Vol.3, No.1, 28-35 (2011) Natural Science
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.31003
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
Hydrochemical characteristics of the major water
springs in the Yarmouk Basin, north Jordan
Awni T. Batayneh
Department of Geology and Geophysics, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; awni@ksu.edu.sa
Received 19 May 2010; revised 25 June 2010; accepted 28 June 2010.
ABSTRACT
The water quality of major springs in the Yar-
mouk Basin (north Jordan) experienced degra-
dation due to rapid urbanization and industri-
alization. In order to check their suitability for
irrigation, drinking and industrial purposes, a
research work was conducted to assess the
degree of ionic toxicity in these water sources.
Thirty-six water samples were analyzed for dif-
ferent elements of dominant cations and anions
such as Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe, and HCO3 together
with other minor ions P, B, NO3, SO4, and Cl. To
classify water quality, parameters such as so-
dium adsorption ratio (SAR), soluble sodium
percentage (SSP) and residual sodium carbon-
ate (RSC) were calculated. Concentrations of
major cations and anions are low compared to
their permissible levels in potable water. The total
dissolved solids is 617 mg/l or below, which
indicates the presence of fresh water. The fresh
water condition is also verified by low to mod-
erate electrical conductivity (347-1234 S/cm)
and lower than 8.09 pH values. The concentra-
tion of total iron (0.0-0.09 mg/l) falls below the
maximum permissible limit of 1 mg/l. The low
SAR (0.5 to 1.34) coupled with low electrical
conductivity, gives the water medium salinity
hazard and low sodium hazard. Thus, the water
is general of suitable chemical quality for do-
mestic, agricultural and most industrial uses.
Keywords: Water Springs; Water Quality; Yarmouk
Basin; North Jordan
1. INTRODUCTION
Jordan is considered among the poorest countries in
the world in terms of water resources. The climate is
generally arid to semi arid, where around 90% of the
country’s land receives an average precipitation of less
than 100 mm/year, while only 3% of the land receives an
average annual precipitation of 400 mm. The pattern of
rainfall is characterized by an uneven distribution over
different regions with strong fluctuation from year to
year in terms of quantity and timing. While water re-
sources in Jordan are limited, the depletion of
non-renewable resources due to over pumping is consid-
ered a serious threat to this important sector. Moreover,
the available renewable water resources are dropping
drastically due to steep population growth, rapid agri-
cultural/industrial developments and the sudden influx of
refugees due to political instability in the region. Several
previous studies relating to water sector in Jordan have
generally concluded that there is a need to focus atten-
tion on the future impact of water shortages through re-
sources planning and development [1-8].
Jordan is characterized by a pronounced scarcity of
renewable fresh water resources, which averages at
about 680 million cubic meters per year, or approxi-
mately 135 m3 per capita for all uses. Thus, Jordan's
water resources, on per capita basis, are among the low-
est in the world. The water resources of Jordan consist of
groundwater and fossil water which are found in aquifers
at different depths throughout Jordan. Other sources of
water include surface water flows from precipitation,
treated waste water and other non-conventional water
resources such as brackish water.
As a result of fast growing population in Jordan (in-
cluding the inward migration and local growth), an in-
crease demand for water resources is expected. In the
present study a detailed geochemical investigation of
water samples from the Yarmouk Basin of northern Jor-
dan is carried out to assess the degree of ionic toxicity in
the water of major springs. The purpose is to classify
water springs on the basis of some standard criteria in
terms of their suitability and acceptability for irrigation,
drinking and industrial uses.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study Area
The Yarmouk Basin is located in the northwestern
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
2929
part of Jordan. Seventy-five percent of this basin lies in
Syria. In Jordanian territory, the basin is located between
latitudes 32˚ 20 to 32˚ 45 N and longitudes 35˚ 42 to
36˚ 23 E, covering an area of about 1,426 km2 (Figure 1).
