Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Risk assessment of shallow groundwater contamination under irrigation and fertilization conditions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to extensive agricultural irrigation and fertilization, China now faces a severe problem of non-point source groundwater contamination. In this paper, the Daxing district of Beijing, a typical agricultural area with high fertilizer application, is chosen as the study area. With the consideration of intrinsic vulnerability and nitrate contamination load of groundwater, DRASTIC-based methodology was used to establish a GIS-based groundwater contamination risk assessment model, namely DRSIN model. The DRSIN model contains five parameters: depth to groundwater (D), net recharge (R), soil type (S), impact of the vadose zone (I) and nitrogen (N). By employing cluster analysis and fuzzy synthetic evaluation, the influence of agricultural non-point source contamination of groundwater on the formation of nitrate contamination was discussed under the existing conditions and 11 different irrigation and fertilization scenarios. The results show that the groundwater contamination risk in the north and east of Daxing District is higher than that in the south and the west, which conforms to the monitoring results of nitrate nitrogen content in groundwater. This indicates the need for reasonable groundwater utilization and protection planning to reduce agricultural non-point source contamination. Groundwater contamination risk decreases most significantly under the scenario of irrigation amount reduced by 25 %, nitrogen application reduced by 25 % and groundwater depth increased by 5 m. The findings provide data for reasonable groundwater development and utilization in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed I, Nazzal Y, Zaidi F et al (2015) Hydrogeological vulnerability and pollution risk mapping of the Saq and overlying aquifers using the DRASTIC model and GIS techniques, NW Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 74:1303–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balousha HM (2011) Mapping groundwater contamination risk using GIS and groundwater modelling. A case study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Arab J Geosci 4:483–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartzas G, Zaharaki D, Teresa H et al (2015) Assessment of aquifer vulnerability in an agricultural area in spain using the DRASTIC Model. Environ Earth Sci 16:356–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Belousova AP (2011) Risk assessment of underflooding of areas by groundwater during floods. Water Resour 38:39–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandoul IR, Bouaziz S, Ben Dhia H (2015) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC models in shallow aquifer of Gabes North (South East Tunisia). Arab J Geosci 8:7619–7629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan C, Chen Y-C, Ma H-W et al (2010) Comparative study of multimedia models applied to the risk assessment of soil and groundwater contamination sites in Taiwan. J Hazard Mater 182:78–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamza SM, Ahsan A, Imteaz MA et al (2015) Accomplishment and subjectivity of GIS-based DRASTIC groundwater vulnerability assessment method: a review. Environ Earth Sci 73:3063–3076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heredia OS, Cirelli A Fernandez (2008) Groundwater chemical pollution risk: assessment through a soil attenuation index. Environ Geol 53:1345–1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman IP, Howden NJK, Bellamy P et al (2010) An assessment of the risk to surface water ecosystems of groundwater P in the UK and Ireland. Sci Total Environ 408:1847–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu KL, Huang Y et al (2005) Spatial variability of shallow groundwater level, electrical conductivity and nitrate concentration, and risk assessment of nitrate contamination in North China Plain. Environ Int 31:896–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huysmans M, Madara’sz T, Dassargues A (2006) Risk assessment of groundwater pollution using sensitivity analysis and a worst-case scenario analysis. Environ Geol 50:180–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jameel AA, Sirajudeen J (2006) Risk assessment of physico-chemical contaminants in groundwater of Pettavithalai area, Tiruchirappalli, Tamilnadu-India. Environ Monit Assess 123:299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kattaa B, Al-Fares W, Al Charideh AR (2010) Groundwater vulnerability assessment for the Banyas Catchment of the Syrian coastal area using GIS and the RISKE method. J Environ Manage 91:1103–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolpin DW, Barbash JE, Robert J (1998) Occurrence of pesticides in shallow groundwater of the United States: initial results from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. GILLIOM. Environ Sci Technol 32:558–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Mao M (2003) Field evaluation of crop yield as affected by nonuniformity of sprinkler-applied water and fertilizers. Agric Water Manag 59:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lia JB, Huang GH, Zeng GM et al (2007) An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. J Environ Manage 82:173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma H-W (2002) Stochastic multimedia risk assessment for a site with contaminated groundwater. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 16:464–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milnes E (2011) Process-based groundwater salinisation risk assessment methodology: application to the Akrotiri aquifer (Southern Cyprus). J Hydrol 399:29–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen VA, Bang S, Viet PH et al (2009) Contamination of groundwater and risk assessment for arsenic exposure in Ha Nam province, Vietnam. Environ Int 35:466–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oenema O, van Liere L, Schoumans O (2005) Effects of lowering nitrogen and phosphorus surpluses in agriculture on the quality of groundwater and surface water in the Netherlands. J Hydrol 304:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picado F, Mendoza A, Cuadra S et al (2010) Groundwater and human health risk assessment in a mining region of Nicaragua. Risk Anal 30:916–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisciotta A, Cusimano G, Favara R (2015) Groundwater nitrate risk assessment using intrinsic vulnerability methods: a comparative study of environmental impact by intensive farming in the Mediterranean region of Sicily, Italy. J Geochem Explor 156:89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posen P, Lovett A, Hiscock K et al (2006) Incorporating variations in pesticide catabolic activity into a GIS-based groundwater risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 367:641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilahun K, Merkel BJ (2010) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia using DRASTIC. Environ Earth Sci 59:1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZX, Chai LY, Wang YY, Yang ZH et al (2011) Potential health risk of arsenic and cadmium in groundwater near Xiangjiang River, China: a case study for risk assessment and management of toxic substances. Environ Monit Assess 175:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin L, Zhang E, Wang X et al (2013) A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in the Ordos Plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci 69:171–185

  • Yu C, Yao YY, Hayes G et al (2010) Quantitative assessment of groundwater vulnerability using index system and transport simulation, Huangshuihe catchment, China. Sci Total Environ 408:6108–6116

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for support from Nature Science Fund of China (51322902, 51125036) and the Program from Chinese Ministry of Education (NCET-13-0554).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zailin Huo.

Appendix

Appendix

Model construction

Inverse distance-weighted (IDW) interpolation in ArcGIS was employed for spatial interpolation of the five factors. Cluster analysis was performed with SPSS to calculate the weights, and fuzzy synthetic evaluation was used for risk classification. Finally DRSIN model was constructed.

For groundwater contamination risk assessment by fuzzy synthetic evaluation method, the procedures are listed as follows:

  1. (a)

    Sample values were collected for 31 sites, and 5 indicators were included to reflect groundwater contamination risk. A score (0–10) was assigned to the characteristic value of each factor at each sampling point according to measurements. Thus indicator set X i of the ith sampling point was constructed:

    $$X_{i} = \left[ {X_{i1} , \, X_{i2} ,{ \ldots }X_{i5} } \right],\quad{i = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots p}$$
    (4)
  2. (b)

    Construction of evaluation set

    $$V = \, \left[ {v_{1} , \, v_{2} , \ldots ,v_{5} } \right] ,$$
    (5)

where v 1 : value assigned as 1 for score of 0–2.

v 2 : value assigned as 2 for score of 3–4;

v 5 : value assigned as 5 for score of 9–10.

  1. (c)

    For each factor X ij , single factor evaluation matrix [r ij1,r ij2,,r ijm ] was constructed. That is, r ijk (0 ≤ r ijk  ≤ 1) represents the evaluation on factor x ij using v k , where j = 1,2,…,5 and k = 1,2,…,5. Thus the single factor evaluation matrix R = (r ijk )5 × 5 was obtained.

  2. (d)

    Synthetic evaluation was performed according to the weight of each factor A = (a 1,a 2,…,a 5): B = A O R = (b 1,b 2 ,…,b 5), which is a fuzzy subset on V. Depending on the definition of operation O, M (\(\times ,\;{ \oplus }\)) was chosen. Weighted averaging model was used to calculate b l = (a l ·r ls ), (s = 1,2,…,5), where b l is the probability of reaching the corresponding degree of contamination. Finally, the synthetic evaluation matrices of each sampling point were solved.

  3. (e)

    The evaluation results obtained using the above-mentioned method was then used for inverse distance-weighted (IDW) interpolation in MAPGIS. The groundwater contamination zoning map of Daxing District was obtained. Synthetic evaluation was carried out using C programming language. IDW interpolation in MAPGIS was applied to obtain groundwater contamination risk zoning map of Daxing District.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, X., Sun, M., Wang, N. et al. Risk assessment of shallow groundwater contamination under irrigation and fertilization conditions. Environ Earth Sci 75, 603 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5379-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5379-x

Keywords

Navigation