CC BY
8CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATER FOR IRRIGATION, AQUACULTURE, LIVESTOCK CONSUMPTION AND INDUSTRIAL USES OF BAUPHAL UPAZILA, PATUAKHALI, BANGLADESH
Md. Nuruzzaman1, T.K. Roy2, N.J. Mumu2 *, S. Roy3, Md.S. Islam1,
B. Ahammad2
lPatuakhali Science and Technology University, Bangladesh e-mail: njaman444@gmail.com, opu9200@gmail.com 2Khulna Agricultural University, Bangladesh e-mail: tusar_kanti_achem@kau.edu.bd, *nusratmumu.ss@kau.edu.bd, anjshmasb@gmail.com 3Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation, Bangladesh e-mail: pretharoy2000@gmail.com
Received: 11.10.2022. Revised: 09.01.2023. Accepted: 08.02.2023.
Water is an essential natural resource worldwide and plays a prominent role in conserving lives and the environment fresh. All kinds of natural water are universal solvent and various types of elements are dissolved in varying degrees. For every purpose, water should fulfill some standard. An investigation was conducted to assess the quality of surface water in Bauphal upazila for irrigation, aquaculture and livestock consumption. In total, 50 samples (25 pond waters, 19 canal waters and 6 river point waters) were collected for analyzing pH, EC, TDS and ions (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, Cl-, PO43-, SO42-, CO32- and HCO3-) in order to find out their suitability for irrigation, aquaculture and livestock consumption. All the surface water samples were slightly acidic (pH = 6.02 to 6.99) in nature and were not problematic for successful crop cultivation except three samples. Regarding TDS values, all the samples were classified as fresh water (TDS < 1000 mgL-1) in quality. Based on EC value, 6 samples were classified as low salinity (C1, EC < 2 50 |iScm-1) and 44 samples were rated as medium salinity (C2, EC = 250 to 750 |iScm-1) hazards. In respect of SAR value, all the water samples were categorized as excellent class (SAR < 10) and 40 samples were also classified as good (SSP = 20 to 40%) based on SSP. Considering RSC values, all the water samples belonged to the unsuitable in category except one sample. According to hardness (Ht), 6 water samples were moderately hard (Ht = 75 to 150 mgL-1), 41 samples were hard (Ht = 150 to 300 mgL-1) and the rest of 3 samples were very hard (Ht < 300 mgL-1) in nature. Hardness of water samples resulted due to the abundant presence of Ca and Mg. Detectable amount of carbonate was not found in most of the samples. In case of bicarbonate content, most of the samples were not suitable for irrigation, aquaculture and livestock consumption, however, on the basis of Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, S and P content, most of the surface water samples were found suitable. Key words: electrical conductivity, hardness, residual sodium carbonate, sodium adsorption ratio, soluble sodium percentage, total dissolved solids, water quality
https://dx.doi.org/10.24412/cl-31646-2686-7117-2023-32-77-98
Introduction
Water is the most valuable resource for the sustenance of life and also for any developmental activity (Kumar et al., 2010). About 80% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Out of the estimated 1 011 million km3 of the total water present on the earth, only 33 400 m3 of water is available for drinking, agriculture, domestic and industrial consumption (Dara, 2007). Bangladesh is a low-lying flat country with big inland water bodies, including some of the biggest rivers and is extremely vulnerable because of its geographical characteristics (Matin & Kamal, 2010).
The quality of water usually denotes its suitability for use and is difficult to evaluate except in terms of its specific use. Water is considered as a pollutant or toxicant, when its quality or composition is changed directly or indirectly as a result of human activities and natural contamination. Surface water is a vital natural resource playing an important role in irrigation, aquaculture and livestock usage as it contains different ions in various amounts. Water quality is deteriorating day by day due to biological, physical and chemical variables. The primary causes of deterioration are decomposition of municipal, domestic, industrial and agricultural wastes (Todd, 1980) and also contaminated by mixing with rains and floods which wash down some agrochemicals into rivers, canals and ponds. If these elements exceed the acceptable limit, it becomes harmful to fish cultivation. But the water toxicity varied from season to season. In most of the cases, macro and micro nutrients were higher in the winter season than those during the monsoon season (Mitra & Gupta, 1999). There are about 1.3 million pond in Bangladesh covering about 147 000 ha area which can be converted to potential mini reservoirs for irrigation water or fish cultivation through planned excavation and utilization.
The quality of water is of prime importance, because the chemical constituents of water determine its quality as well as its utilization for irrigation, industrial and domestic usages. All water contains varying amounts of different soluble cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+ etc.) and anions (Cl-, SO42-, CO32- and HCO3- etc.). Among the soluble constituents, Ca2+, Mg+, Na+, Cl-, SO42-, and HCO3- are of prime importance in judging the water quality for irrigation. Water contains certain potentially toxic ions such as Na+, Cl- etc. The concentrations of these toxic ions in irrigation water are particularly important because many crops are susceptible to even extremely low concentrations (Bohn et al., 1985). Moreover, irrigation water quality is generally judged by its total salt concentration, relative proportions of ions or sodium adsorption ratio and the contents of HCO3-, and CO32-. For this reason, some important chemical constituents of water are indispensable to assess its suitability for irrigations, drinking, livestock and industrial usages.
The area of Bauphal is 486.91 km2, bordered by Bakerganj and Bhola Sadar Upazila on the north, Dashmina and Galachipa Upazila on the south, Bhola Sadar, Burhanuddin and Lalmohan Upazila on the east and Dumki Upazila on the west. Bauphal has 14 Unions, 1 municipality, 135 Mouzas, and 147 villages with the population of 304 951. Tentulia and Lohalia are the main rivers. In Bauphal upazila, mostly surface water is used for irrigation, aquaculture and domestic farming. Besides this, the people of this locality also use surface water for their household purposes and ground water only for their drinking. For this reason, there is an urgent need to assess the chemical quality of surface water resources of this upazila. The agricultural stakeholders of Bauphal upazila mainly use surface water for irrigating their crops, aquaculture, livestock farming and industrial purposes. Considering above points in mind, the surface water of different sources (i.e., pond, river and canal) of Bauphal upazila in Patuakhali district was assessed to evaluate the chemical quality water by categorizing them on the basis of standard criteria in relation to the suitability for irrigation, aquaculture and livestock consumption.
Material and Methods
Surface water quality is evaluated by detecting the concentrations of various constituents present therein. Essentially, all water samples contain substances derived from the natural environment or human produced waste. An attempt had been taken to analyze surface water samples of Bauphal upazila of Patuakhali district in Bangladesh. The water samples included various ponds, canals and rivers of this upazila. The chemical analyses included pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) and major ionic constituents like Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, SO42-, PO42-, CO32-, HCO3- and Cl-.
Collection and Preparation of Surface Water Samples
Fifty water samples were collected from specific sources (ponds, canals, and rivers). Exactly 25 pond water samples, 19 canal water samples and 6 river water samples were randomly collected to cover most of the study area during April, 2019 following the sampling techniques as outlined by Hunt & Wilson (1986) and APHA (2005). Water samples were collected in 500 mL plastic bottles. These bottles were cleaned with dilute hydrochloric acid and then washed with tap water followed by distilled water. Before sampling, containers were again rinsed 3 to 4 times with water to be sampled. River water samples were drawn from the mid-stream and a few centimeters below the surface. The collected samples were tightly sealed immediately to avoid exposure to air. After proper marking and labeling, the water samples were carried to the Postgraduate Laboratory of Department of Agricultural Chemistry, PSTU for testing and were kept in a clean, cool and dry place. Samples were filtered through Whatman no. 1 filter paper to remove undesirable solid and suspended materials. The analyses (Table 1) were conducted as soon as possible upon arrival at the laboratory.
Table 1. Analytical methods used
Parameters Methods followed
Hydrogen ion Concentration (pH) Glass electrode pH metric methods
Electrical conductivity (EC) Electrometric methods
Calcium (Ca) and Magnesium (Mg) Complexometric method of titration
Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na) Flame emission spectrophotometric methods
Phosphorus (P) Spectrophotometry methods
Sulfur (S) Spectrophotometric methods
Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) Gravimetric method
Carbonate (CO32-) & Bicarbonate (HCO3-) Titrimetric methods
Chloride (Cl-) Argentometric titration method
Hydrogen ion concentration (pH)
pH value of water samples was determined by taking 50 mL water samples in a beaker and then placing the electrode of pH meter (Model: WTW pH 522) into water samples as mentioned by Singh et al. (1999).
Electrical conductivity (EC)
Electrical conductivity (EC) of water was measured by taking 100 mL water samples in a beaker and then immersing the electrode of conductivity meter (Model: WTW LF 521) into water sample (Ghosh et al., 1983).
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total dissolved solids (TDS) were measured by evaporating 100 mL pond water samples to dryness and then were weighed following the method as described by Chopra & Kanwar (1980).
Determination of calcium
Calcium (Ca) content of water samples were determined by EDTA titrimetric method at pH=12 in the presence of calcon indicator (Page et al., 1982; Singh et al., 1999). The calcium was estimated by the following relation: 1 mL 1M Na2EDTA = 1 mL 1M Ca = 40.08 mg Ca Determination of magnesium
The concentration of magnesium (Mg) in water samples was determined by EDTA titrimetric method at pH 10 in the presence of eriochrome black T (EBT) indicator (Page et al., 1982; Singh et al., 1999). Estimation of Mg was done by the following equation: 1 mL 1M Na2EDTA = 1 mL 1M Mg = 24.305 mg Mg Determination of potassium and sodium
The contents of potassium (K) and sodium (Na) were determined from water samples separately by flame photometric method using K and Na filters, respectively. Water samples were aspirated into a flame and the intensity of light emitted by K at 766 nm or Na at 589 nm wavelengths was directly proportional to the concentration of K+ and Na+ ions present in water samples, respectively. The percent of emissions was recorded following the method as stated by Golterman & Clymo (1971) and Ghosh et al. (1983). Determination of phosphate
The concentration of phosphate (PO42-) in water samples was determined by the spectrophotometric method as per Jackson (1958). In this method, stannous chloride was used as a reducing agent which developed a molybdenum blue complex with phosphomolybdic acid. The color intensity was measured at 660 nm wavelength with the help of a spectrophotometer (UV-vis spectrophotometer, pH instrument) within 15 minutes after the addition of stannous chloride. Determination of sulphate
Sulphate (SO42-) was determined turbidimetrically and turbidity was measured at 420 nm wavelength with the help of a spectrophotometer according to Wolf (1982) and Tandon (1995).
Determination of chloride
Chloride (Cl-) concentration of water samples was determined by the argentometric method of titration (Tandon, 1995; APHA, 2005). In neutral or slightly alkaline solution (pH = 7-10), silver chloride (AgCl) was quantitatively precipitated before red silver chromate (Ag2CrO4) was formed. The reaction takes place are as follows: AgNO3 + MCl = AgCl + MNO3 [where, M is any cation] K2&O4 + 2AgNO3 = Ag2CrO4^ (Brick red ppt.) + 2KNO3 Determination of carbonate and bicarbonate
Carbonate (CO32-) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) content of water samples were determined by acidimetric method of titration using phenolphthalein and methyl orange indicator, respectively. The reactions taking place are mentioned below:
H2SO4 + CO32- = 2HCO3- + SO42-
H2SO4 + HCO3- = H2O + CO2 + SO42-
The CO32- and HCO3- were determined titrimetrically by taking 10 mL water samples following the method as described by Ghosh et al. (1983) and Tandon (1995).
Evaluation of water quality parameters
Water quality evaluation is very important for drinking, irrigation, livestock and poultry consumption, aquaculture, industrial uses, recreation, transportation, domestic and other purposes. Physical properties such as color, turbidity taste, odor, temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, salinity etc. indicate the quality of water. Evaluation of water quality helps to detect the degree of water pollution. The following parameters
were considered to evaluate the freshwater toxicity or pollution.
SAR -_^_
_ ^/Ca2+ +Mg2 + 2
Ni+K+
Soluble sodium percentage, SSP = ——-——7—- x 100
Hardness, Ht = 2.5 x Ca2+ + 4.1 x Mg2+
Residual sodium carbonate, RSC = (CO32- + HCO3-) - (Ca2+ + Mg2+)
There, ions were expressed as meL-1 for all cases but in case of hardness, ions were expressed as mgL-1.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analyses of the analytical results obtained from water samples were performed (Gomez & Gomez, 1984). Correlation studies were also done following the MS Excel 13.
Results and Discussion
pH of water
The pH value of surface water samples collected from the study area ranged from 6.02 to 7.6 with the mean value of 6.68 (Table 2, 3 and 4). Most of the samples were slightly acidic and 94% samples were below pH 7.0. The lowest (6.02) and highest (7.6) pH were found in samples no. 44 and 10, respectively. These results were quite dissimilar to Nizam et al. (2010) where pH ranged from 6.10 to 6.90 in surface water of Dumki and Halim (2009) where the results varied from 7.60 to 8.34 during dry season and 7.22 to 8.12 during wet season in Trisal upazila. There was a symmetry found in the surface water with respect to pH. Similar findings were also reported by Sen et al. (2000).
According to Ayers & Westcot (1985), the acceptable pH range for irrigation water is from 6.0 to 8.4. The measured pH of all surface water samples did not exceed this acceptable range, so these water samples were suitable for successful crop production. On the basis of water quality standards for aquaculture, the recommended pH value ranges from 6.5 to 8.0 (Table 8 according to Meade, 1989). That's why, all samples were suitable for aquaculture. The recommended pH value of standard water quality for livestock consumption ranges from 5.1 to 9.0 (Beede, 2005), so these water samples were appropriate for livestock consumption and also suitable for dairy and laundry industries.
Table 2. pH, EC, TDS, Ca, Mg, Na and K status of river water
Sample No. Source of water pH EC (^Scm-1) TDS (mgL-1) Ca (mgL-1) Mg (mgL-1) Na (mgL-1) K (mgL-1)
1 River 6.82 370 236.8 16.03 10.33 30.05 5.36
2 River 6.73 360 230.4 24.05 11.54 29.22 5.36
3 River 6.85 350 224 32.06 9.72 29.22 5.36
4 River 6.74 420 268.8 72.14 12.15 35.65 6.01
5 River 6.63 430 275.2 32.06 11.54 36.89 6.23
6 River 6.67 420 268.8 40.08 39.5 35.44 6.16
Min 6.63 350 224 16.03 9.72 29.22 5.36
Max 6.85 430 275.2 72.14 39.5 36.89 6.23
Mean 6.74 391.7 250.7 36.07 15.80 32.75 5.75
SD 0.08 35.45 22.69 19.47 11.65 3.61 0.43
CV (%) 1.25 9.05 9.05 53.98 73.73 11.01 7.47
Note: SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance.
Table 3. pH, EC, TDS, Ca, Mg, Na and K status of canal water
Sample No. Source of water pH EC (^Scm-1) TDS (mgL-1) Ca (mgL-1) Mg (mgL-1) Na (mgL-1) K (mgL-1)
7 Canal 6.66 370 236.8 32.06 44.97 29.22 3.43
8 Canal 6.59 370 236.8 32.06 41.92 29.02 3.65
9 Canal 6.78 360 230.4 64.13 80.81 29.22 3.86
10 Canal 7.6 350 224 40.08 43.75 28.19 3.69
11 Canal 6.9 400 256 32.06 38.89 32.96 4.43
12 Canal 6.84 390 249.6 40.08 40.1 32.96 4.38
13 Canal 6.73 410 262.4 32.06 41.32 33.99 4.43
14 Canal 6.95 370 236.8 24.05 40.71 29.43 3.56
15 Canal 6.87 370 236.8 32.06 36.46 29.85 3.52
16 Canal 6.82 470 300.8 40.08 43.14 41.25 6.20
17 Canal 6.6 470 300.8 24.05 46.79 41.25 6.25
18 Canal 6.95 440 281.6 40.08 42.53 35.24 4.64
19 Canal 7.08 440 281.6 24.05 44.96 36.06 4.60
20 Canal 7.36 400 256 40.08 49.22 32.96 4.17
21 Canal 6.84 410 262.4 32.06 41.32 31.92 4.21
22 Canal 6.87 380 243.2 24.05 43.14 31.30 3.78
23 Canal 6.91 380 243.2 40.08 40.71 32.13 3.78
24 Canal 6.67 350 224 40.08 41.32 24.04 4.43
25 Canal 6.65 430 275.2 32.06 45.57 31.09 5.16
Min 6.59 350 224 24.05 36.46 24.04 3.43
Max 7.60 470 300.8 64.13 80.81 41.25 6.25
Mean 6.88 397.89 254.65 35.02 44.61 32.21 4.32
SD 0.25 37.35 23.91 9.34 9.24 4.21 0.81
CV (%) 3.67 9.39 9.39 26.66 20.71 13.06 18.78
Note: SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance.
Table 4. pH, EC, TDS, Ca, M
g, Na and K status of pond water
Sample No. Source of water pH EC (^Scm-1) TDS (mgL-1) Ca (mgL-1) Mg (mgL-1) Na (mgL-1) K (mgL-1)
26 Pond 6.67 330 211.2 32.06 55.9 25.29 9.36
27 Pond 6.43 420 268.8 24.05 40.1 19.48 16.06
28 Pond 6.74 340 217.6 32.06 42.53 21.35 6.81
29 Pond 6.99 340 217.6 24.05 45.57 21.35 6.81
30 Pond 6.61 140 89.6 48.10 16.41 16.17 5.55
31 Pond 6.54 180 115.2 24.05 30.99 8.08 8.76
32 Pond 6.45 150 96 40.08 20.66 11.19 6.29
33 Pond 6.58 440 281.6 32.06 29.16 33.37 15.21
End of the Table 4
34 Pond 6.49 420 268.8 40.08 43.14 28.60 5.16
35 Pond 6.69 500 320 32.06 51.65 34.82 8.45
36 Pond 6.31 350 224 32.06 34.02 17.20 12.48
37 Pond 6.44 260 166.4 24.05 29.16 15.34 8.11
38 Pond 6.56 330 211.2 48.10 34.03 20.93 10.06
39 Pond 6.53 450 288 40.08 26.13 48.29 9.88
40 Pond 6.66 420 268.8 40.08 34.63 39.59 7.46
41 Pond 6.49 360 230.4 32.06 29.78 27.15 4.86
42 Pond 6.57 240 153.6 24.05 31.6 12.23 4.99
43 Pond 6.61 300 192 40.08 32.81 23.21 3.86
44 Pond 6.02 150 96 48.10 17.01 9.12 3.82
45 Pond 6.41 310 198.4 24.05 20.05 35.65 7.93
46 Pond 6.71 340 217.6 32.06 32.81 22.80 8.54
47 Pond 6.38 580 371.2 48.10 41.92 33.78 13.65
48 Pond 6.31 140 89.6 24.05 17.62 20.52 4.99
49 Pond 6.63 370 236.8 40.08 44.96 21.14 4.34
50 Pond 6.27 380 243.2 32.06 24.91 18.86 5.51
Min 6.02 140 89.6 24.05 16.41 8.08 3.82
Max 6.99 580 371.2 48.10 55.90 48.29 16.06
Mean 6.52 329.6 210.94 34.31 33.10 23.42 7.96
SD 0.19 115.78 74.1 8.51 10.70 9.89 3.43
CV (%) 2.91 35.13 35.13 24.80 32.32 42.21 43.07
Note: SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance.
Electrical conductivity (EC) of water
The EC of collected water samples were found within the range of 140 to 580 ^Scm-1 with the average of 363 ^Scm-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4). The SD and CV% were 91.37 and 25.17%. About 42% samples were below the mean value and 58% of samples were above the mean value. Maximum and minimum EC values were recorded in pond water (samples no. 47 and 48) as shown in Table 4. The highest value of electrical conductivity may be due to high concentration of ionic constituents present in the water bodies. These results are lower than those from the study conducted by Nizam et al. (2010) who pointed out the EC value of 219.0 to 748.0 ^Scm-1 in Dumki upazila and have little similarity with the report of Halim (2009) who found EC as 348 to 497 ^Scm-1 and 255 to 387 ^Scm-1 in dry and wet season, respectively.
On the basis of EC, the irrigation water was classified into four group such as low salinity (EC = 0-250 ^Scm-1), medium salinity (EC = 250-750 ^Scm-1), high salinity (EC = 750-2250 ^Scm-1) and very high salinity (EC > 2250 ^Scm-1) following Richards (1968). The results indicated that only 6 samples were classified as low salinity (EC < 250 ^Scm-1, C1) and the rest of the 44 samples were classified as medium salinity (EC = 250 to 750 ^Scm-1, C2) as illustrated in Fig. Surface water of low salinity class could be used for irrigation purposes without harmful impacts on soils and surface water of medium salinity could safely be used for moderate salt tolerance crops growing on soils with moderate level of permeability and leaching. High EC reflected the higher amount of salt concentration which had an effect on irrigation water quality related to salinity hazard (Agarwal et al., 1982).
100 2 3 4 J й 7 8 1000 2 3 4 5000
Salinity tuxud
Fig. Diagram for classification of surface and ground waters (Richard, 1968).
Total dissolved solids (TDS) of water
The amount of TDS in water samples ranged from 89.6 to 371.2 mgL-1 with the mean value of 232.32 mgL-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4). About 42% samples (21 samples) were less than the mean value and 58% samples (29 samples) were higher than the mean value. The calculated SD and CV (%) were 58.47 and 25.17%, respectively. Maximum TDS value (371.2 mgL-1) was recorded in pond water (sample no 47) and minimum TDS value (89.6 mgL-1) was also observed in pond water (sample no 48). Sufficient qualities of bicarbonates (HCO3-), sulphates (SO42-) and chloride (Cl-) of Ca, Mg and Na are responsible for high TDS value (Karanth, 1994). More or less similar results were found by Nizam et al. (2010), where TDS ranged from 140.16 to 478.72 mgL-1. According to Freeze & Cherry (1979), water samples having TDS less than 1000 mgL-1 were graded as fresh water (Table 5). This water would not affect the osmotic pressure of soil solution and cell sap of the plants when applied to soil as irrigation water. For aquaculture, all water samples were suitable because water containing less than 400 mgL-1 TDS might not be problematic (Table 8 according to Meade, 1989). As TDS value over 3000 mgL-1 is harmful for livestock consumption, all the samples were appropriate for livestock consumption (Table 6 according to Adams & Sharpe, 1995).
Table 5. Water classification as per TDS (Freeze & Cherry, 1979)
Water class Total Dissolved Solids (mgL-1)
Fresh water 0-1000
Brackish water 1000-10 000
Saline water 10 000-100 000
Brine water >100 000
Calcium contents in water
The concentration of Ca in surface water samples under the study varied from 16.03 to 72.14 mgL-1 with an average value of 34.79 mgL-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4). About 60% samples (30 samples) were below the average value and 40% samples (20 samples) were above the average value. The calculated SD and CV% were 10.32 and 29.66%, respectively. The highest value (72.14 mgL-1) was observed in Tentulia river water (sample no 4) and the lowest value (16.03 mgL-1) was found in Lohalia river water (sample no. 1). Presence of higher Ca content in some samples might be due to the solubility of CaCO3, CaSO4 and CaCl2 etc. Almost 60% of the results were similar to the findings of Nizam et al. (2010) which varied from 16.5 to 34.62 mgL-1.
Irrigation water containing less than 20 meL-1 (400.8 mgL-1) Ca is suitable for irrigating agricultural crops (Ayers & Westcot, 1985). All water samples of the current study could safely be used for irrigation. Almost 100% of the samples were found suitable for aquaculture, where the acceptable limit of Ca is 4 to 160 mgL-1 (0.102-4.08 meL-1) as mentioned by Meade (1989) in Table 8. According to Adams & Sharpe (1995) (Table 6), 0 to 43 mgL-1 is the appropriate range of Ca for livestock consumption. Results showing that almost 88% samples were suitable for livestock consumption.
Magnesium contents in water
Magnesium (Mg) concentration in surface water samples varied from 9.72 to 80.81 mgL-1 with an average value of 35.4 mgL-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4). About 44% samples (22 samples) were below the mean value and the remaining 56% samples (28 samples) were above the mean value. The calculated SD and CV% were 13.56 and 38.31% respectively. The highest Mg content (80.81 mgL-1) was recorded in canal water (sample no. 9) and the lowest content (9.72 mgL-1) was observed in Tentulia river water (sample no 3). The higher Mg content in some water samples might be due to dumping of waste products into the water, applying fertilizers in the crop field and from cattle feed. These results carried high Mg content comparatively than the results reported by Akter et al. (2019) in Muktagacha ranging from 0.80 to 2.53 meL-1 (9.72-30.74 mgL-1) and Nizam (2010) in Dumki ranging from 9.61 to 32.77 mgL-1. For drinking purpose, the highest desirable limit of Mg in water is 30 mgL-1 and maximum permissible limit is 150 mgL-1 (Table 7 according to WHO, 1971). According to WHO (1971), all collected water samples were suitable for drinking.
