• Maxwell Meju
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 71)


Landfill sites commonly use the space available in disused quarries or special purpose-built structures but not all past landfill operations were adequately controlled or documented such that the site boundaries, and the type and volume of fill are unknown in some old covered landfill sites. Even in controlled sites, the final form and depth extent of the landfill may not conform to those indicated in the original plan submitted to the regulatory authorities during the application for a site license. Thus, a significant amount of work is required in order to accurately define the relevant parameters of a covered landfill site. Our hydrogeophysical interest in landfill sites lies in assessing the pollution threat they pose since they may contain hazardous substances.


Total Dissolve Solid Landfill Site Induce Polarization Joint Inversion Static Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baedecker, M.J., and M.A. Apgar, 1984, Hydrochemical studies at a landfill in Delaware, in Groundwater Contamination, edited by J. Bredehoeft, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp.127–138.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, R.D., 1990. Improving the quality of resistivity sounding data in landfill studies, in Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, edited by S.H. Ward, Vol. 1, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 245–251.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, F.G., and C.A. Jermy, 1995. A seepage problem associated with an old landfill in the greater Durban area, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 607–614.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, P.C., and D.I. Siegel, 1987. Increased solubility of quartz in water due to complexing by organic compounds, Nature, 326, 684–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birks, J., and C.A. Eyles, 1997. Leachate from landfills along the Niagara Escarpment, in Environmental Geology of Urban Areas, edited by N. Eyles, Geological Association of Canada, Chap. 24, pp. 347–363.Google Scholar
  6. Buselli, G., C. Barber, G.B. Davis, and R.B. Salama, 1990. Detection of groundwater contamination near waste disposal sites with transient electromagnetic and electrical methods, in Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, Vol. II, edited by S.H. Ward, SEG, Tulsa, OK, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
  7. Buselli, G., G.B. Davis, C. Barber, M.I. Height, and S.H.D. Howard, 1992. The application of electromagnetic and electrical methods to groundwater pollution problems in urban environments, Explor. Geophys., 23, 543–556.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, P.J., S.F. Calkin, and R.S. Kaufmann, 1991. Assessing a fractured landfill cover using electrical resistivity and seismic refraction techniques, Geophysics, 56, 1896–1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter, P.J., R.S. Kaufmann, and B. Price, 1990. Use of resistivity soundings to determine landfill structure, Ground Water, 28, 569–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dearlove, J.P.L., 1995. Geochemical interaction processes between landfill clay liner materials and organo-metallic landfill leachate, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 409–414.Google Scholar
  11. DoE, 1996. Long-term monitoring of non-contained landfills: Burnstump and Gorsethorpe on the Sherwood Sandstone, edited by K. Lewin, C.P. Young, N.C. Blakey, P. Sims, and P. Reynolds, Department of the Environment, U.K., Published Report CWM 139/96.Google Scholar
  12. Ebraheem, M.W., E.R. Bayless, and N.C. Krothe, 1990. A study of acid mine drainage using earth resistivity measurements, Ground Water, 28, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Everett, L.G., L.G. Wilson, and E.W. Hoylman, 1984. Vadose zone monitoring for hazardous waste sites: Pollution Technology Review, vol. 112, Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey, 358 p.Google Scholar
  14. Fang, H.Y., 1995. Engineering behaviour of urban refuse, compaction control and slope stability analysis of landfill, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
  15. Farquhar, G.J., 1989. Leachate: Production and characterisation, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 16, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallardo, L.A., and M.A. Meju, 2003. Characterisation of heterogeneous near-surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30 (13), 1658–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallardo, L.A., and M.A. Meju, 2004. Joint two-dimensional dc resistivity and seismic traveltime inversion with cross-gradients constraints, J. Geophys. Res., 109, B3, B03311, doi: 10.1029/2003JB002716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallardo, L.A., M.A. Meju, and M.A. Flores-Perez, 2005. A quadratic programming approach for joint image reconstruction: Mathematical and geophysical examples, Inverse Prob., 21, 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, C.D., and A.J.T. Gilchrist, 1995. Steeply sloping lining systems – stability considerations using reinforced soil veneers, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 427–431.Google Scholar
  20. Herwanger, J.V., C.C. Pain, A. Binley, C.R.E. de Oliveira, and M. Worthington, 2004. Anisotropic resistivity tomography, Geophys. Int., 158, 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, M.J., J.G. Leonard, and R.J. Whiteley, 1978. Lucas Heights solid waste landfill and downstream leachate transport – a case study in environmental geology, Bull. Int.. Assoc. Eng. Geol., 18, 45–64.Google Scholar
  22. Kovacic, D., D. Mayer, and I. Muhovec, 1995. Geotechnical characteristics of Zagreb waste disposal site and possibilities of its reclamation, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 543–547.Google Scholar
  23. Laine, D.L., J.O. Parra, and T.E. Owen, 1982. Application of an automatic earth resistivity system for detecting groundwater migration under a municipal landfill: In: Proc. NWWA Conf. on Surface and borehole geophysical methods in groundwater investigations, Feb. 12–14, 1982, pp. 34–51.Google Scholar
  24. MacFarlane, D.S., J.A. Cherry, R.W. Gillham, and A. Sudicky, 1983. Migration of contaminants in groundwater at a landfill: A case study, J. Hydrol., 63, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meju, M.A., 1996. Joint inversion of TEM and distorted MT soundings: Some effective practical considerations, Geophysics, 61, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meju, M.A., 2000. Geoelectrical investigation of old/abandoned, covered landfill sites in urban areas: Model development with a genetic diagnosis approach, J. Appl. Geophys., 44, 115–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meju, M.A., 2002. Environmental geophysics: Conceptual models, challenges and the way forward, The Leading Edge, 21 (5), 460–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meju, M.A., 2005. Simple relative space-time scaling of electrical and electromagnetic depth sounding arrays: Implications for electrical static shift removal and joint DC-TEM inversion with the most-squares criterion, Geophys. Prospect., 53, 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Naudet, V., A. Revil, and J.-Y. Bottero, 2003. Relationship between self-potential (SP) signals and redox conditions in contaminated groundwater, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30 (21), 2091, Doi: 10.1029/2003GL018096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Naudet, V., A. Revil, E. Rizo, J.-Y. Bottero, and P. Begassat, 2004. Groundwater redox conditions and conductivity in a contaminant plume from geoelectrical investigations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8 (1), 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oehler, D. Z., and B.K. Sternberg, 1984. Seepage-induced anomalies, “false” anomalies, and implications for electrical prospecting, Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull., 68 (9), 1121–1145.Google Scholar
  32. Oehler, D. Z., and B.K. Sternberg, 1982. Induced polarization for hydrocarbon exploration: Geochemical/geological interpretation, in Technical program abstracts and biographies, 52nd Annual International Society of Exploration Geophysicists Meeting and Exposition, Dallas, TX, pp. 445–448.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrander, A.G., N.C. Carlson, and K.L. Zonge, 1983. Further evidence of electrical anomalies over hydrocarbon accumulations using CSAMT: Expanded Abstracts and Biographies, in 53rd Annual International Society of Exploration Geophysicists Meeting and Exposition, Las Vegas, pp. 60–63.Google Scholar
  34. Revil, A., H. Schwaeger, L.M. Cathles, and P.D. Manhardt, 1999. Streaming potentials in porous media: 2. Theory and application to geothermal systems, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 20,033–20,048.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, H.P., C.E. Mackelprang, and P.M. Wright, 1990. Dipole–dipole electrical resistivity surveys at waste disposal study sites in Northern Utah, in Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics, edited by S.H. Ward, Vol. 2, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, USA, pp. 145–152.Google Scholar
  36. Sanchez-Alciturri, J.M., J. Palma, C. Sagaseta, and J. Canizal, 1995. Mechanical properties of wastes in a sanitary landfill, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 357–363.Google Scholar
  37. Sasaki, Y., and M.A. Meju, 2006. Three-dimensional joint inversion for magnetotelluric and static shift distributions in complex media, J. Geophys. Res., 111, xxxxxx, doi: 10.1029/2005JB004009 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sowers, G.F., 1968. Foundation problems in sanitary landfill, J. Sanit. Eng. Div. Proc. ASCE, 94 (1), 207–210.Google Scholar
  39. Spitzer, K., 2001. Magnetotelluric static shift and direct current sensitivity, Geophys. J. Int., 144, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tezkan, B., M. Goldman, S. Greinwald, A. Hordt, I. Muller, F.M. Neubauer, and G. Zacher, 1996. A joint application of radiomagnetotellurics and transient electromagnetics to the investigation of a waste deposit in Cologne (Germany), J. Appl. Geophys., 34, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Timm, F., and P. Moller, 2001. The relation between electric and redox potential: An evidence from laboratory to field experiments, J. Geochem. Explor., 72, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wasti, Y., 1995. Municipal plans for solid waste disposal in Turkey, in Waste Disposal by Landfill-GREEN’93, edited by R.W. Sarsby, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 195–203.Google Scholar
  43. Weller, A., W. Frangos, and M. Seichter, 2000. Three-dimensional inversion of induced polarization data from simulated waste, J. Appl. Geophys., 44, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whiteley, R.J., and C. Jewell, 1992. Geophysical techniques in contaminated lands assessment: Do they deliver? Explor. Geophys., 23, 557–565.Google Scholar
  45. Witmer, K.A., J. Volk, and D. Naik, 1984. Low-cost ground improvement technique for landfill area, in Proceedings of Low-cost and Energy Saving Construction Materials, pp. 497–516.Google Scholar
  46. Yamamura, K., 1983. Current status of waste management in Japan, Waste Manage. Res., 1, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang, J., R.L. Mackie, and T.R. Madden, 1995. 3-D resistivity forward modelling and inversion using conjugate gradients, Geophysics, 60 (5), 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxwell Meju

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations