ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Potential pollution risk in natural environment of golf courses:an example from Rusovce (Slovakia)

David Krcmar • Marian Marschalko •

Isık Yilmaz • Anna Patschova •

Katarına Chalupkova • Tibor Kovacs

Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 16 April 2014 / Published online: 1 May 2014

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract The objective of the article presented herein is

to highlight the specific issue of the protection of water

sources in the vicinity of golf courses. Currently we have

experienced the construction of a large number of golf

courses, which are often found in areas where the protec-

tion of natural groundwater resources is needed. In this

article, limit conditions are specified, which could be used

in construction of other golf courses in the world, where

there is a potential threat of contamination of groundwater

resources. The issue is demonstrated on a case study in the

area of a water resource, Rusovce. A major concern of golf

courses is the fact that in an apparently clean environment

of these anthropogenic structures contamination occurs,

resulting from the maintenance, and the current legislation

does not address this specific group of areas. These are

particularly dangerous substances derived from fertilizer

and turf protection, in particular the use of pesticides

(insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, acaricides, e.g. ne-

matocides, and related products, such as growth regulators

used for plant protection). The results of the modelling at

the water source, Rusovce, show that the combination of

negative factors (for example, the groundwater table level

close to the surface along with extremely high precipitation

totals or the areas flooding and the lack of a golf course

bedrock sealing) the limit value of 0.100 lg/l of pesticides

concentration in groundwater was exceeded up to

0.880 lg/l. Similarly, such excess may occur in the case of

an emergency situation (for example, the spilling of the

barrel with the pesticide), where the concentration of pes-

ticides in groundwater may be increased up to 0.874 lg/l in

standard conditions (without flooding with an average

depth of groundwater table level beneath the terrain). But

even under a standard level of security for the establish-

ment and operation of a golf course and standard proce-

dures for the maintenance of the lawn, the concentration of

pesticides in the wells reached 0.0001 lg/l.

Keywords Pollution � Groundwater � Pesticides �Golf courses � Rusovce � Slovakia

Introduction

The golf courses represent the territories, made of a mix-

ture of the elements comprising the anthropogenic fills,

excavations or other elements (for example, artificial water

reservoirs), which are conveniently nestled in the natural

environment. From the hydrogeological point of view and

from the perspective of a possible contamination of the

environment, a golf course is a potentially dangerous

environment, especially in the case of groundwater sources

D. Krcmar

Department of Hydrogeology, Faculty of Natural Sciences,

Comenius University, Mlynska dolina, 842 15 Bratislava,

Slovak Republic

M. Marschalko

Faculty of Mining and Geology, Institute of Geological

Engineering, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava,

17 listopadu 15, 708 33 Ostrava, Czech Republic

I. Yilmaz (&)

Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Cumhuriyet University, 58140 Sivas, Turkey

e-mail: iyilmaz@cumhuriyet.edu.tr; isik.yilmaz@gmail.com

A. Patschova � K. Chalupkova

Water Research Institute, Nabr. arm. gen. L. Svobodu 5,

812 49 Bratislava, Slovak Republic

T. Kovacs

NUSI, Svatoplukova 5, 821 02 Bratislava, Slovak Republic

123

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3296-4

presence within the limits of its territory. Due to the fact

that in this environment the vegetation maintenance is

conducted, there arises a special situation from the per-

spective of a possible contamination, which is completely

different from a purely natural environment without human

impact. From the perspective of the protection of nature,

golf courses are a relatively new phenomenon, which does

not yet have sufficient protection from the point of view of

legislation. Compared to some other anthropogenic ele-

ments, however, these are made up of mostly permeable

material, which is necessary for the drainage of the golf

courses, in order to avoid their under flooding. Naturally,

this opens the way to contaminants, which may penetrate

from the golf course surface to the groundwater table level

and subsequently they can be further transported by

groundwater. However, since groundwater is a strategic

raw material in most countries of the world, any deterio-

ration in the quality as a result of human activity is unac-

ceptable, and if in the vicinity water sources are present,

they should be subject to a strict maximum level of pro-

tection, and this should be enshrined in legislation. It is also

important that in establishing the protective zones of water

resources, in the assessment and authorization of activities

envisaged within these protective zones and in the devel-

opment of legislation, the experts in hydrology, hydroge-

ology and hydro-geochemistry should participate.

Limit conditions of water resources pollution in golf

courses area by means of aquifer horizon nature

and groundwater table level depth

From the perspective of the protection of water resources in

relation to golf playgrounds the following factors are the

most important: the type and nature of the sediment, its

water saturation and the distance of transport from the

ground to the groundwater table level. In terms of the depth

of the groundwater table levels below the ground, there are

three possible variants. The first variant is a situation where

the groundwater table level is in a great depth ([5 m below

terrain). This variant poses the smallest risk, because in the

case of potential flooding the least serious situation can

evolve from the perspective of the contamination propa-

gation. This means that under this situation, the longest

transport of contaminant occurs with the consequent

highest sorption ability of the environment to bind the

contaminant. The second possible situation from the per-

spective of the depth of the groundwater table level is a

situation where the level is in the range of 2–5 m below the

ground. In this case, the transport track is already far

shorter and sorption ability of a potential contaminant is

much smaller. The third option is the groundwater table

level close below the surface. Here, the transport course is

approaching zero values and the sorption ability of the

environment is the minimum, as well.

Another important factor is the type and nature of the

sediment. Commonly, in natural conditions the aquifer is

overlain by alluvial plain loams. This clayey-loamy horizon

has a high content of organic substances and low value of

hydraulic conductivity. The low coefficient of hydraulic

conductivity slows down the rate of water flow and a high

content of organic matter greatly increases the sorption

properties of this layer. Therefore, the floodplain loam

horizon is significantly involved in the protection of

groundwater against pollution from the surface. However, it

is a common practice that in the construction of golf courses,

this loamy layer is removed and replaced by new layers,

which have a high value of the coefficient of hydraulic

conductivity and low content of organic matter, so the pro-

tective function of this anthropogenic layer from potential

pollution breakthrough is significantly reduced (Fig. 1).

The important issue is the amount of water (moisture) in

the zone between the surface and the groundwater table

level. The less water is present within the zone (the drier is

the zone), the slower are transport rates, and vice versa, the

more water is present (higher moisture) the more the

Fig. 1 Schematic profile of the geological environment prior to the construction of the golf course (a) and after the construction (b) with the

characteristics of the sediment types in relation to the pollution transport

4076 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

123

transport rate through this zone is accelerated, which also

indirectly reduces the sorption ability of the environment.

As the golf courses tend to be irrigated in the lawn main-

tenance practice, the amount of water increases at regular

intervals (humidity) and the transport rate is faster and the

pollution can get to the groundwater table level in greater

concentrations.

Methodology

The most important processes occurring after the applica-

tion of pesticides that affect their mobility in soil are

degradation and sorption. These processes cause the

reduction of the concentration of pesticide in the soil

solution. The most commonly used quantitative indicator

of sorption is the partition coefficient (distribution coeffi-

cient) Kd, which is defined as the ratio between the

adsorbed amount of pesticide in the soil Cs to its concen-

tration in the aqueous solution Cr in the steady state. As the

partition coefficient Kd is highly dependent on soil type and

soil properties [for example, the value of Kd for the her-

bicide Clopyralid is in the range of 0.083–0.364, Bukun

et al. (2010)], it is more convenient to use the partition

coefficient Koc although in modelling the distribution

coefficient is more often being used. The tendency of the

contaminant to migrate to the groundwater table level

depends on the equilibrium concentration of the contami-

nant in the solution. The most commonly observed is the

dependence between the adsorbed amount of herbicide and

the organic carbon content in soils (Hiller et al. 2006).

Other factors affecting pesticide leaching in the field are:

surface preparation, soil structure, initial water content, type

of irrigation, pesticide formulation (sprayable, granular, etc.),

time of application and rainfall event (Flury 1996).

When doing a risk analysis of the potential threats from

the pesticide to groundwater we may use, for example, the

half-life, when as the dangerous such a pesticide is con-

sidered with half-life t1/2 value in the soil[3 days (Suzuki

et al. 1998). It should be noted, however, that the half-life

of a pesticide in soil may vary by a factor of 2 or 3

depending on conditions such as soil moisture, tempera-

ture, oxygen availability, and microbial activity. These

conditions will in turn vary with location, season, weather,

depth within the soil, and the history of cultural practices at

the site. Changing a pesticide’s soil half-life by a factor of

2 changes the amount leached below 1 m by roughly a

factor of 10 (Primi et al. 1994). The calculations are

available to estimate the risk of possible contamination by

a variety of (mostly experimental) relationships, such as

Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) (Gustafson 1989).

However, these estimates do not account for the depth

of the groundwater table level below the ground and thus

actually the transport track of the contaminant. This track

is important with regard to the possibility of contaminant

sorption potential in the course of its transport through the

unsaturated zone till the groundwater table level. For a

more accurate estimate of the concentration of the con-

taminant, which gets to the groundwater head there are

used models of transport through the unsaturated zone.

The European Commission has set up a Working Group

FOCUS (Forum for the Coordination of Pesticide Fate

Models and their Use), which is dedicated to shaping the

risk of pesticides to groundwater, and on its web site

(http://viso.ei.jrc.it/focus/index.html) publishes a list of

approved mathematical FOCUS models covering the issue

of transport of pesticides. Different policies within the EU

models are provided by nine relevant scenarios which

correspond to representative areas, for which sufficient

data were available on the climate, soil, crops and other

conditions that affect the breakthrough of pesticides into

groundwater. Here again it should be noted, that the

transport parameters Kd and t1/2 can vary in time and

space and thus increase the degree of uncertainty in the

model. Also the influence of heterogeneity of the soil and

the top of the aquifer can lead to the result that in some

parts of the soil a contaminant is propagated much faster

along the preferred path, as the average rate of pollution

propagation. Preferential flow complicates the picture,

because due to this process, even strongly adsorbed

chemicals can move quickly to groundwater. The results

indicate that because of preferential flow, the break-

through time of herbicides was independent of their

sorptive properties but the transport amount was depen-

dent on the herbicide properties. Preferential flow causes

pesticides to leach more rapidly and to move more deeply

than expected given their chemical properties, increasing

the potential for groundwater contamination (Malone

et al. 2004).

At the breakthrough of the contaminant to the ground-

water table level the contaminant is transported by the

groundwater; in the course of this further processes are

being launched such as dilution, advection, dispersion and,

sorption. The estimate of the contaminant flow rate was

calculated using the retardation factor:

Rf ¼ 1þ d � Kd

ne

ð1Þ

(d is soil bulk density, ne is effective porosity). The rate of

the contaminant flow is then:

vc ¼vw

Rf

ð2Þ

(vw is rate of water flow). The time of contaminant trans-

port for a given distance is calculated as:

tc ¼ tw � Rf ð3Þ

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084 4077

123

(tw is time span of water flow). The decay, it means

reduction in the concentration of the contaminant in a

given time, is calculated as:

C tcð Þ ¼ C0 � e �k�tcð Þ ð4Þ

(C0 is the original concentration, k is decay constant).

Decay constant is:

k ¼ ln2

t1=2

ð5Þ

(t1/2 is half-life). It was also necessary to include the impact

of the dilution, whereas the resulting concentration of the

contaminant:

C ¼ Cc � Qc þ Cw � Qwð ÞQc � Qw

ð6Þ

where C is the concentration and Q is either contaminant c

or water w quantity.

Golf course in the area of water resource Rusovce

The study area is located south of Bratislava on the right

bank of the Danube River (Fig. 2) and is part of the Danube

Plain. The territory is characterized by a flat relief with a

slightly southeast sloping. The altitude varies between 130

and 132.5 m a.s.l. and it is important to note that the

maximum level of the Danube River in flood situations

reaches up to 131.5 m a.s.l. At the sites of old gravel fill

(old dyke) the terrain reaches up to 135 m a.s.l., so the

territory is protected against the flooding by the Danube

River.

The territory of interest belongs to the warmest and

driest areas of Slovakia; the average annual air temperature

is 9.8 �C. The variability in annual and monthly precipi-

tation totals here are high, in extremely dry years dropping

to 400 mm and in moist years, rising up to 1,000 mm. The

annual precipitation total reaches an average of 588 mm

(1931–2006), and the evaporation accounts for up to 80 %

of the precipitation. Based on the interpolation of climate

data there has been estimated the effective precipitation of

122 mm for the territory of interest. From the extensive

variation of monthly mean values of rainfall and temper-

atures, as well as the low proportion of effective rainfall in

the groundwater replenishment (especially the deficit in the

summer half of the year) it follows a requirement of golf

course irrigation, in order to achieve high quality of the

lawn surface; however, this increases the risk of leaching

of fertilizers and plant protection products into the

groundwater.

Geological, hydrogeological framework

and groundwater regime

The territory belongs to the unit of inter-granular ground-

water of the Quaternary deposits of the western part of the

Danube Basin of the Danube catchment area. At the sur-

face the territory of interest is made up of loamy-sandy

organic floodplain sediments reaching a variable thickness

from 0.3 to 2.8 m, at some sites also of artificial fills.

Beneath them occurs 2–4 m thick layer of clay, with local

transition into sandy loam and loamy sand. This layer

represents the floodplain deposits and plays a significant

role in protecting the aquifer against pollution. The layer of

Quaternary gravel is located at a depth of 3–3.5 m below

surface. The Quaternary sediments along with the Neogene

uppermost horizon represent very significant groundwater

reservoir. The thickness of the water-bearing formation

reaches up to 100 m. The coefficient of hydraulic con-

ductivity ranges from 10-2 to 10-4 m s-1. The ground-

water is in direct hydraulic conjunction with surface flows.

The main source of the aquifer replenishment is the Dan-

ube River. Recharge by precipitation occurs in exceptional

cases only.

The current regime of groundwater table level in the

territory of interest is dependent on the water level regime

in Hrusov Reservoir (Fig. 3), which stores the water of

Fig. 2 Situation of the territory of interest with an indication of the

location of the proposed golf area and water source in the vicinity

4078 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

123

the Danube River for the Gabcıkovo hydroelectric gen-

erating station purposes. The regime in the Reservoir is

derived from the operating procedure, which is also

affected by the regime of surface waters in the Danube

River. According to the operating procedures the maxi-

mum water level in the Reservoir reaches 131.5 m.a.s.l.

This value is important because a part of the terrain of the

territory of interest is located below this value and this

territory is then flooded by water from the river. At any

water level of the Danube River the groundwater infil-

trates into the rock environment throughout the whole

length of the assessed area (Fig. 3). The seasonal evolu-

tion of the groundwater table levels in the territory of

interest is characterized by the periodic fluctuation of

groundwater head. The regional level drop occurs in the

autumn months (October) and continues until the begin-

ning of spring (February–March), when a trend of rise in

levels occurs with multiple culminations (depending on

the magnitude of flood wave of the Danube) in the

summer months (May to September), when the ground-

water table level is close to the terrain, which is unfa-

vourable situation due to potential contamination of the

territory between the Danube and the water source. The

direction of groundwater flow is from the Danube River

into the hinterland, i.e. south to southeast. However, due

to the depression in the area evolved by groundwater

extraction the water flows from the Danube River towards

the water source of Rusovce. This means that the

groundwater is always flowing from the Danube through

the area of the planned golf course to water source

(Fig. 3).

Quality and exploitation of groundwater

The quality of groundwater in the area of interest mainly is

dominantly affected by the quality of the chemical com-

position of the waters of the Danube. The groundwater

within the area is classified as fluviogenic, with the circu-

lation bound to the shallow Quaternary collector closely

related to surface flow. In terms of quality for drinking

purposes the groundwater within the area of interest are of

good quality. This has been also the reason for establishing

the water source of Rusovce. However, due to natural

conditions, and in particular the small depth of the

groundwater table level below the terrain and occasional

flooding, it is easily jeopardized by pollution, which could

occur in the area between the river and the water supply

system.

The water supply system consists of 23 large-diameter

wells labelled ST-1 to ST (Fig. 3), which are arranged in a

long row of a distance of about 2,150 m. These wells were

built in the period 1977–1990. Their depth is between 50

and 80 m, and the distance from the Danube (the current

bank of the Hrusov Reservoir) is 500–600 m. The spacing

between the wells is 100 m. The permissible quantity total

of water intake from the water source is 2,650 l s-1 and the

average withdrawal reaches 833 l s-1. From the point of

view of the water management the water source of Rusovce

is one of the most important water supply systems in

Slovakia. It is possible to consider potential extension of

the supply of drinking water not only for Bratislava, but

also for its surroundings by linking with other water supply

systems, therefore, any threat to its quality is inacceptable.

Fig. 3 The direction of

groundwater flow in the area of

interest showing the

hydroisohypses for average

water level, flooded area and for

the territory of the new golf

course with an indication of the

individual constituent parts

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084 4079

123

Analysis of the critical situations of contamination

In the vicinity of the major water source is the planned

construction of a golf course (Fig. 3). The task of the study

was to assess the possibility of a negative effect on water

quality of the water source due to the impact of designed

activities during operation such as fertilizing, lawn main-

tenance and protection. The edge of the designed golf

course is located approximately 150 m from the well row

of the water source, and 100 m from the protection zone 1

of the water source. The greens, the tees and the fairway

have to be regularly fertilized and treated throughout the

year. The total recommended need for nutrients in the most

exposed areas of the golf course is a dose of up to

250–350 kg ha-1 of nitrogen, 60–80 kg ha-1 of phospho-

rus and 200–250 kg ha-1 of potassium. With regard to the

method of fertilizing (surface application of granular fer-

tilizer with gradual release, and liquid fertilizer with a

minimum dose of water applied to grass) groundwater

pollution in normal operation while complying with the

conditions set out in this plan is not likely. Under normal

conditions, the single doses are balance-calculated so that

the nitrogen is consumed by the lawn growth applied at

appropriate time spans. This fact is illustrated by the

research work, for example, Frank (2008) or Baris et al.

(2010), where during the many years of monitoring the

concentration of nitrogen in groundwater has not exceeded

the set out limits. Neither the model has shown a problem

with the pollution of groundwater due to the fertilizing.

Pesticides are dangerous substances; they are toxic to

animal organisms and humans. They can get into the

groundwater only as a result of human activity, in particular

due to the use of plant protection products in agriculture.

Their use is governed by the directive on the sustainable use

of pesticides, viz., the directive establishing a framework for

community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides

(2009/128/EC). The concentration of nitrates, NO3, nitrites,

ammoniac component and pesticides in potable waters is

limited. According to ‘‘Council Directive 98/83/EC on the

quality of water intended for human consumption’’, the

maximum allowable concentration in drinking water is

50 mg NO3/l, a concentration of pesticides must not exceed

0.1 lg/l or the summary concentration of pesticides in the

water must not exceed 0.5 lg/l.

For the protection of turf and lawns in Slovakia, the

active substance Clopyralid is registered. Maximum

approved dosage of the active substance is 300 g/ha once a

year, either in spring or autumn. The problem is that pes-

ticides may cause pollution of groundwater under certain

conditions. Therefore, the aim of the study was to deter-

mine as to what specific conditions pose a threat to the

quality of the water source.

In modelling the transport of pollution through the

unsaturated zone the Focus Pearl model has been used and

the program MT3DMS has been used to model the pollu-

tion propagation within the saturated zone (aquifer). The

input parameters for the modelling of contaminant break-

through in the zone of saturation (unsaturated zone) to the

groundwater table level were the climate data (average

values of rainfall and an average annual temperature). In

addition to the precipitation, it was necessary to include

irrigation into the model, which is an important parameter

in the operation of a golf course, along with soil properties

(porosity, density, coefficient of hydraulic conductivity,

dispersivity, partition coefficient), the structure of the soil

and the organic carbon content (till the groundwater table

level), physico-chemical properties of the active substance

and the way of a product application. The result was the

determination of the value of the 80-percentile of mean

annual concentration for different depth levels. The results

show that the highest risk is clearly demonstrated in the

case of fall applications (up to three-times higher risk of

contamination), since at this time there is a high level in the

Danube River and the water table is just below the ground.

High risk of contamination of groundwater (i.e. the

exceeding of a limit value of quality standards) is proven,

in particular, in the case where the groundwater table is

higher than 2 m below the ground (Fig. 4).

After the breakthrough of the contaminant up to the

groundwater table level further processes evolve, in

Fig. 4 A course of the

predicted environmental

concentrations PECgw in

groundwater (80-percentile of

its value) after application of

300 g/ha of Clopyralid,

depending on the groundwater

table level depth

4080 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

123

particular, dilution, advection, dispersion, decay and sorp-

tion. All of these processes reduce the resulting concen-

tration of the contaminant, which can be measured during

the monitoring. In the work of the Baris et al. (2010) it is

stated that of the more than 15,000 groundwater samples

only 24 samples contained higher concentrations of pesti-

cides as permitted standard. This means that the ordinary

way of application of the product and under normal

weather conditions leads to a minimum probability of

threat to groundwater. The exception can be an extraordi-

nary situation, such as a flood or extreme precipitation

(Leung 2011), when the concentration of the contaminant

in the groundwater can be increased, which may also be the

case at this site.

In order to assess the risk we used groundwater flow

modelling and transport model to solve a variety of sce-

narios representing the normal operation of the golf course,

the situation in the extreme flooding and the emergency

situation (the issue sketch is shown in Fig. 5).

Figure 3 shows that the possible contamination from the

golf course will flow toward the water source. The

direction of groundwater flow is also influenced by the

intake of water from wells. Therefore, the hydraulic model

solves two situations—the average and the maximum

permissible withdrawal from the water source. The average

withdrawal represents a normal situation and the maximum

one is the worst in terms of possible contamination.

The following processes have been modelled in the

context of the transport—advection, dispersion, and sorp-

tion of transported substance in the rock along with the

chemical reactions of the substance (sorption/desorption,

retardation). The value of the partition coefficient and the

half-life of the contaminants studied are listed in Table 1. It

is obvious that Fluroxypyr and its metabolites have such a

great retardation factor and low half-life, that there is a low

probability of their breakthrough into the wells of the water

supply system. Therefore, in further model-based calcula-

tions of the active substances of plant protection products

only Clopyralid has been selected. Additional parameters

of the water-bearing environment, which are necessary for

the calculation of the contaminant transport, were obtained

from previous research of gravelly-sandy rocks of the water

source (Table 2).

Prior to the beginning of modelling a rough estimate of

the breakthrough of hazardous substances concentrations

has been calculated for the area of the water source

(Table 3). The following factors were considered in the

calculation:

(a) Approximate time of groundwater flow from the

closest parts of the golf course to the wells of the

source,

Fig. 5 Schematic illustration of

the fundamental issues in

relation to the potential

contamination during the

operation of a golf course

Table 1 Applied transport parameters of selected hazardous substances

Parameter Substance

Clopyralid Fluroxypyr Nitrates

Acid Pyrid Metho

Half-life (days) 36 13.9 18.4 170 1,386

Partition coefficient

(ml/g)

0.056 220 550 2,300 0

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084 4081

123

(b) retardation of the flow as a result of sorption in rock,

(c) decay and the dilution of contaminant in the course

of its transport by water flowing to the source wells.

The calculated resulting concentration of the contami-

nant is below the limit for drinking water. Since this is

only indicative calculation, which does not include other

factors, the modelling was carried out involving the three

scenarios.

The first scenario is the breakthrough of plant protection

products and nitrates into the groundwater through the

unsaturated zone under their normal application due to the

precipitation water and water from irrigation. Dangerous

substances were modelled from all treated plots of the golf

course (green, tee, and fairway—Fig. 3). One spring and

one autumn application of pesticide were modelled. It was

modelled also a case of one or two mutual spring and

autumn applications of pesticide, which is the most dan-

gerous situation in terms of the possible contamination of

the water source. Neither the model solution nor the

modelling of malfunctioning of the drainage system

beneath the golf course has shown higher concentration of

the pesticide as permitted by the standard. The maximum

concentration of the pesticide in the well was 0.0004 lg/l;

the standard permits 0.1 lg/l. The nitrate transport was not

accounted for in this scenario, since there is no chance of

pollution breakthrough into the water source.

The second scenario is a flooding situation in which

within the flooded areas intensive leaching of contamina-

tion accumulated in the soil originating from the ordinary

application of hazardous substances. The hazardous sub-

stances dotation was modelled during the existence of the

over-flooding of the treated areas within the altitudes

\131.5 m a.s.l. (Fig. 3). In this scenario, the impact of

various number of spring and autumn applications was

counted (the number of applications from 0 to 2), the

functionality of a drainage system below the golf course

(functional/dysfunctional) and withdrawal of water from

wells of the water source (the maximum/average). Thanks

to the model the impact of different combinations of

parameters can be calculated (Table 4). Table 4 shows that

the flooding situation is dangerous in the case of pesticides

for almost all combinations of parameters, as well as in the

cases, when the concentration of pesticides is lower than

the standard, it is very close to the permitted limit value;

and the water source pollution is undesirable. In the case of

nitrates the worst situation was considered and it turned out

that even this is not critical. This means, that the other

situations do not cause contamination of the water source.

The third scenario is the point instant emergency

release of a dangerous substance. The emergency situation

Table 2 Applied transport parameters of the water-bearing

environment

Parameter Value

Mean coefficient of hydraulic conductivity (m/s) 0.005

Porosity (total) 0.31

Bulk density of the porous environment (kg/m3) 1,750

Longitudinal dispersivity (m) 3

Transversal dispersivity (m) 0.6

Vertical dispersivity (m) 0.3

Table 3 The initial estimate of the possible breakthrough of con-

centrations into the source under normal operation

Substance Clopyralid

Maximum possible concentration (lg/l) 24.367

Approximate time of groundwater inflow from the golf

course into the wells (days)

120

Retardation factor [porosity = 25 %,

partition coefficient = 0.056 (ml/g)]

1.392

Approximate time of substance transport into the wells

adjusted on retardation factor (years)

0.458

Decay constant (1/day) [half-life = 36 (day)] 0.0193

Estimated concentration of contamination in wells in

0.5 m3/s (lg/l)

0.0080

Table 4 A summary of results for the second model scenario (flood)

of each simulation calculations of transport of pollution from the golf

course and the identification of risk to the water supply

Clopyralid (standard for drinking water 0.1 lg/l)

Sealing

below the

course

Number of

applications

Withdrawal

from the water

source

Calculated maximum

concentrations of

substance (lg/l)Fall Spring

Yes 1 0 Max 0.148

No 1 0 Max 0.227

Yes 1 1 Max 0.291

No 1 1 Max 0.447

Yes 2 2 Max 0.583

No 2 2 Max 0.895

Yes 1 0 Avg 0.054

No 1 0 Avg 0.096

Yes 1 1 Avg 0.106

No 1 1 Avg 0.189

Yes 2 2 Avg 0.211

No 2 2 Avg 0.378

Nitrates (standard for drinking water 50 mg/l)

Sealing below

the course

Quantity of

released

substance

Withdrawal

from the

water source

Calculated maximum

concentrations of

substance mg/l

No 77 kg/ha Max 0.037

Exceeding the standard is indicated in grey

4082 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

123

is the simulation of the damage, overturning or spilling of

200 l barrel of the Bofix product, which is commonly used

for the treatment of lawns. This barrel contains 20 g/l of

Clopyralid. This represents a point source of pollution in

the amount of 4,000 g of active substance Clopyralid

spilled over an area of approx. 1–2 m2 within the golf

course. In the case of nitrates the emergency situation

constitutes damage, flip or spilling of 200 l of liquid fer-

tilizer over an area around the canister 1–2 m2 (i.e. 50 l of

nitrogen). As it can be seen from the results of the mod-

elling (Table 5), the emergency release of contaminant is

in terms of pesticides as hazardous as the flood situation; as

for nitrate concentration similar situation is in the case of

floods.

Conclusions

The results of the study confirmed the fact that the golf

courses are very specific from the viewpoint of a possible

contamination of the water resources, which are located in

their vicinity. The main purpose of the study was to draw

attention to this specific issue, because the designers,

investors, property developers, planners and environmen-

talists perceived territorial golf courses as the natural

environment (harmless to the environment -environmental

friendly). This fact should be perceived as an issue, which

has a number of boundary conditions. The study made an

insight in the possibility of construction and operation of a

golf course close to a water supply system.

The other boundary conditions were the nature of the

geological environment, groundwater flow regime and the

depth of the groundwater table level. This means that are

particularly critical are environments of aquifers with a

unconfined groundwater head, where the water table is

close to the surface. Another important boundary condition

is the proximity of the water flows. The water flows are

capable of fast supplying of aquifer, or in the worst case

they can over-flood the territory; the situation from the

perspective of potential contamination is even worse. This

means that it is necessary to take special account for these

boundary conditions.

It is very important to realize that the permeability of the

subsoil of a newly-developed golf course (in terms of

engineering geological and geotechnical point of view),

because it is the basic boundary condition of the potential

contamination of the water source near the course. An

adverse variant is the permeable environment with the

minimum content of the organic component, which facili-

tates the contamination transport. Golf courses have

important specific feature compared to other engineering

objects that they are often established upon permeable soil,

such as sand and gravel. This means that, in conjunction

with the original permeable subgrade the opportunity to

stop the contamination is close to zero. Another specific

issue is the fact that, in the case of the alluvial sediment the

upper loamy impermeable layer is removed, although

originally it could prevent breakthrough of contamination

from the golf course; so this ability is lost.

Another specific feature of golf courses is the fact that

at first glance, they perceived as a normal natural envi-

ronment (meadow, field, forest), but in fact they represent

a highly anthropogenic artificial environment with the need

for permanent application of fertilizers, irrigation and

protection of lawns by various preparations, because

without them the operation of the course would be

impossible. Another point is the fact that the golf courses

are new engineering structures and from the point of view

of building and environmental protection they do not have

a long tradition. This means that the legislation in a

number of instances does not reflect the interests of the

protection of the environment in all the consequences.

Most of the golf courses are not explicitly referred to in the

legislation; it means that the designers and investors are

often governed by the principle ‘‘what is not forbidden is

allowed’’.

This study has found out that there is a need to be

cautious in the case of preliminary calculation estimates of

possible contamination, because they can over-estimated.

This means that in the final there may arise a false idea of

the actual state of the threat. We came to a conclusion that

the rough estimate of concentration of pollution with pes-

ticides was about 0.008 lg/l. However, the situation in

terms of pollution was dramatically changed under specific

conditions, such as flooding, and a point release of the

pollution due to accident.

Table 5 A summary of the results for the third model scenario (point

accident) of single simulations of the calculations of the pollution

transport from the golf course and the identification of risk to the

water supply

Clopyralid (standard for drinking water 0.1 lg/l)

Sealing

below the

course

Quantity of

released

substance

Withdrawal

from the water

source

Calculated maximum

concentrations of

substance (lg/l)

Yes 4 kg Max 0.874

Yes Avg 0.354

Nitrates (standard for drinking water 50 mg/l)

Sealing

below the

course

Quantity of

released

substance

Withdrawal

from the

water source

Calculated

maximum

concentrations of

substance mg/l

Yes 50 l Max 0.022

Exceeding of the standard is marked in grey

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084 4083

123

In such a case the value of pollution exceeded the per-

mitted levels and achieved high concentrations of almost

0.9 lg/l, which exceed the allowable standard limits by

almost nine times.

It should be stressed, however, that although the risk of

pollution appears in the case of normal conditions as

negligible, as these are harmful substances—pesticides,

any concentration of such substances in drinking water is

undesirable and in such significant water source the risk

must be considered as unacceptable. It should be noted that

the water is a strategic raw material, and therefore any

threat to drinking water sources is undesirable.

The results show that in the licensing, design and the

construction of golf courses in the areas with similar

boundary conditions as in the case of the study in the

vicinity of water sources need to be very prudent with

regard to the potential possibility of contamination.

Important conclusions of this work are also a series of

procedures, policies and recommendations, which the

authors propose for the construction and operation of golf

courses in the vicinity of water sources.

(a) Compliance with the parameters of the construction

of the golf course (an impermeable layer, drainage,

terrain earthworks, etc.).

(b) Adhere to the fertilizing plan in accordance with the

applicable legislation.

(c) Use slow release fertilizers in particular.

(d) Do not use organic fertilizers.

(e) To draw up a binding plan for the use of pesticides

on lawns.

(f) To comply with the planned irrigation and to discuss

any changes in the plan in advance with the

operators of water source.

(g) Allow for the control of all activities dealing with

substances dangerous to water source.

(h) Build a control monitoring system to keep track of

the quality of groundwater and surface water,

consisting of a system of observation multilevel

wells in the longitudinal and transverse directions in

respect to a groundwater flow.

(i) Continuous monitoring using passive samplers on

selected object(s) (in the areas of the greatest risk),

the observation in combination with conventional

monitoring on the other objects with a frequency of

12 times per season.

(j) Implementation of an online monitoring system, at

least at selected observation objects and to make

them accessible to the operator of a water source.

(k) Implement the technical measures to avoid the risk

and to prevent flooding of the territory, in order to

reduce the risk of pollution in flood situations.

References

2009/128/EC. Directive establishing a framework for community

action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides

Baris RD, Cohen SZ, Barnes NL, Lam J, Ma Q (2010) Quantitative

analysis of over 20 years of golf course monitoring studies.

Environ Toxicol Chem 29:1224–1236

Bukun B, Shaner DL, Nissen SJ, Westra P, Brunk G (2010)

Comparison of the interactions of aminopyralid vs. clopyralid

with soil. Weed Sci 58:473–477

Flury M (1996) Experimental evidence of transport of pesticides

through field soils—a review. J Environ Qual 25(1):25–45

Frank KW (2008) Nitrogen and phosphorus fate in a 10? year old

Kentucky bluegrass turf. USGA Turfgrass and Environmental

Research Summary

Gustafson DI (1989) Groundwater ubiquity score: a simple method

for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ Toxicol Chem

8:339–357

Hiller E, Zemanova L, Krasesenits Z (2006) Study of herbicide

sorption by soils and implication for evaluation of their potential

mobility in soils. Podzemna Voda 12(1):78–86

Leung J (2011) Assessment of risk to drinking water from turf

pesticide runoff. Cornell University, Ithaca

Malone RW, Shipitalo MJ, Wauchope RD, Sumner H (2004) Residual

and contact herbicide transport through field lysimeters via

preferential flow 33:2141–2148

Primi P, Surgan MH, Urban T (1994) Leaching potential of turf care

pesticides: a case study of Long Island Golf Courses. Ground

Water Monit Rem 14:129–138

Suzuki T, Kondo H, Yaguchi K, Maki T, Suga T (1998) Estimation of

leachability and persistence of pesticides at golf courses from

point-source monitoring and model to predict pesticide leaching

to groundwater. Environ Sci Technol 32(7):920–929

4084 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:4075–4084

123