ORI GI NAL PAPER

Methodology to assess groundwater pollution conditions

(current and pre-disposition) in the Sao Carlos
and Ribeirao Preto regions, Brazil
Lazaro Valentin Zuquette Janaina Barrios Palma
Osni Jose Pejon
Received: 30 November 2007 / Accepted: 12 August 2008 / Published online: 14 October 2008
Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract The goal of the study was to establish a
methodology for territorial zoning based on predicted
groundwater pollution. The 31 attributes identied were
divided into six different environmental components
associated with the transport of contaminants to the geo-
logical medium. Two indices were obtained: the pre-
disposition index (PI), and the potential pollution intensity
index (PPII). The paper reports an assessment of the
potential pollution of the groundwater in the sandstones of
the Botucatu and Piramboia Formations, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The region was divided into 447 units according to the type
of land use, size of watershed and degree of lithological
homogeneity. The units were assessed for potential pollu-
tion in the pre-disposition condition (based on geological/
geotechnical data) and the complete condition (geological/
geotechnical and situation specic data) using the analyt-
ical hierarchical process method. A high degree of
pollution potential was established for 35 of the units in the
complete condition and 157 units in the pre-disposition
condition. The study has highlighted areas where attention
to pollution control should be focused.
Keywords Groundwater Pollution
Engineering geological mapping Sao Paulo Brazil
Resume Le but de cette etude etait detablir une meth-
odologie de zonage territorial relatif a` la prevision de
pollution des eaux souterraines. Les 31 caracteristiques
identiees ont ete reparties en 6 composantes environn-
ementales differentes associees au transport de polluants
vers le milieu geologique. Deux indices ont ete obtenus:
lindice de predisposition (PI) et lindice dintensite de
pollution potentielle (PPII). Larticle presente une evalua-
tion de la pollution potentielle des eaux souterraines dans
les gre`s des formations de Botucatu et de Piramboia dans
letat de Sao Paulo (Bresil). La region a ete divisee en 447
unites suivant le type dusage des sols, la taille des bassins
versants et le degre dhomogeneite lithologique. Les unites
ont ete evaluees par reference a` la pollution potentielle
resultant de facteurs de predisposition (donnees geologi-
ques et geotechniques) et des conditions globales (donnees
speciques geologiques, geotechniques et de localisation)
utilisant la methode des graphes. Un degre eleve de po-
tentiel de pollution a ete etabli pour 35 unites dans les
conditions globales et 157 unites dans les conditions de
predisposition. Letude a mis en lumie`re les secteurs ou` les
controles de pollution devraient se focaliser.
Mots cles Eaux souterraines Pollution
Cartographie geotechnique Sao Paulo Bresil
Introduction
The purpose of territorial zoning is to divide a region into
units of different levels for a specic goal. Zoning results
are presented in relative or absolute values on different
types of charts and maps. The most important tasks required
are the selection of attributes, a scale to carry out the work,
analysis of the collected data and zoning procedures.
The prediction of groundwater pollution is a very
complex task when evaluating large areas, as a great deal
of information is needed to represent the process, the
L. V. Zuquette (&) J. B. Palma O. J. Pejon
Departamento de Geotecnia,
Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos,
Av. Trabalhador Sao-Carlense, 400,
13,566-590 Sao Carlos, Brazil
e-mail: lazarus1@sc.usp.br
1 3
Bull Eng Geol Environ (2009) 68:117136
DOI 10.1007/s10064-008-0173-y
variability of natural and anthropic factors and the rela-
tionship between pollutant sources and the characteristics
of the water inltration through the ground surface. The
prediction of groundwater pollution, which involves eval-
uating large areas, is referred to as groundwater
vulnerability to pollution. The prediction is made using
seven different methods: hydrogeological environment/
setting; index methods, analogical methods; parametric
system methods; mathematical methods, statistical meth-
ods and combined methods. Numerous methods and works
have been developed in several countries by different
schools of experts hence the following comments are
pertinent:
1. The factors taken into account vary from one method
to another; hence, the methods produce different
results.
2. Most of the methods do not separate intrinsic vulner-
ability and specic vulnerability.
3. The concepts of vulnerability used in these methods
differ.
4. When pollutant sources are considered, the limited
information available may not necessarily reect the
level of the hazard.
5. Lastly, most of the methods that have been used
(DRASTIC, SINTACS, EPIK, GOD, AVI) do not
consider pollutant sources or any index representing
them. Thus, the ndings give no clue as to the current
and future levels of hazard and risk.
The main goal of this study was to propose a way of
obtaining an index representing the potential pollutant
intensity of a groundwater system, considering intrinsic
and specic aspects of the problem. A groundwater system
encompasses all its saturated zones independent of its
potential well yield. In tropical and temperate regions, the
saturated zones feed the regions springs and streams
during the dry season. Environmental data (attributes) are
crucial for any methodology to predict the pollution of
groundwater. In this study, engineering geological mapping
was the basic geotechnical investigation tool to obtain the
selected attributes for several types of problems.
Background
Groundwater contamination is an environmental problem
which directly affects both humans and land use and has
assumed a high priority in recent years. Although the aim
of territorial planners is to protect groundwater, it is very
difcult to predict the degree of the groundwater contam-
ination as pollutants can vary considerably in a very short
distance (\100 m). Many studies have focused on pro-
viding information for environmental management and
groundwater protection, in particular the assessment of
aquifer vulnerability to pollution.
Le Grand (1964) and Albinet and Margat (1970) were
the rst to use the term groundwater vulnerability. How-
ever, since their original work, this term has been used in
numerous ways, e.g., Andersen and Gosk (1989), Bachmat
and Collin (1990), Knox et al. (1993), Rao and Alley
(1993), Vrba and Zaporozec (1994), Giupponi et al. (1999),
Connell and van den Daele (2003), USEPA (1993), Worrall
and Kolpin (2004) and Mendoza and Barmen (2006).
The word vulnerability indicates the degree of
intrinsic weakness of a system or element pursuant to its
exposure to a specic event (hazard). However, more than
50 concepts dening vulnerability have been put forward
over the last three decades. The concept proposed by Rao
and Alley (1993), which is a widely accepted denition for
the term, is that groundwater vulnerability to contami-
nation can be dened as the likelihood for contaminants to
reach some specic position in the groundwater system
after their introduction at some point above the top of the
uppermost aquifer. This denition is similar to the term
hazard as broadly applied by various professionals.
Crozier and Glade (2004) dene hazard as processes and
situations or actions that can potentially cause damage, loss
or other adverse effects on the element valued. Banton and
Villeneuve (1989) summarized groundwater vulnerability
by subdividing it into: contaminant penetration, contami-
nant propagation in the groundwater system and the effect
of the contaminant on the water.
Gogu and Dassargues (2000) divided aquifer vulnera-
bility into intrinsic vulnerability (based on the geological,
hydrological and hydrogeological characteristics of the
region, independent of the nature of contaminants) and
specic vulnerability (related to a particular or group of
contaminants and their interaction with the aspects con-
sidered in the intrinsic vulnerability).
Fig. 1 Outcrop of the Piramboia and Botucatu formations in the State
of Sao Paulo (black); study area indicated with a square
118 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
As regards groundwater protection, groundwater vul-
nerability to contamination can be assessed based on three
situations:
1. The conditions in which contaminants could reach the
top of the saturated zone, based on a consideration of
the geological material and the unsaturated zone;
2. Delineation of protection zones for supply systems,
considering the ow and contamination transport
processes within the saturated zone; and
3. Considering the spatial distribution of the geological
materials, unsaturated and saturated zones for each
assessed unit.
The groundwater vulnerability cannot be measured
directly in the eld; however it is known that some areas of
land are more vulnerable to groundwater contamination
than others, as pointed out by Vrba and Zaporozec (1994).
The most common methods of groundwater vulnerabil-
ity assessment can be grouped into seven categories:
Fig. 2 Flowchart of the steps
required to apply the
methodology
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 119
1 3
1. Hydrogeologic complex and setting methods
MODEL BASED ON REGIONAL GEOLOGIC
FRAMEWORK (Soller and Berg 1992); DIVERSITY
(Ray and O Dell 1993); LEACHP (Wagenet and
Huston 1987);
2. Index methodsDRARCH (Guo et al. 2007); MLPI
(Guo and Wang 2004); LPI (Meeks and Dean 1990);
AVI (Van Stempoort et al. 1993); PI (Goldscheider
et al. 2000); COP (Cost Action 620Zwahlen 2004);
RI (Britt et al. 1992);
3. Analogical methods (Albinet and Margat 1970);
USEPA (1987);
4. Parametric system methodsGLEANS (Rao et al.
1985); DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987); GOD (Foster
1987); EPIK (Doeriger and Zwahlen 1995; Doeriger
et al. 1997; Doeriger et al. 1999); SINTACS (Civita
1994); ISIS (Civita and De Regibus 1995); FLEMISH
METHOD (Goossens and Van Damme 1987));
5. Mathematical methodsMODFLOW (McDonald and
Harbaugh 1984); PRZN (Carsel et al. 1985); AEM/
DRASTIC (Fredrick et al. 2004); SEEPAGE (Carter
et al. 1987);
6. Statistical methodsPCASD (Barradas et al. 1992);
AGRIFLUXMODFLOW (Lasserre et al. (1999);
GERMAN METHOD (Von Hoyer 1998); MULTI-
VARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (Connell and
van den Daele 2003); GLA (Holting et al. 1995);
DASTI/IDRISI (Kabbour et al. 2006); PESTANS
(Eneld et al. 1982) and
7. Combined methodsNEURO-FUZZY TECH-
NIQUES (Dixon 2005a, b); Collin and Melloul
(2003); CNR-GNDCI (Civita 1990); Madl-Szonyi
and Fule (1998).
Applications and the detailed analyses of the above
listed methods are given in the works of Gogu and Das-
sargues (2000), Dixon (2005a, b), Andreo et al. (2006),
Gogu et al. (2003), and Vias et al. (2005).
Several researchers have attempted to standardize these
methods (e.g., Neukum and Hotzl 2007). However, due to
the different attributes used and the spatial variability, this
procedure is very difcult.
Study region
The study region, which covers about 6,000 km
2
, is located
in the northeastern part of the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil,
between latitudes 212215
0
south and longitudes 4715
0

4815
0
west (Fig. 1). With the recent growth in population,
the demand for water has increased. Two major geological
units have regional water resources, i.e., the Botucatu and
Piramboia Formations, part of the Parana sedimentary
basin. In recent years, various types of land use developed
throughout the region; most are sources of pollution and
require large volumes of water.
The Triassic aeolian sandstones of the Botucatu and
Piramboia Formations occur in the southern, southeastern
and western regions, forming separate aquifers. With the
area of 10
6
km
2
, they are considered the main source of
groundwater in southern Brazil. The sandstones of the
Botucatu Formation occur as surface outcrops and as a
semi-conned aquifer. Overlying the sandstones are the
Pollutant
sources
Water Input
Parameters
for
mathematical
modelling
Land surface
Groundwater
level
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
A
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
Attributes and
properties
considered in
this study
ROCK SUBSTRATE
Spatial distribution
Discontinuities
Vertical profile distribution
Lithology
Mineralogy
Hydraulic conductivity
UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL
Spatial distribution
Thickness of the layer
Distribution in the vertical
Porosity
Hydraulic conductivity
Infiltration rate
Dispersivity aspects
Field capacity
Mineralogy
Cationic exchange capacity
Potential pollutant sorption
Texture
MORPHOMETRY
Declivity
POLLUTANT SOURCES
Occupation and Land use
City size and Types
Pollutant diversity
Disposal type
Waste volume
Waste types
Exposition time
Disposal techniques
Geological materials at the base
ROCK SUBSTRATE
Spatial distribution
Discontinuity characteristics
Vertical profile distribution
Lithology
Mineralogy
Hydraulic conductivity
WATER
Groundwater level
Water source and well distance (m)
CLIMATE
Annual rainfall (mm)
UNCONSOLIDATED
MATERIAL
Spatial distribution
Thickness of unconsolidated
material layers
Distribution in the vertical profile
Porosity
Hydraulic conductivity
Infiltration rate
Dispersivity aspects
Field capacity
Mineralogy
Cationic exchange capacity
Potential capacity to pollutant
sorption
Texture
WATER
Groundwater level
Water source and well distance (m)
CLIMATE
Annual rainfall (mm)
Unsaturated
zone
Saturated
zone
Co, K(),
Dm(),
(), Vx(),
ks(), D*(),
d, , n,
C(x,t), K, Dm,
, Vx,
ks, D*, n,
d,
Note:
Co Initial Concentration
C (x,t) Solute
concentration
K Hydraulic conductivity
Dm Mechanical
dispersivity
Coefficient of
dispersivity
Vx Average linear velocity
Ks Sorption parameter
D* - Molecular diffusion
n - Porosity
d Dry weight
- Volumetric moisture
X Longitudinal direction
Fig. 3 Basic model showing
the main environmental aspects
of pollutant movement
120 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
basalts of the Serra Geral Formation and the sandstones,
siltstones and claystones of the Itaqueri, Marilia and Ad-
amantina Formations.
The sandstones outcropping in escarpments are frac-
tured and highly cemented while the gentle topography is
weakly cemented sandstones and sand-rich colluvium. The
unconned aquifer varies in thickness up to 100 m and,
being directly recharged, is more susceptible to pollution
than the semi-conned portion. In places, drainage chan-
nels have eroded the sandstones, cutting through the
aquifer and providing a groundwater ow to the regions
perennial streams.
In places the sandstones and conglomerates of the Pi-
ramboia Formation are overlain by some 5 m of residual/
weathered material and up to 20 m of transported uncon-
solidated materials.
Table 1 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for rock substrate 1 and 2 groups by the
analytical hierarchy process
Second level Third level Fourth level
Main environmental
components
(group/partial relative
normalized index)
(attributes/partial relative
normalized index)
Classes/parameters Partial relative
normalized index
Spatial distribution 10080 0.400515
Rock substrate (% of unit) 8060 0.261856
Rock substrate 1 0.3278 6040 0.156701
4020 0.086598
20.005.00 0.054124
(Geometric aspects) \5 0.040206
0.05743
Discontinuities V (very closely spaced
and aperture very wide)
0.407583
0.4125 IV 0.276461
III 0.157451
II 0.083728
I, (very widely spaced and
aperture very narrow)
0.045287
Absent 0.029489
Vertical prole distribution Homogeneous 0.339181
0.2597 2 layersand/sand 0.250975
2 layerssand/basalt 0.181774
3 or more geological materials 0.126706
3 or more geological materials with
strong hydraulic diffraction
0.101365
Rock substrate 2 Lithology Weakly and without cementation 0.375783
(Hydrodynamic aspects) 0.2658 Sandstones 0.299582
0.12371 Silty sandstones 0.167015
Diabase/basalt 0.100731
Rock porosity \5% 0.056889
Mineralogy Inert minerals 0.648045
0.3210 Clay minerals 1:1 0.229749
Clay minerals 2:1 0.122207
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s) [10
-3
0.400105
0.4131 10
-3
10
-4
0.268828
10
-4
10
-5
0.181485
10
-5
10
-6
0.075837
10
-6
10
-7
0.043933
\10
-7
0.029812
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 121
1 3
Methodology
The main point of the study was to obtain indices to rep-
resent the likelihood of groundwater contamination on a
1:100,000 scale, considering both the geology (intrinsic
condition) and the specic situation (complete condition).
The nal indices must indicate the:
1. Predisposition condition (PI) which considers the
intrinsic condition, i.e., taking into account only
the geotechnical, geological, hydrological and hydro-
geological aspects which could result in contamina-
tion; and
2. Potential pollutant intensity (PPII) which considers the
complete condition, i.e., taking into account a partic-
ular contaminant or group of contaminants and their
interaction with the geotechnical, geological, hydro-
logical and hydrogeological characteristics which
could affect the groundwater.
The results must allow the degree and rate of pollu-
tion to be assessed in order to predict the degree of
Table 2 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for water, climatic aspects and uncon-
solidated material 1 groups by the analytical hierarchy process
Second level Third level Fourth level
Main environmental
components
(group/partial relative
normalized index)
(attributes/partial relative
normalized index)
Classes/parameters Partial relative
normalized index
Water 0.20655 Groundwater level (m) \2 m 0.347528
0.4600 25 m 0.270680
510 0.169359
1020 0.105727
2030 m 0.062653
[30 m 0.044053
Water source and well distance (m) \200 m 0.472949
0.2210 200500 m 0.284468
5001000 m 0.169866
[1,000 m 0.072717
Climatic aspects 1 Annual rainfall (mm) [2,000 0.439548
0.3191 1,5502,000 0.301130
1,3501,550 0.162712
\1,350 0.096610
Unconsolidated
materials
Unconsolidated
material 1
Spatial distribution 10080 0.411795
0.06958 (% of the unit) 8060 0.257829
0.2352 6040 0.156576
4020 0.088727
520 0.053236
\5 0.031837
Thickness of unconsolidated
material layer
[25 m 0.062533
(m) 1525 0.098266
0.3442 515 0.161850
25 m 0.279559
\2 m 0.397793
Distribution in the vertical
prolesequence of
materialshydraulic diffraction
Homogeneous 0.399790
0.4206 Two discontinuities 0.282483
Gradational increasing
hydraulic conductivity
0.147817
Gradational decreasing
hydraulic conductivity
0.104682
heterogeneous 0.065229
122 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
Table 3 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for unconsolidated material 2 and 3 groups
by the analytical hierarchy process
Second level Third level Fourth level
Main environmental
components
(group/partial relative
normalized index)
(attributes/partial relative
normalized index)
Classes/parameters Partial relative
normalized index
Unconsolidated material 2 Porosity (%) [50 0.475230
0.17304 0.0493 5040 0.289171
4030 0.126152
3015 0.069700
\15 0.039747
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s) [10
-3
0.40566
0.4601 10
-3
10
-4
0.274633
10
-4
10
-5
0.156184
10
-5
10
-6
0.082809
10
-6
10
-7
0.048742
\10
-7
0.031971
Inltration rate (mm/h) [100 0.356061
0.2436 71100 0.277778
3170 0.182828
1030 0.114141
\10 0.069192
Dispersivity aspects (macropores) Very high 0.449495
0.1595 High 0.296857
Intermediate 0.126263
Low 0.079125
Very Low 0.04826
Field capacity (m
3
/m
3
) \0.12 0.429545
0.0875 1216 0.323864
1625 0.160227
[0.25 0.086364
Unconsolidated material 3 Mineralogy Inert minerals 0.36377
0.14285 0.2692 Clay minerals \5% 0.259277
Clay minerals 510% 0.152344
Clay minerals 1020% 0.102051
Clay minerals 2050% 0.055176
Clay minerals 5075% 0.038574
Clay minerals [75% 0.028809
CTC (meq/100 g) \5 0.386694
0.1965 105 0.283784
1020 0.163202
2550 0.093555
[50 0.068607
Potential capacity to pollutant
sorption (O.M. rate, etc.)
Very low 0.462353
0.4553 Low 0.331765
Intermediate 0.127059
High 0.078824
Texture Sand 0.465090
0.1176 Clayed silty sand 0.259572
Sandy silt/clay 0.163851
Silt 0.067568
Clay 0.043919
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 123
1 3
Table 4 Partial relative normalized index for components attributes and classes/parameters obtained for morphometry, diffuse and point
pollutant sources groups by the analytical hierarchy process
Second level Third level Fourth level
Main environmental
components
(group/partial relative
normalized index)
(attributes/partial relative
normalized index)
Classes/parameters Partial relative
normalized index
Geomorphology Morphometry Declivity (%) \5 0.483100
0.040868 1 515 0.272145
1530 0.156760
[30 0.087995
Pollutant source types Diffuse sources Land use Intense use of chemical products 0.340191
0.08468 0.2799 Sugar cane/road/pipeline 0.266986
Eucalyptus 0.084211
Pastures 0.123923
Natural vegetation 0.058852
Other plantations 0.125837
City size and types [500,000 (industrial city) 0.423895
0.1565 500,000100,000 (industrial) 0.299509
100,00020,000 (industrial and
commercial)
0.135297
100,00020,000 (agricultural activities) 0.082379
\20,000 0.053464
Pollutant diversity High organic, biological and inorganic
load
0.405858
0.1783 Low organic, biological and inorganic
load
0.136506
Intermediate organic, biological and
inorganic load
0.261506
Petrol products 0.132845
Stable tailings 0.063285
Disposal types Below the groundwater level 0.442735
0.3853 Above the groundwater level (vadose
zone)
0.305413
On the ground surface 0.168091
Indirect 0.083761
Point sources Waste volume (m
3
) \50000 0.050577
0.10125 0.1315 50,000100,000 0.081363
100,000250,000 0.135789
250,000500,000 0.310610
[500,000 0.421660
Waste types (1) Dangerous wastes 0.364044
0.2504 (2) Solid and liquid tailing/Industrial
Wastes
0.274900
(3) Solid and liquid urban wastes 0.155876
(4) Liquid and solid wastes from
lagoons, etc.
0.096614
(5) Construction wastes 0.063745
(6) Organic material and sand used in
metallurgy
0.044821
Exposition time (years) [20 0.447308
0.0974 2010 0.311569
105 0.155785
\5 0.081901
124 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
hazard and risk and provide guidelines for monitoring in
terms of frequency, types of sampling, sampling sites,
etc.
The factors considered in the development of this
methodology were:
1. Variability of unconsolidated materials in tropical
regions;
2. Large aquifers or large direct recharge zones;
3. Limitations of the mathematical model for large areas,
which would require a large number of specic
parameters;
4. Uncertainties and cost of obtaining sufcient quanti-
tative parameters to apply mathematical or simulation
models;
Table 4 continued
Second level Third level Fourth level
Main environmental
components
(group/partial relative
normalized index)
(attributes/partial relative
normalized index)
Classes/parameters Partial relative
normalized index
Disposal techniques Natural depression and gully 0.400745
0.1817 Uncontrolled sanitary landll 0.293773
Articial depression 0.156998
Controlled sanitary landll 0.092602
Sanitary landll 0.055881
Geological materials at the base Very high permeability material 0.368238
0.3390 Botucatu 0.266005
Serra geral 0.072457
Piramboia 0.151861
Adamantina 0.097767
Very low permeability material 0.043672
Fig. 4 Hierarchical levels of the attributes and data
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 125
1 3
5. Diversity and specic characteristics of pollutant
sources;
6. Environmental data directly related to the movement
of pollutants;
7. Application to scales larger than 1:100,000.
The methodology was applied following the steps
shown in Fig. 2 which illustrates the ve stages: denition
of the model, selection of the attributes, data collection,
treatment, and zoning procedures.
Model
In order to obtain both the PPII and PI, a consideration of
the movement of pollutants from their land surface sources
to a pre-dened point below the surface was made, based on
seven environmental factors: water inltration, ow in the
saturated and non-saturated zones, sorption and biochemi-
cal processes, pollutant transport and pollutant sources.
These seven groups of interrelated components were
selected to identify: types and specic characteristics of the
pollutant sources, water input on the land surface, the
conditions of saturated and unsaturated ow, pollutant
transport mechanisms, aspects of sorption and desorption,
chemical reactions other than sorption (precipitation, bio-
chemical, rst order decay, etc.). The governing equation
should represent advection, pollutant sources, equilibrium-
controlled sorption, rst-order irreversible rate reactions,
and biochemical and other reactions.
1
q
d
h
oC
oC
_ _
oC
ot

o
ox
i
D
ij
oC
ox
j
_ _

o
ox
V
i
C
q
s
h
C
s
k C
q
d
h
C
_ _

oC
ot
_ _
react
C the dissolved concentration,
C the sorbed concentration, a function of the
dissolved concentration (C), as dened by the
sorption isotherm,
V
i
the average linear water velocity,
D
ij
the dispersion coefcient tensor,
q
s
the ow rate of a uid source per unit aquifer
volume,
C
s
the concentration of the uid source,
H the porosity,
k the reaction constant, and
q
d
the bulk density of the porous medium
t time
x the longitudinal direction
React biological or chemical reaction of the solute (other
than sorption)
Selection of the attributes
The attributes were selected considering the above seven
points relating to the movement of the pollutants and
aspects of the control in the porous geological medium
Fig. 5 Distribution of rainfall over the past 30 years, based on ve
rain gauges
Table 5 Stratigraphic sequence of the study region
Formation Period Lithologies General characteristics
Itaqueri Cretaceous Sandstones with ne cement, siltstones, conglomerates High variability
Marilia Cretaceous Varied sandstones High variability
Adamantina Cretaceous Very ne and ne sandstones, sandy siltstones, claystones High variability
Serra Geral JurassicCretaceous Basalts and diabases Low lithological variability
Botucatu Triassic Fine to medium aeolian sandstones Low textural heterogeneity
Major cross-stratication
Piramboia Triassic Sandstones with clay and silt Minor cross-stratication
Low textural variability
Corumbata Permian Claystones, siltstones, shales, ne sandstones High variability
Irat Permian Shales, limestones, dolomites, sandstones High variability
Tatui Permian Sandstones, siltstones, claystones High variability
126 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
(Fig. 3). Each attribute has less than seven classes, to allow
a manageable zonation. The maximum and minimum cat-
egories were chosen as they are valid for different
environmental characteristics and allow comparisons of the
results whilst representing some degree of sensitivity of the
movement of pollutants and geological variability. The
data on these extreme categories could be collected using
low cost procedures in the eld or in the laboratory. In
addition to this maximum range of values/classes (which
indicate groundwater contamination within a period of less
than a year), other categories could then be dened for
specic regions.
The selected attributes are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4,
while Fig. 4 shows the sequence of hierarchical levels and
types of information analysed to obtain the potential pollu-
tant intensity index (PPII) and the pre-disposition index (PI).
The proposed arrangement of the attributes and cate-
gories allows for the use of different data treatment
methods, such as: rating, weight, index, fuzzy, overlay,
matrix, point count or combined.
Fig. 6 Simplied lithological
map
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 127
1 3
Data collection
Most of the studies reported in the technical literature have
collected data from several previous works which were
carried out for purposes other than the prediction of
groundwater pollution. In this study, the methodology
involves engineering geological mapping procedures to
obtain the data and to draw the maps, taken from Zuquette
et al. (2004).
Treatment of the data
It is possible treat data by basic datasheets, geographical
information systems (GIS) and the specic routines of
programs such as Delphi and Mathlab. In this work, the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was used. This
allows the evaluation of different conditions for attributes
and classes/parameters with the necessary calibrations/
adaptations being relatively easy to undertake. Zaporozec
(2002) considered AHP to be a good tool for obtaining the
index for the evaluation of groundwater contamination and
a number of researchers have used this method to calculate
the index of groundwater contamination and vulnerability,
including Soper (2006), Greene and LaMotte (2006), El-
Naqal et al. (2006), Gemitzi et al. (2006), Pietersen (2006),
Tesfamariam and Sadiq (2006), Hartman and Goltz (2002),
Bosanquet et al. (2002), Thirumalaivasan and Karmegam
(2001), and Dixon (2005a, b). Most of these workers
applied the AHP method to obtain the index for existing
methodologies such as DRASTIC.
The principle in the analytic hierarchy process intro-
duced by Saaty (1977) is the division of a complex problem
into simple ones, in the form of a hierarchical chain, which
also allows decisions based on qualitative and quantitative
criteria. Various contradictory points of view can be taken
into account. The main advantage of the method is that
whilst considering the interdependence of the attributes, it
also evaluates the areas in terms of the conditions that favor
subsurface water pollution, thus reducing the subjectivity
of the process.
From the paired matrix containing the previously
dened values of relative importance, the partial relative
normalized index (PRNI) of the different components,
attributes and classes is calculated based on the respective
eigenvector, considering the consistency index and the
consistency ratio for each matrix. Using these PRNI values,
the PPII and PI were obtained for each unit and the units
ranked in terms of the degree of pollution potential. The
PPII and PI were calculated adding the partial relative
normalized index (PRNI) of the classes, multiplied by the
PRNI of the attributes and by the PRNI of the components,
in accordance with the following equation:
PPII or PI

N2
i
PRNI
2
i

N3
i
j
PRNI
3
ij
PRNI
4
ijk
_ _
_ _ _ _
where
PPII potential pollutant intensity index (complete
condition);
N2 number of components;
PRNI
i
2
partial relative normalized index of the
components
N3
i
number of attributes
PRNI
ij
3
partial relative normalized index of attributes
PRNI
ijk
4
partial relative normalized index of the classes.
Zoning procedures
Considering the PPII and PI values obtained and the mean
value, standard deviation and maximum and minimum
values, zoning procedures were applied dening six cate-
gories (extremely high, high, moderate, low, very low and
Fig. 7 Simplied unconsolidated material map of the study region
128 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
T
a
b
l
e
6
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
r
e
g
i
o
n
C
o
d
e
(
m
a
p

F
i
g
.
1
1
)
T
y
p
e
G
r
a
i
n
s
i
z
e
(
%
)
M
i
n
e
r
a
l
o
g
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
m
/
s
)
V
o
i
d
r
a
t
i
o
D
r
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
(
K
N
/
m
3
)
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
K
N
/
m
3
)
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
m
)
S
a
n
d
S
i
l
t
C
l
a
y
1
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
I
t
a
q
u
e
r
i
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
0

6
3
1
0

2
5
3

2
5
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
H
i
g
h
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
1
0
-
5

1
0
-
9
1
2

1
3
.
9
2
7
.
1
\
2
0
2
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
i
l
i
a
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
2

6
1
1
3

2
8
\
1
5
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
H
i
g
h
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
1
0
-
5

1
0
-
9
0
.
6
3

1
.
0
1
4
.
1
2
6
.
5

2
7
.
1
\
1
5
3
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
A
d
a
m
a
n
t
i
n
a
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
5

6
0
1
0

3
0
\
1
5
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
H
i
g
h
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
1
0
-
6

1
0
-
9
\
1
5
4
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
S
e
r
r
a
G
e
r
a
l
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
2

4
5
2
0

5
0
,
2
3

6
0
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
,
l
i
m
o
n
i
t
e
,
m
a
g
n
e
t
i
t
e
,
h
e
m
a
t
i
t
e
,
g
o
e
t
h
i
t
e
H
i
g
h
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1
0
-
5

1
0
-
8
0
.
8

1
.
0
1
0
.
7

1
4
.
1
2
7
.
7

2
9
.
2
1

2
0
5
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
B
o
t
u
c
a
t
u
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
[
9
0
\
1
0
\
1
0
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
V
e
r
y
l
o
w
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
l
o
w
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
4

1
0
-
6
0
.
7
1

1
.
0
1
4
.
2

1
6
.
7
2
6
.
3

2
7
.
2
5

2
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
P
i
r
a
m
b
o
i
a
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
\
9
0
5

1
7
4

2
4
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
1
0
-
5

1
0
-
7
0
.
6
1

0
.
8
1
4
.
7

1
6
.
7
2
6
.
1

2
7
.
2
\
1
0
7
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
C
o
r
u
m
b
a
t
a

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
0

3
7
1
0

3
0
4
3

6
5
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
i
l
l
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
H
i
g
h
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
7

1
0
-
9
\
1
.
0
1
3

1
8
.
1
2
6
.
5

2
7
.
5
\
5
8
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
I
r
a
t
i
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
0

2
5
1
0

3
0
4
3

6
5
S
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
,
q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
i
l
l
i
t
e
,
c
a
l
c
i
t
e
H
i
g
h
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
7

1
0
-
9
\
1
.
0
1
3

1
8
.
1
2
6
.
5

2
8
.
5
\
1
0
9
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
f
r
o
m
T
a
t
u
i
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
0

3
5
1
0

3
0
4
0

7
0
S
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
,
q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
i
l
l
i
t
e
,
c
a
l
c
i
t
e
H
i
g
h
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
6

1
0
-
9
\
1
.
0
1
3

1
8
.
1
2
6
.
5

2
9
.
5
\
1
0
1
0
C
l
a
y
e
y
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
2

2
0
\
1
5
4
0

7
0
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
,
l
i
m
o
n
i
t
e
,
m
a
g
n
e
t
i
t
e
,
h
a
e
m
a
t
i
t
e
,
g
o
e
t
h
i
t
e
L
o
w
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
5

1
0
-
7
0
.
9

1
.
5
1
1
2
9
2

2
5
1
1
C
l
a
y
e
y
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
2
0

5
5
\
1
5
2
5

5
0
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
1
0
-
4

1
0
-
7
0
.
5
5

0
.
9
1
5
.
1

1
6
.
9
2
6
.
2

2
7
1
0

2
0
1
2
S
a
n
d
y
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
\
9
0
\
1
0
\
1
0
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
g
i
b
b
s
i
t
e
L
o
w
h
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
d
e
g
r
e
e
1
0
-
5
1
.
0
1
5

1
7
2
6
.
3

2
6
.
5
\
1
5
1
3
A
l
l
u
v
i
u
m
Q
u
a
r
t
z
,
k
a
o
l
i
n
i
t
e
,
i
l
l
i
t
e
,
s
m
e
c
t
i
t
e
s
,
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
a
t
t
e
r
H
i
g
h
v
a
r
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
1
0
-
4

1
0
-
9
0
.
7

1
.
5
1
3

1
8
2
6

2
9
\
1
5
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 129
1 3
extremely low) of degree of pollution potential for the
complete and pre-disposition conditions.
Results
Based on the existing engineering geological maps at a
scale of 1:50,000, maps and charts were produced to show:
rock substrate, unconsolidated materials, groundwater
level, land uses, natural springs and pumping wells. The
results of the study are briey discussed below.
Rainfall
The ten rain gauges installed (Fig. 8) in the region have
revealed the same general trend over a period of 30 years,
but with different annual values, varying from 1,000 to
2,500 mm. Of the 3,053 monthly rainfall measurements,
63% were \200 mm/month, 10% were [400 mm/month
and 27% between 200 and 400 mm/month. Figure 5 shows
the results from ve of these gauges. They were selected
because they are representative of the rain distribution in
the study region.
Geology
Table 5 and Fig. 6 indicate the geology of the study region.
Unconsolidated materials
The unconsolidated materials (Fig. 7) were classied as
residual and transported, following the Geological Society
(1990, 1995). Table 6 shows the main geological and
geotechnical characteristics.
Land uses
Three land uses predominate: sugarcane plantations, pas-
tures and re-forested. However, the region contains several
urban centres with populations varying from 1,000 to
700,000, paved and dirt roads, alcohol distilleries and sugar
mills, paper pulp plants, pipelines, cattle ranches, airports,
irrigated areas, temporary reservoirs, a golf course, sanitary
and liquid waste lagoons, sanitary landlls, etc. These land
uses (Fig. 8) are point and non-point pollutant sources with
different characteristics. About 1,000 pumping wells sup-
ply more than 50% of the water requirements for human,
industrial, agricultural and other type of uses, mainly in the
urban areas of Ribeirao Preto, Sao Carlos and Araraquara.
Analysis
Based on the geological and geotechnical data obtained by
engineering geological mapping, the region was divided
into 447 units according to land use, size of watershed and
degree of lithological homogeneity, as shown in Fig. 9.
Some of these units contain clayey materials that are rel-
atively impermeable. This division enabled the region to be
analysed using a very simple datasheet.
The AHP method was applied to nd the partial index
for the components, attributes and classes/parameters,
considering the geotechnical, geological, hydrological and
hydrogeological aspects (pre-disposition condition) and
particular contaminant or group of contaminants and their
interaction with the geotechnical, geological, hydrological
and hydrogeological characteristics (complete condition);
see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4.
The calibration of the partial relative normalized indices
(PRNI) adopted involved around 20 watersheds in the
study region. Based on the maximum and minimum PRNI,
the maximum and minimum potential pollutant intensity
index (PPII) values were found to be, respectively, 46.91
Fig. 8 Map of the main land uses
130 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
and 6.87. The partial indices applied to each unit allowed
the PPII to be obtained; the values ranged from 8.57 to
26.96, an average value of 17.60 and a standard deviation
of 3.91 (Fig. 10).
The maximum and minimum values of the PI were,
respectively, 34.49 and 4.99 although, as shown in Fig. 10,
the distribution was generally between 7.33 and 22.95,
giving an average value of 15.54 and a standard deviation
of 3.97.
Figure 11 shows the changes in the classication of the
units for the complete and pre-disposition conditions,
considering the maximum, minimum and average values
and the standard deviation. The nine categories dened
were: (1) maximum value up to 27, (2) 26.925, (3) 24.9
23, (4) 22.920, (5) 21.918, (6) 17.915, (7) 14.912, (8)
11.910 and (9) 9.9 to minimum value. PPII values higher
than 23 and PI values higher than 20 (around 50% of the
maximum values) were considered the limits between units
Fig. 9 Map showing
classication of the units
according to PPII and PI values
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 131
1 3
classied as having a high and moderate probability of
contamination, while the average value minus the negative
standard deviation dened the limit between moderate and
low potential (Table 7) in the complete and pre-disposition
conditions. Based on these limits, 35 and 89 units were
classied as having a high pollution potential in the com-
plete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively; 285 and
281 units showed a moderate level, and 127 and 77 units a
low level of pollution potential (Fig. 11). Of the units with
a moderate pollution potential, 101 and 46 had a high
moderate level for the complete and pre-disposition con-
ditions, respectively. These units are likely to fall into the
high level of pollution potential in the near future,
depending on the practices employed to manage the current
pollutant sources and whether new sources of pollution are
established.
Another aspect for evaluation is the ratio obtained by
dividing the PPII and PI values by the maximum values,
which shows how close each unit is to the maximum
value (Table 8). These ratios allow for an absolute eval-
uation of the units, considering present and future land
uses. The maximum and minimum values are 0.5748 and
0.1827 for the complete condition, and 0.6655 and 0.2126
for the pre-disposition condition. The mean values are
0.3753 and 0.834; and 0.4508 and 0.1151 for the complete
and predisposition conditions, respectively. From these
data, the categories presented in Table 8 were calculated.
Similar procedures are used for the categories shown in
Table 7.
The pollutant sources showed maximum and minimum
values of 12.41 and 0, respectively. All the units have at
least one kind of source, with values varying from 0.95
to 5.74, an average value of 2.06 and a standard devi-
ation of 1.08. It is important to point out that the highest
value obtained was 46.26% of the possible maximum
value. Thus, it is possible that the current conditions
will change considerably in the short term. Around 85%
of the units showed pollutant source values of less than
3 (*25% of the maximum value), as indicated in
Figs. 12 and 13. Figure 9 shows the units with the 40
highest pollutant source values, showed by the legend
P1P40.
An analysis of the PPII and PI and the maximum ratio
clearly shows the present state of each unit in both the
complete and pre-disposition conditions. Twenty-seven
and 159 units presented values exceeding 0.5 and were
therefore classied as having a high potential for contam-
inating the groundwater, 336 and 250 units fell in the
moderate category, and 84 and 38 in the low category for
the complete and pre-disposition conditions, respectively
(Fig. 14). Only 27 ranked in the high class under both
conditions (hatched in the Fig. 9), but some of these units
do not currently present high indices of pollutant sources.
These units require monitoring of the evolution of the
levels of unconsolidated material and groundwater pollu-
tion, with particular attention given to the chemical
Fig. 10 Distribution of the PPII (a), and PI (b), for units, with maximum and minimum values for both conditions
Fig. 11 Distribution of units according to PPII (complete condition)
and PI (without pollutant sourcespredisposition condition) values.
PPII and PI values are represented with white and black columns,
respectively
132 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
compounds of fertilizers, oil-derived compounds and land
uses such as cesspools, sanitary lagoons, etc.
According to the PPII, PI and maximum value ratio, 27
and 159 units fall into the high degree of pollution potential
category for the complete and pre-disposition conditions,
respectively (Fig. 14). These units require territorial plan-
ning to guide the future implementation of land use and
management practices.
Conclusions
Despite the amount of environmental data covered here,
this study was inexpensive because all the information was
obtained through engineering geological mapping. This
proved to be an excellent tool for acquiring geological and
geotechnical data, as well as other environmental data in an
organized and sequential way.
Table 7 Categories of PPII and PI indices relating to the degree of pollution potential
Category Complete condition (PPII) Predisposition condition (PI)
Limits Degree of pollution potential Limits Degree of pollution potential
1 45.627 Extremely high 3 3827 Extremely high 4
2 26.925 High 2 26.925 3
3 24.923 1 24.923 High 2
4 22.920 Moderate 22.920 1
5 19.918 Moderate 19.918 Moderate
6 17.915 Moderate 17.915 Moderate
7 14.912 Low 14.912 Moderate
8 11.910 Very low 11.910 Low
9 9.95.8 Extremely low 9.94.5 Very low
Table 8 Categories based on PPII, PI, and maximum value ratio relating to the degree of pollution potential
Category Complete condition (PPII) Predisposition condition (PI)
Limits Degree of pollution potential Limits Degree of pollution potential
1 10.75 Extremely high 10.75 Extremely high
2 0.750.6 High 2 0.750.6 High 2
3 0.60.5 1 0.60.5 1
4 0.50.4 Moderately high 0.50.4 Moderately high
5 0.40.3 Moderate 0.40.3 Moderate
6 0.30.2 Low 0.30.2 Low
7 0.20.1 Very low 0.20.1 Very low
Fig. 12 Distribution of the pollutant source values
Fig. 13 Frequency of the units for pollutant source categories
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 133
1 3
The methodology enabled slight differences among the
units to be identied; hence the zoning took into account
more suitable limits for distinguishing the units with dif-
ferent degrees of pollution potential. The classes of
attributes can be adapted to different regions, maintaining
the extreme values and the number of classes.
The results for the units were compatible with the pol-
lutant sources and environmental conditions which were
found during the validation eldwork. Some units were
randomly selected to verify the agreement between the
PPII and PI values and the pollutant concentration in the
unconsolidated material and groundwater. Some samples
were taken and electrical conductivity was measured. The
values obtained were within the range of the PPII and PI
values.
All the units showed different types of pollutant sources,
mainly agriculture, road, and point sources with varied
characteristics. On the other hand, some units were affected
by more than one pollutant source, such as sanitary land-
lls, roads, pipelines, agriculture uses, and sanitary
lagoons.
Currently, around 30 and 70% of the region is classied
as high degree of pollution potential under the complete
and pre-disposition conditions, respectively. Forty units
with the highest pollutant sources (Fig. 9, P1P40) occupy
35% of the extent of the study region, while 28 units were
classied in the low and moderate categories of pollution
potential.
These ndings point to two conditions to be considered
in territorial planning for groundwater protection, one
involving the complete condition for controlling and
monitoring the present pollutant sources, and the other to
guide planning/management in the units classied as hav-
ing a high predisposition for pollution.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Brazilian
research funding agencies CNPq/FINEP (Process no. 62.0031/01-8
and CNPq No. 479258/2004-0) and FAPESPFundacao de Amparo
a` Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (Process Nos. 00/03027-7 and 96/
1502-2) for supporting this research.
References
Albinet M, Margat J (1970) Cartographie de la vulnerabilite
0
a la
pollution des nappes deau souterraine. Bull BRGM 2ese
0
r
3(4):1322
Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) Drastic: a
standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution
potential using hydrographic settings, US-EPA Report 600/
2- 87-035
Andersen LJ, Gosk E (1989) Applicability of vulnerability maps.
Environ Geol Water Sci 13(1):3943
Andreo B, Goldsheider N, Vadillo I, Vias JM, Neukum C, Sinreich
M, Jimenez P, Berchenmacher J, Carrasco F, Hotzl H, Perles MJ,
Zwahlen F (2006) Karst groundwater protection: rst application
of a Pan-European approach to vulnerability, hazard and risk
mapping in the Sierra de L bar (Southern Spain). Sci Total
Environ 357:5473
Bachmat Y, Collin M (1990) Management-oriented assessment of
groundwater vulnerability to pollution. Israel Hydrological
Service Report, vol 6/90. Jerusalem, p 20
Banton O, Villeneuve JP (1989) Evaluation of groundwater vulner-
ability to pesticides: a comparison between the pesticide
DRASTIC index and the PRZM leaching quantities. J Contam
Hydrol 4:285296
Barradas JM, Fonseca EC, Silva EF (1992) Identication and
mapping of pollution indices using a multivariate statistical
methodology, Estarreja, central Portugal. Appl Geochem 7:563
572
Bosanquet E, Cooper T, Hayden A, Krikelas V, Torrent M (2002)
Wetland Mitigation Alternatives for the Casmalia Resources
Disposal Site, Santa Barbara County, California. University of
California, Santa Barbara
Britt JK, Swinell SE, Mcdowell TC (1992) Matrix decision procedure
to assess new pesticides based on relative groundwater leaching
potential and chronic toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:721
728
Carsel RF, Mulkey LA, Lorber MN, Baskm LB (1985) The pesticide
root zone model (PRZM) a procedure for evaluating pesticide
leaching threats to groundwater. Ecol Model 30:4969
Carter AD, Palmer RC, Monkhouse RA (1987) Mapping the
vulnerability of groundwater to pollution from agricultural
practice, particularly with respect to nitrate. In: Duijvenbooden
W van, Waegeningh HG van (eds) TNO committee on hydro-
logical research, the Hague. Vulnerability of soil and
groundwater to pollutants, proceedings and information. vol
38, pp 333342
Civita M (1990) Legenda unicata per le carte della vulnerabilita dei
corpi idrici soutterranei (unied legend for the aquifer pollution
vulnerability maps). In: Studi sulla vulnerabilita degli Acquiferi.
Pitagora, Bologna
Civita M (1994) Le carte della vulnerabilita` degli acquiferi
allinquinamento. Teoria and practica (Aquifer vulnerability
maps to pollution) Pitagora, Bologna
Civita M, De Regibus C (1995) Sperimentazione di alcune metod-
ologie per la valutazione della vulnerabilita` degli aquiferi. Q
Geol Appl Pitagora, Bologna 3:6371
Collin ML, Melloul AJ (2003) Assessing groundwater vulnerability to
promote sustainable urban and rural development. J Clean Prod
11:727736
Connell LD, van den Daele G (2003) A quantitative approach to
aquifer vulnerability mapping. J Hydrol 276:7188
Fig. 14 Frequency of the units for PPII/maximum value and PI/
maximum value ratios
134 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3
Crozier M, Glade T (2004) Landslides hazards and risks: issues,
concepts and approach. In: Crozier et al (ed) Landslides hazard
and risk. Wiley, Chichester, pp 140
Dixon B (2005a) Applicability of neuro-fuzzy techniques in predict-
ing ground-water vulnerability: a GIS-based sensitivity analysis.
J Hydrol 309:1738
Dixon B (2005b) Groundwater vulnerability mapping: a GIS and
fuzzy rule based integrated tool. Appl Geogr 25:327347
Doeriger N, Zwahlen F (1995) EPIK: a new method for outlining of
protection areas in karst environment. In: Gunay G, Johnson I
(eds) Proceedings of 5th international symposium and eld
seminar on karst waters and environmental impacts. Antalya,
September 1995, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 117123
Doeriger N, Zwahlen F, Meylan B Tripet JP, Wildberger A (1997)
Vulnerabilite des captages en milieu karstique. Nouvelle methode
de delimitation des zones de protectionmethode multicrite`re
EPIK. Gas Wasser Abwasser, Organ des Schweiz. Vereins des
Gas- und Wasserfaches (SVGW) und des Verbandes Schweizer
Abwasser und Gewasserschutzfachleute (USA) 5:295302
Doeriger N, Jeannin PY, Zwahlen F (1999) Water vulnerability
assessment in karst environments: a new method of dening
protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools
(EPIK method). Environ Geol 39(2):165176
El-Naqal A, Hammouri N, Kuisi M (2006) GIS-based evaluation of
groundwater vulnerability in the Russeifa area, Jordan. Revista
Mexicana de Ciencias Geologicas 23(3):277287
Eneld CG, Carsel RF, Cohen SZ, Phan T, Walters DM (1982)
Method for approximating pollutant transport to ground water.
Ground Water 8:339357
Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability,
pollution risk and protection strategy. In: Van Duijvenbooden W,
Van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwa-
ter to pollutants. Proc Inf TNO Comm Hydrol Res, The Hague
38:6986
Fredrick KC, Becker MW, Flewelling DM, Silavisesrith W, Hart ER
(2004) Enhancement of aquifer vulnerability indexing using the
analytic-element method. Environ Geol 45:10541061
Gemitzi A, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Pisinaras V (2006) Assessment
of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS,
fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Env Geol 49:653
673
Giupponi C, Eiselt B, Ghetti PF (1999) A multicriteria approach for
mapping risks of agricultural pollution for water resources: the
Venice lagoon watershed case study. J Environ Manag 56:259
269
Gogu RC, Dassargues A (2000) Current trends and future challenges
in groundwater vulnerability assessment using overlay and index
methods. Env Geol 39:549559
Gogu RC, Hallet V, Dassargues A (2003) Comparison of aquifer
vulnerability assessment techniques. Application to the Neblon
river basin (Belgium). Env Geol 44:881892
Goldscheider N, Klute M, Sturm S, Hotzl H (2000) The PI methoda
GIS-based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with
special consideration on karst aquifers. Z Angew Geol
46(3):157166
Goossens M, Van Damme M (1987) Vulnerability mapping in
Flanders, Belgium, Proceedings at vulnerability of soil and
groundwater to pollutants. In: van Duijvenboode W, van
Waegeningh GH (eds) TNO Committee on Hydrological
Research, the Hague, Proceedings and Information, vol 38, pp
355360
Greene EA, Lamotte AE (2006) Development of spatial probability
model to estimate, integrate, and assess groundwater vulnera-
bility at multiple scales. USGS, ReVAregional vulnerability
assessment, San Jose
Guo H, Wang Y (2004) Specic vulnerability assessment using the
MLPI model in Datong city, Shanxi province, China. Env Geol
45:401407
Guo Q, Wang Y, Gao X, Ma T (2007) A new model (DRARCH) for
assessing groundwater vulnerability to arsenic contamination at
basin scale: a case study in Taiyuan basin, northern China. Env
Geol 52(5):923932
Hartman D, Goltz M (2002) Application of the analytic hierarchy
process to select characterization and risk-based decision-
making and management methods for hazardous waste sites.
Environ Eng Policy 3(12):17
Holting B, Haertle T, Hohberger KH, Nachtigall, Villinger E,
Weinzierl W, Wrobel JP (1995) Konzept zur Ermittlung der
Schutzfunktion der Grundwasseruberdeckung. (concept for the
determination of the protective effectiveness of the cover above
the groundwater against pollution). Geol Jb C63:524
Kabbour BB, Zouhri L, Mania J, Colbeaux JP (2006) Assessing
groundwater contamination risk using the DASTI/IDRISI GIS
method: coastal system of western Mamora, Marocco. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 65(4):463470
Knox RC, Sabatini DA, Canter LW (1993) Subsurface transport and
fate processes. Lewis Publishers, USA
Lasserre F, Razack M, Banton O (1999) A GIS-linked model for
assessment of nitrate contamination in groundwater. J Hydrol
224:8190
Le Grand HE (1964) System for evaluating the contamination
potential of some waste sites. J Am Water Works Assoc
56(8):959974
Madl-Szonyi J, Fule L (1998) Groundwater vulnerability assessment
of the SW Trans-Danubian Central Range, Hungary. Env Geol
35(1):918
Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1984) A modular three-dimensional
nite-difference ground-water ow model: US geological survey
open-le report 83875, p 528
Meeks YJ, Dean JD (1990) Evaluating ground-water vulnerability to
pesticides. J Water Resour Plan Manage 116(5):693707
Mendoza JA, Barmen G (2006) Assessment of groundwater vulner-
ability in the Rio Artiguas basin, Nicaragua. Env Geol 50:569
580
Neukum C, Hotzl H (2007) Standardization of vulnerability maps.
Environ Geol 51(5):689694. doi:10.1007/s00254-006-0380-4
Pietersen K (2006) Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA): a tool
to support sustainable management of groundwater resources in
South Africa. Water SA 32(2):119128
Rao PSC, Alley WM (1993) Pesticides. In: Alley WM (ed) Regional
groundwater quality. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp
345382
Rao P, Hornsby A, Jessup R (1985) Indices for ranking the potential
for pesticide contamination of groundwater. Con Soil Crop Sci
Soc Florida 44:18
Ray JA, ODell PW (1993) Diversity: a new method for evaluating
sensitivity of groundwater to contamination. Env Geol 22:345
352
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical
structures. J Math Psychol 15/3:234281
Soller DR, Berg RC (1992) A model for the assessment of aquifer
contamination potential based on regional geologic framework.
Environ Geol Water Sci 19(3):205213
Soper RC (2006) Groundwater vulnerability to agrochemicals: a GIS-
based drastic model analysis of Carroll, Chariton, and Saline
counties, Missouri, USA. A thesis presented to the faculty of the
graduate school University of Missouri-Columbia
Tesfamariam S, Sadiq R (2006) Risk-based environmental decision-
making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stoch
Environ Res Risk Assess 21:3550
Groundwater in Sao Carlos region of Brazil 135
1 3
Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M (2001) Aquifer vulnerability using
analytic hierarchy process and GIS for upper Palar watershed.
22nd Asian conference on remote sensing, Singapore
USEPA (1987) Guidelines for delineation of wellhead protection
areas. US EPA/440/6-87/010 report. United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington
USEPA (1993) A review of methods for assessing aquifer sensitivity
and ground water vulnerability to pesticide contamination.
USEPA, Ofce of Water, Washington
Van Stempoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1993) Aquifer vulnerability
index (AVI): a GIS compatible method for groundwater
vulnerability mapping. Can Water Res J 18:2537
Vias JM, Andreo B, Perles MJ, Carrasco F (2005) A comparative
study of four schemes for groundwater vulnerability mapping in
a diffuse ow carbonate aquifer under Mediterranean climatic
conditions. Env Geol 47:586595
Von Hoyer M, Sofner B (1998) Groundwater vulnerability mapping
in carbonate (karst) areas of Germany, Federal institute for geo-
sciences and natural resources, Archiv no 117854, Hanover, p 38
Vrba J, Zaporozec A (eds) (1994) Guidebook on mapping ground-
water vulnerability, International contributions to hydrogeology
(IAH), vol 16. Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover, p 131
Wagenet RJ, Huston JL (1987) Predicting the fate of non-volatile
pesticides in the unsaturated zone. J Environ Qual 15:315322
Worrall F, Kolpin DW (2004) Aquifer vulnerability to pesticide
pollution-combining soil, land-use and aquifer properties with
molecular descriptors. J Hydrol 293:191204
Zaporozec A (2002) Groundwater contamination inventory: method-
ological guide. International hydrological programme within
project 3.1 (IHP-V)
Zuquette LV, Pejon OJ, Collares JQ (2004) Engineering geological
mapping developed in Fortaleza metropolitan region, state of
Ceara, Brazil. Eng Geol 71:227253
Zwahlen F (ed) (2004) Vulnerability and risk mapping for the
protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers, nal report (COST
Action 620). European commission, directorate-general XII
science, research and development. Brussels, p 297
136 L. V. Zuquette et al.
1 3