Assessment of the Nutrients in the Leachate and the Groundwater Quality for Drinking and Farming around the Nkolfoulou Landfill in Yaoundé, Cameroon

Feuyit, Gilbert; Lambi, John Ngolui; Njoyim-Tamungang, Estella; Laminsi, Samuel

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6362134

Journal of Chemistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 | Article ID 6362134 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6362134

Assessment of the Nutrients in the Leachate and the Groundwater Quality for Drinking and Farming around the Nkolfoulou Landfill in Yaoundé, Cameroon

Gilbert Feuyit,¹John Ngolui Lambi,²Estella Njoyim-Tamungang,^3,4and Samuel Laminsi¹

Academic Editor: Darren Sun

Received03 Oct 2018

Accepted17 Dec 2018

Published03 Feb 2019

Abstract

This study focuses on the assessment of the nutrients in the leachate and the groundwater quality around the Nkolfoulou landfill in Yaoundé known in French as “Centre de Traitement de Déchets (CTD).” Landfilling generates leachate that can pollute groundwater. Leachate along with groundwater samples () was collected in January (long dry season) and May (long wet season) 2014 and explored for various parameters including pH, temperature, EC, turbidity, TDS, TA, TSS, TH, , COD, , , , , , , , , , , , and colour using standard methods. In the leachate samples, values of TSS (700.2 and 130.2 mg/L), (140 mg/L), COD (1350 and 1750 mg/L), (82.50 and 39.51 mg/L), (159.32 and 74.82 mg/L), and (702.69 and 345.50 mg/L) exceeded the Cameroonian standards for effluent discharge. All the values of pH and some values of turbidity (4.55 and 4.50 NTU) and (0.51 and 0.73 mg/L) in the groundwater samples violated the Cameroonian standards for drinking water. Based on the water quality index (WQI), an average of 11.53% of groundwater samples was improper for drinking in both seasons. Based on the parameters assessed, all the samples complied with the standard set for irrigation, poultry, and livestock. The hazard quotient (HQ) and the hazard index (HI) of and for children and adults were <1, and hence, the increased non-cancer risks due to these ions through the drinking of groundwater was low. From the statistical analysis, the Nkolfoulou landfill may not be the main source of major ions to the nearby groundwater.

1. Introduction

Groundwater is important in potable water supply, livestock, and crops production. Many people in Africa rely on groundwater for drinking [1]. But waste disposal negatively impacts the quality of groundwater [2]. Solid wastes are prevalently managed by landfilling [3] because it is the simplest and the cheapest technique of waste management [4]. Landfilling generates leachate which is heavily loaded with nutrients such as , , , , , , , , , , and [5–9]. Many scientific reports emphasize that groundwater close to a landfill is often polluted via leachate [10–13]. Nutrients at an elevated concentration in water render it unsuitable for human and animal health and for farming. For example, high levels of and in water are responsible for its hardness. Hard water requires more soap for cleansing and can form scale deposits on domestic appliances, while drinking water containing excessive levels of could result in a purgative effect [14]. Ingestion of nitrate and fluoride beyond the threshold level can cause, respectively, blue-baby syndrome in bottle-fed infants [14, 15] and skeletal fluorosis in human beings in general [14, 16–18].

In Yaoundé, the capital city of Cameroon, municipal solid wastes have been landfilled in Nkolfoulou since 1989. The Nkolfoulou landfill which was then in a bush far away from the city is now surrounded by habitations. The landfill generates an average of 450 m³/day of leachate, out of which only 54 m³ is collected [19]. The uncollected leachate can percolate the soil to pollute nearby groundwater sources. The study area is partly covered by a water distribution network. Besides, the increasing need for water has resulted in frequent pipe-borne water shortage, thus, putting a stress on the population. To tackle this issue more efficiently, many people around the Nkolfoulou landfill have resorted to digging wells or boreholes in their premises. The water abstracted from these wells and boreholes is quite clean and odourless, allowing the people to use it for different purposes without any prior treatment. This practice is unacceptable since water that appears clean may contain harmful microbes and chemicals [17]. Relevant information on the nutrient status of groundwater in the vicinity of landfills in Cameroon is lacking. This is why the present study is aimed at assessing the nutrients in the leachate and the groundwater quality around the Nkolfoulou landfill.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site Description

Yaoundé, the capital city of Cameroon, locally called “Ngola,” sprawls over 304 km². It is ranked as the second most populated town in Cameroon with about 2.5 million inhabitants. It is located at an altitude of about 750 m and lies between longitudes and between latitudes . It has an annual mean rainfall of 1520 ± 268 mm and a mean temperature of 24.4 ± 0.5°C from 1984 to 2008 [20]. Yaoundé has a tropical climate consisting of two rainy seasons (March–June and September–November) and two dry seasons (December–February and July-August). The bed rock of the study area comprises migmatites, migmatitic gneisses, banded gneisses, and mica schists [21].

Figure 1 displays the map of the study area which consists of the neighborhoods of the Nkolfoulou landfill. The Nkolfoulou landfill is situated at 16 km from Yaoundé centre and is surrounded by Nkolfoulou I and II and Nsan villages. It covers a total land area of about 45 ha [22]. The site specification of groundwater samples in the study area is displayed in Table 1.

2.2. Sampling Procedure

Thirteen (13) groundwater samples and one (01) sample of leachate not stored by the HYSACAM company were collected in 2014 in January, during the long dry season, and in May, during the long wet season. Since the landfill is equipped with leachate collectors, we were more interested in the unstored leachate that flows outside the landfill. For ion analysis, water and leachate were sampled and filtered in situ through a clean 0.45 μm filter paper in 500 mL polyethylene bottles previously washed with deionized water. The samples were kept in a cooler during transportation from the field to the laboratory, stored in a refrigerator at 4°C, and analyzed within 48 hours.

2.3. Physicochemical Parameter Analysis

All the reagents utilized were of analytical (AnalaR) grade. Parameters such as temperature, electrical conductivity (EC), pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) were measured in situ using a multiparameter HANNA HI 9811-5. Total suspended solids (TSS) were determined following the AFNOR method NF EN 872 [23], while total alkalinity (TA) and biocarbonate () were determined by titration as outlined in the AFNOR method NF EN ISO 9963-1 [24]. The turbidity was determined using a turbidity meter model ORBECO-HELIGE 966. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was determined by digestion following the standard method 5220B [25], while biochemical oxygen demand after 5 days () was assessed as specified by Rodier et al. [26]. The colour was determined in the laboratory by the colorimetric method using the ORCHIDIS standard colorimetric comparator réf.1pco15p220. The last three parameters were assessed only in leachate samples.

The concentration of anions and cations was determined, respectively, employing models ICS1100 and ICS90 liquid-phase ion chromatographic (IC) single-column system at room temperature. All samples and eluents were filtered through a filter paper (0.45 μm) before injection into the IC system. Water samples having higher electrical conductivity were diluted appropriately with distilled water before being analyzed. The chromatograph was computer monitored using a CHROMELEON CM 6.80 SR software.

The anions , , , , and were separated on an AS12A IonPac separating column (4 × 200 mm) with an AG12A guard column (4 × 50 mm) and detected after suppression with an ASRS300 IonPac 4 mm anion electrical self-regenerating suppressor. The anions were eluted using the eluent (2.7 mM + 0.3 mM ) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. A sample volume of 100 μL was injected and run for 15 minutes. The cycle time was 15 minutes per analysis.

The cations , , , , and were separated on a CS12A IonPac separating column (4 × 250 mm) with a CG-12A IonPac guard column and detected after suppression with a CSRS300 IonPac 4 mm cation electrical self-regenerating suppressor. The cations were eluted with 22 mM as eluent at a flow rate of 1 mL/minute. The injection volume was 50 μL, while the run time was set to 15 minutes, and the cycle time was 15 minutes per analysis.

The normalized inorganic charge balance (NICB) was computed to check the accuracy of the results using the following equation [13], and the calculated NICB was within ±5%:

In equation (1), the concentration of cations and anions are in meq/L. The total hardness (TH) was computed using the following equation [27]:

In equation (2), and are in mg/L. Water quality index (WQI) was determined by using the following equation [28]:

The quality rating scale for each parameter was computed as follows:where is the estimated concentration of the parameter in the analyzed water, is the ideal value of this parameter in pure water ( = 0, except for pH = 7.0), and is the maximum limit of the parameter. The unit weight, , for each parameter is computed as follows:where = constant of proportionality and can be computed as

The increased non-carcinogenic risks due to nitrate and fluorite were evaluated by calculating the hazard quotient (HQ) and the resulting hazard index (HI). HQ was computed from equation (7), while ADD was computed using equation (8) [29]:where ADD represents the mean daily dose of a pollutant ingested from drinking water (mg/kg/day) and RfD is the reference dose for non-carcinogenic risk. The RfD for nitrate is 1.6 mg/kg/day while that for fluorite is 0.06 mg/kg/day. AAD is computed using the following equation:where represents the concentration of a particular pollutant in groundwater (mg/L), IR is the water ingestion rate (L/day), BW is the body weight (kg), EF is the exposure frequency (days/year) (EF = 365 days per year), ED is the exposure duration (year) (ED = 70 years), and AT is the average exposure time (days) (AT = days)). Thus, from equation (8),and equation (8) becomes

In this study, the IR for adults and children is 2 and 1 L/day, respectively, whereas the BW for adults and children is 60 and 18 kg.

The resulting hazard index (HI) due to exposure to many non-carcinogenic substances was calculated from the following equation [29, 30]:where are the non-carcinogenic substances and is the hazard quotient for the substance.

