Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framework for soil suitability evaluation for sewage effluent renovation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Geology

Abstract

Current methods of establishing suitable locations for onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are inadequate, particularly in light of the numerous cases of onsite system failure and the resulting adverse consequences. The development of a soil suitability framework for assessing soil suitability for OWTS allows a more practical means of assessment. The use of multivariate statistical analysis techniques, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and multi-criteria decision aids of PROMETHEE and GAIA, enabled the identification of suitable soils for effluent renovation. The outcome of the multivariate analysis, together with soil permeability and drainage characteristics permitted the establishment of a framework for assessing soil suitability based on three main soil functions: (1) the ability of the soil to provide suitable effluent renovation, (2) the permeability of the soil, and (3) the soil’s drainage characteristics. The developed framework was subsequently applied to the research area, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, and the use of standard scoring functions were utilised to provide a scoring system to signify which soils were more suitable for effluent renovation processes. From the assessment, it was found that Chromosol and Kurosol soils provided the highest level of effluent renovation, closely followed by Ferrosol and Dermosol, Kandosol and Rudosol soil types. Tennosol and Podosol soil types were found to have a significantly lower suitability, with Hydrosol soils proving the least suitable for renovating effluent from OWTS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4a–c
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams MJ (1995) Chemometrics in analytical spectroscopy. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  • Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP (2002) A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in North California. Agr Ecosyst Environ 90:25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APHA (1999) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater - 20th Edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC

  • Baker DE, Eldershaw VJ (1993) Interpreting soil analyses—for agricultural land use in Queensland. Division of Land Use and Fisheries, Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane

  • Borden D, Giese RF (2001) Baseline studies of the clay minerals society source clays: cation exchange capacity measurements by the ammonia-electrode method. Clays and Clay Minerals 49(5):444–45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlon C, Critto A, Marcomini A, Nathanail P (2001) Risk based characterisation of contaminated industrial site using multivariate and geostatistical tools. Environ Pollution 111:417–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1:245–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliver DO (2000) Research needs in decentralised wastewater treatment and management: fate and transport of pathogens. In: National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-Based Decision Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Environmental Protection Agency, National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, 1001446, pp 1–31

  • Dawes L, Goonetilleke A (2003) An Investigation into the role of site and soil characteristics in onsite sewage treatment. Environ Geol 44(4):467–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diack M, Stott DE (2001) Development of a soil quality index for the Chalmers silty clay loam from midwest USA. In: Stott DE, Mohtar RH, Steinhardt GC (eds) 10th International Soil Conservation Organisation Meeting, May 24–29 1999, Purdue University, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, pp 550–555

  • Edwards DG (1985) Diagnosing toxicity. In: Identification of Soils and Interpretation of Soil Data. ASSSI Qld Branch, Brisbane

  • Ferreira AJD, Coelho COA, Walsh RPD, Shakesby RA, Ceballos A, Doerr SH (2000) Hydrological implications of soil water-repellency in eucalyptus globulus forests, North-Central Portugal. J Hydrology 231–232:165–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold AJ, Sims JT (2000) Research needs in decentralized wastewater treatment and management: a risk-based approach to nutrient contamination. In: National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-Based Decision Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Environmental Protection Agency, National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, 1001446, pp 1–43

  • Hagedorn C, McCoy EL, Rahe TM (1981) The potential for ground water contamination from septic tanks. J Environ Quality 10(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton MJ, Yahner JE (1984) Cluster systems in a rural lake community. In: Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewerage Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp 165–68

  • Harper RJ, McKissock I, Gilkes RJ, Carter DJ, Blackwell PS (2000) A mulitvariate framework for interpreting the effects of soil properties, soil management and land use on water repellency. J Hydrology 231–232:371–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris PJ (1995) Water quality impacts from on-site waste disposal systems to coastal areas through groundwater discharge. Environ Geol 26:262–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann A, Gräsle W, Horn R (1998) Cation exchange processes in structured soils at various hydraulic properties. Soil Tillage Res 47:67–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoxley G, Dudding M (1994) Groundwater contamination by septic tank effluent: two case studies in Victoria, Australia. In: Proceedings of the Conference Water Down Under ‘94, Adelaide, Australia, pp 145–52

  • Isbell RF (1996) The Australian Soil Classification. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia

  • Karlen DL, Wollenhaupt NC, Erbach DC, Berry EC, Swan JB, Eash NS, Johdahl, JL (1994) Crop residue effect on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Tillage Res 31:149–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller HR, Massart DL, Brands JP (1991) Multicriteria decision making: a case study. Chemometr Intell Lab 11:175–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil WA, Goonetilleke A, Kokot S, Carroll S (2004) Use of chemometric methods and multicriteria decision-making for site selection for sustainable on-site sewage effluent disposal. Anal Chim Acta 504(1):41–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokot S, Grigg M, Panayiotou H, Dong Phuong T (1998) Data interpretation by some common chemometrics methods. Electroanalysis 10(16):1081–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Krumbein WC, Monk GD (1943) Permeability as a function of the size parameters of unconsolidated sand. Transaction of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers 151:153–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Massart DL, Vandeginste BGM, Deming SM, Michotte Y, Kaufman L (1988) Chemometrics—a text book. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  • McDonald RC, Isbell RF, Speight JG, Walker J, Hopkins, MS (1998) Australian soil and land survey—field handbook, 2nd Edn. Canberra, Australia

  • NRCS (1999) Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys - 2nd edn. Agriculture Handbook No.436, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe N (2001) Accreditation of on-site wastewater treatment systems—installation & maintenance personnel. In: Patterson RA, Jones MJ (eds) Proceedings of On-Site ‘01 Conference: Advancing On-Site Wastewater Systems, Armidale, Lanfax Laboratories, pp 295–99

  • Paul JH, Rose JB, Jiang SC, Zhou X, Cochran P, Kellogg C, Kang JB, Griffin D, Farrah SA, Lukasik J (1997) Evidence for groundwater and surface marine water contamination by waste disposal wells in the Florida Keys. Water Res 31(6):1448–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rayment GE, Higginson FR (1992) Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical methods—Australian soil and land survey handbook. Inkata Press, Sydney

  • Shaw RJ, Coughlan KJ, Bell LC (1998) Root zone sodicity, In: Summer ME, Naidu R (eds) Sodic Soils: Distribution, Properties, Management and Environment Consequences. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Siegrist RL (2001) Advancing the science and engineering of onsite wastewater systems. Onsite Wastewater Treatment. In: Mancl K (ed) Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, St Josephs, MI, ASAE, pp 1–10

  • Siegrist RL, Tyler EJ, Jenssen PD (2000) Design and performance of onsite wastewater treatment soil adsorption systems. In: National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-Based Decision Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Environmental Protection Agency, National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, 1001446, pp 1–48

  • The MathWorks Inc (2002) MATLAB Ver6.5 Release 13, The MathWorks, Natick, MA

  • US EPA (1997) Response to Congress on use of decentralized wastewater treatment systems. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 832-R-97–001b

  • Vance WH, McKenzie BM, Tisdall, JM (2003) The stability of soils used for cropping in Northern Victoria and Southern New South Wales. Aust J Soil Res 40:(4) 615–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Visual Decision Inc (1999) Decision Lab 2000 Executive Edition, Visual Decision Inc, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

  • Yates MV (1985) Septic tank density and ground-water contamination. Ground Water 31(6):884–89

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Gold Coast City Council and Queensland University of Technology for funding this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, 4001 , Brisbane, Australia

    Steven Carroll

Authors
  1. Steven Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashantha Goonetilleke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Les Dawes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Carroll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A. & Dawes, L. Framework for soil suitability evaluation for sewage effluent renovation. Env Geol 46, 195–208 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1026-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1026-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation