z-logo
Premium
Solute Changes During Aquifer Storage Recovery Testing in a Limestone/Clastic Aquifer
Author(s) -
Mirecki June E.,
Campbell Bruce G.,
Conlon Kevin J.,
Petkewich Matthew D.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02809.x
Subject(s) - aquifer , dissolution , water quality , geology , carbonate , groundwater , sulfate , permeability (electromagnetism) , environmental science , hydrology (agriculture) , chemistry , geotechnical engineering , ecology , organic chemistry , biology , biochemistry , membrane
Aquifer storage recovery (ASR) was tested in the Santee Limestone/Black Mingo Aquifer near Charleston, South Carolina, to assess the feasibility for subsurface storage of treated drinking water. Water quality data obtained during two representative ASR tests were interpreted to show three things: (1) recovery efficiency of ASR in this geological setting; (2) possible changes in physical characteristics of the aquifer during ASR testing; and (3) water quality changes and potability of recovered water during short (one‐ and six‐day) storage durations in the predominantly carbonate aquifer. Recovery efficiency for both ASR tests reported here was 54%. Successive ASR tests increased aquifer permeability of the Santee Limestone/Black Mingo Aquifer. It is likely that aquifer permeability increased during short storage periods due to dissolution of carbonate minerals and amorphous silica in aquifer material by treated drinking water. Dissolution resulted in an estimated 0.3% increase in pore volume of the permeable zones. Ground water composition generally evolved from a sodium‐calcium bicarbonate water to a sodium chloride water during storage and recovery. After short duration, stored water can exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level (MCL) for chloride (250 mg/L). However, sulfate, fluoride, and tri‐halomethane concentrations remained below MCLs during storage and recovery.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here