Jennifer S. Stanton
United States Geological Survey
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jennifer S. Stanton.
Ground Water | 2016
Peter B. McMahon; John Karl Böhlke; Katharine Dahm; David L. Parkhurst; David W. Anning; Jennifer S. Stanton
Brackish groundwater (BGW) is increasingly used for water supplies where fresh water is scarce, but the distribution and availability of such resources have not been characterized at the national scale in the United States since the 1960s. Apart from its distribution and accessibility, BGW usability is a function of the chemical requirements of the intended use, chemical characteristics of the resource, and treatment options to make the resource compatible with the use. Here, we discuss relations between these three chemical factors using national-scale examples and local case studies. In a preliminary compilation of BGW data in the United States, five water types accounted for the major-ion composition of 70% of samples. PHREEQC calculations indicate that 57-77% of samples were oversaturated with respect to barite, calcite, or chalcedony. In the study, 5-14% of samples had concentrations of arsenic, fluoride, nitrate, or uranium that exceeded drinking-water standards. In case studies of the potential use of BGW for drinking water, irrigation, and hydraulic fracturing, PHREEQC simulations of a hypothetical treatment process resembling reverse osmosis (RO) showed that BGW had the potential to form various assemblages of mineral deposits (scale) during treatment that could adversely affect RO membranes. Speciation calculations showed that most boron in the irrigation example occurred as boric acid, which has relatively low removal efficiency by RO. Results of this preliminary study indicate that effective national or regional assessments of BGW resources should include geochemical characterizations that are guided in part by specific use and treatment requirements.
Ground Water | 2012
Jennifer S. Stanton; Derek W. Ryter; Steven M. Peterson
A previously published regional groundwater-flow model in north-central Nebraska was sequentially linked with the recently developed soil-water-balance (SWB) model to analyze effects to groundwater-flow model parameters and calibration results. The linked models provided a more detailed spatial and temporal distribution of simulated recharge based on hydrologic processes, improvement of simulated groundwater-level changes and base flows at specific sites in agricultural areas, and a physically based assessment of the relative magnitude of recharge for grassland, nonirrigated cropland, and irrigated cropland areas. Root-mean-squared (RMS) differences between the simulated and estimated or measured target values for the previously published model and linked models were relatively similar and did not improve for all types of calibration targets. However, without any adjustment to the SWB-generated recharge, the RMS difference between simulated and estimated base-flow target values for the groundwater-flow model was slightly smaller than for the previously published model, possibly indicating that the volume of recharge simulated by the SWB code was closer to actual hydrogeologic conditions than the previously published model provided. Groundwater-level and base-flow hydrographs showed that temporal patterns of simulated groundwater levels and base flows were more accurate for the linked models than for the previously published model at several sites, particularly in agricultural areas.
Water Research | 2018
Yvana D. Ahdab; Gregory P. Thiel; John Karl Böhlke; Jennifer S. Stanton; John H. Lienhard
This paper uses chemical and physical data from a large 2017 U.S. Geological Survey groundwater dataset with wells in the U.S. and three smaller international groundwater datasets with wells primarily in Australia and Spain to carry out a comprehensive investigation of brackish groundwater composition in relation to minimum desalination energy costs. First, we compute the site-specific least work required for groundwater desalination. Least work of separation represents a baseline for specific energy consumption of desalination systems. We develop simplified equations based on the U.S. data for least work as a function of water recovery ratio and a proxy variable for composition, either total dissolved solids, specific conductance, molality or ionic strength. We show that the U.S. correlations for total dissolved solids and molality may be applied to the international datasets. We find that total molality can be used to calculate the least work of dilute solutions with very high accuracy. Then, we examine the effects of groundwater solute composition on minimum energy requirements, showing that separation requirements increase from calcium to sodium for cations and from sulfate to bicarbonate to chloride for anions, for any given TDS concentration. We study the geographic distribution of least work, total dissolved solids, and major ions concentration across the U.S. We determine areas with both low least work and high water stress in order to highlight regions holding potential for desalination to decrease the disparity between high water demand and low water supply. Finally, we discuss the implications of the USGS results on water resource planning, by comparing least work to the specific energy consumption of brackish water reverse osmosis plants and showing the scaling propensity of major electrolytes and silica in the U.S. groundwater samples.
U.S. Geological Survey circular | 2003
Virginia L. McGuire; M.R. Johnson; R.L. Schieffer; Jennifer S. Stanton; S.K. Sebree; Ingrid M. Verstraeten
Scientific Investigations Report | 2008
Steven M. Peterson; Jennifer S. Stanton; Amanda T. Saunders; Jesse R. Bradley
Scientific Investigations Report | 2010
Jennifer S. Stanton; Steven M. Peterson; Michael N. Fienen
Scientific Investigations Report | 2011
Jennifer S. Stanton; Sharon L. Qi; Derek W. Ryter; Sarah E. Falk; Natalie A. Houston; Steven M. Peterson; Stephen M. Westenbroek; Scott Christenson
Professional Paper | 2017
Jennifer S. Stanton; David W. Anning; Craig J. Brown; Richard B. Moore; Virginia L. McGuire; Sharon L. Qi; Alta C. Harris; Kevin F. Dennehy; Peter B. McMahon; James R. Degnan; John Karl Böhlke
Scientific Investigations Report | 2018
Amanda T. Flynn; Jennifer S. Stanton
Fact Sheet | 2018
David W. Anning; Kimberly R. Beisner; Angela P. Paul; Jennifer S. Stanton; Susan A. Thiros