Abstract
This study retains the basic structure of DRASTIC model and obtains more specific evaluation results by adding land-use type and groundwater resource yield parameters, modifying the rating scale and weight of nine parameters. Comparison of the modified DRASTIC-LY vulnerability map with the map of the original DRASTIC-LY method revealed differences in 40.49% of the study area. The risk map shows that the very high vulnerability area decreased from 2.79 to 1.67%, while the high vulnerability area increased from 18.70 to 28.86%. Areas with low vulnerability increased by 10.15%, while areas with medium vulnerability decreased by 15.01%. The areas with very high groundwater vulnerability are mainly distributed in the Hanbin area on the north bank of the Han River, the areas with high are mainly concentrated on both sides of the Fujia River, while the areas with low are distributed in most areas in the west of the basin. The Pearson's correlation factor was 0.0583 in the original DRASTIC model, 0.1113 in the DRASTIC-LY method and 0.8291 in the modified DRASTIC-LY model, which indicated that the revised DRASTIC-LY model was more appropriate than the original model. The results can help the government with the protection of water resources.
HIGHLIGHTS
Improve the DRASTIC model.
Determine the weight, grade and category of each parameter.
Based on the sensitivity analysis and model validation results, construct the best model suitable for groundwater vulnerability assessment.
The results of this study will help government managers improve the composition of water use and strengthen the protection of vulnerable aquifers.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with the rapid growth of population, climate change and economic development, the pressure on the water environment in many countries in the world has gradually increased (Ahmed et al. 2018). As one of the important natural resources, groundwater resources are facing increasingly serious pollution and challenges (Tiwari et al. 2016). Groundwater pollution in developed and developing countries is very serious due to population growth and agricultural development (Maqsoom et al. 2020). In Argentina, due to the rise of international commodity prices and the support of new technologies, agricultural expansion has increased the pressure of land use on natural resources, especially the threat to groundwater quality (McLay et al. 2001). In Iran, the groundwater pollution problem is very serious due to population growth and agricultural development (Aller et al. 1987). China has inevitably encountered such problems. The low utilization rate of water resources and the large discharge of pollutants have led to the increasingly severe water environment in China, which has brought about a profound environmental and ecological crisis (Tian et al. 2020). Therefore, in order to ascertain the current situation of water environment quality, improve the quality of water environment and realize the sustainable development and utilization of groundwater resources, it is necessary to first determine the groundwater vulnerability of each region, which is vulnerable to groundwater pollution.
In 1968, Margat first proposed the concept of groundwater vulnerability. Then, in 1987, the International Conference on Soil and Groundwater Vulnerability defined that groundwater vulnerability refers to the sensitivity of groundwater to external pollution sources, which is the inherent characteristic of aquifers. Until 1993, the National Research Council of the United States defined groundwater vulnerability as the trend and possibility of pollutants reaching a specific location above the uppermost aquifer. Groundwater vulnerability is divided into two categories: one is special vulnerability, and the other is internal vulnerability. With the progress of the study, the model of groundwater vulnerability has expanded from DRASTIC to SINTACS, GOD, AVI, SYNTACS, SI and EPIK models (Sadat-Noori & Ebrahimi 2016; Ahada & Suthar 2018; Ahirwar & Shukla 2018), among which the DRASTIC model is the most widely used method in groundwater vulnerability assessment at present. The traditional DRASTIC model structure was proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1987 (Al-Mallah & Al-Qurnawi 2018). The model has been applied to assess groundwater vulnerability in many regions in the United States and has achieved good demonstration results, which has also been adopted by Canada, South Africa and European countries. Chinese researchers began to use this method in the 1990s. In recent years, more and more scholars have studied this method, and it has been improved and applied in many regions of the country.
In 2008, Wen et al. (2009) used professional model (DRASTIC model) and geographic information system (GIS) technology to evaluate the vulnerability of shallow groundwater in the Zhangye Basin. In 2012, Yin et al. (2013) used the DRASTIC model in the GIS environment to construct a zoning map of groundwater vulnerability in the Ordos Plateau. The results show that 24.8% of the study area has high pollution potential, 24.2% has medium pollution potential, 19.7% has low pollution potential and the remaining 31.3% of the area has no risk of groundwater pollution. In 2016, Wu et al. (2016) proposed the DRTILSQ model, based on DRASTIC and considering human factors, to assess the risk of groundwater pollution in the northern suburbs of Yinchuan City. In 2017, Yang et al. (2017) used a modified DRASTIC model to assess the vulnerability of groundwater in the Jianghan Plain. The results show that the improved DRASTIC model has a great improvement compared with the conventional model. After the amendment, the correlation coefficient was significantly increased from 41.07 to 75.31%. In 2017, Li et al. (2017) conducted a groundwater vulnerability assessment in the plain area of Tianjin City based on the DRASTIC model and GIS technology containing seven hydrogeological parameters. In 2018, Wu et al. (2018) used a modified DRASTIC model (AHP-DRASTLE model) to assess the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution in Beihai, China, to support the protection of groundwater resources in coastal areas of China. In 2018, He et al. used the DRACILM model to assess the vulnerability of nitrate pollution in the western Liaohe Plain. The correlation between vulnerability class and the concentration of NO3-N in the DRACILM model improved to 0.649, which was 40.6% higher than that obtained by DRASTIC (He et al. 2018).
In agricultural production areas, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is one of the most important sources for the increase of nitrate and chloride in groundwater. Meanwhile, the main sources of nitrate in groundwater also include the discharge of industrial sewage, domestic sewage and livestock manure (Jafari & Nikoo 2019). However, the chloride in groundwater is partly from mineral fertilizers (potassium chloride in the mixture of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium), and partly from industrial salt used in road maintenance (Garewal et al. 2019). Ankang City is located at the upstream of the Middle Route of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project in China and is an important water source conservation and conservation area (Liu et al. 2018). In the past 20 years, the amount of groundwater resources in Ankang Basin has decreased, and the water quality changes are mainly caused by mining activities, the conversion of large areas of dry land into paddy fields and the overuse of pesticides and fertilizers by human beings (Mondal et al. 2019).
Therefore, it is necessary to accurately assess the vulnerability of groundwater to determine the health risk of groundwater and provide a reference for the implementation of South-to-North Water Transfer Project in the Middle Line and the improvement of water conservation function. The special purpose of this study is to (1) improve the DRASTIC model to include land-use type and model of groundwater resource yield, with emphasis on the impact of nitrate on groundwater vulnerability; (2) determine the weight, grade and category of each parameter, and establish the relationship between the parameter and the concentration of NO3-N; (3) based on the sensitivity analysis and model validation results, construct the best model suitable for groundwater vulnerability assessment in Ankang Basin. The results of this study will help government managers improve the composition of water use, strengthen the protection of vulnerable aquifers and build a green and environment-friendly new society.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area
Location and sampling point distribution map in Ankang Basin of China.
In the basin, the primary river is the Han River, the secondary tributary is the Moon River and the tertiary rivers are the Fujia River, Ganges River, Donghe River and Guanyin River. The Yue River flows from the northwest to the southeast and flows into the Han River, while the Han River flows from the southwest to the northeast. The northern part of the basin is Qinling Mountains, with an altitude of between 480 and 1,000 m, while the southern part is Daba Mountains, with an altitude of between 1,220 and 2,120 m. The highest altitude of the basin is 390 m, the lowest is 245 m and the average is about 285 m. The soil of Ankang basin belongs to the yellow-brown soil zone of the bauxite region in China, with 8 soil categories, 17 subcategories, 33 soil genera and 71 soil species.
In order to ascertain the quality of shallow groundwater in the basin, 32 samples of shallow groundwater were collected from June 2021 to September 2022 (Figure 1). According to the principle of section control, the sampling density can reach 1 group/10 km2.
Methodology
Data source and format for the seven parameter data layers
Parameters . | Data sources . | Scale of map prepared . |
---|---|---|
D | 61 long-term observation wells and 10 monitoring wells, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
R | precipitation and irrigation data from 1985 to 2020 | 1:100,000 |
A | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
S | 10 water penetration test, 2021–2022; World Soil Database (HWSD), 2012 | 1:100,000 |
T | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
I | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
C | 33 pumping tests and 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
Parameters . | Data sources . | Scale of map prepared . |
---|---|---|
D | 61 long-term observation wells and 10 monitoring wells, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
R | precipitation and irrigation data from 1985 to 2020 | 1:100,000 |
A | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
S | 10 water penetration test, 2021–2022; World Soil Database (HWSD), 2012 | 1:100,000 |
T | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
I | 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
C | 33 pumping tests and 27 hydrogeological drill-hole data, 2021–2022 | 1:100,000 |
Seven layers of the DRASTIC-LY model, (a, depth to water, b, concentration, c, net recharge, d, aquifer media, e, soil, f, topography (slope), g, impact of the vadose zone, h, hydraulic conductivity, i, land-use type and j, groundwater resource yield).
Seven layers of the DRASTIC-LY model, (a, depth to water, b, concentration, c, net recharge, d, aquifer media, e, soil, f, topography (slope), g, impact of the vadose zone, h, hydraulic conductivity, i, land-use type and j, groundwater resource yield).
After creating seven layers with attribute structure, the DI value was obtained by weighted summation of multiple parameters and finally the groundwater vulnerability assessment map was obtained by overlaying a thematic map using ArcGIS platform (Rahman 2008). Generally speaking, the value of DI is between 56 and 187. The lower the DI value, the weaker the potential vulnerability risk of groundwater, and the higher the DI value, the greater the risk of groundwater pollution in this area (Al-Abadi et al. 2017). The DI was divided into five categories, namely very low vulnerability (<75), low vulnerability (100–75), medium vulnerability (125–100), high vulnerability (150–125) and very high vulnerability (>150) (Lad et al. 2019).
DRASTIC-LY model
Based on the original DRASTIC model, between Qinling and Daba Mountains, the potential risks of the model of groundwater resource yield and land-use type for pollution identification should also be considered (Kozlowski & Sojka 2019). In the water conservation function area, the change of groundwater quality is mainly caused by human activities and agricultural fertilization and the high concentration of nitrate is the main factor affecting the quality of groundwater (Figure 3(b)). The model of groundwater resource yield (Y) in a specific area shows the self-purification ability and renewal rate of groundwater. Based on the systematic analysis of geological and hydrogeological conditions, the threshold value of the Y parameter in the study area was determined through pumping test and water injection test of a large number of boreholes (Figure 3(j)). The initial weight of Y parameters in the DRASTIC-LY model is set to 4. Based on the data of the third land-use survey in China, a land-use map was prepared to assess the potential risk of groundwater pollution (Figure 3(i)). The following types of land use are considered: woodland, grassland, water and reservoir, cultivated land and architecture land, with grades of 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10, respectively (Table 2) (Sarkar & Pal 2021). The initial weight of land-use type parameters in the DRASTIC-LY model is set to 5. The values of DI in the DRASTIC-LY model range from 54 to 260 in theory (Aslam et al. 2020).
Rating scales for land-use types and model of groundwater resource yield
Land-use type . | Model of groundwater resource yield . | ||
---|---|---|---|
Types . | Value . | Range (m3/day) . | Value . |
Woodland | 2 | <100 | 2 |
Grassland | 4 | 100–300 | 4 |
water,reservoir | 5 | 300–1,000 | 6 |
Cultivated land | 7 | 1,000–3,000 | 7 |
Architecture | 10 | >3,000 | 9 |
Land-use type . | Model of groundwater resource yield . | ||
---|---|---|---|
Types . | Value . | Range (m3/day) . | Value . |
Woodland | 2 | <100 | 2 |
Grassland | 4 | 100–300 | 4 |
water,reservoir | 5 | 300–1,000 | 6 |
Cultivated land | 7 | 1,000–3,000 | 7 |
Architecture | 10 | >3,000 | 9 |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Applying the DRASTIC model to intrinsic vulnerability
The internal vulnerability assessment map of Ankang Basin was established by using the DRASTIC model. The groundwater vulnerability index was calculated on the ArcGIS platform, and the data sources were shown in Table 1. The weights and evaluation levels of vulnerability indicators were shown in Table 3.
Original and modified values of the DRASTIC-LY parameters
Depth to groundwater . | Net recharge . | Aquifer media . | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range (m) . | A . | B . | C . | Range (mm) . | A . | B . | C . | Aquifer media . | A . | B . | C . |
>9.0 | 4 | 4.66 | 3.22 | <165 | 1 | 2.63 | 1.12 | Silty sand and pebbles | 4 | 6.52 | 3.58 |
6.0–9.0 | 6 | 14.47 | 10.00 | 165–185 | 2 | 11.75 | 5.00 | Gravel and pebbles | 5 | 9.17 | 5.03 |
3.0–6.0 | 8 | 6.6 | 4.56 | 185–205 | 3 | 6.25 | 2.66 | Gravel and mud | 6 | 16.40 | 9.00 |
<3.0 | 10 | 3.24 | 2.24 | 205–225 | 4 | 7.72 | 3.29 | Slate and sandstone | 7 | 11.31 | 6.21 |
>225 | 5 | 1.90 | 0.81 | Gravelly sandstone | 9 | 0.92 | 0.50 | ||||
Soil type . | Topography . | Influence of the vadose zone . | |||||||||
Soil type . | A . | B . | C . | Range slope (%) . | A . | B . | C . | Geological formation . | A . | B . | C . |
Paddy soil | 3 | 8.54 | 2.99 | >20 | 1 | – | – | Loam | 2 | 5.34 | 2.40 |
Submergenic paddy soil | 4 | 4.94 | 1.73 | 15–20 | 3 | 4.70 | 1.66 | Sandy soil | 5 | 10.69 | 4.81 |
Yellow-brown soil | 5 | 4.03 | 1.41 | 10–15 | 5 | 7.64 | 2.69 | Glutenite | 6 | 1.13 | 0.51 |
Yellow-brown earth | 6 | 1.66 | 0.58 | 5–10 | 9 | 14.19 | 5.00 | Gritstone | 8 | 20.00 | 9.00 |
Yellow cinnamon soil | 8 | 14.28 | 5.00 | <5 | 10 | 6.60 | 2.33 | Igneous rock | 9 | 1.67 | 0.75 |
Skeleton soils | 10 | 13.80 | 4.83 | ||||||||
Hydraulic conductivity . | Land-use type . | Model of groundwater resource yield . | |||||||||
Range (m/day) . | A . | B . | C . | Type . | A . | B . | C . | Range (m3/h) . | A . | B . | C . |
<10 | 1 | 10.35 | 5.00 | Woodland | 2 | 2.92 | 1.76 | <100 | 2 | 7.78 | 3.61 |
10–20 | 2 | 8.53 | 4.12 | Grassland | 4 | 16.55 | 10.00 | 100–300 | 4 | 1.12 | 0.52 |
20–30 | 3 | 9.83 | 4.75 | water,reservoir | 5 | 7.63 | 4.61 | 300–1,000 | 6 | 19.39 | 9.00 |
30–40 | 4 | 6.35 | 3.07 | Cultivated land | 7 | 8.16 | 4.93 | 1,000–3,000 | 7 | 6.07 | 2.82 |
>40 | 5 | 8.65 | 4.18 | Architecture | 10 | 6.95 | 4.20 | >3,000 | 9 | 7.36 | 3.42 |
Depth to groundwater . | Net recharge . | Aquifer media . | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range (m) . | A . | B . | C . | Range (mm) . | A . | B . | C . | Aquifer media . | A . | B . | C . |
>9.0 | 4 | 4.66 | 3.22 | <165 | 1 | 2.63 | 1.12 | Silty sand and pebbles | 4 | 6.52 | 3.58 |
6.0–9.0 | 6 | 14.47 | 10.00 | 165–185 | 2 | 11.75 | 5.00 | Gravel and pebbles | 5 | 9.17 | 5.03 |
3.0–6.0 | 8 | 6.6 | 4.56 | 185–205 | 3 | 6.25 | 2.66 | Gravel and mud | 6 | 16.40 | 9.00 |
<3.0 | 10 | 3.24 | 2.24 | 205–225 | 4 | 7.72 | 3.29 | Slate and sandstone | 7 | 11.31 | 6.21 |
>225 | 5 | 1.90 | 0.81 | Gravelly sandstone | 9 | 0.92 | 0.50 | ||||
Soil type . | Topography . | Influence of the vadose zone . | |||||||||
Soil type . | A . | B . | C . | Range slope (%) . | A . | B . | C . | Geological formation . | A . | B . | C . |
Paddy soil | 3 | 8.54 | 2.99 | >20 | 1 | – | – | Loam | 2 | 5.34 | 2.40 |
Submergenic paddy soil | 4 | 4.94 | 1.73 | 15–20 | 3 | 4.70 | 1.66 | Sandy soil | 5 | 10.69 | 4.81 |
Yellow-brown soil | 5 | 4.03 | 1.41 | 10–15 | 5 | 7.64 | 2.69 | Glutenite | 6 | 1.13 | 0.51 |
Yellow-brown earth | 6 | 1.66 | 0.58 | 5–10 | 9 | 14.19 | 5.00 | Gritstone | 8 | 20.00 | 9.00 |
Yellow cinnamon soil | 8 | 14.28 | 5.00 | <5 | 10 | 6.60 | 2.33 | Igneous rock | 9 | 1.67 | 0.75 |
Skeleton soils | 10 | 13.80 | 4.83 | ||||||||
Hydraulic conductivity . | Land-use type . | Model of groundwater resource yield . | |||||||||
Range (m/day) . | A . | B . | C . | Type . | A . | B . | C . | Range (m3/h) . | A . | B . | C . |
<10 | 1 | 10.35 | 5.00 | Woodland | 2 | 2.92 | 1.76 | <100 | 2 | 7.78 | 3.61 |
10–20 | 2 | 8.53 | 4.12 | Grassland | 4 | 16.55 | 10.00 | 100–300 | 4 | 1.12 | 0.52 |
20–30 | 3 | 9.83 | 4.75 | water,reservoir | 5 | 7.63 | 4.61 | 300–1,000 | 6 | 19.39 | 9.00 |
30–40 | 4 | 6.35 | 3.07 | Cultivated land | 7 | 8.16 | 4.93 | 1,000–3,000 | 7 | 6.07 | 2.82 |
>40 | 5 | 8.65 | 4.18 | Architecture | 10 | 6.95 | 4.20 | >3,000 | 9 | 7.36 | 3.42 |
A: Original rating; B: average concentration of NO3-N (mg/L); C: Modified rating value.
The intrinsic vulnerability index (DI) of Ankang Basin was between 56 and 187, which can be divided into five classes (Mondal et al. 2019; Aslam et al. 2020): very high, high, medium, low and very low (Figure 4). The vulnerability classification in the northwest, central and southeast parts of the basin was relatively high, which means that this area was more vulnerable to external pollution than other areas; this result was mainly due to the shallow depth of the groundwater, the high hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer or the large proportion of sand and gravel in the aquifer and the aerated zone and the groundwater is mainly recharged by surface water (Karan et al. 2018). The assessment results were basically consistent with the contour map of the initial concentration of nitrate (Figure 3(a)), while nitrate in groundwater was mainly brought in by human activities, which indicated that the groundwater in this area was vulnerable to human activities. In the central and eastern parts of the basin, due to the deep groundwater depth or low hydraulic conductivity, the vulnerability level was medium. Low vulnerability areas were concentrated, mainly distributed in the central and western parts of the basin. Due to the vadose zone (loam), hydrogeological characteristics of deep groundwater level and aquifer medium (fine sand), groundwater vulnerability was low. In summary, in the western, central and southeastern parts of the basin, shallow groundwater depth, rapid groundwater runoff and semi-open environment were the main reasons for the high vulnerability level. However, in most of the western and central parts of the basin, the main reasons for the low vulnerability level were the deep groundwater level, slow flow and closed environment.
Assessment of nitrate vulnerability using DRASTIC-LY model
The accurate vulnerability map of the Ankang Basin was obtained by using the DRASTIC-LY model. Due to the importance of land-use type and groundwater resource yield model in reflecting human activities, the weight should be given priority consideration. As shown in Table 2, the weights of land-use type and groundwater resource yield parameters were set to 5 and 4, respectively.
Revising the rating scale of each parameter
Adjust the rationality of the rating scale to improve the accuracy of the specific vulnerability assessment results (Sinha et al. 2016; Hao et al. 2017). Using statistical methods, the classification of nine parameters defined in the original DRASTIC-LY model was correlated with the concentration of NO3-N to optimize the rating scale. For no-continuous parameters such as aquifer media, influence of the vadose zone, hydraulic conductivity, land-use type, model of groundwater resource yield, it was necessary to maintain all existing rating scales in the area. The original value, modified value and corresponding average nitrate concentration in groundwater of each parameter in the DRASTIC-LY model were shown in Table 3. According to the average nitrate concentration, the rating of each category parameter had been modified, and the rating was controlled within 5 or 10 grades. The rating of soil type and topography parameters was modified from 10 to 5. The original rating of net recharge (4) was lighter than the other 9 parameters (5, 9 and 10), and the revised rating had been appropriately modified to 5 according to the importance of the parameters. The revised parameter ratings had three categories (including 5, 9 and 10) to ensure that the results were more reasonable and reliable.
Revising the parameter weights
The greater the weight of the parameter, the more likely it is to affect the groundwater vulnerability in the model than other parameters. Different regions and different parameters also have different impacts on groundwater vulnerability. For example, the impact of the vadose zone and topography that significantly affect NO3-N concentrations were assigned high and low weights, respectively. However, whether the theoretical research can be applied to the practice of the study area needs further discussion. In this study, it is necessary to revise the weights applicable to the model of this study area. In order to optimize the DRASTIC-LY model, the weight of each parameter needed to be recalculated. Using Pearson's (r) correlation, the correlation between each parameter and the average NO3-N concentration was calculated to achieve the optimized parameters. According to the maximum weight value (5) specified by the DRASTIC model, the new weighting factor was recalculated. If a parameter is not statistically significant, it will be excluded from the vulnerability equation. As shown in Table 4, Pearson's (r) correlation and revised weights it can clearly be concluded that the ‘Topography’ and ‘Soil type’ parameters were not statistically significant and should be weakened from the vulnerability model. The non-significant correlation between ‘NO3-N’ concentration and ‘Topography’ indicated that the runoff velocity of groundwater had little impact on nitrate concentration in groundwater (Rezaei et al. 2018; Zenebe et al. 2020). The non-significant correlation between ‘NO3-N’ concentration and ‘Soil type’ means that the adsorption and chemical reaction of soil to NO3-N can be ignored (Mondal et al. 2017; Jhariya 2019). It can also be concluded that the weights for the depth to groundwater table, land-use type, hydraulic conductivity and model of groundwater resource yield changed very little. However, the weights of the net recharge and the impact of the vadose zone parameters had decreased, although they were still relatively high. In addition, the weights of groundwater resource yield and aquifer media in the model were slightly increased. The modified weights showed their importance in the assessment of groundwater vulnerability in the study area. Finally, the revised weights for depth to groundwater table (D), net recharge (R), aquifer media (A), soil type (S), topography (T), impact of the vadose zone (I), hydraulic conductivity (C), land-use type (L) and model of groundwater resource yield (Y) are 5, 3, 4, 1, 1, 4, 3, 5 and 5, respectively (Hu et al. 2018; Joshi & Gupta 2018).
Original and modified rating values of the DRASTIC-LY parameters
Parameter . | Original weights . | Pearson's (r) correlation . | Revised weights . |
---|---|---|---|
Depth to groundwater | 5 | 0.486 | 5 |
Net recharge | 4 | 0.295 | 3 |
Aquifer media | 3 | 0.411 | 4 |
Soil type | 2 | 0.117 | 1 |
Topography | 1 | 0.104 | 1 |
Impact of the vadose zone | 5 | 0.402 | 4 |
Hydraulic conductivity | 3 | 0.323 | 3 |
Land-use type | 5 | 0.479 | 5 |
Model of groundwater resource yield | 4 | 0.451 | 5 |
Parameter . | Original weights . | Pearson's (r) correlation . | Revised weights . |
---|---|---|---|
Depth to groundwater | 5 | 0.486 | 5 |
Net recharge | 4 | 0.295 | 3 |
Aquifer media | 3 | 0.411 | 4 |
Soil type | 2 | 0.117 | 1 |
Topography | 1 | 0.104 | 1 |
Impact of the vadose zone | 5 | 0.402 | 4 |
Hydraulic conductivity | 3 | 0.323 | 3 |
Land-use type | 5 | 0.479 | 5 |
Model of groundwater resource yield | 4 | 0.451 | 5 |
Utilities of vulnerability maps for groundwater protection and management
On the north bank of the Hanjiang River in Ankang City, the vulnerability of groundwater is very high, which means that the leakage of leachate from the landfill site is the main reason for the high vulnerability. Compared with the prediction of the original DRASTIC-LY model, there are still high vulnerability areas on the east and west sides of the Fujia River, and this area is slightly larger than the area predicted by the original model. The main reason is that the area is located in an area with intensive human activities, and groundwater is largely exploited while receiving rainfall and river recharge (Moghaddam et al. 2018). It is worth noting that the low vulnerability area in the western part of the basin has increased significantly, mainly because the groundwater in this area is dominated by lateral runoff and receives little recharge from precipitation and river (Mogaji & San Lim 2017).
Groundwater is the core element of natural resources, and its moderate development, utilization and effective protection ensure the sustainable use of human beings (Gemail et al. 2017; Tian et al. 2021). The assessment of groundwater vulnerability is crucial for the protection of groundwater resources in Ankang basin and the implementation of the water transfer project in the middle route of China's South-to-North Water Transfer Project. The groundwater vulnerability assessment map helps the government to make wise decisions to prevent the impact of industrial production, agricultural activities and domestic sewage discharge on groundwater resources. The optimized DRASTIC-LY model is the most suitable model to evaluate the specific vulnerability of groundwater in Ankang Basin to nitrate pollution.
Sensitivity analysis of the modified DRASTIC-LY model
As shown in Table 5, sensitivity analysis is a single-parameter sensitivity analysis by comparing the revised weight and the effective weight. The effective weight of the parameter reflects the function of the relationship between its theoretical weight and the nine parameters in the optimized DRASTIC-LY model. In this study, there is a slight deviation between the theoretical weight and the effective weight calculated by the optimized DRASTIC-LY model. The calculation results of the single-parameter sensitivity analysis show that the average effective weight is between 6.37 and 49.84%, indicating that the nine indicators in the vulnerability assessment model are quite different. The effective weights of the R, S, T, I, H and Y parameters (7.54, 2.66, 2.26, 10.34, 9.57 and 14.25%, respectively) are less than their theoretical weights (9.68, 3.23, 3.23, 12.90, 9.68 and 16.13%, respectively, which have standard deviations of 3.12, 1.54, 1.08, 4.69, 3.84 and 6.27%, respectively). Soil type and topography parameters had little effect on groundwater vulnerability compared to the other seven parameters (Wei et al. 2021). The effective weights for D, A and L (21.25, 13.22 and 14.25%, respectively) are higher than their theoretical weights (16.13, 12.90 and 16.13%, respectively). Depth to groundwater, aquifer media, model of groundwater resource yield and land-use type are the four parameters most affected by human activities, which play a key role in groundwater vulnerability assessment (Oroji & Karimi 2018). Net recharge, hydraulic conductivity and impact of the vadose zone are the naturally determined parameters, which also play a certain role in groundwater vulnerability assessment (Baghapour et al. 2016; Saida et al. 2017; Khan & Jhariya 2019).
Statistics of the single-parameter sensitivity analysis
Parameter . | Revised weight . | Revised weight (%) . | Effective weighting (%) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min . | Max . | Average . | Standard deviation . | |||
Depth to groundwater | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 9.36 | 34.02 | 21.25 |
Net recharge | 3 | 9.67 | 9.68 | 2.38 | 13.03 | 7.54 |
Aquifer media | 4 | 12.92 | 12.90 | 1.99 | 24.80 | 13.22 |
Soil type | 1 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 0.90 | 7.21 | 2.66 |
Topography | 1 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 0.87 | 6.37 | 2.26 |
Impact of the vadose zone | 4 | 12.92 | 12.90 | 2.03 | 23.85 | 10.34 |
Hydraulic conductivity | 3 | 9.67 | 9.68 | 4.91 | 22.39 | 9.57 |
Land-use type | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 5.83 | 49.84 | 18.88 |
Model of groundwater resource yield | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 2.59 | 26.95 | 14.25 |
Parameter . | Revised weight . | Revised weight (%) . | Effective weighting (%) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min . | Max . | Average . | Standard deviation . | |||
Depth to groundwater | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 9.36 | 34.02 | 21.25 |
Net recharge | 3 | 9.67 | 9.68 | 2.38 | 13.03 | 7.54 |
Aquifer media | 4 | 12.92 | 12.90 | 1.99 | 24.80 | 13.22 |
Soil type | 1 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 0.90 | 7.21 | 2.66 |
Topography | 1 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 0.87 | 6.37 | 2.26 |
Impact of the vadose zone | 4 | 12.92 | 12.90 | 2.03 | 23.85 | 10.34 |
Hydraulic conductivity | 3 | 9.67 | 9.68 | 4.91 | 22.39 | 9.57 |
Land-use type | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 5.83 | 49.84 | 18.88 |
Model of groundwater resource yield | 5 | 16.12 | 16.13 | 2.59 | 26.95 | 14.25 |
Relationship between nitrate concentration and DI values: (a) original DRASTIC model, (b) DRASTIC-LY model, (c) modified DRASTIC-LY model.
Relationship between nitrate concentration and DI values: (a) original DRASTIC model, (b) DRASTIC-LY model, (c) modified DRASTIC-LY model.
CONCLUSIONS
In order to effectively address the impact of human activities on groundwater vulnerability assessment results, this paper is based on the structure of the DRASTIC model, but (1) in Qinling Mountains-Daba Mountains, an important water conservation area, the impact of land-use types and groundwater resource yield parameters on groundwater vulnerability was considered, (2) the weight of net recharge, soil type and impact of the vadose zone parameters in the model was reduced, (3) according to the correlation between the nine parameters in the model and the NO3-N concentration, the parameter weight was modified.
- 1.
DRASTIC, DRASTIC-LY and optimized DRASTIC-LY models were used to evaluate the vulnerability of groundwater to nitrate pollution. Comparison of the modified DRASTIC-LY vulnerability map with the map of the original DRASTIC-LY method revealed differences in 40.49% of the study area. The risk map showed that the very high vulnerability area decreased from 2.79 to 1.67%, while the high vulnerability area increased from 18.70 to 28.86%. Areas with medium vulnerability decreased by 15.01% compared to those predicted by the original DRASTIC-LY map. Areas with low vulnerability increased by 10.15% compared to those predicted by the original DRASTIC-LY map.
- 2.
The evaluation results indicate that the areas with high groundwater vulnerability are mainly distributed on the north bank of the Han River, the areas with high groundwater vulnerability are mainly concentrated on both sides of the Fujia River and the areas with low groundwater vulnerability are distributed in most areas in the west of the basin. Natural conditions and human production activities jointly affect the vulnerability of groundwater, among which industrial production, agricultural activities and domestic sewage are the main reasons for the increase of groundwater vulnerability.
- 3.
The Pearson's correlation factor was used to determine the statistical relationship between nitrate concentrations in groundwater and groundwater vulnerability maps. The Pearson's correlation factor was 0.0583 in the original DRASTIC model, 0.1113 in the DRASTIC-LY method and 0.8291 in the modified DRASTIC-LY model, which indicated that the revised DRASTIC-LY model was more appropriate than that constructed by the original model.
Due to the reduction of project funds and the limited sample size, the accuracy of this study was not particularly accurate. In addition, microbial samples and N isotope samples had not been analyzed and tested, so it is impossible to determine the exact source of nitrogen and the impact of nitrification and denitrification on vulnerability. Therefore, the limitation of this study was that it could not accurately characterize the source, migration and transformation of nitrogen. This study comprehensively described the inherent and specific vulnerability of Ankang Basin and laid a foundation for nitrogen monitoring and dynamic evaluation in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Project of Water Ecological Restoration to Support Investigation in Shaanxi Section of Hanjiang River of South-to-North Water Diversion Project (No. ZD20220207) and Ecological Restoration Survey Project of Important Ecological Areas in Southern China (CGS). The author thanks the editors and reviewers of the journal for their valuable comments, which were of great help to the improvement of the paper. We give thanks to Changlai Xiao, Xiujuan Liang, Xu Honggen, Xinhua Bao, Bo Zhang and Shanghai Du for helping us with data processing skills and writing skills during the writing process.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.