820 mg/L. Of the 4
samples of surface water, 3 samples in winter, 3 samples in summer, 2 samples in
SWM and 3 samples in NEM exceeded the standard.
Total hardness ranged from 105 to 780 mg/L. Two samples in winter, 4
samples in summer, 3 in south west monsoon and 3 samples in northeast monsoon
exceeded the desirable limit for total hardness.
Calcium ranged from 14 to 228.4 mg/L. Two samples in winter, 3 samples in
summer, 3 samples in southwest monsoon and 2 samples in northeast monsoon
exceeded the desirable limit for calcium.
Magnesium ranged from 8.5 to 116.2 mg/l. Three samples in winter, 2 samples
in southwest monsoon and 3 samples in northeast monsoon exceeded the desirable
limit for magnesium.
56
The total alkalinity values ranged from 100 to 470 mg/l. Two in winter, 3 in
summer, all samples in SWM and 2 samples in NEM exceeded the desirable limit
(200mg/L).
The Chloride values ranged from 31.9 to 487.1 mg/l. One sample in winter, one
sample in summer and one sample in northeast monsoon exceeded the permissible
limit (250mg/L).
Potassium ranged from 2.5 to 13.1mg/l.
DO values ranged from 4.3 to 5.8 mg/L. All samples did not meet the standard
(>6.0 mg/L).
COD ranged from 8 to 68 mg/l. All the water samples exceeded the limit
except one in southwest monsoon.
BOD ranged from 2.5 to 12.1 mg/l. All the samples were found to exceed in all
the seasons.
Iron ranged from 0.018 to 0.6 mg/L. Iron content was within the permissible
limit in all the seasons except one in northeast monsoon.
Fecal coliform of all samples in all seasons were within prescribed limit
(50/100ml) as per water quality criteria prescribed by CPCB. However, majority of the
water samples did not confirm to drinking water quality standards (BIS, 1991).
Lead content of water samples were found to be within the limit. Chromium
content exceeded the standard in 1 sample in winter, 2 samples in summer and 2
samples in southeast monsoon. Cadmium content exceeded the standard in 3 samples
in winter and 4 samples in southwest monsoon.
Water quality index:
The water quality index results revealed that the 3 samples were of “Medium”
and 1 sample was of “Bad” quality.
57
9
9
8
7
8.5
6
Winter
5
Winter
8
Summer
Summer
4
7.5
SWM
3
NEM
2
SWM
7
NEM
1
6.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Stations
Figure 4.2a: pH of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure 4.2b: pH drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
Winter
4
5
Winter
4
Summer
3
SWM
2
NEM
1
0
3
Summer
2
SWM
1
NEM
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure 4.2c: pH of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure 4.2d: pH drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
58
9
9
8
8.5
7
Winter
8
7.5
7
6
5
Winter
Summer
4
Summer
SWM
3
SWM
NEM
2
NEM
1
6.5
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Stations
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure 4.2e: pH of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 4.2f: pH drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
10
8
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure 4.2g: pH of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
6
Winter
Summer
4
SWM
NEM
2
0
71
72
73
74
75
76 77
Stations
78
79
80
Figure 4.2h: pH drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
59
9
9
8
7
6
5
8.5
Winter
SWM
8
Winter
mg/l
Summer
4
3
2
Summer
7.5
SWM
NEM
NEM
7
1
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
6.5
89
90
91
Stations
Figure 4.2i: pH of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
93
Figure 4.2j: pH drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
EC
1400
EC
1600
1400
1200
1200
800
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
600
400
200
µS/cm
1000
µS/cm
92
Stations
1000
Winter
800
Summer
600
SWM
400
NEM
200
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure 4.3a: EC of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure 4.3b: EC drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
60
EC
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
Winter
800
600
Summe
r
SWM
400
200
µS/cm
1600
µS/cm
1600
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
800
Winter
600
Summe
r
SWM
400
200
0
21
EC
0
30
31
32
33
34
Figure 4.3c: EC of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
37
38
39
40
Figure 4.3d: EC drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
EC
EC
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
Winter
800
Summer
600
SWM
400
NEM
200
0
µS/cm
µS/cm
36
Stations
Stations
1600
35
Winter
800
Summer
600
SWM
400
NEM
200
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure 4.3e: EC of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure 4.3f: EC drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
61
EC
EC
2500
2000
2000
1500
1000
Summer
500
SWM
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Summer
1000
SWM
500
NEM
0
Winter
1500
µS/cm
µS/cm
Winter
NEM
0
70
71
72
73
74
Stations
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure 4.3g: EC of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure 4.3h: EC drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
EC
EC
2000
1600
1400
1500
1200
1000
Summer
SWM
500
NEM
winter
1000
µS/cm
µS/cm
Winter
summer
800
SWM
600
NEM
400
200
0
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure 4.3i: EC of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
90
91
92
93
Station
Figure 4.3j: EC drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
62
1000
800
800
600
Summer
400
SWM
400
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SWM
NEM
200
0
1
Winter
Summer
NEM
200
TDS
600
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
TDS
1000
0
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Stations
Figure 4.4a: TDS of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure 4.4b: TDS drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
TDS
TDS
1000
1000
800
800
Summer
400
SWM
NEM
200
mg/l
Winter
600
mg/l
15
Winter
600
Summer
400
SWM
200
NEM
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure 4.4c: TDS of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure 4.4d: TDS drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
63
TDS
1000
1000
800
800
mg/l
Summer
400
SWM
200
NEM
mg/l
Winter
600
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Winter
600
Summer
400
SWM
NEM
200
0
41
TDS
0
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
57
58
59
60
Figure 4.4f: TDS drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
TDS
TDS
1400
1000
1200
800
Winter
600
Summer
400
1000
mg/l
mg/l
56
Stations
Figure 4.4e: TDS of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
1200
55
Winter
800
Summer
SWM
600
SWM
NEM
400
NEM
200
200
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure 4.4g: TDS of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure 4.4h: TDS drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
64
TDS
1600
TDS
1400
900
1200
800
700
800
600
Winter
600
Summer
500
SWM
400
mg/l
mg/l
1000
Summer
400
SWM
300
NEM
200
Winter
NEM
200
0
100
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
0
90
Stations
Figure 4.4i: TDS of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
91
92
93
Figure 4.4j: TDS drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Turbidity
3.5
Stations
Turbidity
3
3
2.5
2.5
summer
1.5
SWM
1
NTU
NTU
2
winter
2
Winter
Summer
1.5
SWM
1
NEM
NEM
0.5
0.5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure 4.5a: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure 4.5b: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
65
Turbidity
Turbidity
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
Winter
Summer
1.5
2
NTU
NTU
2
Winter
1.5
Summer
1
SWM
1
SWM
0.5
NEM
0.5
NEM
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Figure 4.5c: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
37
38
39
40
Figure 4.5d: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Turbidity
Turbidity
4
3.5
2
3
2.5
Summer
1
SWM
0.5
NEM
NTU
Winter
1.5
NTU
36
Station
Station
2.5
35
Winter
2
Summer
1.5
SWM
1
NEM
0.5
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure 4.5e: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure 4.5f: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
66
Turbidity
Turbidity
5
4
3.5
4
3
2
Summer
1.5
SWM
1
NEM
Winter
3
Winter
NTU
NTU
2.5
Summer
2
SWM
NEM
1
0.5
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
70
72
73
74
Stations
Figure 4.5g: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
77
78
79
80
Figure 4.5h: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Turbidity
Turbidity
4
3
3.5
2.5
3
Winter
2.5
2
winter
Summer
2
SWM
1.5
1
NEM
0.5
NTU
NTU
75 76
Stations
1.5
summe
r
SWM
1
0.5
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure 4.5i: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure 4.5j: Turbidity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
67
Total hardness
1000
800
Winter
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
Total hardness
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Winter
600
Summer
400
SWM
SWM
NEM
200
NEM
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
stations
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 4.6a: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
12
13
15 16
Stations
17
18
19
20
Figure 4.6b: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Total hardness
Total hardness
1000
1000
800
800
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
200
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure 4.6c: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
600
mg/l
600
mg/l
14
Winter
Summer
400
SWM
200
NEM
0
31
32
33
34
35 36
Stations
37
38
39
40
Figure 4.6d: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
68
Total hardness
Total hardness
800
900
700
800
700
600
500
Winter
400
Summer
300
SWM
300
NEM
200
200
mg/l
mg/l
600
100
500
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
100
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
Figure 4.6e: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
57
58
59
60
Figure 4.6f: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
T.Hardness
Total hardness
900
800
800
700
700
600
500
500
600
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
300
200
100
mg/l
mg/l
55 56
Stations
Winter
400
Summer
300
200
SWM
100
NEM
0
0
71
61
62
63
64
65 66
Stations
67
68
69
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
70
Figure 4.6g: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Stations
Figure 4.6h: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
69
Total hardness
Total hardness
1000
800
700
800
600
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
200
500
mg/l
mg/l
600
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
300
200
100
0
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
Stations
87
88
89
90
91
Figure 4.6i: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
93
Figure 4.6j: T.hardness of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Total alkalinity
Total alkalinity
600
600
500
500
400
Winter
300
Summer
SWM
200
NEM
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Stations
7
8
9
10
Figure 4.7a: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
mg/l
400
mg/l
92
Stations
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
300
200
100
0
11
12
13
14
15 16
Stations
17
18
19
20
Figure 4.7b: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
70
Total alkalinity
500
500
400
400
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
300
200
100
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Winter
300
Summer
200
SWM
100
NEM
0
21
Total alkalinity
600
mg/l
mg/l
600
0
30
31
32
33
34
35
Stations
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure 4.7c: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure 4.7d: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Total alkalinity
Total alkalinity
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
600
500
400
Summer
SWM
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
Winter
300
Summer
SWM
200
NEM
100
41
42
43
44
45 46
Stations
47
48
49
50
Figure 4.7e: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
51
52
53
54
55 56
Stations
57
58
59
60
Figure 4.7f: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
71
Total alkalinity
Toatal alkalinity
900
600
800
700
500
600
400
mg/l
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
400
300
200
Winter
mg/l
500
300
Summer
200
SWM
100
NEM
100
0
0
61
62
63
64
65 66
Stations
67
68
69
71
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Stations
Figure-4.7g: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.7h: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Total alkalinity
Total alkalinity
600
500
500
400
400
Winter
300
Summer
SWM
200
NEM
100
Winter
300
mg/l
mg/le
80
Summer
200
SWM
NEM
100
0
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
Stations
87
88
89
Figure-4.7i: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.7j: T.Alkalinity of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
72
8
7
7
6
6
DO
5
Winter
4
Summer
SWM
3
SWM
NEM
2
NEM
5
Winter
4
Summer
3
2
mg.l
mg/l
DO
8
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
12
13
14
Stations
15
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.8a: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.8b: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
DO
DO
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8
7
6
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
16
5
4
Winter
3
Summer
2
SWM
1
NEM
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.8c: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Station
Figure-4.8d: DO drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
73
DO
DO
10
8
Winter
Summer
4
SWM
2
mg/l
mg/l
6
NEM
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
50
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
51
52
53
54
Stations
55
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure 4.8e: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure 4.8f: DO drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
DO
DO
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
Winter
Summer
4
Summer
3
SWM
3
SWM
2
NEM
2
NEM
5
Winter
4
1
mg/l
mg/l
56
1
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure 4.8g: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure 4.8h: DO drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
74
DO
8
DO
6
7
5
Winter
5
4
Summer
4
SWM
3
NEM
2
1
mg/l
mg/l
6
winter
summer
3
SWM
2
NEM
1
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure 4.8i: DO of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
COD
60
60
50
50
Winter
40
Summer
30
SWM
20
NEM
10
mg/l
mg/l
93
Figure 4.8j: DO drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
COD
70
92
Stations
40
Winter
30
Summer
SWM
20
NEM
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure 4.9a: COD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure 4.9b: COD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
75
COD
COD
50
60
40
50
mg/l
10
Winter
30
Summer
SWM
20
SWM
NEM
10
NEM
Summer
20
40
mg/l
Winter
30
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
30
32
33
34
Stations
35
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.9c: COD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.9d: COD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
COD
COD
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
40
Winter
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
36
Winter
30
Summer
20
SWM
10
NEM
SWM
NEM
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.9e: COD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.9f: COD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
76
COD
COD
70
60
60
50
50
Winter
40
Summer
30
mg/l
mg/l
70
SWM
20
Winter
40
Summer
30
SWM
20
NEM
NEM
10
10
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.9g: COD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.9h: COD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
COD
COD
50
60
40
50
Winter
Summer
20
SWM
NEM
10
Winter
40
mg/l
mg/l
30
Summer
30
SWM
NEM
20
10
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
0
90
Stations
Figure-4.9i: COD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.9j: COD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
77
BOD
BOD
18
14
16
12
14
12
8
Winter
6
Summer
4
2
mg/l
mg/l
10
Winter
10
Summer
8
SWM
6
SWM
NEM
4
NEM
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Stations
15
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.10a: BOD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.10b: BOD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
BOD
BOD
18
16
16
14
14
12
Summer
10
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
2
mg/l
Winter
12
mg/l
16
Winter
10
Summer
8
6
SWM
4
NEM
2
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.10c: BOD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.10d: BOD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
78
BOD
BOD
16
20
14
12
15
Summer
10
SWM
NEM
5
Winter
10
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
8
Summer
6
SWM
4
NEM
2
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
57
58
59
60
Figure-4.10f: BOD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
BOD
16
56
Stations
Figure-4.10e: BOD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
BOD
16
14
14
12
12
Winter
8
Summer
6
SWM
4
NEM
2
Winter
10
mg/l
10
mg/l
55
Summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
2
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.10g: BOD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
0
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.10h: BOD drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
79
BOD
BOD
16
16
14
14
Winter
10
Summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
12
Winter
10
mg/l
mg/l
12
Summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
2
2
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.10j: BOD of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chloride
Chloride
300
200
Winter
150
Summer
100
SWM
50
NEM
0
3
4
5 6 7
Stations
8
9
10
Figure-4.11a: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Units mg/l
Units mg/l
250
2
93
Stations
Figure-4.10i: BOD of ground water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
1
92
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
11
12
13
14
15 16 17
Stations
18
19
20
Figure-4.11b: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
80
Chloride
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
mg/l
mg/l
Chloride
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
0
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Stations
Figure-4.11e: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Units mg/l
250
Units mg/l
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Chloride
300
50
32
Figure-4.11d: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chloride
100
NEM
Stations
Figure-4.11c: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
150
Summe
r
SWM
31
Stations
200
Winter
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Stations
Figure-4.11f: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
81
Chloride
Chloride
400
350
250
Winter
200
Summer
150
SWM
100
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
300
50
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
71
72
73
74
Stations
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.11g: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.11h: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chloride
Chloride
500
75
300
250
300
Summer
200
SWM
100
NEM
winter
summer
200
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
400
SWM
150
NEM
100
50
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
0
90
Stations
Figure-4.11i: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.11j: Chloride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
82
Fluoride
Fluoride
1.6
2
1.4
1.5
1
Winter
0.8
Summer
0.6
SWM
0.4
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
1.2
1
Summer
SWM
0.5
NEM
NEM
0.2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Stations
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.12a: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.12b: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Flouride
Fluoride
1.8
2
1.6
1.4
1.5
1
summer
0.5
1.2
mg/l
mg/l
winter
winter
1
summer
0.8
SWM
0.6
NEM
0.4
SWM
NEM
0.2
0
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Stations
Figure-4.12c: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
0
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.12d: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
83
Fluoride
1.8
Fluoride
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
winter
1
summer
winter
1
0.8
summer
0.6
SWM
0.4
NEM
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.8
SWM
0.6
mg/l
mg/l
1.2
NEM
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
50
52
53
54
Stations
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.12e: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.12f: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Fluoride
Fluoride
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
winter
0.8
summer
0.6
0.4
winter
1
mg/l
1
mg/l
55
0.8
summer
SWM
0.6
SWM
NEM
0.4
NEM
0.2
0.2
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.12g: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.12h: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
84
Fluoride
1.8
Fluoride
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
summer
0.8
SWM
0.6
1
mg/l
1
mg/l
1.2
winter
NEM
0.4
winter
summer
SWM
NEM
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Figure-4.12i: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
93
Figure-4.12j: Fluoride of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Sulphate
100
92
Stations
Stations
Sulphate
50
80
40
Winter
Summer
SWM
40
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
60
30
Summer
SWM
20
NEM
NEM
10
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.13a: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.13b: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
85
Sulphate
Sulphate
70
60
60
50
50
Summer
30
SWM
20
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
Winter
40
NEM
10
40
Summer
30
SWM
20
NEM
10
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
0
30
31
32
33
34
Stations
Sulphate
40
30
Winter
25
Summer
20
SWM
15
NEM
10
5
0
44
45 46
Stations
47
48
49
50
Figure-4.13e: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
mg/l
mg/l
35
43
37
38
39
40
Figure-4.13d: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
45
42
36
Stations
Figure-4.13c: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
41
35
Sulphate
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.13f: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
86
Sulphate
70
60
60
50
40
Winter
30
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
50
SWM
20
40
Winter
30
Summer
SWM
20
NEM
10
Sulphate
NEM
10
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.13g: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.13h: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Sulphate
Sulphate
50
30
40
25
Summer
SWM
20
NEM
winter
20
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
30
summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
10
5
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure-4.13i: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.13j: Sulphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
87
Phophate
0.4
0.35
0.35
0.3
0.3
Summer
0.2
SWM
0.15
Winter
0.2
mg/l
mg/l
0.25
Winter
0.25
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
0.1
Phosphate
NEM
0.05
0.05
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.14a: Phosphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.14b: Phosphate drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Phosphate
Phosphate
0.35
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
Winter
0.2
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
15
Winter
0.2
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
0.1
NEM
0.05
0.05
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.14c: Phosphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.14d: Phosphate drinking water samples in Ariyalur
88
Phophate
Phophate
0.35
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.25
Summer
0.2
SWM
0.2
mg/l
0.3
mg/l
Winter
Winter
NEM
0.1
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
0.05
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
Figure-4.14e: Phosphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
58
59
60
Phosphate
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.25
0.3
0.2
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
0.05
mg/l
Winter
mg/l
57
Figure-4.14f: Phosphate drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Phosphate
0.35
55 56
Stations
Winter
0.25
Summer
0.2
SWM
0.15
NEM
0.1
0.05
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.14g: Phosphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
71
72
73
74
75 76
Stations
77
78
79
80
Figure-4.14h: Phosphate drinking water samples in Ariyalur
89
Phosphate
Phosphate
0.35
0.35
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
winter
0.2
summer
SWM
0.15
NEM
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.14i: Phosphate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Summer
SWM
NEM
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.15a: Nitrite of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
mg/l
mg/l
Nitrite
Winter
2
93
Figure-4.14j: Phosphate drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Nitrite
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
92
Stations
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.15b: Nitrite drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
90
Nitrite
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
Units mg/l
Units mg/l
Nitrite
NEM
21
22
23
24
25 26 27
Stations
28
29
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
31
30
Figure-4.15c: Nitrite of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
32
33
34
38
39
40
Figure-4.15d: Nitrite drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Nitrite
Nitrite
1
1.2
0.8
1
Winter
0.6
Summer
0.4
SWM
0.2
NEM
Units mg/l
Units mg/l
35 36 37
Stations
0.8
Winter
0.6
Summer
0.4
SWM
0.2
NEM
0
0
41
42
43
44
45 46 47
Stations
48
49
50
Figure-4.15e: Nitrite of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
51
52
53
54
55 56 57
Stations
58
59
60
Figure-4.15f: Nitrite drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
91
Nitrite
0.8
1.2
0.7
1
Nitrite
0.5
Winter
0.8
Winter
0.4
Summer
0.6
Summer
0.3
SWM
mg/l
mg/l
0.6
NEM
0.2
SWM
0.4
NEM
0.2
0.1
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0
70
71
72
73
74
Stations
Figure-4.15g: Nitrite of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
77
78
79
80
Figure-4.15h: Nitrite drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Nitrite
Nitrite
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
Winter
0.4
0.5
Summer
0.3
SWM
0.2
mg/l
mg/l
75 76
Stations
0.4
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
0.3
NEM
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure-4.15i: Nitrite of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
0
90
91
92
93
Statoins
Figure-4.15j: Nitrite drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
92
Nitrate
Nitrate
14
12
Winter
8
Summer
6
mg/l
mg/l
10
SWM
4
NEM
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
11
12
13
14
Stations
Figure-4.16a: Nitrate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
17
18
19
20
Figure-4.16b: Nitrate drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Nitrate
Nitrate
16
16
14
14
12
12
Summer
8
mg/l
Winter
10
mg/l
15 16
Stations
10
Winter
8
6
SWM
6
4
NEM
4
Summer
SWM
NEM
2
2
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.16c: Nitrate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.16d: Nitrate drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
93
Nitrate
18
16
14
12
Winter
Summer
SWM
mg/l
mg/l
Nitrate
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Winter
10
Summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
NEM
4
2
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.16e: Nitrate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.16f: Nitrate drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Nitrate
Nitrate
20
18
16
15
12
Winter
10
Summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
mg/l
mg/l
14
Winter
Summer
10
SWM
NEM
5
2
0
0
61
62
63
64
65 66
Stations
67
68
69
70
Figure-4.16g: Nitrate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.16h: Nitrate drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
94
Nitrate
Nitrate
18
12
16
10
14
Summer
8
SWM
6
summer
6
SWM
NEM
4
NEM
4
winter
8
Winter
10
mg/l
mg/l
12
2
2
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.16i: Nitrate of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Calcium
250
250
200
200
Winter
150
Summer
SWM
100
mg/l
mg/l
93
Figure-4.16j: Nitrate drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Calcium
300
92
Stations
Winter
150
Summer
100
SWM
NEM
NEM
50
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.17a: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.17b: Calcium drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
95
Calcium
250
Calcium
200
mg/l
Summer
100
SWM
mg/l
Winter
150
NEM
50
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
31
32
33
34
Stations
Figure-4.17c: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
37
38
39
40
Figure-4.17d: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Calcium
Calcium
300
300
250
250
Winter
150
Summer
100
SWM
200
mg/l
200
mg/l
35 36
Stations
Winter
150
Summer
100
SWM
NEM
50
NEM
50
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.17e: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.17f: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
96
Winter
Summer
SWM
mg/l
mg/l
Calcium
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
NEM
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Calcium
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
70
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
71
72
73
74
Stations
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.17g: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.17h: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Calcium
Calcium
250
250
200
200
Winter
150
winter
Summer
SWM
100
NEM
50
150
mg/l
mg/L
75
summer
SWM
NEM
100
50
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
0
90
Stations
Figure-4.17i: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.17j: Calcium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
97
Magnesium
Magnesium
140
300
120
250
80
60
200
summer
150
SWM
100
NEM
SWM
40
Winter
winter
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
100
NEM
50
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
12
13
14
15
Stations
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.18a: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.18b: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Magnesium
Magnesium
300
250
250
200
Winter
200
Summer
150
SWM
NEM
100
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
16
150
Summer
SWM
100
NEM
50
50
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.18c: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.18d: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
98
Magnesium
140
120
200
100
Winter
80
Summer
60
SWM
40
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
Magnesium
250
Winter
150
Summer
SWM
100
NEM
50
20
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
50
52
53
54
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.18e: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.18f: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Magnesium
140
140
120
120
80
SWM
60
NEM
40
mg/l
Summer
Magnesium
100
Winter
100
mg/l
55
Winter
80
Summer
60
SWM
40
NEM
20
20
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.18g: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.18h: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
99
Magnesium
Magnesium
160
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
140
120
mg/l
80
Summer
60
SWM
40
NEM
20
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
winter
summe
r
SWM
mg/l
Winter
100
89
90
Stations
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.18i: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Sodium
Figure-4.18j: Magnesium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
160
180
140
160
Sodium
140
120
120
Summer
100
80
60
SWM
40
NEM
20
mg/l
Winter
100
mg/l
91
Winter
Summer
80
SWM
60
NEM
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.19a: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.19b: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
100
Sodium
Sodium
180
250
160
200
140
Winter
100
Summer
80
SWM
60
Winter
150
Summer
mg/l
mg/l
120
SWM
100
NEM
40
NEM
50
20
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
30
32
33
34
Stations
120
Winter
80
Summer
60
SWM
40
NEM
20
0
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.19e: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
mg/l
mg/l
100
44
38
39
40
Sodium
140
43
37
Figure-4.19d: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Sodium
42
36
Stations
Figure-4.19c: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
41
35
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.19f: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
101
Sodium
250
200
Summer
mg/l
Winter
150
mg/l
Sodium
300
250
200
Winter
150
Summer
SWM
100
SWM
100
NEM
50
NEM
50
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0
70
71
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.19g: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.19h: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Sodium
Sodium
300
75
180
250
160
140
Winter
Summer
150
SWM
100
NEM
50
winter
120
mg/l
mg/l
200
summer
100
SWM
80
NEM
60
40
20
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure-4.19i: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
90
91
Stations
92
93
Figure-4.19j: Sodium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
102
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
Winter
10
Summer
8
6
4
mg/l
mg/l
Pottasium
Pottasium
18
Winter
Summer
10
8
SWM
SWM
6
NEM
NEM
4
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.20a: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.20b: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Pottasium
Pottasium
35
20
30
15
Summer
10
SWM
NEM
5
mg/l
mg/l
Winter
25
Winter
20
Summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
5
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.20c: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.20d: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
103
25
20
20
Winter
15
Summer
10
mg/l
mg/l
Pottasium
25
Winter
15
Summer
10
SWM
SWM
NEM
NEM
5
Pottasium
5
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.20e: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.20f: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Pottasium
Pottasium
25
30
20
25
Winter
Summer
SWM
10
NEM
5
mg/l
mg/l
15
Winter
20
Summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
5
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.20g: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.20h: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
104
Pottasium
Potassium
35
14
12
25
Winter
20
Summer
15
SWM
NEM
10
winter
10
mg/l
mg/l
30
summer
8
SWM
6
NEM
4
5
2
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.20i: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
93
Figure-4.20j: Potassium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Fecal Colirform
Fecal Colirform
25
40
35
20
Winter
15
Summer
10
SWM
NEM
5
N/100ml
N/100ml
92
Stations
30
Winter
25
Summer
20
SWM
15
NEM
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.21a: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.21b: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
105
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
40
30
35
25
Summer
15
SWM
10
N/100ml
N/100ml
30
Winter
20
NEM
25
Winter
20
Summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
5
5
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
0
30
31
32
33
34
Stations
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.21c: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.21d: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
40
30
35
25
30
Winter
Summer
20
SWM
15
NEM
10
Winter
20
N/100ml
N/100ml
25
Summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
5
5
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.21e: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.21f: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
106
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Colrform
40
50
35
30
Winter
30
Summer
20
SWM
N/100ml
N/100ml
40
Winter
20
Summer
15
SWM
10
NEM
10
25
NEM
5
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
70
72
73
74
75
Stations
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.21g: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.21h: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform
50
35
40
30
winter
Winter
30
Summer
SWM
20
NEM
10
N/100ml
N/100ml
76
25
summer
20
SWM
15
NEM
10
5
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
Stations
87
88
89
0
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.21i: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.21j: F.Coliform of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
107
Iorn
Iorn
0.3
0.3
Winter
0.25
Summer
SWM
0.15
NEM
0.2
mg/l
0.2
mg/l
0.25
Winter
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
0.1
0.05
NEM
0.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
10
11
12
13
14
Stations
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.22a: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.22b: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Iron
Iron
0.14
0.35
0.12
0.3
0.1
0.25
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
15
Winter
0.08
Summer
0.06
SWM
0.15
SWM
0.04
NEM
0.1
NEM
0.2
Summer
0.05
0.02
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.22c: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.22d: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
108
Iron
Iron
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.25
0.3
Winter
Summer
0.15
SWM
0.1
winter
0.25
mg/l
mg/l
0.2
NEM
0.05
summer
0.2
0.15
SWM
0.1
NEM
0.05
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
50
51
52
53
54
Stations
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.22e: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.22f: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Iron
Iron
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.3
winter
0.5
summer
0.4
SWM
0.2
NEM
0.1
mg/l
mg/l
0.4
winter
summer
0.3
SWM
0.2
NEM
0.1
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.22g: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.22h: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
109
Iron
Iron
0.4
0.2
0.35
0.3
winter
0.15
summer
0.2
SWM
0.15
NEM
0.1
winter
mg/l
mg/l
0.25
0.1
summer
SWM
0.05
NEM
0.05
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
0
89
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.22i: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
93
Figure-4.22j: Iron of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Lead
Lead
0.03
92
Staions
0.02
0.025
mg/l
Winter
Summer
0.015
mg/l
0.015
0.02
Winter
0.01
Summer
SWM
0.01
NEM
SWM
0.005
NEM
0.005
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stations
Figure-4.23a: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Figure-4.23b: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
110
Lead
0.02
0.015
0.015
Winter
Winter
Summer
0.01
SWM
mg/l
mg/l
Lead
0.02
SWM
NEM
0.005
NEM
0.005
Summer
0.01
0
0
21
22
23
24
25 26
Stations
27
28
29
31
30
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.23c: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.23d: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Lead
Lead
0.02
0.02
0.015
0.015
Winter
Summer
0.01
SWM
0.005
NEM
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.23e: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Winter
mg/l
mg/l
35
Summer
0.01
SWM
NEM
0.005
0
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.23f: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
111
Lead
0.03
Lead
0.02
0.025
0.015
Winter
Winter
Summer
0.015
SWM
0.01
Summer
0.01
mg/l
mg/l
0.02
SWM
NEM
0.005
NEM
0.005
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
70
72
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.23g: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Figure-4.23h: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
Lead
0.01
75
Lead
0.03
0.025
Winter
0.006
0.02
Summer
SWM
0.004
NEM
mg/l
mg/l
0.008
winter
0.015
summer
SWM
0.01
0.002
NEM
0.005
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure-4.23i: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
0
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.23j: Lead of drinking water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
112
Cadmium
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.025
Winter
Summer
0.03
SWM
0.02
Winter
0.02
mg/l
mg/l
0.04
Cadmium
Summer
0.015
SWM
0.01
NEM
0.01
NEM
0.005
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Stations
17
18
19
20
Figure-4.24b: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Cadmium
Cadmium
0.06
0.04
0.05
Winter
Summer
SWM
0.02
NEM
Winter
0.04
mg/l
0.03
mg/l
16
Stations
Figure-4.24a: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0.05
15
Summer
0.03
SWM
0.02
NEM
0.01
0.01
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stations
Figure-4.24c: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stations
Figure-4.24d: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
113
Cadmium
Cadmium
0.04
0.05
0.035
0.04
0.03
mg/l
Summer
0.02
0.015
SWM
0.01
NEM
mg/l
Winter
0.025
Winter
0.03
Summer
0.02
SWM
NEM
0.01
0.005
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
50
52
53
54
Stations
Cadmium
Winter
0.03
Summer
0.02
SWM
NEM
0.01
0
65
66
67
68
69
70
Stations
Figure-4.24g: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
mg/l
mg/l
0.04
64
58
59
60
Cadmium
0.05
63
57
Figure-4.24f: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0.06
62
56
Stations
Figure-4.24e: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
61
55
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
Winter
Summer
SWM
NEM
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.24h: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
114
Cadmium
0.03
Cadmium
0.025
Winter
Summer
0.015
SWM
0.01
mg/l
mg/l
0.02
NEM
0.005
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
0.05
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
winter
summer
SWM
NEM
90
91
Stations
Figure-4.24i: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chromium
0.06
0.05
0.05
Winter
0.04
0.04
Winter
0.03
Summer
Summer
0.03
SWM
0.02
NEM
0.01
mg/l
mg/l
93
Figure-4.24j: Cadmium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chromium
0.06
92
Stations
SWM
0.02
NEM
0.01
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Stations
Stations
Figure-4.25a: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.25b: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
115
Chromium
Chromium
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
mg/l
Summer
0.03
SWM
0.02
mg/l
Winter
0.04
0.04
Winter
0.03
Summer
SWM
0.02
NEM
NEM
0.01
0.01
0
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
30
32
33
34
Stations
37
38
39
40
Figure-4.25d: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chromium
Chromium
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.03
Winter
0.06
Winter
Summer
0.05
Summer
0.04
SWM
SWM
0.02
NEM
0.01
mg/l
0.04
mg/l
36
Stations
Figure-4.25c: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0.06
35
0.03
NEM
0.02
0.01
0
0
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Stations
Figure-4.25e: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Stations
Figure-4.25f: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
116
Chromium
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
Winter
0.03
Summer
Winter
0.03
Summer
0.02
mg/l
mg/l
Chromium
0.06
SWM
0.01
SWM
0.02
NEM
0.01
NEM
0
0
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Stations
76
77
78
79
80
Stations
Figure-4.25g: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Figure-4.25h: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
Chromium
Chromium
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.03
Winter
0.06
Summer
0.05
SWM
0.02
NEM
mg/l
0.04
mg/l
75
winter
0.04
summer
0.03
SWM
0.02
0.01
NEM
0.01
0
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Stations
Figure-4.25i: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
0
90
91
92
93
Stations
Figure-4.25j: Cromium of drinking water samples in Ariyalur
117
Table-4.4: Conformity of number of water samples from municipal water supply with
standards in winter
Sl.No.
Parameters
Desirable
limit
Below desirable
limit
Above desirable
limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
5
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
5
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
5
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
4
1
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
4
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
4
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
5
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
5
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
5
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
5
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
5
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
3
2
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
2
3
15
Na++
200 mg/l
5
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
5
0
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
5
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
5
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
5
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
0
5
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
4
1
118
Table-4.5: Conformity of number of water samples from municipal water supply with
standards in summer
Desirable
Below
Above
Sl.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
5
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
5
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
5
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
4
1
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
3
2
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
5
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
5
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
5
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
5
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
5
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
5
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
4
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
2
3
15
Na++
200 mg/l
5
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
4
1
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
5
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
5
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
5
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
5
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
4
1
119
Table-4.6: Conformity of number of water samples from municipal water supply with
standards in southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
4
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
5
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
5
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
3
2
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
2
3
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
2
3
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
5
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
5
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
5
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
1
4
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
5
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
5
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
4
1
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
0
5
15
Na++
200 mg/l
5
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
5
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
5
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
5
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
5
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
1
4
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
5
0
120
Table-4.7: Conformity of number of water samples from municipal water supply with
standards in northeast monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
5
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
5
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
5
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
3
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
5
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
2
3
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
5
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
5
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
5
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
5
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
5
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
5
0
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
0
5
15
Na++
200 mg/l
5
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
5
0
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
5
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
5
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
5
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
5
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
5
0
121
Table-4.8: Conformity of number of water samples from public places with standards
in winter season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
8
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
8
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
8
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
3
5
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
7
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
8
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
8
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
8
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
8
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
1
7
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
7
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
8
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
7
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
3
5
15
Na++
200 mg/l
8
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
6
2
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
8
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
8
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
8
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
1
7
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
8
0
122
Table-4.9: Conformity of number of water samples from public places with standards
in summer season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
7
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
8
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
8
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
4
4
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
2
6
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
8
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
8
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
8
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
2
0
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
8
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
8
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
8
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
0
8
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
4
4
15
Na++
200 mg/l
8
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
4
4
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
8
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
8
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
8
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
8
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
8
0
123
Table-4.10: Conformity of number of water samples from public places with standards
in southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
8
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
8
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
8
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
7
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
7
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
8
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
8
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
8
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
8
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
8
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
7
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
8
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
2
6
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
2
6
15
Na++
200 mg/l
8
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
5
3
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
8
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
8
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
8
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
1
7
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
6
2
124
Table-4.11: Conformity of number of water samples from public places with standards
in northeast monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
5
3
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
8
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
8
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
3
5
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
8
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
7
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
8
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
8
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
7
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
8
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
7
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
8
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
4
4
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
0
8
15
Na++
200 mg/l
8
-
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
8
0
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
8
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
8
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
8
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
8
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
8
0
125
Table-4.12: Conformity of number of water samples from educational institutions with
standards in winter season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
7
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
10
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
10
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
8
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
9
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
10
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
10
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
10
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
10
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
10
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
7
3
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
10
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
9
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
9
15
Na++
200 mg/l
10
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
8
2
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
10
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
10
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
10
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
3
7
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
9
1
126
Table-4.13: Conformity of number of water samples from educational institutions with
standards in summer season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
9
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
10
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
10
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
7
3
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
4
6
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
10
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
10
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
10
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
2
8
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
10
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
10
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
10
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
2
8
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
9
1
15
Na++
200 mg/l
10
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
8
2
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
10
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
10
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
10
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
10
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
10
0
127
Table-4.14: Conformity of number of water samples from educational institutions with
standards in southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
10
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
10
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
10
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
9
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
3
7
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
9
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
10
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
10
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
0
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
10
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
9
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
10
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
2
8
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
9
15
Na++
200 mg/l
10
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
9
1
17
Iorn
0.3-1.0 mg/l
10
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
10
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
10
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
2
8
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
9
1
128
Table-4.15: Conformity of number of water samples from educational institutions with
standards in northeast monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
10
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
10
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
10
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
9
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
10
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
9
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
10
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
10
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
10
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
10
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
7
3
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
10
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
7
3
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
9
15
Na++
200 mg/l
10
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
10
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
10
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
10
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
10
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
10
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
10
0
129
Table-4.16: Conformity of number of water samples from random sources with
standards in winter season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
17
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
17
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
17
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
4
13
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
16
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
17
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
17
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
17
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
17
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
17
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
14
3
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
17
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
3
14
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
6
11
15
Na++
200 mg/l
17
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
16
1
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
17
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
17
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
17
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
3
14
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
17
0
130
Table-4.17: Conformity of number of water samples from random sources with
standards in summer season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
13
3
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
17
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
17
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
15
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
6
11
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
16
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
17
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
17
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
16
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
17
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
10
7
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
17
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
3
14
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
10
7
15
Na++
200 mg/l
17
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
13
4
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
17
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
17
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
17
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
17
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
16
1
131
Table-4.18: Conformity of number of water samples from random sources with
standards in southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
16
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
17
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
17
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
16
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
2
15
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
17
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
17
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
17
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
2
15
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
1
16
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
9
8
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
17
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
7
10
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
16
15
Na++
200 mg/l
17
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
9
8
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
16
1
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
17
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
17
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
3
14
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
16
1
132
Table-4.19: Conformity of number of water samples from random sources with
standards in northeast monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
15
2
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
17
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
17
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
15
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
17
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
17
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
17
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
17
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
4
13
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
1
16
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
13
4
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
17
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
12
5
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
0
17
15
Na++
200 mg/l
17
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
17
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
17
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
17
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
17
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
17
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
17
0
133
Table-4.20: Conformity of number of water samples from rural area with standards in
winter monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
47
2
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
49
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
49
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
12
37
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
5
42
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
48
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
49
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
49
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
4
45
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
0
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
39
10
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
49
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
7
42
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
11
38
15
Na++
200 mg/l
47
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
15
34
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
48
1
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
49
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
49
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
18
31
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
47
2
134
Table-4.21: Conformity of number of water samples from rural area with standards in
summer monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
45
4
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
49
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
49
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
20
29
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
14
34
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
5
44
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
49
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
49
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
48
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
49
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
39
10
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
49
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
8
41
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
33
16
15
Na++
200 mg/l
49
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
40
7
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
47
2
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
49
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
49
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
49
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
44
5
135
Table-4.22: Conformity of number of water samples from rural area with standards in
southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
48
1
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
49
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
49
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
18
31
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
21
27
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
2
47
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
49
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
49
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
11
38
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
7
42
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
45
4
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
49
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
18
31
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
13
36
15
Na++
200 mg/l
49
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
45
4
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
49
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
49
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
49
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
10
39
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
39
10
136
Table-4.23: Conformity of number of water samples from rural area with standards in
northeast monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
31
18
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
49
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
49
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
6
43
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
1
48
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
3
45
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
49
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
49
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
8
41
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
3
46
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
37
12
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
49
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
19
30
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
3
46
15
Na++
200 mg/l
49
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
49
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
49
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
49
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
49
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
49
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
49
0
137
Table-4.24: Conformity of number of water samples from surface water bodies with
standards in winter season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
4
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
4
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
4
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
2
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
4
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
0
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
4
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
4
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
4
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
4
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
4
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
3
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
3
15
Na++
200 mg/l
4
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
4
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
4
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
4
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
4
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
1
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
3
1
138
Table-4.25: Conformity of number of water samples from surface water bodies with
standards in summer season
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
4
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
4
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
4
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
3
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
4
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
1
3
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
4
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
4
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
4
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
3
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
4
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
3
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
4
0
15
Na++
200 mg/l
4
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
3
1
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
4
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
4
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
4
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
4
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
2
2
139
Table-4.26: Conformity of number of water samples from surface water bodies with
standards in southwest monsoon
Desirable
Below
Above
S.No. Parameters
limit
desirable limit desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
4
0
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
4
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
4
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
2
2
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
4
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
0
4
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
4
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
4
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
1
3
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
4
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
4
0
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
4
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
1
3
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
2
2
15
Na++
200 mg/l
4
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
3
1
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
4
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
4
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
4
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
0
4
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
2
2
140
Table-4.27: Conformity of number of water samples from surface water bodies with
standards in northeast monsoon
S.No. Parameters
Desirable
limit
Below
desirable limit
Above
desirable limit
1
pH
6.5-8.5
2
2
2
DO
>6.0 mg/l
4
0
3
Turbidity
5.0 NTU
4
0
4
TDS
500 mg/l
1
3
5
T.Hardness
300 mg/l
0
4
6
T.Alkalinity
200 mg/l
2
2
7
Nitrate
45 mg/l
4
0
8
Phosphate
25 mg/l
4
0
9
COD
10 mg/l
0
4
10
BOD
2.0 mg/l
0
4
11
Cl-
250 mg/l
3
1
12
SO4-
400 mg/l
4
0
13
Ca++
75 mg/l
2
2
14
Mg++
30 mg/l
1
3
15
Na++
200 mg/l
4
0
16
F-
1.0-1.5 mg/l
4
0
17
Iron
0.3-1.0 mg/l
4
0
18
Fecal
coliform
<50/ 100ml
4
0
19
Lead
0.05 mg/l
4
0
20
Cadmium
0.01 mg/l
4
0
21
Chromium
0.05 mg/l
4
0
141
4.3. Exposition of Drinking Water Quality
The above results revealed that many water quality parameters exceeded the
standards in many of the samples. A parameter lower than the standard in one season
in a sample exceeded the standard in other season(s) in the same sample. Hence, a
definite pattern of these differences could not be ascertained.
The pH of all water samples were found to be alkaline and mostly within the
prescribed range in all the seasons.
In general several water samples were found to be hard; and hardness were due
to both calcium and magnesium salts. Quite surprisingly, surface water samples were
also found to be hard. As the Ariyalur area is a place of limestone deposits, the water
under the ground would be naturally hard due to dissolution of calcium and
magnesium salts during infiltration. The soil/ sediment of the bottom of the surface
water could be rich in calcium and magnesium salts which would have caused
hardness in surface water.
A total of 680 cases from Ariyalur Taluk with renal calculus were reported
(Table-4.28). Both ground and surface water samples in this present study were found
to have high values of total hardness. This could be the reason for incidence of cases
with renal calculus in Ariyalur Taluk. However, further in-depth study is needed to
establish the relationship between the hardness and prevalence of renal calculus in
Ariyalur Taluk. Alkalinity, COD and BOD also exceeded in many samples.
Table-4.28: Renal calculus report from major hospitals in Ariyalur Taluk (2011)
Number of affected
people
Male Female
Child
Sl.
No.
Name of the Hospital
1
S.R. Hospital
169
115
2
2
Golden Hospital
86
68
-
3
A.S.Speciality Hospital
232
147
-
4
GH
15
25
-
5
PHC
6
4
-
Total
508
359
2
Fecal coliforms were within the limit in all the samples as per CPCB water
quality criteria. However, BIS (1991) specifies „nil‟ in 95% of the samples.
Accordingly 32 samples each in winter and summer, 42 in southeast monsoon and 52
142
in northeast monsoon violated this condition. Hence it is concluded that as per BIS
standard, almost all water samples were contaminated by human wastes.
Excessive COD and BOD values indicate organic pollution of these water
samples.
In many of the water samples, cadmium and chromium were found exceeding
the standard. This could be attributed to natural origin.
WQI values of the samples of 6 types are presented in Table-4.29. More than
64% of the total samples fell under “Medium” quality while about 35% of total
samples fell under “Bad” quality categories. Individual type samples varied between
59 to 100% under “Medium” quality and 0 to 41% under “Bad” quality categories. It is
sad to note that none of the drinking water available in Ariyalur Taluk was of “Good”
quality and above. This indicates that the water is contaminated by natural sources and
/or anthropogenic sources.
Table-4.29: Details of water quality index
Type of water
samples
No. of Samples
No. of samples in WQI
category
Medium
Bad
Municipality supply
5
3
2
Public places
8
5
3
Educational
Institutions
10
7
3
Random
17
12
5
Rural areas
49
29
20
Surface water bodies
4
4
-
Incidence of water-borne/ water related diseases in Ariyalur Taluk are
presented in figure-4.26 to 4.33.
143
14
12
10
8
Cases
Cholera
6
4
2
0
M F
C M F
GH
C M F
PHC
C M F
ASNH
SRH
C M F
C M F
Golden H
C
ABC H
Figure-4.26: Incidence of Cholera in Ariyalur Taluk
60
50
Cases
40
30
Typhoid
20
10
0
M F
C M F
GH
PHC
C M F
ASNH
C M F
SRH
C M F
C M F
Golden H
C
ABC H
Figure-4.27: Incidence of Typhoid in Ariyalur Taluk
180
160
140
Cases
120
100
80
Dysentery
60
40
20
0
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.28: Incidence of Dysentery in Ariyalur Taluk
144
140
120
100
Cases
80
Diarrhea
60
40
20
0
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.29: Incidence of Diarrhea in Ariyalur Taluk
30
25
Cases
20
15
Jaundice
10
5
0
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.30: Incidence of Jaundice in Ariyalur Taluk
60
50
Cases
40
30
Denghue
20
10
0
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.31: Incidence of Dengue in Ariyalur Taluk
145
Cases
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Chikungunia
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.32: Incidence of Chikungunia in Ariyalur Taluk
1400
1200
1000
Cases
800
Other Disease
600
400
200
0
M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C
GH
PHC
ASNH
SRH
Golden H
ABC H
Figure-4.33: Incidence of other water-borne diseases in Ariyalur Taluk
In this study, according to BIS standard, MPN values indicated the pollution of
water samples with human wastes. WQI values also indicated that all water samples
were either „medium‟ or „bad‟ category. COD, BOD and TDS values were also found
to exceed the standards. High BOD and COD values may encourage the growth and
multiplication of pathogens during storage which would have caused the water-borne/
water related diseases. High TDS may also cause gastrointestinal irritation (BIS,
1991). Here too, further in depth study is required to establish the relationship between
water quality and water-borne diseases.
Annual mean values for certain physico-chemical and microbiological
parameters were calculated and presented in figure-4.34a to-4.40h.
146
From the results, it may be concluded that the water from municipal supply
which from Thirumanur Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme (TCDWSS) was
found to be better in quality when compared to quality of water from other places.
However, it does not warrant that the water from TCDWSS (municipality water) safe
for drinking.
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
pH
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
1
2
3
Station
4
5
Figure- 4.34a: Annual average pH of Municipality water supply samples
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
pH
6
7
8
9
Station
10
11
12
13
Figure-4.34b: Annual average pH of public place water samples
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
pH
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Station
Figure-4.34c: Annual average pH of Educational institutions water samples
147
8.5
8
7.5
pH
7
6.5
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure- 4.34d: Annual average pH of Random water samples
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
pH
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure- 4.34e: Annual average pH of rural water samples
8.1
8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
pH
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
Figure-4.34f: Annual average pH of rural water samples
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
pH
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
station
Figure-4.34g: Annual average pH of rural water samples
148
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
pH
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.34h: Annual average pH of surface water samples
600
500
400
mg/L
300
TDS
200
100
0
1
2
3
Station
4
5
Figure-4.35a: Annual average TDS of Municipality water supply samples
mg/L
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TDS
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.35b: Annual average TDS of public places water samples
mg/L
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TDS
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.35c: Annual average TDS of educational institutions water samples
149
1000
800
mg/L
600
TDS
400
200
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.35d: Annual average TDS of random water samples
mg/l
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
TDS
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.35e: Annual average TDS of rural water samples
1000
mg/L
800
600
TDS
400
200
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
Figure-4.35f: Annual average TDS of rural water samples
1000
800
mg/L
600
TDS
400
200
0
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.35g: Annual average TDS of rural water samples
150
800
700
600
mg/L
500
TDS
400
300
200
100
0
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.35h: Annual average TDS of surface water samples
600
500
mg/L
400
300
T.H
200
100
0
1
2
Station 3
4
5
Figure-4.36a: Annual average Total hardness of municipal supply water samples
500
400
mg/L
300
T.H
200
100
0
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.36b: Annual average Total hardness of public places water samples
600
500
mg/L
400
300
T.H
200
100
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.36c: Annual average Total hardness of educational institutions water samples
151
1000
800
mg/L
600
T.H
400
200
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.36d: Annual average Total hardness of random water samples
700
600
500
mg/L
400
300
T.H
200
100
0
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.36e: Annual average Total hardness of rural water samples
600
500
mg/L
400
300
T.H
200
100
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
Figure-4.36f: Annual average Total hardness of rural water samples
600
500
mg/L
400
300
T.H
200
100
0
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.36g: Annual average Total hardness of rural water samples
152
500
mg/L
400
300
TH
200
100
0
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.36h: Annual average Total hardness of surface water samples
500
400
mg/L
300
TA
200
100
0
1
2
Station3
4
5
Figure-4.37a: Annual average Total alkalinity of municipal supply water samples
500
400
mg/L
300
TA
200
100
0
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.37b: Annual average Total alkalinity of public places water samples
500
mg/L
400
300
TA
200
100
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.37c: Annual average T.Alkalinity of educational institutions water samples
153
600
500
400
300
mg/L
TA
200
100
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.37d: Annual average Total alkalinity of random water samples
500
mg/L
400
300
200
TA
100
0
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.37e: Annual average Total alkalinity of rural water samples
600
500
mg/L
400
300
TA
200
100
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
Figure-4.37f: Annual average Total alkalinity of rural water samples
500
400
mg/L
300
TA
200
100
0
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.37g: Annual average Total alkalinity of rural water samples
154
400
350
300
mg/L
250
200
TA
150
100
50
0
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.37h: Annual average Total alkalinity of surface water samples
5.4
mg/L
5.2
5
DO
4.8
4.6
4.4
1
2
3
Station
4
5
Figure-4.38a: Annual average DO of municipal supply water samples
5.6
5.4
mg/L
5.2
5
DO
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.38b: Annual average DO of public places water samples
5.6
5.4
5.2
mg/L
5
4.8
DO
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.38c: Annual average DO of educational institutions water samples
155
6
5
mg/L
4
3
DO
2
1
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.38d: Annual average DO of random water samples
5.4
5.2
5
mg/L
4.8
DO
4.6
4.4
4.2
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.38e: Annual average DO of rural water samples
6
5
mg/L
4
3
DO
2
1
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
Figure-4.38f: Annual average DO of rural water samples
5.4
5.2
mg/L
5
4.8
DO
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.38g: Annual average DO of rural water samples
156
5.3
5.2
mg/L
5.1
5
DO
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.38h: Annual average DO of surface water samples
30
25
mg/L
20
15
COD
10
5
0
1
2
3
Station
4
5
Figure-4.39a: Annual average COD of municipal supply water samples
35
30
mg/L
25
20
COD
15
10
5
0
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.39b: Annual average COD of public places water samples
35
30
mg/L
25
20
COD
15
10
5
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.39c: Annual average COD of educational institutions water samples
157
40
35
30
25
mg/L
20
COD
15
10
5
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.39d: Annual average COD of random water samples
50
40
mg/L
30
COD
20
10
0
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.39e: Annual average COD of rural water samples
50
40
mg/L
30
COD
20
10
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Station
mg/L
Figure-4.39f: Annual average COD of rural water samples
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
COD
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.39g: Annual average COD of rural water samples
158
40
mg/L
30
20
COD
10
0
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.39h: Annual average COD of surface water samples
10
8
mg/L
6
BOD
4
2
0
1
2
Station3
4
5
Figure-4.40a: Annual average BOD of municipal supply water samples
10
8
mg/L
6
BOD
4
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
Station
11
12
13
Figure-4.40b: Annual average BOD of public places water samples
12
10
mg/L
8
6
BOD
4
2
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
Station
20
21
22
23
Figure-4.40c: Annual average BOD of educational institutions water samples
159
mg/L
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
BOD
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Station
Figure-4.40d: Annual average BOD of random water samples
14
12
10
mg/L
8
BOD
6
4
2
0
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Station
Figure-4.40e: Annual average BOD of rural water samples
12
10
mg/L
8
6
BOD
4
2
0
57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Station
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Figure-4.40f: Annual average BOD of rural water samples
12
10
mg/L
8
6
BOD
4
2
0
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Station
Figure-4.40g: Annual average BOD of rural water samples
160
10
8
mg/L
6
BOD
4
2
0
90
91 Station
92
93
Figure-4.40h: Annual average BOD of surface water samples
4.3.1. Correlation among the water quality parameters
Karl Pearson correlation coefficient for water quality parameters were
calculated and presented in table-4.30 to 4.35.
A summary of correlation coefficient values are presented in table-4.36.
Correlation coefficient values revealed the following:

High positive correlation (0.7 to 0.9 and above) existed between COD and BOD.
It suggests that COD and BOD were due to organic pollution of same origin.

Correlation coefficient between chlorides and TDS ranged from 0.653 to 0.76.
TDS also had positive correlation with either sodium or potassium which ranged
from 0.535 to 0.606. However, chlorides had positive correlation either with
sodium or potassium or both in samples from three categories (Public Places,
Rural Places and Surface Water) only. The above facts suggest that chlorides in
the form of sodium/potassium chlorides contributed to TDS to a large extent.

High positive correlation between total hardness and magnesium existed in water
samples from Municipal supply (0.853), and from surface water (0.712).
Medium positive correlation (0.55) between total hardness and magnesium
existed in water samples from “Random samples” category. Municipality water
supply is mainly from „Thirumanur Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme‟
which is from Kollidam River bed.
Though this water is pumped from
underground of the river bed, may have influence of surface water flowing in the
river. Thus, its quality may be to some extent on par with that of surface water.
By considering the above facts, it may be concluded that total hardness of surface
water in Ariyalur is mainly from dissolution of magnesium ions.
161
Table-4.30: Correlation co-efficient of municipality water samples in Ariyalur Town
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
TDS
-.291
1
T.H
-.169
.020
1
T.A
-.203
-.203
.417
1
COD
.107
.128
-.176
.083
1
BOD
.109
.203
-.087
.049
.979**
1
-.362
.653**
.039
.158
-.078
-.069
1
*
*
.317
1
Cl
10
CAL
-.192
.412
.295
.018
.494
.505
Mg
-.168
.036
.853**
.354
-.242
-.193
.022
.044
1
NA+
-.184
.174
.009
-.092
-.291
-.308
.274
.221
-.071
1
K+
-.263
.606**
-.161
-.411
.152
.158
.312
.495*
-.211
.493*
1
Fl
.195
-.484*
-.310
-.026
-.010
-.101
-.484*
-.604**
-.008
-.231
-.239
1
Fe
.219
-.355
-.006
.381
-.034
-.087
-.085
-.059
-.084
-.245
-.311
.031
1
F.C
-.211
.242
.057
.014
.034
.064
-.045
.045
.177
-.072
.344
.086
-.388
1
Pb
-.066
-.198
-.110
.413
.292
.174
.139
.216
-.141
-.115
.096
.191
.612**
-.057
1
Cd
.094
.082
-.106
-.200
.158
.224
-.299
.184
-.316
-.007
-.030
-.331
.045
-.195
-.392
1
Cr
-.146
.088
.027
-.309
-.443
-.440
.291
.074
-.094
.114
.049
-.265
.088
-.094
-.108
.025
162
1
Table-4.31: Correlation co-efficient of public water samples Ariyalur Town
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.007
1
T.H
.129
.401*
1
T.A
.345
-.153
-.044
1
COD
-.336
.219
.116
-.439*
1
BOD
-.369*
.303
.224
-.544**
.748**
1
.198
**
.183
.201
-.101
.016
1
-.134
.236
*
-.169
-.188
-.151
.174
1
.327
.382*
.194
.028
-.192
-.075
.481**
.051
1
*
**
.114
.156
-.213
-.194
**
.163
**
1
CAL
Mg
13
14
15
16
17
1
TDS
Cl
12
.684
NA+
.363
K+
-.163
.578**
.000
-.189
.168
.222
.625**
.126
.196
.602**
1
Fl
.052
.083
.134
.274
-.049
.105
.284
.095
.017
.218
.276
1
Fe
-.148
.046
-.009
-.263
.034
.103
-.256
.206
-.029
-.196
-.197
-.103
1
F.C
.278
.200
-.230
-.075
.096
-.021
.348
-.064
.256
.075
.166 -.243
.061
1
-.176
.535
**
-.347
-.330
.127
-.001
-.275
.015
.185
*
-.191
.045
1
-.559
**
*
.289
-.045
.302
-.066
.127
.251 -.201
.151
-.135
-.410*
1
.077
.271
.038
.129
-.156
.041
.067
-.076
-.139
-.002
.204
Pb
.106
.535
.439
-.319
Cd
-.332
.335
-.083
Cr
-.099
.006
.022
-.250
.383
.682
.483
.362
.216
163
1
Table-4.32: Correlation co-efficient of educational institutions water samples in Ariyalur Town
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-.003
1
T.H
.235
.654**
1
T.A
.020
-.034
.256
1
COD
-.123
.204
.130
.174
1
BOD
Cl
-.145
-.008
.244
.760**
.155
.627**
.209
.313*
.942**
.409**
1
.401*
1
CAL
-.038
-.043
-.123
-.126
.134
.082
-.116
1
.181
.499**
.585**
-.031
-.091
-.010
.430**
-.184
1
-.072
*
.287
*
.172
.078
-.273
1
**
1
NA+
K+
14
15
16
17
1
TDS
Mg
13
-.235
-.436
**
-.019
.149
-.252
.348
-.095
.236
.367
.236
.157
.115
-.282
*
-.124
-.080
-.063
1
.139
.098
.353*
.245
-.191
1
*
.263
1
Fl
.181
.105
-.016
.153
.073
.071
.104
Fe
.049
-.010
-.094
.149
.126
.195
.040
-.319
.595
F.C
.034
-.214
-.134
-.084
.074
.111
-.206
.288
.115
-.057
-.047
Pb
-.139
-.428**
-.240
.273
.234
.104
.020
-.109
-.368*
-.019
-.049
.127
-.141
-.010
1
Cd
.019
.046
-.250
-.429**
-.144
-.189
-.355*
.241
-.212
-.111
-.066
-.102
-.050
-.053
-.341*
1
-.143
*
*
.029
-.015
-.258
-.005
-.196
.016
-.051
.071
.082
.007
-.109
.572**
Cr
.018
-.330
-.343
-.376
164
1
Table-4.33: Correlation co-efficient of Random water samples in Ariyalur Town
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-.167
1
T.H
-.043
.239*
1
T.A
.035
-.181
.222
1
-.061
.379
**
.027
-.122
1
.362
**
.141
-.085
**
1
.004
.730**
.377**
.070
.276*
.342**
1
.007
*
*
.008
**
**
.163
1
.056
-.123
.209
-.113
1
**
-.028
**
1
BOD
Cl
CAL
13
14
15
16
-.046
.277
.246
.955
.392
.409
-.068
.086
.550**
NA+
-.072
.294
*
**
.075
-.063
-.010
.374
K+
-.051
.539**
-.064
-.388**
.293*
.266*
.386**
.286*
-.032
.347**
1
**
.141
.175
.157
-.096
.011
-.023
.110
1
-.070
.004
-.059
.046
.024
-.129
-.185
-.169
-.172
1
-.225
*
-.011
.010
.226
.016
-.120
.038
.172
1
.094
*
-.117
.170
-.111
-.053
-.147
1
**
Mg
.401
Fl
.055
.192
.043
Fe
.057
.025
.048
F.C
Pb
17
1
TDS
COD
12
.115
.019
-.337
.085
.074
*
.205
.069
.037
**
**
**
-.151
.026
-.166
-.182
.101
.077
.151
-.232
.394**
.111
.088
-.292*
-.311**
.160
.146
-.044
-.218
Cd
-.186
.051
-.074
Cr
-.004
.073
-.142
-.491
-.306*
.337
.446**
-.240
.498
.067
-.251
.046
-.231
.318
.194
-.243
-.373
.168
165
1
.349**
1
Table-4.34: Correlation co-efficient of village water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.033
1
T.H
.181*
.132
1
T.A
.193**
.180*
.465**
1
COD
-.241**
.053
-.067
.002
1
BOD
**
.032
-.060
.053
**
1
Cl
.066
**
**
**
.077
.062
1
CAL
.087
NA+
K+
Fl
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
TDS
Mg
9
-.200
.739
.290
.399
.889
.124
.175*
.139
.057
.091
.238**
1
*
-.027
**
*
-.074
-.048
.132
.013
1
-.104
**
.064
**
*
.115
**
**
-.040
1
.575**
-.083
.018
.243**
.169*
.457**
.142*
-.181*
.693**
1
-.070
*
**
**
.058
-.006
-.029
.037
.072
1
.150
-.152*
-.028
.531
.133
.373
Fe
-.070
.006
-.004
F.C
.063
.000
.022
Pb
-.095
.177
.206
-.175
.152
.201
.189
.110
.079
.040
-.045
-.075
.063
.033
.080
1
-.088
-.017
.039
-.003
-.122
.031
-.097
-.098
.001
.077
1
**
**
.109
*
**
*
**
.036
.125
-.182*
1
**
-.126
-.080
-.117
-.060
.130
-.143
.036
**
1
-.188*
-.064
-.092
-.004
.086
.177*
-.040
-.030
-.032
.409**
.196
-.087
.105
Cd
-.156
*
-.087
**
**
-.134
-.084
Cr
-.325**
-.129
-.408**
.103
.028
-.162*
.232
**
.007
-.286
.612
-.475
.313
.196
-.309
.152
-.229
.160
.190
-.355
166
1
Table-4.35: Correlation co-efficient of surface water samples in Ariyalur Taluk
1
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
TDS
-.404
1
T.H
-.345
.466
1
T.A
-.325
.079
.500*
1
COD
-.448
.460
.094
-.207
1
BOD
-.353
.524*
.311
-.175
.856**
1
Cl
-.308
.673**
.507*
.300
.248
.484
1
CAL
-.086
.135
.300
-.019
.089
.051
.231
1
Mg
-.242
.200
.712**
.259
-.201
-.018
.236
.509*
1
NA+
-.214
*
*
.379
.086
.259
**
.488
.523*
1
K+
-.101
.493
.360
.306
.135
.126
.558*
.540*
.390
.863**
1
Fl
-.085
.112
.376
.084
.126
.093
-.101
.190
.313
-.090
-.186
1
Fe
.016
.463
.334
.215
-.030
.174
.306
-.311
.053
.189
-.041
.319
1
*
*
.235
-.040
1
.575
.549
.799
F.C
.302
-.298
-.013
-.265
-.357
-.132
-.480
-.255
.111
-.511
-.581
Pb
-.155
-.131
-.184
.414
.057
-.049
.006
-.152
-.236
-.139
-.165
-.021
.069
-.309
1
Cd
-.126
-.336
-.004
.196
-.040
-.079
-.334
.092
-.123
-.166
-.090
-.074
-.127
.129
-.237
1
Cr
-.327
.303
-.149
-.042
.315
.233
.177
.133
-.144
.188
.246
-.084
.216
-.351
.000
.101
167
1
Table-4.36: Summary of Correlation coefficient of water quality parameters
Correlation
coefficient
Municipality
supply
Public places
Educat. Institutions
Random samples
Rural areas
Surface water
0.9 and
above
BOD &
COD(0.979)
-
BOD & COD(0.942)
BOD &
COD(0.955)
-
-
Chloride &
TDS(0.730)
BOD &
COD(0.889);
chloride &
TDS(0.739);
Potassium &
sodium(0.863); BOD &
COD(0.856); sodium &
chloride(0.799);
Magnesium &
T.H(0.712)
chloride & TDS(0.673);
sodium & TDS(0.575);
sodium &
chloride(0.558); sodium
& T.H(0.549); sodium
& calcium(0.540); BOD
& TDS(0.524); sodium
& magnesium(0.523)
magnesium &
calcium(0.509);
chloride & T.H(0.507);
T.A & T.H(0.500);
0.7 – 0.9
0.5 – 0.7
Magnesium &
T.H(0.853)
BOD & COD (0.748)
Chloride & TDS(0.760)
Chloride &
TDS(0.653);
Lead &Fecal
coliform(0.612)
; potassium &
TDS(0.606)
Chloride& TDS(0.684);
sodium &
chloride(0.682);
potassium &
chloride(0.625);
potassium &
sodium(0.602); sodium
&TDS(0.535); lead
&T.Alk.(0.535)
T.H & TDS(0.654);
chloride & T.H(0.627);
sodium &
potassium(0.595);
magnesium &
TDS(0.585); chromium
& cadmium(0.572)
Magnesium &
T.H(0.550);
potassium &
TDS(0.539)
potassium &
sodium(0.693);
sodium &
chloride(0.612);
potassium &
TDS(0.575); sodium
& TDS(0.531)
Sodium &
magnesium(0.483);
Magnesium &
chloride(0.481); calcium
&T.hardness(0.439);Cal
cium & TDS (0.401)
Magnesium &
TDS(0.499);
magnesium &
chloride(0.430);
chloride &
COD(0.409); chloride
& BOD(0.401)
Sodium &
magnesium(0.498);
chromium &
COD(0.446);
calcium &
COD(0.409);
chromium &
BOD(0.394)
T.A & T.H(0.465);
potassium &
chloride(0.457);
chromium &
cadmium(0.409);
chloride &
T.A(0.399)
Potassium &
calcium(0.495);
< 0.5
Potassium &
sodium(0.493)
168
4.3.2. Alkalinity/Hardness Ratio
In some groups, about 40% of the samples and in others about 20% the samples
had the ratio above 1.0. Majority of the samples (60-80%) had the ratio below 1.
The part of the total hardness that is chemically equivalent to bicarbonate plus
carbonate alkalinities present in water is considered to be carbonate hardness. This
indicates that when total hardness is greater than alkalinity, the water may contain noncarbonate hardness which is due to calcium and magnesium salts of sulphates,
chlorides and nitrate ions (Sawyer et al., 2003).
In 60 - 80% of water samples, the total hardness was greater than total
alkalinity; hence the ratio was less than 1. Thus it is concluded that 60-80% of samples
contained both carbonate and non-carbonate harness while others had only carbonate
harness.
2.500
2.000
Winter
1.500
Summer
1.000
SWM
NEM
0.500
0.000
1
2
3
4
5
6
Station
7
8
9
10
Figure-4.41: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
Winter
4.000
Summer
3.000
SWM
2.000
NEM
1.000
0.000
11
12
13
14
15
16
Station
17
18
19
20
Figure-4.42: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
169
2.500
2.000
Winter
1.500
Summer
1.000
SWM
NEM
0.500
0.000
21
22
23
24
25
26
Station
27
28
29
30
Figure-4.43: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
6.000
5.000
4.000
Winter
3.000
Summer
2.000
SWM
NEM
1.000
0.000
31
32
33
34
35
36
station
37
38
39
40
Figure-4.44: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
3.000
2.500
2.000
Winter
1.500
Summer
SWM
1.000
NEM
0.500
0.000
41
42
43
44
45
46
Station
47
48
49
50
Figure-4.45: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
170
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Winter
1.000
Summer
0.800
SWM
0.600
NEM
0.400
0.200
0.000
51
52
53
54
55
56
Station
57
58
59
60
Figure-4.46: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
Winter
5.000
Summer
4.000
SWM
3.000
NEM
2.000
1.000
0.000
61
62
63
64
65
66
Station
67
68
69
70
Figure-4.47: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
Winter
2.000
Summer
SWM
1.500
NEM
1.000
0.500
0.000
71
72
73
74
75
76
Station
77
78
79
80
Figure-4.48: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
171
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
Winter
3.000
2.500
Summer
2.000
SWM
1.500
NEM
1.000
0.500
0.000
81
82
83
84
85
Station
86
87
88
89
Figure-4.49: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
3.500
3.000
2.500
Winter
2.000
Summer
1.500
SWM
NEM
1.000
0.500
0.000
90
91
Station
92
93
Figure-4.50: Total Alkalinity/ Harness ratio of drinking water in Ariyalur Taluk
4.4. Spatial Distribution of Drinking Water Quality
Spatial distributions of various parameters of drinking water during four
seasons are depicted in GIS maps (Plate-4.1a to 4.7b).
4.4.1. pH
In winter, pH greater than 7.9 and greater than 8.0 found in many pockets,
while pH below 7.6 were found in few pockets. Otherwise the pH was in the order of
7.8 to 7.9 in the majority of the area.
In summer, in majority of the area, the pH was between 7.8 and 8.1. pH less
than 7.5 was found in very few pockets. pH between 7.5 and 7.8 were found in the
areas around the areas with pH of 7.5. pH greater than 8.7 was found in very few
pockets. These pockets were surrounded by areas with pH between 8.41 and 8.7.
172
In southwest monsoon, pH less than 7.5 was observed in north of Ariyalur
Taluk, while pH greater than 8.3 was observed in south of Ariyalur Taluk. The area
with pH less than 7.5 was surrounded by areas with pH 7.51, and 7.7 and above 7.71,
which covers larger area. Similarly in south, majority of the areas had pH between
7.91 and 8.1.
In northeast monsoon, pH < 7.4 was seen only in very few pockets which were
surrounded by the area with pH above 7.41 and subsequently by pH above 7.71. pH
greater than 8.6 was also observed in very few pockets that to in north of Ariyalur
Taluk. These pockets were surrounded by areas with pH between 8.31 and 8.6. The
remaining areas had the pH between 8.1 and 8.3 which covers a large area of Ariyalur
Taluk.
pH in almost all the places, were within the standard. Only during summer, pH
greater than 8.7 was found in few pockets.
4.4.2. TDS
In winter months, the majority of the pockets had TDS between 600 and
700mg/L. TDS greater than 800 mg/L was found in few pockets. TDS less than 500
mg/L was found in few pockets.
During summer season, TDS less than 550 mg/L was found in south west of
Ariyalur Taluk. Most of the pockets had TDS between 550 and 700mg/L. Very few
pockets had TDS greater than 850mg/L.
During southwest monsoon, in most of the pockets, TDS values ranged from
600 - 650mg/L followed by 550 - 600mg/L. TDS greater than 650 mg/L was found
only in some places.
During northeast monsoon, majority of the packets had TDS between 550 and
650mg/L. In northeast part of Ariyalur Taluk, TDS greater than 650mg/L was found
over a large area. Only few pockets had TDS less than 550mg/L.
In all the seasons, the TDS in the entire study area was above the standard (500
mg/L). Quite surprisingly, in winter season, the TDS recorded the highest range (600
– 700 mg/L) covering a large area.
4.4.3. Total Alkalinity
During winter, alkalinity in majority of the pockets was found between 300 and
400mg/L. Alkalinity greater than 400mg/L was found in several small pockets.
Alkalinity less than 100mg/L was found in only one place.
173
In summer, alkalinity in most of the pockets, it was between 300 and400 mg/L.
Alkalinity less than 210mg/L was found in few packets; and greater than 450 mg/L in
few pockets.
During southwest monsoon, the alkalinity between 400 and 600mg/L was
observed over a large area. Alkalinity less than 200mg/L was found in southwest
region of the study area. Quite surprisingly, alkalinity > 800 mg/L was found in 2
pockets and > 1000 mg/L in 3 pockets.
In northeast monsoon, most of the area had alkalinity between 350 and
450mg/L. Alkalinity less than 350mg/L was found in southwest of the study area.
Very few pockets had alkalinity greater than 450mg/L.
Alkalinity exceeded the standard in the study area in all the seasons except in
southwest region of the Taluk during southwest monsoon.
4.4.4. Total Hardness
In winter, majority of the area in south and southeast of Ariyalur Taluk had
total hardness ranging from 450 - 600 mg/L. In north and northwest regions, the
hardness was between 300 and 450 mg/L. One pocket had hardness greater than 700
mg/L and two pockets had hardness ranging from 600 and 750 mg/L. hardness less
than 300 mg/L was found in few pockets.
In summer season, most of the area was found with hardness between 300 and
450mg/L. Hardness between 450 and 600mg/L was found in two large pockets in
north and east of the Taluk and few small pockets in other places. Only two packets
were found with less than 150mg/L of hardness.
During southwest monsoon, almost, the entire Taluk had hardness between 300
and 450mg/L. Hardness greater than 450mg/L and less than 150mg/L were found in
very few packets.
In northeast monsoon, almost the entire Taluk had hardness ranging from 450 –
600mg/L. Few small packets had hardness between 600 and 750 mg/L while very few
pockets of small size were found to have hardness greater than 750mg/L.
In all the seasons, the ground water of Ariyalur Taluk had hardness exceeding
the standard (300 mg/L). Of the four seasons, winter and northeast monsoon had
higher hardness values (450 – 600 mg/L).
174
4.4.5. Chloride
In winter, most of the area was found to have chlorides between 125 and
175mg/L followed by 175 and 225mg/L. Many pockets with small area had chlorides
greater than 225mg/L. Few pockets had chlorides less than 75mg/L.
During summer, chloride concentration between 150 and 225mg/L was found
in most of the pockets. Chloride concentration between 75 and 150mg/L was found in
southeast part of the study area while chloride concentration between 225 and
300mg/L was found in north of the study area. Chloride exceeding 375mg/L was
found in ground water samples in 2 pockets in the north.
During southwest monsoon, in most of the areas, the chloride concentration
was either between 50 and 100mg/L or 100 and 150mg/L. Both these ranges were
found almost equally spreading in the study area. Quite surprisingly, few pockets had
chloride concentration less than 50mg/L.
In northeast monsoon, most of the area was found with chloride concentration
between 150 and 200mg/L. Chloride concentration ranging from 200 and 250mg/L
was found in the north region of study area. Chloride concentration less than 100mg/L
were found in few pockets.
Chloride was within the standard in the study area in all seasons except in few
places in summer.
4.4.6. COD
In winter season, COD less than 20mg/L was found in very few pockets. COD
between 20 and 30mg/L followed by 30 and 40 mg/L were found in almost in the
entire area. COD greater than 50mg/L was found in 4 pockets.
In summer months, COD in majority of the places was found between 30 and
40mg/L. COD less than 20 mg/L as well as greater than 60 mg/L were found in few
pockets.
During southwest monsoon, COD in most of the area was between 20 and
30mg/L. COD between 30 and 40 mg/L was found in few pockets. Some pockets had
COD between 10 and 20 mg/L.
In northeast monsoon, COD less than 10mg/L was found in few pockets. In
majority of the places, it was found between 15 and 25mg/L. Only two packets were
found to have COD greater than 40mg/L.
COD above 60 mg/L was found in only one pocket in winter and in 5 pockets
in summer.
175
4.4.7. BOD
During winter, BOD in majority of the area was between 8 and 12mg/L. The
BOD values between 4 and 8mg/L were found spreading from east to west of Ariyalur
Taluk. BOD < 4mg/L was found in 5 pockets only and >16mg/L was found in few
pockets.
During southwest monsoon, major part of Taluk had BOD between 4 and
8mg/L. In west and north, the BOD ranged between 8 and 12mg/L. BOD less than
4mg/L was found in few pockets; BOD between 12 and 16mg/L was found in few
pockets.
In summer, the BOD values between 8 and 12mg/L were found in almost entire
Taluk except few pockets. The BOD values from 4 – 8mg/L were found in northeast
monsoon and in few pockets at west and at the centre. Greater than 12mg/L of BOD
was found in a small area at the west.
In northeast monsoon, most of the area was found with BOD between 6 and
9mg/L. BOD ranging from 3 – 6mg/L was observed in north area of Ariyalur Taluk.
The BOD value from 9 – 12mg/L was seen in many isolated pockets. BOD >12mg/L
was observed in 4 pockets within the pockets of 9 – 12mg/L.
4.5. Multivariate Analyses – Variations in water Quality
The following multivariate tools were used to compare the water quality
parameters of samples collected from 6 categories of places elaborated already:
1. Cluster analysis
2. MDS (Multi Dimensional Scaling)
3. ANOSIM (Analysis of Similarities).
4.5.1. Cluster analysis
Initially all the samples were input into the analysis and the dendrogram was
drawn (Figure-4.51). Due to higher number of samples, there was clutter in the
dendrogram and the pattern of association of stations from where the samples were
collected could not be seen clearly.
Therefore the data were averaged category-wise and the dendrogram was
drawn using the resultant data. To have clarity in the dendrogram, the categories were
given numbers 1-6(1 for Municipality, 2 for public places, 3 for educational
institutions, 4 for Random samples, 5 for village samples and 6 for surface water).
The dendrogram showed only one group formed by stations (2) Public places and (3)
176
educational institutions at the distance of 0.85. Station (5)village samples joined the
above group at the distance of 1.15 followed by station (6)Surface water at 1.57,
station (4) Random samples at 2.07 and finally station (1) Municipality at 2.35
(Figure-4.52).
Dendrogram was also drawn for the various seasons during which the samples
were collected (Figure-4.53). Here also only one group was found in the dendrogram.
Seasons (1) winter and (3) Southwest monsoon formed a group at an Euclidean
distance of 2.8. To this season (2) Summer joined at the distance of 3.65 followed by
station (4) Northeast monsoon at a distance of 3.76.
Figure-4.51: Dendrogram representing all the samples collected from the Study areaAriyalur Taluk
177
Figure-4.52: Dendrogram representing the average values of samples collected from
the study area-Ariyalur Taluk
1–Municipality; 2–Public places; 3-Educational institutions; 4-Random; 5-Rural and
6-Surface water body
Figure-4.53: Dendrogram representing the samples collected during various seasons
1–Winter; 2–Summer; 3-Southeast monsoon; 4-Northeast monsoon
178
4.5.2. MDS
As in cluster analysis here also MDS was drawn by inputting all the water
samples (Figure-4.54). Due to higher number of samples and overlapping between the
water samples collected from all the places, there was cluttering of the samples. As a
result no trend could be seen. Therefore the data were averaged station-wise and the
MDS was drawn using the resultant data (Figure-4.55).The MDS showed that stations
(2) Public places and (3) Educational institutions were closer. All the other stations
were lying apart. Station (1) municipality was on the right hand side and stations 24(extreme left) were lying to the left of station 1. From stations 4, the other stations (5
and 6) started moving on the right hand side. The trend more or less reflected that
found in the dendrogram. The stress value of MDS for all the samples was on the
higher side (0.27). However for the average data stress was found to be nil (O). MDS
was drawn season-wise (Figure-4.56) where all the samples fell apart. The stress value
here was also nil (0).
4.5.3. ANOSIM
Analysis of similarity was carried out to find out whether significant variations
were there between the 6 categories from where water samples were collected. The
results of ANOSIM are presented in Table 1 and also in histogram (Figure-4.57). The
„R‟ values in the histogram ranged from -0.10 to +0.12. The global „R‟ value 0.08
showed significant differences in the quality of the water collected from the 6
stations(P=0.03%). Pair-wise test was also done to compare one station with the other
and the results are given in Table 1. Water quality in category 1 (municipal) differed
significantly with all the other categories; water quality in category 2 (public places)
differed significantly with categories 4-6. However it did not significantly differ from
category 3 (educational institutions); category 3 differed significantly with category 4
and 6; category (random) 4 with category 5 (rural area) and 6 (surface water) and
category 5 with 6.
The above analysis was also done to compare the quality of the water samples
between the seasons. The „R‟ values in the histogram ranged from -0.05 to +0.4
(Figure-4.58). The global „R‟ value 0.399 showed significant differences in the quality
of the water collected from the (6) surface water stations (P= 0.01%). For different
season Pair-wise test was also done to compare one season with the other and the
179
results are given in Table 2. Season 1 (winter) differed significantly with seasons 2-4;
season 2 (summer) with season 3 (SWM) and 4 (NEM) and season 3 with season4.
Figure-4.54: MDS representing all the samples collected from the study area
Figure-4.55: MDS representing the average values of samples collected from the study
area
180
Figure-4.56: MDS drawn representing the seasons for the water samples collected
from the study area
Table-4.38: R values of ANOSIM (pair-wise tests between the seasons)
R
Significance
Possible
Actual
Number >=
Groups
Statistic
Level %
Permutations
Permutations
Observed
1, 2
0.358
0.01
Very large
9999
0
1, 3
0.317
0.01
Very large
9999
0
1, 4
0.338
0.01
Very large
9999
0
2, 3
0.485
0.01
Very large
9999
0
2, 4
0.404
0.01
Very large
9999
0
3, 4
0.534
0.01
Very large
9999
0
181
Table-4.37: R values of ANOSIM (pair-wise tests between the stations)
R
Significance
Possible
Actual
Number >=
Groups
Statistic
Level %
Permutations
Permutations
Observed
1, 2
0.162
1.2
Very large
9999
120
1, 3
0.178
0.5
Very large
9999
46
1, 4
0.319
0.01
Very large
9999
0
1, 5
0.16
0.8
Very large
9999
79
1, 6
0.205
0.7
252047376
9999
64
2, 3
0.06
7.2
Very large
9999
721
2, 4
0.156
0.1
Very large
9999
12
2, 5
0.091
4.8
Very large
9999
478
2, 6
0.182
2.2
Very large
9999
215
3, 4
0.136
0.07
Very large
9999
6
3, 5
-0.032
75.8
Very large
9999
7576
3, 6
0.352
0.01
Very large
9999
0
4, 5
0.072
1.3
Very large
9999
132
4, 6
0.349
0.01
Very large
9999
0
5, 6
0.146
2.7
Very large
9999
266
182
Figure-4.57: Histogram showing the results of ANOSIM test (stations)
Figure-4.58: Histogram showing the results of ANOSIM test (seasons)
183
5. CONCLUSION
The following facts were ascertained and deduced from the present study:
1. Industries were found to be the major consumer of water followed by
households (domestic sector) in Ariyalur Taluk.
2. The ground water in villages was used for irrigation and the water was found
fit for irrigation as IS: 2296.
3. On average 250 L/day/house of water is consumed in Ariyalur Taluk for
various uses; an average of 2.4 L/day/person is used for drinking alone.
4. In major part of Ariyalur Taluk, ground water was one and only source of
water for domestic use including for drinking.
5. Majority of the water samples including surface water were found to be hard.
Presence of limestone deposits could be attributed for the hardness. This could
be the possible reason for renal calculus cases in Ariyalur Taluk.
6. High COD, BOD, TDS and MPN indicated organic pollution as well as fecal
contamination. This could be the reason for water-borne diseases. WQI values
also supported this fact. All the samples fell under either medium or bad
category based on WQI.
7. Of the 6 categories of community water supplies, water supplied through
Thirumanur Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme was found to be better
in water quality. However, it did not warrant that this water was safe.
8. From correlation coefficients it was deduced that COD and BOD were from
same source of pollution; TDS could be mainly due to chlorides; and
magnesium could the main contributor for hardness of water from Thirumanur
Combined Drinking Water Supply Scheme (municipal water supply in Ariyalur
Town) and surface water in Ariyalur Taluk.
9. From total alkalinity/ total hardness, it was found that 60-80% of samples
contained both carbonate and non-carbonate hardness.
10. From GIS maps of spatial distribution of water quality parameters, the places
of high pollution could be identified to take remedial measures.
11. Multivariate analysis indicated that water quality differed significantly both
among the categories and among the seasons.
In nutshell, it may be concluded that at present, water supplied/ available for
drinking did not meet the required quality for drinking. Ingestion of water available/
supplied in Ariyalur Taluk may cause water-borne diseases especially in children.
184
Hence, it is recommended that the government agencies should ensure supply of safe
drinking water. Until then, the people must either boil or treat the available water
before drinking.
185