4.7 Article

The multivariate statistical structure of DRASTIC model

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 476, 期 -, 页码 442-459

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.020

关键词

Aquifer intrinsic vulnerability; Pollution risk; DRASTIC model; Correspondence analysis; Sordo river basin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An assessment of aquifer intrinsic vulnerability was conducted in the Sordo river basin, a small watershed located in the Northeast of Portugal that drains to a lake used as public resource of drinking water. The method adopted to calculate intrinsic vulnerability was the DRASTIC model, which hinges on a weighted addition of seven hydrogeologic features, but was combined with a pioneering approach for feature reduction and adjustment of feature weights to local settings, based on a multivariate statistical method. Basically, with the adopted statistical technique-Correspondence Analysis-one identified and minimized redundancy between DRASTIC features, allowing for the calculation of a composite index based on just three of them: topography, recharge and aquifer material. The combined algorithm was coined vector-DRASTIC and proved to describe more realistically intrinsic vulnerability than DRASTC. The proof resulted from a validation of DRASTIC and vector-DRASTIC by the results of a groundwater pollution risk assessment standing on the spatial distribution of land uses and nitrate concentrations in groundwater, referred to as [NO3-]-DRASTIC method. Vector-DRASTIC and [NO3-]-DRASTIC portray the Sordo river basin as an environment with a self-capability to neutralize contaminants, preventing its propagation downstream. This observation was confirmed by long-standing low nitrate concentrations in the lake water and constitutes additional validation of vector-DRASTIC results. Nevertheless, some general recommendations are proposed in regard to agriculture management practices for water quality protection, as part of an overall watershed approach. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据