Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

DOI 10.1007/s10661-010-1477-5

Hydrochemical profile for assessing the groundwater

quality of Sambhar lake City and its Adjoining area
Anita Joshi Gita Seth

Received: 28 January 2009 / Accepted: 20 April 2010 / Published online: 18 June 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Quality assessment of water is essential

to ensure sustainable safe use of it for drinking,
agricultural, and industrial purposes. For the same
purpose the study was conducted for the samples
of water of Sambhar lake city and its adjoining
areas. The standard methods of APHA were used
to analysis 15 samples collected from hand pumps
and tube wells of the specified area. The analytical results show higher concentration of total
dissolved solids, electrical conductivity sodium,
nitrate, sulfate, and fluoride, which indicate signs
of deterioration but values of pH, calcium, magnesium, total hardness, and carbonate are within
permissible limits as per WHO standards. From
the Hill-piper trilinear diagram, it is observed that
the majority of groundwater from sampling stations are sodiumpotassiumchloridesulfate type
water. The values of sodium absorption ratio and
electrical conductivity of the groundwater were
plotted in the US salinity laboratory diagram for
irrigation water. Only the one sample fall in C3 S1
quality with high salinity hazard and low sodium
hazard. Other samples fall in high salinity hazard
and high sodium hazard. Chemical analysis of
groundwater shows that mean concentration of

A. Joshi G. Seth (B)

Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan,
Jaipur 302055 Rajasthan, India
e-mail: gita_seth@yahoo.co.in

cation is in order sodium > magnesium > calcium

> potassium while for the anion it is chloride >
bicarbonate > nitrate > sulfate.
Keywords Groundwater Hill-piper trilinear
diagram US salinity laboratory diagram

Introduction
Water is very vital for nature and can be a limiting
resource to men and other living beings. Without a well-functioning water supply, it is difficult
to imagine productive human activity be it agriculture or livestock. Water quality is influenced
by natural and anthropogenic effects including
local climate, geology, and irrigation practices.
The quality of water is of uttermost important to
quantity in any water supply planning. The chemical character of any groundwater determines its
quality and utilization. The quality is a function of
the physical, chemical, and biological parameters
and could be subjective, since it depends on a
particular intended use.
Extensive studies on water quality have been
carried out by various workers. Laluraj et al.
(2005) have studied groundwater chemistry of
shallow aquifers in the costal zones of Cochin
and concluded that groundwater present in the
shallow aquifers of some of the stations were poor
in quality and beyond potable limit as per the

548

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

standard set by WHO and ISI. Rapid increase in

urbanization and industrialization leads to deterioration in groundwater quality. Srinivas et al.
(2000) and Jha and Verma (2000) have reported
the degradation of water quality in Hydrabad and
Bihar, respectively.
Patnaik et al. (2002) have studied water pollution generated from major industries. Similarly,
waste effluents discharged into streams may enter
the aquifer body downstream, which also affects
the groundwater quality. Abbasi et al. (2002) have
studied the impacts of wastewater input on the
water quality. Jagdap et al. (2002) and Sunitha
et al. (2005) classify the water in order to assess the
water quality for various sources in and around
Jaipur and many villages. The studies on trace
metals have been carried out (Jangir et al. 1990;

Table 1 Estimation of various physicochemical parameters by different methods

Parameters
Chloride (as Cl in mg/l)
Carbonate (as CO3 2 in mg/l)
Bicarbonate (as HCO3
in mg/l)
Magnesium (as Mg2+ in mg/l)
Calcium (as Ca+ in mg/l)
Sodium (as Na+ in mg/l)
Potassium (as K+ in mg/l)
Sulfate (as SO4 2 in mg/l)
Nitrate (as NO3 in mg/l)
Fluoride (as F in mg/l)

Method used
Argentometric titration
Titrimetry
Titrimetry
EDTA titration
EDTA titration
Flame photometric method
Flame photometric method
Spectropotometric method
Spectrophotometric method
Spectropotometeric method

Sharma et al. 1990). Sharma et al. (2004), Singh

and Chandel (2003, 2006) pollution problems in
groundwater and industrial wastewater have also
been studied.

Table 2 Physicochemistry parameters of groundwater of Sambhar lake city and its adjoining areas
Code

pH EC

GW-1

9.0

GW-2

8.3

GW-3

8.0

GW-4

8.0

GW-5

8.9

GW-6

8.5

GW-7

8.3

GW-8

8.4

GW-9

8.9

GW-10 8.1
GW-11 9.0
GW-12 8.2
GW-13 7.8
GW-14 8.2
GW-15 8.4

4,110

Unit

mg/l
meq/l
4,100 mg/l
meq/l
8,100 mg/l
meq/l
2600 mg/l
meq/l
2320 mg/l
meq/l
6720 mg/l
meq/l
8510 mg/l
meq/l
4540 mg/l
meq/l
1100 mg/l
meq/l
10000 mg/l
meq/l
1500 mg/l
meq/l
1950 mg/l
meq/l
8940 mg/l
meq/l
6790 mg/l
meq/l
14000 mg/l
meq/l

Ca2+ Mg2+ Na2+ K+

TH

TDS

658.185

382.718

439.309

672.289

594.593

474.267

245.243

176.906

553.969

458.305

162.943

347.48

341.327

332.498

393.025

670 51
1.27
712 89

2.22
810 82

2.05
1,009 172

4.30
789 159

3.97
994 96

4.17
570 29

0.72
504 28

0.70
810 62

1.55
1,450 55

1.37
1,590 29

0.72
890 65

1.62
505 51

1.27
660 59

1.47
990 75

1.87

129
5.30
39
1.60
57
2.34
59
2.42
48
1.97
57
2.34
42
1.72
26
1.06
97
3.98
78
3.20
22
0.91
45
1.85
52
2.13
45
1.85
50
2.05

190
8.26
123
5.30
645
28.04
663
28.82
389
16.91
316
13.73
898
39.04
198
8.60
150
6.52
450
19.56
489
21.26
405
17.60
750
32.60
725
31.62
801
34.82

49
1.25
69
1.76
81
2.07
49
1.25
98
2.51
49
1.25
15
0.38
39
1.00
40
1.02
39
1.00
01
0.03
09
0.23
39
1.00
09
0.28
15
0.38

CO3 2 HCO3 SO4 2 Cl

NO3 F

72
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
35
0.58
28
0.46
0.00
0.00
39
0.65
65
1.08
0.00
0.00
68
10.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75
1.25

79
1.27
88
1.41
129
2.08
87
1.40
65
1.04
86
1.38
47
0.76
32
0.51
62
1.00
04
0.06
46
0.74
58
0.93
105
1.69
149
2.40
35
0.56

183
3.00
207
2.27
229
3.81
293
4.80
215
3.58
298
4.88
159
2.60
185
3.03
191
3.13
315
5.16
159
2.60
95
1.55
205
3.36
220
3.60
95
1.58

74
0.77
36
0.37
125
1.30
49
0.51
80
0.83
53
0.55
45
0.46
50
0.52
135
1.40
93
0.96
137
1.42
154
1.60
125
1.30
141
1.46
189
3.09

319
8.99
184
5.1
1,004
28.32
1,050
29.61
621
17.51
445
12.55
1,299
36.64
239
6.74
205
5.78
613
17.29
698
19.68
602
16.68
1,099
31.00
1,054
29.73
1,245
35.11

1.24
0.01
1.12
0.05
3.09
0.16
4.01
0.21
4.12
0.15
2.96
0.24
4.6
0.06
1.30
0.06
2.35
0.12
1.98
0.10
4.44
0.23
4.01
0.21
2.15
0.11
3.12
0.16
2.99
0.15

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

The specific objectives of the present study are

(1) the preliminary investigation and interpretation of groundwater quality of Sambhar Lake City
and it is adjoining areas (2) find out the suitability of groundwater for irrigation and drinking
purpose and (3) establish significant correlation
amongst fourteen water quality parameters.

549

Results and discussion

Physico-chemical parameter of groundwater of
Sambhar Lake city and its adjoining areas are
reported in Table 2, whereas correlation matrix
among 15 water quality parameter are reported in
Table 3.
Groundwater chemistry

Materials and methods

Sambhar Lake City (Dist. Jaipur) which is located
in the eastern part of Rajasthan state, is undergoing rapid urbanization and industrialization.
Groundwater samples from different hand
pump and tube wells at 15 sampling points were
analyzed during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
session. Samples were collected in good quality
polythene bottles of 1-l capacity. Sampling was
carried out without adding any preservatives in
rinsed bottles directly for avoiding any contamination and brought to the laboratory. Monitoring
was done during pre- and post-monsoon season.
Only high pure (AnalR Grade) chemicals and
double-distilled water was used for preparing solutions for analysis. Physical parameters like pH,
total dissolved solids (TDS), and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined at site with the
help of digital portable water analyzer kit (Model
No: 1160). The samples collected were analyzed as
per standard procedures (APHA 1995).
The total hardness (TH) in mg/l was determined by following equation (Todd 1980):
TH = 2.497Ca2+ + 4.115 Mg2+
Determination of major cations and anions were
made in the laboratory using the analytical methods shown in Table 1. The accuracy of chemical
analysis was verified by calculating ion-balance
errors (Lloyd and Healthcote 1985; Mandel and
Shiftan 1981), where the errors were generally
around 10%. The respective values for all these
parameters are reported in Table 2. All the results
are compared with standard limits recommended
by world Health organization (WHO 1983).

The pH values of groundwater of study area between 7.8 and 9.0 with an average value of 8.4,
indicates the alkaline nature of water samples.
Electrical conductivity and TDS in the samples exceed the permissible limits recommended
by WHO conductivity values varied from 2,150
to 1,400 s/cm. The maximum limit of EC in
drinking water is described as 1,500 s/cm as
per WHO standard. All the samples exceed the
permissible limit. Maximum value of EC in GW14 is 14,000 s/cm. TDS value range from 0 to
1,590 mg/l. The maximum limit of TDS in drinking
water is prescribed as per WHO standard. The
TDS values of sample GW-8 is within desirable
limit where as the values of TDS exceeds in
all other samples. On the basis of salinity classification (Table 5) the groundwater of the study
area fall in highly saline category. The mean concentration of cation is in order Na+ > Mg2+ >
Ca2+ > K+ while for anion it is Cl > HCO3 >
NO3 > SO4 2 > F (Table 2). Sodium concentration varied from 123 to 898 mg/l, with an
average value of 479.46 mg/l. Potassium ion concentration varied from 01 to 98 mg/l, with an average value of 40.06 mg/l. Mg2+ ion concentration
varied from 22 to 129 mg/l, with an average value
of 56.40 mg/l. The desirable value of Mg2+ for
50 mg/l. Nearly 50% samples exceed the desirable
limit. Ca2+ ion concentration varied from 28 to
172 mg/l, with an average of 73.46 mg/l. The desirable limit for Ca2+ for drinking water is specified
as 75 mg/l. It is observed that 72% groundwater
samples from the study area are within permissible limit as per WHO standard. The carbonate
content ranged between 0.001 to 75 mg/l, whereas
bicarbonate ranged between 95 and 315 mg/l.
Chloride ion concentration varied from 184 to

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

0.003995
0.216557
0.57818
0.33691
0.05513
0.21153
0.31381
0.21643 0.35564
0.30292 0.32665 0.13765
0.20329 0.11436
0.45968 0.39207
0.1128
0.32877
0.44727
0.28879 0.52118
0.28184
0.99483 0.30418 0.30413 0.1234
0.023385
0.18857
0.23014 0.35746
0.18417
0.40008
0.57157 0.26169 0.11966 0.17386
0.004
0.7057
0.73783
0.22864
0.56935
0.090428
0.4229
0.16546
0.15805
0.17784
0.10913
0.17875
0.04688
0.22256
0.04002
0.59652
0.14828
0.12743
0.005221
0.24117
0.58224
0.06733
0.13696
pH
EC
TH
TDS
Ca2+
Mg2+
Na+
K+
CO3 2
HCO3
SO4 2
Cl
NO3
F

0.49062
0.15003
0.20597
0.07413
0.28215
0.52557
0.031836
0.81369
0.25001
0.0007
0.51143
0.28335
0.033905

0.054607
0.05765
0.042452
0.00833 0.00902
0.23455
0.61554
0.20879 0.18413
0.20855
0.41259
0.2462
0.23308
0.1501
0.061902
0.42658
0.23871
0.30971
0.2584

HCO3
CO3 2
K+
Na+
Mg2+
Ca2+
TDS
TH
EC
pH

Table 3 Correlation matrix among 14 water quality parameters of groundwater of Sambhar lake city and its adjoining areas

SO4 2

Cl

NO3

550

1,299 mg/l. The desirable limit of Cl for drinking

water is specified as 200 mg/l. Nearly 93% of the
groundwater samples exceed the desirable limit as
per WHO. It was found that amount of sulfate
ranged from 36 to 189 mg/l and all samples were
below the permissible limit as per WHO standard.
Fluoride value varied from 1.12 to 4.44 mg/l. The
desirable limit of F ion concentration is specified
as 1.0 mg/l. It is observed that almost all the
groundwater samples from the study area exceed
the permissible limit. Nitrate value varied from
04 to 149 mg/l. Nearly 78% of the groundwater
samples exceeds the standard desirable limit of
45 mg/l, as per WHO norms. All these sampling
points are very close to domestic area so all municipal sewage is discharged here and this may cause
higher nitrate concentration. NO3 ion concentration in excess in drinking water creates several
problems (Mishra 1980) like cyanosis, tumors goiter, oral cancer, cancer of colon, rectum or other
gastrointestinal cancer, lymphoma, and dyspnea,
and high nitrate ion concentrate in groundwater
poses a small but well-recognized risk to bottlefed babies known as methemoglobinemia.
Major cations and anions such as Ca2+ , Mg2+ ,
Na+ , K+ , CO3 2 , HCO3 , SO4 2 , and Cl in milligrams per liter were plotted in piper trilinear
diagram (Piper 1944) to evaluate the hydrochemistry of groundwater of Sambhar lake city and it
is adjoining area with the help of GWW-software
(Fig. 1). The plot shows that most of the groundwater samples fall in the field of Na+ Cl SO4 2
type water. Alkaline earth metals estimated water samples showed alkaline nature in few samples whereas few samples were found weak acidic
in nature as per Waltsons classification (Walton
1970).

Correlation of physiochemical parameters

of groundwaters
Correlation coefficient is commonly used measure
to establish the relation between independent and
dependent variable (Nair et al. 2005). The correlation matrix for 14 water quality parameters was
prepared for groundwater of Sambhar lake city
and its adjoining area in Table 3.

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

551

Fig. 1 Distribution of the

water samples on Piper
diagram

Alkalinity hazards

Salinity hazard

The sodium/alkali hazard is typically expressed

as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). This index quantifies the proportion of sodium (Na+ ) to
calcium (Ca2+ ) and magnesium (Mg2+ ) ions in a
sample. Sodium hazard of irrigation water can be
well understood by knowing SAR. The sodium adsorption ratio values for each water sample were
calculated by using following equation (Richard
1954).

Electrical conductivity is a good measurement of

salinity hazard to crop as it reflects the TDS in
groundwater. Only one sampling point found suitable with respect to EC for irrigation purpose. According to Wilcox classification (Wilcox 1955), the
groundwater in study area are ranging between

SAR = 

Na+
Ca2+ +Mg2+
2

Where the concentration are reported in milligrams per liter. Sodium adsorption ratio varied
from 3.83 to 35.34 mg/l (Table 4). Sixty percent of
samples fall in high sodium class (Table 5). The
analytical data plot on the US salinity diagram
(Wilcox 1948) illustrates that only one sample fall
in the field of (C3 S1 ) indicating high salinity and
low sodium water, which can be used for irrigation
on almost all type of soil with little danger of
exchangeable sodium (Fig. 2).

Table 4 Groundwater quality parameters for irrigation

purposes
Code

SAR

Na%

RSC

GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
GW-4
GW-5
GW-6
GW-7
GW-8
GW-9
GW-10
GW-11
GW-12
GW-13
GW-14
GW-15

4.55
3.83
18.92
15.72
9.81
7.61
35.45
9.16
3.92
12.93
23.54
13.36
25.00
24.46
24.87

57.85
64.88
87.28
81.74
76.58
69.71
94.17
84.51
57.69
81.81
97.13
83.71
90.81
90.53
34.56

2.37
1.55
0.58
1.92
1.84
1.17
0.16
1.92
1.32
0.59
1.59
1.92
0.04
0.28
1.09

552
Table 5 Classification of
groundwater on the basis
of Na% SAR, EC, RSC,
TH, and TDS

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

Parameters

Range

Water class

Samples

Na%

20
2040
4060
6080
80
10
18
1826
26
250
250750
7502,000
2,0003,000
3,000
< 1.25
1.252.50
2.5
< 75
75150
150300
300
< 1, 000
1,0003,000
3,00010,000
10,00035,000

Excellent
Good
Permissible
Doubtful
Unsuitable
Excellent
Good
Doubtful
Unsuitable
Excellent
Good
Permissible
Doubtful
Unsuitable
Good
Doubtful
Unsuitable
Soft
Moderately hard
Hard
Very hard
Fresh
Slightly saline
Moderately saline
High saline

Nil
GW-15
GW-1,9
GW-2,5,6
GW-3,1,78,10,11,12,13,14
GW-1,2,5,6,8,9
GW-4, 10, 12
GW-3, 11, 13, 14, 15
GW-7
Nil
Nil
GW-9, 11, 12
GW-4, 5
GW-1,2,3,6,7,8,10,13,14,15

SAR

EC

RSC

TH

TDS

Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
GW-7,8,11
GW-1,2,3,5,6,9,10,12,13,14
GW-1,2,3, 5,6,7,8,9,12,13,14,15
GW-4,10,11
Nil
Nil

permissible to doubtful, it is not for irrigation. The

primary effect of high EC reduces the osmotic activity of plants and interferes with the absorption
of water and nutrients from the soil.

Na%) class (Wilcox 1955). The sodium percentage is calculated as follows:

 +

Na + K+ 100
Na% =
Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Na+ + K+

Total hardness

Here all the concentration are expressed in

meq/l. The values of sodium percent are vary from
34.56% to 97.13% (Table 4). The only one of
the sampling station was found to be suitable for
drinking and irrigation purpose whereas all other
are unsuitable for above mentioned purposes
(Table 5). When the concentration of sodium ion
is high in irrigation water, Na+ tend to be absorbed by clay particles, displacing magnesium
and calcium ions. This exchange process of sodium
in water for Ca2+ and Mg2+ in soil reduces the
permeability and eventually results in soil with
poor internal drainage.

Total hardness varied between 162.94 mg/l to

672.27 mg/l. Maximum allowable limit of TH for
drinking water is specified as 500 mg/l and the
most desirable limit is 100 mg/l as per WHO
standard. All the sampling stations in the present
study exceed the desirable limit. The classification
of groundwater (Table 5) based on total hardness
shows that a majority of the groundwater samples
fall in the hard to very hard category.

Sodium percentage (Na%)

Residual sodium carbonate
Sodium percentage values reflected that the water
was under the category of good (2040 Na%),
permissible (4060 Na%) and doubtful (6080

In water having high concentration of bicarbonate

there is tendency for calcium and magnesium to

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

553

Fig. 2 Water
classification according to
EC and SAR values

precipitate as carbonate. To qualify this effect

an experimental parameters termed as residual
sodium carbonate (Eaton 1950) was used. Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) is calculated as follows:


 
RSC = HCO3 + CO3 2 Ca2+ + Mg2+
All the samples fall in negative value expect
GW-7, 8, 10, 11, 14 these are excellent category.

Conclusion
Interpretation of hydrochemical data reveals that
the groundwater of study area is hard to very hard,
fresh to slightly saline and alkaline in nature. The
trilinear diagram shows that all of the samples fall
in the field of Na+ Cl SO4 2 type water. Na+
and Cl show good positive correlation.
US salinity diagram illustrates that only one
groundwater sample fall in the field of C3 S1 , indicating high salinity and low sodium water, which
can be used for irrigation on almost all type of soil
with little danger of exchangeable sodium.

Acknowledgements One of the author (Anita Joshi) is

thankful to the Head of the Department of Chemistry,
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for providing the necessary
laboratory facilities and also to the Central Ground Water,
Jaipur.

References
Abbasi, S. A., Khan, F. I., Sentilven, K., & Shabudeen, A.
(2002). Modelling of Buckingham Canal water quality.
Indian Journal of Environmental Health, 44(4), 290
297.
APHA-AWWA-WPCF (1995). Standard methods for the
examination of water and waste water (19th Edn.). New
York: American Water Works Association.
Eaton, F. M. (1950). Significance of carbonates in irrigation
water. Soil Science, 69, 123133.
Jagdap, J., Kachawe, B., Deshpande, L., & Kelkar, P.
(2002). Water quality assessment of the Purna River
for irrigation purpose in Buldana district, Maharastra.
Indian Journal of Environmental Health, 44(3), 247
257.
Jangir, J. P., Sharma, A., Sengar, M. P. S., & Gupta,
C. M. (1990). Studies in quality of water in and around
Jaipur part-IV. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection, 10(7), 515517.
Jha, A. N., & Verma, P. K. (2000). Physico-chemical
property of drinking water in town area of Godda

554
district under Santal Pargana, Bihar. Pollution Research, 19(2), 245247.
Laluraj, C. M., Gopinath, G., & Dinesh Kumar, P. K.
(2005). Groundwater chemistry of shallow aquifers in
the costal zones of cochin. India Applied Ecology and
Environmental Research, 3(1), 133139.
Lloyd, J. W., & Healthcote, J. A. (1985). Natural inorganic
hydrochemistry in relation to groundwater. An introduction (p. 295). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mandel, S., & Shiftan, Z. L. (1981). Groundwater resources
(p. 269). New York: Academic.
Mishra, S. K. (1980). Nitrates: Mode of occurrence and
their possible implication for causation of human cancer and animal death. Science and Engineering, 9, 69 &
73.
Nair, A., Abdalla, G., Mehmed, I., & Premkumar, K.
(2005). Physicochemical parameters and correlation
coefficient of ground waters of north-east Libiya. Pollution Research, 24(1), 16.
Patnaik, K. N., Satyanarayan, S. V., & Rout, S. P. (2002).
Water Pollution from major industries in Pradip area
A case study. Indian Journal of Environmental Health,
44(3), 203211.
Piper, A. M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analysis. Transactions
American Geophysical Onion, 25, 914928.
Richard, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of
saline and alkali soils. Agricultural handbook (Vol. 60,
p. 160). Washington, DC: USDA.
Sharma, D. K., Jangir, J. P., Chandel, C. P. S., & Gupta,
C. M. (1990). Studies in quality of water from various
sources in villages around Jaipur. Journal of the India
Water Works Associations, 22(1), 121122.

Environ Monit Assess (2011) 174:547554

Sharma, S. K., Singh, V., & Chandel, C. P. S. (2004).
Ground water pollution problem and evaluation of
physico-chemical properties of ground water. Environmental and Ecology, 22(P 12), 319324.
Singh, V., & Chandel, C. P. S. (2003). Study of nitrate concentration of industrial wastewater and ground water.
Journal of the Indian water works Association, 35(3),
228229.
Singh, V., & Chandel, C. P. (2006). Analysis of wastewater
of Jaipur city for agricultural use. Research Journal of
Chemistry and Environment, 10(1), 3033.
Srinivas, C. H., Piska Ravi, S., Venkateshwar, C., Satyanarayana Rao, M. S., & Ravinder Reddy, R. (2000).
Studies on ground water quality of Hyderabad. Pollution Research, 19(2), 285289.
Sunitha, V., Subarshan, V., & Rajeshwara Reddy, B.
(2005). Hydrochemistry of groundwater, Gooty area,
Anantpur district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Pollution
Research, 24(1), 217244.
Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology. New York:
Wiley.
Walton, W. C. (1970). Ground water resources evolution.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Wilcox, L. V. (1948). The quality of water for irrigation
use (p. 40). U.S. Department of agriculture, technical
bulletin, 1962 , Washington, DC, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classification and use of irrigation water (p. 19). U.S. Department of Agriculture
circular 969, Washington DC, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
World Health Organization (1983). Guidelines for drinking water (Vol. 1, pp. 5282). Geneva: World health
Organization.