Qaisar Mehmood; Muhammad Arshad; Muhammad Rizwan; Shanawar Hamid; Waqas Mehmood; Muhammad Ansir Muneer; Muhammad Irfan; Lubna Anjum

doi:10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.04.007

doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.04.007

^{1, 2},
¹,
^{3, 4, ,},
⁵,
²,
^{1, 6},
⁷,
¹

计量
- 文章访问数: 781
- HTML全文浏览量: 453
- PDF下载量: 107
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-07-13
- 录用日期: 2020-09-21
- 刊出日期: 2020-12-28

Integration of geoelectric and hydrochemical approaches for delineation of groundwater potential zones in alluvial aquifer

1.
Department of Irrigation & Drainage, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan
2.
Department of Agriculture (Field Wing) Government of Punjab, Pakistan
3.
Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing and Geospatial Science, Northwest Institute of Eco Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
4.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
5.
Khawaja Farid University of Engineering and Information Technology, Pakistan
6.
Adaptive Research Farms, Agriculture Department (Extension & Research Wing) Punjab, Pakistan
7.
PMU, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab, Pakistan

More Information

Corresponding author: Muhammad Rizwan, E-mail: rizwan514@lzb.ac.cn

摘要

- /
- /
- /
Abstract: Geoelectric and hydrochemical approaches are employed to delineate the ground-water potential zones in District Okara, a part of Bari Doab, Punjab, Pakistan. Sixty-seven VES surveys are conducted with the Electrical Resistivity Meter. The resultant resistivity verses depth model for each site is estimated using computer-based software IX1D. Aquifer thickness maps and interpreted resistivity maps were generated from interpreted VES results. Dar-Zarrouk parameters, transverse resistance (TR), longitudinal conductance (SL) and anisotropy (λ) were also calculated from resistivity data to delineate the potential zones of aquifer. 70% of SL value is ≤3S, 30% of SL value is > 3S. According to SL and TR values, the whole area is divided into three potential zones, high, medium and low potential zones. The spatial distribution maps show that north, south and central parts of study area are marked as good potential aquifer zones. Longitudinal conductance values are further utilized to determine aquifer protective capacity of area. The whole area is characterized by moderate to good and up to some extent very good aquifer protective area on the basis of SL values. The groundwater samples from sixty-seven installed tube wells are collected for hydro-chemical analysis. The electrical conductivity values are determined. Correlation is then developed between the EC (μS/cm) of groundwater samples vs. interpreted aquifer resistivity showing R2 value 0.90.
- Aquifer /
- Groundwater potential zone /
- Longitudinal conductance /
- VES

HTML全文

Figure 1. Study area map and location of VES points

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Hypothetical current and potential lines and position of current and potential electrodes (Schlumberger electrode configuration)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Verification of VES results by test drilling

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Spatial distribution map of interpreted resistivity of layers1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. Relation between aquifer interpreted resistivity and groundwater EC of installed tube wells

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. Spatial distribution maps of thickness of layer 1, layer 2, and layer 3

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. Spatial distribution map transverse resistance and longitudinal conductance

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 8. Spatial distribution map of coefficient of anisotropy

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Summary of interpreted results of 67 VES using IX1D software along with Dar-Zarrouk parameters (T_R= Transverse resistance, S_L = Longitudinal conductance, λ = Coefficient of anisotropy)

VES No.	Latitude	Longitude	Interpreted resistivity (Ω·m)				Layer thickness (m)			Curve type	Groundwater parameters (DZ parameters)			Aquifer total thickness
	-	-	ρ₁	ρ₂	ρ₃	ρ₄	h₁	h₂	h₃	-	T_R(Ω·m²)	Λ	S_L Siemens	H(m)
1	30.91039	73.59371	27	62	4	6	3	12	39	KH	981	1.02	10	54
2	30.79600	73.39500	19	58	2		3	16		K	985	1.83	0.43	19
3	30.67300	73.39800	23	51	7	2	3	17	57	KQ	1 335	1.05	8.61	77
4	30.87800	73.42500	39	71	10		3.35	11		K	912	1.39	0.24	14.35
5	30.71900	73.42200	29	41	14	82	4	17	75	KH	1 863	1.01	5.91	96
6	30.75737	73.37778	20	39	14		3	19		K	801	1.03	0.64	22
7	30.85860	73.57402	36	53	16	11	1.33	11.5	49	KQ	1 441	1.09	3.32	61.83
8	30.73818	73.47733	34	165	19	4	2	6.5	24	KQ	1 597	1.03	1.36	32.5
9	30.79799	73.44399	52	226	27	157	2	17	89	QH	6 349	1.12	3.41	108
10	30.55700	73.35600	54	45	116	17	2	7	26	HK	3 439	1.12	0.42	35
11	30.82042	73.35177	56	35	24		1	12		K	476	1.38	0.36	13
12	30.69832	73.52022	56	56	38	1	1	10	92	KQ	4 112	1.36	2.62	103
13	30.83214	73.51469	62	286	135	44	2	10.5	34	KQ	7 717	1.07	0.32	46.5
14	31.08800	73.50800	65	10	47		8	14.7		H	667	1.01	1.59	22.7
15	31.01600	73.40800	72	52	23	8	4	16.5	62	KQ	2 572	1.11	3.07	82.5
16	30.99367	73.48354	70	93	11		5	59		K	5 837	1.00	0.71	95
17	31.09400	73.59600	64	94	13		7	53		K	5 430	1.06	0.67	70
18	30.95701	73.56341	34	10	92		6	48		H	684	1.17	4.98	56
19	30.92900	73.46239	36	34	83		8	63		A	2 430	1.09	2.08	84
20	31.06400	73.46300	39	34	78	12	8	40	52	KQ	5 728	1.00	2.05	100
21	31.00927	73.60100	42	22	10		5	56		Q	1 442	1.01	2.66	88
22	30.92000	73.32900	61	37	99		7	69		A	2 980	1.08	1.98	96
23	30.92500	73.41000	72	83	30	9	6	52	42	H	6 008	1.00	2.11	128
24	30.92200	73.25900	70	10	38		2	33	49	KQ	2 332	1.08	4.62	87
25	30.75381	73.76415	72	67	29	7	4	51	49	HK	5 126	1.01	2.51	108
26	30.82200	73.29800	70	82	52		5	59	43	K	7 424	1.01	1.62	108
27	30.53100	73.74684	55	24	16		6	20		Q	810	1.12	9.94	26
28	30.41010	73.75495	13	79	13	19	3	8	157	KH	2 712	1.03	10.41	168
29	30.67700	74.04300	8	23	80		5	57		K	1 351	1.04	3.1	85
30	30.62500	73.60600	9	65	11		9	76		K	5 021	1.09	2.17	85
31	30.66464	73.46537	12	89	13	19	3	11	33	KH	1 444	1.02	2.91	47