The north Jordan area between the Zarqa and Yar-
mouk Rivers (Figure 1) is a key target zone on the hy-
drological map of the country. However, only few re-
sults about the hydrochemical of the major water springs
have been reported from the area [9,10]. The adjacent
mountainous areas of Ajlun and Golan (Figure 1) are
the highest elevated lands in the regions east of the Jor-
dan Rift Valley. These areas receive high rainfall. The
Yarmouk River, which flows along the border between
Syria and Jordan, delineates the northern boundary of
the study area, whereas the Jordan River represents its
western boundary (Figure 1). The Yarmouk River
originates from Jabel Al-Arab (Syria) and drains through
the Jordanian and Syrian territories.
Geologically, the rock formations of the study area are
classified as Ajlun Group, Balqa Group and Jordan Val-
ley Group of the Upper Cretaceous to Tertiary age
[11,12]. The oldest of these is the Wadi Es-Sir Lime-
stone (WSL) formation of Turonian age belonging to the
Ajlun Group. This formation essentially composed of
limestone and dolomatic limestone, which is exposed in
the southwestern part of the target basin (Figure 2). This
formation is overlain by the rocks of the Balqa Group
that include, in ascending order: Wadi Umm Ghudran
(WG), Amman Silicified Limestone (ASL), Muwaqqar
Chalk-Marl (MCM), Umm Rijam Chert-Limestone
(URC) and Wadi Shallala (WS) formations. The base of
the Balqa Group (the WG formation of Santonian age),
which comprises marl, marly limestone, chalk and chert,
is exposed in the south Irbid City (Figure 2). The over-
lying limestone, chert, chalk and phosphorite beds,
which are exposed in the southern part of the basin, are
members of the ASL formation (Campanian age).
Bituminous marl and clayey marl of the MCM forma-
tion, which has been dated as Maastrichtian, overlies the
ASL formation and is exposed in the central part of the
basin. Alternating beds of limestone, chalk and chert of
the URC formation (Paleocene age) overlies the MCM
formation. In terms of location, the URC formation out-
crops in the northern part of the basin (Figure 2). In
Wadi Shallala area (northeastern part of the Irbid City;
Figure 2), a limited exposure of chalk and marly lime-
stone with associated glauconite is present, which belong
to WS formation of the Eocene age. In the eastern and
Figure 1. Location map of north Jordan showing principal physiographic features.
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
30
Figure 2. Spring location and generalized geologic map of the Yarmouk
Basin, north Jordan.
northeastern parts of the basin, basaltic flows (BS for-
mation) of the Jordan Valley Group (Oligocene age)
cover the rocks of the Balqa Group. In addition, basalts
were found as small exposures scattered to the south,
north and northwest of Irbid City (Figure 2).
2.2. Sampling and Analysis
Water samples for chemical analysis were collected
during the year 2006 from 36 major springs of the Yar-
mouk Basin (Figure 2). The samples were stored in
polyethylene bottles; which were washed with distilled
water and diluted hydrochloric acid. Prior to their filling
with sampled water, these bottles were rinsed to mini-
mize the chance of any contamination. These samples
were then transported to the laboratory with proper care
to prevent possible evaporation effects.
As a part of field procedures, these water samples
were analyzed for hydrogen ion concentration (pH),
electrical conductivity (EC, S/cm at 25˚C) and total
dissolved solids (TDS) using a pH-meter, a portable
EC-meter and a TDS-meter, respectively. Chemical
analysis were made in the laboratory for calcium (Ca2+),
magnesium (Mg2+), sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), ni-
trate (NO3
), sulfate (SO4
2–), chloride (Cl), bicarbonate
(HCO3
), iron (Fe-), phosphorus (P) and boron (B).
Chemical analysis for major cations was accom-
plished in the laboratory using atomic absorption spec-
trophotometer. The anions nitrate and sulfate were
measured by spectrophotometric techniques. Titration
methods were used to determine the concentrations of
chloride and bicarbonate in the sampled water. Phos-
phorus and boron were determined calorimetrically,
while iron contents were analyzed by atomic absorption
spectrophotometer. All these laboratory analyses were
performed in the Department of Chemistry and in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Yar-
mouk University, Irbid, Jordan.
Water samples were classified as per results obtained
from these chemical analyses. Parameters, such as, So-
dium adsorption ratio (SAR), soluble sodium percentage
(SSP) and residual sodium carbonate (RSC), were cal-
culated on the basis of standard equations as outlined in
the reported publications [13-15]. These equations are as
follows:
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
3131
22
Na
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
Ca Mg
2

Solublesodiumpercentage (SSP)
SolubleNaconcentration(meq/l)100
Totalcation concentration (meq/l)


222
33
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)
CO HCOCaMg

 
Correlation analyses were conducted between differ-
ent combinations of quality indicators, such as SAR
versus SSP, SAR versus RSC and SSP versus RSC.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chemical constituents of the collected water samples
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The observed charge
balance of < 10% between cations (TZ+) and anions (TZ)
calculated by the formula (TZ+ – TZ/TZ+ + TZ × 100)
given by Todd [13] and the ratio of TDS/EC (0.5) are
within acceptable limits [16], confirming the reliability
of the analytical results. Statistical analysis of the data
shows that the TZ+ and TZ are coupled by a relation
TZ+ (meq/l) = 0.69 TZ (meq/l) + 1.04 with correlation
coefficient of 0.69 for 36 data points (Figure 3).
3.1. Dominant Cations and Anions
Among major cations (Table 1), calcium (Ca2+) is the
dominant constituent, ranging between 1.64 and 2.35
meq/l with average value of 2.05 meq/l. It accounts for
54.5% of the total cations. Sodium (Na+) is second in
terms of cationic abundance, accounting for 23%
(0.54-1.76 meq/l) of the total cations. Magnesium (Mg2+)
with 19.2% (0.39-1.91 meq/l) and potassium (K+) 3.3%
Figure 3. Sum of base cationic charge (TZ+;
meq/l) versus the sum of anionic charge (TZ-;
meq/l); TZ+ = (Ca2+) + (Na+) + (Mg2+) + (K+);
TZ = (Cl) + (HCO3
) + (NO3
) + (SO4
2–).
(0.01-1.63 meq/l) are the less predominant cations in the
spring waters. Among major anions, chloride (Cl), bi-
carbonate (HCO3
) and nitrate (NO3
) are the dominant
contributors, which generally represent 45% (0.15-4.67
meq/l), 28% (0.66-1.48 meq/l) and 21% (0.14-2.03 meq/l)
of all the constituents, respectively. Other anions, such
as sulfate (SO4
2–) have minor contribution to the total an-
ions. The concentration of sulfate (SO4
2–) ranges between
0.0-0.59 meq/l, accounting 5.5% of the total anions.
As shown in Table 2, the pH values of water samples
(7.01-8.09) indicate slight alkaline tendency, but well
within the safe limit [16]. The upper limit of phosphorus
and boron in the studied samples are 91.9 µg/l and 175.6
µg/l, respectively (Table 2). In all 36 samples, low val-
ues of boron are observed, which is in excellent com-
patibility with standard classification of the World
Health Organization (WHO) [16].
3.2. Quality Assessment as Irrigation Water
The concentration and composition of the dissolved
constituents in water determine its suitability for irriga-
tion purposes. Moreover, suitability of water for irriga-
tion depends on total concentration of the soluble salts,
relative proportion of the major constituents (i.e., sodium,
calcium and magnesium) and the effect of some mineral
constituents on both the soil and plants [15].
The estimated amount of TDS ranges from 173.5 to
617 mg/l (Table 3). The values of TDS in the studied
samples are lower than the maximum permissible level
of 1000 mg/l recommended [17] for most domestic uses.
The electrical conductivity (EC) of the studied water
samples ranges between 347 and 1234 S/cm (average
637 S/cm), where its maximum limit in drinking water
is prescribed as 1400 S/cm [16]. This low mineraliza-
tion in water sources indicates that the weathered zone
has been highly leached soluble minerals and/or water is
likely derived from relatively recent recharge. Hence,
these low levels of mineralization indicate that the water
of all major springs in the Yarmouk Basin can be classi-
fied as fresh without any hazardous contaminations.
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is an important
parameter to determine the suitability of irrigation water.
The SAR values in the studied samples range from 0.5 to
1.34 (Table 3), which can be considered as the most
suitable for irrigation purposes as per the classification
of Todd [13] that count any of the SAR values < 10 as
excellent.
There is a significant relationship between the SAR
values in the irrigation water and the extent to which
sodium is absorbed by the soil [18,19]. If the water used
for irrigation purposes is high in sodium and low in cal-
cium, the cation-exchange complex may become satu-
rated with sodium. This can destroy the soil structure
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
32
Table 1. Cations and anions constituents of water of the major springs in the Yarmouk Basin, north Jordan. SD: Standard deviation.
CV: Coefficient of variation.
Sl. no.
Figure 2
Spring
Name
Ca2+
meq /l
K+
meq/l
Mg2+
meq /l
Na+
meq /l
HCO3
meq /l
Fe
mg/l
1 Ghazzal 2.15 1.13 1.00 1.52 0.98 0.0062
2 Khureibeh 2.14 0.11 0.57 0.75 1.15 0.0068
3 Qweilbeh 1.97 0.04 0.50 0.60 1.31 0.073
4 Hubras 1.92 0.04 0.44 0.54 0.98 0.0013
5 Al Rafeed 1.98 0.05 0.51 0.73 1.31 0.001
6 Aqraba 2.06 0.42 1.30 1.54 0.98 0.019
7 Umm Ershid 2.18 1.63 1.17 1.73 0.98 0.003
8 Yubla 2.06 0.01 0.50 0.57 1.31 0.002
9 Barrashta 2.10 0.01 0.49 0.60 1.15 0.003
10 Abdah 1.87 0.05 0.59 0.95 0.66 0.000
11 Al Sukkar 1.99 0.05 0.70 1.12 1.48 0.07
12 Esh Sheha 1.97 0.31 0.68 1.12 0.82 0.001
13 Al Jamal 2.05 0.12 0.57 0.82 0.98 0.003
14 El Turab 1.92 0.01 0.48 0.57 1.15 0.0008
15 El Fotaha 2.08 0.08 0.53 0.70 1.31 0.008
16 Al Maghara 1.97 0.04 0.49 0.62 1.31 0.01
17 El Kufeir 1.95 0.06 0.45 0.59 0.82 0.005
18 Sama 1.97 0.02 0.47 0.67 0.82 0.02
19 Baradah 1.82 0.01 0.74 0.81 0.82 0.008
20 Um Arays 2.09 0.21 0.60 0.83 1.15 0.003
21 Al Minqa 1.64 0.02 0.46 0.57 1.15 0.008
22 Um Harathin 2.23 1.02 0.82 1.20 1.15 0.005
23 Al Khanam 1.89 0.01 0.39 0.55 0.82 0.002
24 Um Khiraq 2.20 0.02 0.76 0.77 0.98 0.007
25 Al Moll’aqa 1.95 0.10 0.69 1.20 0.98 0.09
26 Rahoub 1.83 0.04 0.75 1.41 0.98 0.007
27 Malqa 2.10 0.02 0.61 0.60 1.31 0.09
28 Atiyya 2.26 0.01 0.62 0.64 1.15 0.04
29 Kelab 2.35 0.02 0.79 0.83 0.98 0.06
30 El Tasah 2.27 0.01 0.76 0.71 0.82 0.002
31 El Assal 2.12 0.02 1.17 0.75 1.38 0.02
32 Umm Qeis 2.15 0.09 1.58 1.53 1.31 0.001
33 Maquq 2.00 0.21 1.91 1.76 1.31 0.009
34 El Joseh 2.12 0.02 1.30 0.96 1.31 0.002
35 Um Kurum 2.24 0.02 1.00 0.79 1.31 0.0008
36 Dheib 1.31 2.05 0.04 1.69 1.61 0.08
Range 1.64-2.35 0.01-1.63 0.39-1.91 0.54-1.76 0.66-1.48 0.0-0.09
Mean 2.05 0.17 0.78 0.92 1.1 0.019
SD 0.15 0.35 0.38 0.34 0.21 0.028
CV 0.07 2.1 0.49 0.41 0.19 1.51
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
3333
Table 2. Alkalinity and minor chemicals constituents of water of the major springs in the Yarmouk Basin, north Jordan. SD: Stan-
dard deviation. CV: Coefficient of variation.
Sl. no.
Figure 2 pH P
µg/l
B
µg/l
NO3
meq /l
SO42–
meq /l
Cl
meq /l
1 7.71 18.4 175.2 0.69 0.59 3.33
2 7.36 23.8 113.0 0.70 0.44 1.38
3 7.50 23.4 98.4 0.69 0.28 1.50
4 7.45 17.1 91.0 1.05 0.13 2.56
5 7.61 17.8 89.6 0.70 0.10 0.15
6 7.26 30.0 138.1 1.10 0.37 3.31
7 7.59 27.6 175.6 0.69 0.56 4.67
8 7.12 36.3 81.1 0.70 0.42 1.44
9 7.23 20.1 83.3 0.84 0.03 1.27
10 7.88 15.4 104.3 0.74 0.28 1.60
11 7.59 14.5 118.5 0.69 0.41 2.34
12 7.43 17.2 111.1 1.19 0.22 2.17
13 7.51 91.9 93.6 0.88 0.06 1.60
14 7.68 10.8 72.6 0.75 0.00 1.30
15 7.27 46.4 79.1 0.94 0.33 1.42
16 7.39 18.3 73.3 1.02 0.05 1.34
17 7.33 25.0 72.4 0.72 0.12 1.64
18 7.39 26.1 72.9 0.93 0.01 1.66
19 8.09 50.0 118.1 1.56 0.32 1.49
20 7.18 45.6 119.0 1.14 0.02 1.36
21 7.33 10.5 102.9 0.61 0.22 1.18
22 7.41 79.6 142.7 2.03 0.18 2.65
23 7.59 19.2 86.6 0.88 0.19 1.34
24 7.33 27.7 91.6 0.80 0.28 1.51
25 7.70 15.9 116.8 1.96 0.28 2.24
26 7.36 16.1 150.8 0.95 0.06 2.14
27 7.62 56.6 79.8 0.77 0.00 1.45
28 7.56 26.7 77.8 0.58 0.35 1.49
29 7.20 28.8 81.7 0.28 0.37 1.86
30 7.01 14.9 81.4 0.50 0.16 1.36
31 7.90 30.3 86.1 0.35 0.08 1.60
32 7.33 20.6 116.3 1.56 0.40 3.37
33 7.27 5.9 131.2 1.92 0.52 3.17
34 7.23 13.6 89.3 0.23 0.23 1.92
35 7.35 16.8 81.8 0.27 0.09 1.52
36 7.20 64.8 133.2 0.14 0.35 3.47
Range 7.01-8.09 5.9-91.9 72.4-175.6 0.14-2.03 0.0-0.59 0.15-4.67
Mean 7.44 28.44 103.6 0.88 0.24 1.94
SD 0.23 19.36 28.01 0.46 0.17 0.88
CV 0.03 0.68 0.27 0.52 0.71 0.45
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
34
Table 3. Quality classification of water of the major springs of the Yarmouk Basin based on different criteria for irrigation. TDS:
Total dissolved solids; EC: Electrical conductivity; SAR: Sodium adsorption ratio; SSP: Soluble sodium percentage; RSC: Residual
sodium carbonate; F: Fresh water; P: Permissible; E: Excellent; S: Suitable; G: Good.
TDS mg/l EC µS/cm SAR SSP (%) RSC Hazard
Sl. no.
Value Class Value Class Value Class Value Class Value Class Class
1 499.5 F 999 P 1.21 E 26.0 G –2.17 S C3S1
2 315 F 630 G 0.64 E 21.0 G –1.56 S C2S1
3 240 F 480 G 0.54 E 19.3 E –1.16 S C2S1
4 230 F 460 G 0.50 E 18.4 E –1.38 S C2S1
5 260 F 520 G 0.65 E 22.3 G –1.18 S C2S1
6 428 F 856 P 1.19 E 28.9 G –2.38 S C3S1
7 617 F 1234 P 1.34 E 25.8 G –2.37 S C3S1
8 250.5 F 501 G 0.50 E 18.2 E –1.25 S C2S1
9 265 F 530 G 0.53 E 18.8 E –1.44 S C2S1
10 244 F 488 G 0.86 E 27.5 G –1.8 S C2S1
11 291 F 582 G 0.97 E 29.0 G –1.21 S C2S1
12 327.5 F 655 G 0.97 E 27.5 G –1.83 S C2S1
13 280 F 560 G 0.72 E 23.0 G –1.64 S C2S1
14 228 F 456 G 0.52 E 19.1 E –1.25 S C2S1
15 279.5 F 559 G 0.61 E 20.6 E –1.3 S C2S1
16 247.5 F 495 G 0.56 E 19.9 E –1.15 S C2S1
17 234.5 F 469 G 0.54 E 19.3 E –1.58 S C2S1
18 241 F 482 G 0.61 E 21.4 G –1.62 S C2S1
19 233.5 F 467 G 0.72 E 24.0 G –1.74 S C2S1
20 297 F 594 G 0.72 E 22.3 G –1.54 S C2S1
21 173.5 F 347 G 0.56 E 21.2 G –0.95 S C2S1
22 470.5 F 941 P 0.97 E 22.8 G –1.9 S C3S1
23 212 F 424 G 0.52 E 19.4 E –1.46 S C2S1
24 310 F 620 G 0.63 E 20.5 G –1.98 S C2S1
25 305 F 610 G 1.04 E 30.5 G –1.66 S C2S1
26 278 F 556 G 1.24 E 35.0 G –1.6 S C2S1
27 252 F 504 G 0.52 E 18.0 E –1.4 S C2S1
28 317 F 634 G 0.53 E 18.1 E –1.73 S C2S1
29 380 F 760 G 0.66 E 20.8 G –2.16 S C3S1
30 340 F 680 G 0.58 E 18.9 E –2.21 S C2S1
31 327.5 F 655 G 0.58 E 18.5 E –1.91 S C2S1
32 448 F 896 P 1.12 E 28.6 G –2.42 S C3S1
33 495 F 990 P 1.26 E 29.9 G –2.6 S C3S1
34 356 F 712 G 0.73 E 21.8 G –2.11 S C2S1
35 361 F 722 G 0.62 E 19.5 E –1.93 S C2S1
36 441.5 F 883 P 1.18 E 29.9 G –2.43 S C3S1
A. T. Batayneh / Natural Science 3 (2011) 28-35
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. OPEN ACCESS
3535
owing to dispersion of clay particles. Data of the SAR
and EC (Table 3) is plotted on the US salinity diagram
[13] (not shown here), in which EC is taken as salinity
hazard and SAR as alkalinity hazard. As shown in Table
3, the water samples 1, 6, 7, 22, 29, 32, 33 and 36 (for
spring name see Table 1) fall in the C3S1 quality, which
have high salinity hazard but low sodium hazard. On the
other hand, samples 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34
and 35 (for spring name see Table 1) lie in C2S1, which
corresponds to medium salinity hazard and low sodium
hazard.
The values of soluble sodium percentage (SSP) are in
range between 18 and 35. Based on residual sodium
carbonate (RSC) criterion, all the studied water springs
are found to be in suitable class (Table 3). All the stud-
ied samples show negative values of RSC, which indi-
cates that the dissolved calcium and magnesium contents
are higher than carbonate and bicarbonate contents.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In order to chalk out a concrete strategy (including
planning, development and management) about the wa-
ter resources in northern Jordan, water samples collected
from all major springs of the Yarmouk Basin are evalu-
ated by this study. No harmful constituents including
salinity and toxicity have been detected in the water of
the study area. According to all quality determining pa-
rameters and their comparison with set criteria, water of
the study area could safely be used for irrigation and
drinking purposes. In terms of Fe concentration, all
samples are found below the maximum permissible limit
of 1 mg/l. The quality determining factors, i.e., SAR,
SSP, RSC, TDS and EC are strongly compatible with
each others.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr. H. Zaman from the Department of
Geology and Geophysics, King Saud University and two anonymous
reviewers for comments that greatly improved this manuscript. Facili-
ties provided by the Department of Geology and Geophysics, King
Saud University, Saudi Arabia are acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Jayyousi, O. and Shatanawi, M. (1995) An analysis of
future water policies in Jordan using decision support
systems. International Journal of Water Resources De-
velopment, 11, 315-330.
doi:10.1080/07900629550042263
[2] Abu-Awwad, A. and Shatanawi, M. (1997) Water har-
vesting and infiltration in arid areas affected by surface
crust: examples from Jordan. Journal of Arid Environ-
ments, 37, 443-452.
doi:10.1006/jare.1997.0301
[3] Abu-Zreig, M., Attom, M. and Hamasha, N. (2000)
Rainfall harvesting using sand ditches in Jordan. Agri-
cultural Water Management, 46, 183-192.
doi:10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00082-2
[4] Jaber, J. and Mohsen, M. (2001) Evaluation of noncon-
ventional water resources supply in Jordan. Desalination,
136, 83-92.
doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00168-0
[5] Mohsen, M. and Jaber, J. (2002) Potential of industrial
wastewater reuse. Desalination, 152, 281-289.
doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01075-5
[6] Jaffe, M. and Al-Jayyousi, O. (2002) Planning models
for sustainable water resources development. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 45, 309-322.
doi:10.1080/09640560220133379
[7] Mohsen, M. (2007) Water strategies and potential of
desalination in Jordan. Desalination, 203, 27-46.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2006.03.524
[8] Hadadin, N. and Tarawneh, Z. (2007) Environmental
issues in Jordan, solutions and recommendations. Ameri-
can Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3, 30-36.
doi:10.3844/ajessp.2007.30.36
[9] Rimawi, O., El-Naqa, A. and Salameh, E. (1992) Hy-
drochemical characteristics of groundwater resources in
northeastern part of the Jordan Valley/Jordan. Dirasat,
19, 87-117.
[10] Abderahman, N. and Awad, M. (2002) Hydrochemical
characteristics of the major springs in the Maqarin dam
site on the Yarmouk River (northern Jordan). Environ-
mental Geosciences, 9, 127-138.
doi:10.1046/j.1526-0984.2002.93001.x
[11] Makhlouf, I., Abu-Azzam, H. and Al-Hiayri, A. (1996)
Surface and subsurface lithostratigraphic relationships of
the Cretaceous Ajlun Group in Jordan. Natural Resources
Authority, Subsurface Geology Division, Bulletin, 8.
[12] Moh’d, B. (2000) The geology of Irbid and Ash Shuna
Ash Shamaliyya (Waqqas). Map Sheet No. 3154-II and
3154-III. Natural Resources Authority, Geological Map-
ping Division, Bulletin, 46.
[13] Todd, D. (1980) Groundwater hydrology. 2nd Edition,
John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York.
[14] US Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954) Diagnosis and im-
provement of saline and alkali soils. US Department of
Agriculture Handbook 60, Washington, DC.
[15] Wilcox, L. (1955) Classification and uses of irrigation
waters. USDA Circular No. 969, Washington, DC.
[16] WHO (World Health Organization) (2003) Guidelines
for drinking water quality, health criteria and other sup-
porting information, Geneva.
[17] Davis, S. and De Wiest, R. (1996) Hydrogeology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
[18] Clesceri, L., Greenberg, A. and Trussell, R. (1989) Stan-
dard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water. 17th Edition, American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC.
[19] Richard, L. (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of Saline
and Alkali Soils. Agricultural Handbook 60, Washington,
DC.