Risk assessment of groundwater pollution using sensitivity analysis and a worst-case scenario analysis

Huysmans, Marijke; Madarász, Tamás; Dassargues, Alain

doi:10.1007/s00254-006-0197-1

Cited by 21 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A worst-case-only approach is quite popular in other domains beyond critical infrastructure analysis (e.g., financial [Zhu & Fukushima, 2009] and environmental risk assessments [Huysman, Madarasz, & Dassargues, 2006;Karl, Wright, Berglen, & Denby, 2011]). The limitations of using conservative "worstcase" methods have been thoroughly discussed and criticized in the literature (Paté-Cornell, 1999).…”

Section: Use Of Worst Case Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk analysis standards are often employed to protect critical infrastructures, which are vital to a nation's security, economy, and safety of its citizens. We present an analysis framework for evaluating such standards and apply it to the J100‐10 risk analysis standard for water and wastewater systems. In doing so, we identify gaps between practices recommended in the standard and the state of the art. While individual processes found within infrastructure risk analysis standards have been evaluated in the past, we present a foundational review and focus specifically on water systems. By highlighting both the conceptual shortcomings and practical limitations, we aim to prioritize the shortcomings needed to be addressed. Key findings from this study include (1) risk definitions fail to address notions of uncertainty, (2) the sole use of “worst reasonable case” assumptions can lead to mischaracterizations of risk, (3) analysis of risk and resilience at the threat‐asset resolution ignores dependencies within the system, and (4) stakeholder values need to be assessed when balancing the tradeoffs between risk reduction and resilience enhancement.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Worst Case Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The hydrodynamic model of the study area was prepared to assess whether the prescribed target status of the groundwater system could feasibly be achieved by any technical solutions [6]. The predefined target status of the Great Forest groundwater head was to elevate by about 2-3 m to recover the levels prevailed during the mid-1980s of the twentieth century.…”

Section: Groundwater Flow Simulation For Multifunctional Artificial Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediating Over-Produced and Contaminated Aquifers by Artificial Recharge from Surface Waters

Szűcs

Madarász

Civan

2008

Environ Model Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recharging from open-surface water resources is investigated as a method for remediation of over-produced and contaminated aquifers. The hydraulic and contaminant modeling using the Modflow-2000 and MT3DMS simulation software are resorted for evaluation of the available options. Methodology is developed and illustrated for reviewing the alternative remediation approaches for optimal selection of the best remediation approach to aquifer recharging from surface waters. The effectiveness of the present systematic approach is demonstrated by identifying the best choice among the multifunctional artificial recharge options available for the Great Forest Park in Debrecen, Hungary.

show abstract

“…However, groundwater resources are vulnerable due to pollutants from socioeconomic development activities, including agricultural sources (Huysmans et al, 2006;Zhang et al, 2016). Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture to increase crop yields is a major cause of groundwater pollution (Causape et al, 2006, Gao Y et al 2012Yu et al, 2020;Bijay-Singh et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Assessment of Nitrat Contaminated in Groundwater in Giao Thuy District, Namdinh Province, Vietnam

Ly,

An,

Nguyen

et al. 2022

Int. J. Biosci. Biotech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental pollution due to agricultural production activities, and the use of fertilizers and pesticides is a matter of great concern due to its harmful effects on the soil environment, water environment, and ecosystems. In this study, the risk of nitrate contamination in shallow groundwater related to agricultural land was evaluated using DRATIC and IPNOA models with 66 soil samples and 132 groundwater samples. The results showed that hazard was found at very low with HI values ranging from 3.5-6.06. The RI of nitrate-contaminated groundwater from agricultural activities is in the range of 539 - 1058. The assessment results show that the vulnerability index has a significant impact on the RI index, and areas with a high vulnerability index have a higher risk of groundwater pollution. The NO3- concentration seems to be stable, ranging from 0.02 to 0.11 mg/l, and all meet with the QCVN 09:2018/BNTMT for groundwater quality. No clear correlation between vulnerability factor and risk factor with NO3- concentration in groundwater.

show abstract

Risk assessment of groundwater pollution using sensitivity analysis and a worst-case scenario analysis

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems

Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems

Remediating Over-Produced and Contaminated Aquifers by Artificial Recharge from Surface Waters

Risk Assessment of Nitrat Contaminated in Groundwater in Giao Thuy District, Namdinh Province, Vietnam

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About