Aijrfans15 415 by iasir journals

American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences

Available online at http://www.iasir.net

ISSN (Print): 2328-3777, ISSN (Online): 2328-3785, ISSN (CD-ROM): 2328-3793 AIJRFANS is a refereed, indexed, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary and open access journal published by International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR), USA (An Association Unifying the Sciences, Engineering, and Applied Research)

Groundwater Quality of Imphal Valley with special reference to Geoenvironment O. Geeta Devia and Arun Kumara, A.K. Chandrashekharb, D. Chandrasekharamb Department of Earth Sciences, Manipur University, Canchipur Imphal-795003, Manipur, India b Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai-400076, Maharashtra, India a

Abstract: Imphal Valley which is comprising an area of about 2000 km2 is situated at the heart of Manipur state the state has nine districts out of which four are in Imphal Valley where the population is concentrated in Imphal East and West districts having more than 804 persons per square kilometre at present. It is gradually facing a major fresh water crisis for the last few decades. To meet the growing demand for a sustainable integrated management of water, the only alternative source is groundwater, the most precious mineral of the earth. The preliminary studies on quality of groundwater with special reference to Geoenvironment in this thickly populated area of the state is discussed in this paper. Geologically, the study area consists of Quaternary deposit surrounded by Disang shale. The present study reveals that some of the groundwater samples from the valley area are rich in arsenic along with iron, magnesium and calcium. The arsenic content in the groundwater of study area ranges from 0.01 mg/l to 5mg/l. Some samples are unhealthy due to presence of high amounts of iron, chloride, calcium and magnesium affecting its taste and use. The ionic abundance is in the order of Na>Ca>Mg>K for cations and HCO 3>Cl>SO4>CO3 for anions. Besides the toxic trace elements, it is a special overview of Geo-environmental parameters like Sodicity, Residual Sodium Carbonate, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Kelly’s Index, Permeability Index, Potasium, Chloride and Total Hardness. Results suggest that the groundwater of Imphal Valley is of good quality and can be safely used for domestic and agricultural purposes except some arsenic contaminated samples. Keywords: Arsenic, Kelly’s Index, Permeability Index, Imphal Valley, Iron, Quaternary. I. INTRODUCTION Groundwater is the key issue in the modern society because it is the common strand that links rapid population growth, health, agriculture, industry, ecosystem, climatic changes and urbanization. Imphal Valley of Manipur is a rapidly growing urbanization area and has however, limited resource of groundwater. It is a rhomb shaped valley having a width of about 30-35 km (E-W) and a length of about 60-65 km (N-S) having an area of about 2000 km2 , which is forming nearly 10% of the total area of the state. It lies between 24018’N to 25000’N latitudes and 93043’E to 94007’E longitudes (Fig.1). The valley is a large intermontane alluvial plain, representing a depositional environment (Singh 1996). It has a general amphitheatre like north-south extension, surrounded by hills made of Disang and Barail Groups of rocks. The valley consists of thick sequences of fluvio-lacustrine assemblages of sand, silt and clay. The total replenishable groundwater resource in Manipur is 0.012 mha.m/yr. Out of this, 0.002 mha.m/yr. is under provision for drinking, industrial and other uses. The remaining 0.010 mha.m/yr is still utilizable and we have still to discover and determine their quality. Recently, in the year 2006, arsenic contamination in groundwater from Kakching area, Thoubal district, Imphal valley, Manipur has been reported by the collaboration work of School of environmental Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata and Alliance for Development Alternatives Manipur (ADAM), Kakching. Consequently, Arsenic pollution in groundwater of the entire Imphal valley has also been reported (C.D.singh, 2010 ). This paper deals with a comprehensive water quality analysis concerning the geo-environmental parameters and toxic trace elements II. METHODOLOGY In order to assess the quality, thirty-six groundwater samples were collected from dug wells and hand pumps at different locations of Imphal Valley.Simplified techniques and methods for physico-chemical parameter including Arsenic and related metal ions which are given in American Public Health Association (APHA, 1998) and Trivedy and Goel (1984) along with the analytical techniques given in suitable water testing kits are followed. Water sample were collected in hard polythene bottles of 2½ litre capacity. This bottles were properly washed with distilled water and then rinsed with the respectively water samples to ensure compositional originality of water samples. In case of hand pumps, prior to sampling water was pumped out for about 10 minutes. The initial pumping serves to remove water in contact with the metal-well casing from the well-bore and adjacent aquifers

Page 14

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

and allows for the collection of representative samples of water present in the aquifer. Water bottles were rinsed 3-4 times with water to be sampled and then filled to capacity, tightly sealed and labelled. Chemical parameters like Sodium, Potasium, Calsium and Magnesium are analysed in terms of mg/l using Flame Photometer. For arsenic, preliminary analysis is done with the help of Arsenic Test Kit (Quantofix Arsen 50) and the selective samples are analysed in IIT Bombay using ICP - AES. For the analysis of major anions 100 ml of water sample is filtered with the help of 0.45 µm cellulose nitrate filter ; and for major cation and trace element analysis the sample is filtered (0.45 µm cellulose nitrate filter) and acidified with 5 ml 14 M ultrapure HNO3/l . All samples were tightly sealed and stored at low temperature until further analyses. Analysis for all major cations and trace elements was done by ICP-AES (Perkin-Elmer, France). Sulphate (SO42-) concentrations were measured by spectrophotometer (UV-Visible spectrophotometer 160), alkalinity by titration and chloride (Cl-)by Expandable Ion analyzer 940A with a combination electrode Orion ion plus 9817 BN. The results of the analysis of groundwater in terms of mg/l are given in Table 1. The chemical parameters are converted into its equivalent meq/l (Table 2). Geo-environmental parameters like Kelly,s Index, Total Hardness, Permeability Index, Alkalinity, Sodium Absorbtion Ratio and Residual Sodium Carbonate are calculated from the physico-chemical parameters (Table 3).

Fig. 1: Location map of the study area.

III. RESULTS AND FINDING A. Sodicity High concentration of Sodium with respect to Ca and Mg has detrimental effect on soil structure. Sodium causes deflocculation resulting in prevention of free movement of water in soil. Due to high sodicity in soil plant growth suffers from the poor physical conditions. In ground water of Imphal valley its concentration varies from 4.32 to 974.55 mg/l with an average of 108.32 mg/l. It constitutes 21.30 to 86.70% to the total cation of the ground water with an average of 46.04%, which are considered suitable for irrigation. B. Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) It is the measure of Sodium hazard computed by using following equation. SAR = Na+ / √ (Ca+2 +Mg+2)/2 U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954) classified the water on the basis of Sodium hazard, S 1, S2, S3 and S4 as low, medium, high and very high, with SAR value ranging from 0 to 10, 10 to 18,18 to 26 and above 26 respectively.

Page 15

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

SAR values in ground water samples of Imphal valley ranges from 0.29 to exceptionaly 23.44 with an average of 3.18 that belongs to S1 category, except the maximum value at Andro Macheng Pat, that can be used for the irrigation of almost all kind of soil where moderate amount of leaching occurs with little danger to develop harmful level of exchangeable sodium. C. Residual Sodium Carbonate (R.S.C) Water, in which bicarbonate ions exceed the alkaline earth are said to contain Residual Sodium Carbonate and also known as Residual Alkalinity causes the bicarbonate hazard. High concentration of bicarbonate in soil may increase the pH value rendering it to a condition known as black alkali soil. In the present analysis Bicarbonate Hazard, which is caused by the R.S.C. in water has been computed by applying following equation after Eaton (1950). R.S.C. = (CO3- + HCO3-) – (Ca2+ + Mg2+) Where, ion concentration is expressed in meq/l. U.S. Salinity laboratory (1954) has categorised the water with R.S.C. value 1.25 meq/l as safe,1.25 to 2.25 as marginally safe and above 2.50 unsuitable for the irrigational purposes. R.S.C. values for the present samples ranges from -3.92 to 4.71 with an average of -0.50, which may be treated as safe for the irrigational purposes except at Soraching Wangma and Irum Mapal (Kakching), having the highest values of 4.71 and 4.30 respectively. D. Kelly’s Index (KI) The ratio of Na to Ca+ Mg (all cations expressed as mg/l) is the Kelly’s Index. It is a reflection of the alkali hazard of the water. For good quality of natural groundwater , this ratio is either 1 or <1. In ground water samples of Imphal Valley KI value varies from 0.22 to 6.48 with an average of 1.13, which is a little above 1 due to exceptionally high value of 6.48 at Andro (near K.V.K), otherwise, majority of the samples show good quality and can be used for irrigation without any alkali hazard. E. Permeability Index (P.I.) Doneen (1962) have defined the Permeability Index based on ionic relationship and concentration of Na, HCO 3, Ca and Mg as: P.I. = (Na+ √HCO3/ Ca + Mg + Na)X 100 The Permeability Index for the present samples varies from 46.29 to 99.88 with an average value of 72.70 suggesting good quality of water for irrigation purposes. F. Calcium and Magnesium (Ca + Mg) Calcium and magnesium occur in all kinds of natural water both surface and groundwater. However, calcium is more abundant being present in high quantity in the rocks. Calcium and Magnesium together constitute second major elements in the groundwater samples of Imphal Valley and are responsible for the groundwater hardness. Both of these elements are essential for both human being and animal. However, very low and high concentration of Mg may cause cardiac muscular disease (Montgmeny, 1985) while deficiency may cause disease related to the bones. W.H.O. (1971) has prescribed 200mg/l of calcium and 100mg/l of magnesium as the maximum permissible limit in water. In groundwater samples of Imphal valley calcium varies from 7.96 to 67.13mg/l with an average of 32.74 mg/l while magnesium concentration varies from 5.5 to 49.22 mg/l with an average of 27.13 mg/l, which are well within the permissible limit for the human consumption. G. Sodium (Na) Higher concentration of sodium is harmful for the people suffering from cardiac, renal and circulatory diseases although it is required for the normal functioning of human body. Mc Neely et al. (1979) suggested that persons suffering from the above diseases should not take water with sodium levels exceeding 20 mg/l. According to National Academy of Sciences (1977), the higher concentration of sodium can cause cardiovascular diseases, and in women toxemia associated with pregnancy. High concentration of sodium affects soil permeability and texture and leads to puddling and reduced rate of water intake thus the soil becomes hard. Its concentration in natural fresh water is generally lower than the calcium and magnesium. Sodium salts are highly soluble in water and unlike calcium and magnesium there is no precipitating reactions to reduce its concentration. Sodium concentration in groundwater is important in classifying irrigation water and is expressed in terms of sodium percentage (Na%) which can be calculated using the following equation: Na ( %)= Na++ K+ x 100/ Ca+2+ Mg+2+ Na+ + K+ According to Wilcox classification (1955), all groundwater samples of the valley belong to good to doubtful class since the percentage of sodium (Na%) in the study area varies between 21.30 and 86.70. H. Potassium (K) Potassium is an essential nutrient for the organism, although excessive intake is harmful. There is no standard maximum limit of potassium concentration in drinking water. However, a desirable limit of 10mg/l of Potassium is recommended in potable water. Potassium concentration above 2000 mg/l may be harmful to human nervous and digestive system. In the groundwater samples of Imphal Valley its concentration ranges from 0.98 to 3.76 mg/l with an average of 1.89 mg/l, which is safe for human consumption.

Page 16

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

I. Chloride (Cl) Chloride ions have little effect on soil properties and have beneficial for the crops like cotton, potatoes, etc. However, its higher concentration can cause injury to crops such as citrus trees, vine crops etc (Chatterjee, 1970).The concentration of chloride in human body fluid remains constant and plays an important additional function in the body. I.S.I. (1983, 1991 ) has suggested the highest desirable limit of 250 mg/l and maximum permissible limit of 100 mg/l in drinking water. Beyond 500 mg/l chloride in water is harmful to the human. Chloride concentration in the present sample ranges from 10.64 to 1755 mg/l with an average of 169.58 mg/l, which is comparatively high as compare with the maximum permissible limit in drinking because of the one exceptional maximum value (Sl.No. 9), otherwise majority of the samples are well within the permissible limit. The main sources of chloride in the groundwater of Imphal Valley may be through sewage and effluents brought by the percolated water and partly from the leaching of soil. J. Total Hardness (T.H.) Total Hardness of water is due to the effect of alkaline-earth cations like Calcium, Magnesium, Strontium and Barium. It varies 70 to 360 mg/l with an average of 150 mg/l in the groundwater samples of Imphal Valley, which is well within the permissible range of potable water. K. Trace Elements Analysis of Table-1 reveals that Fe is more dominant trace element in almost all groundwater samples of Imphal Valley and followed by As. The Iron concentration varies from 0.25 to 17.60 mg/l with an average of 1.75 mg/l. Some samples have unwanted reddish colour and smell due to high content of water Iron is one of the most abundant metals in the earth crust and is essential for plant and human being. But excess iron in drinking water produces inky taste and muddy smelling (Sharma & Kaur, 1997). Concentration of iron level for the ground water in maximum number of sample were above the highest desirable limit of 0.1 mg/l but well within the safe limit for drinking water standard (Sanjoy Meitei L, Rakesh Kh, 2013).The iron concentrations in tubewells in the Imphal Valley are similar to those on the Ganga – Meghna – Brahmaputra (GMB) plains, and here also the correlation between iron and arsenic is poor (Dipankar Chakraborti et al.,2008). The highly weathered Disang shales are the probable sourse of iron content in the groundwater of Imphal Valley which further enhances mobilisation of arsenic into the groundwater system of the area. Arsenic is introduced into soil and groundwater during weathering of rock and minerals followed by subsequent leaching and runoff. Arsenic in groundwater is an emerging issue in the water supply and health sectors as it is known that many shallow tubewells yield arsenic at concentrations higher than the safe limit set for drinking purpose by WHO (1993). The arsenic content in the groundwater of study area ranges from 0.01 mg/l to 5mg/l. Based on Indian drinking water standards as per BIS Guidelines-IS:10500:1991, the desirable limit of Arsenic for potable water is less than 0.05 mg/l and greater than 0.05 mg/l are not suitable for potable water. Out of thirty-six samples eight samples are contaminated with arsenic and only one sample at Soraching Wangma is much greater than the desirable limit. IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In the present trend of water scarcity, Groundwater is absolute necessity to sustain life and a necessary resource for all economic activities. Contamination of groundwater is impairment of its quality by man’s activities causing an actual hazard to public health or impairment of beneficial use of groundwater. The water environment is an intricate system of living and nonliving elements. Physical, Chemical and biological factors influencing groundwater quality are so interrelated that a change in any quality parameter triggers other changes in a complex network of interrelation. Present study deals with the environmental assessment of groundwater of Imphal Valley. In order to assess the quality of groundwater of Imphal Valley for various purposes,36 samples collected from different locations were analysed using suitable analytical techniques. The results show that Na is the most dominant ionic species with an average of 108.32 mg/l. Calcium is second dominant element with an average of 32.74 mg/l. Magnesium and Potasium concentrations are 27.16 and 1.89 mg/l respectively. Calcium as such has no hazardous effects on human health. In fact it is one of the important nutrients required by the organism. Concentration upto 1800 mg/l have been found not to impair any physiological reaction in man (Lehr et al., 1980). However, high concentration may be cathartic and diuretic (Lehr et al., 1980) for the initial user but tolerance is developed in short time. High concentration of Mg combine with sulphate acts as a laxative to human beings. If Mg concentration exceeds 50mg/l it impart unpleasant test to the water thus rendering unpalatable .The ground water samples of Imphal Valley shows Na>Ca>Mg>K trend while most of the world water bodies shows Ca >Mg>Na>K trend. Relatively high concentration of Sodium and Calcium over Magnesium may be due to the fact that the Calcium cannot be easily precipitated to contribute into sediment in the groundwater system of the study area. The average chemical composition of anionic content in the ground water samples of Imphal valley shows HCO3 as the main constituent with an average of 207.03 mg/l. Chloride is the next dominant constituent with an average of 169.58 mg/l and the sulphate content is with an average of 11.11 mg/l and lastly carbonate content is

Page 17

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

almost nil. So the groundwater samples of the study area shows HCO 3>Cl>SO4>CO3 type of dominance, although the general sequence in most world water bodies is HCO3>SO4>Cl type . The sodicity, which constitutes 21.30 to 86.70% to the total cation of the ground water with an average of 46.04%, which are consider suitable for irrigation. The Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) parameter proposed by US Salinity Laboratory indicates that the water is fit for irrigation except two samples .Calcium and Magnesium together constitutes the second major proportion and are found to be well within the desirable limits for drinking water .According to Kelley’s Index, the analysed groundwater is suitable for irrigation without any Alkali Hazard. The Potassium content ranging from 0.98 to 3.76 mg/l is low as compared to other groundwater body. The Chloride content safe for domestic and irrigation purposes. Total Hardness in the present groundwater samples ranges from 70 to 360 mg/l with an average of 150 mg/l falls well within the moderately soft to hard water category for different uses. Among the trace element Iron is the most dominant element ranging from 0.25 to 17.60 mg/l with an average of 1.75 mg/l and followed by Arsenic which is ranging from 0.01 mg/l to 5mg/l with an average of o.67 mg/l. There is positive correlation between these two trace elements in almost all the samples. The probable reason of arsenic contamination in these areas may be heavy deposition of sediments due to surface erosion from surrounding hills and creating aquifers. Several other studies have shown that the ground water in the region is generally in a reducing state (presence of relatively high concentration of sedimentary organic matter) and suggest that arsenic is being released when arsenic – iron bearing minerals in the sediments are reduced by oxygen deficient ground water. Although, arsenic contents beyond the guideline values of WHO have been found in some samples, no report of Arsenocosis from the area has been known till date. Acknowledgement: The authors are thankful to University Grant Commission (UGC) for extending financial support to conduct Post Doctoral Research work for five years under the scheme of Post Doctoral Fellowship for women candidates 2008-9. Analytical support from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay is acknowledged with thanks. REFERENCES APHA ( American Public Health Association, USA), 1998. Standard methods for the Characteristics of water and wastewater. 20 th Edition, NW Washington, DC.20005-2605, 10-161p. C.D. Singh, 2010. Arsenic Pollution in groundwater of the Imphal Valley, Manipur. Indian Journal of Geo-Sceince ,Vol. 64, No. 1-4, JanDec.2010, 15-20p. Chatterjee, P.C., 1970. Quality of Irrigation and Drinking Water. Proc. UNESCO Sem. on Integrated Survey, Range Ecology and Management, Rajasthan, India, 31-47. Dipankar Chakraborti . Jayantakumar Singh, Bhaskar Das ,Babar Ali Shah, M. Amir Hossain, Bishwajit Nayak, Sad Ahamed , N. Rajmuhon Singh, 2008. Groundwater arsenic contamination in Manipur, one of the seven North-Eastern Hill states of India: a future danger, Environ Geol, Springer- Verlag , Doneen, L.D.,1962. The influence of soil percolating water. V.S. Agriculture Tech. Bull, 448. 131p. Eaton, F.M., 1950.Significance of Carbonate in irrigation waters. Soil Sci., 69, 123-133. Indian Standard Institution, (ISI).1983.Indian Standard Specification for drinking water, IS: 10500,ISI, New Delhi, 22p. Indian Standard Institution, (ISI). 1991. Indian Standard Specification for drinking water, IS: 10500,ISI, New Delhi,1-31p. Lehr, J.H.,Gass T.E., Pettyjohn. W.A. and De Marre, J., 1980. Domestic Water Treatment.McGraw, Hill Book Co. Mc Neely et al.,1979. A guide to water quality parameters. Inland waters Directorate, Canada, 1-65. Montgmeny, J.M., 1985 Water treatment. Willy and Sons. New York. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).1977, Safe drinking water committee. Drinking water and Health, Vol. 1. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Sanjoy Meitei L, Rakesh Kh, 2013. A comparative study of the ground and surface water quality with reference to heavy metal concentrations in the Imphal valley, Manipur, India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 3 No.6, 1857-1867p. Sharma B.K and Kaur. H., (1997), Water pollution 2nd Edn. Goyal Publishing house Meerut (UP), p 312. Singh, Minaketan, L., 1996. Hydrogeological studies of Imphal Valley, Manipur, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Manipur University. Trivedy, R.K. and Goel, P.K., 1984. Chemical and Biological Methods for water pollution studies. Environ. Publ. Karad. India 215p. U.S. Salinity laboratory Staff, 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkalisoils.U.S. Deptt. of Agri.Handbook 60; 160p. World Health Organisation, 1971. International Standards for drinking water. Geneva, 31-41p. World Health Organisation, 1973. Trace elements in human nutrition. Geneva, 1-60p. World Health Organisation,1993, Guidelines for drinking water quality, Health criteria and other supporting information, Vol. 1Recommendation (2nd Ed.), Geneva. Wilcox, L. V., 1955. Classification and uses of Irrigations Waters, U.S. Deptt. Agri. Circ. No. 969,19p.

Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Na 4.32 32.51 27.62 26.78 21.52 32.66 105.80 23.87

K 1.74 1.57 1.55 1.38 1.30 1.59 1.36 2.47

Table 1:Chemical Parameters of Groundwater of Imphal Valley (in mg/l) Tz+ Tz_ Ca Mg Cl HCO3 CO3 SO4 7.96 5.50 19.52 10.64 32.0 0.0 9.00 51.64 36.15 24.30 94.53 65.64 175.0 0.0 17.60 258.24 28.44 27.83 95.34 56.96 160.0 0.0 13.10 230.06 28.25 28.10 94.51 60.56 155.0 0.0 10.20 225.76 76.41 202.93 19.89 23.70 47.63 145.0 0.0 10.30 42.51 24.60 101.36 82.25 160.0 0.0 12.20 254.45 29.43 32.10 196.69 160.16 230.0 0.0 8.70 398.86 30.48 21.20 68.02 51.25 155.0 0.0 9.40 215.65

T.H. 80 200 190 160 130 150 90 190

As ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Fe 0.747 0.401 0.579 2.352 5.915 0.664 0.318 0.824

Page 18

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

974.55 44.31 21.95 37.96 65.19 61.02 23.98 37.48 131.26 86.28 117.69 128.47 38.20 166.93 171.27 169.60 170.25 85.60 116.30 96.32 75.65 150.50 130.1 120.36 97.50 66.25 112.70 126.80

3.76 1.83 1.41 1.75 1.31 1.75 0.98 1.62 2.40 1.84 1.76 2.88 1.51 2.26 1.79 2.44 1.50 1.23 2.33 1.90 2.45 2.98 1.89 1.88 1.99 2.12 1.66 1.89

67.13 22.36 22.46 29.93 13.62 31.78 23.96 37.05 21.36 11.51 37.87 25.14 55.98 58.45 38.71 27.54 23.56 34.65 43.12 45.56 23.78 53.23 36.23 42.78 29.65 45.23 21.34 31.65

38.20 24.37 22.30 35.10 13.38 26.30 16.50 32.15 22.15 11.78 24.95 22.52 37.07 39.54 38.25 27.32 33.56 43.22 34.67 25.32 19.35 49.22 19.36 15.65 16.20 37.19 36.68 27.19

1113.64 102.87 68.12 97.75 93.50 120.85 65.42 108.30 177.17 111.41 182.27 172.99 132.76 267.18 250.02 226.80 228.87 164.70 186.42 169.20 121.23 255.93 187.60 180.67 205.34 150.87 172.38 187.53

