Prediction of groundwater drawdown and quality at Kyzylzharma well field in the arid Syr Darya Basin, Kazakhstan

Figures & data

Figure 1. The experimental Kyzylzharma groundwater well field study area at Kyzylorda, Kazakhstan, in the Syr Darya Artesian Groundwater Basin.

Table 1. Representative hydrogeological cross-section of the Kyzylzharma groundwater well field and conceptual schematization for the model simulations.

Item no	Name of aquifer and complex	Schematization of the model
		Type of layer	Layer number in the model*
1	Maastrichtian aquifer		2
2	Coniac-Campanian argillaceous weakly permeable complex		3–5
3	Coniac-Campanian aquifer		6
4	Upper Turonian aquifer		7
5	Lower Turonian argillaceous weakly permeable complex		8–10
6	Upper Albian-Cenomanian aquifer complex		11
7	Lower-Middle Albian argillaceous weakly permeable complex		12–14
8	Lower-Middle Albian aquifer complex		15

* Layer No. 1 of the model corresponds to impermeable Paleogene clays.

Figure 2. Grid design for simulations of the studied Kyzylzharma groundwater well field.

Figure 3. Graphical representation of the hydro chemical facies and factors controlling the water chemistry: a) Durov diagram; b) Piper plot.

Table 2. Syr Darya water quality.

No	Chemical indicator, unit	Concentration	WHO (2017) permissible drinking water limit
1	Temperature at the time of sampling,^oC	3 to −27	–
2	pH	7.2–8.7	6.5–8.5
3	Odor at 20^oC and 60^oC, points	1	≤2
4	Turbidity, mg/L	7.6–52.8	5–10
5	Color of water, degree	20.8–152.5	5 TCU
6	Ammonium NH4, mg/L	0.08–1.5	–
7	Chloride Cl^-, mg/L	80–100	250
8	Nitrite NO2, mg/L	0.04–0.16	3
9	Nitrate NO3 mg/L	10.8–13.0	50
10	Sodium Na^+, mg/L	150–170	200
11	Chloride Cl, mg/L	73.9–104.5	200–300
12	Iron Fe, mg/L	0.16–1.75	0.3
13	Total hardness, mg/L	8.5–14.0	10–500
14	Sulfate SO4, mg/L	382–748	250–500
15	General mineralization (dry residue), mg/L	810–1840	–
16	Aluminum Al, mg/L	– 0.23	0.9
17	Alkalinity, mol-eq/L	3.5– 4.0	–
18	Oxidation, mg О2/L	1.36–3.52	–
19	Fluoride F, mg/L	0.24–0.67	1.5
20	Manganese Mn, mg/L	– 0.1	–
21	Copper Cu, mg/L	– 0.048	2
22	Polyphosphate, mg/L	0.14–0.61	1
23	Free carbon dioxide CO2, mg/L	– 32.2	–
24	BOD5 (biochemical oxygen demand), mg О2/L	0.39–1.95	5
25	Dissolved oxygen, mg O2/L	2.75–3.98	4–6
26	Suspended solids, mg/L	4.0–108	30
27	Total dissolved solids TDS, mg/L	90–1300	–
28	Total α-radioactivity, Bq/L	0.09	0.5
29	Total β-radioactivity Bq/L	0.1	1
30	Coliform index	68–702	10 coliform organisms per 100 mL
31	TBN (total microbial count)	45	100/mL to 500/mL

Figure 4. Transmissivity of the different weakly permeable geologic layers.

Figure 5. Comparison between calculated and observed heads for steady-state conditions (time step = 1 day, 1974).

Figure 6. Calculated groundwater levels of the Upper Turonian aquifer from the steady state calibration (1974).

Table 3. Long-term groundwater balances based on steady state calibration for 01/01/1974.

Aquifer and geologic complex	Recharge, m^3/day				Discharge, m^3/day
	Inflow through side boundaries	Inflow from layers above	Inflow from layers below	Total inflow to the aquifer	Outflow through the side boundaries	Outflow from layers above	Outflow from layers below	Total discharge of the aquifer (complex)
Maastrichtian	808.68	0	0	808.68	−697.48	0	−111.16	−808.64
Coniac-Campanian	1785.39	111.15	164.63	2061.17	−1921.65	0.00	−139.49	−2061.14
Upper Turonian	2629.48	139.49	404.80	3173.77	−2987.45	−164.63	−21.64	−3173.72
Upper Albian-Cenomanian	3394.32	21.63	99.95	3515.90	−3075.90	−404.80	−35.06	−3515.77
Middle Lower Albian	769.45	35.08	0	804.54	−704.54	−99.97	0	−804.51
Total for the simulated area	9387.32				−9387.03

Figure 7. Calculated non-steady state groundwater levels for the Upper Turonian aquifer in 2010.

Figure 8. Observed and simulated groundwater level for well no. 351.

Figure 9. Observed and simulated groundwater levels for well No. 2561.

Figure 10. Prediction of groundwater levels in about 2040 in the Upper Turonian aquifer.

Figure 11. Drawdown of groundwater level in about 2040 compared to 2010 in the Upper Turonian aquifer.

Figure 12. Predicted mineralization of groundwater (total dissolved solids) in about 2040.

Figure 13. Predicted increase in sulfate concentration in groundwater in around 2040.

Data availability statement

The data used in this study are available upon request from the corresponding authors.