| Literature DB >> 30678082 |
Adam Khalifa Mohamed1,2, Liu Dan3, Song Kai4, Mohamed A A Mohamed5, Elsiddig Aldaw6,7, Basheer A Elubid8.
Abstract
Groundwater is a major water resource in the North Chengdu Plain, China. The research objective is to determine the quality and suitability of groundwater for drinking purposes within the vicinity of a shallow, unconsolidated aquifer of Quaternary age. In this study, a detailed investigation was conducted to define the hydrochemical characteristics that control the quality of groundwater, based on traditional methods. Considering the uncertainties linked with water resources and the environmental complications, the fuzzy logic method was used in the determination of groundwater quality for more precise findings that support decision-making. To achieve such an objective, sixteen water quality guidelines were used to determine groundwater quality status in six selected wells. The results showed that the groundwater is neutral, very hard, and fresh in nature. Dominating cations and anions are in the order of Ca 2 + > Na + > Mg 2 + > K + and HCO 3 - > SO 4 2 - > Cl - . The Piper trilinear diagram demonstrates that the hydrochemical facies of groundwater are mostly of Ca-HCO 3 type. Statistical analysis denotes a positive correlation between most of the chemical parameters. The study took the results of the fuzzy logic evaluation method into consideration, to classify the samples into five groups according to the Chinese groundwater quality standard (GB/T 14848-93) for their suitability for domestic use. The results demonstrated that the quality of the groundwater samples is within grade II and III, and is suitable for drinking purposes. The comprehensive evaluation of groundwater quality is critical to aid sensitive policy decisions, and the proposed approach can guarantee reliable findings to that effect. The results of this study would also be helpful to future researches related to groundwater quality assessment.Entities:
Keywords: North Chengdu plain; WHO standard; fuzzy logic; groundwater quality; hydrochemical facies
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30678082 PMCID: PMC6388187 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area site and groundwater samples in the North Chengdu Plain.
Analytical methods used in the assessment of groundwater quality.
| Parameters | Analysis Methods |
|---|---|
| pH | Portable ph meter |
| Electrical conductivity (EC) | Portable ph meter |
| Total hardness (TH) | Edta complexmetry |
| Total dissolved solids (TDS) | Gravimetric method |
| Sodium (Na | Flame photometer |
| Potassium (K | Flame photometer |
| Calcium (Ca | Volumetric methods |
| Magnesium (Mg | Volumetric methods |
| Bicarbonates (HCO | Volumetric methods |
| Chlorides (Cl | Volumetric methods |
| Sulfates (SO | Spectrophotometric |
| Nitrite (NO | Spectrophotometer |
| Nitrate (NO | Ionic chromatography |
| Ammonia (NH | Nessler is reagent spectrophotometry |
| Manganese (Mn) | Atomic absorption spectrophotometry |
| Iron (Fe) | Atomic absorption spectrophotometry |
Figure 2Schematic of the methodology for a groundwater sustainability index.
Classification of groundwater quality based on the Chinese national standard (GB/T 14848-93).
| Grade | Classification/Applicable Uses | Parameters | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TH | TDS | NO2 | NO3 | NH4 | Mn | Fe | Cl | SO4 | ||
| I | Excellent suitable for drinking water | 150 | 300 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 50 | 50 |
| II | Good suitable for drinking water | 300 | 500 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 150 | 150 |
| III | Moderate suitable for drinking water | 450 | 1000 | 3.0 | 20 | 0.2 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 250 | 250 |
| IV | Poor suitable for drinking water | 550 | 2000 | 10 | 30 | 0.5 | 10 | 1.5 | 350 | 350 |
| V | Unsuitable for drinking water | >550 | >2000 | >10 | >30 | >0.5 | >10 | >1.5 | >350 | >350 |
Descriptive statistics of groundwater parameters in comparison with WHO (2011) and Chinese national standard (GB 5749-2006).
| Parameters | Units | Min | Max | Mean | Std. Deviation | WHO Guideline | National Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value (2011) | (GB 5749-2006) | ||||||
| pH | - | 6.90 | 7.10 | 7.00 | 0.06 | 6.5–8.5 | 6.5–8.5 |
| EC | 655.93 | 1269.08 | 915.75 | 200.29 | 500 | - | |
| TH | mg/L | 302.80 | 628.10 | 437.92 | 121.28 | 300 | 450 |
| TDS | mg/L | 387.00 | 824.90 | 566.63 | 146.43 | 500 | 1000 |
| Na | mg/L | 10.20 | 58.00 | 25.95 | 17.13 | 200 | 200 |
| K | mg/L | 1.80 | 2.50 | 2.25 | 0.25 | 12 | - |
| Ca | mg/L | 98.20 | 194.40 | 137.90 | 37.80 | 75 | - |
| Mg | mg/L | 13.98 | 34.66 | 22.72 | 6.92 | 50 | - |
| HCO | mg/L | 146.40 | 411.90 | 307.12 | 95.86 | 500 | - |
| Cl | mg/L | 12.79 | 78.15 | 36.86 | 22.07 | 250 | 250 |
| SO | mg/L | 85.03 | 276.00 | 140.04 | 71.35 | 250 | 250 |
| NO | mg/L | 0.004 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 3 | 0.02 |
| NO | mg/L | 0.12 | 3.40 | 1.36 | 1.22 | 50 | 20 |
| NH | mg/L | 0.02 | 0.36 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 35 | 0.2 |
| Mn | mg/L | 0.003 | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.1 | 0.05 |
| Fe | mg/L | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Figure 3Spatial variation in (a) pH, (b) EC, (c) TH and (d) TDS of groundwater sample in the study area.
Figure 4The spatial allocation of (a) cations (Na, K, Ca, and Mg ) and (b) anions (HCO, Cl, and SO) in the study area.
Figure 5The values of concentrations (a) NO, (b) NO and (c) NH of groundwater samples in the study area.
Figure 6Spatial distribution of concentrations (a) Mn and (b) Fe in the study area.
Figure 7Piper trilinear diagram, describing the hydrochemical facies of the study area.
Pearson’s correlation matrix for different groundwater quality parameters in the North Chengdu Plain.
| Parameters | pH | EC | TH | TDS | Na | K | Ca | Mg | HCO | Cl | SO | NO | NO | NH | Mn | Fe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| EC |
| 1 | ||||||||||||||
| TH |
|
| 1 | |||||||||||||
| TDS |
|
|
| 1 | ||||||||||||
| Na |
| 0.28 | −0.19 | 0.23 | 1 | |||||||||||
| K | −0.38 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.63 | −0.01 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Ca |
|
|
|
| −0.27 | 0.62 | 1 | |||||||||
| Mg |
|
|
|
| 0.09 | 0.62 |
| 1 | ||||||||
| HCO | −0.33 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.36 | −0.23 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.34 | 1 | |||||||
| Cl |
|
|
|
| 0.37 | 0.51 |
|
| 0.32 | 1 | ||||||
| SO |
|
|
|
| −0.01 | 0.64 |
|
| 0.29 |
| 1 | |||||
| NO |
|
|
|
| 0.12 | 0.49 |
|
| 0.41 |
|
| 1 | ||||
| NO | 0.58 | −0.44 | −0.65 | −0.48 | 0.21 | −0.27 | −0.66 | −0.58 | −0.01 | −0.31 | −0.40 | −0.08 | 1 | |||
| NH | −0.48 | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.53 | −0.05 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 0.60 | −0.48 | 0.47 | 0.65 | 0.41 | −0.56 | 1 | ||
| Mn | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.36 | 0.09 | −0.50 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.16 | 0.26 | −0.16 | 0.01 | −0.25 | −0.60 | 0.07 | 1 | |
| Fe | −0.02 | −0.03 | 0.34 | 0.08 | −0.47 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.17 | −0.17 | −0.17 | 0.05 | −0.29 |
| 0.45 |
| 1 |
Notes: Correlation = significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); Correlation = significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The fuzzy evaluation of groundwater quality in the study area.
| Name of Well | I | II | III | IV | V | Result Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 0.085 | 0.031 |
| 0.005 | 0.311 | III |
| Q2 | 0.303 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | II |
| Q3 | 0.064 |
| 0.171 | 0.321 | 0 | II |
| Q4 | 0.059 | 0.361 |
| 0.156 | 0 | III |
| Q5 | 0.225 |
| 0.319 | 0 | 0 | II |
| Q6 | 0.442 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | II |