Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 78:104 | Cite as

Protection from natural and anthropogenic sources: a new rating methodology to delineate “Nitrate Vulnerable Zones”

  • Gianluigi Busico
  • Micòl MastrociccoEmail author
  • Emilio Cuoco
  • Maurizio Sirna
  • Dario Tedesco
Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

In the last years, because of uncontrolled human activities, a significant increase of groundwater pollution occurred worldwide, with nitrate being among the most widespread pollutants. The assessment of groundwater vulnerability represents an important tool for developing groundwater quality plans and in the delimitation of “Nitrate Vulnerable Zones”. In this study, three rating methods (DRASTIC, SINTACS and GOD) were applied in an alluvial plain to check the reliability of the results comparing the obtained thematic maps with the observed nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Results show that without large modifications for specific vulnerability, these methodologies cannot describe the actual groundwater nitrate distribution in the study area. A new easy methodology called Protection from Natural and Anthropogenic sources (PNA) was then defined and tested. The PNA map divides the study area in five classes of vulnerability from very low to very high and shows a fair correlation with groundwater nitrate concentrations. The selection of the parameters and of the algorithm makes PNA strongly flexible and applicable in similar watersheds around the world, as a tool for the delineation of “Nitrate Vulnerable Zones”.

Keywords

Nitrate vulnerable zone Vulnerability assessment Aquifer pollution DRASTIC SINTACS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Bachelor student Antonio Pennacchio is acknowledged for helping during the sampling campaign.

Supplementary material

12665_2019_8118_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 13 KB)
12665_2019_8118_MOESM2_ESM.docx (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 1444 KB)

References

  1. Adimalla N, Venkatayogi S (2018) Geochemical characterization and evaluation of groundwater suitability for domestic and agricultural utility in semi-arid region of Basara, Telangana State, South India. Appl Water Sci 8:44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0682-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adimalla N, Li P, Venkatayogi S (2018) Hydrogeochemical evaluation of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes and integrated interpretation with water quality index studies. Environ Process 5(2):363–383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-018-0297-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeological setting. EPA/600/2–87/035Google Scholar
  4. APHA (1999) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Arauzo M (2017) Vulnerability of groundwater resources to nitrate pollution: a simple and effective procedure for delimiting Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Sci Total Environ 575:799–812.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ascott MJ, Gooddy DC, Wang L, Stuart ME, Lewis MA, Ward RS, Binley AM (2017) Global patterns of nitrate storage in the vadose zone. Nat Commun 8(1):1416.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01321-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartzas G, Tinivella F, Medini L, Zaharaki D, Komnitsas K (2015) Assessment of groundwater contamination risk in an agricultural area in north Italy. Inf Process Agric 2(2):109–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2015.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busico G, Cuoco E, Sirna M, Mastrocicco M, Tedesco D (2017a) Aquifer vulnerability and potential risk assessment: application to an intensely cultivated and densely populated area in Southern Italy. Arab J Geosci 10(10):222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-2996-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busico G, Kazakis N, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Voudouris K, Tedesco D (2017b) A modified SINTACS method for groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment in highly anthropized regions based on NO3 and SO4 2– concentrations. Sci Total Environ 609:1512–1523.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Busico G, Cuoco E, Kazakis N, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Tedesco D, Voudouris K (2018) Multivariate statistical analysis to characterize/discriminate between anthropogenic and geogenic trace elements occurrence in the Campania plain, Southern Italy. Environ Pollut 234:260–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capri E, Civita M, Corniello A, Cusimano G, De Maio M, Ducci D, Faita G, Fiorucci A, Hauserg S, Pisciotta A, Pranzini G, Trevisan M, Delgado Huertases A, Ferrari F, Frullini R, Nisi B, Offi M, Vaselli O, Vassallo M (2009) Assessment of nitrate contamination risk: The italian experience. J Geochem Explor 102(2):71–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2009.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Civita M, De Maio M (2004) Assessing and mapping groundwater vulnerability to contamination: the Italian “combined” approach. Geofis Int 43(4):513–532.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2010.21003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corniello A, Ducci D, Ruggieri G, Iorio M (2018) Complex groundwater flow circulation in a carbonate aquifer: Mount Massico (Campania Region, Southern Italy). Synergistic hydrogeological understanding. J Geochem Explor 190:253–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2018.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuoco E, Verrengia G, de Francesco S, Tedesco D (2010) Hydrogeochemistry of Roccamonfina volcano (Southern Italy). Environ Earth Sci 61(3):525–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0363-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuoco E, Darrah TH, Buono G, Verrengia G, De Francesco S, Eymold WK, Tedesco D (2015) Inorganic contaminants from diffuse pollution in shallow groundwater of the Campanian plain (Southern Italy). Implications for geochemical survey. Environ Monit Assess 187(2):46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4307-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Gennaro A (2002) I sistemi di terra della Campania. SELCA, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  17. Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F (1999) Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multiattribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method). Environ Geol 39:165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ducci D (2018) An easy-to-use method for assessing nitrate contamination susceptibility in groundwater. Geofluids 2018:1371825.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1371825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ducci D, Sellerino M (2013) Vulnerability mapping of groundwater contamination based on 3D lithostratigraphical models of porous aquifers. Sci Total Environ 447:315–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.12.090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (2011) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament on implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2004–2007Google Scholar
  21. Federico C, Aiuppa A, Favara R, Gurrieri S, Valenza M (2004) Geochemical monitoring of groundwater (1998–2001) at Vesuvius volcano (Italy). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 133(1–4):81–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0273(03)00392-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Food and Agriculture Organization (2002) Fertilizer consumption by crops. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, p. 64Google Scholar
  23. Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvanbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds.), Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollution proceedings and information No. 38. TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  24. Foster S, Hirata R, Gómez D, D’ Elia M, Paris M (2002) Ground water quality protection. A guide for water utilities, municipal authorities and environment agencies. The World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghiglieri G, Barbieri G, Vernier A, Carletti A, Demurtas N, Pinna R, Pittalis D (2009) Potential risks of nitrate pollution in aquifers from agricultural practices in the Nurra region, northwestern Sardinia, Italy. J Hydrol 379(3–4):339–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gorelick SM, Zheng C (2015) Global change and the groundwater management challenge. Water Resour Res 51(5):3031–3051.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamza SM, Ahsan A, Imteaz MA, Rahman A, Mohammad TA, Ghazali AH (2015) Accomplishment and subjectivity of GIS-based DRASTIC groundwater vulnerability assessment method: a review. Environ Earth Sci 73:3063–3076.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3601-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kazakis N, Voudouris K (2015) Groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment of porous aquifers to nitrate: modifying the drastic method using quantitative parameters. J Hydrol 525:13–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim KH, Yun ST, Kim HK, Kim JW (2015) Determination of natural backgrounds and thresholds of nitrate in South Korean groundwater using model-based statistical approaches. J Geochem Explor 148:196–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2014.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Köppen W, Geiger R (1928) Die klimate der Erde. Wall-map 150 cmx200 cm. Verlag Justus Perthes, GothaGoogle Scholar
  31. Lake IR, Lovett AA, Hiscock KM, Betson M, Foley A, Sünnenberg G, Evers S, Fletcher S (2003) Evaluating factors influencing groundwater vulnerability to nitrate pollution: developing the potential of GIS. J Environ Manag 68(3):315–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00095-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasagna M, De Luca DA, Franchino E (2018) Intrinsic groundwater vulnerability assessment: Issues, comparison of different methodologies and correlation with nitrate concentrations in NW Italy. Environ Earth Sci 77:277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7452-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mastrocicco M, Colombani N, Palpacelli S, Castaldelli G (2011) Large tank experiment on nitrate fate and transport: the role of permeability distribution. Environ Earth Sci 63(5):903–914.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0759-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matzeu A, Secci R, Uras G (2017) Methodological approach to assessment of groundwater contamination risk in an agricultural area. Agric Water Manag 184:46–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Padovani L, Trevisan M (2002) I nitrati di origine agricola nelle acque sotterranee (Un indice parametrico per l’individuazione di aree vulnerabili). Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, p 103Google Scholar
  36. Patrikaki O, Kazakis N, Voudouris K (2012) Vulnerability map: a useful tool for groundwater protection: an example from Mouriki Basin, North Greece. Fresenius Environ Bull 21(8c):2516–2521Google Scholar
  37. Piper AM (1953) A Graphic Procedure in the Geochemical Interpretation of Water Analysis. United States Geological Survey. Groundwater note 12, 63, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Pisciotta A, Cusimano G, Favara R (2015) Groundwater nitrate risk assessment using intrinsic vulnerability methods: a comparative study of environmental impact by intensive farming in the mediterranean region of Sicily, Italy. J Geochem Explor 156:89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Puckett LJ, Tesoriero AJ, Dubrovsky NM (2011) Nitrogen contamination of surficial aquifers—a growing legacy. Environ Sci Technol 45(3):839–844.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es1038358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Puig R, Soler A, Widory D, Mas-Pla J, Domènech C, Otero N (2017) Characterizing sources and natural attenuation of nitrate contamination in the Baix Ter aquifer system (NE Spain) using a multi-isotope approach. Sci Total Environ 580:518–532.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rivett MO, Buss SR, Morgan P, Smith JW, Bemment CD (2008) Nitrate attenuation in groundwater: a review of biogeochemical controlling processes. Water Res 42(16):4215–4232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saroli M, Lancia M, Albano M, Casale A, Giovinco G, Petitta M, Zarlenga F, dell’Isola M (2017) A hydrogeological conceptual model of the Suio hydrothermal area (Central Italy). Hydrogeol J 25(6):1811–1832.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1549-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sbarbati C, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Aravena R, Petitta M (2015) Performance of different assessment methods to evaluate contaminant sources and fate in a coastal aquifer. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(20):15536–15548.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4731-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shamrukh M, Corapcioglu MY, Hassona FA (2001) Modeling the effect of chemical fertilizers on ground water quality in the Nile Valley Aquifer, Egypt. Groundwater 39(1):59–67.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb00351.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tedd KM, Coxon CE, Misstear BDR, Daly D, Craig M, Mannix A, Hunter William NH (2014) An integrated pressure and pathway approach to the spatial analysis of groundwater nitrate: a case study from the southeast of Ireland. Sci Tot Environ 476–477:460–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Townsend AR, Howarth RW, Bazzaz FA, Booth MS, Cleveland CC, Collinge SK, Mallin MA, Rogers CA, Wayne P, Wolfe AH (2003) Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Front Ecol Environ 1(5):240–246.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3868011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Stempvoort D, Evert L, Wassenaar L (1992) Aquifer vulnerability index: a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Can Water Res J 18:25–37.  https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj1801025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. White P, Ruble CL, Lane ME (2013) The effect of changes in land use on nitrate concentration in water supply wells in southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. Environ Monit Assess 185:643–651.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2581-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang Y, Weissmann GS, Fogg GE, Lu B, Sun H, Zheng C (2018) Assessment of groundwater susceptibility to non-point source contaminants using three-dimensional transient indexes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(6):1177.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zuo R, Meng L, Wang B, Wang J, Ding F, Guo X, Jin S, Teng Y (2018) Pollution risk assessment based on source apportionment in a groundwater resource area, NE China. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 24(5):1197–1215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2017.1410428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental, Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences and TechnologiesUniversity of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”CasertaItaly

Personalised recommendations