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) was computed using the following equation with and in meq/L:

The Stiff and Piper plots were generated using DIAGRAMME 5.1 software. The geographical coordinates of the selected sampling points were recorded using a Geographical Positioning System (GPS) Magellan Triton-300. These coordinates were loaded in ArcGIS 10 software in order to draw the map of the study area and to evaluate the distances between the border of the landfill and the monitoring sites.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical processing of the data for t-test and correlation matrix was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 23.0.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physicochemical Quality of Leachate

The physicochemical quality of the leachate is reported in Table 2. From the long dry season to the long wet season, the pH and temperature fell slightly from 8.9 to 8.2 and 26.7 to 26.2°C, respectively. The pH remained within the safe range of , while the temperature dropped below the safe limit of 30°C set by MINEP [31] for effluent discharge. A similar pH value of 8.1 was found in leachate from Taiwan [32]. The pH values obtained indicate that the leachate samples were from an old cell since old leachate is characterized by a pH > 7.5 [33].

During the long dry and long wet seasons, respectively, the values of (100; 140 mg·/L), COD (1,350; 1,750 mg·/L), and TSS (70.2; 130.2 mg/L) were all found to be higher than the regulatory limits for the effluent discharge set by MINEP [31] (Table 2). During this same period, leachate had a biodegradability ratio (/COD) of 0.07 and 0.08, respectively. This implies that the leachate was from an old cell since a ratio of /COD < 0.1 is typical of leachate from an old landfill (>10 years) [7, 33]. Again, during this same period, the concentration of (82.5; 39.51 mg/L), (159.32; 74.82 mg/L), and (702.69; 345.50 mg/L) was all superior to the safe limits for effluent discharge stated by MINEP [31] (Table 2). Ammonia-nitrogen in leachate may originate from the catabolism of protein-rich compounds [7, 34, 35]. is produced during ammonification [35] and can thereafter be partially transformed into by the anaerobic ammonium oxidation process (ANAMMOX) as shown in equation (13). It can also be transformed into under aerobic conditions through nitrification [35], while leachate stagnates or flows on the ground: was not detected in any of the seasons, while concentration dropped from 50.24 to 10.60 mg/L. found in leachate may be the result of the oxidation of [36], while the absence of might be due to its coprecipitation by and to form magnesium ammonium phosphate (MAP) hexahydrate known as struvite as shown in the following equation [37]:

In both seasons, leachate had a dark-brownish colour ranging from 5208.33 to 4654.75 mg/L Pt-Co with an offensive pungent smell. In a similar study [38], the values were in the range of 955–15.142 mg/L Pt-Co for an old leachate. The dark brown colour of the leachate may be due to the presence of FeS and PbS formed, respectively, by the reaction of iron and lead with hydrogen sulfide. It may also be due to the presence of MnO resulting from the oxidation of manganese in air. The pungent odour of the leachate is attributable to the presence of either , , , and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) or putrescine and cadaverine from the putrefaction of wastes from the abattoirs.

Comparatively, the average physicochemical characteristics of the leachate samples collected in this work from the Nkolfoulou landfill differ from those observed elsewhere (Table 3). This may be due to the differences in waste composition, meteorological conditions, waste age, and landfilling technology [6, 7]. As observed in Table 3, all comparable parameters were in the typical range stated by Christensen et al. [6] except for TSS which was much lower, more likely as a result of the soil type on which the leachate leaks or runs.

Seasonal variation of the levels of nutrients as well as the pH, EC, TDS, TA, TH, and colour exhibited a decreasing trend with percent decrease ranging from % (EC) to −78.90% () in going from the long dry season to the long wet season. This decrease is attributable to the dilution of leachate by runoff or rain water. In contrast, the increase in TSS and turbidity as well as and COD in the long wet season could be due to runoff that brings solid particles and organic matter to the leachate. Seasonal variation in major ion concentrations is illustrated by the Stiff diagram (Figure 2) in which the shapes of polygons differ from season to season implying that the leachate composition varies according to the season. In the leachate samples, the trends in the cation concentrations were in the order > > > > in the long dry season and > > > > in the long wet season while that of the anions was > > > > > in both seasons.

3.2. Groundwater Quality

The physicochemical quality of groundwater in both seasons is displayed in Tables 4 and 5. During the long dry season, the groundwater temperatures were in the range °C (mean 23.5°C), while during the long wet season, the range was °C (mean 23.3°C). All the temperature values for both seasons were lower than 25°C, which is the standard limit according to Cameroonian regulations [42] for drinking water.

The pH of groundwater samples varied from 5.2 to 6.1 (mean 5.6) during the long dry season and 5.8 to 6.4 (mean 6.1) during the long wet season. These pH ranges are lower than recorded by Mor et al. [8] for groundwater around a landfill in Delhi (India). For both seasons, the pH values were outside the safe ranges of 6.5–9.5, 6.5–8.5, and 6.5–9.0 set, respectively, by EU [43], EPA [18], and Cameroonian standards [42] (Table 6) for drinking water.

During the long dry and long wet seasons, the EC values were, respectively, in the range 30–130 μS/cm (mean 76 μS/cm) and 20–150 μS/cm (mean 49 μS/cm), while the TDS values were in the range 10–60 mg/L (mean 32 mg/L) and 10–70 mg/L (mean 21 mg/L). As can be observed, the EC and TDS values are several folds lower than 12,745 μS/cm and 9,895 mg/L, respectively, as reported by El-Salam and Abu-Zuid [11] for groundwater near a landfill in Alexandria (Egypt). With respect to drinking water, the EC and TDS values complied with the standards set by regulatory bodies [14, 18, 42, 43] (Table 6).

During the long dry and long wet seasons, the turbidity values registered were, respectively, between 0.70 and 12.60 NTU (mean 4.55 NTU) and 0.70 and 14.5 NTU (mean 4.50 NTU), whereas the TSS values were between 5.00 and 90.00 mg/L (average 32.44 mg/L) and 5.00 and 103.79 mg/L (average 31.89 mg/L). Comparatively, Han et al. [44] reported high values in the range NTU in groundwater near a landfill at Zhoukou (China). All the recorded TSS values were lower than the recommended maximum limit set by MINDIC for drinking water [42] (Table 6). In the long dry season, , , , and wells representing 30.76% of the samples and , , and wells in the long wet season representing 23.07% of the samples had turbidity less than 1 NTU which is within the standard limit for drinking water disinfection effectiveness laid down by WHO [14]. Higher turbidity can seriously interfere with the efficiency of disinfection by providing protection for organisms [14].

During the long dry and long wet seasons, the TH values increased, respectively, from 16.02 to 49.16 mg/L (average 26.14 mg/L) and 11.14 to 44.90 mg/L (average 25.93 mg/L), while the TA values increased from 19.02 to 90.28 mg/L (mean 34.66 mg/L) and 14.27 to 53.27 mg/L (mean 29.39 mg/L). These TH and TA values were, respectively, lower than those of mg/L and mg/L recorded by Mor et al. [8] for groundwater near the Gazipur landfill (India).

During the long dry season, the concentration of , , , and fluctuated, respectively, between 0.48 and 22.83 mg/L (mean 4.07 mg/L), 0.70 and 5.71 mg/L (mean 2.46 mg/L), 0.20 and 6.05 mg/L (mean 2.47 mg/L), and 2.54 and 13.75 mg/L (mean 7.61 mg/L) while in the long wet season, they ranged from 0.03 to 2.31 mg/L (mean 1.18 mg/L), 1.20 to 8.44 mg/L (mean 2.30 mg/L), 0.55 to 4.58 mg/L (mean 1.98 mg/L), and 1.45 to 15.74 mg/L (mean 7.11 mg/L), respectively. The average values of , , , and obtained in this work are lower than 23.75, 11.17, 84.6, and 360 mg/L, respectively, reported by Singh et al. [45] for groundwater around the Pirana landfill in Ahmedabad (India). In this study, all the concentrations of obtained were many folds lower than the maximum limits stated by the regulatory bodies [14, 42, 43] for drinking water (Table 6). In both seasons, the levels of and were lower than the permissible limits laid down by MINDIC [42] for drinking water (Table 6).

In the long dry and long wet seasons, the levels were observed, respectively, between ND (non detected) and 0.51 mg/L (mean 0.14 mg/L) and ND and 0.73 mg/L (mean 0.23 mg/L), while the values varied from 0.63 to 11.76 mg/L (mean 3.76 mg/L) and 0.07 to 7.97 mg/L (mean 2.29 mg/L). Comparatively, high values of in the range ND–4.3 mg/L were reported by Mor et al. [8] for groundwater near the Gazipur landfill in India, while, for , a mean value of 49.90 mg/L higher than those found in this study was recorded by Singh et al. [45] for groundwater at the vicinity of the Pirana landfill also in India. In the study area, the in the groundwater might have originated from the leachate or leaked from the septic tank. The values registered in the long dry season at (0.51 mg/L) and in the long wet season at (0.73 mg/L) exceeded both the EU [43] and MINDIC [42] standards for drinking water (Table 6). However, it has been recently substantiated that the additional exposure to from water in the concentration range of mg/L is negligible and thus does not pose a risk to human health [46]. in drinking water may have resulted from the protonation of given the acidic nature (pH < 6.5) of the water. The values of in both seasons were lower than the threshold set by EU [43], EPA [18], and MINDIC [42] for drinking water (Table 6).

During the long dry season, the , and values were, respectively, between 0.02 and 0.08 mg/L (average 0.04 mg/L), 0.22 and 3.72 mg/L (average 1.02 mg/L), and 0.17 and 3.26 mg/L (average 1.28 mg/L), while in the long wet season, they were, respectively, between 0.01 and 0.10 mg/L (mean 0.04 mg/L), 0.15 and 0.91 mg/L (mean 0.49 mg/L), and 0.03 and 3.60 (mean 0.78 mg/L). The mean average values of , , and are, respectively, several orders of magnitude lower than 0.67, 253.94, and 96.94 mg/L recorded by Pujari and Deshpande [47] for groundwater around a landfill in Nagpur (India). As far as , , and were concerned, groundwater sources were fit for drinking for both seasons since their concentrations were lower than the prescribed limits set by EU [43], EPA [18], MINDIC [42], and WHO [14] (Table 6).

was barely detected in the three wells (, , and ) during the long dry season and in six wells (, , , , , and ) during the long wet season with concentrations ranging slightly from 0.01 to 0.03 mg/L in both seasons. The concentrations of increased from 23.20 to 110.10 (mean 42.26 mg/L) in the long dry season and from 17.40 to 64.96 mg/L (mean 35.84 mg/L) in the long wet season. The mean values of and are, respectively, lower than 0.29 mg/L and 391.8 mg/L reported for groundwater around the Pirana landfill in Ahmedabad (India) [45]. was not detected in the leachate samples, so its occurrence in some groundwater samples in the study area may be attributed to anthropogenic activities such as domestic waste discharge and agriculture. In groundwater, may have originated from the dissolution of atmospheric and carbonate minerals [8] or from sulfate reduction of organic compounds in the aquifer as represented in the following equation [48]:

According to Piper’s diagram [49] (Figure 3), the hydrochemical facies of groundwater in the study area were of the (84.62%) and (15.38%) types in the long dry season, while in the long wet season, all the groundwater samples were of the type (100%).

(a)

(b)

3.3. Statistical Correlation

The correlation matrices for 19 measured variables during the long dry and long wet seasons are illustrated in Table 7. The perfect positive correlation between TSS and turbidity (r = 1, ) in both seasons means that they have exactly the same contributor which could be mud brought in by the infiltrating rain water. The strong positive correlation between EC and TDS (r = 0.98, ) in the dry season signifies that they have nearly the same contributors (the dissolved ions). At the 0.05 level, a significant negative correlation was observed only between the temperature and (r = ) in the long dry season, while for the long wet season, it was registered between pH and (r = ), between pH and (r = ), between pH and (r = ), and between pH and (r = ) indicating the opposing distribution of these pair variables. In both seasons, the depth of the wells exhibited no significant correlation with any of the variables in the matrices except for with a significant positive correlation (r = 0.78, ) in the long dry season. In the long dry season, there was a significant positive correlation between pH and (r = 0.68), and (r = 0.64), and (r = 0.68), and and (r = 0.66) at the 0.05 level, while at the 0.01 level, there was a significant positive correlation between and (r = 0.89), and (r = 0.87), and (r = 0.91), and (r = 0.78), and (r = 0.83), and (r = 0.84), and and (r = 0.77).

In the long wet season, there was a significant positive correlation between and (r = 0.61), and (r = 0.59), and (r = 0.56), and (r = 0.63), and (r = 0.58), and (r = 0.66), and and (r = 0.68) at the 0.05 level, whereas at the 0.01 level, there was a significant positive correlation between and TSS (r = 0.75), and turbidity (r = 0.74), and (r = 0.82), and (r = 0.83), and (r = 0.85), and (r = 0.76), and (r = 0.88), and (r = 0.75), and (r = 0.90), and (r = 0.74), and (r = 0.74), and and (r = 0.73).

The distance between the wells and the landfill barely exhibited significant negative correlation with pH (r = , ) and temperature (r = , ), implying that the landfill may not be the main source of the major ions in the nearby groundwater. The strong positive correlations observed between the various ions in both seasons imply that they may have common sources (weathering of rocks, septic tanks, pit latrines, domestic effluent, and agricultural activities), which contribute to the ion input in the groundwater in the area.

3.4. Seasonal Variation of Groundwater Quality

Although the t-test is usually applied on larger sample sizes, it can be used for small sample sizes (), as long as the effect sample size is large [50]. The t-test was performed to check the significance of the seasonal variation of the mean value of the parameters assessed. Results of this test are summarized in Table 8. The resulting values were compared with the significance level, = 0.05. The seasonal variation of parameters was statistically significant only for pH (), T (temperature) (), and EC () (Table 8), whereas it was insignificant for the remaining data pairs representing 84.21% as . It can therefore be inferred that the change in groundwater quality from the dry season to the wet season was generally insignificant within a 95% confidence limit.

In the groundwater samples, the order of abundance of cations was > > > > in the long dry season and > > > > in the long wet season while that of anions was > > > > > in both seasons.

3.5. Drinking Water Suitability Based on TDS, TH, and WQI

Following the classification of van der Aa [51] of drinking water based on TDS (Table 9), apart from the and wells in the long dry season and the and wells in the long wet season, the remaining wells, representing 84.61% of the samples in both seasons, had very low mineral concentrations. According to the same classification, 15.38% of the samples in the long dry season ( and ) and in the long wet season ( and ) had low mineral concentrations.

According to the classification of Crittenden et al. [52] based on TH (Table 9), all (100%) the samples were “soft” in both seasons.

Using the Cameroonian standards [42], the weighted arithmetic water quality index (WQI) in the present study was calculated with 13 parameters, namely, pH, temperature, EC, TSS, turbidity, , , , , , , , and . The values of WQI obtained in this study ranged from 14.40 to 114.50 (mean 44.27) in the long dry season (Table 4) and from 9.98 to 104.08 (mean 47.53) in the long wet season (Table 5). Employing the classification of Chatterjee and Raziuddin [53] of drinking water based on WQI (Table 9), out of the 13 samples, 30.76% (, , , and ) had excellent water quality, 38.46% (, , , , and ) had good water quality, 15.38% ( and ) had poor water quality, 7.69% () had very poor water quality, and 7.69% () was unsuitable for drinking in the long dry season. In the long wet season, out of the 13 samples, 30.76% (, , , and ) had excellent water quality, 30.76% (, , , and ) had good water quality, 7.69% () had poor water quality, 15.38% ( and ) had very poor water quality, and 15.38% ( and ) were unsuitable for drinking. It should be noted that WQI may have been underestimated since some pollutants such as heavy metals (As, Cd, Hg, and Pb) which may be present were not considered.

3.6. Non-Cancer Risks Assessment

The non-cancer health risk on human health is evaluated through the calculation of the hazard quotient (HQ) and the hazard index (HI) assuming that HQ or HI > 1 signifies an acceptable level [54]. In this study, two age groups, namely, children and adults were considered for the calculation of HQ and HI of nitrate and fluorite. The HQ and HI values are depicted in Table 10. As it can be seen in Table 10, all the values of HQ and HI were <1, implying that the increased non-cancer risks due to nitrate and fluorite through the drinking of the groundwater from the study area were low. Nevertheless, a close perusal of Table 10 shows that the mean value of HI for children was about 1.6 times higher than that of HI for adults in both seasons.

3.7. Suitability of Water for Agricultural Uses Based on SAR, EC, TDS, pH, TDS, and TSS

In the long dry season, SAR varied from 0.04 to 1.41 (mean 0.31) (Table 4), while in the long wet season, it ranged from 0.00 to 0.18 (mean 0.11) (Table 5). All the SAR values of the water samples from the study area in both seasons were less than 10 and were, thus, graded as excellent for irrigation according to the classification of Richards [55] (Table 11).

Salty water in terms of TDS and EC reduces the yield of crops [56]. According to Richards [55] and van der Aa [51] classifications of water for irrigation based, respectively, on EC and TDS (Table 11), all (100%) the water samples were graded, respectively, as excellent quality and nonsaline for both seasons.

According to Pescod’s classification [57] (Table 12), all (100%) the water samples had no restriction on their use in localized drip irrigation in both seasons with respect to pH and TDS. Following the same classification concerning TSS, 76.92% of the samples (, , , , , , , , , and ) had no restriction on their use in localized drip irrigation in both seasons. 23.08% of groundwater samples (, , and ) had slight to moderate restriction on their use in localized drip irrigation in the long dry season, while 15.38% ( and ) and 7.69% () of groundwater samples had, respectively, slight to moderate restriction and severe restriction on their use in localized drip irrigation in the long wet season. In addition, the acidic nature of groundwater from the study area imposes, for its transport, pipes that can withstand acid corrosion such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) pipes.

3.8. Suitability of Water for Poultry and Livestock Based on EC

Water with high salt content may cause temporary diarrhoea in livestock not accustomed to it, watery droppings in poultry, increased mortality, and decreased growth, especially in turkeys [56]. Following the classification of Ayes and Westcot [56] of water for poultry and livestock uses based on EC, all (100%) the water samples in this study were categorized as excellent for both seasons (Table 13).

3.9. Suitability of Water for Cattle Rearing Based on and TDS

Water with high levels of and TDS may be hazardous to cattle [58]. According to Higgins’ classification [58] of water for cattle based on these parameters, all (100%) the water samples in this study were declared safe for cattle rearing in both seasons (Table 14).

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The objectives of this study were the assessment of nutrients in the leachate from the Nkolfoulou landfill and the evaluation of groundwater quality within its vicinity. 72.73% of the parameters were found in the leachate at levels higher than the Cameroonian standards for effluent discharge while 27.27% complied with these standards. It is, therefore, imperative that the leachate be collected and properly treated before being released to the environment. About 88.47% of the groundwater samples was found to be suitable for drinking, while all the water samples (100%) were judged fit for livestock and irrigation in both seasons. Based on the statistical analysis, major ions present in the groundwater may not be directly associated with leachate percolation. They may rather have been derived from community settlements adjacent to the study area, agricultural practices, and rock weathering. The increased non-cancer risks due to nitrate and fluorite through the drinking of groundwater from the study area was low. Despite the relatively good state of groundwater assessed, further investigations are recommended for the assessment of heavy metals, phthalate esters, pathogens, and emerging pollutants.

Data Availability

All the data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Supplementary Materials

The concentrations of anions and cations in mg/L in leachate (Table 2) and groundwater samples (Tables 4 and 5) of the manuscript are incorporated in an excel file. These concentrations of anions and cations in mg/L were converted to meq/L to calculate the normalized inorganic charge balance (NICB). The NICB is calculated to check the accuracy of the results. The concentrations of major ions (anions and cations) in a given sample are acceptable if the NICB is within ±10%. NICB was calculated following equation (1) in the manuscript, and it was within ±5%. NICB was calculated for each well in the long dry and long wet seasons. In the first column, we have the season and the sample code corresponding to the wells sampled (GW₁, GW₂, GW₃, GW₄, GW₅, GW₆, GW₇, GW₈, GW₉, GW₁₀, GW₁₁, GW₁₂, and GW₁₃) and leachate. In the last column in green, we have the calculated value of NICB (%) for each sample (well and leachate). In each sample (well or leachate), we put the concentrations of anions and cations in mg/L and, in the next column, these concentrations are converted to meq/L since these concentrations must be in meq/L in the calculation of NICB. In that table, all the concentrations of ions in leachate can be checked in Table 2, while the concentrations of ions in groundwater can be checked in Tables 4 and 5 of the manuscript. (Supplementary Materials)

References

A. M. MacDonald, H. C. Bonsor, B. É. Ó. Dochartaigh, and R. G. Taylor, “Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, Article ID 024009, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zaporozec, “Ground-water pollution and its sources,” GeoJournal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 457–471, 1981.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Xing, W. Lu, Y. Zhao, W. Zhang, and T. H. Christensen, “Environmental impact assessment of leachate recirculation in landfill of municipal solid waste by comparing with evaporation and discharge (EASEWASTE),” Waste Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 382–389, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Jhamnani and S. K. Singh, “Groundwater contamination due to Bhalaswa landfill site in New Delhi,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Engeneering, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 121–125, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
T. H. Christensen, P. Kjeldsen, H. J. R. Albrechtsen, P. H. Heron, P. L. Bjerg, and P. E. Holm, “Attenuation of landfill leachate pollutants in aquifers,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 119–202, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Christensen, P. Kjeldsen, P. L. Bjerg et al., “Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes,” Applied Geochemistry, vol. 16, no. 7-8, pp. 659–718, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kjeldsen, M. A. Barlaz, A. P. Rooker, A. Baun, and T. H. Christensen, “Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 297–336, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Mor, K. Ravindra, R. P. Dahiya, and A. Chandra, “Leachate characterization and assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 118, no. 1–3, pp. 435–456, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Grisey and L. Aleya, “Prolonged aerobic degradation of shredded and pre-composted municipal solid waste: report from a 21-year study of leachate quality characteristics,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 800–815, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kanmani and R. Gandhimathi, “Investigation of physicochemical characteristics and heavy metal distribution profile in groundwater system around the open dump site,” Applied Water Science, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 387–399, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. A. El-Salam and G. I. Abu-Zuid, “Impact of landfill leachate on the groundwater quality: a case study in Egypt,” Journal of Advanced Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 579–586, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. K. Deshmukh and S. P. Aher, “Assessment of the impact of municipal solid waste on groundwater quality near the Sangamner City using GIS approach,” Water Resources Management, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2425–2443, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Grisey and L. Aleya, “Assessing the impact of leachate plumes on groundwater quality in the Etueffont landfill (Belfort, France),” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 75, no. 10, pp. 913–930, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO), Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, 4th edition, 2011.
L. Fewtrell, “Drinking-water nitrate, methemoglobinemia, and global burden of disease: a discussion,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 112, no. 14, pp. 1371–1374, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Interaction Profile for: Cyanide, Fluoride, Nitrate, and Uranium, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA USA, 2004.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Handbook on Water Quality, United Nations Children’s Fund, New York, NY, USA, 2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “National primary drinking water regulations,” United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA, 2009, EPA 816-F-09-004.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Ngnikam, F. Zahrani, P. Naquin, B. Djietcheu, and R. Gourdon, “Evaluation des impacts environnementaux d’un centre de stockage de déchets ménagers en activité sur la base de la caractérisation des flux de matière entrants et sortants: application au site de Nkolfoulou, Yaoundé, Cameroun,” Revue Francophone d’Écologie Industrielle, no. 61, pp. 18–29, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
A. F. Bon, J. R. Ndam Ngoupayou, G. Ewodo Mboudou, and G. E. Ekodeck, “Caractérisation hydrogéologique des aquifères de socle altéré et fissuré du bassin versant de l’Olézoa à Yaoundé, Cameroun,” Revue des sciences de l’eau, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 149–166, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Mvondo, S. W. J. den Brok, and J. Mvondo Ondoa, “Evidence for symmetric extension and exhumation of the Yaounde nappe (Pan-African fold belt, Cameroon),” Journal of African Earth Sciences, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 215–231, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. J. Folefack, “The economic costs of illness from the disposal of the yaoundé household waste at the nkolfoulou dumping site in Cameroon,” Journal of Human Ecology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 7–20, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), NF EN ISO 9963-1, Qualité de l’Eau. Détermination de l’Alcalinité, Partie 1: Détermination de l’Alcalinité Totale et Composite, Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), France, UK, 1996a.
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), NF EN 872, Dosage des Matières en Suspension, Méthode par Filtration sur Filtre en Fibres de Verre, Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), France, UK, 1996b.
American Public Health Association (APHA), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DC, USA, 21st edition, 2005.
J. Rodier, C. Bazin, J. P. Broutin et al., l’Analyse de l’Eau, Eaux Naturelles, Eaux Résiduelles, Eau de Mer, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 8éme edition, 1996.
American Public Health Association (APHA), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992.
S. Tyagi, B. Sharma, P. Singh, and R. Dobhal, “Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index,” American Journal of Water Resources, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 34–38, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (part A), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington DC, USA, 1989.
A. Pawelczyk, “Assessment of health risk associated with persistent organic pollutants in water,” Environmental monitoring and assessment, vol. 185, no. 1, pp. 497–508, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Protection de la Nature (MINEP), Normes Environnementales et Procédure d’Inspection des Installations Industrielles et Commerciales au Cameroun, Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Protection de la Nature (MINEP), Cameroon, 2007.
J. J. Wu, C.-C. Wu, H.-W. Ma, and C.-C. Chang, “Treatment of landfill leachate by ozone-based advanced oxidation processes,” Chemosphere, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 997–1003, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Y. Foo and B. H. Hameed, “An overview of landfill leachate treatment via activated carbon adsorption process,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 171, no. 1–3, pp. 54–60, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. B. Dent, S. L. Forbes, and B. H. Stuart, “Review of human decomposition processes in soil,” Environmental Geology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 576–585, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. D. Berge, D. R. Reinhart, and T. G. Townsend, “The fate of nitrogen in bioreactor landfills,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 365–399, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Nishimura and M. Yoda, “Removal of hydrogen sulfide from an anaerobic biogas using a bio-scrubber,” Water Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 6-7, pp. 349–356, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Z. Li, Q. L. Zhao, and X. D. Hao, “Ammonium removal from landfill leachate by chemical precipitation,” Waste Management, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 409–415, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Tatsi and A. I. Zouboulis, “A field investigation of the quantity and quality of leachate from a municipal solid waste landfill in a Mediterranean climate (Thessaloniki, Greece),” Advances in Environmental Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 207–219, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Bhalla, M. S. Saini, and M. K. Jha, “Characterization of leachate from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilling sites of Ludhiana, India: a comparative study,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 732–745, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Vadillo, F. Carrasco, B. Andreo, A. García de Torres, and C. Bosch, “Chemical composition of landfill leachate in a karst area with a Mediterranean climate (Marbella, southern Spain),” Environmental Geology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 326–332, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Oni, A. T. Hassan, and P. Li, “Physicochemical characterization of an artificial pond receiving leachate influx at Aba-Eku dumpsite, Ibadan, Nigeria,” UNED Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–54, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ministry of Industrial and Commercial Development (MINDIC), “Cameroonian norm NC 207:2003-02,” in Drinkable Water, Department of Industrial Development, Unit of Standards and Quality, Ministry of Industrial and Commercial Development (MINDIC), Moldova, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
European Union (EU), “Directive 98/83/EC, Council Directive of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption,” Official Journal of the European Union L, vol. 330, p. 32, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
D. M. Han, X. X. Tong, M. G. Jin, C. S. Hepburn, and X. F. Song, “Evaluation of organic contamination in urban groundwater surrounding a municipal landfill, Zhoukou, China,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 185, no. 4, pp. 3413–3444, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. K. Singh, M. Kumar, R. Chauhan, A. Jha, and V. Subramanian, “Assessment of the impact of landfill on groundwater quality: a case study of the Pirana site in Western India,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 141, no. 1–3, pp. 309–321, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Health risk of ammonium released from water filters,” European Food Safety Authority Journal, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 2918, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. R. Pujari and V. Deshpande, “Source apportionment of groundwater pollution around landfill site in Nagpur, India,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 111, no. 1–3, pp. 43–54, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Clark and P. Fritz, Environmental Isotopes in Hydrology, Lewis & Co., Boca Raton, NY, USA, 1997.
A. M. Piper, “A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses,” Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 914–928, 1944.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. F. de Winter, “Using the Student’s t-test with extremely small sample sizes,” Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1–12, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. van der Aa, “Classification of mineral water types and comparison with drinking water standards,” Environmental Geology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 554–563, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Crittenden, R. R. Trussell, D. W. Hand, K. J. Howe, and G. Tchobanoglous, Water Treatment: Principles and Design, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2005.
C. Chatterjee and M. Raziuddin, “Determination of water quality index (WQI) of a degraded river in Asansol industrial area (West Bengal),” Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 181–189, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Chen, H. Wu, and H. Qian, “Groundwater nitrate contamination and associated health risk for the rural communities in an agricultural area of Ningxia, Northwest China,” Exposure and Health, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 349–359, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Richards, Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soil, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 1954.
R. S. Ayers and D. W. Westcot, Water Quality for Agriculture, vol. 29, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 1985.
M. B. Pescod, Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture, FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Rome, Italy, 1992.
S. F. Higgins, C. T. Agouridis, and A. A. Gumbert, Drinking Water Quality Guidelines for Cattle, UK Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Lexington, KY, USA, 2008.

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Gilbert Feuyit et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2463

Downloads

1112

Citations