Table 5 List of some of the comparative studies conducted around the world
From: DRASTIC, GOD, and SI approaches for assessing groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a review
Authors | Study area | Year | Methods used | Type of aquifer system | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[67] | Apulia, southern Italy | 2009 | GOD, DRASTIC, SINTACS, EPIK, PI, and COP | Karstic aquifer | The GOD model gives an underestimation of vulnerability and a low sensitivity to spatial variation in key hydrogeological features. The DRASTIC and SINTACS approaches chose limitations in applications to karst aquifer systems. However, the methods EPIK, PI and COP, developed for application to carbonate or karst aquifers, provide cost-effective results, highly consistent with karst and hydrogeological characteristics |
[57] | Miopliocene sandy aquifer, Biskra, Algeria | 2016 | DRASTIC and SI | Porous media aquifer | By integrating the land use parameter, the results obtained with the SI model were more reliable compared to the DRASTIC model. The vulnerability maps produced were tested and validated by the distribution of groundwater nitrates in the study area. The correlation coefficient between the SI and the nitrate concentrations was 85%, which is higher than the 75% obtained with the DRASTIC method |
[13] | The aquifer of the city of Meknes, Morocco | 2013 | DRASTIC and GOD | Porous media aquifer | The analysis of the results obtained from the DRASTIC and GOD approaches indicated three spatial distributions of vulnerability categories, low, medium and high, with 85% of similarity between the two methods for the medium vulnerability category |
[53] | Ghiss-Nekkour aquifer, Northeast of Morocco | 2020 | DRASTIC, GOD and SI | Porous media aquifer | The application of the DRASTIC, GOD and SI methods shows a range of intervals divided into categories corresponding to fluctuating degrees of vulnerability ranging from “very low” to “extreme”. The validation of the mapping result was carried out using the nitrate concentrations measured in April 2017. The most reliable results were obtained with the SI method in comparison with DRASTIC and GOD |
[79] | Shallow groundwater aquifer of the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal | 2022 | DRASTIC, GOD and SI | Porous media aquifer | The DRASTIC and SI models are similar for the vulnerability assessment because both methods identify about 80% of the groundwater basin area under the highly vulnerable zone. By contrast, in the GOD model, vulnerability assessment identify areas with "low" and "moderate" vulnerability categories are 24% and 76%, respectively. The correlation between the estimated risk and the measured nitrate concentration was performed to validate the resulting mapping. Comparing with DRASTIC and GOD, the authors conclude that the SI method has more reliable results |
[52] | Nea Moudania aquifer, Chalkidiki, Greece | 2022 | DRASTIC, pesticide DRASTIC, SINTACS, nitrate SINTACS, GOD, AVI, and SI, | Porous media aquifer | As the study area is marked by intensive agricultural activities. The authors confirm that DRASTIC Pesticide and SINTACS Nitrate were the more precise and efficient methods for evaluating the groundwater vulnerability in the study area. Using the coefficient of correlation (R2), the authors validated the results obtained by the seven methods using the nitrate concentrations from 23 observation wells. The most efficient and accurate approaches were pesticide DRASTIC and nitrate SINTACS with R2 = 0.6475 and 0.6438, respectively. The two methods have a slightly higher coefficient of determination compared to DRASTIC and normal SINTACS. Besides, AVI, GOD methods were the less reliable, with correlation coefficients of GOD (R2 = 0.5348), AVI (R2 = 0.5045); SI method, which incorporates the land use parameter exhibited a greater R2 of 0.6084 |