Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti
Aquifer vulnerability assessment has been carried out using many approaches and models. Most overlay/index approaches in vulnerability assessment are hydrogeological and subjective in principle, while others, like longitudinal conductance (LC) and Geoelectric Layer Susceptibility Indexing (GLSI), ar...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Modeling earth systems and environment 2023-09, Vol.9 (3), p.3253-3262 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3262 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 3253 |
container_title | Modeling earth systems and environment |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Falade, Ayodele O. Oni, Temitope E. Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan |
description | Aquifer vulnerability assessment has been carried out using many approaches and models. Most overlay/index approaches in vulnerability assessment are hydrogeological and subjective in principle, while others, like longitudinal conductance (LC) and Geoelectric Layer Susceptibility Indexing (GLSI), are geophysical. These two geophysical models are based on the properties of geoelectric parameters as vulnerability assessment is not just dependent on the thickness of the overburden but is also incomplete without examining the properties of the geologic materials that make up the overburden. The LC and GLSI models were employed in this study to evaluate groundwater vulnerability to contamination from a mining site in Ijero-Ekiti, Nigeria. The maps generated by the two models were graphically compared. The results showed that the GLSI model compensated for the LC model’s intrinsic flaw of being insensitive to the presence of lateritic formations. Although the LC model accounts for the geologic property of clay as a groundwater protective shield, it is insensitive to the presence of relatively high resistive geological formations like laterites, which are relatively low in hydraulic conductivity but are known to be good protective barriers for the underlying aquifers, and this gap has been bridged by adopting GLSI in the vulnerability assessment. As a result, the GLSI model has proved to be an improved and effective vulnerability assessment method. Hence, both models are recommended for detailed vulnerability assessment. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2841691152</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2841691152</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f03841c5e9f9c1a46d522b4e072b9b58a8114ebf549f70f48dea27007799ac103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtr3DAUhU1poSHJH-jqQrZ1o4df6q4MeQwMZJFkLWT7aqqJLU915ZT5Jfm71cSh2WV1xdX5zoF7suwbZz84Y_UlFaxhTc6EzBmvGpXLT9mJkJXMK8H55_9vJr9m50Q7xpJMVJVSJ9nLahr3JpjonhHQWuwiTBYGEzG46Dqg3w6HHpyHbZhm3_89_sDzPHgMpnWDiwcwREg0oo8wk_NbuNncr8H4HjYrGKceB_oJBjpDCBTn_nCMWO8wTDA6fwTIRfy-rPKrpxR8ln2xZiA8f5un2eP11cPqNt_c3axXvzZ5J7mKuWWyKXhXorKq46ao-lKItkBWi1a1ZWMazgtsbVkoWzNbND0aUaej1UqZjjN5ml0svvsw_ZmRot5Nc_ApUovkXCnOS5FUYlF1YSIKaPU-uNGEg-ZMHzvQSwc6daBfO9AyQXKBKIn9FsO79QfUP2ctis4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2841691152</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Falade, Ayodele O. ; Oni, Temitope E. ; Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</creator><creatorcontrib>Falade, Ayodele O. ; Oni, Temitope E. ; Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</creatorcontrib><description>Aquifer vulnerability assessment has been carried out using many approaches and models. Most overlay/index approaches in vulnerability assessment are hydrogeological and subjective in principle, while others, like longitudinal conductance (LC) and Geoelectric Layer Susceptibility Indexing (GLSI), are geophysical. These two geophysical models are based on the properties of geoelectric parameters as vulnerability assessment is not just dependent on the thickness of the overburden but is also incomplete without examining the properties of the geologic materials that make up the overburden. The LC and GLSI models were employed in this study to evaluate groundwater vulnerability to contamination from a mining site in Ijero-Ekiti, Nigeria. The maps generated by the two models were graphically compared. The results showed that the GLSI model compensated for the LC model’s intrinsic flaw of being insensitive to the presence of lateritic formations. Although the LC model accounts for the geologic property of clay as a groundwater protective shield, it is insensitive to the presence of relatively high resistive geological formations like laterites, which are relatively low in hydraulic conductivity but are known to be good protective barriers for the underlying aquifers, and this gap has been bridged by adopting GLSI in the vulnerability assessment. As a result, the GLSI model has proved to be an improved and effective vulnerability assessment method. Hence, both models are recommended for detailed vulnerability assessment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2363-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2363-6211</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Aquifers ; Chemistry and Earth Sciences ; Computer Science ; Contamination ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Earth System Sciences ; Ecosystems ; Environment ; Geoelectricity ; Geology ; Geophysics ; Groundwater ; Hydrogeology ; Laterites ; Math. Appl. in Environmental Science ; Mathematical Applications in the Physical Sciences ; Mining ; Original Article ; Overburden ; Physics ; Statistics for Engineering ; Vulnerability</subject><ispartof>Modeling earth systems and environment, 2023-09, Vol.9 (3), p.3253-3262</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f03841c5e9f9c1a46d522b4e072b9b58a8114ebf549f70f48dea27007799ac103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f03841c5e9f9c1a46d522b4e072b9b58a8114ebf549f70f48dea27007799ac103</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Falade, Ayodele O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oni, Temitope E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti</title><title>Modeling earth systems and environment</title><addtitle>Model. Earth Syst. Environ</addtitle><description>Aquifer vulnerability assessment has been carried out using many approaches and models. Most overlay/index approaches in vulnerability assessment are hydrogeological and subjective in principle, while others, like longitudinal conductance (LC) and Geoelectric Layer Susceptibility Indexing (GLSI), are geophysical. These two geophysical models are based on the properties of geoelectric parameters as vulnerability assessment is not just dependent on the thickness of the overburden but is also incomplete without examining the properties of the geologic materials that make up the overburden. The LC and GLSI models were employed in this study to evaluate groundwater vulnerability to contamination from a mining site in Ijero-Ekiti, Nigeria. The maps generated by the two models were graphically compared. The results showed that the GLSI model compensated for the LC model’s intrinsic flaw of being insensitive to the presence of lateritic formations. Although the LC model accounts for the geologic property of clay as a groundwater protective shield, it is insensitive to the presence of relatively high resistive geological formations like laterites, which are relatively low in hydraulic conductivity but are known to be good protective barriers for the underlying aquifers, and this gap has been bridged by adopting GLSI in the vulnerability assessment. As a result, the GLSI model has proved to be an improved and effective vulnerability assessment method. Hence, both models are recommended for detailed vulnerability assessment.</description><subject>Aquifers</subject><subject>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Computer Science</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Earth System Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Geoelectricity</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>Groundwater</subject><subject>Hydrogeology</subject><subject>Laterites</subject><subject>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</subject><subject>Mathematical Applications in the Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Mining</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Overburden</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Statistics for Engineering</subject><subject>Vulnerability</subject><issn>2363-6203</issn><issn>2363-6211</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtr3DAUhU1poSHJH-jqQrZ1o4df6q4MeQwMZJFkLWT7aqqJLU915ZT5Jfm71cSh2WV1xdX5zoF7suwbZz84Y_UlFaxhTc6EzBmvGpXLT9mJkJXMK8H55_9vJr9m50Q7xpJMVJVSJ9nLahr3JpjonhHQWuwiTBYGEzG46Dqg3w6HHpyHbZhm3_89_sDzPHgMpnWDiwcwREg0oo8wk_NbuNncr8H4HjYrGKceB_oJBjpDCBTn_nCMWO8wTDA6fwTIRfy-rPKrpxR8ln2xZiA8f5un2eP11cPqNt_c3axXvzZ5J7mKuWWyKXhXorKq46ao-lKItkBWi1a1ZWMazgtsbVkoWzNbND0aUaej1UqZjjN5ml0svvsw_ZmRot5Nc_ApUovkXCnOS5FUYlF1YSIKaPU-uNGEg-ZMHzvQSwc6daBfO9AyQXKBKIn9FsO79QfUP2ctis4</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Falade, Ayodele O.</creator><creator>Oni, Temitope E.</creator><creator>Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti</title><author>Falade, Ayodele O. ; Oni, Temitope E. ; Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-f03841c5e9f9c1a46d522b4e072b9b58a8114ebf549f70f48dea27007799ac103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Aquifers</topic><topic>Chemistry and Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Computer Science</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Earth System Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Geoelectricity</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>Groundwater</topic><topic>Hydrogeology</topic><topic>Laterites</topic><topic>Math. Appl. in Environmental Science</topic><topic>Mathematical Applications in the Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Mining</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Overburden</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Statistics for Engineering</topic><topic>Vulnerability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Falade, Ayodele O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oni, Temitope E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Modeling earth systems and environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Falade, Ayodele O.</au><au>Oni, Temitope E.</au><au>Oyeneyin, Akinfolayan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti</atitle><jtitle>Modeling earth systems and environment</jtitle><stitle>Model. Earth Syst. Environ</stitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>3253</spage><epage>3262</epage><pages>3253-3262</pages><issn>2363-6203</issn><eissn>2363-6211</eissn><abstract>Aquifer vulnerability assessment has been carried out using many approaches and models. Most overlay/index approaches in vulnerability assessment are hydrogeological and subjective in principle, while others, like longitudinal conductance (LC) and Geoelectric Layer Susceptibility Indexing (GLSI), are geophysical. These two geophysical models are based on the properties of geoelectric parameters as vulnerability assessment is not just dependent on the thickness of the overburden but is also incomplete without examining the properties of the geologic materials that make up the overburden. The LC and GLSI models were employed in this study to evaluate groundwater vulnerability to contamination from a mining site in Ijero-Ekiti, Nigeria. The maps generated by the two models were graphically compared. The results showed that the GLSI model compensated for the LC model’s intrinsic flaw of being insensitive to the presence of lateritic formations. Although the LC model accounts for the geologic property of clay as a groundwater protective shield, it is insensitive to the presence of relatively high resistive geological formations like laterites, which are relatively low in hydraulic conductivity but are known to be good protective barriers for the underlying aquifers, and this gap has been bridged by adopting GLSI in the vulnerability assessment. As a result, the GLSI model has proved to be an improved and effective vulnerability assessment method. Hence, both models are recommended for detailed vulnerability assessment.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><doi>10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2363-6203 |
ispartof | Modeling earth systems and environment, 2023-09, Vol.9 (3), p.3253-3262 |
issn | 2363-6203 2363-6211 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2841691152 |
source | SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Aquifers Chemistry and Earth Sciences Computer Science Contamination Earth and Environmental Science Earth Sciences Earth System Sciences Ecosystems Environment Geoelectricity Geology Geophysics Groundwater Hydrogeology Laterites Math. Appl. in Environmental Science Mathematical Applications in the Physical Sciences Mining Original Article Overburden Physics Statistics for Engineering Vulnerability |
title | Comparative effect of lateritic shield in groundwater vulnerability assessment using GLSI and LC models: a case study of Ijero mining site, Ijero-Ekiti |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T22%3A44%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20effect%20of%20lateritic%20shield%20in%20groundwater%20vulnerability%20assessment%20using%20GLSI%20and%20LC%20models:%20a%20case%20study%20of%20Ijero%20mining%20site,%20Ijero-Ekiti&rft.jtitle=Modeling%20earth%20systems%20and%20environment&rft.au=Falade,%20Ayodele%20O.&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=3253&rft.epage=3262&rft.pages=3253-3262&rft.issn=2363-6203&rft.eissn=2363-6211&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40808-023-01689-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2841691152%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2841691152&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |