See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/216656964

Magnetic Susceptibility of the Ponnaiyar river sediments, Tamilnadu, India

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS
11 342

3 authors, including:

Vikneswary Ramasamy R. Venkatachalapathy

Ngee Ann Polytechnic Annamalai University
101 PUBLICATIONS   2,640 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   1,554 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Anthropogenic Enhanced Magnetic Susceptibility-A Case Study from Chennai City, India View project

Identification and modelling of microplastics transport in the coastal areas under the influence of dominant wind patterns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. Venkatachalapathy on 01 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Global Journal of Environmental Research 3 (2): 126-131, 2009
ISSN 1990-925X
© IDOSI Publications, 2009

Magnetic Susceptibility of the Ponnaiyar River Sediments, Tamilnadu, India

1
V. Ramasamy, 1G. Suresh and 2R. Venkatachalapathy

1
Department of Physics, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, Tamilnadu, India
2
CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Annmalainagar, Tamilnadu, India

Abstract: Magnetic susceptibility measurements are performed on 40 sediment samples collected from the
Ponnaiyar river, Tamilnadu. Measurement of magnetic susceptibility of sediments, reflecting magnetic
enhancement of top sediments due to the atmospherically deposited magnetic particles of anthropogenic origin
as well as approximate determination of environmental contamination. One of the natural limitations of this
method is magnetic enhancement of sediments caused by weathering magnetically rich parent material.
Magnetic susceptibility ranges from 11.00x 10 8m3/kg to 260.10x 10 8m3/kg. Within the upper most 100km from
the origin show lower susceptibility values than next 100km of the river. More downstream of the river has quite
higher magnetic susceptibility (>150x 10 8m3/kg) values. However, some elevated values are also observed in
first 100km. Frequency dependence of magnetic susceptibility is calculated to understand the magnetic grain
variations which are presented and discussed. It varies from 0.12 to 8.56%. SP/SD grains are contributed to the
total susceptibility at S12, S19, S21, S35, S37 and S38. The multi domain grains may contribute to the total magnetic
susceptibility in other sites. The ranges of magnetic susceptibility values are compared with literature values.
The observed behavior from the magnetic susceptibility and percentage of frequency dependence susceptibility
indicates high concentration of ferrimagnetic minerals may exist at different sites.

Key words: Magnetic susceptibility River sediments Magnetic grain

INTRODUCTION River sediments represent a mixture of erosion

The need for fast and cheap screening and
monitoring tools of anthropogenic pollution caused that
increased number of studies deals with magnetic
methods as an approximate tool to detect and characterize
environmental pollution [1]. The mass-specific magnetic
susceptibility (÷) indicates the amount of magnetic
particles in materials like soil, sediments or rocks.
Magnetite is of particular importance because of its
high ÷ value (5-10 x 10 8m3/kg) and its widespread
occurrence in nature. It can be found in many different
kinds of rocks, modern soils and sediments. Magnetic
particle can originate from weathered bed rocks, biogenic
activity, volcanic ashes or extraterrestrial particles [2].
The spatial and temporal distribution of ÷ in the sediments
is not only due to variable abundance of iron-bearing ferri
and anti-ferromagnetic minerals, but also due to the
presence of diamagnetic and paramagnetic minerals such
as quartz, feldspar, carbonates and clays [3]. Mineral
magnetic measurements have been widely used for
delineating the environmental pollution during the recent
decades, because they are fast, cost-effective, non-
destructive and sensitive [4].
products of rocks and soils in the catchment area. These
sediments have always important to humans and their
health, providing a resource that can be used for different
aims. It acts as a natural sinks; record the input of
minerals and other pollutants of different origins from
lithogenic/pedogenic as well as anthropogenic sources.
Magnetic susceptibility of these sediments mostly
depends on ferromagnetic mineral concentration. These
minerals have origin by disintegration of parent rocks
during the pedogenesis, by lithogenic process and by
anthropogenic activities. In particular, atmospheric
deposition on sediments is the principal anthropic cause
of magnetic enhancement of sediments. Dust and fly
ashes produced by anthropogenic activities (traffic,
power plant, metallurgical settlements and domestic
waste) are rich of ferromagnetic particles. Generally, the
magnetic properties of the polluted sediments are mainly
determined by the anthropogenic portion and to a smaller
degree by the natural (lithologic /pedogenic) minerals [4].
Based on the above discussion, the river sediments
are enriched by magnetic pollutants. Magnetic
susceptibility of sediments was studied by many authors

Corresponding Author: V. Ramasamy, Department of Physics, Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, Tamilnadu, India
126
 Global J. Environ. Res., 3 (2): 126-131, 2009
[5-10]. Especially, Chaparro et al. 2003 and 2004
proved that magnetic susceptibility is able to reflect
anthropogenic input into river sediments.
Hence, the objective of this study is to evaluate the
level of magnetic susceptibility and to calculate the
frequency dependence magnetic susceptibility in
Ponnaiyar river sediments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area: In the present study, sediment samples were
collected from various sites of the Ponnaiyar river
(Figure 1). It is originated on the hills of Nandidrug in
Kolar district of Karnataka state and flows south and then
east for 400Km through Karnataka and Tamilnadu and
terminated at Cuddalore, Tamilnadu in Bay of Bengal. It is
entered in Tamilnadu at Dharmapuri district. It covers four
districts (Dharmapuri, Thiruvannamalai, Villupuram and
Cuddalore) in Tamilnadu. A dam is situated on the river at
Satthanur, Chengam taluk, Thiruvannamalai district with
a capacity of nearly 4600 M CFT. The small hydraulic
structure and barrages were constructed for drinking and
agriculture purposes respectively on the study area.
?Satthanur
•1
•2
•
•
•
•6
• •
• Thirukovilur
• Villupuram
• • 12
• •
• •
15
Sangarapuram
N 11°39'
Fig. 1: Location of Ponnaiyar river with their experimental sites in Tamilnadu
127
On both side of the bank of this river, so many
living residents and some industries are situated.
None of the industrials have proper and controlled
outlet. The discharge wastes and toxic metals from
such industries and living residents are directly let out in
to the river. Also along the river, lot of agricultural lands
is available, overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
are washed into the river. These are all main factors for
enrichment of pollutants in the study area. The sediments
of this river are excavated only for building construction
purposes.
Sample Collection and Preparation: The present study
area (Ponnaiyar river) covers a total length of 200 Km,
from which 40 locations were selected. Location of
sampling site with their latitude and longitude are
given in Table 1. Each location is separated by a
distance of 4-5 km approximately. All sediment samples
were collected at 0-10 cm depth during the summer
season (April-May 2008). Each sample has a weight of 1
kg approximately. The collected samples were dried at
room temperature in open air for two days and stored in
black polythene bags.
•
•
•
20 ••
• •
The Ponnaiyar• river
• ••
• •
• •
• • 35
•
• • •
• • 40
 Global J. Environ. Res., 3 (2): 126-131, 2009

