EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 434 (2023) E3S Web Conf., 434 (2023) 03019 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 434, 2023
4th International Conference on Energetics, Civil and Agricultural Engineering (ICECAE 2023)
Article Number 03019
Number of page(s) 9
Section Agricultural Engineering
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343403019
Published online 12 October 2023
  1. R.C. Gogu, G. Carabin, V. Hallet, V. Peters, A. Dassargues, GIS-Based Hydrogeological Databases and Groundwater Modeling, Hydrogeology Journal 9, 555–569 (2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. H. Elfarrak, M. Hakdaoui, A. Fikri, Development of Vulnerability through the DRASTIC Method and Geographic Information System (GIS) (Case Groundwater of Berrchid), Morocco, Journal of Geographic Information System 6, 45–58 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. J. Vrba, A. Zoporozec, Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability, 16th Edition, International Contributions to Hydrogeology (IAH), Hannover (1994) [Google Scholar]
  4. J. Margat, Vulnerabilite des nappes d’eau souterraine a la pollution, BRGM-Publication 68 SGL 198 HYD, Orleans (1968) [Google Scholar]
  5. U.S. Abdullahi, Evaluation of Models for Assessing Groundwater Pollution in Nigeria, Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Science 2, 138–142 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  6. I. Hamdan, A. Margane, T. Ptak, B. Wiegand, M. Sauter, Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment for the Karst Aquifer of Tanour and Rasoun Springs Catchment Area (NW-Jordan) Using COP and EPIK Intrinsic Methods, Environmental Earth Sciences 75, 1474 (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Z. Mimi, N. Mahmoud, M. Madi, Modified DRASTIC Assessment for Intrinsic Vulnerability Mapping of Karst Aquifers: A Case Study, Environmental Earth Sciences 66, 447–456 (2011) [Google Scholar]
  8. L. Aller, T. Bennett, J. Lehr, R. Petty, G. Hackett, DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Setting, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/600/2-87/035 (1987) [Google Scholar]
  9. B. Hoelting, T. Haertlé, K.-H. Hohberger, K.H. Nachtigall, E. Villinger, W. Weinzierl, J.-P. Wrobel, Konzept zur Ermittlung der Schutzfunktion der Grundwasserüberdeckung, Geologisches Jahrbuch Reihe C Band C 63, 5–24 (1995) [Google Scholar]
  10. M. Civita, M. Demaio, SINTACS: Un systema parametrico per la valutazione e la cartografia della vulnerabilità degli acquiferi all’inquinamento (methodologia e automatizzazione), Pitagora Editrice, Bologna (1997) [Google Scholar]
  11. N. Doerfliger, P.-Y. Jeannin, F. Zwahlen, Water Vulnerability Assessment in Karst Environments: A New Method of Defining Protection Areas Using a Multi-Attribute Approach and GIS Tools (EPIK Method), Environmental Geology Journal 39, 165–176 (1999) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. N. Goldscheider, M. Klute, S. Sturm, H. Hötzl, The PI Method—A GIS-Based Approach to Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability with Special Consideration of Karst Aquifers, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Geologie 46, 157–166 (2000) [Google Scholar]
  13. J.M. Vias, B. Andreo, M. Perles, F. Carrasco, I. Vadillo, P. Jimenez, Proposed Method for Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping in Carbonate (Karstic) Aquifers: The COP Method-Application in Two Pilot Sites in Southern Spain, Hydrogeology Journal 14, 912–925 (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. L. Aller, T. Bennet, J.H. Lehr, R.J. Petty, DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeological Settings, EPA (1985) [Google Scholar]
  15. T. Huang, Z. Pang, W. Edmunds, Soil Profile Evolution Following Land-Use Change: Implications for Groundwater Quantity and Quality, Hydrological Processes 27, 1238–1252 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  16. O. Twana, S. Ali, A. Al-ansari, S. Knutsson, Groundwater Vulnerability Using DRASTIC and COP Models: Case Study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq, Engineering 8, 741–760 (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. I. Hamdan, A. Abdulla, A.H. Mu’ayyad, Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment for the Corridor Wellfield Using DRASTIC and Modified DRASTIC Models: A Case Study of Eastern Jordan, Open Journal of Geology 10, 991–1008 (2020) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Paul, C. Das, An investigation of groundwater vulnerability in the North 24 parganas district using DRASTIC and hybrid-DRASTIC models: A case study, Environmental Advances 5, 100093 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. A. Bera, P.M. Bhabani, C. Puja, A. Ghosh, Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC model in Nangasai River Basin, India with special emphasis on agricultural contamination, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 214, 112085 (2021) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. J. Wang, J. He, H. Chen, Assessment of groundwater contamination risk using hazard quantification, a modified DRASTIC model and groundwater value, Beijing Plain, China, Science of the Total Environment 432, 216–226 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. A. Neshat, B. Pradhan, M. Dadras, Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Using an Improved DRASTIC Method in GIS, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 86, 74–86 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. D. Thirumalaivasan, M. Karmegam, K. Venugopal, AHP-DRASTIC: Software for Specific Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment using DRASTIC Model and GIS, Environmental Modelling & Software 18, 645–656 (2003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. T. Putranto, D. Widiarso, F. Yuslihanu, Studi Kerentanan Air Tanah Terhadap Kontaminan Menggunakan Metode Drastic di Kota Pekalongan, Jurnal Teknik 37(1), 28–29 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  24. A. Supriatna, S. dan Notodarmojo, Pengembangan Kriteria Penilaian Metode Drastic dalam Analisis Kerentanan Pencemaran Air tanah di Kota Bandung, Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan 25(2), 108–112 (2019) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.