Advertisement

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) responses for sub-surface salt contamination and solid waste: modeling and controlled lysimeter studies

  • Y. N. S. Wijewardana
  • A. T. Shilpadi
  • M. I. M. Mowjood
  • K. Kawamoto
  • L. W. Galagedara
Article

Abstract

The assessment of polluted areas and municipal solid waste (MSW) sites using non-destructive geophysical methods is timely and much needed in the field of environmental monitoring and management. The objectives of this study are (i) to evaluate the ground-penetrating radar (GPR) wave responses as a result of different electrical conductivity (EC) in groundwater and (ii) to conduct MSW stratification using a controlled lysimeter and modeling approach. A GPR wave simulation was carried out using GprMax2D software, and the field test was done on two lysimeters that were filled with sand (Lysimeter-1) and MSW (Lysimeter-2). A Pulse EKKO-Pro GPR system with 200- and 500-MHz center frequency antennae was used to collect GPR field data. Amplitudes of GPR-reflected waves (sub-surface reflectors and water table) were studied under different EC levels injected to the water table. Modeling results revealed that the signal strength of the reflected wave decreases with increasing EC levels and the disappearance of the subsurface reflection and wave amplitude reaching zero at higher EC levels (when EC >0.28 S/m). Further, when the EC level was high, the plume thickness did not have a significant effect on the amplitude of the reflected wave. However, it was also found that reflected signal strength decreases with increasing plume thickness at a given EC level. 2D GPR profile images under wet conditions showed stratification of the waste layers and relative thickness, but it was difficult to resolve the waste layers under dry conditions. These results show that the GPR as a non-destructive method with a relatively larger sample volume can be used to identify highly polluted areas with inorganic contaminants in groundwater and waste stratification. The current methods of MSW dumpsite investigation are tedious, destructive, time consuming, costly, and provide only point-scale measurements. However, further research is needed to verify the results under heterogeneous aquifer conditions and complex dumpsite conditions.

Keywords

Contamination Groundwater Ground-penetrating radar Leachate Municipal solid waste 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to acknowledge the Crossing Boundaries project of the Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, SaciWATERs in Hyderabad, India, and the Irrigation and Water Engineering Group at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, for providing the SAWA fellowship and research funding to carry out this study; the National Research Council of Sri Lanka for providing financial assistance to purchase GPR equipment; and Dr. A. Giannopoulos of University of Edinburgh, UK, for providing the GprMax2D model.

References

  1. Abila, B., & Kantola, J. (2013). Municipal solid waste management problems in Nigerial: evolving knowledge management solution. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Environmental, Chemical, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering, 7(6), 303–308.Google Scholar
  2. Abul, S. (2010). Environmental and health impact of solid waste disposal at Mangwaneni dumpsite in Manzini: Swaziland. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12, 64–79.Google Scholar
  3. Annan, A. P. (1973). Radio interferometry depth sounding: part I—theoretical discussion. Geophysics, 38, 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annan, A. P. (1992). Ground penetrating radar workshop notes. Mississauga: Sensor and Software Inc..Google Scholar
  5. Annan, A. P. (1999). Proceedings of the second government workshop on GPR. Mississauga: Sensor and Software Inc..Google Scholar
  6. Bevan, M. J., Endres, A. L., Rudolph, D. L., & Parkin, G. W. (2003). The non-invasive characterization of pumping-induced dewatering using ground penetrating radar. Journal of Hydrology, 281(1–2), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calabrese, M., Zanzi, L., & Lualdi, M. (2004). Mapping an industrial landfill area from penetration of GPR data. In proceedings: Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Paper ENG02: 14.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, P. J., Grellier, S., Adib, R., Peters, C., & Gangathulasi, J. (2008). Investigating the interior of a landfill cell with leachate injection using electromagnetic conductivity and ground penetrating radar surveys. In proceedings: The 21st Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Cassidy, N. J. (2007). Evaluating LNAPL contamination using GPR signal attenuation analysis and dielectric property measurements practical implications for hydrological studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 94, 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosgrave, T. M., Greenhouse, J. P., & Barker, J. F. (1987). Shallow stratigraphic reflections from ground penetrating radar. In proceedings: The first national outdoor action conference on aquifer restoration, ground water monitoring, and geophysical methods, Las Vegas, NV. 555–569.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlin, T., & Owen, R. (1998). Geophysical investigations of alluvial aquifers in Zimbabwe. In proceedings: The 4th EEGS Meeting. Barcelona, 14–17 September, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlin, T., Bernstone, C., & Loke, M. H. (2002). A 3D resitivity investigation of a contaminated site at Lernacken. Sweden., 67(6), 1692–1700. doi: 10.1190/1.1527070.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, J. L., & Annan, A. P. (1989). Ground penetrating radar for high resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophysical Prospecting, 37, 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galagedara, L. W., Parkin, G. W., & Redman, J. D. (2003). An analysis of GPR direct ground wave method for soil water content measurement. Hydrological Possesses, 17, 3615–3628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galagedara, L. W., Parkin, G. W., Redman, J. D., von Bertoldi, P., & Endres, A. L. (2005a). Field studies of the GPR ground wave method for estimating soil water content during irrigation and drainage. Journal of Hydrology, 301(1–4), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galagedara, L. W., Redman, J. D., Parkin, G. W., Annan, A. P., & Endres, A. L. (2005b). Numerical modeling of GPR to determine the direct ground wave sampling depth. Vadose Zone Journal, 4(4), 1096–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giannopolous, A. (2005). Electromagnetic simulator for ground probing radar: GPRMAX 2D V2 User’s manual. Scotland: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  18. Gunasekara, L. S. W., Mannapperuma, N. R. C., Basnayake, B. F. A., & Somathilaka, W. E. G. (2004). Evaluation of different methods of composting as pre-treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) for landfill. In proceeding: The 3rd Asian Pacific Landfill Symposium (APLAS), Kitakyushu, Japan, 27–29, October.Google Scholar
  19. Hermozilha, H., Grangeia, C., & Matias, M. S. (2010). An integrated 3D constant offset GPR and resistivity survey on a sealed landfill — Ilhavo, NW Portugal. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 70(1), 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huisman, J. A., Hubbard, S. S., Redman, J. D., & Annan, A. P. (2003). Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar: a review. Vadose Zone Journal, 2(4), 476–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ileperuma, O. A. (2000). Environmental pollution in Sri Lanka: a review. Journal of National Science Foundation Sri Lanka, 28(4), 301–325.Google Scholar
  22. Jayaweera, J. A. S., & Bandara, N. J. G. J. (2013). A study on the feasibility of using leachate of open dumps as moisture in composting municipal solid waste. In proceeding: International Forestry and Environment Symposium, 2013, Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Sri Lanka. 40–41.Google Scholar
  23. Jeong-Sul, S., Jung-Ho, K., Myeong-Jong, Y., & Kyung-Seok, K. (2005). Case study on investigation of leachate contamination from waste landfill using electromagnetic and magnetic methods. Geophysics and Geophysical Exploration, 8(2), 137–144.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, W. E. (1976). Geoelectric sounding for delineating groundwater contamination. Groundwater, 14(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane, J. W., Buursink, M. L., Haeni, F. P., & Versteeg, R. J. (2000). Evaluation of GPR to direct free phase hydrocarbons in fractured rocks—results on numerical modeling and physical experiments. Groundwater, 38(6), 929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, J. H., & Wang, W. (2009). Characterization of snow cover using ground penetrating radar for vehicle trafficability—experiment and modeling. Journal of Terramechanics, 46(4), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liner, C. A., & Liner, J. L. (1995). Ground penetrating radar: a near-face experience from Washington County, Arkansas. The Leading Edge, 5, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez, J. A. R., Hernandez, J. R., Mancilla, O. L., Diazconti, C. C., & Garrido, M. M. L. (2008). Assessment of ground water contamination by landfill leachate: a case in Mexico. Waste water management, 28, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milan Jr., B., & Haeni, F. P. (1991). Application of ground-penetrating-radar methods in hydrogeologic studies. Groundwater, 29(3), 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mimrose, D. M. C. S., Galagedara, L. W., Parkin, G. W., & Wijewardana, Y. G. N. S. (2011). Investigating the effect of electrical conductivity in irrigation water on reflected wave energy of GPR. Tropical Agriculturist, 159 (2011), 29–46, An International Agriculture Journal of Sri Lanka, Department of Agriculture, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (ISSN 0041–3224).Google Scholar
  31. Pan, X., Zhang, J., Huang, P., & Roth, K. (2012). Estimating field scale soil water dynamics at a heterogeneous site using multi-channel GPR. Hydrology and Earth System Science Journal, 16, 4361–4372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pomposiello, C., Favetto, A., & Ostera, H. (2004). Resistivity imaging and ground penetrating radar survey at Gualeguaychu landfill, Entre Rios Province, Argentina: Evidence of a contamination plume. IAGA WG 1.2 on Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth, In proceedings: The 17th Workshop. Hyderabad, India, 18–23 October, 2004. http://www.emindia2004.org.
  33. Pomposiello, C., Dapena, C., Favetto, A., & Boujon, P. (2012). Application of geophysical methods to waste disposal studies. In Xiao-Ying Yu (Ed), Municipal and Industrial Waste Disposal, ISBN: 978–953–51-0501-5, DOI:  10.5772/29615. InTech. http://www.intechopen.com/books/municipal-and-industrial-waste-disposal/application-of-geophysical-methods-to-waste-disposal-studies-.
  34. Robert, M. K., & David, E. D. (1997). Final covers for solid waste landfills and abandoned dumps. ASCE Press and Thomas Telford, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Roy, J. W., Robillard, M. J., Watson, S. B., & Hayashi, M. (2009). Non-intrusive characterization methods for waste water-affected groundwater plumes discharging to an alpine lake. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 149, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sensors and Software Inc. (1999). Practical processing of GPR data, Mississauga, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Sensors and Software Inc. (2003). EKKO_View Enhanced & EKKO_View Deluxe user's guide, Mississauga, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Sensors and Software Inc. (2006). Pulse EKKO PRO users’ guide, Mississauga, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  39. Soupios, P., Papadopoulos, N., Papadopoulos, I., Kouli, M., Vallianatos, F., Saris, A., & Manios, T. (2007). Application of integrated methods in mapping waste disposal areas. Environmental Geology, 53(3), 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Splajt, T. (2003). Application of multi-scale assessment and modeling of landfill leachate migration. Hull: The Geography Department at the University of Hull.Google Scholar
  41. Stanton, G. P., & Schrader, T. P. (2001). Surface geophysical investigation of a chemical waste landfill in Northwestern Arkansas. In E. L. Kuniansky (Ed), U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report, 01–4011, 107–115.Google Scholar
  42. Summers, M., Hikuroa, D., & Gravely, D. (2009). GPR as an investigative tool: exploring human modified to natural environment. Stanford University Geological and Environmental Sciences. University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  43. Van Dam, R. L., Schlager, W., Dekkers, M. J., & Huisman, J. A. (2002). Iron oxides as a cause of GPR reflections. Geophysics, 67(2), 536–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Villain, L., Sundstrom, N., Perttu, N., Alakangas, L., & Ohlander, B. (2014). Evaluation of the effectiveness of backfill and sealing at an open-pit mine using GPR and geoelectric surveys, Kimdeheden. North Sweden. Environment Earth Science, 73(8), 4495–4509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wijewardana, N. S., Galagedara, L. W., & Mowjood, M. I. M. (2012). Assessment of groundwater contamination by landfill leachate with ground penetrating radar. In proceedings: The 14th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), IEEE 2012: 728–732. June 4–8, 2012, Shanghai, China, ISBN 978–1–4673-2663-6.Google Scholar
  46. Wu, T. N., & Hung, Y. C. (2006). Detection of illegal dump deposit with GPR: case study. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Management, 10(3), 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. N. S. Wijewardana
    • 1
  • A. T. Shilpadi
    • 2
  • M. I. M. Mowjood
    • 2
  • K. Kawamoto
    • 3
  • L. W. Galagedara
    • 4
  1. 1.Uva Wellassa UniversityBadullaSri Lanka
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of PeradeniyaPeradeniyaSri Lanka
  3. 3.Graduate School of Science and EngineeringSaitama UniversitySaitamaJapan
  4. 4.Grenfell CampusMemorial University of NewfoundlandCorner BrookCanada

Personalised recommendations