- Email: [email protected]
Data on corrosion and scaling potential of drinking water resources using stability indices in Jolfa, East Azerbaijan, Iran
Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Data in Brief journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib
Data Article
Data on corrosion and scaling potential of drinking water resources using stability indices in Jolfa, East Azerbaijan, Iran Mahmood Yousefi c,f, Hossein Najafi Saleh b, Amir Hossein Mahvi c,d, Mahmood Alimohammadi c,e, Ramin Nabizadeh c, Ali Akbar Mohammadi a,n a
Students Research Committee, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran c Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran d Center for Solid Waste Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran e Center for Air Pollution Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran f Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran b
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 7 November 2017 Received in revised form 29 November 2017 Accepted 30 November 2017 Available online 6 December 2017
This cross-sectional study was conducted on the drinking water resources of the city of Jolfa (East Azerbaijan province, Iran) from samples taken from 30 wells. Calcium hardness, pH, total alkalinity, TDS, temperature and other chemical parameters were measured using standard methods. The Langelier, Rayzner, Puckhorius and aggressive indices were calculated. The results showed that the Langelier, Reynar, Puckorius, Larson-skold and aggressive indices were 1.15 ( 7 0.43), 6.92 (7 0.54), 6.42 ( 7 0.9), 0.85 ( 7 0.72) and 12.79 ( 7 0.47), respectively. In terms of water classification, 30% of samples fell into the NaCl category and 26.6% in the NaHCO3 category and 43.4% samples in the CaHCO3, MgHCO3 and MgCl category. The sedimentation indices indicated that the water of the wells could be considered as corrosive. & 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Corrosion and scaling potential Stability indices Ground water Jolfa
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.A. Mohammadi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.099 2352-3409/& 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
725
Specifications Table Subject area More specific subject area Type of data How data was acquired
Data format Experimental factors Experimental features Data source location Data accessibility
Chemistry Describe narrower subject area Tables, Figure To calculate the corrosion indices, 120 water samples were collected, stored and transferred to the lab using standard methods and the water quality parameters such as temperature, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, calcium hardness, alkalinity, chloride and sulfate were measured. The gravimetric method was used to measure the dissolved solids and the titration method was used to determine alkalinity. Sulfate ions were measured based on turbidity measurement at 420 nm using a DR5000 spectrophotometer. Residual chlorine and pH measurement was carried out using test kits and water temperature was measured with a thermometer at the sampling points Raw, Analyzed The mentioned parameters above, in abstract section, were analyzed according to the standards for water and wastewater treatment handbook. The levels of physical and chemical parameters were determined. Jolfa, East Azerbaijan province, Iran The data are available whit this article
Value of the data
Calculation of corrosion indices showed that the chemical quality of the water was imbalanced and could cause corrosion to the water system and other facilities.
The water quality and the potential for corrosion in all distribution systems is necessary to avoid economic loss and avert adverse effects on health.
Comparison of five stability indices showed that water conditions in all parts of this study are supersaturated.
1. Data The data presented here deals with monitoring of the physical and chemical properties of pH, EC, TDS, HCO3−, CO3−, SO42−, CL−, Ca2 þ , Mg2 þ and Na þ as shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The results of the calculations for the Langelier, Ryzener, Puckorius, Aggressive and Larson indices are presented for Jolfa in Table 4. All indices other than the AI index indicated that the water is corrosive. The Langelier index was greater than zero in 90% of samples. Based on the average of this index, the water can be classified as supersaturated; thus, according to the Langelier index, the water is not corrosive. In all samples, (60%) the Ryzener index was between 6 and 7 and it can be concluded that the water samples are saturated (Table 4). The water samples were classified as 30% in the NaCl category, 26.6% in the NaHCO3 category and 43.4% in the CaHCO3, MgHCO3 and MgCl category (Table 5).
726
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Table 1 Summary of water stability indices in present study [1–4]. Equation Langelier saturation index (LSI)
Ryznar stabilityindex (RSI)
LSI ¼ pH−pHs LSI 4 0 pHs ¼ A þ B − log (Ca2 þ )− log LSI ¼ 0 (Alk) pH o ¼ 9.3 pHs ¼ (9.3 þ A þ B) − (C þ D) LSI o 0 (3) pH 4 9.3 RSI ¼ 2pHs−pH
Puckorius scalingindex (PSI) PSI ¼ 2 (pHeq)−pHs pH ¼ 1.465 þ log (T.ALK) þ 4.54 pHeq ¼ 1.465×log(T.ALK) þ 4.54
Larson-skold index(LS)
Ls ¼ (Cl− þ SO42−)/(HCO3− þ CO32−)
Aggressive index (AI)
Index value
AI ¼ pH þ log[(Alk)(H)]
Water condition Super saturated, tend to precipitate CaCO3 Saturated, CaCO3 is in equilibrium Under saturated, tend to dissolve solid CaCO3
RSI o 6 6 o RSI o 7 RSI 4 7
Super saturated, tend to precipitate CaCO3 Saturated, CaCO3 is in equilibrium Under saturated, tend to dissolve solidCaCO3
PSI o 6 PSI 4 7
Scaling is unlikely to occur Likely to dissolve scale
LS o 0.8
Chloride and sulfate are unlikely to interfere with the formation of protecting film 0.8 o LS o 1.2 Corrosion rates may be higher than expected LS 4 1.2 High rates of localized corrosion may be expected AI 4 12 10 o AI o 12 AI o 10
Non aggressive Moderately aggressive Very aggressive
2. Experimental design, materials and methods 2.1. Study area description Jolfa is the capital of Jolfa county in East Azerbaijan province in Iran. Jolfa county is located in northern East Azerbaijan province at UTM coordinates of X ¼ 45.17 to 46.31 east longitude and Y ¼ 38.39 to 39.2 north latitude. The city borders the river Aras and the autonomous republic of Nakhchivan and the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan to the north [Fig. 1].
2.2. Sample collection and analytical procedures To calculate the corrosion indices, 120 water samples were collected, stored and transferred to the lab using standard methods and the water quality parameters such as temperature, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, calcium hardness, alkalinity, chloride and sulfate were measured. The gravimetric method was used to measure the dissolved solids and the titration method was used to determine alkalinity. Sulfate ions were measured based on turbidity measurement at 420 nm using a DR5000 spectrophotometer. Residual chlorine and pH measurement was carried out using test kits and water temperature was measured with a thermometer at the sampling points [5–11]. The equations of the corrosion indices and their interpretations are summarized in Table 1.
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
727
Table 2 Physical and chemical characteristics of water quality of distribution networks of Jolfa city. Number Well
Ca2 þ (mg/l)
Mg2 þ (mg/l)
Na þ (mg/l)
K þ (mg/l)
CO32− (mg/l)
HCO3− (mg/l)
TH As CaCO3 (mg/l)
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
144.00 25.60 44.00 54.40 18.40 72.00 67.20 176.00 66.00 70.00 61.40 69.00 160.00 44.00 120.00 60.00 72.00 88.00 52.00 132.00 27.20 176.00 160.00 180.00 52.00 132.00 18.40 63.20 160.00 180.00 91.49 180 18.4 55.31
87.84 25.864 35.624 33.672 25.864 55.144 35.624 129.32 18.91 17.69 22.57 22.204 97.6 75.64 87.84 39.04 56.12 107.36 39.04 163.48 30.256 122 97.6 85.4 39.04 168.36 25.864 56.12 97.6 85.4 66.14 168.36 17.69 45.48
349.6 64.4 45.54 50.6 167.9 170.2 184 483 33.12 30.82 11.96 28.75 349.6 188.6 181.7 381.8 170.2 200.1 31.28 310.5 14.95 471.5 345 126.5 31.28 310.5 163.3 165.6 345 115 184.08 483 11.96 148.38
7.41 1.17 2.73 1.56 3.12 7.8 3.12 7.41 1.95 1.95 2.34 1.56 7.41 4.29 7.02 2.73 7.8 7.02 1.17 3.12 1.17 7.41 7.41 5.46 1.17 3.12 3.12 3.9 7.41 5.46 4.28 7.8 1.17 2.52
0 6 6 0 15 12 0 0 0 0 28.8 0 0 15 0 0 12 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.66 28.8 0 8.09
600.85 317.2 314.15 335.5 381.25 488 448.35 506.3 219.6 219.6 190.32 225.7 649.65 298.9 741.15 454.45 488 585.6 366 527.65 179.95 439.2 649.65 747.25 366 527.65 408.7 405.65 649.65 716.75 448.29 747.25 179.95 174.63
721.29 170.43 256.57 274.5 152.45 406.87 314.5 972.01 242.67 247.64 246.26 263.73 801.44 421.35 661.37 310.59 410.89 661.84 290.61 1002.81 192.51 941.87 801.44 801.14 290.61 1022.91 152.45 388.91 801.44 801.14 500.81 1022.91 152.45 300.55
Table 3 Physical and chemical characteristics of water quality of distribution networks of Jolfa city. Number Well
ALK as CaCO3 (mg/l)
CL− (mg/l)
SO42− (mg/l)
EC (μmhos/cm)
TDS (mg/l)
pH
HCO3− (mg/l)
CaH as CaCO3 (mg/l)
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16
600.85 323.20 320.15 335.50 396.25 500.00 448.35 506.30 219.60 219.60 219.12 225.70 649.65 313.90 741.15 454.45
532.5 24.85 28.4 42.6 60.35 152.65 184.6 754.375 69.225 69.58 18.46 69.935 532.5 213 230.75 443.75
235.2 4.8 48 48 96 144 86.4 528 36 35.52 45.12 38.4 273.6 254.4 124.8 139.2
3060 663 654 573 1092 3330 636 7080 620 620 574 640 3140 1673 2130 2290
1788 374.4 430.8 465 627.6 943.8 863.4 2436 403 403 340 416 1884 1003.8 1278 1374
8.2 8.7 8.7 8.1 9 8.5 8.1 8.2 7.75 7.75 8.37 7.8 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.9
600.85 317.2 314.15 335.5 381.25 488 448.35 506.3 219.6 219.6 190.32 225.7 649.65 298.9 741.15 454.45
360 64 110 136 46 180 168 440 165 175 153.5 172.5 400 110 300 150
728
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Table 3 (continued ) Number Well
ALK as CaCO3 (mg/l)
CL− (mg/l)
SO42− (mg/l)
EC (μmhos/cm)
TDS (mg/l)
pH
HCO3− (mg/l)
CaH as CaCO3 (mg/l)
W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
500.00 585.60 366.00 527.65 194.95 439.20 649.65 747.25 366.00 527.65 408.70 405.65 649.65 716.75 451.95 747.25 194.95 175.43
156.2 399.375 23.075 621.25 12.425 754.375 532.5 227.2 23.075 621.25 53.25 106.5 532.5 227.2 257.26 754.38 12.43 248.71
144 57.6 24 355.2 33.6 528 264 144 24 374.4 96 259.2 264 144 161.65 528 4.8 151.68
1582 2210 720 3360 454 3950 3120 2170 720 3400 1024 1509 3120 2120 1941.13 7080 454 1691.65
949.2 1326 432 2016 272.4 2370 1872 1302 432 2040 614.4 905.4 1872 1272 1090.2 2436 272.4 699.97
8.5 7.7 7.2 7.7 8.6 7.9 7 7 7.1 7.5 7.9 7.5 7 7.5 7.89 9 7 0.59
488 585.6 366 527.65 179.95 439.2 649.65 747.25 366 527.65 408.7 405.65 649.65 716.75 448.29 747.25 179.95 174.63
180 220 130 330 68 440 400 450 130 330 46 158 400 450 228.73 450 46 138.28
Table 4 Results of Water stability indices calculations samples obtained from Jolfa city. Number Well
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
Index LSI
RSI
PSI
LS
AI
1.13 0.82 1.06 0.58 1.01 1.04 0.79 1.01 0.12 0.15 0.72 0.20 0.41 0.83 0.50 0.38 1.15 0.46 -0.32 0.52 0.57 0.74 0.01 0.18 -0.42 0.32 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.67 0.49 1.15 -0.42 0.43
5.93 7.05 6.59 6.94 6.98 6.42 6.52 6.18 7.50 7.45 6.93 7.40 6.58 6.94 6.49 7.14 6.19 6.78 7.85 6.65 7.46 6.41 6.98 6.64 7.95 6.85 8.04 7.47 6.98 6.17 6.92 6.92 5.93 0.54
5.52 7.54 7.08 6.80 7.63 6.43 6.20 5.88 7.28 7.23 7.33 7.21 5.32 7.34 5.25 6.61 6.20 5.88 6.75 5.82 8.17 5.90 5.32 4.89 6.75 5.83 7.57 6.61 5.32 4.95 6.42 6.42 4.89 0.9
1.28 0.09 0.24 0.27 0.39 0.59 0.60 2.53 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.48 1.24 1.49 0.48 1.28 0.60 0.78 0.13 1.85 0.24 2.92 1.23 0.50 0.13 1.89 0.37 0.90 1.23 0.52 0.85 0.85 0.09 0.72
13.54 13.02 13.25 12.76 13.26 13.45 12.98 13.55 12.31 12.33 12.90 12.39 12.81 13.14 12.85 12.73 13.45 12.81 11.88 12.94 12.72 13.19 12.41 12.53 11.78 12.74 12.17 12.31 12.41 13.01 12.79 12.79 11.78 0.47
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
729
Table 5 Water quality classification for individual samples. Number Well
Water categories based on TDS
Water category based on Piper chart
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30
Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water
Na þ Na þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ
Cl− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3−
730
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in Jolfa city, East Azerbaijan, Iran.
Acknowledgements The authors want to thank authorities of Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences for their comprehensives support for this study.
Transparency document. Supporting information Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.099.
References [1] Corrosion manual for internal corrosion of water distribution systems, United States Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA), Washington, D.C (1984). [2] P. Melidis, M. Sanosidou, A. Mandusa, K. Ouzounis, Corrosion control by using indirect methods, Desalination (2007) 152–158. [3] M. Shams, A.A. Mohamadi, S.A. Sajadi, Evaluation of corrosion and scaling potential of water in rural water supply distribution networks of Tabas, Iran. World Appl. Sci. J 17 (2012) 1484–1489. [4] A. Amouei, H. Fallah, H. Asgharnia, R. Bour, M. Mehdinia, Evaluation of corrosion and scaling potential of drinking water resources in Noor city (Iran) by using stability indices, Koomesh 18 (2016) 326–333. [5] APHA, Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water (APHA), 1995.
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
731
[6] A.I. Amouei, A.H. Mahvi, A.A. Mohammadi, H.A. Asgharnia, S.H. Fallah, A.A. Khafajeh, Physical and chemical quality assessment of potable groundwater in rural areas of Khaf, Iran, World Appl. Sci. J 18 (2012) 693. [7] A.A. Mohammadi, M. Yousefi, A.H. Mahvi, Fluoride concentration level in rural area in Poldasht city and daily fluoride intake based on drinking water consumption with temperature, Data Brief 13 (2017) 312–315. [8] A.A. Mohammadi, K. Yaghmaeian, H. Faraji, R. Nabizadeh, M.H. Dehghani, J.K. Khaili, A.H. Mahvi, Temporal and spatial variation of chemical parameter concentration in drinking water resources of Bandar-e Gaz City using geographic information system, Desalination Water Treat. 68 (2017) 170–176. [9] F.B. Asghari, A.A. Mohammadi, Z. Aboosaedi, M. Yaseri, M. Yousefi, Data on fluoride concentration levels in cold and warm season in rural area of Shout (West Azerbaijan, Iran), Data Brief 15 (2017) 528–531. [10] A. Abbasnia, M. Alimohammadi, A.H. Mahvi, R. Nabizadeh, M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, H. Pasalari, M. Mirzabeigi, Assessment of groundwater quality and evaluation of scaling and corrosiveness potential of drinking water samples in villages of Chabahr city, Sistan and Baluchistan province in Iran, Data Brief 16 (2018) 182–192. [11] M. Yousefi, H. Najafi Saleh, A.A. Mohammad, A.H. Mahvi, M. Ghadrpoori, H. Suleimani, Data on water quality index for the groundwater in rural area Neyshabur County, Razavi province, Iran, Data Brief 15 (2017) 901–907.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Data in Brief journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib
Data Article
Data on corrosion and scaling potential of drinking water resources using stability indices in Jolfa, East Azerbaijan, Iran Mahmood Yousefi c,f, Hossein Najafi Saleh b, Amir Hossein Mahvi c,d, Mahmood Alimohammadi c,e, Ramin Nabizadeh c, Ali Akbar Mohammadi a,n a
Students Research Committee, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences, Torbat Heydariyeh, Iran c Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran d Center for Solid Waste Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran e Center for Air Pollution Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran f Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran b
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 7 November 2017 Received in revised form 29 November 2017 Accepted 30 November 2017 Available online 6 December 2017
This cross-sectional study was conducted on the drinking water resources of the city of Jolfa (East Azerbaijan province, Iran) from samples taken from 30 wells. Calcium hardness, pH, total alkalinity, TDS, temperature and other chemical parameters were measured using standard methods. The Langelier, Rayzner, Puckhorius and aggressive indices were calculated. The results showed that the Langelier, Reynar, Puckorius, Larson-skold and aggressive indices were 1.15 ( 7 0.43), 6.92 (7 0.54), 6.42 ( 7 0.9), 0.85 ( 7 0.72) and 12.79 ( 7 0.47), respectively. In terms of water classification, 30% of samples fell into the NaCl category and 26.6% in the NaHCO3 category and 43.4% samples in the CaHCO3, MgHCO3 and MgCl category. The sedimentation indices indicated that the water of the wells could be considered as corrosive. & 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Corrosion and scaling potential Stability indices Ground water Jolfa
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.A. Mohammadi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.099 2352-3409/& 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
725
Specifications Table Subject area More specific subject area Type of data How data was acquired
Data format Experimental factors Experimental features Data source location Data accessibility
Chemistry Describe narrower subject area Tables, Figure To calculate the corrosion indices, 120 water samples were collected, stored and transferred to the lab using standard methods and the water quality parameters such as temperature, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, calcium hardness, alkalinity, chloride and sulfate were measured. The gravimetric method was used to measure the dissolved solids and the titration method was used to determine alkalinity. Sulfate ions were measured based on turbidity measurement at 420 nm using a DR5000 spectrophotometer. Residual chlorine and pH measurement was carried out using test kits and water temperature was measured with a thermometer at the sampling points Raw, Analyzed The mentioned parameters above, in abstract section, were analyzed according to the standards for water and wastewater treatment handbook. The levels of physical and chemical parameters were determined. Jolfa, East Azerbaijan province, Iran The data are available whit this article
Value of the data
Calculation of corrosion indices showed that the chemical quality of the water was imbalanced and could cause corrosion to the water system and other facilities.
The water quality and the potential for corrosion in all distribution systems is necessary to avoid economic loss and avert adverse effects on health.
Comparison of five stability indices showed that water conditions in all parts of this study are supersaturated.
1. Data The data presented here deals with monitoring of the physical and chemical properties of pH, EC, TDS, HCO3−, CO3−, SO42−, CL−, Ca2 þ , Mg2 þ and Na þ as shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The results of the calculations for the Langelier, Ryzener, Puckorius, Aggressive and Larson indices are presented for Jolfa in Table 4. All indices other than the AI index indicated that the water is corrosive. The Langelier index was greater than zero in 90% of samples. Based on the average of this index, the water can be classified as supersaturated; thus, according to the Langelier index, the water is not corrosive. In all samples, (60%) the Ryzener index was between 6 and 7 and it can be concluded that the water samples are saturated (Table 4). The water samples were classified as 30% in the NaCl category, 26.6% in the NaHCO3 category and 43.4% in the CaHCO3, MgHCO3 and MgCl category (Table 5).
726
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Table 1 Summary of water stability indices in present study [1–4]. Equation Langelier saturation index (LSI)
Ryznar stabilityindex (RSI)
LSI ¼ pH−pHs LSI 4 0 pHs ¼ A þ B − log (Ca2 þ )− log LSI ¼ 0 (Alk) pH o ¼ 9.3 pHs ¼ (9.3 þ A þ B) − (C þ D) LSI o 0 (3) pH 4 9.3 RSI ¼ 2pHs−pH
Puckorius scalingindex (PSI) PSI ¼ 2 (pHeq)−pHs pH ¼ 1.465 þ log (T.ALK) þ 4.54 pHeq ¼ 1.465×log(T.ALK) þ 4.54
Larson-skold index(LS)
Ls ¼ (Cl− þ SO42−)/(HCO3− þ CO32−)
Aggressive index (AI)
Index value
AI ¼ pH þ log[(Alk)(H)]
Water condition Super saturated, tend to precipitate CaCO3 Saturated, CaCO3 is in equilibrium Under saturated, tend to dissolve solid CaCO3
RSI o 6 6 o RSI o 7 RSI 4 7
Super saturated, tend to precipitate CaCO3 Saturated, CaCO3 is in equilibrium Under saturated, tend to dissolve solidCaCO3
PSI o 6 PSI 4 7
Scaling is unlikely to occur Likely to dissolve scale
LS o 0.8
Chloride and sulfate are unlikely to interfere with the formation of protecting film 0.8 o LS o 1.2 Corrosion rates may be higher than expected LS 4 1.2 High rates of localized corrosion may be expected AI 4 12 10 o AI o 12 AI o 10
Non aggressive Moderately aggressive Very aggressive
2. Experimental design, materials and methods 2.1. Study area description Jolfa is the capital of Jolfa county in East Azerbaijan province in Iran. Jolfa county is located in northern East Azerbaijan province at UTM coordinates of X ¼ 45.17 to 46.31 east longitude and Y ¼ 38.39 to 39.2 north latitude. The city borders the river Aras and the autonomous republic of Nakhchivan and the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan to the north [Fig. 1].
2.2. Sample collection and analytical procedures To calculate the corrosion indices, 120 water samples were collected, stored and transferred to the lab using standard methods and the water quality parameters such as temperature, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, calcium hardness, alkalinity, chloride and sulfate were measured. The gravimetric method was used to measure the dissolved solids and the titration method was used to determine alkalinity. Sulfate ions were measured based on turbidity measurement at 420 nm using a DR5000 spectrophotometer. Residual chlorine and pH measurement was carried out using test kits and water temperature was measured with a thermometer at the sampling points [5–11]. The equations of the corrosion indices and their interpretations are summarized in Table 1.
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
727
Table 2 Physical and chemical characteristics of water quality of distribution networks of Jolfa city. Number Well
Ca2 þ (mg/l)
Mg2 þ (mg/l)
Na þ (mg/l)
K þ (mg/l)
CO32− (mg/l)
HCO3− (mg/l)
TH As CaCO3 (mg/l)
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
144.00 25.60 44.00 54.40 18.40 72.00 67.20 176.00 66.00 70.00 61.40 69.00 160.00 44.00 120.00 60.00 72.00 88.00 52.00 132.00 27.20 176.00 160.00 180.00 52.00 132.00 18.40 63.20 160.00 180.00 91.49 180 18.4 55.31
87.84 25.864 35.624 33.672 25.864 55.144 35.624 129.32 18.91 17.69 22.57 22.204 97.6 75.64 87.84 39.04 56.12 107.36 39.04 163.48 30.256 122 97.6 85.4 39.04 168.36 25.864 56.12 97.6 85.4 66.14 168.36 17.69 45.48
349.6 64.4 45.54 50.6 167.9 170.2 184 483 33.12 30.82 11.96 28.75 349.6 188.6 181.7 381.8 170.2 200.1 31.28 310.5 14.95 471.5 345 126.5 31.28 310.5 163.3 165.6 345 115 184.08 483 11.96 148.38
7.41 1.17 2.73 1.56 3.12 7.8 3.12 7.41 1.95 1.95 2.34 1.56 7.41 4.29 7.02 2.73 7.8 7.02 1.17 3.12 1.17 7.41 7.41 5.46 1.17 3.12 3.12 3.9 7.41 5.46 4.28 7.8 1.17 2.52
