The pH of groundwater
samples from boreholes dug around the vicinity of Soluos
3 dumpsite ranged from 4.9 to 6.7, the groundwater samples from boreholes dug within
the vicinity of Soluos 1 dumpsite varied from 3.9 to 7.4 while the groundwater
samples from boreholes dug around the vicinity of Soluos 2 dumpsite ranged from
5.47 to 6.55.The pH of water samples from the existing boreholes around the
vicinity of the Soluos dumpsites varied between 5.2 and 7.38. Among the groundwater samples from the dug
boreholes in the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites, the groundwater samples from
boreholes dug within the vicinity of Soluos 1 dumpsite have the widest range in
term of pH. The water samples collected from
household wells around the vicinity of the Soluos dumpsites
have different pH values. The pH values of water samples from existing
household wells around Soluos 3 and 1 dumpsites fall within the range of pH
values of groundwater samples from boreholes dug within the vicinity of Soluos 3 and 1 dumpsites but the pH values of water samples
from existing household wells around the vicinity of Soluos 2 dumpsite fall
outside the range of pH values of groundwater samples from boreholes dug within
the vicinity of Soluos 2 dumpsite. The range of pH of
water samples from existing household wells around the vicinity of Soluos
dumpsites measured in the work of Aderemi et
al. (2010) relatively similar to the pH range measured in this work. This
is a clear indication that the pH values of water in the existing household
wells around the Soluos dumpsites have not really changed significantly.
The electrical
conductivity (EU) of groundwater samples from dug boreholes dug within the
vicinity of Soluos 3 dumpsite varied between 22 and 77 Us/cm
except the sample from BH 4, having EC of 635 Us/cm. In Soluos 1 dumpsite, EC ranged between 38 and
82 Us/cm except the sample from BH10, having EC of
3,739 Us/cm. The range EC for groundwater samples from boreholes dug around the
vicinity of Soluos 2 dumpsite is between 45.6 and 1.93.4 Us/cm.
The electrical conductivity (EC) is a valuable indicator of the amount of
material dissolved in water (Suman et al., 2006). The EC of water samples
around the vicinity of Soluos 3 far exceeded the range of EC of groundwater
samples from dug boreholes in Soluos 3 excluding BH4 from houses around Soluos
1 have EC relatively with the range of EC of groundwater samples from boreholes
dug in Soluos 1. This is also the case in Soluos 2 where the water samples from
houses around the Soluos have EC that fall within the EC range of groundwater
samples from the bore holes dug in Soluos 2. The outrageous EC values of
groundwater samples from BH4 and BH10 is a likely indication of the effect of
the dumpsite on groundwater from BH4 and BH10. The previous work done by
Aderemi et al. (2011) on Soluos dumpsite has a wider range of electrical
conductivity than this work. This is an indication that the amount of materials
dissolving in the water around the vicinity of the dumpsites have reduced.
The
total dissolved solid (TDS) in groundwater samples from boreholes dug around
the vicinity of Soluos 3 dumpsite varied between 2.65 and 241mg/L, that around
the vicinity of Soluos 1 dumpsite ranged between 37 and 1212 mg/L while
groundwater samples from boreholes dug around Soluos 2 dumpsite varied between
22.19 and 98.8mg/L. In terms of TDS, groundwater samples from boreholes dug
around Soluos 1 dumpsite have the widest range. Water samples from household
wells around the vicinity of Soluos 3 dumpsite have TDS of 9.48 and 87.3mg/L,
water samples from household wells around the vicinity of Soluos 1 dumpsite have
TDS of 25.7 and 22.4mg/L while household wells around Soluos 2 have water
samples with a minimum TDS of 56.9mg/L. TDS indicates the general nature of
water quality or salinity. High concentrations of TDS decrease the palatability
and may cause gastro-intestinal irritation in humans and may also have laxative
effect particularly upon transits (WHO, 1997). The high value of TDS from
groundwater samples from BH10 in Soluos 1 reveals that groundwater from BH10
may not be fit for drinking.
The COD of groundwater
samples from boreholes dug around Soluos 3 dumpsite ranged between 5 and 22mg/L
that around Soluos 1 dumpsite varied between 5 and
108mg/L while groundwater samples from boreholes dug within the vicinity of Soluos 2 dumpsite have a range less than 3. Water samples
from household wells around the vicinity of all the three dumpsites in Soluos
have a COD less than 3. The BOD values of the groundwater samples from all the
boreholes dug in the three dumpsites were less than 13 except that of BH10 which
have a BOD of 71mg/L. Water samples from the household wells around the
vicinity of all the three dumpsites have a BOD value less than 1. COD is a
measure of oxygen equivalent to the organic matter content of the water
susceptive to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant and thus is an index of
organic pollution. The high value of COD from BH10 is attributed to the effect
of the dumpsite. Though the COD values in the groundwater samples investigated
are low except that of BH10. The presence of COD and BOD indicate the presence
of organic contaminants in the water.
The concentrations of
magnesium and calcium in groundwater samples from boreholes dug within the
vicinity of Soluos 3 dumpsite varied between 0.43 and 1.67mg/L and between 1.5
and 17.45mg/L respectively. Around Soluos 1 dumpsite, magnesium and calcium in groundwater
from the dug boreholes ranged between 0.75 and 1.76mg/L and between less than
3.25 and 49.6mg/L respectively. In Soluos 2 dumpsite, the values of magnesium and
calcium ranged between 2.863 and 3.817mg/L and between 2.405 and 6.472mg/L
respectively.The total hardness of groundwater samples from boreholes dug around
Soluos 3, 2 and 1 dumpsites ranged between 3.57 and 28mg/L except that of BH10
which was 56mg/L. Multivalent cations, particularly Mg2+ and Ca2+
are often present at a significant concentration in natural waters (Kumar et
al., 2006). These ions are easily precipitated and in particular react with
soap to make it difficult to remove scum. Calcium often comes from
carbonate-based minerals, such as calcite and dolomite. The low values of
calcium and magnesium in the groundwater samples shows that much of calcium and
magnesium based compounds are not be dumped in the dumpsites. Magnesium salts are cathartic and diuretic
and high concentration may cause laxative effect while deficiency may cause
structural and functional changes (WHO, 1997). Calcium and magnesium are the
important parameters for total hardness (TH). The ranges of calcium and
magnesium also fall with the range of TH which shows that calcium and magnesium
are important parameters for total hardness.
The concentrations of
sodium in the groundwater samples from the boreholes dug in all the three
dumpsites in Soluos fall within the range of 3.5 to 65 except for the
concentration of sodium in BH10 which has a concentration of sodium to be
248mg/L. The concentrations of sodium from water samples from household wells
around the vicinity of the Soluos dumpsites fall within the range of the
concentrations of groundwater samples from the dug boreholes around Soluos
dumpsites.
The concentrations of
potassium varied between 0.08 and 14mg/L in the groundwater samples from
boreholes dug within the vicinity of Soluos 3 and 2 dumpsites while it ranged
between 22 and 173mg/L in groundwater samples from boreholes dug within the
vicinity of Soluos 1 dumpsite. The concentrations of
potassium in water samples from household wells within the vicinity of the Soluos
dumpsites fall within the range of groundwater samples from the boreholes dug
within the vicinity of Soluos 3 and 2 dumpsites. Ammoniacal nitrogen was not
detected in groundwater samples from BH2 and BH5. In the remaining boreholes,
the groundwater samples have ammoniacal nitrogen concentration ranging between
less than 0.01 and 12mg/L except the groundwater samples from BH10 having
ammoniacal nitrogen concentration of 200mg/L. Water samples from household
wells from the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites have ammoniacal nitrogen
concentration range between 0.79 and
7.8mg/L.
The
chloride concentrations in the groundwater samples from boreholes dug in Soluos dumpsites ranged between 5.9 and 90mg/L except the
groundwater from BH10, having chloride concentration of 328mg/L. The water
samples around the household wells from the vicinity of the dumpsites varied
between 195 and 1000 mg/L which is more than ten times the range of chloride
concentrations in the groundwater samples from the dug boreholes. Fluoride was
not detected in BH1 to BH5. In BH6 to BH12, the fluoride concentrations in groundwater
samples were less than 0.001mg/L. BH13 to BH16, the fluoride concentrations in
groundwater samples ranged between 0.003 and 0.006mg/L. The fluoride
concentrations in water samples from household wells around the vicinity of the
dumpsites fall within the range of fluoride concentrations in BH13 to BH16.
The high level of
chloride in the water around the dumpsites vicinity may be attributed to the
effect of the dumpsites and the likelihood to originate from other pollution
sources such as domestic effluents, fertilizers and septic tanks and from
natural sources such as rainfall and the dissolution of fluid inclusions. The
high level of chloride in water from houses around the vicinity of the
dumpsites is injurious to people suffering from diseases of heart or kidney
(WHO, 1997). Low concentration of fluoride in drinking water has been
considered beneficial but high concentration may cause dental fluorosis (tooth
mottling) and more seriously skeletal fluorosis (Ravindra
and Garg, 2005).
The nitrate and
nitrile concentrations in groundwater samples from boreholes dug around the
three dumpsites varied from less than 0.001 to 1.5mg/L except in BH1 and BH5
were nitrile was not detected. The water samples from household wells around
the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites have nitrate and
nitrile concentration ranging between less than 0.01 and 2.5mg/L. This range is
a little more than nitrate and nitrile in groundwater samples from dug
boreholes. The silica concentrations in the Soluos dumpsites ranged between 4.5
and 20mg/L while water samples from household wells around the vicinity of the
dumpsites varied from 7.4 to 13.5mg/L which falls within the range of silica
concentration in the groundwater.
The total phenol
concentrations in groundwater samples from BH6 to BH16 ranged between less than
0.001 and 0.002mg/L while total phenol was not detected in BH1 to 3 as well as
BH5. The total phenol concentrations in water samples collected from household
wells around the Soluos dumpsites have a constant concentration of 0.001mg/L.
The baron concentration ranged between 0.01 and 0.15mg/L in groundwater samples
from BH1 to BH12 while it was less than 0.001mg/L in groundwater samples from
BH13 to BH16. The boron concentrations in water samples from household wells
around the vicinity of the dumpsites ranged between 0.001 and 0.0036mg/L which
is less than the range in ground water samples from the dug boreholes. Copper
was not detected in groundwater samples from BH1 – 3, 5, 9 and 12 but in BH 4
and 6 as well as BH 13-16, the copper concentrations in groundwater samples
investigated varied between 0.03 and 0.348mg/L. The copper concentrations in
water samples from household wells around the vicinity of the dumpsites in
Soluos ranged from 0.12 to 0.407mg/L.
The total phenol
concentrations in groundwater samples from BH6 to BH16 ranged from less than
0.001 to 0.002mg/L while total phenol was not detected in BH1 to 3 as well as
BH5. The total phenol concentrations in water samples collected from houses
around the dumpsites have a constant concentration of 0.001mg/L. The baron
concentration ranged from 0.01 to 0.15mg/L in groundwater samples from BH1 to
BH12 while it was less than 0.001mg/L in groundwater samples from BH13 to BH16.
The boron concentrations in water samples from houses around the vicinity of
the dumpsites ranged from 0.001 to 0.0036mg/L which is less than the range in
ground water samples.
