## 4 Results and Discussion
### Physiochemical and Hydrochemical Parameters of the Geothermal Springs
The findings from the Piper diagram were further substantiated with [PERSON]'s plot to understand the geochemical processes leading to various water types. The discrepancy in the water type could be attributed to sample size, sample preparation, and instruments used in the previous studies. Na-Cl water type was dominated by Na\({}^{+}\) and Cl\({}^{-}\) derived from Na-Cl brines in winter and summer seasons, which were linked to the underlying geology emanating from greissic rocks. Na-Cl and Na-HCO\({}_{3}\) water types showed a typical marine and deeper ancient groundwater influenced by ion exchange. The Na-HCO\({}_{3}\) water type from Siloam geothermal spring showed that the spring emanated from basalt rocks. It was the most evolved of the waters and derived their Na\({}^{+}\) from cation exchange of Ca\({}^{2+}\) for Na\({}^{+}\) and K\({}^{+}\) as well as dissolution of rock mineral (plagioclase) [40]. The Durov diagram corroborated the findings from the Piper diagram (Figure 4). Most of the geothermal springs/groundwater aquifer were dominated by Cl and Na, and the water could result from reverse ion exchange of Na-Cl waters, consequently making the water type Na-Cl, as observed in the Piper diagram. As observed from the Piper diagram, SAW had a Na-HCO\({}_{3}\) water type, which was formed as a result of the reverse ion exchange of Na-Cl waters, making Cl the dominant anion and Na the dominant cation and resulting in the water Na-HCO\({}_{3}\) (Figure 5). Hence, the major water types were Na-Cl and Na-HCO\({}_{3}\), which are typical of marine and deep/deeper groundwaters influenced by ion-exchange processes, as explained earlier. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SAGOLE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TSHIPISE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MPHEPHU**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SILOAM**} \\ \hline  & **SGW** & **SGS** & **TSW** & **TSS** & **MPW** & **MPS** & **SAW** & **SH1** & **SH2** \\ \hline
**Temp (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & \(42.4\pm 1.45\) & \(44.8\pm 2.12\) & \(54.6\pm 2.26\) & \(55.4\pm 2.21\) & \(41.3\pm 1.23\) & \(42.7\pm 1.01\) & \(67.7\pm 1.68\) & \(45.2\pm 0.00\) & \(48.4\pm 0.01\) \\ pH & \(8.82\pm 0.95\) & \(79.8\pm 0.22\) & \(8.46\pm 0.22\) & \(8.47\pm 0.21\) & \(8.05\pm 0.02\) & \(8.15\pm 0.07\) & \(9.39\pm 0.06\) & \(8.86\pm 0.00\) & \(9.19\pm 0.10\) \\
**SAR** & \(33.88\pm 546\) & \(19.20\pm 15.48\) & \(25.75\pm 0.98\) & \(25.45\pm 1.29\) & \(2.07\pm 0.06\) & \(21.8\pm 0.06\) & \(7.39\pm 0.04\) & \(17.25\pm 0.00\) & \(19.94\pm 0.02\) \\ EC (uS/cm) & \(330\pm 0.00\) & \(347.33\pm 16.17\) & \(746.67\pm 5.77\) & \(745.7\pm 7.07\) & \(335\pm 7.07\) & \(365\pm 21.21\) & \(340\pm 2.07\) & \(630\pm 0.00\  
There was no variation in the water type with varying seasons for the studied geothermal springs/groundwater. The Na\({}^{+}\) and HCO\({}_{3}\)\({}^{-}\) ions were also present, making the water type fall under class C (temporary hard carbonate water) [41], as reported by [PERSON] et al. [15]. Hence, the presence of water in the water type is not a significant effect. Figure 4: Piper diagram of geothermal springs within Soutpansberg Group. Figure 5: Durov diagram of geothermal springs within Soutpansberg Group. of Na+ in groundwater in the area was due to water-rock interaction as a result of oxidisation and evapotranspiration processes. These findings supported the previous studies by [PERSON] et al. [15] and [PERSON] et al. [18]. The processes controlling geothermal spring water/groundwater chemistry were demonstrated by [PERSON] [42]. The Gibbs plot provided vital information on the mechanism (precipitation, rock-water interaction, or evaporation) controlling groundwater systems by plotting the EC against Na/(Na + Ca) and Cl/(Cl + HCO\({}_{3}\)). Figure 6 shows all the geothermal spring water/groundwater samples in the study area plot in the rock water interaction zone, as reported by [PERSON] et al. [18], for Siloam and Tshipise springs.