Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2005) 111: 43–54

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-8037-4

c Springer 2005

SOURCE APPORTIONMENT OF GROUNDWATER POLLUTION

AROUND LANDFILL SITE IN NAGPUR, INDIA

PARAS R. PUJARI and VIJAYA DESHPANDE∗

National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nehru Marg, Nagpur, India
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: rajad ngp@sancharnet.in)

(Received 19 August 2004; accepted 22 December 2004)

Abstract. The present work attempts statistical analysis of groundwater quality near a Landfill site
in Nagpur, India. The objective of the present work is to figure out the impact of different factors on
the quality of groundwater in the study area. Statistical analysis of the data has been attempted by
applying Factor Analysis concept. The analysis brings out the effect of five different factors governing
the groundwater quality in the study area. Based on the contribution of the different parameters present
in the extracted factors, the latter are linked to the geological setting, the leaching from the host rock,
leachate of heavy metals from the landfill as well as the bacterial contamination from landfill site and
other anthropogenic activities. The analysis brings out the vulnerability of the unconfined aquifer to
contamination.

Keywords: factor analysis, loadings, pollution

1. Introduction

Waste disposal by landfill site is very popular and the ever increasing demand
for larger space for domestic and industrial wastes from urban areas makes them
a necessary part of the human cycle of activities. Landfill sites commonly use
the space available in disused quarries or special purpose built structures. Our
interest in landfill site lies in assessing the pollution threat to groundwater since
the former may contain harmful substances. The pollution threat assumes more
importance in regions where there are fractures or weak zones just beneath the
landfill or surrounding it. The impact of landfill sites on groundwater has been
attempted by different workers with different perspectives (Baedecker and Apgar,
1984; Carpenter et al., 1990, 1991; Klefsted et al., 1975; Laine et al., 1982; Meju,
1993, Robinson and Maris, 1982; Vendrame and Pinho, 1997). Most of the works
cited above are focused on assessing the pollution risk to groundwater due to
landfill by using invasive as well as non-invasive methods. In view of lack of
proper documentation on the characteristics of the waste, investigations on landfill
become a very difficult task. The concentrations of different constituents in the
leachate are determined by the nature of the waste, by the amount of recharge water
that passes through the landfill and by factors that control groundwater velocity.
The waste material contains both organic as well as inorganic substances. There
are heavy metals also which are present in domestic waste. The presence of different
44 P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE

kinds of substances in the waste and their combined action in the groundwater
quality need to be thoroughly studied. To achieve this, statistical analysis of the
groundwater quality is attempted by the help of Factor Analysis. This is attempted
to split the overall quality of groundwater due to different sources. The objective is
not to explain the genesis of leachate composition from the landfill, it only seeks
to examine how the overall quality can be explained by different factors. Though
Factor Analysis is attempted only as a tool, a brief introduction follows here for
the benefit of the reader. The success of Factor Analysis in studies of groundwater
quality has been established as evidenced in literature (Love and Hallbuer, 1998;
Olmez et al., 1994; Chidamabaram et al., 2001; Reghunath et al., 2002; Subbarao
et al., 1995, Ramanathan et al., 2001).

2. Area of Study

The study area is selected near the landfill site in Nagpur (Figure 1). The samples
are collected from the available sources near the landfill site. The landfill site covers

Figure 1. Disposition of the sample locations in the study area. The contours represent the elevation
(in m).
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY 45

an area of approximately (1.5 sq km). The site receives an approximate 200 metric
tons of municipal solid waste per day. The site is in operation since 1973. The
groundwater extraction sources are both dug wells (open wells) as well as hand-
pumps. The rocks in the area are of archean age and are mostly granitic gneiss. The
rock type here is characterised by presence of essential minerals like Plagioclase
Feldspar and Oligoclase feldspar and accessory minerals like Muscovite, Biotite,
Hornblende and Augite. The feldspars contain sodium/potassium/calcium and alu-
minium, silicon and oxygen. The accessory minerals Muscovite and Biotite contain
fluoride. The top soil cover is predominantly in clay content and is black in colour.
Cotton is grown in this region and hence the soil type is known as black cotton soil.
The top soil cover is underlain by the granitic gneiss.
The depth to water table varies from 6 to 15 m (Table I). The groundwater flow
direction follows the topography gradient. There are no surface water sources in the
locality. The inhabitants are dependent only on the groundwater sources. The area
surrounding the western side of the sampling site is sparsely populated. The eastern
side of the landfill site is densely populated. The region on the eastern fringe of the
landfill site is used for agricultural purpose.

TABLE I
Details on sampling locations

Sample Type of Depth to

S. no. code source water table (m)

1 SN1 Hand-pump 12
2 SN2 Open well 8.33
3 PN1 Open well 15
4 CN1 Hand-pump 12
5 AN1 Open well 10
6 AN2 Open well 10
7 BH1 Hand-pump 14
8 BH2 Hand-pump 15
9 BH3 Hand-pump 12
10 BH4 Hand-pump 14
11 BH5 Hand-pump 10
12 BH6 Open well 8
13 PR1 Hand-pump 15
14 PR2 Open well 12
15 IT1 Open well 10
16 IT2 Open well 8
17 IT3 Open well 15
46 P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE

3. Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is a statistical technique (Flurry and Riedwyl, 1988; Kothari, 1988)
used to identify a relatively small number of factors that can be used to repre-
sent relationships among sets of many interrelated variables. Factor analysis helps
identify underlying, not directly variable, constructs; for example a huge number
of variables can be used to describe “geological and/or anthropogenic pollution
in aquifers” (soil and other parameters under study). They can be represented by
measuring various variable parameters such as total dissolved solid (TDS), nitrate,
sulphate, pH, temperature, chloride, depth of aquifer, Faecel colliforms and Total
colliforms. The goal of factor analysis is then to identify the not-directly variable
factors based on a set of variables.
Factor analysis usually proceeds in the following four steps.

• First, the correlation matrix for all variables is computed. Variables that do not
appear to be related to other variables can be identified from the matrix and
associated statistics.
• In the second step, factor extraction, i.e. the number of factors necessary to
represent the data and the method of calculating them must be determined.
• The third step, i.e. rotation, focuses on transforming the factors to make them
amenable to interpretation.
• At the fourth step, scores for each factor can be computed for each case.

The correlation matrix forms the basis for factor analysis. Since one of the goals
of factor analysis is to obtain “factors” that help explain these correlations, the
variables must be related to each other for the factor model to be appropriate.
The goal of the factor extraction step is to determine the factors. Principal com-
ponent analysis (PCA) is used to extract the factors. In PCA, linear combinations of
the observed variables are formed. The first principal component is the combination
that accounts for the largest amount of variance in the sample. The second principal
component accounts for the next largest amount of variance and is uncorrelated
with the first. Successive components explain progressively smaller portions of the
total sample variance and all are uncorrelated with each other.
The proportion of variance accounted for by common factors, or the commu-
nality of a variable, is determined for all the variables. To decide how many factors
need to represent the data, it is helpful to examine the percentage of total variance
explained by each. The total variance is the sum of the variance of each variable. The
total variance explained by each factor is termed as eigen value. The percentage of
the total variance attributable to each factor and cumulative percentage attributable
to that factor and those that precede it, are highlighted in the table. The criteria used
in general for determining the number of factors to use in a model suggests that
only factors that account for variances greater than unity (the eigen value is greater
than 1) should be included.
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY 47

The factor loadings indicate how much weight is assigned to each factor. Factors
with large coefficients (in absolute value) for a variable are closely related to the
variable. The factor loading ≥0.30 for a variable is considered as significant in
contributing the effect of that variable. Varimax rotation method is used to transform
the factors to make them amenable to interpretation.

4. Methodology

The samples were collected from sources scattered around the landfill sites. The
samples were collected only from points which are likely to be affected by the
leachate generated from the landfill site. The samples were collected from points
which were at a lower elevation as compared to the landfill site. The water table is
measured for each sampling point. The samples were analysed for various physico-
chemical and heavy metal parameters viz., pH, TDS, NO3 , SO4 , Cl, F, Fe, Na, K, Ca,
Al, Mn, Ni, Cu and Cr. The samples were also analysed for bacteriological param-
eters. The heavy metals were analysed by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
(AAS). The bacteriological parameters were studied by membrane filter method.
Based on the results of analysis, statistical analysis has been undertaken with the
help of SPSS software. Based on the results, signatures due to different factors are
deduced. The site specific conditions are taken into account while figuring out the
possible sources of pollution.

