A comprehensive assessment of groundwater for seasonal variation in hydro-geochemistry, quality, contamination and human health risk from Deccan Basaltic region, Western India

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-177448/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater for seasonal variation in hydro-geochemistry, quality, contamination and human health risk from Deccan Basaltic region, Western India

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-177448/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 17 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Environmental Science and Pollution Research →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Groundwater occurrence in hard rock basaltic terrains is restricted to weathered and fractured zones and pockets wherein slow movement of groundwater, prolonged rock-water interactions and higher residence time alter the natural chemistry of groundwater raising water quality issues. The qualitative geochemical analysis, contamination levels and human health risk assessment (HHRA) of groundwater is an integral step in groundwater management in the Deccan Plateau basalt flow region of India. Representative groundwater samples (68) collected from the Shivganga River basin area during pre-monsoon (PRM) and post-monsoon (POM) seasons in 2015 were analyzed for major cations and anions. According to World Health Organization (WHO) EC, total dissolved solids, hardness, bicarbonate, calcium and magnesium surpassed the desirable limit. Boron and fluoride content exceeded the prescribed desirable limit of the WHO. The pollution and drinking suitability were assessed by computing pollution index of groundwater (PIG), groundwater quality index (GWQI), and HHRA particularly for boron and fluoride toxicity. PIG values inferred that about 6% of groundwater has moderate, 24% has low, and 70% has insignificant pollution in the PRM season; while, only 1 sample (3 %) showed high pollution, 6% showed low, and 91% showed insignificant pollution in the POM season. GWQI results indicate that 27% and 15% samples are within the poor category, and only 15% and 18% of the samples fall within the excellent water quality category in the PRM and the POM season, respectively. Total hazard index (THI) revealed that 88% of children, 59% of adults, and about 38% of infants are exposed to non-carcinogenic risk, as THI values (> 1) were noted for the PRM season; while, 62% of children, 47% of adults and 24% of infants, are vulnerable to non-carcinogenic health hazard during the POM period.

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Health Policy

Shivganga River

GWQI

PIG

HHRA

Drinking Suitability.

Groundwater is the primary source of freshwater for drinking, irrigation and industrial use in most developing nations. In India, during the last five decades of population growth and economic expansion, the groundwater-based agriculture sector contributed nearly 46% of the gross national product and played an important role in financial growth of the country (Singh 1983, CGWB 2010). Due to rapid increase in the irrigation-related agricultural activities, groundwater in many parts of the country is under severe stress and resulted depletion in groundwater quality as well as a reduction of groundwater quantity particularly in hard rock terrains (Pawar et al. 2008; Sonkamble et al. 2012; Thomas et al. 2015; Sethy et al. 2016). Therefore, sustainable use of groundwater resources and its protection are of vital importance to public health and the economy of India (Subba Rao et al. 2020) and in particular, this region of the state of Maharashtra. Generally, the chemical concentration in groundwater is influenced by natural factors including water-rock contacts, groundwater residence time and ion exchange processes. Anthropogenic factors include agricultural practices using chemicals and fertilizers, industrial waste processes, and mining activities, etc., (Subba Rao et al. 2020; Adimalla et al. 2018; Simsek and Gunduz 2007). Several researchers have investigated common pollutants in groundwater in the area such as toxic metals such as arsenic /trace elements such as fluoride and compounds such as nitrate (Subbarao et al. 2019; Gaikwad et al. 2020a). In recent years some of the pollutants like fluoride, boron and nitrate have widely impacted groundwater and cause carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic impacts on human health (Subba Rao 2017; Adimalla et al. 2019a, b; Wagh et al. 2020a; kadam et al. 2019). Human health related risk assessment (HERA) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 1980). It is used to evaluate the nature and potential undesirable effects on health of people due to drinking contaminated water (Li et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2018). Within the Indian state of Maharashtra, cities like Chandrapur, Gadchiorli, Nagpur, and Nanded, for example, are prone to fluoride problems. The possible sources of fluoride in these regions are leaching fluoride containing minerals from granitic exposures in a semi-arid condition with alkaline waters (Kadam et al. 2019; Pandith et al. 2017; Panaskar et al. 2017). Thus, it is a crucial and challenging task for water researchers to detect the origin and occurrence of fluoride and their possible health impacts for efficient groundwater resource management.

Groundwater pollution in hard and fractured rock topographies like the Deccan Plateau basalt provinces is a continuous but variable process due to lithologic heterogeneity and comparatively uneven flow of rainwater in fractured and weathered basalt aquifers. There is also the preponderance of lesser amount of subsurface groundwater movement resulting in a high rock-water reaction time. Moreover, in some isolated areas where large fractures within the basalts do not intersect, the groundwater travels slowly through the aquifer media, unconnected in the phreatic zone to other more regional aquifers. In several studies, under natural situations, this mechanism is favorable for raising the pollutant content due to prolonged rock-water interactions. Furthermore, the geochemistry of groundwater in phreatic aquifers of the hard rock volcanic provinces is potentially vulnerable by anthropogenic inputs such as unrestricted industrialization; metropolitan landfill use and stormwater flow from the agricultural sector (Kumar et al. 2008; Mukate et al. 2020; Kale et al. 2010). A couple of investigations have been carried out on hydro-geochemical classification and pollution of groundwater due to anthropogenic activities (Wagh et al 2017; 2019a; Adimalla et al. 2020; Subba Rao et al. 2019). The hydro-geochemical studies are necessary to distinguish the discrepancies in ionic concentrations for utilization in various sectors; therefore, various hydro-geochemical methods were exercised to evaluate groundwater composition in the respective regions (Marghade et al. 2011; Ledesma-ruiz et al. 2016). Accordingly, several new studies have been included for the interpretation of the cations, anions and heavy/trace metals in the groundwater, to distinct the natural and anthropogenic origins that alter groundwater quality and their associations within the aquifer system (Kumar et al. 2006; Tian et al. 2015; Brindha et al. 2017; Wagh et al. 2018). The previous works carried out in the Deccan Volcanic Provinces - Western Ghat (DVP-WG) have mainly focused on the hydro-geochemical evolution in the groundwater (Pawar et al. 2008; Vincy et al. 2015; Wagh et al. 2019b). However, several studies were addressed the crisis of groundwater pollution due to agriculture activities, industrialization, and urban growth in DVP-WG region (Pawar and Shaikh 1995; Wagh et al. 2016 a, b).

In the case of the Shivganga River basin, studies related to the suitability assessment and hydro-geochemistry of groundwater is relatively sparse until recently. Usually, in the alluvium plain, the shallow aquifers are more susceptible to alteration than the deeper basaltic aquifers because of high transmissivity and porosity of soil and rocks. In the studied region, dug wells commonly provide water for domestic and irrigation needs; therefore, the groundwater quality is intimately linked with local inhabitants. Therefore, frequent monitoring and suitability appraisal of groundwater quality is an essential to avoid further human health deterioration in portions of the study area having elevated pollution levels. Hydro-geochemical studies are required to recognize the mechanism of natural and anthropogenic processes concerned with alteration of groundwater quality. Infiltrated recharged water interacts with soil including physical, chemical, biological processes, and mineral dissolution takes place, impacting the chemical constituents of the groundwater. In general, in this study, hydro-geochemical processes which are mainly accountable for changing the chemical composition of groundwater varied with respect to time and space. Therefore, the objectives of the study are 1) To assess the seasonal variation in hydro-geochemistry of groundwater and identify the influencing parameters altering groundwater quality. 2) To assess the groundwater contamination and degree of pollution level through GWQI and PIG methods and prepared a spatial interpolation maps to understand the seasonal variation in groundwater quality. 3) To evaluate human health risk from groundwater suitability perspective and recognize the processes controlling groundwater composition in the study area. In sum, outcomes of studies like this will provide scientific data on source and history of groundwater contaminants. This information helps governing bodies, water planners and resource managers to develop basin management plans in semi-arid western parts of the DVP.

Geo-environmental outline

The Shivganga River basin (latitudes 18°13'36" and 18°24'7; longitudes 73°44'1"and 73°56'17") flows within a small basin of about 176 km², situated on the easterly sloping face of the Western Ghat region, Maharashtra state, India. The area is drained by a fifth order, 27 km long Shivganga River (Fig. 1). The study area is encompassing undulating topography with elevated hill ranges originates from Deccan Trap basaltic flows; the highest peak being 1316 m above mean sea level (amsl) and lowest at mouth of the river 590 m amsl. The area represents a tropical monsoon climate and obtains yearly rainfall of ~900 mm from the southwest monsoon in the month of June and September. Also, a wide range of temperature variation occurs in winter (10°C) and summer (39°C). The two main cropping seasons with irrigation-based agriculture Kharif (July–October) and Rabi (October–January), are assigned to rice paddies and jowar (sorghum) fields for the major crop cultivation in the area. The study area shows mainly five land use and land cover classes: irrigated crop land (45.14%), residential and paved land (6.38%), surface water reservoir (0.57%), forest and plantation land (27.75%), and barren land (19.16%) (Kadam et al. 2018). Forest cover is observed at high elevation, in the peripheral areas representing river catchment. Due to major consumption of groundwater for agricultural and domestic needs, groundwater levels are going down very quickly in the area and are not rebounding. Also, the study area is restraining growth of 58 large villages having around 0.07 million of population (Census of India 2011). This lack of available water resources exerts pressure on excess groundwater pumping, resulting in overexploitation and contamination of groundwater in study area (Kadam et al. 2018). The study region consists of little primary porosity in the form of basalt vesicles (air bubbles) which do not support transmission of groundwater as they are not interconnected. Hence, the groundwater potential in this area is primarily governed by permeability and increased of secondary porosity by compressional, tensional forces and rapid cooling of magma leading to weathering and fracturing in the basaltic terrain. In the area, the depth of weathered rocks is (1-16m) and fractured rocks (12-60m) below ground level (CGWB 2013). The weathered zone comprises black cotton alluvium soil derived from basalts and clayey soil derived from red interflow horizon, which is a break between two successive lava flows. As clay is characterized by micro porosity, the infiltration capacity of water is negligible, which in turn retards groundwater movement. So, in the weathered zone, groundwater occurs in water table phase and fractured/jointed aquifers under semi-confined conditions. The water table depth varies from less than 4m to more than 12m below ground level (bgl), based on the varied topographic features.

As per the cross-section of the hydrogeological conditions drawn in the upstream part to downstream part side based on the dug well section, bore well drilling and previous unpublished work as well as geophysical survey work are presented for this study area (Fig. 2), the depth of surface soil changes from 1m to 5m from the ground surface from the peripheral part of sample number 12 to the mouth of the river at sample number 27. Subsequently, the depth of highly to moderately weathering host rock, which primarily decreases the permeability, the weathering thickness of the rock ranges from 1m to 24m. This condition is categorized by low porousness owing to isolated minute voids in the weathering basalt rock. The lack of connected porosity restricts liquid movements inside these rock layers. The next layer down is the fractured basalt having depth ranges between 10 m to 35 m, which is characterized by high porousness, since there are continuously connected of the pore spaces in the rock fractured zone that allow the groundwater movement to flow easily from one point to next point. The lithology in this zone is shows vesicles in the form of primary porosity which acts as a storage for the groundwater. As these vesicles are not interconnected, the flow and movement of groundwater is partially restricted. The compact massive basalt is occurred beneath the vesicular basalts and lacking in capable of water storage and block the movement of groundwater. The above lithologic characteristics are generally observed in the aquifers in the study area.

The survey of India (SOI), topographic sheets (numbers 47F/15 and 47F/16) on 1.50,000 scales has been used for preparation of a base map of the study area including major features such as the road network, streams, and settlements. In the study area, a groundwater comprehensive assessment was performed using a collection of sixty-eight dug well water samples in the year of 2015 during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons (May and November) with respect to land use, lithology, landform and use in drinking based on random sampling method. The groundwater has been sampled in pre-washed half liter polytene bottles and kept in temperature below 4⁰C in the laboratory to avoid further reaction. The coordinates of each sampling location were collected by GARMIN GPS for preparation of base map as well as for identification and validation of land use land cover study. Also, these location coordinates were used for the preparation of spatial interpolation maps. The potential of Hydrogen ion (pH), electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solid (TDS) were measured on-site using calibrated digital handheld pH, EC and TDS meters. The separate 100 ml of samples were also collected in acidified bottles with 0.5 ml nitric acid for reduced the precipitation of major salt. The major ions such as calcium (Ca²⁺), magnesium (Mg²⁺), bicarbonates (HCO₃^-), and chlorides (Cl^-) were analyzed by standard titrimetric methods. Sodium (Na⁺) and potassium (K⁺) ions were estimated by flame photometric method (ELICO CL 3610). Boron (B³⁺) and fluoride (F^-) were analyzed by HPIC (Dionex make DX-600). Also, nitrate (NO₃^-) and sulphate (SO₄^-) were measured by spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV-800) as per the standard procedures of water and wastewater analysis (APHA, 2005). The charge balance errors (CBE) were observed within the allowable limit of ± 10% (Berner and Berner 1987). The analyzed results were presented on piper tri-linear diagrams using Aqua-chem 4.0 software to understand the dominant hydro-geochemical facies and Gibbs diagrams were prepared to evaluate the quality regulatory mechanism. The analyzed sample results were compared to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2017) drinking standards for drinking and household purposes. The analyzed samples were also used in the computation of the Groundwater Quality Index (GWQI) and Pollution Index of Groundwater (PIG). To understand the health impact on inhabitants, the human health risk assessment (HHRA) is calculated for oral and dermal exposure pathways for B and F by following USEPA guidelines. MS Excel was used for statistical analysis.

Computation of Groundwater quality index (GWQI)

GWQI is widely used technique to categories the groundwater quality as: excellent, good, poor, very poor and unsuitable for drinking. It is based on the rank and weights given to the analyses parameter and it is one of the most trusted indices for the quality assessment of groundwater. For the comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality and suitability, the water quality parameters such as pH, TDS, Ca⁺⁺, Mg⁺⁺, TH, Na⁺, K⁺, HCO₃^-, Cl^-, SO₄^-, PO₄^-, NO₃^-, B³⁺ and F^- were considered. The GWQI calculated by the following steps.

Step 1: Allotted the weight (AW) to each analyzed parameter considering its importance to overall body growth (Table 1);

Step 2: computation of relative weight (RW) for each water quality parameter (Eq. 1).

Rw = Aw/ ∑ⁿ_iW (1)

Where, W is sum of all allotted weight; n is number of groundwater quality parameter

Step 3: Computation of quality rating scale (QRS) of each groundwater quality parameter (Eq. 2)

QRS = (CP/ SWHO) × 100 (2)

Where, the CP stands for the content of each parameter in groundwater and SWHO stands for standard limit of the WHO of the respective parameters.

Step 4: The calculation of the GWQI, which the summation of sub-index (Sbi),

Where, Sbi is the multiplication of relative weight (RW) by quality rating scale (QRS) of each groundwater quality parameters (Eqs. 3 & 4), (Table 1).

Sbi = RW × QRS (3)

GWQI = ∑ Sbi (4)

Table 1 Allotted weights and Relative weights of physiochemical parameters

Chemical Parameters	WHO standards (2017)	Allotted Weight (Aw)	Relative weight (Rw)
pH	8.5	4	0.075
EC	500	4	0.075
TDS	500	5	0.094
TH	100	3	0.057
Ca²⁺	75	3	0.057
Mg²⁺	50	3	0.057
Na⁺	200	2	0.038
K⁺	10	2	0.038
Cl^-	250	5	0.094
HCO₃^-	500	1	0.019
SO₄^-	250	5	0.094
NO₃^-	45	5	0.094
PO₄^-	0.5	1	0.019
F^-	1.0	5	0.094
B³⁺	1.0	5	0.094
		53	1.000

Computation of pollution index of groundwater (PIG)

PIG is a numerical expression for rating the quantifying range of contamination by considering parameters such as pH, TDS, major cations and anions, boron and fluoride based on their relative importance in defining groundwater quality (Rao and Chaudhary 2019; Wagh et al., 2020b). PIG was based on considering WHO drinking standards; also, computed by following the methodology proposed by Subba Rao (2012).

To generate the index values, firstly a relative weight (Rw) was assigned to each of the water variables. The Rw values ranges between 1 to 5; where, 1 is having the least importance in health risk due to low pollution; while, 5 having the highest importance for health risk due to high pollution. Potassium has an assigned Rw value of 1 and calcium and magnesium has an assigned Rw value of 2. Bicarbonate has an assigned Rw value of 3. Chloride has an assigned RW value of 4, and the assigned maximum values of 5 are for pH, TDS, boron and fluoride (Table 2).

The weight parameter (Wp) is calculated by the ratio of relative weight (Rw) of each parameter to the sum of all relative weight, presented by following equation (5):

Wp = Rw / ∑ Rw (5)

Further, statues of concentration (Sc) are calculated with equation (6):

Sc = (C/Ds) (6)

Where, C is the concentration in each groundwater samples; Ds is drinking water quality standard.

The overall water (Ow) quality is multiplication function of weight parameter (Wp) with statues of concentration (Eq. 7):

Ow = Wp × Sc (7)

Finally, PIG is calculated by summation of overall water quality (Ow) computed by equation (8):

PIG = ∑ Ow (8)

Table 2 Details of PIG (after Wagh et al. 2020b)

Parameter	Relative weight (Rw)	Weight Parameter (Wp)	Drinking water quality standard Ds*
pH	5	0.109	8.5
TDS	5	0.109	500
Ca⁺⁺	2	0.043	75
Mg⁺⁺	2	0.043	30
Na⁺	4	0.087	200
K⁺	1	0.022	10
HCO₃^-	3	0.065	300
Cl^-	4	0.087	250
SO₄^-	5	0.109	150
NO₃^-	5	0.109	45
F^-	5	0.109	1
B³⁺	5	0.109	1
Sum (∑)	46

*All values in mg/L expect pH

Computation of Human Health risk assessment (HHRA)

HHRA is computed based on daily intake, dermal contact and inhalation (He et al. 2020). Moreover, consumption of water with elevated boron and fluoride concentrations may result a non-carcinogenic risk to inhabitants. Thus, three age groups were considered: infants 6 months (0.5 years); children up to age 6 year and adults (≥16 years) (Kadam et al. 2019; Narsimha and Rajitha 2018).

The value of estimated daily intake (EDI) of the above age groups for F and B content in groundwater was computed by Eq. (9) (USEPA, 1989; Zango, et al. 2019).

EDI = {C_{(F, B)} x Cd}/ Bw (9)

Where, EDI having unit mg/kg/day; C (F, B) is content of F or B in groundwater; Cd indicate every day average ingestion of water and Bw denotes body weight. Cd value for adult is 3L/day; children 1.5 L/day and infants 0.250 L/day (Vetrimurugan et al. 2013). However, Bw for adult is 57.5 kg; children 18.7 kg and infants 6.9 kg ICMR Expert Group (1990)

The hazard quotient (HQ) was determined for groundwater by F and B exposure to individuals was projected from Eq. (10) (USEPA, 1989), and it is the ratio of EDI to the reference dose (Rfd)

HQ = EDI /Rfd (10)

Where, the RfD value of F (0.06 mg/kg/day) was considered from the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2014) guideline; while, the RfD of B (0.13 mg/kg/day) was obtained from WHO (2009).

Finally, Total Hazard Index (THI) calculated for the human health risk of F and B; it is summation of hazard quotient of fluoride plus hazard quotient of B.

