Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect

Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER RESOURCES, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING (ICWRCOE 2015) Geochemical Modeling of Groundwater in Chinnar River Basin: A Source Identification Perspective

Suma CS*, Srinivasamoorthy K, Saravanan K, Faizalkhan A, Prakash R, Gopinath S

Pondicherry University, Department of Earth sciences, Pondicherry, -605014

Abstract

Understanding the geochemical evolution of groundwater is an essential part of the performance assessment and safety analysis of the geological system. Geochemical modeling techniques using PHREEQCI will aid in demarcating the main factors and mechanisms controlling the chemistry of groundwater. An attempt has been made in hard rock terrain of Chinnar basin, Dharmapuri district of Tamilnadu, India to interpret the processes and factors controlling hydrogeochemistry of groundwater. The area is made up of rock units belonging to Charnockite and Granitic Gneiss. Groundwater chemistry has been attempted + + 2+ 2+ - - - - based on laboratory observations of major cations like Na , K , Ca and Mg and anions like Cl , HCO3 , NO3 , F , 2- 3- SO4 and PO4 . Piper diagram reveals higher bicarbonate, calcium and magnesium along the recharge zones and tend to decrease along the flow path and vice versa for ions like sodium, potassium and chloride. Two flow paths based on piper and saturation index were identified for two major lithounits. The granitic terrain shows precipitation of calcium and sulfate minerals and dissolution of silicate minerals. The charnockite terrain shows precipitation of silicates and dissolution of calcium and sulfate minerals. From initial to final solution slight variation in calcium and sulfate stability were identified but drastic change with reference to silicate minerals stability due to effective dissolution of silicate minerals from the litho units of the study area. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (©http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.). PeerPeer-review-review under under responsibility responsibility of organizing of organizing committee committee of ICWRCOE of ICWRCOE 2015 2015.

Keywords: Geochemical modelling, evolution, Piper, Stability, Saturation index, PREEQCI.

* Corresponding author.. E-mail address: [email protected] 1. Introduction

2214-241X © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of ICWRCOE 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.124 C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992 987

The chemical interactions between groundwater and the geological materials of soils and rocks provide a wide variety of constituents. Geochemical modelling is an important tool for predicting the geological system. In hydrogeology it is very important for examining the geochemical behavior of the aquifer system.

2. Study area

The study area Chinnar sub basin, located in Dharmapuri district, Tamilnadu state, India between longitude E 77° 36’and 78° 73’ and latitude N 11° 47’and 12° 33’ with a total geographical area of 1581km². The major litho units are granitic gneiss, charnockite, syenite and hornblende representing Archaean formations. Chinnar River is a tributary of Cauvery and originates on the high lands around Thali in Hosur taluk. After traversing in Dharmapuri district, it finally joins Cauvery River near Hogenakkal.

Fig. 1. Location, Geology and the two flow paths selected for modelling studies

3. Hydrogeology 988 C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992

Groundwater in the study area occurs under phreatic condition in the weathered mantle and semi confined to confined condition in the fracturand fissured zones of these rocks. Thickness of weathered material varied widely from less than 1m bgl to more than 20m bgl. Water table fluctuation ranges betweenb10 to 20 m3/day. The estimation of groundwater resources comes under over exploited category. Dug wells are the most common groundwater abstraction structures used for irrigation in the district.

4. Materials and method

A Total of 63 groundwater samples were collected during the month of January representing Post Monsoon (POM) season. The samples were analysed for major cations and anions (pH, conductivity, Ca2+ ,Mg2+, + + - 2- - 3- - - Na , K and Cl , SO4 , NO3 , PO4 , F , H4SiO4 and HCO3 ) using standard procedures (APHA,1995). Saturation index and inverse modelling were performed using PREEQCI program (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999).

5. Results and discussion

The statistics of chemical constituents in groundwater are given in table1.Ground water is generally acidic in nature with pH range between 6.14 to 8.17with and average of 7.16. Conductivity (EC) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ranges between 1000 to 9640 μS/cm and 620 to 5580 mg/l with averages of 2400μS/cm 1641mg/l respectively.

5.1. Major water chemistry

The general abundance of the major ions in groundwater follows the trend as: + 2+ 2+ + 2- - - - - 3- Na >Ca >Mg >K =HCO3 >Cl >NO3 >F >SO4 >PO4 The ground water of the study area shows higher concentration of Na+ ranging from 4.7 to 370.3mg/l with average of 109.67 mg/l, Ca2+ ranges between 14.1 to 235.0 mg/l and with average of 92.02 mg/l, Mg2+ from 7.56 to 162.3mg/l with an average of 61.18mg/l. Higher concentrations of cations are due to weathering of silicate minerals; Potassium was lower with ranges between 0.1 to 115.0 mg/l with average of 6.1 mg/l, due to its greater resistance to weathering and its fixation in the formation of clay minerals (Mohan et al 2000). Bicarbonate is the dominant anion ranging between 34.2 to 400.1 mg/l with an average of 208.5 mg/l - - followed by Cl between 8.6 to 450.6 mg/l with an average of 100.5 mg/l, NO3 ranges between 0.1 to 17.1 mg/l - 2- with an average value of 5.5mg/l, F ranges between 0.11 to 2.9 mg/l with an average of 1.26 mg/l, SO4 ranging 3- from 0.063 to 14.8 mg/l with average of 0.4 mg/l and PO4 ranges between 0.02 to 0.04 mg/l with averages of 0.03 mg/l. Silicate varied between 2.0 to 207.0 with an average value of 56.2 mg/l.

Table1. Statistics of ground water sample Parameter Min Max Average St. Dev. pH 6.14 8.17 7.16 0.33 Cond 1000 9640 3512.22 2843.5

TDS 620 5580 2184.44 1723.3

2+ Ca 14.13 235 92.02 39.91

2+ Mg 7.56 162.3 61.18 29.29 + Na 4.75 370.3 109.67 99.93 C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992 989

+ K 0.15 115 6.17 19.95 - Cl 8.62 450.6 100.51 88.5 - HCO3 34.25 400.1 208.55 78.82 2- SO4 0.063 14.8 0.49 2.09 - NO3 0.13 17.13 5.5 4.72 - F 0.11 2.91 1.26 0.57

H4SiO4 2 207 96.47 56.22

5.2. Hydrochemical facies

A hydrochemical facies is a discrete zone of groundwater, identified to contain certain cation and , anion concentrations within definite boundaries. Piper diagram shows the percentage composition of major 2+ 2+ - cations+ and anions. From the piper plot (Fig 2.), major hydrochemical facies identified were: Ca - Mg - HCO 3 , 2+ 2+ + + 2+ + - - 2+ 2+ - + - Ca - Mg -Na+, Na - K - Ca , Na - K Cl and with minor representation of Ca - Mg - Cl and Na -Cl . Higher concentration of calcium, magnesium and bicarbonate were noted in the recharge zone and tend to decrease along the flow path direction, the ions like sodium, potassium, chloride are high in discharge region. (K. Sriniv asamoorthy et al, 2011).

Fig. 2. Piper diagram of cation and anion showing post monsoon

5.3. Saturation indices (SI) of minerals in ground water chemistry The saturation index (SI) approach is to predict the reactive mineralogy of the litho units from the ground water data without collecting the samples of the solid phases and analysing the mineralogy (William J. Deutsch. et al). The aqueous speciation model PREEQCI (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999) is used to calculate SI of minerals. The index is the log10 of the ion activity product of component of a mineral divided by the equilibrium constant for a mineral. SI greater than zero indicate mineral precipitated in water (over saturated), if less than zero, indicates mineral dissolved in water (under saturated), zero indicates equilibrium state of mineral constituents. Two flow paths were identified based on facies diagram (Hill Piper) and saturation 990 C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992

index value, topography and geology of the study area. For Charnockite (Sample no: 2 and 50) and for Granitic Gneiss (Sample no: 31-62) were selected as flow path (Fig 3). Silicate, Carbonate, Sufate, Chloride and Magnesium minerals reveals precipitation and dissolution nature along and quartz and chloride minerals like halite, magnesium and talc shows precipitation along the flow path; Carbonate minerals like Calcite, aragonite, and dolomite and sulphate minerals like anhydrite, gypsum, and sulphur shows dissolution along the flow path. In the charnockitic terrain silicate minerals, chloride minerals and magnesium minerals shows precipitation trend along the flow path; carbonate and sulphate minerals reveals dissolution. (Table2). Geochemical weathering causes precipitation and dissolution tendency in granite gneiss and charnockite minerals (K. Srinivasamoorthy 2012). Table2. Saturation index of minerals in two flow paths Phases Sample No:31 Sample No:62 Sample No:2 Sample No:50 Chalcedony 0.67 0.19 0.25 0.76 Chrysotile -5.02 -4.82 -5.00 0.15 Quartz 1.10 0.62 0.68 1.18 Aragonite -0.38 -0.56 -0.02 -0.02 Calcite -0.24 -0.41 0.13 0.13 Dolamite -0.31 -0.45 0.06 0.57 Anhydrite -4.92 -3.10 -4.36 -4.76 Gypsum -4.70 -2.88 -4.14 -4.54 Talc 0.01 -0.74 -0.80 5.36

5.4. Inverse geochemical modelling Inverse modelling is used to deduce the geochemical reactions that account for the change in chemical composition of water along a flow path. At least two chemical analyses of water at different points along the flow path are needed, as well as a set of phases that are potentially reactive along the flow path. From the analyses and phases, mole-balance models are calculated. A mole-balance model is a set of mole transfers of phases and reactants that accounts for the change in composition along the flow path (Techniques and Methods 6–Ac43, USGS). From the inverse modelling obtained the primary mineral phases identified were Anhydrite, Aragonite, Calcite, Chalcedony, Chrysotile, Dolomite, Gypsum and Quartz,

Table3. Phase mole transfers Granitic gneiss terrain Flow Model in Granitic Gneiss Terrain Phase Mole Transfers ( From Sample No:31 to Sample No:62)

Mineral Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV Model-V Model-VI Phases Chrysotile 1.268e+000 1.268e+000 - -2.686e+000 - -2.686e+000 Gypsum 8.496e-005 - 8.496e-005 8.496e-005 - - Talc -6.341e+000 -6.341e+000 -5.371e+000 - 5.371e+000 -5.371e+000 -5.371e+000 Anhydrite - 8.496e-005 - - 8.496e-005 8.496e-005 Quartz - - -2.686e+000 - -2.686e+000 -

Model was run by considering the samples (No. 31 and 62) in granitic gneiss along west to east of the study area. A total of 6 models of solution and phase mole transfer were identified (Table.3). The addition and removal of phase mole transfer are considered as dissolution and precipitation of the phases identified with positive and negative symbols respectively. Hence, dissolution is noted by positive values in phase mole transfer ( et al., 2012). In Model I, III and IV Gypsum and shows dissolution, Talc and chrysotile shows precipitation. In IVth C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992 991 model there is addition of mole transfer in gypsum; and in chrysotile and talc decreasing of mole transfer were identified indicating the dissolution and precipitation of mineral along the flow path. Studies of saturation index along the flow path from recharge to discharge area also indicate dissolution and precipitation of these minerals. Table4. Phase mole transfers in Charnockite terrain Flow Model in Charnockite Terrain Phase Mole Transfers (From Sample No:2 to Sample No:50)

Mineral Model-I Model-II Model-III Model-IV Model-V Model-VI Model-VII Model-VIII phases Aragonite 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 1.116e-003 Chalcedony -3.520e+000 -2.302e+001 -3.520e+000 - - - -2.302e+001 - Gypsum 1.485e-006 - - 1.485e-006 - - 1.485e-006 1.485e-006 Talc -7.041e+000 - -7.041e+000 -7.041e+000 - -7.041e+00 - - Chrysotile - -9.208e+000 - - -9.208e+000 - -9.208e+000 -9.208e+000 Anhydrite - 1.485e-006 1.485e-006 - 1.485e-006 1.485e-006 - - Quartz - - - -3.520e+000 -2.302e+001 -3.520e+000 - -2.302e+001

The inverse geochemical model were also attempted for charnockite terrain by considering the sample No. 2 and 50 considered to be along the groundwater flow path along east to west of the study area. A total of 8 models were identified (Table5). From these models the silicate minerals like chalcedony, chrysotile and quartz were observed to be precipitated and carbonate, sulfate and chloride minerals shows dissolution. Model V is selected as the appropriate field model because the addition of carbonate, sulfate and chloride minerals and removal of silicate minerals of phase mole transfer is matching with the saturation index of minerals in the same flow path.

6. Conclusion

Saturation index of minerals and inverse modeling along the flow paths in the present study gave good interpretation regarding geochemical evolution of the ground water system. The hydrochemical flow path and SI of the minerals shows dissolution of minerals like calcite, aragonite, dolomite, anhydrite, gypsum and sulphur. Silicate minerals like chalcedony, chrysotile and quartz, clay minerals like talc shows precipitation along the flow path. In granitic gneiss terrain SI of silicate is high when compared with charnockite. Ground water flow from recharge area to discharge area alters the saturation index of the mineral phases. In granitic gneiss terrain silicate minerals like quartz, chalcedony and clay mineral like talc is precipitating; silicate minerals are resistant to weathering, talc is not soluble in water it is hydrated magnesium silicate mineral. Carbonate, sulfate and magnesium minerals are dissolving through the flow path direction. In charnockite terrain silicate minerals and magnesium minerals is showing drastic change of precipitation this is because of the higher concentration of silica and magnesium minerals are nearly in equilibrium state, sulfate and chloride minerals are in dissolving condition.

References

APHA. (1995). Standard methods for the examinationofwater and waste water (19th Ed.).Washington, DC: APHA. Parkhurst, DL. Thorstenson, DC. & Plummer, LN. (1990) PHREEQE—a computer program for geochemical calculation. USGS water resources investigations report 80-96, 195 pp Mohan R, Singh AK, Tripathi JK, Chow-dhary GC (2000) Hydrochemistry and quality assessment of groundwater in Naini industrial area, Allahabad dis-trict, Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 55:77–89. K. Sriniv asamoorthy, M. Vasantha vigar, S. Chidambaram , P . Anandhan and V .S. Sarma , Characterization of Groundwater Chemistry in an Eastern Coastal Area of Cuddalore District, . Journal Geological Society of India V ol.78, 2011, pp.549-558 992 C.S. Suma et al. / Aquatic Procedia 4 ( 2015 ) 986 – 992

S.Chidambaram, P.Anandhan, M.V.Prasanna, A.L.Ramanathan,K. Srinivasamoorthy and G.Senthil Kumar, Hydrogeochemical Modelling for Groundwater in Neyveli Aquifer, Tamil Nadu, India, Using PHREEQC:A Case Study, Natural Resources Research (2012),DOI: 10.1007/s11053-012-9180-6 M.U. Sharifa, R.K. Davisa , K.F. Steelea , B. Kima, T.M. Kresseb,J.A. Fazio Inverse geochemical modelling of groundwaterevolution with emphasis on arsenic in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, Arkansas (USA), Journal of Hydrology(2008)350,41–55 William J. Deutsch, Randy Siegel, Groundwater Geochemistry: Fundamentals and Applications to Contamination, Krishnaraj Srinivasamoorthy & Kannusamy Vijayaraghavan& Murugesan Vasanthavigar & Subramanya Sarma & Sabarathinam Chidambaram & Paluchamy Anandhan&Rama Manivannan, Assessment of groundwater quality with special emphasis on fluoride contamination in crystalline bed rock aquifers of region, Tamilnadu, India, Arab J Geosci (2012) 5:83–94