Arsenic in Ground Water of the Willamette Basin, Oregon
Entry ID:
WRIR_98_4205
|
[
Update this Record
]
|
Updating this record requires registration.
|
Summary
Abstract:
The spatial distribution of arsenic concentrations in ground water of the Willamette Basin was assessed by analyzing data from 728 historical and project sites. Concentrations of arsenic ranged from < 1 to 2,000 mg/L (micrograms per liter). Concentrations in 58 (8.0 percent) of the samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 50 mg/L. ... Regionally, the distribution of arsenic concentrations appears to be primarily related to aquifer geology. High arsenic concentrations (concentrations exceeding the USEPA current MCL) are widespread in ground water in bedrock areas in south-central and eastern Lane County, and in eastern Linn County. High concentrations of arsenic also are occasionally detected in ground water in the Tualatin Basin. High arsenic concentrations in bedrock areas in Lane and Linn Counties appear to be associated with two regionally extensive associations of rocks: (1) the Fisher and Eugene Formations and correlative rocks, and (2) the undifferentiated tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt. These associations of rocks include extensive volumes of silicic (rhyolitic) volcanic blocks, which commonly are associated with high concentrations of arsenic. High arsenic concentrations in the Tualatin Basin are associated with alluvial deposits. At a regional scale, well depth does not appear to be a useful predictor of arsenic concentration in the Willamette Basin. Temporal variability in arsenic concentrations was characterized through quarterly sampling at 17 wells. Temporal variability ranged from very little to variation by nearly a factor of three. No obvious correlation with seasons was apparent. One possible explanation for observed temporal variability in arsenic concentrations is that the pumping history of the wells prior to sampling may have been variable. Variability in pumping history may have led to different sources of water being pumped, and thus, differences in water chemistry. The observed temporal variability in arsenic concentrations was generally small relative to spatial variability in the basin. Although the temporal variability in arsenic concentrations was small at most sites sampled in this study, it may be necessary to collect water samples under a variety of well-use conditions and seasons to adequately characterize arsenic concentrations when wells used for drinking water are being sampled. Water samples from five domestic wells were analyzed for arsenic species, and two additional analyses for arsenic species in ground water from the Willamette Basin were available in the literature. Arsenite was the predominant species of arsenic in six of these seven samples. Arsenite is more toxic than arsenate, and arsenite also is more difficult to remove from drinking-water supplies. Regional patterns of arsenic occurrence in the Willamette Basin indicate that the sources of arsenic in ground water are not human related. Arsenic-containing metal oxides, volcanic glass in volcanic rocks of rhyolitic to intermediate composition, and clays are likely sources. Evolution of high-arsenic ground water in bedrock areas of Lane and Linn Counties may be controlled in part by arsenic adsorption/desorption reactions that commonly control arsenic mobility. One or more of the following factors likely affect arsenic adsorption/desorption reactions in parts of these areas: (1) high pH, (2) presence of competing anions, and (3) occurrence of reducing conditions. For alluvial ground water of the Tualatin Basin, (1) presence of competing anions and (2) occurrence of reducing conditions may be important controlling factors in arsenic adsorption/desorption reactions. Dissolution of iron oxides, with subsequent release of adsorbed and (or) coprecipitated arsenic, also may play an important role in arsenic mobility in ground water of the Tualatin Basin. The area of study was the Willamette Basin, Oregon. Project samples from wells and springs used for evaluation of spatial distribution of arsenic were not filtered. Unfiltered samples, in addition to being more economical to collect than samples filtered through 0.45-5m (micrometer) filters, also have the advantage of being more representative of the water being consumed by most well owners. Another justification for collection of unfiltered samples is that many of the historical data, with which project data were combined, were from analyses of unfiltered samples. Furthermore, USEPA and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for water quality (see section "Comparisons with Water-Quality Criteria") apply to "finished water." For most project wells, which were primarily domestic wells, "finished water" generally is equivalent to unfiltered water. However, because unfiltered samples may contain more colloids and (or) more sediment entrained during pumping, unfiltered samples are less representative of water actually moving through an aquifer than are 00.45-5m-filtered samples. Thus, the use of unfiltered samples in characterization of ground-water quality represents an approximation. Additional, quantitative discussion on this topic is presented in the section, "Comparison of Processing and Analytical Methods." Of the 125 project wells used for evaluation of spatial distribution of arsenic, 116 were actively used domestic wells. The remaining 9 wells included 3 public-water-supply wells, 3 industrial wells, 2 irrigation wells, and 1 livestock well. Of these nine wells, those that were not actively used were purged a minimum of three casing volumes prior to sampling to remove standing water from the well. Samples from actively used wells were collected following a minimum purge time of 1 minute. Longer purge times, characteristic of most USGS ground-water-quality work, were deemed unnecessary for actively used wells in this project because these wells experienced a degree of regular purging from the frequent use of the wells. A resulting limitation, however, is that samples from these wells may lose arsenic by way of adsorption to iron casing or precipitation as ground water undergoes geochemical changes while residing in a well bore or casing. Thus, arsenic concentrations in samples from these wells may be biased toward low arsenic concentrations relative to water actually moving through the aquifer. The extent of this possible bias has not been quantified, but because these wells were actively used, this potential bias is likely to be small. Project samples collected from springs were collected from flowing springs. Fine sediment was present along with the water in several of the springs, so spring samples were filtered through 0.45-5m nominal-pore-size filters. Project wells sampled for evaluation of temporal variability in arsenic concentrations were actively used wells, sampled using the same methods as for project wells sampled for evaluation of spatial distribution of arsenic. Project wells sampled for arsenic speciation also were actively used wells. Samples were collected as unfiltered samples following a minimum well purge time of 1 minute. Samples were collected without headspace in brown glass vials, wrapped in aluminum foil (to prevent photooxidation), and shipped on ice to the laboratory. Eleven wells represented in the historical data set were resampled. All were actively used wells and were sampled using the same methods as for project wells sampled for evaluation of spatial distribution of arsenic. Samples for comparison between filtered and unfiltered samples, and comparison of USGS and USEPA methods, were collected from a subset of the wells sampled for temporal variability. Each 10-liter sample was split in the field by mechanical agitation into four subsamples. One subsample was filtered through a 0.10-5m nominal-pore-size 47-mm-diameter filter. One subsample was filtered through a 0.45-5m nominal-pore-size 142-mm-diameter filter. Two subsamples were collected as unfiltered samples. For each set of the four subsamples, both of the filtered samples and one of the unfiltered samples were analyzed by USGS methods (see section "Project Analytical Methods"). The other unfiltered sample was analyzed by USEPA methods (see section "Project Analytical Methods"). All arsenic samples, except samples collected for analysis of arsenic species, were field-acidified to below pH 2 with nitric acid. Samples for analysis of arsenic species were not acidified. All wells discussed in this report were assigned well location names corresponding to well locations. Well locations generally were determined when the wells were first visited. Well locations were identified using the Township, Range, and Section method of land subdivision. Two methods are shown on figure 2. Most wells were identified with a system that uses nested groups of the letters A, B, C, and D for section subdivision. Prior to about 1967, wells were identified with an alternative system, using letters A through R (excluding I and O) for section subdivision. To preserve linkage to historical data sources, all wells discussed in this report are referred to by the well location names originally assigned to them. It should be noted, however, that in some cases, the original well location names do not accurately describe the true locations of the wells. To provide accurate locational and identifying information for wells discussed in this report, corrected well locations, and additional identifying information (USGS site identification number and OWRD well log identification number), are listed along with original well locations in the Appendix. Note that in the project data report (Orzol and others, in press), wells are listed by corrected well location names. The information for this metadata was taken from the Online Publications of the Oregon District at http://oregon.usgs.gov/pubs_dir/online_list.html .
Geographic Coverage
(Click for Interactive Map)
Spatial coordinates
| |
N: 46.0
|
|
S: 43.5
|
|
E: -121.9
|
|
W: -123.5
|
Data Set Citation
Dataset Originator/Creator:
Stephen R. Hinkle and Daniel J. Polette
Dataset Title:
Arsenic in Ground Water of the Willamette Basin, Oregon
Dataset Release Date:
1999
Dataset Release Place:
Portland, Oregon
Dataset Publisher:
U.S. Geological Survey
Data Presentation Form:
database
Temporal Coverage
Start Date:
1996-01-01
Stop Date:
1997-01-01
Quality
All 12 project field equipment blanks yielded arsenic concentrations below the MRL of 1 5g/L. These results indicate that field and laboratory methods were noncontaminating. The coefficient of variation (CV) (standard deviation divided by mean, expressed in percent) for each of the six sets of project triplicate split samples ranged from ... 0.0 to 14 percent. The median CV was 6.0 percent. Analytical accuracy of project data was quantified with data from 11 SRSs. Analytical accuracy ranged from 92 to 110 percent for nine of the SRSs, but was 82 and 120 percent for the other two SRSs. In other words, reported concentrations were in error by up to about 120 percent. Contamination-free sampling and analysis, and reasonable analytical precision and accuracy, indicate that project data were adequate for definition of patterns of regional arsenic occurrence. However, because analytical accuracy was observed to range up to about 120 percent, definitive characterization of temporal variability at individual sites is compromised where temporal variability also is on the order of 120 percent or less. 
Access Constraints
None
Use Constraints
None
Data Set Progress
COMPLETE
Personnel
Role:
TECHNICAL CONTACT
Phone:
(503) 251-3237
Fax:
(503) 251-3470
Email:
srhinkle at usgs.gov
Contact Address:
U.S. Geological Survey
10615 SE Cherry Blossom Dr.
City:
Portland
Province or State:
Oregon
Postal Code:
97216
Country:
USA
Role:
DIF AUTHOR
Phone:
(301) 614-6898
Fax:
301-614-5268
Email:
Tyler.B.Stevens at nasa.gov
Contact Address:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Global Change Master Directory
City:
Greenbelt
Province or State:
MD
Postal Code:
20771
Country:
USA
Extended Metadata Properties
(Click to view more)
Creation and Review Dates
DIF Creation Date:
2001-06-27
Last DIF Revision Date:
2012-12-12
Future DIF Review Date:
2002-06-27
|
[
Update this Record
]
|
Updating this record requires registration.
|
|