Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-1082-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Groundwater vulnerability assessment with using GIS

in Hamadan–Bahar plain, Iran
Balal Oroji1

Received: 9 June 2017 / Accepted: 11 October 2019 / Published online: 25 October 2019
© The Author(s) 2019

Abstract
Vulnerability assessment to delineate areas that are more susceptible to contamination from anthropogenic sources has
become an important element for sensible resource management and land use planning. It has been recognized for its ability
to delineate areas that are more likely than others to become contaminated as a result of anthropogenic activities near the
earth’s surface. The main methods of mapping and assessing intrinsic vulnerability in porous media are the following: SI,
GOD, SINTACS and DRASTIC. The basic purpose of these maps is to divide an area into more classes, each of which will
represent a different dynamic for a specific purpose and use. These models have been used to map groundwater vulnerability
to pollution in Hamadan–Bahar aquifer. The results showed in models of DRASTIC, SI, GOD and SINTACS, respectively,
7.1, 44.21, 29.56 and 20.16 percent of the areas are high potential vulnerabilities. According to the model DRASTIC at study
area, 33.6% of has a low class of groundwater vulnerability to contamination, whereas a total of 29.4% of the study area has
a moderate vulnerability. The final results indicate that the aquifer system in the interested area is relatively protected from
contamination on the groundwater surface. The correlation between models shows that DRASTIC model has the highest
CI, which is 141, and the GOD model has the highest CI, which is 139. Also, the highest CI for SINTACS and SI is 137 and
136, respectively. Therefore, DRASTIC model is the best model among these models for predicting groundwater vulner-
ability in Hamadan–Bahar plain aquifer.

Keywords Vulnerability · SINTACS · SI · GOD · DRASTIC · Hamadan–Bahar plain

Introduction against the spread of pollution in groundwater, is classified

into intrinsic and specific vulnerability (National Research
In many countries with limited sources of water, groundwa- Council 1993). To recognize the need for an efficient method
ter is the only water supply. During the last decades, intense to protect groundwater resources from contamination, scien-
agriculture activities and fertilizer applications have resulted tists and managers develop aquifer vulnerability techniques
in groundwater contamination, which has become a criti- for predicting which areas are the most vulnerable (Mueller
cal issue. In addition to agricultural activities, the release et al. 2012; Chenini et al. 2015). During the past years, the
of municipal and industrial wastes has caused an increase assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution has
in contaminants in the subsurface environment (Gheisari been subject to intensive research and a variety of methods
2017). Recently, groundwater vulnerability mapping is an have been developed. Many approaches have been developed
important key to decision-making processes and improv- to evaluate aquifer vulnerability, and for this objective, the
ing planning in order to prevent groundwater contamination GIS and remote sensing tools are combined to various meth-
(Mahvi et al. 2005). Groundwater vulnerability means the ods: standard DRASTIC, GOD, SINTACS and SI methods
degree of protection that the natural environment provides (Aller et al. 1987; Van Stempvoort et al. 1992; Foster 1987;
Daly and Drew 1999). Also, they are used to evaluate aquifer
vulnerability to pollution.
* Balal Oroji
[email protected] Recently, several methods have been used to investigate
the vulnerability of aquifers. Optimization and modifica-
1
Department of Biology Science, Faculty of Material tion of models have been done with matching models using
Engineering and New Technologies, Shahid Rajaee Teacher artificial intelligence methods to achieve suitable maps. A
Training University, Tehran, Iran

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
196 Page 2 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

comparative study of the vulnerability maps was performed et al. 1992; Foster 1987; Daly and Drew 1999; Oroji and
in order to choose the best method (Teixeira et al. 2015; Karimi 2018; Oroji 2018). Before starting detailed data
Chenini et al. 2015). Krishna et al. (2015) assessed the collection, some general information pertaining to the
groundwater vulnerability to pollution in Ranchi district, hydrology, geology, soil characteristics, geomorphologi-
Jharkhand, India. The results showed that the model was cal and water balance was gathered. This information has
validated by comparing the model output with the observed been used as a base for planning the field data collection
nitrate concentration in water resources in the study aquifer. and determining the selection of the sample population
Al-Abadi et al. (2017) evaluated intrinsic groundwater vul- (Tadesse et al. 2013). The following explained each indica-
nerability in the shallow aquifer northeastern Missan gover- tor and how to determine them.
norate, south of Iraq by using the DRASTIC model. Some Topography (T): This indicator to the slope percent of
other studies in the field include: Awawdeh et al. (2015) used the land surface was determined directly from the topo-
a modified DRASTIC model to evaluate the vulnerability of graphic maps of the Hamadan area (scale 1:50.000) and
groundwater to pollution in Yarmouk River watershed, north also using SRTM data and DEM for creating slope raster
Jordan. Rahman (2008) in India; Leal and Castillo (2003) file. Soil media (S): This index was obtained by digitizing
in Mexico; Ghazavi and Ebrahimi (2015) in Iran; Abdullah the existing soil maps, with 1:50.000 as a scale required
et al. (2016) in Iraq; Babiker et al. (2005) in Japan. Also, from Hamadan Research and Education Center for Agricul-
Nadiri et al. (2017, 2018) have been using artificial intel- ture and Natural Resources which cover the entire region.
ligence methods to evaluate models and vulnerability maps Net recharges (R): To calculate the recharge parameter dis-
in several areas of Iran. Because of the expansion of agricul- tribution, the water table fluctuation method (WTF) was
tural activities, excessive use of chemical fertilizers and the used. One of the major impacts of the integrated water-
location of industrial and municipal wastewater of Hama- shed management program was on improving ground-
dan, it is possible for this aquifer to be polluted. Nitrate, the water recharge and its availability (Pathak et al. 2013). It
primary form of nitrogen, is not in the groundwater system estimates groundwater recharge as the product of specific
naturally, but it can be one of the predominant contaminants yield, and the annual rate of water table rise added to the
associated with agricultural activities. It has high solubility total groundwater draft ended by the equivalent perme-
and can easily reach groundwater. Thus, it could be a seri- ability, which is found from well logs (Sophocleous 1991).
ous threat to groundwater resources. Therefore, measured Depth (D): Its index represents the depth from the land
nitrate concentrations from monitoring wells can be used to surface to the first groundwater aquifer. It determines the
associate and correlate the concentration in the aquifer to the thickness of the material through which infiltrating water
vulnerability index (Gheisari 2017). must move before reaching the aquifer-saturated zone
The aim of the present study is to assess the aquifer vul- (Witczak et al. 2004). Consequently, the depth of the
nerability of Hamadan–Bahar plain and to recognize the groundwater impacts on the interaction degree between
sensitive areas against pollution. Recognizing the vulner- the percolating contaminant and subsurface materials
ability of groundwater will help to manage their quality and and, therefore, on the degree and extent of physical and
protect groundwater resources. The possibility of pollutants chemical attenuation, and degradation processes, the depth
reaching and releasing into the groundwater after contami- groundwater distribution (D) was established by subtract-
nating the ground is called the aquifer vulnerability. In this ing the groundwater level, measured in 35 wells in Hama-
study, an aquifer vulnerability assessment is to identify areas dan–Bahar aquifer, from the topographic elevation in the
prone to the pollution that were modeled via the DRASTIC, corresponding cell location (Rahman 2008). Groundwater
GOD, SINTACS and SI models, and the maps generated depths were interpolated using the Kriging algorithm. A
for each parameter were classified and combined based on raster map was generated and then categorized into ranges
the models. defined by the DRASTIC model. Hydraulic conductivity
(C): Due to the unavailability of hydraulic conductivity
data in the study area, information of the aquifer media
Materials and methods was used to derive the approximate ratings for hydrau-
lic conductivity. It was converted to raster data according
A comprehensive groundwater vulnerability model must to the defined ratings. Aquifer media map was prepared
include parameters to describe how much a site is risky from the geologic map of Hamadan-Bahar plain. Aquifer
to be contaminated and how the contaminant moves from media in the study area were reclassified into five types
the contamination site to the aquifer; therefore, numerous and their corresponding ratings were assigned for each
vulnerability modeling approaches are proposed. In this aquifer media. The vadose zone characteristics show the
study, the vulnerability rating used is the SI, SINTACS, attenuation behavior of the materials that are located above
GOD and DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987; Van Stempvoort the groundwater table and below the soil.

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 3 of 13 196

Study area Results and discussion

The study area is situated in the Hamadan province and Using the GIS software, raster map was made from the inter-
partially in the central province of northwest Iran, with polation of the well data for each indicator. To obtain the vul-
an area of 520 square kilometers covering an area from nerability indexes the corresponding weight and rating accord-
latitude 34°N to 35° and from longitude 48°E to 49°30′E ing to the formula of each method was given to each indicator.
(Fig. 1). The highest elevation, 3.580 m, occurs at the All indicators in different models were mapped (Philes 2004).
Kuh-e Alvand south of Hamadan. The lowest elevations, The slope map is obtained from the digital elevation model,
slightly less than 1.500 m, occur along with the water and the map of soils is scanned and then processed from the
courses on the western margin of the sheet (Akhavan soil map. Also, all indicators are classified on vulnerability
et al. 2011). The output area is located in the northern classes with values from the DEM. Distribution maps for each
plains and groundwater with Kabodarahang–Ghahavand indicator were prepared using the Kriging interpolation tech-
the hydrogeological relationship. The most prominent nique. The Hamadan–Bahar alluvial aquifer is an important
geologic feature is the belt of metamorphic and igneous water resource because it is used for irrigation; therefore, the
rocks which trends northwest to southeast. This belt con- aquifer vulnerability to pollution by generic pollutants has
sists largely of Hamadan phyllites with well-developed been studied by applying the following methods. After clas-
hornfels near the margins of post-Cretaceous granodior- sifications data for each indicator, the spatial mapping in raster
ite intrusions. An area of more mafic igneous material format by interpolation of these indicators is a necessary step
occurs northwest of Hamadan. Paleozoic marbles and in this work. All the realized maps were projected in “WGS
Cretaceous crushed limestone and igneous bodies occur 1984 UTM Zone 39 N, datum Carthage.”
in the Zagros thrust belt in the southwestern corner of the
sheet. Cretaceous limestone and Oligo-Miocene marbles DRASTIC method
and limestones occupy the northeastern and southeastern
portions of the sheet. Faulting in this area trends north- Inherent in each hydrogeological setting are the physical
west to southeast except for the Mesozoic sedimentary characteristics that affect the groundwater pollution potential.
zone east of Hamadan where there is north-northeast to After the factors such as transmissivity, temperature, aquifer
south-southwest trend (Akhavan et al. 2011). Figure 2 chemistry, gaseous phase transport, tortuosity and some others
shows the geological map of the area. have been evaluated, the most important factors that control
the groundwater pollution potential have been determined to
be net recharge, soil type, depth to water, topography, aquifer
material, impact of the unsaturated zone and aquifer media

Fig. 1  The location of study in Hamadan–Bahar plain

13
196 Page 4 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

Fig. 2  Geological map of study area

of the hydraulic conductivity, in short DRASTIC. In the fol- weight between 1 and 5 for each used parameter. For DRAS-
lowing, a numerical ranking system to assess groundwater pol- TIC models used Eq. (1).
lution potential in the hydrogeological setting has been devised
(Aller et al. 1987). It assigns a note between 1 and 10 and a DI = Dp × Dc + Rp × Rc + Ap × Ac + Sp
(1)
× Sc + Tp × Tc + Ip × Ic + Cp × Cc

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 5 of 13 196

Fig. 3  Mapping of DRASTIC

model indicators

13
196 Page 6 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

where DI, vulnerability index; D, depth to water; R, net where Ci, aquifer type; Ca, saturated zone and Cp, depth. The
recharge; A, aquifer material; S, soil media; T, topography; results of GOD model are shown in Fig. 4.
I, vadose zone and C, hydraulic conductivity. The results of
this model are shown in Fig. 3.
SINTACS method
GOD method
The acronym SINTACS stands for the seven indicators
The GOD method is an empirical method for the assessment included in the method: net recharge, depth to water, vadose
of aquifer pollution vulnerability developed in Great Britain; zone, slope, hydraulic conductivity, aquifer media and soil
this method uses three indicators: overlying lithology, depth media. The SINTACS method was established for hydrogeo-
to groundwater and groundwater occurrence. Values from logical, climatic and impacts settings, typical of the Medi-
0 to 1 can be assigned to the indicators (Foster 1987). For terranean countries. In the same way that the DRASTIC
GOD models used Eq. (2). method, SINTACS assigns notes and weights for each of
IGOD = Ci × Ca × Cp (2)

Fig. 4  Mapping of GOD model indicators

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 7 of 13 196

Fig. 5  Mapping of SINTACS

model indicators

13
196 Page 8 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

these indicators in the following way (Civita and De Maio activity with intense use of chemical fertilizers. The DRAS-
2004). For SINTACS models used Eq. (3). TIC map resulting from overlaying the seven thematic maps
shows four classes, as indicated in Fig. 7. The highest class
Iv = Sp × Sc + Ip × Ic + Np × Nc + Tp of vulnerability index (VI > 200) covers 7.1% of the total
× Tc + Ap × Ac + Cp × Cc + Sp × Sc (3) surface in the central part of the study area (Table 1). This
condition, it is due to the high aquifer permeability coming
where Iv, vulnerability index; S, depth to water; I, net from the vadose zone sediments nature.
recharge; N, vadose zone; T, soil type; A, hydrogeological The aquifer combination was of quaternary alluvium and
characteristics aquifer; C, conductivity and S, slope. The sandstones, medium recharge, shallow groundwater and
results of SINTACS model are shown in Fig. 5. medium hydraulic conductivity. This results in a low capac-
ity to attenuate the contaminants. Also, very low vulnerabil-
SI method ity, which is represented by 14.7% of the total Hamadan sur-
face, is essentially due to the deep groundwater, the vadose
Specific vulnerability is the term used to define the vul- zone sediments and the low permeability, added to that the
nerability of groundwater to a particular contaminant or low hydraulic conductivity. As well as the low recharge rate,
group of contaminants. SI method is a vulnerability method we assume that these are the same conditions in the case
for evaluating the specific vertical vulnerability to pollu- of low vulnerability, with less degree of impact for these
tion originated by agricultural activities mainly by nitrates indicators. The moderate vulnerability represents 29.4%
(Ribeiro 2000). SI assigns notes and weight for each of these of the study area. Vulnerability pattern is mainly dictated
indicators in the following way. For SI models used Eq. (4). by the variation of the permeability and the vadose zone
SI = Dp × Dc + Rp × Rc + Ap × Nc + Tp × Tc + OSp × OSc (Aranyossy 1991). The recharge and the depth of ground-
water are two indicators having an influence on vulnerability
(4)
degrees to pollution. The application of SI, susceptibility
where SI, vulnerability index; D, depth to water; R, net
index, method indicates the high vulnerable zones to be con-
recharge; A, lithology; T, topography and OS, soil occu-
taminated by pollutants (Fig. 7). The most vulnerable areas
pation. The indicators mentioned above are defined and
have an indicator between 85 and 100. Zones which have
determined as follows. The results of SI model are shown
indicator value less than 45 are the less vulnerable (Table 2).
in Fig. 6.
The use of model SINTACS indicates the very high
After mapping all the indicators, the vulnerability maps
vulnerable zones to be contaminated by pollutants (Fig. 7).
were obtained by overlaying the individual maps and calcu-
The most vulnerable areas have an index between 187 and
lating the indices on a grid map. The vulnerability index for
210. Zones that have an index value of less than 106 are
each grid cell was calculated as the weighted sum of the indi-
less vulnerable (Table 2). The GOD model application
cators according to the equation. In the following, we have
indicates the very high vulnerable zones to be contami-
to evaluate the hydrological settings which are present on
nated by pollutants (Fig. 7). The most vulnerable areas
the map. Finally, the areas on the final map are labeled with
have an index between 0.5 and 0.7 (Table 2). Zones that
the appropriate hydrogeological setting. The vulnerability
have an index value between 0.1 and 0.3 are less vul-
indexes for all models are calculated, and the final vulnerabil-
nerable. Statistical comparison among the vulnerability
ity map was subdivided into classes related to vulnerability
maps generated by each method has been carried out.
degrees according to the classification of Engel et al. (1996).
Figure 7 shows the difference in classification between
The comparison between DRASTIC, SINTACS, SI
the used methods of vulnerabilities. This comparison
and GOD methods shows that the closest results are those
shows a certain similarity between the results obtained
from the method SINTACS and SI, modified versions of
using the SINTACS and SI methods (Rahman 2008). Also,
the DRASTIC method adapted to climate prevailing in the
the DRASTIC map classification shows different results.
study area. The DRASTIC vulnerability map, according to
We see much more of a class at the DRASTIC method;
standard classical, provides, in turn, more detailed results
this method is thus more suitable to use in our case. As
widely different from other methods (Fig. 7). The results
shown in the overlapping of the layers, the combination
showed that the maximum contamination potential in the
of weighted information layers, models and subsequently
Hamadan–Bahar plain groundwater was observed in the
a vulnerability map of the area was prepared. Since the
south, west and northeast borders of the plain. Also, there
ratio of the weights considered for the layers is differ-
were areas with very low and low potential in the center,
ent, it is necessary to have a criterion for comparing and
north and east of the plain. Both techniques have prospected
confirming the proposed combination. For this reason,
the vulnerability potential in Hamadan–Bahar plain with the
verification of the models used for the aquifer of the study
same accuracy. This region is an area of high agricultural

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 9 of 13 196

Fig. 6  Mapping of SI model indicators

13
196 Page 10 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

Fig. 7  The vulnerability maps using different methods along with the distribution of nitrate concentration in study area

area was carried out using nitrate concentration. If the

nitrate concentration is available at points with suitable
dispersion and for a specified period, then the verifica-
Table 1  Evaluation criteria of degree of vulnerability in DRASTIC
tion step can be done. Nitrate-N concentration was used
model
as all indicators to show whether the vulnerability indexes
Vulnerability Vulnerability index Area correctly represent the actual situation in the study area.
(km2) (%) Also, the maximum acceptable nitrate concentration for
human health is 45–50 mg/l (WHO 2008), but it is well
Very low 1–60 70.56 14.7
known that nitrate concentration higher than 10 mg/l in
Low 61–120 180.48 33.6
groundwater indicates anthropogenic contamination. For
Medium 121–160 121.92 29.4
this work, the concentration of nitrate was classified into
High 161–200 72.96 15.2
four categories: very low, low, medium and high. The
Very high > 200 34.08 7.1
alignment of wells with four levels of concentration and

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 11 of 13 196

Table 2  Evaluation criteria of Vulnerability SI model GOD model SINTACS model

degree of vulnerability in SI,
GOD and SINTACS models Area Area Area
2 2
(km ) (%) (km ) (%) (km2) (%)

Low 173.5 36.14 217.54 45.32 168.9 35.22

Medium 94.3 19.65 120.58 25.12 214.3 44.62
High 212.2 44.21 141.88 29.56 96.8 20.16

Table 3  Coincidence of wells with three contamination levels and Conclusions

vulnerability categories predicted different models in the validation
section (Unit=number of wells)
Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce, so espe-
Vulnerability NO3-N concentration CI cially polluted Hamadan–Bahar aquifer located in the center
Very low Low Medium High of the Hamadan area in western Iran, which is considered as
an economic resource priority because it is used in irriga-
DRASTIC
tion and domestic consumption. The area of the aquifer is
Very low 4 0 0 0 141
essentially occupied by agricultural areas characterized by
Low 6 7 3 0
an important use of chemical fertilizers which are in addi-
Medium 1 4 4 0
tion to the discharge of industrial zones, ongoing risk to
High 0 4 6 0
the groundwater quality; this prompts us to a hydrological
Very high 0 0 1 4
study and vulnerability late attributed to improving manage-
SINTACS
ment of water resources in the study area. The use of GIS
Low 7 7 3 0 137
techniques to identify contamination risk by mapping was
Medium 3 8 5 3
primarily due to the automatization of certain operations.
High 1 3 3 1
The databases which are behind all layers can anytime be
GOD
updated. Also, the use of GIS facilitates the rapid visualiza-
Low 9 8 5 0 139
tion of some elements in the map by selecting them from
Medium 1 7 4 4
the attribute table. The vulnerability maps, contamination
High 1 2 3 0
data and groundwater quality can be used because of the
SI
rapid and correct evaluation of pollution risk. By using
Low 8 7 4 0 136
this technology, we are assured that the information will be
Medium 2 8 3 3
used efficiently. The model’s application showed that Hama-
High 1 3 4 1
dan–Bahar groundwater was characterized by low to high
vulnerability degrees. The results of all methods showed
that the maximum contamination potential in the Hama-
predicted vulnerability categories with DRASTIC, GOD, dan–Bahar plain groundwater was observed in the south,
SI and SINCACS models are indicated in Table 3. Based west and northeast borders of the plain. According to the
on these results, the DRASTIC model has a higher correla- sensitivity analysis, the depth to the water table was the most
tion index. Also, following this model, the GOD model is effective parameter on the vulnerability potential. There
considered as the appropriate model and has the highest were areas with very low and low potential in the center,
correlation value. The results termed as the correlation north and east of the plain. Both techniques have prospected
index (CI) can indicate the correlation between the model the vulnerability potential in Hamadan–Bahar plain with the
results and nitrate-N concentration in the wells. Higher same accuracy. Waters are easily accompanied by various
CI means higher correlation. These results show that the geochemical elements coming from toxic pesticides and
DRASTIC model has the highest CI, which is 141, and the their extensive use in farmland and wastewater. So, in high
GOD model has the highest CI, which is 139. Also, the vulnerability areas, we should not allow additional high-
highest CI for SINTACS and SI is 137 and 136, respec- risk activities to obtain economic advantage and to reduce
tively. Therefore, the DRASTIC model is the best model environmental pollution hazard.
among these models for predicting groundwater vulner-
ability in Hamadan–Bahar plain aquifer (Fig. 7). Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mohsen Ghasemi Jahromi
of University of Tehran for his insight and direction on this project,
as well as Hashem Karimi of the Agricultural research, education &

13
196 Page 12 of 13 Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196

extension organization for his assistance in determining geologic char- Gheisari N (2017) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a
acteristics and processes. GIS-based modified DRASTIC model in agricultural areas.
Thesis, University of Ottawa, p 100
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Crea- Krishna R, Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Pathak G, Tuluri F, Tchounwou PB
tive Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat​iveco​ (2015) Groundwater vulnerability to pollution mapping of Ranchi
mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu- district using GIS. Appl Water Sci 5:345–358
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate Leal JAR, Castillo RR (2003) Aquifer vulnerability mapping in the
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Turbio river valley, Mexico: a validation study. Geofí Inter
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 42:141–156
Mahvi AH, Nouri J, Babael AA, Nabizadeh R (2005) Agricultural
activities impact on groundwater nitrate pollution. Int J Environ
Sci Technol 2:41–47
Mueller NC, Braun J, Bruns J, Černík M, Rissing P, Rickerby D,
References Nowack B (2012) Application of nanoscale zero valent iron
(NZVI) for groundwater remediation in Europe. Environ Sci
Abdullah TO, Ali SS, Al-Ansari NA (2016) Groundwater assessment Pollut Res 19:550–558
of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Kurdistan region, NE of Iraq using Nadiri AA, Gharekhani M, Khatibi R, Sadeghfam S, Moghaddam
vulnerability mapping. Arab J Geosci 9:1–16 AA (2017) Groundwater vulnerability indices conditioned by
Akhavan S, Mousavi SF, Abedi-Koupai J, Abbaspour KC (2011) supervised intelligence committee machine (SICM). Sci Total
Conditioning DRASTIC model to simulate nitrate pollution case Environ 574:691–706
study: Hamadan–Bahar plain. Environ Earth Sci 63:1155–1167 Nadiri AA, Sedghi Z, Khatibi R, Sadeghfam S (2018) Mapping spe-
Al-Abadi AM, Al-Shamma’a AM, Aljabbari MH (2017) A GIS-based cific vulnerability of multiple confined and unconfined aquifers
DRASTIC model for assessing intrinsic groundwater vulnerability by using artificial intelligence to learn from multiple DRASTIC
in northeastern Missan governorate, southern Iraq. Appl Water frameworks. J Environ Manag 227:415–428
Sci 7:89–101 National Research Council (1993) Groundwater vulnerability assess-
Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hachet G (1987) DRASTIC: a ment, contaminant potential under conditions of uncertainty.
standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution poten- National Academy Press, Washington
tial using hydrogeologic settings (EPA 600/2-87). Environmental Oroji B (2018) Assessing groundwater vulnerability by pollution
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US mapping in Iran: case study Hamadan–Bahar plain. Geofí Inte
Environmental Protection Agency Report, Tucson, p 622 57(3):161–174
Aranyossy JF (1991) The contribution of isotope techniques to study Oroji B, Karimi ZF (2018) Application of DRASTIC model and GIS
the recharge under constraints techniques and climate extremes. for evaluation of aquifer vulnerability: case study of Asadabad,
Diploma for Accreditation to Supervise Research in Sciences, Hamadan (westernIran). Geosci J 22:843–855
University of Paris sud, Orsay, p 576 Pathak P, Chourasia AK, Wani SP, Sudi R (2013) Multiple impact of
Awawdeh M, Obeidat M, Zaiter G (2015) Groundwater vulnerability integrated watershed management in low rainfall semi-arid region:
assessment in the vicinity of Ramtha wastewater treatment plant, a case study from Eastern Rajasthan, India. J Water Resour Protect
North Jordan. Appl Water Sci 5:321–334 5:27–36. https​://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp​.2013.51004​
Babiker IS, Mohamed MA, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based Philes CJ (2004) The geostatistical modeling of spatial variability and
DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakami- its applications. Thesis, University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris,
gahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, and central Japan. Sci Total p 71
Environ 345:127–140 Rahman A (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing ground-
Chenini I, Zghibi A, Kouzana L (2015) Hydrogeological investiga- water vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India. Appl Geo-
tions and groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping for graph 28:32–53. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2007.07.008
groundwater resource protection and management: state of the Ribeiro L (2000) Desenvolvimento de um ı´ndice para avaliar a sus-
art and a case study. J Afric Earth Sci 109:11–26 ceptibilidade, ERSHA-CVRM, p 8
Civita M, De Maio M (2004) Assessing and mapping groundwa- Sophocleous MA (1991) Combining the soil water balance and 475
ter vulnerability to contamination: the Italian “combined” water level fluctuation methods to estimate natural groundwater
approach. Geofis Int 43:513–532 recharge: practical aspects. J Hydro 124:229–241. https​://doi.
Daly D, Drew D (1999) Irish methodologies for karst aquifer protec- org/10.1016/0022-1694(91)90016​-B
tion. In: Beek B (ed) Hydrogeology and engineering geology of Tadesse A, Bosona T, Gebresenbet G (2013) Rural water supply man-
sinkholes and karst. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 267–272 agement and sustainability: the case of Adama Area, Ethiopia. J
Engel B, Navulur K, Cooper B, Hahn L (1996) Estimating ground- Water Resour Protect 5:208–221. https​://doi.org/10.4236/jwatp​
water vulnerability to non-point source pollution from nitrates .2013.52022​
and pesticides on a regional scale. In: Kovar K, Nachtnebel HP Teixeira J, Chaminé HI, Marques JE et al (2015) A comprehensive
(eds) Application of geographic information systems in hydrol- analysis of groundwater resources using GIS and multicriteria
ogy and water resources management. IAHS Press, Wallingford, tools (Caldas da Cavaca, Central Portugal): environmental issues.
pp 521–526 Environ Earth Sci 73:2699–2715
Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1992) AVI: a method
pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden W, for groundwater protection mapping in the Prairie Provinces of
van Waegeningh HG (eds) Proceedings and information in vul- Canada. Prairie Provinces Water Board Report 1-14, Regina, SK
nerability of soil and ground-water to pollutants, vol 38. TNO Witczak S, Duda R, Zurek A (2004) The Polish concept of groundwater
Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, pp 69–86 vulnerability mapping. In: Witkowski AJ, Kowalczyk A, Vrba J
Ghazavi R, Ebrahimi Z (2015) Assessing groundwater vulnerability (eds) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping, Inter-
to contamination in an arid environment using DRASTIC and national conference of groundwater vulnerability assessment and
GOD models. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:2909–2918 mapping, Ustron, pp 62–76

13
Applied Water Science (2019) 9:196 Page 13 of 13 196

World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Guidelines for drinking- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
water quality. Third edition incorporating first and second jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
addenda, vol. 1, Recommendations. World Health Organization,
Geneva

13