ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER INTERACTION …jestec.taylors.edu.my/Vol 15 issue 1 February 2020/15_1_31.pdf · Assessment of Surface and Groundwater Interaction using Field

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 15, No. 1 (2020) 406 - 425 © School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

406

ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER INTERACTION USING FIELD MEASUREMENTS:

A CASE STUDY OF DAIRUT CITY, ASSUIT, EGYPT

AHMED AWAD1,2, HAZEM ELDEEB3,*, MUSTAFA EL-RAWY4,5

1Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, Egypt 2College of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, Yangzhou University,

Yangzhou 225009, China 3Water and Water Structures Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,

Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt 4Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, Minia 61111, Egypt

5Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Shaqra University,

11911, Dawadmi, Ar Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

Egypt’s current water security situation is weak, having a deficit of about 30 billion

cubic metres of water. Many alternatives have been introduced to face water

scarcity. Developing water control structures is an important solution to manage

water resources. Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation intended to

replace the existing regulators at Dairut city with a new one. A design requirement

for the new barrage is that water levels in front of the existing barrages will be

approximately 0.60 m higher than the present one. This may cause a rise in

groundwater levels, which lead to an increase in the seepage flow from the canals

surrounding the new project. The main goal of this study is to assess the surface and

groundwater interaction using field measurements and water quality for the area

around the project of New Dairut Group Regulators (NDGRs). Furthermore,

thirteen piezometers have been installed in the study area to measure groundwater

levels and quality. Results showed that a confined aquifer is underlying the study

area and there is a hydraulic connection between surface water and groundwater.

The results showed that there is a decline in water level at wells W2 and W10 during

the winter closure by 2.2 m and 2.0 m respectively when the water level of

Ibrahimia canal at the upstream of DGRs decreased by 3.7 m, which indicated that

the aquifer was connected hydraulically with canals. Water quality results indicated

that about 61.5% of the groundwater samples are slightly saline (TDS > 1000 mg/l),

while 38.5% of the samples are freshwater with TDS < 1000 mg/l. The factor

analysis produced three factors, which described 93.69% of the total variance. The

results show that the concentrations of pH do not donate to all other parameters.

This study recommended that a sewerage system is needed to protect groundwater

from contamination in the study area.

Keywords: Field measurements, Surface water-groundwater interaction, Water

quality.

mailto:[email protected]

407 A. Awad et al.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology February 2020, Vol. 15(1)

1. Introduction

Egypt is an arid country having some limited water resources that need more

development in order to be able to face water scarcity. According to the world bank

international database in the last two years, Egypt has an annual population growth

rate about 1.9% to 2.01%, which affects significantly the water demand due to

increase in water requirements for domestic and agricultural consumptions [1].

Moreover, increasing of in-managed human activities led to massive pollution of

surface and groundwater. Furthermore, some of water control structures on Egyptian

irrigation network worn out and lost its ability to control the flow, which results in a

low control on the irrigation process. Another big challenge is the Grand Ethiopian

Renaissance Dam (GERD) and its potential impacts on downstream countries that

have been the source of severe regional controversy. Thus, all policies in Egypt must

be conscious of the severe limitations in water availability.

Many policies have been suggested to face water scarcity in Egypt with a main

intrinsic aim, which is achieving the optimal use of available resources. A set of

strategies are proposed such as; using pipelines in transferring water to the new lands

especially where highly permeable soils are, introducing new technologies for canal

maintenance and weed control and setting up some irrigation improvement projects,

which including rehabilitating and renewing water control structures.

One of the main water control structures in Egypt is Dairut Group of Regulators

(DGRs), which were constructed in 1871 at the centre of Dairut city, Assuit

governorate. Due to the appearance of some cracks, which may cause problems for

the stability of the structure, as a quick and studied response, Egyptian Ministry of

Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) intended to replace the existing barrages

at Dairut city with a new one in order to enhance the management of water

distribution process. Regarding design requirements and the nature of the site,

upstream water levels of the new regulators will be approximately 0.60 m higher

than the present ones [2]. This may cause a rise in groundwater levels, which may

cause increasing the seepage flow from the canals surrounding the new project

towards the adjacent agricultural lands and villages. Moreover, it may affect the

drainage process by impedance its outflow, which lead the drainage conditions to

be adversely affected in the so-called impacted regions, which encompass

floodplains on both sides of these canals. Furthermore, a rise in groundwater levels

may cause an overlap between it and sewage tanks that are widespread down the

houses in the city. Therefore, the groundwater quality may be affected as a result

of project implementation [2].

From the field survey, it was already reported that residents are suffering from

the wet ground in their houses [2]. Considering Dairut city becomes urbanized these

days, the rise in canal water level upstream the New Dairut Group of NDGRs may

bring more adverse impact to a larger number of residents. Thus, before the

construction of NDGRs, the interaction between surface water and groundwater

must be studied to assess the extent of groundwater rise and its effect on the urban

area. Also, the water quality needed to be assessed.

