See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308390897

Groundwater vulnerability mapping of Qatar aquifers

Article in Journal of African Earth Sciences · September 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.09.017

CITATIONS READS

49 4,053

1 author:

Husam Baalousha
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Husam Baalousha on 07 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of African Earth Sciences

F
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

OO
Groundwater vulnerability mapping of Qatar aquifers
Husam Musa Baalousha
Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute (QEERI), Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU), PO Box: 5825 Doha, Qatar

PR
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history:
Received 6 December 2015
Received in revised form 2 August
2016
Accepted 20 September 2016
Available online xxx
Qatar is one of the most arid countries in the world with limited water resources. With little rainfall and no surface water,
groundwater is the only source of fresh water. While the country relies mainly on desalination of seawater to secure water
supply, groundwater has extensively been used for irrigation over the last three decades, which caused adverse environ-
mental impact.
Vulnerability assessment is a widely used tool for groundwater protection and land-use management. Aquifers in

ED
Qatar are carbonate with lots of fractures, depressions and cavities. Karst aquifers are generally more vulnerable to con-
tamination than other aquifers, as any anthropogenic especially above a highly fractured zone can infiltrate quickly into
Keywords: the aquifer and spread over a wide area.
Groundwater vulnerability
The vulnerability assessment method presented in this study is based on two approaches: DRASTIC and EPIK,
DRASTIC
EPIK within the framework of Geographical Information System (GIS). Results of this study show that DRASTIC vulnerability
Karst aquifers method suits Qatar hydrogeological settings more than EPIK.
Qatar The produced vulnerability map using DRASTIC shows coastal and karst areas have the highest vulnerability class.
CT
GIS The southern part of the country is located in the low vulnerability class due to occurrence of shale formation within
aquifer media, which averts downward movement of contaminants.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction ing on the importance of each map. The higher the calculated index is
the higher the vulnerability. This method has been used to assess con-
The concept of aquifer intrinsic vulnerability is based on the idea tamination risk, especially from agriculture in many areas around the
RE

that some areas above an aquifer provide more resistant to contami-
nation than others (Vrba and Zaporozec, 1994). Mapping groundwater
vulnerability using hydrogeological settings gives a clear understand-
ing of natural variation from one point to another within an aquifer.
Vulnerability assessment of aquifers has widely been used to pre-
dict the likelihood of aquifer contamination, design of monitoring
R
world (i.e. Babiker et al., 2005; Assaf and Saadeh, 2009; Baalousha,
2011; Neh et al., 2015). Some studies modified the original DRAS-
TIC that was proposed by Aller et al. (1987) to suits local settings of
an aquifer (i.e. Huan et al., 2012; Neshat et al., 2014). DRASTIC ap-
proach assumes that contaminants are introduced into the aquifer from
land surface and moves by the mobility of water.

networks and to help land-use management (Secunda et al., 1998; DRASTIC approach is normally used to assess granular aquifers.
Ceplecha et al., 2004; Baalousha, 2006, 2010; Cucchi et al., 2008). In- Fractured aquifers with karst features need special consideration as
dex methods are very popular in vulnerability assessment where di- they can be highly vulnerable to contamination compared to granu-
CO

mensionless classification of aquifer area is done based on geologi-
cal and hydrogeological settings of an aquifer (Gogu and Dassargues,
2000). DRASTIC approach is one of the most widely used index
method. Geostatistical analysis is another method of vulnerability as-
sessment and modelling approach (i.e. Soutter and Musy, 1998; Assaf
and Saadeh, 2009).
The acronym DRASTIC comes from seven hydrogeological para-
UN
lar aquifers. Contamination can percolate into the aquifer very fast via
sinkholes and fractures, which needs to be considered when assess-
ing vulnerability. DRASTIC method has no consideration for fractures
and sinkholes. The shortcoming of DRASTIC is its inaccurate results
compared to other methods being used for karst aquifers (Polemio et
al., 2009). It was also found that DRASTIC underestimated vulnera-
bility in fractured aquifers (Abdullahi, 2009).

meters, and DRASTIC method has been used for a long time to as-
sess aquifer vulnerability. It uses seven rated maps of depth to water
table, recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography, vadose zone
and hydraulic conductivity to calculate a weighted index map of vul-
nerability (Aller et al., 1987). Each map of the previously-mentioned
parameters is rated using a standardized rating system and the index
map is the sum of rated maps multiplied by a special weight depend
Email address: baalousha@web.de (H.M. Baalousha)
Several methods have been developed to assess vulnerability of
karst aquifers. The most famous methods are EPIK (Doerfliger et al.,
1999). This method conceptualizes karst aquifer system and uses four
parameters to classify the aquifer system in terms of vulnerability.
These parameters are: epikarst (the uppermost layer of karst forma-
tion), protective cover, infiltration conditions ad karst network. Each
of these parameters is classified into different classes based on its
nature. The resulting map shows the vulnerability index in a simi-
lar way as with DRASTIC. Goldscheider (2005) proposed alternative
method to EPIK, based on two parameters: protective cover (P) and
infiltration conditions (I). According to the Goldscheider (2005), the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.09.017
1464-343/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

protective cover included all layers from topography to water table
whereas infiltration conditions account for the likelihood of passing
the protective cover. PI method classifies P and I parameters into 5
classes from very low to extreme and the final vulnerability map is the
product of both P and I.
Human activities on the land surface have the greatest impact on
lows; that is, the aquifer at the leaching area is vulnerable. Nitrate is
one of the main pollutants that originate from agricultural activities or
sewage infiltration.
The objective of this study is to prepare a vulnerability map that
suits the hydrogeological settings of Qatar, and can be used for
groundwater protection and planning. Two main threats to groundwa-

F
groundwater quality (Baalousha, 2008). Most pollutants leach into ter exist in Qatar: pollution from agricultural activities (Farms in Fig.
the ground and percolate the aquifer if hydrogeological conditions al 1) and saline water intrusion along the coast line. While salinity of

OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 1. Location map of Qatar and a regional map (inset) (Baalousha, 2016a).
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx
groundwater results in deterioration of water quality and abandoning
of farm lands, nitrate has more severe impact on health and nerve sys-
tem, especially for babies (Chern et al., 1999).
This paper presents the development of groundwater vulnerabil-
ity maps for Qatar based on two different approaches: DRASTIC and
EPIK. Vulnerability maps from both methods are discussed and com-
pared to check which approach conforms to Qatar hydrogeological
settings. DRASTIC has been widely used and applied to different ar-
eas all around the world and to different types of aquifers. EPIK has
been used and applied to only karst aquifers. Because the study area in
Qatar contains both karst and no-karst, in addition to lack of data on
karst network and extension, both models have been used.
1.1. The study area
Qatar is an arid country located in the eastern part of the Arabian
Peninsula and extending in the north-south direction. Its length is ap-
proximately 180 km in the south-north direction, and its maximum
width is 65 km; thus the total area of Qatar is 11,586 km2. The coun-
try is surrounded by the Arabian Gulf from all direction but the south,
where it borders Saudi Arabia (Fig. 1).
As a result of rapid economic expansion over the last decade, the
ED
population of Qatar has dramatically increased from 600,000 in 2000
to 2,172,000 in 2014 (World Bank, 2015). With little rain and no sur-
face water, Qatar is relying on desalination of seawater to meet the in-
creasing domestic demand for water, whereas groundwater has been
used for irrigation. As a result of over-pumping, aquifers have been
overexploited over the last three decades, resulting in a great decline in
groundwater levels and deterioration of water quality. The abstracted
CT
groundwater is mainly used to irrigate farms, which are concentrated
in the northern and central parts of the country (Fig. 1).
The country is underlain by a series of gentle dipping and flat ly-
ing deposits over the rocks basement. Several anticlines rose above the
main geological platforms in the Arabian Shelf, and extending in the
north south direction. In Qatar two major anticlines exist; the Dukhan
RE
anticline in the west and Qatar anticline (Qatar Arch) in the middle of
the country.
Fresh groundwater occurs in the form of lenses mainly in the north-
ern part of the country, sitting atop brackish and saline groundwater.
Seawater has progressively intruded inland over the last decades re-
sulting in shrinkage of fresh groundwater lenses.
Rainfall is the main source of aquifer replenishment, with an an-
R
nual average between 10 mm and 200 mm (Alsharhan et al., 2001) and
a long term average of 76 mm per year. The highest rainfall occurs in
the north and gradually decreases southward (Alsharhan et al., 2001).
CO
Prior 1960, municipal water supply in Qatar used to come exclu-
sively from groundwater (Vecchioli, 1976). At present, all munici-
pal supply comes from desalination plants and groundwater is used
mainly for agriculture, while small proportion goes to industrial and
domestic use. The agricultural water demand in Qatar has increased
from 44 million m3 in 1974 (Kimrey, 1985) to 238 million m3 per year
in 2013 . About 70% of abstraction takes place in the northern part
UN
of the country, where wells penetrate the Rus formation with a depth
between 60 and 70 m. The total number of different purposes wells is
more than 8500 (Schlumberger Water Services, 2009).
1.2. Vulnerability assessment approached
In the following sections, two approached of vulnerability are pre-
sented: DRASTIC and EPIK. DRASTIC is a general approach for in
3
trinsic vulnerability whereas EPIK is used exclusively for karst
aquifers.
1.3. DRASTIC approach
DRASTIC approach was first suggested in by Aller et al. (1987)
F
as an index-based method to assess vulnerability of aquifers to con-
tamination. It assigns relative rate for each class of the seven hydro-
OO
logical parameters. These parameters are depth to water table (D), net
groundwater recharge (R), aquifer media (A), soil media (S), topogra-
phy (T), impact of the vadose zone (I) and hydraulic conductivity (C).
More details about rating can be found in Aller et al. (1987). The final
vulnerability index map of DRASTIC is given by:
PR
(1)
Where r subscripts indicate rated maps. Different standard rates for
each paramour are given by Aller et al. (1987). As appears in Equation
(1), DRASTIC assigns a different weight to each parameter. The high-
est weight goes to depth to water table and vadose zone and the lowest
assigned to topography. The resulting map is the sum given in Equa-
tion (1). In this study the ArcGIS software was used to create rated
maps and Raster Calculator was used to obtain the sum of Equation
(1).
1.4. EPIK approach
EPIK is an approach for vulnerability assessment in karst, and it
was proposed by Doerfliger et al. (1999). The acronym EPIK comes
from four parameters: (1) Epikarst (E), (2) Protection cover (P), (3) In-
filtration conditions (I) and (4) Karst network (K). Epikarst and karst
network parameters are classified into three categories each whereas
protection covers and infiltration conditions are classified into four
categories each. Similar to DRASTIC, the protection index (F) based
on EPIK approach is given by:
(2)
Unlike DRASTIC, EPIK F index assigns a higher value to the
least vulnerable category. More details about EPIK can be found in
Doerfliger et al. (1999).
2. DRASTIC parameters
2.1. Depth to water table
Depth to water table in Qatar varies between less than 1 m near
the coast line to more than 70 m in some area. The most recent piezo-
metric survey was done by the Ministry of Environment in 2009. The
depth to water table was obtained by subtracting groundwater level
from topography. Table 1 shows the DRASTIC rating for depth to wa-
ter. Fig. 2 shows the rated map for depth to water.
2.2. Net groundwater recharge
Groundwater recharge from rainfall is quite variable due to er-
ratic nature of rainfall event in desert climate. Most recharge occurs
in land depressions, which resulted from collapse of karst features.
After heavy storms, surface runoff accumulates in these depressions
and recharges the aquifer. Recharge can be estimated using different
4 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx
Table 1
Rating for depth to water (Aller et al., 1987).
Depth to water (feet) Rating
0–5 10
5–15 9
15–30 7
30–50 5 limestone. The soil profile is thin and it is not suitable for agricul-
50–75 3 ture.
75–100 2 According to Aller et al. (1987), the rating for soil in Qatar is
100+ 1
methods such as groundwater modelling (Baalousha, 2012a; Anderson
et al., 2015). Some studies have been undertaken to estimate recharge
from rainfall, but figures in the literature give variable estimate of
it. Vecchioli (1976) indicated that rainfall recharge is 20.9 million
m3/year, whereas another study (Kimrey, 1985) suggested 27 million
m3/year. Baalousha (2016b) estimated rainfall recharge at 58.7 mil-
lion m3 per year. A recent study by Food and Agriculture Organisation
FAO (2014) estimated rainfall recharge at 65 million m3/year. The
latter number is close to the Department of Agricultural and Water
Research estimation (Department of Agricultural and Water Research
(2006)).
Despite variation in the bulk recharge estimations, all previous
ED
studies indicate that the maximum recharge occur in land depres-
sions. Accordingly, recharge special distribution was assessed based
on land-use (farms) depressions, and rainfall distribution. The rating
values of net groundwater recharge are shown in Table 2, and the rated
recharge map for the study area is shown in Fig. 3.
CT
2.3. Aquifer media
The main geology in Qatar comprises formations from Neogene
and Paleogene periods, as shown in Table 3, overlain by Quaternary
deposits. The most recent deposits are the Dam and Dammam Forma-
tion which covers most of the country except for small areas in the
RE
north, where older Rus Formation is exposed (Fig. 4). Dam Forma-
tion is underlain by Dammam Formation, which covers wide areas of
Eastern Arabian Peninsula. Rus Formation (Lower Eocene Epoch) is
the main aquifer, underlain by Umm er Rhaduma Formation (Pale-
ocene Epoch), which contains brackish and salty water. Table 3 sum-
marizes the stratigraphy and lithology of different geological forma-
tions in Qatar. The rated aquifer media map is shown in Fig. 5, and the
R
aquifer media rating values are shown in Table 4.
2.4. Soil
CO
Soil in Qatar belongs to Aridisols, which is the dominating soil in
arid climate (Qatar Statistics Authority, 2013). The three main classes
of Aridsols are Calcids, Gypside and Salids. In addition to these three
types, very shallow soil (orthens and psamments) covers the steep
slopes of Dukhan anticline in the west, and the Doha City in the east.
The soil horizon in Qatar is thin (10–30 cm deep) with little or no
UN
organic matter (Qatar Statistics Authority, 2013). The soil is thicker
in depressions, where most farms are, where it contains silt and mud.
Sabkha environment (i.e. evaporates salt flats) occurs at coastal areas
(see Fig. 4) and cover a thick sand and loamy sand layers.
In general, soil in Qatar can be classified into four categories (Fig.
6):
(1) Farms soil (localy known as Rowda) is located in the many land
depressions in the country. This type of soil contains calcareous
loam, sandy loam and sandy clay to depths of between 30 and
150 cm.
(2) Sabkha Soil: this occurs in coastal areas, as shown in Fig. 6 and
composed of layers of clay, silt, mud, gypsum and anhydrite. The
thickness of sabkhas can be up to few meters (Atlas)
(3) Sandy soil: composed of calcareous loamy sand to coarse sand
with a depth of more than 120 cm.
F
(4) Lithosol (Rocky soil) composed of calcareous sand and rocky
OO
shown in Table 5.
2.5. Topography
Qatar is a flat land with some hills in the west-southern part of the
country. The surface of Qatar is of low relief with the highest altitudes
PR
of about 107 m occurring in southern Qatar, where large sand dunes
and hills exist. The importance of topography comes from the fact that
it controls the flow of contaminant on the land surface. Fig. 5 shows
the slope of topography. The slope map was prepared using digital el-
evation model in ArcGIS. Topography rating is shown in Table 6 (see
Fig. 7).
2.6. Vadose zone
The vadose zone (i.e. unsaturated zone) plays an important role in
groundwater contamination and protection as many processes occur
in this zone. The karst nature of geology in Qatar plays an important
role in leaching fluid and contaminants down into the aquifer. In the
northern part of the country, caves and depressions occur as a result
of cracks in limestone from on the land surface. In the southern part
of the country, dissolution occurs within gypsum layer below the land
surface, resulting in collapse of land on the top .
Fig. 8 shows the rated vadose zone map of Qatar, which is based
on information from Qatar Atlas (Qatar Statistics Authority, 2013;
Al-Yousef, 2003). Limestone is the main component with different
mixing with clay, gypsum and dolomite, whereas karst formations are
scattered all over the country. Sabkhas occur along the coastal areas
in the south and in the west. Sand and sand dunes occur mainly in the
south east of the country not far from the coast and some occur on the
west. Table 7 shows the DRASTIC rating for vadose zone in Qatar.
2.7. Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity is an important parameter as it controls the
movement of water and contaminant within an aquifer. Results of
aquifer tests (i.e. pumping tests) indicate the aquifer is heterogeneous
with higher hydraulic conductivity in the northern part of the country.
Hydraulic conductivity can be obtained through groundwater model-
ling (Baalousha, 2012b) or by interpretation of results of aquifer tests.
In this study, aquifer tests results were obtained from several resources
and have been used to create hydraulic conductivity values. Table 8
shows the hydraulic conductivity rating and Fig. 9 shows the rated
map.
3. DRASTIC vulnerability map
Using Equation (1) and with the help of Raster Calculator in GIS,
the vulnerability map was created (Fig. 10). It is clear the coastal
areas of the country are the most vulnerable areas due to shallow
groundwater and high hydraulic conductivity. Depression areas, espe-
cially in the north, show high vulnerability too. On the other hand,
the high land in the southwest show low vulnerability due to thick
formations and thick vadose zone. In general, the eastern and north
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 5

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 2. Rated depth to water table (meters) based on 2009 piezometric survey.

ern parts of the country are more vulnerable than the south. It is also
noted that most of the southern part of the country has a low vulnera-
bility, compared to the north. This is because the southern part of the
aquifer has a clay layer (midra shale), which prevent downward move-
ment of water, and thus provides some sort of protection.
3.1. EPIK vulnerability
3.1.1. Epikarst
The epikarst is the top boundary of karst formation, and it affects
the leaching of pollutants into karst aquifer. In the case of Qatar karst,
the most vulnerable epikarst areas are the one on top of land depres-
sions, as they are prone to pollutants more than others. The second
6 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx
Table 2
Rating for net recharge (Aller et al., 1987).
Net recharge (inches) Rating
0–2 1 ment, whereas EPIK neglects these parameters. Coastal areas have the
2–4 3
4–7 6
7–10 8
10 9 The vulnerability classes shown in Figs. 10 and 15 can be used for
most vulnerable area is the outcrop of Rus formation (see Fig. 2),
where contaminant can leach into the deeper aquifer. The least vulner-
able areas are those covered by coastal sediments and the anticline of
Dukhan in the west.
Fig. 11 shows the Epikarst classified map, based on Doerfliger and
Zwahlen (1998).
3.1.2. Protective cover
Protective cover includes the soil (or any other formation) that cov-
ers the aquifer. As discussed above, the soil in the country is mostly
thin or absent, so it provides a minimum or no protection at all. As
shown in Fig. 12 and Table 9, most of the country has a rated protec-
tive cover of 1, which means least protective cove. Some areas like the
ED
thick sandstone barchans in the south east have a protective cover rate
of 3.
3.1.3. Infiltration conditions
Infiltration rate can be obtained based on soil properties. The avail-
able water content in the soil varies between 0 and more than 600 mm
per meter length (Schlumberger Water Services, 2009). In general, the
CT
infiltration rate is high in coastal areas and much lower inland. Fig. 13
shows the rated infiltration conditions map. According to (Doerfliger
and Zwahlen, 1998), infltration conditions map is divided into four
categories: 1 indicates the highest infiltration and 4 indicates the least.
3.1.4. Karst network
RE
This parameter refers to the existence of any karst network and the
degree of karstifications. The existence of karst network controls the
movement of contaminant in carbonate aquifers. Because of lack of in-
formation regarding kasrt network, the existence of land depressions,
caves and collapses are used as indicators of karst spread and distrib-
ution in the country (Fig. 14).
R
3.1.5. EPIK vulnerability map
The final vulnerability map based on EPIK approach was done us-
ing Equation (2). The highest the F index based on the equation means
CO
low vulnerability, and vice versa. The final vulnerability map is de-
picted in Fig. 15. It is noted that the highest vulnerability (i.e. least
protection) occurs in the middle of the country, especially in known
land collapse and karst formations. Coastal areas have the least vul-
nerability (high protection areas) in addition to some in-land areas in
the north and the south.
UN
4. Discussion
It is clear that DRASTIC and EPIK produce different vulnerabil-
ity maps, but they have something in common. In both maps, areas of
depressions and land collapse are the highest vulnerable areas. Coastal
areas are controversial. While these areas are highly vulnerable in
DRASTIC, they are in the low class in EPIK. This is because DRAS-
TIC uses depth to water table and topography in vulnerability assess-
least depth to water table, in addition to flat topography, which make
F
them highly vulnerable, compared to EPIK approach.
OO
land-use planning and groundwater protection. Areas of low and very
low vulnerability classes can be used for activities that pose threat to
groundwater such as land-fills, waste water treatment plants, irrigation
and industry activities, with a general environmental impact assess-
ment. High and very high vulnerability areas should be protected and
excluded from any groundwater-threatening activity. Those areas can
be used as environmental reserves or natural parks. The intermediate
vulnerability map can be used for activities mentioned above but with
PR
caution and when no other alternative is available. In this case, a full
environmental impact assessment should be undertaken before plan-
ning of any activity on an intermediate vulnerability area.
From the general comparison between DRASTIC and EPIK ap-
proaches, it is clear DRASTIC approach better suits the case of Qatar
than EPIK. This is because EPIK neglect many important factors that
play an important role in groundwater contamination. These factors
are the depth to water table and the existence (or absence) of imper-
meable layers within the aquifer media. The coastal areas of Qatar are
prone to seawater intrusion and thus they are highly vulnerable. EPIK
approach marks the coastal zones as low vulnerability areas. Because
of the fact that Qatar hydrogeology and geomorphology contains a va-
riety of hydrogeological settings and not only karst, DRASTIC ap-
proach suits these settings more than EPIK, which focus on karst for-
mation and neglects other features.
5. Conclusions
Vulnerability mapping is a powerful tool for groundwater protec-
tion, water resource management and land-use management. Raster
analysis in GIS was used to produce hydrogeological maps for intrin-
sic vulnerability analysis. Results show that DRASTIC and EPIK ap-
proaches provide different vulnerability maps with agreement on karst
areas. Coastal areas and northern areas of Qatar are more vulnerable
to groundwater contamination than elsewhere according to DRASTIC
whereas they have low vulnerability based on EPIK.
It is concluded that DRASTIC vulnerability approach suits Qatar
more than EPIK because EPIK neglects important factors that affect
vulnerability in Qatar. These factors include depth to water table and
topography, in addition to aquifer media.
The resulting vulnerability map can be used to delineate areas for
groundwater protection and can also be used for land management to
help locating landfills and wastewater treatment plants, as discussed
in the previous section. It can also be used for design of groundwater
monitoring networks.
Uncited references
Al Mansouri, 2014; Hanan et al., 2014
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 7

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 3. Rated recharge in Qatar.

8 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 3
General stratigraphy and geological events in Qatar (modified after Boukhary et al., 2011; Al-Yousef, 2003; Alsharhan et al., 2001).

Age Formation Member Lithology Thickness Remarks

Quaternary Beach deposits Calcareous sand of marine origin, coastal dunes variable Isolation of Qatar by marine
locally cemented transgression

F
Sabkha Saline and gypsiferous sand and silt flats
Alluvium, Aeolian sand & calcareous Mud, continental gravel, siliceous sand &
sandstone conglomeratic sandstone

OO
Upper Hofuf Continental gravel, sand & conglomerate 12 m Qatar arch uplift
Miocene
Middle Dam Abu Samrah calcareous sediments 80 m
Miocene
Al-Nakhsh Limestone, chalk & clay with gypsum & celestite
beds
Salwa Siliciclastic calcareous
sediments
Middle Dammam Abarug Dolomite & limestone 62 m

PR
Eocene
Umm Bab/Simsima Dolomite & limestone
Dukhan Limestone & Midra Shale Shale, dolomite & limestone
Lower Eocene Rus Al Khor Limestone & Dolomite 110 m Basin isolation
Trina Limestone & Dolomite
Paleocene Umm er Limestone and dolomite, with some evaporates 300 m
Rhaduma

ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 9

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 4. Surface geology of Qatar (Baalousha, 2016a,b).

UN
10 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
RRE
CO
UN

Fig. 5. Rated aquifer media map.

 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 11

Table 4
Rating for aquifer media (Aller et al., 1987).

Aquifer media Rating Typical rating

Massive shale 1–3 2

Metamorphic/igneous 2–5 3

F
Weathered metamorphic/igneous 3–5 4
Glacial till 4–6 5
Bedded sandstone, limestone and shale sequences 5–9 6

OO
Massive sandstone 4–9 6
Massive limestone 4–9 6
Sand and gravel 4–9 8
Basalt 2–10 9
Karst limestone 9–10 10

PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN
12 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 6. Soil map of Qatar (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture (2005)).
UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 13

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 7. Rated topography (slope) map.

Table 5
DRASTIC rating for soil in Qatar (Aller et al., 1987).

Soil type Rating

Lithosol 10
Farms soil 5
Sandy soil 9
Sabkha 3
14 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 6
Rating for topography slope (Aller et al., 1987).

Topography slope (percent) Rating

0–2 10
2–6 9

F
6–12 5
12–18 3
More than 18 1

OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 15

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 8. Vadose zone map of Qatar.

16 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

Table 7
Rating of vadose zone (Aller et al., 1987).

Vadose zoned media Rating

Gravel and sand 8

Karst 10

F
Limestone and clay 4
Limestone and dolomite 7
Limestone and gypsum 5

OO
Limestone, chalk and clay 6
Sand 7
Sandstone 6
Sabkha 8

Table 8
Range and rating forhydraulic conductivity (Aller et al., 1987).

Range (m2/day)

PR
Rating

0–4 1
4–12 2
12–29 4
29–41 6
41–81 8
81+ 10

ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 17

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN

Fig. 9. Rated map of hydraulic conductivity.

18 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
RRE
CO

Fig. 10. Vulnerability-index map for Qatar.

UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 19

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 11. Epikarst rated map.

UN
20 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 12. Protective cover rated map, based on Doerfliger and Zwahlen, 1998.

Table 9
Ratings for the attribute classes of the protective cover (Doerfliger and Zwahlen, 1998).

Soil type Rating

UN

Lithosol 1
Farms soil 2
Sandy soil 2
Sabkha 3
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 21

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 13. Rated infiltration conditions in Qatar.

UN
22 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
RRE
CO

Fig. 14. Karst distribution map for Qatar.

UN
 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx 23

F
OO
PR
ED
CT
R RE
CO

Fig. 15. Vulnerability map of Qatar based on EPIK approach.

References Anderson, M., Woessner, W., Hunt, R., 2015. Applied Groundwater Modeling. Simu-
lation of Flow and Advective Transport, second ed. Elsevier.
Assaf, H., Saadeh, M., 2009. 2009. Geostatistical assessment of groundwater nitrate
Abdullahi, U.S., 2009. Evaluation of models for assessing groundwater vulnerability to
UN

contamination with reflection on DRASTIC vulnerability assessment: the case of

pollution in Nigeria. Bayero. J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2 (2), 138–142.
the upper litani basin, Lebanon. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 775–796.
. . r.
Baalousha, H., 2006. Vulnerability assessment for the gaza strip, Palestine using
Al-Yousef, M., 2003. Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Origin of Quaternary Sabkhas in
DRASTIC. Environ. Geol. 50, 405–414.
the Qatar Peninsula, Arabian Gulf; 437 pages. PhD Thesis. University of
Baalousha, H., 2008. Analysis of Nitrate Occurrence and Distribution in Groundwater
Southampton.
in the Gaza Strip Using Major Ion Chemistry.
Aller, L., Lehr, J., Petty, R., 1987. DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating
Baalousha, H., 2010. Assessment of a groundwater quality monitoring network using
ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. Environ. Prot.
vulnerability mapping and geostatistics: a case study from Heretaunga Plains, New
Agency EPA/600/2–87/035.
Zealand. Agric. Water Manag. 240–246. 2010.
Alsharhan, A.S., Rizk, Z.A., Nairn, A.E.M., Bakhit, D.W., Alhajari, S.A., 2001. Hy-
Baalousha, H., 2011. Mapping groundwater contamination risk using GIS and ground-
drogeology of an Arid Region : the Arabian Gulf and Adjoining Areas. Elsevier.
water modelling. A case study from the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Arabian J.
Geosci. 4, 483–494. Arab J Geosci (2011.
24 Journal of African Earth Sciences xxx (2016) xxx-xxx
Baalousha, H.M., 2012a. Characterisation of groundwater–surface-water interaction
using field measurements and numerical modelling: a case study from the Ruatani-
wha Basin, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. Appl. Water Sci. 2 (Issue 2),
109–118. June 2012.
Baalousha, H.M., 2012b. Modelling surface–groundwater interaction in the Ruatani-
wha basin, Hawke's Bay. N. Z. Environ. Earth Sci. 66 (1), 285–294.
Baalousha, H.M., 2016a. Development of a groundwater flow model for the highly pa-
rameterized Qatar aquifers, Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2 (Issue 2) http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s40808-016-0124-8. 2016.
Baalousha, H.M., 2016b. Using Monte Carlo simulation to estimate natural groundwa-
ter recharge in Qatar. Earth Syst. Environ.2 (Issue 2) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s40808-016-0140-8. 2016.
Babiker, I.S., Mohamed, A.A., Hiyama, T., Kato, K., 2005. A GIS-based DRASTIC
model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefec-
ture. central Jpn. Sci. Total Environ. 345 (Issues 1–3), 127–140. 1 June 2005.
Boukhary, M., Hewaidy, A., Luterbacher, H., Bassiouni, M., Al-Hitmi, H., 2011.
Foraminifera and ostracodes of Early Eocene Umm er Radhuma Formation,
Dukhan Oil Field, Qatar. Micropaleontology 57 (no. 1), 37–60. plates 1-6.
Ceplecha, Z.L., Waskom, R.M., Bauder, T.A., Sharkoff, J.L., Khosla, R., 2004. Vul-
nerability assessments of Colorado groundwater to nitrate contamination. Water,
Air, Soil Pollut. 159, 373–394.
Chern, L., Kraft, G., Postle, J., 1999. Nitrate in groundwater - a continuing issue for
Wisconsin citizens. Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. Last visit: 20-04-2016 http://dnr.wi.
gov/topic/groundwater/documents/pubs/nitrateingroundwater.pdf.
Cucchi, F., Franceschini, G., Zini, L., Aurighi, M., 2008. 2008 intrinsic vulnerability
assessment of sette comuni plateau aquifer (veneto region, Italy). J. Environ.
Manag. 88, 984–994.
Department of Agricultural and Water Research (DAWR), 2006. Groundwater Data
and Balance. Qatar, Doha.
ED
Doerfliger, N., Zwahlen, F., 1998. Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping in Karstic Re-
gions (EPIK), Practical Guide. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Berne,
56. Forests and Landscape (SAEFL).
Doerfliger, N., Jeannin, P.-Y., Zwahlen, F., 1999. Water vulnerability assessment in
karst environments: a new method of defining protection areas using a multi-at-
tribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK method). Environ. Geol. 39 (2), 165–176.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), 2014. AQUASTAT
Global Water Information System. last accessed 10 2014 http://www.fao.org/nr/
CT
water/aquastat/main/index.stm.
Gogu, R.C., Dassargues, A., 2000. Current trends and future challenges in groundwater
vulnerability assessment using overlay and index methods. Environ. Geol. 39 (6),
549–559. April 2000.
R RE
CO
UN
View publication stats
Goldscheider, N., 2005. Karst Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping: Application of a
New Method in the Swabian Alb, Germany.
Hanan, A., Hagga, M., Yousef, H., Al-Murikhi, A., 2014. Current and Future Water
Source for Agriculture in Qatar State. Qatar, Second Arab Water Conference,
Doha.
Huan, H., Wang, J., Teng, Y., 2012. Assessment and validation of groundwater vulner-
ability to nitrate based on a modified DRASTIC model: a case study in Jilin City
F
of northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. 440 (1), 14–23. December 2012.
Kimrey, J., 1985. Proposed artificial recharge studies in northern Qatar. United states
department of the interior Geological Survey. Open file report. 85–343.
OO
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture, 2005. The Atlas of Soils for The State
of Qatar.
Neh, A.V., Ako, A.A., Ayuk II, A.R., Hosono, T., 2015. DRASTIC-GIS model for as-
sessing vulnerability to pollution of the phreatic aquiferous formations in
Douala–Cameroon. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 102, 180–190. February 2015.
Neshat, A., Pradha, B., Dadras, M., 2014. Groundwater vulnerability assessment using
an improved DRASTIC method in GIS. Resources. Conserv. Re-
cycl. 86, 74–86. May 2014.
Polemio, M., Casarano, D., Limoni, P.P., 2009. Karstic aquifer vulnerability assess-
PR
ment methods and results at a test site (Apulia, southern Italy). Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci. 9, 1461–1470. 2009.
Qatar Statistics Authority, 2013. Qatar Atlas, Doha, Qatar, 1–303.
Schlumberger Water Services, 2009. Studying and Developing the Natural and Artifi-
cial Recharge of the Groundwater in Aquifer in the State of Qatar.
Secunda, S., Collin, M.L., Melloul, A.J., 1998. Groundwater vulnerability assessment
using a composite model combining DRASTIC with extensive agricultural land
use in Israel's Sharon region. J. Environ. Manag. 54, 39–57.
Soutter, M., Musy, A., 1998. Coupling 1D Monte-Carlo simulations and geostatistics
to assess groundwater vulnerability to pesticide contamination on a regional scale.
J. Contam. Hydrology 32, 25–39.
Vecchioli, J., 1976. Preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of artificial recharge in
northern Qatar. United states geological survey. Open File Report. 76–540.
Vrba, J., Zaporozec, A., 1994. Guidebook on Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability. In-
ternational Association of Hydrogeologists (International Contributions to Hydro-
geology 16). Verlag Heinz Heise, Hannover.
The World Bank Databank ,2015. http://data.worldbank.org/country/qatar [Last ac-
cessed October 2015].