Relationships of Chemical Elements and their Environmental Impacts in Groundwater, Soil, and Fodder Plants in Arid Land

Ali Hamdan; Hassan Khozyem; Eman Elbadry

doi:10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Quick links

Archives Most Cited Most Read Review My Read Go to E-submission

Research Paper

Split Viewer

Econ. Environ. Geol. 2021; 54(3): 331-352

Published online June 28, 2021

https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Relationships of Chemical Elements and their Environmental Impacts in Groundwater, Soil, and Fodder Plants in Arid Land

Ali Hamdan^*, Hassan Khozyem, Eman Elbadry

Author Info. +

Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Aswan University

Correspondence to : ^*Corresponding author : alielaraby1@aswu.edu.eg; alielaraby1@yahoo.com

Received: March 25, 2021; Revised: May 27, 2021; Accepted: May 27, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The relationship of both heavy metals and major elements in soil, plants, and groundwater was studied in a hyper-arid area and depends completely on the groundwater to cover its all needs. The study reviles that 27.3% of the studied groundwater was strongly acidic and has very low pH values (ᐸpH 5.5). The groundwater has a serious corrosion effect on the metallic infrastructure, a negative effect on the plant growth rate, and an increase in soil degradation and acidity. The distribution of both heavy metals (Cd, Ni, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn) and major elements (Ca, Mg, Na, and K) in groundwater, soil, and Alfalfa plants are identical. The high concentration of elements in groundwater impacted both plants and soil. In general, not all the studied groundwater is suitable for irrigation or day-life uses; therefore, a pre-use treatment is necessary for most of the studied sites.

Keywords Dakhla oasis, groundwater, heavy metals, fodder plants

Article

Research Paper

Econ. Environ. Geol. 2021; 54(3): 331-352

Published online June 28, 2021 https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Relationships of Chemical Elements and their Environmental Impacts in Groundwater, Soil, and Fodder Plants in Arid Land

Ali Hamdan^*, Hassan Khozyem, Eman Elbadry

Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Aswan University

Correspondence to:^*Corresponding author : alielaraby1@aswu.edu.eg; alielaraby1@yahoo.com

Received: March 25, 2021; Revised: May 27, 2021; Accepted: May 27, 2021

Abstract

Keywords Dakhla oasis, groundwater, heavy metals, fodder plants

Fig 1.

Download

Figure 1.Geological map of the El-Dakhla basin (modified after Conoco, 1987), together with location base map of the studied samples.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 2.

Download

Figure 2.Rock-water interaction diagram for El-Dakhla area.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 3.

Download

Figure 3.Chloro-alkaline indices 1 and 2 for El-Dakhla area.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 4.

Download

Figure 4.Alfalfa crops in different parts affected by change of water acidity: a) Alfalfa irrigated by groundwater of normal pH; b) Alfalfa irrigated by groundwater of low pH and high acidity where affected in its growth.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 5.

Download

Figure 5.Corrosions by the action of groundwater in El-Dakhla area.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 6.

Download

Figure 6.Groundwater Quality: (a) after the US Salinity Laboratory (1954), (b) based on sodium per cent and electric conductivity.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 7.

Download

Figure 7.Influence of heavy metal contents in groundwater: (a) Lead, (b) Nickel, (c) Cadmium, (d) Zinc, (e) Iron, and (f) Manganese.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 8.

Download

Figure 8.Elements relationship in soil, Alfalfa plants and groundwater at different location in El-Dakhla area.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 9.

Download

Figure 9.Regression analyses and graphical correlation for elements relationship in groundwater, soil, and Alfalfa plants at El-Dakhla area.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 10.

Download

Figure 10.Elements distribution contour maps in groundwater.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 11.

Download

Figure 11.Elements distribution contour maps in soil.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Fig 12.

Download

Figure 12.Elements distribution contour maps in Alfalfa plants.

Economic and Environmental Geology 2021; 54: 331-352https://doi.org/10.9719/EEG.2021.54.3.331

Table 1 . Physico-chemical data of groundwater samples.

