Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-024-01818-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Aquifer Vulnerability Analysis Using the Original and Modified

DRASTIC Method on Alluvial Aquifer Zones, Ethiopia
Tesema Kebede Seifu1,3 · Tekalegn Ayele Woldesenbet3 · Taye Alemayehu3 · Tenalem Ayenew2

Received: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2024

© Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2024

Abstract
In the semi-arid area, where climate variability is the main challenge, it is a critical issue to develop effective groundwater
resource management. The study planned to investigate groundwater vulnerability by comparing the original and modified
DRASTIC models. The DRASTIC approach included seven hydrogeological parameters: depth to water (D), net recharge
(R), aquifer media (A), soil media (S), topography (T), the impact of vadose zone (I), and hydraulic conductivity (C). Line-
ament and LULC were included in the original DRASTIC parameters, and the impact of these parameters was determined
using sensitivity analysis. The outcomes of the original and the modified DRASTIC index are between 73–204 and 87–263,
respectively. These findings led to the classification of the research area into five categories of hazards: very low, low, moder-
ate, high, and very high. The upper catchment is more vulnerable to groundwater contamination than the lower catchment.
The sensitivity analysis shows that the depth and impact of the vadose zone are the main parameters that influence the vul-
nerability map. This study was validated using data on nitrate concentrations in groundwater from the study area. The study
also discovered that nitrate contamination of the groundwater should be due to excessive agricultural application, grazing
land, and other microbiological hazards in the northwestern portion. According to the validation outcome, the modified
DRASTIC model provides better correlation results (­ R2 = 0.32) than the original (­ R2 = 0.25). These results serve as a guide
for those who are in charge of making decisions regarding prevention of groundwater pollution in such a sensitive area.

Keywords Modified DRASTIC · Aquifer vulnerability · Sensitivity · Nitrate concentration · Ethiopia

Introduction microbial and nitrate ­(NO 3) contamination of shallow

groundwater (Han et al., 2016; Li et al., 2021; Subbarao
The definition of groundwater pollution is the introduction et al., 1996). Groundwater contamination can also be caused
of unwelcome substances into groundwater as a result of by toxic substances found in soil or rock particles (Ismanto
human activities (Harter, 2003). There are several causes et al., 2023; Nnaji & Omotugba, 2016).
of contamination of groundwater, leachates from waste dis- To manage groundwater resources effectively, pollution
posal sites (Singh et al., 2016), seepage from sewage (Ped- prevention is essential, and groundwater hazard assessment
ley & Howard, 1997), human and animal wastes (Whaley- is crucial for resource protection. Groundwater vulnerabil-
Martin et al., 2017), organic contaminants (Tu et al., 2023), ity is a condition resulting from physical, social, and envi-
natural sources (Krishan et al., 2023) and human influences ronmental factors or forms that increase the susceptibility
(Schoeman et al., 2014; Wakejo et al., 2022) which cause of a resource to the impacts of hazards. In a broader sense,
"groundwater vulnerability" refers to the possibility of an
* Tesema Kebede Seifu underlying aquifer becoming contaminated due to both
[email protected] natural and artificial occurrences (Metzger et al., 2006;
Piscopo, 2001). There are two types of vulnerabilities rec-
1
Haramaya Institute Technology, Haramaya University, ognized in the literature: intrinsic (or natural) and specific
Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
(or built-in) vulnerabilities. Intrinsic vulnerability consid-
2
School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, ers the susceptibility of unique geological, hydrological,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
hydrogeological, and hydrogeochemical features of an area
3
Ethiopian Institute of Water Resources, Addis Ababa to pollutants caused by human activities. The vulnerability
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

of groundwater to a specific contaminant is described con- by international sectors (Mengistu et al., 2019; Reimann
sidering the relationship between contaminant properties et al., 2003).
and various factors of inherent vulnerability (Lima et al., In Ethiopia, the main groundwater quality difficulties
2022; Rama et al., 2022). include high fluoride concentrations in the central rift val-
Several works have been done throughout the globe to ley (Kloos & Tekle Haimanot, 1999), high salinity problems
evaluate the groundwater pollution impact (Balaram et al., in the dry zone of southeastern (Kebede, 2013; Mengistu
2022; Fida et al., 2022; Kurwadkar, 2014). Many different et al., 2019), and high microbiological and nitrate con-
approaches have been developed to assessing groundwa- centrations in shallow aquifers around large cities (Akale
ter's vulnerability in recent years (Boufekane et al., 2022; et al., 2018a). Increasing population density, scarcity, and
Kirlas et al., 2022; Saranya & Saravanan, 2023; Taghavi pollution of surface waters are the main factors that influ-
et al., 2022). Overlay index approaches are the most often ence drinking water quality. The report shows that the con-
used vulnerability analysis methodologies. Researchers centration of nitrate contaminants is more pronounced in
use a variety of index approaches to analyze groundwa- agricultural land than in grazing and forest lands (Tadesse
ter vulnerability. The aquifer vulnerability index (AVI), et al., 2008). Located in the alluvial region of eastern Ethio-
GOD, susceptibility index (SI), DRASTIC, and modified pia, the Fafen-Jerer sub-basin (the target area of this study)
DRASTIC are the principal overlay index techniques. AVI suffers from simultaneous drought, reduced and variable
is commonly used for small basin regions since it is a rainfall, rising temperatures, and scarcity of surface water
simpler approach with fewer indications. However, AVI resources (Seifu et al., 2022). According to the report, the
does not take into account hydrogeological circumstances study area's water quality has declined because of signifi-
and is not very accurate due to the unclear conclusion. cant contaminants like dissolved solids, nitrate, sulfate, and
GOD is incredibly simple to apply over a wide region chloride as well as electrical conductivity (Kebede, 2013;
with minimal data and greater information than the AVI Li et al., 2021; Tadesse et al., 2008). There is no published
approach. However, GOD is less accurate than the DRAS- research on groundwater vulnerability in a semi-arid part of
TIC technique because it considers fewer characteristics Ethiopia. Some little work has been done in some parts of
and uses a weighting system that is not based on physical Ethiopia utilizing GIS and index-based techniques (Abera
calculations, which might be subjective (Putranto & Yus- et al., 2022; Abiy et al., 2016; Alamne et al., 2022; Assefa,
rizal, 2018). Susceptibility index (SI) is used in agricul- 2022). Very little has been done on the modified DRASTIC
tural areas where nitrates are the primary pollutants and approach (Alamne et al., 2022; Asfaw & Mengistu, 2020;
pesticides are secondary pollutants. Four hydrogeological Berhe Zenebe et al., 2020). This study has the advantage of
factors were employed in this model: water table depth, offering the first insight into the quality status in the region,
yearly efficient recharge, aquifer medium, topography, and particularly for nitrate as a major agricultural contaminant,
land use. However, it does not take into account the vadose since the groundwater quality of Ethiopia in general, and the
zone, soil medium, and hydraulic conductivity, which are study region, in particular, has not been explored in detail.
all crucial considerations in minimizing groundwater pol- The lack of research in Ethiopia was due to the lack of sys-
lution (Chakraborty et al., 2022). DRASTIC is a frequently tematic data availability. The research area lacks significant
used standard technique for assessing groundwater vul- surface movement, preventing fleshing poisons from enter-
nerability. The United States Environmental Protection ing the alluvial geology. As a result, surface pollutants such
Agency (USEPA) developed DRASTIC as a technique as nitrate can permeate and poison the subsurface system.
to evaluate potential groundwater pollution (Aller et al., It is significant to keep an eye on the appropriateness of the
1987). The abbreviation DRASTIC is used to represent a groundwater in this study area due to the rising industrializa-
comprehensive picture of all the major geohydrologic fac- tion, urbanization, and climatic unpredictability. Indeed, it
tors that impact and govern groundwater circulation into, is vital to create a vulnerability map that takes into account
and out of a site (Aller et al., 1987). several hydrogeological criteria to restrict and prevent the
Due to its lower initial cost, superior water quality, and dangers of pollution of these waters and maintain their
year-round availability when compared to surface water quality. This is the first study in the area to compare the
sources, groundwater is an alternative source of domestic original and modified DRASTIC methods while including
water supply for the major cities, towns, and villages in the lineament and LULC characteristics for better identifi-
Ethiopia. In both rural and urban areas, Ethiopia has not cation of susceptibility zones. We estimated groundwater
yet fully enabled society's access to freshwater (Berhanu hazard potential risk by producing a susceptibility map of an
et al., 2014; Mengistu et al., 2019). The country falls short aquifer using the original and modified DRASTIC model by
of delivering the highest feasible degree of obtaining clean incorporating the lineament and LULC parameters within a
water, especially in rural areas (Rahm, 1999). The quality of geographic information system (GIS) environment. Last but
domestic water is also very far apart from the recommended not least, this study gives direct information on aquifer risk
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

and assists decision-makers in better managing groundwater the area is groundwater, and a lack of it poses a challenge to
resources. local livelihoods. The primary method of land use is grazing
and livestock breeding in the local socioeconomic activity
(Seifu et al., 2022).
Material and Methods

Description of the Study Area DRASTIC Model

This research was carried out in the regional state of Somali The study applied the DRASTIC method of groundwater
eastern Ethiopia (Fig. 1). The region has a high degree vulnerability to intrinsic pollutants in the Fafen-Jerer sub-
of climatic variability, with an average annual rainfall of basin. DRASTIC was created by the US Environmental Pro-
514.9 mm and a temperature of 23.1 °C. In much of the tection Agency in 1987(Aller et al., 1987). The basic DRAS-
southern catchment, yearly potential evaporation substan- TIC method applied seven parameters, depth, recharge,
tially surpasses annual rainfall. The area geology has Pre- aquifer media, soil media, topographic (slope), impact
cambrian crystalline foundation rocks, Mesozoic sedimen- vadose zone, and hydraulic conductivity. DRASTIC is a
tary rock sequence, and Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary weighting and rating system that assesses vulnerability using
rock successions. Lithostratigraphic like alluvial deposits, thematic parameters. The method utilizes weight for each
Jessoma Formation (southeastern corner), Gabredare For- parameter based on its relative importance contributing to
mation (eastern corner), Urandab Formation (central part), the contamination potential and rating esteem between 1 and
Hamanlei Formation, and Adigrat Formation constitute the 10 for each parameter. The DRASTIC model has become
lithology of the area (Kebede, 2013). The aquifer structure among the most well-liked techniques for determining how
of this region may be classified into two classes: shallow vulnerable groundwater is to pollution. The model's input
aquifers with depths up to 150 m and deep aquifers with variables (hydrogeological parameters) are adopted from
depths greater than 150 m that may exceed 500 m in the val- those of the typical DRASTIC model (Aller, et al., 1987). To
ley area and eastwards. The depth increases from the upper offer an extra idea for this study, the DRASTIC vulnerability
to the lower catchment. Salinity and hardness are the major index was modified using LULC and lineaments for more
problems in the groundwater in the study area. The electric accurate identification of vulnerability zones as compared
conductivity also reaches up to 5000 μs/cm in some areas to the original DRASTIC vulnerability index. The prepara-
of the northeastern. Nitrate concentrations in some water tion of input parameters is the initial step of the research
samples on the northwestern exceed 100 mg/L. There was work. The second step is producing the thematic layers for
only sporadic stream flow during the rainy season and no each input parameter in the GIS environment. The complete
ongoing surface water flow. The key water supply source in structure of the analysis is presented in the methodology

Fig. 1  Study area map

 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

chart (Fig. 2). The DRASTIC index can be determined using The effective weight (W) of the polygons was obtained using
Eq. (1) given below: Eq. (2).
m
∑ ( ) Pr Pw
DRASTICIndex = Wi Ri W= ∗ 100 (2)
i=1 Di
Index = WD RD + WR RR + WA RA + WS RS + WT RT + WI RI + WC RC
where Pr is the rating given to the parameter, Pw is the
(1)
weight of each parameter, and Di is the overall vulnerabil-
ity index.
The seven effective hydrogeological parameters are rep-
resented by the abbreviations D, R, A, S, T, I, and C in this Map Removal Analysis
equation. Additionally, the subscripts "R" and "W" stand for
the respective ratings and weights. The map removal sensitivity analysis (MRSA) was developed
by (Lodwick et al., 1990) and implemented by removing one
Sensitivity Analysis or more influencing parameters. Map removal is used to check
parameter relevance in assessing intrinsic vulnerabilities and
The evaluations and weights given to the parameters ought deriving the most representative ones in applying the method.
to be checked and assessed. In the case at hand, there are Therefore, the extent of the parameter's influence on the vul-
two kinds of sensitivity analysis: single-parameter sensitivity nerability index was assessed during the overlay process by
analysis and map removal sensitivity analysis. removing it. Comparing the original index and the new index
with the parameter removed shows the impact of that particular
Single‑Parameter Sensitivity Analysis parameter on the total score (Djémin et al., 2016). The map
removal sensitivity index (S) of parameters (N) is determined
The single-parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA) is used to by the equation below (Eq. 3).
compare the theoretical and actual weight of individual poly-
gons. The sensitivity assessment helped in examining the |V V |
S = || − xi || (3)
impact of a specific layer on the aquifer susceptibility index. |N n |
It was developed by Lodwick and others (Lodwick et al., 2007)
and researchers recently applied single sensitivity analysis
in their work (Ourarhi et al., 2023; Saravanan et al., 2023).

