IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Research article
erdSuitability of Groundwater Use for Drinking and Irrigation
Purpose, Case Study of Kien Svay District, Kandal Province,
Cambodia
NARETH NUT*
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: nnareth@rua.edu.kh

SONY SEREY
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: benaxodhis@yahoo.com

VIBOL SAO
E&A Consultant Co., Ltd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

MACHITO MIHARA
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Received 6 February 2018

Accepted 25 October 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract In Cambodia, some studies found that groundwater in some areas was contaminatedby heavy metals and chemicals. Those contaminants can harm to human health if it is notproperly treated. The research aims to analyze groundwater quality to find out the suitabilityof parameters for drinking and irrigation purpose, and to understand the condition ofgroundwater quantity used by local farmers. The study was conducted in Sre Ampil II Village,
Chheu Teal Commune, Kien Svay District, Kandal Province in June 2017. Water samples
f om 6 be ell i h he dep h 20 m and 50 m e e collec ed o anal e iaequality. The sampling sites were done at the front-part, middle-part and rare-part of the village.
Some parameters of drinking water: pH, TDS, EC, turbidity, hardness, As, Fe, Mn, Cl-, F,NO3-, NO2-, SO42-, Escherichia coli and total coliform were collected to analyze its
concentration while the parameters such as pH, TDS, EC, hardness, salinity, As, Mn, Fe,SO42-, Cl-, NO3-, PO43-, NH4-, Ca2+, Mg2+, and Na+ were collected to analyze water quality
for irrigation purpose. The results showed that only three of fifteen parameters exceeded
desirable limit of FAO and the national standard of Cambodia as Mn concentration
averagely was surpassed the standard limits (0.4 mg/L), especially in well 6 (2.64 mg
Mn/L). For the concentration of harness, it was happened only in well 1 and 2 with its
concentration of 306 mg/L and 360 mg/L, respectively, which was above the national
standard (300 mg/L), yet it is below the standard recommended by FAO. E. coli and total
coliform were also presented in all wells while its concentration were highly exceeded theguideline. The results of parameters in irrigation water from three tube wells showed thatMn (2.64 mg/L) and K+ (5.19 mg/L) surpassed the guideline of FAO as it was only 0.2
mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively, while other parameters were below the guideline.
Considering this value as standard, the waters in the well 2 and 3 could problematic forlong-term irrigation. Based on the groundwater testing, it could be concluded that water
quality in the study is good for drinking and irrigating purpose as most of the parameters
are below the guideline of Cambodia national standard and FAO.
Keywords groundwater quality, drinking water, irrigation purpose, Cambodia

INTRODUCTION
A fresh and reliable water supply is necessary for human, animal and plants to ensure a high qualityof life and to push a strong economical and agricultural development. Intensive cultivating andⒸ ISERD

95

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

urban development has caused a great demand on groundwater resources. There have been various
studies on assessment of suitable groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes (Aksever
et al., 2016; Ziani et al., 2016; Nag and Das, 2014; Kumar et al., 2014; Kaka et al., 2011).
Groundwater locates in the deep layer and penetrates into small pore space between the rocks. Dueto this natural flowing process, some mineral particulate components and hardness, Fe, Mn, As,
NO3- and other particulate components are transferred by the water movement to various places
depending on the groundwater flow direction.
The groundwater chemistry is an essential parameter for evaluating potential exploitable waterof an aquifer (Gallardo and Tase, 2007). The main factors influencing hydrochemical groundwater
quality are precipitation and dissolved minerals, ion-exchange and sorption and desorption in the
groundwater flow (Apodaca et al., 2002). This situation is compounded by the complexity of themineralogy saliferous, over exploitation of the aquifer and its low recharge, which limits the usable
capacity of the aquifer this because of the considerable variation in the concentration of ions andthe Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (Belkhiri et al., 2012). At the same time, the environmental
impacts of human activity like unused fertilizers, pesticides, sewage water and discharge ofindustrial effluents are considered as potential anthropogenic sources responsible for contaminationof the groundwater (Venugopal et al., 2009). The presence of different chemical and physicalconstituents in excess of their permissible limits for various uses can create health hazards andenvironmental problems (Al-Zarah, 2007) and hence the water quality analysis is critical inensuring that water consumed by the population meets the required quality standards (Amfo-Otu etal., 2014). In Cambodia, some studies found that groundwater in some areas was contaminated byheavy metals and chemicals. Those contaminants can harm to human health if it is not properly
treated.
Having lived close to the Tonle Basac River, the main occupation of the people in Kien Svay
District, Kandal Province, Cambodia is agriculture and related labor. Mostly they are growing
vegetables with the application of heavy amount of chemical pesticide and fertilizers for increasing
crop yields. This practice leads to increased potential contamination of agro- chemicals inenvironment and the water sources, especially surface water and groundwater, due to the leakage ofagro-chemicals through precipitation and runoff.
OBJECTIVES
The research aims 1) To analyze groundwater quality to find out the suitability of parameters fordrinking and irrigation purpose and 2) To understand the condition of groundwater quantity usedby local farmers.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Phum II village located in Kean Svay District, Kandal Province where
the water quality in the tube wells is not yet identified for both irrigation and drinking purposes.
There are 214 families with the population of 862 people living in the village. The area ofhousehold is 20 ha while the paddy rice farming areas are 110 ha including dry and wet season
cultivation. Villagers in this village can do the farming third time per year.
Sampling and analysis: Six tube wells were selected to analyze groundwater parameters withdifferent depths of 20, 25, 30, 50, 55 and 60 m (for drinking purpose) and 50, 55 and 60 m (forirrigation purpose). The samples of water quality were chosen from the family whose tube wells
were used in both irrigation and drinking purpose and the samples were collected by classifying thevillage into three sites: the front-part, middle-part and rare-part of the village. Some parameters suchas pH, EC, TDS, hardness, turbidity and salinity were analyzed at the sites to avoid the error as
their values are quickly changed with the times, while the other parameters such as As, Cl -, F, Fe,
Mn, NO3-, NO2-, PO43-, Mg2-, K+, Ca2+, Escherichia coli and total coliform etc. were brought toanalyze in the laboratory at Resource Development International-Cambodia (RDI) by usingⒸ ISERD

96

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

different method of water analysis based on each parameter. These samples were taken fromdrinking and irrigation water wells after 5 minutes of pumping, given sufficient time for the watertemperature to stabilize and become representative of the temperature of the aquifer. Those analyzed
parameters were compared with the drinking water standard guideline recommended by the FAO(2003) and World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) as well as the Cambodia Drinking Water
Quality Standardby the Ministry of Industry and Handicraft (MIH, 2004).
Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis was conducted in this study. Microsoft Excel program wasused to analyze describtive statistic and, standard deviation, while the statistical package was used
to determine Two Sample T-test in order to compare the significant differences of water quality
parameters with different depth of tube wells.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Quality for Drinking Purpose:
The quality of groundwater depends both on the substances dissolved in the water and on certain
properties and characteristics that these substances impart to the water (Heath 1982). The results of
the analyzed water quality of the 6 tube wells with different depths of 20, 25, 30, 50, 55 and 60 m
for drinking purpose mostly do not exceed two standard maximum allowable limit values. The
results of statistical analysis of the chemical compositions of the groundwater samples are shown in
Table 1. The table showed that most of the average values of those parameters are substantiallybelow the limited standards, yet Mn concentration is exceeded the standard limit.
The values of pH indicated low alkalinity in the groundwater. The pH of groundwater in the
study area is within the limits (6.5 to 8.8) of WHO guideline for drinking water quality. The
electrical conductivity of the water samples was rated in the category permissible to suitable (EC =484-801 S/cm). The concentration of TDS ranged from 324 to 537 mg/L. The water with a TDS
level less than about 600 mg/L is generally considered to be good (WHO, 2011). Also, themaximum permissible limit of TDS for drinking water is 800 mg/L as per the MIH (2004) drinking
water standards. Thus, according to the WHO (2011), FAO (2003) and MIH (2004), the TDS
values of all wells are suitable for drinking. The concentration of harness ranged from 198 to 360
mg/L and was exceeded above the national standard limits (300 mg/L) only in well 1 and 2 with
their concentration of 306 mg/L and 360 mg/L, respectively. Ninety percent of analyzed samples
were not exceeded the desirable national limit (200 mg/L) of chloride (Cl -) according to WHO
guideline for drinking water. Only ten percent of samples exceed the desirable limit (250 mg/L) of
sulphate (SO42-) of WHO guideline for drinking water. The NO3-, NO2- and F could not be detectedby the machine. In Table 1, it is indicated that the concentration of Mn was very high above thestandard limits. Arsenic presented in all wells and above the recommended standard of the WHO(2011) which the maximum permissible limit for As concentration in drinking water is 0.01 mg/L.
The mean concentration values of Fe in the wells is 0.14 mg/L. According to the WHO (2011),
maximum accessible values for Fe concentration in drinking water are 0.3 mg/L. Considering thisas the standard value, the Fe contained in the water is still suitable for the drinking purpose, eventhough the well 5 reached to the peak of the limited standard (0.3 mg/L), following by well 6 (0.28mg/L). E. coli and total coliform were also presented in all wells while its concentration werehighly exceeded the guideline as the numbers of coliform were too numerous to count in themachine. However, the presence of these parameters do not cause serious illness to the humanhealth as they could be eliminated by boiling water before drinking (RDI, 2016), or by using
Biosand Filter-Zeolite, E. coli were completely removed during the first three trials after filtering
total volumes of 1120 L, 1140 L and 1220 L (Mwabi et al., 2012). Moreover, the stables or penswhich are located next to the wells should be removed to build at other place to avoid
contamination.

Ⓒ ISERD

97

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Table 1 Summary of physical, chemical, and pollution parameters of drinking water
Mean
Parameters

Unit

Well 1(20m)

Well 2(25m)

Well 3(30m)

Well 4(50m)

Well 5(55m)

Well 6
(60m)

Ave

Max

Min

SD

n

WHO
(2011)

MIH(2004)

pH

-

7.30

7.10

6.90

7.10

6.90

6.80

7.01

7.30

6.80

0.07

3

6.5-8.8

6.5-8.5ECµs/cm

624.00801.00728.00491.00500.00558.00616.88801.00484.00

3.82

3

1500

-

TDS

mg/L

418.00537.00487.00329.00335.00374.00413.00537.00324.002.56

3600-1000

800

Turbidity

NTU

0.86

0.93

1.05

1.17

2.03

1.94

1.32

2.06

0.85

0.02

3

5

5

Hardness

mg/L

306.00360.00288.00234.00216.00198.00267.00360.00198.00

14.70

3

500

300

Cl-

mg/L

28.93

27.07

38.64

17.48

18.74

45.01

28.47

45.00

17.50

10.12

1

200

250

SO42-

mg/L

51.78

113.84

65.94

18.40

28.14

56.00

55.68

113.84

18.40

30.69

1

200

250

NO3

-

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

1

50

50

NO2-

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

1

3

3

Mn

mg/L

1.60

1.90

2.10

0.25

0.47

2.64

1.50

2.75

0.24

0.06

3

0.4

0.1

As

mg/L

0.013

0.021

0.016

0.021

0.036

0.027

0.021

0.030

0.010

0.005

3

0.01

0.05

Fe

mg/L

0.01

0.07

0.01

0.16

0.30

0.28

0.14

0.31

0.01

0.13

3

0.3

0.3

F

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

1

1.5

1.5

E-coli

CFU/100mL

7.00

14.00

60.00

70.00

85.00

70.00

51.00

85.00

7.00

1

-

0

T-Coliform

CFU/100mL

TNTC

TNTC

TNTC

TNTC

TNTC

TNTC

870.002465.00

300.001-0Note: n= Frequency of the testing parameters of the drinking water
DL = Detection Limit, TNTC = Too Numerous To Count

Water Quality for Irrigation Purpose:Three wells with different depth of 50, 55 and 60 m were analyzed for its water parameter for theirrigation purpose. It is important to understand the pH in water supplies for the irrigation. As
indicated in Table 2, the pH values of the wells in the investigation area ranged from 6.80 to 7.10
with an average value of 6.95. According to FAO (2003), the pH value of irrigation water should
be between 6.0 and 8.5. Well 1 could be described as alkaline (pH > 7), while wells 2 and 3 areacidic (pH < 7), 6.90 and 6.80, respectively. All of the pH values of water in those wells are
suitable for irrigation water standard of FAO (2003). Also, according to the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) (Misstear et al., 2006), permissible limit pH ranged from 6.5 to 8.4 forirrigation water is suitable. The EC values of the wells ranged f om 484 o 560 S/cm with anaverage al e of 516.44 S/cm (Table 2). TDS values of wells were measured, and these values
varied from 324 to 375 mg/L with an average value of 345.88 mg/L (Table 2). The palatability ofwater with a TDS level of less than about 600 mg/L was generally considered to be good (WHO2011). Salinity represented by the TDS, varies between 0.20 and 0.30 mg/L. Higher concentrationsof salinity indicated that the ionic concentrations were more in the groundwater. The content of
Ca2+ in water samples collected from different depth of wells varied from 60 to 69 mg/L. Irrigationwaters containing less than 400 mg Ca2+/L is suitable for irrigating crops (Groeneveld and Meeden,
1984). Considering this value as standard, Ca2+ content in 95% water samples could safely be used
for irrigation and would not affect soils. The concentration of Na+ in water samples from wells
varied from 58 to 66 mg/L. Irrigation water generally containing less than 920 mg/L Na+ is suitablefor crops and soils. The observed Na+ content in all water samples had far below this specified limit.
The concentration of K+ present in the water samples ranged from 0 to 5 mg/L. According toGroeneveld and Meeden, (1984), the recommended limit of K + in irrigation water is 2.0 mg/L.
Considering this value as standard, the waters in the well 2 and 3 could problematic for long-term
irrigation. It is noted that the concentration of K+ value seemed increasingly parallel with the depthof the wells as the more deeper the wells are, the more K + concentration accumulates (Table 2).
The concentration of Mg2+ in water samples is within the range of 32-45 mg/L. Irrigation watersⒸ ISERD

98

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

containing less than 60 mg Mg/L are suitable for irrigating crops while the analyzed water samples
are below this limit and may not have a negative impact on soils or irrigating water.
Water samples collected from three wells contained a chloride concentration ranging from 17
to 45 mg/L. Maximum permissible limit of Cl- in irrigation water is 1064 mg/L and all analyzed
water samples were far below the standard limit. The SO4-2 concentration in water samples ranged
from 18 to 56 mg/L, while the standard limit of SO4-2 in irrigation water is 960 mg/L and all water
samples collected from the wells are below this acceptable limit of irrigation water quality. PO43-,
NO3- and NH4- could not be detected by the machine as their concentration are very high exceeded
the desirable limit of the FAO guideline. Thus, the irrigation water may have negative impact fromthese elements and might be harmful for crop production.
Table 2 Summary of physical, chemical, and pollution parameters of irrigation water
Parameters

Units

Well 1(50 m)

Well 2(55 m)

Well 3(60 m)

Mean

Max

Min

Aver

FAO
(2003)

SD

n

pH

-

7.10

6.90

6.80

7.10

6.80

6.95

0.106

3

6-8.5

EC

µs/cm

491.00500.00558.00560.00484.00516.4430.07830-3000TDS

mg/L

329.00335.00374.00375.00324.00345.8820.19030-2000Turbidity

NTU

1.17

2.03

1.94

2.06

1.15

1.71

0.385

3

-

Salinity

ppt

0.20

0.20

0.30

0.30

0.20

0.23

0.047

3

-

Ca2+

mg/L

61.86

69.19

60.59

69.19

60.59

63.88

3.790

1

0-400

Na+

mg/L

60.43

66.14

58.59

66.14

58.59

61.72

3.214

1

0-920

K+

mg/L

0.00

2.63

5.19

5.19

0.00

2.60

2.118

1

0-2

Mg2+

mg/L

32.59

33.22

45.63

45.63

32.59

37.14

6.004

1

0-60

Cl-

mg/L

17.48

18.74

45.01

45.01

17.48

27.07

12.69110-1000

SO42-

mg/L

18.40

28.14

56.00

56.00

18.40

34.18

15.933

1

0-960

PO43-

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

-

1

0-2

NO3-

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

-

1

0-10

NH4-

mg/L

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

<DL

-

1

0-5

Mn

mg/L

0.25

0.46

2.64

2.75

0.24

1.12

1.081

3

0-0.2

As

mg/L

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.024

0.003

3

0-0.1

Fe
mg/L
0.16
0.30
0.28
0.31
0.15
0.24
Note: n= Frequency of the testing parameters of the irrigation water, DL = Detection Limit

0.064

3

0-5

Chemical elements in subsurface water come from geogenic and anthropogenic sources. The
weathering of minerals is one of the major natural sources. Ion exchange is also an important
process for elements. Anthropogenic sources include fertilizers, industrial effluent, and leakage
from service pipes. The elements as Mn, As and Fe of well samples were determined for water
quality in the study area. The maximum contents of Mn, As and Fe of well water samples were
determined as 2.75, 0.03 and 0.31 mg/L, respectively, while the average values of these elements
were 1.12, 0.024 and 0.24 mg/L. The Mn, As and Fe contents of the water samples are within thepermissible limit of FAO (2003) and WHO (2011). Thus, the irrigation water is in a good condition
for irrigating the crops. However, the suitability of groundwater for irrigation is conditional on theeffects of the mineral constituents of water on both the plant and soil. The excessive amount ofdissolved ions in irrigation water affects plants and agricultural soil physically and chemically, thus
reducing the productivity (Ziani et al., 2016). Agriculture and related labor are the main occupationof the rural people in the Kien Svay District, Kandal Province, Cambodia. Therefore, thedetermination of irrigation water quality in the ground is gaining importance.

Ⓒ ISERD

99

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Table 3 Statistical analysis of water quality in different depth (20-30 m and 50-60 m)
Parameters

Units

Well depth (m)20-30

Main-Whitney(P value)

50-60

pH

-

7.10

6.90

0.261

EC

µs/cm

717.00516.00

0.050

TDS

mg/L

329.00335.000.050

Turbidity

NTU

0.95

1.71

0.050

Harness

ppt

318.00216.00

0.050

SO4

2-

mg/L

77.19

34.18

0.127

Cl-

mg/L

29.88

27.07

0.513

Mn

mg/L

1.86

1.12

0.513

As

mg/L

0.017

0.024

0.077

Fe
E. Coli

mg/L

0.03

0.25

0.040*

CFU/100mL

27.00

75.00

0.046*

Note: * Significant difference at P<0.05

Statistical analysis of some parameters such as pH, EC, TDS, turbidity, hardness, SO42-, Cl-, Mn,
As, Fe and E. coli with the different depths of wells indicated that there is no significant difference(P<0.005) between the concentration of values pH, turbidity, EC, harness, TDS, Mn, SO42-, As, Cl-,
Mn, As in the groundwater of the study area (Table 3). However, the concentration of Fe and E.
coli in the tube wells with the depth of 20 to 30 m and 50 to 60 m illustrated that the twoparameters were significantly different as the P value are P=0.040 and P=0.046, respectively.
Based on this comparison, it can be concluded that the depths of the tube well are not highly relatedwith the water parameters as they would sometimes be changed. The findings of this study are
different from the RDI (2012), that collected over 1,000 water samples in five provinces since 2005
from tube wells (also known as boreholes) with the depth ranged from 15 to 80 m and open wells(also known as dug wells) with 3-15 meter depth to analyze some parameters such as pH, salinity,
hardness, turbidity, As, F, NO3-, NO2-, Mn, Fe and Cl-. The results showed that the more deeper the
tube wells are, the more good quality of water would be obtained without contaminating frommicro-organisms and bacteria, but it was effected from the chemical and hardness which occurs
naturally while the shallow tube wells and surface water always contaminated by bacteria.
CONCLUSION
Suitability of groundwater samples according to exceeding the permissible limits prescribed by
WHO and FAO for drinking purposes indicated that the groundwater in the study area arechemically suitable for drinking and irrigation purpose. Yet, Ca2+, Mn, E. coli and total coliform
were exceeded the standard limit. The Mn concentration in 6 tube wells was highly above thestandard (0.1 mg/L). Moreover, the presence of E. coli and total coliform in these wells were high.
Therefore, some measures should be applied to prevent diseases or other illness caused by thecontaminated water. The results of the comparison between different well depths showed that thedepth of the tube well does not clearly related with contaminant to the groundwater in the study
area as some parameters of drinking and irrigation water sometimes changed and affected by thecontaminant from other sources. In the study area, it can be noticed that some wells are locatedclosely to the stables or pens; as a result, some of water parameters are changeable unexpectedly. In
general, based on the observation in the village and results, the water quality in the study area isgood for irrigation even though some parameters are above the limited standard of FAO. For the
analyzed parameters of drinking water quality, some of them are above the standard limits of WHO(2011) and national standard of Cambodia, MIH (2004) which is not recommended to drink as itⒸ ISERD

100

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

could harm the human health. However, E. coli and total coliform are easy to eliminate by boilingwater before drinking (RDI, 2016).
REFERENCES
Aksever, F., Davraz, A. and Bal, Y. 2016. Assessment of water quality for drinking and irrigation purposes:
A ca ed of Ba k
p ing (A la n/B d /T ke ). A abian Jo nal of Geo cience , 9 (20),https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2778-y
Al-Zarah, A.I. 2007. Hydrogeochemical processes of alkhobar aquifer in Eastern region, Saudi Arabia. J.
Applied Sci., 7, 3669-3677.
Amfo-Otu, R., Agyenim, J.B. and Nimba-Bumah, G.B. 2014. Correlation analysis of groundwater
colouration from mountainous areas, Ghana. Environ. Res. Eng. Manage., 67, 16-24.
Apodaca, L.E., Bails, J.B. and Smith, C.M. 2002. Water quality in shallow alluvial aquifers, upper Colorado
River Basin, Colorado, 1997. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 133-149.
Belkhiri, L., Mouni, L. and Boudoukha, A. 2012. Geochemical evolution of groundwater in an alluvial
aquifer: Case of El Eulma aquifer, east Algeria. J. Afr. Earth Sci., 66-67, 46-55.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2003. Water quality for agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ T0234E/T0234E01.htm (access on April 4, 2017).
Gallardo, A.H. and Tase, N. 2007. Hydrogeology and geochemical characterization of groundwater in a
typical small-scale agricultural area of Japan. J. Asian Earth Sci., 29, 18-28.
Gowd, S.S. 2005. Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes: A case study of
Peddavanka Watershed Anantapur District Andhra Pradesh India. Environ Geol, 48 (6), 702-712.
Groeneveld, R.A. and Meeden, G. 1984. Measuring skewness and kurtosis. J. Ro. Stat. Soc. Series D (TheStatistician), 33, 391-399.
Heath, R.C. 1982. Basic ground-water hydrology. US Geological Survey Water Supply, Paper 2220, p. 85.
Kumar, V.S, Amarender, B., Dhakate, R., Sankaran, S. and Kumar, K.R. 2014. Assessment of groundwater
quality for drinking and irrigation use in shallow hard rock aquifer of Pudunagaram Palakkad District.
Kaka, E.A., Akiti, T.T., Nartey, V.K., Bam, E.K.P. and Adomako, D. 2011. Hydrochemistry and evaluationof groundwater suitability for irrigation and drinking purposes in the southeastern Volta River basin:
Manya Krobo area Ghana elixir. Agriculture, 39, 4793-4807.
MIH (Ministry of Industry and Handicrafts). 2004. Cambodia drinking water quality standard. http://www.
wepa-db.net /policies/law/cambodia/07.htm (access on March 16, 2017).
Misstear, B., Banks, D. and Clark, L. 2006. Water wells and boreholes. FAO Irrigation Water Quality
Guidelines, Appendix 3, 469-470.
Mwabi, J.K., Mamba, B.B. and Momba, M.N.B. 2012. Removal of Escherichia coli and faecal coliforms
from surface water and groundwater by household water treatment devices/systems: A sustainable
solution for improving water quality in rural communities of the southern African development
community region. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9 (12), 139-170.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9010139
Nag, S.K. and Das, S. 2014. Quality assessment of groundwater with special emphasis on irrigation anddomestic suitability in Suri I & II blocks Birbhum District West Bengal India. Am. J. Water Resour., 2(4), 81-98.
RDI (Resource Development International). 2012. Summary of groundwater in Cambodia. Data, Map andPriority Parameters. http://rdic.org/groundwater-summary-data/ (accessed on August 21, 2017).
RDI (Resource Development International). 2016. Water contaminates descriptions on health and aesthetic
handbook. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Spalding, R.F. and Exner, M.E. 1993. Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater-a review. J. Environ. Qual., 22,392-402.
Venugopal, T., Giridharan, L., Jayaprakash, M. and Periakali, P. 2009. Environmental impact assessment andseasonal variation study of the groundwater in the vicinity of River Adyar, Chennai, India. Environ.
Monit. Assess, 149, 81-97.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. The 4th Edn., World HealthOrganization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISBN: 9789241548151.
Ziani, D., Abderrahma, B., Boumazbeur, A. and Benaabidat, L. (2016). Water quality assessment for
drinking and irrigation using najor ions chemistry in the semiarid region: Case of Djacer Spring, Algeria.
Asian Journal of Earth Sciences, 10 (1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajes.2017.9.21Ⓒ ISERD101