To avoid groundwater from contamination, the groundwater vulnerability tool can be examined. In this study, two methods were applied, namely: DRASTIC (Groundwater depth, Net recharge, Aquifer media, Soil map, Topograp...To avoid groundwater from contamination, the groundwater vulnerability tool can be examined. In this study, two methods were applied, namely: DRASTIC (Groundwater depth, Net recharge, Aquifer media, Soil map, Topography, Impact of vadose zone and Hydraulic Conductivity) and COP (Concentration of flow, Overlying layer and Precipitation) to model groundwater vulnerability to pollution. The result illustrated that four vulnerability classes were recognized based on both models including very low, low, moderate and high vulnerability classes. The coverage areas of each class are (34%, 13%, 48% and 5%) by DRASTIC model and (1%, 37%, 2% and 60%) by COP model, respectively. The notable dissimilarity between these two models was recognized. For this reason, nitrate elements were selected as a pollution indicator to validate the result. The concentrations of nitrate were recorded in two following seasons in (30) watering wells;as a result, the substantial variation was noted. This indicates that contaminants can be easily reached the groundwater due to its suitability in geological and hydrogeological conditions in terms of contaminant transportation. Based on this confirmation, the standard DRASTIC method becomes more sensible than COP method.展开更多
文摘To avoid groundwater from contamination, the groundwater vulnerability tool can be examined. In this study, two methods were applied, namely: DRASTIC (Groundwater depth, Net recharge, Aquifer media, Soil map, Topography, Impact of vadose zone and Hydraulic Conductivity) and COP (Concentration of flow, Overlying layer and Precipitation) to model groundwater vulnerability to pollution. The result illustrated that four vulnerability classes were recognized based on both models including very low, low, moderate and high vulnerability classes. The coverage areas of each class are (34%, 13%, 48% and 5%) by DRASTIC model and (1%, 37%, 2% and 60%) by COP model, respectively. The notable dissimilarity between these two models was recognized. For this reason, nitrate elements were selected as a pollution indicator to validate the result. The concentrations of nitrate were recorded in two following seasons in (30) watering wells;as a result, the substantial variation was noted. This indicates that contaminants can be easily reached the groundwater due to its suitability in geological and hydrogeological conditions in terms of contaminant transportation. Based on this confirmation, the standard DRASTIC method becomes more sensible than COP method.
