ground water research paper pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 31 January 2023

Global water resources and the role of groundwater in a resilient water future

• Bridget R. Scanlon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1234-4199 1 ,
• Sarah Fakhreddine 1 , 2 ,
• Ashraf Rateb 1 ,
• Inge de Graaf   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7748-868X 3 ,
• Jay Famiglietti 4 ,
• Tom Gleeson 5 ,
• R. Quentin Grafton 6 ,
• Esteban Jobbagy 7 ,
• Seifu Kebede 8 ,
• Seshagiri Rao Kolusu 9 ,
• Leonard F. Konikow 10 ,
• Di Long   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9033-5039 11 ,
• Mesfin Mekonnen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3573-9759 12 ,
• Hannes Müller Schmied 13 , 14 ,
• Abhijit Mukherjee 15 ,
• Alan MacDonald   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6636-1499 16 ,
• Robert C. Reedy 1 ,
• Mohammad Shamsudduha 17 ,
• Craig T. Simmons 18 ,
• Alex Sun 1 ,
• Richard G. Taylor 19 ,
• Karen G. Villholth 20 ,
• Charles J. Vörösmarty 21 &
• Chunmiao Zheng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5839-1305 22  

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume  4 ,  pages 87–101 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

127 Citations

290 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Hydrogeology
• Water resources

An Author Correction to this article was published on 29 March 2023

This article has been updated

Water is a critical resource, but ensuring its availability faces challenges from climate extremes and human intervention. In this Review, we evaluate the current and historical evolution of water resources, considering surface water and groundwater as a single, interconnected resource. Total water storage trends have varied across regions over the past century. Satellite data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) show declining, stable and rising trends in total water storage over the past two decades in various regions globally. Groundwater monitoring provides longer-term context over the past century, showing rising water storage in northwest India, central Pakistan and the northwest United States, and declining water storage in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Climate variability causes some changes in water storage, but human intervention, particularly irrigation, is a major driver. Water-resource resilience can be increased by diversifying management strategies. These approaches include green solutions, such as forest and wetland preservation, and grey solutions, such as increasing supplies (desalination, wastewater reuse), enhancing storage in surface reservoirs and depleted aquifers, and transporting water. A diverse portfolio of these solutions, in tandem with managing groundwater and surface water as a single resource, can address human and ecosystem needs while building a resilient water system.

Net trends in total water storage data from the GRACE satellite mission range from −310 km 3 to 260 km 3 total over a 19-year record in different regions globally, caused by climate and human intervention.

Groundwater and surface water are strongly linked, with 85% of groundwater withdrawals sourced from surface water capture and reduced evapotranspiration, and the remaining 15% derived from aquifer depletion.

Climate and human interventions caused loss of ~90,000 km 2 of surface water area between 1984 and 2015, while 184,000 km 2 of new surface water area developed elsewhere, primarily through filling reservoirs.

Human intervention affects water resources directly through water use, particularly irrigation, and indirectly through land-use change, such as agricultural expansion and urbanization.

Strategies for increasing water-resource resilience include preserving and restoring forests and wetlands, and conjunctive surface water and groundwater management.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

92,52 € per year

only 7,71 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping

Divergent effects of climate change on future groundwater availability in key mid-latitude aquifers

Global peak water limit of future groundwater withdrawals

Change history, 29 march 2023.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00418-9

Vorosmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467 , 555–561 (2010).

Article   Google Scholar  

Doell, P., Mueller Schmied, H., Schuh, C., Portmann, F. T. & Eicker, A. Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resour. Res. 50 , 5698–5720 (2014).

Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 , L20402 (2010).

Douville, H. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 1055–1210 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

Olivier, D. W. & Xu, Y. X. Making effective use of groundwater to avoid another water supply crisis in Cape Town, South Africa. Hydrogeol. J. 27 , 823–826 (2019).

Ozment, S. et al. Natural infrastructure in Sao Paulo’s water system. World Resources Institute Report 2013–2014: Interim Findings (2018).

Pascale, S., Kapnick, S. B., Delworth, T. L. & Cooke, W. F. Increasing risk of another Cape Town ‘Day Zero’ drought in the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 29495 (2020).

Alley, W. M., Reilly, T. E. & Franke, O. L. Sustainability of ground-water resources. US Geological Survey Circular 1186 (1999).

Breslin, S. COP26 has 4 goals. Water is central to all of them. SIWI News https://siwi.org/latest/cop26-has-4-goals-water-is-central-to-all-of-them/ (2021).

Global Risks 2021 16th edition (World Economic Forum, 2021); https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2021/

The Water Challenge: The Roundtable on Water Financing (OECD, 2022); https://www.oecd.org/water/roundtable-on-financing-water.htm

The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water (United Nations World Water Assessment Program/UNESCO, 2018).

Browder, G., Ozment, S., Rehberger-Bescos, I., Gartner, T. & Lange, G. M. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Generation Infrastructure (World Bank and World Resources Institute, 2019); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430

Making Every Drop Count: Agenda for Water Action (High Level Panel on Water, United Nations and World Bank, 2018).

Lederer, E. M. Next UN assembly president warns world in dangerous crisis. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/next-un-assembly-president-warns-world-in-dangerous-crisis/2022/06/07/55075dce-e6b6-11ec-a422-11bbb91db30b_story.html (7 June 2022).

Tapley, B. D. et al. Contributions of GRACE to understanding climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 358–369 (2019).

Wada, Y. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104003 (2014).

Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Blue water footprint linked to national consumption and international trade is unsustainable. Nat. Food 1 , 792–800 (2020).

Rodell, M. et al. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557 , 651–659 (2018).

Save, H., Bettadpur, S. & Tapley, B. D. High-resolution CSR GRACE RL05 mascons. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 121 , 7547–7569 (2016).

Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M. & Reigber, C. The Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004gl019920 (2004).

Richey, A. S. et al. Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE. Water Resour. Res. 51 , 5217–5238 (2015).

Shamsudduha, M. & Taylor, R. G. Groundwater storage dynamics in the world’s large aquifer systems from GRACE: uncertainty and role of extreme precipitation. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11 , 755–774 (2020).

Vishwakarma, B. D., Bates, P., Sneeuw, N., Westaway, R. M. & Bamber, J. L. Re-assessing global water storage trends from GRACE time series. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 , 034005 (2021).

Pekel, J. F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540 , 418–436 (2016).

Lehner, B. et al. High-resolution mapping of the world’s reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 , 494–502 (2011).

Scanlon, B. R. et al. Global models underestimate large decadal declining and rising water storage trends relative to GRACE satellite data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E1080–E1089 (2018).

Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L. & Alley, W. M. Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource . Circular 1139 (United States Geological Survey, 1998).

Konikow, L. F. Overestimated water storage. Nat. Geosci. 6 , 3 (2013).

Konikow, L. F. Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gl048604 (2011).

Pokhrel, Y. N. et al. Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nat. Geosci. 5 , 389–392 (2012).

de Graaf, I. E. M. et al. A global-scale two-layer transient groundwater model: development and application to groundwater depletion. Adv. Water Resour. 102 , 53–67 (2017).

Rateb, A. et al. Comparison of groundwater storage changes from GRACE satellites with monitoring and modeling of major U.S. aquifers. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027556 (2020).

de Graaf, I. E. M., Gleeson, T., van Beek, L. P. H., Sutanudjaja, E. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping. Nature 574 , 90–94 (2019).

Sophocleous, M. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources — the Kansas experience. J. Hydrol. 235 , 27–43 (2000).

Konikow, L. F. & Bredehoeft, J. D. Groundwater Resource Development: Effects and Sustainability (The Groundwater Project, 2020).

MacAllister, D. J., Krishan, G., Basharat, M., Cuba, D. & MacDonald, A. M. A century of groundwater accumulation in Pakistan and northwest India. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00926-1 (2022).

Scanlon, B. R. et al. Effects of climate and irrigation on GRACE-based estimates of water storage changes in major US aquifers. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac16ff (2021).

McGuire, V. L. Water-Level and Recoverable Water In Storage Changes, High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2015 and 2013–15 . US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5040 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175040

Faunt, C. C. Groundwater availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap . 1766 (2009).

Vorosmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R. B. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289 , 284–288 (2000).

Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500323 (2016).

Vorosmarty, C. J. & Sahagian, D. Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial water cycle. Bioscience 50 , 753–765 (2000).

Gronwall, J. & Danert, K. Regarding groundwater and drinking water access through a human rights lens: self-supply as a norm. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020419 (2020).

van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Global water scarcity including surface water quality and expansions of clean water technologies. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbfc3 (2021).

Podgorski, J. & Berg, M. Global threat of arsenic in groundwater. Science 368 , 845–850 (2020).

Yapiyev, V., Sagintayev, Z., Inglezakis, V. J., Samarkhanov, K. & Verhoef, A. Essentials of endorheic basins and lakes: a review in the context of current and future water resource management and mitigation activities in Central Asia. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100798 (2017).

Pauloo, R. A., Fogg, G. E., Guo, Z. L. & Harter, T. Anthropogenic basin closure and groundwater salinization (ABCSAL). J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125787 (2021).

Cao, T. Z., Han, D. M. & Song, X. F. Past, present, and future of global seawater intrusion research: a bibliometric analysis. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126844 (2021).

Werner, A. D. et al. Seawater intrusion processes, investigation and management: recent advances and future challenges. Adv. Water Resour. 51 , 3–26 (2013).

Held, I. M. & Soden, B. J. Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19 , 5686–5699 (2006).

Fan, X., Duan, Q. Y., Shen, C. P., Wu, Y. & Xing, C. Global surface air temperatures in CMIP6: historical performance and future changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 104056 (2020).

Tabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2 (2020).

Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368 , 314 (2020).

Arias, P. A. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 33−144 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

van Dijk, A. et al. The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resour. Res. 49 , 1040–1057 (2013).

Scanlon, B. R. et al. Hydrologic implications of GRACE satellite data in the Colorado River Basin. Water Resour. Res. 51 , 9891–9903 (2015).

Rateb, A., Scanlon, B. R. & Kuo, C. Y. Multi-decadal assessment of water budget and hydrological extremes in the Tigris-Euphrates Basin using satellites, modeling, and in-situ data. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144337 (2021).

Anyamba, A., Glennie, E. & Small, J. Teleconnections and interannual transitions as observed in African vegetation: 2015–2017. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10071038 (2018).

Scanlon, B. R. et al. Linkages between GRACE water storage, hydrologic extremes, and climate teleconnections in major African aquifers. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3bfc (2022).

Ul Hassan, W. & Nayak, M. A. Global teleconnections in droughts caused by oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc9e2 (2021).

Shen, Z. X. et al. Drying in the low-latitude Atlantic Ocean contributed to terrestrial water storage depletion across Eurasia. Nat. Commun. 13 , 1849 (2022).

Dettinger, M. D. Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the US West Coast. J. Hydrometeorol. 14 , 1721–1732 (2013).

Taylor, R. G. et al. Ground water and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 322–329 (2013).

Cuthbert, M. O. et al. Observed controls on resilience of groundwater to climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature 572 , 230 (2019).

Hugonnet, R. et al. Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature 592 , 726 (2021).

Zhao, F., Long, D., Li, X., Huang, Q. & Han, P. Rapid glacier mass loss in the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau since the year 2000 from satellite observations. Remote. Sens. Environ. 270 , 112853 (2022).

