PhD Viva presentation /PhD thesis defense/Environmental Science thesis presentation

Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Groundwater
Iron and Manganese in the Chandrapur District of
Maharashtra and their Plausible Sources
Open Viva-Voce Test of the Ph.D. Thesis
Student: Rahul Krishna Kamble
Supervisor: Dr M G Thakare
Gondwana University, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra
Tuesday the February 27, 2018

Overview
• The issue
• Problems
• Gaps in the previous studies
• Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Questions and Answers
2

Introduction
• Water is indispensible part of human life.
• Over one billion people lack access to clean
safe water worldwide (Bresline, 2007; NAS,
2009).
• In India 200 million people do not have access
to clean drinking water (Datta, 2008).
3

• Without safe drinking water near dwellings,
the health and livelihood of families can be
severely affected (MacDonald et al., 2005;
United Nations, 2000).
• Groundwater exploitation is generally
considered as the only realistic option for
meeting dispersed rural water demand
(MacDonald et al., 2005).
4

The issue
5
Chemical constituent No. of States No. of Districts (in parts)
Arsenic 10 86
Fluoride 20 276
Nitrate 21 387
Iron 24 297
(Source: http://wrmin.nic.in/writereddata/CGWB_GroundWaterDepletion.ppt, Accessed October 28, 2015)
Contamination of Groundwater in India

Problems
6
IS 10500:1983
Substance/characteristics Requirement
(Desirable limit)
Permissible limit in the absence
of alternative source
Remarks
Iron 0.3 1.0 --
IS 10500:1991
(Desirable limit)
Remarks
Iron 0.3 1.0 --
IS 10500:2004
(Desirable limit)
Remarks
Iron 0.3 1.0 --
IS 10500:2012
Substance/
characteristics
Requirement
(Desirable limit)
Permissible limit in the
absence of alternative source
Remarks
Iron 0.3 No relaxation Total concentration of manganese
(as Mn) and iron (as Fe) shall not
exceed 0.3 mg/L.
Source: IS 10500 (of various years).

7
Reference: Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 120, No. 6, 2012,
775-778.

Objectives
1. To study the distribution of groundwater iron and
manganese concentration in the Chandrapur district.
• RQ 1.1 How groundwater iron concentration is distributed in
the Chandrapur district?
• RQ 1.2 How groundwater manganese concentration is
distributed in the Chandrapur district?
• RQ 1.3 Is there any different between distribution of
groundwater iron and manganese with respect to source such
as dug well and hand pump?
• RQ 1.4 Does age of water source (Dug well and hand pumps)
has any influence on concentration of groundwater iron in
study area?
(RQ = Research Question)
8

2. To study the correlation with depth and distribution of
groundwater iron and manganese.
• RQ 2.1 How concentration of iron is correlated with depth of
water table?
• RQ 2.2 How concentration of manganese is correlated with
depth of water table?
• RQ 2.3 Is there any seasonal influence on concentration of
these heavy metals with respect to depth of water source?
• RQ 2.4 Which water source had higher concentration of these
two heavy metals?
• RQ 2.5 Is the concentration of iron in groundwater is
dependent on depth of the aquifer?
• RQ 2.6 Is the concentration of manganese in groundwater is
dependent on depth of the aquifer?
9

3. To assess impacts of seasonal variation on distribution of
groundwater iron and manganese.
• RQ 3.1 Does different seasons of a year (summer, post-
monsoon and winter) have influence on groundwater iron and
manganese concentration?
• RQ 3.2 In which season maximum and minimum
concentration of these two heavy metals was observed?
• RQ 3.3 Is there any relation between groundwater depth,
season and concentration of these two heavy metals?
• RQ 3.4 Are other water quality parameters had influence on
groundwater iron and manganese concentration?
• RQ 3.5 What is the observation on comparison of these two
heavy metals concentration with Indian Standards for drinking
water?
10

4. To assign plausible sources of iron and manganese in
groundwater.
• RQ 4.1 What can be plausible source(s) for presence of iron
concentration in groundwater?
• RQ 4.2 What can be plausible source(s) for presence of
manganese concentration in groundwater?
11

Research design
12
Groundwater contamination
Distribution of Fe and Mn w.r.t.
IS 10500:2012, WHO Mn standard
Space, time, iron, manganese
Groundwater sampling and data
collection
Findings
Discussions
Conclusions

Approach
– Literature survey.
– Identification of sampling locations.
– Water sampling from the identified locations.
– Determination of Fe and Mn conc. from
groundwater samples.
– Distribution of these metals w.r.t. various
aspects.
– Interpretation of data.
– Thesis writing.
13

Significance of study
• Seasonal distribution of groundwater Fe and Mn.
• Distribution of groundwater Fe w.r.t. IS 10500:2012.
• Distribution of groundwater Mn w.r.t. WHO standard.
• Below ground level distribution of these two heavy
metals.
• Health threat assessment by ingestion of this water.
• Plausible sources for presence of these heavy metals.
14

Literature review
• National and international studies.
• Water contaminants studies were carried out.
• Iron and manganese attracted attention in last
few years.
• Groundwater iron was studied with aesthetic
aspect.
• Selected studies with health aspects for Mn.
• Spatial and temporal distribution was lacking.
• Only some studies for plausible sources.
15

Literature review (Cont…)
International studies (Selected)
Joode et al., (2016); Kovacevik (2016); Li et al.,
(2016), Palmucci et al., (2016), Siegal et al., (2015),
Bacquart et al., (2015), Begum et al., (2015), Huang
et al., (2015); etc.
National studies (Selected)
Dwivedi and Vankar (2014); Harish Raju (2014);
Sankar et al., (2014); Savita Kumari et al., (2014);
etc. reported groundwater iron and manganese
concentrations from different study areas.
16

Literature review (Cont…)
Health based aspects
• Khan et al., (2013b) ingestion of high level of
iron causes heart diseases, diabetes, thyroid
etc.
• Huang (2003) stated hepatitis B or C infection,
malignant tumour, colorectal tumors, liver,
lung, stomach, kidney diseases etc.
• Hafeman et al., (2007) reported infants
exposed to water manganese (>0.4 mg/L) leads
to elevated mortality risk in first year of life.
17

Gaps in previous studies
•No study was carried out pertaining to groundwater
iron and manganese from the Chandrapur district.
•Spatial and temporal distribution was lacking.
•Studies with respect to IS 10500:2012 (Second
Revision) and WHO standard were not carried out.
•Plausible sources of these two heavy metals were
not reported.
18

Study area
19
Figure: Chandrapur district depicting various talukas
Reference: Satapathyet al., (2009)

20
Chandrapur dist. main source of drinking water
(Source: Census of India, 2011)

Groundwater sampling locations
21

Methodologies
22
Parameter Standard method APHA (2005),
Reference No.
Instrument particular
Colour Visual Comparison method B of 2120 NA
Temperature Mercury thermometer B of 2550 Gera, GTI, India
pH Electrometric method B of 4500-H+ Digital pH meter, Electronics India, Model 101
Conductivity Conductivity meter B of 2510 Digital conductivity meter, Electronics India, Model 601
Total dissolved solids Total dissolved solids dried at 180 oC C of 2540 Hot air oven, Navyug, India
Alkalinity Titration method B of 2320 NA
Total hardness EDTA titration method C of 2340 NA
Chloride Argentometric method B of 4500-Cl- NA
Fluoride SPANDS method D of 4500-F- Double beam UV/Visible spectrophotometer, Electronics
India, Model 1372
Sulphate Turbidimetric method E of 4500-SO4
2- Double beam UV/Visible spectrophotometer, Electronics
India, Model 1372
Phosphate Stannous Chloride method D of 4500-P Double beam UV/Visible spectrophotometer, Electronics
India, Model 1372
Iron Inductively Coupled Plasma-OES C of 3500-Fe ICP-OES, Perkin Elmer, Germany, Dv 7000
Manganese Inductively Coupled Plasma-OES C of 3500-Mn ICP-OES, Perkin Elmer, Germany, Dv 7000
NA = Not Applicable

Groundwater iron conc. (Winter)
23

Groundwater iron conc. (Summer)
24

Groundwater iron conc. (Post-monsoon)
25

Groundwater iron conc. (Average)
26

27
Ballarpur,
HP
Pethbhansouli,
HP

28
Ballarpur,
HP
Gondpipari,
HP
Dabgaon (T.),
HP

30
Pethbhansaouli,
HP
Ballarpur,
HP
Dabgaon (T.),
HP

31
Spatial and Temporal Groundwater Fe conc.
A B C

Groundwater manganese conc. (Winter)
32

Groundwater manganese conc. (Summer)
33

Groundwater manganese conc. (Post-monsoon)
34

Groundwater manganese conc. (Average)
35

36
Pethbhansaouli,
HP
Naleshwar,
HP

37
Naleshwar,
HP
Gondpipari,
HP

39
Bhisi,
HP
Naleshwar,
HP
Durgapur,
HP
Pethbhansouli,
HP

40
Spatial and Temporal Groundwater Mn conc.
A B C

Water source, season and iron, manganese conc.
41
BDL- Below Detection Limit. All values in mg/L.
Season
Groundwater source
Average concentration, mg/L
Iron Manganese
Winter
Dug Well (n = 2, 5.55%) BDL 0.002
Hand Pump (n = 34, 94.44%) 3.005 0.212
Summer
Dug Well (n = 2, 5.55%) 0.176 0.009
Hand Pump (n = 34, 94.44%) 0.763 0.062
Post-monsoon
Dug Well (n = 2, 5.55%) 0.068 0.005
Hand Pump (n = 34, 94.44%) 0.613 0.061

Iron and manganese concentration
42
Fig. Groundwater iron conc. Fig. Groundwater manganese conc.

Rainfall vs. iron and manganese conc.
43
Rainfall range 1395-1500 mm 1601-1700 mm 1701-1800 mm 1801-1917 mm
Heavy metal
Iron
Average concentration 0.356 3.142 0.790 0.464
Manganese
Average concentration 0.033 0.136 0.117 0.106
Average concentration in mg/L.

Altitude vs. iron and manganese conc.
44
Altitude
Heavy metal
Low altitude
(152-197 m asl)
Medium altitude
(198-242 m asl)
High altitude
(243-287 m asl)
Iron 1.730 0.720 4.241
Manganese 0.105 0.107 0.097
Heavy metals average concentrations are reported in mg/L.
Attitude is reported in m above sea level (asl).

Altitude and rainfall vs. iron and manganese conc.
45
Rainfall range: 1395-1500 mm as 1, 1501-1600 mm as 2, 1601-1700 mm as 3, 1701-1800 mm as 4 and 1801-1917 mm as 5.
Iron and manganese concentration are average values in that altitude class.
Low, 152-197 m asl Medium, 198-242 m asl High, 243-287 m asl
Rainfall range Sampling location Sampling location Sampling location
1 Nil 6 (24%) 1 (20%)
3 2 (33.33%) 4 (16%) 3 (60%)
4 1 (16.66%) 13 (52%) 1 (20%)
5 3 (50%) 2 (8%) Nil
n=6 (16.66%) n=25 (69.44%) n=5 (13.88%)
Fe = 1.730 mg/L
Mn = 0.105 mg/L
Fe = 0.720 mg/L
Mn = 0.107 mg/L
Fe = 4.241 mg/L
Mn = 0.097 mg/L

Combined iron and manganese conc. (Winter)
46

Combined iron and manganese conc. (Summer)
47

Combined iron and manganese conc. (Post-monsoon)
48

49
Ballarpur,
HP
Pethbhansouli,
HP

50
Ballarpur,
HP
Dabgaon (T.),
HP
Gondpipari,
HP

52
Combined iron and manganese conc.
A B C

Average iron and manganese conc. ratio
53
Average iron manganese conc.
ratio scale
Sampling location
(Percentage)
<10.00 13 (36.11%)
10.01 to 50.00 12 (33.33%)
50.01 to 100.00 5 (13.88%)
100.01 to 200.00 4 (11.11%)
200.01 to 400.00 1 (2.77%)
400.01 to 450.00 1 (2.77%)

Summary of average iron and manganese conc. ratio
54
Particular Detail
Minimum 0.86 (Chichpalli, HP)
Maximum 404.73 (Ballarpur, HP)
Average 48.58
Standard deviation (±) 78.34
Variance 6137.88
Skewness 3.15
Kurtosis 12.08

EC, pH and iron, manganese conc.
55
Season Sampling
location
Iron (mg/L) Sampling
location
Manganese (mg/L)
Max. pH EC Max. pH EC
Winter Ballarpur
(HP)
47.100 6.38 860 Naleshwar
(HP)
1.853 6.65 2360
Summer Ballarpur
(HP)
3.825 5.96 920 Naleshwar
(HP)
0.474 6.62 2340
Post-
monsoon
Visapur (HP) 4.022 6.11 770 Bhisi (HP) 0.761 6.72 1720
Season Sampling
location
Iron (mg/L) Sampling
location
Manganese (mg/L)
Min. pH EC Min. pH EC
Summer Sagra (DW) 0.164 7.20 1870 Morwa (HP) 0.003 7.04 1700
Sagra (DW) 0.003 7.28 1180
Post-
monsoon
Gunjewahi
(DW)
0.055 7.28 460 Gunjewahi
(DW)
0.002 7.28 460

pH vs. iron conc. (Post-monsoon)
58

pH vs. manganese conc. (Winter)
59

pH vs. manganese conc. (Summer)
60

pH vs. manganese conc. (Post-monsoon)
61

Iron vs. manganese conc. (Winter)
62

Iron vs. manganese conc. (Summer)
63

Iron vs. manganese conc. (Post-monsoon)
64

Distribution of well samples (Iron)
65
Iron conc. (mg/L) Shallow well (<99 ft bgl), n (%) Deep well (>100 ft bgl), n (%)
Winter Summer Post-monsoon Winter Summer Post-monsoon
<0.3 (Acceptable limit) 4 (66.66%) 3 (50%) 5 (83.33%) 12 (40%) 10 (33.33%) 18 (60%)
>0.3 (Above the
acceptable limit)
2 (33.33%) 3 (50%) 1 (16.66%) 18 (60%) 20 (66.66%) 12 (40%)
Iron conc. range above
the acceptable limit
(mg/L)
Total shallow
well samples
(n=6)
Total shallow
well samples
(n=6)
Total shallow
well samples
(n=6)
Total deep well
samples (n=30)
Total deep well
samples
(n=30)
Total deep well
samples (n=30)
0.3-1.0 Nil 2 (66.66%) 1 (100%) 8 (44.44%) 16 (80%) 7 (58.33%)
1.1-2.0 Nil Nil Nil 5 (27.77%) 2 (10%) 4 (33.33%)
2.1-3.0 Nil Nil Nil 2 (11.11%) Nil Nil
3.1-5.0 1 (50%) 1 (33.33%) Nil Nil 2 (10%) 1 (8.33%)
>5.1 1 (50%) Nil Nil 3 (16.66%) Nil Nil
Total shallow
well samples
(n=2)
Total shallow
well samples
(n=3)
Total shallow
well samples
(n=1)
Total deep well
samples (n=18)
Total deep well
samples
(n=20)
Total deep well
samples (n=12)

Distribution of well samples (Manganese)
66
Manganese conc.
(mg/L)
Shallow well (<99 ft bgl), n (%) Deep well (>100 ft bgl), n (%)
Winter Summer Post-
monsoon
Winter Summer Post-monsoon
<0.1 (Acceptable
limit)
4 (66.66%) 5 (83.33%) 5 (83.33%) 18 (60%) 24 (80%) 25 (83.33%)
>0.1 (Above the
acceptable limit)
2 (33.33%) 1 (16.66%) 1 (16.66%) 12 (40%) 6 (20%) 5 (16.66%)
Manganese conc.
range above the
acceptable limit
(mg/L)
Total shallow
well samples
(n = 6)
Total shallow
well samples
(n = 6)
Total shallow
well samples
(n = 6)
Total deep well
samples
(n = 30)
Total deep well
samples
(n = 30)
Total deep well
samples
(n = 30)
0.1-0.5 2 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 8 (66.66%) 6 (100%) 4 (80%)
0.51-1.0 Nil Nil Nil 3 (25%) Nil 1 (20%)
1.1-2.0 Nil Nil Nil 1 (8.33%) Nil Nil
Total shallow
well samples
(n = 2)
Total shallow
well sample
(n = 1)
Total shallow
well sample
(n = 1)
Total deep well samples (n
= 12)
Total deep well
samples
(n = 6)
Total deep well
samples (n = 5)

67
Water source depth vs. iron concentration
Water source
depth
(ft bgl)
Average
depth
(ft bgl)
Water sample,
n (%)
Iron conc. range (average) in mg/L
Winter Summer Post-monsoon Average
<50 feet 35 3 (8.33) BDL-0.24
(0.080)
0.164-0.439
(0.263)
0.055-0.089
(0.074)
0.139
51-100 92.66 15 (41.66) BDL-47.100
(5.398)
0.171-3.825
(0.922)
0.084-4.022
(0.841)
2.387
101-150 140 7 (19.44) BDL-2.97
(0.883)
0.200-1.134
(0.533)
0.146-1.276
(0.494)
0.636
151-200 190 8 (22.22) BDL-5.74
(1.506)
0.240-0.892
(0.471)
0.098-0.458
(0.183)
0.720
201-250 250 2 (5.55) 0.030-0.687
(0.358)
0.466-0.627
(0.546)
0.155-1.465
(0.810)
0.571
251-300 300 1 (2.77) 1.997
(1.997)
3.084
(3.084)
1.627
(1.627)
2.236
BDL = Below detection limit

Water source depth vs. iron concentration
68
a b c d

69
Water source depth vs. manganese conc.
BDL = Below detection limit
Water source
depth
(ft bgl)
Average
depth
(ft bgl)
Water sample,
n (%)
Manganese conc. range (average) in mg/L
Winter Summer Post-monsoon Average
<50 feet 35 3 (8.33) BDL-0.354
(0.119)
0.006-0.193
(0.070)
0.002-0.312
(0.107)
0.098
51-100 92.66 15 (41.66) BDL-0.972
(0.178)
0.003-0.248
(0.043)
0.003-0.125
(0.037)
0.086
101-150 140 7 (19.44) BDL-1.853
(0.367)
0.004-0.474
(0.103)
0.002-0.761
(0.125)
0.198
151-200 190 8 (22.22) BDL-0.791
(0.133)
0.005-0.201
(0.030)
0.002-0.125
(0.020)
0.061
201-250 250 2 (5.55) 0.056-0.101
(0.078)
0.016-0.062
(0.039)
0.008-0.016
(0.012)
0.043
251-300 300 1 (2.77) 0.383
(0.383)
0.149
(0.149)
0.133
(0.133)
0.221

Water source depth vs. manganese conc.
70
a b c d

Iron, manganese conc. distribution on BIS
71
Heavy
metal
Season
IS 10500:2012 Observed concentration (mg/L) Number of sampling location (%)
Acceptable
limit (mg/L)
Permissible
limit (mg/L)
Min. Mix. Average Within the
acceptable limit
Above the
permissible
limit
Iron
Winter 0.3 No
relaxation
BDL 47.100 3.522 16 (44.44%) 20 (55.55%)
Summer 0.164 3.825 0.730 13 (36.11%) 23 (63.88%)
Post-
monsoon
0.055 4.022 0.582 23 (63.88%) 13 (36.11%)
Manganese
Winter 0.1 0.3 BDL 1.853 0.257 22 (61.11%) 7 (19.44%)
Summer 0.003 0.474 0.058 29 (80.55%) 1 (2.77%)
Post-
monsoon
0.002 0.761 0.058 30 (83.33%) 2 (5.55%)
Min.- Minimum, Max. - Maximum, BDL - Below detection limit. BIS into consideration is IS 10500:2012.

Fe and Mn distribution on BIS combinations
72
Values of iron and manganese concentrations are reported in mg/L. BIS into consideration is IS 10500:2012.
0.3 mg/L is acceptable limit of iron and 0.1 mg/L is acceptable limit of manganese.
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6
Season Fe <0.3
Mn <0.1
Fe <0.3
Mn >0.1
Fe >0.3
Mn <0.1
Fe >0.3
Mn >0.1
Iron, manganese or both above the
respective acceptable limit
Number of sampling location (%)
Winter 12 (33.33%) 4 (11.11%) 10 (27.77%) 10 (27.77%) n=24, 66.65%
Summer 13 (36.11%) Nil 16 (44.44%) 7 (19.44%) n=23, 63.88%
Post-
monsoon
22 (61.11%) 1 (2.77%) 8 (22.22%) 5 (13.88%) n=14, 38.87%

Distribution of Fe and Mn with well structure (Winter)
73
Well structure Heavy metal
Observed concentration (mg/L) Acceptable
limit*
(mg/L)
Comparison with
IS 10500:2012 standard,
Fold increase
Min. Max. Average Max. Average
Shallow well
(<100 ft bgl)
(n = 18, 50%)
Fe BDL 47.100 4.511 0.3 157 15.03
Mn BDL 0.972 0.168 0.1 9.72 1.68
Deep well
(101-150 ft bgl)
(n = 7, 19.44%)
Fe BDL 2.927 0.883 0.3 9.75 2.94
Mn BDL 1.853 0.367 0.1 18.53 3.67
Very deep well
(151-300 ft bgl)
(n = 11, 30.55)
Fe BDL 5.715 1.342 0.3 19.05 4.47
Mn BDL 0.791 0.146 0.1 7.91 1.46
Min.- Minimum, Max. - Maximum, BDL- Below detection limit. *Acceptable limit of IS 10500 : 2012 for iron and manganese
respectively.

Distribution of Fe and Mn with well structure (Summer)
74
Min.- Minimum, Max. – Maximum. *Acceptable limit of IS 10500 : 2012 for iron and manganese respectively.
Well structure Heavy
metal
limit*
(mg/L)
Comparison with IS 10500:2012
standard, Fold increase
Min. Max. Average Min. Max. Average
Shallow well
(<100 ft bgl)
(n = 18, 50%)
Fe 0.164 3.825 0.812 0.3 0.54 12.75 2.70
Mn 0.003 0.248 0.048 0.1 0.03 2.48 0.48
Deep well
(101-150 ft
bgl)
(n = 7, 19.44%)
Fe 0.200 1.134 0.533 0.3 0.66 3.78 1.77
Mn 0.004 0.474 0.103 0.1 0.04 4.74 1.03
Very deep well
(151-300 ft
bgl) (n = 11,
30.55%)
Fe 0.240 3.084 0.722 0.3 0.8 10.28 2.40
Mn 0.005 0.201 0.048 0.1 0.05 2.01 0.48

Distribution of Fe and Mn with well structure (Post-monsoon)
75
Min.- Minimum, Max. – Maximum. *Acceptable limit of IS 10500 : 2012 for iron and manganese respectively.
Well structure Heavy metal
limit* (mg/L)
Comparison with IS 10500:2012
standard, Fold increase
Min. Max. Average Min. Max. Average
Shallow well
(<100 ft bgl)
(n = 18, 50%)
Fe 0.055 4.022 0.713 0.3 0.183 13.40 2.37
Mn 0.002 0.312 0.049 0.1 0.02 3.12 0.49
Deep well (101-
150 ft bgl)
(n = 7, 19.44%)
Fe 0.146 1.276 0.494 0.3 0.486 4.25 1.64
Mn 0.002 0.761 0.125 0.1 0.02 7.61 1.25
Very deep well
(151-300 ft bgl)
(n = 11, 30.55%)
Fe 0.098 1.627 0.424 0.3 0.32 5.42 1.41
Mn 0.002 0.133 0.029 0.1 0.02 1.33 0.29

Well structure vs. average iron conc.
76

Seasons vs. average iron conc.
77

Well structure vs. average manganese conc.
78

Seasons vs. average manganese conc.
79

Well characteristics and distribution of Fe and Mn conc.
80
Variable n Range Average Median
Year of installation 36 1-60 15.27 11
Water source depth (ft bgl) 36 20-300 133.19 110
Altitude (m asl) 36 152-287 211.77 214.5
Iron (mg/L)
Winter 36 BDL-47.100 3.522 0.687
Summer 36 0.164-3.825 0.730 0.400
Post-monsoon 36 0.055-4.022 0.582 0.193
Manganese (mg/L)
Winter 36 BDL-1.853 0.257 0.098
Summer 36 0.003-0.474 0.058 0.016
Post-monsoon 36 0.002-0.761 0.058 0.012

Iron conc. categorisation on WHO, JECFA, IOM
81
n - Number of sampling locations. Average values are reported in mg/L.
*WHO (2006) aesthetic cut-off and IS 10500: 2012, Acceptable limit for iron (0.3 mg/L).
†JECFA provisional maximum tolerable daily intake for iron in water (WHO 1984, 2004).
‡Per litre equivalent of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended tolerable upper intake level of 45 mg iron/day for daily iron
intake for adults (excluding iron supplements) assuming 2 L/day water consumption (Otten et al., 2006; WHO, 2006).
Iron conc. category Winter Summer Post-monsoon
n (%) Average n (%) Average n (%) Average
Minimal
0.0-<0.3* mg/L
16
(44.44%)
0.100 13
(36.11%)
0.222 23
(63.88%)
0.154
Elevated
0.3-2.0† mg/L
13
(36.11%)
0.980 20
(55.55%)
0.647 11
(30.55%)
0.880
High
>2.0-22.5‡
mg/L
6
(16.66%)
6.860 3
(8.33%)
3.485 2
(5.55%)
3.868
Very high
>22.5 mg/L
1
(2.77%)
47.100 -- -- -- --

Chronic daily intake and Hazard quotient
• Chronic daily intake (CDI) = C x DI/BW
where, C = Concentration of iron
DI = Daily intake of water in L (2 L/day)
BW = Body weight (72 kg) (Chrostowski, 1994
and USEPA, 1992).
• Hazard quotient (HQ) = CDI/RfD
RfD = Reference dose (Gerba, 2001 and USEPA,
1994)
• Hazard Indexmean = HQFe + HQMn
82

83
Heavy metal Statistics (in mg/L) CDI, mg/kg-day HQ RfD,
mg/kg-daya
Season
Iron
Winter Min BDL, Max 47.100, Average 3.52 BDL, 1.308, 0.098 BDL, 1.869, 0.14
0.7
Summer Min 0.164, Max 3.825, Average 0.73 0.005, 0.106, 0.020 0.007, 0.151, 0.028
Post-
monsoon
Min 0.055, Max 4.022, Average 0.58 0.002, 0.112, 0.016 0.003, 0.160, 0.022
Manganese
Winter Min BDL, Max 1.853, Average 0.25 BDL, 0.051, 0.007 BDL, 0.364, 0.05
0.14
Summer Min 0.003, Max 0.474, Average 0.058 0.0001, 0.0131, 0.0016 0.0007, 0.0936, 0.0114
Post-
monsoon
Min 0.002, Max 0.761, Average 0.058 0.0001, 0.0211, 0.0013 0.0007, 0.1500, 0.0092
CDI - Chronic Daily Intake, HQ - Hazard Quotient, RfD - Reference dose
Min - Minimum, Max – Maximum, BDL- Below detection limit.
aRfD (USEPA, 2005)

• CDI was below reference dose (RfD) of
respective metal.
• Health risk of ingestion of groundwater may
be negligible.
• The order of heavy metal toxicity Fe>Mn.
• Hazard Index <1.00, groundwater ingestion
confirmed as being safe.
• However, synergism effect of other metals
needs to be considered.
84

Pearson Correlation matrix (Winter)
85
Temp pH EC TDS Cl- T-Alka TH CH MH F- Fe++ Mn++
Temp 1
pH -0.2622 1
EC -0.1188 0.00589 1
TDS -0.0749 -0.0111 0.93282* 1
Cl- -0.0348 -0.1081 0.9007* 0.94202* 1
T-Alkal 0.11954 0.24711* 0.55985* 0.64072* 0.51926* 1
TH 0.06235 -0.1085 0.72376* 0.77128* 0.84045* 0.22706** 1
CH 0.193** -0.2545 0.548* 0.6086* 0.65637* 0.01784 0.8624* 1
MH -0.0468 0.02039 0.72664* 0.75586* 0.82876* 0.34362* 0.92498* 0.60532* 1
F- 0.08949 0.52377* 0.16567 0.19216 0.15556 0.49148* 0.00251 -0.1172 0.09192 1
Fe++ -0.0058 -0.4184* -0.2272 -0.211 -0.1613 -0.291* -0.1837 -0.12 -0.1987* -0.4175 1
Mn++ 0.23128** -0.2458** 0.18054 0.18154 0.31601* 0.14233 0.17557 0.31915* 0.03648 0.14179 0.08414 1
*Significant at 0.01 level; ** 0.05 level.
Temp -Temperature, EC - Electrical conductivity, TDS - Total dissolved solids, Cl- - Chloride, T-Alkal - Total alkalinity, TH - Total
hardness, CH - Calcium hardness, MH - Magnesium hardness, F- - Fluoride, Fe - Iron and Mn - Manganese.

Pearson Correlation matrix (Summer)
86
Temp 1
pH 0.00148 1
EC -0.1139 -0.0264 1
TDS -0.1208 -0.0197 0.99048* 1
Cl- -0.0739 -0.1184 0.94393* 0.95368* 1
T-Alkal -0.1269 0.40003* 0.60226* 0.61856* 0.44842* 1
TH -0.0883 -0.0886 0.87394* 0.88898* 0.92643* 0.33154* 1
CH 0.00721 -0.1591 0.79226* 0.79488* 0.7679* 0.29694* 0.86695* 1
MH -0.1328 -0.0375 0.81732* 0.83772* 0.90781* 0.31214* 0.95799* 0.6876* 1
F- 0.24911** 0.48978* 0.37581* 0.33126* 0.29204* 0.51875* 0.18013** 0.06096 0.22735** 1
Fe++ 0.21114** -0.4553* -0.0342 -0.0287 -0.0098 -0.0581 -0.0232 0.07884 -0.0791 -0.2286 1
Mn++ 0.21062** -0.1425 0.20392** 0.16858 0.20456** 0.18905 0.12745 0.30427* 0.0106 0.18477 0.24266 1

Pearson Correlation matrix (Post-monsoon)
87
Temp 1
pH -0.0415 1
EC -0.0151 0.18885 1
TDS -0.0123 0.18686 0.99984* 1
Cl- -0.0428 0.05778 0.94147* 0.93769* 1
T-Alkal 0.11602 0.56933* 0.61605* 0.61875* 0.46272* 1
TH -0.0863 0.0851 0.88044* 0.87718* 0.88788* 0.34462* 1
CH 0.04763 0.04955 0.81929* 0.81882* 0.75125* 0.29848* 0.90477* 1
MH -0.1954 0.1039 0.79094* 0.78579* 0.86621* 0.32726* 0.91808* 0.6623* 1
F- 0.20978** 0.48259* 0.25078** 0.25047** 0.17145 0.51697* 0.07112 0.01106 0.11348 1
Fe++ 0.02187 -0.5462* -0.2072 -0.2086 -0.131 -0.3775* -0.1559 -0.1613 -0.1247 -0.3374 1
Mn++ 0.04307 -0.0527 0.10996 0.11152 0.07737 0.17936 0.09664 0.18541 -0.007 0.13231 0.04001 1

Pearson’s correlation coefficient water source characteristics (Winter)
88
Altitude Age Depth Iron Manganese
Altitude 1
Age 0.17196 1
Depth 0.07183 -0.1707 1
Iron -0.0496 -0.2125** -0.2009** 1
Manganese -0.0712 -0.1438 0.03149 0.08414 1

Pearson’s correlation coefficient water source characteristics (Summer)
89
Altitude 1
Age 0.17196 1
Depth 0.07183 -0.1707 1
Iron -0.1388 -0.2129** 0.08912 1
Manganese -0.0092 -0.118 0.05821 0.24266** 1

Pearson’s correlation coefficient water source characteristics (Post-
monsoon)
90
Altitude 1
Age 0.17196 1
Depth 0.07183 -0.1707 1
Iron -0.373* -0.2392** -0.0129 1
Manganese 0.3173* -0.2686* -0.033 0.04001 1

Principle Component Analysis (Winter)
91
Compo
nent
Initial Eigen value Extraction sums of
squared loading
Rotation sums of
squared loadings
Groun
dwater
charac
teristic
Component
matrixa
Rotated
component
matrix
PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2
Total
%Varia
nce
Cumula
tive %
Total
%Vari
ance
Cumul
ative
%
Total
%Varia
nce
Cumul
ative
%
1
2.432 48.637 48.637 2.432 48.637 48.637 1.935 38.706 38.706
Fe -.248 .776 -.263 .771
2
1.264 25.271 73.908 1.264 25.271 73.908 1.760 35.202 73.908
Mn .437 .473 .428 .481
3 .683 13.662 87.570 pH -.108 -.831 -.091 -.833
4 .578 11.553 99.123 TDS .947 -.117 .949 -.098
5 .044 .877 100.000 Cl- .974 .007 .974 .026
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation. a Rotation converged in 3
iterations.

Principle Component Analysis (Summer)
92
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation. a Rotation converged in 3
iterations.
Com
pone
nt
squared loadings
Rotation sums of
squared loadings
Groundwa
ter
characteri
stics
Component
matrixa
Rotated
component
matrix
Total
%Varia
nce
Cumula
tive %
Total
%Varia
nce
Cumul
ative %
Total
%Varia
nce
Cumula
tive %
PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2
1
2.050 40.997 40.997 2.050 40.997 40.997 2.000 40.007 40.007
Fe .172 -.829 -.095 .841
2
1.537 30.749 71.746 1.537 30.749 71.746 1.587 31.740 71.746
Mn .411 -.393 .268 .502
3
.851 17.011 88.757
pH -.256 .746 -.011 -.788
4
.522 10.440 99.196
TDS .934 .297 .980 .009
5
.040 .804 100.000
Cl- .956 .227 .979 .082

Principle Component Analysis (Post-monsoon)
93
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Compo
nent
squared loadings
Rotation sums of
squared loadings
Ground
water
charact
eristics
Component
matrixa
Rotated
component
matrix
Total
%Varian
ce
Cumulat
ive %
Total
%Vari
ance
Cumul
ative
%
Total
%Vari
ance
Cumul
ative
%
PC1 PC2 PC1 PC2
1
2.103 42.057 42.057 2.103 42.057 42.057 1.952 39.036 39.036
Fe -.497 .709 -.102 -.860
2
1.429 28.588 70.645 1.429 28.588 70.645 1.580 31.610 70.645
Mn .117 .313 .251 -.221
3
.962 19.233 89.878
pH .444 -.751 .036 .872
4
.454 9.075 98.953
TDS .931 .308 .966 .169
5
.052 1.047 100.000
Cl- .882 .411 .972 .055

One way ANOVA (Iron)
94
df - Degree of freedom, F - F test, Sig. - Significant.
Heavy metal Source of variations Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Iron Between groups 114.638 2 57.319 2.501 0.087
Within groups 2406.085 105 22.915
Total 2520.72 107

One way ANOVA (Manganese)
95
df - Degree of freedom, F - F test, Sig. - Significant.
Heavy metal Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Manganese Between groups 0.485 2 0.243 4.595 0.012
Within groups 5.547 105 0.053
Total 6.032 107

Cluster analysis for iron conc. (Winter)
96

Cluster analysis for iron conc. (Summer)
97

Cluster analysis for iron conc. (Post-monsoon)
98

Cluster analysis for manganese conc. (Winter)
99

Cluster analysis for manganese conc. (Summer)
100

Cluster analysis for manganese conc. (Post-monsoon)
101

Superimposition over lithology
102

Lithology vs. pH and iron conc.
103
Min.
conc.
1 Sonegaon (HP), 7.14
0.006, Alluvium
Sagra (DW), 7.20
0.164, Cherty limestone, clay,
sandstone and conglomerate
Gunjewahi (DW), 7.28
0.055, Granitic gneisses and granite
hornblende schist, amphobolite
2 Jam Tukum (HP), 6.96
0.030, Granitic gneisses and
migmatite
Belora (HP), 7.28
Sagra (DW), 7.20
3 Telwasa (HP), 6.92
0.034, Sandstone, variegated shale
Sonegaon (HP), 7.13
0.188, Alluvium
Chikmara (HP), 7.02
Max.
conc.
1 Ballarpur (HP), 6.38
Ballarpur (HP), 5.96
Visapur (HP), 6.11
4.022, Alluvium
2 Pethbhansouli (HP), 7.13
Gondpipari (HP), 6.74
migmatite
Ballarpur (HP), 6.02
3 Visapur (HP), 6.42
11.536, Alluvium
Dabgaon (Tukum) (HP), 6.87
migmatite
Ratnapur (HP), 6.86
Min. - Minimum, Max. - Maximum, HP - Hand Pump, DW - Dug Well. Groundwater iron concentrations are reported in mg/L.
Sampling location (Water source), pH
Iron concentration in mg/L, Lithology

Lithology vs. pH and manganese conc.
104
Min. - Minimum, Max. - Maximum, HP - Hand Pump, DW - Dug Well. Groundwater manganese concentrations are reported in mg/L.
Sampling location (Water source), pH
Manganese concentration in mg/L, Lithology
Min.
conc.
1 Morwa (HP), 7.05
0.004, Sandstone, shale, pebble bed,
tillite
Morwa (HP), 7.04
0.003, Sandstone, shale, pebble bed,
tillite
Gunjewahi (DW), 7.28
2 Sagra (DW), 7.34
Dongar Haldi (HP), 6.95
migmatite
Lakhmapur (HP), 6.92
0.002, Limestone/shale with
limestone bands at places
3 Sonegaon (HP), 7.14
0.005, Alluvium
Mangali Chak (HP), 7.12
Ganpur (HP), 6.92
Max.
conc.
1 Naleshwar (HP), 6.65
migmatite
Naleshwar (HP), 6.62
migmatite
Bhisi (HP), 6.72
2 Pethbhansouli (HP), 7.13
Gondpipari (HP), 6.74
migmatite
Durgapur (HP), 6.94
3 Dongargaon (HP), 6.82
Dongargaon (HP), 6.76
Dabgaon (Tukum) (HP), 6.80
migmatite

Iron conc. in different lithology
105
n - Number of sampling locations. Groundwater iron concentration in minimum, maximum, median and average is reported in mg/L.
SD - Standard deviation. BDL - Below detection limit.
Lithology n (%) Season Minimum Maximum Median Average SD (±)
Granitic gneisses 15
(41.66%)
Winter 0.030 1.997 0.574 0.733 0.656
Summer 0.188 3.548 0.446 0.832 1.034
Post-monsoon 0.055 1.695 0.215 0.520 0.589
Sandstone 9
(25%)
Winter 0.034 47.100 1.364 9.572 17.310
Summer 0.200 3.825 0.311 0.685 1.179
Post-monsoon 0.089 3.714 0.214 0.659 1.159
Alluvium 7
(19.44%)
Winter 0.006 11.536 0.378 2.999 4.312
Summer 0.188 1.741 0.892 0.785 0.557
Post-monsoon 0.136 4.022 0.202 0.899 1.435
Limestone 3
(8.33%)
Winter 1.700 2.922 2.310 2.301 0.864
Summer 0.455 0.793 0.569 0.605 0.172
Post-monsoon 0.120 0.458 0.123 0.233 0.193
Cherty limestone, clay,
sandstone and
conglomerate
2
(5.55%)
Winter BDL BDL -- -- --
Summer 0.163 0.171 0.167 0.167 0.004
Post-monsoon 0.079 0.156 0.117 0.117 0.053

Manganese conc. in different lithology
106
n - Number of sampling locations. Groundwater manganese concentration in minimum, maximum, median and average is reported in mg/L.
SD - Standard deviation.
Lithology n (%) Season Minimum Maximum Median Average SD (±)
(41.66%)
Winter 0.010 1.853 0.143 0.318 0.656
Summer 0.004 0.474 0.018 0.078 0.128
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.761 0.016 0.082 0.192
Sandstone 9
(25%)
Winter 0.004 0.972 0.102 0.261 17.310
Summer 0.003 0.193 0.015 0.051 1.179
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.312 0.025 0.066 1.159
Alluvium 7
(19.44%)
Winter 0.006 0.363 0.122 0.153 0.165
Summer 0.005 0.113 0.009 0.030 0.039
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.022 0.006 0.008 0.006
Limestone 3
(8.33%)
Winter 0.009 0.791 0.059 0.286 0.437
Summer 0.008 0.201 0.569 0.078 0.106
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.125 0.017 0.048 0.193
Cherty limestone, clay,
sandstone and
conglomerate
2
(5.55%)
Winter 0.003 0.078 0.040 0.040 0.052
Summer 0.010 0.031 0.020 0.020 0.014
Post-monsoon 0.006 0.032 0.019 0.019 0.017

Summary statistics of iron by lithological formation
107
n - Number of sampling locations. Groundwater iron in minimum, maximum and cumulative percentiles concentrations are reported in mg/L.
BDL- Below detection limit.
Lithology n (%) Season Minimu
m, mg/L
Cumulative percentiles Maximum,
mg/L
Percentage of
samples above
the acceptable
limit (0.3 mg/L)
25th 50th 75th 95th 98th
Granitic
gneisses
15
(41.66%)
Winter 0.030 0.120 0.574 0.982 1.857 1.941 1.997 60 (n=9)
Summer 0.188 0.271 0.446 0.745 3.223 3.418 3.548 66.66 (n=10)
Post-monsoon 0.055 0.219 0.215 0.674 1.647 1.675 1.695 40 (n=6)
Sandstone 9
(25%)
Winter 0.034 0.224 1.364 9.030 37.26
4
43.166 47.100 44.44 (n=4)
Summer 0.200 0.220 0.311 0.357 2.470 3.283 3.825 55.55 (n=5)
Post-monsoon 0.089 0.166 0.214 0.498 2.485 3.222 3.714 33.33 (n=3)
Alluvium 7
(19.44%)
Winter 0.006 0.216 0.378 4.320 9.789 10.837 11.536 71.42 (n=5)
Summer 0.188 0.320 0.892 1.017 1.558 1.668 1.741 71.42 (n=5)
Post-monsoon 0.136 0.154 0.202 0.814 3.197 3.692 4.022 42.85 (n=3)
Limestone 3
(8.33%)
Winter 1.700 2.005 2.310 2.616 2.860 2.897 2.922 66.66 (n=2)
Summer 0.455 0.511 0.569 0.681 0.770 0.784 0.793 100 (n=3)
Post-monsoon 0.120 0.122 0.123 0.290 0.424 0.444 0.458 33.33 (n=1)
Cherty
limestone,
clay, sandstone
and
conglomerate
2
(5.55%)
Winter BDL -- -- -- -- -- BDL --
Summer 0.163 0.165 0.167 0.169 0.170 0.170 0.171 Nil
Post-monsoon 0.079 0.098 0.117 0.136 0.152 0.154 0.156 Nil

Summary statistics of manganese by lithological formation
108
n - Number of sampling locations. Groundwater iron in minimum, maximum
and cumulative percentiles concentrations are reported in mg/L.
Lithology n (%) Season Minimu
m, mg/L
Cumulative percentiles Maximum,
mg/L
Percentage of
samples above
the acceptable
limit (0.1
mg/L)
25th 50th 75th 95th 98th
Granitic
gneisses
15
(41.66%)
Winter 0.010 0.070 0.143 0.305 1.126 1.562 1.853 46.66 (n=7)
Summer 0.004 0.008 0.018 0.075 0.315 0.410 0.474 20 (n=3)
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.004 0.016 0.062 0.321 0.584 0.761 20 (n=3)
Sandstone 9
(25%)
Winter 0.004 0.056 0.102 0.317 0.786 0.898 0.972 44.44 (n=4)
Summer 0.003 0.007 0.015 0.064 0.171 0.184 0.193 22.22 (n=2)
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.005 0.025 0.086 0.236 0.281 0.312 22.22 (n=2)
Alluvium 7
(19.44%)
Winter 0.005 0.029 0.122 0.247 0.340 0.353 0.363 28.57 (n=2)
Summer 0.006 0.008 0.009 0.033 0.094 0.105 0.113 14.28 (n=1)
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.011 0.019 0.021 0.022 Nil
Limestone 3
(8.33%)
Winter 0.009 0.043 0.059 0.425 0.717 0.761 0.791 33.33 (n=1)
Summer 0.008 0.016 0.025 0.113 0.183 0.194 0.201 33.33 (n=1)
Post-monsoon 0.002 0.009 0.017 0.071 0.114 0.120 0.125 33.33 (n=1)
Cherty
limestone,
clay,
sandstone and
conglomerate
2
(5.55%)
Winter 0.003 0.022 0.040 0.059 0.074 0.076 0.078 Nil
Summer 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.029 0.030 0.031 Nil
Post-monsoon 0.006 0.013 0.019 0.025 0.030 0.031 0.032 Nil

Samples above the acceptable limit (Iron) in different lithology
109

Samples above the acceptable limit (Manganese) in different lithology
110

Spearman’s rho rank-correlation coefficients by lithological group
111
Lithology n (%) Season Spearman’s correlation
coefficient for
iron and manganese
Significant
(2-tailed)
(41.66%)
Winter 0.628* 0.012
Summer 0.650** 0.009
Post-monsoon 0.657** 0.008
Sandstone 9
(25%)
Winter 0.084 0.830
Summer 0.017 0.966
Post-monsoon -0.067 0.865
Alluvium 7
(19.44%)
Winter 0.741 0.057
Summer 0.714 0.071
Post-monsoon 0.607 0.148
Limestone 3
(8.33%)
Winter -0.500 0.667
Summer -1.000** -
Post-monsoon 0.500 0.667
Cherty limestone,
clay, sandstone
and conglomerate
2
(5.55%)
Winter - -
Summer 1.00** -
Post-monsoon 1.00** -
**Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
n - Number of sampling locations.

Conclusions
1. Spatial and temporal unsymmetrical
distribution of Fe and Mn conc. was observed.
2. Elevated iron conc. were observed at selected
sampling locations (e.g. Ballarpur, HP).
3. Average Fe and Mn conc. had influence of
water source type (dug well/hand pump).
4. Hand pump samples had more Fe and Mn
conc. as compared with dug well samples.
5. Fe conc. above IS std. was
summer>winter>post-monsoon.
113

Conclusions (Cont…)
6. Groundwater pH (acidic) influences Fe and
Mn conc. (maximum concentration).
7. Depth wise distribution of Fe and Mn conc.
was observed.
8. Well structure (Shallow, deep and very deep)
had influence on Fe and Mn conc.
distribution.
9. Fe and Mn conc. above the acceptable limits
of IS 10500:2012 was observed which too
had influence of seasons on it.
114

10.Age, altitude and depth (in general) of water
source had no correlation (r) with Fe and Mn
conc.
11.Rainfall contributes in distribution of Fe and
Mn conc.
12.Higher (243-287 m asl) and lower (152-197
m asl) altitude had elevated Fe conc.
13.Altitude and rainfall together contribute to
distribution of Fe; however, Mn does not get
affected by these.
115

14.In some sampling locations Mn conc. was
more than Fe conc. (e.g. Naleshwar, HP).
15.Mn conc. above WHO previous standard (0.4
mg/L) was observed in natural aquatic
environment.
16.At a given time in a well probability of both
the metals above the acceptable limit of
IS10500:2012 can be possible.
17.TDS and Cl- had seasonal influence on Fe and
Mn conc.
116

18.No correlation (r) was observed between Fe
and Mn conc. in aquatic environment.
19.Inhabitants were under no immediate or
remote health threat from ingestion of this
groundwater.
20.Fe and Mn conc. were from geogenic in
origin.
21.Major contributors for Fe conc. can be
sandstone>granitic gneisses>alluvium and for
Mn, granitic gneisses>sandstone=limestone.
117

Future studies
1. An extended investigation for other heavy
metals.
2. Health effects of groundwater Mn on school
children needs to be ascertain.
3. Does this elevated groundwater Fe had
contribution to blood iron level in women.
4. Attempt should be carried out for presence of
groundwater arsenic from the study area.
5. Groundwater Fe and Mn combined removal
technology needs to be developed.
118

Contributions in subject domain
1. Groundwater source depth had influence on
Fe and Mn conc.
2. At some sampling locations Mn>Fe.
3. In a well probability of both the metals above
the acceptable limit of IS 10500:2012 can be
possible.
4. Age of water source had no influence on Fe
and Mn conc.
119

Contributions in subject domain (Cont…)
5. Groundwater pH had influence on Fe and Mn
conc.
6. TDS and Cl- had seasonal influence on Fe and
Mn conc.
7. In natural aquatic environment Mn conc. of
>0.4 mg/L was observed (previous WHO
standard).
120

Contribution in subject domain (Cont…)
8. Shallow and deep well had reported variable
concentrations within and above the acceptable
limit of IS 10500:2012.
9. Shallow well in winter season had maximum Fe
conc.; whereas, deep well in winter season had
maximum Mn conc.
10.Combined concentration of Fe and Mn above the
new ‘remark’ standard of IS 10500:2012 was
observed from number of sampling locations.
121

Implications
1. For setting up of future policies w.r.t.
construction of dug wells and installation of
hand-pumps and bore-wells.
2. Findings can be useful for local and district
authorities for identifying ‘threat areas’ and
considerably ‘safe areas’.
3. To arrange an appropriate alternative source
of drinking water so as to reduce exposure of
school students to groundwater manganese.
122

Implications (Cont…)
4. Remedial technologies for removal of
groundwater iron and manganese together.
5. The water source (hand pump/dug well) can
be painted with red colour (or any other
suitable colour) as a mark of indication.
6. Future human settlement and development by
Town Planning Department.
7. Due importance to be given by Public Health
Department.
123

Recommendations
1. Inhabitants should be made aware of the
presence of these heavy metals.
2. Special indication mark in the form of colour
coding (colour painting) should be carried out
so as to identify these water sources.
3. Cost effective, environment friendly and easy
to adopt iron and manganese removal
technology (together) needs to be developed.
124

Recommendations (Cont…)
4. Future planning for groundwater extraction
source identification needs to be carried out
by taking into consideration water source
depth (ft bgl) and water source type (dug
well/hand pump).
5. Geology of the area needs to be given due
attention for future development of
settlements and extraction of groundwater.
125

Limitations
1. Only two heavy metals were studied.
2. Health impacts especially on children was not
assessed.
3. Combined removal technology for iron and
manganese was not attempted.
126

Publications
1. Kamble, R.K. and Thakare, M.G. Spatial distribution of
groundwater iron and manganese in Chandrapur district,
Central India. Gurukul International Multidisciplinary
Research Journal, 2016, IV (VI): 182-192 (Impact Factor
2.254).
2. Kamble, R.K. and Thakare, M.G. Spatio-Temporal
distribution of groundwater iron in Chandrapur district,
Central India. Gurukul International Multidisciplinary
Research Journal, 2016, III (VI): 253-266 (Impact Factor
2.254).
groundwater manganese in Chandrapur district, Central
India. SPM Students Research Magazine, 2016, 5 (1): 7-39.
127

Publications (Cont…)
iron in groundwater of Chandrapur district, Central India.
SPM Students Research Magazine, 2015, 4 (1): 51-66.
5. Kamble, R.K. and Thakare, M.G. Status and role of
manganese in the environment. International Journal of
Environment, 2014, 3 (3): 222-234.
6. Kamble, R.K., Thakare, M.G., Iron in the environment.
Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 2013, 33 (11),
881-888.
128

References (From this presentation)
Bacquart, T., Frisbie, S., Mitchell, E., Grigg, L., Cole, C., Small, C., & Sarkar, B. (2015). Multiple inorganic
toxic substances containing the groundwater of Myingyan township, Myanmar: Arsenic, manganese,
fluoride, iron and uranium. Science of the Total Environment, 517, 232-245.
Begum, S., Shah, M.T., Muhammad, S., & Khan, S. (2015). Role of mafic and ultramafic rocks in drinking
water quality and its potential health risk assessment, northern Pakistan. Journal of Water and Health,
13(4), 1130-1142.
Bresline, E. (2007). Sustainable water supply in developing countries. Geological Society of America. Paper No.
194-1.
Datta, P.S. (2008). Water-A key driving force. Noida: Vigyan Prasar.
Dwivedi, A.K., & Vankar, P.S. (2014). Source identification study of heavy metal contamination in the industrial
hub of Unnao, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186, 3531-3539.
Harish Raju, M. (2014). Studies on ground water quality in Vrishabhavathi river basin. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Kuvempu University.
Huang, B., Li, Z., Chen, Z., Chen, G., Zhang, C., Huang, J.,... Zeng, G. (2015). Study and health risk assessment
of the occurrence of iron and manganese in groundwater at the terminal of the Xiangjiang river.
Environmental Science Pollution Research International, 22(24), 19912-19921.
Joode, W., Barbeau, B., Bouchard, M.F., Mora, A.M., Skytt, A., Cordoba, L.,... Mergler, D. (2016). Manganese
concentration in drinking water from villages near banana plantation with aerial mancozeb spraying in
Costa Rica: Results from the Infants’ Environmental Health Study (ISA). Environmental Pollution, 215,
247-257.
Kovacevik, B., Boev, B., Panova, V.Z., & Mitrev, S. (2016). Groundwater quality in alluvial and prolluvial areas
under the influenced of irrigated agricultural activities. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part
A Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 51(14), 1197-1204.
129

References (From this presentation) (Cont…)
Li, T., Li, L., Song, H., Meng, L., Zhang, S., & Huang, G. (2016). Evaluation of groundwater pollution in a
mining area using analytical solution: A case study of the Yimin open-pit mine in China. Springerplus, 5,
392.
MacDonald, A., Davies, J. Calow, R., & Chilton, J. (2005). Developing groundwater: A guide to rural water
supply. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing Ltd. pp. 358. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/9781780441290
(Accessed July 12, 2015).
NAS. (2008). National Academy of Science: Overview-safe drinking water is essential. http://www.drinking-
water.org/html/en/overview/cost.html (Accessed December 15, 2014).
Palmucci, W., Rusi, S., & Di Curzio, D. (2016). Mobilisation process responsible for iron and manganese
concentration of groundwater in central Adriatic Italy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
International, 23(12), 11790-11805.
Sankar, M.S., Vega, M.A., Defoe, P.P., Kibria, M.G., Ford, S., Telfeyan, K.,...Datta, S. (2014). Elevated arsenic
and manganese in groundwater of Murshidabad, West Bengal, India. Science of the Total Environment, 488-
489, 570-579.
Savita Kumari, Singh, A.K., Verma, A.K., & Yaduvanshi, N.P.S. (2014). Assessment and spatial distribution of
groundwater quality in industrial area of Ghaziabad, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186,
501-514.
Siegel, D.I., Smith, B., Perry, E., Bothun, R., & Hollingsworth, M. (2015). Pre-drilling water quality data of
groundwater prior to Shale gas drilling in the Appalachian basin: Analysis of the Chesapeake Energy
Corporation dataset. Applied Geochemistry, 63, 37-57.
United Nations. (2000). Millennium Development Goals on Water. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (Accessed January 12, 2016).
130

Acknowledgements
• Hon’ble Shri Shantaramji Potdukhe Sir
• Hon’ble Dr N V Kalyankar Sir
• Hon’ble Prof G Ramakrishna Naidu Sir
• Other Respected Referees (Madam/Sir)
• Hon’ble Dr V S Ainchwar Sir
• Late Dr J A Sheikh Sir
• Dr R P Ingole Sir
• Dr M G Thakare Sir
• Staff members of Ph.D. cell, GU, Gadchiroli
• Staff members of Sardar Patel College, Chandrapur
131

Thank you
• Mr Bhupen Burman
• Ms Kavita S Raipurkar Madam
• Mr Prafulkumar P Vaidhya
• Dr Swapnil K Gudadhe
• Ms Naznin
• Ms Priyanka
• Ms Pooja
• Ms Farin
132

My Family
• Dr Krishna M Kamble
• Late Mrs Leela K Kamble
• Mrs Pradnya R Kamble
• Mr Amit K Kamble
• Ms Shweta K Kamble
133

Thank you
134
I am still a learner…

PhD Viva presentation /PhD thesis defense/Environmental Science thesis presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PhD Viva presentation /PhD thesis defense/Environmental Science thesis presentation

Similar to PhD Viva presentation /PhD thesis defense/Environmental Science thesis presentation (20)

More from Rahul Kamble

More from Rahul Kamble (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PhD Viva presentation /PhD thesis defense/Environmental Science thesis presentation