Fluoride in ground water: a comment on “fluorine contamination in ground water: a major challenge” published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, (2011) 173, 955–968

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to highlight the erroneous map used in depicting the sampling locations, reported high fluoride values, and other minor mistakes published by Dar et al. (2011) for the benefit of the scientific community. It is estimated that about 80% of the diseases in the world are attributed to poor quality of drinking water, and fluoride contamination in drinking water is responsible for 65 % of endemic fluorosis in the world (WHO 1984). Fluorosis is a non curable disease so far, and its severity depends on the fluoride concentration and the intake. In India, more than 90 % of the villages use groundwater for drinking and 50 % of these sources are contaminated with fluoride. In fact, a prevalence of dental fluorosis is responsible to affect more than 40 million people in India (Karthikeyan et al. 2005). Therefore, fluoride concentration in groundwater needs to be monitored to assess its suitability for consumption. Occurrence of high fluoride content in groundwater can be associated with diverse geological environments; ranging from sedimentary rocks (Battaleb-Looie et al. 2012) to crystalline rocks (Jacks et al. 2005; D’Alessandro et al. 2008) and to volcanic aquifers (Gaciri and Davies 1993; Ashley and Burley 1995; Tekle-Haimanot et al. 2006; Vivona et al. 2007; Rango et al. 2009). Considering the value attached to the fluoride contamination in ground water, any monitoring investigation must be carried out with high scientific standards at each stage such as sampling, analysis, interpretation and data presentation. A paper entitled “Fluorine contamination in ground water: a major challenge” published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment by Dar et al. (2011) reported the groundwater fluoride concentration for Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu, India. In this paper, some of the locations have been implicated to contain relatively high fluoride content. A close scrutiny of the paper revealed error with regard to the sampling location itself. Considering the importance of the investigated site and their fluoride content for the public and government, it is essential to clarify the mistakes. In this paper, we have discussed the drawbacks such as (a) the use of erroneous sampling locationmap resulting inwrong implications on the outcome of the study, (b) non-conformance of hydrochemical data with respect to ionic balance, a prerequisite in water quality analyses and (c) reported high fluoride values for a specific site which has subsequently been studied by us. Spatial presentation of data in water quality monitoring studies has considerable scientific and management implication. Name of the sampling locations (village/town) may be familiar to a limited researcher belonging to the same area; however, for important geographical information to universal readers, providing the correct map of the sampling sites is a scientific need. Thus, any error in identifying sampling points in the map greatly distorts the study results and hence nullifies the very purpose of the study. Errors in the sampling location map used by Environ Monit Assess (2014) 186:2159–2163 DOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3525-4