Along with ammonia, leachate contains toxins such as mercury due to the presence of hazardous materials in landfills. Emissions from landfills pose a threat to the health of those who live and work around landfills. Large landfills, on average, decrease the value of the land adjacent to it by Smaller landfills depress land values less, with around a 2. Minority and low-income areas are more likely to find themselves home to landfills and hazardous waste sites.
These areas have fewer resources to oppose the placement of these facilities. This makes them an easier target for landfill placement than higher income areas. Every year the amount of waste that avoids the landfill increases due to recycling.
Continuing to recycle will keep plastic and other materials out of the biosphere and put them to further use! Avoid single-use plastics. Check out this article on single-use plastics and how to avoid them from the CU Zero Waste team here.
Landfills lack the oxygen that compostable items need to fully decompose. By putting biodegradable items into the compost instead of the trash, huge amounts of waste can avoid the landfill. Bouvier et al. Vrijheid [ 32 ] identified that some components of landfill gas LFG like hydrogen sulphide are key contributors to odour emanating from a landfill site. Air pollution and bad odour are as a result of poor management of the landfill by landfill operators like proper compression of waste deposited in the landfill and lack of collection and utilisation of LFG emissions.
However, the pungent odour and air pollution can be minimised by a proper daily covering of solid waste immediately when it is deposited in the landfill; the use of a diluting agent which suppresses bad odour from the landfill; and the collection and utilisation of the LFG emitted from the landfill.
The electronic nose technique analysis by Xiangzhong [ 44 ] showed that the odour emanating from the landfill and its boundaries were similar to the odour experienced from waste sludge, residential waste and construction waste. Cross-tabulation between the duration participants lived in the CL community and the seriousness of air pollution and bad odour. Sakawi et al.
In addition, The study indicates that the peak of malodour is experienced at night forcing residents to close windows and doors, thus not enjoying cross ventilation at home. Rainfall, wind direction, and intensity increased the intensity of odour emanating from the landfill. De Feo et al. The study showed that fewer residents living closer to the waste facility complained that the facility contributed to local degradation and odour.
However, the study showed that monetary compensation was given to the residents; this further influenced their perception towards odour effects from the landfill.
Additionally, in during the operating year of the waste facility, the residents complained heavily of rotten egg odour coming from the landfill and it was increasing as the years went by. However, in , after the closure of the waste facility residents did not complain of odour. In the context of this study, water pollution indicates the presence of polluted water in the community.
In addition, noise pollution indicates the level of noise in the community. Therefore, the tap water supplied to both communities could be from a different source and not from the groundwater close to the landfill.
Cross-tabulation of water and noise pollution with the duration of residents living closer to the landfill site was used to analyse the perceptions of participants who lived in different years in the CL community and how their perceptions influence the results. The cross-tabulation between the years the participants lived and water pollution shows that most participants for all age groups indicated that water pollution is not a regular problem encountered by them Figure 6.
Studies have shown that it is inevitable for landfills not to contaminate groundwater, as leachate percolates into groundwater through cracks of membranes for sanitary landfills and contaminates it, because of high bacteria content [ 6 , 7 , 11 , 32 , 45 ]. This study did not carry out laboratory analysis of groundwater in the area, however, the source of drinking water in the vicinity was provided by the Municipality.
Cross-tabulation between the duration participants lived in the CL community and the seriousness of water pollution. Noise can be generated from different sources and not necessarily from the landfill.
Although, it is quite impossible not to notice the heavy trucks and bulldozers in a landfill, the Thohoyandou landfill lacks the adequate number of bulldozers and heavy trucks in the landfill due to lack of funds.
On the day of our visit to the landfill, there were complaints about the bulldozers for daily covering of waste not functioning for several months. However, after some months when we went back to the landfill, some bulldozers were functioning.
In addition, incoming waste trucks contribute some noise pollution in the landfill but not enough to cause significant pollution to the nearby residents. Figure 7 indicates that most participants for all the age groups indicated that noise pollution is not a serious problem for them. This study is consistent with other studies that have been conducted [ 11 , 37 ]. Reichert et al. A study showed that during landfill operations that residents were a little concerned about noise pollution [ 11 ].
Cross-tabulation between the duration participants lived in the CL community and the seriousness of noise pollution. This shows the significance of dust particles in the atmosphere. Figure 8 shows cross tabulation between the duration the participants lived in the CL community and dust particles in the atmosphere.
All participants that lived less than one year and up to 5 years in the community indicated the emission of dust particles in the atmosphere is not a serious problem to them.
However, participants that lived long in the community from 6 years up to 20 years indicated dust percolation as a serious problem in the community. Thus, it takes time for participants to experience serious dust emissions in the atmosphere. Studies have shown that dust particles from landfills have been a major concern in communities [ 10 , 11 , 34 ].
Dust emissions from landfills can be controlled by the continuous spraying of water on the soil; fan-driven misting system; mixing of X-Hension pro with water and spray on the soil; dust destroyers; etc. The use of spraying of water on the ground and any other technique has not been adopted in the Thohoyandou landfill and is therefore recommended. Cross-tabulation between the duration participants lived in the CL community and the seriousness of dust pollution.
Table 2 thus summarizes that the participants in the CL community experienced serious environmental problems with respect to the disposal of solid waste, unwelcome location of the landfill and air pollution with odour.
Garbage and litter, and water and noise pollution were perceived not to be serious problems by the participants in the CL community. The participants in the AL community, however, showed lesser serious environmental problems compared to the participants in the CL community.
All the environmental problems highlighted were perceived not to be serious problems except noise pollution, garbage, and litter on the street which posed some problems to the participants in the AL community. The results show that more undesirable environmental conditions posed very serious problems for the participants in the CL community than the AL community.
Specifically, disposal of solid waste; unwelcome location of landfill; and air pollution with bad odour; were considered major threats. Table 2 shows that the differences were found to be statistically significant for all seven variables in both communities.
Comparison between both communities showing the seriousness of each landfill characteristics. Various studies have also shown that residents living closer to a landfill site are more prone to respiratory diseases as supported by this study [ 8 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Respiratory diseases and breathing disorders can be caused by bioaerosols and biological agents released from landfill sites [ 27 ]. Apart from biological agents and volatile organic compounds released from landfill sites, emissions from cars, trucks and bulldozers used in the landfill can also contribute to emissions from the landfill site [ 28 ].
Such emissions have been reported to be harmful to human health [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. It is also not surprising to note that respondents living far from the landfill site also recorded respiratory diseases which were commonly experienced.
Air pollution as a result of emissions from cars, biomass burning and bricks making are common anthropogenic activities in the study area and could be responsible for reported cases in the AL community. Brick making and biomass burning releases particulate matter PM 10 and PM 2.
A study on exposed traffic policemen to outdoor air pollution showed that the percentage of participants with a diagnosis of allergy was higher in the exposed traffic policemen than in the control [ 52 ]. Additionally, Heinrich and Wichmann [ 49 ] concluded that traffic related air pollutants can lead to mortality risk, particularly in relation to cardiopulmonary causes.
The result also agrees with previous studies which shows that breathing disorders, shortness of breath and respiratory diseases are major health problems associated with landfill emissions and have continued to increase over the years [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ].
Furthermore, illnesses like flu, eye irritation and weakness of the body were frequently reported by participants living closer to the landfill than participants living far from the landfill Table 3.
Most participants living far from the landfill indicated that they did not experience these illnesses very often. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a higher risk of most of these illnesses to be attributed to the landfill, but it is also imperative to know that these illnesses could also be contracted from various other sources.
Some illnesses recorded in this study like back pain, skin disorders, hearing impairments and asthma were indicated by most participants living closer to the landfill as not often experienced.
Likewise, most participants living far from the landfill did not experience these illnesses often, except for asthma. Studies have established that cancer is an illness experienced by people living closer to a landfill or waste dump [ 32 , 33 ]. Similarly, the Health Protection Agency [ 13 ], showed that in several epidemiological studies performed by different scholars showing the relationship of cancer and landfill sites, cancer was a relatively complex illness to identify because of inadequate evidence to back up the claim of increased risk of cancer to communities living closer to landfill sites.
Similarly, the review of Jarup et al. Table 3 thus showed that the participants living closer to the landfill site reported some illnesses more often than participants living far from the landfill site.
Figure 10 shows the graphical representation of the comparison of the frequency of reporting the selected illnesses in both communities. Seven out of 11 health problems were statistically significant, that is breathing disorders, flu, eye irritation, weakness of the body, back pain, coughing and tuberculosis, and asthma. This study highlights eight disturbing characteristics, which are commonly associated with landfill sites.
The participants were asked to rate the landfill characteristics based on a scale of 1 disturbing, 2 fairly disturbing or 3 not disturbing to the participants living in both communities as shown in Table 4. Fear of future health indicates the anticipated health issues that will arise in the future based on the current effects. This result could be attributed to the physical presence of the landfill, odour and possible fear of accumulated intake of gaseous emissions from the landfill.
Similarly, Adeola [ 33 ] made a comparison of participants living closer to a landfill and far from a landfill concerning how they feared their health in the future. The study concluded that more participants living closer to the landfill site feared for their health in the future than participants living far from the landfill site. The viability of properties in the area was also assessed.
The respondents targeted to give their views concerning property sales were mainly house owners, tenants and elderly participants that had lived in both communities for a long time. Adeola [ 33 ], in a study, experienced that participants living closer to the landfill site could not sell the property as much as participants living far from the landfill site.
Property buyers could be sceptical on the purchase because of close proximity of the property to the landfill site. Participants living far from the landfill felt their external factors were not disturbing to them except for landfill stigmatisation.
However, these communities are still developing and might still lack some desirable businesses and poor rent for properties. Rodents and mosquitoes were indicated to be more prevalent with participants living closer to the landfill than participants living far from the landfill.
Therefore, some participants close the doors and windows of their houses regularly to avoid mosquitoes and rodents.
Thus, the participants living closer to the landfill site rated all the external landfill characteristics mostly as disturbing to them. However, the participants living far from the landfill site ranked most of the external landfill characteristics as not disturbing to them. The overall results show that the CL community was more disturbed by the external landfill characteristics than the AL community.
Studies have shown that the presence of landfill in close proximity to properties reduces the values of these properties [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 58 ]. Seok Lim and Missios [ 59 ] indicated that the introduction of larger landfills has more impacts on property value than smaller landfills. However, according to Bouvier et al. If the buyers are not concerned about the effect of the landfill and only interested in the property, then they may pay a substantial amount for the property. Comparison between both communities showing how disturbing these external factors were to them.
The CL community rated the landfill characteristics more disturbing than the AL community. Appendix C shows the differences were found to be statistically significant for all the external landfill characteristics. The participants were asked to rank the life satisfaction characteristics of living closer to a landfill and not living close to a landfill from the scale of 1 satisfied, 2 somewhat satisfied or 3 not satisfied as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 also shows the t -test analysis which was performed to understand the significant differences between both communities Appendix D. The results show that the participants living closer to the landfill site are less satisfied with the variables posed in this study than the participants living far from the landfill site. The results show that the differences between the two communities were found to be statistically significant for five out of seven variables, that is for life in general; personal health condition; neighbourhood compared to others; community as a place to live in and perceived neighbourhood change.
Palmiotto et al. In addition, children living closer to landfills experience increased methane and methanobrevibacter smithii in their intestinal microbiota which caused serious health challenges and unrest in the community [ 60 ].
The study conducted in Nant-y-Gwyddeon landfill in South Wales showed that residents living in close proximity to landfill complain of odour and increased rate of congenital malformation [ 61 ]. The study on health and environmental impacts of landfill sites on humans has generated mixed reactions among scholars, therefore, constitutes a complex study.
This study concludes that the residents living closer to the landfill sites are at higher health and environmental risks when compared to those living far away from the landfill sites. However, the landfill associated problems have helped the community living closer to the landfill to be more conscious and educated on environmental pollution. The health risk associated with landfill pollutants in this study shows that proper landfill management is very essential. Landfills should be located far away from residential houses and institutions to avoid certain health and environmental related risks.
Independent samples test on most reported illnesses encountered by the participants in both communities. Independent samples test on external characteristics observed by the participants living in both communities.
Conceptualization: P. Editing: J. E, Funding acquisition: J. Writing of final draft: P. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Published online Jun Prince O. Edokpayi , 2 and John O. Odiyo 2. Joshua N. Find articles by Joshua N. John O. Find articles by John O. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Received Apr 9; Accepted May This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract The by-products of solid waste deposited in a landfill has adverse effects on the surrounding environment and humans living closer to landfill sites. Keywords: environmental risk, landfill site, perception, public health, waste disposal. Materials and Methods Thohoyandou landfill is situated very close to the residential areas at approximately m away. Open in a separate window.
Figure 1. Results and Discussion The social and demographic characteristics of the respondents were identified to understand the social and economic characteristics between the two communities. Table 1 Social and demographic characteristics of respondents. Disposal of Solid Waste This indicates the rate of disposition of solid waste in the landfill and considering how serious disposal of Municipal Solid Waste MSW activities influence the state and wellness of the people.
Figure 2. Figure 3. Unwelcome Location of the Landfill This indicates the suitability and acceptance of the landfill site by the participants from the community.
Figure 4. Air Pollution and Bad Odour Air pollution and bad odour have been found by many scholars to be synonymous to landfill operations. Figure 5. Water and Noise Pollution In the context of this study, water pollution indicates the presence of polluted water in the community. Figure 6. Figure 7.
Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure Comparison between both communities showing how frequent the illnesses impact them. Many materials that end up as waste contain toxic substances. Electronic waste is an example. Waste such as televisions, computers and other electronic appliances contain a long list of hazardous substances, including mercury, arsenic, cadmium, PVC, solvents, acids and lead.
Over time, these toxins leach into our soil and groundwater, and become environmental hazards for years. Leachate is the liquid formed when waste breaks down in the landfill and water filters through that waste. This liquid is highly toxic and can pollute land, ground water and water ways. Landfill contains vast quantities of substances that are harmful to the environment.
Plastics such as PVC and other materials leach toxic chemicals as they break down. E-waste is the fastest growing waste segment in the developed world. Electronic waste is loaded with heavy metals, solvents, and acids. It takes a year or more to fill each landfill cell, during which time the contents are naturally exposed to rainfall. Rainwater filtering through the landfill dissolves and flushes percent of the toxins with it to create a foul smelling liquor, known as leachate, which contains ammonia and various toxic salts.
Depending on rainfall, a single landfill site can easily produce several Olympic sized swimming pools of leachate each year. Leachate is carefully collected and recirculated into the landfill cells to prevent contamination of land, groundwater and waterways. Some leachate is reabsorbed when passed back into landfill, but the rest filters through again, picking up more toxins with each pass. When organic material such as food scraps and green waste is put in landfill, it is generally compacted down and covered.
This removes the oxygen and causes it to break down in an anaerobic process. Eventually this releases methane, a greenhouse gas that is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Methane is also a flammable gas that can become dangerous if allowed to build up in concentration. The implications for global warming and climate change are enormous. Composting your food scraps and green waste in a compost bin can eliminate many of these problems.
And when it comes to moving the needle on greenhouse gas emissions, what really counts is what happens over the next 10 — 20 years. So how much methane is produced by a typical landfill site? A huge amount. In fact, enough to fuel a power station. For example, a landfill that serves a population of half a million, generates nearly 1. When burned, methane produces carbon dioxide — just like oil and coal.
Landfill meets a critical infrastructure need — to deal with the residual waste produced by businesses and households. This waste is expected to grow as the population increases, and with current consumer behaviours.
Even with improved recycling rates, there is still general waste anything that cannot be recycled to be managed safely and effectively. At some level, most of us agree we should try to avoid, or at least reduce rubbish that we send to landfills. The word landfill conjures up images of vast, foul smelling open tips, strewn with garbage, teeming with scavenger birds and flies. Let alone the pollution, and problems to wildlife and nature that come with landfills, which is becoming a more talked about subject.
Learn more on this here. Living a zero-waste lifestyle means you strive to use as little single-use plastic as possible, instead opting for sustainable and reusable alternatives. In short, it means you send as little as possible to landfills. Replacing as much as possible with reusable products includes everything from food and drink packaging, to hygiene products, to clothing, either more sustainable or plastic free, which will help protect the environment, benefit communities and support a circular economy.
At Unisan, we love helping workplaces dramatically increase their recycling rates and manage waste better, in order to send less waste to landfill and become more sustainable. Setting up an effective recycling station can make all the difference. We believe this enables people to do the right thing and allow companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and the environment.
Find out more here on how we help transform companies environmental commitments for the better, or call us on for expert advice on how your business can move further towards zero waste! We have a fantastic range of recycling and waste bins, whether for offices, schools, universities, reception areas, break out or canteen areas, or even for back of house, such as warehouses and distribution areas. Click here to see our range.
Click here for inspiration.
0コメント