Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34125385›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Groundwater flow velocities in karst aquifers; importance of spatial observation scale and hydraulic testing for contaminant transport prediction.

Giacomo Medici, Landis Jared West

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Giacomo MediciG360 Institute of Groundwater Research, University of Guelph, Stone Road, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada. giacomo.medici@g360group.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2404-2240
Landis Jared WestSchool of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, W Yorkshire, LS2 9JT, UK.
University of Guelph · CAUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review scale dependence of hydraulic conductivities and effective porosities for prediction of contaminant transport in four UK karst aquifers. Approaches for obtaining hydraulic parameters include core plug, slug, pumping and pulse tests, calibration of groundwater flow models and spring recession curves. Core plug and slug tests are unsuitable because they do not characterize a large enough volume to include a representative fracture network. Pumping test values match regional-scale hydraulic conductivities from flow modelling for the less intensively karstified aquifers: Magnesian Limestone, Jurassic Limestone and Cretaceous Chalks. Reliable bulk hydraulic conductivities were not available for the intensively karstified Carboniferous Limestone due to dominance of flow through pipe conduits in Mendips. Here, the only hydraulic conductivity value found from spring recession is one order of magnitude higher than that indicated by pumping tests. For all four carbonate aquifers, effective porosities assumed for transport modelling are two orders of magnitude higher than those found from tracer and hydrogeophysical tests. Thus, a combination of low hydraulic conductivities and assumed flowing porosities resulted in underestimated flow velocities. The UK karst aquifers are characterized by a range of hydraulic behaviours that fit those of karst aquifers worldwide. Indeed, underestimation of flow velocity due to inappropriate parameter selection is common to intensively karstified aquifers of southern France, north-western Germany and Italy. Similar issues arise for the Canadian Silurian carbonates where the use of high effective porosities (e.g. 5%) in transport models leads to underestimation of groundwater velocities. We recommend values in the range of 0.01-1% for such aquifers.

Indexed as

GroundwaterWater MovementsCanadaCarbonatesModels, TheoreticalPorosityCarbonatesEffective porosityFlow velocityHydraulic conductivityHydro-geophysicsKarstTracer tests

Identifiers

PMID34125385
OpenAlexW3173111752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.