INTRODUCTION:

Water is an essential for human survival and industrial development. For many rural and small-scale communities, groundwater is the only source of drinking water. Groundwater is the accumulation of water below the ground surface, caused by rainfall and its subsequent percolation through pores. Occurrence of groundwater is controlled by land form, structure and lithology.

Groundwater quality depends on the quality of recharged water, atmospheric precipitation, inland surface water and subsurface geochemical processes. The quality of groundwater varies due to a change in chemical composition of the underlying sediments and aquifer. However, in the recent past groundwater quality is getting deteriorated due to various reasons and making it unsuitable for drinking purposes threatening the human health. Groundwater, in general, is less susceptible to bacterial pollution when compared with the surface water. But it contains several chemical elements like Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, HCO₃^-, Cl^- and SO₄^2- which play an important role in the classification and assessment of quality of groundwater. Therefore, the assessment of groundwater quality for drinking has become a necessary and important task for the present and future groundwater quality management.

Several studies have been conducted on the quality of groundwater at different locations in India^1-5 and abroad^6-8 using WA-WQI method. The studies related to groundwater chemistry in Vizianagaram district were also conducted. However, they are limited to a part of coastal areas^9-12 and certain villages like S. Kota¹³, Addatheega¹⁴, Bobbili¹⁵, and to the spatially distributed open wells among the district¹⁶. Another study is related to the determination of Fluoride in Bhogapuram¹⁷.Therefore, a study on groundwater chemistry of entire Vizianagaram district is aimed at and a part of the study related to Lakkavarapu Kota region of Vizianagaram district is herewith presented.

Several researchers also conducted studies to assess the quality of surface water^18-19 using CCME-WQI method. The groundwater quality assessment was done in Cauvery deltaic region, Tamilnadu, for drinking²⁰ and in Kadava River basin, Maharashtra for drinking and irrigation^21-22 using the same method. The studies related to assessment of water quality using CCME Water Quality Index in Vizianagaram district was not yet conducted. Therefore, the present study aimed to apply CCME Water Quality Index to study groundwater quality in the study area for drinking.

Study Area:

Vizianagaram District is one of the north coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh comprising of 1582 Villages and occupying an area of 6,539 square kilometers. The study area considered for this work is Lakkavarapu kota region forming the south-western part of Vizianagaram district. It lies between17-50’ and 18-10’ of the northern latitudes and 83-00’ and 83-21’of the eastern longitudes (Fig.1) and occupies an area of around 670 sq.km and comprises of 167 villages.

Fig. 1: Location map of study area

Table 1: Sampling Locations

S. No.	Sample Id	Sampling Station	Mandal	Latitude	Longitude
1	LS1	Denderu	Kothavalasa	17⁰51^’47^”	83⁰09^’39^”
2	LS2	Devada	Kothavalasa	17⁰55^’30^”	83⁰08^’42^”
3	LS3	Ganisettipalem	Kothavalasa	17⁰52^’06^”	83⁰09^’52^”
4	LS4	Gulivindada	Kothavalasa	17⁰52^’16^”	83⁰09^’35^”
5	LS5	Kothavalasa	Kothavalasa	17⁰53^’33^”	83⁰11^’33^”
6	LS6	Relli	Kothavalasa	17⁰53^’28^”	83⁰13^’26^”
7	LS7	Tummikapalli	Kothavalasa	17⁰54^’45^”	83⁰10^’56^”
8	LS8	Bheemali	L. Kota	17⁰58^’40^”	83⁰13^’43^”
9	LS9	Kallempudi	L. Kota	18⁰03^’14^”	83⁰10^’33^”
10	LS10	L. Kota	L. Kota	18⁰01^’16^”	83⁰09^’25^”
11	LS11	Pothampeta	L. Kota	17⁰58^’36^”	83⁰03^’56^”
12	LS12	Thamarapalli	L. Kota	17⁰56^’06^”	83⁰08^’52^”
13	LS13	Alamanda	Jami	17⁰59^’46^”	83⁰14^’28^”
14	LS14	Attada	Jami	18⁰04^’10^”	83⁰18^’46^”
15	LS15	Bheemasingi	Jami	18⁰02^’49^”	83⁰17^’35^”
16	LS16	Chinthada	Jami	18⁰04^’19^”	83⁰11^’28^”
17	LS17	Jami	Jami	18⁰03^’08^”	83⁰15^’55^”
18	LS18	Thandrangi	Jami	18⁰05^’31^”	83⁰14^’02^”
19	LS19	Venne	Jami	18⁰05^’21^”	83⁰16^’28^”
20	LS20	Athava	Vepada	17⁰59^’52^”	83⁰06^’17^”
21	LS21	Kondagangupudi	Vepada	18⁰04^’06^”	83⁰04^’33^”
22	LS22	Sompuram	Vepada	18⁰02^’19^”	83⁰07^’59^”
23	LS23	Vavilapadu	Vepada	17⁰59^’26^”	83⁰01^’20^”
24	LS24	Vepada	Vepada	18⁰00^’05^”	83⁰04^’51^”
25	LS25	Gopalapalli	S. Kota	18⁰08^’14^”	83⁰12^’01”
26	LS26	Kottam	S. Kota	18⁰05^’33^”	83⁰13^’55^”
27	LS27	Mallipudi	S. Kota	18⁰05^’05^”	83⁰08^’07^”
28	LS28	Mamidipalli	S. Kota	18⁰07^’09^”	83⁰11^’53^”
29	LS29	S. Kota	S. Kota	18⁰06^’47^”	83⁰08^’43^”
30	LS30	Tennuboddavara	S. Kota	18⁰10^’21^”	83⁰07^’31^”

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A total number of 360 groundwater samples are collected (120 samples each in post-monsoon (POM), pre-monsoon (PRM) and monsoon (MON)) from different selected sampling locations (vide Table 1) of the study area from November 2018 to October 2019.Samples are collected in polythene bottles, pre-cleaned by washing with non-ionic detergents, rinsed with water, 1:1 hydrochloric acid and finally with de-ionized water. Before sampling, the bottles were rinsed three times with sample water. Tube wells are operated at least five minutes before collection of the water samples. The water quality parameter estimation was done using standard methods and techniques²³. pH and EC are measured using digital pH meter (Elico LI-120) and conductometer (Elico CL-351) respectively. TDS is determined by gravimetric method whereas parameters like Total Hardness (TH), Total Alkalinity (TA), Calcium, Magnesium, Chloride, Carbonates and Bicarbonates are determined by titrimetric method. Nitrate (NO₃^-) ion is determined using UV-visible spectrophotometer (Elico SL-177) with 1cm quartz cell, using Phenol Disulphonic Acid (PDA) method whereas Fluoride (F^- ion) is determined by SPADNS method and other parameters such as Sulphate is determined by turbidimetry using standard barium chloride solution. Sodium ion is measured by flame photometry (Elico CL-361).

Water Quality Index:

Several WQIs have been proposed by Researchers^24-30 and used appropriately by Governmental agencies and researchers. Among several WQIs, the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI), National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI), Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) and Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index Method (WAIWQI) are commonly used. Among those methods, CCME WQI method was applied to assess groundwater quality of study area.

a. CCME Water quality Index:

Canadian water quality index is the water quality index developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME 2001)³¹ and is used among the researchers in developing countries for simplifying the reporting of water quality data and delivers a broad overview of water quality data. This method requires Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) and this essentially consists of two steps. Step I: Calculation of three measures of variance from WQOs (scope F₁, frequency F₂ and amplitude F₃). Step II: Deduct from 100 the value of square root of sum of squares of F₁, F₂ an F₃ divided by 1.732 to produce a value between 0 and 100 that represent the overall water quality. Scope F₁ represents the number of variables not meeting water quality objectives; frequency F₂ considers the number of times these objectives are not met; and amplitude F₃ is the measure of the amount by which the objectives are not met. Based on CCME-WQI values, quality of water is classified ³¹ into five categories, as shown in the Table 2. While calculating the WQI, the permissible values (Si) for the parameters are considered as per the WHO/BIS and are shown in Table 3.

Table 2: Classification of water quality based on CCME-WQI values

WQI range	Ranking of water quality	Abbreviation used in Table 4 for ranking	Remarks
95-100	Excellent	EXC	Water quality is protected with a virtual absence of threat or impairment; conditions very close to natural or pristine levels.
80-94	Good	GOOD	Water quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment; conditions rarely depart from natural or desirable levels.
65-79	Fair	FAIR	Water quality is usually protected but occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels.
45-64	Marginal	MAR	Water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels.
0-44	Poor	POOR	Water quality is almost always threatened or impaired; conditions usually depart from natural or desirable levels.

RESULTS:

The physico-chemical parameters of groundwater samples and water quality index values are shown in the Table 3. From the analysis, it is observed that the EC and TDS values showed increasing trend from PRM to POM. HCO₃and SO₄are found to be higher during POM. Sodium, chloride and Fluoride were higher in PRM.

Table 3: Analysis of Groundwater samples: Physical and Chemical parameters and WQI

Sample ID	LS1			LS2			LS3			LS4
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.65	7.28	7.45	7.80	7.63	7.70	7.65	7.40	7.55	7.35	7.10	7.16
EC	1965.00	1902.75	1951.25	1718.25	1681.00	1716.00	1890.25	1876.00	1884.75	2000.25	1976.50	1995.00
TDS	1263.50	1224.25	1258.25	1121.75	1096.75	1119.25	1229.75	1220.50	1225.75	1300.25	1280.25	1297.75
NO3	27.00	23.00	25.75	22.00	20.00	21.00	11.00	9.00	10.00	13.35	10.00	12.00
TH	345.00	330.00	340.00	395.50	385.00	390.00	393.00	380.00	385.00	397.50	390.00	396.75
Ca	84.25	82.00	83.75	94.00	92.00	93.00	89.00	86.00	88.00	89.00	87.00	88.00
Mg	37.00	38.00	36.00	42.00	43.00	41.00	43.20	44.00	42.00	53.00	54.00	52.40
Na	96.50	97.25	95.00	117.00	120.50	114.00	140.75	142.50	140.25	132.00	133.50	130.75
Cl	147.50	150.00	145.00	180.00	185.00	175.00	216.75	217.75	215.00	203.50	205.00	200.25
SO4	24.00	22.00	23.00	59.00	57.25	58.50	85.00	83.00	84.00	25.00	23.00	24.00
CO3	20.00	18.00	19.00	18.00	16.00	17.00	33.00	31.00	32.00	45.00	43.00	44.00
HCO3	327.50	315.00	320.00	330.00	320.00	328.75	247.50	237.50	242.50	341.25	335.00	340.00
F	0.38	0.47	0.36	0.50	0.58	0.44	0.61	0.67	0.60	0.34	0.44	0.29
TA	347.50	335.00	340.00	350.00	340.00	348.75	267.50	257.50	262.50	361.25	355.00	360.00
CCMEWQI	80.02	80.28	80.10	80.65	80.82	80.67	80.73	80.83	80.78	74.00	74.18	74.06
Status	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR

Sample ID	LS5			LS6			LS7			LS8
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.25	6.88	7.16	7.60	7.40	7.50	7.55	7.30	7.45	7.55	7.35	7.45
EC	1932.00	1900.00	1916.25	976.50	962.75	969.00	4592.50	4527.50	4548.75	1893.25	1840.50	1876.75
TDS	1256.00	1235.50	1246.00	647.50	635.50	640.75	2958.50	2917.75	2930.75	1231.25	1198.00	1223.25
NO3	24.00	21.83	22.50	19.50	16.75	18.00	40.75	37.00	38.50	32.50	29.53	31.75
TH	315.00	305.50	310.00	290.00	280.00	285.00	740.00	720.00	730.00	375.00	365.00	370.50
Ca	76.00	74.00	75.00	64.25	62.50	63.50	124.00	122.40	123.00	65.00	63.00	64.00
Mg	46.00	47.14	45.00	32.00	34.00	31.75	99.00	100.00	98.00	52.00	53.00	51.50
Na	147.50	149.00	146.50	59.50	60.25	59.00	716.50	717.50	713.00	83.00	84.25	81.25
Cl	227.50	229.00	225.00	91.00	92.00	90.50	1078.00	1080.75	1076.00	127.50	130.00	125.00
SO4	30.00	28.00	29.00	38.00	36.00	37.00	29.00	27.00	28.50	19.50	18.75	19.25
CO3	14.00	12.00	13.00	12.00	10.00	11.00	30.00	27.25	28.00	23.15	20.00	22.25
HCO3	338.75	325.25	332.50	255.00	252.50	253.75	586.00	582.50	585.00	337.50	327.50	333.75
F	0.54	0.65	0.48	0.43	0.53	0.40	0.94	1.00	0.88	0.35	0.48	0.31
TA	358.75	345.25	352.50	275.00	272.50	273.75	606.00	602.50	605.00	357.50	347.50	353.75
CCMEWQI	80.01	80.19	80.09	88.20	88.21	88.21	45.81	48.91	48.89	80.12	80.34	80.19
Status	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	MAR	MAR	MAR	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD

Sample ID	LS9			LS10			LS11			LS12
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.35	7.11	7.25	7.85	7.65	7.75	7.45	7.35	7.40	7.12	6.98	7.07
EC	2490.00	2393.75	2449.00	875.75	860.25	868.00	860.25	829.00	835.50	1002.00	972.75	987.25
TDS	1609.25	1557.50	1590.25	580.00	570.00	575.00	570.00	550.00	555.50	662.00	642.00	652.00
NO3	46.00	44.75	45.50	32.00	30.25	31.00	39.00	37.00	38.00	4.20	3.00	3.50
TH	399.00	403.00	398.75	293.25	285.00	289.00	260.00	250.00	255.50	282.75	273.75	281.25
Ca	24.50	20.85	22.00	44.00	42.00	43.00	29.00	27.00	28.00	44.80	42.00	43.00
Mg	86.00	87.12	84.75	43.20	44.00	42.00	19.00	20.00	18.90	38.80	39.00	37.00
Na	179.00	181.00	177.50	35.50	36.00	35.00	141.50	144.50	142.25	54.50	55.50	52.00
Cl	274.25	277.25	273.00	54.00	55.25	53.50	217.50	220.00	215.00	83.00	85.00	80.00
SO4	75.00	72.00	74.00	12.75	10.50	11.00	11.50	9.00	10.50	40.50	38.00	39.00
CO3	7.00	5.00	6.00	15.00	13.31	14.00	9.00	7.00	8.00	12.00	10.00	11.00
HCO3	335.00	322.50	330.00	282.50	272.50	277.50	128.75	122.50	127.50	223.75	217.50	222.50
F	0.91	1.00	0.80	0.31	0.38	0.28	0.41	0.48	0.40	0.41	0.48	0.39
TA	355.00	342.50	350.00	302.50	292.50	297.50	148.75	142.50	147.50	243.75	237.50	242.50
CCMEWQI	73.32	73.60	73.45	94.37	94.37	94.37	100.00	100.00	100.00	84.48	88.29	88.27
Status	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR	EXC	EXC	EXC	EXC	EXC	EXC	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD

Sample ID	LS13			LS14			LS15			LS16
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.58	7.38	7.45	6.96	6.78	6.83	7.68	7.43	7.58	7.73	7.50	7.63
EC	2599.25	2580.75	2594.25	1704.00	1657.00	1688.25	1512.25	1473.75	1506.75	2142.50	2111.75	2127.25
TDS	1683.00	1671.75	1680.00	1110.00	1080.00	1100.00	987.25	962.50	983.75	1390.75	1371.00	1381.00
NO3	24.75	21.25	24.50	13.00	11.00	12.00	8.50	6.60	7.50	12.00	9.50	10.50
TH	596.75	590.00	595.00	320.00	310.00	315.50	285.00	270.00	280.00	400.00	390.00	395.00
Ca	121.60	119.00	120.00	70.00	66.00	68.80	78.00	76.00	77.00	77.00	75.20	76.00
Mg	74.80	75.50	73.25	35.00	36.00	34.90	18.00	19.40	17.00	48.00	49.08	47.00
Na	209.75	213.00	207.50	168.00	169.50	167.00	72.25	73.50	71.50	215.50	217.50	214.50
Cl	321.50	325.00	320.00	259.50	260.00	258.00	111.25	113.00	110.00	332.50	335.00	330.00
SO4	36.00	34.00	35.00	25.25	23.00	24.00	26.00	24.00	25.00	18.00	16.00	17.00
CO3	23.00	22.00	23.00	7.00	5.00	6.00	18.00	15.50	17.00	16.00	14.00	15.00
HCO3	535.00	528.75	532.50	270.00	265.00	267.75	222.50	217.50	220.00	330.00	325.25	327.50
F	0.60	0.66	0.58	0.46	0.52	0.40	0.45	0.50	0.40	0.45	0.52	0.40
TA	555.00	548.75	552.50	290.00	285.00	287.75	242.50	237.50	240.00	350.00	345.25	347.50
CCMEWQI	55.83	55.88	55.87	75.54	75.65	75.59	81.76	81.86	81.79	68.52	68.59	68.58
Status	MAR	MAR	MAR	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR

Sample ID	LS17			LS18			LS19			LS20
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.65	7.45	7.58	7.55	7.35	7.45	7.60	7.40	7.50	7.45	7.16	7.35
EC	1543.50	1480.50	1519.00	834.75	783.25	810.25	1238.75	1209.50	1223.00	6457.50	6363.75	6448.75
TDS	1007.50	967.25	991.75	553.50	522.50	537.75	814.50	795.75	804.50	4154.00	4104.00	4149.00
NO3	15.10	11.25	14.28	5.50	3.60	4.60	45.50	43.00	45.00	57.50	56.00	57.00
TH	330.00	322.50	328.75	200.00	192.00	195.00	253.50	250.00	252.00	1220.00	1210.00	1215.00
Ca	78.25	75.75	77.25	37.00	35.20	36.00	38.75	36.00	36.80	214.00	212.00	213.00
Mg	37.00	38.00	36.00	24.00	25.20	23.00	39.00	40.00	38.30	164.00	165.00	163.00
Na	99.00	100.50	97.50	27.50	29.50	26.00	128.25	130.50	127.00	909.50	909.50	906.50
Cl	152.50	155.00	150.00	42.50	45.00	40.00	197.75	200.00	196.00	1391.25	1396.50	1390.00
SO4	24.00	22.00	23.00	12.00	10.00	11.00	43.00	41.50	42.50	282.00	280.00	281.00
CO3	43.00	41.00	42.00	13.00	11.00	12.00	13.00	11.00	12.00	111.50	109.00	110.00
HCO3	251.50	245.00	248.00	180.00	172.25	177.50	191.25	182.50	187.50	582.50	572.50	577.50
F	0.45	0.53	0.41	0.38	0.42	0.35	0.45	0.53	0.42	0.87	0.94	0.80
TA	271.50	265.00	268.00	200.00	192.00	197.50	211.25	202.50	207.50	602.50	592.50	597.50
CCMEWQI	75.57	75.78	75.66	95.75	100.00	95.75	83.02	83.75	83.05	20.52	20.61	20.56
Status	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR	EXC	EXC	EXC	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	POOR	POOR	POOR

Sample ID	LS21			LS22			LS23			LS24
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.65	7.43	7.55	7.65	7.45	7.50	7.60	7.40	7.50	7.63	7.48	7.58
EC	846.50	822.25	837.75	3034.75	2979.25	2983.75	2507.00	2455.00	2498.50	1562.75	1521.50	1540.50
TDS	561.50	546.00	556.00	1942.25	1898.25	1911.50	1625.00	1591.50	1620.75	1021.75	995.25	1005.50
NO3	14.25	12.25	13.25	29.75	27.00	28.00	23.50	21.50	22.00	42.00	40.00	41.00
TH	209.25	201.75	212.50	676.75	667.50	670.00	366.25	362.50	365.00	298.50	291.25	295.00
Ca	48.00	46.00	47.00	120.00	118.00	119.50	62.00	60.00	61.00	44.10	42.55	43.50
Mg	23.00	24.00	22.00	89.58	91.50	88.50	50.00	51.30	49.00	43.00	44.00	41.75
Na	56.75	58.50	55.25	253.50	254.00	250.75	144.50	146.00	143.50	132.00	134.00	130.00
Cl	87.50	90.00	85.00	389.25	390.00	387.00	222.50	225.00	220.00	203.25	205.50	200.50
SO4	28.00	25.00	26.00	190.00	188.00	189.00	144.50	141.00	143.50	9.00	7.00	8.50
CO3	15.50	13.50	14.00	16.00	14.00	15.00	7.00	5.00	6.00	27.00	25.00	26.00
HCO3	177.50	170.00	175.00	425.50	415.00	420.00	215.00	205.00	210.00	232.50	225.00	227.50
F	0.41	0.48	0.38	0.74	0.78	0.70	0.60	0.69	0.59	0.58	0.62	0.54
TA	197.50	190.00	195.00	445.50	435.00	440.00	235.00	225.00	240.00	252.50	245.00	247.50
CCMEWQI	95.75	100.00	100.00	60.35	60.52	60.50	79.20	79.42	79.18	81.60	81.73	81.68
Status	EXC	EXC	EXC	MAR	MAR	MAR	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD

Sample ID	LS25			LS26			LS27			LS28
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*
pH	7.25	7.13	7.16	7.50	7.18	7.35	7.30	7.17	7.28	7.35	7.09	7.18
EC	1097.00	1082.50	1092.00	1428.00	1404.75	1420.50	1962.50	1931.25	1946.25	3826.25	3764.25	3806.75
TDS	721.50	712.50	718.00	934.25	919.00	929.50	1276.00	1256.00	1266.00	2470.75	2431.25	2457.50
NO3	13.00	10.00	11.00	10.55	8.50	9.00	17.00	15.00	16.00	45.00	43.00	44.00
TH	290.00	280.00	288.00	310.00	300.00	305.00	410.00	400.00	408.00	617.50	612.00	615.00
Ca	41.00	39.00	40.00	64.80	63.00	64.00	69.00	67.00	68.00	55.00	52.80	54.00
Mg	46.00	47.00	45.60	35.90	36.00	34.00	58.00	59.00	57.80	115.00	116.60	114.00
Na	52.00	55.25	50.50	106.50	109.50	105.25	206.00	208.00	205.50	352.75	357.00	352.50
Cl	80.00	85.00	77.75	163.00	165.00	160.00	317.50	320.00	315.00	540.00	542.25	535.00
SO4	20.00	17.00	18.00	26.00	24.00	25.00	57.00	55.00	56.00	198.00	196.00	197.00
CO3	15.00	13.00	14.00	22.00	20.00	21.00	21.00	19.00	20.00	18.70	14.00	17.31
HCO3	265.00	260.00	262.50	257.75	247.50	252.50	307.50	292.50	302.75	345.00	337.50	342.50
F	0.45	0.56	0.40	0.36	0.42	0.34	0.78	0.84	0.74	1.04	1.10	0.99
TA	285.00	280.00	282.50	277.75	267.50	272.50	327.50	312.50	322.75	365.00	357.50	362.50
CCMEWQI	94.37	94.37	94.37	81.76	81.85	81.80	69.09	69.20	69.15	58.41	58.53	58.47
Status	EXC	EXC	EXC	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	FAIR	FAIR	FAIR	MAR	MAR	MAR

Sample ID	LS29			LS30			Permissible values (Si)
Parameters	POM*	PRM*	MON*	POM*	PRM*	MON*	Permissible values (Si)
pH	7.25	6.96	7.18	6.85	6.65	6.76	8.50
EC	3557.75	3527.00	3540.50	2073.25	2036.75	2050.50	1000.00
TDS	2298.25	2278.50	2287.25	1346.25	1323.00	1331.75	600.00
NO3	16.00	14.00	15.00	10.00	8.00	9.00	50.00
TH	640.00	630.00	633.75	440.00	430.00	434.75	500.00
Ca	86.00	84.00	85.00	87.00	85.00	86.40	200.00
Mg	101.00	102.03	100.00	54.00	55.00	53.40	150.00
Na	277.00	283.00	279.00	155.00	155.00	152.25	200.00
Cl	425.00	427.00	422.50	237.50	240.00	235.00	250.00
SO4	165.00	163.00	164.00	99.00	97.00	98.00	250.00
CO3	12.00	10.00	11.00	19.90	15.08	17.75	30.00
HCO3	427.50	417.50	422.50	302.50	292.50	297.75	500.00
F	0.73	0.80	0.70	0.72	0.80	0.69	1.20
TA	447.50	437.50	442.50	322.50	312.50	317.75	200.00
CCMEWQI	59.20	59.28	59.26	79.85	80.03	79.95
Status	MAR	MAR	MAR	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD

*Average of four determinations. All units are in mg/l except pH (no units) and EC (micro Siemens/cm). EC= Electrical Conductivity; TDS= Total dissolved solids; TH= Total Hardness; TA= Total alkalinity.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The results indicated that the water samples at 6 sampling stations out of 30 (about 20%) of the study area do not meet the required standards for drinking purpose based on CCME-WQI analysis.

2. The four revenue mandals of the study area are found to have quality groundwater as marginal and poor at certain villages. The sampling stations where quality of groundwater is noticed as marginal and poor in the respective revenue mandals are as follows.

a. Tummikapalli (LS7) in Kothavalasa Mandal

b. Alamanda (LS13) in Jami Mandal

c. Athava (LS20) and Sompuram (LS22) in Vepada mandal

d. Mamidipalli (LS28) and Srungavarapukota (LS29) in S. Kota Mandal.

REFERENCES:

1. Sudhakar Gummadi, Swarnalatha G, V. Venkataratnamma, Z. Vishnuvardhan . Deterrmination of Water Quality Index for Groundwater of Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. 3 (3); 2014: 77-80.

2. G. Srinivasa Rao, G. Nageswararao. Assessment of Groundwater quality using Water Quality Index. Arch. Environ. Sci., 7; 2013: 1-5.

3. M.K. Singh, Bishu Karmakar. Assessment of Groundwater Quality of Budhjungnagar Industrial Estate and A D Nagar, Dukli and Badharghat Industrial Cluster of Tripura West District, Tripura State, India by Water quality Index Method. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology. 3(8); 2017: 1002-1010.

4. M. Vasanthavigar, K. Srinivasamoorthy, K. Vijayaragavan, R. Rajiv Ganthi, S. Chidambaram, P. Anandan, R. Manivannan, S. Vasuevan. Application of Water quality Index for groundwater quality assessment: Thirumanimuttar sub-basin, Tamilnadu, India, Environ Monit. Assess 171; 2010: 595-609.

5. C. R. Ramakrishnaiah, C. Sadashivaiah and G. Ranganna. Assessment of Water Quality Index for the Groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka State, India. E. Journal of Chemistry. 6 (2); 2009: 523-530.

6. Olayiwola Oni and Olubunmi Fasakin. The Use of Water Quality Index Method to Determine the Potability of Surface Water and Groundwater in the Vicinity of a Municipal Solid Waste Dump site in Nigeria. American Journal of Engineering Research. 5 (10); 2016: 96-101.

7. P. J. Puri, M.K.N. Yenkie, D.B. Rana and S.U. Meshram. Application of water quality index (WQI) for the assessment of surface water quality (Ambazari Lake). European Journal of Experimental Biology, 5 (2); 2015: 37-52

8. Douglas Kwasi Boah, Stephen Boakye Twum, Kenneth B. Pelig-Ba. Mathematical Computation of Water Quality Index of Vea Dam in Upper East Region of Ghana. Environmental Sciences. 3(1); 2015: 11-16.

9. G.V.S.R Pavan Kumar, G.Bhuvan Kumar, B.Sreerama Murty. Salt water intrusion- A case study in Chintapalli, one of the coastal villages of Vizianagaram district of Andhra Pradesh. Environmental Science An Indian Journal 6(4); 2011: 219-224.

10. G V S R Pavan Kumar, V Santhosh Kumar, P Y Venkata Rao, K. Srinivasa Rao and B. Sreerama Murty. Assessment of groundwater quality in Mukkam, Chepalakancheru and Dallipeta: Coastal villages of Vizianagaram district of Andhra Pradesh International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology. 3(2); 2012: 31-38

11. G.V.S.R Pavan Kumar, T. Chandrasekhar and B. Sreerama Murty. Assessment of groundwater quality status based on water quality index method in two coastal villages, Konada and Chintapalli of Vizianagaram district in Andhra Pradesh, India J. Indian Chem. Soc., 94; 2017: 1-9.

12. G.V.S.R. Pavan Kumar, T.V.N. Partha Sarathi and K.Srinivasa Rao. Assessment of water quality using WQI and prediction of WQI using ANN in some selected coastal villages of vizianagaram district, Andhra Pradesh. J. Indian Chem. Soc. 94; 2017: 1-8.

13. P. Swarna Latha, K. Nagesswara Rao, P.V. Ramesh Kumar and M. Harikrishna. Water Quality Assessment at Village level - A case study Indian J. Environmental Protection 27 (11); 2007: 996-1000.

14. Sandhya Deepika D., Geetha S. and Laxmi Sowjanya K. Quality assessment of drinking water in Addatheega village of Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram district. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 6(7); 2017: 905-911

15. Sathish Mohan, B., Jagadish babu, M., Jhansi Rani, S. and Satyasree, G. Water quality assessment of groundwater samples in Bobilli Region, Andhra Pradesh, India, Asian Journal of Science and Technology. 8(8); 2017: 5223-5230.

16. N. Appala Raju, K.Harikrishna , P.Satyanarayana, P. Suneetha and S. Sachi Devi. Study on Spatial distribution of groundwater quality in Vizianagaram district of Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 3(1); 2014: 148-160.

17. A.V.L.N.S.H. Hariharan and B. Lakshmi. Determination of Fluoride in some areas of Vizianagaram dt. AP, International Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences 1(2); 2011: 8-10.

18. B.S. Giriyappanavar and R.R. Patil, “Application of CCME WQI in Assessing Water Quality for Fort Lake of Belgaum, Karnataka”, Indian Journal of Applied Research, Vol.3(04), pp 32-33, 2013.

19. M.G.Y.L. Mahagamagea, Pathmalal M Managea. “Water Quality Index (CCME-WQI) Based Assessment Study of Water Quality in Kelani River Basin, Sri Lanka”, The 1st Environment and Natural Resources International Conference. Thailand, pp 199-204, November 2014.

20. S. Venkatramanan, S.Y.Chung, T. Ramkumar, R.Rajesh and G. Gnanachandrasamy, “Assessment of groundwater quality using GIS and CCME WQI techniques: a case study of Thiruthuraipoondi city in Cauvery deltaic region, Tamil Nadu, India”, Desalination and Water Treatment, Vol.57, pp 12058–12073, 2016.

21. V.M. Wagh, Shrikant Mukate , Dipak Panaskar , Uday Sahu Manesh Aamalawar and Aniket Muley Yoges. “Development of CCME WQI model for the groundwater appraisal for drinking in Basaltic terrain of Kadava River basin, Nashik, India”, INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., Vol.48 (12), pp 1933-1940, 2019.

22. V.M . Wagh, D.B.Panaskar, A.A. Muley and S.V. Mukate “Groundwater suitability evaluation by CCME WQI model for Kadava River Basin, Nashik, Maharashtra, India”, Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, Vol.3, 557-565, 2017.

23. APHA/AWWA/WEF. Standard methods for the Examination of water and waste water,. American Public Health Association/ American water works association, Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USA, 20th edition. 1998: 235-237.

24. Horton, R.K. An index number system for rating water quality. J. Water Pollution Cont. Fed., 37(3); 1965: 300-305

25. Brown, R.M., McClelland, N.I., Deininger, R.A. and Tozer, R.G., “Water quality index-do we dare?”, Water Sewage Works. 117(10); 1970: 339-343.

26. Ashok Lumb, Doug Halliwell, and Tribeni Sharma. Application of CCME Water Quality Index to Monitor Water Quality: A Case Study of the Mackenzie River Basin, Canada. Environ. Monit. Assess. 113; 2006: 411-429.

27. Dinesh Kumar and Babu J Alappat. NSF- Water Quality Index: Does it represent the Experts’ Opinion? Practice . Periodical of Hazard, Toxic and Radioact Waste Management. 13(1); 2009: 75-79.

28. Dunnette, D.A., A geographically variable water quality index used in Oregon, J. Water Pollution Cont. Fed., 51(1); 1979: 53-61.

29. Bharti N, Katyal. D. Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability assessment. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2(1); 2011: 154-164.

30. Shweta Tyagi, Bhavtosh Sharma, Prashant Singh, Rajendra Dobhal. Water Quality Assessment in Terms of Water Quality Index, American Journal of Water Resources. 1(3); 2013: 34-38.

31. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. “Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life”: CCME Water Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report, Canadian Council of Ministers of the environment winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2001

Received on 01.08.2020 Modified on 25.08.2020

Research J. Science and Tech. 2020; 12(4):235-241.

DOI: 10.5958/2349-2988.2020.00031.5