geosciences

Article
Characteristic and Mixing Mechanisms of Thermal
Fluid at the Tampomas Volcano, West Java, Using
Hydrogeochemistry, Stable Isotope and
222 Rn Analyses

Irwan Iskandar 1,2, * ID , Fikri Adam Dermawan 2 , Juni Yesy Sianipar 2 ID

, Suryantini 2,3 and
Sudarto Notosiswoyo 1,2
1 Earth Resources Exploration Research Group, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; sudarto@mining.itb.ac.id
2 Geothermal Engineering Master Program, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; fikri.adam.derma@gmail.com (F.A.D.);
junisianipar91@gmail.com (J.Y.S.); suryantini@gc.itb.ac.id (S.)
3 Applied Geology Research Group, Faculty of Earth Science and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung,
Bandung 40132, Indonesia
* Correspondence: irwan@mining.itb.ac.id; Tel.: +62-813-1210-8872




Received: 12 December 2017; Accepted: 6 March 2018; Published: 21 March 2018


Abstract: The Tampomas Volcano is a Quaternary volcano located on Java Island and controlled by
a west-northwest–east-southeast (WNW-ESE) regional fault trend. This regional structure acts as
conduits for the hydrothermal fluids to ascend from a deeper system toward the surface and, in the
end, mix with groundwater. In this research, water geochemistry, gas chemistry and isotopes 2 H,
18 O and 13 C were used to explore the subsurface fluid characteristics and mixing mechanisms of

the hydrothermal fluids with groundwater. In addition to those geochemical methods, soil-gas and
dissolved 222 Rn observations were performed to understand the geological control of fluid chemistry.
Based on the analytical results, the hydrothermal system of Tampomas is only developed at the
northeastern flank of the volcano, which is mainly controlled by NE-SW structures as deep fluid
conduits, while the Cimalaka Caldera Rim around Sekarwangi act as the boundary flow of the system.
This system is also categorized as an “intermediate temperature system” wherein fluid is derived
from the interaction between the volcanic host-rock at 170 ± 10 ◦ C mixed with trace organic gas input
from sedimentary formation; afterwards, the fluid flows laterally and is diluted with groundwater
near the surface. Soil-gas and dissolved 222 Rn confirm that these permeable zones are effective
conduits for the ascending thermal fluids. It is found that NE faults carry higher trace elements
from the deeper system, while the circular feature of the Caldera Rim acts as the boundary of the
hydrothermal system.

Keywords: geochemistry; hydrothermal; radon; Tampomas; deep circulated thermal fluid; permeability
fault; groundwater

1. Introduction
Hydrogeology and hydrogeochemical conditions in volcanic areas with tropical climate conditions
come with their own challenges, and these are to be discussed in the field of environmental geology
with regards to the exploration of Earth resources, such as geothermal energy. The geochemical
composition of groundwater in the volcanic area is the result of mixing between water-related volcanic
activity and meteoric-recharge water [1,2]. Some dissolved ions from volcanic activities could pose

Geosciences 2018, 8, 103; doi:10.3390/geosciences8040103 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences

Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 2 of 29

environmental issues due to geogenic contamination, e.g., As, F, Li, B, Hg and Cs. The presence of these
elements is also an indicator of the existence and potential of geothermal reservoirs [3]. The existence of
volcanoes on Java Island, Indonesia, is very interesting in the investigation of the geothermal potential.
However, a dense and growing population leads to the increased need for water, which can cause
environmental issues.
This paper discusses the subsurface mixing mechanism between deep geothermal fluids and the
recharge of meteoric water using the hydrochemistry of springs and radon (222 Rn) analysis at the
Tampomas Volcano on West Java, Indonesia. With this study, the presence of geothermal fluid source
locations can be identified, as well as the subsurface geological structures that control groundwater
chemistry in the area can be clarified. Hypothetically, this enormous meteoric water contribution,
which flows through to the deep zone through permeability fractures and fluid density, may affect the
deep hydrogeological thermal fluid characteristics through the dilution-mixing process. This process
leaves only the conservative species to act as the trace fluid, except for the reactive elements remaining
due to non-conservative exchange or redox reactions [4]. Therefore, geological controls (such as a
permeable fault) can act as a conduit for geothermal fluids to ascend and as a mixing zone for the fluids
with the shallow groundwater. This results in different water characteristics in the surface around
the area.
Research about identifying permeable zones using soil-gas 222 Rn has been conducted in
many geothermal fields worldwide. In the Mahanagdong geothermal field of the Philippines,
222 Rn measurements in soil-gas have been conducted to evaluate permeability. It was concluded

that concentrations of soil-gas radon in the permeable zone, which were relatively higher than the
surrounding area, caused the gas to migrate vertically very quickly from the subsurface to the surface
over time [5]. According to [6], high radon concentrations are caused by the convection process, which
is more dominant in gas movements than diffusion. Another study concluded that radon emanation
from four active fault zones in California was greater than the concentration of the background radon
in the area [7]. This greater concentration is due to the higher outgassing rates in the anomaly zones
caused by high permeability.
Radon concentrations in water have also been studied by [7] in a geothermal area; it was found
that high dissolved 222 Rn concentrations are associated with high concentrations of sulfate, fluoride
and total dissolved solids related to geothermal water. In contrast to [7], 222 Rn concentrations from
thermal manifestation in some fields in New Zealand, such as Wairakei, Waiora, Spa and Rotokaua,
show that water temperature does not correlate with 222 Rn concentrations in water [8].

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Geology of the Research Area

West Java has been recognized to have many Quaternary volcanoes, both active and dormant,
associated with volcanic lines produced by the subduction activity of the Indian-Australian plates
beneath the Eurasia continental plates [9–11] (Figure 1). These volcanic products are controlled
by regional structures that provide conduits for magma to ascend into the shallower zone of
crust. Furthermore, the regional structures provide secondary permeability for the hydrothermal
fluid pathway and for the meteoric water to migrate, interact and accumulate in the geothermal
reservoir [11].
The Tampomas Volcano in West Java Province is associated with Quaternary volcanism along an
active margin tectonic system [12]. This small dormant stratovolcano, with peak at 1685 m above sea
level, has no record of historic eruptions since the Dutch colonization of Indonesia. It is categorized as
a type C volcano, but does not have fumarolic fields [9]. Reconnaissance surveys have been done by
the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI) and Pertamina at the beginning of the 1980s, but it was
not considered attractive for exploration drilling. This is probably because there is no manifestation
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 3 of 29

of a high temperature system present at Tampomas Volcano, such as fumaroles, solfataras, boiling
springs, hot-warm ground and steam vents.
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

Figure 1. The geographical map shows the regional tectonic setting and presence of active volcanoes
Figure 1. The geographical map shows the regional tectonic setting and presence of active volcanoes in
in Indonesia [12], as well as the location of the research area, indicated by the red dashed polygon.
Indonesia [12], as well as the location of the research area, indicated by the red dashed polygon.

Unlike other high-terrain geothermal systems located in Indonesia, which generally have a high
Unlike other
temperature high-terrain
system, the Tampomas geothermal
Volcanosystems located
is categorized intoinanIndonesia,
“intermediate which generally
temperature have a
system
high
overtemperature
volcanic-arc” system,
basedthe onTampomas
the presence Volcano
of the is categorized into
manifestation type,an “intermediate
which was only temperature
hot/warm
system
springsover volcanic-arc”
[13]. based on
The intermediate the presence
temperature of the
of the manifestation
Tampomas systemtype, which was
is contrary to the only hot/warm
geothermal
system[13].
springs present
The in West Java, which
intermediate has a high
temperature of temperature
the Tampomas of more
system than is 225 °C [13].
contrary toThe
the fumaroles
geothermal
discharged
system presentatinthe peak
West Java,have
whichceased
has along
highago, as reported
temperature from than
of more 225 ◦ C [13].
geochemical research by the
The fumaroles
Volcanological
discharged at the Survey
peakofhaveIndonesia
ceased (VSI)
long in 1983
ago,[14].
as This intermediate
reported temperature of
from geochemical around by
research 150–the
200 °C also has been confirmed from previous research [14–16]. There
Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI) in 1983 [14]. This intermediate temperature of around are several aspects that control
the hydrogeochemical
150–200 ◦ C also has been composition
confirmedoffrom waterprevious
at the Tampomas
research Volcano:
[14–16]. (1) deep are
There fluidseveral
discharging
aspects
product at Tampomas, (2) high rainfall intensity at tropical regions
that control the hydrogeochemical composition of water at the Tampomas Volcano: (1) deep and (3) geological features, such
fluid
as a permeable fault, that act as conduits for ascending geothermal fluids.
discharging product at Tampomas, (2) high rainfall intensity at tropical regions and (3) geological
Physiographically, the Tampomas Volcano is located at the northern part of the West Java Basin,
features, such as a permeable fault, that act as conduits for ascending geothermal fluids.
which is composed by Tertiary sedimentary clastic rocks [10]. These Tertiary sedimentary rocks have
Physiographically, the Tampomas Volcano is located at the northern part of the West Java Basin,
experienced a tectonic event and have folded and faulted along with volcanic activities during the
which is composed by Tertiary sedimentary clastic rocks [10]. These Tertiary sedimentary rocks have
age of the Plio-Pleistocene. This is believed to control the movement of Tampomas Volcano’s
experienced a tectonic event and have folded and faulted along with volcanic activities during the age
magma [17]. Regionally, the Tampomas area is comprised of six stratigraphic units (Figure 2), which
of are
the discussed
Plio-Pleistocene. This is believed to control the movement of Tampomas Volcano’s magma [17].
from the oldest to youngest based on [17]. (1) The Subang Formation consists of two
Regionally, the Tampomas
subdivisions: the claystone area is comprised
formation of six stratigraphic
and sandstone formationunits[18]; (Figure
another 2), which
is the (2) are discussed
Kaliwangu
from the oldest
Formation, to youngest
which is composed based ofon [17]. (1) sandstone,
tuffaceous The Subang Formation consists
conglomerate of two
and, rarely, subdivisions:
limestone and
theclaystone;
claystone(3) formation and sandstone formation [18]; another is the (2) Kaliwangu
the Citalang Formation is composed of tuffaceous marl intercalated by tuffaceous Formation, which
is composed
sandstone, breccia and conglomerate; (4) old volcanic product and igneous rocks are otherthe
of tuffaceous sandstone, conglomerate and, rarely, limestone and claystone; (3)
Citalang Formation
formations, whichisare composed of tuffaceous
mainly composed marl intercalated
of volcanic breccia, laharby tuffaceous
and lava; the sandstone,
igneous breccia
rocks are and
conglomerate;
composed of (4) both old volcanic
andesite andproduct and
basalt; (5) igneous
young rocksproduct
volcanic are other formations,
is composed which are sand,
of tuffaceous mainly
composed of volcanic
lapilli, lava, breccia,
agglomerate andlahar and lava;tuff
pumiceous thedistributed
igneous rocks at theare west
composed of both andesite
and southwest parts of and
Tampomas;
basalt; (5) young(6) the last formation,
volcanic product is alluvium,
composed is clay, silt, sand and
of tuffaceous sand, gravel mainly
lapilli, lava,deposited
agglomeratein theand
Holocene streams.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 4 of 29

pumiceous tuff distributed at the west and southwest parts of Tampomas; (6) the last formation,
alluvium, is clay, silt, sand and gravel mainly deposited in the Holocene streams.
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30

Figure 2. The regional geology of the recent Tampomas Volcano area and surroundings. It is
Figure 2. The regional geology of the recent Tampomas Volcano area and surroundings. It is comprised
comprised of Tertiary sedimentary rock in the outer circle zone and covered by Quaternary volcanic
of Tertiary sedimentary rock in the outer circle zone and covered by Quaternary volcanic product in
product in the inner circle zone (modification from [19,20]).
the inner circle zone (modification from [19,20]).
Prior research has been conducted to investigate the geological condition of the Tampomas
Volcano. The result
Prior research hasshows
been that volcanic to
conducted activity at the Tampomas
investigate Volcano
the geological started during
condition of thethe Plio-
Tampomas
Pleistocene, which was followed by a regional fault in West Java [17]
Volcano. The result shows that volcanic activity at the Tampomas Volcano started during the (Figure 2). The geothermal
system of the
Plio-Pleistocene, Tampomas
which Volcanobywas
was followed formed fault
a regional during activeJava
in West tectonic activity 2).
[17] (Figure in The
the Middle
geothermal
Pleistocene, which produced pumiceous breccia (most likely from the latest Tampomas eruption). It
system of the Tampomas Volcano was formed during active tectonic activity in the Middle Pleistocene,
was stated that the geothermal fluid could interact with the Tertiary sediment of the Subang
which produced pumiceous breccia (most likely from the latest Tampomas eruption). It was stated
Formation [17].
that the geothermal
Evolution offluid could interact
the Tampomas withstarted
Volcano the Tertiary
after thesediment of the Subang
Tertiary basement Formation
sediment [17].
formed [17]
Evolution
and occurred more than two times [21]. Furthermore, remote sensing analysis and field work were [17]
of the Tampomas Volcano started after the Tertiary basement sediment formed
and occurred
conductedmore than
to define two
the times [21]. Furthermore,
volcanostratigraphy of Tampomas.remoteBasedsensing
on those analysis
analyses,and
the field work
evolution ofwere
conducted to defineVolcano
the Tampomas the volcanostratigraphy
was determined. The offirst
Tampomas.
phase is the Based on those
formation analyses,Volcano;
of Sumedang the evolution
this of
is the construction
the Tampomas Volcanophase of early volcanic
was determined. Theactivity. The second
first phase phase is the
is the formation ofdestruction
Sumedangphase of thethis is
Volcano;
Sumedang Volcano
the construction phaseand formation
of early of theactivity.
volcanic Sumedang TheCaldera.
second In phase
the thirdis phase, the Old Tampomas
the destruction phase of the
Volcano was formed as the new volcano within the Sumedang Caldera. The Old Tampomas Volcano
Sumedang Volcano and formation of the Sumedang Caldera. In the third phase, the Old Tampomas
entered the destruction phase and formed the Cimalaka Caldera, with the Young Tampomas Volcano
Volcano was formed as the new volcano within the Sumedang Caldera. The Old Tampomas Volcano
within the caldera. Figure 3 shows the caldera features resulting from the Young Tampomas Volcano
entered the destruction phase and formed the Cimalaka Caldera, with the Young Tampomas Volcano
evolution. The manifestations around the Tampomas area are associated with the existence of the
withinYoungcaldera.
the Tampomas Figure 3 shows
Volcano, with the caldera features
the Cimalaka Caldera resulting
rim as the from the Young Tampomas Volcano
boundary.
evolution.In The manifestations around the Tampomas area are associated
this research, local geological structure analysis at the Tampomas Volcano with the
wasexistence
focused onof the
Young Tampomas
lineament Volcano,
analysis based with
on the
the Cimalaka
interpretationCaldera rim asimages,
of satellite the boundary.
drainage patterns and fault
indicators
In such as local
this research, waterfalls, rock alteration
geological structure andanalysis
the lineament
at theofTampomas
springs. Based on those
Volcano wasanalyses,
focused on
some analysis
lineament fault lineament
based (F) andinterpretation
on the circular features of(CF) wereimages,
satellite interpreted. The presence
drainage patternsofand thefault
structures
indicators
such as waterfalls, rock alteration and the lineament of springs. Based on those analyses, some fault
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 5 of 29

Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 30

lineament (F) and circular features (CF) were interpreted. The presence of the structures can act as a
fluid path oraboundary
canGeosciences
act as fluid oforthe flow system.
of the Furthermore, those interpreted
thosegeological
interpretedfeatures were
2018, 8, x path
FOR PEER boundary
REVIEW222
flow system. Furthermore, geological
5 of 30
used to determine
features were used thetolocation
determine of theRn measurement
location and water sampling
of 222Rn measurement (Figure
and water 4). (Figure 4).
sampling
can act as a fluid path or boundary of the flow system. Furthermore, those interpreted geological
features were used to determine the location of 222Rn measurement and water sampling (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Morphological features of the recent Tampomas Volcano show two parts of the circular
Figure 3. Morphological features of the recent Tampomas Volcano show two parts of the circular
caldera rim.
Figure The outer caldera
3. Morphological rim was
features formed
of the recentduring the first
Tampomas to second
Volcano showstage, and the
two parts inner
of the circular
circular
caldera rim. The outer caldera rim was formed during the first to second stage, and the inner circular
caldera
caldera rimrim. Theresult
is the outer of
caldera rim was
the second formed
and thirdduring the
stage of first to second
volcanic stage, and the inner circular
activities.
caldera rim is the result of the second and third stage of volcanic activities.
caldera rim is the result of the second and third stage of volcanic activities.

Figure 4. Interpreted geological structure map of Tampomas based on remote sensing, surface
Figure 4. 4.Interpreted
Figure Interpreted geological
geological structure map of
structure map of Tampomas
Tampomasbasedbasedon onremote
remotesensing,
sensing,surface
surface
geological mapping and thermal springs’ distribution. This is overlaid with soil-gas, dissolved 222Rn
geological
geological mapping
mapping
and water andthermal
sampleand thermalsprings’
measurement springs’ distribution. This
distribution.
point locations. This is
is overlaid
overlaidwith
withsoil-gas, dissolved222222
soil-gas,dissolved RnRn
and
and water
water samplemeasurement
sample measurementpoint
pointlocations.
locations.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 6 of 29

2.2. Hydrogeological Setting

Generally, the rainy season in the Tampomas area occurs from November–March, while the
dry season occurs from April–October. The average temperature of the Tampomas area is 25.9 ◦ C.
The highest temperature is 30.6 ◦ C, and the lowest is 21.4 ◦ C. Rainfall intensity in the Tampomas area
from 2010–2015 is around 2036–3772 mm/year, while average annual rainfall is 2684 mm/year [22,23].
The Tampomas area belongs to two groundwater basins, namely the Sukamantri groundwater basin
(at the northern side) and Sumedang groundwater basins (at the southern side). Those basins divide the
groundwater system of Tampomas right at the center of the volcano in the E-W direction. Both basins
are mainly composed of volcanic materials from the eruption of the Tangkuban Perahu Volcano and
Tampomas Volcano. The aquifer of the groundwater basin of Sumedang is comprised of young and
old volcanic product, such as tuffaceous sandstone and volcanic breccia. These form an unconfined
aquifer [24].
There are at least three main categories of aquifers productivity types at Tampomas: (1) regions
without exploitable or any groundwater, which are located at the summit of Tampomas or the central
facies; (2) locally productive aquifers, in which flow is both through fissures and interstices at proximal
facies of Tampomas; and (3) extensive, moderately productive aquifers, which mainly are overlain at
the distal and medial facies of the Tampomas Volcano [23]. The aquifer boundary of the Sukamantri
groundwater basin, especially at the northeastern side of Tampomas where the thermal springs are
present, has the same direction with a circular feature of the caldera rim (CF1), trending NW-SE.

2.3. Collection and Analysis of Samples

Hydrogeochemical characteristics such as major ion composition, minor and trace ions and water
isotope compositions can be used to explain the genesis, sources of water and sub-surface geological
conditions. Some trace elements (e.g., Li, F, B, Cl, As and Hg) are related to geothermal sources [25].
In this research, water geochemistry from 17 water samples from 7 thermal springs, 7 cold springs and
3 dug wells were analyzed (Table 1, Figure 4). To strengthen the interpretation, 2 H and 18 O analysis
for 16 samples and 13 C analysis for 5 samples of water from thermal springs, cold springs and rain
water were performed to explore subsurface fluid conditions and the mixing mechanism of geothermal
fluids with shallow groundwater.
The collection of water samples for chemical analysis is the first activity in a long process,
which eventually yields significant information about a geothermal system. Sampling activities
were performed within several months (April–August 2017) during the dry season in Indonesia.
Water sampling occurred in April 2017; soil-gas sampling was carried out from June–August 2017;
and dissolved 222 Rn in water was sampled for from July–August 2017. The physical properties of
thermal and cold springs, such as temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS), conductivity and pH,
were determined in the field during sampling activities.
Water sampling techniques follow the international standard, which refers to “Geothermal Fluids”
by [3], “Geothermal Sampling and Analysis” by [26] and “Groundwater Geochemistry and Isotopes”
by [4]. Before sampling activity was conducted, all the bottles were rinsed with water from each
manifestation point in order to eliminate any contamination (Figure 5). Water sampling treatment
for anion elements was raw-unacidified, while it was filtered for cation elements and SiO2 (using a
0.45-µm filter) and acidified with nitric acid until the pH was less than 2. When the SiO2 concentration
is very high, the dilution process was done directly on site. For the ammonia sample, fluid preservation
was performed using H2 SO4 . A sample of stable isotopes and δ13 C were filtered, but no acidification
process was needed. For isotope sampling, there should be no bubble or a minor head-space (less than
50% of the sample volume) in a tightly-capped bottle [1].
Ion chromatography (930 Compact IC Flex (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland)) was performed to
analyze for Na+ , K+ , Ca2+ , Mg2+ , SO4 2− and Cl− , while a titration method was performed to analyze
total HCO3 − and CO3 2− . Inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Agilent 7800 series (Agilent,
Santa Clara, CA, USA)) was used to analyze minor and trace elements in the water samples. There
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 7 of 29

is no direct gas discharge manifestation found at Tampomas. However, at some thermal springs,
ebullient characteristics
Geosciences were
2018, 8, x FOR PEER found.
REVIEW 7 of 30

Figure 5. Overview of the collection of a sample from springs for chemical analysis. The equipment
Figure 5. Overview
from ofisthe
the picture collection
a (A) ofsample
bucket, (B) a sample from
bottle, (C) springs for(D)
syringe and chemical analysis.
filter (0.45 µm). RuThe equipment
is stands
from theforpicture is a (A) bucket,
raw unacidified, (B)
and Fu/Fa is sample bottle, (C) syringeThe
filtered unacidified/acidified. andsample
(D) filter
with (0.45 µm).
a purple Ruis is
label a stands
for raw sample
unacidified,
that wasand Fu/Fausing
preserved is filtered
H2SO4, unacidified/acidified. Thepreserved
while that with a red label was sample with usingaHNO
purple
3. label is a
sample that was preserved using H2 SO4 , while that with a red label was preserved using HNO3 .
Ion chromatography (930 Compact IC Flex (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland)) was performed to
analyze for Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, SO42− and Cl−, while a titration method was performed to analyze total
In addition 222 Rn measurements were
HCO3− andto CO the hydrogeochemistry
32−. Inductively-coupled method,
plasma mass soil-gas
spectrometryand(Agilent
dissolved 7800 series (Agilent, Santa
performed Clara,atCA,
42 points
USA)) was to interpret geological
used to analyze minor structures that control
and trace elements the fluid
in the water chemistry
samples. There is (Figure
no 4).
Faults, asdirect
thegas dischargepermeability,
secondary manifestation found at Tampomas.
control the primary However, at some
fluid path thermal
of the springs,
system; eachebullient
fault and/or
fracturecharacteristics
can produce were found. discharged fluid types and characteristics. This condition may be
different
In addition to the hydrogeochemistry method, soil-gas and dissolved 222Rn measurements were
affected by the shallow and deep process during the lateral flow of deep thermal fluid into the surface.
performed at 42 points to interpret geological structures that control the fluid chemistry (Figure ).
This canFaults,
be found
as thefrom several
secondary geochemical
permeability, andthe
control isotope
primary analyses of of
fluid path thethewater
system;samples. Inand/or
each fault this research,
soil-gasfracture
and dissolved 222
can produce Rn analyses
different were fluid
discharged performed
types and to characteristics.
find and analyze subsurface
This condition maypermeable
be
structures that by
affected maytheact as anand
shallow effective conduit
deep process for the
during ascending geothermal
lateral flow fluids.fluid
of deep thermal This method
into the is a
surface. This can be found from several geochemical and isotope analyses
powerful technique for discovering permeable fractures for the deep fluid path to the surface and the of the water samples. In
path of this research, soil-gas and dissolved 222Rn analyses were performed to find and analyze subsurface
recharged meteoric water into the deep system. This is because radon is an inert gas and not
permeable structures that may act as an effective conduit for ascending geothermal fluids. This
related to atmospheric gasses [27].
method is a powerful technique for discovering permeable fractures for the deep fluid path to the
In surface
this research, soil-gas and dissolved 222
and the path of recharged meteoric waterRn concentration
into the deep system. measurements were isperformed
This is because radon an
at the Tampomas
inert gas and Volcano
not relatedand in some cold
to atmospheric gassesand
[27].thermal springs using RAD7. When analyzing
dissolved 222InRn, thisRADH20
research, soil-gas and dissolved
was attached Rn concentration
to the222machine. Theremeasurements were performed
were 29 measurement for 222 Rn
at the
points
Tampomas Volcano and in some cold and thermal springs using RAD7.
concentration in soil-gas (Figure 4). Each point has a hole of 1.5 m in depth. Every measurement When analyzing dissolved
222Rn, RADH20 was attached to the machine. There were 29 measurement points for 222Rn
was run for 5 cycles, and each cycle was 5 minutes long. Prior to measurement, RAD7 was run in
concentration in soil-gas (Figure 4). Each point has a hole of 1.5 m in depth.3 Every measurement was
purge moderun foruntil theand
5 cycles, radoneach concentration
cycle was 5 minuteswaslong.
lessPrior
thanto<100 Bq/m .RAD7
measurement, Afterwastherun
purging
in purgeprocess,
the measurement was run in normal mode for 222 Rn and 220 Rn measurements (Figure 6a). the
mode until the radon
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW concentration was less than <100 Bq/m 3. After the purging process, 8 of 30
measurement was run in normal mode for 222Rn and 220Rn measurements (Figure 6a).
The measurement of dissolved 222Rn concentration in water was conducted for 13 water samples.
This consisted of 6 samples from thermal springs, 6 samples from cold springs and 1 sample from
river water. Each sample contained 250 mL of water in the absence of a bubble. The purging
procedure was performed before normal WAT250 mode was run for measuring the dissolved 222Rn.
The measurements were also run for 5 cycles for each sample. This was conducted directly after the
water was sampled in a glass bottle (Figure 6b).

(a) (b)
Figure6.6.InInsitu
Figure situradon
radon measurement
measurement methods.
methods.(a)
(a)Schematic
Schematicmodel of of
model radon measurement
radon in soil;
measurement in soil;
(b) dissolved radon measurement using a 250-mL glass bottle.
(b) dissolved radon measurement using a 250-mL glass bottle.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Water Analysis

3.1.1. Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Water Samples

Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 8 of 29

The measurement of dissolved 222 Rn concentration in water was conducted for 13 water samples.
This consisted of 6 samples from thermal springs, 6 samples from cold springs and 1 sample from
river water. Each sample contained 250 mL of water in the absence of a bubble. The purging
procedure was performed before normal WAT250 mode was run for measuring the dissolved 222 Rn.
The measurements were also run for 5 cycles for each sample. This was conducted directly after the
water was sampled in a glass bottle (Figure 6b).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Water Analysis

3.1.1. Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Water Samples

The water temperatures of cold springs and dug wells fall into the category of cold springs in
the tropical region, with temperatures ranging from 20 –30 ◦ C. Thermal springs have temperatures
above 30 ◦ C. In this study area, cold springs have temperatures ranging from 24.1–29.1 ◦ C, while
the thermal springs have slightly higher temperatures ranging from 34.2–50.5 ◦ C (Table 1). CS6 is
an anomaly cold spring, which has a higher temperature than what is classified as the cold spring
category (29.1 ◦ C). This spring is allegedly an example of a ceased thermal manifestation with intensive
iron oxide and travertine deposit characteristics. Measured in situ pH values for cold springs and
dug wells are categorized as neutral pH water (from 7.07–8.11, except at CS6, where it was 6.47).
Thermal springs are categorized to have near-neutral pH values ranging from 6.49–6.63. These slightly
acidic thermal springs are probably affected by the reaction and condensation of carbon dioxide, i.e.,
the carbonate equilibrium process [3,28]. Based on the total dissolved solid concentration, cold springs
and dug wells are mainly categorized as the fresh water type. Their TDS concentrations range from
173.2–416 mg/L, except at CS7 (where it is 11,498 mg/L) in Ciuyah, located at the southern part of the
Tampomas Volcano. This brackish anomaly of the CS7 spring may originate from trapped sediment
water. Thermal springs have a higher TDS concentration than cold springs. Thermal springs’ TDS
ranged from 751 mg/L (TS7) to 2220 mg/L (TS1).
Most of the thermal springs have ebullient characteristics, except TS2 and TS4. The highest
ebullient conditions were found at TS1, TS3 and TS6, while medium bubbling charge was found at TS7.
The lowest was at TS5. H2 S gas smell was not detected in all the thermal springs’ discharge. Travertine
terrace and intensive iron oxide deposit was found at TS6, and this spring is categorized as a soda
spring with soda taste. Calcite and iron oxide deposits were commonly found around the thermal
springs in the research area.

3.1.2. Water Type

The chemical and isotopic composition of water samples in the Tampomas area are summarized
in Tables 1 and 2. Major cation-anion analysis was performed as the traditional method in water
chemistry analysis. Major cation and anions were analyzed using the Piper diagram. All water
data showed distinction in chemical characteristics (Figure 7a). Cold water and dug well data were
characterized by rich bicarbonate elements under anion analysis and Ca-Mg elements under cation
analysis. These characteristics mainly belong to groundwater and water of meteoric origin. However,
the CS7 spring shows an anomaly characteristic in that it is rich in Cl and Na–K elements. All thermal
springs show different patterns compared to cold springs and dug wells that show gaining pattern in
Na–K and Cl elements. TS6 and TS7 have the lowest amount of Na–K and Cl elements, which indicates
an outflow characteristic of the system, which has experienced an intensive dilution process with
shallow groundwater. As the thermal springs discharge toward the flank of the Tampomas Volcano,
the deep fluid trace elements (such as Cl and Na–K) become higher. The highest concentration of Cl
and Na–K is at the TS1 spring, and it can be concluded that F1 structure may contribute as a deep fluid
conduit, while F5 acts as the fluid path for the remaining deep thermal fluid.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 9 of 29

Mainly in the volcanic geothermal system, there are three major anion types: Cl− , HCO3 −
and SO4 2− . These anion types have mostly been used to identify several typical groups of thermal
waters [25]. These anion elements are also useful in indicating a basic process of fluids during lateral
flow towards the surface (Figure 7b). Based on the diagram, there are at least four water anion types
present in the Tampomas area, as follows:

1. Chloride water: Based on chloride composition encountered from several springs in the
Tampomas field, there is only one spring that has high chloride content. This is the CS7 cold spring
(4630 mg/L). Besides chloride, bicarbonate is the next highest concentration for anion elements.
For this sample, sodium is the highest cation element (3910 mg/L) however, the potassium
concentration is very low (83.6 mg/L). Low concentrations of potassium may indicate element
uptake by clays in near-surface or sedimentary rock, which are marked by high bicarbonate
concentrations. There was no thermal water in the Tampomas area that was categorized as the
chloride water type.
2. Dilute Cl–HCO3 as peripheral water: TS1 and TS2 thermal springs at the F1 fault are plotted
between chloride and bicarbonate elements. This water is formed by dilution/mixing of chloride
during lateral flow by either groundwater or bicarbonate water [3]. This water type is an
indication of the margin of major upflow zone and outflow zone structures in high-terrain
systems. Higher chloride concentrations at TS1 compared to TS2 indicate the proximity towards
the upflow zone.
3. HCO3 water with a small Cl concentration: Most of this water type is discharged along CF1
(TS3, TS4 and TS5). There is only a slight difference between the TS3 and TS5 springs; however,
the soluble elements such as chloride, sodium, potassium and silica at TS3 are higher than at TS5.
It can be concluded during lateral flow through the permeable zone that the deep fluid undergoes
steam condensation and the mixing process with near-surface water as it grows further away
from the upflow. The work in Reference [29] stated that this water type was likely to have formed
from CO2 -charged Cl waters during lateral flow and had undergone dilution and interaction
with rock.
4. Bicarbonate water: TS6 and TS7 springs are thermal waters plotted near bicarbonate corners.
Besides bicarbonate, magnesium and calcium have the highest concentration. This spring has
undergone a dilution process, with groundwater much higher than thermal water during lateral
flow. All cold springs, except CS7, belong to the bicarbonate water type.

Based on the chemical composition of cation-anion elements, the thermal springs can be
distinguished as two groups. These are the Cileungsing-Ciledre group and Sekarwangi group (Table 1).
These four anion types are discharged along faults and circular structures (Figure 4). These structures
also control the thermal water product. The water along Cileungsing structure (F1) has higher chloride
content, while Sekarwangi (CF1) is dominated by the steam condensation water type. F1 may allegedly
contribute directly towards the reservoir, which is shown by high chloride elements at both TS1 and TS2
springs. Low silica concentrations from TS1 and TS2 thermal springs are the outcome of the dilution
process and mineral precipitation during fluid flow towards the surface. CF1 structure-produced
steam condensate water has probably leached the silica from host rock near-surface and hypothetically
contributes as a boundary of the system. Based on the water type, the system was mainly bicarbonate.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 10 of 29

Table 1. Physico-chemical composition of water samples in springs and dug wells in the Tampomas area. DG represents dug well; CS represents cold spring; and TS
represents thermal spring. TDS and concentration of ions are in mg/L unit.

Types ID Location pH T ◦C TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ Li+ Na+ K+ F− HCO3 − Cl− SO4 2− B SiO2 As3+ Br− Cs+ Fe2+ I− Rb+ NH3 SiO4 3−
DG1 Dug well 1 7.21 24.1 323 24.4 8.30 0.01 8.00 12.78 4.47 195.87 6.16 5.59 0.28 57.7 n.d. - - 0.00 - 0.016 0.02 27.58
Dug well DG2 Dug Well 2 7.07 26.2 396 17.8 11.04 0.00 8.93 2.46 0.55 217 6.69 9.80 0.09 122 n.d. - - 0.00 - 0.007 0.04 19.59
DG3 Dug Well 3 6.84 26.3 174 8.7 4.45 0.01 3.51 2.06 0.48 62 5.04 6.46 0.03 82 n.d. - - 0.01 - 0.007 0.01 6.43
CS1 Licin 8.11 21.9 173 5.6 4.81 0.01 6.5 2.89 0.33 42 0.9 9 0.61 55.6 0.002 44.7 0 0.19 0.005 0.015 0.02 -
CS2 Narimbang2 7.27 24.1 293 17.1 15.12 0.00 7.24 3.85 4.50 227.20 4.00 1.4 0.12 12.9 n.d. - - 0.00 - 0.025 0.01 39.00
CS3 Cikurubug 7.28 24.2 265 15.7 6.86 0.01 7.53 3.57 4.48 143.54 4.15 1.70 0.84 76.7 n.d. - - 0.00 - 0.02 0.01 38.44
Cold springs CS4 Banyuasih 7.63 24.4 173 9.1 4.08 0.00 4.07 2.10 4.51 58 3.95 1.39 0.08 85.9 n.d. - - 0.00 - 0.019 0.14 28.07
CS5 Cipatat 7.08 25.5 291 25.4 14.00 0.01 8.5 3.40 0.08 123 1 16 0.54 54.5 n.d. 44.7 0 0.01 0.033 0.015 0.02 -
Cipanas
CS6 6.47 29.1 398 36.4 17.80 0.02 15.1 4.18 0.09 185 1.4 6 0.39 82.7 n.d. 47.1 0.01 2.57 0.015 0.021 0.02 -
Seum
CS7 Ciuyah 7.75 28.8 11,497 34.3 30.90 2.82 3910 83.60 1.26 2620 4630 2 142.00 23.5 0.007 6.6 0.19 0.18 1.75 0.34 8.22 -
TS1 Cileungsing 6.59 47.3 2219 83.8 49.40 1.55 519 31.90 0.18 598 681 2 5.92 180 0.002 62 0.1 2.97 0.225 0.156 1.59 -
TS2 Ciledre 6.63 40.4 1245 46.6 27.10 0.74 261 15.10 0.1 370 309 2 2.66 149 n.d. 55.5 0.05 5.38 0.098 0.076 0.81 -
TS3 Sekarwangi 6.59 50.5 1479 73.3 48.00 0.35 234 23.20 0.16 581 248 2 4.91 200 n.d. 60.5 0.07 1.42 0.13 0.143 1.88 -
Thermal springs Sekarwangi
TS4 6.6 49.9 1489 77.9 50.20 0.35 242 23.50 0.14 572 248 2 4.81 203 n.d. 61.8 0.08 1.99 0.106 0.148 1.92 -
02
Cipanas
TS5 6.6 44 1446 72.7 49.20 0.42 227 22.60 0.16 576 235 2 4.78 195 n.d. 59.5 0.05 0.39 0.059 0.133 1.61 -
Gentong
TS6 Cihaseum 6.57 35.9 1648 124.0 84.70 0.36 197 19.70 0.15 854 114 2 2.16 170 n.d. 67 0.03 12.10 0.092 0.082 1.02 -
TS7 Narimbang1 6.49 34.2 682 49.1 55.09 0.08 26.56 7.21 4.51 380 4.45 7.77 0.21 146 n.d. - - 1.70 - 0.04 0.01 68.31

n.d. = not detected, “-” = not analyzed.

Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 11 of 29
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 30

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. (a) Data plot of thermal springs, cold springs and dug wells in a Piper diagram. Cold spring
Figure 7. (a) Data plot of thermal springs, cold springs and dug wells in a Piper diagram. Cold spring
and dug well data are distributed at the same cluster. The Ca/Mg–HCO3 type is an indicator of
and dug well data are distributed at the same cluster. The Ca/Mg–HCO3 type is an indicator of
meteoric water product, while thermal waters show enrichment patterns toward anion and cation
meteoric water product, while thermal waters show enrichment patterns toward anion and cation
elements, i.e., Na–K and Cl. (b) Data plot of thermal springs, cold springs and dug wells into anion
elements, i.e., Na–K
Cl–SO4–HCO and Cl. (b) Data plot of thermal springs, cold springs and dug wells into anion
3 ternary diagrams. There is only one cold spring (CS7) that belongs to chloride water,
Cl–SO 4 –HCO
while ternary springs
all the3 thermal diagrams.
are There
Cl–HCOis 3only
, andone
coldcold spring
springs are (CS7) that belongs
HCO3-type waters. to chloride water,
while all the thermal springs are Cl–HCO3 , and cold springs are HCO3 -type waters.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 12 of 29

3.1.3. Thermal Fluid Origin

In order to determine the common source of Tampomas deep fluid origin, several geoindicator
analyses were conducted on the solute samples. The Cl–Li–B ternary diagram is one of the most famous
methods for interpreting deep fluid process, maturity and identifying fluid origin resemblance [25].
All thermal water data were plotted relatively close to each other and were located relatively near
the Cl− corner, as evident in Figure 8. The distribution of data points may be explained by (1) the
fact there is one deep fluid origin and, therefore, one source condition or by (2) the admixture
of high temperature and pressure magmatic vapors with deep circulating groundwater inside
geothermal systems associated with a volcanic-magmatic equilibrium state [25]. Low B/Cl ratios are
likely to reflect the maturity of a geothermal system. Tampomas is classified as an “old or mature
hydrothermal system”.
Thermal springs along F1 and CF1 have a slightly distinct characteristic where some of
them are relatively indented towards the boron corner. This condition indicates the influence of
steam-condensate processes between steam fluids that are produced by boiling at a shallow depth and
are mixed with groundwater near-surface, which is characterized by the enrichment of boron elements.
This boron trend is mainly found at thermal springs discharged along CF1, such as TS3, TS4, TS5,
TS6 and TS7; while the thermal springs discharged at F1 have higher chloride concentrations. It can be
assumed that the deep reservoir fluid path is mainly from this fault.
Ciuyah cold spring (CS7) showed similar characteristics with the thermal springs wherein it
plotted near the cluster area. There are either two possibilities that can explain this condition: (1) CS7
may correspond to a high chloride spring that discharged from the outflow zone of the Tampomas
Volcano or (2) it is originated from another system, such as the geopressured system with sedimentary
host rock. These possibilities are later supported by the physical-chemical condition of the spring and
the geo-indicator analysis of several inert chemical elements in order to determine CS7 spring’s origin.
Several chemical indicators of physical-chemical processes were analyzed in order to diagnose
features of water chemistry (Table 2). Cl/B, Cl/Li and Cl/Cs ratios were applied at all thermal springs
and one cold spring (CS7). The Cl/B ratio showed similarities in value for all thermal springs and the
CS7 cold spring, though there are slight differences in the characteristics between the thermal water
discharged along F1 and CF1. Thermal water discharged at F1 was relatively higher in terms of Cl/B
ratio, while the opposite was true at CF1. This condition attests that F1 may penetrate deeper towards
the reservoir of the system.

Table 2. Solute geoindicators for fluid origin analysis based on [19].

Organic-Rich, Sedimentary Common in Basaltic Areas Andesites Common Reservoir

Labels
>>B >>I >>NH3 >>Br− <<Li <<Cs >>B Cl/B Cl/Li Cl/Cs
CS7 142 1.75 8.22 6.6 2.82 0.189 142 9.9 321.4 91,839
TS1 5.92 0.225 1.59 62 1.55 0.096 5.92 35.1 86.0 26,594
TS2 2.66 0.098 0.81 55.5 0.741 0.053 2.66 35.4 81.6 21,857
TS3 4.91 0.13 1.88 60.5 0.35 0.068 4.91 15.4 138.7 13,673
TS4 4.81 0.106 1.92 61.8 0.352 0.075 4.81 15.7 137.9 12,397
TS5 4.78 0.059 1.61 59.5 0.42 0.053 4.78 15.0 109.5 16,623
TS6 2.16 0.092 1.02 67 0.363 0.026 2.16 16.1 61.5 16,438
TS7 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 n.d 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.5 1 n.d 1 n.d.

1 n.d. = no data were recorded; >> = higher concentration (mg/L); << = lower concentration (mg/L)

Other solute geoindicator ratios for determining common reservoir origins were Cl/Li and Cl/Cs,
which showed very different values between the CS7 spring and all thermal springs. The ratios showed
relatively high values compared to the thermal springs. This could indicate a different fluid origin
for the CS7 spring. This interpretation was also supported by the geoindicator of rock type analysis,
which expressed sedimentary host rock origin for the CS7 spring (Table 3). High levels of boron, iodine
and ammonia are the main indicators of old water from sedimentary host rock [3]. CS7 is interpreted
 Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 13 of 29

as stagnant water trapped in the Subang and/or Kaliwangu sediment formation and discharged along
the permeable zone towards the surface.
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30

FigureFigure 8. Relative
8. Relative Cl, LiCl,and
Li and B contents
B contents (in mg/L)
(in mg/L) of of Tampomas
Tampomas thermalsprings
thermal springsand
andone
one chloride-type
chloride-
type cold spring. All the thermal springs discharged at the Tampomas Volcano are distributed at the
cold spring. All the thermal springs discharged at the Tampomas Volcano are distributed at the same
same cluster. CS7 springs show the same characteristics as thermal springs.
cluster. CS7 springs show the same characteristics as thermal springs.
Geosciences 2018, 8,
Geosciences
x FOR PEER
2018,
REVIEW
8, x FOR
Geosciences
PEER REVIEW
2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 30 14 of 30
Other solute geoindicator ratios for determining common reservoir origins were Cl/Li and Cl/Cs,
whichTable 3. Natural
showed very stable isotope
different composition
values between of some
the CS7 water samples
spring and in
allthe the Tampomas
thermal area.
Table 3. NaturalTable
stable
3. isotope
Natural composition
stable
Tableisotope
3. Natural
of composition
some stable
water isotope
samples
of somecomposition
in
water ofsprings.
Tampomas
samples some
in the
area.The samples
water
Tampomasratios area.
in the Tampomas area
showed relatively high values compared to the thermal springs. This could indicate a different fluid
Types
originTypes
for Types
IDThis interpretation
ID
the CS7 spring. Location
IDTypes
Location δ18
was Location
18O ID
also O (‰)
( ) δ by
supported Dδδ Location
(‰)
18 O
D (‰)
the )δ 13C δ 13
δ CO2
D
(geoindicator (‰)
(‰)
δof18
C CO2O δ(‰)
rock C) CO2δ(‰)
( 13type D (‰) δ 13CCO2 (‰)
Dug
analysis,
Dug well expressed
which
well DugDG2
DG2 well Dug
DugDG2
sedimentary Well
Dug 2well
host 2rock
Well Dug
originWell
−7.86
−forDG2
7.86 2 CS7−51.2
the Dug
−7.86
spring
−51.2Well 2 −51.2
(Table − High
3). −7.86
− levels of − −51.2 −
boron, iodine and ammonia CS1
CS1 Licin
are the mainCS1
Licin
indicators ofLicin−9.43
old CS1
−9.43
water from −62.1−9.43
Licin
sedimentary
−62.1 −62.1
−
host rock−9.43
−
[3]. CS7 − −62.1 −
is interpreted as stagnant CS2
CS2 water trapped
Narimbang2
CS2
Narimbang2 in the Subang
Narimbang2and/or
−8.61
CS2
−8.61 Kaliwangu
−53.9
Narimbang2
−8.61
−53.9 sediment formation
−53.9
− and
−8.61 − −53.9
− −
discharged
Cold
Cold along the
springs
springs permeable
Cold CS5
CS5 springszoneCipatat
towards
CS5 springs
Cold
Cipatat the surface.
−6.92
Cipatat
−6.92
CS5 −51.9 −
−6.92
Cipatat
51.9 −51.9
− −
−6.92 − −51.9 −
In general, Br− concentrations
CS6 in geothermal
Cipanas systems
−7.12 are relatively small (less than−60 mg/L),
−45.6
CS6 CipanasCS6Seum
SeumCipanas −7.12
Seum
CS6 Cipanas
−45.6−7.12 Seum−45.6
− −7.12 − −45.6 −
while the high concentration
CS7 of dissolved
Ciuyah Br is derived 2.64 from marine −24.2sediments [3,30]. − The Br
CS7 Ciuyah
CS7 Ciuyah
2.64
CS7 −24.2 2.64
Ciuyah −24.2 − 2.64 − −24.2 −
concentration is relatively
TS1 high in Cileungsing
some thermal springs. This may be due
−8.19 −50 to deep sedimentary
−6.363 rock
origin and being carried TS1 Cileungsing
through the F1 TS1 Cileungsing
−8.19TS1
fracture. These sedimentary −50
Cileungsing
−8.19
rocks −6.363
−50
were intruded− by −8.19 −6.363
batholith −50 −6.363
TS2 Ciledre −7.02 −40.2 9.94
where its
Thermaltrace fluid wasTS2
TS3 carried Ciledre
through TS2the
Sekarwangi permeable Ciledre
−7.02TS2
fractures
−5.49 or −40.2−7.02
faultsCiledre
to
−46 the −9.94
−40.2
geothermal −7.02
−11.212 −9.94−40.2
reservoir −9.94
and interacted
springs with volcanicTS3 host-rock.
Sekarwangi
TS3
CipanasUnlike the Sekarwangi
−5.49
case TS3
in CS7, this−46
Sekarwangi
−5.49
cold spring −11.212
−46 −5.49−11.212
is interpreted as −46 −11.212
Thermal springs Thermal
TS5 springs Thermal springs −6.22 −47.2 −5.915
stagnant water trappedTS5 Cipanas
in the Subang TS5Gentong
Gentong
and/or Cipanas
Kaliwangu −6.22
Gentong
TS5 Cipanas
sediment −47.2−6.22Gentong
formation and−5.915
−47.2
discharged−6.22along−5.915−47.2 −5.915
the permeable zone towardsTS6
TS6 the Cihaseum
surface.
Cihaseum
TS6 −
Cihaseum 7.02
−7.02TS6 −40.6 − 40.6
Cihaseum
−7.02 −6.035 − 6.035
−40.6 −7.02 −6.035−40.6 −6.035
TS7 Narimbang1 −8.01 −45.3 −
TS7 Narimbang1
TS7 Narimbang1
−8.01
TS7 −45.3
Narimbang1
−8.01 −45.3
− −8.01 − −45.3 −
MW1
MW1 −4.99
MW1 −4.99 −
−27.4
MW1 27.4
−4.99 −27.4
− −
−4.99 − −27.4 −
MW2 −5.37 −27.4 −
Rain water MW2 MW2 −5.37 −27.4
MW2
−5.37 −27.4
− −5.37 − −27.4 −
Rain water MW3
Rain water Rain water −5.68 −32.9 −
MW3
MW4 MW3 −5.68
−8.58 −32.9
MW3
−5.68
−54.7 −32.9
− −5.68
− − −32.9 −
MW4 MW4 −8.58 −54.7
MW4
−8.58 −54.7
− −8.58 − −54.7 −

3.1.4. Geothermometer
3.1.4. Geothermometer
Analysis3.1.4. Geothermometer
Analysis Analysis
Some geothermometers
Some geothermometers
are used
Some
in determining
geothermometers
are used in the
determining
deep
are fluid
usedthe
temperature
in deep
determining
fluid of
temperature
the
the Tampomas
deep fluid
of the
temperature
Tampomasof the T
system in order
system
to strengthen
in order to
system
the
strengthen
interpretation
in order
thetointerpretation
of
strengthen
subsurface
the
ofconditions
interpretation
subsurface (Tables
conditions
of subsurface
4 and(Tables
5). Each
conditions
4 and 5).(Tables
Each 4 and
geothermometer
geothermometer
analysis hasgeothermometer
analysis
advantages
has and
advantages
analysis
disadvantages
has
and advantages
disadvantages
towards and their
towards
disadvantages
own element
their owntowards
element
their own
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 14 of 29

In general, Br− concentrations in geothermal systems are relatively small (less than 60 mg/L),
while the high concentration of dissolved Br is derived from marine sediments [3,30]. The Br
concentration is relatively high in some thermal springs. This may be due to deep sedimentary
rock origin and being carried through the F1 fracture. These sedimentary rocks were intruded by
batholith where its trace fluid was carried through the permeable fractures or faults to the geothermal
reservoir and interacted with volcanic host-rock. Unlike the case in CS7, this cold spring is interpreted
as stagnant water trapped in the Subang and/or Kaliwangu sediment formation and discharged along
the permeable zone towards the surface.

3.1.4. Geothermometer Analysis

Some geothermometers are used in determining the deep fluid temperature of the Tampomas system
in order to strengthen the interpretation of subsurface conditions (Tables 4 and 5). Each geothermometer
analysis has advantages and disadvantages towards their own element characteristics and passage
environmental condition. Silica group minerals are one of the commonly-used temperature indicators
to discover subsurface conditions.

Table 4. The result of silica geothermometer calculation based on various types of silica minerals.
The red box is a reference geothermometer type for the research area.

Cristobalite
Manifestation Quartz Conductive Quartz Adiabatic Chalcedony Amorphous Silica
Alpha Beta
TS1 173.04 162.51 150.87 123.08 73.38 49.78
TS2 160.90 152.52 137.04 110.61 61.22 38.49
TS3 180.10 168.29 158.99 130.39 80.56 56.43
TS4 181.12 169.12 160.16 131.45 81.60 57.39
TS5 178.38 166.89 157.01 128.61 78.81 54.81
TS6 169.30 159.44 146.59 119.23 69.61 46.28
TS7 159.63 151.47 135.61 109.31 59.96 37.32

The physical conditions of the manifestations found in the field are categorized into warm and
hot springs (34.2–50.5 ◦ C), with the absence of near or boiling temperatures. A quartz conductive
geothermometer is a suitable geothermometer, as the deep circulated fluid flows from the system at
a slow rate. Thus, it experiences a conductive cooling process. Unfortunately, however, rock-water
reactions, both with primary minerals and secondary alteration products, are likely altered by the
reactive elements [3]. Based on silica geothermometer analysis, the deep circulated fluid temperature
of the system ranges from 160–175 ◦ C.
Other geothermometer calculations use reactive elements such as Na, K, Mg and Ca, as these
elements can record the last conditions of the equilibrium process. The most commonly-used
geothermometer is Na–K due to the fact that its rate of re-equilibration exchange is slower than
both the silica dissolution-precipitation and the K–Mg exchange equilibrium [3].
Some Na–K geothermometers’ calculations were conducted based on the literature, which
produced different values where the Fournier, Tonani and Arnorsson equations were believed suitable
for the system. The calculated reservoir temperature is about 170 ± 10 ◦ C based on two thermal
manifestations of TS1 and TS2 (Table 5). Other thermal springs such as TS3–TS7 have low validity levels
because of the condensation origin process, and the calculated temperature value is also over-estimated
(ranging from 200–230 ◦ C). A high temperature reservoir (>225 ◦ C) is characteristic of the steam phase
manifestation due to boiling processes in the system. Therefore, temperature values from TS3–TS7 are
incompatible with the Tampomas geothermal system. The Na–K–Ca geothermometer calculations
reinforce the interpretation of Na–K and silica geothermometers analysis, where the deep fluid
temperature is ±160 ◦ C. The Na–K–Ca geothermometer is suitable for low to moderate temperature
system conditions, which have high calcium concentrations in its thermal manifestations [3]. In this
condition, Ca, Na and K elements compete in ion exchange reactions with silica minerals, thus affecting
the Na–K equilibrium process.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 15 of 29

Overall, based on geothermometer calculation towards dissolved and reactive elements, the deep
circulated fluid temperature of the Tampomas geothermal system is about 170 ± 10 ◦ C. The large
temperature error range is due to the high uncertainty of the deep circulated temperature due to the
influence of near surface processes such as mixing and dilution with meteoric water.

3.1.5. Deep Fluid Hydrogeology

The morphology of the high-terrain system already helps in determining the upflow zone and
outflow zone of the geothermal system, wherein the volcanic center is parallel with the heat source,
although the deep circulated thermal fluid zone typically stretches to the flank of the volcano. Based
on all the thermal manifestations, the deep circulated thermal zone is located at the northeast flank of
the volcano. Solute geoindicator analysis work was conducted in amplifying the hydrogeochemistry
interpretation of the thermal fluid path pattern zone.
In general, solute geoindicator analyses are implemented successfully for low-terrain systems
where the fluid is discharged directly from the reservoir to the surface. However, selection and
modification in analysis were carefully done in order to achieve a valid hydrogeochemistry analysis
and interpretation at the high-terrain geothermal system (Table 6). F1 and CF1 segments are very
influential in controlling the hydrogeochemistry pattern of the Tampomas system.
Thermal springs discharged along the F1 structure have higher soluble elements than thermal
springs at CF1. However, the silica concentration is higher at CF1. The Na/K ratio is a very powerful
geoindicator for low-terrain systems in order to discover the upflow zone by indicating values below 15.
However, the result at the Tampomas system was not compatible. There are at least four geoindicators
that were not compatible with the Tampomas system: Na/K, Na/Rb, SiO2 and HCO3 /SO4 . The low
potassium and rubidium concentrations in some springs were probably affected by secondary mineral
absorption. Low silica concentrations at F1 may indicate conductive cooling processes towards the
surface that caused high temperature silica to precipitate, and small concentrations of sulfate elements
are the result of a rather old geothermal system.
These geoindicators depict a hydrogeological pattern of the system wherein deep circulated
thermal fluid flows through the permeable structures and partly discharged at the TS1 spring, while
the rest of the fluid is diluted and discharged at the TS2 spring. The thermal springs other than TS1 and
TS2 are the product of shallow boiling and are mixed with shallow groundwater, which was not the
actual composition of the system. Very low Na/Ca and Na/Mg values are the main geoindicators of the
groundwater dilution effect. The farther the fluid flows, the higher the concentrations of magnesium
and calcium in water.
Based on this interpretation, the deep circulated thermal fluid or upflow zone of the Tampomas
Volcano is located between the F1 and F5 fault zones. The fluid flows through these faults and
discharges to the surface as a thermal manifestation. The fluid has been through an intensive mixing
process with shallow groundwater towards the surface. In order to define the actual composition
of the thermal fluid’s solution, chloride, silica, 18 O and 2 H composition analysis was used. Other
elements are less reliable due to non-conservative exchange or redox reaction [4]. A simple mass
balance equation was used to predict the mixing fraction and deep fluid concentration as follows:

fDTF + fCS = 1 = hot spring (TS)

(1)
fDTF = 1 − fCS ,

δ18 OTS = f DTF δ18 ODTF + f CS δ18 OCS

(2)
δ18 OTS +δ18 ODTF
f CS = δ18 OCS −δ18 ODTF
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 16 of 29

Table 5. The results of geothermometer calculations based on several pieces of literature on the reactive cation elements of thermal manifestations. The red box is a
reference to the interpreted deep fluid temperature system.

Na–K Na–K—Ca Na—K–Ca, Mg Correction K–Mg

Manifestation Fournier Giggenbach Truesdell Tonani Arnorsson Arnorsson Nieva and t ◦ C (Mg Corr) Giggenbach
log β t ◦C R ∆t, R = 5–50 Mg Corr
(1979) (1988) (1976) (1980) (1983) (1983) Nieva (1987) (1988)
TS1 178.68 196.38 140.85 170.41 150.25 180.21 166.33 0.31 0.33 162.31 44.74 138.49 23.82 138.49 76.00
TS2 174.32 192.25 135.66 164.63 145.26 176.15 162.06 0.48 0.33 152.93 45.01 129.02 23.91 129.02 65.58
TS3 216.40 231.77 187.04 222.03 194.26 215.03 203.20 0.62 0.33 174.37 48.05 155.37 19.00 155.37 68.85
TS4 214.63 230.12 184.82 219.54 192.16 213.40 201.47 0.62 0.33 173.33 47.81 154.02 19.32 154.02 68.63
TS5 216.75 232.10 187.48 222.53 194.69 215.35 203.55 0.63 0.33 174.13 48.93 156.26 17.87 156.26 67.97
TS6 217.13 232.45 187.96 223.07 195.14 215.70 203.92 0.81 1.33 88.74 50.89 59.23 29.51 59.23 58.85
TS7 298.30 306.84 296.06 345.68 295.83 289.18 283.39 1.62 1.33 39.77 62.09 2.16 37.61 2.16 33.40

Table 6. Solute geoindicators for upflow, permeability, boiling process and high temperature zones.

Solute Geoindicators
Upflow/High Permeability/Boiling/High Temperature Zones
Label 2 <<Na/K 2 <<Na/Rb <<Na/Li >>Cl/F >>Cl/Mg >>Na/Mg >>Na/Ca 2 >>SiO2 2 <<HCO3 /SO4
TS1 27.7 12,367 101.1 2027.7 9.5 11.1 10.8 180.0 470.6
TS2 29.4 12,765 106.3 1656.1 7.8 10.2 9.8 149.0 291.1
TS3 17.2 6082 201.8 830.7 3.5 5.2 5.6 200.0 457.2
TS4 17.5 6078 207.5 949.4 3.4 5.1 5.4 203.0 450.1
TS5 17.1 6344 163.2 787.2 3.3 4.9 5.4 195.0 453.2
TS6 17.0 8930 163.8 407.3 0.9 2.5 2.8 170.0 672.0
TS7 7.5 1 n.d 1 n.d 1.4 0.4 0.8 1.4 146.0 10.5
1 n.d. = no data were recorded. 2 <<Na/K, <<Na/Rb, >>SiO2 and <<HCO3 /SO4 geoindicators analyses were not valid for the Tampomas system.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 17 of 29

The fraction of each water sample is expressed as f, while TS, CS and DTF stand for hot spring,
cold groundwater and deep circulated thermal fluid or geothermal water, respectively. The mass
balance calculation for chloride and silica elements was applied to TS1 data, as it resembles the deep
fluid characteristics. The calculated cold groundwater fraction was found to be much higher than the
reservoir fluid, wherein the TS1 spring is a mix of 57% shallow groundwater and 43% deep circulated
thermal fluid. The chloride content in the fluid source is 1598 mg/L. A very low concentration of
chloride in the source can be affected by three possibilities: (1) intensive mixing processes by meteoric
water towards the system, (2) the fact that the Tampomas system is overly mature or (3) that there is
no presence of a geothermal reservoir.

3.2. Isotope Analysis

3.2.1. Oxygen-18 and Deuterium Isotope Analysis

In order to discover the local meteoric water line (LMWL), several samples of rain water were
collected at different elevations, i.e., 100 m, 300 m, 525 m and 743 m above sea level. Based on the δ18 O
and δ2 H data of the rain water in the Tampomas area, the linear regression line equation of LMWL at
Tampomas volcano is:
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30
δ2 H = 7.87 δ 18 O + 12.8 (3)
shift due to the rock-water reaction with the host rock at the reservoir zone [3,33–37], and the first
Figure 9 shows the difference of the local meteoric water line (Equation (3)) against the global
parent fluid match has a small gradient slope, i.e., 0.38. The rate of oxygen-18 shift in the first parent
meteoric water line; it can be seen that there are deuterium excess (DE) values (Figure 9). The global
fluid is quite minor compared to other productive geothermal fields (e.g., the Kamojang, Wayang
DE value
Windu isand
10, Dieng
while geothermal
Tampomas’fields),
local which
meteoric
is 20%water line DE
andesitic value
water [32].isThe
12.8. Theoxygen-18
small deuterium excess
shift
valueobserved
of each site will always vary depending on local geographical factors [31]. For example,
in Tampomas deep fluid is generally interpreted as large amounts of local meteoric water Wayang
Windu and passed
having Kamojang have
through different
the system. values of DE, being 12.98 and 16.48, respectively [32].

Figure 9. The
Figure relationship
9. The relationship betweenδ18
between δ18O and δ22H
Oand Hinincold
coldandand thermal
thermal waters
waters toward
toward the local
the local meteoric
meteoric
waterwater
line line (LMWL)
(LMWL) of the
of the Tampomasarea.
Tampomas area.The
The LMWL
LMWL line linefrom
from the research
the areaarea
research is relatively lighter
is relatively lighter
than than the global
the global meteoric
meteoric waterwater
lineline (GMWL)
(GMWL) [33].
[33]. Full
Full circlesare
circles areananinterpretation
interpretationofofthe
the reservoir
reservoir fluid
fromfluid from Equation
Equation (2). (2).

3.2.2. Carbon-13 Isotope Analysis

The composition of δ13CCO2 in various conditions shows large variations due to the impact of different
environmental parameters. δ13CCO2 values of magmatic CO2 gases range between −5 ‰ and −8‰ [38],
whereas [39] defines them as between −5‰ and −10‰ for geothermal and volcanic systems. In his
research, [40] found the most δ13CCO2 in geothermal fluids, ranging between −1‰ and −5‰. The
 having passed through
having passed
the system.
through the system.

Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 18 of 29

Water stable isotopes from the springs and dug wells are plotted along the LMWL (Figure 9).
This condition may indicate meteoric or near-surface water mixed with thermal water during
fluid flow. TS1 springs have been through dilution and yield stable isotopes plotted near the LMWL.
However, some thermal springs and cold springs are shifted towards oxygen-18 gaining, i.e., TS3,
TS5 and CS5. These springs may carry the heavy stable isotopes during lateral flow in the F5 fault
and are discharged along CF1, which acts as a flow boundary. The oxygen-18 shift at the CS5 cold
spring is due to the mixing process of remnant deep fluid isotopes with groundwater in the high
permeability zone.
In order to interpret the actual δ18 O and δ2 H composition of the deep circulated thermal fluid,
TS3 thermal spring water stable isotope composition was applied in Equation (2) due to the isotope
deep fluid trace. Hypothetically, this calculation was done using two mixing process potentials, i.e.,
the TS3 dilution with CS5 or CS6, which produces two interpreted parent fluids (Figure 9). The first
parent fluid hypothesis (dilution with CS6) is more acceptable than the second hypothesis, which has a
gradient slope of around 3.2. Mainly, the geothermal reservoir fluid only experiences oxygen-18 shift
due to the rock-water reaction with the host rock at the reservoir zone [3,33–37], and the first parent
fluid match has a small gradient slope, i.e., 0.38. The rate of oxygen-18 Figure 9. The shiftrelationship
in the first between
parentδfluid 18O and δ2H in cold and the
is
relationship between δ Ominor
quite18 and δ H2 in cold Figure
compared and tothermal
9. The
other Figure
waters
relationship
productive 9.
toward
The between
relationship
the local
geothermal δ meteoric
18 Obetween
and δ(e.g.,
fields water
2 Hδinthe18 O line
cold and (LMWL)
and
δ Hthermal
2
Kamojang, in coldofWayang
the Tampomas
waters
and thermal
toward
Windu area.
waters
theand The
local
toward LMWL
meteoricthe localline frommet
MWL) of the Tampomas Dieng area. The LMWLfields),
geothermal line
water from line the
which (LMWL)
water
research
is 20% line
of area
the(LMWL)
Tampomas
andesiticis relatively
of thearea.
water Tampomas
lighter The
Figure
[32]. than
TheLMWL
9. The the
area.
small global
line
The from
relationship meteoric
LMWL
oxygen-18 the line water
research
between
shift from δ line
area
18the
O and
observed (GMWL)
research
is relatively
δ2Hin inarea [33].
cold Full
lighter
isand
relativelycirclesli
thermal
bal meteoric
ionship water
between δ18line
O and (GMWL)
Tampomas δ2H indeep[33].and
cold Fullthermal
fluid than
circles theare
Figure global
waters
is generally an
9. than
interpretation
Themeteoric
towardthe global
Figure
relationship
interpreted the water
9. The meteoric
local
as of line
the reservoir
relationship
between
meteoric
large (GMWL)
water
δwater
amounts 18Obetweenfluid
line
and [33].
ofδ(GMWL)
line 2Hfrom
δFull
(LMWL)
local18in
Ocold Equation
circles
and [33].
meteoric of
and
δ2H in(2).
are
theFull ancircles
Tampomas
thermal
cold
water interpretation
andwaters
having are
thermal an
area.
toward interpretation
The
passed of LMWL
waters the localreservoir
toward lineofthe thelocal
from
meteoric rese
them
quation
L) of the (2).
Tampomas through area. The theLMWL line from
system. fluidwater
from
the Equation
research
line fluid
(LMWL)from
water
area (2). Equation
isline
relatively
of (LMWL)
the Tampomas (2).of thethan
lighter Tampomas
area. the The global
LMWLarea. meteoric
The
line LMWL
from water the lineline
research
from(GMWL) the
area [33].
research
is Full
relatively areacircles
islighter are a
relativel
eteoric water line (GMWL) [33]. Full circles are than an the
interpretation
global
than meteoric
the of global
the water
Figure reservoir
meteoric The3.2.2.
9.line fluid
(GMWL)
water Carbon-13
from
relationship
Figure line[33].Equation
(GMWL)
9. Full
between
The Isotope
(2).δ18OAnalysis
circles
[33].
relationship Full
are between
and an
δcircles
2H interpretation
are
in cold δ18O an
and interpretation
and δof2Hthe
thermal reservoir
in cold
waters of towa
and the
ther
onIsotope
(2). Analysis 3.2.2. Carbon-133.2.2. Isotope Carbon-13 3.2.2.
Analysis
fluid from Isotope
Carbon-13
Equation
fluid from Analysis
Isotope
(2).
Equation Analysis
water line (LMWL) (2). water of composition
the line Tampomas
(LMWL)ofof area.
The δthe
13CCO2 The
Tampomas
inLMWL
various area.
line from
The LMWL
conditions the research
shows line large
from
are
13 than the 3.2.2.
global Carbon-13
meteoric
than the Isotope
water
global line Analysis
meteoric
(GMWL) water [33]. lineFull (GMWL)
circles are
[33]. an Full
interpreta
circles
ition of δ CCO2 in variousThe
13 conditions
composition shows The of composition
large
δ C CO2 The
variationsin composition
ofdue
variousδ Cto
13 CO2 in of
the various
impact
conditions δ CCO2
13 ofenvironmental
conditions
in
different
shows various large shows parameters.
conditions large shows
variations dueδto
variations Cthe
large
13 CO2due values
to theof
variations
impact magmatic
impact
ofdue toofthe CO2 gas
different
impact o
ope Analysis13 3.2.2. Carbon-13 3.2.2. Carbon-13
Isotope Analysis
Isotope
fluid from Analysis
Equation fluid (2). from Equation (2).
arameters. δ CCO2 different values of environmental
magmatic environmental
CO2 gases environmental
parameters.parameters.
range between δ13 Cparameters.
δCO2
13C −5 ‰
values
CO2 valuesand δof13whereas
−8‰
Cof
The magmatic
magmatic
CO2 values
[38],
composition [39] COofdefines
CO magmatic
2 of
gases
2 13them
gases
δ C range
range
CO2 CO in as2 between
gases
between
various
between range −−5‰
−5
conditions5 between
‰ and
andshows −10‰
−8‰
−5 ‰
large for
[38],
andvar ge
ines
of δ13them
CCO2 inasvarious
betweenand −−5‰
conditions and
8 [38], shows−10‰
whereas
large
whereas forvariations
[39]
Thegeothermal
[39] whereas
defines
composition
defines The
due [39]
them
and
them defines
ofvolcanic
as
composition
to the between
δimpact
as 13C
between
CO2them systems.
inof δ−as
−5‰
various 5research,
environmental
different
13 C betweenIn
and
CO2conditions his
in various
and − [40]
−10‰−5‰
10 found
parameters.for
andgeothermal
conditions
shows the
−10‰
large C most
δ13shows for values
variations
CO2 δ13CCO2
geothermal
and
large of in
volcanic
due togeothermal
variations and
magmatic
the systems.
volcanic
impact
due CO
to the fluids,
2In
of system
gaseshis r
differe
impac
3.2.2.13Carbon-13 3.2.2.
Isotope Carbon-13 Analysis Isotope Analysis
und
eters.the
δ Cmost
13 δ C
CO2 values
13 of in
systems.
CO2 geothermal
magmatic research,
fluids,
CO2environmental
In his research, gases [40]
[40] research,
range found
ranging
environmental
found [40]
the
between
parameters.
between
the most most
found
−5 δ‰ δδCand
−1‰ the
CCCO2
parameters.
13
13
CO2 most
and
whereas
−8‰
CO2 in
invalues general
−5‰. δCof
geothermal
δ[38],
13
geothermal13 CThe
[39]
CO2 δvalues
magmatic
CO2 13 C
in
defines
fluids,
CO2 inthem
geothermal
fluids,
of the2ranging
CO
magmatic
ranging atmosphere
asfluids,
gases between
CO between
range
between isbetween
2 ranging
gases
− between
−5‰ −1‰
1 range and −5−2‰
between
and and‰ −5‰.
−10‰
between and
−1‰
and for−5 −8‰
−8‰ The
and
geothe
‰ [38 [4
an −
nthem
the atmosphere
as betweenis− between
−5‰
5 . and The−2‰−10‰
general general
and 13
−8‰ CδCO2
forδwhereas
geothermalCgeneral
13[4]. Other
[39]
in
CO2 in defines
whereas
the the
andδδ1313atmosphere
CC[39]
volcanic
atmosphere CO2
CO2 in
themvalues
the
definesasatmosphere
is
systems.
Theis such between
between
betweenthem
composition asIn
research, groundwater
soil
as−his
−5‰ −2‰
is CO
ofbetween
[40]
2between
The δand,and
found [4],
−8‰
−10‰
2composition
and13 CCO2 − −5‰ −2‰
8in coal
the [4].
and
for
various
[4]. ofand
andOther
most Ccrude
−8‰
geothermal
−10‰ 13δC
δCO2 13
δfor
δ13conditions
Other [4].
in
13CO2 oil
Cvarious
CO2 in[41],
Other
values
geothermal
and
shows δetc.,
geothermal
volcanic
values C
such
conditions
large
13 are
and
CO2 summarized
values
as soil
fluids,
systems.
volcanic
variations
shows such
CO rang
In
due ,
sys
large
2 asht
CO2
,the
coalmost
and crude
δ CCO2oil
13 in[41],
such asetc.,
soilare
geothermal COsummarized
2groundwater
fluids,research,
ranging
, groundwater groundwater
in[4],
Figure
[40][4],coal
research,
found
between
coal and
10. and [4],
[40] crude
the
−1‰ coal
found
most
environmental
crude and oil
andoil[41],
δthe
−5‰.
13 Ccrude
general
[41], etc.,
most inδoil
The
parameters. The
are
environmental
CO2 etc., 13 C
13[41],
δgeothermal
areCCO2 composition
CO2 δetc.,
summarized
in in
13the
summarized are
geothermal
Cparameters.
CO2 inof
summarized
atmosphere
fluids,
values δ
inFigure
ranging
of13 C
13
Figure is
δfluids,CO210.
magmatic
C CO2 from
in
between
10. Figure
between
ranging
values thermal
CO 2 10.
−2‰
of −1‰
gases and
between
magmatic springs
and−8‰
range −1‰
−5‰.
CO varies
[4].
betwee Ot
an
2 gas Th
sition of δ13CisCO2
atmosphere from The
between thermal
−2‰ and springs
composition The
−8‰general varies
[4].ofOtherδδ1313
composition
between
C The
general
CδCO2
13Cin
CO2 composition
from
CO2 theof
δ−5.91‰
values
13C δthermal
13Cin
atmosphere
whereas
CO2 and
such
CO2 the of
from as
[39] δsoil
−11.21‰.
groundwater
atmosphere
is13
springs range
thermal
Cwhereas
between
definesCOvaries
CO2 2from ofsprings
, This
them values
is−2‰ thermal
[4], ascoal
between
[39]between and shows
varies
defines
betweenand
−8‰springs
−2‰ overlap
between
crude
−them [4].
andOther
−5‰
5.91 varies
as oil
−8‰ andof[41],
−5.91‰between
13Cetc.,
δ[4].
between
and −10‰
−11.21Other
CO2 values
−5‰and
are−5.91‰
for Cfrom
−11.21‰.
summarized
δ.geothermal
and
13 such
CO2 several
and
values
−10‰ as This
−11.2
soil
for
and inCO
such so
ge F
v
lhows overlap
and crude oilof[41],
δThis
13Cetc., values
CO2range offrom
are summarized range
values severalofin
showsvalues
groundwater range
sources,
Figure shows
overlap of
groundwater
10.
[4], values
i.e., of overlap
coal 13and
shows
atmospheric [4],
δresearch,
C of
crude δ
coal overlap
CO
C
13[40]
values and
oil
CO2 2 , of
values
magmatic
The
[41],
crude
found
research,
CO
from 2 δ
etc.,
, 13 from
C
composition
oil
the
marine
several are
CO2 values
[41],
[40]
most several
summarized13from
etc.,
found
δ Cof
bicarbonate
sources, sources,
are
CO2δ
the several
C
summarized
13in
i.e., in
most
andi.e.,
from
Figure
geothermal
atmospheric
CO2 sources,
δatmospheric
13Cthermal
10.
dissolvedin
CO2 i.e.,
Figure
fluids,
in
CO atmospheric
CO
springs
geothermal10. ,
ranging
inorganic
, 2 magmatic
varies CO
fluids,
betwee
carbon bet
2 , m
(
CO2 2
n of δ CCO2
carbonate 13
andfrom thermal inorganic
dissolved
magmatic springs
CO2 , CO varies
2carbon
marine, marine The
between
(DIC
CO
bicarbonatecomposition andcomposition
The
−5.91‰
2, ) marine
bicarbonate
groundwater of δ −11.21‰.
and
general
bicarbonate
dissolved 13 δCO2
13
dissolvedCrange
of
C[4,38–40,42].
from
and
inorganic
CO2 δin13 of
This
C
general
the values
thermal
inorganic
dissolved
findingCO2 This
carbonfrom
δis also
atmosphere
13 shows
Csprings
thermal
carbon
inorganic
(DIC)
CO2 in overlap
varies
inagreement
the
is springs
between
atmosphere
(DIC
groundwater )of
carbon δ−2‰
between 13 C[4,38–40,42].
varies
groundwater
with isand
(DIC
the
CO2 values
−5.91‰
between
between
) −8‰ from
groundwater
geological and
[4].
−2‰
[4,38–40,42]. several
−5.91‰ −11.21‰.
Otherand[4,38–40
settings δ−8‰source
and
13 CCO2
This
of Th
the−1
[4]v
sagreement
overlap ofwith δ13CCO2the values
This fromissettings
geological
finding several
finding
also range
in sources,
of istheoffinding
also
agreement values
range
i.e.,
Tampomas shows
ofalso
atmospheric
in agreement
is
with values
theand overlap
in withshows
groundwater CO
previous
agreement
geological the2of overlap
δanalysis.
, magmatic
CO C
13[4],
geological
with
settings marine
meteoric
CO2 ofThe
values
2,groundwater
coal the δsettings
and 13Cfrom crude values
[4],
bicarbonate
water,
geological
the Tampomas
CO2 ofseveral
oil
coal
which
the from
[41],
settings sources,
and
and
Tampomas several
etc.,
crude are
ofdissolved
penetrates
previousthe i.e.,
sources,
oil
into atmospheric
summarized
[41],
Tampomas
and i.e.,and
etc.,
inorganic
the
previous
analysis. deeper atmospheric
arein CO
carbon2, magmat
summarized
Figure
system,
analysis.
previous 10.
(DIC
may
The CO
ana
onate
which and dissolved
penetrates into
The theinorganic
deeperwater,
meteoric carbon
system, CO
meteoric (DIC
2, water,
may
which )experience
marine groundwater
CO
meteoric 2bicarbonate
, marine
which
penetrates water,
penetrates
equilibrium
into which
the The
[4,38–40,42].
bicarbonate
and
deeper composition
into dissolved
penetrates
processes
the
finding
system, and
This
the
deeperis The
trace
into
withofsystem,
dissolved
inorganic
also
may composition
theδin13CCO2 fromof
magmaticdeeper
experience inorganic
carbon
may
agreement fluid
system, δthrough
thermal
(DIC
experience
with 13CCO2springs
equilibriumcarbon
maythe from
) groundwater
equilibrium
experience
geological
processes thermal
)varies
(DICrock-water
the groundwater between
springs
[4,38–40,42].
equilibrium
processes
settings reaction.
of the varies
with−5.91
[4,38–
proce
Tam ThT
atic fluid
eement withthrough the rock-water
the geological
with settings
the trace the
reaction.
of trace
magmatic finding magmatic
the TampomasThis
fluid the magmatic
trace
is through
also
finding fluid
inand magmatic
agreement
is
the range
previous
also in of
through
fluid
rock-water values
carried
fluid
agreement
with the
analysis. through
the
reaction.range
shows
marine
rock-water
meteoricsome
geological
The
with ofoverlap
trace
the
water,the
This values
bicarbonate
rock-water
reaction.
which
geological
settings
magmatic of
shows
δpenetrates
13
This
of overlap
Cfluid
levels values
reaction. because
magmatic
settings
the
CO2 Tampomas
carried of
into
of Thisδsome
from
the 13
the C
the several
fluid
magmatic
deeper
Tampomas
and
CO2 values
parentcarried
trace sources,
previous from
igneous
fluid
system,
andsome several
i.e.,
rock
carried
may
analysis.
previoustraceatmo
expe so
(i.e.so
Th a
ate levels because
h penetrates into thethedeeper
marineparent igneous
system,
bicarbonate marinerock
may bicarbonate
meteoric
levels (i.e., marine
experience Tampomas’
water,
becausemeteoric bicarbonate
levels
equilibrium
which
the CO
heat
water,
parent 2,igneous
because marine
source)
penetrateslevels
which the
processes bicarbonate
because
the parentCO
intruded
trace
penetrates
into
rock with
the 2,igneous
(i.e., marine
thethe
magmatic
deeperinto parent
Tampomas’ and
the bicarbonate
rock
system, dissolved
igneous
(i.e.,
fluid
deeper may
heat Tampomas’
rock
through
system, and
inorganic
experience
source) dissolved
(i.e.,
the
may carbon
Tampomas’
heat
rock-water
intruded inorganic
source)
experience
equilibrium
the (DIC
heat )source)
intruded
reaction.
equilibrium groundw
processes carbon theint
This prm
wi (
luid through the sediment rock-water reaction.the
formation This
(i.e.,trace
the magmatic
magmatic
the trace
Subang fluid
marine magmatic
fluid carried
finding through
sediment is fluid marine
some
also the
inthrough
trace
finding bicarbonate
rock-water
agreement
formation). isthe also
Thus, with inlevels
rock-water
reaction.
agreement because
This
the geological
reservoir reaction.
deep with the
magmatic parent
This
settings
fluidthe igneous
magmatic
fluid
geological
conveys of thecarried rock
fluid
Tampomas
settings (i.e.,
some carried
of and Tam
tra
the
evels because the parent igneous
those trace δ13 Crock
CO2 marine
(i.e.,
levels Tampomas’
tobicarbonate
marine
the surface,heat
bicarbonate
levels
source)
meteoric
and because
this intruded
levels
water,
is later the because
parent
the
meteoric
which
diluted the
igneous
penetrates
water,
with parent
the rock
which igneous
into (i.e.,
groundwater.the Tampomas’
penetratesrock
deeper (i.e.,
into
system, Tampomas’
heat
the may source)
deeper heat
experienceintruded
system, source)may
equi th
the trace magmatic the trace fluidmagmatic through the fluid rock-water
through the reaction.
rock-water This magmatic reaction. Th fl
3.3. Dry-Gas and Dissolved-Gas Analysis marine bicarbonate marine levels bicarbonate
because the levels
parent because igneous the rockparent (i.e.,igneous
Tampomas’ rock (i.e. he
Gas chemistry was obtained through a dry gas sampling method from the ebullient characteristics
and soluble gases throughout the thermal springs. Thermal springs with massive ebullient
characteristics are the TS1, TS3 and TS6 thermal springs. The characteristics of ebullient gas
encountered at the field have no odor, which may indicate CO2 as the dominant gas.
Based on laboratory analysis, dry-gas and dissolved gas samples have very striking differences
in characteristics (Tables 7 and 8). CO2 is the dominant gas contained in dry-gas samples, whereas
H2 S is the dominant gas in dissolved gas samples. This is in harmony with the gas characteristic
regarding gas solubility, where CO2 is relatively more volatile than H2 S gas in geothermal systems [3].
High concentrations of CH4 gas in dry-gas and dissolved gas samples indicate the contribution of deep
fluid, which flows through the permeable zone, or indicate a relatively shallow origin from organic
materials. The concentration of dissolved CH4 gas in cold springs is very low compared to thermal
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 19 of 29

springs, which indicates a deeper origin. The high CH4 gas is distributed at the F1 and CF1 structures
in which thermal
Geosciences manifestations discharge. The high oxygen concentration in Sekarwangi
2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 ofsprings
30 may
originate from the oxygen influx during sampling or due to high oxygen levels accumulated in the
sediment formation (i.e., the Subang marine sediment formation). Thus, reservoir deep fluid conveys
thermal pool.
those trace δ13CCO2 levels to the surface, and this is later diluted with the groundwater.

Figure 10. Figure 10. Variation

in δ13 Cin δ CCO2 levels of different origins. Relative concentration of δ CCO2 in
13thermal
13 13
Variation CO2 levels of different origins. Relative concentration of δ CCO2 in thermal
fluid from all thermal manifestations located at Tampomas Volcano. All thermal manifestations
fluid fromoriginate
all thermal manifestations located at Tampomas Volcano. All thermal manifestations
from four sources: atmospheric CO2, groundwater dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC),
originate from
magmaticfourCO2sources:
and marineatmospheric
bicarbonate. CO2 , groundwater dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC),
magmatic CO2 and marine bicarbonate.
3.3. Dry-Gas and Dissolved-Gas Analysis
Gas non-condensable
Table 7. The chemistry was obtained through
gas (NCG) a dry gas of
concentration sampling
dry-gasmethod
samplesfrom the ebullient
in some springs with
characteristics and
ebullient characteristics.soluble gases throughout the thermal springs. Thermal springs with massive
ebullient characteristics are the TS1, TS3 and TS6 thermal springs. The characteristics of ebullient gas
encountered at the field have no odor, which may indicate CO2 as the dominant gas.
Concentration (% Moles)
Based on laboratory analysis, dry-gas and dissolved gas samples have very striking differences
Sample
CO
in characteristics (Tables H S He H2
2 7 and2 8). CO2 is the dominant gasN contained
2 O2in dry-gasAr samples,
CH4whereas
H2S is theTS1dominant99.66
gas in dissolved
0.17 gas
0.0002samples. This
0.00001 is in
0.03 harmony0 with the
0.0004 gas characteristic
0.14
regarding TS3
gas solubility,
84.11where1.01CO2 is 0.0028
relatively more volatile4.77
0.00015 than H23.32
S gas in geothermal
0.17 systems [3].
6.62
TS6
High concentrations 82.91
of CH4 gas1.42in dry-gas
0.0016 and0.00016 7.83samples
dissolved gas 0.19indicate
0.12the contribution
7.52 of
deep fluid, which flows through the permeable zone, or indicate a relatively shallow origin from
organic materials. The concentration of dissolved CH4 gas in cold springs is very low compared to
Table 8. The concentration of NCG from the dissolved gas sample.
thermal springs, which indicates a deeper origin. The high CH4 gas is distributed at the F1 and CF1
structures in which thermal manifestations discharge. The high oxygen concentration in Sekarwangi
springs may originate from the oxygen influx Concentration
during samplingin % or due to high oxygen levels
Sample
accumulated in the thermal pool. CH4 CO2 H2 S Ar–O2 N2
The dissolved gas TS1 elements in0.47
thermal 0.47
springs show
16.59 significant
0.31 differences
1.31 where H2S is the
dominant gas (Table 8). TS2 It can be concluded
0.21 that
0.21CO2 gas is relatively
17.36 0.44 easily1.85
detached from the liquid
phase compared to H2S.TS3 The concentration
0.14 of0.14
CO2, H2S12.95
and CH4 gas 4.22in TS11.23
indicates that the F1 fault
is relatively the main fracture
TS5 zone 0.35of the system.
0.37 14.32 0.44 1.53
TS6 0.01 0.00 25.30 0.09 0.38
TS7 0.01 0.00 22.12 0.39 2.02
C 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.79 2.36
E 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.44 1.94
CS2 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.65 3.98
CS3 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.30 0.86
CS5 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.10 3.28
CS6 0.00 0.04 0.01 1.09 3.98
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 20 of 29

The dissolved gas elements in thermal springs show significant differences where H2 S is the
dominant gas (Table 8). It can be concluded that CO2 gas is relatively easily detached from the liquid
phase compared to H2 S. The concentration of CO2 , H2 S and CH4 gas in TS1 indicates that the F1 fault
is relatively the main fracture zone of the system.

3.3.1. Gas Origin

The N2 –CO2 –Ar and N2 –He–Ar triangular diagrams are commonly used as indicators of fluid
origin in the geothermal system [25,43]. Apart from acting as fluid origin indicators, these diagrams
also indicate the hydrogeology of the system. Figure 11 shows the results of the data plot from dry-gas
samples from three thermal springs, namely TS1, TS3 and TS6.
The results of the diagram plots show that the main thermal fluid origin is from meteoric water.
Meteoric water is the main source of hydrothermal fluid systems that undergo a deep water-rock
reaction process and is also frequently mixed with some magmatic fluids [13]. Meteoric fluids are
also interpreted to have a dominant contribution to the Tampomas system, which is demonstrated
by the physical characteristics of thermal manifestations. There is an anomaly data point plotted in
both ternary diagrams, i.e., TS6, which had a high CO2 and He value. The high CO2 is the result of the
residual gas dissolved in the fluid during the lateral flow, while the other gases are released and/or
undergo oxidation-reduction processes into the solute element. Further analysis of the helium values
using noble gas isotope analyses is required to strengthen the analysis of the crust-originating fluids.
These triangle diagram analyses are also strengthened by the ratio analysis method of CO2 /CH4 and
N 2 /Ar (Figure
Geosciences 2018, 8, 12).
x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 30

(a) (b)
Figure 11.
11. (a) The results
(a) The results of
of the
the NN2–CO
–CO2–Ar diagram show the origin of hydrothermal fluid from
Figure 2 2 –Ar diagram show the origin of hydrothermal fluid from
meteoric water. (b) The same result is also found
meteoric water. (b) The same result is also found from from the
the analysis
analysis of
of the
the N –He–Ar diagram.
N2–He–Ar diagram.
2

3.3.2. Geoindicator Gas Analysis

The dry-gas geoindicator data are presented in Table 9. Several parameters, such as permeability
geoindicator, fluid flow direction and high temperature zones, are applied in interpreting the fluid
characteristics of the system. It is known that TS1, which is discharged at the F1 fault, contains
the remnant of reservoir elements more dominant than in other thermal springs. The F1 fracture is
strongly suspected to be a reservoir fluid conduit and is relatively close to the upflow zone of the
Tampomas hydrothermal system. This interpretation is based on H2 S/CH4 , CO2 /H2 S and CO2 /H2
ratios as permeable zone geoindicators. This condition is also supported by the ternary diagram of
three common non-condensable gas (NCG) elements, i.e., CO2 –H2 S–NH3 , where TS1 has a higher H2 S
concentration as an indicator of reservoir fluid contribution (Figure 13).

Figure 12. The ratio diagrams of CO2/CH4 versus N2/Ar show the origin of the fluid system from
meteoric water.
 (a) (b)
Figure 11.
Geosciences (a)8,The
2018, results of the N2–CO2–Ar diagram show the origin of hydrothermal fluid21from
103 of 29
meteoric water. (b) The same result is also found from the analysis of the N2–He–Ar diagram.

Figure 12. 12.

Figure TheThe
ratio diagrams
ratio diagramsofofCO
CO22/CH
/CH4 4versus
versus N
N22/Ar
/Ar show theorigin
show the originofof
thethe fluid
fluid system
system fromfrom
meteoric water.
meteoric water.

3.3.2. Geoindicator Gasthe

As with TS1, Analysis
TS3 springs are a lateral flow product characterized by increased CO2
concentrations and reduced reactive
The dry-gas geoindicator data aregas elements, in
presented such as H9.
Table 2 SSeveral
and H2 . parameters,
The lateral flow is characterized
such as permeability
by an increase in the CO2 /H2 S ratio; H2 S gas is oxidized to H2 SO4 , whereas H2 is a highly reactive
geoindicator, fluid flow direction and high temperature zones, are applied in interpreting the fluid
gas that has interacted with rocks around the upflow zone first [3]. The use of geoindicators
characteristics of the system. It is known that TS1, which is discharged at the F1 fault, contains the
against dissolved gas data is relatively difficult due to the unsuitable characteristic ratios for the
remnant of reservoir
commonly-used elements
analyses. more dominant
The relatively than in other
large concentrations of CHthermal springs. The F1 fracture is
4 in both types of samples indicates
strongly suspected
a deep permeabletozone
be aofreservoir
the system.fluid conduit and is relatively close to the upflow zone of the
Tampomas hydrothermal system. This interpretation is based on H2S/CH4, CO2/H2S and CO2/H2
ratios3.4.
asSoil Gas and Dissolved
permeable Radon
zone geoindicators. This condition is also supported by the ternary diagram of
three common non-condensable gas (NCG)
222 elements, i.e.,
The classification of soil-gas Rn concentration CO2–H
is defined by2S–NH 3, where TS1
the background has a higher
concentration of H2S
222
concentration as an indicator
Rn in Tampomas and the of reservoir area.
surrounding fluidThe
contribution
background(Figure 13). (R42) in the southeastern
area is Legok
area and Licin (R13) in the southern part of Tampomas, with 222 Rn concentrations of 25.9 Bq/m3 and
As with TS1, the TS3 springs are a lateral flow product characterized by increased CO2
152 Bq/m3 , respectively
concentrations and reduced (Table 10). Thisgas
reactive areaelements,
is determined as the
such as background
H2S and H area because
2. The there flow
lateral are is
no geological structures found in the area to interfere with the 222 Rn concentration, even based on the
characterized by an increase in the CO2/H2S ratio; H2S gas is oxidized to H2SO4, whereas H2 is a highly
geological regional map or field work.
reactive gas that has interacted with rocks around the upflow zone first [3]. The use of geoindicators
222 Rn in the soil-gas concentration map of Tampomas shows the differences in the concentration
against dissolved gas data is relatively difficult due to the unsuitable characteristic ratios for the
between the northern part and the southern part (Figure 14a). Overall, the southern part of Tampomas
commonly-used analyses. The relatively large concentrations of CH4 in both types of samples
has lower 222 Rn concentrations than the northern part. The high 222 Rn concentration was focused at the
indicates a deep
northeast permeable
flank of Tampomas zone of the system.
Volcano. 222 Rn in the soil-gas in this area ranged from 640 Bq/m3 in the

Cihaseum area (R5) to 30,475 Bq/m3 in the Ciputrawangi Waterfall (R30) (Figure 14b). The relatively
higher 222 Rn concentration lies over interpreted structures, especially CF1, F1, F2 and F5. Those faults
are expected to control the ascent of deep thermal fluids, i.e., gas and liquid from the deeper zone
to the surface (Figure 14). In this research, it can be confirmed that the soil-gas 222 Rn analysis is an
effective method to delineate the permeable conduit of the geothermal system of the Tampomas area.
Because the study area is located in an area with wet conditions where the groundwater is very
shallow and springs are present in many places, dissolved 222 Rn analysis from spring water was
performed to find out whether some gasses (e.g., 222 Rn) were dissolved in the groundwater. Dissolved
222 Rn analysis can strengthen the interpretation that 222 Rn presence is associated with the ascent of

deeper fluid along the faults. The result of dissolved 222 Rn measurements in water samples and sample
locations can be seen in Table 11 and Figure 14b.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 22 of 29
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 30

Table 9.
Table Geoindicator analysis
9. Geoindicator analysis of
of gas
gas fluid
fluid from
from dry-gas
dry-gas samples
samples in
in order
order to
to identify
identify the
the Tampomas
Tampomas fluid
fluid characteristics.
characteristics.

DistanceDistance
Travelled
Travelled High
High Temperature
Temperature
Permeable/Upflow Zones Zones
Permeable/Upflow Flow Direction
Flow Direction
from Upflow
Source of of
Source Gases
Gases
Reservoir
from Upflow Reservoir
Sample Sample
Non-Atmos.
Non-Atmos. AirAir
Contam.
Contam. Magmatic Input
Magmatic Input High High
H2S/CH
H42 S/CHCO
4 2/H
CO2S2 /H2 S
CO2/HCO CO
2 2 /H2 2/H2CO
S 2 /HCO
2 S 2/H2 CO2 /H2 Low COLow
2/H2CO
S 2 /H2 S High
High H2 H2
N2/Ar:
N238–84
/Ar: 38–84 N2N
/Ar = 84 N
N22/Ar = 800–2000 H2 /H2 S
H2/H2S
2 /Ar = 84 /Ar = 800–2000
TS6 TS6 0.0017 0.0017 586.24586.249966,000
9966,000586.24 586.24
9966,0009966,000 586.24 586.24 75.0075.00 75.00
75.00 75.00
75.00 1 ×−510
1 × 10
−5
6 × 10−65 × 10
−5

TS3 TS3 0.0120 0.0120 83.28 83.28 560,733560,733 83.28 83.28560,733 560,733 83.28 83.28 28.0628.06 28.06
28.06 28.06
28.06 1.5 ×1.5
10× −410−4 1.485 ×
1.485
104 × 104
1.6 ×1.6 −4 −4 1.127 × 10−4
TS1 TS1 0.0171 0.0171 58.39 58.39 518,188518,188 58.39 58.39518,188 518,188 58.39 58.39 65.2565.25 65.25
65.25 65.25
65.25 10× 10 1.127 × 10−4

Figure 13.
Figure The ratio
13. The ratio of
of the
the three
three main
main gases
gases commonly
commonly present
present in the system shows that the TS1 thermal spring is relatively close to the reservoir.
reservoir.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 23 of 29

222 Rn
concentration measurements were conducted on water sampled from hot springs,
warm springs, cold springs and rivers. There is no need to do the time correction for dissolved
222 Rn because the measurement was conducted directly in the field. Slightly differing from the

results of 222 Rn in soil-gas, dissolved 222 Rn measurements showed more erratic results and could not
show the 222 Rn concentration pattern at particularly high trends in a location. 222 Rn’s background
concentration in river water (RW8) showed a value of 489 Bq/m3 . Dissolved 222 Rn in cold springs
has a higher concentration than dissolved 222 Rn in hot water or warm water. The range of dissolved
222 Rn concentrations in cold water is from 2878–10,336 Bq/m3 with an average value of 5626 Bq/m3 .

The concentration of dissolved 222 Rn in thermal water ranges between 1015 and 6352 Bq/m3 , with an
average value of 3477 Bq/m3 .
The anomaly of dissolved 222 Rn concentrations is obvious in the Cikurubuk cold spring (RW22),
which has the highest dissolved 222 Rn concentration among all measured cold and thermal springs.
Mutan cold spring has the second highest dissolved 222 Rn concentration (6442 Bq/m3 ). Both springs
are located at the northwestern part of Tampomas and may be related to the groundwater flow along
the F3 and F8 structures. This high anomaly is probably caused by accumulated dissolved 222 Rn
in the aquifer of that area through an advection process, alongside groundwater flow. Dissolved
222 Rn concentration in groundwater could increase simultaneously because it may migrate over large

distances when in contact with groundwater. Furthermore, Ref. [27] stated that dissolved 222 Rn is a
noble gas and does not react with solids, so most of the 222 Rn released into the groundwater remains
in the dissolved phase. Meanwhile, the concentration of dissolved 222 Rn in thermal water is higher
than in the background of river water, but lower than that in the cold springs. It seems that the effect
of degassing is due to hot temperature [27]. The correlation of dissolved 222 Rn concentrations with
water temperature can be found in Figure 15.

Table 10. Soil-gas 222 Rn concentration in Tampomas and the surrounding area.

UTM48S 222 Rn
No Sampling Code Sampling Location Concentration in Soil Gas (Bq/m3 )
Easting Northing
1 829436 9256,241 R1 Ciledre 2838
2 829630 9256231 R2 Ciledre 1684
3 829532 9256231 R3 Ciledre 907
4 831050 9255753 R4 Cihaseum 2825
5 831084 9255760 R5 Cihaseum 640
6 831936 9254022 R9 Cipatat 12,969
7 825999 9247881 R13 Licin 152
8 831506 9252393 R14 Narimbang 2888
9 832189 9253817 R17 Cipatat 517
10 831206 9254367 R18 Cipanas seum 1754
11 831469 9255146 R20 Cipanas gentong 1016
12 828997 9255636 R21 Cileungsing 3109
13 824117 9255961 R23 Cikurubuk 1944
14 824154 9256022 R24 Cikurubuk 829
15 824274 9254039 R26 Mutan 2390
16 830169 9252640 R29 Ciputrawangi 2923
17 830134 9252684 R30 Ciputrawangi 30,475
18 825446 9255391 R31 Lijam 1236
19 825400 9255275 R32 Lijam 1104
20 825518 9256039 R33 Lijam 764
21 825038 9255252 R34 Cikurubuk 684
22 824885 9255293 R35 Cikurubuk 1151
23 824581 9255448 R36 Cikurubuk 544
24 830461 9254267 R37 Lebaknaga 438
25 830788 9254522 R38 Lebaknaga 2472
26 826351 9254780 R39 Cibitung Kidul 1347
27 828069 9255549 R40 Cibitung Kidul 1947
28 831685 9252143 R41 Narimbang 5295
29 830664 9247337 R42 Legok 26
Note: Datum reference is WGS84.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 24 of 29
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30

(a) (b)
Figure14.
Figure 14. (a)
(a) 222
222Rn concentration map for soil-gas. (b) Dissolved 222
Rn concentration map for soil-gas. (b) Dissolved 222Rn
Rnconcentration
concentrationmap
mapfor
forwater.
water.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 25 of 29

Table 11. Dissolved 222 Rn concentration based on in situ measurements of Tampomas and the
surrounding area. RW, river water.

UTM48S
No Sampling Code Sampling Location Type of Water Average 222 Rn Concentration (Bq/m3 )
Easting Northing
1 831580 9254587 RW6 Hot Spring Sekarwangi 4047
2 831284 9254332 RW7 Cold Spring Cipanas seum 4141
3 831209 9254022 RW8 River Water Cipanas seum 489
4 831928 9254008 RW10 Cold Spring Cipatat 5557
5 829075 9255643 RW11 Warm Spring Cileungsing 3245
6 826185 9248054 RW12 Cold Spring Licin 2878
7 831556 9252390 RW15 Warm Spring Narimbang 4234
8 831600 9252305 RW16 Cold Spring Narimbang 4405
Cipanas
9 831386 9255027 RW19 Warm Spring 6352
Gentong
10 824097 9255982 RW22 Cold Spring Cikurubuk 10,336
11 824149 9253992 RW25 Cold Spring Mutan 6443
12 829514 9256219 RW27 Warm Spring Ciledre 1973
13 831040 9255800 RW28 Warm Spring Cihaseum 1015
Note: Datum reference is WGS84.
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 30

Figure 15. Graphic of thermal and cold spring temperatures versus the 222 Rn concentration.
222
Red
Figure 15. Graphic of thermal and cold spring temperatures versus the Rn concentration.
represents thermal springs, and blue represents cold springs.
Red represents thermal springs, and blue represents cold springs.
3.5. Inferred Model of the Tampomas Geothermal System
3.5. Inferred Model of the Tampomas Geothermal System
The final analysis of the Tampomas system is presented as an inferred model of the Tampomas
hydrothermal
The system
final analysis of (Figure 16). This system
the Tampomas inferrediscross-section
presented as model is located
an inferred at theofnortheastern
model the Tampomas
flank of thesystem
hydrothermal Tampomas Volcano
(Figure 16). and
Thisstretches
inferred in cross-section
an east to westmodel
direction. The cross-section
is located model
at the northeastern
cuts through three main faults that control the fluid pattern of the system, i.e., F1, F5 and CF1. These
flank of the Tampomas Volcano and stretches in an east to west direction. The cross-section model
structures do not only contribute as conduits for deep fluid flow towards the surface, but also act as
cuts through three main faults that control the fluid pattern of the system, i.e., F1, F5 and CF1. These
the entry zone of meteoric water into the shallow part of the system. This results in a high amount of
structures do not only contribute as conduits for deep fluid flow towards the surface, but also act as
dilution and cooling processes [44]. This interpretation is supported by geoindicator and stable
the entry zone of meteoric
isotope analyses, water into
which indicate the shallow
meteoric part of theGroundwater
water contribution. system. Thisdilution
resultsisin a high amount
prominent in
of dilution
controlling the hydrogeological system and yields rather small trace soluble elements from theand
and cooling processes [44]. This interpretation is supported by geoindicator deepstable
isotope analyses,
circulated which
fluid. indicate
This leads meteoric in
to complexity water contribution.
interpreting Groundwater
the actual condition anddilution is prominent
concentration of the in
deep thermal
controlling fluid.
the hydrogeological system and yields rather small trace soluble elements from the deep
circulatedThe heatThis
fluid. source of the
leads Tampomas in
to complexity system is derived
interpreting from
the a cooling
actual pluton,
condition andwhich intruded inof the
concentration
sediment formation
deep thermal fluid. during the Plio-Pleistocene [19] and carried sedimentary trace elements, i.e., CH4.
This heat source subsequently heats the deep meteoric circulated water and introduces water-rock
interaction into the system, followed by oxygen-18 gaining. The deep circulated temperature based
on geothermometer calculation is around 170 ± 10 °C, and this is categorized as a medium
temperature system [13]. Unfortunately, based on mass balance analysis of the chloride element, the
reservoir of the system is not formed, as shown by low concentrations of chloride. This deep
circulated fluid ascends through the F1 fault and flows laterally through it to the outflow zone, while
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 26 of 29

The heat source of the Tampomas system is derived from a cooling pluton, which intruded in
sediment formation during the Plio-Pleistocene [19] and carried sedimentary trace elements, i.e., CH4 .
This heat source subsequently heats the deep meteoric circulated water and introduces water-rock
interaction into the system, followed by oxygen-18 gaining. The deep circulated temperature based on
geothermometer calculation is around 170 ± 10 ◦ C, and this is categorized as a medium temperature
system [13]. Unfortunately, based on mass balance analysis of the chloride element, the reservoir of the
system is not formed, as shown by low concentrations of chloride. This deep circulated fluid ascends
through the F1 fault and flows laterally through it to the outflow zone, while the remnant thermal
fluid flows through F5 to the northeast and accumulates along CF1 as the boundary system.
The F1 fault acts as the main conduit of deep circulated fluid onto the surface and mainly produces
relatively deep fluid trace elements and high dissolved radon, whereas F5 and CF1 dominantly generate
steam condensate water types with high radon gas and stable isotopes. CF1 acts as the boundary of
the system which shows no thermal spring discharge at the outer caldera ring. This is also supported
by the groundwater basin system in the Tampomas area, wherein the Sukamantri groundwater basin
Geosciences 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 30
boundary distribution is parallel with the CF1 caldera rim.

Figure 16. A tentative deep hydrogeological model of the Tampomas geothermal system from an E-
Figure 16. A tentative deep hydrogeological model of the Tampomas geothermal system from an E-W
W section cutting across three main faults: F1, F5 and CF1. The deep circulated fluid temperature is
section cutting across three main faults: F1, F5 and CF1. The deep circulated fluid temperature is based
based on geothermometer calculation.
on geothermometer calculation.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
Geothermal activities at the Tampomas Volcano occur only at the northeastern part of the
Geothermal activities at the Tampomas Volcano occur only at the northeastern part of the
volcano, and all manifestations, i.e., thermal springs, show dilution processes through meteoric
volcano, and all manifestations, i.e., thermal springs, show dilution processes through meteoric water.
water. This dilution process is clarified by geochemical and isotope analyses where the influence of
shallow groundwater on the thermal fluid could be found from the geoindicator traces (i.e., high
concentrations of Ca and Mg). The result of the mass balance calculation of stable isotopes δ2H and
δ18O in thermal water samples shows that the meteoric shallow groundwater contribution is more
than 50%, which is also supported by high magnesium concentration and δ13C composition.
The hydrogeochemical methods of spring water and soil-gas 222Rn analyses can be used to
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 27 of 29

This dilution process is clarified by geochemical and isotope analyses where the influence of shallow
groundwater on the thermal fluid could be found from the geoindicator traces (i.e., high concentrations
of Ca and Mg). The result of the mass balance calculation of stable isotopes δ2 H and δ18 O in thermal
water samples shows that the meteoric shallow groundwater contribution is more than 50%, which is
also supported by high magnesium concentration and δ13 C composition.
The hydrogeochemical methods of spring water and soil-gas 222 Rn analyses can be used to
interpret the subsurface hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical conditions of Tampomas Volcano.
The combination of both methods could show the ascending process of deep circulation thermal
fluid through permeable structures at the northeastern part of Tampomas Volcano. Furthermore,
the hydrogeochemical method combined with the stable isotope method could clarify the presence
of dominantly meteoric water and the presence of mixing processes in the fault zone. However,
the dissolved 222 Rn method could not explain the phenomenon where dissolved 222 Rn concentrations
may change due to the advection process during groundwater flow or the presence of degassing in
thermal water.

Acknowledgments: This research was financially supported by the Research Program, Community
Service, and Innovation (P3MI), Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) and supported by the Beneficial
Advanced Geothermal Use System (BAGUS) in Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development-Japan International Cooperation Agency (SATREPS-JICA) project. Sutikno Bronto and
Rina Herdianita, Ph.D., are thanked for valuable discussion. Wijayanti Ashuri, Anwar Zulkhoiri, Musti’atin,
Hifdzul Fikri, Putri Aprilia, Danny Daniel, Rully Tri Abdul Malik, Hibban Hamka, Lestari Apriani,
Reza Syahputra, Teguh Rahat Prabowo, Cipto Purnandi Septianto, Abraham Paladan, Joshua Satriana,
Mika Raymond Batubara, Herbert Manurung, Qodri Syahrur Ramadhan, Neli Ikla Iklima, Raiselia Agustina,
Dian Simanjuntak and Betseba Sibarani are thanked for their assistance in the field and laboratory work.
Author Contributions: Irwan Iskandar contributed throughout the process including ideas, research work and
article writing. Fikri Adam Dermawan participated in water sampling, hydrogeochemical and isotope data
analyses and article writing. Juni Yesy Sianipar contributed in terms of geological structures, measurements of
soil-gas and dissolved 222 Rn analyses as well as article writing. Suryantini contributed in terms of geological
analysis, geochemistry-geothermal systems and final draft article writing. Sudarto Notosiswoyo contributed in
giving research ideas, hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical analyses, and final draft review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bellomo, S.; Alessandro, W.D.; Longo, M. Volcanogenic fluorine in rainwater around active degassing
volcanoes: Mt. Etna and Stromboli Island, Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 301, 175–185. [CrossRef]
2. Rodriguez, R.; Ramos, J.A.; Armienta, A. Groundwater arsenic variations: The role of local geology and
rainfall. Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 245–250. [CrossRef]
3. Nicholson, K. Geothermal Fluids: Chemistry and Exploration Techniques, 1st ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 1993; pp. 19–194. ISBN 3540560173.
4. Clark, I. Groundwater Geochemistry and Isotopes; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 153–173.
5. Mismanos, J.W.; Vasquez, A.A. Scouting for Permeable Structures in Geothermal Systems using Soil Gas
Radon. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 April 2015.
6. Rodriguez, A.; Torres, Y.; Chavarría, L.; Molina, F. Soil Gas Radon Measurements as a Tool to Identify
Permeable Zones at Las Pailas Geothermal Area, Costa Rica. In Proceedings of the 30th Anniversary
Workshop of GTP-UNU Training, Reykjavík, Iceland, 26–27 August 2008.
7. Villalobos, M.R.; Muños, A.C.; Álvarez, A.P.; Collado, G.M. Hydrochemistry and 222Rn Concentrations in
Spring Waters in the Arid Zone El Granero, Chihuahua, Mexico. Geosciences 2017, 7, 12. [CrossRef]
8. Belin, R.E. Radon in the New Zealand geothermal regions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1959, 16, 181–191.
[CrossRef]
9. Alzwar, M. Geothermal energy potential related to active volcanism in Indonesia. Geothermics 1986, 15,
601–607. [CrossRef]
10. Hall, R. Plate Tectonic Reconstructions of the Indonesian Region. In Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum
Association, Indonesia; Indonesian Petroleum Association: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1995.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 28 of 29

11. Fauzi, A.; Permana, H.; Indarto, S.; Gaffar, E.Z. Regional Structure Control on Geothermal Systems in West Java,
Indonesia. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 April 2015.
12. Hochstein, M.P.; Sudarman, S. History of geothermal exploration in Indonesia from 1970 to 2000. Geothermics
2008, 37, 220–266. [CrossRef]
13. Hochstein, M.P.; Browne, P.R.L. Surface Manifestations of Geothermal Systems with Volcanic Heat Sources.
In Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, 1st ed.; Sigurdsson, H., Houghton, B.F., McNutt, S.R., Rymer, H., Stix, J., Eds.;
Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; Volume 6, pp. 835–856, ISBN 9780080547985.
14. Kartokusumo, W.S. Laporan Penelitian Kimia Panas Bumi Sekitar G. Tampomas dan G. Cireme Kab. Sumedang dan
Kab. Cirebon Jawa Barat; Pusat Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi: Bandung, Indonesia, 1983.
15. LPPM ITB-DINAS ESDM JABAR. Valuasi Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Migas dan Panas Bumi Se-Jawa Barat di
Kota Bandung; Lembaga Penelitian dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Institut Teknologi Bandung: Bandung,
Indonesia, 2002; pp. 210–222.
16. Srikandi, G.S. Geologi Daerah Conggeang dan Sekitarnya dan Manifestasi Permukaan Sistem Panas Bumi di
Gunung Tampomas, Kabupaten Sumedang, Provinsi Jawa Barat. Bachelor’s Thesis, Engineering-Institut
Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia, 2010.
17. Muhardjo, I.; Nasution, A.B.; Yusup, R.B.; Yuhan, B. Laporan Penyelidikan Geologi Daerah Panasbumi Gunung
Tampomas Kabupaten Sumedang Jawa Barat; Unpublished Report; Sub Direktorat Panasbumi Direktorat
Vulkanologi: Bandung, Indonesia, 1983.
18. Martodjodjo, S.; Djuhaeni. Sandi Stratigrafi Indonesia. Komisi Sandi Stratigrafi Indonesia, 1996; Indonesian
Association of Geologist (IAGI): Jakarta, Indonesia, 1996.
19. Silitonga, P.H. Geological Map of the Bandung Quadrangle, Jawa; Geological Research and Development Center:
Bandung, Indonesia, 1994.
20. Djuri. Geological Map of the Arjawinangun Quadrangle, Jawa, 2nd ed.; Geological Research and Development
Centre: Bandung, Indonesia, 1994.
21. Bronto, S.; Dirk, M.H.J.; Achnan, K. Laporan Akhir Penelitian Geologi Gunung Api di Daerah G.
Tampomas-Kareumbi-Mandalawangi dan Sekitarnya, Tepi Timur Cekungan Bandung, Jawa Barat; Unpublished
Report; Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources: Bandung, Indonesia, October 2005.
22. BPS. Curah Hujan Menurut Kecamatan Selama Tahun 2010–2013. In Sumedang Regency in 2014; Central
Berau of Statistic (BPS): Bandung, Indonesia, 2014; pp. 7–10.
23. Soetrisno, S. Hydrogeological Map of Indonesia, Cirebon Sheet; Directorate of Environmental Geology: Bandung,
Indonesia, 1985.
24. Wardhana, Y.A.W.; Rengganis, H.; Prasetya, D. Groundwater Typology on the Several Groundwater Basin in
Java. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Indonesian Groundwater
Expert (PIT PAAI ke-1), Bandung, Indonesia, 16–17 November 2016; pp. 134–145.
25. Giggenbach, W.F.; D’Amore, F. Chemical Techniques in Geothermal Exploration. In Application of Geochemistry
in Geothermal Reservoir Development, 1st ed.; UNITAR/UNDP Center of Small Energy Resources: Rome, Italy,
1991; Volume 5, pp. 119–144. ISBN 9211571782.
26. Armannsson, H.; Olafsson, M. Geothermal Sampling and Analysis. In Proceedings of the Short Course II on
Surface Exploration for Geothermal Resources, Lake Naivasha, Kenya, 2–17 November 2007.
27. Baskaran, M. Radon: A Tracer for Geological, Geophysical and Geochemical Studies; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 167–187. ISBN 978-3-319-21329-3.
28. Henley, R.W. Chemical Structure of Geothermal Systems. In Fluid-Mineral Equilibria in Hydrothermal Systems;
Henley, R.W., Truesdell, A.H., Barton, P.B., Jr., Eds.; Society of Economic Geologist: Littleton, CO, USA, 1984;
pp. 9–30. ISBN 9781629495590.
29. Giggenbach, W.F.; Soto, R.C. Isotopic and chemical composition of water and steam discharges from
volcanic-magmatic-hydrothermal systems of the Guanacaste Geothermal Province, Costa Rica. Appl. Geochem.
1992, 7, 309–332. [CrossRef]
30. Magazinovic, R.S.; Nicholson, B.C.; Mulcahy, D.E.; Davey, D.E. Bromide levels in natural waters:
Its relationship to levels of both chloride and total dissolved solids and the implications for water treatment.
Chemosphere 2004, 57, 329–335. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Dansgaard, W. Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus 1964, 16, 436–468. [CrossRef]
32. Hendrasto, F. Penentuan Daerah Resapan Sistem PanasBumi Gunung Wayang Windu, Jawa Barat. Master’s
Thesis, Geological Engineering-Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia, 2005.
Geosciences 2018, 8, 103 29 of 29

33. Craig, H. The Isotopic Geochemistry of Water and Carbon in Geothermal Area. In Nuclear Geology Ini
Geothermal Areas, Spoleto, 1st ed.; Tongiorgi, E., Ed.; Consiglio Nazional delle Ricerche, Laboratorio di
Geologia Nucleare: Pisa, Italy, 1963; pp. 17–53.
34. Giggenbach, W.F.; D’Amore, F. Isotopic composition of geothermal water and steam discharges. In Application
of Geochemistry in Geothermal Reservoir Development, 1st ed.; UNITAR/UNDP Center of Small Energy
Resources: Rome, Italy, 1991; Volume 5, pp. 119–144. ISBN 9211571782.
35. Nuti, S.; D’Amore, F. Isotope techniques in geothermal studies. In Application of Geochemistry in Geothermal
Reservoir Development, 1st ed.; UNITAR/UNDP Center of Small Energy Resources: Rome, Italy, 1991;
Volume 5, pp. 119–144. ISBN 9211571782.
36. Giggenbach, W.F. Isotopic shifts in waters from geothermal and volcanic systems along convergent plate
boundaries and their origin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1992, 113, 495–510. [CrossRef]
37. Abidin, Z.; Wandowo. Isotope study in geothermal fields in Java Island. In Isotope and Geochemical Techniques
Applied to Geothermal Investigations; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1995; Volume 5, pp. 83–92. ISSN 1011-4289.
38. Taylor, B.E. Magmatic volatiles: Isotopic variation of C, H, and S. Rev. Miner. Geochem. 1986, 16, 185–226.
39. Giggenbach, W.F.; Gonfiantini, R.; Panichi, C. Geothermal systems. In Agency Guidebook on Nuclear
Techniques in Hydrology; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 1983; Volume 24, pp. 359–380,
ISBN 9201450834.
40. Craig, H. The geochemistry of the stable carbon isotopes. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1953, 3, 53–92. [CrossRef]
41. Stahl, W.J. Carbon Isotopes in Petroleum Geochemistry. In Lectures in Isotopes Geology; Jager, E., Hunziker, J.C.,
Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1979; pp. 274–282, ISBN 9783642671616.
42. Birkle, P.; Merkel, B.; Portugal, E.; Torres-Alvarado, I.S. The origin of reservoir fluids in the geothermal
field of Los Azufres, Mexico—Isotopical and hydrological indications. Appl. Geochem. 2001, 16, 1595–1610.
[CrossRef]
43. Giggenbach, W.F. Redox process governing the chemistry of fumarolic gas dishcarges from White Island,
New Zealand. Appl. Geochem. 1987, 2, 143–161. [CrossRef]
44. Reyes, A.G. Petrology of Philippine geothermal systems and the application of alteration mineralogy to their
assessment. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1990, 43, 279–309. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).