5. Results and Discussions

Total seventeen (17 nos) samples were collected from sources around the landfill
site. The samples were analysed for the various physico-chemical, bacteriological
and heavy metal parameters. The basis initial statistics are presented in Table II. The
correlation of different parameters is presented in Table III. Correlation coefficient
values close to or greater than 0.5 or less than −0.5 are considered to have significant
correlation. It is evident from the correlation table that Al has significant correlation
with FC (0.47), Ca with Cr (0.66), Cl (0.7), K (0.835), Mn (0.702), Ni (0.62), NO3
(0.821), SO4 (0.607) and pH (−0.85). Cl has significant correlation with Cr (0.47),
K (0.761), Mn (0.707), Na (0.603), NO3 (0.676), pH (−0.5) and SO4 (0.769). F
has significant correlation with Ni (−0.618), K with Mn (0.88), Ni (0.577), NO3
(0.917), pH (−0.606), SO4 (0.606), Mn with Ni (0.341), Na (0.332), NO3 (0.885),
SO4 (0.512), Na with SO4 (0.512), Ni with NO3 (0.479), pH (−0.611), NO3 with
pH (−0.572), SO4 (0.613), pH with SO4 (−0.336) and TC (0.459). Based on the
correlation, the factors were extracted by applying varimax rotation. Five (5 nos)
factors were extracted from the data (Table IV). The five factors together accounted
for 86.1% of the total variability in the data (Table V). The contribution to different
sources can be from the local geology, anthropogenic stresses like the landfill,
48 P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE

TABLE II
Basic statistical parameters

Parameters Mean Standard deviation

Al 0.37235 0.371
Ca 148.29412 85.6459
Cl 253.94118 153.7703
Cr 0.0088 0.006
F 0.67647 0.28838
FC 10.5882 26.0937
Fe 0.83 0.83846
K 4.92941 4.60811
Mn 0.18765 0.65639
Na 148.88235 66.5421
Ni 0.02588 0.01004
NO3 103.22941 138.9824
pH 7.29412 0.23841
SO4 96.94118 69.67377
TC (CFU/100 mL) 338.82353 567.1627
All the parameters except pH and TC are measured in mg/L.

open drains which carry domestic wastewater of the city. Based on the presence
of different constituents in the factors extracted, the latter can be associated with
different sources.
From loadings of different elements in the factors, it is observed that the first
factor predominantly has significant contribution from Ca, Cl, Cr, Mn, K, NO3 and
SO4 , the second factor from F and Na, the third factor has mainly contribution from
Al and FC, the fourth factor from pH and TC and the fifth factor from Fe and Al.
The first factor has contribution from sources which can be linked to both the
geology as well as the continuous dumping activity at the landfill site. Since the site
is having granitoid gneiss overlain by black cotton soil, the groundwater chemistry
will be complex and will be largely dependent on the water-rock interaction at the
site. The host rock, i.e. granitic gneiss has mostly feldspars which are rich in Na,
Ca and Al. In terms of leachability, Ca and Na reach faster than Al. Ca and Na have
higher loadings in Factor 1 compared to other parameters. Besides, Mn, Ni, Cl,
NO3 and SO4 have also higher loadings in Factor 1. These effects are likely from
the mineral assemblage in the rock as well as the landfill operations. The domestic
waste contains heavy metals and their signature is evident from the higher loadings
of Mn, Ni in the Factor 1. The domestic waste also contributes NO3 and Cl in
its leachate. Both NO3 and Cl have higher loadings in Factor 1. The effect of the
geology as well as the landfill are not segregated here as is evident in the composition
 TABLE III
Correlation matrix for different parameters of groundwater samples

Al Ca Cl Cr F FC Fe K Mn Na Ni NO3 pH SO4 TC

Al 1.0
Ca .074 1.0
Cl −.06 .7 1.0
Cr −.097 .66 .47 1.0
F −.14 −.33 .017 .055 1.0
FC .47 −.13 −.035 −.51 −.24 1.0
Fe .253 .022 −.011 −.031 .080 .167 1.0
K −.043 .835 .761 .674 −.212 −.228 .006 1.0
Mn .110 .702 .707 .435 −.18 −.10 .141 .882 1.0
Na .062 −.042 .603 −.042 .336 .197 −.15 .265 .332 1.0
Ni −.203 .620 .192 .537 −.618 −.252 −.141 .577 .341 −.39 1.0
NO3 .236 .821 .676 .628 −.21 −.155 .134 .917 .885 .196 .479 1.0
pH .170 −.85 −.50 −.70 .22 .161 −0.010 −.606 −.41 .27 −.611 −.572 1.0
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY

SO4 .299 .607 .769 .283 −.107 .127 −.017 .606 .715 .512 .181 .613 −.336 1.0
TC .016 −.275 −.191 −.279 .222 −.083 −.253 −.106 −.138 .151 −.003 −.140 .459 0.014 1.0
49
50 P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE

TABLE IV
Rotated factor matrix

Parameters Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Al .175 −.055 .532 .231 .610

Ca .801 −.406 −.153 −.288 .033
Cl .883 .22 .007 −.244 −.199
Cr .556 −.171 −.621 −.265 .049
F −.115 .824 −.398 .094 .101
FC −.051 .011 .895 −.116 .114
Fe .008 .109 .020 −.225 .841
K .910 −.202 −.235 −.052 −.025
Mn .897 −.062 −.033 −.001 .130
Na .488 .700 .297 .162 −.283
Ni .361 −.819 −.287 −.004 −.163
NO3 .896 −.215 −.147 −.016 .229
pH −.508 .418 .307 .573 .042
SO4 .852 .080 .261 .062 −.038
TC −.060 .058 −.078 .919 −.144
Factor 1: Physico-chemico factor; Factor 2: Leaching factor; Factor
3: Faecel colliform bacterio factor; Factor 4: Total colliform bacterio
factor; Factor 5: Heavy metal factor.

TABLE V
Final statistics

Cumulative
Eigen Percentage percentage
Variable Communality Factor value of variance of variance

Al .744 1 6.16 41.1 41.1

Ca .913 2 2.50 16.7 57.8
Cl .928 3 1.877 12.5 70.3
Cr .799 4 1.36 9.1 79.4
F .870 5 1.007 6.7 86.1

of Factor 1. Since the contribution to Factor 1 is from physico-chemical parameters,

it is nomenclatured as Physico-chemico factor. This factor contributes 41.1% of
the total variability in the data set.
The second factor has significant positive loadings from F and Na. Ca and Ni have
negative loadings. The possible mechanism responsible for the significant loadings
from Na and F may be their leaching from accessory minerals present in the host
rock, i.e granitic gneiss. The negative loadings from Ca and Ni in the same factor
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY 51

suggest that they are not derived from the same source. In view of the contribution
coming mostly from the leaching mechanism in the host rock, this factor is titled
Leaching factor. The contribution to the total variability by this factor is 16.7%.
The third factor has significant contribution from Al, Faecel colliforms and pH.
There is significant negative loading from F and Cr. The significant loading of
Faecel colliforms can be linked to the On-site sanitation practice. The pH loading
suggests the established theory that concentration of Faecel coliform changes with
the pH of the medium. The negative loading from F indicates the effect on Faecel
colliform concentration indirectly by changing the pH of the solution. Primarily,
the Faecel colliform is prominent in this factor and hence it is titled Faecel colliform
bacterio factor. This factor contributes 12.5% of the total variability in the data.
The fourth factor can also be linked to anthropogenic stresses and its contribution
comes from Total colliforms and pH (Table III). This factor is designated as Total
colliform bacterio factor. This factor contributes 9.15% of the total variability in
the data.
The fifth factor titled Heavy metal factor has significant contribution from Fe
and Al. The higher loadings from Fe and Al may be linked to the landfill which is
receiving domestic waste for the last thirty years. Heavy metals like Fe and Al are
present in the domestic waste and are likely to contaminate the groundwater. This
factor contributes 6.7% of the total variability in the data.
Summing up the contribution of different parameters in the factors extracted,
it is noticed that the groundwater quality is governed by the prevailing rock-water
interaction and different anthropogenic stresses. The factors emanate from the rock-
water interaction prevailing at the site which affects the quality due to differential
leaching of various elements present in the host rock. Besides, the quality is affected
by anthropogenic stresses like the landfill, application of fertilizers in neighbouring
agricultural fields and On-site sanitation systems existing in the vicinity of the site.
The total effect of different factors at different sampling locations is summed
up in Table VI. Factor 1 is prominent at most of the sampling locations which
are on both sides of the landfill site. The effect of Factor 1 is higher at all the
sites except BH4, SN2 and IT3, where effect from other factor is higher. Factor 2
is prominent at sources which are open wells, namely SN2, IT1 AND IT3. These
sources are the unconfined aquifer and the higher loading indicated that the leaching
factor is generally prominent on unconfined aquifer. Similarly, Factor 3, i.e Faecel
colliform bacterio factor and Factor 4, i.e. Total colliform bacterio factor are also
more prominent at unconfined aquifer. Factor 3 creates negative effect at BH3, BH4
and IT3. However, it is predominant at PR2, AN2, IT1 and IT2. The sites which are
positively affected by Factor 3 are close to the landfill site or the Nag river, which
carries domestic waste water of the city. The Total colliform factor is significant at
sites BH4, SN2 AND IT3. However, there is negative effect at SN2, IT1, IT2, BH1
and BH3. They are not significant at the confined aquifer. Factor 5, i.e. Heavy metal
factor is significant at only locations BH1, BH3 which are close to the landfill site
and at a lower elevation.
 52

TABLE VI
Total effect from different factors
Factors CN1 BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5 BH6 SN1 SN2 PR1 PR2 AN1 AN2 IT1 IT2 IT3 PN1
Effect of Factor 1 631.46 353.02 423.56 350.714 620 889.5 1808 528.3 560.44 245 499.5 395.7 474 766 391 115 637
Effect of Factor 2 150.5 17.261 23.842 17.0327 59.1 −25.38 63.59 138.9 300.71 77.7 100.3 78.52 60.3 254 148 211 164
Effect of Factor 3 35.279 1.2308 4.2007 −47.18 −46 1.573 29.9 19.09 31.336 44.8 114.3 20.43 146 53.5 53.5 −103 43.1
Effect of Factor 4 170.51 −48.72 3.812 −44.759 633 26.23 −190 195.2 1341.1 6.13 −2.68 133.4 127 −37 −19.1 1812 −62.5
Effect of Factor 5 −99.17 −18.646 −49.472 −22.433 −158 −59.2 −73.4 −143 −336.4 −44.7 −93.8 −63.8 −75.6 −164 −92.5 −332 −123
Total effect 888.59 304.14 405.94 253.374 1108 832.7 1639 738 1897.2 329 617.7 564.2 731 872 481 1703 659
P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY 53

Based on the total effect contributed by all the factors, the sampling sites have
been grouped into three classes, namely worst affected, moderately affected and
least affected. The categorisation is based on the sum total of the effect of all the
factors at different sites. Samples SN2, IT3 and BH6 which are open wells and close
to the landfill site, wastewater drain are worst affected. Samples namely BH4, CN1,
IT1, BH5, SN1, AN1, AN2, PN1, PR2 and IT2 are moderately affected. Samples
namely BH2, PR1, BH1 and BH3 are least affected. The samples least affected are
hand-pumps and they are not affected significantly by the leachate generated from
the landfill site.
Samples BH4, SN2 and IT3 are affected less by the Physico-chemico factor.
The reasons may be different for different sites. BH4 is close to the landfill site and
there are other sources of anthropogenic pollution apart from the landfill site. It is
close to local drain that carries domestic wastewater. SN2 is close to the landfill
site and is on the downstream site of the landfill. IT3 on the other hand is far from
the other samples and is located in an agricultural field and has conditions different
from other samples.

6. Conclusions

The groundwater quality around the landfill site is characterised by higher NO3 ,
and higher count of TC, FC. The factor analysis carried out brings out the interplay
of five different factors on the quality of groundwater at the site. It has indicated
the effect of landfill and sanitary practices on the quality of ground water. It has
brought out vulnerability of the unconfined aquifer to bacterial contamination.

Acknowledgments

The authors place on record their sincere thanks to Director, NEERI, Nagpur for
his kind permission to publish the paper. Acknowledgement is due to Ms. Leena
Khare, Ms. Nilakshi and Ms. Prajakta for assistance in sampling and analysis.

References

Baedecker, M. J. and Apgar, M. A.: 1984, ‘Hydrochemical Studies at a Landfill in Delaware’, in: J.
Bredehoeft (ed.), Groundwater Contamination, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp.
127–138.
Carpenter, P. J., Kaufmann, R. S. and Price, B.: 1990, ‘Use of resistivity soundings to determine
landfill structure’, Groundwater 28, 569–575.
Carpenter, P. J., Calkin, S. F. and Kuffmann, R. S.: 1991, ‘Assessing a fractured landfill cover using
electrical resistivity and seismic refraction techniques’, Geophysics 56, 1896–1904.
54 P. R. PUJARI AND V. DESHPANDE

Chidamabaram, S., Ramanathan, A. L., Srinivasamoorthy, K. and Ananthan, P: 2002, ‘A Case Study
on the Hydrogeochemistry of Fluoride Bearing Groundwater of Erode District, Tamilnadu’, in:
V. Subramanian and A. L. Ramanathan (eds.), Ecohydrology, CPC, New Delhi, pp. 223–236.
Flurry, B. and Riedwyl, H.: 1988, Multivariate Statistics: A Practical Approach, Chapman & Hall,
London.
Klefsted, G., Sendlein, L. V. and Palmquist, R. C.: 1975, ‘Limitations of electrical resistivity methods
in landfill investigations’, Groundwater 13, 418–437.
Kothari, C. R.: 1988, Research Methodology – Methods and Techniques, 3rd edn., Wiley Eastern Ltd.,
New Delhi, pp. 431–438.
Laine, D. L., Parra, J. O. and Owen, T. E.: 1982, ‘Application of an Automatic Earth Resistivity System
for Detecting Groundwater Migration under a Municipal Landfill’, in: Proceedings of NWWA
Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods in Groundwater Investigations, 12–
14 February 1982, pp. 34–51.
Love, D. and Hallbuer, D.K.: 1998, ‘Characterization of groundwater contamination in a dolomitic
aquifer, a case study from the Far West Rand’, Geocongress 98, Geological Society of South
Africa, Stellenbosch, South Africa, J. African Earth Sci. 31, 41–42.
Meju, M. A.: 1993, ‘Geophysical Mapping of Polluted Groundwater in a Closed Landfill Site’, in:
Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Brazilian Geophysical Society, Expanded
Abstracts, pp. 425–428.
Olmez, I., Beal, J. W. and Vilaaume, J. F.: 1994, ‘A new approach to understanding multiple source
groundwater contamination: Factor analysis and chemical mass balances’, Water Res. 28, 1095–
1101.
Ramanathan, A. L., Chidambaram, S., Srinivasamoorthy, K. and Anandhan, P.: 2001, ‘Dissolved Ion
Concentrations in the Suraface and Groundwaters of Neyvali Mining Regions’, in: V. Subramanian
and A. L. Ramanathan (eds.), Ecohydrology, CPC, New Delhi, pp. 167–180.
Reghunath, R., Sreedhara Murty, T. R. and Raghavan, B. R.: 2002, ‘The utility of multivariate statistical
techniques in hydrogeochemical studies: An example from Karnataka, India’, Water Res. 36,
2437–2442.
Robinson, H. C., Barber, C. and Maris, P. J.: 1982, ‘Generation and treatment of leachate from
domestic wastes in landfills’, Water Pollut. Control 54, 465–478.
Subbarao, C., Subbarao, N. V. and Chandu, S. N.: 1995, ‘Characterization of groundwater quality
using factor analysis’, Environ. Geol. 28, 175–180.
Vendrame, I. and Pinho, M. F.: 1997, ‘Groundwater Quality in Taubate Landfill, Brazil’, in: J. Chilton
(ed.), Groundwater in the Urban Environment, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 559–564.