1

Module No. 8

Water Quality Standards for Drinking and Irrigation

Setting standards for water quality establishes threshold limits for different impurities and
contaminants found therein. These limits minimize risk and therefore prevent deleterious health
repercussions that result from exposure to these impurities and contaminants through drinking
contaminated water and eating raw agricultural products that are produced with
contaminated water. Access to safe drinking water and agricultural products is not only
essential for the promotion and protection of public health but is a basic human right.

Water quality refers to the characteristics that will influence its suitability for a specific use.
For drinking water, its microbiological, chemical, physical, and radiological quality parameters
are examined. Through these water quality indicators, the water can be determined whether it is
safe for drinking or appropriate for non-drinking purposes. The latter include irrigation, cooking,
bathing, swimming, fishing, boating, aesthetics or tourism and various industrial uses such as
washing and cooling. For irrigation purposes, water quality-related problems include salinity,
infiltration, toxicity among others which affect yield, both in quantity and quality of the product.

In this module, water quality standards for drinking and irrigation purposes are discussed.

After thorough and diligent study of this module, you should be able to:

a. Infer about the reasons why the Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water 1993
(PNSDW 1993) was revised and updated by the Department of Health (DOH) through the
PNSDW 2007 and identify the main revision or difference between the two standards;

b. Enumerate the 14 mandatory parameters which all water service providers nationwide
are obligated to test and classify these parameters according to microbiological,
chemical and physical characteristics;

c. Analyze and draw conclusions about the compliance of water refilling stations to PNSDW
2007;

d. Synthesize the effects of irrigation water quality on crop production and soil quality;

e. Identify through their chemical symbols or formulas the salts present in irrigation water that
affect crop and soil productivity;

f. Formulate a list of field crops that can be grown profitably on given electrical
conductivities of root zone soil (ECe)and irrigation water (ECw);

g. Solve the sodium adsorption ration (SAR) based on results of laboratory analysis;
 2

h. Evaluate the likelihood of a water infiltration problem in soils;

i. Explain the relationship of pH and alkalinity of irrigation water;

j. Characterize an excellent irrigation water in terms of its chloride, boron, sulfate and
nitrogen content and explain the toxicity of each in crops;

k. Identify the toxicity of the other trace elements present in irrigation water; and

l. Enumerate the contaminants in irrigation water that may pose health hazards to
consumers including those that affect animal health.
 3

I. Quality Standards for Drinking Water

The Department of Health (DOH) is mandated to formulate standards for drinking water
quality consistent with the Code on Sanitation of the Philippines (PD 856) which states that
“Standards for drinking water and their microbiological and chemical examinations, together
with the evaluation of results, shall conform to the criteria set by the 1978 National Drinking Water
Standards.” Corollary to this, the DOH promulgated the Philippine National Standards for Drinking
Water 1993 (PNSDW 1993). Due to several issues and concerns raised, the DOH revised and
updated it through the PNSDW 2007 (Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2007-0012).

A. Objectives of PNSDW 2007

Generally, the PNSDW 2007 seeks to protect public health, safety and welfare by
ensuring quality standards of drinking water. Specifically, it aims to:

a. achieve more comprehensive parameters to address issues and concerns on water

quality; and

b. advocate for an efficient water quality surveillance system by prioritizing the parameters
that need to be monitored.

In the PNSDW 2007, the water quality parameters are now categorized into mandatory,
primary, and secondary. The 14 mandatory parameters given in Table 1 are core parameters
which all water service providers nationwide are obligated to test. The 55 primary parameters
are site-specific and can be adopted as enforceable parameters when developing new water
sources or when the existing source is at high risk of contamination. The 11 secondary
parameters include operational parameters and those that affect the aesthetic quality of
drinking-water (Lomboy et al., 2017).

Table 1. Mandatory parameters and maximum level in drinking water

Mandatory Drinking Maximum Level Remarks
Water Parameters (mg/L)
Thermotolerant or <1.0 fecal coliform When Membrane Filter Technique (MFT) is used.
Escherichia coliform colonies per 100 mL

<1.1 most probable When Multiple Tube Fermentation Technique

number (MPN) (MTFT) or Chromogenic substrate test (Presence-
per 100 mL Absence) is used.

Arsenic 0.05 For existing water supply systems. Arsenic may

be naturally occurring in water sources. Where
maximum level of arsenic is unachievable,
concentration in water supply must be kept as
low as possible. By 2010, the maximum level shall
be 0.01 mg/L.
 4

Table 1. (continued)
Mandatory Drinking Maximum Level Remarks
Water Parameters (mg/L)
Cadmium 0.003 Cadmium is used in manufacture of steel,
plastics and battery and released to the
environment through wastewater or fumes.
Cadmium is released in water supply as impurity
of the zinc coating of galvanized pipes and
solders and metal fittings.

Lead 0.01 Lead may be present in water primarily from

plumbing systems containing lead pipes, solder,
fittings or the service connections to the homes.
Although it may be found naturally occurring in
certain areas, rarely is it present in water supply
as a result of its dissolution from natural sources.

Nitrate 50 Nitrate concentration in groundwater and

surface water can reach high levels as a result
or of leaching or run-off from agricultural land or
contamination from human or animal wastes.
Nitrite 3 Anaerobic conditions may result in the formation
and persistence of nitrite.