Fig. 2  Methodology flowchart

Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

where V is the intrinsic vulnerability and Vxi represents the greater the potential for contaminant mitigation (Lakshmi-
intrinsic vulnerability obtained after removal of the param- narayanan et al., 2021). A current summary of water table
eter X. depth in the study area was obtained from measured infor-
mation from the water service (MoWE). In comparison with
Generation of Thematic Layers the southeast catchment, the northwestern part of the area
has a shallower water table (Fig. 3).
Thematic layers of each of the seven hydrogeological
parameters were created utilizing the ArcGIS tools. Water Net Recharge (R)
resources and other related parameters are collected from
the Ministry of Water and Energy (MoWE). The weather Recharge is the amount of surface water that infiltrates the
parameters were collected from the National Meteorological ground and reaches the groundwater level. Net recharge
Agency (NMA). The geological and other aquifer param- value can be determined by multiplying the difference
eters are collected from the Geological Survey Institute between the spatial distribution of evapotranspiration and
(GSI). In order to create vulnerability maps, hydrogeologi- the spatial distribution for mean annual rainfall by an infil-
cal data are eventually gathered, digitalized, and overlaid tration coefficient (Chukwuma et al., 2021). To quantify
using GIS. This process creates a new layer known as the groundwater recharge in the area, we utilized Krishna Rao's
DRASTIC index (Eq. 1). To determine the modified DRAS- (1970) approach to build an empirical connection (Eq. 5).
TIC index, additional parameters lineament, and LULC are
added. Therefore, the modified DRASTIC index value is
R = K(P − X) (5)
determined using the following equation (Eq. 4): Krishna Rao established the following correlations for
various levels of yearly rainfall.
ModifiedDRASTICIndex
R = 0.20 (P–400) for areas with annual normal rainfall
= WD RD + WR RR + WA RA (P) between 400 and 600 mm
(4)
+ WS RS + WT RT + WI RI R = 0.25 (P–400) for areas with P between 600 and 1000
+ WC RC + WL RL + WLULC RLULC mm
R = 0.35 (P–600) for areas with P above 2000 mm
where R and P are expressed in millimeters.
Depth to Water Table (D) Considering the average annual rainfall (514.9 mm), we
applied R = 0.25(P-400) for recharge calculation. The map of
Water depth affects the time available for contaminants to recharge was determined from spatial tool analysis of Arc-
undergo chemical and biological reactions such as disper- GIS. A high recharge zone is found in the upper catchment
sion, oxidation, and natural decay. Depth to the water table is that receives higher annual precipitation, and the recharge
inversely proportional to vulnerability; the greater the depth, decreases from the upper to the lower catchment according
the less likely pollutants will reach the water table and the

Fig. 3  Depth to water and net

recharge map of the study area
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Table 1  The assigned rates and Parameters Class (sub-parameters) Rating Weight
weight given to the parameters
in the DRASTIC analysis Depth 2.15–62.61 10 5
62.6–116.8 9
116.8–136.4 5
136.4–152.5 3
152.5–204.35 1
Recharge Very high 10 4
High 9
Moderate 5
Low 3
Very low 1
Aquifer media Low PA 4 3
Moderate PA 7
Highly PA 10
Soil media sandy loam 6 2
loamy sand 7
loam 5
clay 3
Topography (slope in %) 0–2 10 1
2–6 9
6–12 5
12–18 3
> 18 1
Impact of vadose zone sandstone 6 5
limestone and shale 3
Alluvial and lacustrine deposits(Q) 10
Alkaline and traditional basalt 9
limestone 7
gneisses 4
Hydraulic conductivity 0.01_0.5 1 3
0.5–2 3
2_5 5
5_15 9
15_28 10
Lineament density Very high 10 5
High 9
Moderate 5
Low 3
Very low 1
LULC Closed Shrublands 5 3
Open Shrublands 5
Woody Savannas 3
Grasslands 3
Croplands 8
Urban and Built-up lands 7
Barren 2

to the topographical elevation (Fig. 3). Reclassifying and Aquifer Media (A)
giving weight were performed accordingly (Table 1).
Aquifer media is a sign of the saturate zone's material
properties. Aquifer media consider the features within the
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

immersed zone such as porosity, grain estimate, and porous- Impact of Vadose Zone (I)
ness that control contaminant weakening forms (Khosravi
et al., 2021). The aquifer parameter was prepared using the The vadose zone is a layer that lies between the soil zone
information gathered by water and energy. The majority of and the aquifer. The attenuation behavior of materials that
the area has high aquifer/productivity (Fig. 4). Productive are above the groundwater table and below the soil is dem-
aquifers are also susceptible to vulnerability and vice versa. onstrated by the vadose zone characteristics. The geological
data of the study region were used to prepare the vadose
Soil Media (S) zone map of the study area (Fig. 5).

