“…Typically, SWI is assessed through a combination of hydrochemical and either 1) isotopic methods as seen in studies by Liu et al (2017), Chafouq et al (2017), Bahir et al (2018), Zhang et al (2015), Nair et al (2015), Liu et al (2014), Zhang et al (2022), Xia et al (2022), Chidambaram et al (2022), Balasubramanian et al (2022), Mosaffa et al (2021), Kim et al (2021), Telahigue et al (2020), Dhakate et al (2020), Boumaiza et al (2020), Nogueira et al (2019), Maurya et al (2019), and Mongelli et al (2013), or 2) geophysical methods as seen in studies by Sae-Ju et al (2020), Gopinath et al (2019), Sae-Ju et al (2018), Fadili et al (2015), Kura et al (2014), Lagudu et al (2013), Gurunadha Rao et al (2011), Kouzana et al (2009), 3 Lee et al (2002), and Bouzouf et al (2001). These combinations of interdisciplinary methods have been successful (Werner et al 2013;Kura et al 2014;Jiao and Post 2019;Yusuf et al 2021), but isotopic and geophysical methods can be expensive, which leads to their limited use in developing countries (Clark and Page 2011;Asare et al 2021). Alternatively, the hydrochemical approach can be used on its own to characterize SWI and has been effective through the use of geochemical modeling, ionic ratios, and SWI indices (Telahigue et al 2020;Subba Rao 2021;Ayar...…”