Seasonal variation in hydro-geochemistry

The statistical summary of physicochemical parameters for the pre-monsoon (PRM) and post-monsoon (POM) seasons of year 2015 and its comparison with the WHO drinking standards (2017) is illustrated (Table 1 and Table 2). The measured pH value in PRM season ranges from 7.44 to 8.38 due to the bicarbonate form of liquified carbonate in water. However, during POM season it varies from 6.85 to 7.51 showing the natural range due to rainwater dilution of rainwater alkalinity. Accordingly, groundwater shows moderately alkaline nature in both seasons of the study area. The groundwater samples of both seasons are within the threshold limit (6.5-8.5) of the WHO (2017) drinking norms (Table 2). Groundwater had a slight decrease in pH from PRM to POM season which indicates a good rock-water interface. The electrical conductivity (EC) values are within the ranges of 296 to 1070 µS/cm (avg. 635µS/cm) and 240 to 980 µS/cm (avg. 589µS/cm) in the PRM and POM groundwater samples respectively (Table 1). EC was increased during the PRM season may be due to the evaporation of soil moisture from the phreatic zone as well as prolonged rock-water reaction and manmade contamination by concentration, causing increases in ionic content (Wagh et al. 2020b). According to WHO standards, 80 and 68 percent samples are higher than the recommended range of 500μS/cm for both the seasons (Table 2).

Table 1 Statistical summary of groundwater analysis from pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons

PRM 2015	pH	EC	TDS	TH	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Na⁺	K⁺	PA	HCO₃^-	Cl^-	SO₄^-	NO₃^-	PO₄^-	B³⁺	F^-
Max.	8.38	1070	832	604	120	74	109	7.78	100	320	248.5	151.24	18.65	0.32	12.45	1.84
Min.	7.44	296	196	52	8	8	10	0.2	0	30	19.1	12.32	6.39	0.02	0.08	0.1
Average	7.74	635.3	404	234	52	26	27	1	27	168	77.59	42.17	12.52	0.05	3.97	0.84
Std. dev	0.21	186	141	103	25	13	16	1.78	31	67	42.2	32.31	2.7	0.05	3.51	0.4
POM 2015
Max.	7.51	980	591	384	90	55	24	3.2	60	360	62.12	85.2	13.95	2.9	14.33	1.48
Min.	6.85	240	164	96	13	3	5	0.02	0	100	3.85	10.2	0.12	0	0.34	0.02
Average	7.22	589	383	248	56	23	14	0.38	28	240	17.01	32.74	3.43	0.11	3.15	0.63
Std. dev	0.14	170	102	81	15	11	5	0.61	12	62	13.87	19.76	3.46	0.49	3.45	0.37

All values denoted in mg/L; except pH on scale; EC in uS/cm

Table 2 Physicochemical parameters of groundwater and its comparison with WHO drinking standards (WHO 2017)

Parameters	WHO standards* 2017	PRM 2015			POM 2015
Parameters	DL-PL	% samples above DL	% samples above PL	% samples above DL		% samples above PL
pH	6.5-8.5	-	-	-		-
EC	500-1500	80	-	68		-
TDS	500-1500	24	-	15		-
TH	100 - 500	95	3	97		-
Ca²⁺	75-200	18	-	6		-
Mg²⁺	50-100	3	-	3		-
Na⁺	200-600	-	-	-		-
K⁺	10-12	-	-	-		-
HCO₃^-	200-500	30	-	76		-
Cl^-	250-500	-	-	-		-
SO₄^-	200-250	-	-	-		-
NO₃^-	45	-	-	-		-
F^-	1-1.5	35	6	18		-
B³⁺	0.5 -1.0	70	58	51		39

* All values in mg/L, except pH and EC in uS/cm, DL- Desirable Limit; PL- Permissible Limit

TDS values representing total positive and negative ionic contents in water varies from 196 to 832 mg/L (avg. 404 mg/L) and 164 to 591 mg/L (avg. 383 mg/L) in PRM and POM seasons, respectively (Table 1). As compared to WHO standards, desirable limit (DL) is 500 mg/L of TDS, (24%) in PRM and (15%) in POM samples are above the DL (Table 2). Also, the high content of TDS is possibly related to root exudation of aquifer media salts from the surface soil and certain manmade actions (Mukate et al. 2019). However, during the POM season, the concentration of these parameters has decreased due to dilution by fresh rainwater recharge in the aquifer system. High content of EC and TDS were detected in the groundwater samples in the lower reach of the study area owing to accumulation of salt from agricultural activities. Total hardness (TH) content ranges from 52 to 604 mg/L with (average 234 mg/L), and as per WHO standards, 95% samples above DL of (500 mg/L) in the PRM season. TH content for the POM season varied from 96 to 384 mg/L with average value of (248 mg/L); 97% samples were detected above the DL (Table 2). The standard deviation values of TH were also very high in both seasons representing the local effect on the groundwater quality which reflected in the minimum and maximum value of groundwater samples. Sample number 5 had a TH content over the PL threshold (>500 mg/L), due to the salt deposition on the inner lining on the well due the long rock-water interaction.

TH values obtained in groundwater were divided in four classes following Sawyer and McCarty (1967) classification. The soft water sample having TH values less than 75 mg/L (sample number 26) is found in this class the PRM season; whereas, no samples were in this class from the POM season. The moderately hard water having TH concentration ranges from 75 to 150 mg/L having classification present shows that only eight samples (sample numbers 7, 9, 11-14, 16, 27) i.e. (21%) belongs to moderately high TH class in the PRM season; while, only 4 samples (sample numbers 23-26) (i.e.12%) were in the moderately high TH class in the POM season. The hard water classification has a TH values ranges from 150 to 300 mg/L and 49% and 53% samples were in this category in both the PRM and the POM seasons. Also, 24% and 35% samples show very hard range in both the seasons. A meager rise has been observed in water hardness during POM season but the majority of the samples fall in the hard and very hard categories. The spatial distribution of TH content in water samples is demonstrated in Figure 3a, b.

In the study area, the POM samples represent the cation dominance in decreasing order of Ca²⁺> Mg²⁺> Na⁺> K⁺ due to dissolution of aquifer minerals with rainwater. Whereas, Ca²⁺> Na⁺> Mg²⁺> K⁺in the PRM seasons are the result of evaporation dominance, anthropogenic inputs and irrigation practices. The Ca²⁺ contents are found within the range of 8 to 120 mg/L averaging of 50 mg/L and 13 to 90 mg/L (average 46 mg/L) in both PRM and POM periods, respectively (Table 1). The calcium content varies with the monsoon; if rainfall decreases in the pre-monsoon season, the calcium concentration increased significantly. Thus, ~ 18% samples of the PRM season and only 6% samples in the POM period are beyond the DL (75 mg/L) of the WHO (Table 2). Moreover, Mg²⁺ occurred in ranges of 8 to 74 mg/L (average 26 mg/L); and 3 to 55 mg/L (average 23 mg/L) in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively (Table 1). High content of Mg²⁺is most probably due to the higher rate of irrigation return flow, which increases the dissolution of evaporite minerals and subsequently increase concentration of magnesium in groundwater within the shallow aquifers especially, in low-lying regions of the watershed (Haritash et al. 2008). As per WHO drinking standards, all the samples are suitable for drinking; however, only 3% samples surpass the DL in the PRM and the POM seasons (Table 2). Also, diminutive content of Na found with an average value of 27 mg/L and 14 mg/L in the PRM and the POM seasons (Table 1). As compared to other common cationic constituents occurring in water, the potassium concentration is low due to the high resistance of this element in the clay mineral structure (Srinivas et al. 2017). Generally, potassium content in natural hydrological cycle varies from 0.1 ppm in rainwater to a few ppm in surface water and groundwater (Matthess, 1982). In the area, average K⁺ value is 0.93 mg/L and 0.99 mg/L in the pre-monsoon and the post monsoon seasons (Table 1). It is observed that all the samples having content of sodium and potassium are within threshold limit of the WHO.

The anion abundance was observed in order of HCO₃^- > Cl^-> SO₄^2-> NO₃^-> PO₄^2-in the pre-monsoon season; while, in the post-monsoon season HCO₃^-> SO₄^2-> Cl^- > NO₃^- > PO₄^2-. It is observed that HCO₃^- content varies from 30 to 320 mg/L with an average value of (168 mg/L) and 100 to 360 mg/L (average 240 mg/L) in the PRM and the POM seasons (Table 1). Moreover, it is inferred that due to alkaline condition of water, carbonate species be present in the form of bicarbonate. Results indicated that 30% and 76% of groundwater samples exceeded the permissible limit of the WHO in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively (Table 2). The elevated content of HCO₃^- in few groundwater samples is due to agricultural runoff as well as from basaltic host rock (Locsey and Cox, 2003). SO₄^2- content varies with ranges of 12 to 151 mg/L with an average value of (4.17 mg/L) and 10 to 85 mg/L (avg. 32.74) in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. The excessive concentration of SO₄^2- in the POM season is due to the addition of manmade as activities involving detergents and fertilizers. Chloride content varies from 19 to 249 mg/L and 4 to 62 mg/L with an average values of (78 mg/L and 17 mg/L) in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. It is pragmatic that high content of chloride present in the PRM season; however, low chloride content in the POM season is due to dissolution phenomenon. High chloride content is attributed to secondary sources like domestic sewage including human fecal material, decomposition of carbon-based substances and agrarian surface flow (Mukate et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2008). NO₃^-content ranges of 6 to 19 mg/L (avg. 13 mg/L), and 0.12 and 14 mg/L (avg. 3 mg/L) during the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively (Table 1). According to WHO specifications, all groundwater samples are suitable for drinking. PO₄^2- values vary within ranges of 0.02 to 0.32 mg/L (avg. 0.05 mg/L) in the PRM season and below detection limit to 2.90 mg/L (avg. 0.11 mg/L) in the POM season (Table 1). However, high content in the POM season is due to agricultural return flow from the irrigation fields (Vetrimurugan et al. 2013).

Boron content varies from 0.08 to 12.45 mg/L (avg. 3.97 mg/L) during the PRM season; conversely, 0.34 to 14.33 mg/L with (avg. 3.15 mg/L) in the POM season (Table 1). As compared with WHO standards (Table 2), 70% and 51% of samples exceed the DL (0.5 mg/L) for the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively; while, 58% and 39% of the samples are above the PL (1 mg/L) in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. The spatial variation maps (Fig. 6a, b) demonstrate that the PRM season samples have higher concentrations of boron as compared to the POM season samples. The possible source of boron in groundwater is from the rock-water interaction, sewage effluent and fertilizer application (Bhat et al. 2018). The high concentration of boron in study area is due to agricultural runoff, excessive use of herbicides and manures, inputs from poultry farming and animal excreta (kadam et al. 2019). The surplus content of Boron is toxic to human health and crops; it also reduces the soil productivity (Ahmad et al. 2012; Buszka et al. 2007; USEPA 2008).

Generally, fluoride is one of the primary trace element in sub-surface water, which is essential for human health; but, when it exceeds the allowable content, fluoride poses serious human health hazards (Kale and Pawar 2017; Nag 2017; Panaskar et al. 2017). The host rock with F bearing minerals acts as a source and is accountable for the elevated F content groundwater (Kale et al. 2010). F content varies from 0.10 to 1.84 mg/L with an average value of (0.84 mg/L) during the PRM season; while, 0.02 to 1.48 mg/L (avg. 0.63 mg/L) in the POM season (Table 1). As per the WHO drinking specifications (Table 2), fluoride content in the PRM (35%) and the POM (18%) seasons showed groundwater samples above the DL (1 mg/L). However, only (6%) of the groundwater samples exceed the PL (1.5 mg/L) in the PRM season; thus, elevated F restricts drinking water use in two locations (numbers 13 and 28). However, those sampling locations are beyond the PL (1.5 mg/L) for F and may lead to dental fluorosis and skeletal deformities in the study area; so, groundwater in those locations is unfit for human consumption. The elevated content of F in the PRM season is due to semi-arid condition with evaporation, alkaline water in the study area is more favorable for dissolution of fluorite mineral (Chen et al. 2017; Kadam et al. 2019). Also, fluoride-rich minerals like fluorite, muscovite, biotite, topaz, apatite, and hornblende, from host rocks in the area and are the possible sources of leaching of F ion into the groundwater (Rao et al. 2020; Narsimha and Li, 2019).

Based on equation (1), when groundwater charged with CO₂ reacts with biotite minerals, the ions such as K, Mg, HCO₃, F and SiO₂enter into the groundwater from aquifer matrix. Thus, the high bicarbonate leached from aquifer matrix in groundwater facilitates release of large concentrations of fluoride ions from the host rock into groundwater. The scatter plot of Mg+K vs HCO₃+F (Fig. 4) shows noteworthy positive correlation (r= 0.54) confirming the process in (Eq.1). Based on the (Eq. 2) the reaction suggested that rock mineral deposits of hornblende with subsurface water (H₂O) and atmospheric CO₂ reacts with ions such as calcium, magnesium, sodium and bicarbonate. F and SiO₂ are released into groundwater from the host rock. The Scatter plot of Ca+Mg+Na vs HCO₃+F (Fig. 5) shows strong positive correlation (r= 0.72) which suggests that the weathering of hornblende mineral is related to the increased content of ions including fluoride ions in groundwater. Both equations 1 and 2 show that Deccan Plateau rain water is highly alkaline, having a pH above 7.5. Generally, rainwater leaches surface minerals and enters the subsurface as groundwater and carrying a high content of bicarbonate and sodium ions which released comparatively more hydroxyl ions in groundwater. A further exchange of ions occurs in the subsurface and results in the creation of favorable conditions to leaches fluoride ions from host rocks into groundwater. The silica in the groundwater also increases with leaching of fluoride. Hornblende mineral dissociates in Na and HCO₃- rich groundwater which in turn enables leaching of fluoride from aquifer matrix. The use of agricultural fertilizers, insecticides, domestic waste water and high withdrawal of subsurface water are another source of fluoride pollution in the aquifer system (EPA, 1997). The spatial variation maps (Fig. 7a, b) show that the PRM season has wide dispersion of elevated F concentrations with comparison of the POM season samples, having less. Furthermore, low concentrations of the F ion are observed at the upper reaches of the study area where, high precipitation resulted into high dissolution rates as well as a high dilution of the groundwater near the host basaltic geology (Kale and Pawar, 2017). The downstream part of the study area has low rainfall but the presence of arable farmland results in intense agriculture with significant use of fertilizers. The fertilizers are the main cause of high concentration of F ion in that portion of the study area.

Sources of ions in the groundwater

Generally, a number of factors like natural processes, anthropogenic factors, geology and mineral composition of the area, types of weathering etc are responsible for determining groundwater quality. Thus it is crucial to recognize the positive and negative assimilation within cation and anions and their combined influence on overall water quality (Wagh et al. 2020b). The ionic plot of Ca + Mg vs HCO₃ and Mg vs HCO₃ (Fig. 8 a, b) represents a significant association which is indicative for weathering of olivine and pyroxene minerals (Ca + Mg–HCO₃) from host rock. The plot of Ca + Na vs HCO₃(Fig. 8c) illustrates a positive association in both seasons which indicate some contribution is due to plagioclase dissolution. However, in the post-monsoon season, the Ca + Mg vs HCO₃ association are high due to greater rock–water contacts (Pawar et al. 2008).

Ca vs HCO₃(Fig. 8d) plot demonstrated a good correlation and is generally used to point out calcium sources in the groundwater. The Ca is attributed to dissolution of minerals like calcite and dolomite from carbonate weathering. The geochemical plots of Ca + Mg: Cl + SO₄(Fig. 8e) signify a positive relationship, suggestive that the groundwater may have a preference for ion pairs formation (Pawar et al. 2008; Gaikwad et al. 2020b). The plot of Ca vs Mg (Fig. 8f) indicates that about 80% of the samples are having a Ca/Mg ratio between 1 and 2, which is evidence for calcite as the main mineral (Subramani et al. 2010). Na vs HCO₃plot indicates that majority of samples shifting towards HCO₃representing groundwater derived from basalt rocks (Fig. 8g). The plot shows a good correlation between Na + K vs Cl + SO₄ (Fig. 8h)_, representing anthropogenic pollution which appears to alter the natural groundwater composition. The bivariate plot of Ca/Na: HCO₃/Na (Fig. 8i) signifies that these ions are attributed to weathering of a silicate mineral, due to the high solubility of Na over Ca, increasing the sodium content (Wagh et al. 2019). In the study area, there is little information available on groundwater geochemistry and their influence factors. However, Pawar et al. (2008) reported that the aquifers are exemplify as basalt, weathered basalt and doleritic dyke restraining the Ca+Mg–HCO₃water type; whereas, aquifers from alluvial parts of the study area are distinguished by the Ca+Mg+Na–HCO₃ type. The inputs of ions are mainly attributed to the weathering of silicates minerals like (olivine, augite and plagioclase feldspar), and there is also a slight input from zeolites (Pawar et al. 2008). Groundwater quality varies in the region, due to rainwater is charged with Cl, SO₄, NO₃, Na, Ca, Mg, and small quantities of HCO₃ (Das et al. 2005). The precipitation influence in the groundwater was eliminated from the acquired geochemical data and rectified values were considered for the analyses.

Hydro-geochemical facies

Piper's trilinear diagram was used to recognize the geochemical progression in the groundwater of study region (Piper, 1944). The plot represents that mixed water type Ca–Mg–Cl is dominant in most of the groundwater samples from both the seasons (Fig. 9). The plot exemplifies that, alkaline earths (Ca²⁺and Mg²⁺) significantly go beyond the alkalis (Na⁺ and K⁺); weak acids (HCO₃⁻ and CO₃²⁻) and exceed the strong acids (Cl⁻ and SO₄²⁻). The POM season shows the Ca+Mg–HCO₃ water type, indicating that wells are present in weathered basaltic, and dolerite dyke aquifers (Pawar et al. 2008). The PRM samples show Ca - HCO₃ as well as mixed Ca + Na - HCO₃ water types that correspond to host basaltic rock lithology and anthropogenic inputs (Pawar et al. 2008). Gibb’s diagram is used to evaluate processes like precipitation, rock and evaporation dominance which control the groundwater composition in the aquifer (Gibbs, 1970). It is inferred that rock dominance processes influence the groundwater quality in the studied region (Fig. 10a, b).

Groundwater quality index (GWQI)

GWQI is a widely used technique to categorize the groundwater quality as: excellent, good, poor, very poor and unsuitable for drinking (Subba Rao et al. 2019; 2020). It uses the rank and weights given to the analyses parameter to calculate the groundwater quality, as it is one of the most trusted indices for the quality assessment of groundwater. GWQI values were further classified into 5 categories: excellent water quality, if GWQI value (<50); good, if GWQI values of (50 to 100); poor, if GWQI values (100 to 200); very poor, if GWQI values (200 to 300) and Unsuitable water quality, if GWQI values is (>300). This classification method is used to categorize the groundwater quality in the study area. The calculated GWQI values are ranges from 35.34 to 166.53 and 38.78 to 194.47, for the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively, indicating that groundwater quality is poor to excellent for drinking. This variation may be due to the inputs of domestic and/or agricultural discharges. The POM samples exhibit poor to excellent categories of groundwater for drinking, plausibly due to agriculture return flow causing increase in boron and fluoride. The PRM has a maximum 27% samples (numbers 1, 5, 18-20, 23-25, 31) and the POM season has 15% (numbers 16, 20, 23, 29, 33) in poor category. However, only 15% of the PRM samples (numbers 9, 12-14, 16), and 18% of the POM samples (numbers 12-15, 25, 26) represent excellent (Fig. 11 a, b). The central and south parts in the study area have few poor samples in the PRM season. However, in the POM season, local anthropogenic inputs resulted in poor water quality. The overall interpretation is that groundwater quality declines in the PRM season. Sample number 20 exhibited poor water quality in both the seasons and may due the proximity to agricultural field and brick kiln activities.

Pollution index of groundwater (PIG)

PIG is a numerical expression for rating the quantifying range of contamination by considering numerous parameters based on relative importance in defining groundwater quality such as pH, TDS, major cations and anions, boron and fluoride. Several authors proposed PIG to derive the extent of contamination of surface and/or groundwater (Rao and Chaudhary 2019; Wagh et al., 2020b; Egbueri, 2020; Marghade et al., 2020). The PIG values were further classified into 5 classes namely, insignificant pollution if PIG value (< 1); low pollution (1 to 1.5); moderate pollution (1.5 to 2); high pollution (2 to 2.5) and very high pollution (> 2.5). This classification method has been used to categorize the groundwater samples in the study area. The PIG values are varies with 0.44 to 1.87 with an average value of 0.83 in the PRM season; while, 0.32 to 2.06 with (average 0.66) in POM season. In the present study, 34 samples for each season were studied for PIG and out of that, 2 samples (numbers 20, 31) (about 6%) found moderate pollution, 8 samples i.e. 24% (numbers 1, 5, 18-19, 23-25, 28) were identified as low pollution and rest of the 24 samples i.e. (about 70%) are showing insignificant pollution in the PRM season. In the POM season, only 1 sample (number 16) shows high pollution, 2 samples (numbers 20, 33) (about 6%) show low pollution and the rest of the 31 sample i.e. (about 91%) are imply insignificant pollution. This study showed that 18% of the samples are found to be unfit by PIG classification. PIG variation maps depict that southern and central parts of the study area comprise the low polluted samples in the PRM season (Fig. 12 a). However, in the POM season, a few samples are found at periphery of the area having low pollution values and only one sample (number 16) showed pollution (Fig. 12 b).

Human Health risk assessment (HHRA) of fluoride and boron

In the study area, F content in groundwater above the DL (35 and 18%) in the PRM and the POM seasons and (6%) exceed the PL of WHO standards in the PRM season; thereby, restricting drinking water use at a few locations. B content in (70 and 51%) surpasses the DL and 58 and 39% samples exceed the PL of the WHO in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. Therefore, to ascertain the human health risk, B and F was considered. The EDI values of F for different age groups varies for inhabitants show that infants (less than 0.5 years) are having high ingestion groundwater with high F content as compared with children and adults as the body mass will be less for children. It is exemplify that (41%) of the samples in the PRM season and (48%) of the samples in the POM season are above the safe limit of F, 0.03 mg/kg/day for infants. The safe EDI value for children is 0.13 mg/kg/day for F, where, all samples are below than that, except 1 sample in the PRM season. While, adult has a safe limit of 0.05 mg/kg/day; 29% of the samples in the PRM season and 12% of the samples in the POM season exceeded this limit. If, HQ value of F greater than 1 signifies that people are exposed to non-carcinogenic health risks associated with high F content in the drinking water (Table 3 and 4). In the study area, HQ values of F varies from 0.09 to 1.60; 0.13 to 2.46 and 0.06 to 1.11 in the PRM season and 0.02 to 5.75, 0.03 to 8.84 and 0.01 to 3.99 in the POM season for adult, children and infants, respectively. The children age group shows more risk than infants and adults. The probable cause for the HHRA for children is the modest body weight (Bw) as comparison with other age groups (Zango et al., 2019). HHRA results confirm that non carcinogenic health risk of F is in order of children > adults > infants. The children age group is highly vulnerable to potential of dental and skeletal deformities in the future.

In the study area, EDI value of B ranges from 0.0 to 0.65, 0.0 to 1.00 and 0.0 to 0.45 for adult, children and infants, respectively in the PRM season (Table 3). Moreover, 0.0 to 0.75, 0.0 to 1.15 and 0.0 to 0.52 for adult, children and infants, respectively in the POM season (Table 4). The results show that the POM season has a lower health risk as B concentration decreases due to dilution phenomenon in the POM season as compared with the PRM season. Infants and children are having high ingestion rates of groundwater with high B content as compared with adults as the body mass of the younger population will be less. Also, 68% samples from the PRM season and 53% from the POM season are above the safe limit of 0.01 mg/kg/day of B for infants (Table 3 and 4). The PRM season (38%) and the POM season (32%) samples are having values higher than that safe EDI value of (0.16 mg/kg/day) for children in both seasons. If, HQ value for B is greater than 1; signifying that the people are more vulnerable to non-carcinogenic health related problems (Table 3 and 8). The HQ values ranges from 0.00 to 5.00, 0.0 to 7.68 and 0.0 to 3.47 in the PRM season for adult, children and infants, respectively (Table 3). Although, HQ values in the POM season varies from 0.00 to 5.75, 0.0 to 8.84 and 0.0 to 3.99 for adult, children and infants, respectively (Table 4). The highest HQ values were found in children, compared to lower value associated with adults and infants.

Total hazard index (THI), is computed from summation of the hazard quotient (HQs) of B and F; if, THI is more than 1 it means, the water probably caused health problems in relation to a non carcinogenic risk; while, if the value is less than 1 it indicates there are no symptoms of non-carcinogenic risk (USEPA 2014). THI value was calculated separately for the adult, children and infants, given in the Tables 3 and 4. THI values ranged from 0.21 to 6.13 (avg. 1.86), 0.27 to 8.89 (avg. 2.55) and 0.14 to 4.25 (avg. 1.29) for adults, children and infants, respectively in the PRM season (Table 3). Children (88%), adults (59%) and infants (38%) possess non-carcinogenic risk as THI values (>1) in the PRM season (Fig. 13). While, in the POM season, THI value varies for adults: 0.02 to 6.71 (avg. 1.26); children: 0.03 to 10.3(avg. 11.94) and infants: 0.01 to 3.99 (avg. 0.49) (Table 4). THI result inferred that about 62% children, 47% adults and 24% of infants are possessed to non-carcinogenic risk in the POM season (Fig. 13). It is shown that children face higher non-carcinogenic health risk than infants and adults and small body mass compared to adults.

The spatial variation maps of THI for infants in the PRM and POM seasons are shown (Fig.14 a, b). Figure 14a shows the complete northern part of the study area is identified under the no risk category; however, central and south parts of the study area fall in the higher risk category (except sample numbers 22, 28, 31). Figure 14b shows that in POM season, the locations for sample numbers 2, 16, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31 and 34 have a potential for a health risk. It is inferred that infants are more vulnerable to health risk in the PRM season. The spatial extent of THI for children (Fig. 15a and b) demonstrate that, in the PRM season (samples number 10, 15, 31) and the POM season (numbers 6, 12, 14, 21, 26, 29,31,32) are confirm their fitness for drinking and remaining samples from both seasons are unfit for drinking use. For adult risk, many of the samples showed a potential for exposed risk except sample numbers (4, 9, 10, 15, 22, 28, 31, and 34) in the PRM season. However, in the POM season the samples (numbers 4, 8, 12-15, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32) fall in no risk category; while, other samples showed potential health risk for adults (Figs. 16a and b). The POM season groundwater quality is comparatively better than the PRM season. HHRA results showed that children have a greater non-carcinogenic risk than adults and infants in both seasons.

Table 3 Values of EDI, HQ, and THI for different age groups in the PRM season

Sr No	Adults					Children					Infants
Sr No	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI
1	0.06	1.02	0.29	2.24	3.26	0.09	1.56	0.45	2.63	4.20	0.04	0.71	0.20	1.56	2.26
2	0.05	0.84	0.08	0.59	1.44	0.08	1.30	0.12	0.91	2.21	0.04	0.59	0.05	0.41	1.00
3	0.02	0.34	0.09	0.72	1.06	0.03	0.52	0.14	1.20	1.72	0.01	0.24	0.06	0.50	0.73
4	0.04	0.67	0.00	0.00	0.67	0.06	1.03	0.00	0.52	1.55	0.03	0.46	0.00	0.00	0.47
5	0.05	0.90	0.06	0.46	1.35	0.08	1.38	0.09	1.30	2.67	0.04	0.62	0.04	0.32	0.94
6	0.07	1.12	0.05	0.39	1.51	0.10	1.72	0.08	0.40	2.13	0.05	0.78	0.03	0.27	1.05
7	0.03	0.55	0.22	1.71	2.26	0.05	0.84	0.34	1.31	2.15	0.02	0.38	0.15	1.19	1.57
8	0.05	0.83	0.06	0.49	1.33	0.08	1.28	0.10	0.78	2.06	0.03	0.58	0.04	0.34	0.92
9	0.05	0.81	0.00	0.00	0.81	0.07	1.24	0.00	0.01	1.25	0.03	0.56	0.00	0.00	0.56
10	0.03	0.54	0.03	0.22	0.76	0.05	0.83	0.04	0.01	0.84	0.02	0.37	0.02	0.15	0.53
11	0.01	0.23	0.08	0.63	0.85	0.02	0.35	0.13	0.52	0.87	0.01	0.16	0.06	0.43	0.59
12	0.06	1.07	0.00	0.00	1.07	0.10	1.64	0.00	0.01	1.65	0.04	0.74	0.00	0.00	0.75
13	0.08	1.36	0.00	0.00	1.36	0.13	2.09	0.00	0.01	2.09	0.06	0.94	0.00	0.00	0.94
14	0.06	0.98	0.00	0.00	0.99	0.09	1.51	0.00	0.40	1.91	0.04	0.68	0.00	0.00	0.69
15	0.03	0.45	0.00	0.00	0.46	0.04	0.70	0.00	0.01	0.70	0.02	0.31	0.00	0.00	0.32
16	0.05	0.84	0.05	0.35	1.19	0.08	1.30	0.07	1.00	2.29	0.04	0.59	0.03	0.24	0.83
17	0.04	0.70	0.05	0.40	1.10	0.06	1.07	0.08	0.55	1.62	0.03	0.48	0.04	0.28	0.76
18	0.07	1.17	0.29	2.26	3.42	0.11	1.79	0.45	2.20	3.99	0.05	0.81	0.20	1.57	2.38
19	0.03	0.51	0.45	3.49	4.00	0.05	0.79	0.70	4.04	4.82	0.02	0.36	0.32	2.42	2.78
20	0.07	1.13	0.65	5.00	6.13	0.10	1.74	1.00	5.27	7.01	0.05	0.79	0.45	3.47	4.25
21	0.03	0.54	0.11	0.85	1.39	0.05	0.83	0.17	0.33	1.16	0.02	0.37	0.08	0.59	0.97
22	0.04	0.70	0.00	0.00	0.71	0.06	1.08	0.00	0.55	1.63	0.03	0.49	0.00	0.00	0.49
23	0.01	0.18	0.31	2.40	2.58	0.02	0.28	0.48	3.78	4.06	0.01	0.13	0.22	1.67	1.79
24	0.05	0.89	0.37	2.83	3.72	0.08	1.36	0.57	1.30	2.66	0.04	0.62	0.26	1.96	2.58
25	0.04	0.69	0.41	3.16	3.85	0.06	1.06	0.63	2.59	3.65	0.03	0.48	0.29	2.20	2.67
26	0.06	0.97	0.25	1.90	2.87	0.09	1.48	0.38	3.78	5.26	0.04	0.67	0.17	1.32	1.99
27	0.01	0.09	0.09	0.71	0.80	0.01	0.13	0.14	1.10	1.23	0.00	0.06	0.06	0.49	0.55
28	0.10	1.60	0.21	1.64	3.24	0.15	2.46	0.33	1.33	3.79	0.07	1.11	0.15	1.14	2.25
29	0.03	0.46	0.15	1.16	1.62	0.04	0.71	0.23	2.14	2.85	0.02	0.32	0.10	0.81	1.13
30	0.01	0.17	0.00	0.03	0.21	0.02	0.27	0.01	0.01	0.27	0.01	0.12	0.00	0.02	0.14
31	0.05	0.78	0.60	4.64	5.42	0.07	1.20	0.93	7.68	8.89	0.03	0.54	0.42	3.22	3.77
32	0.02	0.41	0.00	0.00	0.41	0.04	0.63	0.00	0.48	1.11	0.02	0.28	0.00	0.00	0.29
33	0.03	0.47	0.00	0.00	0.47	0.04	0.72	0.00	0.40	1.12	0.02	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.33
34	0.06	0.94	0.00	0.00	0.94	0.09	1.44	0.00	0.01	1.45	0.04	0.65	0.00	0.00	0.65
Min.	0.01	0.09	0.00	0.00	0.21	0.01	0.13	0.00	0.01	0.27	0.00	0.06	0.00	0.00	0.14
Max.	0.10	1.60	0.65	5.00	6.13	0.15	2.46	1.00	7.68	8.89	0.07	1.11	0.45	3.47	4.25
Avg.	0.04	0.73	0.15	1.13	1.86	0.07	1.13	0.23	1.43	2.55	0.03	0.51	0.10	0.78	1.29

Table 4 Values of EDI, HQ, and THI for different age groups in the POM season

Sr No	Adults					Children					Infants
Sr No	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI	EDI F	HQ F	EDI B	HQ B	THI
1	0.03	0.56	0.00	0.00	0.56	0.03	0.86	0.00	0.01	0.86	0.02	0.39	0.00	0.00	0.39
2	0.02	0.34	0.16	1.21	1.55	0.02	0.52	0.24	1.86	2.38	0.01	0.24	0.11	0.84	1.08
3	0.04	0.62	0.03	0.22	0.83	0.04	0.95	0.04	0.33	1.28	0.03	0.43	0.02	0.15	0.58
4	0.03	0.44	0.02	0.14	0.58	0.03	0.68	0.03	0.21	0.89	0.02	0.31	0.01	0.09	0.4
5	0.05	0.89	0.00	0.00	0.89	0.05	1.36	0.00	0.01	1.37	0.04	0.62	0.00	0.00	0.62
6	0.04	0.75	0.05	0.39	1.13	0.04	1.15	0.08	0.59	1.74	0.03	0.52	0.03	0.27	0.79
7	0.03	0.44	0.05	0.38	0.82	0.03	0.68	0.08	0.59	1.27	0.02	0.31	0.03	0.26	0.57
8	0.03	0.57	0.00	0.00	0.58	0.03	0.88	0.00	0.01	0.89	0.02	0.40	0.00	0.00	0.4
9	0.04	0.63	0.08	0.59	1.22	0.04	0.98	0.12	0.91	1.88	0.03	0.44	0.05	0.41	0.85
10	0.01	0.16	0.11	0.88	1.04	0.01	0.24	0.18	1.36	1.60	0.01	0.11	0.08	0.61	0.72
11	0.01	0.22	0.12	0.92	1.14	0.01	0.33	0.18	1.42	1.75	0.01	0.15	0.08	0.64	0.79
12	0.02	0.37	0.00	0.00	0.37	0.02	0.56	0.00	0.01	0.57	0.02	0.25	0.00	0.00	0.25
13	0.02	0.40	0.00	0.00	0.40	0.02	0.61	0.00	0.01	0.62	0.02	0.28	0.00	0.00	0.28
14	0.01	0.23	0.00	0.00	0.24	0.01	0.36	0.00	0.01	0.37	0.01	0.16	0.00	0.00	0.16
15	0.04	0.60	0.00	0.00	0.60	0.04	0.92	0.00	0.01	0.93	0.03	0.42	0.00	0.00	0.42
16	0.06	0.96	0.75	5.75	6.71	0.06	1.47	1.15	8.84	10.31	0.04	0.66	0.52	3.99	4.65
17	0.05	0.90	0.18	1.38	2.27	0.05	1.38	0.28	2.12	3.49	0.04	0.62	0.12	0.96	1.58
18	0.01	0.23	0.14	1.09	1.32	0.01	0.36	0.22	1.67	2.03	0.01	0.16	0.10	0.76	0.92
19	0.05	0.77	0.00	0.00	0.77	0.05	1.18	0.00	0.01	1.18	0.03	0.53	0.00	0.00	0.53
20	0.02	0.34	0.39	2.98	3.32	0.02	0.52	0.60	4.58	5.11	0.01	0.24	0.27	2.07	2.31
21	0.01	0.24	0.00	0.00	0.25	0.01	0.37	0.00	0.01	0.38	0.01	0.17	0.00	0.00	0.17
22	0.07	1.17	0.00	0.00	1.18	0.07	1.80	0.00	0.01	1.81	0.05	0.82	0.00	0.00	0.82
23	0.04	0.67	0.29	2.24	2.91	0.04	1.03	0.45	3.44	4.47	0.03	0.46	0.20	1.56	2.02
24	0.04	0.67	0.16	1.24	1.91	0.04	1.03	0.25	1.90	2.93	0.03	0.46	0.11	0.86	1.32
25	0.02	0.25	0.03	0.26	0.52	0.02	0.39	0.05	0.41	0.79	0.01	0.18	0.02	0.18	0.36
26	0.04	0.75	0.06	0.44	1.19	0.04	1.15	0.09	0.67	1.82	0.03	0.52	0.04	0.30	0.82
27	0.05	0.81	0.00	0.00	0.81	0.05	1.24	0.00	0.01	1.25	0.03	0.56	0.00	0.00	0.56
28	0.01	0.17	0.00	0.00	0.17	0.01	0.25	0.00	0.01	0.26	0.01	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.11
29	0.07	1.22	0.11	0.83	2.05	0.07	1.87	0.17	1.28	3.15	0.05	0.85	0.08	0.58	1.43
30	0.01	0.16	0.00	0.00	0.16	0.01	0.24	0.00	0.01	0.25	0.01	0.11	0.00	0.00	0.11
31	0.02	0.30	0.00	0.00	0.31	0.02	0.47	0.00	0.01	0.47	0.01	0.21	0.00	0.00	0.21
32	0.08	1.29	0.00	0.00	1.29	0.08	1.98	0.00	0.01	1.98	0.05	0.89	0.00	0.00	0.89
33	0.04	0.62	0.38	2.92	3.54	0.04	0.95	0.58	4.49	5.44	0.03	0.43	0.26	2.03	2.46
34	0.00	0.02	0.02	0.15	0.17	0.00	0.03	0.03	0.23	0.26	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.11	0.12
Min.	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.11
Max.	0.08	5.75	0.75	7.04	1.98	0.08	8.84	1.15	10.82	0.89	0.05	3.99	0.52	4.89	4.65
Avg.	0.03	0.71	0.09	1.26	0.85	0.03	1.09	0.14	1.94	0.38	0.02	0.49	0.06	0.87	0.87

The study is summarized with following conclusions, inferences drawn from hydro-chemical analysis, GWQI, PIG and HHRA from the Shivganga River basin of Western India. Hydro-chemical interpretation reveals that the groundwater quality is slightly alkaline with hard to very hard water types. As per the WHO drinking standards, the parameters like pH, Na⁺, K⁺, Cl⁻, SO₄⁻ and NO₃⁻ are within threshold limits. Besides, EC (80 and 68%), TDS (24 and 15%), TH (95 and 97%), Ca²⁺ (18 and 6%), Mg²⁺ (3%), HCO₃⁻ (30 and 76%) surpass the desirable limits in the PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. High content of EC and TDS were observed in the downstream part of the study area due to accrual of salt. TH is increased in the POM season due to dissolution of minerals, thereby, groundwater is unsuitable for drinking. F content in groundwater above the DL (35 and 18%) in the PRM and the POM seasons and (6%) exceed the PL of WHO standards in the PRM season. B content in (70 and 51%) surpasses the DL and 58 and 39% samples exceed the PL of the WHO in the PRM and the POM seasons respectively, thus, restricted drinking water use at a few locations. The enrichment of B content in groundwater is due to sewage effluent, fertilizers application, agricultural runoff, overuse of herbicides and poultry waste in the basin. The excessive F is due to semi-arid condition which increased the F ion leaching from the host lithology. Also, the minerals like fluorite, muscovite, biotite, etc., are the main contributors for leaching of F ion in the groundwater. In addition, the slight alkaline nature of groundwater is more favourable to dissolve the fluorite mineral. GWQI classification exemplified that, (27 and 15%) samples fall in poor category and only (15 and 18%) samples into excellent category from PRM and the POM seasons, respectively. PIG results classified groundwater samples as 6% moderate pollution, 24% low pollution and 70% insignificant pollution in the PRM season. Also, 3% signify high pollution, 6% low pollution and 91% insignificant pollution in POM season. Consequently, 18% of groundwater samples are unfit for drinking. The HQ of F inferred that children have a higher risk than adults and infants. HHRA results corroborate that non carcinogenic risk of F in order of children > adults > infants. Therefore, children are more susceptible to non carcinogenic risk with deformities of dental and skeletal related F problem than other age groups. The average HQ of B shows the order of impacts with children > adults > infants suggesting that children are the most vulnerable age group. THI results show (88 and 62%) children, (59 and 47%) adults and (38 and 24%) infants in the PRM and POM seasons respectively possess non-carcinogenic risk as THI values (> 1). Thus, the remedial measures like use of safe drinking water, de-fluoridation techniques, intake of calcium and phosphorous-rich food, least use B-herbicides and manures, poultry waste management, and public awareness on health risk of F and B contamination are recommended to reduce the health problems in the study area.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere thanks to Head, Department of Environmental Science, Savitribai Phule, Pune University, Pune for provided necessary facilities to carry out the present research.

Ethical Approval: Not applicable to this manuscript

Consent to Participate: Not applicable

Consent to Publish: Not applicable

Authors Contributions:

Ajaykumar Kadam: Conceptualization, Data collection and analysis

Vasant Wagh: Assist in manuscript writing and interpretation of data

James Jacobs: Assist in manuscript writing and correct English language and grammatical errors.

Sanjay Patil: Helps in data interpretation

Namdev Pawar: Helps in interpretation of data

Bhavana Umrikar: supervision of research and assist in field work

Rabindranath Sankhua: supervision of the research and assist in field work

Suyash Kumar: Assist in writing geology of the area.

Funding: Not applicable

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials: Not applicable

Adimalla, N. (2019a). Controlling factors and mechanism of groundwater quality variation in semiarid region of South India: an approach of water quality index (WQI) and health risk assessment (HRA). Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 1-28.

Adimalla, N. (2019b). Groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes and potential health risks assessment: a case study from semi-arid region of South India. Exposure and health, 11(2), 109-123.

Adimalla, N., Li, P., & Venkatayogi, S. (2018). Hydrogeochemical evaluation of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes and integrated interpretation with water quality index studies. Environmental Processes, 5(2), 363-383.

Ahmad, W., Zia, M. H., Malhi, S. S., Niaz, A., & Ullah, S. (2012). Boron Deficiency in soils and crops: a review. Crop plant, 2012, 65-97.

APHA (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, New York

Berner, E. K., & Berner, R. A. (1987). The global water cycle: geochemistry environment (No. 551.49 B47).

Bhat MA, Wani AS, Vijay K, Jyotirmaya S, Dinesh T, et al. (2018). An Overview of the Assessment of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation. J Agri Sci Food Res 9: 209.

Brindha, K., Pavelic, P., Sotoukee, T., Douangsavanh, S., & Elango, L. (2017). Geochemical characteristics and groundwater quality in the Vientiane Plain, Laos. Exposure and Health, 9(2), 89-104. doi: 10.1007/s12403-016-0224-8

Buszka, P. M., Fitzpatrick, J. A., Watson, L. R., & Kay, R. T. (2007). Evaluation of ground-water and boron sources by use of boron stable-isotope ratios, tritium, and selected water-chemistry constituents near Beverly Shores, northwestern Indiana, 2004 (No. 2007-5166). US Geological Survey.

Census of India (2011). http://www.census2011.co.in/data/town/802819-bhor-maharashtra.html. Accessed Aug 2012

CGWB (2013). Central Groundwater Board. Available fromhttp://cgwb.gov.in/district_profile/maharashtra/Pune.pdf.

CGWB Report (2010). Unpublished report on ground water resources and development potentials of Pune district, Maharashtra.

Chen, Jie, Hao Wu, Hui Qian, and Yanyan Gao. (2017). "Assessing nitrate and fluoride contaminants in drinking water and their health risk of rural residents living in a semiarid region of Northwest China." Exposure and Health 9, no. 3: 183-195.

Das A, Krishnaswami S, Sarin MM, Pande K (2005). Chemical weathering in the Krishna Basin and Western Ghats of the Deccan Traps, India: Rates of basalt weathering and their controls. GeochimCosmochim Acta 69:2067–2084. doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2004.10.014

Egbueri, J. C. (2020). Groundwater quality assessment using pollution index of groundwater (PIG), ecological risk index (ERI) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): a case study. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 10, 100292.

EPA (Environmental protection agency) (1997). Public health global for fluoride in drinking water. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology, Section Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, California.

Gaikwad, S. K., Kadam, A. R., Ramgir, R. R., Kashikar, A. S., Wagh, V. M., Kandekar, A. M., ... & Kamble, K. D. (2020a). Assessment of the groundwater geochemistry from a part of west coast of India using statistical methods and water quality index. HydroResearch.

Gaikwad, S., Gaikwad, S., Meshram, D., Wagh, V., Kandekar, A., & Kadam, A. (2020b). Geochemical mobility of ions in groundwater from the tropical western coast of Maharashtra, India: implication to groundwater quality. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(3), 2591-2624.

Gibbs RJ (1970). Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 170(3962):1088–1090

Haritash AK, Kaushik CP, Kaushik A, et al (2008). Suitability assessment of groundwater for drinking, irrigation and industrial use in some North Indian villages. Environ Monit Assess 145:397–406. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-0048-x.

He X, Li P, Wu J, Wei M, Ren X, Wang D. (2020). Poor groundwater quality and high potential health risks in the Datong basin, northern China: research from published data. Environ Geochem Health. DOI:10.1007/s10653-020-00520-7

ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) Expert Group. (1990). Nutrient Requirements and Recommended Dietary Allowances for Indians: A Report of the Expert Group of the Indian Council of Medical Research. Indian Council of Medical Research.

Kadam A, Karnewar AS, Umrikar B, Sankhua RN (2018). Hydrological response-based watershed prioritization in semiarid, basaltic region of western India using frequency ratio, fuzzy logic and AHP method. Environ Dev Sustain. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0104-4.

Kadam, A., Wagh, V., Umrikar, B., & Sankhua, R. (2019). An implication of boron and fluoride contamination and its exposure risk in groundwater resources in semi-arid region, Western India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-24.

Kale SS, Kadam AK, Kumar S, Pawar NJ (2010). Evaluating pollution potential of leachate from landfill site, from the Pune metropolitan city and its impact on shallow basaltic aquifers. Environ Monit Assess 162:327–346. doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-0799-7

Kale, S., Pawar, N.J., (2017). Fluoride Accumulation in Groundwater from Semi-arid Part of Deccan Volcanic Province, India: A Cause of Urolithiasis Outbreak. Hydrospatial Anal. 1, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.21523/gcj3.17010102.

Kumar M, Ramanathan A, Rao MS, Kumar B (2006). Identification and evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes in the groundwater environment of Delhi, India. Environ Geology, 50:1025–1039. doi: 10.1007/s00254-006-0275-4

Kumar S, Shirke KD, Pawar NJ (2008). GIS-based colour composites and overlays to delineate heavy metal contamination zones in the shallow alluvial aquifers, Ankaleshwar industrial estate, south Gujarat, India. Environ Geol 54:117–129. doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-0799-2

Ledesma-ruiz R, Mahlknecht J, Ramos-leal JA (2016). Rock–water interactions and pollution processes in the volcanic aquifer system of Guadalajara, Mexico, using inverse geochemical modeling. Applied Geochemistry, 68, 79-94.

Li, P., Li, X., Meng, X., Li, M., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Appraising groundwater quality and health risks from contamination in a semiarid region of northwest China. Exposure and Health, 8(3), 361-379.

Locsey KL, Cox ME (2003). Statistical and hydrochemical methods to compare basalt- and basement rock-hosted groundwaters: Atherton Tablelands, north-eastern Australia. Environ Geol 43:698–713. doi: 10.1007/s00254-002-0667-z

Marghade D, Malpe DB, Zade AB (2011). Geochemical characterization of groundwater from northeastern part of Nagpur urban, Central India. Environ Earth Sci 62:1419–1430. doi: 10.1007/s12665-010-0627-y

Marghade, D., Malpe, D. B., Subba Rao, N., & Sunitha, B. (2020). Geochemical assessment of fluoride enriched groundwater and health implications from a part of Yavtmal District, India. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 26(3), 673-694.

