Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Bull Eng Geol Environ (2009) 68:117–136 DOI 10.1007/s10064-008-0173-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

ORIGINAL PAPER

Methodology to assess groundwater pollution conditions (current and pre-disposition) in the Sa˜o Carlos and Ribeira˜o Preto regions, Brazil

La´zaro Valentin Zuquette Æ Janaina Barrios Palma Æ Osni Jose´ Pejon

Received: 30 November 2007 / Accepted: 12 August 2008 / Published online: 14 October 2008 Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract The goal of the study was to establish a methodology for territorial zoning based on predicted groundwater pollution. The 31 attributes identified were divided into six different environmental components associated with the transport of contaminants to the geo- logical medium. Two indices were obtained: the pre- disposition index (PI), and the potential pollution intensity index (PPII). The paper reports an assessment of the potential pollution of the groundwater in the sandstones of the Botucatu and Pirambo´ia Formations, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The region was divided into 447 units according to the type of land use, size of watershed and degree of lithological homogeneity. The units were assessed for potential pollu- tion in the pre-disposition condition (based on geological/ geotechnical data) and the complete condition (geological/ geotechnical and situation specific data) using the analyt- ical hierarchical process method. A high degree of pollution potential was established for 35 of the units in the complete condition and 157 units in the pre-disposition condition. The study has highlighted areas where attention to pollution control should be focused.

Keywords

Engineering geological mapping Sa˜o Paulo Brazil

Groundwater Pollution

Re´sume´ Le but de cette e´tude e´tait d’e´tablir une me´th- odologie de zonage territorial relatif a` la pre´vision de pollution des eaux souterraines. Les 31 caracte´ristiques

L. V. Zuquette ( &) J. B. Palma O. J. Pejon Departamento de Geotecnia, Escola de Engenharia de Sa˜o Carlos, Av. Trabalhador Sa˜o-Carlense, 400, 13,566-590 Sa˜o Carlos, Brazil e-mail: lazarus1@sc.usp.br

identifie´es ont e´te´ re´parties en 6 composantes environn- ementales diffe´rentes associe´es au transport de polluants vers le milieu ge´ologique. Deux indices ont e´te´ obtenus:

l’indice de pre´disposition (PI) et l’indice d’intensite´ de pollution potentielle (PPII). L’article pre´sente une e´valua- tion de la pollution potentielle des eaux souterraines dans les gre`s des formations de Botucatu et de Piramboia dans l’e´tat de Sa˜o Paulo (Bre´sil). La re´gion a e´te´ divise´e en 447 unite´s suivant le type d’usage des sols, la taille des bassins versants et le degre´ d’homoge´ne´ite´ lithologique. Les unite´s ont e´te´ e´value´es par re´fe´rence a` la pollution potentielle re´sultant de facteurs de pre´disposition (donne´es ge´ologi- ques et ge´otechniques) et des conditions globales (donne´es spe´cifiques ge´ologiques, ge´otechniques et de localisation) utilisant la me´thode des graphes. Un degre´ e´leve´ de po- tentiel de pollution a e´te´ e´tabli pour 35 unite´s dans les conditions globales et 157 unite´s dans les conditions de pre´disposition. L’e´tude a mis en lumie`re les secteurs ou` les controˆles de pollution devraient se focaliser.

Mots cle´s

Cartographie geotechnique Sa˜o Paulo Bre´sil

Eaux souterraines Pollution

Introduction

The purpose of territorial zoning is to divide a region into units of different levels for a specific goal. Zoning results are presented in relative or absolute values on different types of charts and maps. The most important tasks required are the selection of attributes, a scale to carry out the work, analysis of the collected data and zoning procedures. The prediction of groundwater pollution is a very complex task when evaluating large areas, as a great deal of information is needed to represent the process, the

123

118

L. V. Zuquette et al.

variability of natural and anthropic factors and the rela- tionship between pollutant sources and the characteristics of the water infiltration through the ground surface. The prediction of groundwater pollution, which involves eval- uating large areas, is referred to as groundwater vulnerability to pollution. The prediction is made using seven different methods: hydrogeological environment/ setting; index methods, analogical methods; parametric system methods; mathematical methods, statistical meth- ods and combined methods. Numerous methods and works have been developed in several countries by different schools of experts hence the following comments are pertinent:

1. The factors taken into account vary from one method to another; hence, the methods produce different results.

2. Most of the methods do not separate intrinsic vulner- ability and specific vulnerability.

3. The concepts of vulnerability used in these methods differ.

4. When pollutant sources are considered, the limited information available may not necessarily reflect the level of the hazard.

5. Lastly, most of the methods that have been used (DRASTIC, SINTACS, EPIK, GOD, AVI) do not consider pollutant sources or any index representing them. Thus, the findings give no clue as to the current and future levels of hazard and risk.

The main goal of this study was to propose a way of obtaining an index representing the potential pollutant intensity of a groundwater system, considering intrinsic and specific aspects of the problem. A groundwater system encompasses all its saturated zones independent of its potential well yield. In tropical and temperate regions, the saturated zones feed the region’s springs and streams during the dry season. Environmental data (attributes) are crucial for any methodology to predict the pollution of groundwater. In this study, engineering geological mapping was the basic geotechnical investigation tool to obtain the selected attributes for several types of problems.

Background

Groundwater contamination is an environmental problem which directly affects both humans and land use and has assumed a high priority in recent years. Although the aim of territorial planners is to protect groundwater, it is very difficult to predict the degree of the groundwater contam- ination as pollutants can vary considerably in a very short distance (\100 m). Many studies have focused on pro- viding information for environmental management and

123

groundwater protection, in particular the assessment of aquifer vulnerability to pollution. Le Grand (1964) and Albinet and Margat (1970) were the first to use the term groundwater vulnerability. How- ever, since their original work, this term has been used in numerous ways, e.g., Andersen and Gosk (1989), Bachmat and Collin (1990), Knox et al. (1993), Rao and Alley (1993), Vrba and Zaporozec (1994), Giupponi et al. (1999), Connell and van den Daele (2003), USEPA (1993), Worrall and Kolpin (2004) and Mendoza and Barmen (2006). The word ‘‘vulnerability’’ indicates the degree of intrinsic weakness of a system or element pursuant to its exposure to a specific event (hazard). However, more than 50 concepts defining vulnerability have been put forward over the last three decades. The concept proposed by Rao and Alley (1993), which is a widely accepted definition for the term, is that ‘‘groundwater vulnerability to contami- nation can be defined as the likelihood for contaminants to reach some specific position in the groundwater system after their introduction at some point above the top of the uppermost aquifer’’. This definition is similar to the term ‘‘hazard’’ as broadly applied by various professionals. Crozier and Glade (2004) define hazard as processes and situations or actions that can potentially cause damage, loss or other adverse effects on the element valued. Banton and Villeneuve (1989) summarized groundwater vulnerability by subdividing it into: contaminant penetration, contami- nant propagation in the groundwater system and the effect of the contaminant on the water. Gogu and Dassargues (2000) divided aquifer vulnera- bility into intrinsic vulnerability (based on the geological, hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics of the region, independent of the nature of contaminants) and specific vulnerability (related to a particular or group of contaminants and their interaction with the aspects con- sidered in the intrinsic vulnerability).

the aspects con- sidered in the intrinsic vulnerability). Fig. 1 Outcrop of the Pirambo´ia and Botucatu

Fig. 1 Outcrop of the Pirambo´ia and Botucatu formations in the State of Sa˜o Paulo (black); study area indicated with a square

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

119

As regards groundwater protection, groundwater vul- nerability to contamination can be assessed based on three situations:

1. The conditions in which contaminants could reach the top of the saturated zone, based on a consideration of the geological material and the unsaturated zone;

2. Delineation of protection zones for supply systems, considering the flow and contamination transport processes within the saturated zone; and

3. Considering the spatial distribution of the geological materials, unsaturated and saturated zones for each assessed unit.

The groundwater vulnerability cannot be measured directly in the field; however it is known that some areas of land are more vulnerable to groundwater contamination than others, as pointed out by Vrba and Zaporozec (1994). The most common methods of groundwater vulnerabil- ity assessment can be grouped into seven categories:

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the steps required to apply the methodology

ity assessment can be grouped into seven categories: Fig. 2 Flowchart of the steps required to

123

120

L. V. Zuquette et al.

1. Hydrogeologic complex and setting methods— MODEL BASED ON REGIONAL GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK (Soller and Berg 1992); DIVERSITY (Ray and O’ Dell 1993); LEACHP (Wagenet and Huston 1987);

2. Index methods—DRARCH (Guo et al. 2007); MLPI (Guo and Wang 2004); LPI (Meeks and Dean 1990); AVI (Van Stempoort et al. 1993); PI (Goldscheider et al. 2000); COP (Cost Action 620—Zwahlen 2004); RI (Britt et al. 1992);

3. Analogical methods (Albinet and Margat 1970); USEPA (1987);

4. Parametric system methods—GLEANS (Rao et al. 1985); DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987); GOD (Foster 1987); EPIK (Doerfliger and Zwahlen 1995; Doerfliger et al. 1997; Doerfliger et al. 1999); SINTACS (Civita 1994); ISIS (Civita and De Regibus 1995); FLEMISH METHOD (Goossens and Van Damme 1987));

5. Mathematical methods—MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh 1984); PRZN (Carsel et al. 1985); AEM/ DRASTIC (Fredrick et al. 2004); SEEPAGE (Carter et al. 1987);

6. Statistical methods—PCASD (Barradas et al. 1992); AGRIFLUX–MODFLOW (Lasserre et al. (1999); GERMAN METHOD (Von Hoyer 1998); MULTI- VARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (Connell and van den Daele 2003); GLA (Ho¨lting et al. 1995); DASTI/IDRISI (Kabbour et al. 2006); PESTANS (Enfield et al. 1982) and

7. Combined methods—NEURO-FUZZY TECH- NIQUES (Dixon 2005a, b); Collin and Melloul

(2003); CNR-GNDCI (Civita 1990); Ma´dl-Szonyi and Fu¨le (1998).

Applications and the detailed analyses of the above listed methods are given in the works of Gogu and Das- sargues (2000), Dixon (2005a, b), Andreo et al. (2006), Gogu et al. (2003), and Vias et al. (2005). Several researchers have attempted to standardize these methods (e.g., Neukum and Ho¨tzl 2007). However, due to the different attributes used and the spatial variability, this procedure is very difficult.

Study region

The study region, which covers about 6,000 km 2 , is located in the northeastern part of the state of Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil, between latitudes 21 –22 15 0 south and longitudes 47 15 0 – 48 15 0 west (Fig. 1). With the recent growth in population, the demand for water has increased. Two major geological units have regional water resources, i.e., the Botucatu and Pirambo´ia Formations, part of the Parana´ sedimentary basin. In recent years, various types of land use developed throughout the region; most are sources of pollution and require large volumes of water. The Triassic aeolian sandstones of the Botucatu and Pirambo´ia Formations occur in the southern, southeastern and western regions, forming separate aquifers. With the area of 10 6 km 2 , they are considered the main source of groundwater in southern Brazil. The sandstones of the Botucatu Formation occur as surface outcrops and as a semi-confined aquifer. Overlying the sandstones are the

Fig. 3 Basic model showing the main environmental aspects of pollutant movement

   

Attributes and

 

Parameters

   

Atmosphere

for

properties

mathematical

Water Input

considered in

modelling

Pollutant

 

this study

Land surface

sources

 
         

ROCK SUBSTRATE Spatial distribution Discontinuity characteristics Vertical profile distribution Lithology Mineralogy Hydraulic conductivity WATER Groundwater level Water source and well distance (m) CLIMATE Annual rainfall (mm) UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL Spatial distribution Thickness of unconsolidated material layers Distribution in the vertical profile Porosity Hydraulic conductivity Infiltration rate Dispersivity aspects

 

Co, K(θ),

 

ROCK SUBSTRATE Spatial distribution Discontinuities Vertical profile distribution Lithology Mineralogy Hydraulic conductivity UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL Spatial distribution Thickness of the layer Distribution in the vertical Porosity Hydraulic conductivity Infiltration rate Dispersivity aspects Field capacity Mineralogy Cationic exchange capacity Potential pollutant sorption Texture MORPHOMETRY Declivity POLLUTANT SOURCES Occupation and Land use City size and Types Pollutant diversity Disposal type Waste volume Waste types Exposition time Disposal techniques Geological materials at the base

Dm(θ),

Unsaturated

Geological materials

α(θ), Vx(θ),

zone

ks(θ), D*(θ),

Groundwater

γd, θ, n,

level

C(x,t), K, Dm, α, Vx, ks, D*, n,

γd,

 

Saturated

Saturated

zone

 

Note:

 

Co – Initial Concentration

Ks – Sorption parameter

C

(x,t) – Solute

D* - Molecular diffusion

concentration

   

Field capacity

K

– Hydraulic conductivity

n

- Porosity

Mineralogy Cationic exchange capacity Potential capacity to pollutant sorption

Texture WATER Groundwater level Water source and well distance (m) CLIMATE Annual rainfall (mm)

Dm – Mechanical

γ d – Dry weight

Θ - Volumetric moisture

dispersivity

α – Coefficient of

X

– Longitudinal direction

dispersivity

 

Vx – Average linear velocity

 

123

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

121

basalts of the Serra Geral Formation and the sandstones, siltstones and claystones of the Itaqueri, Marilia and Ad- amantina Formations. The sandstones outcropping in escarpments are frac- tured and highly cemented while the gentle topography is weakly cemented sandstones and sand-rich colluvium. The unconfined aquifer varies in thickness up to 100 m and, being directly recharged, is more susceptible to pollution

than the semi-confined portion. In places, drainage chan- nels have eroded the sandstones, cutting through the aquifer and providing a groundwater flow to the region’s perennial streams. In places the sandstones and conglomerates of the Pi- rambo´ia Formation are overlain by some 5 m of residual/ weathered material and up to 20 m of transported uncon- solidated materials.

Table 1 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for rock substrate 1 and 2 groups by the analytical hierarchy process

 

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

 

Main environmental

(group/partial relative

(attributes/partial relative normalized index)

Classes/parameters

Partial relative

components

normalized index)

normalized index

 

Spatial distribution

100–80

0.400515

Rock substrate

(% of unit)

80–60

0.261856

 

Rock substrate 1

0.3278

60–40

0.156701

 

40–20

0.086598

 

20.00–5.00

0.054124

 

(Geometric aspects)

\5

0.040206

0.05743

 

Discontinuities

V (very closely spaced and aperture very wide)

0.407583

0.4125

IV

0.276461

 

III

0.157451

II

0.083728

I, (very widely spaced and aperture very narrow)

0.045287

Absent

0.029489

 

Vertical profile distribution

Homogeneous

0.339181

0.2597

2 layer—sand/sand

0.250975

 

2 layers—sand/basalt

0.181774

3 or more geological materials

0.126706

3 or more geological materials with strong hydraulic diffraction

0.101365

 

Rock substrate 2

Lithology

Weakly and without cementation

0.375783

(Hydrodynamic aspects)

0.2658

Sandstones

0.299582

0.12371

Silty sandstones

0.167015

 

Diabase/basalt

0.100731

Rock porosity \5%

0.056889

 

Mineralogy

Inert minerals

0.648045

0.3210

Clay minerals 1:1

0.229749

 

Clay minerals 2:1

0.122207

 

Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s)

[10 -3

0.400105

0.4131

10

-3 –10 -4

0.268828

 

10

-4 –10 -5

0.181485

10

-5 –10 -6

0.075837

10

-6 –10 -7

0.043933

\10 -7

0.029812

122

L. V. Zuquette et al.

Methodology

The main point of the study was to obtain indices to rep- resent the likelihood of groundwater contamination on a 1:100,000 scale, considering both the geology (intrinsic condition) and the specific situation (complete condition). The final indices must indicate the:

1. Predisposition condition (PI) which considers the intrinsic condition, i.e., taking into account only the geotechnical, geological, hydrological and hydro-

geological aspects which could result in contamina- tion; and

2. Potential pollutant intensity (PPII) which considers the complete condition, i.e., taking into account a partic- ular contaminant or group of contaminants and their interaction with the geotechnical, geological, hydro- logical and hydrogeological characteristics which could affect the groundwater.

The results must allow the degree and rate of pollu-

tion to be assessed

degree of

in order to predict the

Table 2 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for water, climatic aspects and uncon- solidated material 1 groups by the analytical hierarchy process

 

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

Main environmental

(group/partial relative

(attributes/partial relative normalized index)

Classes/parameters

Partial relative

components

normalized index)

normalized index

Water

0.20655

Groundwater level (m)

\2 m

0.347528

 

0.4600

2–5 m

0.270680

 

5–10

0.169359

10–20

0.105727

20–30 m

0.062653

[30 m

0.044053

 

Water source and well distance (m)

\200 m

0.472949

0.2210

200–500 m

0.284468

 

500–1000 m

0.169866

[ 1,000 m

0.072717

Climatic aspects

1

Annual rainfall (mm)

[2,000

0.439548

 

0.3191

1,550–2,000

0.301130

 

1,350–1,550

0.162712

\1,350

0.096610

Unconsolidated

Unconsolidated

Spatial distribution

100–80

0.411795

materials

material 1

0.06958

(% of the unit)

80–60

0.257829

 

0.2352

60–40

0.156576

 

40–20

0.088727

5–20

0.053236

\5

0.031837

 

Thickness of unconsolidated material layer

[25 m

0.062533

(m)

15–25

0.098266

0.3442

5–15

0.161850

 

2–5 m

0.279559

\2 m

0.397793

 

Distribution in the vertical profile—sequence of materials—hydraulic diffraction

Homogeneous

0.399790

0.4206

Two discontinuities

0.282483

 

Gradational increasing hydraulic conductivity

0.147817

Gradational decreasing hydraulic conductivity

0.104682

heterogeneous

0.065229

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

123

Table 3 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for unconsolidated material 2 and 3 groups by the analytical hierarchy process

 

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

 

Main environmental

(group/partial relative

(attributes/partial relative normalized index)

Classes/parameters

Partial relative

components

normalized index)

normalized index

 

Unconsolidated material 2

Porosity (%)

[50

0.475230

0.17304

0.0493

50–40

0.289171

 

40–30

0.126152

30–15

0.069700

\15

0.039747

 

Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s)

[10 -3

0.40566

0.4601

10

-3 –10 -4

0.274633

 

10

-4 –10 -5

0.156184

10

-5 –10 -6

0.082809

10

-6 –10 -7

0.048742

\10 -7

0.031971

 

Infiltration rate (mm/h)

[100

0.356061

0.2436

71–100

0.277778

 

31–70

0.182828

10–30

0.114141

\10

0.069192

 

Dispersivity aspects (macropores)

Very high

0.449495

0.1595

High

0.296857

 

Intermediate

0.126263

Low

0.079125

Very Low

0.04826

 

Field capacity (m 3 /m 3 )

\0.12

0.429545

0.0875

12–16

0.323864

 

16–25

0.160227

[0.25

0.086364

 

Unconsolidated material 3

Mineralogy

Inert minerals

0.36377

0.14285

0.2692

Clay

minerals \5%

0.259277

 

Clay minerals 5–10% Clay minerals 10–20% Clay minerals 20–50% Clay minerals 50–75%

0.152344

0.102051

0.055176

0.038574

Clay

minerals [75%

0.028809

 

CTC (meq/100 g)

\5

0.386694

0.1965

10–5

0.283784

 

10–20

0.163202

25–50

0.093555

[50

0.068607

 

Potential capacity to pollutant sorption (O.M. rate, etc.)

Very low

0.462353

0.4553

Low Intermediate High Sand

0.331765

 

0.127059

0.078824

 

Texture

0.465090

0.1176

Clayed silty sand Sandy silt/clay Silt Clay

0.259572

 

0.163851

0.067568

0.043919

124

L. V. Zuquette et al.

Table 4 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for morphometry, diffuse and point pollutant sources groups by the analytical hierarchy process

 

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

Main environmental

(group/partial relative

(attributes/partial relative normalized index)

Classes/parameters

Partial relative

components

normalized index)

normalized index

Geomorphology

Morphometry

Declivity (%)

\5

0.483100

0.040868

1

5–15

0.272145

 

15–30

0.156760

[30

0.087995

Pollutant source types

Diffuse sources

Land use

Intense use of chemical products

0.340191

0.08468

0.2799

Sugar cane/road/pipeline

0.266986

 

Eucalyptus

0.084211

Pastures

0.123923

Natural vegetation

0.058852

Other plantations

0.125837

 

City size and types

[500,000 (industrial city)

0.423895

0.1565

500,000–100,000 (industrial)

0.299509

 

100,000–20,000 (industrial and commercial)

0.135297

100,000–20,000 (agricultural activities)

0.082379

\20,000

0.053464

 

Pollutant diversity

High organic, biological and inorganic load

0.405858

0.1783

Low organic, biological and inorganic load

0.136506

 

Intermediate organic, biological and inorganic load

0.261506

Petrol products

0.132845

Stable tailings

0.063285

 

Disposal types

Below the groundwater level

0.442735

0.3853

Above the groundwater level (vadose zone)

0.305413

 

On the ground surface

0.168091

Indirect

0.083761

 

Point sources

Waste volume (m 3 )

\50000

0.050577

0.10125

0.1315

50,000–100,000

0.081363

 

100,000–250,000

0.135789

250,000–500,000

0.310610

[500,000

0.421660

 

Waste types

(1) Dangerous wastes

0.364044

0.2504

(2) Solid and liquid tailing/Industrial Wastes

0.274900

 

(3) Solid and liquid urban wastes

0.155876

(4) Liquid and solid wastes from lagoons, etc.

0.096614

(5) Construction wastes

0.063745

(6) Organic material and sand used in metallurgy

0.044821

 

Exposition time (years)

[20

0.447308

0.0974

20–10

0.311569

 

10–5

0.155785

\5

0.081901

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

125

Table 4 continued

 

Second level

Third level

Fourth level

Main environmental

(group/partial relative

(attributes/partial relative normalized index)

Classes/parameters

Partial relative

components

normalized index)

normalized index

 

Disposal techniques

Natural depression and gully

0.400745

0.1817

Uncontrolled sanitary landfill

0.293773

 

Artificial depression

0.156998

Controlled sanitary landfill

0.092602

Sanitary landfill

0.055881

 

Geological materials at the base

Very high permeability material

0.368238

0.3390

Botucatu

0.266005

 

Serra geral

0.072457

Pirambo´ia

0.151861

Adamantina

0.097767

Very low permeability material

0.043672

0.097767 Very low permeability material 0.043672 Fig. 4 Hierarchical levels of the attributes and data

Fig. 4 Hierarchical levels of the attributes and data

hazard and risk and provide guidelines for monitoring in terms of frequency, types of sampling, sampling sites, etc. The factors considered in the development of this methodology were:

1.

Variability

of

unconsolidated

materials

in

tropical

regions;

2. Large aquifers or large direct recharge zones;

3. Limitations of the mathematical model for large areas, which would require a large number of specific parameters;

4. Uncertainties and cost of obtaining sufficient quanti- tative parameters to apply mathematical or simulation models;

123

126

L. V. Zuquette et al.

5. Diversity and specific characteristics of pollutant sources;

6. Environmental data directly related to the movement of pollutants;

7. Application to scales larger than 1:100,000.

The methodology was applied following the steps shown in Fig. 2 which illustrates the five stages: definition of the model, selection of the attributes, data collection, treatment, and zoning procedures.

Model

In order to obtain both the PPII and PI, a consideration of the movement of pollutants from their land surface sources to a pre-defined point below the surface was made, based on seven environmental factors: water infiltration, flow in the saturated and non-saturated zones, sorption and biochemi- cal processes, pollutant transport and pollutant sources. These seven groups of interrelated components were selected to identify: types and specific characteristics of the

to identify: types and specific characteristics of the Fig. 5 Distribution of rainfall over the past

Fig. 5 Distribution of rainfall over the past 30 years, based on five rain gauges

Table 5 Stratigraphic sequence of the study region

pollutant sources, water input on the land surface, the conditions of saturated and unsaturated flow, pollutant transport mechanisms, aspects of sorption and desorption, chemical reactions other than sorption (precipitation, bio- chemical, first order decay, etc.). The governing equation should represent advection, pollutant sources, equilibrium- controlled sorption, first-order irreversible rate reactions, and biochemical and other reactions.

C

C

V i

o C o C o C 1 þ q d ¼ o C Þþ q
o C o C
o
C
1 þ q d
¼ o
C Þþ q s
D ij
V i
h o C
o
t
o x i
o
x j
o x ð
o
h
o C
k C þ q d þ
C
h
o t
react
the dissolved concentration,

C s

the sorbed concentration, a function of the dissolved concentration (C), as defined by the sorption isotherm, the average linear water velocity, the dispersion coefficient tensor,

q s the flow rate of a fluid source per unit aquifer

D ij

volume, the concentration of the fluid source,

the reaction constant, and the bulk density of the porous medium

C s

H the porosity,

k

q d

t time

x

React

the longitudinal direction biological or chemical reaction of the solute (other than sorption)

Selection of the attributes

The attributes were selected considering the above seven points relating to the movement of the pollutants and aspects of the control in the porous geological medium

Formation

Period

Lithologies

General characteristics

Itaqueri

Cretaceous

Sandstones with fine cement, siltstones, conglomerates

High variability

Marilia

Cretaceous

Varied sandstones

High variability

Adamantina

Cretaceous

Very fine and fine sandstones, sandy siltstones, claystones

High variability

Serra Geral

Jurassic—Cretaceous

Basalts and diabases

Low lithological variability

Botucatu

Triassic

Fine to medium aeolian sandstones

Low textural heterogeneity

 

Major cross-stratification

Pirambo´ia

Triassic

Sandstones with clay and silt

Minor cross-stratification

 

Low textural variability

Corumbataı´

Permian

Claystones, siltstones, shales, fine sandstones

High variability

Iratı´

Permian

Shales, limestones, dolomites, sandstones

High variability

Tatui

Permian

Sandstones, siltstones, claystones

High variability

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

127

(Fig. 3). Each attribute has less than seven classes, to allow a manageable zonation. The maximum and minimum cat- egories were chosen as they are valid for different environmental characteristics and allow comparisons of the results whilst representing some degree of sensitivity of the movement of pollutants and geological variability. The data on these extreme categories could be collected using low cost procedures in the field or in the laboratory. In addition to this maximum range of values/classes (which indicate groundwater contamination within a period of less

than a year), other categories could then be defined for specific regions. The selected attributes are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, while Fig. 4 shows the sequence of hierarchical levels and types of information analysed to obtain the potential pollu- tant intensity index (PPII) and the pre-disposition index (PI). The proposed arrangement of the attributes and cate- gories allows for the use of different data treatment methods, such as: rating, weight, index, fuzzy, overlay, matrix, point count or combined.

Fig. 6 Simplified lithological map

such as: rating, weight, index, fuzzy, overlay, matrix, point count or combined. Fig. 6 Simplified lithological

123

128

L. V. Zuquette et al.

Data collection

Most of the studies reported in the technical literature have collected data from several previous works which were carried out for purposes other than the prediction of groundwater pollution. In this study, the methodology involves engineering geological mapping procedures to obtain the data and to draw the maps, taken from Zuquette et al. (2004).

Treatment of the data

It is possible treat data by basic datasheets, geographical information systems (GIS) and the specific routines of programs such as Delphi and Mathlab. In this work, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was used. This allows the evaluation of different conditions for attributes and classes/parameters with the necessary calibrations/ adaptations being relatively easy to undertake. Zaporozec (2002) considered AHP to be a good tool for obtaining the

( 2002 ) considered AHP to be a good tool for obtaining the Fig. 7 Simplified

Fig. 7 Simplified unconsolidated material map of the study region

123

index for the evaluation of groundwater contamination and a number of researchers have used this method to calculate the index of groundwater contamination and vulnerability, including Soper (2006), Greene and LaMotte (2006), El- Naqal et al. (2006), Gemitzi et al. (2006), Pietersen (2006), Tesfamariam and Sadiq (2006), Hartman and Goltz (2002), Bosanquet et al. (2002), Thirumalaivasan and Karmegam (2001), and Dixon (2005a, b). Most of these workers applied the AHP method to obtain the index for existing methodologies such as DRASTIC. The principle in the analytic hierarchy process intro-

duced by Saaty (1977) is the division of a complex problem into simple ones, in the form of a hierarchical chain, which also allows decisions based on qualitative and quantitative criteria. Various contradictory points of view can be taken into account. The main advantage of the method is that whilst considering the interdependence of the attributes, it also evaluates the areas in terms of the conditions that favor subsurface water pollution, thus reducing the subjectivity of the process. From the paired matrix containing the previously defined values of relative importance, the partial relative normalized index (PRNI) of the different components, attributes and classes is calculated based on the respective eigenvector, considering the consistency index and the consistency ratio for each matrix. Using these PRNI values, the PPII and PI were obtained for each unit and the units ranked in terms of the degree of pollution potential. The PPII and PI were calculated adding the partial relative normalized index (PRNI) of the classes, multiplied by the PRNI of the attributes and by the PRNI of the components, in accordance with the following equation:

"

PPII or PI ¼ X

N2

i

(

PRNI

2

i

N3

i

X

j

4

#)

PRNI

3

ij

PRNI

ijk

where

PPII

potential pollutant intensity index (complete condition); number of components;

i partial relative normalized index of the components number of attributes

ij partial relative normalized index of attributes

N2

PRNI

2

3

N3 i

PRNI

PRNI

4

ijk partial relative normalized index of the classes.

Zoning procedures

Considering the PPII and PI values obtained and the mean value, standard deviation and maximum and minimum values, zoning procedures were applied defining six cate- gories (extremely high, high, moderate, low, very low and

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

129

Thickness

10–20

1–20

5–25

2–25

\10

\20

\10

\10

\15

\15

\15

\15

(m)

\5

26.1–27.2

27.7–29.2

26.3–27.2

26.5–28.5

26.5–29.5

26.5–27.5

26.3–26.5

26.5–27.1

density 3 )

26.2–27

Gravity

(KN/m

26–29

27.1

29

15.1–16.9

14.7–16.7

14.2–16.7

10.7–14.1

weight 3 )

12–13.9

13–18.1

13–18.1

13–18.1

(KN/m

15–17

13–18

14.1

Dry

11

0.71–1.0

0.63–1.0

0.55–0.9

0.61–0.8

0.8–1.0

0.7–1.5

0.9–1.5

Void

\1.0

\1.0

\1.0

ratio

1.0

conductivity

10 -4 –10 -6

10 -5 –10 -9

10 -7 –10 -9

10 -6 –10 -9

10 -5 –10 -9

10 -7 –10 -9

10 -4 –10 -9

10 -6 –10 -9

10 -5 –10 -7

10 -5 –10 -7

10 -4 –10 -7

10 -5 –10 -8

Hydraulic

(m/s)

10 -5

High vertical and lateral heterogeneity

High vertical and lateral heterogeneity

High vertical and lateral heterogeneity

Moderate heterogeneity

Very low horizontal and low vertical heterogeneity

High variability of thickness

High variability of

High variability of

High variability of

Low heterogeneity

Low heterogeneity

High vertical and moderate lateral variability

General spatial

characteristics

thickness

thickness

thickness

degree

Table 6 Geological and geotechnical characteristics of the unconsolidated materials of the study region

Quartz, kaolinite, illite,

Quartz, kaolinite, illite,

limonite, magnetite,

limonite, magnetite,

haematite, goethite

gibbsite, smectites,

gibbsite, smectites,

gibbsite, smectites

gibbsite, smectites

gibbsite, smectites

smectites, organic

hematite, goethite

Smectites, quartz,

Smectites, quartz,

kaolinite, illite,

kaolinite, illite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

Quartz, kaolinite,

smectites

Mineralogy

gibbsite

gibbsite

gibbsite

gibbsite

calcite

calcite

matter

40–70

25–50

40–70

43–65

43–65

4–24

3–25

Clay

\10

\10

\15

\15

20–50, 23–60

13 –28

10–30

10–30

10–30

10–30

10–25

Grain size (%)

5–17

\10

\10

\15

\15

Silt

10–37

12–45

10–25

10–35

20–55

10–63

Sand

5–60

2–20

2–61

[90

\90

\90

Clayey sand transported

Residual from Botucatu formation

´Piramboia formation

Residual from Itaqueri formation

Residual from Marilia formation

Residual from Serra

Residual from Tatui formation

Residual from Irati

Clayey transported

Geral formation

Sandy transported

Adamantina

Residual from

Residual from

Residual from

´Corumbataı

Formation

formation

formation

Alluvium

Type

Fig. 11)

(map—

Code

9
10

11
12

13

1
2

3
4

5
6

7

8

123

130

L. V. Zuquette et al.

extremely low) of degree of pollution potential for the complete and pre-disposition conditions.

Results

Based on the existing engineering geological maps at a scale of 1:50,000, maps and charts were produced to show:

rock substrate, unconsolidated materials, groundwater level, land uses, natural springs and pumping wells. The results of the study are briefly discussed below.

Rainfall

The ten rain gauges installed (Fig. 8) in the region have revealed the same general trend over a period of 30 years, but with different annual values, varying from 1,000 to 2,500 mm. Of the 3,053 monthly rainfall measurements, 63% were \200 mm/month, 10% were [400 mm/month and 27% between 200 and 400 mm/month. Figure 5 shows

and 27% between 200 and 400 mm/month. Figure 5 shows Fig. 8 Map of the main

Fig. 8 Map of the main land uses

123

the results from five of these gauges. They were selected because they are representative of the rain distribution in the study region.

Geology

Table 5 and Fig. 6 indicate the geology of the study region.

Unconsolidated materials

The unconsolidated materials (Fig. 7) were classified as residual and transported, following the Geological Society (1990, 1995). Table 6 shows the main geological and geotechnical characteristics.

Land uses

Three land uses predominate: sugarcane plantations, pas- tures and re-forested. However, the region contains several urban centres with populations varying from 1,000 to 700,000, paved and dirt roads, alcohol distilleries and sugar mills, paper pulp plants, pipelines, cattle ranches, airports, irrigated areas, temporary reservoirs, a golf course, sanitary and liquid waste lagoons, sanitary landfills, etc. These land uses (Fig. 8) are point and non-point pollutant sources with different characteristics. About 1,000 pumping wells sup- ply more than 50% of the water requirements for human, industrial, agricultural and other type of uses, mainly in the urban areas of Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Carlos and Araraquara.

Analysis

Based on the geological and geotechnical data obtained by engineering geological mapping, the region was divided into 447 units according to land use, size of watershed and degree of lithological homogeneity, as shown in Fig. 9. Some of these units contain clayey materials that are rel- atively impermeable. This division enabled the region to be analysed using a very simple datasheet. The AHP method was applied to find the partial index for the components, attributes and classes/parameters, considering the geotechnical, geological, hydrological and hydrogeological aspects (pre-disposition condition) and particular contaminant or group of contaminants and their interaction with the geotechnical, geological, hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics (complete condition); see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. The calibration of the partial relative normalized indices (PRNI) adopted involved around 20 watersheds in the study region. Based on the maximum and minimum PRNI, the maximum and minimum potential pollutant intensity index (PPII) values were found to be, respectively, 46.91

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

131

Fig. 9 Map showing classification of the units according to PPII and PI values

classification of the units according to PPII and PI values and 6.87. The partial indices applied

and 6.87. The partial indices applied to each unit allowed the PPII to be obtained; the values ranged from 8.57 to 26.96, an average value of 17.60 and a standard deviation of 3.91 (Fig. 10). The maximum and minimum values of the PI were, respectively, 34.49 and 4.99 although, as shown in Fig. 10, the distribution was generally between 7.33 and 22.95, giving an average value of 15.54 and a standard deviation of 3.97.

Figure 11 shows the changes in the classification of the units for the complete and pre-disposition conditions, considering the maximum, minimum and average values and the standard deviation. The nine categories defined were: (1) maximum value up to 27, (2) 26.9–25, (3) 24.9– 23, (4) 22.9–20, (5) 21.9–18, (6) 17.9–15, (7) 14.9–12, (8) 11.9–10 and (9) 9.9 to minimum value. PPII values higher than 23 and PI values higher than 20 (around 50% of the maximum values) were considered the limits between units

123

132

L. V. Zuquette et al.

132 L. V. Zuquette et al. Fig. 10 Distribution of the PPII ( a ), and

Fig. 10 Distribution of the PPII (a), and PI (b), for units, with maximum and minimum values for both conditions

classified as having a high and moderate probability of contamination, while the average value minus the negative standard deviation defined the limit between moderate and low potential (Table 7) in the complete and pre-disposition conditions. Based on these limits, 35 and 89 units were classified as having a high pollution potential in the com- plete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively; 285 and 281 units showed a moderate level, and 127 and 77 units a low level of pollution potential (Fig. 11). Of the units with a moderate pollution potential, 101 and 46 had a high moderate level for the complete and pre-disposition con-

ditions, respectively. These units are likely to fall into the high level of pollution potential in the near future, depending on the practices employed to manage the current pollutant sources and whether new sources of pollution are established. Another aspect for evaluation is the ratio obtained by dividing the PPII and PI values by the maximum values, which shows how close each unit is to the maximum value (Table 8). These ratios allow for an absolute eval- uation of the units, considering present and future land uses. The maximum and minimum values are 0.5748 and

0.1827 for the complete condition, and 0.6655 and 0.2126

for the pre-disposition condition. The mean values are

0.3753 and 0.834; and 0.4508 and 0.1151 for the complete

and predisposition conditions, respectively. From these data, the categories presented in Table 8 were calculated. Similar procedures are used for the categories shown in Table 7. The pollutant sources showed maximum and minimum values of 12.41 and 0, respectively. All the units have at least one kind of source, with values varying from 0.95 to 5.74, an average value of 2.06 and a standard devi- ation of 1.08. It is important to point out that the highest value obtained was 46.26% of the possible maximum value. Thus, it is possible that the current conditions

123

value. Thus, it is possible that the current conditions 123 Fig. 11 Distribution of units according

Fig. 11 Distribution of units according to PPII (complete condition) and PI (without pollutant sources—predisposition condition) values. PPII and PI values are represented with white and black columns, respectively

will change considerably in the short term. Around 85% of the units showed pollutant source values of less than 3 ( * 25% of the maximum value), as indicated in Figs. 12 and 13. Figure 9 shows the units with the 40 highest pollutant source values, showed by the legend

P1–P40.

An analysis of the PPII and PI and the maximum ratio clearly shows the present state of each unit in both the complete and pre-disposition conditions. Twenty-seven and 159 units presented values exceeding 0.5 and were therefore classified as having a high potential for contam- inating the groundwater, 336 and 250 units fell in the moderate category, and 84 and 38 in the low category for the complete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively (Fig. 14). Only 27 ranked in the high class under both conditions (hatched in the Fig. 9), but some of these units do not currently present high indices of pollutant sources. These units require monitoring of the evolution of the levels of unconsolidated material and groundwater pollu- tion, with particular attention given to the chemical

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

133

Table 7 Categories of PPII and PI indices relating to the degree of pollution potential

Category

Complete condition (PPII)

 

Predisposition condition (PI)

 

Limits

Degree of pollution potential

Limits

Degree of pollution potential

1

45.6–27

Extremely high

3

38–27

Extremely high

4

2

26.9–25

High

2

26.9–25

3

3

24.9–23

1

24.9–23

High

2

4

22.9–20

Moderate

22.9–20

1

5

19.9–18

Moderate

19.9–18

Moderate

6

17.9–15

Moderate

17.9–15

Moderate

7

14.9–12

Low

14.9–12

Moderate

8

11.9–10

Very low

11.9–10

Low

9

9.9–5.8

Extremely low

9.9–4.5

Very low

Table 8 Categories based on PPII, PI, and maximum value ratio relating to the degree of pollution potential

 

Category

Complete condition (PPII)

 

Predisposition condition (PI)

 

Limits

Degree of pollution potential

Limits

Degree of pollution potential

1

1–0.75

Extremely high

1–0.75

Extremely high

2

0.75–0.6

High

2

0.75–0.6

High

2

3

0.6–0.5

1

0.6–0.5

1

4

0.5–0.4

Moderately high

0.5–0.4

Moderately high

5

0.4–0.3

Moderate

0.4–0.3

Moderate

6

0.3–0.2

Low

0.3–0.2

Low

7

0.2–0.1

Very low

0.2–0.1

Very low

Low 7 0.2–0.1 Very low 0.2–0.1 Very low F i g . 1 2 D i

Fig. 12 Distribution of the pollutant source values

compounds of fertilizers, oil-derived compounds and land uses such as cesspools, sanitary lagoons, etc. According to the PPII, PI and maximum value ratio, 27 and 159 units fall into the high degree of pollution potential category for the complete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively (Fig. 14). These units require territorial plan- ning to guide the future implementation of land use and management practices.

future implementation of land use and management practices. Fig. 13 Frequency of the units for pollutant

Fig. 13 Frequency of the units for pollutant source categories

Conclusions

Despite the amount of environmental data covered here, this study was inexpensive because all the information was obtained through engineering geological mapping. This proved to be an excellent tool for acquiring geological and geotechnical data, as well as other environmental data in an organized and sequential way.

123

134

L. V. Zuquette et al.

134 L. V. Zuquette et al. Fig. 14 Frequency of the units for PPII/maximum value and

Fig. 14 Frequency of the units for PPII/maximum value and PI/ maximum value ratios

The methodology enabled slight differences among the units to be identified; hence the zoning took into account more suitable limits for distinguishing the units with dif- ferent degrees of pollution potential. The classes of attributes can be adapted to different regions, maintaining the extreme values and the number of classes. The results for the units were compatible with the pol- lutant sources and environmental conditions which were found during the validation fieldwork. Some units were randomly selected to verify the agreement between the PPII and PI values and the pollutant concentration in the unconsolidated material and groundwater. Some samples were taken and electrical conductivity was measured. The values obtained were within the range of the PPII and PI values. All the units showed different types of pollutant sources, mainly agriculture, road, and point sources with varied characteristics. On the other hand, some units were affected by more than one pollutant source, such as sanitary land- fills, roads, pipelines, agriculture uses, and sanitary lagoons. Currently, around 30 and 70% of the region is classified as high degree of pollution potential under the complete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively. Forty units with the highest pollutant sources (Fig. 9, P1–P40) occupy 35% of the extent of the study region, while 28 units were classified in the low and moderate categories of pollution potential. These findings point to two conditions to be considered in territorial planning for groundwater protection, one involving the complete condition for controlling and monitoring the present pollutant sources, and the other to guide planning/management in the units classified as hav- ing a high predisposition for pollution.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Brazilian research funding agencies CNPq/FINEP (Process no. 62.0031/01-8 and CNPq No. 479258/2004-0) and FAPESP—Fundac¸a˜o de Amparo

123

a` Pesquisa do Estado de Sa˜o Paulo (Process Nos. 00/03027-7 and 96/ 1502-2) for supporting this research.

References

Albinet M, Margat J (1970) Cartographie de la vulnerabilite 0 a la

pollution des nappes d’eau souterraine. Bull BRGM 2ese 0 r

3(4):13–22

Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) Drastic: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrographic settings, US-EPA Report 600/

2- 87-035

Andersen LJ, Gosk E (1989) Applicability of vulnerability maps.

Environ Geol Water Sci 13(1):39–43

Andreo B, Goldsheider N, Vadillo I, Vias JM, Neukum C, Sinreich

M, Jimenez P, Berchenmacher J, Carrasco F, Ho¨tzl H, Perles MJ,

Zwahlen 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 Bachmat Y, Collin M (1990) Management-oriented assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution. Israel Hydrological

Service Report, vol 6/90. Jerusalem, p 20 Banton O, Villeneuve JP (1989) Evaluation of groundwater vulner- ability to pesticides: a comparison between the pesticide DRASTIC index and the PRZM leaching quantities. J Contam Hydrol 4:285–296 Barradas JM, Fonseca EC, Silva EF (1992) Identification and mapping of pollution indices using a multivariate statistical methodology, Estarreja, central Portugal. Appl Geochem 7:563–

572

Bosanquet E, Cooper T, Hayden A, Krikelas V, Torrent M (2002) Wetland Mitigation Alternatives for the Casmalia Resources Disposal Site, Santa Barbara County, California. University of California, Santa Barbara

Britt JK, Swinell SE, Mcdowell TC (1992) Matrix decision procedure

to assess new pesticides based on relative groundwater leaching

potential and chronic toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:721–

728

Carsel RF, Mulkey LA, Lorber MN, Baskm LB (1985) The pesticide root zone model (PRZM) a procedure for evaluating pesticide leaching threats to groundwater. Ecol Model 30:49–69 Carter AD, Palmer RC, Monkhouse RA (1987) Mapping the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution from agricultural

practice, particularly with respect to nitrate. In: Duijvenbooden

W van, Waegeningh HG van (eds) TNO committee on hydro-

logical research, the Hague. Vulnerability of soil and

groundwater to pollutants, proceedings and information. vol

38, pp 333–342

Civita M (1990) Legenda unificata per le carte della vulnerabilita dei

corpi idrici soutterranei (unified legend for the aquifer pollution vulnerability maps). In: Studi sulla vulnerabilita degli Acquiferi. Pitagora, Bologna Civita M (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilita` degli acquiferi all’inquinamento. Teoria and practica (Aquifer vulnerability maps to pollution) Pitagora, Bologna Civita M, De Regibus C (1995) Sperimentazione di alcune metod- ologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilita` degli aquiferi. Q Geol Appl Pitagora, Bologna 3:63–71 Collin ML, Melloul AJ (2003) Assessing groundwater vulnerability to promote sustainable urban and rural development. J Clean Prod

11:727–736

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

Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil

135

Crozier M, Glade T (2004) Landslides hazards and risks: issues, concepts and approach. In: Crozier et al (ed) Landslides hazard and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–40 Dixon B (2005a) Applicability of neuro-fuzzy techniques in predict- ing ground-water vulnerability: a GIS-based sensitivity analysis. J Hydrol 309:17–38 Dixon B (2005b) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327–347 Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1995) EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas in karst environment. In: Gu¨nay G, Johnson I (eds) Proceedings of 5th international symposium and field seminar on karst waters and environmental impacts. Antalya, September 1995, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 117–123 Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F, Meylan B Tripet JP, Wildberger A (1997)

Vulne´rabilite´ des captages en milieu karstique. Nouvelle me´thode de de´limitation des zones de protection—me´thode multicrite`re EPIK. Gas Wasser Abwasser, Organ des Schweiz. Vereins des Gas- und Wasserfaches (SVGW) und des Verbandes Schweizer Abwasser und Gewa¨sserschutzfachleute (USA) 5:295–302 Doerfliger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F (1999) Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method). Environ Geol 39(2):165–176 El-Naqal A, Hammouri N, Kuisi M (2006) GIS-based evaluation of groundwater vulnerability in the Russeifa area, Jordan. Revista Mexicana de Cieˆncias Geolo´gicas 23(3):277–287 Enfield CG, Carsel RF, Cohen SZ, Phan T, Walters DM (1982) Method for approximating pollutant transport to ground water. Ground Water 8:339–357 Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Van Duijvenbooden W, Van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwa- ter to pollutants. Proc Inf TNO Comm Hydrol Res, The Hague

38:69–86

Fredrick KC, Becker MW, Flewelling DM, Silavisesrith W, Hart ER (2004) Enhancement of aquifer vulnerability indexing using the analytic-element method. Environ Geol 45:1054–1061 Gemitzi A, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Pisinaras V (2006) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS, fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Env Geol 49:653–

673

Giupponi C, Eiselt B, Ghetti PF (1999) A multicriteria approach for mapping risks of agricultural pollution for water resources: the Venice lagoon watershed case study. J Environ Manag 56:259–

269

Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future challenges

in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods. Env Geol 39:549–559 Gogu RC, Hallet V, Dassargues A (2003) Comparison of aquifer vulnerability assessment techniques. Application to the Ne´blon river basin (Belgium). Env Geol 44:881–892 Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Ho¨tzl H (2000) The PI method—a GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration on karst aquifers. Z Angew Geol

46(3):157–166

Goossens M, Van Damme M (1987) Vulnerability mapping in Flanders, Belgium, Proceedings at ‘‘vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants’’. In: van Duijvenboode W, van Waegeningh GH (eds) TNO Committee on Hydrological Research, the Hague, Proceedings and Information, vol 38, pp

355–360

Greene EA, Lamotte AE (2006) Development of spatial probability model to estimate, integrate, and assess groundwater vulnera- bility at multiple scales. USGS, ReVA—regional vulnerability assessment, San Jose

Guo H, Wang Y (2004) Specific vulnerability assessment using the MLPI model in Datong city, Shanxi province, China. Env Geol

45:401–407

Guo Q, Wang Y, Gao X, Ma T (2007) A new model (DRARCH) for assessing groundwater vulnerability to arsenic contamination at basin scale: a case study in Taiyuan basin, northern China. Env Geol 52(5):923–932 Hartman D, Goltz M (2002) Application of the analytic hierarchy process to select characterization and risk-based decision- making and management methods for hazardous waste sites. Environ Eng Policy 3(1–2):1–7 Ho¨lting B, Haertle´ T, Hohberger KH, Nachtigall, Villinger E, Weinzierl W, Wrobel JP (1995) Konzept zur Ermittlung der Schutzfunktion der Grundwasseru¨berdeckung. (concept for the determination of the protective effectiveness of the cover above the groundwater against pollution). Geol Jb C63:5–24 Kabbour BB, Zouhri L, Mania J, Colbeaux JP (2006) Assessing groundwater contamination risk using the DASTI/IDRISI GIS method: coastal system of western Mamora, Marocco. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(4):463–470 Knox RC, Sabatini DA, Canter LW (1993) Subsurface transport and fate processes. Lewis Publishers, USA Lasserre F, Razack M, Banton O (1999) A GIS-linked model for assessment of nitrate contamination in groundwater. J Hydrol

224:81–90

Le Grand HE (1964) System for evaluating the contamination potential of some waste sites. J Am Water Works Assoc

56(8):959–974

Ma´dl-Szonyi J, Fu¨le L (1998) Groundwater vulnerability assessment of the SW Trans-Danubian Central Range, Hungary. Env Geol

35(1):9–18

Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1984) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model: US geological survey open-file report 83–875, p 528 Meeks YJ, Dean JD (1990) Evaluating ground-water vulnerability to pesticides. J Water Resour Plan Manage 116(5):693–707 Mendoza JA, Barmen G (2006) Assessment of groundwater vulner- ability in the Rio Artiguas basin, Nicaragua. Env Geol 50:569–

580

Neukum C, Ho¨tzl H (2007) Standardization of vulnerability maps. Environ Geol 51(5):689–694. doi:10.1007/s00254-006-0380-4 Pietersen K (2006) Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA): a tool to support sustainable management of groundwater resources in South Africa. Water SA 32(2):119–128 Rao PSC, Alley WM (1993) Pesticides. In: Alley WM (ed) Regional groundwater quality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp

345–382

Rao P, Hornsby A, Jessup R (1985) Indices for ranking the potential

for pesticide contamination of groundwater. Con Soil Crop Sci Soc Florida 44:1–8

Ray JA, O’’Dell PW (1993) Diversity: a new method for evaluating sensitivity of groundwater to contamination. Env Geol 22:345–

352

Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15/3:234–281 Soller DR, Berg RC (1992) A model for the assessment of aquifer contamination potential based on regional geologic framework. Environ Geol Water Sci 19(3):205–213 Soper RC (2006) Groundwater vulnerability to agrochemicals: a GIS- based drastic model analysis of Carroll, Chariton, and Saline counties, Missouri, USA. A thesis presented to the faculty of the graduate school University of Missouri-Columbia Tesfamariam S, Sadiq R (2006) Risk-based environmental decision- making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:35–50

123

136

L. V. Zuquette et al.

Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M (2001) Aquifer vulnerability using analytic hierarchy process and GIS for upper Palar watershed. 22nd Asian conference on remote sensing, Singapore USEPA (1987) Guidelines for delineation of wellhead protection areas. US EPA/440/6-87/010 report. United States Environmen- tal Protection Agency, Washington USEPA (1993) A review of methods for assessing aquifer sensitivity and ground water vulnerability to pesticide contamination. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington Van Stempoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnerability index (AVI): a GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Can Water Res J 18:25–37 Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F (2005) A comparative study of four schemes for groundwater vulnerability mapping in a diffuse flow carbonate aquifer under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Env Geol 47:586–595 Von Hoyer M, Sofner B (1998) Groundwater vulnerability mapping in carbonate (karst) areas of Germany, Federal institute for geo- sciences and natural resources, Archiv no 117854, Hanover, p 38

123

Vrba J, Zaporozec A (eds) (1994) Guidebook on mapping ground- water vulnerability, International contributions to hydrogeology (IAH), vol 16. Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover, p 131 Wagenet RJ, Huston JL (1987) Predicting the fate of non-volatile pesticides in the unsaturated zone. J Environ Qual 15:315–322 Worrall F, Kolpin DW (2004) Aquifer vulnerability to pesticide pollution-combining soil, land-use and aquifer properties with molecular descriptors. J Hydrol 293:191–204 Zaporozec A (2002) Groundwater contamination inventory: method- ological guide. International hydrological programme within project 3.1 (IHP-V) Zuquette LV, Pejon OJ, Collares JQ (2004) Engineering geological mapping developed in Fortaleza metropolitan region, state of Ceara´, Brazil. Eng Geol 71:227–253 Zwahlen F (ed) (2004) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers, final report (COST Action 620). European commission, directorate-general XII science, research and development. Brussels, p 297