Ground magnetometric surveys end integrated geophysical methods for solid buried waste detection: a case study

Abstract

The detection of illegal buried waste by means of geophysical techniques has recently become a major effort in shallow geophysical investigations. In particular, detection and location of underground metallic storage tanks can be accomplished using different instruments and techniques. In this paper we describe the results of an investigation carried out in a tuff quarry in Riano Flaminio (north Rome, Italy). A preliminary magnetometric survey revealed the existence of anomalous zones in the analysed region. Excavation in some of the selected areas confirmed that the anomalies were generated by underground magnetic material: over 160 steel drums were found. After their removal, a new magnetometric survey was performed. On the basis of the new map, a multifrequency induction survey, a geoelectrical profile and GPR measurements were taken to extend the characterization of the subsoil.

Localization and magnetic moment estimation of a ferromagnetic target by simulated annealing

“…The error in estimating either the target magnetic moment or the location was 10%. The short execution time together with its high accuracy make the SA method appropriate for real-time applications such as aeromagnetic search for ship wrecks [7], localization of unexploded ordnance [17] and buried waste detection [18]. For these applications, both accurate localization and target magnetic moment estimation are of paramount importance.…”

Safety Management of the Characterization Activities of Illegal Dumpsites

“…• Indirect analyses, which allow achieving data through electric or magnetic devices without a direct contact between the operator and waste or hazardous on-site substances. Among indirect investigations, interesting results for the detection of illegal dumps and waste characterization can be obtained by means of:  electric methods (Cardarelli & Di Filippo, 2004), based on the evaluation and comparison of materials' electric features (resistivity, induced polarization);  magnetic methods, which allow distinguishing solid waste and soil according to their magnetic attitude (Marchetti et al, 2002);  thermic methods, which are particularly useful to detect solid urban waste dumps, as they evaluate superficial temperature changes (Belghazal et al, 2013);  ground-penetrating radar investigations, based on the analysis of the propagation of radar waves inside solid waste and soil (Di Fiore et al, 2017;Orlando & Marchesi, 2001). Topographic measurements cannot be included in this classification, as they are aimed to locate the investigation's points and to define the landfill's geometry, after the execution of the surveys mentioned above.…”

Integrated geophysical measurements on a test site for detection of buried steel drums

“…The magnetometric technique is the geophysical method that is most frequently used for environmental problems (Bevan., 1983;Tyagi et al, 1983aTyagi et al, , 1983bBarrows and Rocchio, 1990;Roberts et al, 1990;Schlinger, 1990;Gilkenson et al, 1992;Foley, 1994;Cochran and Dalton, 1995;Gibson et al, 1996;Ravat, 1996;Marchetti et al, 1998;Eskola et al, 1999;Godio, 2000;Furness, 2001Furness, , 2002Furness, , 2007Marchetti et al, 2002;Sheinker et al, 2009). As such, we can say that among the potential techniques for geophysical exploration of the subsoil, magnetometry generally appears to be one of the most effective, rapid and precise for the location of buried ferromagnetic masses (Marchetti, 1997(Marchetti, , 2000Marchetti and Meloni, 1997).…”

“…Even if the magnetometric method is used more frequently, other geophysical techniques can be used in such investigations (Emerson et al, 1992;Pierce and De Reamer, 1993;Foley, 1994;Vogelsang, 1994;Dahlin and Jeppsson, 1995;Daniels et al, 1995;Bernstone et al, 1996;Gibson et al, 1996;Huang and Keiswetter, 1997;Godio et al, 1999;Orlando and Marchesi, 2001;Marchetti et al, 2002;Chianese et al, 2006;Ting-Nien and Yi-Chu, 2006;Hamzah et al, 2009;Ruffell and Kulessa, 2009). Indeed, the choice of the methodology to be used will depend on the physic characteristics of the materials and the depth of the targets.…”