Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 36 EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY IN SELECTED AREAS OF NAJAF GOVERNORATE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES Dr. Saleh Issa Khassaf, Prof. in Civil Eng. Dept., Basra University Email: salehissakh@gmail.com Fatima Mohsen kizar, Lect. in Civil Eng. Dept., Kufa University E-Mail: fatimahm.alhasnawi@uokufa.edu.iq Eng. Firas Fadhil Hassan, Manager of Najaf Environment Directorate Email: firass_esa@yahoo.com Received on 30 August 2016 Accepted on 07 December 2016 Abstract This study is concerned with assessing suitability of groundwater in selected areas of Najaf governorate, Iraq, for multiple uses ( human drinking , animal drinking , industrial , agricultural and irrigation). Water samples were taken from 29 wells over eleven months (January - December 2014); these samples were chemically and microbiologically analyzed using eleven parameters: Electrical Conductivity ( EC ), Total Dissolved Solid ( TDS ), pH values, Calcium (Ca +2 ), Magnesium ( Mg +2 ), Sodium (Na + ), Chloride ( Cl - ), Sulphate ( SO4 -2 ), Nitrate (NO3 - ), Total Hardness ( T.H ) and Total Coliform Bacteria ( T.C ). Sodium Adsorption Ratio ( SAR) was also calculated to be compared with standards. It is found that the groundwater of the study area is not suitable for human drinking and industrial purpose (except groundwater of one well which was suitable for chemical industry and refinery ) because of high concentration of chemical variables, but it was suitable for animal consumption and irrigation vegetables which resist moderate and high concentrations of EC in water, a salinity problem was expected based on Todd and American Salts Laboratory classifications, there were no harmful effects from sodium indicators on plants, most of water samples were within the classes poor and very poor for irrigation use according to Richard classification, and chloride toxicity problem was expected because 69 % of groundwater samples can cause severe problems. Key words: Evaluation, Groundwater , Wells, Najaf, Irrigation. تقییم صالحیة المیاه الجوفیة في مناطق مختارة من محافظة النجف لألغراض المختلفة عیسى خصاف جامعة البصرة / كلیة الھندسةأ.د.صالح م. فاطمة محسن كزار جامعة الكوفة / كلیة الھندسة مدیر دائرة البیئة في النجف /المھندس فراس فاضل حسن المستخلص : العراق لالستخدامات المتعددة ( الش@رب /في مناطق مختارة من محافظة النجف تھتم ھذه الدراسة بتقییم صالحیة المیاه الجوفیة ) بئ@را خ@الل اح@د عش@ر ش@ھرا ( ك@انون ٢٩اخ@ذت عین@ات المی@اه م@ن ( .الزراعی@ة وال@ري ) ,الص@ناعیة ,شرب الحیوانات ,البشري االمالح الذائب@ة ,عشر مؤشرا : الموصلیة الكھربائیة تم تحلیل ھذه العینات كیمیائیا وبایولوجیا ألحد ,م ) ٢٠١٤كانون االول -الثاني ت@م .بكتریا القولون الكلیة ,العسرة الكلیة ,النترات ,الكبریتات ,الكلوراید ,الصودیوم ,المغنسیوم ,الكالسیوم ,الرقم الھیدروجیني ,الكلیة جوفی@ة غی@ر مناس@بة للش@رب البش@ري والغ@رض بین@ت الدراس@ة ان المی@اه ال .حساب نسبة امتزاز الصودیوم لمقارنتھا م@ع المواص@فات الص@@ناعي ( ماع@@دا المی@@اه الجوفی@@ة لبئ@@ر واح@@د كان@@ت مناس@@بة للص@@ناعات الكیمیائی@@ة والمص@@افي) بس@@بب التركی@@ز الع@@الي للمتغی@@رات .الم@@اء لكنھ@@ا كان@@ت ص@@الحة لالس@@تھالك الحی@@واني وري الخض@@روات الت@@ي تق@@اوم تراكی@@ز عالی@@ة ومعتدل@@ة م@@ن الملوح@@ة ف@@ي ,الكیمیائی@@ة ومختبر الملوحة االمریكي توجد مشكلة الملوحة ولكن ال توجد تأثیرات ضارة من مؤشرات الص@ودیوم Toodاعتمادا على تطبیقي Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 37 مش@كلة Richard . الس@تعمال ال@ري طبق@ا لتص@نیف Very Poorو Poorمعظم عین@ات المی@اه كان@ت ض@من الص@نف .على النباتات .) من عینات المیاه الجوفیة كانت تسبب المشكلة ٦٩ %سمیة الكلورید كانت موجودة الن( Nomenclature Ca +2 Calcium ion Cl - Chloride ion EC Electrical Conductivity Mg +2 Magnesium ion Na + Sodium ion NO3 - Nitrate pH Hydrogen Ion Concentration ppm Part per million SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio SO4 -2 Sulphate T.C Total Coliform Bacteria TDS Total Dissolved Solids T.H Total Hardness µmohs /cm Micro mohs per centimeter Introduction Of all natural resources, water is necessary and precious as life began with water, and life is nurtured by water. There are organisms, such as anaerobes, which can stay alive without oxygen, but no organism can stay alive without water. Water is a essential material for life. The total water existing for drinking is 0.3% from the total water found on the surface of the earth. Rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs have long been significant sources of drinking water. In the past, these sources were often heavily polluted by sewage discharge and, unfortunately, were also significant in the transmission of communicable diseases such as typhoid and cholera ( Al- Obaidi, 2009). Surface waters are facing an rising trouble through the disposal of pollutants due to the rapid growth of industrial and municipal actions because of the population expansion as well as the increase in land drainage due to agricultural activities. Thus, there has been an increasing concern about groundwater quality all over the world. Groundwater is usually understood to mean water occupying all the voids inside a geologic layer. This saturated zone is to be distinguished from an unsaturated, or aeration, zone where voids are filled with water and air. Water contained in saturated zones is significant for engineering work, geologic researches, and water supply developments. Unsaturated zones are commonly found above saturated zones and extend up to the earth surface, because water here includes soil moisture inside the root zone; it is a main concern of agriculture, botany, and soil science. No rigid demarcation of waters between the two zones is possible, for they possess an interdependent edge, and water can move from zone to zone in either way ( Tood, 2005). There are two sources of groundwater: rain that penetrates the soil through pores and cracks in rock formations and finally up to the surface of groundwater. The second source is the water of rivers and lakes which is carried out through the soil to surface of groundwater. Groundwater is considered the second main source of water all over the world and it hits the surface of the earth through the eyes and springs or drilling wells; the right benefits of this water are drinking, agricultural, livestock production and industrial uses where surface water is scarce or does not exit. Groundwater represents one of the most important sources of water in rural areas. In many areas , it constitutes the largest storage of suitable drinking water and the only source of water for local, irrigation and industrial purposes. Generally, groundwater is preferred to surface water because it is Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 38 less susceptible to contamination and it is slightly below the surface of the ground; in addition to that it is of constant temperature and available in many areas even those that are exposed to severe drought for many years. In Najaf _ Iraq, Shatt Al- Kufa ( Kufa River ) is the major supply of water needed for drinking, irrigation, industry and other applications. This river shows decreasing quantity and quality of water because of the rapid growth of industrial, agricultural and municipal activities. Groundwater is another important source of water in this governorate especially for irrigation. In the last few years, farmers started to dig wells in many area to use them for agriculture; many vegetables are now produced in considerable amount by using groundwater. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of groundwater in selected areas of Najaf Governorate by identifying the chemical and microbiological properties and then assess the suitability of this water for various purposes. Study Area Najaf is situated in the south of Iraq ( The Mid- Euphrates Region ). It is situated between ( 42 o 50 / - 45 o 44 / ) longitude and ( 29 o 50 / - 32 o 21 / ) latitude ( Al- Mthafer, 2011) . In this study four areas were selected from Najaf to evaluate their groundwater: Najaf city, Najaf – Karbala Road, Najaf Sea and Kufa city, each of which contains a number of studied wells, see Fig (1). Najaf city is the center of Najaf ( largest urban center ). It is surrounded by a group of urban centers: Al-Haidariya city to the North, Kufa city to the East, Al- Manathira city to the South- East and it is honorable on low of Najaf sea which is one of the more geomorphological phenomenas in the study area; where a length of ( 40 km ) and width ( 19 km ) while an area ( 366 km 2 ) and away ( 5 km ) from Najaf city( Al- Janabi, 2012). Najaf – Karbala Road is the road which links Najaf with Karbala. Ground elevations in the area rise about (55m) above sea level and the city area covers (183km 2 ) within the basic scheme for the year 2012 to 2035 ( Al- Taghlubi, 2013). The soil of the study area is silty sand on the whole and with high porosity and permeability, which help the groundwater movement to different trends depending on the topography of the land ( Al-Murshidy, 1998). The climate study is important in studies related to shallow groundwater. The different climate elements play an important role in increasing rainfall and humidity that affect the water content of the soil ( Al- Adili, 1998). The study area has a dry continental climate characterized by a cold winter with little rain and a long hot dry summer with a significant difference in temperature between day and night, Table (1) shows the monthly rates of climate elements for the period (1980 – 2014). It was found that the study areas , climate is continental ( desert dry climate ); this type of climate contributes to increasing concentration of salts in water. Selected Wells And Evaluation The purpose of the experimental work in this study is to make an evaluation of groundwater of twenty nine selected wells. These wells and their locations and depths are shown in Table (2). The laboratory testing of the chemical and microbiological evaluation was done in Najaf Environmental Directorate / Environmental Analysis Department. The methods of testing the parameters are illustrated in Table (3). Results And Discussion The Chemical Analysis For the chemical analysis, samples were taken from twenty nine selected well over the period Jan. 2014 to Dec 2014; locations of selected wells are marked as shown in Fig (1). These samples were chemically analyzed for different elements. These elements are ( EC, TDS, pH, Ca +2 , Mg +2 , Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 39 Na + , Cl - , SO4 -2 , NO3 - and TH ). Sodium Adsorption Ratio ( SAR ) was also calculated to be compared with its standard limitation. The results of chemical analysis of groundwater of the selected wells and values of calculated (SAR) are shown in Table (4). Each analyzed chemical element was also plotted in Figs ( 2- 11). The Microbiological Analysis Samples were also microbiologically analyzed for Total Coliform Bacteria. Table (5) showed results of these analysis of groundwater of selected wells. Results were also plotted in Fig (12). Suitability Of Groundwater For Different Uses Chemical, physical, and biological properties are determined qualities of water and its uses for different purposes such as human use, irrigation, and industry … etc. A chemical quality of water is as important as the availability of water itself, because the water can be suitable for a specific use and unsuitable for another. Suitability Of Groundwater For Human Drinking Standard specifications of the Iraqi specification (IQS – 2001) and World Health Organization (WHO ) were adopted in evaluation the suitability of groundwater in the study area for human drinking. These specifications depend on the concentrations of major positive and negative ions, as well as values of TDS, TH and pH. Specifications refer to the existence limit to concentration of each ion and the increase about this standard limit means that water contaminated with this ion. The comparison between values of the chemical analysis of groundwater in the study area given in Table (4) with the corresponding values shown in Table (6) shows that the groundwater was unsuitable for human drinking, because the concentrations of all ions as well as the concentrations of TDS and TH exceeded the permissible limits in the standard specifications. As known, water which contains TDS greater than ( 1000 ppm ) will be unpalatable for drinking. For the Total Coliform Bacteria of groundwater Table (7) sets water quality criteria for microbiological indicators for British Columbia, which are bacteria representing the danger of illness from pathogenic bacteria. The comparison between values in the study area given in Table (5) with the values shown in Table (7) shows that some of groundwater of wells were needed disinfection only, other were needed partial and complete treatment when were used for drinking. Suitability Of Groundwater For Industrial Purposes The quality of water available for industrial purposes should take a broad range because each industry has a private specification. Some industries do not require critical limits but using any type of provided water; for example, the industry of raw materials concentration while other industries like pharmaceutical industry and paper with high quality industry are required water quality equals to distilled water in purity because water quality affects the quality and safety of product. Some industries such as the operation of modern steam boilers with high pressure are needed water purity outweigh the commercial distilled water ( Mania, 2003). The values of groundwater were also compared to the proposed limits in Table (8) . The result was that groundwater was not suitable for all industries (except groundwater of W23 was suitable for chemical industry and refinery) because high concentrations of hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride and sulfates. Kufa cement factory is existed in the study area and near the well (W23). The comparison between results of chemical analysis of groundwater of (W23) with the limits shown in Table ( 8) shows that the groundwater of the well is suitable to use in cement industry because the low concentrations of positive and negative ions, total hardness and total dissolved solid. Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 40 Suitability Of Groundwater For Animal Drinking Most animals can drink poor quality water which human cannot drink. Proposal specification of Altoviski Table (9) for animal consumption were compared with the data given in Table (4) to assess the suitability of groundwater for livestock and poultry drinking. The result of comparison was that the groundwater of the study area was fit for animal consumption because the concentrations of positive and negative ions, total hardness and total dissolved solid were within the permitted limits. - Suitability Of Groundwater For Agricultural Purposes Plants are different in resisting salinity of irrigation water. Table (10) shows the satisfactory limits of salinity in irrigation water for various crops based on EC standards which were classified by Tood classification. The data given in Table (4) were compared with limits of salinity shown in Table (10). The result of comparison was that: ( 1 ) water from W21 and W23 only was suitable to agriculture all crops because their salinity was low. ( 2 ) water from W17 suitable to agriculture all crops except fruit resisting low concentrations of EC in water. ( 3 ) water from all wells except ( W14 ,W15 and W20 ) was suitable to agriculture cucumber, feas, onion, carrot, potato, lettuce, cauliflower, tomato , sunflower, flax, corn, rice, wheat, spinach, kale, beet, cotton, sugar beet and barley because these crops are tolerated moderate and high salinity of groundwater. ( 4 ) water from ( W14 ,W15 and W20) was suitable to agriculture cotton, sugar beet, barley because of high salinity. Suitability Of Groundwater For Irrigation Purposes The selected criteria to evaluate the quality of irrigation water should show its ability to cause adverse changes in soil properties or detrimental effect on the crop, animal, or human who consumes this crop. Three characteristics are usually used to assess irrigation water: salinity, sodicity and toxicity. Salinity Problem Salinity represents the potential danger of damage to plant. The electrical conductivity ( EC ) is usually used to express the contain of salinity. There are two kinds of salt troubles: one related to the total salinity and another related to sodium. These two troubles may be affect on soils. Table (11) shows Tood categorization of irrigation water according to (EC) values. According to Tood classification, the test results showed that the EC values fall within the water class of unsuitable except values of ( W21 and W23 ) fall within doubtful and permissible classes respectively. TDS values were categorized into four – classes based on American Salts Laboratory as illustrated in Table (12). Based on the classification of ( TDS ) values which stated by the American Salts Laboratory, the test results showed that the groundwater of the study area is outside the limitation of the classification except ( W23 ) fall within C3 and (W4 , W5, W7 ,W9, W13, W17 and W21) fall within C4. Sodium Problem Sodium Adsorption Ratio ( SAR ) is recommended by the salinity laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture because of its straight relation to the adsorption by soil. It is defined by the following equation: )/ 2 Na Ca Mg SAR + = ( 1) Where the unit epm (milli equivalent per liter) is used to express the concentration of the elements. ( Tood, 2005). The effect on soil permeability and water infiltration is the major trouble with high sodium concentration. Sodium also may be toxic to sensitive crops because it contributes directly to the Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 41 total salinity of the water. The sodium causes dispersion of soil particles because it replaces calcium and magnesium adsorbed on clay minerals. The breakdown of soil aggregates results from this dispersion and causes a cementation of the soil under drying conditions as well as preventing infiltration of rain water. The groundwater of the study area is classified according Richard Classification with respect to the values of ( SAR and EC ) in water as shown in Tables (13 and 14). Also Fig (13) shows a diagram for the classification of irrigation water. The test results showed that the SAR values in irrigation water varied from ( 0.305 - 17.18 ). Based on the classification of ( Richard , 1954 ) for ( SAR ) values, there was no harmful effects of sodium on plants because all the values of SAR ( except value of W7 ) were less than ten. Table (14) and Fig (13) showed that most of the water samples were within the classes ( poor and very poor ) which index ( C4S1, C4S2 and C4C4 ) for agriculture use except ( W23 ) was within the class ( Appropriate ) which index ( C3S1). Toxicity Problem Chloride ( Cl - ) is found in most normal waters. It is harmful to some plants in high amounts. All common chlorides are soluble and contribute to the total salt content ( salinity ) of soil. In evaluation of irrigation waters the chloride content should be calculated, if( TDS ) is greater than ( 1000 ppm ), Chloride should be below ( 300 ppm ) to avoid harm to citrus ( Boman, 2002 ). Chlorine does not adversely affect on soil properties; so, soil quality is neglected in classification of the quality of irrigation water for concentration of chlorine ( Asmaeel, 1988). Chloride is necessary to plants in very low concentrations, it can cause toxicity to sensitive crops at high amounts ( Mass, 1990). Table (15) shows chloride classification of irrigation water. The chloride test results showed that all groundwater samples were above ( 141 mg / l ) except water from (W23 ) it was within ( 70 – 140). So, sensitive plants show injury from this water, (28% ) of groundwater samples were within (141- 350 ) so moderately tolerant plants show injury and ( 69 % ) of samples were above ( 350 mg / l ) so can cause severe problems. Coliform Bacteria Awareness is growing that fresh or minimally processed fruit and vegetables can be sources of illness – causing bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and helminthes. Fruit and vegetables can become polluted with food borne pathogens when poor – quality water is used for irrigation. The risk of disease transmission from pathogenic. The level of pollution; the persistence of pathogens in water, in soil, and on crops; and the route of exposure influence on microorganisms present in irrigation water . Bacteria and protozoa tend to show the poorest survival outside a human host, whereas viruses and helminthes can remain infective for months to years ( Al- Bahrani, 2012). Table (16) sets water quality criteria for microbiological indicators for British Columbia, which are bacteria representing the danger of illness from pathogenic bacteria. The comparison between values of the Total Coliform Bacteria of groundwater in the study area given in Table (5) with the values shown in Table (16) shows that all groundwater samples except groundwater of (W29) were used in general irrigation. Conclusions 1. Groundwater of the study area was unsuitable for human drinking because the concentrations of all ions as well as concentrations of TDS and T.H exceeded the permissible limits in the standard specifications. The values of TDS were ranged between ( 937 – 8676 ) ppm, while T.H values were between ( 590 – 3700 ) ppm. 2. For drinking Total Coliform Bacteria results showed that some of groundwater wells were needed disinfection only, other were needed partial and complete treatment. Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 42 3. Groundwater was unfit for all industries (except groundwater of W23 was suitable for chemical industry and refinery ) because of very high concentrations of hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride and sulfates. The concentrations of Ca +2 and Mg +2 were between ( 162.4 – 1080 ) ppm and ( 27.5 – 412.4 ) ppm, respectively. The Sulfate concentrations were ranged between (256.9 – 2666.3 ) ppm were as the Chloride concentrations were between ( 135 – 2150 ) ppm. 4. Groundwater was fit for animal consumption because the concentrations of positive and negative ions, total hardness and total dissolved solid were within the permitted limits for animal drinking. 5. Water form W21 and W23 only was suitable to agriculture all crops because of its low salinity. 6. Most of groundwater of the study area was suitable to agriculture vegetable crops and field crops which resist moderate and high concentrations of EC in water. 7. According to Todd classification of irrigation water based on salinity ( EC ), the test results showed that the EC values fall within the water class unsuitable because of all the values were greater than ( 3000 µS /cm ) except values of ( W21 and W23 ) fall within doubtful and permissible classes respectively. 8. Based on the classification of ( TDS ) values which stated by the American Salts Laboratory, the test results showed that the groundwater of the study area is outside the limitation of the classification except ( W23 ) fall within C3 and (W4 , W5, W7 ,W9, W13, W17 and W21) fall within C4. 9. Based on the Richard classification for (SAR) values, there was no harmful effects from sodium on plants because all the values of (SAR ) ( except value of W7 ) were less than ten. SAR values varied from ( 0.305 – 17.18 ) in groundwater. 10. Most of the water samples were within the classes (poor and very poor) which index (C4S1, C4S2 and C4C4) for agriculture use. 11. According to chloride Mass classification (28%) of samples show injury to moderately tolerant plant and ( 69 % ) of samples can cause severe problems. 12. For irrigation Total Coliform Bacteria results showed that all groundwater samples (except W29 ) were used in general irrigation. References 1. Abdulrazzaq, K. A. and Kamil, W. S. "Construction Water Suitability Maps of Tigris River for Irrigation and Drinking Use". Journal of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Vol. 16, No. 4, 5822 – 5842, 2010. 2. Al-Adili, A.S. "Geotechnical Evaluation of Baghdad Soil Subsidence and their Treatments". ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Baghdad, p. 150, 1998. 3. Al- Bahrani, H.S. " A satellite Image Model for Predicting Water Quality Index of Euphrates River in Iraq". ph.D. Thesis, Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Baghdad, 2012. 4. Al- Janabi, M. A. " Chemical and Physical Properties of a Number of Wells and Eyes of Al- Najaf Sea Area". Journal of Babylon University, Pure and Applied Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2012. ( in Arabic ) 5. Al- Kelabbee, Z. D. "Studying The Development Potentials to Invest Groundwater in Najaf Ashraf State". Al- Qadisiya Journal for Engineering Sciences, Vol.9, No.2, 23- 45, 2016. 6. Al– Maliki, L. A. " Evaluation of Suitability of Drainage Water of Al – Hussainia Sector ( Kut –Iraq) for Irrigation". M.sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Babylon, 2013. 7. Al- Mthafer, S. M. and Kadim, T. J. "Available Possibilities for Investment and Development Groundwater in Najaf Al- Sharf Governorate". Journal of Geographic Research, No. 19, 293-315, 2011. ( in Arabic ). 8. Al- Murshidy, K . R. and Al- Adili, A.S. "Hydrochemical of Groundwater in Al- Kufa City and Probable Pollution". Al- Qahera University Conference, Geological Arabic World Conference, 1998. ( in Arabic ) Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 43 9. Al- Obaidi, A. H. " Evaluation of Tigris River Quality in Baghdad for the period between (November 2005- October 2006 )". Eng. and Tech. Journal, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1736-1745, 2009. 10. Al– Saffy, H. I. " Evaluation of Hilla – Kifil Irrigation Project". M.sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Babylon, 2010. 11. Al– Taghlubi, Z.A. " A Geographic Analysis of Air Pollution in Al- Najaf Al- Ashraf City". M.sc. Thesis, Geographic Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Kufa, 2013. ( in Arabic ) 12. Altoviski, M.E. "Hand Book of Hydrogeology". Gosgoelitzdat, Moscow, USSR ( in Russian ), 614 p, 1962. 13. Asmaeel, L. K. "Irrigation and Drainage". University of Mosul, Division of Soil Science. 1988. ( in Arabic ) 14. Boman, Brian J., Chris, Wilson P. and Ontermaa, Ese A. " Understanding Water Quality Parameters for Citrus Irrigation and Drainage Systems". Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2002. 15. Jaber, A. A. " Study The Ability to Reuse Drainage Water of Al- Shamia West Drainage for Different Purpose". M.sc. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, 2014. (in Arabic ) 16. Mania, J. K. " Hydrochemical of Groundwater and Metal of Sediment for Open Water Reservoir in Selected Areas of Babylon". M.sc Thesis, Faculty of Science, University of Baghdad, 2003. 17. Mass "Crop Salts Tolerance". Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management Manual. K.K. Tanji (ed.). ASCE, New York, 262 – 304, 1990. 18. Todd D. K. and Mays L. W. " Ground Water Hydrology". 3 rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, University of California , ISBN : 0 – 471 – 05937 – 4 , 636 pages, 2005. 19. Warrnigton, P. D. "Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators". Overview Report, Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Government of British Colombia, Second Edition, 2001. Table (1) Average Monthly Temperature, Relative Humidity % , Rainfall and Evaporations Values in Najaf for The period ( 1980 _ 2014 ) ( Al- Kelabbee, 2016) Months j. F. M. A. M. J. J. A. S. O. N D. Temperature ( C 0 ) 10.8 13.4 17.9 23.9 29.9 33.7 35.7 35.4 32 26.4 18.2 12.65 Relative Humidity % 70 60.3 51.4 43.7 33.4 27.8 27 29 33.2 43.3 29.2 70.1 Rainfall ( mm ) 20.7 15.1 13.5 10.2 4.1 0 0 0 0 4.2 14.8 17.5 Evaporation (mm ) 72.7 122.9 201.3 285.7 409 531.4 579.5 538.3 403.1 268.2 144.1 87.6 Table( 2) Wells Locations and Depths Well Symbol Location Wells Depths (m ) Well Symbol Location Wells Depths ( m ) W1 Najaf City 30 W16 Kufa _ W2 Najaf City 50 W17 Najaf Sea 90 W3 Najaf City 50 W18 Najaf Sea 45 W4 Najaf City 50 W19 Najaf Sea 15 W5 Najaf City 20 W20 Kufa 30 W6 Najaf City 160 W21 Kufa 30 W7 Najaf City 10 W22 Kufa 25 Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 44 Table( 3) Methods of Testing The Concentration of The Ions in Groundwater Parameter Method of Testing Unit EC EC- Meter µmohs/cm TDS Method of Drying (or Weight Method ) ppm pH pH - Meter - Ca , Mg and TH Titration with the Na2 – EDTA ppm Na Flamephotometer ppm Cl Titration with the AgNo3 ppm SO4 Burning ppm NO3 Spectrophotometer ppm Table( 4) Results of Chemical Analysis of Groundwater of Selected Wells Ele. Well No. EC (µmohs/ cm) TDS (ppm) pH Ca +2 (ppm) Mg +2 (ppm) Na + (ppm) Cl - (ppm) SO4 -2 (ppm) NO3 - (ppm) TH (ppm) SAR W1 5547 3327 6.7 600 73.2 453.5 450 1430.4 61.7 1800 4.641 W2 5397 3588 7.0 624 131.7 262 590 1876 62.28 2100 2.481 W3 5531 3597 6.9 640 117.12 228 660 1047.4 58.38 2080 2.169 W4 4160 2716 7.5 550 101 298.5 658 2261.5 56.7 1790 3.063 W5 4574 2973 7.3 656 56.12 118 310 1333.1 21.7 1870 1.185 W6 7236 4342 7.3 376 197.6 406 143 685 5.49 1750 4.204 W7 4282 2782 6.3 504 124.4 1666.4 350 1100 3.27 1770 17.18 W8 5168 3362 5.1 595 149 209.1 600 1202 63.6 2020 1.98 W9 4400 2860 5.2 520 130 282 300 904 44.7 1833 2.857 W10 5064 3290 8.5 585 146 216.5 348 1118.6 3.8 2060 2.069 W11 7443 4837 6.5 800 170.8 850.5 1350 1192.5 17.09 2700 7.101 W12 7400 4820 6.9 872 185.4 860 1685 1547.5 18 2940 6.881 W13 4021 2813 6.6 520 122 142 226 1728.4 8.3 1800 1.452 W14 11900 7140 7.4 780 195.2 584.5 1616 2380.5 77.9 2750 4.834 W8 Najaf City 10 W23 Kufa 20 W9 Najaf City 25 W24 Kufa 35 W10 Najaf City 12 W25 Kufa _ W11 Najaf – Karbala Road 35 W26 Kufa _ W12 Najaf – Karbala Road 35 W27 Kufa 30 W13 Najaf – Karbala Road 10 W28 Kufa 20 W14 Najaf City 48 W29 Kufa 25 W15 Najaf City 50 _ _ _ Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 45 W15 14460 8676 7.5 740 156.16 762.5 405.6 2380 92.9 2490 6.629 W16 7666 5568 7.0 544 412.4 858 2116 2300 80 3050 6.724 W17 3595 2340 6.4 388.8 150 250 644 1000 3.23 1572 2.73 W18 7065 4593 7.1 416 222 347 1150 1352 7.13 1950 3.403 W19 7489 4867 6.8 448 212.2 362 1000 1409.2 73.2 1990 3.516 W20 11170 5650 7.5 1040 268.4 90 2150 2004 27.2 3700 0.642 W21 2529 1646 7.8 240 53.4 20.14 280 642.5 23.2 820 0.305 W22 9111 5913 7.3 660 27.5 620.2 1400 2666.3 124.7 2200 6.419 W23 1464 937 7.8 162.4 44.8 102.1 135 256.9 5.44 590 1.823 W24 8090 4060 8.1 1080 239.1 1040 223.5 2128.4 3.45 2680 7.437 W25 7970 5455 6.8 560 341.6 994 2058 1500 50 2800 8.133 W26 8150 5583 6.8 800 226.9 1064 1666 1400 60 2930 8.524 W27 5020 3263 7.4 656 209 250 540 1523.6 63.7 2500 2.169 W28 5700 3455 7.0 600 73.2 248 400 1961 58.2 1800 2.538 W29 6713 3963 6.9 624 107.3 254.6 475 2214 10.32 2000 2.471 Table( 5) Results of Microbiological Analysis of Groundwater of Selected Wells Well No. W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 T.C /100ml _ 8 4.6 23 240 _ 0 46 70 23 _ 0 8 _ _ Well No. W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 T.C /100ml _ _ 5.1 23 _ 23 23 7.8 _ _ _ 920 31 1600 Table( 6) Standard Specifications for Drinking Water ( Jaber, 2014) Parameter TDS pH Ca Mg Na Cl SO4 NO3 TH Units ppm _ ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ( IQS ) 1500 6.5-8.5 150 50 200 250 250 _ 500 (WHO) 1000 6.5-8.5 200 150 200 250 400 _ 500 Table( 7) Water Quality Criteria for Microbiological Indicators ( Warrnigton, 2001) Water Use Escherichia Enterococci Pseudomonas Fecal coliforms Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 46 aeruginosa Raw Drinking Water – no treatment 0 / 100 ml 0 / 100 ml 0 / 100 ml 0 / 100 ml Raw Drinking Water – disinfection only Less than or equal to 10 / 100 ml 90 th percentile Less than or equal to 3 / 100 ml 90 th percentile None applicable Less than or equal to 10 / 100 ml 90 th percentile Raw Drinking Water – partial treatment Less than or equal to 100 / 100 ml 90 th percentile Less than or equal to 25 / 100 ml 90 th percentile None applicable Less than or equal to 100 / 100 ml 90 th percentile Raw Drinking Water – complete treatment None applicable None applicable None applicable None applicable Table( 8) Proposal Limits for Water Using in Different Industries ( Jaber, 2014) Table (9) Water Specification for Animal Consumption ( Altoviski, 1962) Element (ppm) V. good water Good water acceptable use Can be use Maximum Limit Na 800 1500 2000 2500 4000 Ca 350 700 800 900 1000 Mg 150 350 500 600 700 Cl 900 2000 3000 4000 6000 SO4 1000 2500 3000 4000 6000 TDS 3000 5000 7000 10000 15000 TH 1500 3200 4000 4700 54000 Table (10) Acceptable Limits of Salinity in Irrigation Water for Various Crops Based on EC Values ( Al-Maliki, 2013) Kinds of Crops Crops resisting low concentrations of EC in water Crops resisting moderate concentrations of EC in water Crops resisting high concentrations of EC in water Fruit Crops < 3000 µS /cm Lemon , Strawberry , Peach , Apricot , Almond , Orange , Apple , Pear ≥ 3000 - < 4000 µS /cm Olive , Figure , Pomegranate ≥ 4000 – 10000 µS /cm Date Palm Vegetable Crops 3000- < 4000 µS /cm ≥ 4000 - < 10000 µS /cm Cucumber , Feas , Onion , ≥10000 –12000 µS /cm Spinach , Kale , Beet Industries pH TH ( ppm ) Ca ++ ( ppm ) Mg ++ Cl - (ppm) SO4 = ( ppm ) Canning Food 6.5 – 8.5 310 120 _ 300 250 Chemical Industry 6 - 9 1000 200 _ 500 863 Cement 6.5 – 8.5 _ _ _ 250 250 Refinery 6 - 9 900 220 85 1600 570 paper 6 - 9 475 20 12 199 _ Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 47 Green bean , Celery , Badish Carrot , Potato , Lettuce , Cauliflower , Tomato Field Crops 4000 - < 6000 µS /cm Field bean ≥ 6000 - < 10000 µS /cm Sun flower , Flax , Corn , Rice , Wheat ≥10000 –16000 µS /cm Cotton , Sugar Beet ,Barley Table (11) Limitation of Salinity for Irrigation Water Based on ( EC) Values ( Tood, 2005) Water Class EC ( µS /cm ) Excellent < 250 Good ≥ 250 - < 750 Permissible ≥ 750 - < 2000 Doubtful ≥ 2000 - < 3000 Unsuitable > 3000 Table( 12) American Salts Laboratory Classification of Irrigation Water Based on (TDS) Values ( Al-Saffy, 2010) Water kind TDS ( ppm ) Water suitability C1 – less salt 0 - < 160 The water is suitable to most plants and soils with a little possibility of soil saltiness C2 – moderate salt ≥ 160 - < 480 The water is suitable to plants that can undergo salts increase where there is moderate draining for the soil . C3 – high salt ≥ 480 - < 1440 Water is suitable for plants that resist salts , and on well – drained lands. It is essential to have a fine draining structure for the soil. C4 – very high salt ≥ 1440 - <3200 The water is suitable to plants that are highly resistance to salts , and on pervasive well – drained soils and deep washing for salts. Table (13) Richard Classification for Irrigation Use ( Abdulrazzaq, 2010) Water Class SAR Index EC ( ds / m ) Index Excellent ≤ 10 S1 0.1 – 0.25 C1 Good 10 - 18 S2 0.25 _ 0.75 C2 Fair 18 - 26 S3 0.75 _ 2.25 C3 Poor ≥ 26 S4 ≥ 2.25 C4 Table (14) Groundwater Classification According to Richard Classification for Irrigation Use Index Water Class No. of Well Index No. of Well Water Class C1S1 Excellent C3S1 W23 Appropriate C1S2 Good C3S2 Acceptable C1S3 Appropriate C3S3 Acceptable C1S4 Poor C3S4 Poor Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 48 C2S1 Good C4S1 W5, W9, W13, W17, W21 Poor C2S2 Good C4S2 W4 Poor C2S3 Acceptable C4S3 Very Poor C2S4 Poor C4S4 W7 Very Poor Table (15 ) Chloride Classification of Irrigation Water ( Mass, 1990) Chloride (ppm) Effect on crops Below 70 usually harmless for all plants 70 – 140 Sensitive plants show harm 141 – 350 Moderately tolerant plants show harm Above 350 Can cause severe troubles Table (16) Microbiological Indicators Criteria ( Warrnigton, 2001) Water Use Escherichia Enterococci Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fecal coliforms Irrigation – crops eaten raw Less than or equal to 77 / 100 ml Geometric mean Less than or equal to 20 / 100 ml Geometric mean None applicable Less than or equal to 200 / 100 ml Geometric mean Irrigation - public access - livestock access Less than or equal to 385 / 100 ml Geometric mean Less than or equal to 100 / 100 ml Geometric mean Less than or equal to 10 / 100 ml 75 th percentile None applicable Irrigation - general irrigation Less than or equal to 1000 / 100 ml Geometric mean Less than or equal to 250 / 100 ml Geometric mean None applicable Less than or equal to 1000 / 100 ml Geometric mean Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 49 Figure (1) Location of The Study Area in Iraq and Sampling Locations Figure 2: EC values for the studied wells 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 W 1 W 3 W 5 W 7 W 9 W 11 W 13 W 15 W 17 W 19 W 21 W 23 W 25 W 27 W 29 Wells E C ( M m o h s / c m ) Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 50 Figure 3:TDS values for the studied wells 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells T D S ( p p m ) Figure 4: pH values for the studied wells 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W 1 W 3 W 5 W 7 W 9 W 11 W 13 W 15 W 17 W 19 W 21 W 23 W 25 W 27 W 29 Wells p H V a lu e s Figure 5: Calcium values for the studied wells 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells C a ( p p m ) Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 51 Figure 6: Magnesium values for the studied wells 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells M g ( p p m ) Figure 7: Sodium values for the studied wells 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells N a ( p p m ) Figure 8: Chloride values for the studied wells 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells C l ( p p m ) Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 52 Figure 9: Sulphate values for the studied wells 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells S O 4 ( p p m ) Figure 10: Nitrate values for the studied wells 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells N O 3 ( p p m ) Figure 11: Total hardness values for the studied wells 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20 W 21 W 22 W 23 W 24 W 25 W 26 W 27 W 28 W 29 Wells T .H ( p p m ) Al-Qadisiyah Journal For Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10……No. 1….2017 53 Figure (13) Diagram for the Classification of Irrigation Water ( Asmaeel, 1988) Figure 12: Total Coliform Bacteria for The Studied Wells 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 W 1 W 3 W 5 W 7 W 9 W 11 W 13 W 15 W 17 W 19 W 21 W 23 W 25 W 27 W 29 Wells T .C / 1 0 0 m l