4.7 Article

Multivariate analysis of the effects of age, particle size and landfill depth on heavy metals pollution content of closed and active landfill precursors

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 78, Issue -, Pages 227-237

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.040

Keywords

Landfill precursor; Pollution index; Particle size; Heavy metals; Human health risk; Landfill

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multivariate analysis of a heavy metal pollution survey of closed and active landfill precursors was carried out in order to compare environmental risk levels in relation to age, particle size and depth of the precursors. Landfill precursors (77) were collected and analyzed for 15 USEPA toxic heavy metals using ICP-MS. Heavy metals concentrations in closed landfill precursors were significantly higher than those in the active landfill for 11 of 15 heavy metals investigated (closed landfill order: Fe > Al > Mn > Cu > Pb > Ba > Co > Cr > Ni > Cd > As > Se > Ti). Cluster analysis and correlation studies indicated the distribution of the metals was more influenced by landfill precursor size than by depth of the sample. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that 10 of 15 of heavy metals of both landfill precursors were from similar anthropogenic sources. Heavy metals pollution indices (I-geo > 5, EF > 40 and CF > 7) of both active and closed landfill precursors exceeded limits in the order of Zn > Cd > Pb > Cu > Ag, indicating a major potential health risk influenced by age and particle size of precursor. Zn, Cd, Cu and Pb of both landfill precursors exceeded the USEPA set standard for assessment of human health risk for each of the metals (1 x 10(-4) to 1 x 10(-3)). This study highlights the need for the integration of a clean-up process for precursors from both types of landfill to reduce possible environmental pollution during a reuse process. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available