Assessment of groundwater quality and human health risk impact on fluoride concentration: A case study of Namakkal district, South India

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1512920/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Assessment of groundwater quality and human health risk impact on fluoride concentration: A case study of Namakkal district, South India

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1512920/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study evaluates the health hazards of fluoride contamination of groundwater in the Namakkal district of south India based on the water quality index. The samples were collected during the NEM season from bore wells and analysed for major anion and cation. There is generally no smell or colour to the groundwater in the study area. The pH of the groundwater samples is acidic to alkaline in nature. Higher EC was noted at 7650 µS/cm during the NEM season. Na+ is the most abundant ion in groundwater, followed by Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, then Cl-, SO42- > HCO3-, and then F-. The majority of ions like Sodium, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Cl-, SO4-, HCO3, and F- recorded higher concentrations during NEM seasons, representing the action of leaching, dissolution, and weathering anthropogenic influences on the groundwater quality. Hill-Piper plot showed the majority of the groundwater samples fall in CaHCO3, NaCl, and Mixed CaNaHCO3, CaMgCl, with minor representations in CaCl and NaHCO3 being noted during the NEM. The Gibbs plot shows all the water samples belonging to rock dominance. The WQI value varies between 22.08 and 211.64 throughout the NEM seasons, with a mean of 78.90. According to the Water Quality Index (WQI), 26%, 33%, and 14% of water types have good, poor, and extremely poor quality, respectively. The average F- level is 1.12 mg/l and ranges from 0.27 to 0.39 mg/l. There is excessive fluoride concentration in 76 % of the groundwater samples (WHO 2011). Children, women, and men should undergo health risk assessments based on non-carcinogenic risk estimates for fluoride oral and dermal pathways. The health risk assessment for this study is that children are the most susceptible to fluoride intake. Consequently, more treatments must be initiated to appraise the water as good quality, and government organizations need to select and provide appropriate groundwater for the inhabitants.

water quality index (WQI)

fluoride risk

health hazards

Table 1. The relative weight of physicochemical parameters and WHO standards

Parameters	Units	Range	Average	WHO (2011)		Weight (wi)	Relative Weight (wi)
Parameters	Units	Range	Average	Most desirable	Not permissible	Weight (wi)	Relative Weight (wi)
pH	-	8 - 8.80	8.48	6.5 – 8.5	6.5 – 8.5	4	0.103
EC	µs/cm	570 - 7650	2002	< 1500	> 1500	4	0.026
TDS	mg/l	313 - 13504	1148.47	< 500	> 1500	5	0.064
Ca²⁺	mg/l	6 - 152	42.59	< 75	> 200	3	0.026
Mg²⁺	mg/l	28 -306	85.22	< 50	> 150	3	0.026
Na⁺	mg/l	14 - 667	209.79	< 200	> 200	3	0.077
K⁺	mg/l	3 - 47	24.67	< 10	> 10	2	0.026
HCO₃^-	mg/l	671 - 128	337.14	< 300	> 300	3	0.077
Cl^-	mg/l	39 - 2127	349.31	< 200	> 600	2	0.077
SO₄^-	mg/l	15 - 768	160.05	< 400	> 400	4	0.051
F^-	mg/l	0.27 - 2.24	1.12	< 1.5	> 1.5	5	0.128

Table 2. Physicochemical parameters for different groundwater samples in Nammakal District, Tamilnadu, India

Parameters	Min	Max	Median	SD	Average	WHO (2017)		% of Samples in Most desirable	% of Samples in Not permissible
Parameters	Min	Max	Median	SD	Average	Most desirable	Not permissible	% of Samples in Most desirable	% of Samples in Not permissible
pH	8	8.80	8.50	0.19	8.48	6.5 – 8.5	> 8.5	60	40
EC(µs/cm)	570	7650	1530	1352.43	2002	< 1500	> 1500	45	55
TDS (mg/l)	313	13504	898	751.15	1148.47	< 500	> 1500	10	90
Ca²⁺(mg/l)	6	152	33	29.41	42.59	< 75	> 200	88	12
Mg²⁺(mg/l)	28	306	63	57.32	85.22	< 50	> 150	29	71
Na⁺(mg/l)	14	667	157	145.68	209.79	< 200	> 200	60	40
K⁺(mg/l)	3	47	24.5	10.65	24.67	< 10	> 10	16	84
HCO₃^-(mg/l)	128	671	308	131.86	337.14	< 300	> 300	45	55
Cl^-(mg/l)	39	2127	220	362.81	349.31	< 200	> 600	48	52
SO₄^-(mg/l)	15	768	106	154.52	160.05	< 400	> 400	91	9
F^-(mg/l)	0.27	2.24	1.07	0.53	1.12	< 1.5	> 1.5	76	24

Table 3. Water quality classification and type of WQI value

Range (mg/l)	Type of water	No. of Samples	No. of Sample (%)
< 25	Excellent water	3	5
26 – 50	Good water	15	26
51 – 75	Poor water	19	33
76 – 100	Very poor water	8	14
> 100	Unsuitable for drinking purposes	13	22

Table 4. Calculated hazard quotient (HQ) and water quality index (WQI) results.

Sample no.	HQ for Men	HQ for women	HQ for children	WQI value	Water type
1	1.34	1.27	1.81	84.57	Very poor water
2	0.90	0.85	1.21	192.98	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
3	1.43	1.35	1.93	126.08	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
4	0.72	0.68	0.97	119.80	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
5	0.50	0.47	0.68	211.64	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
6	0.65	0.61	0.88	37.0	Good water
7	0.44	0.42	0.60	25.5	Good water
8	0.88	0.84	1.20	45.83	Good water
9	0.38	0.36	0.51	42.02	Good water
10	0.44	0.41	0.59	28.8	Good water
11	0.62	0.58	0.83	42.64	Good water
12	0.17	0.16	0.23	58.16	Poor water
13	0.33	0.32	0.45	53.28	Poor water
14	0.24	0.22	0.32	91.85	Very poor water
15	0.58	0.55	0.78	91.68	Very poor water
16	0.24	0.23	0.33	72.31	Poor water
17	1.13	1.07	1.53	69.16	Poor water
18	1.09	1.03	1.47	164.96	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
19	0.84	0.79	1.14	72.19	Poor water
20	0.72	0.68	0.97	208.85	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
21	0.54	0.51	0.73	64.53	Poor water
22	0.60	0.56	0.81	22.1	Excellent water
23	0.72	0.68	0.98	44.08	Good water
24	1.08	1.02	1.46	53.07	Poor water
25	1.18	1.12	1.59	181.57	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
26	0.51	0.48	0.68	42.06	Good water
27	0.99	0.93	1.33	48.25	Good water
28	0.50	0.47	0.68	31.4	Good water
29	0.37	0.35	0.50	63.45	Poor water
30	0.00	0.00	0.00	54.37	Poor water
31	1.02	0.96	1.38	64.09	Poor water
32	0.38	0.36	0.51	81.43	Very poor water
33	0.72	0.68	0.98	23.8	Excellent water
34	1.44	1.36	1.94	100.87	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
35	0.87	0.82	1.17	94.33	Very poor water
36	0.89	0.84	1.20	84.47	Very poor water
37	0.58	0.55	0.79	47.09	Good water
38	0.53	0.50	0.71	62.27	Poor water
39	0.29	0.28	0.40	77.62	Very poor water
40	0.97	0.92	1.32	66.88	Poor water
41	0.56	0.53	0.76	56.61	Poor water
42	0.19	0.18	0.25	82.96	Very poor water
43	0.81	0.77	1.10	144.53	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
44	1.33	1.25	1.79	41.75	Good water
45	0.47	0.45	0.64	130.67	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
46	0.34	0.32	0.46	167.41	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
47	1.31	1.24	1.78	111.84	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
48	0.22	0.21	0.29	70.48	Poor water
49	0.78	0.73	1.05	62.28	Poor water
50	0.40	0.38	0.54	40.15	Good water
51	0.53	0.50	0.71	53.56	Poor water
52	0.88	0.83	1.19	165.01	Unsuitable for drinking purposes
53	0.90	0.85	1.22	56.36	Poor water
54	0.50	0.47	0.68	61.83	Poor water
55	1.23	1.16	1.66	61.63	Poor water
56	0.78	0.73	1.05	39.6	Good water
57	1.12	1.05	1.51	41.47	Good water
58	0.59	0.56	0.80	41.08	Good water

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Assessment of groundwater quality and human health risk impact on fluoride concentration: A case study of Namakkal district, South India

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Full Text

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1