4.5 Article

Characterization of fracture connectivity in a siliciclastic bedrock aquifer near a public supply well (Wisconsin, USA)

期刊

HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 383-399

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-012-0914-7

关键词

Fractured rocks; Sedimentary rocks; Urban groundwater; Water supply; Hydrostratigraphy

资金

  1. US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Army Research Office [W911NF-10-1-0095]
  2. US Environmental Protection Agency Science to Achieve Results (STAR) [R834869]
  3. Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Veterans Memorial Scholarship Fund
  4. EPA [R834869, 150258] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to protect public supply wells from a wide range of contaminants, it is imperative to understand physical flow and transport mechanisms in the aquifer system. Although flow through fractures has typically been associated with either crystalline or carbonate rocks, there is growing evidence that it can be an important component of flow in relatively permeable sandstone formations. The objective of this work is to determine the role that fractures serve in the transport of near-surface contaminants such as wastewater from leaking sewers, to public supply wells in a deep bedrock aquifer. A part of the Cambrian aquifer system in Madison, Wisconsin (USA), was studied using a combination of geophysical, geochemical, and hydraulic testing in a borehole adjacent to a public supply well. Data suggest that bedrock fractures are important transport pathways from the surface to the deep aquifer. These fractured intervals have transmissivity values several orders of magnitude higher than non-fractured intervals. With respect to rapid transport of contaminants, high transmissivity values of individual fractures make them the most likely preferential flow pathways. Results suggest that in a siliciclastic aquifer near a public supply well, fractures may have an important role in the transport of sewer-derived wastewater contaminants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据