The specified concentration of Mg in water samples used for aquaculture is less than 15 mgL-1. Only 5 samples were found suitable and the rest of the samples were not suitable for aquaculture. Less than 125 mgL-1 concentration of Mg is suitable for livestock consumption. So, it can be said that all the samples of Mg were suitable for livestock consumption.
Sodium contents in water Sodium (Na) content of surface water samples varied from 8.08 to 48.29 mgL-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4) with a mean value of 27.88 mgL-1. About 36% samples (18 samples) were less than the mean value and 64% samples (32 samples) were higher than the mean value. The calculated SD and CV% were 8.72 and 31.27%, respectively. The highest value (48.29 mgL-1) and the lowest value (8.08 mgL-1) was recorded in pond water
(sample no. 39) and (sample no. 31). The main causes of higher Na content in surface water could be the presence of evaporated sediments, sewage and wastes, using soaps and detergents etc. The values of Na content were higher than the surface water samples of Dumki upazila, where the range was from 6.66 to 20 mgL-1 (Nizam et al., 2010) and also higher than Fakir et al. (2006) in Bera and Santhia under Pabna district where Na ranged from 0.20 to 1.28 meL-1 (4.6 to 29.44 mgL-1) in dry season.
Water samples containing less than 40 meL-1 (920 mgL-1) Na content is not harmful for long-term irrigation (Ayers & Westcot, 1985). Na content of all surface water samples under test were far below this specific limit. The acceptable Na content in water samples for aquaculture is 75 mgL-1 (Table 8 according to Meade, 1989), so none of these samples of surface water were suitable. For livestock consumption, less than 20 mgL-1 Na content is not harmful. Based on this limit, 9 samples were suitable for livestock consumption and the rest of the samples were unsuitable.
Table 6. Average, expected and possible problem concentrations of analyses in drinking water for
ivestock (adapted from Adams & Sharpe, 1995)
Measurement Average1 Expectedb Possible problemsc
pH for cows 7.0 6.8-7.5 Under 5.1 or over 9.0
pH for veal calves 6.0-6.4
.......parts per million (p pm, or mgL-1)........
Total dissolved solids 368 500 or less over 3000
Total alkalinity 141 0-400 over 5000
Carbon dioxide 46 0-50
Chloride 20 0-250
Sulfate 36 0-250 over 2000
Fluoride 0.23 0-1.2 over 2.4 (mottling)
Phosphate 1.4 0-1.0
Total hardness 208 0-180
Calcium 60 0-43 over 500
Magnesium 14 0-29 over 125
Sodium 22 0--3 over 20 for veal calves
Iron 0.8 0--0.3 over 0.3 (taste, veal)
Manganese 0.3 0—0.05 over 0.05 (taste)
Copper 0.1 0-0.6 over 0.6 to 1.0
Silica 8.7 0--10
Potassium 9.1 0-20
Arsenic -- 0.05 over 0.20
Cadmium -- 0--0.01 over 0.05
Chromium -- 0-0.05
Mercury -- 0-0.005 over 0.01
Lead -- 0-0.05 over 0.10
Nitrate as NO3d 34 0-44 over 100
Nitrite as NO2 0.28 0-0.33 over 4.0-10.0
Hydrogen sulfide -- 0—2 over 0.1 (smell of rotten eggs, taste)
Barium -- 0-1 over 10 (health)
Zinc -- 0—5 over 25
Molybdenum -- 0-0.068
Total bacteria/100 ml 336,300 under 200 over 1 million
Total coliform/100 ml 933 Less than 1 over 1 for calves; over 15-50 for cows
Fecal coliform/100 mle -- Less than 1 over 1 for calves; over 10 for cows
Fecal streptococcus/100 ml -- Less than 1 over 3 for calves; over 30 for cows
Note: 1For most measurements, averages are from about 350 samples; most samples are taken from water supplies in farms with suspected animal health or production problems. b Based primarily on criteria for water acceptable for human consumption. c Based primarily on research literature and field experiences. d Should not be consumed by human infants if over 44 ppm NO3 or 10 ppm NO3-N.
e If pollution is from human wastes, fecal coliform should exceed fecal streptococcus by several times. If pollution is from an animal source, strep should exceed coliform in refrigerated samples analyzed soon after sampling.
Table 7. Standards for chemical quality of drinking water (WHO, 1971)
Chemical Highest desirable Maximum permissible
pH 7.0-8.5 6.5-9.2
Ht as CaCO3 (mgL-1) 100 500
TDS (mgL-1) 500 1500
Calcium (mgL-1) 0.75 200
Magnesium (mgL-1) < 30 if SÜ4 is 250 mgL-1 up to 150 mgL-1 if SO4 is < 250 mgL-1 150
Copper (mgL-1) 0.05 1.5
Zinc (mgL-1) 5.0 15.0
Chloride (mgL-1) 200 600
Sulphate (mgL-1) 200 600
Nitrate (mgL-1) -- 45*
Potassium contents in water
Potassium (K) status of the water samples ranged from 3.43 to 16.06 mgL-1 with the mean value of 6.06 mgL-1 (Table 2, 3 and 4). About 64% samples (32 samples) were observed having less than the mean value and 36% samples (18 samples) were higher than the mean value. The calculated SD and CV% were 3.12 and 51.42% respectively. The highest concentration of K (16.06 mgL-1) was detected in pond water sample (sample no 27) and the lowest K content (3.43 mgL-1) was in river water samples (sample no 1, 2 and 3). The presence of high K content in surface water might be due to the surface runoff of agricultural wastes, farm refuses, untreated sewage sludge etc. The K contents of these samples were higher than the observation of Nizam et al. (2010) detecting comparatively lower amounts of K (0.10 to 1.50 mgL-1).
The acceptable K content for aquaculture is less than 5.00 mgL-1 according to Meade (1989) in Table 8, so 28 samples were suitable and the rest of the samples were not suitable. As the expected range of K content for livestock consumption is 0-20 mgL-1, all the samples of surface water were suitable for livestock consumption.
Table 8. Water Quality Standards for Aquaculture (Meade, 1989)
Element Symbol Recommended limit (mgL-1)
pH 6.5 to 8.0
TDS < 400
Arsenic As < 0.05
Calcium Ca 4-160
Chlorine Cl < 0.003
Copper Cu Alkalinity < 100 mgL-1 0.006 Alkalinity > 100 mgL-1 0.03
End of the Table 8
Hardness Ht 10-400
Iron Fe < 0.01
Magnesium Mg < 15
Manganese Mn < 0.01
Potassium K < 5
Sodium Na 75
Zinc Zn < 0.005
Sulphate contents in water
The status of SO42- in the collected surface water samples varied from 2.74 to 13.11 mgL-1 with the mean value of 8.67 mgL-1 (Table 9, 10 and 11). About 44% samples (22 samples) were below the mean value and 56% samples (28 samples) were above the mean value. The SD and CV% were 3.51 and 40.47%, respectively. The lowest SO42- content (2.74 mgL-1) was found in the pond water (sample no 42) and the highest (13.11 mgL-1) was in the canal water (sample no 25). The higher amounts of SO42- in some samples were mainly due to the presence of sulfur reducing bacteria in water, which chemically change natural sulphates in water to hydrogen sulphide. Similar result was also observed by Zaman et al. (2001).
