Advertisement

Carbonates and Evaporites

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 349–356 | Cite as

Determination of tracer mass for effective groundwater tracer tests

  • Stephen R. H. WorthingtonEmail author
  • C. Christopher Smart
Original Article

Abstract

Defining protection areas around wells and springs used for water supply currently relies almost exclusively on model-derived groundwater velocities. Tracer testing provides actual groundwater velocities but is seldom undertaken. The reticence to undertake tracing can partly be attributed to the dilemma in selecting a tracer mass that can be unambiguously identified without unacceptable contamination of the water. A large number of ad hoc equations have been proposed to evaluate the mass of tracer required for tracer tests between sinking streams and springs or between wells but the accuracy of such equations has not been assessed. Here, a meta-analysis is undertaken of 211 natural-gradient sinking stream to spring tests and 44 forced-gradient well to well tests in carbonate aquifers, mostly using fluorescent dyes. The pertinent variables are mass (M), discharge (Q), linear distance (L), peak concentration (c) and travel time (t). Simple linear regression of log-transformed combinations of trace variables has been used to generate bivariate power relations. Regression analysis shows that the two equations first proposed by Martel and by Dole had the highest correlations, with the best fit for sink to spring tests being M/c = 23(LQ)0.97 and M/c = 0.76(tQ)0.99, respectively, using base SI units (m, s, g). For the well to well tests M/c = 3,100(LQ)0.97 and M/c = 4.1(tQ)1.02. Equations using travel time are marginally better fits, but are impractical for most applications. Well to well tracer tests exhibit much greater variability than sink to spring tests reflecting variations in preferential flow.

Keywords

Groundwater protection Tracer Dye Well Spring 

References

  1. Behrens H, Benischke R, Bricelj M, Harum T, Käss W, Kosi G, Leditzky HP, Leibundgut C, Maloszewski P, Maurin V, Rajner V, Rank D, Reichart B, Stadler H, Stichler W, Trimborn P, Zojer H, Zupan M (1992) Investigations with natural and artificial tracers in the karst aquifer of the Lurbach system (Peggau-Tanneben-Semriach, Austria). Steirische Beitr Hydrogeol 43:9–158Google Scholar
  2. Crispim JA (1995) Dinâmica cársica e implicações ambientais nas depressões de alvados e minde. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Lisbon, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dole RB (1906) Use of fluorescein in the study of underground waters. In: Fuller ML (ed) Underground-water papers, US Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 160, USA, pp 73–85Google Scholar
  4. Dreybrodt W, Gabrovšek F, Romanov D (2005) Processes of speleogenesis: a modeling approach. Karst Research Institute at ZRC SAZU, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  5. Field MS (2002) Efficient hydrologic tracer-test design for tracer-mass estimation and sample-collection frequency, 1. Method development. Environ Geol 32:827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Field MS (2003) A review of some tracer-test design equations for tracer-mass estimation and sample-collection frequency. Environ Geol 43:867–881Google Scholar
  7. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. Gospodarič R, Habič P (1976) Underground water tracing. Investigations in Slovenia 1972–1975. Inst. Karst Research, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  9. Käss W (1998) Tracer technique in geohydrology. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Martel E-A (1913) Sur les expériences de fluorescéine à grandes distances. C R Acad Sci 157:1102–1104Google Scholar
  11. Mull DS, Liebermann TD, Smoot JL Woosley LH (1988) Application of dye-tracing techniques for determining solute transport characteristics of ground water in karst terranes. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 904/6-88-001, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Renken RA, Cunningham KJ, Shapiro AM, Harvey RW, Zygnerski MR, Metge DW, Wacker MA (2008) Pathogen and chemical transport in the karst limestone of the Biscayne aquifer: 1. Revised conceptualization of groundwater flow. Water Resour Res 44:W08429. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smart PL (1981) Variation of conduit flow velocities with discharge in the Longwood to Cheddar Rising system, Mendip Hills. In: Beck BF (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international congress of speleology, Bowling Green, National Speleological Society, Huntsville, pp 333–335Google Scholar
  14. Smart CC (1983) The hydrology of the Castleguard karst, Columbia Icefields, Alberta, Canada. Arct Alp Res 15:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smart CC (1988a) Quantitative tracing of the Maligne karst system, Alberta, Canada. J Hydrol 98:185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smart CC (1988b) Artificial tracer techniques for the determination of the structure of conduit aquifers. Ground Water 26:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smart CC, Karunaratne KC (2002) Characterisation of fluorescence background in dye tracing. Environ Geol 42:492–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Street RL, Watters GZ, Vennard JK (1996) Elementary fluid mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. White WB (1988) Geomorphology and hydrology of karst terrains. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Worthington SRH (1991) Karst hydrogeology of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, McMaster University, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. Worthington SRH, Smart CC (2003) Empirical determination of tracer mass for sink to springs tests in karst. In: Beck BF (ed) Sinkholes and the engineering and environmental impacts of karst. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotech Spec Publ No. 122:287–295Google Scholar
  22. Worthington SRH, Smart CC, Ruland WW (2002) Assessment of groundwater velocities to the municipal wells at Walkerton. In: Proceedings of the 2002 joint annual conference of the Canadian Geotechnical Society and the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Niagara Falls, pp 1081–1086Google Scholar
  23. Worthington SRH, Smart CC, Ruland WW (2012) Effective porosity of a carbonate aquifer with bacterial contamination: Walkerton, Ontario, Canada. J Hydrol 464–465:517–527Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen R. H. Worthington
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Christopher Smart
    • 2
  1. 1.Worthington GroundwaterDundasCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations