¹PRIYANKA BISWAS, ²MOBAROK HOSSAIN, ³PULAK KUMAR PATRA A

2023

ARSENIC HYDROGEOCHEMISTRY, QUALITY

ASSESSMENT, AND ASSOCIATED HEALTH RISKS
OF GROUNDWATER THROUGH THE NOVEL WATER
POLLUTION INDEX (WPI) AND GIS APPROACH

Devara Andre Sumar

23/524383/PMU/11518
 Latar belakang
Arsenik merupakan polutan yang sangat beracun dalam bentuk anorganiknya, dan bahkan
dalam jumlah kecil, arsenik menimbulkan ancaman serius terhadap kesehatan manusia.
Penyakit umum yang terkait dengan arsenik adalah kanker ginjal, kandung kemih, paru-
paru, dan kulit, serta penyakit Bowen, arsenikosis, hiperkeratosis, penyakit jantung koroner,
bronkiektasis, hiperpigmentasi pada telapak tangan dan telapak kaki (Chakraborti et al.,
2018). Keberadaan arsenikosis yang meluas di Bangladesh dan Benggala Barat diduga
terkait dengan perubahan pola curah hujan, ketidakseimbangan asupan nutrisi,
peningkatan tajam konsumsi air tanah, dan penurunan permukaan air tanah. Tingkat
arsenik dalam air tanah dilaporkan jauh lebih tinggi dari 0,01 mg/L, yaitu batas atas air
minum yang direkomendasikan WHO (Samal et al., 2013).

Pemantauan sifat hidrokimia air tanah dan penilaian risiko kesehatan melalui indeks
bahaya total (THI) bermanfaat dalam pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang proses
pengayaan arsenik dan risiko kesehatan yang terkait
 Tujuan Penelitian
1 Mengkarakterisasi hidrokimia air 3 Pemodelan WPI, WQI dan indeks
tanah di wilayah endemik arsenik; bahaya kesehatan menggunakan
teknologi GIS; dan

2 Mengevaluasi kualitas air dengan 4Memperkirakan risiko kesehatan (baik

menggunakan alat penilaian untuk kelompok usia anak-anak
kualitas (WPI) yang baru diusulkan, maupun dewasa), dengan
dan metode WQI konvensional mempertimbangkan berbagai jalur
serta perbandingannya; paparan terhadap air tanah yang
terkontaminasi arsenic.
Lokasi Penelitian

Persatuan Fukra Kashiani upazila di distrik

Gopalganj Bangladesh dengan koordinat
23°09′ 15′′N sampai 23°10′ 10′′N latitude and
◦
89°44′ 38′′E to 89 46′ 46′′E longitude.

Sebagian besar masyarakat di wilayah

tersebut bergantung pada air tanah yang
diambil dari sumur untuk kegiatan rumah
tangga dan pertanian. Sumber air lainnya
adalah air hujan yang dikumpulkan.
 Metode Penelitian
A. Pengambilan Sampel
Sampel air tanah diambil dari 30 sumur terpilih dengan jarak 30-100 m. Menggunakan GPS
Garmin untuk mencatat koordinat, Botol LDPE Tarson 500 ml yang telah dibersihkan
sebelumnya dengan HNO3 10% dan aquades digunakan untuk pengumpulan sampel air
tanah. Sampel dianalisis pH, suhu, daya hantar listrik (EC), suhu, kation mayor (Na+, K+, Ca2+,
Mg2+), dan anion (HCO3‾, Cl‾, NO3‾, SO(2-)/4 , F‾), total besi, dan total arsen.

B. Analisis Statistik dan Spasial

Dilakukan Analisis statistik multivariat seperti analisis komponen utama (PCA) dan analisis
korelasi. Secara umum, metode PCA dalam studi hidrogeokimia memadatkan kumpulan
besar data menjadi beberapa komponen yang memiliki sifat sebanding (Kamtchueng et al.,
2016). Untuk menunjukkan hubungan antar variabel kumpulan data dan pengaruh
parameter kimia tertentu, juga dilakukan analisis korelasi.
 Metode Penelitian
C. Penilaian Kualitas Air Minum
1. Indeks Kualitas Air (WQI)
Keterangan:
Wi = bobot relatif
Qi = Skala penilaian kualiatas
Si = Standar kualitas air Bangladesh
WQI = <50 “sangat baik”, 50-75 “baik”, 75-100
“buruk”, >100 “sangat buruk”.
2. Indeks Pencemaran Air (WPI)
Keterangan:
PLi = beban polutan
Ci = Konsentrasi terukur
Si = Standar kualitas air Bangladesh
WPI = <0,5 “sangat baik”, 0,5-0,75 “baik”,
0,75-1 “buruk:, >1 “sangat buruk”
 Metode Penelitian
D. Penilaian Risiko Kesehatan
Untuk menentukan risiko paparan komponen berbahaya (Fe dan As dalam penelitian ini) di air
tanah, dilakukan Indeks Bahaya (HI), yang secara kumulatif berfungsi dengan mengacu pada
tubuh manusia (Adimalla dan Qiana, 2019). Ada dua cara utama jalur paparan untuk
memperkirakan risiko kesehatan bagi tubuh manusia, seperti konsumsi langsung atau oral
(Persamaan 1) dan melalui kulit (Persamaan 2).
Keterangan:
CI = konsentrasi unsur beracun SA = area kulit
(mg/L) AT = waktu rata-rata
IR = tingkat konsumsi Kp = koefisien permeabilitas kulit
ED = durasi pemaparan (cm/jam)
EF = frekuensi paparan ET = waktu pemaparan
BW = rata-rata berat badan CF = faktor konsentrasi satuan
unsur berbahaya
Nilai THI <1 dapat diterima sedangkan >1 berpotensi
menimbulkan bahaya kesehatan yang tidak dapat diterima
 Hasil dan Pembahasan
A. Kimia Dasar Air Tanah
Faktor fisika-kimia menunjukkan sifat, karakter, dan kualitas airtanah. Ringkasan statistik parameter kualitas
air tanah disajikan pada table di bawah:

Daerah penelitian hanya terletak di tepian Sungai Madhumati yang merupakan anak sungai dari Sungai
Padma dan merupakan bagian dari dataran banjir GBM (Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna). Sedimen dataran
banjir GBM sebagian besar bersifat basa dan logam serta berpotensi menjadi sumber As (Huq et al., 2020).
Oksidasi arsenopirit yang menyebabkan pengayaan arsenik kemungkinan besar disebabkan oleh ekstraksi
air tanah dalam skala besar dari sistem akuifer dangkal (Lowers et al., 2007).
 Hasil dan Pembahasan
B. Karakteristik Hidrokimia Memahami prinsip-prinsip hidrokimia membantu
memperjelas dinamika sistem air tanah dan
membuka petunjuk tentang lingkungan kuno (Pierre
et al., 2005; Hossain et al., 2020). Diagram trilinear
Piper digunakan untuk merencanakan nilai analitis
kation dan anion utama (Piper, 1944) untuk
memahami sifat hidrokimia air tanah di daerah
penelitian. Intinya, ini menunjukkan apakah air itu
berbeda atau merupakan campuran dari jenis yang
berbeda dalam hal sifat kimianya.

Hal ini juga memberikan petunjuk tentang

(a) premonsoon PRM (b) postmonsoon POM kemungkinan asal usul sampel air tanah. Area
Interpretasi grafis dengan jelas menggambarkan berbentuk berlian pada diagram Piper dibagi
bahwa kimia air tanah di wilayah tersebut sangat menjadi empat kategori besar seperti Ca–HCO3 (A),
dipengaruhi oleh fondasi geologi asli, pelapukan Ca–SO4 (B), Na–Cl (C), dan Na–HCO3 (D), ditunjukkan
mineral batuan, pertukaran ion, dan interaksi air- pada gambar di samping:
batuan karena sektor dominan batuan mencakup
seluruh sampel air tanah
 Hasil dan Pembahasan Indeks kualitas air (WQI) adalah metode yang
C. Penilaian Kualitas Air Minum (WQI) umum dan efektif untuk menentukan kualitas
air tanah dan kesesuaiannya untuk keperluan
minum. Empat belas parameter kualitas air
seperti TDS, EC, pH, HCO− 3 , Cl‾, F‾, SO2− 4,
NO− 3 , Ca2 ⁺, Mg2 ⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, total Fe, dan
As.

