Next Article in Journal
Beyond Climate Reductionism: Environmental Risks and Ecological Entanglements in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Land Subsidence Susceptibility Modelling in Attica, Greece: A Machine Learning Approach Using InSAR and Geospatial Data
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Crucial Role of Data Quality Control in Hydrochemical Studies: Reevaluating Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China

by
Claudio E. Moya
1,
Konstantin W. Scheihing
2,* and
Mauricio Taulis
3
1
WSP, Magdalena 181, Piso 5, Las Condes, Santiago 7550055, Chile
2
Oldenburg-East Frisian Water Board, Georgstraße 4, 26919 Brake, Germany
3
BECA, 124 Halsey Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth 2025, 6(3), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030062
Submission received: 29 April 2025 / Revised: 14 June 2025 / Accepted: 19 June 2025 / Published: 29 June 2025

Abstract

A vital step for any hydrochemical assessment is properly carrying out quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) techniques to evaluate data confidence before performing the assessment. Understanding the processes governing groundwater evolution in coastal aquifers is critical for managing freshwater resources under increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures. This study reassesses the hydrochemical and isotopic data from the Deep Confined Aquifer System (DCAS) in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China, by firstly applying QA/QC protocols. Anomalously high Fe and Mn concentrations in several samples were identified and excluded, yielding a refined dataset that enabled a more accurate interpretation of hydrogeochemical processes. Using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), principal component analysis (PCA), and stable and radioactive isotope data (δ2H, δ18O, 3H, and 14C), we identify three dominant drivers of groundwater evolution: water–rock interaction, evaporation, and seawater intrusion. In contrast to earlier interpretations, we present clear evidence of active seawater intrusion into the DCAS, supported by salinity patterns, isotopic signatures, and local hydrodynamics. Furthermore, inconsistencies between tritium- and radiocarbon-derived residence times—modern recharge indicated by 3H versus Pleistocene ages from 14C—highlight the unreliability of previous paleoclimatic reconstructions based on unvalidated datasets. These findings underscore the crucial role of robust QA/QC and integrated tracer analysis in groundwater studies.

1. Introduction

The reliability of hydrochemical studies hinges on robust data quality control (QC) throughout both field and laboratory phases. Inadequate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) can introduce biases, leading to erroneous interpretations and undermining the credibility of research findings. Despite the critical role of QA/QC, it is often overlooked in hydrochemical research. While detailed laboratory methodologies are frequently described, QA/QC procedures are rarely presented explicitly, possibly because It is assumed that they are inherently followed—a presumption that does not necessarily reflect actual practices. This oversight can result in the acceptance of flawed data, thereby compromising the integrity of the study.
A fundamental QA/QC tool in hydrochemical studies is the Charge Balance Error (CBE) calculation, which serves as an initial indicator of analytical accuracy by assessing the consistency between cations and anions in water samples [1,2,3]. However, relying solely on CBE is insufficient. Fritz mentioned that it is advisable to complement this approach with additional QA/QC measures [2], such the ratio of total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations to specific conductance, the relationship between field and laboratory TDS, and the ratio between laboratory TDS and the sum of all dissolved ions (calculated TDS), among others, to comprehensively evaluate data quality [4,5,6].
The necessity of rigorous QA/QC becomes even more noticeable when employing statistical methodologies, such as multivariate analysis, to interpret hydrochemical data. These techniques, including principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), are sensitive to data quality. Inaccurate or biased data can lead to misleading conclusions about the underlying processes affecting water chemistry. Therefore, ensuring data quality through stringent QA/QC protocols is essential in order to derive valid and actionable insights from complex hydrochemical datasets [7,8,9].
Xu et al. [10] conducted a hydrochemical and isotopic evaluation of groundwater in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain. However, in our opinion, their assessment presents QA/QC flaws that are worth mentioning as they could impact the interpretation reliability.
The objective of the present study is to critically reassess the hydrochemical and isotopic data from the DCAS as presented by Xu et al. [10], explicitly addressing the fact that their data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) were insufficient. During our QA/QC we identified and excluded outliers, and also anomalous Fe and Mn concentrations, which were discarded before statistical analysis. Our reanalysis leads to distinctly different conclusions, emphasizing the significance of comprehensive data validation and integrated assessment in hydrochemical and isotopic groundwater studies.

2. Study Area

The Jiangsu Coastal Plain is located in the eastern Jiangsu Province, north of the Yangtze River delta in China, with a shoreline of 954 km. The study area is situated at the southern end of the Jiangsu Coastal Plain (Figure 1a). Since the mid-20th century, the Jiangsu coast has been one of the most densely populated areas in China, experiencing continuous population growth [11]. According to the 2010 national census, its population density was about four times higher than the national average [12]. This demographic situation has put constant pressure on groundwater resources, as shallow aquifers typically have poor water quality.
The overexploitation of coastal aquifers is a common problem worldwide [13,14,15,16], including in China [17,18,19].
In coastal areas, excessive groundwater abstraction significantly increases the risk of seawater intrusion [19]. Therefore, accurately evaluating seawater intrusion processes and building respective capacities among actors is critical for developing and implementing effective groundwater management strategies according to Scheihing et al. [20].
The subsurface geology of the Jiangsu Coastal Plain consists of a multilayered alluvial system with sediments reaching depths of up to 600 m. Groundwater resources in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain are stored within three aquifer systems. The uppermost level, the Phreatic Aquifer System (PAS), formed during the Holocene and comprises estuarine and coastal sediments, predominantly fine sands and loamy clays, which are laterally discontinuous. The PAS is directly recharged by rainfall and interacts with the Rutai River. It has a thickness of 25–40 m, with a shallow water table ranging from 1 to 4 m below ground level (m bgl). The intermediate level, the Intermediate Confined Aquifer System (ICAS), formed between the Middle and Late Pleistocene, includes two confined aquifers (Aquifer I and Aquifer II) composed of fine sands, silts, and gravels. Aquifer I has an average thickness of about 100 m (40–140 m bsl), while Aquifer II is approximately 50 m thick (220–270 m bsl). Their water tables range from 2 to 3 m bgl and 3 to 5 m bgl, respectively. The lowermost level, the Deep Confined Aquifer System (DCAS), also includes two aquifers (Aquifer III and Aquifer IV) comprising Neogene to Early Pleistocene fluvio-lacustrine sands, gravels, silts, and clays. Aquifer III has an average thickness of 70 m (230–300 m bgl), while Aquifer IV is about 100 m thick (350–450 m bgl). Their water tables vary from 10 to 50 m bgl and 10 to 30 m bgl, respectively [10]. The DCAS is the primary groundwater resource in the area and the focus of this study. A similar aquifer framework has been described for other areas of northern coastal China (e.g., [19,21]).
The general groundwater flow direction within the Jiangsu Coastal Plain is from west to east towards the sea (Figure 1b). However, local groundwater flow is complex due to groundwater extraction in the area. For instance, Figure 1a illustrates a piezometric map for Aquifer III of the DCAS, showing a depression cone centered at Matang, where the water table is around 40 m bgl compared to about 20–25 m bgl near the northern shoreline near Yoco Port. This creates a local eastward groundwater flow from Yoco Port toward Matang.

3. Methodology

The hydrochemical dataset used in this assessment was originally presented in [10] and included measurements of total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, Fe, Mn, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, HCO3, Cl, and SO42− in 21 groundwater samples from Aquifers III and IV (DCAS). Additionally, δ2H and δ18O isotopic data were available for 33 samples, which included the same 21 groundwater samples analyzed for hydrochemistry, 5 surface water samples (3 river and 2 ocean samples), 6 samples from the Phreatic Aquifer (PAS), 1 sample from Aquifer I (ICAS), and a final sample that could be attributed to either the Phreatic Aquifer or Aquifer I, as noted by Xu et al. [10].
Furthermore, the dataset also included tritium (3H) and carbon-14 (14C) measurements for the 21 samples from Aquifers III and IV (DCAS), which were the focus of this study. Hydrochemical data are presented in Table 1, while isotopic data are compiled in Table 2. In the latter, we also incorporated the deuterium excess (Dex) value for each sample, calculated using the equation mentioned by Dansgaard [22]: Dex = δ2H − 8 × δ18O. This addition provides further insight into the isotopic composition and potential evaporation effects influencing groundwater evolution.
Mao et al. [23] presented new data (including TDS, pH, Cl, SO42−, HCO3, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, Br, Sr, B, δ2H, δ18O, 87Sr/86Sr, and δ11B) for samples in a broader area of the Jiangsu Coastal Plain. From these, only 12 samples were located within our study area, 2 of them in the DCAS, 9 in the PAS/ICAS, and 1 river/estuary sample. All the samples including 87Sr/86Sr, and δ11B were located outside our study area. As our assessment was focused in the DCAS only, we use Mao et al.’s [23] results for comparison in later sections but did not include them in our dataset. We conducted a QA/QC assessment of the data used in this study, originally presented by Xu et al. [10]. As a first step, we calculated the Charge Balance Error (CBE) for the 21 samples with available hydrochemical data, as shown in Table 1. The CBE for 20 out of the 21 samples was below 5%, while one sample exhibited an error between 5% and 10%. Based on these CB error values, all samples were deemed to be of sufficient quality for use in this assessment, following the criteria established by Güler et al. [7] and Guggenmos [8].
Additionally, we compared laboratory-measured total dissolved solids (TDS) with calculated TDS (TDScalc; Table 1), prompted by the detection of unusually high Fe and Mn concentrations in certain samples. In natural waters, TDS can be estimated if the concentrations of major ions are known (e.g., Hem [5]). To derive TDScalc, we applied the methodology outlined by Hounslow [6].
The discrepancy between laboratory-measured TDS and TDScalc was within 15% for 15 out of the 21 samples, which was considered acceptable. However, for the remaining six samples, the difference ranged from 74% to 457%, indicating anomalous concentrations within the dataset. A closer examination of the laboratory-reported values from Xu et al. [10] confirmed that these six samples exhibited unusually high Fe and Mn concentrations. To assess whether Fe and Mn contributed to the observed discrepancies in TDS, we recalculated TDScalc, this time excluding Fe and Mn from the computation. The revised calculations yielded a discrepancy of less than 15% across all samples, strongly suggesting errors in the reported Fe and Mn concentrations for these six samples.
Given this inconsistency, we excluded Fe and Mn concentrations from the statistical analysis, as well as from further data processing and interpretation.
This inconsistency between TDS and TDScalc leading to Fe and Mn data exclusion was not acknowledged by CBE, highlighting the need to use this tool in combination with other QA/QC techniques. This was also due to the fact that CBE was calculated using major element concentrations only, which is the common practice, but it would be recommended to use all ions concentration per CBE calculation instead.
Before conducting HCA and PCA, all parameters (except for pH) were log-transformed to approximate a normal distribution, following the results of a normality test, which indicated that only pH was normally distributed.
Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were employed to identify patterns within the hydrochemical dataset. These multivariate techniques only consider samples where each input parameter has a numerical value. To ensure the inclusion of all 21 samples in both analyses, the selected input parameters were pH, TDS, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, HCO3, Cl, and SO42−. Fe and Mn were excluded, as their concentrations in six samples were deemed to be erroneous based on the QA/QC assessment, as previously discussed.
HCA was performed using Ward’s linkage method, a widely applied algorithm in hydrochemical studies (e.g., Güler et al. [7]). This method relies on an analysis of variance to separate clusters based on data homogeneity. The measure of similarity employed at both clustering stages was the Euclidean distance, ensuring the equal weighting of each variable (e.g., Davis, [24]). This approach to HCA has been utilized in several studies, including [8,9,25,26].
PCA, a mathematical technique used for data reduction and pattern recognition [27,28,29], was applied in this study to generate scatter plots representing the clusters identified in HCA.
The carbon-14 data presented by Xu et al. [10] was only available in the form of corrected years before present (BP), which, according to the authors, was derived using the Vogel correction method. However, no “raw” data was provided. For enhancing transparency and providing a less ambiguous 14C measure, we calculated the 14C activity back to a percentage of modern carbon (pmc) using Equation (1):
C a r b o n 14 p m c = 85 e t 8267
where t corresponds to the time (y BP) calculated for 14C data by Xu et al. [10]. The methodological differences between Xu et al. [10] and this study are summarized in Table 3.

4. Results

The hydrochemical data allowed for the identification of two primary water types: Na+–HCO3 water and Na+–Cl water. The first type is associated with freshwater, exhibiting TDS values ranging from 462 mg/L to 723 mg/L, while the second type shows TDS values varying from 852 mg/L to 19,718 mg/L. This high variability is primarily influenced by two highly anomalous samples (Samples 20 and 21). When these outliers are excluded, the maximum TDS value for Na+–Cl waters is 2479 mg/L. Mao et al. [23] presents two groundwater sample in the DCAS within the study area that present TDS values in agreement with the data presented here.
There is no clear distinction in water type between Aquifer III and Aquifer IV, as both aquifers contain samples representing each water type within the DCAS. This suggests that similar hydrochemical processes are influencing both aquifers. However, this observation may not be applicable to the two anomalous samples, as both belong exclusively to Aquifer III.

4.1. HCA

This procedure led to the identification of three distinct clusters, represented in the dendrogram (Figure 2), with their mean values summarized in Table 4.
Cluster 1 (C1), consisting of 12 samples, is dominated by Na+–HCO3 water and exhibits the lowest mineralization among all groups, with a mean TDS of 698 mg/L, classifying it as freshwater. Within C1, two subclusters (sC1a and sC1b) were identified: sC1a (five samples) had a lower mean TDS of 545 mg/L, while sC1b (seven samples) presented a slightly higher mean TDS of 784 mg/L. The main differences between these subclusters lie in their ion composition, with sC1a exhibiting higher Ca2+ concentrations and lower Cl, SO42−, and Na+ levels compared to sC1b, while the other chemical species remain relatively similar.
Seven groundwater samples form Cluster 2 (C2), which is characterized by the Na+–Cl water type with a mean TDS of 1479 mg/L, placing it in the brackish water category. The two samples with the highest mineralization belong to Cluster 3 (C3), with an exceptionally high mean TDS of 19,840 mg/L, classifying them as saline water. The TDS levels in C3 are at least one order of magnitude higher than in C2, highlighting their anomalous nature within the dataset.
A spatial trend is observed only in sC1a, where four out of the five samples originate from Aquifer III and are located near the Rutai Canal river mouth. However, samples from sC1b, C2, and C3 do not exhibit clear spatial relationships, with roughly half of them distributed between Aquifer III and Aquifer IV. This indicates that aquifer membership and location are not significant factors influencing hydrochemical processes for these clusters. Both C3 samples belong to Aquifer III and are spatially close to each other, positioned between Matang and Yoco Port. Their location coincides with a zone where groundwater flow shifts eastward, attributed to a depression cone detected through water table measurements in Aquifer III.

4.2. PCA

Only two principal components (PCs) with Eigenvalues greater than 1 were considered for further interpretation, following Kaiser’s criterion [9,30]. PC1 accounts for 65.8% of the total variance in the dataset (Table 5) and exhibits positive weightings for TDS, Cl, SO42−, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+, which are associated with mineralization and are likely linked to Na+–Cl waters. In contrast, pH, HCO3, and H2SiO3 have weightings close to zero, indicating a minimal influence on this component.
PC2 explains 17.6% of the total variance (Table 5) and is primarily associated with positively correlated weightings of HCO3 and H2SiO3 while showing a negative correlation with pH. This suggests a relationship with carbonate speciation and/or water–rock interactions, making it more relevant for Na+–HCO3 water types. The first two principal components together account for approximately 83.4% of the total variability in the dataset, indicating that they capture most of the hydrochemical variance.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of values on PC1 and PC2 for all the groundwater samples, grouped by cluster. Only clusters C2 and C3 have positive weightings on PC1, representing the most mineralized groundwater in the dataset. Although both clusters are highly mineralized, they are clearly separated along the PC1 axis.
In contrast, the samples in C1 (including its two subclusters) exhibit negative weightings in PC1, indicating their association with the freshest groundwater. Regarding PC2, sC1a and C3 show exclusively positive weightings, while sC1b and C2 display both positive and negative weightings. Notably, a subset of C2 samples exhibits the most negative weightings in PC2, which corresponds to the highest pH values recorded in the dataset and represents Na+–HCO3 water types.

4.3. Environmental Isotopes

In addition to the 21 groundwater samples from DCAS, the environmental isotope data also include samples from the PAS (6 samples), the ICAS (1 sample), and surface waters (5 samples). The δ2H and δ18O compositions in the DCAS range from −55.31 ‰ to −28.15 ‰ and from −7.22 ‰ to −3.25 ‰, respectively. Similarly, the δ2H and δ18O compositions in the PAS range from −42.83 ‰ to −30.69 ‰ and from −6.39 ‰ to −3.91 ‰, respectively.
Figure 4 presents a δ2H versus δ18O diagram, including all groundwater and river water samples. It also displays the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL; δ2H = 8 × δ18O + 10; Craig [31]) and the Local Meteoric Water Line (LMWL; δ2H = 8.49 × δ18O + 17.71; [32]). The higher intercept of the LMWL compared to the GMWL suggests a more humid and rainy climate in the coastal area [10]. All samples lie to the right of both the GMWL and LMWL, indicating that the groundwater has undergone some degree of evaporation before recharge [33].
Additionally, Figure 4 introduces local regression lines (LELs) for the PAS and the DCAS, with equations of δ2H = 5.2 × δ18O − 9.6 and δ2H = 6.2 × δ18O − 9.5, respectively. Both lines exhibit a lower slope compared to the GMWL and LMWL, while their intercepts remain similar.
Dex has been widely used to assess waters affected by evaporation [33,34,35]. In this study, the Dex values (Table 2) for PAS waters range from 0.59‰ to 8.29‰, while those for the DCAS show greater variability, from −5.32‰ to 6.63‰, mainly due to Aquifer III waters, as the values for Aquifer IV range from 0.39‰ to 3.15‰. The single ICAS sample has a Dex of −1.05‰. All these values are lower than the Dex for global (10‰; Craig [31]) and local precipitation (17.71‰; Xu et al. [32]), further confirming that evaporation has influenced groundwater, as Dex decreases during this process [30].

4.4. Radioactive Isotopes

Tritium data is presented in Table 2. Most samples (14 out of 21) have 3H values below the detection limit (<2 TU), suggesting groundwater residence times predating the 1960s. It is important to note that this detection limit is relatively high, as many laboratories worldwide now report 3H detection limits lower than those used in this study. Some laboratories, such as GNS New Zealand, register detection limits as low as 0.02 TU [36]. The difference between this lower detection limit and that reported by Xu et al. [10] spans several half-life cycles, meaning that only very young water can be reliably traced with the available data.
Among the seven samples with 3H values above the detection limit, three (samples 3, 18, and 19, all from Aquifer III) show values above 10 TU. Three others (samples 14, 15, and 16, all from Aquifer IV) register between 5 TU and 10 TU, while one sample (sample 9, from Aquifer III) records 2.47 TU. These results indicate that these seven samples have undergone active recharge within the last 60 years, with higher 3H values corresponding to younger groundwater.
Carbon-14 data is also presented in Table 2. The data are reported in years before present (y BP) rather than as a percentage of modern carbon (pmc), making a more detailed evaluation of the original dataset from Xu et al. [10] unfeasible. The authors applied the Vogel correction model to estimate average groundwater residence times, reporting ages within the method’s applicable range, from 7410 ± 800 y BP to 26,140 ± 300 y BP, suggesting ancient recharge. However, this interpretation contradicts the findings for the seven samples with detectable 3H, which indicate recent recharge.

5. Discussion: The Processes Affecting Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain

5.1. Evaporation Processes

As shown in Figure 4, all the samples are shifted to the right relative to both the GMWL and LMWL, indicating that evaporation occurred before recharge. Additionally, the Dex values for all samples are lower than those characteristic of global and local precipitation, further supporting the likelihood of an evaporation process. Two Local Evaporation Lines (LELs) are presented in Figure 4, one for PAS waters and another for DCAS waters, with slopes of 5.2 and 6.2, respectively. These slopes are lower than those of the GMWL and LMWL, which is indicative of evaporation; however, they remain higher than the threshold assigned for intense evaporation conditions (<5; Clark [37]).
Xu et al. [10] also calculated LELs for these two aquifer systems. While we obtained a similar equation and slope for DCAS waters, a notable difference was observed for PAS waters, where Xu et al. [10] reported an LEL equation of δ2H = 4.69 × δ18O − 12.1. This discrepancy arises from their inclusion of one sample from Aquifer I (ICAS) alongside Phreatic Aquifer (PAS) samples to define their LEL for the shallow system. According to our findings, this approach is not appropriate, as groundwater from Aquifer I, being confined, likely represents distinct recharge and hydrochemical conditions. Consequently, grouping these samples for LEL calculations is not advisable. Given the lack of hydrochemical data for the PAS samples, further discussion of evaporation will focus exclusively on DCAS waters.
Stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen can help differentiate between evaporation, which fractionates these isotopes, and other non-fractionating processes [35,38,39]. Figure 5a presents a Dex versus TDS diagram of DCAS waters, categorizing samples by their dominant water type. Samples 20 and 21 (C3) are excluded due to their exceptionally high TDS values, which would obscure other observable trends, and because the main factor controlling C3 hydrochemistry is different. Na+–HCO3 waters exhibit minimal mineralization variability and no clear relationship with Dex (r 0.45), suggesting that evaporation is not a significant factor in their mineralization. In contrast, most Na+–Cl waters follow a pattern where more negative Dex values correspond to higher TDS (r 0.74), indicating an evaporation-related influence on mineralization.
A similar trend is evident in Figure 5b (δ18O vs. Cl), which presents data for DCAS samples, where chloride concentrations increase alongside δ18O fractionation in Na+–Cl waters (r 0.85), whereas no clear association is observed for Na+–HCO3 waters (r 0.17). This confirms that, unlike Na+–HCO3 waters, evaporation is responsible for the observed mineralization increase in Na+–Cl waters, with the exception of C3 samples. This pattern applies to all C2 samples and nearly half of the sC1b samples (three out of seven).
Another study examined aquitard porewater in the same Jiangsu Coastal Plain area studied by Xu et al. [10], analyzing shallow porewater (PAS equivalent), intermediate porewater (ICAS equivalent), and deep porewater (DCAS equivalent). Their findings also indicated that evaporation affected most porewaters, as reflected in the δ2H and δ18O data. Also, Mao et al. [23] identified evapo-concentration as the main trigger controlling higher TDS concentrations, which agrees with our findings.

5.2. Water–Rock Interaction in the DCAS

PCA allowed the identification of two principal components, highlighting distinct hydrochemical groups among the DCAS water types. Figure 6 presents the projection of scores in PC1 and PC2, categorized by water type. While Na+–Cl waters are primarily associated with PC1, Na+–HCO3 waters are more closely linked to PC2. Notably, seven of the nine Na+–HCO3 waters that exhibit positive weightings in PC2 also register the highest H2SiO3 (silicic acid) concentrations in the dataset.
When carbonate species and dissolved silicic acid are present, they contribute to rock weathering and mineral dissolution. This interaction is described by the reaction in Equation (2):
Rock + CO2(aq) + 2 × H2O = cations + clay + HCO3 + H2SiO3(aq)
According to carbonate speciation hydrochemistry, dissolved CO2 remains in solution when the pH is at or below approximately 8 [9,40]. For instance, in sample no. 13 (pH = 8.3), dissolved CO2 is estimated at about 5 mg/L, whereas in sample no. 3 (pH = 7.4), it is around 66 mg/L. As per carbonate equilibrium principles, decreasing pH leads to increased dissolved CO2 concentrations. However, as noted by Taulis and Milke, the actual dissolved CO2 may exceed these estimates, as samples often experience CO2 degassing during collection [40]. Given that all these samples contain dissolved CO2, their interaction with rocks will lead to the release of HCO3 and H2SiO3, as described in Equation (2). This indicates that the dominant hydrochemical process affecting Na+–HCO3 waters in the DCAS is water–rock interaction, which accounts for all sC1a samples and four out of seven sC1b samples.
Li et al. [41] demonstrated that water–rock interaction plays a significant role in deep porewater hydrochemistry (DCAS equivalent) in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, based on 87Sr/86Sr ratios and ionic composition. They identified 87Sr/86Sr values ranging from 0.7094 to 0.7112, a range higher than the average for seawater, supporting the silicate weathering of clays. These results are also in agreement with Mao et al. [23], who acknowledged water–rock interaction as one of the factors controlling TDS in the DCAS.

5.3. Seawater Intrusion in the DCAS

HCA revealed one cluster (C3) characterized by saline waters, with a mean TDS of 19,840 mg/L. This significantly higher TDS compared to other clusters in the DCAS suggests a distinct mineralization process, even though the water type remains the same as in C2. Given that seawater typically has a TDS of approximately 35,000 mg/L, the salinity of C3 falls between freshwater and seawater. If considering a simple mixing scenario between freshwater and seawater, the contribution of seawater to C3 would be slightly above 50%. PCA further confirmed that the high mineralization of C3 waters could not be explained by the processes affecting the rest of the dataset, such as evaporation or water–rock interaction.
The spatial position of the two wells (20 and 21) associated with C3 provides additional context. These wells are located in an area where a localized shift in groundwater flow occurs in Aquifer III (DCAS) due to a depression cone identified near Matang (Figure 1a). In this area, groundwater in Aquifer III flows inland from the shoreline toward Matang. This hydrodynamic condition creates a plausible scenario for modern or ongoing seawater intrusion.
Figure 7 presents an δ2H versus δ18O diagram for DCAS samples, categorized by aquifer membership, along with river and seawater samples. The samples can be grouped into three categories. Group 1 includes seawater samples, with δ2H values ranging from −14.52‰ to −6.32‰ and δ18O values from −1.73‰ to −0.56‰, which are consistent with seawater isotopic compositions recorded in water from the Yellow Sea by Li et al. [41]. Group 3 consists of DCAS and river water samples, with δ2H values between −55.31‰ and −36.58‰ and δ18O values between −7.22‰ and −3.97‰. Group 2 represents an intermediate composition, suggesting a mixture of Groups 1 and 3, with δ2H values from −28.35‰ to −28.15‰ and δ18O values from −3.67‰ to −2.96‰. Notably, two of the three samples within Group 2 correspond to C3 waters. In addition, the third sample (24; Figure 1) in this group corresponds to a river sample, located closed to the shoreline, indicating a likely seawater tidal influence and emphasizing that the isotopic character of this group may be affected by seawater. All of this further supports the hypothesis that seawater intrusion is the primary process influencing this group’s salinity. In groundwater, this process appears to be restricted to Aquifer III.
The third sample in Group 2 is a river sample, which is the closest to the shoreline, located only 4 km from the coast. This suggests potential tidal influence or seawater mixing at this location. However, unlike C3, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed through hydrochemistry, as Xu et al. [10] did not provide detailed chemical data for river waters. Despite the evidence, Xu et al. [10] ruled out modern seawater intrusion as a cause of salinization in Aquifer III (corresponding to C3) based on residence time estimates, and provided an ambiguous discussion regarding past seawater intrusion. They attributed the high salinity in these samples to either evaporation under high temperatures, based on δ2H and δ18O data, or terrestrial salinization under arid Holocene Hypsithermal conditions, based on Na/Cl and Mg/Ca ratios as well as residence time estimations.
While evaporation likely plays a role, it does not appear to be the dominant process affecting C3 samples. The Dex values for these two samples are 1.16‰ and −2.15‰, which are close to the Dex values of seawater samples (−1.84‰ and −0.68‰). In contrast, three other Aquifer III samples (samples 2, 18, and 19) exhibit lower Dex values than the C3 samples, suggesting a higher degree of evaporation in those samples. Consequently, evaporation alone cannot explain the high mineralization observed in C3 waters, reinforcing the likelihood of seawater intrusion as the primary process (further discussed in Section 5.4, Residence Times in the DCAS).
Seawater intrusion has previously been identified in groundwater in the shallow PAS/ICAS systems of the Jiangsu Plain by Mao et al. [23], and it has been identified in porewater by Li et al. [41], but it has not been acknowledged in the DCAS. In addition, according to Mao et al. [23] the DCAS TDS is explained by a combination of water–rock interaction and inter-aquifer mixing between the DCAS and the more saline PAS/ICAS. We could not identify the latter, as our dataset did not include hydrochemical data in the PAS/ICAS. Nevertheless, as Mao et al. [23] confirm seawater intrusion into the PAS/DCAS, whether inter-aquifer mixing occurs may also explain how local seawater intrusion may partially reach the DCAS.
Additionally, seawater intrusion has been documented by Zhang et al. in groundwater along the coast of Shandong Province, located north of Jiangsu, and more extensively in the Laizhou Bay and Bohai Sea areas of northern China [17]. In the latter area, the aquifer architecture is similar to that in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, where a deep unconsolidated sedimentary sequence, composed of an aquifer/aquitard intercalation occurs, recognizing four main aquifer systems in depth. The similarities in aquifer architecture also help to confirm that seawater intrusion is plausible if the already mentioned conditions occur.
Based on this analysis, we conclude that two samples (20 and 21, or C3) within the dataset exhibit distinct evidence of seawater intrusion. This process appears to be restricted to Aquifer III of the DCAS and has currently not affected Aquifer IV of the DCAS, based on the available data.

5.4. Residence Times in the DCAS

Groundwater residence time calculation is a highly sensitive process. Xu et al. [10] mentioned the use of the Vogel model for age correction but did not specify the rationale or criteria for selecting this method, which applies a 0.85 correction factor for age estimation. Furthermore, they did not report 14C activity in pmc or δ13CDIC data, which would be essential for constraining carbon sources and refining age estimates. As previously noted, HCO3 is the dominant anion in freshwater, and its concentration increases in groundwater primarily due to water–rock interaction. This indicates that additional carbon sources beyond soil-derived carbon contribute to the system, making the assumption of a uniform 0.85 correction factor, as in the Vogel model, questionable for this study area.
Other publications, such as Suckow [42], have emphasized the limitations of groundwater age determinations due to geological complexity and the inherent assumptions in age estimation models. Instead, they recommend reporting only 14C activities or concentrations without interpreting absolute ages. Additionally, emerging approaches suggest plotting measured 14C values in pmc against distance along an assumed flow path when age estimation is uncertain [42,43]. Given these considerations, the age estimates provided by Xu et al. [10] are likely overestimated. Because of this, providing groundwater age calculations using uncorrected laboratory data and making paleoclimatic interpretations based on them is not advisable.
Another inconsistency in the recharge age estimations made by Xu et al. [10] is the contradiction between the 3H and 14C data. Seven samples were identified as having recent recharge based on 3H values, yet their 14C age estimates range from 17,000 to 23,000 years BP. Several factors could explain such discrepancies, including contamination during sampling, improper well sealing leading to leakage and mixing within boreholes, or inter-aquifer mixing. The latter was identified by Mao et al. [23] as one of the causes that controls TDS in DCAS waters. This could be a cause that explains the 3H and 14C discrepancy, but it is not necessarily the only one. This inconsistency in the data further underscores the unreliability of the paleoclimatic recharge estimations presented by Xu et al. [10].
Due to the limitations in the radioactive isotope dataset, it is not possible to confidently determine whether the seawater intrusion identified in C3, wells 20 and 21, represents a modern or historical process. These samples have 3H values below the detection limit, although, as previously discussed, this detection limit is too high to effectively constrain young water. On the other hand, Xu et al. [10] reported apparent ages of 7410 ± 800 years BP for sample 20 and 9370 ± 80 years BP for sample 21, making them the youngest groundwater samples based on 14C alone. This implies that these samples have the highest pmc values among all the measured waters, which, if 14C is considered in isolation, would indicate relatively recent genesis.
The location of these two wells within an area where groundwater flow shifts due to a depression cone and moves from the ocean toward Matang suggests that seawater intrusion could be an ongoing process. However, due to the inconsistencies and uncertainties in the available 3H and 14C data, this interpretation remains inconclusive. This limitation may be overcome by using additional tracers like the Cl/Br ratio or the 87Sr/86Sr isotopic ratio.

6. Conclusions

The main conclusions from the assessment and reanalysis of the data for the DCAS in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain presented by Xu et al. [10] are as follows:
  • A QA/QC analysis identified anomalous Fe and Mn concentrations in five samples, which were inconsistent with TDS values. As a result, the Fe and Mn concentrations were discarded for these samples. Consequently, these elements were not included as input data for HCA and PCA, as reliable information was not available for all samples. This underscores the importance of conducting thorough QA/QC procedures to ensure data integrity.
  • Charge Balance Error (CBE) is the tool used most usually for laboratory data QA/QC. Even though it is an excellent first approach, it is advisable to use it in combination with additional QA/QC techniques. In the analyzed dataset in this study, CBE validated samples that were later discarded for anomalous Fe and Mn concentrations. In order to take better advantage of CBE it is more helpful to evaluate it using it all ions and not only major ones.
  • Three key processes were identified as drivers of hydrochemical variations in the deep groundwater of the Jiangsu Coastal Plain: water–rock interaction, evaporation, and seawater intrusion. Water–rock interaction was found to be the dominant hydrochemical process influencing Na+–HCO3 waters (freshwater). Evaporation was determined to be the primary process responsible for mineralization in Na+–Cl waters (brackish water).
  • The occurrence of seawater intrusion was demonstrated in two wells (20 and 21, classified as saline waters). This conclusion is based on a combination of a statistical assessment (HCA and PCA) of hydrochemical data and environmental isotopes (δ2H and δ18O plots, along with Dex values).
  • Seawater intrusion was identified as affecting only Aquifer III of the DCAS. Given the location of the two affected wells, where groundwater flows inland from the shoreline towards drawdown cones induced by groundwater extraction, this process may be considered ongoing. However, this finding remains inconclusive due to contradictory radiogenic isotope data. It is advisable to further study the DCAS, including a more comprehensive analytical suite (including most dissolved anions and cations) plus additional isotopes like 87Sr/86Sr that may help to better refine this process.
  • Based on these observations, it is highly advisable to account for seawater intrusion in groundwater management strategies for the area. Step drawdowns are recorded in the Matang area. Hence, a detailed monitoring program for groundwater levels and water quality using telemetry for live data and probably reducing extractions are good first steps.
  • Residence time estimations revealed contradictions in seven samples, representing 33% of the dataset. These samples contained measurable amounts of 3H (with TU values above the detection limit), suggesting a recharge age of less than 60 years. However, the same samples were assigned corrected 14C ages ranging from 17,000 to 23,000 years BP. Due to this inconsistency, paleoclimatic reconstructions based on these data cannot be deemed reliable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.E.M. and M.T.; methodology, C.E.M.; validation, K.W.S. and M.T.; formal analysis, C.E.M.; data curation, C.E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.E.M.; writing—review and editing, K.W.S.; visualization, C.E.M.; supervision, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study is provided in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the Editor and three anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments, which helped to improve the manuscript significantly.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Claudio E. Moya is employed by the company WSP and author Mauricio Taulis is employed by the company BECA. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
DCAS Deep Confined Aquifer System
QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
HCA Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PASPhreatic Aquifer System
ICASIntermediate Confined Aquifer System
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
DexDeuterium Excess
GMWL Global Meteoric Water Line
LMWLLocal Meteoric Water Line
LEL Local Evaporation Line
pmcPercentage of Modern Carbon
BP Before Present
rCorrelation Coefficient
CBE Charge Balance Error
m bgl Meters Below Ground Level

References

  1. Freeze, R.A.; Cherry, J.A. Groundwater; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fritz, S.J. A survey of charge-balance errors on published analyses of potable ground and surface waters. Groundwater 1994, 32, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, X.; Wu, H.; Qian, H.; Gao, Y. Groundwater chemistry regulated by hydrochemical processes and geological structures: A case study in Tongchuan, China. Water 2018, 10, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Katz, B.; Collins, J. Evaluation of Chemical Data from Selected Sites in the Surface-Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) in Florida; Open-File Report 98–559; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1998; 51p. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hem, J.D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water; U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hounslow, A.W. Water Quality Data; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995; ISBN 9780203734117. [Google Scholar]
  7. Güler, C.; Thyne, G.D.; McCray, J.E.; Turner, K.A. Evaluation of graphical and multivariate statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guggenmos, M.R.; Daughney, C.J.; Jackson, B.M.; Morgenstern, U. Regional-scale identification of groundwater-surface water interaction using hydrochemistry and multivariate statistical methods, Wairarapa Valley, New Zealand. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 3383–3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moya, C.E.; Raiber, M.; Taulis, M.; Cox, M.E. Hydrochemical evolution and groundwater flow processes in the Galilee and Eromanga basins, Great Artesian Basin, Australia: A multivariate statistical approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 508, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xu, N.; Gong, J.; Yang, G. Using environmental isotopes along with major hydro-geochemical compositions to assess deep groundwater formation and evolution in eastern coastal China. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2018, 208, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ma, Y.Y.; Lu, Y.Q.; Zhang, L. Evolvement of spatial pattern of population with data at county level in Jiangsu Province. Prog. Geogr. 2012, 31, 167–175. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bao, J.; Gao, S.; Ge, J. Coastal engineering evolution in low-lying areas and adaptation practice since the eleventh century, Jiangsu Province, China. Clim. Change 2020, 162, 799–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ferguson, G.; Gleeson, T. Vulnerability of coastal aquifers to groundwater use and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2012, 2, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alfarrah, N.; Walraevens, K. Groundwater Overexploitation and Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Areas of Arid and Semi-Arid Regions. Water 2018, 10, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussain, M.S.; Abd-Elhamid, H.F.; Javadi, A.A.; Sherif, M.M. Management of Seawater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers: A Review. Water 2019, 11, 2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dey, S.; Prakash, O. Management of Saltwater Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers: An Overview of Recent Advances. In Environmental Processes and Management; Singh, R.M., Shukla, P., Singh, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 321–344. ISBN 978-3-030-38151-6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, Y.; Xue, Y.-Q.; Wu, J.-C.; Shi, X.-Q.; Yu, J. Excessive groundwater withdrawal and resultant land subsidence in the Su-Xi-Chang area, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 61, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Huang, F.; Wang, G.H.; Yang, Y.Y.; Wang, C.B. Overexploitation status of groundwater and induced geological hazards in China. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shi, L.; Jiao, J.J. Seawater intrusion and coastal aquifer management in China: A review. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 72, 2811–2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Scheihing, K.W.; Fraser, C.M.; Vargas, C.R.; Kukurić, N.; Lictevout, E. A review of current capacity development practice for fostering groundwater sustainability. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 19, 100823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shi, X.; Jiang, F.; Feng, Z.; Yao, B.; Xu, H.; Wu, J. Characterization of the regional groundwater quality evolution in the North Plain of Jiangsu Province, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 74, 5587–5604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dansgaard, W. Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus A Dyn. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 1964, 16, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mao, C.; Tan, H.; Song, Y.; Rao, W. Evolution of groundwater chemistry in coastal aquifers of the Jiangsu, east China: Insights from a multi-isotope (δ2H, δ18O, 87Sr/86Sr, and δ11B) approach. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2020, 235, 103730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Davis, J.C. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, 3rd ed.; Wiley: New Delhi, India, 2015; ISBN 9788126530083. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moeck, C.; Radny, D.; Borer, P.; Rothardt, J.; Auckenthaler, A.; Berg, M.; Schirmer, M. Multicomponent statistical analysis to identify flow and transport processes in a highly-complex environment. J. Hydrol. 2016, 542, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Raiber, M.; Lewis, S.; Cendón, D.I.; Cui, T.; Cox, M.E.; Gilfedder, M.; Rassam, D.W. Significance of the connection between bedrock, alluvium and streams: A spatial and temporal hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical assessment from Queensland, Australia. J. Hydrol. 2019, 569, 666–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wold, S.; Esbensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1987, 2, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stetzenbach, K.J.; Farnham, I.M.; Hodge, V.F.; Johannesson, K.H. Using multivariate statistical analysis of groundwater major cation and trace element concentrations to evaluate groundwater flow in a regional aquifer. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 2655–2673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. O’Shea, B.; Jankowski, J. Detecting subtle hydrochemical anomalies with multivariate statistics: An example from ‘homogeneous’ groundwaters in the Great Artesian Basin, Australia. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 4317–4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaiser, H.F. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Craig, H. Isotopic Variations in Meteoric Waters. Science 1961, 133, 1702–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Xu, N.; Liu, H.; Wei, F. Study on the environmental isotope compositions and their evolution in groundwater of Yoco port in Jiangsu Province, China. Acta Sci. Circumst. 2015, 35, 3862–3871. [Google Scholar]
  33. Scheihing, K.; Moya, C.; Struck, U.; Lictevout, E.; Tröger, U. Reassessing Hydrological Processes That Control Stable Isotope Tracers in Groundwater of the Atacama Desert (Northern Chile). Hydrology 2018, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kong, Y.; Wang, K.; Li, J.; Pang, Z. Stable Isotopes of Precipitation in China: A Consideration of Moisture Sources. Water 2019, 11, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, T.; Pang, Z. The role of deuterium excess in determining the water salinisation mechanism: A case study of the arid Tarim River Basin, NW China. Appl. Geochem. 2012, 27, 2382–2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cartwright, I.; Morgenstern, U. Using tritium and other geochemical tracers to address the “old water paradox” in headwater catchments. J. Hydrol. 2018, 563, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Clark, I.D.; Fritz, P. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013; ISBN 9780429069574. [Google Scholar]
  38. Cartwright, I.; Weaver, T.R.; Cendón, D.I.; Fifield, L.K.; Tweed, S.O.; Petrides, B.; Swane, I. Constraining groundwater flow, residence times, inter-aquifer mixing, and aquifer properties using environmental isotopes in the southeast Murray Basin, Australia. Appl. Geochem. 2012, 27, 1698–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moya, C.E.; Raiber, M.; Taulis, M.; Cox, M.E. Using environmental isotopes and dissolved methane concentrations to constrain hydrochemical processes and inter-aquifer mixing in the Galilee and Eromanga Basins, Great Artesian Basin, Australia. J. Hydrol. 2016, 539, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Taulis, M.; Milke, M. Chemical variability of groundwater samples collected from a coal seam gas exploration well, Maramarua, New Zealand. Water Res. 2013, 47, 1021–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, J.; Liang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, N.; Abubakari, A.; Jin, M. Salinization of porewater in a multiple aquitard-aquifer system in Jiangsu coastal plain, China. Hydrogeol. J. 2017, 25, 2377–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suckow, A. The age of groundwater–Definitions, models and why we do not need this term. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 50, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Suckow, A.; Deslandes, A.; Raiber, M.; Taylor, A.R.; Davies, P.; Gerber, C.; Leaney, F. Reconciling contradictory environmental tracer ages in multi-tracer studies to characterize the aquifer and quantify deep groundwater flow: An example from the Hutton Sandstone, Great Artesian Basin, Australia. Hydrogeol. J. 2020, 28, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Study area and sample distribution (a); cross-section showing aquifer framework (b). From Xu et al. [10]. (m asl: m above sea level; m bsl: m below sea level).
Figure 1. Study area and sample distribution (a); cross-section showing aquifer framework (b). From Xu et al. [10]. (m asl: m above sea level; m bsl: m below sea level).
Earth 06 00062 g001
Figure 2. Dendrogram for HCA showing three identified clusters and subclusters for Cluster 1. The red line corresponds to the distance where clusters are defined.
Figure 2. Dendrogram for HCA showing three identified clusters and subclusters for Cluster 1. The red line corresponds to the distance where clusters are defined.
Earth 06 00062 g002
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) scores from samples from different clusters obtained using HCA.
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) scores from samples from different clusters obtained using HCA.
Earth 06 00062 g003
Figure 4. δ18O vs. δ2H plot of samples according to their aquifer system.
Figure 4. δ18O vs. δ2H plot of samples according to their aquifer system.
Earth 06 00062 g004
Figure 5. (a) TDS vs. Dex plot of DCAS waters (Na-Cl r 0.74); (b) δ18O vs. Cl plot of DCAS waters (Na-Cl r 0.85).
Figure 5. (a) TDS vs. Dex plot of DCAS waters (Na-Cl r 0.74); (b) δ18O vs. Cl plot of DCAS waters (Na-Cl r 0.85).
Earth 06 00062 g005
Figure 6. PCA scores for samples based on water type.
Figure 6. PCA scores for samples based on water type.
Earth 06 00062 g006
Figure 7. δ18O vs. δ2H plot of DCAS, river water, and seawater.
Figure 7. δ18O vs. δ2H plot of DCAS, river water, and seawater.
Earth 06 00062 g007
Table 1. The hydrochemical data in the study by Xu et al. [10]. We have added columns for Charge Balance Error (CBE) and relative percentage (RP) of Fe and Mn regarding the TDS.
Table 1. The hydrochemical data in the study by Xu et al. [10]. We have added columns for Charge Balance Error (CBE) and relative percentage (RP) of Fe and Mn regarding the TDS.
IDAquiferpHTTDSClHCO3SO42−Ca2+Mg2+Na+K+H2SiO3FeMnCBETDScalcTDScalc *
(°C)mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L%mg/Lmg/L
1III7.919723.3129.85413.983.937.5112.72.335.21.80.1−0.4673671
2III7.917.82479.31113.3526.394.4236.394.74625.824.213.20.2−2.223032290
3III7.424.546225.2478464.126.182.21.533.81.500.3473472
4III7.723.846418.94593.76126.778.11.631.10.500.5447447
5III7.925.153422.14663.76426.378.71.433.40.900.5460459
6IV7.723.8542634903.848.120.61401.3280.90.10.3547546
7IV7.724.82262123630176.317061.458710.122.11.40.2−2.123132311
8III7.822.994235740715.15023.62782.626.51.80.1−0.5955953
9III8.120.385237228619.731.920.82862.415.23.60.10.2892889
10III7.92355851.35027.250.9241351.613.40.20.20.6531530
11III7.824.5115637531320911549.3236511.420.10.111571155
12III7.724.911064582957.172.135.12633.410.600.10.1994994
13IV8.321.1106643330111.269.633.22555.212.1000.1967967
14IV7.72299233841912.763.1242502.518.177516.4−0.61706914
15IV819.662268.147538.820.911.71902.619.572515.6−0.21326585
16IV7.829143260630418.310249.82874.223.8201061.3−0.733121241
17IV8.134.3123841841358.555.633.73164.121.3212066.5−0.432971110
18III7.823.76881144938.453.526.31551.621.1312089.50.13832622
19III7.824.360829.86218.845.721.61661.522.273055.70.11387601
20III818.219,96296084011190887687443837.423.3490.5−7.617,11717,068
21III7.918.819,71897403821203533534545444.723.71300.32.917,85117,720
* TDScalc without considering Fe and Mn concentrations.
Table 2. The isotopic data in the study by Xu et al. [10]. We have added deuterium excess (Dex) values.
Table 2. The isotopic data in the study by Xu et al. [10]. We have added deuterium excess (Dex) values.
IDAquifer SystemMembershipδ2Hδ18ODex3H14C Based Age14C Activity
(‰)(‰)(‰)TUYears BPpmc
1DCASAquifer III−42.94−5.25−0.94<217,940 ± 1409.70
2DCASAquifer III−36.58−3.97−4.82<211,270 ± 11021.75
3DCASAquifer III−41.84−5.250.1615.818,490 ± 3409.08
4DCASAquifer III−43.8−5.520.36<216,100 ± 10012.12
5DCASAquifer III−39.92−5.171.44<217,260 ± 10010.54
6DCASAquifer IV−45.13−5.720.63<218,200 ± 1309.40
7DCASAquifer IV−39.92−5.131.12<216,140 ± 13012.07
8DCASAquifer III−44.9−5.972.86<226,140 ± 3003.60
9DCASAquifer III−46.25−6.616.632.4722,950 ± 5105.29
10DCASAquifer III−40.79−4.86−1.91<220,380 ± 2807.22
11DCASAquifer III−46.66−6.485.18<224,880 ± 2604.19
12DCASAquifer III−49.12−6.381.92<222,150 ± 2505.83
13DCASAquifer IV−50.33−6.340.39<218,870 ± 2308.67
14DCASAquifer IV−48.8−6.372.166.9422,310 ± 2805.72
15DCASAquifer IV−55.31−7.222.455.3116,900 ± 23011.01
16DCASAquifer IV−48.05−6.43.158.719,540 ± 1808.00
17DCASAquifer IV−52.76−6.973<225,890 ± 3003.71
18DCASAquifer III−41.64−4.54−5.3213.322,490 ± 1705.60
19DCASAquifer III−51.42−5.96−3.741218,600 ± 1708.96
20DCASAquifer III−28.2−3.671.16<27410 ± 80034.69
21DCASAquifer III−28.15−3.25−2.15<29370 ± 8027.36
22NoneRiver−50.45−7.186.99 --
23NoneRiver−50.43−6.985.41 --
24NoneRiver−28.35−2.96−4.67 --
25NoneSea−6.32−0.56−1.84 --
26NoneSea−14.52−1.73−0.68 --
27PASPhreatic Aquifer−38.67−5.717.01 --
28PASPhreatic Aquifer−31.13−4.44.07 --
29PASPhreatic Aquifer−30.69−3.910.59 --
30ICASAquifer I−33.37−4.04−1.05 --
31PASPhreatic Aquifer−42.83−6.398.29 --
32PASPhreatic Aquifer−37.9−5.284.34 --
33PASPhreatic Aquifer−38.63−5.465.05 --
Table 3. Methodological differences between Xu et al. [10] and this study.
Table 3. Methodological differences between Xu et al. [10] and this study.
Methodology Steps and ResultsThis StudyXu et al. [10]
Data QA/QC before statistical analysisYesNo
Dataset log-transformation and/or normality testYesNo
Used anomalous Fe and Mn data in statistical processNoYes
HCA linkage methodWard
HCA measure of similarityEuclidean distance
Number of identified clusters34
Number of significant components identified (Eigenvalue > 1)23
Table 4. Mean values of hydrochemical data for clusters/subclusters identified by HCA.
Table 4. Mean values of hydrochemical data for clusters/subclusters identified by HCA.
ClusterpHTDSClHCO3SO42−Ca2+Mg2+Na+K+H2SiO3Water Type
mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L
C17.81698136.3480.314.155.125.2165.12.125.3Na-HCO3
sC1a7.7254551.8486.83.864.227.498.31.632.3Na-HCO3
sC1b7.88784169.9487.222.448.323.6202.02.319.3Na-HCO3
C27.91479656.2332.362.3113.849.2339.45.217.1Na-Cl
C37.95198409674391.51196.5710610.5494641.123.5Na-Cl
Table 5. Table of component weightings, principal component Eigenvalues, and variance of principal components.
Table 5. Table of component weightings, principal component Eigenvalues, and variance of principal components.
VariablePCA1PCA2
pH0.12−0.41
Log TDS0.380.10
Log Cl0.37−0.11
Log HCO3−0.160.52
Log SO42−0.36−0.02
Log Ca2+0.350.26
Log Mg2+0.360.21
Log Na+0.380.02
Log K+0.380.01
Log H2SiO3−0.060.65
Eigenvalue6.581.76
Percentage of explained variance65.817.6
Cumulative percentage of variance65.883.4
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moya, C.E.; Scheihing, K.W.; Taulis, M. The Crucial Role of Data Quality Control in Hydrochemical Studies: Reevaluating Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China. Earth 2025, 6, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030062

AMA Style

Moya CE, Scheihing KW, Taulis M. The Crucial Role of Data Quality Control in Hydrochemical Studies: Reevaluating Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China. Earth. 2025; 6(3):62. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moya, Claudio E., Konstantin W. Scheihing, and Mauricio Taulis. 2025. "The Crucial Role of Data Quality Control in Hydrochemical Studies: Reevaluating Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China" Earth 6, no. 3: 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030062

APA Style

Moya, C. E., Scheihing, K. W., & Taulis, M. (2025). The Crucial Role of Data Quality Control in Hydrochemical Studies: Reevaluating Groundwater Evolution in the Jiangsu Coastal Plain, China. Earth, 6(3), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030062

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop