4.3.1 Total dissolved solids (TDS)

Total dissolved solids (TDS) is calculated by the following equations:

201.3 mg/L with an average of 173.21 mg/L, high concentration of this element

In order to determine the origin of the highest values of some parameters in

Figure 2 shows the relationship between total cations and Ca + Mg, we see that all sample points are located below the equilibrium line 1/1 which confirms the

Total cations versus Na + K is presented in Figure 3, we see that the samples are located below the equilibrium line 1/1, indicating that the excessive concentrations of Na and K are due to the accumulated salts in the soil during the evaporation

Na versus HCO3 plot shows that there is a distribution of samples below and above the equilibrium line 1/1 indicating the presence of dissolution of the rocks

The chloride versus sodium plot (Figure 5) is employed to verify the relationship and sources of the ions in surface water. A Cl/Na ratio equal one is typically characteristic of halite dissolution, whereas values <1 implies the alkali metal is

The evaluation of the water surface suitability of the study area for irrigation was carried out using total dissolved solids (TDS), total hardness (TH), electrical conductivity (EC), the sodium adsorption rate (SAR), the percentage of sodium (%Na), residual sodium carbonate (RSC), the permeability index (PI), the salinity

surface water the relationships between some parameters are studied.

related to the water-rock interaction process.

M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (%).

Valid N pH EC

Water Chemistry

(μS/cm)

TDS (mg/L)

1 7.50 1080 691.20 103.30 1.26 88.18 45.48 195.22 106.50 90.00 0.6 2 7.40 1060 678.40 98.30 1.29 88.18 43.08 183.00 88.75 92.00 0.2 3 7.50 1040 665.60 95.70 1.01 88.18 45.49 183.00 88.75 91.00 0.3 4 7.40 1060 678.40 87.30 0.99 96.19 45.48 201.30 124.25 90.00 0.2 5 7.50 1100 704.00 99.50 1.00 96.19 43.08 183.00 88.75 90.00 0.3 6 7.80 1500 960.00 92.80 0.90 94.60 41.64 170.80 82.75 82.00 0.5 7 7.50 1500 960.00 92.20 0.81 93.20 42.48 170.80 80.75 78.00 0.3 8 7.40 1300 832.00 93.60 0.92 95.20 41.28 168.80 75.25 80.00 0.6 9 7.60 1800 1152.00 80.00 0.96 96.40 40.56 144.40 81.25 83.00 0.3 10 7.50 1600 1024.00 95.20 0.94 98.40 39.36 134.20 88.25 85.00 1.2 11 7.80 1800 1152.00 95.25 1.00 99.70 42.00 170.80 88.25 82.50 2.5 M 7.54 1300 832.00 95.20 0.99 95.20 42.48 170.80 88.50 85.00 0.3 SD 0.14 302 193.56 6.22 0.15 4.14 2.07 19.87 13.73 4.96 0.681 CV 1.90 22.48 22.41 6.62 14.40 4.40 4.85 11.47 15.21 5.79 107.1

Na K Ca Mg HCO3 Cl SO4 NO3

process [13].

6

Table 1.

during the infiltrations (Figure 4).

4.2 Determination of the origin of dissolved solids

Summary of the statistical analyses of the physicochemical parameters.

alteration process and the exchange of alkaline ions [13].

released from silicate weathering reactions [12, 13].

4.3 Suitability of surface water for irrigation

Water Chemistry

$$\text{TDS} = \text{640} \times \text{EC} \quad (\text{for EC} \prec \text{5 dS/m}) \tag{2}$$

$$\text{TDS} = \mathbf{640} \times \text{EC} \quad (\text{for EC} \succ \text{LS/m}) \tag{3}$$

different amounts of major ions [14] (Table 4). The large variation of TDS values can be attributed to the variation in the hydrological processes and geological formations in the study area. 36.36% of the total water samples are classified in the good water class while 63.63% of the total samples are represented a permissible water quality with an estimated SD value of 193.53 (Table 4). No prescribed value

Standards used for drinking and irrigation suitability and relative weight for each parameter.

Parameters Desirable permissible [15] Irrigation [16] EC – 1000 TDS 500–2000 – TH 300–600 712

Parameters Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std. dev. Coef. var. TDS 863.418 832.0100 665.600 1152.000 193.561 22.418 TH 413.098 410.000 399.950 429.975 8.348 2.021 %Na 40.942 40.917 37.152 43.893 1.918 4.685 RSC 37.889 36.220 �1.560 62.960 20.109 53.075 SAR 4.017 4.006 3.418 4.468 0.286 7.128 KR 0.687 0.686 0.584 0.773 0.054 7.795 MH 31.260 30.933 28.571 34.033 1.807 5.782 PI 46.382 46.223 42.412 49.490 1.958 4.222 PS 99.576 97.470 84.194 133.737 13.901 13.961 MAR 31.260 30.933 28.571 34.033 1.807 5.782 SSP 68.241 68.123 58.003 76.563 5.265 7.715

Total hardness is defined as the sum of calcium and magnesium using the

<sup>40</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>2</sup> � Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup>

The values of TH varied from 399 to 429.97 mg/L with an average of 413 mg/L (Table 2) where the maximum value is below the prescribed limit for irrigation water of 712 mg/L (Table 3). The majority of water samples showed TH values are below the standard values used for drinking and irrigation suitability BIS [15] and FAO [16]. The low values of TH are probably due to the presence of alkaline earth ions (Ca and Mg) of weak acids (HCO3 and CO3) and strong acids (Cl, SO4 and NO3) [30, 31]. Therefore, low alkalinity values reflect immature hydrochemistry of

<sup>24</sup> � <sup>50</sup> (4)

Ca<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup>

limits the threshold for TDS in irrigation waters (Table 3).

All major ions and TDS are expressed in mg/l while pH on scale and EC in μS/cm.

Summary of the statistical analyses of the irrigation parameters.

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

TH ¼ 2 �

where Ca and Mg concentrations are in meq/L.

4.3.2 Total hardness (TH)

following equation:

9

Table 2.

Table 3.

The results showed that the values of TDS varied from 665 to 1152 mg/L with an average 863 mg/L (Table 2). This large variation of TDS values in surface water samples is classified in the high saline water zone and the water samples contain

Figure 4. Relation between: Na<sup>+</sup> versus HCO3 �.

Figure 5. Relation between: Cl� versus Na+ .

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651


#### Table 2.

TDS ¼ 640 � EC for EC < 5 dS ð Þ =m (2) TDS ¼ 640 � EC for EC>5 dS ð Þ =m (3)

The results showed that the values of TDS varied from 665 to 1152 mg/L with an average 863 mg/L (Table 2). This large variation of TDS values in surface water samples is classified in the high saline water zone and the water samples contain

Figure 4.

Water Chemistry

Figure 5.

8

Relation between: Cl� versus Na+

.

Relation between: Na<sup>+</sup> versus HCO3

�.

Summary of the statistical analyses of the irrigation parameters.


#### Table 3.

Standards used for drinking and irrigation suitability and relative weight for each parameter.

different amounts of major ions [14] (Table 4). The large variation of TDS values can be attributed to the variation in the hydrological processes and geological formations in the study area. 36.36% of the total water samples are classified in the good water class while 63.63% of the total samples are represented a permissible water quality with an estimated SD value of 193.53 (Table 4). No prescribed value limits the threshold for TDS in irrigation waters (Table 3).

#### 4.3.2 Total hardness (TH)

Total hardness is defined as the sum of calcium and magnesium using the following equation:

$$\text{TH} = \left[ \left( 2 \times \frac{\text{Ca}^{2+}}{\text{40}} \right) + \left( 2 \times \frac{\text{Mg}^{2+}}{\text{24}} \right) \right] \times \text{50} \tag{4}$$

where Ca and Mg concentrations are in meq/L.

The values of TH varied from 399 to 429.97 mg/L with an average of 413 mg/L (Table 2) where the maximum value is below the prescribed limit for irrigation water of 712 mg/L (Table 3). The majority of water samples showed TH values are below the standard values used for drinking and irrigation suitability BIS [15] and FAO [16]. The low values of TH are probably due to the presence of alkaline earth ions (Ca and Mg) of weak acids (HCO3 and CO3) and strong acids (Cl, SO4 and NO3) [30, 31]. Therefore, low alkalinity values reflect immature hydrochemistry of


surface water during seepage and hypodermic flow [17]. The water of the Dam is

Unsuitable for irrigation use

(mg/L)

Excellent 85–100 0 0 Good 70–85 11 100 Poor 55–70 0 0 Very poor 40–55 0 0

Percentage Number of

0–40 0 0

samples

Wilcox [18] proposed a diagram with respect to a combination of EC and %Na for judging suitability of water quality for irrigation. The diagram is divided into five zones, which are excellent to good, good to permissible, permissible to doubtful, doubtful to unsuitable and unsuitable, with increasing salinity hazard and

The results show that EC values of the most water samples represented high saline water for irrigation use which are due to the high concentrations of ions in surface water (Tables 3 and 4). Moreover, the EC value which 100% of the surface water in the study area represents permissible water and greater than the value

The United States Soil Laboratory Staff (USSLS)'s diagram in Richards [19] illustrates the combined effect of EC, SAR and percent sodium (%Na), residual sodium carbonate (RSC) in the classification of irrigation water quality which, divided into four shared areas between EC and SAR: C1S1 to C1S4, C2S1 to C2S4, C3S1 to C3S4 and C4S1 to C4S4. The salinity hazard classes that have been

classified into four classes: low salinity hazard class (C1) with an EC value less than

750 μS/cm; high salinity risk class (C3) with EC value between 750 and 2250 μS/cm; and a very high salinity risk class (C4) with an EC value greater than 2250 μS/cm. The SAR values varied from 3.41 to 4.46 mg/L with an average of 4.01 mg/L where the water samples are classified in the excellent class of water suitable for irrigation according to the Richard and Wilcox irrigation water quality classification

The result of the effect of ion exchange processes on soil quality and its capacity

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Ca<sup>2</sup>þþMg2<sup>þ</sup> 2

<sup>q</sup> (5)

in terms of sodium uptake is expressed by the SAR which is calculated by the

SAR <sup>¼</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup>

250 μS/cm; medium salinity risk class (C2) with EC value between 250 and

classified as a very hard water (Table 4).

Classification schemes for surface water quality indicators.

Classification scheme Categories Range

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

fixed by FOA for irrigation water (EC > 1000 μS/cm).

4.3.3 Electrical conductivity (EC)

Irrigation water quality index

(IWQI)

Table 4.

sodium hazard for irrigation.

4.3.4 Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

(Tables 2 and 4).

following equation:

11

where all ions concentration is in meq/L.


Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

Table 4.

Classification scheme Categories Range

Electrical conductivity (EC) in μS/

Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) in

meq/L

10

cm

Water Chemistry

Total dissolved solid (TDS) Excellent <450 0 0

Total handers (TH) Soft <75 0 0

Permeability index (PI) Excellent >75 0 0

Salinity potential (SP) Excellent to good <5 0 100

Injurious to unsatisfactory

Magnesium absorption ratio (MAR) Acceptable <50 11 100

Kelly's ratio (KR) Suitable <1 11 100

Sodium absorption (SAR) Excellent <10 11 100

Sodium percentage (%Na) Excellent Up to 20 0 0

Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) Excellent 0–20 0 0

(mg/L)

Moderately hard 75–150 0 0 Hard 150–300 0 0 Very hard >300 11 100

Excellent <250 0 0 Good 250–750 0 0 Permissible 750–2250 11 100 Unsuitable >2250 0 0

Good 25–75 11 100 Unsuitable <25 0 0

>10 11 0

Good to injurious 5 10 0 0

Non-acceptable >50 0 0

Unsuitable >1 0 0

Good 10–18 0 0 Fair >18–26 0 0 Poor >26 0 0 Hard >200–300 0 0 Very hard >300 0 0

Good >20–40 1 9.09 Permissible >40–60 10 90.9 Doubtful >60–80 0 0 Unsuitable >80 0 0

Good <1.25 1 100 Medium 1.25–2.5 0 0 Bad >2.5 10 0

Good 20–40 0 0 Permissible 40–60 0 100 Doubtful 60–80 11 0 Unsuitable >80 0 0

Good 450–750 4 36.36 Permissible 750–2000 7 63.63 Unsuitable >2000 0 0

Percentage Number of

samples

Classification schemes for surface water quality indicators.

surface water during seepage and hypodermic flow [17]. The water of the Dam is classified as a very hard water (Table 4).

