Intl. J. BioRes.

9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

IMPACTS OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

OF SOIL
J Ferdous1* and MB Masud1
1Agricultural Systems and Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
* Corresponding author: jui_bau@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The effects of municipal wastewater on the physico-chemical properties of five different soils were studied
during the period of December’2008 to May’2009 at Bangladesh Agricultural University in which three
samples were disturbed and rest two samples were undisturbed. The experiments were conducted both at the
laboratory and field; some experiments were under disturbed and some under undisturbed condition of the
soils. The electrical conductivity, pH, saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, gravitational water,
field capacity, porosity, bulk density, and water retention of the soils were measured by treating the soils with
tap water (fresh water) and municipal wastewater. Soil pH increased by 0.04, 0.39 and 0.19 unit and electrical
conductivity increased by 0.14, 0.13 and 0.11 dS/m due to the effect of municipal wastewater in the disturbed
soil 1, 2 and 3, respectively with respect to the effect of fresh water. Soil pH increased by 0.07−0.32 unit due to
municipal wastewater with respect to the fresh water in all undisturbed soils (soil 4 and soil 5). Electrical
conductivity of the soils increased by 0.002−0.26 dS/m due to the impacts of wastewater on undisturbed soils.
The percentage decrease of saturated hydraulic conductivity was 28.58, 20.78 and 42.77 due to the impact of
municipal wastewater in the soil 1, 2 and 3. The field capacity of the soils increased due to the effect of
wastewater both in the disturbed and undisturbed soils. Water retention of the soils increased due to the
impact of wastewater both in disturbed and undisturbed soils. In comparison to the soils treated with fresh
water, saturated hydraulic conductivity in the soils treated with municipal wastewater was decreased in the
undisturbed soils. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the undisturbed soils also decreased due to the
effects of municipal wastewater.
Key words: wastewater, water retention, saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity.
NTRODUCTION
In arid and semi-arid regions, wastewater reclamation and reuse has become an important element in water
resources planning (Abedi-Koupai and Bakhtiarifar, 2003). Virto et al. (2006) described the use of wastewater
for irrigation as a prime solution in the optimization of water resources in semi-arid areas. The reuse of
wastewater for purposes such as agricultural irrigation reduces the amount of water that needs to be extracted
from environmental water sources (USEPA, 1992; Gregory, 2000). Bangladesh is endowed with good
groundwater resources and a major part of irrigation fully depends on this vital source. However, a water
crisis occurs every year in dry season. This is because groundwater levels deplete beyond the pumping
capacity of suction pumps and surface water sources also become limiting. For all these reasons, a huge
chronic shortage of water is felt in many parts of the country during dry season irrigation period. Therefore,
additional source(s) of water for irrigation may be an important solution to this problem. According to the
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (2000), about 725 million cubic meters of
wastewater was produced every year from the urban areas of Bangladesh. Utilization of this wastewater for
irrigation can minimize water shortage for irrigation to a considerable extent if managed properly.
Wastewater reuse may reduce fertilizer rates and provide a low-cost source of irrigation water. Munir et al.
(2006) showed that long-term irrigation with wastewater increased salts, organic matter and plant nutrients in
the soil. Soil pH was not consistently affected. Wastewater is a preferred unconventional water source, since
supply is increasing due to population growth coupled with augmented awareness of environmental quality
and relatively low cost. The relevant costs of wastewater for agricultural reuse are just the additional costs
needed for application to agriculture (Haruvy and Sadan, 1994). Benefits of agricultural reuse of wastewater
are expressed by maintaining agricultural production while preserving water sources and environmental
quality. Wastewater irrigation may also be hazardous to environment since this water may contain pollutants
14
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

such as macro- and micro-organic and inorganic matters. These constituents may harm environment, health,
soil, aquifer and crops (Feigin et al., 1990; USEPA, 1992). In addition to groundwater contamination by waste-
derived nutrients, wastewater irrigation has shown to change physical, chemical and biological properties of
soil (Cook et al., 1994; Mathan 1994; Feigin et al., 1991; Schipper et al., 1996; Gharaibeh et al., 2007). Until now,
limited information is available on the effects of irrigation using untreated wastewater on soil physical and
chemical properties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Collection of soil samples
Soil samples for experiment under disturbed and undisturbed condition were collected from five different
agricultural field of the department of irrigation and water management (IWM) under the faculty of
Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh.

Determination of soil texture, electrical conductivity, pH, gravitational water, field capacity, porosity and
bulk density
The texture was determined by Hydrometer Method. In this method the percentage value of sand, silt and
clay were plotted on Marshall’s triangular curve.
Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH of the soils were determined by using a combine electrical conductivity
and pH meter.
The gravitational water, field capacity, porosity and bulk density of the experimented soils were determined
by using their standard formula. For determining the quantity of gravitational water of the soils, the core
samplers containing soil were submerged into water in a dish and kept them for 48 hours to attain full
saturation with water. The samples were then removed from water and placed on separate funnels placed
over conical flasks. The samples were covered with a polyethylene sheet to prevent evaporation loss of water.
The soil samples were kept for 48 hours for drainage. After 48 hours, the volumes of water drained out and
stored into the conical flasks due to gravitational force were measured.
Volume of drained water
Gravitational water = × 100 %
Volume of soil
Volume of retained water
Field capacity = × 100 %
Volume of soil
After measuring gravitational water and field capacity, porosity was calculated by adding gravitational water
and field capacity, that is,
Porosity = Gravitational water + Field capacity
To determine the bulk density, the mass of the empty core sampler and soil was measured. Bulk density was
calculated by the following formula:

Bulk density = , g/cm3

Where, wt. of dry soil = (wt. of oven dry soil and core sampler – wt. of empty core sampler), g
The volume of soil was determined from the internal diameter and height of the core samplers. All the soil
properties described above were determined from the same set of soil samples. In doing so, all necessary
measurements from the samples were taken first before taking the oven dry weight. The samples were dried
in the oven after all measurements were done.

15
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Hydraulic conductivity
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil samples was determined by Constant Head Method. For
measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity, core sampler of 5 cm diameter and 5 cm height (Eijkelkamp,
Agrisearch Equipment, Netherlands) was used. Six samples were prepared with each of the 3 soils. The
samplers were filled with sieved air dry soils. For settlement of the soil into the samplers, they were wetted for
7 days by intermittent application of fresh water (tap water). For measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity,
a PVC pipe (5.1 cm inside diameter and 21 cm height) having two 0.5 cm diameter holes at a distance of 2 cm
from the top was used. One of these holes was used for applying water and the other one for draining out
water from the PVC pipe. The PVC pipe was then attached with the sampler by using M-seal glue (general
purpose epoxy compound). The arrangements for this measurement are depicted in Figure 1. A plastic tube
was inserted into one hole of the PVC pipe and a steady flow of water was applied. The flow of water was
continued for 48−72 hours to attain steady state flow of water through the soil samples. At steady-state
condition, water drained out from the samples was collected in conical flasks for a certain time to get
measurable quantity of water. The volume of water was measured. From the volume of leached water and
constant head of water, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the samples was calculated from Darcy’s law
as:
V
Q = kiA or K =
Ati
Where,
K = hydraulic conductivity of the soil, cm/h. Q = flow rate of water through the soil, cm3/h
V = volume of water collected in time t, h. A = πr2 = area of the soil core, cm2
∆h
r = inside radius of the core sampler, cm. i= = hydraulic gradient
L
∆ h = difference in hydraulic head of water under which water flows through the sample, cm
L = length of the soil sample, cm

Fig. 1. Experimental set up for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils.

For measuring the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in-situ, a disk infiltrometer was used. The equipment
was filled with water. The disk and water tower were placed on a flat, clean surface, and the bubble tower was
filled until 7 cm from the top. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated as follows:
The inside radius of the water supply tube of the disk infiltrometer, r = 2.225 cm.
/
The radius of the disk’s nylon mesh, R = 10 cm. At steady condition, the average rate of water supply Q 1
cm/h for first suction h1 cm, and so on.

16
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Infiltration rate, Q1/ = πr2Q1 at h1

Wooding (1968) proposed the following equation:
4
Q = πr2K [1+ ]
πrα
The exponent of Wooding’s equation “α” is expressed by
ln [Q / (h2 ) / Q / (h2 )]
α=
h2 − h1
Saturated hydraulic conductivity is given by,
Q / (h1 )
Ksat =
π r 2 exp (αh1 )[1 +
4
]
π rα
Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is given by
K(h) = Ksat exp (αh)

Fig. 2. Experimental setup for measuring unsaturated hydraulic conductivity with a disk infiltrometer.
Soil-water retention curve

For the determination of soil-water retention curve of the experimental soils, sand box (Eijkelkamp,
Agrisearch Equipment, Netherlands) and pressure plate apparatus (Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Santa
Barbara, Ca., USA.) were used. For low suction (<100 cm of water) Sand Box was used and for high suction (>
100 cm of water) pressure plate apparatus was used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physico-chemical properties of soils were affected by the impacts of wastewater. The results obtained in this
study on soil properties due to the impacts of wastewater, have been summarized in Tables and Figures.
Soil texture
The three disturbed soils used in this study were designated as soil 1, 2 and 3 and two undisturbed soils were
designated as soil 4 and 5. The percentage of sand, silt and clay of the soils are given in Table 1.

17
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Table 1. Percentage of sand, silt and clay content along with the textural class of five sample soils

Soil sample no. Particle size distribution (%) Textural class

Sand Silt Clay

Soil 1 22.60 65.96 11.44 Silt loam
Soil 2 26.64 51.96 21.40 Silt loam
Soil 3 8.68 79.96 11.36 Silt
Soil 4 41.82 49.76 8.42 Loam
Soil 5 35.68 55.28 9.04 Silt loam

pH and electrical conductivity

The pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the five different soils are given in Table 2.
Table 2. pH and electrical conductivity of five different soils treated with tap water and municipal
wastewater.
Soil Soil condition pH of the soils treated with EC (dS/m) of the soils treated with
sample
Municipal Municipal
no. Tap water Tap water
wastewater wastewater
1 7.32 7.36 0.03 0.17
2 Disturbed 5.99 6.38 0.02 0.15
3 7.07 7.26 0.01 0.12
4 5.97 6.22 95 104.1
Undisturbed
5 5.68 5.95 73.4 74.5

pH increased by 0.04, 0.39, 0.19, 0.25 and 0.27 unit in soils 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively due to the treatment
with municipal wastewater. Concentration of hydrogen ions, expressed by pH and electrical conductivity
increased in all soils after application of wastewater due to some metallic ions, which were present in the
wastewater. The metallic ions elevated the solute content of the soils. Mancino and Pepper (1992) found that
irrigation with recycled wastewater resulted in an increase in soil pH by 0.1−0.2 units in comparison to
irrigation with fresh water. Vogeler (2009) and Schipper et al. (1996) also found similar results of soil pH due
to the effects of wastewater. Electrical conductivity (EC) increased by 0.14, 0.13, 0.11, 9.1 and 1.1 dS/m in soils
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively for the application of municipal wastewater on these soils. Similar EC increasing
trend was found by David et.al (1993).
Gravitational water and field capacity
The gravitational water of the soils as given in Table 3 for the three disturbed and one undisturbed soils
decreased due to the impact of municipal wastewater. Decrease in gravitational water due to municipal
wastewater was 59, 35 and 65% in soils 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Decrease in gravitational water of soil 4 treated
with municipal wastewater was 63%. Since field capacity and gravitational water combined constituted the
saturated water content of the soils, the variation of field capacity was in opposite trend to that of
gravitational water of the soils. In case of soil 5, it contained some grass roots that are why volume of drained
water was increased in comparison to other samples and ultimately value of gravitational water was
increased. Field capacity of different soils treated with municipal wastewater increased.

18
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Table 3. Gravitational water and field capacity of five different soils treated with tap water and municipal
wastewater.
Soil Soil condition Replication Gravitational water (%) of the Field capacity (%) of the
Sample soils treated with soils treated with
No. Municipal Municipal
Tap water Tap water
wastewater wastewater
1 3.72 1.62 51.48 54.86
2 3.35 0.49 53.60 55.47
1
3 3.06 2.01 56.67 51.42
AVERAGE 3.37 1.37 53.92 53.92
1 1.03 0.64 51.65 53.62
2 1.89 0.99 51.78 52.9
2 Disturbed
3 0.87 * 50.00 *
AVERAGE 1.26 0.82 51.14 53.26
1 3.33 1.31 49.63 50.91
2 3.08 0.15 54.78 54.97
3
3 0.80 1.07 54.92 54.13
AVERAGE 2.40 0.85 53.11 53.34
1 0.68 0.54 49.92 37.60
2 0.22 0.14 53.19 46.42
4
3 1.02 0.04 26.51 50.16
AVERAGE 0.64 0.24 43.21 44.73
Undisturbed
1 0.61 1.98 49.16 50.16
2 0.70 2.13 47.28 55.66
5
3 0.61 0.99 48.55 49.04
AVERAGE 0.64 1.70 48.33 51.62
* samples were damaged and data could not be measured.

Porosity and bulk density

Porosity and bulk density of the three disturbed and two undisturbed soils are given in Table 4. Wastewaters
reduced the porosity except for soil 2 in which the municipal wastewater caused an increase in porosity.
Municipal wastewater caused increase in the porosity for two undisturbed soil. This variation comes for
disturbed and disturbed condition. The reason for decreasing porosity of the soils was the clogging of some
pores due to various suspended materials of the wastewater. The reason for increasing porosity is the
accumulation of organic matters in the pore spaces. Dawes and Goonetilleke (2004) also reported that
application of wastewater to soils decreased the volume of pores. Tarenitzky et al. (1999) observed increased
porosity of soils due to the accumulation of organic matters in the pore spaces. Municipal wastewater caused
an increase in bulk density of the soils except in soil sample 5 as this sample contained some grass roots which
lessen the wt of dry soil.
Hydraulic conductivity
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of the five different soils is listed in Table 5. It is observed that the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the soils decreased due to the impacts of municipal wastewater. In comparison to
the soils treated with tap water, the percentage decrease in saturated hydraulic conductivity in the soils
treated with municipal wastewater was 29, 21and 43 in soils 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Various organic and
inorganic matters suspended in the wastewaters clogged some of the pore spaces of the soils with the
resultant reduction in the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The observed result is in conformity with that of
Dawes and Goonetilleke (2004) who found that application of wastewater to soils reduced their saturated
hydraulic conductivity.

19
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Table 4. Porosity and bulk density of three disturbed and two undisturbed soils treated with tap water and
municipal wastewater.
Soil Soil condition Replication Porosity (%) of the soils Bulk density (g/cm3) of the
Sample treated with soils treated with
No. Tap Municipal Tap Municipal
water wastewater water wastewater
1 55.20 56.48 1.22 1.31
2 56.95 55.96 1.24 1.34
1
3 59.73 53.43 1.27 1.31
AVERAGE 57.29 55.29 1.25 1.32
1 52.68 54.26 1.33 1.38
2 53.67 53.89 1.35 1.37
2 Disturbed
3 50.87 * 1.38 *
AVERAGE 52.41 54.08 1.35 1.37
1 52.96 52.22 1.22 1.39
2 57.86 55.13 1.26 1.33
3
3 55.73 55.20 1.29 1.35
AVERAGE 55.51 54.18 1.26 1.36
1 50.60 38.14 1.32 1.32
2 53.41 46.55 1.23 1.33
4
3 27.53 50.20 1.24 1.34
AVERAGE 43.85 44.96 1.27 1.33
Undisturbed
1 49.77 52.13 1.38 1.26
2 47.99 57.78 1.48 1.27
5
3 49.16 50.02 1.39 1.32
AVERAGE 48.97 53.31 1.42 1.28
* samples were damaged and data could not be measured.
Table 5. Saturated hydraulic conductivity of three disturbed and two undisturbed soils treated with tap
water and municipal wastewater.
Soil Soil condition Replication Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/h) of soils treated with
Sample
Tap water Municipal Wastewater
No.
1 0.46 0.22
1 2 0.49 0.45
3 0.69 0.50
Disturbed AVERAGE 0.55 0.39
1 0.88 0.38
2 0.67 0.33
3
3 0.51 0.48
AVERAGE 0.69 0.39
1 0.89 1.27
2 0.29 0.22
4
3 0.56 0.15
AVERAGE 0.58 0.55
Undisturbed
1 0.13 0.22
2 0.34 0.30
3 0.86 0.70
5
AVERAGE 0.44 0.41
* sample 2 was damaged and data could not be measured.

20
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

The unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of the two undisturbed soils treated with tap water and municipal
wastewater are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. It shows that unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the soils
decreased due to the impact of municipal wastewaters.

Fig.3.Variation of unsaturated hydraulic

Fig.4.Variation of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
conductivity of soil 4 before and after
of soil 5 before and after treatment with
treatment with municipal wastewater
municipal wastewater
Soil-water retention curve
Soil-water retention curves of the three disturbed soils are illustrated in Figures 5, 6 and 7 for the soils treated
with tap water and municipal wastewater. Figures 5, 6 and 7 depicted that water holding capacity of the soils
increased after treating them with wastewater. Wastewater contained a number of organic and inorganic
matters, which might improve soil structure and, consequently, increased the water holding capacity of the
soils. Dawes and Goonetilleke (2004) observed similar increase in water retention of soils due to the
application of wastewater. Tarenitzky et al. (1999) showed that addition of organic matters to soils increased
their water retention capacity. Soil-water retention curves of the two undisturbed soils both before and after
treatment with wastewater are illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. These figures show the similar trend in result as
like disturbed soil.

Before wastewater After wastewater Before wastewater After wastewater

0.60 0.55

0.55 0.50
Soil-water content

Soil-water content

0.50 0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Suction (cm) Suction (cm)

Fig. 5. Water-retention curves of soil 1 before and Fig.6.Water-retention curves of soil 2. Before and
after treatment with municipal wastewater after treatment with municipal wastewater

21
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Before wastewater After wastewater Before wastewater After wastewater

0.65 0.55

Soil-water content
0.60
0.50
Soil-water content

0.55
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.40 0.35
0.35 0.30
0.30 0.25
0.25 0.20
0.20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Suction (cm) Suction (cm)

Fig.7. Water-retention curves of soil 3 before and Fig. 8. Water-retention curves of soil 4 before and
after treatment with municipal wastewater after treatment with municipal wastewater

Before wastewater After wastewater

0.60
0.55
Soil-water content

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Suction (cm)
Fig.9. Water-retention curves of soil 5 before and after treatment with municipal wastewater

CONCLUSIONS
For all soils, wastewater caused an increase in soil pH, EC, porosity and soil-water content, but it reduced both
saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Wastewater caused variable effects on the bulk density,
field capacity and gravitational water of the soils.

REFERENCES
Abedi, K.J., and A. Bakhtiarifar, 2003. Investigation of the effect of treated wastewater on hydraulic properties
of emitters in trickle irrigation system. In: 20th Eur. Region. Conf., CD Int. Workshop, Irrigation
technologies and method: Research, Development and Testing, Montpellier, France.
Cook, J.J., F.M. Kelliher and M.S.D. Mahon, 1994. Changes in infiltration and drainage during wastewater
irrigation of a highly permeable soil. J. Environ. Qual. 23:476−482.
David G. Patriquin, Holly Blaikie, Maria J. Patriquin and Chengzhi Yang, 1993. On-Farm Measurements of
pH, Electrical Conductivity and Nitrate in Soil Extracts for Monitoring Coupling and Decoupling of
Nutrient Cycles. Journal of Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. 9:231-272.
Dawes, L., and A. Goonetilleke, 2004. Assessing changes in soil physical and chemical properties under long-
term effluent disposal. Proceedings of the 10th National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage System: pp. 349−357, Sacremento, California.
ESCAP (Economic And Social Commission For Asia And The Pacific), 2000, Human Resources Development
Section, Social Development Division. Bangkok 10200. Thailand.
Feigin, A., I. Ravina and J. Shalhevet, 1990. Irrigation with Treated Sewage Effluent. Ecological Series, Springer
Verlag, New York. U.S.A

22
Intl. J. BioRes.9 (5):14-23 November, 2010 Ferdous and Masud

Feigin, A., I. Ravine and J. Shalhevet, 1991. Irrigation with treated sewage effluent. Management and for
Environmental Protection. Berlin: Springer.
Gharaibeh, M.A., N.I. Eltaif and A.B. Abdullah, 2007. Impact of field application of treated wastewater on
hydraulic properties of vertisols. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 184:347−353.
Gregory, A., 2000. Strategic direction of water recycling in Sydney. In: Proceeding of the First Symposium
Water Recycling, Australia, Adelaide, 19–20 October, pp.35−41.
Haruvy, N. and E Sadan, 1994. Cost-benefit analysis of wastewater treatment in the water scarce economy of
Israel: A case study. J. Financial Mgt. and Analysis. 7(1):44−51.
Mancino, C.F., and I.L. Pepper, 1992. Irrigation of turfgrass with secondary sewage effluent: soil quality.
Agron. J. 84:650−654.
Mathan, K. K, 1994. Studies on the influence of long-term municipal sewage-effluent irrigation on soil physical
properties. Bioresour. Technol., 48:275−276.
Munir, J., R. Mohammad, H. Sami and R. Laith, 2006. Long-term effect of wastewater irrigation of forage crops
on soil and plant quality parameters. International Conference on Sustainable Water Management,
Rational Water Use, Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, Marrakech, Morocco, 8−10 June.
Schipper, L.A., J.C. Williamson, H.A. Kettles and T.W. Speir, 1996. Impact of land-applied tertiary-treated
effluent on soil properties. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1073−1077.
Tarenitzky, J., Y.Golobati, R.Veren and Y. Chen, 1999. Wastewater effects on montmorillionite suspensions
and hydraulic properties of sandy soil. Soil Sci. 92:125−128.
USEPA. 1992. U.S. EPA, Offices of Water and Wastewater and compliance (Ed.) Guidelines for water reuse.
U.S. EPA, Washington D.C, U.S.A.
Virto, I., P. Bescansa, M.J. Imaz, and A. Enrique, 2006. Soil quality under food processing wastewater
irrigation in semi-arid land, northern Spain: aggregation and organic matter fractions. J. Soil and
Water Conserv. Ankeny, 61(6):398−407.
Vogeler, I, 2009. Effect of long-term wastewater application on soil physical properties. Water, air and soil
pollution, 196:385−392.
Wooding, R.A, 1968. Steady infiltration from a shallow circular pond. Water Resour. Res. 4:1259−1273.

23