Next Article in Journal
Development and Performance Analysis of a Modified Polyurea Hydrophobic Coating for Improving Water Conveyance Efficiency in Concrete Channel Linings
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Climate Change on the State of Moraine Lakes in Northern Tian Shan: Case Study on Four Moraine Lakes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/w17172534
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Geogenic Contaminants in Groundwater: Impacts on Irrigated Fruit Orchard Health

by
Sunny Sharma
1,*,
Shivali Sharma
2,
Jonnada Likhita
3,
Vishal Singh Rana
4,
Amit Kumar
5,*,
Rupesh Kumar
6,
Shivender Thakur
1 and
Neha Sharma
1
1
School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara 144411, Punjab, India
2
Department of Fruit Science, Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi 284003, Uttar Pradesh, India
3
Department of Plant Pathology, Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University, Jhansi 284003, Uttar Pradesh, India
4
Department of Fruit Science, Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan 173230, Himachal Pradesh, India
5
School of Hydrology and Water Resources, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
6
Jindal Global Business School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat 131001, Haryana, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(17), 2534; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172534
Submission received: 5 July 2025 / Revised: 18 August 2025 / Accepted: 25 August 2025 / Published: 26 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Water Quality and Contamination)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Geogenic contamination of groundwater presents a substantial threat to the enduring production and sustainability of irrigated fruit orchards, especially in arid and semi-arid regions where over 60% of horticultural irrigation depends on groundwater sources. Groundwater quality is increasingly threatened by geogenic contamination, presenting a critical global issue. Geogenic contaminants, such as fluoride and arsenic, combined with agricultural practices and inadequate wastewater treatment, pose a significant threat to groundwater. Concentrations of elements including arsenic, fluoride, boron, iron, and sodium often exceed acceptable thresholds. For instance, arsenic (As) levels up to 0.5 ppm have been reported in parts of South Asia, far exceeding the WHO guidelines limit of 0.01 mg/L. Boron concentrations above 2.0 ppm and fluoride concentrations exceeding 1.5 ppm are prevalent in impacted aquifers. Pollution consequences are far reaching, impacting agricultural ecosystems and human health as polluted water infiltrates the food chain via irrigation. These challenges are compounded by climate change and water scarcity, which further strain water sources, including those used in agriculture. Addressing groundwater contamination requires a multi-faceted approach. Strategies include developing crops that can tolerate toxicants, improving irrigation techniques, and employing advanced wastewater treatment technologies. This study solidifies current knowledge concerning the uptake processes and physiological effects of various pollutants in fruit crops. This review emphasizes the synergistic toxicity of many pollutants, identifies gaps in knowledge in species-specific tolerance, and emphasizes the dearth of comprehensive mitigating frameworks. Potential solutions, such as salt-tolerant rootstocks, gypsum amendments, and alternative irrigation timing, are examined to enhance resilient orchard systems in geogenically challenged areas.

1. Introduction

Groundwater, the hidden resource under our feet that was once thought to be an untouchable supply of water necessary for life, is currently under increasing threat [1]. The vadose zone is a layer of unsaturated soil above the groundwater table that acts as a natural barrier to protect groundwater from contamination [2,3]. Geogenic contamination arises from the natural presence and mobilization of harmful substances within the environment [4]. These pollutants include a broad spectrum of substances, such as organic and inorganic compounds, radioactive elements, biological agents, and physical contaminants that alter the water’s taste and clarity [5]. A complex mixture of contaminants seeps into the earth as a result of our actions on the surface, upsetting the fragile equilibrium of the underground environment [6]. Additionally, geogenic pollution stemming from naturally high levels of elements like arsenic and fluoride in rock formations poses a serious threat [7].
Groundwater contamination has extremely negative consequences. The water’s microbiological and physical safety is suddenly jeopardized [8]. Through irrigation, this tainted water can move up the food chain and endanger the health of people who eat the produce grown with it [9]. Moreover, certain contaminants may be detrimental to crops, lowering crop yields and endangering agricultural ecosystems’ overall health [10]. Although groundwater is an essential resource for drinking water and irrigation, there are rising concerns. Agriculture, the primary consumer of freshwater (roughly 70%), is followed by industry and domestic uses [11]. Interestingly, groundwater supplies a quarter of all irrigation water and half of the domestic freshwater needs. However, the nature of water pollution evolves with development. Richer nations suffer from agricultural runoff, whereas low-income countries contend with inadequate wastewater treatment, resulting in poor water quality [12]. Unfortunately, it is challenging to evaluate the condition as a whole due to the lack of thorough data on water quality [13]. Although agriculture makes up the majority of India’s income, the country also has particular problems with groundwater pollution. The most common issue is high fluoride levels, especially in areas like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat [14]. There is a risk to public health in this instance because an estimated 66 million people are anticipated to drink water with fluoride levels over the allowed limits. Due to its carcinogenic properties, arsenic may pose a serious risk to human health. Some freshly identified poisons, like pesticides, fertilizers, and genetically engineered foods, are causing new concerns even though their production levels have dropped [15]. These pollutants, originating from industries, farms, and households, readily enter the water cycle and potentially contaminate the irrigation water [16,17]. This increases the risk level related to crop uptake and human health. Studies reveal pharmaceuticals and antimicrobials can be absorbed by the crop through irrigation water [18]. These contaminants’ versatility makes the nature of their effects uncertain. Frequently applied as soil amendments in irrigated areas, manure and biosolids can also contribute to organic micro-contaminants detrimental to crops [19]. The problem is made more difficult by water scarcity and climate change. Reclaimed water becomes an alluring alternative when dependable water sources become harder to come by, particularly in arid areas. However, due to their longevity in the environment, medications and personal care products may be present in trace amounts in this water, which could cause long-term concerns [20].
In peri-urban areas, the combined effects of soil additives, air deposition, and trace elements from reclaimed water can drastically lower agricultural yields [21]. Food safety concerns are raised due to the bioavailability of contaminants in crops [22]. This is a crucial mechanism of causing harm to crops, as per our understanding. Nitrogen uptake and photosynthetic activities might be affected and can also cause other effects such as stunted growth and reduced yields [23]. Damaging plant cells or changing the hormonal balance can occur due to pollutants that adversely affect growth and reproduction. The severity of these effects can be determined by the kind of contamination, plant species, soil makeup, and irrigation methods.
By acknowledging the threat posed by new contaminants and their potential consequences on crop health and food safety, we may develop mitigation strategies [24]. These include developing new crop varieties that are resistant to pollutants, simplifying irrigation methods to reduce the number of pollutants people are exposed to, and treating wastewater using different methods to eliminate pollutants before it is used for irrigation. Implementing such a comprehensive plan might ensure both the sustainability of agricultural activities and the quality of our food supply [25,26,27,28].
Water-related conflicts highlight the vulnerabilities of water infrastructure and the potential use of water contamination as a weapon [29]. Despite progress on Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6), which seeks to guarantee everyone’s access to clean water and sanitation, significant challenges remain. It is challenging to assess progress toward the majority of the SDG 6 targets due to insufficient reporting and monitoring. The global scarcity of clean drinking water in 2022 disproportionately impacted rural areas, impacting billions of people [30]. Conversely, irrigation has mainly been credited with driving up agricultural productivity and spurring economic prosperity [31]. Although irrigation is essential for the best possible fruit growth, there may be unforeseen repercussions. Common irrigation water sources like groundwater may naturally include heavy metals, arsenic, and fluoride, among other geogenic pollutants [32]. Fruit orchards may be at risk even though these toxic chemicals are only present in minimal concentrations due to irrigation techniques that concentrate them in the soil [33]. While numerous studies have assessed geogenic pollutants in groundwater and their effects on general agriculture, a focused synthesis on irrigated fruit orchards remains absent. Given their perennial nature and extensive root systems, fruit crops respond differently to geochemical stressors than annual or biennial crops. This review focuses on an integrative analysis linking groundwater chemistry to orchard health by drawing on insights from both geosciences and horticulture. Key focal points include the following: (i) mechanisms of geogenic contaminant uptake and accumulation in fruit trees; (ii) sub-lethal and cumulative impacts on yield and fruit quality; (iii) species- and cultivar-specific responses; and (iv) critical knowledge gaps and mitigation strategies for sustainable orchard management under contaminated irrigation regimes.

2. Occurrence and Sources of Geogenic Contaminants

Hazardous elements that naturally occur in groundwater are referred to as “geogenic contamination”. An aquifer is a subterranean layer that retains water, and it is made up of rocks and minerals that interact with the groundwater itself to cause contamination. These reactions may release a variety of pollutants into the water, including fluoride, heavy metals, and arsenic [34]. Geogenic pollution poses different difficulties than anthropogenic contamination brought on by human activity. Finding alternate water sources or treatment techniques, as well as identifying regions with a high risk of geogenic contamination, are essential first stages in reducing these risks. Identifying areas with high geogenic contamination risk and finding alternative water sources or treatment methods becomes a crucial step in mitigating these threats [35].

2.1. Types of Geogenic Contaminants

Numerous contaminants are present in both soil and plants. Table 1 details the concentrations of various geogenic contaminants in the soil and their potential accumulation in fruit crops. Table 2 provides specific concentrations of geogenic contaminants found in the soil of fruit orchards. Table 3 provides the information related to country specific geogenic contamination.

2.1.1. Arsenic

A naturally large proportion of traces of arsenic present in rock, soil, water, and air is found in the Earth’s crust [36]. Rock, soil, water, and air all contain trace amounts of arsenic, which is found in large amounts in the Earth’s crust within nature [37]. Its normal concentration in the continental crust is 1–2 mg/kg; mean concentrations in igneous rock range from 1.5to 3.0 mg/kg, whereas in sedimentary rock they vary from 1.7 to 400 mg/kg [38]. In some areas, natural geological processes lead to the pollution of drinking water with arsenic, which can be harmful to human health. Arsenic is distributed and transported through the ecosystem in a complicated way, constantly cycling via the soil, water, and air [39]. Leaching and runoff occur once it is introduced into soil and groundwater via the weathering of rocks, and it may also emanate from human sources [40]. Inorganic arsenic is typically found in groundwater as arsenate and arsenite, with oxidation-reduction processes mediating the interconversion between the two forms [41].

2.1.2. Fluoride

Fluorine has a high electronegative potential and is the lightest halogen element [42]. Various solute complexes can be formed by combination with different cations, resulting in fluoride formation [43]. The continental crust has an average concentration of fluoride of about 611 mg/kg, although different types of rock have variable values [44]. Fluoride-containing minerals dissolving in aquifer materials is a common cause of fluoride pollution [45]. Skeletal and dental fluorosis occurs due to the consumption of fluoride in large amounts [46]. The major constituents of fluoride are found in minerals such as fluorite, apatite, cryolite, and topaz. Since 1937, chronic fluorosis has resulted from widespread geogenic fluoride poisoning of groundwater in India, a country with considerable crustal fluoride deposits [47]. Generally speaking, phosphatic fertilizers, soil, plants, and rock minerals contain fluoride.

2.1.3. Salinity

Salinity is referred to as the concentration of dissolved particles and ions in water. It varies greatly according to geographical region [48]. Dissolved solids such as gypsum, carbonates, anhydrite, halite, fluoride salts, and sulfate salts raise the salinity levels in groundwater [49]. Salinity has several significant contributors involving chloride (Cl−), sodium (Na+), nitrate (NO2−), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), bicarbonate (HCO3−), and sulfate (SO42−), with local variations in concentrations of boron (B), bromide (Br), iron (Fe), and other trace ions [50].

2.1.4. Iron and Manganese

Iron is abundantly present in the Earth’s crust, so the majority of water contains a small amount of it [51]. Iron and manganese naturally occur in rocks and can leach into groundwater. Elevated concentrations of these elements can affect water taste and color. Igneous rock minerals with relatively high iron content include pyroxenes, amphiboles, biotite, magnetite, and olivine. Iron’s availability in solutions is influenced by environmental conditions, especially changes in oxidation-reduction reactions [50]. Under reducing conditions, ferrous polysulfides like pyrite and marcasite may form, while oxidizing environments lead to the precipitation of ferric oxides or oxyhydroxides such as hematite and goethite [52].

2.1.5. Uranium

With an average concentration of 0.0003% in the Earth’s crust, uranium is a radioactive metal generally obtained in some aquifers. The important minerals found in uranium ore are uraninite (UO2), pitchblende (U3O8), and davidite (Fe, Ce, U)2(Ti, Fe, V, Cr)5O12 [53]. Due to its high density and pyrophoric qualities, a reduced level of uranium residue—which contains approximately 0.2% 235U—is utilized in armor-piercing shells and counterweights [54]. Even though uranium has low radiotoxicity, chemical toxicity should be considered. While uranium’s radiotoxicity is low, its chemical toxicity should not be disregarded, especially in its dissolved form as the uranyl ion [55].

2.1.6. Radon

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can dissolve in groundwater. It is produced by the radioactive decay of radium-226 found in uranium ores, phosphate rock, and various rocks like granite, gneiss, and schist [56]. Not all granitic locations release large quantities of radon, even though it is present in limestone to a lesser extent [57]. Since radon is a gas, it may easily travel through soils and faults and build up in enclosed areas like caverns or water. Because of its short half-life (3.8 days for 222Rn), the concentration drops off quickly as one moves farther away from the source [58].

2.1.7. Strontium

Strontium contamination can arise from the weathering of rocks. Strontium, a soft alkaline earth metal, occurs naturally in combination with other elements and compounds due to its high reactivity to air [59]. Celestite (SrSO4) and strontianite (SrCO3) are common strontium minerals found in nature. Water-insoluble strontium compounds can become soluble through chemical reactions, posing greater health risks. Fortunately, strontium concentrations in drinking water are typically low [60].

2.1.8. Selenium and Chromium

Trace elements like chromium and selenium have the potential to become geogenic pollutants [61]. Chromium, the 21st most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, appears in several oxidation states, with trivalent chromium being the most stable [62]. While volcanic eruptions and the erosion of rocks that contain chromium are the reasons why chromium compounds are present in the environment, hexavalent chromium (chromate) is primarily produced from different sources [63]. Selenium and chromium concentrations vary in soil, seawater, and rivers, with different oxidation states exhibiting varying stability and toxicity levels [64].

3. Uptake and Accumulation in Crops

There are different ways that contaminants enter groundwater, such as seepage from the surface or shallow subsurface, direct entry from wells, cross-contamination of wells that access various aquifers, and pumping-induced flow of dirty water into freshwater aquifers. Furthermore, groundwater and geological strata may interact with naturally occurring contaminants like radon and arsenic. The types of rocks and soils, temperature, pressure, and hydrogeochemical processes influenced by soil solubility are some of the factors that affect groundwater quality [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. The primary mechanisms regulating the chemistry of groundwater in an aquifer involve hydrogeochemical processes and water–sediment interactions, which include adsorption, cation exchange, oxidation-reduction reactions, hydrolysis, and more [5].
The ability of various kinds of plants to absorb and accumulate toxic chemicals from the soil may differ. By developing root hairs, plants act as tiny filters for organic contaminants, absorbing them along with water [74]. Then, as seen in Figure 1, these pollutants move through two pathways within the plant: one that connects cells (like cars on a freeway) and another that goes through the cells themselves (like taking a side road). Once inside the plant, these pollutants may go through several pathways within its internal network, build up in the roots, or reach the shoots [75]. Methods for precisely measuring the quantity of pollution absorbed by a plant are still being refined by scientists. Even though conventional methods depend on calculations based on water flow, upcoming approaches appraise the defined properties of each pollutant to give a more specific evaluation of it [76].
Notably, enzymes are essential for plants to break down harmful substances such as animal livers produced during detoxification [77]. The “green livers” theory describes how plants can detoxify pollutants like CEC through these enzyme-mediated processes [78]. Certain pollutants have the potential to be lipophilic, meaning they can enter and move through plant tissues. Phases I, II, and III are the three stages of enzyme-facilitated chemical changes that follow absorption. Reactive group participation occurs in phase I, which results in the hydrolysis and redox-based conversion of pollutants into metabolites. Metabolite conjugation with substances such as glutathione, carbohydrates, or amino acids takes place in phase II. Phase III concludes with the preservation of metabolites that are incapable of undergoing further transformation, either incorporated into cell walls or in vacuoles [79,80,81]. These three metabolic phases—I, II, and III—are crucial since plants lack an excretory system [82].
Geogenic contaminants such as As, F−, B, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Cd can move in fruit crops with the help of irrigation with groundwater. Their uptake and accumulation depend on variable factors like element speciation, nature of the soil, root architecture, and plant species. Various contaminants, namely fluoride and arsenate, are absorbed with water during transpiration via passive mass flow or diffusion into root cells, especially under high transpiration rates. Active transport via membrane transporters can also help to move contaminants into fruit crops; for instance, as arsenite (AsO33−) moves into fruit crops by entering through aquaporins, Cd, Pb, and Ni enter via metal transporters such as ZIP (Zrt/Irt-like proteins), NRAMPs, and calcium channels due to ionic mimicry. There are also other methods like ion exchange and chelation in the rhizosphere water flux, ion mobility, binding affinity with ligands (e.g., phytochelatins, metallothioneins), storage and detoxification sites, and vacuoles.

Factors Influencing Uptake Rates

Numerical parameters, including soil pH, temperature, and moisture levels, can influence contaminant availability, while soil-dwelling organisms can affect nutrient availability and uptake by plants [83]. The solubility, mobility, and chemical form of contaminants play an important role in their uptake by plants, which, in certain civilizations around the world, has been effectively applied for centuries in plant-based bioremediation of metal-contaminated soils [84]. These pollutants are significant threats to environmental compartments like soil because they are frequently released as waste. Because of processes including volatilization, microbial degradation, and photodegradation, as well as external factors such as air currents, surface runoff, and soil erosion, their destiny in the soil is unpredictable [7].
Concerns extend beyond environmental impacts to potential effects on the terrestrial food chain, highlighting the necessity of understanding their uptake and impact on plants, the primary producers [85]. The process by which groundwater with geogenic contaminants decreases the overall efficiency of plants and pollutants are taken in by plants from the soil is shown in Figure 2.
One study shows that some contaminants, which are affected by factors such as temperature, interaction between microbes, type of plant species, pollutant type, and soil erosion, accumulate more in plant roots than in aerial portions [86]. Soil has an essential component, humic acids, which play an important role in the assimilation of pollutants [87]. Geogenic contaminants of the soil affect the bioaccumulation of pollutants, as an alkaline environment promotes microbial breakdown and a high pH environment boosts the absorption into soil particles [88]. Several soil elements, including colloidal clays along with elements like hydraulic conductivity, age, mobility, and the presence of divalent ions, foster the uptake of contaminants by plants [89]. While climatic change might influence the clearance of toxic chemicals from the soil through photodegradation, which could lead to the creation of more hazardous metabolites, air pollutants can be deposited on plant foliage, particularly in urban areas [90,91]. To improve crop resilience and reduce pollutant uptake, researchers are investigating cutting-edge techniques like controlled environment horticulture, nanomaterials, exogenous phytohormones, and helpful microbial endophytes [92].

4. Effects on Plant Physiology and Yield of Fruit Crops

Fruit crops are directly exposed to soil and water throughout their growth, making them particularly susceptible to geogenic contaminants [93]. Table 4 highlights numerous instances of fruits contaminated with heavy metals. Exposure to arsenic (As) typically starts in the plant’s root tissues, where it prevents the plant from growing and developing further [94]. Eventually, this leads to plant mortality since it obstructs vital metabolic processes like oxidative phosphorylation and ATP synthesis at high enough concentrations [95]. Furthermore, transfer to the shoot has the potential to severely hinder plant development and productivity [96]. As contamination, which can build up in their tissues, poses a risk to tomatoes, a major horticultural crop in Europe and the US. As a result, consuming any edible portion of As-contaminated tomatoes puts humans at risk of consuming it through the food chain. Compared to natural sources like volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and the wind carrying soil particles, human activities such as mining, processing metals and ore, farming, and the disposal of metal-contaminated waste such as wastewater and sludge can release three to ten times more Cd into the air [97]. Cadmium has several negative effects on plants, such as poor uptake of water and nutrients, inhibition of both promoting and inhibitory enzymes, metabolic disturbance, elevated levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), increased lipid peroxidation, and changed expression of genes and proteins [98].
In general, both aquatic and higher plants tend to accumulate mercury (Hg). This can occur in different forms, such as HgS, Hg2+, Hg0, and methyl-Hg [99]. It has been discovered that high Hg2+ concentrations are extremely harmful to plant cells, resulting in both apparent damage and physiological problems, including the closing of leaf stomata and the actual physical obstruction of water flow [42]. By interfering with vital enzymes, lead (Pb) negatively impacts plant morphology, growth, and photosynthetic processes, which hinders seed germination [100]. Additionally, elevated Pb concentrations can induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plants, which can lead to oxidative stress [101]. Similar morphological and physiological changes are seen in plants exposed to high Cr levels because of increased ROS generation [102,103,104]. Through oxidative processes such as lipid peroxidation, oxidative protein degradation, inhibition of DNA and RNA damage, and other mechanisms, excessive generation of ROS can result in cell death [41]. Numerous investigations have demonstrated that Cr poisoning causes chromosomal abnormalities in plant tissues, as well as disruptions in the regulation and function of many proteins [105,106].

5. Human Health Implications: Transfer of Contaminants from Crops to Humans

Heavy metals, such as cadmium, lead, and arsenic, are potent sources of contamination known to produce neurological disorders, kidney damage, and cancer [107,108]. Well below the dangerous levels, these metals pose a serious threat when found in food, water bodies, or soils because they enter the food chain and accumulate, later being absorbed into the human body [109]. Figure 3 elaborates on the biochemical and physiological properties of food crops, showing just how far-reaching the unlucky effects might be due to these contaminants [110,111].
Chronic lead exposure results in developmental delays, learning disabilities, and behavioral problems. Apart from neurological damage, high blood pressure, renal damage, and reproductive system toxicity have been exposed as the effects associated with lead-exposed people [112,113]. Cadmium is a highly toxic heavy metal that affects the kidneys and the skeletal structure primarily. Chronic cadmium exposure, mainly through contaminated food and tobacco smoke, may lead to impotence, osteoporosis and brittle bones with frequently occurring fractures, and critically severe inhibition of renal function [114,115]. Also, several pesticides have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic [114,116]. The widely applied herbicide glyphosate and the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos are reputed probable or possible carcinogens based on evidence from animal studies and epidemiological data. Pesticides are neurotoxic chemicals that affect both the body and the central nervous system [117]. Examples of potentially lethal insecticides include organophosphate and carbamate compounds, which can cause acute symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, and respiratory distress, with death occurring in severe cases [118,119,120]. Importantly, pesticides are anthropogenic contaminants, originating from human activities, and are not classified as geogenic pollutants.
Table 1. Concentrations of various geogenic contaminants in soil and water as per various research studies.
Table 1. Concentrations of various geogenic contaminants in soil and water as per various research studies.
Heavy MetalTypical Concentration in Water (mg/L)WHO Limit in Water
(ppm)		Typical Concentration in Soil (ppm)WHO Limit in Soil (ppm)Typical Uptake in Fruit Plants (ppm Dry Weight)Ref.
Pb0.005–0.050.01 (WHO), 0.05 (NEQS)10–70500.2–3.5[21,52,111,121,122,123,124,125]
Cd0.001–0.010.003 (WHO), 0.01 (NEQS)0.1–1.00.02 0.01–0.5
As0.001–0.050.01 (WHO), 0.05 (NEQS)1–4010 0.01–2.0
Chromium Cr0.01–0.10.05 (WHO), 0.1 (NEQS)5–10050–1000.2–5.0
Ni0.01–0.20.07 (WHO), 0.2 (NEQS)10–10075 0.1–3.0
Zn0.01–0.53.0 (WHO), 5.0 (NEQS)10–300200–3005–100
Cu0.01–0.12.0 (WHO), 1.0 (NEQS)10–2001005–50
Fe0.3–5.00.3 (WHO), 1.0 (NEQS)100–50030010–200
Mn0.01–0.10.4 (WHO), 0.1 (NEQS)50–1000200–3005–100
Table 2. Concentration of geogenic contaminants in the soil of fruit orchards.
Table 2. Concentration of geogenic contaminants in the soil of fruit orchards.
Fruit CropContaminantSoil Concentration (mg/kg)Ref.
AppleArsenic2.1–10.5[52,122]
Cadmium0.5–5.2[110,121]
Lead12.3–42.8[62,112]
Chromium3.2–18.9[38,40,61]
Mercury0.3–2.7[126]
Selenium0.1–0.8[125]
Uranium0.5–3.6[127]
PeachArsenic1.8–8.3[34,124]
Cadmium0.4–4.7
Lead10.5–38.6
Chromium2.8–15.6
Mercury0.2–2.3
Selenium0.08–0.6
Uranium0.4–3.2
CitrusArsenic1.5–7.9[34,128]
Cadmium0.3–4.2
Lead9.8–35.4
Chromium2.5–14.3
Mercury0.2–2.1
Selenium0.06–0.5
Uranium0.3–2.8
Table 3. List of countries with high geogenic contamination.
Table 3. List of countries with high geogenic contamination.
CountryContaminantDiscussionRef.
BangladeshArsenicBangladesh has faced one of the most severe cases of arsenic contamination in groundwater, affecting millions of people who rely on tube wells for drinking water. The contamination has led to widespread health problems, including arsenicosis and various cancers.[95,129]
IndiaFluoride and arsenic contaminationGroundwater in several regions in India, such as parts of Rajasthan, Punjab, and Bihar, experiences a greater percentage of fluoride and arsenic contamination. This contamination poses significant health risks to millions of people who rely on groundwater for drinking and irrigation.[14,44,71]
ChinaArsenic and fluoride contaminationSeveral regions in China, including Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, and Henan provinces, experience the maximum amount of arsenic and fluoride contamination in underground water. This contamination has led to many human-related problems, such as arsenicosis and dental fluorosis, among local populations.[34,40,61]
MexicoFluoride contaminationSome areas in Mexico, mainly in the central and northern regions, have elevated levels of fluoride in groundwater. This contamination is associated with cases of dental and skeletal fluorosis among the local population.[34,44]
Osilo Area (Italy)Geogenic degradation.The Osilo region exemplifies geogenic deterioration impacting water quality. Scholars have investigated the source, prevalence, influencing factors, and potential remedies for pollutants like ammonium, fluoride, chloride, sulfate, and uranium.[120]
Iglesiente–Fluminese Mining District, ItalyGeogenic contaminationIn this mining district, the quality of water is influenced by both natural geogenic processes and human actions. Scholars have examined the cumulative effects of both geogenic pollutants on water quality.[61,120]
Southeast Asia Arsenic and fluorideThese regions face widespread geogenic contamination due to arsenic and fluoride. Millions of people are affected, emphasizing the importance of understanding and addressing geogenic water quality issues.[40,71]
Cauvery River, IndiaGeogenic contaminationQuality of river water (Cauvery) and groundwater has been assessed. Both geogenic sources contribute to contamination. Chemical indices differentiate these sources, aiding in understanding water quality dynamics.[42]
Andes Mountains, South AmericaGeogenic contaminationFruit orchards located in high-altitude regions of the Andes Mountains can be susceptible to geogenic contamination, including trace elements and arsenic, in the soil and water, which may be influenced by nearby mining activities.[95]
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, IndiaGeogenic contaminationFruit orchards situated in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, particularly those in proximity to industrial or mining zones, may encounter geogenic contamination challenges, such as elevated concentrations of heavy metals like lead and cadmium in both soil and water sources.[11]
Mekong Delta, VietnamArsenic The Mekong Delta, known for its agriculture, including fruit orchards, has faced challenges with geogenic contamination viz., elevated levels of soil arsenic and water. These contaminants can pose risks to fruit crops and consumers.[61]
Alentejo, PortugalArsenic and heavy metalsAlentejo, a prominent region for olive and cork production, has documented issues with geogenic contamination, particularly concerning arsenic and heavy metals in the soil. These contaminants may affect fruit orchards in the region.[85]
Central Valley, California, USAArsenic and seleniumCentral Valley is recognized for its agricultural productivity, but it also faces challenges related to geogenic contamination, including heavy metals like arsenic and selenium. These contaminants can originate from natural sources in soil and groundwater.[26]
Table 4. Fruits contaminated with heavy metals.
Table 4. Fruits contaminated with heavy metals.
FruitMetal ContaminantRef.
Avocado PearThese heavy metals are typically persistent in the environment, resistant to biodegradation and heat, and thus prone to accumulating to harmful levels. In avocado pear, the levels of cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, lead, nickel, manganese, and cobalt are measured at 0.15, 3.10, 8.87, 28.60, 1.69, 3.34, 1.31, and 1.62 mg/kg, respectively. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[66]
OrangeThe content of cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, lead, nickel, manganese, and cobalt in oranges is 0.10, 0.23, 7.22, 19.0, 5.80, 2.99, 1.09, and 1.67 mg/kg, respectively. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[34]
PawpawThe levels of cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, lead, nickel, manganese, and cobalt in pawpaw are 0.22, 05.29, 07.31, 29.60, 05.57, 05.87, 01.03, and 3.56 mg/kg, respectively. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[61]
PineappleThe levels of cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, lead, nickel, manganese, and cobalt in pineapple are 0.08, 0.64, 6.78, 25.70, 4.52, 1.16, 2.60, and 1.43 mg/kg, respectively. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[130]
GrapesThe presence of heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and arsenic varies depending on the agricultural methods employed and the environmental circumstances. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[131]
BananasBananas are susceptible to heavy metal contamination, especially cadmium, which can permeate the fruit either from the soil or via the application of fertilizers tainted with pollutants. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[70]
OrangesHeavy metals like Cd and Pb can be taken up by crops from soil that is contaminated or through the utilization of tainted agricultural materials. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[23]
StrawberriesHeavy metals like Cd and Pb, especially when grown in soils with high metal concentrations or exposed to contaminated irrigation water.[132]
ApplesHeavy metals like lead, cadmium, and arsenic can build up in fruit as a result of contamination in the soil or water. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[21]
Berries (blueberries, blackberries)Heavy metals like cadmium and lead can accumulate due to soil contamination or atmospheric deposition. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[108]
PineapplesCadmium and lead, particularly problematic in regions with contaminated soils or where agrochemicals containing heavy metals are used excessively.[133]
AvocadoHeavy metals like lead and cadmium primarily originate from soil, water, or air pollution, causing contamination. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[110]
Citrus fruits (oranges, lemons, limes)Cadmium and lead can be absorbed from contaminated soil or water sources. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[124]
PeachesArsenic and lead, with contamination levels varying depending on soil quality and environmental factors. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[133]
MangoesCadmium and lead, particularly in regions with contaminated soils or water sources. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[130]
PearHeavy metals like cadmium and lead, especially when grown in soils with high metal concentrations or exposed to contaminated irrigation water.[131]
GrapesThe presence of heavy metals like cadmium and lead in vineyards can fluctuate depending on factors such as soil composition, vineyard management methods, and environmental conditions. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[134]
ApricotsWhen cultivated in areas with polluted soils or water sources, crops have been observed to gather heavy metals like arsenic and lead. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[131]
CherriesHeavy metals such as Cd and Pb, which can be absorbed from soil or water sources contaminated with industrial or agricultural runoff. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[110]
PlumsHeavy metals like Cd and Pb, with contamination levels influenced by soil quality, agricultural practices, and environmental factors.[70]
Pomegranates:Cadmium and lead, especially when growing in soils with high metal concentrations or irrigated with contaminated water. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[121]
Dragon fruitPlants have the tendency to gather heavy metals like arsenic and lead, especially in areas where the soil or water is contaminated. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[61]
PapayaCadmium and lead can be absorbed from contaminated soil or water sources. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[66]
Kiwi fruitCadmium and lead, especially when grown in soils with elevated metal concentrations or exposed to contaminated irrigation water. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[130]
Passion fruitsSoil quality and agricultural practices can impact the levels of heavy metals like Cd and Pb found in the environment. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[130]
GuavaHigh levels of heavy metals like Cd and Pb, especially in areas with polluted soil or water supplies. Source of irrigation: Ground water.[73]

6. Regulatory Standards and Guidelines

Heavy metals—lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic—are all potential accumulators in crops through either soil pollution, water contamination, or aerial pollutants [134,135,136,137,138]. Long-term exposure to these heavy metals is causative for many health problems that include mainly neurological impairment, renal damage, and cancer [107,135,136,137]. For this case, various maximum allowable limits of these heavy metals in crops have already been set by different regulatory bodies, including the US EPA, EFSA, and FAO of the United Nations [139]. For instance, EFSA has laid down MRLs for heavy metals in different foodstuffs [139], while the US EPA and European Union (EU) regulations establish MRLs for pesticides in crops based on rigorous risk assessments to ensure consumer safety [140]. Prolonged pesticide exposure is linked to cancers, reproductive disorders, and neurological diseases [141].
Mycotoxins are biologically derived toxic chemicals produced by certain molds that infest crops, particularly grains, nuts, and spices [123]. The intake of such contaminated produce can cause acute poisoning or long-term effects on health, such as liver damage and cancers [142]. Alternatively, they result from biological activity and are influenced by factors such as temperature, humidity, and substrate composition. Therefore, their source is unequivocally biological, justifying their classification as biogenic toxins rather than geogenic pollutants. The World Health Organization, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, sets standards and regulations for the permissible levels of mycotoxin in foods [13,31]. As stated, regulations are set with the view that mycotoxin-related health risks for consumers have to be reduced to as low as reasonably possible. The permissible limits of these heavy metals in irrigation water and agricultural produce are recommended by different agencies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) [13,143]. These guidelines will be useful in preventing the excessive build-up of these heavy metals in fruit orchards. High levels of salt in naturally occurring groundwater will lead to soil salinization, and this will affect the growth and yield of fruit orchards during irrigation [128]. There are laws aimed at controlling the extent of soil salinization to reduce adverse effects on crops. Higher levels of nitrate and nitrite in geogenic groundwater are either a natural result of geological processes or from fertilizer use in farming. There are regulatory standards for irrigation water so as not to let the levels of nitrate and nitrite contaminate fruit orchards [28].

7. Mitigation and Management Practices

Water is applied at a time when fruit trees can maintain optimal nutrient balance in the soil, enhance irrigation efficiency, and also reduce erosion of the soil. Through this, water will be well utilized, and fruit yield and quality will be maintained [131,144]. Evapotranspiration is the amount of water loss through plant transpiration and soil evaporation combined. Scheduled irrigation, based on ET demand, will ensure that fruit trees receive adequate watering at the right time, when water is required [120,131]. Many studies have shown that with proper monitoring of soil moisture and lengthening the irrigation intervals according to the ET, it is possible to gain high yields with fruits of high quality [131,145]. This method is efficient and delivers water directly to the root zone of fruit trees. The loss of water through this method is not significant since drip irrigation does not lead to soil erosion, and the applied plant can absorb the nutrients easily.
Implementing alternative water sources can significantly reduce the over-dependency on contaminated groundwater in orchards [131]. Strategies include the adoption of rainwater harvesting systems, utilization of surface water from rivers or reservoirs, and the use of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes. These measures help mitigate reliance on geochemically contaminated water sources [146,147]. There is an overall need for regular monitoring of water quality to pick up any trend of contamination early enough and facilitate prompt intervention measures. Surveillance of the water quality will enable the orchard manager to assess the degree of contamination and make decisions to change irrigation practices accordingly [148]. Application of soil amendments may reduce the uptake of contaminants by fruit trees, as observed by [148]. Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and waters is possible using fruit orchards, with the inclusion of hyperaccumulator plants or vegetative buffer zones [129]. Other strategies, such as liming, adding organic matter, and phosphate application, may alter soil characteristics and hence decrease the bioavailability of toxic elements, that is, heavy metals [149].
Adopting efficient irrigation strategies, such as drip or micro-irrigation techniques, can significantly reduce the volume of water applied, thereby limiting the potential contact of pollutants with the plant root system [150]. Additionally, scheduling water application during periods of minimal evapotranspiration helps prevent increases in contaminant concentration within the soil [144]. A few plant species collect and detoxify these pollutants from soil and water by phytoremediation [129]. Planting hyperaccumulator plants in fruit orchards or using them as vegetative buffer zones around orchards can help in the cleanup of contaminated soils and waters [121]. Several studies have illustrated the different mechanisms behind the remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil through heavy-metal-tolerant–plant-growth-promoting (HMT-PGP) microbe–plant interaction [96], as shown in Figure 4.
In regions of India, orchards have faced significant challenges due to arsenic-contaminated groundwater, posing threats to both crop production and human health [151]. To address this issue, affected orchard owners collaborated with local political administrations to develop community-based rainwater harvesting systems. These systems supplemented the irrigation that naturally occurred during the dry season from groundwater, thereby reducing the dependency on arsenic-contaminated resources [146]. Lime and gypsum addition raised the pH and reduced the bioavailability of arsenic in orchard soils [149]. The effectiveness of amendments at mitigating arsenic uptake by apple trees was monitored by frequent soil testing [152]. Specifically, arsenic-hyperaccumulating grass species were intercropped with apple plants, and later their foliage was harvested for the removal of arsenic from the soil [121]. Once harvested, such grasses were removed and safely disposed of to prevent their return to the orchard environment. Using this method of intercropping with cover crops tolerant to arsenic showed a reduction in its levels in orchard soils [149]. Figure 4 shows the different steps during phytoremediation. Intercropping with arsenic-tolerant cover crops has shown promise in mitigating arsenic levels in orchard soils.
Efficient water management is crucial for fruit orchards as the performance of fruit trees depends on irrigation, and different species respond differently to it. Deficit irrigation is a technique where water supply is intentionally reduced during specific growth stages to optimize resource use. It ensures efficient water utilization without compromising yield and quality [131]. Evapotranspiration-based scheduling tailors irrigation to the tree’s water demand, maintaining high yield and fruit quality [131]. Soil quality is essential for sustainable fruit cultivation. Intensive input use without environmental considerations can lead to soil degradation and salinization [53].
Crop selection and breeding for tolerance in fruit orchards facing geogenic water is a very important aspect of sustainable agriculture. Choosing fruit varieties that have natural drought tolerance is important. Plant breeding programs should look at identifying and propagating such varieties. Landraces, locally adapted traditional varieties, very often possess inherent resilience against water stress. Such landraces can be an important genetic resource [61]. Transgenic studies have attempted to incorporate specific genes into fruit crops that improve their resistance to drought. Increasing the expression of stress-related genes enables the plant to make better use of the available water and thus improves WUE and the response to drought conditions [138]. Major transcription factors include DREB1 and DREB2, which play a critical role in mechanisms of drought tolerance [147]. CRISPR technology enables gene editing with precision. It is now possible to modify fruit trees for improved drought resistance by overexpressing/silencing specific genes [53]. Understanding the signaling pathways involved in the drought response enables the identification of critical genes for modification [53]. A recent review has considered methods related to horticulture, biochemistry, and molecular biology that can enhance the capacity of temperate fruit crops to resist water stress [53].
Remediation of polluted soils in fruit orchards affected by geogenic water contamination plays a crucial role in the protection of health, both in crops and other related ecosystems. Soil pollution can be addressed by many remediation methods. Different tools for remediation of heavy metals in food crops are mentioned in Figure 5.
Some species of plants are capable of absorbing and storing contaminants from the soil in their tissues. In such orchards, some plants can deliberately be planted to absorb pollutants like heavy metals from the soil [121]. Then, these plants are harvested and removed from the site to reduce contamination levels in the soil. This means that this process follows the mechanism that plants take up contaminants, and later on, these contaminants become removed with the plants to clean the soil [153,154,155,156,157]. The remediation of orchards has been effective through the process of phytoremediation using plants to remove contaminants from the soil. Plants that are hyperaccumulators have been found to exhibit high effectiveness and efficiency in metal uptake from the soil [52,107].

8. Future Research Directions

Hyperspectral imaging is an important tool in the valuation of exposure and contamination in fruit orchards affected by geological water impacts. It can project subtle spectral signatures of various contaminants, allowing a detailed assessment of materials that might indicate the presence of pollutants in the soil and water. The assessment comes in handy in that, although hyperspectral imaging can map the sources of pollution and thereby estimate the hot spots of contamination, it gives a spatial distribution of the contaminants with GIS data. In this way, it gives insight into their effects on the ecosystems in different orchards. Moreover, techniques like partial least squares regression can even provide a quantification of contamination levels from hyperspectral data [12].
Adoption of advanced technologies with sustainable practices is characterized as an integrated approach to handling contamination. In the aspect of monitoring, hyperspectral imaging provides continuous monitoring, complemented by other remote sensing techniques such as LiDAR and thermal imaging for comprehensive establishment of the extent of contamination. Biosensors, whether microbial, enzymatic, or cell-based, demonstrate high specificity and sensitivity for detecting pollutants. Advanced techniques such as next-generation sequencing, microbial source tracking, and environmental DNA analysis are instrumental in providing early warnings of contamination events. Additionally, future perspectives, as depicted in Figure 6, highlight further advancements in this field.

9. Conclusions

The formal analysis indicates that geogenic contaminants pose a significant threat to the long-term sustainability and productivity of irrigated fruit orchards. In fruit-growing regions of South Asia and globally, concentrations of arsenic (exceeding 0.3–0.5 ppm), fluoride (above 1.5 ppm), and boron (greater than 2.0 ppm) commonly surpass recommended safety thresholds. While fruit orchards may tolerate initial exposure due to their extensive root systems, prolonged accumulation of these toxic elements can lead to suppressed vegetative growth, impaired nutrient uptake, oxidative stress, and substantial declines in yield and fruit quality. The uptake and accumulation patterns of these contaminants are species-specific, with varying degrees of tolerance and sensitivity observed among crops such as citrus, grape, and guava, depending on the type and concentration of the contaminant.
Despite substantial research on contaminant toxicity in annual crops, studies focusing on perennial fruit trees remain limited. There is a critical need to (i) establish crop- and cultivar-specific tolerance thresholds for key geogenic elements and (ii) develop and promote effective mitigation strategies, including the use of soil amendments, salt- and contaminant-tolerant rootstocks, and alternative irrigation practices. Implementing such measures can significantly mitigate the harmful effects of contaminated groundwater, thereby enhancing the resilience and sustainability of fruit orchards and safeguarding agricultural productivity and human health.

Author Contributions

S.S. (Sunny Sharma), S.S. (Shivali Sharma) and A.K. contributed to this study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by J.L., V.S.R. and N.S. The first draft of the manuscript was written by S.S. (Sunny Sharma), S.S. (Shivali Sharma), R.K. J.L. and S.T., and it was critically reviewed and edited by A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data have been created.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank their LPU (Punjab), NUIST (China), Dr YSPUHF (Solan) and RLBCAU (Jhansi) for providing the necessary facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adnan, S.; Iqbal, J. Spatial analysis of the groundwater quality in the Peshawar District, Pakistan. Procedia Eng. 2014, 70, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Akter, A.; Ahmed, S. Rainwater harvesting potentials for a water-scarce city in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management; ICE Publishing: London, UK, 2021; Volume 174, pp. 84–98. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alavanja, M.C.; Hoppin, J.A.; Kamel, F. Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: Cancer and neurotoxicity. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2004, 25, 155–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 56. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kumar, A.; Pinto, M.C.; Candeias, C.; Dinis, P.A. Baseline maps of potentially toxic elements on soils of Garhwal Himalaya, India: Assessment of their eco-environmental and human health risks. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 3856–3869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kumar, A.J.; Choudhari, J.K.; Choubey, J.; Verma, M.K.; Sahariah, B.P. Health effects and bioremediation of pollutants: Fluoride, arsenic, lead, and copper. In Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and Processes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 203–218. [Google Scholar]
  8. Asare, E.A.; Klutse, C.K.; Fianko, J.R. Neurotoxic health effects of four toxic elements exposure on resident’s children in the Wassa East district of Ghana via ingestion pathway. Chem. Afr. 2023, 6, 513–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ávila, M.O.N.; Rocha, P.N.; Zanetta, D.M.T.; Yu, L.; Burdmann, E.D.A. Water balance, acute kidney injury and mortality of intensive care unit patients. Braz. J. Nephrol. 2014, 36, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bakari, S.J.; Mbunda, F.A. Community participation in rural water supply projects: Influencing factors and challenges in Nyasa district. Afr. J. Water Conserv. Sustain. 2022, 10, 001–005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bazaanah, P.; Mothapo, R.A. Sustainability of drinking water and sanitation delivery systems in rural communities of the Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality, South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 14223–14255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bennett, J.W.; Klich, M. Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bjerregaard, P.; Andersen, C.B.; Andersen, O. Ecotoxicology of metals—Sources, transport, and effects on the ecosystem. In Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 593–627. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boers, T.M.; Ben-Asher, J. A review of rainwater harvesting. Agric. Water Manag. 1982, 5, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bolin, B.; Collins, T.; Darby, K. Fate of the verde: Water, environmental conflict, and the politics of scale in Arizona’s central highlands. Geoforum 2008, 39, 1494–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bundschuh, J.; Kaczmarczyk, M.; Ghaffour, N.; Tomaszewska, B. State-of-the-art of renewable energy sources used in water desalination: Present and future prospects. Desalination 2021, 508, 115035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Camp, C.R. Subsurface drip irrigation: A review. Trans. ASAE 1998, 41, 1353–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carmona, G.; Varela-Ortega, C.; Bromley, J. Supporting decision making under uncertainty: Development of a participatory integrated model for water management in the middle Guadiana river basin. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 50, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chakraborti, D.; Rahman, M.M.; Paul, K.; Sengupta, M.K.; Chowdhury, U.K.; Lodh, D.; Saha, K.C.; Mukherjee, S.C. Arsenic calamity in the Indian subcontinent. What lessons have been learned? Talanta 2004, 58, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ciccolini, V.; Bonari, E.; Pagnotta, E. Harnessing soil microbiome for enhanced bioremediation. Trends Plant Sci. 2019, 24, 383–386. [Google Scholar]
  21. Clemens, S.; Aarts, M.G.M.; Thomine, S.; Verbruggen, N. Plant science: The key to preventing slow cadmium poisoning. Trends Plant Sci. 2013, 18, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Coleman, N.; Gason, A.S.; Poore, G.C. High species richness in the shallow marine waters of south-east Australia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1997, 154, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Colon, C.; Martin, E.; Parker, D.; Sutherland, K.; Center, F.S.E. Measured Performance of Ducted and Space-Coupled Heat Pump Water Heaters in a Cooling Dominated Climate. In Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 21–26 August 2016; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dabrowski, J.M.; Peall, S.K.; Reinecke, A.J.; Liess, M.; Schulz, R. Assessing the impact of agrochemicals on soil microbial diversity in the Western Cape, South Africa. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 2687–2693. [Google Scholar]
  25. Das, R.; Das, K.; Ray, B.; Vinod, C.P.; Peter, S.C. Green transformation of CO2 to ethanol using water and sunlight by the combined effect of naturally abundant red phosphorus and Bi2MoO6. Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 1967–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dietz, M.E.; Clausen, J.C.; Filchak, K.K. Education and changes in residential nonpoint source pollution. Environ. Manag. 2004, 34, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dixit, A.K. Study of physico-chemical parameters of different pond water of Bilaspur District, Chhattishgarh, India. Environ. Skept. Crit. 2015, 4, 89. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dotaniya, M.L.; Das, H.; Meena, V.D. Assessment of chromium efficacy on germination, root elongation, and coleoptile growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) at different growth periods. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Dutta, S.; Let, S.; Sharma, S.; Mahato, D.; Ghosh, S.K. Recognition and sequestration of toxic inorganic water pollutants with hydrolytically stable metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Rec. 2021, 21, 1666–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Eaton, D.L.; Gallagher, E.P. Mechanisms of aflatoxin carcinogenesis. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 1994, 34, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Eddleston, M.; Karalliedde, L.; Buckley, N.; Fernando, R.; Hutchinson, G.; Isbister, G.; Konradsenh, F.; Murrayi, D.; Piolaj, J.C.; Senanayake, N.; et al. Pesticide poisoning in the developing world—A minimum pesticides list. Lancet 2008, 360, 1163–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Meena, V.P.; Ahmad, N.; Singh, R.; Vyas, A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, M. Fluoride variability in groundwater: Hydro-Geochemical Influences and risk assessment in an Arid region of Northwestern India. Phys. Chem. Earth 2025, 139, 103931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eggen, T.; Lillo, C. Antidiabetic II drug metformin in plants: Uptake and translocation to edible parts of cereals, oily seeds, beans, tomato, squash, carrots, and potatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 6929–6935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gupta, D.S.; Raju, A.; Patel, A.; Chandniha, S.K.; Sahu, V.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, R.; Refadah, S.S. Integrated Assessment of the Hydrogeochemical and Human Risks of Fluoride and Nitrate in Groundwater Using the RS-GIS Tool: Case Study of the Marginal Ganga Alluvial Plain, India. Water 2024, 16, 3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eleftheriou, G.; Monte, L.; Brittain, J.E.; Tsabaris, C. Modelling and assessment of the impact of radiocesium and radiostrontium contamination in the Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 533, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 589/2011 of 20 June 2011 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as Regards Maximum Levels for Nitrates in Foodstuffs. 2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1258/oj/eng (accessed on 7 August 2025).
  37. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Worldwide Regulations for Mycotoxins in Food and Feed in 2003; FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 81; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fereres, E.; Soriano, M.A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Finnegan, P.M.; Chen, W. Arsenic toxicity: The effects on plant metabolism. Front. Physiol. 2012, 3, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Garg, K.K.; Karlberg, L.; Wani, S.P.; Berndes, G. Jatropha production on wastelands in India: Opportunities and trade-offs for soil and water management at the watershed scale. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2011, 5, 410–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gautham, M.G.; Ramakrishna, P.A. Propulsive performance of mechanically activated aluminum–water gelled composite propellant. J. Propuls. Power 2020, 36, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gill, H.K. Dimensions of Water. Int. J. Res. Soc. Sci. 2015, 5, 630–640. [Google Scholar]
  43. Githaiga, K.B.; Njuguna, S.M.; Yan, X. Local geochemical baselines reduce variation caused by the use of different conservative elements in predicting Cu and Zn enrichment in agricultural soils, Kenya. Chem. Afr. 2021, 4, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Govender, M.; Chetty, K.; Bulcock, H. A review of hyperspectral remote sensing and its application in vegetation and water resource studies. Water SA 2007, 33, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Goyer, R.A. Toxic and essential metal interactions. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1997, 17, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Grandjean, P.; Landrigan, P.J. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol. 2014, 13, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guo, X.; Yang, Z.; Dong, H.; Guan, X.; Ren, Q.; Lv, X.; Jin, X. Simple combination of oxidants with zero-valent-iron (ZVI) achieved very rapid and highly efficient removal of heavy metals from water. Water Res. 2016, 88, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hafeez, M.; Awan, U.K. Water Resource Potential: Status and Overview. In Water Policy in Pakistan: Issues and Options; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
  49. Huang, Q.; Lv, C.; Feng, Q. Stackelberg game based optimal water allocation from the perspective of energy-water nexus: A case study of Minjiang River, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 464, 142764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hulse, E.J.; Haslam, J.D.; Emmett, S.R.; Woolley, T. Organophosphorus nerve agent poisoning: Managing the poisoned patient. Br. J. Anaesth. 2012, 108, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hussain, S.; Mubeen, M.; Nasim, W.; Fahad, S.; Ali, M.; Ehsan, M.A.; Raza, A. Investigation of irrigation water requirement and evapotranspiration for water resource management in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. IARC. Aflatoxins; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 100F; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  53. IARC. Glyphosate; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 112; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. IARC. Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 112; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ignatavičius, G.; Unsal, M.H.; Busher, P.; Wołkowicz, S.; Satkūnas, J.; Šulijienė, G.; Valskys, V. Geochemistry of mercury in soils and water sediments. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2022, 9, 261–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Iqbal, B.; Zhao, T.; Yin, W.; Zhao, X.; Xie, Q.; Khan, K.Y. Impacts of soil microplastics on crops: A review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 181, 104680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Irwin, R.; Van Mouwerik, M.A.R.K.; Stevens, L.; Seese, M.D. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia Dichloroethylene-1, 1 (1,1-Dichloroethylene) Entry; National Park Service: Denver, CO, USA, 1997.
  58. Islam, M.S.; Hassan-uz-Zaman, M.; Islam, M.S.; Clemens, J.D.; Ahmed, N. Waterborne pathogens: Review of outbreaks in developing nations. In Waterborne Pathogens; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 43–56. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jaishankar, M.; Tseten, T.; Anbalagan, N.; Mathew, B.B.; Beeregowda, K.N. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2014, 7, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Järup, L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jenifer, M.A.; Jha, M.K. Comprehensive risk assessment of groundwater contamination in a weathered hard-rock aquifer system of India. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 853–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jones, H.G. Irrigation scheduling: Advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 2427–2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Juwarkar, A.A.; Singh, S.K.; Mudhoo, A.; Maiti, S.K. Bioremediation: A sustainable solution for environment management—Review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 331–345. [Google Scholar]
  64. Karam, P.A.; Leslie, S.A. Changes in terrestrial natural radiation levels over the history of life. In Radioactivity in the Environment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 7, pp. 107–110. [Google Scholar]
  65. Karunanidhi, D.; Aravinthasamy, P.; Deepali, M.; Subramani, T.; Roy, P.D. The effects of geochemical processes on groundwater chemistry and the health risks associated with fluoride intake in a semi-arid region of South India. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 4840–4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kelly, V.J.; Hooper, R.P.; Aulenbach, B.T.; Janet, M. Concentrations and Annual Fluxes for Selected Water-Quality Constituents from the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN); Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4255; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2001.
  67. Kemper, N. Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Khan, A.; Khan, M.S.; Egozcue, J.J.; Shafique, M.A.; Nadeem, S.; Saddiq, G. Irrigation suitability, health risk assessment and source apportionment of heavy metals in surface water used for irrigation near marble industry in Malakand, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0279083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khan, S.; Afzal, M.; Iqbal, S.; Khan, Q.M. Plant–bacteria partnerships for the remediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils: An improved approach. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2013, 5, 470–481. [Google Scholar]
  70. Khan, S.; Shahnaz, M.; Jehan, N.; Rehman, S.; Shah, M.T.; Din, I. Drinking water quality and human health risk in Charsadda district, Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 60, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kisku, G.C.; Sahu, P. Fluoride contamination and health effects: An Indian scenario. In Environmental Concerns and Sustainable Development: Volume 1: Air, Water and Energy Resources; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 213–233. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kour, J.; Bakshi, P. Orchard Management Practices for Improving Water Productivity; Indian Council of Agricultural Research: New Delhi, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  73. Kranner, I.; Colville, L. Metals and seeds: Biochemical and molecular implications and their significance for seed germination. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 72, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kumar, V.; Singh, E.; Singh, S.; Pandey, A.; Bhargava, P.C. Micro-and nano-plastics (MNPs) as emerging pollutant in ground water: Environmental impact, potential risks, limitations and way forward towards sustainable management. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 459, 141568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lanphear, B.P.; Hornung, R.; Khoury, J.; Yolton, K.; Baghurst, P.; Bellinger, D.C.; Canfield, R.L.; Dietrich, K.N.; Bornschein, R.; Greene, T.; et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual function: An international pooled analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 113, 894–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lastochkina, O.; Ivanov, S.; Petrova, S.; Garshina, D.; Lubyanova, A.; Yuldashev, R.; Kuluev, B.; Zaikina, E.; Maslennikova, D.; Allagulova, C.; et al. Role of endogenous salicylic acid as a hormonal intermediate in the bacterial endophyte Bacillus subtilis-induced protection of wheat genotypes contrasting in drought susceptibility under dehydration. Plants 2022, 11, 3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Li, X.; Wang, B.; Cao, Y.; Zhao, S.; Wang, H.; Feng, X.; Zhou, J.; Ma, X. Water contaminant elimination based on metal–organic frameworks and perspective on their industrial applications. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 4548–4563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, Y.; Su, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, C. Phytoremediation of heavy metal pollution: Biological and molecular mechanisms. Molecules 2020, 25, 1098. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mandal, B.K.; Suzuki, K.T. Arsenic round the world: A review. Talanta 2002, 58, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mansoor, H.N.; Jeber, B.A.; Atab, H.A.; Merhij, M.Y. Response of Three Barley Cultivars Hordeum vulgare L. to Water Stress Under Field Conditions. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 5th International Scientific Conference on Ecological and Water Problems (ICEWP 2023), Baghdad, Iraq, 1–2 March 2023; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2023; Volume 1259, p. 012114. [Google Scholar]
  81. Marques, R.C. PPP arrangements in the Brazilian water sector: A double-edged sword. Water Policy 2016, 18, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Marschner, H. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  83. Masih, J.; Singhvi, R.; Kumar, K.; Jain, V.K.; Taneja, A. Seasonal variation and sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in indoor and outdoor air in a semi arid tract of northern India. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2012, 12, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. McGrath, S.P.; Zhao, F.J. Phytoextraction of metals and metalloids from contaminated soils. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Megharaj, M.; Ramakrishnan, B.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Sethunathan, N.; Naidu, R. Bioremediation approaches for organic pollutants: A critical perspective. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 1362–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Motlagh, M.K.; Noroozifar, M.; Kraatz, H.B. Highly sensitive and selective detection of selenate in water samples using an enzymatic gold nanodendrite biosensor. Can. J. Chem. 2022, 101, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Environmental Studies, and Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nordberg, G.F.; Fowler, B.A.; Nordberg, M.; Friberg, L. (Eds.) Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ohkawa, K.; Nishida, A.; Ichimiya, K.; Matsui, Y.; Nagaya, K.; Yuasa, A.; Yamamoto, H. Purification and characterization of a dopa-containing protein from the foot of the Asian freshwater mussel, Limnoperna fortunei. Biofouling 1999, 14, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ondrasek, G. Irrigation practices in agriculture. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  92. Parveen, F.; Khan, S.J. Wastewater Treatment in Pakistan: Issues, Challenges and Solutions. In Water Policy in Pakistan: Issues and Options; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 323–349. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pashkevich, M.A.; Korotaeva, A.E.; Matveeva, V.A. Experimental simulation of a system of swamp biogeocenoses to improve the efficiency of quarry water treatment. Zap. Gorn. Inst. 2023, 263, 785–794. [Google Scholar]
  94. Powlson, D.S.; Addiscott, T.M.; Benjamin, N.; Cassman, K.G.; de Kok, T.M.; van Grinsven, H.; Van Kessel, C. When does nitrate become a risk for humans? J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pyngrope, A.; Sangma, F.N. Radiological Impact Due to Exposure to Radon Isotopes in School; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  96. Qadir, M.; Quillérou, E.; Nangia, V.; Murtaza, G.; Singh, M.; Thomas, R.J.; Drechsel, P. Economics of Salt-Induced Land Degradation and Restoration; United Nations University: Tokyo, Japan, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  97. Radke, M. Fate of pharmaceuticals in the environment and in water treatment systems, edited by DS Aga. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.-Aqua 2010, 59, 239. [Google Scholar]
  98. Rahman, M.; Khairullah, A. Assessment of water security challenges in hilly terrain of Bangladesh: An insight of quantity and quality concerns and implementation of effective solutions. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2024, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Raju, M.; Sarma, R.N.; Suryan, A.; Nair, P.P.; Nižetić, S. Investigation of optimal water utilization for water spray cooled photovoltaic panel: A three-dimensional computational study. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 51, 101975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhao, Z.; Kumar, A.; Wang, H. Predicting Arsenic Contamination in Groundwater: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models in Coastal Floodplains and Inland Basins. Water 2024, 16, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rawat, M.; Sen, R.; Onyekwelu, I.; Wiederstein, T.; Sharda, V. Modeling of groundwater nitrate contamination due to agricultural activities—A systematic review. Water 2022, 14, 4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Rizzo, G.F.; Ciccarello, L.; Felis, M.D.; Mortada, A.; Cirelli, G.L.; Milani, M.; Branca, F. Agronomic effects of reclaimed water used for tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) irrigation. In Proceedings of the XXXI International Horticultural Congress (IHC2022): International Symposium on Agroecology and System Approach for Sustainable, Angers, France, 14–20 August 2022; International Society for Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2022; Volume 1355, pp. 387–392. [Google Scholar]
  103. Rump, A.; Hermann, C.; Lamkowski, A.; Popp, T.; Port, M. A comparison of the chemo-and radiotoxicity of thorium and uranium at different enrichment grades. Arch. Toxicol. 2023, 97, 1577–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Salt, D.E.; Smith, R.D.; Raskin, I. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1998, 49, 643–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sanderman, J.; Amundson, R. A comparative study of dissolved organic carbon transport and stabilization in California forest and grassland soils. Biogeochemistry 2008, 89, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sanderson, W.G. Rarity of marine benthic species in Great Britain: Development and application of assessment criteria. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1996, 6, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Santos, I.R.; Niencheski, F.; Burnett, W.; Peterson, R.; Chanton, J.; Andrade, C.F.; Milani, I.B.; Schmidt, A.; Knoeller, K. Tracing anthropogenically driven groundwater discharge into a coastal lagoon from southern Brazil. J. Hydrol. 2008, 353, 275–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Satarug, S.; Baker, J.R.; Urbenjapol, S.; Haswell-Elkins, M.; Reilly, P.E.; Williams, D.J.; Moore, M.R. A global perspective on cadmium pollution and toxicity in non-occupationally exposed population. Toxicol. Lett. 2003, 137, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Satarug, S.; Garrett, S.H.; Sens, M.A.; Sens, D.A. Cadmium, environmental exposure, and health outcomes. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Satish, N.; Rajitha, K.; Anmala, J.; Varma, M.R. Trophic status estimation of case-2 water bodies of the Godavari River basin using satellite imagery and artificial neural network (ANN). H2Open J. 2023, 6, 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sauvé, S.; Desrosiers, M. A review of what is an emerging contaminant. Chem. Cent. J. 2014, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Schillinger, J.; Özerol, G.; Güven-Griemert, Ş.; Heldeweg, M. Water in war: Understanding the impacts of armed conflict on water resources and their management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2020, 7, e1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Sekar, V.; Shaji, S.; Sundaram, B. Microplastic prevalence and human exposure in the bottled drinking water in the west Godavari region of Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2024, 264, 104346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shah, D.; Zhang, S.; Sarkar, S.; Davidson, C.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, M.; Gao, H. Transitioning from MODIS to VIIRS Global Water Reservoir Product. Sci. Data 2024, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Shahid, M.U.; Najam, T.; Islam, M.; Hassan, A.M.; Assiri, M.A.; Rauf, A.; Rehman, A.U.; Shah, S.S.A.; Nazir, M.A. Engineering of metal organic framework (MOF) membrane for waste water treatment: Synthesis, applications and future challenges. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 57, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Shaikh, M.A.; Hadjikakou, M.; Bryan, B.A. Shared responsibility for global water stress from agri-food production and consumption and opportunities for mitigation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, V. Soil and Water Conservation Measures; New Age International: New Delhi, India, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  119. Sharma, R.K.; Agrawal, M. Biological effects of heavy metals: An overview. J. Environ. Biol. 2005, 26, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  120. Shenker, M.; Harush, D.; Ben-Ari, J.; Chefetz, B. Uptake of carbamazepine by cucumber plants–a case study related to irrigation with reclaimed wastewater. Chemosphere 2011, 82, 905–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Shumilova, O.; Tockner, K.; Sukhodolov, A.; Khilchevskyi, V.; De Meester, L.; Stepanenko, S.; Trokhymenko, G.; Hernández-Agüero, J.A.; Gleick, P. Impact of the Russia–Ukraine armed conflict on water resources and water infrastructure. Nat. Sustain. 2023, 6, 578–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Singer, A.C.; van der Gast, C.J.; Thompson, I.P. Perspectives and vision for strain selection in bioaugmentation. Trends Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Singh, S.; Kumar, M. Heavy metal load of soil, water and vegetables in peri-urban Delhi. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 120, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Smedley, P.L.; Kinniburgh, D.G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 517–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Smith, L. Oxidation Characteristics, Acid Neutralization, Secondary Minerals, and Trace Elements Associated with Pyrrhotite Oxidation in Historical Waste Rock. Master’s Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  126. Solanki, Y.S.; Agarwal, M.; Gupta, A.B.; Gupta, S.; Shukla, P. Fluoride occurrences, health problems, detection, and remediation methods for drinking water: A comprehensive review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Subba Rao, N.; Sunitha, B.; Adimalla, N.; Chaudhary, M. Quality criteria for groundwater use from a rural part of Wanaparthy District, Telangana State, India, through ionic spatial distribution (ISD), entropy water quality index (EWQI) and principal component analysis (PCA). Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Sukanya, S.; Joseph, S. Climate change impacts on water resources: An overview. In Visualization Techniques for Climate Change with Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 55–76. [Google Scholar]
  129. Tamanna, T.; Tonni, S.; Shammi, R.S.; Khan, M.H.; Islam, S.; Hoque, M.M.M.; Meghla, N.T.; Kabir, H. Comprehensive evaluation of heavy metals in surface water of the upper Banar River, Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric. Res. Innov. Technol. 2023, 13, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tang, X.Y.; Zhu, Y.G.; Cui, Y.S. Effects of phosphate application on metal accumulation in two different rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars grown in two different soils. Chemosphere 2003, 50, 727–733. [Google Scholar]
  131. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjou, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Heavy metal toxicity and the environment. EXS 2012, 101, 133–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  132. Teotia, M.; Teotia, S.P.S.; Singh, K.P. Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone diease and deformities in India: Year 2000. Indian J. Pediatr. 1998, 65, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Thenkabail, P.S.; Lyon, J.G.; Huete, A. (Eds.) Hyperspectral Remote Sensing of Vegetation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  134. Ullah, I.; Zeng, X.-M.; Hina, S.; Syed, S.; Ma, X.; Iyakaremye, V.; Yin, J.; Singh, V.P. Recent and projected changes in water scarcity and unprecedented drought events over Southern Pakistan. Front. Earth Sci. 2023, 11, 1113554. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  135. Upreti, M.R.; Kayastha, S.P.; Bhuiyan, C. Water quality, criticality, and sustainability of mountain springs—A case study from the Nepal Himalaya. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024, 196, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  137. Usman, M.; Ali, A.; Bashir, M.K.; Mushtaq, K.; Ghafoor, A.; Amjad, F.; Hashim, M.; Baig, S.A. Pathway analysis of food security by employing climate change, water, and agriculture nexus in Pakistan: Partial least square structural equation modeling. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 88577–88597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Vahter, M.; Skröder, H.; Rahman, S.M.; Levi, M.; Hamadani, J.D.; Kippler, M. Prenatal and childhood arsenic exposure through drinking water and food and cognitive abilities at 10 years of age: A prospective cohort study. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Van der Hoek, W. A framework for a global assessment of the extent of wastewater irrigation: The need for a common wastewater typology. In Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  140. Vandeuren, A.; Pereira, B.; Kaba, A.J.; Titeux, H.; Delmelle, P. Environmental bioavailability of arsenic, nickel and chromium in soils impacted by high geogenic and anthropogenic background contents. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 902, 166073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Beck, H.E.; Boergens, E.; de Jeu, R.A.M.; Dorigo, W.A.; Frederikse, T.; van der Schalie, R. Global Water Monitor 2023, Summary Report; TU Wien: Vienna, Austria, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  142. Wang, H.; Ye, W.; Yin, B.; Wang, K.; Riaz, M.S.; Xie, B.; Zhong, Y.; Hu, Y. Modulating cation migration and deposition with xylitol additive and oriented reconstruction of hydrogen bonds for stable zinc anodes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2023, 62, e202218872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Wang, M.; Janssen, A.B.; Bazin, J.; Strokal, M.; Ma, L.; Kroeze, C. Accounting for interactions between Sustainable Development Goals is essential for water pollution control in China. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wang, X.; Fan, X.; Shi, P.; Ni, J.; Zhou, Z. An overview of key SLAM technologies for underwater scenes. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. WHO (World Health Organization). Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-Water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  146. Kumar, A.; Kumar, V.; Pandita, S.; Singh, S.; Bhardwaj, R.; Varol, M. A global meta-analysis of toxic metals in continental surface water bodies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 109964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. WHO/UNICEF Joint Water Supply & Sanitation Monitoring Programme. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2014 Update; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  148. Wilkinson, M.J.; Duncker, L.M.; Kolisi, T. Understanding The Policy and Regulatory Barriers for Water and Sanitation RDI Implementation In: South Africa. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2022, 12, 407–415. [Google Scholar]
  149. World Health Organization. Lead Poisoning and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  150. Wu, D.-L.; Zhang, M.; He, L.-X.; Zou, H.-Y.; Liu, Y.-S.; Li, B.-B.; Yang, Y.-Y.; Liu, C.; He, L.-Y.; Ying, G.-G. Contamination profile of antibiotic resistance genes in ground water in comparison with surface water. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Wu, J.; Sun, Z. Evaluation of shallow groundwater contamination and associated human health risk in an alluvial plain impacted by agricultural and industrial activities, mid-west China. Expo. Health 2016, 8, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Wu, J.; Wang, Y.; Luo, C. Assessment of groundwater contamination from a uranium tailings dam in Guangdong, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 164–173. [Google Scholar]
  153. Xing, Z.; Yang, X.; Asiri, A.M.; Sun, X. Three-dimensional structures of MoS2@ Ni core/shell nanosheets array toward synergetic electrocatalytic water splitting. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 14521–14526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Yadav, A.; Upreti, H.; Singhal, G.D.; Sharma, J.K. Crop Water Stress Index for Devising Water Efficient Irrigation Schedules for Wheat Crop. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2023; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2023; pp. 435–446. [Google Scholar]
  155. Zhai, Y.; Han, Y.; Xia, X.; Li, X.; Lu, H.; Teng, Y.; Wang, J. Anthropogenic organic pollutants in groundwater increase releases of Fe and Mn from aquifer sediments: Impacts of pollution degree, mineral content, and pH. Water 2021, 13, 1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zhou, Y.; Wu, J.; Gao, X.; Guo, W.; Chen, W. Hydrochemical background levels and threshold values of phreatic groundwater in the Greater Xi’an region, China: Spatiotemporal distribution, influencing factors and implication to water quality management. Expo. Health 2023, 15, 757–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Zhu, L.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, R. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water, sediment and soil in drinking water resource of Zhejiang Province, China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 150, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 02534 g001
Figure 1. Procedure through which HMT-PGP (heavy-metal-tolerant–plant-growth-promoting) microorganisms and plants interact to remediate soil contaminated with heavy metals. Different arrow in upwards direction shows the movement of PGR released by the Microbes and different dots represent the production of different PGR by the microbes.
Figure 1. Procedure through which HMT-PGP (heavy-metal-tolerant–plant-growth-promoting) microorganisms and plants interact to remediate soil contaminated with heavy metals. Different arrow in upwards direction shows the movement of PGR released by the Microbes and different dots represent the production of different PGR by the microbes.
Water 17 02534 g001
Water 17 02534 g002
Figure 2. Effect of geogenic contaminants and uncontaminated water on the physiological aspects of fruit crops.
Figure 2. Effect of geogenic contaminants and uncontaminated water on the physiological aspects of fruit crops.
Water 17 02534 g002
Water 17 02534 g003
Figure 3. Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management.
Figure 3. Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management.
Water 17 02534 g003
Water 17 02534 g004
Figure 4. Different steps during phytoremediation. Different round shape near the root zone along with text shows the movement of different geogenic compound to roots.
Figure 4. Different steps during phytoremediation. Different round shape near the root zone along with text shows the movement of different geogenic compound to roots.
Water 17 02534 g004
Water 17 02534 g005
Figure 5. Effect of heavy metals on crop plants.
Figure 5. Effect of heavy metals on crop plants.
Water 17 02534 g005
Water 17 02534 g006
Figure 6. Future perspectives for the mitigation of geogenic contaminated water.
Figure 6. Future perspectives for the mitigation of geogenic contaminated water.
Water 17 02534 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sharma, S.; Sharma, S.; Likhita, J.; Rana, V.S.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, R.; Thakur, S.; Sharma, N. Geogenic Contaminants in Groundwater: Impacts on Irrigated Fruit Orchard Health. Water 2025, 17, 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172534

AMA Style

Sharma S, Sharma S, Likhita J, Rana VS, Kumar A, Kumar R, Thakur S, Sharma N. Geogenic Contaminants in Groundwater: Impacts on Irrigated Fruit Orchard Health. Water. 2025; 17(17):2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172534

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sharma, Sunny, Shivali Sharma, Jonnada Likhita, Vishal Singh Rana, Amit Kumar, Rupesh Kumar, Shivender Thakur, and Neha Sharma. 2025. "Geogenic Contaminants in Groundwater: Impacts on Irrigated Fruit Orchard Health" Water 17, no. 17: 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172534

APA Style

Sharma, S., Sharma, S., Likhita, J., Rana, V. S., Kumar, A., Kumar, R., Thakur, S., & Sharma, N. (2025). Geogenic Contaminants in Groundwater: Impacts on Irrigated Fruit Orchard Health. Water, 17(17), 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17172534

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop