Evaluation of Groundwater Vulnerability to Pollution using GIS Based DRASTIC Method in Koradi, India — A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-297
Author(s):  
Ramesh Janipella ◽  
Rafat Quamar ◽  
Ramya Sanam ◽  
Chandrakanth Jangam ◽  
Pandurang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Drastic Method

scholarly journals Optimizing the DRASTIC Method for Nitrate Pollution in Groundwater Vulnerability Assessments: a Case Study in China

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiyang He ◽  
Xuguang Li ◽  
Xiao Li ◽  
Jian Cui ◽  
Wenjing Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Nitrate Pollution ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
Drastic Method

Assessment of Groundwater Vulnerability – A Case Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1561-1579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed R. El Tahlawi ◽  
◽  
Mohamed Abo-El Kassem ◽  
Gamal Y. Baghdadi ◽  
Hussein A. Saleem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Vulnerability

scholarly journals Fuzzy or Non-Fuzzy? A Comparison between Fuzzy Logic-Based Vulnerability Mapping and DRASTIC Approach Using a Numerical Model. A Case Study from Qatar

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1288
Author(s):  
Husam Musa Baalousha ◽  
Bassam Tawabini ◽  
Thomas D. Seers
Keyword(s):  
Fuzzy Logic ◽  
Numerical Model ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Anthropogenic Impacts ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Mapping ◽  
Anthropogenic Contamination ◽  
Weighted Overlay ◽  
Vulnerability Maps

Vulnerability maps are useful for groundwater protection, water resources development, and land use management. The literature contains various approaches for intrinsic vulnerability assessment, and they mainly depend on hydrogeological settings and anthropogenic impacts. Most methods assign certain ratings and weights to each contributing factor to groundwater vulnerability. Fuzzy logic (FL) is an alternative artificial intelligence tool for overlay analysis, where spatial properties are fuzzified. Unlike the specific rating used in the weighted overlay-based vulnerability mapping methods, FL allows more flexibility through assigning a degree of contribution without specific boundaries for various classes. This study compares the results of DRASTIC vulnerability approach with the FL approach, applying both on Qatar aquifers. The comparison was checked and validated against a numerical model developed for the same study area, and the actual anthropogenic contamination load. Results show some similarities and differences between both approaches. While the coastal areas fall in the same category of high vulnerability in both cases, the FL approach shows greater variability than the DRASTIC approach and better matches with model results and contamination load. FL is probably better suited for vulnerability assessment than the weighted overlay methods.

Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Through a Modified DRASTI-LU Framework: Case Study of Saiss Basin in Morocco

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdelhakim Lahjouj ◽  
Abdellah El Hmaidi ◽  
Ali Essahlaoui ◽  
M. J. B. Alam ◽  
Mohammed S. A. Siddiquee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment

scholarly journals GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT USING DRASTIC MODEL OF UP AL-KHASSA DAM SUB-BASIN, KIRKUK, NE IRAQ

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2E) ◽  
pp. 12-24
Author(s):  
Madyan Al-Gburi
Keyword(s):  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Aquifer Vulnerability ◽  
Drastic Model ◽  
Drastic Method ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Arc Gis ◽  
Vulnerability Map ◽  
Gis Software ◽  
Program Version

Several studies and assessments have been conducted of areas exposed to pollution, especially areas that contain aquifer. The final extraction of the vulnerability map of the groundwater was constructed through the use of the DRASTIC method by applying the linear equation of the seven coefficients in the Arc GIS software program (Version 10.4). The aim of the study to assess aquifer vulnerability to pollution. Results, vulnerability map range between 75-126 (very low, low, and medium), the study area consists of very low and low vulnerability, except some areas medium vulnerability close to the center of the sub-basin in the standard vulnerability map (s) and 91-149 (very low, low, and medium) for the agriculture or pesticide vulnerability map (p), the medium vulnerability occupies a greater area the center of the sub-basin.

scholarly journals Groundwater vulnerability assessment to pollution in Kasihan, Bantul Regency: A comparative method study (GOD, SINTACS and DRASTIC)

2020 ◽  
Vol 200 ◽  
pp. 02012
Author(s):  
Ignasius Loyola Setyawan Purnama ◽  
Vincentia Anindha Primacintya
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Level ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Rock Type ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability ◽  
Vulnerability Index ◽  
Vulnerability Assessments ◽  
Drastic Method ◽  
Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Aquifer Type

Groundwater vulnerability to pollution refers to the ease with which pollutants reach groundwater, in other words indicating the level of ease of an area to experience pollution. At present, the theme is one of the themes that attracts many researchers because pollution is more frequent in an area. The purpose of this study is to assess groundwater vulnerability in the study area for pollution using the GOD method and conduct a study of 3 groundwater vulnerability assessments, to determine the most appropriate assessment to be applied in the study area. The method used to determine groundwater vulnerability to pollution is GOD, which uses three parameters to assess the vulnerability of groundwater, namely aquifer type, rock type above aquifer and groundwater level. Furthermore, the results of the vulnerability assessment using the GOD method are compared with the vulnerability assessment according to the SINTACS and DRASTIC methods that have been carried out before in this area. The results showed that the variation of groundwater vulnerability index values in the study area according to the GOD method was from 0.35 to 0.63. Locations that are classified as medium vulnerability are generally located in the limestone Sentolo Formation, while locations that are classified as high vulnerability class are located in the volcanic rock of Yogyakarta Formation. Noting the results of determining groundwater vulnerability from the three methods, it can be said that the three methods are suitable for assessing groundwater vulnerability in the study area. However, looking at the distribution pattern of the level of pollution, the DRASTIC method can provide more detailed results related to the level of vulnerability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document