4.5 Article

Assessment of well vulnerability for groundwater source protection based on a solute transport model: a case study from Jilin City, northeast China

Journal

HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 581-596

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-014-1211-4

Keywords

Vulnerability mapping; Groundwater protection; Contamination; Solute transport; China

Funding

  1. National Key Scientific and Technological Project of China [2014ZX07201-010]
  2. Specific Research on Public Service of Environmental Protection in China [201,009,009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Well vulnerability assessment is essential for groundwater source protection. A quantitative approach to assess well vulnerability in a well capture zone is presented, based on forward solute transport modeling. This method was applied to three groundwater source areas (Jiuzhan, Hadawan and Songyuanhada) in Jilin City, northeast China. The ratio of the maximum contaminant concentration at the well to the released concentration at the contamination source (c (max)/c (0)) was determined as the well vulnerability indicator. The results indicated that well vulnerability was higher close to the pumping well. The well vulnerability in each groundwater source area was low. Compared with the other two source areas, the cone of depression at Jiuzhan resulted in higher spatial variability of c (max)/c (0) and lower minimum c (max)/c (0) by three orders of magnitude. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the denitrification rate in the aquifer was the most sensitive with respect to well vulnerability. A process to derive a NO3-N concentration at the pumping well is presented, based on determining the maximum nitrate loading limit to satisfy China's drinking-water quality standards. Finally, the advantages, disadvantages and prospects for improving the precision of this well vulnerability assessment approach are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available