RESEARCH ARTICLE Science Technologydiscoveryjournals.org/sciencetech/Current_Issue/2017/A10.pdf · Accepted: 13 March 2017 Published: April- June 2017 Citation Eyankware, Moses O,

Eyankware, Moses et al.Quality assessment and hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in Ughelli and its adjoining area for irrigation purpose, Niger delta region, Nigeria,Science & Technology, 2017, 3(10), 120-134,www.discoveryjournals.com © 2017 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved

Page120

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Eyankware, Moses O1☼, Akudinobi BEB2, Akakuru OC3

1. Department of Geology, Faculty of Science Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki Nigeria2. Department of Geological Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. Anambra State. Nigeria3. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Alvan Ikoku University of Education, Owerri, Nigeria

☼Corresponding Author:Department of Geology, Faculty of Science Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki Nigeria, Email: [email protected]

Publication HistoryReceived: 04 February 2017Accepted: 13 March 2017Published: April- June 2017

CitationEyankware, Moses O, Akudinobi BEB, Akakuru OC. Quality assessment and hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater in Ughelliand its adjoining area for irrigation purpose, Niger delta region, Nigeria. Science & Technology, 2017, 3(10), 120-134

Publication License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

General Note

Article is recommended to print in recycled paper.

ABSTRACTThe study tends to assess the quality of groundwater for irrigation purpose. A total of twenty water sample were analysed, usingAmerica Public Health Association APHA standard method. The following parameters were analyses: PH, Turbidity, ElectricalConductivity, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Mg2+, SO4

2-, Cl-, K+, Na2+ and Ca2+. Irrigation parameters such as SSP, MAR, SAR, PI, KR,

Science & Technology, Vol. 3, No. 10, April-June, 2017 RESEARCH

Science & Technology

Quality assessment and hydrochemical characteristics of groundwaterin Ughelli and its adjoining area for irrigation purpose,Niger delta region, Nigeria

ISSN2394–3750

EISSN2394–3769

An International Journal


Page120

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Publication License


General Note







ISSN2394–3750

EISSN2394–3769



Page120

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Publication License


General Note







ISSN2394–3750

EISSN2394–3769



Page121

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Na%, EC and TH were analyzed. SSP value ranges from (0.00 to 80.00%), of MAR ranges from (0.00 to 84.61), the value of SARranges from (0.00 to 1.10), PI ranges from (0.02 to 0.43), KR ranges from (0.00 to 4.00), Na% ranges from (0.00 to 400), EC rangesfrom (8.90 to 284.30) µ/Scm, TH value ranges from (0.50 to 84.50) and PS value ranges from (0.07 to 1.87 meq/l). While forhydrogeochemical facies, the dominat ionic species in the study area are Ca –Na-Cl-HCO3 from the Piper Trilinear plot.

Keywords: Niger Delta Formation, Groundwater, Wilcox, Fresh water and Irrigation.

1. INTRODUCTION

Over dependent on oil sector as the major sector driving the economic of Nigeria has done more harm than good, as the country

is currently facing economy recession because of decrease in the price of crude oil globally. This has drastically affected agriculturewhich use to be the major source of Nigeria, before in discovery of crude oil in Olobori in Bayelsa in state Nigeria (Eyankware, 2016b;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oloibiri_Oilfield). Agriculture which has been the driving force of the nation economy has beenneglected over the decades, farming in most part of Niger Delta has been on substituent scale, irrigation agriculture is not beenencourage like others countries for better farming productivity this has led to this research. Because for better farm productivity,irrigation agriculture should be encourage (Eyankware, et al., 2017). The assessment of groundwater for irrigation purpose has notbeen a major source of concern in western Niger Delta region of Nigeria as most farming activities within this region of Nigeria isbased on substituent agriculture. Although of recent emphasis on appraisal of water quality for irrigation purpose has been on therise in south eastern part of Nigeria (Eyankware, et al, 2016b, Moses, 2016c; Moses, 2017).

Figure 1 Location and Groundwater Sampling Map of the Study Area.


Page121

RESEARCH ARTICLE



1. INTRODUCTION





Page121

RESEARCH ARTICLE



1. INTRODUCTION





Page122

RESEARCH ARTICLE

This has led to this research with the aim of assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation purpose. Irrigated agricultureis dependent on an adequate water supply of usable quality. In irrigation water evaluation, emphasis is placed on the chemical andphysical characteristics of the water and only rarely are any other factors considered important. Here attempt has been made toassess the quality of ground of Ughelli and its environs for irrigation purpose. (Dhirendra).The quality characteristics studied in thepresent investigations were as follows: Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) Magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR), Sodium AdsorptionRatio (SAR), Permeability Index (PI), Kelly Ratio (KR), Sodium Percentage (Na%), Electrical conductivity (EC), Total Hardness andPotential Salinity(PS).

Location and climate of study areaThe study area lies between longitude 6005'E to 6022'E and latitude 5035'N to 5050'N. The study area is in Ughelli, Delta State.

Climate, Topography And PhysiographyThe region experiences subequatorial climate that is now influenced by gas flaring. For instance, mean temperature generally rangesbetween 350C and 370C. Rainfall amount is over 300cm without a distinctive dry season, with monthly rainfall (January – December)averaging 2.5cm. The rainwater according to Alakpodia (2000) is acidic in nature and the quality is being threatened because of highlevel of impurities (Efe, 2006).

Figure 2 Geological map of parts of the western Niger Delta (NGSA, 2006). Modified after Akpoborie, et al., (2015).


Page122

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Page122

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Page123

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Geology of the study areaThe study area is underlain by Niger Delta Formations. The formations from the top to the base are Somebreiro-Warri Deltaic Plainsands (Fig.2). The Benin Formation, Agbada Formation and the Akata Formation have been described in details by (Allen, 1965;Reyment, 1965; Short and Stauble, 1967; Weber and Daukuro, 1975) (Fig. 2). According to Wigwe (1975), the Somebreiro-WarriDeltaic Plain sand is about 120m thick and it is Quaternary to Recent. Texturally, the unconsolidated sediments range from fineplastic clay through medium to coarsed grained sands and rarely gravelly. The Benin Formation consists predominantly ofunconsolidated sand, gravel and occasionally intercalation of shales. It is of Oligocene to Pleistocene in age and it is about 2000mthick. The Agbada Formation is the oil bearing formation of the Niger Delta sedimentary basin. It is of Eocene to Oligocene in age. Itconsists of shale and alternate sand sequence and about 3000m thick. The Akata Formation is the basal units of the Niger Deltasedimentary basin and overlies the basement complex, it is made up of open marine facies and highly pressure with 1000kmthickness and of the Ecocene to Oligocene in age.

2. METHODOLOGYLaboratory analysesThirteen water samples were collected and analyzed for physicochemical properties see Fig. 1. Precautionary measure was taken bywashing the bottles with clean water and cleaning reagents and thoroughly rinsed with distilled, deionised water prior to collectionof water sample from site. After the Electrical Conductivity (EC), pH and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) were measured at point ofcollection, samples were sealed stored in ice chests and eventually transported to the laboratory within the hour of collection.Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids were measured in situ using the HACH Conductivity/TDS meters respectively. ThepH was measured using pH meter and the HACH. Potassium (K) and Sodium (Na) ion concentrations were obtained with a JenwayClinical flame photometer. Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Chloride (Cl) with appropriate titrimetric methods as described byAPHA (1992), and sulphate content was determined by turbidimetry.

Statistical analysesThe results from laboratory were subjected to relevant descriptive statistical analyses to establish relationship (SPSS software).

3. RESULTSResult of Physicochemical ParametersTable 1 Result of Physical and Chemical Parameters

SampleCode

ElectricalConductivity

PH Cl-

mg/L

Na+

mg/L

Mg2+

mg/L

NO3-

mg/L

SO42-

mg/L

Ca2+

mg/L

HCO3-

mg/L

K+

mg/L

UGH/01 14.01 6.41 3.06 0.17 0.05 BDL 0.16 5.21 1.93 0.004

UGH/02 39.60 6.58 10.55 2.02 0.03 0.01 0.85 0.68 6.49 0.12

UGH/03 136.60 6.05 38.76 6.63 1.19 0.02 1.76 9.52 15.25 0.001

UGH/04 8.90 6.73 2.78 1.11 0.05 BDL 0.33 0.29 1.17 <0.005

UGH/05 122.8 6.91 37.04 9.62 1.41 0.03 2.89 15.98 13.40 0.001

UGH/06 34.90 6.98 9.13 2.23 0.72 0.05 1.65 2.14 4.52 <0.006

UGH/07 101.20 6.22 20.05 7.71 1.95 BDL 2.28 11.07 10.18 0.014

UGH/08 271.01 7.01 52.56 11.08 2.29 0.05 4.42 18.42 30.71 <0.005


Page123

RESEARCH ARTICLE





SampleCode


PH Cl-

mg/L

Na+

mg/L

Mg2+

mg/L

NO3-

mg/L

SO42-

mg/L

Ca2+

mg/L

HCO3-

mg/L

K+

mg/L

UGH/01 14.01 6.41 3.06 0.17 0.05 BDL 0.16 5.21 1.93 0.004

UGH/02 39.60 6.58 10.55 2.02 0.03 0.01 0.85 0.68 6.49 0.12

UGH/03 136.60 6.05 38.76 6.63 1.19 0.02 1.76 9.52 15.25 0.001

UGH/04 8.90 6.73 2.78 1.11 0.05 BDL 0.33 0.29 1.17 <0.005

UGH/05 122.8 6.91 37.04 9.62 1.41 0.03 2.89 15.98 13.40 0.001

UGH/06 34.90 6.98 9.13 2.23 0.72 0.05 1.65 2.14 4.52 <0.006

UGH/07 101.20 6.22 20.05 7.71 1.95 BDL 2.28 11.07 10.18 0.014

UGH/08 271.01 7.01 52.56 11.08 2.29 0.05 4.42 18.42 30.71 <0.005


Page123

RESEARCH ARTICLE





SampleCode


PH Cl-

mg/L

Na+

mg/L

Mg2+

mg/L

NO3-

mg/L

SO42-

mg/L

Ca2+

mg/L

HCO3-

mg/L

K+

mg/L

UGH/01 14.01 6.41 3.06 0.17 0.05 BDL 0.16 5.21 1.93 0.004

UGH/02 39.60 6.58 10.55 2.02 0.03 0.01 0.85 0.68 6.49 0.12

UGH/03 136.60 6.05 38.76 6.63 1.19 0.02 1.76 9.52 15.25 0.001

UGH/04 8.90 6.73 2.78 1.11 0.05 BDL 0.33 0.29 1.17 <0.005

UGH/05 122.8 6.91 37.04 9.62 1.41 0.03 2.89 15.98 13.40 0.001

UGH/06 34.90 6.98 9.13 2.23 0.72 0.05 1.65 2.14 4.52 <0.006

UGH/07 101.20 6.22 20.05 7.71 1.95 BDL 2.28 11.07 10.18 0.014

UGH/08 271.01 7.01 52.56 11.08 2.29 0.05 4.42 18.42 30.71 <0.005


Page124

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/09 24.77 6.18 5.06 1.28 0.27 BDL 0.49 3.06 2.15 <0.007

