**Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies**

Cristina Pomposiello, Cristina Dapeña, Alicia Favetto and Pamela Boujon *Instituto de Geocronología y Geología Isotópica (INGEIS, CONICET-UBA) Argentina* 

### **1. Introduction**

Geophysical methods provide information on the distribution of certain physical parameters in the sub-surface, which can be linked to the direct observations. Thus it is called an indirect observation method and it does not provide a "photo" of the sub-surface but it suggests a model of the underground derived from interpreting the distribution of these physical parameters. Clay and granite, for example, have different densities, acoustic velocities, elastic parameters, electrical conductivities, magnetic susceptibilities, and dielectric constants. So, geophysical methods are designed to exploit some of the physical properties of a target feature that is in contrast with its host environment, e.g., the low density nature of a void is in contrast to the high density nature of surrounding bedrock, etc. Geophysics should never be a stand-alone tool, but complementary to direct observations, which provide geological/hydrogeological background information (such as some of those methods seen in Table 1).

There are two general types of geophysical methods: 1) active, which measure the subsurface response to electromagnetic, electrical, and seismic energy generated by artificial sources; and 2) passive, which measure the earth's ambient magnetic, electrical, and gravitational fields. Geophysical instruments are designed to map spatial variations in the physical properties of the Earth. A gravimeter, for example, is designed to measure spatial variations in the strength of Earth's gravitational field.

Sanitary landfill is the most common way to eliminate solid urban wastes. They have a heterogeneous structure due to random origin of the disposed waste. Geophysical methods are particularly valuable because they are non-destructive and non-invasive. An important problem associated with this practice is leachate production and the related groundwater contamination. Leachate electrical conductivity is often much higher than that of natural groundwater and it is this large contrast that enables contamination plumes to be detected using geophysical methods.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and Electrical methods such as Electrical Tomography (ET) and Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) have been found to be especially useful for these kinds of environmental studies, due to the conductive nature of most contaminants, and they can be important tools for the detection and mapping of landfills, trenches, buried wastes and drums, or other underground structures.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 5

Electrical resistivity distribution is useful for determining shallow and deep geological and hydrogeological conditions. Geoelectrical surveys are commonly used in hydrogeological, mining and geotechnical investigations. More recently, it has been used for environmental surveys (Loke, 1999). The resistivity data can be used to identify, delineate and map the subsurface defining such things as electrical conductor contamination plumes, lithologic units

The deposits in landfill sites have different origins, for example domestic and industrial wastes, soils and exhumed geological materials. They have a complex material composition; they are non-uniformly compacted and also have a non-uniform decomposition process, so their physical properties would present a wide range of variation. For example the electrical resistivity has values that range from 1.5 to 20 ohm-m in different landfills (Meju et al. 2000). Leachate is a liquid formed from decomposed waste and it can contain ground water and percolated rainwater. Inorganic pollutants increase liquid conductivity due the presence of dissolved salts. Consequently, the electrical resistivity of leachate is often very much lower than natural groundwater. For example, the fresh water has a resistivity around 200 ohm-m and the saline water has a resistivity of around 10 ohm-m. Other type of pollutants, such as

The sub-surface resistivity distribution can be determined by making measurements on the ground surface. From these measurements, the true resistivity can be inferred. The ground resistivity is related to various geological parameters such as the mineral and fluid content,

The resistivity measurements are normally made using a man-made source of electrical current that is applied to the earth through grounded electrodes (C1 and C2 in Figure 1). The resulting potential field is measured along the ground using a second pair of electrodes (P1 and P2). The transmitting and receiving electrode pairs are referred to as dipoles. By varying the unit length of the dipoles as well as the distance between them, the horizontal and vertical distribution of electrical properties can be calculated. From the current (I) and voltage (V) values, the apparent resistivity (ρa) is calculated, ρa = k V /I where k is the

The apparent resistivity is not the true resistivity of the surface, but this value equals that of the resistivity of homogeneous ground measured from the same electrode arrangement. From the apparent resistivity values it is possible obtain the true surface resistivity using an

geometrical factor which depends on the arrangement of the four electrodes.

Fig. 1. A conventional four electrode array to measure the sub-surface resistivity.

with clay, the salt water/fresh water interface and the vadose zone.

organic compounds can reduce leachate conductivity.

porosity and degree of water saturation in the rock.

**1.2 Geoelectrical methods** 

inversion method.


Table 1. Geophysical methods employed for environmental investigations.

#### **1.1 Sub-surface electrical resistivity**

Several conduction mechanisms are possible in typical sub-surface material. They are: a) electronical conduction, b) semiconductors and c) ionic conduction in liquids.


Electrical resistivity distribution is useful for determining shallow and deep geological and hydrogeological conditions. Geoelectrical surveys are commonly used in hydrogeological, mining and geotechnical investigations. More recently, it has been used for environmental surveys (Loke, 1999). The resistivity data can be used to identify, delineate and map the subsurface defining such things as electrical conductor contamination plumes, lithologic units with clay, the salt water/fresh water interface and the vadose zone.

The deposits in landfill sites have different origins, for example domestic and industrial wastes, soils and exhumed geological materials. They have a complex material composition; they are non-uniformly compacted and also have a non-uniform decomposition process, so their physical properties would present a wide range of variation. For example the electrical resistivity has values that range from 1.5 to 20 ohm-m in different landfills (Meju et al. 2000). Leachate is a liquid formed from decomposed waste and it can contain ground water and percolated rainwater. Inorganic pollutants increase liquid conductivity due the presence of dissolved salts. Consequently, the electrical resistivity of leachate is often very much lower than natural groundwater. For example, the fresh water has a resistivity around 200 ohm-m and the saline water has a resistivity of around 10 ohm-m. Other type of pollutants, such as organic compounds can reduce leachate conductivity.

#### **1.2 Geoelectrical methods**

4 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

Electrical resistivity Electrical resistivity

Electrical capacity Electrical capacity

model

model

EM velocity model

Model depicting spatial variations in the magnetic susceptibility of subsurface.

Model depicting spatial variations in the density of sub-

surface

**Property Model Applications** 

Determine depth and thickness of geological layers.

Determine electrical conductive targets such as clay content (or metallic)

Detect both metallic and non-metallic targets

Determine any geologic structure involving mass variations.

Map geological structures and detect buried drums, tanks, and other metal objects

**Parameter Physical Property Physical** 

Dielectric constant,

magnetic permeability and electrical conductivity.

Magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization

Bulk density

Several conduction mechanisms are possible in typical sub-surface material. They are: a)

a. Electronic conduction occurs in pure metals. In this mechanism the charge carriers are electrons and their high mobility gives a very low resistivity (< 10-8 ohm-m). b. Semiconduction occurs in minerals such as sulphides and typically in igneous rocks. In this case the charge carries are electrons, ions or holes. Compared to metals, the mobility and number of charge carriers are lower and thus the resistivity higher

c. Ionic conduction in liquids (or electrolytic conduction) occurs when current flows via the movement of ions in aqueous fluids or molten materials. The resistivity of rocks is greatly dependent on the degree of fracturing and the percentage of the fractures filled with fluids. Igneous and metamorphic rocks normally have higher resistivity values compared with sedimentary rocks (typically 1 to 100 ohm-m), which are usually more porous and have higher water content. The resistivity values are largely dependent on

Table 1. Geophysical methods employed for environmental investigations.

electronical conduction, b) semiconductors and c) ionic conduction in liquids.

the porosity of the rocks and the salinity of the ground water.

**Geophysical Method** 

**Electrical resistivity** 

**Induced polarization** 

**Ground penetrating radar (GPR)** 

**Magnetics** 

**Gravity** 

**(IP)** 

**Measured** 

Potential difference and induce current

Polarization voltages or frequency dependent ground resistance

Travel times and amplitudes of EM waves.

variations in the strength of magnetic field of the Earth

variations in the strength of gravitational field of the Earth

Spatial

Spatial

**1.1 Sub-surface electrical resistivity** 

(typically 10-3 to 10-5 ohm-m).

The sub-surface resistivity distribution can be determined by making measurements on the ground surface. From these measurements, the true resistivity can be inferred. The ground resistivity is related to various geological parameters such as the mineral and fluid content, porosity and degree of water saturation in the rock.

The resistivity measurements are normally made using a man-made source of electrical current that is applied to the earth through grounded electrodes (C1 and C2 in Figure 1). The resulting potential field is measured along the ground using a second pair of electrodes (P1 and P2). The transmitting and receiving electrode pairs are referred to as dipoles. By varying the unit length of the dipoles as well as the distance between them, the horizontal and vertical distribution of electrical properties can be calculated. From the current (I) and voltage (V) values, the apparent resistivity (ρa) is calculated, ρa = k V /I where k is the geometrical factor which depends on the arrangement of the four electrodes.

The apparent resistivity is not the true resistivity of the surface, but this value equals that of the resistivity of homogeneous ground measured from the same electrode arrangement. From the apparent resistivity values it is possible obtain the true surface resistivity using an inversion method.

Fig. 1. A conventional four electrode array to measure the sub-surface resistivity.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 7

2D imaging assumes low variation of the third dimension. 3D surveys involve large amount

In an electrical tomography an array of regularly – spaced electrodes is deployed. They are connected to a central control unit via multi-core cables. The common arrays used are dipole-dipole, Schumberger and Wenner, depending on application and the resolution desired (Loke, 1999). The advantages and disadvantages of these arrays will be used to choose the appropriate configuration in each case. The dipole-dipole array is present in Figure 4. In this case, the spacing between the current electrodes pair, AB is given as "a" which is the same as the distance between the potential electrodes pair MN. The same process is repeated for measurements with different spacing ("2**a**" to "na"). The apparent resistivity is calculated with k = π(n(n+1)(n+2)a, where n is the level. The median depth of

Resistivity data are then recorded via complex combinations of current and potential electrode pairs to build up a pseudo cross-section of apparent resistivity beneath the survey

Fig. 5. An example of observed apparent resistivity (a = 2 m and 231 data) and predicted

investigation of this array also depends on the "**n**" factor, as well as the "**a**".

**1.2.2 2D Electrical Tomography (ET)** 

of measurements and more data processing.

Fig. 4. Multi-channel dipole-dipole surveys.

profile (Figure 5).

data by an inversion method.

#### **1.2.1 1D Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)**

The vertical electrical sounding is performed changing the electrode spacing over a common centre point. The electrical current is applied to A and B electrodes and the potential V is measured between M and N electrodes. The VES array consists of a series of the electrode combinations AMNB with gradually increasing distances between the electrodes for subsequent combinations. The Schlumberger array is shown in Figure 2. The depth of sounding increases with the distance between A and B electrodes.

VES provides measurements of apparent resistivity obtaining a sounding curve (Figure 3a), by plotting resistivity ρa against the half distance between the current electrodes (AB/2) with k= π (AO2 - MN2/4)/MN. It is interpreted quantitatively to derive thickness and resistivity of sub-surface layers using the appropriate software which determines a depthlayer model of resistivity (1-D-model). It provides the vertical resistivity variation under the centre point and it is applicable to horizontally layered homogenous ground (Figure 3b).

This method is a very important tool employed in the geophysical exploration of the shallow sub-surface. The normal depth range that is investigated is from a few centimetres to a few hundred meters. These techniques are thus particularly applicable in groundwater, and environment characterizations. The distinction between mainly clayey/silty layers (aquitards) and dominantly sandy/gravely beds (aquifers) are specially distinguishable to determine. Furthermore, it can be used to determine saltwater intrusion and contaminated plumes

Fig. 2. Schlumberger array, depth of sounding controlled by the distance between A and B.

Fig. 3. a) Sounding curve, apparent resistivity vs. the half distance between the current electrodes. b) 1D model, depth vs. resistivity (log-log, representation).

#### **1.2.2 2D Electrical Tomography (ET)**

6 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

The vertical electrical sounding is performed changing the electrode spacing over a common centre point. The electrical current is applied to A and B electrodes and the potential V is measured between M and N electrodes. The VES array consists of a series of the electrode combinations AMNB with gradually increasing distances between the electrodes for subsequent combinations. The Schlumberger array is shown in Figure 2. The depth of

VES provides measurements of apparent resistivity obtaining a sounding curve (Figure 3a), by plotting resistivity ρa against the half distance between the current electrodes (AB/2) with k= π (AO2 - MN2/4)/MN. It is interpreted quantitatively to derive thickness and resistivity of sub-surface layers using the appropriate software which determines a depthlayer model of resistivity (1-D-model). It provides the vertical resistivity variation under the centre point and it is applicable to horizontally layered homogenous ground (Figure 3b).

This method is a very important tool employed in the geophysical exploration of the shallow sub-surface. The normal depth range that is investigated is from a few centimetres to a few hundred meters. These techniques are thus particularly applicable in groundwater, and environment characterizations. The distinction between mainly clayey/silty layers (aquitards) and dominantly sandy/gravely beds (aquifers) are specially distinguishable to determine. Furthermore, it can be used to determine saltwater intrusion and contaminated

Fig. 2. Schlumberger array, depth of sounding controlled by the distance between A and B.

**1 10 100 1000**

**AB/2 (m)**

Fig. 3. a) Sounding curve, apparent resistivity vs. the half distance between the current

**30**

**0.1 1 10**

**Resistivity (ohm-m)**

b

**3**

**Depth (m)**

**1**

a

electrodes. b) 1D model, depth vs. resistivity (log-log, representation).

**10**

**Apparent resistivity (ohm-m)**

**100**

**1.2.1 1D Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)** 

plumes

sounding increases with the distance between A and B electrodes.

2D imaging assumes low variation of the third dimension. 3D surveys involve large amount of measurements and more data processing.

In an electrical tomography an array of regularly – spaced electrodes is deployed. They are connected to a central control unit via multi-core cables. The common arrays used are dipole-dipole, Schumberger and Wenner, depending on application and the resolution desired (Loke, 1999). The advantages and disadvantages of these arrays will be used to choose the appropriate configuration in each case. The dipole-dipole array is present in Figure 4. In this case, the spacing between the current electrodes pair, AB is given as "a" which is the same as the distance between the potential electrodes pair MN. The same process is repeated for measurements with different spacing ("2**a**" to "na"). The apparent resistivity is calculated with k = π(n(n+1)(n+2)a, where n is the level. The median depth of investigation of this array also depends on the "**n**" factor, as well as the "**a**".

Fig. 4. Multi-channel dipole-dipole surveys.

Resistivity data are then recorded via complex combinations of current and potential electrode pairs to build up a pseudo cross-section of apparent resistivity beneath the survey profile (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. An example of observed apparent resistivity (a = 2 m and 231 data) and predicted data by an inversion method.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 9

In this method the measured parameters are the travel time and amplitudes of reflected pulsed electromagnetic energy and they depend on physical properties such as the dielectric constant and the conductivity of the material. Essentially, a reflection occurs when there is a change in the dielectric constant of materials in the sub-surface (Table 2). The dielectric constant is defined as the capacity of a material to store a charge when an electric field is applied relative to the same capacity in vacuum, and can be computed as: ε**<sup>r</sup>** = (c/v)2, where: ε**<sup>r</sup>** = the relative dielectric constant, **c** = the speed of light (30 cm/nanosecond), and

The principles involved, in this method, are similar to reflection seismology except that

**Conductivity (mS/m)** 

**Air** 1 0 0.3 0 **Distillate water** 80 0.001 0.033 0.002 **Fresh water** 80 0.5 0.033 0.1 **Sea water** 80 3000 0.01 1000 **Dry sand** 3-5 0.01 0.15 0.01 **Wet sand** 20-30 0.1-1 0.06 0.03-0.3 **Limestone** 4-8 0.5-2 0.12 0.4-1 **Shale** 5-15 1-100 0.09 1-100 **Silt** 5-30 1-100 0.07 1-100 **Clay** 5-40 2-1000 0.06 1-300 **Granite** 4-6 0.01-1 0.13 0.01-1 **Ice** 3-4 0.01 0.16 0.01

Table 2. Relative dielectric permittivity (relative dielectric constant), conductivity, velocity

The penetration depth of GPR is determined by the antenna frequency and the electrical conductivity of the sub-surface materials being profiled (Daniels, 2004) and the choice of working frequency is dependent on the depth of penetration. As conductivity increases, the

**Velocity (m/ns)** 

**Attenuation (dB/m)** 

**v** = the velocity of electromagnetic energy passing through the material.

electromagnetic energy is used instead of acoustic energy.

Fig. 7. Example of a GPR radargrama.

and attenuation for different media.

**Material Dielectric relative** 

**permittivity** 

Electrical tomography has many applications in geology, hydrogeology and environmental studies, for example:


This electrical resistivity imaging survey is widely used to control the depth extent and geometry of the landfill. Frequent monitoring landfill leachate with this technique could allow early leak detection.

#### **1.2.3 GPR**

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) uses pulsed high frequency radio waves (10 to 2000 MHz) to probe the sub-surface without disturbing the ground. Energy is radiated down-ward into the ground from a transmitter and is reflected back to a receiving antenna (Figure 6). The reflected signals are recorded continuously as the GPR is pulled over the ground surface and provides a real-time cross section or image of the subsurface (Figure 7). GPR can be used in a great variety of materials such as rock, soil, ice, fresh water and road surfaces.

Fig. 6. a) Travel paths of the electromagnetic waves in a medium with two different dielectric proprieties and a buried object. b) Travel times of the reflections. It is a function of the layer thickness and the velocities. The isolated body presents a hyperbola.

Electrical tomography has many applications in geology, hydrogeology and environmental

This electrical resistivity imaging survey is widely used to control the depth extent and geometry of the landfill. Frequent monitoring landfill leachate with this technique could

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) uses pulsed high frequency radio waves (10 to 2000 MHz) to probe the sub-surface without disturbing the ground. Energy is radiated down-ward into the ground from a transmitter and is reflected back to a receiving antenna (Figure 6). The reflected signals are recorded continuously as the GPR is pulled over the ground surface and provides a real-time cross section or image of the subsurface (Figure 7). GPR can be used in a great variety of materials such as rock, soil, ice, fresh water and road surfaces.

Fig. 6. a) Travel paths of the electromagnetic waves in a medium with two different dielectric proprieties and a buried object. b) Travel times of the reflections. It is a function

of the layer thickness and the velocities. The isolated body presents a hyperbola.

a. Determination of the depth and thickness of geological strata.

d. Mapping saltwater intrusion and contaminated plumes.

c. Locating buried wastes (e.g., locate landfill)

b. Detection of lateral changes and locating anomalous geological conditions

studies, for example:

allow early leak detection.

**1.2.3 GPR** 

In this method the measured parameters are the travel time and amplitudes of reflected pulsed electromagnetic energy and they depend on physical properties such as the dielectric constant and the conductivity of the material. Essentially, a reflection occurs when there is a change in the dielectric constant of materials in the sub-surface (Table 2). The dielectric constant is defined as the capacity of a material to store a charge when an electric field is applied relative to the same capacity in vacuum, and can be computed as: ε**<sup>r</sup>** = (c/v)2, where: ε**<sup>r</sup>** = the relative dielectric constant, **c** = the speed of light (30 cm/nanosecond), and **v** = the velocity of electromagnetic energy passing through the material.

The principles involved, in this method, are similar to reflection seismology except that electromagnetic energy is used instead of acoustic energy.

Fig. 7. Example of a GPR radargrama.


Table 2. Relative dielectric permittivity (relative dielectric constant), conductivity, velocity and attenuation for different media.

The penetration depth of GPR is determined by the antenna frequency and the electrical conductivity of the sub-surface materials being profiled (Daniels, 2004) and the choice of working frequency is dependent on the depth of penetration. As conductivity increases, the

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 11

For the evaluation of the electrical resistivity in the deeper layers **VES** were made using Schlumberger configuration with opening distance (AB) between 6 m and 1000 m, which allows a model to be found focused on the measuring point and a penetration of 200 m and 300 meters. Models were obtained using the inversion software IPIWIN (Bobachev et al.,

**T**he GPR allowed the observation of the shallowest levels (less than 10 m) and to distinguish the boundary between the deposits of waste and the area which is in contact with leachate. The GPR profiles were performed with 500 MHz antennas (screened) and 150 MHz (air). The commercial program Prism version 2.01 by Radar System, Inc (http://www.radsys.lv,

**2.2 Relationship between electrical conductivity and hydrochemistry parameters** 

Chemical analyses of contaminated groundwater by leachate in different geographical regions demonstrated that groundwater electrical conductivity has a strong lineal correlation with total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride content (Cl-) (Meju 2000 & his

The leachate composition varies with the age of the landfill, and as a result recent solid wastes have higher contents of organic acids, ammonium and total dissolved salts (TDS), accordingly their concentrations decrease when biodegradation begins. As a consequence, it is possible to estimate the age of the landfill using these measurements (Farquhar, 1989;

In addition, Meju (2000) indicates that measuring the electrical conductivity of the saturate substrate (σb) makes possible to predict the values of TDS applying the following equations:

log σb = -0,3215 + 0,7093 \*log TDS (1)

 log σb = -0,333 + 0,6453 \* log TDS (2) where: σb is expressed in mS/m and TDS in mg/L. Equations (1) and (2) determine the

From TDS values it is possible to predict the water electrical conductivity (σw) and the

These relationships were calculated in a sanitary landfill in Durban, South Africa (Bell & Jermy, 1995). Data from others landfills in Australia (Buselli et al., 1990) and Canada (Birks

log Cl-

& Eyles, 1997) also show a similar lineal tendency to the Durban values.

where: σw is expressed in mS/m and the last parameters in mg/L.

log TDS= 0,8 + 1,015 \* log σw (3)

= -0,256 + 1,2\*log σw (4)

**2.1.2 Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)** 

**2.1.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)** 

minimum and maximum values respectively

chloride content using the following equations

2000).

2004) was used.

references)

Meju, 2000).

penetration depth also decreases. This is because the electromagnetic energy is more quickly converted into heat, causing a loss in signal strength at depth. Soils having high electrical conductivity rapidly attenuate radar energy, restrict penetration depths, and severely limit the effectiveness of GPR. The electrical conductivity of soils increases with increasing water, clay and soluble salt contents. Optimal depth penetration is achieved in ice where the depth of penetration can achieve several hundred metres. Good penetration is also achieved in dry sandy soils or massive dry materials such as granite, limestone, and concrete where the depth of penetration could be up to 15 metres.

The GPR has many applications in environmental studies, principally the characterization of abandoned landfills: thickness of the deposit, location of metal and non-metal objects (barrels, voids, etc.), soil profiles, groundwater level and contaminant plume.

The GPR has several advantages, for example: a) measurements are relatively easy to make, b) the lateral and vertical resolution is very high and c) the antenna may be pulled by hand or vehicle.

Due to the complexity of the fill materials of the landfill, GPR signals in landfills are very complex and difficult for interpretation, Also the principal limitation is the presence of clayrich soil or saline groundwater which can reduce the exploration depth due to the attenuation the radar signal. However, GPR can be used as a secondary tool for some localized interested area where the GPR survey might be able to provide additional detailed information and it is easier to follow the contamination plume due to the attenuation the radar signal outside the landfill.

### **2. Case studies**

This chapter presents the geophysical results of multidisciplinary projects at two urban solid wastes, one sites in the city of Gualeguaychú, Province of Entre Ríos (Pomposiello et al, 2009), and the other in the city of San Carlos de Bariloche, Province of Rio Negro (Pomposiello et al, 2008), Argentina. As part of an environmental project several tomographies using dipole-dipole electrode array, vertical sounding using Schlumberger electrode configurations and GPR profiles with 150 –500 MHz antennae were performed within and outside the landfills and they were interpreted using one-dimensional and bidimensional models. These studies such as electrical resistivity imaging and GPR techniques were used to locate and monitor leachate plumes in landfill sites.

#### **2.1 Applied geophysical methods**

#### **2.1.1. Dipole-Dipole (DD)**

Geoelectrical profiles were performed using the DD configuration with 21 electrodes (spaced a = 5 with n =1, ..., 18) to give a total profile length of 100 meters. The maximum depth to which the experimental data gives reliable information on the electrical resistivity of medium was estimated. The resistivity model was obtained from the data inversion using the DCINV2D algorithm of Oldemburg et al. (1993). We compared the results using halfspace reference models of 0.001, 0.01 and 0.1 mS/m. The depth of investigation index (DOI) as defined by Oldenburg et al. (1994) was calculated using a reference model of 0.001 mS/m and a cut off = 0.5.

#### **2.1.2 Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)**

10 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

penetration depth also decreases. This is because the electromagnetic energy is more quickly converted into heat, causing a loss in signal strength at depth. Soils having high electrical conductivity rapidly attenuate radar energy, restrict penetration depths, and severely limit the effectiveness of GPR. The electrical conductivity of soils increases with increasing water, clay and soluble salt contents. Optimal depth penetration is achieved in ice where the depth of penetration can achieve several hundred metres. Good penetration is also achieved in dry sandy soils or massive dry materials such as granite, limestone, and concrete where the

The GPR has many applications in environmental studies, principally the characterization of abandoned landfills: thickness of the deposit, location of metal and non-metal objects

The GPR has several advantages, for example: a) measurements are relatively easy to make, b) the lateral and vertical resolution is very high and c) the antenna may be pulled by hand

Due to the complexity of the fill materials of the landfill, GPR signals in landfills are very complex and difficult for interpretation, Also the principal limitation is the presence of clayrich soil or saline groundwater which can reduce the exploration depth due to the attenuation the radar signal. However, GPR can be used as a secondary tool for some localized interested area where the GPR survey might be able to provide additional detailed information and it is easier to follow the contamination plume due to the attenuation the

This chapter presents the geophysical results of multidisciplinary projects at two urban solid wastes, one sites in the city of Gualeguaychú, Province of Entre Ríos (Pomposiello et al, 2009), and the other in the city of San Carlos de Bariloche, Province of Rio Negro (Pomposiello et al, 2008), Argentina. As part of an environmental project several tomographies using dipole-dipole electrode array, vertical sounding using Schlumberger electrode configurations and GPR profiles with 150 –500 MHz antennae were performed within and outside the landfills and they were interpreted using one-dimensional and bidimensional models. These studies such as electrical resistivity imaging and GPR

Geoelectrical profiles were performed using the DD configuration with 21 electrodes (spaced a = 5 with n =1, ..., 18) to give a total profile length of 100 meters. The maximum depth to which the experimental data gives reliable information on the electrical resistivity of medium was estimated. The resistivity model was obtained from the data inversion using the DCINV2D algorithm of Oldemburg et al. (1993). We compared the results using halfspace reference models of 0.001, 0.01 and 0.1 mS/m. The depth of investigation index (DOI) as defined by Oldenburg et al. (1994) was calculated using a reference model of 0.001 mS/m

techniques were used to locate and monitor leachate plumes in landfill sites.

(barrels, voids, etc.), soil profiles, groundwater level and contaminant plume.

depth of penetration could be up to 15 metres.

or vehicle.

radar signal outside the landfill.

**2.1 Applied geophysical methods** 

**2.1.1. Dipole-Dipole (DD)** 

and a cut off = 0.5.

**2. Case studies** 

For the evaluation of the electrical resistivity in the deeper layers **VES** were made using Schlumberger configuration with opening distance (AB) between 6 m and 1000 m, which allows a model to be found focused on the measuring point and a penetration of 200 m and 300 meters. Models were obtained using the inversion software IPIWIN (Bobachev et al., 2000).

#### **2.1.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)**

**T**he GPR allowed the observation of the shallowest levels (less than 10 m) and to distinguish the boundary between the deposits of waste and the area which is in contact with leachate. The GPR profiles were performed with 500 MHz antennas (screened) and 150 MHz (air). The commercial program Prism version 2.01 by Radar System, Inc (http://www.radsys.lv, 2004) was used.

#### **2.2 Relationship between electrical conductivity and hydrochemistry parameters**

Chemical analyses of contaminated groundwater by leachate in different geographical regions demonstrated that groundwater electrical conductivity has a strong lineal correlation with total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride content (Cl-) (Meju 2000 & his references)

The leachate composition varies with the age of the landfill, and as a result recent solid wastes have higher contents of organic acids, ammonium and total dissolved salts (TDS), accordingly their concentrations decrease when biodegradation begins. As a consequence, it is possible to estimate the age of the landfill using these measurements (Farquhar, 1989; Meju, 2000).

In addition, Meju (2000) indicates that measuring the electrical conductivity of the saturate substrate (σb) makes possible to predict the values of TDS applying the following equations:

$$\log \text{co} = \text{-0,3215} + \text{0,7093} \text{ \*log TDS} \tag{1}$$

$$
\log \text{o}\_b = -0.333 + 0.6453 \text{ \* log TDS} \tag{2}
$$

where: σb is expressed in mS/m and TDS in mg/L. Equations (1) and (2) determine the minimum and maximum values respectively

From TDS values it is possible to predict the water electrical conductivity (σw) and the chloride content using the following equations

$$\text{Log TDS=0,8+1,015 \* log \text{ ow }\tag{3}}$$

$$\log \text{Cl} \text{= -0,} \text{256} + 1, \text{2\*} \log \text{ o}\_{\text{w}} \tag{4}$$

where: σw is expressed in mS/m and the last parameters in mg/L.

These relationships were calculated in a sanitary landfill in Durban, South Africa (Bell & Jermy, 1995). Data from others landfills in Australia (Buselli et al., 1990) and Canada (Birks & Eyles, 1997) also show a similar lineal tendency to the Durban values.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 13

The site of the landfill was initially used as a place of extraction of materials (ex quarry Irazusta), allowing the troughs to be used for the storage of solid waste. In particular, this site was an open dump where solid wastes were deposited and then covered by the excavated material (Figure 9). This material belongs to the Punta Gorda Group with lithology consisting of silt and clay with calcareous concretions and calcareous hardpan layers that appear at different levels (locally known as "tosca") and in the lower section the presence of clay is richer than the upper one and it also has some gypsum flake crystals. Wastes were not recycled prior to deposition and arranged in parallel modules (cells) of about 0.8 -1 m wide. Prezzi et al. (2005) estimated that the cells reach a maximum depth

These landfills are located below the contour level of 10 m and the regional slope is approximately N-NE, toward the El Cura stream and the Gualeguaychú River with a very low gradient (Figure 8). The El Cura stream is the natural collector of the regional surface flow and always carries water generating a strong environmental impact due to the

The boundaries and surface of the waste are irregular, following the geometry that comes from the alignment of cells and providing a soft and notable undulation. At the northern edge a channel is formed between the landfill and the road, where water accumulates. This deposit is divided into three parts, and between the central and west sector there is a wastefree zone which functions like a permanent course of water (stream W, Figure 10). The eastern sector is separated from the central one by a big area free of waste which also functions as an intermittent course of water (stream E, Figure 10) Both streams have a N-S direction carrying plenty of water after large precipitations. They discharge in an undefined way at the northern edge on the other side of the road forming flooded areas (Figure 10).

around 2 to 3 meters.

Fig. 9. A photo of the landfill landscape.

discharges of untreated sewage effluents of the city.

The depressions between cells act as water reservoirs after rains.

The water content (W) can be calculated applying equation (1) and considering the stratum free of clay. (Yaramanci, 1994):

$$\mathbf{\_{O}} = \mathbf{\_{O}} \ast \mathbf{\_{W}} \mathbf{w} \tag{5}$$

where: W is the water content in percentage of volume (vol %) and m is the cementation factor, which value is between 1,6 y 1,9.

Equation (2) was established for relatively homogeneous materials and it can be non valid for environments with solid wastes and significant quantities of conductors, metals and clay.

As a result, the age of landfills can be determined considering the relations and the changes in the concentration of chemical parameters of lixiviates such as Cl-, TDS, pH, between others (Farquhar, 1989; Meju, 2000).

#### **2.3 Gualeguaychú landfill**

#### **2.3.1 Background**

The study area corresponds to the actual municipal sanitary landfill of the city of Gualeguaychú in the Southern Entre Ríos Province, Argentina (Figure 8). The landfill is near the south border of the city. This city has a population of 80000, and it has numerous commercial, industrial and agricultural activities. The landfill operations were suspended eleven years ago and no environmental studies were performed to evaluate its actual state and outline the contamination zone. Currently, the operation of the waste deposit has been resumed by the Municipal Urban Hygiene Enterprise, which solicited an evaluation of the actual state of the old sanitary landfill.

Fig. 8. Location of the Gualeguaychú landfill relevant to the Entre Rios province, Argentina.

At present, in Gualeguaychú there are two landfills overfilled and closed with different ages. The oldest and biggest was closed in 1998 and the smallest was closed in 2003. In the case of the first one, there are no records of its construction and it has neither leachate collection system nor a collection system for gases, although it is observed that the residues have been deposited in parallel cells. Now, a third landfill is in operation. This work only presents the results obtained in the first landfill.

The water content (W) can be calculated applying equation (1) and considering the stratum

where: W is the water content in percentage of volume (vol %) and m is the cementation

Equation (2) was established for relatively homogeneous materials and it can be non valid for environments with solid wastes and significant quantities of conductors, metals and

As a result, the age of landfills can be determined considering the relations and the changes

The study area corresponds to the actual municipal sanitary landfill of the city of Gualeguaychú in the Southern Entre Ríos Province, Argentina (Figure 8). The landfill is near the south border of the city. This city has a population of 80000, and it has numerous commercial, industrial and agricultural activities. The landfill operations were suspended eleven years ago and no environmental studies were performed to evaluate its actual state and outline the contamination zone. Currently, the operation of the waste deposit has been resumed by the Municipal Urban Hygiene Enterprise, which solicited an evaluation of the

Fig. 8. Location of the Gualeguaychú landfill relevant to the Entre Rios province, Argentina.

At present, in Gualeguaychú there are two landfills overfilled and closed with different ages. The oldest and biggest was closed in 1998 and the smallest was closed in 2003. In the case of the first one, there are no records of its construction and it has neither leachate collection system nor a collection system for gases, although it is observed that the residues have been deposited in parallel cells. Now, a third landfill is in operation. This work only

in the concentration of chemical parameters of lixiviates such as Cl-

σb = σw \* Wm (5)

, TDS, pH, between

free of clay. (Yaramanci, 1994):

clay.

factor, which value is between 1,6 y 1,9.

others (Farquhar, 1989; Meju, 2000).

actual state of the old sanitary landfill.

presents the results obtained in the first landfill.

**2.3 Gualeguaychú landfill** 

**2.3.1 Background** 

The site of the landfill was initially used as a place of extraction of materials (ex quarry Irazusta), allowing the troughs to be used for the storage of solid waste. In particular, this site was an open dump where solid wastes were deposited and then covered by the excavated material (Figure 9). This material belongs to the Punta Gorda Group with lithology consisting of silt and clay with calcareous concretions and calcareous hardpan layers that appear at different levels (locally known as "tosca") and in the lower section the presence of clay is richer than the upper one and it also has some gypsum flake crystals. Wastes were not recycled prior to deposition and arranged in parallel modules (cells) of about 0.8 -1 m wide. Prezzi et al. (2005) estimated that the cells reach a maximum depth around 2 to 3 meters.

Fig. 9. A photo of the landfill landscape.

These landfills are located below the contour level of 10 m and the regional slope is approximately N-NE, toward the El Cura stream and the Gualeguaychú River with a very low gradient (Figure 8). The El Cura stream is the natural collector of the regional surface flow and always carries water generating a strong environmental impact due to the discharges of untreated sewage effluents of the city.

The boundaries and surface of the waste are irregular, following the geometry that comes from the alignment of cells and providing a soft and notable undulation. At the northern edge a channel is formed between the landfill and the road, where water accumulates. This deposit is divided into three parts, and between the central and west sector there is a wastefree zone which functions like a permanent course of water (stream W, Figure 10). The eastern sector is separated from the central one by a big area free of waste which also functions as an intermittent course of water (stream E, Figure 10) Both streams have a N-S direction carrying plenty of water after large precipitations. They discharge in an undefined way at the northern edge on the other side of the road forming flooded areas (Figure 10). The depressions between cells act as water reservoirs after rains.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 15

distribution of the profiles in the studied area is shown in Figure 9. The profiles Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04 are located inside the landfill area, Lan14 and Lan15 are partially located inside the landfill, Lan09, Lan10 and Lan11 are closed the stream E where there are no waste deposits, while the profiles Lan03, Lan05, Lan06, Lan07, Lan08, lan12 and Lan13 are outside

During 2005, seven small wells (phreatimeters) were dug to 2.30 m below surface outside the landfill (Figure 10). They were cased with PVC tubes, capped at both extremes and had gravel filters at the bottom. These phreatimeters are used to control water level, chemical composition and isotope content. These wells are located, two in the south border, two in the north border and the others are between the central sector and east sector (Figure 10). Phreatic levels respond faster to precipitation. The direction of the phreatic system flow is N-NE toward the El Cura stream and the Gualeguaychú River, both of effluent character.

2D resistivity models corresponding to Lan01, Lan07 and Lan15 profiles were selected to discuss the most prominent results. These have been plotted between 0 and 20 m depth. It was considered that this depth is most appropriate to describe the surface geoelectrical characteristics and also to compare all the models to the same depth. Important conductivity anomalies have been detected below the waste disposal**.** The 2D model obtained within the landfill (Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04) shows a shallow layer with a thickness of 2 m to 3 m and a resistivity range from 100 to 1000 ohm-m, this layer represents the waste deposit (Figure 11). The second layer has a thickness of 4 m to 5 m and a low value of resistivity of 3 ohm-m to 6 ohm-m, which is attributed to the contaminated zone. The third layer has a thickness of more than 10 m and a resistivity of 15 ohm-meter. Below this depth is observed another

Temperature and electrical conductivity were periodically measured *in situ.*

Fig. 11. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (Lan01).

Several GPR profiles were performed inside and outside the landfill using a 150 MHz antenna and NS orientation covering approximately the entire length of the landfill and

The 2D electrical resistivity model and the GPR profile (150Mhz) of Lan02 are presented in Figures 12 and 13, and in this case the maximum depth of the electrical model was adapted

the landfill and around the waste deposits ( see Figure10).

**2.3.4 Results** 

conductive layer (5 ohm-m).

nearby outdoor areas.

Fig. 10. A schematic map showing locations of dipole-dipole profiles (Lan) and phreatimeters (P).

#### **2.3.2 Geological and hydrogeological setting**

This region forms part of the Chaco-Paranense plain (Russo et al., 1979). The most important outcropping formations are described following Iriondo (1980) and Fili (2001) in Table 3.


Table 3. Stratigraphic column.

#### **2.3.3 Field work**

Several geoelectrical studies, electrical tomography and vertical sounding using dipoledipole and Schlumberger electrode configurations respectively and GPR profiles (antennas 150MHz -500MHz) were performed within and outside the landfill (Figure 9). Spatially coincident profiles for multi-electrode resistivity and GPR were carried out. A scheme of the distribution of the profiles in the studied area is shown in Figure 9. The profiles Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04 are located inside the landfill area, Lan14 and Lan15 are partially located inside the landfill, Lan09, Lan10 and Lan11 are closed the stream E where there are no waste deposits, while the profiles Lan03, Lan05, Lan06, Lan07, Lan08, lan12 and Lan13 are outside the landfill and around the waste deposits ( see Figure10).

During 2005, seven small wells (phreatimeters) were dug to 2.30 m below surface outside the landfill (Figure 10). They were cased with PVC tubes, capped at both extremes and had gravel filters at the bottom. These phreatimeters are used to control water level, chemical composition and isotope content. These wells are located, two in the south border, two in the north border and the others are between the central sector and east sector (Figure 10).

Phreatic levels respond faster to precipitation. The direction of the phreatic system flow is N-NE toward the El Cura stream and the Gualeguaychú River, both of effluent character. Temperature and electrical conductivity were periodically measured *in situ.*

#### **2.3.4 Results**

14 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

Fig. 10. A schematic map showing locations of dipole-dipole profiles (Lan) and

AGE **UNIT LITOLOGHY THICKNESS** 

Silt and dark clay Fine quartzoses sandstones

*Upper Section*: Brown Silt and clay with calcareous concretions and calcareous hardpan

*Lower Section*: Clay with some gypsum crystals

layers ("tosca")

Fine sandstones with silt and clay interlayers

This region forms part of the Chaco-Paranense plain (Russo et al., 1979). The most important outcropping formations are described following Iriondo (1980) and Fili (2001) in Table 3.

**(m)** 

1.5 to 3

20 to 40

60

Several geoelectrical studies, electrical tomography and vertical sounding using dipoledipole and Schlumberger electrode configurations respectively and GPR profiles (antennas 150MHz -500MHz) were performed within and outside the landfill (Figure 9). Spatially coincident profiles for multi-electrode resistivity and GPR were carried out. A scheme of the

**HYDROGEOLOGIC BEHAVIOUR** 

Discontinuos unconfined aquifer, contains water table Poor water quality

Low productivity aquifer to aquitard Unconfined to

water table

quality

Aquifer Excellent water quality

semiconfined, contains

Good to regular water

phreatimeters (P).

**Holocene** La Picada

**Pleistocene** Punta Gorda Group

Table 3. Stratigraphic column.

**Upper Pliocene** 

**2.3.3 Field work** 

Formation

Salto Chico Formation

**2.3.2 Geological and hydrogeological setting** 

2D resistivity models corresponding to Lan01, Lan07 and Lan15 profiles were selected to discuss the most prominent results. These have been plotted between 0 and 20 m depth. It was considered that this depth is most appropriate to describe the surface geoelectrical characteristics and also to compare all the models to the same depth. Important conductivity anomalies have been detected below the waste disposal**.** The 2D model obtained within the landfill (Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04) shows a shallow layer with a thickness of 2 m to 3 m and a resistivity range from 100 to 1000 ohm-m, this layer represents the waste deposit (Figure 11). The second layer has a thickness of 4 m to 5 m and a low value of resistivity of 3 ohm-m to 6 ohm-m, which is attributed to the contaminated zone. The third layer has a thickness of more than 10 m and a resistivity of 15 ohm-meter. Below this depth is observed another conductive layer (5 ohm-m).

Fig. 11. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (Lan01).

Several GPR profiles were performed inside and outside the landfill using a 150 MHz antenna and NS orientation covering approximately the entire length of the landfill and nearby outdoor areas.

The 2D electrical resistivity model and the GPR profile (150Mhz) of Lan02 are presented in Figures 12 and 13, and in this case the maximum depth of the electrical model was adapted

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 17

Furthermore, the result corresponding to VES2 is presented in Figure 15. This sounding was performed close to Lan07 and shows similar results. It presents a conductive layer followed by another more resistive layer (15 ohm-m -25 ohm-m) extending up to near the 150 metres. The results are comparable because this model shows a first layer with a thickness of 2 m and resistivity of 4 ohm-m and a second layer with a thickness of 20 m and resistivity around 14 ohm-meters. Therefore, considering that the conductive layer is observed very superficially, the presence of leachate contamination is only restricted to the shallowest layer

**1 10 100 1000**

**AB/2 (m)**

Fig. 16. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (Lan15).

Fig. 15. a) Sounding curve, apparent resistivity vs. the half distance between the current

Lan14 and Lan15 profiles are located in the southern part of the landfill. These profiles were made 30% over waste and the remaining 70% outside of the landfill. 2D electrical models show that in the surface and in the wastes the resistivity is high, about 250 ohm-m and a thickness around 3 meters. This result is consistent with Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04 models, which were discussed above showing that the resistivity is higher at the shallow depth where the wastes are deposited. Below them there is a conductive body with a resistive around 6 ohm-m which continues to the surface in the waste-free part. Where there is no waste the resistivity values varies between 3 ohm-m and 6 ohm-m with a thickness ranging from 2 m to 5 meters. Below this layer the resistivity ranges from 20 ohm-m to

**100**

**1 10 100**

b

**Resistivity (ohm-m)**

**10**

**Depth (m)**

**1**

**1**

a

electrodes. b) 1D model, depth vs. resistivity (log-log, representation).

**10**

Apparent resistivity (ohm-m)

**100**

(<5 metres).

40 ohm-meters (Figure 16).

to the result of GPR. The reflectors are at the depths where the waste is observed in the electrical model and then the signal is attenuated significantly. A conductive body is observed in the same place where there is a shadow zone in the GPR profile. The high conductivity of materials is attributed to fluids rich in salts, which attenuate the radar waves, not allowing them to reach great depths.

Fig. 12. 2D resistivity model up to 7m deep obtained within the landfill (Lan02).

Fig. 13. Radar image for the landfill up to 7m of depth (Lan 02).

The 2D models obtained to the north of the landfill and outside its boundaries (Lan05, Lan06 and Lan07) also show zones with low resistivity values in the first 5 meters. This resistivity anomaly can be explained as leachate and also by the presence of clay. The resistivity bodies found at a depth around 10 m have been interpreted as calcareous concretions and calcareous hardpan layers that appear at different levels in Punta Gorda sediments (locally known as "tosca") according to the geological description (Figure 14).

Fig. 14. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (Lan07).

to the result of GPR. The reflectors are at the depths where the waste is observed in the electrical model and then the signal is attenuated significantly. A conductive body is observed in the same place where there is a shadow zone in the GPR profile. The high conductivity of materials is attributed to fluids rich in salts, which attenuate the radar

Fig. 12. 2D resistivity model up to 7m deep obtained within the landfill (Lan02).

The 2D models obtained to the north of the landfill and outside its boundaries (Lan05, Lan06 and Lan07) also show zones with low resistivity values in the first 5 meters. This resistivity anomaly can be explained as leachate and also by the presence of clay. The resistivity bodies found at a depth around 10 m have been interpreted as calcareous concretions and calcareous hardpan layers that appear at different levels in Punta Gorda sediments (locally

Fig. 13. Radar image for the landfill up to 7m of depth (Lan 02).

known as "tosca") according to the geological description (Figure 14).

Fig. 14. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (Lan07).

waves, not allowing them to reach great depths.

Furthermore, the result corresponding to VES2 is presented in Figure 15. This sounding was performed close to Lan07 and shows similar results. It presents a conductive layer followed by another more resistive layer (15 ohm-m -25 ohm-m) extending up to near the 150 metres. The results are comparable because this model shows a first layer with a thickness of 2 m and resistivity of 4 ohm-m and a second layer with a thickness of 20 m and resistivity around 14 ohm-meters. Therefore, considering that the conductive layer is observed very superficially, the presence of leachate contamination is only restricted to the shallowest layer (<5 metres).

Fig. 15. a) Sounding curve, apparent resistivity vs. the half distance between the current electrodes. b) 1D model, depth vs. resistivity (log-log, representation).

Lan14 and Lan15 profiles are located in the southern part of the landfill. These profiles were made 30% over waste and the remaining 70% outside of the landfill. 2D electrical models show that in the surface and in the wastes the resistivity is high, about 250 ohm-m and a thickness around 3 meters. This result is consistent with Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04 models, which were discussed above showing that the resistivity is higher at the shallow depth where the wastes are deposited. Below them there is a conductive body with a resistive around 6 ohm-m which continues to the surface in the waste-free part. Where there is no waste the resistivity values varies between 3 ohm-m and 6 ohm-m with a thickness ranging from 2 m to 5 meters. Below this layer the resistivity ranges from 20 ohm-m to 40 ohm-meters (Figure 16).

Fig. 16. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (Lan15).

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 19

Table 4. Hydrochemical parameters calculated for the landfill. The values of minimum electrical resistivity obtained **b** were used to predict TDS (a) with equation (1) and (b) with equation (2); the electrical conductivity of fluid is predicted using equation (3) and the chloride content with equation (4); The water content W is estimated applying equation (5)

Table 5. Comparison between resistivity measured in phreatimetres (ρwm) and resistivity determined in geophysical models (ρb) at the same point and depth. The last column shows

The 2D models obtained within the landfill show a first layer with high resistivity (100 to 1000 ohm-m) and a thickness of less than 4 meters. This layer hosts the domestic and

The low resistivity values observed below the wastes which could reach up to 10 m of depth

are possibly due to leachate retained in the sediments of the Punta Gorda Group.

(Meju, 2000).

and the years are inferred using the content of TDS and Cl-

water resistivity applying (a) equation 1 and (b) equation 2

**2.3.5 Gualeguaychú landfill conclusions** 

industrial wastes.

#### **2.3.4.1 Electrical conductivity of phreatic and surface water**

The water electric conductivity measured in the phreatimeters installed near the border outside the landfill was related with the electric conductivity measured in the geoelectrical models obtained from tomography.

The electrical conductivity of phreatic, surface water and effluents were measured. Values measured in effluents and surface water bodies (accumulations between cells, small streams, temporary ponds, etc.) range between 170 µS/cm and 800 µS/cm and the measures in phreatimeters between 240 µS/cm and 8300 µS/cm. An increase is noticed from south to north and from SE to NW, in the direction of the regional flow. These values are strongly influenced by precipitations and a dilution is observed after each rain event (Dapeña, pers. Com.). In addition, effluents of the landfill show a fast response to the influence of precipitations.

#### **2.3.4.2 Calculations of hydrochemical parameters**

Table 4 shows the hydrochemical parameters calculated for the oldest landfill. The depth of the minimum resistivity was determined in the central part of the model (x=50m) of profiles Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04. In the case of Lan14 and Lan15 the analysis was only made in the section of the profile which contains solid wastes and the depth of the minimum resistivity was established.

The procedures illustrate by Meju (2000) were used for the calculations and the hydrochemical parameters are shown in Table 4.

The results show the values calculated using equation (2) are slightly more than double those calculated using equation (1).

Although the results presented in Table 4 are approximate, these values can be considered as maximum and minimum values of prediction in this study and are useful for evaluating the current environmental conditions. It must be taken into account that these results are an approximation and also that the parameters depend upon the leachate composition, infiltration, waste types and geological materials.

The age of this landfill was inferred using the minimum resistivity values obtained in the models (Table 4). It is possible to define a range between 5 years and 20 years which matches with the age of the municipal landfill, since it was completely closed at least 5 years before this study was done.

The profiles were located close to the phreatimeters. Table 5 shows the comparison between resistivity measured in the phreatimeters and resistivity determined by the geophysical models at the same point and depth.

The expressions of Meju (2000) were also applied to estimate the electrical conductivity and resistivity of the fluid. The estimated resistivity is significantly lower than the experimental resistivity. This discrepancy can be explained by the presence of several levels of clay, which Meju's equations do not take into account (Table 5).

Additionally, groundwater electrical conductivity measured in the phreatimeters was compared to phreatic aquifer electrical conductivity obtained from the 2D model at the same point and depth. A good lineal correlation was observed between both conductivities. These indicate that the formation factor is almost homogeneous in the aquifer.

The water electric conductivity measured in the phreatimeters installed near the border outside the landfill was related with the electric conductivity measured in the geoelectrical

The electrical conductivity of phreatic, surface water and effluents were measured. Values measured in effluents and surface water bodies (accumulations between cells, small streams, temporary ponds, etc.) range between 170 µS/cm and 800 µS/cm and the measures in phreatimeters between 240 µS/cm and 8300 µS/cm. An increase is noticed from south to north and from SE to NW, in the direction of the regional flow. These values are strongly influenced by precipitations and a dilution is observed after each rain event (Dapeña, pers. Com.). In addition, effluents of the landfill show a fast response to the influence of

Table 4 shows the hydrochemical parameters calculated for the oldest landfill. The depth of the minimum resistivity was determined in the central part of the model (x=50m) of profiles Lan01, Lan02 and Lan04. In the case of Lan14 and Lan15 the analysis was only made in the section of the profile which contains solid wastes and the depth of the minimum resistivity

The procedures illustrate by Meju (2000) were used for the calculations and the

The results show the values calculated using equation (2) are slightly more than double

Although the results presented in Table 4 are approximate, these values can be considered as maximum and minimum values of prediction in this study and are useful for evaluating the current environmental conditions. It must be taken into account that these results are an approximation and also that the parameters depend upon the leachate composition,

The age of this landfill was inferred using the minimum resistivity values obtained in the models (Table 4). It is possible to define a range between 5 years and 20 years which matches with the age of the municipal landfill, since it was completely closed at least 5 years

The profiles were located close to the phreatimeters. Table 5 shows the comparison between resistivity measured in the phreatimeters and resistivity determined by the geophysical

The expressions of Meju (2000) were also applied to estimate the electrical conductivity and resistivity of the fluid. The estimated resistivity is significantly lower than the experimental resistivity. This discrepancy can be explained by the presence of several levels of clay, which

Additionally, groundwater electrical conductivity measured in the phreatimeters was compared to phreatic aquifer electrical conductivity obtained from the 2D model at the same point and depth. A good lineal correlation was observed between both conductivities. These

indicate that the formation factor is almost homogeneous in the aquifer.

**2.3.4.1 Electrical conductivity of phreatic and surface water** 

**2.3.4.2 Calculations of hydrochemical parameters** 

hydrochemical parameters are shown in Table 4.

infiltration, waste types and geological materials.

Meju's equations do not take into account (Table 5).

those calculated using equation (1).

before this study was done.

models at the same point and depth.

models obtained from tomography.

precipitations.

was established.


Table 4. Hydrochemical parameters calculated for the landfill. The values of minimum electrical resistivity obtained **b** were used to predict TDS (a) with equation (1) and (b) with equation (2); the electrical conductivity of fluid is predicted using equation (3) and the chloride content with equation (4); The water content W is estimated applying equation (5) and the years are inferred using the content of TDS and Cl- (Meju, 2000).


Table 5. Comparison between resistivity measured in phreatimetres (ρwm) and resistivity determined in geophysical models (ρb) at the same point and depth. The last column shows water resistivity applying (a) equation 1 and (b) equation 2

#### **2.3.5 Gualeguaychú landfill conclusions**

The 2D models obtained within the landfill show a first layer with high resistivity (100 to 1000 ohm-m) and a thickness of less than 4 meters. This layer hosts the domestic and industrial wastes.

The low resistivity values observed below the wastes which could reach up to 10 m of depth are possibly due to leachate retained in the sediments of the Punta Gorda Group.

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 21

The deposition substrate is formed by glacial deposits, highly permeable and with low sorting. It is mainly composed of blocks, gravel and sand. Due to these textural characteristics, leachate has high potential to reach and contaminate the aquifers. Groundwater is the source of drinking water for urban areas adjacent to the repository.

Outcrops present in the area correspond to geological units that comprise the Nahuel Huapi Group of Lower Tertiary age and the sedimentary Complex post-Pliocene-Quaternary which were descript by González Bonorino (1973) and González Bonorino & González

**AGE UNIT LITOLOGHY HYDROGEOLOGIC** 

sediments

Formation Lavas, brecchias, tobas, etc.

The landfill is located on sediments of the Sedimentary Complex post-Pliocene Quaternary, which also form a watershed and are part of the recharge zone of at least three major aquifer systems. These aquifer systems and related channels provide drinking water to urban areas

Formation Feldspar Wackes tuff, etc. Some aquifer sections

rocks Aquiclude

**BEHAVIOUR** 

high to moderate permeability

located in rocks with fissure porosity Very low permeability

Aquifer,

**2.4.2 Gelogical and hydrogeological setting** 

Bonorino ( 1978) and are presented in Table 6.

Nahuel Huapi Group

nearby. Figure 18 shows a picture of the area.

Fig. 18. A photo of the landfill landscape

**Quaternary** Sedimentary Complex Glacial and glacifluvial

Ñirihuau

Ventana

**Premesozoic** Cristalline Basament Igneous and metamorphic

**LowerTertiary -** 

**Upper Tertiary**

Table 6. Stratigraphic column

The neighbouring areas also have very conductive shallow zones which may be due to the migration of the leachate through groundwater flow or to the lithology of the deposits. At the northern boundary of the landfill a conductivity surface was detected and relatively high values of conductivity were measured in the wells. Some resistive bodies (~100 ohmm) were found enclosed in a layer with a resistivity in the order of ~15 ohm-m. These anomalies are explained as lithological variations of the Punta Gorda Group.

The eastern boundary of the landfill has a conductive layer located at the same level as the layer inside. This could be due to the contamination at the border of the waste deposit and also by the presence of clays.

The results of GPR profiles showed strong reflectors, where the wastes are deposited and the upper limit of the contaminant plume was identified along the profile by the absence of reflectors or the existence of very weak signals. In this zone, the 2D resistivity model shows the presence of high electrical conductivity materials, which do not allow radar waves to reach greater depths.

The dipole-dipole and GPR results show good agreement and the integrated interpretation, is supported by local geology.

In the most conductive zones below the landfill some hydrochemical parameters of the leachate were predicted applying the empirical relationships defined by Farquhar (1989) and Meju (2000). The fluid conductivity values are in general comparable with the electrical conductivity measured in water surface samples and less than in the water samples from phreatimeters.

#### **2.4 Bariloche Landfill**

#### **2.4.1 Background**

The landfill of the city of San Carlos de Bariloche is located on National Route 258 (RN 258) approximately 8 km SW. The site was initially used as a place of extraction of materials for the construction of the road (Figure 17). The generated depression was used for disposal of wastes. It is an open dump around 10 hectares area and 8 m to 10 m deep, which began operations in the early 80 s.

Fig. 17. Location of the Bariloche landfill relevant to the Rio Negro province, Argentina.

The deposition substrate is formed by glacial deposits, highly permeable and with low sorting. It is mainly composed of blocks, gravel and sand. Due to these textural characteristics, leachate has high potential to reach and contaminate the aquifers. Groundwater is the source of drinking water for urban areas adjacent to the repository.

### **2.4.2 Gelogical and hydrogeological setting**

20 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

The neighbouring areas also have very conductive shallow zones which may be due to the migration of the leachate through groundwater flow or to the lithology of the deposits. At the northern boundary of the landfill a conductivity surface was detected and relatively high values of conductivity were measured in the wells. Some resistive bodies (~100 ohmm) were found enclosed in a layer with a resistivity in the order of ~15 ohm-m. These

The eastern boundary of the landfill has a conductive layer located at the same level as the layer inside. This could be due to the contamination at the border of the waste deposit and

The results of GPR profiles showed strong reflectors, where the wastes are deposited and the upper limit of the contaminant plume was identified along the profile by the absence of reflectors or the existence of very weak signals. In this zone, the 2D resistivity model shows the presence of high electrical conductivity materials, which do not allow radar waves to

The dipole-dipole and GPR results show good agreement and the integrated interpretation,

In the most conductive zones below the landfill some hydrochemical parameters of the leachate were predicted applying the empirical relationships defined by Farquhar (1989) and Meju (2000). The fluid conductivity values are in general comparable with the electrical conductivity measured in water surface samples and less than in the water samples from phreatimeters.

The landfill of the city of San Carlos de Bariloche is located on National Route 258 (RN 258) approximately 8 km SW. The site was initially used as a place of extraction of materials for the construction of the road (Figure 17). The generated depression was used for disposal of wastes. It is an open dump around 10 hectares area and 8 m to 10 m deep, which began

Fig. 17. Location of the Bariloche landfill relevant to the Rio Negro province, Argentina.

anomalies are explained as lithological variations of the Punta Gorda Group.

also by the presence of clays.

is supported by local geology.

reach greater depths.

**2.4 Bariloche Landfill 2.4.1 Background** 

operations in the early 80 s.

Outcrops present in the area correspond to geological units that comprise the Nahuel Huapi Group of Lower Tertiary age and the sedimentary Complex post-Pliocene-Quaternary which were descript by González Bonorino (1973) and González Bonorino & González Bonorino ( 1978) and are presented in Table 6.


Table 6. Stratigraphic column

The landfill is located on sediments of the Sedimentary Complex post-Pliocene Quaternary, which also form a watershed and are part of the recharge zone of at least three major aquifer systems. These aquifer systems and related channels provide drinking water to urban areas nearby. Figure 18 shows a picture of the area.

Fig. 18. A photo of the landfill landscape

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 23

Fig. 20. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (DD1).

Fig. 21. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (DD2).

Fig. 22. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (DD3).

(see Figures 22 and 23).

Models of the DD3 and DD4 profiles show that the resistivity of the shallow layer for both cases is about 5000 ohm-m - 2000 ohm-m, but below 10 m deep the minimum resistivity is around 200 ohm-m for DD3 while in DD4 the resistivity anomaly is below 20 ohm-meters

#### **2.4.3 Field work**

In the study area more than 30 GPR profiles were performed (Figure 19) reaching depths between 10 m and 40 m and 4 electrical tomographies using the DD configuration. DD1 and DD2 profiles were located within the landfill and DD3 and DD4 outside of it. Profiles DD1, DD2 and DD4 were oriented in the same direction (NW-SE), while the DD3 is almost perpendicular to them (see location in Figure 19).

Fig. 19. A schematic map showing location of: a) GPR profiles; b) Geoelectrical profiles: DD1, DD2, DD3 y DD4.

#### **2.4.4 Results and discussion**

The lowest electrical resistivity obtained in the different models is about 1 ohm-m, while the highest is near the 10000 ohm-meters. These four orders of magnitude difference allowed the detection in the landfill areas of conductive anomalies which can be interpreted as groundwater contamination by leachate and the average resistivity of the ground outside of the landfill indicates the direction of flow of leachate.

Models of DD1 and DD2 profiles show variations in the electrical resistivity from 1 ohm-m to 1000 ohm-m (Figure 20 and 21). In both cases, the first 3 m - 4 m are very resistive. This layer represents the waste deposit and shows heterogeneity typical of areas with higher air content. These resistivity anomalies could be indicating the maximum depth of the deposit. Below the waste the resistivity values range from 20 ohm-m to 60 ohm-m reaching depths around 7 m to 12 m and the more conductive zones observed up to 20 m deep especially at the ends of the two profiles could be due to the presence of leachates. In the case of DD2 profile, where the anomaly is more extended, this could be explained by the uncontrolled discharging of waste fluids.

In the study area more than 30 GPR profiles were performed (Figure 19) reaching depths between 10 m and 40 m and 4 electrical tomographies using the DD configuration. DD1 and DD2 profiles were located within the landfill and DD3 and DD4 outside of it. Profiles DD1, DD2 and DD4 were oriented in the same direction (NW-SE), while the DD3 is almost

Fig. 19. A schematic map showing location of: a) GPR profiles; b) Geoelectrical profiles:

The lowest electrical resistivity obtained in the different models is about 1 ohm-m, while the highest is near the 10000 ohm-meters. These four orders of magnitude difference allowed the detection in the landfill areas of conductive anomalies which can be interpreted as groundwater contamination by leachate and the average resistivity of the ground outside of

Models of DD1 and DD2 profiles show variations in the electrical resistivity from 1 ohm-m to 1000 ohm-m (Figure 20 and 21). In both cases, the first 3 m - 4 m are very resistive. This layer represents the waste deposit and shows heterogeneity typical of areas with higher air content. These resistivity anomalies could be indicating the maximum depth of the deposit. Below the waste the resistivity values range from 20 ohm-m to 60 ohm-m reaching depths around 7 m to 12 m and the more conductive zones observed up to 20 m deep especially at the ends of the two profiles could be due to the presence of leachates. In the case of DD2 profile, where the anomaly is more extended, this could be explained by the uncontrolled

**2.4.3 Field work** 

DD1, DD2, DD3 y DD4.

**2.4.4 Results and discussion** 

discharging of waste fluids.

the landfill indicates the direction of flow of leachate.

perpendicular to them (see location in Figure 19).

Fig. 20. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (DD1).

Fig. 21. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained within the landfill (DD2).

Models of the DD3 and DD4 profiles show that the resistivity of the shallow layer for both cases is about 5000 ohm-m - 2000 ohm-m, but below 10 m deep the minimum resistivity is around 200 ohm-m for DD3 while in DD4 the resistivity anomaly is below 20 ohm-meters (see Figures 22 and 23).

Fig. 22. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (DD3).

Application of Geophysical Methods to Waste Disposal Studies 25

plume moves towards to the RN 258, there is no recorded evidence of its displacement in

Electrical resistivity models obtained are characteristic of landfills with large resistivity contrasts due to the presence of highly conductive fluids and waste which are usually resistive. These results have been correlated with images obtained with GPR. Also, the presence of buried objects of considerable size, associated with piece of metal, oil drums,

In both cases studied, geoelectrical methods and ground penetrating radar have shown that they are efficient techniques for identifying contamination plumes produced by waste

These non-invasive geophysical methods proved to be useful in terms of detecting and mapping physical-chemical changes associated with the presence of wastes. These methods do not require drilling and so avoid the risk of further contamination of the surface and

Geological, hydrogeological and hydrochemical data are required to complement the

The application of this methodology is promising for use in environmental impact assessments of sanitary landfills which are the most common way to eliminate solid urban

We wish to thank Eduardo Llambías and Gabriel Giordanengo for their field technical assistance. This research was supported by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (PICT 2002, 12243) and the article processing charge was paid by Technological

Bell, F. G. & Jermy, C. A. (1995). A seepage problem associated with an old landfill in the

Birks, J. & Eyles, C. A. (1997). Leachate from landfills along the Niagara Escarpment. En:

Buselli, G., Barber, C., Davis, G. B. & Salama, R. B. (1990). Detection of groundwater

Bobachev, A., Modin, I. N. & Shevnin V. (1990-2000). Software. Department of Geophysics.

Geological Faculty. Moscow State University y Geoscan-M. Ltd.

greater Durban area. In: Sarsby, R.W. (Ed.). *Waste Disposal by Landfill GREEN'93*:

Eyles, N. (Ed.). *Environmental Geology of Urban Areas. Geological. Associaiton of* 

contamination near waste disposal sites with transient electromagnetic and electrical methods. En: Ward, S.H. (Ed.). *Geotechnical Environmental Geophysics*. Vol.

NE direction.

**3. Conclusion** 

groundwater.

wastes.

**4. Acknowledgements** 

Transfer Office CONICET.

**5. References** 

amongst other things, has been detected.

disposal sites due to their high salinity.

geophysical results providing a more complete interpretation.

607–614. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

*Canada*, Chap. 24: 347–363. Canada.

2: 27-39. SEG Publ, Tulsa, OK.

Fig. 23. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (DD4).

This behaviour suggests that the leachate could be migrating to this area (RN 258) and contaminating it corresponding to the DD4 profile. The zone corresponding to DD3 profile is uncontaminated. This is an important conclusion, because it coincides with the general idea of the flow direction provided by previous investigations.

Analysis of the GPR profiles has shown the characteristics of the fill, which is irregular in thickness, layout and compaction. Figure 24 presents the radar image of IR4 with 150 Mhz antenna showing the structure of the filling to a depth of 3 m and distinguishes the presence of an object buried at shallow depths.

Fig. 24. Radar image for the landfill up to 9 m of depth.

#### **2.4.5 Bariloche Landfill conclusions**

In summary, this study reflects the existence of an irregular filling with variable depths between 5 m and 7 m, with a maximum depth estimated of 12 meters. The presence of leachate, recognizable to a depth of around 20 m - 25 m, suggests that levels are not impermeable so as to prevent the migration of leachate into the subsoil. The contamination plume moves towards to the RN 258, there is no recorded evidence of its displacement in NE direction.

Electrical resistivity models obtained are characteristic of landfills with large resistivity contrasts due to the presence of highly conductive fluids and waste which are usually resistive. These results have been correlated with images obtained with GPR. Also, the presence of buried objects of considerable size, associated with piece of metal, oil drums, amongst other things, has been detected.

## **3. Conclusion**

24 Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal

Fig. 23. 2D resistivity model up to 20 m deep obtained outside the landfill (DD4).

idea of the flow direction provided by previous investigations.

Fig. 24. Radar image for the landfill up to 9 m of depth.

**2.4.5 Bariloche Landfill conclusions** 

of an object buried at shallow depths.

This behaviour suggests that the leachate could be migrating to this area (RN 258) and contaminating it corresponding to the DD4 profile. The zone corresponding to DD3 profile is uncontaminated. This is an important conclusion, because it coincides with the general

Analysis of the GPR profiles has shown the characteristics of the fill, which is irregular in thickness, layout and compaction. Figure 24 presents the radar image of IR4 with 150 Mhz antenna showing the structure of the filling to a depth of 3 m and distinguishes the presence

In summary, this study reflects the existence of an irregular filling with variable depths between 5 m and 7 m, with a maximum depth estimated of 12 meters. The presence of leachate, recognizable to a depth of around 20 m - 25 m, suggests that levels are not impermeable so as to prevent the migration of leachate into the subsoil. The contamination In both cases studied, geoelectrical methods and ground penetrating radar have shown that they are efficient techniques for identifying contamination plumes produced by waste disposal sites due to their high salinity.

These non-invasive geophysical methods proved to be useful in terms of detecting and mapping physical-chemical changes associated with the presence of wastes. These methods do not require drilling and so avoid the risk of further contamination of the surface and groundwater.

Geological, hydrogeological and hydrochemical data are required to complement the geophysical results providing a more complete interpretation.

The application of this methodology is promising for use in environmental impact assessments of sanitary landfills which are the most common way to eliminate solid urban wastes.

### **4. Acknowledgements**

We wish to thank Eduardo Llambías and Gabriel Giordanengo for their field technical assistance. This research was supported by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (PICT 2002, 12243) and the article processing charge was paid by Technological Transfer Office CONICET.

### **5. References**


**2** 

*Brazil* 

**Geo-Environmental Site** 

**Investigation for Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Sites** 

*Institute for Technological Research of São Paulo State,* 

*São Paulo State University, University of São Paulo, São Paulo,* 

Giulliana Mondelli, Heraldo Luiz Giacheti and Vagner Roberto Elis

Deactivated dump sites and inadequate sanitary landfills can be a serious potential source of contamination. Due to the large number of these sites, contaminants can be generated and migrate into the ground. For this reason, site investigation programs which consider different types of soils and contaminants are needed. In many countries, sanitary landfills have been recently built according to the engineering standards with satisfactory procedures and following the requirements imposed by the local environmental agencies, including monitoring and proper operations. There is a great concern with the operation of sanitary landfills and with the future of deactivated dump sites located in small and medium-size cities, since many of them were inappropriately constructed and operated. Consequently, the main surficial streams and groundwater aquifers, subsoil and air become vulnerable to contamination and pollution. A continuous site investigation program, including in-situ and laboratory tests are necessary to identify the typical soil profile, hydrogeological characteristics and background chemical values. The site surroundings and the subsoil contamination plume can be characterized based on geotechnical, geochemical and

The demand for the geo-environmental site investigation of contaminated and noncontaminated sites intended for future sanitary landfill planning has substantially increased

Environmental agencies from several countries have proposed different site investigation methodologies in order to diagnose and confirm different contamination levels in sites with diverse physical characteristics in order to guide the remediation plan whenever it is necessary. The experience already achieved on site investigations has shown that the best methodology is site specific, and depends on subsoil and chemical contaminants; geotechnical, geological and hydrogeological aspects; evolution of the contamination plume and the possible risks it poses. Several field and laboratory investigation techniques (direct and indirect) have been proposed and used. Sometimes one technique is more suitable than another depending on the physical and natural characteristics of the site. Countries with recent concerns over the environment tend to adapt the experience gained from the more

in the last few years due to the lack of space in metropolitan areas.

**1. Introduction** 

mineralogical techniques.

