Water Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, P. O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Water Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, P. O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Jan 1;575:779-790. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.141. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
This study aimed at evaluating three index-overlay methods of vulnerability assessment (i.e., DRASTIC, GOD, and SI) for estimating risk to pollution of shallow groundwater aquifer in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. The Groundwater Risk Assessment Model (GRAM) model was used to compute the risk to groundwater pollution. Results showed that DRASTIC and SI methods are comparable for vulnerability assessment as both methods delineate around 80% of the groundwater basin area under high vulnerable zone. From the perspective of risk to pollution results, DRASTIC and GOD methods are comparable. Nevertheless, all the three methods estimate that at least 60% of the groundwater basin is under moderate risk to NO-N pollution, which goes up to 75% if DRASTIC or GOD-based vulnerabilities are considered as exposure pathways. Finally, based on strength and significance of correlation between the estimated risk and observed NO-N concentrations, it was found that SI method is a better-suited one to assess the vulnerability and risk to groundwater pollution in the study area. Findings from this study are useful to design strategies and actions aimed to prevent nitrate pollution in groundwater of Kathmandu Valley in Nepal.
本研究旨在评估三种脆弱性评估指数叠加方法(即 DRASTIC、GOD 和 SI),以评估尼泊尔加德满都谷地浅层地下水含水层的污染风险。地下水风险评估模型(GRAM)模型用于计算地下水污染风险。结果表明,DRASTIC 和 SI 方法在脆弱性评估方面具有可比性,因为这两种方法都将大约 80%的地下水盆地区域划定为高脆弱性区域。从污染风险的角度来看,DRASTIC 和 GOD 方法具有可比性。然而,所有三种方法都估计至少有 60%的地下水盆地处于中度硝酸盐氮污染风险,而如果将 DRASTIC 或 GOD 脆弱性视为暴露途径,则这一比例上升至 75%。最后,根据估计风险与观测到的硝酸盐氮浓度之间的相关性的强度和显著性,发现 SI 方法更适合评估研究区域地下水脆弱性和污染风险。本研究的结果可用于制定旨在防止尼泊尔加德满都谷地地下水硝酸盐污染的策略和行动。