4.6 Article

Spatial analysis of fluoride concentration in groundwaters of Shivani watershed area, Karnataka state, South India, through geospatial information system

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 67-76

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1065-1

关键词

Groundwater quality; Fluoride; Shivani; GIS; Spatial information

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogeochemical investigations with emphasis on groundwater fluoride concentrations were carried out in the Shivani watershed area, Karnataka, South India. This drought-prone watershed is characterised by poor groundwater potential and is composed of different lithounits like gneisses, migmatites, tonalites, mafics-ultramafics, conglomerates and quartzites. Analysis of spatial variation of groundwater fluoride concentration through the use of GIS technology software platforms like ArcView 3.2a and MapInfo Professional 8.5 has enabled the identification of low-fluoride and high-fluoride areas within the watershed. Geochemical data indicates that 38% of groundwater samples have excessive fluoride concentration which poses a health risk to the population of the area. Correlation studies indicate that higher groundwater alkalinity activates leaching of fluoride resulting in elevated concentrations of fluoride. No other significant geochemical interrelationship could be identified between fluoride and rest of the physico-chemical parameters owing to the lack of any significant correlation coefficients. This holds good in the case of both low-fluoride (<1.5 mg/L) and high-fluoride (>1.5 mg/L) groundwaters of the watershed. However, differential or non-uniform type (positive or negative) of coefficient of correlation is observed between fluoride at different levels and other physico-chemical parameters. Among the different lithounits of the study area, gneisses house comparatively more number of high-fluoride groundwaters. Fluoride-bearing minerals biotite, hornblende and apatite are the probable natural sources of groundwater fluoride.

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