Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2690-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 14 February 2013 / Accepted: 20 July 2013 / Published online: 2 August 2013
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Introduction
Groundwater is an important and prominent resource in
most countries, particularly for those in arid and semi-arid
areas. Water quality has been given more emphasis in
groundwater management (Pradhan 2009; Ayazi et al.
2010; Manap et al. 2012, 2013). Aquifers are usually
unconfined and highly permeable, thereby causing their
high susceptibility to surface contamination (Javadi et al.
2011a, b). The potential groundwater pollution by human
activities at or near the surface has been considered the
primary basis for the management of this major resource by
implementing preventive policies.
The introduction of potential contaminants to a location
on top of an aquifer at a specified position in an underground system is defined as groundwater vulnerability
(National Research Council 1993). Vulnerability assessment must be based on scientific, accurate, and objective
123
3120
evidence. Various methods have been introduced to estimate groundwater vulnerability with high accuracy (Javadi
et al. 2011a, b). In most cases, these procedures consist of
analytical tools intended to correlate groundwater contamination with land activities. There are three categories
of assessment processes and procedures: the process-based
simulation models, the statistical methods (Harbaugh et al.
2000), and the overlay and index methods (Dixon 2004).
Process-based models generally require a large amount
of primary and secondary data to apply the mathematical
models for creating the principal tool. Such methods seem
more complex and difficult to use on a regional scale.
Statistical methods use data on the known areal contaminant distribution and describe the contamination potential
for a specified geographical region using the available data
in the regions of interest (National Research Council 1993).
Overlay and index methods emphasize the combination
of different regional maps by allocating a numerical index.
Both methods are easy to apply in geographic information
systems (GIS), particularly on a regional scale. Therefore,
these techniques are the most popular methods used in
vulnerability evaluation. The most widely used among
these techniques include GOD (Foster 1987), IRISH (Daly
and Drew 1999), AVI (van Stemproot et al. 1993), and
DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987). DRASTIC is widely applied
in various countries, including the USA (Plymale and
Angle 2002; Fritch et al. 2000; Shukla et al. 2000), China
(Yuan et al. 2006; Huan et al. 2012; Yin et al. 2012),
Jordan (Naqa et al. 2006), Morocco (Ettazarini 2006), Iran
(Javadi et al. 2011a, b), Palestine (Mimi et al. 2012),
Tunisia (Saidi et al. 2010, 2011), and Portugal (Pacheco
and Sanches Fernandes 2012).
Despite its popularity, the DRASTIC method has some
disadvantages. The DRASTIC model consists of seven
hydrogeologic factors: depth of water, net recharge, aquifer
media, soil media, topography (slope), impact of vadose
zone, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.
This approach primarily uses the seven parameters to
compute for the vulnerability index. Each parameter is
allocated specific weights and rating values, as shown in
Table 1 (Aller et al. 1987). The DRASTIC model is considered one of the best index models for vulnerability mapping since it was first introduced by Aller et al. (1985, 1987).
This technique disregards the effects of regional characteristics. Therefore, uniform weights and rating values are used.
Moreover, this method does not use a standard validation test
for the aquifer. Thus, several researchers have continued to
develop this model using different methods. Some of the
notable studies include those by Secunda et al. (1998),
Melloul and Collin (1998), Zhou et al. (1999), Thirumalaivasan et al. (2003), Dixon (2005), Antonakos and Lambrakis
(2007), Bojorquez-Tapia et al. (2009), Ckakraborty et al.
(2007), Denny et al. (2007), Hamza et al. (2007), Leone et al.
123
3121
Recharge (mm)
Topography
(slope %)
Conductivity (m/
day)
Aquifer media
Range
Rating
Range
Rating
Range
Rating
Range
Range
(01.5)
10
(050.8)
(02)
10
(0.044.1)
Massive shale
Confining
layer
(26)
(4.112.3)
Metamorphic/
igneous
Rating
Rating
Soil media
Range
Range
Rating
Thin or
absent
10
Silt/clay
Gravel
10
Shale
Sand
Limestone
Peat
8
7
Rating
(1.54.6)
(50.8101.6)
(4.69.1)
(101.6177.8)
(612)
(12.328.7)
(177.8254)
(1218)
(28.741)
Weathered
metamorphic
igneous
(9.115.2)
(15.222.8)
([254)
([18)
(4182)
Glacial till
Sandstone
Shrinking
clay
Bedded
sandstone,
limestone
Bedded
limestone,
sandstone
Sandy loam
Loam
Massive
sandstone
Sand and
gravel
Silty loam
Massive
limestone
W. silt
Clay loam
Sand and
gravel
Muck
Basalt
Basalt
No
shrinking
clay
(22.830.4)
([30.4)
([82)
10
Karsts
limestone
DRASTIC weight: 5
DRASTIC weight: 4
DRASTIC
weight: 1
DRASTIC weight: 3
10
DRASTIC weight: 3
Karsts
limestone
10
DRASTIC weight: 5
DRASTIC weight: 2
Study area
Materials and methods
The Kerman plain is an arid and semi-arid area; the
majority of the study area is composed of agricultural land.
Pistachio is the most economically important product in
this region. The Kerman plain has an area of 978 km2 in
the southeastern part of Iran (Fig. 1). The highest ground
elevation in the area is 1,980 m, with the lowest point
being 1,633 m above sea level. The average annual rainfall
123
3122
No data type
Sources
Hydrogelical data
Meteorological Organization of
Kerman
1.
2.
Geology map
3.
Soil map
4.
Topography
5.
Wells
6.
Hydraulic
conductivity
7.
Geological profile
8.
Groundwater balance
of Kerman plain
9.
Sample wells
of aquifers (Aller et al. 1987). Vulnerability to contamination is defined as a dimensionless index function of
hydrogeological factors, contamination sources, and
anthropogenic effects in any specific area (Plymale and
Angle 2002). Groundwater vulnerability commonly refers
to the potential contamination from nonpoint sources or
distributed point sources of pollution, such as pesticides or
nitrates from fertilizers in agricultural practices. Since the
development of the DRASTIC model (Aller et al. 1987) for
groundwater vulnerability assessment by USEPA in the
late 1980s, this type of indexing method has become
popular, and widely used in the US, and worldwide
123
7
X
Wi Ri ;
i1
where V is the index value and Wi is the weighted coefficient for parameter i, with an associated rating value of Ri.
The following physical parameters are included in the
DRASTIC method:
D
R
A
S
T
I
C
3123
Fig. 2 Seven layers of DRASTIC model (a depth of water, b recharge, c aquifer media, d soil, e topography (slope %), f impact of vadose zone,
g hydraulic conductivity)
123
3124
clay, sand, sandy loam, and silty loam. Aller et al. (1987)
stated that the maximum rate belonged to gravel, sand, and
sandy loam. Based on the observed soil media layer, sand
with high permeability was located in the northern and
southern regions of the study area.
Depth of water
The water table depths were measured from 28 observation
wells. The ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst extension by
Krigging interpolation was applied to interpolate the points
and to develop the raster map with a pixel size of 100 m.
Krigging was previously used to obtain significant results
in groundwater level analysis (Kumar 2007; Gundogdu and
Guney 2007; Theodossiou 1999). The methodology for
groundwater vulnerability measures the water table depth
from the surface as the parameter of interest. This parameter represents the distance that a contaminant must travel
from the surface to reach the groundwater. A deeper water
level indicates a longer time for contamination (Aller et al.
1987). The depths to the water levels for the Kerman plain
are classified into three classes: 1523 m, 2330 m, and
[30 m, with depth to water rates (Dr) of 3, 2, and 1,
respectively. Given that the study area is located in arid and
semi arid regions, two classes less than 30 m were defined
to represent the area of irrigation return flow.
Net recharge (R)
The net recharge is considered the result of rainfall infiltration, irrigation return flow, and absorption wells in the
study area. The total net recharge was computed by the
Kerrman Water Authorities.
Aquifer media (A)
Classification of this area was based on the drilling logs for
each well. Two sections of the aquifer rock are basically
composed of marl and conglomerate rocks in the southern
regions and a small area in the northwestern region. The
extensive sand deposits with a very low percentage of finegrained material were identified as gravel and sand. Deposits of
fine to coarse sand (fine-medium sand) extended across the
northern and northeastern regions of the study area. Deposits of
silt and clay were located exclusively in the middle region of
the study area. According to Aller et al. (1987) and Rahman
(2008), glacial till is a mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
Topography (T)
Topography in the DRASTIC model displays the slope of
the land surface. The topography was derived from the
digital elevation model using a topographic map
(1:25,000). The topography of the area was divided into
five classes (Aller et al. 1987), which were mostly found in
areas with slopes ranging from 0 to 2 % and from 2 to 6 %.
Impact of the vadose zone (I)
The impact of the vadose zone was classified based on the
drilling logs for each well. The most significant part of the
area included gravel and sand with silt and clay (1530 %)
in the western region. A small section located in the
northeastern region of the study area exclusively contains
gravel and sand.
Hydraulic conductivity (H)
The hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer was computed
according to the following equation: k Tb , where k is the
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/s), T is the transmissivity (m2/s), and b is the thickness of the aquifer (m).
The hydraulic conductivity distribution map was generated
using pumping test results and a geoelectrical study of the
area. Regions with maximum hydraulic conductivity
exhibited higher chances of distribution contamination.
Hydraulic conductivity was derived by measurement, and
the GIS-ArcView was applied to interpolate the hydraulic
conductivity and create the raster layer. Hydraulic conductivity could be divided into three classes.
All required layers were created; each layer was classified
using the different rating scales The DRASTIC index was then
determined by multiplying the obtained values with the weight
factor. The obtained index was divided into seven groups
(Aller et al. 1987). The vulnerability indices and the corresponding area percentages are presented in Figs. 3 and 4.
Nitrate measurements
123
3125
Calibration method
Sensitivity analysis
The rates of DRASTIC were initially modified using the Wilcoxon rank-sum nonparametric statistical test. Subsequently,
123
3126
Table 3 Correlation factors between nitrate concentration and original vulnerability index
Pearsons correlation
coefficient (%)
Number of
data
Factor
100
27
Nitrate concentration
44
DRASTIC index
123
Factor
Depth to groundwater
Recharge (mm)
Soil type
3127
Range
Impact of vadose
zone
Aquifer media
Depth to water table: nitrate
concentration divided to six
classes, not used for depth of
water
Mean NO3
Modified rating
1523
No data
2330
No data
[30
No data
050.8
13.4
7.12
50.8101.6
12.8
6.8
101.6177.8
18.8
10
Clay loam
15.13
8.1
No data
10
Gravel
Topography
Original rating
10
Silty loam
13.34
Loam
10
5.3
Sandy loam
8.3
4.4
Sand
18.83
10
Non-shrinking
12
6.4
02
10
13.13
2.5
26
612
9
5
14.58
11.59
2.8
2
1218
53.2
10
[18
No data
1
10
Silt/clay
19.6
7.4
3.8
13
6.7
Marlstone
15.4
9.1
17
10
Sandstone
No data
Gravel sand
13.6
7.9
123
3128
Table 5 Single-parameter
sensitivity analysis on modified
DRASTIC
123
Parameter
DRASTIC weight
Mean
Maximum
SD
21.74
2.91
4.12
10.49
1.47
17.39
14.20
22.47
31.01
4.54
13.04
12.33
17.52
26.09
2.99
8.70
4.73
9.49
18.35
3.05
4.35
0.61
2.34
8.93
2.14
21.74
10.71
23.37
35.71
6.40
13.04
10.47
15.83
23.81
3.42
3129
The modified DRASTIC model in this study is recommended for evaluating groundwater vulnerability to pollution in agricultural lands with extensive use of nitrates.
The conditions of a specific area significantly influence the
type of modifications to be applied in the DRASTIC model.
The DRASTIC weights can be varied to improve the model
in this study.
References
Table 6 Correlation factors between nitrate concentration and
modified vulnerability index
Pearsons correlation
coefficient (%)
Number of data
Factor
100
27
Nitrate index
82
DRASTIC index
Conclusion
The Kerman plain is located in an arid and semi-arid
region. With groundwater as the only water source in the
area, the evaluation of groundwater quality is crucial. The
increased pumping rates from the water table and the
decreased rainfall in the area accounted for the assessed
groundwater vulnerability in the area.
Applying the DRASTIC model in this region usually
provides a satisfactory assessment of the intrinsic vulnerability of groundwater to pollution. In addition, the
majority of the area consists of agricultural land where
inorganic fertilizers are commonly used. Thus, the nitrate
concentrations in the groundwater are primarily due to the
leaching of nitrate from the soil surface layers to the
groundwater. Given the abovementioned considerations,
the original DRASTIC algorithm required calibration and
modification to obtain more accurate results. Thus, we
developed and applied the modified DRASTIC model. The
correlation factor between the nitrate concentrations and
the original vulnerability index was evaluated at 44 %,
whereas the correlation factor between the nitrate concentrations and the modified DRASTIC model was calculated at 82 %. These results indicated that the modified
DRASTIC model could provide better results, as compared
with the original DRASTIC model. An advantage of the
modified DRASTIC model is its flexibility for adjusting the
rates and weights of the said model.
Alexander WJ, Liddle SK, Mason RE, Yeager WB (1986) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in support of the first stage of the
National Pesticide Survey. Research triangle Park, Research
Triangle Institute, Contract No. EPA 68-01 6646, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Al-Hanbali A, Kondoh A (2008) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and evaluation of human activity impact (HAI) within the
Dead Sea groundwater basin, Jordan. Hydrogeol J 16(3):
499510
Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hacket G (1985) DRASTIC: A
standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution using
hydrological settings. Prepared by the National water Well
Association for the US EPA Office of Research and Development, Ada
Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a
standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution
potential using hydrogeological settings. EPA/600/287/035.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Ada
Antonakos AK, Lambrakis NL (2007) Development and testing of
three hybrid methods for assessment of aquifer vulnerability to
nitrates, based on the DRASTIC model, an example from NE
Korinthia, Greece. J Hydrol 333(24):288304
Ayazi MH, Pirasteh S, Arvin AKP, Pradhan B, Nikouravan B, Mansor
S (2010) Disasters and risk reduction in groundwater: Zagros
Mountain Southwest Iran using geoinformatics techniques.
Disaster Adv 3(1):5157
Babiker I, Mohamed M, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS based
DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, Central Japan. Sci Total
Environ 345(13):127140
Bojorquez-Tapia LA, Cruz-Bello GM, Luna-Gonzalez L, Juarez L,
Ortiz-Perez MA (2009) V-DRASTIC: using visualization to
engage policymakers in groundwater vulnerability assessment.
J Hydrol 373:242255
Carvalho GJP (2009) Vulnerabilidade a` contaminacao das aguas
subterraneas na bacia hidrografica do Rio Sordo: comparacao de
modelos baseados no metodo DRASTIC. MSc thesis, Tras-osMontes and Alto Douro University, Vila Real
Ckakraborty S, Paul PK, Sikdar PK (2007) Assessing aquifer
vulnerability to arsenic pollution using DRASTIC and GIS of
North Bengal Plain: a case study of English Bazar Block, Malda
District, West Bengal, lndia. JOSH 7(1):101121
Daly D, Drew D (1999) Irish methodologies for karst aquifer
protection. In: Beek B (ed) Hydrogeology and engineering
geology of sinkholes and karst. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 267
327
123
3130
Denny SC, Allen DM, Journea YM (2007) DRASTIC-Fm: a modified
vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers
in the southern Gulf lslands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeol J 15:483493
Dixon B (2004) Prediction of groundwater vulnerability using an
integrated GIS-based neuro-fuzzy techniques. J Hydrol
4(309):1738
Dixon B (2005) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy
rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25(4):327347
Ettazarini S (2006) Groundwater pollution risk mapping for the
Eocene aquifer of the Oum Er-Rabia basin, Morocco. Environ
Geol 51(3):341347
Foster SS (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability,
pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Duijvenbooden W van,
Waegeningh HG van (eds) TNO Committee on Hydrological
Research, The Hague Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to
pollutants. Proceedings and Information, vol 38, pp 6986
Fritch TG, McKnight CL, Yelderman JC, Arnold JG (2000) An
aquifer vulnerability assessment of the Paluxy aquifer, Central
Texas, USA, using GIS and a modified DRASTIC approach.
Environ Manage 25:337345
Gundogdu KS, Guney I (2007) Spatial analyses of groundwater level
using universal Kriging. J Earth Syst Sci 116:4955
Hailin Y, Ligang X, Chang Y, Jiaxing X (2011) Evaluation of
groundwater vulnerability with improved DRASTIC method.
Procedia Environ Sci 10:26902695
Hamza MH, Added A, Rodrguez R, Abdeljaoued S, Mammou AB
(2007) A GIS-based DRASTIC vulnerability and net recharge
reassessment in an aquifer of a semi-arid region (Metline-Ras
Jebel-Raf Raf aquifer, Northern Tunisia). J Environ Manage
84:1219
Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, Mcdonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, The US Geological Survey Modular Ground-water
Model- Users guide to modularization concepts and the groundwater flow process. US Geological Survey Open-File Report
00-92, 121
Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of
groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified
DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China.
Sci Total Environ (Article online first available). http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.037
Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mousavizadeh MH, Mohammadi K (2011a)
Modification of DRASTIC model to map groundwater vulnerability to pollution using nitrate measurements in agricultural
areas. J Agr Sci Tech 13(2):239249
Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mohammadi K, Khodadi A, Kahawita K
(2011b) Calibration DRASTIC using field measurements, sensitivity analysis and statistical method to assess groundwater
vulnerability. Water Int 36(6):719732
Kalinski RJ, Kelly WE, Bogardi I, Ehrman RL, Yamamoto PO (1994)
Correlation between DRASTIC vulnerabilities and incidents of
VOC contamination of municipal wells in Nebraska. Ground
Water 32(1):3134
Kumar V (2007) Optimal contour mapping of groundwater levels
using universal Kriginga case study. Hydrol Sci J
52:10381050
Leone A, Ripa MN, Uricchio V, Deak L, Vargay Z (2009)
Vulnerability and risk evaluation of agricultural nitrogen pollution for Hungarys main aquifer using DRASTIC and GLEAMS
models. J Environ Manage 90(10):29692978
Manap MA, Nampak H, Pradhan B, Lee S, Sulaiman WNA, Ramli
MF (2012) Application of probabilistic-based frequency ratio
model in groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing
data and GIS. Arab J Geosci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517012-0795-z
123
3131
Werz H, Hotzl H (2007) Groundwater risk intensity mapping in semiarid regions using optical remote sensing data as an additional
tool. Hydrogeol J 15(6):10311049
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods.
Biometr Bull 1:8083
Yin L, Zhang E, Wang X, Wenninger J, Dong J, Guo L, Huang J
(2012) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater
vulnerability in the Ordos Plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci
69(1):171185
Yuan M, Zhang X, Wang L (2006) Fuzzy pattern recognition method
for assessing groundwater vulnerability to pollution in the
Zhangji area. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 7(11):19171922
Zhou H, Wano O, Yang Q (1999) A multi-objective fuzzy pattern
recognition model for assessing groundwater vulnerability based
on the DRASTIC system. Hydrol Sci J 44:611618
123