Table 9. SO42-, PO43-, Cl-, НСОз- and CO32- status of river water
Sample No. Source of water SO42- (mgL-1) PO43-(mgL-1) Cl-(mgL-1) HCÜ3-(mgL-1) CO32-(mgL-1)
i River 12.63 ND 85.2 305 ND
2 River 12.63 ND 71 213.5 ND
3 River 12.22 ND 56.8 244 ND
4 River 12.59 ND 92.3 183 ND
5 River 12.93 ND 78.1 244 ND
6 River 11.96 ND 85.2 213.5 ND
Min 11.96 56.8 183
Max 12.93 92.30 305
Mean 12.49 78.10 233.83
SD 0.34 12.70 41.67
CV (%) 2.75 16.26 17.82
Note: ND = Not detectable (< 0.0001mgL-1), SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance
Table 10. SO42-, PO43-, Cl HCO3- and CO32- status of canal water
Sample No. Source of water SO42-(mgL-1) PO43-(mgL-1) Cl-(mgL-1) HCO3- (mgL-1) CO32-(mgL-1)
7 Canal 10.85 ND 63.9 305.0 ND
S Canal 11.19 ND 63.9 244.0 ND
9 Canal 11.63 ND 71 457.5 ND
10 Canal 10.78 ND 99.4 335.5 ND
ii Canal 10.67 ND 142 183.0 ND
12 Canal 10.89 ND 56.8 213.5 ND
13 Canal 11.52 ND 71 335.5 ND
14 Canal 10.59 ND 63.9 427.0 ND
15 Canal 11.04 ND 63.9 305.0 ND
16 Canal 11.67 ND 21.3 366.0 ND
17 Canal 11.48 ND 85.2 335.5 ND
iS Canal 11.37 ND 71 274.5 ND
19 Canal 11.67 ND 120.7 427.0 ND
20 Canal 10.89 ND 49.7 457.5 ND
End of the Table 10
21 Canal 10.74 ND 78.1 152.5 ND
22 Canal 11.19 ND 56.8 335.5 ND
23 Canal 11.33 ND 85.2 427.0 ND
24 Canal 11.63 0.05 63.9 335.5 ND
25 Canal 13.11 ND 63.9 427.0 ND
Min 10.59 0.05 21.30 152.50
Max 13.11 0.05 142.00 457.50
Mean 11.27 0.05 73.24 333.89
SD 0.58 26.15 91.20
CV (%) 5.10 35.70 27.31
Note: ND = Not detectable (< 0.0001mgL-1), SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance.
Table 11. SÜ42-, PO43-, Cl-, HCO3- and CO32- status of pond water
Sample No. Source of water SÜ42-(mgL"1) PÜ43"(mgL-1) Cl-(mgL-1) HCO3- (mgL-1) CÜ32(mgL-1)
26 Pond 5.81 ND 42.6 366.0 ND
27 Pond 5.78 0.49 56.8 244.0 ND
28 Pond 7.74 ND 21.3 305.0 ND
29 Pond 7.37 ND 42.6 396.5 ND
30 Pond 3.48 ND 21.3 183.0 ND
31 Pond 3.67 ND 28.4 213.5 ND
32 Pond 3.67 ND 28.4 152.5 ND
33 Pond 7.96 2.07 63.9 213.5 ND
34 Pond 9.44 0.45 56.8 244.0 ND
35 Pond 3.70 0.09 71 305.0 ND
36 Pond 2.81 0.08 49.7 213.5 ND
37 Pond 3.70 0.02 49.7 305.0 ND
38 Pond 3.85 0.12 63.9 244.0 ND
39 Pond 6.37 0.16 78.1 122.0 ND
40 Pond 4.30 ND 28.4 244.0 ND
41 Pond 4.07 0.01 14.2 213.5 ND
42 Pond 2.74 ND 28.4 274.5 ND
43 Pond 4.33 ND 42.6 213.5 ND
44 Pond 4.81 0.10 35.5 152.5 ND
45 Pond 3.85 0.18 49.7 213.5 ND
46 Pond 4.96 ND 42.6 183.0 ND
47 Pond 12.85 0.17 142 244.0 ND
48 Pond 8.78 ND 21.3 152.5 ND
49 Pond 10.93 0.04 49.7 274.5 ND
50 Pond 7.26 0.08 56.8 244.0 ND
Min 2.74 0.01 14.20 122.00
Max 12.85 2.07 142.00 396.50
Mean 5.77 0.29 47.43 236.68
SD 2.66 0.53 25.90 65.46
CV (%) 46.08 184.42 54.62 27.66
Note: ND = Not detectable (< 0.0001mgL-1), SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance.
According to Ayers & Westcot (1985), the acceptable limit of SO42- in irrigation water is less than 20 mgL-1. On the basis of this limit, all of these surface water samples under investigation were found suitable for irrigation. All the collected water samples were also suitable for aquaculture because SO42- content did not exceed the recommended limit (< 50 mgL-1). These samples were also suitable for livestock consumption because the expected range of SO42- is 0-25 mgL-1.
Phosphate contents in water
Among the 50 water samples, 15 samples responded to PO43- presence and the concentration varied from 0.01 to 2.07 mgL-1 with an average of 0.27 mgL-1 (Table 9, 10 and 11). The calculated SD and CV% were 0.52 and 189.37%, respectively. The highest PO43- content (2.07 mgL-1) was in the pond water (sample no. 33) and the lowest (0.01 mgL-1) was also in the pond water (sample no. 41). This PO43- range was similar to results found by Akter et al. (2019) in Gouripur and Muktagacha upazila (0.16 to 2.51 mgL-1). The acceptable limit of PO43- for irrigation and aquaculture is 2.0 mgL-1 (Table 8 according to Meade, 1989). On the basis of PO43- content, only one sample was suitable and the rest of the samples were unsuitable for aquaculture and irrigation. The expected range of PO43- content for livestock consumption is 0-1 mgL-1, therefore, 14 samples were suitable and the rest of the samples were not suitable.
Chloride contents in water
Chloride (Cl-) concentration of surface water samples ranged from 14.2 to 142 mgL-1 with the mean value of 60.9 mgL-1 (Table 9, 10 and 11). About 44% samples (22 samples) were lower than the mean value and about 56% samples (28 samples) were higher than the mean value. The calculated SD and CV% were 28 and 46%, respectively. The highest Cl- content (142 mgL-1) was observed in both canal and pond water (sample no. 11, 47) and lowest content (14.2 mgL-1) was observed in pond water (sample no. 41). Mostly similar result was found by Akter et al. (2019) where Cl-ranged from 0.09 to 3.90 meL-1 (3.19 to 138.3 mgL-1). Goel (2006) reported that Cl-concentration in water varied from 0-142 mgL-1 is classified as "excellent to good" for irrigation, 142-355 mgL-1 as "good to injurious" and suitable only with permissible soil with moderate leaching and may be harmful to sensitive crops and >350 mgL-1 as "unfit" for irrigation. On the basis of this classification, all of the surface water samples could be classified as "excellent to good" for irrigation. Expected range of concentration of Cl- for livestock consumption is 0-250 mgL-1, all the surface water samples were suitable.
Bicarbonate contents in water
The results (Table 9, 10 and 11) showed that the concentration of bicarbonate (HCO3-) in the collected water samples ranged from 122 to 457.5 mgL-1 with the mean value of 273.3 mgL-1. About 54% samples (27 samples) were below the mean value and about 46% samples (23 samples) were above the mean value. The calculated SD and CV% were 87.4 and 31.96%, respectively. The highest value of HCO3- ion (457.5 mgL-1) was observed in both canal and pond water (sample no. 9 and 20) and the lowest value (122 mgL-1) was obtained in pond water (sample no. 39). The presence of high HCO3- content in some samples might be due to applying limestone into the surface water, air and soil pollution, surface runoff, dumping of industrial waste products into the water and applying fertilizer and insecticides on crop fields. These results were nearly similar to Nizam et al. (2010) (128.10 to 305.00 mgL-1).
All of the samples were not suitable for irrigation as the recommended maximum concentration of HCO3- as irrigation water used on soil is 91.5 mgL-1 (Ayers & Westcot, 1985). The recommended concentration of HCO3- for aquaculture is
50.0-300.0 mgL-1 (0.81-4.90 meL-1) (Boyd, 1998). Depending on HCO3- content, 30 surface water samples were suitable for aquaculture and the rest of the samples were unsuitable.
Carbonate contents in water
Detectable amounts of carbonate (CO32-) were not present in the collected surface water samples (Table 9, 10 and 11). Similar results were also found by Akter et al. (2019) and Nizam et al. (2010).
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of water
The calculated SAR obtained from the chemical analyses of 50 surface water samples varied from 1.54 to 8.39 with the average of 4.80 (Table 13). The SD and CV were 1.62 and 33.82% respectively. The highest SAR (8.39) and the lowest (1.54) both were found in pond water (Table 13). These results were higher than the findings of Akter et al. (2019) in Muktagacha upazila (0.18 to 0.55).
On the basis of SAR, Todd (1980) categorized irrigation water into 4 groups as shown in Table 12. Water having SAR < 10 belongs to "excellent" class and SAR>10 but <18 belongs to "good" class. Considering this classification, 100% of the samples were "excellent" for irrigation. The present investigation expressed that a good proportion of Ca and Mg existed in waters which were suitable for good structure and the condition of soil and also the improvement of soil permeability. The irrigation water with SAR less than 10 might not be harmful for agricultural crops (Table 12 according to Todd, 1980). All the water samples used for irrigation were also classified on the basis of alkalinity hazard as cited diagrammatically in Fig. According to this classification, all the samples were rated as low hazard (S1) class. On the basis of salinity hazard, 12% samples were in low salinity (C1) class and the rest of 88% were in medium salinity (C2) class for irrigation as per SAR value (Table 13).
Table 12. Classification of water on the basis of SAR (Todd,1980)
Water class Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
Excellent < 10
Good 10-18
Fair 18-26
Poor > 26
Table 13. Quality rating and suitability of surface water used for irrigation
SAR SSP RSC Ht
Sample Source Alkalinity
No. of water Ratio Class % Class meL-1 Class mgL-1 Class and Salinity
1 River 8.28 Ex 55.95 Per 12.12 Us 82.43 MH C2S1
2 River 6.93 Ex 47.85 Per 7.74 Us 107.43 MH C2S1
3 River 6.39 Ex 43.87 Per 8.80 Us 120.01 MH C2S1
4 River 5.49 Ex 31.89 Good 4.29 Us 230.18 Hard C2S1
5 River 7.90 Ex 48.37 Per 8.72 Us 127.47 MH C2S1
6 River 5.62 Ex 33.09 Good 5.83 Us 262.15 Hard C2S1
7 Canal 4.71 Ex 29.77 Good 9.92 Us 264.54 Hard C2S1
8 Canal 4.77 Ex 30.63 Good 7.40 Us 252.03 Hard C2S1
9 Canal 3.43 Ex 18.59 Ex 13.60 Us 491.64 VH C2S1
10 Canal 4.35 Ex 27.55 Good 10.95 Us 279.58 Hard C2S1
End of the Table 13
11 Canal 5.53 Ex 34.51 Good 4.87 Us 239.61 Hard C2S1
12 Canal 5.20 Ex 31.77 Good 5.80 Us 264.61 Hard C2S1
13 Canal 5.61 Ex 34.36 Good 11.40 Us 249.57 Hard C2S1
14 Canal 5.17 Ex 33.75 Good 15.76 Us 227.03 Hard C2S1
15 Canal 5.10 Ex 32.75 Good 10.29 Us 229.65 Hard C2S1
16 Canal 6.39 Ex 36.31 Good 12.30 Us 277.07 Hard C2S1
17 Canal 6.93 Ex 40.13 Per 11.51 Us 251.96 Hard C2S1
18 Canal 5.48 Ex 32.56 Good 8.35 Us 274.57 Hard C2S1
19 Canal 6.14 Ex 37.08 Good 15.57 Us 244.46 Hard C2S1
20 Canal 4.93 Ex 29.36 Good 16.02 Us 302.00 VH C2S1
21 Canal 5.27 Ex 32.99 Good 3.44 Us 249.57 Hard C2S1
22 Canal 5.40 Ex 34.30 Good 11.67 Us 236.99 Hard C2S1
23 Canal 5.05 Ex 30.77 Good 15.06 Us 267.11 Hard C2S1
24 Canal 3.77 Ex 25.91 Good 11.05 Us 269.61 Hard C2S1
25 Canal 4.99 Ex 31.83 Good 15.20 Us 267.00 Hard C2S1
26 Pond 3.81 Ex 28.26 Good 12.09 Us 309.35 VH C2S1
27 Pond 3.44 Ex 35.65 Good 7.82 Us 224.53 Hard C2S1
28 Pond 3.50 Ex 27.40 Good 10.02 Us 254.53 Hard C2S1
29 Pond 3.62 Ex 28.80 Good 14.22 Us 246.96 Hard C2S1
30 Pond 2.85 Ex 25.19 Good 5.15 Us 187.52 Hard C1S1
31 Pond 1.54 Ex 23.43 Good 6.89 Us 187.18 Hard C1S1
32 Pond 2.03 Ex 22.35 Good 3.99 Us 184.91 Hard C1S1
33 Pond 6.03 Ex 44.24 Per 6.62 Us 199.72 Hard C2S1
34 Pond 4.43 Ex 28.86 Good 6.99 Us 277.07 Hard C2S1
35 Pond 5.38 Ex 34.08 Good 9.63 Us 291.93 Hard C2S1
36 Pond 2.99 Ex 31.00 Good 6.41 Us 219.64 Hard C2S1
37 Pond 2.97 Ex 30.59 Good 10.95 Us 179.68 Hard C2S1
38 Pond 3.27 Ex 27.40 Good 7.04 Us 259.76 Hard C2S1
39 Pond 8.39 Ex 46.77 Per 2.43 Mar 207.33 Hard C2S1
40 Pond 6.48 Ex 38.64 Good 7.36 Us 242.18 Hard C2S1
41 Pond 4.88 Ex 34.11 Good 6.60 Us 202.26 Hard C2S1
42 Pond 2.32 Ex 23.63 Good 9.52 Us 189.68 Hard C1S1
43 Pond 3.85 Ex 27.09 Good 6.12 Us 234.72 Hard C2S1
44 Pond 1.60 Ex 16.58 Ex 3.80 Us 189.98 Hard C1S1
45 Pond 7.59 Ex 49.71 Per 7.37 Us 142.33 MH C2S1
46 Pond 4.00 Ex 32.57 Good 5.14 Us 214.68 Hard C2S1
47 Pond 5.04 Ex 34.51 Good 6.70 Us 292.11 Hard C2S1
48 Pond 4.50 Ex 37.97 Good 4.82 Us 132.36 MH C1S1
49 Pond 3.24 Ex 23.06 Good 8.24 Us 284.54 Hard C2S1
50 Pond 3.53 Ex 29.96 Good 8.14 Us 182.29 Hard C2S1
Min 1.54 16.58 2.43 82.43
Max 8.39 55.95 16.02 491.64
Mean 4.80 32.96 8.83 232.11
SD 1.62 7.92 3.54 64.51
CV (%) 33.82 24.03 40.11 27.79
Note: Suit = Suitable; Ex = Excellent; Us = Unsuitable; Mar = Marginal; Per = Permissible; VH = Very hard; MH = Moderate hard; C1 = Low salinity; C2 = Medium salinity; S1 = Low alkalinity, SD = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of Variance. *Classification was based Table 8, 6, 5, 16 and 15.
Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) of water
The SSP value of the surface waters ranged from 16.58 to 55.95% with the mean value of32.96% (Table 13). The SD and CV% were 7.92 and 24.03%, respectively. The highest SSP value (55.95%) was found in river water (sample no. 1) and the lowest (16.58%) was observed in pond water (sample no. 44) as it is shown in Table 13. Akter
et al. (2019) found SSP ranged from 9.11 to 31.28% and Nizam (2010) found SSP varied from 6.55 to 35.20%.
According to the classification of Wilcox (1955) shown in Table 14, two surface water samples were in "excellent" class (SSP < 20%), 40 samples were in "good" class (SSP = 20-40%), and the remaining 8 samples were in "permissible" class (SSP = 40-60%) shown in (Table 13, Table 14). The surface waters might be applied for irrigating agricultural crops.
Table 14. Water classification on the basis of EC and SSP (Wilcox, 1955)
Water Class Electrical Conductivity (^Scm-1) % Sodium
Excellent < 250 < 20
Good 250-750 20-40
Permissible 750-2000 40-60
Doubtful 2000-3000 60-80
Unsuitable > 3000 > 80
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) of water
The RSC values of surface water fluctuated between 2.43 to 16.02 meL-1 having the mean value of 8.83 meL-1. The SD and CV% were 3.54 and 40.11%, respectively. The RSC value of 21 water samples were above the mean value and the rest 29 samples were below the mean. The maximum RSC value (16.02 meL-1) was detected in canal water (sample no. 20), and the minimum RSC value (2.43 meL-1) was observed in pond water (sample no. 39) as it is shown in Table 13. According to the classification of Eaton (1950), only 1 water sample was rated as "marginal" (RSC = 1.25-2.50 meL-1) and the rest 49 samples were considered as "unsuitable" (RSC > 2.50 meL-1) for irrigation (Table 13, Table 15).
Table 15. Water Classification according to RSC (Ghosh et. al, 1983)
Water Suitability Residual Sodium Carbonate (meL-1)
Suitable < 1.25
Marginal 1.25-2.50
Unsuitable > 2.50
Total hardness (Ht) of water
The HT of surface waters ranged from 82.43 to 491.64 mgL-1 with an average of 232.11 mgL-1. The respective SD and CV% were 64.51 and 27.79%, respectively. Total 31 water samples had the Ht value above the mean and the rest 19 samples were below the mean. The highest Ht value (491.64 mgL-1) was observed in canal water (sample no. 9) and the lowest (82.43 mgL-1) was found in river water (sample no. 1) (Table 13). These results were slightly similar to Akter et al. (2019) as found 112.72 to 266.54 mgL-1. Based on Ht, irrigation water was classified as "soft" (0-75 mgL-1), "moderately hard" (75-150 mgL-1), "hard" (150-300 mgL-1) and "very hard" (> 300 mgL-1) (Sawyer & McCarty, 1967) as it is shown in Table 16. According to their classification, 5 samples were "moderately hard", 41 samples were "hard" and the rest 6 samples were "very hard" (Table 13). The higher values of Ht indicated the presence
of higher amounts of Mg (Karanth, 1994). Hardness of water samples resulted due to the abundance of divalent cations like Ca2+ and Mg2+ (Todd, 1980).
Table 16. Classification of water on the basis of hardness (Ht) (Sawyer & McCarty, 1967)
Water class Hardness (mgL-1)
Soft 0-75
Moderately Hard 75-150
Hard 150-300
Very Hard >300
Water Quality for Dairy industry
The importance of water to the dairy cow is an essential. Water deficiency or poor-quality water can restrict the growth and production of milk in dairy cattle and endanger their health. Normal rumen function, high feed intake, digestion, and nutrient absorption are all encouraged by an ample supply of clean water. Water also maintains blood volume, supplies tissue needs, and makes up about 87% of the milk secreted by the cow. According to Swistock (2016), the water samples of rivers, canals and ponds were suitable for dairy cows but have slightly lower pH that might not create possible problems (Table 17).
Table 17. Water quality requirements for dairy cattle
Item River (average) Canal (average) Pond (average) According to Swistock (2016)
Expected Possible Cattle Problems
pH 6.74 6.88 6.52 6.8-7.5 Under 5.5; over 9
TDS (mgL-1) 250 254 210 500 or less Over 3000
Sulfate (mgL-1) 12.5 11 6 0-250 Over 2000
Calcium (mgL-1) 36 35 34 0-43 Over 500
Magnesium (mgL-1) 16 45 33 0-29 Over 125
Water Quality for Laundry industry
The water quality affects the choice of laundry products. Water pH is a measure of the relative alkalinity or acidity of the water supply. The problem of mineral deposition in the fabrics, which can entrap soils, is expected to be less problematic with a lower pH. Water having pH more than 8, usually has high TDS and/or bicarbonate alkalinity problems associated with it. A measurement of all the minerals in the water supply is called TDS. High TDS can exacerbate issues with soil redeposition, graying, and soil loss. High-quality rinse aids and detergents with good water conditioning can help with the wash and rinse in areas with high TDS. The main components of water hardness (lime scale) are Ca and Mg contents. Water hardness will become insoluble and adhere to surfaces in places having heat, cold, or alkalinity. Heat and alkalinity are present in a washing machine; thus, hard water can be problematic. A break or built-in detergent with good water conditioning capabilities is required where the water hardness is high. This will allow for chelation or sequestration of the hardness, which means that the hardness is held in suspension and prevented from depositing onto the fabric. Poor water conditioning ability of the break or built detergent can lead to mineral build ups on fabric. This can cause graying of the fabric, odors in the fabric,
scale buildups on the laundry machine, and an increased usage of products to get good results. Water softeners are often installed in laundry operations to remove the water hardness. Chlorides are salts that can cause corrosion of metal parts in the laundry machine. High levels of Cl- are usually caused by water softener malfunctions or contamination of the freshwater supply with sea water. Other than that, Cl- contents usually do not result in an issue for laundry. Numerous sulfates are diuretics by nature. As a result, adult diapers and pads may get more stained, which may lead to an increase in incontinence in hospitals and nursing homes. On average, a person typically begins to experience the laxative action when the SO42- level exceeds 600 mgL-1. Sulfates in water exceeding 200 mgL-1 usually give it a bitter flavor. Natural inactive alkalinity found in the water supply is called bicarbonate alkalinity. Minerals are absorbed by the water supply as it filters through the earth and into the water table. HCO3- tend to raise the pH of the water supply and can cause mineral build ups in the fabric that cause staining or lead to a rough feel. Except HCO3-, all of the parameters of water samples are acceptable for the laundry industry and shown in Table 18. HCO3- are not removed by using a water softener. High HCO3- alkalinity (above 200 mgL-1) compels the separation of the sour/soft into a sour and a softener. This allows for additional sour to be used without increasing the amount of softener. Use of excessive softener can cause water proofing of the fabric (Gerba et al., 1995).
Table 18. Water quality parameters for laundry
Constituents Standard value
River (average) Canal (average) Pond (average) (US Chemical Standard, 1962)
pH 6.74 6.88 6.52 6 to 8
(mgL-1) (mgL-1) (mgL-1) (mgL-1)
TDS 250.67 254.65 210.94 < 500
Sulphate 12.49 11.27 5.77 < 200
Calcium 36.07 35.02 34.31 0 to 120
Magnesium 15.80 44.61 33.10 0 to 120
Chloride 78.10 73.24 47.43 < 50
Bicarbonate 233.83 333.89 236.68 < 200
Ht 155.95 270.45 221.49 70
Water Quality for Confectionary industry
All the collected water samples (Table 19) exceed the recommended value of USEPA (1975). High TDS and HT values are responsible for the defect of confectionary products.
Table 19. Water quality parameters ^ for confectionary
Constituents River (average) Canal Pond Recommended value
(average) (average) (USEPA, 1975)
TDS 250.67 (mgL-1) 254.65 (mgL-1) 210.94 (mgL-1) 50 to 100 (mgL-1)
Ht 155.95 (mgL-1) 270.45 (mgL-1) 221.49 (mgL-1) 70 (mgL-1)
Conclusions
From the present investigation, it can be concluded that all the collected surface water samples would not create problems for irrigation. But in some water samples
HCO3- ions would exhibit as pollutants for irrigation. It may be suggested that, canal waters should be treated to remove the pollutants before the use of water for specific purposes. Surface water samples under test would not create problems for aquaculture considering most of the parameters. But Mg and K contents in most of the samples were problematic for aquaculture. So, for the culture and capture of fish, Mg and K contents should be taken under consideration. Regarding this aspect, appropriate sustainable technology should be established for the treatment of polluted river and canal waters in the investigated area.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to their respective institutions for their help.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
References
Adams R.S., Sharpe, W.E. 1995. Water Intake and Quality for Dairy Cattle. The Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension: Bulletin DAS. P. 8-95. http://www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/dairy/nutrition/pdf/water.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2021.
Agarwal R.R., Yadav J.S.P., Gupta R.N. 1982. Saline and Alkali Soils of India. New Delhi-11000 // Indian Council of Agricultural Research. P. 223-228.
Akter T., Ghosh S.R., Sarker S.C., Rahman M.M., Nabi K.M.E. 2019. Quantitative Assessment of Ionic Status of Pond Water for Irrigation and Aquaculture Usage in The Selected Sites of Mymensingh Areas, Bangladesh // Research in Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. Vol. 6(2). P.301-313.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21th edition, AWWA and WEF, Washington, USA. 8 p.
Ayers R.S., Westcot D.W. 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture // FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. Vol. 29. P. 1-144.
Beede D.K. 2005. Assessment of Water Quality and Nutrition for Dairy Cattle // Proceedings of the Mid-South Ruminant Nutrition Conference. Arlington, TX, USA. P. 1-20.
Bohn H.L., McNeal B.L., O'Connor G.A. (Eds.). 1985. Soil Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 322 p.
Boyd C.E. 1998. Water Quality for Pond Aquaculture // Research and Development. Series No. 43. International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments: Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 37 p.
Chopra S.L., Kanwar J.S. 1980. Analytical Chemistry. Ludhiana, New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers. P. 148-289.
Dara S.S. (7th Eds.). 2007. A Textbook of Environmental Chemistry and Pollution Control. Ram Nagar, New Delhi, India: Chand S and Company Ltd. P. 44-75.
Eaton F.M. 1950. Significance of Carbonation Irrigation Waters // Soil Science. Vol. 67. P. 12-133.
Fakir M.A.H., Rahman M.M., Zaman M.W. 2006. Seasonal Variation of Surface Water Toxicity for Agricultural Usage // Bangladesh Journal of Progressive Science and Technology. Vol. 4. P. 51-56.
Freeze A.R., Cherry J.A. 1979. Groundwater. England Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. 07632. P. 84-387.
Gerba C.P., Straub T.M., Rose J.B., Karpiscak M.M., Foster K.E., Brittain R.G. 1995. Water Quality of Greywater Treatment System // Water Research. Vol. 31(1). P. 109-116.
Ghosh A.B., Bajaj J.C., Hasan R., Singh D. 1983. Soil and Water Testing Methods // A Laboratory Manual. New Delhi, India: Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, IARI. 48 p.
Goel P.K. (2nd Eds). 2006. In: Water Pollution Causes Effects and Control. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers. P. 44-53.
Golterman H.L., Clymo R.S. 1971. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Fresh Waters. Oxford and Edinburgh, England: IBP Handbook. No. 8. Blackwell Scientific Publications. P. 41-46.
Gomez K.A., Gomez A.A. (2nd Eds.). 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York, USA: A Wiley-Interscience Publication. P. 442-443.
Halim M.A. 2009. Seasonal Variation of Pond Water Quality in Selected Fish Farms of Mymensingh Area // MS Thesis. Department of Agricultural Chemistry. Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. P. 1-48.
Hunt D.T.E., Wilson A.L. (2nd Eds.). 1986. The Chemical Analysis of Water - General Principles and Techniques. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry. 683 p.
Jackson M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. NewJersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs. P. 10-144.
Karanth K.R. 1994. Ground Water Assessment Development and Management. TATA. 720 p.
Kumar G.N.P., Srinivas P., Chandra G.K., Sujatha P. 2010. Delineation of Groundwater Potential Zones Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques: A Case Study of Kurmapalli Vagu Basin In Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. Vol. 2(3). P. 70-78.
Matin M.A., Kamal R. 2010. Impact of Climate Change on The River System. The International Symposium on Environmental Degradation and Sustainable Development (ISEDSD), Dhaka, Bangladesh. P. 61-65.
Meade J.W. 1989. Aquaculture Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 175 p.
Mitra A., Gupta, S.K. 1999. Effect of Sewage Water Irrigation on Essential Plant Nutrient and Pollutant Element Status in Vegetable Growing Areas around Calcutta // Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. Vol. 47. P. 99-105.
Nizam M.U., Shariful I.M., Islam M.S. 2010. Quality Assessment of Surface Water Resources of Dumki Upazila in Bangladesh for Irrigation, Aquaculture and Livestock Consumption // Journal of Agroforestry & Environment. Vol. 4. P. 81-84.
Page A.L., Miller R.H., Keeney D.R. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2 // Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy. Soil Science Society of America. 1159 p.
Sawyer C.N., McCarty P.L. (2nd. Eds.). 1967. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers. New York: McGraw Hill. 518 p.
Sen R., Rahman M.M., Zaman M.W. 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water Quality or Irrigation in Some Selected Sites of Tongi in Gazipur District. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 25. P. 593-601.
Singh D., Chhonker P.K., Pandey R.N. 1999. Soil Plants Water Analysis: Avenods Manual. New Delhi, India: Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). P. 72-86.
Swistock B. 2016. Interpreting Drinking Water Tests for Dairy Cows. Pennsylvania State University. P. 1-5.
Tandon H.L.S. 1995. In: Methods of Analysis of Soils, Plants, Waters and Fertilizers. New Delhi, India: Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization. P. 84-90.
Todd D.K. (2nd Eds.). 1980. In: Groundwater Hydrology. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc. P. 267-315.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1975. Federal Register. Vol. 40(248). P. 59555-59588.
US Chemical Standard. 1962. In: Understanding the Institutional Laundry Environment and Laundry Product Selection. P. 1-19.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1971. International Standards for Drinking Water // Ground Water Assessment Development and Management. P. 248-249.
Wilcox L.V. 1955. Classification and Use of Irrigation Water. Washington, USA: U.S Depart. of Agric. Cir. No. 969. 19 p.
Wolf B. 1982. A Comprehensive System of Leaf Analysis and Its Use for Diagnostic Crop Nutrient Status // Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Vol. 13(12). P. 1044-1045.
Zaman M.W., Nizam M.U., Rahman M.M. 2001. Arsenic and Trace Element Toxicity in Groundwater for Agricultural, Drinking and Industrial Usage // Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 26(2). P. 167-177.
ХИМИЧЕСКОЕ СОСТОЯНИЕ ПОВЕРХНОСТНЫХ ВОД ДЛЯ ОРОШЕНИЯ, АКВАКУЛЬТУРЫ, ПОТРЕБЛЕНИЯ ЖИВОТНЫХ И ПРОМЫШЛЕННОГО ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЯ В БАУФАЛ УПАЗИЛА,
ПАТУАХАЛИ, БАНГЛАДЕШ
Муххамад Нуруззаман1, Тусар Канти Рой 2, Нусрат Джахан Муму2*, Смараника Рой 3, Мухаммад Шахидул Ислам 1, Басир Ахмад2
1 Университет науки и технологий Патуакхали, Бангладеш e-mail: njaman444@gmail.com, opu9200@gmail.com Сельскохозяйственный университет Кхулна, Кхулна, Бангладеш е-mail: tusar_kanti_achem@kau.edu.bd, *nusratmumu.ss@kau.edu.bd, anjshmasb@gmail.com 3Корпорация сельскохозяйственного развития Бангладеш, Бангладеш e-mail: pretharoy2000@gmail.com
Вода является важным природным ресурсом во всем мире и играет решающую роль в сохранении жизней и чистоты окружающей среды. Природные воды являются универсальным растворителем и в разной степени растворяют различные типы элементов. Для каждого вида использования вода должна соответствовать определенному стандарту. Нами была проведена оценка качества поверхностных вод в Упазиле Бауфал для орошения, аквакультуры и потребления скота. Всего было отобрано пятьдесят проб (25 прудовых вод, из 19 каналов и 6 речных точек) для анализа pH, EC, TDS и ионов (Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Na+, Cl-, PO43-, SO42-, CO32- и HCO3-), чтобы выяснить их пригодность для орошения, аквакультуры и потребления скотом. Все пробы поверхностных вод были слабокислыми (pH = 6.02-6.99) по своей природе и не создавали проблем для успешного выращивания сельскохозяйственных культур, за исключением трех проб. Что касается значений TDS, все образцы были классифицированы как пресная вода (TDS < 1000 мг/л-1). На основании значения EC 6 проб были классифицированы как опасные с низкой соленостью (C1, EC < 250 мкСм-1), а 44 образца были классифицированы как опасные со средней соленостью (C2, EC = от 250 до 750 мкСм-1). В отношении значения SAR все пробы воды были классифицированы как отличные (SAR < 10), а 40 проб также были классифицированы как хорошие (SSP = от 20 до 40%) на основе SSP. По значениям RSC все пробы воды относились к категории непригодных, кроме одной пробы. По жесткости (Ht) 6 проб воды были умеренно жесткими (Ht = от 75 до 150 мг/л-1), 41 проба была жесткой (Ht = 150-300 мгл-1) и остальные 3 пробы были очень жесткими (Ht < 300 мг/л-1) в природе. Жесткость проб воды обусловлена обильным присутствием Ca и Mg. Обнаруживаемое количество карбоната в большинстве проб не обнаружено. По содержанию бикарбонатов большинство проб не подходило для орошения, аквакультуры и потребления скотом, однако по содержанию Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, S и P большинство проб поверхностных вод было подходящими. Ключевые слова: электропроводность, жесткость, остаточный карбонат Na, коэффициент адсорбции Na, процент растворимого Na, общее количество растворенных твердых веществ, качество воды
