research paper on sewage treatment and its consequences

kkkkk

1. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences
ISSN 0973-6077 Volume 12, Number 11 (2017), pp. 1969-199
1
© Research India Publications
https://dx.doi.org/10.37622/IJAES/12.11.2017.1969-1991



Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary
Landfill Sites – A Case Study on The Ghazipur
Landfill Site, Delhi (India)

Puneet Babbar
1
,
Swatantra Verma
2
, Gauhar Mehmood
3
1, 3
Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.
2
Environment Lab, Ghazipur Waste to Energy Facility, East Delhi, India.

Abstr
act
The presence of dumping grounds in highly urbanized environment directly
results into health hazards for the people residing in the surrounding areas. In
the past years, these open dumps have become a threat to the local
hydrogeology. Groundwater contamination is one of the major problems
associated with these open dumps. The Ghazipur landfill site is also a non-
sa
nitary dumpsite site located in the eastern part of Delhi, India. The site is
surr
ounded by densely populated residences and some of Delhi’s largest
commercial raw food supply chains for dairy & poultry products, fish & meat
supplies
, fruit & vegetable items, etc. It is a matter of fact from various studies
that penetration of the leachate in to the sub-soil strata at Ghazipur is taking
place for a considerable time period. At the same time, the lack of
infrastructure for basic facilities like drinking water has increased the
dependency of the nearby inhabitants on the ground water leading to a high
health risk. Considering the fact of a high yield potential of the area and
dependency of a large number of inhabitants on groundwater resources, there
is a need to map the leachate contamination by carrying out hydrogeological
investigations coupled with chemical analysis to identify the locations and
suitable depths for tapping the safe groundwater supplies. However, in a broad
manner, the present site cannot be considered suitable for dumping of solid
waste.
Keywords: Ground Water Pollution, Municipal Solid Waste Management,
Leachate, Dumpsites, Well Logging, Geo-Physical Resistivity, Correlation
Ana
lysis

2. 1970
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

1. INTRODUCTION
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), in India, is disposed of in low-lying areas resulting in
Open Dumps (hypothetically called as Landfill sites) without taking any precautions
or operational controls. This unscientific disposal of municipal waste causes an
adverse impact on all components of the environment and human health (Rathi,
2006; Sharholy et al., 2005; Ray et al., 200 5; Jha et al., 2003; Kansal, 2002;
Kansal et al., 1998; Singh and Singh, 1998; Gupta et al., 1998). Especially,
contamination of the groundwater resources from these open dumps is a critical study
area for the researchers and scientists across the globe. The waste placed in landfills
or open dumps gradually release its initial interstitial water and some of its
decomposition by-products percolates into ground water moving through the waste
deposits. Such liquid containing innumerable organic and inorganic compounds is
called ‘leachate’. Leachate
is generated through the moisture content of
biodegradable fraction of MSW and contain a number of toxic chemical compounds
which can directly penetrate the underground strata in absence of any lining and effect
the ground water quality. The impact of landfill leachate on the surface and
groundwater has given rise to a number of studies in recent years (Saarela, 2003;
Abu-Rukah and Kofahi, 2001; Looser et al., 1999; Christensen et al., 1998; De
Rosa et al., 1996; Flyhammar, 1995).
In the present study, effect of
leachate percolation on the ground water from a non
-
sanitary landfill site of Ghazipur has been studied. The dumpsite is surrounded by
densely populated surroundings in a radius of merely 1 km and holds a very close
proximity from various commercial food-chain markets like poultry, fish, dairy farms,
etc.

The water facilities in the area is partially available by municipal agencies and as
a result nearby inhabitants are largely depends upon ground water to supplement daily
water requirement. This makes the basis of the present study, where efforts have been
made: (i)
to
know the extent of contamination by carrying out chemical analysis of the
ground water samples; and (ii) to locate/demarcate the contaminated and
uncontaminated strata by carrying out hydrogeological explorations in the study area.
Concentration of various critical parameters such as TDS, TH, TA, Nitrates,
Ammonia, Chlorides, Iron, etc. found to be high in the surrounding areas, which
clearly determines that the leachate has significantly affected the ground water quality.
The results are also supported by the depth-concentration analysis curves. However,
aerial depth demarcation and movement of pollutant plume is highly unpredictable
and just cannot be completely deciphered based on the hydro-geochemical studies,
rather it will give an broad indication at macro level for adopting preventive and
control measures.

3. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1971


1.1 Study A
rea
The location map of the study area is shown in Fig 1 below:

Figure 1: Image showing the location of study area in Delhi Region Zonal Map

The Ghazipur Landfill site was started in 1984 and falls under the Shahadra block. It
is located near National Highway 24, adjacent to the Ghazipur crossing, in the East
Delhi. The Landfill receives on an average of 2200-2500 MT of waste from the total
64 wards under two zones, North Shahdara Zone and the South Shahdara Zone of
East Delhi area. It spreads over an area of approximately 29.62 hectares and receives
on an average of 2200 MT of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) daily. The height of the
waste dump has reached to a level of 40 m with the accumulation of approximately 5
million cubic meter of waste volume, which consists of a significant fraction of
biodegradable components with high moisture content (EDMC, Report 2008).
According to a research study conducted by IIT Delhi, average annual leachate
percolation from the base of Ghazipur landfill site has been estimated as 24.36 million
litres, using a Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance model (HELP). In the
peak rainy season (month of July), generation of surface run-off even reaches to a
level of 1.39 million litres per day. The underground strata around the study area
consists of alluvial formation and the basement or hard rock occurs at greater depth
around 100 m below ground level (bgl). Another study on the assessment of
groundwater potential reveals moderately high concentrations of Cl¯, NO3¯, SO42¯,
NH4+, Phenol, Fe, Zn and COD in groundwater, likely indicate that groundwater
quality is being significantly affected by leachate percolation (Suman Mor, Khaiwal
Ravindra, R. P. Dahiya and A. Chandra, 2006)
The area around Landfill site is underlain by fine to medium sand mixed with coarse
hard kankar up to a depth of 50-60 m bgl. Sediments below this depth are
predominantly clayey in nature. At place, lenses of minor clayey silt horizons are also

4. 1972
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

present within the sand horizon (JNU, Report 2006). As per the CGWB data, the
entire catchment area around the dumpsite has very high ground water potential.
Recent data, shown in table 1.1 below, with respect to stage of ground water
development also indicates a high amount of with drawl against the recharge in the
Ghazipur catchment (CGWB, Report 2005).

Table
-1.1: Ground Water Levels in entire Ghazipur Area for 2012-13
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 14.21 - - - 15.74 - - 16.38 - - 16.89 -
2013 17.02 - - - 17.66 - - 17.78 - - 17.81 -

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Geo
-Physical Resistivity Logging of a Test Borehole
The aquifers can serve as the storage units for the leachate contaminated water. At the
same time, if they are confined or even deep unconfined aquifers with a clayey
strata/layer on the top, there are the possibilities that the leachate would not have been
reached the strata. To study this aspect, geophysical logging activities were carried
out in an exploratory well adjacent to the landfill. The geophysical investigations
gives an idea about the condition of the soil strata and possibly productive horizons. It
also suggests the proper depth of ground water with drawl. Essentially, it is the
recording, in uncased (or, recently, even cased) sections of a borehole, of the
resistivities (or their reciprocals, the conductivities) of the subsurface formations,
generally along with the spontaneous potentials (SPs) generated in the borehole.


Figure 2: Photographs of the logging instrument and wired probe
Source: Central Ground Water Board, 2005

5. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1973


2.2 Sampling Locations
Ground Water sampling locations are shown in the Fig.3 below on a digitized map of
the Ghazipur landfill catchment area. The digitization of the study area was done
using the Auto-Cad software. The topographical map from the Survey of India (No.
H43 –
X/6) was used as the raw imagery. In support of
the exact demarcations, a few
high resolution google satellite imagery were also used. The circular marked ( )
locations shows the sampling points where the physical sampling were carried out to
ascertain the ground water quality with respect to possible contamination.


Figure
3: Ground water sampling locations marked on a digitized map

Table 1.2 below shows the hydrogeological details of the ground water sampling
structures around the Ghazipur landfill site.




Fruit &Veg.
Market
Poultry
Mkt.
Fish Mkt
WtE
Site
Dairy
Farms
DDA
Flats
Khichri
Pur
Kalyanpuri
Kondli
Kondli
Extn.
Gharoli
Khora
Slaughter
House
Uttar Pradesh
Landfill
Dairy
Farms

6. 1974
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood



Table 1.2:
Hydrogeological details of sampling structures and geographical location
S.
No
Locations Source Type
of
Sample
No. of
Sample
Geo-coordinates Distance
from
Site
(km)
Depth of
structure
(mtrs)
Latitude
(N)
Longitude
(E)

1 WtE
Project
Site
Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’20.4’’ 77
O
19’24.5’’ 0.20 36
2 DDA Flats Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’23.5’’ 77
O
19’14.1’’ 1 40
3 Dairy
Farms
Block-B
Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’17.1’’ 77
O
19’22.1’’ 0.30 37
4 Dairy
Farms
Block-D
Handpump GW 1 28
O
37’30.6’’ 77
O
19’30.4’’ 0.20 9
5 Khichripur
Block-5
Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’08.9’’ 77
O
19’07.0’’ 2.20 46
6 Ghazipur
Village
Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’50.7’’ 77
O
19’11.1’’ 2 36
7 Poultry
Market
Borewell GW 1 28
O
37’39.5’’ 77
O
19’47.8’’ 0.8 37
8 Gharoli
Village,
Handpump GW 1 28
O
37’20.2’’ 77
O
19’48.2’’ 0.7 9

2
.3 Analytical Methods
After decided sampling location the sample were collected immediately from the sites
and stored
in a freezer at 4
o
C for analysis. The analysis was
also started immediately
at once according to method describe in APHA 22
nd
edition 2012, because some
parameter characteristic would have been changed
after 12 hours, like example
pH.
All collected samples were analyzed for selected parameters based on selected
method as given in Table 1.3 below. Various physio
-chemical
and bacteriological
parameters like pH, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Total Hardness (TH), Chloride (Cl
-
),
Fluoride (F
-
), Calcium (Ca
2+
), Magnesium (Mg
2+
), Sulphate (SO4
2-
), Nitrate(NO3
-
),
Total Ammonia as N, Total Iron, Phenolic compound, Total Alkalinity, MPN and

7. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1975


E.Coli were tested
. The pH was determined
through pH Meter (Digital pH Meter
Type: MK-VI). TDS was estimated by Gravimetric method (Oven-drying Method)
with the help of APHA 2540-C method. TH, Calcium, magnesium and Chloride were
estimated by titrimetric method. Fluoride by SPADNS method, Nitrate by APHA
4500-B ultraviolet Spectrophotometric screening method, Sulphate by Turbidimetric
method and Ammonia were estimated by Phenete method. Phenol were also
determine by direct photometric method. All spectrophotometric parameters were
analyzed by Perkin-Elmer UV/VIS Lambda 2 Spectrophotometer. MPN and E.Coli
were estimated by membrane filtration technique. All the analysis were carried out in
triplicate and the result were found reproducible within 5% error.
Table 1.3: Testing parameters and standard methods for analysis
S.No Parameters Methods Protocol IS: Limits
A) Physical Parameters
1 pH pH Meter IS:3025 Pt. 11 6.5-8.5
2 Total Dissolved Solid Gravimetric IS:3025 Pt. 16 500, Max(2000)
B) General Parameters
3 Total hardness (as CaCo3) By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 21 200, Max(600)
4 Chloride By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 32 250, Max(1000)
5 Fluoride Colorimetric APHA 4500 F

- D 1 Max
6 Calcium By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 40 75, Max(200)
7 Magnesium By Calculation IS:3025 Pt. 46 30, Max(100)
8 Sulphate Turbidimetric IS:3025 Pt. 24 200 Max
9 Nitrate Colorimetric IS:3025 Pt. 34 45 Max
10 Total Ammonia (as N) By Distillation IS:3025 Pt. 34 0.5 Max
11 Iron Colorimetric APHA 3500 B 0.3 Max
12 Phenolic Compound By Calculation IS:3025 Pt. 43 0.001 Max
13 Total Alkalinity(as CaCo3) By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 23 200, Max (600)
C) Bacteriological Parameters
14 MPN Coliform / 100 ml Most Probable
No.
IS 1622 10 C/100 ml
15 E.Coli Enrichment &
biochemical test
IS 1622 Absent

8. 1976
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3
.1 Logging Results
Based on the interpretation of the Logging, the following litho logy, shown in Table-
1.4, was inferred,
which allies fairly well with the well-site litho-log based on mud
-
wash samples.
The litholog inferred also broadly tallies with that of the well-site litho
-
log.

Table 1.4: Results of the Lithology carried out near the landfill Site
Depth (in metres) Litholog Quality
0 – 4 Surface soil
4 – 7 Sandy clay
7 – 20 Fine sand
20 – 23 Clay
23 – 29 Fine sand
29 – 32 Clay
32 – 46* Fine sand Good
46 – 49 Clay
49 – 58* Fine sand Good
58 – 63 Fine sand Saline
63 – 70 Clay
70 – 76 Fine sand Saline

Fig.
4 below shows the logging curve made on the basis of resistivity and spontaneous
potential (SP) readings. Resistivity values are lower, where there is the availability of
fresh water aquifer.

9. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1977



Figure 4: SP and resistivity (N-16) Curves for the Logging carried out at the
Ghazipur Site

10. 1978
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

3
.2 Groundwater Chemistry
The ground water of the study area is being used for drinking, domestic and other
purposes. Table 1.5
shows the analyzed values at different sampling locations, viz-a
-
viz maximum permissible limit recommended by IS: 10500 of BIS (2012). The pH
range measured between 7.0 to 7.5. TDS indicate the general nature of water quality.
The range of TDS at all sites fall in between 510 to 3205 mg/L. Maximum TDS was
found at the site Dairy form Block-D and minimum TDS was found at Khichripur
Colony. The concentration of Total Hardness in ground water ranges from 112 to
1550 mg/l.
Total Hardness is normally expressed as the total concentration
of
Calcium and Magnesium in mg/l equivalent CaCO3.

The total alkalinity was found to
be in the range of 120 to 590 mg/l in ground water samples, which are caused mainly
due to OH
-
, CO3
-
, HCO3
-
ions. The value of chloride obtained 90 to 1364 mg/l
against the standard values 250 mg/l. Department of National Health and Welfare,
Canada reported that chloride in ground water may result from both natural and
anthropogenic sources such as run-off containing salts, the use of inorganic fertilizers,
landfill leachates, septic tank effluents, animal feeds, industrial effluents, irrigation
drainage and seawater intrusion in coastal areas. Chloride is not harmful to human at
low concentration but could alter the taste of water. The concentration of nitrate was
found in water sample up to 57 mg/l. Although only one sample no. 8 exceeds the
permissible limit but it shows a moderately high concentration. Jawad et al, 1998
have also reported increase in nitrate concentration in ground water due to waste
water dumped at the disposal site and likely indicate the impact of leachate. The
concentration of fluoride in the studied water samples ranged from 0.03 to 1.2 mg/l.
The concentration of fluoride at low concentration in ground water has been
considered beneficial but high concentration may causes dental fluorosis (tooth
mottling) and more seriously skeletal fluorosis. Only one sample no. 8 exceeds the
permissible limit but it shows a moderately high concentration. Concentration of
sulfate in water sample ranged from 70 mg/l to 575 mg/l. The ammonia (NH4
+
)
concentration in the samples varies from not detectable range to 0.67 mg/l and likely
indicates its origin from leachate of MSW. The quality of ground water pollution can
also be indicated by microbial contamination. In the present analyses, it is found that
sample no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were contaminated by microbes, which is very dangerous
for human health.

11. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1979


Table 1.5: Ground water analysis results for various sampling locations


3
.3 Graphical Analysis of the Results

12. 1980
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

13. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1981

14. 1982
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

15. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1983

16. 1984
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood



3
.4 Effect of Depth and Distance
It was aimed to form depth –
concentration curves for some critical types of pollution
indicators (TDS, TH and TA) b
ased on the “Correlation Analysis”. The Correlat ion
Analysis is a p
reliminary descriptive technique to estimate the d egree of association
among the v
ariables involved. The purpose of the correlation analysis is to measure
the intensity of associ
ation observed between two variables. Such association is
likely to lead to reasoning about causal relationship between the variab
les. The
correlation matrix b
etween various parameters is shown in Table - 1.6 below.
Table 1.6:
Correlation matrix for different water quality parameters

17. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1985


Most of the p
arameters were found to b ear statistically significant correlation with
each other indicating close associ
ation of these parameter with each other. For
example, TDS had
a strong correlation with a number of parameters like TH,
Mg
2+
,
Cl
-
, SO4
2-
, Na
+
, and K
+
indicates the high mobility of these ions. Thus
the single parameter of TDS can give a reasonab
le good indication of a number of
p
arameters (Ravindra et al., 2003). Total h ardness was found to be positiv ely
correlated with
Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Cl
-
, SO4, Na
+
and K
+
. Mg
2
+
found to be negativ
ely
correlat
ed with B, but positively correlated with SO4
2
-
,
Na
+
and K
+
. An excellent
correlation v
alue of Na
+
with Cl
-
and SO4
2
-
ind
icate that the main water type in the
sample is Na-Cl and Na-SO4.
With the help of data generated from ground water chemistry results and the geo-
physical investigations, concentration of critical indicators were analyzed in Fig. 5
below for varying depth and distance from the
landfill site. The extent of
contaminatio
n of groundwater quality due to leachate percolation depends upon a
number of factors like leach
ate composition, rainfall, depth and distance of the well
from the pollution source (landfill site in the present case).
Interestingly in present
case, the water contamination drops fast with above 40 m and further percolation of
leachate becomes gentler. Similarly when the water quality of the wells situated at
different distances from the landfill site but h
aving the same d epth was compared,
water sample from the well situ
ated close to the landfill site was foun d to be
more contaminat
ed than that of the well situated farther away. It obviously follows
from the fact that the gravitation
al movement of the viscous fluid, leachate, is
hindered
due to the mass of the solid soil matter. With time the viscous fluid will
p
enetrate deeper and spread all over a longer distance.

Figure
5: Depth and concentration analysis curves for critical GW quality indicators

18. 1986
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Strictly speaking one should avoid using groundwater drawn from the wells located in
proximity of the waste dumping sites. If this is unavoidable, deeper drilling (below
40 m) and frequent analysis of water samples are desirable. Efforts should be made to
supply clean water through pipelines from distant sources. Further investigations by
drilling more wells of varying depths is also necessary for having a proper correlation
between time and percolation depth.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The ch
aracteristics of the ground water samples collected around the Ghazipur
landfill site h
as clearly shown an indication of the contamination. Moderately h igh
concentration of TDS, Cl
-
,
SO
2+
, NO3
-
, NH4
+
, TH, TA and Fe etc. were observed in
ground
water s a m p l e s , which deteriorates its qu ality for drinking and other
domestic purpo
ses. Especially, presence of Cl
-
, NO3
-
, NH4
+
and Fe may be referred
as a tracer of contamination in the ground water. The pH v
alue of the collected
sample was found to be in the range of 7.5 -8.5.
The relatively high values TDS
indicates the presence of inorganic material in the samples.
Among the nitrogenous
compound, ammonia nitrogen
was present in high concentration, this is p robably due
to the d
eamination of amino acids during the decomposition of organic compounds
(Cra
wford and Smith, 1985; Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002). High concentrations of
NO3
-
were also observed in some samples. The h
igh level of Fe in the ground water
sample indicates that iron and steel scrap are also dumped
in the landfill. The dark
b
rown color of the leachate is main ly attributed to the oxidation of ferrous to ferric
form and the formation of ferric hydroxide colloids and
complexes with fulvic/ humic
substan
ce (Chu, et. a l., 1994). The samples were also found to be b acteriologically
unsafe.
Further, as per the logging results, fresh water aquifer is available within
the range of 32 – 58 meters. The groundwater quality imp
roves with the increase in
d
epth and distance of the well from the pollution source. At greater depths (more than
40 m), it was found that leachate percolation becomes gentler and this further
improves with the varying distance. This shows the strata b/w 40-60 m is presently
safe for ground water withdrawal. It was also observed that leachate percolation
usually concentrates in West and North-western sides along with a high
concentration of a few parameters on eastern side.
From the above deliberations, it is clearly evident that the leachate generated from
the landfill site is affecting the ground
water quality in the adjacent areas through
p
ercolation in the subsoil. Although, the concentrations of a few contaminants were
not found to exceed
the limits, even then the ground water quality represent a
significant threat to public h
ealth. Therefore, some remedial measures are required to
p
revent further contamination. This can be achieved by the management of the

19. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1987


leach
ate generated within the landfill. Leach ate management can be achieved through
effective con
trol of leachate generation, its treatment and subsequent recycling
throughout the waste. Landfill should also be provided with proper lining and
collection system for the leachate. The MSW amount is expected to increase
significantly in the near future as the country strives to attain an industrialized nation
status in the coming years (Sharma and Shah, 2005; CPCB, 2004; Shekdar et al.,
1992). Therefore, establishing proper MSW management systems is very critical at all
levels of control. The presence of residential establishments and commercial markets
around the landfill area also shows an incompatible land use planning and govt.
should take the steps for the relocation of these market places and provide piped
supply in the residential areas. Till then the ground water should be used for potable
purposes only
after appropriate treatment.

5. REFERENCES
[1] Abu- Rukah, Y. and O. Al- Kofahi, 2001. The assessment of the effect of
landfill leachate on ground-water quality—a case study. El-Akader landfill
site—
north Jordan, Arid Environ. 49, 615-630.
[2] Ahsan, N., 1999. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian
Journal o
f Environmental Protection 19 (2), 90– 95.
[3] AIT/UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010.
MSW management report: “Status-quo and Issues in Southeast and East Asian
Countries.
[4] Anupam Khajuria, Yugo Yamamoto and Tohru Morioka. Estimation of
municipal solid waste generation and landfill area in Asian developing
countries, Journal of Environmental Biology. September 2010, 31(5) 649-654
(2010)
[5] Application of Isotopic Techniques in Groundwater Contamination Studies in
selected Landfill sites in Delhi, 2005.
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB),
New Delhi.
[6] Bhatnagar, N.C. & Gupta, Sushil, 1989: Hydrogeological conditions and ground
water development potential of Union Territory of Delhi. Central Ground Water
Board
[7] Bhatnagar, N.C. & Firozuddin T.G. 1979: Hydrogeological conditions and
Possibilities of further ground water development in the Union Territory of
Delhi. Central Ground Water Board
[8] Bharat Jhamnani and SK Singh (2009), Groundwater Contamination due to
Bhalaswa Landfill Site in New Delhi in International Journal of Civil and

20. 1988
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Environmental Engineering 1:3 2009
[9] Bhide, A.D., Shekdar, A.V., 1998. Solid waste management in Indian urban
centers. International Solid Waste Association Times (ISWA) (1), 26–
28.
[10] Butow, E., Holzbecher, E. and E. Kob, 1989. Approach to Model the Transport
of Leachates from aLandfill Site including Geochemical Processes, Contaminant
Transport in Groundwater. Kobus and Kinzelbach, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
183
–190.
[11] Carpenter, P. J., Ding, A. & Cheng, L. (2012) Identifying Groundwater
Contamination Using Resistivity Surveys at a Landfill near Maoming, China.
Nature ,Education Knowledge 3(7):20.
[12] Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi, 2003: Ground Water in Delhi-
Improving the Sustainability through Rain Water Harvesting
[13] Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi & Central Pollution Control Board-
Status of Ground Water quality and Pollution Aspects in NCT-Delhi, 2000
[14] CPCB, 2000, Status of Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and
Disposal in Metrocities, Series: CUPS/46/1999–
2000.
[15] CPCB, 2000. Status of Municipal Solid waste Generation, Collection, Treatment
and Disposal in Class I Cities, Series: ADSORBS/31/1999–
2000.
[16] Central pollution Control Board, Status of Solid Waste Generation, Collection,
Treatment and Disposal in Class –II Towns, Control of Urban Pollution Series:
CUPS/50/1999-2000.
[17] Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2004. Management of Municipal Solid
Waste. Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, India.
[18] Central Pollution Control Board, Assessment of Status of Municipal Solid
Waste Management in Metro Cities and State Capitals, Control of Urban
Pollution Series: CUPS/65/2006-07.
[19] Central Pollution Control Board. Status report on the Municipal Solid Waste
Management-
Compliance report by SPCBs, 2012.
[20] CPHEEO, Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management-2000’, Published by
Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO),
Government of India.
[21] CPHEEO, Ministry of Urban Development, GoI,Report of the Technology
Advisory Group on Solid Waste Management, May 2005.
[22] Chakrabarty, P., Srivastava, V.K., Chakrabarti, S.N., 1995. Solid waste disposal
and the environment – a review. Indian Journal Of Environmental Protection 15
(1), 39
–43.

21. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1989


[23] Christensen, J. B., D. L. Jensen, C. Gron, Z. Filip and T. H. Christensen, 1998.
Characterization of the dissolved organic carbon in landfill leachate-polluted
groundwater, Water Res., 32, 125-135.
[24] Datta, M., 1997. Waste Disposal in Engineered Landfills. Narosa publishing
house, New Delhi, India.
[25] Dayal, G., 1994. Solid wastes: sources, implications and management. Indian
Journal of Environmental Protection 14 (9), 669–
677.
[26] Deize Dias Lopes , Sandra M.C.P. Silva , Fernandes Fernandes , Raquel S.
Teixeira , André Celligoi , Luiz Henrique Dall’Antônia (2012) Geophysical
technique and groundwater monitoring to detect leachate contamination in the
surrounding area of a landfill e Londrina (PR e Brazil) in Journal of
Environmental Management 113 (2012) 481-487.
[27] DeRosa, E., Rubel, D., Tudino, M., Viale, A., and R.J. Lombardo, 1996. The
leachate composition of an old waste dump connected to groundwater: Influence
of the reclamation works. Environ. Monit. Assess. 40 (3): 239-252.
[28] Edmunds, W.M., Cook, J.M., Kinniburgh, D.J., Miles D.L., and Trafford, J.M.
(1989). Trace elements occurrence in British groundwaters, Research Report
No. SD/89/03. British Geological Survey, Keyworth.
[29] Fatta D., A Papadopoulos and M., Loizidou, 1999. A study on the landfill
leachate and its impact on the groundwater quality of the greater area. Environ.
Geochem. Health 21 (2): 175-190.

[30] Flyhammar, P.: 1995, Leachate quality and environmental effects at active
Swedish municipal landfill, in: R. Cossu, H. T. Christensen and R. Stegmann
(eds) Regulations, EnvironmentalImpact and Aftercare. Proceedings Sardinia
’95, Fifth International Landfill Symposium. Vol. III, Sardinia, Italy, pp. 549–
557.

[31] Gas Recovery and Reuse from closure of three Delhi Landfills - Feasibility of
Closure Design Options, 2008. East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC),
New Delhi.
[32] Harris, R. C. and Parry, E.L. (1982), Investigations into domestic refuse leachate
attenuation in the unsaturated zone of Triassic sandstones, In effects of waste
disposal on groundwater and surface water, pp 147-55, Pub N0 139, Int. Assoc.
Hydrol. Sci.
[33] Harris, R. C. and Lowe, D. R. (1984), Changes in the organic fraction of
leachate from two domestic refuse sites on the Sherwood Sandstone,
Nottinghamshire, Q. J. Eng. Geol., 117, 57-69
[34] Hudak, P.F., 1998. Groundwater monitoring strategies for variable versus