The upper part of the unsaturated zones that reaches the

zones where organic organisms and plant roots are active is
Hydraulic Conductivity (C)
known as the soil media. The amount of recharge that can
An aquifer's hydraulic conductivity is a characteristic that
contaminate groundwater is controlled by soil type (Singh
describes how easily water can flow through the aquifer. The
et al., 2015). The study regions' soil maps were created from
amount of contamination depends on how quickly ground-
the latest soil map of Ethiopia (Fig. 4).
water flows. Groundwater flow, which is the primary regula-
tor of the flow rate of contaminants, is governed by hydraulic
Topography (T)
conductivity. That indicates that groundwater vulnerability
is directly proportional to aquifer hydraulic conductivity
Topography is an indicator of land slope changes in the area.
(Omeje et al., 2023). The hydraulic conductivity in the study
The time that water spends on the soil's surface is governed
area ranges from 0.01 to 28.0 m/day, and the high conductiv-
by topography, which also affects the rate of infiltration.
ity area concentrates on the western border areas. The con-
Additionally, topography reveals where pollutants are con-
ductivity decreases from the west to east direction (Fig. 5).
centrated. The SRTM DEM of the research region retrieved
from the USGS website was used to prepare the surface's
slope (Fig. 4). Lineaments (L)

Lineaments serve as important markers for groundwater

exploration because they reveal how groundwater moves
and is stored. A higher density of lineament could indicate

Fig. 4  Aquifer media, soil media and topography map of the study area
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Fig. 5  Impact of vadose zone

and aquifer hydraulic conductiv-
ity map

Fig. 6  Lineament density and

land use–land cover map of the
study area
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

greater potential for groundwater contamination because in the ArcGIS. The result of the analysis shows that the
lineament refers to a variety of linear features of the land original DASTIC index ranges from 73 to 204. The low
surface related to geological evolution and associated with susceptible area is found in the southeastern border area
groundwater flow. The lineament was produced from the (east of Deghabur) (Fig. 7). The higher-risk area is con-
SRTM DEM data with ArcGIS spatial tool analysis (Fig. 6). centrated in the northern and northwestern catchments. To
bring human and geological faults to groundwater vulner-
LULC ability, we updated the original DRASTIC technique for
the research locations by adding two extra factors (linea-
Land-use practices, especially in agricultural areas have ment and LULC). The details of the DRASTIC parameters
demonstrated the anthropogenic domain significantly affects were described above, and these score and weight values​​
the quality of groundwater. A land-use map was created to were also used for the modified case. The results of the
assess the potential for groundwater contamination due to modified DRASTIC index range from 87 to 263 which is
the pollutants that could be released from residential areas a larger value range than the DRASTIC method (Fig. 7).
and agricultural activities. The main LULC in the study After calculating the vulnerability index, the result was
regions includes forests, savannas, shrublands, grasslands, reclassified into five classes (very low, low, medium, high,
and croplands (Fig. 6). Grassland and shrublands are the and very high) according to the natural breaks (Jenks)
major LULCs that dominate large areas. classification method. Because agriculture is the domi-
nant activity with a high geological fault, the amended
DRASTIC index raised the very high susceptibility area
Results and Discussion coverage by nearly 10% in the northern watershed. The
very low and medium susceptibility classes were reduced
To perform DRASTIC analysis of groundwater vulner- from 9 and 38% coverage in the original model to 6% and
ability assessment, the hydrogeological parameters were 32%, respectively, in the modified one. Both the 'low' and
used and evaluated. The rating and weight given to each 'high' risk classes remained unchanged as percentages
of these parameters are presented in the table (Table 1). with 33% and 19% coverage with modification (Fig. 8 and
The overlay analysis and index calculation were performed Table 2). This demonstrates that the lineament and LULC
are the other crucial factors that affect the study region's
groundwater vulnerability. A similar study of groundwater

Fig. 7  The vulnerability map

using the original and modified
DRASTIC index
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Fig. 8  Percentage of the area

coverage for vulnerability index
categories based on original and
modified DRASTIC

Table 2  The classified DRASTIC index value with area coverage vulnerability assessment by applying the original DRAS-
Model value range Class Area cover- Percentage of
TIC and modified DRASTIC model was found in several
age (Sq. area coverage regions previously especially in arid regions with similar
km) agro-climatic and geological environments (Arya et al.,
2020; Jmal et al., 2022; Taheri et al., 2021, 2023).
Basic DRASTIC Index
73–100 Very low 1531.43 9.00
Single Parameters Sensitivity Analysis (SPSA)
101–130 Low 5589.91 32.87
131–160 Medium 6507.06 38.26
Impact vadose zone, depth to water, and aquifer media are
161–190 High 3283.66 19.31
the most sensitive parameters, and they have a greater impact
191–204 Very high 96.12 0.57
on the vulnerability with 33.4% 28.5%, and 25.3%, respec-
Modified DRASTIC Index
tively, according to SPSA results (Table 3). Recharge, line-
87–120 Very low 1023.20 6.03
aments, hydraulic conductivity, LULC, soil, and topography
121–150 Low 5580.31 32.88
followed the order of influence on groundwater vulnerability
151–180 Medium 5439.71 32.06
with 18.1%, 17.9%, 13.5%, 10.8%, 10.3%, and 7.5%, respec-
181–210 High 3220.55 18.98
tively. The impact vadose zone has the highest effective
211–263 Very high 1705.87 10.05
weight while topography lowest effective weight. All of the
parameters' effective weights have increased. The analysis
shows the effective weight of the model parameters calcu-
lated (using Eq. 2) shows agreement with the theoretical

Table 3  Effective and Weight

theoretical weights based on
single-parameter sensitivity Parameters Theoretical weight Theoretical Effective weight
analysis tests for DRASTIC weight (%)
vulnerability maps Minimum Mean Maximum Standard
Deviation

D 5 16.13 5 28.5 50 14.45

R 4 12.90 4 18.12 40 14.14
A 3 9.68 6 25.32 30 6.07
S 2 6.45 3 10.28 14 3.14
T 1 3.23 1 7.49 10 2.75
I 5 16.13 11.3 33.4 50 11.32
C 3 9.68 3 13.47 30 7.86
L 5 16.13 5 17.95 50 12.85
LULC 3 9.68 2.7 10.8 15 2.76
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Table 4  The vulnerability index results of map removal calculation standard deviation value, indicating a large spread or vari-
for each of the modified DRASTIC parameters ability of outcomes on a regional level.
Parameters Minimum Mean Maximum Standard
removal Deviation Validation with Nitrate Concentration
(SD)

D 103 136.01 194 19.64 Due to its excellent quality, groundwater has historically
R 90 145.49 206 22.12 been the preferred source of drinking water in Ethiopia.
A 97 138.28 218 30.52 However, inadequate waste management, agricultural prac-
S 90 153.10 230 29.85 tices such as chemical fertilizer application, poor sanitation,
T 105 156.20 237 30.34 and lack of sanitary conditions threaten its quality today. The
I 75 132.05 237 31.47 primary concept in groundwater vulnerability is the concen-
C 95 149.77 230 30.09 tration of pollutants in a particular area. Nitrate concentra-
L 103 145.74 197 23.79 tion is the key determinant of susceptibility when assess-
LULC 101 152.10 233 30.10 ing the vulnerability of groundwater (Elzain et al., 2022;
Lakshminarayanan et al., 2021). Ethiopian drinking water
is primarily contaminated by nitrate concentration (Akale
weight. These results show that the evaluation using the et al., 2018; Lewoyehu, 2021; Wakejo et al., 2022).
DRASTIC model and parameters assessment in the study There is no universal algorithm for testing and verifying
area are accurate. aquifer models in a variety of scenarios. Various pollutants
were used by different studies to assess the susceptibility
Map Removal Sensitivity Analysis of certain places. Nitrate, chloride, fluoride, phosphate dis-
solved solids (TDS), EC, and water table depth are some
Map removal analysis revealed that the average partial vul- of the chemicals that impact groundwater and serve as
nerability index for soil and topographic parameters was proof of vulnerability. Nitrate or chloride may be used as
larger than the removal for other parameters, 153.10 and useful markers of pollutant migration from the surface to
156.20, respectively (Table 3). However, after removing groundwater, particularly in agricultural areas. Nitrate does
the impact on vadose zone analysis, the lowest mean par- not occur naturally in groundwater and may be a preferable
tial vulnerability index was 132.05. The sensitivity index alternative for groundwater vulnerability research.
of each of the DRASTIC parameters was calculated from Reports also showed that nearly all Ethiopian regions
the partial index table (Table 4). The research reveals that both groundwater as well as surface water have nitrate data
the depth and vadose zone impact factors have a consider- beyond the WHO limit, with varying degrees. Figure 9
able influence on the vulnerability map, with sensitivity shows the amount of nitrate present in the research area,
indices of 1.78 and 1.97, respectively. LULC has the least which was used to validate the model. The upper catchment
impact on the hazard map, with an average value of 0.94.
The lack of variability in the study area and its low weight
(w = 3) could be the cause of LULC being the least hazard-
ous (Table 5). The depth is the parameter with the highest

Table 5  The result of sensitivity calculation according to map

removal analysis
Parameters Minimum Mean Maximum Standard
removal Deviation
(SD)

D 0.014 1.78 5.625 1.36

R 0.027 1.41 5.916 1.13
A 0.027 1.22 5.36 0.85
S 0.027 1.02 2.7 0.60
T 0.15 1.39 3.4 0.66
I 0.014 1.97 4.18 1.08
C 0.014 1.05 3.65 0.87
L 0.027 1.24 7.23 1.12
LULC 0.014 0.94 3.48 0.69
Fig. 9  Nitrate concentration in the study area
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Nitrate concetration 12 Conclusion

10
y = 0.0467x + 0.2565
8 R² = 0.2455
In the assessment of groundwater risk to contamination
(mg/l)

for intrinsic vulnerability for the area, both models—the

6
original DRASTIC and the modified version—provided
4 accurate results. The modified DRASTIC provides better
2 results than the original model. This due to anthropogenic
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 activity and geological faults that allow contaminants to
Basic DRASTIC Index enter groundwater. The vulnerability index has identified
five vulnerable zones: very low, low, moderate, high, and
Fig. 10  Original DRASTIC index and nitrate concentration very high. High and very high-risk areas are found in the
upper catchment where groundwater is accessible at shal-
low depths. The study's findings indicate that the area's
in the northwest has a greater nitrate content. The nitrate southern and southeastern regions have low and very low
concertation was compared to the created DRASTIC vulner- susceptibility levels. This is due to deep water level depth,
ability map for both the original and modified to perform the low hydraulic conductivity, and Jessoma formation. The
validation. Accordingly, the correlation between the nitrate other significant portion of the watershed, which makes
pollutant and the results from the original DRASTIC model up 32% of its total area, is moderately vulnerable. From
was ­R2 = 0.24 (Figure 10). After modification, the correla- the sensitivity analysis, it was found that the depth and
tion between nitrate and modified DRASTIC index becomes the vadose zone had high sensitivity in the groundwater
­R2 = 0.32 (Figure 11). The verification result indicates that hazard map of the study area as LULC is the least sensi-
the modified DRASTIC model provides a higher correla- tive. Nitrate contamination was used to validate the model,
tion with nitrate concentration than the original DRASTIC which was found to be suitable for the watershed's cur-
model. The results show a higher original vulnerability rent conditions. Potential nitrate sources in the research
index than the previous study around dire dawa (Tilahun region's groundwater include grasslands, agricultural
& Merkel, 2010). The modified index results of the previ- areas, organic wastes (e.g., sewage sludges), and livestock
ous studies at the Elalla‑Aynalem catchment (Berhe Zenebe operations. As a result, management strategies should be
et al., 2020), and Megech watershed (Asfaw & Mengistu, implemented to control the future influence of groundwa-
2020) in northern Ethiopia also have low index values. ter considering such sources. The study's findings support
The depth of the water table and the impact of the vadose the use of the DRASTIC model by policymakers to more
zone are the major parameters that influence the maps of accurately delineate aquifer zones that are susceptible to
groundwater vulnerability in the research area. Removing anthropogenic contamination, particularly in and around
these parameters from the index calculation makes a big agricultural and industrial areas.
difference and significantly reduces the vulnerability index.
These results justify the greater weighting of these two
parameters when using the DRASTIC method and prove
that the combination of GIS and DRASTIC methods is Appendix
appropriate. These results have similar output to the study on
the Elalla Aynalem catchment in northern Ethiopia (Berhe See Fig. 11.
Zenebe et al., 2020) and the Dabou region in southern Côte
d’Ivoire (Djémin et al., 2016). The impact of parameters on
12
the vulnerability index varies by region. Depth and land use
concentration(mg/l)

(Goodarzi et al., 2022; Omeje et al., 2023), depth, recharge, 10

and soil (Gupta & Kumari, 2023), and depth to water (Smail y = 0.0416x - 0.2217
8
R² = 0.3214
Nitrate

& Dişli, 2023) are some examples of different sensitivity 6

parameters results of DRASTIC index analysis. The recharge
4
and topography(slope) are the other parameters that influ-
ence the aquifer vulnerability analysis of the region. LULC, 2

soil, and hydraulic conductivity are the least influence on 0

the vulnerability index with 0.94, 1.02, and 1.05 sensitivity 100 150 200 250

index. All these indicated that the outcomes of the modified Modifed Drastic Index
DRASTIC model were feasible and representative of the
groundwater vulnerability. Fig. 11  Modified DRASTIC index and nitrate concentration
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

Acknowledgements The author thanks all governmental organizations, in Elalla-Aynalem Catchment, Northern Ethiopia. Sustainable
for providing the necessary data for this research work. I want to give Water Resources Management, 6(3), 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
deep thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their supportive and con- 1007/​S40899-​020-​00406-7/​FIGUR​ES/​13
structive reviews, which significantly improved the quality of the paper. Boufekane, A., Maizi, D., Madene, E., Busico, G., & Zghibi, A.
(2022). Hybridization of GALDIT method to assess actual and
Declarations future coastal vulnerability to seawater intrusion. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management, 318, 115580. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. JENVM​AN.​2022.​115580
Chakraborty, B., Roy, S., Bera, A., Adhikary, P. P., Bera, B., Sen-
Consent to Publish All authors give their consent to publish this manu- gupta, D., Bhunia, G. S., & Shit, P. K. (2022). Groundwater
script. vulnerability assessment using GIS-based DRASTIC model in
the upper catchment of Dwarakeshwar river basin, West Bengal,
India. Environmental Earth Sciences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
S12665-​021-​10002-3
Chukwuma, E. C., Okonkwo, C. C., Afolabi, O. O. D., Pham, Q. B.,
References Anizoba, D. C., & Okpala, C. D. (2021). Groundwater vulner-
ability mapping using the modified DRASTIC model: The
Abera, K. A., Gebreyohannes, T., Abrha, B., Hagos, M., Berhane, metaheuristic algorithm approach. Environmental Monitoring
G., Hussien, A., Belay, A. S., Van Camp, M., & Walraevens, K. and Assessment, 193(1), 25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10661-​020-​
(2022). Vulnerability Mapping of Groundwater Resources of 08787-0/​FIGUR​ES/7
Mekelle City and Surroundings, Tigray Region. Ethiopia. Water, Djémin, J. É., Kouamé, J. K., Deh, K. S., Abinan, A. T., Jourda, J.
14(16), 2577. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​W1416​2577 P., Djémin, J. É., Kouamé, J. K., Deh, K. S., Abinan, A. T., &
Abiy, A. Z., Melesse, A. M., Behabtu, Y. M., & Abebe, B. (2016). Jourda, J. P. (2016). Contribution of the sensitivity analysis in
Groundwater vulnerability analysis of the tana sub-basin: An groundwater vulnerability assessing using the DRASTIC method:
application of drastic index method. Springer Geography. https://​ Application to groundwater in Dabou region (Southern of Côte
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​18787-7_​21/​FIGUR​ES/​14 d’Ivoire). Journal of Environmental Protection, 7(1), 129–143.
Akale, A. T., Moges, M. A., Dagnew, D. C., Tilahun, S. A., & Steen- https://​doi.​org/​10.​4236/​JEP.​2016.​71012
huis, T. S. (2018). Assessment of Nitrate in Wells and Springs in Elzain, H. E., Chung, S. Y., Senapathi, V., Sekar, S., Lee, S. Y., Roy, P.
the North Central Ethiopian Highlands. Water, 10(4), 476. https://​ D., Hassan, A., & Sabarathinam, C. (2022). Comparative study of
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​W1004​0476 machine learning models for evaluating groundwater vulnerability
Alamne, S. B., Assefa, T. T., Belay, S. A., & Hussein, M. A. (2022). to nitrate contamination. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,
Mapping groundwater nitrate contaminant risk using the modi- 229, 113061. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​ECOENV.​2021.​113061
fied DRASTIC model: a case study in Ethiopia. Environmen- Fida, M., Li, P., Wang, Y., Alam, S. M. K., & Nsabimana, A. (2022).
tal Systems Research, 11(1), 1–16. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 186/​ Water Contamination and Human Health Risks in Pakistan: A
S40068-​022-​00253-9 Review. Exposure and Health, 2022, 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Aller, L., Bennet, T., Lehr, J. H., Petty, R. J., Hackett, G., Applications, 1007/​S12403-​022-​00512-1
J. T., Branch, A., & Kerr, R. S. (1987). EPA!600!2–87!035 Hay Goodarzi, M. R., Niknam, A. R. R., Jamali, V., & Pourghasemi, H. R.
1987 Drastic: A standardized system for evaluating ground water (2022). Aquifer vulnerability identification using DRASTIC-LU
pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. model modification by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Modeling
Arya, S., Subramani, T., Vennila, G., & Roy, P. D. (2020). Groundwater Earth Systems and Environment, 8(4), 5365–5380. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
vulnerability to pollution in the semi-arid Vattamalaikarai River 10.​1007/​S40808-​022-​01408-4/​TABLES/5
Basin of south India thorough DRASTIC index evaluation. Geo- Gupta, T., & Kumari, R. (2023). Assessment of groundwater nitrate
chemistry, 80(4), 125635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​CHEMER.​ vulnerability using DRASTIC and modified DRASTIC in upper
2020.​125635 catchment of Sabarmati basin. Environmental Earth Sciences,
Asfaw, D., & Mengistu, D. (2020). Modeling megech watershed aquifer 82(9), 1–17. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/S
​ 12665-0​ 23-1​ 0880-9/F
​ IGUR​
vulnerability to pollution using modified DRASTIC model for ES/7
sustainable groundwater management. Northwestern Ethiopia. Harter, T. (2003). Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution.
Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11, 100375. https://​ In Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution. University
doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​GSD.​2020.​100375 of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://​doi.​org/​
Assefa, T. T. (2022). Dataset for mapping groundwater contaminant 10.​3733/​ucanr.​8084
risk using the DRASTIC model for a case study in Ethiopia. Data Ismanto, A., Hadibarata, T., Widada, S., Indrayanti, E., Ismunarti,
in Brief, 45, 108565. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​DIB.​2022.​108565 D. H., Safinatunnajah, N., Kusumastuti, W., Dwiningsih, Y., &
Balaram, V., Rani, A., & Rathore, D. P. S. (2022). Uranium in ground- Alkahtani, J. (2023). Groundwater contamination status in Malay-
water in parts of India and world: A comprehensive review of sia: Level of heavy metal, source, health impact, and remediation
sources, impact to the environment and human health, analytical technologies. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 46(3),
techniques, and mitigation technologies. Geosystems and Geoen- 467–482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S00449-​022-​02826-5/​FIGUR​
vironment, 1(2), 100043. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​GEOGEO.​ ES/4
2022.​100043 Jmal, I., Ayed, B., Bahloul, M., Boughariou, E., & Bouri, S. (2022).
Berhanu, B., Seleshi, Y., & Melesse, A. M. (2014). Surface water and Contribution of GIS tools and statistical approaches to optimize
groundwater resources of Ethiopia: Potentials and challenges of the DRASTIC model for groundwater vulnerability assessment
water resources development. Nile River Basin: Ecohydrological in arid and semi-arid regions: the case of Sidi Bouzid shallow
Challenges, Climate Change and Hydropolitics. https://​doi.​org/​ aquifer. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(10), 1–22. https://​
10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​02720-3_​6/​TABLES/7 doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S12517-​022-​10149-8
Berhe Zenebe, G., Hussien, A., Girmay, A., & Hailu, G. (2020). Kebede, S. (2013). Groundwater in Ethiopia: Features, numbers and
Spatial analysis of groundwater vulnerability to contamination opportunities. In Groundwater in Ethiopia: Features, Numbers
and human activity impact using a modified DRASTIC model
 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

