14 Int. J. Water, Vol. 7, Nos.

1/2, 2013
Copyright 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.











Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a
karstic aquifer
Rafael Casres-Salazar*,
Roger Gonzlez-Herrera and
Eduardo Graniel-Castro
Facultad de Ingeniera,
Universidad Autnoma de Yucatn (UADY),
Avenida Industrias No Contaminantes x Anillo Perifrico Norte,
tablaje catastral No. 12685, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico
Fax: (52 999)-930-05-59
E-mail: rachmer@yahoo.com
E-mail: gherrera@uady.mx
E-mail: graniel@uady.mx
*Corresponding author
Abstract: To simulate contaminant advective transport it is required to provide
dispersivity values to the models, values that are unknown in many cases. In
this paper a methodology is presented to estimate longitudinal dispersivities at
field scale, based on the monitoring of groundwater quality at an unconfined
aquifer that is below a waste disposal site with no liners for groundwater
protection, and by applying a one-dimensional advective transport model.
Chloride was used as a tracer, which is known to be present in dump site
leachates. As part of the results, an equation was obtained that relates
longitudinal dispersivity against the observation scale for the unconfined
karstic aquifer of Yucatan, Mxico. Some scenarios were employed for the
longitudinal dispersivity estimation and for the solute transport simulation. In
this way, a sensitivity analysis was performed to calculate the longitudinal
dispersivities by varying the hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient.
As a simulation exercise, a sensitivity analysis was also carried out to calculate
the travel time that a particle would require to reach a certain distance
depending on the longitudinal dispersivity value.
Keywords: groundwater; advective transport; longitudinal dispersivity;
observation scale; tracer; karstic aquifer; sensitivity analysis; hydraulic
conductivity; hydraulic gradient.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Casres-Salazar, R.,
Gonzlez-Herrera, R. and Graniel-Castro, E. (2013) Field scale longitudinal
dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer, Int. J. Water, Vol. 7, Nos. 1/2,
pp.1428.
Biographical notes: Rafael Casres-Salazar holds a Hydrology Master degree
(2006) by the Engineering School of the Autonomous University of Yucatan,
Mexico. He has practised hydrogeology in many consultant projects in the
Yucatan peninsula. His research interests are on the hydrodynamics and
solute transport modelling in aquifers and surface waters, the definition of
aquifer conceptual models and the estimation of its hydraulic properties as a
contribution to sustainable development.









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 15












Roger Gonzlez-Herrera is an Associate Professor and Researcher at the
Postgraduate and Research Unit of the Engineering School of the Autonomous
University of Yucatan. He has published many research papers on the Yucatan
karstic aquifer. His research interests include the hydrodynamics of coastal
aquifers, transport and natural attenuation of contaminants in karstic systems.
Eduardo Graniel-Castro is an Associate Professor and Researcher of the
Postgraduate and Research Unit of the Engineering School of the Autonomous
University of Yucatan. He was coordinator of the hydrology branch of the
engineering postgraduate programme during 20042008. He has published
many papers about the contamination and related topics regarding the aquifer
underneath the city of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico and other parts of the Yucatan
peninsula.

1 Introduction
The transport of a non-reactive (conservative) dissolved contaminant in groundwater is
controlled by the following mechanisms:
Advection. It refers to solute transport induced by groundwater flow.
Hydrodynamic dispersion. It refers to the tendency of a solute plume to propagate
outside the path it is expected to take by the advective field.
Molecular diffusion. It is the component of hydrodynamic dispersion that is
influenced by ion or molecular movement and refers to solute transport from high to
low concentration zones.
In this paper we discuss the hydrodynamic dispersion concept for a karstic aquifer, which
causes contaminated groundwater to occupy a larger volume with respect to the volume
that it would occupy if it were influenced by the advective field exclusively. This causes
the maximum concentration of contaminants in the plume to diminish, taking place to a
natural attenuation as the plume disperses as this process irreversible (Lehr, 1988). There
are two components of dispersion:
Longitudinal dispersion. Solute propagation in the preferential flow direction.
Transverse dispersion. Solute propagation perpendicular to the preferential flow
direction.
Longitudinal dispersion is the process by which part of the fluid and solutes travels faster
than the average lineal velocity, and other part travels slower; therefore, solutes disperse
along the flow direction and their concentrations diminish. Mechanical dispersion along
the transverse direction is much less than dispersion in the longitudinal direction (Freeze
and Cherry, 1979).
The hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient (D) is defined as the product of the
longitudinal dispersivity () and the flow velocity of groundwater (V). It can be









16 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












understood as a characteristic mixing length and as a measure of the contaminant
dispersion (Bedient et al., 1999).
For practical purposes the value of the horizontal transversal dispersivity could be
considered as one order of magnitude lower than longitudinal dispersivity, whereas the
vertical transverse dispersivity could be considered as two orders of magnitude lower
than longitudinal dispersivity (Gelhar et al., 1992).
The observation scale is defined as the distance between the observation point and the
contaminant source. The observation scale can exert an influence on magnitude of the
dispersivity, because as the trajectory increases, the groundwater finds its way through
larger variations in the aquifer. Gelhar et al. (1992) carried out a wide research where
they determined 59 values of longitudinal dispersivity in different geological media at
field scale. To achieve this purpose they applied tracer tests and took into account
contaminant events and environmental tracers, in porous media and in fractured rocks as
well. They report that longitudinal dispersivity increases as the observation scale does, as
indicated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. So, in Figure 1 it can be observed that there is little
difference among the data reported for porous media and those from fractured rocks.
Moreover, they report that at a considerably large distance the heterogeneities of the
medium will no longer exert a significant influence on the increment of the longitudinal
dispersivity, so it will reach a constant value.
Figure 1 Longitudinal dispersivity vs. observation scale, identified by kind of test and type of
aquifer

Source: Gelhar et al. (1992)









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 17












Figure 2 Longitudinal dispersivity vs. observation scale with data classified according to
reliability

Source: Gelhar et al. (1992)
The determination of dispersivity values required to use for solute transport simulations is
not an easy matter and it has been a controversial topic. Gelhar et al. (1992) report that at
a certain scale of observation the longitudinal dispersivity values can vary by two or three
orders of magnitude, being the most confident values in the lower portion of the range, as
presented in Figure 2; for that reason, they recommend to take the dispersivity values at
the lower half of the range, for a specific observation scale. They explain it by
considering that if the values at the upper half of the range were used, it would simulate
an excessive dilution and the environmental consequences of it may be wrongly
estimated. Therefore, as the dispersivity increases the dispersion does too, and so dilution
takes place.
This explains the concept of dispersivity and its importance in solute transport
simulations: dispersivity is a measure of the solute dispersion in an aquifer since dilution
increases as dispersivity does, the latter being dependent on the observation scale.
Dispersion at field scale is due mainly to macroscopic heterogeneities rather than to the
heterogeneity associated with the rock matrix pores. Generally, macroscopic dispersion
of a solute in the aquifer tends to increase as the number or heterogeneities does (Zheng
and Bennett, 1995).
On the other hand, conservative solutes are transported at the same velocity of
groundwater flow, which is directly proportional to the hydraulic conductivity and









18 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












inversely proportional to the porosity. That is to say, the time a solute takes to travel a
given distance will depend primarily on the velocity of the groundwater flow, whereas
the concentrations and extension of the contaminant plume will depend in first instance
on the longitudinal and transverse dispersivities.
Heterogeneities in hydraulic conductivity and porosity of the aquifer exert an
influence on the transport of solutes; so, it is imperative to define the variations of these
parameters in the aquifer, both in the horizontal and vertical direction. Also, the
heterogeneity in other properties or processes that affect the velocity can have similar
effects. For example, temporal and spatial variations in the recharge and discharge of the
aquifer can cause changes in the velocity field, which in turn generate effects in the solute
migration; therefore, the transport models that consider the recharge and discharge
uniformly in space and time are subject to this limitation and will fail to reproduce such
effects (Zheng and Bennett, 1995).
Figure 3 Study zone: old waste disposal site of the city of Merida, located at the NW of the urban
zone, at the state of Yucatan, Mexico
Dzitya town
Garbage
Engineering
N1
UW2
D2
D3
C1
P6
I5
UW5
UW3
P4
P7
M1
UW6
UW1
P1
P2
S6
S5
S4
S3
S2
S1
school
Merida
City of
(NW)
MEXICO
STATE OF YUCATAN
hill
(UADY)










Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 19












2 Methods
The study area corresponds to the unconfined karstic aquifer underlying the old waste
disposal site of the city of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico (Figure 3). This site, unlined and
nowadays closed, acted during many years as a continuous source of contaminants to the
shallow aquifer, which water table is located six metres below the ground level,
approximately. A system of fractures has been developed allowing a rapid percolation of
the rainfall through them and transporting the contaminants from wastes to the aquifer.
The monitoring points shown in Figure 3 were used to determine the main direction of
groundwater flow (N-30-W) and to map the extension of the contaminant plume in the
aquifer, at water table level (Figure 4). In particular, boreholes S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6
(located in the main direction of groundwater flow) were used to estimate longitudinal
dispersivities.
Figure 4 Contours of chloride isoconcentration, May 2000, for the determination of the
groundwater flow direction and the mapping of the contaminant plume at water table
(see online version for colours)
Chloride, May 2000
80 ppm
140 ppm
200 ppm
20 ppm

Since chloride ion is known to be present in the leachate of the old waste disposal site, it
was used as a tracer in spite of being a conservative element in groundwater, insensitive
to the effects of ion exchange, adsorption and biological activity, which makes it a good
indicator of the movement of contaminants in the aquifer (Custodio and Llamas, 1976).
For such reasons, groundwater samples were collected at boreholes S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
and S6 at different depths ranging from 0 to 30 m below the water table to determine
the concentration of this element in the aquifer.
To estimate longitudinal dispersivities and to carry out the solute transport simulation
a one-dimensional model was used. The model, solved by Bear in the year of 1961 for
background concentration of zero, was developed for a constant and continuous source of









20 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












contaminants in a homogeneous and isotropic medium. It is introduced in Bedient et al.
(1999) as follows:
exp
2 2 2
Co L Vt VL L Vt
C erfc erfc
D Dt Dt
+
= +



(1)
where the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient D is calculated as D = V, being the
longitudinal dispersivity; V is the flow velocity; Co is the concentration of the
contaminant at the source; C is the concentration of the contaminant calculated at a given
distance L measured from the contaminant source and on its trajectory after a time t; and
erfc is the complementary error function whose values can be found in specialised texts.
The second term of the right member of equation (1) can be neglected in most of the
practical situations. The assumptions of the model are the following:
the tracer is ideal, with constant density and viscosity
the fluid is incomprehensible
the medium is homogeneous and isotropic
transport is only considered in the saturated zone.
It is worth mentioning that the aquifer under study is karstic, heterogeneous and
anisotropic while the model [equation (1)] was developed for a homogeneous and
isotropic medium.
Although, at a macro scale, it can be satisfactorily modelled as an equivalent porous
medium (Gonzlez et al., 2002); so, the results should be taken with due caution. A
similitude to this topic is the case of pumping test analysis, where the applicability of the
formulas in fractured or karstic aquifers given the discrete nature of these formations is
doubtful. In such cases, the interpretation problem is solved by simplifications, which are
not always adapted to field observations; so, in karstic aquifers, hydraulic parameters are
estimated only by strong simplifications, conceptualising the aquifer as an equivalent
porous medium (COST Office, 2005).
3 Results and discussion
In order to know the change in the magnitude of longitudinal dispersivity against the
variation of the hydraulic parameters involved in its estimation, particularly the hydraulic
conductivity (K) and the hydraulic gradient (i) a sensitivity analysis were performed
for borehole S1. Furthermore, this analysis distinguished between values of hydraulic
conductivity and hydraulic gradient suitable for the estimation of the longitudinal
dispersivities associated with different scales of observation.
For this sensitivity analysis six scenarios were analysed, in each of them values of K
and i were allowed to vary, based on the determinations of several investigations carried
out in the aquifer of Yucatan, and particularly in the study zone. Table 1 presents the
values considered for each of the sensitivity analysis scenarios; as such it was obtained
the groundwater flow velocity from equation (2), which arises from Darcys Law:









