CALL FOR PROPOSALS:

ORGANIZERS

  • Harvey Thorleifson, Chair
    Minnesota Geological Survey
  • Carrie Jennings, Vice Chair
    Minnesota Geological Survey
  • David Bush, Technical Program Chair
    University of West Georgia
  • Jim Miller, Field Trip Chair
    University of Minnesota Duluth
  • Curtis M. Hudak, Sponsorship Chair
    Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC

 

Paper No. 8
Presentation Time: 4:00 PM

THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONTROLS ON GROUNDWATER ARSENIC: CAN SURFACE MORPHOLOGY ALWAYS HELP IN DETERMINING VULNERABILITY TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ARSENIC?


WEINMAN, Beth, University of Minnesota, Soil, Water, and Climate, 439 Bourlag Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St Paul, MN 55108, GOODBRED Jr, Steven, Earth and Environmental Science, Vanderbilt University, PMB 351805, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235-1805, ZHENG, Yan, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, C.U.N.Y, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, NY 11365, VAN GEEN, A., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ, 61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000, Palisades, NY 10964 and SINGHVI, Ashok, Planetary and Geosciences Division, Physical Research Lab, Ahmedabad, 380 009, India, bweinman@umn.edu

In recent years, one of the more helpful tools used in identifying Asian areas prone to natural groundwater arsenic contamination has been geomorphology. On both country (regional) and district-wide (local) scales, maps of surface geology (i.e., Ahmed et al., 2004; Yu et al., 2003), satellite imagery, and topography (i.e., Papacostas et al., 2008; Buschmann et al., 2007; Mukhopadyay et al., 2006) have shown correlations between geomorphic features and shallow groundwater arsenic (i.e., areas with recently abandoned channels and uplifted Pleistocene surfaces having more or less shallow groundwater arsenic, respectively). While this makes topography and geographic information particularly valuable in delineating areas susceptible to arsenic, there are still many areas where laterally thick, recent fluvio-deltaic mud sequences obscure geomorphic features, leaving little clue as to the type of arsenic vulnerability in the groundwater just beneath it. Examples of areas where surface signatures of abandoned channels and/or Pleistocene units are either buried or erased include modern floodplains within the Nepalese Terai and the Red River delta. Optical luminescence ages of aquifers in two study sites in Parasi, Nepal and Van Phuc, Vietnam show that active fluvial scouring (laterally ~10m/yr) and rapid sedimentation (0.01-1cm/yr) leave behind mud-filled surfaces with little-to-no trace of the significant aquifer differences lying only meters beneath them (i.e., thousands of years differences in aquifer depositional ages and redox-properties such as sediment reflectance and organic matter). This is important because it means that the source(s) and release mechanism(s) of naturally occurring arsenic into Asia’s groundwater is not necessarily a surface-driven (or top-down) process, and that areas prone to shallow groundwater arsenic cannot always be distinguished via remote mapping. Inasmuch, we focus here on areas where Asian shallow groundwater heterogeneity is not predictable by surface features alone, promoting the need for resolving aquifer facies at a scale comparable to the length over which arsenic often varies (10-100m)--which is necessary for better understanding, modeling, and predicting how Asia’s aquifers will respond to their increased use and other development activity.
Meeting Home page GSA Home Page