Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsd

Evaluation of water quality suitability for drinking using drinking water T

quality index in Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu in Southern India
⁎
S. Ponsadailakshmia, , S. Ganapathy Sankarib, S. Mythili Prasannac, G. Madhurambald
a
Department of Chemistry, E.G.S.Pillay Engineering College, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Chemistry, Sri Venkateshwara college of Engineering and Technology, Thirupatchur, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu, India
c
Department of Chemistry, PET Engineering College, Valliyur, Tamil Nadu, India
d
Department of Chemistry, A.D.M.College, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The overall water quality condition is explained using multiple water quality variables by developing a water
Drinking water quality index quality index as a single number. The index consists of water quality variables: pH, EC, total alkalinity, total
Sub index hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulphate, fluoride, nitrate, sodium, chromium, copper, iron, manga-
Min-max operator nese, zinc and lead. The present study aims to assess the drinking water quality of the study area in and around
Mayiladuthurai taluk
Mayiladuthurai taluk using drinking water quality index system. Seventeen water quality parameters are se-
lected for evaluation of water quality. A data set of 20 ground water samples collected from the study area in and
around Mayiladuthurai taluk, Tamil Nadu is used to evaluate the quality of water samples through arithmetic
and geometric index system.

1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods

In a drinking water quality assessment, the decision making based
on water quality data is a crucial issue. Traditionally, water resource
professional communicates their decision on drinking water quality
status by comparing the individual parameters with guideline values.
While this decision is too technical and detailed, without providing a
whole picture of drinking water quality (Cude, 2001). To resolve this
decision making problem, Horton (1965) made a pioneering attempt to
describe the water quality as Water Quality Index (WQI) which was
further improved by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), USA
using Delphi technique (Ott, 1978).
WQI is a mathematical tool to integrate the complex water quality
data into a numerical score that describes the overall water quality
status. Thereafter considerable improvements have been made based on
the principle of WQI using slightly modified concepts (Smith, 1990;
Dojlido et al., 1994; Stambuk-Giljanvoic, 1999; Pesce and Wunderlin,
2000; Nagels et al., 2001; Sargaonkar and Deshpande, 2003; Kannel
et al., 2007; Nasirian, 2007; Singh et al., 2008). The basic differences
among these indices are the way in which their sub index development
and aggregation function are chosen. These indices are aimed to reflect
the overall condition of water in different environmental conditions.
Based on this fact, the suitability of water quality for drinking purpose
is evaluated by drinking water quality indexing system.
2.1. Description of the study area
Mayiladuthurai in Delta district of Nagapattinam is situated on the
north bank of the Cauvery River, one of the major holy rivers of Tamil
Nadu. Mayiladuthurai is one of the commercial centre and fast devel-
oping cities in Tamil Nadu. Most of the inhabitants of the study area
depend on groundwater for drinking purposes and various domestic
needs. From the study area, 20 sampling stations were selected for
collecting water samples from ground water resources such as bore well
and open well. The study area lies between latitudes 11° 6′35′′ of North
and longitudes 79° 39′0′′of East. The study area covered
Mayiladuthurai, Kuthalam and Sirkazhi taluks from the coastal eastern
district of Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu. The locations of the groundwater
sampling stations are represented in Fig. 1 and its details are given in
Table 1.
The sampling and analyses were performed from January 2008 to
December 2009 on monthly intervals. Totally 480 water samples were
collected and analyzed in the present study. The physical characteristics
were measured in the location of sampling itself using calibrated digital
equipments. The chemical constituents were analyzed in laboratory
using standard methods suggested by APHA (1995) and BIS (1991).
The chemical constituent total alkalinity was measured by acid

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lakshmi1975chemist@gmail.com (S. Ponsadailakshmi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.10.005
Received 14 September 2016; Received in revised form 16 October 2017; Accepted 16 October 2017
Available online 18 October 2017
2352-801X/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49

Fig. 1. The map of the study area with groundwater sampling stations.

Table 1 Table 2
Details of ground water sampling stations in the study area. Guideline values for drinking water quality.

S. no Sampling stations Source of water Substance or BIS (2003) WHO (2006b)

characteristics
S-1 Kuthalam Open well Desirable Max. Permissible Max.
S-2 Sethrabalapuram Bore well acceptable acceptable
S-3 Arayapuram Bore well
S-4 Malliyam Bore well pH 6.5 – 8.5 No relax. 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 9.2
S-5 Mahadhanapuram Bore well EC (dS/m) 1 3 – –
S-6 Moovalur Bore well Total Alkalinity (as 200 600 500 –
S-7 Sitharkadu Bore well CaCO3), mg/l
S-8 Mayiladuthurai Pookadai Street Bore well Total hardness (as 300 600 200 500
S-9 Mayiladuthurai Koranadu Bore well CaCO3), mg/l
S-10 Mayiladuthurai Mahadhana Street Bore well Calcium (as Ca), mg/ 75 200 – –
S-11 Thiruvazhandur Bore well l
S-12 Mayiladuthurai Coconut tree street Bore well Magnesium (as Mg), 30 100 – –
S-13 Senthangudi Bore well mg/l
S-14 Nagangudi Bore well Sodium (as Na), mg/l – – – 200
S-15 Lakshmipuram Bore well Chloride (as Cl), mg/ 250 1000 250 600
S-16 Uluthukuppai Bore well l
S-17 S.S. Nallur Bore well Fluoride (as F), mg/l 1.0 1.5 – 1.5
S-18 Thirunanriyur Bore well Sulphate (as SO4), 200 400 250 500
S-19 Keezha Athukudi Bore well mg/l
S-20 Mela Athukudi Bore well Nitrate (as NO3), mg/ 45 No relax. – 50
l
Copper (as Cu), mg/l 0.05 1.5 – 2.0
titration method. The elements like calcium, magnesium and total Zinc (as Zn), mg/l 5 15 3.0 5.0
Lead (as Pb), mg/l 0.05 No relax. – 0.01
hardness were measured by EDTA titration method. The parameter Iron (as Fe), mg/l 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.0 – 3.0
chloride was measured by argentometric method and sulphate by tur- Manganese (as Mn), 0.1 0.3 0.4 a
0.5
bidity spectrometric method. The chemical constituent fluoride was mg/l
measured by SPADNS spectrometric method, nitrate by Brucine sul- Chromium (as Cr), 0.05 No relax. – 0.05
mg/l
phate spectrometric method and sodium by flame photometric method.
The heavy metals like Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn & Pb were measured by atomic
absorption spectrometric method. indices are then aggregated using some type of aggregation function to
produce a WQI value.
2.2. Drinking Water Quality Index (DWQI)

Drinking Water Quality Index is a mathematical tool used to
transform large quantities of water quality data into a single number
and the obtained single number represents the overall drinking water
quality status. Usually, Water Quality Indices are calculated in two
steps. The first step is raw analytical results for selected water quality
parameters, having different units of measurement, are transformed
into unit less sub index values. The second step is the obtained sub-
2.3. Parameter selection
In a drinking water quality assessment, priority should be given to
those substances which are known to be of importance to health and
potability and which are known to be of present in significant con-
centrations in the water source (WHO, 2006a).
Based on this fact, 17 parameters were selected to study the

44
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49

Table 3 concept of WQI. Sub-Indices are value functions to transform the dif-
Weight factors assigned to individual parameters. ferent units and dimensions of water quality parameters to common
scale. In sub-index development, each parameter is assigned with a
Parameters Temporary weights (Wt) Weight factors (W)
Conventional DWQI rating value between 0 and 100 based on its desirable and acceptable
limits of guideline values prescribed by BIS (2003), CPCB (2003) and
pH 4.5 0.037 WHO (2006b) [Table 2]. The rating of sub-index = 100 meant that
Electrical Conductance (EC) 5.0 0.041
sample had within the desirable limit while the rating of sub-index =
Sodium (Na) 5.0 0.041
Chloride (Cl) 5.0 0.041 50 meant that sample attained the maximum acceptable limit. Other
Sulphate (SO4) 5.5 0.045 ratings were falling in-between near 0–100 based on regression statis-
Total Alkalinity (TA) 4.5 0.037 tics (Cude, 2001; Boyacioglu, 2007).
Total Hardness (TH) 4.5 0.037
Calcium (Ca) 4.5 0.037
Magnesium (Mg) 4.5 0.037 2.5. Assignment of weightage to the parameters
Iron (Fe) 6.0 0.050
Fluoride (F) 9.0 0.074
Nitrate (NO3) 10.0 0.083 First, the temporary weight (Wt) was assigned to each water quality
Manganese (Mn) 9.0 0.074 parameters on the basis of its importance in drinking water quality
Zinc (Zn) 9.0 0.074 evaluation. Then, Weight factor (W) can be determined by dividing the
Chromium (Cr) 13.0 0.107 individual temporary weight of each parameter by the sum of tem-
Lead (Pb) 13.0 0.107
Copper (Cu) 9.0 0.074
porary weight (Gupta et al., 2003; Debels et al., 2005; Boyacioglu,
2007) (Eq. (1)).

Wt
suitability of groundwater for drinking purpose in the present study. W= n
Here, potability related parameters such as pH, EC, sodium, chloride, ∑i = 1 (Wt )i (1)
sulphate, alkalinity, total hardness, calcium, magnesium and iron and
where,
health related parameters such as fluoride, nitrate, manganese, zinc,
chromium, lead and copper were selected.
W – weight factor of the parameter
Wt – temporary weight of that parameter
2.4. Development of sub-index (SI) n – total number of parameters

Sub-Index development is one of the most important step in the (i.e) n = 17

Table 4
Classification of drinking water quality index scores.

Category Range of Index Scores Remarks

Excellent ≥ 95.0–100 Guidelines almost always met with desirable levels. ‘Best Quality’
Good ≥ 85.0 to < 95.0 Desirable guidelines occasionally exceeded, but usually by small amounts. Threat to quality is minimal. ‘Good Quality’
Fair ≥ 75.0 to < 85.0 Desirable guidelines often exceeded, quality departs from acceptable level by small amounts. ‘Acceptable Quality’
Marginal ≥ 60.0 to < 75.0 Guidelines sometimes exceeded the acceptable levels. ‘Threatened Quality’
Poor ≥ 40.0 to < 60.0 Guidelines often exceeded the acceptable levels. ‘Poor Quality’
Very Poor < 40.0 Guidelines almost always exceeded the acceptable levels. ‘Worst Quality’

Table 5
Results of drinking water quality Indices in the ground water samples of the study area.

S. No Sampling location Arithmetic DWQI Geometric DWQI

Mean ± SD Quality Mean ± SD Quality

S-1 Kuthalam 80.13 ± 10.99 Fair 61.01 ± 27.67 Marginal

S-2 Sethrabalapuram 77.73 ± 9.71 Fair 53.32 ± 23.99 Poor
S-3 Arayapuram 81.15 ± 7.30 Fair 61.81 ± 19.42 Marginal
S-4 Malliyam 71.71 ± 4.79 Marginal 37.79 ± 9.84 Very Poor
S-5 Mahadhanapuram 80.23 ± 5.50 Fair 58.18 ± 11.29 Poor
S-6 Moovalur 80.05 ± 5.92 Fair 64.40 ± 14.86 Marginal
S-7 Sitharkadu 82.03 ± 9.15 Fair 63.82 ± 22.97 Marginal
S-8 Mayiladuthurai Pookadai street 82.30 ± 6.02 Fair 65.83 ± 15.56 Marginal
S-9 Mayiladuthurai Koranadu 71.81 ± 3.36 Marginal 37.88 ± 7.61 Very Poor
S-10 Mayiladuthurai Mahadhana street 77.21 ± 8.14 Fair 54.51 ± 19.10 Poor
S-11 Thiruvazhandur 71.29 ± 6.32 Marginal 36.75 ± 14.75 Very Poor
S-12 Mayiladuthurai Coconut tree street 78.43 ± 5.92 Fair 57.83 ± 16.82 Poor
S-13 Senthangudi 78.00 ± 3.57 Fair 54.79 ± 14.33 Poor
S-14 Nagangudi 78.98 ± 5.71 Fair 55.38 ± 17.01 Poor
S-15 Lakshmipuram 72.71 ± 4.48 Marginal 43.14 ± 13.98 Poor
S-16 Uluthukuppai 79.27 ± 5.55 Fair 61.04 ± 14.75 Marginal
S-17 S.S. Nallur 78.16 ± 7.80 Fair 58.57 ± 18.86 Poor
S-18 Thirunanriyur 77.31 ± 8.21 Fair 53.80 ± 22.20 Poor
S-19 Keezha Athukudi 69.74 ± 4.14 Marginal 33.51 ± 6.81 Very Poor
S-20 Mela Athukudi 76.03 ± 8.10 Fair 49.47 ± 18.15 Poor

45
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49

100 Fig. 2. -Results of Drinking Water Quality Indices in the ground

EXCELLENT
water samples of the study area.
90 GOOD

FAIR
80

70
MARGINAL
DWQ 60
Index
score
50
POOR
40

30
VERY POOR
20

10

0
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13 S-14 S-15 S-16 S-17 S-18 S-19 S-20
Sampling stations
ADWQI GDWQI

Table 6
0% 7%
Pearson correlation co-efficient values (r) among the Drinking Water Quality Indices [N
= 480].
6%
Good
Variables Arithmetic DWQI Geometric DWQI
29% Fair
ADWQI 1 0.94
DWQI 0.94 1
TDS(mg/l) −0.26 −0.10
Very Poor
pH 0.15 0.15
Electricalconductivity (dS/m) −0.29 −0.13 Excellent
Good
Carbonate(mg/l) 0.27 0.31
Fair
BiCarbonate(mg/l) −0.33 −0.18
Marginal
Chloride(mg/l) −0.28 −0.11 28% Poor
Sulphate(mg/l) −0.27 −0.12 Marginal Very Poor
Phosphate(mg/l) −0.37 −0.25
Nitrate(mg/l) 0.30 0.21
Fluoride(mg/l) −0.42 −0.30
Calcium(mg/l) −0.31 −0.13 Poor
Magnesium(mg/l) −0.33 −0.15
Sodium(mg/l) 0.06 0.14
Potassium(mg/l) 0.02 0.07
Zinc(mg/l) 0.43 0.36
30%
Copper(mg/l) −0.13 −0.05
Iron(mg/l) −0.12 0.03 Fig. 3. – Drinking water quality suitability of groundwater samples collected from the
Manganese(mg/l) 0.40 0.31 study area.
Chromium(mg/l) −0.65 −0.72
Lead(mg/l) −0.11 −0.11
SAR 0.26 0.23 multiplicative aggregation were applied to aggregate the index.
Total Hardness −0.33 −0.14
Weighted Additive (Arithmetic) Drinking Water Quality Index
Total Alkalinity (mg/l) −0.33 −0.18
(DWQI(A)) was computed as described in Cude (2001)
Bold represents the values of > 0.7. n
DWQI(A) = ∑ [SIi × Wi ]
i=1 (2)
2.6. Aggregation of Drinking Water Quality Index (DWQI)

Aggregation is another important criteria in the concept of WQI. To (i) Weighted Multiplicative (Geometric) Drinking Water Quality Index
obtain a DWQI, Sub-indices and weight factors of all parameters are (DWQI(G)) was computed as described in Cude (2001)
aggregated using aggregation function. The famous aggregation tech- n

niques in the WQI approach are multiplicative and additive aggregation DWQI(G) = ∏ SIiWi
i=1 (3)
functions.
Besides, many researchers also developed some other aggregation where,
techniques which are minimum operators (Smith, 1990), hybrid
methods (Dojlido et al., 1994; Swamee and Tyagi, 2000) and mixed SIi – Sub Index value of ith parameter
aggregation function (Liou et al., 2004). Wi – Weight factor of ith parameter
In this study, weighted additive aggregation and weighted n – total number of parameters (n = 17)

46
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49

Fig. 4. (a) (b) – Temporal variations of Geometric DWQ Index scores in the groundwater samples of the study during (a) Jan.2008 to Dec. 2008 and (b) Jan.2009 to Dec. 2009.

For these conventional DWQI, weight factors of the parameters were
determined using an Eq. (1) based on temporary weights (Wt) and the
number of parameters (n) used in that equation is 17, which includes all
of the parameters in the present study (Table 3).
2.7. Classification of drinking water quality index scores
The aggregation equations produce a number between 0 and 100,
with 0 indicating worst water quality and 100 indicating excellent
water qualities. Classification of drinking water quality index scores is

47
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al.
given in Table 4.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Evaluation of the drinking water quality status in the study area
The drinking water quality index was evaluated for ground water
samples which were collected from 20 sampling stations from the study
area in and around Mayiladuthurai of Nagapattinam district of Tamil
Nadu, India by conventional reputed WQI methodologies. The results of
the drinking water quality indices of the study area is given in Table 5
and are graphically represented in Fig. 2. The obtained results revealed
that arithmetic DWQI scores were higher than Geometric DWQI. Geo-
metric DWQI exhibited low scores in most of the samples of the study
area. These variations in between the DWQI indices are authenticated
by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results.
On the other hand, the observation from Fig. 2. indicates that these
indices had an identical trend of increasing or decreasing scores in most
of the groundwater samples of the study area. The trend of these indices
obeyed with correlation results. Table 6 displays Pearson correlation co-
efficient values which infer that these indices exhibited a strong posi-
tive relationship with each other (r = 0.94).
The decisions of numbers 1 & 19 explain the comparison status of
the conventional DWQ indices. The DWQI scores of sample numbers
1 & 19 were 80.13 ± 10.99 and 69.74 ± 4.13 with the arithmetic
DWQI, 61.01 ± 27.67 and 33.51 ± 6.81 with the geometric DWQI.
These results clearly declare that the arithmetic DWQI was giving a
‘FAIR’ quality, but the geometric DWQI was describing as ‘MARGINAL’
quality for sample no.1 and arithmetic DWQI was giving a ‘MARGINAL’
quality, but the geometric DWQI was describing as ‘VERY POOR’
quality for sample no.19. From the experimental results of sample no. 1,
the values of fluoride, chromium and lead are exceeded the maximum
acceptable limit of guideline values throughout the study period and
total hardness, calcium and magnesium are occasionally exceeded the
permissible limit of guideline value. These results clearly stated that the
health related parameters like fluoride, lead and chromium were unfit
for drinking purposes. Therefore, the geometric DWQI described its
quality as Marginal (Threatened quality) for sample No. 1. While ar-
ithmetic DWQI didn’t express the quality in original. Hence, it decided
as “FAIR” for sample no.1.
From the experimental results of sample no.19, the values of
fluoride, chromium and lead are exceeded the maximum acceptable
limit of guideline values throughout the study period and total hard-
ness, calcium and magnesium are occasionally exceeded the permissible
limit of guideline value. These results clearly stated that health related
parameters like fluoride, lead and chromium were unfit for drinking
purposes and exceedance level beyond the maximum acceptable limit is
much higher than sample no.1. Hence, the geometric DWQI described
as ‘VERY POOR’ quality for sample no 19. While the arithmetic DWQI
described the quality as ‘MARGINAL’. The variations in the decisions of
arithmetic and geometric DWQI confirms the statements of Ott (1978),
Swamee and Tyagi (2000), Gupta et al. (2003), Liou et al. (2004). They
stated that the problem of eclipsing might occurred when the additive
form (arithmetic DWQI) is applied in the aggregation. Eclipsing is said
to occur when extremely poor environmental quality for at least one
pollutant, arithmetic DWQI under estimate the pollution and does not
reflect the original condition of water. It denotes that arithmetic ag-
gregation function nullify the lower quality of few parameters. Mean-
while, arithmetic DWQI can only express the status of higher quality
parameters. Hence, the values of arithmetic DWQI are higher in side. In
the case of multiplicative (geometric DWQI) aggregation function,
Smith (1990) pointed out that if more number of parameters used for
WQI, the lower sub-index value will be sensitive in aggregation which
means the over estimation of pollution. Overall, geometric DWQI was
clearly described the original groundwater quality status when com-
pared to arithmetic DWQI in the study area and it is well suited
48
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49
aggregation method for the study area.
Based on the correlation results, both the DWQ indices are negative
relationship with major cations, major anions and trace elements. While
the arithmetic DWQI correlation results showed higher values than
geometric DWQI. On the other hand, in the present study area the
highly impacted trace elements like lead and chromium are higher re-
lationship with geometric DWQI.
The drinking water quality suitability decision of the geometric
DWQI is presented in Fig. 3. as pie chart which clearly describe that 7%
groundwater samples from the study area were good for drinking
purpose. Groundwater samples from 6% of the study area were ac-
ceptable for drinking purpose in the absence of alternate water source.
The remaining 87% of water samples from the study area were unfit for
drinking purpose.
3.2. Temporal variations of the drinking water quality suitability
The temporal variations of the drinking water quality during study
period in the study area are given in Fig. 4(a) & (b). Geometric DWQ
Indices were increased during pre-monsoon season of 2008 and pre-
monsoon & summer season of 2009 due to lesser contamination and
lesser ionic contribution in the groundwater. On the other hand, in-
creasing concentrations of health related parameters (fluoride, lead &
chromium) are decreased the drinking water quality index scores
during monsoon of 2009. The chromium & lead values were higher for
monsoon. The anthropogenic activities, domestic sewage and waste
water run-off may be the sources for the presence of chromium & lead
(Tirkey et al., 2017). Higher Chromium values may also be due to in-
filtration through the soil of large amounts of chromium received from
waste water released by silk industries.
4. Conclusion
In the present study, geometric DWQ Indexing system is more sui-
table for groundwater resources of the study area than arithmetic DWQ
Indexing system. Due to eclipsing phenomena, the arithmetic DWQI is
under estimating the pollution and it does not reflect the original
condition of water. The results of the water quality status in the present
study proved that the geometric DWQI is optimistic which also reflects
the real condition of water quality. The geometric DWQI clearly iden-
tified the type of water quality impairment which helps to initiate im-
mediate water pollution control action. A detailed evaluation of the
indices also confirmed that the geometric DWQ Indexing system
showed the real drinking water quality status in the study area.
References
APHA (American Public Health Association), 1995. Standard Methods for Examination of
Water and Waste Water, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington,
DC, pp. 1467.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), 1991. Drinking Water Specification (First Revision).
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 10500:1991).
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), 2003. Indian Standard Drinking Water Specifications, IS
10500: 1991, Edition 2.2 (2003–09). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Boyacioglu, H., 2007. Development of a water quality index based on a European clas-
sification scheme. Water SA 33 (1), 101–106.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board of India), 2003. Water quality in India: status and
trend (1990 − 2001), New Delhi, MINARS/20/2001–2002.
Cude, C.G., 2001. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality man-
agement effectiveness. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37 (1), 125–137.
Debels, P., Figueroa, R., Urrutia, R., Barra, R., Niell, X., 2005. Evaluation of water quality
in the Chillan river (Central Chile) using physico-chemical parameters and modified
water quality index. Environ. Monit. Assess. 110, 301–322.
Dojlido, J.R., Raniszewski, J.R., Woyciechowska, J., 1994. Water quality index applied to
rivers in the Vistula river basin in Poland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 33, 33–42.
Gupta, A.K., Gupta, S.K., Patil, R.S., 2003. A comparison of water quality indices for
coastal water. J. Environ. Sci. Health (Part A) 38 (11), 2711–2725.
Horton, R.K., 1965. An index number system for rating water quality. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 37 (3), 300–306.
Kannel, P.R., Lee, S., Lee, Y.-S., Kanel, S.R., Khan, S.P., 2007. Application of water quality
indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators of river water classification and urban
S. Ponsadailakshmi et al.
impact assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 132 (2), 93–110.
Liou, S.-M., Lo, S.-L., Wang, S.-H., 2004. A generalized water quality index for Taiwan.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 96, 35–52.
Nagels, J.W., Colley, D., Smith, D.G., 2001. A water quality index for contact recreation in
new Zealand. Water Sci. Technol. 43 (5), 285–292.
Nasirian, M., 2007. A new water quality index for environmental contamination con-
tributed by mineral processing: a case study of Amang (tin tailing) processing ac-
tivity. J. Appl. Sci. 7 (20), 2977–2987.
Ott, W.R., 1978. Water Quality Indices: A Survey of Indices Used in the United States. US
EPA office of research and development, Washington, DC, pp. 128.
Pesce, S.F., Wunderlin, D.A., 2000. Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of
Cordoba city (Argentina) on Suquia river. Water Res. 34 (11), 2915–2936.
Tirkey, Poonum, Bhattacharya, Tanushree, Chakraborty, Sukalyan, Baraik, Suman, 2017.
Assessment of groundwater quality and associated health risks: a case study of Ranchi
city,Jharkhand, India. Ground Water Sustain. Dev. 5, 85–100.
Sargaonkar, A., Deshpande, V., 2003. Development of an overall index of pollution for
surface water based on general classification scheme in Indian context. Environ.
49
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6 (2018) 43–49
Monit. Assess. 89, 43–67.
Singh, A.K., Mondal, G.C., Kumar, S., Singh, T.B., Tewary, B.K., Sinha, A., 2008. Major ion
chemistry, weathering processes and water quality assessment in upper catchment of
Damodar river basin, India. Environ. Geol. 54 (4), 745–758.
Smith, D.G., 1990. A better water quality indexing system for rivers and streams. Water
Res. 24 (10), 1237–1244.
Stambuk-Giljanvoic, N., 1999. Water quality evaluation by index in Dalmatia. Water Res.
33 (16), 3423–3440.
Swamee, P.K., Tyagi, A., 2000. Describing water quality with aggregate index. J. Environ.
Eng. 126 (5), 451–455.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2006a. Establishing National drinking water stan-
dards. Guidelines for drinking-water quality training pack. 〈http://www.who.int/
water_sanitation_health/dwq/S17.pdf〉.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2006b. Guidelines for drinking-water quality [elec-
tronic resource]: incorporating first addendum. Vol. 1, Recommendations, 3rd ed.,
Geneva. ISBN 92 4 154696 4.