## U

. S

. G eological S urvey Nati onal Produced Waters Geochemi cal Database v2.0

(PROVISIONAL)

Documentation

04/04/2014

by Madalyn S. Blondes 1 * 

### , Kathleen D. Gans 2 

### , James J. Thordsen 2 

### , Mark E. Reidy 1 

### , Burt Thomas 2 

### , Mark A.

Engle 1,3 

### , Yousif K. Kharaka 2 

### , Elizabeth L. Rowan 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey , Eastern Energy Resources Science Center, Reston, VA, USA

2 U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, Menlo Park, CA, USA

3 Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

* Correspo nding Author: Madalyn S. Blondes, email: mblondes@usgs.gov

, telephone: (703) 648

- 4848



### Disclaimer s

Disclaimer for Provisional Database :

The data you have secured from th e U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Produced Waters Geochemical

Database v2.0 a re provis ional and subject to revision. The data are released on the condition that neither

the USGS nor the United States Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its

authorized or unauthorized use.

Distribution Liability :

Although th e data have been processed on computer system s at the USGS , U.S. Department of the Interior,

no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Geological Survey regarding the utility of the data on any

other system, nor shall the act of distribution consti tute any such warranty. No responsibility is assumed by

the USGS in the use of these data.

Additional Limitations :

The information in the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.0 should be used with

careful consideration of its limitations . The database is considered sufficiently accurate to provide an

indication of tendencies in water composition from geographically and geologically defined areas. It is not

appropriate for depiction of modern produced water compositions or examination of t rends on small scales.

The USGS makes no warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of information presented in this

database. Specific limitations of the database should be considered

. Much of the information in the

database cannot be independently v erified. Methods of collection, sample preservation, analysis,

assignment of geologic units and record keeping were not rigorous or standardized. Because of these

uncertainties, users are advised to check data for inconsistencies, outliers

, and obviously f lawed

information. Methods of well construction, sample collection and chemical analysis have changed over

time. The distribution and relative amount of water produced within a province and among geologic units

may not be fully represented by the samples i n the database. No sampling was planned to accurately depict

the aggregate water composition of any area whether it be province, state, county or field. The geologic

unit nomenclature developed for petroleum production may have changed over time. Data from a province

collected 30 years ago may not resemble current production. The composition of produced water within a

province, field or even well may change in time as a result of water flooding, recompletion in other

### intervals, and workovers. Water samples are commonly collected when a well has production problems or

during the initial development of a well. Although criteria were applied to remove the obviously

contaminated samples, the culling of unrepresentative data is considered incomplete. Most obvious

redundant entries were removed from the database, many of the records represent multiple samples of the

same well. Therefore aggregate statistics may be weighted by relatively few wells.

Introduction

During hydrocarbon exploration and extraction , water is typically co

- produced from the same s ubsurface

geologic formations. Understanding the composition of these produced waters is important to help

investigate the regional hydrogeology, the source of the water and hydrocarbons, the necessary water

treatme nt and disposal plans, potential economic benefits of commodities in the fluids, and the safety of

potential sources of drinking or agricultural water. Additionally, during geothermal development or

exploration, other deep formation waters are brought to t he surface and may be sampled. This U

. S

. G eological S urvey (USGS) Produced Waters Geochemical D atabase , which contains geochemical and other

information for produced waters and other deep formation waters of the United States

, is a provisional

, updated ver sion of the 2002 USGS Produced Waters D atabase (Breit and others, 2002). In addition to the

major element data presented in the original, the new database contains trace elements, isotopes, and

time

- series data, as well as nearly 100,000 new samples with g reater spatial coverage and from both

conventional and unconventional well types , including geothermal . The database is a compilation of 25

individual databases, publications , or r eports . The database was created in a manner to facilitate addition

of new d ata and fi x any compilation errors

, and is expected to be updated with new data as provided and

needed

. Table 1 shows the abbreviated names (IDDB) of each input database, the number of samples from

each, and its reference. Table 2 defines the 241 variable s contained in the database and their descriptions.

The database variables are organized first with identification and location information, followed by well

descriptions, dates, rock properties, physical properties of the water, and then chemistry. The che mistry is

organized alphabetically by elemental symbol, each element is followed by any associated compounds (e.g.

H 2 

### S is found after S). After Zr, molecules containing carbon follow, including measures of alkalinity,

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) , and h ydrocarbons. Isotop ic data are found at the end of the dataset.

Database Compilation Procedure

Modification of the data or variable names is necessary to create a database with consistent headers,

compositional units , and numeric data th at can be plot ted or analyzed as a whole

. One of the main goals of

this updated database is to create a compiled dataset where every cha nge to the original datasets is

reversible and recorded. Thus if errors are found, there is a coded record t hat can be adjusted as nee ded,

and the compiled dataset can be easily recreated from scratch. To meet this goal, the USGS National

Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.0 is compiled using the statistical and data analysis program,

Stata (StataCorp, 2014) 1 

### . A Stata routine is wri tten for each input database that imports the original data,

1 

### Disclaimer: Use of brand or trade names are for descriptive purpose and do not imply endorsement by the

U.S. Government.

### renames the variables to match the template (table 2), and then appends the existing columns to a template

header. N on

- numeric characters within numeric variables (for example, chemistry and pH) are fixed,

deleted, or replaced with the following numeric codes :

- 1 = Trace, minor, present, or a qualitative description of some amount.

- 2 = None detected, absent, null, or negative

- 3 = NA, not analyzed, unknown

- 4 = Transcription error or otherwise nonsensical entry

Negative values are used for concentration data codes because all true concentrations are positive and

therefore will not overlap with the codes

. Negative values can easily be removed by the user when

manipulating data. Furthermore, d ate s are formatted into a consistent date form and e xtra variables are

remov ed. Units for all variables other than the major and minor ions are defined in table 2. The major and

minor ions are generally reported in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L) or part s per million (ppm) on a mass

basis, also defined as milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg )

. If the ion concentrations were originally reported in

mg/L, a “1” is added to the MGL variable column of the database. If the ion concentrations were originally

reported in ppm, a “1” is added to t he PPM variable column of the database. The user of this database must

be careful to examine these units when using the data, and can convert between the two using

measurements or estimates of brine density.

Each individual inpu t database is then appended to the template using a global Stata routine

. The database

is further standardized here with internally consistent 14

- digit American Petroleum Institute well

identification numbers (API)

, state names ( STATE ), and one of seven we ll type (WELLTYPE) designations

(Conventional Hydrocarbon, Shale Gas, Tight Oil, Tight Gas, Coal Bed Me thane, Geothermal, and

Groundw ater). Future standardization will be performed on other important variables such as FORMATION.

Removing duplicates

Dupl icates were found within single datasets and between them. Duplicate culling is done using API well

numbers and the concentrations of variables with large numbers of significant figure s because it is highly

unlikely that even samples taken from the same we ll at the same time will have the exact same values for

three or more elements. API, Calcium (Ca), Chloride (Cl), and bicarbonate (HCO3) concentrations are used to

search for duplicates. Care was taken to avoid false duplicates ( for example, where all thre e ions had the

code of “

- 4” or all three ions had null data). There were 91,007 unique observations according to these

duplicate search criteria, 8,352 groups of 2 observations (duplicates) , 1,173 groups of 3 observations

(triplicates) , 156 groups of 4 obs ervations, 13 groups of 5 observations, 5 groups of 6 observations, and 2

groups of 7 observations ( t able 3). After locating these duplicates, a second check was often performed

using Mg, Na, or sample collection date to determine if they were true duplica tes. The duplicate

observation retained was generally the one in the database that contained more information. The order of

which database had primacy follows the order of table 1.

### Culling data based on chemistry

Quality control of the dataset can be pe rformed by culling based on geochemical criteria. In this version 2 .0

of the provisional database, the data that fall outside of the bounds of the following criteria are flagged,

rather than culled. There are six temporary columns in the database that repr esent the failure of specific

culling criteria, based on those published in Hitchon and Brulotte (1994). An “X” is placed in the columns

shown in table 4 where the sample falls outside of the pH range of 4.5

– 10.5, where Mg > Ca, K > Cl, K >

5xNa, and the charge balance is greater than 5%

.

### References

Bassett, R.L., and Bentley, M.E., 1983, Deep brine aquifers in the Palo Duro Basin: regional flow and

geochemical constraints: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Report of Investigations, n o.

130.

Breen, K. J., Angelo, C.G., Masters, R.W., and Sedam, A.C., 1985, Chemical and isotopic characteristics of

brines from three oil

- and gas

- producing sandstones in eastern Ohio, with applications to the

geochemical tracing of brine sources: U.S. Geol ogical Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report

WRI 84

- 4314, 58 p., Accessed http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/WRI/wrir_84_4314.djvu

. Breit G.N., 2002, USGS Produced Waters Database, Accessed http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat.

Carpenter, A.B., Trout, M.L., and Picket, E.E., 1974, Preliminary report on the origin and chemical evolution

of lead and zinc

- rich oil field brines in central Mississippi: Economic Geology, 1974, v. 69, p. 1191

- 1206.

Cimerex Energy Company, 2013, written communication.

Dahm, K.G ., 2013, written communication: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Dahm, K.G. et al., 2011, Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane produced water quality in

the Rocky Mountain region: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 45, p. 7655

- 7663.

Departme nt of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, NATCARB Brine Database, Accessed 2013

at www.netl.doe.gov.

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Produced Waters

Database, 2005, Accessed http://www.alrc.doe.gov/te chnologies/oil

- gas/Software/database.html.

Dresel, P. E., and Rose, A. W., 2010, Chemistry and origin of oil and gas well brines in western

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey,. 4th series, Open

- File Report OFOG 10

– 01.0, 48 p., web

version, access ed on December 28, 2012, Accessed

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/pub/openfile/pdfs/ofog10_01.pdf.

Hanshaw, B.B., and Hill, G.A., 1969, Geochemistry and hydrodynamics of the Paradox Basin region, Utah,

Colorado, and New Mexico: Chemical Geology, v. 4, p. 263

- 164.

Hayes, T., 2009, Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with development of Marcellus Shale

gas, Final Report, December 31, 2009: Marcellus Shale Coalition, p. 107

- 356, Accessed

http://catskillcitizens.org/learnmore/20100916IOGAResponsetoDECChesapeake_IOGAResponsetoDEC.p

df

. Hitchon, B., and Brulotte, M., 1994, Culling criteria for “standard” formation water analyses: Appli ed

Geochemistry, v. 9, p. 637

- 645.

Hoskins, H.A., 1947, Analyses of West Virginia brines: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,

Report of Investigations, no. 1, p. 1

- 21.

Keller, S.J., 1983, Analyses of subsurface brines of Indiana: Department of Na tural Resources Geological

Survey Occasional Paper 41.

Lowry, R. M., Faure, G., Mullet, D. I., and Jones, L. M., 1988, Interpretation of chemical and isotopic

compositions of brines based on mixing and dilution, "Clinton" sandstones, eastern Ohio, U.S.A.: Applied

Geochemistry, v. 3, p. 177

- 184.

McGrain, P., 1953, Miscellaneous analyses of Kentucky brines: Kentucky Geological Survey

- Report of

Investigations No. 7, p. 1

- 16.

McGrain, P., and Thomas, G. R., 1951, Preliminary report on the natural brines of eas tern Kentucky:

Kentucky Geological Survey, v. Report of Investigations No. 3, p. 1

- 22.

### Meents, W.F., Bell, A.H., Rees, O.W., and Tilbury, W.G., 1952, Illinois oil

- field brines Their geologic

occurrence and chemical composition: Illinois State Geological Su rvey, Illinois Petroleum no. 66, 38 p.

Meredith, E., Kuzara, S., Wheaton, J.R., Bierbach, S., Chandler, K., Donato, T., Gunderson, .J., and

Schwartz, C., 2011, 2010 Annual coalbed methane regional groundwater monitoring report: Powder

River Basin, Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 600, 130 p., 6 sheets,

Accessed http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf

- open

- files/mbmg600

- 2010CBM

- Report.pdf

. Mills, R. V. A ., and Wells, R. C., 1919, The evaporation and concentration of waters associated with

petroleum and natural gas: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 693, 104 p.

Moldovanyi, E.P. and Walter, L.M., 1992, Regional trends in water chemistry, Smackover Formation,

southwest Arkansas: Geochemical and Physical Controls, AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no. 6, p 864

- 894.

New Mexico Water and Information Data System (NM WAIDS), Accessed 2013 at

http://octane.nmt.edu/waterquality.

North Dakota Oil and Gas Division, Accessed 2013 at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009, Draft supplemental generic

environmental impact statement on the oil, gas, and solution mining regulatory program, well permit

issuance for horizontal drilling and high

- volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus Shale and

other low

- permeability gas reservoirs: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(DEC), Appendix 13, Accessed http ://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html

. Osborn, S.G., and McIntosh, J.C., 2010, Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of microbial gas in

Devonian organic

- rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern Appalachian Basin: Applied

Geochemistry, v . 25, p. 456

- 471.

Osborn, S.G., McIntosh, J.C., Hanor, J.S., and Biddulph, D., 2012, Iodine

- 129, 87Sr/86Sr, and trace

elemental geochemistry of northern Appalachian Basin brines: evidence for basinal

- scale fluid migration

and clay mineral diagenesis: Ameri can Journal of Science, v. 312, p. 263

- 287.

Pashin, J., 2013, written communication.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, 1991, NORM

Survey Summary, Accessed

http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPor talFiles/RadiationProtection/NORM.pdf.

Poth, C.W., 1962, The occurrence of brine in western Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, v.

Fourth Series, Bulletin M 47, 53 p.

Price, P.H., Hare, C.E., McCue, J.B., and Hoskins, H.A., 1937, Salt Brines of W est Virginia: West Virginia

Geological Survey, v. VIII, 203 p.

Reeves, F., 1917, The absence of water in certain sandstones of the Appalachian oil fields: Economic

Geology, v. 12, p. 354

- 378. [PA and WV]

Rice, C.A., 2003, Production waters associated with the Ferron coalbed methane fields, central Utah:

Chemical and isotopic composition and volumes, International Journal of Coal Geology, 56: 141

- 169.

Rice, C.A., et al., 2000, Water co

- produced with coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming:

prelim inary compositional data, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 00

- 372.

Rowan, E.L., Engle, M.A., Kirby, C., and Kraemer, T.F., 2011, Radium content of oil

- and gas

- field produced

waters in the northern Appalachian Basin: Summary and discussion of data: U.S. Geological Survey,

Scientific Investigations Report 2011

- 5135, 31 p.

Sanders, L. L., 1991, Geochemistry of formation waters from the Lower Silurian Clinton Formation (Albion

Sandstone), eastern Ohio: AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, p. 1593

- 1608.

### Siege l, D. I., Szustakowski, R. J., and Frape, S., 1990, Regional appraisal of brine chemistry in the Albion

Group sandstones (Silurian) of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio: Association of Petroleum

Geochemical Explorationists, Bulletin 6, p. 66

- 72.

Stith, D.A. , 1979, Brine analyses, 1972

- 1974: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological

Survey Open

- File Report 79

- 1, 77 p.

Stout, W.E., Lamborn, R.E., and Schaaf, D., 1932, Brines of Ohio: Geological Survey of Ohio, Bulletin 37, 123

p.

Sunwall, M. T., and Pushkar, P., 1979, The iostopic composition of strontium in brines from petroleum fields

of southeastern Ohio: Cehmical Geology, v. 24, p. 189

- 197.

Thamke, J., 2013, written communication.

Thompson, W. E., 1973, Concentration of selected elements in brines of Perry County, Ohio: Ohio State

University, Columbus Ohio, unpublished Master's thesis, 64 p.

Vugrinovich, 2013, written communication, Office of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality.

Walter, L.M., Budai, J.M., Martini, A., and Ku, T., 1997, Hydrogeochemistry of the Antrim Shale in the

Michigan Basin. Final Report, Gas Research Institute, 5093

- 220

- 2704, 98 p.

Warner, N.R., Jackson, R.B., Darrah, T.H., Osborn, S.G., Down, A., Zhao, K., White, A., and Vengosh, A.,

2012, Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow

aquifers in Pennsylvania: PNAS, v. 109, no. 30, p. 11961

– 11966, Accessed

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/11910.11073/pnas.1121181109.

Williams, J.H., Taylor, L.E., and L ow, D.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and groundwater quality of the glaciated

valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Natural

Resources (DCNR); Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Ser., Water Resource Report 68, 89 p.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Accessed 2013 at wogcc.state.wy.us.

### Tables

Table 1 . Short names of input databases, number of samples after removal of duplicates , and references on input

databases.

ID of databas e Samples Reference

USGSMAIN 62,792 Breit and others (2002)

USGSOK 9,304 Breit and others (2002)

USGSARK 1,125 Breit and others (2002)

ROCKIES 3,190 Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2005)

MICHIGAN 429 Vugrinovich (2013, wri tten communication)

WYOGCC 9,263 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2013)

BAKKEN 12 Thamke (2013, written communication)

PARADOX 89 Hanshaw and Hill (1969)

POWDERRIVERCBM 48 Rice and others (2000)

APPALACHIAN 1,644 multiple

– see references

INDIANA 470 Keller (1983)

CBM 3,220 Dahm (2013, writen communication)

OHBRINE 579 Ohio DNR, Division of Geologic Survey (2013, written communication

PASHIN 126 Alabama Geological Survey (2013, written communication)

ARKMOLDOVANY 41 Moldovanyi and Walt er (1992)

CIMAREX 2,891 Cimarex Energy Company (2013, written communication)

FERRON 49 Rice (2003)

ILLINOIS 347 Meents and others (1952)

MISSISSIPPI 82 Carpenter and others (1974)

MONTANACBM 21 Meredith and others (2010)

PALODURO 16 Bassett and Bentl ey (1983)

EASTPOPLAR 22 Thamke (2013, written communication)

NORTHDAKOTA 7,334 North Dakota Oil and Gas Division (2013)

ANTRIM 53 Walter and others (1997)

NATCARB 57,208 Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2013)

Total 160,355Table 2 . Variable names and descriptions

.

Variable Name Description

IDORIG ID in original database

IDDB ID of database

SOURCE Source of data

REFERENCE Publication

LAT Latitude

LONG Longitude

FLAT Field Latitude (estimate )

FLONG Field Longitude (estimate)

API API well number

USGSPROV USGS Province

USGSREGION USGS Region

BASIN Basin

BASINCODE Basin Code

STATE State

STATECODE State Code

COUNTY County

COUNTYCODE County Code

FIELD Field

FIELDCODE Field Code

WELL W ell name

WELLCODE Well code

WELLTYPE Well type

WELLCLASS Well class

TOWNSHIP Township

TWNDIR Township Direction

RANGE Range

RNGDIR Range Direction

SECTION Section

QUARTER Quarter

REGDIST Regional District

LOC Location

QUAD Quad

DATESAMPLE Date of sample

DATEANALYS Date of analysis

DATECOMP Date of well completion

METHOD Sample Method

OPERATOR Well operator

DRILLER Well driller

PERMIT Well permit holder

FORMATION Geologic f ormation name

DFORM Geologic f ormation name of greatest depth

ME MBER Geologic member name

GEOLAGE Geologic age

AGECODE Geologic Age code

ERA Geologic Era name

SYSTEM Geologic System name

SERIES Geologic Series name

DEPTHUPPER Upper perforation depth

DEPTHLOWER Lower perforation depth

DEPTHSAMP Depth of sample, may be averageVariable Name Description

DEPTHTOTAL Total depth of well

ELEVATION Elevation of well

SUBSEA Depth below seafloor

LAB Laboratory

REMARKS Remarks or comments

LITHOLOGY Lithology

SILT Silt 1 = sample is this rock type

SHALE Shale 1 = sample is this rock type

SA ND Sand 1 = sample is this rock type

CHERT Chert 1 = sample is this rock type

CARBONATE Carbonate 1 = sample is this rock type

DOLOMITE Dolomite 1 = sample is this rock type

LIMESTONE Limestone 1 = sample is this rock type

ANHYDRITE Anhydrite 1 = samp le is this rock type

OTHERLITH Other Lithology 1 = sample is this rock type

POROSITY Porosity

PERM Permeability

TEMP Temperature, deg F

PRESSURE Pressure

, psi

SPGRAV Specific Gravity

SPGRAVT Temperature of Specific Gravity measurement, deg F

RESIS Resistivity, Ohm m

RESIST Temperature of Resistivity measurement, deg F

PH pH

PHT Temperature of pH measurement, deg F

EHORP Eh / Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)

COND Conductivity, uS/cm

CONDT Temperature of Conductivity measurement, deg F

TURBI DITY Turbidity

SEDIMENT Sediment

HEM Oil and Grease

MBAS Surfactants and Detergents

MGL Units, mg/L ; 1 = data are in these units

PPM Units, mg/kg ; 1 = data are in these units

TDS Total Dissolved Solids, measured

TDSCALC Total Dissoved Solids, calcul ated

TSS Total Suspended Solids

CHARGEBAL Charge Balance (%)

MASSBAL Mass Balance (%)

Ag Silver

Al Aluminum

As Arsenic

Au Gold

B Boron

BO3 Borate

Ba Barium

Be Beryllium

Bi Bismuth

Br Bromide

BrO3 Bromate

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO3 CarbonateVariable Name Description

HC O3 Bicarbonate

Ca Calcium

Cd Cadmium

Ce Cerium

ClO3 Chlorate

ClO4 Perchlorate

Cl Chloride

ClO2 Chlorite

ClO Hypochlorite

Co Cobalt

Cr Chromium

Cs Cesium

Cu Copper

F Fluoride

FeTot Iron, total

FeIII Iron, 3+

FeII Iron, 2+

FeS Iron sulfide

FeAl Iron plus Aluminum, reported as elements

FeAl2O3 Iron plus Aluminum, reported as oxides

Ga Gallium

Ge Germanium

Hg Mercury

Hf Hafnium

I Iodine

In Indium

Ir Iridium

K Potassium

KNa Potassium plus Sodium

La Lanthanum

Li Lithium

Mg Magnesium

Mn Mangansese

Mo Molybdenum

N Nitrogen, total

NO2 Nitrite

NO3 Nitrate

NO3NO2 Nitrate plus Nitrite

NH3 Ammonia

NH4 Ammonium

TKN Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Na Sodium

Nb Niobium

Ni Nickel

O Oxygen

DO Dissolved Oxygen

OH Hydroxide

Os Osmium

P Phosphor us

PO4 Phosphate

Pb Lead

Pd PalladiumVariable Name Description

Re Rhenium

Rh Rhodium

Rb Rubidium

Ru Ruthenium

S Sulfide

SO3 Sulfite

SO4 Sulfate

HS Bisulfide

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HSO4 Bisulfate

Sb Antimony

Sc Scandium

Se Selenium

Si Silica

Sn Tin

Sr Strontium

Ta Tantalum

Te Tellurium

Th Thorium

Ti Titanium

Tl Thallium

U Uranium

V Vanadium

W Tungsten

Y Yttrium

Zn Zinc

Zr Zirconium

ALKTOTAL Alkalinity, total

ALKCACO3 Alkalinity as CaCO3

ALKHCO3 Alkalinity as HCO3

ALKCO3 Alkalinity as CO3

ACIDITY Acid ity as CaCO3

DIC Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon

TOC Total Organic Carbon

CN Cyanide

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CH4 Methane

C2H3O2 Acetate

C2H4O2 Acetic Acid

C2H6O2 Ethylene Glycol

C3H6O Acet one

C6H6 Benzene

C6H6O Phenols

C7H8 Toluene

C8H10_XY Xylene

C8H10_ETH Ethybenzene

ALPHA Alpha particle (4He), pCi/L

BETA Beta particle, pCi/L

dD delta 2H, per mil

H3 Tritium, 3H, tritium unitsVariable Name Description

d11B delta 11B, per mil

B11_10 11B / 10B

d13C delta 13C, per mil

C14 14C, pCi/L

d18O delta 18O, per mil

d34S delta 34S, per mil

d37Cl delta 37Cl, per mil

K40 40K, pCi/L

Sr87_86 87Sr / 86Sr

Cs127 127Cs, pCi/L

I129 129I, pCi/L

Tl206 206Tl, pCi/L

Pb210 210Pb, pCi/L

Pb212 212Pb, pCi/L

Ra223 223Ra, pCi/L

Ra226 226Ra, pCi/L

Bi211 211Bi, pCi/L

Bi212 212Bi, pCi/L

Bi214 214Bi, pCi/L

Pb214 214Pb, pCi/L

Rn222 222Rn, pCi/L

Th227 227Th, pCi/L

Ac227 227Ac, pCi/L

Ac228 228Ac, pCi/L

Ra228 228Ra, pCi/L

Th228 228Th, pCi/L

Th230 230Th, pCi/L

Pa231 231 Pa, pCi/L

Th232 232Th, pCi/L

Th234 234Th, pCi/L

Pa234 234Pa, pCi/L

U234 234U, pCi/L

U235 235U, pCi/L

Np237 237Np, pCi/L

U238 238U, pCi/LTable 3 . Observed duplicates in combined database based on exact same Ca, Cl, HCO3 , and API.

Copies Observations S urplus

1 91007 0

2 16704 8352

3 3519 2346

4 624 468

5 65 52

6 30 25

7 14 12Table 4 . Chemical culling criteria for water data quality control

.

Criteria Column Name

pH < 4.5 or pH > 10.5 cull_PH

Mg > Ca cull_MgCa

K > Cl cull_KCl

K > 5xNa cull_K5Na

charge balance > 5% cull_CHARGEB and chargebalance