Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
DOI 10.1007/s00254-007-1180-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Magnetic measurements and pollutants of sediments
from Cauvery and Palaru River, India
Marcos A. E. Chaparro Æ Ana M. Sinito Æ V. Ramasamy Æ
Claudia Marinelli Æ Mauro A. E. Chaparro Æ
S. Mullainathan Æ S. Murugesan
Received: 5 September 2007 / Accepted: 28 December 2007 / Published online: 31 January 2008

Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract Rock-magnetic techniques have become a
useful tool in environmental issues; in particular, magnetic
studies constitute an alternative way to study pollution in
different media. The present contribution focuses on
magnetic parameters as pollution indicators, especially
from their relationship with contents of h\eavy metals. The
work was carried out in two Indian rivers located in Tamil
Nadu, southern India. Several sediment samples were
collected and studied in the laboratory using magnetic
techniques, magnetic susceptibility, anhysteric remanent
magnetization, isothermal remanent magnetization, and
chemical techniques to determine contents of heavy metals.
Magnetic mineralogy indicates the predominance of ferri-
magnetic minerals; although magnetite-like minerals are
the main magnetic carriers, antiferromagnetic minerals can
be present as subordinate carriers. Concentration-depen-
dent magnetic parameters revealed noticeable differences
between both rivers, e.g. magnetic susceptibility is four
times higher in Cauvery than in Palaru River. Moreover,
M. A. E. Chaparro
A. M. Sinito
C. Marinelli

M. A. E. Chaparro
CONICET and Universidad Nacional
del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (UNCPBA),
Pinto 399, CP 7000 Tandil, Argentina
M. A. E. Chaparro (&)
Centro de Geociencias,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM),
Blvd. Juriquilla No. 3001, CP 76230 Juriquilla,
Querétaro, México
e-mail: chapator@exa.unicen.edu.ar;
mchaparro@geociencias.unam.mx
V. Ramasamy
S. Mullainathan
S. Murugesan
Department of Physics, Annamalai University,
Annamalainagar 608 002, Tamil Nadu, India
such increase can be interpreted as ‘‘magnetic enhance-
ment’’ and therefore related to the pollution status. This
magnetic enhancement indicated a different pollutant
contribution in both rivers, and also, a different spatial
distribution along these rivers, where critical (or more
polluted) sites were identified. On the other hand, univar-
iate and multivariate statistical analyses—e.g. PCoordA,
Multifactorial Analysis of distance, PCA and RDA—were
examined, revealing a link between magnetic and chemical
variables. Among magnetic parameters, the concentration-
dependent magnetic parameters (e.g. magnetic suscepti-
bility) seem to be the most relevant for this study.
Keywords Environmental magnetism

Magnetic enhancement

Multivariate statistical techniques

River sediments
Pollution
Introduction
Magnetic enhancement occurring in different environments
is a term that can involve several processes (Tite and
Linington 1975; Mullins 1977; Thompson et al. 1980;
Maher 1986), such as, burning, chemical processes,
magnetised plus heavy metals particles emission. The latter
process is obviously related to pollution, therefore
magnetic enhancement can be used in order to assess an
environment and estimate its pollution status.
Since the 1980s, rock magnetic techniques have been
investigated and improved, becoming an auxiliary tool to
study pollution issues in different environments. A large
number of authors have investigated it obtaining interesting
results; among them: Hunt et al. (1984), Beckwith et al.
(1986), Strzyszcz (1993), Strzyszcz et al. (1996), Georgeaud
123
426
et al. (1997), Heller et al. (1998), Bityukova et al. (1999),
Durza (1999), Kapicka et al. (1999), Hoffmann et al. (1999),
Magiera and Strzyszcz (1999), Matzka and Maher
(1999), Petrovský et al. (2000), Knab et al. (2001), Hanesch
and Scholger (2002), Schibler et al. (2002), Lecoanet et al.
(2003), Boyko et al. (2004), Desenfant et al. (2004),
Jordanova et al. (2004), Spiteri et al. (2005), Wang and Qin
(2005, 2006), Chaparro et al. (2006, 2007a), Magiera et al.
(2006).
Point and diffuse sources (e.g. metallurgical factories
and urban road traffic) generate and release pollutants (fly
ashes) into the atmosphere which are deposited and con-
sequently incorporated into different systems, such as
rivers, streams, lakes, soils and even in biological bodies
(e.g. tree leaves, human lungs; Petrovský and Elwood
1999). Such fly ashes emitted are an end product containing
magnetic phases (magnetite-like minerals and/or hematite)
rich in heavy metals, being a consequence of surface
adsorption and/or incorporation of toxic elements into the
crystal structure of Fe-rich fly ash particles (Kukier et al.
2003). Therefore, their incorporation into sediment
produces an increase in magnetic minerals, magnetic
enhancement, which constitutes the basis for the use of
magnetic methods in pollution studies. Several magnetic
studies in river and lake sediments support this fact, e.g.
Georgeaud et al. (1997), Scholger (1998), Petrovský et al.
(2000), Chan et al. (2001), Chaparro et al. (2003, 2004,
2005), Hu et al. (2003), Jordanova et al. (2003, 2004),
Desenfant et al. (2004), Knab et al. (2006), Yang et al.
(2007).
The aim of this paper is to study sediments from Cauvery
and Palaru rivers, located in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
states, southern India. The work is focussed on magnetic
parameters as pollution indicators, especially from their
relationship with contents of heavy metals. Consequently,
various multivariate statistical techniques have been applied
and investigated. Ramasamy et al. (2006) carried out pre-
liminary magnetic measurements on Cauvery River
sediments. The magnetic composition and its characteristics
were identified by magnetic concentrations, magnetic car-
riers and grain size dependent magnetic parameters.
Study area and sampling
The study area comprises two rivers from southern India
(Fig. 1). The Cauvery River (also Kaveri River) is about
764 km long, rising in the Western Ghats mountains. It
flows south-east across Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states,
entering the Bay of Bengal through two principal mouths.
Although of no value for commercial navigation, Cauvery
River is highly important for irrigation purposes, chiefly in
its Tanjore delta region, where there are extensive
123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
irrigation works: ancient and modern. The Cauvery River
stretches from Poompuhar to Hoggenakal; this river covers
a total length of 520 km (sampling area), and hence 26
samples (C-samples) were collected from 26 stations, each
station is separated by a distance of *20 km (Fig. 1).
On the other hand, another river in Tamil Nadu, Palaru
River, was studied. The Palaru River flows from Kanag-
anachiammankoil to Sadras, where it enters the Bay of
Bengal. This covers a total length of 400 km (sampling
area), and hence 21 samples (P-samples) were collected
from 21 stations, each station is separated by a distance of
*18 km (Fig. 1).
The samples were collected from right bank, centre and
left bank of both rivers, from the river bottom (the
uppermost sediments). At each sampling site, a sampling
area of 1 m2 was considered and 4–5 wet samples were
taken. Each sample was about 1 kg. The collected samples
were dried at room temperature in open air for 2 days.
They were sieved through a 2-mm mesh-sized sieve to
remove stone, pebbles and other macro-impurities. For
magnetic studies, the collected river sediments were sub-
sampled with paleomagnetic plastic boxes (8 cm3). The
specimens were hardened using a Sodium Silicate solution.
Methods
Magnetic methods
Magnetic susceptibility measurements were carried out
using a magnetic susceptibility meter MS2, Bartington
Instruments Ltd., linked to MS2B dual frequency sensor (470
and 4,700 Hz). The volumetric susceptibility (j), mass-
specific susceptibility (v), and j frequency-dependence
(jFD% = 100 9 (j470 - j4700)/j470) were computed.
The anhysteric remanent magnetisation (ARM) was
measured superimposing a DC field of 90 lT to an alter-
nating field (AF) of 100 mT, using a partial ARM (pARM)
device attached to a shielded demagnetizer made by Mol-
spin Ltd. The remanent magnetisation was measured by a
spinner fluxgate magnetometer Minispin made by Molspin
Ltd. Related parameters, such as, the ARM, the anhysteric
susceptibility (jARM), the mass-specific anhysteric sus-
ceptibility (vARM), the jARM/j-ratio (Dunlop and Özdemir
1997) and the King’s plot (jARM vs j; King et al. 1982)
were also calculated.
Isothermal remanent magnetisation acquisition (IRM)
studies were carried out by using a pulse magnetizer model
IM-10-30 ASC Scientific. Each sample was magnetised by
exposing it to growing stepwise DC fields, from 4.3 to
2470 mT. The remanent magnetisation after each step was
measured using the aforementioned magnetometer Mini-
spin. In these measurements, IRM acquisition curves,
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437 427

Fig. 1 Map of the area under

investigation. River sediments
were collected from different
stations along two rivers,
Cauvery River (26 stations) and
Palaru River (21 stations) 12
INDIA 15
17 11
14 13 10
9 4
20 16 8 7 6
5
21 19 18
3
2
1

26

25
24
23

21 22

20
19 17 2
15
18 5
1
16 4 3
14 13 12 6
11 10 8 7
9

0 50 100 Km

Saturation IRM (SIRM), SIRM/ARM, SIRM/vARM ratio
and SIRM/v ratio were found using forward DC fields.
Remanent coercivity (HCR) and S-ratio (=-IRM-300/
SIRM, being IRM-300 the acquired IRM at a backfield of
300 mT) were also calculated from IRM measurement,
using backfield once the SIRM was reached.
baseline value (Cbaseline,k) or the lowest concentration
values detected for each heavy metal in these sediment
samples.
Statistical techniques

Calculations of univariate and multivariate statistical

Chemical methods
For determination of heavy metals, samples were dried and
prepared by using the protocol: ‘‘3050 acid digestion of
sediments, sludge and soil’’ (Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA SW-846 1986). Contents of chromium (Cr),
copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn)
were determined by spectrometry of atomic absorption,
with direct aspiration on acetylene-air flame (method
3111.B, APHA 1998). The Tomlinson pollution load index
(PLI, Tomlinson et al. 1980; Angulo 1996) was computed.
This PLI is defined as the nth root of the multiplication of
the concentration factors (CFk),
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Y
n dG ði; jÞ ¼
n m k¼1
PLI ¼ CFk ð1Þ
k¼1
where CFk (CFk = CHM,k/Cbaseline,k) is the ratio between
the concentration of each heavy metal (CHM,k) to the
analyses were made using the software INFOSTAT 1.0,
Multivariado and software Libre R (GNU project). Linear
correlation was firstly investigated as a first approach;
hence R values between pairs of variables were obtained.
Then, various multivariate analyses were carried out, in
particular, Multifactorial Analysis of distance, principal
coordinate analysis (PCoordA), principal component
analysis (PCA) and redundancy analysis (RDA).
According to the variability of magnetic and chemical
data in each river, the Gower’s distance (dG) was used as a
dissimilarity measure for the Multifactorial Analysis of
distance,
1X m
jxik  xjk j
; ð2Þ
Rk
where xik and xjk are the matrix elements from data matrix;
k = 1,2…,m (m is the number of variables), i, j = 1,2…,n
(n is the number of individuals), and Rk ¼ maxfxhk g 
h

123
428
minfxhk g: This Gower’s distance (Eq. 2) was used in the
h
Multifactorial Analysis of distance (Gower and Krzanow-
ski 1999), and the statistical significance was computed
from a permutation test (Manly 1997). The Gower’s dis-
tance was also used in the PCoordA.
Many data sets in practice fit a multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA) structure but they are not con-
sonant with MANOVA assumptions. The Multifactorial
Analysis of distance is appropriate in this case because
this analysis is based on similarity measures between
units of analysis, and it does not need distributional
assumptions.
Detailed information on PCoordA, PCA and RDA can
be found in Anderson (1958), Gower (1966, 1987), Mardia
(1980), Cuadras (1981), Jongman et al. (1987), Johnson
and Wichern (1992) and other related texts and articles. In
particular, these multivariate methods have been applied to
Environmental Magnetism studies in Chaparro et al. (2006,
2007b).
The redundancy analysis is similar to the canonical
correlation analysis (CCA), and both of them allow
studying a relationship between two groups of variables X
and Y. While the CCA studies the relationship between X
and Y in a symmetric way ðX , YÞ; the RDA investigates
this relationship in a non-symmetric way or in one direc-
tion ðX ) YÞ: The redundancy expresses how much of the
variance of one group of variables can be explained by the
other one (cause–effect).
Results and discussion
Results from various magnetic measurements and related
parameters, as well as chemical measurements, are dis-
played in Table 1. Among these data, only magnetic data
from Cauvery River were detailed in Ramasamy et al.
(2006). Such parameters are also shown in different plots
and biplots in order to observe their spatial behaviour
(Fig. 2) and to analyse their magnetic characteristics
(Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5).
Magnetic concentration
Concentration-dependent parameters (v, ARM, vARM and
SIRM) revealed noticeable differences between samples
from Cauvery River (C-samples) and Palaru River (P-
samples) (see Table 1; Fig. 2). Higher v and SIRM values
were found for C-samples (from 29.5 to 988.6 9 10-8
m3 kg-1 and from 3.2 to 55.3 9 10-3 A m2 kg-1,
respectively) than P-samples (from 9.1 to 279.5 9 10-8
m3 kg-1 and from 1.4 to 19.0 9 10-3 A m2 kg-1,
respectively).
123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
Figure 2 shows that the highest values (of v, SIRM and
ARM) from Cauvery River correspond to samples C-19 and
C-20. Slightly higher values are also noted for samples C-3/
5/8/14/16/25. There is also a moderate peak from Palaru
River, the highest value belongs to sample P-6. The latter
peak is comparable to the peak C-5; it constitutes a mod-
erate peak in relation to C-samples though. The other
P-samples show low values that are similar to the lowest
ones of C-samples. Thus, the spatial behaviour of both river
samples is different. The observed behaviour from these
three concentration-dependent parameters indicates high
concentration of ferrimagnetic minerals at different sites.
Moreover, the general trend shows higher concentration of
ferrimagnetic minerals in Cauvery River than in Palaru
River. In order to quantify such differences among samples
and assuming the main presence of magnetite-like mineral,
the Thompson plot (Thompson and Oldfield 1986) was
used. In Fig. 3, differences in magnetic concentration
(\0.01%, 0.01–0.1% and [0.1%) are noted. C-samples
have concentration (j) greater than 0.02% (6 9 10-4 SI),
and P-samples are mostly lower than these values. The
peaks from some C-samples have a magnetite concentration
(j) from 0.1 to 1% (from 3 9 10-3 SI to 3 9 10-2 SI), and
P-samples mostly close to 0.01% (3 9 10-4 SI), except P-6
(around 0.1%). Moreover, samples from both rivers, C and
P-samples, can be observed in an intermediate region,
between 0.016 and 0.033% (5 9 10-4 and 1 9 10-3 SI)
Magnetic carriers
Magnetic mineralogy is analysed from S-ratio, HCR and
SIRM/v. The S-ratio is a dimensionless parameter that
indicates content of ferrimagnetic versus antiferromagnetic
materials; values close to 1 correspond to the predomi-
nance of ferrimagnetic materials. The content of
ferrimagnetic materials is predominant and relatively
similar among samples (see Fig. 2), varying from 0.888 to
0.984 for C-samples, and from 0.883 to 0.976 for most of
the P-samples. An extreme low value was obtained for
sample P-3 (0.804), possibly indicating an extra presence
of antiferromagnetic material.
The HCR parameter shows similar mineralogy for higher
magnetic concentration samples (peaks from Cauvery
River: C-5/7/8/19/20 and from Palaru River: P-6). In this
case, values below 30 mT (Fig. 2; Table 1) are character-
istic of magnetite (Thompson and Oldfield 1986; Peters and
Dekkers 2003). Various exceptions are observed for Cau-
very River, the peaks C-3, C-14, C-25 and P-19 show higher
HCR values than the other peaks, which could be related to a
different magnetic domain or other magnetic mineral
(titanomagnetite). The samples with intermediate magnetic
concentration (C-samples) have values higher than the first
 Table 1 Magnetic and chemical measurements for some selected samples (n = 22) from Cauvery (C) and Palaru (P) Rivers
Sample Pb Cu Zn Ni Cr Fe PLI v jFD% vARM jARM/j ARM SIRM SIRM/ S-ratio SIRM/ ARM/
[mg/ [mg/ [mg/ [mg/ [mg/ [mg/ [dimension- [10-8 m3 [%] [10-8 [dimension- [10-6 [10-3 v [dimension- vARM SIRM
kg] kg] kg] kg] kg] kg] less] kg-1] m3 less] A m2 A m2 [kA/m] less] [kA/m] [dimension-
kg-1] kg-1] kg-1] less]
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437

C-1 \1.0 34.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5535 3.97 44.0 2.02 113.9 2.59 79.0 3.2 7.3 0.911 2.8 0.035
C-3 \1.0 11.0 10.0 11.5 31.0 12500 6.76 196.4 1.09 381.7 1.94 263.4 16.8 8.5 0.936 4.4 0.034
C-5 \1.0 10.5 7.0 9.0 4.5 8950 3.55 241.7 0.61 279.1 1.15 190.9 17.0 7.0 0.984 6.1 0.030
C-7 \1.0 2.0 9.5 7.5 3.0 3750 2.19 134.2 0.08 211.4 1.58 144.8 9.5 7.1 0.949 4.5 0.030
C-8 \1.0 2.5 9.0 8.0 16.5 8650 3.55 381.0 0.93 360.6 0.95 251.3 24.0 6.3 0.961 6.7 0.028
C-11 \1.0 4.0 4.5 6.5 3.5 3550 2.16 29.5 1.49 154.3 5.24 109.8 4.0 13.7 0.966 2.6 0.040
C-14 \1.0 5.0 11.5 8.5 13.0 9300 4.29 359.3 0.03 202.9 0.56 147.9 16.4 4.6 0.888 8.1 0.034
C-16 \1.0 2.0 6.0 6.5 7.5 5350 2.36 166.6 0.00 273.5 1.64 189.1 15.7 9.4 0.966 5.7 0.031
C-19 \1.0 6.0 11.0 10.0 35.5 10700 5.95 608.1 -0.19 564.5 0.93 388.2 39.7 6.5 0.952 7.0 0.029
C-20 \1.0 2.0 20.0 21.0 29.0 13200 6.00 988.6 0.23 772.8 0.78 544.6 55.3 5.6 0.967 7.1 0.027
C-24 \1.0 12.0 14.0 12.5 10.5 9600 5.86 108.0 2.74 418.9 3.88 291.0 6.6 6.1 0.954 1.6 0.031
P-1 \1.0 2.0 4.5 5.0 1.5 4100 1.38 16.1 1.38 166.9 10.36 116.4 2.3 14.4 0.966 1.4 0.048
P-2 \1.0 3.0 5.5 6.0 2.0 3050 1.80 38.8 0.74 170.4 4.40 114.4 4.2 10.8 1.000 2.5 0.037
P-3 \1.0 16.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 4800 2.00 28.4 4.40 120.1 4.22 82.4 3.8 13.5 0.804 3.2 0.052
P-5 \1.0 3.0 13.5 10.5 9.0 7500 3.78 9.1 2.13 91.1 9.98 64.4 1.4 15.2 0.925 1.5 0.050
P-6 \1.0 4.0 12.0 12.5 7.0 7850 3.87 279.7 0.35 268.4 0.96 184.3 19.0 6.8 0.976 7.1 0.029
P-9 \1.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 4.5 5200 3.00 52.0 2.25 197.3 3.79 121.5 7.4 14.3 0.928 3.8 0.066
P-11 \1.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 5750 2.35 57.9 1.02 183.3 3.16 127.0 6.3 10.9 0.966 3.4 0.043
P-13 \1.0 3.0 7.0 9.0 2.5 5450 2.24 52.6 1.02 134.0 2.55 95.0 6.3 11.9 0.935 4.7 0.037
P-16 \1.0 4.0 8.5 10.0 46.0 5900 5.37 39.8 1.34 80.4 2.02 55.2 2.8 7.1 0.973 3.5 0.035
P-19 \1.0 3.0 11.5 7.5 2.5 6950 2.42 136.7 0.44 139.1 1.02 94.3 7.6 5.6 0.953 5.5 0.036
P-21 \1.0 3.5 14.0 13.5 1.5 4450 2.70 19.0 -0.6 60.2 3.17 42.6 1.5 7.9 0.913 2.5 0.042
429

123
430 Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437

Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of

concentration dependent
parameters (v, SIRM and ARM)
and magnetic carrier dependent
parameters (HCR, S-ratio,
SIRM/v-ratio and jARM/j-ratio)
from a Palaru and b Cauvery
River. Note differences in scale
between a and b

ones, in some cases up to 40 mT. These values also
belong to magnetite, although as was pointed out, it
could be related to other magnetic states. The lowest
magnetic concentration samples (P-samples) show the
highest HCR values, from 35.2 to 66.4 mT. Such results are
interpreted as titanomagnetite or magnetite (Peters and
Dekkers 2003). It is worth mentioning that these higher
values can also be due to more oxidised magnetite (Kruiver
and Passier 2001), finer magnetite, or the presence of a
harder magnetic phase, an antiferromagnetic material
(hematite).
Results from the biplot of SIRM/v versus HCR agree
with the HCR interpretation (Fig. 4). According to the
SIRM/v (above 11 kA/m) and HCR values, the presence of
titanomagnetite, magnetite and maghemite is possible
(Maher et al. 1999; Peters and Dekkers 2003) in C and
P-samples. As can be appreciated in Fig. 4, most of
C-samples and P-samples show two different behaviours
related to the sample grouping observed in the scatterplot
(see shaded areas), which is interpreted as differences in
their magnetic mineralogy. It is also worth mentioning that
C and P-samples evidence a linear trend, but C-samples