Benzene 0.01 Benzene may be introduced into water by

industrial effluents and atmospheric pollution
due to vehicular emissions.

Apparent 10 color units Decomposition of organic materials such as

leaves or woods usually yield coloring
substances to water; Tannins, humic acid, and
Color humates from the decomposition of lignin;
True 5 color units
Insoluble form of iron and manganese; colored
suspended matters.

Turbidity 5 NTU Turbidity increases with the quantity of

suspended matters in water.
Iron 1.0 Applicable for existing and new water supply
systems. Iron is found in natural freshwaters. It
may be present in drinking water as a result of
the use or iron coagulants or the corrosion of
steel and cast iron pipes during water
distribution.

pH 6.5 – 8.5 The pH range is based on aesthetic

consideration only. The acceptable range may
be broader in the absence of a distribution
system. pH is important as operational water
quality parameter.

5–7 For product water that undergone reverse

osmosis or distillation process.
 5

Table 1. (continued)
Mandatory Drinking Maximum Level Remarks
Water Parameters (mg/L)
Manganese 0.4 Applicable for existing and new water supply
systems. Manganese is naturally occurring in
many surface and groundwater sources,
particularly in anaerobic or low oxidation
conditions.

Chloride 250 Chloride in drinking water originates from natural

sources, sewage and industrial effluents, urban
runoff, and seawater intrusion.

Sulfate 250 High levels of sulfate occur naturally in

groundwater.

Total dissolved 500 TDS in drinking water originate from natural

solids (TDS) sources, sewage, urban runoff and industrial
wastewater.
<10 For product water that undergone reverse
osmosis or distillation process.
Source: Department of Health (2007)

B. Coverage

The PNSDW 2007 standards shall apply to all waterworks officials, developers and
operators of water supply systems both government and private entities, water refilling station
operators, water vending machine operators, ice manufacturers, all establishments and
institutions that supply or serve drinking water, drinking water laboratories, health and sanitation
authorities, the general public and all others concerned.

C. Frequency of sampling and analysis

To determine the safety and acceptability of drinking-water supply, appropriate

laboratory examinations should be conducted on representative samples of water taken at all
critical stages in the production and consumption of water supply. These stages include: the
water sources, and from a reasonable number of points in the distribution network.

Microbiological examination is conducted more frequently than the other tests because
of the high probability of microbial contamination and the extent of public health it might
cause. Table 2 gives the minimum frequency of sampling and analysis based on the source and
mode of water supply (Department of Health Administrative Order No. 2007-0012).
 6

Table 2. Minimum frequency of sampling and analysis

Source and Mode of Supply Population Served Minimum Frequency
A. Microbiological Analysis
 Level I 90 – 150 Once in three months
 Level II 600 Once in two months
 Level III Less than 5,000 One sample monthly
5,000 – 100,000 One sampling per 5,000
population monthly

More than 100,000 20 samples and additional

one sample per 10,000
population monthly

 Emergency supplies Before delivery to users

 Water refilling stations One sample monthly
 Water vending machines One sample monthly
B. Chemical and Physical Analysis
 Level I 90 – 150 Once a year
 Level II 600
 Level III Less than 5,000
5,000 – 100,000
More than 100,000
 Emergency supplies Before delivery to users
 Water refilling stations Twice a tear
 Water vending machines
C. Radiological Analysis
Radiological analysis shall be conducted if there is fall-out or contamination from suspected
sources of radiological impurities of water such as hospitals or other industries.

Source: Department of Health (2007)

II. Quality Standards for Irrigation Water

Agriculture is dependent on adequate water supply of usable quality. According to
McFarland, Lemon & Stichler, irrigation water quality is determined by the total amounts of salts
and the types of salts present in the water. A salt is a combination of positively charged
elements or cations and negatively charged elements or anions (2000). Four of these naturally
occurring salts are cations such as calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+), and
potassium (K+); and six are anions which include chloride (Cl–), carbonate (CO32– ), bicarbonate
(HCO3–), sulfate (SO42– ), nitrate (NO3–), and boron (B3–) (Fipps, n.d).
 7

Poor irrigation water quality damages crops and soil structure directly and its impact
depends on the soil, crop, and environmental conditions. The effects of irrigation water quality
on crop production and soil quality are categorized as follows:

a. Salinity hazard – total soluble salt content;

b. Sodium hazard – relative proportion of sodium (Na+) to calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium
(Mg2+) ions;

c. pH and alkalinity – carbonate and bicarbonate;

d. Specific ion toxicity: chloride (Cl), sulfate (SO42-), boron (B), and nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N)
(Bauder, Waskom, Sutherland & Davis, 2014); and

e. Other irrigation water contaminants that may affect suitability for agricultural use which
include heavy metals and microbial contaminants (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2016).

Water quality problems are often complex and a combination of problems may affect
crop production more severely than a single problem in isolation. The more complex the
problem, the more difficult it is to formulate an economical management program for solution. If
problems do occur in combination, they are more easily understood and solved if each factor is
considered individually (Ayers & Westcot, 1994).

For this reason, you are enjoined to study the ensuing discussions diligently so that you
may be able to characterize an excellent irrigation water quality based on the aforementioned
problems.

A. Salinity hazard

According to Bauder, Waskom, Sutherland & Davis, the most problematic water quality
parameter on crop and soil productivity is the salinity hazard or the total soluble salt content
(2014). Salts in water are measured by total dissolved solids (TDS) or electrical conductivity (EC).
The EC of a typical clean water is less than 0.6 mmhos/cm (Swistock, n.d). Bauder et al. further
reported that the higher the TDS or EC, the higher the salt hazard. The primary effect of high TDS
or EC is the inability of the plant to compete with ions in the soil solution for water. The higher the
TDS or EC, the less water is available to plants even when the soil appears wet. Since plants can
only transpire "pure" water, usable plant water in the soil solution decreases dramatically as TDS
or EC increases. With less water available to plants, the rate of physiological processes (e.g.
transpiration, respiration) occurring within the plant system decreases, thus less potential yield
(2014).

Suitability of irrigation water based on salinity hazard is classified as excellent, good,

permissible, doubtful and unsuitable (Table 3). In laboratory analysis reports, TDS and EC are
reported in a variety of units. TDS is reported in units mg/L (milligrams per liter, or ppm (parts per
million, or μg/mL (microgram per milliliter); while dS/m (deciSiemens per meter), or mmho/cm
(millimhos per centimeter) in the case of EC (Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan,
2007). Conversion factors to interpret laboratory results on TDS and EC are given in Appendix
Table 1.
 8

Table 3. Classification of salinity hazards of irrigation water

Electrical Conductivity (EC)
(mmhos/cm or dS/m)
Below 0.25
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Salinity Hazard Classification
(ppm) and Effects on Management
Below 160 Excellent. No detrimental
effects on plants, and no soil
buildup expected.

0.25 – 0.75 160 – 480 Good. Sensitive plants may

show stress; moderate
leaching prevents salt
accumulation in soil.

0.75 – 2.0 480 – 1,280 Permissible. Salinity may

adversely affect plants.
Requires selection of salt
tolerant plants, careful
irrigation and good drainage.
Leaching needed if used.

2.0 – 3.0 1,280 – 1,920 Doubtful. Will require careful

management to raise most
crops. Good drainage
needed and sensitive plants
will have difficulty obtaining
stands.

Above 3.0 Above 1,920 Unsuitable. Generally

unacceptable for irrigation,
except for very salt-tolerant
plants where there is
excellent drainage, frequent
leaching, and intensive
management.
Sensitive plants will have
difficulty obtaining stands.

Source: Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan (2007)

Salinity hazard has the following effects on crop yield and quality (Mohan, 2015):

a. Soluble salts damage plants through osmotic effect. Water moves from the area of lower
salt concentration (the plant root) to an area of higher salt concentration (the soil). This
causes water stress and plants wilt even though the soil is wet.

b. Soluble salts in irrigation water can desiccate or “burn” leaf tissue when applied to
foliage (Figure 1).

c. Salts deposited on crops can cause leaf and fruit discoloration, reducing market value.
 9

Source: Bauder, Waskom, Sutherland & Davis (2014)

Figure 1. Foliage of corn plant damaged by saline sprinkler water

Salinity hazard also affects soil quality, as follows:

a. Irrigation water with a high ratio of sodium to calcium + magnesium (high sodium
adsorption ratio, SAR) limits water movement into the soil (infiltration) and through the soil
(percolation).

b. Salts contained in irrigation water can accumulate in the soil, reducing its productivity
and increasing management costs.

All plants differ widely in their ability to tolerate salts. Some crops can relatively produce
acceptable yields at much greater soil salinity than others (Abrol, Yadav & Massoud, 1988).
Inasmuch as there is no critical point of salinity where plants fail to grow, salt tolerance ratings
given in Table 4 are used based on yield reduction on salty soils and irrigation water when
compared with yields on similar non-saline soils and irrigation water. Accordingly, these salt
tolerance ratings are useful in selecting alternative crops to be grown economically on a
particular problem area (Ayers & Westcot, 1994).

Table 4. Crop tolerance and yield potential as influenced by salinities of soil and irrigation water
Yield Potential
Field/Fruit Crops 100% 90% 75% 50%
ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw
A. Tolerant
Cotton 7.7 5.1 9.6 6.4 13 8.4 17.0 12.0
(Gossypium hirsutum)
 10

Table 4. (continued)
Yield Potential
Field/Fruit Crops 100% 90% 75% 50%
ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw
B. Moderately Tolerant
Cowpea 4.9 3.3 5.7 3.8 7.0 4.7 9.2 6.0
(Vigna unguiculata)

Sorghum 6.8 4.5 7.4 5.0 8.4 5.6 9.9 6.7

(Sorghum bicolor)

Soybean 5.0 3.3 5.5 3.7 6.3 4.2 7.5 5.0

(Glycine max)

Squash, zucchini 4.7 3.1 5.8 3.8 7.4 4.9 10.0 6.7
(Cucurbita pepo melopepo)

C. Moderately Sensitive
Broccoli 2.8 1.9 3.9 2.6 5.5 3.7 8.2 5.5
(Brassica oleracea botrytis)

Cabbage 1.8 1.2 2.8 1.9 4.4 2.9 7.0 4.6

(Brassica oleracea capitata)

Celery 1.8 1.2 3.4 2.3 5.8 3.9 9.9 6.6

(Apium graveolens)
Corn 1.7 1.1 2.5 1.7 3.8 2.5 5.9 3.9
(Zea mays)

Cucumber 2.5 1.7 3.3 2.2 4.4 2.9 6.3 4.2

(Cucumis sativus)

Grape 1.5 1.0 2.5 1.7 4.1 2.7 6.7 4.5

(Vitus sp.)

Lettuce 1.3 0.9 2.1 1.4 3.2 2.1 5.1 3.4

(Lactuca sativa)

Peanut 3.2 2.1 3.5 2.4 4.1 2.7 4.9 3.3

(Arachis hypogaea)

Pepper 1.5 1.0 2.2 1.5 3.3 2.2 5.1 3.4

(Capsicum annuum)

Potato 1.7 1.1 2.5 1.7 3.8 2.5 5.9 3.9

(Solanum tuberosum)

Radish 1.2 0.8 2.0 1.3 3.1 2.1 5.0 3.4

(Raphanus sativus)

Rice 3.0 2.0 3.8 2.6 5.1 3.4 7.2 4.8

(Oriza sativa)

Spinach 2.0 1.3 3.3 2.2 5.3 3.5 8.6 5.7

(Spinacia oleracea)
 11

Table 4. (continued)
Yield Potential
Field/Fruit Crops 100% 90% 75% 50%
ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw ECe ECw
Squash, scallop 3.2 2.1 3.8 2.6 4.8 3.2 6.3 4.2
(Cucurbita pepo melopepo)

Sugarcane (Saccharum 1.7 1.1 3.4 2.3 5.9 4.0 10.0 6.8
officinarum)
Sweet potato 1.5 1.0 2.4 1.6 3.8 2.5 6.0 4.0
(Ipomoea batatas)

Tomato 2.5 1.7 3.5 2.3 5.0 3.4 7.6 5.0

(Lycopersicon esculentum)

D. Sensitive
Bean 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.0 2.3 1.5 3.6 2.4
(Phaseolus vulgaris)

Carrot 1.0 0.7 1.7 1.1 2.8 1.9 4.6 3.0

(Daucus carota)

Onion 1.2 0.8 1.8 1.2 2.8 1.8 4.3 2.9

(Allium cepa)

Strawberry 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.2 2.5 1.7

(Fragaria sp.)
Source: Ayers & Westcot (1994)
ECe – electrical conductivity of root zone soil in dS/m @ 25oC
ECw – electrical conductivity of applied irrigation water in dS/m @ 25oC

Using Table 4 for example, if the field has a root zone soil ECe of 2.5 dS/m and the
irrigation water available has an ECw of 1.7 dS/m, then the only field crops to be grown
economically thereon even without any intervention to lower these salinities are cotton,
cowpea, sorghum, soybean, squash, broccoli, cucumber, peanut, rice, and tomato. Note that
these crops have salt tolerance ratings equal to or higher than both the given ECe and ECw of
2.5 dS/m and 1.7 dS/m, respectively.

B. Sodium hazard

It must be noted that salty irrigation water can cause two major problems in crop
production – salinity hazard and sodium hazard. While EC is an assessment of all soluble salts,
sodium hazard is defined separately because of sodium's specific detrimental effects on soil
physical properties (Bauder, Waskon & Davis, 2007) such as structure and permeability (Apex
Publishers, 2018). Sodium hazard is caused by high levels of sodium which can be toxic to plants
and can damage soil structure of medium- and fine-textured soils (McFarland, Lemon & Stichler,
2000).

Sodium hazard is typically expressed as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), an index that
quantifies the relative concentration of sodium (Na+) compared to the sum of calcium (Ca++)
 12

and magnesium (Mg++) ions in a sample. Divalent cations such as Ca++ and Mg++ act as bridges
to bind soil particles together forming soil aggregates. On the other hand, sodium, a monovalent
cation (Na+), does not form bridges between soil particles thus limiting soil aggregate formation.
It is also bulky in size thus does not allow water close to the aggregates (Park, White, McCarty &
Menchyk, 2014).

As shown in Figure 2, high sodium content of irrigation water can cause soil infiltration
and permeability problems because the soil will lose its structure, become dense and form hard
crusts on the surface (McFarland, Lemon, & Stichler, 2000). It can be said that “soft water” (water
high in sodium) makes hard ground; while “hard water” (water high in calcium and magnesium)
makes soft ground (Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan, 2007).

Source: Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan (2007)

Figure 2. Effects of sodium hazard on infiltration

Based on the results of laboratory analysis, SAR can be calculated using the formula:

Eq. 1

In words, SAR equals the sodium concentration (meq/L) divided by the square root of
half of the sum of calcium + magnesium concentrations (meq/L). According to Hopkins,
Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan, when the unit of ion analysis is in ppm or mg/L, convert it
to meq/L (2007) using the conversion factors given in Appendix Table 2 before calculating SAR
using Equation 1.

SAR can be estimated also using the nomograph overleaf.

 13

Source: Ayers & Westcot (1994)

Figure 3. Nomograph for estimating SAR value of irrigation water

 14

Using Figure 3 for example, if the results of laboratory analysis for Water Sample No. 1
indicate that sodium = 10 meq/L and calcium plus magnesium = 2 meq/L, then the SAR of said
sample ≈ 10 (red dotted line). If Water Sample No. 2 has sodium = 15 meq/L and calcium plus
magnesium = 9 meq/L, then the SAR of said sample ≈ 7 (blue dotted line). It is emphasized that it
is the relative proportion of Na+ to the sum of Ca++ and Mg++ ions in a sample that matters in SAR.
As illustrated in the example, high Na+ (15 meq/L in red dotted line) does not always translate to
high SAR, or low Na+ (10 meq/L in blue dotted line) does not always indicate low SAR.

Since both SAR and EC affect water infiltration, both must be considered in estimating
the likelihood of a water infiltration problem (Ayers & Westcot, 1994). Given in Table 5 are
general guideline values of SAR and EC used to evaluate the risk of sodium in irrigation water
causing a water infiltration problem in soils.

Table 5. SAR and EC values to evaluate the likelihood of a water infiltration problem in soils
Risk of Water Infiltration Problem in Soils
Low Moderate High
SAR EC of Irrigation Water (dS/m or mmhos/cm)
0–3 Above 0.7 0.7 – 0.2 Below 0.2
3–6 Above 1.2 1.2 – 0.3 Below 0.3
6 – 12 Above 1.9 1.9 – 0.5 Below 0.5
12 – 20 Above 2.9 2.9 – 1.3 Below 1.3
20 – 40 Above 5.0 5.0 – 2.9 Below 2.9
Source: Ayers & Westcot (1994)

Table 5 indicates ranges of interpretive values, rather than absolute values, to reflect
variations in how different soils respond to sodium. Using Table 5 for example, if a water sample
has an SAR of 15 and an EC of 3.2 dS/m, then the risk of water infiltration problem due to sodium
is low. However, if the EC of the same water sample is 0.5, then the risk of water infiltration
problem due to sodium is high.

Irrigation waters with low risk of water infiltration problems is excellent for crop production.
Waters with moderate risk may or may not result in a significant problem with water infiltration.
When the risk is high, management interventions are needed to prevent loss of soil structure.

C. pH and alkalinity

The acidity or basicity of irrigation water is expressed as pH (< 7.0 is acidic; > 7.0 is basic).
Water pH generally is not a problem itself. The normal pH range for irrigation water is from 6.5 to
8.4. The main use of pH in a water analysis is for detecting an abnormal water. Irrigation water
with a pH outside of the normal range may cause a nutritional imbalance or may contain a
toxic ion (Ayers & Westcot, 1994).

Water with abnormally low pH (acidic) is uncommon. However, when this happens,
acidic water can cause corrosion on irrigation equipment in contact with it. On the other hand,
as irrigation water pH increases above 8.4 (alkaline), the potential for sodium hazards increases.
 15

High pH above 8.4 are often caused by high bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO32-)
concentrations, known as alkalinity (Krishnamurthy, 2016). Alkalinity is a measure of the dissolved
materials in water that can buffer or neutralize acids. High carbonates cause Ca++ and
magnesium Mg++ ions to form insoluble minerals leaving Na+ as the dominant ion in the solution.
This alkaline water could intensify sodium hazards (Swistock, n.d).

Swistock also reported that the ideal range for total alkalinity is approximately 30 to 100
mg/L but levels up to 150 mg/L may be suitable for many plants. High alkalinity above 150 mg/L
tends to be problematic because it can lead to elevated soil pH, which can cause various
nutrient problems such as iron and manganese deficiency as well as calcium and magnesium
imbalance. Low alkalinity below 30 mg/L provides no buffering capacity against pH changes.
This is especially problematic where acid fertilizers are used (n.d).

D. Specific ion toxicity

A toxicity problem is different from a salinity problem. According to Ayers & Westcot, the
former occurs within the plant itself and not caused by limited availability of water in the root
zone in the case of the latter. Toxicity normally results when certain ions are absorbed with the
soil-water and accumulate in the leaves during transpiration to an extent that results in damage
to the plant. The degree of damage depends upon time, concentration, crop sensitivity and
crop water use, and if damage is severe enough, crop yield is reduced. The usual toxic ions in
irrigation water are chloride (Cl), sodium (Na) and boron (B). Other trace elements are also
present in irrigation water that are injurious to a particular crop even in minute quantities.
Damage can be caused by each, individually or in combination (1994).

1. Chloride

The most common toxicity is from chloride in irrigation water. Chloride is not adsorbed or
held back by soils, therefore it moves readily with the soil-water, is taken up by the crop, moves
in the transpiration stream, and accumulates in the leaves. If the chloride concentration in the
leaves exceeds the tolerance of the crop, injury symptoms develop such as leaf burn or drying
of leaf tissue. Normally, plant injury occurs first at the leaf tips, and progresses from the tip back
along the edges as severity increases. Excessive necrosis (dead tissue) is often accompanied by
early leaf drop or defoliation.

Chloride (Cl) occurs in water supplies naturally or from various human activities.
Classification of irrigation water based on chloride content is presented in Table 6. Although
chloride is essential to plants in very low amounts, it can cause toxicity to sensitive crops at high
concentrations. Most plants can tolerate chloride up to 100 mg/L although as little as 30 mg/L
can be problematic in a few sensitive plants. Damage caused by high-chloride irrigation water
can be minimized by: (a) planting a less sensitive crop; (b) avoiding foliar contact by using
furrow, flood, or drip irrigation; and (c) applying irrigation at night time or on cool, cloudy days.
 16

Table 6. Chloride classification of irrigation water

Chloride Effect on Crops Susceptible Field Crops
(ppm, mg/L or μg/mL)
< 70 Generally safe for all plants Dry beans
70 – 140 Sensitive plants show injury Onion, carrot, lettuce,
pepper, mint
141 – 350 Moderately tolerant plants show injury Corn, potato, tomato,
Zucchini squash, wheat,
sorghum
> 350 Can cause severe problems Asparagus, cauliflower
Source: Bauder, Waskom, Sutherland & Davis (2014)

2. Sodium

High sulfate concentrations promote the uptake of sodium leading to sodium toxicity
(Resh, 2004). Ayers & Westcot observed that sodium toxicity is not as easily diagnosed as
chloride toxicity (1994). However, Weiner reported that sodium toxicity symptoms differ from
those of chloride in that leaf burn, scorch and dead tissue occur initially along the outside edges
of leaves, instead of the extreme leaf tip as with chloride. Symptoms appear first on older leaves,
starting at the outer edges and, as the severity increases, moving progressively inward between
the veins toward the leaf center (2013). Sodium toxicity is uncommon for irrigation water with
SAR value of less than 3, and most likely severe for 9 SAR (Ayers & Westcot, 1994).

3. Boron

Boron (B) is an essential micronutrient needed by plants in small amounts and is toxic to
many crops at levels only slightly above those required for growth. Boron concentrations in water
as low as 0.5 to 1 ppm can damage sensitive fruit crops, particularly with long-term slow-growing
crops; while other crops may not be damaged until B exceeds 4 ppm (Table 7). Boron toxicity
symptoms normally show first on older leaves as a yellowing, spotting, or drying of leaf tissue at
the tips and edges. Drying and chlorosis often progress toward the centre between the veins as
more and more boron accumulates with time. High boron levels can be treated using anion
exchange or reverse osmosis treatment systems but pH adjustment is sometimes needed to
improve treatment efficiency.

Table 7. Tolerance of plants to boron in irrigation water

Boron Rating Susceptible Plants
(ppm, mg/L or μg/mL)
< 0.5 Extremely sensitive Blackberry, lemon
0.5 – 0.75 Very sensitive Onion, cowpea, avocado, peach,
cherry, plum, grape, walnut, orange,
persimmon, apricot, pecan
 17

Table 7. (continued)
Boron Rating Susceptible Plants
(ppm, mg/L or μg/mL)
0.75 – 1.0 Sensitive Wheat, lima bean, mungbean,
garlic, onion, sweet potato, sesame,
peanut, strawberry, sunflower, dry
bean

1–2 Moderately sensitive Red pepper, pea, carrot, radish,

potato, cucumber

2–4 Moderately tolerant Lettuce, cabbage, celery, turnip,

oats, corn, mustard, tobacco,
squash, muskmelon
4–6 Tolerant Sorghum, tomato
6 – 15 Very tolerant Cotton, asparagus
Consolidated from: Ayers & Westcot (1994) and Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan (2007)

4. Trace elements

Other trace elements present in irrigation water may also cause toxicity to crops. The
recommended maximum concentrations of these elements are presented in Table 8 which also
include a brief description of their toxicity when the maximum concentrations are exceeded
(Ayers & Westcot, 1994).

Table 8. Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements in irrigation water

Element Recommended Maximum Remarks
Concentration (mg/L)
Aluminium (Al) 5.0 Can cause non-productivity in acid soils
(pH < 5.5), but more alkaline soils at pH >
7.0 will precipitate the ion and eliminate
any toxicity.

Arsenic (As) 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging

from 12 mg/l for Sudan grass to less than
0.05 mg/l for rice.

Beryllium (Be) 0.10 Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging

from 5 mg/l for kale to 0.5 mg/l for bush
beans.

Cadmium (Cd) 0.10 Toxic to beans, beets and turnips at

concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/l in
nutrient solutions. Conservative limits
recommended due to its potential for
accumulation in plants and soils to
concentrations that may be harmful to
humans.
 18

Table 8. (continued
Element Recommended Maximum Remarks
Concentration (mg/L)
Cobalt (Co) 0.05 Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/l in
nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated
by neutral and alkaline soils.

Copper (Cu) 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0

mg/l in nutrient solutions.

Fluoride (F) 1.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.

Iron (Fe) 5.0 Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but

can contribute to soil acidification and
loss of availability of essential phosphorus
and molybdenum. Overhead sprinkling
may result in unsightly deposits on plants,
equipment and buildings.

Lithium (Li) 2.50 Tolerated by most crops up to 5 mg/l;

mobile in soil. Toxic to citrus at low
concentrations (<0.075 mg/l). Acts
similarly to boron.

Manganese (Mn) 0.20 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-

tenths to a few mg/l, but usually only in
acid soils.

Molybdenum (Mo) 0.01 Not toxic to plants at normal

concentrations in soil and water. Can be
toxic to livestock if forage is grown in soils
with high concentrations of available
molybdenum.

Nickel (Ni) 0.20 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 mg/l to

1.0 mg/l; reduced toxicity at neutral or
alkaline pH.

Lead (Pd) 5.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high
concentrations.

Selenium (Se) 0.20 Toxic to plants at concentrations as low as

0.025 mg/l and toxic to livestock if forage
is grown in soils with relatively high levels
of added selenium. An essential element
to animals but in very low concentrations.

Vanadium (V) 0.10 Toxic to many plants at relatively low

concentrations.

Zinc (Zn) 2.0 Toxic to many plants at widely varying

concentrations; reduced toxicity at pH >
6.0 and in fine textured or organic soils.
Source: Ayers & Westcot (1994)
 19

E. Other irrigation water contaminants

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there is increasing
evidence of the contribution of irrigation water in the contamination of food crops leading to
subsequent outbreaks of food-borne illness. This risk is particularly true to fresh fruits and leafy
vegetables that come in contact with water during production, harvesting and processing
which are eaten raw without cooking (2016).

Irrigation water can become contaminated through a variety of ways and can
potentially spread bacteria, viruses, and parasites to crops and animals. Below is a list of the
potential food production points where contaminated water sources can affect crop
production:

 Chemical application. Crops with contaminated water used for pesticide or herbicide
application. Water used for mixing chemicals should be of appropriate quality.

 Irrigation. Irrigating crops with contaminated water. Water used for irrigation should be of
appropriate quality.

 Worker hygiene. Lack of potable water for hand hygiene. There should be an established
hand washing and hygiene policy for farm workers.

 Food processing. Wash crops in the final wash process with quality water. Water should
be of drinking water quality and should not be recycled.

Some of the bacteria that are spread through water are E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella
spp., Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Toxoplasma, norovirus, and hepatitis A virus. Even a small
amount of any of these organisms can cause food-borne illness. In order to keep microbes out
of water sources, growers should use practices that are appropriate for their operation and
make sure that they are using the best quality water. Water quality is also important in ensuring
postharvest quality by decreasing decay.

Contaminated water also has detrimental effects on animal health, it is important that
livestock are provided with adequate amounts of quality water, free of contamination.
Contaminated water can contain disease-causing organisms which can rapidly spread if
animals are drinking from the same trough. There are many chemicals and microorganisms that
can be potentially dangerous to livestock. Some chemicals include nitrates, sulfates, and
chemicals found in pesticides like DDT, Chlordane, and Endrin. Certain microorganisms such as
blue-green algae, Cryptosporidium, or Staphylococcus, can be toxic to animals and cause
symptoms like diarrhea, lack of coordination, labored breathing, or death. Ill animals can then
release millions of infectious microbes into the soil that can further contaminate other water
sources (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2016).
 20

Passing Score: 75 points

Due Date: ASAP but not later than ____________________________________.
Penalty for Late Submission: 5 points deduction per day of delay

If space is not enough, continue at the left-side directly opposite the item being answered.

1. What do you think is the main reason the PNSDW 1993 was revised and updated by DOH
through the PNSDW 2007? What is the main revision or difference between the two drinking
water standards? (10 pts)

2. What are the 14 mandatory parameters in PNSDW 2007? Classify these parameters
according to microbiological, chemical and physical characteristics. (10 pts)
 21

3. Visit one of the water refilling stations in your locality and comment on its compliance to
PNSDW 2007 standards. (10 pts)

4. Synthesize the effects of irrigation water quality on crop and soil productivity. (5 pts)
 22

5. Write the chemical symbols or formulas of the salts present in irrigation water that affect crop
and soil productivity. (5 pts)

6. Formulate a list of field crops that can be grown economically without intervention when
ECe = 2.0 dS/m and ECw = 1.5 dS/m. (10 pts)
 23

7. Solve the sodium adsorption ration (SAR) using Equation 1 for both of our Water Sample Nos.
1 & 2 in page 14 hereof. (10 pts)

8. Evaluate the likelihood of a water infiltration problem in the soils of Items 6 & 7 above. (10 pts)
 24

9. Explain briefly how pH affects the alkalinity of irrigation water? (5 pts)

10. In the world-wide-web (www) and elsewhere, find pictures of plants showing signs of toxicity
caused by each of the trace elements present in irrigation water. Print, cut and paste below.
Do not forget to label each picture. (10 pts)
 25

11. Fill out the table below that generally characterizes an excellent irrigation water quality.
(10 pts)

Parameter Excellent Irrigation Water Quality

Quantity Unit
a. Salinity (Affects crop water availability.)
b. pH
c. Infiltration (Affects infiltration rate of water into the
soil. Evaluate using ECw and SAR together.)
SAR = 0 – 3 ECw =
3–6 =
6 – 12 =
12 – 20 =
20 – 40 =
d. Chloride
e. Sodium
f. Boron
 26

12. What are the contaminants in irrigation water that may pose health hazards to consumers
and affect animal health? (5 pts)
 27

Appendix Table 1. Conversion factors for measurements of salinity of irrigation water

