4.6 Article

Hydraulic and Hydrogeochemical Characteristics of a Riverbank Filtration Site in Rural India

期刊

WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH
卷 86, 期 7, 页码 636-648

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2175/106143013X13596524516428

关键词

riverbank filtration; stable isotope; dissolved silica; heavy metals; water treatment; India; emerging economy; groundwater; flood irrigation; monsoon

资金

  1. World Bank, Development Marketplace Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A riverbank filtration (RBF) system was tested along the Kali River in rural part of the state of Karnataka in India. The polluted river and water from open wells served the local population as their principal irrigation water resource and some used it for drinking. Four RBF wells (up to 25 m deep) were installed. The mean hydraulic conductivity of the well field is 6.3x10(-3) cm/s and, based on Darcy's law, the water travel time from the river to the principal RBF well (MW3) is 45.2 days. A mixing model based on dissolved silica concentrations indicated that, depending on the distance from the river and closeness to irrigated rice fields, approximately 27 to 73% of the well water originated from groundwater. Stable isotopic data indicates that a fraction of the water was drawn in from the nearby rice fields that were irrigated with river water. Relative to preexisting drinking water sources (Kali River and an open well), RBF well water showed lower concentration of dissolved metals (60.1% zinc, 27.8% cadmium, 83.9% lead, 75.5% copper, 100% chromium). This study demonstrates that RBF technology can produce high-quality water from low-quality surface water sources in a rural, tropical setting typical for many emerging economies. Further, in parts of the world where flood irrigation is common, RBF well water may draw in infiltrated irrigation water, which possibly alters its geochemical composition. A combination of more than one mixing model, silica together with stable isotopes, was shown to be useful explaining the origin of the RBF water at this study site.

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

4.6
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