Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Impact of long-term wastewater irrigation on the physicochemical

properties of humid region soils: “The Living Filter” site case study
D.M. Andrews a,∗ , T. Robb b , H. Elliott c , J.E. Watson a
a
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, 116 Agricultural Sciences & Industries Bldg., The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
16802, United States
b
Delaware County Planning Department, P.O. Box 367, Page Avenue, Delhi, NY 13753, United States
c
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 220 Agricultural Engineering Bldg., The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802,
United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Increasing pressure on water resources is a significant challenge for the 21st century. Over the last decade,
Received 7 December 2015 water reuse has offered a practical approach to wastewater effluent disposal while supporting agricultural
Received in revised form production. Irrigation with wastewater can have negative impacts on the soil environment (e.g. increased
23 September 2016
salinity, reduced hydraulic conductivity) and these are well documented for soils in arid and semi-arid
Accepted 3 October 2016
regions; but little research has been conducted for humid regions. Consequently, to understand the impact
Available online 13 October 2016
of wastewater irrigation on humid region soils, a field study was conducted at “The Living Filter” site
(central Pennsylvania), where wastewater effluent has been used for irrigation for 50+ years. The study
Keywords:
Water reuse evaluated the differences in physicochemical soil properties throughout the soil profile (to a depth of
Salinity 120 cm) at wastewater irrigated sites and non-irrigated sites at different landscape positions (summits
Sodium adsorption ratio and depressions). Results showed that both the sodium adsorption ratio (irrigated: 4.93 ± 1.22; non-
Hydraulic conductivity irrigated: 0.88 ± 1.03) and salinity (irrigated: 0.32 ± 0.12 dS m−1 ; non-irrigated: 0.07 ± 0.03 dS m−1 ) of soil
Iron oxide soils extracts were significantly higher in the irrigated soil profiles compared to the non-irrigated soil profiles
N.E. USA (but not with regards to landscape position). There was no observable treatment effect on saturated
hydraulic conductivity, Ks , (irrigated: 1.96 cm h−1 ; non-irrigated: 2.39 cm h−1 ), but Ks had moderately
strong inverse relationships with soil pH (R2 = 0.70) and percent organic carbon (R2 = 0.67). Overall, while
salts are accumulating in these soils; our data suggest that long-term irrigation with wastewater has
not negatively impacted the hydraulic conductivity of this humid region soil. Ongoing monitoring of
soil physicochemical properties and wastewater parameters will be needed to maintain the long-term
sustainability of the site.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction two-thirds of the world’s population is likely living under water

Increasing pressure on water resources can have significant
impacts on our social, economic, and environmental security. These
pressures have been linked to rapid population and economic
growth as well as climate change (WWAP, 2014, 2015). The water
crisis is said to be the number one global risk based on impact to
society and the number eight global risk based on likelihood of
occurring within 10 years (World Economic Forum, 2015). Further-
more, according to the United Nations, an estimated 700 million
people in 43 countries presently suffer from water scarcity and
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dmandrewsbrown@gmail.com (D.M. Andrews).
stressed conditions (Watkins et al., 2006).
Although water scarcity is an issue of critical importance in drier
areas, communities across the United States are increasingly expe-
riencing water shortages, calling into question the durability of the
nation’s water supply as it remains susceptible to droughts, con-
sumption patterns and continued population growth. The United
States Geological Survey has estimated that 40 states will likely face
some level of water shortage in the next 10 years (Maupin et al.,
2014). As such, meeting the current and future water demand and
supply needs is a significant challenge for the water industry; and
the need for finding sources of water for purposes other than public
drinking water (e.g. agriculture, industry, and commerce) is critical.
Water reuse offers a practical approach for managing our crit-
ically limited water source. Over the last decade there has been
significant growth in the application of water reuse. Water reuse

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.001
0378-3774/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
240 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247
involves taking wastewater, giving it a high degree of treatment,
and using the resulting reclaimed or recycled water for a new, ben-
eficial purpose. Currently, land application of treated wastewater
in cultivated fields is not only being used to dispose of wastewa-
ter but also to sustain agricultural production, especially in regions
experiencing shortages of fresh water (Duan et al., 2010). However,
irrigation with wastewater can have negative impacts on both crop
production and the soil environment including but not limited to
increases in soil salinity, nutrient accumulation, and heavy metal
accumulation and uptake (e.g. Halliwell et al., 2001; Hamilton et al.,
2007; Muyen et al., 2011).
Irrigation water salinity (electrical conductivity, EC) and the
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR, defined as (Na)/[(Ca + Mg)/2]0.5 ,
where Na is sodium, Ca is calcium and Mg is magnesium in meq
L−1 ) are known to have an interactive effect on soil physical prop-
erties. It has been shown that an increase in SAR and a reduction
in EC can result in decreased hydraulic conductivity, K (Quirk and
Schofield, 1955; Ayers and Westcot, 1985; Suarez et al., 2006).
This decreased K has been linked to Na-induced clay dispersion,
which impacts soil structure and plugs soil pores by dispersed
clay particles thereby reducing the ability of the soil to transmit
water (Frenkel et al., 1978; Abu-Sharar et al., 1987; Sumner, 1993;
Nelson et al., 1997; Gonçalves et al., 2007). Other negative impacts
of wastewater irrigation on the soil environment are increased sus-
ceptibility to surface sealing, resulting in runoff and soil erosion
problems, as well as soil compaction and decreased soil aeration
(e.g. Halliwell et al., 2001; Walker and Lin, 2008; Duan et al., 2010;
Tarchouna et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2010).
While many laboratory studies have been conducted to identify
thresholds where elevated levels of Na can become detrimental to
soil quality; most evaluations are based on air-dried soil repacked
in columns and saturated with saline solutions (e.g. Quirk and
Schofield, 1955; Rhoades, 1977; Oster and Schroer, 1979; Abu-
Sharar et al., 1987; Sumner, 1993; Morshedi and Sameni, 2000;
Zhang and Norton, 2002). Furthermore, though the effects of SAR
and EC are well documented for soils in arid and semi-arid regions;
little research has been conducted for humid region soils where
rainfall is typically thought to be sufficient to leach out accumu-
lated salts, and where B horizon soils may contain iron or aluminum
oxide clays; which tend to increase aggregate stability and encour-
age flocculation (Shainberg and Singer, 1985; Duiker et al., 2003).
As such, the impact of SAR and EC on the saturated K (Ks ) on a humid
region soil irrigated by wastewater is of interest.
In Pennsylvania, water reuse is considered an important
component of water resource management (PA Department of
Environmental Protection, 2012). At the field site, “The Living
Filter”, Centre Co., PA (Richardson, 2010), land application of
wastewater effluent has been used as tertiary treatment of the
wastewater since the 1960s; and the concentration of salts in the
effluent has increased dramatically over the years. In 1975, con-
centrations of Na+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ were 21, 31, and 15 mg L−1
respectively (Richenderfer et al., 1975) and in 2011, these concen-
trations had increased to 196, 60 and 30 mg L−1 respectively; while
the SAR increased from 1.6 to 5.1 over that time period.
This increase in salt concentrations (especially Na+ ) and SAR in
the wastewater is mainly due to the increased use of water soften-
ers, as well as water conservation efforts. Since salts are known to
be added to the soil profile with every irrigation event, long-term
irrigation with high salinity and high Na+ water can be expected
to cause accumulation of salts in the soil and increases in soil SAR
(Ayers and Westcot, 1985; Rahman et al., 2015). Thus, given the
increases in wastewater SAR with low effluent ECs at this site,
concerns about soil SAR values increasing to the point where soil
structure and K would be negatively impacted has arisen.
With these concerns, we conducted a field study at this research
site to evaluate the differences in physicochemical soil properties
(specifically Ks , SAR, and EC) throughout the soil profile (120 cm)
at wastewater irrigated sites and non-irrigated sites at different
landscape positions (summits and depressions). The purpose of the
study was to determine the extent to which wastewater irrigation
was impacting soil EC and SAR, and to identify whether increases
in SAR were causing reductions in Ks within the soil profile as one
of the most critical concerns about effluent wastewater reuse is the
negative impact on soil physical properties, particularly hydraulic
conductivity (Gonçalves et al., 2007).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
This study was conducted at a long-term water resource man-
agement experimental site, “The Living Filter” (Fig. 1), established
in 1962 where wastewater is used for irrigation. The site is
approximately 3.2 km from Penn State’s University Park campus
(University Park, PA) and was established to address 1) eutrophica-
tion of Slab Cabin Run resulting from the discharge of wastewater
and 2) reduced crop yields due to a multi-year drought that was
occurring at the time (Parizek et al., 1967). In 1984, the site was
expanded to include 708 ha of land with 27% located at the Astron-
omy Site (original site) and 73% located at the Gamelands Site
(Dadio, 1998).
There are three different land uses – forested, grassed, and
cropped land. The cropped lands are under rotation with primar-
ily corn (Zea Mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum), rye (Secale cereale),
sweet clover (Melilotus albus), and soybeans (Glycine max) (Salada,
2010). The grassed land has been propagated with mainly fescue,
Festuca arundinacea, (Salada, 2010), and the forested area is com-
posed of mixed hard woods; predominantly white oak, Quercus alba
(Richenderfer et al., 1975).
The Astronomy Site soil has been mapped as mostly Hagerstown
silty clay loam, a fine, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludalf and
Hublersburg silt loam, a clayey, illitic, mesic Typic Hapludult.
The Astronomy Site has been utilized for almost 15 years longer
than the Gamelands Site, receiving over 50 years of irrigation with
effluent, so to observe the maximum effects of irrigation with
wastewater, this study focused on the Astronomy Site (Fig. 1).
2.2. Wastewater irrigation at the “The Living Filter” site
While the site is permitted to apply 5 cm of wastewater per week
year-round (260 cm per year), the typical application is only ∼60%
(∼160 cm per year) of the permitted amount. Fields are irrigated
with the wastewater for a 12-h period and then allowed to rest
for six and a half days until the next irrigation cycle begins (Per-
sonal communication with Wastewater Utility Systems Engineer,
John Gaudlip, 2012). Wastewater irrigation is applied regardless
of weather conditions. Irrigation is performed using solid set over-
head sprinklers. The effluent is a combination of campus laboratory,
campus residential and municipal wastewater, with the domi-
nant source being dependent on the time of year. The site also
receives an average of 100 cm of precipitation annually (average
for 2012–2015).
Irrigation volumes are determined using an electromagnetic
flow meter (ABB MagMeter, ABB Limited, Switzerland) which is
located within the effluent pump house at the treatment plant.
Sampling frequency for irrigation wastewater quality (and ground-
water quality) range from yearly to monthly to event (or research
project) based depending on parameter. Parameters measured
include Ca2+ , Mg2+ , Na+ , potassium (K+ ), chloride (Cl− ), nitrate-
nitrogen, phosphate, total dissolved solids, and bacteria (E. coli).
 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247 241

Fig. 1. Map of “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania, showing both wastewater irrigation sites – Gamelands and Astronomy. The Astronomy Site was the sampling
site used for this study (pink box).

Table 1 collected for Ks and bulk density measurements. From the cores col-
Wastewater quality data plus groundwater well nitrate- nitrogen data for “The
lected, three cores had excessive rock fragments, one sample was
Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
too wet to be contained within the plastic sleeve, and one core was
Parameter Data Range∼ excessively disturbed during the sampling processes. Therefore,
−1
Calcium (mg L ) 31–70 only 103 cores were used for Ks and bulk density measurements.
Magnesium (mg L−1 ) 12–37 A second set of intact soil cores were collected using a longer
Sodium (mg L−1 ) 9–283 sampler (120 cm long x 6 cm diameter) fitted with a plastic sleeve,
Potassium (mg L−1 ) 9–16
at the same 18 sites. These cores were used for profile descriptions
Chloride (mg L−1 ) 25–492
pH 6.9–9.1 as well as gravimetric water content, cation concentrations (Na+ ,
EC (dS m−1 ) 0.3–1.8 Ca2+ , Mg2+ , K+ ), cation exchange capacity (CEC), percent organic
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 0.8–7.3 carbon (% OC), EC, pH, and textural analyses. For textural analysis,
Total dissolved solids (mg L−1 ) 140–1160
only a subset of the samples (n = 30) were analyzed.
Nitrate-nitrogen (well data) (mg L−1 ) 2–21
All cores were contained in the plastic sleeves, capped on both
∼ Range covers time period of 1963–2011. It should be noted that sampling fre- ends, secured in plastic bins and stored in a walk-in cooler main-
quency ranged from monthly to yearly to specific event (or research project) based
sampling. Data was compiled from Pennypacker et al., 1967; Richenderfer et al.,
tained between 2.8◦ C and 6.1◦ C, until analyses were performed.
1975; OPP Staff, 1980-2011; and Larson, 2010. Please note that since 2003, ground- Cores were kept upright throughout transport and storage.
water monitoring well nitrate-nitrogen levels have been consistently <10 mg L−1 ,
due to the addition of denitrification to the treatment processes. Also, at the time of
this study the SAR of the wastewater was 3. 2.4. Physicochemical lab analyses

2.4.1. Bulk density

Analyses are conducted by a PA DEP Certified lab. Table 1 shows
this data.
2.3. Soil sampling and collection
Soils for this study were taken from the grassed land area, as
this is the least management “disturbed” of the three land uses,
and this rooting system would likely produce the most homoge-
neous hydraulic flow paths. Six representative and paired summit
and depressional sites were identified for soil sampling from the
irrigated grassed land area (total of 12 sampling sites). In addi-
tion, three paired summit and depressional sites were identified
for sampling from a non-irrigated grassed land area (total of six
sampling sites). Samples were collected during the first two weeks
of June 2012, using a Giddings hydraulic soil sampler (Windsor, CO,
USA) attached to a tractor. A plastic sleeve inserted into the sam-
pler barrel was used to collect and hold all soil cores. During this
collection period, 4.6 cm of rain fell on the study site but no effluent
was applied.
Samples were collected using a 15.5 cm long × 9 cm diameter
cylindrical steel sampler with a plastic sleeve lining to contain the
soil sample. A maximum of six 15.5 cm cores was collected at each
of the 18 sites, to a sampling depth of about 120 cm (cores were col-
lected one beneath the other), giving a total of 108 intact soil cores
Bulk densities were determined for the 15 cm intact soil cores
prior to Ks measurement. This was done by using a density sand
(ASTM D1556; Humboldt Mfg Co., Chicago, IL) with a bulk density
of 1.65 g cm−3 (±0.01) to fill any end space of the plastic sampling
tube of each sample not occupied by soil to define the actual volume
of the tube occupied by soil. Using this volume and the determined
gravimetric water content (Section 2.4.3); bulk density for each
sample was determined and the sand was removed. The assump-
tion was made that the minimal sand remaining in the sample tubes
would not impact the overall Ks measurement.
2.4.2. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks )
Saturated hydraulic conductivity on intact soil cores (15 cm
long) was determined using two different methods (Klute and
Dirksen, 1986). Primarily a constant head method was used. How-
ever, for four cores a falling head method was utilized when the
primary method did not produce results. In order to represent field
conditions, the leaching solution used had an SAR of 3 and an EC
of 1.3 dS m−1 , which mimicked the wastewater in 2011. Soil cores
were prepared for Ks analysis by placing cheese cloth on the bot-
tom end of each core, then placing the core in a plastic container of
water, to slowly saturate from the bottom up, for a period no less
than 24 h.
242 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247
Measurement of Ks were conducted, six at a time, on a bench
with a gutter system using syphon tubes and a weir to maintain
a constant head of 2.5 cm on the soil surface. Any flow that trav-
eled down the side wall of the sample sleeve of the cores was
isolated using a flow separator (Walker, 2006). Therefore, resultant
Ks values represent flow only through the center of each core.
Darcy’s Law was utilized to calculate Ks . Of the 103 soil cores,
difficulties obtaining consistent estimates of Ks on seven cores
resulted in only 96 Ks measurements being obtained.
2.4.3. Other analyses
The second set of soil cores collected (120 cm long) were seg-
mented to match the depths from which the 15 cm long cores were
sampled. These subsamples were used to obtain gravimetric water
content, cation concentrations, CEC, % OC, EC, pH, and texture.
Gravimetric water content of each subsample was determined
by taking ∼100 g of each subsample and drying it at 105◦ C (at least
24 h) and then reweighing the sample (Nelson and Sommers, 1996).
This was done in triplicate. Once gravimetric water content was
completed, the remainder of each subsample was air-dried, ground
and sieved to 2 mm using a NASCO-ASPLIN soil grinder (Fort Atkin-
son, WI, USA). These air-dried, ground and sieved subsamples were
used for all other analyses.
To measure cation concentrations (Na+ , K+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ ), 10 g
of each subsample was equilibrated using a New Brunswick Scien-
tific platform shaker for 48 h with deionized water using a 1:2 soil
to water ratio. The water extracts were filtered through a 0.2 ␮m
nylon membrane filter (VWR, Bridgeport, NJ, USA) and analyzed
using an inductively coupled photo-spectrometer. When neces-
sary, centrifugation (Kendro Laboratory Products, Newtown, CT)
for 30 min (RPM: 1500 = 366g) was utilized prior to filtration.
Cation exchange capacity was determined by summation (Ross,
1995) using the Mehlich-3 test (Wolf and Beegle, 1995) and% OC
was determined by combustion (Nelson and Sommers, 1996) using
a Carlo Erba CHNS-O Elemental Analyzer, EA1110, (Leco, MI). A
TetraCon® (Weilheim, Germany) electrode was used to determine
EC on a 1:2 soil:water mixture and a VWR sympHony (Arlington
Heights, IL) meter was used to measure pH on a 1:1 soil:water mix-
ture. Texture was determined using a VWR hydrometer (Arlington
Heights, IL).
As a note, in 2011, concentrations of Cl− , Na+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+
in the effluent were determined to be on average were 326, 196,
60 and 30 mg L−1 respectively, with an average pH of 7.2. These
are the effluent concentrations referred to in section 3 (Results and
Discussion).
2.5. Data analysis
Except for pH (1:1, soil:water), soil solution extracts were
collected as a ratio of 1:2 (soil:water). These data were then con-
verted to 1:1 soil:water ratio prior to statistical analysis. Statistical
relationships between treatments (irrigated summits, irrigated
depressions, non-irrigated summits, and non-irrigated depres-
sions) were determined using SAS® (Version 9.3, SAS Institute, NC).
There were six replicates for each irrigated treatment and three
replicates for each non-irrigated treatment. A one-way ANOVA
(proc glm) was used to determine if significant differences (p < 0.05)
existed between treatments. Where differences were found, mean
separations were identified using the Tukey test.
Additionally, results showed Ks data were not normally dis-
tributed. This data was log transformed. An ANOVA was conducted
on the log transformed data, and the means were compared at each
depth. None of the treatments were statistically significantly differ-
ent at the p < 0.05 level. The means shown in the text as well as in
Table 4 and Fig. 6, are not arithmetic means but the means back
calculated after the performing the log transformation of the data.
Table 2
Mean (Standard Deviation) for soil texture (% clay, % sand) and bulk density across
the four (4) treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
Treatment Clay (%) Sand (%) Bulk Density (g cm−3 )
IS 38 (15) a¶
34 (8)a
1.64 (0.12)a
ID 34 (17)a 32 (10)a 1.60 (0.15)a
NS 45 (11)a 28 (4)a 1.61 (0.08)a
ND 37 (11)a 23 (3)a 1.54 (0.11)a
*
Four (4) treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-
Irrigated Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions.
¶
Similar superscript lower-case letters indicate no statistically significant differ-
ences between those treatments (p < 0.05).
Microsoft Excel was used to determine correlation between
variables and generate graphs.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Texture & bulk density
In this study, no statistical differences were observed between
treatments with respect to texture (specifically percent clay)
(Table 2). The soils ranged from loams at the surface to clays in
the B horizons, with percent clay increasing with depth which is
typical of the Hagerstown soil. Regardless of treatment, clay con-
tent in the surface (0–20 cm) was 24 ± 7.6% and 46 ± 9.6% from 20
to 120 cm, while percent sand was 40 ± 8% at 0–20 cm and 29 ± 11%
from 20 to 120 cm. Bulk density ranged from 1.18–1.85 g cm−3
with an average of 1.60 ± 0.12 g cm−3 with no obvious trends being
observed between treatments or within the soil profile except
that in the top 20 cm of soil, bulk density was statistically lower
(1.52 ± 0.08 g cm−3 ) than from 20 to 40 cm (1.65 ± 0.11 g cm−3 ) and
the other deeper depth intervals.
3.2. Impact of wastewater irrigation on soil % organic carbon &
acidity
Both soil organic matter and pH can be associated with changes
in Ks . Soils with high organic matter and high pH can be susceptible
to structural degradation which will affect Ks , independent of EC
and SAR. High pH has been linked to structural degradation of soils
due to the impact of high carbonates on soil structure (Suarez et al.,
1984; Qian and Mecham, 2005); while high organic matter can lead
to increases in organic matter dissolution and microbial biomass
which can cause the breakdown of soil structure by biological pore
clogging (Magesan et al., 2000; Halliwell et al., 2001). For our data,
moderate inverse correlations between Ks and pH as well as Ks
and % OC (as an indicator of organic matter) were observed with
R2 = 0.70 and 0.67 respectively. However, there was no evidence
that pH or organic matter is negatively impacting the soil’s ability
to transmit water.
Percent OC was significantly different (p < 0.0001) in the
top 20 cm (2.47 ± 0.73%) as compared to the subsurface soil
(0.43 ± 0.45% from 20 to 120 cm) (Table 3; Fig. 2). Although not
statistically significant, % OC was higher in the irrigated area’s sum-
mits when compared to the non-irrigated summits at all depths
except at 80–100 cm where % OC was basically the same (Table 3).
This trend was also observed for the depressions; where % OC was
higher in the irrigated area’s depressions when compared to the
non-irrigated depressions at all depths (Table 3). Some studies have
found decreased soil OC in soils irrigated with treated wastewater
and this reduction has been linked to increased microbial activity
due to the increase in labile C and N provided by the wastewater
(e.g. Tarchouna et al., 2010). At this site, preliminary data showed
that there are increased microbial counts in the irrigated soils (per-
 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247 243

Table 3
Mean (Standard Deviation) values for soil pH and percent organic carbon (% OC) across the four (4) treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.

Depth (cm) Parameter IS ID NS ND

0–20 pH 7.09 (0.13)a ¶ 6.98 (0.22)a 5.95 (0.63)b 6.07 (0.16)b

% OC 2.56 (0.71)a 2.89 (0.55)a 2.07 (1.02)a 1.87 (0.39)a
20–40 pH 7.24 (0.19)a 7.04 (0.14)a 6.24 (0.70)b 6.23 (0.39)b
% OC 0.55 (0.29)bc 1.24 (0.13)a 0.50 (0.28)c 1.1 (0.44)ab
40–60 pH 6.94 (0.48)a 7.01 (0.20)a 5.29 (0.37)c 6.17 (0.33)b
% OC 0.24 (0.14)ab 1.01 (0.55)a 0.12 (0.02)b 0.73 (0.66)ab
60–80 pH 6.14 (0.84)a 7.02 (0.19)a 4.99 (0.12)b 5.92 (0.57)ab
% OC 0.14 (0.05)ab 0.71 (0.48)a 0.11 (0.00)b 0.21 (0.05)ab
80–100 pH 5.70 (1.01)ab 6.79 (0.61)a 4.95 (0.14)b 5.70 (0.61)ab
% OC 0.10 (0.03)a 0.41 (0.39)a 0.11 (0.01)a 0.16 (0.01)a
100–120 pH 5.51 (0.90)a 6.71 (0.80)a 5.03 (0.05)a 5.40 (0.51)a
% OC 0.12 (0.05)a 0.16 (0.04)a 0.09 (0.01)a 0.14 (0.01)a
*
Four (4) treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions.
¶
Similar superscript lower-case letters indicate no statistically significant differences between those treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 2. Percent organic carbon through the soil profiles for the four (4) treatments*
at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
*Treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated
Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions. Depths are given as the middle depth of
the sampling interval, for example for a sampling depth of 0–20 cm; the depth is
given as 10 cm.
Fig. 3. Soil solution pH (1:1 soil:water) through the soil profiles for the four (4)
treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
*Treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated
Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions. Depths are given as the middle depth of
the sampling interval, for example for a sampling depth of 0–20 cm; the depth is
given as 10 cm.

sonal communication, Mary Ann Bruns) but this apparently has not
translated to decreased soil OC in these irrigated soils.
Regardless of irrigation treatment, % OC was higher in the
depressions (0.96 ± 0.91%, with a range from 0.1–3.78%) when
compared to the summit sites (0.59 ± 0.90%, with a range from
0.07–3.63%); but field observations showed no strong indication of
recent erosional differences due to irrigation. Additionally, when
compared to data collected previously (Walker and Lin, 2008), our
data show that % OC has increased in the surface soils of the irri-
gated areas by 25% over the last 6+ years. However, over this same
time period % OC did not change in the irrigated subsurface soils or
the non-irrigated surface and subsurface soil profiles.
In 1971, soil pH was estimated at 5.2 (data found in Walker and
Lin, 2008); while in our study, soil pH was higher with an overall
average of 6.35 ± 0.86 and a range of 4.61–7.49 (Table 3). In general,
like % OC, soil pH decreased with increasing depth (6.69 ± 0.56 at
0–20 cm and 6.28 ± 0.89 between 20 and 120 cm) (Fig. 3). Soil pH
was found to be significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the irrigated areas
(6.68 ± 0.77) as compared to the non-irrigated areas (5.68 ± 0.61)
(Fig. 3), particularly in the top 60 cm of the soil profile (Table 3). This
decreasing trend with depth was more observable in the summits
than the depressions. The differences between irrigated and non-
irrigated sites can be linked to the average pH (over 50+ years) of the
wastewater being 7.5 ± 0.3 (Walker and Lin, 2008) with wastewa-
ter in 2011 being approximately 7.2 (our data). Studies have linked
the increase in soil pH to: (1) the high pH of irrigation wastewater
which can have high bicarbonates, and (2) increases in denitrifica-
tion rates in irrigated soils due to higher microbial biomass (high
production of hydroxyl ions) (Qian and Mecham, 2005).
3.3. Impact of wastewater irrigation on soil solution electrical
conductivity (EC)
At this study site, soil EC (Table 4) ranged from 0.02–0.82 dS m−1
(1:1 soil:water extracts). Overall, results showed that regardless of
landscape position, EC throughout the soil profile was significantly
greater and more variable for irrigated sites (0.32 ± 0.12 dS m−1 )
as compared to non-irrigated sites (0.07 ± 0.03 dS m−1 ) (Table 4).
This finding suggests that the increase in salinity of the wastew-
ater over the last 50+ years has resulted in increased soil salinity.
In general, over all treatments, EC was observed to significantly
decrease with increasing soil depth (Fig. 4), with EC decreasing
from 0.36 ± 0.22 dS m−1 in the top 20 cm to 0.22 ± 0.15 dS m−1 at
the deepest depth measured (100–120 cm); however, this topsoil
would not be considered saline and the increase in EC has not had
an apparent negative impact on vegetative production.
244 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247

Table 4
Mean (Standard Deviation) soil solution (1:1) extract values for electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks )§ across
the four (4) treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.

Depth (cm) Parameter IS ID NS ND

0–20 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.50 (0.14)a ¶ 0.46 (0.18)a 0.12 (0.05)b 0.11 (0.03)b
SAR 2.94 (0.26)a 3.37 (0.41)a 0.72 (0.60)b 0.68 (0.48)b
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 0.84a 2.44a 2.43a 4.83a
20–40 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.30 (0.02)a 0.38 (0.04)a 0.08 (0.02)c 0.08 (0.02)c
SAR 4.45 (0.96)a 4.82 (1.19)a 0.31 (0.10)b 1.45 (1.39)b
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 0.99a 6.03a 10.28a 3.93a
40–60 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.29 (0.06)a 0.29 (0.05)a 0.07 (0.01)b 0.06 (0.00)b
SAR 5.48 (1.34)a 4.65 (0.83)a 0.37 (0.31)b 0.62 (0.48)b
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 2.44a 7.19a 1.28a 3.72a
60–80 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.26 (0.05)a 0.30 (0.05)a 0.06 (0.02)b 0.07 (0.01)b
SAR 5.55 (1.10)a 5.78 (1.17)a 0.37 (0.12)b 0.64 (0.54)b
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 0.32a 6.19a 1.20a 1.42a
80–100 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.27 (0.08)a 0.24 (0.03)a 0.04 (0.02)b 0.05 (0.01)b
SAR 5.55 (0.36)a 5.61 (0.74)a 1.91 (1.10)b 0.76 (0.69)c
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 1.58a 0.82a 5.40a 2.49a
100–120 EC (dS m−1 ) 0.26 (0.04)a 0.31 (0.16)a 0.04 (0.03)a 0.05 (0.01)a
SAR 5.31 (0.90)a 5.60 (1.00)a 3.17 (2.69)b 0.28 (0.08)c
Ks (cm hr−1 ) 1.49a 0.76a 0.08a 0.86a
§
The Ks means are not arithmetic means but the means back calculated after performing a log transformation on the data.
*
Four (4) treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions.
¶
Similar superscript lower-case letters indicate no statistically significant differences between those treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 4. Soil solution salinity (measured as electrical conductivity, EC, converted to 1:1 soil:water) through the soil profiles for the four (4) treatments* at “The Living Filter”
site, central Pennsylvania.
*Treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions. Depths are given as the middle depth of the
sampling interval, for example for a sampling depth of 0–20 cm; the depth is given as 10 cm.

3.4. Impact of wastewater irrigation on soil solution sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR)
Our data (Table 4) showed that at this site, the average SAR
of the soil solution (1:1 soil:water extracts) ranged from 0.28-
5.78, while the SAR of the effluent was ∼ 5.1. Typically, the SAR of
treated wastewater ranges from 4.5 to 7.9 (Muyen et al., 2011).
In general, soil solution SAR was determined to be significantly
greater (p < 0.05) at irrigated sites (4.93 ± 1.22) as compared to
 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247
Fig. 5. Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR, converted to 1:1 soil:water) through the soil
profiles for the four (4) treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
*Treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated
Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions. Depths are given as the middle depth of
the sampling interval, for example for a sampling depth of 0–20 cm; the depth is
given as 10 cm.
non-irrigated sites (0.88 ± 1.03). No significant differences were
observed between summits or depressional areas within the irri-
gated areas while within the non-irrigated sites, at the 80–100 cm
and 100–120 cm depths there were statistically significant differ-
ences between the summit and depression sampling sites (Table 4).
Among all treatments, SAR did tend to increase (but not signifi-
cantly) with increasing depth (Fig. 5), with SAR increasing from
2.33 ± 1.26 at the surface (0–20 cm) to 4.27 ± 2.25 at 100–120 cm.
Similar to other studies (e.g. Muyen et al., 2011); these results
suggest that irrigation with high SAR wastewater can result in
a significant increase in the soil solution SAR at this site. Addi-
tionally, a moderately strong relationship was observed between
soil extract Na+ concentrations and SAR as well as between soil
extract EC and SAR (data not shown, R2 = 0.54 and 0.53 respec-
tively). However, no relationship was observed between SAR and
Ca2+ or Mg2+ concentrations, indicating that Na+ is the driving force
for elevated SAR values in the soil, rather than increases in Ca2+ or
Mg 2+ . This increase in soil solution SAR highlights that Na+ salts
can accumulate lower within the soil profile; even when there is
ample rainfall. Additionally, in the future, increases in SAR at the
deeper depths in the soil profile can potentially lead to a reduction
in infiltration at these deeper depths rather than at the surface.
3.5. Impact of wastewater irrigation on soil saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ks )
While EC and SAR were significantly different between irrigated
and non-irrigated sites (but not between landscape positions), Ks
was not significantly different between treatments at any depth
within the soil profile (Table 4, Fig. 6) and no correlation was
observed between Ks and EC or SAR. The means shown in Table 4
and Fig. 6, are not arithmetic means but the means back calcu-
lated after the performing the log transformation of the data. Except
in the top 40 cm, the irrigated summits and irrigated depressions
tended to have somewhat more similar values of Ks when com-
pared with one another, than did the non-irrigated summits and
depressions, with the top 40 cm samples from the irrigated sum-
mits tending to have somewhat lower Ks values than the other
sites. The irrigated sites had an average Ks over all depths of
1.96 cm h−1 , and non-irrigated sites had an average Ks over all
245
Fig. 6. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks )§ through the soil profiles for the four
(4) treatments* at “The Living Filter” site, central Pennsylvania.
*Treatments – IS: Irrigated Summits, ID: Irrigated Depressions, NS: Non-Irrigated
Summits, ND: Non-Irrigated Depressions. Depths are given as the middle depth of
the sampling interval, for example for a sampling depth of 0–20 cm; the depth is
given as 10 cm.
§
The Ks means are not arithmetic means but the means back calculated after per-
forming a log transformation on the data.
Fig. 7. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and electrical conductivity (EC) of effluent and
soil solution (irrigated and non-irrigated) samplesf̂rom “The Living Filter” site plot-
ted over the guidelines developed by Ayers and Westcot for applied water (1985).
F̂or soil solutions, 1:1 soil:water extract values were converted to estimated satu-
rated paste values to produce this figure.
depths of 2.39 cm h−1 . The Ks values for the depressional areas
(2.85 cm h−1 ) were observed to be somewhat higher than at the
summits (1.50 cm h−1 ), with the irrigated summits tending to have
the lowest Ks at the surface. With our site’s average soil solution EC
and SAR in the irrigated areas, only moderate reduction in hydraulic
conductivity should be expected (Fig. 7; Note: data were converted
from 1:1 soil:water extract to estimated saturated paste to pro-
duce this figure) as with other studies (e.g. Gonçalves et al., 2007).
However, our results have shown that while EC and SAR levels have
increased over time, these levels (as well as pH values) are not at the
point where they are having a negative impact on the soil’s ability
to transmit water through the profile evident from the negligible
localized surface runoff at the site. It is important to acknowledge
that there is little literature available on the physical effects of salts
on soils under humid climates or soils high in clay with iron or alu-
minum oxide in the subsurface horizons like those found at our site.
246 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247
While these soils are known to be more stable than silicates, much
more research is needed to understand the point at which EC and
SAR can negatively impact Ks within these types of soils.
3.6. Implications of wastewater reuse
As articulated by Toze (2006), there are benefits and draw-
backs of wastewater reuse. Of concern are changes in soil physical
and chemical properties, and impacts to human health if disease
causing organisms are not controlled. In addition, concerns exist
regarding possible groundwater contamination from nutrients or
emerging contaminants. However, reuse affords the opportunity to
recharge the local groundwater in both arid and humid regions and
thereby reduce the excessive extraction of freshwater resources.
Effluent irrigation management is a topic which is frequently of
interest in arid and semi-arid locations, where agricultural produc-
tion is limited by water and concerns about salinity increases, and
where subsequent impacts on groundwater quality and soil qual-
ity are a concern. In such areas (internationally), reuse of treated
wastewater is often an accepted agricultural practice, generally
constrained by health concerns. However, frequently the appli-
cation is to turf areas where direct human contact is limited. In
areas where water quantity is a concern for optimizing crop pro-
duction, such reuse of wastewater can reduce demands on limited
fresh water supplies. As short term drought becomes more preva-
lent in historically humid regions, use of wastewater for irrigation
can prevent significant crop yield losses.
In addition, wastewater may be an important source of nutrients
valued by farmers in both arid and humid areas (Scott et al., 2004).
Such use also reduces the direct discharge of N, P and emerging
contaminants into surface water sources. Many states, both from
humid and arid areas of the US, have adopted guidance or regu-
lations for reuse (EPA Staff, 2012). Nearly 2/3 of Florida’s treated
effluent is reused; much of it for irrigation. Delaware has a long his-
tory of reuse, with some cropped fields receiving effluent irrigation
since the 1970s. In Pennsylvania, there are 14 municipal treatment
plants which use their effluent for irrigation.
The work reported here found that in humid region soils,
although there is less concern about salinity buildup due to the
dilution by rainwater of soil solution salts from the effluent irri-
gation water, there is a concern regarding increases in SAR from
use of water softeners. This was a particular concern at our study
site following an increase in softener use on campus in recent years.
Although the impacts on Ks measurements was not statistically sig-
nificant, SAR values deeper in the soil were increasing above those
found in the effluent. The levels are not presently a cause for con-
cern, particularly for soils high in iron and aluminum oxides, but
they do represent an area which needs to be monitored.
4. Summary
This study assessed the differences in physicochemical soil
properties throughout the soil profile at “The Living Filter” site
(central PA), a long-term water resource management experi-
mental site where wastewater effluent has been applied to the
landscape for over 50 years. Our data showed that both SAR and
EC were significantly higher in the soil profiles irrigated with
wastewater compared to non-irrigated soil profiles but not with
regards to landscape position; while, Ks was not significantly dif-
ferent between the treatments (irrigated vs non-irrigated). We also
observed moderately strong inverse relationships between soil pH
and Ks (R2 = 0.70) and between % OC and Ks (R2 = 0.67) but not
between Ks and EC or SAR. Furthermore, it appears that Na+ is
controlling the increase in SAR within the soil profile. Overall,
while salts are capable of accumulating in these soils; our data
suggest that long-term irrigation with wastewater has not nega-
tively impacted the hydraulic conductivity of this humid region
soil and that the soil system is still capable of efficiently handling
the large quantity of wastewater applied yearly. We do acknowl-
edge that by continuing to irrigate with wastewater, it is possible
for negative changes to occur in the soil environment. As such, in
order to maintain the sustainability of the site, ongoing monitoring
of soil physicochemical properties and wastewater parameters is
necessary.
Acknowledgements
This study was partially funded by The Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity’s Office of Physical Plant and Regional Research Projects
W-2082 and W-3170. The present work was partially developed
within the framework of the Panta Rhei Research Initiative of
the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS). The
authors would like to thank Max Michkofsky, Guo Li, and Alison
Franklin for their assistance with fieldwork and Ephraim Govere
for assistance with lab analyses.
References
Abu-Sharar, T.M., Bingham, F.T., Rhoades, J.D., 1987. Stability of soil aggregates as
affected by electrolyte concentration and composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51,
309–314.
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water quality for agriculture. In: FAO Irrigation
and Drainage Paper 29 (Revision 1). Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Dadio, S.D., 1998. Ponding and Runoff Dynamics of a Closed Hill Slope System
Undergoing Irrigation with Treated Wastewater. Thesis. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA.
Department of Environmental Protection, P.A., 2012. Reuse of Treated Wastewater
Guidance Manual. PADEP Bureau of Point and Nonpoint Source Management,
Document # 385–2188-002.
Duan, R., Sheppard, C.D., Fedler, C.B., 2010. Short-term effects of wastewater land
application on soil chemical properties. Water Air Soil Pollut. 211, 165–176.
Duiker, S.W., Rhoton, F.E., Torrent, J., Smeck, N.E., Lal, R., 2003. Iron (hydr)oxide
crystallinity effects on soil aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67, 606–611.
Frenkel, H., Goertzen, J.O., Rhoades, J.D., 1978. Effects of clay type and content
exchangeable sodium percentage, and electrolyte concentration on clay
dispersion and soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 32–39.
Gonçalves, R.A.B., Folegatti, M.V., Gloaguen, T.V., Libardi, P.L., Montes, C.R., Lucas,
Y., Dias, C.T.S., Melfi, A.J., 2007. Hydraulic conductivity of a soil irrigated with
treated sewage, effluent. Geoderma 139, 241–248.
Halliwell, D.J., Barlow, K.M., Nash, D.M., 2001. A review of the effects of wastewater
sodium on soil physical properties and their implications for irrigation
systems. Aust. J. Soil Res. 39, 1259–1267.
Hamilton, A.J., Stagnitti, F., Xiong, X., Kreidl, S.L., Benke, K.K., Maher, P., 2007.
Wastewater irrigation: the state of play. Vadose Zone J. 6, 823–840.
Klute, A., Dirksen, C., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory
methods. In: Klute, E.A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1–Physical and
Mineralogical Methods. , 2nd ed. Soil Science Society of America Book Series
Number 5. American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI, USA, pp. 687–732.
Larson, Z., 2010. Long-term Treated Wastewater Irrigation Effects on Hydraulic
Conductivities and Soil Quality at Penn State’s Living Filter. M.S. The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Magesan, G.N., Williamson, J.C., Yeates, G.W., Lloyd-Jones, A. Rh., 2000.
Wastewater C:N ratio effects on soil hydraulic conductivity and potential for
recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 71, 21–27.
Maupin, M.A., Kenny, J.F., Hutson, S.S., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., Linsey, K.S., 2014.
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey.
Circular 1405.
Morshedi, A., Sameni, A.M., 2000. Hydraulic conductivity of calcareous soils as
affected by salinity and sodicity: I. Effect of concentration and composition of
leaching solution and type and amount of clay minerals of tested soils.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 31, 51–67.
Muyen, Z., Moore, G.A., Wrigley, R.J., 2011. Soil salinity and sodicity effects of
wastewater irrigation on South East Australia. Agric. Water Manage. 99, 33–41.
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic
matter. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3–Chemical
Methods. Soil Science Society of America Book Series Number 5. American
Society of Agronomy—Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, pp.
961–1010.
Nelson, P.N., Barzegar, A.R., Oades, J.M., 1997. Sodicity and clay type: influence on
decomposition of added organic matter. Soil Sci. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 1052–1057.
OPP Staff, 1980–2011. Annual forecast of loading report. The Pennsylvania State
University Office of Physical Plant, Engineering Services, University Park, PA.
Reports to the PA Department of Environmental Quality. Print.
 D.M. Andrews et al. / Agricultural Water Management 178 (2016) 239–247
Oster, J.D., Schroer, F.W., 1979. Infiltration as influenced by irrigation water
quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43, 444–447.
Parizek, R.R., Kardos, L.T., Sopper, W.E., Myers, E.A., Davis, D.E., Farrell, M.A.,
Nesbitt, J.B., 1967. Wastewater Renovation and Conservation. Penn State
Studies No. 23. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Pennypacker, S.P., Sopper, W.E., Kardos, L.T., 1967. Renovation of wastewater
effluent by irrigation of forest land. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 39, 285–296.
Qian, Y.L., Mecham, B., 2005. Long-term effects of recycled wastewater irrigation
on soil chemical properties on golf course fairways. Agron. J. 97, 717–721.
Quirk, J.P., Schofield, R.K., 1955. The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil
permeability. J. Soil Sci. 6, 163–178.
Rahman, M.M., Hagare, D., Maheshwari, B., Dillon, P., 2015. Impacts of prolonged
drought on salt accumulation in the root zone due to recycled water irrigation.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 226, 90–108.
Rhoades, J.D., 1977. Potential for using saline agricultural drainage waters for
irrigation. In: Proc. Water Management for Irrigation and Drainage, ASCE,
Reno, NV, pp. 85–116.
Richardson, D.C., 2010. The Living Filter: Penn State University’s 40-year water
reuse project continues to improve. Water Effic., pp 31–38.
Richenderfer, J.L., Sopper, W.E., Kardos, L.T., 1975. Spray-irrigation of treated
municipal sewage effluent and its effect on chemical properties of forest soils.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-17.
Ross, D., 1995. Recommended soil tests for determining soil cation exchange
capacity. In: Thomas Sims, J., Wolf, A. (Eds.), Recommended Soil Testing
Procedures for the Northeastern United States. Northeast Regional Bulletin
#493. Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Delaware, Newark, DE,
pp. 62–69.
Salada, I.M., 2010. Forecast of Loading Report. Office of Physical Plant. The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Scott, C.A., Faruqui, N.I., Raschid-Sally, L., 2004. Wastewater use in irrigated
agriculture: management challenges in developing countries. CAB Int., 1–10.
Shainberg, L., Singer, M.J., 1985. Effect of electrolytic concentration on the
hydraulic properties of depositional crust. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49, 1260–1263.
Staff, E.P.A., 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Office of Wastewater Management,
Office of Water, Washington, DC (EPA/600/R-12/618. September 2012).
Suarez, D.L., Rhoades, J.D., Lavado, R., Grieve, C.M., 1984. Effect of pH on saturated
hydraulic conductivity and soil dispersion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48, 50–55.
247
Suarez, D.L., Wood, J.D., Lesch, S.M., 2006. Effect of SAR on water infiltration under
a sequential rain-irrigation management system. Agric. Water Manage. 86,
150–164.
Sumner, M.E., 1993. Sodic soils: new perspectives. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31, 683–750.
Tarchouna, L.G., Merdy, P., Raynaud, M., Pfeifer, H., Lucas, Y., 2010. Effects of
long-term irrigation with treated wastewater. Part I: Evolution of soil
physico-chemical properties. Appl. Geochem. 25, 1703–1710.
Toze, S., 2006. Reuse of effluent water—benefits and risks. Agric. Water Manage.
80, 147–159.
WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2014. The United
Nations World Water Development Report 2014: Water and Energy. UNESCO,
Paris.
WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2015. The United
Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable
World. UNESCO, Paris.
Walker, C.W., Lin, H., 2008. Soil property changes after four decades of wastewater
irrigation: a landscape perspective. Catena 73, 63–74.
Walker, C., 2006. Enhanced Techniques for Determining Changes to Soils Receiving
Wastewater Irrigation for over Forty Years. Dissertation. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA.
Watkins, K., Carvajal, L., Coppard, D., Fuentes, R., Ghosh, A., Giamberardini, C.,
Johansson, C., Seck, P., Ugaz, C., Yaqub, S., 2006. Human Development Report
2006: Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. United
Nations Development Programme. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, New York, NY, USA
(ISBN 0–230-50058-7).
Wolf, A.M., Beegle, D.B., 1995. Recommended soil tests for macronutrients. In:
Thomas Sims, J., Wolf, A. (Eds.), Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the
Northeastern United States. Northeast Regional Bulletin #493. Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, pp. 25–34.
World Economic Forum, 2015. Global Risks 2015 Report.
www.reports.weforum.org/global-risks.
Xu, J., Wu, L., Chang, A.C., Zhang, Y., 2010. Impact of long-term reclaimed
wastewater irrigation on agricultural soils: a preliminary assessment. J.
Hazard. Mater. 188, 780–786.
Zhang, X.C., Norton, L.D., 2002. Effect of exchangeable Mg on saturated hydraulic
conductivity, disaggregation and clay dispersion of disturbed soils. J. Hydrol.
260, 194–205.