Li, X. Y. et al. Climate change threatens terrestrial water storage over the Tibetan Plateau. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01443-0 (2022).

Yao, T. D. et al. The imbalance of the Asian water tower. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00299-4 (2022).

Immerzeel, W. W., van Beek, L. P. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Climate change will affect the Asian water towers. Science 328 , 1382–1385 (2010).

Immerzeel, W. W. et al. Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 577 , 364 (2020).

Dery, S. J. et al. Detection of runoff timing changes in pluvial, nival, and glacial rivers of western Canada. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr006975 (2009).

Siebert, S. et al. Groundwater use for irrigation – a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 7 , 3977–4021 (2010).

Google Scholar  

Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 9320–9325 (2012).

Dahlke, H. E. et al. in Advanced Tools for Integrated Water Resources Management Vol. 3 (eds Friesen, J. & Rodriguez-Sinobas, L.) 215–275 (Elsevier, 2018).

Reddy, V. R., Pavelic, P. & Hanjra, M. A. Underground taming of floods for irrigation (UTFI) in the river basins of South Asia: institutionalising approaches and policies for sustainable water management and livelihood enhancement. Water Policy 20 , 369–387 (2018).

McDonald, R. I., Weber, K. F., Padowski, J., Boucher, T. & Shemie, D. Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 9117–9122 (2016).

The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, Biodiversity, and Peopl e (FAO/UNEP, 2020).

Convention on Wetlands. Global Wetland Outlook: Special Edition 2021 (Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands, 2021).

Scanlon, B. R., Jolly, I., Sophocleous, M. & Zhang, L. Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: quantity versus quality. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005486 (2007).

Nosetto, M. D., Paez, R. A., Ballesteros, S. I. & Jobbagy, E. G. Higher water-table levels and flooding risk under grain vs. livestock production systems in the subhumid plains of the Pampas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 206 , 60–70 (2015).

Favreau, G. et al. Land clearing, climate variability, and water resources increase in semiarid southwest Niger: a review. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006785 (2009).

Walker, C. D., Zhang, l, Ellis, T. W., Hatton, T. J. & Petheram, C. Estimating impacts of changed land use on recharge: review of modelling and other approaches appropriate for management of dryland salinity. Hydrogeol. J. 10 , 68–90 (2002).

Nosetto, M. D., Jobbagy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Sznaider, G. A. Reciprocal influence of crops and shallow ground water in sandy landscapes of the Inland Pampas. Field Crops Res. 113 , 138–148 (2009).

Gimenez, R., Mercau, J., Nosetto, M., Paez, R. & Jobbagy, E. The ecohydrological imprint of deforestation in the semiarid Chaco: insights from the last forest remnants of a highly cultivated landscape. Hydrol. Process. 30 , 2603–2616 (2016).

Eilers, R. G., Eilers, W. D. & Fitzgerald, M. M. A salinity risk index for soils of the Canadian prairies. Hydrogeol. J. 5 , 68–79 (1997).

Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2020: Five Years into the SDGs (WHO/UNICEF, 2021).

Cobbing, J. & Hiller, B. Waking a sleeping giant: realizing the potential of groundwater in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 122 , 597–613 (2019).

Rockström, J. & Falkenmark, M. Agriculture: increase water harvesting in Africa. Nature 519 , 283–285 (2015).

MacAllister, D. J., MacDonald, A. M., Kebede, S., Godfrey, S. & Calow, R. Comparative performance of rural water supplies during drought. Nat. Commun. 11 , 1099 (2020).

Aboah, M. & Miyittah, M. K. Estimating global water, sanitation, and hygiene levels and related risks on human health, using global indicators data from 1990 to 2020. J. Water Health 20 , 1091–1101 (2022).

Abell, R. et al. Beyond the Source: The Environmental, Economic and Community Benefits of Source Water Protection (The Nature Conservancy, 2017).

Herrera-Garcia, G. et al. Mapping the global threat of land subsidence. Science 371 , 34–36 (2021).

Scanlon, B. R., Reedy, R. C., Faunt, C. C., Pool, D. & Uhlman, K. Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use and managed aquifer recharge in California and Arizona. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 035013 (2016).

Qadir, M. et al. Global and regional potential of wastewater as a water, nutrient and energy source. Nat. Resour. Forum 44 , 40–51 (2020).

Water Reuse within a Circular Economy Context . Global Water Security Issues Series 2 (UNESCO, 2020).

Jones, E. R., van Vliet, M. T. H., Qadir, M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Country-level and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13 , 237–254 (2021).

Jeuland, M. Challenges to wastewater reuse in the Middle East and North Africa. Middle East. Dev. J. 7 , 1–25 (2015).

Zhang, Y. & Shen, Y. Wastewater irrigation: past, present, and future. WIREs Water 6 , e1234 (2019).

Fito, J. & Van Hulle, S. W. H. Wastewater reclamation and reuse potentials in agriculture: towards environmental sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sust. 23 , 2949–2972 (2021).

Gao, L., Yoshikawa, S., Iseri, Y., Fujimori, S. & Kanae, S. An economic assessment of the global potential for seawater desalination to 2050. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100763 (2017).

Ahdab, Y. D., Thiel, G. P., Bohlke, J. K., Stanton, J. & Lienhard, J. H. Minimum energy requirements for desalination of brackish groundwater in the United States with comparison to international datasets. Water Res. 141 , 387–404 (2018).

Jones, E., Qadir, M., van Vliet, M. T. H., Smakhtin, V. & Kang, S. M. The state of desalination and brine production: a global outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 657 , 1343–1356 (2019).

Lin, S. S. et al. Seawater desalination technology and engineering in China: a review. Desalination https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114728 (2021).

Martinez-Alvarez, V., Martin-Gorriz, B. & Soto-Garcia, M. Seawater desalination for crop irrigation — a review of current experiences and revealed key issues. Desalination 381 , 58–70 (2016).

Smith, K., Liu, S. M., Hu, H. Y., Dong, X. & Wen, X. H. Water and energy recovery: the future of wastewater in China. Sci. Total Environ. 637 , 1466–1470 (2018).

Pulido-Bosch, A. et al. Impacts of agricultural irrigation on groundwater salinity. Environ/ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7386-6 (2018).

Kurnik, J. The Next California: Phase 1: Investigating Potential in the Mid-Mississippi Delta River Region (The Markets Institute at WWF, 2020); https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/the-next-california-phase-1-investigating-potential-in-the-mid-mississippi-delta-river-region

Senay, G. B., Schauer, M., Friedrichs, M., Velpuri, N. M. & Singh, R. K. Satellite-based water use dynamics using historical Landsat data (1984–2014) in the southwestern United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 202 , 98–112 (2017).

Gebremichael, M., Krishnamurthy, P. K., Ghebremichael, L. T. & Alam, S. What drives crop land use change during multi-year droughts in California’s Central Valley? Prices or concern for water? Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13040650 (2021).

Brauman, K. A., Siebert, S. & Foley, J. A. Improvements in crop water productivity increase water sustainability and food security — a global analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 , 024030 (2013).

Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y., Neale, C. M. U., Ray, C. & Yang, H. S. Water productivity benchmarks: the case of maize and soybean in Nebraska. Agric. Water Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106122 (2020).

Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H. & Porter, D. O. Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: a brief history and potential reductions in demand. Irrig. Drain. 58 , 257–274 (2008).

Scanlon, B. R., Gates, J. B., Reedy, R. C., Jackson, A. & Bordovsky, J. Effects of irrigated agroecosystems: (2). Quality of soil water and groundwater in the southern High Plains, Texas. Water Resour. Res. 46 , W09538 (2010).

Ward, F. A. & Pulido-Velazquez, M. Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 18215–18220 (2008).

Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361 , 748–750 (2018).

Alcott, B. in The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements (eds Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., & Giampetro, M.) 7–78 (Earthscan, 2008).

Aarnoudse, E. & Bluemling, B. Controlling Groundwater Through Smart Card Machines: The Case of Water Quotas and Pricing Mechanisms in Gansu Province, China . Groundwater Solutions Initiative for Policy and Practice (GRIPP) Case Profile Series 02 (International Water Management Institute, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5337/2016.224

Kinzelbach, W., Wang, H., Li, Y., Wang, L. & Li, N. Groundwater Overexploitation in the North China Plain: A Path to Sustainability (Springer, 2021).

McDougall, R., Kristiansen, P. & Rader, R. Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 129–134 (2019).

Langemeyer, J., Madrid-Lopez, C., Mendoza Beltran, A. & Villalba Mendez, G. Urban agriculture — a necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability? Landsc. Urban Plan. 210 , 104055 (2021).

Palmer, L. Urban agriculture growth in US cities. Nat. Sust. 1 , 5–7 (2018).

Grafius, D. R. et al. Estimating food production in an urban landscape. Sci. Rep. 10 , 5141 (2020).

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015 (FAO/IFAD/WFP, 2015).

Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438 , 477–489 (2012).

Gleick, P. H. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302 , 1524–1528 (2003).

Miralles-Wilhelm, F. Nature-Based Solutions in Agriculture — Sustainable Management and Conservation of Land, Water, and Biodiversity (FAO/The Nature Conservancy, 2021).

McDonald, R. I. & Shemie, D. Urban Water Blueprint: Mapping Conservation Solutions to the Global Water Challenge (The Nature Conservancy, 2014); http://water.nature.org/waterblueprint

Kane, M. & Erickson, J. D. Urban metabolism and payment for ecosystem services: history and policy analysis of the New York city water supply. Adv. Econ. Environ. Resour. 7 , 307–328 (2007).

Greater Cape Town Water Fund: Business Case: Assessing the Return on Investment for Ecological Infrastructure Restoration (The Nature Conservancy, 2019).

Hu, J., Lu, Y. H., Fu, B. J., Comber, A. J. & Harris, P. Quantifying the effect of ecological restoration on runoff and sediment yields: a meta-analysis for the Loess Plateau of China. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 41 , 753–774 (2017).

Liu, W. W. et al. Improving wetland ecosystem health in China. Ecol. Indic. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106184 (2020).

Cities100: Chennai Is Restoring Waterbodies to Protect Against Flooding and Drought . C40 Knowledge Hub: Nordic Sustainability, South and West Asia, Chennai, Case Studies and Best Practice Examples https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Cities100-Chennai-is-restoring-waterbodies-to-protect-against-flooding-and-drought?language=en_US (2019).

Chung, M. G., Frank, K. A., Pokhrel, Y., Dietz, T. & Liu, J. G. Natural infrastructure in sustaining global urban freshwater ecosystem services. Nat. Sust. 4 , 1068 (2021).

Qi, Y. F. et al. Addressing challenges of urban water management in Chinese sponge cities via nature-based solutions. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102788 (2020).

Acreman, M. et al. Evidence for the effectiveness of nature-based solutions to water issues in Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0210 (2021).

Livneh, B. & Badger, A. M. Drought less predictable under declining future snowpack. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 452–458 (2020).

Mulligan, M., van Soesbergen, A. & Sáenz, L. GOODD, a global dataset of more than 38,000 georeferenced dams. Sci. Data 7 , 31 (2020).

International Commission on Large Dams https://www.icold-cigb.org/ (2022).

Yang, G., Guo, S., Liu, P. & Block, P. Integration and evaluation of forecast-informed multiobjective reservoir operations. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 146 , 04020038 (2020).

Delaney, C. J. et al. Forecast informed reservoir operations using ensemble streamflow predictions for a multipurpose reservoir in northern California. Water Resour. Res . https://doi.org/10.1029/2019wr026604 (2020).

Amarasinghe, U. A., Muthuwatta, L., Surinaidu, L., Anand, S. & Jain, S. K. Reviving the Ganges water machine: potential. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20 , 1085–1101 (2016).

Shamsudduha, M. et al. The Bengal water machine: quantified freshwater capture in Bangladesh. Science 377 , 1315–1319 (2022).

Chao, B. F., Wu, Y. H. & Li, Y. S. Impact of artificial reservoir water impoundment on global sea level. Science 320 , 212–214 (2008).

Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L. & Tockner, K. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat. Sci. 77 , 161–170 (2015).

Zarfl, C. et al. Future large hydropower dams impact global freshwater megafauna. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54980-8 (2019).

Wheeler, K. G., Jeuland, M., Hall, J. W., Zagona, E. & Whittington, D. Understanding and managing new risks on the Nile with the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19089-x (2020).

Di Baldassarre, G. et al. Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects. Nat. Sust. 1 , 617–622 (2018).

Dahlke, H. E., Brown, A. G., Orloff, S., Putnam, D. & O’Geen, T. Managed winter flooding of alfalfa recharges groundwater with minimal crop damage. Calif. Agric. 72 , 65–75 (2018).

Yang, Q. & Scanlon, B. R. How much water can be captured from flood flows to store in depleted aquifers for mitigating floods and droughts? A case study from Texas, US. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 054011 (2019).

Dillon, P. et al. Sixty years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge. Hydrogeol. J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1841-z. (2018).

Groundwater Replenishment System Technical Brochure, https://www.ocwd.com/media/10443/gwrs-technical-brochure-2021.pdf (2021).

Konikow, L. F. Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900–2008) . US Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2013–5079, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079 (2013).

Hartog, N. & Stuyfzand, P. J. Water quality donsiderations on the rise as the use of managed aquifer recharge systems widens. Water 9 , 808 (2017).

Shumilova, O., Tockner, K., Thieme, M., Koska, A. & Zarfl, C. Global water transfer megaprojects: a potential solution for the water–food–energy nexus? Front. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00150 (2018).

Long, D. et al. South-to-north water diversion stabilizing Beijing’s groundwater levels. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17428-6 (2020).

Zhuang, W. Eco-environmental impact of inter-basin water transfer projects: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 , 12867–12879 (2016).

Hoekstra, A. Y. Virtual Water Trade : Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade (UNESCO-IHE, 2003).

Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Virtual water trade and world water resources. Water Sci. Technol. 49 , 203–209 (2004).

Dolan, F. et al. Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0 (2021).

Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 3232–3237 (2012).

Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543 , 700–704 (2017).

Hanasaki, N., Inuzuka, T., Kanae, S. & Oki, T. An estimation of global virtual water flow and sources of water withdrawal for major crops and livestock products using a global hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 384 , 232–244 (2010).

Mekonnen, M. M. & Gerbens-Leenes, W. The water footprint of global food production. Water https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102696 (2020).

Australian Water Markets Report: 2019-20 Review and 2020-21 Outlook (Aither, 2020); https://aither.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Water-Markets-Report.pdf

Grafton, R. Q. & Wheeler, S. A. Economics of water recovery in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 10 , 487–510 (2018).

Moench, M. Water and the potential for social instability: livelihoods, migration and the building of society. Nat. Resour. Forum 26 , 195–204 (2002).

Water Markets in Australia: A Short History (National Water Commission, 2011).

Kundzewicz, Z. W. & Döll, P. Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under climate change? Hydrol. Sci. J. 54 , 665–675 (2009).

A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment (UNEP, 2016).

Summary Progress Update 2021: SDG 6 — Water and Sanitation for All (UN-Water, 2021).

GEMStat: Global Environmental Monitoring System, https://gemstat.org/ (UNEP, 2022).

Akhmouch, A. & Correia, F. N. The 12 OECD principles on water governance — when science meets policy. Util. Policy 43 , 14–20 (2016).

Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M. & Conway, B. D. Water Security: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (Routledge, 2013).

Potapov, P. et al. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food 3 , 19 (2022).

Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339 , 940–943 (2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Bridget R. Scanlon, Sarah Fakhreddine, Ashraf Rateb, Robert C. Reedy & Alex Sun

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Sarah Fakhreddine

Water Systems and Global Change, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Inge de Graaf

Global Institute for Water Security, National Hydrology Research Center, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Jay Famiglietti

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Tom Gleeson

Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

R. Quentin Grafton

Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, IMASL, CONICET, Universidad Nacional de San Luis, San Luis, Argentina

Esteban Jobbagy

Center for Water Resources Research, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa

Seifu Kebede

UK Meteorological Office, Exeter, UK

Seshagiri Rao Kolusu

Leonard Konikow Hydrogeologist, Reston, VA, USA

Leonard F. Konikow

Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Mesfin Mekonnen

Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany

Hannes Müller Schmied

Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany

School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

Abhijit Mukherjee

British Geological Survey, Lyell Centre, Edinburgh, UK

Alan MacDonald

Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London, UK

Mohammad Shamsudduha

National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT), College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Craig T. Simmons

Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK

Richard G. Taylor

Water Cycle Innovation Ltd, Johannesburg, Gauten, South Africa

Karen G. Villholth

Environmental Sciences Initiative, Advanced Science Research Center at the CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY, USA

Charles J. Vörösmarty

School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China

Chunmiao Zheng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.R.S. conceptualized the review and coordinated input. S.F. reviewed many of the topics and developed some of the figures. A.R. analysed GRACE satellite data and M.S. reviewed this output. Q.G. provided input on water economics. E.J. reviewed impacts of land-use change. S.R.K. provided data on future precipitation changes. L.F.K. provided detailed information on surface water/groundwater interactions. M.M. provided data on water trade. C.J.V. provided input on green and grey solutions. All authors reviewed the paper and provided edits.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bridget R. Scanlon .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Helen Dahlke, Diana Allen, who co-reviewed with Aspen Anderson, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, supplementary tables , rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Scanlon, B.R., Fakhreddine, S., Rateb, A. et al. Global water resources and the role of groundwater in a resilient water future. Nat Rev Earth Environ 4 , 87–101 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00378-6

Download citation

Accepted : 17 November 2022

Published : 31 January 2023

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00378-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Rapid groundwater decline and some cases of recovery in aquifers globally.

• Scott Jasechko
• Hansjörg Seybold
• James W. Kirchner

Nature (2024)

Winter snow deficit was a harbinger of summer 2022 socio-hydrologic drought in the Po Basin, Italy

• Francesco Avanzi
• Francesca Munerol
• Luca Ferraris

Communications Earth & Environment (2024)

Development of Groundwater Levels Dataset for Chile since 1970

• Héctor Leopoldo Venegas-Quiñones
• Rodrigo Valdés-Pineda
• Ty P. A. Ferré

Scientific Data (2024)

Comparative life cycle assessment of environmental impacts and economic feasibility of tomato cultivation systems in northern plains of India

• Rohit Kumar
• Arvind Bhardwaj
• Kanhu Charan Pattnayak

Scientific Reports (2024)

Aquifer depletion exacerbates agricultural drought losses in the US High Plains

• Timothy Foster
• Nicholas Brozović

Nature Water (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Advertisement

Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) under GIS framework

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2021
• Volume 11 , article number  46 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Arjun Ram 1 ,
• S. K. Tiwari 2 ,
• H. K. Pandey 3 ,
• Abhishek Kumar Chaurasia 1 ,
• Supriya Singh 4 &
• Y. V. Singh 5  

47k Accesses

129 Citations

Explore all metrics

Groundwater is an important source for drinking water supply in hard rock terrain of Bundelkhand massif particularly in District Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh, India. An attempt has been made in this work to understand the suitability of groundwater for human consumption. The parameters like pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, alkalinity , total hardness, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, copper, manganese, silver, zinc, iron and nickel were analysed to estimate the groundwater quality. The water quality index (WQI) has been applied to categorize the water quality viz: excellent, good, poor, etc. which is quite useful to infer the quality of water to the people and policy makers in the concerned area. The WQI in the study area ranges from 4.75 to 115.93. The overall WQI in the study area indicates that the groundwater is safe and potable except few localized pockets in Charkhari and Jaitpur Blocks. The Hill-Piper Trilinear diagram reveals that the groundwater of the study area falls under Na + -Cl − , mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − and Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) types. The granite-gneiss contains orthoclase feldspar and biotite minerals which after weathering yields bicarbonate and chloride rich groundwater. The correlation matrix has been created and analysed to observe their significant impetus on the assessment of groundwater quality. The current study suggests that the groundwater of the area under deteriorated water quality needs treatment before consumption and also to be protected from the perils of geogenic/anthropogenic contamination.

Similar content being viewed by others

Evaluation of Groundwater Quality for Drinking Purposes Using the WQI and EWQI in Semi-Arid Regions in India

Water quality index for assessment of drinking groundwater purpose case study: area surrounding Ismailia Canal, Egypt

Groundwater quality evaluation using Water Quality Index (WQI) under GIS framework for Mandya City, Karnataka

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In India, there has been a tremendous increase in the demand for groundwater due to rapid growth of population, accelerated pace of industrialization and urbanization (Yisa and Jimoh 2010 ). The availability and quality of groundwater are badly affected at an alarming rate due to anthropogenic activities viz. overexploitation and improper waste disposal (industrial, domestic and agricultural) to groundwater reservoirs (Panda and Sinha 1991; Kavitha et al. 2019a , 2019b ). Consequently, human health is seriously threatened by the prevailing agricultural practices particularly in relation to excessive application of fertilizers; unsanitary conditions and disposal of sewage into groundwater (Panigrahi et al. 2012 ). The groundwater quality also varies with depth of water, seasonal changes, leached dissolved salts and sub-surface environment (Gebrehiwot et al. 2011 ). According to the World Health Organization (WHO 2017 ), about 80% of all the diseases in human beings are water-borne. Once the groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult to ensure its restoration and proper quality by preventing the pollutants from the source. It, therefore, becomes imperative to monitor the quality of groundwater regularly, and to device ways and means to protect it from contamination. The quality of groundwater is deciphered using various physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water (Diersing and Nancy 2009 ; Panneerselvam et al. 2020a ). It is a measure of health and hygiene of groundwater concerning the need and purpose of human consumption (Johnson et al. 1997 ; Panneerselvam et al. 2020b ).

In recent years, the assessment and monitoring of groundwater quality on a regular basis is being carried out using Geographic Information System (GIS) technique added with the IDW interpolation method and has proved itself as a powerful tool for evaluating and analysing spatial information of water resources (Aravindan et al. 2010 ; Shankar et al. 2010 , 2011a , b ; Venkateswaran et al. 2012 ; Selvam et al. 2013b; Magesh and Elango 2019 ; Balamurugan et al. 2020b ; Soujanya Kamble et al. 2020 ). It is an economically feasible and time-efficient technique for transforming huge data sets to generate various spatial distribution maps and projections revealing trends, associations and sources of contaminants/pollutants. In this work, GIS technique has been used for spatial evaluation of various groundwater quality parameters.

In this study, the physicochemical properties of forty-three groundwater samples collected from wells and hand pumps were determined and compared with international standards of WHO for drinking and domestic uses based on Water Quality Index (WQI). The WQI was first developed by Horton ( 1965 ) based on weighted arithmetical calculation. A number of researchers (Brown et al. 1972 ; GEMS UNEP 2007; Kavitha and Elangovan 2010 ; Alobaidy et al. 2010 ; Shankar and Kawo 2019 ; Bawoke and Anteneh 2020 developed various WQI models based on weighing and rating of different water quality parameters which is derived by the weighted arithmetic method. The WQI is a dimensionless number with values ranking between 0 and 100. The WQI is a unique digital rating expression that expresses overall water quality status viz. excellent, good, poor, etc. at a certain space and time based on various water quality parameters. Thus, the WQI is being used as an important tool to compare the quality of groundwater and their management (Jagadeeswari and Ramesh 2012 ) in a particular region; and is helpful for selecting appropriate economically feasible treatment process to cope up with the concerned quality issues. It depicts the composite impact of different water quality parameters and communicates water quality information to the public and legislative policy-makers to shape strong policy and implement the water quality programs (Kalavathy et al. 2011 ) by the government.

Mineral intractions strongly influence groundwater hydrochemistry in aquifers and disintegration of minerals from various source rocks (Cerar and Urbanc 2013 ; Modibo Sidibé et al. 2019 ). Hydrochemistry of the analysed samples indicates that the mean abundance of major cations is present in order of Na ++  > Ca 2+  > Mg 2+  > K + while major anions in order of \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\)  >  \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\)  > Cl −  >  \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\)  > F − . The study shows that the sodium is dominant alkali while calcium and magnesium are the dominant alkaline earth metal leached in the aquafer due to rock water interaction affecting the quality of groundwater. Sodium in aquafer is derived from the weathering of halite and silicate minerals such as feldspar (Khan et al. 2014 ; Mostafa et al. 2017 ). The critical evaluation of Hill-Piper Trilinear diagram reflects Na + -Cl − , mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − , Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) , mixed Ca 2+ -Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) , Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) and Ca 2+ -Cl − type hydro-chemical facies in decreasing order of dominance. The Hydro-chemical characterization of groundwater reveals that the nature of aquifer is controlled by type of water, source and level of contamination (Aghazadeh et al. 2017 ; Brhane 2018 ). Hence, in order to keep the health of any aquaculture system, particularly an aquifer system at an optimal level, certain water quality indicators or parameters must be regularly monitored and controlled. Therefore, the objective of the study is to calculate the WQI of groundwater in order to assess its suitability for human consumption using the GIS interpolation technique and statistical approach in the study area.

Mahoba district is the south-western district of Uttar Pradesh which is adjacent to the state of Madhya Pradesh in south and Hamirpur (UP) in the north. The study area falls under the survey of India (SOI) toposheets no. 54O and 63C lies between latitude N25°01′30″ to N25°39′40″ and longitude E79°15′00″ to E80°10′30″ and covers an area of approximately 2933.59 km 2 . River Dhasan separates the district Mahoba from Jhansi in the west. A certainpart of Jhansi and Banda district has been merged in newly constructed Mahoba district in 1995 (bifurcated from Hamirpur). Mahoba district consists of three tehsils Kulpahar, Charkhari, Mahoba and four blocks Panwari, Jaitpur, Charkhari, Kabrai (Fig.  1 a). Kabrai is the biggest block fromaerial coverage as well as population point of view. Jaitpur is the smallest block from aerial coverage and Charkhari from population point of view. The study area experiences a typical subtropical climate punctuated by long and intense summer, with distinct seasons. The area receives an average annual precipitation of 864 mm mainly from the south-west monsoon. The temperature of the coldest month (January) is 8.3°C while the temperature of the hottest month (May) shoots upto 47.5°C. The entire area under investigation is characterised by highly jointed/fractured Bundelkhand granite (Archean age) with thin soil cover. Physiographically , the area is characterised by Bundelkhand massif terrain and is marked by the occurrence of solitary or clustered hillocks and intervening low relief with undulating plains. Two major physiographic units are: (1) Southern part having high relief with hillocks- This is south of 20°25′ N latitude & maximum altitude is 340 mamsl, reserved forest. Granitoids and intervening pegmatitic veins and numbers of quartz veins are observed. (2) Northern part relatively low relief with lower hillocks- In between 25°25′N and 25°39′N latitude and maximum altitude is 310 mamsl. The area in and around Panwari is mainly covered with thick alluvium, and hard rock is encountered only below 35 mbgl, coverage with seasonal forest. Pedi plain, pediment inselberg and buried pediplains are present.

a Study area map depicting the sampling sites. b Geological map of study area

Geological and hydrogeological set-up

The granite, particularly leucogranite, older and younger alluvium consisting of clay, silt, sand and gravel mainly comprises the study area. The geological set-up of the study area indicates that the most dominant lithology is leucogranite covering mainly central and eastern part while recent alluvium covers the northern part (Fig.  1 b). At places, few patches of pink granite have also been recorded which appears enclosed in leucogranite or adjacent to its outcrop.The occurrence of groundwater is highly uncertain and unpredictable in this hilly and rugged terrain as it does not allow percolation and storages underground. The presence of porosity depends on the intensity of weathering and rock fracture which is responsible for groundwater occurrence, its quantity and flow mostly in permeable zones of weathered rock formations and under secondary porosity in the deep fractured zone. Groundwater recharge in the study area is triggered by the depth of overburden 7 m (Jaitpur-Kulpahar area) to 35 m (parts of Mahoba Tahsil and Charkhari block) as well as the intensity of weathering.

Materials and methods

The groundwater samples were collected during pre-monsoon (June 2016) period from the study area according to standard procedures of the American Public Health Association (APHA, 2017). The sampling locations were marked with the help of global positioning system (GPS) as shown in the Fig.  1 a. Samples were collected from the location through hand pump (depth: approx. 40 m) and dug wells (depth: 8–30 m ) as shown in Fig.  2 a–t. The collecting bottles (High-Density Polythene, HDPE) of one-litre capacity each were sterilized under the aseptic condition to avoid unpredictable contamination and subsequent changes in the characteristics of groundwater. Water samples were filtered using Whatman 42 filter paper (pore size 2.5 μm) prior to collection in the bottle. The sample was kept in the ice-box (portable) and brought to NABL accredited (ISO 17,025: 2017) laboratory of Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Lucknow and Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP, India. The samples were stored in a chemical laboratory at temperature 4–5 °C. The samples for metallic parameters were added 2 ml elemental grade nitric acid to obtain the pH 2–3 after acidification. The samples were pre-filtered in the laboratory to carry out the analysis. In the present study, a total of 20 groundwater quality parameters of forty-three samples were analysed as per test standard methods (APHA 2017) in the laboratory except for unstable parameters viz. hydrogen ion concentration (pH), electrical conductivity (EC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) which are determined by portable device (pH-meter, EC-meter and TDS-meter) in situ. Alkalinity (AK), Total hardness (TH), calcium (Ca 2+ ), magnesium (Mg 2+ ), bicarbonate ( \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) ) and chloride (Cl − ) were analysed using volumetric titrations; sodium (Na + ) and potassium (K + ) were analysed using systronics flame photometer model 129; nitrate ( \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) ), fluoride (F − ), sulfate ( \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) ), were analysed using shimadzu 1800 spectrophotometer. Prior to analysis of the heavy metals viz. copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe) and nickel (Ni); the groundwater samples were acidified with 1:1 nitric acid and concentrated ten times. The samples were subjected to analysis using Shimadzu 6701 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) on flame mode with hollow cathode lamps of metal under analysis. The concentration of metal is displayed on the monitor. The standards of the metallic parameters were prepared from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified (Certified Reference Materials) CRM as per NABL guidelines of 17,025:2017.

a – b Spatial distribution map of pH and EC. c – h Spatial distribution map of TDS, AK, TH, Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ and Na + . i – n : spatial distribution map of K + , \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) , \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) , Cl − , F − and \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) . o – t Spatial distribution map of Cu, Mn, Ag, Zn, Fe and Ni

The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedure of the data has been considered during the study. Approximately half of the volume (500 ml) of samples were specially separated and checked in the laboratory to ensure QA/QC mechanisms. The accuracy of the chemical analysis has been validated by charge balance errors and samples < 5% error were considered.

The inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation technique used in this study is now-adays an effective tool for spatial interpolation of groundwater quality parameters leading to the generation of spatial distribution maps (Magesh et al. 2013 ; Kawo and Shankar 2018 ; Balamurugan et al. 2020b ; Sarfo and Shankar 2020 ). The weights were assigned to various parameters at each location based on distance and were calculated, taking into consideration the closest specified locations. The distribution of each groundwater quality parameter has been demarcated in different zones on spatial distribution map viz. acceptable/desirable and permissible limits according to BIS (2012, 2015) and WHO ( 2017 ) for drinking purpose. The statistical analysis and correlation matrix of the analysed groundwater quality parameters have been laid down as shown in Tables 1 and 2 , respectively.

The water quality index (WQI)

The WQI has been determined using the drinking water quality standard recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO 2017 ). The Water Quality Index has been calculated using the weighted arithmetic method, which was originally proposed by Horton ( 1965 ) and developed by Brown et al. ( 1972 ). The weighted arithmetic water quality index (WQI) is represented in the following way:

where n  = number of variables or parameters, W i  = unit weight for the i th parameter, Q i  = quality rating (sub-index) of the i th water quality parameter.

The unit weight ( W i ) of the various water quality parameters are inversely proportional to the recommended standards for the corresponding parameters.

where, W i  = unit weight for the i th parameter, S n  = standard value for i th parameters, K  = proportional constant,

The value of K has been considered ‘1′ here and is calculated using the mentioned equation below:

According to Brown et al. ( 1972 ), the value of quality rating or sub-index ( Q i ) is calculated using the equation as given below:

where V o = observed value of i th parameter at a given sampling site, V i = ideal value of i th parameter in pure water, S n = standard permissible value of i th parameter.

All the ideal values (V i ) are taken as zero for drinking water except pH and dissolved oxygen (Tripathy and Sahu 2005 ). In case of pH, the ideal value is 7.0 (for natural/pure water) while the permissible value is 8.5 (for polluted water). Similarly, for dissolved oxygen, the ideal value is 14.6 mg/L while the standard permissible value for drinking water is 5 mg/L. Therefore, the quality rating for pH and Dissolved Oxygen are calculated from the equations respectively as shown below:

where, V pH  = observed value of pH, V do  = observed value of dissolved oxygen.

If, Q i  = 0 implies complete absence of contaminants while 0 < Q i  < 100 implies that, the contaminants are within the prescribed standard. When Q i  > 100 implies that, the contaminants are above the standards.

The classification of water quality, based on its water quality index (WQI) after Brown et al. ( 1972 ); Chatterjee and Raziuddin ( 2002 ) and Shankar and Kawo ( 2019 ) have been considered here in this study for further reference which is mentioned in Table 3 .

Result and discussion

Groundwater quality parameters.

In this study based on the selected parameters as discussed above the groundwater quality maps have been prepared with the help of ArcGIS software 10.1 as shown in Fig.  2 a–t. In the following lines, the various parameters considered in the study are being discussed: The Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS 2012, 2015) and World Health Organization (WHO 2017 ) of drinking water standards have been considered as a reference in this study.

Hydrogen ion concentration (pH)

It is an important indicator for assessing the quality and pollution of any aquifer system as it is closely related to other chemical constituents of water. The presence of hydrogen ion concentration is measured in terms of pH range. Water, in its pure form shows a neutral pH which indicates hydrogen ion concentration. In the present study, the range of pH varies between 6.81 (minimum) to 8.32 (maximum) which is within the acceptable limit (6.5–8.5, avg: 7.81) indicating the alkaline nature of groundwater (ideal range of pH for human consumption: 6.5–8.5).

Electrical conductivity (EC)

In fact, it is a measure of the ability of any substance or solution to conduct electrical current through the water. EC is directly proportional to the dissolved material in a water sample. The desirable limit of EC for drinking purpose is 750 µS/cm. In this study, the electrical conductivity varies between 286 and 1162 µS/cm. High EC at some sites suggests the mixing of sewage in groundwater as these sites are near dense urbanization.

Total dissolved solids (TDS)

The weight of residue expresses it after a water sample is evaporated to dry state. It includes calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate. In the present study, it ranges between 280 to 879 mg/l (< 500 mg/l TDS for potable water as per BIS.). The agricultural practices, residential runoff, leaching of soil causing contamination and point source water pollution discharge from industrial or sewage treatment plants are the primary sources for TDS (Boyd 2000 ).

Alkalinity (AK)

It is a measure of the carbonate, bicarbonate and hydroxide ions present in water. The desirable limit of alkalinity in potable water is 200 mg/l, above which the taste of water becomes unpleasant. In the study area, the alkalinity ranges between 50 to 452 mg/l, which is within the permissible limit (600 mg/l).

Total hardness (TH)

It is the amount of dissolved calcium and magnesium in the water. Water moving through soil and rock dissolves naturally occurring minerals and carries them into the groundwater as it is a great solvent for calcium and magnesium. In this study, hardness ranges between 70 to 592 mg/l, which is within the permissible limits (600 mg/l). The high concentration of TH in groundwater may cause heart disease and kidney stone in human beings.

Calcium (Ca 2+ )

It enters into the aquifer system from the leaching of calcium bearing minerals. In the study area, the calcium concentration ranges from 12 to 112 mg/l and is within the permissible limit (200 mg/l). The lesser concentration of Ca 2+ in the groundwater satisfies the chemical weathering and dissolution of fluorite, consequently resulting in an increase of fluoride concentration.

Magnesium (Mg 2+ )

It is an important parameter responsible for the hardness of the water. In the study area, the concentration ranges between 2.4 to 120 mg/l and is present in little excess of the permissible limit (100 mg/l).

Sodium (Na + )

It is a highly reactive alkali metal. It is present in most of the groundwater. Many rocks and soils contain sodium compounds, which easily dissolves to liberate sodium in groundwater. In the study area, it ranges from 48.71 to 244.4 mg/l. The high concentration of Na + indicates weathering of rock-forming minerals i.e., silicate minerals (alkali feldspars) and/or dissolution of soil salts present therein due to evaporation (Stallard and Edmond 1983 ). In the aquifers, the high Na + concentration in groundwater may be related to the mechanism of cation exchange (Kangjoo Kim and Seong-Taekyun 2005).

Potassium (K + )

It is present in many minerals and most of the rocks. Many of these rocks are relatively soluble and releases potassium, the concentration of which increases with time in groundwater. In this study, it varies between 0.87 to 2.7 mg/l.

Bicarbonate ( \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) )

It is produced by the reaction of carbon dioxide with water on carbonate rocks viz. limestone and dolomite. The carbon-dioxide present in the soil reacts with the rock-forming minerals is responsible for the presence of bicarbonate, producing an alkaline environment in the groundwater. In the study area it varies between 36.61 to 536.95 mg/l and is within the permissible limit of 600 mg/l.

Sulfate ( \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) )

It is dissolved and leached from rocks containing gypsum, iron sulfides, and other sulfur bearing compounds. In the present study, it ranges between the 2.23 to 75.17 mg/l, which is well within the acceptable limit of 200 mg/l.

Chloride (Cl − )

In the present study the Cl − ranges between 70.92 to 276.59 mg/l which exceed the permissible limit (250 mg/l). The higher value of chlorine in groundwater makes it hazardous to human health (Pius et al. 2012 ; Sadat-Noori et al. 2014 ).

Fluoride (F − )

In groundwater fluoride is geogenic in nature. It is the lightest halogen, and one of the most reactive elements (Kaminsky et al. 1990 ). It usually occurs either in trace amounts or as a major ion with high concentration (Gaciri and Davies 1993 ; Apambire et al. 1997 ; Fantong et al. 2010 ). The groundwater contains fluorides released from various fluoride-bearing minerals mainly as a result of groundwater-host rock interaction. The study area comprising granite, granitic gneiss etc. is commonly found to contain fluorite (CaF 2 ) as an accessory mineral (Ozsvath 2006 ; Saxena and Ahmed 2003 ) which plays a significant role in controlling the geochemistry of fluoride (Deshmukh et al. 1995 ). In addition to fluorite it is also abundant in other rock-forming minerals like apatite, micas, amphiboles, and clay minerals (Karro and Uppin 2013 ; Narsimha and Sudarshan 2013 ; Naseem et al. 2010 ; Jha et al. 2010 ; Rafique et al. 2009 ; Carrillo-Rivera et al. 2002 ). In the present study, the fluoride concentration ranges from 0.11 to 3.91 mg/l. The concentration of fluoride exceeds the permissible limit (1.5 mg/l) in about 25% of the groundwater samples.

Nitrate ( \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) )

Nitrate is naturally occurring ions and is a significant component in the nitrogen cycle. However, nitrate ion in groundwater is undesirable as it causes Methaemoglobinaemia in infants less than 6 months of age (Egereonu and Nwachukwu 2005 ). In general, its higher concentration causes health hazards if present beyond the permissible limit, 45 mg/l (Kumar et al. 2012 , 2014 ). In the study area, its concentration ranges from 86.95 to 210.4 mg/l. It is in excess of the permissible limits throughout the study area. The higher values of nitrate in potable water increases the chances of gastric ulcer/cancer, and other health hazards to infants and pregnant women (Rao 2006 ) also birth malformations and hypertension (Majumdar and Gupta 2000 ). The area under study is granite-gneiss terrain where the atmospheric nitrogen is fixed and added to the soil as ammonia through lightning storms, bacteria present in soil and root of plants. Further, animal wastes, plants and animals remain also undergo ammonification in the soil producing ammonia which undergoes nitrification/ammonia oxidation by Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria to form nitrate (Rivett et al. 2008 ; Galloway et al. 2004). Granitic rocks contain nitrogen concentrations up to 250 mg Nkg −1 with ammonium partitioned into the orthoclase feldspar to a greater extent than muscovite or biotite (Boyd et al. 1993 ). Geologic nitrogen (nitrogen contained in bedrock) contribute to the ecosystem with nitrogen saturation (more nitrogen available than required by biota) leading to leaching of nitrogen and consequently elevating nitrate concentrations in groundwater (Dahlgren 1994 ; Holloway et al. 1998 ). Nitrogen released through weathering has a greater impact on soil and water quality. Also, denitrification is significant in modifying the level to which nitrogen released through weathering of bedrock influencing the supply of nitrate in groundwater (McCray et al. 2005 ).

Copper (Cu)

It is a naturally occurring metal in rock, soil, plants, animals, and groundwater in very less concentration. The concentration of Cu may get enriched into the groundwater through quarrying and mining activities, farming practices, manufacturing operations and municipal or industrial waste released. Cu gets into drinking water either by contaminating of well water or corrosion of copper pipes in case of water is acidic. In this study, it ranges between 0 and 0.0078 mg/l, which is within the permissible limit (0.05 mg/l).

Manganese (Mn)

It occurs naturally in groundwater, especially in an anaerobic environment. The concentrations of Mn in groundwater is dependent upon rainfall chemistry, aquifer lithology, geochemical environment, groundwater flow paths and residence time, etc. which may vary significantly in space and time. It may be released by the leaching of the overlying soils and minerals in underlying rocks as well as from the minerals of the aquifer itself in groundwater. In the present study, manganese ranges between 0.005 and 0.221 mg/l, which is within the permissible limit (0.3 mg/l).

It naturally occurs usually in the form of insoluble and immobile oxides, sulfides and some salts. It is rarely present in groundwater, surface water and drinking water at concentrations above 5 µg/litre (WHO 2017 ). In the present study, the silver ranges between 0.000 and 0.021 mg/l, which is within the permissible limit (0.1 mg/l).

Though it occurs in significant quantities in rocks, groundwater seldom contains zinc above 0.1 mg/l. In the present study, the groundwater shows the negligible concentration of Zn (0.0136 mg/l) which is well within the acceptable limit (5 mg/l).

The most common sources of iron in groundwater is weathering of iron-bearing minerals and rocks. The iron occurs naturally in the reduced Fe 2+ state in the aquifer, but its dissolution increases its concentration in groundwater. Iron in this state is soluble and generally does not create any health hazard. If Fe 2+ state is oxidised to Fe 3+ state in contact with atmospheric oxygen or by the action of iron-related bacteria which forms insoluble hydroxides in groundwater. So, the concentration of iron in groundwater is often higher than those measured in surface water. In the present study, the iron ranges between 0.0994 and 0.4018 mg/l, which is within of the permissible limit 1.0 mg/l (BIS 2015).

Nickel (Ni)

The primary source of nickel in groundwater is from the dissolution of nickel ore bearing rocks. The source of nickel in drinking water is leaching from metals in contact such as water supply pipes and fittings. Ni usually occurs in the divalent state, but oxidation states of  +  1,  + 3, or  + 4 may also exist in nature. In the study area, it ranges between 0 and 0.0408 mg/l, and it crosses the permissible limit (0.02 mg/l).

Statistical analysis, correlation matrix and relative weightage

The relative weightage, general statistical analysis and correlation matrix of groundwater quality parameters are tabulated in Tables 4 , 1 and 2 , respectively. The correlation matrix of various 20 groundwater quality parameters, including 6 heavy metals was created and has been analysed using MS Excel 2016 Table 2 . Out of these, eight parameters viz. TDS, EC, Na + , Alkalinity, TH, Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) are significantly correlated, reflecting more than 0.50 correlation value. Further, TDS vs EC, Na + vs Alkalinity, TH as CaCO 3 − vs Ca 2+ and Mg 2+ , \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) vs Alkalinity and Na + indicates most relevant correlation having a significant impetus on the overall assessment of the quality of groundwater than any other major radicals and physical parameters. However, the majority of quality parameters are positively correlated with each other. A critical analysis of the correlation matrix for the heavy metals indicates that Cu is positively correlated with EC, TDS, Na + , K + , Cl − and \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) . Similarly, Mn is positively correlated with pH, EC, TDS and Cu. While, Ag is positively correlated with pH, Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , K + , TH, Cl − , \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) and Mn. Further, Fe is positively correlated with TDS, Mg 2+ , Na + , TH, \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) , \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) , \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) , Cu and Ag. Similarly, Ni is positively correlated with pH, EC, TDS, Ca 2+ , K + , \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) and Mn.

The higher concentration of Ni, Fe and Mn may trigger the presence of other heavy metals viz. Pb, Cd and Cr which are very sensitive and significant heavy metal and needs to be observed carefully in future for groundwater quality in the study area. The presence of Fe, \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) and \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\) may trigger the presence of Cd (Chaurasia et al. 2018 ).

Spatial distribution pattern

The spatial distribution pattern of the contour maps of the groundwater quality parameters have been generated as represented in Fig.  2 a–t. The spatial distribution pattern of the pH indicates that the central part along NW–SE across the district with some scattered small patches throughout indicating the presence of alkaline groundwater (Fig.  2 a). In acidic water, fluoride is adsorbed on a clay surface, while in alkaline water, fluoride is desorbed from solid phases; therefore, alkaline pH is more favourable for fluoride dissolution, (Keshavarzi et al. 2010 ; Rafique et al. 2009 ; Saxena and Ahmed 2003 ; Rao 2009 ; Ravindra and Garg 2007 ; Vikas et al. 2009 ). The southern portion of the district in Kabrai Block is having high TDS (> 750 mg/l) in groundwater (Fig.  2 c) due to poor fluxing and highly weathered rock formations. Similarly, EC is mainly highest (> 900 mg/l) in the southern part with small scattered patches in central and NE part of the district (Fig.  2 b). This is in consonance with the higher TDS (significant positive correlation with EC) as evidenced by the correlation matrix of the quality parameters (Table 2 ). The alkalinity map clearly and significantly indicates that it is highest in the central part surrounded by gradually decreasing alkalinity outwards (Fig.  2 d). The bicarbonates trigger the alkalinity in groundwater (Adams et al. 2001 ). The quality of groundwater in a major portion of the study area is alkaline in nature, indicating that the dissolved carbonates are predominantly in the form of bicarbonates. A positive correlation is observed between the alkalinity of groundwater and fluoride (Table 2 ), consequently releasing fluoride in the groundwater. The spatial distribution map of Ca 2+ suggests varying concentration within permissible limit throughout the study area (Fig.  2 f) due to the presence of alkali feldspar in granite. Similarly, Mg 2+ is also distributed unevenly but falls within permissible limit with an exception in NE part of the district (Fig.  2 g). The spatial distribution pattern of TH reflects that the study area is characterized by moderately hard groundwater.

Figure  2 e The Ca 2+ and Mg 2+ ions present in the groundwater are possibly derived from leaching of calcium and magnesium bearing rock-formations in the study area. The fluoride in groundwater shows a negative correlation with Ca 2+ , indicating the high value of fluoride in groundwater in association with low Ca 2+ content. The correlation matrix clearly marks a significant positive correlation among Na + , alkalinity and TDS, which is being reflected from their respective spatial distribution maps (Fig.  2 c, d and h). Na + is highest in the central part (with small patches in the eastern part and insignificantly in the western part) which is in conformity with the alkalinity and TDS spatial distribution patterns. Although, the presence of K + is insignificant and its lower concentration within the permissible limit is covering a major portion of the district due to poor weathering of orthoclase. Its distribution pattern indicates conformity more or less with the TDS and Na + (Fig.  2 c, h, and i). \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) is an important quality parameter showing significant positive correlation (> 0.50) with alkalinity and Na + (Table 2 ) which is also reflected in the spatial distribution pattern of these parameters (Fig.  2 d, h, j). Although sulphate ( \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\) ) is an important quality parameter. It is present within the permissible limit in the study.

area (Fig.  2 k). Chloride is slightly in excess in a larger patch, particularly in SE-part of the study area which may cause a health hazard. It is revealed from the spatial distribution map of chloride (Fig.  2 l). This is due to poor fluxing and presence of halite mineral. Fluoride (F − ) is an important quality parameter, especially with respect to the study area where it is present noticeably in scattered patches throughout the district. It is observed that mainly in NE part, the central part and SE part of the district the concentration of fluoride is in excess (2.82 mg/l to 3.91 mg/l) of permissible limit 1.5 mg/l (Fig.  2 m). The higher concentration (> 3.0 mg/l) of fluoride may lead to skeletal fluorosis (Raju et al 2009 ). Several factors viz. temperature, pH, presence or absence of complexing or precipitating ions and colloids, the solubility of fluorine bearing minerals (biotite and apatite), anion exchange capacity of the aquifer (OH − with F − ), size and type of geological formations traversed by groundwater and the contact time during which water remains in contact with the formation are responsible for fluoride concentration in groundwater (Apambire et al. 1997 ). The lithology of fractured rock reveals that it contains more fluoride bearing minerals than massive rocks (Pandey et al. 2016 ). Nitrate (NO 3 − ) in groundwater is mainly anthropogenic in nature which could be due to leaching from waste disposal, sanitary landfills, over-application of inorganic nitrate fertilizer or improper manure management practice (Chapman 1996 ). In this study, it is observed that nitrate is in excess of the permissible limits with varying degree of concentration throughout the district, causing health hazard (Fig.  2 n). The area under study is granite-gneiss terrain where the atmospheric nitrogen is fixed and added to the soil as ammonia through lightning storms, bacteria present in soil and plants roots. Further, animal wastes, plants and animals remain also undergo ammonification in the soil producing ammonia which undergoes nitrification. The high values of nitrate in groundwater samples in the area may be due to unlined septic tanks and unplanned sewerage system that contaminates to the phreatic aquifer (Hei et al. 2020 ). Proper monitoring and concerned regulated effort are consistently required to get the assessment of nitrate impact on human health.

As far as heavy metals concentration in groundwater is concerned, Cu does not mark its noticeable presence (Fig.  2 o). Another, naturally occurring quality parameter is Mn which shows its presence within the permissible limit (Fig.  2 p). Silver and Zinc do not show any remarkable presence in the study area (Fig.  2 q and r). The study reveals a higher concentration of iron in groundwater in the Eastern part of the district due to secondary porosity and where ferrous (Fe 2+ ) ion usually occurs below the water table. The Fe 2+ after converting into Ferric (Fe 3+ ) state, becomes harmful and precipitated. This condition can be avoided naturally by raising the water table through groundwater recharging the affected area (Fig.  2 s). Nickel shows its remarkable presence in smaller patches in different areas (Fig.  2 t) due to the presence of heavy minerals like rutile and apatite.

Water quality index

The water quality index (WQI) map has been prepared using ArcGIS 10.1 on the basis of the selectively chosen quality parameters to decipher the various quality classes viz. excellent, good, poor, very poor and unsuitable at each hydro-station for drinking purpose (Tables 3 and 5 ; Fig.  3 ). The WQI Map of the study area indicates that major portion is having excellent (0–25) quality of groundwater while very poor (75–100) to unsuitable (> 100) quality is prevailing in small pockets in SW part (Fig.  3 ). The map clearly indicates that the quality of groundwater in Panwari Block belongs to excellent to good categories as for as potability for human consumption is concerned.

Water quality index map of the study area, District Mahoba

There is gradual variation in groundwater quality from very poor to excellent at the central part and outwards in the Charkhari Block. There is no noticeable change in the quality of groundwater except in the SW part of the Kabari Block. In the Jaitpur block, there is a significant.

variation in the quality class and the SW part (Nanwara, Ajnar and Khama) is characterized by poor, very poor and unsuitable categories (Fig.  3 ). Remaining part of the block falls under good to excellent groundwater quality. Overall, the quality of groundwater belongs to the excellent category in a major portion of the study area and is suitable for drinking as well as domestic uses.

Hydro-chemical facies

The major ions analysed are unevenly distributed and have been plotted on a Hill-Piper Trilinear diagram (Fig.  4 ). This diagram is comprised of two triangles at the base and one diamond shape at the top to represent the major significant cations and anions responsible for the nature of groundwater (Balamurugan et al. 2020a ). The piper diagram is used to categorize groundwater into various six types such as Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type, Na + -Cl − type, mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − type, Ca 2+ -Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type, Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type and Ca 2+ -Cl − type. A critical evaluation of the diagram reflects that 32.56% of the samples fall under Na + -Cl − type, 30.23% of the samples under mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − type, 16.28% of the samples under Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type, 13.95% of the samples under mixed Ca 2+ -Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type, 4.65% of the samples under Na + - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type and 2.33% of the samples under Ca 2+ -Cl − type. Further, the observation reveals that the samples are distributed mainly into Na + -Cl − type, mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − type and Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type reflecting higher concentration of sodium and calcium bearing salt/mineral. Hydrochemistry of the analysed samples indicate that the major cations are present in order Na +  > Ca 2+  > Mg 2+  > K + of mean abundance while anions are present in the mean abundance order of \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\)  >  \({\text{NO}}_{3}^{ - }\)  > Cl −  >  \({\text{SO}}_{4}^{2 - }\)  > F − (Table 1 ). This reveals that sodium, chloride and bicarbonate dominate the ionic concentration in the groundwater due to action of weathering of minerals like halite and dolomite as well as ion exchange process.

Types of groundwater

The outcome of the present research in the hard rock area of the Bundelkhand region of India reveals that the groundwater has been deteriorated due to both geogenic and anthropogenic activities.

The study area is comprised mainly of granite and alkali granite, specifically in extreme southern which is responsible for leaching of fluoride in groundwater.

The thickness of overburden (loose soil and weathered rock) in the northern part of the study area is negligible. Therefore, there is a poor fluxing of groundwater which in turn triggers the concentration of TDS, fluoride and bicarbonate in groundwater.

Anthropogenic activities like unlined septic tanks and unplanned sewerage system have triggered the nitrate concentration in groundwater, particularly in the central and northern part of the study area. The rest of the area is safe and has potable groundwater. In addition, the area under study is granite-gneiss terrain where the atmospheric nitrogen is fixed and added to the soil as ammonia through natural lightning, bacteria present in soil and plants roots. Further, ammonification of animal wastes, plants and animal remains produces ammonia which undergoes nitrification.

Hydro-chemical facies reveal that the nature of groundwater is Na + -Cl − , mixed Ca 2+ -Mg 2+ -Cl − and Ca 2+ - \({\text{HCO}}_{3}^{ - }\) type in the study area.

The high value of WQI has been found, which is due to the higher values of chloride, fluoride, nitrate, manganese, iron, and nickel in the groundwater, which warrants immediate attention.

On the basis of WOI, it is concluded that the groundwater is safe and potable in the study area except for localized pockets in Jaitpur and Charkhari Blocks.

Adams S, Titus R, Pietersen K, Tredoux G, Harris C (2001) Hydrochemical characteristics of aquifers near Sutherland in the Western Karoo, South Africa. J Hydrol 241:91–103

Article   Google Scholar  

Aghazadeh N, Chitsazan M, Golestan Y (2017) Hydrochemistry and quality assessment of groundwater in the Ardabil area. Iran Appl Water Sci 7:3599–3616

Alobaidy AM, Abid HS, Maulood BK (2010) Application of water quality index for assessment of Dokan lake ecosystem, Kurdistan region, Iraqi. J Water Res Prot 2:792–798

Apambire WB, Boyle DR, Michel FA (1997) Geochemistry, genesis, and health implications of fluoriferous groundwater in the upper regions of Ghana. Environ Geol 33:13–22

APHA, AWWA, WEF (2017) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 23th edition., APHA, Washington, DC. v.6.

Aravindan S, Shankar K, Ganesh BP, Rajan KD (2010) Hydrogeochemical mapping of in the hard rock area of Gadilam River basin, using GIS technique. Tamil Nadu Indian J Appl Geochem 12(2):209–216

Google Scholar  

Balamurugan P, Kumar PS, Shankar K (2020a) Dataset on the suitability of groundwater for drinking and irrigation purposes in the Sarabanga River region, Tamil Nadu, India. Data in Brief 29:105255

Balamurugan P, Kumar PS, Shankar K, Nagavinothini R, Vijayasurya K (2020b) Non-carcinogenic risk assessment of groundwater in Southern Part of Salem District in Tamilnadu, India. J Chil Chem Soc 65:4697–4707

Bawoke GT, Anteneh ZL (2020) Spatial assessment and appraisal of groundwater suitability for drinking consumption in Andasa watershed using water quality index (WQI) and GIS techniques: Blue Nile Basin. Northwestern Ethiopia Cogent Eng 7(1):1748950

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standard) (2012) Indian standard drinking water specification, second revision, pp.1–16.

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standard) (2015) Indian standard drinking water specification. second revision, pp.2–6.

Boyd CE (2000) Water Quality an Introduction. Kluwer Acadamic Publi-shers, Boston, USA, p 330

Boyd SR, Hall A, Pillinger CT (1993) The measurement of d15N in crustal rocks by static vacuum mass spectrometry: Application to the origin of the ammonium in the Cornubian batholith, southwest England. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 57:1339–1347

Brhane GK (2018) Characterization of hydro chemistry and groundwater quality evaluation for drinking purpose in Adigrat area, Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Water Sci 32:213–229

Brown RM, Mccleiland NJ, Deiniger RA, O’Connor MF (1972) Water quality index-crossing the physical barrier. Res Jerusalem 6:787–797

Carrillo-Rivera JJ, Cardona A, Edmunds WM (2002) Use of abstraction regime and knowledge of hydrogeological conditions to control high-fluoride concentration in abstracted groundwater: San Luis Potosı basin, Mexico. J Hydrol 261:24–47

Cerar S, Urbanc J (2013) Carbonate chemistry and isotope characteristics of groundwater of Ljubljansko polje and Ljubljansko Barje aquifers in Slovenia. Sci World J 2013:1–11

Chapman D (1996) Water Quality Assessment-A guide to use of biota, sediments and water environmental monitoring 2nd Edition EPFN Spon. London. p.626.

Chatterjee C, Raziuddin M (2002) Determination of Water Quality Index (WQI) of a degraded river in Asansol industrial area (West Bengal). Nat Environ Pollut Technol 1:181–189

Chaurasia AK, Pandey HK, Tiwari SK, Prakash R, Pandey P, Ram A (2018) Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) in parts of Varanasi district, Uttar Pradesh, India. J Geol Soc India 92:76–82

Dahlgren RA (1994) Soil acidification and nitrogen saturation from weathering of ammonium-bearing rock. Nature 368:838–841

Deshmukh AN, Shah KC, Sriram A (1995) Coal Ash: a source of fluoride pollution, a case study of Koradi thermal power station, District Nagpur. Maharashtra Gondwana Geol Mag 9:21–29

Diersing N, Nancy F (2009) Water quality: Frequently asked questions. Florida Brooks National Marine Sanctuary, Key West, FL

Egereonu UU, Nwachukwu UL (2005) Evaluation of the surface and groundwater resources of Efuru River Catchment, Mbano, South Eastern. Nigeria J Assoc Adv Model Simulat Tech Enterpr 66:53–71

Fantong WY, Satake H, Ayonghe SN, Suh EC, Adelana SM, Fantong EBS, Zhang J (2010) Geochemical provenance and spatial distribution of fluoride in groundwater of Mayo Tsanaga River Basin, Far North Region, Cameroon: implications for incidence of fluorosis and optimal consumption dose. Environ Geochem Health 32:147–163

Gaciri SJ, Davies TC (1993) The occurrence and geochemistry of fluoride in some natural waters of Kenya. J Hydrol 143:395–412

Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG, Boyer EW, Howarth RW, Seitzinger SP, Asner GP, Cleveland CC, Green PA, Holland EA, Karl DM (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226

Gebrehiwot AB, Tadesse N, Jigar E (2011) Application of water quality index to assess suitablity of groundwater quality for drinking purposes in Hantebet watershed, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. ISABB J Food Agric Sci 1:22–30

GEMS U (2007) Global drinking water quality index development and sensitivity analysis report. United Nations Environment Programme Global Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme. p.58.

Hei L, Bouchaou L, Tadoumant S, Reichert B (2020) Index-based groundwater vulnerability and water quality assessment in the arid region of Tata city (Morocco). Groundw Sustain Dev:100344

Holloway JM, Dahlgren RA, Hansen B, Casey WH (1998) Contribution of bedrock nitrogen to high nitrate concentrations in stream water. Nature 395:785–788

Horton RK (1965) An index number system for rating water quality. J Water Pollut Control Federation 373:303–306

Jagadeeswari PB, Ramesh K (2012) Deciphering fresh and saline groundwater interface in south Chennai coastal aquifer, Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Res Chem Environ 2:123–132

Jha SK, Nayak AK, Sharma YK (2010) Potential fluoride contamination in the drinking water of Marks Nagar, Unnao district, UP, India. Environ Geochem Health 32:217–226

Johnson DL, Ambrose SH, Bassett TJ, Bowen ML, Crummey DE, Isaacson JS, Winter-Nelson AE (1997) Meanings of environmental terms. J Environ Qual 26:581–589

Kalavathy S, Sharma TR, Suresh KP (2011) Water quality index of river Cauvery in Tiruchirappalli district, Tamilnadu. Arch Environ Sci 5:55–61

Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Jo Miller M (1990) Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1:261–281

Kangjoo K, Yun ST (2005) Buffering of sodium concentration by cation exchange in the groundwater system of a sandy aquifer. Geochem J 39:273–284

Karro E, Uppin M (2013) The occurrence and hydrochemistry of fluoride and boron in carbonate aquifer system, central and western Estonia. Environ Monit Assess 185:3735–3748

Kavitha MT, Divahar R, Meenambal T, Shankar K, VijaySingh R, Haile TD, Gadafa C (2019a) Dataset on the assessment of water quality of surface water in Kalingarayan Canal for heavy metal pollution, Tamil Nadu. Data in Brief 22:878–884

Kavitha MT, Shankar K, Divahar R, Meenambal T, Saravanan R (2019b) Impact of industrial wastewater disposal on surface water bodies in Kalingarayan canal, Erode district, Tamil Nadu, India. Arch Agric Environ Sci 4(4):379–387

Kavitha R, Elangovan K (2010) Ground water quality characteristics at Erode district, Tamilnadu India. Int J Environ Sci 1:163–175

Kawo NS, Shankar K (2018) Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index and GIS technique in Modjo River Basin, Central Ethiopia. J Afr Earth Sci 147:300–311

Keshavarzi B, Moore F, Esmaeili A, Rastmanesh F (2010) The source of fluoride toxicity in Muteh area, Isfahan. Iran Environ Earth Sci 61:777–786

Khan D, Hagras MA, Iqbal N (2014) Groundwater quality evaluation in Thal Doab of Indus Basin of Pakistan. Int J Modern Eng Res 4:36–47

Kumar SK, Chandrasekar N, Seralathan P, Godson PS, Magesh NS (2012) Hydrogeochemical study of shallow carbonate aquifers, Rameswaram Island, India. Environ Monit Assess 184:4127–4138

Kumar SK, Logeshkumaran A, Magesh NS, Godson PS, Chandrasekar N (2014) Hydro-geochemistry and application of water quality index (WQI) for groundwater quality assessment, Anna Nagar, part of Chennai City, Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci 5:335–343

Magesh NS, Elango L (2019) Spatio-temporal variations of fluoride in the groundwater of Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu, India: a comparative assessment using two interpolation techniques. GIS Geostat Techn Groundwater Sci:283–296.

Magesh NS, Krishnakumar S, Chandrasekar N, Soundranayagam JP (2013) Groundwater quality assessment using WQI and GIS techniques, Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, India. Arab J Geosci 6:4179–4189

Majumdar D, Gupta N (2000) Nitrate pollution of groundwater and associated human health disorders. Indian J Environ Health 42:28–39

McCray JE, Kirkland SL, Siegrist RL, Thyne GD (2005) Model parameters for simulating fate and transport of on-site wastewater nutrients. Ground Water 43:628–639

Modibo Sidibé A, Lin X, Koné S (2019) Assessing groundwater mineralization process, quality, and isotopic recharge origin in the Sahel Region in Africa. Water 11:789

Mostafa MG, Uddin SMH, Haque ABMH (2017) Assessment of hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality of Rajshahi City in Bangladesh. Appl Water Sci. 7:4663–4671

Narsimha A, Sudarshan V (2013) Hydrogeochemistry of groundwater in Basara area, Adilabad District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J Appl Geochem 15:224–237

Naseem S, Rafique T, Bashir E, Bhanger MI, Laghari A, Usmani TH (2010) Lithological influences on occurrence of high-fluoride groundwater in Nagar Parkar area, Thar Desert, Pakistan. Chemosphere 78:1313–1321

Ozsvath DL (2006) Fluoride concentrations in a crystalline bedrock aquifer Marathon County, Wisconsin. Environ Geol 50:132–138

Panda RB, Sahu BK, Garnaik BK, Sinha BK, Nayak A (1991) Investigation of water quality of Brahmani River. Indian J Environ Health 33:45–50

Pandey HK, Duggal SK, Jamatia A (2016) Fluoride contamination of groundwater and it’s hydrogeological evolution in District Sonbhadra (UP) India. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India, Sect A 86:81–93

Panigrahi T, Das KK, Dey BS, Panda RB (2012) Assessment of Water Quality of river Sono, Balasore. Int J Environ Sci 3:49–56

Panneerselvam B, Paramasivam SK, Karuppannan S et al (2020a) A GIS-based evaluation of hydrochemical characterisation of groundwater in hard rock region, South Tamil Nadu. India Arab J Geosci 13(17):1–22

Panneerselvam, B., Karuppannan, S., & Muniraj, K. (2020b). Evaluation of drinking and irrigation suitability of groundwater with special emphasizing the health risk posed by nitrate contamination using nitrate pollution index (NPI) and human health risk assessment (HHRA). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An Int J, pp 1–25.

Pius A, Jerome C, Sharma N (2012) Evaluation of groundwater quality in and around Peenya industrial area of Bangalore, South India using GIS techniques. Environ Monit Assess 184:4067–4077

Rafique T, Naseem S, Usmani TH, Bashir E, Khan FA, Bhanger MI (2009) Geochemical factors controlling the occurrence of high fluoride groundwater in the Nagar Parkar area, Sindh, Pakistan. J Hazard Mater 171:424–430

Raju NJ, Dey S, Das K (2009) Fluoride contamination in groundwater of Sonbhadra district, Uttar Pradesh, India. Curr Sci 96:979–985

Rao NS (2006) Nitrate pollution and its distribution in the groundwater of Srikakulam district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Geol 51:631–645

Rao NS (2009) Fluoride in groundwater, Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ Monit Assess 152:47–60

Ravindra K, Garg VK (2007) Hydro-chemical survey of groundwater of Hisar city and assessment of defluoridation methods used in India. Environ Monit Assess 132:33–43

Rivett MO, Russ SR, Morgan P, Smith JW, Bemment N, CD, (2008) Nitrate attenuation in groundwater: a review of biogeochemical controlling processes. Water Res 42:4215–4232

Sadat-Noori SM, Ebrahimi K, Liaghat AM (2014) Groundwater quality assessment using the Water Quality Index and GIS in Saveh-Nobaran aquifer. Iran Environ Earth Sci 71:3827–3843

Sarfo AK, Shankar K (2020) Application of geospatial technologies in the COVID-19 fight of Ghana. Transact Indian Nat Acad Eng 5:193–204

Saxena V, Ahmed S (2003) Inferring the chemical parameters for the dissolution of fluoride in groundwater. Environ Geol 43:731–736

Selvam S, Manimaran G, Sivasubramanian P (2013) Hydrochemical characteristics and GIS-based assessment of groundwater quality in the coastal aquifers of Tuticorin Corporation, Tamilnadu, India. Appl Water Sci 3:145–159

Shankar K, Aravindan S, Rajendran S (2010) GIS based groundwater quality mapping in Paravanar River Sub-Basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Geomat Geosci 1:282–296

Shankar K, Aravindan S, Rajendran S (2011) Hydrogeochemistry of the Paravanar river sub-basin, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu, India. E-J Chem 8:835–845

Shankar K, Aravindan S, Rajendran S (2011) Spatial distribution of groundwater quality in Paravanar river sub basin, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu. Int J Geomat Geosci 1:914–931

Shankar K, Kawo NS (2019) Groundwater quality assessment using geospatial techniques and WQI in North East of Adama Town, Oromia Region. Ethiopia Hydrospatial Anal 3(1):22–36

Soujanya Kamble B, Saxena PR, Kurakalva RM, Shankar K (2020) Evaluation of seasonal and temporal variations of groundwater quality around Jawaharnagar municipal solid waste dumpsite of Hyderabad city. India SN Appl Sci 2:498

Stallard RF, Edmond JM (1983) Geochemistry of the Amazon: 2. The influence of geology and weathering environment on the dissolved load. J Geophys Res: Oceans 88:9671–9688

Tripathy JK, Sahu KC (2005) Seasonal hydrochemistry of groundwater in the Barrier Spit system of the Chilika Lagoon, India. J Environ Hydrol 13:1–9

Venkateswaran S, Karuppannan S, Shankar K (2012) Groundwater quality in Pambar sub-basin, Tamil Nadu, India using GIS. Int J Recent Sci Res 3:782–787

Vikas C, Kushwaha RK, Pandit MK (2009) Hydrochemical status of groundwater in district Ajmer (NW India) with reference to fluoride distribution. J Geol Soc India 73:773–784

WHO (2017) Guideline for drinking water quality, 4th edn. World Health Organization, Geneva

Yisa J, Jimoh T (2010) Analytical studies on water quality index of river Landzu. Am J Appl Sci. 7:453–458

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to Central Groundwater Board (CGWB), Lucknow, NR, Region and Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for their valuable support during the chemical analysis of groundwater samples.

There is no sponsored/finical assistance is involved in the present research work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geology, Institute of Science, CAS, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

Arjun Ram & Abhishek Kumar Chaurasia

UGC-HRDC, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

S. K. Tiwari

Department of Civil Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Prayagraj, 211004, UP, India

H. K. Pandey

Central Groundwater Board, Lucknow, 226021, UP, India

Supriya Singh

Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

Y. V. Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. K. Pandey .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

This is certified that there is no conflict of interest either academic or commercial.

Ethical standards

The research work is original in nature and does not contain the others findings accept referred work. Therefore, the entire manuscript follows the Ethical Standards.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ram, A., Tiwari, S.K., Pandey, H.K. et al. Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index (WQI) under GIS framework. Appl Water Sci 11 , 46 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01376-7

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2020

Accepted : 25 January 2021

Published : 12 February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01376-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Groundwater
• Hydrochemistry
• Piper diagram
• Bundelkhand massif
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Prepare a Research Paper for Groundwater
• Submit a Paper for Publication
• Peer Review Process
• Types of Articles Published in Groundwater
• Submission Policies
• Open Access
• Volunteer to be a Reviewer

Topics on any subject pertaining to groundwater will be considered for publication.

Manuscripts must not have been previously published or currently submitted elsewhere for publication while in review for Groundwater ® . 

See an example Groundwater manuscript.

Articles “prepublished” as preprints or in similar “early-submission repositories” can be submitted to Groundwater . If the article has been rejected for formal publication elsewhere, Groundwater  will only accept a substantially revised version of the prepublished manuscript. Mention of prepublication and manuscript status must be made at time of submission. If accepted and published in Groundwater , a special footnote will be added which mentions the repository the preprint is housed in as well as the preprint’s DOI number.​

Papers of several different types are published in Groundwater . Please consult the definitions of paper types.  Also please note that various paper types have different limits on paper length and other specific requirements.

Manuscripts and all figures must be in an electronic format in order to utilize our online review system. Manuscripts should be prepared in a word processing program, such as Microsoft Word, double spaced in size 12-point font, with line numbering.

• Manuscripts must be in English.
• Title should be fewer than 100 characters (including punctuation and spaces).
• Abstract should contain fewer than 250 words.
• The article impact statement should be no more than 140 characters (including punctuation and spaces).
• Number pages consecutively starting with the title page.
• Use the “line numbering” feature in your word processing program.

Units of measurements

• Abbreviations, symbols, units, and Greek letters should be identified the first time they are used.
• Isotopic data should be expressed following the guidelines set forth in Ground Water 34, no. 3, page 388 (1996). See the guidelines (PDF).
• Either metric, SI, or U.S. customary (English) units may be used. If U.S. customary units are used, the author is asked to provide the conversion to metric/SI units in parenthesis when units are given in the text of the paper. It is not necessary to give the conversions in tables and figures.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments should be made only for significant contributions by professional associates, permission to publish by employer, access to land or equipment, financial support, and reviews. A brief closing statement will usually suffice.

• Indicate in text by author(s) name and year (e.g., Jones 1999). For multiple references by the same author in the same year, the letters a, b, and c after the year can be used (e.g., Jones 1999a and 1999b). Papers with multiple authors should be cited in the text using “et al.” (e.g., Jones et al. 1999).
• At the end of the paper, list alphabetically by author(s) name in chronological order.
• Write in the style of the Harvard referencing style. View reference samples.
• Do not reference limited access, administrative, or confidential reports or commercial products for which a charge will be made for access.
• Include personal communication references (written or oral) in the reference list.
• Do not abbreviate publication titles.
• We require that journal papers be cited using both volume and issue number (e.g., Groundwater 32, no. 4: 257-269).
• Do not use footnotes. (Footnotes are acceptable in tables only.)

It is highly recommended that authors utilize some of the many online search engines to ensure that all publications relevant to their research are identified.

Supporting information

Supporting information is important, ancillary information relevant to the article that does not appear in the print or online version of the journal. It can comprise additional tables, data sets, figures, movie files, audio clips, 3-D structures, and other related nonessential multimedia files. Read more detail from Wiley on supporting information.

Should be numbered and titled. Tables should be embedded “inline” in the manuscript.

• Figures should be prepared at the final publication size (8.25 cm wide for one column and 17.15 cm wide for two columns). It is a good idea to prepare your figures with final publication requirements in mind, and then convert them into formats appropriate for online review.
• Color figures are published free of charge to the author. However, as there are additional costs to print color, it is asked that the author use color figures only when necessary to improve the clarity of the figure.
• Digital figures are required. Digital figures must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi (dots per inch) and be submitted in a TIF or EPS format with embedded fonts.
• Always submit the image at its final size. For Groundwater , that is 8.25 cm wide for one-column art and 17.15 cm wide for two-column art.
• Generate the image at line screens of 85 lines per inch (lpi) or lower.
• When applying multiple shades of gray, differentiate the gray levels by at least 20 percent. In other words, apply gray in increments or steps no closer than 20 percent. Use 20 percent black, 40 percent black, and 60 percent black. Alternatively, use various pattern backgrounds (solid dots, lines, bricks, diamonds, squares, etc.).
• Never use levels of gray below 20 percent or above 70 percent black. Levels of gray outside these guidelines will either fade out or become totally black upon printing.
• Use thick, solid lines that are no finer than 1 point in thickness.
• Use bold, solid type. Avoid using type with serifs (e.g., Times); sans serif type (e.g., Helvetica) reproduces best.
• At 100 percent size, no type should be smaller than 5 point.
• Avoid layering type directly over shaded or textured areas. Create a white box and place the lettering within the boundaries of the white box.
• Avoid the use of reversed type (white lettering on a black background).
• When scanning images, be sure that the originals are perfectly clean and neat. Scanners faithfully reproduce all smudges, crooked lines, and stray marks.
• When printing images that will be scanned, use high-quality laser printer paper or bond paper. Do not use photocopies. Opacity and smoothness are important quality factors in the scanning process. Use the highest resolution possible on your printer or graphics plotting device.
• When preparing figures that will be scanned, remember that surface smoothness is critical. Tape, creases, and other minor surface irregularities are unacceptable since they will produce shadows that the scanner sees as black. Maximize the black and white contrast (the toner level in the printing device must be high). The scanner does not improve contrast; it reproduces contrast as is.
• Color publication is available. Color figures are published free of charge to the author. However, as there are additional costs to print color, it is asked that the author use color figures only when necessary to improve the clarity of the figure.

Embedded Rich Media

The journal facilitates and encourages embedded rich media as part of a submitted paper. For specifications as to accepted file types and file size see: Embedded Rich Media .

Embedded rich media that includes speech must be accompanied by a transcript. This must be provided under the file designation of "Transcription". If the speech is not English, an English translation of the transcript must also be provided in the same file. Each embedded media file must be numbered (e.g. Audio 1, Audio 2, etc) as figures or tables would be. This numbering must be reflected in the manuscript (i.e. where the rich media is cited in the body text of the manuscript) and in the legend (e.g. "Video 1: Demonstration of Technique"). For every video file there should also be a placeholder image, which would usually be a still image taken from the video. This should be uploaded with the file designation "Placeholder Image (Video Only)", as well as the timestamp in seconds.

Graphical Abstract

A Graphical Abstract is a single, concise visual summary of the main topics or findings of the article. The journal allows authors the option of submitting a Graphical Abstract with all article types that have a written abstract. Upon publication, the Graphical Abstract will be displayed next to the published article within the Table of Contents on Wiley Online Library.

The Graphical Abstract should be a single-page illustration or graphic image that gives readers a visual depiction of the article’s “take-away” message. The image may be a figure or image included in the text itself, or a new figure generated specifically for this purpose.

Requirements include the following:

• The submitted image should be 5.5 inches square at 300 dpi
• Preferred file types — TIFF, PDF, JPG
• A brief one- to two-sentence summary of the key findings presented in the paper.

Before you submit your paper, please gather the following information

• Author information. The first and last name and affiliation of all authors, and the postal address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address of the corresponding author. The person who uploads the manuscript must be the corresponding author.
• Title and abstract of the paper. You can copy and paste this from your manuscript.
• Paper type (e.g., research paper, issue paper) . See the definitions of the different paper types.
• Manuscript files in Microsoft Word or PDF.
• It is recommended that the manuscript contains the tables and figures embedded “inline.” This way, the author has to upload only one document. Figures can be uploaded separately, if desired.
• Figures at this stage do not have to be publication quality, but it is a good idea to start with publication-quality figures and then save them in the formats allowed by the system.