www.radiocarbon.

com

R ADI OC A RB O N DATI N G
O F GR OU N D WATER

You’re the expert; how would you

interpret these results?

Hint:don’t
Hint: don’ttry
trytotouse
usethe
the absolute
absolute dates.
dates. Compare
Comparethe
thedating
datingresults
results
on each well from year to year to see tendencies.
on each well from year to year to see tendencies.

OUR
OUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS
OWN IN TERPRETATIONS ARE
ARE ON
ON THE
THE LAST
LASTPAGE.
PAGE
THIS STUDY EXAMPLE IS A SIMULATION BETA ANALYTIC INC.

Ground Water Radiocarbon Dating of Wells along a Transect in the Aquifer Region

Abstract

Our aquifer is an unconfined aquifer which is the sole source of drinking water for the local population.
Models suggest a slow recharge rate and predict the aquifer would provide adequate supply for a maximum of 150
years at its present exploitation rate. The Phase I study used radiocarbon dating to show that the water was old,
confirming model calculations of a long mean residence time. This was done by dating 20 wells along a
west/east transect. However, the easternmost wells unexpectedly showed younger dates than the others, but
still old. This was not in agreement with our models and led to a Phase II study which consisted of yearly
monitoring. Results showed progressively declining radiocarbon dates in wells at the easternmost end of the
transect. Starting in 1995, we reduced the pumping rates of 5 wells which showed declining dates. By 1998, the
radiocarbon dates of those wells had increased to their 1993 levels suggesting new maximum sustainable yields
for those wells. The progression of wells with declining dates over the 5 year period allows us to postulate a flow
direction of southeast to northwest for the region.

Theory Method

Hydrological modeling suggests that our
aquifer is an unconfined, stratified aquifer believed
to have a very long residence time. By radiocar-
bon dating our wells, the accuracy of our models
can be examined. If the ages are old, the slow re-
charge rate will be confirmed.
By radiocarbon dating wells each year,
changes can be observed and addressed. In do-
ing this, we can address the subject of vulnerabil-
ity since vulnerability of a well to contamination from
surface water can be inferred using radiocarbon
dating.
Radiocarbon dating uses the amount of
naturally occurring carbon-14 in the water, in asso-
ciation with its half life (5730 years) to derive the
age. This age gives the approximate time that has
past since the water entered the aquifer. In our
stratified aquifer, overlying waters will be younger
than those below. Increased draw-down or coning
can be observed by measuring the age of the water
over time. The data provides empirical evidence
of aquifer dynamics surrounding the exploitation
of our well field.
One liter of water was collected at 20 wells
over a two day period in June 1993. The water was
collected in one liter polyethylene bottles
containing 0.5 grams sodium hydroxide. The
bottles were then sent to Beta Analytic Inc. for
radiocarbon dating .
Radiocarbon dating was performed using
accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) counting.
First, the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) was
precipitated as strontium carbonate (SrCO3) using
1.2 grams of strontium chloride (SrCl2) per liter of
water. This was rinsed to neutrality and dried. The
precipitate was then acidified using 0.5 N H3PO4
and the carbon collected as CO 2 gas. The
collected gas was then mixed with hydrogen over
a cobalt catalyst and heated to 600o C, reducing
the carbon to graphite on the cobalt. The graphite
was then placed in an AMS and measured for its
radiocarbon age.
This process was repeated at yearly
intervals between 1993 and 1998.
 BETA ANALYTIC INC.
1993: Radiocarbon Date the Water and Establish a Baseline for Monitoring

1993: was
Water Determine Radiocarbon
collected from 20 wellsAgeover
and aEstablish
two day aperiod
Baseline for Monitoring
in June 1993. The water
was sent to Beta Analytic Inc. for radiocarbon dating. The following results were
Water was collected from 20 wells over a two day period in June 1993. The water was
returned.
sent to Beta Analytic Inc. for radiocarbon dating. The following results were returned.

Dep th Rad io carb on

Date W ell # Depth Radiocarbon
Date Well # (meters ) Date
6/15/93 1 (meters)
92 Date
38000
6/15/98 2
6/15/93 1 86 92 38000
37500
Question No. 1
6/15/98 3
6/15/93 2 62 86 37500
34980 Question No. 1
6/15/98 4
6/15/93 3 77 62 34980
35500

These 18 wells
6/15/98 5
6/15/93 4 80 77 35500
36770
6/15/98
6/15/93 6 5 61 80 36770
34890
These 18 wells are all
6/15/98
6/15/93
6/15/98 8
7 6
7
57 61
48 57
34890
33500
33500 are all showing
6/15/93 32100
showing old water
6/15/98 9
6/15/93
6/15/98 10 9
8 77 48
68 77
32100
35750
35750 old radiocarbon
6/15/93 35300 radiocarbon dates.
6/15/98
6/16/93
6/16/98
6/16/93
11
12
10
11
82
65
68
82
35300
36900
36900
35400
dates
6/16/98 13 12 71 65 35400
6/16/93
6/16/98 14 13
6/16/93 88 71
35590
35590
37900
Why?
Why?
6/16/98 15 14
6/16/93 65 88 37900
35390
6/16/98
6/16/93 16 15 88 65 35390
37810
6/16/98
6/16/93 17 16 75 88 37810
35690
6/16/98
6/16/93 18 17 81 75 35690
36850
6/16/98
6/16/93 19 18 75 81 36850
18000
6/16/98 20 19
6/16/93 66 75 18000
19500
6/16/98 20 66 19500

Radiocarbon Ages of 20 wells

In June 1993
Question No. 2
Question No. 2 45000

The water dates in

40000
Radiocarbon Date

35000

these
The 2 wells
water datesare
in 30000

25000

younger thanare
these 2 wells the 20000

others.
15000
younger than the 10000

others. 5000

Why? 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Why? Well Number

2
 BETA ANALYTIC INC.
1993 to 1995: Well Field Monitoring
1993 to 1995:
Water Well Fieldfrom
was collected Monitoring
the same 20 wells and radiocarbon dated each year over
a 3 was
Water yearcollected
period. from
Changes in 20
the same radiocarbon dates were
wells and radiocarbon used
dated to year
each interpret
over adynamic
3 year period.
changes,
Changes and their causes,
in radiocarbon within
dates were used the aquifer.dynamic changes, and their causes, within the
to interpret
aquifer.
Question No. 3
Radiocarbon Dates
Well #
Depth
No significant
(meters) Jun- 93 Jun- 94 Jun- 95
No significant
1 92 38000 37890 38270 change
change waswas
2 86 37500 37450 37580
3 62 34980 34890 35010 observed
observed ininthese
these
4
5
77
80
35500
36770
35600 35450
15 wells
15 wells over
over3 3
36660 36710
6 61 34890 34810 34920 years.
years.
7 57 33500 33390 33590
8
9
48
77
32100
35750
32050
35720
32150
35850
Why?
Why?
10 68 35300 35210 35420
11 82 36900 36810 36790
12 65 35400 35380 35410 Question No. 4
13 71 35590 35640 35510
Question No. 4
14
15
88
65
37900
35390
37910
35360
37870
35280
Over a 3 year
16 88 37810 37780 29000 Over a 3 year
period, period,
5 wells
17 75 35690 35640 24000 5 wells showed
18 81 36850 showed decreasing
decreasing
36880 18000
19 75 18000 12000 7000
20 66 19500 11700 8200
radiocarbon ages.
radiocarbon dates.
Why?
Why?

15Wells
15 WellsShowed
ShowedNoNo Change
Change 5
5 Wells ShowedChanges
Wells Showed Changes
Over3 3Years
Over Years Over 3 Years
Over 3 Years
W ell1
40000
50000 W ell2 50000
40000
W ell1
W ell3
Radiocarbon Date
Date

Radiocarbon Date
Radiocarbon Age

40000
WWell24
ell 40000
30000 WWell35
ell
30000 W ell1 6

WWell
ell
46
Radiocarbon

30000 WWell
ell
57
30000 W ell1W7ell1 6

W ell1W8ell1 7

20000
20000
WWell
ell
68
W ell9 20000
20000
W ell1W9ell1 8
W ell7 W ell20
W ell1 9
W ell1 0
W ell8
10000 W ell1 1
10000 W ell20
10000 W ell9
W ell1 2 10000
W ell1 0
0 W ell1 3
WWell1114 0
ell
Jun-93
0 Jun-95 WWell
ell
1125
0
Jun-93 Jun-95
W ell1 3
Jun-93 YearJun-94
of Dating Jun-95 W ell1 4
Jun-93Year ofJun-94
Dating Jun-95
W ell1 5

Year of Measurement Year of Measurement

15 wells showed consistent WellsWells
19 and
1920 continued
and to decrease
20 continued from
to decrease
15 wells showed
radiocarbon consistent
ages over 3 years.
from theirlower
their previous previous lower
dates. values.
Wells Wells
16, 17 and
radiocarbon dates over 3 years 16, 17showing
18 started and 18 started showing
declining declining
dates in 1995.
dates in 1995.

3
 BETA ANALYTIC INC.

19931993 to 1998:
to 1998: Monitoring
Monitoring and Remediation
and Remediation

Between1993
Between 1993 andand 1998,
1998, 10 of1020ofwells
20 wells showed
showed changingchanging radiocarbon
radiocarbon dates. Ofdates.
these 10,Ofthe
these 10,
pumping the
rate waspumping rate
decreased onwas
5 of decreased on 5inofanthem
them after 1995 after
attempt 1995 in anthe
to re-stabilize attempt
wells. to
re-stabilize the wells.
Question No. 5
Depth Radiocarbon Dates
Well #
(meters) Jun-93 Jun-94 Jun-95 Jun-96 Jun-97 Jun-98 Between
Between1993 and
1993 and
1 92 38000 37890 38270 38100 37910 37980 1998,
1998,10
10ofof the 20
the 20
2 86 37500 37450 37580 37550 37290 37650
wells showed
3 62 34980 34890 35010 35100 34950 35110 wells showed
4 77 35500 35600 35450 35700 35470 35610
changing
declining
5 80 36770 36660 36710 36690 36710 36680 radiocarbon
radiocarbon dates.
dates.
6 61 34890 34810 34920 34860 35000 34990
7 57 33500 33390 33590 33610 33490 33460
Why?
8 48 32100 32050 32150 32210 32010 32180 Why?
9 77 35750 35720 35850 35690 35850 35670
10 68 35300 35210 35420 35350 35430 35380
11 82 36900 36810 36790 36950 36740 24000
12 65 35400 35380 35410 35290 35510 22000
13 71 35590 35640 35510 35610 24000 17500
14 88 37900 37910 37870 37900 27980 18000
15 65 35390 35360 35280 35340 22900 14000
16 88 37810 37780 29000 18500 26660 36670
17 75 35690 35640 24000 16000 27980 35700
18 81 36850 36880 18000 10000 19340 36750
19 75 18000 12000 7000 17750 29770 35200
20 66 19500 11700 8200 19400 31660 35430

Question No. 6

An engineer decided
An engineer decided that Increasing Radiocarbon Dates with Decreasing
that
thethe pumping
pumping shouldshould
be Increasing Radiocarbon
Pump Rate After Dates
1995 With
be
reduced in wells 16 to 2016
reduced in wells Decreasing Pump Rate After 1995
to 20
after theafter
1995 the 1995
indication 40000
50000
indication
of decliningofages,
possible
and
Date

40000
RadiocarbonDate

draw-down of younger
possible draw-down of 30000
30000
W ell1 6

waters from above. The

W ell1 7
Radiocarbon

younger waters from W ell1 6

W ell1 8

20000 W ell1 7

radiocarbon
above. dates
The radiocarbon 20000 W ell1 9
W ell1 8
W ell20
W ell1 9
ages returned
became older.to their 10000 W ell20

10000
initial values by 1998.
0
Why?
Why? 1993 1995 1997
0
1993 1994Year
1995 1996 1997 1998
of Dating
Year of Measurement

4
 BETA ANALYTIC INC.
Question No. 4: Why do 5 of 20 wells in the same
OUR
OUR ANSWERS
ANSWERS Question
aquifer region No.
show4:decreasing
Why do 5 ages
of 20while
wellsthe
in the same
other 15
aquifer region show decreasing ages while the
do not?
Question No. 1:
Question No. 1: Why
Why do
do 18
18of
of 20
20wells
wellsininthe
the same other 15 do not?
aquifer region show old radiocarbon dates? Younger waters from above are being drawn down, indicating
same aquifer region show old radiocarbon dates? Younger waters from above are being drawn down,
eventual contamination from surface water. This could be
indicating eventual contamination from surface water.
due to over exploitation due to population growth,
1) The recharge rate is very slow or 2) perhaps the This could be due to over exploitation due to
construction
populationof too manyconstruction
growth, new wells upstream, newnew
of too many upstream
wells
aquifer is unexpectedly confined.
1) The recharge rate is very slow or 2) perhaps the
aquifer is confined. exploitation
upstream, measures,
new recent
upstream geological phenomena,
exploitation measures, or
cracked casings.
recent geological phenomena, or cracked casings.
Question No. 2:
Question No. 2:Why
Why are
arewaters
watersfrom
from2 2wells
wells much Question
Question No.
No. 5: Why5:doWhy
10 ofdo2010 of show
wells 20 wells show
decreasing
younger than 18
much younger others
than in the
18 others insame aquifer
the same region? radiocarbon
aquifer decreasing radiocarbon ages over a 5 year
ages over a 5 year period?
region? period?
Upstream exploitation is causing unsustainable yields in
1) They could be part of a different aquifer, or 2) they downstreamUpstreamwellsexploitation
at theirispresent
causingpumpunsustainable yields
rates. Younger
1) They could be par t of a different aquifer, or 2) they
could be the same aquifer showing signs of higher waters
could be theofsame aquifer showing waters
signs of(suggesting
higher in downstream
are being wells
drawn at
down, their present
suggesting pump
imminent rates.
surf ace
draw-down younger overlying Younger
water waters
contamination. are
As being
time drawn
passes, the down,
situationsuggesting
gets worse,
draw-down
eventual of younger overlying
contamination waters
from surface (suggesting
waters), or 3) the causing
imminent surface water contamination.
more and more downstream wells to be affected. As time
The
eventual contamination
casings from surface waters), or 3) the
could be cracking. passes,
dates suggestthe situation
that wells 19gets
andworse,
20 causing
will be the more
first andbe
to
casings could be cracking. more downstream wells to be Theaffected. Thefollow
datesin
contaminated from surface waters. r est will
suggest that wells 19 and
time, unless pump rates are reduced. 20 will be the first to be
Question No.
Question No.3: 3:
WhyWhydo 15dowells in the in
15 wells same
the same contaminated from surface waters. The rest will
aquifer regionmaintain
aquifer region maintain the
the same
same radiocarbon
radiocarbon age age follow in time, unless pump rates are reduced.
Question No. 6: Why do the radiocarbon ages of 5 wells
over
over 3
3 years?
years?
get Question
older whenNo. 6: Why
pumping do the radiocarbon ages of
is reduced?
5 wells get older when pumping is reduced?
1)
1) The aquiferisisstable
The aquifer stable in in this
this geographic
geographic region,
region, or or 2) Reducing
Reducing the pumping rate returned
the pumping each cone
rate returned of cone
each inf luence
of
perhaps the aquifer is confined, or 3) exploitation is not
2) perhaps the aquifer is confined, or 3) exploitation is back to its 1993 level. The r adiocarbon dates showed
influence back to its 1993 level. The radiocarbon dates that the
exceeding maximum
not exceeding maximum sustainable yieldyield
sustainable in this
in region.
this downstream
showedwells thatcould
the not maintain their
downstream priorcould
wells pump not rates
region. maintain their prior pump rates without increased
without increased draw-down from above.
draw-down from above.

Of particular
Of particular iinterest
nterest isisthe
thefact
factthat
thatt he radiocarbondates
radiocarbon datesover
o ver the
t he 55 year
year monitoring
monitoring period
period1)
1)suggest
suggestaa
flow
flowdirection forfor
direction thethe
aquifer and 2) o ffer a mechanism to quantify maximum sustainable
aquifer and 2) offer a mechanism to quantify maximum sustainable yield. yield.
The
The arrow
arrow is
is pointing
pointing in
in the
t he probable direction of
probable direction of flow
flow path ByAfter decreasing
decreasing the pump
t he pump rates
rates on on 16
wells wells 16 to
to 20, 20, wells 16
radiocarbon
based on expanding reduction in radiocarbon dates. to 18 returned to their 1993 values, and wells 19 and 20
pat h based on expandi ng reduction i n radiocarbon ages returned to their 1993 values, defining maximum
Contamination is likely to follow this path if pumping is not exceeded their 1993 values. This implies the previous pump
dates. Contamination is li kely to follow this pat h if
reduced. sustainable yields at t he given exploitation rates.
rates were exceeding maximum sustainable yield.
pumping is not redu ced.
Surface View ; Radiocarbon Ages vs. Surface View ; Radiocarbon Age vs.Location vs. Yr; 1993
Location vs. Year;1993-1995 to 1998
Jun-93
Jun-94

Jun-95
Jun-93
Jun-96
Jun-95
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Jun-97

Lo cation; W e ll N um b er Jun-98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20
0-10000 10 000-20000 20 000-30000 30 000-40000
Location: Well Number

0-10000 10000-20000 20000-30000 30000-40000