4.7 Article

Integrating Bayesian Groundwater Mixing Modeling With On-Site Helium Analysis to Identify Unknown Water Sources

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 10602-10615

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025677

关键词

groundwater mixing; Baysian mixing modeling; new tracer methods; end-member mixing; helium; conceptual model

资金

  1. EU [641939]
  2. Eawag

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyzing groundwater mixing ratios is crucial for many groundwater management tasks such as assessing sources of groundwater recharge and flow paths. However, estimating groundwater mixing ratios is affected by various uncertainties, which are related to analytical and measurement errors of tracers, the selection of end-members, and finding the most suitable set of tracers. Although these uncertainties are well recognized, it is still not common practice to account for them. We address this issue by using a new set of tracers in combination with a Bayesian modeling approach, which explicitly considers the possibility of unknown end-members while fully accounting for tracer uncertainties. We apply the Bayesian model we developed to a tracer set, which includes helium (He-4) analyzed on site to determine mixing ratios in groundwater. Thereby, we identify an unknown end-member that contributes up to 84 +/- 9% to the water mixture observed at our study site. For the He-4 analysis, we use a newly developed Gas Equilibrium Membrane Inlet Mass Spectrometer (GE-MIMS), operated in the field. To test the reliability of on-site He-4 analysis, we compare results obtained with the GE-MIMS to the conventional lab-based method, which is comparatively expensive and labor intensive. Our work demonstrates that (i) tracer-aided Bayesian mixing modeling can detect unknown water sources, thereby revealing valuable insights into the conceptual understanding of the groundwater system studied, and (ii) on-site He-4 analysis with the GE-MIMS system is an accurate and reliable alternative to the lab-based analysis.

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

4.7
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