Groundwater Vulnerability Using DRASTIC and COP Models: Case Study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq

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.

[1]  Nasser Mehrdadi,et al.  Groundwater quality degradation of an aquifer in Iran central desert , 2010 .

[2]  Maisey Mn,et al.  The European approach. , 1999, Nuclear medicine communications.

[3]  François Zwahlen,et al.  Vulnerability assessment in karstic areas: validation by field experiments , 2004 .

[4]  Alain Dassargues,et al.  Evaluation and validation of vulnerability concepts using a physically based approach , 2001 .

[5]  L. Aller,et al.  Drastic: A Standardized System to Evaluate Groundwater Pollution Potential using Hydrogeologic Setting , 1987 .

[6]  F. Zwahlen,et al.  Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method) , 1999 .

[7]  B. Andreo,et al.  Proposed method for groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karstic) aquifers: the COP method , 2006 .

[8]  Zhonghe Pang,et al.  Soil profile evolution following land-use change: implications for groundwater quantity and quality , 2013 .

[9]  A. Dassargues,et al.  Main concepts of the "European approach" to karst-groundwater-vulnerability assessment and mapping , 2002 .

[10]  Nadhir Al-Ansari,et al.  Effect of Agricultural activities on Groundwater Vulnerability : Case Study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq , 2015 .

[11]  Nacer Kherici,et al.  Retraction Note: Use of a new method for determining the vulnerability and risk of pollution of major groundwater reservoirs in the region of Annaba–Bouteldja (NE Algeria) , 2014, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[12]  M N Maisey,et al.  The European approach. , 1999, Nuclear medicine communications.

[13]  Leonard I. Wassenaar,et al.  AQUIFER VULNERABILITY INDEX: A GIS - COMPATIBLE METHOD FOR GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY MAPPING , 1993 .