Nilai WQI berkisar antara 54,91 hingga 214,02

dan 17,93 hingga 95,88 masing-masing pada
musim PRM dan POM. Peta variasi spasial
WQI melalui teknik GIS interpolasi IDW
Variasi spasial kualitas air minum (a) PRM WQI, (b) POM WQI
menunjukkan bahwa selama PRM tidak
ditemukan sampel yang masuk dalam
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa untuk keperluan
kategori “sangat baik”, 63% sampel
minum, kualitas airtanah di wilayah tersebut tercemar
menunjukkan kelas air “baik”, 33% sampel
sedang hingga tinggi di PRM dan tercemar baik
hingga sedang di POM masuk dalam kategori “buruk”. , dan 6%
sampel dikategorikan sebagai air “sangat
buruk”
 Hasil dan Pembahasan Indeks pencemaran air (WPI) digunakan
D. Penilaian Pencemaran Air (WPI) untuk menilai tingkat kontaminasi untuk
keperluan minum dengan menggunakan 14
variabel (n = 14) kualitas air. Nilai WPI
bervariasi antara 0,72 hingga 1,76 pada PRM
dengan nilai rata-rata 1,0, sedangkan pada
POM berada pada kisaran 0,31–0,89 dengan
rata-rata 0,62. Dari 30 sampel air tanah yang
dikumpulkan pada PRM, 7% sampel
ditemukan berkualitas baik, 60%
dikategorikan tercemar sedang, dan 33%
sampel ditemukan tercemar berat, atau tidak
Variasi spasial kualitas air minum (c) PRM WPI, (d) POM WPI layak untuk dikonsumsi manusia (gambar c).
Pada POM 26% sampel tergolong sangat baik,
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, pencemaran
47% baik, 27% sampel sedang, dan tidak ada
airtanah di wilayah tersebut baik hingga tercemar
satu pun sampel yang termasuk dalam
berat di PRM dan sangat baik hingga sedang di POM
kategori sangat tercemar untuk keperluan
minum (gambar d)
 Perhitungan berurutan dari asupan harian kronis
Hasil dan Pembahasan (CDI), hasil bagi bahaya (HQ), dan indeks bahaya
E. Penilaian Risiko Kesehatan (HI) untuk konsumsi dan paparan kulit.

Dalam musim PRM, nilai THI untuk orang dewasa

(THIa) memiliki nilai rata-rata 11,60, dengan
kisaran 4,96-32,21 (Gambar a). dan untuk anak
(THIc), berkisar antara 4,73 hingga 30,71 dengan
rata-rata 11,05 (Gambar b). Di musim POM, nilai
THI untuk orang dewasa dan anak-anak
bervariasi dari 0,002 hingga 12,2 (Gambar c) dan
0,002 hingga 11,63 (Gambar d), yang
menunjukkan risiko kesehatan yang lebih rendah
dibandingkan dengan musim PRM

Peta sebaran nilai THI (ingestion + dermal)

geospasial melalui model Inverse Distance
Weighting (IDW) menunjukkan bahwa penduduk
di 100% wilayah PRM dan 87% wilayah POM
sangat rentan terhadap risiko kesehatan non-
karsinogenik akibat asupan As dan Fe
 Kesimpulan
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konsentrasi arsenik pada seluruh
sampel PRM dan 80% sampel POM berada di atas kriteria WHO (0,01 mg/L),
yang menunjukkan bahwa wilayah penelitian merupakan wilayah endemik
arsenic. Jenis air Ca–Mg–HCO3 di permukaan air tawar dangkal berasal dari
cekungan GMB di bawah pengaruh kondisi geologi yang mengandung
arsenik, dan interaksi air sedimen mengatur hidrogeokimia arsenik. Nilai
arsenik yang tinggi berhubungan dengan kualitas air yang buruk, sehingga
menimbulkan risiko yang tidak aman dan tinggi terhadap bahaya kesehatan
yang ditularkan melalui air karena penggunaan air yang terkontaminasi untuk
keperluan minum dan mandi, yang tidak terlalu besar pada saat ini.
 Kelebihan
1. Terdapat peta lokasi penelitian;
2. Penelitian dilakukan di 2 musim sehingga
terdapat perbandingan kualitas air tanah
diantara 2 musim;

Critical 3. Peta sebaran geospasial WQI dan WPI,

serta THI dengan teknik interpolasi IDW

Review melalui platform GIS sangat berguna untuk

pengelolaan air tanah yang lebih baik
karena peta ini dapat dengan mudah
menggambarkan kelas-kelas kualitas air.
4. Grafik dan peta sebaran mudah dimengerti
dan sangat berguna untuk penelitian
selanjutnya
 Kekurangan
1. Peta lokasi penelitian tidak sesuai kaidah
kartografi (tidak terdapat judul peta, skala,

Critical grid, legenda, sumber peta, informasi

proyeksi, informasi pembuat peta,
Review informasi tahun pembuatan;
2. Beberapa unsur penting yang berpotensi
toksik seperti Cd, Pd, Hg, dan Al belum
dimasukkan dalam penelitian ini
 Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsd

Research paper

Arsenic hydrogeochemistry, quality assessment, and associated health risks

of groundwater through the novel water pollution index (WPI) and
GIS approach
Priyanka Biswas a, Mobarok Hossain b, Pulak Kumar Patra a, *
a
Department of Environmental Studies, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, WB, 731235, India
b
Integrated Science Education and Research Centre, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, WB, 731235, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Arsenic content ranged from 0 to 0.18

mg/L with significant variation (p <
0.05).
• 90% of samples crossed the WHO
arsenic permissible limit.
• Ca–HCO3 water and sediment bearing
As-rich mineral governed As-
hydrogeochemistry.
• Groundwater in 30% of places were
unsafe in terms of WQI, new WPI and
GIS modelling.
• Assumed severe health hazards due to
high arsenic and iron-rich water
consumption.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A total of 60 groundwater samples from an arsenic endemic region (Fukra union of Gopalganj district,
Arsenic in groundwater Bangladesh) were collected during the premonsoon (PRM) and postmonsoon (POM) season in 2016 and were
Water pollution index assessed for arsenic quantification along with other physico-chemical parameters such as EC, pH, TDS, total Fe,
Health risk assessment
major anions, cations, and the health hazards associated with them. Anions content was found in the order of
Principal component analysis
HCO3‾(419.7 mg/L)»Cl‾(23.8 mg/L)>SO2− 4 (20.2 mg/L)>NO3‾(9.95 mg/L)>F‾(0.43 mg/L) and cations in the
GIS
Bangladesh order of Ca2⁺(76.4 mg/L)>Mg2⁺(28 mg/L)>Na⁺(14 mg/L)>K (4.7 mg/L). Arsenic concentration ranged from BDL
to 0.18 mg/L, with 90% of samples exhibiting concentration above the WHO permissible limit (0.01 mg/L). The
average concentration of Total Fe was 0.14 mg/L considering both seasons. Mean ± SD values of the water
quality index (WQI) and water pollution index (WPI) were 78.15 ± 30.67 and 0.81 ± 0.2, respectively.
Groundwater quality was unsafe for drinking purposes in 30% of places in terms of WQI and WPI. Human health
risk associated with groundwater consumption was assessed through the total hazard index (THI). The mean THI
values were 11.32 and 5.45 in PRM and POM, respectively, indicating a greater chance of non-carcinogenic
threat to the inhabitants as the final score is much greater than the acceptable limit of 1. GIS distribution

Abbreviations: As, Arsenic; BDL, Below Detection Limit; CDI, Chronic Daily Intake; EC, Electrical Conductivity; Fe, Iron; GBM, Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna; GIS,
Geographical Information System; HI, Hazard Index; HQ, Hazard Quotient; IC, Ion Chromatography; IDW, Inverse Distance Weighting; LDPE, Low-density poly­
ethylene; PCA, Principal Component Analysis; POM, Postmonsoon; PRM, Premonsoon; RfD, Reference Dose; RSD, Relative Standard Deviation; SD, Standard De­
viation; TDS, Total Dissolved Solids; THI, Total Hazard Index; WHO, World Health Organization; WPI, Water Pollution Index; WQI, Water Quality Index.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pulakpatra@visva-bharati.ac.in (P.K. Patra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2023.100944
Received 31 July 2022; Received in revised form 14 March 2023; Accepted 3 April 2023
Available online 6 April 2023
2352-801X/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P. Biswas et al.
maps of THI indicated a severe threat to both children’s and adults’ health. Principal component analysis (PCA)
and hydrogeochemical characterization of groundwater through the Piper diagram and Gibb’s plot indicated that
Ca–HCO3-rich water and its reaction with arsenic-bearing sediment minerals was the main governing factor for
groundwater As-enrichment in groundwater. The study will deliver an outline for a better understanding and
management of groundwater quality and arsenic-induced health hazards.
1. Introduction
Arsenic (As) is generally a natural, tasteless, colourless, and odour­
less chemical element (metalloid) and is widely distributed throughout
the environment in the air, water, and land (Samal et al., 2010, 2011,
2013a; Bhattacharya et al., 2013; Santra et al., 2013; Santra and Samal,
2013; Huq et al., 2020). It reaches groundwater through the dissolution
of As-bearing minerals and elemental sources (Alam and McPhedran,
2019a, 2019b; Islam et al., 2017; Bhattacharya et al., 2020) or through
human activities such as agricultural practices, industrial and municipal
sewages, smelting, and mining processes (Neumann et al., 2010; Saha
et al., 2017; Tweed et al., 2020). In the aquifers, the release and
dispersion of As is often governed by a number of variables, including
competitive ion exchange, pyrite oxidation, and, most critically, redox
disequilibrium, which is frequently connected with iron (Chakraborti
et al., 2015; Das et al., 2021).
Arsenic is a highly toxic pollutant in its inorganic form, and even in
minute quantities, it poses severe threats to human health. Common
ailments associated with arsenic are kidney, bladder, lung, and skin
cancer, as well as Bowen’s disease, arsenicosis, hyperkeratosis, coronary
heart disease, bronchiectasis, hyperpigmentation of the palm and sole
(Chakraborti et al., 2018; Rahman et al., 2018a; Radfard et al., 2019;
Saha and Rahman, 2020; Bhattacharya et al., 2020). Arsenic’s
non-cancerous impacts on people are primarily seen as skin damage or
circulatory issues (USEPA, 2018). Millions of people are suffering from
arsenic hazards in many countries worldwide, including India and
Bangladesh (Hasan et al., 2009; Joseph et al., 2015; Huq et al., 2019;
Shaji et al., 2020; NatashaBibi et al., 2020). People could be exposed to
arsenic hazards mainly through drinking As-contaminated groundwater
and food chains as well as through dermal and inhalation way also
(Greco et al., 2019; Ruíz-Vera et al., 2019; Tabassum et al., 2019).
Moreover, arsenic is bioaccumulated in the plant body when
arsenic-contaminated groundwater and surface water are used for irri­
gation, seriously affecting human health (Samal et al., 2011, 2021;
Santra et al., 2013; Moulick et al., 2021).
The existence of widespread arsenicosis in Bangladesh and West
Bengal is supposed to be associated with changed rainfall patterns,
imbalanced nutritious intake, a sharp rise in groundwater consumption,
and a decline in groundwater tables. The arsenic level in groundwater
has been reported to be much higher than 0.01 mg/L, i.e., WHO rec­
ommended upper limit for drinking water (Samal et al., 2013b). Ac­
cording to the recent figures on arsenic pollution, out of 64 districts of
Bangladesh, 61 districts have been afflicted above the WHO guideline,
and 50 districts are affected by Bangladesh standard, i.e., 0.05 mg/L
(BGS, 1999; Chakraborti et al., 2015). Arsenic has poisoned the
groundwater in more than 85% of Bangladesh’s total land area. Ac­
cording to Bodrud-Doza et al. (2016), 57 million people globally
consume arsenic-poisoned water, and 35 million of them reside in
Bangladesh. The number of individuals reported to have been severely
harmed by drinking water tainted with arsenic is continuing to rise
(Fazal et al., 2001; Safiuddin and Karim, 2003; Chakraborti et al., 2010).
According to the number of people impacted, arsenic pollution in
Bangladesh’s groundwater is the worst arsenic catastrophe ever. It has
received attention from the Bangladeshi government as a national ca­
tastrophe (Dhar et al., 1997; SOES-, 2000; Rahman et al., 2015).
Numerous technical publications, books, and conference papers have
discussed the contamination sources and the deleterious consequences
of arsenic on the people of Bangladesh (Nickson et al., 1998; Safiuddin
2
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944
and Karim, 2001 & 2003; Ahmed et al., 2004; Escobar et al., 2006;
Ahmad et al., 2007; Fendorf et al., 2010; Ahmed et al., 2016; Saha et al.,
2017).
Monitoring of hydrochemical properties of groundwater and health
risk assessment through the total hazard index (THI) is helpful in better
understanding of arsenic enrichment process and associated health risks.
In the past, several studies calculated the chronic daily intake (CDI) for
computing the THI of arsenic through dietary intake and drinking water
to evaluate both its carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects
(Liao et al., 2018; Rezaei et al., 2019; Das et al., 2021; Joardar et al.,
2021). The hazard index (HI) of rice was found to be much higher than
HI of groundwater, contributing as high as 93% of the cumulative total
hazard index (THI) (Mondal et al., 2019; Samal et al., 2021).
Though regional-scale studies have been carried out for arsenic
quantification, detailed hydrogeochemistry and health risk assessment
of arsenic with new techniques are lacking. The current hydrochemical
investigation, water quality modelling and health hazard assessment for
As-rich groundwater in an arsenic endemic region is a step towards that
explanation. A detailed investigation was carried out in the Fukra union
of Gopalganj district, Bangladesh, where arsenic in drinking water has
produced alarming health problems. The present work was conducted to
(i) characterize the groundwater chemistry in an arsenic endemic re­
gion, (ii) evaluate the water quality by using a newly proposed quality
assessment tool (WPI), and conventional WQI method and their com­
parison, (iii) estimate health risks (for both the children and adult age
groups), considering various routes of exposure to arsenic-contaminated
groundwater and (iv) modelling of WPI, WQI and health hazard index
using GIS technology. The spatial distribution mapping of water quality
indices and hazard index modelling, designed in the Arc-GIS platform,
were carried out to understand the present scenario and undertake the
best effective management for As-rich groundwater.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Fukra union of Kashiani upazila of Gopalganj district of
Bangladesh is situated within 23◦ 09′ 15′′ N to 23◦ 10′ 10′′ N latitude and
89◦ 44′ 38′′ E to 89◦ 46′ 46′′ E longitude (Fig. 1) with an area of 27 km2. The
annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 35.1 ◦ C and 12.1 ◦ C,
respectively, whereas the annual rainfall of 1955 mm. The soil of this
union is soft to medium stiff due to the alluvial deposits of various rivers
having low organic content and medium bearing capacity. The study
area is just located on the river bank of the Madhumati River, which is an
important distributary of the Padma River, which falls under the Ganga-
Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) floodplain, which is the primary reason for
arsenic enrichment all over the country and believed to be the controller
of the hydrogeochemistry of the study area (Huq et al., 2020). The hy­
drology of the study area is crucially governed by storm surges and
tropical cyclones with usual seasonal rainfall (Rahman et al., 2018b).
Most people in the area are dependent on tubewell-extracted ground­
water for their domestic activities and agricultural purposes. Another
source of water is harvested rainwater. A monitoring survey in 2004
reported that 905 tubewells out of 1930 tubewells in the union were
As-contaminated, and they were marked with red. Other 1025 tubewells
were considered to be safe and marked with green (Fig. 1Sa,b)
(BAMWSP, 2004). The water of the red-marked tubewells is supposed to
be used for non-drinking purposes. The tubewells installed after the
P. Biswas et al.
survey bear no marks, and their water quality has not been monitored.
Arsenic has contaminated the groundwater of 47% of the study area, and
more than 35 thousand people are at high risk of arsenic hazards
(Shaibur, 2019). Some alternative water sources (rainwater harvesting
system) and homemade arsenic filters were also noticed, but they are
very limited and have low arsenic removal efficiency (Fig. 1Sc,d)
2.2. Sampling and analytical strategies
In the premonsoon (PRM) and postmonsoon (POM) seasons in 2016,
groundwater samples were taken from 30 chosen tubewells from the
research region at a regular interval of 100–300 m. (Fig. 1). A GPS
receiver (Garmin Montana - 650) was used to record the locations of the
sample sites. Pre-cleaned Tarson 500 ml LDPE bottles with 10% HNO3
and ultrapure water were used for groundwater sample collection.
During collection, preservation, and transit to the laboratory, standard
protocols were followed (APHA, 2012; WHO, 2011). The samples were
analyzed for pH, temperature, electrical conductivity (EC), temperature,
major cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+), and anions (HCO3‾, Cl‾, NO3‾,
SO2−
4 , F‾) total iron, and total arsenic. A pocket-sized pH meter (Model:
Hanna) was used to evaluate the pH and temperature on the site, and a
conductivity meter (Thermo Scientific Conductivity Cell, Orion
013605MD) was used to calculate the EC. Using Ion Chromatography
(883 Basic IC plus), the major water-soluble cations and anions were
identified (Hossain et al., 2021). Total arsenic (As) was determined
using anodic stripping voltammetry (VA 797 computerace), and total
Fig. 1. (a) Bangladesh (b) Kashiani upazila and (c) Sampling points with the location of the Fukra union (research site).
3
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944
iron (Fe) was quantified using a spectrometric approach (APHA, 2012).
2.3. Statistical and spatial analysis
Multivariate statistical analyses such as principal component anal­
ysis (PCA) and correlation analysis were carried out by the XLSTAT 2016
tool. Generally, PCA method in hydrogeochemical studies condenses a
big collection of data into a few components that have comparable
properties (Chen et al., 2007; Matiatos et al., 2014; Kamtchueng et al.,
2016). In order to show relationships between data set variables and the
influence of certain chemical parameters, a correlation analysis was also
carried out.
Analytical programs such as MS-Excel 2016 and Rockware AqQA
[1.1.1 (1.1.5.1)] were used for plotting the various diagrams such as
Piper plots, Univariate plots and Gibbs plots. The inverse distance
weightage (IDW) interpolation method was used in ArcGIS 10.1 to
create spatial distribution maps.
2.4. Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA)
Wells were pumped for many minutes before taking water samples to
remove the impact of stagnant water. All laboratory glassware and
sample bottles were cleaned with detergent and rinsed repeatedly with
ultrapure water, followed by a 24-h immersion in a 10% HNO3 solution
and again with ultrapure water to remove any potential contamination.
Triplicate analyses (3 times replication) were performed for each
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

parameter for each sample to ensure the maintenance of the analytical Table 1
quality. The reagents and standards were made with analytical-grade Observed parameters, their assigned weight, relative weight, and their respec­
chemicals from Merck, Germany. Standard solutions of anions (F‾, tive standard guideline values (mg/L) (Hossain and Patra 2020a).
2 2
HCO−3 , Cl‾, NO−3 , SO2−
4 ) and cations (Na⁺, K⁺, Mg ⁺, Ca ⁺) solutions were Parameters Bangladesh WHO (2012) Weight Relative
supplied as samples, and the instrument’s (IC) output values were Standards (mg/L) Guideline (wi) weight (Wi)
recorded. In the case of fluoride ions, for instance, the accuracy or pH – 6.5–6.5 4 0.071429
correlation coefficient = 0.999 and the % RSD (relative standard devi­ EC – 750 4 0.071429
ation) value was 0.563%, showing satisfactory precision of the IC TDS 1000 500 5 0.089286
Fluoride 1 1.5 5 0.089286
(Fig. 2s in supplementary materials). Moreover, the cations vs anions Bicarbonate – 200 1 0.017857
concentration (ionic balance) for all the samples were verified using Nitrate 10 45 5 0.089286
Matthess (1982)’s method. Where the value of the ionic balance of less Sulfate 400 200 5 0.089286
than 5% and certainly, up to 10% is acceptable, whereas a value greater Chloride 150–600 250 5 0.089286
Calcium 75 75 3 0.053571
than 10% is unacceptable (Singhal and Gupta, 1999).
Sodium 200 200 4 0.071429
The used anodic stripping voltammetric analytical technique Magnesium 30–35 30 3 0.053571
exhibited high precision within the examined concentration range, as Potassium 12 200 2 0.035714
evidenced by the accuracy (% of recovery) for the arsenic determination Iron 0.3–1.0 0.3 5 0.089286
varied from 96.3 to 98.1 percentage and precision (% of relative SD, Arsenic 0.05 0.01 5 0.089286
Ʃ wi ¼ 56 Ʃ Wi ¼1
utilized for multiple duplicate measurements) values varied from 1.57 to
2.61 percentage, i.e., <3%.
corresponding standard guideline for every water sample (Eq. (2)) in
order to generate the quality rating scale (Qi).
2.5. Drinking water quality assessment
Ci
Qi = × 100 (2)
2.5.1. Water quality index (WQI) Si
WQI is a frequently used grading system that shows the combined
where Si represents the Bangladesh standard water quality recommen­
impact of many water quality variables on the general fitness of water
dations established by the Department of Public Health Engineering
for ingestion by people (Horton, 1965; Hossain and Patra, 2020a,
(DPHE) (Table 1), and Ci stands for the observed concentration of a
2020b). To calculate the WQI, each of the anticipated 12 parameters was
specific parameter in a sample in mg/L.
given a unit weight (wi) value between 1 and 5 based on their impor­
Then, using the equation below (Eq. (3)), a sub-index (SIi) was
tance in groundwater used for drinking, 5 being the most important
determined for each parameter.
(Table 1). In the first stage, Eq. (1) was used to compute the relative
weight (Wi): SIi = W i × Qi (3)
wi
Wi = ∑
n (1) Finally, WQI was formulated by aggregating all the sub-indices (Eq. (4))
wi
i=0 ∑
n
WQI = SIi (4)
Where Wi stands for the relative weight of a parameter, wi denotes the i=0

weight that has been allocated to an individual parameter, and n means The following classifications were used to categorize WQI’s output:
the number of used parameters. WQI<50 means “excellent” category; “good” when WPI ranges from 50
The next step was to divide each parameter’s concentration by the

Fig. 2. Geographical distribution of arsenic in the study area’s groundwater (a) PRM (b) POM.

4
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

to 75; WPI in the range of 75–100 exemplifies a “poor” quality; and
WPI>100 indicates a “very poor” water quality (Horton, 1965; Hossain
and Patra 2020a).
2.5.2. Water pollution index (WPI)
The extent of groundwater contamination was assessed through the
WPI using a total of 14 water quality parameters, including Fe, As, pH,
TDS, EC, F‾, Cl‾, NO3‾, HCO3‾, SO2‾ 2 2
4 , Na⁺, Mg ⁺, K⁺, and Ca , based on
their recommended guideline value of Bangladesh standards and WHO
(Table 1). The key difference between newly formulated WPI and other
indices (such as WQI) is that WPI is not bound to a specific type of water
parameter and theoretical ideal value or dissimilar weights (Hossain and
Patra, 2020b).
First, the following equation (Eq. 5) was used to determine the
pollutant load (PLi) of a single parameter;
( )
Ci − Si
PLi = 1 + (5)
Si
The ith parameter’s measured concentration is indicated by the
symbol Ci, while its maximum or standard permitted value is indicated
by the symbol Si. For pH, a value of both <7 or >7 is detrimental to
human health though 7 is considered neutral. In the case of pH < 7,
equation (5.1) and pH > 7, equation (5.2) was suggested.
provided in Table 2 (Hossain and Patra 2020c).
The Hazard Quotient (HQ) is a method for determining the potential
health risks caused by a single toxic element through a particular
exposure route. Generally, HQ is the ratio between CDI for a specific
exposure route and its respective reference dose (RfD). The formulation
of HQ is as follows (Eq. 9).
CDIIngestion/Derrmal
HQiIngestion/Dermal = (9)
RfDIngestion/Dermal
where HQi represents the hazard produced by the ith element for a
certain exposure path. The term reference dose (RfD) is the verge limit
for a toxic substance above which adverse health consequences will start
to occur. In this study, two potential toxic elements (Fe and As) were
considered for the estimation of probable health risks to human health.
The RfD values of Fe for ingestion and dermal exposures are 0.7 and
0.045 mg/kg/day (Hossain and Patra 2020c), and for As, it is 0.0003 and
0.00012 mg/kg/day (Shil and Singh, 2019), respectively.
In the next step, the Hazard Index (HI) was calculated (Eq. (10)),
which is the sum of all the HQi for individual toxic elements for a
particular pathway mentioned previously for two population groups,
viz. children and adults, separately.
∑
HIingestion/dermal = HQiimgestion (10)
dermal

Ci − 7
PLi = (5.1) In the end, THI, or the total hazard index, was calculated by adding
Sia − 7
together all the risks brought on by different exposure pathways (Eq.
Ci − 7 (11)).
PLi = (5.2)
Sib − 7 THI = HIingestion + HIdermal (11)
Here, Sia indicates the minimum acceptable value of pH, i.e., 6.5, and Sib A value of THI less than one (<1) is considered an acceptable level of
designates the maximum acceptable value of pH, i.e., 8.5. risk, whereas THI values greater than one (>1) are considered a prob­
Ultimately, the total degree of pollution of a sample was assessed by able risk of potentially unacceptable health hazards (Hossain and Patra,
the water pollution index (WPI) by aggregating all pollution load, 2020c).
divided by n number of used variables (parameters) (Eq. (6)).
1 ∑n 3. Results and discussion
WPI = PLi (6)
n i=1
3.1. Basic groundwater chemistry
The WPI values categorized the water quality into four groups such
as “excellent” when WPI<0.5; 0.5 ≤ WPI<0.75 indicates “good water Physico-chemical factors indicate the nature, character, and quality
quality”; 0.75 ≤ WPI<1 means “moderately polluted water”; and the of groundwater. According to the ionic balance test (Table 1s in the
water is highly polluted when WPI≥1. supplemental materials), 95% of PRM and 94% of POM samples had an
ion balance (IB) within 5% as per the APHA (2012) recommendation.
2.6. Health risk assessment (HRA) Ionic error balances were often found negative, suggesting that anions

To determine exposure risk to harmful components (Fe and As in this

study) in groundwater, Hazard Index (HI), cumulatively functions with Table 2
reference to the human body was performed (Adimalla and Qiana, The range of different input factors for the HRA model.
2019). To quantify the HI, in the first step of chronic daily intake (CDI), a Abbreviation Input Values Reference(s)
factor for frequency, magnitude, exposure duration, and concentration variables
level of potentially toxic metal was estimated. There are two major ways Parameter Unit Adult Child
of exposure pathways to estimate the health risks for the human body,
I.R. Ingestion rate Litre/ 2.51 ± 1.23 ± Hossain and
such as direct or oral ingestion (Eq. (7)) and through the skin (Eq. (8)) day 0.42 0.62 Patra, 2020c
(USEPA, 1989). E.F. Exposure Days/ 345 345 Kumar et al.
frequency year (2019)
Ci × IR × EF × ED E.D. Exposure Year 65 ± 6 12 ± 6 Hossain and
CDIIngestion = (7)
BW × AT duration Patra, 2020c
B.W Bodyweight Kg 62.89 15.81 Hossain and
Ci × SA × KP × ET × EF × ED × CF ± 4.45 ± 1.86 Patra, 2020c
CDIDermal = (8)
BW × AT AT Average time Day 23725 4745 Hossain and
± 2190 ± 1825 Patra, 2020c
where Ci indicates the concentration of a toxic element (mg/L); IR S.A. Skin surface cm2 18182 7422 Wu et al.
area ± 1.10 ± 1.25 (2011)
means ingestion rate; ED denotes the exposure duration; EF is the symbol
Kp Dermal cm/ 1× 1 × 10- Kumar et al.
for exposure frequency; BW signifies the average body weight; SA des­ permeability hour 10− 3 3 (2019)
ignates the skin area; AT describes the average time; the skin perme­ E.T. Exposure Hours/ 0.58 1 Kumar et al.
ability coefficient is Kp (cm/h), the exposure time is ET, and a unit Time day (2019)
concentration factor for hazardous elements in water is denoted by CF. C.F. Conversion Litre/ 1× 1 × 10- USEPA
factor cm3 10− 3 3 (1989)
The value of these factors was gathered from recent publications and is

5
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

are generally more common than cations (Nag and Das, 2014).
The statistical summary of the groundwater quality parameters is
represented in Table 3 pH is a major influential parameter that governs
the acidity, alkalinity, and chemical speciation of elements in ground­
water. pH values ranged from 6.4 to 7.1 and 7.1 to 7.7 in PRM and POM,
respectively, indicating that the groundwater is generally neutral. EC is
the indication of all charges and dissolved particles present in water.
36% of the sample had greater EC than the WHO limit (750 μS/cm),
ranging from 316 to 1060 μS/cm, with an average value of 721.3 μS/cm
and 529.57 μS/cm in PRM and POM, respectively. The mean TDS values
(461.63 mg/L in PRM and 338.92 mg/L in POM) were found to be lower
than the Bangladesh standard (1000 mg/L). According to Table 3, the
primary cation sequence is Ca2+>Na+>Mg2+>K+, showing calcium and
sodium to be the predominant ones. All the cations were observed below
their specified Bangladesh and WHO permissible limit (Table 1) except
Ca2+, which ranged from 47.42 to 144.9 mg/L. Major anions were in the
descending order of HCO−3 >Cl‾> SO2− 4 >NO3 >F‾ (Table 3). All the
− the strong loading of iron and arsenic, which originated from iron-
anions were noticed within their permissible limit except the bicar­
bonate, which showed a mean ± SD value of 498.77 ± 75.8 and 340.53
research is principal component analysis (PCA). Here, varimax rotation
through the dimension reduction process was used to carry out PCA. The
first four principal components (D1, D2, D3, D4) explained a total of
78.76% variances in the data set. The degree of factor loading with the
cumulative variance (%) of principal components (eigenvalues >1) is
summarized in Table 2s. Fig. 3 presents the biplots of the major com­
ponents. The first factor (D1) contributed a maximum of 31.0% of the
total variance having strong loading in EC, TDS, Ca2⁺, Mg2⁺, K+, and
HCO−3 . The grouping of Ca2⁺ and Mg2⁺ with HCO−3 indicates their source
to be carbonate minerals such as aragonite, calcite, and dolomite.
Geochemical processes like ion exchange and weathering of silicate
minerals have an impact on the remaining variables. D2 accounted for
20.62% of the variance, owing to the significant loading of pH, Na⁺, Cl‾,
and F‾, which are strongly associated with local geological settings such
as halite and fluorite dissolution and interaction of sodium and fluoride-
bearing minerals with the groundwater. D3 shared 15.37%, indicating
bearing minerals such as arsenopyrite. The fourth factor, D4, contrib­
uted 11.76% of the total variance and includes SO2− 4 , NO3, directing
‾

their input from anthropogenic activities such as chemical fertilizer from

± 41.31 mg/L in PRM and POM respectively. The results summary in­
dicates that the groundwater of the study area is influenced by carbonate
minerals with moderate dissolution.
Total Fe varied between 0.01 and 0.85 with a mean value of 0.24 and
0.04 in PRM and POM, respectively, signifying both the mean values are
lower than WHO and Bangladesh standards with a few higher values in
some locations. Arsenic, the most toxic element, ranged from 0.03 to
0.18 mg/L and BDL to 0.07 mg/L with a mean value of 0.06 and 0.03
mg/L in PRM and POM, respectively (Fig. 2a and b), indicating much
higher values than the WHO and Bangladesh permissible limit. Arsenic
was found to show a negative correlation to pH and temperature and
positively correlated with all other parameters. It was previously esti­
mated that when people consume arsenic levels>0.05 mg/L in
groundwater, they are more suspected to experience dermatological
manifestations and As skin lesions (Samal et al., 2013b) and thus, resi­
dents of the study area are at a high risk of arsenic-induced health
hazards. The study area is just located on the bank of the Madhumati
River, which is a distributary of the Padma River and a part of the GBM
(Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna) floodplain. The sediments of the GBM
flood plain are primarily basic and metallic and are a potential source of
As (Huq et al., 2020). Oxidation of arsenopyrite causing arsenic
enrichment is likely to be due to large-scale groundwater extraction
from shallow aquifer systems (Lowers et al., 2007).
3.2. Source interpretation of water quality parameters
A popular multivariate statistical method in hydrogeochemical
the agricultural fields.
3.3. Hydrochemical characterization
Understanding hydrochemical principles help in clarifying the dy­
namics of groundwater systems and opens up clues to the ancient en­
vironments (Pierre et al., 2005; Hossain et al., 2020). Piper trilinear
diagram was used for plotting the analytical values of principal cations
and anions (Piper, 1944) to understand the hydrochemical properties of
the research area’s groundwater. In essence, it shows whether the water
is distinct or a mixture of different types in terms of chemical properties.
It also provides a clue to the possible origin of groundwater samples. The
diamond-shaped area of the Piper diagram is divided into four major
categories such as Ca–SO4, Ca–HCO3, Na–Cl, and Na–HCO3. Each part
represents a particular type of variation in water chemistry. All the
samples of this study of both PRM and POM seasons have displayed a
characteristic of Ca–HCO3 type water with dominancy of calcium,
magnesium, and carbonate ions (Fig. 4a and b), indicating the presence
of carbonate minerals with their probable origin from the sallow
freshwater zone, which is another reason for arsenic enrichment.
Influential environmental mechanisms for above groundwater
chemistry were identified through Gibbs diagrams (Gibbs, 1970), which
investigate certain mechanisms like precipitation, rock weathering, and
evaporation that regulate the chemistry of groundwater (Luo et al.,
2017; Hossain and Patra, 2021). The scatter diagrams were plotted by
applying the log scale values of TDS concentrations vs Na⁺/Na⁺+Ca2+
(Fig. 5a) and Cl‾/Cl‾+ HCO3‾ (Fig. 5b).

Table 3
Summarized chemistry of water quality parameter (mg/L) in PRM and POM.
Premonsoon (PRM) Postmonsoon (POM)

Parameters Min. Max. Mean SD Min. Max. Mean SD

pH 6.42 7.07 6.77 0.17 7.1 7.7 7.41 0.14
EC 460 1060 721.3 111.14 316 710 529.57 73.42
Temperature 21.5 22.6 22.06 0.34 32.6 32.9 32.77 0.076
TDS 294.4 678.4 461.63 71.13 202.24 454.4 338.92 46.99
Calcium 51.94 144.9 80.16 19.73 47.42 95.66 72.68 11.92
Magnesium 10.5 39.66 29.03 5.47 9.42 41.64 27.03 6.98
Sodium 9.6 27.7 15.8 4.2 6.1 21.3 12.27 3.88
Potassium 1.4 15 5.68 3.4 1.4 9.2 3.72 1.87
Bicarbonate 290.0 684 498.77 75.8 230 410 340.53 41.31
Sulfate 2.32 49.89 21.39 10.27 0.26 59.48 18.99 9.59
Chloride 1.82 63.47 21.59 16.09 10.67 49.3 26.07 11.96
Nitrate 0.37 20.76 11.58 5.63 0.39 12.72 8.32 2.5
Fluoride 0.15 0.82 0.45 0.18 0.17 0.73 0.4 0.15
Iron 0.05 0.85 0.24 0.19 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.03
Arsenic 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.0 0.07 0.03 0.02

6
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

Fig. 3. Biplots of major components in PCA analysis.

Fig. 4. Major groundwater chemical properties in (a) PRM (b) POM season.

The graphical interpretation clearly illustrated that the area’s Fourteen water quality parameters such as TDS, EC, pH, HCO−3 , Cl‾, F‾,
groundwater chemistry is profoundly impacted by the native geological SO2− 2 2
4 , NO3 , Ca ⁺, Mg ⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, total Fe, and As were undertaken to
−

foundation, weathering of rock minerals, ion exchange, and water-rock
interaction since the rock-dominant sector encompassed all of the
groundwater samples.
3.4. Assessment of drinking water quality
The water quality index (WQI) is a common and effective method for
determining groundwater quality and suitability for drinking purposes.
determine the overall groundwater quality through WQI. The values of
WQI ranged from 54.91 to 214.02 and 17.93 to 95.88 in PRM and POM
seasons, respectively. The spatial variation map of WQI through IDW
interpolated GIS technique indicated that during PRM, no sample was
found in the “excellent” category, 63% of samples showed “good” water
class, 33% of the sample were observed in “poor” category, and 6% of
the sample were categorized as “very poor” water (Fig. 6a). Contrast­
ingly, in POM 30%, 70% of samples were classified in the “excellent”,

7
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

Fig. 5. Gibb’s scatter diagram showing (a) TDS against Na⁺/Na⁺+Ca2+ and (b) TDS against Cl‾/Cl‾+ HCO3‾.

Fig. 6. Spatial variation in drinking water quality (a) WQI PRM, (b) WQI POM, (c) WPI PRM, (d) WPI POM.

8
P. Biswas et al. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944

and “good” category respectively (Fig. 6b). moderate, and highly polluted) in a broad region.
The Water pollution index (WPI) proposed by Hossain and Patra
(2020b) was employed to assess the level of contamination for drinking
3.5. Heath risk assessment
purposes using 14 variables (n = 14) of water quality. WPI values varied
from 0.72 to 1.76 in PRM with a mean value of 1.0, while in POM, it was
Sequential computation of the chronic daily intake (CDI), hazard
found in the range of 0.31–0.89, having an average of 0.62. Among the
quotient (HQ), and hazard index (HI) for ingestion and dermal expo­
30 collected groundwater samples in premonsoon, no sample was
sures for the two potential toxic elements (total Fe and total As) was
observed in the excellent category, 7% of samples were found to be of
obtained to estimate the total hazard index (THI) for adult and children
good quality, 60% were categorized as moderately polluted, and 33% of
age group. In PRM, THI values for adults (THIa) had a mean value of
the sample were found to be highly polluted or unfit for human con­
11.60, with a range of 4.96–32.21 (Fig. 7a). and for the child (THIc), it
sumption (Fig. 6c). In POM 26% of the sample were excellent, 47% were
ranged from 4.73 to 30.71 with a mean of 11.05 (Fig. 7b). In POM, THI
good, 27% were moderate, and none was found in highly polluted
values for adults and children varied from 0.002 to 12.2 (Figs. 7c) and
category for drinking purposes (Fig. 6d). The results revealed that for
0.002 to 11.63 (Fig. 7d), indicating lower health risk as compared to
drinking purpose, the groundwater quality in the region is moderate to
PRM season. In both seasons, for both age groups, 99% of health hazards
highly polluted in PRM and good to moderately polluted in POM.
were attributed to the ingestion route of exposure. In all THI cases, HQ
Comparatively, WPI presented a better report of water quality since it is
values of arsenic were found to be more dominant than iron, indicating
an integrated approach that produces a single value index by converting
As is the most influential toxic element in total hazard prediction. Pre­
n number of input parameters to classify the water quality.
dicted risk values indicate that the residents of the selected area are
Some hydrochemical studies on groundwater of the region have been
prone to severe arsenical skin manifestations. Long-time consumption of
carried out for arsenic quantification, and its relation with other water
this arsenic-contaminated groundwater may also induce cancer risks
parameters and the health risks has been discussed based on arsenic
(Das et al., 2021; Joardar et al., 2021). Geospatial distribution maps of
quantification only (Rahman et al., 2018a; Shaibur, 2019; Shaibur and
THI (ingestion + dermal) values through the Inverse Distance Weighting
Howlader, 2020). This study characterizes the water quality based on a
(IDW) model displayed that residents of 100% of areas in PRM and 87%
new index system (WPI), WQI and application of GIS for water quality as
areas in POM are highly prone to non-carcinogenic health risks due to
well as health hazards modelling using total hazard index (THI). The
intake of As and Fe contaminated groundwater (Fig. 7). The resultant
geospatial distribution map of WQI and WPI, and THI with IDW inter­
water quality and associated health risks was better and lower in POM,
polation technique through the GIS platform envisaged the seasonal as
as compared to PRM, which may be due to recharge of rainwater mainly
well as spatial variation in water quality of the entire study area. This
through river water infiltration into the shallow groundwater zone that
type of map is very useful for better groundwater management since it
helped in the dilution of the groundwater contaminants (Sharma et al.,
can easily delineate the water quality classes (such as excellent, good,
2021).

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution maps of (a) THIa PRM, (b) THIc PRM, (d) THIa POM, and (d) THIc POM.

9
P. Biswas et al.
4. Limitation and recommendation
Some important potential toxic elements such as Cd, Pd, Hg, and Al
have not been included in the present investigation. Their concentration
in the groundwater samples could provide a better understanding of
hydrogeochemistry and accurate health risks assessment. The dietary
intake of arsenic mainly through the consumption of locally produced
rice and vegetables, has not been considered. In future, there is a scope
for cumulative health risks investigation from both consumptions of
arsenic-rich foodstuff and groundwater with a detailed epidemiological
survey of affected people to acquire an accurate total risk and prepare a
better report for social awareness and risk management. In the present
study, it was observed that most of the newly installed tubewells, and
even some of the green-marked tubewells are arsenic contaminated.
Thus the red and green marks on tubewells for their safe use are no
longer valid.
5. Conclusions
The study revealed that arsenic concentration in all PRM samples
and 80% of POM samples were above the WHO criteria (0.01 mg/L),
indicating the research area is an arsenic-endemic region. Ca–Mg–HCO3
types of water in the shallow freshwater table originated from the GMB
basin under the influence of arsenic-bearing geological settings, and
sediment-water interactions governed the hydrogeochemistry of
arsenic. The observed high values of arsenic correspond to poor water
quality, resulting in unsafe and high risks of waterborne health hazards
due to the use of contaminated water for drinking and bathing purposes,
which is not appreciable in present days. Ensuring a low arsenic water
supply should be the priority in these affected regions as the residents
depend highly on groundwater for drinking and other domestic activ­
ities. Circulation and utilization of purified surface water are not pro­
vided in this region by the Govt. or other agencies, and the purchase of
residential water purifiers by every family is severely constrained due to
high cost. Thus, large-scale or community arsenic water treatment and
supply solutions may be considered in the region. Chemical arsenic
removal technologies, as well as provision for safe drinking water such
as deep tubewells avoiding shallow tubewells, rainwater harvesting,
sand filters, and marking of safe and unsafe tubewells, are some common
practices that are now become popular methods for arsenic manage­
ment, and such methods are adopted in many parts of Bangladesh with
government initiatives. So, one of the viable options for delivering clean
water in this region is community water treatment facilities sponsored
by corporate entities and local and state governments. In the future,
extensive epidemiological studies will be another scope to relate past
arsenic exposure and real-time arsenic-causing illnesses in communities.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The first author is grateful to ICCR (International Council for Cultural
Relation) for providing the research fellowship during the course of the
study. We are also thankful to Dr. Syed Yakub Ali, Project Fellow in
CPCB, India, for his supportive role during the research.
10
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gsd.2023.100944.
References
Adimalla, N., Qiana, H., 2019. Groundwater quality evaluation using water quality index
(WQI) for drinking purposes and human health risk (HHR) assessment in an
agricultural region of Nanganur, South India. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 176,
153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.03.066.
Ahmad, S.A., Sayed, M.H., Khan, M.H., Karim, M.N., Haque, M.A., Bhuiyan, M.S.,
Rahman, M.S., Faruquee, M.H., 2007. Sociocultural aspects of arsenicosis in
Bangladesh: community perspective. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. A 42, 1945–1958.
Ahmed, K.M., Bhattacharya, P., Hasan, M.A., Akhter, S.H., Alam, S.M., Bhuyian, M.H.,
Imam, M.B., Khan, A.A., Sracek, O., 2004. Arsenic enrichment in groundwater of the
alluvial aquifers in Bangladesh: an overview. Appl. Geochem. 19, 181–200.
Ahmed, M.K., Baki, M.A., Kundu, G.K., Islam, M.S., Islam, M.M., Hossain, M.M., 2016.
Human Health Risks from Heavy Metals in Fish of Buriganga River, Bangladesh, vol.
5. Springer Plus, p. 1697.
Alam, R., McPhedran, K., 2019a. Applications of biological sulfate reduction for
remediation of arsenic – a review. Chemosphere 222, 932–944.
Alam, R., McPhedran, K., 2019b. Applications of biological sulfate reduction for
remediation of arsenic – a review. Chemosphere 222, 932–944.
APHA, 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty-
second ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
Water Environment Federation.
BAMWSP (Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project), 2004. Summary Report
of Household Survey. Voluntary Organization for Social Development (VOSD),
Package No. 1/B.
BGS (British Geological Survey), 1999. Groundwater Studies for Arsenic Contamination
in Bangladesh. Main Report and Supplemental Volumes 1-3, Government of the
Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development
and Cooperatives, Department of Public Health Engineering, Dhaka Bangladesh and
Mott MacDonald International Ltd., U.K.
Bhattacharya, P., Adhikari, S., Samal, A.C., Das, R., Dey, D., Deb, A., Ahmed, S.,
Hussein, J., De, A., Das, A., Joardar, M., 2020. Health risk assessment of co-
occurrence of toxic fluoride and arsenic in groundwater of Dharmanagar region,
North Tripura (India). Groundwater for sustainable development 11, 100430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100430.
Bhattacharya, P., Samal, A.C., Majumdar, J., Banerjee, S., Santra, S.C., 2013. In vitro
assessment on the impact of soil arsenic in the eight rice varieties of West Bengal,
India. J. Hazard Mater. 262, 1091–1097.
Bodrud-Doza, M., Islam, A.T., Ahmed, F., Das, S., Saha, N., Rahman, M.S., 2016.
Characterization of groundwater quality using water evaluation indices, multivariate
statistics and geostatistics in central Bangladesh. Water Sci 30, 19–40.
Chakraborti, D., Rahman, M.M., Das, B., Murrill, M., Dey, S., Mukherjee, S., Dhar, R.K.,
Biswas, B.K., Chowdhury, U.K., Roy, S., Sorif, S., Selim, M., Rahman, M.,
Quamruzzaman, Q., 2010. Status of groundwater arsenic contamination in
Bangladesh: a 14-year study report. Water Res. 44 (19), 5789–5802.
Chakraborti, D., Rahman, M.M., Mukherjee, A., Alauddin, M., Hassan, M., Dutta, R.N.,
Pati, S., Mukherjee, S.C., Roy, S., Quamruzzman, Q., Rahman, M., 2015.
Groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh—21 Years of research. J. Trace
Elem. Med. Biol. 31, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2015.01.003.
Chakraborti, D., Singh, S.K., Rahman, M.M., Dutta, R.N., Mukherjee, S.C., Pati, S., Kar, P.
B., 2018. Groundwater arsenic contamination in the Ganga River Basin: a future
health danger. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 15 (2), 180.
Chen, K., Jiao, J.J., Huang, J., Huang, R., 2007. Multivariate statistical evaluation of
trace elements in groundwater in a coastal area in Shenzhen, China. Environ. Pollut.
147, 771–780.
Das, A., Joardar, M., De, A., Mridha, D., Chowdhury, N.R., Khan, M.T.B.K.,
Chakrabartty, P., Roychowdhury, T., 2021. Pollution index and health risk
assessment of arsenic through different groundwater sources and its load on soil-
paddy-rice system in a part of Murshidabad district of West Bengal, India.
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 15, 100652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsd.2021.100652.
Dhar, R.K., Biswas, B.K., Samanta, G., Mandal, B.K., Chakraborti, D., Roy, S., Jafar, J.,
Islam, A., Ara, G., Kabir, S., Khan, A.W., Ahmed, S.A., Hadi, A.A., 1997.
Groundwater arsenic calamity in Bangladesh. Curr. Sci. 73 (1), 48–59.
Escobar, M.E.O., Hue, N.V., Cutler, W.G., 2006. Recent developments on arsenic:
contamination and remediation. Recent Res. Dev. Bioenerg. 4, 1–32.
Fendorf, S., Michael, H.A., Van Green, A., 2010. Spatial and temporal variations of
groundwater arsenic in south and southeast Asia. Science 328 (5982), 1123–1127.
Gibbs, R.J., 1970. Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 170,
1088–1090.
Greco, S.L., Belova, A., Haskell, J., Backer, L., 2019. Estimated burden of disease from
arsenic in drinking water supplied by domestic wells in the United States. J. Water
Health 17, 801–812.
Hasan, M.A., Bhattacharya, P., Sracek, O., Ahmed, K.M., von Br€omssen, M., Jacks, G.,
2009. Geological controls on groundwater chemistry and arsenic mobilization:
hydrogeochemical study along an E–W transect in the Meghna basin, Bangladesh.
J. Hydrol 378, 105–118.
Horton, R.K., 1965. An index number system for rating water quality. J. Wat. Pollut. Con.
Fed. 37 (3), 300–305.
P. Biswas et al.
Hossain, M., Karmakar, D., Begum, S.N., Ali, S.Y., Patra, P.K., 2021. Recent trends in the
analysis of trace elements in the field of environmental research: a review.
Microchem. J. 165, 106086 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2021.106086.
Hossain, M., Patra, P.K., 2020a. Hydrogeochemical characterization and health hazards
of fluoride enriched groundwater in diverse aquifer types. Environ. Pollut. 258,
113646 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113646.
Hossain, M., Patra, P.K., 2020b. Water pollution index – a new integrated approach to
rank water quality. Ecol. Indicat. 117, 106668 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2020.106668.
Hossain, M., Patra, P.K., 2020c. Contamination zoning and health risk assessment of
trace elements in groundwater through geostatistical modelling. Ecotoxicol. Environ.
Saf. 189, 110038 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.110038.
Hossain, M., Patra, P.K., 2021. Investigation of groundwater quality for agricultural use
in a lateritic soil belt. Indian J. Environ. Protect. 41 (1), 34–41.
Hossain, M., Patra, P.K., Begum, S.N., Chowdhury, H.R., 2020. Spatial and sensitivity
analysis of integrated groundwater quality index towards irrigational suitability
investigation. Appl. Geochem. 123, 104782 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeochem.2020.104782.
Huq, M.E., Fahad, S., Shao, Z., Sarven, M.S., Al-Huqail, A.A., Siddiqui, M.H., Rahman, M.
H.u., Khan, I.A., Alam, M., Saeed, M., Rauf, A., Basir, A., Jamal, Y., Khan, S.U., 2019.
High arsenic contamination and presence of other trace metals in drinking water of
Kushtia district, Bangladesh. J. Environ. Manag. 242, 199–209.
Huq, M.E., Fahad, S., Shao, Z., Sarven, M.S., Khan, I.A., Alam, M., Saeed, M., Ullah, H.,
Adnan, M., Saud, S., Cheng, Q., 2020. Arsenic in a groundwater environment in
Bangladesh: occurrence and mobilization. J. Environ. Manag. 262, 110318 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110318.
Islam, A.T., Shen, S.-H., Bodrud-Doza, M., 2017. Assessment of arsenic health risk and
source apportionment of groundwater pollutants using multivariate statistical
techniques in Chapai-Nawabganj district, Bangladesh. J. Geol. Soc. India 90,
239–248.
Joardar, M., Das, A., Chowdhury, N.R., Mridha, D., De, A., Majumdar, K.K.,
Roychowdhury, T., 2021. Health effect and risk assessment of the populations
exposed to different arsenic levels in drinking water and foodstuffs from four villages
in arsenic endemic Gaighata block, West Bengal, India. Environ. Geochem. Health
43, 3027–3053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-021-00823-3.
Joseph, T., Dubey, B., McBean, E.A., 2015. A critical review of arsenic exposures for
Bangladeshi adults. Sci. Total Environ. 527, 540–551.
Kamtchueng, B.T., Fantong, W.Y., Wirmvem, M.J., Tiodjio, R.E., Takounjou, A.F., Ndam
Ngoupayou, J.R., Kusakabe, M., Zhang, J., Ohba, T., Tanyileke, G., Hell, J.V.,
Ueda, A., 2016. Hydrogeochemistry and quality of surface water and groundwater in
the vicinity of Lake Monoun, West Cameroon: approach from multivariate statistical
analysis and stable isotopic characterization. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188 (9), 1–24.
Kumar, D., Singh, A., Jha, R.K., Sahoo, S.K., Jha, V., 2019. A variance decomposition
approach for risk assessment of groundwater quality. Expo. Heal. 1, 13. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12403-018-00293-6.
Liao, N., Seto, E., Eskenazi, B., Wang, M., Li, Y., Hua, J., 2018. A comprehensive review
of arsenic exposure and risk from rice and a risk assessment among a cohort of
adolescents in Kunming, China. IJERPH 15 (10), 2191.
Lowers, H.A., Breit, G.N., Foster, A.L., Whitney, J., Yount, J., Uddin, M.N., Muneem, A.
A., 2007. Arsenic incorporation into authigenic pyrite, Bengal Basin sediment,
Bangladesh. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 71, 2699–2717.
Luo, K., Hu, X., He, Q., Wu, Z., Cheng, H., Hu, Z., Mazumder, A., 2017. Using
multivariate techniques to assess the effects of urbanization on surface water quality:
a case study in the Liangjiang New Area, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (4), 174.
Matiatos, I., Alexopoulos, A., Godelitsas, A., 2014. Multivariate statistical analysis of the
hydrogeochemical and isotopic composition of the groundwater resources in
northeastern Peloponnesus (Greece). Sci. Total Environ. 476, 577–590.
Matthess, G., 1982. The Properties of Groundwater. Department of Environmental
Science, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, p. 406.
Mondal, D., Mwale, T., Xu, L., Matthews, H., Oyeka, A., Lace-Costigan, G., Polya, D.A.,
2019. Risk perception of arsenic exposure from rice intake in a UK population.
Palgrave Commun 5, 89.
Moulick, D., Samanta, S., Sarkar, S., Mukherjee, A., Pattnaik, B.K., Saha, S., Awasthi, J.P.,
Bhowmick, S., Ghosh, D., Samal, A.C., Mahanta, S., 2021. Arsenic contamination,
impact and mitigation strategies in rice agro-environment: an inclusive insight. Sci.
Total Environ. 800, 149477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149477.
Nag, S.K., Das, S., 2014. Groundwater quality for irrigation and domestic purposes – a
GIS based case study of Suri-I and II blocks, Birbhum district, West Bengal, India.
International Journal of Advancement in Earth and Environmental Sciences 2 (1),
25–38.
Natasha Bibi, I., Shahid, M., Niazi, N.K., Younas, F., Naqvi, S.R., Shaheen, S.M.,
Imran, M., Wang, H., Hussaini, K.M., Zhang, H., Rinklebe, J., 2020.
Hydrogeochemical and health risk evaluation of arsenic in shallow and deep aquifers
along the different floodplains of Punjab, Pakistan. J. Hazard Mater. 402, 24074
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124074.
Neumann, R.B., Ashfaque, K.N., Badruzzaman, A., Ali, M.A., Shoemaker, J.K., Harvey, C.
F., 2010. Anthropogenic influences on groundwater arsenic concentrations in
Bangladesh. Nat. Geosci. 3, 46–52.
Nickson, R.T., McArthur, J.M., Burgess, W.G., Ahmed, K.M., Ravenscroft, P.,
Rahman, M., 1998. Arsenic poisoning of Bangladesh groundwater. Nature 395
(6700), 338.
Pierre, D., Glynn, L., Plummer, N., 2005. Geochemistry and the understanding of
groundwater systems. Hydrogeol. J. 13, 263–287.
Piper, A.M., 1944. A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water
analyses. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 25, 914–923.
11
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944
Radfard, M., Yunesian, M., Nabizadeh, R., Biglari, H., Nazmara, S., Hadi, M., Yousefi, N.,
Yousefi, M., Abbasnia, A., Mahvi, A.H., 2019. Drinking water quality and arsenic
health risk assessment in Sistan and Baluchestan, Southeastern Province, Iran. Hum.
Ecol. Risk Assess. 25, 949–965.
Rahman, M.A., Rahman, A., Khan, M.Z.K., Renzaho, A.M.N., 2018a. Human health risks
and socio-economic perspectives of arsenic exposure in Bangladesh: a scoping
review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 150, 335–343.
Rahman, M.M., Dong, Z., Naidu, R., 2015. Concentrations of Arsenic and other elements
in groundwater of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India: potential cancer risk.
Chemosphere 139, 54–64.
Rahman, M.M., Islam, M.A., Bodrud-Doza, M., Muhib, M.I., Zahid, A., Shammi, M.,
Tareq, S.M., Kurasaki, M., 2018b. Spatio-temporal assessment of groundwater
quality and human health risk: a case study in Gopalganj, Bangladesh. Exposure and
health 10, 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-017-0253-y.
Rezaei, H., Zarei, A., Kamarehie, B., Jafari, A., Fakhri, Y., Bidarpoor, F., Karami, M.A.,
Farhang, M., Ghaderpoori, M., Sadeghi, H., Shalyari, N., 2019. Levels, distributions
and health risk assessment of lead, cadmium and arsenic found in drinking
groundwater of Dehgolan’s villages, Iran. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. 11, 54–62.
Ruíz-Vera, T., Ochoa-Martínez, ′ A.C., Zarazúa, S., Carrizales-Y′ ãnez, L., P′ erez-
Maldonado, I.N., 2019. Circulating miRNA-126, -145 and -155 levels in Mexican
women exposed to inorganic arsenic via drinking water. Environ. Toxicol.
Pharmacol. 67, 79–86.
Safiuddin, Md, Karim, M.M., 2001. Groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh:
causes, effects and remediation. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
and Annual Paper Meet on Civil Engineering Held at Chittagong. Institution of
Engineers, Bangladesh (IEB), Bangladesh, pp. 220–230.
Safiuddin, Md, Karim, M.M., 2003. Water resources management in the remedy of
groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh. In: Murphy, T., Guo, J. (Eds.),
Aquatic Arsenic Toxicity and Treatment. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands,
pp. 1–17.
Saha, N., Rahman, M.S., 2020. Groundwater hydrogeochemistry and probabilistic health
risk assessment through exposure to arsenic-contaminated groundwater of Meghna
floodplain, central-east Bangladesh. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 206, 111349 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111349.
Saha, N., Rahman, M.S., Ahmed, M.B., Zhou, J.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., 2017. Industrial
metal pollution in water and probabilistic assessment of human health risk.
J. Environ. Manag. 185, 70–78.
Samal, A.C., Bhattacharya, P., Banerjee, S., Majumdar, J., Santra, S.C., 2013a.
Distribution of arsenic in the estuarine ecosystem of Nayachar Island, West Bengal,
India. Earth Sci. India 6 (II), 70–76.
Samal, A.C., Kar, S., Maity, J.P., Santra, S.C., 2013b. Arsenicosis and its relationship with
nutritional status in two arsenic affected areas of West Bengal, India. J. Asian Earth
Sci. 77, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2013.07.009.
Samal, A.C., Bhattacharya, P., Biswas, P., Maity, J.P., Bundschuh, J., Santra, S.C., 2021.
Variety-specific arsenic accumulation in 44 different rice cultivars (O. sativa L.) and
human health risks due to co-exposure of arsenic-contaminated rice and drinking
water. J. Hazard Mater. 407, 124804 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.124804.
Samal, A.C., Kar, S., Bhattacharya, P., Santra, S.C., 2011. Human exposure to arsenic
through foodstuffs cultivated using arsenic contaminated groundwater in areas of
West Bengal, India. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A Environ. Sci. Eng. 46 (11),
1259–1265.
Samal, A.C., Bhattacharya, P., Santra, S.C., Kar, S., 2010. Transfer of arsenic from
contaminated groundwater and soils to crops and vegetables: a study in gangetic
delta of West Bengal, India. Arsenic in Geosphere and Human Diseases. Taylor and
Francis, London 197–199.
Santra, S.C., Samal, A.C., 2013. Arsenic scenario in Gangetic delta of West Bengal: risk
and management. Ecoscan 3, 41–55.
Santra, S.C., Samal, A.C., Bhattacharya, P., Banerjee, S., Biswas, A., Majumdar, J., 2013.
Arsenic in foodchain and community health risk: a study in Gangetic West Bengal.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 18, 2–13.
Shaibur, M.R., Howlader, M., 2020. Groundwater composition at some unions in
Kashiani and Kotalipara upazila of south-central coastal Gopalganj district,
Bangladesh. Environ. Biol. Res 2 (2), 22–36.
Shaibur, M.R., 2019. Distribution of arsenic and heavy metals and correlation among
them in groundwater of South Fukra, Kashiani, Gopalganj, Bangladesh.
Environmental and Biological Research 1 (1), 84–105.
Shaji, E., Santosh, M., Sarath, K.V., Prakash, P., Deepchand, V., Divya, B.V., 2020.
Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a global synopsis with focus on the Indian
Peninsula. Geosci. Front. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.08.015.
Sharma, R., Kumar, A., Singh, N., Sharma, K., 2021. Impact of seasonal variation on
water quality of Hindon River: physicochemical and biological analysis. SN Appl.
Sci. 3, 1–11.
Shil, S., Singh, U.K., 2019. Health risk assessment and spatial variations of dissolved
heavy metals and metalloids in a tropical river basin system. Ecol. Indicat. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105455.
Singhal, B.B.S., Gupta, R.P., 1999. Applied Hydrogeology of Fractured Rocks. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
SOES-DCH, 2000. Ground Water Arsenic Contamination in Bangladesh. A Summarized
Survey Report by the School of Environmental Studies. Jadavpur University,
Kolkata, India and Dhaka Community Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh, p. 35.
Tabassum, R.A., Shahid, M., Dumat, C., Niazi, N.K., Khalid, S., Shah, N.S., Imran, M.,
Khalid, S., 2019. Health risk assessment of drinking arsenic-containing groundwater
in Hasilpur, Pakistan: effect of sampling area, depth, and source. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Control Ser. 26 (20), 20018–20029.
P. Biswas et al.
Tweed, S., Massuel, S., Seidel, J.L., Chhuon, K., Lun, S., Eang, K.E., Venot, J.P.,
Belaud, G., Babic, M., Leblanc, M., 2020. Seasonal influences on groundwater arsenic
concentrations in the irrigated region of the Cambodian Mekong Delta. Sci. Total
Environ. 728, 138598.
USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA. EPA/540/1-89/
002.
12
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 21 (2023) 100944
USEPA, 2018. Integrated risk information system (IRIS). http://www.epa.gov/iris/.
Who, 2011. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, fourth ed. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
Wu, B., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Cheng, S., 2011. Health risk from exposure of organic
pollutants through drinking water consumption in Nanjing, China. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 84, 46–50.