عنوان مقاله [English]
Population growth, agricultural and industrial development has led to a sharp increase in water use, a decrease in the quantity, quality and pollution of groundwater resources. Appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater resources are the identification of vulnerable aquifers. In this study, combined method (DSM) is the combination of DRASTIC and SINTACS methods, was used to evaluate the vulnerability of Khoy plain aquifer. Both methods use hydrological and hydrogeological parameters of this area to investigate the aquifer vulnerability and zoning of susceptible areas, but each of these methods has inherent characteristics and presents different results. Therefore, in this study due to the similarity of the results of these two. The method has been used simultaneously using combination of their advantages. Validation of each of methods were carried out with measured nitrate values from 26 wells in the study area. The Correlation Index (CI) was calculated between vulnerability maps and nitrate values to validation and compare these methods. The results showed that the CI of combined method is high; therefore, this method is more suitable for assessing the vulnerability of this region. Based on the results of the combined method, 19, 42 and 39 percent of Khoy plain aquifer are located within low, medium and high vulnerable areas.
9. Aller, L., Bennet, T., Leher, H., Petty, R., J. & Hackett, G. (1987). DRASTIC: A Standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydro-geological setting. kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S Environmental Protection Agency Report, (EPA/600/2-87/035).
10. Antonakos, A.K. & Lambrakis, N.i. (2007). Development and testing of three hybrid methods for the assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrates based on the drastic model, an example from NE Korinthia, Greece. Journal of Hydrology, 288-304.
11. Babiker, I.S., Mohamed, M. A. A., Hiyama, T. & Kato, K. (2005). A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assassing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Science of the Total Environment, 345(1-3), 127-140.
12. Chilton, P.J., Vlugman, A. & Foster, S. (1990). A groundwater pollution risk assessment for public water supply sources in Barbados, American, Water Resources Association International Conference on Tropical Hydrology and Caribbean Water resource, San Juan de Puerto Rico, 279-289.
13. Civita, M. (1990). Legenda unificata per le Carte della vulnerabilita dei corpi idrici sotterranei/ Unified legend for the aquifer pollution vulnerability Maps, Studi sulla Vulnerabilita degli Acqiferi, Pitagora Edite, Bologna.
14. Corniello, A., Ducci, D. & Napolitano, P. (1997). Comparison between parametric methods to evaluate aquifer pollution vulnerability using a GIS: An example in the Piana Campana. In Engineering Geology and the Envirnoment, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1721-1726.
15. Foster, S.S. (1987). Fundamental concept in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy, in: Van Duijvenbooden W., Van Weageningh, H.G. (E.Ds.), vulnerability of soils and Groundwater to pollution, TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, proceeding and Information, 38, 69-86.
16. Nadiri, A.A., Gharakhani, M. & Khatibi, R. (2017). Assessment of groundwater vulnerability using supervised combine fuzzy logic model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research Journal, 24(9), 8562-8577.
17. Nadiri, A.A., Gharekhani, M., Khatibi, R., Sadeghfam, S. & Asghari Moghaddam, A. (2017a). Groundwater vulnerability indices conditioned by Supervised Intelligence Committee Machine (SICM). Science of the Total Environment, 574, 691-706.
18. Nadiri, A.A., Sedghi, Z., Khatibi, R. & Gharakhani, M. (2017). Mapping vulnerability of multiple aquifer using multiple models and fuzzy logic to objectively derive model structures. Science of Total Environment Journal, 593-594, 75-90.
19. Panagopoulos, G., Antonakos, A. & Lambrakis, N. (2006). Optimization of DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability assessment, by the use of simple statistical methods and GIS. Hydrogeology Journal, 14, 894-911.
20. Ribeiro, L. (2000). Desenvolvimento de um índice para avaliar a susceptibilidade dos aquíferos à contaminação. Nota interna, (não publicada), ERSHA-CVRM, 8 p.
21. Stigter, T.Y., Riberiro, L. & Carvalho, D.A.M.M. (2006). Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinization and nitrate contamination level in two agriculture regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogel J, 14, 79-99.
22. Van Stempvoort, D., Ewert, L. & Wassenaar L. (1993). Aquifer vulnerability index: a GIS- compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 1, 25-37.
23. Vrba, J. & Zoporozec, A. (1994). Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability, International Contributions to Hydrogeology. Verlag Heinz Heise GmbH and Co, KG.