Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management Vol. 6(2), pp. 036-045, March, 2017 Available online athttp://www.apexjournal.org

ISSN 2315-8727© 2017 Apex Journal International

Full Length Research

The physico chemical properties of groundwater in Ibb city, Yemen and evaluate their portability for drinking

and Irrigation potentials viabilities

Marwan Manea1, Esmail Abdullah Al Sabahi2, Ali Mayas3, MuneerAlsayadi4,Sameer Abdullhafez5 and Abdo Alnomir6

1 Department Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Ibb University, Yemen, Email:

maldois@yahoo.com 2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ibb University, Yemen. Email sabahi200@gmail.com

3 Department Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Ibb University, Yemen, Email: alimaiyes@yahoo.com

4 Department Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, IbbUniversity, Yemen, Email: smuneer006@gmail.com

5 The Laboratory of Ibb Water and Sanitation Local Corporation (IWSLC), Yemen. Email:alabsisameer@yahoo.com. 6 Department Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Ibb University, Yemen, Email:

alnomir2012@yahoo.com.

Accepted 2 December, 2016; Published 27 March, 2017

The present study was conducted at Almashanah area, Ibb city in the Republic of Yemen to evaluate the quality of groundwater for drinking and irrigation. Water samples were collected from twenty different wells. The physicochemical parameters of water samples, In-situ parameters include: pH value, temperature, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) were measured in-situ during the sampling, Furthermore, the cations, anions and nitrogenous compound (F

-, Cl

-, NO2, NO3, NH3, Mg

2+,

Ca2+

, K+,

Na+, Fe

2+, Zn

2+, Cu

2+) were analyzed.The suitability of water for irrigation was evaluated by

estimating of Electrical Conductivity (EC), calculating of Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR), Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP), Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP), Permeability Index (PI), Magnesium Hazard (MH) and Kelly’s Ratio (KR). The highest concentration of TH, EC, TDS, F, Cl, PO4, NH3, NO3, NO2, Mg, Na, K, Cu and Znfound in borehole (BH3) followed by(BH1 and BH2) which were not suitable for drinking.The boreholessamples can be used for irrigation with need for leashing only in thewells (BH1,BH2 andBH3). This study concluded that the boreholesnear to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) has been affected by the effluent of (WWTP) Therefore, it is suggested that the location of the (WWTP) is either to be shaft or its effluent is to be transfer further beyond the groundwater aquifer 20 km. Furthermore, the groundwater in the boreholes should be continuously monitored in order to prevent further ecological contamination and to guarantee public health. Key words: Irrigation, groundwater, portability, heavy metals.

INTRODUCTION Water is essential for the life and most be save. People need a clean water and sanitation to maintain their health *Corresponding author. Email: maldois@yahoo.com

and dignity. Having better water and sanitation is an essential way in breaking the cycle of poverty, since it improves people’s health, strength to work, and the ability to go to school (CAWST, 2009). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 88% of diarrheal disease is causedby unsafe water, inadequate sanitation

and poor hygiene. As a result, more than 4,500 children die every day because of diarrhea and other diseases (CAWST, 2009). The total supply of freshwater on the earth far to exceeds human demand. The foremost use of water by humans is for the biological survival. However, water need for the biological survival is not the only issuebeing discussed in the world today. Because, apart from drinking, water is required also for household needs such as cooking, washing, and is vital for our development needs, such as for agriculture and industry.Water may contain chemicals which can be beneficial or harmful to our health. Many chemicals find their way into our drinking water supply through different natural processes and human activities. Naturally occurring chemicals, such as arsenic, fluoride, sulfur, calcium and magnesium, are generally found in groundwater alsohuman activities can add other chemicals such as nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticides to our ground, surface and rainwater (CAWST, 2009). In addition to that, in arid and semiarid regions, water demand has exceeded the reliable supply of surface water and renewable ground water due to rapid growth in municipal and industrial use, and the agricultural sector is the major consumerof water in which using more than two-thirds of available resources (Al Omron et. al., 2012).

Water used for irrigation always contains measurable quantities of dissolved substances which as a general collective term are called salts. These include relatively small but important amounts of dissolved solids originating from dissolution or weathering of the rocks and soil and dissolving of lime, gypsum and other salt sources as water passesover or percolates through them.

Ibb is a productive agricultural area and continuous cropping is possible where supplementary irrigation is available during the dry seasons and farmers using flood irrigation, principally pumped from wells and depending on rainfall and the common practice is to irrigate sorghum once per fortnight and potatoes weekly at a rate of about 800 m

3/ha (GKW and MWH, 2003).

This study aims to evaluate the portability and irrigation suitability of water in Almashanah area, Ibb city, Yemen throughout the physicochemical parameters analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area: This paper aims to study Almashanah area, which is located in the city of Ibb, Yemen with an altitude of about 2000 m above sea level (Figure 1).

The study area has a temperate continental, arid to semiarid monsoon climate with annual mean maximum air temperature is 29.1°C and annual mean minimum air temperature is 11.1°C. The annual precipitation ranged from 800 to 900 mm/year, of which 70% occurred during summer. The soil is a silty clay loam. Major land use

Manea et al 037 includes farmland and residential. The former two types occupy more than 90% of the total area. The major crops are qat, wheat, maize, sorghum and potato.

The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of the city is located in Maytam area with an altitude between 1870 – 1880 m above sea level. The existing plant has a capacity of 5,000 m

3/day, while the incoming flow is about

10,500 m3/day (Dar Al Handasah, 2006). There are

several boreholes which used for irrigation and distributed around Ibb sewage treatment plant also the effluent of the plant is used for irrigation purposes. The population of Ibb has increased rapidly during the last decade. The preliminary results of the census data of the year 2013 indicate that the population has increased much more than expected. The current population is approximately 374,833 people based on the past census data by the department of planning. Geology of the Study Area Geological map of the study area [Figure 2; Alsabahiet al, 2015]. Samples collecting Water samples were collected from 20 different wells at Almashanah area in the city of Ibb, Yemen, five of them are located in the upstream of the wastewater treatment plant while the others are located in the downstream of the wastewater treatment plant. Most of these wellsare used for drinking and irrigation purposes and a few are used for irrigation only. The samples were collected in polyethylene bottles covered with aluminum foil, while a few drops of concentrated nitric acid were added to the samples collected for heavy metals analysis to preserve the samples. The laboratory of Ibb Water and Sanitation Local Corporation was used for sampling analysis

Physico-Chemical parameters Water samples were measured for pH andelectrical conductivity using a glass electrode pH meter and systronics electrical conductivity meter (Jackson, 1973). Whereas, total dissolved solid (TDS) wascalculated by using the factor 0.65 multiplied by the EC reading (APHA, 1998).Bicarbonates were estimated by titrating an aliquot of samples with H2SO4using methyl orange indicator (Dhyan et al., 2005). Chloride was measured by the mercuric nitrate titrimetric method (Mohr’s titration) and calculated by the equation provided by APHA, (1998). Cl =M× Wt × 1000 ×Number of ml of Hg(No3)2 / V Where, M = 0.1; M.Wt = atomic weight of Cl and V = volume of water sample

038 Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manage

Figure 1. The location of the wells in the study area.

Figure 2. Geological map of the study area [Alsabahi et al., 2015].

Manea et al 039

Table1. Geological formations of thestudy area [Alsabahiet al, 2015].

Alluvial Deposits (Qa) Principally gravel, sand, boulders, andlarge detritus of volcanic origin as wadifilling.

River–terrace Deposits (Qt) Loess with calcareous concretions, alluvial fans, gravel, silt,loamysands aswellas sandy loam.

Alkali–trachyte (Tk1) Dikes andflows ofalkali - trachytic lava.

Volcanic breccia (Tk2) Fragments of basaltic lavaflows and dikes, breccia of tuff and pyroclastica, bombs and lapilli.

Porphyric basalt (Tk3) Flows and dikes oflava richin pyroxene.

Tholeiitic basalt (Tk4) Dense black-greyish basaltic lava, rich in silica and plagioclase.

Alkali–olivine basalt(Tk5) Lava flows, now and then pyroclastica.

Plateau basalt(Tk6) Intermediate volcanics, mainly tholeiite and pikrite, veldedtuffs, now and then ignimbrite.

Fluoride, Sulphate, Nitrate, Nitrite and Ammonia were estimatedby using portable data logging spectrophotometer HACH DR/4000 SPADNS Method (Method 8029), SulfaVer 4 Method (Method 8051), Cadmium Reduction Method (Method 8039), Diazotization Method (Method 8507) and Nessler Method (Method 8038) respectively. While calcium and magnesium were determined by the versenate titration method in which EDTA- disodium salt solution is used to chelate them, calcium alone estimated by versenate method using ammonium purpurate (murexide) indicator and thus magnesium obtained by subtracting Ca

2+ from

Ca2+

+ Mg2+

content. Potassium and sodium were determinedwith the help of flame photometer (PFP 7) (Jackson, 1973). Iron was estimated by the portable data logging spectrophotometer HACH R/4000 by using FerroVer Method (Method 8008). While zinc was extracted with DTPA solution and determined with the help of atomic absorption spectrophotometry method (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978).

The total hardness (TH) was calculated from the following formula: Total hardness (TH) (as CaCO3) = 2.497 [Ca

2+, mg/L] +

4.118 [Mg2+

, mg/L]. The Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP), Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP), Magnesium Hazard (MH), Kelly’s Ratio (KR) and Permeability Index (PI),of the used waters were calculatedaccording to Page et al., (1982) methods using the following equations: Sodium Adsorption Ratio

(SAR) = ……………………..(1)

Soluble Sodium Percentage

(SSP)= …….…..…(2)

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage

(ESP) = … …….(3) ..…. (3)

Kelly’s Ratio (KR) = ………… (4)

Permeability Index

(PI) = ……………….. (5)

Magnesium Hazard (MH) = ……(6)

Statistical analysis All analysis were carried out in triplicates for all the samples and statistical analysis system (SAS) 9.2 software was used in the present study. A one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) with Duncan test was applied to evaluate the variation between variables (SAS, 1994). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of in-situ parameters is presented in Tables 2 and it is clearly indicated that the temperature of samples

040 Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manage

Table 2. In sit parameters from the boreholes in the study area.

Samples T (°C) EC (μm/cm) TDS (mg/L) pH Alkalinity (as CaCO3) (mg/L)

Total Hardness (TH)(mg/L)

BH1 24.42 bcd

1524.90 b 991.19

b 7.68

a 403.65

cb 1018.66

b

BH2 23.66 ecd

1483.04 c 963.98

c 7.48

bdac 384.71

d 1027.84

b

BH3 24.41 bcd

1575.73 a 1024.23

a 7.58

bac 410.63

b 1053.74

a

BH4 25.34 ba

981.72 g 638.12

g 7.08

f 299.00

kj 362.227

d

BH5 24.38 bcd

1088.36 e 707.43

e 7.18

fe 368.77

e 371.25

d

BH6 21.88 gh

1022.58 f 664.68 f 7.08

f 408.63

b 355.05

d

BH7 24.52 bcd

1194.01 d 776.11

d 7.08

f 318.93

ih 337.58

e

BH8 25.02 b 1088.36

e 707.43

e 7.27

fde 394.68

cd 413.05

c

BH9 23.22 ef 1045.50

f 679.58

f 7.08

f 423.58

a 413.57

c

BH10 23.82 ecd

840.19 ih 546.12

ih 7.58

bac 354.81

fg 304.47

gf

BH11 25.27 ba

777.40 j 505.31

j 7.37

dec 318.93

ih 284.80

h

BH12 24.72 bc

859.13 h 558.43

h 7.18

fe 350.83

g 315.78

f

BH13 24.72 bc

834.21 ih 542.24

ih 7.27

fde 328.90

h 307.52

gf

BH14 21.23 h 561.12 m 364.73

m 7.18 fe 299.00

kj 261.41

i

BH15 24.42 bcd

666.77 l 433.40

l 7.27

fde 289.03

kl 200.47

j

BH16 26.31 a 645.84

l 419.80

l 7.08

f 249.17

m 251.76

i

BH17 22.13 gh

815.27 i 529.93

i 7.18

fe 279.07

l 291.89

f

BH18 24.27 becd

960.67 g 624.43

g 7.42

bdc 366.33

fe 399.55

c

BH19 22.40 gf

738.00 k 479.70

k 7.60

ba 300.67

kj 317.89

f

BH20 23.47 ed

747.67 k 485.98

k 7.35

de 309.08

ij 404.90

c

Means with the same letter are not significantly different

recorded from the wells varies between 21.23 C and

26.31 C with significant differences among the wells.The mean values of electrical conductivity (EC) of the water samples (Table 2) were ranged from 561.12 to 1575.73 µm/cm with significant difference among the wills and the highest (EC) was recorded in well (BH3) while the lowest was recorded in well (BH14). Similarly the results of TDS values (Table 2) were between (364.73- 1024.23 mg/L) and all water samples wereaccepted as fresh water according to the classification of Paul 2006 (TDS > 1000 mg/l) only the wells (BH1, BH2 and BH3) were near to 1000 mg/l similar results were found by Al Sabahi et al. (2015) and Mayas et al. (2015). The results of TDS lower than Sana’a basin, Almukella ground water and Alsolaneh area in Shabwah, which they were high in TDS value (Al ameri, et al, 2013; AbdlKawi et al., 2013; Al amry, 2008). All of YDS values in this study are within the highest divisible (WHO, 1997 and 2004). Whereas the pH values of the water samples ranged from 7.08 in wells (BH4, BH6, BH7, BH9 and 16) to 7.68 in well (BH1) with significant difference among the wells samples and

indicating alkaline water in nature. All of the samples were in the recommended range of WHO (6.5-8.6) (WHO,. 2004). Similar were the findings of AbdlKawi et al. (2013) reported that pH (7.3-7.9) in Al Mukulla, while the pH in Sana’a area were ranged between (6.5-9.4) (Al Ameriet al., 2013). Data presented in Table 2 clearly indicated that the highest value of alkalinity (as CaCO3) was found in well (BH9) and the lowest was in well (BH16) with significant differences among the boreholes, while the highest total hardness (TH) was in well (BH3) (423.58 mg/L) and the lowest was in the well(BH15) (249.17 mg/L), also a significant differences were found among the wells. The total hardness (TH)of the samples in this study were lower than the total hardness in Al Mukalla ground water which ranged from (623-1168 mg/L) (Abdlkawi, et al,. 2013), but they were similar to finding of Al ameri et al. (2013). The concentration of hardness for drinking water has been classified in terms of its equivalent as CaCO3 in four categories (CAWST, 2009): soft water, hard water, medium hard water and very hard water. Water with TH greater than 180 mg/l

Manea et al 041

Table 3. The boreholes anions analysis results from the study area.

