Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in an urban area: a comparative study based on DRASTIC, EBF, and LR models

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The groundwater vulnerability assessment is known as a useful tool for predicting and prevention of groundwater pollution. This study targets the DRASTIC, evidential belief function (EBF), and logistic regression (LR) models to assess vulnerability in Kabul aquifers, Afghanistan Country. The growth of urban sprawl, groundwater overexploitation, and lack of suitable municipal sewage systems as anthropogenic sources have been the main potential to increase groundwater contaminants such as nitrate in the study area. The vulnerability map has been developed based on various effective factors including altitude, slope (percentage rise), aspect, curvature, land-use type, drainage density, distance from river, annual mean precipitation, net recharge, geology/lithology units, the impact of the vadose zone, aquifer media, depth to water (unsaturated zone), saturated zone, drawdown, and hydraulic conductivity. To identify groundwater pollution, the spatial variation of nitrate concentration data in 2018 was considered indication of groundwater pollution. Based on descriptive statistics, the value of 2.65 mg/l (the median of the pixel values of nitrate map) was selected as a threshold to differentiate the occurrence and non-occurrence of pollution. The groundwater quality data were selected and randomly divided into two datasets for training and validation, including 70% and 30%, respectively. The success-rate and prediction-rate curves were computed based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) to estimate the efficiency of models. The ROC-AUC of success rates for EBF, LR, and DRASTIC models were estimated to be 67%, 66%, and 52%, respectively. Moreover, the ROC-AUC of the prediction rates of the EBF, LR, and DRASTIC models were obtained 61%, 63%, and 55%, respectively. Based on correlation between mean nitrate concentration and the mean vulnerability indexes in each model, the EBF model is the most compatible with the current developed vulnerability zones as the role of mankind in changing the environment in real conditions in comparison to LR and DRASTIC models.

Graphical abstract

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data used in the manuscript are available to support the findings of this research in a public repository.

References

  • Adiat KAN, Akeredolu BE, Akinlalu AA, Olayanju GM (2020) Application of logistic regression analysis in prediction of groundwater vulnerability in gold mining environment: a case of Ilesa gold mining area, southwestern, Nigeria. Environ Monit Assess 192(9):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Abadi AM (2017) The application of Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence for assessing groundwater vulnerability at Galal Badra basin, Wasit governorate, east of Iraq. Appl Water Sci 7(4):1725–1740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluation groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeological settings.US Environmental Protection Agency Report (EPA/600/2–87/035), Robert S.Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, p 455

  • Almasri MN (2008) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for Gaza coastal aquifer, Palestine. J Environ Manag 88(4):577–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Amil A, Avcı P, Çil A, Muhammetoğlu A, Özyurt NN (2020) Significance of validation for karst aquifers’ vulnerability assessments: Antalya Travertine Plateau (Turkey) application. J Contam Hydrol 228:103557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • An P, Moon WM, & Bonham-Carter GF (1992) On knowledge-based approach of integrating remote sensing, geophysical and geological information. Proceedings of International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), pp. 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/igarss.1992.576620

  • Awawdeh M, Al-Kharbsheh N, Obeidat M, Awawdeh M (2020) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using modified SINTACS model in Wadi Shueib, Jordan. Ann GIS 26(4):377–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65(1–2):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.06.010

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.11.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bui DT, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I, Dick OB (2012) Spatial prediction of landslide hazards in Hoa Binh province (Vietnam): a comparative assessment of the efficacy of evidential belief functions and fuzzy logic models. CATENA 96:28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrough P (1986) A. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Busico G, Kazakis N, Colombani N, Mastrocicco M, Voudouris K, Tedesco D (2017) A modified SINTACS method for groundwater vulnerability and pollution risk assessment in highly anthropized regions based on NO3− and SO42− concentrations. Sci Total Environ 609:1512–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carranza EJM, Hale M (2003) Evidential belief functions for data-driven geologically constrained mapping of gold potential, Baguio district, Philippines. Ore Geol Rev 22(1–2):117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-1368(02)00111-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung CJF, Fabbri AG (2003) validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30(3):451–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:nhaz.0000007172.62651.2b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civita M (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilita` degli acquiferi all’inquinamento. Teoria & practica (Aquifer vulnerability maps to pollution) (in Italian). Pitagora Ed, Bologna. p 325

  • Dempster A (2008) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. In: Yager R, Liu L, Dempster AP, Shafer G (Eds.) Classic Works of the Dempster-ShaferTheory of Belief Functions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 57–72 (Chapter 3). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44792-4_3.

  • Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster AP (1968) A generalization of Bayesian inference. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 30(2):205–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1968.tb00722.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny SC, Allen DM, Journeay JM (2007) DRASTIC-Fm: a modified vulnerability mapping method for structurally controlled aquifers in the southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrogeol J 15(3):483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar A (2013) Geostatistics-based design of regional groundwater monitoring framework. ISH J Hydraul Eng 19(2):80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel B, Navulur K, Cooper B (1996) Estimating groundwater vulnerability to nonpoint source pollution from nitrates and pesticides on a regional scale. Proceedings of the Vienna Conference, IAHS Publ. No.2 35, April 1996.

  • Focazio MJ 2002 Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: providing scientifically defensible information for decision-makers, vol 1224.US Dept. of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Denver

  • Foster S 1987 Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Duijvenboooden W van, Waegeningh HG van (eds) TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, the Hague .Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, proceedings and information. 38: 69–86.

  • Freitas L, Afonso MJ, Pereira AJ, Delerue-Matos C, Chaminé HI (2019) Assessment of sustainability of groundwater in urban areas (Porto, NW Portugal): a GIS mapping approach to evaluate vulnerability, infiltration and recharge. Environ Earth Sci 78(5):1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • George T, Pal NR (1996) Quantification of conflict in Dempster-Shafer framework: a new approach. Int J Gen Syst 24(4):407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079608945130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future challenges in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods. Environ Geol 39(6):549–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza MH, Maâlej A, Ajmi M, &Added A (2010) Validity of the vulnerability methods DRASTIC and SI applied using GIS technique to the study of diffuse agricultural pollution in two phreatic aquifers of a semi-arid region (Northeast of Tunisia) AQUAmundi-Am01009 pp: 57–64. https://doi.org/10.4409/Am-006-10-0009

  • Heine GW (1986) A controlled study of some two-dimensional interpolation methods. COGS Comput Contrib 3(2):60–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Jhon Wiley & Sons Inc., NewYork

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Houben G, Niard N, Tünnermeier T, Himmelsbach T (2009) Hydrogeology of the Kabul Basin (Afghanistan), part I: aquifers and hydrology. Hydrogeol J 17(3):665-677.2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0377-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huan H, Wang J, Teng Y (2012) Assessment and validation of groundwater vulnerability to nitrate based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City of northeast China. Sci Total Environ 440:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • JICA. (2011). Groundwater resources potential in Kabul basin. Kabul: Ministry of Mines, JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA) SANYU CONSULTANTS INC. GED. JR. 11–077

  • JiradechMajandang J, Sarapirome S (2012) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and sensitivity analysis in Nong Rua, Khon Kaen, Thailand, using a GIS-based SINTACS model. Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:2025–2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-012-1890-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jmal I, Ayed B, Boughariou E, Allouche N, Saidi S, Hamdi M, Bouri S (2017) Assessing groundwater vulnerability to nitrate pollution using statistical approaches: a case study of Sidi Bouzid shallow aquifer, Central Tunisia. Arab J Geosci 10(16):1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Javadi S, Hashemy Shahdany SM, Neshat A, & Chambel A (2020) Multi-parameter risk mapping of Qazvin aquifer by classic and fuzzy clustering techniques. Geocarto Int 1–23.

  • Javadi S, Kavehkar N, Mousavizadeh MH, Mohammadi K (2011) Modification of DRASTIC model to map groundwater vulnerability to pollution using nitrate measurements in agricultural areas. J Agric Sci Technol 13(2):239–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Javadi S, Saatsaz M, Shahdany SMH, Neshat A, Milan SG, Akbari S (2021) A new hybrid framework of site selection for groundwater recharge. Geosci Front 12(4):101144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavzoglu T, Sahin EK, Colkesen I (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides 11(3):425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0391-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kordestani MD, Naghibi SA, Hashemi H, Ahmadi K, Kalantar B, Pradhan B (2019) Groundwater potential mapping using a novel data-mining ensemble model. Hydrogeol J 27(1):211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosravi K, Sartaj M, Karimi M, Levison J, & Lotfi A (2021) A GIS-based groundwater pollution potential using DRASTIC, modified DRASTIC, and bivariate statistical models. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–17.

  • Krishna R, Iqbal J, Gorai AK, Pathak G, Tuluri F, Tchounwou PB (2015) Groundwater vulnerability to pollution mapping of Ranchi district using GIS. Appl Water Sci 5(4):345–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-014-0198-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Min K (2001) Statistical analysis of landslide susceptibility at Yongin, Korea. Environ Geol 40(9):1095–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540100310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe M, &Butler M (2003) Groundwater sensitivity and vulnerability to pesticides, Herber and Round Valleys, Watsach County, Utah.Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Geological Survey.SBN:1–55791–695–0

  • Luoma S, Okkonen J, Korkka-Niemi K (2017) Comparison of the AVI, modified SINTACS and GALDIT vulnerability methods under future climate-change scenarios for a shallow low-lying coastal aquifer in southern Finland. Hydrogeol J 25(1):203–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mack TJ, Akbari MA, Ashoor MH, Chornack MP, Coplen TB, Emerson DG, Hubbard BE, Litke DW, Michel RL, Plummer LN, Rezai MT, Senay GB, Verdin JP, and Verstraeten IM (2010) Conceptual model of water resources in the Kabul Basin, Afghanistan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5262, p 240

  • Martínez-Navarrete C, Jiménez-Madrid A, Castaño S, Luque JA, Carrasco F (2013) Integration of groundwater protection for human consumption in land use planning. Eur Geol Mag J Eur Fed Geol 35:54–58

    Google Scholar 

  • McBratney AB, Webster R (1986) Choosing functions for semi-variograms of soil properties and fitting them to sampling estimates. J Soil Sci 37:617–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myslil V, Naim Eqrar M, & Hafisi M (1982) Hydrogeology of Kabul Basin – Report for United Nations Children Found UND DAS Ministry of Water and Power Democratic Republic of Afghanistan [unpublished].

  • Nampak H, Pradhan B, Manap MA (2014) Application of GIS-based data-driven evidential belief function model to predict groundwater potential zonation. J Hydrol 513:283–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naghibi SA, Pourghasemi HR, Abbaspour K (2018) A comparison between ten advanced and soft computing models for groundwater qanat potential assessment in Iran using R and GIS. Theoret Appl Climatol 131(3):967–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napolitano P, Fabbri AG (1996) Single parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS. In: Kovar K, Nachtnebel HP, editors. Proceedings of the HydroGIS: application of geographical information systems in hydrology and water resources management. IAHS Publication no. 235 Wallingford, UK: IAHS: 559–66

  • National Research Council, 1993, Ground water vulnerability assessment, contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 210 p. Accessed December 2000

  • Negnevitsky M (2002) Artificial intelligence: a guide to intelligent systems (p. 394) Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley/Pearson.

  • Noori R, Ghahremanzadeh H, Kløve B, Adamowski JF, Baghvand A (2019) Modified-DRASTIC, modified-SINTACS and SI methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment in the southern Tehran aquifer. J Environ Sci Health Part A 54(1):89–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver MA (1990) Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inform Syst 4:313–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Oroji B (2018) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC and GOD in the Asadabad plain. J Mater Environ Sci 9(6):1809–1816

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Park NW (2010) Application of Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence to GIS-based landslide susceptibility analysis. Environ Earth Sci 62(2):367–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0531-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscopo G (2001) Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory notes—Castlereagh Catchment.NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Australia

  • Pradhan B, Abokharima MH, Jebur MN, Tehrany MS (2014) Land subsidence susceptibility mapping at Kinta Valley (Malaysia) using the evidential belief function model in GIS. Nat Hazards 73(2):1019–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1128-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1988) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Putranto TT, Santi N, Widiarso DA, & Pamungkas D (2018) Application of Aquifer Vulnerability Index (AVI) method to assess groundwater vulnerability to contamination in Semarang urban area. In MATEC Web of Conferences EDP Sciences, 159, p 01036

  • Royle AG, Clausen FL, Frederiksen P (1981) Practical universal kriging and automatic contouring. Geoprocessing 1:377–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Saatsaz M, Sulaiman WNA, Eslamian S, Javadi S (2013) Development of a coupled flow and solute transport modelling for Astaneh-Kouchesfahan groundwater resources, North of Iran. Int J Water 7(1–2):80–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saffi MH (2011) Groundwater natural resources and quality concern in Kabul Basin, Afghanistan.Kabul: DACAAR.

  • Sahoo M, Sahoo S, Dhar A, Pradhan B (2016) Effectiveness evaluation of objective and subjective weighting methods for aquifer vulnerability assessment in urban context. J Hydrol 541(Part B):1303–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salemi E, Mastrocicco M, Colombani N, &Aschonitis VG (2012) Comparison of three different methods for groundwater intrinsic vulnerability mapping in the Ferrara province.Italy.BALWOIS 2012-Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, 28 May-2 June 2012.

  • Schijven JF, Hassanizadeh SM, de RodaHusman AM (2010) Vulnerability of unconfined aquifers to virus contamination. Water Res 44(4):1170–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.01.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G 1976 A mathematical theory of evidence, vol. 1.Princeton University Press, Princeton.

  • Srinivasan V, Seto KC, Emerson R, Gorelick SM (2013) The impact of urbanization on water vulnerability: a coupled human–environment system approach for Chennai, India. Glob Environ Change 23(1):229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorichetta A, Ballabio C, Masetti M, Robinson GR Jr, Sterlacchini S (2013) A comparison of data-driven groundwater vulnerability assessment methods. Groundwater 51(6):866–879

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sun CZ, Zuo HJ, Luan TX (2007) Research on groundwater vulnerability assessment of the lower Liaohe River Plain. J Jilin Univ (Earth Sci Ed.) 37(5):943–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Swets J (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3287615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari AK, Singh PK, De Maio M (2016) Evaluation of aquifer vulnerability in a coal mining of India by using GIS-based DRASTIC model. Arab J Geosci 9(6):438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umar Z, Pradhan B, Ahmad A, Jebur MN, Tehrany MS (2014) Earthquake induced landslide susceptibility mapping using an integrated ensemble frequency ratio and logistic regression models in West Sumatera Province, Indonesia. CATENA 118:124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrba J, and Zoporozec A 1994 Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. IAH Int Contrib Hydrogeo 16. Hannover7 Heise, 131

  • Walley P (1987) Belief function representations of statistical evidence. Ann Stat 15:1439–1465. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176350603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang XJ, Feng GM, Wang LN (2015) Groundwater vulnerability assessment in plain area of Hainan Province. South-to-North Water Transf Water Sci Technol 3:548–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkowski AJ, Kowalczyk A, Vrba J (2007) Groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping: IAH-selected papers. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoyu WU, Bin LI, Chuanming MA (2018) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability by applying the modified DRASTIC model in Beihai City, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(13):12713–12727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaporozec A (ed) (2004) Groundwater contamination inventory: a methodological guide with a model legend for groundwater contamination inventory and risk maps. UNESCO, IHP-VI, series on groundwater, 2. UNESCO, Paris

  • Zaryab A, Noori AR, Wegerich K, & Kløve B (2017) Assessment of Water Quality and Quantity trends in Kabul Aquifers with an outline for future water supplies. Central Asian Journal of Water Research (CAJWR) Цeнтpaльнoaзиaтcкий жypнaл иccлeдoвaний вoдныx pecypcoв, 3(2), 1925.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The used data were provided by the Ministry of Energy and Water, the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum, and the Ministry of Urban Development and Land of Afghanistan. This research was also supported by the Shiraz University, Iran. The valuable and constructive suggestions and comments of anonymous reviewers to improve manuscript are appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, 7146713565, Iran

    Alimahdi Mohammaddost, Zargham Mohammadi & Mohsen Rezaei

  2. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

    Hamid Reza Pourghasemi

  3. Groundwater Resources Directorate, National Water Affairs Regulation Authority, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Asadullah Farahmand

Authors
  1. Alimahdi Mohammaddost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zargham Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohsen Rezaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamid Reza Pourghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Asadullah Farahmand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Alimahdi Mohammaddost, Zargham Mohammadi, Mohsen Rezaei, Hamid Reza Pourghasemi, and Asadullah Farahmand. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Alimahdi Mohammaddost and Zargham Mohammadi, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Final review and editing were made by Zargham Mohammadi, Mohsen Rezaei, and Hamid Reza Pourghasemi. Data providing and fieldwork were arranged by Alimahdi Mohammaddost and Asadullah Farahmand. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zargham Mohammadi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

We agree and approve the ethical responsibilities of the authors.

Consent to participate

All authors whose names appear on the submission (1) made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; (2) drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; (3) approved the version to be published; and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Consent to publish

All authors agreed with the content and that all gave explicit consent to submit and publish. They obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Marcus Schulz

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 51 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohammaddost, A., Mohammadi, Z., Rezaei, M. et al. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability in an urban area: a comparative study based on DRASTIC, EBF, and LR models. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 72908–72928 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20767-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20767-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation