Scholarly article on topic 'Sources of salinity and arsenic in groundwater in southwest Bangladesh'

Sources of salinity and arsenic in groundwater in southwest Bangladesh Academic research paper on "Earth and related environmental sciences"

0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Geochem Trans
Keywords
{""}

Academic research paper on topic "Sources of salinity and arsenic in groundwater in southwest Bangladesh"

Ayers et al. Geochem Trans (2016) 17:4 DOI 10.1186/s12932-016-0036-6

ö Geochemical Transactions

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

Sources of salinity and arsenic in groundwater in southwest Bangladesh

CrossMark

John C. Ayers1*©, Steven Goodbred1, Gregory George1, David Fry1, Laura Benneyworth1, George Hornberger Kushal Roy2, Md. Rezaul Karim2 and Farjana Akter2

Abstract

Background: High salinity and arsenic (As) concentrations in groundwater are widespread problems in the tidal deltaplain of southwest Bangladesh. To identify the sources of dissolved salts and As, groundwater samples from the regional shallow Holocene aquifer were collected from tubewells during the dry (May) and wet (October) seasons in 2012-2013. Thirteen drill cores were logged and 27 radiocarbon ages measured on wood fragments to characterize subsurface stratigraphy.

Results: Drill cuttings, exposures in pits and regional studies reveal a >5 m thick surface mud cap overlying a ~30 m thick upper unit of interbedded mud and fine sand layers, and a coarser lower unit up to 60 m thick dominated by clean sands, all with significant horizontal variation in bed continuity and thickness. This thick lower unit accreted at rates of ~2 cm/year through the early Holocene, with local subsidence or compaction rates of 1-3 mm/year. Most tubewells are screened at depths of 15-52 m in sediments deposited 8000-9000 YBP. Compositions of groundwater samples from tubewells show high spatial variability, suggesting limited mixing and low and spatially variable recharge rates and flow velocities. Groundwaters are Na-Cl type and predominantly sulfate-reducing, with specific conductivity (SpC) from 3 to 29 mS/cm, high dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 11-57 mg/L and As 2-258 ug/L, and low sulfur (S) 2-33 mg/L.

Conclusions: Groundwater compositions can be explained by burial of tidal channel water and subsequent reaction with dissolved organic matter, resulting in anoxia, hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) reduction, As mobilization, and sulfate (SO4) reduction and removal in the shallow aquifer. Introduction of labile organic carbon in the wet season as rice paddy fertilizer may also cause HFO reduction and As mobilization. Variable modern recharge occurred in areas where the clay cap pinches out or is breached by tidal channels, which would explain previously measured 14C groundwater ages being less than depositional ages. Of samples collected from the shallow aquifer, Bangladesh Government guidelines are exceeded in 46 % for As and 100 % for salinity. Keywords: Salinization, Arsenic, Groundwater, Water chemistry, Bangladesh

Background

This study concerns groundwater resources in a polder in the coastal zone of southwest Bangladesh, where islands built from river sediment are surrounded by tidal channels containing seasonally fresh to brackish water. The objectives of this study are to characterize concentrations

'Correspondence: john.c.ayers@vanderbiit.edu

1 Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Vanderbiit University,

PMB 351805, 2301 Vanderbiit Place, Nashviiie, TN 37235-1805, USA Fuii iist of author information is avaiiabie at the end of the articie

of dissolved salts and arsenic in groundwater and to identify their sources.

Geologic history, the land surface and subsurface stratigraphy

Field work focused on Polder 32 in Khulna district, Dacope upazila, about 30 km south of the city of Khulna and about 60 km north of the Bay of Bengal (Fig. 1). This area is referred to as the South-western Ganges Tidal Floodplain [1]. It experiences a humid, biseasonal climate with a dry season from November to May and wet season

Springer Open

© 2016 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/ publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Fig. 1 Locations of drill core and tubewell sampling sites. The red square in the inset map shows the regional location of the larger map. Background is a composite 2012 GeoEye satellite image. Tubewell symbol size is proportional to average measured specific conductivity of groundwater samples collected from each tubewell. The red line is the section to which sampled wells and drill core sites are projected to create the profile in Fig. 2

from June to October [2]. The polder is 19.3 km by 7.1 km with a total area of 68.2 km2 and a population of roughly 40,000. It is bounded by tidal channels including the Dhaki River in the north and northwest, the Bhadra River in the southeast, and the Shibsha River in the west and southwest (Fig. 1). The Sundarbans, a protected mangrove

forest, lies to the SE and SW of the polder. Polder 32 was likely part of the mangrove forest before deforestation in the 18th century A.D. (~250 YBP), and polder embankments were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s.

The study area is in a part of the Ganges-Brahma-putra-Meghna delta that currently has a relatively

stable elevation due to subsidence rates and accretion rates being comparable [3, 4]. Phases of delta construction during late Quaternary highstands of sea level have formed three principal aquifers in SW Bangladesh, each composed of medium to fine sands capped by finegrained aquitards from the deposition of tidal or overbank silts [5]. Grey, reduced Holocene sediments containing abundant organic matter generally overlay Pleistocene sediments, that in interfluve regions have been weathered and oxidized to form distinct paleosols. Generally low groundwater As concentrations are found in the Pleistocene aquifers, while the Holocene aquifer generally has high As and Fe concentrations [6, 7].

On Polder 32, tubewells only penetrate into the shallow Holocene aquifer that extends to depths of ~100 m (Fig. 2). The shallow aquifer is capped by an impermeable mud layer 3-30 m thick that limits recharge (this study; [8]). The aquifer comprises a complex mud-sand stratigraphy constructed by tidal channels following the Ganges' River progressive abandonment of the region during the late Holocene [4, 9].

Groundwater salinity

In southwest Bangladesh groundwater specific conductivity SpC ranges from 1 to 10 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm, [12]), equivalent to salinities of 0.5-5.2 parts per thousand (ppt, seawater is 35 ppt). Tidal channels are an important potential source of high salinity water. Tidal channel water is a mixture of seawater from the Bay of Bengal and freshwater, with salinities up to ~15 ppt during the dry season near Polder 32 [13]. Evidence suggests that there is little or no lateral recharge from modern tidal channels. We have observed freshwater ponds adjacent to highly saline brine shrimp ponds, indicating that deltaplain mud deposits have permeabilities sufficiently low to prevent lateral exchange of water and dissolved salts. Groundwater flow modeling also suggests that the low permeability of tidal channel bank deposits and low aquifer storativity inhibits significant lateral flow of tidal channel water into the shallow aquifer underlying the polders [14].

Vertical recharge of water from saline surface sources, including brine shrimp ponds and tidal channels in the dry season, is another potential source of groundwater salinity. However, only freshwater during the wet season would be abundant enough to make recharge significant. If recharge occurs, it must be confined to small areas where the mud cap has been breached [11]. Field observations show that many larger tidal channels are scoured deeper (15-50 m) than the thickness of the surface impermeable mud layer (3-30 m) and are floored by permeable sands that may act as conduits for vertical recharge. Also, recent evidence suggests that crab

burrows in surface ponds in Bangladesh may penetrate the impermeable mud cap, leading to localized freshwater recharge [15].

Arsenic contamination of groundwater

Most of the 6-11 million tubewells in Bangladesh are sourced at 10-50 m depth in the shallow (<150 m depth) aquifer [16]. Earlier studies found that groundwater exceeded the WHO guideline of 10 |g/L As [17] in 46 % of tubewells sourced in the shallow Holocene aquifer but only 5 % in the deeper Pleistocene aquifer [16].

Arsenic dissolved in groundwater in south Asia is sourced from subsurface sediments, where it is sorbed onto Hydrous Ferric Oxides (HFOs; [18, 19]). Many previous studies have concluded that reductive dissolution of HFOs driven by microbial metabolism of organic matter results in increased concentrations of dissolved arsenic in shallow groundwaters in Bangladesh (e.g., [7]). 14C-rich methane and field experiments show that recent infiltration of young carbon in Bangladesh can locally drive HFO reduction and As mobilization [10, 20]. Ground-water As concentrations are highest in aquifers with low grain size and permeability that are less flushed and that are organic-rich and reducing [21].

To characterize groundwater composition and to identify the sources of salinity and arsenic, groundwa-ter samples were collected from tubewells on Polder 32 and adjacent polders and analyzed. Arsenic values were reported to tubewell owners, who in most cases were already aware of their water quality from post-installation testing. In addition, drill core logs and radiocarbon dating of buried wood fragments were used to characterize the shallow aquifer.

Methods

Sampling and data collection occurred throughout the study area shown in Fig. 1. Most groundwater sample locations were chosen close to populated areas, primarily around the polder's perimeter where tubewells were located. Some groundwater samples were collected across the tidal channel on Polders 31 and 33 for comparison. Sample locations were measured with an accuracy of 50 cm using a Trimble GeoXT 6000, and well depths were provided by well owners (Table 1). Data was stored and analyzed in ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.

Drill core collection

Thirteen cores were drilled, at locations shown in Fig. 1, using the local, hand-powered method for installing tube-wells, which employs reverse-circulation flow through a 5-cm diameter PVC drill string attached to a 10-cm steel cutting shoe below surface. Locations were sited around the polder at variable spacing to assess scales of

Fig. 2 Summary of sediment lithology and radiocarbon ages from the thirteen Polder 32 cores. Drill core and tubewell sampling sites were projected to the red profile line in Fig. 1. Yellow numbers are calibrated radiocarbon ages in calendar years before present of mangrove wood recovered from the cores. Horizontal lines mark the approximate locations of the 8000 and 10,000 year isochrons. Numbers beneath tubewells are 14C groundwater ages [11]

Table 1 Sample locations

Wells Drill cores

Well Longitude (°)a Latitude (°) Depth (m) Year drilled Site Longitude (°) Latitude

GW-10 89.433679 22.5015 22.9 2011 0 89.49508 22.56825

GW-11 89.453158 22.5454 36.6 1 89.49106 22.55319

GW-12 89.447794 22.5143 2002 3 89.492 22.51955

GW-13 89.439263 22.5254 36.6 2010 4 89.48407 22.52014

GW-14 89.495929 22.5167 48.8 2002 8 89.45905 22.47048

GW-15 89.489398 22.5353 25.9 1998 9 89.45925 22.47037

GW-16 89.482665 22.5284 19.8 2011 12 89.45217 22.43472

GW-17 89.484595 22.5328 15.2 2012 13 89.4414 22.42969

GW-19 89.481866 22.548 29 2010 14 89.43877 22.43392

GW-20 89.481554 22.5468 21.3 2011 17 89.43569 22.46502

GW-200 89.481743 22.5458 22 89.43413 22.51047

GW-21 89.483091 22.5464 22.9 2011 23 89.44209 22.50297

GW-22 89.500686 22.5336 41.8 2011 27 89.46507 22.53219

GW-23 89.500789 22.5336 38.7 2001

GW-24 89.501026 22.5335 41.1 2011

GW-25 89.501372 22.5335 42.1 2000

GW-26 89.491193 22.5087 42.7 2011

GW-27 89.49123 22.5095 45.7 2010

GW-28 89.490784 22.5067 22.9 2010

GW-29 89.45921 22.4704 36.6 2009

GW-30 89.459285 22.4703 36.6 2008

GW-31 89.45889 22.4703 44.2 2007

GW-32 89.460374 22.4788 45.7 2011

GW-33 89.463171 22.4591 27.4 2011

GW-34 89.44812 22.4587 42.7 2009

GW-35 89.448046 22.4589 42.7 2009

GW-36 89.445487 22.4582 41.1 2011

GW-37 89.447941 22.4364 45.7 2007

GW-38 89.451616 22.4332 51.8 1988

GW-39 89.451492 22.4315 42.7 2006

GW-40 89.450372 22.4274 42.7 2005

GW-41 89.450196 22.4278 42.7 2007

GW-42 89.450195 22.4278 42.7 2007

GW-50 89.472823 22.5069 33.5 2007

GW-51 89.474373 22.5074 27.4 2011

GW-52 89.447852 22.4362 36.6 1997

GW-53 89.452841 22.4398 39.6 2010

GW-60 89.491771 22.5195

a Datum for latitude and longitude is WGS 1984

stratigraphic heterogeneity. Although no cores had identical stratigraphy, they shared the same gross architecture suggesting regional controls on their development but superimposed by local-scale dynamics. Sediment cuttings were collected over 1.5 m intervals, or 0.75 m intervals where lithology changes were noted. Core depths

reached on Polder 32 ranged from 60 to 90 m below surface (Fig. 2). Mangrove wood fragments collected from drill cuttings provided 27 radiocarbon ages measured by AMS at the NOSAMS Woods Hole facility. All ages are presented in sidereal years calibrated using Calib 7.1 and the IntCal13 calibration curve (Table 2).

Table 2 Carbon-14 ages

Core site Elev. (m EGM96) NOSAMS Lab ID Material Ö13C (per mil PDB) 14C age BP cal yr BP 2o upper 2o lower

0 -30 OS-102912 Plant/wood -28.0 7470 ±30 8295 8199 8369

0 -39 OS-102913 Plant/wood -25.0 8450 ±40 9481 9422 9532

3 -8 0S-102914 Plant/wood -28.0 150 ±25 173 0 283

3 -23 0S-102915 Plant/wood -28.0 3660 ±25 3983 3901 4083

3 -62 0S-102916 Plant/wood -28.0 8200 ±35 9158 9030 9270

4 -38 0S-102917 Plant/wood -28.4 3960 ±30 4431 4296 4520

4 -54 0S-102918 Plant/wood -29.8 9250 ±40 10,425 10,275 10,554

4 -83 0S-102919 Plant/wood -30.0 9470 ±40 10,713 10,581 11,065

8 -59 0S-102920 Plant/wood -26.8 8500 ±35 9507 9470 9537

8 -84 0S-102990 Mollusc -6.2 9670 ±80 11,110 10,796 11,204

9 -3 0S-102921 Plant/wood -27.4 240 ±25 290 0 421

9 -11 0S-102975 Plant/wood -27.1 4270 ±60 4845 4728 4873

9 -22 0S-102976 Plant/wood -29.7 7230 ±70 8039 7970 8160

9 -41 0S-102977 Plant/wood -27.6 7760 ±70 8542 8448 8598

12 -27 0S-102978 Plant/wood -27.8 7660 ±70 8446 8395 8539

12 -64 0S-102979 Plant/wood -29.1 8400 ±90 9437 9303 9518

13 -14 0S-102980 Plant/wood -26.9 2780 ±80 2878 2778 2966

13 -29 0S-102981 Plant/Wood -28.3 7590 ±70 8396 8346 8432

13 -51 0S-102982 Plant/wood -29.3 8180 ±80 9121 9020 9261

17 -7 0S-102983 Plant/wood -27.6 4340 ±60 4907 4845 4972

17 -28 0S-102984 Plant/wood -25.7 7760 ±80 8538 8433 8600

17 -51 0S-102985 Plant/wood -29.2 7950 ±80 8823 8646 8983

17 -57 0S-102986 Plant/wood -29.1 44,000 ±1020 47,030 45,860 48,623

23 -22 0S-102987 Plant/wood -27.5 7170 ±70 7985 7935 8037

23 -36 0S-102988 Plant/wood -29.9 7860 ±110 8670 8541 8977

23 -54 0S-102989 Mollusc -11.1 3340 ±60 3577 3477 3677

27 -18 0S-103248 Plant/wood -29.0 6000 ±35 6840 6747 6934

27 -24 0S-103249 Plant/wood -28.6 7360 ±35 8177 8040 8309

Water chemistry Field measurements

In May 2012, October 2012 and May 2013 a portable Hydrolab 4a was used to measure physical parameters of water samples including oxidation-reduction potential Eh in millivolts (mV), pH, temperature in degrees Celsius (°C), and SpC (mS/cm). In October 2013 a portable Hydrolab DS5 was used to make the same measurements.

Platinum electrodes like those in the Hydrolab units typically only respond to a few electroactive species present at concentrations greater than ~10-5 molal in natural waters, usually only Fe2+/Fe3+ [22]. Thus, Eh measurements are most useful for distinguishing oxic versus anoxic conditions [37]. Comparison of Eh measurements for groundwater samples in this study with those of surface water samples [13] shows that Eh measurements made with the Hydrolab can distinguish between oxic surface waters and anoxic groundwaters.

Wells were purged at least one well volume prior to sampling. Water samples were collected by rinsing a 1 L

(L) bottle, filling it, and immersing the Hydrolab Sonde for field measurements. Next, a syringe with a 0.45 |im filter was used to withdraw thirty milliliters (mL) and transfer it to a polyethylene sample bottle for Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) analysis. One drop of concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) was added as a preservative. Another 60 mL was filtered and placed in a sample bottle without preservative for ion chromatography (IC) and total organic carbon (TOC) analysis (except for samples collected in May 2012).

Water analysis

For all analyses an analytical blank and check standard was run every 10-20 samples and required to be within 15 % of the specified value. If the maximum concentration in the calibration standards was exceeded, then samples were diluted gravimetrically to within the targeted analytical range.

Preserved aqueous samples were analyzed for metal cation concentrations using a Varian ICP Model 720-ES

ICP-OES utilizing EPA Method 6010B. Five-point standard curves were used for an analytical range between approximately 0.1 and 25 mg/L for trace metals and approximately 0.1 mg/L and 500 mg/L for major ions.

Elements below detection were reanalyzed using a Per-kin Elmer Elan 6100 DRC II ICP-MS in both standard and dynamic reaction chamber (DRC) modes. Standard analysis mode was used for all analytes except for As and Se, which were run in DRC mode with 0.5 mL/ min of oxygen as the reaction gas. Seven-point standard curves were used for an analytical range between approximately 0.5 |g/L and 250 |g/L and completed before each analysis.

Analyses of anions were performed on unpreserved samples using a Metrohm 881 Compact IC Pro employing ASTM Method D-4327-03. Seven-point calibration curves were generated by dilution of a multi-anion standard at 500x, 200x, 100x, 50x, 10x, 2x, and 1x and were accepted with a correlation coefficient of at least 0.995. A volume of approximately 10 mL of undiluted sample was loaded for analysis.

Analyses of organic and inorganic carbon were performed on unpreserved samples using a Shimadzu model TOC-V CPH/CPN using ASTM Method D-7573-09. Five-point calibration curves, for both dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and non-purgeable DOC, were generated for an analytical range between 5 ppm and 100 ppm and were accepted with a correlation coefficient of at least 0.995. A volume of approximately 20 mL of undiluted sample was loaded for analysis. DIC analysis was performed first for the analytical blank and standard and then the samples. DOC analysis was carried out separately after completion of DIC analysis. DOC analysis started with addition of 2 M hydrochloric acid to achieve a pH of 2 along with a sparge gas flow rate of 50 mL/min to purge inorganic carbon prior to analysis.

Quality assurance/quality control

Analysis of May 2012 nitrate NO- and DIC concentrations was compromised due to addition of HNO3 as a preservative (i.e., unpreserved samples were not collected in May 2012). Therefore, results for May 2012 NO- and HCO- concentrations are not used in the data analysis nor can charge-balance errors or saturation indices be determined for May 2012 samples.

To calculate charge balance errors PO3- concentrations were calculated from the P concentration measured by ICP and SO^- concentrations from S concentrations measured by ICP. Measured DIC and pH values were used to calculate concentrations of HCO- and CO^-. For samples with complete chemical analyses (excludes May 2012 samples) the average charge-balance error was 1.2 % (Table 3).

Method detection limits are given for each analyte in Table 3. Sample blanks consisting of deionized water were collected in-field during each field campaign and analyzed, yielding concentrations that were consistently lower than in samples (Table 3). For the three elements that were analyzed by both methods (B, As and Mn) ICP-OES and ICP-MS analysis results showed excellent agreement, so only ICP-MS results are given in Table 3. For example, the average % difference was 5 % for B. The average % difference for As was higher at 18 % because many samples were near the method detection limit for ICP-OES.

Results

Subsurface stratigraphy

Drill cores from thirteen locations (Fig. 1) reveal a stratigraphy dominated by two principal facies (Fig. 2): (a) a relatively coarse lower unit comprising up to 60 m of sand-dominated lithology with scattered thin (<2 m) mud layers; and (b) an overall finer upper unit comprising 30-40 m of alternating 5-20 m thick sand and mud deposits. The lower unit is characterized by thick, clean sands up to medium grain size (250-500 |im). The presence of medium sand, low sediment Sr concentration (80-110 ppm), and the thick, open sandy architecture indicate that these sediments were deposited by the main Ganges River channel [9]. The abundant wood fragments and intertidal gastropods (Littorina sp.) further constrain this setting to the lower, tide-influenced reach of the paleo-rivermouth. Radiocarbon ages indicate the timing of deposition to extend from ~11,000 calendar years Before Present (YBP) at the base of the cores (~90 m depth) to ~8500 YBP near the top of the lower unit at 30-40 m depth (Table 2). These results reflect mean sediment accretion rates of ~2 cm/yr during the early Holocene, which were sufficient to keep pace with rapid post-glacial sea-level rise (Fig. 3). The age-elevation distributions from this time also plot below eustatic sea level and suggest local subsidence or compaction rates of no more than 1-3 mm/yr (Fig. 3). Most tubewells in the area are screened in the upper part of this early Holocene aquifer, in sediments deposited 8000-9000 YBP, although 14C ages of the associated groundwaters are considerably younger at 1500-5000 YBP [11].

Beginning ~8500 years ago at 30-40 m depth there is a major change in stratigraphy that is characterized by the appearance of alternating thick layers of muds and sands in the upper unit. The increase in mud within the stratigraphy indicates that the main river mouth had avulsed or progressively migrated to another portion of the delta and by ~6500 YBP no longer occupied this location. Subsequent deposition of thick mud layers with abundant wood fragments reflect a mangrove-forested,

Table 3 Water sample compositions

Well Date T(°C) Eh (mV) pH SpC (mS/cm) AI As B Ba Ca Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na P S

GW-10 5/14/2012 31.9 181 6.6 5.56 0.013 0.176 0.75 0.56 80.6 1.76 41.4 0.01 78.4 0.079 0.011 1144 4.0 1.5

GW-10 10/15/2012 29.6 135 7.4 5.65 0.199 0.79 0.45 86.1 0.56 28.2 0.012 78.9 0.075 0.007 1099 3.2 0.5

GW-11 5/14/2012 28.8 165 6.9 4.59 0.004 0.062 0.76 0.11 51.9 0.66 37.1 0.007 67.1 0.064 0.003 657 5.8 1.1

GW-11 5/4/2013 28.9 99 6.9 4.18 0.027 0.97 0.10 52.4 1.00 22.8 0.168 65.3 0.061 0.007 594 5.4 15.5

GW-12 5/15/2012 33.9 179 6.6 4.95 0.022 0.196 0.52 0.57 117.0 1.02 35.2 0.01 88.6 0.070 0.003 724 1.7 1.8

GW-12 10/15/2012 28.9 122 7.3 4.95 0.028 0.167 0.60 0.55 127.4 0.82 24.9 0.012 93.5 0.071 910 1.7 0.5

GW-12 5/4/2013 27.5 -98 6.8 4.61 0.148 0.82 0.45 128.9 0.11 23.6 0.406 95.1 0.080 0.017 687 1.1 33.2

GW-12 10/24/2013 27.9 -49 6.6 5.23 0.032 0.178 0.54 0.71 110.9 3.33 24.6 0.01 89.5 0.071 682.1 2.5 5.16

GW-13 5/16/2012 31.1 135 6.5 15.23 0.049 0.020 0.56 2.56 388.2 0.75 107.3 0.016 412.8 0.299 0.002 4261 0.2 5.0

GW-14 5/17/2012 29.2 103 6.5 3.30 0.017 0.062 0.44 0.09 106.5 0.12 20.0 0.010 70.5 0.149 392 1.5 1.7

GW-15 5/17/2012 30.0 141 6.6 5.53 0.031 0.013 0.33 0.77 163.1 6.98 49.8 0.012 152.8 0.289 0.002 1251 1.5 2.4

GW-15 10/16/2012 28.2 102 7.4 5.62 0.048 0.42 0.84 184.1 6.15 37.6 0.010 158.7 0.302 0.002 856 1.3 0.5

GW-16 5/18/2012 33.4 95 6.7 6.91 0.022 0.084 0.54 0.53 138.9 0.17 15.8 0.012 46.1 0.059 0.004 1388 1.0 13.0

GW-17 5/18/2012 30.5 124 6.5 8.77 0.043 0.016 0.35 0.35 311.6 0.17 59.8 0.016 222 0.916 0.003 2134 0.1 124.9

GW-17 10/16/2012 28.4 117 7.3 8.68 0.119 0.051 0.42 0.39 326.1 12.2 41.8 0.013 212.8 0.944 0.004 1346 0.8 122.0

GW-17 5/7/2013 28.2 -85 6.6 7.80 0.040 0.7 0.34 322.1 6.12 35.9 0.534 208.3 0.907 0.022 1518 0.9 145.5

GW-17 10/25/2013 27.4 -36 6.5 8.50 0.06 0.038 0.36 0.36 265.5 14.51 41.8 0.024 198.7 0.896 1609 1.4 92.81

GW-19 5/19/2012 28.4 141 6.6 8.01 0.022 0.021 0.87 0.15 124.2 0.24 16.3 0.011 89.2 0.167 1702 6.8 3.1

GW-19 10/16/2012 28.5 130 7.3 7.99 0.030 0.031 0.84 0.27 140.7 3.87 11.4 0.013 102.4 0.235 0.002 1565 7.3 8.9

GW-19 5/6/2013 27.5 -34 6.7 7.68 0.002 1.23 0.2 136.4 0.87 8.9 0.045 94.4 0.185 0.005 1489 6.1 27.8

GW-19 10/23/2013 27.0 -37 6.5 8.22 0.042 0.004 0.85 0.24 124.9 4.47 12.2 0.013 101.9 0.23 1526 8.9 13.33

GW-20 5/19/2012 30.1 117 6.7 7.90 0.024 0.013 0.64 0.14 150.3 0.65 20.7 0.011 78.6 0.102 0.002 1753 8.7 2.6

GW-20 5/6/2013 26.9 -73 6.8 7.56 0.004 0.93 0.13 161.2 0.19 12.6 0.386 82.8 0.114 0.015 1409 6.2 35.5

GW-20 0 10/23/2013 28.1 12 7.3 29.40 0.056 0.009 2.26 0.74 192.1 0.21 38.1 0.018 382.4 0.177 7149 0.5 12.32

GW-21 5/19/2012 30.2 129 6.5 7.30 0.032 0.026 0.46 0.13 202.9 0.55 34.3 0.013 117.3 0.565 0.003 1693 3.3 65.2

GW-22 5/19/2012 29.7 183 6.6 5.57 0.021 0.080 0.61 0.76 108.7 1.11 54.6 0.010 119.8 0.084 1057 1.9 1.7

GW-23 5/19/2012 28.7 161 6.7 5.14 0.014 0.067 0.66 0.49 93 0.25 54.3 0.010 108.4 0.078 861 1.9 1.6

GW-24 5/19/2012 28.0 147 6.7 6.87 0.028 0.094 0.63 0.86 146.7 0.91 61.6 0.011 151.2 0.079 0.002 1318 1.5 2.1

GW-25 5/19/2012 28.2 164 6.7 5.26 0.011 0.053 0.69 0.3 90.1 0.35 55.8 0.009 107.9 0.059 886 2.2 1.5

GW-26 5/20/2012 32.5 324 6.9 8.89 0.034 0.030 0.57 0.58 189.7 1.35 33.9 0.013 149.4 0.16 0.002 2138 0.1 3.3

GW-27 5/20/2012 29.6 114 6.4 11.55 0.039 0.032 0.55 1.13 283.4 2.93 43.9 0.014 213.3 0.266 0.003 3009 0.6 4.3

GW-27 10/17/2012 27.9 88 7.2 11.45 0.095 0.062 0.6 1.45 291 17.48 27.5 0.011 204.9 0.274 2039 2.4 1.1

GW-28 5/20/2012 31.9 125 6.4 8.79 0.037 0.024 0.55 0.57 216 0.89 55.2 0.012 202.8 0.712 2237 0.2 3.0

GW-28 10/17/2012 28.3 88 7.3 9.23 0.094 0.017 0.62 0.78 232.2 13.33 38.2 0.009 203.1 0.621 0.003 1586 2.3 2.4

GW-29 5/21/2012 31.5 132 6.8 6.31 0.014 0.57 0.16 89.5 0.71 53.4 0.009 111.7 0.068 0.001 1342 1.2 1.2

Well Date

T(°C) Eh(mV) pH SpC Al As B Ba Ca Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na PS

(mS/cm)

GW-29 10/19/2012 27.3 94 7.7 6.54 0.027 0.032 0.65 0.2 103.5 2.08 39.2 0.012 123.6 0.074 0.004 1269 1.5 0.2

GW-29 5/5/2013 26.6 -84 7.1 6.21 0.001 0.95 0.2 102.6 1.81 33.4 0.476 121.8 0.073 0.018 1190 1.6 39.7

GW-30 5/21/2012 30.8 246 7.0 4.35 0.020 0.63 0.06 38.9 0.46 36.6 0.01 50.3 0.036 0.002 693 3.0 0.7

GW-30 10/19/2012 27.3 90 7.9 4.56 0.72 0.06 44.5 0.39 26.4 0.01 54.4 0.039 0.003 1002 2.9 0.4

GW-30 5/5/2013 26.6 -42 7.4 4.30 0.001 0.95 0.1 47.4 1.01 25.2 0.534 56.7 0.041 0.02 666 3.0 42.2

GW-31 5/21/2012 28.6 134 6.9 3.93 0.021 0.47 0.06 43.6 1.09 39 0.005 56.1 0.076 0.004 642 2.3 0.7

GW-31 10/19/2012 27.6 81 7.8 4.05 0.023 0.58 0.07 52.8 1.01 29.3 0.010 65.1 0.092 839 2.2 0.2

GW-31 5/5/2013 26.6 -61 7.3 3.91 0.002 0.78 0.07 54.7 1.03 27 0.368 67.3 0.097 0.018 646 2.1 32.5

GW-32 5/21/2012 28.2 143 6.5 11.74 0.040 0.115 0.62 1.44 242.5 4.8 60.2 0.016 232.5 0.678 0.004 3085 1.2 6.5

GW-32 5/6/2013 27.7 -73 6.7 14.95 0.203 0.79 2.62 392.1 3.87 42.5 0.406 344.2 0.083 0.017 3387 1.6 32.8

GW-33 5/22/2012 28.2 143 6.4 10.74 0.051 0.027 0.58 0.4 337.1 2.67 97.4 0.012 416 0.891 2835 0.6 4.3

GW-33 5/8/2013 28.1 -68 6.5 10.14 0.004 0.8 0.25 340.3 0.07 62.3 0.537 372 1.01 0.027 2136 0.8 43.3

GW-33 10/22/2013 27.5 8 6.4 11.3 0.055 0.038 0.63 0.4 324.6 10.82 72 0.028 392.4 1.218 2274 2.2 14.38

GW-34 5/22/2012 29.1 153 6.6 5.53 0.015 0.154 0.52 0.54 107.8 0.23 32.6 0.011 85.5 0.085 1005 1.9 1.5

GW-34 10/19/2012 27.7 92 7.4 5.57 0.019 0.104 0.59 0.73 113.1 3.32 21.9 0.012 86.7 0.09 0.004 1050 3.0 0.4

GW-34 5/8/2013 28.0 -77 6.7 5.24 0.107 0.89 0.62 120 2.14 21.1 0.032 92.5 0.095 0.003 925 4.1 11.5

GW-35 5/22/2012 29.3 128 6.6 7.67 0.032 0.254 0.49 0.94 176.7 0.63 36.4 0.011 136.4 0.077 1709 0.7 2.4

GW-35 10/19/2012 27.9 88 7.4 7.39 0.042 0.226 0.56 1.16 177.8 3.54 24.1 0.013 130.1 0.082 1392 1.7 0.4

GW-35 5/8/2013 29.2 -104 6.8 6.85 0.217 0.8 1 194.6 2.23 23.3 0.052 140.7 0.089 0.004 1327 2.6 34.6

GW-36 5/22/2012 29.3 149 6.7 5.67 0.022 0.114 0.49 0.56 107.2 0.72 32.3 0.011 87.5 0.065 0.002 1040 2.3 1.6

GW-36 10/19/2012 28.5 94 7.5 5.66 0.024 0.116 0.56 0.61 114.5 1.36 22.1 0.012 90.1 0.068 1110 2.3 0.4

GW-36 5/8/2013 29.5 -83 6.9 5.18 0.077 0.74 0.56 123.5 1.6 22.6 0.45 97.5 0.08 0.017 832 2.9 39

GW-37 5/22/2012 31.6 170 6.5 4.80 0.023 0.158 0.29 0.37 125.9 0.17 34.5 0.012 97.9 0.084 0.002 855 1.3 2.0

GW-37 5/5/2013 26.9 -64 6.8 4.59 0.135 0.56 0.42 145.7 2.16 25.1 0.087 110.8 0.092 0.002 748 2.8 12.1

GW-38 5/22/2012 28.1 128 6.8 5.70 0.007 0.078 0.61 0.1 65.6 0.61 40.5 0.009 77.9 0.044 1200 2.4 1.3

GW-38 5/5/2013 25.8 -58 7.1 5.54 0.057 0.87 0.14 78.1 0.83 32.2 0.211 94 0.047 0.005 989 3.0 17.1

GW-38 10/27/2013 26.3 -78 6.9 6.13 0.022 0.093 0.72 0.13 59.76 2.93 29.9 0.004 83.4 0.051 1025 3.8 3.115

GW-39 5/22/2012 28.7 118 6.6 6.75 0.034 0.104 0.3 0.62 195.2 0.44 38 0.013 131.6 0.132 1490 0.6 2.7

GW-39 10/18/2012 28.6 99 7.5 6.74 0.056 0.092 0.37 0.68 215.4 1.47 25.5 0.013 136.6 0.138 1126 0.9 0.3

GW-39 5/5/2013 25.4 -99 6.9 6.65 0.113 0.68 0.69 253.5 2.43 29.5 0.061 161.8 0.152 0.004 1279 2.7 40.9

GW-39 10/27/2013 27.2 -81 6.7 7.24 0.049 0.131 0.37 0.79 189.9 5.74 26.1 0.023 136.3 0.143 1300 2.4 8.754

GW-40 5/23/2012 29.7 149 6.6 7.04 0.041 0.048 0.39 0.72 248.5 0.91 46.2 0.012 160 0.238 0.002 1689 0.6 5.5

GW-40 10/18/2012 29.1 107 7.3 6.83 0.082 0.048 0.45 0.96 271.9 4.04 33 0.017 162.5 0.245 1036 1.5 0.3

GW-40 5/5/2013 26.1 -61 6.7 6.54 0.057 0.69 0.93 323.1 3.53 36.5 0.53 191.1 0.267 0.015 1335 2.4 42.4

GW-41 5/23/2012 29.3 134 6.6 7.94 0.046 0.030 0.25 1.4 352.7 1.39 43 0.014 186.7 0.266 1961 0.6 14

GW-41 10/18/2012 29.2 110 7.4 7.94 0.129 0.064 0.34 1.38 364.4 7.37 29.6 0.016 181 0.278 0.005 1145 1.5 7.9

Well Date T(°C) Eh (mV) pH SpC (mS/cm) AI As B Ba Ca Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na P S

GW-41 5/5/2013 26.3 -82 6.7 7.72 0.019 0.61 1.3 436.5 2.94 34.7 0.54 220.2 0.29 0.013 1582 2.3 46

GW-42 5/23/2012 29.3 134 6.6 7.94 0.048 0.043 0.26 1.43 352.4 2.2 43.7 0.013 186.9 0.269 1910 0.7 14.0

GW-50 10/17/2012 29.1 111 7.8 3.57 0.014 0.6 0.11 45.7 0.06 26.1 0.006 52 0.035 0.002 739 1.5 0.4

GW-50 5/7/2013 28.9 22 7.2 3.12 0.008 0.96 0.06 38.5 0.25 33.2 0.062 51.4 0.037 0.009 460 2.5 40.8

GW-51 10/17/2012 28.3 99 7.7 4.00 0.031 0.78 0.07 47.2 0.65 24.1 0.01 50.5 0.046 0.002 902 3.7 0.5

GW-51 5/7/2013 29.8 33 7.1 3.68 0.005 1.04 0.06 43.9 0.49 31.6 0.776 55.5 0.044 0.02 488 3.3 46.5

GW-52 10/18/2012 27.6 121 7.4 5.81 0.052 0.206 0.37 0.60 183.7 2.66 29.3 0.015 132.9 0.084 0.006 967 1.2 0.4

GW-53 10/17/2012 27.8 122 7.2 9.01 0.108 0.028 0.46 0.56 280.2 6.95 26.0 0.017 237.6 0.303 1435 0.9 0.7

GW-53 5/5/2013 25.4 -39 6.6 9.33 0.040 0.87 0.83 360.3 2.12 49.2 0.59 309.8 0.269 0.013 1916 1.4 48.6

GW-60 5/7/2013 28.9 77 7.1 4.86 0.55 0.51 192.8 0.34 36.7 7.245 147.1 0.484 0.008 940 0.9 138.2

Blank 1 10/19/2012 0.002 0.002 0.2 0.0 0.1 1 0.1

Blank 2 10/18/2012 0.002 0.007 0.004 0.3

Blank 3 5/13/2012 0.01 0.002 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0.7

Blank 4 5/13/2012 0.09 0.05 0.008 1.8 0.014 0.4 0.8 0.0064 14 0.01

Minimum 25.4 -104 6.4 3.1 0.004 0.001 0.25 0.057 38.5 0.058 8.9 0.004 46.1 0.035 0.001 392 0.1 0.2

Maximum 33.9 324 7.9 29.4 0.129 0.254 2.3 2.6 436.5 17.5 107.3 7.25 416.0 1.218 0.027 7149 8.9 146

Average 8.6 69 6.9 7.1 0.04 0.071 0.64 0.57 174.9 2.5 35.9 0.188 143.4 0.231 0.007 1427 2.3 19.3

Standard Deviation 1.7 97 0.4 3.5 0.028 0.065 0.27 0.5 104.4 3.4 16.6 0.815 88.6 0.271 0.007 940 1.8 31.8

Geometric Mean 28.6 6.9 6.6 0.033 0.04 0.6 0.38 143.6 1.2 32.7 0.028 122.6 0.141 0.005 1242 1.7 4.9

Method Detection Limit 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001

WHO Guideline [17] 1.5 0.01 0.5 0.7 200 0.3 30 150 0.5 200 83

Seawater 8.1 0.001 0.002 4.5 0.01 413 6E-05 399 0.170 1290 0.0003 0.011 10,800 0.07 900

Well Date Si Sr F CI Br N03 HC03 DIC DOC Saturated minerals3 CIB (%) Xsw (%)

GW-10 5/14/2012 23.8 0.7 4.5 1528 8

GW-10 10/15/2012 21.8 0.7 1521 4.9 0.2 841 189 47.0 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol.Cal, Qz 0 8

GW-11 5/14/2012 26.6 0.5 4.8 898 5

GW-11 5/4/2013 11.1 0.8 0.4 859 8.0 1165 296 34.3 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol.Cal, Qz -18 4

GW-12 5/15/2012 23.2 1.0 5.1 1036 1.2 5

GW-12 10/15/2012 22.7 1.0 1145 4.2 0.2 1028 237 49.4 Ap, Dol, Qz, Cal 2 6

Well Date Si Sr F Cl Br N03 HC03 DIC DOC Saturated minerals3 CIB (%) Xsw (%)

GW-12 5/4/2013 9.2 1.7 0.4 1047 8.7 1051 284 30.8 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol.Cal, Qz -11 5

GW-12 10/24/2013 23.2 0.9 1049 0.8 0.2 1193 364 45.0 Ap, Hm, Mt, Gth, Qz, Dol -16 5

GW-13 5/16/2012 15.3 3.0 12.6 5966 11.1 31

GW-14 5/17/2012 31.7 0.6 3.9 532 3

GW-15 5/17/2012 20.8 1.2 5.0 1741

GW-15 10/16/2012 19.7 1.3 1321 5.4 0.2 540 125 17.5 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol.Cal, Qz 12 7

GW-16 5/18/2012 23.5 0.5 6.1 2085 5.1 11

GW-17 5/18/2012 16.0 1.5 7.3 3058 6.4 16

GW-17 10/16/2012 14.3 1.5 2003 9.0 0.2 457 110 13.9 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol.Cal,Qz 12 10

GW-17 5/7/2013 2.2 2.3 0.5 2486 11.8 398 124 10.9 Hm, Dol, Gth, Cal 6 13

GW-17 10/25/2013 17.2 1.4 2399 1.0 0.1 423 143 14.9 Ap, Hm, Mt, Gth, Qz 8 12

GW-19 5/19/2012 32.3 0.5 6.2 2567 5.3 13

GW-19 10/16/2012 30.2 0.6 2186 8.1 0.2 598 140 32.9 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal 6 11

GW-19 5/6/2013 17.5 0.6 2364 11.4 1.6 583 168 25.8 Ap, Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz.Cal -2 12

GW-19 10/23/2013 31.8 0.6 2326 1.0 0.4 525 175 32.6 Ap, Hm, Mt, Qz, Gth 0 12

GW-20 5/19/2012 31.5 0.7 7.0 2592 5.6 13

GW-20 5/6/2013 18.0 1.3 2269 11.1 675 184 28.1 Ap, Dol, Hm, Qz, Cal -3 12

GW-20 0 10/23/2013 10.0 4.7 10363 3.6 472 126 34.2 Hm, Mt, Gth, Dol, Qz 8 53

GW-21 5/19/2012 28.2 0.9 6.0 2427 5.4 12

GW-22 5/19/2012 27.0 1.0 5.0 1436 7

GW-23 5/19/2012 29.4 0.9 5.7 1150 6

GW-24 5/19/2012 26.1 1.3 5.9 1919 10

GW-25 5/19/2012 28.0 0.9 5.1 1186 3.1 6

GW-26 5/20/2012 21.9 1.1 7.3 3008 15

GW-27 5/20/2012 22.0 1.5 9.4 4224 9.5 22

GW-27 10/17/2012 20.0 1.4 2722 12.2 0.2 828 204 41.2 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol.Cal,Qz 12 14

GW-28 5/20/2012 22.5 1.5 7.4 3184 5.4 16

GW-28 10/17/2012 20.4 1.5 2366 9.6 0.2 715 171 29.0 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol.Cal,Qz 9 12

GW-29 5/21/2012 24.9 0.8 6.5 1920 10

GW-29 10/19/2012 24.2 0.9 1956 5.7 0.2 681 151 21.3 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol.Cal,Qz 3 10

GW-29 5/5/2013 9.8 1.7 1836 9.8 766 186 15.6 Ap, Hm, Dol,Gth, Qz.Cal -2 9

GW-30 5/21/2012 25.0 0.4 4.4 987 5

GW-30 10/19/2012 25.0 0.4 1503 3.5 0.2 869 186 32.2 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol.Cal,Qz -6 8

GW-30 5/5/2013 11.2 1.3 1009 8.1 1.6 1014 225 24.8 Ap, Hm,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -15 5

GW-31 5/21/2012 25.3 0.4 4.3 899 1.2 5

GW-31 10/19/2012 25.9 0.4 1078 3.1 0.2 778 168 25.7 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal 1 6

GW-31 5/5/2013 12.7 1.1 0.4 937 7.9 872 197 16.8 Ap, Hm,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -10 5

Well Date Si Sr F CI Br N03 HC03 DIC DOC Saturated minerals3 CIB (%) Xsw (%)

GW-32 5/21/2012 20.9 2.0 10.2 4344 8.8 22

GW-32 5/6/2013 1.7 3.7 5311 20.0 556 169 16.4 8 27

GW-33 5/22/2012 33.1 2.8 9.9 4034 8.8 21

GW-33 5/8/2013 17.6 3.2 3431 13.5 590 202 16.2 Dol, Qz, Cal 10 18

GW-33 10/22/2013 32.6 0.3 3447 1.3 0.1 236 25.4 Ap, Hm, Mt.Gth, Qz 12 18

GW-34 5/22/2012 25.1 0.8 5.9 1423 2.8 7

GW-34 10/19/2012 23.3 0.8 1553 4.7 0.2 928 210 40.7 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -2 8

GW-34 5/8/2013 11.5 0.8 1348 9.0 874 250 23.2 Ap. Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz.Cal -5 7

GW-35 5/22/2012 20.0 1.3 7.9 2419 6.5 12

GW-35 10/19/2012 19.4 1.3 2119 6.9 0.2 891 206 31.4 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 2 11

GW-35 5/8/2013 8.0 1.4 2020 10.6 899 245 18.4 Hm, Dol, Gth, Cal, Qz 0 10

GW-36 5/22/2012 21.5 0.8 5.7 1403 0.8 7

GW-36 10/19/2012 19.6 0.8 1435 4.9 0.2 1009 226 44.9 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 2 7

GW-36 5/8/2013 7.7 1.4 1319 8.9 1055 271 28.3 Ap, Hm, Dol, Gth, Cal, Qz -10 7

GW-37 5/22/2012 30.5 1.0 5.1 1202 1.1 6

GW-37 5/5/2013 16.7 1.3 1165 9.1 782 212 27.4 Ap, Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz.Cal -2 6

GW-38 5/22/2012 29.0 0.7 6.0 1617 2.5 8

GW-38 5/5/2013 16.8 1.1 1492 9.5 826 198 24.0 Ap, Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz.Cal -4 8

GW-38 10/27/2013 29.5 0.7 1480 0.8 0.1 939 242 35.6 Ap, Hm, Mt, Gth, Qz, Dol -6 8

GW-39 5/22/2012 21.7 1.4 6.2 2116 3.7 11

GW-39 10/18/2012 20.2 1.5 1709 5.8 0.2 673 154 22.8 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 8 9

GW-39 5/5/2013 9.4 1.7 1938 9.8 679 180 15.7 Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz, Cal 7 10

GW-39 10/27/2013 21.3 1.5 1936 0.9 0.1 746 217 26.4 Ap, Hm, Mt, Gth, Qz, Dol 3 10

GW-40 5/23/2012 31.4 1.8 6.3 2249 4.5 12

GW-40 10/18/2012 30.2 1.9 1509 6.0 0.2 645 153 22.0 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 14

GW-40 5/5/2013 18.6 2.8 1980 9.9 1.5 585 172 15.2 Hm, Dol, Gth, Qz, Cal 11 10

GW-41 5/23/2012 28.7 2.1 7.5 2757 4.9 14

GW-41 10/18/2012 27.5 2.1 1506 7.3 0.2 659 157 22.4 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 20

GW-41 5/5/2013 15.9 3.1 2410 10.9 578 172 15.0 Hm, Dol, Qz, Gth, Cal 12 12

GW-42 5/23/2012 29.0 2.2 6.6 2728 14

GW-50 10/17/2012 24.3 0.4 1106 3.0 0.2 774 166 35.4 Ap, Hm,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -7 6

GW-50 5/7/2013 15.2 0.5 686 7.5 881 201 23.1 Ap, Hm,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -18 4

GW-51 10/17/2012 31.8 0.4 1339 2.9 0.2 1003 217 43.3 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -9 7

GW-51 5/7/2013 20.6 1.2 746 7.6 1116 262 25.8 Ap, Hm,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal -23 4

GW-52 10/18/2012 27.6 1.4 1281 5.8 0.2 826 190 41.3 Hm, Ap, Gth, Dol, Cal, Qz 9 7

GW-53 10/17/2012 27.3 1.4 2101 8.5 0.2 739 182 29.2 Hm, Ap,Gth, Dol, Qz.Cal 13 11

Table 3 continued

Well Date Si Sr F CI Br N03 HC03 DIC DOC Saturated minerals3 CIB (%) Xsw (%)

GVV-53 5/5/2013 17.5 2.7 0.4 3017 12.4 641 203 21.1 Hm, Dol,Qz, Gth, Cal 10 15

GW-60 5/7/2013 1.1 0.4 1425 9.3 393 95 10.9 Hm, Gth, Dol, Cal 6 7

Blank 1 10/19/2012 1 0.17 0.5 2.1

Blank 2 10/18/2012 0.4 23.8 4.9

Blank 3 5/13/2012 0.32 1 0.21 4.9

Blank4 5/13/2012 1.6 0.01 1.97 10 0.07 4.5

Minimum 1.7 0.3 0.4 532 0.8 0.1 393 95 10.9

Maximum 33.1 4.7 12.6 10363 20 1.6 1193 364 49.4

Average 21.6 1.3 5.5 2076 6.6 0.3 766 195 27 1.2 11

Standard deviation 7.3 0.8 2.8 1368 3.8 0.4 206 50 10.1 10 7

geometric mean 19.7 1.1 4.0 1803 5.2 0.2 737 188 25.2

Method detection limit 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.007 0.018

WHO guideline [17] 250 50 384 0.007 0.018

Seawater 2.8 7.6 1.3 19500 67.0 142 0.1

All concentrations in mg/L

HC03— and saturation indices calculated using GWB v. 9. Xsw (%) is the estimated percentage of sea water in the groundwater mixture (see text) SpC specific conductivity, seawater composition from [32] except for HC03— and DOC concentrations from [33]

Hm hematite; Ap apatite; Gth goethite; Dol dolomite; Cal calcite; Qz quartz; Mag magnetite; DIC dissolved inorganic carbon; DOC dissolved organic carbon a CIB (%) = charge imbalance error. Saturated minerals have saturation index (= log lAP/Ksp) >0

intertidal delta plain, like that found today in the adjacent Sundarbans. The fine sand deposits within the same unit represent the high-energy tidal channels that interlace the delta plain. Most of the tubewells on Polder 32 are screened near the base of this heterolithic upper unit in sediments deposited <7000-8000 YBP. Mineralogy of these deposits are typical for the region, dominated by quartz and feldspars with variable contributions of carbonate, amphibole, garnet, epidote, biotite, and muscovite in the sand fraction and illite, smectite, kaolinite, chlorite in the silty muds [1, 39, 43, 44].

Water compositions

All sampled tubewells (Fig. 1) are screened at depths of 15-52 m (Table 1; Fig. 2), meaning that all of our ground-water samples are from the shallow aquifer that is the most commonly utilized groundwater resource in this region. Samples collected in May are taken to represent the dry season and October the wet season.

Measured concentrations of most elements displayed a lognormal distribution. This was confirmed by transforming the concentrations to their base 10 logarithms and testing for normality using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. All statistical tests and plots therefore use log10 values of concentrations, and cutoffs for statistical tests are at a significance level P = 0.05, meaning that any differences referred to in the following discussion are significant at the 95 % level, and errors are stated as 95 % confidence limits.

All groundwater samples are Na-Cl type and have near neutral pH, with values ranging from 6.4 to 7.9 with an average value of 6.9 (Table 3). Specific conductivity SpC, which we use as a measure of salinity, ranges from 3.1 to 29.4 mS/cm with an average value of 7.0 mS/ cm. Average concentrations of cations in groundwater occur in the order Na+ > Ca2+ > Mg2+ > K+ and anions Cl- > HCO- > SO4- (Fig. ). Mineral saturation indices were calculated using the Spec8 program in the Geo-chemists Workbench v. 9. Most groundwater samples are saturated to oversaturated in hydroxyapatite, the HFO goethite (FeO(OH)), dolomite, calcite and quartz, with all but dolomite known to be present in the shallow aquifer sediments (Table 3).

Conservative elements

Linear correlations between the concentrations of Na, Mg, and Sr with Cl indicates that these elements behave conservatively in groundwater (Fig. 5). Linear regression lines for each cation-Cl pair appear to represent mixing lines. Seawater falls close to the mixing lines for each cation-Cl pair, suggesting that seawater is a mixing end-member. Other lines of evidence support seawater being the saline endmember. The average Cl (mg/L)/B (mg/L)

of 273 ± 66 (95 % CL) in our tubewell samples is similar to that of 290 for seawater. Also, at a given Cl concentration the Cl/Br of our groundwater samples is much lower than the mixing line for West Bengal Salt obtained from evaporite beds in the region, but similar to the seawater mixing line [24], suggesting that evaporites are not the source of dissolved salts. Finally, tidal channel water that deposits most sediments in the region is a mixture of sea-water, and freshwater from river discharge and local runoff, and is likely trapped as pore water during sediment deposition [13]. The dilute mixing end member could be rainwater, as the average concentration in two rainwater samples collected in the field [13] plots right on the mixing line for Na-Cl (Fig. 5), but it could be tidal channel water, as tidal channel water samples also fall on the mixing line [13]. The Bangladesh government guideline for salinity of 2 mS/cm SpC [26] is exceeded by 100 % of our groundwater samples (Fig. 6).

Nonconservative (redox-sensitive) elements

In contrast to salts, many redox-sensitive elements behave non-conservatively, meaning their proportions are highly variable. Of greatest concern is the high concentration of toxic arsenic in groundwater samples. Arsenic concentrations range from 1 to 254 |g/L with a geometric mean of 40 |g/L (Table 3). Of the groundwa-ter samples analyzed, 83 % exceed the WHO guideline of 10 |g/L As and 46 % exceed the Bangladesh government guideline of 50 |g/L [27] (Fig. 6). In contrast, the geometric mean Mn concentration of 141 |g/L is lower than the WHO guideline of 500 |g/L. The mean DOC concentration is 27 ± 3 mg/L, which is unusually high for groundwater [28] and much higher than for all other water types we have analyzed using the same methods [13], including field blanks that yielded an average concentration of 4 ± 2 mg/L (Table 3). Generally poor correlations between Eh, concentrations of reducing agents (DOC), and concentrations of metals with variable oxidation states (As, Fe, Mn and S) suggests that redox disequilibrium is the norm.

Discussion

Groundwater flow

Since the hydraulic head gradients in southern Bangladesh are very low, groundwater flow velocities are low [10]. Heavy rainfall and high river discharge during the monsoon replenishes groundwater aquifers through both vertical and lateral recharge, but in the coastal zone recharge is likely limited by the impermeable surface mud layer. Within the shallow aquifer sand beds are not laterally continuous (Fig. 2), and interbedded silt layers cause groundwater flow to slow and change direction, causing groundwater flow rates to be low. The low flow rate and

Radiocarbon age (cal yr BP)

3000 6000

-f + ----------

— +

-f l\ -b

■•4

+ V \

\ i \

Polder 32 ages -Eustatic sea level (Lambeck 2014) ----Eustasy + 1 mm/yr subsidence .......Eustasy + 3 mm/yr subsidence T \ \

1 I 1 1 *

Fig. 3 14C ages measured from mangrove wood fragments from Polder 32 plotted as a function of depth in meters compared to the eustatic sea level curve of [38] with 0, 1, and 3 mm/year of subsidence. Elevations are normalized to EGM96 datum. Results show rapid aggradation and aquifer construction during early Holocene sea-level rise, with slower aggradation and sea-level rise since the mid-Holocene. The several deep (23-54 m) radiocarbon ages around 4000 ± 500 YBP correspond with a local channel scour

Na K Ca Mg CI HC03 SO,

Fig. 4 Boxplot showing distribution of concentrations of major cations and anions in groundwater samples. Concentrations of HCO- calculated from measured DIC and pH using The Geochemists Workbench v. 9

variable permeability inhibit mixing, allowing the persistence of spatial variability in groundwater composition.

The variable thickness of the mud cap observed in the sediment cores (Fig. 2) is consistent with results from inversion of electromagnetic survey measurements, which show that in some areas of Polder 32 the mud cap

is thin or non-existent [11]. Areas where the surface mud layer pinches out are likely sites for localized recharge of the shallow aquifer with rainwater or surface water, which would result in formation of freshwater lenses floating on the denser brackish groundwater. Inland streams (natural streams and irrigation ditches) and tidal channels are points of low elevation, so they are the most likely entry points for infiltrating surface water. These local depressions are usually dry in May but are filled with freshwater in the wet season [13]. Thus, fresh water is more likely to infiltrate into the subsurface than brackish water.

Groundwater composition Spatial variation

The subsurface stratigraphy beneath Polder 32 shows a high degree of spatial heterogeneity (Fig. 2). Likewise, groundwater composition shows high spatial variability in specific conductivity (Fig. 1) and concentrations of As and DOC (Fig. 7). For example, one tubewell may yield saline water, while a tubewell next to it drilled to roughly the same depth yields fresh water. Such local-scale heterogeneity may not be unexpected for non-conservative, redox-sensitive elements such as As (e.g., [16, 18, 45]), but it is perhaps more surprising for conservative elements in a Holocene-age aquifer. This

Fig. 5 Concentration of Cl plotted versus concentrations of conservative elements Na, Mg, and Sr with best-fit linear regression lines. The large filled symbols at high Cl concentration represent seawater [32], while the filled circle at low Cl concentration represents the average Na concentration in two collected rainwater samples [13]. All concentrations are log10 values in mg/L

SpC (mS/cm)

Fig. 6 Specific conductivity SpC in mS/cm plotted versus As concentration in |ig/L for groundwater samples from tubewells. Compared to Bangladesh government guidelines shown as red lines, 100 % of groundwater samples exceed the salinity guideline of 2 mS/cm, while 46 % exceed the As guideline of 50 |g/L

suggests that the spatial distributions of salinity and As concentrations cannot be distinguished from a random distribution. To test this, we used the Geostatistical Analyst extension in ESRI ArcMap 10.2 for construction of spatial trend plots and semivariograms for select compositional variables. Semivariograms plot the semi-variance, which is proportional to 1-autocorrelation, as a function of distance, in this case between every possible paired combination of tubewells. Semivariograms for all tested compositional variables show a random

pattern, suggesting that there is no spatial autocorrelation of element concentrations in groundwater and that the spatial variation is just noise. This is supported by the value of nugget being close to one, which suggests that compositional variability occurs on a smaller spatial scale than the sampling distance [30, 31]. Spatial interpolation assumes that samples that are spatially close have similar values, i.e., there is regional dependence, which is the same as spatial autocorrelation at low lags [45]. Because our data show no spatial autocorrelation, spatial interpolation is not warranted, so we cannot construct meaningful contour maps of groundwater composition. Similar conclusions were drawn by The Bangladesh National Hydrochemical Survey of 19981999 for comparable spatial scales [16].

There are other obstacles to making accurate spatial generalizations about groundwater composition. One problem is that groundwater composition in the polder interior is poorly constrained due to a lack of tubewells (Fig. 1). Another problem is that the wells were drilled to different depths, so tubewell water samples were recovered from different depths. Interpolating As concentrations from all wells to create a 2D surface would require the assumption that there is no vertical heterogeneity, which is false (Fig. 2).

While tubewell salinity and As concentrations show no coherent surface trends, some element concentrations change systematically with depth. Statistically significant correlations with increasing depth include an increase in As and decrease in S (Fig. 8). These correlations were significant even when making corrections for multiple comparisons by performing bootstrap calculations in SPSS v. 23: the bias-corrected 95 % confidence intervals for the Pearson correlation coefficient for log10As were 0.180.59 and for log10S -0.04 to -0.60. No consistent trend with depth is observed for salinity (SpC), Eh or pH.

Source of salts

Salinity of groundwater from tubewells on and near Polder 32 is spatially variable (Fig. 1). The average salinity of groundwater in the area of Polder 32 is ~10 ppt, roughly 1/3 that of seawater and similar to the salinity of tidal channel water in the dry season. We suggest that ground-water in this region is saline because it comprises connate tidal-channel water deposited with the sediments during Holocene aquifer development, similar to what is observed today. The concentrations of components of soluble salts such as the alkali element Na, alkaline earths Mg and Sr and halogen Cl are all highly correlated, indicating that they behave conservatively. Groundwater samples define linear arrays on bivariate plots of these elements that most likely represent mixing between saline and dilute endmembers (Fig. 5).

Fig. 7 Maps of average measured As and DOC concentrations (mg/L) of groundwater samples collected from each tubewell in 2012-13. a May. b October

Although semivariograms and trend analysis suggest that groundwater salinity shows no spatial autocorrelation, it is still possible that salinity may show a systematic dependence on distance from freshwater or brackish water sources, allowing identification of sources. Potential sources include streams within polder embankments, tidal channels that surround the polders, and brine shrimp ponds. A proximity analysis performed in Arc-GIS 10.2 shows that although correlation coefficients are low and not significant, the correlation between ground-water SpC and distance to the nearest stream is strongest and positive, suggesting that streams may be sources of freshwater recharge to groundwater (Fig. 9a). No correlation was observed between groundwater SpC and freshwater pond distance. Conversely, we observe weak negative correlations between SpC and distances to tidal channel (Fig. 9b) and shrimp ponds (Fig. 9c), suggesting that the latter are potential brackish water sources. It is possible that some brackish water intrusion from the tidal channels and shrimp ponds into the shallow aquifer has occurred. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that dissolved salts in groundwater were inherited from paleo-tidal-channel water at the time of sediment

deposition, with salinity variations due to spatially variable amounts of freshwater recharge resulting from variations in thickness of the impermeable surface mud layer. This interpretation is consistent with modeling of Holo-cene groundwater evolution around Polder 32, which demonstrates that slow but spatially variable recharge can account for observed groundwater age and salinity patterns[11].

Together, highly variable flow paths and localized recharge result in groundwater compositions that vary greatly spatially (Figs. 1, 7 and 9) and with depth (Fig. 8). Measured groundwater radiocarbon ages from [11] are also spatially variable (Fig. 2). These ages are younger than the depositional (radiocarbon) ages of their host sediments, suggesting mixing of old, connate brackish tidal channel water and younger meteoric water. Ground-water recharge by (contaminated) surface water is consistent with reports of contamination of tubewell water by pathogens on Polder 32 and with previous studies that showed that surface ponds in the region are a source of recharge water and labile carbon [20]. Assuming the initial concentration of 14C has not changed over time (not strictly true), the age of a groundwater tgw that is a

Depth (m)

Fig. 8 Screened depths of groundwater wells versus log10 concentrations of As and S in mg/L

y = 5.34x + 5.9 R2 = 0.19

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Distance to nearest stream (km)

y = -1.32x + 7.59 R2 = 0.053

Distance to nearest tidal channel (km)

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

y = -0.19x + 7.2

R2 = 0.006 §

if 5 *

% * o • ¿ « $ 8 o

0 1 2 3 ^

Distance to nearest shrimp pond (km)

Fig. 9 Specific conductivity of groundwater in mS/cm as a function of shortest distance in km to (a) a stream. b a tidal channel. c a shrimp pond

connate water—modern freshwater mixture is related to the weight fraction of connate water XCW by the equation:

_ + (1 -XCW))

tgw — ] (1)

Adjusting XCW until tgw equals the average C groundwater age of 2921 Y [11] yields an average weight fraction of connate water of 0.46 or 46 wt%. The four measured 14C groundwater ages yield a range of 19-77 wt% connate water.

This range of proportions overlaps with the range of Na and Cl concentrations in samples plotted in Fig. 5, with samples closer to the seawater endmember having higher proportions of seawater that was a component of the connate water. If groundwater is assumed to be a binary mixture of seawater and rainwater, then for conservative elements such as Cl a mass balance equation can be used to estimate the proportion of seawater in groundwater Xsw:

CCl - X CCl + I1 - X JCCl (2)

where CgCwl and CrCwl are the average concentrations of Cl in groundwater and rainwater, and Xsw is the weight fraction of seawater. Setting CCi = 19,500 mg/L [32], average CCw = 2076 mg/L (Table 3) and C£[ = 2.14 mg/L [13] gives Xsw = 0.11, which suggests a lower average proportion of seawater of 11 %. Individual analyses yield a range of 3 to 53 % seawater (Table 3). Note that while seawater is the ultimate source of dissolved salts, the water trapped during sediment deposition was a brackish tidal water. Variable amounts of modern freshwater recharge further diluted the groundwater.

Although no firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of only four samples, the ages measured by Worland

et al. [11] do not correlate with our groundwater salinities measured at the same tube wells. However, tritium contents show a negative correlation with specific conductivity, consistent with the idea that samples with the greatest amount of recharge by modern freshwater (highest tritium contents) have been the most diluted. The presence of modern recharge implies that the shallow groundwater aquifer is susceptible to contamination by surface waters, most likely in those areas where the impermeable clay cap pinches out. Also, if the extraction rate for freshwater wells exceeds the recharge rate, then freshwater lenses in the subsurface may shrink until tubewell water becomes saline. Unfortunately, the recharge rate is not known, so

we cannot estimate sustainable pumping rates. However, extraction rates are certainly low on Polder 32, as there are no large-volume irrigation wells and most hand-pumped wells were only installed after 2009 Cyclone Aila and receiving limited use due to the generally saline groundwater [46].

Source of As and cause of As mobility

Most of our tubewell samples had As concentrations higher than the WHO guideline of 10 |g/L, although many remain below the Bangladesh guideline of 50 |g/L. The oxidation state of dissolved As and stoichiometry of As-compounds can be inferred from measured Eh and pH measurements, thermodynamic data, and the assumption of chemical equilibrium. Uncertainty arises from disequilibrium between As(III), As (V) and other redox species [40] and the poor response of Pt electrodes to many aqueous redox couples [22, 37]. An Eh-pH diagram for As shows that at equilibrium the dominant As species in the most reduced groundwater samples is the neutral complex As(OH)3 with As having a +III valence (Fig. 10a). In more oxidized groundwater samples As is in the +V valence state and the dominant species are HAsO-2 or H2AsO-. The relative proportions of As(III) and As(V) affect As toxicity and mobility. As(III) is more toxic than As(V) [41]. The mobility of the charged As(V) complexes would be reduced by adsorption to a greater extent than for the uncharged As(III) complex As(OH) 3, although adsorption of As(V) becomes less important at pH values above 7 ([42]; the average pH

of our groundwater samples is 6.9). Thus, As should be most toxic and mobile in the most reduced (lowest Eh) groundwaters generally found in grey, reducing Holocene sediments.

Groundwater samples do not plot in the pyrite stability field (Fig. 10b) and so are not saturated in pyrite, which suggests that pyrite is not widely present in the aquifer. This is consistent with mineral saturation indices that show all groundwater samples are undersaturated in pyrite (Table 3). Most groundwater samples plot in the stability field of goethite, an HFO mineral (Fig. 10b), consistent with calculated saturation indices showing most groundwater samples are oversaturated in goe-thite (Table 3). Many groundwater samples plot near the boundary between goethite and aqueous ferrous iron, suggesting that reductive dissolution of HFOs and resulting mobilization of adsorbed As is likely.

Mixing calculations can be used to estimate the theoretical concentration of redox species in the initial sea-water-rainwater mixture (i.e., in trapped tidal channel water). Estimates of XSW (Table 3) and sulfate concentrations (CfW = 2700 mg/L [32] and CrsO4 = 1.5 mg/L [13]) were substituted in Eq. (2) to calculate the theoretical concentrations expected if sulfate behaved conservatively. In 76 samples the actual sulfate concentration was less than the theoretical, implying that sulfate reduction removed sulfate from the mixture; according to Buschmann and Berg [23] these are classified as sulfate-reducing. The five samples for which the actual sulfate concentration was greater than the theoretical were

FeSO} "

i- ++ Fe \ ° \ o Goethite \

\ <*> Pyrite

igqetrte.

0 2 4 6 8 10

Fig. 10 Eh-pH diagrams calculated in the Geochemists Workbench v. 9 Act2 program using the default thermodynamic database thermo.dat with temperature = 25 °C, pressure = 1.013 bars, and activity of H2O = 1.0. a As speciation. Activity of As species 10-6. b Fe and S species, hematite suppressed, activity of Fe2+ = 10-6, and activity of SO42- = 10-4

classified as iron-reducing because for all five samples Fe > 0.2 mg/L (Table 3). Groundwater As concentrations would likely be higher than observed if conditions were more reducing, i.e., in the methanogenic zone rather than the sulfate-reducing and iron-reducing zones [23].

Previous work in this region has shown that As concentrations in aquifer sediments are highly correlated with Fe content [16] because As in sediments is primarily sorbed to HFOs [18] and immobile, and that biologically active organic carbon can reduce HFOs and mobilize As [20]. HFOs are present in Holocene sediments in the adjacent Sundarbans [18] and throughout the region [7]. Furthermore, DOC concentration in groundwater samples is higher than in any surface water types in the vicinity ([13, 25]). Our measured DOC concentrations ranged from 11 to 49 mg/L, which is highly comparable with average porewater DOC of 19-36 mg/L measured in four different sediment types in the Sundarbans [18]. This similarity is also consistent with our hypothesis that modern shallow groundwater in Polder 32 began as DOC-rich connate porewater trapped in HFO-bearing surface sediments at the time of deposition, as is occurring in the modern Sundarbans. Reactive organic carbon can be preserved in permanent wetlands that become anoxic, and subsequent microbial oxidation leads to reduction of arsenic-bearing HFOs and As release according to the reaction [34]:

CH2O + 4FeOOH - (H2ASO4)x + (7 + 3x)H+ = 4Fe2+ + HCO- + (6 + x)H2O + XH3ASO3

In Eq. (3) CH2O represents DOC. Equation (3) explains the following observations:

1. Groundwater iron and arsenic concentrations are higher than expected for a seawater-rainwater mixture (seawater concentrations given in Table 3, rainwater concentrations are negligible).

2. Groundwater bicarbonate concentrations are also higher than expected for a seawater-rainwater mixture (the geometric mean concentration of HCO-in groundwater of 737 mg/L being higher than the seawater concentration of 142 mg/L [33]), although other reactions such as carbonate dissolution/precipitation may increase the concentration of HCO-.

While Na/Cl and Cl/Br ratios indicate that the ground-water has a paleo-seawater component, the geometric mean S concentration of 5 mg/L is much lower than the mean seawater concentration of 900 mg/L [32]. However, sulfide loss was not caused by sulfide precipitation, as mineral saturation calculations indicate that groundwa-ter samples are not saturated in sulfide minerals such as

pyrite (Table 3). Sulfur therefore may have been lost by reduction of sulfate to H2S and then loss of H2S in the aquifer or in the tubewells before or during sampling:

SO4- + 2CH2O = H2S + 2 HCO-

Combining Eqs. (1) and (2) we obtain:

3CH20 + 4FeOOH - (H2AsO4)x + SO4- + (7 + 3x)H+

= 4Fe2+ + H2S + 3HCO- + (6 + x)H2O + xHbAsOb

Equation (5) coupled with loss of H2S would explain why groundwater sulfur concentrations are lower than expected for a seawater-rainwater mixture, why sulfur concentrations are negatively correlated with pH, and why with increasing depth (progressive reduction as Eq. (5) moves to the right) sulfur concentration decreases while As concentration increases (Fig. 8). Furthermore, oxidation of DOC (CH2O) would cause a decrease in groundwater Eh, which is significantly lower than in surface water in this area and in seawater [13]. Reaction path modeling [35] and previous reports [36] support our interpretation that progressive reaction of DOC during burial extends through phases of HFO reduction, As mobilization, and sulfate reduction.

For quantitative comparisons of groundwater compositions in the dry season in May and the wet season in October we ran paired t-tests, or if assumptions for the parametric test were not met we ran the Wilconox Signed Rank Test in Sigmaplot v. 12. Bootstrap calculations in SPSS v. 23 to correct for multiple comparisons effects yielded similar results. In May log K, log S, and log Br were higher, while in October pH, SpC, log As, log Fe, log P, log DIC and log DOC were higher. Except for DOC (CH2O), concentrations of the reactants in Eq. (5) are higher in May, while the concentrations of products are higher in October (sulfur concentration is assumed to decrease in October through loss of H2S). While groundwater temperature is significantly higher in May than October, the difference is only 1 °C, so temperature changes are unlikely to be responsible for this effect. A more likely explanation is that labile DOC is added to the shallow aquifer during the wet season, when rice agriculture is active and organic fertilizers are added to the soil, causing the reaction in Eq. (5) to shift to the right. This is consistent with work showing that application of cow dung to rice paddies in Bangladesh raised porewater DOC and As concentrations [46].

Like this study, the Bangladesh National Hydrochemi-cal Survey of 1998-1999 found limited variation of As concentration with time and no support for the "pyrite oxidation" hypothesis for As mobilization [16]. The lack of correlation of concentrations of Fe and dissolved As

was also observed for groundwaters in Araihazar, Bangladesh [29]. A study in the Mekong river delta showed that organic matter in sediments causes reduction of HFOs and increase in dissolved As, and that continued reduction leads to sulfate reduction and sulfide removal, as observed in this study [36].

Conclusions

All sampled groundwaters in Polder 32 of SW Bangladesh could have formed as mixtures of seawater and freshwater, similar in composition to modern tidal water, followed by progressive reduction causing changes in concentrations of some redox species, and variable amounts of recharge by modern freshwater. Discontinuous silt-mud layers in Holocene aquifer sediments cause anisotropy in permeability and flow, which results in groundwaters having highly variable salinities, As concentrations and ages. Groundwater from tubewells has high DOC comparable to modern porewaters in the adjacent Sundarbans [17] that could have caused reductive dissolution of HFOs and mobilization of As. Seasonal changes in groundwater composition suggest that introduction of labile organic carbon in the wet season in which rice agriculture is practiced may cause HFO reduction and As mobilization. Arsenic concentrations are generally high in the area, with 83 % of our groundwater samples exceeding the WHO guideline of 10 ^g/L, and 46 % higher than the Bangladesh standard of 50 ^g/L. Furthermore, 100 % of the groundwater samples exceeded the Bangladesh Government salinity guideline of 2 mS/cm. Contamination of groundwater in the shallow aquifer by salts, arsenic and pathogens severely restricts options for potable water sources in the area and may require treatment solutions or import of safe water.

Authors' contributions

JCA designed the groundwater study, collected water samples in May 2012, provided oversight of chemical analyses, and was primary author of most sections of the manuscript. SG designed the sediment/subsurface stratigraphy study and wrote the relevant sections. GG and LB made measurements and collected samples in 2012. LB also helped develop analytical protocols. DF made measurements and collected samples in 2013. GH gave advice on statistics and geostatistics. KR participated in planning and field campaigns. MRK and FA made measurements and collected samples on four campaigns. MRK also helped choose sampling locations. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author details

1 Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University, PMB 351805, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235-1805, USA. 2 Environmental Science Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh. 3 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, PMB 351831, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN 37235-1831, USA.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research Grant #N00014-11-1-0683. The sponsor played no role in the design or execution of this research or in the writing of the report. Thanks to Rossane DeLapp for

analyzing the water samples and Xiaomei Wang for catching an error in the derivation of Eq. 1. This paper benefitted from a review by Dr. Mohammad Shamsudduha and two anonymous reviewers.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests.

Received: 9 April 2016 Accepted: 29 June 2016 Published online: 11 July 2016

References

1. Brammer H (2012) The physical geography of Bangladesh. The University Press Ltd, Dhaka

2. Chowdhury NT (2010) Water management in Bangladesh: an analytical review. Water Policy 12:32

3. Wilson CA, Goodbred SL (2015) Construction and maintenance of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta: linking process, morphology, and stratigraphy. Annu Rev Mar Sci 7:67-88

4. Allison M, Khan S, Goodbred S, Kuehl S (2003) Stratigraphic evolution of the late Holocene Ganges-Brahmaputra lower delta plain. Sediment Geol 155:317-342

5. Rahman M, Majumder R (2011) Sources of deep groundwater salinity in the southwestern zone of Bangladesh. Environ Earth 63:363-373

6. Charlet L, Polya DA (2006) Arsenic in shallow, reducing groundwaters in southern Asia: an environmental health disaster. Elements 2:91

7. Nickson RT, McArthur JM, Ravenscroft P, Burgess WG, Ahmed KM (2000) Mechanism of arsenic release to groundwater, Bangladesh and West Bengal. Appl Geochem 15:403-413

8. Shamsudduha M, Taylor RG, Ahmed KM, Zahid A (2011) The impact of intensive groundwater abstraction on recharge to a shallow regional aquifer system: evidence from Bangladesh. Hydrogeol J 19:901-916

9. Goodbred SL, Paolo PM, Ullah MS, Pate RD, Khan SR, Kuehl S, Singh a (2014) Piecing together the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna River delta: Use of sediment provenance to reconstruct the history and interaction of multiple fluvial systems during Holocene delta evolution. Geol Soc Am Bull 32:16

10. Harvey CF, Swartz CH, Badruzzaman BM, Keon-Blute N, Yu W, Ali MA, Jay J, Beckie R, Niedan V, Brabander D, Oates PM, Ashfaque KN, Islam S, Hemond HF, Ahmed MF (2002) Arsenic mobility and groundwater extraction in Bangladesh. Science 298:1602-1606

11. Worland SC, Hornberger GM, Goodbred SL (2015) Source, transport, and evolution of saline groundwater in a shallow Holocene aquifer on the tidal deltaplain of southwest Bangladesh. Water Resour Res 51:5785-5791

12. Bahar M, Reza M (2010) Hydrochemical characteristics and quality assessment of shallow groundwater in a coastal area of Southwest Bangladesh. Environ Earth Sci 61:1065-1073

13. George G (2013) Characterization of salinity sources in southwestern Bangladesh evaluated through surface water and groundwater geo-chemical analyses. Vanderbilt University. http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/ available/etd-11272013-113249/

14. Tasich C (2012) Effects of tidal fluctuations on a semi-confined aquifer system in southwest Bangladesh. Vanderbilt University. http://etd .library. vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-12092013-212955/

15. Stahl MO, Tarek MH, Yeo DCJ, Badruzzaman ABM, Harvey CF (2014) Crab burrows as conduits for groundwater-surface water exchange in Bangladesh. Geophys Res Lett 41:8342-8347

16. British Geological Survey, Bangladesh Department of Public Health and Engineering: Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in Bangladesh. 2001

17. World Health Organization (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn

18. Hossain M, Williams PN, Mestrot A, Norton GJ, Deacon CM, Meharg AA (2012) Spatial heterogeneity and kinetic regulation of arsenic dynamics in mangrove sediments: the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Environ Sci Technol 46:8645-8652

19. Sankar MS, Vega MA, Defoe PP, Kibria MG, Ford S, Telfeyan K, Neal A, Mohajerin TJ, Hettiarachchi GM, Barua S, Hobson C, Johannesson K, Datta S (2014) Elevated arsenic and manganese in groundwaters of Murshi-dabad, West Bengal, India. Sci Total Environ 488-489:570-579

20. Neumann RB, Ashfaque KN, Badruzzaman BM, Ashraf Ali M, Shoemaker JK, Harvey CF (2009) Anthropogenic influences on groundwater arsenic concentrations in Bangladesh. Nat Geosci 3:46-52

21. Van Geen A, Radloff K, Aziz Z, Cheng Z, Huq MRR, Ahmed KMM, Weinman B, Goodbred SL, Jung HB, Zheng Y, Berg M, Trang PTK, Charlet L, Metral J, Guillot S, Chakraborty S, Gajurel AP, Upreti BN (2008) Comparison of arsenic concentrations in simultaneously- collected groundwater and aquifer particles from Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, and Nepal. Appl Geochem 23:3019-3028

22. Nordstrom DK, Munoz JL (1994) Geochemical thermodynamics, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford

23. Buschmann J, Berg M (2009) Impact of sulfate reduction on the scale of arsenic contamination in groundwater of the Mekong, Bengal and Red River deltas. Appl Geochemistry 24:1278-1286

24. McArthurJM, Sikdar PK, Hoque M, Ghosal U (2012) Waste-water impacts on groundwater: Cl/Br ratios and implications for arsenic pollution of groundwater in the Bengal Basin and Red River Basin, Vietnam. Sci Total Environ 437:390-402

25. Hoque M, Hasan K, Ravenscroft P (2003) Investigation of groundwater salinity and gas problems in southeast Bangladesh. In: Rahman AA, Ravenscroft P (eds) Groundwater resources and development in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The University Press Limited, Dhaka

26. [BBS] Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Bangladesh National Drinking Water Quality Survey of 2009 (NDWQS), with UNICEF; 2011.28. Perdue EM, Ritchie JD (2003) Dissolved organic matter in freshwaters. In: Turekian KK, Holland HD (eds) Treatise on Geochemistry, vol. 5: Surface and Ground Water, Weathering, and Soils. Amsterdam, pp 273-318.

27. Dhar RK, Zheng Y, Stute M, van Geen A, Cheng Z, Shanewaz M, Shamsud-duha M, Hoque MA, Rahman MW, Ahmed KM (2008) Temporal variability of groundwater chemistry in shallow and deep aquifers of Araihazar, Bangladesh. J Contam Hydrol 99:97-111

28. Bjerg PL, Christensen TH (1992) Spatial and temporal small-scale variation in groundwater quality of a shallow sandy aquifer. J Hydrol 131:133-149

29. Spokas K, Graff C, Morcet M, Aran C (2003) Implications of the spatial variability of landfill emission rates on geospatial analyses. Waste Manag 23:599-607

30. Taylor SR, McLennan SM (1985) The continental crust: its composition and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford

31. Hem JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3rd edn. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey

32. Stuckey JW, Schaefer MV, Kocar BD, Benner SG, Fendorf S (2016) Arsenic release metabolically limited to permanently water-saturated soil in Mekong Delta. Nat Geosci 9:70-76

33. Peters C, Ayers JC, Hornberger GM (2015) Evolution of saline and arsenic contaminated groundwater in Southwest Bangladesh. In: GSA Abstracts with Programs, vol. 47, no. 7

34. Quicksall AN, Bostick BC, Sampson ML (2008) Linking organic matter deposition and iron mineral transformations to groundwater arsenic levels in the Mekong delta, Cambodia. Appl Geochem 23:3088-3098

35. Trick JK, Stuart M, Reeder S (2008) Contaminated groundwater sampling and quality control of water analyses. Environ geochemistry site Charact data Anal case Hist Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 29-57

36. Lambeck K, Rouby H, Purcell A, Sun Y, Sambridge M (2014) Sea level and global ice volumes from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:15296-15303

37. Heroy DC, Kuehl SA, Goodbred SL, Goodbred SL Jr (2003) Mineralogy of the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers: implications for river switching and late quaternary climate change. Sediment Geol 155:343-359

38. Bowell R, Alpers C (2014) The environmental geochemistry of arsenic— an overview. Rev Miner Geochem 79:1-16

39. Mitchell VL (2014) Health risks associated with chronic exposures to arsenic in the environment. Rev Miner Geochem 79:435-449

40. Campbell KM, Nordstrom DK (2014) Arsenic speciation and sorption in natural environments. Rev Miner Geochem 79:185-216

41. Garzanti E, Ando S, France-Lanord C et al (2010) Mineralogical and chemical variability of fluvial sediments 1. Bedload sand (Ganga-Brah-maputra, Bangladesh). Earth Planet Sci Lett 299:368-381. doi:10.1016/j. epsl.2010.09.017

42. Garzanti E, Ando S, France-lanord C et al (2011) Mineralogical and chemical variability of fluvial sediments 2. Suspended-load silt (Ganga-Brah-maputra, Bangladesh). Earth Planet Sci Lett 302:107-120. doi:10.1016/j. epsl.2010.11.043

43. van Geen A, Zheng Y, Versteeg R et al (2003) Spatial variability of arsenic in 6000 tube wells in a 25 km2 area of Bangladesh. Water Resour Res 39:1-16. doi:10.1029/2002WR001617

44. Benneyworth L, Gilligan J, Ayers J et al (2016) Drinking water insecurity: water quality and access in coastal south-western Bangladesh. Int J Environ Health Res. doi:10.1080/09603123.2016.1194383

45. McKillup S, Dyar MD (2010) Geostatistics explained: an introductory guide for earth scientists. Cambridge University Press

46. Williams PN, Zhang H, Davison W et al (2011) Organic matter—solid phase interactions are critical for predicting arsenic release and plant uptake in Bangladesh paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol 45:6080-6087. doi:10.1021/es2003765

Submit your manuscript to a SpringerOpen journal and benefit from:

► Convenient online submission

► Rigorous peer review

► Immediate publication on acceptance

► Open access: articles freely available online

► High visibility within the field

► Retaining the copyright to your article

Submit your next manuscript at ► springeropen.com