Samples F Cl HCO3 SO4 PO4 NH3 NO3 NO2

BH1 0.92 bac

5.31 b 8.22

cb 2.10

k 1.21

b 1.05

b 94.19

b 1.10

b

BH2 0.89 dc

4.12 c 8.74

a 1.81

k 0.53

e 0.35

c 72.36

c 1.11

b

BH3 0.95 a 5.82

a 8.13

cd 2.41

k 1.26

a 1.65

a 109.36

a 1.31

a

BH4 0.76 fe

2.53 ih

5.98 ih

60.30 c 0.09

i 0.03

e 7.97

kji 0.03

gf

BH5 0.66 j 2.44

i 7.45

e 62.62

c 0.23

h 0.02

e 14.09

ed 0.03

ef

BH6 0.71 hi

3.94 d 8.24

cb 66.51

b 0.36

f 0.06

e 15.07

d 0.09

c

BH7 0.86 d

2.77 gf

6.41 g 43.97

hi 0.98

c 0.02

e 7.01

kj 0.05

d

BH8 0.87 d 2.83

f 7.95

d 115.38

a 0.10

i 0.03

e 10.03

hgi 0.02

gfh

BH9 0.77 e 3.10

e 8.41

b 69.80

b 0.21

h 0.03

e 14.85 d 0.03

ef

BH10 0.73 fg

2.02 j 7.10

f 51.93

ef 0.23

h 0.02

e 12.96

edf 0.02

gfh

BH11 0.58 j 1.63

k 6.38

g 52.62

edf 0.13

i 0.01

e 7.947

kji 0.02

gfh

BH12 0.70 hg

2.02 j 7.02

f 53.62

ed 0.30

g 0.02

e 8.97

hji 0.02

gfh

BH13 0.58 j 1.69

k 6.58

g 45.85

h 0.88

d 0.02

e 9.97

hgi 0.02

gfh

BH14 0.65 i 2.78

gf 6.04

h 55.87

d 0.99

c 0.03

e 7.05

kj 0.01

f

BH15 0.86 d 1.07

l 5.78 ij 29.70

j 0.98

c 0.04

e 13.95

ed 0.087

c

BH16 0.67 hi

1.96 j 4.96

k 40.91

i 0.88

d 0.02

e 7.94

kji 0.01

h

BH17 0.79 e 2.64

gh 5.58

j 47.44

hg 0.99

c 0.02

e 10.96

hgf 0.03

ef

BH18 0.79 e 2.78

gf 7.10

f 62.63

c 0.18

h 0.22

d 5.67

k 0.02

gfh

BH19 0.91 bc

2.42 i 4.97

k 49.83

gf 1.06

b 0.02

e 12.00

egf 0.01

gh

BH20 0.93 ba

2.91 f 6.05

h 61.41

c 1.05

b 0.02

e 12.33

egf 0.04

ed

All Units in mg l/1 except Cl and HCO3 in Meq/l

Means with the same letter are not significantly different

cannot be used for domestic purposes, because it coagulates soap lather (Al Omron, 2012). All of the water samples belong to very hard water type and falls beyond the maximum permissible limit of TH of the international standard (Eaton et al., 1995)., so the water softening processes for removal of hardness are needed and the well (BH1, BH2 and BH3)can’t be used for drinking purpose. The water hardness is occurring from weathering of limestone, sedimentary rock and calcium bearing minerals. The permeability of water through limestone are prone to hard water. This is because of rainfall, which is naturally acidic containing carbon dioxide gas, continually dissolves the rock and carries the dissolved minerals into the groundwater system (Al-Ameri, 2013). The guideline value for drinking water recommended by WHO for water hardness is 500 mg/l (NARWA, 2000) this value was also recommended by (Alagbe, 2006).

HCO3 is the dominant anion followed by Cl and SO4. The data in Table 2 showed that the concentrations of HCO3 ranged between 4.96 meq/l in well (BH16) and 8.74 meq/l in well (BH2) with significant difference among the wells, comparing with (88-325mg/L) in al salameh area in Shabwah and (120-256 mg/L) in Al Mukalla (AbdlKawi et al., 2013; Al Amry, 2008).

The highest SO4 concentration was in wells (BH8) with significant difference among the wells and the lowest was in well (BH1) but there were no difference with wells (BH2 and BH3). The concentration of SO4 in Al Mukalla ranged

between (204-860 mg/L) (AbdlKawi et al., 2013) and in Shabwah (58-1320 mg/L) (Al Amry, 2008), all of that values were exceeding the concentration of SO4 in the study area which were lower the maximum permissible limit of WHO (400 mg/L) (WHO, 2004).

The results (Table 3) indicated that a significant difference among the wells in respect to F, Cl, PO4, NH3, NO3 and NO2 and the highest concentration of F, Cl, PO4, NH3, NO3 and NO2 were 0.95, 5.82, 1.26, 1.65, 109.36 and 1.31 mg/l respectively in well no 3 and the lowest concentration for F was in wells(BH11 and BH13) (0.58 mg/l), Cl found in wells(BH11and BH13) (1.63 and 1.69 mg/l) PO4 found in well(BH4) (0.09 mg/l), NH3 in well(BH11) (0.01 mg/l), NO3 in well(BH18) (5.76 mg/l) and NO2 in well(BH16) (0.01 mg/l).

The concentrations of bicarbonate and nitrogenous compounds of some samples were higher than the maximum permissible limit for drinking as per the WHO international standards (WHO, 2006) and the Yemen National Water Resources Authority (NWRA) standards (NWRA, 2000) specially in wells (BH1, BH2, BH3, BH6 and BH9) in respect to HCO3 and wells(BH1, BH2 and BH3) in respect to NH3, NO3 and NO2. All of these wellsare located around wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) where the wastewater treatment plant is located and this high concentration may be due to migration of wastewater via soil towards these wells.

It is evident from the data (Table 4) that among the cations the concentrations of Ca, Mg, Na and K ranged

042 Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manage

Table 4. The cations analysis of boreholes.

Samples Ca2+

Mg2+

Na+ k

+ Fe Cu Zn

BH1 7.55 c 5.11

b 2.91

b 0.11

b 0.14

f 1.52

c 0.65

c

BH2 8.04 a 4.33

c 2.61

c 0.09

c 0.09 h 1.03

e 0.25

ji

BH3 7.70 b 5.50

a 3.11

a 0.16

a 0.13

g 1.76

a 0.85

b

BH4 3.42 e 0.39

l 2.29

fe 0.03

d 0.37

c 0.92

f 0.33

h

BH5 3.06 g 1.26

g 2.37

e 0.03

d 0.10

h 0.77

g 0.33

gh

BH6 2.99 g 1.08

i 2.66

c 0.03

d 0.89

a 0.73

h 0.10

l

BH7 2.81 h 1.09

i 2.50

d 0.03

d 0.04

i 1.50

c 0.32

h

BH8 3.41 e 1.39

f 2.21

fg 0.03

d 0.50

b 1.12

d 0.40

e

BH9 3.24 f 1.73

d 2.37

e 0.03

d 0.10

h 1.68

b 0.05

m

BH10 2.41 ji 1.23

hg 2.09

hi 0.02

e 0.09

h 0.30

j 0.31

h

BH11 2.26 jk 1.15

hi 2.09

hi 0.02

e 0.15

e 0.14

ml 0.28

i

BH12 2.50 i 1.28

g 2.14

hg 0.02

e 0.17

d 0.78

g 0.23

j

BH13 2.41 ji 1.29

g 2.09

hi 0.03

d 0.10

h 0.13

ml 0.23

j

BH14 2.41 ji 0.40

l 2.01

i 0.03

d 0.09

h 0.17

l 0.36

gf

BH15 1.60 l 0.79

j 2.19

g 0.02

e 0.02

j 0.23

k 0.10

l

BH16 2.21 k

0.59 k 2.13

hg 0.02

e 0.09

h 0.14

ml 0.17

k

BH17 2.51 i 0.80

j 2.19

g 0.03

d 0.10

h 0.55

i 0.96

a

BH18 3.23 f 1.49

e 2.35

e 0.03

d 0.09

h 0.73

h 0.37

f

BH19 2.97 g 0.39

l 2.46

e 0.02

e 0.02

j 0.09

n 0.46

d

BH20 3.74 d 0.59

k 2.86

b 0.03

d 0.09

h 0.11

mn 0.47

d

Units of Ca2+

, Mg2+

, K+, Na

+ in Meq/L while Fe, Zn, Cu mg l/1

Means with the same letter are not significantly different

from 1.60 to 8.04, 0.39 to 5.50, 2.01 to 3.11 and 0.02 to 0.16 meq/l, respectively with significant deference among the wells and they were under the detection limit recommended by CAWST, (2009).

The results of heavy metals (Table ‎4) showed significant different between wells with the highest concentration of Fe was recorded at well (BH6) and the highest Cu concentration was in well (BH3), while the highest Zn concentration was in well (BH17) followed by well (BH3). Selected heavymetals Cu and Zn were analyzed in the watersamples taken from the study areaclearly indicated that the concentration of Zn in all water samples were below the detection limit whereas,the concentrations of Cu in wells(BH1, BH2, BH3, BH7, BH8 andBH9) were above the detection limit recommended by WHO, (2004) and NWRA, (2000). All of these wellsare located around wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and these high values of Cu may be due to presence of this metal in wastewater.

According to Alagbe (2006) and Al-Amry (2008), the suitability of water for irrigation depends on TDS (salinity) and the sodium content in relation to the amountsof calcium and magnesium or SAR. The suitability of water

for irrigation was evaluated by estimating of Electrical Conductivity (EC) and calculating of Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR), Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP), Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP), Permeability Index (PI), Magnesium Hazard (MH) and Kelly’s Ratio (KR).

Water salinity is usually measured by the TDS (total dissolved solids) or the EC (electric conductivity).

According to Table 5 the wells (BH14, BH15 and BH16) classified under class 2, while all other boreholes found permissible (class 3) and there is need for leaching. Irrigation water is classified into 5 categories based on salinity hazard which considers the potential for damaging plants and the level of management needed for utilization as an irrigation source (Table 1). Water with EC less than 750 μm/cm are generally suitable for irrigation without problems (Fipps, Guy, 2003). Successful use of water with EC values above 750 μm/cm depends upon soil conditions and plant tolerance to salinity. High salinity levels can be used on sandy soils where salts can be easily flushed compared to similar values on poorly draining clay soils which may cause problems. Under typical summer stress growing

Manea et al 043

Table 5. Permissible limits for classes of irrigation water (Fipps, Guy, 2003).

Classes of water EC μm/cm at 25 C TDS ppm

Class 1 Excellent 250 175

Class 2 Good 250 – 750 175 – 525

Class 3 Permissible1 750- 2000 525 – 1400

Class 4 Doubtful2 2000 – 3000 1400 – 2100

Class 5 Unsuitable2 3000 2100

1leaching needed

2 good drainage needed and sensitive plants will have difficulty obtaining stands

Table 6. Boreholes quality characteristic parameters for irrigation from Almashana area

Samples SAR SSP ESP PI MH KR

BH1 1.15 j 18.54 l 0.45 k 3.09

b 40.37

b 0.23

k

BH2 1.05 k 17.33

m 0.

29l 2.81

dce 35.04

c 0.21

k

BH3 1.21 j 18.88

l 0.53

k 3.

29a 41.66

a 0.24

k

BH4 1.66 fe

37.37 gf

1.20 gf

2.69 gf

10.39 m 0.60

gf

BH5 1.61 fg

35.19 i 1.13

gh 2.78

dfe 29.25

g 0.55

h

BH6 1.87 c 39.38

d 1.50

cd 3.

09b 26.44

i 0.65

d

BH7 1.79 d 38.89

de 1.40

e 2.90

c 27.90

h 0.64

ed

BH8 1.42 i 31.36

k 0.85

h 2.61

ghi 29.02

g 0.46

j

BH9 1.51 h 32.19

kj 0.97

i 2.77

dfe 34.76

dc 0.48

ji

BH10 1.55 hg

36.41 gh

1.04 ih

2.56 hi

33.73 e 0.58

gh

BH11 1.61 fg

37.95 ef 1.12

gh 2.55

hi 33.66

e 0.62

ef

BH12 1.56 hg

36.04 ih 1.05

ih 2.59

hi 33.97

de 0.57

h

BH13 1.54 hg

35.99 ih 1.02

i 2.53

hi 34.79

dc 0.56

h

BH14 1.7 e 41.51

c 1.26

f 2.52

i 14.

20 l 0.72

c

BH15 2.01 a 47.65

a 1.72

a 2.72

fe 33.10

e 0.92

a

BH16 1.8 d 43.09

b 1.42

ed 2.59

hi 21.17

k 0.76

b

BH17 1.71 e 39.71

d 1.27

f 2.62

gh 24.11

j 0.66

d

BH18 1.54 h 33.22

j 1.01

i 2.73

fe 31.49

f 0.50

i

BH19 1.90 bc

42.14 cb

1.56 cb

2.84 dc

11.52 m 0.73

cb

BH20 1.95 ba

39.63 d 1.63

b 3.20

a 13.61

l 0.66

d

Means with the same letter are not significantly different

conditions, EC of irrigation water should not exceed 1250 μm/cm soluble salts.

Perusal of data Table 6 clearly indicated significantly different among the wellswith respect to SAR, SSP and ESP and the highest SAR, SSP and ESP values at (BH15) (2.01, 47.65 and 1.72, respectively) while the lowest values calculated from well(BH2) (1.05, 17.33 and 0.291, respectively). According to the classification of water in respect to SAR values and SAR with EC (Tables 3 and 6) the water can be used for irrigation without any sodium hazard and according to Fipps, Guy,(2003) the samples classifieds as low in sodium hazard.

SAR which is the ratio of sodium concentration to the concentration of the square root of the average calcium plus magnesium concentration in either irrigation water or the soil solution (Miller and Gardiner, 2007). Continued

use of water having a high SAR leads to a breakdown in the physical structure of the soil. Sodium is adsorbed and becomes attached to soil particles andthe soil then becomes hard and compact when dry and increasingly impervious to water penetration. Fine textured soils, especially those high in clay, are most subject to this action. Certain amendments may be required to maintain soils under high SAR. Also the soluble sodium percent(SSP) is used to evaluate sodium hazard. SSP is defined as the rationof sodium to the total cations multiplied by 100. Water with a SSP greater than 60 per cent may result in sodium accumulations that will cause a breakdown in the soil’s physical properties (Fipps, Guy, 2003).

The greatest Permeability Index (PI) calculated from wells(BH3 and BH20) and the lowest was at well (BH14)

044 Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manage but it was non significant with wells (BH8, BH10, BH11, BH12, BH13 and BH16). The results (Table 6) showed that Magnesium Hazard (MH) values were highest in the first three wells and reached to the highest value at well (BH3) with significant different among the wells while the lowest value calculated from wells (BH4 and BH19). KR from the results presented in Table 6 showed that decrease of the KR in the first three boreholes and reached the highest value at the well (BH15) with a significant different among the boreholes.

The PI values more than 75 percent indicate excellent quality of water forirrigation. If the PI values are between 25 and 75 percent, these indicate good quality of water for irrigation. However, ifthe PI values are less than 25, they reflect unsuitable nature of water for irrigation(Al-Amry, 2008). On the basis of PI (Table 6),the water samples from the study area can be classified as goodclass for irrigation. Another indicator can be used tospecify the magnesium hazard (MH), if this percentage hazard was less than 50, then thewater was safe and suitable for irrigation (Al Ameri, 2013). Fromthe calculated value, the magnesium hazard values at study area range between 25.71-37.86% and can be classified assuitable for irrigation. Conclusion The physico-chemical analysis of the wells in the study area showed that the wells near to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (BH1, BH2 and BH3) were not suitable for drinking, and the highest results of TH, EC, F, Cl, PO4, NH3, NO3, NO2, Mg, Na, K, Cu and Znfound in well (BH3). Also the wells (BH1, BH2 and BH3) were exceeded and near to the permissible limits given by Yemen's Ministry of Water and Environment. While the results of the others wells showed that, the suitability of these boreholes for drinking.

According to the water quality standards all wells were suitable for irrigation with need for leashing only in the wells (BH1, BH2 and BH3). Where they falls under fresh water type (TDS > 1000mg/l). On the other hand, the comparison of the results with the water quality standards indicated that, groundwater samples from the study area are suitable for irrigation purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank the Local Water Supply and Sanitation in Ibb city for providing the research facilities throughout the study.

REFERENCES Al Omron A.M., El-Maghraby, S.E., Nadeem, M.E.A., El-

Eter, A.M. and Al-Mohani, H. (2012.). Long term effect

of irrigation with the treated sewage effluent on some soil properties of Al-Hassa Governorate, Saudi Arabia,

Alagbe S. A. (2006). Preliminary evaluation of hydrochemistry of the Kalambaina Formation, Sokoto Basin, Niger. J. Environ. Geol. 51: 39-45.

Al-Ameri. A, Abo Lohom, N. and Schneider. M. (2013). Hydrochemical Characterization of Ground waters in the Sana’a Basin, Yemen.5th International Conference on Water Resources and Arid Environments (ICWRAE 5); January 7-9; 34-46 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Al-Amry, A.S. (2008). Hydrogeochemistry and Groundwater Quality Assessment in an Arid Region: A Case Study from Al Salameh Area, Shabwah, Yemen. The 3

rd International Conference on Water Resources

and Arid Environments and the 1st Arab Water Forum;

Alsabahi, E., Al Nozaily, F. A. and Abdullhafez, S. (2015). Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Drinking Water by Using Physico-chemical Analysis in the City of Ibb, Yemen. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 5(5): 425-435.

APHA (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20

th Ed. American Public Health

Association. USA. CAWST Center for Affordable water and Sanitation

Technology, (2009). Introduction to Drinking Water Quality Testing. ACAWST Training Manual June Edition.

Dar Al Handasah (2006). Water supply and sanitation for Ibb city. Ministry of Water and Environment. Sana'a. Yemen.

Dhyan Singh, Chhonkar, P.K. and Dwivedi, B.S. (2005). Manual on soil, plant and water analysis. Westville publishing house, New Delhi. 200p.

Eaton A. D., Clesceri L.S. and Greenberg, A.E. (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA, AWWA, WEF, 19th edn. Washington DC.

Fipps, Guy. (2003). Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies. Available electronically from http://hdi.handle.net/1969.1/87829.

GKW Consult and Abratech Jardaneh, M.W.H. (2003). Feasibility study for effluent and sludge reuse in Aden, Amran, Hajjah, Ibb and Yarim, Ministry of Water and Environment, Environment Protection Authority, Republic of Yemen; Volume 5, 12.

Jackson, M. (1973). Soil chemical analysis prentice hall of india ltd. New Delhi pp. 183-204.

Lindsay, W. and Norvell, W.A. (1978). Development of a dtpa soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42(3): 421-428.

Mayas A., Al Sabahi E., Abdullhafez S. (2015). Groundwater Quality at Maytam Area in the City of Ibb, Yemen by Using Physico-chemical Analysis. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng., 5(3): 40-46.

Miller, R.W. and Gardiner, D. T. (2007). Soils in our environment. 9th edition. Prentice Hall-Inc., Upper Sddle River, New Jersey 07458. ISBN 0-13-020036-0, page 452.

NWRA, Water Quality Standard (2000). Report No.

2000/100. National Water Resources Authority. Minister of Water and environment.

Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D.R. (1982). Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Amer. Soc. of Agron, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

SAS, Statistical Analysis System (1994). SAS Users Guide, SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, US,

Manea et al 045 World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking Water

Quality, Third Edition.Geneva, Switzerland;2006.. Available at: www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/index.html.