1.      Introduction

Water is a fundamental resource on Earth and a vital natural element necessary for human life and different activities. Although freshwater constitutes only about 2% of the total water on the planet, which plays a crucial role in sustaining life. However, water is rapidly becoming a scarce resource, and its absence would not only impact humans but also countless other species. Despite its importance, access to high-quality water is very limited [1]. With the rapid expansion of industries and economic activities, both surface water and ground water are increasingly facing severe pollution issues. Human activities, including domestic and industrial waste disposal, significantly contribute to water contamination [10]. Clean water supports the movement of essential nutrients and organisms across ecosystems, offering habitats for diverse plant and animal species. Groundwater quality, in particular, is a critical factor influencing human health and well-being [2].

Assessing water quality involves evaluating its physicochemical and biological properties in relation to its natural state. Water quality directly affects ecosystems, influencing the survival of various living organisms [9]. Effective water resource management requires monitoring and controlling water quality. The suitability of water for specific uses depends on a combination of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics [3].  Economic and social developments have led to negative impacts on water quality. Agricultural chemicals, improper land use, and industrial waste disposal significantly deteriorate water sources [8]. Currently, many surface water bodies exhibit noticeable quality degradation due to pollutants originating from domestic and industrial sources, affecting human health and socio-economic conditions [4]. Both surface and groundwater quality must be assessed and predicted in order to guarantee sustainable water management. There are several techniques of assessment, such as the comprehensive pollution index method and the single-factor evaluation method. Although these techniques are simple to use, their outcomes might not always precisely represent the state of the water’s quality [5]

Several techniques are commonly employed for water quality prediction, such as numerical modeling, grey prediction, artificial neural networks, and exponential smoothing. Numerical modeling requires the consideration of multiple parameters, making it complex [11]. Grey prediction depends on monitoring data characteristics, producing less reliable results when water quality indices fluctuate significantly.(While factor selection can complicate predictions, exponential smoothing remains a widely used method due to its simplicity, minimal data requirements, and adaptability in environmental studies [7]. This study focuses on analyzing ground and waste water quality in the Pashamylaram industrial area of Telangana, India. The primary objective is to examine the variations in different water quality parameters. Additionally, this research aims to assess the impact of various land uses on water resources and develop strategies for preventing contamination while maintaining ecological balance

1.1. Study Area

 

Pashamylaram village is situated in Telangana, India’s Patancheru Mandal, which is part of the Medak district. According to figure No. 1.1 below, the study region is located between latitudes 17° 31′ and 17° 32′ north and longitudes 78° 10′ and 78° 11′ 24″ east. It is located 10 km from Patancheru, the sub-district headquarters (tehsildar office). The region experiences semi-arid and subtropical weather, with temperatures ranging from 25 to 45 degrees Celsius. Pashamylaram has a population density of 276.69 people per square kilometer. Pashamylaram settlement occupies an area of 845 hectares. 547 meters above sea level. The main cause of the pollution is the discharge of wastewater from more than 90 pharmaceutical manufacturers in the area, which cause serious water contamination by releasing untreated effluents into neighbouring ponds.

• Methodology

The study involved sample collection, analysis and data interpretation to evaluate water quality in the study area. The groundwater and waste water samples are collected in the Pashamylaram Industrial area as per IS 3025 Part -1 and IS 1622 guidelines. The sample bottles are washed with double distilled water and rinsed with the sample before collection. Groundwater and waste water samples were collected from multiple locations using pre-sterilized 1L polypropylene bottles, ensuring adherence to standard sampling procedures. Specific samples, such as those for Oil and grease and Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Microbial were collected in separate glass1L bottles to prevent contamination. Separate 1L samples are collected, and preserved with 1% HNO₃for heavy metal analysis to maintain sample integrity, and all samples were transported to the laboratory under controlled conditions to avoid alterations in water chemistry. Samples are stored as per the standard protocol prior to analysis at 4-6 °C. Samples are analyzed, various physical, chemical parameters and microbial parameters were analyzed using standard methods APHA 23^rd edition, IS 3025 and IS 1622 and IS 15185 as described below, Sample pH, EC was measured with pH meter and a conductivity Systronics meters. TDS were estimated using a gravimetric method. Total hardness was determined by the EDTA titration method, and calcium and magnesium concentrations were measured using complexometric titration. Total and phenolphthalein alkalinity were analyzed through acid base titration. The argentometric titration method was used to determine chloride levels. Sulphates, Nitrate, Fluoride, Iron and Silica were measured using a UV – Visible spectrophotometry. Sodium and Potassium were measured using flame photometry.

For organic and biological analysis, DO levels were assessed using Winkler’s method, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) was determined using the closed reflux titrimetric method while Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was estimated through a 3-day incubation method. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) was analyzed using digestion and distillation methods. Phenolic compounds are determined by distillation followed by Visible spectrophotometer. Oil and Grease of samples were measured by Soxhlet extraction and followed by gravimetry. Ground water samples total coliforms are evaluated as per IS 15185 and for waste water IS 1622. Heavy metals of samples are estimated with atomic absorption spectrophotometer after calibration with standards prepared from CRMS.

The groundwater results were compared with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) IS 10500:2012 guidelines to assess the suitability of groundwater for consumption. This methodology ensures a systematic and standardized approach to groundwater quality evaluation Contamination zones identification was made by waste water results.  By identifying parameters exceeding permissible limits, the study provides crucial insights that guide recommendations for water treatment and management strategies, ensuring the safety and sustainability of groundwater resources.

3.  Results and Discussions

 

Ground Water Quality Analysis

 

The groundwater quality analysis reveals several key observations when compared to the standard values of IS 10500 as in Table no 1.2. The pH levels in the water samples range from 6.8 to 7.59, which falls within the acceptable range of 6.5 to 8.5, ensuring a balanced acidic-alkaline condition. However, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) vary significantly, with values between 582 mg/L and 3279mg/L, exceeding the permissible limit of 2000mg/L in certain locations, indicating possible contamination from dissolved minerals and salts.

Water hardness is a major concern, as Total Hardness (254–1420 mg/L), Calcium (200– 1160 mg/L), and Magnesium (54–470 mg/L) all surpass the permissible limits of 600 mg/L, 200 mg/L, and 100 mg/L, respectively. Such high hardness levels can contribute to scaling in pipesand household appliances, as well as potential health impacts such as kidney stone formation. Similarly, Iron (0.4–1.7 mg/L) slightly exceeds the desirable limit of 1 mg/L, which may cause staining of fixtures and an unpleasant taste in water. Fluoride levels (0.7–2.3 mg/L) also exceed the permissible limit of 1.5mg/L in some areas, posing a risk of dental fluorosis if consumed over a long period.

Regarding alkalinity, the Total Alkalinity (192–694 mg/L) in some samples surpasses the desirable limit of 200 mg/L, but remains within the permissible limit of 600 mg/L, potentially affecting the taste of the water. Chloride concentrations (90–785 mg/L) also exceed the desirable limit of 250 mg/L but stay within the permissible limit of 1000 mg/L, which might lead to a salty taste and corrosion in plumbing systems. Sulphates (35–243 mg/L) remain within safe limits, avoiding any major risks. Oil & Grease values and phenolic compounds values are within permissible limits. Nitrate levels (18–45 mg/L) are within the safe limit of 45 mg/L, reducing the risk of methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). The microbiological quality is satisfactory, as Total Coliforms and E.coli were absent in all samples, meeting the IS 10500 standard that requires their non-detectability. However, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) values (4–16 mg/L) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) values (2–3 mg/L) indicate the presence of organic matter, which may require further investigation.

 

 

Waste Water Quality Analysis

 

Table 1.3 presents the physicochemical and microbiological results of waste water. The wastewater is slightly alkaline, as shown by the pH levels, which range from 7.25 to 8.74 with an average of 7.9. With an average of 2040.7 µs/cm and a range of 531 to 3529 µs/cm, electrical conductivity, which indicates the presence of dissolved salts, suggests different levels of dissolved ionic content. The measurement of dissolved substances in water, known as total dissolved solids (TDS), ranges from 270 to 2465 mg/L, with an average of 1281.6 mg/L. Significant contamination, possibly from residential or industrial sources, is indicated by high TDS levels. Total Hardness, a measure of calcium and magnesium ion concentration, averages 376.7 mg/L and varies from 136 to 670 mg/L. Moderate to high hardness levels are indicated by the calcium content, which varies between 88 and 416 mg/L (average 236.4 mg/L), and the magnesium content, which varies between 48 and 254 mg/L (average 140.2 mg/L).

Most stations have negligible phenolphthalein alkalinity, but some have 110–120 mg/L, with an average of 115 mg/L. With an average of 304 mg/L, total alkalinity—a measure of water’s buffering ability—varies greatly, ranging from 146 to 600 mg/L. With an average of 250.6 mg/L and a range of 65 to 430 mg/L, chloride readings suggest possible sewage or industrial discharge contamination. While silica levels range from 0.13 to 4.2 mg/L (average 2.2 mg/L), sulphates vary between 22 and 139 mg/L (average 76.1 mg/L).Significant variance in nitrate levels, ranging from 1.4 to 32 mg/L (average of 9.4 mg/L), may point to the origins of organic contamination. With an average of 1.0 mg/L, iron values range from 0.1 to 2.5 mg/L, which may indicate contamination from industrial waste or rusted pipes. The average fluoride level is 1.8 mg/L, with a range of 0.7 to 2.9 mg/L, which may be more than the recommended daily allowance. Aquatic life depends on dissolved oxygen (DO), which has an average of 2.8 mg/L and ranges from 0.8 to 4.8 mg/L. This suggests that organic pollution may be lowering oxygen levels. The amount of organic matter in water is measured by the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), which averages 74.7 mg/L and ranges from 32 to 112 mg/L. With an average of 21.7 mg/L and a range of 7 to 38 mg/L, biological oxygen demand (BOD), which measures the oxygen demand from microbial activity, indicates significant organic pollution.

The Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) levels range from 4 to 25 mg/L (average 14.3 mg/L), indicating nitrogenous organic matter in the water. Total coliform levels vary from <2 to 12 MPN/100ml, averaging 8.8 MPN/100ml, while E. coli is mostly undetected, except for one instance where it reached 5 MPN/100ml. Oil &Graese  values  are in range 0.11 to 0.36 mg/L and phenolic compounds are in 0.02 to 0.08 mg/L. The analysis reveals moderate to high contamination levels, with high TDS, hardness, chlorides, nitrates, iron, fluoride, and organic load. The low dissolved oxygen levels and high COD and BOD values suggest a high organic content, requiring proper wastewater treatment before discharge or reuse.

 

Heavy Metal Contamination in Groundwater

The analysis of heavy metal concentrations in groundwater samples are represented ingiven Table1.4 (GW-1 to GW-7) reveals significant contamination concerns. Copper(Cu)levels range from 0to5.5mg/L, with an average of 3.1 mg/L, far exceeding the IS 10500 limit of 1.5 mg/L. This indicates potential toxicity, likely from industrial effluents or corroded plumbing materials.Chromium (Cr) levelsare particularly alarming, reaching up to 8.9 mg/L, with an average of 4.7 mg/L, well beyond the desirable limit of 0.05 mg/L. Chromium contamination, often linked to industrial waste, poses severe health risks, including kidney and liver damage.

Lead (Pb), a highly toxic heavy metal, is present in concentrations between 0 and 4.3mg/L, averaging 2.5 mg/L, which is significantly above the acceptable limit of 0.01 mg/L. Prolonged exposure to lead can cause neurological disorders, developmental issues in children, and cardiovascular diseases. Similarly, arsenic (As) levels vary from 0to1.9mg/L, averaging1.0mg/L, which is100 times higher than the desirable limit of 0.01mg/L. Long-term exposure to arsenic is known to cause cancer, skin diseases, and severe organ damage.

Manganese (Mn) levels fluctuate between 0 and 6.5 mg/L, with an average of 3.5 mg/L, surpassing the permissible limit of 0.3 mg/L. High manganese concentrations can lead to neurological disorders and impact cognitive functions. Zinc (Zn) concentrations, although within permissible limits, range from 0.9 to 6.5 mg/L, averaging 3.7 mg/L.While zinc is essential intrace amounts, excessive levels can affect digestive and immune system functions. Boron (B), another significant parameter, varies from 0.4 to 1.25 mg/L, with an average of 0.7 mg/L. While boron remains within the permissible limit of 1mg/L, some samples exceed the desirable limit of 0.5mg/L, raising concerns about potential kidney and liver effects from long-term exposure.

The presence of aluminum (Al) in groundwater is also concerning, with levels ranging from 0 to 4.7 mg/L, averaging 2.1 mg/L—far beyond the desirable limit of 0.03 mg/L and permissible limit of 0.2 mg/L. High aluminum concentrations can cause neurotoxicity and have been linked to conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Heavy Metal Contamination in Wastewater

The analysis of wastewater samples (WW-01 to WW-07) as in Table.No.1.4 reveals varying levels of heavy metal contamination, indicating potential industrial discharge and environmental hazards. Copper (Cu) concentrations range from 0.1 to 3.7 mg/L, with an average of 1.5 mg/L. While copper is an essential element, excessive amounts can be toxic to aquatic life, often originating from corroded plumbing and industrial effluents. Similarly, chromium(Cr)levels vary between 0.8 and 4.8 mg/L, averaging 2.0 mg/L, which suggests contamination from metal plating and tanning industries. High levels of chromium, especially in its hexavalent form, pose serious health risks, including toxicity and carcinogenic effects.

Lead (Pb) concentrations range from 0.6 to 3.8 mg/L, with an average of 1.8 mg/L, indicating contamination likely from battery waste, plumbing corrosion, or industrial effluents. Lead is highly toxic even in small amounts, affecting the nervous system and causing developmental disorders [12-14]. Similarly, arsenic (As) levels range from 0.4 to 1.6 mg/L, with an average of 1.0mg/L, far exceeding safe limits. Arsenic contamination in wastewater, often linked to mining and pesticide industries, can cause severe health effects, including cancer andskin lesions.

Manganese (Mn) is present in concentrations between 1.7 and 6.2 mg/L, averaging 3.4 mg/L, which is significantly higher than typical safe limits. While manganese is an essential nutrient, excessive exposure can result in neurological disorders. Zinc (Zn) levels range from 0.5to5.3mg/L, with an average of 3.7mg/L. Zinc contamination, often originating from galvanizing, paints, and metal industries, can negatively impact aquatic ecosystems.

Boron (B) levels vary from 0.13 to 1.5 mg/L, with an average of 0.6 mg/L, indicating contamination from industrial detergents and fertilizers [15-16]. While boron is naturally occurring, excessive levels can affect plant and aquatic life. Aluminum (Al) concentrations range from 0.3 to 4.2 mg/L, with an average of 1.7 mg/L, suggesting contamination from industrial processes. High aluminum levels in wastewater can be toxic, potentially affecting brain function and overall water quality.

4.0. Conclusion

The analysis indicates significant groundwater contamination, with high levels of TDS, hardness, chlorides, nitrates, iron, fluoride, and organic load. Low dissolved oxygen and high COD and BOD suggest heavy organic pollution, requiring proper wastewater treatment. Severe heavy metal contamination, including lead, arsenic, chromium, copper, and aluminum, poses serious health risks due to industrial pollution and improper waste disposal. Immediate interventions such as reverse osmosis, activated carbon filtration, and chemical precipitation are needed. Regular monitoring and stricter pollution control measures are essential to prevent further environmental and health hazards.

References

 

• Dhakate, R., Ratnalu, G. V., & Laxmankumar, D. (2020). Evaluation of heavy metals contamination in soils at Peenya Industrial Area, Bengarulu, India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13, 1-21.
• Jeevanandam, M., Nagarajan, R., Manikandan, M., Senthilkumar, M., Srinivasalu, S., & Prasanna, M. V. (2012). Hydrogeochemistry and microbial contamination of groundwater from lower ponnaiyar basin, cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 67, 867-887.
• Krishna, A. K., Mohan, K. R., & Dasaram, B. (2019). Assessment of groundwater quality, toxicity and health risk in an industrial area using multivariate statistical methods. Environmental Systems Research, 8, 1-17.
• Chintalapudi, P., Pujari, P., Khadse, G., Sanam, R., & Labhasetwar, P. (2017). Groundwater quality assessment in emerging industrial cluster of alluvial aquifer near Jaipur, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76, 1-14.
• Sridhar, D., & Parimalarenganayaki, S. (2024). Assessment of groundwater quality under unplanned urban environment: A Case Study From Vellore City, Tamilnadu, India. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 235(12), 1-25.
• Saha, J. K., Selladurai, R., Coumar, M. V., Dotaniya, M. L., Kundu, S., Patra, A. K., … & Patra, A. K. (2017). Status of soil pollution in India. Soil pollution-an emerging threat to agriculture, 271-315.
• Mukate, S. V., Panaskar, D. B., Wagh, V. M., & Baker, S. J. (2020). Understanding the influence of industrial and agricultural land uses on groundwater quality in semiarid region of Solapur, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 3207-3238.
• Arti, & Mehra, R. (2023). Analysis of heavy metals and toxicity level in the tannery effluent and the environs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(5), 554.
• Sekhar, K. C., Chary, N. S., Kamala, C. T., Vairamani, M., Anjaneyulu, Y., Balaram, V., & Sorlie, J. E. (2006). Environmental risk assessment studies of heavy metal contamination in the industrial area of Kattedan, India—a case study. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 12(2), 408-422.
• Singh, A., & Prasad, S. M. (2015). Remediation of heavy metal contaminated ecosystem: an overview on technology advancement. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12, 353-366.
• Kaushal, M., Patil, M. D., & Wani, S. P. (2018). Potency of constructed wetlands for deportation of pathogens index from rural, urban and industrial wastewater. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 15, 637-648.
• Syeda Azeem Unnisa, Yeshwitha Kunchavarapu, Sripathi Harika, V. Praveen (2023). Pleasant Valley Lake Restoration through Floating Treatment Wetland. Environmental Reports; an International Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51470/ER.2023.5.2.15
• Rajankar, P. N., Tambekar, D. H., & Wate, S. R. (2011). Groundwater quality and water quality index at Bhandara District. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 179, 619-625.
• Tripathi, S., & Hussain, T. (2021). Treatment of industrial wastewater through new approaches using algae biomass. The Future of Effluent Treatment Plants, 89-112.
• Cao, X., Lu, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, M., Yuan, J., Zhang, A., … & Wang, Y. (2019). Hydrogeochemistry and quality of surface water and groundwater in the drinking water source area of an urbanizing region. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 186, 109628.Dey, S., & Majumdar, A. (2024). Current Status of Pollution in Major Rivers and Tributaries of India and Protection-Restoration Strategies. In Rivers of India: Past, Present and Future (pp. 69-93). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Siddiqui, N., & Dahiya, P. (2023). Key role of microorganisms in industrial wastewater treatment. In Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and Processes (pp. 31-47). Elsevier.