4.6 Article

The Groundwater Flow Behavior and the Recharge in the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System during the Wet and Arid Periods

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14116823

关键词

NSAS; groundwater flow model; ages data

资金

  1. Abdullah Alrushaid Chair for Earth Science Remote Sensing Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) is a large groundwater system consisting of three major sub-basins. This study used a combination of groundwater flow modeling and isotopic data to investigate the system's hydrologic setting and connectivity. It found that the NSAS was recharged during wet climatic periods and identified preferential groundwater flow conduits and hindrances.
The Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) is made up of three major sub-basins: Kufra, Dakhla, and the N. Sudan Platform. It is one of the world's largest groundwater systems. The aquifer's hydrologic setting, connectivity of its sub-basins, and groundwater flow across these sub-basins are currently unclear. To address these issues, we used a combined approach that included: (1) a regionally calibrated groundwater flow model that mimics early (>10,000 years) steady-state conditions under wet climatic periods and later (<10,000 years BP-1960; 1960-2010) transient conditions under arid climatic periods; and (2) groundwater ages (Cl-36, Kr-81) and isotopic (O-18, H-2) data. The NSAS was recharged on a regional scale in previous wet climatic periods; however, in dry periods, its outcrops are still receiving local modest recharge. A progressive increase in Cl-36 groundwater ages was found along groundwater flow directions and along structures that are sub-parallel to the flow direction. The NE-SW Pelusium mega shear zone is a preferential groundwater flow conduit from the Kufra to the Dakhla sub-basin. The south-to-north groundwater flow is hampered by the Uweinat-Aswan basement uplift. The findings provide useful information about the best ways to use the NSAS.

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