Basin of Namak Lake Using Statistical, DRASTIC and P-DRASTIC Methods

Subject Areas : Water and Environment

Javad Samadi ¹ (M.Sc. Graduate in Natural Resources-Environmental Pollutions Engineering, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.)
Naghmeh Mobarghei dinan ² (Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Planning and Design, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran *(Corresponding Author).)

Received: 2014-05-31 Accepted : 2016-01-29 Published : 2020-03-20

Keywords: P-DRASTIC, Pollution risk, Groundwater, Correlation coefficient, Sensitivity analysis,

Abstract :

Background and Purposes: Statistical methods are widely used in environmental studies to evaluate natural hazards. Within groundwater vulnerability in particular, statistical methods are used to support decisions about environmental planning and management. In this study, the optimized of DRASTIC, Pesticide DRASTIC model parameters and land use layers (LU) were used to assess of pollution risk in catchment basin aquifer in south of Namak lake using of statistical methods. Methods: Information layers were prepared, rated (deterministic and fuzzy-statistical), weighted (original and statistical) and combined (by Index-Overlay method) in GIS environment. For modeling, from nonlinear regression for fuzzy-statistical rating (scaling) and the Pearson correlation coefficients between of nitrate concentrations with scaling parameters of DRASTIC, P-DRASTIC model and sensitivity analysis (removal and single-parameter) were performed to determine and modify of parameters weighted. Results: As result P-RASIC-LU and RASIC-LU model with statistical rating and weighting, removal-parameter sensitivity analysis, determine as best selection model based on correlation coefficient = 62%, P-value = 0.01 and with parameters of net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, impact of vadose zone, hydraulic conductivity and land use with the weighty values of 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 3.1, 2, 2 and 2.5, 4.63, 4.15, 3.03, 2, 1.96 consequently. According to this model, western and southern parts of the aquifer has high pollution risk due to high net recharge and coarse-grain material in the impact of vadose zone, soil and aquifer media. Conclusion: Since reviewing of weight and rank of model parameters is limited personal opinions and increased model validation using statistical methods and GIS, It can be expected that favorable results to be followed for optimization of pollution risk model.

References:

 

 1.        Vrba, J., and Zoporozec, A., 1994. Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. IAH International Contribution for Hydrogeology. Vol.16: xxiii, 131 pp.

 2.        Harter, T., Wlker, I.G., 2001. Assessing Vulnerability of Groundwater. US Natural Resources Conservation Service, 13 pp.

 3.        Panagopoulos, G.P., Antonakos, A.K., Lambrakis, N.J., 2006. Optimization of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. J. Hydrogeol. 14 (6), 894-911.

 4.        Javadi, S., Kavehkar, N., Mohammadi, K., Khodadadi, A., Kahawita, R., 2011. Calibrating DRASTIC using field measurements, sensitivity analysis and statistical methods to assess groundwater vulnerability. J. Water International. 36 (6), 719-732.

 5.        Sorichetta, A., Masetti, M., Ballabio, C., Sterlacchini, S., Beretta, GP., 2011. Reliability of groundwater vulnerability maps obtained through statistical methods. Journal of Environmental Management. 92(4):1215-1224.

 6.        Krishna, R., Iqbal, J., Gorai, A.K., Pathak, G., Tuluri, F., Tchounwon, P.B., 2014. Groundwater vulnerability to pollution mapping of Ranchi district using GIS. Appl Water Sci, 4(12): 14pp.

 7.        Aller, L., Bennet, T., Leher, J. H., Petty, R. J., Hackett, G., 1987. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings, E.P.A., Report, No.600/2-87-035: 622p.

 8.        Makhdoum MF., 2002. Degradation model: a quantitative EIA instrument, acting as a decision support system (DSS) for environmental management. Environ. Manage, 30(1): 151-156.

 9.        Rosen, L. A., 1994. A study of the DRASTIC methodology with emphasis on Swedish conditions. Groundwater. 32 (2), 278-285.

1. Pearson, K., 1896. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity and panmixia, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 187: 253-318.


2. Lodwick, W.A., Monson, W., Svoboda, L., 1990. Attribute error and sensitivity analysis of map operations in geographical information systems: suitability analysis. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 4 (4), 413–28.


3. Napolitano, P., Fabbri, A.G., 1996. Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS HydroGIS, 96: application of geographical information systems in hydrology and water resources management. Proceedings of Vienna Conference. IAHS Pub, 235, 559–66.


4. Spitz, K., Moreno, J. Practical guide to groundwater and solute transport modeling. 1996.


5. Kashan Water Resources Affairs. Groundwater level in Kashan plain. 2011. (In Persian)


6. Piscopo, G. Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory notes, Castlereagh catchment, NSW. Department of Land and Water Conservation, Australia. 2001.


7. Soil and Water Research Institute. Transmissivity map in Kashan aquifer. 2007. (In Persian)


8. Kashan Water and Wastewater Company (2005-2013) Kashan groundwater nitrate ion. (In Persian)


9. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental indicators of water quality in the United States. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-R-96-002. 1997, 25p.


10. Khorasanizadeh, H., Delkhah, A., Mazroui, A. Comparative study of qualitative and quantitative consumes of agriculture and urban water and effect of exploite state on water resources and prediction of Kashan plain at future. water and sewage corporation. 2007, 229p. (In persian)