4.5 Article

Hydrogeochemical comparison and effects of overlapping redox zones on groundwater arsenic near the Western (Bhagirathi sub-basin, India) and Eastern (Meghna sub-basin, Bangladesh) margins of the Bengal Basin

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 99, 期 1-4, 页码 31-48

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.10.005

关键词

arsenic; groundwater; Bengal Basin; redox; hydrogeochemistry

资金

  1. Swedish International Development Agency (Sida-SAREC)
  2. Swedish Research Council (VR-Sida)
  3. Strategic Environmental Research Foundation (MISTRA)
  4. Geological Society of America and University of Kentucky

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although arsenic (As) contamination of groundwater in the Bengal Basin has received wide attention over the past decade, comparative studies of hydrogeochemistry in geologically different sub-basins within the basin have been lacking. Groundwater samples were collected from sub-basins in the western margin (River Bhagirathi sub-basin, Nadia, India; 90 samples) and eastern margin (River Meghna sub-basin; Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh; 35 samples) of the Bengal Basin. Groundwater in the western site (Nadia) has mostly Ca-HCO3 water while that in the eastern site (Brahmanbaria) is much more variable consisting of at least six different facies. The two sites show differences in major and minor solute trends indicating varying pathways of hydrogeochemical evolution However, both sites have similar reducing, postoxic environments, (p(e): +5 to -2) with high concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, indicating dominantly metal-reducing processes and similarity in As mobilization mechanism. The trends of SO42- various redox-sensitive solutes (e.g. As, CH4, Fe, Mn, NO3-, NH4+, SO42-) indicate overlapping redox zones, leading to partial redox equilibrium conditions where As, once liberated from source minerals, would tend to remain in solution because of the complex interplay among the electron acceptors. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据