Next Article in Journal
On Complex Network Construction of Rain Gauge Stations Considering Nonlinearity of Observed Daily Rainfall Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Hydrochemical Characteristics and Temporal Variations of Geothermal Water Quality in Tangtou, Shandong, China
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of System Responses in Intensively Irrigated Stream–Aquifer Systems Using SWAT-MODFLOW
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rooting Depth and Extreme Precipitation Regulate Groundwater Recharge in the Thick Unsaturated Zone: A Case Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and the Suitability of Groundwater in the Alluvial-Diluvial Plain of Southwest Shandong Province, China

1
College of Earth Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266590, China
2
Shandong Geological Environmental Monitoring Station, Jinan 250014, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(8), 1577; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081577
Submission received: 15 July 2019 / Revised: 25 July 2019 / Accepted: 27 July 2019 / Published: 30 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Hydrogeology: Trend, Model, Methodology and Concepts)

Abstract

:
The alluvial-diluvial plain of southwest Shandong Province is an important agricultural economic zone and energy base in Shandong Province. Groundwater plays an extremely significant role in the development of the regional social economy. In this study, 50 sets of water samples, collected from 25 wells during October 2016 and June 2017, were utilized to determine the hydrogeochemistry and the suitability of groundwater in the alluvial-diluvial plain of southwest Shandong Province for different applications, such as drinking and irrigation. Most of the water samples could be classified as hard-fresh water or hard-brackish water, and the dominant water types were HCO3-Na and mixed types. Water-rock interactions and evaporation were the dominant controlling factors in the formation of the hydrochemical components in the groundwater. Dissolutions of silicate, calcite, dolomite, and gypsum are the major reactions contributing and defining the groundwater chemistry in this plain. Moreover, cation exchange is a non-negligible hydrogeochemical process in this plain. Calculated saturation index (SI) values indicate that aragonite, calcite and dolomite are saturated, while the SI values for gypsum and halite are unsaturated. Based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, the groundwater quality ranges from excellent to very poor. More than 50% of all groundwater samples from 2016 are categorized as poor or very poor, suggesting that the water from these wells is not suitable for drinking. According to the sodium adsorption ratio and percentage sodium, most of the samples are suitable for agricultural irrigation. Overall, the quality of the groundwater in 2017 was found to be better than in 2016.

1. Introduction

Groundwater is a significant strategic resource used to support social and economic development [1,2]. Groundwater resources and water quality are restrictive factors for development in many areas of the world [1,2]. In recent years, sustained population growth has caused continuous societal development and the excessive exploitation of groundwater resources [3]. The groundwater environment around the world has been affected and polluted to varying degrees [3]. Municipal sewage and wastewater discharged by industrial and mining enterprises infiltrate into the groundwater system and poses a serious threat to the quality of groundwater [2,4,5]. The analysis of groundwater chemistry and the evaluation of groundwater quality can reveal potential factors which control the chemical composition of groundwater and understand the sources of groundwater pollution [6]. These factors can lead to profound steps toward the protection and sustainable utilization of groundwater resources [6]. Therefore, in order to ensure access to clean water for the growing population, one needs to protect and utilize water resources carefully and sensibly. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to understand the origins and hydrochemistry of water. These two, seemingly simple aspects are at the center of many worldwide principal, social, and environmental programs [7,8].
Evaluation of the hydrogeochemical characteristics and the suitability of groundwater for different uses has been extensively researched around the world [7,8,9,10,11,12]. These studies indicate that the hydrochemical composition and water quality of groundwater are influenced by natural factors (such as water-rock interactions, climate change, geological conditions, etc.) and anthropogenic activities such as industrial, agricultural, and domestic sewage discharge [7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, anthropogenic sources have become a dominant factor affecting the groundwater environment [13,14]. In previous studies, hydrochemical methods, such as Gibbs diagrams, Piper trilinear graphs, saturation index (SI), and ion ratio graphs, have commonly been used to determine which hydrogeochemical processes are occurring and the controlling factors in these processes [15,16,17,18]. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and percentage sodium (% Na) are popular methods used to determine the quality of groundwater and evaluating it for drinking and/or irrigation uses [19,20].
The alluvial-diluvial plain in southwestern Shandong Province is an important agricultural economic zone and energy base in Shandong Province. The city of Heze in Shandong Province is a resource-water quality-engineering pattern water shortage city. In 2014, water resources in Heze per capita were only 167 m3, which was 8% of the national per capita value, and 54% of other cities in Shandong Province [21]. Groundwater is not only a crucial source of drinking water, but also an important source for agricultural irrigation and industrial water. However, research on groundwater hydrochemistry and water quality was relatively limited. In order to provide some basis for the rational development, scientific management, and protection of groundwater resources, the objectives of this study focus on two aspects: (1) investigating the hydrogeochemical characteristics and dominant water-rock processes of groundwater and (2) the evaluation of the quality of groundwater and its suitability for domestic and/or irrigation uses. These studies provide useful information for the rational development and protection of groundwater resources in the region, and also provide impetus for sustained and rapid development of the social economy.