UGH/10 18.96 6.65 2.56 0.11 BDL 0.01 0.06 1.43 1.68 0.12

UGH/11 119.74 6.17 28.34 12.72 0.91 0.03 1.53 8.83 11.82 0.013

UGH/12 51.33 6.36 15.60 6.36 0.56 BDL 0.94 3.06 9.40 0.001

UGH/13 43.72 6.13 11.30 4.51 0.37 0.02 0.68 2.92 7.51 0.003

UGH/14 284.3 6.55 65.82 16.34 6.14 0.02 7.16 23.85 24.12 0.17

UGH/15 104.60 6.83 22.09 9.86 3.61 0.02 3.19 14.13 12.41 <0.006

UGH/16 13.50 6.72 3.12 0.17 0.08 BDL 0.21 0.42 2.75 <0.002

UGH/17 47.70 6.40 10.81 3.68 0.74 0.02 0.93 3.97 5.50 0.001

UGH/18 10.60 6.64 2.95 0.09 0.13 BDL 0.16 0.29 1.54 <0.006

UGH/19 20.70 6.45 4.13 0.61 0.11 0.01 0.29 0.68 3.42 0.016

UGH/20 44.10 6.53 12.78 5.03 1.27 0.06 1.32 5.21 6.15 0.002

Table 2 Results of Chemical Parameters in meq/L

Sample Code Cl-

meq/L

Na+

meq/L

Mg2+

meq/L

NO3-

meq/L

SO42-

meq/L

Ca2+

meq/L

HCO3-

meq/L

K+

meq/L

UGH/01 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00

UGH/02 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00

UGH/03 1.09 0.28 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.47 0.24 0.00

UGH/04 0.07 0.04 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

UGH/05 1.04 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.79 0.21 0.00

UGH/06 0.25 0.09 0.05 BDL 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00

UGH/07 0.56 0.33 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.55 0.16 0.00

UGH/08 1.48 0.48 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.91 0.50 0.00

UGH/09 0.14 0.05 0.02 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.00

UGH/10 0.07 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.00

UGH/11 0.79 0.55 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.44 0.19 0.00


Page124

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/09 24.77 6.18 5.06 1.28 0.27 BDL 0.49 3.06 2.15 <0.007

UGH/10 18.96 6.65 2.56 0.11 BDL 0.01 0.06 1.43 1.68 0.12

UGH/11 119.74 6.17 28.34 12.72 0.91 0.03 1.53 8.83 11.82 0.013

UGH/12 51.33 6.36 15.60 6.36 0.56 BDL 0.94 3.06 9.40 0.001

UGH/13 43.72 6.13 11.30 4.51 0.37 0.02 0.68 2.92 7.51 0.003

UGH/14 284.3 6.55 65.82 16.34 6.14 0.02 7.16 23.85 24.12 0.17

UGH/15 104.60 6.83 22.09 9.86 3.61 0.02 3.19 14.13 12.41 <0.006

UGH/16 13.50 6.72 3.12 0.17 0.08 BDL 0.21 0.42 2.75 <0.002

UGH/17 47.70 6.40 10.81 3.68 0.74 0.02 0.93 3.97 5.50 0.001

UGH/18 10.60 6.64 2.95 0.09 0.13 BDL 0.16 0.29 1.54 <0.006

UGH/19 20.70 6.45 4.13 0.61 0.11 0.01 0.29 0.68 3.42 0.016

UGH/20 44.10 6.53 12.78 5.03 1.27 0.06 1.32 5.21 6.15 0.002


Sample Code Cl-

meq/L

Na+

meq/L

Mg2+

meq/L

NO3-

meq/L

SO42-

meq/L

Ca2+

meq/L

HCO3-

meq/L

K+

meq/L

UGH/01 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00

UGH/02 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00

UGH/03 1.09 0.28 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.47 0.24 0.00

UGH/04 0.07 0.04 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

UGH/05 1.04 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.79 0.21 0.00

UGH/06 0.25 0.09 0.05 BDL 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00

UGH/07 0.56 0.33 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.55 0.16 0.00

UGH/08 1.48 0.48 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.91 0.50 0.00

UGH/09 0.14 0.05 0.02 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.00

UGH/10 0.07 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.00

UGH/11 0.79 0.55 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.44 0.19 0.00


Page124

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/09 24.77 6.18 5.06 1.28 0.27 BDL 0.49 3.06 2.15 <0.007

UGH/10 18.96 6.65 2.56 0.11 BDL 0.01 0.06 1.43 1.68 0.12

UGH/11 119.74 6.17 28.34 12.72 0.91 0.03 1.53 8.83 11.82 0.013

UGH/12 51.33 6.36 15.60 6.36 0.56 BDL 0.94 3.06 9.40 0.001

UGH/13 43.72 6.13 11.30 4.51 0.37 0.02 0.68 2.92 7.51 0.003

UGH/14 284.3 6.55 65.82 16.34 6.14 0.02 7.16 23.85 24.12 0.17

UGH/15 104.60 6.83 22.09 9.86 3.61 0.02 3.19 14.13 12.41 <0.006

UGH/16 13.50 6.72 3.12 0.17 0.08 BDL 0.21 0.42 2.75 <0.002

UGH/17 47.70 6.40 10.81 3.68 0.74 0.02 0.93 3.97 5.50 0.001

UGH/18 10.60 6.64 2.95 0.09 0.13 BDL 0.16 0.29 1.54 <0.006

UGH/19 20.70 6.45 4.13 0.61 0.11 0.01 0.29 0.68 3.42 0.016

UGH/20 44.10 6.53 12.78 5.03 1.27 0.06 1.32 5.21 6.15 0.002


Sample Code Cl-

meq/L

Na+

meq/L

Mg2+

meq/L

NO3-

meq/L

SO42-

meq/L

Ca2+

meq/L

HCO3-

meq/L

K+

meq/L

UGH/01 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.25 0.03 0.00

UGH/02 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.00

UGH/03 1.09 0.28 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.47 0.24 0.00

UGH/04 0.07 0.04 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

UGH/05 1.04 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.79 0.21 0.00

UGH/06 0.25 0.09 0.05 BDL 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00

UGH/07 0.56 0.33 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.55 0.16 0.00

UGH/08 1.48 0.48 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.91 0.50 0.00

UGH/09 0.14 0.05 0.02 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.00

UGH/10 0.07 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.00

UGH/11 0.79 0.55 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.44 0.19 0.00


Page125

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/12 0.44 0.27 0.00 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.00

UGH/13 0.31 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.00

UGH/14 1.85 0.71 0.50 0.00 0.14 1.19 0.39 0.00

UGH/15 0.62 0.42 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.70 0.20 0.00

UGH/16 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00

UGH/17 0.30 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.00

UGH/18 0.08 0.00 0.01 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00

UGH/19 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00

UGH/20 0.36 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.10 0.00

Figure 3a Wilcox Diagram for groundwater in the study Area.


Page125

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/12 0.44 0.27 0.00 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.00

UGH/13 0.31 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.00

UGH/14 1.85 0.71 0.50 0.00 0.14 1.19 0.39 0.00

UGH/15 0.62 0.42 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.70 0.20 0.00

UGH/16 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00

UGH/17 0.30 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.00

UGH/18 0.08 0.00 0.01 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00

UGH/19 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00

UGH/20 0.36 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.10 0.00



Page125

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UGH/12 0.44 0.27 0.00 BDL 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.00

UGH/13 0.31 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.00

UGH/14 1.85 0.71 0.50 0.00 0.14 1.19 0.39 0.00

UGH/15 0.62 0.42 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.70 0.20 0.00

UGH/16 0.08 0.00 0.00 BDL 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00

UGH/17 0.30 0.16 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.00

UGH/18 0.08 0.00 0.01 BDL 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00

UGH/19 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.00

UGH/20 0.36 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.10 0.00



Page126

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Irrigation quality parametersIrrigated agriculture is dependent on an adequate water supply of usable quality. Just as every water is not suitable for humanbeings, in the same way, every water is not suitable for plant life. Water containing impurities, which are injurious to plant growth, isnot satisfactory for irrigation, and called unsatisfactory water (Nata, et al., 2011). The quality characteristics studied in the presentinvestigations were as follows: Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) Magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR), Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR),Permeability Index (PI), Kelly Ratio (KR), Sodium Percentage (Na%), Electrical conductivity (EC), Total Hardness (TH) and PotentialSalinity (PS).

Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP)The values of SSP less than 50 indicates good quality of water and higher values shows that the unacceptable quality of water forirrigation (USDA, 1954). SSP value ranges from 0.00 to 80.00% with mean value of 31.99 % (Table 5). SSP calculated by using Todd,(1980).

SSP = Na+ × 100 eqn (1)Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+

Where all ionic concentration are expressed in meq/L.

Magnesium Adsorption Ratio (MAR)Generally, calcium and magnesium maintain a state of equilibrium in most waters. High magnesium in water will adversely affectcrop yields as the soil becomes more saline (Joshi et al, 2009). The value of MAR ranges from 0.00 to 84.61 with mean value of 18.43.More magnesium in water will adversely affect crop yields as the soils become more alkaline. Value below 50 is considered theacceptable limit of MAR (Ayers & Westcot, 1994). The value of MAR were considered fit for irrigation purpose except for UGH/06and UGH/17 which were above the set standard. (Table 5) The Magnesium Adsorption Ratio was calculated using the followingequation (Raghunath, 1987):

MAR = Mg++ × 100 eqn (2)Mg++ + Ca++

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)SAR is an easily measured property that gives information on the comparative concentrations of Na+, Ca++, and Mg++ in the watersamples (Talabi, et al., 2014). SAR takes into consideration the fact that the adverse effect of sodium is moderated by the presence ofcalcium and magnesium ions. When the SAR rises above 12 to 15, serious physical soil problems arise and plants have difficultyabsorbing water (Munshower, 1994, Brady, 2002). The value of SAR ranges from 0.00 to 1.10 with mean value of 0.50, based onvalue range of SAR the water s considered fit for irrigaton. (Fig. 3b and Table 5). This was calculated employing the equation(Raghunath, 1987) as:

SAR = Na+ eqn (3).

(Ca++ + Mg++)

2



Page126

RESEARCH ARTICLE



SSP = Na+ × 100 eqn (1)Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+



MAR = Mg++ × 100 eqn (2)Mg++ + Ca++


SAR = Na+ eqn (3).

(Ca++ + Mg++)

2



Page126

RESEARCH ARTICLE



SSP = Na+ × 100 eqn (1)Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+



MAR = Mg++ × 100 eqn (2)Mg++ + Ca++


SAR = Na+ eqn (3).

(Ca++ + Mg++)

2



Page127

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Figure 3b Classification of Water based on US salinity diagram.Where C1 = Excellent, C2 = Good, C3 =Doubtful, C4 = Unsuitable, S1 = Excellent, S2 = Good, S3 = Doubtful, S4 = Unsuitable.

Permeability Index (P.I.)Doneen evolved a criterion for assessing the suitability of water for irrigation based on the permeability index. The value of PI rangesfrom 0.02 to 0.43 with average value of 0.15 (Table 6). Based on value range of PI it is fit for irrigation purpose (Table 3). PI isclassified under Class I (>75% permeability), Class II (25-75% permeability) and Class III (<75% permeability) orders. Class I and ClassII waters are categorized as good for irrigation and Class III waters are unsuitable with 25% of maximum permeability. The sampledpoints from UGH/01 to UGH/20 is classified under CLASS II. This implies that water is good for irrigation purpose (Fig.3c). PI wascalculated based on Domenico, et al., (1990).

PI = Na+ + HCO3- eqn (4).

Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+



Page127

RESEARCH ARTICLE




Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+



Page127

RESEARCH ARTICLE




Ca++ + Mg++ + Na+



Page128

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Figure 3c Doneen’s, (1964) Chart for P.I. values of groundwater.

Kelly Ratio (KR)The Kelly’s ratio of equal to or less than 1 is indicative of good quality water for irrigation whereas above 1 is suggestive ofunsuitability for agricultural purpose due to alkali hazards (Karanth, 1987). The value of KR ranges from 0.00 to 4.00 with averagevalue of 0.77. It was observed that is only UGH/02, UGH/04, UGH/11 to UGH/13 that is considered not fit for irrigation purpose allother sampling points were considered fit for irrigation. (Table 5). This was calculated employing the equation (Kelly, 1963) as:

KR = Na+ eqn (5).Ca++ + Mg++


Sodium Percentage (Na%)Sodium percentage is an important criterion for defining the type of irrigation. Sodium percent is another important factor to studysodium hazard. The value of Na% ranges from 0.00 to 400 with mean value of 70.68 (Table 5). Sample UGH/01, UGH/03, UGH/05,UGH/06, UGH/07, UGH/08 to UGH/10, UGH/12, UGH/15, UGH/16, UGH/17 and UGH/18 is suitable for irrigation while sampleUGH/02, UGH/04, UGH/11, UGH/13, UGH/14, UGH/19 and UGH/20 is not suitable for irrigation purpose (Table 5). Na % wascalculated by using (Doneen, 1964) formula:

Na % = Na+ × 100 eqn (6)Ca++ + Mg++


Page128

RESEARCH ARTICLE



KR = Na+ eqn (5).Ca++ + Mg++



Na % = Na+ × 100 eqn (6)Ca++ + Mg++


Page128

RESEARCH ARTICLE



KR = Na+ eqn (5).Ca++ + Mg++



Na % = Na+ × 100 eqn (6)Ca++ + Mg++


Page129

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Figure 3c Rating of water samples on the basis of electrical conductivity and percent sodium (after Wilcox, 1955).

Electrical Conductivity (EC)Electrical conductivity is a good measure of salinity hazard to crops as it reflects the TDS in water (Sawid, et al., 2015). The value ofEC ranges from 8.90 to 284.30 µ/Scm with mean value of 75.65 µ/Scm. From (Table 3 and 5) All sampled location falls within theexcellent (C1) except for UGH/08 and UGH/14.

Table 3 Classification of Water Based on EC

Salinity Hazard (Class) EC µ/Scm Sampling Points

Excellent(C1) <250 UGH/01 to UGH/07, UGH/09 to UGH/13, UGH/15 to UGH/20

Good (C2) 250 -750 UGH/08 and UGH/14

Doubtful(C3) 750 -2250

Unsuitable(C4) >2,250

Total Hardness (TH)TH value ranges from 0.50 to 84.50 with mean value of 23.75 (Table 6). Hence the water can be classified as soft water based onSawyer, et al., (1967) see Table. 4. From (Table 4 and 5) UGH/01 to UGH/13, UGH/14 to UGH/20 is classified under soft water whileUGH/14 is classified as moderately hard based on Sawyer, et al., 1967 table. TH was calculated by the following equation(Raghunath, 1987):


Page129

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Good (C2) 250 -750 UGH/08 and UGH/14





Page129

RESEARCH ARTICLE






Good (C2) 250 -750 UGH/08 and UGH/14





Page130

RESEARCH ARTICLE

TH = (Ca++ + Mg++) × 50 eqn (7).


Table 4 Classification of Water Based on Total Hardness (Sawyer, et al., 1967)

Total hardness asCaCO3(mg/l)

Water Class Number of Samples

<75 Soft 19

75 – 150 Moderately Hard 01(UGH/14)

150 – 300 Hard -

>300 Very Hard -

Figure 4a Piper Diagram depicting hydrogeochemical facies of groundwater in the study area.


Page130

RESEARCH ARTICLE

TH = (Ca++ + Mg++) × 50 eqn (7).





<75 Soft 19


150 – 300 Hard -

>300 Very Hard -



Page130

RESEARCH ARTICLE

TH = (Ca++ + Mg++) × 50 eqn (7).





<75 Soft 19


150 – 300 Hard -

>300 Very Hard -



Page131

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Potential salinity (PS)Potential salinity (PS) was defined as the chloride concentration plus half of the sulfate concentration (Ogunfowokan , et al., 2013).The suitability of water for irrigation is not dependent on the concentration of soluble salts in the water (Doneen, 1964; Doneen,1961). However, low solubility salts precipitate in the soil and accumulate with each successive irrigation, whereas the concentrationof highly soluble salts increases the salinity of the soil (Doneen, 1962). According to Doneen (1964), PS value less than 3meq/l issuitable for irrigation purposes. An important parameter Potential salinity was introduced for assessing the suitability of water forirrigation uses which may be defined as the chloride concentration plus half of the sulfate concentration (Doneen, 1962). The valueof PS ranges from 0.07 to 1.87meq/l with mean value of 0.54meq/l. (Table.5). Based on the view of PS the water is fit for irrigation.

Potential Salinity = Cl + SO42-/2 eqn(8)

Hydrogeochemical faciesHydrogeochemical facies interpretation is a useful tool for determining the flow pattern and origin ofchemical histories of groundwater, and it is used to express similarity and dissimilarity in the chemistry of groundwater samplesbased on the dominant cations and anions (Eyankware, et al., 2017). Piper Diagrams (Piper, 1944) is a combination of anion andcation triangles that lie on a common baseline. Diamond shape between them can be used to make a tentative conclusion as to theorigin of the water represented by the analysis and to characterize different water types. Piper divided waters into four basic typesaccording to their placement near the four corners of the diamond. Water that plots at the top of the diamond is high in Ca2+ +Mg2+ and Cl- + SO4

2-, which results in an area of permanent hardness. The water that plots near the left corner is rich in Ca2+ + Mg2+

and HCO3- and is the region of water of temporary hardness. Water plotted at the lower corner of the diamond is primarilycomposed of alkali carbonates (Na+ + K+ and HCO3

- + CO32-). Water lying nears the right-handside of the diamond may be

considered saline (Na+ + K+ and Cl- + SO42-).

Groundwater samples were plotted in Piper Diagram and Durov using by AquaChem software (Fig.4a and 4b).

Figure 4b Durov Diagram depicting geochemical processes of groundwater in the study area.


Page131

RESEARCH ARTICLE











Page131

RESEARCH ARTICLE











Page132

RESEARCH ARTICLE

From Fig.4a and 4b the Piper and Durov diagrams reveals that UGH/01 is of Ca- Cl water type, samples UGH/02 andUGH/04 is of Na-Cl- HCO3 water type, sample UGH/03, UGH/06,UGH/08,UGH/17,and UGH/19 are of Ca –Na-Cl-HCO3 water type,samples UGH/05, UGH/07 and UGH/20 are of Ca-Na- Cl, sample UGH/11 is of Na-Ca-Cl water type, while samples UGH/12 andUGH/13 are of Na-Ca-Cl-HCO3, sample UGH/14 and UGH/15 are of Ca-Na-Mg-Cl water type, samplesUGH/10, UGH/16, andUGH/18 are of Ca-Cl-HCO3. The dominat ionic species in the study area are Ca –Na-Cl-HCO3 from the Piper Trilinear plot.

Table 5 Result of Irrigation Parameters

Parameters SSP MAR SAR PI KR RSBC Na% EC TH PS

UGH/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 -0.22 0.00 14.01 12.5 0.08

UGH/02 72.72 0.00 0.66 4.36 2.66 0.13 266.6 39.60 1.50 0.29

UGH/03 33.33 16.07 1.00 0.90 0.50 -0.23 50.00 136.60 28.00 1.10

UGH/04 80.00 0.00 0.23 1.00 4.00 0.00 400 8.90 0.50 0.07

UGH/05 31.29 12.22 0.61 0.65 0.45 -0.53 45.55 122.8 45.00 1.07

UGH/06 12.16 84.61 0.55 0.47 0.13 -0.03 13.84 34.90 32.50 0.26

UGH/07 31.73 22.53 0.65 0.70 0.46 -0.39 46.47 101.20 35.50 0.58

UGH/08 30.57 16.51 0.18 0.75 0.44 -0.41 44.03 271.01 54.50 1.52

UGH/09 22.72 11.76 0.00 1.00 0.29 -0.21 29.41 24.77 17.00 0.14

UGH/10 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.00 0.00 -0.12 0.00 18.96 7.00 0.07

UGH/11 51.88 13.72 1.00 0.92 1.07 -0.25 107.8 119.74 25.50 0.80

UGH/12 64.28 0.00 1.00 1.54 1.80 0.00 26.85 51.33 7.50 0.44

UGH/13 57.57 0.00 0.73 1.60 1.35 -0.02 135.71 43.72 7.00 0.31

UGH/14 29.58 4.03 0.78 0.55 0.42 -0.80 57.25 284.3 84.50 1.87

UGH/15 29.78 29.29 0.60 0.60 0.42 -0.50 46.15 104.60 49.50 0.65

UGH/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 13.50 1.00 0.80

UGH/17 14.81 79.34 0.23 0.42 0.17 -0.10 17.39 47.70 46.00 0.30

UGH/18 0.00 50.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 10.60 1.00 0.08

UGH/19 40.00 0.00 0.20 0.43 0.66 0.02 66.66 20.70 1.50 0.11

UGH/20 37.50 28.57 0.51 0.92 0.60 -0.15 60.00 44.10 17.50 0.38

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 -0.80 0.00 8.90 0.50 0.07

Maximum 80 84.61 1.10 10.00 4.00 0.13 400.00 284.30 84.50 1.87


Page132

RESEARCH ARTICLE




UGH/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 -0.22 0.00 14.01 12.5 0.08

UGH/02 72.72 0.00 0.66 4.36 2.66 0.13 266.6 39.60 1.50 0.29

UGH/03 33.33 16.07 1.00 0.90 0.50 -0.23 50.00 136.60 28.00 1.10

UGH/04 80.00 0.00 0.23 1.00 4.00 0.00 400 8.90 0.50 0.07

UGH/05 31.29 12.22 0.61 0.65 0.45 -0.53 45.55 122.8 45.00 1.07

UGH/06 12.16 84.61 0.55 0.47 0.13 -0.03 13.84 34.90 32.50 0.26

UGH/07 31.73 22.53 0.65 0.70 0.46 -0.39 46.47 101.20 35.50 0.58

UGH/08 30.57 16.51 0.18 0.75 0.44 -0.41 44.03 271.01 54.50 1.52

UGH/09 22.72 11.76 0.00 1.00 0.29 -0.21 29.41 24.77 17.00 0.14

UGH/10 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.00 0.00 -0.12 0.00 18.96 7.00 0.07

UGH/11 51.88 13.72 1.00 0.92 1.07 -0.25 107.8 119.74 25.50 0.80

UGH/12 64.28 0.00 1.00 1.54 1.80 0.00 26.85 51.33 7.50 0.44

UGH/13 57.57 0.00 0.73 1.60 1.35 -0.02 135.71 43.72 7.00 0.31

UGH/14 29.58 4.03 0.78 0.55 0.42 -0.80 57.25 284.3 84.50 1.87

UGH/15 29.78 29.29 0.60 0.60 0.42 -0.50 46.15 104.60 49.50 0.65

UGH/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 13.50 1.00 0.80

UGH/17 14.81 79.34 0.23 0.42 0.17 -0.10 17.39 47.70 46.00 0.30

UGH/18 0.00 50.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 10.60 1.00 0.08

UGH/19 40.00 0.00 0.20 0.43 0.66 0.02 66.66 20.70 1.50 0.11

UGH/20 37.50 28.57 0.51 0.92 0.60 -0.15 60.00 44.10 17.50 0.38

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 -0.80 0.00 8.90 0.50 0.07

Maximum 80 84.61 1.10 10.00 4.00 0.13 400.00 284.30 84.50 1.87


Page132

RESEARCH ARTICLE




UGH/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 -0.22 0.00 14.01 12.5 0.08

UGH/02 72.72 0.00 0.66 4.36 2.66 0.13 266.6 39.60 1.50 0.29

UGH/03 33.33 16.07 1.00 0.90 0.50 -0.23 50.00 136.60 28.00 1.10

UGH/04 80.00 0.00 0.23 1.00 4.00 0.00 400 8.90 0.50 0.07

UGH/05 31.29 12.22 0.61 0.65 0.45 -0.53 45.55 122.8 45.00 1.07

UGH/06 12.16 84.61 0.55 0.47 0.13 -0.03 13.84 34.90 32.50 0.26

UGH/07 31.73 22.53 0.65 0.70 0.46 -0.39 46.47 101.20 35.50 0.58

UGH/08 30.57 16.51 0.18 0.75 0.44 -0.41 44.03 271.01 54.50 1.52

UGH/09 22.72 11.76 0.00 1.00 0.29 -0.21 29.41 24.77 17.00 0.14

UGH/10 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.00 0.00 -0.12 0.00 18.96 7.00 0.07

UGH/11 51.88 13.72 1.00 0.92 1.07 -0.25 107.8 119.74 25.50 0.80

UGH/12 64.28 0.00 1.00 1.54 1.80 0.00 26.85 51.33 7.50 0.44

UGH/13 57.57 0.00 0.73 1.60 1.35 -0.02 135.71 43.72 7.00 0.31

UGH/14 29.58 4.03 0.78 0.55 0.42 -0.80 57.25 284.3 84.50 1.87

UGH/15 29.78 29.29 0.60 0.60 0.42 -0.50 46.15 104.60 49.50 0.65

UGH/16 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 13.50 1.00 0.80

UGH/17 14.81 79.34 0.23 0.42 0.17 -0.10 17.39 47.70 46.00 0.30

UGH/18 0.00 50.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 10.60 1.00 0.08

UGH/19 40.00 0.00 0.20 0.43 0.66 0.02 66.66 20.70 1.50 0.11

UGH/20 37.50 28.57 0.51 0.92 0.60 -0.15 60.00 44.10 17.50 0.38

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 -0.80 0.00 8.90 0.50 0.07

Maximum 80 84.61 1.10 10.00 4.00 0.13 400.00 284.30 84.50 1.87


Page133

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mean 31.99 18.43 0.50 1.77 0.77 -0.18 70.68 75.65 23.75 0.54

STDEV 24.09 25.50 0.37 2.49 1.01 0.23 98.77 80.32 23.03 0.51

Note: Underline Figures are figure above the set standard

4. CONCLUSIONFrom the research carried out it was observed that SSP value ranges from 0.00 to 80.00% with mean 31.99, MAR ranges from 0.00 to84.61 with mean 18.43, the value of SAR ranges from 0.00 to 1.10 with mean value of 0.50, PI ranges from 0.02 to 0.43 with meanvalue of 1.77, KR ranges from 0.00 to 4.00 with mean of 0.77, Na% ranges from 0.00 to 400 with mean value of 70.68, EC ranges from8.90 to 284.30 µ/Scm with mean value of 75.65 µ/Scm. TH value ranges from 0.50 to 84.50 with mean value of 23.75 and PS valueranges from 0.07 to 1.87 meq/l with mean value of 0.54meq/l. It was observed SSP, MAR, SAR, PI, EC, PS were below the set standardand considered fit for irrigation purpose. As for KR it value were observed to be above the set standard at UGH/02, 04, 11, 12 and13, Na% it value were observed to be above the set standard at UGH/02, 04, 11, 13 and 14 and TH it was only at sampled locationUGH/14 that was above the set standard. As for hydrogeochemical facies, the dominat ionic species in the study area are Ca –Na-Cl-HCO3 from the Piper Trilinear plot.

RECOMMENDATIONBoth the federal, State, local government and co-operate company should be advise to embark on agricultural to revitalize theeconomy of the nation as most of the wealthy nation in globe are known for generate 75% of their yearly budget from agriculture, ifNigeria can key into mechanized farming economy recession will soon be a thing of the past. Finally human activities that affect thequality of water for irrigation purpose should be avoided.

REFERENCES1. APHA (American Public Health Association), (2003), Standard

methods for examination of water and wastewaterspecifications, Washington DC, 6, 19th edition.

2. Alakpodia, J. I. (2000).The environment of the Niger Delta. InB.C. Uweru and J.O. Ubrurhe (Eds), Readings in GeneralStudies, Nigerian People and Culture. 190-203 AboutResearch Pub.

3. Akpoborie, I.A., Aweto, K.E and Asuma, O.O. (2015).Urbanization and Major Ion Hydrogeochemistry of theShallow Aquifer at the Effurun - Warri Metropolis, Nigeria.Environment and Pollution. 4(1):37 -46.

4. AquChem 5,1. (2006). Waterloo Hydrologic. Inc. Waterloo.Ontario CanadaN211.5J2.

5. Dhirendra M. J., Alok K, and Namita A. (2009). Assessment ofthe Irrigation Water Quality of River Ganga In HaridwarDistrict. Rayasan, J. Chem. .2 (2): 285-292.

6. Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W. (1990). Physical andChemical hydrology, John Wiley and sons, New York, 410.

7. Doneen, L.D. (1964). Water quality for agriculture.Department of irrigation, University of California. Davis. pp.48.

8. Doneen, L. D. (1964). Notes on water quality in agriculture.Davis: Water Science and Engineering, University ofCalifornia.

9. Doneen, L. D., (1961). The influence of crop and soil onpercolating waters. California, USA: Proceeding of GroundWater Recharge Conference.

10. Doneen, L. D. (1962). The influence of crop and soil onpercolating water. In: Proceedings of the biennialconference on ground water recharge, pp. 156–163.

11. Durov, S. A. (1948). Natural waters and graphicalrepresentation of their composition. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. USSR59,87-90

12. Efe, S.I. (2006). Quality of rainwater harvesting for ruralcommunities of Delta State, Nigeria. Environmentalist 26:175-181.

13. Eyankware, M. O., Nnabo, P. N., Omo-Irabor, O. O., Selemo,O. I. (2016a). Assessment of the Effect of AnthropogenicActivities on Hydrogeochemical Quality of Water Resourcesof Ekaeru Inyimagu and Its Environs, SE. Nigeria. Sky Journalof Soil Science and Environmental Management. Vol. 5(5): 33– 43.

14. Eyankware, M. O. (2016b). Hydrochemical Apprasial ofGroundwater for Irrigation Purpose: A Case Study Of EkaeruInyimagu And Its Adjoining Area, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.Indian Journal of Science. Vol. 23(88): 924-943

15. Eyankware, M. O., Obasi, P.N., Akakuru, O.C. (2016c). Use ofhydrochemical Approach in Evaluation of Water Quality


Page133

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mean 31.99 18.43 0.50 1.77 0.77 -0.18 70.68 75.65 23.75 0.54

STDEV 24.09 25.50 0.37 2.49 1.01 0.23 98.77 80.32 23.03 0.51





















Page133

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Mean 31.99 18.43 0.50 1.77 0.77 -0.18 70.68 75.65 23.75 0.54

STDEV 24.09 25.50 0.37 2.49 1.01 0.23 98.77 80.32 23.03 0.51





















Page134

RESEARCH ARTICLE

around the Vicinity of Mkpuma Ekwaoku Mining District,Ebonyi State, SE. Nigeria for Irrigation Purpose. IndianJournal of Science. Vol. 23(88): 881-895.

16. Eyankware, M. O. Okoeguale, B. O., Ulkapa, R. O. E. (2016d).Assessment Of Physico-Chemical Properties Of SurfaceWater, Of Oji Town And Its Adjoining Areas, Anambra Basin,SE. Nigeria For Irrigation Purpose. International Journal ofApplied Sciences and Humanities. Vol. 1(1): 35-49.

17. Eyankware, M. O. (2017). Groundwater HydrogeochemistryEvaluation for irrigation purposes in Limestone Mining areasof Umuoghara Near, Abakaliki, SE. Nigeria. Science &Technology. Vol. 3(9):1-19.

18. Eyankware, M. O. (2017). Hydrogeochemical Evaluation andSuitability study of Groundwater for Domestic and IrrigationPurpose in Eruemukohwarien Community, Niger DeltaRegion, Nigeria. Science & Technology (in press view).

19. Ezeh, V.O., Eyankware, M. O., Irabor, O. O., Nnabo, P.N.(2016). Hydrochemical evaluation of water resources inUmuoghara and its environs, near Abakaliki, south easternNigeria. International Journal of Science and HealthcareResearch. 1(2): 23-31.

20. Karanth, K. R. (1987), Groundwater assessment, developmentand management, Tata-McGraw Hill Publishing CompanyLimited, New Delhi.

21. Kelly, W, P. (1963). Use of Saline Irrigation Water. Soil Sci.95(4):355-39

22. Moses, O. E., Ruth, O. E. U., Oghenegare, E. E. (2016).Assessment of Impact of Leachate on Soil Physicochemical

Parameters in the Vicinity of Eliozu Dumpsite, Port Harcourt,Nigeria. Basic Res. J. of Soil and Environ. Sci., 4(2): 15-25.

23. Nata, T., Abraham, B., Bheemalingeswara, K andTesfamichael G/yohannes. (2011). Suitability of GroundwaterQualityfor Irrigation with Reference to Hand Dug Wells, HantebetCatchment, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. CNCS, MekelleUniversity. 3(2):31-47.

24. Ogunfowokan , A. O., Obisanya, . J. F., Ogunkoya, O. O.(2013). Salinity and sodium hazards of three streams ofdifferent agricultural land use systems in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. DOI10.1007/s13201-012-0053-2.

25. Piper, A.M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemicalinterpretation of water analysis. American Geophysical UnionTransactions, Vol.25, pp.914-923

26. Raghunath, H. M. (1987). Groundwater, 2nd Ed. WileyEastern Ltd. New Delhi, India, pp. 344-369.

27. SPSS (2007). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 10.0.Chicago: SPSS Inc

28. USDA (1954). U.S.DA, Salinity Laboratory Staff., U.S.Department of Agriculture HandBook. 60, US Govt. PrintingOffice, Washington D.C.

29. Vikas, T., Kamra S.K, Kumar S, Kumar Ajay, Vishal, K. (2012).Hydro-chemical analysis and evaluation of groundwaterquality for irrigation in Karnal district of Haryana state, India.International Journal of Environmental Sciences.3: 756.

30. Wilcox, L. V. (1955). Classification and use of irrigationwater,” USDA, Circular, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 96.

31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oloibiri_Oilfield


Page134

RESEARCH ARTICLE




















Page134

RESEARCH ARTICLE



















Documents

RESEARCH ARTICLE Science Technologydiscoveryjournals.org/sciencetech/Current_Issue/2017/A10.pdf · Accepted: 13 March 2017 Published: April- June 2017 Citation Eyankware, Moses O,