Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 932

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems Discover the geological foundation of global water supply, focusing on resource conservation and restoration Hydrogeochemistry explores the connections between the geology of a region and the chemical characteristics and quality of its water sources, including such factors as erosion, evaporation, and, increasingly, man-made activities. With the emergence of climate change as a major factor reshaping water quality and availability, the need to understand interactions between hydrochemistry and geology has never been greater. Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems meets this need by offering foundational knowledge about the hydrochemistry of different types of aquatic systems, the nature of their interactions with various pollutants and geological processes, and the possibilities and dangers of human intervention. With a particular focus on aqueous resource conservation and restoration, this is a vital, timely guide to a potentially life-saving subject. Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems readers will also find: * Detailed treatment of water-sediment interactions, arsenic and fluoride enrichment, sand mining, and many other subjects * Coverage throughout of solute acquisition processes, the carbon cycle, and nutrient geochemistry * Case studies from Asia and Africa demonstrating both natural and anthropogenic hydrogeochemical interactions Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems is indispensable for professionals and researchers in environmental science and environmental engineering, as well as scholars and advanced graduate students working on aquatic ecosystems or effects of climate change.

Leseprobe

Hydrogeochemistry of Aquatic Ecosystems

Edited by

Sughosh Madhav

Jamia Millia Islamia,

New Delhi,

India

Virendra Bahadur Singh

Ram Lal Anand College, University of Delhi,

New Delhi,

India

Manoj Kumar

Central University of Haryana,

India

Sandeep Singh

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,

India

This edition first published 2023© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Sughosh Madhav, Virendra Bahadur Singh, Manoj Kumar, and Sandeep Singh to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial OfficeBoschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyIn view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data applied for9781119870531

Cover Design: WileyCover Image: Courtesy of Virendra Bahadur Singh

List of Contributors

Bedour Al SabtiWater Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait

AnshumaliDepartment of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Uday BhanDepartment of Petroleum Engineering & Earth Sciences, UPES, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

George BiswasDepartment of Geology, Presidency University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Umakant ChaudhariDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab, India

Harshit ChawlaDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Chidambaram SabarathinamWater Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait

Fatemah M. DashtiWater Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait

Chitrangada DebsarmaSchool of Environment and Sustainable Development, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Dhanu Radha SamayamanthulaWater Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait

Kamal DuaDiscipline of Pharmacy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia

Somenath GangulyDepartment of Petroleum Engineering & Earth Sciences, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

A. K. HaritashDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Anamika HarshvardhanSilviculture and Forest Management Division, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Mohammad HashimDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Adams Ovie IyiolaDepartment of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management; Faculty of Renewable Natural Resources Management; College of Agriculture and Renewable Natural Resources, Osun State University, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria

Sylvester Chibueze IzahDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Bayelsa Medical University, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Sourav KalraChitkara University School of Pharmacy, Chitkara University, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India

Shyam KanhaiyaDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Neha KanojiaChitkara University School of Pharmacy, Chitkara University, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India

Oznur KaracaDepartment of Geological Engineering, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey

Mohammad Muqtada Ali KhanDepartment of Geoscience, Faculty of Earth Science, Universitii Malaysia Kelantan, Jeli, Kelantan, Malaysia

Vamsi Krishna KudapaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, UPES, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Amit KumarDepartment of Geoinformatics, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Gaurav KumarCivil and Environmental Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Ranjit KumarDepartment of Chemistry, UPES, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Sanchit KumarDepartment of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Neeta KumariCivil and Environmental Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Tarik MitranSoil and Land Resources Assessment Division, National Remote Sensing Centre, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Sunil MittalDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab, India

M. A. Mohammed‐AslamDepartment of Geology, Central University of Karnataka, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India

Suryadipta MukherjeeDepartment of Geology, Presidency University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Hasan Raja NaqviDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Binod Kumar NathPublic Works (Roads) Department Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Chandmari, Guwahati, Assam, India

Samikshya PandaDepartment of Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Richa PandeyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Soumya PandeyCivil and Environmental Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Abhilash Kumar PaswanDepartment of Physical Science, Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India; Department of Hydrogeochemistry, CSIR‐ National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Subhashree PatraDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Harsh PipilDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

N. Janardhana RajuSchool of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

AL. RamanathanSchool of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Glory RichardDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Syed Shams RizviDepartment of Geology, Central University of Karnataka, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India

Prafulla Kumar SahooDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab, India; InstitutoTecnologico Vale, Belem, PA, Brazil

Paulami SahuSchool of Environment and Sustainable Development, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Purabi SaikiaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Zameer Ahmad ShahGeological Survey of India, U.T. Jammu and Kashmir, NR‐Srinagar, India

Monica Sharma ShamurailatpamSchool of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Reema SharmaDepartment of Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

ShilkyDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Shrinivasa D. J.Department of Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Lubna SiddiquiDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Masood Ahsan SiddiquiDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Abhra SinghDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Harminder SinghSchool of Chemical Engineering and Physical Science, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India

Risha SinghCentre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

S. K. SinghDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Sonam TanejaDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Shivani ThakurDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, Punjab, India

Vinod Kumar TripathiDepartment of Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Suantak Paolalsiam VaipheiDepartment of Hydrogeochemistry, CSIR‐ National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Mallika VashistDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Nitin VermaChitkara University School of Pharmacy, Chitkara University, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India

Taufique WarsiWOTR Centre for Resilience Studies (W‐CReS), Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune, Maharashtra, India

Shivani YadavDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Editors’ Biography

Sughosh Madhav Dr. Sughosh Madhav is presently working as Dr. D. S. Kothari Postdoctoral Fellow (DSKPDF) in the Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. He has obtained his master’s degree from the Department of Environmental Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. He earned his doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The area of his doctoral research is the environmental impact of industrial effluents on groundwater and soil quality. He has published various research papers and book chapters in the field of environmental geochemistry, water pollution, wastewater remediation, and climate change. He also edited seven books for Wiley, Springer, and Elsevier publications on various environmental issues.

Virendra Bahadur Singh Dr. Virendra Bahadur Singh is presently working as an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies, Ram Lal Anand College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. He has worked as Dr. D. S. Kothari Postdoctoral Fellow (DSKPDF) in the Department of Geology, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. He has also worked as National Postdoctoral Fellow (NPDF) at the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India. He obtained his doctoral degree from School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. His research work is mainly focused on hydrogeochemistry, biogeochemistry, hydrology, hydro‐meteorological correlation, and suspended sediment transport. He has published more than 30 research papers in various reputed journals and also edited 2 books for Wiley and Elsevier publications.

Manoj Kumar Dr. Manoj Kumar is presently working as an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies, Central University of Haryana, India. He has obtained his master’s degree and doctorate degree from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. The area of his doctoral research is Solute Geochemistry and Arsenic Fate in the Aquifers of Central Gangetic Basin, India. He has published several research papers in journals of international repute and book chapters in the field of hydrogeochemistry, groundwater pollution, and health risk assessment.

Sandeep Singh Prof. Sandeep Singh is working as a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He obtained his master's and PhD degrees from the University of Roorkee (IIT, Roorkee). His research interest includes geochronology, isotope geology, exhumation processes, and Sr‐isotopes in the water system. He has published more than 70 research papers in reputed journals. He is a regular reviewer of various international journals. He has earned various reputed awards, and he is a member of numerous respected academic societies. Prof. Singh is a well‐known geologist and has a wide experience in isotopic geology and hydrogeochemistry.

Preface

Hydrogeochemistry has always been a subject to solve the relationships between groundwater, surface water, and aquatic systems’ chemical characteristics and their relationship with the area’s geology. The phenomenon of hydrogeochemical variations depends on various geochemical processes, like weathering, evaporation, and dissolution, and diverse anthropogenic activities that control the aquatic systems’ hydrogeochemistry. Almost all aquatic systems are affected by human interventions, causing several problems. Further climate change also impacts the hydrogeochemistry of different ecosystems. It is, therefore, vital to understand the current status of the aquatic systems to manage and mitigate the impacts. This book covers current issues related to hydrogeochemistry of natural aquatic systems, including river, glaciers, lake, and sub‐surface ecosystems, processes involved, and human beings’ interference. This book tries to address all the major impending problems related to hydrogeochemistry of surface and sub‐surface water with a certain degree of solutions to manage and conserve water resources. The various chapters will help to understand the processes and factors controlling the hydrogeochemistry of water resources. The book discusses multiple hydrogeochemical techniques like nutrient geochemistry, solute acquisition processes, water–sediment interactions, enrichment of geogenic elements like arsenic, fluoride, and uranium, anthropogenic addition, and biogeochemical cycling of metals, CO2 consumption rate in the surface water bodies, sand mining in rivers, and hydrogeochemical modeling. The other highlights of the book are carbon dynamics and its sequestration in surface water bodies, soil–water interactions, and sediment loading in aquatic ecosystems. The book encompasses knowledge on isotopic studies, microbial control in hydrogeochemistry along nutrient dynamics of the polar ice sheet and glaciers. The work contained in the book covers holistic and in‐depth knowledge of the hydrogeochemistry of different aquatic ecosystems.

The chapters in the book address the impending problems with a certain degree of solutions to manage and conserve water resources. This book contains both practical and theoretical aspects of the hydrogeochemistry of aquatic systems. It will be helpful for undergraduate and graduate university students or researchers and teachers, environmental engineers, and scientists working in water resource management, environmental studies, and social issues. It will also be helpful for researchers and stakeholders from all the sectors of industries and governmental agencies who are directly or indirectly associated with water resource research and management.

We tried a humble attempt to reflect upon the various aspects of aquatic hydrogeochemistry, hoping that it would be a significant addition to the already available literature. The contributors to the book having different backgrounds provide a holistic approach to the topic imbibing diverse practices and perspectives. We express our sincere gratitude to all the contributors and publishers for producing a remarkable and meaningful edited volume on an important issue.

1Fluoride in Groundwater: Distribution, Sources, Processes, Analysis, and Treatment Techniques: A Review

Bedour Al Sabti, Dhanu Radha Samayamanthula, Fatemah M. Dashti, and Chidambaram Sabarathinam

Water Research Center, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait

1.1 Introduction

Fluoride (F−) belongs to the halogen family and is a constituent in minerals such as fluorite, fluorspar, apatite, biotite, cryolite, and muscovite (Bretzler and Johnson 2015; Dehbandi et al. 2017), apart from its availabilities in plants, soil, and groundwater. Groundwater is one of the most important sources of drinking water and one of the fundamental human rights around the globe is an access to safe drinking. Contamination and unsustainable drinking water sources could affect human health, resulting in the transmission of diseases (WHO 2018). Fluoride is one of the ions which may lead to groundwater contamination if present in high concentrations. Although high F− in groundwater is a major concern that is still being debatable around the globe, fluoride is essential for the growth of the dental and skeletal frame of the body. Fluoride concentration in groundwater differs from one region to another based on aquifer material, geology, weathering rate, aquifer depth, contact time, pH, rainfall, and temperature (Brunt et al. 2004; Onipe et al. 2020). The geochemical process governs fluoride mobility through leaching from soil and rocks to the groundwater. Studies suggest that exposure to high fluoride imparts a vulnerable effect on the mental ability of children. The IQ levels of children exposed to higher F− are lower than unaffected children (Choi et al. 2012; Das and Mondal 2016). The thyroid gland is susceptible to F−, which causes an increase in thyroid‐stimulating hormone (TSH) leading to a drop in Triiodothyronine (T3) and Thyroxine (T4) levels, thereby resulting in hypothyroidism (McLaren 1976; Shashi 1988; Kumar et al. 2019). Fluorosis results from a high concentration of fluoride in drinking water and depends on other sources such as dietary habits that enhance the incidence of fluorosis (Brindha and Elango 2011; Srivastava and Flora 2020). Several countries, such as West Indies, India, Poland, China, Spain, Africa, and Italy, have been reported with high fluoride concentrations (Huang et al. 2017). The geochemical data for Cameroon, Algeria, Ghana, United Kingdom, Siri Lanka, Argentina, Canada, Tanzania, Kuwait, South Africa (Silom), India (Telangana), and Brazil were collected from the literature to understand the geochemistry of F− (Table 1.1). Some of the published data for selected countries does not contain the complete analysis results. Based on the available ions in the analytical data, they were used for statistical analysis using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The same analytical data were used for different plots developed from the output results of WATEQ4F and AQUACHEM. The objective of this review is to emphasize the global distribution, sources, analysis, and treatment strategies for excessive fluoride levels in groundwater. Also, the review presents geochemical plots, statistical techniques, thermodynamic and modeling approaches to determine processes governing the fluoride release and distribution in groundwater.

Table 1.1 Lithology and analytes considered from the literature studies of various countries but clay minerals like Vermiculite have also reported to be a source of F− in groundwater due to the process of Fluoride ion.

Country

Lithology type

Analytes

Reference

Algeria

Sedimenatary (sand and gravel, limestone, clay, and shale)

pH, EC, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, F

–

Messaitfa (2007)

Argentina

Thick sedimentary rock and volcanoclastic mineral

pH, EC, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

, Si, Fe

2+

, Al

3+

, Be

2+

, U, B

Ganyaglo et al. (2019); Jayawardana et al. (2012); Edmunds and Smedley (2013)

Brazil

Sedimentary

pH, EC, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, F

–

Rockett et al. (2013)

Canada

—

pH, EC, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

, Si, Fe

2+

, Al

3+

, Be

2+

, U, B

Ganyaglo et al. (2019); Jayawardana et al. (2012); Edmunds and Smedley (2013)

Central Africa (Cameroon)

Crystalline basement (granite)/ Tertiary sedimentary rocks

pH, EC, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, F

–

, NO

3

–

Fantong et al. (2009)

Ghana

Precambrian crystalline and igneous rocks (granite)

pH, EC, TDS, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

Sunkari an Abu (2019)

India (Telangana)

Igneous rock (granite)

Narsimha and Sudarshan (2017)

Kuwait

Sedimentary siliciclastic and carbonates

pH, EC, TDS, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

, B, NH4

+

, PO

4

3–

, SiO

2

, Fe

2+

, Al

3+

, Ba

2+

, Li

+

, Mn

2+

, Mo, Ni

2+

, Zn

2+

Al‐Senafy et al. (2011)

South Africa (Silom)

—

pH, EC, TDS, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

, PO

4

3–

Onipe et al. (2021)

Sri Lanka

High‐grade metamorphic rock

pH, EC, temperature, Na

+

, K

+

, Ca

2+

, Mg

2+

, Cl

–

, SO

4

2–

, HCO

3

–

, CO

3

2–

F

–

, NO

3

–

, Si, Fe

2+

, Al

3+

, Be

2+

, U, B

Ganyaglo et al. (2019); Jayawardana et al. (2012); Edmunds and Smedley (2013)

Tanzania

Volcanic rock and metamorphic

United Kingdom

—

1.2 Permissible Limits of Fluoride in Drinking Water

According to the WHO (2006), the maximum permitted level of F−in drinking water is 1.5 mg/L. While the USPHS (1987) established a range of allowable F− concentration in drinking water for regions based on their climatic conditions, because the amount of water consumed and, the amount of F− ingested is primarily influenced by the air temperature. The rise in air temperature decreases the concentration of F−. The maximum permissible level in tropical climates with temperatures above 26 °C is 1.4 mg/L. In light of the Indian subcontinent’s environmental and socioeconomic situation, the F− desirable limit is established at 0.6–1.2 mg/L, and the highest allowed level in the absence of any other source is set at 1.5 mg/L for drinking water (ISI 1995). The limit was set based on the daily consumption rate of water, about 2 L/day for an adult body mass, and contains about 0.2–0.5 mg fluorine as a standard diet (WHO 1994). A range of environmental, social, cultural, economic, and other circumstances affecting possible exposure, as well as the default assumptions used to create the guideline values, will need to be taken into account when creating national drinking‐water standards based on these guideline values. In addition, the environmental‐based variation depends on the region, as regional diets and ambient temperature control the permissible limit (Apambire et al. 1997). Furthermore, in a country with a constant warm environment and piped water as the main drinking‐water source, authorities may choose a lower health‐based fluoride target than this guideline value as water consumption is predicted to be higher (Guidelines for drinking‐water quality 2021). Drinking water from groundwater may be beneficial or harmful depending on the concentration level of fluoride. In recent years, countries have been developing drinking standards to decrease waterborne diseases and improve safe water resources management (Ali et al. 2019). As the concentration of F− in drinking water is different for each country, and the amount of water consumed by a person also varies concerning the climate and availability, so each region has its own standard (Figure 1.1). Drinking high fluoride groundwater is the primary reason for endemic fluorosis in the countries such as China (Guo et al. 2007). Higher F− concentration in groundwater, i.e. exceeding the permissible limit of WHO, is observed in countries like Japan, Cameroon, China, Turkey, India, Sri Lanka, Iran, Pakistan, Brazil, and Canada. Fluorosis, on the other hand, is caused by a high quantity of fluoride in drinking water and is exacerbated by other factors such as dietary choices (Brindha and Elango 2011).

Fluoride concentrations above the permissible limit are harmful to human health, such as dental fluorosis, crippling skeletal fluorosis, and skin lesions (Rasool et al. 2017), and it also depends on the amount of intake, duration of exposure, and gastrointestinal traces. The absorbed fluoride from the food sources in the digestive system is about 30–40% (Kumar et al. 2019).

Figure 1.1 A radar chart representing the maximum fluoride concentration standard for each country as specified. Data

Source: Guo et al. (2007), Jagtap et al. (2012), Abu‐Zeid and El‐Hatow (2007), and KEPA (2017).

1.3 Concentration of High Fluoride Around the Globe

Data for groundwater samples signifying maximum value fluoride concentration were collected from literature studies to represent the highest value of F− distribution in a world map (Figure 1.2). The map represents a total of 46 regions with F− concentration above the allowable limits, reaching up to 160 mg/L. One of the highest F− concentration values that was found with a total of 160mg/L, found to be reported in California, North America (McMahon et al. 2020). The high fluoride concentration as it is shown on the map mostly represents the igneous and metamorphic rock formations predominantly around the tropical region. However, elevated fluoride concentration may result from various sources affecting the groundwater to be discussed in the following section.

1.4 Sources of Fluoride in Groundwater

Fluoride in groundwater occurs in variable concentrations and <1.0 mg/L is generally reported in natural waters (Hem 1985). Anion exchanges, solubility of minerals, temperature, pH, nature of the aquifers, matrix, and availability of complexing ion, residence time, and chemical composition of the groundwater are the main governing factors affecting the concentration of F− (Apambire et al. 1997). The presence of F− in groundwater is mostly caused by natural or geogenic contamination (Manikandan et al. 2014). Chemical weathering, atmospheric dust from continental sources, industrial pollutants, and magmatic emissions are also potential sources of F− (Gizaw 1996). In other words, F− reaches groundwater due to input from natural or anthropogenic sources or both. Fluorides can be transported to groundwater via water–rock interaction by different fluoride‐bearing minerals (Narsimha and Sudarshan 2017). This interaction is used to examine the geogenic input of fluoride in groundwater aquifers from various forms of fluoride minerals.

Figure 1.2 Global map represents the maximum fluoride values concentration which is above the standard limits in different regions. The lithology legend highlights only the areas of high fluoride concentration in groundwater.

Source: Reproduced with the permission of the OneGeology. All rights reserved.

1.4.1 Natural Sources

The parent rock serves as the primary source of fluoride in groundwater. Thus, various geochemical studies have been performed on various aspects of fluoride in groundwater. Some rock types showed a higher fluoride concentration than others with groundwater, such as volcanic zones with geothermal sources, sedimentary basins, and crystalline basement aquifers (Edmunds and Smedley 2005). An average F− concentration of 715 mg/kg is observed in igneous rocks globally (Gizaw 1996). These rocks are likely to be formed in volcanic areas with magmas enriched with fluoride concentration, and the sodium plagioclase is most likely to form soft groundwater that allows higher fluoride production when reaching equilibrium (Ozsvath 2006). Fluorine can be present in different igneous rock‐forming minerals such as mica, apatite, amphiboles, pegmatite, and certain types of clay (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). The predominant minerals are depicted in Table 1.2, but clay minerals like Villiaumite have also reported to be a source of F− in groundwater due to the process of ion exchange (Handa 1975; Pickering 1985; Wenzel and Blum 1992; Bardsen et al. 1996; Subba Rao and Devadas 2003). Fluoride concentrations, on the other hand, are frequently related to water–rock interaction to a certain degree because fluoride is mostly from lithology (Manikandan et al. 2014). The hydrogeochemical studies in groundwater had reported several mechanisms of F− release based upon the composition of the aquifer matrix, the physio chemical conditions, and the rock–water interaction. They have also inferred that the residence time in the aquifer and temperature also play a major role in release of F− from the rock matrix to groundwater. Some researchers have studied the relationship between water–rock interaction and F− concentration in various aquifers having different geologic settings (Saxena and Ahmed 2003; Gaciri and Ad Davis 1993; Edmunds and Smedley 1996; Nordstrom et al. 1989; Nordstrom and Jenne 1977). Groundwater development and management have encountered a serious issue due to the prevalence of F− when harvesting or recharging structure areas located in granitic terrain. Fluorite is one of the minerals responsible for the presence of fluorine in nature, and it acts as an accessory mineral in granitic rocks (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). Deeper wells in granitic and gneissic aquifers often have higher fluoride contents. Fluorite (CaF2) present in the granitic formation is a dominant source of F− (Deshmukh et al. 1995). It is to be noted that the rate of dissolution and stability of the mineral in freshwater is relatively low (Nordstrom and Jenne 1977). Hence, few studies have indicated that biotite mica is present as an accessory mineral in the granitic formation, to be the prime source of F− in hosted groundwater for their favorable F−, (OH)− exchange (Saxena and Ahmed 2001). A pattern that has been documented in several inferences on groundwater collected from granitic regions (Yun et al. 1998a; White et al. 1963). The studies on samples from deep groundwater have indicated that the dissolution of F− minerals in the rock matrix was governed by the depth of well, residence time, and temperature (Saxena and Ahmed 2003; Nordstrom et al. 1989). Higher residence time is generally found in massive hard rock aquifers and lesser in porous sedimentary formations. This is also an important fact that higher F− in groundwater is more prevalent in hard rock aquifers. Fluoride can mix with clay by displacing the hydroxide from its surface in acidic water. F− is adsorbed on the clay surface but desorbed from solid phases in alkaline water. The evaporation process can also cause fluoride enrichment in groundwater; however, the evaporation process is usually characterized by the preponderance of Cl− ion in groundwater (Manikandan et al. 2014). Because of its granitic‐type composition (alkaline), augen gneiss has the largest potential for higher groundwater fluoride. The augen gneiss is metamorphosed granite that contains fluoride‐bearing minerals like biotite, hornblende, and distinctive Na‐feldspar mega crystals that serve as a secondary source of sodium for fluoride enrichment (Addison et al. 2020). One of the important fluoride‐bearing minerals is muscovite, with fluorine in its hydroxyl groups and crystal lattices that can act as fluoride substitutes due to their similar ionic charges. Among the micas apart from muscovite, biotite is also reported to have exchangeable F− of octahedral sheet at the hydroxyl sites (Chidambaram et al. 2007). The lithological influences of F− in groundwater were investigated by Singaraja et al. (2013), where the study stated that elevated F− concentrations in groundwater were due to charnockite, hornblende biotite gneiss marine alluvium, and by flood plain alluvium. Higher concentration of F− in hydrological systems also depends on the rate of recharge and the transport of the ion along with the groundwater flow. There is also a probability of reduction of F− along the flow direction either due to mineral precipitation or removal by adsorption or by ion exchange process. The studies on the thermodynamic properties and the relative F− enrichment in groundwater in the different geochemical environments are still scanty.

Table 1.2 Classification of fluoride minerals in different rock types with their chemical composition.

Source: Adapted from Yadav and Khan (2010).

S.No.

Mineral

Rocks

Chemical composition

1

Fluorite

CaF

2

Pegmatite, Metamorphosed, Limestone

CaF

2

2

Fluorspar

Pegmatite Pneumatolitic, Deposits

CaF

2

.3Ca

3

(PO

4

)

2

3

Tremolite Actinolite

Clay

Ca

2

(MgFe

2+

)

5

(Si

8

O

22

)(OHF)

2

4

Rock Phosphate

Limestone, Fossils

NaCa

2

(MgFe

2+

)

4

(AlFe

3+

)(SiAl)

8

O

22

(OHF)

2

5

Lepidolite

Gabbros, Dolerites

K

2

(Li, Al)

5

(Si

6

Al

2

)O

20

(OHF)

4

1.4.2 Anthropogenic Sources

Pollution that results from industries such as fabrication of aluminum, fertilizers, and steel has been reported to generate higher F− through anthropogenic means to the natural environment (Datta et al. 2014). The use of phosphate fertilizer in agricultural operations also results in the probable presence of fluoride in groundwater (Thivya et al. 2015) where phosphate fertilizers generally contain fluorine ranging from 1.3 to 3.0% (Mclaughlin et al. 1996). Apart from the above anthropogenic sources, pesticides, sewage and sludge, groundwater table depletion, and other agricultural practices have also been linked to a rise in F− concentrations in groundwater (Srinivasamoorthy et al. 2007). F− may infiltrate streams through adjacent uneven joints, cracks, and through damaged pipelines transporting household, agricultural, and industrial effluents (Datta et al. 2014). Farooqi et al. (2009) study illustrated that familiar source of F− in the environment including air pollution from coal combustion and phosphate fertilizers, whereas soluble F− in fertilizers ranged from 60 to 255 mg/kg, with a mean of 175 mg/kg. In contrast, total F− in coal samples ranged from 5.12 to 20.1 mg/kg, with an average value of 10.2 mg/kg (Farooqi et al. 2009). However, only a small portion of overall fluoride exposure is typically attributed to air (Fawell et al. 2006). Another study by Loganathan et al. (2006) reported that fluoride concentrations in New Zealand agricultural surface soils varied from 212 to 617 μg F−, which was significantly lower than the fluoride values reported in the literature for sites polluted with fluoride from industrial sources.

1.4.3 Health Effects

The association between human health and fluoride was first explored in the late nineteenth century when chemists discovered varying levels of fluorine in human bones, tissues, and teeth (Kanduti et al., 2016). Fluoride is vital to human health for developing strong bones and teeth, but only in trace amounts ranging between 0.5 and 1 mg/L worldwide (Addison et al. 2020; Ozsvath 2006). However, fluoride is also known to be a very toxic element to human health if it exceeds the average standard limits published by WHO (Narsimha and Sudarshan 2017). Fluoride operates as hydrofluoric acid and is absorbed by humans and animals through their skin, where it travels quickly through the circulatory system and is stored in teeth and bones, according to Hodge and Smith (1977). According to another study, fluorosis is widespread in more than 200 million people globally (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). High fluoride levels can result in severe health issues in both adults and children, including dental fluorosis, bone deformation, and skeletal fluorosis (Narsimha and Sudarshan 2017).

1.4.4 Dental Fluorosis

Dental fluorosis considers as an irreparable toxic condition that affects the human teeth cells as an early‐stage sign of having a fluoride increase in the body (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). Any fluoride ingestion in water with a concentration above the standard limits may cause dental fluorosis (Apambire et al. 1997). A case study in India illustrated that out of 258 children in the study area were examined, and 84 of them were diagnosed with dental fluorosis with ages ranging between 3 and 17 years old. The dental signs of the patients were identified from their teeth, such as chalky white color stain, browning of the tooth surface, yellowish stain, deep brown or black discoloration, pitting, and teeth loss (Jha et al. 2009). Opaque white patches on teeth characterize the diagnosis of early‐stage dental fluorosis, unlike the advanced stages where the teeth are displayed as pitting on the surface of the teeth and brown to black staining (Figure 1.3) (Apambire et al. 1997). In addition, it was also suggested that calcium fluoroapatite crystals replaced the calcium in the teeth during a process known as mineralization. This process happens when the fluoride accumulates and combines with the calcium, and further on, the calcium will be reduced and lost from the teeth (Ayoob and Gupta 2006).

Figure 1.3 Effect of dental fluorosis due to high concentration of F−.

1.4.5 Skeletal Fluorosis

The consumption of water with F− concentration greater than the permissible limit that ranges between 4.0 and 8.0 mg/L and higher (Apambire et al. 1997), will lead to severe and long‐term damage to the human skeleton, a disease known as skeletal fluorosis (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). The lowest limit that has been noticed, which causes skeletal fluorosis, is 3.0 mg/L (Manikandan et al. 2014). Moreover, higher the duration and amount of fluoride entering the human body, the higher the severity of the disease (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). The symptoms shown on people with a possibility of having skeletal fluorosis vary in severity, with excess fluoride concentration consumption by Sutter from muscle and joint pain or mild rheumatic pain. In addition, to severe pain in the cervical spine region, stiffness and rigidity in joints, and crippling; skeletal fluorosis can occur once the fluoride concentration in drinking water exceeds 10 mg/L (Apambire et al. 1997; WHO 1970). Likewise, skeletal fluorosis can also be witnessed in the X‐ray by increasing the bone density in adults (Mohammadi et al. 2017). Fluoride can disrupt the equilibrium of bone mineral metabolism by affecting the accretion and desorption of bone tissue (Ayoob and Gupta 2006). A study by Mohammadi (2017) analyzed two categories one with high fluoride concentration above the standard limit was diagnosed in a total of 445 people, and the other one containing low fluoride concentration below the standard limit was observed in a total of 470 people. The first area with high F− showed that 21.1% of the people have skeletal fluorosis, only 3% from the second area suffered from skeletal fluorosis. The rates of the fluoride concentration in this study ranged from 0.22 to 10.33 mg/L (Mohammadi et al. 2017).

1.5 Hazard Index

The Hazard Index or Hazard Quotient (HQ) is the ratio of a single drug exposure level (dose or concentration) during a defined time period to the RfD computed for the same substance over the same time period. HQ, ratio greater than one indicates that the chemical concentration is enough to induce persistent noncarcinogenic effects. In this review, samples of Kuwait (Table 1.3) are considered to check the effect of high concentration of fluoride using the following equation:

Table 1.3 Calculated and standard values of the parameters needed for the HQ calculation. The mean value of F− from Kuwait’s groundwater samples.

Source: Data from Worldbank – Kuwait Data (2021).

Variable

Description

Value (Women)

Value (Men)

C (mg/L)

Mean F concentration in groundwater

1.98

1.98

IR (L/day)

Daily water intake rate

2

2

EF (days/year)

Exposure frequency

365

365

ED (Year)

Exposure duration

76.4

74.6

Lt

Lifetime expectancy

75.4

75.4

BW (kg)

Average body weight

78.3

88.1

AT (Lt × 365)

Averaging time of exposure

27 521

27 521

EDI

Estimated daily intake of F

−

from groundwater

0.05

0.04

RfD (mg/kg)

Oral toxicity reference

0.06

0.06

HQ

Hazard index

0.85

0.74

(1.1)

This value is according to the USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (USEPA 2014).

The estimated daily intake (EDI) of F from groundwater is used to calculate the F exposure dosage. The EDI values were calculated using Eq. 1.9 from the US Environmental Protection Agency. EDI can be determined using the following equation:

(1.2)

The optimum level of oral intake was assessed to depend on the baby weight and annual mean maximum temperature (Galagan et al. 1957)

(1.3)

E is the estimated average daily water intake for children <10 years old.

(1.4)

AMMT is for a period of five years but due to malnutrition the amount of water intake is more and then the equation is modified (Ramadan and Hilmi 2014) as

(1.5)

The mean fluoride concentration in Kuwait groundwater samples is 1.98 mg/L. HQ was calculated to indicate the impact of high intake fluoride concentration for the lifetime. Using the data from Table 1.2, HQ was calculated for women and men are above 1.0 indicating the noncarcinogenic affects in future if the groundwater is utilized for drinking purpose. Also, it indirectly affects through food chain as groundwater is being used for agricultural purposes.

1.5.1 Analytical Techniques

The standard analytical methods adopted for F− determination in groundwater are Orion fluoride ion electrode model, ion‐selective electrode, ion chromatography, Spectrophotometer method by zirconyl oxychloride, SPADNS (Sodium 2‐(parasulfophenylazo)‐1,8‐dihydroxy‐3,6‐naphthalenedisulfonate), and ion‐sensitive electrodes (Table 1.3) (Srinivasamoorthy et al. 2008; Singaraja et al. 2012; Addison et al. 2020; Aravinthasamy et al. 2019; Shyam and Kalwania 2012; Dehghani et al. 2019; Sreedevi et al. 2006).

1.5.2 Treatment Methods

High fluoride in groundwater is treated through several processes like adsorption, sorption, electro dialysis, reverse osmosis, electrocoagulation, coagulation, precipitation, ion exchange, and by using nano membranes. These techniques have been tested on different scales at lab and field conditions (Table 1.4).

Table 1.4 Common treatment methods for the removal of fluoride preferred in different countries.

Removal method type

Materials used

Type of water

Reference

Adsorbent Column

Charcoal Fly‐ash Brick, Red soil, Serpentine

Rural water

Chidambaram et al., 2013

Adsorbents

Apophy, China clay, llitestilbite, clinoptilolite, Fuller’s earth, gibbsite, goethite, halloysite, kaolinite, Magnesite, bentonite, vermiculite, zeolite(s), serpentine, alkaline soil, acidic clay, kaolinitic clay, natrolite, aiken soil, diatomaceous earth and Ando soil

Water

Bower and Hatcher,1967; Bjorvartn and Bårdsen, 1997; Singano et al 1997

Adsorbents

Low grade Assam coal

Groundwater

Borah and Dey, 2009

Adsorbent

Alumina

Drinking water

Chidambaram et al., 2013

Bauxite, Alumn impregnate Alumina,

H

3

PO

4

and lime

Flyash

Synthetic Zeolites

Adsorption

Bone Char

Groundwater

Mukarjee and Singh, 2018

Adsorption

Polymer Aluminium Chloride

Contaminated water

He et al. 2016

Nano type

Hydroxy Apatite nanowires

Adsorption and de fluoridation

Bentonite clay using lanthanum, magnesium and manganese

Drinking water

Kamble et al., 2009

Adsorption and de fluoridation

Bentonite clay was modified chemically by

MgCl

2

Drinking water

Thakre et al., 2010

Adsorption & Co precipitation

Acid‐modified raw laterite

Groundwater

Bibi et al., 2015

Bio sorption

Chitin and Chitosan

Groundwater

Kamble et al., 2009

Bio sorption

Tamrind fruit shell carbon, Orange juice residue, Moringa activated carbon and neem leaf powder

Aqueous solution

Bharali and Bhattacharyya 2015a, b

Sorption

Acid treated moringa oleifera leaves powder

Synthetic water

Dan et al., 2018

Sorption

Aluminium fumerate metal organic frame work

Groundwater

Bibi et al., 2015

Adsorption

Magnesite–Chitosan composite

Drinking water

Bio sorption

Tea waste loaded with Al/Fe oxides

Drinking water

Cai et al., 2015

Bio sorption

Zirconium impregnate fibrous protein

Drinking water

Cai et al., 2015

Adsorption

Lanthanum carbon

Drinking water

Dong and Wang., 2016

Adsorption

Lanthanum‐loaded magnetic cationic hydrogel

Drinking water

Dong and Wang., 2016

Chemisorption

Chemically activated cotton nut shell carbon

Drinking water

Mariappan et al., 2015

Chemisorption

Industrial based adsorbent (cement)

Ground water

Bibi et al., 2015

Adsorption

Activated charcoal and activated alumina

Groundwater

Chidambaram et al., 2003; Chauhan et al., 2007

Adsorption

Brick, bentonite, fly ash, kaolinite, serpentine, red mud, waste mud, rice husk, charfines, bone char, ceramic

Groundwater

Brinda and Ellango, 2011

Adsorbent

Bauxite

Groundwater

Cherukumilli et al. (2017)

Adsorbent

Aluminium Metal Embedded ThujaOccidentalis Leaves Carbon

Water

Vaddi et al., 2021

Adsorbtion

Hybrid process combining adsorption and Donnan dialysis

Groundwater

Garrmes et al. (2002)

Electro dialysis

__

Groundwater

Chidambaram et al., 2013

Adsorbent

Brick powder

Groundwater

Yadav et al., 2006

Calcined MgAl