S. no.	Ca mg/L	Mg mg/L	Na mg/L	K mg/L	HCO₃ mg/L	SO₄ mg/L	Cl mg/L	Pb μg/L	Cd mg/L	Ni mg/L	Zn mg/L	Cu mg/L
1	100	109	287.4	36.71	12.2	709.9	426	5.42	0.0001	0.3638	0.2873	0.0322
2	80.0	240	310.7	39.66	47.0	850.51	701	28.3	nd	0.476	0.4434	0.045
3	100	180	298.6	31.95	30.5	820.61	532.2	nd	nd	0.3544	0.2065	0.0312
4	100	48.0	37.0	24.35	152.5	376.16	28.4	6.32	nd	0.0347	nd	0.0129
5	70.0	39.6	19.6	26.28	122	177.78	85.2	5.24	nd	0.0343	nd	0.0087
6	40.0	90.0	172.1	22.88	122	215.76	379.8	nd	nd	0.0253	nd	0.0063
7	80.0	24.0	18.62	23.91	122	204.85	35.5	nd	nd	0.0204	nd	0.0061
8	140	60.0	102.4	26.73	30.5	612.53	106.5	30.9	0.0034	0.4512	0.1979	0.0172
9	70.0	60.0	85.0	19.53	42.7	385.05	138.4	40.9	0.0002	0.0422	nd	0.0116
10	60.0	20.4	18.3	28.51	122	147.07	28.4	17.8	0.0014	0.04	nd	0.0145
11	60.0	24.0	95.0	32.58	42.7	249.7	142	23.9	0.002	0.0348	nd	0.0139
Min	40.0	20.4	18.3	19.53	12.2	147.07	28.4	5.24	0.0001	0.0204	0.1979	0.0061
Max	140	240	310.7	39.66	152.5	850.51	701.0	40.90	0.0034	0.476	0.4434	0.045
Mean	81.82	81.36	131.34	28.46	76.92	431.81	236.6	19.85	0.0014	0.1706	0.2838	0.0181

S. no.	T °C	pH	LSI	RSI	EC μS/cm	TDS mg/L	TSS mg/L	TH mg/L	Na %
1	30	3.54	-5.1	14	3,465	1,739	0.048	699.2	49.03%
2	30	3.43	-4.7	13	3,403	1,704	0.081	1187	37.97%
3	27.5	4.06	-4.2	12	2,397	1,203	0.068	990.6	41.09%
4	28.9	6.61	-0.67	7.9	317	158	0.051	447.3	19.98%
5	27.5	6.65	-0.9	8.55	292	146	0.083	337.8	18.42%
6	30	6.37	-1.5	9.4	1,403	750	0.046	470.3	46.18%
7	29	6.36	-1.1	8.6	260	145	0.049	298.5	19.24%
8	30	5.78	-2.2	10.22	1,927	968	0.112	596.5	30.13%
9	30.3	6.46	-1.6	9.54	789	396	0.054	421.8	33.24%
10	28	6.66	-1.96	8.54	326	162	0.249	233.8	24.61%
11	29	6.69	-1.5	9.71	1,527	765	0.052	248.6	49.98%
Min	27.5	3.43	-5.1	7.9	260	145	0.046	233.8	18.42%
Max	30.3	6.69	-0.67	14	3,465	1,739	0.249	1,187	49.98%
Mean	28.80	5.69	-2.31	10.13	1,464.2	739.64	0.08	539.22	33.62%

Nd: not detected..

Table 2 . Chemical analyses and element concentrations of Alfalfa shoot system samples.

S. no.	Ca mg/kg	Mg mg/kg	Na mg/kg	K mg/kg	Fe mg/kg	Mn mg/kg	Cd mg/kg	Ni mg/kg	Pb mg/kg	Zn mg/kg
1	160	483	17,475.7	27,877.7	808.25	133.3	6.49	27.09	12.34	48.85
2	120	1166	3,151.97	27,882.2	343.45	42.12	0.32	14.51	2.90	41.54
3	160	611.6	25,893.8	28,349.2	392.69	32.05	0.63	11.57	3.16	34.36
4	120	1166	39,527.1	34,818.8	300.47	30.91	0.898	35.65	1.38	34.4
5	80	563	12,188.1	29,839.7	228.67	17.53	0.16	9.59	2.92	39.87
6	240	274.4	23,998.7	31,520.1	659.03	32.22	0.6	38.44	20.4	73.52
7	160	611.6	15,960.1	17,567.6	583.18	29.86	0.34	19.19	5.11	58.65
8	280	620.2	1,688.64	10,898	175.68	1.49	nd	nd	2.07	31.75
9	80	691.6	2,355.74	17,578	147.62	53.51	0.19	4.65	nd	29.26
10	160	740.2	696.573	18,203.1	116.13	5.75	nd	nd	0.85	29.35
11	240	788.8	541.568	10,866.6	152.09	6.89	nd	nd	2.15	20.13
Min	80	274.4	541.6	10,866.6	116.1	1.50	0.20	4.70	0.90	20.1
Max	280	1166	39,527.1	34,818.8	808.3	133.3	6.50	38.4	20.4	73.5
Mean	163.64	701.49	13,043.5	23,218.3	355.21	35.06	1.20	20.09	5.33	40.15

Nd: not detected..

Table 3 . Chemical analyses and element concentrations of the soil samples (mg/kg).

S. no.	Ca	Mg	Na	K	Fe	Mn	Cd	Ni	Pb	Zn
1	4,000	1,200	835.16	nd	18,616.74	53.56	0.0832	200.51	6.3574	64.5654
2	4,000	1,200	1,351.14	9,439.97	34,215.17	377.6	0.4488	85.97	6.136	115.729
3	6,000	2,400	1,330.05	6,637.85	40,829.43	288.83	0.4592	156.49	3.9866	174.517
4	6,000	2,400	1,006.87	7,503.61	20,339.41	217.88	0.4294	74.11	5.0704	48.411
5	6,000	4,800	1,312.41	12,906.3	49,434.55	124.28	0.5012	239.19	12.236	96.2224
6	6,000	1,200	2,057.2	2,927.33	34,541.16	46.07	0.221	78.44	16.042	127.688
7	8,000	1,200	1,077.67	1,066.23	33,831.79	89.57	0.3126	232.38	13.609	107.973
8	8,000	1,200	1,265.51	11,516.2	29,863.84	116.11	0.3738	101.507	7.3222	69.0046
9	4,000	2,400	1,010.72	17,060.1	24,713.32	200.06	0.3596	77.145	5.234	42.4298
10	6,000	3,600	763.85	7,873.99	16,114.2	32.03	0.426	15.6164	5.9396	43.3598
11	4,000	1,200	1,418.74	12,756.9	26,982.56	88.56	0.4052	40.7834	7.3194	60.592
Min	4,000	1,200	763.9	1,066.2	16,114.2	32.03	0.0832	15.62	3.987	42.43
Max	8,000	4,800	2057.2	17,060.1	49,434.6	377.6	0.5012	239.2	16.04	174.5
Mean	5,636.3	2,072.7	1,220.8	8,968.8	29,952.9	148.6	0.3655	118.4	8.114	86.41

Nd: not detected..

Table 4 . Chloro-alkaline indices (CAI1 and CAI2) and ion exchange process.

chloro-alkaline indices / S. no.	CAI 1	CAI 2	Ion exchange process
chloro-alkaline indices / S. no.	(C1^-) − (Na⁺ + K⁺)/(C1^-)	(C1^-) − (Na⁺ + K⁺) / (SO₄^2- + HCO₃^-)	Ion exchange process
1	-0.12	-0.09	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
2	0.27	0.28	Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
3	0.08	0.07	Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
4	-1.79	-0.14	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
5	0.37	0.15	Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
6	0.25	0.41	Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
7	-0.42	-0.07	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
8	-0.71	-0.16	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
9	-0.07	-0.03	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
10	-0.90	-0.14	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
11	-0.24	-0.16	Ca - Mg exchange Na - K

Table 5 . The percentage of hypothetical salt combination of the groundwater.

S. no.	KCl	NaCl	Na₂SO₄	MgCl₂	MgSO₄	CaSO₄	Ca(HCO₃)₂
1	3.4	41.1	4.5	0.0	32.8	17.5	0.7
2	2.7	35.3	0.0	13.7	37.9	8.4	2.0
3	2.4	38.6	0.0	5.0	39.1	13.4	1.5
4	5.6	1.6	12.8	0.0	35.3	22.2	22.5
5	8.1	10.3	0.0	11.3	28.1	17.5	24.7
6	3.4	42.8	0.0	16.1	26.3	0.0	11.4
7	8.3	5.5	5.5	0.0	26.7	26.5	27.5
8	4.0	14.6	11.6	0.0	28.9	37.8	3.1
9	4.0	26.8	2.4	0.0	39.1	22.2	5.5
10	11.8	1.9	10.9	0.0	27.1	14.2	34.1
11	8.4	32	9.6	0.0	19.9	23.0	7.1
Average	5.65	22.77	5.21	4.19	31.02	18.43	12.74

Oct 29, 2024 Vol.57 No.5, pp. 473~664

Current Issue Archives

Article Tools

Research Paper

Relationships of Chemical Elements and their Environmental Impacts in Groundwater, Soil, and Fodder Plants in Arid Land

Abstract

Article

Research Paper

Relationships of Chemical Elements and their Environmental Impacts in Groundwater, Soil, and Fodder Plants in Arid Land

Abstract

Fig 1.

Fig 2.

Fig 3.

Fig 4.

Fig 5.

Fig 6.

Fig 7.

Fig 8.

Fig 9.

Fig 10.

Fig 11.

Fig 12.

Article Tools

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

Related articles in KSEEG

The Effects of Organic, Inorganic, and Microbiological Stabilizers on the Transfer of Arsenic and Heavy Metals to Rice Plant

Geochemical Contamination Assessment and Distribution Property Investigation of Heavy Metals, Arsenic, and Antimony Vicinity of Abandoned Mine

Geochemical Occurrence Characteristics of Geogenic Heavy Metals in Korea Evaluated Using Geochemical Map Data