Multicomponent Versus Classical Geothermometry: Applicability of Both Geothermometers in a Medium-Enthalpy Geothermal System in India

  • Sitangshu ChatterjeeEmail author
  • U. K. Sinha
  • B. P. Biswal
  • Ajay Jaryal
  • Suraj Patbhaje
  • Ashutosh Dash
Original Article


The Manuguru geothermal area, located in the Khammam district of Telangana state, India, is one of the least explored medium-enthalpy geothermal systems in India. In this study, subsurface reservoir temperature was estimated by applying various methodologies such as chemical geothermometry, multicomponent geothermometry and mixing models. Chemical geothermometers provided wide range in temperature estimation, and most of them (Na–K, Na–K–Ca, Mg-corrected Na–K–Ca) were found to be unsuitable for predicting reservoir temperature due to the absence of attainment of equilibrium between suitable mineral pairs. The temperature range estimated from the quartz geothermometers varied from 72 to 120 °C which matched closely with values obtained from K–Mg geothermometers. To overcome this problem and to better constrain the reservoir temperature, multicomponent solute geothermometry modelling was carried out by applying the GeoT computer code. Fluid reconstruction was done after taking into account both the degassing and mixing phenomena. GeoT modelling of the reconstructed fluid provided excellent clustering of the minerals. From the GeoT modelling study, it was found that minerals like quartz, chalcedony, calcite, etc., attained simultaneous equilibrium with thermal waters in the temperature range of 130 ± 10 °C, which can be taken as the most probable reservoir temperature. The subsurface temperature (137 °C) obtained from the mixing model further validated the results obtained from multicomponent geothermometry. This integrated multicomponent method and the simulation program used in this study take into account various processes (i.e. mixing, degassing, non-attainment of equilibrium, etc.) which affect the composition of the thermal fluids during its ascent to the surface. The statistical approach of ‘best clustering minerals’ used in this model helps to overcome the problems encountered in applying cation or single-component geothermometers in the medium-enthalpy geothermal systems.


India Thermal waters Chemical geothermometers Multicomponent geothermometry Mixing model 



The authors (SC, AJ and UKS) wish to acknowledge Dr. P.K. Pujari, AD, RC&IG, for his support and contribution during the study. The tritium measurements carried out by Shri H.V. Mohokar and Smt. Diksha Pant are also gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank all the officers of GSI associated with this project for their active cooperation in this study.

Supplementary material

10498_2019_9355_MOESM1_ESM.docx (316 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 315 kb)


  1. APHA (American Public Health Association) (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 6th edn. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Apollaro C, Dotsika E, Marini L, Barca D, Bloise A, De Rosa R, Doveri M, Lelli M, Muto F (2012) Chemical and isotopic characterization of the thermo mineral water of Terme Sibarite springs (Northern Calabria, Italy). Geochem J 46:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apollaro C, Vespasiano G, Muto F, De Rosa R, Barca D, Marini L (2016) Use of mean residence time of water, flowrate, and equilibrium temperature indicated by water geothermometers to rank geothermal resources. Application to the thermal water circuits of Northern Calabria. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 328:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnorsson S (1983) Chemical equilibria in Icelandic geothermal systems-implications for chemical geothermometry investigations. Geothermics 12:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnorsson S (2000) Isotopic and chemical techniques in geothermal exploration, development and use. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp 154–170Google Scholar
  6. CGWB (Central Ground Water Board of India) (2013) Ground water brochure. Khammam district, Andhra Pradesh, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  7. Chandrasekharam D, Rao VG, Jayaprakash SJ (1996) Geothermal energy potential and direct use of geothermal springs, Godavari valley, Andhra Pradesh. Geological Survey of India. Special publication, vol 45. Geothermal energy of India, Nagpur, pp 151–161Google Scholar
  8. Chatterjee S, Sharma S, Ansari MA, Deodhar AS, Low U, Sinha UK, Dash A (2016) Characterization of subsurface processes estimation of reservoir temperature in Tural Rajwadi geothermal fields, Maharashtra, India. Geothermics 59:77–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterjee S, Ansari MA, Deodhar AS, Sinha UK, Dash A (2017a) A multi-isotope approach (O, H, C, S, B and Sr) to understand the source of water and solutes in some the thermal springs from West Coast geothermal area, India. Arab J Geosci 10:242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chatterjee S, Sarkar A, Deodhar AS, Biswal BP, Jaryal A, Mohokar HV, Sinha UK, Dash A (2017b) Geochemical and isotope hydrological characterisation of geothermal resources at Godavari valley, India. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chatterjee S, Sinha UK, Ansari MA, Mohokar HV, Dash A (2018) Application of lumped parameter model to estimate mean transit time (MTT) of the thermal water using environmental tracer (3H): Insight from Uttarakhand geothermal area (India). Appl Geochem 94(2018):1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis AJ (1979) Chemical geothermometry in geothermal systems. Geothermics 25:219–226Google Scholar
  13. Fournier RO (1977) Chemical geothermometers and mixing models for geothermal systems. Geothermics 5:40–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fournier RO (1979) A revised equation for Na/K geothermometer. Trans Geotherm Resour Counc 3:221–224Google Scholar
  15. Fournier RO (1989) The solubility of silica in hydrothermal solutions: practical applications. In: Lectures on geochemical interpretation of hydrothermal water. UNU geothermal training programme, report 10, Raykjavik, IcelandGoogle Scholar
  16. Fournier RO, Potter RW (1979) Magnesium correction to the Na–K–Ca chemical geothermometer. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 43:1543–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fournier RO, Truesdell AH (1973) An empirical Na–K–Ca geothermometer from natural waters. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 37:1255–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giggenbach WF (1988) Geothermal solute equilibria. Derivation of Na–K–Mg–K geoindicators. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 52:2749–2765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keenan JH, Keyes FG, Hill PG, Moore JG (1969) Steam tables – thermodynamic properties of water including vapour, liquid and solid phases (international edition – metric units). Wiley, New York, p 162Google Scholar
  20. Nicholson K (1993) Geothermal fluids chemistry and exploration techniques. Springer, Belin, pp 22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nieva D, Nieva R (1987) Developments in geothermal energy in Mexico, part 12. A cationic geothermometer for prospecting of geothermal resources. Heat Recover Syst CHP 7:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pang ZH, Reed MH (1998) Theoretical chemical thermometry on geothermal waters: problems and methods. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 62:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reed MH, Spycher NF (1984) Calculation of pH and mineral equilibria in hydrothermal waters with application to geothermometry and studies of boiling and dilution. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 48:1479–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Santoyo E, Díaz-González L (2010) A new improved proposal of the Na/K geothermometer to estimate deep equilibrium temperatures and their uncertainties in geothermal systems. In: Proceedings world geothermal congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 AprilGoogle Scholar
  25. Saxena VK, Gupta ML (1985) Aquifer chemistry of thermal waters of the Godavari valley, India. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 25:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spycher N, Peiffer L, Sonnenthal E, Saldi G, Reed MH, Kennedy BM (2014) Integrated multicomponent solute geothermometry. Geothermics 51:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tonani F (1980) Some remarks on the application of geochemical techniques in geothermal exploration. In: Proceedings Adv. Eur. Geoth. Res., Second symp., Strasbourg, pp 428–443Google Scholar
  28. Verma SP, Pandarinath K, Santoyo E (2008) SolGeo: a new computer program for solute geothermometers and its application to Mexican geothermal fields. Geothermics 37(6):597–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vespasiano G, Notaro P, Cianflone G (2018) Water-mortar interaction in a tunnel located in the Southern Calabria (Southern Italy). Environ Eng Geosci 24(3):305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu T, Hou Z, Jia X, Spycher N, Jiang Z, Feng B, Na J, Yuan Y (2016) Classical and integrated multicomponent geothermometry at the Tengchong geothermal field, Southwestern China. Environ Earth Sci 75:1502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Isotope and Radiation Application DivisionBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Homi Bhabha National InstituteMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Geological Survey of India, Central RegionNagpurIndia
  4. 4.Radiopharmaceuticals DivisionBhabha Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations