Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
DOI 10.1007/s12517-017-3098-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Hydrogeochemical assessment of surface and groundwater
resources of Korba coalfield, Central India:
environmental implications
Rambabu Singh 1 & Tajdarul H. Syed 2 & Suresh Kumar 3 & Manoj Kumar 1 &
A. S. Venkatesh 2
Received: 8 November 2016 / Accepted: 5 July 2017
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2017
Abstract The present study assesses the impact of coal mining
on surface and groundwater resources of Korba Coalfield,
Central India. Accordingly, water samples collected from vari-
ous sources are analyzed for major ions, trace elements, and
other mine effluent parameters. Results show that the ground-
water samples are slightly acidic, whereas river water and mine
water samples are mildly alkaline. Elevated concentrations of
Ca2+, Na+, HCO3−, and SO42− alongside the molar ratios
(Ca2++Mg2+)/(SO42−+HCO3−) <1 and Na+/Cl− >1 suggest that
silicate weathering (water-rock interaction) coupled with ion
exchange are dominant solute acquisition processes controlling
the chemistry of groundwater in the study area. The overall
hydrogeochemistry of the area is dominated by two major hy-
drogeochemical facies (i.e., Ca–Cl–SO4 and Ca–HCO3).
Analysis of groundwater and river water quality index
(GRWQI) elucidates that majority (82%) of samples are of
“excellent” to “good” category, and the remaining 12% are of
“poor” quality. Similarly, the effluent water quality index
(EWQI) indicates that 6 out of 8 samples belong to excellent
quality. Concentration of trace element constituents such as As,
Zn, Cu, Cr, and Cd is found to be well within the stipulated
limits for potable use, except for Fe, Mn, and Pb. Suitability of
water samples for irrigation purpose, established using standard
tools like Wilcox and USSL diagrams, reveal “excellent to
permissible” category for majority of the samples. The present
* Tajdarul H. Syed
tsyed.ismu@gmail.com
1
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Bilaspur, India
2
Department of Applied Geology, Indian Institute of Technology
(ISM), Dhanbad, India
3
Central Ground Water Board, Patna, India
study also substantiates the effectiveness of the measures im-
plemented for the treatment of mine effluent water.
Keywords Groundwater . Coal mining . Mine
hydrogeology . Water quality index . Environmental impact .
Hydrogeochemistry
Introduction
Relentless push towards industrialization and urbanization,
accompanied by unchecked population growth, has con-
tributed to increased stress on major aquifer systems of
the world (Gleeson et al. 2012). In India, groundwater re-
sources support nearly 50% of irrigated agriculture and
more than 80% of freshwater demand for domestic use
(Satapathy and Syed 2015). As a result, there is incessant
pressure on the groundwater resources, which affects both
the quality and quantity of groundwater. While depletion
of groundwater levels are more readily discernible, evi-
dences of deteriorating quality often goes unnoticed. The
quality of groundwater is affected by natural processes,
like rock–water interaction and seawater intrusion
(Sophiya and Syed 2013), as well as anthropogenic inputs
such as from mining operations (Kurdi et al. 2014). This
anthropogenic input also includes rampant utilization of
fertilizers, pesticides, urban and industrial waste disposal,
and discharge of industrial effluents (Attoui et al. 2014;
Sethy et al. 2016).
With its disturbed hydrogeological setting, alongside
huge dumps of overburden (OB) material, active coal min-
ing areas such as the current study area impose a difficult
set of challenges for the quantification and understanding
of processes controlling the quality of water. At times,
these anthropogenic interventions initiate pathways and
318 Page 2 of 16
interactions that cause considerable damage to groundwa-
ter resources (Bukowski et al. 2006). The mine waste or
OB materials produced during the extraction of coal from
open cast mines are heaped onto the surface adjoining the
mines as external dumps and some of them also tipped
within the mine as internal dumps. Precipitated water seeps
through these OB materials and active strip mines before
percolating to the local groundwater aquifer. In a multi-
layered aquifer system, like that of the study area, ground-
water in the deeper confined aquifers can be affected by
dissolution of various substances while flowing through
coal seams and host rocks. Further, both the shallow and
deeper groundwater carries large quantities of suspended
particles alongside dissolved materials, which are collected
in the conventional sumps constructed to collect mine
drainage water (Bell et al. 2001). Surplus water from these
mines, after utilization for mining operations are either
discharged onto the surface for irrigation or utilized for
domestic purposes (Soni and Wolkersdorfer 2015). Hence, there
is a potential for hazardous consequences, unless precautionary
measures are implemented. Furthermore, mine dewatering,
which is essential for all underground and opencast operations,
leads to significant lowering of the water table (Adhikari et al.
2013; Singh et al. 2015). This decrease in water table also trig-
gers flow of groundwater from the surrounding areas that might
contain dissolved substances and contaminants, which also af-
fects the quality of groundwater. Hence, it is imperative to have
reliable information on water quality, since it plays a decisive
role in effective management and proper utilization of water
resources (Reddy 2013; Pereira et al. 2015).
The suitability of groundwater for various purposes is pri-
marily dependent on its physicochemical characteristics, which
has been systematically investigated over various mining areas
(Singh et al. 2012; Pratapan et al. 2013; Tiwari et al. 2016). In
coal-mining areas, regular monitoring of water quality is nec-
essary to assess the impact of coal mining on groundwater and
surface water bodies (Alhamed and Wohnlich 2014).
The present study area, comprising of three opencast
mines, collectively generate ~14.51 million cubic meter per
year (M m3/year) of mine water (i.e., rainwater collection and
groundwater seepage into the mine). Out of this, about 73%
(10.57 M m3/year) is recycled for mine operations after pass-
ing through setting tanks and the remaining is discharged onto
the local drainage system, despite systematic research on the
impact of coal mining on the overall quality of freshwater is
almost non-existent in Korba Coalfield (KCF).
In this study, we analyze major and trace element chem-
istry and mine effluent parameters of groundwater, river
water, and coal mine effluent water, in order to assess the
impact of coal mining on the hydrogeochemistry of the
study. The assessment also includes computation of vari-
ous factors that control the quality of water resources in the
area and its suitability for end use such as domestic,
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
irrigation, and industrial purposes. The results also have
implications for the effectiveness of remedial measures
implemented to improve the quality of effluent water
discharged into the environment. More specifically, the
principal objectives of this research are (i) investigation of the
effect of active coal mining on groundwater resources of the
study area; (ii) characterization of hydro-geochemical facies
variations; and finally (iii) assessment of various factors that
control the quality of groundwater, river water, and their suit-
ability for various utilizations.
Geology and hydrogeological of the study area
The present study area, comprising of the south central part of
the E-W trending Korba Coalfield (KCF), is located in the
western side of Hasdeo River and positioned between the lati-
tude 22°17′10″N and 22°21′40″N and longitude of 82°30′30″E
and 82°43′14″E on the survey of India toposheet no. 64J/11. It
is one of the nascent coalfields in India, which encompasses
three operating mega-opencast (OC) projects: Gevra OC,
Dipka OC, and Kusmunda OC (Fig. 1a). The geology of the
area is characterized by Barakar Formation of Gondwana Super
Group, lying directly above the Precambrian schist (Rao 1983).
Here, the formations are trending E-W with general dip of 5° to
8° towards the south. In addition, the area is characterized by a
number of transverse faults trending NE-SW, NW-SE, and E-
W with variable magnitudes of throw. Among all, the E-W
trending fault (F1-F1, Fig. 1a), with a southerly throw, in the
northern part of the study area is important, as it is in juxtapo-
sition with Upper Barakar and Lower Barakar formations. This
fault is separating Lower Barakar (up thrown) Formation from
Upper Barakar (down thrown) and probably dies out or does
not have appreciable throw near Hasdeo River. However, the
extent of the fault and its impact on the hydrogeology of the
study area is yet to be analyzed. In this regard, a detailed drilling
scheme has been proposed in the upcoming (XIII) 5-year plan
(2017–2018 to 2021–2022) (CMPDIL 2014).
In terms of the hydrogeology of the study area, major por-
tions of the study area are covered by the Upper Barakar
Formation comprising of arkosic sandstone of different grain
sizes with shale beds, carbonaceous shale, and thick coal
seams (Table 1). The permeable sandstone is primarily the
aquifer, while adjacent shale beds and coal seams act as
aquicludes. The superficial formation comprising mainly allu-
vium and sandstone (average thickness ~50.0 m), lying above
the working coal seams, behaves as an unconfined aquifer. On
the other hand, the lower formations consisting of compact
sandstone mainly with secondary porosity act as semi-con-
fined/confined aquifers (CGWB 2012). The water table in the
area is more or less horizontal with a gradient of 1.2 × 10−2
sloping towards S or SE (Fig. 1b).
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318 Page 3 of 16 318

a GVR5 GVR6
22 DPK3 Lachhiminta Nala
21 GVR7 0 1 2
320 DPK2 ETP F
300 KSM2 Ha
sde
F

