Page 143 - {PDF Title}
P. 143

Groundwater quality in Patna District

                •  Step 2: When the test value must not fall below the   •  ENVIS Centre on Control of Pollution Water, Air
                   objective:                                           and Noise, Central Ground Water Board
                               Objective                          •  ENVIS Centre, Bihar State Pollution Control
                Excursion =                 −1 ;           (IV)       Board, Patna (Bihar)
                            Failedtestvalue                       •  India  Water  Resources  Information  System,
                                                                        Department of Water Resource, GoI.
                •  Step 3:  The  total  sum of excursions (normalized
                   sum of excursions, nse) beyond compliance  is    2.4. Software
                   determined using the following formulae:         2.4.1. QGIS
                                                                    To  analyze  different  spatial  and  non-spatial  data,  an
                      ∑ n  excursion                              open-source  software named  QGIS version  3.18.1
                nse =    = i 1      ;                       (V)
                      Number of test                             (Zürich) was used.
                     
                                   
                                                                    2.4.2. Microsoft office tools
                         nse     
                F =                .                        (VI)   For arranging  and  analyzing  the  data,  some  of the
                 3  
                     001nse +  0 01.                              tools from Microsoft Office such as Word, Excel, and
                       .
                                                                    PowerPoint were used in this study.
                  After establishing these factors, the CCME-WQI can
                be computed using the following formula:            3. Results and discussion

                                        2                 3.1. Groundwater quality data collection
                                           2
                                    2
                                        F
                                               F
                                 F
                CWQI 100       1      2      3   .      (VII)   The data for several  groundwater quality  parameters
                                    1 732
                                       .
                                                                  were collected from various central and state agencies
                                                                    from 2004 to 2020. These data were further processed
                  The value derived from computing the index using   in Microsoft Excel to use in the QGIS application as
                the aforementioned formulae can classify the analyzed   well as in the WQI calculation.
                water into one of the specific quality categories outlined
                in Table 1.                                         3.2. Physicochemical characteristics of groundwater
                                                                    in Patna district
                2.3. Groundwater quality data collection            The secondary groundwater quality data collected from
                All  the  information  related  to  the  present  study  such   various  sources  includes  the  following  water  quality
                as population data, groundwater quantity status,    parameters: pH, electrical conductivity (EC), TH, TA,
                groundwater quality  status, drinking water quality   TDSs, carbonates  and  bicarbonates,  chloride,  sulfate,
                standards,  and  guidelines  had  been  collected  from   nitrate, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and
                various  central  and  state  agencies.  Some  of the   fluoride  concentrations.  The  statistical  results  of  the
                major  agencies  providing  secondary  data  are  enlisted   physicochemical water quality parameters are tabulated
                here:                                               in Table 2.
                •  Ground  Water  Yearbook-India, Central Ground       Based on Table 2, pH ranges from 6.90 to 9.20, with
                   Water Board (published from 2009 to 2020)        some samples exceeding the permissible limit (6.5 – 8.5),
                                                                    indicating alkaline water. High EC (242 – 2050 µS/cm)
                 Table 1. Water quality rating as per CCME WQI      and TDS (114 – 1163.50 mg/L) in some locations suggest
                 method                                             elevated dissolved ion concentrations. TH (90 – 816 mg/L)
                 Value of WQI                     Quality of water  and alkalinity (112 – 694.90 mg/L) often exceed limits,
                 95 – 100                         Excellent         leading to potential scaling and taste issues. Higher
                                                                    concentrations of chloride (up to 337.40 mg/L) and nitrate
                 80 – 94                          Good              (up to 111 mg/L) in some samples indicate contamination
                 60 – 79                          Fair              from sewage and agriculture. Calcium and magnesium
                 45 – 59                          Marginal          exceed the 75 and 30 mg/L limits, respectively, in several
                 0 – 44                           Poor              cases, contributing to water hardness. However, fluoride
                 Abbreviations: CCME: Canadian Council of Ministers of the   concentrations are found to be mostly within safe limits
                 Environment; WQI: Water Quality Index.             (0.08 – 1.05 mg/L), reducing fluorosis risk. While many



                Volume 22 Issue 1 (2025)                       137                                 doi: 10.36922/ajwep.8142
   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148