English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The term vulnerability is used to explain the degree to which human or environmental systems are likely to get harm due to perturbation or stress, and can be known for a determined system, hazard, or group of hazards (Popescu 2008). In hydrogeology, vulnerability evaluation typically describes the effectiveness of a specif ic aquifer to contamination that could decrease the Groundwater quality. The idea was f irst of all imposed in France by the end of the 1960s to create awareness about groundwater contamination (Vrba & Zaporozec, 1994). No single standardized description for Groundwater vulnerability exists; although, the concept describes the relative ease with which the Groundwater resource could be contaminated. The National Research Council (1993) determined it as the tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specif ied position in the Groundwater system after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer. Two idioms are used to describe Groundwater vulnerability: essential and specif ic. The essential vulnerability is the natural susceptibility to contamination based on the physical characteristics of the environment while specif ic et al., vulnerability is determined as an accounting for the transport properties of a particular contaminant or group of contaminants through the subsurface (Jessica & Sonia, 2009). Theassessmentof vulnerabilitygathering complex, the hydrogeological data must be handled in such a way so that it can be used by a non–specialist people such as decis ion–makers. Vulnerabi l i ty evaluat ion of Groundwater aquifer provides a basis for initial protective measurement for important groundwater resources and would normally be the f irst step in a groundwater pollution hazard assessment and quality when its interest (Foster, 1987). Many approaches have been expanded for assessing groundwater vulnerability and could be grouped into three major categories (Tesoriero 1998): a. overlay and index methods; b. methods using process–based simulation models; c. statistical methods. In overlay and index methods, factors which are controlling the movement of pollutants from the ground surface into the saturate zone (e.g., geology, soil, impact of vadose zone, etc.) are mapped depending on existing and/or derived data. Subjective numerical values (rating) are then assigned to each factor based on its importance on et al., DRASTIC model has been used to map groundwater vulnerability due to pollution in various areas. This method needs to be calibrated and reformed for a specif ic aquifer and pollution. The suggested methodology was applied to Asadabad aquifer located in western Iran. In the present research, the rates of DRASTIC parameters have been reformed so that the vulnerability potential to pollution can be determined more exactly. The new rates were calculated using the relationships between each parameter and the nitrate concentration in the groundwater. The measured nitrate condensation values were used to correlate the pollution potential in the aquifer to DRASTIC index. The results showed that the modif ied DRASTIC is better than the original method for the nonpointsource of pollutions in agricultural zones. Application of the new rates, a new DRASTIC map was expanded that shows that 2.1% of the area fall in high vulnerability class. The assessed area was 34.2% and 58.19% for moderate class and, for low vulnerability class, 63.7% and 31.39% respectively, before and afterusing the newrates. Ambient Science, 2017: Vol. 04(1); 38-44 DOI:10.21276/ambi.2017.04.1.ta03

Evaluation of Aquifer Vulnerability by GIS Application: Case study from Asadabad, Hamadan (Western Iran)