hydrogeochemical constraints on uranium solubility … · hydrogeochemical constraints on uranium...

Journal of Groundwater Research, Vol.5/2, December 2016

16

Hydrogeochemical Constraints on Uranium Solubility and

Groundwater Quality in Aquifers of Central and Western Parts of

Singhbhum Shear Zone, Jharkhand, India

Shekhar Gupta1*, B. Saravanan1, Mayank Agarwal1, G.S. Yadav2 and Pramod Kumar3

Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research

Department of Atomic Energy 1Jamshedpur–831 002, 2Jaipur–302 018, 3New Delhi–110 066

[*Email: [email protected]]

Abstract

Spatial and temporal variations in chemistry of groundwater are primarily governed by hydrogeochemical processes within the aquifer and other anthropogenic activities. Chemical

analyses of groundwater samples from areas under active exploration for uranium in central and

western parts of Singhbhum Shear Zone (SSZ) have indicated low uranium (<1 – 9 ppb). The general order of dominance of the major cations are Ca2+ > Na+ > Mg2+ > K+ while that for anions

are HCO3– > Cl– > SO4

2– > CO32–. Groundwater of these areas is categorized as HCO3 dominant,

mixed Ca–Mg–Cl type pointing towards its meteoric nature. Gibbs ratio plot suggests rock–water interaction as major contributor to the salinity and variation in water chemistry. Low conductivity

(Av. 0.4) and its linearity with major cations-anions can be attributed to adequate rainfall, thereby

groundwater recharge in the area. Efficient groundwater recharge allows less residence time for

water within the aquifer and limited cation-anion reaction to form complex with uranium. Near neutral pH level (Av. 7.4) and weak acidic nature (HCO3

– > Cl– + SO42-) of groundwater has

restricted uranium solubility. In terms of salinity, hardness and uranium, the quality of the

groundwater of the study area, is comparable to BIS and WHO prescribed limits. Further, predominance of low to medium SAR with medium to high conductivity categorizes the

groundwater suitable for irrigation.

Keywords: Singhbhum Shear Zone (SSZ), Chloroalkaline Index (CAI), Gibbs Ratio, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR), Residual Sodium Carbonate

(RSC) Permeability Index (PI) and Uranium.

1. Introduction Chemical composition of aquifer rock and water – rock chemical interaction processes

therein primarily control the ground water geochemistry and its seasonal variation based on

climatic indicators like evaporation, precipitation, evapo-transpiration etc. Secondary controls, like interaction with disintegrated products of rock weathering, presence of oxidized sulphide

species, tailings and mine dumps may lead to the acidification of the groundwater and the release

of metals (Eary et al., 2003; Heikkinen et al., 2002; Milu et al., 2002). The ability of the host rock to act as a buffer naturally attenuates these changes in pH at many metallogenic provinces (Al et

al., 2000; Berger et al., 2000). More recently, along with risk assessments, parallel fields of

research are also oriented in characterizing the geochemical and biological processes in the aquifers, guidelines for water safety plans, remediation strategy making and developing Indian

guidelines for managed aquifer recharge (Dillon et al., 2013; Singh, 2013).

Uranium, a naturally occurring radionuclide, is usually observed in low concentration in

all surface and groundwater but intake of drinking water with higher concentration of it may cause chemical and radiological toxicity leading to health hazards (Zamora et al., 1998).

Therefore monitoring the groundwater chemistry around active or potential mining area is a pre-


17

requisite to quantify and evaluate post mining chemical changes and environmental impact

assessment.

Mining and hydrometallurgical processing of uranium by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) started in early sixties in the central part of Singhbhum Shear Zone (SSZ) in East-

Singhbhum district of Jharkhand. Mining of low grade (<0.06% U3O8) uranium ore from a cluster

of mines (Jaduguda, Bhatin, Narwapahar, Turamdih, Bandhuhurang, Bagjata, and Mohuldih)

generates a huge quantity of processed waste (tailings) which are disposed safely in tailings ponds. Although, engineering features of the earthen bund ensures the decantation of dissolved

radionuclide, the water is subsequently treated for removal of the toxins (U, 226Ra and heavy

metals) prior to discharge into the aquatic ecosystem. Considering the changes in physicochemical characteristic of tailings over the period, dissolution of contaminants in

groundwater can be anticipated. Recent assessment of groundwater ecosystem surrounding the

oldest uranium processing facility at Jaduguda and also around Bagjata in eastern part of SSZ has

revealed that the groundwater in the area around the uranium facility is not affected by the mining and milling activities and radiological risk due to uranium in drinking water is insignificant

(Singh and Singh, 2010; Sethy et al., 2011).

Extensive exploration by Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD) has established several medium grade uranium deposits along the 220 km long Singhbhum Shear Zone including the

seven deposits which are presently being mined by UCIL. In recent study, groundwater samples

from the ongoing exploration blocks in central (Rajdah-Garadih) and western parts (Bangurdih-Mahalimurup) of Singhbhum Shear Zone were analyzed to quantify the hydrouranium

concentration as exploration guide and to evaluate the geochemical association (Fig. 1). In view

of the uranium metallogeny of the area and its related environmental concerns, the available

analytical data have been processed to assess the uranium solubility in the aqueous system and potability of groundwater. The present paper deals with the groundwater chemistry of these

exploration blocks and its suitability for domestic and irrigation usages.

Fig. 1 Location of the water samples along Singhbhum Shear Zone


18

2. Regional Geology of the study area The 220 km long arcuate intensely deformed SSZ separates the Archean cratonic nucleus

on the south and the Proterozoic North Singhbhum Fold Belt on the north. The Archean craton is a granite–greenstone terrain comprising (a) a large composite granite–tonalite batholith known as

Singhbhum Granite Complex and (b) the enveloping rocks of Iron Ore Group consisting of

metasedimentaries, metavolcanics, mafic sills and dikes. The northern fold belt is represented by (a) extensive siliciclastics belonging to Singhbhum Group and (b) intercalated late early-middle

Proterozoic volcano-sedimentaries and mafic–ultramafic intrusions of the Dhanjori Group and

Dalma volcanic belt. The SSZ traverses the rocks of Singhbhum Group, Dhanjori Group, and Iron

Ore Group lying at the northern periphery of the Singhbhum Granite Complex. The lithology within SSZ comprises quartz–chlorite schist, quartz–sericite schist, quartz–biotite schist,

quartzite, conglomerate, soda granite/feldspathic schist, and granophyre. Some of these rocks

including soda granite/feldspathic schist and granophyres are restricted in the shear zone. Gradational contact between quartz–muscovite–chlorite schists and soda granite demonstrates

these rocks to have formed by replacement of the metabasic/metasedimentaries through Na-

metasomatism (cf. Banerji and Talapatra, 1966; Banerji, 1981; Sarkar, 1984); hence a general term of “feldspathic schist” is used for these rocks.

Several uranium, copper and apatite-magnetite deposits are hosted in these

hydrothermally altered, deformed and metamorphosed rocks of Singhbhum Shear Zone. Previous

studies propose multiple stages of mobilization of U, Cu and rare earth elements starting early or prior to the beginning of formation of the shear zone (Rao and Rao, 1983; Sarkar, 1984; Pal et al..

2009).

3. Geomorphology and Climate The Shear Zone is mainly covered by structural hill with intermontane valley in between

and pediment and pediplain adjacent to it. Pediplain covers majority of the area (~50%) whereas

least area is covered by undissected plateaus.The main river of the region i.e. Subarnarekha flows along the midway of the East Singhbhum district and numerous small tributaries branch out from

this river and spread in the entire region.The shear zone lies to the south of the Subarnarekha

river. Terrain mapping has indicated that regional slope trends in SW-NE direction in the SSZ (Singh and Dowerah, 2010). Tropical climate prevails in the region characterized by very hot

summer and cold winter. Summer is typically from mid March to mid June when temperature

ranges from 44ºC in day to 19ºC in night. In general, 80% of the rainfall occurs during period from mid June to mid September. These areas record ~1300 mm of rainfall on an average.

4. Sampling and Analytical techniques Groundwater samples (n= 114) were collected from three different sectors along the

Singhbhum Shear Zone-

1. Bangurdih – Mahalimurup area (n = 31) in the western part of SSZ. 2. Rajdah-Nimdih area (n = 35) in central part of SSZ, and

3. Garadih-Nandup area (n = 48) also in central part of SSZ.

Rajdah-Nimdih area and Garadih-Nandup area, potential blocks for future uranium

mining fall in the east and west of Narwapahar uranium deposit, respectively. Bangurdih-Mahalimurup areas lie in the western part of Singhbhum Shear Zone (Fig. 1).

Groundwater samples were collected from hand pumps, extensively used for domestic

purpose by local inhabitants. Water table in the area varies from 5 – 50 m. Prior to sampling, hand pump was flushed for 2–3 minutes at each location and water without visible insoluble

particles or plant / algae was collected in duplicate in virgin polyethylene bottles thoroughly

rinsed with the same borewell water. Each sample was then filtered through 0.45 µm membrane

to remove the suspended particles; one set was acidified using reagent-grade concentrated nitric


19

acid (1M) to bring its pH to 2, in order to preserve uranyl (UO22+) ions in solution for a longer

period and preventing its adsorption on the container walls. Finally the sample bottles were

packed airtight, devoid of air bubbles. Samples were analyzed in the Chemistry Laboratory, Eastern Region, AMD, Jamshedpur.

Volumetric titration method was used to analyze HCO3–, Cl-, Ca+2, Mg+2 and CO3

2–. Na+ and K+

were measured using the flame photometers, SO42– by turbidimetry, pH by pH-meter and

conductivity by conductivity-meter. Scintrex UA3 nitrogen laser fluorometer was used for uranium estimation. The accuracy of the analytical data was checked by calculating the ionic

balance errors and found to be generally within ±5%.

5. Results and Discussions The statistical summary of data pertaining to major cations, anions and physical

parameters like pH, conductivity and calculated TDS are presented in Table 1. Various parameters were used to characterize the geochemical processes and mechanisms responsible for

the groundwater chemistry of study area while its suitability for drinking and irrigation usages are

evaluated in terms of physicochemical properties as given in Table 2. Overall, no notable variations were observed in the analytical results of groundwater samples from different sectors

of Singhbhum shear zone, so in the following sections the analytical results are discussed as a

single population (n=114) and not sector wise as they were sampled.

Table 1. Statistical summary of chemical analysis of groundwater of Bangurdih -Rajdah-

Garadih areas.

Chemical Parameters

pH Cond

(mS/cm)

U

(ppb)

HCO3-

(ppm)

Cl-

(ppm)

SO4-

(ppm)

Na+

(ppm)

K+

(ppm)

Ca2+

(ppm)

Mg2

(ppm)

TDScalc

(ppm)

BANGURDIH AREA, WESTERN SINGHBHUM (n=31)

Min 6.8 0.12 <1 59 10 5 8 <1 8 5 101

Max 7.5 1.58 9 248 420 50 54 3 220 42 948

Average 7.2 0.48 - 124 83 15 24 1 48 14 308

Median 7.2 0.26 - 118 32 5 18 1 26 6 197

25 percentile 7.0 0.19 - 88 15 5 14 0.5 15 5 147

75 percentile 7.3 0.75 - 139 120 30 33 1 48 24 395

RAJDAH AREA, CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n=35)

Min 6.9 0.10 <1 23 7 2.5 5 <1 8 1 87

Max 8.2 1.13 1 126 284 100 67 4 112 48 629

Average 7.9 0.36 - 75 61 23 22 1 31 11 223

Median 8.1 0.28 - 68 36 10 16 1 28 9 189

25 percentile 7.8 0.20 - 52 21 2.5 13 1 12 5 130

75 percentile 8.2 0.40 - 99 71 30 29 1 32 14 245

GARADIH AREA, CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n =48)

Min 6.3 0.12 <1 31 10 2.5 3 <1 8 5 91

Max 8.1 1.52 2.3 378 359 120 142 8 142 70 937

Average 7.2 0.46 - 139 62 27 28 1.7 40 17 315

Median 7.2 0.38 - 115 33 10 21 1 36 10 287

25 percentile 7.0 0.20 - 78 18 5 12 1 17 6 159

75 percentile 7.5 0.58 - 167 69 35 35 2 48 19 404


20

ALL SAMPLES, WESTERN AND CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n=114)

Min 6.3 0.10 <1 23 7 <5 3 <1 8 <1 87

Max 8.2 1.58 9 378 420 120 142 8 220 70 948

Average 7.4 0.43 - 115 67 22 25 1.3 39 14 285

Median 7.3 0.30 - 104 32 10 18 1 28 10 217

25 percentile 7.0 0.20 - 68 17 5 13 1 16 5 144

75 percentile 7.8 0.56 - 138 77 30 33 1 44 16 383

Table 2. Statistical summary of hydrogeochemical parameters of groundwater of Bangurdih -

Rajdah- Garadih areas.

Hydro-

geochemical

Parameters CAI-1 CAI-2

Gibbs

Ratio

-1

Gibbs

Ratio

-2

rCa/

rMg

rNa/

rCl

%

Na SAR RSC PI

Total

Hardness (CaCO3

ppm)

BANGURDIH AREA, WESTERN SINGHBHUM (n=31)

Min -2.23 -0.47 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.13 9.18 0.62 -10.72 32.07 18.04

Max 0.87 2.57 0.78 0.83 4.32 3.18 47.66 2.54 1.61 148.21 280.04

Average -0.10 0.33 0.39 0.39 2.07 1.07 28.62 1.23 -1.53 87.57 71.41

Median 0.13 0.08 0.34 0.38 1.94 0.85 25.63 1.10 -0.25 89.33 40.02

25 percentile -0.40 -0.11 0.23 0.31 1.41 0.55 22.07 0.91 -1.62 71.94 25.36

75 percentile 0.43 0.43 0.59 0.49 2.78 1.34 37.79 1.39 0.22 110.00 82.45

RAJDAH AREA, CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n=35)

Min -2.89 -0.49 0.17 0.19 0.48 0.27 13.95 0.37 -6.13 36.79 9.67

Max 0.73 3.59 0.84 0.66 14.40 3.86 56.75 2.78 0.42 136.80 164.31

Average 0.01 0.46 0.48 0.42 2.31 0.96 31.12 1.28 -1.25 73.20 49.61

Median 0.31 0.16 0.45 0.42 1.44 0.68 28.86 1.21 -0.82 69.39 40.34

25 percentile -0.20 -0.06 0.35 0.32 1.03 0.47 20.90 0.84 -1.59 60.48 24.55

75 percentile 0.49 0.62 0.66 0.53 2.40 1.18 40.20 1.54 -0.21 86.87 56.06

GARADIH AREA, CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n =48) Min -1.60 -0.30 0.12 0.10 0.27 0.21 4.44 0.15 -7.60 25.77 18.36

Max 0.77 1.22 0.90 0.57 5.28 2.54 44.29 4.18 1.43 140.98 240.34

Average -0.03 0.14 0.37 0.38 1.90 0.99 27.49 1.31 -1.15 84.76 68.90

Median 0.22 0.07 0.30 0.39 1.68 0.77 28.18 1.21 -0.55 86.48 56.54

25 percentile -0.32 -0.07 0.22 0.31 1.24 0.55 21.24 0.78 -1.81 68.76 28.64

75 percentile 0.43 0.28 0.48 0.45 2.33 1.26 34.06 1.67 0.02 100.71 84.52

ALL SAMPLES, WESTERN AND CENTRAL SINGHBHUM (n=114)

Min -2.89 -0.49 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.13 4.44 0.15 -10.72 25.77 9.67

Max 0.87 3.59 0.90 0.83 14.40 3.86 56.75 4.18 1.61 148.21 280.04

Average -0.04 0.29 0.41 0.39 2.07 1.00 28.91 1.28 -1.29 81.97 63.66

Median 0.24 0.10 0.37 0.39 1.69 0.73 28.74 1.17 -0.53 80.54 44.53

25 percentile -0.29 -0.08 0.25 0.31 1.20 0.52 21.25 0.83 -1.66 62.98 26.11

75 percentile 0.45 0.46 0.58 0.48 2.45 1.25 38.04 1.55 0.08 103.04 74.29


21

5.1 Groundwater Properties and Classification

pH: This parameter is based on the relative hydrogen ion concentration in water suggesting

acidic or alkaline nature. Studied groundwater samples show pH varying from 6.3 to 8.2 with an average of 7.4 suggesting its near neutral state. Groundwater of Rajdah area is marginally more

alkaline (7.9) as compared to other areas.

Electrical Conductivity (EC) – Total dissolved solids (TDS): Electrical conductivity, also called

salinity, is an indirect measure of the presence of dissolved inorganic solids in groundwater (arises from weathering of rocks and soils) and the temperature conditions, which sympathetically

impact the flow of electrical current. TDS was calculated by using the cationic and anionic

concentrations, corroborating strong positive correlation to conductivity. Conductivity values range from 0.1 to 1.6 mS/cm (Av. 0.4 mS/cm). Slightly low conductivity in Rajdah area can be

attributed to low calculated TDS. Based on conductivity values, Raj (2004) has suggested

classification of groundwater into fresh (EC <1.5 mS/cm), brackish (EC=1.5–3 mS/cm) and

saline (EC >3mS/cm) categories. As per this classification, 98% of groundwater of the study area can be classified as relatively fresh and less saline category.

Major Cations, Anions and Hydrochemical Facies: Groundwater chemistry of studied samples

indicate marginal fluctuations in major cation and anion concentrations. Besides, borewell-wise differences in major ion chemistry are perhaps caused by the differential lithological

characteristics and the groundwater flow/usage pattern. General order of dominance of cation in

groundwater is Ca2+ > Na+ > Mg2+ > K+ while that for anion is HCO3– > Cl– > SO4

2–. CO32– is

analyzed below detectable limit.

Major cations and anions viz., Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, HCO3–, SO4

2– and Cl– were converted

from parts per million (ppm) to equivalent per million (epm) and plotted in ‘Piper’s tri-linear

diagram’ (Piper, 1944) to characterize the variation in hydrochemical facies in space and time. The plot shows that the groundwater of the study area is HCO3 dominant, mixed Ca–Mg–Cl type

(Fig. 2). HCO3– dominance points to the meteoric source of the groundwater.

It is also apparent from Stiff’s diagram (Stiff, 1951) plotted with the average values of cation-anion concentrations in meq/lit for Garadih, Rajdah and Bangurdih areas that most of the

samples (92%) represent Ca + Mg > Na + K (alkaline earth exceeds alkalis) hydrogeochemical

facies (Fig. 3). Based on anion concentration, it was observed that about 70% of samples fall in weak acid (HCO3

– + CO32– > Cl– + SO4

2–) field, while remaining in strong acid (Cl– + SO42– >

HCO3– + CO3

2–) field.

5.2 Hydrogeochemical Processes

Groundwater chemistry effectively acts as a track record of flow system where major ion concentrations and ratios can trace various physicochemical processes operative in the area such

as mineral weathering and ion exchange. Weathering of carbonate, silicate and sulphide minerals

and dissolution of evaporates are the major lithogenic source of the dissolved ions in the groundwater.

Dissolution of minerals: It is one of the major contributors to the groundwater chemistry. The

relationship of the chemical components of waters from their respective aquifer lithologies has

been elaborated by Gibbs (1970) based on ratios, calculated by the following formulae, where all ionic concentrations are expressed as meq/l.

Gibbs Ratio 1 (for anion) = Cl– / (Cl– + HCO3–)

Gibbs Ratio 2 (for cation) = Na+ + K+ / (Na+ + K+ + Ca2+) Gibbs has classified groundwater in three distinct fields, viz., precipitation dominance,

evaporation dominance, and rock-water interaction dominance areas based on TDS and Gibbs

ratio plot. The groundwater of the study area distinctly shows the predominance of interaction between aquifer rocks and groundwater as the main controlling mechanism for chemical

composition (Fig. 4).


22

1 2

3

4

5

1: Ca- HCO3

2: Na-Cl

3. Mixed Ca- Na- HCO3

4. Mixed Ca- Mg- Cl

5. Ca- Cl

6. Na – HCO3

Garadih

Rajdah

Bangurdih

dih

6

Fig. 2 Piper diagram showing the variation in major cation and anion and geochemical

facies of groundwater.

Fig. 3 Stiff’s diagram showing the distribution of cation and anion concentrations.


23

Fig. 4 Gibb’s ratio plots showing processes controlling groundwater chemistry.

Ion-exchange process: The chemical reactions in which ion-exchange between the groundwater

and its host environment occurs during the period of residence and movement is one of the

dominant processes in the aqueous system. It can be explained by chloro-alkaline indices (CAI 1

and CAI 2; Schoeller, 1977) calculated using the following formulae, where all ionic concentrations are expressed as meq/l.

CAI 1 = Cl– – (Na+ + K+) / Cl–

CAI 2 = Cl– – (Na+ + K+) / (SO4– + HCO3

– + CO32– + NO3

–) Exchange of Na and K ions from water with Mg and Ca ions in aquifer rocks or vice

versa are reflected by positive or negative CAI, respectively. Majority of groundwater samples

(62%) of the study area has indicated predominance of positive CAI values (Table- 2) signifying

sodium and potassium in water are exchanged with magnesium and calcium in rock following ‘base exchange reaction’ (chloroalkaline equilibrium) as expressed below.

Na+, K+

Water --------------------------------------- Country rock Ca++, Mg++


24

Negative CAI values obtained for the rest 38% samples (Table- 2) indicate exchange of

magnesium and calcium from water with sodium and potassium in rock, i.e., cation exchange

reaction (chloroalkaline disequilibrium). Ca++, Mg++

Water ------------------------------------- Country rock

Na+, K+

Silicate weathering: The rNa/rCl ratios (r: elemental component in epm or meq/l) are important indicator of sources of salinity during groundwater flow (Cartwright and Weaver, 2005) and

signify the role of silicate weathering. The rNa/rCl ratios lie between 0.10 to 3.90 with average of

1.0 (Table- 2). The samples with higher rNa/rCl ratios (>1) also show negative CAI values, suggesting chloroalkaline disequilibrium conditions. The rNa/rCl ratios of >1 are typically

interpreted as Na released from a silicate weathering (Meybeck, 1987; Jankowski and Acworth,

1997) and can be attributed to interaction of groundwater with feldspathic schist/soda granite.

Similarly, rCa/rMg ratios of >2 also support the role of silicate mineral weathering. The Ca and Mg content in the groundwater can be attributed to base exchange reactions, where chlorite

schists and basicrocks are the dominant aquifer lithology (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 rCa/rMg and rNa/rCl ratio plot showing mechanism of dissolutions.

5.3 Principal Component Analysis Principal component analysis (PCA) is a widely used technique in hydrogeochemical

studies to interpret various mechanism of ionic dispersion pattern under different aqueous

environment through a multivariate statistical approach (Suk and Lee, 1999; Gunter et al., 2002;

Saha, 2012). In the present study, after removal of outlier values and normalization by suitable mathematical transformations a total of fourteen variables viz., pH, Conductivity, HCO3, Cl, SO4,

Na, Ca, Mg, CAI-1and 2, Gibbs ratio-1 and 2, rNa/rCl and Hardness are considered for


25

component extraction process. CO3, K and U are not considered since these are analyzed below

detectable limit in most samples.

R-mode Principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Kaiser, 1958) is performed on normalized data where the first PC represents the linear combination of the variables with

maximal variance. Principal Components (PCs) are considered to be eigen vectors of correlation

matrix. Only the components with eigen value of more than 1 are extracted. Further computation

is done sequentially in order of variability for a set of mutually orthogonal PC axes, where coefficients of components in axes are referred as “loadings”. Strong correlation between variable

and component is indicated by loading close to ± 1.0 whereas a loading close to zero indicate

weak correlation (Wayland et al., 2003). To simplify patterns of component loading, varimax rotation (converged in 8 itirations) of the extracted PCs is performed.

Communality indicates the extent to which a variable correlates with all components

considered. Communalities of the considered variables are significantly high (> 0.7), thereby

ensuring the selected variablesare fit to load significantly on either of the Principal Components (Table- 3). In the component extraction process, it was observed that the first four PCs with eigen

vector > 1 account for more than 89% of the total variance and hence, are considered.

The computed component matrix (Table 3) show high positive loadings of Conductivity, HCO3, Cl, Na, Ca, Mg and hardness on PC–1 (account for 40% of total variance) which suggest

that conductivity of the water is predominantly controlled by these cation-anion concentrations.

Further, HCO3 dominance in groundwater and positive inter-elemental correlation reflected between HCO3-Ca-Cl-Na-Mg points towards the meteoric source of water and also corroborates

to the categorization of the groundwater as mixed HCO3-Ca–Mg–Cl facies. However, considering

the low concentration of cations-anions, it is understood that the less saline nature of groundwater

is due to high groundwater recharge in the area. SO4 only shows low positive loading on PC-1, possibly due to Eh-pH conditions restricting the oxidation of pyrite (ferrous sulphide) usually

leading to formation of sulphuric acid in aqueous system and reacting with the bi-carbonates

present in the groundwater / aquifer rocks. Table 3. Communalities and loadings of variables on rotated Principal components.

Communalitie

s

Principal Components

PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4

pH .783 -.196 .184 -.173 .825

Cond .971 .973 .036 .141 .053

HCO3 .945 .884 -.200 .307 -.173

Cl .987 .923 .338 -.145 .004

SO4 .732 .347 -.187 .539 .535

Na .989 .940 -.155 -.282 .041

Ca .954 .938 .163 .214 -.035

Mg .702 .525 -.071 .645 -.070

CAI1 .924 -.032 .920 .268 -.064

CAI2 .985 .090 .978 -.142 -.029

Gibbs ratio-1 .928 .156 .684 -.588 .302

Gibbs ratio-2 .895 -.021 -.468 -.814 .110

rNa/rCl .964 -.051 -.863 -.105 -.192

Hardness .795 .893 .150 .373 -.068

Eigen values 5.96 3.53 2.00 1.06

% of Variance 40.09 25.26 16.05 8.26

% of Cumulative Variance 40.09 65.35 81.40 89.66

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; Rotation converged in 8 iterations.


26

PC-2 accounts for about 25% of total variance and shows high positive loadings of the

physicochemical variables viz. CAI-1, CAI-2 and Gibbs ratio-1 (for anion) while negative

loading for rNa/rCl ratio. PC-3 on the other hand, contributes to about 16% of the total variance and has negative loadings for Gibbs ratio-1 and 2 (for anions and cations respectively) other than

moderate positive loadings for Mg and SO4. Considering these two PCs together, it is understood

that negative loadings for Gibbs ratios on PC-3 suggest limited water-rock interaction due to less

residence time of water in aquifer condition which is actually due to adequate rainfall and high groundwater recharge. High positive loading of both chloro-alkaline indices (CAI-1, CAI-2) on

PC-2 explains that both base exchange and cation exchange reactions prevailed during the limited

water-rock interaction. Negative loadings of rNa/rCl ratio on all PCs suggest insignificant silicate weathering and justify the low salinity of groundwater.

PC-4 was found to be less significant (~8% of total variance) showing high positive

loadings of pH and moderate positive loading of SO4. This explains the redox condition

controlled by near neutral pH favouring limited oxidation of sulphides.

6. Groundwater Quality The suitability of groundwater for irrigation and drinking purposes mainly depends upon

the chemical composition of water, which has direct impact on health of human being, soils and

crops. Hence, analytical results were evaluated in terms of groundwater potability and its

suitability for irrigation. Brief details are discussed below.

6.1 Uranium in groundwater

Uranium is present in measurable concentrations in most of the natural water sources.

Drinking water contributes to almost 85% of the total ingested uranium by human beings (Singh et al., 2013). Uranium has dual effect on human health due to its chemical and radioactive

properties and the chemical toxicity of uranium is more than its deleterious radiological effects as

chemical toxicity may cause damage to liver, kidneys, reproductive systemand may also induce bone cancer (Sridhar Babu et al., 2008; Tahir and Alaamer, 2009). Uranium prevails in natural

systems mainly as U4+ and U6+ oxidation states. Generally, U4+ minerals, viz., uraninite,

pitchblende and coffinite are most abundant in uranium deposits and exhibit low solubility of U4+

in reduced aqueous solutions. In contrast, oxidised waters (Eh <200 mV) are highly potential to contain dissolved uranium mainly as uranyl ions (UO2

2+), which ultimately forms carbonate

complexes of varying stochiometry as a function of pH and the partial pressure of CO2(g)

(Gomez et al., 2006). The uranium concentration in groundwater also depends on factors such as lithology, geomorphology and other geological conditions specific to that region. Besides,

anthropogenic activities such as usage of phosphatic fertilizers for cultivation also influences

hydrouranium distribution pattern in groundwater (Brindha et al., 2011).

In the study area, out of 114 samples, 107 have recorded uranium valuesbelow detectable limits (<1ppb). 5 values lie between 1 – 2 ppb while 2 other samples recorded 3 ppb and 9 ppb

(Table 2). Highest concentration of uranium was recorded in Bangurdih - Mahalimurup area, well

within the permissible limits in groundwater as prescribed by different regulatory bodies, viz., AERB, 2004 (60ppb), USEPA, 2012 (30ppb) and WHO, 2011 (15ppb). However, assessment of

analytical results has indicated no definite relation/trend of uranium values with other parameters.

Recent assessment of groundwater around the oldest uranium mine in Jaduguda area has analysed highest concentration of 28 ppb of uranium at a distance of about 5 km from mining industry

(Sethy et al., 2011). Geo-hydrodynamical studies and its seasonal fluctuation in Bagjata area in

the eastern part of SSZ has also revealed very low radioactive contamination, viz., U (<0.5 – 4.0

mg/m3); 226Ra (12 – 41 Bq/m3) in groundwater (Singh and Singh, 2010). Weak acidic condition (HCO3

– > Cl– + SO42–) and near neutral pH level of groundwater

restricts the solubility of uranium in groundwater in the study area. As explained by principal


27

component analysis, adequate rainfall in the area accounts for sufficient recharge of groundwater

and low conductivity. This allows less residence time for water within the aquifer and limited

cation-anion concentration to form complex with uranium. The occasional uranium values may also be attributed to the use of phosphatic fertilizers (0.005 – 0.020% U) for agricultural activity

in the area.

6.2 Potability of groundwater

Studied samples are compared with the specifications prescribed by World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS, 2005) to assess the potability of

groundwater (Table 4). The water samples indicated near neutral pH, well within the prescribed

desirable limits (6.5 –8.5); hence, is suitable for human consumption. Table 4. Comparison of groundwater chemistry with water quality standards

Desirable limits / (Permissible limits; in the

absence of alternate source) Analytical data of studied samples (n=114)

Parameters BIS

(2005)

WHO

(2011) Range

Samples beyond BIS/WHO

desirable limits

pH 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5 6.3 – 8.2 Nil

TDS

(ppm) 500 (2000) 1000 87 – 948

12 samples analyzed more than the

BIS prescribed limits falls well

within the WHO limits

TH

(as CaCO3ppm) 300 (600) 9.7 – 280 Nil

Calcium

(ppm) 75 (200) 500 8 – 220 Nil

Magnesium

(ppm) 30 (100) – <1 – 70 12 samples

Bicarbonate

(ppm) 300 – 23 – 378 3 samples

Chloride

(ppm) 250 (1000) 250 7 – 420 5 samples

Sulphate

(ppm) 200 (400) 400 <5 – 120 Nil

Uranium

(ppb)

60 ppb (AERB, 2004),

30ppb(USEPA, 2012) and

15 ppb (WHO, 2011)

<1 – 9 Nil

Low conductivity values (0.1 - 1.6 mS/cm) indicate low TDS content of the groundwater.

TDS was calculated by using the cationic and anionic concentrations and values range between 87 – 948 ppm (Av. 285 ppm). On comparison with the drinking water standards, 83% of samples

are found to be less than the BIS prescribed desirable limits (500 ppm), while the rest samples

show more than the BIS prescribed limits, but falls well within the desirable limits of WHO

(1000 ppm). Adequate rainfall and high groundwater recharge account for low salinity and low TDS in the area.

Total Hardness (TH) is an important parameter for categorization of groundwater quality

for potability. It is measured in terms of milli-equivalents per litre or equivalent CaCO3 ppm and classified as soft (1–75), moderately hard (75–150), hard (150–300) and very hard (>300).

Groundwater samples indicated TH as equivalent CaCO3 ppm (Table 2) ranging from 9.7 to 280

ppm (Av. 64 ppm), well within the desired limits (300 ppm; BIS, 2005). Based on water hardness


28

classification, nearly 76% of samples fall in soft water category, 13% in moderately hard water

category while remaining 11% belong to hard water.

6.3 Groundwater Quality for Irrigation Parameters related to suitability of groundwater for irrigation viz., Percent Sodium

(%Na), Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) and Permeability

Index (PI) were computed to assess the groundwater quality (Table 2). An assessment of other

parameters on water quality for irrigation purpose is discussed below. Salinity hazard assessment

%Na together with Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and Conductivity (EC) are very

useful to assess alkali and salinity hazards in soil by groundwater (Wilcox, 1955). These parameters indicate the degree to which irrigation water tends to enter into cation-exchange

reactions in soil (U.S. Salinity Laboratory, 1954). Na+ in water reacts with soil and produces

undesirable effects of changing soil properties including deflocculation and impairment of the

permeability of soils (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990). %Na in water is determined using following empirical relation of cationic concentrations, which are expressed as meq/l.

% Na= (Na+ + K+) x 100 / (Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ + K+)

Groundwater is classified based on %Na as excellent (<20), good (20–40), permissible (40–60), doubtful (60–80) and unsuitable (>80). Studied samples have indicated %Na varying

from 4.4 to 57 with an average of 29, and are well within the permissible limits (upto 60) for

irrigation purposes (Rao and Devadas, 2005). Further evaluation of data indicates that about 75% of the samples fall in good water category.

Salinity hazard is also determined by the absolute and relative concentration of cations by

using following formula and is expressed in terms of Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). The ionic

concentrations are in meq/l. SAR= (Na+ / {[Ca2+ +Mg2+] /2}0.5)

Irrigation waters have been classified into four categories on the basis of Sodium

Adsorption Ratio (SAR) viz., S-1 (<10), S-2 (10-18), S-3 (18-26) and S-4 (>26). Similarly, salinity hazard in terms of conductivity is dependent on concentrations of soluble salts in water,

and is classified as low (EC<250 μS/cm), medium (250 to 750 μS/cm), high (>750–2250 μS/cm)

and very high (EC>2250 μS/cm) salinity zones (Richards, 1954). The SAR values of studied samples range from 0.20 to 4.20 with an average of 1.30

(Table 2) and fall in the category of low alkali water. Electrical conductivity values range from

100 to 1600 μS/cm with an average of 400 μS/cm. Majority of the water samples (84%) belong to

low to medium conductivity while rest are in high conductivity category. This shows that the groundwater of study area is suitable for irrigation and other agriculture purposes.

Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC)

The quantity of HCO3 and CO3 in excess of the alkaline earths generally influences the groundwater quality for irrigation purpose as it tends to precipitate Ca and Mg carbonates in the

soils leading to reduced permeability. Furthermore, this also increases the relative proportion of

Na in water in the form of sodium carbonate. The excess of carbonate and bicarbonate in water is

denoted by Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) and is determined using the following formula (Richards, 1954), where ionic concentrations are expressed in meq/l.

RSC = (CO3– + HCO3

–) – (Ca2+ + Mg2+)

According to the U.S. Salinity Laboratory (1954), RSC values of groundwater are classified into three categories i.e., good (<1.25 meq/l; safe for irrigation), medium (1.25–2.5

meq/l; marginal quality) and poor (>2.5 meq/l; unsuitable for irrigation). In the study area, RSC

value ranges from –10.7 to 1.6 with an average of –1.3. 55% falling in good category and rest 45% in medium category and hence, belongs to safe category for irrigation.