22. 1990
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

constant contaminant loading functions. Environ. Monit. Assess. 50, 271-288

[35] Jaime A. Reyes-López
, Jorge Ramírez-Hernández, Octavio Lázaro-Mancilla,
Concepción Carreón-Diazconti,
Miguel Martín-Loeches Garrido (2008)
Assessment of Groundwater contamination by landfill leachate: A case in
México
[36] John Lyngkilde,
(1992) Redox zones of a landfill leachate pollution plume
(Vejen, Denmark)
[37] Kansal, A., 2002. Solid waste management strategies for India. Indian Journal of
Environmental Protection 22 (4), 444–
448
[38] Kansal, A., Prasad, R.K., Gupta, S., 1998. Delhi municipal solid waste and
environment –
an appraisal. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 18 (2),
123
–128
[39] Khan, R.R., 1994. Environmental management of municipal solid wastes. Indian
Journal
of Environmental Protection 14 (1), 26– 30
[40] Lal, A.K., 1996. Environmental status of Delhi. Indian Journal of Environmental
Protection 16 (1), 1–
11
[41] Looser, M.O., A. Parriaux, and M. Bensimon, 1999. Landfill underground
pollution detection and characterization using inorganic traces. Water Res. 33,
3609
-3616.
[42] Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Vischher, A. R. P. Dahiya and A. Chandra, 2005.
Municipal Solid Waste Characterisation and its assessment for potential
methane generation at Ghazipur Landfill Site, Delhi: A case study. Bioresource
Technology, Communicated.
[43] Moo-Young, H., Johnson, B., Johnson. A., Carson, D., Lew, C., Liu, S, and K.
Hancock, 2004. Characterization of infiltration rates from landfills: Supporting
groundwater modeling efforts. Environ. Monit. Assess.
96, 283-311.
[44] Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), 2000. The Gazette of India.
Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, New Delhi, India.
[45] Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), GOI. Guidance note on the Municipal
Solid Waste Management on a Regional Basis.
[46] NCR Planning Board, 2002: Draft report of Master Plan of NCR, 2021
[47] Olaniya, M. S. and K. L. Saxena, 1977. Ground water pollution by open refuse
dumps at Jaipur. Ind J. Environ. Health 19, 176-188.
[48] Peter Kjeldsen , Morton A. Barlaz , Alix P. Rooker , Anders Baun , Anna Ledin
& Thomas H. Christensen (2002). Present and Long-Term Composition of
MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science

23. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1991


and Technology, 32:4, 297-336, DOI: 10.1080/10643380290813462.
[49] Rathi, S., 2006. Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste
management in Mumbai, India. Journal of Waste Management 26 (10), 1192–
1200.

[50] R.V. Nicholson,
J.A. Cherry, E.J. Reardon (1983) Migration of contaminants in
groundwater at a landfill: A case study 6. Hydrogeochemistry.
[51] Saarela, J., 2003. Pilot investigations of surface parts of three closed landfills
and factors affecting them Environ. Monit. Assess. 84,183-192
[52] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2005. Analysis of
municipal solid waste management systems in Delhi –
a review. In: Book of
Proceedings for the second International Congress of Chemistry and
Environment, Indore, India, pp. 773–777

[53] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2006. Development of
prediction models for municipal solid waste generation for Delhi city. In:
Proceedings of National Conference of Advanced in Mechanical Engineering
(AIME-2006), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India, pp. 1176–
1186
[54] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2008. Municipal solid
waste management in Indian cities –
A review: Journal of Science Direct: Waste
Management 28 (2008) 459–
467
[55] Siddiqui, T.Z., Siddiqui, F.Z., Khan, E., 2006. Sustainable development through
integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) approach –
a case
study of Aligarh District. In: Proceedings of National Conference of Advanced
in Mechanical Engineering (AIME-2006), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi,
India, pp. 1168–
1175
[56] Stoline, M. R., Passerp, R. N., and M. J. Barcelona, 1993. Statistical trends in
groundwater monitoring data at a landfill site –
A case study. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 27 (3): 201-219
[57] Study of Groundwater Contamination through Landfill Site, NCT Delhi, 2006.
School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University
(JNU), Delhi
[58] Yanful, E. K., Quigley, R. M. and Nesbitt, H. W.: 1988, ‘Heavy metal migration
at a landfill site, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada –
2: Metal Partitioning and
Geotechnical Implications’, Appl
. Geochem.3 , 623–629

24. 1992
Puneet Babbar, S watantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood