Browse > Article

A Study of Improvement for the Prediction of Groundwater Pollution in Rural Area: Application in Keumsan, Korea  

Cheong, Beom-Keun (Korea Institute of Geoscience & Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Groundwater Environmental Group)
Chae, Gi-Tak (Korea Institute of Geoscience & Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Groundwater Environmental Group)
Koh, Dong-Chan (Korea Institute of Geoscience & Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Groundwater Environmental Group)
Ko, Kyung-Seok (Korea Institute of Geoscience & Mineral Resources (KIGAM), Groundwater Environmental Group)
Koo, Min-Ho (Department of Geoenvironmental Sciences, Kongju National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment / v.13, no.4, 2008 , pp. 40-53 More about this Journal
Abstract
Groundwater pollution prediction methods have been developed to plan the sustainable groundwater usage and protection from potential pollution in many countries. DRASTIC established by US EPA is the most widely used groundwater vulnerability mapping method. However, the DRASTIC showed limitation in predicting the groundwater contamination because the DRASTIC method is designed to embrace only hydrogeologic factors. Therefore, in this study, three different methods were applied to improve a groundwater pollution prediction method: US EPA DRASTIC, Modified-DRASTIC suggested by Panagopoulos et al. (2006), and LSDG (Land use, Soil drainage, Depth to water, Geology) proposed by Rupert (1999). The Modified-DRASTIC is the modified version of the DRASTIC in terms of the rating scales and the weighting coefficients. The rating scales of each factor were calculated by the statistical comparison of nitrate concentrations in each class using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test; while the weighting coefficients were modified by the statistical correlation of each parameter to nitrate concentrations using the Spearman's rho test. The LSDG is a simple rating method using four factors such as Land use, Soil drainage, Depth to water, and Geology. Classes in each factor are compared by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test which gives a different rating to each class if the nitrate concentration in the class is significantly different. A database of nitrate concentrations in groundwaters from 149 wells was built in Keumsan area. Application of three different methods for assessing the groundwater pollution potential resulted that the prediction which was represented by a correlation (r) between each index and nitrate was improved from the EPA DRASTIC (r = 0.058) to the modified rating (r = 0.245), to the modified rating and weights (r = 0.400), and to the LSDG (r = 0.415), respectively. The LSDG seemed appropriate to predict the groundwater pollution in that it contained land use as a factor of the groundwater pollution sources and the rating of each class was defined by a real pollution nitrate concentration.
Keywords
Groundwater pollution prediction; Vulnerability; Nitrate; Rural area; GIS;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 박재성, 김경호, 전민우, 김지수, 1999, 소유역의 지하수함양율 추정기법, 한국지하수환경학회지, 6(2), 76-86
2 성태제, 2001, 현대 기초통계학의 이해와 적용, 교육과학사, 서울, p. 507
3 이사로, 최순학, 1997, GIS 기법을 이용한 영광지역의 지하수 오염 취약성 평가, 한국지하수환경학회지, 4, 223-230
4 조시범, 손호웅, 2004, 지하수오염 예측을 위한 GIS 활용연구, 한국지구물리학회지, 7, 121-134
5 함세영, 정재열, 김무진, 김인수, 황한석, 2004, DRASTIC과 지하수 수질에 의한 창원시 지하수 오염취약성 평가, 자원환경지질, 37, 631-645
6 홍승호, 이병주, 김원영, 1980, 한국지질도(1 : 50,000) 무주도폭, 자원개발연구소
7 Antonakos, A.K. and Lambrakis, N.J., 2007, Development and testing of three hybrid methods for the assessment of aquifer vulnerability to nitrates, based on the drastic model, an example from NE Korinthia, Greece, Journal of Hydrology, 333, 288-304   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Rupert, M.G., 1999, Improvements to the DRASTIC Ground-Water Vulnerability Mapping Method, USGS, USGS Fact Sheet, FS-066-99
9 Baalousha, 2006, Vulnerability assessment for the Gaza Strip, Palestine using DRASTIC, Environ Geol, 50, 405-414   DOI
10 환경부, 2008, 2006 상수도 통계(수정본), 환경부 상하수도정책실 수도정책과, 대양인쇄, p. 1885
11 Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Rajmohan, N., and Al-Yaroubi S., 2007, Assessment of groundwater vulnerability inthe coastal region of Oman using DRASTIC index method in GIS environment, Environ Monit Assess, DOI 10.1007/s10661-007-0104-6
12 Panagopoulos, G.P., Antonakos, A.K., and Lambrakis, N.J., 2006, Optimization of the DRASTIC method for groundwater vulnerability assessment via the use of simple statistical methods and GIS, Hydrogeol. J., 14, 894-911   DOI
13 Alley, W.M., 1993, Regional groundwater qaulity, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
14 농림부, 2007, 농림통계연보 2007
15 농림부, 2000, 농어촌지역 지하수자원의 오염예측도 작성기법에 관한연구, 농림부, p. 320
16 손호웅, 2001, GIS를 이용한 경기도 화남2지구의 지하수오염 예측에 관한 연구, 한국지구물리학회지, 4, 267-285
17 우남칠, 1994, 지하수 오염 가능성 평가기법 "DRASTIC" 개요, 자원환경지질학회지, 27, 611-612
18 홍승호, 최위찬, 1978, 한국지질도(1 : 50,000) 금산도폭, 자원개발연구소
19 이사로, 김윤종, 1996, DRASTIC SYSTEM을 이용한 지하수 오염 가능성 및 위험 분석 연구, 한국GIS학회지, 4, 1-11
20 Aller, L., Bennett, T., Lehr, J.H., Petty, R.J., and Hackett, G., 1987, DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeology settings, USEPA, USEPA Document, EPA-600/2-87-035
21 이훈영, 2004, 이훈영교수의 통계학, 청람, 서울, p. 526
22 조시범, 민경덕, 우남칠, 이사로, 1999, GIS를 이용한 경기도 평택군 지역의 지하수 오염 가능성 평가 연구, 한국지하수환경학회지, 6, 87-94
23 금산군, 2007, 금산통계연보 2007
24 Wang, Y., Merkel, B.J., Li, Y., Ye, H., Fu, S., and Ihm, D., 2007, Vulnerability of groundwater in Quaternary aquifers to organic contaminants; a case study in Wuhan City, China, Environ. Geol., 53, 479-484   DOI
25 건설교통부, 한국수자원공사, 농업기반공사, 2005, 김해지역 지하수기초조사 보고서