The steps of this research are summarized according to the scheme in (Fig. 8).
1. Wastewater
pH
pH results were ranged between 6.4–8.1. It changes along the flow of the stream due to the change in the characterization of the wastewater. It was noted that there is a heavy load of industrial wastewater at the end of the sewage network in Hebron, which is the first point of discharge to the stream of Wadi Al-Samen. The main component of that wastewater is clay from stone cut industrial discharge.
Electrical Conductivity (EC)
EC readings were slightly higher due to dry season as results of two facts: dilution of ionized solutes by rainwater in wet season and evaporation effect in dry season with values ranging from 1462–3100( µs/cm), they were within expected ranges of raw wastewater in Palestinian community. However, high values of EC were found in El-Hellh (S2) and Wadi AL Door (S1) as a result of the rainfall loads. These are the first 2 sampling points of wastewater stream (Fig. 6). Wastewater flow affects its quality because the longer the flow the less pollutants’ concentrations will be. On other hand, and as a direct effect of hot summer, the evaporation helped to concentrate pollutants by reducing solvent volume and accordingly EC values were higher during dry season.
Total Dissolved Solid
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), which is defined as the measurement of dissolved materials in water, such as inorganic salts and organic matter, it is critical to assess TDS for wastewater treatment purposes.
TDS maximum value obtained for from Wadi Al-Samen samples was (2000 mg/l) in dry season and (1500 mg/l) in wet season due to the dilution of wastewater. The maximum value of Total Dissolved Solids obtained from samples of Wadi Al-Samen in wet season was (1500 mg/l); this is due to the dilution of wastewater by precipitation. Less than it in the dry season was as follows (2000 mg/l).
Total Suspended Solids
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), is defined as any type of solid materials that is insoluble in wastewater but that can be captured by a filter; this includes both industrial and domestic wastes. In the case of Wadi Al-samen, samples from El-Hellh (S2) and Wadi Al Door (S1) had high concentrations in both seasons as a direct result of discharge from stone cut industry, where TSS had lower concentrations in the other 3 samples, as the heavy clay loads settled down along the stream. On other hand, autumn samples’ tests were higher from the spring ones because of the evaporation effects as well as the longer working days in summer time so the industrial wastewater discharge is higher and more concentrated.
Biological Oxygen Demand
As abbreviated (BOD5), it represents the amount of organic present in water pollution, and it is a measure of water pollution with organic materials. The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water is monitored, as a result of the consumption of oxygen levels by organic materials. BOD results were elevated near El-Hellh (S2) & Wadi Al Door (S1) as direct results of industrial wastewater discharge directly into stream. It was also higher in autumn samples than winter .BOD5 ranged between 241 to 918mg/l in dry season and 213 to 698 mg/l in wet season.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
The main sources of increased COD content are industrial, agricultural and animal activities. COD values are usually 50–60% higher than BOD5 values. Low values of COD content were found in Wadi Al Dahriya (S6) samples as they are far from the exit of the sewage pipes and therefore yield lower values of COD.
2. Ground water Hydrochemistry
Physical Properties
1- TDS: the majority of samples collected from groundwater resources gave TDS values between 300–900 mg/l. Samples taken from Al-Alaqa Al-Foqa (W19) and Al- Baiarah (W4) ranged between 1000–1200 mg/l, indicating sewage infiltration into groundwater aquifers.
2- EC: Electric Conductivity values for samples collected from springs ranged from 500–2000 µS/cm, and 500–1000 µS/cm for samples collected from the ground wells. In summer, results were of higher values in ground wells mainly in Al- Rihia (W14) and Al-Fawwar wells (W11, W12) and reached to 500–1100 µS/cm.
3-pH: The water of Wadi Al-Samen has a neutral or slightly basic pH, the pH value of samples ranged from 7.39–7.8, these values fall within the accepted standard range 6.5–8.5 according to WHO.
4-Temperature: In the dry season, slightly higher temperatures were recorded compared to the wet season, which explains their storage at surface levels. Most of the samples collected from groundwater resources gave values of temperature ranged 20.5–21.5 degrees Celsius.
Water Chemistry
Major cations:
Four major cations (Mg2+, Ca2+, Na+ and K+) were analyzed. The results showed high values Ca2+ which exceeds WHO accepted range that is 200 mg/l (WHO, 2011). These elevated values of Ca2+ could be explained by the direct effect of active stone industry in the area where wastewater discharges directly to the nature. The levels of K+ were also high in some samples because of the non-regulated use of fertilizers. Mg2+ and Na+ were within accepted limits and considered as natural presence elements.
The prevalent cation tendency in Wadi Al -Samen aquifer is Ca2+ > Na+ > Mg2+ > K+
Calcium is the common cation in Wadi Al -Samen aquifer for two seasons, its concentration for dry season ranges between 39.79 and 251.9 mg/l with an average of 116.45 mg/l and its concentration for wet season ranges 34.5 to 240.8 with an average 106.36 mg/l (Table 2). Sodium is the second most common predominant cation has a concentration for dry season ranging from 24.93 to 182.2 mg/l with an average of 65.72 mg/l and for wet season ranges from18.3 to 176 mg/l with an average 58.65 (Table 1). Groundwater samples did not exceed the threshold of the WHO and the maximum allowable level is 200 mg/l.
Table 2
Summary of statistical calculations of chemical types for Wet Season from Wadi Al-Samen wells
| pH | EC | T | TDS | NO3− | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | Na+ | K+ | HCO3− | Cl− | SO42− |
Min | 7.3 | 380 | 18 | 240 | 5 | 34.5 | 10.69 | 18.3 | 1.561 | 58.3 | 87 | 5 |
Max | 7.9 | 2298 | 23 | 1304 | 546.9 | 240.8 | 84 | 176 | 19.808 | 186.9 | 754 | 22.9 |
Stand. dev | 0.1928 | 478.845 | 1.538 | 263.307 | 120.429 | 56.723 | 16.946 | 40.748 | 5.284 | 23.15 | 174.83 | 3.781 |
mean | 7.67 | 1055.6 | 20.45 | 641.3 | 51.76 | 106.36 | 37.50 | 58.65 | 7.4499 | 134.5 | 277.13 | 15.51 |
Std. error | 0.04 | 107.07 | 0.3439 | 58.878 | 26.929 | 12.684 | 3.7892 | 9.1116 | 1.1816 | 5.178 | 39.1 | 0.85 |
Median | 7.7 | 967 | 20.5 | 601 | 11 | 95.44 | 35.45 | 46.4 | 7.635 | 133 | 253.6 | 15.8 |
Variance | 0.037 | 229293.8 | 2.366 | 69330.7 | 14503.7 | 3217.5 | 287.16 | 1660.4 | 27.921 | 536.1 | 30564.5 | 14.3 |
Table 1
Summary of statistical calculations of chemical types for dry season from Wadi Al-Samen wells
| pH | EC | T | TDS | NO3− | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | Na+ | K+ | HCO3− | Cl− | SO42− |
Min | 7.23 | 385 | 19 | 213 | 5 | 39.79 | 10.72 | 24.93 | 1.563 | 59.8 | 100.5 | 6 |
Max | 8.02 | 2330 | 24 | 1278 | 546.9 | 251.9 | 87.01 | 182.2 | 19.81 | 190.6 | 789.4 | 23.1 |
Stand. dev | 0.2469 | 456.7 | 1.3945 | 259.5 | 120.06 | 57.76 | 17.12 | 41.5 | 5.7 | 26.7 | 177.95 | 4.2 |
mean | 7.696 | 1115.1 | 21.6 | 636.6 | 53.36 | 116.45 | 41.13 | 65.72 | 7.76 | 143.9 | 287.6 | 16.1 |
Std. error | 0.0552 | 102.1 | 0.31 | 58.028 | 26.846 | 12.915 | 3.825 | 9.2792 | 1.2799 | 5.967 | 39.791 | 0.94 |
Median | 7.73 | 1014.5 | 21 | 612 | 13.5 | 109.05 | 38.905 | 55.135 | 7.6395 | 141.6 | 259.8 | 16.05 |
Variance | 0.06097 | 2086 | 1.94 | 67343.8 | 14414.06 | 3335.88 | 292.67 | 1722.1 | 32.77 | 711.9 | 31665.7 | 17.76 |
In general, the concentrations of sodium and calcium ions are generally higher compared to those of magnesium ions. The dry season values range from 10.72 to 87.01 mg/l with an average value of 41.13 mg/l and for wet season 10.69 to 84 with an average of 37.50 mg/l. Additionally, potassium quantities in dry season range from 1.563 to 19.81 mg/l with an average of 7.76 mg/l; and for the wet season ranging from1.561 to 19.808 with an average of 7.4499.
Major Anions
The most abundant anions are (HCO3−, Cl−, SO42−and NO3−). By measuring the concentrations of these ions in groundwater samples, the composition of the anions (side by side with cations) is determined for water; the chemical quality of the water type can be determined and described. A brief summary of anions concentrations in dry and wet seasons is presented in tables (4&5). Cl− analysis for most of springs were higher than the allowed range (250mg/l) as some springs are saline springs that follow from shallower aquifers or at the land surface. NO3− 1 also increased in (Al Fawwar 1, 2) (W11, W12), Khursa (W16) and Abdo (W17) (accepted limit 50mg/l), this because of wastewater stream and manmade pollution with excess quantities of fertilizers. Show anions concentrations during 2 seasons. (Fig. 9), (Fig. 10) Nitrates and salinity are the most frequently polluted groundwater (Troudi, 2020).
Statistical study of the water resources of Wadi Al-Samen Basin
Hierarchical cluster analysis
The analyzed water samples are represented by a hierarchical classification tree (Fig. 11); (Fig. 12) confirms the results obtained by the piper chart. There are different combinations:
For dry season:
Cluster 1: consists of the most mineralized wells with highly Na+, HCO3−, Ca2+, Cl−.
Cluster 2: consists of the most wells composed of the least mineralized with the enrichment of SO4 − 2.
For wet season:
Cluster 1: consists of the most mineralized wells with highly Na+, HCO3−, Ca+ 2, Cl−.
Cluster 2: consists of the least mineralized wells with a slight enrichment in mg+.
Water Rock Interaction
Gibbs diagrams were used to understand the mechanisms and processes that control the chemistry of groundwater. Gibbs diagrams are plotting according to the total dissolved solids (TDS) with ratio (Na+/(Na++Ca2+))(Fig. 13a) and ratio (Cl−/(Cl− +HCO3−)) (Fig. 13b).
For two seasons, this graph is used to describe the origin dissolved components such as the rock weathering dominance, the evaporation dominance, and the precipitation dominance, a Gibbs diagram is used (Gibbs 1970).
According to the graph, the data of Wadi Al-Samen samples indicates that the chemical composition governed by evaporation and rock weathering.
The plot of Ca2+ and SO42− shows that for water resources samples (Fig. 14), Gypsum is the source of calcium in the two samples close to the bisector line (1:1), while the three samples that are above the straight line, indicates the presence of excess in Ca2+, which indicates precipitation of carbonates. Many samples under the line 1:1 this indicates a deficit in Ca2+, suggesting carbonate precipitation.
Many samples are close to the bisector line (1:1) of sodium compared to chloride’s plot (Fig. 15), where evaporation is an essential process in controlling the groundwater’s chemistry.
Mineral dissolution is an essential part of groundwater mineralization by ion exchange with minerals present in clay soils in aquifers as well as reverse ion exchange (Fig. 16).
The Scatter plots (Ca2++Mg2+) vs. (HCO3− + SO42−) indicate the presence of carbonate and silicate weathering (Fig. 17), this is observed in samples that lie below the line1:1 in (Fig. 17).Three samples at the upper of the line 1:1 indicate that the water samples are associated with carbonate rocks. Samples to the right of the 1:1 line indicate abundance of SO42− + HCO3− is a sign of silicate weathering.
Geochemical Facies
Water Type
Water classification
The Piper scheme was used to classify water samples as an effective representation of chemical elements and by using a program Aquachem program Through Piper's scheme, (Fig. 18). It showed samples from springs and wells in the two seasons (dry and wet) located in earth alkaline with predominant bicarbonate.
The results showed that the determination of water type (Table 3) depends on nature and is the indicator of the interaction of limestone rocks; it appeared that 35% of samples are located in domain of Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3. 20% of the samples showed that water type of Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3, 15% of the samples showed that water type of Ca-Na-Mg-Cl and 30% from samples water type of Ca-Mg-Na-Cl, Ca-Mg-Cl.
Table 3
The Water types for two seasons in Wadi Al-Samen Basin
Dry Samples | water type | Wet Samples | water type |
W1 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W1 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W2 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W2 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W3 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 | W3 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 |
W4 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 | W4 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 |
W5 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl | W5 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W6 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl | W6 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W7 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl | W7 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W8 | Mg-Ca-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W8 | Mg-Ca-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W9 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W9 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 |
W10 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W10 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W11 | Ca-Mg-Cl | W11 | Ca-Mg-Cl |
W12 | Ca-Mg-Cl | W12 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 |
W13 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W13 | Ca-Mg-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W14 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 | W14 | Ca-Mg-Cl-HCO3 |
W15 | Ca-Na-Cl-HCO3 | W15 | Ca-Na-Cl-HCO3 |
W16 | Ca-Na-Mg-NO3-Cl | W16 | Ca-Mg-Na-NO3-Cl |
W17 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl | W17 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl |
W18 | Ca-Cl | W18 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl |
W19 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl | W19 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl |
W20 | Ca-Na-Cl | W20 | Ca-Na-Mg-Cl |
Water Quality Index
Estimation and mapping of water quality index
Water quality is evaluated in any given area by using physical, chemical and biological tests. The study focuses on parameters that are considered harmful to human health and the environment if they exceed specific values. Human consumption is described using one of the most effective indicators to describe water quality by means of the Water Quality Index; The Water Quality Index is widely used in Europe, Africa and Asian countries (Tyagi et al., 2013).
The first step in evaluating of the water index begins by determining the necessary parameters as follows (pH, TDS, Cl−, SO42−, HCO3−, NO3−, Ca+ 2), then the weight (wi) is determined on the basis of (Mg+ 2, Na+ and K+). In addition, to assess their expected effects on primary health, So that the parameters are assigned a maximum weight of 5.
Due to the importance of the main parameters in evaluating water quality sources (total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfates, and nitrates), and due to the minuscule role of bicarbonate Weight not less than one, and other parameters such as (calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium), Depending on the importance of these parameters in evaluating the quality of drinking water, a weight is assigned that starts from 1 to 5.
The second step, the relative weight (Wi) of each parameter is computed using Eq. (3):
$$Wi=\frac{wi}{\sum _{i=1}^{n}wi}$$
3
Where: wi: is the weight of each parameter, n: is the number of parameters, Wi is the relative weight. The WHO standards for each parameter are given in Table 4.
Table 4
The weight and relative weight of each of the chemical parameters
Parameters | WHO Standard | Weight (wi) | Relative Weight (Wi) |
pH | 8.5 | 4 | 0.117647059 |
TDS | 1000 | 5 | 0.147058824 |
NO3− | 50 | 5 | 0.147058824 |
Ca2+ | 200 | 3 | 0.088235294 |
Mg2+ | 50 | 3 | 0.088235294 |
Na+ | 200 | 3 | 0.088235294 |
K+ | 30 | 2 | 0.058823529 |
HCO3− | 280 | 1 | 0.029411765 |
Cl− | 250 | 3 | 0.088235294 |
SO42− | 250 | 5 | 0.147058824 |
Total | | ∑ wi = 34 | ∑ Wi = 1 |
During the third step, the quality evaluation scale (qi) was calculated. For each parameter using Eq. (4):
$$qi=\frac{Ci}{Si}x100$$
4
Where: qi: is the quality rating, Ci: is the concentration of each chemical parameter in each water sample in milligrams per liter, Si: is the WHO standard for each chemical parameter in mg /l.
For calculating the WQI, the SI is first determined for each chemical parameter using Eq. (5), which is then used to determine the WQI as per the Eq. (6):
SIi: is the sub-index of ith parameter, qi: is the rating based on concentration of ith parameter, n: is the number of parameters.
The calculated WQI values are classified into five categories describing the water situation through (Table 5): excellent, good, poor, very poor, and unfit for human consumption. The spatial distribution of water quality based on (WQI) as shown as in (Fig. 19a), (Fig. 19b).
Table 5
Water quality index (WQI) rating of groundwater samples (Brown et al., I970 & Ramakrishnaiah et al., 2009)
WQI range | Type of water |
< 50 | Excellent water |
50–100.1 | Good water |
100–200.1 | Poor water |
200–300.1 | Very poor water |
> 300 | Unfit for drinking |
1.1 Water Resources suitability for different purposes
1.2 EC of springs
Todd’s classification was used to determine the ability of groundwater wells to irrigate crops, human consumption purposes. According to Todd's classification as shown in (Table 6), the results in both rounds showed that all water sources are suitable for irrigating all kinds of crops.
Table 6
Classification of Todd (2007) for the tolerance of different types of crops by using the conductivity value (Todd, 2007)
Crop division | Low salt tolerance crops EC (µS/cm) | Medium salt tolerance crops EC (µS/cm) | High salt tolerance crops. EC (µS/cm) |
Fruit crops | 0-3000 Limon, Strawberry, Peach spricot, Almond, Plum Orange, Apple, Pear | 3000–4000 Cantaloupe, Olive, Figs, Pomegranate | 4000-10,000 Date palm |
Vegetable crops | 3000–4000 Green beans, Celery, Radish | 4000-10,000 Cucumber, Peas, Onion carrot, Potatoes, Sweet corn, Lettuce, Cauliflower, Bell pepper, Cabbage, Broccoli, Tomato | 10,000-120,000 Spinach, Garden beets |
Field crops | 4000–6000 Field beans | 6000-10,000 Sunflower, Corn (field) ,Rice, Wheat | 10,000–16,000 Cotton, Sugar beet. |
1.2 Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
SAR is a predominant indicator to show the suitability of water quality for irrigation which based on the water content of Na+, Ca+ 2 and Mg+ 2 by using Eq. (2).
The results showed that in both seasons, the water from the tested springs are perfectly (Excellent) suitable for irrigation. This is because the SAR values are below 10, which means low salinity effects. However, water resources of Abdo (W17)13.90, Al-Alaqa Al-Foqa (W19)11.39 and Bi'r al-Wad (W20)10.24 were not found to have a good evaluation for Irrigation suitability based on SAR classifications of irrigation suitability (Table 7).
Table 7
Classification of water for irrigation suitability based on SAR (USDA, 1954)
SAR value | Irrigation suitability |
< 10 | Excellent |
10–18 | Good |
18–26 | Fair |
> 26 | Poor |
1.3 Salinity
Wilcox diagram is a Semi-logarithmic diagram describing the relationship between sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and electrical conductivity (EC). Scatter position (SAR) represent (risk of sodium) in the y axis and (EC) a represent (risk of salinity) in the x axis. As for the internal structure of the Wilcox diagram, it is divided into four columns (C1-C4) describing the salinity hazard, and four horizontal columns describing the sodium hazard (S1-S4).
The results of Wilcox diagram in the two seasons showed that few of samples its suitability for agriculture, these samples located in medium salinity (C2) and low sodium (S1) (Fig. 20). The rest of the study samples were described as unsuitable for cultivation (Wilcox, 1955), being in medium salinity (C2) and low sodium (S1) as shown in (Fig. 20).