Advertisement

GIS-based DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment in the Peshawar District, Pakistan

  • Syed Adnan
  • Javed Iqbal
  • Matti Maltamo
  • Rubén Valbuena
Original Paper

Abstract

Groundwater is the most economic natural source of drinking in urban and rural areas which are degraded due to high population growth and increased industrial development. We applied a GIS-based DRASTIC model in a populated urban area of Pakistan (Peshawar) to assess groundwater vulnerability to pollution. Six input parameters—depth to phreatic/groundwater level, groundwater recharge, aquifer material, soil type, slope, and hydraulic conductivity—were used in the model to generate the groundwater vulnerable zones. Each parameter was divided into different ranges or media types, and ratings R = 1 – 10 were assigned to each factor where 1 represented the very low impact on pollution potential and 10 represented very high impact. Weight multipliers W = 1 – 5 were also used to balance and enhance the importance of each factor. The DRASTIC model scores obtained varied from 47 to 147, which were divided into three different zones: low, moderate, and high vulnerability to pollution. The final results indicate that about 31.22, 39.50, and 29.27% of the total area are under low, moderate, and high vulnerable zones, respectively. Our method presents a very simple and robust way to assess groundwater vulnerability to pollution and helps the decision-makers to select appropriate landfill sites for waste disposals, and manage groundwater pollution problems efficiently.

Keywords

Groundwater pollution Pollution potential Prioritization of risk areas GIS for groundwater Groundwater contamination 

References

  1. Adnan S, Iqbal J (2014) Spatial analysis of the groundwater quality in the Peshawar district, Pakistan. Procedia Eng 70:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Adamat RA, Foster ID, Baban SM (2003) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, remote sensing and DRASTIC. Appl Geogr 23(4):303–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aller L, Lehr JH, Petty R, Bennett T (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system to evaluate groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. National Water Well Association, WorthingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Arias-Estévez M, López-Periago E, Martínez-Carballo E, Simal-Gándara J, Mejuto JC, García-Río L (2008) The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric Ecosyst Environ 123(4):247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baalousha H (2010) Assessment of a groundwater quality monitoring network using vulnerability mapping and geostatistics: a case study from Heretaunga Plains, New Zealand. Agric Water Manag 97(2):240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baalousha HM (2011) Mapping groundwater contamination risk using GIS and groundwater modelling. A case study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Arab J Geosci 4(3–4):483–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ball D, MacDonald A, Dochartaigh B (2004) Development of a groundwater vulnerability screening methodology for the water framework directive. Final report. Project WFD28, SNIFFERGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen H, Druliner AD (1988) Agricultural chemical contamination of ground water in six areas of the High Plains aquifer, Nebraska. National Water Summary 1986—hydrologic events and ground-water quality. Water-supply paper 2325. Reston, Virginia: US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen DB, Fisher C, Reid ML (1986) Ground-water contamination by toxic substances: a California assessment. In: Garner WY, Honeycutt RC, Nigg HN (eds) Evaluation of pesticides in ground water, ACS Symp. Series 315. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., pp 499–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dean JD, Huyakorn PS, Donigian AS Jr, Voos KA, Schanz RW, Meeks YJ, Carsel RF (1989) Risk of unsaturated/saturated transport and transformation of chemical concentrations (RUSTIC). Volumes I and II. EPA/600/3-89/048a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AthensGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans BM, Myers WL (1990) A GIS-based approach to evaluating regional groundwater pollution potential with DRASTIC. J Soil Water Conserv 45(2):242–245Google Scholar
  12. Foster S, Hirata R, Gomes D, D'Elia M, Paris M (2002) Groundwater quality protection: a guide for water utilities, municipal authorities, and environment agencies. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater, 604. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta AD, Onta PR (1997) Sustainable groundwater resources development. Hydrol Sci J 42(4):565–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoyer BE, Hallberg GR (1991) Ground water vulnerability regions of Iowa, special map 11. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  16. Jamrah A, Al-Futaisi A, Rajmohan N, Al-Yaroubi S (2008) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in the coastal region of Oman using DRASTIC index method in GIS environment. Environ Monit Assess 147:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalinski RJ, Kelly WE, Bogardi I, Ehrman RL, Yaniamoto PD (1994) Correlation between DRASTIC vulnerabilities and incidents of VOC contamination of municipal wells in Nebraska. Ground Water 32:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khan FA, Ali J, Ullah R, Ayaz S (2013) Bacteriological quality assessment of drinking water available at the flood affected areas of Peshawar. Toxicol Environ Chem 95(8):1448–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar S, Thirumalaivasan D, Radhakrishnan N (2014) GIS based assessment of groundwater vulnerability using Drastic model. Arab J Sci Eng 39:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan (2009) National Drinking Water Policy. Policy. Available from http://waterinfo.net.pk/sites/default/files/knowledge/Pakistan%20National%20Drinking%20Water%20Policy%20-%202009.pdf. Accessed November 2017
  21. Ministry of Planning, Development and Reforms, Government of Pakistan (2013) Pakistan Millennium Development Goals. Available from http://www.pk.undp.org/content/dam/pakistan/docs/MDGs/MDG2013Report/final%20report.pdf. Accessed November 2017
  22. National Research Council (1993) Ground water vulnerability assessment: contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. Committee on Techniques for Assessing Ground Water Vulnerability. Water Science and technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Odong J (2007) Evaluation of empirical formulae for determination of hydraulic conductivity based on grain-size analysis. J Am Sci 3(3):54–60Google Scholar
  24. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) (2007) National Water Quality Monitoring Programme (2005–2006). Available from http://pcrwr.gov.pk/Publications/Water%20Quality%20Reports/National%20Water%20Quality%20Monitoring%20Program/water%20quality%20status%20in%20pakistan%20phasev%202005-2006.pdf. Accessed November 2017
  25. Pettyjohn WA, Savoca M, Self D (1991) Regional assessment of aquifer vulnerability and sensitivity in the conterminous United States. In: Report EPA-600/2-91/043. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AdaGoogle Scholar
  26. Piscopo G (2001) Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory notes—Castlereagh catchment. NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  27. Prior JC, Boekhoff JL, Howes MR, Libra RD, VanDorpe PE (2003) Iowa’s groundwater basics: a geological guide to the occurence, use, and vulnerability of Iowa’s aquifersGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahman A (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh, India. Appl Geogr 28:32–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rahmati O, Samani AN, Mahdavi M, Pourghasemi HR, Zeinivand H (2015) Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process and GIS. Arab J Geosci 8:7059–7071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritter KS, Sibley P, Hall K, Keen P, Mattu G, Beth Linton L (2002) Sources, pathways, and relative risks of contaminants in surface water and groundwater: a perspective prepared for the Walkerton inquiry. J Toxic Environ Health A 65(1):1–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shirazi S, Imran H, Akib S, Yusop Z, Harun Z (2013) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in the Melaka State of Malaysia using DRASTIC and GIS techniques. J Toxic Environ Health A 70:2293–2304Google Scholar
  32. Srinivasamoorthy K, Vijayaraghavan K, Vasanthavigar M, Sarma V, Rajivgandhi R, Chidambaram S, Anandhan P, Manivannan R (2011) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in Mettur region, Tamilnadu, India using drastic and GIS techniques. Arab J Geosci 4:1215–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steenhuis TS, Pacenka S, Porter KS (1987) MOUSE: a management model for evaluation ground water contamination from diffuse surface sources aided by computer graphics. Appl Agric Res 2:277–289Google Scholar
  34. Teso RR, Younglove T, Peterson MR, Sheeks DL III, Gallavan RE (1988) Soil taxonomy and surveys: classification of areal sensitivity to pesticide contamination of ground water. J Soil Water Conserv 43(4):348–352Google Scholar
  35. Visnuvarthanan N, Sivakumar SS (2016) Cultivating productive water in Valukai Aru catchment in Valikamam division of Jaffna District of northern Sri Lanka. Int J Sci Eng Res 1:7Google Scholar
  36. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2001) Terrestrial water budget data archive: monthly time series (1950–1999)Google Scholar
  37. Wu W, Yin S, Liu H, Chen H (2014) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and feasibility mapping under reclaimed water irrigation by a modified DRASTIC model. Water Resour Manag 28:1219–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.National University of Sciences and TechnologyInstitute of GISIslamabadPakistan
  3. 3.Department of Plant Sciences, Forest Ecology and ConservationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations