USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70021303

Effect of sewage sludge on formation of acidic ground water at a reclaimed coal mine

C.A. Cravotta
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Data on rock, ground water, vadose water, and vadose gas chemistry were collected for two years after sewage sludge was applied at a reclaimed surface coal mine in Pennsylvania to determine if surface-applied sludge is an effective barrier to oxygen influx, contributes metals and nutrients to ground water, and promotes the acidification of ground water. Acidity, sulfate, and metals concentrations were elevated in the ground water (6- to 21-m depth) from spoil relative to unmined rock because of active oxidation of pyrite and dissolution of aluminosilicate, carbonate, and Mn-Fe-oxide minerals in the spoil. Concentrations of acidity, sulfate, metals (Fe, Mn, Al, Cd, Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn), and nitrate, and abundances of iron-oxidizing bacteria were elevated in the ground water from sludge-treated spoil relative to untreated spoil having a similar mineral composition; however, gaseous and dissolved oxygen concentrations did not differ between the treatments. Abundances of iron-oxidizing bacteria in the ground water samples were positively correlated with concentrations of ammonia, nitrate, acidity, metals, and sulfate. Concentrations of metals in vadose water samples (<5-m depth) from sludge-treated spoil (pH 5.9) were not elevated relative to untreated spoil (pH 4.4). In contrast, concentrations of nitrate were elevated in vadose water samples from sludge-treated spoil, frequently exceeding 10 mg/L. Downgradient decreases in nitrate to less than 3 mg/L and increases in sulfate concentrations in underlying ground water could result from oxidation of pyrite by nitrate. Thus, sewage sludge added to pyritic spoil can increase the growth of iron-oxidizing bacteria, the oxidation of pyrite, and the acidification of ground water. Nevertheless, the overall effects on ground water chemistry from the sludge were small and probably short-lived relative to the effects from mining only.

Explore related subjects

GroundwaterArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 40.722° to 41.255° latitude; -78.8071° to -78.039° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C.A. Cravotta. 2005-08-04. Effect of sewage sludge on formation of acidic ground water at a reclaimed coal mine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb01061.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Computing flow-field distortion coefficients from well-construction and formation properties

Direct measurements of groundwater velocity made with borehole flowmeters in screened wells must be compensated for the effects of flow-field distortion (also known as borehole acceleration). A theoretical equation developed by Drost et al. (1968) and simple inputs describing hydraulic properties of well construction and geologic formation were programmed into an Excel workbook to facilitate computation by groundwater-flowmeter users. Tables describing the physical and hydraulic properties for well constructions and gravel pack media are provided with an example to facilitate use of the workbook. Groundwater flowlines converge or diverge as they pass from a geologic formation, through a gravel pack and well screen. The extent of flowline convergence or divergence and the value of the flow-field distortion coefficient is related to the relative changes in hydraulic conductivity of the well screen, gravel pack, and geologic formation. Convergence or divergence is accompanied by acceleration or deceleration of groundwater. Direct measurements of groundwater velocity at the center of the monitoring well can be adjusted to provide a more accurate estimate of velocity in the formation by applying a correction for flow-field distortion. Variables required to compute the flow-field distortion coefficient include the hydraulic conductivity of the gravel pack, well screen, and the geologic formation surrounding the well screen; the borehole radius, and the inside radius and outside radius of the well screen.

Groundwater↗
USGS2026

Deep groundwater total dissolved solids mapping in the Dakota Group, Williston Basin, USA

Growing concern about the quantity of available freshwater around the world has led to interest in surveying groundwater total dissolved solids (TDS) below water well depths. Deep TDS has not been systematically mapped, and there is much to learn about the distribution and controls on deeper groundwater. In sedimentary basins across the United States, groundwater resources often overlie hydrocarbon resources, providing an opportunity to use borehole geophysical data collected for hydrocarbons to characterize groundwater and pore space resources. This study adapts a recently developed subsurface geostatistical and geophysical modeling approach to continuously map groundwater TDS, porosity, and temperature in the Dakota Group of the Williston Basin—an undercharacterized regional aquifer system overlying deeper hydrocarbon reservoirs. Groundwater TDS in the Dakota Group ranges from approximately 4800 to 26,900 mg/L. TDS patterns are stratified with higher TDS in the lower and upper Dakota Group, and relatively lower TDS in the middle Dakota Group. The lower TDS in the middle zone may represent a preferential regional flow path for lower-TDS meteoric recharge from the west. The alternating pattern of TDS may also be evidence of higher-TDS inflows into the Dakota Group from underlying and potentially from overlying aquifers. Porosity is lower near the center of the Williston Basin and tends to be higher to the east, which may be related to grain size distributions. The new regional TDS and porosity modeling serves as a quantitative reference for water users and provides supporting evidence for hypotheses on Dakota Group recharge.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