123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
Fig. 3 Thompson’s Plot (j vs SIRM) for C and P-samples. Accord-
ing to Thompson and Oldfield (1986), the scale of magnetite
concentration (%) is displayed on the vertical axis (j-axis)
Fig. 4 Scatterplot of SIRM/v versus HCR for C and P-samples. Two
sample behaviours are identified, indicating differences in magnetic
mineralogy
have a higher slope than P-samples. Although the area on
the right and top can be sub-divided into other ones (dashed
lines in Fig. 4), they may not be significant if characteristic
values of magnetic minerals are taking into account.
Detailed measurements of acquisition IRM and unmixed
analyses into magnetic component were performed using
linear acquisition plot (LAP), gradient of acquisition plot
(GAP) and stan-plot (SAP) (Kruiver et al. 2001). Ten out of
all samples were chosen (C-samples: C-4/5/7/17/19/25, and
P-samples: P-3/6/13/18) for this kind of study. A main
magnetic soft component and a subordinate hard compo-
nent are observed in all samples. For C-samples and
samples P-6/13, the contribution of the main component is
above 95.8%, and the remanent acquisition coercivity
(H1/2) varies between 43.7 and 55.0 mT. The behaviour of
431
Fig. 5 King’s Plot (jARM vs j) for C and P-samples. Samples are
grouped in well-defined sample groupings. Peaks from magnetic
concentration dependent parameters, samples: C-5/8/14/19/20 and
P-6, showed higher grain sizes (from 5 to 25 lm) than the other
samples (e.g.: the background values from C and P-samples, see on
the left corner)
this parameter agrees with HCR behaviour, i.e. the highest
H1/2 values belong to the highest HCR values. The contri-
bution of the subordinate component for C-samples is low
(\4.2%); this component is possibly associated with anti-
ferromagnetic minerals (hematite). On the other hand, a
relatively high secondary component was obtained from
P-samples, sample P-3 (12%, H1/2 = 251.2 mT) and P-18
(6.5%, H1/2 = 631.0 mT).
Grain size distribution
The jFD% parameter is below 2.25% (except samples C-24
and P-3, Table 1); therefore the presence of superpara-
magnetic (SP) grains can be rejected (Bartington Ltd. 1994;
Dearing et al. 1996).
Magnetic grain size is estimated from King’s Plot and
other plots detailed in Peters and Dekkers (2003). From the
King’s Plot, it is possible to observe well-defined sample
groupings (Fig. 5). Finer grain sizes (between 0.2 and
1 lm) are associated to P-samples and the C-samples
having the lowest magnetic concentrations (background
concentration dependent values). Such estimation could not
be reliable due to the low concentration of magnetic car-
riers, so small variation of magnetic susceptibilities on the
Plot bottom can lead to different grain size estimations.
This difficulty for the King’s Plot was also noted by other
authors (e.g. Tauxe 1993).
Peaks from magnetic concentration dependent parame-
ters, samples: C-5/8/14/19/20 and P-6 showed higher grain
sizes (from 5 to 25 lm) than the other samples. Moderated
peaks (C-3/16/7) differ from background values and
123
432
noticeable peaks having a grain size from 1 to 5 lm.
Samples C-24/25 also belong to moderated peaks, although
they have finer grain size (from 0.2 to 1 lm) than the latter.
Such behaviour and the study of magnetic carriers suggest
a different pollution source in this area from Cauvery River
(Fig. 1).
The jARM/j-ratio is a grain size sensitive parameter
(Dunlop and Özdemir 1997; Peters and Dekkers 2003), and
also, SIRM/v can be a grain size sensitive parameter for
sediments that have similar magnetic mineralogy (Maher
1986; Maher et al. 1999). As it can be appreciated in Fig. 2,
both parameter patterns show good agreement, and thus
similar grain size trends. According to Peters and Dekkers
(2003) both ratios display decreasing values with increas-
ing grain sizes for (titano)magnetite; this can be observed
in Fig. 2. These trends support the estimations made from
the King’s Plot (Fig. 5).
Finally, the other grain size sensitive parameter, SIRM/
vARM-ratio, was computed (see Table 1) and analysed. This
ratio behaves in a similar way to the other ratios, values of
SIRM/vARM-ratio \4 kA/m are indicative of fine grain
sizes (\0.1 lm). Values [ 6 kA/m (and \12 kA/m) cor-
respond to coarse grain sizes ([10 lm; Peters and Dekkers
2003). From Table 1, one can observe that peaks (samples:
C-5/8/14/19/20 and P-6) have grain sizes [10 lm. These
results also agree with the other quantitative estimations.
Heavy metals
Chemical results were obtained for some selected samples
from both rivers; as can be noted in Table 1, contents of
Cu, Zn, Ni, Cr and Fe are higher in C-samples than in P-
samples. The baseline values for each heavy metal were
determined from minimum values (2.0 mg/kg for Cu,
2.5 mg/kg for Zn, 2.5 mg/kg for Ni, 1.5 mg/kg for Cr and
3050 mg/kg for Fe); such values belong mainly to samples
from Palaru River as can be observed in Table 1. They are
considered as natural trace metal values in these river
sediments for the area under study.
The highest heavy metal values recorded in these sedi-
ments are moderate in relation to other polluted areas, e.g.
34.0 mg/kg (Cu), 20.0 mg/kg (Zn), 21.0 mg/kg (Ni) and
46.0 mg/kg (Cr); however, there are clear differences
among sites, and especially between both rivers. Such
distinction is better appreciated from the PLI values (which
were calculated from Eq. 1, Table 1), where C-samples’
values range from 2.16 to 6.76 and P-samples’ values from
1.38 to 5.37. Furthermore, the median value of C-samples
(3.97) is higher than the value of P-samples (2.42), indi-
cating that the Cauvery River is the most polluted river.
These heavy metals are expected to be the end product
of urban and industrial activities. Both kinds of pollution
123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
are probable in this area according to the vehicle traffic,
and to the influence of industries (Ramasamy et al. 2006),
e.g. paper mills (C-sites 20 and 14), and dyeing factories
(C-site 20 and 19).
Magnetic enhancement and pollution
As was pointed out, magnetic enhancement can be conse-
quence of an extra incorporation of magnetic
minerals + heavy metals into sediment. Such phenomenon
has been observed to be variable and environment-depen-
dent (e.g. Georgeaud et al. 1997; Petrovský et al. 1998;
Desenfant et al. 2004; Chaparro et al. 2004), i.e. every
environment should be studied taking into account its
natural characteristics, climatic influences, chemical,
mechanical and biological processes. However, it is pos-
sible to establish background values considering pristine or
unpolluted areas for such kind of studies.
In this study, the Palaru River and some sites along
Cauvery River seem to receive a low pollution load.
Magnetic concentration-dependent parameters from these
sites were identified as the background values. Background
values of mass-specific magnetic susceptibility vary
between 9.1 and 57.9 9 10-8 m3/kg (see Table 1; Fig. 2).
These values showed similar magnetic features that were
discussed in the section Magnetic carriers and can be noted
from Fig. 2. They also display a similar grain size distri-
bution, grouping in a well-defined area (see Fig. 5,
grouping on the left and down).
Taking into account these background values, peaks and
moderated peaks found and pointed out in section Mag-
netic concentration can be interpreted as magnetic
enhancement. Such magnetic enhancement varies widely,
from 3 to 17 times the highest background value, so it is
possible to distinguish among critical sites affected by
different sources (industrial and urban) and their pollution
Table 2 Univariate analysis, R-values between magnetic and chem-
ical variables from Cauvery and Palaru Rivers are listed (n = 22)
Magnetic variable Chemical variable
Cu Zn Ni Cr Fe PLI
v -0.17 0.62 0.66 0.52 0.76 0.56
ARM -0.11 0.57 0.65 0.51 0.79 0.64
SIRM -0.18 0.55 0.63 0.53 0.75 0.56
S-ratio -0.43 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.07
SIRM/v -0.09 -0.52 -0.45 -0.40 -0.54 -0.53
jFD% 0.49 -0.40 -0.39 -0.15 -0.17 -0.07
jARM/j -0.06 -0.25 -0.28 -0.33 -0.41 -0.37
ARM/SIRM 0.03 -0.34 -0.39 -0.36 -0.47 -0.42
Moderate and good correlations are highlighted in bold
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
impact. Qualitatively, different pollution sources can also
be observed from grain size analysis. It was also concluded
in section Grain size distribution from different grain size
groupings, and also supported by carrier-dependent mag-
netic parameters.
Thus, magnetic enhancement revealed a different pol-
lutant load between Cauvery and Palaru River. Moreover,
spatial distribution of pollutants along Cauvery River
showed sites more polluted than others. Critical sites from
this river were observed in sites 25 (river head), 20, 19, 16,
14, 8, 5 and 3 (river mouth). These sites are related to
diffuse sources (urban, e.g. traffic-related emissions) and
point sources (industry); some of these sites (C-20, 19 and
14) are directly influenced by industrial pollution sources
as was discussed in Ramasamy et al. (2006).
Univariate and multivariate statistical studies
for magnetic and chemical variables
Linear correlation analysis between pairs of magnetic and
chemical variables was studied. This univariate analysis
was carried out for some samples and selected variables
(Table 2). The correlation (R-values) results have been
listed in Table 2, showing the good in-between relation of
some magnetic-chemical variables. Moderate and good
correlations, R-values varying from 0.51 to 0.79, corre-
spond to concentration-dependent magnetic parameters: v,
ARM and SIRM and most chemical variables: Zn, Ni, Cr,
Fe and PLI. As a first approach, it is possible to infer the
Fig. 6 Principal coordinate
analysis (PCoordA) of selected
samples (n = 22) and selected
magnetic and chemical
variables (m = 14). Four out of
22 individuals are distinguished,
being C-3/19/20/24. Individuals
are shown in the coordinate
plane of the first principal
coordinates (Coord 1 and Coord
2)
433
existence of one-to-one links between some magnetic and
chemical variables.
Since univariate statistical analysis can yield successful
or unsuccessful results according to each particular case
study, it is necessary to apply other statistical studies; in
particular, multivariate statistics (see Chaparro et al.
2007b). For these multivariate studies, a matrix of data (xik)
was made using 22 samples (n = 22) and 14 selected
variables (m = 14), i.e. 8 magnetic variables and 6
chemical variables. Thereafter, the Gower’s distance from
Eq. 2 was computed.
The Multifactorial Analysis of distance and the permu-
tation test were carried out in order to investigate
differences among samples from both rivers. Results from
this analysis indicate that there is not a statistically sig-
nificant (p = 0.72) difference between rivers.
On the other hand, the PCoordA allows searching for
similarities between cases or individuals, and conse-
quently, to investigate the existence of groupings. Results
from this analysis can be observed in Fig. 6; hence it is
possible to discriminate some samples from Cauvery River
(C-3, C-19, C-20 and C-24) against the others. The char-
acteristics of each group, taking into account magnetic and
chemical variables, are described in Table 3. In this table,
variables Ni, Fe, PLI and ARM are distinguished from the
others if the mean value of each variable from one group
does not belong to the confidence interval (90%) of the
other group, and vice versa.
Principal component analysis is applied in order to
investigate which sets of variables are correlated. A similar
123
434 Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437

Table 3 Magnetic and chemical variables of the discriminated groups, Group 1 (C-3/19/20/24) and Group 2, from PCoordA
Variable Group 1 Group 2
Lower limit Mean Upper limit Lower limit Mean Upper limit

Cu [mg/kg] 2.0 7.8 12.0 2.0 6.2 34.0

Zn [mg/kg] 10.0 13.8 20.0 2.5 8.2 14.0
Ni [mg/kg] 10.0 13.8 21.0 2.5 7.8 13.5
Cr [mg/kg] 10.5 26.5 35.5 1.5 7.6 46.0
Fe [mg/kg] 9600 11500 13200 3050 5894 9300
PLI [dimensionless] 5.86 6.14 6.76 1.38 2.94 5.37
v [10-8 m3/kg] 108.0 475.3 988.6 9.1 115.9 381.0
jFD% [%] -0.19 0.97 2.74 -0.60 1.09 4.40
jARM/j [dimensionless] 0.78 1.88 3.88 0.56 3.30 10.36
ARM [10-6 A m2/kg] 263.4 371.8 544.6 42.6 122.8 251.3
SIRM [10-3 A m2/kg] 6.6 29.6 55.3 1.4 8.5 24.0
Mean and the lower/upper 90% confidence limit are detailed for selected variables. The variables in bold are distinguished from the others taking
into account that the mean value from one group do not belong to the 90% confidence interval of the other group, and vice versa

Fig. 7 Principal component

analysis (PCA) of selected
samples (n = 22). The selected
magnetic and chemical
variables (m = 14) are shown in
the plane of the first principal
components (Coord 1 and
Coord 2); the circles indicate if
variables are reconstructed at
the 50% (inner circle) or 100%
(outer circle). Two grouping of
variables are observed, one of
them involves chemical and
magnetic variables: Zn, Ni, Cr,
Ni, Fe, PLI, v, ARM and SIRM

conclusion to PCoordA is also obtained from PCA (see well as v and SIRM. Considering the anomalous samples
Fig. 7), because the variables that define the first axis (C-3, C-19, C-20 and C-24) from PCoordA, they are dif-
Coord 1—direction of major variance explained by the first ferent from the others in this principal direction (Coord 1),
principal component—are PLI, ARM, Fe, Ni, Cr, Zn, as showing high levels in mentioned variables as can be

123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
observed in Table 3. The variables Ni, Cr and Zn could be
taking into account; however, they are reconstructed at
around the 50% (inner circle in Fig. 7).
Finally, the relationship between variables grouping
(magnetic and chemical) was tested and studied using
RDA. Although various groups were tried, the best statis-
tically significant results were obtained between three
magnetic variables (v, ARM and SIRM) and six chemical
variables (Cu, Zn, Ni, Cr, Fe and PLI). The canonical
correlation is R = 0.88 (p = 0.003), where the variance of
the second group (chemical variables) is explained to a
level of 73.2% by the first group of variables (concentra-
tion-dependent magnetic parameters, especially, v, ARM
and SIRM).
Conclusions
The magnetic signal of river sediments is dominated by
ferrimagnetic minerals, and especially, the main magnetic
carrier is identified as a magnetite-like mineral. Hard
magnetic minerals (e.g. hematite) as subordinate carriers
are also found in some samples, mostly in sediments from
Palaru River. These main carriers show differences in
concentration and also in magnetic grain sizes; thus sam-
ples with low concentration show finer magnetic grain
sizes, and on the other hand, coarser grain sizes are
observed in some C-samples with high magnetic
concentration.
Concentration-dependent magnetic parameters allowed
discriminating sites along each river, as well as between
them. These results suggest that the Cauvery River has
received more pollutants; high magnetic concentration in
some sites (C-3/5/8/14/16/19/20/25 and P-6) is therefore
interpreted as magnetic enhancement relative to the defined
background values.
Univariate and multivariate statistical studies reveal a
link between magnetic and chemical variables; in particu-
lar, linear correlations are moderate to good. From
PCoordA four sites from Cauvery were observed as
anomalous, they are C-3/19/20/24 and correspond to pol-
luted sites. From PCA results, chemical and concentration-
dependent magnetic variables are distinguished. Further-
more, the canonical correlation is statistically significant
and very good (canonical R = 0.88), and these results
indicate that concentration-dependent magnetic parame-
ters—v, ARM and SIRM—are the best ones contributing to
describe heavy metal pollution in these river sediments
from India.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the Annamalai Uni-
versity, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos
Aires (UNCPBA), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
435
(UNAM), LEMIT, CICPBA and CONICET for their financial sup-
port. We also would like to express our thanks to Dr. Sandra Jurado
and Raúl Pérez for their support in chemical determinations. The
authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions as
well.
References
Anderson TW (1958) An introduction to multivariate statistical
analysis. Wiley, New York
Angulo E (1996) The Tomlinson pollution load index applied to
heavy metal ‘‘Mussel-Watch’’ data: a useful index to assess
coastal pollution. Sci Tot Environ 187:19–56
APHA, AWWA, WEF (1998) Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater, 20th edn
Bartington Instruments Ltd. (1994) Operation manual. Environmental
magnetic susceptibility—using the Bartington MS2 system. Chi
Publishing, UK, 54 pp
Beckwith P, Ellis J, Revitt D, Oldfield F (1986) Heavy metal and
magnetic relationships for urban source sediments. Phys Earth
Planet Int 42:67–75
Bityukova L, Scholger R, Birke M (1999) Magnetic susceptibility as
indicator of environmental pollution of soils in Tallin. Phys
Chem Earth A 24(9):829–835
Boyko T, Scholger R, Stanjek H, MAGPROX TEAM (2004) Topsoil
magnetic susceptibility mapping as a tool for pollution moni-
toring: repeatability of in-situ measurements. J Appl Geophys
55(3–4):249–259
Chan LS, Ng SL, Davis AM, Yim WWS, Yeung CH (2001) Magnetic
properties and heavy-metal contents of contaminated seabed
sediments of Penny’s bay, Hong Kong. Mar Pollut Bull
42(7):569–583
Chaparro MAE, Bidegain JC, Sinito AM, Gogorza CS, Jurado S
(2003) Preliminary results of magnetic measurements on stream-
sediments from Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Stud Geo-
phys Geod 47(1):121–145
Chaparro MAE, Bidegain JC, Sinito AM, Jurado S, Gogorza CS
(2004) Relevant magnetic parameters and heavy metals from
relatively polluted stream sediments—vertical and longitudinal
distribution along a cross-city stream in Buenos Aires Province,
Argentina. Stud Geophys Geod 48(3):613–634
Chaparro MAE, Lirio JM, Nunez H, Gogorza CSG, Sinito AM (2005)
Preliminary magnetic studies of lagoon and stream sediments
from Chascoḿus area (Argentina)—magnetic parameters as
pollution indicators and some results of using an experimental
method to separate magnetic phases. Environ Geol 49(1):30–43
Chaparro MAE, Gogorza CSG, Chaparro MAE, Irurzun MA, Sinito
AM (2006) Review of magnetism and pollution studies of
various environments in Argentina. Earth Planets Space
58(10):1411–1422
Chaparro MAE, Nuñez H, Lirio JM, Gogorza CSG, Sinito AM
(2007a) Magnetic screening and heavy metal pollution studies in
soils from Marambio Station, Antarctica. Antarct Sci 19(3):379–
393
Chaparro MAE, Chaparro MAE, Marinelli C, Sinito AM (2007b)
Multivariate techniques as alternative statistical tools applied to
magnetic proxies for pollution: cases of study from Argentina
and Antarctica. Environ Geol. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-0823-6
(Online FirstTM)
Cuadras CM (1981) Métodos de analisis multivariante. Eunibar,
Barcelona
Dearing J, Dann R, Hay K, Lees J, Loveland P, Maher B, O’Grady K
(1996) Frequency-dependent susceptibility measurements of
environmental materials. Geophys J Int 124:228–240
123
436
Desenfant F, Petrovský E, Rochette P (2004) Magnetic signature of
industrial pollution of stream sediments and correlation with
heavy metals: case study from South France. Water Air Soil
Pollut 152:297–312
Dunlop J, Özdemir Ö (1997) Rock magnetism. Fundamentals and
frontiers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 573 pp
Durza O (1999) Heavy contamination and magnetic susceptibility in
soils around metallurgical plant. Phys Chem Earth A 24(6):541–
543
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA SW-846 (1986) Method 3050
Acid digestion of sediments, sludges and soils. Chapter 3:
metallic analysis, volume one, section A, part 1 of test methods
for evaluating solid waste, Washington DC
Georgeaud VM, Rochette P, Ambrosi JP, Vandamme D, Williamson
D (1997) Relationship between heavy metals and magnetic
properties in a large polluted catchment: The Etang de Berre
(South of France). Phys Chem Earth A 22(1–2):211–214
Gower JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector
methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325–338
Gower JC (1987) Introduction to ordination techniques. In: Legendre
P, Legendre L (eds) Development in numerical ecology.
Springer, Berlin, pp 3–64
Gower JC, Krzanowski WJ (1999) Analysis of distance for structured
multivariate data and extensions to multivariate analysis of
variance. Appl Stat 48(4):505–519
Hanesch M, Scholger R (2002) Mapping of heavy metal loadings in
soils by means of magnetic susceptibility measurements. Envi-
ron Geol 42:857–870
Heller F, Strzyszcz Z, Magiera T (1998) Magnetic record of industrial
pollution in soils of Upper Silesia, Poland. J Geophys Res
103(B8):17767–17774
Hoffmann V, Knab M, Appel E (1999) Magnetic susceptibility
mapping of roadside pollution. J Geochem Int 66(1–2):313–326
Hu S, Wang Y, Appel E, Zhu Y, Hoffmann V, Shi C, Yu Y (2003).
Magnetic responses to acidification in Lake Yangzonghai, SW
China. Phys Chem Earth 28:711–717
Hunt A, Jones J, Oldfield F (1984) Magnetic measurements and heavy
metals in atmospheric particulates of anthropogenic origin. Sci
Total Environ 33:129–139
Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1992) Applied multivariate statistical
analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 642 pp
Jongman RHG, Ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR (1987) Data
analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pudoc. Wagen-
ingen. 299 pp
Jordanova D, Veneva L, Hoffmann V (2003) Magnetic susceptibility
screening of anthropogenic impact on the Danube River
sediments in Northwestern Bulgaria—preliminary results. Stud
Geophys Geod 47:403–418
Jordanova DV, Hoffmann V, Thomas Fehr K (2004) Mineral
magnetic characterization of anthropogenic magnetic phases in
the Danube river sediments (Bulgarian part). Earth Planet Sci
Lett 221:71–89
Kapicka A, Petrovský E, Ustjak S, Machácková K (1999) Proxy
mapping of fly-ash pollution of soils around a coal-burning
power plant: a case study in Czech Republic. J Geochem Explor
66:291–297
King J, Banerjee SK, Marvin J, Özdemir Ö (1982) A comparison of
different magnetic methods for determining the relative grain
size of magnetite in natural materials: some results from lake
sediments. Earth Planet Sci Lett 59:404–419
Knab M, Appel E, Hoffmann V (2001) Separation of the anthropo-
genic portion of heavy metal contents along a highway by means
of magnetic susceptibility and fuzzy c-means cluster analysis.
Eur J Environ Eng Geophys 6:125–140
Knab M, Hoffmann V, Petrovský E, Kapicka A, Jordanova N, Appel
E (2006) Surveying the anthropogenic impact of the Moldau
123
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
river sediments and nearby soils using magnetic susceptibility.
Environ Geol 49:527–535
Kruiver PP, Passier HF (2001) Coercivity analysis of magnetic phases
in sapropel S1 related to variations in redox conditions, including
an investigation of the S ratio. Geochem Geophys Geosyst Paper
number 2001GC000181
Kruiver PP, Dekkers MJ, Heslop D (2001) Quantification of magnetic
coercivity components by the analysis of acquisition curves of
isothermal remanent magnetisation. Earth Planet Sci Lett
189:269–276
Kukier U, Fauziah Ishak C, Summer ME, Miller WP (2003)
Composition and element solubility of magnetic and non-
magnetic fly ash fractions. Environ Pollut 123:255–266
Lecoanet H, Leveque F, Ambrosi J-P (2003) Combination of
magnetic parameters: an efficient way to discriminate soil-
contamination sources (south France). Environ Pollut 122:229–
234
Magiera T, Strzyszcz Z (1999) Ferrimagnetic minerals of anthropo-
genic origin in soils of some Polish national parks. Water Air
Soil Pollut 124:37–48
Magiera T, Strzyszcz Z, Kapicka A, Petrovsky E, MAGPROX TEAM
(2006) Discrimination of lithogenic and anthropogenic influ-
ences on topsoil magnetic susceptibility in Central Europe.
Geoderma 130:299–311
Maher BA (1986) Characterisation of soils by mineral magnetic
measurements. Phys Earth Planet Int 42:76–92
Maher BA, Thompson R, Hounslow MW (1999) Introduction. In:
Maher BA, Thompson R (eds) Quaternary climates, environ-
ments and magnetism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 1–48
Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo
methods in biology. 2da. edición. Chapman & Hall, London
Mardia K (1980) Multivariate analysis. Academic, New York
Matzka J, Maher BA (1999) Magnetic biomonitoring of roadside tree
leaves: identification of spatial and temporal variations in vehicle
derived particulates. Atmos Environ 33:4565–4569
Mullins CE (1977) Magnetic susceptibility of the soil and its
significance in soil science: a review. J Soil Sci 28:223–246
Peters C, Dekkers MJ (2003) Selected room temperature magnetic
parameters as a function of mineralogy, concentration and grain
size. Phys Chem Earth 28:659–667
Petrovský E, Elwood B (1999) Magnetic monitoring of air, land and
water pollution. In: Maher BA, Thompson R (Eds) Quaternary
climates, environment and magnetism, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 279–322
Petrovský E, Kapicka A, Zapletal K, Sebestová E, Spanilá T, Dekkers
MJ, Rochette P (1998) Correlation between magnetic properties
and chemical composition of lake sediments from northern
Bohemia. Preliminary study. Phys Chem Earth A 23(9–
10):1123–1126
Petrovský E, Kapicka A, Jordanova N, Knab M, Hoffmann V (2000)
Low field susceptibility: a proxy method of estimating increased
pollution of different environmental systems. Environ Geol
39(3–4):312–318
Ramasamy V, Murugesan S, Mullainathan S, Chaparro MAE (2006)
Magnetic characterization of recently excavated sediments of
Cauvery river, Tamilnadu, India. Pollut Res 25(2):357–362
Schibler L, Boyko T, Ferdyn M, Gajda M, Höll S, Jordanova N,
Rösler N The Magprox team (2002) Topsoil magnetic suscep-
tibility mapping: data reproducibility and compatibility,
measurement strategy. Stud Geophys Geod 46:43–57
Scholger R (1998) Heavy metal pollution monitoring by magnetic
susceptibility measurements applied to sediments of the river
Mur (Styria, Austria). Eur J Environ Eng Geophys 3:25–37
Spiteri C, Kalinski V, Rösler W, Hoffmann V, Appel E, MAGPROX
team (2005) Magnetic screening of a pollution hotspot in the
Environ Geol (2008) 56:425–437
Lausitz area, Eastern Germany: correlation analysis between
magnetic proxies and heavy metal contamination in soils.
Environ Geol 49:1–9
Strzyszcz Z (1993) Magnetic susceptibility of soils in the areas
influenced by industrial emission, in soil monitoring. Birkhauser
Verlag, Basel, Monte Verita, pp 255–269
Strzyszcz Z, Magiera T, Heller F (1996) The influence of industrial
emissions on the magnetic susceptibility of soils in Upper
Silesia. Stud Geophys Geod 40:276–286
Tauxe L (1993) Sedimentary records of relative paleointensity of the
geomagnetic field: theory and practice. Rev Geophys 31(3):319–
354
Thompson R, Oldfield F (1986) Environmental magnetism. Allen &
Unwin, London, 225 pp
Thompson R, Bloemendal J, Dearing J, Oldfield F, Rummery J,
Stober J, Turner G (1980) Environmental applications of
magnetic measurements. Science 4430(207):481–486
437
Tite M, Linington R (1975) Effect of climate on the magnetic
susceptibility of soils. Nature 256:565–566
Tomlinson DL, Wilson JG, Harris CR, Jeffrey DW (1980) Problems
in the assessment of heavy metals levels in estuaries and the
formation of a pollution index. Helgol Meeresunters 33:566–
575
Wang X-S, Qin Y (2005) Correlation between magnetic susceptibility
and heavy metals in urban topsoil: a case study from the city of
Xuzhou, China. Environ Geol 49(1):10–18
Wang X-S, Qin Y (2006) Magnetic properties of urban topsoils and
correlation with heavy metals: a case study from the city of
Xuzhou, China. Environ Geol 49:897–904
Yang T, Liu Q, Chan L, Liu Z (2007) Magnetic signature of heavy
metal pollution of sediments: case study from the East Lake in
Wuhan, China. Environ Geol 52:1639–1650
123