Hello researchers
I would like to know the most reliable methods for determining the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution (GOD-DRASTIC-SINTACS ...
Greeting
Hi Dear Rachid
According to my small experience DRASTIC is the most recommended. I have used it with my students!
Hello,
The absolute method does not exist. Each method has it benifits and inconvenients and you should make your choice based on the aquifer intrinsic parameters and on available means.
For over 15 years of comparing methods on moroccan and spanish aquifers, I can tell that DRASTIC provides good results for alluvial medium-sized aquifers when your data are reliable and abundant. Else, I suggest the use of geophysical methods if you have this possibility.
In every case, you should go for results validation once you're done with vulnerability assessment.
Here is some recent documentation :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312295056_Etude_hydrogeologique_de_la_nappe_alluviale_de_Ghis-Nekor_Maroc
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326319929_Using_resistivity_methods_to_characterize_the_geometry_and_assess_groundwater_vulnerability_of_a_Moroccan_coastal_aquifer
Good luck
Groundwater vulnerability is a central concept in pollution risk assessment, yet its estimation has been largely a matter of expert judgment.. There is report of a method for the direct calculation of vulnerabilty from monitoing well observations of pesticide concentrations. The method has two major advantages ; it is independent of compounds being examined, and it has a direct probabilistic interpretation making it ideal for risk assessment . The methodology was applied to data from grondwater monitoring program in the midwestern United States. For more details consult https://www.agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ;;; Water Resources Research, Vol. 39, No.12, 1345
Considero que los más adecuado para brindar una aproximación son los Métodos GOY y DRASTIC
There is a wide variety of methods to assess the vulnerability of aquifers and one of the most used has been DRASTIC, but, for example, is not appropriate for karstic aquifers. In the case of presence of karst, EPIK, RISK and PATH would be better. In our group, several of the available methods have been used and their results compared, even using techniques of pattern recognition.
Comparamos los metodos GOD y DRASTIC en ambientes sedimentarios. De ello considero que el mas adecuado en dicho tipo de ambientes en rl métdodo DRASTIC
Dear Dr. @Diaz, as you know, the methods of Foster SSD (GOD and GODS) were originally designed to evaluate the great karst system of the United Kingdom. the few parameters (3 for GOD and 4 for GODS) are not specifically designed for alluvial aquifers of small or medium size, nor for shallow aquifers with complex lithology.
DRASTIC and SINTACS provide better results in this case. Even AVI does this when there are good and well-distributed permeability data.
However, when data are inadequate or non-existent, each vulnerability assessment study yields questionable results.
The direct geophysical evaluation method is preferable where possible.
Best regards
Envio articulo aplicado a un ambiente sedimentario en la Cuenca del Arroyo Feliciano, República Argenina
Hello Dears researchers
I thank you for all these answers
According to some bibliographic research
The diversity of methods developed for estimating the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution makes the choice very difficult. Choosing a method implies a thorough knowledge of the entire aquifer system.
Nevertheless, the method to be adopted must fulfil the conditions of use recommended by its designers, particularly the hydrogeological conditions, the quantity of available information and the number of parameters used (Aller et al., 1987).
Best regards
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology