Abstract
AbstractIn rural areas where the goals of sustainable agriculture are intertwined with the availability and supply of groundwater resources, it becomes imperative to perceive and search the status of groundwater resource’s susceptibility to contamination. A well-known overlay & index method, the DRASTIC model that assesses the state of susceptibility to contamination using vulnerability index map has been applied to the Yeşilköy aquifer. The seven different hydro-geologic parameters; aquifer media, vadose zone, and soil media, surface topography, recharge capacity, water table depth, and the hydraulic conductivity maps were overlaid to find the vulnerability of the aquifer. Results depicted that the aquifer is categorized into two vulnerability zones; low and moderate. The available susceptibility of the aquifer due to ongoing anthropogenic activities like agriculture was also studied by implementing the Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index (WQI) method. The aquifer’s overall water quality was “poor water quality”. Hence, there was no significant relationship between WQI and the vulnerability of the aquifer. A modification of the DRASTIC to enhance the relationship with WQI is proposed by utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as one of the successful multi-criteria decision-making models. The modification of the DRASTIC model with AHP revealed that the performance of the DRASTIC model was improved and the correlation between WQI and the DRASTIC vulnerability index was significantly enhanced. The results also show that the effective contributing parameters for groundwater vulnerability in the Yeşilköy aquifer were the aquifer media and the vadose zone. On the other hand, the water table’s depth and topography were almost independent of the aquifer’s vulnerability.
Funder
Eastern Mediterranean University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference34 articles.
1. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr J, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 455
2. Angle MP (1995) Ground Water Pollution Potential of Franklin County, Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Water, GWPP. Report No. 40, 133 pp
3. Ariffin SM, Zawawi MAM, Man HC (2016) Evaluation of groundwater pollution risk (GPR) from agricultural activities using DRASTIC model and GIS. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. IOP Publishing 37(1): 012078
4. Arya S, Subramani T, Vennila G, Roy PD (2020) Groundwater vulnerability to pollution in the semi-arid Vattamalaikarai River Basin of south India thorough DRASTIC index evaluation. Geochem 80(4):125635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2020.125635
5. Bera A, Mukhopadhyay BP, Das S (2022) Groundwater vulnerability and contamination risk mapping of semi-arid Totko river basin, India using GIS-based DRASTIC model and AHP techniques. Chemosphere 307:135831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135831