2. Study Area

Shandong is one of the most developed provinces in China. The study area is situated in the southwest of Shandong Province and lies between the latitudes 114°48′ N to 116°24′ N and longitudes 34°52′ E to 35°52′ E (Figure 1). The study area has a warm, temperate, semi-humid monsoon continental climate, with distinct seasons and abundant sunshine. Annual average precipitation is 672.78 mm (1951–2012) and the annual average temperature is 13.6 °C. The precipitation varies greatly between years, with the alternation of high flow years and low flow years. Due to the geographical location, atmospheric circulation, and other factors, the regional distribution of precipitation is uneven. The amount of precipitation is generally greater in the south than in the north, and greater in the east than in the west. Heze City is situated in the Huaihe River basin, which belongs to the alluvial-diluvial plain of the Yellow River. All rivers collect and discharge to the Beijing-Hangzhou Canal and Nansi Lake. The principal rivers are Zhuzhaoxin River, Wanfu River and Dongyu River. The terrain of the study area gradually decreased in elevation from the southwest to the northeast. Except for a few low hills in the southeastern part of Juye County, the rest of the study area is located in the Yellow River flood plain with undulating topography.
The alluvial-diluvial plain in southwestern Shandong Province is covered by Quaternary and Neogene strata. According to the existing revealed stratigraphic data, the old to new strata are Paleozoic Ordovician, Carboniferous and Permian, Cenozoic Paleogene, Neogene and Quaternary (Table 1). Aquifer formations can be classified into the following five types from top to bottom: (1) Pore water-bearing rock group of loose rock type (shallow fresh water). It is mainly composed of the Quaternary alluvium of the Yellow River. The lithology is silt, silty clay, clay, and silty sand, with some medium and fine sand. The depth of the aquifer floor is generally around 20–40 m. Affected by the alluvial diversion of the Yellow River, the distribution of sand is multi-layered, and the layers are separated by clay and silt, so the lower aquifer has micro-pressure bearing properties. The discontinuity of the horizontal distribution of each clay layer connects the upper and lower aquifers in different degrees. The movement characteristics and dynamic changes of groundwater are fairly consistent with the upper phreatic water, which can be regarded as a unified aquifer formation. Shallow groundwater is mainly infiltrated by atmospheric precipitation, accounting for 85% of the total water recharging the aquifers. In addition, river side seepage and farmland irrigation leakage are also important sources of water to recharge the aquifers. Shallow groundwater runoff conditions are affected by topography, geomorphology, and recharge sources. The area is the alluvial plain in the lower reaches of the Yellow River with flat terrain and the total flow of shallow groundwater from west to east. There are two main discharge modes of shallow groundwater: evaporation and exploitation. Shallow groundwater is one of the main sources of water for industrial, agricultural production, and living in the region, among which agricultural exploitation is the largest. (2) Middle porous aquifer rock group of loose rock type (medium salt water). These aquifers are situated under the shallow porous aquifer, with a floor depth of approximately 270 m. The lithology is silty clay, clay, medium-fine sand, silty sand, and partly contains medium-coarse sand. (3) Deep porous aquifer rock group of loose rock type (deep fresh water). These aquifers are located under the middle porous aquifer and the depth of the floor is greater than 500 m. The lithology is clay, silty clay, silt, and fine sand. The local distribution is medium-coarse sand with a thickness of 20–30 m. (4) Fractured aquifer formation of clastic rocks with carbonate rocks. These fractured aquifers are concealed under the loose beds of Quaternary and Neogene strata, with a roof depth of about 1000 m, and consists mainly of Permian and Carboniferous sandstone, mudstones with limestone, and coal seams. (5) Fractured karst aquifer group of carbonate rocks. These fractured aquifers are buried under loose rock strata or coal measures strata and the lithology is mainly Ordovician limestone and dolomitic limestone.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sampling and Analysis

In this study, a total of 50 water samples were collected from wells during October 2016 and June 2017. The depth of most sampling wells was less than 30 m. In addition, the sampling locations in 2017 were the same as in 2016. Dry and clean polyethylene plastic bottles were used for sampling. Before collecting, all sampling bottles were cleaned 3–5 times with sample water. After sampling, all sample bottles were filled up with sample water to avoid exchange with CO2 in air bubbles and water vapor and sealed with parafilm to avoid leakage. All samples were refrigerated and sent to the laboratory as soon as possible for further water quality analysis. pH values were determined by an acidity meter (PHS-3C) in the laboratory. Total dissolved solids (TDS) were analyzed by oven drying method. Major ions (Mg2+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, SO42−, NO3, and Cl) were determined by ion chromatography (ISC-600). Total hardness (TH) was determined by titration with ethylene diamine tetracetic acid (EDTA) (0.01 mol/L) and HCO3 was measured by titration using 0.05 M HCl. In this study, the charge balance of most water samples was within 5%.

3.2. Water Quality Assessment

In this paper, the quality of groundwater for drinking uses was determined by using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) [19]. The basic idea of the FCE is: (1) to establish the membership set of the comprehensive evaluation of groundwater quality (2) to determine the evaluation set, (3) to establish the membership function. The fuzzy membership function was computed for different water quality levels, using Equations (1)–(3) below.
The membership function of water quality of Level 1, where j = 1:
Y i j = { 1 X i S i j X i S i ( j + 1 ) S i j S i ( j + 1 ) S i j < X i < S i ( j + 1 ) 0 X i S i ( j + 1 )
The membership function of water quality from Level 2 to (m − 1), where j = 2, 3,···(m − 1):
Y i j = { 1 X i S i ( j 1 ) X i S i ( j 1 ) S i j S i ( j 1 ) S i ( j 1 ) < X i < S i j X i S i ( j + 1 ) S i j S i ( j + 1 ) S i j < X i < S i ( j + 1 )
The membership function of water quality of Level m, where j = m:
Y i j = { 1 X i S i j X i S i ( j 1 ) S i j S i ( j 1 ) S i ( j 1 ) < X i < S i j 0 X i S i ( j 1 )
where X i is the actual monitoring value of the ith evaluation factor and S i j is the standard limit value of ith grade water quality of the jth factor.
The membership degree of groundwater quality of each factor can form a fuzzy matrix R:
R = [ Y 11 Y 12 Y 21 Y 22 Y 1 j Y 2 j Y i 1 Y i 2 Y i j ]
The normalized weight of each factor can be expressed as:
W i = C i S i i = 1 n C i S i
where, W i indicates the normalized weight of parameter i, and S i is the mean of the standard value of each class.
Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is based on matrix D, which can be expressed as:
D = W × R
where, W includes the weight of each factor.
Groundwater in the alluvial-diluvial plain of southwest Shandong Province is not only used for domestic and drinking applications, but also for agricultural irrigation. Therefore, the quality of groundwater for irrigation was also determined by calculating the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and percentage sodium (% Na) (Table 2).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Major Ion Chemistry

