Comparative studies of groundwater vulnerability assessment

Global Colloquium on GeoSciences and Engineering 2017

Maria, Rizka^1

Research Centre for Geotechnology, LIPI, Bandung, Indonesia^1

关键词: Anthropogenic impacts;    Comparison of methods;    Groundwater contamination;    Groundwater vulnerability;    Groundwater vulnerability assessments;    Sustainable management;    Vulnerability assessments;    Vulnerability mappings;   

Others  :  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/118/1/012018/pdf
DOI  :  10.1088/1755-1315/118/1/012018

来源: IOP

【 摘 要 】

Pollution of groundwater is a primary issue because aquifers are susceptible to contamination from land use and anthropogenic impacts. Groundwater susceptibility is intrinsic and specific. Intrinsic vulnerability refers to an aquifer that is susceptible to pollution and to the geological and hydrogeological features. Vulnerability assessment is an essential step in assessing groundwater contamination. This approach provides a visual analysis for helping planners and decision makers to achieve the sustainable management of water resources. Comparative studies are applying different methodologies to result in the basic evaluation of the groundwater vulnerability. Based on the comparison of methods, there are several advantages and disadvantages. SI can be overlaid on DRASTIC and Pesticide DRASTIC to extract the divergence in sensitivity. DRASTIC identifies low susceptibility and underestimates the pollution risk while Pesticide DRASTIC and SI represents better risk and is recommended for the future. SINTACS method generates very high vulnerability zones with surface waters and aquifer interactions. GOD method could be adequate for vulnerability mapping in karstified carbonate aquifers at small-moderate scales, and EPIK method can be used for large scale. GOD method is suitable for designing large area such as land management while DRASTIC has good accuracy and more real use in geoenvironmental detailed studies.