Influence of anthropogenic contamination on fluoride concentration in groundwater: A study of Mulbagal town, Kolar district, Karnataka

Groundwater contamination is a serious concern in India. Major geogenic contaminants include fluoride, arsenic and iron, while common anthropogenic contaminants include nitrate, metals, organics and microbial contamination. Besides, known point and diffuse sources, groundwater c ontamination from inf iltration of pit to ilet leachate is an emerging concern. The study area of this paper is Kolar district in Karnataka that is hot spot of fluoride contamination. The absence of fluoride contamination in Mulbagal town and the alterations in groundwater chemistry from infiltration of pit toilet leachate motivated the author to examine the possible linkages between anthropogenic contamination and fluoride concentration in groundwater of Mulbagal town. Analysis of the groundwater chemistry revealed that the groundwater in Mulbagal town is under saturated with respect to calcite that suppresses the dissolution of fluorite and the fluoride concentration in the groundwater. The slightly acidic pH of the groundwater is considered responsible to facilitate calcite dissolution under saturation.

Economic tradeoffs in mitigation, due to different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 and black carbon

Tradeoffs are examined between mitigating black carbon (BC) and carbon dioxide (CO2) for limiting peak global mean warming, using the following set of methods. A two-box climate model is used to simulate temperatures of the atmosphere and ocean for different rates of mitigation. Mitigation rates for BC and CO2 are characterized by respective timescales for e-folding reduction in emissions intensity of gross global product. There are respective emissions models that force the box model. Lastly there is a simple economics model, with cost of mitigation varying inversely with emission intensity. Constant mitigation timescale corresponds to mitigation at a constant annual rate, for example an e-folding timescale of 40 years corresponds to 2.5% reduction each year. Discounted present cost depends only on respective mitigation timescale and respective mitigation cost at present levels of emission intensity. Least-cost mitigation is posed as choosing respective e-folding timescales, to minimize total mitigation cost under a temperature constraint (e.g. within 2 degrees C above preindustrial). Peak warming is more sensitive to mitigation timescale for CO2 than for BC. Therefore rapid mitigation of CO2 emission intensity is essential to limiting peak warming, but simultaneous mitigation of BC can reduce total mitigation expenditure. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.