International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsres ISSN: 2322-4983; 2014 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2014-p0063-0073

Full Length Research Paper Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose
Farid Ansari
Department of Applied Science and Humanities, P.D.M. College of Engineering, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, 124507; India, *Corresponding Author: Email checkfarid@gmail.com
Received 15 November 2013; Accepted 20 January 2014

Abstract. Distillery effluent is posing threat to the different components of the environment due to indiscriminate use of distillery effluent for irrigation of agricultural field, mainly affecting soil and water quality as the chemicals leaches to the groundwater table. The chemical substances transferred in soil profiles is a major environmental concern because even slow transport through the soil may eventually lead to deterioration of groundwater quality. The study reveals the physico-chemical characterisation of soil horizon of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with distillery effluent for the observation of leaching effect of distillery effluent in soil horizons and ground water quality. The result showed that all the physico-chemical properties of soil horizons have high content of effluent irrigated soil compared to fresh water irrigated soils. It may be concluded that the higher value and indiscriminate use of distillery effluent on land affects the composition of the soil and groundwater quality due to leaching. The soil horizon showed higher value in surface soil while the values were less in lower soil horizons as compared to unaffected soil. Keywords: EIS (Effluent Irrigated Soil), PTDE (Partially Treated Distillery Effluent, Soil Horizon, Groundwater, Leachate

1. INTRODUCTION The disposal of waste from industrial sources is becoming a serious threat to the environment throughout the world. Generally distillery effluents are released in streams and other water bodies either after the partial treatment or without treatment while some of the industries release their effluent on open land and sometimes effluents are used for irrigation purpose which poses a serious threat to the soil and water environment. Wastewater reuse in agriculture resulting in inadequate information on long term effects of wastewater reuse on soil chemistry and fertility (Rusan et al., 2007). Papadopolous (1995) reported that wastewater contains physical, chemical and biological constituents that affect its suitability for reuse in agriculture. The effects of long term wastewater irrigation on soil chemical properties were reported by Gwenzi (2009). When any industrial chemicals or organic matter enter into the soil, it percolates with water and may reach to the groundwater and contaminate it. Ansari et al. (2012) reported that Distillery effluent is posing threat to the different components of the environment, mainly affecting soil and water characteristics as the chemicals leaches to the ground

water table. The distillery wastes in large volume have a high pollution potential due to the presence of large quantity of organic matters Kaul et al. (1993). High organic load of effluent adversely influence the soil fertility status and thus the disposal of distillery effluent have become a great environmental concern. Prashanthi et al. (1999) studied the impact of land disposal of industrial effluent on vertical distribution of pollutants in soil. There have been also numerous studies done on impact of distillery effluent on soil and water quality (Kumar et al. 2003; Khan et al., 1996; Joshi et al., 1994; Barauah et al., 1993; Agarwal et al. 1976; Dikshit et al., 2000; Swaminathan et al., 1992) studies on pollution potential of distillery waste as soil leaching and leaching of liquid waste through soil, physicochemical characterization of leachate and its effects on soil properties and groundwater quality (Baddesh et al., 2004; Shivakumar et al., 1992). The removal of soil materials in suspension from different layers of soil is called leachate and the phenomenon is known as leaching. Contaminants migrate into the soil horizontally as well as vertically and cause groundwater pollution that depends on factors like mobility of chemicals and soil conditions (Ansari et al., 2010). Chandekar et al. (1996), reported

63

Ansari Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose

that the leaching of liquid waste through the soil change the fertility of soil and makes it unsafe for the agricultural use. Kaul et al. (1993), observed the distillery waste in large volume have a high pollution potential due to the presence of large quantity of organic matters. The objective of this study therefore was to access and compare the impact of distillery effluent on soil and water quality due to leaching effect. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Selected site is situated 20 km from the centre of Ghazipur district, U.P. India, i.e. Nandganj where Lords distillery plant is situated which continuously releases treated/ partially treated distillery effluent. The effluent releases from the plant to the effluent canal which is 20 km long and always running with wastewater of distillery. The canal connects with Ganga River. The effluents of distillery were used by the some of the farmers or at places where no water resources are available for irrigation, agricultural field are irrigated with these effluent. A Comprehensive plan was designed to provide information about leaching effect of distillery effluent in soil horizons due to use of distillery effluent for agricultural purpose. Total five agricultural fields were selected for the analysis of soil horizon which was continuously irrigated with distillery effluent from effluent canal and the entire sampling sites were close to the effluent canal. Selection of sampling sites was done by considering the degree of pollution and its basic objective was to examine the quality of soil and it compared with unaffected soil horizons. All the physico-chemical properties of soil were analysed at various depths of soil horizon of agricultural field at different depth which was 0-15 cm. (A0) surface soil, 15-50 cm. (A1), 50-100 cm. (A2), 100 -180 cm. (A3), and 180- 260 cm (A4) for sample collection of soil so as to keep the soil horizon undisturbed. The physicochemical characterisation of all experimental soils such as soil colour, pH, moisture content, water holding capacity, bulk density, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, chloride, organic carbon, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium were analysed (Page 1982). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of distillery waste water in soil properties of agricultural field at different sampling sites irrigated with partially / treated distillery effluent from canal was studied. The various physico-chemical parameters of surface and sub soil horizons of distillery effluent irrigated soil were analysed on the basis of soil horizons of each sampling site and compared with unaffected soil horizons. The horizons

were named according to depth i.e. A0 A1, A2, A3 and A4 and are discussed below (Table 1- 6). 3.1. Moisture Content Moisture content of the distillery affected soil was high in all sampling sites in comparison to fresh soil horizon. The highest moisture content 26.0 % was found in surface soil at sampling site EIS6, EIS7 and EIS10, the lowest moisture content was found at sampling site EIS9, it was 16.5 % in lower horizon A4. The moisture content decreased with increasing depth in all sampling sites (Fig.1). The sampling site EIS6, showed moisture content 26.2.0% in surface soil, and then it decreased to 24.3%, 20.2% and 18.2% in soil horizons A2, A3 and A4 respectively. In sampling site EIS7 it was 24.5%, in soil horizon A1 and A2, and 18.4% in A3 and A4 soil horizon. Sampling site EIS8 shows the moisture content was found 25.5% in surface soil and then it decreased to 24.8%, 20.0% and 18.2% in soil horizon A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively. In sampling site EIS9, the moisture content was found 22.4% in surface soil, and then it decreased to 20.0%, 18.0% and 16.5% in soil horizon A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively. The sampling site EIS10, showed moisture content 24.6% in soil horizon A2 and 19.6% in A3 and A4 soil horizon. 3.2. Water Holding Capacity Water holding capacity of the effluent irrigated soil was high at all sampling sites in comparison to fresh soil horizon. The higher value of W.H.C. was 50.2% found in surface soil at sampling site EIS9 and the lower value was found 32.6% in lower soil horizon A4at sampling site EIS9 and EIS10 (Fig. 2). Weil et al. (1979), have reported increased retention of soil water with an increase in waste application rate. An increase in WHC at low tensions such as field capacity was primarily due to increased number of small pores caused by the improvement in aggregation in the soil (Haynes et al., 1998).Water holding capacity of soil decreases with increasing depth in all sampling sites. The W.H.C in surface soil was found 46% at sampling site EIS6 and EIS8 and in sampling site EIS7, EIS9 and EIS10; it was 48.5%, 50.2% and 47.4% respectively. Then it decreased to 44.8%, 46.6%, 42.8%, 48.0% and 43.2% in soil horizon A1 at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A2, it was 42.5%, 40.4%, 40.8%, 46.8% and 42.4% at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The W.H.C. was again decreased to 36% in soil horizon A3 and A4, at sampling sites EIS6, and EIS7. In sampling site EIS8, it was 38.4% in soil horizon A3 and 36.7% in soil horizon A4. The W.H.C at

64

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014

sampling site EIS9 was found 38.7% in soil horizon A3 and lower soil horizon depth A4, it was 32.6%. In sampling site EIS10, it was found 37.5% and 32.2% in soil horizon depths A3 and A4. 3.3. Bulk Density The bulk density of the effluent irrigated soil was less than the fresh soil horizon. The higher bulk density was found 1.76 gm/cm. in lower horizon A3 in sampling site EIS7 and the lower bulk density was 1.10 gm/cm found in upper surface of soil at sampling site EIS6 (Fig.3). Haynes et al. (1998) and Celik (2005) reported a reduction in BD with addition of organic matter. The bulk density of the upper surface of soil was found 1.10, 1.24, 1.32, 1.17 and 1.26 gm/cm. at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. Below the horizon A1, bulk density was found 1.24, 1.22, 1.13, 1.37 and 1.34 gm/cm. at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The soil horizon A2 shows the bulk density 1.34, 1.64, 1.54, 1.66, and 1.44 gm/cm. at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 1.64, 1.34, 1.62, 1.67 and 1.64 at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows the bulk density 1.64, 1.76, 1.68, 1.72 and 1.64 at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.4. Soil pH The pH of the soil horizon which was regularly irrigated with partially treated distillery effluent shows the higher value in all sampling sites in comparison to fresh soil. The higher value of pH 7.34 was found in upper surface of soil at sampling site EIS8 and the lower value of pH 6.30 was found in lower soil horizon A4, at sampling site EIS10. The pH value in all sampling sites decreases with increasing depth (Fig.4). The sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 shows the pH value 7.20, 7.00, 7.34, 7.10 and 6.90 respectively in surface soil and then it decreased in all sampling sites i.e. 7.00, 7.10, 7.30, 7.36 and 6.60 in soil horizon A1 The pH was again decreased to 7.00, 6.80, 7.00, 6.90 and 6.90 at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively in soil horizon A2. The value of pH value at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 was 6.92, 6.66, 6.50, 6.60 and 6.72 respectively in soil horizon A3, and in lower horizon A4 it decreased to 6.65, 6.72, 6.50, 6.50 and 6.30 respectively.

3.5. Electrical Conductivity The electrical conductivity of the effluent irrigated soil was found higher 1.76 (dS/m) at sampling site EIS10 in surface soil, and the lower value was found 0.62 (dS/m) in lower horizon A4 at sampling site EIS7 (Fig.5).The value of electrical conductivity in surface soil was found 1.40, 1.42, 1.56, 1.63 and 1.76 (dS/m) in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 1.40, 1.62, 1.62, 1.64 and 1.68 (dS/m) at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The electrical conductivity in soil horizon A2 was 1.10, 1.38, 1.32, 1.36 and 1.34 (dS/m) in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 0.98, 0.98, 0.82, 0.86 and 0.92 (dS/m) at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of electrical conductivity was 0.64, 0.62, 0.64, 0.76 and 0.63 (dS/m) found at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.6. Alkalinity The alkalinity of the effluent irrigated soil was high and it shows variation in different soil horizon in all sampling sites. Higher value of the alkalinity was 310.4 mg/100g at sampling site EIS9 in surface soil and the lower value of alkalinity was 82.2 mg/100g in lower horizon A4 at sampling site EIS6 (Fig.6). The value of alkalinity in surface soil was 254.4, 224.0, 164.5, 310.4 and 218.2 mg/100g found at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 236.6, 198.2, 188.0, 262.0 and 176.8 mg/100g in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The alkalinity in soil horizon A2 was 196.2, 166.6, 146.0, 186.8 and 142.0 mg/100g at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 110.2, 152.4, 122.4, 138.5, and 136.6 mg/100g at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of alkalinity was found 82.2, 90.8, 84.3, 110.4, and 108.0 mg/100g at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.7. Chloride The chloride content of the effluent irrigated soil was high and it shows great variation in different soil horizons in all sampling sites. Higher value of the chloride was 236.2 mg/l at sampling site EIS9 in surface soil and the lower value of chloride was 68.2 mg/l in lower horizon A3 at sampling site EIS10 (Fig.7).The value of chloride in surface soil was found 208.6, 176.0, 148.2, 236.2 and 176.2 mg/l at sampling

65

Ansari Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose

site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 196.5, 160.3, 120.4, 212.0, and 138.6 mg/l in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The chloride in soil horizon A2 was 138.3, 134.2, 96.2, 160.2 and 108.8 mg/l at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 96, 120, 82, 122 and 79 mg/l at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 showed that the value of chloride was 88.1, 92.8, 74.6, 108 and 68.2 mg/l found at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.8. Organic Carbon The organic carbon of the effluent irrigated soil was high and it showed great variation in different soil horizon at all sampling sites. The higher value of the organic carbon was found 1.72% at sampling site EIS9 in surface soil and the lower value was 0.36 mg/l in lower horizon A3 in sampling site EIS7 (Fig.8). The value of organic carbon in upper surface soil was found 1.58, 1.64, 1.38, 1.72 and 1.20 % at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 1.50, 1.34, 1.22, 1.68 and 1.08 % in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The organic carbon in soil horizon A2 was 0.98, 0.80, 1.08, 1.10 and 0.86 % in sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3 it was 0.76, 0.56, 0.62, 0.86 and 0.70 % in sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of organic carbon was found 0.45, 0.36, 0.44, 0.60 and 0.64 % in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.9. Available Nitrogen The available nitrogen of the effluent irrigated soil was high and it showed great variation in different soil horizons at all sampling sites. Higher value of the available nitrogen was 314.2 kg/h in sampling site EIS9 in surface soil sample and the lower value of available nitrogen was 42.6 kg/h in lower horizon A4 in sampling site EIS8. The value of available nitrogen in surface soil was found 204.4, 206.6, 186.8, 314.2 and 214.2 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 156, 180.2, 164.0, 228.5 and 176.1 kg/h in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The available nitrogen in soil horizon A2 was 112.2, 168.0, 122.5, 158.6 and 110.2 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 84.2, 128.4, 76.3, 92.5 and 86.5 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7,

EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of available nitrogen was found 64.0, 76.8, 42.6, 80.4 and 46.2 kg/h at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively (Fig.9). 3.10. Available Phosphorus The available phosphorous of the distillery affected soil horizon was very high and it showed great variation in different soil horizons at all sampling sites. Higher value of the available phosphorous was 50.2 kg/h in sampling site EIS9 in surface soil and the lower value of available phosphorous was 12.0 kg/h in lower horizon A4 in sampling site EIS10 (Fig.10). The value of available phosphorous in surface soil was found 38.2, 44.6, 38.2, 50.2 and 36.2 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 29.0, 44.0, 29.2, 48.5 and 22.4 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The available phosphorous in soil horizon A2 was 22.3, 36.2, 22.3, 32.2 and 19.2 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 16.3, 24.6, 17.3, 24.4 and 13.8 kg/h in sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of available phosphorous was found 16, 20, 14, 22 and 12 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. 3.11. Available Potassium The available potassium of the distillery irrigated soil was high and it showed variation in different soil horizon at all sampling sites. Higher value of the available potassium was 253.2 kg/h at sampling site EIS9 in surface soil sample and the lower value of available potassium was 86.8 kg/h in lower horizon A4 at sampling site EIS8 (Fig.11).The value of available potassium in surface soil was found 224.0, 230.5, 216.2, 253.2 and 240.4 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A1, it was 186.4, 214.5, 176.5, 190.0 and 196.0 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The available potassium in soil horizon A2 was 163.4, 174.0, 146.4, 172.8 and 164.5 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. In soil horizon A3, it was 126.0, 145.6, 106.0, 154.6 and 126.4 kg/h at sampling site EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively. The lower soil horizon A4 shows that the value of available potassium was found 112.6, 132.4, 86.8, 128.1 and 108.6 kg/h at sampling sites EIS6, EIS7, EIS8, EIS9 and EIS10 respectively.

66

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014

Table 1: Soil horizon characteristics of fresh soil from agricultural field (unaffected)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) W.H.C (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH E.C (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available k (kg/h) 0-15 (A0) B 15.2 0.2 46.2 1.0 1.62 0.1 6.3 0.4 0.62 0.2 150.5 2.2 73.8 2.0 0.98 0.1 112.3 3.2 26.2 1.0 198.5 3.6 15-30 (A1) B 13.0 0.4 46.0 1.4 1.60 0.2 6.3 0.2 0.84 0.2 140.4 4.2 65.2 1.8 1.0 0.2 96.0 1.4 22.8 0.4 162.6 4.2 Soil Depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) 80-150 (A3) LYB YB 9.5 0.2 10.0 0.8 45.5 1.8 28.4 0.8 1.72 0.6 1.78 0.3 6.5 0.2 6.5 0.4 0.92 0.4 0.98 0.2 132.6 4.2 110.2 3.0 59.5 2.0 53.7 1.4 0.63 0.2 0.45 0.2 70.5 1.6 52.6 1.6 20.9 2.0 14.2 1.2 146.4 3.5 108.5 4.2 150-180 (A4) LY 10.2 0.6 18.6 0.5 1.75 0.2 6.5 0.4 1.12 0.2 76.0 3.6 42.5 1.6 0.33 0.2 36.2 1.3 12.0 1.4 96.5 3.6

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean)

67

Ansari Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose Table 2: Soil Horizon characterisation of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with PTDE (Site EIS 6)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) WHC (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH EC (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available K (kg/h) 0-15 (A0) RB 26.0 1.6 46.4 2.5 1.10 0.4 7.20 0.2 1.40 0.2 254.4 4.0 208.6 2.5 1.58 0.6 204.4 3.6 38.2 1.2 224.0 2.0 15-30 (A1) RB 26.5 1.0 44.8 2.5 1.24 0.2 7.00 0.4 1.40 0.4 236.6 3.5 196.5 4.0 1.50 0.4 156.4 2.0 29.0 1.0 186.4 1.4 Soil depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) B 24.3 1.0 42.5 2.4 1.34 0.4 7.00 0.2 1.10 0.2 196.2 3.6 138.3 4.2 0.98 0.5 112.2 4.0 22.3 1.2 163.4 2.3 80-150 (A3) Y 20.2 1.2 36.0 2.5 1.64 0.2 6.92 0.2 0.98 0.3 110.2 2.0 96.3 1.2 0.76 0.6 84.2 3.4 16.3 1.3 126.0 1.4 150-180 (A4) Y 18.2 1.6 36.2 1.5 1.64 0.2 6.65 0.4 0.64 0.4 82.2 2.8 88.1 2.0 0.45 0.2 64.0 2.8 16.2 1.4 112.6 2.8

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean)

Table 3: Soil Horizon characterisation of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with PTDE (Site EIS 7)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) WHC (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH EC (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available K (kg/h) 0-15 (A0) RB 26.2 2.0 48.5 3.6 1.24 0.5 7.00 0.2 1.42 0.2 224.0 3.6 176.0 2.0 1.64 0.4 206.2 4.4 44.6 1.2 230.5 1.4 15-30 (A1) RB 24.5 1.6 46.6 2.0 1.22 0.4 7.10 0.4 1.62 0.4 198.2 3.5 160.3 2.5 1.34 0.4 180.2 2.4 44.4 0.2 214.5 2.0 Soil depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) 80-150 (A3) B Y 24.0 1.4 40.4 2.2 1.64 0.6 6.80 0.2 1.38 0.8 166.6 3.4 134.2 2.4 0.80 0.2 168.0 2.8 36.2 1.5 174.0 3.4 18.4 0.2 38.0 1.4 1.34 0.2 6.66 0.2 0.98 0.2 152.4 3.2 120.6 3.2 0.56 0.2 128.4 1.5 24.6 1.6 145.6 2.4 150-180 (A4) Y 18.4 1.4 36.6 2.2 1.76 0.4 6.72 0.2 0.62 0.6 90.8 1.4 92.8 2.0 0.36 0.4 76.8 1.2 20.2 1.6 132.4 2.0

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean)

Table 4: Soil Horizon characterization of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with PTDE (Site EIS 8)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) WHC (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH EC (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available K (kg/h) 0-15 (A0) RB 25.5 1.2 46.0 2.4 1.32 0.4 7.34 0.4 1.56 0.2 164.5 4.2 148.2 2.0 1.38 0.2 186.8 2.4 38.2 1.2 216.2 4.2 15-30 (A1) Grayish 24.8 1.4 42.8 1.8 1.13 0.2 7.30 0.2 1.62 0.3 188.0 3.2 120.4 2.2 1.22 0.4 164.0 3.0 29.2 2.5 176.5 3.6 Soil depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) 80-150 (A3) LB Y 20.0 1.0 18.2 1.0 40.8 2.0 38.4 1.4 1.54 0.2 1.62 0.4 7.00 0.2 6.50 0.4 1.32 0.4 0.82 0.6 146.0 3.2 122.4 2.5 96.2 3.6 82.3 2.2 1.08 0.2 0.62 0.0 122.5 1.6 76.3 2.0 22.3 1.4 17.3 0.4 146.4 3.2 106.0 3.0 150-180 (A4) Y 18.4 1.2 36.7 1.2 1.68 0.2 6.50 0.2 0.64 0.2 84.3 2.0 74.6 3.0 0.44 0.2 42.6 1.4 14.6 1.0 86.8 1.8

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean)

68

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014

Table 5: Soil Horizon characterisation of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with PTDE (Site EIS 9)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) WHC (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH EC (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available K (kg/h) 0-15 (A0) DRB 22.4 1.4 50.2 2.6 1.17 0.1 7.10 0.2 1.63 0.4 310.4 2.5 236.2 2.6 1.72 0.6 314.2 3.5 50.2 1.2 253.2 3.6 15-30 (A1) RB 20.0 1.2 48.0 2.6 1.37 0.2 7.36 0.2 1.64 0.2 262.0 3.6 212.0 1.6 1.68 0.2 228.5 2.6 48.5 1.5 190.0 2.5 Soil depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) 80-150 (A3) B YB 20.2 1.8 18.0 1.4 46.8 1.0 38.7 1.6 1.66 0.2 1.67 0.8 6.90 0.4 6.60 0.2 1.36 0.4 0.86 0.5 186.8 4.2 138.5 3.2 160.2 2.5 122.0 2.6 1.10 0.4 0.86 0.8 158.6 2.6 92.5 1.0 32.2 1.2 24.4 1.4 172.8 3.6 154.6 2.2 150-180 (A4) Y 16.5 1.5 32.6 3.0 1.72 0.2 6.50 0.4 0.76 0.8 110.4 3.6 108.0 3.0 0.60 0.5 80.4 2.2 22.6 0.2 128.1 1.8

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean)

Table 6: Soil Horizon characterisation of agricultural field which was regularly irrigated with PTDE (Site EIS 10)
PARAMETERS Soil colour Moisture content (%) WHC (%) Bulk Density(gm/cm) pH EC (dS/m) Alkalinity (mg/100g) Chloride (mg/l) Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg/h) Available P (kg/h) Available K (kg/h)
B: Brownish Y: Yellowish G: Grayish

0-15 (A0) DRB 26.0 2.5 47.4 3.6 1.26 0.5 6.90 0.4 1.76 0.2 218.2 3.8 176.2 3.0 1.20 0.4 214.2 4.2 36.2 1.0 240.4 3.2

15-30 (A1) RB 26.8 1.6 43.2 1.4 1.34 0.2 6.60 0.5 1.68 0.6 176.8 4.5 138.6 4.8 1.08 0.4 176.1 2.8 22.4 1.2 196.0 2.0

Soil depth (cm.) 30-80 (A2) YB 24.6 1.6 42.4 2.0 1.44 0.4 6.90 0.2 1.34 0.4 142.0 4.2 108.8 1.0 0.86 0.2 110.2 2.6 19.2 0.8 164.5 1.8

80-150 (A3) LB 19.6 1.0 37.5 0.2 1.64 0.2 6.72 0.0 0.92 0.2 136.6 3.6 79.2 2.7 0.70 0.8 86.5 2.0 13.8 0.6 126.4 2.4

150-180 (A4) Y 19.5 1.4 32.2 2.0 1.64 0.2 6.30 0.4 0.63 0.2 108.0 2.4 68.2 3.2 0.64 0.2 46.2 2.2 12.0 0.8 108.6 2.6

Mean of triplicate samples (Mean Std. error of mean) YB: Yellowish Brown, LY: Light Yellowish, DB: Dark Brownish RB: Reddish Brown, LB: Light Brownish LYB: Light Yellowish Brown, DBR: Dark Reddish Brown

4. CONCLUSION The continuous uncontrolled irrigation reduces the absorbing capacity of the soil which will become a problem of great environmental concern. It may be concluded that the indiscriminate use of distillery waste water on agricultural field that may pose potential risk in damage to ground water through

constant and continuous leaching. For this reason, it is necessary to control the quality of both soils and waste water in order to adjust the dose applied. The present trend of indiscriminate use of untreated distillery waste water must be controlled. It should be treated before its use on land or it should be used after proper dilution.

69

Ansari Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose

70

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014

Fig. 11: Comparison of Available potassium in unaffected and affected soil horizon

REFERENCES APHA (1998). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA. Ansari F, Awasthi KA, Kumar P, Mishra N (2010). Characterization of Leachate Quality of Distillery Waste: An Experimental Approach. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 5(5), 741748. Ansari F, Awasthi KA, Srivastava PB (2012). Impact of Distillery Effluent and its Leachate on ground water quality (using lysimeter): An Experimen tal Approach (Part B). European Journal of Applied Engineering and Scientific Research, 1(4): 99-112. Agarwal ML, Due SP (1976). Nutritive value of distillery effluent and its effect in Soil properties; seminar on treatment and disposal of effluent for sugar and distillery industries. The sugar technologists association of India at Banglore 23. Agrawal CS, Pandey GS (1994). Soil pollution by spent wash discharge: Depletion of manganese (II) and impairment of its oxidation. Jr. Environ Biology, 15: 4953. Baddesh HS, chhabra R, Ghuman BS (2004). Effect of leaching soil columns with sewage water on soil pH, electrical conductivity and an ion concentration. Indian Journal of Ecology, 29(1): 36-41, Barauah AK, Sharma RN, Borach GC (1993). Impact of sugar mill and distillery effluents on water quality of river Gelobil, Assam. Indian journal of Environmental Health, 35(4): 228-239. Chandekar M, Dubey PS (1996), Assessment of soil quality and crop growth irrigated with treated effluents of a rayon industry. Journal of industrial pollution control, 12(2): 129- 136.

Celik I (2005). Land-use effects organic matter and physical properties of soil in a southern Mediterranean highland of Turkey Soil and Tillage Research, 83: 270-277. Dikshit PR, Khatik SK (2000). Contribution and potential of industrial wastes and sewage sludge for increasing crop production. Journal of industrial pollution Control, 16(1): 81- 93. Gwenzi W, Gotosa J, Chakanetsa S, Mutema Z (2009). Effects of tillage systems on soil organic carbon dynamics, structural stability and crop yields in irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) rotation in semiarid Zimbabwe. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst, 83: 211-221. Haynes RJ, Naidu R (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on organic matter content and soil physical conditions - A review. Nutrient Cycling in Agro ecosystems, 51: 123-137. Joshi HC, Kalra N, Chaudhary A, Deb DL (1994). Environmental issues related with distillery effluent utilization in agriculture in India. Asia Pac. Jr. Environ Develop, 1: 92-103. Kaul SN, Tapas N, Trivedy RK (1993). Pollution control in Distilleries. Enviromedia Publications, Karad. 415110. India. Kumar A, Singh Y, Joshi BD, Rai JPN (2003). Effect of distillery spent wash on some characteristics of soil and water. Indian journal of ecology, 30(1): 7-12, Khan SN, Srivastava J (1996). Distillery waste utilization in agriculture. International conference on plant and environmental pollution. 26-30 November (ICPEP 96) Lucknow, India. Rao PK, Sreenivasa JR, Shantaram MV (1999). Impact of land disposal of industrial effluent on vertical distribution of pollutants on soil.

71

Ansari Risk Probability of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Due to Leaching Effect of Distillery Effluent Used for Agricultural Purpose

Journal of industrial pollution control, 15(1): 97-115. Page AL (1982). Methods of soil analysis. Part 2 soil science. Society of America, Madison, Wasconisn, USA. Papadopoulos, I. (1995). Wastewater management for Agricultural production and Environmental protection in the Near East Region. FAO Technical paper, Cairo.Egypt. Rusan MJM, Hinnawi S, Rousan L (2007). Long term effects of wastewater irrigation on forage crops on soil and plant quality parameters. Desalination, 215: 143152.

Swaminathan K, Grurasmy R, Pongaliappan S (1992). Utilization of alcohol and chemical industry effluent as liquid fertilizer for crop plants. Proc. Acad. Environmental Biology, 2: 147-151. Shivakumar D, Thandaveswara BS, Chandrasekaran KD (2004). Solid waste leachate quality and its effects on soil properties. Pollution Research, 23(1): 69-81. Weil RR, Kroontje W (1979). Physical condition of a Davidson clay loam after five years of heavy poultry manure application. Jr. Environ. Qual., 8: 387-392.

72

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(2), pp. 63-73, 2014

Dr. Farid Ansari has completed his Ph.D degree in Environmental Biology, Master of Philosophy in Environmental Biology with 84% from A.P.S. University, Rewa, M.P. (India) and Master degree in Environmental Science with 70% from VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (UP) India. Presently working as Assistant Professor in Department of Applied Science and Humanities, PDM College of Engineering, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, India. He has more than 10 research paper published in the national and international journal of repute. Also participated in various national and international seminars organized by U.G.C., D.B.T., C.S.I.R., I.C.M.R., U.G.C., IEEE and Science and technology department of India. E-mail address: checkfarid@gmail.com

73