research article chemical characteristics and quality...

Research ArticleChemical Characteristics and Quality Assessment ofGroundwater of Exploited Aquifers in Beijiao Water Source ofYinchuan China A Case Study for Drinking Irrigation andIndustrial Purposes

Hao Wu12 Jie Chen12 Hui Qian12 and Xuedi Zhang12

1School of Environmental Science and Engineering Changrsquoan University Xirsquoan Shaanxi 710054 China2Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effect in Arid Region of Ministry of Education Xirsquoan Shaanxi 710054 China

Correspondence should be addressed to Hao Wu wuhaoccmsncom

Received 14 February 2015 Accepted 28 May 2015

Academic Editor Samuel B Dampare

Copyright copy 2015 Hao Wu et alThis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License whichpermits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

This work is aimed at reviewing the chemical characteristics and evaluation of the quality of exploited groundwater in Beijiao watersource of YinchuanA coupledmodel based onosculating valuemethod (OVM) and entropy is proposed to determine the suitabilityfor drinking Besides phreatic water and confined water are evaluated for irrigation purposes and industrial purposes respectivelyPiper diagram shows different hydrochemical characteristics between aquifers which can be explained by the control mechanismsrevealed by Gibbs diagram Chloroalkaline indices and ions relationship indicate that reverse ion exchanges occur in differentaquifers Based on the osculating values 96 of the phreatic water samples are fit for human consumption and the confined watercan provide quality drinking water Most of the phreatic water samples have no sodium hazard but have magnesium hazard Allthe confined water samples generate mild foaming reaction and 93 of them are mildly corrosive for boilers An assessment byOVM without entropy is calculated Similar results to the coupled model demonstrate that pure OVM is also objective and validThe simple algorithm turns multicriteria decision-making problems into an integrated index which is just as useful to water qualityassessment

1 Introduction

Groundwater is a vital resource especially in arid andsemiarid areas Sufficient groundwater with high qualityis required to meet increasing domestic agricultural andindustrial needs Groundwater withdrawals exceeding nat-urally renewable storage bring about environmental prob-lems such as forming a cone of depression and extractingnonrenewable groundwater [1 2] The global groundwatercrisis is exacerbated by water quality degradation whichis closely related to human health [3] Groundwater qual-ity is determined not only by natural processes such asquality of recharge waters groundwater velocity aquiferlithology and interaction with other types of aquifers but

also by anthropogenic activities such as industry agricul-ture pollution discharge and water exploitation modifyingthe hydrological cycle [4 5] The increases of nitrate andsulfate in groundwater in agricultural region are largelyattributed to leaching of chemical fertilizer The irrationalirrigation and development of intensive agriculture haveresulted in salinization and alkalization of groundwater [6]Industrial processes create a large amount of effluents andwaste residues which are more likely to contain toxic sub-stancesWithout proper disposal the contaminantsmay infil-trate into aquifers and generate severe pollution Quantitiesof domestic waste dumps as well as inadequate discharge anddisposal facilities have a significant impact on groundwaterquality [7]

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of ChemistryVolume 2015 Article ID 726340 14 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552015726340

2 Journal of Chemistry

The rapid development of urbanization has been accom-panied by enhanced public awareness and concern regardingprotection of groundwater [8 9] Once groundwater ispolluted it is tough restoring its quality with respect toa long time of storage recovery cycle Therefore it is criticalto monitor and assess the groundwater quality regularlyNumerous researchers across the world explored methods toreflect water quality status The commonly used methods areWater Quality Index (WQI) improvedWQIs (EWQI FWQI)[10 11] WQIs by institutions (OWQI CWQI CCME WQIAWQI andMWQI) [12 13] fuzzy comprehensive assessmentmethod [14] multivariate statistical method [15] matterelement extension [16] and neural network [17] In this studythe osculating value method is introduced for evaluatingwater quality for drinking purposes The arithmetic withbrief steps is simple and easy to calculate It does not onlyclassify water quality but also gives the ranks Integrated withShannon entropy as weights the results are more objectiveand reasonable

The study area consists of urban (13) in the south andrural (23) in the center and north (Figure 1) Groundwaterfrom 3 aquifers is being used for various purposesThe upperlayer phreatic water as the only source of water supply inthe rural area is exploited extensively by private individualsExcept for domestic demand the phreatic water is usedfor irrigation as water supply source for farming duringnonirrigation period and for vegetables in villagersrsquo gardensall year round The middle and lower layers confined waterare exploited formunicipal water supply network as domesticor industrial consumption However the water in the studyarea is faced with many threats (1) As an agricultural regionthe area has been irrigated using the water from Yellow Riverfor over 2000 years with a complicated canal system Besidesagricultural pollution long-term flood irrigation leads toshallow buried depth of groundwater which is adverse tocontamination prevention and induces salinization [18] (2)The water supply wells (confined water) are located in baresandy land nowadays the zone becomes a new urban districtdue to the rapid urbanization The groundwater sourceprotection zone was redesigned to the north so as to developthe city yet the supply wells are not moved As a resultthe protection zone cannot play any role The fast-growingpopulation has a significant impact on quantity and qualityof groundwater (3) Over exploitation has led to cone ofdepression in the confined aquifer The depression conereduced hydraulic head of the confined aquifer which causesthe phreatic water to recharge confined water Consequentlythe environmentally sensitive phreatic water threatens theconfined water quality

The aims of this study were to understand the ground-water hydrochemistry detect its control mechanisms andevaluate the groundwater comprehensively According to theusage of water both kinds of groundwater were assessed fordrinking purposes by osculating value method integratedwith Shannon entropy as weights In addition the phreaticwater was assessed for irrigation purposes regarding sodiumhazard residual sodium carbonate and magnesium hazardwhereas the confined water was assessed for industrial usein consideration of effects of incrustation foaming and

corrosion Before assessment hydrochemical compositionand its controlling factors were explored to get a betterunderstanding of groundwater chemistry

2 Study Area

The study region extends between latitude 38∘281015840ndash38∘401015840Nand longitude 106∘021015840ndash106∘161015840E with altitude between 1105and 1125m above mean sea level It covers an area of2426 km2 and is located in the northern suburb of Yinchuancity Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region northwestern China(Figure 1) The city is characterized by a temperate con-tinental arid and semiarid climate with annual averageprecipitation of 18694mm About 45 of the precipitationoccurs in July and August The monthly average temperatureranges from minus71∘C in January to 24∘C in July with the annualmean value of 981∘C The evaporation is intensive with arange from 11940 to 17432mma and an average value of15863mma

The study region is a part of Yinchuan Plain which isbordered by Helan Mountains on the west and the YellowRiver in the east The landform in the study area consistsmainly of proluvial clinoplain proluvial-alluvial plain andalluvial-lacustrine plain that distribute zonally from westto east Small-scale aeolian dunes were deposited in thenortheast and west The Quaternary sediments are thick dueto long-term settlement of the rift basin Within a depth of250m the aquifers are divided into phreatic aquifer upper-confined aquifer and lower confined aquifer from the surfacedown [19] The aquitard composed of clayey sand and sandyclay between phreatic aquifer and upper-confined aquifer iscontinuous with a thickness of 10ndash20m while the aquitardbetween two layers of confined aquifers is not continuouswith great variation in thickness even no more than 1m insome area [20] As a consequence there exists close hydraulicconnection between the confined aquifers

3 Materials and Methods

31 Sampling andAnalysis A total of 37 groundwater sampleswere collected during September 2013 Among them 23 sam-ples were phreatic groundwater collected from hand-pressedwells or pumpwells in different villages and the remaining 14samples were collected from 7 pairs of water supply wells inthe confined aquifers (Figure 1) The samples were stored inplastic bottles and brown glass Before sampling containerswere rinsed with groundwater to be taken After samplingone plastic bottle was acidified withHNO

3 and all containers

were sealed immediately The sample in brown glass fordetermining the organic compounds was filled without air toavoid oxidation Before loading the sampled containers werelabeled and packed into incubators Sampleswere delivered tothe laboratory of Ningxia Environmental Monitoring Centeron the same day

A bulk chemical analysis was carried out for 65 param-eters including PH total dissolved solid (TDS) as CaCO

3

total alkalinity (TA) as CaCO3 total hardness (TH) major

Journal of Chemistry 3

China

Ningxia

Yinchuan

P9

P8

P7 P6

P5

P4

P3

P2P1

P23 P22

P21P20

P19

P18 P17

P16

P15

P14P13 P12

P11

P10

0 315(km)

C12C34

C56C78

C910

C1112C1314

Phreatic water sampling locationConfined water sampling locationDirection of phreatic water flowYellow RiverBoundary of the water source protection areasPhreatic water level contour

HabitationAeolian dunesIndustryOrchardCultivated landPaddy fieldFishpond or wetland

Figure 1 Location map of the study area showing the phreatic water level contour (interval of 1m) and flow direction land-use type andsampling locations

ions (K+ Na+ Ca2+ Mg2+ Clminus and SO42minus) nitrogen (NH4

+-N NO3

minus-N and NO2minus-N) fluoride (Fminus) total phosphorus

(TP) total cyanide sulfide selenium arsenic total coliforms(TC) total bacterial count (TBC) metal ions (Hg Cr6+Cr Cd Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb V Zn and Al) organic mat-ters (phenol volatile phenol naphthalene hexachlorocy-clohexane (HCH) dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT)carbon tetrachloride (CCl

4) olefins alkanes and benzene

hydrocarbon)

32 Osculating Value Method The osculating value methodis applied to solve multicriteria decision-making problems insystem engineering It has been used in scheme optimizationbenefit evaluation environmental assessment and manyother fields The steps of osculating value method can beexpressed as follows [21ndash24]

Step 1 (construction of the initial decision matrix) It isassumed that 119899 indices of119898 samples are taken into evaluation

An initial decisionmatrixC is constructed based on chemicalanalysis data

C =

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

(119898+119901)1 119888

(119898+119901)2 sdot sdot sdot 119888

(119898+119901)119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(1)

where 119888119894119895is the concentration of 119895th index of 119894th sample (119894 =

1 2 119898 and 119895 = 1 2 119899) and 119901 is the number of rankin criterion For 119894 gt 119898 119888

119894119895is the concentration of each rank

Step 2 (normalization of the matrix) Generally multipleindiceswith different units and ranges are involved in calcula-tion The relationships among indices are complicated Someindices are efficiency type (the higher the value the better theperformance) and some are cost type (the higher the valuethe worse the performance) Therefore the initial matrix is


standardized to get rid of discrepancies The standardizationtreatment is expressed as follows

119903

119894119895=

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 efficiency type

minus

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 cost type(2)

Standardized decision matrix is written as R = (119903

119894119895)

(119898+119901)times119899

Step 3 (determination of the optimumand inferior point sets)Let

119903

+

119895

= max (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895)

119903

minus

119895

= min (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895) (3)

Then the optimum point set is

G = (119903

+

1 119903+

2 119903+

(119898+119901)

) (4)

And the inferior point set is

B = (119903

minus

1 119903minus

2 119903minus

(119898+119901)

) (5)

Step 4 (calculation of osculating value) The osculating value119864

119894can be calculated as follows

119864

119894=

119889

+

119894

min (119889+119894

)

minus

119889

minus

119894

max (119889minus119894

)

(6)

where

119889

+

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

+

119895

)

2

119889

minus

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

minus

119895

)

2

(7)

120596

119895is the entropy weight of 119895th index 119889+

119894

and 119889

minus

119894

are theEuclidean distances to the optimum and inferior pointsrespectively The values of 119864

119894reflect the approach degree of

sample points from extreme points The smaller the value isthe sample point is further to optimum point and closer toinferior point the better the groundwater quality is

The method turns multiple indices into an integratedindex The groundwater quality can be obtained by the orderof osculating value The involvement of standard values ininitial decision matrix helps to classify groundwater qualityinto different levels

33 EntropyTheory Entropy theory was developed by Shan-non in 1948 [25] Shannon entropy as a measure of infor-mation including disorder dispersion and diversificationcan reduce the uncertainty of indices by predicting theoutput of a probabilistic event [26] It is considered to be

an objective method to determine weights The algorithmhas been used in wide scientific fields including hydrologicaland environmental sciences [27] WQIs TOPSIS and manyother water quality assessment methods were improved byintegrating the entropy [28 29] The entropy weight can becalculated as follows [10 26 28]

Step 1 (construction of the initial matrix) Different frominitial decision matrix of OVM the initial matrix C1015840 ofentropy weight does not involve concentrations in criterion

C1015840 =[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

1198981 119888

1198982 sdot sdot sdot 119888

119898119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(8)

where 119888119894119895is the concentration of 119895th index of 119894th sample

Step 2 (normalization of the matrix) The initial matrix isnormalized by

119910

119894119895=

119888

119894119895minus (119888

119894119895)min

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

efficiency type

(119888

119894119895)max minus 119888119894119895

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

cost type

(9)

Standardized matrix is written as Y = (119910

119894119895)

119898times119899

Step 3 (calculation of information entropy) Let

119875

119894119895=

(119910

119894119895+ 10minus4)

sum

119898

119894=1 (119910119894119895 + 10minus4)

119890

119895= minus

1ln119898

119898

sum

119894=1119875

119894119895ln119875119894119895

(10)

where 119890119895is the information entropy of 119895th index 10minus4 is a

refined parameter to ensure the formulameaningful when 119910119894119895

is 0

Step 4 (calculation of entropy weight) Let

120596

119895=

1 minus 119890119895

sum

119899

119895=1 (1 minus 119890119895) (11)

where 120596119895is the entropy weight of 119895th index

4 Results and Discussion

41 Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis of some parame-ters was carried out to describe the general physiochemicalcharacteristics preliminarily and the results are presented inTable 1 In order to find out whether it is suitable for drinkingthe maximum values were compared with the acceptablelimits which are the standards for drinking in Quality


Table 1 Statistics of groundwater quality parameters

Parameter Aquifer Unit Min Max Median Mean CV Acceptable limits

pH Unconfined mdash 727 808 787 778 003 65ndash85Confined mdash 789 824 821 815 001

TDS Unconfined mgL 255 1980 740 86491 047 1000Confined mgL 224 267 246 24657 005

NH4

+-N Unconfined mgL 0046 034 006 008 075 02Confined mgL 0116 0362 021 022 031

TA Unconfined mgL 149 701 336 33478 036 mdashConfined mgL 188 251 2035 20629 008

TH Unconfined mgL 210 1089 531 51235 039 450Confined mgL 179 222 194 19750 007

CODMnUnconfined mgL ND 21 1 103 044 3Confined mgL ND 1 065 067 025

NO2

minus-N Unconfined mgL ND 0211 ND mdash mdash 002Confined mgL ND ND ND ND 0

Na+ Unconfined mgL 426 371 157 1788 047 200Confined mgL 267 615 324 3437 026

K+ Unconfined mgL 429 421 701 1024 084 mdashConfined mgL 313 894 548 573 038

Mg2+ Unconfined mgL 272 213 718 7954 052 150Confined mgL 242 295 262 2647 006

Ca2+ Unconfined mgL 399 163 878 8803 035 200Confined mgL 327 693 385 4189 021

Fminus Unconfined mgL 014 182 038 057 084 1Confined mgL 027 043 034 034 014

Clminus Unconfined mgL 625 335 147 17735 045 250Confined mgL 555 757 6485 6448 009

NO3

minus-N Unconfined mgL 199 262 653 851 094 20Confined mgL 087 263 122 145 040

SO4

2+ Unconfined mgL 476 466 279 26445 049 250Confined mgL 305 478 365 3764 013

Fe Unconfined mgL ND 0101 0003 lt0012 mdash mdashConfined mgL 0078 025 0183 015 033

Mn Unconfined mgL ND 0737 0002 lt0050 mdash mdashConfined mgL 0036 0077 0065 006 017

Se Unconfined mgL ND 176 times 10minus3 243 times 10minus4 mdash mdash 001Confined mgL ND 600 times 10minus3 ND mdash mdash

Hg Unconfined mgL 160 times 10minus5 185 times 10minus4 370 times 10minus5 638 times 10minus5 077 0001Confined mgL 250 times 10minus5 184 times 10minus4 930 times 10minus5 964 times 10minus5 051

As Unconfined mgL 174 times 10minus4 135 times 10minus3 563 times 10minus4 599 times 10minus4 045 005Confined mgL 151 times 10minus4 128 times 10minus3 283 times 10minus4 389 times 10minus4 077

TC Unconfined mpnL ND 2005 222 mdash mdash 3Confined mpnL ND 150 ND mdash mdash

TBC Unconfined cfumL 0 102 20 308 11 100Confined cfumL 0 12 0 114 282

CV coefficient of variation ND not detected

Standard for Ground Water (QSGW) of China For Na+Mg2+ andCa2+ which are not included inQSGWGuidelinesfor Drinking-water Quality by Word Health Organization(WHO) are used instead

Among the 22 parameters considered of the phreaticsamples the maximum of 12 parameters consisting of TDSTH Na+ Mg2+ NH4

+-N NO3minus-N NO2

minus-N Clminus SO42+ Fminus

TC and TBC are beyond the acceptable limits Fortunately


the average concentrations of 8 parameters including TDSNa+ Mg2+ NH4

+-N NO3minus-N NO2

minus-N Clminus and Fminus donot exceed the acceptable limits The average concentrationsof TH NO2

minus-N and SO42+ are 512mgL 0023mgL and

264mgL that are higher than acceptable limits 450mgL002mgL and 250mgL respectively Whereas the concen-trations of NO2

minus-N in 14 samples are below the detectionlimits of 0003mgL and themedian of ND implied that onlya few samples are polluted but severely

The concentrations of parameters of the confined samplesare lower than those of the phreatic samples obviously exceptNH4+-N Fe Mn and Hg Still NH4

+-N and TC of someconfined samples exceed the acceptable limits And 10 of the14 samples (71) have exceeded NH4

+-N Ji [30] investigatedthe reasons for the high concentration of NH4

+-N of theconfined groundwater in Yinchuan The source of NH4

+

comes from chemical fertilizer and anoxic condition causedby flood irrigation goes against nitrificationwhich transformsNH4+ to NO3

minus The NH4+ infiltrates into the confined

aquifers by leakage recharge and encouraged by increasedwater head difference caused by overexploited confinedwaterIt has been suggested that approximately 70 of recharge ofupper-confined water comes from the phreatic aquifer [31]The high Fe andMn contents in the confinedwater in generalcaused by geological environment [32] are another reasonto be responsible for NH4

+ pollution As reducing agents FeandMn are involved into redox reactions with oxidant NO3

minus

in neutral or weak alkaline environment The reactions areexpressed as

2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)

The reactions reduce NO3minus and produce NO2

minus which isunstable In the reaction processes iron bacteria oxidizeferrous iron to ferric iron by using molecular oxygen andsynthesize organic compounds using energy from the reac-tions which consumes oxygen further [33] The hypoxicenvironment inhibits nitrification which accumulates NH4

+Ji [30] verified that there exist negative correlation betweenNO3minus and FeMn nonlinear relationship between NO2

minus andFeMn due to instability of NO2

minus and positive correlationbetween NH4

+ and FeMn Similar relationships were foundin groundwater in Shunyi District Beijing [34]

42 Groundwater Types For the phreatic water samples thecationic strength was observed as Na+ gt Mg2+ gt Ca2+ gt

K+ with percentages of 4022 3388 2423 and 166respectively The percentages of HCO3

minus

gt SO42minus

gt Clminusare 4040 3058 and 2902 respectively The dominantelements of the confined water are quite different from thatof the phreatic water Cation dominances of the confinedwater were observed as Mg2+ gt Ca2+ gt Na+ gt K+ andtheir percentages are 3727 3521 2507 and 245respectively The percentages of HCO3

minus

gt Clminus gt SO42minus

were observed as 6157 2688 and 1155 respectivelyThe main cations are Na+ Mg2+ and Ca2+ in the phreatic

water and confined water respectively and main anions areHCO3

minus in both types of waterPiper trilinear diagram which was conceived by Hill

[35] and improved by Piper [36] is a widely used tool tounderstand the hydrochemical regime and facies classifi-cation of groundwater and surface water [37 38] Samplepoints with similar hydrochemistry tend to cluster togetherin the diagram Hydrochemical facies were distinguishedby equal 50 increments which are more helpful thanequal 25 increments [39] As shown in Figure 2 there areno dominant cations and anions for most phreatic watersamples except 6 samples that are dominated by Na+ anddiscrepant 6 samples dominated by HCO3

minus For samplesfrom the confined aquifers the anion chemistry is controlledby HCO3

minus and the cation chemistry has no dominant ionsExcept sample P10 identified as Na-HCO

3type all the other

phreatic samples were classified into mixed type due tono cation-anion exceeding 50 The diamond-shaped fieldshowed that alkaline earths exceed alkalis and strong acidsexceed weak acids for all confined water

There is a huge difference in point distribution betweenthe phreatic water and confined water in the diagram Theformer has dispersed distribution while the latter has con-centrated distribution This indicates that more complicatedcontrolling factors exist in shallow groundwater than deepgroundwater The composition of elements implies weather-ing of carbonate minerals is the primary controlling factorHowever hydrochemistry of shallow groundwater is affectedby evaporation considerably because relative to the confinedwater the phreatic water tends to have a higher proportionof Na+ + K+ and SO4

2minus a lower proportion of Ca2+ andHCO3

minus + CO32minus which are shown in the triangular field

This behavior is the consequence of CaCO3precipitation

under evaporation that results in the phreatic water becomesalkaline The similar hydrochemical proportions of samplesfrom two layers of confined aquifers confirm the closehydraulic connection between them

43 Ion Exchange Water chemical composition changesduring its travel or residence in the subsurface [40] Aquifermaterials are the sources of dissolved ions and encouragecation exchange and reverse ion exchange In particular formontmorillonite it releases Na+ or Ca2+ into groundwaterto exchange Ca2+ or Na+ [41] In aquifer composed ofunconsolidated deposits a mass of clay minerals exist andadsorb cations in their pore space [42] To get insight intothe base exchange reaction between groundwater and its hostenvironment Schoeller [43] suggested two chloroalkalineindices CAI-I and CAI-II

CAI-I =Clminus minus (Na+ + K+)

Clminus(14)

CAI-II =Clminus minus (Na+ + K+)

SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)

If Ca2+ or Mg2+ in groundwater is exchanged with Na+or K+ in the host rocks both of the two indices are negativewhereas a reverse ion exchange gives positive indices [44 45]


Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080

Upper-confined waterLower confined water

Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)

Figure 2 The piper diagrams for the phreatic water samples (a) and the confined water samples (b)

CAI-

I or C

AI-

II

CAI-I for phreatic water samplesCAI-II for phreatic water samples CAI-I for confined water samplesCAI-II for confined water samples

6

4

2

0

minus2

Figure 3 Chloroalkaline indices (CAI-I and CAI-II) for thephreatic water samples and the confined water samples

Figure 3 showed both indices are negative for all the phreaticwater samples and positive for most confined water samplesexcept for CAI-I of samples C1 and C8 The opposite signsfor the phreatic and confined water indicate contrary ionexchange processes take place in the two types of water Thispotentially explains the relative abundance of Na+ in thephreatic water and the abundance of alkaline earth especiallyMg2+ in the confined water

In the water environment dominated by the dissolutionsof calcite dolomite and gypsum the relationship between(Ca2+ + Mg2+) and (SO4

2minus + HCO3minus) is close to 1 1 [46 47]

0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Phreatic waterConfined water

SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)

Figure 4 Scatter plot for SO4

+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg

The ion exchange known as direct tends to shift the pointsbecause of the excess of (SO4

2minus + HCO3minus) over (Ca2+ +

Mg2+) Whereas the reverse ion exchange shifts the points tothe left due to increased Ca2+ andor Mg2+ released by rocks[47 48] Figure 4 showed 78 of the phreatic water samplesare below the 1 1 line due to a deficiency of Ca2+ andMg2+ As


TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1

Evaporationdominance

Rockdominance

Precipitationdominance

105

104

103

102

101

100

Cl(Cl + HCO3)Confined water samplesPhreatic water samples

(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100

Confined water samplesPhreatic water samples

Na(Na + Ca)

(b)

Figure 5 Gibbs diagram showing TDS versus (a) Cl(Cl + HCO3

) and (b) Na(Na + Ca)

a result Na+must balance the excessive anionsThe abundantNa+ is evidence of the ion exchange process And 86 of theconfined water samples fall above the 1 1 line which indicatesthe reverse ion exchange dominancy

Gibbs diagram is used to detect mechanisms that controlthe hydrochemical components in surface water [49] andgroundwater [47 50] The values of TDS are plotted againstratios of dominant cations [Na(Na + Ca)] or anions [Cl(Cl+ HCO

3)] [51] The diagram is divided into three zones

representing different controlling mechanisms which areevaporation rock and precipitation (rainfall) dominancefrom top to bottom The chemical analyses of phreatic andconfined water samples were plotted in the Gibbs diagram(Figure 5) It showed all the confined water samples fallin the rock dominance zone entirely which is compatiblewith storage conditionsWhereas the phreatic water samplesfalling in the zone between evaporation and rock dominancedemonstrate a mixed controlling mechanism Evaporationresults in increased TDS relative to the confined water withrelation to high ratios of dominant cations and anionsespecially sodium ions due to CaCO

3precipitate caused

by the combination of Ca2+ and HCO3minus Huge quantities

of irrigation return flow elevated groundwater level henceincreases evaporation and induce salinization

44 Water Quality for Drinking Purposes Quality Standardfor Ground Water (QSGW) of China was chosen as evalua-tion criterion The core indices (TDS TH CODMn NH4

+-N NO3

minus-N NO2minus-N Clminus SO4

2+ and Fminus) and some otherindices (Se Hg As TC and TBC) included in QSGW were

opted for assessment A separate calculation of osculatingvalue based on entropy was processed for the phreaticgroundwater and confined groundwater on account of dis-parities in physiochemical characteristic source and storagecondition The results are present in Tables 2 and 3 Fourgroups of criteria (S1 S2 S3 and S4) in QSGW classifiedgroundwater quality into five ranks

Ranking of the phreatic water samples (Table 2) showedthat 4 samples are excellent quality water (rank 1) 1 samplebelongs to good quality water (rank 2) 17 samples areclassified inmediumquality category (rank 3) and 1 sample ispoor quality water (rank 4) Groundwater in ranks 1 2 and 3is suitable for drinking according to QSGW of China Exceptfor sample P4 with osculating value of 529 that is just greaterthan the standard value of rank 3 of 513 all the other phreaticsamples are appropriate for human consumption

Ranking of the confined water samples (Table 3) revealedthat 12 samples had the good quality (rank 2) and 2 sampleshad the medium quality (rank 3) This indicates that mixingwater from supply wells can provide quality drinking water

The majority of the phreatic samples (739) belongto rank 3 while most confined samples (857) are rank2 A level worse than the confined water to the phreaticwater is consistent with their characteristics The resultssuggest that the phreatic water has been adversely affectedby human activities such as increased nitrogen caused byinfiltration of fertilizers and pesticides in the Yellow Riverirrigated agricultural region and high numbers of coliformsand bacterial counts due to backwardness of toilet wastedisposal and other sanitation in the rural area In spite of


Table 2 Assessment results of osculating values method withentropy and without entropy for the phreatic water samples

Sample number OVM with entropy OVM without entropyOsculating value Rank Osculating value Rank

P1 243 3 217 3P2 029 1 048 1P3 04 1 058 1P4 529 4 495 3P5 0 1 0 1P6 161 3 164 3P7 156 3 16 3P8 035 1 048 1P9 367 3 37 3P10 142 3 145 3P11 234 3 216 3P12 072 2 094 2P13 169 3 099 2P14 111 3 219 3P15 376 3 319 3P16 435 3 42 3P17 278 3 262 3P18 107 3 102 2P19 383 3 313 3P20 309 3 223 3P21 242 3 233 3P22 143 3 144 3P23 227 3 15 3S1 047 073S2 105 126S3 513 599S4 1318 1606

drinkable of the phreatic water it is urgent to concern andimprove the groundwater quality because osculating valuesof some phreatic samples are close to the critical value ofdrinkable

Contour map of osculating value with entropy for thephreatic water was interpolated by kriging with Gaussianvariogram model (Figure 6) The osculating value contourmap showed inconsistency with the phreatic water levelcontour in the west even opposition in some regions Therank 4 region is downstream of the phreatic water and it isthe center of a small town with a population of high densitybut poor sanitationThenortheast corner (rank 1) of the studyarea is small-scale aeolian dunes where land is wasteland orpoor farmland These are also evidence that anthropogenicactivities are responsible for groundwater pollution

The results assessed by osculating value without entropywere also listed in Tables 2 and 3 for comparison Thecomparison reveals that entropy has a minor influence on theranks Only 3 phreatic samples and 1 confined sample havedifferent ranks And the different ranks just have one levelchange This demonstrates pure osculating value method isobjective which is a great advantage of the algorithm The

Table 3 Assessment results of osculating values method withentropy and without entropy for the confined water samples


C1 023 2 001 1C2 249 3 216 3C3 103 2 074 2C4 122 2 093 2C5 411 3 454 3C6 061 2 031 2C7 077 2 048 2C8 200 2 166 2C9 088 2 067 2C10 026 2 013 2C11 143 2 114 2C12 113 2 086 2C13 163 2 135 2C14 106 2 079 2S1 002 006S2 239 182S3 907 704S4 1755 1697

pure osculating value method is also reasonable and usefulThe method is applicable to other countries and criteria byexchanging QSGW of China in the initial decision matrix forother standard values An assessmentwithout standard valuesis also feasible thus a score and rank can be obtained for eachsample

45 Water Quality for Irrigation Purposes

451 Sodium Hazard Sodium is the mainly concernedparameter when assessing the suitability of groundwaterfor irrigation Groundwater with high concentration ofsodium ions is undesirable to irrigate crops In Na-enrichedgroundwater Mg2+ and Ca2+ will be released from soilinto groundwater while Na+ will be adsorbed onto thesoil resulting from the cation exchange processes On thecontrary Na+ will be released from cation exchange sitesand Ca2+ ions are adsorbed in groundwater that is rich inCa2+ [52] Overburdened sodium ions in the soil affect thebehavior of the colloidal fraction and lead to soil aggregatesto disperse that result in decrease of soil permeability andhardening of the soil affects plough and seedling emergence[53ndash55] In addition saline and alkaline soils which areharmful to plant growth are formed by combining sodiumwith chloride and carbonate respectively [41]

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) used by theUnited StatesSalinity Laboratory was used as the primary indicator forevaluating irrigation [56 57] The sodium percentage (Na)expressed as a ratio of Na+ and K+ concentration to Na+


Rank of samplesRank 1Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4

Rank 1Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4

Phreatic water quality by OVM

15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN

Figure 6 Contour map of osculating value and classification of thephreatic water quality by OVM with entropy

K+ Ca2+ and Mg2+ concentration is another indicator usedwidely [58]

SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)

where the concentrations of all ions are in meqL Figure 7(a)showed SAR of the phreatic water in the study area fall withinthe range between 127 and 673 all much smaller than thesafe value 9 with no structural deterioration [59 60] It meansthat all the water samples meet the general requirementsfor irrigation However the values of Na are in the rangeof 292ndash675 beyond the permissible limits of 60 partially(Figure 7(b)) In fact Na of sample P12 is 675 while the restof samples within the permissible limitsThe results indicatedthat sample P12 is unsuitable for irrigation because of sodiumhazard

452 Residual Sodium Carbonate Generally water losesafter irrigation because of evaporation and evapotranspira-tion Hence the concentration of soil solution is elevatedwhich causes the precipitation of Ca2+ and Mg2+ combinedwith CO3

2minus and HCO3minus [61] Meanwhile the percentage

of Na+ arises and high Na+ content increases the SAR andexchangeable Na+ of soil solution [62] If the concentration

of carbonates is greater than that of alkaline earths NaHCO3

which can affect soil structure will be formed by combiningNa+ with the rest of carbonates after precipitation [63] Resid-ual sodium carbonate (RSC) expresses as the concentrationof carbonates minus the concentration of alkaline earths [4164]

RSC = (HCO3minus

+CO32minus) minus (Ca2+ +Mg2+)

= TAminus (OHminus +Ca2+ +Mg2+) (18)

where TA represents the concentration of total alkalinity(as CaCO

3) and the concentrations of all parameters are

expressed in meqL The concentration of OHminus is less than10minus3 meqL which can be ignored compared to the values ofother parameters whenPH iswithin the range of 6 and 8 [64]Irrigation water was classified based on RSC values of lessthan 125 125ndash25 and greater than 25 as suitable marginaland unsuitable respectively [65] As per the data the valuesof RSC range from minus99 to 15 and 2 samples (P10 and P12)fall into the marginal range while others fall into the suitablerange (Figure 7(c))This indicates that sodium hazard causedby exceeded carbonates is light

453MagnesiumHazard Ahigh level ofMg2+ in the soil canbe expected to result in alkaline which damages soil structureand affects crop yields Normally irrigation water of highconcentration of Mg2+ makes soils release Na+ and exchangeMg2+ in the water [63] In the study area the equilibrium ofcation exchange processes is as the above casewhich is provedby CAI-I and CAI-II So magnesium ratio (MR) was carriedout to evaluate the magnesium hazard proposed by Szabolesand Darab [66]

MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)

where all ionic concentrations are expressed in meqL If MRis more than 50 the water is considered to be harmful to soiland affects the crop yields The values of MR in the studyarea vary from 421 to 731 It is found that 21 samples of allthe 23 phreatic water samples (913) exceed the permissiblelimit of MR (Figure 7(d)) Only sample P6 and P7 have nomagnesium hazard with magnesium ratios of 421 and 496respectively which are closed to the limit

46 Water Quality for Industrial Purposes Water used forindustry is one of the important parts of urban water supplyIts requirements of water quality are very different fromdrinking and irrigation purposes even altered in variousindustries [67] Each industry has its own standards forwater Boiler water is quite common and requires high qualitywater Generally they suffer from three effects of incrustationfoaming and corrosion which are caused by adverse chemicalreaction under the condition of high temperature and highpressure [9 68]

461 Incrustation Boiler scale attached to the boiler wallis adverse to heat transfer hence wastes fuel even melts


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Phreatic water sample number

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)

Figure 7 (a) SAR (b) Na (c) RSC and (d) MR for the phreatic water samples

boiler or causes an explosion It is formed by precipitationof calcium salt magnesium salt SiO

2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and

suspended solids dissolved in water When water boils pre-cipitation reactions take place and form CaCO

3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO

3 CaO and so forth which are insol-

uble compounds Some common reactions can be expressedas follows [68]

Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ

997888rarr CaCO3 darr +H2O+CO2 uarr (20)

Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ

997888rarr MgCO3 darr +H2O+CO2 uarr (21)

MgCO3 + 2H2O 997888rarr Mg (OH)2 darr +H2O+CO2 uarr (22)

Three parameters can be adopted to decide the propertiesof incrustation The concentrations of TH HCO3

minus andSO4

2minus are greater than 300mgL 400mgL and 100mgLrespectively may cause incrustation [63] As per the data of14 confined groundwater samples TH HCO3

minus and SO42minus

are in the range of 179ndash222mgL 167ndash365mgL and 305ndash478mgL All the parameters are within the limits thisshowed that no worry about incrustation

462 Foaming Water bubbled up to the surfacewhen boiledWhile bubbles cannot break open in time thick and unstablebubbles are formed Too many bubbles elevate the water

table resulting in boilers not working This is a result of thesaponification reaction related to sodium (Na) potassium(K) grease and suspended solids [69] The foaming coeffi-cient is a measure of foaming action

119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)

where the concentrations of sodium and potassium areexpressed inmeqLThewater of no foaming action is119865 lt 60and that of foaming action is 119865 gt 200 While 119865 is in the rangeof 60ndash200 thewater ismarginal As per the data of 14 samplesthe values of 119865 range from 7888 to 18201 which all belong tomarginal range It means that locomotive water boiler needsto be refreshed at least two or three days As for no foamingaction water refreshing once a week is required

463 Corrosion Corrosive actions extremely damage theboiler notably under high steam pressure It eats metalthrough replacement reaction even bring about explosionaccidents It was reported that 119 boilers exploded causedby corrosion at least once during 1956 and 1970 in 640investigative boilers in the USA [68] Corrosive actions areinfluenced by many factors such as H+ O

2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3

organic matters The corrosive coefficient is an indicator thatreflects the intensity of corrosion


For acidic water the corrosive coefficient is expressed as

119870 = 1008 (H+ +Al3+ + Fe2+ +Mg2+ minusCO32minus

minusHCO3minus

)

(24)

For alkaline water the corrosive coefficient is expressed as

119870 = 1008 (Mg2+ minusHCO3minus

) (25)

where all ionic concentrations are expressed in meqLWhen119870 gt 0 the water is corrosive For119870 lt 0 if119870 + 00503Ca2+ lt0 the water is not corrosive otherwise the water is mildlycorrosive where Ca2+ is expressed in mgL As per the dataall the confined water samples are alkaline water (789 lt pH lt

824) and the values of119870 vary from minus371 to minus060 which areall negative The values of 119870 + 00503Ca2+ range from minus022to 150The results show that sample C1 is not corrosive whileothers are mildly corrosive

5 Conclusions

Three aquifers in Yinchuan northern suburb which areexploited and utilized by humanwere investigated to evaluatethe groundwater quality for drinking irrigation and indus-trial purposes

Statistical analysis showed the quality of the confinedwater samples is better than the phreatic water samplesrsquoNevertheless the concentration of NH4

+-N of the confinedwater exceeds drinkable limits generally which is conspicu-ous and abnormalThis can attribute tomultiple reasons suchas fertilizer leakage flood irrigation over exploitation andredox reactions

The Piper diagram revealed different chemical composi-tion between the phreatic water and confined water whichimplied different controlling factors The phreatic water ismixed type whereas the confined water has dominant anionof HCO3

minus and no dominant cations The triangular field inthe diagram implied CaCO

3precipitation caused by evapora-

tion results in alkalization for the phreatic waterThe phreaticwater has negative values of CAI-I and CAI-II which haspositive values for most confined water This indicated thatCa2+ or Mg2+ in the phreatic water is exchanged with Na+ orK+ in the host rocks and a reverse ion exchange proceeds inthe confined water The relationship between (Ca2+ + Mg2+)and (SO4

2minus + HCO3minus) verified the different ion exchanges

Gibbs diagrams showed different controlling mechanismsof chemical components apparently The confined wateris entirely rock dominance including ion exchange andprecipitationdissolution The phreatic water is controlled bywater-rock interaction and evaporation Due to long-termflood irrigation the shallow buried depth of groundwatergreatly enhanced the evaporation

The osculating value method with entropy was used toassess groundwater quality for drinking purpose About 174 74 and 4of the phreatic samples have excellent goodmedium and poor quality respectively and about 86 and14 of the confined samples belong to good and mediumquality water respectivelyThe results stated that all the water

samples except for one phreatic sample are fit for humanconsumption and the confined aquifers can provide qualitydrinking water In spite of this groundwater is polluted byhuman in terms of high nitrogen content coliforms andbacterial contamination and inconsistent osculating valuecontour The comparison between OVM with and withoutentropy showed that OVM without entropy is also objectiveand valid Hence OVM is an excellent algorithm for ground-water quality assessment

The calculation of SAR Na RSC and MR of thephreatic water indicated that most phreatic water has nosodiumhazard but hasmagnesiumhazardwhich can give riseto alkaline and damage soil structureThus the phreaticwateris not appropriate for irrigation

Industrial suitability of the confined water was evaluatedin terms of incrustation foaming and corrosion The resultsshowed that all the confined water samples have no incrus-tation harm to boilers but they can generate mild foamingreaction and most of them are mildly corrosive For the sakeof security boiler water needs to be refreshed every couple ofdays

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the National Natural Sci-ence Foundation of China (41172212) the Study on WaterEnvironmental Early Warning in Ningxia and the Doc-toral Postgraduate Technical Project of Changrsquoan University(2014G5290005) Sincere thanks are due to Dr WanfangZhou a hydrogeologistengineering geologist of PE LaM-oreaux and Associates Inc (PELA) for improvement of thepaper and valuable comments Special thanks are given to theanonymous reviewers and editors for their useful commentsto improve quality of the study

References

[1] Z Jamshidzadeh and S A Mirbagheri ldquoEvaluation of ground-water quantity and quality in the Kashan Basin Central IranrdquoDesalination vol 270 no 1ndash3 pp 23ndash30 2011

[2] J Chen H Wu H Qian and Q Liu ldquoAnalysis of evolve-ment for confined water cone of depression and its influenceon groundwater resource sustainability in Yinchuan areardquoAdvanced Materials Research vol 1073ndash1076 pp 1656ndash16592014

[3] T N Narasimhan ldquoOn adapting to global groundwater crisisrdquoGround Water vol 48 no 3 pp 354ndash357 2010

[4] BHelena R PardoMVega E Barrado JM Fernandez andLFernandez ldquoTemporal evolution of groundwater compositionin an alluvial aquifer (Pisuerga River Spain) by principalcomponent analysisrdquoWater Research vol 34 no 3 pp 807ndash8162000

[5] Y J Jiang Y X Wu C Groves D X Yuan and P KambesisldquoNatural and anthropogenic factors affecting the groundwater


quality in the Nandong karst underground river system inYunan Chinardquo Journal of Contaminant Hydrology vol 109 no1ndash4 pp 49ndash61 2009

[6] Y-J Jiang C Zhang D-X Yuan G Zhang and R-S HeldquoImpact of land use change on groundwater quality in atypical karst watershed of southwest China a case study of theXiaojiang watershed Yunnan Provincerdquo Hydrogeology Journalvol 16 no 4 pp 727ndash735 2008

[7] B Abdelkader M Abdelhak K Abdeslam M Ahmed and ZBrahim ldquoEstimation of pollution load of domestic sewage tooued bechar (SWAlgeria) and its impact on the microbiologicalquality of groundwaterrdquo Procedia Engineering vol 33 pp 261ndash267 2012

[8] V K Grabert ldquoThe word style lsquogroundwaterrsquo reflects increasedpublic awareness of the resourcerdquo Ground Water vol 47 no 4pp 470ndash474 2009

[9] S Varol and A Davraz ldquoEvaluation of the groundwater qualitywith WQI (Water Quality Index) and multivariate analysis acase study of theTefenni plain (BurdurTurkey)rdquoEnvironmentalEarth Sciences vol 73 no 4 pp 1725ndash1744 2014

[10] L Pei-Yue Q Hui and W Jian-Hua ldquoGroundwater qualityassessment based on improved water quality index in PengyangCountyNingxiaNorthwestChinardquoE-Journal of Chemistry vol7 supplement 1 pp S209ndashS216 2010

[11] A Lermontov L Yokoyama M Lermontov and M A SMachado ldquoRiver quality analysis using fuzzy water qualityindex Ribeira do Iguape river watershed Brazilrdquo EcologicalIndicators vol 9 no 6 pp 1188ndash1197 2009

[12] A Mostafaei ldquoApplication of multivariate statistical methodsand water-quality index to evaluation of water quality in theKashkan Riverrdquo Environmental Management vol 53 no 4 pp865ndash881 2014

[13] A Lumb T C Sharma J F Bibeault and P Klawunn ldquoAcomparative study of usa and canadian water quality indexmodelsrdquoWater Quality Exposure and Health vol 3 no 3-4 pp203ndash216 2011

[14] Y Icaga ldquoFuzzy evaluation of water quality classificationrdquoEcological Indicators vol 7 no 3 pp 710ndash718 2007

[15] S K Chapagain V P Pandey S Shrestha T Nakamuraand F Kazama ldquoAssessment of deep groundwater quality inkathmandu valley using multivariate statistical techniquesrdquoWater Air and Soil Pollution vol 210 no 1ndash4 pp 277ndash288 2010

[16] J Jing Q Hui C Yu-Fei and X Wen-Juan ldquoAssessment ofgroundwater quality based onmatter element extensionmodelrdquoJournal of Chemistry vol 2013 Article ID 715647 7 pages 2013

[17] F Modaresi and S Araghinejad ldquoA comparative assessment ofsupport vector machines probabilistic neural networks andk-nearest neighbor algorithms for water quality classificationrdquoWater Resources Management vol 28 no 12 pp 4095ndash41112014

[18] H Wu J W Qi H Qian J Chen and X-D Zhang ldquoGround-water quality affected by yellow river irrigated agriculture inNorthern Suburb of Yinchuan Chinardquo Advanced MaterialsResearch vol 1073ndash1076 pp 1035ndash1038 2014

[19] H Qian J Wu Y Zhou and P Li ldquoStable oxygen and hydrogenisotopes as indicators of lake water recharge and evaporation inthe lakes of the Yinchuan PlainrdquoHydrological Processes vol 28no 10 pp 3554ndash3562 2014

[20] H Wu Groundwater vulnerability and health risk assessmentin Yinchuan Beijiao water resource [MS thesis] ChangrsquoanUniversity Xirsquoan China 2014 (Chinese)

[21] Z-X Jing and R Hu ldquoSensitivity analysis for power qualityevaluation and its application in modified close value methodrdquoPower System Protection and Control vol 41 no 9 pp 60ndash662013

[22] Y Sun K-L Hu Z-B Fan Y-P Wei S Lin and J-G WangldquoSimulating the fate of nitrogen and optimizingwater and nitro-gen management of greenhouse tomato in North China usingthe EU-Rotate N modelrdquo Agricultural Water Management vol128 pp 72ndash84 2013

[23] G-D Chen ldquoComprehensive assessment and analysis on thestatus of heavymetal pollution in soil of Yindongliang lead-zincmine area in Fengxianrdquo Chinese Journal of Soil Science vol 44pp 222ndash226 2013 (Chinese)

[24] B Lu Z Zhang M Zhu Z Chen and X Lu ldquoEvaluationfor development effect of agricultural mechanization based onmethod of global osculating valuerdquo Transactions of the ChineseSociety of Agricultural Machinery vol 39 no 5 pp 56ndash59 2008(Chinese)

[25] C E Shannon ldquoAmathematical theory of communicationrdquoTheBell System Technical Journal vol 27 pp 379ndash423 1948

[26] G S Shyu B Y Cheng C T Chiang P H Yao and T K ChangldquoApplying factor analysis combined with kriging and informa-tion entropy theory for mapping and evaluating the stability ofgroundwater quality variation in Taiwanrdquo International Journalof Environmental Research and Public Health vol 8 no 4 pp1084ndash1109 2011

[27] V P Singh ldquoThe use of entropy in hydrology and waterresourcesrdquo Hydrological Processes vol 11 no 6 pp 587ndash6261997

[28] L Liu J Zhou X An Y Zhang and L Yang ldquoUsing fuzzytheory and information entropy for water quality assessment inThree Gorges region Chinardquo Expert Systems with Applicationsvol 37 no 3 pp 2517ndash2521 2010

[29] D Wang V P Singh and Y S Zhu ldquoHybrid fuzzy andoptimalmodeling for water quality evaluationrdquoWater ResourcesResearch vol 43 no 5 Article ID W05415 2007

[30] Y-D Ji Evaluation of groundwater quality and cause analysis ofnitrogen pollution in Yinchuan [MS thesis] Changrsquoan Univer-sity Xirsquoan China 2003 (Chinese)

[31] Z-H Zhang Study on the groundwater pollution simulationin Yinchuan region [MS thesis] Changan University XirsquoanChina 2014 (Chinese)

[32] S Carretero and E Kruse ldquoIron and manganese content ingroundwater on the northeastern coast of the Buenos AiresProvince Argentinardquo Environmental Earth Sciences vol 73 no5 pp 1983ndash1995 2015

[33] W Yang Y Wang Y Guo W Liu and S Lin ldquoTest abouteffect of iron and manganese on nitrogen transformation inunderground waterrdquo Journal of Shenyang Jianzhu Universityvol 24 no 2 pp 286ndash290 2008 (Chinese)

[34] Y-T Li G-X Zhen D-W Chen et al ldquoThe distribution ofammonia nitrogen in groundwater of Shunyi and its influencingfactorsrdquo Journal of Environment and Health vol 24 pp 706ndash708 2007 (Chinese)

[35] R A Hill ldquoGeochemical patterns in Coachella Valleyrdquo EosTransactions American Geophysical Union vol 21 no 1 pp 46ndash53 1940

[36] A M Piper ldquoA graphic procedure in the geochemical interpre-tation of water-analysesrdquo Eos Transactions American Geophys-ical Union vol 25 no 6 pp 914ndash928 1944


[37] R K Ray and R Mukherjee ldquoReproducing the Piper trilineardiagram in rectangular coordinatesrdquoGroundWater vol 46 no6 pp 893ndash896 2008

[38] N Otero R Tolosana-Delgado A Soler V Pawlowsky-Glahnand A Canals ldquoRelative vs absolute statistical analysis ofcompositions a comparative study of surface waters of aMediterranean riverrdquo Water Research vol 39 no 7 pp 1404ndash1414 2005

[39] P Li J Wu and H Qian ldquoAssessment of groundwater qualityfor irrigation purposes and identification of hydrogeochemicalevolution mechanisms in Pengyang County Chinardquo Environ-mental Earth Sciences vol 69 no 7 pp 2211ndash2225 2013

[40] N Arveti M R S Sarma J A Aitkenhead-Peterson and KSunil ldquoFluoride incidence in groundwater a case study fromTalupula Andhra Pradesh Indiardquo Environmental Monitoringand Assessment vol 172 no 1ndash4 pp 427ndash443 2011

[41] R Nagarajan N Rajmohan U Mahendran and S Sen-thamilkumar ldquoEvaluation of groundwater quality and its suit-ability for drinking and agricultural use inThanjavur city TamilNadu Indiardquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol171 no 1ndash4 pp 289ndash308 2010

[42] J Ma J He S Qi et al ldquoGroundwater recharge and evolution inthe Dunhuang Basin northwestern Chinardquo Applied Geochem-istry vol 28 pp 19ndash31 2013

[43] H Schoeller ldquoQualitative evaluation of groundwater resourcesrdquoin Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigations andDevelopment pp 53ndash83 UNESCO Paris France 1965

[44] M Kumar K Kumari A L Ramanathan and R Saxena ldquoAcomparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigationand drinking purposes in two intensively cultivated districts ofPunjab Indiardquo Environmental Geology vol 53 no 3 pp 553ndash574 2007

[45] P Ravikumar andR K Somashekar ldquoA geochemical assessmentof coastal groundwater quality in the Varahi river basin UdupiDistrict Karnataka State IndiardquoArabian Journal of Geosciencesvol 6 no 6 pp 1855ndash1870 2013

[46] S Y Chung S Venkatramanan T H Kim D S Kim andT Ramkumar ldquoInfluence of hydrogeochemical processes andassessment of suitability for groundwater uses in Busan CityKoreardquo Environment Development and Sustainability vol 17no 3 pp 423ndash441 2015

[47] S Sonkamble A Sahya N C Mondal and P HarikumarldquoAppraisal and evolution of hydrochemical processes fromproximity basalt and granite areas of Deccan Volcanic Province(DVP) in Indiardquo Journal of Hydrology vol 438-439 pp 181ndash1932012

[48] T E Cerling B L Pederson and K L von Damm ldquoSodium-calcium ion exchange in the weathering of shales implicationsfor global weathering budgetsrdquo Geology vol 17 no 6 pp 552ndash554 1989

[49] R J Gibbs ldquoMechanisms controlling world water chemistryrdquoScience vol 170 no 3962 pp 1088ndash1090 1970

[50] Y-L Yu X-F Song Y-H Zhang F-D Zheng J Liang and L-C Liu ldquoIdentifying spatio-temporal variation and controllingfactors of chemistry in groundwater and river water rechargedby reclaimed water at Huai River North Chinardquo StochasticEnvironmental Research and Risk Assessment vol 28 no 5 pp1135ndash1145 2014

[51] P Ravikumar R K Somashekar andM Angami ldquoHydrochem-istry and evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigationand drinking purposes in theMarkandeyaRiver basin Belgaum

District Karnataka State Indiardquo Environmental Monitoring andAssessment vol 173 no 1ndash4 pp 459ndash487 2011

[52] T Y Stigter S P J van Ooijen V E A Post C A JAppelo and A M M Carvalho Dill ldquoA hydrogeological andhydrochemical explanation of the groundwater compositionunder irrigated land in a Mediterranean environment AlgarvePortugalrdquo Journal of Hydrology vol 208 no 3-4 pp 262ndash2791998

[53] J Herrero and O Perez-Coveta ldquoSoil salinity changes over 24years in a Mediterranean irrigated districtrdquo Geoderma vol 125no 3-4 pp 287ndash308 2005

[54] M Jalali ldquoSalinization of groundwater in arid and semi-aridzones an example from Tajarak western Iranrdquo EnvironmentalGeology vol 52 no 6 pp 1133ndash1149 2007

[55] M N Tijani ldquoHydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater inMoro area Kwara state Nigeriardquo Environmental Geology vol24 no 3 pp 194ndash202 1994

[56] V D Litskas V G Aschonitis E H Lekakis and V ZAntonopoulos ldquoEffects of land use and irrigation practiceson Ca Mg K Na loads in rice-based agricultural systemsrdquoAgricultural Water Management vol 132 pp 30ndash36 2014

[57] G Sposito and S V Mattigod ldquoOn the chemical foundationof the sodium adsorption ratiordquo Soil Science Society of AmericaJournal vol 41 no 2 pp 323ndash329 1977

[58] E M M Wanda L C Gulula and A Phiri ldquoHydrochemicalassessment of groundwater used for irrigation in Rumphi andKaronga districts Northern Malawirdquo Physics and Chemistry ofthe Earth vol 66 pp 51ndash59 2013

[59] A Saleh F Al-Ruwaih and M Shehata ldquoHydrogeochemicalprocesses operatingwithin themain aquifers of Kuwaitrdquo Journalof Arid Environments vol 42 no 3 pp 195ndash209 1999

[60] D M Joshi A Kumar and N Agrawal ldquoAssessment of theirrigation water quality of river Ganga in Haridwar districtrdquoRasayan Journal of Chemistry vol 2 no 2 pp 285ndash292 2009

[61] F M Eaton ldquoSignificance in carbonate in irrigation waterrdquo SoilScience vol 69 pp 123ndash134 1950

[62] H L Bohn B L McNeal and G A OConnor Soil ChemistryWiley-Interscience New York NY USA 1985

[63] N Subba Rao P Surya Rao G Venktram Reddy M NagamaniG Vidyasagar and N L V V Satyanarayana ldquoChemicalcharacteristics of groundwater and assessment of groundwaterquality in Varaha River Basin VisakhapatnamDistrict AndhraPradesh Indiardquo Environmental Monitoring and Assessment vol184 no 8 pp 5189ndash5214 2012

[64] C-S Jang S-K Chen and Y-M Kuo ldquoEstablishing an irri-gation management plan of sustainable groundwater based onspatial variability of water quality and quantityrdquo Journal ofHydrology vol 414-415 pp 201ndash210 2012

[65] J W Lloyd and J A Heathcote Natural Inorganic Hydrochem-istry in Relation to Groundwater An Introduction ClarendonPress Oxford UK 1985

[66] I Szaboles and C Darab ldquoThe influence of irrigation water ofhigh sodium carbonate content of soilsrdquo in Proceedings of the8th International Congress of ISSS vol 2 pp 803ndash812 1964

[67] X-C Wang and P-K Jin ldquoWater quality issues related to waterreuse for industriesrdquo IndustrialWater ampWastewater vol 43 pp1ndash5 2012 (Chinese)

[68] P-X Fang Z-D Wei and Z-S Liao Applied HydrogeologyGeological Publishing House Beijing China 1996 (Chinese)

[69] J-F Cao B-M Chi W-K Wang H-L Gong Y-Q Cao andX-J LiangAppliedHydrogeology Science Press Beijing China2006 (Chinese)

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Inorganic ChemistryInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal ofPhotoenergy


Carbohydrate Chemistry

International Journal of


Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Analytical Methods in Chemistry

Journal of

Volume 2014

Bioinorganic Chemistry and ApplicationsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

SpectroscopyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Medicinal ChemistryInternational Journal of


Chromatography Research International


Applied ChemistryJournal of



Theoretical ChemistryJournal of


Journal of

Spectroscopy

Analytical ChemistryInternational Journal of


Journal of


Quantum Chemistry


Organic Chemistry International

ElectrochemistryInternational Journal of



CatalystsJournal of


The rapid development of urbanization has been accom-panied by enhanced public awareness and concern regardingprotection of groundwater [8 9] Once groundwater ispolluted it is tough restoring its quality with respect toa long time of storage recovery cycle Therefore it is criticalto monitor and assess the groundwater quality regularlyNumerous researchers across the world explored methods toreflect water quality status The commonly used methods areWater Quality Index (WQI) improvedWQIs (EWQI FWQI)[10 11] WQIs by institutions (OWQI CWQI CCME WQIAWQI andMWQI) [12 13] fuzzy comprehensive assessmentmethod [14] multivariate statistical method [15] matterelement extension [16] and neural network [17] In this studythe osculating value method is introduced for evaluatingwater quality for drinking purposes The arithmetic withbrief steps is simple and easy to calculate It does not onlyclassify water quality but also gives the ranks Integrated withShannon entropy as weights the results are more objectiveand reasonable

The study area consists of urban (13) in the south andrural (23) in the center and north (Figure 1) Groundwaterfrom 3 aquifers is being used for various purposesThe upperlayer phreatic water as the only source of water supply inthe rural area is exploited extensively by private individualsExcept for domestic demand the phreatic water is usedfor irrigation as water supply source for farming duringnonirrigation period and for vegetables in villagersrsquo gardensall year round The middle and lower layers confined waterare exploited formunicipal water supply network as domesticor industrial consumption However the water in the studyarea is faced with many threats (1) As an agricultural regionthe area has been irrigated using the water from Yellow Riverfor over 2000 years with a complicated canal system Besidesagricultural pollution long-term flood irrigation leads toshallow buried depth of groundwater which is adverse tocontamination prevention and induces salinization [18] (2)The water supply wells (confined water) are located in baresandy land nowadays the zone becomes a new urban districtdue to the rapid urbanization The groundwater sourceprotection zone was redesigned to the north so as to developthe city yet the supply wells are not moved As a resultthe protection zone cannot play any role The fast-growingpopulation has a significant impact on quantity and qualityof groundwater (3) Over exploitation has led to cone ofdepression in the confined aquifer The depression conereduced hydraulic head of the confined aquifer which causesthe phreatic water to recharge confined water Consequentlythe environmentally sensitive phreatic water threatens theconfined water quality

The aims of this study were to understand the ground-water hydrochemistry detect its control mechanisms andevaluate the groundwater comprehensively According to theusage of water both kinds of groundwater were assessed fordrinking purposes by osculating value method integratedwith Shannon entropy as weights In addition the phreaticwater was assessed for irrigation purposes regarding sodiumhazard residual sodium carbonate and magnesium hazardwhereas the confined water was assessed for industrial usein consideration of effects of incrustation foaming and

corrosion Before assessment hydrochemical compositionand its controlling factors were explored to get a betterunderstanding of groundwater chemistry

2 Study Area

The study region extends between latitude 38∘281015840ndash38∘401015840Nand longitude 106∘021015840ndash106∘161015840E with altitude between 1105and 1125m above mean sea level It covers an area of2426 km2 and is located in the northern suburb of Yinchuancity Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region northwestern China(Figure 1) The city is characterized by a temperate con-tinental arid and semiarid climate with annual averageprecipitation of 18694mm About 45 of the precipitationoccurs in July and August The monthly average temperatureranges from minus71∘C in January to 24∘C in July with the annualmean value of 981∘C The evaporation is intensive with arange from 11940 to 17432mma and an average value of15863mma

The study region is a part of Yinchuan Plain which isbordered by Helan Mountains on the west and the YellowRiver in the east The landform in the study area consistsmainly of proluvial clinoplain proluvial-alluvial plain andalluvial-lacustrine plain that distribute zonally from westto east Small-scale aeolian dunes were deposited in thenortheast and west The Quaternary sediments are thick dueto long-term settlement of the rift basin Within a depth of250m the aquifers are divided into phreatic aquifer upper-confined aquifer and lower confined aquifer from the surfacedown [19] The aquitard composed of clayey sand and sandyclay between phreatic aquifer and upper-confined aquifer iscontinuous with a thickness of 10ndash20m while the aquitardbetween two layers of confined aquifers is not continuouswith great variation in thickness even no more than 1m insome area [20] As a consequence there exists close hydraulicconnection between the confined aquifers

3 Materials and Methods

31 Sampling andAnalysis A total of 37 groundwater sampleswere collected during September 2013 Among them 23 sam-ples were phreatic groundwater collected from hand-pressedwells or pumpwells in different villages and the remaining 14samples were collected from 7 pairs of water supply wells inthe confined aquifers (Figure 1) The samples were stored inplastic bottles and brown glass Before sampling containerswere rinsed with groundwater to be taken After samplingone plastic bottle was acidified withHNO

3 and all containers

were sealed immediately The sample in brown glass fordetermining the organic compounds was filled without air toavoid oxidation Before loading the sampled containers werelabeled and packed into incubators Sampleswere delivered tothe laboratory of Ningxia Environmental Monitoring Centeron the same day

A bulk chemical analysis was carried out for 65 param-eters including PH total dissolved solid (TDS) as CaCO

3

total alkalinity (TA) as CaCO3 total hardness (TH) major


China

Ningxia

Yinchuan

P9

P8

P7 P6

P5

P4

P3

P2P1

P23 P22

P21P20

P19

P18 P17

P16

P15

P14P13 P12

P11

P10

0 315(km)

C12C34

C56C78

C910

C1112C1314





+-N NO3




hydrocarbon)




C =

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

(119898+119901)1 119888

(119898+119901)2 sdot sdot sdot 119888

(119898+119901)119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(1)







119903

119894119895=

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 efficiency type

minus

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 cost type(2)


119894119895)

(119898+119901)times119899


119903

+

119895

= max (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895)

119903

minus

119895

= min (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895) (3)


G = (119903

+

1 119903+

2 119903+

(119898+119901)

) (4)


B = (119903

minus

1 119903minus

2 119903minus

(119898+119901)

) (5)



119864

119894=

119889

+

119894

min (119889+119894

)

minus

119889

minus

119894

max (119889minus119894

)

(6)

where

119889

+

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

+

119895

)

2

119889

minus

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

minus

119895

)

2

(7)

120596


119894

and 119889

minus

119894








C1015840 =[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

1198981 119888


119898119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(8)



119910

119894119895=

119888

119894119895minus (119888

119894119895)min

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

efficiency type

(119888

119894119895)max minus 119888119894119895

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

cost type

(9)


119894119895)

119898times119899


119875

119894119895=

(119910

119894119895+ 10minus4)

sum

119898

119894=1 (119910119894119895 + 10minus4)

119890

119895= minus

1ln119898

119898

sum

119894=1119875

119894119895ln119875119894119895

(10)



is 0


120596

119895=

1 minus 119890119895

sum

119899

119895=1 (1 minus 119890119895) (11)









NH4





NO2








NO3


SO4












+-N NO3minus-N NO2





+-N NO3minus-N NO2









+





minus


2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)









minus

gt SO42minus


minus








3type all the other









Clminus(14)


SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)



Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


China

Ningxia

Yinchuan

P9

P8

P7 P6

P5

P4

P3

P2P1

P23 P22

P21P20

P19

P18 P17

P16

P15

P14P13 P12

P11

P10

0 315(km)

C12C34

C56C78

C910

C1112C1314





+-N NO3




hydrocarbon)




C =

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

(119898+119901)1 119888

(119898+119901)2 sdot sdot sdot 119888

(119898+119901)119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(1)







119903

119894119895=

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 efficiency type

minus

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 cost type(2)


119894119895)

(119898+119901)times119899


119903

+

119895

= max (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895)

119903

minus

119895

= min (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895) (3)


G = (119903

+

1 119903+

2 119903+

(119898+119901)

) (4)


B = (119903

minus

1 119903minus

2 119903minus

(119898+119901)

) (5)



119864

119894=

119889

+

119894

min (119889+119894

)

minus

119889

minus

119894

max (119889minus119894

)

(6)

where

119889

+

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

+

119895

)

2

119889

minus

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

minus

119895

)

2

(7)

120596


119894

and 119889

minus

119894








C1015840 =[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

1198981 119888


119898119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(8)



119910

119894119895=

119888

119894119895minus (119888

119894119895)min

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

efficiency type

(119888

119894119895)max minus 119888119894119895

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

cost type

(9)


119894119895)

119898times119899


119875

119894119895=

(119910

119894119895+ 10minus4)

sum

119898

119894=1 (119910119894119895 + 10minus4)

119890

119895= minus

1ln119898

119898

sum

119894=1119875

119894119895ln119875119894119895

(10)



is 0


120596

119895=

1 minus 119890119895

sum

119899

119895=1 (1 minus 119890119895) (11)









NH4





NO2








NO3


SO4












+-N NO3minus-N NO2





+-N NO3minus-N NO2









+





minus


2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)









minus

gt SO42minus


minus








3type all the other









Clminus(14)


SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)



Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



119903

119894119895=

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 efficiency type

minus

119888

119894119895

[sum

119898

119894=1 1198882119894119895

]

12 cost type(2)


119894119895)

(119898+119901)times119899


119903

+

119895

= max (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895)

119903

minus

119895

= min (1199031119895 1199032119895 119903(119898+119901)119895) (3)


G = (119903

+

1 119903+

2 119903+

(119898+119901)

) (4)


B = (119903

minus

1 119903minus

2 119903minus

(119898+119901)

) (5)



119864

119894=

119889

+

119894

min (119889+119894

)

minus

119889

minus

119894

max (119889minus119894

)

(6)

where

119889

+

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

+

119895

)

2

119889

minus

119894

=radic

119899

sum

119895=1120596

119895(119903

119894119895minus 119903

minus

119895

)

2

(7)

120596


119894

and 119889

minus

119894








C1015840 =[

[

[

[

[

[

[

11988811 11988812 sdot sdot sdot 1198881119899

11988821 11988822 sdot sdot sdot 1198882119899

d

119888

1198981 119888


119898119899

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

(8)



119910

119894119895=

119888

119894119895minus (119888

119894119895)min

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

efficiency type

(119888

119894119895)max minus 119888119894119895

(119888

119894119895)max minus (119888119894119895)min

cost type

(9)


119894119895)

119898times119899


119875

119894119895=

(119910

119894119895+ 10minus4)

sum

119898

119894=1 (119910119894119895 + 10minus4)

119890

119895= minus

1ln119898

119898

sum

119894=1119875

119894119895ln119875119894119895

(10)



is 0


120596

119895=

1 minus 119890119895

sum

119899

119895=1 (1 minus 119890119895) (11)









NH4





NO2








NO3


SO4












+-N NO3minus-N NO2





+-N NO3minus-N NO2









+





minus


2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)









minus

gt SO42minus


minus








3type all the other









Clminus(14)


SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)



Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of






NH4





NO2








NO3


SO4












+-N NO3minus-N NO2





+-N NO3minus-N NO2









+





minus


2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)









minus

gt SO42minus


minus








3type all the other









Clminus(14)


SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)



Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



+-N NO3minus-N NO2









+





minus


2Fe (OH)2 +NO3minus

+H2O 999445999468 NO2minus

+ 2Fe (OH)3 (12)

Mn (OH)2 +NO3minus

999445999468 MnO2 +NO2minus

+H2O (13)









minus

gt SO42minus


minus








3type all the other









Clminus(14)


SO42minus+HCO3

minus

+ CO32minus+NO3

minus

(15)



Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


Mg (

)

Ca ()

20

20

40

40 60

60

80

80

Cl ()

SO4 ()

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl ()

Ca+

Mg ()

Phreatic water

20 40 60 8020406080

20

40

60

8020

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

(a)

HCO 3+

CO 3(

)

Na+

K()

SO4+

Cl () Ca

+M

g ()

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca () Cl ()20 40 60 8020406080


Mg (

)

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80 20

40

60

80 SO4 ()

(b)


CAI-

I or C

AI-

II


6

4

2

0

minus2





0 5 10 15 20 25

0

5

10

15

20

25


SO4 + HCO3 (meqL)

Ca+

Mg

(meq

L)


+ HCO3

versus Ca + Mg





TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


TDS

(mg

L)

0 02 04 06 08 1


Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


(a)


0 02 04 06 08 1

TDS

(mg

L)

Rockdominance


105

104

103

102

101

100


Na(Na + Ca)

(b)







3precipitate caused




+-N NO3

























15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of



















15 30(km)

15

15

2

1

3

2

1

15

05

25

05

1

4

3

2

25

25

15

2

45

35

WS

EN



SAR =

Na+

radic

(Ca2+ +Mg2+) 2(16)

Na =

Na+ + K+

Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (17)







RSC = (HCO3minus







MR =

Mg2+

Ca2+ +Mg2+times 100 (19)





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

0

2

4

6

Suitable

Marginal

Unsuitable

8

SAR

10

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

20

30

40

50 Suitable

Unsuitable

Na (

)

60

70


(b)

1 2 3 4

Suitable

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


RSC

MarginalUnsuitable

4

0

minus4

minus8

minus12

(c)

1 2Suitable

Unsuitable

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

40

50

60

70

80

MR


(d)



2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 and


3 Mg(OH)

2

CaSO4 CaSiO

3 MgSiO



Ca2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ


Mg2+ + 2HCO3minusΔ




minus andSO4


minus and SO42minus




119865 = 62timesNa+ + 78timesK+ (23)



2 H2S CO

2 Fe2S3





minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of




minusHCO3minus

)

(24)



) (25)



5 Conclusions
















Acknowledgments


References



















































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of














































































Journal of

Chemistry


Advances in

Physical Chemistry



Journal of

Volume 2014














Journal of

Spectroscopy



Journal of


Quantum Chemistry






CatalystsJournal of

research article chemical characteristics and quality...

Documents