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

© THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY

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

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

Copyright © THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY.

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

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

    Fig 1.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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/LMg mg/LNa mg/LK mg/LHCO3 mg/LSO4 mg/LCl mg/LPb μg/LCd mg/LNi mg/LZn mg/LCu mg/L
    1100109287.436.7112.2709.94265.420.00010.36380.28730.0322
    280.0240310.739.6647.0850.5170128.3nd0.4760.44340.045
    3100180298.631.9530.5820.61532.2ndnd0.35440.20650.0312
    410048.037.024.35152.5376.1628.46.32nd0.0347nd0.0129
    570.039.619.626.28122177.7885.25.24nd0.0343nd0.0087
    640.090.0172.122.88122215.76379.8ndnd0.0253nd0.0063
    780.024.018.6223.91122204.8535.5ndnd0.0204nd0.0061
    814060.0102.426.7330.5612.53106.530.90.00340.45120.19790.0172
    970.060.085.019.5342.7385.05138.440.90.00020.0422nd0.0116
    1060.020.418.328.51122147.0728.417.80.00140.04nd0.0145
    1160.024.095.032.5842.7249.714223.90.0020.0348nd0.0139
    Min40.020.418.319.5312.2147.0728.45.240.00010.02040.19790.0061
    Max140240310.739.66152.5850.51701.040.900.00340.4760.44340.045
    Mean81.8281.36131.3428.4676.92431.81236.619.850.00140.17060.28380.0181
    S. no.T °CpHLSIRSIEC μS/cmTDS mg/LTSS mg/LTH mg/LNa %
    1303.54-5.1143,4651,7390.048699.249.03%
    2303.43-4.7133,4031,7040.081118737.97%
    327.54.06-4.2122,3971,2030.068990.641.09%
    428.96.61-0.677.93171580.051447.319.98%
    527.56.65-0.98.552921460.083337.818.42%
    6306.37-1.59.41,4037500.046470.346.18%
    7296.36-1.18.62601450.049298.519.24%
    8305.78-2.210.221,9279680.112596.530.13%
    930.36.46-1.69.547893960.054421.833.24%
    10286.66-1.968.543261620.249233.824.61%
    11296.69-1.59.711,5277650.052248.649.98%
    Min27.53.43-5.17.92601450.046233.818.42%
    Max30.36.69-0.67143,4651,7390.2491,18749.98%
    Mean28.805.69-2.3110.131,464.2739.640.08539.2233.62%

    Nd: not detected..


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

    S. no.Ca mg/kgMg mg/kgNa mg/kgK mg/kgFe mg/kgMn mg/kgCd mg/kgNi mg/kgPb mg/kgZn mg/kg
    116048317,475.727,877.7808.25133.36.4927.0912.3448.85
    212011663,151.9727,882.2343.4542.120.3214.512.9041.54
    3160611.625,893.828,349.2392.6932.050.6311.573.1634.36
    4120116639,527.134,818.8300.4730.910.89835.651.3834.4
    58056312,188.129,839.7228.6717.530.169.592.9239.87
    6240274.423,998.731,520.1659.0332.220.638.4420.473.52
    7160611.615,960.117,567.6583.1829.860.3419.195.1158.65
    8280620.21,688.6410,898175.681.49ndnd2.0731.75
    980691.62,355.7417,578147.6253.510.194.65nd29.26
    10160740.2696.57318,203.1116.135.75ndnd0.8529.35
    11240788.8541.56810,866.6152.096.89ndnd2.1520.13
    Min80274.4541.610,866.6116.11.500.204.700.9020.1
    Max280116639,527.134,818.8808.3133.36.5038.420.473.5
    Mean163.64701.4913,043.523,218.3355.2135.061.2020.095.3340.15

    Nd: not detected..


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

    S. no.CaMgNaKFeMnCdNiPbZn
    14,0001,200835.16nd18,616.7453.560.0832200.516.357464.5654
    24,0001,2001,351.149,439.9734,215.17377.60.448885.976.136115.729
    36,0002,4001,330.056,637.8540,829.43288.830.4592156.493.9866174.517
    46,0002,4001,006.877,503.6120,339.41217.880.429474.115.070448.411
    56,0004,8001,312.4112,906.349,434.55124.280.5012239.1912.23696.2224
    66,0001,2002,057.22,927.3334,541.1646.070.22178.4416.042127.688
    78,0001,2001,077.671,066.2333,831.7989.570.3126232.3813.609107.973
    88,0001,2001,265.5111,516.229,863.84116.110.3738101.5077.322269.0046
    94,0002,4001,010.7217,060.124,713.32200.060.359677.1455.23442.4298
    106,0003,600763.857,873.9916,114.232.030.42615.61645.939643.3598
    114,0001,2001,418.7412,756.926,982.5688.560.405240.78347.319460.592
    Min4,0001,200763.91,066.216,114.232.030.083215.623.98742.43
    Max8,0004,8002057.217,060.149,434.6377.60.5012239.216.04174.5
    Mean5,636.32,072.71,220.88,968.829,952.9148.60.3655118.48.11486.41

    Nd: not detected..


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

    chloro-alkaline
    indices / S. no.
    CAI 1CAI 2Ion exchange process
    (C1-) − (Na+ + K+)/(C1-)(C1-) − (Na+ + K+) / (SO42- + HCO3-)
    1-0.12-0.09Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    20.270.28Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
    30.080.07Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
    4-1.79-0.14Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    50.370.15Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
    60.250.41Na - K exchange Ca - Mg
    7-0.42-0.07Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    8-0.71-0.16Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    9-0.07-0.03Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    10-0.90-0.14Ca - Mg exchange Na - K
    11-0.24-0.16Ca - Mg exchange Na - K

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

    S. no.KClNaClNa2SO4MgCl2MgSO4CaSO4Ca(HCO3)2
    13.441.14.50.032.817.50.7
    22.735.30.013.737.98.42.0
    32.438.60.05.039.113.41.5
    45.61.612.80.035.322.222.5
    58.110.30.011.328.117.524.7
    63.442.80.016.126.30.011.4
    78.35.55.50.026.726.527.5
    84.014.611.60.028.937.83.1
    94.026.82.40.039.122.25.5
    1011.81.910.90.027.114.234.1
    118.4329.60.019.923.07.1
    Average5.6522.775.214.1931.0218.4312.74

    KSEEG
    Dec 29, 2023 Vol.56 No.6, pp. 629~909

    Stats or Metrics

    Share this article on

    • kakao talk
    • line

    Related articles in KSEEG

    Economic and Environmental Geology

    pISSN 1225-7281
    eISSN 2288-7962
    qr-code Download