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 21












Ki
V
n
= (2)
where n is the medium porosity and is considered to be equal to 0.35 for the study zone
(Gonzlez et al., 2002).
Table 1 Considered values for the sensitivity analysis scenarios, and determination of the
groundwater velocity
K = 319 m/d Graniel (2001)
i = 0.0000796 Snchez (1992)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 1
V = 0.0725 m/d
K = 319 m/d Graniel (2001)
i = 0.000008 Marin et al. (2001)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 2
V = 0.0073 m/d
K = 44,928 m/d Reeve and Perry (1990)
i = 0.0000796 Snchez (1992)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 3
V = 10.2179 m/d
K = 44,928 m/d Reeve and Perry (1990)
i = 0.000008 Marin et al. (2001)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 4
V = 1.0269 m/d
K = 23,000 m/d Snchez (1999)
i = 0.0000796 Snchez (1992)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 5
V = 5.2309 m/d
K = 23,000 m/d Snchez (1999)
i = 0.000008 Marin et al. (2001)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
Scenario 6
V = 0.5257 m/d
As an example, the following procedure is presented to calculate longitudinal dispersivity
for the scale of observation corresponding to borehole S1 under Scenario 1, by applying
equation (1) and neglecting the second term on the right. The input data are as follows.
Borehole S1 is located at a distance L = 255 m from the source of contaminants. The
maximum concentration of chloride ion observed in this borehole was 439.58 mg/l
(at 25 m below water table); subtracting the background concentration in the aquifer
(19 mg/l) results in a concentration of 420.58 mg/l; this value corresponds to variable C
in the Bears one-dimensional model [equation (1)]. The concentration of chloride ion in
the source is 4,690 mg/l (K, 1998). The time elapsed since the beginning of the
implementation of the area method in the old waste disposal site this corresponds to the
date when the solid wastes began to accumulate, which is March 1993 until the date









22 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












when there were determined the concentrations of chloride ion these concentrations
were determined on November 2000 is approximately 93 months, or 2,790 days. From
Table 1, the velocity considered for Scenario 1 is 0.0725 m/d.
Scenario 1: L = 255 m, C = 420.58 mg/l, Co = 4,690 mg/l, t = 2,790 days,
V = 0.0725 m/d.
2
2
1.8536
0.1793
1.8536
being
then ( ) 0.1793
and 0.9495
1.8536
therefore 0.9495
thus 3.8 m
C L Vt
erfc
Co Vt
erfc
erfc

=



=


=
=
=
=
=

Following the same procedure stated for borehole S1, values of longitudinal dispersivity
() corresponding to Scenario 2 to Scenario 6 were computed, summarising the results in
Table 2, where it can be noted that longitudinal dispersivity is highly sensitive to K and i
values used for its determination.
Table 2 Results of the longitudinal dispersivity determinations for each of the scenarios,
applied to borehole S1
Scenario (m) Observations
1 3.8 It is within the range reported by Gelhar et al. (1992)
2 748 Out of range
3 7,757 Out of range
4 661 Out of range
5 3,902 Out of range
6 281 Slightly out of range
Note: It is accepted exclusively the dispersivity corresponding to Scenario 1.
According to Figure 2, after Gelhar et al. (1992), for a scale of observation of
approximately 255 m (distance from the source of contaminants to borehole S1),
longitudinal dispersivity varies in a range of approximately 1 to 200 m, with a greater
degree of confidence at lower values of this range. For that reason, from Table 2 it is
concluded that Scenario 1 data are appropriate for the estimation of the longitudinal
dispersivities at the rest of the boreholes (S2 to S5). These data are the following:
K = 319 m/d (Graniel, 2001)
i = 79.6 mm/km = 0.0000796 (Snchez, 1992)
n = 0.35 (Gonzlez et al., 2002)









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 23












V = 0.0725 m/d (Calculated with Darcys Law).
It is inferred that the data for the rest of the scenarios are not appropriate for the aquifer
of study, due to the following.
Regarding to the hydraulic conductivity, the high 44,928 m/d value reported by Reeve
and Perry (1990) was estimated with a tidal analysis, so it must take into account the
major karstic conduits of extremely high hydraulic conductivity. Similarly, the high
23,000 m/d value reported by Snchez (1999) was obtained with a numeric model of an
extended domain (N-NW of Yucatan), which also must consider the major karstic
conduits for proper calibration. The relative low accepted value of 319 m/d reported by
Graniel (2001) was obtained through tracer tests at a specific site in the city of Merida,
this site having a hydrogeologic ambient similar to the study zone of the present
investigation; so, this value appears not to consider the major karstic conduits at least at
a great extent but the porous matrix medium at a more local scale.
Regarding to the hydraulic gradient, the 0.000008 (8 mm/km) value reported by
Marin et al. (2001) was obtained with a numeric model of an extended domain
(Northwestern Yucatan), which must consider the major karstic conduits for proper
calibration. The accepted value of 0.0000796 (79.6 mm/km) reported by Snchez (1992)
was obtained for the same site of the present investigation.
And with regard to the porosity value employed (n = 0.35) reported by Gonzlez et al.
(2002), this is the only value determined for the Yucatan aquifer, having been employed
in the cited reference to model the regional groundwater flow of northwest Yucatan.
Table 3 presents the maximum concentrations of chloride ion found at the observation
boreholes S1 to S6, as well as the depths to which such concentrations were found. They
are considered the maximum concentrations regardless of the depth where they where
found in the aquifer, because the contaminants may divert vertically through the
preferential conduits of the karstic system and also because the greater density of the
leachate may cause it to sink in the aquifer. The table includes the column maximum
concentration minus background concentration (background concentration = 19 mg/l),
which corresponds to C parameter in the one-dimensional model employed to estimate
the dispersivities [equation (1)].
Table 3 Maximum concentrations of chloride ion found in the aquifer
Borehole
Maximum
concentration (mg/l)
Depth below water
table (m)
Max. concentration minus
background concentration. (mg/l)
S1 439.58 25 420.58
S2 372.76 15 353.76
S3 369.36 25 350.36
S4 278.07 35 259.07
S5 260.23 15 241.23
S6 251.84 25 232.84
With these data the longitudinal dispersivity values were obtained for the distances given
by the location of the observation points with respect to the centre of the old dump site,
which is the source of contaminants. The results are presented in Table 4.











24 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












Table 4 Longitudinal dispersivity values estimated for various observation scales
Borehole Distance (L) in metres , in metres
S1 255 3.8
S2 272 5.8
S3 294 10.0
S4 350 21.1
S5 439 50.7
S6 532 98.5
The longitudinal dispersivity values that were presented in Table 4 are within the range
obtained by Gelhar et al. (1992), represented in Figure 2; so it is concluded that the
application of such figure can be extended to the karstic aquifer of Yucatan.
Data from Table 4 were used to adjust equation (3) that relates L vs. , the
corresponding graphic being presented in Figure 5.
2
0.0009 0.3694 39.878 L L = + (3)
with the domain 255 L 532, where and L are in metres, and with a correlation
coefficient R = 0.9998.
Figure 5 Graph of L vs. , based on the estimated dispersivities at the old waste disposal site of
the city of Merida, Yuc. (see online version for colours)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
L (m)
(m)

4 Solute transport simulation in the Yucatan karstic aquifer
In this section the transport of solutes in the unconfined karstic aquifer of Yucatan is
simulated, with the old waste disposal site of the city of Merida acting as a source of
contaminants. The groundwater flow direction is NW, which points towards the town of
Dzitya, located at a distance of 1,500 m downgradient of the source of contaminants. The









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 25












plume of contaminants descends between 20 and 25 metres below the water table, so that
the simulated concentrations of the contaminant in the aquifer will be for those depths.
To overcome the uncertainty on the longitudinal dispersivity value required to carry
out the solute transport simulation, it is suggested to consider at least three scenarios for a
given observation scale: one using the higher dispersivity, other with an average
dispersivity value, and another one with the lowest value, based on Figure 2, taken after
Gelhar et al. (1992). Another way to get a suitable value for the longitudinal dispersivity
consists of applying equation (3) proposed in this paper for karstic aquifers, only if the
observation scale is within the domain of such equation. In this study, there were
simulated the following scenarios, not being possible to apply equation (3) because the
observation scale does not belong to its domain.
Scenario a: = 100 m. At borehole S6, located at a distance L = 532 m from the
source of contaminants, the longitudinal dispersivity value is estimated to be 98.5 m;
therefore, for L = 1500 m, has to be greater than 98.5 m, taking it equal to 100 m
for this scenario.
Scenario b: = 150 m, average value between Scenario a and Scenario c.
Scenario c: = 200 m, based on the upper limit of the dispersivities range in
Figure 2 reported by Gelhar et al. (1992) for an observation scale of L = 1,500 m.
It is worth mentioning that it was not carried out a simulation for the minimum
dispersivity value reported in Figure 2 ( = 6 m, for L = 1,500 m) since this value is
unrealistic for the study area, according to Table 4 and Figure 5.
The values for the parameters used in the solute transport simulation are presented in
Table 5.
Table 5 Input parameters for the solute transport simulation
Parameter Reference
L = 1500 m Distance from the old dump site centre to Dzitya town
Co = 4,690 mg/l K (1998)
K = 319 m/d Graniel (2001)
i = 0.0000796 Snchez (1992)
n = 0.35 Gonzlez et al. (2002)
V = 0.0725 m/d Calculated with Darcys Law
Table 6 presents the results of the solute transport simulations considering the three
scenarios of different value. The time in the table indicates how long a borehole,
located at a distance of 1,500 m from the source of contaminants equivalent to the
distance between the old dump site and the town of Dzitya will take to reach a
chloride concentration of 250 mg/l. We chose this value for the chloride concentration
since it is the maximum permissible limit that allows the Mexican official norm NOM-
127-SSA1-1994 (DOF, 2000) for human consumption water quality. It is worth
mentioning that this time starts to count since the beginning of the implementation of the
area method in the old waste disposal site March 1993 , and the results will be
subjected to the same conditions of contaminant emissions during all the time of
simulation and under the assumptions of the model used.









26 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












Table 6 Time for a contaminated borehole, located at 1,500 m from the source of
contaminants, to reach a chloride concentration of 250 mg/l
Scenario (m) Time to manifest 250 mg/l (years) Date to manifest 250 mg/l
a 100 32 March, 2025
b 150 27.67 November, 2020
c 200 25 March, 2018
Figure 6 presents the comparative curves of time vs. concentration for the three scenarios
of the solute transport simulation.
Figure 6 Comparative curves of time vs. concentration for scenarios a, b and c of the solute
transport simulation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C

(
m
g
/
l
)

+

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Time (days)
Scenario a Scenario b Scenario c

From Table 6, it can be noted that as the longitudinal dispersivity increases, the time that
will take to reach a concentration of 250 mg/l at a distance of 1500 m decreases. This
confirms what is reported by Gelhar et al. (1992): the higher the dispersivity, the larger
the dispersion and dilution of contaminants in the aquifer.
Considering the solute transport scenarios presented in Table 6, the time that the
contaminant will take to reach Dzitya is estimated to be between 25 and 32 years, which
will take place between March 2018 and March 2025, under the assumption of keeping
the same conditions in the source of contaminants and the assumptions of the model
applied. However, today it is known that the dump site has been closed, so that the
leachate that may be releasing should be the remnant of the garbage that was accumulated
over several years.
From the differences observed in Table 6 with respect to the values of and the times
that the solute will take to travel the given distance (L = 1,500 m), it can be concluded









Field scale longitudinal dispersivities estimation in a karstic aquifer 27












that the results of the simulation are sensitive to the value. Therefore, due to the
uncertainties associated with the value, it is suggested to simulate at least three
scenarios for the solute transport simulation, varying the values of and maintaining the
other parameters constant, considering that the modeller is sure about the accuracy of
them.
Finally, it is noted that in the absence of the hydrodynamic dispersion, the plume of
contaminants would arrive to the distance L = 1,500 m at a time t = L / V = 1,500 m /
0.0725 m/d = 20,689 days = 56.68 years, transported by the flow vectors at the
groundwater velocity exclusively. Thus, with this case study it is shown how part of the
fluid and solutes travels faster than the groundwater velocity, this being attributed to the
longitudinal component of the dispersion, which refers to the spread of the solute in the
preferential flow direction.
5 Conclusions
Investigations carried out in the Yucatan karstic aquifer confirm that longitudinal
dispersivity increases with distance, or observation scale. In addition, the estimates of
this parameter corroborate the graph of Gelhar et al. (1992) which relates L vs. ,
obtained at porous and fractured aquifers, thus enabling it to apply to the karstic aquifer
of Yucatan.
The longitudinal dispersivity is highly sensitive to the values of hydraulic
conductivity and hydraulic gradient employed in its estimation.
Results of the solute transport simulation are sensitive to the value of , so it is
recommended to consider at least three scenarios for a given observation scale: one using
the higher dispersivity, other with an average dispersivity value, and another one with the
lowest value, based on Figure 2, after Gelhar et al. (1992). In the case of a karstic aquifer
it can be further considered the use of equation (3) to determine only if the
observation scale is within the domain of such equation in the absence of dispersivity
values estimated at the study site.
The results of the solute transport simulation confirm that the higher the dispersivity,
the larger the dispersion and dilution of contaminants in the aquifer.
It is worth mentioning that the results of the simulation in the present investigation
should be taken cautiously due to the simplifications taken for the aquifer under study,
which is karstic, heterogeneous and anisotropic.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was supported through a grant from the National
Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y
Tecnologa) and the government of the State of Yucatan (Fondos Mixtos del Gobierno
del Estado de Yucatan). Authors are grateful with reviewers comments that improved this
paper.









28 R. Casres-Salazar et al.












References
Bedient, P.B., Rifai, H.S. and Newell, C.J. (1999) Groundwater Contamination. Transport and
Remediation, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, USA.
COST Office (2005) Groundwater management of coastal karstic aquifers, European Cooperation
in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, COST Action 621, Final report, Luxemburg.
Custodio, E. and Llamas, M.R. (1976) Hidrologa Subterrnea, Vol. 1, Ediciones Omega,
Barcelona, Spain.
DOF (2000) Modificacin a la NOM-127-SSA1-1994. Salud ambiental. Agua para uso y consumo
humano. Lmites permisibles de calidad y tratamientos a que debe someterse el agua para su
potabilizacin, Diario Oficial de la Federacin, 22th November 2000, Mexico, Tomo
DLXVI, No. 15, Primera Seccin, pp.7379.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. (1979) Groundwater, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Gelhar, L.W., Welty, C. and Rehfeldt, K.R. (1992) A critical review of data on field-scale
dispersion in aquifers, Water Resources Research, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp.19551974.
Gonzlez, H.R., Snchez y P.I. and Gamboa, V.J. (2002) Groundwater-flow modeling in the
Yucatan karstic aquifer, Mexico. Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.539552.
Graniel, E.H. (2001) Determinacin de los coeficientes de dispersividad longitudinal y transversal
en un medio crstico y su relacin con la conductividad hidrulica, PhD thesis, Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, Mexico.
K, L.H. (1998) Estimacin de la produccin del lixiviado generado en el basurero municipal de la
ciudad de Mrida, Yucatn, 203pp., Master thesis, Universidad Autnoma de Yucatn,
Mexico.
Lehr, J.H. (1988) An irreverent view of contaminant dispersion, Groundwater Monitoring
Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.46.
Marin, L.E., Perry, E.C., Essaid, H.I. and Steinich, B. (2001) Hydrogeological investigations and
numerical simulation of groundwater flow in the karstic aquifer of Northwestern
Yucatan, Mexico, in Cheng, A.H.D. and Ouazar, D. (Eds.): Coastal Aquifer
Management Monitoring, Modeling, and Case Studies, Chapter 12, pp.257274, Lewis
Publishers.
Reeve, A.S. and Perry, E.C. (1990) Aspects and Tidal Analysis Along the Western North Coast of
the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, 2327 July, AWRA: International Symposium on Tropical
Hydrogeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Snchez, P.I.A. (1992) Estudio del comportamiento de la contaminacin del agua subterrnea
generada por la disposicin de los desechos slidos a cielo abierto, Informe final,
Coordinacin acadmica de hidrologa, Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad Autnoma de
Yucatn, Internal report, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Snchez, P.I.A. (1999) Modelo numrico del flujo subterrneo de la porcin acufera N-NW del
Estado de Yucatn: implicaciones hidrogeolgicas, Master thesis, Universidad Autnoma de
Chihuahua, Mexico.
Zheng, C. and Bennett, G.D. (1995) Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling. Theory and
Practice, VNR, USA.