Statistical analysis of the major ions (Mg2+, Na+, K+, Ca2+, SO42−, NO3, and Cl) is the basis of understanding the hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater [24]. Statistical descriptions of the major ions found in groundwater are shown in Table 3. Overall, the mean concentrations of the major ions in groundwater samples from 2016 were higher than in 2017, except for SO42− and K+.
Na+ is the dominant cation present in the collected water samples. The Na+ concentration ranged from 88.65 to 641.80 mg/L in 2016 and from 77.71 to 738.19 mg/L and 2017, with a mean of 287.06 and 244.58 mg/L, respectively. The dissolutions of halite and silicate can increase the concentration of Na+ in the samples. In addition, Na+ may also come from cation exchange [25]. The average concentrations of K+ were 4.53 and 3.26 mg/L in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The maximum K+ concentration (30.09 mg/L) was observed in a sample from location HZ06 in 2017. The dissolution of carbonates is an important origin of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in the samples. The concentration of Ca2+ in 2016 was between 4.28 mg/L and 256.83 mg/L and between 11.57 mg/L and 232.56 mg/L for 2017. Mg2+ ranged from 2.60 to 245.78 mg/L in 2016 and from 5.61 to 181.83 mg/L in 2017. The mean concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ are 80.37 mg/L, 83.92 mg/L, 73.55 mg/L and 77.83 mg/L in 2016 and 2017. The mean concentration of cations in the groundwater samples was Na+ > Mg2+ > Ca2+ > K+ for both 2016 and 2017.
HCO3 is the dominant anion in groundwater samples, with average concentrations in the order of HCO3 > Cl > SO42− > NO3 in 2016 and HCO3 > SO42− > Cl > NO3 in 2017. HCO3 ranges from 302.33–831.40 mg/L in 2016 and 295.33–837.68 mg/L in 2017, with a mean of 595.17 and 513.13 mg/L, respectively. The average concentrations of Cl and SO42− are 269.58 and 223.96 in 2016, and are 194.79 and 238.54 mg/L in 2017, respectively. Anthropogenic inputs, such as industrial and agricultural activities are a major source of NO3 in groundwater. The concentration of NO3 in the study area found to vary from 0 to 189.64 mg/L in 2016 and from 0 to 28.74 mg/L in 2017. HZ10 had the highest NO3 concentration (189.64 mg/L) in 2016, while every other sample had lower than 30 mg/L.
As shown in Table 3, the pH values of groundwater samples ranged from 7.28 to 8.66 in 2016, with a mean of 7.88, while the pH values were between 7.51 and 8.79 in 2017, with an average of 8.41. TDS and TH are two important indices in assessing water quality [7,9]. The concentrations of TDS and TH vary from 536.00 to 2687.00 mg/L, 24.67 to 1521.34 mg/L in 2016, and range from 552.00 to 2812.00 mg/L and 63.59 to 1329.54 mg/L in 2017, respectively. Most of water samples (Figure 2) were found belong to hard-fresh water (36%) and hard-brackish water (50%).

4.2. Water Types

A Piper diagram is a simple and widely used method for determining the type of groundwater [7,25]. In this study, a Piper diagram was obtained by using the Aq·QA software. As shown in Figure 3, a Piper triangle consists of a diamond and two triangles, in which the diamond is divided into nine regions. The diamond shows the general hydrochemical characteristics of the water sample, while the triangle shows the relative content of each ion. Most of water samples belong to Zones 5, 7, and 9 in the diamond portion. For cations, most of water samples belong to Zones B and D (left lower triangle portion). With respect to anions, most water samples from 2016 and 2017 are in Zones B and E (right lower triangle portion). This indicates that the dominant water types are HCO3-Na and mixed types. The HCO3-Na water type is likely due to cation exchange and/or interaction with silicates [26,27]. In addition, 22% and 16% of the water samples from 2016 and 2017 are located in Zones 5 and 7, indicating that these samples are HCO3-Ca and Cl-Na type water, respectively.

4.3. Processes Influencing Groundwater Chemistry

In general, precipitation, evaporation, and rock weathering are the three major natural mechanisms determining the water chemistry in the study area. Gibbs [28] built a simple and effective diagram comparing the concentration of TDS versus the weight ratios of Na+/(Na+ + Ca2+) or TDS versus the weight ratios of Cl/(Cl + HCO3) to identify the influencing factors of the groundwater hydrochemistry. Figure 4 indicates that most of samples are located in the rock weathering dominant field, which indicates that water-rock interactions are the prevailing natural mechanism in determining the groundwater chemistry. In addition, it can be seen that the groundwater was also influenced by evaporation. The ratios of Na+/(Na+ + Ca2+) varied from 0.31 to 0.98, with an average of 0.76, suggesting a strong cation exchange in the groundwater system [7].
Ion exchange, shown in Equations (7) and (8), is another important hydrogeochemical reaction affecting the composition of groundwater in the study region [15]. A diagram of (Ca2+ + Mg2+ − HCO3 − SO42−) versus (Na+ + K+ − Cl) is a commonly used method to determine the occurrence of cation exchange processes [29]. Most of the water samples are close to the y = −x line (Figure 5a) and only three deviated from this relationship, indicating that cation exchange plays a non-negligible role in controlling the hydrochemistry components of groundwater.
The relationship of Mg2+/Ca2+ versus Mg2+/Na+ can be used to analyze soil salt leaching and evaporation [15,17]. In the early stages of water evaporation, the concentration of Mg2+ does not increase due to soil salt leaching, nor does it decrease due to salt precipitation [15,17]. As shown in Figure 5b, groundwater samples were clearly divided into two zones. Zone 1 water samples had small Mg2+/Na+ ratios and large Mg2+/Ca2+ ratios, indicating that evaporation was an important process controlling the water chemistry of these samples. Samples in Zone 2 had large ratios of both Mg2+/Na+ and Mg2+/Ca2+, suggesting that water-rock interactions and evaporation were the governing processes in the formation of the hydrochemical components in these samples.
Ion exchange: 2NaX + Ca2+ → 2Na+ + CaX2
Reverse Ion exchange: CaX2 + 2Na+ → Ca2+ + 2NaX
Chloro-alkaline indices (CAI) have been widely used to study cation exchange, and they can be expressed using Equations (9) and (10) [30]. When Na+ and K+ in the groundwater system exchange with Mg2+ or Ca2+, CAI values are positive. In this system, Na+ and K+ will decrease in groundwater, representing a direct ion exchange. When CAI indices are negative, it represents the reverse reaction. Most of the CAI values for the groundwater samples in CAI-1 and CAI-2 were both negative (Figure 6), while only one sample (HZ06) was positive. Therefore, Ca2+ and Mg2+ exchange with Na+ and K+ is the predominant cation exchange process. In addition, CAI values of samples HZ01, HZ07, HZ18, and H24 were opposite in 2016 and 2017, indicating that different cation exchanges took place at these points in 2016 and 2017.
CAI - 1 = Cl ( Na + + K + ) Cl
CAI - 2 = Cl ( Na + + K + ) SO 4 2 + HCO 3 + CO 3 2 + NO 3
Ratios of the major ions were used to further determine the sources and control the factors of the main hydrochemical components of the groundwater samples. In theory, the dissolution of halite should produce the same amount of Na+ and Cl (Equation (11)). Therefore, if halite dissolution controls the concentrations of Na+ and Cl in the groundwater system, the ratio of Na+/Cl should be equal to 1. However, most of the water samples are distributed below the y = x line (Figure 7a), which indicates that the dissolution of halite is not the dominant origin of Na+ in groundwater. Na+ may also come from the weathering of silicates or cation exchange [12]. If the dissolution of gypsum is the major origin of Ca2+ and SO42−, the equivalent ratio of Ca2+/SO42− should be equal to 1 (Equation (12)). However, Figure 7b indicates that most water samples, when plotted, are on both sides of the y = x line, suggesting that the dissolution of gypsum is not the major source of Ca2+ and SO42−. The weathering of carbonate is a prevalent hydrogeochemical processes which produces Ca2+, Mg2+, and HCO3 in groundwater [12]. If the dissolution of carbonates is the only source of Ca2+, Mg2+ and HCO3, the ratios of HCO3/Ca2+ and HCO3/(Ca2+ + Mg2+) should be between 1 to 2 (Equations (13) and (14)). As shown in Figure 7c,d, some water samples are located between y = x and y = x/2, indicating that the dissolutions of calcite and dolomite are the major processes influencing water chemistry of these samples.
NaCl → Na+ + Cl
CaSO4·H2O → Ca2+ + SO42− + 2H2O
CaCO3 + H+ → Ca2+ + HCO3
CaMg(CO3)2 + 2H+ → Ca2+ + Mg2+ + 2HCO3
The dissolution of silicate, carbonate, and gypsum can provide Ca2+, Mg2+, SO42− and HCO3 in a groundwater system [10,29]. If the equivalent ratio of (SO42− + HCO3)/(Ca2+ + Mg2+) is equal to 1, the dissolutions of carbonates (calcite and dolomite) and gypsum are the major hydrogeochemical reactions in groundwater system. In addition, the ratio of (SO42− + HCO3)/(Ca2+ + Mg2+) can be used to determine the ion exchange in a system [31]. If the samples are located below the y = x line, cation exchange is a prevalent reaction in groundwater, while the samples above the y = x line suggests the reverse cation exchange as a prevalent process (Equations (7) and (8)). Most of the water samples are located under the y = x line (Figure 7e), indicating that the ion exchange process causes a deficiency of Ca2+ ions, which is an important result of silicate weathering [31]. Most of the samples are located between the silicate and carbonate (Figure 7f), suggesting that the dissolutions of silicate and carbonates are the prevalent hydrogeochemical reactions in the groundwater system in the study area [32].

4.4. Saturation Index (SI)

Mineral equilibrium calculations can indicate the thermodynamic process. SI can help to identify the existence of some of the prevailing thermodynamic processes in a groundwater system [18]. In this studies, SI values of relevant minerals were calculated using the PHREEQC software. As shown in Table 1, the SI values for dolomite, calcite, and aragonite range from 0.11 to 3.08, −0.10 to 1.47, and −0.24 to 1.33, with a mean of 1.86, 0.78, and 0.64, respectively. These values indicate that most of samples are saturated with these minerals (Figure 8). The SI values for anhydrite, gypsum and halite vary from −344 to −1.33, −3.13 to −0.82, and −6.61 to −4.96, respectively, suggesting that the water samples are not saturated with anhydrite, gypsum and halite (Figure 8). This means that the samples have a tendency to dissolve these minerals continuously.

4.5. Water Quality Assessment

Water quality assessment of groundwater is a hot topic around the world, because the quality of water is directly related to human health. In this study, FCE was utilized to define the quality of groundwater for drinking uses. According to the Quality Standard for Groundwater of China [33], TDS, TH, Na+, Cl, SO42−, NO3 and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were used to assess water quality (Table 4).
Results of the quality of the groundwater for drinking purposes in 2016 and 2017 are shown in Table 5, Figure 9 and Figure 10. The FCE results range from I to V, suggesting that the groundwater quality ranges from excellent to very poor. When the groundwater quality is found to be IV (poor) or V (very poor), the groundwater is unsuitable for drinking uses. For 2016, 48% of all samples were suitable for drinking use. The samples were found to be excellent (4%), good (8%), and medium (36%) water. However, more than half of all samples were unsuitable for drinking, with all but one sample evaluated as very poor water and only HZ12 was categorized as poor water. Analysis of the samples from 2017 showed that 24% of the samples were classified as very poor water, and 16% of all samples are categorized as poor water. This means that more than half of the well water can be used as drinking water. The sixty percent of the samples which are of drinking quality are categorized as excellent (8%), good (16%), and medium (36%) water. The percentage of groundwater samples which were classified as very poor in 2017 was less than in 2016. Overall, the groundwater quality in the samples taken in 2017 is better than the samples taken in 2016. This result may be influenced by the fact that groundwater sampling in 2016 took place in October and the test area had just experienced a flood season. Groundwater is recharged by atmospheric precipitation during the rainy season, and surface pollutants may enter the groundwater with the precipitation, which will affect the water quality. However, the sampling in 2017 was performed in June, and the test area had just gone through a dry season, with less precipitation and less surface pollutants entering groundwater. It is possible that this change in season is responsible for the difference in the groundwater quality between 2016 and 2017.
The quality of groundwater appears to be a problem not just in the test area. For example, the quality of shallow groundwater and deep groundwater in Liaocheng City are mainly classified III and IV, respectively which means that the quality of groundwater is poor [34]. The sulfate concentration of groundwater in southern Zaozhuang area greatly exceeds the allowed amount. In addition to the influence of primary geological causes, the main reason for the increase of the sulfate concentration in the groundwater is the seepage of wastewater from industrial and mining enterprises [35]. Groundwater in Xuzhou area is not suitable for drinking, but it is suitable for domestic water and agricultural water uses [1].
Groundwater quality can also determine the suitability for irrigation, because high levels of ions in water can affect plant growth [18]. In order to determine the quality of the groundwater for agricultural irrigation purposes, SAR and % Na were calculated and spatial maps of irrigation water quality were obtained by using universal kriging method.
SAR values for the 25 groundwater samples in 2016 ranged from 1.75 to 24.81, with a mean of 7.69. Seventy six percent of these groundwater samples were found to be excellent water for irrigation, 12% of the samples belonged to good water, and three samples (12%) categorized as doubtful water (Figure 11a). The groundwater samples from 2017 had 84% of samples classified as excellent water and 16% of the samples belonging to good water. The spatial maps based on SAR indicated that only a small region of the study area was presented as a doubtful irrigation water zone (Figure 11b). Overall, the groundwater quality is suitable for agricultural irrigation.
Irrigation water can be divided into five categories according to % Na. As shown in Table 5, % Na values of groundwater samples for 2016 and 2017 range from 24.87 to 96.13 and 19.99 to 88.21, and the mean values of % Na are 56.38 and 51.17, respectively. Most of the groundwater samples from 2016 and 2017 are good or permissible water, while 16% of all groundwater samples from 2016 belong to doubtful water and 12% of all samples from 2017 are classified as doubtful water. Four groundwater samples (HZ03, HZ04, HZ11, and HZ14) from 2016 were categorized as unsuitable water for agriculture irrigation uses, and three samples (HZ03, HZ11 and HZ14) from 2017 were also categorized as unsuitable water (Figure 11c,d).
The quality of groundwater is related to the safety of drinking water and the economic development of society. Under the accelerating process of urbanization and industrialization, dynamic monitoring of groundwater quality should be strengthened, pollution sources should be controlled, resources should be exploited reasonably, and resources should be utilized and protected to boost regional economic development.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater for the alluvial-diluvial plain of southwest Shandong Province, and the groundwater’s quality for drinking and irrigation uses were determined. The concentrations of the major cations in the groundwater are Na+ > Mg2+ > Ca2+ > K+, while with respect to anions, the order is HCO3 > Cl > SO42− > NO3 in 2016 and HCO3 > SO42− > Cl > NO3 in 2017. Mean concentrations of the major ions in groundwater samples from 2016 are higher than in samples from 2017, except SO42− and K+. Most of the water samples belong to hard-fresh water and hard-brackish water and the dominant water types are HCO3-Na and mixed types. Rock weathering and evaporation are the predominant processes in the formation of hydrochemical components. Dissolutions of silicate, calcite, dolomite, and gypsum are the dominant processes contributing to and defining the groundwater chemistry. In addition, cation exchange (Ca2+ and Mg2+ exchange with Na+ and K+) is also a non-negligible hydrogeochemical process. Based on FCE, the groundwater quality ranged from excellent to very poor. More than 50% of all groundwater samples from 2016 are categorized as poor or very poor water, indicating that these waters are unsuitable for drinking. According to SAR and % Na, most of samples are suitable for the purpose of irrigation. Overall, the groundwater quality of the samples from 2017 is better than the samples taken in 2016. Under the accelerating process of urbanization and industrialization, it is necessary to strengthen the dynamic monitoring of groundwater quality and control groundwater pollution sources so as to realize the rational development, utilization and protection of groundwater resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.G. and J.F.; Methodology, Z.G., J.L. and J.F.; Formal Analysis, Z.G., J.L., J.L. and M.W.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Z.G., J.L., J.F. and M.W.; Writing-Review & Editing, Z.G., J.L. and J.F.; Resources, Z.G. and G.W.; Project Administration, Z.G. and G.W.; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Shandong Geological Environmental Monitoring Station. The authors sincerely thank the researchers and staff members for their help and thank editors and reviewers for reviewing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yang, J.; Yu, Z.B.; Yi, P.; Aldahan, A. Assessment of groundwater quality and 222Rn distribution in the Xuzhou region, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Liu, J.T.; Gao, Z.J.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.Z.; Ma, Y.Y.; Shi, M.J.; Zhang, H.Y. Study on the dynamic characteristics of groundwater in the valley plain of Lhasa City. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qin, R.; Wu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Xie, D.; Zhang, C. Assessing the impact of natural and anthropogenic activities on groundwater quality in coastal alluvial aquifers of the lower Liaohe River Plain, NE China. Appl. Geochem. 2013, 31, 142–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Foster, S.; Chilton, J.; Nijsten, G.J.; Richts, A. Groundwater—A global focus on the ‘local resource’. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. An, Y.K.; Lu, W.X. Assessment of groundwater quality and groundwater vulnerability in the northern Ordos Cretaceous Basin, China. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kumar, P.J.S.; James, E.J. Geostatistical and geochemical model-assisted hydrogeochemical pattern recognition along the groundwater flow paths in Coimbatore district, South India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, C.; Wu, X.; Qian, C.; Zhu, G. Hydrogeochemistry and groundwater quality assessment of high fluoride levels in the Yanchi endorheic region, northwest China. Appl. Geochem. 2018, 98, 404–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abboud, I.A. Geochemistry and quality of groundwater of the Yarmouk basin aquifer, north Jordan. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 1405–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, P.Y.; Wu, J.H.; Qian, H. Hydrogeochemistry and Quality Assessment of Shallow Groundwater in the Southern Part of the Yellow River Alluvial Plain (Zhongwei Section), Northwest China. Earth Sci. Res. J. 2014, 18, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, Q.C.; Li, Z.J.; Ma, H.Y.; Wang, L.C.; Martín, J.D. Identification of the hydrogeochemical processes and assessment of groundwater quality using classic integrated geochemical methods in the Southeastern part of Ordos basin, China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 218, 879–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zaki, S.R.; Redwan, M.; Masoud, A.M.; Moneim, A.A.A. Chemical characteristics and assessment of groundwater quality in Halayieb area, southeastern part of the Eastern Desert, Egypt. Geosci. J. 2018, 23, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, P.Y.; Wu, J.H.; Qian, H. Hydrochemical appraisal of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes and the major influencing factors: A case study in and around Hua County, China. Arab. J. Geosci. 2016, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jain, C.K.; Vaid, U. Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes using hydrochemical studies in Nalbari district of Assam, India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tiwari, A.K.; Ghione, R.; Maio, M.D.; Lavy, M. Evaluation of hydrogeochemical processes and groundwater quality for suitability of drinking and irrigation purposes: A case study in the Aosta Valley region, Italy. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, T.; Cai, W.T.; Li, Y.Z.; Geng, T.T.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Lv, Y.G.; Zhao, M.; Liu, J.W. Ion chemistry of groundwater and the possible controls within Lhasa River Basin, SW Tibetan Plateau. Arab. J. Geosc. 2018, 11, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, J.T.; Gao, Z.J.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.Z.; Ma, Y.Y.; Shi, M.J.; Zhang, H.; Ma, Y. Hydrochemical characteristics and possible controls in the groundwater of the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiao, J.; Jin, Z.D.; Wang, J.; Zhang, F. Hydrochemical characteristics, controlling factors and solute sources of groundwater within the Tarim River Basin in the extreme arid region, NW Tibetan Plateau. Quatern. Int. 2015, 380, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nematollahi, M.J.; Ebrahimi, P.; Razmara, M.; Ghasemi, A. Hydrogeochemical investigations and groundwater quality assessment of Torbat-Zaveh plain, Khorasan Razavi, Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, B.; Song, X.; Zhang, Y.; Han, D.; Tang, C.; Yu, Y.; Ma, Y. Hydrochemical characteristics and water quality assessment of surface water and groundwater in Songnen plain, Northeast China. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2737–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Q.; Wang, S.; Yousaf, M.; Wang, S.; Nan, Z.; Ma, J.; Wang, D.; Zang, F. Hydrochemical characteristics and water quality assessment of surface water in the northeast Tibetan plateau of China. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2017, 5, 1757–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, J.Y.; Mao, L.; Zhang, T.; Wang, Z.S. The development and utilization of water resources and security assurance planning study in Heze City. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017, 27, 200–203. [Google Scholar]
  22. Richards, L. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In United States Salinity Laboratory; (vol.60, Agriculture Handbook); US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954; p. 160. [Google Scholar]
  23. Wilcox, L.V. The quality of water for irrigation use. US Dep. Agric. Technol. Bull. 1948, 40, 962. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhou, P.P.; Wang, Z.M.; Zhang, J.Y.; Yang, Z.X.; Li, X.L. Study on the hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater along the Taklimakan Desert Highway. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, P.Y.; Zhang, Y.T.; Yang, N.; Jing, L.J.; Yu, P.Y. Major Ion Chemistry and Quality Assessment of Groundwater in and Around a Mountainous Tourist Town of China. Expos. Health 2016, 8, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Venturelli, G.; Boschetti, T.; Duchi, V. Na-carbonate waters of extreme composition: Possible origin and evolution. Geochem. J. 2003, 37, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Toran, L.E.; Saunders, J.A. Modeling alternative paths of chemical evolution of Na-HCO3-type groundwater near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Hydrogeol. J. 1999, 7, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gibbs, R.J. Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 1970, 170, 870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xiao, J.; Jin, Z.D.; Zhang, F.; Wang, J. Solute geochemistry and its sources of the groundwaters in the Qinghai Lake catchment, NW China. J. Asian. Earth Sci. 2012, 52, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Schoeller, H. Qualitative evaluation of groundwater resources. In Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigation and Development; Water Research Series; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1965; pp. 54–83. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, Y.; Xu, M.; Li, X.; Qi, J.; Zhang, Q.; Guo, J.; Yu, L.; Zhao, R. Hydrochemical characteristics and multivariate statistical analysis of natural water system: A case study in Kangding County, Southwestern China. Water 2018, 10, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gaillardet, J.; Dupré, B.; Louvat, P.; Allegre, C.J. Global silicate weathering and CO2 consumption rates deduced from the chemistry of large rivers. Cheml. Geol. 1999, 159, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Standard for Groundwater Quality of China; Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2017.
  34. Li, Y.; Ji, L.J.; Dou, B.C.; Li, F.R.; Sun, J.F. Research on characteristics of groundwater quality and slection of assessment method in Liaocheng. J. Water Resour. Water Eng. 2015, 26, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ma, Y.H.; Su, C.L.; Liu, W.J.; Zhu, Y.P.; Li, J.X. Identification of sulfate sources in the groundwater system of Zaozhuang: Evidences from isotopic and hydrochemical characteristics. Environ. Sci. 2016, 37, 4690–4699. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Location of the sampling sites and the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the sampling sites and the study area.
Water 11 01577 g001
Figure 2. Plot of total dissolved solids (TDS) versus total hardness (TH) of groundwater.
Figure 2. Plot of total dissolved solids (TDS) versus total hardness (TH) of groundwater.
Water 11 01577 g002
Figure 3. Piper diagram of 50 groundwater samples.
Figure 3. Piper diagram of 50 groundwater samples.
Water 11 01577 g003
Figure 4. Gibbs diagram for groundwater samples.
Figure 4. Gibbs diagram for groundwater samples.
Water 11 01577 g004
Figure 5. Plots showing (a) (Ca2+ + Mg2+ − HCO3- − SO42−) versus (Na+ + K+ − Cl) and (b) Mg2+/Ca2+ versus Mg2+/Na+.
Figure 5. Plots showing (a) (Ca2+ + Mg2+ − HCO3- − SO42−) versus (Na+ + K+ − Cl) and (b) Mg2+/Ca2+ versus Mg2+/Na+.
Water 11 01577 g005
Figure 6. Bar diagram of chloro-alkaline indices for 2016 and 2017.
Figure 6. Bar diagram of chloro-alkaline indices for 2016 and 2017.
Water 11 01577 g006
Figure 7. Plots showing (a) Na+ versus Cl, (b) SO42− versus Ca2+, (c) HCO3 versus Ca2+, (d) HCO3 versus Ca2+ + Mg2+, (e) (SO42− + HCO3-) versus (Ca2+ + Mg2+), (f) (HCO3/Na+) versus (Ca2+/Na+).
Figure 7. Plots showing (a) Na+ versus Cl, (b) SO42− versus Ca2+, (c) HCO3 versus Ca2+, (d) HCO3 versus Ca2+ + Mg2+, (e) (SO42− + HCO3-) versus (Ca2+ + Mg2+), (f) (HCO3/Na+) versus (Ca2+/Na+).
Water 11 01577 g007
Figure 8. Saturation index (SI) for relevant minerals.
Figure 8. Saturation index (SI) for relevant minerals.
Water 11 01577 g008
Figure 9. Results of groundwater quality for drinking uses in 2016.
Figure 9. Results of groundwater quality for drinking uses in 2016.
Water 11 01577 g009
Figure 10. Results of groundwater quality for drinking uses in 2017.
Figure 10. Results of groundwater quality for drinking uses in 2017.
Water 11 01577 g010
Figure 11. Distributed map of SAR and % Na: (a) SAR in 2016, (b) SAR in 2017, (c) % Na in 2016 and (d) % Na in2017.
Figure 11. Distributed map of SAR and % Na: (a) SAR in 2016, (b) SAR in 2017, (c) % Na in 2016 and (d) % Na in2017.
Water 11 01577 g011
Table 1. Summary table of stratigraphic division.
Table 1. Summary table of stratigraphic division.
Chronostratigraphic UnitLithostratigraphic UnitCodeThickness
(m)
ErathemSystemGroupFormation
CenozoicQuaternary Huanghe FormationQHh15–30
Pingyuan FormationQP160–210
NeogeneHuanghua GroupMinghuazhen FormationNhM500–700
Guantao FormationNhG170–200
PaleogeneGuanzhuang GroupDawenkou FormationEgD0–260
PalaeozoicPermian Shihezi Formation0–200
Yuemeigou GroupShanxi FormationPyŜ0–160
CarboniferousTaiyuan FormationC-PyT0–180
Bnexi FormationCyB0–20
Ordovician Majiagou FormationOM800
Table 2. Equations used for calculating sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and % Na.
Table 2. Equations used for calculating sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and % Na.
EquationEquationRangeWater classReference
1 SAR = N a + C a 2 + + M g 2 + 2 <10Excellent[22]
10–18Good
18–26Doubtful
>26Unsuitable (S4)
2 % Na = N a + + K + C a 2 + + M g 2 + + N a + + K + × 100 <20Excellent[23]
20–40Good
40–60Permissible
60–80Doubtful
>80Unsuitable
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the major parameters of groundwater.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the major parameters of groundwater.
Parameters20162017
MaxMinMeanSDMaxMinMeanSD
pH 8.667.287.880.378.797.518.410.35
TH (mg/L)1521.3424.67546.16372.251329.5463.59503.77294.31
TDS (mg/L)2687.00536.001191.12542.682812.00552.001174.24610.56
Na+ (mg/L)641.8088.65287.06142.33738.1977.71244.58159.20
K+ (mg/L)6.550.351.531.1830.090.213.267.10
Ca2+ (mg/L)256.834.2880.3766.54232.6511.5773.5554.72
Mg2+ (mg/L)245.782.6083.9257.79181.835.6177.8345.85
HCO3 (mg/L)831.40302.33595.17134.31837.68295.33513.13128.39
Cl (mg/L)794.8642.97269.58239.63668.5013.86194.79174.32
SO42− (mg/L)495.8637.62223.96154.54813.4921.18238.54207.42
NO3 (mg/L)189.6408.9237.7728.7402.36 5.87
T (°C)20.115.413.13.5419.312.615.23.16
SI (Anhydrite)−1.13−3.44−2.090.65−1.14−2.85−2.020.49
SI (Aragonite)1.33−0.240.640.361.490.511.090.29
SI (Calcite)1.47−0.100.780.361.630.651.240.29
SI (Dolomite)3.080.111.860.773.531.662.660.58
SI (Gypsum)−0.82−3.13−1.780.65−0.83−2.54−1.720.49
SI (Halite)−4.96−6.61−5.960.48−5.07−7.00−6.170.50
Table 4. Water quality standards of groundwater (Unit: mg/L; COD: chemical oxygen demand).
Table 4. Water quality standards of groundwater (Unit: mg/L; COD: chemical oxygen demand).
ClassTDSTHNO3SO42−ClNa+CODSuitability
I300≤150≤8.86≤50≤50≤100≤1≤Excellent
II500≤300≤22.14≤150≤150≤150≤2≤Good
III1000≤450≤88.57≤250≤250≤200≤3≤Medium
IV2000≤650≤132.86≤350≤350≤400≤10≤Poor
V>2000>650>132.86>350>350>400>10Very poor
Table 5. Assessment results of the Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and % Na value in 2016 and 2017.
Table 5. Assessment results of the Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and % Na value in 2016 and 2017.
20162017
FCEWater QualitySARWater QualityNa%Water QualityFCEWater QualitySARWater QualityNa%Water Quality
HZ01IIIMedium4.20Excellent44.62PermissibleVVery Poor2.94Excellent28.70Good
HZ02VPoor4.67Excellent42.02PermissibleIVPoor5.87Excellent54.66Permissible
HZ03IIIMedium19.49Doubtful94.22UnsuitableIIIMedium11.92Good88.21Unsuitable
HZ04IIIMedium21.98Doubtful95.67UnsuitableVVery Poor5.92Excellent49.95Permissible
HZ05IIIMedium3.74Excellent48.67PermissibleIExcellent1.86Excellent29.67Good
HZ06VVery Poor2.65Excellent25.39GoodVVery Poor2.35Excellent31.12Good
HZ07VVery Poor1.75Excellent28.53GoodIIIMedium1.55Excellent26.34Good
HZ08VVery Poor8.54Excellent56.71PermissibleVVery Poor13.78Good74.76Doubtful
HZ09IIIMedium4.44Excellent49.93PermissibleIIIMedium3.91Excellent48.95Permissible
HZ10VVery Poor5.86Excellent52.02PermissibleIIIMedium3.51Excellent45.10Permissible
HZ11IIIMedium24.81Doubtful96.13UnsuitableIIIMedium11.95Good87.32Unsuitable
HZ12IVPoor4.77Excellent48.79PermissibleIVPoor4.46Excellent48.31Permissible
HZ13VVery Poor5.24Excellent48.78PermissibleIIIMedium3.55Excellent45.55Permissible
HZ14IIIMedium16.73Good91.85UnsuitableIIIMedium12.11Good87.47Unsuitable
HZ15VVery Poor11.46Good71.70DoubtfulIIIMedium2.09Excellent33.44Good
HZ16IIIMedium4.67Excellent50.35PermissibleIVPoor7.59Excellent64.47Doubtful
HZ17IIIMedium3.76Excellent41.40PermissibleIIIMedium5.90Excellent59.44Permissible
HZ18VVery Poor1.76Excellent24.87ExcellentVVery Poor1.35Excellent19.99Excellent
HZ19VVery Poor10.89Good74.82DoubtfulIVPoor8.95Excellent70.19Doubtful
HZ20IIGood3.79Excellent54.27PermissibleIIGood3.25Excellent49.38Permissible
HZ21IIGood3.26Excellent46.51PermissibleIIGood4.96Excellent58.48Permissible
HZ22VVery Poor9.37Excellent64.79DoubtfulVVery poor7.87Excellent55.38Permissible
HZ23IExcellent6.35Excellent69.55DoubtfulIIIGood4.59Excellent47.99Permissible
HZ24VVery Poor3.09Excellent31.98GoodIIGood2.41Excellent38.65Good
HZ25IIIMedium5.00Excellent56.02PermissibleIIGood2.03Excellent35.72Good

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gao, Z.; Liu, J.; Feng, J.; Wang, M.; Wu, G. Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and the Suitability of Groundwater in the Alluvial-Diluvial Plain of Southwest Shandong Province, China. Water 2019, 11, 1577. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081577

AMA Style

Gao Z, Liu J, Feng J, Wang M, Wu G. Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and the Suitability of Groundwater in the Alluvial-Diluvial Plain of Southwest Shandong Province, China. Water. 2019; 11(8):1577. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081577

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gao, Zongjun, Jiutan Liu, Jianguo Feng, Min Wang, and Guangwei Wu. 2019. "Hydrogeochemical Characteristics and the Suitability of Groundwater in the Alluvial-Diluvial Plain of Southwest Shandong Province, China" Water 11, no. 8: 1577. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081577

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop