Spatial Analysis and Health Risk Assessment of Pollutants in the Ground Water of District Narowal, Punjab, Pakistan

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2446824/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Spatial Analysis and Health Risk Assessment of Pollutants in the Ground Water of District Narowal, Punjab, Pakistan

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2446824/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Because of the importance of water in maintaining life and socio-economic development, drinking water quality of District Narowal, Punjab, Pakistan has been assessed using spatial techniques like IDW and Kriging, WQI approach, Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment. Water quality was assessed for the time period between 2014–18, using 17 different physicochemical parameters from 1743 sites each, from two time periods 2014–16 and 2016–18 respectively. The drinking water of Narowal was categorized into 5 different classes on the basis of WQI i.e., Excellent, good, poor, very poor and not suitable for drinking. WQI Values of 210.1537 and 267.75 was observed during 2014–16 and 2016–18 showed very poor quality of drinking water during 2014–18. 28.5% of the study area during time period 2014–16 and 36.1% during time period 2016–18 showed substandard drinking quality. 3.3% of the study area during 2014–16 and 7.9% during 2016–18 showed health risks related to chloride for adults while 0.1% of study area during 2014–16 and 11.1% during 2016–18 showed health risks related to nitrite in adults. Results indicated that due to the human intervention the quality of the drinking water and risks related to drinking sub-standard water of District Narowal become getting worse in a very fast rate, so water should be drink after suitable treatment. These risks can also be eliminated by decreasing the use of chemical and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture.

Spatial Analysis

Health Risk Assessment

Kriging

WQI

Groundwater.

Water has no color, no odor and a clear substance which makes different water bodies present on the Earth’s surface, it is also a major constituent of body fluids of living organisms. It is important for the existence of life. Agricultural, commercial, household, leisure, and environmental activities all use water. Drinkable water is present in a very small amount while the other is in the form of glaciers or ice caps. The consumption of water is increasing and cross the limit, it is expected that the World will face deficiency of water soon. Maximum of the consumption of water is in agriculture. (Sapna et al 2018)

Importance of water

Water is among the most vital elements on the globe. All organisms need water for their survival. Because of the growing population, the demand for safe and high-quality water supplies has increased in recent years. People overlooked the role of irrigation water in major cities until the late twentieth century. Irrigation with low-quality water will cause significant financial losses. The most important consideration for urban planning and water conservation nowadays is deciding the areas with high water quality. (Westall and Brack 2018)

Importance of water for natural life

Water is the most important nutrient for living. Its dietary recommendations and clinical management guidelines do not get the recognition they deserve. There are several challenges in determining maximum value for both the amount of water the body must contain and the amount of water consumed. Variables that are difficult to quantify but we can perform homeostasis by the influence of water intake and removal. Clinical studies have typically shown the advantages of sufficient hydration and the harm caused by water imbalance, whether quantitative or qualitative. (Rodríguez-Mañas et al 2020)

Importance of water for socio-economic development

Water quality affects not only people's health but also the area's socioeconomic growth, although demand for groundwater is growing for both domestic and agricultural purposes. (Nandeesha et al 2020). It also plays a major part in the development and maintenance of a variety of public benefits and services. Also, as a result, we must always keep in mind that water is a limited and irreplaceable resource in both temporal and spatial, and it is only accessible if we well managed it; where water is consistently available, benefits of growth. However, where water is unreliable or of poor quality, or where water-related hazards exist, they slowed the development. Water can be a major barrier to effective growth, but if we handle it effectively and fairly, it can help improve the stability of social, economic, and ecological structures in the world of increasing and unexpected alterations. (Yıldız 2017)

Factors effecting water quality

Clean water, which is made up entirely of hydrogen and oxygen, is very rare in nature. Water is strongly effected by precipitation and aquifers’ recharge through rainfall; insufficient recharge of groundwater cause the increase of dissolved substances in the water, and therefore some of the aquifer's dominant minerals can elevate the concentration of a particular salt levels in the water, affecting groundwater quality. (Kammoun et al 2018)

Rainwater includes dissolved gases as well as traces of different substances derived from the atmosphere's gases, dirt, and many other materials. When water droplets hit the ground, they displace soil particles, which are then eroded and suspended by running water. Different substances of the Earth’s crust and constituents of soil can also dissolve in water. Different gases like CO₂ and O₂ etc. transfer from air to water and vice versa, different chemical substances also add to water from the soil continuously while moving towards underground water reservoirs. Different living organisms like bacteria etc. can also affect the quality and composition of water. Natural waters, in general, reach an optimum conditions in terms of quality, which is influenced by atmospheric, hydrogeologic, and microbial aspects. (Lintern et al 2018)

Physical and Chemical Factors

The physiochemical structure of aquifers can be disturbed by numerous ways like rainfall duration, time spent in the subsoil and intermediate zone, and the concentration of organic content. Toxic chemicals, hazardous effluent, silt from polluted basins, and pesticides are the four types of substances that pollute water bodies. Toxins, infectious agents, metal ions, inorganic substances, and organic compounds are some of the most common water contaminants. It is critical to assess water quality in order to determine its acceptability for different purposes. Pollution of aquifers may be introduced due to urban development. Groundwater physicochemical research aids in the investigation of improvements in water quality. (Rafiq et al 2018)

Biological Factors

Some marine microorganisms have less of an effect on water quality than plankton and bacteria. The photosynthetic organisms are phytoplankton, while bacteria are in charge of the most of biodegradation and biogeochemical cycling. During the day, the combined metabolic processes of different living organisms increase the concentration of O₂, decrease CO₂ level while at night, the opposite effect occurs. (Rahman and Hamidah 2020)

In eutrophic waters, cyanobacteria appear to overwhelm phytoplankton organisms. Cyanobacteria can cause scums on the surface and shallow thermal stratification, as well as being harmful to different living organisms in water and change the flavor and smell of drinking water. (Li et al 2017)

Declining of Drinking water condition

The decline in the condition of drinking water is an increasing problem for human society, particularly in the aspect of global water shortages. Substandard drinking water often contributes to serious disease, which cause premature deaths in many countries. Furthermore, groundwater pollution decreases the potable water, as well as high cleanup costs and the expense of alternative water sources. The impact of these factors on groundwater quality is amplified in a country where the maximum of the population consumes groundwater in daily routine. Aquifers are also facing potentially debilitating problems related to the rapid expansion of synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides usage. (Sethy et al 2017)

Status of Water Quality Pakistan

Drinking quality of drinking water in Pakistan is deteriorating from day to day due to drastic rise in population and industrial development. In Pakistan, only some areas have good supply of water. Because of limited secure and healthful waterbodies, the remainder 80% of the population were forced to drink contaminated water. The most basic supply in most Pakistani cities is ground water, which contains a variety of infectious agents resulting in 2.5 million/year deaths from diarrhea. (Raza et al 2017)

According to community health reports, low quality of water causes about 50% of diseases and 40% of deaths in Pakistan. More than 80% of the residents in KPK has access to safe water. Surface water supplies in KPK are safe and reliable to use, but water table in the southern region is usually black in color. Polluted water is the most serious issue in Faisalabad, owing to the city's expanding population. Faisalabad needed approximately 64.7 million of gallons of potable water per day in 1999 to meet its needs. However, 3 million gallons of that kind of water flowed from household motors that draw water from subsoil and tube wells. Less rain, drought, and nondevelopment of other water supplies, as per Pakistan's National Conservation Strategy, reduced rain, drought, less development of sources for water sustainability etc. are the causes for water crisis. In Rawalpindi alone, over 80,000 cases of water-borne diseases were reported in healthcare facilities. Different gastrointestinal infections account for around 80% of all infections and account for 33% of mortality (along with illness caused by inadequate sewage) (Daud et al 2017). According to the UNICEF, 20 to 40 percent of Pakistani hospitals are full of people affected by water pollution.(UNICEF 2019)

Study Area

Current study was taken place in District Narowal, Punjab, Pakistan. Because of susceptible quality of water, agricultural influence and the trend of urbanization this area was selected as research location. It's on the west bank of the Ravi River, with coordinates of 32.2643° N and 75.1599° E. It is bordered by Islamabad and Azad Jammu and Kashmir on the North, Indian Punjab and Rajasthan on the East, Balochistan and KPK on the West, and Sindh on the South. The district's basic appearance is a plain sloping down from the Himalayan hillsides to the flat region to the south-west, with a mean altitude of 266 meters above sea level. The neighborhood is almost entirely flat. Its north-eastern border is roughly 32 kilometers from the Himalayan border, but the foothills become flat in this district. This district has only some drainage canals like Ravi, Dake and Aik which suggest that the slope is generally north-east to south-west. Dake starts from Jammu and runs through this region which is about 24 km from River Ravi (Ahmad et al 2014; Hassan et al 2017).

Data Collection

Location wise Quantitative Data of water quality analysis on parameters like pH, Turbidity, TDS, Alkalinity, Bicarbonates, Chlorine, Sulphates, Calcium, Magnesium, Hardness, Nitrites, Sodium, Potassium, Phosphates, Fluoride, Iron and Arsenic for three different time frames (2014–16, 2016–18) was collected from District Water Testing Laboratory Narowal.

From 2014 to 2016 and 2016 to 2018, 1746 samples were collected from 1500 different places. Collected data was of three tehsils and 69 union councils.

Water Quality Index

WQI is a rating-based approach which is used to describe the quality of water on a rating scale from 0–300, which is then categorize the data into different classes base on the index values. The fundamental goal of WQI approach is to simplify the complex water quality parameters data into a single value of sample for better understanding.

Computation of WQI

Batabyal and Chakraborty (2015) described the following steps for the calculation of WQI:

The specified parameters (pH, Turbidity, TDS, Alkalinity, Hardness, HCO₃, Cl⁻, SO₄²⁻, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Na, K, NO₃²⁻, PO₄, F⁻, Fe, As) were given a weight according to its importance in the water quality, this weight was assigned on the scale of 1–5, e.g., turbidity is least important so it was assigned by weight 1 while arsenic is very important so 5 value was assigned to it.

After the assigning of weights to every parameter, relative weight W_n was calculated by diving the assigned weight w_n to the sum of all the weights of every parameter mentioned in Table 1:

Table 1

Weight and relative weight of the parameters used for calculation of WQI
Sr No	Parameters	Weight (w_i)	Relative Weight (W_i)
1	pH	4	0.06250
2	Turbidity	1	0.01563
3	TDS	5	0.07813
4	Alkalinity	2	0.03125
5	Hardness	2	0.03125
6	HCO₃	2	0.03125
7	Cl⁻	5	0.07813
8	SO₄²⁻	5	0.07813
9	Ca²⁺	3	0.04688
10	Mg²⁺	3	0.04688
11	Na	5	0.07813
12	K	2	0.03125
13	NO₃²⁻	5	0.07813
14	PO₄³⁻	5	0.07813
15	F⁻	5	0.07813
16	Fe	5	0.07813
17	As	5	0.07813
Total		$\sum {w}_{i}=64$	$\sum {W}_{i}=1$

$${W}_{n}=\frac{{w}_{n}}{\sum {w}_{n}}$$

3. After the calculation of relative weights W_n quality rating q_n of every parameter was calculated by dividing the concentration C_n with WHO standard value of that parameter S_n and then multiplied with 100:

$${q}_{n}= \frac{{C}_{n}}{{S}_{n}}\times 100$$

4. For calculating WQI, Subindex (SI) was calculated by multiplying the relative weight with quality rating of every parameter and then WQI of a sample was calculated by adding the subindex of all the parameters:

$$S{I}_{n}= {W}_{n}\times {q}_{n}$$

$$WQI=\sum S{I}_{n}$$

Health risk assessment

Different authors have assessed the non-carcinogenic health hazards of drinking trace element polluted water in large amounts by the global population for adults and infants (Ezugwu et al 2019; Lai et al 2018).

Non carcinogenic and carcinogenic health risk index was calculated by using the method used by Egbueri and Mgbenu (2020):

Calculation of CDI

CDI was calculated by multiplying the concentration of water quality parameter C (mgL^− 1), average amount of intake of water (IRW) which is on average 1L for infants and 2L for adults, the Exposure frequency (EF) which is 365 days, Exposure duration (ED) which is 70 years for Adults and 6 years for Infants, then divided by the product of Body weight of individuals (BW) which is on average 70 kg for adults and 15 kg for infant and average time of intaking selected parameter (AT) which is on average 25550 days for adults and 2190 days for children)

$$CDI=\frac{\text{C}\times IRW\times EF\times ED}{BW\times AT}$$

Calculation of HQ

Health risk of every parameter calculated as the hazardous quotient (HQ) and was calculated by dividing CDI to the reference dose (R_fD) of every parameter which was 0.04, 0.7, 0.1 and 0.0003 mgkg^− 1day^− 1 for fluoride, iron, chloride and arsenic respectively (Karunanidhi et al 2021):

$$HQ=\frac{CDI}{RfD}$$

Computation of HI

HI for every sample was calculated by taking the sum of HQ of every parameter.

$$HI=\sum HQ$$

For Non carcinogenic risk assessment if HI or HQ shows values below 1 mgkg^− 1day^− 1 then there will be no risks but if HI or HQ is higher than one there will be health risks. For carcinogenic risk assessment if HQ shows values greater than 1 x 10^− 5 mgkg^− 1day^− 1 then there will be carcinogenic risks of drinking such water and there will be no carcinogenic risks if value is below 1 x 10^− 5 mgkg^− 1day^− 1.

Data Analysis

Data from the sampling was examined using a variety of methodologies and technologies. SPSS version 26 and Microsoft Excel 2019 were used for statistical analysis (descriptive statistics). ArcGIS 10.5 was used for spatial data analysis, and Grapher was used to create plots and graphs (Khan et al 2016).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics like mean, SD, minimum and maximum was applied using SPSS statistics version 26. Histograms of frequencies of concentrations of every parameter was also created by using this software (Patil et al 2020).

Spatial Analysis

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a type of software that records geographic data for modification, viewing, and analysis in any context and parameters the user chooses. It may be used to examine spatial data or geographic information for any number of reasons. GIS technology has shown to be quite beneficial in improving accuracy. ARC GIS 10.5 was utilized to conduct this research. Different techniques were used for the creation of prediction maps using ArcGIS but IDW and Kriging techniques was utilized in this investigation.

Graphical Representation

Piper plots was formulated to explain the hydro chemical characteristics of water samples using grapher software

Descriptive analysis of the water samples of District Narowal in selected time period described in Table 2.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of samples collected from District Narowal during 2011–18.
Parameters		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Minimum	Maximum	Sig.
pH	2016	7.4678	.3125	.0074	6.24	8.24	P < 0.05
pH	2018	7.3140	.2004	.0048	6.6	8.78	P < 0.05
Turbidity	2016	3.8693	12.7363	.305	BDL	199	P < 0.05
Turbidity	2018	9.6425	54.3177	1.301	BDL	1875	P < 0.05
TDS	2016	731.28	359.387	8.608	7.31	9650	P < 0.05
TDS	2018	715.608	268.081	6.421	93	2250	P < 0.05
Alkalinity	2016	9.674	34.9701	.8376	BDL	570	P < 0.05
Alkalinity	2018	76.537	116.917	2.8004	BDL	670	P < 0.05
HCO₃	2016	305.36	143.156	3.429	35	2256	P < 0.05
HCO₃	2018	276.69	132.101	3.164	20	128	P < 0.05
Cl⁻	2016	81.98	163.553	3.9175	BDL	2656	P < 0.05
Cl⁻	2018	109.805	221.266	5.2999	BDL	3212	P < 0.05
SO₄	2016	101.571	207.716	4.9753	BDL	3830	P < 0.05
SO₄	2018	190.073	274.54	6.5759	BDL	2735	P < 0.05
Ca	2016	64.324	76.237	1.8261	2	2018	P < 0.05
Ca	2018	65.733	53.792	1.2885	BDL	992	P < 0.05
Mg	2016	28.891	26.381	.6319	BDL	408	P < 0.05
Mg	2018	40.997	42.243	1.0118	BDL	513	P < 0.05
Hardness	2016	277.06	213.87	5.123	15	4100	P < 0.05
Hardness	2018	329.11	275.5	6.599	3	4600	P < 0.05
Na	2016	116.36	157.38	3.77	BDL	2704	P < 0.05
Na	2018	130.82	164.1	3.931	1	2460	P < 0.05
K	2016	4.3983	15.421	.3694	BDL	430	P < 0.05
K	2018	7.5843	24.215	.58	.3	465	P < 0.05
NO₃	2016	.5662	2.862	.069	BDL	50	P < 0.05
NO₃	2018	.0919	.2267	.005	BDL	1.98	P < 0.05
PO₄	2016	.12540	.4806	.0115	BDL	19	P < 0.05
PO₄	2018	.06504	.0532	.001	BDL	.7	P < 0.05
F	2016	.8829	6.757	.162	BDL	100	P > 0.05
F	2018	.7025	.57946	.014	BDL	2.9	P > 0.05
Fe	2016	.0664	.3273	.008	BDL	7.6	P < 0.05
Fe	2018	.1301	.3002	.007	BDL	10.2	P < 0.05
As	2016	.0007	.0056	.0001	BDL	.1	P < 0.05
As	2018	.0077	.0131	.0003	BDL	.1	P < 0.05
WQI	2016	210.15	306.91	7.351	26.503	4285.2	P < 0.05
WQI	2018	267.74	407.51	9.761	27.446	6091.1	P < 0.05
HQ Adults F	2016	.001	.0077	.0002	0	.1142	P > 0.05
HQ Adults F	2018	.0008	.0006	.00002	0	.003	P > 0.05
HQ Adults Fe	2016	.0013	.0065	.0002	0	.152	P < 0.05
HQ Adults Fe	2018	.0026	.006	.0001	0	.204	P < 0.05
HQ Adults As	2016	1.0 E-8	4.8 E-9	1 E-9	0	1 E-6	P < 0.05
HQ Adults As	2018	7.0 E-8	1.12 E-9	3 E-9	0	1 E-6	P < 0.05
HQ Adults Cl	2016	.2344	.4673	.0112	.0029	7.588	P < 0.05
HQ Adults Cl	2018	.3137	.6321	.0151	0	9.177	P < 0.05
HQ Adults NO₃	2016	.0259	.1308	.0031	0	2.286	P < 0.05
HQ Adults NO₃	2018	.2974	.9636	.0231	0	8.101	P < 0.05
HI Adults	2016	.2624	.4858	.0116	.0028	7.591	P < 0.05
HI Adults	2018	.6146	1.1642	.0279	.0036	9.257	P < 0.05
HQ Infants F	2016	.0002	.0015	.00004	0	.0228	P > 0.05
HQ Infants F	2018	.0002	.0001	.000003	0	.0006	P > 0.05
HQ Infants Fe	2016	.0003	.0013	.00003	0	.0304	P < 0.05
HQ Infants Fe	2018	.0005	.0012	.00003	0	.0408	P < 0.05
HQ Infants As	2016	0	1.0 E-8	0	0	0	P < 0.05
HQ Infants As	2018	1.0 E-8	2.2 E-9	1 E-9	0	0	P < 0.05
HQ Infants Cl	2016	.0469	.0935	.0022	.0006	1.518	P < 0.05
HQ Infants Cl	2018	.0627	.1264	.003	0	1.835	P < 0.05
HQ Infants NO₃	2016	.0052	.0262	.0006	0	.4571	P < 0.05
HQ Infants NO₃	2018	.0595	.1927	.0046	0	1.62	P < 0.05
HI Infants	2016	.0525	.0972	.0023	.0006	1.518	P < 0.05
HI Infants	2018	.1229	.2328	.0055	.0007	1.851	P < 0.05

Hydrochemistry of Drinking Water of District Narowal

The pH values for Time period 2014–16 ranges in 6.24–8.24 (M = 7.46; SD = 0.312) and 6.6 to 8.78 (M = 7.314; SD = 0.2004) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2 Current study indicated that There is a significant decrease in the level of pH in previous years (p < 0.05) for the selected time periods. The pH of most water bodies is in the 6–9 range. Water in moist climates with heavily leachable soils has a lower pH than water in rock formations or semi-arid or arid regions. Waters which have more amount of organic constituents show low pH because of the acidic groups present in the organic compounds (Ersan et al 2017).

The values of Turbidity ranged between BDL to 199 NTU (M = 3.8693 NTU; SD = 12.7363) for Time Period 2014-16 and BDL to 1875 NTU (M = 11.4099; SD = 58.9187) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Turbidity is a measurement of a liquid's comparative transparency. When a light is incident into a water sample, it is an indicator of the amount of light dispersed by substances in the water. The dispersion of the light in the water makes it more turbid. Mud, sediments, many dissolved substances, microscopic and some macroscopic organisms, dissolved colorful chemicals make the water turbid. Turbidity primarily provides pathogens with shelter and food. Turbidity, if not properly eliminated, may lead to an outbreak of infectious diseases (Gaya et al 2017).

TDS values ranged between for Time Period 2014-16 ranged between 7.31 mg/L and 9650 mg/L (M = 731.28 mg/L; SD = 359.387) and 93–2250 mg/L (M = 715.61 mg/L; SD = 268.081) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Natural processes, wastewater, seepage from urban areas, chemical wastes used in the treatment of wastewater, and the type of pipeline i.e., the infrastructure, all contribute to TDS in drinking water. Total Dissolved solids is the sum of the total number of ions present in the water. An elevated level of TDS is not dangerous for human body (Corwin and Yemoto 2020).

The values of alkalinity ranges between BDL – 570 (M = 9.6738; SD = 34.9702) for time period 2014-16 and BDL to 670 (M = 76.5377; SD = 116.9165) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Alkalinity of the water is basically due to the presence of dissolved CaCO₃ in water. CaCO₃ is basically used to increase the pH of water, it was most likely chosen as the basis for expressing alkalinity. Despite this, CO₂ use in the breakdown of CaCO₃ and many other rocky substances present in water, which results in the deposition of HCO₃ and CO₃ in water sources. Alkalinity value mostly show the lowest value of 10 mgL^− 1 and the maximum of 300 mgL^− 1. While HCO₃ and CO₃ are the most common sources of alkalinity, some heavily polluted waters often contain significant quantities of ⁻OH, NH₃, PO₄⁻ and many other substances increase the alkalinity of water (Islam and Majumder 2020).

During time period 2014 -16 HCO₃ present between 35 mg/L and 2256 mg/L (M = 305.36 mg/L; SD = 143.156) and 20 mg/L to 1280 mg/L (M = 276.69 mg/L; SD = 132.101) for the time period of 2016–18 as shown in Table 2.

Chloride ions ranges from BDL to 2656 mg/L (M = 81.98 mg/L; SD = 163.5533) for time period 2014-16 and 0.9 mg/L to 3210 mg/L (M = 109.996 mg/L; SD = 221.4095) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. The chloride ion is extremely mobile, and chemical reactions have little effect on its content in water. As a result of enhanced EC, high chloride concentrations make water more corrosive. The Fe concentration of the samples was also higher than the recommended level. As a result, consuming this water may cause fast increases in breathing, Heart rate, constriction of blood vessels, low blood pressure, and inactivity in the human body (Islam et al 2018). The toxic effects of chloride salts are determined by the cation presence; however, the toxicity of chloride is uncertain. Excessive consumption of NaCl containing potable water with concentrations above 2.5 g/L may cause hypertension (Shukla and Arya 2018).

The values of SO₄ ranges between BDL to 3830 mg/L (M = 101.5705 mg/L; SD = 207.7157) for the time period 2014–16 and 1 mg/L to 2735 mg/L (M = 193.176 mg/L; SD = 275.6875) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. SO₄ minerals like epsomite (MgSO₄·7H₂O), Barite (BaSO₄), and gypsum (CaSO₄·2H₂O) are soluble, and sulphate is easily leached from the ground. Mining industry and refineries, as well as Kraft pulp and paper mills, garment mills, and factories, dispose sulphates into water (Ravindra et al 2019). 8g and 7g of Na₂SO₄ and MgSO₄ respectively may cause catharsis in men. Cathartic effects have been documented in people who drink water with sulphate amounts greater than 600 mg/liter, but it has also been documented that human can respond to elevated doses over time. Dehydration has been documented as a common adverse effects after consuming significant quantities of magnesium or sodium sulphate (Karagülle and Karagülle 2020).

Ca found between the ranges of 2-2018 mg/L (M = 29.397 mg/L; SD = 26.329) for the time period 2014–16 and 4 mg/L to 992 mg/L (M = 65.81 mg/L; SD = 53.777) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2.

Values of Mg ranges between BDL to 408 mg/L (M = 28.8913 mg/L; SD = 26.3807) between time period 2014–16 was and in between the range of 1 mg/L to 513 mg/L (M = 41.07 mg/L; SD = 42.245) seen in the water samples of time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2.

The values of Hardness range between 15 mg/L and 4100 mg/L (M = 277.06 mg/L; SD = 213.865) for time period 2014-16, values between 3 mg/L to 4600 mg/L (M = 329.11 mg/L; SD = 275.501) observed in the water samples of time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2.

Concentration of Sodium in the water sample for time period 2014–16 found between BDL to 2704 mg/L (M = 116.36 mg/L; SD = 157.383), and for time period 2016–18 values present in the range of 1 mg/L to 2460 mg/L (M = 130.82 mg/L; SD = 164.096). Potassium in the water samples found between BDL to 430 mg/L (M = 4.3983 mg/L; SD = 15.4207) was observed in water samples of time period 2014–16, values present in the range of 0.3 mg/L to 465 mg/L (M = 7.584 mg/L; SD = 24.215) for the time period of 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Due to the massive effectiveness with which matured kidneys excrete sodium, sodium salts are not toxic to humans. On the other hand, Unintentional high doses of NaCl, have resulted in acute symptoms and death. Nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, muscle spasms and rigidity, and cerebral and pulmonary oedema are also possible acute side effects. Excessive salt consumption exacerbates chronic congestive heart failure. The effects on infants vary from those on adults. Fluid loss may occur in infants with serious gut disorders, leading to dehydration and elevated sodium levels in the plasma (hypernatremia) (Stallngs et al 2019).

Nitrite concentrations was found between BDL to 50 mg/L (M = 0.566 mg/L; SD = 2.8618) for the time period of 2014–16, BDL to 177.2 mg/L (M = 57.5709 mg/L; SD = 31.5305) for the time period of 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Agricultural intervention in environment, treating effluents, and chemical breakdown of wastes from animals, sewage disposal tanks are some causes of nitrate in drinking water. Nitrate when reduced to nitrite then it becomes toxic for health. In humans, nitrate converts normal hemoglobin to metHb, and reduce its oxygen carrying capacity. Methemoglobinemia is a state in which the reduced oxygen transport becomes more harmful when metHb reaches 10% of the total hemoglobin, causes cyanosis and asphyxia when amount elevates (WHO 2011).

During time period 2014–16, values of PO₄ ranges between BDL and 19 mg/L (M = 0.1285 mg/L; SD = 0.4861), BDL to 0.7 mg/L (M = 0.0684 mg/L; SD = 0.05242) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Phosphates are phosphorus-containing compounds. It is necessary for the production of food and the survival of humans. As a result, we use phosphate in large amounts in everyday life and industry. Too much phosphate in drinking or natural water has a detrimental impact on biotic environments and underwater habitats at the phosphate level can also cause many environmental issues like eutrophication in water. Even a small amount of phosphorus added to a water body may have a harmful impact on water quality. Algal blooms, increased vegetation, and low dissolved oxygen because of degradation of additional vegetation are among the negative effects (Salem and Draz 2020).

Fluoride in the water samples for time period 2014-16 its observed between BDL to 100 mg/L (M = 0.8829 mg/L; SD = 6.7569), BDL to 2.9 (M = 0.703 mg/L; SD = 0.5795) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Poor drinking water cause round 80% of global diseases, with fluoride pollution in drinking water accounting for 65 percent of endemic fluorosis. It dissolves in water because of its presence in the soil, resulting in an increase in F⁻ in groundwater. pH, TDS, alkalinity and Hardness effect the fluoride content in water. We need fluoride for the formation of bones, enamel, and the prevention of tooth decay. Teeth and bones can be affected by the high concentrations of fluoride. Fluoride damages the anatomy, functionality, and metabolic activity of soft tissues, including the kidney, liver, lung, and testicles. Fluoride in high concentrations has neurotoxic effects and also causes bone cancer (Fallahzadeh et al 2018).

Concentration of iron ranged between BDL to 7.6 mg/L (M = 0.0664 mg/L; SD = 0.3273) for the time period of 2014–16, 0.05 mg/L to 10.2 mg/L (M = 0.2707 mg/L; SD = 0.3865) for the time period of 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. 0.3 mg/L is the standard value for Fe in the drinking water. Its values may be higher in the areas where it is used to treat water or in the areas where iron pipelines used for the supply of water. Initially, Fe concentrations higher than the standard level may not be harmful to one's health. Prolonged ingestion of iron-rich water may lead to a condition known as iron overload. Extreme iron consumption can impair hematopoiesis by killing progenitor cells and the hematopoiesis microenvironment. If we do not treat iron overload, it can lead to hemochromatosis, which can damage the body's organs. Weight reduction, joint pain, and exhaustion are among the first signs. Retinitis, conjunctivitis, and choroiditis are only a few of the health problems caused by high iron levels in the water. Cancer and cardiovascular disease are also widespread. (Khatri et al 2017)

Arsenic in the water samples ranges between BDL to 0.1 (M = 0.00062 mg/L; SD = 0.0056) for the Year 2014–16, BDL to 0.1 mg/L (M = 0.0077 mg/L; SD = 0.0131) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2. Arsenic is naturally present on the surface of soil. Anthropogenic and some natural processed may be the cause of As in water. Chronic exposure to elevated amounts of drinking water (> 10 g/L) cause number of negative health effects, including skin infections and cancers of the lung, bladder, kidney, and liver, according to a large body of previous research. Furthermore, continuous exposure to high Arsenic concentrations cause many human disorders (Ahmad and Bhattacharya 2019).

Water Quality Index

WQI ranged between 26.50 to 4285.2 (M = 210.1537; SD = 306.9115) for the time period 2014–16 and 24.45–6092 (M = 267.7474; SD = 407.5139) for the time period 2016–18. Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the mean values of WQI in different time frames; F (2, 3628) = 18.308, p = 1.2269E-8.

Figure 2 shows that during time period 2014–16, 7.3% of the area on Eastern and North-Western side of District Narowal show Excellent water quality. 36% of the area on Eastern side, North-Western, Western and Southern sides show good water quality. 28.2% of the area on the Eastern, Northern, Western and South-Western sides show poor water quality. 10.7% of the area on Southern, South-Western, North-Western and North-Eastern side of District Narowal show very poor water quality. 17.8% of the area on Southern, South-Western and North-Eastern side of District Narowal show drinking water not suitable for drinking.

Figure 3 shows that during time period 2016–18, 10.9% of the area of District Narowal on Eastern side show Excellent water quality. 24.6% of the area of District Narowal on Eastern, North-Eastern, North-Western and Western side show good water quality. 28.4% of the area on Northern, Southern, Eastern, South-Western sides show poor water quality. 11.9% of the area on South-Eastern, South-Western and Northern side show very poor water quality. 24.2% of the area on Southern, South-Western, South-Eastern and Northern side has water not suitable for drinking.

Health Index

Values of Health Index for adults found between 0.00286 to 7.5909 (M = 0.2624; SD = 0.4858) for time period 2014-16, 0.0036 to 9.25726 (M = 0.61459; SD = 1.16426) for the time period 2016–18). HI values for infants found between 0.00057 to 1.51817 (M = 0.05247; SD = 0.9716) for the time period of 2014–16 and 0.00072 to 1.8515 (M = 0.12292; SD = 0.2329) for the time period 2016–18 as shown in Table 2.

Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the mean values of HI for Infants in different time frames; F (2, 3625) = 72.854, p = 2.0455E-33.

Non-Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment

There are no carcinogenic health risks for infants related to Arsenic in the drinking water of District Narowal. While Some of the ions in drinking water shows non-carcinogenic health hazards. During time period 2014–16, There were no health risks related to Fluoride and Iron, but Chloride showed health risks for Adults and Infants while NO₃ show health risks for adults

Figure 4 shows that there is a significant increase in Non-Carcinogenic Health Risks of drinking water of District Narowal for adults and Chloride and Nitrate were the main causes for the rise in Health risks during the selected time period 2014–18.

Figure 5 shows that Non-Carcinogenic Health risks are increasing with time and nitrates and chloride are the main causes for this increase.

Piper Analysis

Time Period 2014–16

Figure 6 shows that during time period 2014–16, most of the samples show no dominant cation type some fall under Sodium and Potassium type and some are of calcium type. Maximum of the samples show bicarbonate type anion type while some show no dominant type and few samples show sulphate type and some chloride type as dominant.

Maximum of the samples show magnesium bicarbonate and mixed type is dominant while some show calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate and sodium chloride type. Almost 85% of the total samples show weak acids exceed strong acids while remaining show strong acids exceed weak acids. 70% of the samples show alkaline Earths exceed alkalis while remaining show alkalis exceed alkaline Earths.

Time Period 2016–18

Figure 7 shows that Most of the samples show no dominant cation type while the some of the samples show sodium and potassium type, calcium type and 4 of the samples show dominant magnesium type. Most of the samples show Bicarbonate dominant anion type while some show sulphate type, no dominant and 15 of the samples show chloride dominant anion type in drinking water of district Narowal.

Most of the samples fall under magnesium bicarbonate type while some fall under mixed type and few are sodium chloride type and sodium bicarbonate type. Most of the samples show weak acids exceed strong acids while some samples show strong acids exceed weak acids. Maximum of the samples show alkaline Earths exceed alkalis while remaining show alkalis exceed alkaline Earths.

Current study shows that there is substandard quality of drinking water in District Narowal which is going on decreasing day by day. Results of the WQI application and GIS showed that only some areas of district Narowal has drinkable water while the other cannot be used for drinking purposes. Also, it was found that most of the samples which showed sub-standard water quality belong to rural areas, most of the urban areas showed good quality drinking water. Thus, the rural areas of District Narowal should consider first while taking suitable measures in providing clean water to public. Most of these the people are drinking ground water of lower depths which cause greater contamination.

Finally, it can also be concluded that there is need to educate people about the seriousness of water quality and health hazards cause by the drinking of contaminated water.

The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript

Ahmad A, Bhattacharya P (2019) Arsenic in drinking water: is 10 μg/L a safe limit? Current Pollution Reports 5:1-3.
Ahmad F, Ghazi S, Ahmad SR, Ahmad I, Khan RMA, Raoof A, Khan S, Akmal F, Luqman M, Raza A (2014) Spectral characteristics and mapping of rice fields using multi-temporal Landsat and MODIS data: a case of District Narowal. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research 14:1-27.
Batabyal A, Chakraborty S (2015) Hydrogeochemistry and Water Quality Index in the Assessment of Groundwater Quality for Drinking Uses. Water Environ Res 87:607-617.
Corwin DL, Yemoto K (2020) Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. Soil Science Society of America Journal 84:1442-1461.
Daud M, Nafees M, Ali S, Rizwan M, Bajwa RA, Shakoor MB, Arshad MU, Chatha SAS, Deeba F, Murad W (2017) Drinking water quality status and contamination in Pakistan. BioMed research international 2017:1-18.
Egbueri JC, Mgbenu CN (2020) Chemometric analysis for pollution source identification and human health risk assessment of water resources in Ojoto Province, southeast Nigeria. Applied Water Science 10:1-18.
Ersan G, Apul OG, Perreault F, Karanfil T (2017) Adsorption of organic contaminants by graphene nanosheets: A review. Water Res 126:385-398.
Ezugwu CK, Onwuka OS, Egbueri JC, Unigwe CO, Ayejoto DA (2019) Multi-criteria approach to water quality and health risk assessments in a rural agricultural province, southeast Nigeria. HydroResearch 2:40-48.
Fallahzadeh RA, Miri M, Taghavi M, Gholizadeh A, Anbarani R, Hosseini-Bandegharaei A, Ferrante M, Conti GO (2018) Spatial variation and probabilistic risk assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water. Food Chemical Toxicology 113:314-321.
Gaya M, Zango M, Yusuf L, Mustapha M, Muhammad B, Sani A, Tijjani A, Wahab N, Khairi M (2017) Estimation of turbidity in water treatment plant using Hammerstein-Wiener and neural network technique. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering Computer Science 5:666-672.
Hassan MA, Mahmood K, Nazir K, Fatima N, Aslam MA (2017) Faunistic work on the Hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of district Narowal, Pakistan. Journal of Entomology and Zoological Studies 5:626-630.
Islam M, Majumder S (2020) Alkalinity and Hardness of Natural Waters in Chittagong City of Bangladesh. International Journal of Science Business 4:137-150.
Islam MS, Mohanta SC, Siddique MAB, Abdullah-Al-Mamun M, Hossain N, Bithi UH (2018) Physico-chemical assessment of water quality parameters in Rupsha river of Khulna region, Bangladesh. The international journal of engineering and Science 7:73-78.
Kammoun S, Trabelsi R, Re V, Zouari K, Henchiri J (2018) Groundwater quality assessment in semi-arid regions using integrated approaches: the case of Grombalia aquifer (NE Tunisia). Environmental monitoring assessment 190:1-22.
Karagülle MZ, Karagülle M (2020) Effects of drinking natural hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) waters: a systematic review of in vivo animal studies. International journal of biometeorology 64:1011-1022.
Karunanidhi D, Aravinthasamy P, Subramani T, Muthusankar G (2021) Revealing drinking water quality issues and possible health risks based on water quality index (WQI) method in the Shanmuganadhi River basin of South India. Environmental Geochemistry Health 43:931-948.
Khan S, Rauf R, Muhammad S, Qasim M, Din I (2016) Arsenic and heavy metals health risk assessment through drinking water consumption in the Peshawar District, Pakistan. Human ecological risk assessment: an international journal 22:581-596.
Khatri N, Tyagi S, Rawtani D (2017) Recent strategies for the removal of iron from water: A review. Journal of Water Process Engineering 19:291-304.
Lai X, Li J, Gong X, Lin X, Tang G, Li R, Jia C, Wang D, Ji S (2018) Rapid simultaneous determination of andrographolides in andrographis paniculata by near-infrared spectroscopy. Analytical Letters 51:2747-2762.
Li J, Parkefelt L, Persson KM, Pekar H (2017) Improving cyanobacteria and cyanotoxin monitoring in surface waters for drinking water supply. Journal of Water Security 3:1-8.
Lintern A, Webb J, Ryu D, Liu S, Bende‐Michl U, Waters D, Leahy P, Wilson P, Western A (2018) Key factors influencing differences in stream water quality across space. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 5:1-31.
Nandeesha, Khandagale VR, Mahesh VB, Suman AK, Velagapudi MT (2020) Assessment of groundwater quality by integration of water quality index and GIS techniques. AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC. p 020026
Patil VBB, Pinto SM, Govindaraju T, Hebbalu VS, Bhat V, Kannanur LN (2020) Multivariate statistics and water quality index (WQI) approach for geochemical assessment of groundwater quality—a case study of Kanavi Halla Sub-Basin, Belagavi, India. Environmental geochemistry health 42:2667-2684.
Rafiq M, Gull MS, Mishra A, Rawat KS (2018) Hydrochemical characterization and ground water quality assessment over Southern Kashmir using Geographic Information System (GIS). Journal of geomatics 12:101-108.
Rahman M, Hamidah H (2020) Water quality influence the phytoplankton and bacteria abundance: a comparison between shallow freshwater and saltwater ponds. Desalin Water Treat 188:436-443.
Ravindra K, Thind PS, Mor S, Singh T, Mor S (2019) Evaluation of groundwater contamination in Chandigarh: Source identification and health risk assessment. Environ Pollut 255:1-12.
Raza M, Hussain F, Lee J-Y, Shakoor MB, Kwon KD (2017) Groundwater status in Pakistan: A review of contamination, health risks, and potential needs. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science Technology 47:1713-1762.
Rodríguez-Mañas L, Saenz de Pipaón M, Miñana V (2020) The importance of water consumption in health and disease prevention: the current situation. Nutricion Hospitalaria 37:1072-1086.
Salem JK, Draz MA (2020) Selective colorimetric nano-sensing solution for the determination of phosphate ion in drinking water samples. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry:1-10.
Sapna K, Thangavelu A, Mithran S, Shanthi K (2018) Spatial analysis of river water quality using inverse distance weighted interpolation in Noyyal watershed in Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India. Research Journal of Life Sciences, Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical Chemical Sciences 4:150-161.
Sethy SN, Syed TH, Kumar A (2017) Evaluation of groundwater quality in parts of the Southern Gangetic Plain using water quality indices. Environmental Earth Sciences 76:116-181.
Shukla M, Arya S (2018) Determination of Chloride ion (Cl^-) concentration in ganga river water by Mohr method at Kanpur, India. Green Chemistry Technology Letters 4:6-8.
Stallngs VA, Harrison M, Oria M (2019) Dietary Reference Intakes for Sodium and Potassium. The National Academies Press, Washington DC
UNICEF (2019) Pakistan Humanitarian Situation Report. United Nations Children's Fund. pp 1-8
Westall F, Brack A (2018) The importance of water for life. Space Science Reviews 214:1-23.
WHO (2011) Nitrate in Drinking-water. World Health Organization
Yıldız D (2017) The importance of water in development. World Water Diplomacy Science News 10006:1-7.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Spatial Analysis and Health Risk Assessment of Pollutants in the Ground Water of District Narowal, Punjab, Pakistan

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Importance of water

Importance of water for natural life

Importance of water for socio-economic development

Factors effecting water quality

Physical and Chemical Factors

Biological Factors

Declining of Drinking water condition

Status of Water Quality Pakistan

Research Design And Methodology

Study Area

Data Collection

Water Quality Index

Computation of WQI

Health risk assessment

Calculation of CDI

Calculation of HQ

Computation of HI

Data Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Spatial Analysis

Graphical Representation

Results And Discussion

Hydrochemistry of Drinking Water of District Narowal

Water Quality Index

Health Index

Non-Carcinogenic Health Risk Assessment

Piper Analysis

Time Period 2014–16

Time Period 2016–18

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1