Quoted from: Kumar, Sathees, D. Thirumalaivasan, Nisha Radhakrishnan, and Samson Mathew. "Groundwater vulnerability assessment using SINTACS model." Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 4, no. 4 (2013): 339-354.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2012.732119 

There are several groundwater pollution vulnerability evaluation systems. Among these models, the SINTACS method used in this study was developed by Civita (1990b, 1993, 1994) and Civita and De Maio (1997) to evaluate relative groundwater pollution vulnerability using seven hydrogeologic parameters (Kuisi et al. 2006). It is a development of the US DRASTIC model adapted to Mediterranean conditions (Rahman 2008).

To evaluate the groundwater vulnerability for the study area, SINTACS model was preferred for different considerations, these include: its suitability for application in Mediterranean regions (Civita 1990a), its low cost, depending on available datasets, and relative, dimensionless and non-measurable properties that depend on the aquifer characteristics as well as the characteristics of the wider geological and hydrological environment (Al-Amoush et al. 2010).

The parametric models like SINTACS belong to the point count system model group in which every factor has not only its own score but also an additional weight to reduce or amplify its importance during the analysis. The additional weight is set in relation to environmental characteristics, such as high dispersion phenomena from surface water bodies to groundwater or widespread pollution sources (Kuisi et al. 2006). The acronyms SINTACS stands for the seven parameters used in the model which are: Water table depth (S), Effective infiltration (I), Unsaturated zone (N), Soil media (T), Aquifer media (A), Hydraulic conductivity zone (C), Topographic slope (S). The above seven parameters are used to define the hydrological setting of an area. These seven parameters are further sub-divided into ranges (or) zones, representing various hydrological settings and are assigned different rating in a scale of 1 in 10 based on the rating chart (Kuisi et al. 2006). The rating assigned to each of these ranges or zones indicate their relative importance within each parameter, in contributing to aquifer vulnerability.