4.2 Article

Hydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater in Kashmir Valley, India

期刊

JOURNAL OF EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE
卷 123, 期 5, 页码 1031-1043

出版社

INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12040-014-0446-8

关键词

Hydrochemistry; carbonate weathering; silicate weathering; Kashmir Valley

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Groundwater samples (n = 163) were collected across Kashmir Valley in 2010 to assess the hydrogeochemistry of the groundwater in shallow and deep aquifers and its suitability for domestic, agriculture, horticulture, and livestock purposes. The groundwater is generally alkaline in nature. The electrical conductivity (EC) which is an index to represent the total concentration of soluble salts in water was used to measure the salinity hazard to crops as it reflects the TDS in groundwater ranging from 97 to 1385 mu S/cm, except one well in Sopore. The average concentration of major ions was higher in shallow aquifers than in deeper aquifers. In general, Ca2+ is the dominant cation and HCO3- the dominant anion. Ca-HCO3, Mg-HCO3, Ca-Mg-HCO3, Na-HCO3 were the dominant hydrogeochemical facies. High concentration of HCO3 and pH less than 8.8 clearly indicated that intense chemical weathering processes have taken place in the study area. The groundwater flow pattern in the area follows the local surface topography which not only modifies the hydrogeochemical facies but also controls their distribution. The groundwater in valley flows into four directions, i.e., SW-NE, NE-W, SE-NW and SE-NE directions. The results suggest that carbonate dissolution is the dominant source of major ions followed by silicate weathering and ion-exchange processes. The concentrations of all the major ions determined in the present study are within the permissible limits of WHO and BIS standards. The results of Total Hardness, SAR, Na%, Kelly Index, USDA classification, Magnesium absorption ratio, residual sodium carbonate, and PI suggested that groundwater is good for drinking, livestock, and irrigation purposes.

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

4.2
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