Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

GIS-based DRASTIC, Pesticide DRASTIC and the Susceptibility Index (SI): comparative study for evaluation of pollution potential in the Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia

DRASTIC-SIG, DRASTIC Pesticide et Indice de Sensibilité (SI) : étude comparative pour l’évaluation de la pollution potentielle de l’aquifère superficiel de Nabeul-Hammamet, Tunisie

Los modelos DRASTIC, DRASTIC pesticidas y el índice de susceptibilidad (SI) con base en SIG: estudio comparativo para la evaluación de la contaminación potencial del acuífero somero de Nabeul-Hammamet, Túnez

مؤشرات "دراستك" و "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى" باستخدام نظم المعلومات الجغرافية. دراسة مقارنة لتقييم امكانية تلوث المائدة المائية السطحية نابل-حمامات بتونس

基于GIS的DRASTIC模型,Pesticide DRASTIC模型和敏感性指数(SI)模型:关于突尼斯Nabeul-Hammamet浅部含水层潜在污染评估的对比研究

Índices DRASTIC, DRASTIC Pesticida e Índice de Suscetibilidade (IS) com suporte de SIG: estudo comparativo para avaliação da poluição potencial no aquífero pouco profundo de Nabeul-Hammamet, Tunísia

  • Report
  • Published:
Hydrogeology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three vulnerability index models were applied to assess the pollution potential of Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia: DRASTIC, Pesticide DRASTIC and the Susceptibility Index (SI). An output map layer of each one was obtained using a geographic information system (GIS). The SI layer was overlain with DRASTIC and Pesticide DRASTIC and the percentage areas of agreement and divergence in vulnerability categories were extracted. DRASTIC results suggest the aquifer has mostly low vulnerability. Pesticide DRASTIC and SI identify three vulnerability categories (low, moderate, high) in the aquifer. Published data on current chemical groundwater composition indicate that parts of the aquifer are highly contaminated, revealing that DRASTIC underestimates the risk of pollution; Pesticide DRASTIC and SI reflect this risk better. Agreement in vulnerability categories between the two last models is found for 64 % of the aquifer area. To help manage land-use allocation and prevent Nabeul-Hammamet-aquifer contamination, DRASTIC is not recommended. Pesticide DRASTIC and SI are recommended but for slightly different applications. SI helps in the monitoring of current vulnerable areas and, thus, in contamination prevention. Pesticide DRASTIC could better intervene as a criterion in a multi-criteria analysis to select the best sites for specific on-the-ground practice or future land use.

Résumé

Trois modèles d’indice de vulnérabilité ont été appliqués pour évaluer la pollution potentielle de l’aquifère superficiel de Nabeul-Hammamet, Tunisie : DRASTIC, DRASTIC Pesticide et Indice de Sensibilité (SI). Pour chacun d’entre eux, une couche a été générée avec un Système d’Information Géographique (SIG). Les couches SI, DRASTIC et DRASTIC Pesticide ont été superposées, et les aires présentant des rapports convergents ou divergents en termes de classes de vulnérabilité ont été extraites. Les résultats DRASTIC suggèrent que l’aquifère a une vulnérabilité généralement faible. DRASTIC Pesticide et SI identifient trois classes de vulnérabilité (basse, modérée, forte) dans l’aquifère. Les données publiées sur la composition chimique actuelle de l’eau souterraine indiquent que des parties de l’aquifère sont fortement contaminées, révélant que DRASTIC sous-estime le risque de pollution ; DRASTIC Pesticide et SI révèlent mieux ce risque. Une concordance en termes de classes de vulnérabilité est trouvée entre les deux derniers modèles pour 64 % de la superficie de l’aquifère. DRASTIC n’est pas recommandé pour gérer l’allocation du sol et prévenir la pollution de l’aquifère de Nabeul-Hammamet. DRASTIC Pesticide et SI sont recommandés, mais pour des applications un peu différentes. SI est utile pour la surveillance de zones actuellement vulnérables et ainsi pour la prévention de la pollution. DRASTIC Pesticide pourrait mieux intervenir comme moyen d’analyse multicritères destinée à sélectionner les sites les meilleurs pour des pratiques spécifiques sur le terrain ou de futures occupations du sol.

Resumen

Se aplicaron tres modelos de índices de vulnerabilidad para evaluar la contaminación potencial del acuífero somero de Nabeul-Hammamet, Túnez: DRASTIC, DRASTIC pesticidas y el índice de susceptibilidad (SI). Se obtuvo como salida un mapa de capas usando un sistema de información geográfica (GIS). La capa SI fue cubierta con la de DRASTIC y la de DRASTIC pesticidas y se extrajeron los porcentajes de áreas de acuerdos y divergencias en las categorías de vulnerabilidad. Los resultados de DRASTIC sugieren que el acuífero tiene mayormente una baja vulnerabilidad. El DRASTIC pesticidas y el SI identifican tres categorías de vulnerabilidad (baja, moderada, alta) en el acuífero. Los datos publicados sobre la composición química actual del agua subterránea indican que partes del acuífero están altamente contaminadas, revelando que el DRASTIC subestima el riesgo a la contaminación.; DRASTIC pesticida y SI reflejan mejor este riesgo. Se encontró un acuerdo del 64 % del área del acuífero en las categorías de vulnerabilidad entre los últimos dos modelos. No se recomienda el DRASTIC para ayudar al manejo de la asignación del uso de la tierra y prevenir la contaminación del acuífero Nabeul-Hammamet. Se recomiendan DRASTIC pesticidas y SI pero para aplicaciones ligeramente diferentes. El SI ayuda en el monitoreo de las áreas vulnerables actuales y, por lo tanto, en la prevención de la contaminación. El DRASTIC pesticidas podría intervenir mejor como un criterio en un análisis multicriterio para seleccionar los mejores sitios para prácticas específicas del terreno o el uso futuro de la tierra.

ملخص

اعتمدت ثلاث مؤشرات لتقييم امكانية تلوث المائدة المائية السطحية نابل-حمامات بتونس. هذه المؤشرات هي "دراستك" و "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى". باستخدام نظم المعلومات الجغرافية تحصلنا على خريطة لكل مؤشر قسمت فيها المنطقة الى فئات من القابلية للتلوث . قمنا بمقارنة هذه الخرائط الثلاث و تحصلنا على نسبة مساحة الاتفاق والاختلاف بين الفئات. "دراستك" اعتبر ان اغلبية المساحة ذات قابلية ضعيفة للتلوث. "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى" ميزا ثلاث فئات لقابلية التلوث (ضعيفة و متوسطة و كبيرة). حسب منشورات علمية فان جزء من المائدة المائية السطحية لنابل-حمامات ملوثة مما تبين ان "دراستك" لم يقدر جيدا قابلية هذه المائدة للتلوث في حين ان "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى" عكسا احسن هذه القابلية. الاتفاق بين "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى" يمثل 64 في المائة من المساحة الجملية للمائدة. حسب هذه النتائج ليس من المنصوح به استعمال "دراستك" للمساعدة في التهيئة الترابية لنابل-حمامات و منع تلوث مياهها الباطنية. بينما من المستحسن استعمال "دراستك-مبيد" و "اسآى" و لكن في تطبيقات مختلفة بعض الشئ. بالنسبة ل"اسآى" من الأفضل ان يطبق لمعاينة الحالة الحالية لقابلية المائدة المائية للتلوث وبالتالي حمايتها من التلوث بينما "دراستك-مبيد" من الأفضل ان يدرج كعامل في تحليل متعدد العوامل و ذلك لاختيار احسن الأماكن لاستخدام معين للتراب.

摘要

本文建立了三个脆弱性指数模型来评估突尼斯Nabeul-Hammamet浅部含水层的潜在污染:DRASTIC、Pesticide DRASTIC和敏感性指数(SI)模型。每种模型所得到的图层通过地理信息系统(GIS)获得。SI图层覆盖在DRASTIC和Pesticide DRASTIC之上,脆弱性等级相一致区域和不一致区域的比例可以提取出来。DRASTIC模型的结果表明,含水层的大部分区域脆弱性很低。Pesticide DRASTIC和SI模型确定了含水层的三个脆弱性等级(低,中,高)。地下水组分的水化学数据显示,含水层的一部分受到了重度污染,这表明DRASTIC模型低估了污染的风险。Pesticide DRASTIC和SI模型能更好地反映这种风险。后两个模型在脆弱性等级的一致性约占含水层区域的64 %。为了优化土地利用配置的管理和防止Nabeul-Hammamet含水层的污染,不推荐使用DRASTIC模型。文中推荐使用Pesticide DRASTIC和SI模型,但它们在应用方面有一些微小的区别。SI模型应用于监测脆弱区域和预防污染方面。Pesticide DRASTIC模型在利用多准则分析为具体地面实践或未来土地利用选择最优场地方面可以作为一个标准对其进行校正。

Resumo

Três modelos de índices de vulnerabilidade foram aplicados para avaliar o potencial de poluição do aquífero de pequena profundidade de Nabeul-Hammamet, na Tunísia: DRASTIC, DRASTIC Pesticida e Índice de Suscetibilidade (IS). Um mapa com camadas com os resultados de cada um foi obtido com a utilização de um sistema de informação geográfica (SIG). A camada do IS foi sobreposta com as do DRASTIC e DRASTIC Pesticida, tendo sido extraídas as percentagens das áreas de concordância e divergência nas categorias de vulnerabilidade. Os resultados do DRASTIC sugerem que o aquífero apresenta, na maior parte, vulnerabilidade baixa. Os índices DRASTIC Pesticida e IS identificam três categorias de vulnerabilidade (baixa, média, alta) no aquífero. Dados da composição química atual da água subterrânea já publicados indicam que partes do aquífero estão altamente contaminadas, revelando que o índice DRASTIC subestima o risco de poluição; os índices DRASTIC Pesticida e IS refletem melhor este risco. A concordância nas categorias de vulnerabilidade entre os dois últimos modelos ocorre em 64 % da área do aquífero. O índice DRASTIC não é recomendado para a gestão da alocação do uso do solo e na prevenção da contaminação do aquífero Nabeul-Hammamet. Os índices DRASTIC Pesticida e IS são recomendados, mas para aplicações ligeiramente diferentes. O IS ajuda na monitorização das áreas vulneráveis atuais, portanto, na prevenção da contaminação. O DRASTIC Pesticida pode intervir melhor como critério numa análise multicritérios para seleção dos melhores locais para uma prática específica no solo ou para o uso futuro do solo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed AA (2009) Using Generic and Pesticide DRASTIC GIS-based models for vulnerability assessment of the Quaternary aquifer at Sohag, Egypt. Hydrogeol J 17:1203–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potentiel using hydrogeological settings. EPA/600/2-87-036, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • Almsari MN (2008) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza coastal aquifer, Palestine. J Environ Manag 88:577–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Zabet T (2002) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability to contamination potential using the DRASTIC method. Environ Geol 43:203–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreo B, Goldscheider N, Vadillo I, Vıas JM, Neukum C, Sinreich M, Jiménez P, Brechenmacher P, Carrasco F, Hötzl H, Perles MJ, Zwahlan F (2006) Karst groundwater protection: first application of a Pan-European approach to vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping in the Sierra de Lı´bar (southern Spain). Sci Total Environ 357:54–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aqbar TA, Lin H, DeGroote J (2011) Development and evaluation of GIS-based ArcPRZM-3 system for spatial modeling of groundwater vulnerability to pesticide contamination. Comput Geosci 37:822–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artuso E, Oliveira MM, Lobo-Ferreira JP (2002) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution using six different methods: AVI, GOD, DRASTIC, SI, EPPNA and SINTACS. Application to the Évora Aquifer", LNEC, Rel. 184/02- GIAS, Portugal

  • Awawdeh MM, Jaradat RA (2010) Evaluation of aquifers vulnerability to contamination in the Yarmouk River basin, Jordan, based on DRASTIC method. Arab J Geosci 3:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babiker IS, Mohamed MAA, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Sci Total Environ 345:127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai L, Wang Y, Meng F (2012) Application of DRASTIC and extension theory in the groundwater vulnerability evaluation. Water Environ J 26:381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banton O, Villeneuve JP (1989) Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pesticides: a comparison between the land-use index and the przm leaching quantities. J Contam Hydrol 4:285–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekesi G, McConchine J (2000) Empirical assessment of the influence of the unsaturated zone on aquifer vulnerability, Manawatu region, New Zealand. Ground Water 38:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben Moussa A, Bel Haj Salem S, Zouari K, Marc V, Jlassi F (2011) Investigation of groundwater mineralization in the Hammamet–Nabeul unconfined aquifer, north-eastern Tunisia: geochemical and isotopic approach. Environ Earth Sci 62:1287–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensalem H (1991) Geological map of Tunisia (Hammamet) scale 1:50 000. sheet no. 37. Geological Survey of Tunisia, Tunis

  • Birkinshaw SJ, Ewen J (2000) Nitrogen transformation component for SHETRAN catchment nitrate transport modelling. J Hydrol 230:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonton A, Rouleau A, Bouchard C, Rodriguez MJ (2011) Nitrate transport modeling to evaluate source water protection scenarios for a municipal well in an agricultural area. Agric Syst 104:429–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Born SM, Stephensons DA (1969) Hydrogeologic considerations in liquid waste disposal. J Soil Water Conserv 24:52–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Butscher C, Huggenberger P (2009) Enhanced vulnerability assessment in karst areas by combining mapping with modeling approaches. Sci Total Environ 407:1153–1163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butscher C, Auckenthaler A, Scheidler S, Huggenberger P (2011) Validation of a numerical indicator of microbial contamination for Karst springs. Ground Water 49:66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsel RF, Mulkey AL, Lorber MN, Leland BB (1985) The pesticide root zone model (PRZM): a procedure for evaluating pesticide leaching threats to groundwater. Ecol Model 30:49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow VT (1964) Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Colleuil B, Bensalem H (1991) Geological map of Tunisia (Nabeul) scale 1:50 000. sheet no. 30. GeologicalSurvey of Tunisia, Tunis

  • Connell LD, Daele G (2003) A quantitative approach to aquifer vulnerability mapping. J Hydrol 276:71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CRDA (2008) Etude de la gestion intégrée des ressources hydrauliques de Cap Bon. Phase II : Elaboration des scenarios de développement [Study of integrated water resources management: elaboration of development scenarios]. BICHE, Tunis

  • Dixon B (2005) Applicability of neuro-fuzzy techniques in predicting ground-water vulnerability: a GIS-based sensitivity analysis. J Hydrol 309:17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) EPIK: a new method for the outlining of protection areas in karstic environment. In: Günay G, Johnson AI (eds) Karst waters and environmental impacts. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

  • Engel BA, Navulur KCS, Cooper BS, Hahn L (1996) Estimating groundwater vulnerability to non-point source pollution from nitrates and pesticides on a regional scale. IAHS Publ. no. 235, IAHS, Wallingford, UK

  • ESRI (2003) Using Arc GIS geostatistical analyst. ESRI, Redlands, CA

  • Fobe B, Goossens M (1990) The groundwater vulnerability map for the Flemish region: its principles and uses. Eng Geol 29:355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Community (1993) CORINE land cover-guide technique. EC, Brussels

  • Frances A, Paralta E, Fernandes J, Ribeiro L (2001) Development and application in the Alentejo region of a method to assess the vulnerability of groundwater to diffuse agricultural pollution: the susceptibility index. In: Ribeiro L (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Future Groundwater Resources at Risk. Lisbon, June 2001

  • Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Van Duijevenboden W, Van Waegening HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, TNO Commitee on Hydrogeological Research, Proceedings and Information, The Hague

  • Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnier M, Lo Porto A, Marin R, Leone A (1998) Integrated use of GLEAMS and GIS to prevent groundwater pollution caused by agricultural disposal of animal waste. Environ Manag 22:747–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germain C (2001) Vulnérabilité du milieu karstique de la région de Montana (Valais, Suisse): application de la méthode EPIK. [Karst vulnerability of Montana region (Valais, Suisse): application of EPIK model]. Bull Hydrogéo 19:145–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogu R, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods. Environ Geol 39:549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza MH, Added A, Francés A, Rodríguez R (2007) Validity of the vulnerability methods DRASTIC, SINTACS and SI applied to the study of nitrate pollution in the phreatic aquifer of Metline–Ras Jebel–Raf Raf (northeastern Tunisia). CR Geosci 339:493–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri JS (1975) Pollution des Eaux Souterraines. [Groundwater pollution]. In: Proceedings of the Moscow Symposium, August 1971, IAHS-AISH Publ. no. 103, IAHS, Wallingford, UK

  • Hughes GM, Ladon RA, Farvolden RN (1971) Hydrology of solid wate disposal sites in northeastern Illinois. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Tirkey P, Pathak G (2012) Approaches to groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a literature review. Asian J Water Environ Pollut 9:105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Johan Z, Krivy M (1969) Geological map of Tunisia (Bouficha) scale 1:50 000. sheet no. 36. Geological Survey of Tunisia, Tunis

  • Johnson TD, Belitz K (2009) Assigning land use to supply wells for statistical characterization of regional groundwater quality. J Hydrol 370:100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jomaa S (2005) Caractérisation quantitative et qualitative de la nappe phréatique Nabeul-Hammamet [Quantitative and qualitative characterization of Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer]. Projet Fin d'Etude, Medjez el Bab, Tunisia

  • Kolpin DW (1997) Agricultural chemicals in groundwater of the midwestern United States: relations to land use. J Environ Qual 26:1025–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand HE (1966) Patterns of contaminated zones of water in the ground Water. Res Res 1:83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Leone A, Ripa MN, Uricchio V, Dea J, Vargay Z (2009) Vulnerability and risk evaluation of agricultural nitrogen pollution for Hungary’s main aquifer using DRASTIC and GLEAMS models. J Environ Manag 90:2969–2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo-Ferreira JP, Oliveira MM (1997) DRASTIC Grounwater vulnerability mapping of Portugal. In: goundwater: an endangered resource. Proceedings of Theme C of the 27th Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic Research. San Francisco, August 1997

  • Lobo-Ferreira JP, Oliveira MM (2004) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in Portugal. Geofísica Int 43:541–550

    Google Scholar 

  • McLay CDA, Dragten R, Sparling G, Selvarajah N (2001) Predicting groundwater nitrate concentrations in a region of mixed agricultural land use: a comparison of three approaches. Environ Pollut 115:191–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculture (2000) Carte Agricole: CD-support of many data layers related with agriculture and water sectors of Nabeul district. Ministry of Agriculture, Tunis, Tunisia

  • Murat V (2000) Etude comparative des méthodes d’évaluation de la vulnérabilité intrinsèque des aquifères à la pollution: application aux aquifères du Piémont Laurentien [Comparative study for evaluation of intrinsic vulnerability models to pollution: application to Piemont Laurentien aquifers]. Université du Québec, INRS-Georessource, Québec

  • National Research Council (1993) Ground water vulnerability assessment: contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Petelet-Giraud E, Doerfliger N, Crochet P (2000) RISKE: multicriteria assesment of karstic aquifer vulnerability mapping. Application to the Fontanilles and Cent-Fonts karstic aquifers (Herault, S. France). Hydrogéologie 4:71–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Leal JA, Rodriguez R, Martin AV (1999) Aquifer vulnerability mapping and urban planning. Proceedings, AGU fall meeting, San Francisco, December 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro L (2000) SI: a new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution. Internal report, ER-SHA/CVRM Lisbon Portugal

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards RP, Baker DB, Creamer NL, Kramer JW, Ewing DE, Merryfield BJ, Wallrabenstein LK (1996) Wellwater quality, well vulnerability, and agricultural contamination in the midwestern United States. J Environ Qual 25:389–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins NS, Chilton PJ, Cobbing JE (2007) Adapting existing experience with aquifer vulnerability and groundwater protection for Africa. J Afr Earth Sci 47:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodney CS (2006) Groundwater vulnerability to agrochemicals: a GIS-based DRASTIC model analysis of Caroll, Chariton, and Saline counties. University of Missouri, Colombia Missouri USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez R, Reyes R, Rosales J, Berlìn J, Mejìa JA, Ramos A (2001) Estructuraciòn de mapas temàticos de ìndices de vulnerabilidad acuìfera de la mancha urbana de Salamanca Guanajuato [Thematic maps structuration of aquifer vulnerability indexes in la mancha urbana of Salamanca Guanajuato]. Technical report, CEAG, IGF-UNAM, Salamanca, Mexico

  • Rupert MG (2001) Calibration of the DRASTIC ground water vulnerability mapping method. Ground Water 39:630–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saidi S, Bouri S, Ben Dhia H (2010) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping of the Hajeb-jelma aquifer (central Tunisia) using a GIS-based DRASTIC model. Environ Earth Sci 59:1579–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saatsaz M, Sulaiman WNA, Eslamian S, Mohammadi K (2011) GIS DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability estimation of Astaneh-Kouchesfahan Plain, northern Iran. Int J Water 6:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnebelen N, Platel JP, Nindre Y, Baudry D (2002) Gestion des eaux souterraines en Aquitaine Année 5. Opération sectorielle. Protection de la nappe de l’Oligocène en région bordelaise [Water management in Aquitaine 5. Sectorial operation. Oligocene aquifer protection in the Bordeau region]. Rapport, BRGM, Orléans, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Selmi Y (2010) Evaluation de l’impact de l’irrigation des périmètres Bir Romana et Beni Khiar (Grand Nabeul) par les eaux usées traitées sur les nappes sous-jacentes à l’aide des SIG [Impact assessment of Bir Romana et Beni Khiar (Grand Nabeul) irrigated districts with reclaimed water on groundwater using GIS]. Projet fin d’étude, Mograne, Morocco

  • Sinan M, Maslouhi R, Razack M (2003) Utilisation des SIG pour la caractérisation de la vulnérabilité et de la sensibilité à la pollution des nappes d’eau souterraine: application à la nappe du Haouz de Marrakech, Maroc [Using GIS for characterization of groundwater aquifer pollution vulnerability and sensitivity: application to the Marrakech Haouz's aquifer, Marocco] . 2nd FIG Regional Conference Marrakech, Morocco, December 2003

  • Stigter TY, Ribeiro L, Carvalho Dill AMM (2006) Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeol J 14:79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tim US, Jain D, Liao H (1996) Interactive modeling of ground water vulnerability within a geographic information system environment. Ground Water 34:618–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmons DR, Dylla AS (1981) Nitrogen leaching as influenced by nitrogen management and supplemental irrigation level. J Environ Qual 10:421–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd DK, Mays LW (2005) Groundwater hydrology, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Twarakavi NKC, Kaluarachchi JJ (2006) Sustainability of ground water quality considering land use changes and public health risks. J Environ Manag 81:405–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twarakavi NKC, Misra D, Bandopadhyay S (2006) Prediction of arsenic in bedrock derived stream sediments at a gold mine site under conditions of sparse data. Nat Resour Res 15:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beynena PE, Niedzielski MA, Bialkowska-Jelinskaa E, Alsharif K, Matusick J (2012) Comparative study of specific groundwater vulnerability of a karst aquifer in central Florida. Appl Geogr 32:868–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnerability index: GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Can Water Resour 18:25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viessman W, Knapp JW Jr, Lewis GL, Harbaugh TE (1977) Introduction to hydrology. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba J, Zaporozec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. IAH International Contribution for Hydrogeology.Heise, Hannover, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2009) Réflexion Stratégique sur l’Eau Potable et L’Assainissement en Tunisie. [Strategic reflxions on potable water and sewerage in Tunisia]. Rapport No: 44744-TN. Department of sustainable development. MENA Regional office, Amman

  • Worrall F, Besien T, Kolpin DD (2002) Groundwater vulnerability: interactions of chemical and site properties. Sci Total Environ 299:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall F, Besien T (2004) The vulnerability of groundwater to pesticide contamination estimated directly from observations of presence or absence in wells. J Hydrol 303:92–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabeo A, Pizzol L, Agostini P, Critto A, Giove S, Marcomini A (2011) Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites, part 1: vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision analysis. Environ Int 37:1295–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the reviewers and the editor for the useful and constructive comments and corrections which contributed to a significant improvement of the manuscript. Also, thanks goes to the staff of “Commissariat Regional de Development Agricole de Nabeul” and “Groupement de Developpement Agricole” of Messaadi for their help in obtaining the needed data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wastewater Treatment Laboratory, Water Researches and Technologies Center, Carthage University, Technopark Borj Cedria, P.B. 273, Borj Cedria, Tunisia

    Makram Anane, Bessem Abidi, Fethi Lachaal, Atef Limam & Salah Jellali

Authors
  1. Makram Anane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bessem Abidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fethi Lachaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atef Limam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Salah Jellali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Makram Anane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anane, M., Abidi, B., Lachaal, F. et al. GIS-based DRASTIC, Pesticide DRASTIC and the Susceptibility Index (SI): comparative study for evaluation of pollution potential in the Nabeul-Hammamet shallow aquifer, Tunisia. Hydrogeol J 21, 715–731 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-0952-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-013-0952-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation