Prof.S.ChidambaramProf.S.ChidambaramDepartment of Earth sciences

Annamalai UniversityIndia

chidambaram_s@rediffmail.com

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