29

Soil Permeability Index (PI)

Long term use of groundwater with high contents of Na, Ca, Mg and HCO3 reduces soil

permeability. Hence, to evaluate the suitability of groundwater for irrigation purpose, Doneen (1962, 1964) has suggested Permeability Index (PI). The PI is deduced by the following formula

using ionic concentrations in meq/l.

PI = [(Na+ + HCO3–) / (Ca2+ + Mg2+ +Na+)] x 100

According to the permeability indices, the groundwater is divided into three types, i.e., Class I, II and III, where first two types are good for irrigation with 75% or more of maximum

permeability while the Class III with maximum permeability of 25% is unsuitable. The studied

groundwater samples have indicated PI ranging from 26 to 148% with an average of 82% falling in Class I and II category.

7. Conclusion Geochemical ratios, indices and principal component analysis suggest that chemistry of

the aqueous system in the central and western parts of Singhbhum Shear Zone is primarily

controlled by the chemical interaction between aquifer rocks and groundwater. However, low salinity and low conductivity of groundwater can be attributed to adequate rainfall, groundwater

recharge and less residence time of water within the aquifer. Excess of alkaline earth (Ca, Mg)

over alkalis (Na, K) and predominance of base exchange reaction over cation–anion exchange

reaction suggest that chlorite rich schistose rocks are the dominant aquifer lithology. Meteoric source of the groundwater is inferred based on the dominance of HCO3 and mixed Ca–Mg–Cl

type hydrogeochemical facies.

The chemistry of uranium in aqueous systems is mainly controlled by pH, redox potential and type of complexing agents, such as carbonates, phosphates, vanadates, fluorides, sulfates and

silicates (Langmuir, 1997). In the study area, recharge through adequate rainfall has increased the

groundwater level and therefore uranium is susceptible to be leached out on reaction of recharging water with the weathered rocks in the unsaturated zone. However, as recharge

continues, concentration of uranium in groundwater begins to reduce due to dilution by

continuous flow of fresh recharging water in the system. Further, near neutral pH level and weak

acidic nature (HCO3– > Cl– + SO4

2–) of groundwater are the possible reasons which restricted uranium solubility and mobility in the aqueous system.

In the light of above discussions, considering the chemical and radiological toxicity of

uranium, its low concentration in groundwater around the active and potential mining areas of Singbhum Shear Zone around Rajdah – Narwapahar –Banadungri - Garadih and Bangurdih -

Mahalimurup is of prime environmental significance. Although, toxic parameters like fluoride

and arsenic were not analyzed, the other potability parameters, viz., salinity, hardness, TDS and

uranium content in groundwater are below the BIS (2005) and WHO (2011) standards. Further, in terms of salinity hazards, Residual Sodium Carbonate content and Permeability Index, the

groundwater in the study areas of SSZ has also been found to be suitable for irrigation practices.

Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to the Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and

Research (AMD) for kind permission to publish the paper. Acknowledgements are also due to all officers who were involved in sample collection in field areas and officers of Chemical

Laboratory, AMD, Eastern Region for carrying out the chemical analysis of the water samples.


30

References

AERB, 2004. Drinking water specifications in India. Dept. of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India.

Al, T.A., Martin, C.J. and Blowes, D.W., 2000. Carbonate–mineral/water interactions in sulfide-rich tailings. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 64, 3933-3948.

Banerji, A.K., 1981. Ore genesis and its relationship to volcanism, tectonism, granitic activity and

metasomatism along the Singhbhum shear zone, Eastern India. Econ. Geol., 76, 905–912. Banerji, A.K. and Talapatra, A., 1966. Soda-granites from south of Tatanagar, Bihar, India. Geol.

Mag., 103, 340-35.

Berger, A.C., Berthe, C.M. and Krumshansl, J.L., 2000. A process model of natural attenuation in

drainage from a historic mining district. Appl. Geochem, 15, 655–666. BIS, 2005. Indian standards drinking water specification IS 105000: 2004 (Second Revision of IS

10500). Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, ICS No. 13.060.20, 15p.

Brindha, K., Elango, L. and Nair, R.N., 2011. Spatial and temporal variation of uranium in a shallow weathered rock aquifer in southern India. J. Earth Syst. Sci., 120 (5), 911-920.

Cartwright, I. and Weaver, T.R., 2005. Hydrogeochemistry of the Goulburn valley region of the

Murray basin, Australia: implications for flow paths and resources vulnerability. Hydrogeol. Jour., 13, 752-770.

Dillon, P., Page, D., Vanderzalm, J. and Chadha, D., 2013. Water quality considerations in

managed aquifer recharge: from artificial recharge to managed aquifer recharge in India.

Jour. Groundwater Res., 2 (2), 8-15. Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W., 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. John Wiley

and Sons, New York.

Doneen, L.D., 1962. The influence of crop and soil on percolating water. In: Proc. of Biennial Conference on Ground Water Recharge, 156-163.

Doneen, L.D., 1964. Notes on water quality in agriculture. Water science and engineering paper

4001, Dept. of Water Sciences and Engineering, Univ. of California. Eary, L.E., Runnells, D.D. and Esposito, K.J., 2003. Geochemical controls on groundwater

composition at the Cripple Creek Mining, Cripple Creek, Colorado. Appl. Geochem., 18,

1-24.

Gibbs, R.J., 1970. Mechanism Controlling World’s Water Chemistry. Science, 170, 1088-1090. Gomez, P., Garralon. A., Buil, B., Turrero, Ma. J., Sanchez, L. and Cruz de la, B., 2006.

Modelling of geochemical processes related to uranium mobilization in the groundwater

of a uranium mine. Jour. Sci. Tot. Environ., 366, 295-309. Gunter, C., Thyna, G.D., McCray, J.E. and Turner, A.K., 2002. Evaluation of graphical and

multivariate statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeol.

Jour., 10, 455-474.

Heikkinen, P.M., Korka-Niemi K., Lahti, M. and Salonen, V.P., 2002. Groundwater and surface water contamination in the area of the Hitura nickel mine, western Finland. Environ.

Geol., 42, 313-329.

Jankowski, J. and Acworth, R.I., 1997. Impact of debris-flow deposits on hydrogeochemical processes and the development of dryland salinity in the Yass River catchment, New

South Wales, Australia. Hydrogeol. Jour., 5(4), 71-88.

Kaiser, H.F., 1958. The varimax criteria for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23, 187- 200.

Langmuir, D. (1997). Aqueous environmental geochemistry. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 600p.

Meybeck, M., 1987. Global chemical weathering of surficial rocks estimated from river dissolved

loads. American Journal of Science, 287, 401-428. Milu, V., Leroy, J.L. and Peiffert, C., 2002. Water contamination downstream from a copper

mine in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Environ. Geol., 42, 773-782.


31

Pal, D.C., Barton, M.D and Sarangi, A.K., 2009. Deciphering multistage history affecting U – Cu

(–Fe) mineralization in the Singhbhum Shear Zone, eastern India using pyrite textures

and compositions in the Turamdih U–Cu (–Fe) deposit. Miner. Deposita, 44, 61-80. Piper, A.M., 1944. A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analyses.

Trans. Amer. Geophy. Union, 25, 914-923.

Raj, N.S., 2004..Role of mathematical modeling in groundwater resource management. Sri

Vinayaka Enterprises, Hyderabad. 434-445. Rao, N.K. and Rao, G.V.U., 1983. Uranium mineralization in Singhbhum Shear Zone, Bihar: IV:

origin and geological time frame. Jour. Geol. Soc. India, 24, 615-627.

Rao, N. S. and Devadas, J. D., 2005. Quality criteria for groundwater use for development of an area. Jour. Appl. Geochem., 7(1), 9-23.

Saha, D., 2012. Hydrogeochemical and Principal Component Analyses with reference to Nitrate

Contamination in the Gangetic Alluvial Plains of Bihar, India. Ind. Soc. Anal. Geochem.,

Mem. 1, pp. 209–225. Sarkar, S.C., 1984. Geology and ore mineralisation along theSinghbhum copper uranium belt,

Eastern India. Jadavpur University, Calcutta, 263p.

Schoeller, H., 1977. Geochemistry of groundwater. In: Groundwater studies- An International Guide for Research and Practice. UNESCO, Paris, Ch.15, 1-18.

Sethy, N. K., Tripathi, R. M., Jha, V. N., Sahoo, S. K., Shukla, A. K. and Puranik, V. D., 2011.

Assessment of Natural Uranium in the Ground Water around Jaduguda Uranium Mining Complex, India. Jour. Env. Protect., 2, 1002-1007.

Singh, B. and Dowerah J., 2010. Terrain mapping of Singhbhum shear zone (SSZ) and its

surrounding areas using remote sensing and GIS. Int. Jour. Earth Sc. Engg., 371 (3), 371-

375. Singh, B. and Singh, A. S., 2010. Geo-Hydrodynamics of Bagjata area and its significance with

respect to seasonal fluctuation of groundwater. Jour. Wat. Res. Protect., 2, 683-689.

Singh, M., Garg, V.K., Gautam, Y.P. and Kumar, A., 2013. Spatial mapping of uranium in groundwater and risk assessment around an atomic power station in India. Jour. Env.

Engg. and Manag. (Available from http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ).

Singh, U.P., 2013. Challenges in investigating and remediating contaminated groundwater sites. Jour. Groundwater Res. Jour. Groundwater Res., 2 (2), 1-7.

Sridhar-Babu, M.N., Somashekar, R.K., and Kumar, S.A., 2008. Concentration of uranium levels

in groundwater. Int. Jour. Env. Sci. Tech., 5, 263-266.

Stiff, H.A. Jr., 1951. The interpretation of chemical water analysis by means of patterns. Jour. Petr. Tech., 3 (10), 3-16.

Suk, H. and Lee, K.K., 1999. Characterization of a groundwater hydrogeochemical system

through multivariate analysis, clustering into groundwater zones. Groundwater, 37, 358-366.

Tahir, S.N.A.and Alaamer, A.S., 2009. Concentrations of natural radionuclides in municipal

supply drinking water and evaluation of radiological hazards. Env. Forens., 10, 1-6.

USEPA, 2012. Drinking water standards and health advisories (2102 edn.). United State Environmental Protection Agency, EPA822-S-12-001, 1-12.

U.S. Salinity Laboratory, 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. U.S.

Dept. of Agriculture, Hand Book, no. 60, 160p. Wayland, K.G., Long, D.T., Hyndman, D.W., Pijanowski, B.C., Woodhams, S.M. and Haack,

S.K., 2003. Identifying relationships between base flow geochemistry and land use with

synoptic sampling and R-mode factor analysis. Jour. Env. Qual., 32, 180-190. Wilcox, L.V., 1955. Classification and use of irrigation waters. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Circular 969, Washington DC, USA.

http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ


32

WHO, 2011. Guidelines for drinking water quality (4th Ed.). World Health Organisation, Geneva,

541p.

Zamora, M.L., Tracy, B.L., Ziclinski, J.M., Meyerhof, D.P. and Mossf, M.A., 1998. Chronic ingestion of uranium in drinking water: A study of kidney bioeffects in humans. Toxicol.

Sci., 43, 68-77.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Table. Chemical analysis of water samples of Garadih-Rajdah-Bangurdih areas

Sample

iD pH

Cond

(mS/cm)

U

(ppb)

HCO3 Cl SO4 Na K Ca Mg TDScalc

-----------------------------------(ppm)----------------------------------

GRD-1 7.2 0.46 <1 105 65 50 32 1 44 13 310

GRD-2 7.3 0.28 <1 104 42 5 20 1 38 11 221

GRD-3 7.1 0.46 <1 200 50 15 25 1 50 12 353

GRD-4 7.5 0.54 <1 152 66 50 40 1 60 9 378

GRD-5 7.8 0.36 <1 166 35 <5 33 4 40 12 290

GRD-6 7.5 0.8 <1 170 138 60 64 1 88 10 531

GRD-7 7.5 0.21 <1 92 20 5 23 2 22 <5 164

GRD-8 7.5 0.43 <1 140 66 10 15 1 40 10 282

GRD-9 7.3 0.2 <1 92 20 <5 15 1 18 6 152

GRD-10 8.0 0.14 <1 61 18 5 7 1 14 6 112

GRD-11 7.0 0.56 <1 240 36 25 25 2 50 24 402

GRD-12 7.4 0.3 <1 152 17 <5 15 1 30 12 227

GRD-13 7.0 0.3 <1 134 30 <5 14 1 28 12 219

GRD-14 7.3 0.16 <1 74 13 5 7 1 16 6 122

GRD-15 7.2 0.16 <1 65 13 10 12 1 16 <5 117

GRD-16 7.1 0.56 <1 203 80 <5 35 2 50 20 390

GRD-17 7.2 0.28 <1 134 20 <5 19 1 30 6 210

GRD-18 7.2 0.3 <1 147 20 <5 16 1 36 6 226

GRD-19 6.7 0.22 <1 97 16 10 18 2 16 <5 159

GRD-20 7.4 0.39 <1 113 24 50 31 2 40 <5 260

GRD-21 7.0 0.47 1 188 54 10 30 2 46 12 342

GRD-22 7.2 0.23 <1 129 14 5 23 1 20 <5 192

GRD-23 6.8 0.18 <1 107 12 <5 18 1 12 <5 150

GRD-24 7.7 0.16 <1 54 23 10 13 1 14 <5 115

GRD-25 7.7 0.19 <1 97 16 <5 12 <1 14 <5 139

GRD-26 6.7 0.12 <1 64 14 <5 6 <1 10 <5 94

GRD-27 6.6 0.15 <1 75 10 <5 8 <1 14 <5 107

GRD-28 7.0 1.51 <1 225 294 120 105 1 142 50 937

GRD-29 7.4 0.45 <1 150 59 20 37 3 38 <5 307

GRD-30 6.7 0.5 <1 79 112 12 31 5 40 14 293

GRD-31 7.2 0.78 <1 134 165 19 68 2 48 19 455

GRD-32 7.3 0.65 <1 140 112 14 37 8 72 10 393

GRD-33 8.1 0.46 <1 268 32 13 51 4 36 14 418

GRD-34 6.3 0.14 <1 31 29 <5 10 1 8 10 89

GRD-35 6.8 0.2 <1 72 36 <5 10 2 20 10 150

GRD-36 7.2 1.44 <1 293 220 34 54 5 140 60 806

GRD-37 6.8 0.16 <1 85 18 <5 6 1 16 10 136

GRD-38 7.5 0.75 <1 366 58 21 8 1 44 70 568

GRD-39 7.0 0.32 3 226 18 8 25 1 28 20 326

GRD-40 7.5 0.85 <1 378 90 18 13 2 72 65 638

GRD-41 7.6 0.62 <1 348 39 11 9 1 28 62 498

GRD-42 6.9 0.68 <1 108 85 100 33 3 44 36 409


33

GRD-43 7.1 0.78 <1 59 146 100 46 <1 48 38 437

GRD-44 6.9 0.44 2 117 25 80 35 <1 32 14 303

GRD-45 7.2 0.32 <1 41 11 100 3 1 28 19 203

GRD-46 7.1 0.64 <1 108 114 80 46 1 56 19 424

GRD-47 7.5 1.52 <1 68 359 100 142 1 126 29 825

GRD-48 7.9 0.2 <1 41 14 40 7 1 12 10 125

RJD-1 8.1 0.14 <1 45 21 <5 8 1 16 5 96

RJD-2 8.2 0.2 <1 45 21 30 17 1 8 10 132

RJD-3 8.2 0.89 <1 104 128 100 31 1 112 14 490

RJD-4 8.2 0.17 <1 50 25 <5 16 1 8 <5 100

RJD-5 8.2 0.21 <1 63 14 30 13 1 16 10 147

RJD-6 8.1 0.22 <1 63 36 <5 16 1 20 <5 136

RJD-7 8.2 0.2 <1 59 36 <5 13 1 20 <5 129

RJD-8 6.9 0.41 <1 86 82 <5 22 1 40 10 241

RJD-9 6.9 0.28 <1 68 53 <5 18 1 32 <5 172

RJD-10 8.2 0.32 <1 117 36 <5 29 1 28 <5 211

RJD-11 8.2 0.4 <1 63 78 10 27 1 32 14 225

RJD-12 7.8 1.13 <1 117 284 50 49 1 80 48 629

RJD-13 8.2 0.17 <1 77 14 <5 16 1 12 <5 120

RJD-14 8.2 0.36 <1 59 75 <5 33 1 32 <5 200

RJD-15 7.5 0.73 <1 68 213 <5 41 1 80 17 420

RJD-16 7.5 0.14 <1 23 39 <5 11 1 8 <5 82

RJD-17 7.7 0.13 <1 45 21 <5 14 1 8 <5 89

RJD-18 7.9 0.1 <1 54 7 <5 14 1 8 1 85

RJD-19 7.9 0.33 <1 68 71 <5 30 1 32 <5 202

RJD-20 8.2 0.19 <1 54 28 <5 14 1 12 <5 109

RJD-21 7.7 0.75 <1 95 220 <5 67 4 48 24 458

RJD-22 7.8 0.13 <1 45 14 <5 8 1 12 <5 80

RJD-23 7.4 1.08 <1 126 249 10 45 <1 84 48 562

RJD-24 8.2 0.3 <1 86 36 10 11 <1 36 10 189

RJD-25 8.2 0.4 <1 104 32 50 22 <1 24 20 252

RJD-26 8.2 0.27 <1 104 14 30 35 <1 24 <5 207

RJD-27 8.2 0.2 <1 72 18 20 26 <1 12 <5 148

RJD-28 8.2 0.31 <1 50 71 20 14 <1 28 12 195

RJD-29 7.9 0.34 1 126 28 30 27 1 28 7 247

RJD-30 8.1 0.53 <1 113 46 100 33 1 32 24 349

RJD-31 8.2 0.28 <1 81 21 30 10 1 28 9 180

RJD-32 7.9 0.15 <1 36 14 20 5 <1 12 9 96

RJD-33 6.9 0.43 <1 108 39 80 15 <1 44 14 300

RJD-34 8.2 0.32 <1 95 11 80 11 1 28 14 240

RJD-35 6.9 0.26 <1 41 25 60 7 3 32 9 177

BNG-1 7.3 0.14 <1 80 10 <5 13 <1 10 <5 113

BNG-2 7.3 0.7 1 166 82 30 30 2 42 25 377

BNG-3 7 0.72 9 139 110 40 45 1 56 15 406

BNG-4 7.2 0.18 <1 97 14 <5 21 <1 12 <5 144

BNG-5 7.2 0.17 <1 80 14 5 15 <1 14 <5 128

BNG-6 7.1 0.77 <1 123 131 30 54 2 10 35 385

BNG-7 7.5 0.38 <1 209 17 <5 35 1 28 <5 290

BNG-8 7 0.25 <1 118 23 <5 15 1 24 <5 181

BNG-9 7 0.91 <1 139 173 30 38 1 54 42 477

BNG-10 7.5 0.19 <1 80 16 <5 13 <1 16 <5 125

BNG-11 7.3 0.17 <1 80 12 <5 17 3 12 <5 124

BNG-12 7.1 0.21 <1 97 14 <5 27 <1 18 <5 156

BNG-13 7.5 0.21 <1 113 12 <5 19 <1 18 <5 162

BNG-14 7.2 0.45 <1 150 56 10 31 1 36 <5 284

BNG-15 6.9 0.16 <1 59 17 <5 8 <1 16 <5 100


34

BNG-16 7 0.95 2 134 177 40 18 1 84 26 480

BNG-17 7.5 0.20 <1 111 12 10 10 <1 10 15 168

BNG-18 7.1 1.10 <1 244 213 5 40 1 150 25 678

BNG-19 6.9 0.97 <1 140 241 50 45 1 136 24 637

BNG-20 6.9 0.27 <1 112 33 30 15 <1 26 10 226

BNG-21 7.2 0.12 <1 62 10 5 9 1 8 6 101

BNG-22 7.4 0.31 <1 125 37 <5 21 1 32 14 230

BNG-23 7 1.21 <1 192 303 25 25 1 160 36 742

BNG-24 6.9 1.58 <1 200 420 30 41 1 220 36 948

BNG-25 7.1 1.15 <1 248 243 30 47 1 140 34 743

BNG-26 7.2 0.26 <1 100 34 <5 15 1 30 6 186

BNG-27 7.3 0.26 <1 96 40 <5 14 <1 32 6 188

BNG-28 7.2 0.27 <1 122 25 <5 17 1 28 10 203

BNG-29 7.2 0.26 <1 120 22 <5 15 1 26 8 192

BNG-30 6.8 0.18 <1 60 32 <5 14 1 22 <5 129

BNG-31 7 0.14 <1 61 17 <5 10 <1 10 6 104

Table. Hydrogeochemical parameters of water samples of Garadih-Rajdah-Bangurdih areas

Sample

iD CAI-1 CAI-2

Gibbs

Ratio-1

Gibbs

Ratio-2 rCa/rMg rNa/rCl %Na SAR RSC PI

Total

Hardness (CaCO3 ppm)

GRD-1 0.23 0.15 0.52 0.39 2.03 0.76 30.15 1.54 -1.56 66.59 65.72

GRD-2 0.24 0.16 0.41 0.32 2.07 0.73 24.12 1.04 -1.11 69.84 56.38

GRD-3 0.21 0.08 0.30 0.31 2.50 0.77 24.12 1.16 -0.22 95.18 70.04

GRD-4 0.05 0.03 0.43 0.37 4.00 0.94 32.00 1.80 -1.26 77.08 75.00

GRD-5 -0.56 -0.20 0.27 0.43 2.00 1.46 33.88 1.66 -0.28 93.72 60.05

GRD-6 0.28 0.27 0.58 0.39 5.28 0.72 34.92 2.43 -2.45 69.48 104.65

GRD-7 -0.87 -0.30 0.27 0.49 2.64 1.78 40.94 1.62 -0.01 99.66 30.35

GRD-8 0.64 0.47 0.45 0.25 2.40 0.35 19.30 0.77 -0.54 84.56 56.70

GRD-9 -0.20 -0.07 0.27 0.43 1.80 1.16 32.62 1.10 0.11 105.27 28.03

GRD-10 0.35 0.16 0.34 0.32 1.40 0.60 21.56 0.56 -0.20 86.71 24.03

GRD-11 -0.12 -0.03 0.20 0.31 1.25 1.07 20.19 1.02 -0.57 89.88 90.14

GRD-12 -0.42 -0.08 0.16 0.31 1.50 1.36 21.33 0.82 -0.01 99.74 50.07

GRD-13 0.25 0.09 0.28 0.31 1.40 0.72 20.90 0.79 -0.20 93.24 48.07

GRD-14 0.10 0.03 0.23 0.29 1.60 0.83 20.24 0.53 -0.09 94.58 26.03

GRD-15 -0.49 -0.14 0.26 0.41 1.92 1.42 31.03 0.95 -0.15 91.31 24.36

GRD-16 0.30 0.20 0.40 0.39 1.50 0.68 27.40 1.49 -0.84 85.25 83.44

GRD-17 -0.51 -0.13 0.20 0.36 3.00 1.47 29.87 1.17 0.20 106.96 40.02

GRD-18 -0.28 -0.06 0.19 0.29 3.60 1.23 23.87 0.92 0.11 103.67 46.01

GRD-19 -0.85 -0.21 0.22 0.51 1.92 1.74 40.66 1.42 0.37 118.68 24.36

GRD-20 -1.07 -0.25 0.27 0.41 4.80 1.99 36.66 1.73 -0.56 85.01 48.33

GRD-21 0.11 0.05 0.33 0.37 2.30 0.86 29.12 1.44 -0.22 95.26 66.05

GRD-22 -1.60 -0.28 0.16 0.51 2.40 2.54 41.99 1.68 0.70 128.89 28.35

GRD-23 -1.39 -0.25 0.16 0.57 1.44 2.32 44.29 1.55 0.74 140.98 20.36

GRD-24 0.09 0.05 0.42 0.46 1.68 0.87 34.60 1.07 -0.23 86.24 22.36

GRD-25 -0.19 -0.05 0.22 0.43 1.68 1.16 32.37 0.99 0.47 128.90 22.36

GRD-26 0.31 0.10 0.27 0.35 1.20 0.66 22.99 0.54 0.13 111.25 18.36

GRD-27 -0.28 -0.06 0.19 0.34 1.68 1.23 24.41 0.66 0.11 107.71 22.36

GRD-28 0.45 0.60 0.69 0.39 1.70 0.55 28.95 2.72 -7.58 52.13 225.59

GRD-29 -0.01 -0.01 0.40 0.47 4.56 0.97 42.11 2.11 0.14 103.63 46.33

GRD-30 0.53 1.09 0.71 0.42 1.71 0.43 31.79 1.51 -1.87 58.54 63.40

GRD-31 0.35 0.63 0.68 0.56 1.52 0.64 43.02 2.96 -1.79 74.26 79.77

GRD-32 0.43 0.52 0.58 0.33 4.32 0.51 29.03 1.53 -2.14 64.61 88.67

GRD-33 -1.57 -0.30 0.17 0.56 1.54 2.46 43.88 2.57 1.43 127.52 59.41


35

GRD-34 0.44 0.64 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.53 27.18 0.78 -0.73 56.53 24.74

GRD-35 0.52 0.43 0.46 0.33 1.20 0.43 20.95 0.64 -0.65 71.21 36.73

GRD-36 0.60 0.68 0.56 0.26 1.40 0.38 17.10 1.36 -7.20 49.84 240.34

GRD-37 0.44 0.15 0.27 0.26 0.96 0.51 14.92 0.41 -0.24 87.34 32.73

GRD-38 0.77 0.20 0.21 0.15 0.38 0.21 4.44 0.25 -2.03 75.74 161.21

GRD-39 -1.19 -0.16 0.12 0.44 0.84 2.14 26.62 1.24 0.64 115.37 61.47

GRD-40 0.76 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.66 0.22 6.40 0.38 -2.82 70.57 180.80

GRD-41 0.62 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.27 0.36 5.97 0.31 -0.86 87.61 131.83

GRD-42 0.37 0.23 0.57 0.41 0.73 0.60 22.52 1.26 -3.43 48.31 104.25

GRD-43 0.51 0.69 0.81 0.46 0.76 0.49 26.56 1.70 -4.60 39.21 111.60

GRD-44 -1.18 -0.23 0.27 0.49 1.37 2.16 35.68 1.83 -0.85 80.21 55.41

GRD-45 0.50 0.06 0.32 0.10 0.88 0.42 4.97 0.15 -2.31 25.77 59.80

GRD-46 0.37 0.34 0.64 0.42 1.77 0.62 31.61 1.91 -2.61 59.07 87.76

GRD-47 0.39 1.22 0.90 0.50 2.61 0.61 41.56 4.18 -7.60 48.95 174.43

GRD-48 0.16 0.04 0.37 0.35 0.72 0.77 18.71 0.51 -0.76 56.19 28.74

RJD-1 0.37 0.28 0.45 0.32 1.92 0.59 23.48 0.63 -0.48 69.39 24.36

RJD-2 -0.29 -0.13 0.45 0.66 0.48 1.25 38.27 1.33 -0.50 74.87 24.74

RJD-3 0.62 0.59 0.68 0.20 4.80 0.37 16.87 1.04 -5.06 37.62 135.32

RJD-4 -0.02 -0.02 0.46 0.64 0.96 0.99 46.90 1.54 0.00 100.20 16.37

RJD-5 -0.50 -0.12 0.28 0.42 0.96 1.43 26.56 0.88 -0.60 72.68 32.73

RJD-6 0.29 0.27 0.50 0.42 2.40 0.69 33.74 1.17 -0.38 81.83 28.35

RJD-7 0.42 0.42 0.51 0.37 2.40 0.56 29.43 0.95 -0.45 77.32 28.35

RJD-8 0.57 0.91 0.62 0.33 2.40 0.41 25.74 1.14 -1.42 62.44 56.70

RJD-9 0.46 0.59 0.57 0.34 3.84 0.52 28.61 1.10 -0.90 67.78 40.34

RJD-10 -0.27 -0.14 0.35 0.48 3.36 1.24 41.46 1.87 0.10 103.29 36.34

RJD-11 0.45 0.80 0.68 0.43 1.37 0.53 30.24 1.41 -1.73 56.00 55.41

RJD-12 0.73 1.97 0.81 0.35 1.00 0.27 21.23 1.51 -6.08 39.96 160.31

RJD-13 -0.83 -0.25 0.24 0.55 1.44 1.76 41.50 1.38 0.25 114.34 20.36

RJD-14 0.31 0.64 0.69 0.48 3.84 0.68 42.00 2.02 -1.05 69.59 40.34

RJD-15 0.70 3.59 0.84 0.31 2.82 0.30 25.03 1.53 -4.30 40.25 108.38

RJD-16 0.54 1.39 0.74 0.56 0.96 0.44 38.15 1.06 -0.44 66.05 16.37

RJD-17 -0.07 -0.05 0.45 0.61 0.96 1.03 43.71 1.35 -0.08 94.46 16.37

RJD-18 -2.22 -0.47 0.18 0.61 4.80 3.09 56.75 1.75 0.40 136.80 9.67

RJD-19 0.34 0.57 0.64 0.45 3.84 0.65 39.74 1.84 -0.90 72.84 40.34

RJD-20 0.20 0.16 0.47 0.51 1.44 0.77 38.42 1.21 -0.13 91.91 20.36

RJD-21 0.51 1.98 0.80 0.56 1.20 0.47 40.66 2.78 -2.84 61.13 88.15

RJD-22 0.05 0.03 0.35 0.38 1.44 0.88 26.86 0.69 -0.28 79.56 20.36

RJD-23 0.72 2.22 0.77 0.32 1.05 0.28 19.37 1.37 -6.13 39.60 164.31

RJD-24 0.52 0.32 0.42 0.21 2.16 0.47 15.72 0.59 -1.22 60.68 52.71

RJD-25 -0.08 -0.02 0.35 0.45 0.72 1.06 25.27 1.13 -1.16 69.61 57.48

RJD-26 -2.89 -0.49 0.19 0.56 14.40 3.86 54.46 2.69 0.42 115.03 25.65

RJD-27 -1.25 -0.40 0.30 0.66 1.44 2.23 52.93 2.24 0.16 107.62 20.36

RJD-28 0.69 1.11 0.71 0.31 1.40 0.30 20.57 0.79 -1.58 47.47 48.07

RJD-29 -0.52 -0.15 0.28 0.46 2.40 1.49 37.69 1.67 0.08 102.60 39.69

RJD-30 -0.13 -0.04 0.41 0.48 0.80 1.11 28.86 1.51 -1.75 65.29 72.17

RJD-31 0.22 0.07 0.31 0.25 1.87 0.73 17.64 0.59 -0.82 68.19 43.04

RJD-32 0.42 0.16 0.40 0.28 0.80 0.55 14.57 0.37 -0.76 51.52 27.06

RJD-33 0.39 0.13 0.38 0.23 1.89 0.59 16.49 0.71 -1.60 60.28 67.40

RJD-34 -0.63 -0.06 0.17 0.26 1.20 1.54 16.41 0.60 -1.01 66.85 51.42

RJD-35 0.46 0.17 0.51 0.19 2.13 0.43 13.95 0.40 -1.68 36.79 47.04

BNG-1 -1.05 -0.21 0.18 0.54 1.20 2.01 38.67 1.18 0.39 126.64 18.36

BNG-2 0.41 0.29 0.46 0.39 1.01 0.56 24.47 1.28 -1.46 73.36 83.83

BNG-3 0.36 0.36 0.58 0.41 2.24 0.63 32.86 1.94 -1.77 70.51 81.06

BNG-4 -1.35 -0.31 0.20 0.61 1.44 2.32 47.66 1.81 0.57 129.72 20.36

BNG-5 -0.69 -0.19 0.23 0.49 1.68 1.65 37.32 1.23 0.19 111.01 22.36

BNG-6 0.35 0.49 0.65 0.83 0.17 0.64 41.25 2.54 -1.40 75.71 68.62


36

BNG-7 -2.23 -0.30 0.12 0.52 3.36 3.18 46.00 2.26 1.61 148.21 36.34

BNG-8 -0.05 -0.01 0.25 0.36 2.88 1.01 29.54 1.03 0.32 114.01 32.35

BNG-9 0.66 1.10 0.68 0.38 0.77 0.34 21.30 1.33 -3.92 50.06 124.29

BNG-10 -0.28 -0.09 0.26 0.42 1.92 1.25 32.21 1.02 0.09 105.32 24.36

BNG-11 -1.41 -0.34 0.20 0.58 1.44 2.19 44.52 1.47 0.29 116.79 20.36

BNG-12 -2.01 -0.47 0.20 0.57 2.16 2.98 47.40 2.05 0.27 110.98 26.35

BNG-13 -1.48 -0.26 0.15 0.48 2.16 2.44 38.92 1.44 0.54 125.00 26.35

BNG-14 0.13 0.08 0.39 0.43 4.32 0.85 38.26 1.81 0.24 106.80 44.33

BNG-15 0.25 0.11 0.33 0.31 1.92 0.73 22.86 0.63 -0.25 84.06 24.36

BNG-16 0.84 1.38 0.69 0.16 1.94 0.16 11.26 0.62 -4.17 41.67 127.45

BNG-17 -0.32 -0.05 0.16 0.47 0.40 1.29 20.37 0.66 0.07 103.19 35.12

BNG-18 0.71 1.03 0.60 0.19 3.60 0.29 15.55 1.12 -5.58 50.69 191.70

BNG-19 0.71 1.44 0.75 0.23 3.40 0.29 18.38 1.32 -6.50 39.53 176.04

BNG-20 0.28 0.11 0.34 0.34 1.56 0.70 23.76 0.89 -0.30 89.33 42.72

BNG-21 -0.48 -0.12 0.22 0.51 0.80 1.39 31.66 0.82 0.12 109.01 18.04

BNG-22 0.10 0.05 0.34 0.37 1.37 0.88 25.33 1.10 -0.72 80.50 55.41

BNG-23 0.87 2.02 0.73 0.12 2.67 0.13 9.18 0.66 -7.85 35.03 220.12

BNG-24 0.85 2.57 0.78 0.14 3.67 0.15 11.44 0.95 -10.72 32.07 280.04

BNG-25 0.70 1.02 0.63 0.23 2.47 0.30 17.38 1.30 -5.77 51.44 196.79

BNG-26 0.29 0.16 0.37 0.31 3.00 0.68 25.31 0.92 -0.36 86.40 40.02

BNG-27 0.45 0.30 0.42 0.28 3.20 0.54 22.84 0.84 -0.53 80.57 42.01

BNG-28 -0.09 -0.03 0.26 0.35 1.68 1.05 25.51 0.99 -0.23 92.15 44.72

BNG-29 -0.09 -0.03 0.24 0.34 1.95 1.05 25.63 0.93 0.00 100.02 39.37

BNG-30 0.30 0.25 0.48 0.37 2.64 0.68 29.49 0.99 -0.53 74.92 30.35

BNG-31 0.07 0.03 0.32 0.47 1.00 0.91 30.92 0.87 0.00 100.00 20.04

Corresponding Author Shekhar Gupta

Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research

Department of Atomic Energy, Jamshedpur–831 002 Email: [email protected]

Manuscript History Received on November14, 2016; Revised on December26, 2016; Accepted on December31, 2016

mailto:[email protected]

hydrogeochemical constraints on uranium solubility … · hydrogeochemical constraints on uranium...

Documents