Table 1: Location of the sampling sites and their magnetic susceptibility (LF and HF) and % of frequency dependence (FD %)
Magnetic susceptibility (x 10 8/kg)
------------------------------------------------------------
Site number Latitude Longitude LF HF FD %
S1 12°10'606"N 78°50'464"E 68.0 67.8 0.29
S2 12°07'978"N 78°53'950"E 62.0 61.7 0.48
S3 12°06'415"N 78°55'087"E 13.3 13.0 2.26
S4 12°06'414"N 78°55'075"E 14.4 14.2 1.39
S5 12°06'416"N 78°55'080"E 11.0 10.9 0.91
S6 12°00'677"N 79°03'273"E 20.8 20.6 0.96
S7 12°00'104"N 79°04'169"E 18.2 18.1 0.55
S8 12°00'271"N 79°05'481"E 97.0 96.2 0.82
S9 11°58'786"N 79°06'923"E 33.0 31.5 4.55
S10 11°58'007"N 79°07'880"E 33.2 33.1 0.30
S11 11°57'860"N 79°09'838"E 129.0 127.5 1.16
S12 11°58'400"N 79°12'726"E 139.0 127.1 8.56
S13 11°56'876"N 79°14'198"E 30.1 29.8 1.00
S14 11°56'734"N 79°18'353"E 25.6 25.4 0.78
S15 11°54'832"N 79°18'771"E 19.5 19.4 0.51
S16 11°54'402"N 79°20'273"E 20.4 19.9 2.45
S17 11°55'082"N 79°22'377"E 40.1 40.0 0.25
S18 11°54'172"N 79°24'086"E 39.7 39.6 0.25
S19 11°52'354"N 79°26'245"E 110.3 102.5 7.07
S20 11°52'065"N 79°28'584"E 28.5 28.1 1.40
S21 11°51'688"N 79°29'731"E 143.0 132.1 7.62
S22 11°51'309"N 79°30'778"E 35.6 35.2 1.12
S23 11°50'533"N 79°33'457"E 35.7 35.6 0.28
S24 11°50'367"N 79°33'916"E 16.4 16.2 1.22
S25 11°50'406"N 79°35'451"E 84.2 84.1 0.12
S26 11°49'579"N 79°36'488"E 71.2 71.1 0.14
S27 11°49'328"N 79°37'131"E 72.3 72.1 0.28
S28 11°49'001"N 79°37'273"E 65.3 64.2 1.68
S29 11°48'090"N 79°37'994"E 26.5 26.4 0.38
S30 11°47'853"N 79°38'736"E 44.5 44.4 0.22
S31 11°47'124"N 79°39'249"E 70.0 69.8 0.29
S32 11°48'021"N 79°39'755"E 78.6 78.4 0.25
S33 11°48'464"N 79°40'249"E 30.0 29.8 0.67
S34 11°47'414"N 79°41'792"E 89.0 84.1 5.51
S35 11°47'549"N 79°42'287"E 182.0 169.1 7.09
S36 11°47'482"N 79°42'758"E 178.8 169.2 5.37
S37 11°46'831"N 79°43'642"E 144.1 133.8 7.15
S38 11°46'821"N 79°44'201"E 156.0 145.1 7.00
S39 11°46'405"N 79°45'821"E 260.1 246.3 5.31
S40 11°45'350"N 79°47'685"E 259.0 248.6 4.02

The dry sediment samples were sealed with cling
film then packed with plaeomagnetic plastic boxes
(8cm3) and the net weight was determined before
magnetic measurements. Such specimens were
hardened using a sodium silicate solution. Magnetic
susceptibility measurements were carried out using a
magnetic susceptibility meter, Bartington Instruments
Ltd., linked to MS2B dual frequency sensor (0.47 and
4.7KHz). For the laboratory measurements, five readings
were taken for each sample in two different frequencies
(Low and High) and an average is calculated. The
accuracy is about 1%.

128
 Global J. Environ. Res., 3 (2): 126-131, 2009

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The magnetic susceptibility values of the sediment
samples are given in Table 1. Low frequency magnetic
susceptibility ranges from 11.00x 10 8m3/kg (S5) to 260.10x
10 8m3/kg (S39). High frequency magnetic susceptibility
ranges from 10.900x 10 8m3/kg (S5) to 248.6x 10 8m3/kg
(S40).Within the upper most 100km from the origin show
lower susceptibility values than next 100km of the river.
More downstream of the river has quite higher magnetic
susceptibility values. Tao Yang et al. (2007) suggested
that, magnetic susceptibility of the sediment was
controlled by anthropogenic sources like particles
from vehicles, emission from industrial and fossil fuel
combustion, fertilizers, pesticides, etc., Site number S12,
S19, S21 and S35 has considerably higher susceptibility
values which may be due to the traffic effluents, since
the national highways and bridges are situated at
above four sites (Figure 2). In these sites, the geological
background cannot be considered as a significant
source of magnetic particles. In comparison with ranges
of magnetic susceptibility found in urban top soils,
Chinna [11], Cauvery and Palar river sediments, Tamilnadu
[12] and lake sediments, Chinna [4], the ranges of present
study (11.00x 10 8 to 260.10x 10 8m3/kg) is lower.
In between the site number S11 and S12, the
Thirukovilur town is exist, solid wastes from living
residence are disposed into the river at these sites, which
may lead the enhanced magnetic susceptibility values
[2]. According to Tao Yang et al. (2007), if the magnetic
300
susceptibility values from the pollution sources are
greater than 150x 10 8m3/kg, that values may be treated as
higher magnetic susceptibility values. In the present
study, higher susceptibility (>150x 10 8m3/kg) is observed
in site numbers S36-S40, which may be due to the
abundance of clay minerals along with some pollution
sources (atmospheric deposition from Cuddalore town).
Since magnetic susceptibility is dependent on
concentration as well as grain size, low concentration
of super paramagnetic (SP) grains as well as high
concentration of single domain (SD) grains can results in
similar susceptibility signals. To determine whether the
high susceptibility signal results from either concentration
or grain size, susceptibility ratio known as frequency
dependence of susceptibility can be used. Also it is used
to determine the contribution of SP material to the signal.
The percentage of frequency dependence (%fd) is
calculated (table 1) using the formula
( lf − hf ) ×100
=fd %

 
 lf 
Where lf and hf is the low and high frequency
susceptibility (x 10 8m3/kg) respectively. In this study, fd
% varies from 0.12 to 8.56%. The frequency dependence
of magnetic susceptibility ( fd%) is a diagnostic parameter
to understand the magnetic grain variation. For the SP/SD
grain size, fd % lies in the range of 7-15%, while for
multi domain (MD) grains fd is <5-6% (Maher, 1988).

250

NH

NH
200
Magnetic susceptibility

150

100

50

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Site number

Fig. 2: Magnetic susceptibility (x 10 8m3/kg) of all sites, vertical mark represents national highways

129
 Global J. Environ. Res., 3 (2): 126-131, 2009

10

SP/SD grains
8

6
FD %
FD %

Multi domain grains

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Site number S ite n u m b e r

Fig. 3: FD% profiles of Ponnaiyar river sediments

9 R = 0.668
8
7
6
% of FD

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Magnetic

Fig. 4: Correlation graph between the Magnetic susceptibility and % of FD

Site number S12, S19, S21, S 35, S 37 and S 38 have elevated
fd% values (>7%). According to Maher [13], this
elevation may be due to the super paramagnetic /single
domain grains from traffic exhaust. The fd% of the other
sites are within the value of <5-6%. This suggests that
multi domain grains may contribute total magnetic
susceptibility (Figure 3). Correlation analysis is carried
out between the magnetic susceptibility and fd%
(Figure 4). The positive correlation is obtained with
correlation co-efficient of 0.688. The observed behavior
from the magnetic susceptibility and percentage of
frequency dependence susceptibility indicates high
concentration of ferrimagnetic minerals exist at different
sites.
CONCLUSION
The magnetic susceptibility of the Ponnaiyar river
sediment varies due to the different inputs from different
sources like catchment soils and rocks, atmospheric
fallout like highway run-offs and other anthropogenic
sources. This anthropogenic effect can be observed
mainly in the last 100km of the river. An elevated value of
susceptibility is also observed at some locations of first
100km due to the traffic activities. The ranges of measured
susceptibility values are lower than the literature values.
Elevated values of magnetic susceptibility in the river
sediment together with a considerable enrichment proved
to be a reliable indicator of anthropogenic stresses on the
sediments. SP/SD grains are contributed to the total
susceptibility at S12, S19, S21, S35, S37 and S 38. The multi
domain grains may contribute to the total magnetic
susceptibility in other sites. The positive correlation is
obtained between the magnetic susceptibility and fd%.
The observed behavior from the magnetic susceptibility
and percentage of frequency dependence susceptibility
indicates high concentration of ferrimagnetic minerals may
exist at different sites.

130
 Global J. Environ. Res., 3 (2): 126-131, 2009
REFERENCES
1. Hana Fialova, Gunter Maier, Eduard Petrovsky, Ales
Kapicka, Tetyana Boyko and Robert Scholger, 2006.
Magnetic properties of soils from sites with different
geological and environmental settings. J. Appl.
Geophysics, 59: 273-283.
2. Knab, M., V. Hoffmann, E. Petrovsky, A. Kapicka,
N. Jordanova and E. Appel, 2006. Surveying the
anthropogenic impact of the Moldau river sediments
and nearby soils using magnetic susceptibility.
Environ. Geol., 49: 527-535.
3. Pattan, J., N., G. Parthban, V.K. Banakar, A. Tomer
and M. Kulkarani, 2008. Relationship between
chemical composition and magnetic susceptibility in
sediment cores from central Indian Ocean Basin. J.
Earth Syst. Sci., 117: 113-119.
4. Tao Yang, Qingsheng Liu, Lungsang Chan
and Zhendong Liu, 2007. Magnetic signature of
heavy metals pollution of sediments: case study
from the East Lake in Wuhan, China. Environ. Geol.,
52: 1639-1650
5. Chaparro, M.A.E., J.C. Bidegain, A.M. Sinito,
C.S.G. Gogorza and S. Jurado, 2003. Preliminary
results of magnetic measurements on stream-
sediments from Buenos Aires province, Argentina.
Stud Geophys Geod, 47: 121-145.
6. Chaparro, M.A.E., J.C. Bidegain, A.M. Sinito,
S. Jurado and C.S.G. Gogorza, 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: 615-636.
131
View publication stats
7. Desenfant, F., E. Petrovsky and P. Rochette, 2004.
Magnetic signature of industrial pollution of stream
sediments and correlation with heavy metals: case
study from south France. Water Air Soil Poll,
152: 297-312.
8. Wehland, F., C. Panaiotu, E. Appel, V. Hoffmann,
D. Jordanova, N. Jordanova and I. Denut, 2002. The
dam breakage of Baja Mare-a pilot study of magnetic
screening. Phys Chem Earth, 27: 1371-1376.
9. Jordanova, D., L. Veneva and V. Hoffmann, 2003.
Magnetic susceptibility screening of anthropogenic
impact on the Danube river sediments in
Northwestern Bulgaria-preliminary study. Stud
Geophys Geod, 47: 403-418.
10. Jordanova, D., V. Hoffmann and K.T. Fehr, 2003.
Mineral magnetic characterization of anthropogenic
magnetic phases in the Danube river sediments
(Bulgarian part). Earth Planet Sci. Lett., 221: 71-89.
11. Xue Song Wang and Yong Qin, 2005. Correlation
between the magnetic susceptibility and heavy
metals in urban top soil: a case study from the city of
Xuzhou, Chinna. Environ. Geol., 49: 10-18.
12. Chaparro, MAE., M. Ana Sinito, V. Ramasamy,
Claudia Marinelli, A.E. Mauro Chaparro, S.
Mullinathan and S. Muregesan, 2008. Magnetic
measurements and pollutants of sediments from
Cauvery and Palaru river, India. Environ. Geol.,
56: 425-437.
13. Maher, B.A., 1988. Magnetic properties of some
synthetic sub-micron magnetites. Geophysical J.,
94: 83-96.