sediment and ground water sampling

ISOTOPLTD
Eilat Peace Lagoon
Sediment and Groundwater
Sampling Report
Prepared for: DHV
Prepared by: Avi Edri
Agreement number: 538343
Date: 21. 2.16
11418- Sediment sampling report, peace lagoon Eilat- DRAFT FOR COMMENTS

Preparation, testing and certification
Distribution list
Copy typeDatePrepared forCopy #
Draft for comments9.12.15DHV1
Draft for comments9.12.15ISOTOP1
Draft for comments21.2.16DHV1
Draft for comments21.2.16ISOTOP1
Isotop company information
Isotope Ltd.
Head Office: 20 Ha'Yarok St. Kannot Industrial Park P.O.B. 2 GEDERA 70700, ISRAEL
08-8697182Phone number:
08-8697008Fax number:
avie@isotop.co.ilE-mail:
www.isotop.co.ilWebsite:
11418- Sediment sampling report, peace lagoon Eilat- DRAFT FOR COMMENTS
Peace Lagoon Eilat- IsraelProject name:
Peace Lagoon Eilat- IsraelSite location:
11418Project number:
Royal Haskoning DHVCustomer:
Approved and tested byWritten and edited byDateFile #
Sharon Dviri & Yaara Rimon-BrandAvi Edri9.12.151
Sharon Dviri & Yaara Rimon-BrandAvi Edri21.2.162

Table of Contents
1.1.Area5
1.2.Field Measurement7
1.3.Laboratory Analysis.......................................................................................................7
)1: (...................................................................................8
1.4.Field Measurement9
1.4.1. Layer Thickness...............................................................................................................9
1.5.Laboratory Findings....................................................................................................10
1.5.1. PSD ................................................................................................................................10
1.5.2. Organic Matter...............................................................................................................15
1.5.3. Sulfate and Sulfide.........................................................................................................16
1.6.Methodology18
1.6.1. Installation......................................................................................................................18
1.6.2. Well development...........................................................................................................18
1.6.3. Purging and field measurement .....................................................................................18
1.6.4. Water level measurements..............................................................................................19
1.6.5. Sample collection ..........................................................................................................20
1.7.Results and discussion..................................................................................................20
1.7.1. Monitoring well- G1.......................................................................................................20
1.7.2. Monitoring well- G2.......................................................................................................22
1.7.3. East lagoon.....................................................................................................................24
1.8.Laboratory results25
5. Appendix………………………………………………………..…25
Figures
Figure 1. Site location. 6
Figure 1. Site location. 6
Figure 2. Map of the lagoon distribution into three main zones, including the sampling point
location. 7
Figure 2. Map of the lagoon distribution into three main zones, including the sampling point
location. 7
Figure 3. S1 core, zone A.........................................................................................................10
Figure 3. S1 core, zone A.........................................................................................................10
Figure 4. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A...........11
Figure 4. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A...........11
Figure 5. S2 core, zone B.........................................................................................................12
Figure 5. S2 core, zone B.........................................................................................................12
Figure 6. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B....................................13
Figure 6. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B....................................13
Figure 7. S3 core, zone C.....................................................................14
Figure 7. S3 core, zone C.....................................................................14
Figure 8. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C.............15

Figure 8. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C.............15
Figure 9. Findings of the OM content of the black and underlying layers..............................16
Figure 9. Findings of the OM content of the black and underlying layers..............................16
Figure 10. Distribution of sulfate concentration......................................................................17
Figure 10. Distribution of sulfate concentration......................................................................17
Figure 11. G1- monitoring well structure.............................................................................21
Figure 12.G1- Groundwater level during 24h measurements..................................................22
Figure 13. G2- monitoring well structure................................................................................23
Figure 14. G1- groundwater level during 24h measurements. ................................................24
Figure 15. Lagoon water level during 24h measurements.......................................................25
Tables
Table 1. Field measurement findings.........................................................................................9
Table 1. Field measurement findings.........................................................................................9
Table 2. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A............11
Table 2. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A............11
Table 3. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B....................................12
Table 3. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B....................................12
Table 4. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C................14
Table 4. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C................14
Table 5. Minimum and maximum water levels.......................................................................22
Table 5. Minimum and maximum water levels.......................................................................22
Figure 13. G2- monitoring well structure................................................................................23
Table 6. Groundwater laboratory results..................................................................................25
Equation
Equation 1
(1): .........................................................................................8
Equation 2
(1): .........................................................................................8
Introduction
In 1967, the detailed plan for developing the eastern part of the city Eilat was approved for
the first time. Later, in 1990, the Institute for Marine engineering Research of Israel
(subsidiary of the Technion) published the first development feasibility report of the eastern
lagoon. In 1995, development works were completed and the eastern lagoon opened to the
public.
The lagoon, 300,000m3
of water that originates from the Red Sea. The main purpose of this
lagoon was to serve the hotels that are not located near the Red Sea shore, as well as to
become a new attraction and be used for recreation in the eastern interior part of the Eilat.
However, a couple of months after the opening of the lagoon, a significant decrease in the
quality of the lagoon water were observed. This was reflected by high turbidity as well as
11418- Peace Lagoon Eilat- Sediment Sampling Report- DRAFT FOR REVIEW

the sinking and accumulating of dead organic material in the lagoon's bottom. This led the
planning authorities to withdraw their former permission for any further construction until
the water quality issues are resolved.
In September 2012, RHDHV Company provided a detailed plan for sampling and monitoring
the physical and chemical characteristics of the eastern lagoon. The measurements were
composed of three main parts; soil quality measurements, chemical/water quality
measurements, and hydraulic and bathymetric measurements.
Later on, in July 2015, RHDHV (the client), which was selected by the relevant authorities to
manage this project and in addition to promote this plan, hired ISOTOP Ltd (Isotop) to carry
out investigation of the sediments and the ground water on site.
This paper presents the findings for the sediments investigation only.
CHAPTER A
1.1. Area
The “Peace” Lagoon is located in the eastern part of Eilat in Israel; about 500m north to the
Red Sea shore (fig. 1). The lagoon was founded on sandy soil layers that were imported from
external sources. The natural soil under this layer is characterized as Sabkha (Qp) soils or
Playa deposit soils (Qsp).

Figure 1. Site location.
The sampling work was conducted on three main zones that characterize the lagoon area
(fig. 2);
1. Zone A- Permanent open water. Boreholes S1, S4, S7 and S10.
2. Zone B- Intertidal. Boreholes S2, S5 and S8.
3. Zone C- Above the highest tide line. Boreholes S3, S6 and S9.

Figure 2. Map of the lagoon distribution into three main zones, including the sampling point location.
Material and Methods
1.2. Field Measurement
Four fixed parameters were measured for each measurement point;
Coordinate- The coordinates were measured using Garmin GPS, model eTrex 10 with an
accuracy of 3 to 5m. The GPS was adjusted to the Israeli Transverse Mercator (ITM).
Absolute height- Surface height above sea level was measured using a Stabila telescope
scale, model ATM 300.
Layer thickness- Layers thicknesses were measured using a simple scale measurement. The
resulting value represents the average thickness of three measurements per each layer
(n=3).
1.3. Laboratory Analysis
Cores sampling from the lagoon surface was carried out according to ISO 5667-19:2004. This
ISO served as a guideline for sampling sediment in the marine area, analysis of their physical
and chemical properties, monitoring purposes and environmental assessment. It
encompasses sampling strategy, requirements for sampling devices, packaging and storage
of sediments samples.

According to this ISO, the lagoon sediment was sampled by using a piston sampler. The
piston sampler has a piston contained within the sample tube, which moves upwards
relatively to the sample tube at some stage of the sampling process (Bastin and Davis 1909;
Stokstad 1939). In this project, we used a 1m long piston sampler with 5.8 cm diameter. The
soil core of each location was photographed and its lithology was documented. Specific
samples from specific locations were sent to the laboratory and the following characteristics
were analyzed;
Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
In three locations (S1, S2 and S3), sediments samples were taken from all three main layers;
top, black (middle) and bottom (clean/underlying/base). A total of 9 samples were analyzed
in the laboratory to determine the PSD of each layer. The samples were analyzed according
to standard method No. D-422. This method covers the quantitative determination of the
distribution of particle size in soils. The distribution of particle size larger than 75 µm was
determined by a sieving, while the distribution of particle size smaller than 75 µm was
determined by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer to secure the necessary data.
At our request, the laboratory adjusted this current method to minimum value of 63 µm.
Organic Matter- In five locations (S1, S2, S4, S5 and S10), sediments samples were taken
from the black and bottom layers. A total of 10 samples were analyzed according to LOI
(Loss on Ignition) test. LOI calculates the organic matter (OM) content (%) by comparing the
initial weight of the sediment sample, before and after the sediment has been ignited. To
achieve this weight difference, the samples were dried at temperature of 105°C for a period
of 24 hours, weighed, ignited to 550°C and weighed again. The total solids calculation of
each sample was carried out according to standard method No. 2540EB.
The organic matter content (%) was calculated by using the following equation:
(1) :
Where TS105 is the total solids at 105° C (%) and TS550 is the total solids at 550° C (%).
Sulfate and Sulfide

In five location (S1, S2, S4, S5 and S10), sediments samples were taken from the black and
bottom layers. A total of 10 samples were analyzed in a laboratory to determine the
concentration of both sulfate (mg/kg) and sulfide (mg/L). The samples were analyzed
according to standard method No. 4500 SO42E and 4500 S2-F for sulfate and sulfide
respectively.
Result and Discussion
1.4. Field Measurement
The sampling points were located evenly, according to three main zones: A, B and C (fig. 2).
The absolute height average of each zone is -2.1, 0.54 and 1.4 m respectively (table 1).
Table 1. Field measurement findings
Location Coordinate (ITM)
Absolute Height
(m)
Top Layer
Thickness*Avg.
(m)
Black layer
Thickness*Avg.
(m)
S1 196785/384781 -1.41 <0.002 0.1
S2 196860/384683 0.57 0.0146 0.071
S3 196855/384676 1.81 0.11 N.D
S4 196754/384907 -2.52 <0.002 0.093
S5 196746/384953 0.42 0.029 0.038
S6 196747/384957 1.15 0.027 N.D
S7 196632/384861 -2.14 <0.002 0.17
S8 196591/384863 0.63 0.015 0.053
S9 196578/384867 1.24 0.18 N.D
S10 196560/384620 -2.52 <0.002 0.083
* n=3
ITM Israeli Transverse Mercator
N.D No Data
1.4.1. Layer Thickness
The thickness of the top layer of the soil was measured only in zones B and C. In these
zones, the top soil layer was sufficiently developed to be measured and sampled, without
disturbing or mixing the structure of the soil layers. The top soil layer was also identified in
zone A. However, this layer was found to be very thin, saturated and unstable, making it
impossible to take any measurements or samples to the laboratory by this method.
However, in the qualitative aspect, this layer thickness was estimated at less than 2mm and
as an un-cohesive silty-clay texture. The above physical properties of this layer were found
homogeneous in zone A. It is apparent that this layer's properties are determined in
accordance with the regional water stream regime and with the amount and the availability
of suspension particle.

1.5. Laboratory Findings
1.5.1. PSD
PSD analysis was carried out for three sampling points; S1, S2 and S3. These points are
located in the southeastern part of the study area ("Peace Lagoon") and represent zone A, B
and C respectively. Laboratory certificates appear in Appendix A.
S1- Laboratory findings indicate the presence of two main soil layers; Black (middle) and
underlying (bottom/base) layer. However, in most cases, the transition from the black layer
to the underlying layer was characterized by gradual tendency that creates (at least visually)
a new grey sub-middle layer (fig.3).
Figure 3. S1 core, zone A.
PSD results show that both of these layers are characterizing as sandy textured. The largest
segments were of particle size of 0.25-0.5mm (55%) in the black layer and 0.099-0.25mm
(59%) in the underlying layer (table2 and fig.4), meaning that the black layer contains a
much larger segment of coarse material compared with the underlying layer. this is showed
also by the distribution curves
BlackBlack
layerlayer
GreyGrey
(mixed)(mixed)
layerlayer
BottomBottom
(clean) layer(clean) layer

Table 2. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A.
Figure 4. S1- Particle size distribution of both black and underlying layers in zone A.
Particle
Size (mm)
Top Layer Black Layer Underlying Layer
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
4-8
N.D
100 0 100 0
2-4 100 1 100 0
1-2 99 4 100 1
0.5-1 95 14 99 2
0.25-0.5 81 55 97 34
0.099-0.25 26 16 63 59
0.063-0.099 10 0.7 4 1.2
0.063> 9.3 9.3 2.8 2.8
Texture N.D Sand Sand

S2- At this sampling point, three main sediments layers were observed, including a mix sub-
middle layer between the black to the underlying layers (fig.5).
Figure 5. S2 core, zone B.
The results show that both top and black layers are characterized as sandy textured, while
the underlying layer was characterized as loamy- sand. The texture difference is an
expression of the difference between the thin particle (<0.099mm) segment size (table 3
and fig.6).
Table 3. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B.
BlackBlack
layerlayer
Mixed layerMixed layerBottomBottom
(clean) layer(clean) layer
TopTop
layerlayer
Particle Size
(mm)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
4-8 100 0 100 0 100 1
2-4 100 0 100 1 99 2
1-2 100 1 99 1 97 4
0.5-1 99 6 98 7 93 11
0.25-0.5 93 67 91 61 82 40
0.099-0.25 26 22 30 23 42 24
0.063-0.099 4 0.5 7 1.4 18 2
0.063> 3.5 3.5 5.6 5.6 16 16
Texture Sand Sand Loamy Sand

Figure 6. S2- Particle size distribution of three main layers in zone B.
S3- At this sampling point, two main sediments layers were observed; top and underlying
layer, including a thin (<2cm) clay layer at the bottom of the borehole (fig.7). It is apparent
that the source of both of these layers is external. A qualitative assessment in the field
indicated that the top layer was composed from medium quartz particle while the
underlying layer was composed from coarse ted particle (most likely granite) from nearby
quarries.

Figure 7. S3 core, zone C.
As noted, at this point, only two sediments layers were observed. The results indicate that
both of these layers are characterized by large segments of medium to fine sand (0.099 to
0.5 mm). However, a relatively large segment (26%) of silt and clay (<0.063mm) was
measured at the top layer which is 9.2 times higher than at the underlying layer ,determined
a division into two textures groups; sandy and sandy-loam (table 4 and fig.8).
Soil structure images from borehole S4-S10 and logs description presented in Appendix B and C respectively
Table 4. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C.
TopTop
layerlayer
ClayClay
aggregateaggregate
ClayClay
layerlayer
Bottom layerBottom layer

Particle Size
(mm)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
Cumulative
Distribution
(%)
Relative
Distribution
(%)
4-8 100 1
N.D
100 0
2-4 99 0 100 1
1-2 99 1 99 1
0.5-1 98 5 98 7
0.25-0.5 93 36 91 62
0.099-0.25 57 28 29 26
0.063-0.099 29 3 3 0.2
0.063> 26 26 2.8 2.8
Texture Sandy Loam N.D Sand
Figure 8. S3- Particle size distribution of both top and underlying layers in zone C.
1.5.2. Organic Matter
Laboratory results indicated mixed trend. On one hand, the results show that the content
average of OM (organic matter- %) in the black layers is 1.5 times higher than the content
average of OM in the underline layers. In addition, it was found that the content of OM in
the black layers of boreholes S1 (2.3%) and S5 (2.4%) is 1.7 times higher than the highest
value (1.4%) in the underlying layer of borehole S2 (fig. 9). On the other hand, in only 2 of 5
boreholes, the OM content was found higher in the black layer compared to underlying
layer. Statistical data analysis indicated on lack of statistical significance (p>0.05) between
these layers.

Comparison between the above boreholes show that the average of OM content of both
layers in borehole S5 is 1.1, 1.5, 2.3 and 2.3 times higher than in boreholes S1, S2, S4, and
S10 respectively.
Figure 9. Findings of the OM content of the black and underlying layers.
1.5.3. Sulfate and Sulfide
Laboratory results indicated the presence of sulfate only. In the samples taken from the
black layer at boreholes S1, S2, S4, S5 and S10, the concentration of the sulfide was not
higher than the lab detection threshold (0.1 mg L-1
).
Although sulfate was observed in all five measurement points (fig. 10), none of the values
obtained crossed the acceptable 1
threshold value for residual areas (1500 mg L-1
).
Laboratory certificates of both sulfate- sulfide and organic matter appear in Appendix D.
1
According to the Primary threshold values contaminants in soils, The Israel ministry of environment protection, 2003.

Figure 10. Distribution of sulfate concentration.

CHAPTER B
Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Level
In order to examine the chemical and hydrogeological bonds between the lagoon water
(originating from the Red Sea) and local groundwater, a monitoring plan was carried out in
four main phases: installation, development, purging, field measurement and sample
collection.
1.6. Methodology
1.6.1. Installation
Groundwater monitoring wells (G1 and G2) were installed in accordance with the technical
specifications as submitted by DHV. The wells were drilled using a Boart Long year drilling
machine, model LX™ 6 (DB525). The installation was carried out using hollow- stem auger
with temporary casing.
1.6.2. Well development
After the monitoring wells were installed, development of the wells was carried out to
ensure maximum removal of fine sediment from the vicinity of the well screen. A well-
development effort generally serves to increase the effectiveness and the quality of future
measurements. Pumping out the fine sediment at this stage is necessary to significantly
reduce the turbidity of water, prior to the purging stage.
1.6.3. Purging and field measurement
The purpose of purging is to remove stagnant water that is stored inside the well casing, as
well as water in the formation immediately adjacent to the well, prior to the sampling of
monitoring wells in order to evaluate the quality of water in saturated zone.
Parameters of each partial water column were measured while purging to determine
stability. Three consecutive parameters were used to define stability;
• Temperature
• Electrical conductance
• pH

In addition, groundwater level, salinity and dissolved oxygen were also measured.
1.6.4. Water level measurements
Ground water and Lagoon water levels were measured for 24h at three locations
simultaneously: monitoring wells G1, G2 and in the lagoon water. Water levels were
measured by using a water level logger: model HOBO-U20-001-01. The level loggers were
installed at the depth of 0.83m below water level in a monitoring well and in a stilling well
inside the Lagoon. The stilling well purpose was to dismiss the effect of waves on the water
level measurements and to prevent movement of the level logger by underwater currents.
The values were obtained in units of pressure (kPa), converted to water column (m), taking
into account the following parameters;
PLA-tx-local barometric pressure at a given time (kPa).
PM-tx - pressure measured by the level loggers at a given time (kPa).
Pw-tx- groundwater/lagoon water pressure at measurement location at a given time (kPa).
ML- monitor location relative to sea level (m).
WL- tx - water level relative to sea level (m).
To find the value of water column (m) relative to one unit of pressure (1kPa), the following
equation was used;
(2):
⇓
⇓

1.6.5. Sample collection
Sample collections were taken using an Eijkelkamp 12vdc peristaltic pump. The volumetric
flow rate was calibrated to 450 ml min-1
, in order to minimize agitation and aeration of the
wells water while sampling. Water samples were collected into four bottles for analysis of
nitrate, nitrite, ortho-P and silica in the analytical laboratory.
1.7. Results and discussion
1.7.1. Monitoring well- G1
Well G1 is located in the northern part of the East/Peace Lagoon (x: 196731/ y: 385041),
approximately 70m north to the intertidal zone, at a height of 4.94m AMSL (Above Mean
Sea Level). Well installation was carried out to depth of 8.64m, 4.22 m below the water
table (fig 11).

Figure 11. G1- monitoring well structure.
A week after the monitoring well was installed and developed (57.7L of turbid water had
been pumped out), a qualified drinking water sampler (by the Israeli Ministry of Health)
insured stabilization of the groundwater by measuring temperature, electrical conductance,
pH, salinity and dissolved oxygen to a stable value during the purging process. The final
values obtained were 23.8°c, 61.0mS, 7.22, 41.2 PSU and 4.4 mg l-1
respectively.
Groundwater levels (24h)-the results indicate water levels variations in a cycle period of 12h
(fig 12). During measurement of 24h period, the water table level dropped twice to a

minimum value of 0.37 and 0.4m AMSL at 3:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., respectively. Similarly,
the water table level rose to maximum values of 0.73 and 0.79m AMSL at 9:00p.m. and
9:15a.m., respectively. The largest gap between the above is 0.39m.
In addition, the results show that the water table rose between maximum values
(ht9:15a.m.>ht9p.m.) and minimum values (ht3a.m.>ht3p.m.) periodically. However, the current data is
not sufficient to determine a statistical trend (table 1).
Figure 12.G1- Groundwater level during 24h measurements.
Table 5. Minimum and maximum water levels
location High Tide (m) Low Tide (m)
G1 0.736 0.794 0.375 0.4
G2 0.229 0.151 0.165 0.257
Lagoon 0.315 0.268 -0.616 -0.776
1.7.2. Monitoring well- G2
Well G2 is located in the southern part of the East/Peace Lagoon (x: 196693/ y: 384571),
about 100 m south of the intertidal zone, at a height of 2.75m AMSL. Well installation was
carried out to a depth of 6.8m, 3.4 m below the water table (fig 13).

Figure 13. G2- monitoring well structure.
After the monitoring well was installed and developed (44L of turbid water had been
pumped out), a qualified drinking water sampler (by the Israeli Ministry of Health)insured
stabilization of the groundwater by measuring temperature, electrical conductance, pH,
salinity and dissolved oxygen to a stable value during the purging process. The final values
obtained were 27.5°c, 50.5mS, 7.35, 33.3 PSU and 5.5 mg l-1
respectively.
Groundwater levels (24h) - similar to the measurement results that were received in well
G1, the measurement results of well G2 water levels varied in a cycle period of 12h (fig 14).

However, it was found that the gap between maximum level (0.257m AMSL) and minimum
level (0.151m AMSL), was 2.9 times smaller than the obtained gap in well G1.
In addition, the results indicated heterogeneity trend in the increase and decrease of the
water. For example, an increase of the water between 6:00 a.m. to 12: 00p.m. was
composed from temporary frequent water table drops and vice versa, that is different from
the continuous and homogeneous periodic structure that characterizes well G1.
Figure 14. G1- groundwater level during 24h measurements.
1.7.3. East lagoon
Sea levels (24h) - the lagoon water level was measured simultaneously to groundwater
levelsmeasurements (G1, G2). The measurements were carried out at the northern part of
the lagoon, in the permanent open water (x: 196739/ y: 384891).
The level logger was installed in a stilling well made of a perforated well screen relatively
close to the lowest tide point, at a depth of 0.83m below sea level and 0.23m above the
lagoon bottom (fig 15). Since the lagoon water level is not fixed in time, an arbitrary
reference point was determined, after the installation of the measurement device, when
the lagoon water level was at 1.06m above the lagoon bottom. This reference point was also
used as a comparative reference point to the ground water measurements.
Measurement results indicate water levels variations in a cycle period of 12h, similar to the
level cycle measured at G1 and G2. The gap between the maximum level (0.315m) and the

minimum level (-0.77m) was 1.04m, 3.34 and 9.8 times larger than the gap that was
obtained at well G1 and G2, respectively.
Figure 15. Lagoon water level during 24h measurements.
1.8. Laboratory results
Table 6. Groundwater laboratory results
Site Silica (µmol/l) NO3 (µmol/l) NO2 (µmol/l) PO4 (µmol/l)
G-1 224 2.7 2.4 3.1
G-2 153 3.5 1.1 3.6
Laboratory certificates appear in Appendix E.

sediment and ground water sampling

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to sediment and ground water sampling

Similar to sediment and ground water sampling (20)

sediment and ground water sampling