Proceedings of the 9ICEG

9th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics

25-28 June, 2023 | Chania, Greece
© Authors: All rights reserved, 2023
https://doi.org/10.53243/ICEG2023-332

Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Racha H. Jammoul1 and Muhsin E. Rahhal2

1
PhD candidate and researcher, ESIB, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, email: [email protected]
2
Professor, ESIB, Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

One of the major environmental problems nowadays is the contamination of soils and groundwater.
Although landfilling has appeared as the simplest and most economical method to eliminate municipal
solid waste, but in many developing countries like Lebanon and with the absence of solid waste
management plans, open dumps, uncontrolled landfills and open burning are sadly predominant.
Wastewater leachate collected from these dumps is very toxic; it shows for example high concentration
of Pb (0.024 ppm), Cd (11.5 ppm), As (1.648 ppm) and Hg (0.1076 ppm). The main purpose of this
paper is to study the fate and transport of leachate contaminant through different soil matrix and to
demonstrate the effect of soil properties in contaminant movement, its spatial distribution and
concentration. The behavior of contaminant is tested for different hydraulic conductivities of soil and in
the absence or presence of a bottom clay liner. Analysis of the contaminant transport from a dumpsite
located near a riverbed in Lebanon is carried out using SEEP/W and CTRAN/W. The results confirm
that the contaminant transport is largely affected by the hydraulic conductivity of soil; in the case of lower
hydraulic conductivity, time taken by contaminants to reach the riverbed will increase about seven times.
Also, the results prove the importance of installation of a clay liner at the bottom of landfills as it retards
the migration of contaminants.

Keywords: landfill, leachate, contaminant transport, advection-dispersion analysis, clay liners.

1 INTRODUCTION

Rapid growth of population, urbanization, industrial and economic development all around the world in
the past decade have resulted in a massive increase in waste generation. Waste generation continues
to grow and the World Bank estimates that waste generation will increase from 2.01 billion tons in 2016
to 3.40 billion tons in 2050.

Lebanon is a developing country where the municipal solid waste (MSW) generation rate has increased
by 26% between 1994 and 2011 (Sweep-Net, 2014). In addition to the high rate of waste generation,
the increasing number of Syrian refugees and the absence of any waste management plan have led to
hundreds of open dumps and non-engineered landfills and open burning of waste all over the country
(Shellito, 2016; Cherri et al., 2016). This inappropriate solid waste disposal causes serious Geo-
environmental problems and lead to contamination in soils, groundwater and rivers. A study achieved
by LARI (Lebanese agricultural research institute) in 2017 found that no water source in Lebanon was
free of contamination. The river waters in Lebanon are nothing but wastewater.

The infiltration of water into landfills and its percolation through waste as well as the squeezing of the
waste due to self-weight causes leachate generation. Heavy metals in solid wastes lead to serious
problems because they cannot be biodegraded (Hong et al., 2002). Dumpsites in Lebanon not only
receive municipal solid waste but also medical, industrial and chemical waste. Wastewater leachate
collected from these dumpsites is very toxic (Borjac et al, 2019; Khalil et al, 2018); it shows for example
high concentration of heavy metals, Pb (0.024 ppm), Cd (11.5 ppm), As (1.648 ppm) and Hg (0.1076
ppm). Leachate generated from landfills in Lebanon seeps into groundwater aquifers and contaminants
are spread into adjacent river system by groundwater flow and pollute the ecosystem.

Bar Elias is a Lebanese town in the Zahlé District, Bekaa Governorate. The Ghzayel river which passes
by Bar Elias, is the most important tributary of the Litani River and its largest pollutant. Like in other

187
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Lebanese towns, open dumpsites and uncontrolled landfills are scattered in Bar Elias along the riverbed.
The dumpsite, subject of this study, is located in Bar Elias few meters away from the Ghzayel river. Few
studies have assessed the contaminant migration from landfills in Lebanon. The main purpose of this
paper is to study the fate and transport of leachate contaminant through different soil matrix and to
demonstrate the effect of soil properties in contaminant movement, its spatial distribution and
concentration.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Landfills and leachate generation

Landfills are well engineered facilities that are used for disposal of solid waste and are located, designed,
monitored, operated and financed to ensure compliance with federal regulations. One of the main
objectives in the design of a landfill site should be the proper management of polluted water and leachate
migration, therefore mitigating the risk of health and environmental damage. Leachate is a highly
polluted wastewater that contains a wide range of contaminants including organic, inorganic matters,
and heavy metals (Bhalla et al, 2013; Christensen, 1994; Kanmani et al, 2013; Kostova, 2006). Modern
landfills are highly engineered and controlled systems that utilize liners to minimize the impact of waste
materials, particularly solid waste. The liners are typically made of compacted clay, geosynthetic clay,
geomembrane, geotextiles or combinations of all these. The characteristics and rate of leachate
produced from a landfill are dependent upon the age of the landfill, temperature and moisture content.
Then, the quality and quantity of leachate is highly variable, depending on the fluctuations of rainfall
amount, composition and characteristics of the waste, age, precipitation rate, site hydrology,
compaction, cover design, interaction of leachate with the environment and landfill operational patterns
(Jhamnani and Singh, 2009). In order to protect the environment from this toxic liquid, a low hydraulic
conductivity liner must be placed at the bottom of the landfill. Open dumping sites existing all over
Lebanon produce toxic leachate that reaches directly groundwater flow in the absence of any bottom
liner or barrier.

2.2 Contaminant fate and transport

Soil is a natural body consisting of several layers of mineral constituents of variable thicknesses
(Birkeland, 1999). There are three main types of soil: sand, silt and clay. Particle size and distribution
will affect a soil's capacity for holding water and therefore the movement of pollutants. The soil texture
triangle uses the particle size distribution of soil to determine the soil classification (figure 1). Studies
have shown that physical properties of soil layers have a serious impact on the fate and transport of
contaminant (AL-Daood, 2011; Kumar et al, 2006; Siracusa et al, 2007). The significant soil properties
controlling leachate displacement and mass transport include effective porosity, degree of saturation,
particle size distribution, soil fabric, pore structure and specific surface (Francisca et al, 2012). Most
natural soils are highly variable in their properties, and are rarely homogeneous. The contaminant
transport in soil is largely controlled by the soil heterogeneities. These heterogeneities are mainly
manifested through the hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic conductivity, exhibits spatial variability and has
a significant impact on the contaminant transport within the soil media (Rubin, 2003; Warrick et al,1980;
Wilding,1985). Throughout the past decades, numerous studies have been conducted regarding the
effects of soil heterogeneity on the spatial distribution of solutes and stochastic modeling of contaminant
transport (Bhattacharjee et al., 2002; Foussereau et al., 2000; Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Harter and
Yeh, 1996; Hu et al., 2009; Leblanc et al., 1991; Wheater et al., 2000; Zhan and Wheatcraft, 1999).
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is the most important soil hydraulic property; it gives an indication
of the soil’s ability to transmit water (Klute and Dirksen, 1986). The movement of contaminants in coarse
soils (gravel and sand) is greater than its movement in fine soils (clay and silt) (Eltarabily et al, 2015).

188
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Figure 1. Soil texture triangle, showing the 12 major textural classes, and particle size scales as defined
by the United States Department of Agriculture (Soil Survey Division Staff,1993).

Several transport mechanisms may aid in the spreading of contamination. These mechanisms are
diffusion, advection and dispersion (Fityus et al, 1999). Diffusion is a process in which solutes in a
solution flow in response to a gradient concentration. The solution itself don’t need a flow for diffusive
transport to occur. Release of contaminant from landfill will occur by molecular diffusion if the advective
velocity is low. (Shackelford, 1989; Shackelford et al., 1991; Shackelford, 1993).

Advection is the movement of dissolved solute with the flowing groundwater. The dispersion is the
process whereby solutes are mechanically mixed by velocity variations at the microscopic level during
advective transport (Barbour et al, 1983). The movement of contaminants through soil regimes is
analyzed by two techniques: particle tracking analysis and advection-dispersion analysis. Particle
tracking analysis only gives us an idea about the distance and time of travel of contaminant. A complete
advection dispersion analysis is mandatory to determine the contaminant concentration within the study
area.

2.3 GeoStudio Software

The movement of contaminant within the soil matrix is very complex. Therefore, numerical modeling is
used to simulate contaminant transport from a landfill through porous media. Nowadays, many computer
softwares have been created to solve contaminant transport through porous media. GeoStudio, is a
finite element software for geo-engineers used to model the water seepage, contaminant transport and
particle tracking in response to the movement of water, diffusion, advection, dispersion and adsorption
through soil. SEEP/W and CTRAN/W are two modules of GeoStudio. First, leachate seepage through
saturated and unsaturated soils is determined by SEEP/W. It depends on the fundamentals that the
water seepage through saturated and unsaturated soil supports Darcy’s law.

Results of previous stage are used to assess contaminant transport by advection-dispersion

mechanisms at the bottom of the landfill using CTRAN/W. This module studies the transport of
contamination through porous media. It utilizes the SEEP/W flow velocities to compute the movement
of dissolved constituents in the pore-water.

3 METHODOLOGY OF WORK

To model the fate and transport of leachate contaminants through soil, a 2D analysis was performed
using SEEP/W and CTRAN/W. As shown in figure 2, the model consists of the landfill at the left side,
and a potential seepage face and riverbed along the right side. Landfill dimensions are assigned as 100
m bottom width, 30 m depth and a slope of 2:1 is assigned.

189
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Figure 2. Cross section view of the landfill

Concerning identifying the boundary conditions, for the seepage analysis, the total head (H=15m) which
equals the elevation head is located in the middle of the landfill site, with a potential seepage face
boundary along the entire right side, as it is not known in advance where the water will exit the system.
The saturated and unsaturated cases for the transit case are considered.

For the particle tracking analysis, several particles are added at the base of the landfill. These particles
will move with the water in the system and will be shown at different times and locations.

For the advection-dispersion analysis, a source concentration is added at the base of the landfill and
free exit boundary condition is applied to the slope and the riverbed. One type of contaminant
concentration Cadmium (11.5ppm) was chosen to be studied in this research. This concentration is one
among other typical concentrations of solid waste contaminants in landfill sites in Lebanon. The
coefficient of diffusion of cadmium through soil is assumed D * = 3.10-10 m2/s (Shackelford, 1991). In our
case, due to the geometry of the model and the absence of bottom liner, the movement of contaminant
will be controlled by advection-dispersion.

According to geological site investigation, the site soil strata was described to be mainly composed of
alternating layers of Sandy lean Clay / Sandy fat Clay. Laboratory and field methods for determining soil
hydraulic properties across large land areas are time-consuming and expensive. In this study, the values
of hydraulic conductivity parameters for sandy clay soil estimated by Carsel and Parrish (1988) and
Clapp and Hornberger (1978) were used: these values are respectively Ksat =2.16×10-6 m/s and Ksat
=3.24×10-7 m/s.

A clay liner is assumed to be present only in one model at the bottom of the landfill. The parameters
used in the numerical model and the properties of the liner are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Considered parameters in the numerical model

Parameters Value
Model dimensions 2D
Saturated water content (θs) 0.38 (m3/m3)
Residual water content (θr) 0.08 (m3/m3)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity for soil (Ks) K1 = 2.16*10-6, K2 = 3.24*10-7 (m/s)
Dry density (ρd) 1500 (Kg/m3)
Diffusion parameter D* 3*10-10 (m2/s)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity for clay liner (Ks) 1*10-9 (m/s)

In order to illustrate the impact of hydraulic conductivity on soil and the presence or absence of liner in
the bottom of the landfill, the cases shown in table 2 are studied.

190
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Table 2. Studied cases

Cases Description
Case 1 K1 = 2.16*10-6 m/s without bottom clay liner
Case 2 K1 = 2.16*10-6 m/s with bottom clay liner
Case 3 K2 = 3.24*10-7 m/s without bottom clay liner
Case 4 K2 = 3.24*10-7 m/s with bottom clay liner

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Advection – dispersion analysis

The results of the two models SEEP/W and CTRAN/W show the distributions of the total head, and the
contamination distributions for any time. After assigning all the properties to the model, SEEP/W analysis
was initially run to display the velocity vectors in flow direction, then followed by CTRAN/W for
contaminant transport analysis.

Time taken by leachate to reach the riverbed with concentration of 1g/m3 respectively for case 1 and
case 3 is 110 days and 750 days. In case 2, the hydraulic conductivity is K1 and a bottom clay liner is
installed, concentration at the riverbed will take 10760 days to reach 1g/m 3. In case 4, concentration at
the riverbed will take 10810 days to reach 1 g/m3. Figure 3 to figure 6 are the graphical representations
of advection-dispersion analysis of leachate through soil. The contours represent the different
concentration of leachate through the research period; from which the red color (concentration 10 - 12
g/m3) indicates the maximum concentration while the blue color (concentration 0 - 2 g/m3) indicates the
minimum concentration.

Figure 3. Advection-dispersion analysis for case 1 after 110 days

Figure 4. Advection-dispersion analysis for case 2 after 30 years

191
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Figure 5. Advection-dispersion analysis for case 3 after 750 days

Figure 6. Advection-dispersion analysis for case 4 after 30 years

Results of the model showed that in soil with lower hydraulic conductivity (case3), the leachate will take
more time to reach riverbed than the case of soil with high conductivity (case1) which confirms that when
the permeability decreases, the concentration of the contaminant movement through soil decreases.
What is important to observe is the shape of the contour lines showing the concentration of
contaminants. While cases 1 and 3 (figures 3 and 5) are similar with the fact that the contamination
reaches the slope and the river bed (although in different times), Cases 2 and 4 (figures 4 and 6
respectively) show a totally different shape where the contaminant concentration do not reach either the
slope or the river bed. In figure 5 (case 3), the slope of the landfill is not saved from contaminants and
will be totally contaminated if we are beyond 3000 days. Figure 7 represents the correlation between
concentration of the leachate with the arrival time of contaminant at the riverbed for different values of
hydraulic conductivity of soil.

As shown in figure 7, the time taken by leachate to reach the riverbed is highly affected by the hydraulic
conductivity of the soil. After 750 days, the concentration of the leachate at the riverbed is still 1 g/m3 for
case 3 (soil with low hydraulic conductivity), while the concentration at the riverbed is 10.5 g/m 3 in the
case 1 where the soil has a higher hydraulic conductivity.

192
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

12
Concentration (g/m3)
10

6 Case1, K=2.16*10-6 m/s

Case3, K=3.24*10-7 m/s
4

600
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550

650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1.000
Time (days)

Figure 7. Concentration of leachate at the riverbed for different value of K

When comparing case 1 with case 2, or case 3 with case 4, we can understand the importance of the
presence of a clay liner at the bottom of the landfill. The correlations between concentration of the
leachate with the arrival time of contaminant at the riverbed for the same model with and without bottom
clay liner are presented in figures 8 and 9.

Furthermore, figure 8 shows that after 500 days, the concentration of leachate at the riverbed reaches
10.5 g/m3 for case 1 while it is still 0 g/m3 for case 2. After 7200 days, the concentration in case 1 is
10.68 g/m3 while in case 2 it is still 0.1 g/m3; the concentration in case 1 is around 10 times the
concentration in case 2.

12
Concwentration (g/m3)

10
8
6
4
2
0
8.680
1.240
1.550
1.860
2.170
2.480
2.790
3.100
3.410
3.720
4.030
4.340
4.650
4.960
5.270
5.580
5.890
6.200
6.510
6.820
7.130
7.440
7.750
8.060
8.370

8.990
9.300
9.610
9.920
10.230
10.540
10.850
930
0
310
620

Time (days)

Case1, without bottom liner Case 2, with bottom liner

Figure 8. Concentration of leachate at the riverbed for cases 1 and 2, with and without bottom liner

Moreover, as shown in figure 9, leachate concentration in case 4 took 10810 days to reach 1 g/m 3, while
in case 3 at the same time, this concentration is 10.6 g/m3; then the concentration at the same time in
case 3 is 10 times the concentration in case 4.

193
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

12
Concentration (g/m3)
10

0
930

8.680

9.920
0
310
620

1.240
1.550
1.860
2.170
2.480
2.790
3.100
3.410
3.720
4.030
4.340
4.650
4.960
5.270
5.580
5.890
6.200
6.510
6.820
7.130
7.440
7.750
8.060
8.370

8.990
9.300
9.610

10.230
10.540
10.850
Time (days)

Case 3, Without bottom liner Case 4, With bottom liner

Figure 9. Concentration of leachate at the riverbed for cases 3 and 4, with and without liner

4.2 Particle tracking analysis

In particle tracking analysis, the dissolved contaminants are represented by particles. The flow path of
particles provides a graphical representation of the contaminant plume movement caused by advection
only, while neglecting the effects of dispersion, adsorption and density. Figure 10 represents an example
for particle tracking analysis for case 3 and case 4 after 1000 days. After 1000 days, in case 3 with the
absence of clay liner, particles almost reach the riverbed, but in case 4 with the presence of clay liner,
particles are still near the landfill base.

Figure 10. Particle tracking analysis for case 3 after 1000 days(left). Particle tracking analysis for case
4 after 1000 days(right).

5 CONCLUSIONS

From the contaminant transport analysis presented in this paper, the following conclusions are drawn:

• The time of contaminant penetration into the soil and reaching the riverbed increase with the
decreasing value of hydraulic conductivity. For the same type of soil, in the case of lower hydraulic
conductivity, time taken by contaminants to reach the riverbed will increase about seven times.
• Transport of contaminants through the soil matrix occur by diffusion and advection-dispersion.
Diffusion is of significant importance only if the flow velocity is low. In our case, due to the high flow
velocity controlled by the shape of the model, the transport is mainly conducted by the advection-
dispersion process.
• The installation of a liner at the bottom of the landfill is mandatory to reduce leachate contaminant
migration into soil. Results proved that contaminants will take thousands of years to reach ground
water with the presence of liners, in comparison to several days in its absence. The concentration
of leachate at the riverbed in the absence of the bottom liner is 10 times the concentration in its
presence.

194
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

• Indiscriminate dumping of waste without proper solid waste management practices should be
urgently stopped or some remedial measures are required to be adopted to prevent further
contamination.

REFERENCES

AL-Daood, A. (2011). A study of Contaminate diffusion Through Layered Soil due to leachate migration From
Landfill Site. Al-Rafidain Engineering Journal (AREJ), 19(4), 28-42
Barbour, S. L., & Krahn, J. (1983). Contaminant transport in soils and its significance in the design of waste
management facilities.
Bhalla, B., Saini, M.S., & Jha, M.K. (2013). Effect of age and seasonal variations on leachate characteristics of
municipal solid waste landfill. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 2(8), 223-232.
Bhattacharjee, S., Ryan, J. N., and Elimelech, M. (2002). “Virus transport in physically and geochemically
heterogeneous subsurface porous media.” J. Contam. Hydrol., Vol. 57, Nos. 3-4, pp. 161-187. DOI:
10.1016/S0169-7722(02)00007-4.
Birkeland, P. W. (1984). Soils and geomorphology. Oxford university press.
Borjac, J., El Joumaa, M., Kawach, R., Youssef, L., & Blake, D. A. (2019). Heavy metals and organic compounds
contamination in leachates collected from Deir Kanoun Ras El Ain dump and its adjacent canal in South
Lebanon. Heliyon, 5(8), e02212.
Carsel, R. F., & Parrish, R. S. (1988). Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention
characteristics. Water resources research, 24(5), 755-769.
Cherri, Z., González, P. A., & Delgado, R. C. (2016). The Lebanese–Syrian crisis: impact of influx of Syrian refugees
to an already weak state. Risk management and healthcare policy, 9, 165.
Christensen, 1994. Attenuation of landfill leachate pollutants in aquifers. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science
and Technology, 24(2), pp.119-202.
Clapp, R. B., & Hornberger, G. M. (1978). Empirical equations for some soil hydraulic properties. Water resources
research, 14(4), 601-604.
Eltarabily, M. G. A., & Negm, A. M. (2015). Numerical simulation of fertilizers movement in sand and controlling
transport process via vertical barriers. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 6(8),
559
Fityus, S. G., Smith, D. W., & Booker, J. R. (1999). Contaminant transport through an unsaturated soil liner beneath
a landfill. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(2), 330-354.
Foussereau, X., Graham, W. D., and Rao, P. S. C. (2000). “Stochastic analysis of transient flow in unsaturated
heterogeneous soils.” Water Resour. Res., Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 891-910, DOI: 10.1029/1999WR900342.
Francisca, F. M., Carro Perez, M. E., Glatstein, D. A., & Montoro, M. A. (2012). Contaminant transport and fluid flow
in soils. Horizons in Earth Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, 179-214.
GEO-SLOPE User’s Guide, CTRAN/W and SEEP/W. Online available: http://www.geoslope.com
Harter, T., & Yeh, T. C. J. (1996). Conditional stochastic analysis of solute transport in heterogeneous, variably
saturated soils. Water Resources Research, 32(6), 1597-1609.
Hong, K. J., Tokunaga, S., & Kajiuchi, T. (2002). Evaluation of remediation process with plant-derived biosurfactant
for recovery of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Chemosphere, 49(4), 379-387.
Hu, B. X., Meerschaert, M. M., Barrash, W., Hyndman, D. W., He, C., Li, X., & Guo, L. (2009). Examining the
influence of heterogeneous porosity fields on conservative solute transport. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 108(3-4), 77-88.
Jhamnani, B., & Singh, S. K. (2009). Groundwater contamination due to Bhalaswa landfill site in New
Delhi. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3(3), 181-185.
Kanmani, S., & Gandhimathi, R. (2013). Assessment of heavy metal contamination in soil due to leachate migration
from an open dumping site. Applied Water Science, 3 (1), 193-205.
Khalil, C., & Hageh, A. L. (2018). C.; Korfali, S.; Khnayzer, R. Municipal leachates health risks: Chemical and
cytotoxicity assessment from regulated and unregulated municipal dumpsites in Lebanon. Chemosphere, 208, 1-
13.
Klute, A. and Dirksen, C. (1986). “Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods.” Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part 1--Physical and Mineralogical Methods. ASA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 687- 734
Kostova, I. (2006). Leachate from sanitary landfills–origin, characteristics, treatment. University of Architecture. Civil
Engineering and Geodesy,“Iskar’s Summer School”-Borovetz, 26e29 July.

195
 Understanding soil contamination by leachate from landfills

Kumar, S., Mukherjee, S. N., Ghosh, S., & Ray, R. (2006). A study for evaluation of contaminant transport
characteristics through fine-grained soil. Water environment research : a research publication of the Water
Environment Federation, 78(11), 2261–2267.
LeBlanc, D. R., Garabedian, S. P., Hess, K. M., Gelhar, L. W., Quadri, R. D., Stollenwerk, K. G., & Wood, W. W.
(1991). Large‐scale natural gradient tracer test in sand and gravel, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: 1. Experimental
design and observed tracer movement. Water Resources Research, 27(5), 895-910.
Rubin, Y. (2003). Applied stochastic hydrogeology. Oxford University Press.
Shackelford C.D. 1989. Diffusion of contaminants through waste containment barriers. Transport Research Record,
1219: 169-182.
Shackelford, C. D. (1991). Laboratory diffusion testing for waste disposal—A review. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 7(3), 177-217.
Shackelford, C. D., & Daniel, D. E. (1991). Diffusion in saturated soil. II: Results for compacted clay. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 117(3), 485-506.
Shackelford, Charles D. "Contaminant transport." In Geotechnical practice for waste disposal, pp. 33-65. Springer,
Boston, MA, 1993.
Shellito, K. (2016). "The Economic Effect of Refugee Crises on Host Countries and Implications for the Lebanese
Case," Joseph Wharton Scholars.
Siracusa, G., La Rosa, A. D., Musumeci, L., & Maiolino, G. (2007). Modelling of contaminant migration in
unsaturated soils. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 102.
Soil Survey Division Staff (1993). Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture. pp. 63–65. Retrieved
30 August 2014
Sweep-Net. (2014). Country report on the solid waste management in LEBANON. Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Warrick, A. W. and Nielsen, D. R. (1980). “Spatial variability of soil physical properties in the field.” Applications of
Soil Physics, Hillel, D. Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
Wheater, H. S., Tompkins, J. A., Van Leeuwen, M., and Butler, A. P. (2000). “Uncertainty in groundwater flow and
transport modelling - a stochastic analysis of well-protection zones.” Hydrol. Process., Vol. 14, No. 11, pp. 2019-
2029, DOI: 10.1002/1099-1085(20000815/ 30)14:11/123.0.CO;2-H.
Wilding, L. P. (1985). “Spatial variability: Its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys.” Soil
Spatial Variability, D. R. Nielsen, J. Bouma, Ed., Pudoc, Wageningen, Netherlands, pp. 166-194.
Zhan, H. and Wheatcraft, S. (1999). “Uncertainty of one-dimensional ground-water flow in strongly heterogeneous
formations.” J. Hydrol. Eng., Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 152-159, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699 (1999)4:2(152).

196
 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR
SOIL MECHANICS AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.

The paper was published in the proceedings of the 9th

International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics
(9ICEG), Volume 1, and was edited by Tugce Baser, Arvin
Farid, Xunchang Fei and Dimitrios Zekkos. The conference
was held from June 25th to June 28th 2023 in Chania, Crete,
Greece.