Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 77:633 | Cite as

Mapping groundwater zones contaminated by hydrocarbons in the Dammam aquifer in the Karbala–Najaf plateau, Iraq

  • Alaa M. Al-Abadi
  • Qusai Y. Al-Kubaisi
  • Maithm A. Al-Ghanimy
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

This study focused on delineating the groundwater contamination zones that contain hydrocarbons (heavy oil) in the Dammam aquifer in the Karbala–Najaf plateau, central Iraq, using two hybrid models, specifically, the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) (AHP-TOPSIS and entropy-TOPSIS). Six factors were identified as causing the contamination of groundwater in the Dammam aquifer depending on data availability and the opinions of experts. These factors were the distance to the Abu Jir fault, fault density, aquifer hydraulic conductivity and thickness, borehole depths, and elevation above mean sea level. The AHP and entropy methods were used to derive the weights required to run the TOPSIS algorithm. The ranked values from TOPSIS were classified into five contamination hazard zones: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. The results from the hybrid models were validated using the receiver operating characteristic curve and proved that the hybridization of entropy-TOPSIS with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve equal to 0.80 performed better than that of AHP-TOPSIS with a value of 0.75. The direct comparison of groundwater-contaminated boreholes (validation dataset) with groundwater contamination zones also confirmed this result. The moderate–very high contaminated zones occupy 60% of the study area and are distributed in the northern and northeastern parts of the plateau, whereas the very low–low zones are concentrated in the southwestern and southern parts. The map of contamination level hazard zones from this study could be used by decision-makers and drilling workers as a guide to drill new boreholes and thus to avoid drilling-faulted contaminated boreholes.

Keywords

AHP TOPSIS Entropy information Karbala Iraq 

References

  1. Abu Taha R, Daim T (2013) Multi-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis, a literature review. In: Daim T, Oliver T, Kim J (eds) Research and technology management in the electricity industry. Green energy and technology. Springer, London.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5097-8_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Abadi AM (2015) Groundwater potential mapping at northeastern Wasit and Missan governorates, Iraq using a data-driven weights of evidence technique in framework of GIS. Environ Earth Sci 74(2):1109–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4097-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Atabi AN (2014) Determination of the oil characterization and reservoir assessment of Fatha (lower Fars) and Ghar Formations is selected oil fields in south and middle Euphrates of Iraq. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Baghdad, Iraq. p 285Google Scholar
  4. Al-Ghanimy MA (2013) The Hydrology of Damaam Auifer in the West and South West of Karbala City. M.Sc. Thesis, (unpublished), University of Baghdad, p 193Google Scholar
  5. Al-Jiburi HJ (2002) Hydro geological and hydrochemical study of Karbala Quadrangle (N1-3S-14). Scale 1:250 000, GEOSURV. Int rep no. 2825Google Scholar
  6. Amiri MP (2010) Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 37(9):6218–6224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asad MM, Mohammadi V, Shirani M (2016) Modeling Flexibility Capabilities of IT-based Supply Chain, Using a Grey-based DEMATEL Method. Proc Econ Fin 36:220–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30033-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Assarj A, Mahesh T, Assari E (2013) Role of public participation in sustainability of historical city: usage of TOPSIS method. Indian J Sci Technol 5(3):2289–2294Google Scholar
  9. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beskese A, Demir HH, Ozcan HK, Okten HE (2015) Landfill site selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study for Istanbul. Environ Earth Sci 73(7): 3513–3521.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3635-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buday T, Jassim SZ (1987) The regional geology of Iraq, vol 2. Tectonism, Magmatism, and Metamorphism. Publication of GEOSURV, Baghdad, p 352Google Scholar
  12. Chowdary VM, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A, Krishna Murthy YVN, Sharma JR, Dadhwal VK (2013) Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resour Manage 27(10):3555–3571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0364-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Consortium-Yugslavia (1977) Water Development Project Western Desert, Block-7, Hydrogeological exploration and Hydrotechnical Works, Climatology and Hydrology final report, vol.1, P39 (unpublished) Google Scholar
  14. Hsu CW, Hu AH (2008) Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int J Enviro Sci Tech 5(2):205–216.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaafari A, Najafi A, Pourghasemi HR, Rezaeian J, Sattarian A (2014) GIS-based frequency ratio and index of entropy models for landslide susceptibility assessment in the Caspian forest, northern Iran. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11(4):909–926.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0464-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jassim SZ, Goff JC (2006) Geology of Iraq. Dolin, Prague and Moravian Museum, Brno, p 431Google Scholar
  18. Jassim SZ, Karim SA, Basi MA, Al-Mubark MA, Munir J (1984) Final report on the regional geological survey of Iraq. Vol. 3, Stratigraphy, GEOSURV, Int. Rep. No. 1147Google Scholar
  19. Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190Google Scholar
  20. Kumar RR, Mishra S, Kumar CJ (2017) Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under Fuzzy environment. J Supercomput 73(11):4652–4682.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-2039-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liang GS (1999) Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts. Eur J Oper Res 112(3):682–691.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00410-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mateo JRSC (2012) Multi-criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. Springer, Berlin, 116pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moench AF (1988) The response of partially penetrating wells to pumpage from double-porosity aquifers. In: Proceedings of the international conference on fluid flow in fractured rocks, Atlanta, GA, May 16–18, 1988Google Scholar
  24. Monjezi M, Dehghani H, Singh TN, Sayadi AR, Gholinejad A (2012) Application of TOPSIS method for selecting the most appropriate blast design. Arab J Geosci 5(1):95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Negnevitsky M (2002) Artificial intelligence—a guide to intelligent systems. Addison-Wesley Co, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  26. Neuman SP (1974) Effect of partial penetration on flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed gravity response. Water Resour Res 10(2):303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1029/WR010i002p00303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peiyue LI, Jianhua WU, Hu QIAN (2010) Groundwater quality assessment based on entropy weighted osculating value method. Int J Enviro Sci 1(4):621–630.  https://doi.org/10.6088/ijes.00104020018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA, Munda G, Vreeker R (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources 1(2):181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/009083190881607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3287615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang JV, Cheng CH, Kun-Cheng H (2009) Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 9(1):377–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2008.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yesilnacar E, Topal T (2005) Landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison of logistic regression and neural networks methods in a medium scale study, Hendek region (Turkey). Eng Geol 79:251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zeleny M (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw Hill, New York, p 563Google Scholar
  34. Zhi-hong Z, Yi Y, Jing-nan S (2006) Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. J Environ Mental Sci 18(5):1020–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geology, College of ScienceUniversity of BasraBasraIraq
  2. 2.Department of Geology, College of ScienceUniversity of BaghdadBaghdadIraq
  3. 3.General Commission of Groundwater, Karbala BranchMinistry of Water ResourceKarbalaIraq

Personalised recommendations