Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Iraqi Geological Journal

Journal homepage: https://www.igj-iraq.org

Hydrochemistry of the Injana Unconfined Aquifer in Ameriat Al-Falluja,

Iraq
Marram Abd-Alkdhium Alnoory1 and Qusai Y. Al-Kubaisi1
1
Department of Geology, College of Science, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Correspondence: m.marram556@gmail.com
*

Abstract
Received: Water samples were collected from 15 wells in Ameriat Al-Falluja, in two periods in order
23 June 2022
to study the groundwater hydrochemistry characteristics and evaluation the quality of the
Accepted: groundwater to determine their suitability for different uses. Hydrochemistry includes
22 August 2022 analyses of major constituents (Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, K+, Cl-, SO42-and HCO3-), and minor ionic
(NO3-, PO4-3) as well as trace elements (Cu, Mn, Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr, and Zn). The results indicate
Published:
that Ca2+ is the most common cation, which could be due to carbonate rock dissolution, and
30 November 2022
that SO42- is the most common anion, which could be due to the presence of gypsum and
anhydrite in the Fatha Fn., which is the underlying the Injana Formation. Trace elements Cu,
Mn, Cr, and Zn were all below the permissible limits, while Pb, Ni, and Cd exceeded them.
According to the salinity, groundwater samples for two periods were classified as excessively
mineralized water, while they were categorized as brackish water, except the sample no. 5 in
the dry period, which was salty due to the Total Dissolved Solids values. During the two
periods, the groundwater was also categorized as very hard water. CaSO4, CaCl, NaCl, and
Na2SO4 are the most prevalent salts in the water samples from both times. For two periods,
the chloride-sulfate type of groundwater was present. The findings of the investigations show
that the groundwater is unfit for human consumption but it is ideal for irrigation.

Keywords: Ameriat Al-Falluja; Groundwater; Injana; Hydrochemistry; Salts

1. Introduction
Shallow groundwater levels are influenced by a number of variables, including terrain, soil type,
wastewater sources, type of land use, and the quantity of local rainfall (Hadi and Al-Wan, 2020). The
reaction of the groundwater and aquifer lithology is critical in determining the water quality
(Gnanachandrasamy et al., 2020; Yenugu et al., 2020). Due to the connection between surface water,
irrigation water, and groundwater in agricultural regions, the hydrodynamic characteristics of
groundwater are typically altered (Hui et al., 2020). In Ameriat Al-Falluja City, groundwater is a major
source of water that is used for various purposes. Studies of groundwater quality describe the
concentration of each ingredient in groundwater as well as how they relate to the aquifer's material. The
aims in this research is to study the hydrochemical characteristics and evaluating the quality of ground
water in the study area to determine their suitability for different uses. The Water samples are collected
from 15 wells (Fig.1a), which are distributed all over the study area. The Water samples were collected
DOI: 10.46717/igj.55.2E.14ms-2022-11-28

201
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

on the 19th of October, 2021, which represent the dry period and the wet period on the 20th of April,
2022. The main physical properties include temperature, Electrical Conductivity (EC), Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS), and Hydrogen Potential (pH), were measured in the field in addition to laboratory
analysis, as well as the color, odor and total hardness. This study involves measuring the major, minor
ionic constituents (Na+, Mg 2+, Ca2+,K +, Cl-, SO42-, HCO3-, NO3-and PO4 ), and trace elements (Cu, Mn,
Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr and Zn). Studying the hydrochemical characteristics and evaluating the quality of ground
water in the study area to determine their suitability for different uses, was the aims of this research.

2. The Study Area Location and Description

The study area is located in Ameriat Al-Falluja City, which is bounded from the eastern part by
Euphrates River and Al- Razzaza, Al- Habbaniya Lakes from the south and north. The study area is
about 1161 km2 with an elevation ranges from 44-96 m.a.s.l. The Ameriyat AL-Fallujah lies in the center
of Iraq within the Mesopotamian Plain. The study area is restricted to latitudes (32º 59′ -33º 14′N) and
longitudes (43º 39′- 44º3′E) (Fig 1a). The Injana Formation (Upper Miocene) is an exposed formation,
which characterizes the study area with Quaternary Deposits (Pleistocene and Holocene) (Fig.1b).

3. Accuracy
The laboratory work was done in Koufa Office for Scientific Rehabilitation Services. The accuracy
of the results of the water samples analysis can be indicated from the results of reaction error test
uncertainty (U) by calculation the absolute difference between total of cations and anions concentration
on total of these concentration in epm units as percentage (Hem, 1991; Appelo & Postma, 2005) and
according to the following equation:

U= (r ΣCations-rΣAnions) / (r Σ Cations+rΣAnions⎸×100 (1)

A%=100–U (2)
Where: U = is Uncertainty or reaction error. rΣCatinos = is summation of positive ions
concentrations in epm unit. rΣ Anions = is summation of negative ions concentrations in epm unit. r
= is (epm) equivalent per million, and A = is Accuracy or certainty.
When U ≤ 5% the results could be accepted for interpretation (Hem, 1991). The results of all the tested
samples for the study area appear to be acceptable, so that they can be used for the hydrochemical
interpretation (Table 1). The right way of measuring hydrochemical changing depends on this base
(Fetter,1980):

EC > TDS > TCS (3)

Where:
EC = Electrical conductivity; TDS = Total dissolved solids in ppm; TCS = represents the sum of positive
and negative ions in ppm.

TCS = ΣCatinos+ Σ Anions (4)

TCS are less than the total dissolved solid (TDS) which in turn are less than the (EC). TCS for
the water samples are presented in the Tables ( 1) and compared with their values of TDS and EC, the
results are acceptable with Fetter (1980) role, which prove the results accuracy.

202
Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 1. (a) Location of the study area; (b) Geological map of the study area (GEOSURV, 1996).

203
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Table 1. Accuracy of the hydrochemical analysis and values of TCS, TDS and EC for the two periods.
Dry period Wet period
Sample
EC TDS TCS EC TDS TCS
number A% %U A% %U
(μS/cm) (ppm) (ppm) (μS/cm) (ppm) (ppm)
W- 1 3470 2220 2209 98.1 1.9 3094 1958 1941 97.5 2.5
W- 2 4332 2778 2774 95.5 4.5 3879 2455 2446 96.4 3.6
W- 3 3300 2110 2096 97.4 2.6 2939 1860 1841 95.9 4.1
W- 4 3497 2238 2212 98.0 2.0 3073 1945 1944 96.8 3.2
W-5 4888 3130 3101 98.9 1.1 4227 2675 2671 95.2 4.8
W-6 4052 2595 2589 95.0 5.0 3745 2370 2363 96.7 3.3
W-7 3775 2415 2388 95.1 4.9 3350 2120 2202 95.3 4.7
W-8 3980 2550 2545 98.9 1.1 3579 2265 2256 98.4 1.6
W-9 3765 2400 2378 98.7 1.3 3192 2020 2018 99.3 0.7
W-10 3458 2212 2202 96.9 3.1 3195 2022 2018 98.1 1.9
W-11 4300 2756 2749 95.1 4.9 3792 2400 2398 98.1 1.9
W-12 4083 2610 2589 97.0 3.0 3721 2355 2338 98.3 1.7
W-13 3480 2225 2218 98.3 1.7 3018 1910 1905 97.1 2.9
W-14 4015 2571 2560 96.2 3.8 3700 2342 2339 97.3 2.7
W-15 4512 2888 2878 95.1 4.9 4192 2653 2651 97.2 2.8

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Electrical Conductivity (EC)

EC values were measured for the 15 water samples scattered around the study area. These
numbers are statistically examined to reveal the numbers that represent the variance in the water sample
the most frequently. The EC of water samples in the study area varies from 3300 to 4888 μS/cm for the
dry period, with an average of 3908 μS/cm, as well as from 2939 to 4227 μS/cm for the wet period, with
an average of 3482 μS/cm as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2a. The spatial distribution of groundwater EC in the study area for the dry period

204
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 2b. The spatial distribution of groundwater EC in the study area for the wet period

4.2. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

For the dry period, the TDS values of water samples in the study area vary between 2110–3130
ppm with an average of 2501 ppm while for the wet period, they range between 1860–2675 ppm with
an average of 2204 ppm which is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3a. The spatial distribution of groundwater TDS in the study area for the dry period

205
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 3b. The spatial distribution of groundwater TDS in the study area for the wet period

4.3. Major Cations and Anions

The cation results suggest that the dominant cation in groundwater samples is Ca 2+, which might
be attributable to dissolution of carbonate rocks or gypsum rock as show in Table 2. The high Na+
content in groundwater samples during both periods, which constitutes the second most abundant cation,
might be due to erosion of evaporation rocks and ionic exchange of clay minerals. (Appelo, 1999) (Table
2). Mg2+ concentrations in groundwater samples during both periods, which constitute the third
dominating cation, might be due to carbonate rock dissolution. Because potassium has less mobility in
soil than other cations, it can be utilized as a marker of human influences in shallow groundwater during
both periods. (Davis and DeWiest, 1966) (Table 2).

Table 2. Cations and total hardness concentration for both periods in the study area

Dry period Wet period

Well Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ K+ T.H Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ K+ T.H
No.
ppm epm ppm Epm ppm epm Ppm epm ppm ppm epm ppm epm Ppm epm ppm epm ppm
W- 1 211 11 109 9 340 15 25 0.6 984 198 10 100 8 290 13 22 0.6 913
W- 2 321 16 161 13 400 17 21 0.5 1473 302 15 132 11 338 15 20 0.5 1304
W- 3 235 12 115 9 320 14 9 0.2 1069 205 10 105 9 287 12 10 0.3 951

W- 4 220 11 119 10 345 15 5 0.1 1048 200 10 102 8 310 13 7 0.2 926

W-5 310 15 145 12 471 20 20 0.5 1380 300 15 123 10 410 18 19 0.5 1262

W-6 343 17 159 13 312 14 36 0.9 1518 312 16 132 11 288 13 32 0.8 1329

W-7 400 20 193 16 73 3 73 1.9 1803 378 19 175 14 70 3 61 1.6 1671

W-8 357 18 172 14 205 9 40 1.0 1608 311 16 158 13 187 8 33 0.8 1434

W-9 305 15 157 13 210 9 35 0.9 1416 281 14 136 11 170 7 28 0.7 1268

W-10 317 16 168 14 143 6 44 1.1 1493 300 15 147 12 122 5 36 0.9 1361

W-11 393 20 185 15 251 11 16 0.4 1753 355 18 142 12 201 9 15 0.4 1478

W-12 316 16 134 11 319 14 33 0.8 1352 279 14 112 9 298 13 29 0.7 1165

W-13 152 8 92 8 434 19 31 0.8 770 141 7 85 7 365 16 28 0.7 709

W-14 309 15 152 12 330 14 38 1.0 1405 280 14 127 10 310 13 35 0.9 1229
W-15 361 18 178 15 385 17 34 0.9 1641 331 17 148 12 356 15 31 0.8 1443
Mean 310.7 151.4 282.4 29.8 1381 258.1 130.3 247.6 26 1229
770- 709-
Range 211-400 109-193 73-471 5-73
1803
198-378 100-175 70-410 7-61
1671

206
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

The acquired anions result demonstrates that SO42- represents the first prominent anion in
groundwater samples for both periods, which might be related to the presence of gypsum, anhydrite,
and halite within the Fatha Formation which is the underlying the Injana Formation. (Krasny et al., 2006
in Jassim and Goff, 2006) and due to human activity or using chemical fertilizers in the study area as
show in Table 3. Cl- concentration for both periods, which represents the second dominant anion in
groundwater samples that could be attributed to human activity or using chemical fertilizers. According
to concentration values of NO3- and PO4-3 for two periods appear within the acceptable limits of IQS,
(2009) and WHO, (2011) (Table 3). The seasonal variation of cations and anions concentrations in the
study area vary from one season to another, may- be the reason attributed to the dilution which occurs
by rainfall water in the recharge zone as its clear appear in the spatial distributions for cations and anions
for two periods in Figs.4 and 5.

4.4. Trace Elements

Seven trace elements were analyzed for all water samples for the two periods and these elements
are Cu, Mn, Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr and Zn. The trace element concentrations of water samples are compared
with the IQS (2009), WHO (2011) and USEPA (2018) standards specifications for trace elements in
drinking water, (Table 4). After competing with three previous standards, it appears the Cu, Mn, Cr and
Zn were within the acceptable limits, while Pb, Ni and Cd were greater than the permitted limits. The
presence of lead in water may indicate a relationship with phosphorus or the addition of organic
materials, which might serve as another potential host for Pb (Al-Bassam and Yousif, 2014). Nickel
concentrations in water might be due to leaching from metals in contact with pipes and fittings. Nickel,
on the other hand, may be found in some ground waters due to dissolution from nickel ore-bearing rocks
(WHO, 2005). Fertilizers made from phosphate ores are a major cause of cadmium contamination in the
environment.

Table 3. Anions and minor anions concentration compared to IQS, 2009 and WHO acceptable level for
both periods in the study area.
Dry period Wet period
Well No. SO4-2 Cl- HCO3- NO3- PO4-3 SO4-2 Cl- HCO3- NO3- PO4-3
ppm Epm ppm Epm Ppm Epm ppm ppm ppm Ppm ppm epm ppm epm ppm ppm
W- 1 559 12 518 15 447 7.3 2.3 0.25 487 10 486 25 358 5.9 2.1 0.22
W- 2 761 16 761 21 349 5.7 2.9 0.09 628 13 703 20 323 5.3 2.2 0.11
W- 3 700 15 605 17 112 1.8 3.1 0.16 614 13 518 15 102 1.7 2.9 0.19
W- 4 751 16 520 15 252 4.1 5.3 0.02 673 14 450 13 202 3.3 6.1 0.13
W-5 1249 26 541 15 365 6.0 6.3 0.34 1088 23 400 11 331 5.4 6.9 0.30
W-6 990 21 628 18 122 2.0 6.7 0.35 912 19 586 17 101 1.7 7.5 0.32
W-7 970 20 483 14 195 3.2 5.6 0.36 890 19 472 13 156 2.6 6.7 0.29
W-8 835 17 692 20 244 4.0 7.5 0.37 742 15 612 17 213 3.5 8.1 0.31
W-9 767 15 633 18 271 4.4 4.1 0.06 615 13 543 15 245 4.0 3.9 0.12
W-10 555 12 604 17 371 6.1 3.3 0.09 510 11 555 16 348 5.7 3.0 0.10
W-11 900 19 557 16 446 7.3 2.9 0.18 780 16 501 14 404 6.6 2.1 0.15
W-12 966 20 462 13 359 5.9 2.4 0.15 876 18 432 12 312 5.1 2.0 0.13
W-13 618 13 525 15 366 6.0 3.3 0.12 477 10 476 13 333 5.5 3.0 0.09
W-14 999 21 610 17 122 2.0 2.6 0.23 902 19 565 16 120 2.0 2.1 0.19
W-15 831 17 868 25 222 3.6 3.1 0.27 727 15 840 24 218 3.6 2.7 0.21
Mean 833.6 583.7 294.4 4.093 0.203 734.6 521.5 257.9 4.087 0.191
2.3- 0.02- 0.09-
Range 555-1249 462-761 112-447 7.5 0.37
487-1088 400-703 101-404 2-8.1 0.32
IQS, 2009 400 350 450 50 ---- 400 350 450 50 -----
WHO, 2011 250 250 250 50 0.4 250 250 250 50 0.4

207
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Table 4. Trace elements concentrations of water samples for two periods, with acceptable levels of IQS,
(2009), WHO (2011), and US EPA (2018) Standards

Sample No. Cu(ppm) Mn(ppm) Pb(ppm) Ni (ppm) Cd(ppm) Cr(ppm) Zn(ppm)

Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet
W- 1 0.06 0.05 0.037 0.031 0.062 0.060 0.124 0.119 0.02 0.017 0.037 0.031 0.45 0.32
W- 2 0.05 0.043 0.022 0.018 0.043 0.041 0.123 0.117 0.024 0.019 0.024 ND ND ND
W- 3 0.061 0.053 0.013 0.010 0.045 0.044 0.111 0.107 0.032 0.027 ND ND 0.012 0.012
W- 4 0.063 0.057 0.025 0.021 0.032 0.029 0.256 0.251 0.07 0.065 0.027 0.020 ND ND
W-5 0.064 0.06 0.061 0.055 0.016 0.012 0.133 0.129 0.026 0.021 0.026 0.021 0.19 0.14
W-6 0.05 0.046 0.032 0.023 0.024 0.021 0.121 0.118 0.042 0.038 ND ND 0.15 0.10
W-7 0.054 0.051 0.021 0.019 0.032 0.029 0.252 0.249 0.058 0.048 0.035 0.035 0.02 ND
W-8 0.052 0.050 0.042 0.039 0.018 0.015 0.221 0.219 0.042 0.039 0.028 0.025 0.12 ND
W-9 0.053 0.047 0.032 0.029 0.064 0.055 0.142 0.139 0.038 0.032 ND ND ND ND
W-10 0.054 0.049 0.012 0.010 0.078 0.069 0.189 0.175 0.047 0.041 0.034 0.034 0.11 ND
W-11 0.05 0.044 0.072 0.061 0.088 0.072 0.155 0.143 0.039 0.032 0.036 0.030 0.17 0.17
W-12 0.061 0.056 0.042 0.035 0.089 0.079 0.121 0.115 0.032 0.027 0.037 0.031 0.023 0.020
W-13 0.054 0.051 0.055 0.047 0.076 0.070 0.251 0.246 0.015 0.011 ND ND 0.12 ND
W-14 0.053 0.047 0.065 0.059 0.085 0.081 0.231 0.227 0.023 0.020 0.032 ND ND ND
W-15 0.054 0.043 0.064 0.059 0.017 0.015 0.125 0.120 0.012 0.011 ND ND 0.18 0.12
Mean 0.004 0.050 0.040 0.0344 0.051 0.046 0.170 0.165 0.035 0.030 0.032 0.028 0.14 0.126
IQS,2009 0.3 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.003 0.05 3
WHO,2011 0.3 0.4 0.01 0.07 0.003 0.05 3
US, EPA
0.3 0.4 0.015 0.07 0.005 0.1 5
2018

4.5. Groundwater Classification

According to Detay (1997) classification it can be concluded that the type of groundwater for two
periods in the study area is as excessively mineralized water due to the electrical conductivity (Table 5).
According to Altoviski (1962) and Todd (2007), the groundwater in the study area is classified as
brackish water, depending on TDS, except for the sample of well 5, during the dry period, was
considered salty (Table 6). When comparing hardness values with the classifications of water hardness
by Boyd (2000) and Todd (2007) (Table 7), the groundwater in the study area is classified as very hard
water for the two periods, due to the high concentration of calcium and magnesium ions that released to
groundwater.

Table 5. Relationship between EC and water mineralization (Detay, 1997)

Electrical conductivity
Mineralization Sample no.
(μ.S/cm)
< 100 Very weakly mineralized water
100-200 Weakly mineralized water
200-400 Slightly mineralized water
400-600 Moderately mineralized water
600-1000 Highly mineralized water
> 1000 Excessively mineralized water All samples

208
Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig.4. Spatial distribution for the seasonal variation of cations concentrations in the study area

209
Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution for the seasonal variation of anions concentrations in the study area

210
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Table 6. Classification of water according to TDS in (ppm) by Altoviski, (1962) and Todd, (2007).
Water class Altoviski, (1962) Todd, (2007) Dry Period Wet period
Fresh water 0 -1000 > 1000 ______ ____
Brackish water 1000 – 3000 1000 – 10000 Wells no. (1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) All Samples
Salty water 3000 - 10000 ____ Well no. (5) ____
Saline water 10000 - 100000 10000 – 100000 ____ ____
Brine water > 100000 > 100000 ____ ____

Table 7. Classifications of water according to the total hardness by Boyd (2000) and Todd (2007).
Type of water Boyd (2000) Todd (2007) Sample No.
Soft 0-50 0-60
Moderate Hard 50-150 60-120
Hard 150-300 120-180
Very Hard >300 >180 All samples for both periods

4.6. Hydrochemical Formula and Water Type

The hydrochemical formula was determined by relying on this equation:

(Anions (epm%) in decending order )

TDS (mg /l))(Cations (epm%) in decending order) pH (5)

The hydrochemical formulas are expressed as the percentage of milli-equivalent units/ liter (epm%)
for positive and negative ions with a percentage greater than (15%), and salinity (TDS) in mg / liter units
and the hydrogen function(pH). The prevailing salts in water samples for both periods are CaSO 4, CaCl,
NaCl and Na2SO4, (Table 8). The variability of the groundwater types could be due to many factors such
as the lithology of the water-bearing formation, well location, recharge, the geochemistry of the aquifer
and depths of well.

Table 8. The percentage ratio of the dominant water type for the two periods of the groundwater
samples.

Dry period Wet period

Water type Frequency Occurrence ratio% Water type Frequency Occurrence ratio%
CaSO4 5 33% CaSO4 5 33%
NaCl 4 27% CaCl 5 33%
CaCl 4 27% NaCl 3 20%
Na2SO4 2 13% Na2SO4 2 13%

4.7. Groundwater Facies

When comparing the levels of cations and anions in groundwater samples during two time
periods (Fig.6) to the Piper (1944), hydrochemical categorization scheme, all groundwater samples for
the two periods are clearly in the e hydrochemical facies, with the exception of wells w.2, w.14, which
are in the c and g hydrochemical facies, respectively. This means the type of groundwater samples of
the study area for two periods are "earth alkaline water with increased portions of alkalis with prevailing
sulfate and chloride" and for w.2 "Normal earth alkaline water with prevailing sulfate and chloride", and
for w.13 was "alkaline water with prevailing sulfate and chloride", while water samples location in
Durov diagram for the two periods (Figs.7) indicates that the quality of this water is chloride - sulfate
type, and this confirms the results of the Piper’s classification.

211
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 6. Piper diagram of the groundwater samples for the dry and wet periods

4.8. Gibbs Diagram and Hydrochemical Indicators

The creation of Gibbs diagrams was made possible by plotting the ratio of major cations (Na+ +
K+)/(Na+ + K+ + Ca2+) against TDS and the ratio of major anions Cl-/(Cl-+ HCO3-) against TDS. The
majority of samples in this study fell into the evaporation dominance zone (Fig. 8), indicating that
alongside evaporation may lead to the development of saline Na +- Cl- type groundwater (Herczeg et al.,
2001), or rainfall can supply groundwater recharge, or specifically where land usage has resulted in soil
salinization or other man-made effects on near-surface mineralogy. The hydrochemical indicators for
the study area water samples for both periods are shown in Tables 9 and 10 and are measured in epm%.
The values of hydrochemical indicators in the study area are less than one (rNa+/rCl-, 1), which indicates
that the groundwater for both periods is of marine origin, except wells No. 5, 12, and 13 in the dry
period, and wells No. 4, 5, 12 and 13 in the wet period, which are of meteoric origin. The sodium ions
come from rainfall (meteoric) or from the water that returns from irrigation. The origin of marine origin
can be attributed to high-depth wells, and therefore the effect of the underlying formations could
possibly be the reason.

212
Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig.7. Durov diagram of the water samples in the dry and wet periods.

213
Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Fig. 8. Gibbs Diagram of the water samples in the dry period

Table 9. Hydro-chemical indicators of the groundwater for the dry period.

Well No. rCa /rCl rMg/rCl rK/rCl rNa/rCl rSO4/rCl Water origin
W-1 0.68 0.59 0.04 0.95 0.80 Marine
W-2 0.68 0.56 0.02 0.74 0.74 Marine
W-3 0.65 0.53 0.01 0.76 0.86 Marine
W-4 0.72 0.63 0.01 0.98 1.05 Marine
W-5 1.00 0.78 0.03 1.31 1.72 Meteoric
W-6 0.86 0.66 0.05 0.68 1.16 Marine
W-7 1.32 1.05 0.12 0.22 1.49 Marine
W-8 0.90 0.71 0.05 0.44 0.88 Marine
W-9 0.83 0.71 0.05 0.50 0.83 Marine
W-10 0.88 0.76 0.06 0.35 0.67 Marine
W-11 1.13 0.87 0.02 0.63 1.18 Marine
W-12 1.15 0.82 0.06 1.00 1.58 Meteoric
W-13 0.50 0.45 0.05 1.23 0.86 Meteoric
W-14 0.84 0.67 0.05 0.77 1.21 Marine
W-15 0.67 0.54 0.03 0.61 0.70 Marine
Average 0.85 0.69 0.04 0.74 1.05
O.S.W 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.85 0.01
O.S.W : Ordinary sea water *All units in (epm%)

214
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Table 10. Hydro-chemical indicators of the groundwater for the wet period.

Well No. rCa/rCl rMg/rCl rK/rCl rNa/rCl rSO4/rCl Water origin

W-1 0.70 0.57 0.04 0.87 0.74 Marine
W-2 0.71 0.50 0.02 0.69 0.65 Marine
W-3 0.64 0.54 0.02 0.80 0.88 Marine
W-4 0.74 0.62 0.01 1.00 1.12 Meteoric
W-5 1.21 0.79 0.04 1.41 2.00 Meteoric
W-6 0.87 0.60 0.05 0.71 1.13 Marine
W-7 1.28 0.97 0.11 0.21 1.38 Marine
W-8 0.85 0.73 0.05 0.46 0.90 Marine
W-9 0.89 0.70 0.05 0.47 0.87 Marine
W-10 0.92 0.73 0.06 0.33 0.67 Marine
W-11 1.21 0.79 0.03 0.61 1.16 Marine
W-12 1.12 0.74 0.06 1.03 1.50 Meteoric
W-13 0.49 0.43 0.05 1.11 0.72 Meteoric
W-14 0.84 0.63 0.05 0.81 1.19 Marine
W-15 0.66 0.48 0.03 0.61 0.64 Marine
Average 0.87 0.65 0.04 0.74 1.04
O.S.W 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.85 0.01

4.9. Groundwater Qualitative Evaluation

4.9.1. Groundwater suitability for human drinking

For the purpose of evaluating the suitability of groundwater for human drinking, (IQS, 2009),
(WHO, 2011) and (EPA,2018) were used to determine its suitability as drinking water in the study area
as shown in Table 11. The results assure the groundwater in the study area is inappropriate for human
drinking purposes.

Table 11. Comparison of analyzed groundwater samples with IQS (2009), WHO (2011) and EPA
(2018) standards for drinking water in both periods
Parameters Dry period Wet period IQS,2009 WHO,2011 EPA,2018 Exceeding
(ppm) Ave.(ppm) Ave.(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) limits
pH 7.6 7.5 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5 -------- Not Exceed
T.H 1381 1229 500 500 -------- Exceed
TDS 2501 2204 1000 1000 -------- Exceed
EC (μS/cm) 3908 3482 1500 1500 -------- Exceed
Ca2+ 310 258.1 150 150 -------- Exceed
Mg2+ 151.4 130.3 100 125 -------- Exceed
Na+ 282.4 247.6 200 200 -------- Exceed
K+ 29.8 26 --------- 12 -------- Exceed
SO4= 833.6 734.6 400 250 -------- Exceed
Cl- 583.7 521.5 350 250 -------- Exceed
HCO3- 294.4 257.9 450 250 -------- Exceed
NO3- 4.09 4.08 50 50 10 Not Exceed
PO4-3 0.203 0.19 0.4 -------- Not Exceed
Cu 0.004 0.050 0.3 0.3 0.3 Not Exceed
Mn 0.040 0.0344 0.1 0.4 0.4 Not Exceed
Pb 0.051 0.046 0.01 0.01 0.015 Exceed
Ni 0.170 0.165 0.02 0.07 0.07 Exceed
Cd 0.035 0.030 0.003 0.003 0.005 Exceed
Cr 0.032 0.028 0.05 0.05 0.1 Not Exceed
Zn 0.14 0.126 3 3 5 Not Exceed

215
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

4.9.2. Groundwater suitability for irrigation purposes

There are a variety of classifications used to determine if water is suitable for irrigation. These
categories are based on a number of factors, including pH, TDS, EC, cations, anions, nutrients, SAR,
Na percent, and RSC. The following equation (Todd, 2007) is used to compute sodium adsorption ratio
values:

SAR = rNa/((√rCa+√rMg)/2) (6)

Where: SAR: Sodium Adsorption Ratio. rNa+, rCa2+ and rMg2+: Concentration of ions in epm
units. The results of groundwater samples for both periods are compared with Ayers and Westcot
classification (1989) are shown in Table12. The SAR values of groundwater samples in the study area
for both periods are shown in Table 14. According to Ayers and Westcot classification (1989) (Table
10) and Don classification (1995) (Table13), indicates that: W7, W.10 lie in excellent water quality
limit, while W.6, W.8, W.9, W.11 lie in good water quality limit, and the remaining wells lie in
permissible water quality limit.
Soluble Sodium Percentage (Na %) values of groundwater samples in the study area for both
periods are expressed in Table 14. According to Don classification (1995) (Table 11), Na% values
indicates that: W.7, W.10 lie in excellent water quality limit, while W.2, W.6, W.8, W.9, W.11, W.12,
W14, W.15 lie in good water quality limit, and W.1, W.3, W.4, W.5, W.13, lie in permissible water
quality limit. Table 14 presents the residual sodium carbonate (RSC) values of groundwater samples
from the study area for the two periods. It is evident that all (RSC) values are low and negative,
suggesting that salt danger is improbable and is contained within the Turgeon classification's acceptable
limits. (2000) (Table 15).

Table 12. Specification standards for irrigation water (Ayers and Westecot, 1989).

Usual range Exceed wells

variables Unit
Dry period Wet period
EC μS/cm 0-3000 All sample exceed All sample exceed, except W.3
Salinity All sample exceed, except W.1,
TDS Ppm 0-2000 All sample exceed
W.3, W.4, W.13
2+
Ca Epm 0-2 All sample exceed All sample exceed
Cations Mg2+ Epm 0-5 All sample exceed All sample exceed
Na+ Epm 0-40 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed
Cl- Epm 0-30 All sample exceed All sample exceed
Anions All sample are not exceed except All sample are not exceed
SO4= Epm 0-20
W.5, W.6, W.7, W.12, W.14 except W.5,
-
HCO3 Epm 0-10 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed
NO3-N Ppm 0-10 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed
Nutrients
PO4-P Ppm 0-2 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed
K+ Ppm 0-2 All sample exceed All sample exceed
Miscellaneous pH 1-14 6-8.5 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed
SAR Epm 0-15 All samples are not exceed All samples are not exceed

Table 13. Classification of Don (1995) for irrigation water.

EC (μS\cm) TDS (ppm) SAR Na% pH Water quality

250 175 3 20 6.5 Excellent
250-750 175-525 3-5 20-40 6.5-6.8 Good
750-2000 525-1400 5-10 40-60 6.8-7 Permissible
2000-3000 1400-2100 10-15 60-80 7-8 Doubtful
>3000 >2100 >15 >80 >8 Unsuitable

216
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

Table 14. Values of SAR, Na%, RSC for water samples in the study area for both periods.

Dry period Wet period

Well No.
SAR Na% RSC SAR Na% RSC
W- 1 6.7 44.2 -12 5.9 42.2 -12
W- 2 6.4 38.0 -23 5.8 37.0 -21
W- 3 6.1 40.1 -19 5.8 40.3 -17
W- 4 6.6 42.2 -17 6.3 42.7 -15
W-5 7.8 43.4 -21 7.1 42.2 -20
W-6 4.9 32.4 -28 4.9 33.6 -25
W-7 1.1 12.4 -33 1.1 12.2 -31
W-8 3.2 23.7 -28 3.0 24.0 -25
W-9 3.4 26.3 -24 2.9 24.4 -21
W-10 2.3 19.9 -24 2.0 18.7 -21
W-11 3.7 24.5 -27 3.2 23.7 -23
W-12 5.4 35.4 -21 5.4 37.2 -18
W-13 9.7 56.4 -9 8.5 54.2 -9
W-14 5.4 35.5 -26 5.5 37.1 -22
W-15 5.9 35.1 -29 5.8 36.2 -25

Table 15. Classification of irrigation water based on RSC values, according to Turgeon (2000).

RSC Hazard
<0 None
0-1.25 Low, with some removal of calcium and magnesium from irrigation water
1.25-2.5 Medium, with appreciable removal of calcium and magnesium from irrigation water
>2.5 High, with most calcium and magnesium removed leaving sodium to accumulate

5. Conclusions

• The results indicate that Ca2+ is the most common cation in groundwater samples, which could be
due to carbonate rock dissolution, and that SO42- is the most common anion, which is the underlying
formation to the Injana Formation.
• The trace elements were compared with local and international standard specifications for trace
elements in drinking water, shows that Cu, Mn, Cr, and Zn were all below permissible limits, while
Pb, Ni, and Cd exceeded them.
• According to salinity, groundwater samples for two periods were classified as excessively
mineralized water, while they were categorized as brackish water, with the exception of samples
from well number 5 in the dry period, which were classified as salty due to TDS values.
• For the two time periods, the groundwater was also categorized as very hard water. CaSO 4, CaCl,
NaCl, and Na2SO4 are the most prevalent salts in water samples from both times. For two periods,
the chloride-sulfate type of groundwater was present.
• In Gibbs diagram, the majority of the samples in this study fell within the evaporation dominance
zone, showing that rainfalls can recharge groundwater.
• The groundwater of the Injana unconfined aquifer in study area was not suitable for human drinking
in all the parameters properties. The quality of groundwater for irrigation purposes ranged from
excellent water to permissible water quality limit for SAR, while they are ranged from excellent to
permissible water quality limit for Na%, and it is clear that all (RSC) values are low and negatively
indicating that sodium hazard is unlikely and lies within the permissible limits.

217
 Iraqi Geological Journal Alnoory and Al-Kubaisi 2022, 55 (2E), 201-218

References
Al-Bassam, K., and Yousif, M., 2014. Geochemical distribution and background values of some minor and trace
elements in iraqi soils and recent sediments, Iraqi Bulletin of Geology and Mining, 10 (2), 109 – 156.
Altoviski, M. E., 1962. Handbook of hydrogeology, Gosgeolitzdat,Moscow, USSR,(in Russian), 614.
Appelo, C. A. J. and Postma, D., 2005. Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution Rotterdam: A. A. Balkama,
Netherlands, 536.
Appelo, C. A., 1999. Cation and proton exchange, PH variations and carbonate reactions in a freshening aquifer,
Water Resources Research, 30, 2793-2805.
Ayers, R. S. and Westcot, D. W. 1989. Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage, 29, Rev.1. FAO,
Rome, Italy, 174.
Boyd, C. E., 2000. Water quality an introduction, Kluwer Academic publisher, USA. 330.
Davis, S. N. and Dewiest R.J.M., 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York. 463.
Detay, M., 1997. Water Wells- implementation, maintenance and restoration, John Wiley and Sons, London, 379.
Don, C. M. 1995. A Grows Guide to Water Quality, University college station, Texas.
Fetter, C. W., 1980. Applied Hydrogeology, Charles Merrill pub. Co. A. Bell and Howell company, Columbus,
Ohio, 488.
Gibbs, R. J., 1970. Mechanism controlling world water chemistry Sciences, 170, 795–840.
GEOSURV,1996. Geological map of Ramadi quadrangle, sheet NI-38-10. Scale 1:250000.
Gnanachandrasamy, G., Dushiyanthan, C., Rajakumar, T.J., Zhou, Y., 2020. Assessment of hydrogeochemical
characteristics of groundwater in the lower Vellar river basin: using Geographical Information System
(GIS) and Water Quality Index (WQI). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 759-789.
Hadi, S. H., Al-Wan, H. H., 2020. Surface water-groundwater interaction in Diwaniya, southern Iraq using isotopic
and chemical techniques, Iraqi Geological Journal, 53 (2B), 89-112.
Hem, J. D., 1991. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical characteristics of Natural Water. USGS. Water Supply
paper, 2254, 263.
Herczeg, A.L., Dogramaci, S., Leaney, F.W.J., 2001. Origin of dissolved salts in a large, semi-arid groundwater
system: Murray Basin, Australia. Marine Resources, 52, 41–52.
Iraqi standards, 2009. Iraqi Standard of Drinking Water No. 417modification No.1.
Krasny, J., Alsam, S. and Jassim, S.Z., 2006. Hydrology. In Jassim and Goff, editors, Geology of Iraq, 2006; Dolin,
Prague and Moravian Museum, Brno, 341.
Piper, A. M., 1944. A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water analyses, Transition, American
Geophysical Union, 25, 914-928.
Todd, D. K., 2007. Groundwater hydrology third edition, Jhon Wiley and Sons, Third Reprint. Inc. India. 535.
Turgeon, A. J., 2000. Irrigation Water Quality, College of Agricultural sciences The Pennsylvania State
University, USA.
U.S EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2018. Edition of the Drinking Water.
WHO, World Health Organization, 2011. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 4th ed.World Health
Organization. 564.
WHO, World Health Organization, 2005. Nickel in drinking water, World Health Organization, Guidelines for
drinking-water quality.
Yenugu, S.R., Vangala, S., Badri, S., 2020. Monitoring of groundwater quality for drinking purposes using the
WQI method and its health implications around inactive mines in Vemula-Vempalli

218