Advertisement

Development of entropy-based model for pollution risk assessment of hydrogeological system

Original Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This article is an attempt to develop an entropy-based model for risk assessment of hydrogeological system which is a measure of uncertainty contained in diverse systems, i.e., meteorological (precipitation), hydrogeological (depth to water table), and hydrochemical (total dissolved solids) parameters. Results of the entropy-based model at the limited well sites of the experimental area in granitic aquifer show that interaction entropy varies from 0.725 to 1.092 bits under negligible and low-risk zones whereas it is 1.361 bits in the high-risk prone area. Thus, the risk zones are deduced with the help of interaction entropy, which has shown similar results obtained from the DRASTIC model. The importance of this model is in assessing the degrees of hydrogeological vulnerability where the seven DRASTIC parameters could be replaced by only these three parameters. It may facilitate in selecting suitable areas of waste landfill sites for future.

Keywords

Hydrogeological system Risk assessment Entropy-based model Granitic aquifer India 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. V.M. Tiwari, Director of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-National Geophysical Research Institute (CSIR-NGRI), Hyderabad has accorded to publish this article, which has partially been funded by the CSIR-NGRI In-House Project [MLP 6407-28(KS)]. The anonymous reviewers have suggested their constructive comments to improve the article. The authors acknowledge all of them.

References

  1. Ahmed I, Nazzal Y, Zaidi FK, Al-Arifi NSN, Ghrefat H, Naeem M (2015) Hydrogeological vulnerability and pollution risk mapping of the Saq and overlying aquifers using the DRASTIC model and GIS techniques, NW Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 74:1303–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aller L, Bennet T, Leher JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydro geological setting. EPA 600/2–87-035:622Google Scholar
  3. Baalousha HM (2011) Mapping groundwater contamination risk using GIS and groundwater modeling: a case study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Arab J Geosci 4(3):483–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boughriba M, Barkaoui A, Zarhloule Y, Lahmer Z, El Houadi B, Verdoya M (2010) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping of the Angad transboundary aquifer using DRASTIC index method in GIS environment. Arab J Geosci 3(2):207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Civita M, De Maio M (1997) SINTACS Un sistema parametrico per la valutazione e la cartografia della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’inquinamento. Metodologia e automazione. Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, p.191Google Scholar
  6. COST 65 (1995) Hydrogeological aspects of groundwater protection in karstic areas, Final report (COSTaction65). European Commission, Directorate-General XII Science, Research and Development, Report EUR 16547 EN, Brussels, p. 446Google Scholar
  7. Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1998) Practical guide, groundwater vulnerability mapping in karstic regions (EPIK). Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), BernGoogle Scholar
  8. Edet A (2014) An aquifer vulnerability assessment of the Benin formation aquifer, Calabar, southeastern Nigeria, using DRASTIC and GIS approach. Environ Earth Sci 71(4):1747–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, pp 69–86Google Scholar
  10. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh A, Tiwari AK, Das S (2015) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability of Katri Watershed, Dhanbad, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 1(3):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Hotzl H (2000) The PI method: a GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration of karst aquifers. Z Angew Geol 463:157–166Google Scholar
  13. Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Katpatal YB, Pathak G (2015) Development of GIS-based fuzzy pattern recognition model (modified DRASTIC model) for groundwater vulnerability to pollution assessment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:3161–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jessop A (1995) Informed assessments, an introduction to information, entropy and statistics. Ellis Horwood, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Jha R, Singh VP (2008) Evaluation of river water quality by entropy. KSCE J Civil Eng 12(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klauco S (1987) Motion of pollutants in the groundwater as factor of their vulnerability. In: van Duijvenbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, pp 403–408Google Scholar
  17. Li P, Wu J, Qian H, Lyu X, Liu H (2014) Origin and assessment of groundwater pollution and associated health risk: a case study in an industrial park, Northwest China. Environ Geochem Health 36(4):693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Margat J (1968) Vulnérabilité des nappes d’eau souterraine à la pollution. [Vulnerability of groundwater to pollution]. BRGM Publication 68 SGL 198 HYD, Orléans, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Martínez-Navarrete C, Jiménez-Madrid A, Sánchez-Navarro I, Carrasco-Cantos F, Moreno-Merino L (2011) Conceptual framework for protecting groundwater quality. Int J Water Resour Dev 27(1):227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Medhi J (2005) Statistical methods-an introductory text. New Age International Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. Mimi ZA, Assi A (2009) Intrinsic vulnerability, hazard and risk mapping for karst aquifers: a case study. J Hydrol 364:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mogaji KA, Lim HS, Abdullar K (2014) Modeling groundwater vulnerability to pollution using optimized DRASTIC model. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 20:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mondal NC, Ahmed S (2015) Landscape entropy approach to demarcating pathways for water oozing in a desert area in India. Curr Sci India 109(1):148–157Google Scholar
  24. Mondal NC, Singh VS (2004) A new approach to delineate the groundwater recharge zone in hard rock terrain. Curr Sci India 87(5):658–662Google Scholar
  25. Mondal NC, Singh VS (2005) Modeling for pollutant migration in the tannery belt, Dindigul, Tamilnadu, India. Curr Sci India 89(9):1600–1606Google Scholar
  26. Mondal NC, Singh VP (2010) Need of groundwater management in tannery belt: a scenario about Dindigul town, Tamil Nadu. J Geol Soc India 76(3):303–309Google Scholar
  27. Mondal NC, Singh VP (2011) Hydrochemical analysis of salinization for a tannery belt in southern India. J Hydrol 405(2–3):235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mondal NC, Singh VP (2012) Evaluation of groundwater monitoring network of Kodaganar River basin from southern India using entropy. Environ Earth Sci 66(4):1183–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mondal NC, Saxena VK, Singh VS (2005) Assessment of groundwater pollution due to tanneries in and around Dindigul, Tamilnadu, India. Environ Geol 48(2):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mondal NC, Singh VP, Ahmed S (2012) Entropy-based approach for assessing natural recharge in unconfined aquifers from southern India. Water Resour Manag 26(9):2715–2732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mondal NC, Singh VP, Ahmed S (2013) Delineating shallow saline groundwater zones from southern India using geophysical indicators. Environ Monit Assess 185(6):4869–4886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mondal NC, Adike S, Singh VS, Ahmed S, Jayakumar KV (2017) Determining shallow aquifer vulnerability by the DRASTIC method and hydrochemistry in granitic terrain, southern India. J Earth Sys Sci 126(6):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moramarco T, Barbetta S, Tarpanelli A (2017) From surface flow velocity measurements to discharge assessment by the entropy theory. Water 9(2):120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nasri N, Chebil M, Guellouz L, Bouhlila R, Maslouhi A, Ibnoussina M (2014) Modelling nonpoint source pollution by nitrate of soil in the Mateur plain, northeast of Tunisia. Arab J Geosci 8(2):1057–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Navlur KCS, Engel B (1997) Predicting spatial distribution of vulnerability of Indiana State Aquifer system to nitrate leaching using GIS. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/SANTA_FE_CDROM/sf_papers/navulur_kumar/my_paper.html
  36. Neukum C, Hötzl H, Himmelsbach T (2008) Validation of vulnerability mapping methods by field investigations and numerical modelling. Hydrogeol J 16:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prasad RK, Mondal NC, Banerjee P, Nandakumar MV, Singh VS (2008) Deciphering potential groundwater zone in hard rock through the application of GIS. Environ Geol 55(3):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Public Works Department (PWD) (2000) Groundwater perspective—a profile of Dindigul District, Tamilnadu. Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Qian H, Li P, Howard KWF, Yang C, Zhang X (2012) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in the Yinchuan Plain, Northwest China using OREADIC. Environ Monit Assess 184(6):3613–3628.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2211-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saha D, Alam F (2014) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and pesticide DRASTIC models in intense agriculture area of the Gangetic plains, India. Environ Monit Assess 186:8741–8763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Samey AA, Gang C (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for the assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in West Mitidja: Blida City, Algeria. J Appl Sci 3(7):500–507Google Scholar
  42. Sener E, Sener S, Davraz A (2009) Assessment of aquifer vulnerability based on GIS and DRASTIC methods: a case study of the Senirkent Uluborlu Basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydro J 17(8):2023–2035Google Scholar
  43. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical J 27:379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Singh VP (1998) The use of entropy in hydrology and water resources. Hydrol Process 11:587–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh VP (2013) Entropy theory and its application in environmental and water engineering. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh VS, Mondal NC, Ron Barker, Thangarajan M, Rao TV and Subramaniyam K (2003) Assessment of groundwater regime in Kodaganar river basin (Dindigul district), Tamilnadu. Tech. Rept. No.-NGRI-2003-GW-269, p. 104Google Scholar
  47. Sorichetta A, Masetti M, Ballabio C, Sterlacchini S, Beretta GP (2011) Reliability of groundwater vulnerability maps obtained through statistical methods. J Environ Manag 92(4):1215–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Subirana JM, Casas A (1987) Groundwater vulnerabiltiy to pollutants of the low Llobregat Valley (Barcelona, Spain), work method and evolution study of the gravel-pit exploitations. In: van Duijvenbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, The Hague, pp 477–479Google Scholar
  49. Tesoriero AJ, Inkpen EL, Voss FD (1998) Assessing ground water vulnerability using logistic regression. In: Proceedings for the Source Water Assessment and Protection 98 conference, Dallas, TX, p157–165Google Scholar
  50. Tiwari AK, Singh PK, Maio MD (2016) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability in a coal mining of India by using GIS-based DRASTIC model. Arab J Geosci 9:438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Todd DK (1980) Groundwater hydrology. Wiley International Edition, John Wiley and Sons. Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu H, Chen J, Qian H (2016) A modified DRASTIC model for assessing contamination risk of groundwater in the northern suburb of Yinchuan, China. Environ Earth Sci 75:483CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth Process Modeling Group, CSIR-National Geophysical Research InstituteHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Rural Water Supply & SanitationMahbubnagarIndia
  3. 3.Electrical Geophysics Group, CSIR-National Geophysical Research InstituteHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations