Andre Et Al 2005
Andre Et Al 2005
Andre Et Al 2005
www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol
Abstract
In deep aquifers the complex flow pattern originating from the geological structure often leads to difficult predictions of water origin,
determination of the main flow paths, potential mixing of waters. All these uncertainties prevent an efficient management of the
resource. In the context of the Aquitaine basin an original modelling approach suggests that geochemical data can be used to identify
flow directions where geological and hydrogeological data are too scarce to provide sufficient information.
In the Eocene sands aquifer, the major patterns of groundwater geochemistry suggest the presence of two distinct areas within
the aquifer. In the north and the east, waters exhibit sodium bicarbonate or sodium sulphate facies, and moderate total
dissolved solids related to high sulphate concentrations. In the south, waters are characterised by calcium bicarbonate facies
and low total dissolved solids.
Sulphur isotopic ratios provided key information on the origin of sulphur in solution (meteoric, gypsum dissolution, pyrite
oxidation) and also on the intensity of the geochemical processes involved in the dissolution of minerals and the concentration
evolution.
A geochemical model was developed to analyse the processes generating the chemical composition of each sampled water. At
the aquifer scale, four main geochemical processesdissolution, redox, acidbase reaction, exchangeof varying intensity
could explain most of the observed spatial variability in groundwater composition.
Among several potential reaction schemes at each point, only one allowed to reproduce the independent variables (pH and
13
C). The developed model was used to select the most probable water pathways at the aquifer scale. In this context,
geochemistry clearly demonstrates the role played by subsurface structures on water flow velocities and residence time in
their vicinity. In addition, the concentrations of several ions could only be justified by the aquitardaquifer interactions.
Keywords: Water geochemistry; Groundwater hydrogeology; Isotopes; Modelling; Ion exchange; Leakage; Aquitaine
* Corresponding author. Address: Institut EGID Bordeaux 3, 1 Allee Duguin, Pessac 33607, France. Tel.:C33 5 57 12 10 17; fax: C33 5 57
12 10 01.
0022-1694/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.027
L.
41
1. Introduction
data, particularly S.
The Eocene sands aquifer, located in the south
Aquitaine Basin, constitutes an important water
resource used for various purposes (thermal water,
potable water.). This aquifer has been mostly studied
since the end of the 50s along with the development of
oil exploration in this part of France. The production
42
Fig. 1. The study region and the piezometric map of the Eocene sands aquifer. (Institut EGID, 1999)
14
Fig. 2. Location of the sampling points and major faults. The numbers with symbols correspond to sampling points having used to the
geochemical modelling.
Waters were sampled during various field campaigns distributed over two years. This is due to the
irregular use of some wells (irrigation, geothermal
power heat). Owing to the residence time of the
water in the aquifer, the time lags may not play a
dominant role on the chemical composition of the
waters and consecutive samplings at some wells
showed a constant chemical composition.
44
2 K
4 ,
2C
Anions (Cl , SO
2C
F, Br ) and
C
cations (Ca , Mg , Na , K )
concentrations in filtered samples
(acidified for cations) were
measured by ionic chromatography
on a Dionex DX-120. Trace
elements (Al, Mn, Fe, Ba, Sr, Rb,)
were measured in filtered and
acidified samples by graphitefurnace atomic absorption (Perkin
Elmer SIMAA 6000).
3.2. Results
34
18
34
than 1 mg/L),
d O(SO4) is
18
Table 1
(
m
S
/
c
m
)
T (8C)
Cond.
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
pH
Eh
Ca2C
Mg2C
Na
(
m
g
/
L
)
KC
HCO3
Cl
NO3
2K
SO4
[H2S]
(
m
g
/
L
)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L
(mg/L)
(mg/L
(mg/L
(!10
K6
(mV)
1
B
a
r
b
o
t
a
n
HCO3)
NO3)
SO4)
mol/L)
1
0
2
3
7
.
2
3
9
0
7
.
0
7
66.9
50.60
7
.
1
0
6.88
12.16
5.83
170.30
9.48
0
40.01
NM
2
Barbotan 103
36.9
372
7.25
73.1
48.29
6.70
11.74
5.99
176.00
8.71
0
31.62
NM
3
Barbotan Lotus 2
6
.
8
1
5
4
.
4
8
8
.
1
0
1
1
.
3
7
5
.
8
0
1
8
3
.
7
0
8
.
3
8
0
5
1
.
3
9
31
N
M
410
Lectoure
42.5
I
z
a
u
t
e
3010
7.20
72.6
44.64
13.49
548.20
20.30
367.70
321.20
0
651.80
0.00
5
5
3
5
.
5
3
1
9
7
.
3
5
K
7
.
8
Lussagnet 57
45.4
346
4
1
.
8
5
7.29
K12
43.71
7.12
9.37
5.52
178.54
6.59
0
20.32
2.23
5
.
2
3
9
.
3
3
4
.
8
7
1
6
3
.
6
9
7.95
0
15.22
1
6
3
.
0
0
15.57
Nogaro 2
7
.
1
0
51.3
295
2
7
.
6
7
7.35
K59
38.46
4.94
14.30
5.02
155.06
8.16
0
28.19
12.25
8
Gondrin
42.4
349
7.45
35.7
31.06
7.44
23.19
5.76
0
.
0
0
9
D
e
m
u
5
2
.
3
2
9
6
7
.
3
2
K
1
3
0
3
2
.
8
7
4.64
17.11
6.24
159.70
7.41
0
7.93
9.54
10
Beaucaire
34.3
2280
7.44
9.18
134.3
50.6
4
4
.
3
2
1
4
.
5
5
2
1
.
3
8
6
.
8
5
1
7
8
.
6
0
18
7
.
0
9
205.44
49.93
7
9
.
2
0
316
0
1069
1.20
11
Castera-Verduzan
30.4
460
7.48
76.3
0
.
7
6
1
2
Plehaut
27.9
391
7.45
30.3
(
E
L
B
2
)
42.48
10.62
18.58
8.98
167.11
6.98
0
49.11
0.00
13
Eugenie les Bains 2
19.0
357
7.94
K47
22.78
6.26
42.88
7.16
201.52
7.44
0
10.98
26.30
1
4
G
e
a
u
n
e
3
0
.
9
336
7.43
3
2
.
5
K8.1
53.08
3
3
4
5.09
9.20
4.32
181.63
5.83
0
13.53
0.00
15
Geaune Pecorade 101
32.4
330
7.41
38.7
49.84
4.13
6.08
3.52
185.30
5.65
0
12.77
0.00
16
Geaune Bats
7
.
3
1
7
.
6
1
5
0
.
6
0
4
.
2
7
5
.
2
7
3
.
6
9
1
8
4
.
3
5
5
.
2
7
0
11.32
0.83
5
8
.
3
8
17
Blagnac (piscine)
49.6
1377
7.20
K24
12.22
3.23
284.60
10.28
425.46
126.30
0
131.00
3.06
18
Lalbarede
25.7
857
7.77
K18
12.22
6.82
165.20
5.40
281.40
80.15
0
.
0
0
1
9
G
a
r
l
i
n
2
7
.
2
3
5
1
7
.
5
0
2
8
.
8
3
4
.
3
9
8
.
5
8
25.50
3.63
9
.
9
7
188.16
15.03
0
4.63
1.87
20
Lespielle 1
26.5
261
7.39
NM
42.19
5.10
9.93
2.82
173.55
7.46
0
10.88
14.82
21
Lamaze`re
50.1
494
7.31
341
32.18
5
7
.
1
5
1
0
.
3
3
2
9
2
.
3
8
7
.
2
6
0
2
5
.
9
0
0
.
0
0
2
2
Saint Medard
2
4
20.6
305
8.42
K45
22.30
11.91
15.60
5.26
143.06
11.71
0
19.16
1.04
23
Bordes 3
13.4
484
7.46
362
87.16
4.08
5.02
1.40
223.74
11.92
41.69
14.43
0.00
G
r
i
g
n
o
l
s
2
1
.
4
1
6
5
9
7
.
0
8
1
7
4
1
2
3
.
9
4
5
.
6
1
4
1
.
9
0
1
4
.
7
202.52
167.40
0
423.5
0.00
L.
45
46
Table 2
Wells
18
d O(H2O)
H (U.T.)
13
d C
14
A C
18
d O(SO4)
34
d S(SO4)
34
d S(H2S)
number
( SMOW)
( SMOW)
( PDB)
(p.c.m.)
( SMOW)
( CDT)
( CDT)
1
K8.90
K55.70
!0.8
K12.0
5.5G0.3
4.41
K20.12
4.28
2
K8.90
K57.40
0.2G0.3
K12.0
5.1G0.5
5.33
K16.18
NM
3
K8.60
K57.00
1.3
K11.9
24.2G0.4
3.95
K15.80
K32.25
4
K7.20
K45.00
0G0.4
K9.98
2.5G0.2
16.13
12.23
/
5
K9.40
K61.50
!0.8
K11.2
2.3G0.3
9.19
K3.21
K15.48
6
K8.78
K57.42
!0.8G0.4
K10.96
8.93G0.11
9.11
K1.63
K24.05
7
K8.70
K49.30
!0.8
K13.5
3.3G0.2
12.61
8.76
K20.17
8
K8.00
K50.40
0G0.3
K12.9
2.1G0.3
15.4
11.56
/
9
K7.69
K51.30
!0.7
K14.4
4.5G0.4
12.84
18.93
K16.33
10
K7.22
K49.44
!0.8G0.5
K6.81
4.94G0.08
13.66
15.05
NM
11
K8.18
K53.37
!0.8G0.4
K10.05
4.75G0.13
15.15
10.32
NM
12
K8.20
K50.20
!0.8
K13.8
4.5G0.5
15.28
9.76
/
13
K9.56
K63.67
!0.8G0.4
K12.58
5.24G0.12
14.14
33.18
K10.55
14
K8.60
K54.20
0.5G0.3
K11.4
6.9G0.5
8.30
K3.20
/
15
K7.29
K53.03
! 0.8G0.5
K11.29
9.72G0.11
5.98
K4.01
NM
16
K7.56
K52.54
!0.8G0.4
K11.5
12.81G0.13
6.63
K2.98
NM
17
K7.35
K50.37
!0.8G0.4
K8.41
1.44G0.07
15.23
13.23
7.86
18
K7.32
K48.86
!0.8G0.4
K11.98
2.89G0.06
17.23
13.06
10.78
19
K8.10
K53.90
0.80G0.3
K14.5
!0.7
12.85
13.01
K28.05
20
K8.00
K50.80
1.5G0.5
K14.3
3.0G0.8
11.96
5.79
NM
21
K8.50
K52.40
!0.8
K6.0
3.6G0.2
14.93
17.50
/
22
K7.31
K51.72
0.9G0.5
K8.48
13.09G0.2
14.27
24.37
NM
23
K7.30
K46.10
16.0G0.8
K11.9
77.3G1.0
5.13
4.87
/
24
K7.53
K51.10
!0.8G0.5
K4.15
0.96G0.07
12.83
15.70
/
4. Modelling strategy
Fig. 3. Trilinear Piper diagram of water chemistry of the Eocene sands aquifer.
48
2 K
4 ]Z0.04
meq/L,
K1
K3
49
Table 3
Wells
Aragonite Calcite Dolomite Anhydrite Gypsum Fluorite
Halite Quartz
Amorphous
Siderite
CO2
number
silica
3
1
K0.41
K0.27
K0.96
K2.23
K2.07
2
K0.43
K0.30
K1.00
K2.34
K2.18
K0.38
K0.24
K0.90
K2.14
K1.94
4
K0.24
K0.10
K0.29
K1.44
K1.31
5
K0.04
10
0.09
0.08
K0.08
0.21
K2.48
0.40
K2.38
K0.88
K0.70
K0.15
11
K0.01
K0.16
K0.50
K0.02
K2.72
K0.13
K2.53
K2.07
K1.86
K0.05
12
0.08
K0.27
K0.23
K0.12
K2.79
K0.47
K2.72
K2.26
K2.05
K0.18
13
K0.04
K0.20
K0.22
K0.05
K2.52
K0.37
K2.39
K3.18
K2.94
K0.06
14
0.06
K0.16
K0.21
K0.02
K2.94
K0.66
K2.89
K2.62
K2.42
K3.35
15
K3.13
K0.09
20
0.05
K0.28
K0.56
K0.14
K2.73
K0.84
K2.54
K2.88
16
K2.66
K0.18
21
K0.04
0.02
K0.73
0.14
K2.77
0.29
K2.59
K2.53
17
K2.46
K0.27
22
K0.15
0.27
K0.34
0.42
K2.18
0.86
K2.17
K2.92
18
K2.68
K0.33
23
K0.18
K0.01
K0.27
0.14
K2.79
K0.84
K2.56
K2.53
19
K2.28
K0.22
24
K0.08
K0.36
K0.39
K0.22
K0.58
K3.12
K1.20
K8.81
K0.96
0.18
K0.95
0.52
K3.08
K8.52
0.26
K0.92
0.14
K1.76
K3.02
K8.57
0.27
K0.92
0.25
K1.73
K3.00
K8.60
0.33
K0.89
0.07
K1.83
K0.69
K5.44
K0.09
K1.26
K0.03
K1.56
K1.96
K3.00
K8.75
0.37
K0.84
0.58
K2.18
K3.04
K8.60
0.16
K0.95
0.56
K2.04
K2.72
K8.37
0.19
K0.96
0.29
K2.12
K2.84
K8.43
0.15
K0.94
0.18
K2.00
K0.65
K0.64
K2.06
K6.47
K3.08
0.29
K9.03
K0.92
0.32
0.32
K0.89
K2.12
0.58
K1.46
K2.10
K8.40
K3.25
0.28
K9.13
K0.94
0.31
0.01
K0.90
K2.20
0.52
K1.97
K2.00
K8.46
K0.74
0.32
K5.82
K0.93
0.08
0.25
K0.99
K2.22
0.96
K2.65
K1.32
K7.97
K0.69
0.40
K6.46
K0.90
0.12
K0.84
K1.14
K2.60
0.25
K3.23
K2.33
K8.95
K2.41
0.27
K7.97
K0.95
0.26
K0.98
0.15
0.26
K1.14
K2.21
1.07
K2.52
K3.31
K8.68
K3.31
0.31
K8.65
K0.94
0.46
K4.88
K0.88
K2.14
K3.54
K1.18
K2.18
K8.00
0.01
0.15
K6.23
K0.96
0.34
K4.89
K0.95
K1.68
0.20
K1.51
K1.83
K8.28
K2.5
50
Fig. 6. Variation of pH versus pCO2. Full line, pH evolution of a solution at equilibrium with calcite. Dashed line, pH evolution of a solution
at equilibrium with dolomite.
2C
Fe
concentration
3C
FeS2 C14Fe
3C
C3H2O
C8H2O415Fe
2C
2 K
4
2 K
4
C2SO
C16H
C34H2O C15FeCO3
[H2S]Z[HS ]Z10
3C
2C
K6
mol/L,
K5
mol/L, [Ctotal]Z3.10
K3
2 K
K4
[SO 4 ]Z2!10
mol/L,
mol/L Diagram
obtained with equilibrium constants from
Garrels and Christ (1965). Points represent
waters in which sulphates come from pyrite
oxidation and gypsum dissolution and crosses
symbolise waters in which sulphates come
from gypsum dissolution exclusively.
increase in Na concentration
without an associated increase in
2C
2C
2C
K
HCO 3
13
52
34
pH and d C.
5. Modelling results
Fig. 8. Geochemical processes governing the chemical composition of waters from the Eocene sands aquifer.
Table 4
Geaune
Lussagnet
Well 13
Barbotan
10K2.5
10K2.5
10K2.5
NaX
5!10
K2
5!10
K2
1.7
4!10
K1
Halite
/
Dolomite
/
Gypsum
K6!10
K2
K1!10
K1
K6!10
K2
Pyrite
K2.86!10
K2
K4.29!10
K2
K2.86!10
K2
K1.43!10
K1
Fe(OH)3
K4!10
K1
K6!10
K1
K4!10
K1
K1
Calcite
C2.73!10
K1
C3.92!10
K1
C1.77!10
K1
C4.36!10
K1
Siderite
C4.23!10
K1
C6.38!10
K1
C4.25!10
K1
C1.14
2(g)
2.5!10
K1
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
PH
7.35
7.54
7.37
7.63
7.86
8.12
7.10
7.85
HCO3
2.99
2.25
2.84
1.96
3.21
2.43
2.77
1.47
Ca2C
1.24
1.01
1.09
0.93
0.52
0.38
0.87
0.63
Cl
0.16
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.20
0.25
0.20
K
0.10
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.04
2C
Mg
0.18
0.19
0.26
0.19
0.26
0.09
0.28
0.16
Na
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.25
1.85
1.83
0.57
0.60
2K
SO4
0.14
0.12
0.19
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.31
0.27
Al
total
! LD
8.3!10
K5
2.8!10
K4
1!10
K4
! LD
7.1!10
K5
! LD
2.7!10
Si
K4
total
0.25
0.13
0.30
0.13
0.22
0.08
0.29
0.15
Log(PCO2)
K2.03
K2.35
K2.08
K2.50
K2.60
K2.99
K1.80
K2.81
13
C ( PDB)
K11.4
K12.5
K11.2
K13.0
K10.05
K12.5
K12.0
K14.0
LD, limit of detection (C); mineral precipitation from solution; (K), mineral dissolution from solid to solution. All data for minerals or exchangers
quoted in the upper part of the table indicate the amounts of these minerals dissolved/precipitated in solution to reach the measured concentration.
They are expressed as mmol/L of solution. In the low part of table, pH are expressed in standard units whereas measured and computed values are
expressed in mmol/L. Some wells are very near and the chemical compositions of waters are similar. In these conditions, Geaune represents waters
from wells 1416, Lussagnet represents waters from wells 5 and 6 and Barbotan represent waters from wells 13.
T
a
b
l
e
5
Well 9
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
P
Well 12
(
a
t
m
)
Well 8
Well 11
Well 7
0
K
2.
5
Well 20
Well 19
0
K
2.
5
1
0
K
2.
5
1
0
K
2.
5
1
0
K
2.
5
1
0
K
2.
5
8
!
1
0
10K2.5
K
1
CO2
2
.
5
!
1
0
K
1
6
!
1
0
K
1
H
a
l
i
t
e
/
NaX
/
5.5!10
7.5!10
K1
K1
4.50!10
5.50!10
K1
K1
K2.25!10
K1
Dolomite
K
2
.
8
!
1
0
K
2
K6!10
K1
K
7
!
1
0
K3!10
K2!10
K1
3
K1
K2!10
K1
Gypsum
K
2
.
1
4
!
1
0
K
2
/
K8!10
K2
K1
K9!10
K2
K
1
!
1
0
K
K5.5!10
K3!10
K1!10
K3!10
Pyrite
K1
K1
K1
K2
C
1
.
0
1
!
1
0
Fe(OH)3
K4!10
K1!10
K3!10
K1
K1
C
3
.
1
5
!
1
0
K1
K1.4!10
K1
Calcite
C
1
.
4
4
!
1
0
C1.10!10
K1
C1.44
C1.55!10
C8.14!10
C4.12!10
C1.12!10
C3.82!10
K1
K1
K1
K1
K1
Siderite
C4.23!10
K1
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
CompuMeasured
CompuMeasured
CompuMeasured
CompuMeasured
CompuMeasured
CompuMeasured
Compu-
values
ted values
values
P
h
ted values
values
ted values
values
ted values
values
ted values
values
ted values
values
ted values
7
.
3
3
7
.
2
3
7
.
4
8
7
.
6
1
7
.
4
0
7.28
7.45
7.59
7.50
7.48
7.39
7.51
7.50
7.58
HCO
2.62
2.67
2.93
2.28
2.56
2.56
2.78
2.43
2.67
2.86
2.80
2.64
2.99
2.92
3
C
a
2
C
0
.
8
0
0
.
9
5
1
.
1
1
0
.
9
4
0
.
8
8
0
.
9
6
1.00
1.03
0
.
2
1
0.78
0.96
1.05
1.11
0.75
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
5
0.85
Cl
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.43
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
7
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
6
M
g
2
C
0.43
C
0.15
0.05
0.18
0.07
0.14
0.04
0
.
1
9
0
.
1
6
0
.
6
0
0.60
0.18
0
.
8
2
0.17
0.43
0.40
0.31
0.30
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
0.21
0.18
0.32
0.32
Na
0.74
0.74
0.92
0.94
0.58
0.64
0.75
0.74
1.00
0.99
0.43
0.45
1.02
1.01
SO
2K
0.08
0.08
0.83
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
2
0
.
2
9
0
.
2
8
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4
4
!
1
0
K
5
!
1
0
K
5
!
1
0
K
3
!
1
0
K
5
Al
total
9.6
28
1.1
!
1
0
K
4
9
!LD
2.4
1.30
0.57
7.4
7.3
!
1
0
K
4
!
1
0
K
4
1.2
4.7
7.4
5.5
!
1
0
K
5
!10
!10
!10
!10
!10
Si
K5
K5
K
2
.
1
3
K5
K5
K5
total
0.36
0.25
0.25
0.13
0.34
0.23
0.24
0.11
0.29
0.13
0.23
0.11
0.21
0.11
Log(PCK2.00
K1.81
K2.21
K2.43
K2.05
K1.90
K2.22
K2.41
K
2
.
1
9
K
2
.
1
5
K
2
.
2
8
K
2
.
2
2
K
2
.
3
1
O
2
)
13
C (
K14.4
K12.1
K12.6
K10.2
K13.5
K12.2
K13.8
K11.0
K12.9
K10.9
K14.3
K12.2
K14.5
K11.1
PDB)
5
4
(C): mineral precipitation from solution; (K): mineral dissolution from solid to solution. pH are expressed in standard units whereas amounts of
minerals (upper part of table) and measured and computed values (low part of table) are expressed in mmol/L.
L.
55
Table 6
Well 17
Well 4
Well 24
Well 18
Well 10
10K2.5
10K2.5
10K2.5
10K2.5
10K2.5
NaX
11
20
15
5
14
Halite
K3.4
K8.9
K4.4
K2
K1.2
Dolomite
K9!10
K1
K2.62
K2.5
K5.6!10
K1
K5.7
Gypsum
K1.5
K7
K6
K6.5!10
K15
K1
Calcite
K2.11!10
K1
C3.6
C4.77
C9.05!10
K1
C11.27
CO2(g)
2.2
5!10
K1
5!10
K1
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
Measured
Computed
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
values
pH
7.20
7.47
7.20
7.25
7.08
7.17
7.77
8.50
7.44
7.06
HCO3
6.98
6.83
6.03
6.03
3.32
3.26
4.61
3.22
3.37
3.08
Ca
2C
0.31
0.30
1.12
0.94
3.1
3.45
0.31
0.11
3.36
3.72
Cl
3.56
3.60
9.05
9.10
4.72
4.60
2.26
2.20
1.40
1.40
K
0.26
0.53
0.52
0.96
0.38
0.14
0.14
0.28
0.46
0.96
2C
Mg
0.13
0.12
0.56
0.51
1.89
1.90
0.28
0.08
2.10
2.19
Na
12.32
11.94
23.73
23.67
6.14
5.96
7.15
6.21
13.68
13.86
2K
SO4
1.37
1.39
6.79
6.00
4.41
4.43
0.61
0.64
11.13
10.94
Al
total
2.2!10
4!10
K4
K4
5.6!10
K4
1.0!10
K4
2.6!10
K4
4.30!10
K4
! LD
3.8!10
Si
K5
total
0.3
0.23
0.14
0.17
0.20
0.09
0.14
0.11
0.29
0.14
Log(PCK1.32
K1.7
K1.56
K1.62
K1.84
K1.93
1.3!10
4!10
K5
K4
K2.33
K3.20
K2.12
K1.7
O2)
13
C (
K8.41
K6.6
K9.98
K5.7
K4.15
K7.1
K11.8
K9.4
K6.81
K8.69
PDB)
(C): mineral precipitation from solution; (K): mineral dissolution from solid to solution. pH are expressed in standard units whereas amounts
of minerals (upper part of table) and measured and computed values (low part of table) are expressed in mmol/L.
56
13
34
In fact the d C
gradient
where mixing of large volumes occurs,
or for the specific case of ion
exchange, the concentrations of
dissolved species may not decrease
along the direction groundwater flow.
In the northern part of the aquifer there
is a clear trend of salt content from east
to west along the line Lalbare`de (well
18) Blagnac (well 17)Beaucaire
(well 10). The main flow directions are
in agreement with the main gradient
directions. From Beaucaire and in the
western part, the flow pattern is not
clear, both head and salinity showing a
strong decrease in the west of
Beaucaire. The concentration decrease
might be explained by flow of dilute
34
S isotopes
58
6.3. Leakage
7. Conclusion
60
validation by pH or C allowed us
to justify and quantify the
geochemical processes occurring in
solution.
Acknowledgements
References
62
Fredrickson,
Trembaczowski, A., Halas, S. 1984. Oxygen
and sulphur isotope ratios in sulphate from
atmospheric precipitations. In: Proc. Int.
Symp. Isotope Hydrol. Water Resour. Dev.,
I.A.E.A., Vienna.
J.K.,
McKinley,
J.P.,
Swenson, J.B.,
1999. Groundwater flow
819820
and geochemistry
Walvoord,
M.A.,
Pegram, P., Phillips, F.M., Person, M.,
Kieft,
T.L.,