Measurement Unit Is equal to Unit
Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L or ppm or μg/mL 640 dS/m or mmhos/cm
(when EC < 5 dS/m)

mg/L or ppm or μg/mL 800 dS/m or mmhos/cm

(when EC > 5 dS/m)
Electrical conductivity (EC) dS/m 1 mmhos/cm
mmhos/cm 1,000 µmho/cm

Irrigation water ha-mm 10 m3 of water

m3 of water 1,000 kg of water
Source: Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan (2007)

Appendix Table 2. Conversion factors for ion concentrations in irrigation water

Measurement Chemical Symbol or Formula To convert ppm or mg/L to meq/L, divide by
Calcium Ca2+ 20
Magnesium Mg2+ 12.2
Sodium Na+ 23
Potassium K+ 39.1
Chloride Cl- 35.5
Carbonate CO32- 30
Bicarbonate HCO3- 61
Sulfate SO42- 48
Sulfate-sulfur SO42--S 32.1
Nitrate NO3- 62
Nitrate-nitrogen NO3--N 14
Borate BO33- 19.6
Boron B 10.8
Source: Hopkins, Horneck, Stevens, Ellsworth & Sullivan (2007)
 28

Abrol, I.P., Yadav, J.S.P. & Massoud, F.I. (1988). Salt-affected soils and their management. FAO
Soils Bulletin 39. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5871e/x5871e04.htm#3.%20SALINE%20SOILS%20AND%20THE
IR%20MANAGEMENT

Allende, A. & Monaghan, J. (2015). Irrigation water quality for leafy crops: A perspective of risk
and potential solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health. Uyttendaele, M. Franz, F. & Schlüter, O. (eds.) Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515668/

Apex Publishers. (2018). Water quality for irrigating vineyards: Sodium hazard. Retrieved from
http://www.wine-grape-
growing.com/wine_grape_growing/vineyard_water_quality/vineyard_water_quality_sodi
um.htm

Ayers, R.S. & Westcot. D.W. (1994). Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper
29. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from
www.fao.org/docrep/003/T0234E/T0234E00.htm

Bauder, T.A., Waskom, R.M. & Davis, J.G. (2007). Irrigation water quality criteria. Colorado State
University Extension Factsheet No. 0.506. Retrieved from
www.uwyo.edu/soilfert/pubs/irrigation%20water%20quality%20csu.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Water contamination. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/other/agricultural/contamination.html

Clipart Library. (n.d). Agricultural and biosystems engineering [Logo]. Retrieved from
http://clipa.cash/agricultural-biosystems-engineering-logo.html

Department of Health. 2007. DOH Administrative Order (DAO) 2007-0012. Retrieved from
http://spsissuances.da.gov.ph/index.php/.../891-doh-administrative-order-no-2007-0012

Fipps, G. (n.d). Irrigation water quality standards and salinity management. Texas A&M AgriLife
Extension. Retrieved from https://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/.../B-1667.-Irrigation-Water-
Quality-Standards-and-Sal...

Hopkins, B.G., Horneck, D.A., Stevens, R.G., Ellsworth, J.W. & Sullivan, D.M. (2007). Managing
irrigation water quality. Pacific Northwest Extension publication No. PNW 597-E. Oregon
State University, University of Idaho and Washington State University. Retrieved from
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/m039k511n?locale=en

Krishnamurthy, K.K. (2016). Organic agriculture for sustainability. Chennai, India: Notion Press.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=9386073994
 29

Lomboy, M., Riego de Dios, J., Magtibay, B., Quizon, R., Molina, V., Fadrilan-Camacho, V….
Agravante, A. (2017). Updating national standards for drinking-water: A Philippine
experience. Journal of Water Health. 15(2):288-295. DOI: 10.2166/wh.2016.177. Retrieved
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28362309

McFarland, M.L., Lemon, R.G. & Stichler, C.R. (2000). Irrigation water quality: Critical salt levels for
peanuts, cotton, corn and grain sorghum. Texas A&M University System. Retrieved from
https://mafiadoc.com/irrigation-water-quality-publications-soil-and-crop-sciences-texas-
_5b2c980c097c47e4788b4595.html

Mohan, M.D. (2015). Assessment of irrigation water quality for grape gardens in Western
Maharashtra (Master’s thesis}. Retrieved from
http://www.krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/5810031013/1/sm.pdf

Park, D.M., White, S.A., McCarty, L.B. & Menchyk, N.A. (2014). Interpreting irrigation water quality
reports. Clemson University Cooperative Extension. CU-14-700. Retrieved from
https://www.clemson.edu/public/regulatory/.../irrigation-water/water-interpretation.pdf

Resh, H.M. (2004). Hydroponic food production: A definitive guidebook of soilless food growing
methods. New Jersey: Newconcept Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=093123199X

Swistock, B. (n.d). Interpreting irrigation water tests: Basic interpretation of how various water
quality parameters can influence plant growth during irrigation. Lamont, W. Jr., Reiners,
S., Bisconer, I. & Wolfram, B. (Reviewers). PennState Extension. Retrieved from
https://extension.psu.edu/interpreting-irrigation-water-tests

Weiner, E.R. (2013). Applications of environmental aquatic chemistry: A practical guide. 3rd ed.
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?isbn=1439853339