In its broadest sense, environmental geophysics is

concerned with the location, delineation and monitoring of

subsurface hazards, regardless of their causes. The
information provided is normally one input to an
environmental riskassessment which can have major socio-
economic impactsat all scales of humanactivity. Prevailing
human tolerance to environmental hazards varies in
intensity and geographic location and essentially controls
demand for environmental geophysical services. In North
America over the past decade in Greenhouse (1991) has
notedthatthe developmentof environmental geophysicshas
Fig. 1 (modified from Smith, 1992) shows some major
environmental hazards fromthe entire spectrumof hazards.
These have been qualitatively scaled according to their
impacts, which may be intense and local (e.g. volcanic
eruption) or diffuse and widespread (e.g. groundwater
pollution). Also the degree of direct human responsibility for
the hazard may range from involuntary i.e. beyond human
control, to voluntaryi.e. controllable. ConsideringFig. 1 from
today's perspective there is little doubt that environmental
hazards are increasingly manmade, increasingly voluntary
and diffuse intheir impact.
Natural hazards and disasters are not simply geophysical
events but result fromthe interactionof physical and social
forces. They are an integral part of human history since
people routinely make environmental appraisals and value
judgements on the natural processes whenever they settle
land or use its resources. Paradoxically, while science and
technology have made many people's lives safer and
healthier, their by-products have superimposed significant
man-made or technological hazards on these natural
hazards. Mankind is now at risk from natural geophysical
events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruption, and
fromindustrial pollutionwhose accumulated wastes release
toxic substances into the environment. Prime importance is
nowgivento minimisingenvironmental riskand avertingthe
realizationof such risk, environmental disaster.
Introduction
It is concluded that environmental geophysics has a bright
future provided geophysicists are willing meet these
challenges, if not, other non-specialists will increasingly
enter the field as has beenthe case in NorthAmerica.
DIFFUSE VOLUNTARY
FIGURE1: Spectrum of Geophysical Hazards
underground mining
infrastructure failure
soil contamination
earthquake
volcanic eruption
groundwater pollution
INTENSE INVOLUNTARY
NATURAL-------MANMADE
Conventional geophysical methods havehadlimitedsuccess
in delineating hydrocarbon LNAPL and DNAPL
contamination, both major pollutants. InSouthAustralia, the
extentof aplume producedbya largediesel oil (LNAPL)spill
was mapped with a new method of Radiowave
electromagnetic profiling method (R-EM) which overcomes
many of the limitations of conventional electromagnetic
induction andground probing radar methods.
Salinisationofagricultural lands is arguably Australia's major
environmental problem. A dryland salinity study in Victoria
demonstrates the process by which electromagnetic
responses of soils can be expressed in terms of crop
productivities for appropriate plant species. This information
is of direct useto farmers, land managers and agronomists.
There are two major challenges for environmental
geophysicists, firstly, to understand socio-economic and
environmental factors which govern the demand for their
services and, secondly, to use improved methods and
develop practices which more effectively address
environmental problems. Field studies on major
environmental problems providesome perspectiveon these
challenges.
Modern civilizations are at risk from natural geophysical
events and from industries whose accumulated wastes
release toxic substances into the environment. These
environmental hazards are increasingly man-made,
increasingly voluntary and diffuse in their impact.
Environmental geophysics addresses the quantification and
monitoringof subsurfacehazards, irrespectiveof their origin.
Abstract:
Dr. Robert J. Whiteley
Affiliation: Principal Geophysicist
Coffey Partners Intemational Ply. Ltd.
12 Waterloo Rd.,
North Ryde NSW 2113,
Australia
Environmental Geophysics: Challenges and Perspectives
189
Exploration Geophysics (1995)25, 189-196
Clearly, an understanding of the controlling environmental
and socio-economic tolerance factors operating at a
particular site is necessary for successful application of
environmental geophysics. This may also explain why
geophysicists have not yet effectively made the transition
In practice, human sensitivity to environmental hazards is
controlled by the combination of physical exposure,
representing the range and statistical variability of an
environmental factor at a specific site, and human
vulnerabilityrepresentingthe rangeof social toleranceat the
same site (Smith, 1992). Using a similar schematic
approach, Fig. 3 shows some examples of the changes in
human sensitivity to a single factor environmental hazard
over time. In all three cases (a,b and c, Fig. 3) the risk of
environmental disaster increases with time. In Fig. 3a, a
constant band of tolerance persists, however, the average
value increases with time. In Fig. 3b the average value for
thefactor remains relativelyconstantbutvariability becomes
greater. In Fig. 3c neither the variability nor the average
value changes, however, human tolerance decreases with
time.
Social and economic activity is geared to the complex
interaction of environmental factors in which each factor
operates over time within an acceptable range and close to
its average value. Fig. 2 demonstrates variations of a single
environmental factor which maybecomea hazardover time,
e.g. the level of groundwater contamination. The shaded
area represents an acceptable range of variation or human
tolerance within which the level of contamination does not
pose a health hazard. However, if the level exceeds the
tolerance threshold then the factor imposes a stress on
societyand becomes anenvironmental hazard. The intensity
of the hazardis determinedbythe peakdeviationbeyondthe
thresholdandthedurationbythe lengthof timethe threshold
is exceeded. Both peak and duration exert powerful
influences on society's attitude to the hazard. This may
require a rapid and effective response from a team of
technologists which includes geophysicists.
Socio-economic factors
Based on their experience, Wruble et al. (1986) also
conclude that different investigators may obtain misleading
data from incorrect or improper use of certain geophysical
techniques over waste sites. Similarly, Whiteley and J ewell
(1992) established, by direct excavation, that interpretations
of Ground Probing Radar data by supposed experts at a
waste site in western Sydney were erronous.
Considerationof these experiences and manyothers in the
unpublished literature demonstrates that there are two
principal challenges for geophysicists wishing to be
involvedwith environmental problems i.e,
- to better understand socio-economic and environmental
factors and their inter-relationships,
- to develop improvedgeophysical methods and practices.
may require modification to produce useable data over
waste sites and that proper training of operators and
interpreters is essential.
WHITELEY
FIGURE 2Human Sensitivity to a Single Environmental Factor (modified
from Smith, 1992)
FIGURE 3 Examples Showing how Environmental Hazards Can Arise
Over Time. Constant Tolerance, Diminishing Tolerance
FIGURE 3
"TOL ERANCERANGE
c
B
A
FIGURE 2
--AVERAGE
TOL ERANCE RANGE
TIME
Other workers (e.g. Wheatcraft et al. 1984) have observed
that conventional geophysical hardware and procedural
methods developed in petroleum and mineral exploration
During the same period the U.S. Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) has recognised that not all available
geophysical methods for subsurface characterisation are
applicable to studies at waste disposal sites, a major
environmental problem. Inorder to assure geophysical data
quality and standardise practice the EPA has attempted to
define those methods which are useful (Benson et. aI.,
1984). Having similar concerns, the US Geological Survey
(USGS) has produced expert advisor software (Olhoeft,
1992a) specifically designed to assist non-geophysicists in
the use of geophysics at hazardous waste sites.
taken place mainly outside the established geophysical
community and that there are many people calling
themselves environmental geophysicists who lack
appropriate qualificationsand experience.
190
Remediation measures for the soil salinity problem are
required at both the regional and individual farm level. For
these to be effective both the extent and severity of the
problem must be defined. Remote sensing (Landsat
imagery) has been successful in delineating and
discriminating salt affected land on a regional scale (e.g.
Wheaton et al., 1992). Also airborne and ground
geophysics (EM, magnetics and resistivity) have assisted
with land management by identifying geological and
Salt contamination of soils and salinisation of agricultural
land affects productivity and the financial viability of many
farmers. This formof land degradation is widely believedto
be the major environmental problem for Australia's
agricultural industry.The salinisationprocess is not a natural
occurrence but has developed since European settlement
dueto extensiveclearingof nativevegetationin groundwater
recharge and growing areas. Increased recharge and a
rising watertable have activated salts in the deeper soil
profile bringing them to the root zone and expanding salt
affected areas. Over-irrigation and the sowing of shallow
rootedpasture haveworsenedthis problemin many areas.
Land degradation and dryland salinity
The following examples illustrate the application of
environmental geophysicsto majortechnological hazards i.e.
salinisation of agricultural land and hydrocarbonpollution of
urban environments.
Field examples
For example, ground vibrations from heavy traffic which
produce surface seismic waves can be greatly reduced by
using downhole detectors and surface-to-borehole seismic
methods. This approach was used by Whiteley and Love
(1990) to locate shallow abandoned mine workings which
posed an environmental hazard to proposed residential
developments adjacentto busy roads.
Also as many sites are within or close to developed areas,
conventional geophysical methods i.e. seismic, resistivity,
electromagnetics and magnetics are frequently subject to
high levels of vibrational, electrical and electromagnetic
interference. These influences, in addition to subsurface
factors, may render conventional geophysical methods
inapplicable or may necessitate modification and trialing of
different methods.
Available geophysical methods and practices for
environmental studies of contaminated lands derive from
related applications such as groundwater and engineering
geophysics. However, as Wheatcraft et at. (ibid.) and
Whiteley and J ewell (ibid.) have noted such conventional
approaches may be inappropriate or inadequate when
applied to technological hazards for land modified in the
recent past by deliberate or accidental human action rather
than by geological processes.
Current methods and practice
191
J ewell et al, (1993) have noted that health risk assessment
requires direct statistical sampling of a site, which is not
without controversy (Ferguson, 1992), and a multi-
disciplinary approach. Environmental geophysicists are
members of a teamof specialists whose role it is to locate,
delineate and quantify property variations in subsurface
materials or groundwaters caused by past human practices
including waste disposal and industrial accidents. They are
also expected to monitor variations in these features
resultingfrommigrationof pollution plumes or as a result of
remediationactivities.
One difficulty is that there is no universally accepted
definition of what constitutes contaminated land also
contamination can be subtle e.g. decreased agricultural
productivity due to salinisation. The National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 1991) defines
contaminated land as "land which because of previous or
present uses at or near the site, contains materials that give
riseeither directlytoor indirectlyto long-termadverseeffects
to health". This is a very general definitionwhich apart from
providing some geographic limitations does little to assist
environmental geophysicists.
The socio-economic factors associated with technological
hazards are somewhat easier to predict than for natural
hazards as there is a worldwide trend of decreasing
tolerance (Fig. 3c). Also the bulk of current attention is
focussed on assessment of land and groundwater
contamination which commenced with industrialisation and
large scale land clearing.
Technological hazards
Such disasters create an increased public perception or
decreased tolerance to earthquake risks (Fig. 3c) and
demonstratethe needfor improvedseismic riskassessment.
This should incorporate comprehensive microzonation
studies taking into account existing tectonic features, local
soil conditions and engineering structures (Poulos, 1991).
Australia has yet to complete such studies and, clearly,
environmental geophysicists will have a major role to play
once publicdemand asserts itself.
Significant socio-economic factors and patterns are not
always easy to identify in the case of natural hazards.
Fortunately, Australia has not experienced a catastrophic
natural disaster, however, the Newcastle earthquake which
struck on December28, 1989demonstratedour vunerability
to natural hazards. This was the first fatal earthquake in
Australia since Europeansettlement and although classified
as only moderate, measuring 5.6 on the Richer Scale, it
resulted in 12 deaths and total damage of more than $ 1
billion (Slonget al., 1990).
Natural hazards
frompetroleumandmininggeophysics areas, which operate
in very restrictedeconomic frameworks andwhich dominate
the geophysical profession.
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOPHYSICS: CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
TABLE 1 Salinityclassifications, relationshipsto plantsensitivity,
productivity,electrical conductivity(fromNorman,1990)
+EC1.5determinedona1soil:5waterextrat
*ECedeterminedonasaturationextract(6.4xEC1.5).
Groupings ofCropswith Rootzone SalinityLevels(For Corresponding
Different Tolerances to Minimum10%YieldLoss) SalinityStatus
Rootzone Salinity
TDS EC1.5+ ECe*
Class
(ppmdry (dS /m ) (dS /m )
soil)
SENSITIVE CROPS <1800 <0.60 <3.8 LOW
(e.g.Whiteclover, Sub-
clover)
MODERATELY TOLERANT 1800 0.60 3.86.5 MODERATE
CROPS 3000 1.01
(e.g.Paspalum, Shaftal
Clover, Ryegrass, Wheat)
TOLERANT CROPS 3000 1.01 6.58.6 HIGH
(e.g.Puccinellia, TallWheat 4000 1.35
grass, Millet)
HIGHLYTOLERANT CROPS>4000 >1.35 >B.6 EXTREME
(2)
ECe(o.zcm)= c d Ea(o.zcm)
Over the selected depth interval (0to z cm) the averaged
ECa(O-z ern) is then regressed against the averaged ECe (0.
z em). i.e.
For this procedure to be accurate ECa versus ECe
calibrations must be obtained for each soil layer and type in
the area. Normally collected soil samples are grouped into a
number of soil types based on clay percentage and also into
a number of soil moisture groups based on gravimetric
moisture contents. Moisture conditions greater than 20%on
a gravimetric basis are recommended for accurate
calibrations (Norman, ibid.).
In the field ECa measurements at the soil sample locations
are best made using a simplified resistivity logging device
(called a Rhoades or EC-probe) designed by Rhoades and
van Schilfgaarde (1976). Wenner resistance readings are
taken with this probe at each depth (to 60ern) and converted
to ECausing factors obtained by submerging the probe inan
extended container filled with solutions of known
conductivity.
where a and b are constants which depend essentially on
soil texture and clay content respectively. This relationship is
not strictly correct for low salinity waters and Nadler and
Frenkel (1980) have shown that for each soil the ratio
between ECa and ECw (the conductivity of the pore water),
which is closely related to ECe, is only linear for ECwgreater
than 3.5dS/m.
.(1) ECa = aECe +b
Rhoades (1979) has shown that for a given soil with a
standard water content, in practice, taken at field capacity
there is a linear relationship between ECa and ECe, i.e-
WHITELEY
The laboratory methods for determining salinity are costly
and time consuming, however, they are essential for
calibration of apparent conductivity (ECa) measurements
made with resistivity or electromagnetic geophysical
methods. As most soil minerals are insulators and ECa of
soils depends on a number of soil properties, i.e, porosity,
moisture content, temperature, colloid (clay) content
together with the concentration of dissolved salts or soil
salinity which we wish to determine.
In order to determine the salinity status of an area all
conductivity measurements on extracts must be related to
soil salinity classes. These classes are based on the
response of pasture and/or crop species to soil salinity at
various levels which, inturn, will depend on the existing level
of soil salinity and current land use. More than two salinity
classes are needed for these measurements to be of real
value. Table 1 (from Norman, 1990) shows an example of
salinity classifications and relationships to plant sensitivity,
productivity and electrical conductivity. In this case ECe= 6.4
ECe 1:5but will vary according to soil type. Total Dissolved
Salt (TDS) ranges are also shown for compa ison.
Traditional direct methods for determining soil salinity in the
root zone are laboratory based and use an extract of soil
water containing a dilution of the soluble salts existing inthe
natural soil. Salt concentration or salinity is determined on
the extract by electrical conductivity (EC) measurements
(expressed in deciSeimens per metre). There are two
accepted methods for obtaining this extract. The first, which
provides ameasure of the soluble salt per unit volume of soil
is obtained by mixing one part soil to five parts water and
removing the extract for EC measurement after settling. The
conductivity obtained is referred to as ECe 1:5. The second
method is to carefully saturate the soil sample and remove
the extract under vacuum. This is known as the saturated
extract and the conductivity obtained is referred to as ECe
which is indicative of the soluble salt concentration in the
most dilute soil water situation from which plants must obtain
water for growth. A conversion between these two measures
of salinity can be obtained, however, this is highly dependent
on soil texture. Although the former measurement is more
convenient (Le. ECe1:5)the latter measurement (Le. ECe) is
more commonly used to relate plant response to soil salinity.
Unfortunately, most environmental geophysical studies
completed for salinity purposes have focussed on the deeper
regions of the earth whereas farmers, land managers and
agronomists require detailed information on the soil profile,
particularly on the plant root zone to depths of 0 to 60 cm.
These people also require that the geophysical
measurements be related to familiar quantities and to
pasture and crop responses for those species actually
present in the area. This places additional demands on
environmental geophysicists, however, the procedures by
which this may be achieved are described below.
groundwater controls on salinisation, locating saline
groundwaters and recharge and discharge areas ( e.g.
Williams and Baker, 1982; Street and Engel, 1990;
Humphreys et aI., 1990; Street, 1992).
192
For reconnaissancethe EM 38 field measurements maybe
made at close intervals along a profile studies or in a grid if
an area is to be covered. Inthe latter case, about 11Ha per
hour can be coveredwith a 30 60 mgrid.
where e and f are the regression equations. Separate
regressions must be performed according whether the
profile is leached, invertedor normal so that accurate EMv
values are also needed. Also all the EM38 readings must
be corrected for soil temperature which increases
conductivity approximately2% for every 1 degree Celsius
rise in temperature. This is achieved by making regular
temperature reading in the field using an insertion probe
duringthe EM 38 survey.
The two regression equations (2) and (3) provide the
requiredrelationshipsbetweenthe EM38 readings and ECe
values which may in turn be used to predict salinity and
productivity of the soils. Fig. 5 schematically illustrates the
procedures describedabove.
(3) ECa (O-z em) =e f EMh
Since the horizontal dipole inherentlyhas a shallower depth
of investigation (Fig. 4) and the electric current flow
directions are similar to those usedto obtain ECa (O-z cm)
with the EC-probe, EMh values may be regressed against
ECa (0-z cm) values accordingto
Oncethe depth interval (0- z cm) is establishedfor the area
the "depthweighted"EMhandEMvvalues maybe calculated
usingthe curves inFig. 4andthe ECafield values measured
with the EM 38. Froma practical viewpoint, if the vertical
dipole value obtained with the EM38 (EMv) is greater than
the horizontal dipolevalue (EMh)i.e. EMy!EMh<=1.05, then
the soil conductivityis greaterat depthin thesubsoil thanthe
rootzone and the soil profile is termed "leached". In the
opposite situation the profile is said to be "inverted" when
EMy!EMh>1.05. When EMy!EMhis close to 1.05, the soil
profileis termed"uniform"andat individual sites itis possible
for profiledescriptions to change duringthe year as a result
of alternatingleachingand capilliaritycycles.
Over a wide range of ground conductivities the EM 38
operates in the low induction number domain in which the
magnitude of quadrature component of the received signal
provides ECa directly (in miliiSeimens/metre). However, this
ECa represents the total signal received from all depths
sensed by the EM 38 and the signal contribution from the
rootzone must be extracted. Fortunately, the low induction
number domain allows the signal contribution below any
depth in either uniform or layered earths to be simply
computed. The cumulative relative signal contribution from
materials below any depth (z) is independent of the
magnitude of conductivity and is a single valued function of
depth, R(z), which depends on the coil configuration(Fig. 4
from McNeill, ibid.). An "effective depth of investigation", for
the EM 38 taken as approximatelythe skin depth, is about
1.5mfor the vertical dipoleconfigurationandabout half this
for the horizontal dipole configuration. For the vertical dipole
22%of the total signal comes fromthe top 0.4 mof soil and
78%frombelow. For the horizontal dipole, 53%comes from
above and 47%frombelowthe top O.4m.
Direct soil sampling and measurement is impractical to
extendto an entire area, however, electromagnetic induction
methods offer the means by which ECa values may be
accurately and rapidly obtained between sample locations.
Currently, the Geonics EM 38 Terrain Conductivity Meter
(McNeill, 1980) is the only suitable commercial instrument
suitablefor this purpose. The EM38 operates at a frequency
of 13.2KHz andthe transmitter-receivercoil spacing(1m) to
achieve the shallow depth of investigation required. Either
vertical or horizontal co-planar configurations may be used.
While this method is of critical importance for correlation
direct sampling results with indirect geophysical measure-
ments it is also time consuming and costly. Careful
consideration must also be given to the number sample
locations, in practice, the number of samples and resistivity
measurements requiredwill depend on the actual variability
of field conditions, (Norman ibid.).
where c and d are the regressioncoefficients. As a result of
the non-linear effects mentioned earlier it is not uncommon
for the above equationto predict negative ECe values at low
ECa levels. However, this does not cause a problemsince
accuracy is not required for low ECe values as the soils
would normallybe inthe lowsalinityclass (Table 1).
Figure4Cumulative RelativeContribution to the EM Signal Measured
with an EM38in Various Configurations (after McNeill, 1980)
DEPTH Z (rn)
2.6 3.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 0.2 0.6 1.0
CUMULATIVE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION
TO EM SIGNAL
193 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOPHYSICS: CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
Many studies have shown that, following underground
release, LNAPL hydrocarbons tend to migrate vertically
under gravitythrough the dry or partiallysaturatedzone. As
the hydrocarbons have a lower density than water they
displace any residual moisture within this zone. Above the
water table, the vertically migratinghydrocarbons encounter
the capilliaryfringe which is thicker infine-grainer materials.
At this level there are normally insufficient fluid pressures
away from the immediate source of the spill to continue
vertical migration. The LNAPL become "perched"
immediatelyabove the watertable and move laterallyonthe
capilliary fringe frequently in the direction of regional
groundwater flow. Local permeability variations exert a
considerable influence causing extended movement or
"fingering" of the plume in the more permeable materials
For safety and asthetic reasons fluid hydrocarbons are
commonly stored in underground tanks and supplied by
buried pipelines. Leaking tanks or supply lines can directly
contaminate groundwater and pose a major environmental
hazard. Shouldleaks occur, the initial problems areto locate
sources and to define the lateral extent of the pollution
plume. Once this has been achieved and remediation is
undertaken, the problemis to monitorthe plumeas recovery
proceeds.
8
Throughout the world large quantities of hydrocarbon
products are present in shallow soils mainly within urban
areas. These rangefromlocalisedconcentrations near petrol
stations and small industry sites to large concentrations at
refineries, fuel depots, and airports. In high concentrations
these organic fluids pose a major environmental hazard to
surface water and groundwater resources in their liquid
phaseand a direct healthhazard intheir vapour phase.
Hydrocarbon contamination
Actual hydrocarbon contaminants are found in many
different forms, concentrations and densities. They can be
presentas light, non-aqueousphaseliquids (LNAPL)suchas
tolueneand benzeneaboveor atthe water table or as dense
non-aqueousphaseliquids (DNAPL)suchasTrichloroethane
(TCE) and Tetrachloroethane (PCE) belowthe water table.
Toluene and benzene are major constituents of liquid fuels
and oils. TCE and PCE are used extensively in industries
which requiremetal finishingand garment cleaning.
Fig. 6 shows an application of the above procedures to
obtain ECe(0-60 em) froman EM38values measuredalong a
reconnaissance profile in the Wimmera region of Victoria.
About 185 EM 38 readings were taken along the 7.4 km
profile and were calibrated with the EC probe at 10 soil
sample locations. At this site the profile shows soil salinity
values fall mainly into the very lowclass (Table1) and may
be correlated with relative productivity of plant species
common to the area using Table 2 which is based on
published datafor Victorianconditions. This informationis of
direct use to farmers and agronomists and shows high
productivities canbeexpectedfromthecommoncrops inthe
area apart from one local regionnear Ch. 0.4 Km.
WHITELEY
TABLE 3 Examples of Dielectric Constants of earth materials (from
Whiteley and J ewell, 1991)
MATERIAL RELATIVEDIELECTRIC
PERMITIIVITY
Air 1
FreshWater 81
SeaWater 81
Sand(dry) 4
Sand(35%water) 10-30
Sand(6-30%kerosene 3
Clay 10
Soil 30-50
Sandstone 6
Shale 7
Basalt 8
Granite 7
TABLE 2 Correlation of soil salinities with plant species common to
Victoria, (Norman, ibid)
ECe Perennial ANNUAL UCERNE WheaV Millet Faba
(dS/mj) pasture pasture Barley bean
<1.8 100-95 100-95 100 100 100 100
1.8-3.8 95-80 95-73 100-85 100 100 100-80
3.8-6..5 80-55 75-50 85-70 10090 100 80-55
6.5-8.6 55-35 50-25 70-50 90-75 10080 55-35
>8.6 <35 <25 <50 <75 <80 <35
FIGURE 6Calibrated EM38Measurements, Soil Types and
Recommended Land use from Salinity Assessment.
2-13- Survey marker points
ECe Values
2 6 4
Distance (kilometres)
o
II II
1213 10 7
~
2.5 rJ l
~ 2 3
..
I I o
2
w
i
~
~
1.5 Ii
II
-:
I
I 1 131.1 2 1
ROOTZONE SOIL SALINITY MEASUREMENTS
Transect A
FIGURE 5 Outline of the Method for Dryland and Salinity Assessment
using Both Field and Laboratory Measurements.
c.d.e.f Regression Constants
FIELD
'r"OO"""~ >C. rec.,
Ecr'Obe EC'IO."ml=cdEC,IO."ml
EM38 ------- ,J ~~ "'''M,
LABORATORY
DRYlAND SALINITY ASSESSMENT
194
Fig. 7shows a typical radiowaveprofileobtainedwith a loop
spacing of 5m across the diesel plume. The interpreted
section, derived from subsequent test pits, is also shown.
Clearly the fluid-phase diesel plume is defined by a "low"
anomaly. The character of this anomaly reflects the level of
contamination with the greatest reduction in field intensity
occurring where the plume is shallowest, thickest and most
concentrated. The steep-sided anomaly indicates that
hydraulic gradients aroundthe margins of the plumearealso
steepwhich is consistentwiththe model for lateral migration
of LNAPL plumes.
In South Australia, a review of inventory records and fuel
consumptionat a major diesel train refuellingstationover a 2
year period revealed a discrepancy of over 500,000 litres.
Subsequent pressure testing of buried delivery pipes
indicated a majorleakbetweenthefinal pumpingstationand
dispensing points. Flow fromthe main storage tank, which
was found to be intact, was interruptedand several test pits
were dug along the delivery line. Clayand sandysediments
were encountered together with diesel product at several
locations generally within 2mof the surface belowthe depth
the sediments were saturated. The problemwas to define
the extent of LNAPL contamination at the site which was
traversedbyrail lines, buriedservices, concreteandbitumen
roads as well a various buildings. EM31 profilingand GPR
proved ineffective, however, the combination of R-EM
profiling with the GRC-2 instrument and follow-up, drilling
andtest-pittingwas ableto delineatethe plume.
stations spacings of 0.5 to 1m to be used for detailed
studies.
Figure 7 GRC-2 Profile with Idealized Subsurface Conditions Based on
Test Pit Results .
CHAINAGE!ml
50 150
195
At the frequency of R-EM method the dielectric constant of
earth materials is typically in the range of 1 (air) to 81
(water) although certain saturated clays can have larger
values (Arulanandan et aI., 1994). The dielectric constant is
greatly reduced by the addition of hydrocarbons. As shown
inTable 3 (after Whiteley and J ewell, ibid.) the presence of
6to 30% kerosene, an LNAPL, inpartiallysaturated sand(3
- 5% water) could be expected to reduce the dielectric
constant bya factor of 3to 6. This factor would be greater if
the sandwas fully saturatedor if the hydrocarbonsaturation
was increased. Other common hydrocarbons have similar
lowdielectric constants. The GRC-2 instrument is similar in
operation to other frequency domain electromagnetic
systems and is described by Whiteley and Zaderigolova
(ibid.). Small mobile transmitter and receiver loops are
maintained in a null coupled configuration with a vertical
loop transmitter and horizontal loop receiver which
measures vertical magnetic field intensity (Hz) in relative
units. These loops are aligned so that the plane of the
transmitter loop passes through the axis of the receiver loop
and are maintainedat a constant spacing, typicallyfrom5to
15mthroughout the study. Transmitter power is also kept
constant throughout the survey and it is not uncommon for
An R-EM method (GRC-2) has been under development in
Ukraine for a number of years specifically for engineering
and environmental problems (Whiteley and Zaderigolova,
1993). This method operates at about 1.2 MHz and has a
maximumdepth of investigationof about 30 mthrough soils
and weathered rocks. At this frequency the response of the
GRC-2 systemis dominatedby dielectric propertyvariations
and surrounding metals, which adversely affect induction
methods, and conductive soils, which severely attenuate
GPR signals, have little influenceon the GRC2system.
The detectionof hydrocarboncontaminants by conventional
electrical, electromagnetic induction and ground probing
radar is very difficult and is not routinely performed
(Olhoeft,1992) eventhough electrical and dielectric property
contrasts are substantial (Kutrubes, 1986). Electromagnetic
induction methods, such as the EM 38 discussed in the
previous section, operate in the audio to Very Low
Frequency (VLF) range from about 50 Hz to 25 kHz and
respond to subsurface variations in electrical conductivity.
Ground probing radar (GPR) methods operate at much
higherfrequencies intheVHF andUHF rangefromabout 13
to 1000 Mhz and respond mainly to variations in dielectric
permittivity. Radiowave methods (R-EM) operating in the
frequency rangefromabout30kHzto5Mhz respondto both
properties but have beenlargelyneglectedas a geophysical
tool apartfromthe Radio ImagingMethod, which operates in
the frequency range of 50 to 520 kHz and is used in coal
exploration (Stolarczyk, 1990).
such as backfilleddrains. As the hydrocarbon layer thickens
pore pressures increase, driving these fluids into the
capilliary fringe and eventually forming a hydrocarbon-water
interface. Further addition of hydrocarbons eventually
causes a depressionof the water table andthe development
of a "pod-like" plume.
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOPHYSICS: CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES
Nadler,A. and Frenkel, H. 1980. Determinationof Soil Electrical Conductivity
Measurements by the four-electrode method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.,
44,6, 1216-1221.
NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council, 1991 Australian
public health discussionpaper for the rehabilitationof contaminated land.
Norman, C.P. 1990Training manual on the use of the EM38for soil salinity
appraisal. Tech. Rept. Series 181 Dept. Agric. and Rural Affairs, April
1990, 32p.
Olheoft, G.R. 1992a Geophysics Advisor Expert SystemVersion 2.0 USGS
Open FileRep!. 92-526.
Olheoft, G.R. 1992 Geophysical Detection of Hydrocarbon and Organic
Chemical Contamination, Proc. Symp. on the Applic. of Geophys. to
Engineering and Environmental Problems, 587-596.
Poulos, H.G. 1991RelationshipbetweenLocal Soil Conditions and Structural
Damage in the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake. Proc. Inst. Eng. Aust. Vol.
CE33,3,181-188.
Rhoades, J .D and van Schilfgaarde, J . 1976An electrical conductivityprobe
for determiningsoil salinity.Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 40, 647-651.
Rhoades, J .D., 1979. Monitoring Soil Salinity. A Review of. Methods in
Establishment of Water Quality. Monitoring Programs. Amer. Water
ResourcesAssn.
Smith, K. 1992 Environmental Hazards, Routledge UK, 324p. Street, G.J .
1992Airborne geophysical surveys - applications in land management,
ExplorationGeophysics, 333-338.
Street, G.J . and Engel, R. 1990 Geophysical surveys of dryland salinity in
South-western Australia: in Geotechnical and Environmental
Geophysics, Vol II ed S.H. Ward, Soc. Explor. Geophys. Tulsa, OK 187-
200.
Stolarczyk, L.G. 1990 Radio imaging in seamwave guides in Geotechnical
and Environmental Geophysics Vol III ed S.H. Ward, Soc. Explor.
Geophys. Tulsa OK, 187-209.
Wheatcraft, S.w., Hess, J .w., Adams, W. M., Evans, R.B. and McMillion, L.G.
1984 EquipmentandTechniquesApplicable to Subsurface Sensing and
Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Sites. Pub. 41095, Desert Res. Inst.
University of Nevada NV, March 1984.
Wheaton, GA, Wallace, J .F., McFarlane, D.J . and Campbell, NA 1992
Mapping salt-affected land in Western Australia in Proc. 6th Australian
Remote Sensing Conference, Wellington, NZ.
Whiteley, R.J . andJ ewell, C. 1992Geophysical Techniques in Contaminated
LandsAssessment - DoThey Deliver? Exploration Geophysics, 23, 557-
565.
Whiteley, R.J . and Love, A. 1992Site UniformityBorehole Seismic Testingin
UnderminedAreas. Proc. 26th Newcastle Symposium, 3-5 April, 1992,
110-118.
Whiteley, R.J . and Zaderigolova, M.K. 1993 Radiowave Electromagnetic
Method in Engineering and Environmental Geophysics, Presented at
Soc. Explor. Expl. Geophys. Int. Conf. and Exposition Moscow, Aug. 16-
19,1993.
Williams, B.G. and Baker, G.C, 1982An electromagnetic inductiontechnique
for reconnaissancesurveys of soil salinityhazards. Aust. Journ. Soil Res.
20,107-118.
Wruble, D.T., van Ee, J .J . and McMillion, L.G., RemoteSensing Methods for
Waste Site Subsurface Investigations and Monitoring in Hazardous and
Industrial Solid Waste Testing and Disposal: Sixth Volume, ASTM STP
933. D. Lorenzen, R.A. Conway, L.P. J ackson, A. Hamza, C.L. Perket,
and W.J . Lacy, Eds, Americal Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1986pp243-253.
WHITELEY
Arulanandan, K., Yogachandran, c., and Rashidi, 1994. Dielectric and
Conductivity Methods of Soil Characterisation in Geophysical
Characterisation of Sites, R.D. Woods (ed), Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co., NewDelhi, 81-90.
Benson, R.C., Slaccum, R.A., and Noel, M.R. 1984. Geophysical Techniques
for SensingBuriedWastes and Waste Migration. EPA Report 600/7-84-
064, US Environmental ProtectionAgency, Las Vegas, NV, J une 1984.
Blong, R., Walker, G., Berz, G., Griffiths, N., and Scott, P. 1990. The
Newcastle Earthquake - background causes, effects, implications.
Munich Reinsurance, June 1990.40p.
Fergusin, C.C., 1992. The statistical basis for spatial sampling of
contaminated land. Ground Engineering, J une 1992, 34-38 (Discussion,
Oct 1992,29).
Greenhouse, J .P., 1991. Environmental Geophysics: It's about time
Geophysics, The Leading Edge of Exploration, Soc. Explor. Geophys.
Tulsa OK, 32-34.
Humphreys, G.L., Linford, J .G., and West, S.M. 1990. Application of
Geophysics to the Reclamationof Saline Farmland in WesternAustralia
in Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics Vol II, ed S.H. Ward,
Soc. Explor. Geophys. Tulsa OK, 175-186.
J ewell, C.M., Hensley, P.J ., Barry, D.A., Acworth, I. 1993. Site investigation
and monitoring techniques for contaminated sites and potential waste
disposalsites, in Geotechnical Management of Wasteand Contamination
eds. R. Fell, R. Phillips and C. Gerrard. Balkema, 1993,3-37.
Katrubes, R.L., 1986. Dielectric PermittivityMeasuremetns of Soils Saturated
with HazardousFluids. MSc. Thesis Colo School of Mines, Golden, CO.,
300p.
McNeill, J .D., 1980. Survey InterpretationTechniques EM38, TN 9 Geonics
Ltd., Mississuaga, On!. Canada.
References
A major environmental problemof salinisationof agricultural
land can be effectively addressed by careful calibration of
electromagnetic induction measurements which allow
results to be provided to farmers, land managers and
agronomists in terms of likely crop productivities for
appropriate plant species which are of direct use. Another
major environmental problemof groundwater contamination
by LNAPLand DNAPLhydrocarbonspills maybe addressed
with a new method of radiowave electromagnetic profiling
which responds mainly to the large dielectric contrasts
caused bythe introductionof these contaminants into soils
and groundwater.
The interactionof socio-economicand environmental factors
governs the demand for environmental geophysics. The
challenges for geophysicists, if they wish to address the
expanding spectrum of environmental problems, are to
better understand these factors and to develop improved
methods and practices. If geophysicists are prepared to
meet these challenges environmental geophysics has a
bright future, if not, other non specialists will increasingly
enter thefield as has beenthe case in NorthAmerica.
Conclusions
196