Contract n° 006538 (SSPI)
BR B R ID I D GE G E
Ba B ac ck kg gr ro ou un nd d c cR Ri it te er ri ia a f fo or r t th he e I ID De en nt ti if fi ic ca at ti io on n o of f G Gr ro ou un nd dw wa at te er r th t hr rE Es sh ho ol ld ds s
Specific targeted Research Project Scientific Support to Policies (SSP)
Deliverable 7: State-of-the-art knowledge on behaviour and effects of natural and anthropogenic groundwater pollutants
relevant for the determination of groundwater threshold values. Final reference report.
Due date of deliverable: 1 April 2006 Actual submission date: 31 May 2006
The deliverable authors are responsible for the content
Start date of the project : 1 January 2005 Duration: 24 months
AUTHOR: Jasper Griffioen
AFFILIATION: TNO Geological Survey of the Netherlands ADDRESS: P.O. Box 80.015
TEL.: +31-30-256.4808 EMAIL: jasper.griffioen@tno.nl
FURTHER AUTHORS:
Pieter-Jan van Helvoort, Mike Edmunds, Frank Wendland, Ruud Jongbloed, Jan-Tjalling van der Wal, Karlijn Holthaus, Bas van der Grift, Jan Gerritse, Roger Jeannot, Kirsti Kalevi, Johanni Gustafsson, Stanislaw Witczak, Jaroslaw Kania, Kazimierz Rozanski
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination Level
PU Public x
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Techniques used for data collection
Chapter 3. Hydrogeochemical processes – a brief overview
Chapter 4. Hydrogeologic units and major groundwater composition
Chapter 5. Behaviour and occurrence of inorganic substances in European groundwater
Chapter 6. Behaviour and occurrence of organic substances in European groundwater
Chapter 7. Brief review of the environmental chemistry of emerging substances
Chapter 8. (Eco)toxicological effects of potentially harmful substances in groundwater
Chapter 9. Analytical aspects concerning to set threshold values for substances in groundwater
Chapter 10. Sampling and monitoring practice
STATUS, CONFIDENTIALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
Status Confidentiality Accessibility
S0 Approved/Released x PU public x Work-space
S1 Reviewed PP Restricted to other programme participants
(including the Commission Services) Internet S2 Pending for review RE
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Paper x
S3 Draft for comments CO
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
S4 Under preparation
1. Introduction
The future European Groundwater Directive, draft proposal of which has been adopted by the Commission in its final form on 23th January 20061 like the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is a comprehensive piece of legislation that will set out clear quality objectives for all groundwaters in Europe. Criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of
groundwater are partly based on existing Community quality standards (nitrates, pesticides and biocides) but Member States are required to identify pollutants and threshold values that are representative of groundwater bodies found as being at risk, in accordance with the analysis of pressures and impacts carried out under the WFD.
This report is prepared within the context of the EC 6th Framework Programme BRIDGE project, Background criteria for the identification of groundwater thresholds. The general objective of BRIDGE is to study and gather scientific outputs which could be used: 1. to set out criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of groundwater, 2. to derive a general plausible approach how to structure relevant criteria appropriately with the aim to set representative groundwater threshold values scientifically sound and defined at national river basin district or groundwater body level, 3. to check the applicability and validity by means of case studies, 4. to undertake additional research studies to complete the available data and 5. to carry out an environmental impact assessment taking into account the economic and socal impacts.
The BRIDGE project is organised in 6 work packages. Two work packages within BRIDGE focus on the geo-scientific controls of the chemical status of groundwater. Here, one is directed to geochemistry (WP 1) and the other is directed to hydrogeology (WP 2). This report addresses the geochemical and related aspects (ecotoxicology, analysis, monitoring and sampling). The specific objective is to describe the state of the art concerning: 1. the occurrence and behaviour of potentially harmful natural and anthropogenic substances in groundwater environments, 2.
the impact of these substances on aquatic, terrestrial as well as groundwater ecosystems, 3.
analytical, monitoring and sampling practise as far as it has an impact on deducing threshold values for groundwater bodies. The report focuses on three main groups of substances: the WFD pollutants (see draft European Groundwater Directive), the 33 EC priority pollutants (see EC Decision no. 2455/2001/EC) and so called emerging substances. The latter are organic
substances that obtain increasing environmental attention since recently, because of widespread occurrence and potential toxicological or ecotoxicological effects. The compendium report of WP2 addresses three major subjects: 1. hydrogeological characteristics including aquifer typology and the national methodologies behind establishing natural background levels and groundwater bodies, 2. interactions of groundwater with associated surface water and
groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems and 3. quantitative hydrogeological aspects and their links on qualitative aspects.
This report consists of 10 chapters. Chapter 2 summarises the approach followed to collect both literature references on potentially harmful substances in (European) groundwater and reference datasets on groundwater quality. Chapter 3 presents a brief overview of aquatic chemistry and sets a terminology for the subsequent chapters that focus on groundwater chemistry. Chapter 4 describes a German case study on hydrogeological units as control on major groundwater composition by determining both the water-rock interaction and, together with climate, the hydrodynamics. The major groundwater composition establishes controls on individual microcontaminants, whether organic or inorganic. Chapters 5 and 6 present reviews on the
1 Interinstitutional file 2003/0210 (COD)
occurrence and behaviour of inorganic and organic substances in groundwater, respectively. For natural, inorganic substances, both pristine and contaminated groundwater is addressed. For organic substances, focus is on contamination, because no natural background exists. Chapter 7 briefly reviews the environmental chemistry of emerging substances, focusing on the occurrence of emerging substances in environmental water. Chapter 8 is directed to the ecotoxicological impact of contaminated groundwater and minorly to human toxicological impact; environmental standards are summarised, too. Chapter 9 addresses analytical aspects concerning to set
threshold values for substances in groundwater. Chapter 10 addresses monitoring and sampling aspects concerning to set threshold values for substances in groundwater.
2. Methods of collection for data and bibliographic references
author: Pieter-Jan van Helvoort (Oxford, U.K.)
Contents
2.1 Introduction 2.2 Questionnaire
2.2.1 Approach
2.2.2 Outline questionnaire 2.2.3 Response and processing 2.3 Reference database (deliverable D5)
2.3.1 Intenion and approach 2.3.2 Outline EndNote RefBase 2.4 Groundwater Quality Data Base (GQDB)
2.4.1 Intention and general approach 2.4.2 Data handling
Appendices 2.1 – 2.6
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes what information was collected and how the information was processed for the establishment of this “state of the art” report. The following two main types of information were collected:
written sources: literature references, documents and web pages data sources: groundwater quality data sets
The written sources were collected from all BRIDGE project partners by means of a questionnaire.
The written sources were processed in a data base called the RefBase (deliverable D5), which has been used as a literature source for generating the texts for many of the chapters in this report. The groundwater data sets were collected via the questionnaire and by individual approach to the partners. The groundwater data sets were stored in the Groundwater Quality Data Base (GQDB).
The data were processed and presented in a user- friendly form in Chapter 4 (inorganic contaminants). The GQDB is a unique data base as it stores groundwater quality data of many reference aquifers from EU countries in a standardised form.
The questionnaire procedure is described in section 2.2. In section 2.3, the collection and processing of the written sources is described and the same is done for data collection in section 2.4. This section also includes how the data have been handled and selected for presentation in Chapter 5. There are also appendices included (Appendix 2.1 - 2.6), dealing with the questionnaire (Appendix 2.1), RefBase (Appendix 2.2), aquifer descriptions (Appendix 2.3), and the GQDB (Appendices 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6).
2.2 Questionnaire
The goal of the questionnaire was to collate as much information as possible from the BRIDGE partners themselves. The two products of the questionnaire were the RefBase and the GQDB, which resulted from the merger and standardisation of all questionnaire responses.
2.2.1 Approach
The questionnaire was sent from the Oxford team as an electronic and automated macro version in Excel format to all partners of BRIDGE by February 23th, 2005. The partners were asked to fill in the questionnaire by including references from their personal files and indicate the availability of groundwater data sets from their institutions. They were also asked to distribute the questionnaire into their personal networks. The deadline for response had been set to March 16th 2005, but responses after that date were processed as far as possible. The first version of the RefBase became available from May 2005 and had been developing until the cut off point in September 2005.
2.2.2 Outline questionnaire
The draft questionnaire was compiled in cooperation with all WP1 partners. The final questionnaire was organised in 3 main blocks of questions – block A, B, C – on an automated answer sheet in Excel, as developed by the TNO – Oxford teams. Group A questions were general questions retrieving general information from the respondent, his/ her affiliation and contact information, and his/ her contribution to the questionnaire. The block B questions focussed on the reference supplied by the respondent. Five different areas of expertise were defined, which would classify each reference to one of these topics. According to the general setup of WP1 and this report, these topics were:
geochemical processes controlling behaviour of substances in groundwater
the interaction of groundwater pollutants with surface water and groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems
groundwater sampling and monitoring practice
analytical practices with respect to groundwater pollutants
ecotoxicological and toxicological effects of groundwater contaminants on aqueous ecosystems, groundwater ecosystems and groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems
By means of the block B questions, the reference was entered in a datasheet and each added reference (a record) could be labelled by one of these topics. Subsequently, keywords could be picked from a list to further describe the record. Block C questions referred to groundwater data sets possibly available from the respondent’s Institution. Questions about the quality and quantity of the data, as well as data availability and documentation on the field locations were posed here. A
detailed list of the questions and directions how to fill in the questionnaire is appended in Appendix 2.1.
2.2.3 Response and processing
The response harvested from the questionnaires is summarised in Table 2.1. There are large differences among the partners as can be seen from Table 2.1. The large amount of references and groundwater data bases brought in by OCWR result from extensive search via the ScienceDirect electronic library portal and the implementation of aquifer data from the EU BaSeLiNe project.
Table 2.1. Questionnaire response participating partners and data sets (the latter also non- partners).
BRIDGE Partner*** Country References Data sets
Oxford Centre for Water Research (OCWR)/
British Geological Survey (BGS)
UK > 300 6+4* = 10
TNO Ruimte & Infrastructuur/ TNO-NITG Netherlands 120 = 3 Hessisches Landesamt für Umwelt und Geologie (HLUG)/
Forschungszentrum Jülich
Germany > 70 15-14** = 1
Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt Germany - = 4
University of Science and Technology (AGH) Poland 35 6+2* = 8
Instituto Geologico y Minero de España Spain 35 2*-1** = 1
Environment Agency (EA) UK 30 unlabelled see OCWR/ BGS
Observatoire International de l'Eau France 30 unlabelled = 0
Insitute of Geology (UT) Estonia 22 2* = 2
NAGREF-Land Reclamation Institute Greece 20 = 7
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) Denmark 16 2+3*-1 = 4
Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE) Finland 1 = 0
Umweltbundesamt Austria - 6-1** = 5
Geological Survey Lithuania - 2-2** = 0
Université de Liège (ULG) Belgium - = 4
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) Hungary - = 0
University of Gent Belgium - 2* = 2
Hessian Agency for Environment and Geology (UBA) Germany - = 0
Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM) France - = 0
University de Aveiro Portugal - 2* = 2
Czech Geological Survey*** Czech Rep. - 2* = 2
National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology*** Bulgaria - 2* = 2
Malta Resources Authority*** Malta - 1-1* = 0
University of Avignon*** France - = 3
Total > 650 = 60
* incorporated from BaSeLiNe project
**after applying minimum quality criteria, see section 4.
***some partners are not in BRIDGE, but were in BaSeLiNe only
The labelled references retrieved from the questionnaires have been processed into an EndNote Library after standardisation and formatting (see section 2.3). Most groundwater data bases were collected after contacting the owner. In some cases, an official form for authorisation had to be signed, and there for only statistical summaries are reported in this report, not individual data. The information from the block C questions was used to establish a meta-data base with all relevant information of each individual groundwater data sets. This is the non-data part of the GQB (see section 2.4).
For further details on the RefBase and GQDB building see sections 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
2.3 Reference Base (deliverable D5)
2.3.1 Intention and approach
The Reference Base was one of the objectives of WP1 (Deliverable 5) and served as an important source of many relevant documents on which this report is based. The intention was also that BRIDGE partners in other work packages would benefit from the RefBase. The RefBase is available to everyone through the CIRCA website via the following link:
http://nfp-at.eionet.eu.int:8980/Public/irc/eionet-
circle/bridge/library?l=/deliverables&vm=detailed&sb=Title
By means of the questionnaire the references were collected (see Table 2.1) and incorporated in the Reference Base (Deliverable D5). In total, over 650+ up to date references are in the RefBase, which is available in EndNote and Excel formats. The EndNote format is the most sophisticated as it was optimised for custom made reference searches, using a categorical approach analogous to the questionnaire set up (see for details Appendix 2.1). The main search categories are substance group (WFD pollutants, priority substances, emerging contaminants), type of study (field study, lab study, review or survey), main topic (the five topics mentioned in section 2), or simply using keywords.
Apart from excellent search options, it is very easy to generate formatted bibliographies with EndNote. Most references are in English, but a minority has been allowed in other languages.
Updating of the RefBase is relatively simple, as automatic import filters were developed to handle all kind of formats in which references had been delivered by the partners.
2.3.2 Outline EndNote RefBase
The structure of the RefBase as designed in Endnote is projected in Table 2.2, showing all data fields and their contents. The data fields host the information collected from the questionnaires and have been filled in as much as possible for each single reference. Using the search facilities of Endnote, it is easy to access references by subject, type, substance category, language, keyword, or
even to look up who has brought in the reference. Examples on how to set up a search are given in Appendix 2.2. Table 2.2 also estimates the percentage filled per field. Note the high rate of abstracts directly available in the database, and URLs to full text PDFs, mostly available through ScienceDirect. Direct access to the full text PDFs.will be dependent on the agreement the individual’s institution with ScienceDirect.
Table 2.2. Data fields and their properties.
Field Name Coverage Field contains... Sub fields or (!) remarks Call Number 100% Unique reference number
Custom 1 ~100% Source (= person who provided the
information) name
institute country
Custom 2 ~100% Subject category geochemical processes and controls groundwater – surface water interaction groundw. sampling/ monitoring practices ecotoxicological effects
analytical practices
Custom 3 ~100% Type category field study
laboratory study review or summary other
Custom 4 ~100% Substance category WFD pollutants
priority substance emerging contaminants groundwater biota
other non-contaminating substances Custom 5 80% Geographic location in case of field
study
Aquifer properties in case of aquifer study
country
geological age of deposits hydrogeology
hydraulics (porous, fissured, dual, karstic) geomorphological setting
main land use
Custom 6 100% Language (!) most are English
Year ~100% Publication year
Title ~100% Title of study
Author ~100% Authors (!) sometimes limited to first 3
Type of Work ~100% Journal/book/report title
Volume 90% Volume (!) sometimes contains publisher
Sec. Author N.A. Editors
Pages ~100% page numbers
URL 50% URL to Abst./ full text document (!) URL ScienceDirect Abstract 50% Abstract text
Keywords 90% Keywords (!) max 5 keywords have been specified
2.4 Groundwater Quality Data Base (GQDB)
2.4.1 Intention and general approach
The intention was to bring together standardised groundwater datasets of representative aquifers (reference aquifers) in European countries (see Figure 2.1) into the GQDB. The focus has been on inorganic parameters because very few systematic collections of organic parameters were available (except as reported in the EU BaSeLiNe study). The response to the call for data was not as complete as originally envisaged and no contributions were received from several EU parners and/or BRIDGE partners.
Figure 2.1. Locations of reference aquifers of which data has been received. Red circles indicate data supplied by the BaSeLiNe project, green circles indicate new data added in the BRIDGE project.
The statistical analysis of the GQDB is a first attempt to compare a large range of groundwater data from all EU partner countries in Europe on the level of individual aquifers and main lithology. For the latter purpose, the individual data sets have been grouped into four main aquifer groups based on lithology, very similar to the groundwater typologies defined in Work Package 2 (see Table 2.3).
The four groups are Carbonate aquifers, Hard rock aquifers (mainly crystalline rocks), Sandstone aquifers and Unconsolidated aquifers. It is stressed that any classification has severe limitations due to the wide variations in lithology found between and within aquifer systems. Sedimentary facies changes mean that a single aquifer may have gradations from non-carbonate to carbonate
characteristics, as in some sandstones (where decalcification may have occurred in shallow
horizons). Unconsolidated aquifers is also inadequate since this is mainly a grouping of Quaternary aquifers which may have widely varying lithologies both vertically and laterally. The classifications
are meant as a guide and individual acquired characteristics should be checked for more detail. In the end the spatial variability must be considered in relation to geochemical facies changes.
Table 2.3. Derivation of aquifer groups from groundwater typologies defined within WP2.
Groundwater typologies WP2 Aquifer group WP1
Unconsolidated aquifers Unconsolidated aquifers Siliceous sediment rock aquifers Sandstone aquifers Carbonate rock aquifers Carbonate aquifers
Aquifers in igneous and metamorphic rocks Hard rock (crystalline) aquifers
Other aquifers not defined
The data sets within the GQDB were designed to be as representative as possible. Representative means that the datasets of reference aquifers should cover the main hydrogeological regions in of Europe, and individual datasets may cover both pristine and polluted aquifers. Ideally, each set should typically have 30-40 analyses and refer to a single aquifer or lithology. There should also be supporting information on the aquifer flow system and some interpretation hydrochemistry which may be available in a publication or report. This approach to data collection is the same as in the BaSeLiNe project, but the existing set of 24 reference aquifers from BaSeLiNe was extended to 63 in an attempt to enhance the balance of representative data for those countries in EU that did not participate in BaSeLiNe and for other lithologies. In addition, we were able to extend the BaSeLiNe reference aquifer concept to statistically evaluate a wider set of data
Data collection and processing
Two main types of data were collected for each reference aquifer:
meta data – descriptions of the data set including source and owner, quality, quantity and descriptions of the reference aquifer including aquifer type, hydraulic properties, geography, geology, and land use;
groundwater data – location of the wells and actual groundwater analyses.
Most of the metadata were derived from the questionnaire information of block C questions. The metadata are summarised in Appendix 2.3, reporting the main features of each individual data set.
There are 60 data sets included (see also Table 2.1) with a range of 5 – 200 observations. The groundwater analyses were often supplied in separate Excel sheets and one by one submitted to a number of quality examinations before incorporation in the GQDB. The most important
considerations were:
the dataset should be of good overall quality (few missing values, checked for analysis), and ideally with a minimum of 20-30 components measured at 20 different locations. However, the absolute minimum of observations was set to 10, which still enables the calculation of 10 percentiles;
the data set should represent a single aquifer unit or group with known lithology
the dataset should be accompanied by any publication, preferably written in English (either report/ article/ other document), reporting on site characteristics (aquifer material, aquifer properties, aquifer setting, hydrology, land use) and overall data interpretation.
the dataset should be publicly available, or authorised for use within the BRIDGE project
The quality guide lines were applied in a flexible way to the judgement of the Oxford team. For this reason, data sets with few observations have been approved in special cases. The approved data sets were handled according to the procedure as described in the next section. and subsequently merged into a single file.
One limitation has been the sampling procedures. It is not known if samples were filtered (0.45µm) before analysis for example. For certain elements especially trace metals and Al, colloidal material may be present which may lead to bias towards high concentrations (particulate material plus colloidal plus true solution)
2.4.2 Data handling
All data sets received from BRIDGE partners and non-partners were labeled, with a country code, geographically allocated and named systematically including geographic name, geologic era, and lithological key. With respect to the numerical data, the following steps were taken:
standardisation of the data sheet formats and parameter units. The list of parameters and their units is included in Appendix 2.4;
selection of one single analysis in case of multiple samples from the same location. Often monitoring data were delivered in time sequences but only one single observation per location was chosen, preferably the most recent;
observations below detection limit (DL) were replaced by -1.0 times the DL;
all groundwater samples without Ca measurements were omitted;
all groundwater samples without SEC or Cl measurements were omitted
The results were entered in standardised data sheets with the same format ready for incorporation in the GQDB. Some data sets were excluded entirely, because they contained too few cases or were obviously below standards (this is already indicated in Table 2.2). After the file merger final checks were made on compatibility of the formats.
Statistical analysis, selection of parameters, and graphic presentation
The overall goal of the statistical analysis and its graphical presentation was to summarise the groundwater data effectively for all inorganic components (see full list of components and units in Appendix 2.4). The selection comprises all macro parameters (pH, SEC, Ca, Mg, Na, K, HCO3
-, TOC), the inorganic components of the WFD list (As, Cl, Cd, Hg, NO3, NH4, Pb, and SO4) and the priority list (Cd, Ni, Pb), and a number of other trace components not on one of these lists (Al, Ba, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Si, Sr, Zn). The results for Al, As, Cd, Cl, Cu, Ni, NO3, NH4, Pb, SO4, and Zn are individually discussed in Chapter 5. The statistical analyses were applied to three data levels:
all data - no grouping, all data sets pooled
the group level - data sets grouped on aquifer lithology: carbonate, hard rock, sandstone or unconsolidated material
the individual level - data considered as the original data set of the individual aquifer
On all levels the 1, 2, ..., 100 percentiles, and also the 68.3, 95.4, and 97.7 percentiles (1, 2, and 3 times standard deviation from the median respectively) were calculated. For level 1 and level 2 data, the 10, 50, 68.3, 90, 95.4, and 97.7 percentiles were reported as summary statistics for the indicated components in Appendix 2.4, because these percentiles often occur in baseline and/ or threshold values studies. The results are in Appendix 2.5. For level 3 data only the medians were reported (results in Appendix 2.6) to reduce the size of data sheets in this report.
The complete statistics (1, 2, ..., 100 percentiles) were used to produce cumulative frequency plots.
These plots show the cumulative frequencies on a probability scale versus the data on a log scale (see for example Figure 2.2 for arsenic). A log normal distribution shows a straight line, while bi-or multi modality tends to produce S-shaped curves. Cumulative frequency plots were produced per component (see next paragraph) for the valid cases of level 2 and 3 data sets. The observations below DL were not plotted, because the exact DL values were not known in many cases. However, below DL observations were labeled as a negative number and therefore could still be included in the percentile statistics. For this reason, some cumulative frequency plots could start at a
percentages significantly higher than 1, depending on how many observation were below DL.
Figure 2.2. Cumulative frequency plot for arsenic showing the data of each lithology group. The vertical line represents the maximum admissible concentration (MAC) of arsenic in drinking water (10 µg/l).
concentration (µg/l)
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Probability
20 40 60 80 100
As Hard rock group
Unconsolidated group Carbonate group Sandstone group
Table 2.4. Approved data sets of reference aquifers in the Groundwater Quality Data Base.
IDdataset Aquifer Country Cases Classification
A01 Lafnitztal Quaternary Aquifer Austria 19 Unconsolidated
A03 Seewinkel Quaternary Aquifer Austria 24 Unconsolidated
A04 Wiener Becken Quaternary Aquifer Austria 92 Unconsolidated
A05 Kalkalpen Triassic Aquifer group Austria 13 Carbonate
A06 Tullnerfeld Quaternary Aquifer Austria 60 Unconsolidated
B01 Ledo Paniselian (Tertiary) Sands Aquifer Belgium 49 Unconsolidated
B02 Neogene Sands Aquifer Belgium 84 Unconsolidated
B03 Vesdre Paleozoic Karst Aquifer Belgium 12 Carbonate
B04 Hesbaye Cretaceous Limestone Aquifer Belgium 13 Carbonate
B05 Groundwater body M030 Belgium 24 Carbonate
B06 Groundwater body E051 Belgium 41 Unconsolidated
BUG01 Thracian Pliocene Sand and Gravel Aquifer Bulgaria 19 Unconsolidated
BUG02 Razlog Precambrian Karstic Aquifer Bulgaria 20 Carbonate
CZ01 Cenomian Sandstone Aquifer Czech Republic 43 Hard rock
CZ02 Turonian Sandstone Aquifer Czech Republic 61 Hard rock
D01 Bayerischer Wald Crystalline Aquifer group Germany 85 Hard rock
D02 Upper Keuper (Lias) Sandstone Aquifer Germany 135 Sandstone
D03 Frankenalb Malm Karst Aquifer Germany 60 Carbonate
D04 Voralpen Quaternary Aquifer group Germany 190 Unconsolidated
D05 Upper Rhine Graben Quarternary Alluvial Aquifer Germany 15 Unconsolidated
DK01 Copenhagen Cretaceous-Tertiary Chalk Aquifer Denmark 28 Carbonate
DK02 Ribe Miocene Sands Aquifer Denmark 48 Unconsolidated
DK04 Odense Pleistocene Sands Aquifer Denmark 21 Unconsolidated
DK05 Gladaxe Quaternary Sandy Aquifer group Denmark 17 Unconsolidated
EE01 northern Estonian Cambrian-Vendian Sandst. Aqfr Estonia 23 Sandstone
EE02 Devonian Sandstone Aquifer Estonia 27 Sandstone
ES01 Donada Plio-Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer Spain 90 Unconsolidated
F01 Fontainebleau Oligocene Sands Aquifer France 42 Unconsolidated
F02 Lorraine Triassic Sandstone Aquifer France 18 Sandstone
F03 Valréas Miocene Sandstone Aquifer France 14 Sandstone
GR01 Argolida Holocene Coastal Aquifer Greece 59 Unconsolidated
GR02 Phillipoi Holocene Alluvial Aquifer Greece 25 Unconsolidated
GR03 Aios Petros Neogene Alluvial Aquifer Greece 36 Unconsolidated
GR04 Athens Holocene Alluvial Aquifer Greece 201 Unconsolidated
GR05 Vocha Pliocene Alluvial/ Coastal Aquifer Greece 69 Unconsolidated
GR06 Tirnavos Pliocene Alluvial Aquifer Greece 196 Unconsolidated
GR07 Lemnos Neogene Sandy Aquifer Greece 54 Unconsolidated
NL01 Brabant Quaternary Sandy Aquifer group Netherlands 32 Unconsolidated
NL02 Drenthe Quaternary Sandy Aquifer group Netherlands 97 Unconsolidated
NL03 Holland Quaternary Sandy Aquifer group Netherlands 182 Unconsolidated
P01 Aveiro Cretaceous Sandstone/ Carbonate Aquifer Portugal 90 Sandstone
P02 Aveiro Quaternary Sand and Gravel Aquifer Portugal 72 Unconsolidated
PL01 Bogucice Tertiary Sandstone Aquifer Poland 33 Sandstone
PL02 Kedzierzyn Tertiary Sands Aquifer Poland 40 Unconsolidated
PL03 Wielkopolska Quaternary Sand Aquifer Poland 64 Unconsolidated
PL04 Wda Pleistocene Sand Aquifer Poland 26 Unconsolidated
PL05 Lubliniec-Myszkow Limestone Aquifer Poland 28 Carbonate
PL06 Zulawy Gdanskie Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer Poland 45 Unconsolidated
PL07 Snieznik Gneiss Aquifer Poland 20 Hard rock
PL08 Bystrzyckie Gneiss Aquifer Poland 13 Hard rock
UK01 Dorset Tertiary Chalk Aquifer UK 30 Carbonate
UK02 East Midlands Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Aqfr. UK 44 Sandstone
UK03 Lower Greensand Cretaceous Sandstone Aquifer UK 86 Sandstone
UK04 Vale of York Triassic Sherwood Sandstone Aqfr. UK 43 Sandstone
UK05 Cotswold Jurassic Limestone Aquifer UK 50 Carbonate
UK06 Wessex Tertiary Sandy Aquifer UK 26 Unconsolidated
UK07 Carnmenellis Palaeozoic Granite Aquifer UK 197 Hard rock
UK08 Cumbria Carboniferous Limestone Aquifer UK 24 Carbonate
UK09 Wales Devonian Sandstone Aquifer UK 52 Sandstone
UK10 Wales Lower Palaeozoic Shale Aquifer UK 107 Hard rock
APPENDIX 2.1 BRIDGE WP1 Questionnaire
Questionnaire state-of-the-art review of research results related to behaviour and effects of natural and anthropogenic groundwater pollution
Introduction
This questionnaire has been sent to you on behalf of all partners of the EU FP6 project BRIDGE - Background Criteria for the Identification of Groundwater Thresholds. The general purpose of this project is to assess the behaviour and effects of natural and anthropogenic pollutants in European groundwater systems. This information will be used to identify groundwater threshold values for harmful substances in European groundwater on a scientific basis. We will focus on the following substance groups:
1. groundwater pollutants named in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 76/464/EEC and Directive 793/93, and substances listed in the European Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution 2. 33 priority substances defined in Annex X of the Directive 2000/60/EC (Decision n° 2455/2001
-20th November 2001)
3. newly emerging pollutants in groundwater (eg. pharmaceuticals)
Within this framework, this questionnaire aims to:
1. collect references of reports, research articles and other documents concerning potentially harmful natural and anthropogenic substances in groundwater, their (eco)toxicological effects and their interaction with surface water and groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems 2. collect representative groundwater datasets from all types of aquifers across Europe
The results of the questionnaire will be used by the BRIDGE partners for the following purposes:
1. to create a database of references on the behaviour of potentially harmful natural and
anthropogenic substances in European groundwater, their (eco)toxicological effects and their interaction with groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems;
2. to create a review about the state-of-the-art knowledge concerning these natural and anthropogenic pollutants
3. to investigate publicly available groundwater analysis on background concentrations in various hydrogeological regions across Europe
The reference database will become available in summer 2005 via the website www.igrac.nl (the web address of the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre), and will be used by the BRIDGE project partners as an information source. All respondents will be notified when products of the BRIDGE project become publicly available. The groundwater database and the
“state of the art “ review will be available late 2005.
Directions to fill in the questionnaire
You are kindly requested to provide us with one of the following before March 16th 2005.:
1. your references of scientific papers, reports or other relevant documents 2. publicly available groundwater datasets
Apart from entering or attaching reference files and/ or data files to the BRIDGE database, our key question to you is to classify your contributions by going through the automated answer sheets.
This way, you are able to put forward your knowledge as an expert on the references and/ or datasets you bring to the BRIDGE database. In other words, you will be specifying them in terms of main topic, substance category, keywords, etc., creating a database that is more than just a list of references and blocks of groundwater data.
Adding references
We are interested in your references -–reviewed publications as well as open file reports—
concerning the behaviour of potentially harmful natural and anthropogenic substances in groundwater, their (eco)toxicological effects and their interaction with groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems. You will be asked to classify each of them in one of the five main topics:
1. geochemical processes controlling behaviour of substances in groundwater
2. the interaction of groundwater pollutants with surface water and groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems
3. groundwater sampling and monitoring practice
4. analytical practices with respect to groundwater pollutants
5. ecotoxicological and toxicological effects of groundwater contaminants on aqueous ecosystems, groundwater ecosystems and groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems
Once you linked your reference with a main topic, you will be asked either to enter full details of the reference, or attaching an editable file (Word, Excel, Endnote, Access format only) with a selection of your most relevant references. The latter option will save you a lot of time, since you don’t need to type the details of your references into the answer sheet. What you do need to do though is to enter a unique reference ID in the answer sheet that corresponds to the one in your attached file. You will be classifying the reference using this unique ID, so we know which set of attributes you have defined for this specific reference in your attached file. You will be asked to go through the automated answer sheets for each individual reference.
Adding a dataset
We are interested in high quality groundwater data sets, generated from European aquifers situated in different geological and geohydrological settings. The minimum standards should be:
• a well defined location of the sampled aquifer
• a well defined hydrological and geohydrological setting of the sampled aquifer
• known sampling year, later than 1980
• a minimum of 10 measured components
• well defined measurement units for all components
The procedure for adding data set(s) is very similar as for the references. We will also ask you how you would make available the dataset to us. You may either attach a data file (Excel format) to your filled in questionnaire or wish to be contacted by us.
Outline of the questionnaire (with shortlist of questions)
The questions have been organised in 3 main blocks (Block A, B1-2, C) as automated answer sheets in Excel. Your answers are directly transferred to one of the theme spreadsheets P(personal), R(references), D(dataset), or L(laboratory), where you could keep track of your work. Most
questions are multiple choice, which will save you time. After filling in Block B or C, you will always return to question 4 in block A, where you need to indicate what you are going to do:
specify a new reference, a data set, or quit the questionnaire. You may enter your contributions in several sessions, and you can always delete entries in the theme spreadsheets R, D, L (entries in sheet P are locked), except of the first row in these sheets, which contain formulas. Your work entries are saved at the end of each question block. A short list of all questions is given below.
Appendix A lists which substances are in the substance groups. You would need these to classify your reference properly. Appendix B is a list of keywords.
BLOCK A. General questions
1. Please enter your personal details. (open)
2. Are there monitoring programs for groundwater quality in your region?
3. If your institute offers laboratory facilities for monitoring practices, what does your laboratory analyse?
4. Please indicate what you would like to contribute to this questionnaire.
BLOCK B1. Entering, labeling, and classifying references on topics 1-4 5. How would you classify the main subject of this reference?
6. How would you classify this reference?
7. Which substance categories are (partially) dealt with in this reference?
8. How do you want to enter the reference details?
9. Please fill in reference details/ Please fill in some reference details. (open) 10. Please link up to five keywords (with a minimum of 2) to this reference.
11. <optional for field studies> Please, specify the main characteristics of the studied region emerging in this reference.
BLOCK B2. Entering, labeling, and classifying references on topic 5 same questions as in BLOCK B1, but different guides
BLOCK C. Labeling and classifying groundwater quality data sets 5. Who is the owner of the data? (open)
6. Is the data set publicly available?
7. How would you judge the data quality?
8. How would you judge the understanding of the local or regional flow regime (e.g. from age distribution analysis or hydrologic modeling)?
9. Could the aquifer sampled be affected by antropogenic input?
10. Which substance were analysed?
11. Is this data base refereed to in any publication or report?
12. Please specify the main characteristics of the sampled aquifer.
13. Please indicate the exact location of this aquifer (open) 14. When were the samples were taken?
15. What is the approximate number of locations sampled?
16. How many chemical compounds were analysed?
17. How would you be able to deliver the data set?
Sending your contribution
When you are ready, or close a session, use “Save As” and save the Excel file under your Last Name. Send your contributions to:
Pieter-Jan van Helvoort (working from TNO-NITG, the Netherlands; based at Oxford University, Oxford Centre for Water Research).
Email: pieter-jan.vanhelvoort@tno.nl
When you are sending your contribution, make sure you have all files attached, like:
1. the filled in questionnaire 2. your file with selected references 3. your data files
APPENDIX 2.2 the BRIDGE WP1 Reference Base
This document describes how to get the best out of your searches in the BRIDGE Reference Base (RefBase). The RefBase has been built in Endnote offering excellent automated search facilities.
There is an Excel version available too, but searching is more complicated. This document describes searches in Endnote only.
Main features of the BRIDGE Reference Base
To optimise your reference searches in the RefBase would require some understanding of its data structure. In Endnote, each record consists of a large number of fields by default. The relevant fields (= fields that have been actually used) and their properties are listed in Table 1. Note that this is a high quality RefBase with coverage of nearly 100% for most fields, and abundant abstract texts.
Table 1. Data fields and their properties
Field Name Coverage Field contains... Sub fields or (!) remarks Call Number 100% Unique reference number
Custom 1 ~100% Source (= person who provided the information)
name institute country
Custom 2 ~100% Subject category geochemical processes and controls groundwater – surface water interaction groundw. sampling/ monitoring practices ecotoxicological effects
analytical practices
Custom 3 ~100% Type category field study
laboratory study review or summary other
Custom 4 ~100% Substance category WFD pollutants
priority substance emerging contaminants groundwater biota
other non-contaminating substances Custom 5 80% Geographic location in case of field
study
Aquifer properties in case of aquifer study
country
geological age of deposits hydrogeology
hydraulics (porous, fissured, dual, karstic) geomorphological setting
main land use
Custom 6 100% Language (!) most are English
Year ~100% Publication year
Title ~100% Title of study
Author ~100% Authors (!) sometimes limited to first 3
Type of Work ~100% Journal/book/report title
Volume 90% Volume (!) sometimes contains publisher
Sec. Author N.A. Editors
Pages ~100% page numbers
URL 50% URL to Abst./ full text document (!) URL ScienceDirect Abstract 50% Abstract text
Keywords 90% Keywords (!) max 5 keywords have been specified
To facilitate your search, please realise that the records have been labelled with keywords and have been categorised on “Source”, “Subject”, “Type”, “Substance”, and “Field site properties”, using the WP1 questionnaires returned by the BRIDGE partners.
General search using Endnote
Endnote offers excellent and flexible user-defined reference searching. To set up a search, choose References > Search References. In the search dialog you are able to define your search criteria by:
1. specifying the fields to be searched (see Table 1). By default, “Any fields” will be searched, but you could specify the fields that should be searched and combine them with Boolean expressions for a more specific search;
2. specifying a search parameter. The default search parameter = “contains”, which means that all references containing the text fragment you type in the open text box right below will be retrieved. E.g, if you choose “Any Fields” (default) and you type “pesticide”, all references containing “pesticide” (in any field) will be retrieved, including those naming “pesticides”. You are able to restrict your search to the exact text fragment ticking “Match Case” and/or “Match Words”. The other search parameters are logical expressions;
3. if you want to keep the results, you need to create a new Endnote file (File > New), select the references (<Ctrl+A>), and copy them in the new file;
4. if you want to refine, just go back to the Search dialog box and add a new search statement;
5. if you start a new search, you will loose the previous one;
6. if you want to go back to the complete list, choose References > Show all References.
Tips for searching the RefBase
1. take advantage of the categorised data to narrow your search by using the term lists: “Topic category”, Type category”, “Source”, “Substance category”, or “Field site location &
properties”. Check these term lists by (Tools > Open Term Lists) to find terms you could use;
2. if you are looking for very specific text fragments, then it is best to include the “Title”,
“Abstract”, and “Keyword” fields.
Examples
1. search for all field studies from UK. Specify search: Field = “Custom 3” (Type category) contains “Field study” AND Field = “Custom 5” (Field site location & properties) contains
“UK”. The result is 32 records. Note that it could be wise to do a first search looking for “UK”
in “Any Field”. This will also list references provided by UK partners specified in the “Source”
field, not necessarily about field studies carried out in the UK;
2. search all references about Boron. You might combine four fields: Field = “Any Field”
contains “Boron” OR Field = “Any Field” contains “boron” OR Field = “Any Field” contains
“B” NOT Field = “Author” contains “B”; tick “Match Case” and “Match Word”. The result is 22 records. Note that the “Author” field needs to be excluded, as many authors have “B” as one of their initials. This coincident needs to be excluded, obviously.
