Date post: | 14-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lawrence-morris |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Prof.S.ChidambaramProf.S.ChidambaramDepartment of Earth sciences
Annamalai UniversityIndia
A review on the hydrogeochemical research and its future perspectives
Quality - UtilityQuality - Utility
The Maximum values of the chemical constituents in groundwater for both the seasons and depths
compared with the drinking water standards (all values in mg/l) except EC μs/cm and pH )
SEASONS pH EC TDS Ca Mg Na K Cl HCO3 SO4 H4SiO4 PO4 NO3
SPRM 8.80 9848.00 5908.00 180.00 184.80 1898.20 538.70 2064.80 634.40 278.00 108.00 3.65 187.00
SPOM 8.70 7845.00 7630.00 148.00 108.00 813.90 572.60 2150.00 719.80 216.00 112.00 17.09 145.00
DPRM 7.80 6910.00 4422.40 141.00 111.00 1330.00 114.00 1823.00 540.00 604.48 120.33 8.75 147.00
DPOM 7.60 4790.48 3065.90 150.00 91.50 672.00 176.00 1549.00 732.00 380.00 141.00 5.50 169.00WHO2004
6.5-8.5 - 500 75 <30 200 - 200 - 200- - 50
BIS1991
6.5-8.5 - 500 75 30 - - 200 - 200
- - 45
Drinking water quality
Wilcox diagram
100 1000
Salinity Hazard (Cond)
0
6
13
19
26
32
Sod
ium
Ha z
ard
(SA
R)
Wilcox Diagram250 750 2250C1 C2 C3 C4
S1
S2
S3
S4
KK
K
J
J
J
J
J
J
JK
J
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
KH
H
H
H
H
HI I
I
I
K
I
I
I
I
I
K
K
K
KK
LegendLegend
K Alluvium
I Creteaceous
H Tertiary lower
J Tertiary upper
Sodium (Alkali) hazard:S1: LowS2: MediumS3: HighS4: Very high
Salinity hazard:C1: LowC2: MediumC3: HighC4: Very high
Agricultural water quality
WATCLAST- program Other water quality parameters (Chidambaram et al 2004)
Quality – Ion SpecificQuality – Ion SpecificFluoride
Uranium
Arsenic
Fig: 5.31a. Spatial distribution of F- of NEM Fig: 5.31b. Spatial distribution of F- of POM
Fig: 5.31c. Spatial distribution of F- of SUM Fig: 5.31d. Spatial distribution of F- of SWM
Fluoride
Uranium
Spatial distribution of As for groundwater samples (All values in µg/l))
Maximum, Minimum and Average of Arsenic (All values in µg/l))
Arsenic
Process – General IonProcess – General Ion
Piper facies diagramModified Doneen’s plot
Gibbs plotGibbs plot
Relationship of log pCORelationship of log pCO22 to Ionic to Ionic StrengthStrength
Standard plots
Thermo dynamic stability
Sea water intrusion
Saturation index
Process – LithologyProcess – Lithology
Relative mobility of cations in Rock Water Interaction studies
Relative mobility
Lithological charecterisation
Process – MetalsProcess – Metals
Process – RS and GISProcess – RS and GIS
Parameters Classification based on
quality
Standards by BIS &
WHO
Measured
Formation PRM SWM NEM POM
Good Moderate Unsuitable Desirable Permissible Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
EC (µS/cm) <780 780 –3125 >3125 780 1400Alluvium 314 2596 309 2899 231.4 2513 300 2352
Upper Cuddalore221.7 2713 3330 189.9 1490 173.9 1367 168.4
Lower Cuddalore270 1432 227.3 2100 230.7 1554 219.7 1534
Cretaceous 186.5 2164 200.5 2297 216.4 2756 202.4 2241
TH (Ca&Mg) (mg/l) <300 300-600 >600 300 600Alluvium 35.2 120.8 39.2 121.6 39.2 155.2 39.2 191.2
Upper Cuddalore42.4 139.2 44.3 188 36.1 158.4 17.2 296
Lower Cuddalore57.6 252.8 36.8 232 28.8 227.4 32.8 287.2
Cretaceous 47.2 193 28.6 130 35.2 166 33.6 222
Sodium (mg/l) <200 200-300 >300 200 -Alluvium 20 517.2 11.9 287 26 312 48 314
Upper Cuddalore7.1 567.5 8.7 289 34 289 20 193
Lower Cuddalore12 146 28.4 147 21 150 46 175
Cretaceous 6.8 550.5 15.2 241 21 186 33 764
Chloride (mg/l) <250 250-1000 >1000 250 1000Alluvium 35.5 797.6 567.2 374.3 35.5 779.9 88.6 833.1
Upper Cuddalore53.2 744.5 35.5 868.5 35.5 709 70.9 531.8
Lower Cuddalore26 390 53.2 372.2 35.5 354.5 70.9 354.5
Cretaceous
53.2 904 35.5 850.8 35.5 478.6 35.5 1524.4
Sulphate (mg/l) <200 200-400 >400 200 400Alluvium BDL 28.4 0.1 20 0.5 20 1 180
Upper CuddaloreBDL 11.6 1.2 26 0.5 15 1 160
Lower CuddaloreBDL 4.4 0.1 16 0.5 15 2 112.5
Cretaceous 0.4 44 0.8 72 0.5 20 5 250
Alkalinity (mg/l) <200 200-400 >400 200 400Alluvium 73.2 475.8 61 488 97.6 1037 61 732
Upper Cuddalore73.2 402.6 97.6 439.2 122 732 61 390.4
Lower Cuddalore85.4 268.4 73.2 488 146.4 768.6 146.4 390.4
Cretaceous 73.2 366 48.8 414.8 85.4 988.2 109.8 878.4
DOC (mg/l)
(ODWSOG2006,
Spruill et al. 1997)<3 3 - 5 >5
Alluvium 16.98 BDL 5.32 0.54 8.50 0.61 10.02 0.53
Upper Cuddalore13.29 3.87 3.13 0.24 4.80 0.53 5.41 0.37
Lower Cuddalore13.59 2.77 2.17 0.52 6.24 0.72 6.34 0.61
Cretaceous 4.10 2.06 3.58 0.00 5.48 0.45 6.54 0.29
Index (Decision Criteria) 3 2 1
Flow chart representing the preparation of the vulnerability maps
Vulnerability studies
Groundwater vulnerability index map of the Alluvium aquifer overlay on Landuse (Thilagavathi 2013)
Vulnerability studies
Process – ModelingProcess – Modeling
Process – StatisticsProcess – Statistics
Post monsoon CA MG NA K CL HCO3 SO4 PO4 SIO2 PH TDS
CA 1
MG -0.2159 1
NA 0.377867 -0.1544 1
K 0.47658 -0.17682 0.794228 1
CL 0.380735 -0.10921 0.996015 0.77236 1
HCO3 0.194334 -0.16824 0.451014 0.618295 0.387457 1
SO4 0.456194 0.300867 0.572222 0.52619 0.598744 -0.02503 1
PO4 0.180925 -0.3792 0.116976 -0.04012 0.086052 0.397052 -0.35538 1
SIO2 0.300471 -0.05292 0.477486 0.688922 0.470213 0.555771 0.170031 -0.1613 1
PH 0.144781 -0.07293 0.082553 0.434095 0.044656 0.366831 0.219291 -0.06855 0.188425 1
TDS 0.409782 -0.14338 0.996784 0.806542 0.996379 0.416115 0.60836 0.095735 0.469799 0.108051 1
1.00 2.00 3.00MG -0.09 -0.08 -0.72NA 0.96 0.15 0.10K 0.74 0.61 0.01CL 0.97 0.10 0.05HCO3 0.29 0.71 0.43SO4 0.70 0.05 -0.57PO4 0.06 -0.08 0.87SIO2 0.42 0.64 -0.02PH -0.04 0.79 -0.12TDS 0.97 0.15 0.07
Saline intrusion
Recharge and weathering of K feldspar
Anthropogenic
Seasonal -Correlation and Factor analysis
CA MG NA K CL HCO3 SO4 PO4 SIO4 PH TDSCA 1.00 MG 0.67 1.00 NA 0.14 0.11 1.00 K -0.19 -0.06 0.40 1.00 CL 0.25 0.23 0.98 0.42 1.00 HCO3 0.27 0.27 0.02 -0.01 -0.05 1.00 SO4 0.20 0.14 -0.23 -0.12 -0.19 -0.09 1.00 PO4 0.11 0.21 0.02 -0.03 0.04 0.03 0.33 1.00 SIO4 0.13 0.21 0.19 -0.07 0.23 -0.01 0.16 0.46 1.00 PH -0.01 0.11 -0.14 -0.32 -0.11 -0.28 0.14 0.02 -0.01 1.00 TDS 0.80 0.87 0.27 -0.07 0.39 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.28 0.11 1.00
1 2 3 4CA 0.89 0.01 0.06 0.08MG 0.89 0.04 0.15 0.03NA 0.16 0.94 0.00 -0.01K -0.24 0.62 -0.02 0.30CL 0.27 0.94 0.03 -0.07HCO3 0.35 -0.13 -0.09 0.74SO4 0.12 -0.33 0.57 -0.14PO4 0.09 0.00 0.85 0.06SIO4 0.12 0.21 0.74 -0.02PH 0.16 -0.21 -0.03 -0.82TDS 0.92 0.18 0.20 -0.05
Ion exchange
S.W.intrusion
Fertilisers
recharge
Pre monsoon Correlation and Factor analysis
Seasonal and the Spinal species
Factor score
Process – IsotopesProcess – Isotopes
Dissolved organic carbon
Isotope and climate
Process – SGDProcess – SGD
Process – GeophysicalProcess – Geophysical
Surface Geophysical methods
Spatial representation of reisitivty values
Fig. Three-dimensional variation of litholog and resistivity (m) for four locations Thavalakuppam, Chinna Verampattinam ,Thavalakuppam and Nallavadu in the study area
Creation of 3D fence to correlate
Conceptual models
Future perspectivesFuture perspectivesClimate Change
Geochemical baseline
Integrated techniques
Climate changeClimate change
Longterm geochemical data in correlation
with landuse and water level changes
Pore water stuides
CFC, Tritium models and Helium
Geochemical baselineGeochemical baseline
Tritium modelsMicrobial characterization with
metal/inorganic ionNoble gasesOrganic GeochemistryColloidal interface with metals and ionsInterlinking of components in hydrological
studies
Integration of relevant techniquesIntegration of relevant techniques
Thank youThank you