Many techniques have been used by many authors to investigate the interaction

between surface water and groundwater like seepage meters, field observations,

ecological indicators, hydrogeological mapping, geophysics and remote sensing,

hydrographic analysis, hydrometric analysis, hydrochemistry and environmental

tracers, artificial tracers, temperature studies, water budgets and modelling [3].

Assessment of Surface and Groundwater Interaction using Field . . . . 408


Simple methods such as field observations, field chemistry survey or streamflow

measurements can give valuable information in terms of providing a catchment-

scale perspective on connectivity as well as targeting areas for more detailed

investigation. Site-specific investigations using simple tools such as seepage

meters, mini piezometers, temperature loggers or environmental tracers provide

more detail in terms of understanding and quantifying key processes [4].

El-Rawy et al. [5] investigated different management scenarios of conjunctive

use of groundwater and surface water using MODFLOW 2005. The results

indicated that the analyses of aquifer response to various scenarios of treated

wastewater (TWW) discharge and well abstraction contributed to the proper

development of irrigated agriculture in the river basin. The study recommended

that increasing groundwater resources by both banking of the TWW and water use

management will allow more agricultural activities that would result in a better

income for farming communities. Thermal infrared remote sensing technique was

used by Rautio et al. [6] to assess groundwater and surface water interaction and

the results of this study support the use of TIR imagery in GW-SW interaction and

environmental studies in extensive and remote areas. Salem et al. [7] studied the

interaction between surface and groundwater in an Oxbow of the Drava floodplain,

Hungary using MODFLOW 2005.

Lin et al. [8] used groundwater modelling to assess the interaction between

groundwater and surface water. Using heat as a tracer was conducted by Carlos

Duque et al. [9] to estimate groundwater discharge to surface waters in low flux

environments. Results show that the natural changeability of sediment thermal

conductivity is a factor to be studied for low flux environments, and it contributes

to a better understanding of surface-groundwater interactions in natural

environments. Martinez et al. [10] used the long-term hydrochemical records and

isotope hydrology in order to assess surface and groundwater interaction. This

study shows the efficacy of an integrated approach combining long-term

hydrochemical data interpreted via multivariate statistics, hydraulic water level

records and stable and radiogenic isotope hydrology for the determination of

surface water-groundwater interactions in headwater catchments. Brindha et al.

[11] identified surface and groundwater interaction by hydrogeochemical

indicators. Baalousha [12] used field measurements and numerical modelling to

characterise the surface and groundwater interaction. In this study, the interaction

between surface and groundwater were investigated using field measurements

through installing thirteen piezometers in order to study the effect of the (0.6 m) rise

in surface water on the adjacent areas. Field measurements including time-series

monitoring data for groundwater levels in the piezometers, surface water levels in

adjacent canals and water quality will be studied.

2. Material and Methodology

2.1. Study area

The study area located at Dairut city, Assuit governorate, Egypt as shown in Fig.

1. Dairut is located on the west bank of the River Nile and considered one of the

biggest cities in Assuit. It contains more than 70 villages. According to the location

from Ibrahimia canal, Dairut is divided into east and west Dairut. The climate in

Dairut is called a desert climate.

409 A. Awad et al.


(a) General location.

(b) Dairut zone. (c) Irrigation canals in study area.

Fig. 1. Study area map [2].

2.2. Hydrogeological features

Geological structures around Dairut city feature an erosion valley striding over 15

to 20 km beyond the river terrace [2]. As mentioned by Said [13] the geological

field survey of the study area is shown in Fig. 2 [13].

The target aquifer for the monitoring is regarded as “confined or semi-confined

(multi-layered) aquifer” composed of a coning silty-clay surficial layer and

permeable layers of sandy and gravely sediment, especially at the depth of 20 to 25

m where unconsolidated coarse sand dominants. Although the aquifer is confined

for most areas due to impermeable silt layer on the surface, the sand layer is

exposed on the bottom of canals (Ibrahimia and Bar Yousfey, as shown in Fig. 2,

in some areas, which seems to indicate that the target aquifer can have a direct

connection with canals to a certain extent. Therefore, the type of aquifer in the study

area can be evaluated as a confined aquifer recharged by canal water. The annual

lowest level of canal water observed was EL 43.7 in Ibrahimia canal from

September 2015 to October 2016 not counting the winter-closure period (January

to February 2015). The groundwater level (or head) is observed to be in the range

of 1.5 to 8.5 m below the ground surface.



Fig. 2. Geology of the study area along NDGRs axis line, section (A-A) [2].

2.3. Materials and methodology

Seven canals surround the study area (Ibrahimia, Sahelya, Dairoutiah, Badraman,

Bahr Youssef, Abu Gabal and Irad Delgaw) as shown in Fig. 3. In order to assess

surface and groundwater interaction, thirteen piezometers were installed around the

study area with a depth of 30 m, which is enough to reach the aquifer. Piezometers

locations have been chosen by the way to cover all areas between canals as much

as possible especially for residential areas as it is the most sensitive areas if any

increase in groundwater levels occurs. It must be checked carefully because any

increase in groundwater levels may cause an interaction between the aquifer and

human-made sewage tanks.

The groundwater monitoring was simultaneously carried out for all

monitoring wells. It was implemented twice a month along a study period from

December 2015 to April 2019 for four items (Groundwater level, Electric

Conductivity (EC), Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and Power of Hydrogen (pH)).

Moreover, these items have been measured for the canals. For a detailed water

quality study, two groundwater samples were collected twice a year from

piezometers (W1 and W4), which located on the axis line of (NDGRs) to measure

some physical, chemical and hydro-chemical properties, in addition, to trace

element and heavy minerals as follows:

A

A

411 A. Awad et al.


Fig. 3. Locations of the thirteen piezometers around canals.

Measurement of some physical and chemical properties like temperature, pH,

EC, turbidity, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Total Suspended Solid (TSS),

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), CO3,

HCO3, Total Alkalinity. Hydro-chemical properties include the measurement of

Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Chloride (Cl),

Sulphate (SO4)-2.

Trace Element and heavy minerals include the measurement of Nitrate (NO3),

Nitrite (NO2), Phosphate (PO4)-3, Sulphate (S), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Iron

(Fe), Manganese (Mn), Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), Zink (Zn).

Also, the water quality for irrigation such as percent sodium (Na%), sodium

adsorption ratio (SAR), and (MAR) were assessed and compared with standard

limits. The statistical parameters such as minimum, maximum, average values of

result analysis of these well waters were calculated using the statistical package for

Excel sheets. The water samples are classified according to the irrigation water

criteria. These factors were calculated using the following equations [14-16].

2 2

2

NaSAR

Ca Mg

+

+ +=

+

(1)

2 2% 100

Na KNa

Na K Ca Mg

+ +

+ + + +

+=

+ + + (2)

2

2 2% 100

MgMAR

Ca Mg

+

+ +=

+ (3)

The groundwater levels were measured using Solint Water level Meter. The pH,

DO and EC values are measured using YSI EcoSense pH100A meter, YSI

EcoSense DO200A dissolved oxygen meter and YSI EcoSense EC300A



conductivity meter, respectively. While the other groundwater quality parameters

are collected and analysed in the laboratory.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Groundwater and surface water levels

The variation of groundwater levels in monitoring wells with time is shown in Fig.

4. It is clear that the amount and tendency of rising or drop in groundwater level

almost have the same behaviour in all monitoring wells.

During winter closure season, in which, Ministry of Water Resource and

Irrigation (MWRI) sets the maintenance period for irrigation facilities every year

from the end of December to the middle of January, groundwater levels at each

monitoring well suddenly dropped corresponding to the sudden change in canal

water level. Therefore, the results indicate that the aquifer is confined affected by

the canal water by a certain hydraulic connection.

Fig. 4. Variation of groundwater levels for thirteen monitoring wells with time.

Highest groundwater levels recorded during the study period was 43.71m and

44.22 m on 27th July, 2016 for monitoring wells W12 and W8, respectively. On 18th

January, 2017, lowest groundwater levels were recorded as 41.55 m and 42.03m

for monitoring wells W12 and W10, respectively.

Thus, a seasonal change in groundwater levels in the study area is about 2.2

m. The study area has been divided into four zones based on the locations of

canals. The first zone is upstream of DGRs where piezometers (W11 and W12)

located. Figure 5, shows the variation of surface and groundwater levels with

respect to time.

Groundwater levels at piezometers (W11 and W12) changed with the same

manner of rising or drop as the surface water level in Ibrahimia canal. During winter

closure season, groundwater levels in these wells dropped by 2.1 m and 2.2 m for

W11 and W12 respectively when the surface water level in the upstream of

413 A. Awad et al.


Ibrahimia canal decreased by 3.7 m. This reflects that groundwater levels in W11

and W12 are strongly affected by water canals.

Figure 6 shows the variation of groundwater and surface water levels for the

second zone, which is the area between Irad Delgaw and Abo Gabal canals.

Groundwater levels at W2 and W10 are fluctuating at almost the same level.

The decrease in water level at wells W2 and W10 during the winter closure was

2.2 m and 2.0 m respectively when the canal water level for Ibrahimia canal at the

upstream of DGRs decreased by 3.7 m.

Fig. 5. Variations of groundwater levels for piezometers (W11, W12)

and surface water levels for Ibrahimia canal (US of DGRs).

Fig. 6. Groundwater-surface water levels (area

between Abu Gabal and Irad Delgaw canals).



The area between Abu Gabal and Bahr Youssef canals represents the third zone,

where piezometers (W1, W3, W7 and W9) are located. Water levels at the piezometers

W9 and W7 are a little higher than the ones at W1 and W3, showing 0.1m difference

in almost all the times. The sudden decrease in water levels at the Bahr Yusef canal

during the winter closure caused decreasing the groundwater levels in the

piezometers, which indicate that the aquifer may be connected hydraulically with

canals, see Fig. 7. From the water level records measured at canal gauges and

groundwater monitoring wells, it is considered that canal water flows (recharges) to

groundwater body in the summer (high water season), while in the winter (low water

level season), groundwater flows back (discharges) to canals.

The fourth zone is located between Sahelya canal and the downstream of

Ibrahimia canal. Groundwater levels at piezometers W4, W5, W6 and W8 are

fluctuating at almost the same level, whereas W13 located about 350 m from

surrounding canals has 0.2m to 0.3m lower water level than the other monitoring

wells. During the winter closure, sudden decrease in water levels at the Ibrahimia

canal clearly caused decreasing in groundwater level, Fig. 8. According to the result

of the geological survey, the Nile silt layer is not covered in this area but covered

by the fine sand. This indicates that the hydraulic connection connecting the aquifer

and canals could be included in this zone.

Figure 9 shows the distribution of groundwater head contour map in the study

area on 27th July 2016 (as high water-demand season) and 18th January 2017 (as

low water-demand season) respectively. The flow direction is generally toward the

southeast even though the direction is a little different in July (flowing toward more

south direction) and in January (flowing toward more east direction) depending on

the canal water level. The area where the piezometric surface shows higher levels

is located downstream of Ibrahimia and Bahr Youssef canals (W7 and W9 for the

Bahr Youssef canal and W4 and W6 for the Ibrahimia). This indicates that there are

recharge sources of the confined aquifer somewhere at the downstream of these

main canals (such as recharge from the canal, sewage tank, and sewage disposal

hole). Therefore, in order to reproduce the actual distribution, some recharge

sources must be considered.

Fig. 7. Groundwater-surface water levels (area

between Abu Gabal and Bahr Youssef canals).

415 A. Awad et al.


Fig. 8. Groundwater-surface water levels

(area between Ibrahimia-DS and Sahelya canals).

(a) 14th July 2016 (highest level). (b) 2nd January 2017 (lowest level).

Fig. 9. Groundwater head distribution maps.

3.2. Groundwater and surface water quality

The average, minimum and maximum values of pH, DO and TDS for all

piezometers during the study period and the related standard limit according to

Egyptian water quality standard are presented in Tables 1 to 3.

The values of pH range from 6.38 as the minimum to 8.70 as the maximum value.

According to Egyptian standards, all groundwater samples are acceptable for drinking

purposes except the samples from piezometers W5 and W8. Groundwater sample

from piezometer W5 showed an alkaline behaviour with a pH value of 8.70 on 29th

June 2016.

Thus, we can expect that the value of TDS for this sample on the same date is low

because of the alkaline behaviour, which may cause an absence of acids. Referring to



monitoring results, the value of TDS for piezometer W5 on 29th June 2016 was 266

mg/l, which is already low value compared with other values of TDS. pH value for

piezometer W8 was 6.38, which are below Egyptian standards for drinking purposes

and though, not acceptable.

The values of DO for groundwater samples show a conclusive result without

any exceptions that all samples are out of Egyptian standards for drinking purposes.

Moreover, all values of DO are lower than the Egyptian standards.

When DO values are low, the values of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

are high because the available oxygen in water is being consumed by the bacteria.

And therefore, organic pollution is involved in groundwater samples. This result is

mostly due to lack of operation of the sewage system in Dairut city and so most of

the residents depend on sewage tanks.

Dissolved solids refer to any minerals, salts, metals, cations or anions dissolved

in water, while TDS comprise inorganic salts (principally calcium, magnesium,

potassium, sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides, and sulphates) and some small

amounts of organic matter that are dissolved in water. Maximum TDS value

obtained is 1553 mg/l for piezometer W3, while piezometer W6 shows the

minimum value of TDS 215 mg/l.

As shown in Tables 1 to 3, values of TDS more than 500 mg/l are not acceptable

according to Egyptian standards. Thus, all piezometers except W4 and W5 are out

of Egyptian standards and therefore, not acceptable. All high values of TDS were

recorded from piezometers located in narrow and full of population streets. This

mainly can be because of sewage tanks, which are used by residents in Dairut city.

Table 1. Minimum, average and maximum values for

pH for all piezometers water samples in the study area.

Well

no.

pH

Minim

um

Aver

age Maximum Reference

W1 7.05 7.50 7.83

6.5

- 8

.5

acco

rdin

g t

o E

gy

pti

an s

tand

ard

s

W2 7.04 7.53 7.94

W3 6.84 7.43 7.95

W4 7.37 8.03 8.40

W5 7.00 7.94 8.70

W6 7.30 7.83 8.20

W7 7.26 7.68 8.00

W8 6.38 7.56 8.05

W9 7.45 7.88 8.50

W10 7.00 7.70 8.30

W11 6.85 7.43 7.91

W12 7.00 7.57 8.13

W13 6.70 7.20 7.57

417 A. Awad et al.



DO for all piezometers water samples in the study area.

Well

no.

DO

Minimum Average Maximum Reference

W1 1.20 2.22 3.30

Min

imu

m 6

acco

rdin

g t

o D

ecre

e 9

2/2

013

W2 1.30 2.03 3.10

W3 0.38 1.61 2.90

W4 1.27 2.09 4.56

W5 1.35 2.25 3.26

W6 1.30 2.21 3.03

W7 1.34 2.02 3.20

W8 1.55 2.04 2.70

W9 1.10 2.01 3.50

W10 1.50 2.25 4.50

W11 0.83 2.06 2.80

W12 0.25 1.75 2.83

W13 0.74 1.73 2.90


TDS for all piezometers water samples in the study area.

Well

no.

TDS

Minimum Average Maximum Reference

W1 915 1106 1181

Max

imu

m 5

00

acco

rdin

g t

o E

gy

pti

an s

tand

ard

s

W2 484 906 1299

W3 570 1157 1553

W4 228 261 306

W5 217 272 332

W6 215 343 765

W7 621 814 1114

W8 317 682 1124

W9 573 654 747

W10 447 592 723

W11 461 962 1111

W12 703 904 1075

W13 963 1099 1373

Figure 10 shows the distribution of dissolved Oxygen DO, also the pH in

groundwater wells. The average values of DO range from 1.61 to 2.25 ppm

whereas, the average values of pH range from 6.38 to 8.03 ppm.

As shown in Table 4, the most remarkable characteristics in the groundwater

quality are the values of EC for groundwater samples from piezometers W4, W5

and W6 are relatively close to that obtained from the canal water although values

of DO and pH having some fluctuation. Furthermore, with a small tendency,

piezometers W4, W7 and W13 have the same behaviour. This implies that the area

where those piezometers are located is recharged by the canal water.



Table 4. Average values for EC, pH and DO for water

samples in piezometers W4, W5 and W6 and the canal.

Well/canal TDS

(mg/l) pH

DO

(mg/l)

W4 306 8.03 2.09

W5 332 7.94 2.25

W6 765 7.83 2.21

Canal 204 8.76 8.27

Figure 11 shows the distribution maps for TDS on 14th July 2016 (Fig. 11(a),

highest level) and 2nd January 2017 (Fig. 11(b), lowest level). It is observed that

low values of TDS obtained around W4, W5, W6 and W8 at any time. These low

TDS values are similar to the surface water (Ibrahimia canal: around 240 mg/l),

which indicates that there is a hydraulic connection between the surface water and

groundwater around this area.

The other TDS values are more than 750 mg/l, and the groundwater sample

smelled hydrogen sulphate. These facts indicate that the aquifer is also recharged

by the sewage water. The results indicate that the urbanized area has higher TSD

values matching with red colour.

(a) Distribution of dissolved

oxygen (DO) ppm. (b) Distribution of pH ppm.

Fig. 10. Groundwater wells.

419 A. Awad et al.


(a) 14th July 2016

(highest level).

(b) 2nd January 2017 (lowest level).

Fig. 11. TDS distribution maps.

4. Evaluation of groundwater quality for irrigation purposes

The suitability of groundwater for irrigation is restricted to the effects of mineral

elements of water on both the plant and soil. The excessive quantity of dissolved

ions in irrigation water affects plants and agricultural soil physically and

chemically, thus, reducing productivity. Therefore, the determination of irrigation

water quality in the plain is gaining importance. Hence, various classifications (EC,

TDS, Na%, SAR, ESR) have been made to determine the irrigation water quality

for wells in different periods.

4.1. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

There is a significant relationship between SAR values of irrigation water and the

extent to which, sodium is adsorbed by the soils [17]. Also, the measurement of

salinity hazard is based on electrical conductivity, and it evaluates the SAR. The SAR

values for W1 range from 24.16 to 26.20 with an average of 25.18. Also, W4 range

from 6.18 to 7.38 with an average of 6.78. According to the SAR classification [18-

21], Table 5, W4 generally suitable for use because its SAR values are < 10 meq/l,

but well 1 generally unsuitable for use because its SAR values are > 10 meq/l.

Table 5. Quality of irrigation water based on SAR.

SAR

values

Sodium

hazard of

water

Comments Well

1˗10 Low Use on sodium-sensitive crops such as avocados

must be cautioned W4

10˗18 Medium Amendments (such as gypsum) and leaching needed -

18˗26 High Generally unsuitable for continuous use W1

> 26 Very High Generally unsuitable for use -



4.2. Sodium percentage (Na%)

Sodium concentration considered an important element in evaluating the

groundwater quality for irrigation because sodium causes an increase in the

hardness of soil as well as a reduction in its permeability [22-24]. The Na% values

for the two wells (W1 and W4) range from 45.33 to 62.20% with an average value

of 53.77%. According to the Na% classification, W1 is doubtful, while W4 is

permissible, see Table 6.

4.3. Magnesium adsorption ratio (MAR)

The MAR values exceeding 50 meq/l are considered harmful and unsuitable for

irrigation use. When the value is < 50 meq/l, groundwater is suitable for

irrigation. MAR for W1 range from 12.41 to 26.95 meq/l, also MR for W4 range

from 24.39 to 24.44 meq/l, as presented in Table 6. Hence, wells W1 and W4 are

suitable for irrigation uses.

Table 6. Hydrogeochemical characteristics for all samples of wells 1 and 4 in

study area (mg/l) with calculated SAR (meq/l), MAR (meq/l) and Na %.

Units W1 W1 W4 W4

Na+

ppm

220 200 35 28 K+ 12 16 4 6 Ca++ 103 120 34 31 Mg++ 38 17 11 10 Cl- 269 265 28 21 Hco3

- 574 220 178 138 So4

-- 20 210 13 21 Mn 0.163 1.515 0.004 0.445 Fe 0.08 0.162 0.238 0.119 pH 7.8 7.4 7.92 8.15 TDS 1160 1075 269 245 EC μ S 1812 1680 421 383 SAR epm 26.2 24.16 7.38 6.18 MAR

% 26.95 12.41 24.44 24.39

Na 62.2 61.19 46.43 45.33

4.4. Correlation coefficient matrix

The correlation coefficient is a commonly used measure to establish the relationship

between two variables. It is simply a measure to exhibit how well one variable

predicts the other. The correlation matrices for EC, TDS, TH, and major ions were

prepared and illustrate, Table 7, that pH show a poor correlation with EC, TDS, TH,

Ca, Na, K, SO4, HCO3 and Cl- but show a Low correlation with Mg.

In particular, EC shows a high correlation with TDS, TH, but show a low

correlation with Ca, Cl-, Na, K, SO4, HCO3 and Mg. In particular, TDS values show

a high correlation with TH but show a low correlation with Ca, Cl-, Na, K, SO4, HCO3

and Mg. In particular, TH shows a low correlation with Ca, Cl-, Na, K, SO4, HCO3

and Mg. In particular, Ca shows a high correlation with Na, K, SO4, HCO3 and Mg.

421 A. Awad et al.


In particular, Mg shows a high correlation with Cl-, Na, K, HCO3 and Mg, but

shows a low correlation with SO4. In particular, Na shows a high correlation with Cl-

, K, HCO3 and Mg. In particular, K shows a high correlation with SO4, HCO3 and Cl-

. In particular, SO4 show a high correlation with Cl-, but show a low correlation with

HCO3. In particular, Cl- show a high correlation with Hco3 from the correlation

analysis can be found information about the source of major ions; the close

relationship between Ca-Mg-SO4 can reflect the source of Ca, Mg, and SO4 and may

be related to sulphate minerals (gypsum), and the relationships between Na-K-Cl are

implications for dissolution of chloride minerals; then, the relationships between Na-

K-HCO3 are implications for the weathering of silicate minerals.

Table 7. Correlation coefficient matrix of water quality parameters.

Variables pH EC TDS TH Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl HCO3

pH 1

EC -0.768 1

TDS -0.768 1.000 1

TH -0.675 0.988 0.988 1

Ca -0.319 0.335 0.335 0.315 1

Mg 0.060 0.173 0.173 0.222 0.767 1

Na -0.373 0.483 0.483 0.478 0.960 0.745 1

K -0.258 0.268 0.268 0.242 0.966 0.647 0.926 1

SO4 -0.482 0.280 0.280 0.202 0.750 0.191 0.666 0.803 1

Cl -0.399 0.492 0.492 0.481 0.944 0.674 0.994 0.928 0.706 1

HCO3 -0.037 0.246 0.246 0.286 0.790 0.809 0.856 0.776 0.279 0.831 1

4.5. Multivariate statistical analysis

The principal component analysis (PCA), a statistical procedure, results along with

factor loading values and percentage of variance for 13 wells are presented in Table

8. An Eigenvalue offers a degree of the significance of the factor [25-27], the factor

with the highest eigenvalues are the most important. Eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater

are considered important. Factor loading is classified as strong, moderate and weak

corresponding to absolute loading values of 0.75, 0.75-0.50 and 0.50-0.30,

respectively [28].

F1 having Eigenvalue with 6.544 and 59.49% of the variance, see Table 8.

It is reported that eigenvalue of 6.544 and variance of 59.49% have high

loadings on Ca, Na, K, HCO3 and Cl-, moderate loadings on EC, TDS, TH, SO4

and Mg and low loadings on pH. F2 having eigenvalue of 2.701 and 24.558%

of the variance.

It is reported that eigenvalue with 2.701 and variance of 24.558% have

moderate loadings on pH, weak loadings on Ca, K, Mg and HCO3, low loadings on

Na, SO4 and Cl- and weak loadings on EC, TDS and TH. F3 having Eigenvalue

with 1.061 and 9.642% of the variance. It is reported that eigenvalue of 1.061 and

variance of 9.642% has low loadings on Mg and weak loadings on EC, TDS, TH,

Ca, Na, K, SO4, HCO3, Cl- and pH.



Table 8. Factor analysis.

Factor F1 F2 F3

PH -0.523 0.600 0.299

EC 0.663 -0.740 0.111

TDS 0.663 -0.740 0.111

TH 0.646 -0.708 0.224

Ca 0.922 0.359 -0.085

Mg 0.649 0.420 0.428

Na 0.973 0.222 0.047

K 0.878 0.404 -0.188

SO4 0.686 0.130 -0.715

Cl 0.965 0.194 -0.021

HCO3 0.760 0.406 0.391

Eigenvalue 6.544 2.701 1.061

Variability (%) 59.493 24.558 9.642

Cumulative (%) 59.493 84.051 93.693

5. Conclusions

The study area is located in Dairut city, Egypt. Seven canals surround the study

area (Ibrahimia, Sahelya, Dairoutiah, Badraman, Bahr Youssef, Abu Gabal and Irad

Delgaw). In order to assess surface and groundwater interaction, thirteen

piezometers were installed around the study area with a depth of 30 m. The time-

series groundwater level, EC, pH and DO data are studied. The results show that

the aquifer in the study area is confined, but there is a hydraulic connection in some

zones where the aquifer connects with canal water. Moreover, water quality results

show that the values of pH, DO and EC for piezometers W4, W5, W6 and W9 are

almost the same as the values of canal water. The results indicated that there is a

decrease in water level at wells W2 and W10 during the winter closure by 2.2 m

and 2.0 m respectively when the water level of Ibrahimia canal at the upstream of

DGRs decreased by 3.7 m, which indicated that the aquifer was connected

hydraulically with canals. This indicates that the aquifer is recharged around the

downstream of Ibrahimia canal or Bahr Youssef canal. Furthermore, deteriorating

of groundwater quality results and a substantial concentration of sulphur prove that

the aquifer is also recharged by the sewage from sewage tanks or sewage holes.

Also, the amount of water in the aquifer decreases. This clarifies the seriousness

privation of a sewage system in Dairut city. The factor analysis created three

important factors, which described 72.53% of the total variance: F1 accounts about

59.49% of the total variance and includes Ca, Na, K, HCO3, Cl-, EC, TDS, TH,

SO4 and Mg; and F2 accounts about 24.56% of the total variance and includes pH.

Finally, according to Egyptian standards for water quality, groundwater is not

suitable for drinking purposes.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, Egypt,

for providing access to the data. The authors also would like to thank Eng. Ashraf

Hebeishi (Head of Regulators and Grand Barrages Sector) and Dr. Khaled Toubar

(Vice President of Regulators and Grand Barrages Sector) from Ministry of Water

Resources and Irrigation of Egypt for help and support.

423 A. Awad et al.


Nomenclatures

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l COD Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l DO Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l EC Electric Conductivity, ppm MAR Magnesium Adsorption Ratio, meq/l

pH Power of Hydrogen, mg/l SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio, meq/l TDS Total Dissolved Solid, mg/l TSS Total Suspended Solid, mg/l

Abbreviations

GERD Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam MWRI Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation NDGRs New Dairut Group Regulators

References

1. The World Bank (2019). Population growth (annual %) for Egypt, Arab

Republic. Retrieved February 15, 2019 from https://data.worldbank.org/

indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=EG.

2. Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation. (2017). Detailed design study

on the project for construction of the new Dairut group of regulators in the

Arab Republic of Egypt Groundwater Monitoring Report. (Available in

hard copy only).

3. Brodie, R.; Sundaram, B.; Tottenham, R.; Hostetler, S.; and Ransley, T. (2007).

An adaptive management framework for connected groundwater-surface water

resources in Australia. Retrieved January 13, 2019 from

file:///C:/Users/109361/Downloads/An_Adaptive_Management_Framework_f

or_Connected_Gro.pdf.

4. Brodie, R.; Sundaram, B.; Tottenham, R.; Hostetler, S.; and Ransley, T. (2007).

An overview of tools for assessing groundwater-surface water connectivity.

Retrieved January 15, 2019 from file:///C:/Users/109361/Downloads/An_

Overview_of_Tools_for_Assessing_Gr`oundwater-Sur%20(2).pdf.

5. El-Rawy, M.; Zlotnik, V.A.; Al-Raggad, M.; Al-Maktoumi, A.; Kacimov, A.;

and Abdalla, O. (2016). Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water

resources with aquifer recharge by treated wastewater: Evaluation of

management scenarios in the Zarqa River Basin, Jordan. Environmental Earth

Sciences, 75(15), 1146.

6. Rautio, A.B.; Korkka-Niema, K.I., and Salonen, V.P. (2018). Thermal infrared

remote sensing in assessing groundwater and surface-water resources related

to Hannukainen mining development site northern Finland. Hydrogeology

Journal, 26(1), 163-183.

7. Salem, A.; Dezső, J.; Lóczy, D.; El-Rawy, M.; and Slowik, M. (2018).

Modeling surface water-groundwater interaction an oxbow of the Drava

floodplain. Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Hydroinformatics

(HIC). Palermo, Italy, 1382-1840.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=EG

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=EG



8. Lin, J.; Ma, R.; Hu, Y.; Sun, Z.; Wang. Y.; and McCarter, C.P.R. (2018).

Groundwater sustainability and groundwater/surface-water interaction in arid

Dunhuang Basin, northwest China. Hydrogeology Journal, 26, 1559-1572.

9. Duque, C.; Müller, S.; Sebok, E.; Haider, K.; and Engesgaard, P. (2015).

Estimating groundwater discharge to surface waters using heat as a tracer in

low flux environments: The role of thermal conductivity. Hydrological

Processes, 30(3), 383-395.

10. Martinez, J.L.; Raiber, M.; and Cox, M.E. (2015). Assessment of groundwater-

surface water interaction using long-term hydrochemical data and isotope

hydrology: Headwaters of the Condamine River, Southeast Queensland,

Australia. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 499-516.

11. Brindha, K.; Vaman, K.V.N.; Srinivasan, K.; Babu, M.S.; and Elango, L.

(2013). Identification of surface water-groundwater interaction by

hydrogeochemical indicators and assessing its suitability for drinking and

irrigational purposes in Chennai, Southern India. Applied Water Science, 4,

159-174.

12. Baalousha, H.M. (2012). Characterisation of groundwater-surface water

interaction using field measurements and numerical modelling: A case study

from the Ruataniwha Basin, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Applied Water

Science, 2, 109-118.

13. Said, R. (1993). The Nile River: Geology, hydrology, and utilization. Oxford,

United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.

14. United States Salinity Laboratory Staff. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of

saline and alkali soils. Agricultural Handbook No. 60.

15. Ayers, R.S.; and Westcot, D.W. (1964). Water quality for Agriculture. Food and

Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Irrigation and Drainage Paper, Rome, Italy.

16. Ragunath, H.M. (1987). Groundwater. New Delhi, India: Wiley Eastern Ltd.

17. World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). Global recommendations on

physical activity for health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press.

18. Richards, L.A. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils.

Handbook No. 60. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

19. Todd, D.K. (1980). Groundwater hydrology. Wiley International Edition, John

Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York.

20. Karanth, K.R. (1987). Groundwater assessment, development and

management. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

21. Saleh, A.; Al-Ruwaih, F.; and Shehata, M. (1999). Hydrogeochemical

processes operating within the main aquifers of Kuwait. Journal of Arid

Environments, 42(3), 195-209.

22. Tijani, M.N. (1994). Hydrogeochemical assessment of groundwater in Moro

area, Kwara state, Nigeria. Environmental Geology, 24(3), 194-202.

23. Karanth, K.R. (1989). Hydrogeology. New Delhi, India. Tata McGraw-Hill

Publishing Company Limited.

24. Mohan, R.; Singh, A.K.; Tripathi, J.K.; and Chaudhary, G.C. (2000).

Hydrochemistry and quality assessment of groundwater in Naini industrial

area, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. Journal of the Geological Society of

India, 55(1), 77-89.

425 A. Awad et al.


25. Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151.

26. Dalton, M.G.; and Upchurch, S.B. (1978). Interpretation of hydrochemical

facies by factor analysis. Groundwater, 16(4), 228-233.

27. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The screen test for the number of factors. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276.

28. Liu, C.-W.; Lin, K.-H.; and Ku, Y.-M. (2003). Application of factor analysis

in the assessment of groundwater quality in a blackfoot disease area in Taiwan.

Science of the Total Environment, 313(1-3), 77-89.

Documents

ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER INTERACTION …jestec.taylors.edu.my/Vol 15 issue 1 February 2020/15_1_31.pdf · Assessment of Surface and Groundwater Interaction using Field