Evaluation of riverbank filtration to improve groundwater quality (Euphrates River, Karbala, Iraq)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Cross sectional view for river bank filtration system (Mustafa et al., 2014).

Figure 2. Locations of wells and bore holes in the study area.

Table 1. Detailed information of the wells and boreholes.

Site	Coordinate	Distance from river bank (m)	Depth(m)
W1	32°33’16.20“N 44°12’20.30“E	540	12.0
W2	32°33’24.30“N 44°12’18.50“E	720	12.20
W3	32°32’54.21“N 44°12’20.92“E	800	12.40
W4	32°32’36.60“N 44°14’59.00“E	1950	12.45
BH1	32°30’52.02“N 44°14’4.31“E	850	15
BH2	32°31’11.89“N 44°14’8.86“E	410	15

Figure 3. Schematic borehole logs for B.H.1 and B.H.2.

Table 2. Classes of water quality index by Mongolia method.

Class	I	II	III	IV	V	VI
WQI value	≤ o.3	0.31–0.89	0.9–2.49	2.5–3.99	4–5.99	≥6.0
Water Quality	Very clean	clean	Slightly polluted	Moderately polluted	Heavily polluted	Dirty water

Figure 4. Particle size distribution of soil for B.H 1.

Figure 5. Particle size distribution of soil for B.H 2.

Table 3. Soil characteristics for B.H.1 and B.H.2.

Borehole	Depth (m)	Liquid limit (L.L) %	Plastic limit (P.L) %	Plasticity index (P.I) %	Specific gravity	Coefficient of permeability (m/sec)
B.H.1	0.5–3.5	43	22	21
	3.5–8.0	50	24	26	2.71	5.91 * 10^−7
	8.0–12.5	53	22	31
	12.5–15.0	N.P.			2.62	9.32 * 10^−2
B.H. 2	0.5–3.5	40	20	20
	3.5–6.5	46	25	21	2.70	7.86 * 10^−7
	6.5–8.0	51	21	30
	8.0–9.5	43	23	20
	9.5–15.0	N.P.			2.63	6.58 * 10^−3

Table 4. Soil classification for B.H.1 and B.H.2.

Boreholes	Depth (m)	Gravel (%)	Sand (%)	Fines (%) (silt + clay)	Soil classification according to USCS
	0.5–3.5	0.0	25	75	CL (Low plasticity clay)
B.H.1	3.5–8.0	0.0	31	69	(CH) High plasticity clay
	8.0–12.2	0.0	10	90	(CH) High plasticity clay
	12.5–15.0	0.0	84	16	(SM) Poorly graded sand with silt
	0.5–3.5	0.0	7	93	CL (Low plasticity clay)
	3.5–6.5	0.0	9	91	CL (Low plasticity clay)
B.H.2	6.5–8.0	0.0	19	81	(CH) High plasticity clay
	8.0–9.5	0.0	46	54	CL (Low plasticity clay)
	9.5–15.0	0.0	69	31	(SM) Poorly graded sand with silt

Figure 6. pH values for pumped wells.

Figure 7. TDS and EC for Euphrates River and pumped wells.

Figure 8. Concentrations of $\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}^{-}$, $\mathrm{C}{\mathrm{a}}^{+2}$,${\mathrm{S}\mathrm{O}}_4^{-2},$ $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{a}}^{+}$ for Euphrates River and pumped wells.

Figure 9. Concentrations of $,\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{g}}^{+2}$, and ${\mathrm{K}}^{+}$for Euphrates River and pumped wells.

Table 5. Results of water quality by (MWQI) method.

Location	River	W1	W2	W3	W4
MWQI	0.59	0.95	1.08	1.13	5.09
Water Quality	Clean	Slightly polluted	Slightly polluted	Slightly polluted	Heavily polluted
Class	II	III	III	III	VI

Mustafa, S., Bahar, A., Aziz, Z. A., & Suratman, S. (2014). Review of the role of analytical modelling methods in riverbank filtration system. Jurnal Teknologi, 71(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v71.3055

 Google Scholar