General hydrogeochemistry
The results of chemical compositions of the groundwater samples are given in Table 1. Major cation and anion concentrations vary in these three site areas. The concentrations of Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+ represent on average 26.74, 11.07, 59.36, and 2.83 % of all the cations in group (I) (sample 1–9), 13.97, 12.51, 71.82 and 1.7 % of all the cations in group (II) (sample 10–15), 53.46, 7.62, 37.74 and 1.18 % of all the cations in group (III) (sample 16–21), respectively. Among the anions, the concentrations of \({\text{HCO}}^{ - }_{ 3} ,{\text{ Cl}}^{ - } ,{\text{ SO}}^{ 2- }_{ 4} ,\) and \({\text{NO}}^{ - }_{ 3}\) represent on average 32.4, 23, 43.48, and 1.12 % in group (I), 17.01, 31.79, 50.24, and 0.096 % in group (II) and 48.31, 20.14, 26.48, and 4.71 % in group (III), respectively. Thus, the order of cation and anion abundance is:
$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Group I}}: & {\text{Na}}^{ + } \; > \;{\text{Ca}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{Mg}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{K}}^{ + } \\ & {\text{SO}}^{ 2- }_{ 4} \; > {\text{HCO}}^{ - }_{ 3} > {\text{Cl}}^{ - } > {\text{NO}}^{ - }_{ 3}\\{\text{Group II}}:&{\text{Na}}^{ + } \; > \;{\text{Ca}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{Mg}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{K}}^{ + } \\ & {\text{SO}}^{ 2- }_{ 4} \; > {\text{Cl}}^{ - } > {\text{HCO}}^{ - }_{ 3} > {\text{NO}}^{ - }_{ 3} \\{\text{Group III}}:& {\text{Ca}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{Na}}^{ + } \; > \;{\text{Mg}}^{ 2+ } \; > \;{\text{K}}^{ + } \\ & {\text{HCO}}^{ - }_{ 3} > {\text{SO}}^{ 2- }_{ 4} > \;{\text{Cl}}^{ - } > {\text{NO}}^{ - }_{ 3} \end{aligned}$$
A scatter distribution of groundwater samples on Piper diagram suggests a wide variation in the hydrochemical facies in study area (Fig. 2). The groundwater samples fall in three of major water type fields representing (1) Ca–Mg–HCO3, (2) Ca–SO4 and (3) Na–Cl facies.
In the group (I) samples Na–Cl and Ca–SO4 each represent 67 and 33 % of the total of water samples analysed in group. In group (II) Na–Cl and Ca–SO4 represent 83.33 and 16.67 % of the total of water samples analysed in group, respectively. In the group (III) Ca–Mg-HCO3 type is dominant as it includes 66.66 % of samples, whereas Na–Cl and Ca–SO4 each represents 16.67 % of the total of water samples analysed in group (Fig. 3).
The binary diagram of Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between pH and Eh in different group waters. Redox state of groundwater has differed in three groups.
The pH of the groundwater in the study area ranged from 6.34 to 8 (Fig. 4), indicating an alkaline nature of the samples in group II, acidic nature in group I and natural in group III. Measured Eh values also indicate fluctuating redox conditions. The Eh can be used with other redox indicators to ascertain, in a qualitative sense, the relative redox conditions of an aquifer (Smedley and Edmunds 2002). Accordingly, Eh measured in relatively oxidizing conditions are in groundwater with relative increasing oxidization conditions in group III. TDS is an important parameter that can be used to observe the influence of major components in groundwater quality.TDS concentration in group III is higher than other groups, with mean TDS contents of 934 ppm. If halite dissolution is responsible for sodium, Na+/Cl− ratio should be approximately equal to 1, whereas ratio greater than 1 is typically interpreted as Na released from silicate weathering reaction (Meyback 1987). In the present study, samples had Na+/Cl− ratio greater and lower than 1 (Fig. 5) and hence, mixing of silicate weathering and halite dissolution was the probable source of sodium. Some sodium may be derived from Na-bearing silicate minerals, such as albite. Weathering of albite produces kaolinite and Na+ ions. This reaction would result in a Si/(Na–Cl) of ±2. The Si/(Na–Cl) ratio encountered in the study area is generally lower than 2 (Fig. 5). As no silicate weathering reaction could explain such low ratios (Stallard and Edmond 1987), the excess Na+ is probably not derived solely from silicate weathering (excepts sample 16 and 19). Molar ratio of Cl− and bicarbonate (HCO3−) is used to distinguish between freshwater and saline water. Seawater have very high Cl−/HCO3− molar ratio (>200) while fresh water usually shows Cl−/HCO3− <1 and molar ratio of Cl−/HCO3− >1 indicates mixing of seawater with fresh water (Raghunath 1987; Aziz Hasan et al. 2009). Plots of molar Cl−/HCO3− (Fig. 5) show that a significant number of samples in the Group II have Cl−/HCO3− >1 indicating seawater mixing, but majority of the samples in the group I of samples have Cl−/HCO3− <1 indicating freshwater. The chloro-alkaline index, CAI = [Cl−(Na + K)]/Cl, is suggested by Schoeller (1977), which indicates the ion exchange between the groundwater and its host environment. If there is ion exchange of Na+ and K+ from water with magnesium and calcium in the rock, the exchange is known as direct when the indices are positive. If the exchange is reverse then the exchange is indirect and the indices are found to be negative. The negative CAI values in study area suggest that magnesium and calcium from water are exchanged with sodium and potassium in rock favoring cation–anion exchange reactions (Fig. 5).
Trace metals in groundwater
Concentration of metals in groundwater is presented in Table 2. Redox state of groundwater has been shown to be a primary control of As, Au, Se and V (Fig. 6).
In many example, arsenic and other elements that form oxyanions are released from Fe and Mn oxides by desorption (Acharyya et al. 2000; Smedley and Edmunds 2002; Mukherjee et al. 2008). Concentrations of Fe and Mn in the studied groundwater samples show a distinct relationship with the concentration of As (Table 3). The lack of correlation between dissolved As and both Fe and Mn in the groundwater may result from the precipitation of secondary Fe and Mn-mineral phases like siderite (FeCO3), vivianite [Fe3 (PO4)28H2O], pyrite (FeS2) and rhodochrosite (MnCO3) (McArthur et al. 2001; Aziz Hasan et al. 2009). Reasons for such de-coupling are probably more complex and include re-adsorption of dissolved As on remaining Fe-oxyhydroxides and greater availability and mobility of Fe in sediments compared to As (Dhar et al. 2008). The results show that the concentrations of As, Cu, Li, P, Mn, and Zn are slightly higher in group I groundwater, suggesting varied water–rock interaction. Unlike other group, arsenic in group I has good statistical correlation with, Au, P, V, Sr and Si (Fig. 7). Concentration of Cu in groundwater is observed in average 4.9, 3.5 and 1.8 PPb in groups I, II and III, respectively, in the study area. Bioavailability of Cu in the water influenced by size of the initial Cu amending, time dependent changes in speciation, and soil humidity, and the retention of Cu is enhanced under stable humid conditions (Petersen et al. 2004). The relationship between major elements in study area is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Correlation matrix of metal and major component in groundwaters The Au concentration in groups I and II is higher than group III (Table 2) and except for group III, Au concentrations show a linear correlation with As, Se, Sr concentration in group I and with B, Cr, Cu, Se, Sr and V concentration in group II in groundwater. Under oxidizing, near-neutral and generally low salinity conditions, Au in solution will be in its 3+ valency. Moreover, disproportionation reactions (Au+ to Au3+ and metallic Au) are a likely process (Fanfani et al. 1996). A number of inorganic ligands have been invoked to account for the complexation of dissolved Au in oxidizing environments. Hydroxy complexes such as Au(OH)3 and Au(OH)
−4
, Cl− complexes such as AuC1
−4
, mixed hydroxy-Cl− complexes such as Au(OH)3CI−, NH3 complexes such as Au(NH3)
3+4
, are among the most important. Other possible complexing species is in equilibrium among the different S-species in solution that play a role in the transport of Au in these waters (Jaireth 1992). The relative correlation could be observed in these waters between the dissolved Au content and either Cl− or S (Fig. 7) that may be responsible for migration of Au in study area.