r.subalakshmi

8/6/2019 R.Subalakshmi

1/66

Presentedby

R. SUBALAKSHMI (2009262018)M.E - IWRM

Supervisor

Mr. V. LENIN KALYANA SUNDARAMAssistant Professor


2/66

Groundwater has become an essential resourceover the past few decades due to the increase in its

usage for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses etc. The quality of groundwater is equally important as

that of quantity. Rising population density will continue to have an

impact on the quality and quantity of local water

resources. Urbanisation reduces infiltration rate of groundwater

and increased runoff.

2


3/66

The scope of the study is how ground waterquality, quantity and livelihood of the people are

change due to urbanisation. Urbanisation affects land, groundwater and

peoples livelihood. The over extraction of water and improper

drainage leads to depletion of water resources,

deterioration of water quality and loss of livelihood

of the people

3


4/66

To delineate the land use changes for different

periods using satellite imagery.

To study the impact of urbanisation on groundwater quality and quantity.

To assess the environmental changes which

affects the livelihood of people throughquestionnaire survey.

4


5/66

Land use changes

Jaiswal et. al, (1999) detected the change in

land use mid-western part of Gohparu Block,Shahdol district, Madhya Pradesh. From visual analysis of satellite imagery and

reconnaissance survey, major vegetation types and

land cover classes were mapped. Analysed post-classification comparison techniques

5


6/66

Hameed et. al, (2010) has assessed Evaluating

Raw and Treated Water Quality of Tigris River within

Baghdad by Index Analysis. The study monitored the groundwater quality.

In this paper, the data considered from 2002 to 2008.

Raw and treated water samples were collected and

analysed for pH, Turbidity, TH, Ca, Mg, Cl, SO4, Iron

Alkalinity, Dissolved solids, Ammonia, Fluoride and

Aluminium.

Water Quality Index (WQI) was calculated to find the

suitability of water for drinking purpose. The WQI was

calculated based on the Weightage factor and quality

rating.

6


7/66

Lenters (2001) studied the Long term Trends in

the Seasonal Cycle of each of the Great Lakes,

water levels from 1860 -1998. The study focused on the observations of L (monthly

changes in water level) and addressed how the

monthly changes in the Great Lakes water level varied

over the period since 1860.

The monthly changes were calculated as the difference

of the monthly mean lake level of the current month

and that of the following month. The monthly changes in water level L were calculated

for all the months from the year 1860 -1998 and

plotted against time

7


8/66

Mandere et. al, (2010) assess the livelihood

change and household income in Nyahururu,

Kenya. Assess the impact of the peri-urban development

dynamics to household income.

Identify and measures of household land use changes

leading to declining significance of agriculture, adoption

of new non-farm activities, and improvement livelihood

and income

They conducted the household survey and focus groupdiscussion with all communities.

From the result, they see that there more than 10% of

households connected in high income productivity.

8


9/66

Karapakkam

District = Kancheepuram Taluk = Sholinganallur

Coordinates = 1254'51.01"N latitude and

8013'45.77"E longitude

Area = 244.48ha Population = 7565 (Census of India, 2009)

Government well = 1

Panchayat well = 9

Soil type = brown clayey soilNo Agricultural activities

9


10/6610


11/66

Primary data Water level and water quality data for 2010-2011 Walk-through survey Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire Survey

Secondary data Survey of India topomap No:66 D/1 and D/5

Village map obtained from Karapakkam Panchayat

office

2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 images aredownloaded from Google earth

Previous year well data collected from Central

Groundwater Board.

11


12/6612


13/66

Study area visit

Survey of India toposheet No: 66D/1 and D/5

Study areadelineation

Village map

Water level

fluctuation method

GroundwaterQuality

Groundwater

Quantity

Collection of well

water Samples

Questionnaire survey

Analyses of Water

Quality

Parameters

Focus Group

Discussion

Land use changes

Groundwater

Quality Index Map

Image

Measures forlivelihood changes13


14/66

14

Geo referencing and

create Base map

Land use map change

for different periods

Geo referencing

Delineate the land use

changes

Superimposing Map

Village Map Image Field visit

and mark

control

points for

the current

year

Survey of India

toposheet No: 66


15/66

Eleven observation wells was selected inKarapakkam village. Groundwater samples were collected during the

month of September 2010, January, February

and March 2011. Samples were analysed physical and chemicalparameters, such as pH, EC, TDS, Turbidity,CO3, HCO3, TH, Ca, Mg, Cl, Na, K, SO4 and NO3.

Water quality index was calculated based onwater quality parameters.

15


16/66

16


17/66

The WQI is computed by adopting the followingformula, (Landwehr 1974)

WQI =

where,

ai= the weight of the ith parameter,

Ti= a function that transforms the measured value of ith

parameter into a quality rating,Pi = measured value of i

th parameter

17

=

)(1

ii

n

i

i pTa


18/66

Water Quality Index Description

0-25 Excellent

26-50 Good

51-75 Poor

76-100 Very Poor

>100 Unfit for drinking

18


19/66

Water level was monitored from the observation well

during the month of January, February and March

2011. GPS was used to find the elevation of the well to

calculate groundwater quantity. To study the changes in the water level the

procedure followed by Lenters (2001)

L = Lt+1 Lt

Where,

Lt - Monthly water level of the current month (m)

Lt+1 - Monthly water level of the following month (m)

19


20/66

Theissen polygon was created to find out theInfluence area of well (m2) Groundwater quantity is calculated by water level

fluctuation method adopting the following formula,

Q = A*L*SyWhere, Q = Volume of water (m3)

A = Influence area of well (m2)

L = Water level fluctuation (m)

Sy = Specific yield of the well (6% for

clayey soil according to Report of The Groundwater

Resource Estimation Committee, 2009).

20


21/66

Focus Group Discussion and questionnaire survey

was conducted to analyse the livelihood changes. In questionnaire survey around 53 people were

surveyed. The questionnaire addresses the following aspects:

Sources of domestic water including drinking water. Economic status of the people.

About the groundwater quality and quantity conditions in the

wells.

Health problem in the area due to urbanisation, land use

changes, deterioration of water quality, drainage facilities,

etc.,

Agricultural status.

21


22/66

22


23/66

Land use categories 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%)

Agricultural land 93.24 38.14 80.47 32.92 74.39 30.43 19.10 7.81 0.00 0.00

Aquifer recharge zone 24.59 10.06 24.59 10.06 24.59 10.06 24.59 10.06 24.59 10.06

Fallow Land 12.15 4.97 13.64 5.58 16.56 6.78 70.24 28.73 87.99 35.99

Buckingham canal 10.24 4.19 6.86 2.81 6.86 2.81 5.40 2.21 5.10 2.09

Cemetery 1.85 0.76 1.85 0.76 1.85 0.76 1.85 0.76 1.85 0.76

Collage 1.26 0.52 1.41 0.58 1.41 0.58 1.41 0.58 2.01 0.82

Grass land 7.01 2.87 4.32 1.77 3.29 1.35 2.65 1.08 2.10 0.86

Industries 11.72 4.80 14.22 5.82 14.46 5.91 20.50 8.38 25.22 10.31

Pond 1.17 0.48 1.18 0.48 1.62 0.66 2.43 0.99 1.84 0.75

Residential Area 11.03 4.51 12.82 5.24 15.42 6.31 18.58 7.60 25.52 10.44

School 0.71 0.29 0.71 0.29 0.71 0.29 4.03 1.65 4.03 1.65

Small industries 0.26 0.11 0.35 0.14 0.44 0.18 0.50 0.20 0.55 0.23

Temple 0.74 0.30 0.77 0.31 0.82 0.33 0.86 0.35 0.92 0.38

Total Area 244.48 244.48 244.48 244.48 244.4823


24/66

Land use Map -2002

Land use Maps

24


25/66

Land use Map -2008Land use Map -2006

Land use Maps

25


26/66


27/66

In 2002, Karapakkam villagehave 37% of agriculturalland.

Due to urbanisation theseagricultural lands was turned

into built-up area and fallowland.

27


28/66

Due to urbanisation the land value has increased. So

the land owners was sold the land. Percentage of residential area increased due to

urbanisation.

28


29/66

Groundwater quality parameters were analysedin the laboratory for four month.

Bicarbonates, Nitrates Sulphates and Turbidity

were found to be within the permissible limits. High concentration of Total Hardness was found

in Rangasamy street, Indragandhi street and

Near Okkium Maduvu.

High concentration of Chloride was found NearOkkium Maduvu, Mahatma Gandhi Street and

Sadagopan Street.

29


30/66

WQI was computed by Landwehr (1974) wasused for assessing the suitability of groundwater

for drinking purposes.

The estimated quantitative values of water quality

parameters and their standards are used to

calculate water quality index.

30


31/66

31

Parameters BIS Standards Weighting factor (ai)

pH 8.5 0.24

TDS (mg/l) 500 0.0041

Turbidity (NTU) 50 0.41

HCO3 (mg/l) 500 0.0041

Ca (mg/l) 75 0.027

Mg (mg/l) 30 0.0681

Cl (mg/l) 250 0.0082

Na (mg/l) 200 0.0102

K (mg/l) 20 0.102

SO4 (mg/l) 250 0.0082

NO3 (mg/l) 45 0.045


32/66

ID Name Latitude andLongitude

WQI (Sep) WQ RatingWQI (Jan) WQRating

WQI (Feb) WQRating

WQI (Mar) WQ Rating

Well 1 Renganathanstreet 12 55' 14.74"N,80 13' 51.09"E 95.8 Very poor 61.84 Poor 113 Unfit for drinkingpurposes

125 Unfit for drinkingpurposes

Well 2 Near OkkiumMaduvu

12 55' 7.07"N,80 14' 2.33"E

141 Unfit for drinking

purposes

77.31 Very poor 112 Unfit for drinking

purposes

121 Unfit for drinking

purposes

Well 3 Indragandhistreet

12 55' 1.01"N,80 13' 55.37"E

63.6 Poor 42.73 Poor 93.3 Very Poor 99.8 Very Poor

Well 4 Kupusamy street 12 54' 54.04"N,

80 14' 2.15"E

62.9 Poor 56.3 Poor 66.8 Poor 69.6 Poor

Well 5 Kalaimagalnagar

12 54' 48.69"N,80 14' 4.60"E

54.7 Poor 42.4 Good 49.4 Good 56.8 Poor

Well 6 Government well 12 54' 50.47"N,80 13' 55.19"E

52.3 Poor 49.3 Good 58.8 Poor 62.3 Poor

Well 7 Muthamil nagar 12 54' 54.05"N,80 13' 42.17"E

100 Very poor 82.7 Very poor 93.78 Very Poor 101 Unfit for drinking

purposes

Well 8 Mahatma Gandhistreet

12 54' 43.34"N,80 13' 48.06"E

45.3 Good 32.4 Good 42.9 Good 56.2 Poor

Well 9 Vendraai ammankovil steet

12 54' 42.43"N,80 13' 56.11"E

87.6 Very Poor 64.3 Poor 91.46 Very Poor 99.3 Very Poor

Well 10 Rangasamystreet

12 54' 41.55"N,80 14' 2.15"E

73.5 Very Poor 62.6 Poor 71.8 Poor 76.8 Very Poor

Well 11 Sadagopanstreet

12 54' 37.63"N,80 13' 58.22"E

49.8 Good 39.34 Good 43.1 Good 49.6 Good32

Q S


33/66

Water Quality Index Map- September 2010

Well 2 (Near Okkium Maduvu) water quality was unfit for drinking purpose.

Well 3 (Indragandhi street), Well 4 (Kupusamy street), Well 5 (Kalaimagal nagar), Well 6(Government

well), Well 8 (Mahatma Gandhi street) and Well 11 (Sadagopan street) water quality was good.

33

W t Q lit I d M J 2011


34/66

Water Quality Index Map- January 2011

Well 2 (Near Okkium Maduvu) and Well 7 (Muthamil nagar) water quality was very poor.

Well 3 (Indragandhi street), Well 5 (Kalaimagal nagar), Well 6(Government well), Well 8

(Mahatma Gandhi street) and Well 11 (Sadagopan street) water quality was good.

34

W t Q lit I d M F b 2011


35/66

Water Quality Index Map- February 2011

Well 1 (Renganathan street) and Well2 (Near Okkium Maduvu) water was not used

for drinking purpose. Because the WQI value was >100.

Well 5 (Kalaimagal nagar), Well 8 (Mahatma Gandhi street) and Well 11 (Sadagopan

street) water quality was good. 35

W t Q lit I d M M h 2011


36/66

Water Quality Index Map- March 2011

Well 1 (Renganathan street), Well 2 (Near Okkium Maduvu) and Well 7 (Muthamil

nagar) water was not used for drinking purpose. Because the WQI value was >100.

Well 11 (Sadagopan street) water quality was good.

36


37/66

37

Description Well No Name

Good Well 8 and Well 11 Mahatma Gandhi street andSadagopan street

Poor Well 4, Well 5, Well

6 and Well10

Kupusamy street, Kalaimagal

nagar, Government well andRangasamy street

Very Poor Well 3, Well 7 andWell 9

Indragandhi street, Muthamil nagarand Vendraai amman kovil steet

Unfit for DrinkingPurpose

Well 1 and Well 2 Renganathan street and NearOkkium Maduvu


38/66

Water level contour map was generated usingwell elevation data and GIS contouring methods. Groundwater flows was identified with the help

of water level contour map.

The groundwater movement was northwestdirection to southeast direction.

Renganathan street, Okkium Maduvu,

Indragandhi Street have high elevation and

Rengasamy street has low elevation. Area of influence well was calculated by using

Theissen polygon method.

38


39/66

39

Water level contour- January 2011


40/66

40

Water level contour- February 2011


41/66

41

Water level contour- March 2011


42/66

42


43/66

Theissen Polygon Map

43


44/66

Well No Name Latitude and

Longitude

Area (m2) Change in Water Level (L)

(m)

Groundwater Potential (m3)

Jan Feb Jan-Feb Feb-Mar

Well 1 Renganathanstreet

12 55' 14.74"N,80 13' 51.09"E

290200 -0.75 -1.25 -13059 -21765

Well 2 Near OkkiumMaduvu

12 55' 7.07"N,80 14' 2.33"E

512100 -0.7 -1.05 -21508 -32262

Well 3 Indragandhi street 12 55' 1.01"N,80 13' 55.37"E

128700 -0.6 -0.75 -4633.2 -5792

Well 4 Kupusamy street 12 54' 54.04"N,80 14' 2.15"E

126600 -0.7 -1.15 -5317.2 -8735

Well 5 Kalaimagal nagar 12 54' 48.69"N,80 14' 4.60"E

589300 -1.1 -1.35 -38894 -47733

Well 6 Government well 12 54' 50.47"N,80 13' 55.19"E

81570 -1.2 -1.6 -5873 -7831

Well 7 Muthamil nagar 12 54' 54.05"N,80 13' 42.17"E 213100 -1.1 -1.45 -14065 -18540

Well 8 Mahatma Gandhistreet

12 54' 43.34"N,80 13' 48.06"E

125700 -0.9 -1.05 -6787.8 -7919

Well 9 Vendraai ammankovil steet

12 54' 42.43"N,80 13' 56.11"E

48840 -0.8 -1.2 -2344.3 -3516

Well 10 Rangasamy street 12 54' 41.55"N,80 14' 2.15"E

275900 -1.3 -1.9 -21520 -31453

Well 11 Sadagopan street 12 54' 37.63"N,80 13' 58.22"E

43930 -0.9 -1.3 -2372.2 -3427


45/66

45


46/66

Sources of drinking water

In 2002, 76% of the respondents were used well waterfor drinking purpose and it is reduced to 4% in 2010.

Because of the groundwater quality deterioration.

18% of the peoples are spend more than Rs

200/month for using portable water. Sources of Drinking Water Amounts spend for Drinking Water

46


47/66

From the questionnaire survey, the groundwaterquality data were collected on five differentcategories namely Excellent, Good, Moderate,

Poor and Very Poor. The data were analysed in GIS software atspecially for all the observation well during 2002,2005 and 2010.

Before 2005, mostly the well water was excellentand good. After 2005, the quality of the water gets too

deteriorated.

47

Water Quality Map 2002


48/66

Water Quality Map - 2002

Well 3 (Indragandhi street, Well 4 (Rangasamy street), Well 6(Government

well), Well 8 (Mahatma Gandhi street), Well 10 (Kupusamy street), and Well 11

(Sadagopan street) water quality was Excellent.

Remaining well water quality was good. 48


49/66


Well 3 (Indragandhi street, Well 4 (Rangasamy street), Well 5 (Kalaimagal

nagar), Well 6(Government well), Well 8 (Mahatma Gandhi street) and Well 10

(Kupusamy street) water quality was Good.

Well 7 (Muthamil nagar) water quality was Poor. 49


50/66


Well 6 (Government well), Well 10 (Kupusamy street), and Well 11

(Sadagopan street) water quality was good.

Well 1 (Renganathan street), Well 2 (Near Okkium Maduvu) and Well 7(Muthamil nagar) water quality was very poor. 50


51/66

The reason for the quality deterioration was

extraction of more water, lack of improperdrainage system and natural geology.

51


52/66

52

In 2002, 42% of the people had own agricultural land,

and 34% of the people were agricultural labourers. Now no agricultural practices.


53/66

69% of people have sanitation facility. Major problems faced by the people due to water

stagnation such as health disease. 64% of people have health impact (cold, fever, allergy,

psoriasis etc.,) due to groundwater quality degradation.

53


54/66

Out this 64%, 54% of residents are affected bycold, 33% of residents were affected by fever

and 13% of residents were affected by skin

disease such as allergy, psoriaris etc.,

54


55/66

Positive impacts of livelihood Negative impact of livelihood

The landless agricultural labourer

dependent on agriculture. Now they shifted

to other jobs in the industries, construction

works etc.

Due to urbanisation agricultural lands was

turned into industries and fallow land. The

landless agricultural labourers dependent

only agriculture.

66% of people got the income 5000-

10000(House keeping, constructionlabourer, Bottle company, Lathe works and

catering).

Some people manage and settle other

jobs. 13% of the people were unemployedwith comparatively lower living standard.

Petty shops and Hotels was developed. Groundwater quality and level also varied

due to over extraction and improper

drainage.

People has a sense of awareness towards

education, due to IT companies.

High pollution.

Awareness for saving groundwater, and

improve the livelihood.

Health problem.

55


56/66

As of now (2010) agricultural land was no movein Karapakkam village. Due to urbanisation the land value has

increased.

The demand for land has increased and all theagricultural lands are converted into urbandevelopment.

Some lands were converted to fallow land due to

shortage of irrigation water source. Younger generation is not interested in doing

agriculture.

56


57/66

Earlier the village had appreciable groundwater

potential and the quality of groundwater was goodfor domestic purposes.

Water resources are declining day by day in termsof water level and also deteriorating in quality.

In earlier, Okkium Maduvu and Renganathan streetwell was used drinking purpose. Now it was unfit fordrinking purposes, where the water quality indexwas found to be more than 100.

The reasons attributed for the quality deteriorationwere over extraction and lack of improper drainagesystem.

57


58/66

Due to the groundwater quality deterioration,

51% of people are using portable water fordrinking purpose and 18% of people spendmore than 200 rupees per month for buyingportable water.

Due to urbanisation economic status of thevillage people has to be changed.

21% of the people earned high income due to ITcompanies, petty shops and hotels.

13% of the people livelihood was affected byurbanisation and no agricultural activities. Themonthly income they earn is below Rs.5000.

58


59/66

Urbanisation is a major challenge for water resources.

Planned urbanisation gives positive impacts, butunplanned urbanisation creates more problems andcomplicates the situation, which in fact give morenegative impacts.

Awareness must be created among the people about the

urbanisation, over extraction of water and sanitation toconserve the water resources.

It is learned that most of people doesnt have enoughknowledge about septic tank, disposal of sewage in waterbodies and their advantages.

The people depends on agricultural labour are asking forsome other water source to encourage agriculture, but itseems to be impractical for the present scenario.

59


60/66

Anantha K.H. and Raju K.V. (2010), Groundwater depletion and coping

strategies of farming communities in hard rock areas of southern

peninsular India, Asia-Pacific Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2,

pp. 119-144.

Anbazhagan S., Archana M. and Nair. (2004), Geographic Information

System and groundwater quality mapping in Panvel Basin, Maharashtra,

India, Environmental Geology, Vol.45, pp. 753761.

Brahmabhatt V.S., Dalwadi G.B., Chhabra S.B., Ray S.S. and Dadhwal

V.K. (2000), Land Use/Land Cover Change Mapping In Mahi Canal

Command Area, Gujarat, Using Multi-temporal Satellite Data, Journal of

the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 221-232.

Delin G., Healy R., Lorenz D. and Nimmo J. (2007), Comparison of

local- to regional-scale estimates of ground-water recharge in

Minnesota, USA. Journal of Hydrology, Vol 334, No. 1-2, pp. 231- 249.

60


61/66

GEC (2009), Report of the groundwater resource estimationcommittee, Ministry of water resources government of India, NewDelhi.

Graniel C. E., Morris L. B. and Rivera J. J. (1999), Effects ofurbanization on groundwater resources of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico,Environmental Geology, Vol. 37, pp. 303-312.

Hameed A.M., Alobaidy M. Maulood B.M. and Kadhem A.J. (2010),Evaluating Raw and Treated Water Quality of Tigris River within

Baghdad by Index Analysis, Journal of Water Resource andProtection, Vol. 2, pp. 629-635. IS: 10500 (1983), Indian Standard specification for drinking water,

India. Jaiswal R.K., Saxena R. and Mukherjee S. (1999), Application of

Remote Sensing Technology For Land Use/Land Cover Change

Analysis, Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol. 27,No. 2, pp. 123-128.

61


62/66

Jayakumar S. and Arockiasamy D.I. (2003), Land use / LandcoverMapping and Change detection in part of Eastern Ghats of Tamil Naduusing Remote Sensing and GIS, Journal of the Indian Society of

Remote Sensing, Vol.31, No.4, pp. 251-260. Landwehr J.M., Deininger R.A. and Harkins R.D. (1974), An Objective

Water Quality Index, Journal of the Water Pollution ControlFederation, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 1804-1809.

Lenters D. (2001), Long-term Trends in the Seasonal Cycle of Great

Lakes Water Levels, J.Great Lakes Res., Vol. 27, No.3, pp. 342-353. Machiwal D. D., Madan K., Jha , Bimal C. and Mal (2010), GIS-based

assessment and characterization of groundwater quality in a hard-rockhilly terrain of Western India, Environ Monit Assess,

DOI 10.1007/s10661-010-1485-5. Mandere N.M., Ness B. and Anderberg S. (2010), Peri-urban

development, livelihood change and household income: A case studyof peri-urban Nyahururu, Kenya, Journal of Agricultural Extension andRural Development, Vol. 2 (5), pp. 73-83.

62


63/66

Naik P. K., Tambe J.A., Dehury B.N. and Tiwari A.N. (2008), Impact of

urbanization on the groundwater regime in a fast growing city in central

India, Environ Monit Assess, Vol. 146, pp. 339373.

Palaniyandi M. and Nagarathinam V. (1997), Land use / Land cover

mapping and change detection using space borne data Journal of the Indian

Society of Remote Sensing, Vol.25, No.1, pp. 27-33.

Quang N.V., Minh N.H., Mai N.X., Huong P.Q. and Thang N.V(2005), The

Impact of urbanisation on agricultural in Hanoi-Results of interwies with

district and municipality officials, Seeking East Asian Rural Urban Synergy(SEARUSYN), EU 5th Framework INCO2 funded research project, ICA4-CT-

2002-10025.

Raturi G.P. and Bhatt A.B. (2004), Vegetation Pattern analysis in

Rudraprayag district using Remote Sensing and GIS, Journal of the Indian

Society of Remote Sensing, Vol. 2, pp. 217-224.

63


64/66

Sargaonkar A. and Deshpande V. (2003), Development of anoverall index of pollution for surface water based on a generalclassification scheme in Indian context, Environ Moint Assess,Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 43-67.

Sarkar A.A. and Hassen A.A. (2006), Water quality assessmentof a Groundwater Basin in Bangladesh for Irrigation Use,Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, Vol.9, pp. 1677-1684.

Scoones, I. (1998), Sustainable rural livelihoods: A frameworkfor analysis, IDS Working Paper. No.72. Brighton: IDS.

WHO, (1984), Guidelines to drinking water quality, WorldHealth Organization, Geneva, Vol 1, pp. 130.

Zektser I. S. (2000), Groundwater and Environment:Applications for the Global Community, Lewis Publishers, ISBN1-56670-383-2

64


65/66

65


66/66

r.subalakshmi

Documents