MAHANADI RIVER

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 155:227–243DOI 10.1007/s10661-008-0431-2

Environmental studies on river water qualitywith reference to suitability for agricultural purposes:Mahanadi river estuarine system, India – a case study

Sanjay Kumar Sundaray · Binod Bihari Nayak ·Dinabandhu Bhatta

Received: 3 October 2007 / Accepted: 3 June 2008 / Published online: 1 August 2008© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Hydrochemistry of surface water (pH,specific conductance, total dissolved solids, sul-fate, chloride, nitrate, bicarbonate, hardness, cal-cium, magnesium, sodium, potassium) in theMahanadi river estuarine system, India was usedto assess the quality of water for agricultural pur-poses. The samples were studied for 31 differentstations during six different seasons in the years2001–2003. Chemical data were used for mathe-matical calculations (SAR, Na%, RSC, potentialsalinity, permeability index, Kelly’s index, mag-nesium hazard, osmotic pressure and salt index)for better understanding the suitability river waterquality for agricultural purposes. The river wateris free from nitrate-nitrogen hazard and has muchless osmotic pressure and RSC values. Furtherthere is no complete precipitation of calciumand magnesium in the study area. The results

S. K. Sundaray (B)Department of Chemistry,S.C.S. (Autonomous) College,Puri 752 001, Orissa, Indiae-mail: [email protected]

B. B. NayakInstitute of Minerals and Materials Technology,Bhubaneswar 751013, Orissa, India

D. BhattaDepartment of Chemistry, Utkal University,Bhubaneswar 751004, Orissa, India

revealed that waters of some polluted stations likeSambalpur down (D/s of Sambalpur town) andKathjodi (Cuttack) down (D/s of Cuttack town)are unsuitable up to some extent, where as it isquite unsuitable in case of estuarine samples dur-ing the pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons.The results were verified by USSL and Wilcoxdiagrams, which show all the fresh water zonesamples (low-medium salinity with low sodium) ofthe study area are in the ‘Excellent to good’ cate-gory and are suitable to irrigate all soils for semi-tolerant and tolerant as well as sensitive crops.

Keywords Water quality · Mahanadi river ·Irrigation · SAR · Na% · RSC · PI ·Salt index · Kelly’s index

Introduction

Irrigated lands contribute significantly to the worldagriculture output and food supply. India is oneof the agriculture based countries. Water used forirrigation can vary greatly in quality dependingupon the type and quantity of dissolved salts.Salts are present in irrigation water in relativelysmall but significant amounts. They originate fromdissolution or weathering of the rocks and soil,including dissolution of lime, gypsum and othersoil minerals. These salts are carried with the wa-ter to wherever it is used. In the case of irrigation,

228 Environ Monit Assess (2009) 155:227–243

the salts are applied with the water and remainbehind in the soil as water evaporates or is usedby the crop. In irrigated agriculture, the hazardof salt water is a constant threat. Poor qualityirrigation water is of concern in arid climaticconditions. Besides affecting crop yield and soilphysical conditions, irrigation water quality affectsfertility needs, irrigation system performance andlongevity and how the water can be applied(Ayers and Westcot 1994).

Rivers play an important role in human develop-ment and are important natural potential sourcesof irrigation water. The hydro-chemical character-istics of water determine its usefulness for agri-cultural, municipal, industrial and domestic watersupplies. The suitability of river water for agri-cultural purposes can be determined by evalu-ating some physico chemical parameters alongwith some calculated hydrogeochemical parame-ters and graphical representations.

Study area

Geographical setting

The Mahanadi River system is the third largestin the peninsula of India and the largest river ofthe Orissa state. The basin (80◦30′–86◦50′ E and19◦20′–23◦35′ N) extends over an area of approxi-mately 141,600 km2, has a total length of 851 kmand an annual runoff of 50 × 109 m3with a peakdischarge of 44,740 m3s−1(Konhauser et al. 1997;Chakrapani and Subramanian 1990; Sundarayet al. 2006). The basin is characterised by a tropi-cal climate with average annual rainfall of 142 cm(NWDA 1981) with 90% occurring during thesouth-west monsoon. The river begins in theBaster hills of Madhya Pradesh flows over differ-ent geological formations of Eastern Ghats andadjacent areas and joins the Bay of Bengal afterdividing into different branches in the deltaic area.The main branches of the Mahanadi River meetthe Bay of Bengal at Paradip and Nuagarh (Deviestuary; Fig. 1). The tidal estuarine part of theriver covers a length of 40 km and has a basinarea of 9 km2. Based on its physical characteristics,the estuary has been characterized as a partiallymixed coastal plain estuary.

Geology of the basin

The basin geology is characterised by the pre-Cambrians of Eastern Ghats consisting of rocktypes as khondalites, charnockites, leptynites,granites, gneisses, etc., the limestones sandstonesand shales of the Gondwanas, and the costaltracts constituted by the recent deltaic alluvium ofthe river with littoral deposits. The basin lithologyconsists of granite suite (34% of the basin area),khondalite suite (7%), charnockite suite (15%),limestone, shale of lower gondwana (17%), sand-stone, shale of upper gondwana (22%) and coastalalluvium (5%). A part of the richest mineralbelt of the sub-continent consisting of Fe ore,coal, lime-stone, dolomite, bauxite, Pb and Cudeposits fall within the basin (Chakrapani andSubramanian 1990).

Anthropogenic setup of the area

The quantity of water utilized for irrigation isquite large, particularly in comparison to thequantity used for municipal, industrial and otherbeneficial purposes. Irrigation use accounts forabout 87% of the total water use in the basin.The river serves as a major source of water supplyfor an irrigated area of about 13,590 km2 areain the basin. Agriculture is the most importanteconomic activity within the basin and agriculturalland use constitute the most significant aspectsin comparison to the other form of land use.The cultivated area (69,655 km2) of the basinaccounts for 49.39% of the total basin area, where13% of the basin area is cultivated more thanonce in a year (CPCB 2000). The river receivesback the untreated domestic waste water from thecities of Sambalpur, Bauda, Cuttack, Choudwar,Jagatpur and Paradip and effluents from someindustries (fertilizer, paper, textile distilleries andothers) present in its course (Radhakrishna 2001;Sundaray et al. 2006). It also receives a largeamount of agricultural runoff along its course.Human influences are pronounced at three ma-jor urban settlements on the banks of the river(Fig. 1), namely Cuttack (population of about0.50 million), Sambalpur (population of about0.20 million) and the port city of Paradip (popula-tion of about 0.15 million), where the proliferation

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 155:227–243 229

Fig. 1 Map showing station locations

of industries and sewer discharges are prominent.The details of agricultural land use along withannual irrigation water abstraction and total pop-ulation of the basin area are presented in Table 1.

Literature review and thought process

Numerous research projects have been carriedout on the role of different urban and industrialeffluents on the water quality of the Mahanadiriver and estuarine system (Upadhyay 1988;Chakrapani and Subramanian 1990, 1993; Daset al. 1997; Nanda and Tiwari 2001; Radhakrishna2001; Nayak et al. 2002; Das 2003; Sundaray et al.

2005, 2006), but no study has been carried outon the suitability of the water quality of theMahanadi river for agricultural purposes.

In the present study, the evaluation of the waterquality of the Mahanadi river suitability for agri-cultural purposes has been attempted.

Materials and methods

Sampling and analytical methods

The water samples were collected from 31 stationsalong the course of the Mahanadi river system

Table 1 Agriculturalland use characteristicsof Mahanadi river basin

Characteristics Unit Value

Total basin area in km2 141,034.62Total population of the basin 26,321,362Cultivated area in the basin area in km2 69,654.57% of cultivated area to total basin area % 49.39Irrigated area in the basin in km2 13,590.17River water use for agriculture in the basin Mm3/year 17,830.09Total river water abstraction (for all purposes) in the basin Mm3/year 18,745.87% of river water abstraction to total abstraction in the basin % 95.11


Tab

le2

Wat

erqu

alit

ypa

ram

eter

sw

ith

rang

esav

erag

eva

lue

in31

diff

eren

tsta

tion

sof

Mah

anad

iriv

ersy

stem

sdu

ring

six

diff

eren

tsea

sons

(bot

h20

01–0

2an

d20

02–0

3Se

ssio

ns)

Par

amet

ers

Pre

-mon

soon

Mon

soon

Pos

t-m

onso

on

Min

Max

Mea

nSt

d.de

v.M

inM

axM

ean

Std.

dev.

Min

Max

Mea

nSt

d.de

v.

pH3.

238.

167.

390.

814.

898.

087.

430.

444.

558.

107.

480.

57E

C12

4.8

26,7

48.0

4,66

5.2

8,02

7.4

127.

214

,402

.558

3.4

1,73

7.1

124.

815

,047

.31,

935.

33,

994.

7T

DS

72.7

13,8

45.0

2,46

1.3

4,20

4.6

61.4

7,30

1.5

311.

790

7.4

64.8

8,62

7.4

996.

82,

120.

8C

l9.

9313

,152

.01,

572.

23,

042.

44.

34,

413.

515

6.4

620.

87.

05,

977.

863

9.9

1,41

8.4

SO4

1.29

289.

2056

.43

71.7

51.

5836

0.50

17.0

953

.75

5.50

219.

5039

.87

57.3

2N

O3-N

0.08

02.

830

0.60

10.

613

0.26

03.

730

0.66

50.

604

0.26

02.

900.

576

0.53

5H

ardn

ess

86.9

03,

437.

5159

2.38

889.

1648

.72

1,57

5.00

167.

0027

4.84

34.3

61,

742.

1633

7.13

535.

76A

lkal

init

y21

.019

3.0

87.9

25.7

28.0

98.0

72.1

12.7

23.0

152.

083

.218

.6N

a9.

56,

275.

085

7.2

1,59

1.3

7.30

2,64

3.0

162.

2547

8.42

5.60

2,92

3.0

498.

5591

0.06

K1.

9425

8.80

40.8

067

.89

1.93

117.

8010

.93

22.9

31.

3913

2.20

24.2

639

.72

Ca

18.8

220

0.00

48.0

443

.99

10.2

811

3.30

21.7

417

.33

6.20

115.

8025

.10

31.3

1M

g8.

8071

4.00

114.

7018

9.67

4.20

313.

9827

.39

56.7

03.

8035

3.10

66.7

011

1.48

Na%

17.1

282

.53

42.0

324

.74

20.2

778

.88

38.0

217

.35

24.0

280

.56

49.1

919

.86

SAR

0.39

45.5

68.

8513

.99

0.40

28.9

72.

926.

050.

4131

.52

6.80

10.4

3R

SC−6

6.96

−0.2

8−1

0.39

17.7

4−3

1.03

0.21

−2.1

65.

58−3

3.23

0.90

−5.3

810

.70

Pot

nl.s

al.

0.41

833

2.96

44.9

3486

.51

0.17

810

0.80

4.59

118

.06

0.33

015

8.78

18.4

640

.57

Mg

haza

rd36

.10

87.5

356

.36

18.4

832

.30

85.5

553

.58

12.1

433

.94

88.1

264

.46

13.3

5K

elly

’sin

dex

0.18

04.

610

1.26

21.

462

0.23

03.

650

0.80

20.

946

0.28

04.

030

1.38

31.

324

Per

mii

ndex

55.3

482

.62

68.4

98.

0251

.72

104.

9280

.64

11.1

376

.12

142.

4710

3.95

19.4

9Sa

ltin

dex

−158

.78

5,28

0.5

599.

721,

384.

03−1

22.3

12,

069.

032

.33

397.

29−8

2.99

2,35

7.7

352.

3175

4.23

Osm

.pre

ss.

0.05

19.

629

1.67

92.

886

0.04

65.

185

0.21

00.

688

0.04

55.

417

0.69

71.

428

Uni

ts:T

DS,

Cl,

SO4,N

O3,H

ardn

ess,

Alk

alin

ity,

Na,

K,C

aan

dM

gar

ein

mg/

l,R

SCis

inm

eq/l,

EC

isin

μS/

cm,O

smot

icpr

essu

reis

inat

m

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 155:227–243 231T

able

3W

ater

qual

ity

clas

ses

for

agri

cult

ural

use

ofM

ahan

adir

iver

syst

emdu

ring

thre

edi

ffer

ents

easo

nsea

chin

2001

–02

and

2002

–03

sess

ions

Par

amet

ers

Rat

eof

haza

rdW

ater

clas

sR

epre

tend

ing

sam

ples

no.

Pre

-mon

soon

Mon

soon

Pos

t-m

onso

on

2001

–02

2002

–03

2001

–02

2002

–03

2001

–02

2002

–03

pH6.

5–8.

4N

opr

oble

m1–

24,2

6–31

1–24

,26–

311–

24,2

6–31

1–24

,26–

311–

24,2

6–31

1–24

,26–

315.

1–6.

4an

dM

oder

ate

−−

25−

25−

8.5–

9.5,

0–5.

0an

d9.

5+Se

vere

2525

−25

−25

EC

<25

0E

xcel

lent

1–3,

8,10

–12,

14,

1–3,

7–13

1–4,

6–19

,28–

291–

4,6–

22,2

6–30

1–3,

7–15

,17–

18,

1–3,

7–11

,13–

15,1

7–19

,(μ

S/cm

)26

–28

26,2

826

–28

250–

750

Goo

d4–

7,9,

13,1

5–19

4–6,

14–1

9,26

,28

5,20

–23,

27,3

05,

234–

6,16

,19–

20,2

74–

6,12

,16,

2075

0–2,

250

Per

mis

sibl

e−

−31

24,3

121

,29,

3021

,29

2,25

0–5,

000

Uns

uita

ble

20–2

5,29

–31

20–2

5,29

–31

24–2

525

22–2

5,31

22–2

5,30

,31

TD

S<

200

Exc

elle

nt1–

3,7–

14,1

7–18

,28

1–3,

7–15

,17–

19,

1–21

,26–

291–

23,2

6–30

1–4,

6–19

,26,

281–

4,6–

19,2

6,28

(mg/

l)26

,28

200–

500

Goo

d4–

6,15

–16,

19,2

6–27

4–6,

16,2

722

–23,

3024

5,20

,27

5,20

,27

500–

1,50

0P

erm

issi

ble

−−

24,3

131

21,2

9,30

211,

500–

3,00

0U

nsui

tabl

e20

–25,

29–3

120

–25,

29–3

125

2522

–25,

3122

–25,

29–3

1C

l<

4N

opr

oble

m1–

19,2

6–28

1–19

,26–

281–

23,2

6–29

1–23

,26–

301–

19,2

6–29

1–19

,26–

29(m

eq/l)

4–10

Mod

erat

e−

−24

,30

24,3

120

30>

10Se

vere

20–2

5,29

–31

20–2

5,29

–31

25,3

125

21–2

5,30

–31

20–2

5,31

NO

3-N

<5

No

prob

lem

1–31

1–31

1–31

1–31

1–31

1–31

(mg/

l)5–

30M

oder

ate

−−

−−

−–

>30

Seve

re−

−−

−−

−H

ardn

ess

0–60

Soft

−−

1–2,

7,9,

10,1

2,26

–28

2,3,

91–

4,6–

19,2

61–

4,6–

19,2

6,28

(mg/

l)60

–120

Mod

.sof

t1–

3,7–

14,1

7–19

,28

1–3,

6–19

,26,

283–

6,8,

11,1

3–20

1,4–

8,10

–19,

26–2

85,

27–2

85,

20,2

712

0–18

0H

ard

4,6,

15,1

6,26

,27

4–5,

2721

–22,

29,3

020

–21,

2920

>18

0V

ery

hard

5,20

–25,

29–3

120

–25,

29–3

123

–25,

3122

–25,

30–3

121

–25,

29–3

121

–25,

29–3

1N

a%<

20E

xcel

lent

8–9,

11–1

2,14

,17,

266,

10−

−−

−20

–40

Goo

d1–

4,6–

7,10

,13,

15–1

6,1,

2–84

,7–9

,11–

19,

1–4,

6–19

,26,

28,2

91–

4,6–

20,2

6–29

1–4,

6–14

,17–

19,

1,3,

8–15

,17,

18,2

618

–19,

2826

,28

26,2

846

–60

Per

mis

sibl

e5,

275

5,27

,20–

225,

21–2

25,

15,1

6,27

2,4,

6,7,

16,1

9,27

,28

60–8

0D

oubt

ful

20,2

1,23

,25,

29,3

020

–23,

25,2

7,29

,30

23–2

5,30

–31

23–2

5,30

,31

20–2

3,25

,29

5,20

–25,

29–3

1>

80U

nsui

tabl

e22

,24,

3124

,31

−−

24,3

0,31

–SA

R<

10E

xcel

lent

1–19

,26–

281–

19,2

6–28

1–23

,26–

301–

23,2

6–30

1–20

,26–

281–

20,2

6–28

10–1

8G

ood

20,2

920

,29

24,3

124

,31

21,2

921

,29

18–2

6F

air

21,3

021

,30

−−

22,2

3,30

22–2

3,25

,30

>26

Poo

r22

–25,

3122

–25,

3125

2524

,25,

3124

,31

RSC

<1.

25Sa

fe1–

311–

311–

311–

311–

311–

31m

eq/l

1.25

–2.5

0P

erm

issi

ble

−−

−−

−–

>2.

50U

nsui

tabl

e−

−−

−−

−


starting from Hirakud reservoir to the estuarypoints i.e. at Paradip and Nuagarh (Fig. 1). Fieldvisits were made during three different seasonsviz. Pre-monsoon (February–May), Monsoon(June–September), Post-monsoon (October–January) during the 2001–2002 and 2002–2003session. In each season, sampling was carriedout three times and samples were collected atthree points (1/4, 1/2 and 3/4) across the riverwidth at a depth of 20–30 cm from the watersurface, with the help of country boats. Themean value was taken for the evaluation. Theonboard measurements of temperature, pH andconductance were carried out immediately afterthe collection of the samples. Other parameterssuch as total dissolved solid (TDS), chloride(Cl−), sulfate (SO 2−

4 ), nitrate (NO3-N), hardness,alkalinity, sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium(Ca) and magnesium (Mg) were analysed follow-ing standard guidelines and procedures (APHAet al. 1998; Vogel 1961). Each analysis was donein triplicate and the mean value was taken. Theanalytical data quality was ensured through care-ful standardization, procedural blank measure-ments, spiked and duplicate samples.

Data treatment and classification methods

The parameters such as sodium adsorption ratio,percent sodium, residual sodium carbonate, poten-tial salinity, permeability index, Kelly’s index,magnesium ratio, salt index and osmotic pressurewere calculated to evaluate the suitability of thewater quality for agricultural purposes. Furtherthe results of the analyses were interpreted usingvarious related diagrams, such as USSL diagramand Wilcox diagram. The techniques and methodsfollowed for analysis, calculation and interpre-tation are those given by Ayers and Westcot(1994), Tiwari and Manzoor (1988a, b), ISI(1974), Durfer and Backer (1964), Wilcox (1948,1955), Richards (1954), US Salinity Laboratory(1954), Doneen (1954, 1962, 1964), Kelly (1940),Paliwal (1967, 1972), Vogel (1961), APHA et al.(1998).

Results and discussion

Water quality for irrigation use

The suitability of river water samples for irriga-tion use depends upon the mineral constituentpresent in the water. The major physico-chemicalparameters, which decide the suitability of riverwater for irrigation, are pH, EC, TDS, hardness,chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bicarbonate, nitrate,sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, etc.Silica, iron and boron are usually present invery small amounts and are determined in spe-cial circumstances, for example when industrialwaste alone is to be used for irrigation (Deo andAli 1993).

The hydrogeochemical parameters of theMahanadi river estuarine system with minimum,maximum, mean and standard deviation values in31 different stations during pre-monsoon, mon-soon and post-monsoon seasons of both 2001–02and 2002–03 are incorporated in Table 2.

pH

The normal pH range for irrigation water is from6.5 to 8.4. An abnormal value is a warning that thewater needs further evaluation. Irrigation waterwith a pH outside the normal range may cause anutritional imbalance or may contain a toxic ion.

The pH of the samples analyzed was slightlyalkaline in nature with an average value (exceptthe Atharbanki station) of 7.46, 7.51 and 7.45during 2001–02 and 7.34, 7.34 and 7.52 during2002–03 and for the pre-monsoon, monsoon andpost-monsoon season, respectively. The pH valueof all water samples (except the Atharbanki sta-tion) lies in the range from 6.54 to 8.10, whichimplies that waters are suitable for irrigation pur-poses with respect to pH, i.e. there is no alkalinityhazard as shown in Table 3. The very acidic char-acter of Atharbanki creek water (pH 3.66, 5.07,5.24, 3.23, 4.89 and 4.55), contributed by industrieslike fertilizer plants (Paradip Phosphate Limited,PPL) at Paradip discharge acidic effluents to theriver, which indicates creek water is unsuitablefor irrigation and it is in the severe water class(Table 3) with respect to pH (Ayers and Westcot1994).


Electrical conductance (EC) and total dissolvedsolids (TDS)

Electrical conductivity is the most importantparameter in determining the suitability of waterfor irrigation use. Irrigation using river water canadd salt concentration to the soils and a problemoccurs if the added salt accumulates to a concen-tration that is harmful to the crop or landscape.Salinity of river water that is used for irrigation isdetermined by EC, which is used as a surrogatemeasure of total dissolved solids (TDS) concen-tration in water. TDS refer to any minerals, salts,metals, cations or anions dissolved in water. Thisincludes anything present in water other than purewater (H2O) molecules and suspended solids.According to Langenegger (1990), the importanceof EC is its measure of salinity. The EC for wa-ter is expressed as micro siemens per centimeter(μS/cm) and salt concentration is also reported asTDS in mg/l.

On the basis of the EC values of the water sam-ples from stations 1–19 and 26–28 were consideredfresh/river water influenced stations, whereas sta-tions 20–25 and 29–31 were considered as estua-rine characterized/saline influenced stations forpre-monsoon, post-monsoon and some extend formonsoon seasons.

In the fresh water zone the EC range was142.0 to 729.0, 127.2 to 383.4 and 124.8 to529.6 μS/cm, where as in saline water it rangedfrom 3,119.4 to 26,748.0, 165.5 to 14,402.5 and425.2 to 15,047.3 μS/cm during pre-monsoon,monsoon and post-monsoon season, respectively,for both 2001–02 and 2002–03. similarly in freshwater zones TDS concentrations ranged from72.7 to 395.2 mg/l, 61.4 to 171.6 mg/l and 64.8to 280.1 mg/l during pre-monsoon, monsoon andpost-monsoon season, respectively, and in case ofsaline water it ranged from 1,658.0 to 13,845.0,87.8 to 730.5 and 232.2 to 8,627.4 mg/l for the re-spective three different season during both 2001–02 and 2002–03 investigating periods.

Table 3 shows the guidelines for EC and TDSvalues in waters used for irrigation. On the basisof EC and TDS, water samples (fresh water zone)of the study area come under the excellent to goodcategory (Table 3) for irrigation purposes (Ayers

and Westcot 1994). Comparing with ISI (1974)guidelines, irrespective to seasons, the values ofEC and TDS for fresh water regions are withinthe tolerance limit for irrigation (Table 4). How-ever the estuarine water samples (St. 20–25 andSt. 29–31) were unsuitable for irrigation.

Chloride

The most common toxicity is from chloride inthe irrigation water. Chloride is not adsorbed orheld back by soils, therefore it moves readily withthe soil-water, is taken up by the crop, movesin the transpiration stream, and accumulates inthe leaves. If the chloride concentration in theleaves exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injurysymptoms develop such as leaf burn or dryingof leaf tissue. Normally, plant injury occurs firstat the leaf tips (which is common for chloridetoxicity), and progresses from the tip back alongthe edges as severity increases. Excessive necrosis(dead tissue) is often accompanied by early leafdrop or defoliation (Ayers and Westcot 1994).

The concentration of chloride of the Mahanadiriver ranged from 9.93 to 100.68 mg/l during pre-monsoon, 4.26 to 63.81 mg/l during monsoon, 6.96to 74.51 mg/l during post-monsoon in case of freshwater region and from 858.9 to 13,151.9 mg/l dur-ing pre-monsoon, 27.6 to 4,413.5 mg/l during mon-soon, 87.7 to 5,977.8 mg/l during post-monsoonin case of saline water region for both 2001–02and 2002–03 sampling periods. The C1 content forthe fresh water region of the river systems arewithin the tolerance limit (Table 4) for irrigation(ISI 1974, 600 mg/l). Since the chloride concen-tration in fresh water samples lie in the rangefrom 0.12 to 2.84 meq/l, hence the fresh waterregion of the Mahanadi river is free from chloridehazard and it is in the ‘no problem’ water classfor irrigation purposes (Table 3). In the estuarinewater zone it is obvious that the concentration ofchloride is directly proportional to salinity. Henceall the estuarine stations are in the ‘moderate’ to‘severe’ water class for irrigation purposes withrespect to chloride content (Ayers and Westcot1994).


Tab

le4

Sam

ples

ofM

ahan

adir

iver

syst

em,w

hich

exce

eded

tole

ranc

elim

it(I

SI19

74)

for

agri

cult

ural

use

Par

amet

ers

Sam

ples

nos.

(whi

chex

ceed

edto

lera

nce

limit

)T

oler

ance

limit

for

agri

cult

ure

2001

–02

2002

–03

Pre

-mon

soon

Mon

soon

Pos

t-m

onso

onP

re-m

onso

onM

onso

onP

ost-

mon

soon

pH25

25−

2525

255.

5–9.

0E

C20

–25,

29–3

125

22–2

5,31

20–2

5,29

–31

2522

–25,

313,

000

Cl

20–2

5,29

–31

2521

–25,

30–3

120

–25,

29–3

125

21–2

5,31

600

TD

S20

–25,

29–3

125

22–2

5,31

20–2

5,29

–31

2523

–25,

312,

100

SO4

−−

−−

−−

1,00

0N

a%20

–25,

29–3

123

–25,

315,

20–2

5,29

–31

27,2

0–25

,29–

3123

–25,

30–3

15,

20–2

5,29

–31

60

Sulfate

The source of sulfate ions to water environmentis mainly from acid mine drainage. The sulfideminerals viz. pyrides, chalco pyrides, galena, spa-lerites etc get oxidized to sulfate and are leachedout with the mine water. Source of sulfate ionsinto the river water may be attributed to in-dustrial effluents. Natural waters have few toseveral thousand mg/l of sulfate (APHA et al.1998). Anthropogenic sources can contribute upto 40% of the total sulfate of river waters (Friend1973). A number of crops show sensitivity to veryhigh concentrations of sulfates in the irrigationwater, but it is likely that this sensitivity is relatedto the tendency of high sulfate concentrationsto limit the uptake of calcium by plants. Thisdecrease in the uptake of calcium is associated,on the other hand, with relative increases in theabsorption of sodium and potassium (Tiwari andManzoor 1988a).

SO4 content of Mahanadi river water ranged9.60–289.2 mg/l during pre-monsoon, 1.89–227.6 mg/l during monsoon and 5.50–182.37 mg/lduring post-monsoon season for 2001–02 and1.29–175.0, 1.58–360.5 and 6.58–219.6 mg/l duringthe respective three different seasons for the2002–03 sampling period. The SO4 content of theMahanadi river system are within the tolerancelimit (Table 4) for irrigation purposes (ISI 1974;1,000 mg/l).

Nitrate

Nitrogen is a plant nutrient and stimulates cropgrowth. Natural soil nitrogen or added fertiliz-ers are the usual sources, but nitrogen in theirrigation water has much the same effect assoil-applied fertilizer nitrogen and an excess willcause problems, just as too much fertilizer would.If excessive quantities are present or applied,production of several commonly grown cropsmay be upset because of over-stimulation ofgrowth, delayed maturity or poor quality. Sensi-tive crops may be affected by nitrogen concentra-tions above 5 mg/l. Most other crops are relativelyunaffected until nitrogen exceeds 30 mg/l (Ayersand Westcot 1994).


The nitrate concentration of the study arearanges from 0.19 to 2.62, 0.36 to 3.73 and 0.29to 2.90 mg/l for 2001–02 and from 0.08 to 2.83,0.26 to 3.30 and 0.26 to 2.64 mg/l for 2002–03during pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoonseason, respectively. The nitrogen concentrationin the form of nitrate is very low varying from0.08 to 3.73 mg/l, which indicate that Mahanadiriver water is free from nitrate-nitrogen hazard(Table 3).

Hardness

Hardness is the property of water which preventsthe lather formation with soap and increases theboiling point of water. Hardness is due to thepresence of divalent metallic cations like calcium,magnesium, strontium, ferrous iron and man-ganese ions. Ferric iron and aluminum ions canalso contribute to hardness, but the contribution isnormally negligible due to their limited solubility,at the pH value encountered in the MahanadiRiver. Hardness in water is also derived from thesolution of carbon dioxide released from the bac-terial action in soil in percolating water (Sawyerand McCarty 1967).

The hardness is commonly classified in termsof degree of hardness as (1) soft (0 to 60 mg/l),(2) moderately hard (60 to 120 mg/l), (3) hard(120 to 180 mg/l) and (4) very hard (>180 mg/l;Durfer and Backer 1964) The Mahanadi riverwater (fresh water zone) is classified as soft tomoderately hard in monsoon (48.72–104.58 mg/l)and post-monsoon (34.67–100.25 mg/l) seasons.Where as in case of pre-monsoon season it ismoderately hard (86.4–144.89 mg/l), except somepolluted stations like station 5 (215.8 mg/l) andstation 27 (195.2 mg/l) which are categorized ashard and this hardness was due to dischargeof sewage from the township of Sambalpur andCuttack, respectively. Mohanta and Patra (2000)opined that addition of sewage, detergents andlarge scale human use might be the cause of thehigher levels of hardness (Jain and Sharma 2002).

However estuarine water samples contain veryhigh values of hardness (434.9–3,437.5 mg/l dur-ing pre-monsoon, 100.6–1,575.0 mg/l during mon-soon and 102.8–1,742.2 mg/l during post-monsoonseason) in comparison to fresh water systems of

the Mahanadi river irrespective of seasons, whichrevealed that the hardness in the estuarine sta-tions is from saline sources.

The data indicate that waters of the fresh zoneare suitable (except the polluted stations like St. 5and St. 27; Sundaray et al. 2006) for irrigationpurposes (<180 mg/l; Durfer and Backer 1964),where as estuarine stations are quite unsuitable(Table 3).

Sodium

Sodium toxicity is not as easily diagnosed as chlo-ride toxicity, but clear cases of the former havebeen recorded as a result of relatively high sodiumconcentrations in the water (high Na or SAR).Typical toxicity symptoms are leaf burn, scorchand dead tissue along the outside edges of leavesin contrast to symptoms of chloride toxicity whichnormally occur initially at the extreme leaf tip. Anextended period of time (many days or weeks)is normally required before accumulation reachestoxic concentrations. Symptoms appear first onthe older leaves, starting at the outer edges and, asthe severity increases, move progressively inwardbetween the veins toward the leaf centre. Sensitivecrops include deciduous fruits, nuts, citrus, avoca-dos and beans, but there are many others (Ayersand Westcot 1994).

The sodium hazard of irrigation water is usuallyspecified as two sodium related indices namedas sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and sodiumpercentage (Na %).

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

Excess sodium in water produces the undesirableeffects of changing soil properties and reducingsoil permeability (Kelly 1951). High Sodium con-centration leads to development of an alkalinesoil. The sodium or alkali hazard in the use of wa-ter for irrigation is determined by the absolute andrelative concentration of cations and is expressedin terms of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). SARis a calculated value and an indicator of sodiumhazard of water.


Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) has been calcu-lated as follows:

S A R=Na√

Ca+Mg2

Where: Na, Ca and Mg are in meq/l.There is a significant relationship between SAR

values of irrigation water and the extent to whichsodium is adsorbed by the soil. High concentra-tions of sodium in soils affect its physical conditionand soil structure resulting in formation of crusts,water-logging, reduced soil aeration, reduced infil-tration rate, and reduced soil permeability; exces-sive concentrations of sodium in soils may also betoxic to certain types of crops. SAR gives a veryreliable assessment of water quality of irrigationwaters with respect to sodium hazard, since it ismore closely related to exchangeable sodium per-centages in the soil than the simpler sodiumpercentage (Tiwari and Manzoor 1988a). Sodiumreplacing adsorbed calcium and magnesium is ahazard as it causes damage to the soil structure.It becomes compact and impervious. SAR is animportant parameter for the determination of thesuitability of irrigation water because it is respon-sible for the sodium hazard (Todd 1980).

The waters were classified in relation to irriga-tion based on the ranges of SAR values (Richards1954). The SAR value in the Mahanadi riverestuarine system ranges from 0.39 to 3.59 inpre-monsoon, 0.40 to 2.51 in monsoon and0.41 to 3.11 in post-monsoon in case of freshwater samples, where as in estuarine samplesits values varied from 10.48 to 46.56, 0.47to 28.97 and 3.64 to 31.52 for the respectivethree different seasons during both the 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods. The SARvalues are more pronounced in the estuarineregion than in the fresh region samples. Accordingto Richard’s classification all the samples in thefresh water zone have been classified as excellentfor irrigation (Table 3). The water samples in theestuarine area are quite unsuitable for irrigationpurposes with respect to SAR values in case ofpre-monsoon, post-monsoon and to some extentduring monsoon season.

Sodium percentage (Na%)

Soils containing a large proportion of sodium withcarbonate as the predominant anion are termedalkali soils; those with chloride or sulphate asthe predominant anion are saline soils. The roleof sodium in the classification of river water forirrigation was emphasised because of the fact thatsodium reacts with soil and as a result clogging ofparticles takes place, there by reducing the perme-ability (Todd 1980; Domenico and Schwartz 1990;Nagaraju et al. 2006). Percent sodium in water isa parameter computed to evaluate the suitabilityfor irrigation (Wilcox 1948; Tiwari and Manzoor1988a). Na% can be calculated by the followingrelation,

Na% =(Na+K)(

Ca+Mg+Na+K) × 100

Where: Na, K, Ca and Mg are in meq/l.The percent sodium values of the Mahanadi

river samples varied from 17.12 to 82.53, 20.27 to78.93 and 24.02 to 80.56 during the pre-monsoon,monsoon and post-monsoon season, respectively,for both 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods.The fresh water samples with exception to somepolluted stations like Sambalpur down (St. 5;Down stream of Sambalpur town) and Kathjodi(Cuttack) down (St. 27; Down stream of Cut-tack town) are categorized as ‘excellent’ to ‘good’classes with respect to Na % values, where as thepolluted stations fall on the permissible category,however the estuarine samples are categorized as‘doubtful’ to unsuitable’ for irrigation purposes.The Na% is higher in the estuarine region than inthe fresh region, this is due to the input of sodiumfrom sea water. As per ISI (1974) guidelines, themaximum tolerance limit of Na% for inland sur-face water used for irrigation is 60. Accordinglyall fresh zone waters (except St. 5 and St. 27) ofMahanadi river is suitable for irrigation, where asNa% is higher than 60 in case of polluted stationslike Sambalpur down (St. 5; during post-monsoon2001–02 and 2002–03) and Kathjodi (Cuttack)down (St. 27; during pre-monsoon 2002–03). Thishigher value of Na% at station 5 and 27 wasdue to contribution of sewage discharge from thetownship of Sambalpur and Cuttack, respectively.


However estuarine zone waters are unsuitable forirrigation.

In addition to this, some indices such as residualsodium carbonate (RSC), potential salinity (PS),permeability index (PI), Kelly’s index (KI), mag-nesium hazard (MH), osmotic pressure (OP) andsalt index (SI) have been utilize to verify the waterquality for irrigation use.

Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)

When total carbonate levels exceed the totalamount of calcium and magnesium, the waterquality may be diminished. When the excess car-bonate (residual) concentration becomes too high,the carbonates combine with calcium and mag-nesium to form a solid material (scale) whichsettles out of the water. The relative abundance ofsodium with respect to alkaline earths and boron,and the quantity of bicarbonate and carbonatein excess of alkaline earths also influence thesuitability of water for irrigation. This excess isdenoted by ‘residual sodium carbonate’ (RSC)and is determined as suggested by Richards(1954). The water with high RSC has high pHand land irrigated by such waters becomes infer-tile owing to deposition of sodium carbonate asknown from the black colour of the soil (Eaton1950). Further, continued usage of high residualsodium carbonate waters affects crop yields. RSCis given by the relation

RSC = (CO3 + HCO3) − (Ca + Mg

)

According to the US Salinity Laboratory (1954),an RSC value less than 1.25 meq/l is safe forirrigation, a value between 1.25 and 2.5 meq/l is ofmarginal quality and a value more than 2.5 meq/lis unsuitable for irrigation.

In the present study, the waters in bothfresh and estuarine samples show RSC values of−66.96 to −0.28 meq/l in pre-monsoon, −31.03 to0.21 meq/l in monsoon and −33.23 to 0.90 meq/lin post-monsoon seasons during both the 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods. All the sam-ples have RSC values much less than 1.25 meq/l(safe for irrigation), which revealed that all sam-ples are of safe quality categories for irrigation.

Further the value of RSC is negative at all sam-pling sites, indicating that there is no completeprecipitation of calcium and magnesium (Tiwariand Manzoor 1988b).

Potential salinity (PS)

Doneen (1954) pointed out that the suitabilityof water for irrigation is not dependent on theconcentration of soluble salts. Doneen (1962) is ofthe opinion that the low solubility salts precipitatein the soil and accumulate with each successiveirrigation, whereas the concentration of highlysoluble salts increases the salinity of the soil.Potential salinity is defined as the chloride concen-tration plus half of the sulfate concentration.

In the fresh water zone potential salinity of thewater samples varied from 0.36 to 3.07, 0.14 to 1.90and 0.32 to 2.28 during pre-monsoon, monsoonand post-monsoon season, respectively, and in thecase of saline water it ranged from 25.20 to 372.50,0.82 to 128.24 and 2.98 to 170.48 for the respectivethree different seasons during both 2001–02 and2002–03 investigating periods. The PS values aremore pronounced in the estuarine region than inthe fresh region samples. The huge amount ofpotential salinity in the estuarine region is due tothe presence of chlorides, which are derived fromsea source.

Permeability index (PI)

The soil permeability is affected by long-term useof irrigation water. Sodium, calcium, magnesiumand bicarbonate content of the soil influence it.Doneen (1964) evolved a criterion for assessingthe suitability of water for irrigation based on apermeability index (P.I.) where

PI = Na + [HCO3

]1/2

(Ca + Mg + Na

) × 100

Accordingly, waters can be classified as Class I,Class II, and Class III. Class I and Class II wa-ters are categorized as good for irrigation with


50–75% or more of maximum permeability. ClassIII waters are unsuitable with 25% of maximumpermeability.

The permeability index of Mahanadi riverwater varied in pre-monsoon from 55.34 to 82.70,in monsoon from 51.72 to 104.92 and in post-monsoon from 76.12 to 142.47 during both 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods. Accordingly, allthe samples fall into the Class I and II category ofDoneen’s chart.

Kelly’s index

Based on Kelly’s index (KI) waters are classifiedfor irrigation. Sodium measured against calcium

and magnesium was considered by Kelly (1940)and Paliwal (1967) to calculate this parameter. AKelly’s index of more than one indicates an excesslevel of sodium in waters. Therefore, waters witha Kelly’s index less than one are suitable for irri-gation, while those with a ratio more than one areunsuitable.

Kelly’s index in the present study (except pol-luted station no. 5 and 27) varied from 0.18 to 0.53,0.25 to 0.58 and 0.28 to 0.92 in the fresh water zoneand ranged from 2.51 to 4.61, 0.23 to 3.65 and 1.74to 4.03 in the estuarine zone during pre-monsoon,monsoon and post-monsoon season, respectively,for both 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods.Therefore, according to Kelly’s index, the watersamples in the fresh zone (except St. 5 and 27) are

Fig. 2 US SalinityLaboratory classificationof Mahanadi river water


suitable for irrigation. However the water samplesof polluted stations (St. 5 and 27) along with theestuarine zone are unsuitable for irrigation, as theKI values are more than one in these stations.

Magnesium hazard (MH)

Generally, calcium and magnesium maintain astate of equilibrium in most waters. In equilibriummore Mg in the water will adversely affect cropyields. Paliwal (1972) introduced an important ra-tio called index of magnesium hazard (magnesiumratio). Magnesium ratios of more than 50% wouldadversely affect the crop yield as the soils becomemore alkaline.

The magnesium ratio (MR) values of Mahanadiriver systems were reported to be in the range ofminimum of 36.10, 32.30 and 33.94 and maximumof 87.53, 85.55 and 88.12 for pre-monsoon, mon-soon and post-monsoon season, respectively, dur-ing both 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods.The estuarine samples contain a Mg ratio morethan 50%. In the present study the MR valuesare more pronounced in the estuarine region thanin the fresh region samples. These high values inthe estuarine region are because of the presenceof high magnesium, which are derived from seasource.

Osmotic pressure (OP)

It is a parameter, related to the conductivity ofirrigated water. Due to osmotic effects, the saltconcentration interferes with extraction of waterby the plants thereby affecting the plant growth.It is indicated that plants wilt permanently underthe osmotic pressure of 15–20 atm (Tiwari andManzoor 1988b). But in our case, the osmoticpressure is much below this value in all cases(Table 2). The Osmotic pressure in Mahanadiwater ranged from 0.07 to 9.63 atm for pre-monsoon, 0.05 to 5.18 atm for monsoon and 0.04to 5.42 atm for post-monsoon season during 2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods.

Salt index (SI)

Based on their salt index waters are classified forirrigation. Total sodium, total calcium and calcium T

able

5C

lass

ifica

tion

ofw

ater

qual

ity

ofM

ahan

adir

iver

syst

emin

31di

ffer

ents

tati

ons

duri

ngth

ree

diff

eren

tsea

sons

each

in20

01–0

2an

d20

02–0

3se

ssio

ns

Cla

ssifi

cati

on/t

ype

Rep

rete

ndin

gsa

mpl

esno

.

Pre

-mon

soon

Mon

soon

Pos

t-m

onss

on

2001

–02

2002

–03

2001

–02

2002

–03

2001

–02

2002

–03

USS

Lcl

assi

ficat

ion

C1S

11,

2,8,

10–1

2,14

1–3,

7–13

1–4,

6–19

,26,

28–2

91–

4,6–

22,2

6–30

1–3,

7–15

,17–

18,2

6–28

1–3,

7–11

,13–

15,1

7–19

,26–

28C

2S1

3–7,

9,13

,15–

19,2

6–28

4–6,

14–1

9,26

–28

5,20

–23,

27,3

05,

234–

6,16

,19–

20,2

74–

6,12

,16,

20C

3S3

−−

2424

21,2

921

,29

C3S

4−

−31

30−

−C

4S3

−20

−−

−−

C4S

420

–25,

29–3

121

–25,

29–3

125

2522

–25,

3121

–25,

30–3

1W

ilcox

clas

sific

atio

nE

xcel

lent

togo

od1–

19,2

6–28

1–19

,26–

281–

23,2

6–30

1–23

,26–

301–

20,2

6–28

1–20

,26–

28G

ood

tope

rmis

sibl

e−

−−

−−

−P

erm

issi

ble

todo

ubtf

ul−

−24

24,3

121

,29–

3021

,29

Dou

btfu

lto

unsu

itab

le−

−31

−−

30U

nsui

tabl

e20

–25,

29–3

120

–25,

29–3

125

2522

–25,

3122

–25,

31


in CaCO3 of irrigated water were considered toevaluate salt index. The SI is negative for waterto be suitable for irrigation and positive for thoseunsuitable (Tiwari and Manzoor 1988b; Mishraet al. 2003). The salt index in the Mahanadi waterwere reported to be in the range of minimum(−132.9, −117.3 and −57.47) and maximum of(−109.1, −65.7 and −33.1) in the fresh waterstations, whereas it ranged from (248.4, −105.7and −83.0) to (5,280.5, 2,069.0 and 2,357.7) in theestuarine stations for pre-monsoon, monsoon andpost-monsoon season, respectively, during both2001–02 and 2002–03 sampling periods.

The salt index of estuarine water samples isvery high in comparison to fresh water systemsirrespective of seasons; this was due to the input ofhigh salts from the sea water. Therefore accordingto SI, waters of the fresh zone are suitable forirrigation, where as estuarine stations are quiteunsuitable.

Graphical methods of representing analyses

Most of the graphical methods are designed tosimultaneously represent the total dissolved solidconcentration and the relative proportions of cer-tain major ionic species (Hem 1989; Guler et al.2002). Two accepted and widely used graphicalmethods, such as Wilcox diagrams and US salin-ity diagrams are adopted in the present study toverify the suitability of water quality of Mahanadiriver estuarine system for agricultural purposes.

US salinity diagram

The US salinity diagram is based on the integratedeffect of EC and SAR, in which EC is taken assalinity hazard and SAR is taken as alkalinityhazard. The SAR and EC values of water samples(31 in each season for 2001–02 and 2002–03) of the

Fig. 3 Wilcox diagramfor classification ofMahanadi river water


study area were plotted in the graphical diagram(Fig. 2) of irrigated water (US Salinity Laboratory1954).

Irrespective to the seasons, entire fresh watersamples of the Mahanadi river (Table 5) fall intoC1S1 (low salinity with low sodium) and C2S1(medium salinity with low sodium) categories,which revealed that these water samples can beused to irrigate all soils for semi-tolerant and tol-erant as well as sensitive crops. Whereas, most ofthe estuarine samples (Fig. 2) during pre-monsoonand post-monsoon seasons fall into the C4S4 (veryhigh salinity with very high sodium) category andthus these samples are unsuitable for irrigation.However, in case of monsoon seasons the most ofestuarine samples fall into the C1S1 (low salinitywith low sodium) and C2S1 (medium salinity withlow sodium) categories.

Wilcox diagram

Percent sodium is plotted against conductivity,which is designated as a Wilcox diagram (Wilcox1955). The chemical analysis data of all the 181samples (31 in each seasons for 2001–02 and 2002–03) have been plotted on a Wilcox diagram for thethree sets of data (Fig. 3) and the results of thesame have been summarized in Table 5.

Figure 3 indicates that irrespective to the sea-sons all the samples in the fresh water zone are‘Excellent to good’ category for irrigation. As perthe Wilcox classification, in case of estuarine sam-ples, all the 18 samples in the pre-monsoon (ninesamples each in 2001–02 and 2002–03) and 10samples in the post-monsoon (five each in 2001–02and 2002–03) fall into the category of ‘Unsuitable,’where the remaining samples in the post-monsoonfall into ‘Permissible to doubtful’ and ‘Doubtfulto unsuitable’ categories (Table 5). In case of themonsoon seasons majorities of the samples (12samples; six each in 2001–02 and 2002–03) fall into‘Excellent to good’ category.

Conclusion

Like major world rivers, the Mahanadi River isalkaline. There is no alkalinity hazard for irri-gation found in the basin (except at Atharbanki

station). The polluted stations (Sundaray et al.2006) Atharbanki creek (St. 25) is in the severewater class and unsuitable for irrigation withrespect to pH (Ayers and Westcot 1994), whichis due to the influx of acidic effluents dischargedby the fertilizer plants (PPL) at Paradip. On thebasis of EC and TDS, fresh water zone samplescome under the excellent to good category forirrigation purposes (Ayers and Westcot 1994).Comparing with ISI (1974) guidelines, the presentstudy suggests that the water quality of the freshwater region irrespective to seasons is suitable forirrigation, where as it is quite unsuitable in thecase of estuarine stations (St. 20–25 and St. 29–31)during the pre-monsoon, and post-monsoon sea-sons. The data indicate that waters of the freshzone are free from chloride hazard which areclassified as soft to moderately hard type (exceptthe polluted stations like St. 5 and St. 27) andare suitable for irrigation purposes (<180 mg/l;Durfer and Backer 1964). The results revealedthat waters of some polluted stations (Sundarayet al. 2006) like Sambalpur down (St. 5) andKathjodi (Cuttack) down (St. 27) are unsuitablewith respect to parameters like Kelly’s index andhardness. This is due to the proximity of the efflu-ent discharged from the two major towns namelySambalpur and Cuttack, respectively. Mahanadiriver water is free from nitrate-nitrogen hazardand has lower osmotic pressure and RSC values,which revealed suitability for irrigation. Furtherthe value of RSC is negative at all sampling sites,indicating that there is no complete precipitationof calcium and magnesium (Tiwari and Manzoor1988b). According to USSL and Wilcox diagrams,all the fresh water zone samples (low-mediumsalinity with low sodium) of the study area are of‘Excellent to good’ category for irrigation and aresuitable to irrigate all soils for semi-tolerant andtolerant as well as sensitive crops.

Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to Prof.U.N. Dash, head, department of chemistry, Utkal Univer-sity, Bhubaneswar for providing the necessary facilities.SKS’s gratitude due to Dr. P. Mishra, Principal, S. C. S.(Autonomous) College, Puri, for much of his help andencouragement.


References

APHA, AWWA, WEF (1998). Standard methods for theexamination of water and wastewater (20th ed.).Washington, DC: American Public HealthAssociation.

Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1994). Water quality foragriculture: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29.Rev. 1 (pp. 1–130).

Chakrapani, G. J., & Subramanian, V. (1990). Preliminarystudies on the geo-chemistry of the Mahanadi basin,India. Chemical Geology, 81, 241–253. doi:10.1016/0009-2541(90)90118-Q.

Chakrapani, G. J., & Subramanian, V. (1993). Rates oferosion and sedimentation in the Mahanadi river basinIndia. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 149, 39–48.doi:10.1016/0022-1694(93)90098-T.

CPCB (2000). Basin sub-basin inventory of water pollution:The Mahanadi Basin, ADSORBS/23/1999–2000. Cen-tral Pollution Control Board, New Delhi: India.

Das, J. (2003). Geochemistry of trace elements in theground water of Cuttack city, India. Water, Air,and Soil Pollution, 147, 129–140. doi:10.1023/A:1024569422322.

Das, J., Das, S. N., & Sahoo, R. K. (1997). Semidiurnalvariation of some physico-chemical parameters in theMahanadi estuary, East Cost of India. Indian Journalof Marine Sciences, 26, 323–326.

Deo, N., & Ali, M. (1993). Water quality of a mining area inKeonjhar District for drinking and agriculture. IndianJournal of Environmental Protection, 13(9), 652–658.

Domenico, P. A., & Schwartz, F. W. (1990). Physical andchemical hydrogeology. New York: Wiley.

Doneen, L. D. (1954). Salination of soil by salts inthe irrigation water. American Geophysical UnionTransactions, 35, 943–950.

Doneen, L. D. (1962). The influence of crop and soil onpercolating water. In Proceedings of the biennial con-ference on ground water recharge (pp. 156–163).

Doneen, L. D. (1964). Notes on water quality in agri-culture. Davis, CA: Water Science and Engineering,University of California.

Durfer, C. M., & Backer, E. (1964). Public water supplies ofthe three largest cities in the U.S. US Geological Surveywater supply paper no. 1812,364.

Eaton, F. M. (1950). Significance of carbonates in irri-gated waters. Soil Science, 69, 127–128. doi:10.1097/00010694-195002000-00004.

Friend, J. P. (1973). The global sulfur cycle. In S. I. Rusool(Ed.), Chemistry of the lower atmosphere (p. 177). NewYork: Plenum.

Guler, C., Thyne, G. D., McCray, J. E., & Turner, A. K.(2002). Evaluation of graphical and multivariate sta-tistical methods for classification of water chemistrydata. Hydrogeology Journal, 10, 455–475. doi:10.1007/s10040-002-0196-6.

Hem, J. D. (1989). Study and interpretation of the chemicalcharacteristics of natural water (3rd ed.). US Geologi-cal Survey Water-Supply Paper no. 2254,263.

ISI (1974). Indian standard tolerance limits for surfacewaters subject to pollution, IS: 2296. New Delhi: ISI.

Jain, C. K. & Sharma, M. K. (2002). Regression analy-sis of ground water quality data of Sagar district,M. P. Indian Journal of Environmental Health, 42(4),159–163.

Konhauser, K. O., Powell, M. A., Fife, W. S., Longstaffle,F. J., & Tripathy, S. (1997). Trace element geochem-istry of river sediment, Orissa state, India. Journalof Hydrology (Amsterdam), 193, 258–269. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03146-0.

Kelly, W. P. (1940). Permissible composition and concen-tration of irrigated waters. Proceedings of the ASCF66 (p. 607).

Kelly, W. P. (1951). Alkali soils – their formation, proper-ties and reclamation. New York: Reinhold.

Langenegger, O. (1990). Ground water quality in ruralareas of western Africa (p. 10). UNDP ProjectINT/81/026.

Mishra, P. C., Pradhan, K. C., & Patel, R. K. (2003). Qualityof water for drinking and agriculture in and around amines in Keonjhar district, Orissa. Indian Journal ofEnvironmental Health, 45(3), 213–220.

Mohanta, B. K., & Patra, A. K. (2000). Studies on thewater quality index of river Sanamachhakandana atKeonjhar Garh, Orissa. Pollution Research, 19(3),377–385.

Nagaraju, A., Suresh, S., Killham, K., & Hudson-Edwards, K. (2006). Hydrogeochemistry of waters ofMangmpeta barite mining area, Cuddapah basin,Andhra Pradesh, India. Turkish Journal of Engineer-ing and Environmental Sciences, 30, 203–219.

Nanda, S. N., & Tiwari, T. N. (2001). Effect of discharge ofmunicipal sewage on the quality of river Mahanadi atSambalpur. Indian Journal of Environmental Protec-tion, 21(4), 336–343.

Nayak, B. B., Das, J., Panda, U. C., & Acharya, B. C.(2002). Industrial effluents and municipal sewagecontamination of Mahanadi estuarine water, Orissa(pp. 77–86). New Delhi, India: Allied.

NWDA (National Water Development Agency) (1981).Mahanadi master plan – water balance studies(p. 150). New Delhi: National Water DevelopmentAgency.

Paliwal, K. V. (1967). Effect of gypsum application on thequality of irrigation waters. The Madras AgriculturalJournal, 59, 646–647.

Paliwal, K. V. (1972). Irrigation with saline water(p. 198). Monogram no. 2 (New series). New Delhi:IARI.

Radhakrishna, I. (2001). Saline fresh water interfacestructure in Mahanadi delta region, Orissa, India.Environmental Geology, 40(3), 369–380. doi:10.1007/s002540000182.

Richards, L. A. (Ed.) (1954). Diagnosis and improvementof saline and alkali soils (p. 160). USDA Hand Book,No. 60.

Sawyer, C. N., & McCarty, P. I. (1967). Chemistry of sani-tary engineers (2nd ed., p. 518). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sundaray, S. K., Panda, U. C., Nayak, B. B., & Bhatta, D.(2005). Behaviour and distribution pattern of nutrientsin river–estuarine waters of Mahanadi, Orissa, India.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(90)90118-Q

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(90)90118-Q

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90098-T

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569422322

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569422322

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195002000-00004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195002000-00004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-002-0196-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-002-0196-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03146-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03146-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002540000182

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002540000182


Asian Journal of water, Environmental Pollution, 2(1),77–84.

Sundaray, S. K., Panda, U. C., Nayak, B. B., & Bhatta,D. (2006). Multivariate statistical techniques for theevaluation of spatial and temporal variation in waterquality of Mahanadi River–Estuarine System (India) –a case study. Environmental Geochemistry and Health,28, 317–330. doi:10.1007/s10653-005-9001-5.

Tiwari, T. N., & Manzoor, A. (1988a). River pollutionin Kathmandu valley (Nepal) suitability of river wa-ter for irrigation. Indian Journal of EnvironmentalProtection, 8(4), 269–274.

Tiwari, T. N., & Manzoor, A. (1988b). Pollution ofSubarnarekha river near Jamshedpur and the suit-ability of its water for irrigation. Indian Journal ofEnvironmental Protection, 8(7), 494–497.

Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology (2nd ed., p.535) New York: Wiley.

Upadhyay, S. (1988). Physico-chemical characteristics ofthe Mahanadi estuarine eco-system, East coast ofIndia. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 17, 19–23.

US Salinity Laboratory (1954). Diagnosis and improvementof Saline and Alkaline soils (p. 160). US Department ofAgriculture. Handbook no. 60.

Vogel, A. L. (1961). A text book of quantitative inorganicanalysis (3rd ed.). London: Longmanns.

Wilcox, L. V. (1948). The quality of water for irriga-tion use (p. 19). Washington, DC: US Department ofAgriculture, Technical Bulletin.

Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classification and use of irriga-tion water (p. 969). US Department of Agriculture,Circular.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10653-005-9001-5

Documents

MAHANADI RIVER