?
F
? F F
? ? F
? KSM1 ?
F
?
F1
F
?
F

oR
F
F
?
F F
? F
? F
?
F
?
F
?
? ? RU
F

KSM Inlet ive

F

22 F1 r
F
?
Gevra Open Cast Mine KSM5 300
20 F2 32 GVR Inlet
DPK Outlet 0 300 KSM Outlet
GVR Outlet Kusmun
F

Dipka OC da OC
22
19 DPK Inlet GVR1 KSM3
F

GVR4 GVR2
GVR3 KSM4
F

DPK1

280
22 F2 300
18
Lila 300
gar
Riv
er RD
82 32 82 33 82 34 82 35 82 36 82 37 82 38 82 39 82 40 82 41 82 42 82 43

b INDEX
22 GW+RW Sample
21
Mine Effluent Sample
22 Barakar Formation
20 Metamorphics
22 River/Nala
19
Mine Boundary
22 Surface Contour
18
Fault with Throw
F

22
17
82 31.2 82 33.6 82 36 82 38.4 82 41 1 2 3 4 Km
Scale Bar Scale
Overall Groundwater flow direction
0 2 4 6 8Km

Fig. 1 a Map of the study area showing sampling locations and hinterland geology of the Korba Coalfield along with b the water table contours and flow
directions

Methodology Analysis

Sampling The analytical and sample preservation techniques were per-

formed in accordance with the standard methods of American
Groundwater samples that include dug wells (12 in numbers Public Health Association (APHA 1995). Color, turbidity, fluo-
(nos.)), bore wells (2nos.) and hand pump (1no.), river water ride (F−), nitrate (NO3−), sulfate (SO42−), and silica (SiO2) were
(Hasdeo River (2nos.)), mine effluent water (from Kusmunda measured using a visible spectrophotometer (Model: DR-2800,
OC (2nos.), Gevra OC (2nos.), Dipka OC (2nos.)), and indus- USA). While sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) ions were an-
trial discharge from the workshop of Gevra OC (ETP (2nos.)) alyzed using a Flame Photometer-128 (SYSTRONICS, India),
were collected intensively to encompass all sources of water in trace element concentrations were quantified using atomic ab-
the study area (Fig. 1a). Overall, 25 samples were collected sorption spectrophotometer (Model: AA1003M002, India). In
from 25 sites in November 2014; these samples were collected the laboratory, volumetric acid titration method was used to
in a 1-liter-capacity polyethylene bottles. Prior to sampling, the determine the concentrations of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium
bottles were rinsed with respective samples to evade contami- (Mg2+), carbonate (CO32−), bicarbonate (HCO3−), chlorides
nation. After tapping the water, in situ parameters such as hy- (Cl−) along with total hardness (TH). The Ca2+, Mg2+, and
drogen ion concentration (pH), temperature (T), total dissolved TH were estimated by using 0.02 N or (N/50) EDTA solution;
solids (TDS), and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined 0.02 N H2SO4 was used to determine the concentrations of
at the sampling sites itself with the help of a pH meter (Hanna HCO3− and CO32−, and Cl− was estimated by using 0.02 N
Instruments, Michigan, USA) and a portable multi-parameter AgNO3. Total suspended solids (TSS) and oil and greases
tool kit (SPECTRO, SLE-2603:EC, TDS, T probes). (O&G) were estimated by filtration followed by analytical
318 Page 4 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

Table 1 Generalized chronostratigraphic succession, Korba Coalfield, India (modified after CMPDIL 2014)

Age Formation Lithology

Recent Alluvium Soil and sandy soil

Lower Triassic to Upper Permian Kamthi Coarse ferruginous sandstone, pebbly sandstone, and conglomerate
Un-Conformity
Lower Permian Upper Barakar Sandstones of varying grain sizes, shale, alternate shale and sandstone,
carbonaceous shale, sandy shale, and coal seams
Middle Barakar Conglomerate and sandstone
Lower Barakar Sandstone and shale with thin coal seams
Disconformity
Lower Permian to Upper- Carboniferous Talchir Diamictites, sandstones, needle shales, rythmites, varves, and black shale
Non-Conformity
Pre-Cambrian Metamorphic Granite and gneiss

balance. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical
oxygen demand (COD) of the water samples were analyzed
using BOD Incubator and COD Digester, respectively. The
results of the aforementioned analyses were crosschecked by
computing charge balance error. While, most of the samples
show <5% charge balance error, which is within the acceptable
limits, and a few has errors between 5 and 10.80%.
Water quality index
The water quality index (WQI) is a holistic measure of the
qualitative state of water. Computation of this index yields a
single value representation of an integrated assessment of sev-
eral hydrogeochemical parameters and helps in understanding
the overall quality of groundwater in the study area (Kumar
et al. 2015). Since the computation of WQI is influenced by
the selection of hydrogeological parameters (Ravikumar et al.
2013; Sethy et al. 2017), in this study, two indices have been
developed based on their suitability of usage and are detailed in
the “Groundwater and river water quality index” and “Effluent
water quality index” sections.
Groundwater and river water quality index
The groundwater and river water quality index (GRWQI) is
employed to analyze the quality of groundwater and river water
for their suitability towards drinking purpose, largely on the
basis of their hydrochemical facies (Moghari et al. 2015). For
calculating GRWQI, the following 15 parameters are consid-
ered: pH, TDS, TH, calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodi-
um (Na+), potassium (K+), bicarbonate (HCO3−), sulfate (SO42
−
), chloride (Cl−), nitrate (NO3−), fluoride (F−), arsenic (As3+),
iron (Fe2−), and silica (SiO2). The computation of GRWQI
involves four steps and is detailed in Table 2. Each of the 15
parameters is assigned a weight (wi) according to its relative
importance in the overall assessment of water quality for drink-
ing purposes. The weights for each of the parameters are as
follows: pH(4), TDS(4), TH(2), Ca2+(2), Mg2+(1), Na+(1),
K+(1), HCO3−(3), SO42−(4), Cl−(3), NO3−(5), F−(4), As3+(4),
Fe2−(4), and SiO2(2).The maximum weight of 5 is assigned to
nitrate concentration due to its major influence in the water
quality assessment. On the contrary, magnesium concentration
is given a minimum weight of 1, since magnesium by itself is
not harmful for consumption.
Effluent water quality index
The effluent water quality index is computed to evaluate the
suitability of effluent water discharge onto inland surface water
and for irrigation. For calculating the EWQI (Table 2), ten pa-
rameters have been considered with their respective weights
(wi) assigned in accordance to their relative importance towards
determining the quality of effluent water discharge, which are
as follows: pH (4), EC (3), O&G (5), TSS (5), COD (5), iron

Table 2 Water quality indices computation (WQI)

Step.1 Step.2 Step.3 Step.4

SIi = Wi × Qi WQI = ∑ SIi

Wi ¼ ∑n wi wi Qi ¼ Ei
Si  100
i¼1

• Wi = weightage factor ■ Qi = quality rating scale ➢ SIi = Sub index of ith parameter ❖ WQI = Water Quality Index
• wi = assigning weight to parameters ■ Ei = estimated concentration
• n = number of parameters ■ Si = standard value
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
(Fe2−; 2), fluoride (F−; 3), dissolved phosphate (DP; 3), BOD
(4), and arsenic (As3+; 4). Here, the maximum weight of 5 is
assigned to parameters TSS, O&G, and COD, as they have a
key role in ascertaining quality of mine water discharge obtain-
ed from the coal mines and a minimum weight of 2 is given to
iron due to its abundance in the area and is therefore considered
as less significant.
Irrigation water quality assessment
Water quality analysis is of paramount importance to know its
suitability for irrigation purposes. The concentration of various
cations and measures of salinity/conductivity in water are pri-
mary controls of crop yield and soil structure (Etteieb et al.
2015), which also has severe adverse impacts on the associated
crop patterns. Hence, characterization of water for irrigational
purposes is extremely important and is assessed here in the
following sections using alkali hazard/sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) and sodium percentage (Na %), respectively.
Alkali hazard or sodium adsorption ratio
Alkali hazard is computed using the ratio of sodium concen-
tration over alkali earth metals. Wherever irrigation water is
enriched in sodium with respect to calcium and magnesium,
the alkali hazard is high. The US Salinity laboratory (USSL
1954) has recommended the use of SAR as it is closely related
to adsorption of sodium by the soil. The SAR of water is
quantified by following equation:
Naþ
SAR ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
Ca2þ þ Mg2þ
2 age of 47 mg/l. The ratio plot of (Ca2++Mg2+) vs HCO3− (i.e.,
Here, all the ionic concentrations are expressed in milli-
equivalents per liter (meq/l) of the respective ions.
Sodium percentage (Na %)
Concentration of sodium is particularly critical while assessing
the suitability of water for irrigation purposes. Higher concen-
trations of sodium in water cause flocculation and clogging of
inter-granular matrix in soil, which leads to the reduction of soil
permeability and eventually impairs tilth of the soil (Hamill and
Bell 1986). Sodium percentage is computed with respect to the
concentration of other major cations (meq/l) using Eq. (2):
! magnesium present in the shale beds of the host formation,
ðNaþ þ Kþ Þ
Na% ¼  þ   100 ð2Þ
Na þ Kþ þ Ca2þ þ Mg2þ
Page 5 of 16 318
Results and discussion
Physicochemical characteristics of river water,
groundwater, and mine effluent water
The results from field measurements and chemical analysis of
collected samples of river water, groundwater, and mine efflu-
ent water (also includes mine-drainage water) and effluent
treatment water are listed in Table 3. The Stiff and Schoeller
plot (Fig. 2a, b) illustrates the relative abundance of cations,
which is observed to be in the order of Ca2+ > Na+ > K+ >
Mg2+ (i.e., mg/l curve). Overall, results reveal that pH values
of the collected water samples vary between 5.65 and 9.19.
While the groundwater samples are mildly acidic in nature,
river and mine water samples are near neutral to alkaline in
nature and samples from effluent treatment plant (ETP) are
purely alkaline in nature. This enhanced alkalinity in ETP
samples may be due to the alum treatment that is carried out
in the treatment plant. EC values range between 148 and
904 μs/cm, which were measured at sampling points, GVR7
and DPK Outlet respectively (Fig. 1a).
Large variations in EC values are primarily attributed to
geochemical processes that prevail in the region. (Na+/Cl−)
vs EC scatter diagram (Fig. 3a) shows that the Na+/Cl− ratio
decreases slightly with increase in EC indicating the removal
of Na ions by ion exchange. However, most samples cluster-
ing in the zone of EC <1000 μs/cm and Na+/Cl− >1 can be
regarded as fresh water with insignificant evaporation effect.
Similarly, TDS values range from 96 to 587.6 mg/l with an
average value of 325.91 mg/l. This suggests that the study area
is characterized by fresh water, with TDS values less than
1000 mg/l (Freeze and Cherry 1979). Results also show
Ca2+ as the dominant cation and its concentration ranges be-
tween 8 mg/l (GVR7) and 116 mg/l (ETP Inlet) with an aver-
Fig. 3b) shows that majority of samples fall well above the 1:1
equilibrium line and which implies dominance of divalent
cations (Ca2++Mg2+) over HCO3− and suggest that higher
amounts of calcium and sodium in both groundwater and
mine water samples of the study area might be from additional
non-carbonate source (Stallard and Edmond 1983), i.e., main-
ly due to dissolution of cementing matrix (plagioclase) of
sandstone and shale beds from overburden formations of coal
seams. Further, the plot of (Ca2+ + Mg2+) vs (SO42− + HCO3−)
(Fig. 3c) shows that most of the samples tend to lie below the
1:1 line thereby indicating substantial silicate weathering
and dominance of ion exchange process. Nonetheless,
those samples falling above the 1:1 line indicate the pres-
ence of excess calcium and magnesium. This can be attrib-
uted to the exchange of sodium in water by calcium and
by the process of reverse ion exchange (Rajmohan and
Elango 2004).
318 Page 6 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

Table 3 Physicochemical characteristics for various water sources from active coal mine areas of Korba Coalfield

Area Type of Parameter In-situ General Parameters (mg/l) WQI Remarks

Sample Type of pH EC (us/ TDS TH Ca Mg Na K HCO3 SO4 Cl NO3 F DP SiO2

ID sample cm) (mg/l)

Kusmunda KSM1 DW 5.91 244 159 75 14 10 16 8 37 17 35 41 0.04 0.30 BDL 37 Excellent

KSM2 DW 7.11 310 202 55 16 4 40 6 86 16 39 20 0.07 0.20 BDL 47 Excellent
KSM3 DW 6.18 161 105 35 12 1 15 9 31 13 28 11 0.00 0.50 0.02 35 Excellent
KSM4 DW 6.55 254 165 95 34 2 10 7 123 15 11 4 0.04 0.10 0.30 54 Good
KSM5 TW 5.65 217 141 50 18 2 13 12 86 9 7 2 0.00 0.20 BDL 43 Excellent
KSM MW 7.43 807 525 245 66 19 41 28 246 51 67 50 0.33 BDL BDL 133 Poor
inlet
KSM MW 7.59 813 528 340 66 29 41 22 246 67 67 50 0.59 0.6 BDL 24 Excellent
out-
let
Gevra GVR1 DW 6.85 855 556 230 66 16 46 57 203 59 99 49 0.33 0.50 0.25 116 Poor
GVR2 BW 6.30 793 515 235 58 22 51 32 326 66 57 0 0.41 0.10 BDL 136 Poor
GVR3 DW 6.78 266 173 85 26 5 12 14 111 20 18 5 0.14 0.10 1.02 53 Good
GVR4 DW 5.95 197 128 55 18 2 19 1 49 30 21 7 0.02 0.20 0.93 31 Excellent
GVR5 DW 6.13 315 205 65 14 7 32 15 25 29 39 48 0.02 0.20 BDL 38 Excellent
GVR6 DW 6.50 402 261 145 44 9 27 4 148 47 28 3 0.22 0.10 BDL 66 Good
GVR7 HP 5.81 148 96 35 8 4 12 8 49 13 14 11 0.02 0.10 BDL 33 Excellent
GVR MW 6.93 811 527 285 88 27 36 23 129 198 49 36 0.44 0.2 BDL 25 Excellent
inlet
GVR MW 7.48 768 499 345 70 34 43 20 154 225 11 1 0.53 0.5 BDL 20 Excellent
out-
let
ETP PRT 7.25 722 469 125 116 6 20 12 197 170 32 13 1.14 22.8 10.46 1307 Unsuitable
inlet
ETP POT 9.19 267 174 145 24 1 11 9 80 23 14 1 0.46 5.9 BDL 44 Excellent
out-
let
Dipka DPK1 DW 6.45 612 398 180 52 12 68 2 246 33 57 5 0.34 0.10 2.23 99 Good
DPK2 DW 7.02 654 425 175 44 16 70 7 98 45 99 49 0.14 0.10 BDL 72 Good
DPK3 DW 6.14 448 291 120 36 7 41 10 68 34 53 49 0.08 BDL BDL 58 Good
DPK MW 8.32 890 579 440 82 44 22 17 123 189 67 6 0.63 1 BDL 25 Excellent
inlet
DPK MW 8.27 904 588 400 104 27 24 14 209 204 53 8 0.68 0.1 BDL 24 Excellent
out-
let
River RU RW(U) 7.05 344 224 205 56 22 10 3 49 48 71 18 0.35 4.20 BDL 67 Good
RD RW(D) 7.23 333 216 80 46 9 9 2 74 33 57 20 0.36 3.50 BDL 58 Good

DW: Dug well, TW: Tube well, BW: Bore well, HP: Hand pump, MW: Mine water, PRT: Pretreatment water, POT: Post treatment water, RW: River water,
DP: Dissolved phosphate, BDL: Below detection limit

However, the mine water samples are dominated by both
sulfate and bicarbonate anions. Generally, sulfides are common
in coal beds and its accompanying formations of sandstone and
shale. The associated sulfide minerals like pyrite/marcasite on
reaction with oxygen and water leads prominent acid mine drain-
age (AMD), when their sulfur content ranges from 1 to 5%
(Tiwary 2001). Consequent reduction of pH has the potential to
mobilize and then release undesirable ions that enhances sulfate
ion concentration (Younger 2003), despite that there is no ad-
verse environmental impact from these undesirable ions due to
their low concentration in the study area (sulfur content (<1%)).
The average sulfur content of the study area is reported to be
0.58% (CMPDI, 2014). Even though sulfate ion concentration is
comparatively high in the sampled mine water (maximum at
GVR Outlet (225 mg/l)), it lies within the permissible limit
(400 mg/l) as prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS
2012).
In terms of anionic composition, the samples are dominated
by HCO3− and its concentration varies from 24.60 to 325.95 mg/
l, with an average value of 127.67 mg/l. Major anion
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
a b
Fig. 2 Average concentrations of major ions in the study area are shown in a Stiff diagram (meq/l) and b Schoeller diagram
concentration in the water samples of the study area are in the
order of HCO3− > SO42− > Cl− > NO3− (Fig. 2a, b). Here, excess
of bicarbonate might have evolved from sources other than dis-
solution of carbonate rock (limestone and dolomite), as the hin-
terland geology of the study area is occupied by non-calcareous
formation (i.e., sandstone, shale, and coal). The molar ratios of
Mg2+/Na+ vs Ca2+/Na+ (Fig. 3d) on log–log scale bivariate plot
demonstrates lower magnitudes of Mg2+/Na+ and Ca2+/Na+ ra-
tios for groundwater (with mean values of 0.50 and 1.33, respec-
tively) than mine effluents (with mean values of 1.48 and 3.35,
respectively) and river water (with mean values of 2.91 and 6.12,
respectively). The observed lower molar ratio for groundwater
can be ascribed to the influence of silicate weathering rather than
carbonate dissolution. On the other hand, slightly higher values
of the ratios in mine effluent water and river water can be attrib-
uted to the dominance of ion exchange, mixing process in addi-
tion to silicate weathering. Similarly, values of Na+/Cl− molar
ratio greater than 1 indicate silicate (feldspar) weathering
(Krishnaraj et al. 2011). In the present study, it is observed from
Fig. 3e that most of the samples fall above the equiline (1:1) and
indicate silicate weathering. However, samples plotted blow the
equiline, with depleted Na+ and elevated Cl−, reveal the pre-
eminence of reverse ion exchange processes. Furthermore, the
ratio plot of Ca2+/SO42− vs SO42− (Fig. 3f) reveals that majority
of samples plot close to the Ca2+/SO42− axis, which indicates that
the role of pyrite oxidation process is insignificant. This can be
attributed to the dearth of sulfur content (0.58%) in the coal and
its accompanying formations. Also evident is the insubstantial
contribution of subsequent carbonate buffering process (Fig. 3d)
that could have caused elevated concentrations of bicarbonate
ions. Therefore, excess of HCO3− present in the samples of the
study area is mainly derived from the soil zone CO2 and
weathering of parent minerals (i.e., reaction of silicates with car-
bonic acid) and dissolution of carbonate minerals (Appelo and
Postma 1993) like calcite and aragonite (to a smaller extent),
which are often found in the coal seams as cleat fillings and as
a cementing matrix in sandstones of accompanying beds.
Emanations of NOx, SOx, and other acidic compounds
from coal mining and fossil fuel combustion (burning of coal
from these mines as well as in thermal power plants) in and
around the study area is responsible for the dominance of
Page 7 of 16 318
other anions. These gases also, on reaction with rainwater,
leads to the formation of acids and consequent lowering of
pH in the collected water samples. However, pH values in the
mine effluent water samples (Table 3) are higher compared to
the groundwater (water representative of weathered mantle or
shallow formation) and river water samples located away from
the mines. In order to check the effect of AMD followed by
carbonate neutralization that might have probably contributed
to elevated pH in the mine water, the molar ratios of Ca2+/
SO42− (i.e., Fig. 3f) for mine water samples have been corre-
lated with pH (Table 3). Generally, AMD followed by carbon-
ate buffering is expected when samples possess Ca2+/SO42−
molar ratio close to 2 (Wu et al. 2008). But, it is apparent from
Fig. 3f that most of the mine water samples have molar ratios
<1.6 barring a few. Therefore, it is prudent to conclude that as
such, there are no evidences of AMD followed by carbonate
buffering discernible in the study area. Hence, the alkaline
nature of mine water is ascribed to mixing of mine drainage
water that seeps through various depths of a multi-layered
aquifer system, alongside dissolution of unconsolidated OB
materials that are primarily composed of aluminosilicates (i.e.,
arkosic sandstone) during mine drainage.
Mine effluent parameters and trace element chemistry
Mine effluent parameters along with the concentration of trace
elements were analyzed for water samples from various
sources, including groundwater, river water, and mine water
samples, collected from active mine areas of Korba Coalfield,
during the post-monsoon period (November 2014). The re-
sults reveal that the color, turbidity, and total suspended solids
(TSS) are high for mine effluent samples prior to treatment
(Table 4), when compared with MoEF standards for Coal
Mines in India (MoEF 2000, 1993). The higher values can
be attributed to emission of dust from haul roads due to heavy
vehicular moment, blasting on overburden, and leachates from
internal dumps. However, after the treatment of mine effluent
water through a series of settling tanks, it is rendered fit for
discharge on inland surface water bodies and on land for irri-
gation. The remaining mine effluent parameters such as COD,
BOD, and oil and grease are found within the acceptable limits
318 Page 8 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

