![](/web/20061210133039im_/http://agr.gc.ca/pfra/spacer.gif) |
You are here: PFRA Online > Sustainable Water Well Initiative (SWWI)
Biofouling and Water Wells in the M.D. of Kneehill, Alberta
As part of the Sustainable Water Well Initiative (SWWI), this fact sheet reports on a recent study
into the potential role of groundwater bacteria in the reduction of well yields and water quality in
the Municipal District (M.D.) Of Kneehill, Alberta, Canada. The work was carried out by PFRA
in partnership with the M.D. of Kneehill, Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) and Droycon
of Regina, Saskatchewan.
The main study objectives were:
- To confirm the extent and type of groundwater supply problems,
- To determine the impact of naturally occurring nuisance bacteria in groundwater on water
quality, well production rates, and well life expectancy, and
- To make recommendations on how best to treat these problems.
What is biofouling ?
Biofouling is the term used to describe water well deterioration caused by microbiological
activity
(i.e.: bacteria). Well deterioration can take the form of:
- deteriorating water quality over time. This includes taste and odour as well as other water
quality problems
- reduced well yield due to clogging of well screens or the aquifer itself
- red or black slime on pumps, well screens, or in the distribution system (toilet tanks,
cisterns etc.). These slimes can lead to increased corrosion of steel well casing, stainless
steel well casing, stainless steel well screens, etc.
Nuisance bacteria are naturally present in groundwater. Pumping a well increases the food
supply for these bacteria, causing their population to rapidly expand in the vicinity of the
well and in the distribution system. The bacteria form a slime or biofilm, that captures mineral
scale and other deposits that move to the well during pumping. These deposits can reduce water
quality, well yield, and well life expectancy.
How was the study carried out
A sixteen township area (Township 29 to 32, Ranges 21 to 24 W4) was identified for study.
Many water users in the targeted area have had to repeatedly replace wells whose yield had
deteriorated since original installation. Biofouling was suspected as being the cause of this
deterioration.
For the study area, PFRA, Droycon, AEP, and the M.D. of Kneehill:
- carried out detailed survey of 275 well owners to gather basic well information
(age, depth, etc.) and information on water supply problems
- collected water samples from 134 wells for microbial testing
- performed intensive diagnostic testing on seven water wells (including more detailed
microbiological sampling, visual well inspection using a downhole camera, and pump testing),
and
- undertook lab testing to develop a new well treatment process to rehabilitate wells that are
severely biofouled.
STUDY FINDINGS:
WELL OWNERS SURVEY
- About 74% of the wells being used were reported to have well yield problems, water quality
problems, or both.
- Water quality was a more common concern than well yield. This difference may be due to
owners' perceptions, as a slight change in water quality is more noticeable than a gradual
reduction in well yield over time.
- The most common water quality concerns were taste and odour
- Pumps pulled for maintenance or inspection were often covered with red slime, black
slime, or both.
- Less than one-third of the wells were reported to have undergone some form of well
maintenance or treatment.
RESULTS OF MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING
- About 68% of the wells show evidence of being biofouled with high populations of one or
more bacteria types. Bacteria was present at lower populations in most of the other wells tested,
suggesting that biofouling may be at an earlier stage in those wells.
- Although biofouling occurs at varying rates in different wells, evidence to date suggests
that biofouling is progressive and will eventually occur in most of the wells in the study
area.
- Sulfate reducing bacteria is the dominant bacteria type in the study area, although iron
related bacteria and total aerobic bacteria are also present. All of these bacteria cause clogging,
corrosion, odours, and other problems.
- Well replacement due to performance deterioration becomes increasingly likely after 15
years. Most wells appear to show very few symptoms of biofouling for the first five years.
- A reduction in yield is likely occurring in all of the biofouled wells located within the
study area. Owners of low yielding wells are likely the first to notice a reduction in yield.
Owners whose usage is much less than the well's capacity would likely not notice a gradual
decline in yield, unless they are carefully monitoring the well.
INTENSIVE DIAGNOSTIC TESTING OF SEVEN WELLS
- Biofouling was evident in each of seven wells chosen for detailed diagnostic testing. The
down hole videos confirmed that all seven wells showed one or more of the following signs of
bacterial growth: biofilms (slime), bacterial threads, bacterial flakes, and cloudy water. The
adjacent figure summarizes observations in one well.
- All seven of the wells were biofouled by very aggressive sulfate reducing bacteria.
- Clogging by bacterial growth is very likely causing a reduction of water flow to these
wells. This clogging is caused by an accumulation of biofilm, secreted by the bacteria, that fills
the well intake openings and the pore space in the aquifer surrounding the well.
LAB STUDIES
Lab tests were used to evaluate a new Ultra Acid-Base (UABTM) treatment
process developed by Droycon for the rehabilitation of severely biofouled small diameter water
wells. The results were very promising and field trails are scheduled for fall 1997 to confirm the
effectiveness of the UABTM treatment process on typical farm wells.
CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS
PFRA is continuing to work with Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development,
Alberta Environmental Protection and the water well industry to promote water wells that last for
generations. Studies are currently underway to determine the optimum well maintenance and
monitoring strategies for this area. IN THE INTERIM, the following is
recommended:
- Preventative maintenance should be carried out in all wells to control biofouling. Shock
chlorination once or twice a year is currently the method most often recommended to control
biofouling. Well owners can do this themselves or they can hire water well drillers or well
service companies. In recent years, newer chemical products have been developed that are
reported to have some advantages over shock chlorination (the chemicals are less corrosive and
safer to handle; the chemicals penetrate the biofilm more effectively)> Contact your local well
driller(s) for ore information.
- Well owners should monitor their wells on a regular basis. (see r Wells that Last
for Generationsication available from Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development,
Alberta Environmental Protection, or PFRA). Monitoring allows a well owner to determine the
optimum time between well maintenance. In the study area, monitoring of sulfate reducing
bacteria levels will determine the degree of biofouling in about 90 per cent of the wells. A
simple monitoring tool for this bacteria (the Presence/Absence SRB-BARTTM
test) is available from Droycon Bioconcepts Inc. (306-585-1762 or E-mail:
"roy.cullimore@uregina.ca").
- Alternatives to well replacement should be investigated when biofouling has progressed to
the stage where well maintenance will no longer work effectively. Technologies have emerged
in recent years that may allow wells to be rehabilitated rather than replaced. As well
rehabilitation generally requires the presence of a drill or service rig, the addition of chemicals,
and substantial experience with this type of work, qualified members of the water well drilling or
well servicing industries should be consulted.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Rural Water
Development Program and under the Canada-Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
Agreement. Technical assistance provided by Dr. Roy Cullimore and Twyla Legault of Droycon
is gratefully acknowledged. Video logging assistance provided by Alberta Environmental
Protection is also acknowledged.
For more information, contact:
John Lebedin
Earth Sciences Division
PFRA Headquarters
Regina, Saskatchewan,
(306) 780-5207
E-mail: lebedinj@agr.gc.ca
Terry Dash
Regional Hydrogeologist
Southern Alberta Regional Office
Calgary, Alberta
(403) 292-5719
E-mail:dasht@agr.gc.ca
|