Microsoft Word - ETASR_V12_N2_pp8435-8443 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8435 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus Youssef Kassem Department of Mechanical Engineering Engineering Faculty Near East University Nicosia, Cyprus yousseuf.kassem@neu.edu.tr Hüseyin Gökçekuş Department of Civil Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Near East University Nicosia, Cyprus huseyin.gokcekus@neu.edu.tr Temel Rizza Department of Civil Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty Near East University Nicosia, Cyprus temel.rizza@neu.edu.tr Received: 30 January 2022 | Revised: 28 February 2022 | Accepted: 4 March 2022 Abstract—The largest coastal aquifer in northwestern Cyprus is the Morphou aquifer. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the groundwater and its suitability for drinking purposes in the Morphou (Güzelyurt) region, Cyprus. To realize this aim, 118 groundwater samples were collected during wet and dry seasons over a period of 11 years. Major physicochemical characteristics (electrical conductivity, pH, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, chloride, and total and carbonate hardness) were measured and analyzed. The assessment of groundwater quality was evaluated with the help of the Water Quality Index (WQI). The results demonstrated that 56% and 50% of the groundwater samples during dry and wet seasons respectively were unsatisfactory according to the Cl - limits of the WHO standard. In addition, approximately 10% of the groundwater samples come under class 2 (good water), 30% of the samples come under class 3 (fairwater), 13% come under classes 4 and 5, and the rest under class 6 (unsuitable for drinking). Keywords-Morphou; water quality; groundwater level changes; groundwater; physicochemical parameters; water quality index I. INTRODUCTION Groundwater is the main source of water used for multiple purposes in arid and semi-arid regions [1-4]. Additionally, due to the pollution of surface water bodies, groundwater has become an important source to secure the safety of water supply [5]. The growth of populations and increasing climate variations reduced the groundwater level due to the imbalance between groundwater recharge and extraction. This is especially true for Cyprus. The island suffers from periodic drought due to the general decrease in precipitation [6-8]. Since they represent the main source for drinking and irrigation water supplies, groundwater resources in Cyprus are of major concern about the quality and water supplier’s sustainability. In Northern Cyprus, the water resources are categorized into groundwater, surface water (dam), and the Turkey-North Cyprus water pipeline project [9, 10]. Furthermore, river basins and dams are the main surface water resources [11]. As mentioned above, groundwater is the main water source in the island. Due to the over-pumping rate, the level of the groundwater declined and reached 45-50m below sea level [12- 15] and its quality has been reduced due to the saltwater intrusion and bedrock contamination [14]. According to [16- 18], the chloride concentration has reached 7000ppm in several coastal locations. The Kyrenia mountain aquifer, Morphou (Güzelyurt) aquifer, and Gazimağusa aquifer are considered the main aquifers of Northern Cyprus. Morphou aquifer is the largest coastal aquifer, which provides water for irrigation and municipal purposes. Additionally, according to [9, 19-21], overexploitation is the main drive for the decline in the groundwater level below sea level in some sites in the region [9, 19]. In general, the agriculture sector is important in the selected region [22-24]. In Northern Cyprus, the total agricultural area and the total irrigated area are about 187069 ha and 9714 ha respectively [9]. Moreover, agricultural production has decreased and crop yield has been reduced due to the poor water quality and changes in rainfalls. Thus, the study area is currently facing significant water challenges. Determining the status of groundwater for drinking purposes using the Water Quality Index (WQI) in Morphou aquifer is the main aim of the current paper. In this study, 118 groundwater samples were collected and their physicochemical characteristics were analyzed. The results are compared with the WHO water quality standard. Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of the current study. Corresponding author Youssef Kassem Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8436 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus Fig. 1. Flowchart of the procedure followed in the current study. II. MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Study Area and Sample Collection Figure 2 shows the location of the Morphou region, which covers an area of 381km 2 and has average altitude of 45m above sea level. Fig. 2. Cyprus map and location of the Morphou region. In the present study, the data of 118 wells, distributed over the selected region, have been used to analyze the static groundwater level and quality in the region (Figure 3). The data were measured during two seasons (recharge season, April, May, and June, and charge season, November, December, and January). The study data cover a period from 2006 to 2016. The physicochemical properties (electrical conductivity, pH, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, chloride, and hardness in terms of total hardness and carbonate hardness) were analyzed and evaluated. The collected water samples were examined by following the standard methods. Generally, the groundwater samples were collected with 1L polythene bottles and their physicochemical characteristics were analyzed. The sample bottles were washed with distilled water before sample collection. The instrumental and volumetric methods utilized to measure the physicochemical properties are listed in Table I. The temperature of each sample was measured using a common mercury thermometer. Fig. 3. Map sample locations, prepared with ArcGIS 10. TABLE I. INSTRUMENTAL AND VOLUMETRIC METHODS USED IN THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLES Parameter Unit Method/ instrument Reagents pH - pH meter pH 4, 7, and 9.2 (buffer solutions) EC �S/cm EC meter Potassium chloride HCO3 mg/l Volumetric Hydrosulfuric acid, phenolphthalein, and methyl orange Ca 2+ mg/l Volumetric EDTA, sodium hydroxide, and murexide Mg +2 mg/l Calculation (TH-Ca 2+ ) - Cl - mg/l Argentometric Silver nitrate, potassium chromate B. Correlations between the Physicochemical Parameters The interrelationships between physicochemical variables were examined using Pearson product-moment correlation followed by a parametric method for normal distribution. According to [25], Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) can be estimated using (1). Moreover, the data are standardized with (2). � � ∑ ��� � � �� ��� � � � � 1 ⁄ ���� (1) � � ���̅� (2) where � , � , �� , �� are the sample means and standard deviations of ��, ��, � � 1,… , , � is the initial data value, and �̅ and � are the average and standard deviation of data respectively. Correlation coefficients and P-values were calculated with Minitab 17 software. C. Water Quality Index (WQI) Several studies have classified groundwater with the help of WQI [26, 27] as shown in Table II. The WQI calculation was Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8437 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus carried out using a weighted arithmetic index as shown below [29]. Water quality rating is calculated as: �� � � ����� ����� ! 100 (3) where �� is the water quality rating for the nth parameter, #� is the observed value of the n th parameter, �� is the standard permissible value of the n th parameter, and #� is its ideal value. The unit weight ($�) for each water quality parameter is determined by: $� � % '� (4) where $� is the unit weight of the nth parameter, (� is its standard value, and ) is constant proportionality, which is calculated using the below equation: ) � *∑* '�⁄ (5) The overall WQI is estimated by: WQI � ∑ .�/�∑ /� (6) TABLE II. CLASSES PROPOSED FOR WQI FOR DRINKING (WQID) [28] Class Range Type of groundwater 1 <25 Excellent water 2 25-50 Good water 3 50-75 Fairwater 4 75-100 Poor water 5 100-150 Very poor water 6 >150 Unsuitable for drinking/irrigation III. RESULTS A. Physicochemical Parameters of the Selected Wells Table III summarizes the descriptive statistics of the analyzed variables of the collected samples. The groundwater temperature is within the range of 20-250 for both wet and dry seasons. 1) pH Generally, pH is an essential indicator that can be utilized for evaluating water quality and contamination degree in water bodies [30]. As shown in Table III, the pH value of most groundwater samples varied from 6.4 to 8.3 with an average value of 7.7 for the dry season. Regarding the wet season, the pH value of groundwater samples ranged from 7.1 to 8.3 with an average value of 7.7. Based on the findings, the groundwater in the selected region is slightly acidic to alkaline in nature. 2) Electrical Conductivity (EC) EC is another important property that measures the ions present in the water. There is a strong relationship between EC and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) [30, 31] and a relationship with salinity [32]. In the present study, EC ranges from 604.0 to 8690.0μS/cm for both seasons (see Table III). Table IV presents the classification of EC ranges and types. Thus, for the dry season, 55% of the total groundwater samples come under type I, 24% under type II, and 21% under type III, as shown in Figure 4. During the wet season, 54% of the groundwater samples come under type I, 23% under type II, and 23% under type III. TABLE III. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETER STATISTICS RESULTS Variable Dry season WHO standard Mean SD Minimum Maximum EC [μS/cm] 2132.0 1769.0 606.0 8690.0 500 pH [-] 7.7 0.2 7.1 8.3 6.5-8.5 Temperature [0 ] 24.6 0.4 22.5 25.0 - CO3 [mg/l] 5.8 21.6 0.0 233.0 - HCO3 [mg/l] 281.2 95.5 137.3 621.5 500 TH [mg/l] 685.0 1089.0 84.0 9371.0 - CH [mg/l] 240.9 92.5 126.7 761.4 - Ca 2+ [mg/l] 131.3 204.1 15.5 1620.0 75 Mg +2 [mg/l] 86.7 139.2 10.8 1252.7 50 Cl - [mg/l] 593.9 940.8 65.9 8317.1 250 Variable Wet season WHO standard Mean SD Minimum Maximum EC [μS/cm] 2088.0 1650.0 604.0 7873.0 500 pH [-] 7.7 0.2 7.1 8.3 6.5-8.5 Temperature [0 ] 25.0 0.1 24.2 25.7 - CO3 [mg/l] 4.0 4.9 0.0 39.1 - HCO3 [mg/l] 270.0 83.9 127.0 562.8 500 TH [mg/l] 654.0 1089.0 74.0 9650.0 - CH [mg/l] 228.5 78.1 132.5 632.1 - Ca 2+ [mg/l] 133.3 207.7 15.5 1622.8 75 Mg +2 [mg/l] 84.2 150.4 6.4 1317.9 50 Cl - [mg/l] 579.3 912.9 64.4 8200.6 250 TABLE IV. EC CLASSIFICATION [33] Range Type <1500μS/cm Type I (the enrichments of salt are low) 1500-3000μS/cm Type II (the enrichments of salt are medium) > 3000μS/cm Type III (the enrichments of salt are high) Fig. 4. EC values of the groundwater samples during wet and dry season. 3) Chloride (23�) It is commonly found in nature as sodium, potassium, and calcium salts. Both natural and human factors contribute to the Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8438 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus presence of chloride in groundwater [34]. The results show that the Cl�concentration in the collected samples varied from 64.4 to 8317.1mg/l as shown in Table III. In general, Cl� concentrations above about 250mg/l can give a detectable taste in water. Cl� is mainly derived from non-lithological sources and its solubility is generally high. 4) Calcium (Ca 2+ ) and Magnesium (Mg +2 ) They are important parameters for evaluating water quality. Ca 2+ and Mg +2 have a direct relationship with hardness [35]. The results showed that the Ca 2+ and Mg +2 in groundwater samples are within the range of 15.5-1622.8mg/l and 6.4- 1317.9mg/l respectively. Additionally, it was found that the majority of the samples have a higher concentration of Ca 2+ and Mg +2 compared to the safety limits of the WHO standard. 5) Total Hardness and Carbonate Hardness Ca 2+ and Mg +2 are the principal ions responsible for Total Hardness (TH). The observed value of TH in the samples lies between 84.0 and 9371.0mg/L as shown in Table III. Table V shows the classification of TH values. According to this, during the dry season, approximately 52% of the groundwater samples come under the very hard category, 34% fall in the hard category, and 14% fall under the moderate category, with no samples belonging to the soft category (Figure 5). Similarly, for the wet season, 49% of the samples come under the very hard category, 36% under the hard category, 15% under the moderate category, and 1% under the soft category. Carbonate Hardness (CH) is a measure of the water hardness caused by the presence of carbonate (CO7�8) and bicarbonate (HCO7� ) anions. The observed value of CH ranges from 10 to 3120mg/l. 6) Standard Deviations in the Geochemistry of Groundwater The Standard Deviations (SDs) of the chemical parameters are shown in Table III. EC and TH have the highest SDs, followed by Cl - . B. Interrelations of Physicochemical Parameters To show the relationship between the physicochemical parameters, the correlation coefficient (r) model was used (Table VI). For the dry season, it was found that EC shows strong positive correlation with pH (-0.551), HCO3 (0.708), TH (0.847), CH (0.728), Ca 2+ (0.866), Mg +2 (0.814), and Cl - (0.847). For the wet season, EC has a strong positive correlation with pH, CO3, HCO3, TH, CH, Ca 2+ , Mg +2 , and Cl - . This indicates that the groundwater is mainly controlled by Ca 2+ , Mg +2 , and Cl - , which depend on anthropogenic activities and mineral solubility, water flow path conditions, and topographical features. The T (sample temperature) has a good correlation with CO3 (-0.335) and HCO3 (0.259) for the dry season. It is noticed that there is no relationship between the chemical parameters and temperature samples for the wet season. In addition, it is found that the TH is in good positive correlation with CH, Ca 2+ , Mg +2 , and Cl - . Also, the Ca 2+ has a good positive correlation with Cl - and Mg +2 , while Mg +2 has a significant positive correlation with Cl - , reflecting the influences of Ca 2+ and Mg +2 bearing minerals, in addition to the sources of anthropogenic and marine origin. Fig. 5. TH values of the groundwater samples. TABLE V. TH CLASSIFICATION [36] Range Type <75mg/l Soft 75-150 mg/l Moderate 150-300 mg/l Hard < 300 mg/l Very hard C. Suitability of Groundwater Quality for Drinking In general, it is observed that the groundwater is free of color, odor and turbidity in the field. The physicochemical characteristics of the collected samples regarding its drinking suitability are shown in Table VII. Based on the previous sections, the pH value, which ranges between 6.4 and 8.3 with an average of 7.7 for both seasons, indicates that all the collected samples are within the safe limit specified by the WHO standard. As shown in Table VIII, 78% and 68% of the samples are above the TH specification during dry and wet seasons respectively. According to [37], hardness is an essential factor for estimating the water usability for drinking and other domestic purposes. Moreover, the Ca 2+ concentrations indicate that about 40% of the samples are above the Ca 2+ specification of the WHO standard. The concentration of Mg +2 indicated that 60% of the samples were below the safe water limit of 30mg/l. Mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases are associated with a deficit of Ca 2+ and Mg +2 in drinking water [37-39]. Furthermore, bicarbonate is a major element in groundwater chemistry and the human body and may result from the weathering of silicate minerals [40]. It is observed that the HCO3 concentration of about 32% of the samples was more than 300mg/l. Generally, the high concentration of HCO3 can lead to the emergence of kidney stones in the presence of a higher concentration of Ca 2+ [33]. The results demonstrated that 56% and 50% of the groundwater samples during dry and wet seasons were unsatisfactory according to the Cl - specifications of WHO. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8439 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus TABLE VI. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF THE ANALYZED PHYSICOCHEMICAL GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS FOR BOTH SEASONS D r y S e a s o n EC pH T CO3 HCO3 TH CH Ca 2+ Mg +2 Cl- EC Pearson Correlation 1 -0.551** 0.082 0.03 0.708** 0.847** 0.728** 0.866** 0.814** 0.847** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0.379 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 pH Pearson Correlation 1 -0.222* -0.05 -0.618** -0.436** -0.584** -0.448** -0.424** -0.449** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.611 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Pearson Correlation 1 -0.335** .0259** 0.021 0.167 0.072 0.001 0.01 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005 0.825 0.074 0.44 0.993 0.916 CO3 Pearson Correlation 0.011 0.004 -0.01 -0.01 0.016 0.023 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.908 0.963 0.954 0.955 0.865 0.805 HCO3 Pearson Correlation 1 0.504** 0.866** 0.523** 0.473** 0.511** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0 0 TH Pearson Correlation 1 0.733** 0.982** 0.990** 0.983** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0 CH Pearson Correlation 1 0.719** 0.724** 0.750** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 Ca 2+ Pearson Correlation 1 0.954** 0.968** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 Mg +2 Pearson Correlation 1 0.976** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 Cl- Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) W e t S e a s o n EC Pearson Correlation 1.0 -0.673** 0.0 -0.321** 0.717** 0.788** 0.747** 0.844** 0.765** 0.805** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 1.0 0.001 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 pH Pearson Correlation 1 -0.1 0.523** -0.637** -0.503** -0.625** -0.539** -0.471** -0.527** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 T Pearson Correlation 1 -0.133 0.0 -0.145 -0.13 -0.105 -0.149 -0.138 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.164 0.6 0.129 0.175 0.271 0.118 0.148 CO3 Pearson Correlation 1 -0.206* -0.249** -0.138 -0.274** -0.236* -0.258** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0 0.008 0.147 0.004 0.013 0.006 HCO3 Pearson Correlation 1. 0.548** 0.939** 0.566** 0.529** 0.598** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0 0 TH Pearson Correlation 1 0.709** 0.982** 0.985** 0.982** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0 CH Pearson Correlation 1 0.703** 0.689** 0.752** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 Ca 2+ Pearson Correlation 1 0.966** 0.956** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 Mg +2 Pearson Correlation 1 0.962** Sig. (2-tailed) 0 Cl- Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). TABLE VII. GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR DRINKING Variable WHO (2011) % of samples exceeding the safe limit Dry season Wet season EC [μS/cm] 1000 68% 66% pH [-] 6.5-8.5 0% 0% HCO3 [mg/l] 120 100% 100% TH [mg/l] 200 78% 68% Ca 2+ [mg/l] 75 41% 40% Mg +2 [mg/l] 50 42% 41% Cl - [mg/l] 250 56% 50% D. Water Quality Index Groundwater quality and its suitability for drinking were assessed with the WQI method. Five parameters (pH, TH, Ca 2+ , Mg +2 , and Cl - ) were taken into account for the calculation of the WQI and the WHO drinking water standards were considered. TABLE VIII. RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF CHEMICAL PARAMETERS Parameters WHO standard (2011) Weight Relative weight EC [μS/cm] 1000 4.00 0.235 HCO3 [mg/l] 120 1.00 0.059 TH [mg/l] 200 3.00 0.176 Ca 2+ [mg/l] 75 3.00 0.176 Mg +2 [mg/l] 50 3.00 0.176 Cl- [mg/l] 250 3.00 0.176 Sum 24.00 1.000 Weighted values were set according to the relative importance of groundwater parameters in drinking water quality. Chloride was given the maximum weight of 5, as it plays the most significant role in water quality assessment. The other parameters were assigned weights between 1 and 5 Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8440 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus depending on their importance in water quality determination. The computed $� values for groundwater parameters are presented in Table VIII. WQI values were computed and the water quality types for each sample location are given in Table IX. It is found that approximately 10% of the groundwater samples come under class 2 (good water), 30% of the samples come under class 3 (fairwater), 13% of groundwater samples come under class 4 and 5, and the rest of the groundwater samples under the class 6 (unsuitable for drinking). TABLE IX. GROUNDWATER QUALITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAMPLES BASED ON WQI FOR BOTH SEASONS Site name WQI Water quality category Site name WQI Water quality category 4043 Morphou 42.69 Good 555 Bostanci 80.16 Poor 2318 Akçay 44.76 Good 2472 Morphou 83.94 Poor 4030 Morphou 44.90 Good 5011 Aydinköy 85.52 Poor 345 Morphou 45.65 Good 2434 Aydinköy 85.67 Poor 2328 Morphou 47.70 Good 2404 Aydinköy 86.81 Poor 1790 Morphou 47.82 Good 588 Bostanci 89.79 Poor 349 Morphou 48.05 Good 2424 Aydinköy 92.13 Poor 350 Morphou 48.43 Good 578 Günesköy 93.19 Poor 5043 Akçay 48.79 Good 4550 Doganci 93.40 Poor 2356 Bostanci 49.14 Good 415 Morphou 94.82 Poor 593 Morphou 49.38 Good 1004 Sahinler 94.87 Poor 2407 Morphou 49.71 Good 2321 Bostanci 98.94 Poor 1741 Akçay 50.74 Fair 532 Morphou 100.84 Very poor 2326 Bostanci 50.76 Fair 1780 Bostanci 102.77 Very poor 2490 Zümrütköy 50.98 Fair 4548 Doganci 106.48 Very poor 1742 Akçay 51.14 Fair 4517 Doganci 106.64 Very poor 2336 Morphou 51.37 Fair 4520 Doganci 110.05 Very poor 372 Morphou 52.52 Fair 4516 Doganci 110.12 Very poor 4310 Morphou 52.81 Fair 586 Bostanci 111.35 Very poor 594 Bostanci 53.04 Fair 529 Morphou 120.26 Very poor 367 Morphou 53.52 Fair 4288 Cengizköy 130.44 Very poor 2400 Morphou 53.99 Fair 525 Morphou 133.71 Very poor 369 Morphou 54.32 Fair 1836 Morphou 134.23 Very poor 5042 Morphou 55.33 Fair 615 Aydinköy 135.80 Very poor 411 Morphou 55.98 Fair 2343 Bostanci 137.36 Very poor 2398 Morphou 56.77 Fair 533 Günesköy 138.53 Very poor 558/b Bostanci 57.03 Fair 4547 Doganci 141.69 Very poor 4270 Günesköy 57.22 Fair 4026 Kalkanli 158.11 Unsuitable for drinking 390 Morphou 59.09 Fair 287 Morphou 159.05 Unsuitable for drinking 1005 Sahinler 59.16 Fair 1763 Kalkanli 160.97 Unsuitable for drinking 577 Günesköy 60.85 Fair 295 Morphou 162.89 Unsuitable for drinking 5018 Sahinler 61.55 Fair 115 Aydinköy 168.81 Unsuitable for drinking 2473 Morphou 61.56 Fair 2345 Morphou 172.51 Unsuitable for drinking 2294 Bostanci 62.80 Fair 1793 Morphou 178.14 Unsuitable for drinking 589 Bostanci 62.97 Fair 1694 Kalkanli 183.99 Unsuitable for drinking 418 Morphou 63.47 Fair 292 Kalkanli 189.83 Unsuitable for drinking 339 Morphou 63.72 Fair 2346 Morphou 195.88 Unsuitable for drinking 2429 Bostanci 64.08 Fair 318 Morphou 201.06 Unsuitable for drinking 2453 Morphou 66.78 Fair 5041 Morphou 201.79 Unsuitable for drinking 2338 Morphou 67.84 Fair 2392 Kalkanli 202.35 Unsuitable for drinking 517 Morphou 68.26 Fair 311 Morphou 207.47 Unsuitable for drinking 2412 Bostanci 69.79 Fair 319 Morphou 207.47 Unsuitable for drinking 4029 Morphou 70.21 Fair 300 Kalkanli 211.82 Unsuitable for drinking 2399 Bostanci 70.32 Fair 4002 Aydinköy 221.72 Unsuitable for drinking 385 Morphou 70.45 Fair 288 Kalkanli 230.76 Unsuitable for drinking 4521 Doganci 71.14 Fair 1764 Morphou 241.35 Unsuitable for drinking 2317 Akçay 73.48 Fair 2391 Kalkanli 267.67 Unsuitable for drinking 524 Morphou 75.96 Poor 645 Aydinköy 269.11 Unsuitable for drinking 2320 Günesköy 77.90 Poor 120 Aydinköy 271.97 Unsuitable for drinking 5012 Aydinköy 79.20 Poor 617 Aydinköy 282.65 Unsuitable for drinking 633 Aydinköy 286.50 Unsuitable for drinking 542 Morphou 454.55 Unsuitable for drinking 806 Morphou 296.12 Unsuitable for drinking 548 Morphou 471.40 Unsuitable for drinking 646 Aydinköy 305.99 Unsuitable for drinking 1676 Morphou 495.66 Unsuitable for drinking 5081 Kalkanli 314.14 Unsuitable for drinking 466 Morphou 509.60 Unsuitable for drinking 107 Günesköy 316.60 Unsuitable for drinking 2450 Morphou 532.79 Unsuitable for drinking 2172 Kumköy 329.49 Unsuitable for drinking 5 Kumköy 672.73 Unsuitable for drinking 644 Aydinköy 370.90 Unsuitable for drinking 423 Morphou 708.33 Unsuitable for drinking 536 Günesköy 409.99 Unsuitable for drinking 8 Kumköy 1828.98 Unsuitable for drinking Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8441 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus IV. DISCUSSION Groundwater is the main water source for drinking and agricultural and domestic purposes in the selected region. The quality of water was evaluated using WQI. To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted on the groundwater of the region with the use of WQI. Based on the groundwater analysis, it has been possible to understand the geochemical groundwater quality in Morphou and to evaluate its suitability for drinking purposes. The groundwater quality was evaluated along with the coastal aquifers of the Morphou region. Agricultural activities in Northern Cyprus are carried out mainly in the selected area. The results indicated that the groundwater in the selected region is slightly acidic to alkaline in nature. Similar results have been reported in previous studies [41, 42]. Additionally, the results demonstrated that the concentration of Cl - in groundwater is above the minimum limit of the WHO standard, due to the agricultural activities that take place in the area [43]. Based on this finding, the majority of groundwater samples demonstrated that the concentration of Ca 2+ and Mg +2 above the chloride indicated seawater intrusion into coastal aquifers [44]. According to [9, 16, 21], the groundwater level reached the mean level of the sea in some sites due to over-pumping. In addition, the amount of salt contamination is within the range of 1000-5000mg/g [9]. Moreover, the concentration of Ca 2+ and Mg +2 in the majority of the groundwater samples did not meet the acceptable limits for drinking water. According to [45-47], the high amount of Ca 2+ in the groundwater is attributed to cation exchange between minerals. Besides, the higher amount of Mg +2 than that of Ca 2+ is attributable to the effects of ferromagnesium minerals present in the rocks of the region [48]. Moreover, it is found that the values of TH and CH are within the range of 84.0-9371.0mg/l and 10-3120 mg/l respectively. According to [49], the groundwater’s suitability is dependent on the result of an increase in the concentration of carbonate and bicarbonate more than the sum of the calcium and magnesium content of the water. In the end, the results demonstrated that the majority of the groundwater samples are not suitable for drinking. V. CONCLUSIONS Periodic assessment of the quality of drinking water sources is necessary to ensure the quality and security of the water supply. Consequently, the present study evaluated the groundwater quality for drinking water supply in the Morphou region based on the WQI. To achieve this, 118 samples of groundwater were collected seasonally during the period from 2006 to 2016 and the main physical and chemical properties were analyzed. It was found that the pH value of most of the groundwater samples varied from 6.4 to 8.3 and from 7.1 to 8.3 during dry and wet seasons respectively. Additionally, based on EC classification, the results indicate that 55% of the majority of groundwater samples come under type I, 24% under type II, and 22% under type III during both seasons. Moreover, the results indicated that the TH values varied from 84.0 to 9371.0mg/L and approximately 50% of the groundwater samples come under the very hard category. Thus, the groundwater is characterized by higher concentrations of TH, HCO3, and Cl − and is not safe. Furthermore, it is found that approximately 10% of the groundwater samples come under class 2 (good water), 30% of the samples come under class 3 (fairwater), 13% of groundwater samples come under class 4 and 5 and the rest of the groundwater samples are unsuitable for drinking. In the current study, there was no consideration of groundwater level and climate parameters, particularly rainfall. Thus future research should focus on the investigation of the relationship between groundwater level, groundwater quality, and climate parameters using machine learning models and GIS. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering especially the Civil Engineering Department at Near East University for their support in conducting this research. REFERENCES [1] J. Wu, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhou, "Groundwater chemistry and groundwater quality index incorporating health risk weighting in Dingbian County, Ordos basin of northwest China," Geochemistry, vol. 80, no. 4, Supplement, Dec. 2020, Art. no. 125607, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chemer.2020.125607. [2] L. Heiß, L. Bouchaou, S. Tadoumant, and B. Reichert, "Index-based groundwater vulnerability and water quality assessment in the arid region of Tata city (Morocco)," Groundwater for Sustainable Development, vol. 10, Apr. 2020, Art. no. 100344, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100344. [3] A. N. Laghari, Z. A. Siyal, D. K. Bangwar, M. A. Soomro, G. D. Walasai, and F. A. Shaikh, "Groundwater Quality Analysis for Human Consumption: A Case Study of Sukkur City, Pakistan," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 2616–2620, Feb. 2018, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.1768. [4] M. A. Keerio, N. Bhatti, S. R. Samo, A. Saand, and A. A. Bhuriro, "Ground Water Quality Assessment of Daur Taluka, Shaheed Benazir Abad," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 2785–2789, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.1925. [5] J. C. Egbueri, "Groundwater quality assessment using pollution index of groundwater (PIG), ecological risk index (ERI) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): A case study," Groundwater for Sustainable Development, vol. 10, Apr. 2020, Art. no. 100292, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100292. [6] I. Iacovides, "Water Resources in Cyprus: Endowments and Water Management Practices," in Water Resources Allocation: Policy and Socioeconomic Issues in Cyprus, P. Koundouri, Ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2011, pp. 11–21. [7] A. Sofroniou and S. Bishop, "Water Scarcity in Cyprus: A Review and Call for Integrated Policy," Water, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 2898–2928, Oct. 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/w6102898. [8] O. Phillips Agboola and F. Egelioglu, "Water scarcity in North Cyprus and solar desalination research: a review," Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 43, no. 1–3, pp. 29–42, Apr. 2012, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19443994.2012.672195. [9] Y. Kassem, H. Gokcekus, A. Iravanian, and R. Gokcekus, "Predictive suitability of renewable energy for desalination plants: the case of guzelyurt region in northern Cyprus," Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, Oct. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01315-0. [10] H. Isiksal and H. Gokcekus, Cyprus: Alternative Solution Models. New York, NY, USA: Peter Lang, 2020. [11] G. R. H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1992. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8442 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus [12] D. B. Fanta, "Conceptual model development for Guzelyurt aquifer, North Cyprus," M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2015. [13] B. R. Hansen and U. Turker, "River Basin Management and Characterization of Water Bodies in North Cyprus," in 10th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Ankara, Turkey, Oct. 2012, pp. 1–10. [14] G. Elkiran and M. Ergil, "The assessment of a water budget of North Cyprus," Building and Environment, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1671–1677, Dec. 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.06.014. [15] G. Elkiran, F. Aslanova, and S. Hiziroglu, "Effluent Water Reuse Possibilities in Northern Cyprus," Water, vol. 11, no. 2, Feb. 2019, Art. no. 191, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020191. [16] A. Dahiru, "Trend of water budget of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," M.S. thesis, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2014. [17] H. Gökçekus and V. Doyuran, "Evaluation of hydrodynamic datafrom Güzelyurt Aquifer (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) through cluster analysis," Turkish Journal Of Earth Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 1–10, 1995. [18] M. E. Ergil, "The salination problem of the Guzelyurt aquifer, Cyprus," Water Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1201–1214, Mar. 2000, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00253-5. [19] H. Gökçekuş and V. Doyuran, "Lessons from Groundwater Quantity and Quality Problems in the Güzelyurt Coastal Aquifer, North Cyprus," in Advances in Environmental Research, vol. 64, J. A. Daniels, Ed. Hauppauge, NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers, 2018. [20] B. Arslan and E. Akun, "Management, contamination and quality evaluation of groundwater in North Cyprus," Agricultural Water Management, vol. 222, pp. 1–11, Aug. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agwat.2019.05.023. [21] H. Gökçekus and Y. Kassem, "Turkey-North Cyprus-Neighboring Countries Peace Water Project," in Cyprus: Alternative Solution Models, H. Isiksal and H. Gökçekuş, Eds. Lausanne, Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2020. [22] H. Gökçekuş, U. Türker, S. Sözen, and D. Orhon, "Water management difficulties with limited and contaminated water resources," in International Conference on the Environ Problem of the Mediterranean Region, Apr. 2002, pp. 1241–1249. [23] A. H. Payab and U. Turker, "Comparison of standardized meteorological indices for drought monitoring at northern part of Cyprus," Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 78, no. 10, May 2019, Art. no. 309, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8309-x. [24] S. Yıldırım, B. Asilsoy, and O. Ozden, "Urban Resident Views About Open Green Spaces: A Study in Guzelyurt (Morphou), Cyprus," European Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 441– 441, Jun. 2020, https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p441. [25] M. Javari, "Assessment of Temperature and Elevation Controls on Spatial Variability of Rainfall in Iran," Atmosphere, vol. 8, no. 3, Mar. 2017, Art. no. 45, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8030045. [26] A. Bilgin, "Evaluation of surface water quality by using Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) method and discriminant analysis method: a case study Coruh River Basin," Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 190, no. 9, Aug. 2018, Art. no. 554, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6927-5. [27] N. Kumar, A. A. Mahessar, S. A. Memon, K. Ansari, and A. L. Qureshi, "Impact Assessment of Groundwater Quality using WQI and Geospatial tools: A Case Study of Islamkot, Tharparkar, Pakistan," Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5288–5294, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3289. [28] A. Verma, B. K. Yadav, and N. B. Singh, "Hydrochemical monitoring of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation use in Rapti Basin," SN Applied Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 460, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s42452-020-2267-5. [29] H. Soleimani et al., "Data on drinking water quality using water quality index (WQI) and assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation purposes in Qorveh&Dehgolan, Kurdistan, Iran," Data in Brief, vol. 20, pp. 375–386, Oct. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2018.08.022. [30] H. A. Ameen, "Spring water quality assessment using water quality index in villages of Barwari Bala, Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq," Applied Water Science, vol. 9, no. 8, Oct. 2019, Art. no. 176, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1080-z. [31] R. Khan and D. C. Jhariya, "Hydrogeochemistry and Groundwater Quality Assessment for Drinking and Irrigation Purpose of Raipur City, Chhattisgarh," Journal of the Geological Society of India, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 475–482, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-018-0881-2. [32] M. Poursaeid, R. Mastouri, S. Shabanlou, and M. Najarchi, "Estimation of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, salinity and groundwater levels using novel learning machines," Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 79, no. 19, Sep. 2020, Art. no. 453, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12665-020-09190-1. [33] N. S. Rao, P. S. Rao, G. V. Reddy, M. Nagamani, G. Vidyasagar, and N. L. V. V. Satyanarayana, "Chemical characteristics of groundwater and assessment of groundwater quality in Varaha River Basin, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India," Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 184, no. 8, pp. 5189–5214, Aug. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2333-y. [34] A. Barakat, R. Meddah, M. Afdali, and F. Touhami, "Physicochemical and microbial assessment of spring water quality for drinking supply in Piedmont of Béni-Mellal Atlas (Morocco)," Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 104, pp. 39–46, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pce.2018.01.006. [35] C. A. Reyes-Toscano et al., "Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and Assessment of Drinking Water Quality in the Urban Area of Zamora, Mexico," Water, vol. 12, no. 2, Feb. 2020, Art. no. 556, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w12020556. [36] S. N. Davis and R. J. DeWiest, Hidrogeology. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1966. [37] A. A. Ako et al., "Spring water quality and usability in the Mount Cameroon area revealed by hydrogeochemistry," Environmental Geochemistry and Health, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 615–639, Oct. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-012-9453-3. [38] S. Rapant, V. Cveckova, K. Fajcikova, D. Sedlakova, and B. Stehlikova, "Impact of Calcium and Magnesium in Groundwater and Drinking Water on the Health of Inhabitants of the Slovak Republic," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 3, Mar. 2017, Art. no. 278, https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph14030278. [39] L. A. Catling, I. Abubakar, I. R. Lake, L. Swift, and P. R. Hunter, "A systematic review of analytical observational studies investigating the association between cardiovascular disease and drinking water hardness," Journal of Water and Health, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 433–442, Mar. 2008, https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2008.054. [40] R. Rylander, H. Bonevik, and E. Rubenowitz, "Magnesium and calcium in drinking water and cardiovascular mortality," Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 91–94, Apr. 1991, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1722. [41] E. M. Temizel, S. Sayıner, F. Kavukcu, and A. O. Karakus, "Floppy Kid Disease: diagnostic and therapeutic approach in kids suffering from FKD in northern Cyprus.," Journal of Biological & Environmental Sciences, vol. 11, no. 33, pp. 137–141, 2017. [42] G. Nikolaou, D. Neocleous, C. Christophi, T. Heracleous, and M. Markou, "Irrigation Groundwater Quality Characteristics: A Case Study of Cyprus," Atmosphere, vol. 11, no. 3, Mar. 2020, Art. no. 302, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11030302. [43] N. Adimalla and A. K. Taloor, "Hydrogeochemical investigation of groundwater quality in the hard rock terrain of South India using Geographic Information System (GIS) and groundwater quality index (GWQI) techniques," Groundwater for Sustainable Development, vol. 10, Apr. 2020, Art. no. 100288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019. 100288. [44] S. Krishna Kumar, R. Bharani, N. S. Magesh, P. S. Godson, and N. Chandrasekar, "Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality appraisal of part of south Chennai coastal aquifers, Tamil Nadu, India using WQI and fuzzy logic method," Applied Water Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 341– 350, Dec. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-013-0148-4. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research Vol. 12, No. 2, 2022, 8435-8443 8443 www.etasr.com Kassem et al.: Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Water Quality Index in Northern Cyprus [45] N. Adimalla, S. K. Vasa, and P. Li, "Evaluation of groundwater quality, Peddavagu in Central Telangana (PCT), South India: an insight of controlling factors of fluoride enrichment," Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 841–852, Jun. 2018, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40808-018-0443-z. [46] N. Adimalla and S. Venkatayogi, "Mechanism of fluoride enrichment in groundwater of hard rock aquifers in Medak, Telangana State, South India," Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 76, no. 1, Dec. 2016, Art. no. 45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6362-2. [47] P. Li, X. Li, X. Meng, M. Li, and Y. Zhang, "Appraising Groundwater Quality and Health Risks from Contamination in a Semiarid Region of Northwest China," Exposure and Health, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 361–379, Sep. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-016-0205-y. [48] N. Adimalla, "Groundwater Quality for Drinking and Irrigation Purposes and Potential Health Risks Assessment: A Case Study from Semi-Arid Region of South India," Exposure and Health, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 109– 123, Jun. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-018-0288-8. [49] N. S. Kawo and S. Karuppannan, "Groundwater quality assessment using water quality index and GIS technique in Modjo River Basin, central Ethiopia," Journal of African Earth Sciences, vol. 147, pp. 300– 311, Nov. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2018.06.034.