1755.00 88.50 48.38 80.38 80.19 105.38 52.76 82.01 190.83 120.49 176.00 190.79 120.38 373.00 295.00 220.75 490.00 100.00 30.00 360.00 70.00 40.00 30.00 40.00 220.00 30.00 40.00 140.00

160.0 140.0 150.0 195.0 140.0 145.0 106.0 190.0 225.0 135.0 225.0 245.0 205.0 175.0 225.0 250.0 530.0 195.0 190.0 530.0 250.0 210.0 195.0 240.0 250.0 250.0 210.0 280.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8.60 8.50 8.70 8.30 16.40 27.40 12.00 8.10 13.80 9.90 8.40 8.80 11.80 9.40 8.70 8.10 9.10 8.20 8.80 12.60 11.60 15.60 9.60 7.90 13.50 8.80 14.20 12.70

192.36 237.00 207.08 283.68 236.59 277.78 170.76 280.11 429.63 265.39 409.40 444.59 337.18 557.40 528.70 478.85 1029.10 303.20 228.80 902.60 331.60 256.60 234.60 287.90 483.50 288.80 264.20 432.70

Table 2: Chemical Characteristics of ground water of Imphal Valley (in meq/l) Location Na K Ca Mg UcheckonTakthokMapan (PrukSoubi) 0.19 0.05 0.40 0.46 Keirao Wangkhem 1.41 0.04 1.81 2.23 KeiraoWagkhemManingLeikai 1.20 0.04 1.42 2.32 Huikap Mayai Leikai 1.03 0.04 1.41 2.34 Huikup Mayai Leikai 0.94 0.03 1.00 1.96 Huikup Makha Leikai 1.42 0.04 2.13 2.05 Andro Khunou Leikai 4.60 0.04 1.47 2.68 Andro Chingol Leikai 1.04 0.06 1.52 1.77 Andro (Near K.V.K.) 42.37 0.10 3.36 3.18 Andro Macheng Pat 1.93 0.05 1.12 2.03 Andro Macheng Pat 0.95 0.04 1.12 1.86 Waithou Chingol Khongnang Kachin 1.43 0.06 1.50 2.93 Waithou Cheeru 2.83 0.03 0.68 1.12 Waithou Saman Tangkhul (Foot Hill) 2.65 0.06 1.59 2.19 Waithou Saman Tangkhul (Hill Top ) 1.04 0.03 1.20 1.38 Waithou Cheeru 1.63 0.04 1.85 2.68 Haobam Marak Ngangom Leikai 5.71 0.06 1.07 1.85 Kwakeithel Bazar 3.74 0.05 0.58 0.98 Ningombam Chinggon (Near Turning) 5.12 0.05 1.89 2.08 Ningombam Chinggon 5.59 0.07 1.26 1.88 Langthaban Phuramakhong (Near Pond) 1.66 0.04 2.80 3.09 Langthaban Phuramakhong 7.26 0.06 2.92 3.30 Langthaban Phuramakhong (Main Road ) 7.48 0.05 1.74 3.19 Hiyangthang Lairenbi Maning 7.37 0.06 1.38 2.28 Soraching Wangma 7.40 0.17 1.18 2.80 Soraching Wangma 3.72 0.03 1.74 3.60 Soraching Awang Leikai 5.06 0.06 2.16 2.89 Khunutabaching 4.19 0.04 2.28 2.11 Irum Mapal (Opposite Toll Tax) 3.29 0.06 1.19 1.61 Kakching Makha Leikai, Naodam Pareng 6.54 0.08 2.66 4.10 Pajileikai (Inside Oilpump) 5.66 0.05 1.81 1.61 Pajileikai (Opposite Oilpump) 5.23 0.05 2.14 1.30 Pajileikai 4.24 0.05 1.48 1.35 Kakching Hospital 2.88 0.05 2.26 3.10 Kakching Near CHC Campus Quarter 4.90 0.04 1.08 3.06 Kakching Lamkhai 5.51 0.05 1.58 2.27

150 160 360 190 70 160 160 225 200 120 110 90 160 200 110 150 200 160 90 180 150 130 120 80 100 70 150 160

CO3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.07 0.04 ND ND ND ND 0.01 5.00 ND ND ND ND 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 ND ND ND

0.496 0.656 10.096 4.558 1.092 0.599 17.591 1.175 0.505 1.504 0.275 0.52 0.3 1.043 0.25 0.298 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 1.000 0.300 1.000 5.000 0.300 1.000 0.300

HCO3 0.53 2.87 2.62 2.54 2.38 2.62 3.77 2.54 2.62 2.30 2.46 3.20 2.30 2.38 1.74 3.12 3.69 2.21 3.69 4.07 3.36 2.87 3.69 4.10 8.69 3.20 3.12 8.69 4.10 3.44 3.20 3.93 4.10 4.10 3.44 4.59

Page 19

Geeta Devi et al., American International Journal of Research in Formal, Applied & Natural Sciences, 12(1), September-November, 2015, pp. 14-20

Table 3: Geo-environmental Parameter calculated from Analytical Data of Study Area. Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Location UcheckonTakthokMapan (PrukSoubi) Keirao Wangkhem KeiraoWagkhemManingLeikai khong) Huikap Mayai Leikai Huikup Mayai Leikai Huikup Makha Leikai Andro Khunou Leikai Andro Chingol Leikai Andro (Near K.V.K.) Andro Macheng Pat Andro Macheng Pat Waithou Chingo lKhongnang Kachin Waithou Cheeru Waithou Saman Tangkhul (Foot Hill) Waithou Saman Tangkhul (Hill Top ) Waithou Cheeru Haobam Marak Ngangom Leikai Kwakeithel Bazar Ningombam Chinggon(NearTurning) Ningombam Chinggon Langthaban Phuramakhong(Near Pond) Langthaban Phuramakhong Langthaban Phuramakhong Hiyangthang Lairenbi Maning Soraching Wangma Soraching Wangma Soraching Awang Leikai Khunutabaching Irum Mapal (Opposite Toll Tax) Kakching Makha Leikai, Naodam Pareng Pajileikai (Inside Oilpump) Pajileikai (Opposite Oilpump) Pajileikai Kakching Hospital Kakching Near CHC Campus Quarter Kakching Lamkhai

Na% 21.40 27.50 24.90 21.30 24.60 25.90 52.80 25.10 86.70 38.50 24.90 25.10 61.50 36.10 29.30 26.90 66.40 70.90 56.50 64.20 22.40 54.10 60.30 67.10 66.10 41.30 50.40 49.10 54.50 49.50 62.50 60.50 60.20 35.40 54.50 59.10

Kellyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Index 0.22 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.32 0.34 1.11 0.32 6.48 0.61 0.32 0.32 1.58 0.56 0.41 0.36 1.96 2.41 1.29 1.79 0.29 1.17 1.17 2.02 1.87 0.70 1.00 0.96 1.18 0.97 1.66 1.52 1.50 0.53 1.19 1.43

P.I. 87.46 59.23 57.09 52.68 63.44 54.30 74.80 60.80 99.88 67.81 64.10 55.01 95.30 56.43 65.30 55.09 88.49 98.73 77.42 87.04 46.29 66.43 75.73 85.22 90.98 60.84 67.53 83.21 87.23 63.12 81.99 83.18 88.57 59.73 74.88 81.77

R.S.C. -0.33 -0.97 -1.12 -1.22 -0.60 -1.64 -0.38 -0.76 -3.92 -0.86 -0.79 -0.23 0.50 -2.40 -0.84 -1.42 0.20 0.66 -0.29 0.89 -2.53 -3.35 -1.24 0.44 4.71 -2.14 -1.93 4.30 1.30 -2.32 -0.23 0.50 1.27 -1.26 -0.69 0.64

S.A.R 0.29 1.02 0.88 0.76 0.77 0.98 3.19 0.81 23.44 1.22 0.78 0.96 2.99 1.72 0.92 1.08 4.73 4.24 3.63 4.46 0.97 4.23 4.75 5.23 5.25 2.28 3.19 2.83 2.22 3.56 4.32 3.99 3.56 1.76 3.41 3.98

Page 20