Matthess G. (1982). The Properties of Groundwater. (No. 551.49 M38).Wiley: New York.

Mukate, S., Panaskar, D., Wagh, V., Muley, A., Jangam, C. and Pawar, R., (2017). Impact of anthropogenic inputs on water quality in Chincholi industrial area of Solapur, Maharashtra, India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. 7, 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.11.001.

Mukate, S., Wagh, V., Panaskar, D., Jacobs, J. A., & Sawant, A. (2019). Development of new integrated water quality index (IWQI) model to evaluate the drinking suitability of water. Ecological indicators, 101, 348-354.

Mukate, S. V., Panaskar, D. B., Wagh, V. M., & Baker, S. J. (2020). Understanding the influence of industrial and agricultural land uses on groundwater quality in semiarid region of Solapur, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(4), 3207-3238.

Nag SDSK (2017). Application of multivariate statistical analysis concepts for assessment of hydrogeochemistry of groundwater — a study in Suri I and II blocks of Birbhum District , West Bengal , India. Appl Water Sci 7:873–888. doi: 10.1007/s13201-015-0299-6.

Narsimha A, Li P. (2019). Occurrence, health risks and geochemical mechanisms of fluoride and nitrate in groundwater of the rock-dominant semi-arid region, Telangana State, India. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 25(1-2):81–103. doi:10.1080/10807039.2018.1480353

Panaskar, D. B., Wagh, V. M., & Pawar, R. S. (2017). Geochemical Characterisation of Fluoride Containing Groundwater from Sita Nadi Watershed, Bhokar Taluka, Maharashtra, India. J Earth Environ Sci: JEES-145. DOI, 10.

Pandith, M., Kaplay, R. D., Potdar, S. S., Sangnor, H., & Rao, A. D. (2017). Impact of urbanization coupled with drought situations on groundwater quality in shallow (basalt) and deeper (granite) aquifers with special reference to fluoride in Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded District, Maharashtra (India). Environmental monitoring and assessment, 189(9), 428.

Pawar NJ, Pawar JB, Kumar S, Supekar A (2008). Geochemical eccentricity of ground water allied to weathering of basalts from the deccan volcanic province, India: Insinuation on CO2 consumption. Aquat Geochemistry 14 (1):41–71. doi: 10.1007/s10498-007-9025-9

Pawar NJ, Shaikh IJ (1995). Nitrate pollution of ground waters from shallow basaltic aquifers, Deccan Trap Hydrologic Province, India. Environ Geol 25:197–204. doi: 10.1007/BF00768549

Pawar, N. J., Thigale, S. S., &Powar, K. B. (1982). Chemistry of groundwater from Pune area, Maharashtra. In Proc. int. symp. hydrological aspects of mountainous watersheds, Roorkee (Vol. I, pp. X1–X6).

Piper A M (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analyses; Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 25 914–928.

Rao, N. S., & Chaudhary, M. (2019). Hydrogeochemical processes regulating the spatial distribution of groundwater contamination, using pollution index of groundwater (PIG) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): a case study. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 9, 100238.

Sawyer CN, McCarty PL (1967). Chemistry for sanitary engineers. McGraw-Hill, In Chemistry for sanitary engineers.

Sethy SN, Syed TH, Kumar A, Sinha D (2016). Hydrogeochemical characterization and quality assessment of groundwater in parts of Southern Gangetic Plain Hydrogeochemical characterization and quality assessment. Environ Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-5049-4

Simsek C, Gunduz O (2007). IWQ Index: A GIS-integrated technique to assess irrigation water quality. Environ Monit Assess 128:277–300. doi: 10.1007/s10661-006-9312-8.

Singh H (1983). Crop production in India. Agri Situation in India 38:635–639

Sonkamble S, Sahya A, Mondal NC, Harikumar P (2012). Appraisal and evolution of hydrochemical processes from proximity basalt and granite areas of Deccan Volcanic Province (DVP) in India. J Hydrol 438–439:181–193. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.03.022

Srinivas Y, Aghil TB, Hudson Oliver D, et al (2017). Hydrochemical characteristics and quality assessment of groundwater along the Manavalakurichi coast, Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci 7:1429–1438. doi: 10.1007/s13201-015-0325-8.

Subba Rao N, Deepali M, Dinakar A, et al. (2017a). Geochemical characteristics and controlling factors of chemical composition of groundwater in a part of Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Earth Sci 76:747 .

Subba Rao N, Srihari C, Deepthi Spandana B, Sravanthi M, Kamalesh T, Jayadeep A. (2019). Comprehensive understanding of groundwater quality and hydrogeochemistry for the sustainable development of sub-urban area of Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 25:52–80. doi:10.1080/10807039.2019.1571403

Subba Rao, N. (2012). PIG: a numerical index for dissemination of groundwater contamination zones. Hydrological processes, 26(22), 3344-3350.

Subba Rao, N., Ravindra, B., & Wu, J. (2020). Geochemical and health risk evaluation of fluoride rich groundwater in Sattenapalle Region, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 1-33.

Subramani, T., Rajmohan, N., &Elango, L. (2010). Groundwater geochemistry and identification of hydrogeochemical processes in a hard rock region, Southern India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 162(1), 123–137.

Thomas J, Joseph S, Thrivikramji KP (2015). Applied Geochemistry Hydrochemical variations of a tropical mountain river system in a rain shadow region of the southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Appl Geochemistry 63:456–471. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.03.018

Tian, Y., Zheng, Y., Wu, B., Wu, X., Liu, J., & Zheng, C. (2015). Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction in arid and semi-arid regions with intensive agriculture. Environmental Modelling & Software, 63, 170-184.doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.10.011

USEPA. (1980). Exposure and risk assessment for zinc. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Regulations and Standards (WH-553). EPA440481016. PB85212009.

US EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) ((EPA/540/1-89/002: Interim Final). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington DC

USEPA (2008). Boron. RegulDeterm Support Doc SelContam from Second Drink Water Contam Candidate List (CCL 2) EPA Rep 815-R-08-012.

USEPA. (2014). Human health evaluation of manual, supplemental guidance: update of standard default exposure factors, OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. Washington (DC): United State Environmental protection Agency.

Vetrimurugan E, Elango L, Rajmohan N (2013). Sources of contaminants and groundwater quality in the coastal part of a river delta. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10:473–486. doi: 10.1007/s13762-012-0138-3

Vincy M V, Brilliant R, Pradeepkumar A.P (2015). Hydrochemical characterization and quality assessment of groundwater for drinking and irrigation purposes: a case study of Meenachil River Basin, Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Environ Monit Assess 187:4217. doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-4217-4

Wagh,V.M., Panaskar, D.B., Varade, A.M., Mukate, S.V., Gaikwad, S.K., Pawar, R.S., Muley, A.A. and Aamalawar, M.L., (2016a). Major ion chemistry and quality assessment of the groundwater resources of Nanded tehsil, a part of southeast Deccan Volcanic Province, Maharashtra, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(21), p.1418.

Wagh, V.M., Panaskar, D.B., Muley, A.A., Mukate, S.V., Lolage, Y.P. and Aamalawar, M.L., (2016b). Prediction of groundwater suitability for irrigation using artificial neural network model: a case study of Nanded tehsil, Maharashtra, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(4), p.196.

Wagh, V.M., Panaskar, D.B., Muley, A.A. and Mukate, S.V., (2017). Groundwater suitability evaluation by CCME WQI model for Kadava River Basin, Nashik, Maharashtra, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3(2), 557-565.

Wagh, V. M., Panaskar, D. B., Mukate, S. V., Gaikwad, S. K., Muley, A. A., & Varade, A. M. (2018). Health risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in groundwater of Kadava River Basin, Nashik, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 4(3), 969-980.

Wagh, V. M., Mukate, S. V., Panaskar, D. B., Muley, A. A., & Sahu, U. L. (2019a). Study of groundwater hydrochemistry and drinking suitability through Water Quality Index (WQI) modelling in Kadava river basin, India. SN Applied Sciences, 1(10), 1251.

Wagh, V. M., Panaskar, D. B., Jacobs, J. A., Mukate, S. V., Muley, A. A., & Kadam, A. K. (2019b). Influence of hydro-geochemical processes on groundwater quality through geostatistical techniques in Kadava River basin, Western India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12(1), 7.

Wagh, V. M., Panaskar, D. B., Mukate, S. V., Aamalawar, M. L., & Laxman Sahu, U. (2020a). Nitrate associated health risks from groundwater of Kadava river basin Nashik, Maharashtra, India. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an international journal, 26(3), 654-672.

Wagh, V., Mukate, S., Muley, A., Kadam, A., Panaskar, D., & Varade, A. (2020b). Study of groundwater contamination and drinking suitability in basaltic terrain of Maharashtra, India through PIG and multivariate statistical techniques. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA, 69(4), 398-414.

WHO (World Health Organization). (2009). Boron in Drinking-water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (No. WHO/HSE/ WSH/09.01/2).

WHO (World Health Organization).(2017). Guidelines for drinking water quality, Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, 4th ed. NLM classification: WA 675. Geneva, World Health Organization.

Zango, M. S., Sunkari, E. D., Abu, M., &Lermi, A. (2019). Hydrogeochemical controls and human health risk assessment of groundwater fluoride and boron in the semi-arid North East region of Ghana. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 207, 106363.

Zhang Y, Wu J, and Xu B. (2018). Human health risk assessment of groundwater nitrogen pollution in Jinghui canal irrigation area of the loess region, northwest China. Environ Earth Sci 77: 273.

Supplementarymaterial.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 17 Aug, 2021

Read the published version in Environmental Science and Pollution Research →

Reviews received at journal
15 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
15 Mar, 2021
First submitted to journal
19 Jan, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater for seasonal variation in hydro-geochemistry, quality, contamination and human health risk from Deccan Basaltic region, Western India

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material And Methods

Results And Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1