Geophysical exploration of an old dumpsite in the perspective of enhanced landfill mining in Kermt area, Belgium

  • Mero YannahEmail author
  • Kristine Martens
  • Marc Van Camp
  • Kristine Walraevens
Original Paper


Landfills are becoming major sources for industrial raw materials yet it is difficult to determine the type of material hosted in old dumps. The investigated old dump in Kermt-Hasselt is an ultimate example of an uncontrolled system of waste disposal from field observation. The application of enhanced landfill mining (ELFM) on old dumps is intended to manage the tonnes of waste deposited in the past for economic and environmental development. The goal is to use geophysical methods to characterize buried waste resources (metals, plastics, rubbles) concealed in a dump over an area of 7540 m2. The results show a dump of ~2 m thick, characterized by heterogeneous buried waste material mostly of domestic origin. The concealed waste recorded ground conductivity between 12 - 80 mS/m, resistivity of 155–380 Ωm, radar signals between 10 - 50 ns and magnetic field between 42,400–46,000 nT. Metallic and plastic materials constitute the main sources of the measured anomalies.


Waste FDEM ERT GPR Magnetic profiling 



The authors wish to thank the Public Waste Agency of the Flemish Region (OVAM), who commissioned this research, and provided access to the dump site. Special thanks go to the Flemish Inter-University Council-VLIR (Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad) for financing the first author’s stay at Ghent University. Also thanks to the staff of Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel for academic and technical support. We greatly appreciate the field assistance received from Jill Van Reybrouck and Bart Van Impe.


  1. Abu-Zeid N, Santarato G (2004) On the correspondence between resistivity and texture of loose sediments, saturated with saltwater. Near Surface Geophysics 3:44–149Google Scholar
  2. Annan AP (1992) Ground penetrating radar workshop notes. Sensors and Software Inc., Missassauga, ON, Canada, pp 130.Google Scholar
  3. Barker R (1990) Investigation of groundwater salinity by geophysical methods. Geotech Environ Geophy, Environ Groundwater 2:201–211Google Scholar
  4. Bernstone C, Dahlin T (1998) DC resistivity mapping of old landfills: two case studies. Eur J Environ Eng Geophys 22:127–136Google Scholar
  5. Bosmans A, Vanderreydt I, Geysen D, Helsen L (2013) The crucial role of waste-to-energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J Clean Prod 50:10–23Google Scholar
  6. Cardarelli E, Filippo GD (2004) Integrated geophysical surveys on waste dumps: evaluation of physical parameters to characterize an urban waste dump (four case studies in Italy). Waste Manag Res 22:390–402Google Scholar
  7. Cochran JR, Dalton KE (1995) Using high-density magnetic and electromagnetic data for waste characterization, a case study. In: Bell RS (ed) Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems. Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Orlando, FL, pp 117Google Scholar
  8. Collins ME (1992) Soil taxonomy: a useful guide for the application of ground penetrating radar. In: Saminen HP, Autio S (eds) Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 16, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Rovaniemi, Finland, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  9. Cossu R, Ranieri G, Marchisio M, Sambuelli L, Godio A, Motzo GM (1990) Geophysical methods in surveying old landfill. In: Arendt F, Hinsenvald M, Van den Brink WJ (eds) Proceedings of 3rd International KfK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, Dec 1990, KarlshrueGoogle Scholar
  10. Fallon GN, Fullagar PK, Sheard SN (1997) Application of geophysics in metalliferous mines. Aust J Earth Sci 44:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frändegård P, Krook J, Vensson N, Eklund M (2013) A novel approach for environmental evaluation of landfill mining, 2013. J Clean Prod 55:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frangos W (1994) Electrical detection of leaks in lined waste disposal ponds. Geophysics 60:1737–1744Google Scholar
  13. Godio A (2000) Magnetic interpretation in industrial waste landfill. Ann Geofis 43:297–307Google Scholar
  14. Gradstein FM, Ogg JG, Smith AG, Bleeker W, Lourens LJ (2004) A new geologic time scale with special reference to Precambrian and Neogene. Geol Belg 27:83–100Google Scholar
  15. Jones PT, Geysen D, Tielemans Y, Van Passel S, Pontikes Y, Blanpain B, Quaghebeur M, Hoekstra N (2013) Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: A critical review. J Clean Prod 55:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalantzis F, Stevens KM, Kanasewich ER, Lodha GS (1994) Ground-penetrating radar imaging of nuclear waste repositories, 56th Meeting. European Association Exploration Geophysics Extended Abstracts, p 50Google Scholar
  17. Karlik G, Kaya MA (2001) Investigation of groundwater contamination using electric and electromagnetic methods at an open waste-disposal site: a case study from Isparta, Turkey. Environ Geol 40:725–731Google Scholar
  18. Loke MH (2000) Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys. Geotomo Software, Penang, p 129Google Scholar
  19. Marchetti M, Settimi A (2011) Integrated geophysical measurements on a test site for detection of buried steel drums. Ann Geophys 54:105–114Google Scholar
  20. Marchetti M, Cafarella L, Di Mauro D, Zirizzotti A (2002) Ground magnetometric survey and integrated geophysical methods for solid buried waste detection: a case study. Ann Geophys 45:563–573Google Scholar
  21. Martens K, Walraevens K (2009) Tracing soil and groundwater pollution with electromagnetic profiling and geo-electrical investigations. In: Ritz K, Dawson L, Miller D (eds) Criminal and environmental soil forensics, Springer, London, pp 181–194Google Scholar
  22. Martens K, Walraevens K (2013) Lateral variation in ground conductivity in a nature reserve. Proceedings of 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference on Science and Technologies in Geology, Exploration and Mining SGEM2013, Albena Co., Bulgaria. Theme Applied and Environmental Geophysics., SGEM2013 Conference Proceedings, vol. 2, pp 801
  23. Martinho E, Almeida F (2006) 3D behaviour of contamination in landfill sites using 2D resistivity/IP imaging: Case studies in Portugal. Environ Geol 49:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNeill JD (1980) Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers. In Geonics, Technical note, TN-6, Mississauga, ON, Canada, pp 6Google Scholar
  25. Meju MA (1993) Geophysical mapping of polluted groundwater in a closed landfill site. In: 3rd International Congress, Brazil. Geophysical Society. Expanded Abstract. 3:425–428Google Scholar
  26. Nobes DC (1999) Geophysical surveys of burial sites: A case study of Oarourupa. Geophysics 64:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nyquist JE, Doll WE (1993) Comparison of surface and aerial geophysics for characterizing a hazardous waste site: a case study. 63rd Annual International Meeting Society Exploration Geophysics. Expanded Abstracts pp 468–471Google Scholar
  28. Orlando L, Marchesi E (2001) GPR as a tool to identify and characterize solid waste dump deposits. J Appl Geophys 48:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poison J, Chouteau M, Aubertin M, Campos D (2009) Geophysical experiments to image the shallow internal structure and the moisture distribution of a mine waste rock pile. J Appl Geophys 67:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porsani JL, Filhob WM, Vagner RE, Shimelesa F, Douradob JC, Moura HP (2004) The use of GPR and VES in delineating contamination plume in a landfill site: a case study in S.E Brazil. J Appl Geophys 55:199–209Google Scholar
  31. Prezzi C, Orgeira MJ, Ostera H, Vàsquez CA (2005) Ground magnetic survey of a municipal solid waste landfill: Pilot study in Argentina. Environ Geol 47:889–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ranieri G, Motzo GM (1991) Geophysical methods in management and surveying old landfill. In: Margherita di Pula S (ed) Proceedings of Sardinia 91, 3rd International Landfill Symposium. Environment Sanitary Engineering Centre. Cagliari, Italy, p 10Google Scholar
  33. Rogiers B, Lermytte J, Bie ED, Batelaan O (2011) Evaluating the impact of river restoration on the local groundwater and ecological system: a case study in NE Flanders. Geol Belg 14:265–276Google Scholar
  34. Ross HP, MacKelprang CE, Wright PM (1990) Dipole-dipole electrical resistivity surveys at waste disposal study sites. In: Ward H (ed) Geotech Environ Geophy 2:145–152.Google Scholar
  35. Scharff H (2012) Landfills as sinks for (hazardous) substances. Waste Manag Res 30:1234–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seren SS, Blaumoser NH (1994) Combined implementation of geophysical methods for the investigation of old waste deposits in Alpine area. 56th Meeting of European Association. 56th Annual International Meeting Society Exploration Geophysics. Expanded Abstracts Session, p 37Google Scholar
  37. Shemang EM, Mickus K, Same MP (2011) Geophysical characterization of the abandoned gaborone landfill, Botswana: implications for abandoned landfills in arid environments. Int J Environ Protec 1:1–12Google Scholar
  38. Simaeys V (2004) Stratigraphic and paleoenvironmental analysis of the Rupelian and Chattian in their type regions: implications for global Oligocene chronostratigraphy. Ph-D-thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, pp 1–201Google Scholar
  39. Simaeys SV, Vandenberghe N (2006) Rupelian. Geol Belg 9:95–101Google Scholar
  40. Tielemans Y, Laevers P (2010) Closing the circle, an enhanced landfill mining case study. 1st international symposium on enhanced landfill mining. Houthalen-Helchteren, Belgium, p 16Google Scholar
  41. T'Seyen I, Willems S (2012) Beschrijvend Bodemonderzoek i.o.v OVAM-Bestek RC101101 Voormalige Stortplaats. Onderzoekslocatie Kermtstraat Hasselt. Project nr. 11/181,235, OVAM, Mechelen (Belgium) (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  42. Van der Zee DJ, Acheterkampa MC, De Visser BJ (2004) Assessing the market opportunities of landfill mining. Waste Manag 24:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Passel S, Dubois M, Eyckmans J, De Gheldere S, Ang F, Jones PT, Van Acker K (2012) The economics of enhanced landfill mining: private and societal performance drivers Dutch (Belgium). J Clean Prod 30:1–11Google Scholar
  44. Vandenberghe N, Hager H, Bosch VD, Verstraelen M, Leroi S, Steurbaut E, Prufert J, Laga P (2001) Stratigraphic correlation by calibrated well logs in the Rupel Group between North Belgium, the Lower Rhine area in Germany and southern Limberg and the Achhterhoek in Netherlands. In: Vandenberghe N (ed) Contribution to the Paleogene and Neogene stratigraphy of the North Sea basin. Aardkundige Mededelingen 11:69–84Google Scholar
  45. Vandenbohede A, Walraevens K, De Breuck W (2015) What does the interface on the fresh-saltwater distribution map of the Belgian coastal plain represent? Geol Belg 18:31–36Google Scholar
  46. Walraevens K, Beeuwsaert E, Van Camp M, De Breuck W (1997) Groundwater pollution by industrial waste disposal: Geophysical and hydrogeological case-study. In: Marinos PG, Koukis GC, Tsiambaos GC, Stournaras GC (eds) Engineering geology and the environment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2243–2248Google Scholar
  47. Walraevens K, Coetsiers M, Martens K (2005) Large-scale mapping of soil and groundwater pollution to quantify pollution spreading. In: Lens P, Grotenhuis T, Malina G, Tabak H (eds) Soil and sediment remediation, mechanisms, technologies and applications. Integrated environmental technology series. IWA, London, pp 37–48Google Scholar
  48. Wille E, Behets T, Umans L (2013a) Mining the anthropocene in Flanders: part 1 landfill mining. 2nd International Academic Symposium on enhanced landfill mining, Houthalen-Helchteren, Mechelen, Belgium, pp 15Google Scholar
  49. Wille EK, Behets T, Umans L, Walraevens K, Martens K (2013b) Exploring the Anthropocene: mapping and surveying of landfills in Flanders (Belgium). In: Margherita di Pula S (ed) Sardinia 2013, Proceedings, 14th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Forte Village. Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  50. Wu TN, Huang YC (2006) Detection of illegal dump deposit with GPR: case study. Practice periodical of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive. Waste Manag 10:144–149Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geological and Mining ResearchYaoundeCameroon
  2. 2.Department of Geology and Soil Science, Laboratory for Applied Geology and HydrogeologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations