Ambient Science: Click the Volume and issue number for Complete Article

Location where to get the Complete Article --> Vol 4, No 1 (2017): 38-44

ISSN- 2348-5191 (Print version); 2348-8980 (Online)

Evaluation of Aquifer Vulnerability by GIS Application: Case study from Asadabad, Hamadan (Western Iran)

Oroji Balal


DRASTIC model has been used to map groundwater vulnerability due to pollution in various areas. This method needs to be calibrated and reformed for a specific aquifer and pollution. The suggested methodology was applied to Asadabad aquifer located in western Iran. In the present research, the rates of DRASTIC parameters have been reformed so that the vulnerability potential to pollution can be determined more exactly. The new rates were calculated using the relationships between each parameter and the nitrate concentration in the groundwater. The measured nitrate condensation values were used to correlate the pollution potential in the aquifer to DRASTIC index. The results showed that the modified DRASTIC is better than the original method for the nonpoint source of pollutions in agricultural zones. Application of the new rates, a new DRASTIC map was expanded that shows that 2.1% of the area fall in high vulnerability class. The assessed area was 34.2% and 58.19% for moderate class and, for low vulnerability class, 63.7% and 31.39% respectively, before and after using the new rates.


  • Al–Zabet, T. (2002): Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability to contamination potential using the DRASTIC method. Environ. Geol., 43; 203 – 208.
  • Aller, L., Bennet, T., Lehr, H.J., Petty, R.J., & Hackett, G. (1987): DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeological settings. In: Ada, OK., Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA–600/2–87–035. 622 pp.
  • Anonymous (2014): Report on hydroclimatological water balance, Hamadan Provincial Water Authority. Hamadan. Iran.136 pp.
  • Civita, M. (1994): La carte della vulnerbilita´ degli aquifer all'inquinamento. Teoria & practica. (Aquifer vulnerability maps to pollution) (in Italian). Pitagora Ed, Bologna.
  • Civita, M. & De Regibus, C. (1995): Sperimentazione di alcune metdologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilita' degli aquifer (in Italian). Quaderni di Geologia Applicata. Pitagora Ed. Bologna. 3: 63 – 71.
  • Corniello, A., Ducci, D., & Napolitano, P. (1997): Comparison between parametric methods to evaluate aquifer pollution vulnerability using GIS: an example in the “Piana Company”, Southern Italy. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC, (eds). Engineering Geology and the Environmental. Balkema. Rotterdam. 1721 – 1726.
  • Daly, D., Dassargues, A., Drew, D., Dunne, S., Goldscheider, N., Neales, S., Popescu, C., & Zwahlen, F. (2002): Main concepts of the European Approach for karst groundwater vulnerability and assessment and mapping. Hydrogeol. J., 10; 340 – 345.
  • Dixon, B., (2004): Prediction of groundwater vulnerability using an integrated GIS-based neuro-fuzzy techniques. J. Spatial Hydrol., 4 (2), 1–14.
  • Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P.Y., & Zwahlen, F., (1999): Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi–attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method). Environ. Geol., 39: 165–175.
  • Foster, S.S.D. (1987): Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds). TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague. Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. Proc. Inform., 38:69 – 86.
  • Gundogdu, K.S., & Guney, I. (2007): Spatial analyses of groundwater level using universal kriging. J. Earth Sys. Sci., 116:49–55.
  • Jessica, E.L., & Sonia, T. (2009): Groundwater vulnerability assessment and integrated water resource management. Watershed Manag. Bull., 13:18–29.
  • Jovanovic, N.Z., Adams, S., Thomas, A., Fey, M., Beekman, H.E., Campbell, R., Saayman, I. & Conrad, J. (2006): Improved DRASTIC method for assessment of groundwater vulnerability to generic aqueous phase contaminants. Waste Manage. Environ., 92; 393–402.
  • Kalinski, R.J., Kelly, W.E., Bogardi, I., Ehrman, R.L., & Yamamoto, P.O. (1994): Correlation Between DARSTIC Vulnerabilities and Incidents of VOC Contamination of Municipal Wells in Nebraska. Ground Water, 32; 31–34.
  • Kumar, V. (2007): Optimal Contour Mapping of Groundwater Levels Using Universal Kriging – a Case Study. Hydrol. Sci. J., 52:1038–1050.
  • McLay, C.D.A., Dragten, R., Sparling, G. & Selvarajah, N. (2001): Predicting groundwater nitrate concentrations in a region of mixed agricultural land use: a comparison of three approaches. Environm. Poll., 115 (2): 191–204.
  • Melloul, A.J. & Collin, M. (1998): Aproposed index for aquifer water quality assessment the case of Israel’s Sharon region. J. Environ. Manag. 54:131-142.
  • National Research Council (1993): Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment: Predicting Relative Contamination Potential Under Conditions of Uncertainty. National Academic Press. Washington DC. 224 pp.
  • Panagopoulos GP, Antonakos AK, & Lambrakis NJ, (2006): Optimiztion of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeol. J., 14:894– 911.
  • Popescu, I.C., Gardin, N.N., Brouyere, S. & Dassargues, A. (2008): Groundwater vulnerability assessment using physically based modeling: from challenges to pragmatic solution, in Refsgaard, J. C., Kovar, K., Haarder, E. & Nygaard, E.. edited: Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Modeling. Credibility in Modelling. pp. 83–88. Pub. by- IAHS Press.
  • Rundquist, D.C., Rodekohr, D.A., Peters, A.J., Ehrman, L.D., & Murray, G. (1991): Statewide groundwater vulnerability assessment in Nebraska using the DRASTIC/GIS model. Geocarto Int., 6:51–58.
  • Rupert, M.G. (1999): Improvements to the DRASTIC ground–water vulnerability mapping method. USGS fact sheet FS – 066 – 99, USGS, Reston. VA., USA. 6 pp.
  • Sandersen, F. & Jørgensen, F. (2003): Buried Quaternary Valleys in Western Denmark—Occurrence and Inferred Implications for Groundwater Resources and Vulnerability. J.Appl. Geophy., 53: 229-248.
  • SAS Institute Inc. (1999): SAS Online Doc, Version eight: Accessed on August 23; 2004, at URL (accessed on October, 2016).
  • Secunda, S., Collin, M.L., & Melloul, A.J. (1998): Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a composite modemodel combining DRASTIC with extensive agricultural land use in Israel's Sharon Region. J. Environ. Manage., 54:39–57.
  • Stempvoort, D.V., Ewert, D. & Wassenaar, L. (1993): Aquifer vulnerability index: a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Can. Water Res. J. 18:25–37.
  • Tesoriero, A.J., Inkpen, E.L., & Voss, F.D. (1998): Assessing ground–water vulnerability using logistic regression. In: Proceedings for the source water assessment and protection 98 Conference. Dallas. TX. pp. 157–165.
  • Thapinta, A., & Hudak, P.F. (2003): Use of geographic information systems for assessing groundwater pollution potential by pesticides in Central Thailand. Environ. Int., 29:87–93.
  • Theodossiou, N. (1999): Evaluation of the distribution of hydraulic head in an aquifer using the Kriging method. Hydrotechnika. 9:3–14.
  • VonHoyer, M. & Sofner, B. (1998): Groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (Karst) Area of Germany. Federal institute for geosciences and natural resources. Archive no. 117854. Hanover. Germany. 38 pp.
  • Vrba, J. & Zaporozec, A. (1994): Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. International association of hydrogeologists–International Contributions to Hydrogeology. 16; 131 pp.
  • Worrall, F. & Kolpin, D.W. (2004): Aquifer vulnerability to pesticide pollution—combining soil, land-use and aquifer properties with molecular descriptors. J.Hydrol., 293:191–204.

  • DOI:10.21276/ambi.2017.04.1.ta03

    Creative Commons License

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
    Published by: National Cave Research and Protection Organization, India

    <Environmental Science+Zoology+Geology+Cave Science>AMBIENT SCIENCE