Global threat of arsenic in groundwater.

The role of sulfide minerals in the genesis of groundwater with elevated geogenic arsenic in bedrock aquifers from western Quebec, Canada

Quaternary shoreline shifting and hydrogeologic influence on the distribution of groundwater arsenic in aquifers of the Bengal Basin

High arsenic concentrations in groundwater have been documented in La Laguna Region (LLR) in arid northern Mexico, where arsenic poisoning is both chronic and endemic. A heated debate has continued for decades on its origin. LLR consisted of a series of ancient connected lakes that developed at the end of a topographic depression under closed basin conditions. This study addresses the isotopic, chemical composition of the groundwater and geochemical modeling in the southeasternmost part of the LLR to determine the origin of arsenic. Groundwater samples were obtained from a carbonate and granular aquifers and from a clayey aquitard at terminal Viesca Lake. Results show that groundwater originated as meteoric water that reached the lakes mainly via abundant springs in the carbonate aquifer and perennial flooding of the Nazas-Aguanaval Rivers. Paleo-lake water underwent progressive evaporation as demonstrated by the enrichment of δ18O, δ2H and characteristic geochemical patterns in the granular aquifer and aquitard that resulted in highly saline (>90,000mS/cm), arsenic-rich (up to 5000μg/L) paleo-groundwater (>30,000years BP). However, adsorption or co-precipitation on iron oxides, clay-mineral surfaces and organic carbon limited arsenic concentration in the groundwater. Arsenic-rich groundwater and other solutes are advancing progressively from the lacustrine margins toward the main granular aquifer, due to reversal of hydraulic gradients caused by intensive groundwater exploitation and the reduction in freshwater runoff provoked by dam construction on the main rivers. Desorption of arsenic will incorporate additional concentrations of arsenic into the groundwater and continue to have significant negative effects on human health and the environment.

Prior studies have established that approximately 10 percent of domestic wells in Maine have arsenic levels greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant limit (10 micrograms per liter (ug/L)). Of even greater concern are multiple discoveries of wells with very high arsenic levels (> 500 ug/L) in several areas of the State. A study was initiated to assist the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (ME-CDC) in developing a better understanding of the statewide spatial occurrence of wells with elevated arsenic levels at the individual town level, identify areas of the State that should be targeted for increased efforts to promote well-water testing, and generate data for potential use in predicting areas of the State likely to have very high levels of arsenic. The State's Health and Environmental and Testing Laboratory (HETL) annually analyzes samples from thousands of domestic wells for arsenic. Results of arsenic analyses of domestic well water submitted to the HETL from 2005 to 2009 were screened and organized, by town, in order to summarize the results for all towns with samples submitted to the HETL. In order to preserve the privacy of well owners, the screening and organization of samples was conducted in the offices of the ME-CDC, following applicable Maine and United States laws, rules, and privacy policies. After screening, the database contained samples from 531 towns in Maine and from 11,111 individual wells. Of those towns, 385 had samples from 5 or more individual wells, 174 towns had samples from 20 or more individual wells, and 49 towns had samples from 60 or more wells. These samples, because they were submitted by homeowners and were not part of a random sample, may not be representative of all wells in a given area. The minimum, maximum, and median arsenic values for the towns with five or more samples were calculated, and the maximum and median values were mapped for the State. The percentages of samples exceeding 10, 50, 100, and 500 ug/L were calculated for the 174 towns with 20 or more sampled wells, and statewide maps were prepared for each of these categories. More than 25 percent of the sampled wells in 44 towns exceeded 10 ug/L. Many fewer towns had wells with samples that exceeded the 50, 100, or 500 ug/L categories. For 19 towns, more than 10 percent of the sampled wells had arsenic concentrations that exceeded 50 ug/L, and in 45 towns, 1 percent or more exceeded 100 ug/L. Of these, Surry in Hancock County had 120 wells tested, and 23 percent of those wells had arsenic concentrations that exceeded 100 ug/L, which is a much higher rate than for other towns. In only four towns (Danforth in Washington County, Surry and Blue Hill in Hancock County, and Woolwich in Sagadahoc County), 1 percent or more of the sampled wells had arsenic concentrations greater than 500 ug/L during 2005-09. The distribution of high arsenic concentrations in wells follows some geographic patterns, which are generally geologically controlled. There are clusters or belts of towns with high arsenic concentrations (> 50 ug/L), such as in southern coastal areas, the Kennebec County area, and towns along the central coastal part of Maine. In contrast, there are areas of the State with low arsenic concentrations, such as the northernmost towns, as well as towns in the western and west-central areas. There appear to be three distinct large-scale areas of high concentrations of arsenic in groundwater-one in southern coastal areas, one in central Kennebec County, and one in the town of Ellsworth (Hancock County) and the surrounding areas. In addition, several smaller clusters of isolated high concentrations of arsenic in groundwater exist. Earlier testing has identified other clusters of very high arsenic concentrations in groundwater in the towns of Northport, Buxton/Hollis, and Waldoboro, but those samples were collected before 2005 and did not factor in this analysis.

Hundreds of millions of people worldwide are exposed to arsenic-contaminated drinking water, leading to significant health complications, and social and economic losses. Currently, a wide range of technologies exists to remove arsenic from water. However, despite ongoing research on such technologies, their widespread application remains limited. To bridge this gap, this review aims to compare the effectiveness and costs of various arsenic remediation technologies while considering their practical applicability. A search conducted using the Medline and Embase databases yielded 31 relevant articles published from 1996 to 2018, which were categorized into laboratory and field studies. Data on the effectiveness of technologies in removing arsenic and associated costs were extracted and standardized for comparison as much as was possible, given the diversity of ways that studies report their key results. The twenty-three (23) technologies tested in laboratory settings demonstrated efficiencies ranging from 50% to ~100%, with the majority reaching relatively high removal efficiencies (>90%). Approximately half achieved the WHO standard of 10 µg/L. Laboratory studies used groundwater samples from nine (9) different countries – Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Guatemala, India, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam. The fourteen (14) technologies tested in the field achieved removal efficiency levels ranging between 60% and ~99%, with ten (10) attaining above 90% removal efficiency. Of these, only five (5) reached established the WHO standard. Some of the technologies under-performed when their influent water contained excessive concentrations of arsenic. Only six (6) countries (Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, and Nicaragua) were represented among the studies that implemented and tested technologies in the field, either at household or community level. For technologies tested in the laboratory, the cost of treating one cubic meter of water ranged from near-zero to ~USD 93, except for one technology which cost USD 299/m³. For studies conducted in the field, the cost of treating one cubic meter of water ranged from near-zero to ~USD 70. Key factors influencing the removal efficiencies and their costs include the arsenic concentration of the influent water, pH of the influent water, materials used, the energy required, absorption capacity, labour used, regeneration period and geographical location. Technologies that demonstrate high removal efficiencies when treating moderately arsenic-contaminated water may not be as efficient when treating highly contaminated water. Also, the lifetime of the removal agents is a significant factor in determining their efficiency. It is suggested that remediation technologies that demonstrate high arsenic removal efficiencies in a laboratory setting need to be further assessed for their suitability for larger-scale application, considering their high production and operational costs. Costs can be reduced by using locally available materials and natural adsorbents, which provide near zero-cost options and can have high arsenic removal efficiencies. A notable feature of many arsenic removal approaches is that some countries with resource constraints or certain environmental circumstances – like typically high arsenic concentrations in groundwater –aim to reach resultant arsenic concentrations that are much higher than WHO’s recommended standard of 10 µg/L. This report maintains that – while this may be a pragmatic approach that helps progressively mitigate the arsenic-related health risks – it is unfortunately not a sustainable solution. Continuing exposure to higher levels of arsenic ingestion remains harmful for humans. Hence arsenic-removal technology should only be seen efficient if it can bring the water to the WHO standard. A less radical approach effectively shifts the attention from the origin of the problem in addressing the impacts and postpones achieving the best possible outcome for populations. The quantitative summary of costs and effectiveness of arsenic remediation technologies reviewed in this report can serve as a preliminary guideline for selecting the most cost-effective option. It may also be used as an initial guideline (minimum standard) for summarising the results of future studies describing arsenic remediation approaches. Looking ahead, this study identifies four priority areas that may assist in commercializing wide-scale implementation of arsenic removal technologies. These include: i) focusing efforts on determining market viability of technologies, ii) overcoming practical limitations of technologies, iii) determining technology contextual appropriateness and iv) concerted effort to increase knowledge sharing in and across regions to accelerate the implementation of research on the ground. Overall, the current science and knowledge on arsenic remediation technologies may be mature enough already to help significantly reduce the global numbers of affected populations. The missing link for today’s arsenic removal challenge is the ability to translate research evidence and laboratory-level successes into quantifiable and sustainable impacts on the ground. Achieving this requires a concerted and sustained effort from policymakers, engineers, healthcare providers, donors, and community leaders.

Geochemical occurrence of arsenic in groundwater of Bangladesh: sources and mobilization processes

Temporal variation and mechanism of the geogenic arsenic concentrations in global groundwater

Background:Arsenic is a well-known, highly poisonous metalloid that affects human health and ecosystems and is widely distributed in the environment. Nevertheless, data on the spatiotemporal distribution of arsenic in groundwater sources in Ethiopia are scarce.Objective:The principal aim of this study was to assess the extent of arsenic in groundwater sources and analyze the spatiotemporal variations in the central rift valley of Ethiopia.Methods:The study employed a serial cross-sectional study design and census sampling methods. The concentrations of arsenic in the groundwater samples were determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) at the Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority laboratory. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 29 software. Additionally, ArcGIS software was utilized to map the spatiotemporal distribution of arsenic. Furthermore, Minitab statistical software version 21.4 was employed to assess the correlation between spatiotemporal variations of arsenic concentrations in groundwater sources.Results:The mean values of arsenic in the groundwater samples were 11.2 µg/L during the dry season and 10.7 µg/L during the rainy season. The study results showed that 18 wells (42.2%) and 22 wells (48.8%) had higher arsenic concentrations (>10 µg/L) during the dry and rainy seasons, respectively. Thus, arsenic levels in 42.2% and 48.8% of the samples exceeded the maximum threshold limit set by WHO, USEPA, and Ethiopian standards (10 µg/L), respectively, during the dry and rainy seasons. Furthermore, our analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between arsenic in groundwater and well depth (r = .75, P < .001), indicating a strong association between higher arsenic concentrations and deeper wells. Similarly, we observed a substantial positive correlation between arsenic concentration in groundwater and season (r = .9, P < .001), suggesting notable variations in arsenic levels between dry and rainy seasons.Conclusions:The majority of the groundwater sources in the studied area are unfit for human consumption because they contain high amounts of arsenic, which poses a significant risk to human health. Moreover, the arsenic concentration varied spatially and temporally. Therefore, special attention is needed to reduce arsenic exposure and associated health risks.

Arsenic is a heavy metalloid that occurs frequently in nature. The most serious repercussions for human health occur when it is found in drinking water (It can harm the circulatory, pulmonary, and nervous systems, as well as cause skin and other organs cancer). This paper presents the values of arsenic concentration in the Republic of Serbia's groundwater from 2018 to 2020, based on lab tests completed by the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency. Bearing in mind the fact that the Decree on Limit Values of Pollutants in Surface and Groundwater and Sediment and Deadlines for Reaching Them (Official Gazette of RS No. 50/12) does not prescribe limit values for arsenic in groundwater, as well as the fact that 75% of drinking water is supplied from groundwater, the results of testing the concentration of arsenic in groundwater are compared with the maximum allowed concentration of arsenic in drinking water prescribed by the Ordinance on the Hygiene of Drinking Water (Official Gazette of the FRY No. 42/98 and 44/99, Official Gazette RS No. 28/19). The concentrations of arsenic in eight piezometers were found to be above the maximum allowed concentration limit for drinking water for all three years. Having in mind the stated facts, it is necessary to update the regulations of the Republic of Serbia concerning the limit values of pollutants in groundwater, and to include the limit values for arsenic in it. The amendment of the regulation requires more detailed research regarding the concentration and origin of arsenic in groundwater.

Analytical results for arsenic in water samples from 5,023 wells obtained during 1969–2007 across Pennsylvania were compiled and related to other associated groundwater-quality and environmental factors and used to predict the probability of elevated arsenic concentrations, defined as greater than or equal to 4.0 micrograms per liter (µg/L), in groundwater. Arsenic concentrations of 4.0 µg/L or greater (elevated concentrations) were detected in 18 percent of samples across Pennsylvania; 8 percent of samples had concentrations that equaled or exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking-water maximum contaminant level of 10.0 µg/L. The highest arsenic concentration was 490.0 µg/L. Comparison of arsenic concentrations in Pennsylvania groundwater by physiographic province indicates that the Central Lowland physiographic province had the highest median arsenic concentration (4.5 µg/L) and the highest percentage of sample records with arsenic concentrations greater than or equal to 4.0 µg/L (59 percent) and greater than or equal to 10.0 µg/L (43 percent). Evaluation of four major aquifer types (carbonate, crystalline, siliciclastic, and surficial) in Pennsylvania showed that all types had median arsenic concentrations less than 4.0 µg/L, and the highest arsenic concentration (490.0 µg/L) was in a siliciclastic aquifer. The siliciclastic and surficial aquifers had the highest percentage of sample records with arsenic concentrations greater than or equal to 4.0 µg/L and 10.0 µg/L. Elevated arsenic concentrations were associated with low pH (less than or equal to 4.0), high pH (greater than or equal to 8.0), or reducing conditions. For waters classified as anoxic (405 samples), 20 percent of sampled wells contained water with elevated concentrations of arsenic; for waters classified as oxic (1,530 samples) only 10 percent of sampled wells contained water with elevated arsenic concentrations. Nevertheless, regardless of the reduction-oxidation classification, 54 percent of samples with low pH (13 of 24 samples) and 25 percent of samples with high pH (57 of 230 samples) had elevated arsenic concentrations. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater in Pennsylvania were correlated with concentrations of several chemical constituents or properties, including (1) constituents associated with redox processes, (2) constituents that may have a similar origin or be mobilized under similar chemical conditions as arsenic, and (3) anions or oxyanions that have similar sorption behavior or compete for sorption sites on iron oxides. Logistic regression models were created to predict and map the probability of elevated arsenic concentrations in groundwater statewide in Pennsylvania and in three intrastate regions to further improve predictions for those three regions (glacial aquifer system, Gettysburg Basin, Newark Basin). Although the Pennsylvania and regional predictive models retained some different variables, they have common characteristics that can be grouped by (1) geologic and soils variables describing arsenic sources and mobilizers, (2) geochemical variables describing the geochemical environment of the groundwater, and (3) locally specific variables that are unique to each of the three regions studied and not applicable to statewide analysis. Maps of Pennsylvania and the three intrastate regions were produced that illustrate that areas most at risk are those with geology and soils capable of functioning as an arsenic source or mobilizer and geochemical groundwater conditions able to facilitate redox reactions. The models have limitations because they may not characterize areas that have localized controls on arsenic mobility. The probability maps associated with this report are intended for regional-scale use and may not be accurate for use at the field scale or when considering individual wells.

High arsenic concentrations in groundwater are causing a humanitarian disaster in Southeast Asia. It is generally accepted that microbial activities play a critical role in the mobilization of arsenic from the sediments, with metal-reducing bacteria stimulated by organic carbon implicated. However, the detailed mechanisms underpinning these processes remain poorly understood. Of particular importance is the nature of the organic carbon driving the reduction of sorbed As(V) to the more mobile As(III), and the interplay between iron and sulphide minerals that can potentially immobilize both oxidation states of arsenic. Using a multidisciplinary approach, we identified the critical factors leading to arsenic release from West Bengal sediments. The results show that a cascade of redox processes was supported in the absence of high loadings of labile organic matter. Arsenic release was associated with As(V) and Fe(III) reduction, while the removal of arsenic was concomitant with sulphate reduction. The microbial populations potentially catalysing arsenic and sulphate reduction were identified by targeting the genes arrA and dsrB, and the total bacterial and archaeal communities by 16S rRNA gene analysis. Results suggest that very low concentrations of organic matter are able to support microbial arsenic mobilization via metal reduction, and subsequent arsenic mitigation through sulphate reduction. It may therefore be possible to enhance sulphate reduction through subtle manipulations to the carbon loading in such aquifers, to minimize the concentrations of arsenic in groundwaters.

Chapter 2 - Delineation of a Major Worldwide Problem of Arsenic-Contaminated Groundwater

Mobilization of arsenic from subsurface sediments by effect of bicarbonate ions in groundwater

Arsenic contamination in groundwater and its impact on human health has been reported as one of the world's biggest natural groundwater calamities to the mankind. In Assam, Arsenic concentration in groundwater above the permissible level has been reported from 20 districts, of which, maximum level of Arsenic concentration was found in Jorhat, Lakhimpur, Nalbari and Nagaon districts. In the present study Arsenic and Iron contamination of groundwater in Narayanpur Block and Sakhomato Block of North Bank Plain Zone of Assam was determined. Eighty seven numbers of ground water samples from Narayanpur Block and forty seven numbers from Sakhomato Block were collected from tubewells (15 feet to 75 feet deep) at different locations of the Blocks. The Arsenic content of analyzed samples from Narayanpur Block varied from 0 (zero) ppb to 102 ppb, of which, 48 (55.17%) samples were found below the WHO guideline value for drinking (less than 10 ppb); while 39 (44.83%) samples contained Arsenic above the guideline value (more than 10 ppb, WHO, 2011). In case of Sakhomato Block, all the 47 samples contain Arsenic below the critical limit of 10 ppb and hence found safe for drinking. Iron concentration of the samples having Arsenic concentration above the critical limit of 10 ppb from Narayanpur Block was analyzed with a view to ameliorating Arsenic toxicity through removal of Iron. The Iron concentration of the samples ranged from 10 ppm to 58.4 ppm. However, no significant correlation between Iron and Arsenic concentration was observed (r2=0.0403).

در بین عناصر سنگین، آرسنیک به‌عنوان یک عنصر سرطان‌زا شناسایی‌شده است و غلظت‌های زیاد آن در اکوسیستم می‌تواند یک نگرانی بزرگ برای سلامتی عمومی و محیط‌زیست ایجاد کند. هدف از این مطالعه ارزیابی کیفیت آب زیرزمینی دشت همدان ـ بهار از نظر آلودگی به آرسنیک می-باشد. بدین منظور غلظت آرسنیک در 94 نقطه آب زیرزمینی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. جهت تعیین توزیع مکانی آرسنیک از روش‌های مختلف زمین‌آمار استفاده گردید، سپس نتایج حاصل از این روش‌ها با استفاده از روش ارزیابی متقابل و محاسبه شاخص‌های میانگین خطای مطلق (MAE) و میانگین خطای انحراف (MBE) با یکدیگر مقایسه شدند و مناسب‌ترین روش انتخاب گردید. بدین منظور از روش توابع پایه شعاعی RBF با مدل Multiquadric جهت تعیین توزیع مکانی آرسنیک در آب زیرزمینی استفاده شد. علاوه بر این نقشه‌ احتمال آلودگی و افزایش غلظت آرسنیک از حد آستانه نیز با استفاده از مدل کریجینگ شاخص برای آب زیرزمینی تهیه گردید. نتایج نشان داد که در حدود 67 درصد آبخوان دارای احتمال آلودگی کمتر از 50 درصد بود. درحالی‌که 18/21 درصد سطح آبخوان دارای آلودگی متوسط و 9/10 درصد سطح آبخوان دارای احتمال آلودگی زیاد بود. مناطقی که در آن احتمال آلودگی آب زیرزمینی زیاد بود با کاربری کشاورزی و به‌خصوص مناطق زیر کشت سیب‌زمینی هم‌خوانی داشت که می‌تواند به دلیل مصرف زیاد کودهای شیمیایی و مرغی در این مناطق باشد.