Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15:1590

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10870-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Groundwater vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC model in Niwari

District of Bundelkhand Region, Madhya Pradesh, India
Deepak Patle1 · Sourabh Nema1 · Manoj Kumar Awasthi1 · Shailesh Kumar Sharma1 · Yogesh Kishore Tiwari1

Received: 22 December 2021 / Accepted: 24 September 2022

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
Groundwater quantity with quality is challenging day by day due to the rapid expansion of urban areas, particularly in the
agricultural and industrial sectors. The worldwide over-exploitation of groundwater has caused major groundwater problems
and groundwater contamination in many locations. Vulnerability assessment is important to identify and manage ground-
water vulnerable zones in water-scarce locations. In this study, a DRASTIC model was developed using hydro-geological
factors such as groundwater level depth, net groundwater recharge, phreatic or aquifer media, soil media, topographic factor,
the impact of the vadose zone media, and aquifer hydraulic conductivity to estimate groundwater contamination potential
of Niwari District in Bundelkhand Region, Madhya Pradesh. All the mentioned seven factors were assessed from different
sources and processes. Each parameter was given a rating based on functional curve characteristics, and weightage was
assigned according to the relative importance of each factor, ranging from 1 to 5 (least significant to most significant). Each
of the seven variables had been aligned and categorised into ranges or significant media forms, which were incorporated
into the DRASTIC model using ArcGIS 10.8 software. The groundwater vulnerability map was prepared and classified into
three vulnerable zones, viz low, moderate, and high vulnerability of groundwater contamination. A more significant portion
of the study area, nearly 57.31%, falls within the low groundwater vulnerability zone. The study indicates that the moder-
ate groundwater vulnerability zone encompasses approximately 33.42% of the total area. Only 9.27% of the Niwari district
falls under the high vulnerability zone of groundwater pollution. Groundwater samples were used to validate the DRASTIC
model with nitrate concentration of the study area. Validation results revealed the nitrate levels were found to be in the range
of 0–45 mg/l and 46–100 mg/l and exceeded 100 mg/l in low, moderate, and high vulnerable zones respectively. The study
also concludes that the DRASTIC model is highly effective for predicting groundwater vulnerability areas.

Keywords DRASTIC · Groundwater vulnerability · GIS · Bundelkhand

Introduction contaminated (Sinha et al. 2016; Tiwari et al. 2016; Rajput

et al. 2020). A failing local aquifer strains other water
Despite the threat from anthropologically induced harmful resources, and its loss may cause them to fail. Furthermore,
environmental activities, groundwater is often amazingly in the developing world, such remediation may be compli-
resilient and water quality is generally good worldwide cated (Besser et al. 2017; Dizaji et al. 2020). As a result, it
because many aquifer systems naturally attenuate pollu- is essential to recognise vulnerable aquifer systems in the
tion. While aquifers are not easily polluted, it is exception- context of adequate groundwater planning and manage-
ally challenging to remediate them once they have been ment (Chandoul et al. 2015; Sahoo et al. 2016). In the Bun-
delkhand region of central India, most parts of the Niwari
district face severe problems related to quality and quan-
Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel tity shortages of drinking water (Patle and Awasthi 2021).
Nowadays, groundwater resources have been degraded and
* Deepak Patle
[email protected] become polluted due to increased population, anthropogenic
activities (such as excessive fertilisation in agriculture,
1
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College domestic waste, and effluent from industries), changes in
of Agricultural Engineering, JNKVV Jabalpur, Jabalpur, topography, relief, land use, and land cover pattern changes
Madhya Pradesh 482 004, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1590 Page 2 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

(Prasad et al. 2011; Gangadharan et al. 2016; Chakraborty this approach is that some factors, such as precipitation and
et al. 2022). water level, are readily accessible over large areas, enabling
The possibility of chemical pollutants percolating and them to be used in the regional-scale analyses (Thapinta and
diffusing from the earth’s surface into the groundwater sys- Hudak 2003).
tem is referred as the groundwater vulnerability. Ground- Geographic information systems (GIS) have sought to
water vulnerability is limited to hydrogeological factors examine various spatial data through an overlay analysis of
and does not consider contaminant diffusion (Kumar et al. data layers since their inception in the early 1980s. GIS has
2013; Kirlas et al. 2022). Natural hydrogeological factors also played an important role in groundwater flow model-
affect the various contaminants in various ways, depending ling and identifying groundwater pollution and the poten-
on their interactions and chemical properties. Sometimes tial for both (Awasthi and Patle 2019; Nema et al. 2019;
even now, over 90% of our rural population highly depend Patle and Awasthi 2019; Awasthi and Patle 2020; Rao et al.
on groundwater (Chandrashekhar et al. 1999). Groundwa- 2020; Patle et al. 2022). Methodologies for sensitivity and
ter vulnerability is commonly referred to as an “intrinsic” vulnerability analysis using overlays/indices have changed
property of a groundwater system, defined by its suscepti- substantially, particularly in terms of parametric weighting
bility to human and natural impacts (Rahman 2008). It is schemes and the use of GIS technology (Corwin et al. 1997;
extremely difficult to quickly remediate contaminated sub- Fuest et al. 1998).
surface water resources (aquifers) (Foster and Chilton 2003; For evaluating aquifer vulnerability, index-based methods
Todd and Mays 2004). As a result, groundwater pollution offer the benefit of being independent of data availability
prevention measures that are effective must be implemented and similarity (Goyal et al. 2021). There are several index
in the groundwater management system. Groundwater pollu- methods like DRASIC (Aller et al. 1987), GOD (Oroji
tion from industrial effluents and municipal wastes in water 2018), AVI rating system (Raju et al. 2014), COP, VLDA
bodies is another major concern in many Indian cities and (Abdullah et al. 2018), GALDIT (Sujitha et al. 2020), EPIK
urban clusters. In many countries, the disposal of treated and (Nekkoub et al. 2020), PRAST (Gad et al. 2015), and SIN-
untreated industrial effluents on land has become common TACS (Kumari et al. 2016; Prasad and Ahmad 2022) for
practice. In 1995, India’s Central Pollution Control Board analysing the groundwater vulnerability. The United States
conducted a survey that revealed twenty-two sites in sixteen Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) first developed
Indian states where industrial effluents had contaminated the DRASTIC model to characterise groundwater pollution
groundwaters. A stream in the Punjab state that receives (Aller et al. 1987). The mechanism of the DRASTIC model
effluent from 1300 industrial sectors has been reported to is based on current hydrogeology and hydro-geochemical
pollute shallow aquifers. Mettupalayam taluk industries are a processes, as well as their importance in groundwater pol-
prime example of this practice in Tamilnadu (Sacchidananda lution (Sahu and Nandi 2015), making it a powerful tool
and Prakash 2006). for assessing the possibility of subsurface water pollution
There have been numerous strategies developed to evalu- (Knox et al. 1993; Hamza et al. 2007; Leone et al. 2009;
ate aquifer groundwater vulnerability. Process-based tech- Ahirwar and Shukla 2018). The DRASTIC model evaluates
niques, statistical techniques, and overlay/index techniques groundwater vulnerability on a vertical scale, assuming that
are among them (Tesoriero et al. 1998; Zhang et al. 1996). the contaminant is applied at the ground surface and spreads
Process-based methods estimate contaminant migration to the groundwater table with the same mobility rate as water
using simulation models (Barbash and Resek 1996). Sta- via precipitation or infiltration and that the study area is gen-
tistical methods are used for establishing relationships erally more prominent than 0.4 k­ m2 (Kazakis and Voudouris
between variables and the existing contaminants in aquifers. 2015). The DRASTIC method was used as a screening tool
Simulation models were used in process-based approaches to consider wide-ranging terrestrial areas for susceptibility
to estimate pollutant immigration, but limited data avail- to pesticide-related groundwater pollution using existing
ability and complex methodologies limit their use (Babiker hydro-geologic factors in GIS (Rosen 1994; Kim and Hamm
et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2013; Verma et al. 2020). Mor et al. 1999; Fritch et al. 2000). GIS and remote sensing techniques
(2005) investigated the impact of Gazipur landfill effluent have both played essential roles in the DRASTIC modelling
percolation on the quality of nearby aquifers. In a related of groundwater pollution vulnerability assessment (Becker
study, Nalini et al. (2004) measured the concentrations of 2006; Almasri 2008; Umar et al. 2009; Nasri et al. 2015;
agrochemical residues like organo-chlorine and organophos- Malik and Shukla 2019; Hasan et al. 2019; Yeh et al. 2006;
phate in surface and groundwater samples from northern Yin et al. 2013).
India’s Kanpur district. The overlay and index framework Similarly, Secunda et al. (1998) used composite mod-
integrates factors that control the mobility of pollutants els and DRASTIC to classify groundwater vulnerability in
from the ground surface into the zone of saturation, yield- Israel; the technique integrated extensive agricultural land
ing vulnerability indices at different locations. The benefit of use data and empirical methods. Al-Adamat et al. (2003)

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 3 of 17 1590

used GIS, remote sensing, and DRASTIC to create ground- south is nearly 53 km, and its maximum width is nearly 56
water vulnerability and risk maps for Jordan’s Azraq basin. km. The district as a whole is located above the Tropic of
Lowe and Butler (2003) created pesticide sensitivity and Cancer. The Betwa River and its tributary, the Jamni River,
vulnerability maps for the western United States using GIS form the district’s physical boundaries. Betwa flows along
and a similar overlay/index strategy on existing data. The the district’s northern boundary, and Jamni runs almost the
main factors used for the determination of groundwater entire western boundary before joining Betwa near Orchha.
sensitiveness to pesticides were hydro-geologic setup (ver- Niwari district is one of Madhya Pradesh’s smallest districts,
tical groundwater slope and availability or non-availability formed on October 1, 2018, and formerly part of Tikamgarh
of confining layers), soil hydraulic conductivity, pesticide district. The Niwari district covers an area of approximately
retardation, pesticide absorption, and depth to groundwater. 1170 ­km2. Niwari district is divided into two blocks Niwari
According to the findings, irrigated lands with a groundwa- and Prithvipur. Administratively the district has three tehsils
ter table closer to the land surface were more likely to have (sub-districts): Niwari, Orchha, and Prithvipur.
water quality degradation due to pesticide surface applica- In this study area, soils are classified as black humus gra-
tion. Ceplecha et al. (2004) assessed the vulnerability of nitic and yellowish-grey with kankar soils. Groundwater in
Colorado groundwater to nitrate contamination using a this area is typically found at or near the water table. The
GIS-integrated DRASTIC model. Dixon (2005) produced Niwari district’s average annual rainfall is 1057.1 mm. The
comparable groundwater vulnerability maps by combining average maximum temperature in May is 42.0°C, and the
three newly developed indices based on detailed land use, average minimum temperature in January is 7.4°C. Niwari’s
pesticide, soil structure data, and selected DRASTIC model normal annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures
parameters. In this study, the DRASTIC index method has are 32.0°C and 18.0°C, respectively. The location of the
been used because it is the most popular, simple, and widely Niwari district is depicted in Fig. 1.
applied approach that can efficiently utilise available hydro- The hydrogeological studies show that majority of the
geological parameters for evaluating the vulnerability of study area is made up of granite rocks with Quartzite. Gran-
groundwater. ite is generally flesh-red colour with a coarse-grained tex-
In the recent past, most of the groundwater vulnerability ture. The long narrow ridges formed by Quartzite/quartz-reef
assessment studies have been done in various parts of the are intrusive into the granite rocks. The aquifer thickness,
country on the different hard rocks like Basalt, Sandstone, transmissivity, and specific yield in typical shallow aquifer
Limestone, Dolomite, Schist, Marble, Gneiss, Quartzite, systems range from 3 to 8 m, 3 to 45 ­m2/day, and 64.80
and Granite. Based on the available literatures, some studies to 2520 m ­ 3/day, respectively. When considering the deeper
which were conducted in Granite hard rock regions lie par- aquifer, the average aquifer thickness, transmissivity, and
ticularly in coastal areas, coal fields, and the southern part of average yield vary from 0.5 to 4 m, 12.87 to 145 m ­ 2/day, and
3
India (Prasad et al. 2011; Shekhar et al. 2014; Mondal et al. 64.00 to 378.80 m ­ /day, respectively (AIMS-CGWB Report
2017; Bera et al. 2021). However, in the Bundelkhand Grani- 2022). Figure 2 shows a map of the hydrogeological settings
toid Complex region, no such studies have been conducted. in the Niwari area.
Also, Bundelkhand semi-arid belt is experiencing exces-
sive granite mining and stone crushing, which could have a Data collection
significant impact on the environment. Thus, to understand
the status of the vulnerability of aquifers, especially in this Toposheets of Niwari district have been collected on a scale
region, the study has been conducted with the prime objec- of 1:50,000 from the Survey of India, Madhya Pradesh.
tive to assess and classify the vulnerable areas using the Data of depth to water level was obtained from the Central
DRASTIC model. Ground Water Board (CGWB), Bhopal and State Ground
Water Data Center, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The water
table fluctuation method was used to obtain Net Recharge
Materials and methods data. The Geological Survey of India, Jabalpur, has com-
piled an aquifer map. The soil map was created using data
Study area from the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use
Planning (NBSS&LUP), Nagpur. The SRTM Digital Eleva-
Niwari district is located on the Bundelkhand Plateau in tion Model (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 30 m was
northern Madhya Pradesh. It is located between 78° 26′ obtained from the USGS Earth Explorer portal. Slope maps
14.28″ and 78° 59′ 15″ North latitude and 25° 4′ 19.92″ were obtained from digital elevation model (DEM) maps
to 25° 33′ 23.04″ East longitude, and is covered by Survey for topography maps. Data on the impact of vadose zone
of India toposheet numbers 54K11, 54K12, 54K15, 54K16, media was gathered from the Geological Survey of India,
and 54O3. The district’s maximum length from north to Jabalpur. Also, the aquifer transmissivity, aquifer thickness,

13
1590 Page 4 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Fig. 1  Location map of the study area

and nitrate concentrations data for the Niwari district was topography, and the impact of the vadose zone media
obtained from the CGWB, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. (Aller et al. 1987). The DRASTIC modelling framework is
composed of three major components: weightages, ranges,
Methodology/procedure and ratings.

DRASTIC model Weightages Every DRASTIC component has been weighed

against the others to determine their relative merits. From
DRASTIC modelling is a widely used method for deter- the least important to the most important, it has been given
mining groundwater vulnerability. This was developed a relative weightage ranging from 1 to 5 (Table 1). The said
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency exercise was completed through the use of a Delphi (con-
(US EPA) to safeguard aquifers in the United States of sensus) process. The Delphi method is a process used to
America (USA). This approach is being used to manage attain at a group opinion or decision by surveying a panel
a system that provides a systematic assessment of the of experts. Delphi has been broadly used for forecasting or
potential for groundwater pollution and can be applied prediction studies. In DRASTIC model, such weightages are
to any hydrogeological context (Stigter et al. 2006). The fixed and cannot be modified (Aller et al. 1987).
DRASTIC approach was used to create a groundwater vul-
nerability map, which combines seven factors that influ- Ranges Groundwater pollution potential has been classified
ence the potential for groundwater pollution, including into a number of categories or classes based on the DRAS-
depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, TIC factors identified.

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 5 of 17 1590

Fig. 2  Hydrogeological settings

map of Niwari district

Table 1  Assigned weightage for DRASTIC parameters (Aller et al. 1987)

Factors/hydrological settings Description Relative
weightage

Depth to water level The depth from the ground surface to the water table in a well; the deeper the water table, the 5
fewer the chances of pollution interacting with groundwater
Net recharge It is the amount of water per unit area of land that percolates through the ground surface and 4
reaches the water table, as well as the reporting agents for contaminants in groundwater.
Aquifer media It is a potential area for water storage; the aquifer’s pollutant attenuation capacity is dependent 3
on the amount and sorting of fine grains; the smaller the grain size, the greater the aquifer’s
attenuation capacity.
Soil media Soil media is the most exposed and weathered part of the ground, and the characteristics of the 2
soil cover have an impact on the surface and downward mobility of pollutants.
Topography Water retention is a function of slope or steepness, and low-slope areas tend to retain water 1
longer, making them more susceptible to contamination from recharge of water and
contaminant migration.
Impact of the vadose zone media It is the portion of the ground between the aquifer and the soil cover that contains unsaturated 5
pores or joints; its effect on the aquifer’s pollution potential is similar to that of the soil cover,
depending on its permeability and attenuation characteristics.
Hydraulic conductivity of Basically, it pertains to the aquifer’s ability to transmit water; a highly conductive aquifer is 3
aquifer more vulnerable to contamination because a plume of contamination can move through the
aquifer with ease

Ratings It is essential to compare each range in the DRAS- The DRASTIC index (DI) has been calculated using the
TIC factor in terms of pollution potential in order to know following equation with the weightage sum of the seven lay-
to how important a factor is. The range of each DRASTIC ers as overlay:
factor was allocated with a score of 1 to 10 using functional DI = Dr × Dw + Rr × Rw + Ar × Aw + Sr × Sw + Tr × Tw + Ir × Iw + Cr × Cw
curves.

13
1590 Page 6 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Dr water level depth ranges rating (1) Map removal sensitivity analysis (MRSA) This approach
is described by Lodwick et al. (1990) and calculates the sen-
Dw the weightage of water level depth, sitivity of the vulnerability map when one or more maps are
removed from the suitability analysis.
Rr ratings for net recharge ranges, � � � ��
⎡� V V �⎤
⎢�� − �⎥
�
Rw weightage assigned to the net recharge,
N n
S = ⎢� �⎥ × 100
� V �
⎢� �⎥
⎣� �⎦
Ar aquifer media classification ratings,

Aw weightage assigned to aquifer media. where

Sr ratings for soil media classes, S sensitivity value expressed in terms of the varia-
tion index (%),
Sw weightage assigned to the soil media.
V vulnerability index
Tr ratings for topography classes (slope),
V’ vulnerability index prepared after removing
Tw topography weightage, parameter’s layer (one or multiple)

Ir ratings for vadose zone classes, N and n number of parameter layers used to calculate V
and V’
Iw weightage assigned to vadose zone,
(2) Single‑parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA) Napolitano
Cr hydraulic conductivity rate ratings, and Fabbri (1996) proposed the single-parameter sensitivity
analysis (SPSA), which allows for a comparison between the
Cw weightage of hydraulic conductivity actual or effective weight of each parameter and the theo-
retical weight applied in the DRATIC model. The effective
Weighted sum overlay analysis weight is calculated by:
[ ]
Pr × Pw
The DRASTIC index number is calculated by multiplying each W= × 100
V
parameter rating by its weightage and adding the results. Every
component of the analysis is rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with
10 indicating the highest pollution potential and 1 indicating where
the lowest pollution potential. Each DRASTIC parameter was
assigned a relative weightage ranging from 1 to 5, based on its W effective weight (%)
susceptibility to pollutants. Weightages and ratings are assigned
to various parameters and then overlayed in a GIS environment.
Pr parameter’s reclassified layer with rating

Sensitivity analysis (SA) Pw parameter’s weightage

Sensitivity analysis is an excellent method for identifying the V vulnerability index

most significant DRASTIC model vulnerability factors in the
study area. This research confirms that the weights assigned
to different hydrogeological parameters were computed ade- Results and discussion
quately for the most sensitive parameters, hence increasing the
overall accuracy of the analysis. This approach is quite useful Using the DRASTIC index equation, the DRASTIC values were
for identifying the status of vulnerable zones for research on calculated in the GIS environment for mapping the groundwater
groundwater pollution. In this study, the map removal sen- vulnerability of the study area. All seven thematic layers were
sitivity analysis (MRSA) and single-parameter sensitivity built with various types of data. Then, maps were prepared for
analysis (SPSA) were used for sensitivity analysis. all seven DRASTIC model factors that have been developed in

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 7 of 17 1590

order to create a groundwater vulnerability map of the study a lower risk of contamination. The depth to water level is also
area. The following are the findings of a comprehensive analysis important because it allows for the most oxidation by atmos-
of all seven factors governing groundwater vulnerability zones: pheric oxygen. The depth to water level map was then classified
into DRASTIC model ranges and assigned rates ranging from 1
Depth to water level (minimum impact on vulnerability) to 10, and an index was cal-
culated by multiplying weightage (5) by ratings for each range.
During the study of pre-monsoon season, April–June 2020, A depth-to-water-level map is depicted in Fig. 3.
total 93 permanent observation wells (63 monitoring wells from
CGWB, Bhopal, and 30 observation wells from State Ground Net recharge
Water Data Center, Bhopal) were used to determine the water
level depth. The minimum and maximum water level depths Typically, rainfall is the primary groundwater source, as it infil-
measured in the Niwari district are 3.10 m and 23.24 m bgl, trates through the ground surface and percolates to the water
respectively. This spatial point data for individual well was con- table. Net recharge is the amount of water per unit area of land
toured using the IDW technique and divided into five categories: that percolates through the ground surface and reaches the water
less than 5 m, 5–10 m, 10–15 m, 15–20 m, and greater than 20 table (Aller et al. 1987). A significant component in the leaching
m (see Table 2). Impurities are more vulnerable in areas with and transportation of solid or liquid contaminants to the ground-
a shallow water table because they must travel the shortest dis- water is recharge water. The water table fluctuation method was
tance to join the water table. Deeper water table levels imply used to calculate net recharge in this study:

Table 2  DRASTIC model’s Parameter Range Rating Weightage Index value

rating and weighting values for
various hydrogeological factors Depth to water level (m bgl) <5 10 5 50
of the study area
5–10 9 45
10–15 8 40
15–20 7 35
> 20 6 30
Net recharge (ha m) 0–170 1 4 4
170–340 3 12
340–510 5 20
510–680 7 28
680–850 9 36
Aquifer media Granite 3 3 9
Quartz reef/Quartzite 4 12
Soil media Loamy 3 2 6
Clayey 5 10
Topography (slope in %) 0–4 10 1 10
4–8 9 9
8–12 5 5
12–16 3 3
> 16 1 1
Impact of the vadose zone media Gneiss 4 5 20
Granite 4 20
Metamorphics 5 25
Quartzite 5 25
Sand and gravel 8 40
Sand with significant 6 30
silt and clay
Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer (m/day) 0–1.5 1 3 3
1.5–3.0 2 6
3.0–4.5 4 12
4.5–6.0 6 18
6.0–7.5 8 24

13
1590 Page 8 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Fig. 3  Depth to water level map

of Niwari district

Net Recharge = (Pre-monsoon − Post-monsoon) × Spe- movement. Clayey and loamy soil are the two most common
cific Yield × Area Influence by Well types of soil. There are some areas where hard rocks can
The greater the amount of recharge, the greater the likeli- be seen, and there is no soil cover. Loamy soil covers the
hood of groundwater pollution. Figure 4 depicts the Niwari majority of the study area (about 910.26 ­km2). Only 259.74
district’s net recharge map. ­km2 of clayey soil was discovered in the Niwari district. The
study area’s soil media layer was reclassified by assigning
Aquifer media a rating value to each soil class and multiplying soil ratings
by soil weightage (Table 2). Figure 6 illustrates a soil media
The aquifer media controls the routing path of the map developed for the study area.
groundwater flow system and the amount of effective
surface area of materials with which the contaminant Topography
may come into contact. The main aquifers in the Niwari
district are comprised of weathered granite and quartz The slope of the area represents the topography. Topog-
reef/quartzite. Most of the study area is covered by gran- raphy influences the likelihood that a pollutant will run
ite, while quartz reef/quartzite is found in only a small off or remain on the surface for an extended period of
portion of the study area. This quartzite is weathered and time before infiltrating. As a result, the more infiltra-
fractured, with secondary porosities containing ground- tion, the greater the pollution potential associated with
water. The assigned rating for aquifer media was found the slope. The ranges are rated based on the assumption
to be in the range, and rating and index were calculated that slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent provide the best
by multiplying the weightage by rating for each range opportunity for a pollutant to infiltrate because neither
(Table 2). The aquifer media map is shown in Fig. 5. the pollutant nor much precipitation exits the area as
runoff. The slope in this study ranged from 0.15 to more
Soil media than 16%. The topography index was calculated by multi-
plying topography ratings by topography (slope) weight-
Soil has a significant influence on the amount of recharge age (Table 2). Topography map for the study area has
that can infiltrate into the water table and thus on pollutant been shown in Fig 7.

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 9 of 17 1590

Fig. 4  Net recharge map of

Niwari district

Fig. 5  Aquifer media map of

Niwari district

Impact of the vadose zone media The vadose zone’s impact is a complex combination
of topographic features and aquifer media (Nahin et al.
The vadose zone is defined as the unsaturated or dis- 2020). Impact of vadose zone media was studied from
continuously saturated zone above the water table. the lithological cross section and hydrogeology of the

13
1590 Page 10 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Fig. 6  Soil map of Niwari

district

Fig. 7  Topography map of

Niwari district

area. The vadose zone media comprises of gneiss, gran- sand and gravels. The impact of vadose zone ratings was
ite, metamorphics, quartzite, sand, and gravels and sand multiplied by the weightage of the vadose zone media
with significant silt and clay. Most of the study area was impact to produce the index of the impact of vadose zone
covered by granite and metamorphic rocks followed by (Table 2). Figure 8 shows the vadose zone media map.

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 11 of 17 1590

Fig. 8  Vadose zone media map

of Niwari district

Hydraulic conductivity of aquifer to be 80. More DRASTIC index value means greater risk
of groundwater pollution. The DRASTIC indices were fur-
The ability of aquifer materials to transmit water, which ther classified into three zones: low vulnerability (80–100),
controls the rate at which groundwater flows under a given moderate vulnerability (100–120), and high vulnerability
hydraulic gradient, is referred to as hydraulic conductivity (120–140). Sites classified as high-risk for contamination
(Ahirwar and Shukla 2018). Hydraulic conductivity affects require increased monitoring and management.
the pores, fractures, joints, and inter-granular porosity.
Pumping tests data were obtained from 15 out of 33 explora- Validation of groundwater vulnerability map
tory borewells of Niwari block and rest of the 18 exploratory
borewells lies on Prithvipur block, which were conducted The vulnerability map of groundwater was validated using
by CGWB, Bhopal. Hydraulic conductivity values were nitrate ­(NO3) concentrations data obtained from CGWB,
calculated using transmissivity and aquifer thickness data. Bhopal. The water sample analysis of some exploratory
Hydraulic conductivity is divided into ranges in this study, wells was performed by CGWB in Niwari and Prithvipur
with higher hydraulic conductivities associated with higher block of the study area. Number of CGWB exploratory
pollution potential. The hydraulic conductivity parameter’s wells were super imposed on the groundwater vulnerabil-
ranges and ratings are listed in Table 2, and the ratings were ity zone map to validate the results. Location of water
multiplied by its weightage to produce the hydraulic conduc- sample collected from exploratory wells and the compari-
tivity index. The hydraulic conductivity map of study area son of vulnerability map with actual field data are shown
has been shown in Fig. 9. in Table 3. The validation results revealed that more than
80% of the total exploratory wells nitrate concentrations
Development of groundwater vulnerability map data were found as similar as vulnerability zones repre-
sented on the map as illustrated in (Fig. 11). According
As shown on the groundwater vulnerability map, the to validation results, nitrate contamination levels in the
DRASTIC index was created by combining all seven lay- low-vulnerable zone ranged from 0 to 45 mg/l. Nitrate
ers in ArcGIS 10.8 to demarcate groundwater vulnerability concentrations in the moderate zone range from 46 to
zones (Fig. 10). The calculated DRASTIC index identifies 100 mg/l. However, in the most vulnerable areas, nitrate
areas that are particularly susceptible to groundwater con- concentrations exceeded 100 mg/l. According to BIS
tamination in comparison to other areas. The maximum (2012) and WHO (2011) water standards, the permissi-
DRASTIC value is estimated to be 140, and the minimum ble limit of nitrate in groundwater is 45 mg/l and 50 mg/l,

13
1590 Page 12 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Fig. 9  Hydraulic conductivity

map of Niwari district

Fig. 10  Groundwater vulner-

ability map of Niwari district

respectively. In cases where the nitrate concentration in Sensitivity analysis (SA) of DRASTIC model
the groundwater exceeds the permissible limit, it may be
harmful to humans and the environment. A high-risk site In this study, sensitivity analysis was conducted utilising
necessitates more monitoring and management because both map removal approaches and single-parameter sen-
it is more vulnerable to contamination. sitivity analysis methods, as detailed below.

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 13 of 17 1590

Table 3  Comparison of groundwater vulnerability zones with actual field data

Sample No. Location of ground- Longitude Latitude NO3 (mg/l) Vulnerability accord- Vulnerability according Agreement
water sample ing to field data to classified map

1 Dhamna 78.954 25.374 46 Moderate Moderate Agree

2 Birorakhet 78.772 25.124 26 Low Low Agree
3 Neguan 78.670 25.256 56 Moderate Low Disagree
4 Orchha 78.638 25.350 94 Moderate Moderate Agree
5 Ziron 78.636 25.100 135 High High Agree
6 Panihari 78.652 25.280 86 Moderate Moderate Agree
7 Asati 78.890 25.450 34 Low Low Agree
8 Mudaini 78.632 25.167 104 High High Agree
9 Niwari 78.801 25.351 48 Moderate Moderate Agree
10 Pohakhas 78.828 25.320 41 Low Low Agree
11 Prithvipur 78.755 25.200 65 Moderate Low Disagree
12 Radhapur 78.580 25.330 48 Moderate Low Disagree
13 SakeraBhadaram 78.749 25.149 74 Moderate Moderate Agree
14 Bhopalpura 78.706 25.198 65 Moderate Moderate Agree
15 Achhrumata 78.680 25.169 118 High Moderate Disagree
16 Jalandhar 78.790 25.201 57 Moderate Moderate Agree
17 Jherakhas 78.665 25.182 53 Moderate High Disagree
18 Kargawan 78.730 25.184 38 Low Low Agree
19 Parkheda 78.739 25.259 42 Low Low Agree
20 Dhillan 78.704 25.290 31 Low Low Agree
21 Gurar 78.770 25.234 43 Low Low Agree
22 JeronKhalsa 78.666 25.137 95 High Moderate Disagree
23 Kudar 78.902 25.469 44 Low Low Agree
24 Makara 78.742 25.286 41 Low Low Agree
25 Nandanwara 78.703 25.290 45 Low Low Agree
26 Panhari 78.795 25.396 77 Moderate Moderate Agree
27 Taricharkalan 78.842 25.386 49 Moderate Moderate Agree
28 Joramora 78.808 25.086 32 Low Low Agree
29 Churara 78.879 25.289 47 Moderate Moderate Agree
30 Mohanpura 78.796 25.312 38 Low Low Agree
31 Harshmau 78.823 25.303 87 Moderate Moderate Agree
32 Murara 78.844 25.345 78 Moderate Moderate Agree
33 Orchha 78.649 25.394 94 Moderate Moderate Agree

(1) Map removal sensitivity analysis (MRSA) variation of the vulnerability index was obtained when the
layer of depth to water level was removed (mean variation
In MRSA technique, one map removal sensitivity analy- index: 4.09%). Similarly, the vulnerability index has been
sis (OMRSA) and multi-map removal sensitivity analysis found minimum sensitive on the removal of Net recharge (R)
(MMRSA) were used to analyse parameters sensitivity. as variation was found only 2.53%. A statistical summary of
the OMRSA is presented in Table 4.
(1.a) One map removal sensitivity analysis (OMRSA) In this
method, one parameter layer was removed from the DRAS- (1.b) Multi‑map removal sensitivity analysis (MMRSA) In
TIC model and rest of the parameters were used to prepare this method, one or more parameters are gradually elimi-
vulnerability map. Later sensitivity is calculated in terms of nated from the DRASTIC model. First, the influence of the
variation in vulnerability. The same process was repeated vadose zone parameter (I) was excluded from the DRAS-
for each parameter of this model. Results revealed that high TIC model and the vulnerability map was generated. Then,

13
1590 Page 14 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Fig. 11  Validation of groundwa-

ter vulnerability map of Niwari
district using nitrate concentra-
tion in groundwater

sensitivity was computed in terms of vulnerability varia- individual factors on groundwater vulnerability was calcu-
tion. The DRAST, DRAS, DRA, RA, and R layers were lated using SPSA technique which is given in Table 6. The
then used to construct the vulnerability map and sensitivity, average effective weight of the depth to water level was
respectively. The net recharge (R) and aquifer media (A) 45.18%, and its theoretical weight (%) was 21.74%. This
parameters exhibit the greatest variation, while the vadose shows that the parameter is more effective in vulnerabil-
zone (I) and hydraulic conductivity (C) factors exhibit the ity assessment using the DRASTIC index. Similarly, the
least change once their influence has been excluded. A sta- effective weight of the topography parameter (8.42%) is
tistical summary of the MMRSA is presented in Table 5. exceeding the theoretical weight 4.35%. The net recharge
and impact of the vadose zone parameters had high theo-
(2) Single‑parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA) retical weights (17.39% and 21.74%) and have received a
lower effective weight with an average value of 5.47% and
Single-parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA) was used to 21.43% (Table 6). The remaining parameters demonstrated
assess the impact of each parameter on the vulnerability an average effective weight of 9.29% (aquifer media),
Index. The SPSA technique compares “effective weights” 7.03% (soil media), and 9.52% (hydraulic conductivity).
with their “theoretical weights” for each parameter in the Comparing with the “theoretical” weights, the “effective”
DRASTIC model (Babiker et al. 2005). Effective weight of weight was found to have significant differences in the

Table 4  A statistical summary of the one-map removal sensitivity

analysis Table 5  A statistical summary of the multi-map removal sensitivity
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean Standard analysis
removed deviation Parameters used Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
deviation
D 0.093 6.410 4.09 1.130
R 0.077 5.795 2.53 0.887 DRASTC 0.000 4.101 1.01 0.610
A 0.000 4.791 1.89 0.928 DRAST 0.000 3.071 0.43 0.385
S 0.100 5.393 2.27 0.951 DRAS 0.000 5.159 2.32 0.767
T 0.214 6.397 2.04 0.964 DRA 0.369 9.244 5.34 1.027
I 0.000 4.101 1.01 0.610 RA 0.000 9.327 7.44 1.464
C 0.249 2.002 1.85 0.104 R 0.866 15.966 9.13 2.522

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 15 of 17 1590

Table 6  A statistical summary Effective weight (%) Theoretical Theo-

of the of single-parameter weight (%) retical
sensitivity analysis Parameters Minimum Maximum Mean Standard weight
deviation

D 30.303 53.763 45.18 2.992 21.74 5

R 3.306 30.252 5.47 3.450 17.39 4
A 6.818 13.953 9.29 0.722 13.04 3
S 4.800 11.628 7.03 1.554 8.70 2
T 0.813 11.494 8.42 2.369 4.35 1
I 15.625 38.835 21.43 2.312 21.74 5
C 2.564 28.916 9.52 5.401 13.04 3

case of the depth to water parameter in groundwater vul- groundwater, reverse osmosis (RO), ion exchange, elec-
nerability using DRASTIC model. trodialysis (ED), denitrification utilising a membrane bio
reactor (MBR), and biological denitrification could be used.

Acknowledgements The authors thankfully acknowledge the NAHEP-

Conclusion CAAST, CSDA, College of Agricultural Engineering, JNKVV, Jabal-
pur, for providing necessary facilities. The authors are also grateful to
The DRASTIC model was used in this study to assess State Ground Water Data Center, Bhopal, as well as CGWB, Bhopal,
groundwater vulnerability in the Niwari District of Mad- for providing required data and necessary information for this research.
hya Pradesh’s Bundelkhand region. Over the course of the
study, seven hydrogeological factors (groundwater depth, Declarations
net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, effect Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing
of the vadose zone, and hydraulic conductivity of the aqui- interests.
fer) were combined in ArcGIS 10.8 to create a groundwater
vulnerability map. The research area was classified into three
vulnerable zones: low vulnerability (670.53 k­ m2), moderate References
vulnerability (391.01 ­km2), and high vulnerability (108.46
­km2). A map indicating groundwater vulnerability location Abdullah T, Ali S, Al-Ansari N, Knutsson S (2018) Possibility of
was developed. The groundwater vulnerability map was also groundwater pollution in Halabja Saidsadiq Hydrogeological
Basin, Iraq using modified DRASTIC model based on AHP and
validated successfully using nitrate concentration samples. tritium isotopes. Geosciences 8(7):236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
Additionally, this research indicated that a GIS system might geosc​ience​s8070​236
be an efficient way to manage the large amount of spatial Ahirwar S, Shukla JP (2018) Assessment of groundwater vulnerabil-
data used in the DRASTIC model. This research gives a ity in upper Betwa river watershed using GIS based DRASTIC
model. J Geol Soc India 91(3):334–340
complete picture of the groundwater contamination risk in AIMS-CGWB Report (2022) Aquifer disposition and aquifer manage-
the area. However, there were some studies noted by few ment plan of Niwari and Prithvipur block. Aquifer Information
researchers (Wang et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2015) that DRAS- and Management System, Central Ground Water Board. https://​
TIC’s use is limited for urban settings as terrain where the www.​aims-​cgwb.​org/
Al-Adamat R, Foster I, Baban S (2003) Groundwater vulnerability
urban areas are located is mainly flat; thus, the T component and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of
in the DRASTIC framework is not relevant. Also, the char- Jordan using GIS, remote sensing and DRASTIC. Appl Geogr
acteristics of the soil media may be barely obtained since the 23:303–324
ground is primarily occupied by concrete. Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ (1987) DRASTIC: a standard-
ized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using
The identified vulnerable zones with deteriorating water hydro geologic settings. USEPA document no. EPA/600/2-85-018.
quality should be addressed to ensure sustained groundwa- Almasri MN (2008) Assessment of intrinsic vulnerability to con-
ter in future for the study area. Some precautions should tamination for Gaza coastal aquifer Palestine. J Environ Manag
be taken to avoid nitrate pollution of groundwater, includ- 88(4):577–593
Awasthi MK, Patle D (2019) Water harvesting in kharif fallow for
ing the appropriate application of fertilisers in agricultural augmenting ground water recharge. In: In 4th International Con-
activities, the maintenance of excessive irrigation to ensure ference on Soil and Water Resources Management for Climate
adequate fluoride and nitrate leaching, the application of Smart Agriculture, Global Food and Livestock Security. SCSI
organic manure on the soil at the proper time, and the instal- and NASC, New Delhi, p p94
Awasthi M, Patle D (2020) Trend analysis of ground water recharge in
lation of appropriate sewage disposal systems in rural and Tikamgarh district of Bundelkhand using geospatial technology.
urban areas. As remedial methods for nitrate pollution of Int J Chem Stud Special Issue 8(4):417–420

13
1590 Page 16 of 17 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590

Babiker IS, Mohamed A, Hiyama T, Kato K (2005) A GIS-based Hamza MH, Added A, Rodriguez R, Abdeljaoued S, Mammou B
DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakami- (2007) A GIS-based DRASTIC vulnerability and net recharge
gahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. Sci Total Environ reassessment in an aquifer of a semi-arid region (Metline-Ras
345:127–140 Jebel-Raf Raf aquifer, Northern Tunisia). J Environ Manag
Barbash JE, Resek EA (1996) Pesticides in ground water: distribution, 84:12–19
trends, and governing factors. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea Hasan M, Islam A, Hasan MA, Alam J, Peas MH (2019) Groundwater
Becker M (2006) Potential for satellite remote sensing of ground water. vulnerability assessment in Savar upazila of Dhaka district, Bang-
Gr Water 44(2):306–318 ladesh - a GIS-based DRASTIC modeling. Groundw Sustain Dev
Besser H, Mokadem N, Redhouania B, Rhimi R, Khlifi F, Ayadi Y, 9(10):1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsd.​2019.​100220
Omar Z, Bouajila A, Hamed Y (2017) GIS-based evaluation of Kazakis K, Voudouris S (2015) Groundwater vulnerability and pol-
groundwater quality and estimation of soil salinization and land lution risk assessment of porous aquifers to nitrate: modifying
degradation risks in an arid Mediterranean site (SW Tunisia). the DRASTIC method using quantitative parameters. J Hydrol
Arab J Geosci 10(350):1–20 525:13–25
Bera A, Mukhopadhyay BP, Chowdhury P, Ghosh A, Biswas S Kim YJ, Hamm S (1999) Assessment of the potential for groundwater
(2021) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based contamination using the DRASTIC/EGIS technique, Cheongju
DRASTIC model in Nangasai River Basin, India with special area. South Korea Hydrogeol J 7(2):227–235
emphasis on agricultural contamination. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf Kirlas MC, Karpouzos DΚ, Georgiou PE, Katsifarakis KL (2022) A
214:112085 comparative study of groundwater vulnerability methods in a
BIS (2012) Indian standard drinking water specification. Bureau of Indian porous aquifer in Greece. Appl Water Sci 12(6):1–21
Standards, New Delhi Knox RC, Sabatini DA, Canter LW (1993) Subsurface transport and
Ceplecha ZL, Waskom RM, Bauder TA, Sharkoff JL, Khosla R (2004) fate processes. Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, p 430
Vulnerability assessments of Colorado groundwater to nitrate con- Kumar S, Thirumalaivasan D, Radhakrishnan N, Mathew S (2013)
tamination. Water Air Soil Pollut 159:373–394 Groundwater vulnerability assessment using SINTACS model.
Chakraborty B, Roy S, Bera A, Adhikary PP, Bera B, Sengupta D, Geomat Nat Haz Risk 4(4):339–354. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
Bhunia GS, Shit PK (2022) Groundwater vulnerability assess- 19475​705.​2012.​732119
ment using GIS-based DRASTIC model in the upper catchment Kumari S, Jha R, Singh V, Baier K, Sinha MK (2016) Groundwa-
of Dwarakeshwar river basin, West Bengal, India. Environ Earth ter vulnerability assessment using SINTACS model and GIS in
Sci 81(1):1–5 Raipur and Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. Indian J Sci Technol
Chandoul IR, Bouaziz S, Dhia HB (2015) Groundwater vulnerabil- 9(41)
ity assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC models in shallow Leone A, Ripa MN, Uricchio V, Deak J, Vargay Z (2009) Vulner-
aquifer of Gabes North (South East Tunisia). Arab J Geosci ability and risk evaluation of agricultural nitrogen pollution for
8(9):7619–7629 Hungary’s main aquifer using DRASTIC and GLEAMS models.
Chandrashekhar H, Adiga S, Lakshminarayana V, Jagdeesha CJ, J Environ Manag 90:2969–2978
Nataraju C (1999) A case study using the model ‘DRASTIC’for Lodwick WA, Monson W, Svoboda L (1990) Attribute error and sen-
assessment of groundwater pollution potential. In Proceedings of sitivity analysis of map operations in geographical information
the ISRS national symposium on remote sensing applications for systems: suitability analysis. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 4(4):413–428
natural resources. 19–21 Lowe M, Butler M (2003) Ground water sensitivity and vulnerability
Corwin DL, Vaughan PJ, Loague K (1997) Modeling nonpoint source to pesticides, Heber and Round Valleys, Wasatch County, Utah.
pollutants in the vadose zone with GIS. Environ Sci Technol In: Miscellaneous Publication. Utah Geological Survey, Utah, pp
31(8):2157–2175 03–05
Dixon B (2005) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and fuzzy Malik MS, Shukla JP (2019) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability
rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327–347 risk in shallow aquifers of Kandaihimmat watershed, Hoshang-
Dizaji AR, Hosseini SA, Rezaverdinejad V, Sharafati A (2020) abad, Madhya Pradesh. J Geol Soc India 93(2):199–206
Groundwater contamination vulnerability assessment using Mondal NC, Adike S, Singh VS, Ahmed S, Jayakumar KV (2017)
DRASTIC method, GSA, and uncertainty analysis. Arab J Geo- Determining shallow aquifer vulnerability by the DRASTIC
sci 13(645):1–15 model and hydrochemistry in granitic terrain, southern India. J
Foster SSD, Chilton PJ (2003) Groundwater: the processes and global Earth Syst Sci 126(6):1–23
significance of aquifer degradation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Mor S, Khaiwal R, Dahiya RP, Chandra A (2005) Leachate characteri-
358:1957–1972. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rstb.​2003.​1380 zation and assessment of ground water pollution near municipal
Fritch TG, McKnight CL, Yelderman JC, Arnold JG (2000) Environ- solid waste landfill site. Environ Monit Assess 118:435–456
mental auditing: an aquifer vulnerability assessment of the Paluxy Nahin KTK, Basak R, Alam R (2020) Groundwater vulnerability
Aquifer, Central Texas, USA, using GIS and a modified DRASTIC assessment with DRASTIC index method in the salinity-affected
approach. J Environ Manag 25(3):337–345 southwest coastal region of Bangladesh: a case study in Bager-
Fuest S, Berlekamp J, Klein M, Matthies M (1998) Risk hazard map- hat Sadar, Fakirhat and Rampal. Earth Syst Environ 4:183–195.
ping of groundwater contamination using long-term monitoring https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41748-​019-​00144-7
data of shallow drinking water wells. J Hazard Mater 61:197–202 Nalini S, Ajit KS, Rashmi S (2004) Organochlorine and organophos-
Gad MI, El-Kammar MM, Ismail HM (2015) Groundwater vulner- phorous pesticide residue in ground water and surface waters of
ability assessment using different overlay and index methods for Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. Environ Int 31:113–120
quaternary aquifer of Wadi El-Tumilat, East Delta, Egypt. Asian Napolitano P, Fabbri AG (1996) Single-parameter sensitivity analysis
Rev Environ Earth Sci 2(1):9–22 for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SIN-
Gangadharan R, Nila RP, Vinoth S (2016) Assessment of groundwater TACS. Appl Geogr Inform Syst Hydrol Water Resources Manage
vulnerability mapping using AHP method in coastal watershed of 235:559–566 http://​www.​iahs.​info/​redbo​oks/​235.​htm
shrimp farming area. Arab J Geosci 2(9):1–14 107 Nasri N, Chebil M, Guellouz L, Bouhlila R, Maslouhi A, Ibnoussina
Goyal D, Haritash AK, Singh SK (2021) A comprehensive review of M (2015) Modelling nonpoint source pollution by nitrate of
groundwater vulnerability assessment using index-based, model- soil in the Mateur plain, northeast of Tunisia. Arab J Geosci
ling, and coupling methods. J Environ Manag 296:113161 8:1057–1075

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15:1590 Page 17 of 17 1590

Nekkoub A, Baali F, Hadji R, Hamed Y (2020) The EPIK multi-attrib- granitic aquifer. Arab J Geosci 8(3):1385–401. https://​doi.​org/​
ute method for intrinsic vulnerability assessment of karstic aquifer 10.​1007/​s12517-​014-​1285-2
under semi-arid climatic conditions, case of Cheria Plateau, NE Singh A, Srivastav SK, Kumar S, Chakrapani GJ (2015) A modified-
Algeria. Arab J Geosci 13(15):1–5 DRASTIC model (DRASTICA) for assessment of groundwater
Nema S, Awasthi MK, Nema RK (2019) Conceptual groundwater mod- vulnerability to pollution in an urbanized environment in Luc-
elling in an alluvial aquifer of upper Narmada basin. J Soil Water know, India. Environ Earth Sci 74:5475–5490
Conserv 18(2):179–187 Sinha MK, Verma MK, Ahmad I, Baier K, Jha R, Azzam R (2016)
Oroji B (2018) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using GIS-based Assessment of groundwater vulnerability using modified DRAS-
DRASTIC and GOD in the Asadabad plain. J Mater Environ Sci TIC model in Kharun Basin, Chhattisgarh, India. Arab J Geosci
9(6):1809–1816 9(2):98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​015-​2180-1
Patle D, Awasthi MK (2019) Groundwater potential zoning in Tikam- Stigter TY, Ribeiro L, Dill AC (2006) Evaluation of an intrinsic and
garh District of Bundelkhand using remote sensing and GIS. Int J a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with
Agric Environ Biotechnol. New Delhi Publishers 12(4):311–318 groundwater salinisation and nitrate contamination levels in
Patle D, Awasthi MK (2021) Identification of drought presumable two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeol J
zones using geographic information system: a case study of 14:79–99
Niwari District of Bundelkhand Region, Madhya Pradesh. Soil Sujitha V, Purandara BK, Shivapur AV, Davithuraj J (2020) Assess-
Water Conserv Manag 1:63–68 ment of aquifer vulnerability using GALDIT model—a case study.
Patle D, Awasthi MK, Sharma SK, Tiwari YK (2022) Application of J Geol Soc India 95(5):507–512
geoinformatics with frequency ratio (FR) model to delineate dif- Tesoriero AJ, Inkpen EL, Voss FD (1998) Assessing ground-water
ferent groundwater potential zones in Ken Basin, India. Indian J vulnerability using logistic regression. In: In Proceedings for the
Ecol 49(2):313–323 Source Water Assessment and Protection 98 Conference. Virginia:
Prasad AD, Ahmad I (2022) Groundwater vulnerability assessment using NAWQA Publications, Dallas, pp 157–165
SINTACS model and GIS: a case study in Raipur city. In IOP Con- Thapinta A, Hudak PF (2003) Use of geographic information systems
ference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 982(1):012070. for assessing groundwater pollution potential by pesticides in Cen-
IOP Publishing. tral Thailand. Environ Int 29:87–93
Prasad RK, Singh VS, Krishnamacharyulu SK, Banerjee P (2011) Tiwari AK, Singh PK, De Maio M (2016) Evaluation of aquifer vul-
Application of DRASTIC model and GIS: for assessing vul- nerability in a coal mining of India by using GIS-based DRAS-
nerability in hard rock granitic aquifer. Environ Monit Assess TIC model. Arab J Geosci 9(6):438. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
176:143–155 s12517-​016-​2456-0
Rahman A (2008) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing ground- Todd DK, Mays LW (2004) Groundwater hydrology. John Wiley &
water vulnerability in shallow aquifer in Aligarh India. Appl Sons, Hoboken
Geogr 28(1):32–53 Umar R, Ahmed I, Alam F (2009) Mapping groundwater vulnerable
Rajput H, Goyal R, Brighu U (2020) Modification and optimization of zones using modified DRASTIC approach of an alluvial aquifer
DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability and contamina- in parts of central Ganga plain, Western Uttar Pradesh. J Geol Soc
tion risk assessment for Bhiwadi region of Rajasthan, India. Envi- India 73(2):93–201
ron Earth Sci 79(6):1. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 12665-0​ 20-8​ 874-z Verma A, Singh SK, Kanga, S (2020) GIS based groundwater vulner-
Raju NJ, Ram P, Gossel W (2014) Evaluation of groundwater vulner- ability assessment using DRASTIC model at Mahi River Basin,
ability in the lower Varuna catchment area, Uttar Pradesh, India Rajasthan, India. Int J Innov Technol Exploring Eng 8(9):1878–
using AVI concept. J Geol Soc India 83:273–278 1892. https://​doi.​org/​10.​35940/​ijitee.​I8440.​078919
Rao JH, Patle D, Sharma SK (2020) Remote sensing and GIS technique Wang Y, Merkel BJ, Li Y, Ye H, Fu S, Ihm D (2007) Vulnerability of
for mapping land use/land cover of Kiknari watershed. Indian J groundwater in Quaternary aquifers to organic contaminants: a
Pure Appl Biosci 8(6):455–463 case study in Wuhan City, China. Environ Geol 53:479–484
Rosen L (1994) Study of the DRASTIC methodology with the empha- WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th ed. World
sis on Swedish conditions. In: In Program and abstracts of the Health Organization. https://​apps.​who.​int/​iris/​handle/​10665/​
37thconference of the International Association for Great Lakes 44584
Research and Estuarine Research Federation. IAGLR, Buffalo, Yeh PJF, Swenson SC, Famiglietti JS, Rodell M (2006) Remote sens-
p 166 ing of groundwater storage changes in Illinois using the Gravity
Sacchidananda M, Prakash N (2006) Ground water pollution and Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). Water Resour Res
emerging environmental challenges of industrial effluent irriga- 42(12):W12203
tion: a case study of Mettupalayam taluk, Tamil Nadu. Working Yin L, Zhang E, Wang X, Wenninger J, Dong J, Guo L, Huang J
paper, IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program’s 5th Annual Partners’ (2013) A GIS based DRASTIC model for assessing groundwa-
Research Meet. March 8-10, Anand ter vulnerability in the Ordos Plateau, China. Environ Earth Sci
Sahoo M, Sahoo S, Dhar A, Pradhan B (2016) Effectiveness evaluation of 69(1):171–185
objective and subjective weighting methods for aquifer vulnerability Zhang R, Hamerlinck JD, Gloss SP, Munn L (1996) Determination
assessment in urban context. J Hydrol 541:1303–1315 of nonpoint-source pollution using GIS and numerical models. J
Sahu PC, Nandi D (2015) Evaluation of ground water pollution poten- Environ Qual 25:411–418
tial using drastic model: a case study in Berhampur City, Orissa.
Int J Geol Earth Environ Sci 5(3):55–61 Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
Secunda S, Collin ML, Melloul AJ (1998) Groundwater vulnerability a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
assessment using a composite model combining DRASTIC with author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
extensive agricultural land use in Israel’s Sharon Region. J Envi- is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
ron Manag 54:39–57 applicable law.
Shekhar S, Pandey AC, Tirkey AS (2014) A GIS-based DRASTIC
model for assessing groundwater vulnerability in hard rock

13