USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20155148

Arsenic in groundwater of Licking County, Ohio, 2012—Occurrence and relation to hydrogeology

Abstract

Arsenic concentrations were measured in samples from 168 domestic wells in Licking County, Ohio, to document arsenic concentrations in a wide variety of wells and to identify hydrogeologic factors associated with arsenic concentrations in groundwater. Elevated concentrations of arsenic (greater than 10.0 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) were detected in 12 percent of the wells (about 1 in 8). The maximum arsenic concentration of about 44 µg/L was detected in two wells in the same township. A subset of 102 wells was also sampled for iron, sulfate, manganese, and nitrate, which were used to estimate redox conditions of the groundwater. Elevated arsenic concentrations were detected only in strongly reducing groundwater. Almost 20 percent of the samples with iron concentrations high enough to produce iron staining (greater than 300 µg/L) also had elevated concentrations of arsenic. In groundwater, arsenic primarily occurs as two inorganic species—arsenite and arsenate. Arsenic speciation was determined for a subset of nine samples, and arsenite was the predominant species. Of the two species, arsenite is more difficult to remove from water, and is generally considered to be more toxic to humans. Aquifer and well-construction characteristics were compiled from 99 well logs. Elevated concentrations of arsenic (and iron) were detected in glacial and bedrock aquifers but were more prevalent in glacial aquifers. The reason may be that the glacial deposits typically contain more organic carbon than the Paleozoic bedrock. Organic carbon plays a role in the redox reactions that cause arsenic (and iron) to be released from the aquifer matrix. Arsenic concentrations were not significantly different for different types of bedrock (sandstone, shale, sandstone/shale, or other). However, arsenic concentrations in bedrock wells were correlated with two well-construction characteristics; higher arsenic concentrations in bedrock wells were associated with (1) shorter open intervals and (2) deeper open intervals, relative to the water level. The spatial distribution of arsenic concentrations was compared to hydrogeologic characteristics of Licking County. Elevated concentrations of arsenic (and iron) were associated with areas of flat topography and thick (greater than 100 feet),clay-rich glacial deposits. These characteristics are conducive to development of strongly reducing redox conditions, which can cause arsenic associated with iron oxyhydroxides in the aquifer matrix to be released to the groundwater. Hydrogeologic characteristics conducive to the development of strongly reducing groundwater are relatively wide-spread in the western part of Licking County, which is part of the Central Lowland physiographic province. In this area, a thick layer of clay-rich glacial deposits obscures the bedrock surface and creates flat to gently rolling landscape with poorly developed drainage networks. In the eastern part of the county, which is part of the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province, the landscape includes steep-sided valleys and bedrock uplands. In this area, elevated arsenic concentrations were detected in buried valleys but not in the bedrock uplands, where glacial deposits are thin or absent. The observation that elevated concentrations of arsenic (and iron) were more prevalent in the western part of Licking County is true for both glacial and bedrock aquifers. In Licking County, thick, clay-rich glacial deposits (and elevated concentrations of arsenic) are associated with two hydrogeologic settings—buried valley and complex thick drift. Most wells in the buried-valley setting had low arsenic concentrations, but a few samples had very high concentrations (30–44 µg/L) and very reducing redox conditions (methanogenic and near-methanogenic). For wells in the complex-thick-drift setting, elevated arsenic concentrations are more prevalent, but the maximum concentration was lower (about 21 µg/L). Similar observations were made about arsenic concentrations in parts of southwestern Ohio. The hydrogeologic settings and characteristics associated with arsenic in Licking County also exist in other parts of Ohio. The statewide extent of these characteristics roughly corresponds to areas where elevated concentrations of arsenic are known to exist. This preliminary conceptual model can be tested and revised as additional wells are sampled for arsenic.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 39.95185892663003° to 40.50544628405211° latitude; -82.96875° to -81.89208984375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mary Ann Thomas. 2016-02-23. Arsenic in groundwater of Licking County, Ohio, 2012—Occurrence and relation to hydrogeology. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155148

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