a b

c d

e f
 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318 Page 9 of 16 318

R Fig.2+3 The ratio plots of a Na+/Cl− vs EC, b Ca2+ + Mg2+ vs HCO3−, c
Ca + Mg2+ vs SO42− + HCO3−, d Mg2+/Na+ vs Ca2+/Na+, e Na+ vs Cl−,
and f Ca2+/SO42− vs SO42− illustrating the dominant processes and major
ion chemistry of study area
as per norms stipulated by MoEF for Coal Mines in India
(MoEF 2000, 1993).
Analysis of trace element chemistry exhibits that concen-
trations of Fe, Mn, and Pb in some of the sites are above the
acceptable limit specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards
(BIS 2012) for drinking purposes. The presences of Mn and
Pb in a few of the well locations, which are representative of
superficial aquifers, are discerned to be of anthropogenic ori-
gin. And, the most likely source is the adjacent thermal power
plants. Concentrations of other measured trace elements like
As, Zn, Cu, Cr, and Cd are found to be well within the spec-
ified limits of Indian drinking water standards (BIS 2012).
Hydrogeochemical facies
Relative abundances of common ions existing in the study area
are shown in a piper trilinear diagram (Fig. 4a) (Piper 1944) in
order to identify the dominant water types. This diagram helps
in identifying the hydrochemical facies prevalent and is also
useful in discerning the processes governing the water chem-
istry. In the piper diagram (Fig. 4a), majority of the groundwa-
ter samples are plotted in the left quadrant of the diamond plot,
thus belonging to Ca–HCO3 facies. This zone represents shal-
low freshwater reserves, devoid of contamination and domi-
nance of cation exchange processes. At the same time, most of
the mine effluent samples are plotted in the top quadrant of the
diagram. Hence, these samples belong to the Ca–Cl–SO4 fa-
cies that clearly indicates the influence of rock–water interac-
tion during flow through the overburden (OB) materials and
active coal mine strips. However, three samples from mine

Table 4 Effluent parameters and trace element concentrations for various water sources from active coal mine areas of Korba Coalfield

Area Type of Parameter Effluent Parameters Trace Constituents

Sample ID Type of sample Color Turbidity O&G TSS BOD COD Fe Cu Mn As Pb Zn Cr Cd

Kusmunda KSM1 DW 5 2.4 0.17 5 2 32 BDL BDL 0.08 BDL 0.01 0.31 BDL 0.02
KSM2 DW 5 1 0.5 3 0.4 32 0.02 BDL 0.01 BDL 0.01 0.07 BDL 0.02
KSM3 DW 37 6.7 0.6 16 0.3 32 0.34 BDL BDL BDL 0.01 0.06 BDL 0.02
KSM4 DW 5 1 0.2 6 1.1 BDL 0.06 0.01 0.03 BDL 0.01 0.13 BDL 0.03
KSM5 TW 1 2.9 0.5 1 1.5 BDL 0.15 0.01 0.11 BDL 0.016 0.18 0.05 0.01
KSM inlet MW 6 68 1.202 795 2.7 160 0.08 BDL 0.07 BDL 0.007 0.02 0.02 BDL
KSM outlet MW 6 4.7 0.712 5 2.8 32 0.1 BDL 0.65 BDL 0.007 0.03 0.03 BDL
Gevra GVR1 DW 5 1.6 0.2 3 3.1 32 0.07 BDL 0.18 BDL 0.01 0.28 BDL 0.03
GVR2 BW 14 19.4 0.8 15 NIL 32 0.27 BDL 0.57 BDL 0.01 0.15 BDL 0.03
GVR3 DW 2 0.3 0.6 5 1.6 32 0.04 BDL 0.05 BDL 0.01 0.04 BDL 0.02
GVR4 DW 9 2.2 0.1 7 1.6 32 0.04 BDL 0.01 BDL 0.009 0.13 BDL 0.01
GVR5 DW 2 0.6 0.4 4 NIL BDL 0.01 BDL 0.01 BDL 0.01 0.08 BDL 0.03
GVR6 DW 1 0.9 0.2 2 0.9 160 0.05 BDL 0.01 BDL 0.008 0.11 0.02 0.02
GVR7 HP 1 2.9 0.7 13 1.1 BDL 0.13 0.01 0.14 BDL 0.015 0.18 0.02 0.02
GVR inlet MW 20 12.4 3.3 20 1.2 BDL 0.34 BDL 1.09 BDL 0.005 0.02 0.03 BDL
GVR outlet MW 1 2.1 0.28 3 2 BDL 0.13 0.01 0.68 BDL 0.006 0.1 0.05 BDL
ETP inlet PRT 3914 4225 3539 2561 0.6 480 2.25 0.01 0.15 BDL 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01
ETP outlet POT 38 32.4 9.9 33 0.7 32 0.12 0.01 0.04 BDL 0.007 0.03 0.05 0.01
Dipka DPK1 DW 1 2 0.4 5 0.4 BDL 0.05 BDL BDL BDL 0.014 0.08 0.03 BDL
DPK2 DW 3 0.5 0.5 8 2.4 BDL 0.07 0.01 0.03 BDL 0.009 0.1 0.02 BDL
DPK3 DW 1 0.6 0.7 6 1.9 BDL 0.13 BDL 0.04 BDL 0.01 0.28 0.02 BDL
DPK inlet MW 17 54.1 0.066 24 0.5 BDL 0.11 0.01 0.09 BDL 0.007 0.05 0.05 BDL
DPK outlet MW 3 9.1 0.471 4 NIL 32 0.3 0.01 0.15 BDL 0.011 0.25 0.05 0.01
River RU RW(U) 93 58.2 8.3 56 0.2 32 0.69 0.01 0.01 BDL 0.006 0.02 0.05 0.01
RD RW(D) 36 36.6 0.45 42 NIL 32 0.33 0.01 0.03 BDL 0.003 0.02 0.04 0.01

Units are in mg/l for all parameters except color (Hazen) and turbidity (NTU)
DW dug well, TW tube well, BW bore well, HP hand pump, MW mine water, PRT pretreatment water, POT post treatment water, RW river water, O&G
oil and grease, TSS total suspended solids, COD chemical oxygen demand, BOD biochemical oxygen demand, BDL below detection limit
318 Page 10 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

Fig. 4 a Piper diagram and b

a

l)
(C -
Chadha’s classification shown

Ca
lci
here illustrate the

id e

um
hydrogeochemical facies and

lor

(C
categorization of water samples

Ch

a
2+
collected in the study area

)+

+M
4 -
O 2

ag
(S

n
es
te

ium
lfa
Su

(M
g
2+ )
3 -)
CO
So

(H
diu

te
na
m

rbo
(N
a

ica
+) +
g 2+

+B
3 -
M

(Po

O 2
tas

(C
s iu

ate
m

on
(K

rb
Ca
+)
Ca 2+ Cl-

b
(HCO3-)-(SO42-+Cl-)

(Ca2++Mg2+)-(Na++K+)

effluents are observed to be representative of Ca–HCO3 facies,
similar to the groundwater samples, which imply mixing of
phreatic aquifer water or shallow groundwater with deeper
aquifer water in due course of mine drainage. The river water
samples are plotted in the zone of Ca–SO4 facies, which
testifies the dominant influence of water discharges from near-
by coal mines and fly ash ponds of the thermal power plants.
In order to gain an enhanced understanding of the
hydrogeochemistry of the area and to compare the different
water types, water samples from the study are plotted in a
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
Chadha’s diagram (Chadha 1999). It is evident from the clas-
sification diagram (Fig. 4b) that the majority of the samples
are clustered around 3 of the 8 fields demarcated by blue
circles in the figure. The groundwater samples around field
5 represents the prevalence of Ca–HCO3 facies and also re-
veals that alkaline earth metals (Ca2+ and Mg2+) significantly
exceed the alkali metals (Na+ and K+), and weak acids
(HCO 3 −) dominate over strong acids (Cl − and SO 42−).
While, the groundwater samples close to field 4 implies strong
acidic anions exceed weak acidic anions. Contrastingly, the
river water and mine water samples fall close to field 6, which
is representative of Ca–Cl–SO4 type of water, and here, also
alkaline earth metals dominate over alkali metals but the con-
centration of strong acidic anions (Cl− and SO42−) surpasses
that of weak acidic anions (HCO3−).
Hydrogeochemical processes
The alteration of water quality takes places mainly through ion
exchange process, water–rock interaction, and dissolution of
weathered-mantle (WM) due to the interaction of elevated
levels of CO2 with low pH water. The scatter plot (Fig. 5) is
made with the aid of hydrochemical coefficients, to character-
ize the possible role of cation exchange involved in the
hydrogeochemistry of the study area. In this figure, the con-
centration of (Ca2+ + Mg2+)–(HCO3− + SO42−), i.e., total con-
centration (meq/l) of Ca2+ and Mg2+ cations from sources
Fig. 5 Scatter plot of Ca2+ +
Mg2+)–(HCO3− + SO42−) vs
(Na+ + K+)–Cl−
(Ca2++Mg2+)-(HCO3-+SO42-)
Page 11 of 16 318
other than their respective carbonates and sulfates in the col-
lected water samples, is plotted against that of (Na+ + K+)–Cl−
(i.e., the source of the entire Na+ and K+ cations other than
their respective chlorides). The dominance of cation exchange
process is represented by a linear relationship between these
coefficients; otherwise, the samples will be plotted closer to
the origin. Figure 5 shows that majority of the samples fall on
a straight line with slope −1, which suggests that the respec-
tive water samples are primarily involved in cation exchange
processes. In particular, this demonstrates that Na+, Ca2+, and
Mg2+ ions are involved in ion-exchange reactions (Jalali
2007), controlling water chemistry of the study area. Hence,
it is prudent to conclude that the dominant facies of Ca–HCO3
is likely to have been produced by the evolution of Na–Ca–
HCO3 water type through ion-exchange process (Smolders
et al. 2004). However, some of the samples plotted in the first
quadrant, elucidating saturation of cationic composition, are
possibly due to the dissolution of intact rock formations rather
than ion exchange processes.
Additionally, the role of rock–water interaction in the study
area is investigated by utilizing the Gibbs diagram (Gibbs
1970), also known as Boomerang plot, which is widely
employed to assess the functional sources of dissolved chem-
ical constituents in water. The ratio plots of Na+/(Na+ + Ca2+)
(Fig. 6a) and Cl−/(Cl− + HCO3−) (Fig. 6b) against TDS reveal
that almost all the water samples fall in the field indicating the
dominance of rock–water interaction. This shows that the
(Na++K+)-Cl-
318 Page 12 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

a b
Groundwater & River water
Mine Effluents Groundwater & River water
Evaporation Mine Effluents
Dominance Evaporation
Dominance

Rock Dominance Rock Dominance

Precpit Precpit
a
Domin tion a
Domina tion
ance nce

Fig. 6 Gibbs plot of a Na+/(Na++Ca2+) vs TDS and b Cl−/(Cl−+HCO3−) vs TDS depicting the dominance of different processes controlling the water
chemistry of the study area

higher concentrations of Ca2+ and Na+ in the samples are
derived from the dissolution of rock formations due to inter-
action between rock and percolated water in the subsurface.
Overall, the groundwater samples belong to Ca–HCO3 facies
whereas mine effluent samples correspond to Ca–Cl–SO4 fa-
cies. The dominance of these facies and cations, in the study
area, are explicated by cation exchange and rock–water inter-
action processes dominant in the groundwater of the study
area.
Water quality indices
In this study, WQI values are categorized into five types rang-
ing from “excellent” to “unsuitable” for various purposes.
Table 5 shows the percentage of water samples that falls under
each of the category. Water quality zonation is performed on
the basis of WQI values referring to both GRWQI and EWQI
for thematic representation of water quality data over space.
Different parts of the study area are categorized as “excellent”
(WQI < 50), “good” (WQI 50–100), “poor” (WQI: 100–200),
“very poor” (WQI 200–300), and “unsuitable” (WQI > 300),
based on the magnitude of the water quality indices.
Groundwater and river water quality index
GRWQI is computed to assess the suitability of river water
and groundwater for potable purpose. Figure 7 shows that
majority of the groundwater and river water samples fall in
the zone of excellent to good category except for the GVR1
and GVR2 samples (Table 3). The samples representing these
two categories (excellent and good) are suitable for drinking
purpose, as per Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS 2012).
Samples GVR1 and GVR2 fall in the zone of poor category
and are therefore unsuitable for drinking purpose. But in the
absence of other alternatives, this also may be utilized for
domestic and irrigation purposes with necessary precautionary
measures. The poor quality of GVR1 (Dug well) location is
mainly due to the presence of excess amounts of bicarbonate,
nitrate, and potassium (highest among all samples). The fer-
tilizers used for crops might be the main source of contamina-
tion at this location since it is situated adjacent to an irrigated
agriculture field. The GVR2 (Bore well) sample is character-
ized by the presence of undesirable quantities of bicarbonate
(highest among all samples) and potassium. Leachate of con-
taminants from the neighboring abandoned dug well, which is

Table 5 Water quality

classification based on WQI value S.No WQI Water Class Sample % for Sample % for Cumulative %
(GRWQI + EWQI) quality GW and RW effluents of WQI

1 <50 Excellent I 41 75 58
2 50–100 Good II 47 0 24
3 100–200 Poor III 12 12.5 12
4 200–300 Very poor IV 0 0 0
5 >300 Unsuitable V 0 12.5 6
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318 Page 13 of 16 318

22
21
Ha
sde
oR
ive
22 r
20
? Gevra Open Cast Mine

Dipka OC Kusmunda OC
22
19

Li
22 la
ga
18 rN
ad
i

82 32 82 33 82 34 82 35 82 36 82 37 82 38 82 39 82 40 82 41 82 42 82 43
Ca Stiff Diagram
HCO3+CO3 Legend Zone (WQI)
GW+RW Sample
Mg SO4 Excellent (0-50)
Mine Effluent Sample Good (50-100)
Na+K River/Nala
1 2 3 4 Km
CL Poor (100-200)
6 4 2 0 2 4 6 Mine Boundary Scale
Cations meq/l Anions

Fig. 7 Map showing the zonation of water quality indices and the spatial distribution of major ion chemistry in the study area

filled with domestic wastes, is possibly the primary cause
behind the poor water quality at this particular location.
Effluent water quality index
The EWQI results (Table 3) reveal that all the mine effluent
samples, except for KSM Inlet, fall within the zone of excel-
lent category (Fig. 7). This implies that the effluent water from
the respective locations is suitable for discharge onto the sur-
face for various purposes, as per standards for Coal Mines in
India (MoEF 2000, 1993). The poor quality of KSM Inlet
water is caused by the presence of coal dust and other unde-
sirable suspended materials acquired during the passage of
mine drainage water through the working faces and runoff
from overburden (OB) dumps. On the contrary, the KSM
Outlet sample falls in the category of excellent water quality.
This happens because the KSM Inlet water is treated through a
series of settling tanks, and subsequently, the decanted water
is discharged onto the surface. This treated water (i.e., KSM
Outlet) is either recycled effectively for mine operations, to
overcome the deficit of water demand (Liang et al. 2015) or
discharged into the nearby streamlets. Likewise, the ETP Inlet
sample is unsuitable for usage initially, but after a series of
treatments, it becomes of suitable category (i.e., ETP Outlet).
Water quality for irrigation purpose
Suitability of water for irrigation purposes has been assessed
using alkali hazard or SAR and sodium percentage. The US
Salinity laboratory (USSL 1954) has recommended the use of
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) as it is closely related to ad-
sorption of sodium by the soil.
The SAR value in the water samples of the study area
ranges from 0.30 to 2.36. The water samples when plotted
on a US Salinity Diagram (Fig. 8a) depicts that most of the
groundwater and river water samples, and GVR Outlet and
ETP Outlet samples from mine effluents fall in category of
C1S1 and C2S1, representing low to medium salinity and low
sodicity water. These samples, from their respective locations,
are suitable for irrigation of all type of crops and in any type of
soils, with diminutive effect (Richards 1954). On the contrary,
groundwater sample from two locations (i.e., GVR1 and
GVR2) and majority of the mine effluent samples from the
study area fall in C3S1 class, which indicates high salinity
hazard and low sodicity. Generally, water with high salinity
has a tendency to reduce the osmotic potential of plants (i.e.,
low salt tolerant plant) overtime, which impedes the growth of
plants (Subramani et al. 2005). However, in semi-arid and arid
regions, this type of water (with high EC (750–2500 μs/cm)
values but SAR < 8) can be effectively utilized by adopting
proper soil management techniques and by changing the crop
pattern to those with higher salt tolerance (Zhang et al. 2012).
Similar conclusions can also be drawn from sodium percent-
age (Na %) values, which ranges between 13.01 and 63.29%
(with an average of 35.42%). This is based on the norms set by
BIS (BIS 1991), which recommends a maximum Na % value
of 60 in water used for irrigation. The Wilcox (1995) plot of
EC versus sodium percent exhibits (Fig. 8b) that most of the
318 Page 14 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318

Fig. 8 a Water classification on

the basis of SAR and EC values a
and b classification of water from
various sources for irrigation
purposes (after Wilcox (1955)) 100 1000
Groundwater&
River water

b Groundwater& River water

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
100
Unsuitable
Pe Doubtfu
rm l to Uns
iss uitable
ibl
80 et
oU
ns
uit
ab
le
60
Doubtful to Unsuitable
Good to Permissible

Unsuitable

40
Excellent to Good

20

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

samples from the study area fall in the category of excellent to permissible quality, which may also be used for irrigation
good quality. Water from these locations is well suited for purpose in moderate to high salt-tolerant crops, under favor-
irrigation purposes. The rest of the samples have good to able drainage conditions if need arises.
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
Conclusion
This study presents a detailed hydrogeochemical evaluation of
water samples collected from various sources in and around
the active coal mine areas of Korba Coalfield in Central India.
Results show that overall relative abundance of major ions are
in the order of Ca2+ > Na+ > K+ > Mg2+ and HCO3− > SO42− >
Cl− > NO3− for cations and anions, respectively. It is also
interesting to note that, despite heavy mining activity, water
samples collected from the study area can be regarded as
freshwater because of the low TDS content. However, mildly
acidic groundwater samples can in part be attributed to reac-
tion of water with SOX, NOX, and other acidic compounds
emanated from coal combustion, which may refer to the im-
pact of thermal power plants nearby.
Groundwater samples are characterized by Ca–HCO3 hy-
drogeochemical facies, which indicates shallow fresh water
source with prevalence of cation exchange reactions. Mine
effluent water shows Ca–Cl–SO4 facies with significant influ-
ence from mine drainage. Moreover, the ionic ratios (Ca2+ +
Mg2+)/(SO42− + HCO3−) < 1 and scatter and Gibbs plots re-
veal that cation exchange in association with water–rock in-
teraction (i.e., silicate weathering) processes have a greater
role in ascendancy of Ca2+ and Na+ cations in the study area.
Water quality indices computed as an integrated measure of
water quality indicate that majority of groundwater and river
water samples are of excellent to good category, in accordance
with the permissible limits for drinking purposes (BIS 2012).
Similarly, most of the samples from mine effluents are of ex-
cellent category, as per the stipulated norms laid by MoEF. On
the contrary, KSM Inlet and ETP Inlet samples show quality
degradation due to the presence of excess TSS. However, after
being treated through a series of settling tanks, the resultant
supernatant water is of excellent quality and is therefore suitable
for discharge onto the inland surface water bodies (Table 3).
Classification of water samples for irrigation purposes,
based on SAR versus EC values, reveal that major parts of
the study area (i.e., 17 locations out of 25 mainly representa-
tive of surface and groundwater) are characterized by low to
medium salinity and low sodium type water (i.e., C1S1 and
C2S1). The other eight locations, mostly representing mine
effluents, are belonging to C3S1 category, which has high
salinity hazard. Analogous results are also obtained from the
analysis of sodium percentage (Na %). Hence, both surface
and groundwater resources of the study can be used for irri-
gation, in almost all types of soil.
The marginal impact of coal mines and overall good quality
of water can be explained by the occurrence of coal as non-
toxic substance with low sulfur content (average 0.58%), and
adoption of proper environmental management techniques by
the concerned stakeholders, in order to safeguard the water
environment of the area. Which includes controlled blasting,
development of grass beds on slope of OB dumps and reclaimed
Page 15 of 16 318
area, and deployment of mechanized equipment at mine site to
suppress fugitive dust (i.e., surface miners, in-pit conveyor belt,
and haul road watering system), besides effluent water treatment
system (ETP and sedimentation tanks). Results from this study
have major implications for further expansion of mining activ-
ities and better planning and utilization of water resources in this
highly productive coal-producing region of India.
Acknowledgements The authors express sincere thanks to CMPDI for
according the necessary permission for publishing this paper. We are also
thankful to Prof. Samir Al-Gamal and the anonymous reviewer for im-
proving the quality of the manuscript through their detailed comments.
RS is grateful to Dr. A. Subrahmanyam for his constant encouragement.
The authors would also like to thank Mr. D.V. Subba Rao, Mr. T.
Chakraborty, and Mr. T. Doley (Hydrogeology division, CMPDI) and
members of Environment Department, RI-V, CMPDIL, Bilaspur for their
cooperation. We are also thankful to Central Ground Water Board
(CGWB), Patna, for providing help with the geochemical analysis. The
views expressed in this paper are of the authors only and not necessarily
of the organization to which they belong.
References
Adhikari K, Sadhu K, Chakroborty B, Gangopadhyay A (2013) Effect of
mining on geochemistry of groundwater in Permocarboniferous
Gondwana coalfields: Raniganj Basin, India. J Geol Soc India 82:
392–402
Alhamed M, Wohnlich S (2014) Environmental impact of the aban-
doned coal mines on the surface water and the groundwater qual-
ity in the south of Bochum, Germany. Environ Earth Sci 72:
3251–3267. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3230-9
American public health association (APHA) (1995) Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater, 19thEdtn. USASS, APHA,
Washington, DC
Appelo CAJ, Postma D (1993) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution,
1st Edtn. AA Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam
Attoui B, Kherici N, Bousnoubra HK (2014) Use of a new method for
determining the vulnerability and risk of pollution of major ground-
water reservoirs in the region of Annaba–Bouteldja (NE Algeria).
Environ Earth Sci 72:891–903. doi:10.1007/s12665-013-3012-9
Bell FG, Bullock SET, Halbichc TFJ, Lindsay P (2001) Environmental
impacts associated with an abandoned mine in the Witbank coal
field, South Africa. Int J Coal Geol 45:195–216
BIS (1991) (Bureau of Indian Standards) IS: 10500 guidelines for
Evaluation of quality of irrigation water, New Delhi, India
BIS (2012) (Bureau of Indian Standards) IS: 10500 Indian Standard for
Drinking Water -Specification, Second Revision, New Delhi, India
Bukowski P, Bromek T, Niak AI (2006) Using the DRASTIC system to
assess the vulnerability of ground water to pollution in mined areas
of the upper Silesian Coal Basin. Mine Water Environ 25:15–22
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), NCCR (2012) Aquifer systems of
Chhattisgarh. Central Ground Water Board, North Central
Chhattisgarh Region, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of
India, New Delhi
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL) (2014)
Geological Report on Coal Exploration Gevra, Dipka, Hardi, Ponri,
Naraibodh- I & Naraibodh- II combined block, Korba coalfield,
Korba (C.G.), India. CMPDIL, Coal India Ltd., India
Chadha DK (1999) A proposed new diagram for geochemical classifica-
tion of natural waters and interpretation of chemical data. Hydrogeol
J 7:431–439
318 Page 16 of 16
Etteieb S, Cherif S, Tarhouni J (2015) Hydrochemical assessment of
water quality for irrigation: a case study of the Medjerda River in
Tunisia. Appl Water Sci. doi:10.1007/s13201-015-0265-3
Freeze JA, Cherry RA (1979) Groundwater, 1stEdtn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Gibbs RJ (1970) Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science
170(3962):1088–1090
Gleeson T, Wada Y, Bierkens MFP, Beek LPHV (2012) Water balance
of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488:
197–200. doi:10.1038/nature11295
Hamill L, Bell FG (1986) Groundwater resource development.
Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham Massachusetts, p 344
Jalali M (2007) Hydrochemical identification of groundwater re-
sources and their changes under the impacts of human activity
in the Chah Basin in western Iran. Environ Monit Assess 130:
347–364. doi:10.1007/s10661-006-9402-7
KrishnarajS,MurugesanV,VijayaraghavanK,SabarathinamC,Paluchamy
A,RamachandranM(2011)Useofhydrochemistryandstableisotopes
as tools for groundwater evolution and contamination investigations.
Geosciences 1(1):16–25. doi:10.5923/j.geo.20110101.02
Kumar SK, Logeshkumaran A, Magesh NS, Godson PS,
Chandrasekar N (2015) Hydro-geochemistry and application of
water quality index (WQI) for groundwater quality assessment,
Anna Nagar, part of ChennaiCity, Tamil Nadu, India. Appl Water
Sci. doi:10.1007/s13201-014-0196-4
Kurdi M, Hezarkhani A, Eslamkish T (2014) Assessment of chemical
properties and hydro-geochemical coefficients at the QarehSou
Basin, Golestan Province, Iran. Environ Earth Sci 72:3243–3249.
doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3228-3
Liang MC, Ning ZG, Li YK, Song P, Wu N, Yang P (2015) Dynamic
biofilm component in reclaimed water during rapid growth period.
Environ Earth Sci 73:4325–4338. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3717-4
MoEF (2000) Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, Mine
discharge/Workshop/Colony effluents, standards for coal mines stip-
ulated by MoEF, Vide Notification No. GSR 742(E), Dt: 25.09.2000
MoEF (1993) Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, The
Environment (Protection) Rules, Govt. of India (1986) SCHEDULE
– VI, general standards for discharge of environmental pollutants
part-A: Effluents, Third Amendment Rules, Vide Notification
No.G.S.R.801(E), dated 31.12.1993
Moghari SMH, Ebrahimi K, Azarnivand A (2015) Groundwater quality
assessment with respect to fuzzy water quality index (FWQI): an
application of expert systems in environmental monitoring. Environ
Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-4703-1
Pereira AJSC, Pereira MD, Neves LJPF, Azevedo JMM, Campos ABA
(2015) Evaluation of groundwater quality based on radiological and
hydrochemical data from two uraniferous regions of western Iberia:
Nisa (Portugal) and Ciudad Rodrigo (Spain). Environ Earth Sci 73:
2717–2731. doi:10.1007/s12665-014-3500-6
Piper AM (1944) A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation
of water-analyses. Trans Am Geophys Union 25:914–928
Pratapan VG, Tiwari A, Chakraborty T, Singh RB, Khan S (2013) Depth
wise water quality assessment in pit lakes: a case study of Manikpur
pilot quarry, south eastern coalfields limited, India. VI World Aqua
Congress 2012. Water- Vision 2050:179–188
Rajmohan N, Elango L (2004) Identification and evolution of hydrogeo-
chemical processes in the groundwater environment in a part of
Palar and Cheyyar River basins, southern India. Environ Geol 46:
47–61. doi:10.1007/s00254-004-1012-5
Rao CS (1983) Coal resources of Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir.
Geol. Surv. India Bull., Series A, No.45, v.III
Ravikumar P, Mehmood MA, Somashekar RK (2013) Water quality in-
dex to determine the surface water quality of Sankey tank and
Mallathahalli lake, Bangalore urban district, Karnataka, India.
Appl Water Sci 3:247–261. doi:10.1007/s13201-013-0077-2
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:318
Reddy AGS (2013) Evaluation of hydrogeochemical characteris-
tics of phreatic alluvial aquifers in southeastern coastal belt
of Prakasam district, South India. Environ Earth Sci 68:471–
485. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1752-6
Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis improvement saline alkali soils.US
Department of Agriculture Handbook. No. 60
Satapathy I, Syed TH (2015) Characterization of groundwater potential
and artificial recharge sites in Bokaro district, Jharkhand (India),
using remote sensing and GIS-based techniques. Environ Earth Sci
74(5):4215–4232. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-4474-8
Sethy SN, Syed TH, Kumar A (2017) Evaluation of groundwater quality
in parts of the southern Gangetic plain using water quality indices.
Environ Earth Sci 76:116. doi:10.1007/s12665-017-6434-y
Sethy SN, Syed TH, Kumar A, Sinha D (2016) Hydrogeochemical charac-
terization and quality assessment of groundwater in parts of southern
Gangetic plain. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-5049-4
Singh AK, Mahato AK, Neogi B, Tewary BK, Sinha A (2012) Environmental
geochemistry and quality assessment of mine water of Jharia coalfield.
Environ Earth Sci 65:49–65. doi:10.1007/s12665-011-1064-2
Singh RB, Doley T, Chakraborty T, Mohanty AK, Kumar M (2015) Coal
mining impact assessment on groundwater system by virtue of pie-
zometer installation: a case study from Kusmunda OC project of
SECL, Chhattisgarh, Central India. Min Tech 36(1):29–35
Smolders AJP, Edwards HKA, Velde VDG, Roelofs JGM (2004)
Controls on water chemistry of the Pilcomayo River, Bolivia,
south-America. Appl Geochem 19:1745–1758
Soni AK, Wolkersdorfer C (2015) Mine water: policy perspective for
improving water management in the mining environment with
respect to developing economies. Int J Min Reclam Environ.
doi:10.1080/17480930.2015.1011372
Sophiya MS, Syed TH (2013) Assessment of vulnerability to seawater
intrusion and potential remedial measures for coastal aquifers: a case
study from eastern India. Environ Earth Sci 70(3):1197–1209. doi:
10.1007/s12665-012-2206-x
Stallard RF, Edmond JM (1983) Geochemistry of the Amazon: 2. The
influence of the geology and weathering environment on the dis-
solved load. J Geophys Res 88:9671–9688
Subramani T, Elango L, Damodarasamy SR (2005) Groundwater quality
and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Chithar River
Basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Geol 47:1099–1110. doi:10.
1007/s00254-005-1243-0
TiwariAK,SinghPK,MukeshKumarMahatoMK(2016)Hydrogeochemical
investigation and qualitative assessment of surface water resources in
west Bokaro coalfield, India. J Geol Soc India 87:85–96
Tiwary RK (2001) Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime
and its management. Water Air Soil Pollut 132:185–199. doi:10.
1023/A:1012083519667
USSL (1954) (United States salinity laboratory), diagnosis and improve-
ments of saline and alkali soils, US Department of agricultural soils,
US Department of agricultural hand book 60, Washington, DC
Wilcox LV (1955) Classification and use of irrigation waters, 1st edn.
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, p 19
Wu P, Tang C, Liu C, Zhu L, Pei TQ, Feng L (2008) Geochemical distribu-
tion and removal of As, Fe, Mn and Al in a surface water system
affected by acid mine drainage at a coalfield in southwestern China.
Environ Geol 57:1457–1467. doi:10.1007/s00254-008-1423-9
Younger PL (2003) Impacts of mining on physical hydrogeology. In: Prokop
G, Younger P, Roehl KE (eds) Groundwater management in mining
areas, proceedings of the 2nd image-train advanced study course.
Federal Environment Agency, Wien http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/
fileadmin/site/publikationen-/CP035.pdf
Zhang B, Song X, Zhang Y, Han D, Tang C, Yu Y, Maa Y (2012)
Hydrochemical characteristics and water quality assessment of sur-
face water and groundwater in Songnen plain, Northeast China.
Water Res 46:2737–2748. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.02.033