32	30.35500	73.67000	12	84	44	11	6	55	23	HK	5 704	1.06	1.68	84
33	30.45100	73.64100	47	9	6		8	54		Q	862	1.62	6.17	92
34	30.69400	73.97600	6	89	5	81	1	8.7	58	KH	1 070	1.09	9.86	67.7
35	30.44335	73.71715	14	81	24		12	22		K	1 950	1.03	1.13	34
36	30.38452	73.85146	30	81	8	25	3	12	109	KH	1 934	1.23	9.1	124
37	30.54589	73.52160	20	36	82	138	1	18	36	AK	3 620	1.32	0.99	55
38	30.47500	73.91500	59	49	15		11	36		Q	2 413	1.16	0.92	57
39	30.58921	73.83889	10	11	29		1	10		A	120	1.13	10.01	11
40	30.53500	73.62700	37	52	26	12	2	13	103	KH	3 428	1.58	4.27	118
41	30.60987	73.94022	41	19	30		5.5	56		H	1 290	1.38	9.9	66.5
42	30.79400	73.89500	47	64	27	82	1	23	78	KQ	4 171	1.32	1.01	102
43	30.48000	73.65500	47	32	29		3	39		Q	1 389	1.08	1.28	42
44	30.81416	73.82225	22	103	28	87	2	9	90	KH	3 491	1.00	3.39	101
45	30.73300	73.81500	22	127	5		3	46		Q	5 908	1.00	0.5	54
46	30.54270	74.06452	35	108	14		2	48		Q	5 254	1.04	0.5	60
47	30.68400	73.87300	17	35	78	13	2	10	37	AK	3 270	1.02	0.88	49
48	30.53541	73.93927	472	271	281		3	24		H	7 920	1.15	0.09	27
49	30.57300	73.71000	10	40	7		2	35		K	1 420	1.00	1.08	37
50	30.57183	73.97724	7	36	23		5	28		K	1 043	1.05	1.49	33
51	30.65709	73.70189	44	147	247	36	1	20	28	AK	9 900	1.10	0.27	49
52	30.73135	73.69253	45	16	7		6	70		Q	1 390	1.02	4.51	96
53	30.36300	73.63600	39	52	24		6	42		K	2 418	1.09	0.96	48
54	30.63550	73.78595	28	68	24		5	21		K	1 568	1.14	0.49	26
55	30.50100	73.85200	27	71	4		14	59		K	4 567	1.02	1.35	93
56	30.41499	73.80934	14	45	26	119	8	23	99	KQ	3 721	1.06	4.89	130
57	30.93588	73.66342	15	9	13		4.5	68		H	680	1.20	7.86	92.5
58	30.76601	73.53270	17	11	28		4	62		H	750	1.06	5.87	66
59	30.85560	73.77983	15	8	14		7	38		H	409	1.03	5.22	45
60	30.87400	73.68900	68	65	4		6	39		Q	2 943	1.00	0.69	48
61	30.79870	73.59703	53	90	5		9	12		K	1 557	1.06	0.30	21
62	30.76900	73.63600	40	106	8	10	1	10	37	KH	1 396	1.06	4.74	48
63	30.90210	73.76359	59	99	4		5	28		A	3 067	1.04	0.37	33
64	30.70100	73.58000	45	63	3		3	31		K	2 088	1.01	0.56	34
65	30.84065	73.61586	65	65	15		2	29		Q	2 015	1.01	0.48	31
66	30.80100	73.68000	5	3	7		3	18		H	569	1.03	6.6	21
67	30.88200	73.63600	48	34	22		4	41		K	1 586	1.00	1.29	45

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. Classification of aquifer protective capacity w.r.t. to SL values as reported by (Oladapo and Akintorinwa, 2007)

Sr. No.	Longitudinal conductance (S_L) (Siemens)	Aquifer protective capacity
1	> 10	Excellent
2	5~10	Very good
3	0.7~4.9	Good
4	0.2~0.69	Moderate
5	0.1~0.19	Weak
6	< 0.1	Poor

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(42)

Aamer M, Sabir MF. 2014. Irrigation water quality based on hydro chemical analysis, district Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 4: 52-56.

Abbas F, Ahmad A, Safeeq M, et al. 2014. Changes in precipitation extremes over arid to semiarid and subhumid Punjab, Pakistan. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 116(3-4): 671-680. doi: 10.1007/s00704-013-0988-8

Adagunodo TA, Akinloye MK, Sunmonu LA, et al. 2018. Groundwater exploration in Aaba residential area of Akure, Nigeria. Frontiers in Earth Science, 6: 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00066 doi: 10.3389/feart.2018.00066

Adeniji A, Obiora D, Omonona O, et al. 2013. Geoelectrical evaluation of groundwater po-tentials of Bwari basement area, Central Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 8(25): 1350-1361.

Akinwumiju AS, Olrunfemi MO, Afolabi O. 2016. GIS-based integrated groundwater poten-tial assessment of Osun Drainage Basin, South-western Nigeria. Ife Journal of Science, 18(1): 147-168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301804742_GIS-BASED_INTEGRATED_GROUNDWATER_POTENTIAL_ASSESSMENT_OF_OSUN_DRAINAGE_BASIN_SOUTHWESTERN_NIGERIA_1_2_2

Alam N, Olsthoorn TO. 2014. Punjab scavenger wells for sustainable additional groundwater irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 138(31): 55-67.

Basharat M, Tariq A. 2013. Long-term groundwater quality and saline intrusion assessment in an irrigated environment: A case study of the aquifer under the lbdc irrigation system. Irrigation and Drainage, 62(4): 510-523. DOI: 10.1002/ird.1738

Basharat M, Sultan S, Malik A. 2015. Groundwater management in Indus Plain and integrated water resources management approach. International Waterlogging and Salinity Res-earch Institute (IWASRI): Lahore, Pakistan.

Basharat M, Tariq A-U-R. 2014. Command-scale integrated water management in response to spatial climate variability in Lower Bari Doab Canal irrigation system. Water Policy, 16(2): 374-396. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2013.221 doi: 10.2166/wp.2013.221

Bureau of Statistics, Government of Punjab. 2014. Statistics division. Lahore. 2014-15

Charoenpong S, Suwanprasit C, Thongchumnum P. 2012. Impacts of interpolation techniques on groundwater potential modeling using GIS in Phuket Province, Thailand. Andaman Environment and Natural Disaster Research Center.

Daraz GK, Wahedullah, Bhatti AS. 2013. Ground-water investigation by using resistivity survey in Peshawar, Pakistan. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 2: 9-20.

Dor N, Syafalni S, Abustan I, et al. 2011. Verifica-tion of surface groundwater connec-tivity in an irrigation canal using geophysical, water balance and stable isotope approaches. Water Resource Management, 5: 2837.

El-Kadi AI. 2017. Groundwater models for resources analysis and management. CRC Press.

Elliott J, Deryng D, Müller C, et al. 2014. Con-straints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(9): 3239-3244. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1222474110 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222474110

GOP. 2017. Agriculture statistics of Pakistan 2017-18. Ministry of National Food Security and Research Islamabad.

Hasan M, Shang Y, Akhter G, et al. 2018. Geo-physical assessment of groundwater potential: A case study from Mian Channu Area, Paki-stan. Ground Water, 56(5): 783-796. DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12617

Hasan M, Shang Y, Akhter G, et al. 2017. Geo-physical investigation of fresh-saline water interface: A case study from South Punjab, Pakistan. Ground Water, 55(6): 841-856. DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12527.

Imran M, Ali A, Ashfaq M, et al. 2018. Impact of climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices on cotton production and livelihood of farmers in Punjab, Pakistan. Sustainability. 10:2101. doi: 10.3390/su10062101

Kearey P, Brooks M, Hill I. 2013. An introduction to geophysical exploration. John Wiley & Sons.

Khan AD, Iqbal N, Ashraf M, et al. 2016. Ground-water investigation and mapping in Upper Indus Plain. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Islamabad: 72.

Koefoed O. 1979. Groundwater principles, 1, Resistivity sounding measurements. Elsevier Scientific Publication co, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York.

Maillet R. 1947. The fundamental equations of electrical prospecting. Geophysics, 12(4): 529-556. DOI: 10.1190/1.1437342

Manu E, Agyekum WA, Duah A, et al. 2019. Application of vertical electrical sounding for groundwater exploration of cape coast municipality in the central region of Ghana. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12(6): 196. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-019-4374-4

Mehmood Q, Mehmood W, Awais M, et al. 2020. Optimizing groundwater quality exploration for irrigation water wells using geophysical technique in semi-arid irrigated area of Pakistan. Groundwater for Sustainable Development: 100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100397

Michael F, Reilly TE, Michael GR, et al. 2003. Assessing groundwater vulnerability to contamination: Providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers. US Geological Survey Circular: 1224.

Mohamaden M, El-Sayed H, Hamouda A. 2016. Combined application of electrical resistivity and GIS for subsurface mapping and groundwater exploration at El-Themed, Southeast Sinai, Egypt. The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 42(4): 417-426. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejar.2016.10.007

Mujtaba G, Ahmed Z, Ophori D. 2007. Mana-gement of groundwater resources in Punjab, Pakistan, using a groundwater flow model. Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 15: 1-14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295407853_Management_of_groundwater_resources_in_Punjab_Pakistan_using_a_groundwater_flow_model

Nas B, Berktay A. 2010. Groundwater quality mapping in urban groundwater using GIS. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 160(1-4): 215-227. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0689-4

Nwachukwu S, Bello R, Balogun A. 2019. Evaluation of groundwater potentials of Orogun, South-south part of Nigeria using electrical resistivity method. Applied Water Science, 9(8): 184. DOI: 10.1007/s13201-019-1072-z

Obianwu VI, Atan O, Okiwelu O. 2015. Deter-mination of aquifer position using electric geophysical method. Applied Physics Re-search, 7(2): 83.

Oladapo MI, Akintorinwa OJ. 2007. Hydro-geophysical study of Ogbese south western Nigeria. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 13(1): 55-61. DOI: 10.4314/gjpas.v13i1.16669

Punthakey J, Khan M, Ahmad RN, et al. 2016. Optimising canal and groundwater management to assist water user associations in maximizing crop production and managing salinisation in Australia and Pakistan.

Shakir AS, Mughai H, Khan NM, et al. 2016. Impact of canal water shortages on ground-water in the Lower Bari Doab Canal System in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal Engineering & Application Science, 9: 87-97.

Shakoor A. 2015. Hydrogeologic assessment of spatio-temporal variation in groundwater quality and its impact on agricultural produ-ctivity, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Sikandar P, Christen E, Stein TM. 2017. Vertical electrical sounding (ves) for salinity ass-essment of water-bearing formations. Irr-igation and Drainage, 66(2): 252-262. DOI: 10.1002/ird.2094

Singh KP. 2005. Nonlinear estimation of aquifer parameters from surficial resistivity measure-ments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2(3): 917-938. DOI: 10.5194/hessd-2-917-2005.

Terry N, Day-Lewis F, Robinson JL, et al. 2017. Scenario evaluator for electrical resistivity survey pre-modeling tool. Groundwater, 55(6): 885-890. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12522 doi: 10.1111/gwat.12522

WAPDA. 1980. Hydrological data of Bari Doab, basic data release. Directorate General of Hydrogeology, Lahore.

WAPDA. 1981. Atlas-Soil salinity survey of ir-rigated areas of Indus basin 41 million acres. Survey and Research Organization, Planning Division, Lahore, WAPDA.

Watto MA, Mugera AW. 2016. Groundwater depletion in the Indus plains of Pakistan: Im-peratives, repercussions and management issues. International Journal of River Basin Management, 14(4): 447-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2016.1204154. doi: 10.1080/15715124.2016.1204154

Yeboah-Forson A, Whitman D. 2013. Electrical resistivity characterization of anisotropy in the Biscayne aquifer. Ground Water, 52: 728-736. DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12107

[1]	Mouna Djellali, Omar Guefaïfia, Chemsedinne Fehdi, Adel Djellali, Amor Hamad2023: Assessing the impact of artificial recharge on groundwater in an over-exploited aquifer: A case study in the Cheria Basin, North-East of Algeria, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 263-277. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280022
[2]	Edmealem Temesgen, Demelash Wendmagegnehu Goshime, Destaw Akili2023: Determination of groundwater potential distribution in Kulfo-Hare watershed through integration of GIS, remote sensing, and AHP in Southern Ethiopia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 249-262. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280021
[3]	Bakuru Anandagajapathi Raju, Palavai Venkateswara Rao, Mangalampalli Subrahmanyam2023: Estimating aquifer transmissivity using Dar-Zarrouk parameters to delineate groundwater potential zones in Alluri Seetharama Raju District, Andhra Pradesh, India, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11, 116-132. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280011
[4]	Benadela Laouni, Bekkoussa Belkacem, Gaidi Laouni2022: Multivariate analysis and geochemical investigations of groundwater in a semi-arid region, case of superficial aquifer in Ghriss Basin, Northwest Algeria, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 233-249. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.03.003
[5]	Dr Muthamilselvan A, Anamika Sekar, Emmanuel Ignatius2022: Identification of groundwater potential in hard rock aquifer systems using Remote Sensing, GIS and Magnetic Survey in Veppanthattai, Perambalur, Tamilnadu, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 367-380. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.04.005
[6]	Guo Jin-xing, Li Zhi-ping, Stefan Catalin2022: Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) applications in China–achievements and challenges, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 57-69. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.006
[7]	Rustadi, Darmawan I Gede Boy, Haerudin Nandi, Setiawan Agus, Suharno2022: Groundwater exploration using integrated geophysics method in hard rock terrains in Mount Betung Western Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 10-18. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.002
[8]	GUI Chun-lei, WANG Zhen-xing, MA Rong, ZUO Xue-feng2021: Aquifer hydraulic conductivity prediction via coupling model of MCMC-ANN, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 1-11. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.01.001
[9]	Kirlas Marios C2021: Assessment of porous aquifer hydrogeological parameters using automated groundwater level measurements in Greece, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 269-278. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.001
[10]	Yacob T Tesfaldet, Avirut Puttiwongrak, Tanwa Arpornthip2020: Spatial and temporal variation of groundwater recharge in shallow aquifer in the Thepkasattri of Phuket, Thailand, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 10-19. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.01.002
[11]	SONG Hong-wei, XIA Fan, MU Hai-dong, WANG Wei-qiang, SHANG Ming-sen2020: Study on detecting spatial distribution availability in mine goafs by ultra-high density electrical method, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 281-286. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.03.008
[12]	Fatima Zahra FAQIHI, Anasse BENSLIMANE, Abderrahim LAHRACH, Mohamed CHIBOUT, Mohamed EL MOKHTAR2020: Recognition of the hydrogeological potential using electrical sounding in the KhemissetTiflet region, Morocco, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 172-179. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.008
[13]	SADIKI Moulay Lhassan, EL MANSOURI Bouabid, BENSEDDIK Badr, CHAO Jamal, KILI Malika, EL MEZOUARY Lhoussaine2019: Improvement of groundwater resources potential by artificial recharge technique: A case study of Charf El Akab aquifer in the Tangier region, Morocco, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 224-236. doi: DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.03.003
[14]	Muhammad Nauman Malik, Mehdi Murtuza, Iqbal Asif, Bakar Muhammad Saifullah Abu, Brahim Aissa, Dk Nur Afiqah Jalwati Puteri, Amer Farhan Rafique2019: Adaptive state estimation of groundwater contaminant boundary input flux in a 2-dimensional aquifer, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 373-382. doi: DOI: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.04.008
[15]	Pezhman ROUDGARMI, Ebrahim FARAHANI2017: Investigation of groundwater quantitative change, Tehran Province, Iran, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 278-285.
[16]	Than Zaw, Maung Maung Than2017: Climate change and groundwater resources in Myanmar, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 59-66.
[17]	ZHANG Xiang-yang, CHEN Zong-yu, YANG Guo-min, TU Le-yi, HU Shui-ming2016: Krypton-85 dating of shallow aquifer in Hebei Plain, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 328-332.
[18]	GONG Xiao-ping, JIANG Guang-hui, CHEN Chang-jie, GUO Xiao-jiao, ZHANG Hua-sheng2015: Specific yield of phreatic variation zone in karst aquifer with the method of water level analysis, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 192-201.
[19]	Jingli Shao, Yali Cui, Yunzhang Zhao2013: A Study on Infiltration and Groundwater Development in the Influent Zone of the Perched Lower Yellow River, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 46-53.
[20]	Patsakron Assiri2013: Artesian Flowing Wells Field of Phu Tok Aquifer, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 95-98.