Fig 1.
a) The study area map providing an overview of the locations where the samples were collected. b) A blueprint of the study area’s geology.
Fig 2.
IDW maps of the research region illustrating the geographical distribution of physicochemical parameters a) Water depth b) Color c) Odor d) Taste e) Temperature f) pH g) TDS h) EC i) Turbidity j) Arsenic k) Hardness l) Sodium m) Potassium n) Magnesium o) Calcium p) Iron q) Fluoride r) Chlorine s) Nitrate t) Bicarbonate u) Sulfate v) Microbial pollution.
Table 1.
Comparative analysis of groundwater quality and statistical characterization of physicochemical parameters in groundwater samples from Thal desert (n = 40) [50, 5,6, 57].
Fig 3.
a) Exploring water quality trends in study area with Piper Diagram analysis b) Exploring water quality trends in study area with Durov Diagram analysis.
Fig 4.
Groundwater quality assessed through Gibbs Diagrams: (a) Na/Na+ + Ca2+ mg/L versus Log TDS mg/L, and b) Cl-/Cl- + HCO3- mg/L versus Log TDS for the study area.
Fig 5.
a) Comparison of different parameters using the Stiff Plot for enhanced visualization and analysis of S1. b) Stiff Plots of 39 samples showcasing the distribution of data across multiple parameters.
Fig 6.
Visualization of relationships with different parameters using the Pearson correlation matrix.
Fig 7.
Scatter plot matrix showing a graphical depiction of the correlation between all parameters.
Fig 8.
Graphical depiction of the percentage of each category in the dataset using a pie chart.
Fig 9.
Scholler plot depicting the fluctuations of variables in groundwater samples based on the concentration.
Fig 10.
Visual representation of the chemical quality of groundwater samples using a Wilcox diagram.
Fig 11.
Visualizing the spatial distribution of water quality using WQI scores.
Table 2.
Comparison of WQI and status evaluation using weighted arithmetic method: Tabulated summary of findings.
Table 3.
Evaluation of hydro-stations water quality index and class in study area.