Heavy metals remain
in the waste or at the waste-rock interface as a result of redox controlled
precipitation reactions (Yanful et al., 1988). Further, the metal mobility is also controlled by
physical sorptive mechanisms and landfills have an
inherent in situ capacity for minimizing the mobility of toxic heavy metals (Pohland et al.,
1993). This fixing of heavy metals reduces the risk of direct toxic effects due
to ingestion of leachate contaminated groundwater (Suman
et al., 2006). However, once the
leachate leaves the site the situation changes. The leachate is generally a
strong reducing liquid formed under methanogenic conditions and on coming into
contact with aquifer materials has the ability to reduce absorbed heavy metals
in the aquifer matrix (Suman et al.,
2006)
The iron
concentrations in groundwater samples from BH1 to BH3 as well as BH5 ranged
between less than 0.001 and 0.09mg/L but in BH4, BH6, BH10 and BH12 to BH16,
iron concentrations in the groundwater samples varied from 0.65 to 8mg/L which
is beyond the stipulated standard by WHO. The iron concentrates in water
samples from the household wells around the vicinity of the Soluos dumpsites
ranged between 3 – 5mg/L which is also beyond the permissible limit of WHO. Zinc was not detected in groundwater samples from BH1
to 3 and BH5. Iron is an essential part
of haemoglobin, the red colouring
agent of the blood that transports oxygen through our bodies. A common problem
for humans is iron deficiency which leads to anemia. In BH1 to 3, BH5, and
BH7-9 the iron concentrations in the groundwater can be deemed fit for
ingestion. However, in BH4, BH6, BH10 and BH12 to BH16, the iron concentrations
in groundwater are not suitable for human body hence they should not be used
for drinking. The people who live around the vicinity of the dumpsites may
suffer from conjunctivitis, choroiditis and retinitis
if they drink water around the vicinity of the dumpsites as the waters contain
iron concentration beyond the permissible limit. The effect of the iron may be
linked to the effects of the dumpsites as the range of the iron concentrations
in leachates from the dumpsite was higher than the concentrations of iron in
water samples.
The zinc
concentrations in groundwater samples from BH4 and BH6-16 ranged between less
than 0.001 and 0.401mg/L. The concentrations of zinc in water samples from
household wells around the vicinity of the Soluos
dumpsites also fall within the range of zinc concentration in groundwater
samples from BH6-16. Zinc was not detected in groundwater samples from BH1 to 3
and BH5. The zinc concentrations in groundwater samples from BH4 and BH6-16
ranged from less than 0.001 to 0.401mg/L. The concentrations of Zinc in water
samples around the vicinity of the dumpsites also fall within the range of zinc
concentration in groundwater samples from BH6-16. The low range concentration
of zinc in water sample is an indication that the zinc from the dumpsites has
no effect on the groundwater in the vicinity.
Lead
was not also detected in groundwater samples from BH1 to 5. The concentrations
of lead in groundwater samples from BH6 to 16 as well as the concentration in
water samples from household wells around the vicinity of the dumpsites were
less than 0.001mg/L except in BH11 where the lead concentration in the
groundwater samples was exactly 0.001mg/L.Cadmium concentrations in groundwater
samples from BH6 to 16 varied between less than 0.001 and 0.032mg/L while
cadmium was not detected in groundwater samples from household wells within the
vicinity of the dumpsites. Concentration of chromium in groundwater samples
from BH6 to 16 varied between less than 0.001 and 0.003mg/L. It was not
detected in groundwater samples from BH1 to 5. The concentration in water
samples from household wells within the vicinity of the dumpsites fall within
the range of less than 0.001 and 0.004mg/L which relatively can be compared
with that of groundwater samples from BH6 to BH16.
The lead fulfils no
essential function in the human body, it can merely do harm after uptake from
food, air or water. Leachates from Soluos 1 and 2 have a low concentration of
lead but leachates from Soluos have high concentration of lead. The effect of
lead has not been felt in the groundwater within vicinity of the dumpsites
especially in Soluos 3 which can be attributed to natural attenuation of
contaminants. Health effects that can be caused by too much of cadmium in the
body are: diarrhea, stomach pain, severe vomiting, bone fracture, reproductive
failure and possibly infertility damage to the central nervous system, damage
or cancer development (http/www.lentech.com/period/ element/ed.htm). The range
of cadmium is within the permissible limit which implies the dumpsites do not
have cadmium effect on the groundwater integrity within the vicinity of the
dumpsites.
Copper is essential
to good health. However, very large single or daily intakes of copper can be
harmful. The seriousness of the effects of copper can be expected to increase
with both level and length of exposure. Water containing higher than normal
levels of copper may cause vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea. The
concentrations of copper in the groundwater samples from boreholes dug around
the Soluos dumpsites and water samples from houses within the vicinity of
Soluos dumpsites were less than the World Health Organization (WHO) limit which
indicates the dumpsites have no effect on the ground water as far as copper is
concerned.
Chromium
concentrations in leachates from no effect on the groundwater quality which
means natural attenuation such as chemical transformation, sorption or dilution
may have taken place. The health effects of chromium include upset stomachs and
ulcers, respiratory problems, weakened immune systems, kidney and liver damage,
alteration of genetic material and lung cancer death. The range of chromium in
water samples investigated cannot lead to any of the aforementioned health
effects.
The difficulty of
detecting low concentration of pathogenic bacteria and viruses, coliform
bacteria are used to determine the faecal
contamination. The concept of coliforms as bacterial indicators of microbial
water quality is based on the premise that coliforms are present in high
numbers in the faeces of humans and other warm
blooded animals. If faecal pollution has entered into
groundwater, it is likely that those bacteria will be present even after
significant dilution (Suman et al.,
2006). The presence of faecal contamination of water
is an indicator that a potential health risk exists for individual exposed to
the water. The coliform bacteria can multiply where leachate enters an
oxygenated system (Suman et al., 2006).
A group of researchers have found that when leachate was diluted with the
bacteria free groundwater, there was an increase in the number of thermo
tolerant coliform and the bacteria were able to survive for up to two weeks
under laboratory conditions.
The coliform and Ecoli concentration in groundwater samples from BH1 to BH12
was 0 Cfu/ml. In BH13 and BH14, the coliform values
were 124 and 30 Cfu/ml respectively, while coliform was not
detected in BH15 and BH16.The AMC in groundwater samples from the dug boreholes
within the dumpsites range from 100 to 311 Cfu/ml
which is beyond the set limit of WHO. The AMC of water samples from the
household wells within the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites varied between 107 and
230 Cfu/ml which is also beyond the set limit of WHO.
The coliform and Ecoli concentration in groundwater
samples from BH1 to BH12 was 0 Cfu/ml. In BH13 and
BH14, the coliform values were 124 and 30 Cfu/ml on
average respectively while coliform was not detected in BH15 and BH16. The
leachates from the dumpsites have higher values of coliform and Ecoli but of the effects were not felt by the water within
the vicinity of the dumpsites. This effect is likely to be from the leachates
from the dumpsites as the AMC of the leachates are too numerous to count.
The standard used for
comparison of groundwater samples from the dug boreholes around the vicinity of
the Soluos dumpsite and water samples from houses in the vicinity of the
dumpsite is the guideline for drinking water quality by World Health Organization.
Groundwater from BH2, BH3 and BH5 exceeded the permissible limit in term of AMC
and the water was acidic while groundwater from BH1 exceeded the limit in term
of AMC only. In BH4, the groundwater has objectionable odour, brownish in
colour and also exceeded the threshold limit in terms of iron content and AMC
level and the water was acidic as well.
Groundwater in BH6 was acidic and exceeded the limit in terms of Iron
contents and AMC level while groundwater in BH7 is very turbid and exceeded the
AMC level. In BH8, the groundwater exceeded threshold in terms of cadmium and
AMC level while in BH9 the water was acidic and AMC was exceeded.
In BH10, the
groundwater was brownish in colour and exceeded the limit in terms of
electrical conductivity, total dissolved solid, BOD and COD as well as AMC
level. Groundwaters from BH11 have particles and
exceed the threshold in term of Iron and AMC level. Groundwater in BH12 was
acidic and exceeded the iron limit. In BH13, groundwater was beyond the
standard limit in terms of iron, nitrite, magnesium and cadmium level which is
the same in groundwater from BH14 with an objectionable odour except for the
cadmium which was in the limit of the standard. Groundwater in BH15 does not
fit the standard in terms of iron, nitrite, magnesium
and cadmium level with an objectionable odour. This is also the case of
groundwater in BH16 except that the odour is not objectionable. Water in houses
around the vicinity of Soluos 3 dumpsite deviates from standard in terms of
odour, pH level, chloride, cadmium and iron level. In Soluos 2, the water from
houses around the vicinity does not fit the standard in terms of odour,
turbidity, chloride, cadmium and iron level. Water from the vicinity of Soluos
1 dumpsite also misfit the standard in terms of odour, cadmium and iron level.
The previous works
done on the impact of leachate from Soluos dumpsites
on groundwater quality within the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites revealed that
the groundwater within the vicinity of Soluos dumpsites were not contaminated
(Aderemi et al., 2011 and Longe and Balogun, 2010). This work has voided the works of Aderemi
et al. (2011) and Longe and Balogun
(2010). In the work of Aderemi et al.
(2011), only twelve parameters were assessed. These include: pH, electric conductivity,
total dissolved solids, total hardness, COD, sodium, sulphate,
ammonium, iron, zinc, lead and cadmium. In the work of Longe
and Balogun, 2010, only eight parameters were analysed. They include: pH, total dissolved solids,
dissolved solids, ammonium, sulphate, phosphate,
nitrate and chloride. In this work, thirty six parameters were assessed as
shown in Tables 3 - 6. Some parameters that exceeded the WHO and FEPA standard
for drinking water such as AMC, odour, cadmium, general appearance and nitrite
were not assessed in the previous works done by researchers on groundwater
within the vicicnity of Soluos
dumpsites. This work has really proved that a comprehensive assessment is
imperative to really acertain the true state of
groundwater instead of assessing few parameters which is just a mere
preliminary investigation on the state of groundwater quality.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The
comprehensive assessment of groundwater gives a proper understanding and an
in-depth quality of groundwater. The comprehensive assessment carried out on
groundwater from the sixteen boreholes dug within the vicinity of the three
dumpsites in Soluos community in Igando area of Lagos State revealed that some
of the water quality parameters measured exceeded the guideline for drinking
water by World Health Organisation (WHO) and Federal Environmental Protection
Agency (FEPA). Moreover, some of the water quality parameters measured in the
water samples from the existing household wells within the vicinity of Soluos
dumpsites also exceeded the set standard of WHO and FEPA. The contamination of
water is more pronounced in the existing household wells around the vicinity of
Soluos dumpsites in comparison to the groundwater from the dug boreholes. It
can be concludedthat the groundwater quality in the vicinity of the Soluos
dumpsites in Igando area of Lagos State represents a threat to public health.
REFERENCES
Aderemi, A.O., Oriaku, A. V., Adewumi, G. A and Otitoloju,
A.A. (2011). ‘’Assessment of groundwater contamination by
leachate near a municipal solid waste landfill’’. African Journal of
Environmental Science and technology, 5(11): 933 – 940.
Awemeso,
A.J., Taiwo, A.M., Orebiyi,
O.E., Orekoya, A.O. and Odjegba,
O.D. (2010).’’Effect of untreated sewage dump on the quality of groundwater in Iddo community, Lagos, Nigeria’’. Journal
of agricultural Science and Environment, 10(1): 98 – 106.
Chain, E. S. K. and DeWalle, F. B. (1976).“Sanitary landfill
leachates and their treatment”. ASCE, Journal of Environmental
Engineering Division, 102(2): 411 – 431.
Ernest, O.A. George, U.O. and Lewis, C.O.
(2010).’’Quality assessment of groundwater in selected waste dumpsites areas in
Warri, Nigeria’’. Environmental Research Journal, 4(4): 281 –
285.
Fatta, D., Papadopoulos, A., Loizidou, M.
(1999)’’ A study on the landfill leachate and its impact on the groundwater
quality of the greater area’’. Environmental Geochemical and Health, 21(2):175–190.
Ideriah,
T.J.K., Omuaru, V.O.T. and Osaisa,
C.B. (2007).’’Concentrations of heavy metals in leachates and water around
solid waste dumpsites in Port Harcourt, Nigeria’’. Cab
direct, 4: 45-50.
Ilaboya, I.R., Oti, E. O., Ekoh, G. O., Umukoro, L. O. And Enamuotor,
B.O. (2014).’’Assessment of water quality index of some selected
boreholes around dumpsites in Nigeria’’. International
Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Protection. 1(2): 47-55.
Ilaboya,
I.R., Oti, E.O., Ekoh,
G.O., Umukoro, L.O. and Enamuotor,
B.O. (2014).’’Assessment of water quality index of some
selected boreholes around dumpsites in Nigeria’’. International Journal of
Environmental Motoring and Protection, 1(2): 47 – 55.
Jhamnani, B. and Singh, S.K. (2009).Groundwater contamination
due to Bhalaswa landfill site in New Dehli. International Journal of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. 1(3):121 – 125.
Kelley WE (1976).“Groundwater pollution near a landfill”.ASCE. Journal of
Environmental Engineering Division, 102(6): 1189 – 1199.
Kerry,
L.H., Ann, D.C. and Joe, E.H.(2000).” Landfill types and liner system”.Ohio State University factsheet.
Kumar D, Khare M and Alappat BJ (2002).“Threat to groundwater from the municipal landfills in
Delhi, India”.Proceedings of the 28th WEDC Conference on sustainable
Environmental Sanitation and Water Services, Kolkata, India. 377 – 380.
Kumar, D. and Alappat, B. J. (2003).“Analysis of
leachate contamination potential of a municipal landfill using leachate
pollution index”. Workshop on sustainable landfill management, India,
December 3 – 5:147 – 153.
Kumar, D. Khare, M., and Alappat, B. J. (2006). “Threat to
groundwater from the Municipal Landfills in Delhi, India”, Proceedings of the
28th WEDC Conference on sustainable Environmental Sanitation and
Water Services, Kolkata, India: 377-380.
LO, IMC (1996). “Characteristics and Treatment of Leachates from domestic
landfill”. Environmental International, 22(4): 433 – 442.
Longe,
E.O. and Balogun, M.R. (2010).’’Groundwater quality
assessment near a municipal landfill, Lagos, Nigeria’’. Research
Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1): 39 – 44.
Masters, G. M.
(1998). “Introduction to Environmental Engineering and
Science”. Prentice – Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
Mc Bean EA, Rovers FA and Farquhar GJ (1995).“Solid waste landfill engineering and design”.Prentice Hall, PTR,
Englewood cliff.
Mor, S., Khaiwal, R., Dahiya R.P and Chandra A
(2006). ’’Leachate characterization and assessment of groundwater pollution
near municipal solid waste landfill site’’. Environmental Monitoring
Assessment, 118:435–456.
Noble JJ and Arnold
AE (1991).“Experimental and mathematical modeling of moisture
transport in landfills”.Chemical Engineering Communication. 100: 95 –
111.
Odukoya,
A.M. and Abimbola, A. F. (2010).
’’Contamination assessment of surface and groundwater within and around two dumpsite’’. International Journal of
Environmental Science Technology, 7(2): 367 – 376.
Olafisoye,
E.R., Summonu, A., Adagunodo,
T. A.And Oladejo, O. P.
(2013).’’Impact assessment of solid waste on groundwater: A case
study of Aarada dumpsite, Nigeria’’. ARPN Journal of
Earth Sciences, 2(2): 45-53.
Olafisoye,
E.R., Sunmonu, L.A., Adagunodo,
T.A. and Oladejo, O.P. (2013). ’’Impact
assessment of solid waste on groundwater: A case study of Aarada
dumpsite, Nigeria’’. AAPN journal of Earth sciences,
2(2): 45 – 53.
Oyedami, A.C., Ojo, A. A., Aladejana, J.A. and agbede, O.O.(2013).’’Assessing the
effect of a dumpsite on groundwater quality: A case of Aduramigba
dumpsite in Osogbo metropolis’’.Journal
of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 3(1): 120-131
Pohland, F. G., Cross, W.H.
an Gould, J.P.(1993). Metal speciation and mobility as
influenced by landfill disposal practices: Metals in groundwater, edited by
Allen, H. E., Perdue, E.M. and Brown, D.S., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
411-429.
Qasim SR and
Chiang W (1994).“Sanitary landfill leachate”. Technomic Publishing Company International, Lancaster.
Rajkumar, N., Subramani, T. And Elango
L. (2012).’’Impact of leachate on groundwater pollution due to
non-engineered municipal solid waste landfill sites of erode city, Tamil Nadu,
India’’. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering,
9(1):35 – 46.
Ravindra, K. and Garg, V.K. (2005).“Appraisal of
groundwater quality for drinking purpose in Hisar
city (India) with special reference to fluoride”.International Journal of
Environmental Health Research.
Reinhart
DR and Grosh CJ (1998). “Analysis
of Florida MSW landfill leachate quality”. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida.s
Salami, l. (2015).’’Experimental study and theoretical
simulation of groundwater contamination near Igando dumpsite in Lagos State,
Nigeria’’.Ph.D Thesis, lagos
State University, Nigeria.
Salami, L.
and Susu, A.A. (2013).‘ Leachate Characterisation
and Assessment of groundwater quality: A case of Solous
dumpsite in Lagos, Nigeria’. Greener Journal of Science, Engineering and
technology research.Vol.3(2): 42 – 62.
Suman, M. Khaiwal, R., Dahiya, R.P. and
Chandra, A. (2006). “Leachate characterization and assessment of
groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site”. Environmental
Monitoring Assessment, 8(1-3): 435-56.
Sunday, B., Martins, O.O. and John, S.O. (2012). ’’ assessment of impact of some waste dumpsites on the
groundwater quality in parts of Akure metropolis,
Southwestern Nigeria’’. The pacific Journal of science and
Technology.
Taghinia,
H.A., Basavarajappa, H.T. and Qaid
Saeed, A.M. (2010).’’Heavy metal pollution in Kabini River sediment’’. International
Journal of environmental resources, 4(4): 629 – 636.
Umesh,
K.S., manish, K., Rita, C., Pawan,
K.J., Al, R. and Subramanian, V. (2008). ’’Assessment of the
impact of landfill on groundwater quality: A case study of the Pirana site in western India’’. Environment Monitoring assessment, 141: 309 – 321.
United
States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (1984).’’Office of Drinking
Water, A Ground Water Protection Strategy for the
Environmental Protection Agency’’:11.
World Health Organization (1997). Guideline
for drinking water quality, Health criteria and other supporting information, 2
(2): 940-949.
Yanful, E. K., Quigley,
R.M. and Nesbitt, H. W. (1988).“Heavy metal migration at a
landfill site, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada: Metal partitioning and geotechnical
implications”, Applied Geochemistry 3: 623-629.
