4.7 Article

Assessment and modeling of groundwater quality using WQI and GIS in Upper Egypt area

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 25, 期 31, 页码 30808-30817

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-017-8617-1

关键词

Groundwater; GIS; Spatial modeling; WQI; SAR; PI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The continuous growth and development of population need more fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and domestic in arid countries like Egypt. Evaluation the quality of groundwater is an essential study to ensure its suitability for different purposes. In this study, 812 groundwater samples were taken within the middle area of Upper Egypt (Sohag Governorate) to assess the quality of groundwater for drinking and irrigation purposes. Eleven water parameters were analyzed at each groundwater sample (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, HCO3- SO42-, Fe2+, Mn2+, Cl-, electrical conductivity, and pH) to exploit them in water quality evaluation. A classical statistics were applied for the raw data to examine the distribution of physicochemical parameters in the investigated area. The relationship between groundwater parameters was tested using the correlation coefficient where a strong relationship was found between several water parameters such as Ca2+ and Cl-. Water quality index (WQI) is a mathematical model used to transform many water parameters into a single indicator value which represents the water quality level. Results of WQI showed that 20% of groundwater samples are excellent, 75% are good for drinking, and 7% are very poor water while only 1% of samples are unsuitable for drinking. To test the suitability of groundwater for irrigation, three indices are used; they are sodium adsorption ration (SAR), sodium percentage (Na%), and permeability index (PI). For irrigation suitability, the study proved that most sampling sites are suitable while less than 3% are unsuitable for irrigation. The spatial distribution of the estimated values of WQI, SAR, Na%, PI, and each groundwater parameter was spatially modeled using GIS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据