0 6 6 0 15 12 0 0 0 0 28.8 0 0 15 0 0 12 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.66 28.8 0 8.09
600.85 317.2 314.15 335.5 381.25 488 448.35 506.3 219.6 219.6 190.32 225.7 649.65 298.9 741.15 454.45 488 585.6 366 527.65 179.95 439.2 649.65 747.25 366 527.65 408.7 405.65 649.65 716.75 448.29 747.25 179.95 174.63
721.29 170.43 256.57 274.5 152.45 406.87 314.5 972.01 242.67 247.64 246.26 263.73 801.44 421.35 661.37 310.59 410.89 661.84 290.61 1002.81 192.51 941.87 801.44 801.14 290.61 1022.91 152.45 388.91 801.44 801.14 500.81 1022.91 152.45 300.55
Table 3 Physical and chemical characteristics of water quality of distribution networks of Jolfa city. Number Well
ALK as CaCO3 (mg/l)
CL− (mg/l)
SO42− (mg/l)
EC (μmhos/cm)
TDS (mg/l)
pH
HCO3− (mg/l)
CaH as CaCO3 (mg/l)
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16
600.85 323.20 320.15 335.50 396.25 500.00 448.35 506.30 219.60 219.60 219.12 225.70 649.65 313.90 741.15 454.45
532.5 24.85 28.4 42.6 60.35 152.65 184.6 754.375 69.225 69.58 18.46 69.935 532.5 213 230.75 443.75
235.2 4.8 48 48 96 144 86.4 528 36 35.52 45.12 38.4 273.6 254.4 124.8 139.2
3060 663 654 573 1092 3330 636 7080 620 620 574 640 3140 1673 2130 2290
1788 374.4 430.8 465 627.6 943.8 863.4 2436 403 403 340 416 1884 1003.8 1278 1374
8.2 8.7 8.7 8.1 9 8.5 8.1 8.2 7.75 7.75 8.37 7.8 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.9
600.85 317.2 314.15 335.5 381.25 488 448.35 506.3 219.6 219.6 190.32 225.7 649.65 298.9 741.15 454.45
360 64 110 136 46 180 168 440 165 175 153.5 172.5 400 110 300 150
728
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Table 3 (continued ) Number Well
ALK as CaCO3 (mg/l)
CL− (mg/l)
SO42− (mg/l)
EC (μmhos/cm)
TDS (mg/l)
pH
HCO3− (mg/l)
CaH as CaCO3 (mg/l)
W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
500.00 585.60 366.00 527.65 194.95 439.20 649.65 747.25 366.00 527.65 408.70 405.65 649.65 716.75 451.95 747.25 194.95 175.43
156.2 399.375 23.075 621.25 12.425 754.375 532.5 227.2 23.075 621.25 53.25 106.5 532.5 227.2 257.26 754.38 12.43 248.71
144 57.6 24 355.2 33.6 528 264 144 24 374.4 96 259.2 264 144 161.65 528 4.8 151.68
1582 2210 720 3360 454 3950 3120 2170 720 3400 1024 1509 3120 2120 1941.13 7080 454 1691.65
949.2 1326 432 2016 272.4 2370 1872 1302 432 2040 614.4 905.4 1872 1272 1090.2 2436 272.4 699.97
8.5 7.7 7.2 7.7 8.6 7.9 7 7 7.1 7.5 7.9 7.5 7 7.5 7.89 9 7 0.59
488 585.6 366 527.65 179.95 439.2 649.65 747.25 366 527.65 408.7 405.65 649.65 716.75 448.29 747.25 179.95 174.63
180 220 130 330 68 440 400 450 130 330 46 158 400 450 228.73 450 46 138.28
Table 4 Results of Water stability indices calculations samples obtained from Jolfa city. Number Well
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30 Mean Max Min S.D
Index LSI
RSI
PSI
LS
AI
1.13 0.82 1.06 0.58 1.01 1.04 0.79 1.01 0.12 0.15 0.72 0.20 0.41 0.83 0.50 0.38 1.15 0.46 -0.32 0.52 0.57 0.74 0.01 0.18 -0.42 0.32 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.67 0.49 1.15 -0.42 0.43
5.93 7.05 6.59 6.94 6.98 6.42 6.52 6.18 7.50 7.45 6.93 7.40 6.58 6.94 6.49 7.14 6.19 6.78 7.85 6.65 7.46 6.41 6.98 6.64 7.95 6.85 8.04 7.47 6.98 6.17 6.92 6.92 5.93 0.54
5.52 7.54 7.08 6.80 7.63 6.43 6.20 5.88 7.28 7.23 7.33 7.21 5.32 7.34 5.25 6.61 6.20 5.88 6.75 5.82 8.17 5.90 5.32 4.89 6.75 5.83 7.57 6.61 5.32 4.95 6.42 6.42 4.89 0.9
1.28 0.09 0.24 0.27 0.39 0.59 0.60 2.53 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.48 1.24 1.49 0.48 1.28 0.60 0.78 0.13 1.85 0.24 2.92 1.23 0.50 0.13 1.89 0.37 0.90 1.23 0.52 0.85 0.85 0.09 0.72
13.54 13.02 13.25 12.76 13.26 13.45 12.98 13.55 12.31 12.33 12.90 12.39 12.81 13.14 12.85 12.73 13.45 12.81 11.88 12.94 12.72 13.19 12.41 12.53 11.78 12.74 12.17 12.31 12.41 13.01 12.79 12.79 11.78 0.47
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
729
Table 5 Water quality classification for individual samples. Number Well
Water categories based on TDS
Water category based on Piper chart
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 W15 W16 W17 W18 W19 W20 W21 W22 W23 W24 W25 W26 W27 W28 W29 W30
Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water Brackish water Fresh water Brackish water Fresh water Fresh water Brackish water Brackish water
Na þ Na þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Ca2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ Mg2 þ Mg2 þ Na þ Na þ Na þ Ca2 þ
Cl− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− Cl− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3− HCO3− Cl− HCO3−
730
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in Jolfa city, East Azerbaijan, Iran.
Acknowledgements The authors want to thank authorities of Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences for their comprehensives support for this study.
Transparency document. Supporting information Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.099.
References [1] Corrosion manual for internal corrosion of water distribution systems, United States Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA), Washington, D.C (1984). [2] P. Melidis, M. Sanosidou, A. Mandusa, K. Ouzounis, Corrosion control by using indirect methods, Desalination (2007) 152–158. [3] M. Shams, A.A. Mohamadi, S.A. Sajadi, Evaluation of corrosion and scaling potential of water in rural water supply distribution networks of Tabas, Iran. World Appl. Sci. J 17 (2012) 1484–1489. [4] A. Amouei, H. Fallah, H. Asgharnia, R. Bour, M. Mehdinia, Evaluation of corrosion and scaling potential of drinking water resources in Noor city (Iran) by using stability indices, Koomesh 18 (2016) 326–333. [5] APHA, Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water (APHA), 1995.
M. Yousefi et al. / Data in Brief 16 (2018) 724–731
731
[6] A.I. Amouei, A.H. Mahvi, A.A. Mohammadi, H.A. Asgharnia, S.H. Fallah, A.A. Khafajeh, Physical and chemical quality assessment of potable groundwater in rural areas of Khaf, Iran, World Appl. Sci. J 18 (2012) 693. [7] A.A. Mohammadi, M. Yousefi, A.H. Mahvi, Fluoride concentration level in rural area in Poldasht city and daily fluoride intake based on drinking water consumption with temperature, Data Brief 13 (2017) 312–315. [8] A.A. Mohammadi, K. Yaghmaeian, H. Faraji, R. Nabizadeh, M.H. Dehghani, J.K. Khaili, A.H. Mahvi, Temporal and spatial variation of chemical parameter concentration in drinking water resources of Bandar-e Gaz City using geographic information system, Desalination Water Treat. 68 (2017) 170–176. [9] F.B. Asghari, A.A. Mohammadi, Z. Aboosaedi, M. Yaseri, M. Yousefi, Data on fluoride concentration levels in cold and warm season in rural area of Shout (West Azerbaijan, Iran), Data Brief 15 (2017) 528–531. [10] A. Abbasnia, M. Alimohammadi, A.H. Mahvi, R. Nabizadeh, M. Yousefi, A.A. Mohammadi, H. Pasalari, M. Mirzabeigi, Assessment of groundwater quality and evaluation of scaling and corrosiveness potential of drinking water samples in villages of Chabahr city, Sistan and Baluchistan province in Iran, Data Brief 16 (2018) 182–192. [11] M. Yousefi, H. Najafi Saleh, A.A. Mohammad, A.H. Mahvi, M. Ghadrpoori, H. Suleimani, Data on water quality index for the groundwater in rural area Neyshabur County, Razavi province, Iran, Data Brief 15 (2017) 901–907.