| Literature DB >> 17431315 |
S S Asadi1, Padmaja Vuppala, M Anji Reddy.
Abstract
Groundwater quality in Hyderabad has special significance and needs great attention of all concerned since it is the major alternate source of domestic, industrial and drinking water supply. The present study monitors the ground water quality, relates it to the land use / land cover and maps such quality using Remote sensing and GIS techniques for a part of Hyderabad metropolis. Thematic maps for the study are prepared by visual interpretation of SOI toposheets and linearly enhanced fused data of IRS-ID PAN and LISS-III imagery on 1:50,000 scale using AutoCAD and ARC/INFO software. Physico-chemical analysis data of the groundwater samples collected at predetermined locations forms the attribute database for the study, based on which, spatial distribution maps of major water quality parameters are prepared using curve fitting method in Arc View GIS software. Water Quality Index (WQI) was then calculated to find the suitability of water for drinking purpose. The overall view of the water quality index of the present study area revealed that most of the study area with >50 standard rating of water quality index exhibited poor, very poor and unfit water quality except in places like Banjara Hills, Erragadda and Tolichowki. Appropriate methods for improving the water quality in affected areas have been suggested.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17431315 PMCID: PMC3719959 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph2007010008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1:Flow chart showing the methodology adopted for the generation of database
Figure 2:Sampling points overlaid on satellite imagery
Ground water quality of Zone – V
|
|
| |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Banjara hills | 7.82 | 520 | 107 | 39 | 1.41 | 119 | 160 | 310 | 56 | 90.5 | Very Poor |
| 2 | VN bus stop B.Hills | 7.94 | 280 | 42 | 21 | 0.683 | 110 | 6.2 | 200 | 27 | 46.6 | Good |
| 3 | NVT nagar B.Hills | 7.7 | 775 | 199 | 65 | 1.96 | 250 | 2 | 300 | 150 | 104.4 | UFD |
| 4 | Rd no 10 B.Hills | 7.03 | 795 | 121 | 42 | 1.84 | 190 | 290 | 500 | 56 | 110 | UFD |
| 5 | Rd no 4B.Hills | 6.89 | 736 | 114 | 37 | 1.18 | 290 | 116 | 460 | 63 | 48.5 | Good |
| 6 | Yellareddyguda | 7.15 | 1010 | 149 | 44 | 3.12 | 215 | 535 | 460 | 190 | 133.2 | UFD |
| 7 | Yousufguda | 6.89 | 630 | 71 | 26 | 1.62 | 200 | 88 | 380 | 44 | 77.9 | Very Poor |
| 8 | Erragada (NGAC) | 6.93 | 690 | 140 | 38 | 0.506 | 250 | 148 | 390 | 61 | 116 | UFD |
| 9 | Erragada | 7.61 | 1350 | 178 | 64 | 2.73 | 400 | 320 | 500 | 110 | 58.4 | Poor |
| 10 | Erragada | 7.1 | 540 | 114 | 19 | 0.818 | 180 | 52 | 350 | 30 | 46.4 | Good |
| 11 | Humayunagar | 7.51 | 745 | 92 | 57 | 0.67 | 350 | 216 | 400 | 81 | 51.1 | Poor |
| 12 | Mehadipatnam | 7.46 | 690 | 92 | 34 | 0.98 | 275 | 120 | 400 | 53 | 24.1 | Excellent |
| 13 | Mehadipatnam | 7.38 | 340 | 64 | 18 | 0.77 | 120 | 52 | 200 | 29 | 31.7 | Good |
| 14 | Hakimpet | 7.78 | 862 | 213 | 65 | 0.44 | 230 | 360 | 560 | 71 | 86.5 | Very Poor |
| 15 | Film nagar | 7.56 | 520 | 85 | 43 | 1.6 | 220 | 44 | 300 | 49 | 114 | UFD |
| 16 | Rd no 10 Film nagar | 7.54 | 845 | 142 | 67 | 1.4 | 310 | 84 | 470 | 67 | 104 | UFD |
| 17 | Jubilee Hills(CP) | 7.51 | 800 | 178 | 65 | 2.9 | 225 | 160 | 460 | 78 | 43.1 | Good |
| 18 | Banjara hills(2) | 7.68 | 350 | 50 | 18 | 1.9 | 140 | 52 | 200 | 67 | 27.1 | Good |
| 19 | L.V.Prasad eye hospital | 7.98 | 325 | 50 | 17 | 2.4 | 150 | 160 | 190 | 28 | 31.8 | Good |
| 20 | Tolichowki | 7.41 | 805 | 49 | 34 | 0.59 | 230 | 140 | 240 | 26 | 26.0 | Good |
| 21 | Sheikpet | 6.82 | 500 | 92 | 50 | 0.36 | 470 | 500 | 970 | 122 | 55.5 | Poor |
| 22 | Kanch colony | 7.2 | 685 | 128 | 35 | 0.40 | 250 | 344 | 630 | 50 | 113 | UFD |
| 23 | Madhapur (near) | 6.75 | 615 | 142 | 54 | 0.34 | 230 | 64 | 410 | 56 | 56.5 | Poor |
| 24 | Moti nagar | 7.09 | 870 | 149 | 92 | 0.85 | 180 | 500 | 380 | 58 | 102.3 | UFD |
| 25 | Kamlapuri | 7.23 | 940 | 107 | 92 | 1.2 | 150 | 240 | 550 | 73 | 53.9 | Poor |
All units except pH and Water quality index are in mg/l
Water quality parameters, their ICMR/WHO standards, and assigned unit weights
| PH | 8.5 | 0.1428 |
| Chloride | 250 | 0.0048 |
| Sulfate | 250 | 0.0048 |
| Alkalinity | 120 | 0.0101 |
| Nitrates | 50 | 0.0242 |
| Total hardness | 300 | 0.0040 |
| TDS | 1000 | 0.0012 |
| Sodium | 200 | 0.0060 |
| Fluoride | 1.5 | 0.809 |
Water Quality Index Categories
| 0–25 | Excellent |
| 26–50 | Good |
| 51–75 | Poor |
| 76–100 | Very poor |
| >100 | Unfit for drinking (UFD) |
Figure 3:Land use / Land cover Map
Figure 4:Land use / land cover distribution in the study area
Figure 5:Spatial Distribution of Total Dissolved Solids
Figure 6:Spatial Distribution of Fluoride
Figure 7:Water Quality Index Map
Correlation of Water Quality with LU/LC
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Good | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Poor | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Very Poor | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unfit for Drinking | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Figure 8:Correlation of land use /land cover with water quality