Environmental Geology

, Volume 53, Issue 6, pp 1345–1351 | Cite as

Groundwater chemical pollution risk: assessment through a soil attenuation index

  • Olga Susana Heredia
  • Alicia Fernández Cirelli
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Aquifer vulnerability is frequently estimated through methodologies that don’t consider most physical and chemical soil parameters. A soil attenuation index is proposed to estimate groundwater chemical pollution risk, that takes into account organic carbon content, pH, cation exchange capacity, clay content, phreatic depth and landscape position. The attenuation index is constructed by a methodology similar to that developed for water quality index. P, Mn and Zn concentrations in groundwater from selected places were used to validate the proposed index.

Keywords

Soil properties Groundwater protection Soil attenuation index Aquifer vulnerability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to UBA and CONICET for the financial support.

References

  1. Aller L, Bennett T, Leher JH, Petty RJ (1985) ‘DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings’. USEPA Report 600/2-85/018Google Scholar
  2. Año Vidal C, Sánchez Diaz J, Antolin Tomás C, Gobelles Estelles M (2002) ‘Capacidad y vulnerabilidad de los suelos de la comunidad Valenciana’. Investigaciones geográficas 28:105–123Google Scholar
  3. CDI (2006) http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/cdi/. Gobierno de la provincia de Buenos Aires
  4. Civita M, De Regibus C (1995) ‘Sperimentazione di alcune metodologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilità degli aquiferi’. Q Geol Appl Pitagora Bologna 3:63–71Google Scholar
  5. Conesa Fdez.-Vitora V (1993) Methodological guide for enviromental impact evaluation (Guia metodológica para la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental), 1st edn. Mundi Prensa, Madrid, 276 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly D, Drew D (1999) ‘Irish methodologies for karst aquifer protection’. In: Beek B (ed) Hydrology and engineering geology of sinkholes and karst. Balkema, Rotterdam pp 267–272Google Scholar
  7. Derouane J, Dassargues A (1998) ‘Delineation of groundwater protection zones based on tracer test and transport modeling in alluvial sediments’. Environ Geol 36:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) ‘EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas in karstic environment’. In: Günay G, Jonshon AI (eds) International symposium and field seminar on Karst waters and environmental impacts. Antalya, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 177–123Google Scholar
  9. Foster SSD, Hirata R (1988) Groundwater pollution risk assessment. Pan American centre for sanitary engineering and environmental sciences, Lima, 73 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Gan J (2002) ‘How to reduce pesticide leaching’. Pesticide wise. University of California, riverside cooperative extension, 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) ‘Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods’. Environ Geol 29(6):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heredia OS, Fernández Cirelli A (2006) ‘Environmental risks of increasing phosphorous addition in relation to soil sorption capacity’. Geoderma. Available on lineGoogle Scholar
  13. Hewitt AE, Shepherd TG (1997) ‘Structural vulnerability in New Zeland soils’. Austr J Soil Res 35:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huddleston JH (1996) ‘How soil properties affect groundwater vulnerability to pesticide contamination’. EM 8559, Oregon State University Extension Service, 4 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. INDEC (2001) Population census 2001. Buenos Aires, INDEC, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
  16. Iñiguez AM, Scoppa CO (1971) ‘Mineralogía de arcillas en suelos alcalino-sódicos del noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires’. In: 6° Reunión Argentina de la Ciencia del Suelo, Córdoba, Argentina. Proceedings, pp 340–360Google Scholar
  17. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) ‘A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters’. Anal Chim Acta 27:31-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. SAGyP-INTA (1989) Mapa de Suelos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, escala 1:500.000. SAGyP (ed), Bs. As. Argentina, 527 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Silva Busso A, Santa Cruz J, Heredia OS (2004) Trazadores Multielementales en Diagnóstico Ambiental de las Aguas Subterráneas del Partido de Escobar, Buenos Aires Argentina. Revista de Geología Aplicada a la Ingeniería y al Ambiente 20:23–28Google Scholar
  20. Soil survey staff (2003) Keys to soil taxonomy, 9th edition, USDA, Natural resources service, 332 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Sparks DL (ed) (1996) Methods of soil analysis: part 3-chemical methods. SSSA Book Series: 5, ASA, Madison, 1390 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. USDA (1996) ‘Soil survey laboratory methods manual’. Soil survey investigations report N° 42. version 3.0. Washington DC, 693 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Stempvoort D, Evert L, Wassenaar L (1993) ‘Aquifer vulnerability index: a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping’. Can Wat Res J 18:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Susana Heredia
    • 1
  • Alicia Fernández Cirelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Cátedra de EdafologíaFacultad de Agronomia, UBABuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Centro de Estudios Transdisciplinarios del AguaFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, UBABuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations