1 / 10

Karst Groundwater: Chemical vs. Thermal tracing

Karst Groundwater: Chemical vs. Thermal tracing. By: Robert J Kelley. Karst review. Karst- mostly limestone/ dolostone Well cemented grains Conduit dominated Features: caves (wet/dry) springs, sinkholes. Tracing- an Overview. The art of tracking

bryony
Download Presentation

Karst Groundwater: Chemical vs. Thermal tracing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Karst Groundwater: Chemical vs. Thermal tracing By: Robert J Kelley

  2. Karst review • Karst- mostly limestone/dolostone • Well cemented grains • Conduit dominated • Features: caves (wet/dry) springs, sinkholes

  3. Tracing- an Overview • The art of tracking • Two main types: Chemical and Thermal (Heat)

  4. Chemical Tracing • Dye- Fluorescent • Ions- Common: Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+, NH4+, HCO3-, SO4-, NO2-, Cl-, and NO3-

  5. Pros • Easy visualization • Convenient, readily available • Chemical- measurements over time • Cons • Costly • Labor intensive • Possibly harmful

  6. Thermal (Heat) Tracing • Temperature Loggers • Temperature profiles over time • Mixing models

  7. Basic heat flow theory equation • T is the dependent variable

  8. Pros • measure over time, more frequent than chemical and over longer periods • cost • Cons • results • not well known • easily lost

  9. Conclusion • Both have Pros and Cons. • Regulation changes • Used best in conjunction with each other

  10. Works Cited • Anderson, M., P., (2005), Heat as a Ground Water Tracer, Ground Water; v. 43, p. 951-961. • Cox, M., H., Su, G., W., Constants, J., (2007), Heat, Chloride, and Specific • Conductance as Ground Water Tracers near Streams; Ground Water, v. 45, p., 187-195. • Constanz, J., Cox, M., H., Su, G., W., (2003), Comparisons of Heat and Bromide as • Ground Water Tracers Near Streams: Ground Water, v. 41, p. 647-656. • Constanz J., (2008), Heat as a tracer to determine streambed water exchanges; Water • Resources Research, v. 44, p. 1-20. • deMarsily, G., (1986), Quantitative Hydrogeology: San Diego, California, Academic • Press. • Domenico, P., A., Schwartz, F., W., (1998), Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, 2nd • ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. • Dogwiler, T., Wicks, C., (2006), Thermal Variations in the Hyporheic Zone of a Karst • System: International Journal of Speleology, v. 35, p. 59-66. • Doucette, R., T., 2012, Thermal Patterns of Subsurface Flow Regimes In A Mantled • Karst Aquifer NW Arkansas [M.s. thesis]: Illinois State University, 68 p. • Harvey, J., W., Wagner, B., J., Bencala, K., E., (1996), Evaluating the Reliability of the • Stream Tracer Approach to Characterize Stream-Subsurface Water Exchange: Water Resources Research, v. 32, p. 2441-2451. • Luhmann, A., J., Covington, M., D., Peters, A., J., Alexander, S., C., Anger, C., T., • Green, J., A., Runkel, A., C., Alexander Jr, E., C., (2010), Classifications of Thermal Patterns at Karst Springs and Cave Streams; Ground Water • Mull, D., S., Liebermann, T., D., Smoot, J., L., Woosley, Jr. L., H., 1988, Application of • Dye Tracing Techniques for Determining Solute Transport Characteristics of Ground Water in Karst Terrains: U.S. EPA. • Smart, C.C., 1988. Artificial tracer techniques for the determination of the structure of • conduit aquifers. Ground Water, V. 26, p. 445-453.

More Related