### 4.3.3 Electrical conductivity (EC)

Wilcox [18] proposed a diagram with respect to a combination of EC and %Na for judging suitability of water quality for irrigation. The diagram is divided into five zones, which are excellent to good, good to permissible, permissible to doubtful, doubtful to unsuitable and unsuitable, with increasing salinity hazard and sodium hazard for irrigation.

The results show that EC values of the most water samples represented high saline water for irrigation use which are due to the high concentrations of ions in surface water (Tables 3 and 4). Moreover, the EC value which 100% of the surface water in the study area represents permissible water and greater than the value fixed by FOA for irrigation water (EC > 1000 μS/cm).

#### 4.3.4 Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

The United States Soil Laboratory Staff (USSLS)'s diagram in Richards [19] illustrates the combined effect of EC, SAR and percent sodium (%Na), residual sodium carbonate (RSC) in the classification of irrigation water quality which, divided into four shared areas between EC and SAR: C1S1 to C1S4, C2S1 to C2S4, C3S1 to C3S4 and C4S1 to C4S4. The salinity hazard classes that have been classified into four classes: low salinity hazard class (C1) with an EC value less than 250 μS/cm; medium salinity risk class (C2) with EC value between 250 and 750 μS/cm; high salinity risk class (C3) with EC value between 750 and 2250 μS/cm; and a very high salinity risk class (C4) with an EC value greater than 2250 μS/cm.

The SAR values varied from 3.41 to 4.46 mg/L with an average of 4.01 mg/L where the water samples are classified in the excellent class of water suitable for irrigation according to the Richard and Wilcox irrigation water quality classification (Tables 2 and 4).

The result of the effect of ion exchange processes on soil quality and its capacity in terms of sodium uptake is expressed by the SAR which is calculated by the following equation:

$$\text{SAR} = \frac{\text{Na}^+}{\sqrt{\frac{\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+}}{2}}} \tag{5}$$

where all ions concentration is in meq/L.

The calculated SAR value expresses that all water samples are classified in the best water range. Figure 6 shows that all surface water samples are located in the C3S1 zone.

4.3.5 Parentage sodium (%Na)

4.3.6 Residual sodium carbonate

good zone (Table 4).

respectively (Table 4).

13

equation:

irrigation uses.

erals of the lithological composition [20].

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

The values of %Na varied from 37.15 to 43.89 mg/L with an average of 40.94 mg/L (Table 2). The water samples are classified in the class good to permissible for irrigation water (Figure 6). This variation could be due to the size of the samples, the geological factor, the type of soil, the anthropic activities and the addition of chemical fertilizers, the climatic factor, and the dissolution of the min-

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose

Therefore, Eq. (6) shows another way to determine the sodium risk ratio when calculating the sodium ratio (%Na) in order to determine the water quality for

The values of %Na express that 9.09% of the total water samples are classified in the good water category and 90.9% in the permissible water category (Table 4).

RSC is a very important parameter in the study of suitability water for irrigation.

<sup>3</sup> <sup>þ</sup> CO<sup>2</sup>� 3

The values of RSC varied from �2.33 to �4.68 meq/L with an average of �3.50 meq/L (Table 2). The water samples are classified in the category of good water irrigation according to the recommendations of Eaton [21] and Arslan [22]. In addition, the values of RSC calculated by Eq. (7) for all samples are classified in the

The permeability index (PI) of surface water for irrigation, which in turn is influenced by Na, Ca, Mg and HCO3 concentration. PI is defined by the following

p

The salinity index (PS) is defined as the chloride concentration plus half of

The values of PI and PS ranged from 42.41 to 49.49 and 84.19 to 133.73 mg/L with an average of 46.38 and 99.57 mg/L, respectively (Table 2). The PI and PS for all water samples are classified in the type of water good to excellent and good,

HCO� 3

> ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi SO2� 4

q

PI <sup>¼</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

the sulfate concentration [33]. PS is computed using the equation bellow:

PS ¼ Cl� þ

The RSC is calculated using the equation given below in Eston [21]:

RSC ¼ HCO�

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

4.3.7 Permeability index (PI) and salinity index (PS)

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

Ca2<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg2<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>K</sup><sup>þ</sup> � � (6)

� � � Ca<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> � � (7)

Ca2<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup> � <sup>100</sup> (8)

(9)

%Na <sup>¼</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>K</sup><sup>þ</sup> ð Þ� <sup>100</sup>

Figure 7 illustrates the Wilcox diagram [18] which highlights the combination of EC and %Na for judging suitability of water quality for irrigation. The diagram is divided into five zones, which are excellent to good, good to permissible, permissible to doubtful, doubtful to unsuitable and unsuitable, with increasing salinity hazard and sodium hazard for irrigation. From Figure 7, we see that all water samples are classified in the good to permissible water categories, which is reflected by the EC value which shows more than 100%. Water from the study area is permissible distributed between 750 and 2250 μS/cm (Table 4).

Figure 6. Classification of Richards [19]. EC versus SAR.

Figure 7. Classification of Wilcox [18]. EC versus %Na<sup>+</sup> .

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

#### 4.3.5 Parentage sodium (%Na)

The calculated SAR value expresses that all water samples are classified in the best water range. Figure 6 shows that all surface water samples are located in the

Figure 7 illustrates the Wilcox diagram [18] which highlights the combination of EC and %Na for judging suitability of water quality for irrigation. The diagram is divided into five zones, which are excellent to good, good to permissible, permissible to doubtful, doubtful to unsuitable and unsuitable, with increasing salinity hazard and sodium hazard for irrigation. From Figure 7, we see that all water samples are classified in the good to permissible water categories, which is reflected by the EC value which shows more than 100%. Water from the study area is

permissible distributed between 750 and 2250 μS/cm (Table 4).

C3S1 zone.

Water Chemistry

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

12

Classification of Richards [19]. EC versus SAR.

Classification of Wilcox [18]. EC versus %Na<sup>+</sup>

.

The values of %Na varied from 37.15 to 43.89 mg/L with an average of 40.94 mg/L (Table 2). The water samples are classified in the class good to permissible for irrigation water (Figure 6). This variation could be due to the size of the samples, the geological factor, the type of soil, the anthropic activities and the addition of chemical fertilizers, the climatic factor, and the dissolution of the minerals of the lithological composition [20].

Therefore, Eq. (6) shows another way to determine the sodium risk ratio when calculating the sodium ratio (%Na) in order to determine the water quality for irrigation uses.

$$\text{\textbullet Na} = \frac{(\text{Na}^+ + \text{K}^+) \times \text{100}}{(\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+} + \text{Na}^+ + \text{K}^+)} \tag{6}$$

The values of %Na express that 9.09% of the total water samples are classified in the good water category and 90.9% in the permissible water category (Table 4).

#### 4.3.6 Residual sodium carbonate

RSC is a very important parameter in the study of suitability water for irrigation. The RSC is calculated using the equation given below in Eston [21]:

$$\text{RSC} = \left(\text{HCO}\_3^- + \text{CO}\_3^{2-}\right) - \left(\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+}\right) \tag{7}$$

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

The values of RSC varied from �2.33 to �4.68 meq/L with an average of �3.50 meq/L (Table 2). The water samples are classified in the category of good water irrigation according to the recommendations of Eaton [21] and Arslan [22]. In addition, the values of RSC calculated by Eq. (7) for all samples are classified in the good zone (Table 4).

### 4.3.7 Permeability index (PI) and salinity index (PS)

The permeability index (PI) of surface water for irrigation, which in turn is influenced by Na, Ca, Mg and HCO3 concentration. PI is defined by the following equation:

$$\text{PI} = \frac{\text{Na}^+ + \sqrt{\text{HCO}\_3^-}}{\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+} + \text{Na}^+} \times \text{100} \tag{8}$$

The salinity index (PS) is defined as the chloride concentration plus half of the sulfate concentration [33]. PS is computed using the equation bellow:

$$\text{PS} = \text{Cl}^- + \sqrt{\text{SO}\_4^{2-}} \tag{9}$$

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

The values of PI and PS ranged from 42.41 to 49.49 and 84.19 to 133.73 mg/L with an average of 46.38 and 99.57 mg/L, respectively (Table 2). The PI and PS for all water samples are classified in the type of water good to excellent and good, respectively (Table 4).

#### 4.3.8 Soluble sodium percentage (SSP)

Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) is an important parameter to assess the hazard towards irrigation. SSP is defined by Todd [23] as shown below:

$$\text{SSP} = \frac{\text{Na}^+}{\left(\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+} + \text{K}^+\right)} \times 100\tag{10}$$

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

The values of soluble sodium percentage (SSP) varied between 58 and 76.56 mg/ L with an average 68.24 mg/L. The calculation of SSP using Eq. (10) reflects that all water samples are classified in the permissible waters area (Table 4).

#### 4.3.9 Magnesium adsorption rate

The magnesium adsorption rate (MAR) is expressed in terms of magnesium hazard (MH), which is computed by Eq. (11) in Raghunath [24], using the values of ions in meq/L.

$$\text{MAR} = \frac{\text{Mg}^{2+}}{\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+}} \times 100 \tag{11}$$

Hussain et al. [28]. The irrigation water quality index is calculated by the following

Parametres Wcv Qrv Wcv � Qrv EC 0.000444444 59.95555556 0.026646914 pH 0.117647059 88.58823529 10.42214533 TDS 0.0005 43.1705 0.02158525 %Na 0.011111111 45.48888889 0.505432099 SAR 0.038461538 15.38461538 0.591715976 RSC (meq/L) 0.005882353 21.76470588 0.128027682 Cl 0.01 90.31 0.9031 Na 0.014285714 134.1714286 1.916734694 HCO3 (meq/L) 0.001639344 28.39508197 0.046549315 Total 0.199971564 14.56193726

Qrv represents the quality rating values, Cv stand for the observed concentration

RSv

<sup>i</sup>¼<sup>1</sup>Wcv � Qrv ∑<sup>n</sup> <sup>i</sup>¼<sup>1</sup>Wcv

Wcv <sup>¼</sup> <sup>1</sup>

IWQI <sup>¼</sup> <sup>∑</sup><sup>n</sup>

can grow, and 0–40 this unsuitable for all for all crops.

the good waters area.

5. Conclusion

15

Wcv represents the stands for the relative weight coefficient of the parameters, RSv stands for the recommended standards values of the water quality variable.

where IWQI represent for water quality index, is a dimensionless parameter ranging from 0 to 100, and n stands for the number of water quality variables.

The Irrigation Surface Water Quality Index was calculated by Eqs. (13)–(15) and these values are shown in Tables 4 and 5 and are compared to the irrigation water quality parameters proposed by University of California Committee of Consultants, Meireles et al. [27], and Mohamed et al. [32]. The values of IWQI ranged between 85 and 100 have no restriction for irrigation water, so values between 70 and 85 have low water, and 55–70 reflects the moderate water area, 40–55 high tolerance crops

The IWQI values ranged between 70 and 85 with an average of 78.11 indicating

In this chapter, surface water quality and its suitability for irrigation in Koudiate Medouar dam as an example were examined. All samples are suitable for irrigation,

� 100 (13)

(14)

(15)

Qrv <sup>¼</sup> Cv RSv

equations:

Table 5.

IWQI 72.82003972

The relative weight of hydrochemical parameters in the study area.

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

values.

The computed values of magnesium hazard from the surface water of the study area are in between 28.57 and 34.03 mg/L (Table 2). The majority of the water samples of the study area are less than 5 and hence they are safe for irrigation purpose (Table 4).

#### 4.3.10 Kelly ratio

The Kelly's ratio (KR) indicates the degree and the potential effect of sodium on water quality for irrigation.

$$\text{KR} = \frac{\text{Na}^+}{\text{Ca}^{2+} + \text{Mg}^{2+}} \tag{12}$$

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

The results show that the values of Kelly ratio varied from 0.58 to 0.77 mg/L with an average of 0.68 mg/L (Table 2).

Kelly ratio of more than 1 indicates an excess level of Na in water. Kelley [25] suggested that the ratio for irrigation water should not exceed 1. All water samples in the study area fall in suitable water type, indicating that there is no significant excess of sodium in the surface water [29] (Table 4).

#### 4.4 Irrigation water quality index (IWQI)

The surface water quality index method for irrigation is a very important tool in determining the overall impact of the various parameters that are used as a single variable. In addition, the method of the surface water quality index for irrigation is considered a very satisfactory way to measure and classify the adequacy of surface water quality for irrigation as unique parameters. Taking into account various water quality variables. In this study, the IWQI model was developed by combining the eight water quality parameters (SAR, RSC, %Na, EC, pH, TDS, Na and Cl), which is based on the recommendations of Amanuel Gidey [26], Meireles et al. [27] and

#### Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651


#### Table 5.

4.3.8 Soluble sodium percentage (SSP)

4.3.9 Magnesium adsorption rate

ions in meq/L.

Water Chemistry

4.3.10 Kelly ratio

14

water quality for irrigation.

Soluble sodium percentage (SSP) is an important parameter to assess the hazard

The values of soluble sodium percentage (SSP) varied between 58 and 76.56 mg/ L with an average 68.24 mg/L. The calculation of SSP using Eq. (10) reflects that all

The magnesium adsorption rate (MAR) is expressed in terms of magnesium hazard (MH), which is computed by Eq. (11) in Raghunath [24], using the values of

The computed values of magnesium hazard from the surface water of the study area are in between 28.57 and 34.03 mg/L (Table 2). The majority of the water samples of the study area are less than 5 and hence they are safe for irrigation purpose (Table 4).

The Kelly's ratio (KR) indicates the degree and the potential effect of sodium on

KR <sup>¼</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup>

The results show that the values of Kelly ratio varied from 0.58 to 0.77 mg/L

Kelly ratio of more than 1 indicates an excess level of Na in water. Kelley [25] suggested that the ratio for irrigation water should not exceed 1. All water samples in the study area fall in suitable water type, indicating that there is no significant

The surface water quality index method for irrigation is a very important tool in determining the overall impact of the various parameters that are used as a single variable. In addition, the method of the surface water quality index for irrigation is considered a very satisfactory way to measure and classify the adequacy of surface water quality for irrigation as unique parameters. Taking into account various water quality variables. In this study, the IWQI model was developed by combining the eight water quality parameters (SAR, RSC, %Na, EC, pH, TDS, Na and Cl), which is based on the recommendations of Amanuel Gidey [26], Meireles et al. [27] and

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

excess of sodium in the surface water [29] (Table 4).

with an average of 0.68 mg/L (Table 2).

4.4 Irrigation water quality index (IWQI)

Ca2<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg2<sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> <sup>K</sup><sup>þ</sup> � <sup>100</sup> (10)

Ca<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> � <sup>100</sup> (11)

Ca<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> <sup>þ</sup> Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup> (12)

towards irrigation. SSP is defined by Todd [23] as shown below:

where the concentrations are reported in meq/L.

SSP <sup>¼</sup> Na<sup>þ</sup>

water samples are classified in the permissible waters area (Table 4).

MAR <sup>¼</sup> Mg<sup>2</sup><sup>þ</sup>

The relative weight of hydrochemical parameters in the study area.

Hussain et al. [28]. The irrigation water quality index is calculated by the following equations:

$$\mathbf{Q\_{rv}} = \frac{\mathbf{C\_v}}{\mathbf{RS\_v}} \times \mathbf{100} \tag{13}$$

Qrv represents the quality rating values, Cv stand for the observed concentration values.

$$\mathbf{W\_{cv}} = \frac{1}{\mathbf{RS\_v}}\tag{14}$$

Wcv represents the stands for the relative weight coefficient of the parameters, RSv stands for the recommended standards values of the water quality variable.

$$IWQI = \frac{\sum\_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{W\_{cv}} \times \mathbf{Q\_{rv}}}{\sum\_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{W\_{cv}}} \tag{15}$$

where IWQI represent for water quality index, is a dimensionless parameter ranging from 0 to 100, and n stands for the number of water quality variables.

The Irrigation Surface Water Quality Index was calculated by Eqs. (13)–(15) and these values are shown in Tables 4 and 5 and are compared to the irrigation water quality parameters proposed by University of California Committee of Consultants, Meireles et al. [27], and Mohamed et al. [32]. The values of IWQI ranged between 85 and 100 have no restriction for irrigation water, so values between 70 and 85 have low water, and 55–70 reflects the moderate water area, 40–55 high tolerance crops can grow, and 0–40 this unsuitable for all for all crops.

The IWQI values ranged between 70 and 85 with an average of 78.11 indicating the good waters area.

### 5. Conclusion

In this chapter, surface water quality and its suitability for irrigation in Koudiate Medouar dam as an example were examined. All samples are suitable for irrigation, and appropriate management measures are suggested to safeguard this resource and improve its quality.

References

1989

121-132

[4] AGS R. Evaluation of

2013;68:471-485

intechopen.75734

17

[1] Tiri A, Belkhiri L, Mouni L.

[2] USEPA (United States

Evaluation of surface water quality for drinking purposes using fuzzy inference system. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. 2018;6:235-244

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86651

Suitability and Assessment of Surface Water for Irrigation Purpose

[8] Hem JD. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water: USGS Professional Paper Book 2254. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers;

[9] Patel P, Raju NJ, BSR R, Suresh U, Gossel W, Wycisk P. Geochemical processes and multivariate statistical analysis for the assessment of groundwater quality in the

Swarnamukhi River basin, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environment and Earth Science. 2016;75:1-24. DOI: 10.1007/

[10] Belkhiri L, Mouni L, Narany TS, Tiri A. Evaluation of potential health risk of heavy metals in groundwater using the integration of indicator kriging and multivariate statistical methods. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. 2017;4:12-22

[11] WHO (World Health Organization). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. Recommendations. 3rd ed. Geneva: Word Health Organization; 2006

[12] Egbi CD, Anornu G, Appiah-Adjei EK, Ganyaglo SY, Dampare SB. Evaluation of water quality using hydrochemistry, stable isotopes, and water quality indices in the lower Volta River Basin of Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-018-0180-5

[13] Abboud IA. Geochemistry and quality of groundwater of the Yarmouk

Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/

[14] Salem WM, El-Sayed M. Hydrogeochemical and isotopic composition of ground water in Helwan area. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2015;24(4):

basin aquifer, North Jordan. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2018;40(4):1405-1435.

s10653-017-0064-x

s12665-015-5108-x

1991

Environmental Protection Agency). Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002 Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Volume 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

[3] Belkhiri L, Mouni L, Tiri A, Narany TS, Nouibet R. Spatial analysis of groundwater quality using selforganizing maps. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. 2018;7:

hydrogeochemical characteristics of phreatic alluvial aquifer in southeastern coastal belt of Prakasamdistrict, South India. Environment and Earth Science.

[5] Belkhiri L, Tiri A, Mouni L. Chapter

contamination in groundwater: A case study of the South of Setif Area, East Algeria. Books. Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management. 2018:17-31. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/

[6] Tiri A, Lahbari N, Boudoukha A. Assessment of the quality of water by hierarchical cluster and variance analyses of the Koudiat Medouar watershed, East Algeria. Applied Water

Science. 2017;7:4197-4206. DOI: 10.1007/s13201-014-0261-z

[7] APHA. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1989

2. Assessment of heavy metals
