Cited by 82Arsenic contamination and mitigationMine drainage and remediation techniquesWater Quality and Resources Studies

Characterization of geochemical constituents and bacterial populations associated with as mobilization in deep and shallow tube wells in Bangladesh

Sutton, Nora B., van der Kraan, Geert M., van Loosdrecht, Mark C.M., Muyzer, Gerard, Bruining, Johannes, Schotting, Ruud J.·2009·Water Research

Abstract

While millions of people drink arsenic-contaminated tube well water across Bangladesh, there is no recent scientific explanation which is able to either comprehensively explain arsenic mobilization or to predict the spatial distribution of affected wells. Rather, mitigation strategies have focused on the sinking of deep tube wells into the currently arsenic-free Pleistocene aquifer. In this study, Bangladesh shallow tube wells identified as contaminated and uncontaminated, as well as deep tube wells, were analyzed for geochemical and in situ microbiological composition. Whereas arsenic was detected in all Holocene aquifer wells, no arsenic was found in wells accessing the Pleistocene aquifer. Bacterial genera, including Comamonadaceae, Acidovorax, Acinetobacter, and Hydrogenophaga, associated with tolerance of high arsenic concentrations, rather than dissimilatory Fe(III) or As(V) reduction, were identified in shallow tube wells, indicating that mobilization may not occur at depth, but is rather due to drawdown of surface contaminated water. Deep tube wells contained microbes indicative of aerobic conditions, including the genera Aquabacterium, Limnobacter, and Roseomonas. It is concluded that through drawdown of arsenic or organic matter, further utilization of the Pleistocene aquifer could result in contamination similar to that observed in the Holocene aquifer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2009.01.006

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sutton, N. B., van der Kraan, G. M., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Muyzer, G., Bruining, J., & Schotting, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Sutton, Nora B.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1720-1730
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101577202
Cited by
82
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Arsenic contamination and mitigation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Mine drainage and remediation techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Resources Studies
Keywords
arsenic mobilization, groundwater arsenic contamination, tube wells, deep aquifers, Pleistocene aquifer, Holocene aquifer, groundwater drawdown, aquifer geochemistry, microbial communities, aquifer remediation, Bangladesh
MeSH terms
Arsenic, Bacteria, Bacteria, Aerobic, Bangladesh, Escherichia coli, Iron, Phylogeny, RNA, Bacterial, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Water Microbiology, Water Supply, Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field, DNA Primers, Comamonadaceae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review