and Opportunities. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://​doi.​org/​ Nnaji, JC., & Omotugba, SK. (2016). Risk of toxic metal contamina-
10.​1007/​978-3-​642-​30391-3 tion in gold mining and processing areas of Borgu and Mashegu
Khosravi, K., Sartaj, M., Karimi, M., Levison, J., & Lotfi, A. (2021). local government areas of Niger state, Nigeria IRJCCS Risk of
A GIS-based groundwater pollution potential using DRASTIC, toxic metal contamination in gold mining and processing areas of
modified DRASTIC, and bivariate statistical models. Environ- Borgu and Mashegu local government areas of Niger state. www.​
mental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 50525–50541. premi​erpub​lishe​rs.​org.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S11356-​021-​13706-Y/​FIGUR​ES/6 Omeje, E. T., Obiora, D. N., Okeke, F. N., Ibuot, J. C., Ugbor, D. O.,
Kirlas, M. C., Karpouzos, D., Georgiou, P. E., & Katsifarakis, K. & Omeje, V. D. (2023). Investigation of aquifer vulnerability and
L. (2022). A comparative study of groundwater vulnerability sensitivity analysis of modified drastic and sintacs models: A case
methods in a porous aquifer in Greece. Applied Water Science, study of Ovogovo Area, Eastern Nigeria. Acta Geophysica, 1,
12(6), 1–21. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​S 13201-​0 22-​0 1651-1/​ 1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S11600-​022-​00992-4/​FIGUR​ES/6
TABLES/​10 Ourarhi, S., Barkaoui, A. E., & Zarhloule, Y. (2023). Mapping ground-
Kirshna, R. (1970). Hydrometeorological aspects of estimating ground- water’s susceptibility to pollution in the Triffa Plain (Eastern
water potential. https://​pascal-​franc​is.​inist.​fr/​vibad/​index.​php?​ Morocco) using a modified method based on the DRASTIC,
action=​getRe​cordD​etail​&​idt=​PASCA​LGEOD​EBRGM​75200​ RIVA, and AHP models. Environment, Development and Sus-
30141 tainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10668-​023-​03262-5/​FIGUR​
Kloos, H., & Tekle Haimanot, R. (1999). Distribution of fluoride and ES/​15
fluorosis in Ethiopia and prospects for control. Tropical Medicine Pedley, S., & Howard, G. (1997). The public health implications of
& International Health, 4(5), 355–364. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1046/J.​ microbiological contamination of groundwater. Quarterly Journal
1365-​3156.​1999.​00405.X of Engineering Geology, 30(2), 179–188. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 144/​
Krishan, G., Bhagwat, A., Sejwal, P., Yadav, B. K., Kansal, M. L., GSL.​QJEGH.​1997.​030.​P2.​10
Bradley, A., Singh, S., Kumar, M., Sharma, L. M., & Muste, M. Piscopo, G. (2001). Groundwater vulnerability map explanatory
(2023). Assessment of groundwater salinity using principal com- notes—Castlereagh.
ponent analysis (PCA): A case study from Mewat (Nuh), Haryana, Putranto, T. T., & Yusrizal, M. B. S. (2018). Determining the ground-
India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 1–15. water vulnerability using the aquifer vulnerability index (AVI)
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10661-​022-​10555-1/​FIGUR​ES/7 in the Salatiga groundwater basin in Indonesia. AIP Conference
Kurwadkar, S. (2014). Emerging Trends in Groundwater Pollution and Proceedings, 2021(1), 30016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​50627​40/​
Quality. Water Environment Research, 86(10), 1677–1691. https://​ 724242
doi.​org/​10.​2175/​10614​3014X​14031​28066​8290 Rahm, D. (1999). Water resource development in Ethiopia: Issues of
Lakshminarayanan, B., Ramasamy, S., Anuthaman, S. N., & Karup- sustainability and participation.
panan, S. (2021). New DRASTIC framework for groundwater Rama, F., Busico, G., Arumi, J. L., Kazakis, N., Colombani, N., Mar-
vulnerability assessment: bivariate and multi-criteria decision- fella, L., Hirata, R., Kruse, E. E., Sweeney, P., & Mastrocicco, M.
making approach coupled with metaheuristic algorithm. Environ- (2022). Assessment of intrinsic aquifer vulnerability at continental
mental Science and Pollution Research, 29(3), 4474–4496. https://​ scale through a critical application of the drastic framework: The
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S11356-​021-​15966-0 case of South America. Science of the Total Environment, 823,
Lewoyehu, M. (2021). Evaluation of drinking water quality in rural 153748. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​SCITO​TENV.​2022.​153748
area of Amhara Region, Ethiopia: The case of Mecha District. Reimann, C., Bjorvatn, K., Frengstad, B., Melaku, Z., Tekle-Haimanot,
Journal of Chemistry. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​99118​38 R., & Siewers, U. (2003). Drinking water quality in the Ethiopian
Li, P., Karunanidhi, D., Subramani, T., & Srinivasamoorthy, K. section of the East African Rift Valley I—data and health aspects.
(2021). Sources and consequences of groundwater contamination. Science of the Total Environment, 311(1–3), 65–80. https://​doi.​
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80(1), org/​10.​1016/​S0048-​9697(03)​00137-2
1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S00244-​020-​00805-Z/​FIGUR​ES/2 Saranya, T., & Saravanan, S. (2023). Assessment of groundwater vul-
Lima, G. F. C., Ferreira, V. G., Lima, J. S. D., Duarte, J. C. M., Dufilho, nerability using analytical hierarchy process and evidential belief
A. C., & de Carvalho Filho, C. A. (2022). Intrinsic and specific function with DRASTIC parameters, Cuddalore, India. Interna-
groundwater vulnerability determination as a pre-operational tional Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(2),
baseline assessment of an unconventional hydrocarbon industry. 1837–1856. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/S
​ 13762-0​ 22-0​ 3944-Z/F
​ IGUR​
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. ES/​13
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S13762-​022-​04551-8/​FIGUR​ES/9 Saravanan, S., Pitchaikani, S., Thambiraja, M., Sathiyamurthi, S., Siva-
Lodwick, W. A., Monson, W., & Svoboda, L. (1990). Attribute error kumar, V., Velusamy, S., & Shanmugamoorthy, M. (2023). Com-
and sensitivity analysis of map operations in geographical infor- parative assessment of groundwater vulnerability using GIS-based
mations systems: Suitability analysis. International Journal of DRASTIC and DRASTIC-AHP for Thoothukudi District, Tamil
Geographical Information Systems, 4(4), 413–428. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ Nadu India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1),
10.​1080/​02693​79900​89415​56 1–19. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10661-​022-​10601-Y/​FIGUR​ES/7
Lodwick, W. A., Monson, W., & Svoboda, L. (2007). Attribute error Schoeman, J., Allan, C., & Finlayson, C. M. (2014). A new paradigm
and sensitivity analysis of map operations in geographical infor- for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and eco-
mations systems: Suitability analysis. International Journal of system-based water management in the Anthropocene. Interna-
Geographical Information Science, 4(4), 413–428. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ tional Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 377–390.
10.​1080/​02693​79900​89415​56 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07900​627.​2014.​907087
Mengistu, H. A., Demlie, M. B., & Abiye, T. A. (2019). Review: Seifu, T. K., Ayenew, T., Woldesenbet, T. A., & Alemayehu, T. (2022).
Groundwater resource potential and status of groundwater Identification of groundwater potential sites in the drought-prone
resource development in Ethiopia. Hydrogeology Journal, 27(3), area using geospatial techniques at Fafen-Jerer sub-basin, Ethio-
1051–1065. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10040-​019-​01928-X pia. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
Metzger, M. J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R., 24749​508.​2022.​21419​93
& Schröter, D. (2006). The vulnerability of ecosystem services to Singh, A., Srivastav, S. K., Kumar, S., & Chakrapani, G. J. (2015).
land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), A modified-DRASTIC model (DRASTICA) for assessment
69–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​AGEE.​2005.​11.​025 of groundwater vulnerability to pollution in an urbanized
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing

environment in Lucknow, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, Tilahun, K., & Merkel, B. J. (2010). Assessment of groundwater vul-
74(7), 5475–5490. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S12665-​015-​4558-5/​ nerability to pollution in Dire Dawa. Ethiopia Using Drastic.
TABLES/​10 Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(7), 1485–1496. https://​doi.​
Singh, S., Raju, N. J., Gossel, W., & Wycisk, P. (2016). Assessment org/​10.​1007/​S12665-​009-​0134-1/​FIGUR​ES/​11
of pollution potential of leachate from the municipal solid waste Tu, Z., Zhou, Y., Zhou, J., Han, S., Liu, J., Liu, J., Sun, Y., & Yang,
disposal site and its impact on groundwater quality, Varanasi envi- F. (2023). Identification and risk assessment of priority control
rons. India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(2), 1–12. https://​ organic pollutants in groundwater in the Junggar Basin in Xinji-
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S12517-​015-​2131-X/​FIGUR​ES/4 ang, P.R. China. International Journal of Environmental Research
Smail, R. Q. S., & Dişli, E. (2023). Assessment and validation of and Public Health, 20(3), 2051. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​IJERP​
groundwater vulnerability to nitrate and TDS using based on a H2003​2051
modified DRASTIC model: A case study in the Erbil Central Sub- Wakejo, W. K., Meshesha, B. T., Habtu, N. G., & Mekonnen, Y. G.
Basin, Iraq. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(5), (2022). Anthropogenic nitrate contamination of water resources
567. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10661-​023-​11165-1 in Ethiopia: An overview. In Water Supply (Vol. 22, Issue 11, pp.
Tadesse, A., Moges, M. A., Lijalem, D., Dagnew, D. C., Taffese, T., 8157–8172). IWA Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​ws.​2022.​
Belete, M. A., Tilahun, S. A., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2008). Assess- 377
ment of nitrate concentration in drinking water sources in rural Whaley-Martin, K. J., Mailloux, B. J., van Geen, A., Bostick, B. C.,
areas of Ethiopia. Ahmed, K. M., Choudhury, I., & Slater, G. F. (2017). Human and
Taghavi, N., Niven, R. K., Paull, D. J., & Kramer, M. (2022). Ground- livestock waste as a reduced carbon source contributing to the
water vulnerability assessment: A review including new statisti- release of arsenic to shallow Bangladesh groundwater. Science
cal and hybrid methods. Science of the Total Environment, 822, of the Total Environment, 595, 63–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​
153486. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​SCITO​TENV.​2022.​153486 SCITO​TENV.​2017.​03.​234
Taheri, K., Regional, K., Authority, W., Missimer, T. M., Maleki, A.,
Omidipour, R., & Bahrami, J. (2021). Assessment of Alluvial Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Aquifer Intrinsic Vulnerability by a Generic Drastic Model; A jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Discussion on Data Adequacy and Pragmatic Results Assessment
of alluvial aquifer intrinsic vulnerability by 3 a generic DRASTIC Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
model; a discussion on data 4 adequacy and pragmatic results. exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
https://​doi.​org/​10.​21203/​rs.3.​rs-​525916/​v1 author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
Taheri, K., Missimer, T. M., Bayatvarkeshi, M., Mahmoudi Sivand, manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
S., Fathi, S., Toranjian, A., & Dehghan Manshadi, B. (2023). An such publishing agreement and applicable law.
intrinsic vulnerability approach to assess an overburden alluvial
aquifer exposure to sinkhole-prone area; results from a Central
Iran case study. Geocarto International. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10106​049.​2023.​21680​68