Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 2911–2923 | Cite as

A long-term comparative assessment of human health risk to leachate-contaminated groundwater from heavy metal with different liner systems

  • Harshit Mishra
  • Subhankar Karmakar
  • Rakesh Kumar
  • Praneeth Kadambala
Research Article


The handling and management of municipal solid waste (MSW) are major challenges for solid waste management in developing countries. Open dumping is still the most common waste disposal method in India. However, landfilling also causes various environmental, social, and human health impacts. The generation of heavily polluted leachate is a major concern to public health. Engineered barrier systems (EBSs) are commonly used to restrict potentially harmful wastes by preventing the leachate percolation to groundwater and overflow to surface water bodies. The EBSs are made of natural (e.g., soil, clay) and/or synthetic materials such as polymeric materials (e.g., geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners) by arranging them in layers. Various studies have estimated the human health risk from leachate-contaminated groundwater. However, no studies have been reported to compare the human health risks, particularly due to the leachate contamination with different liner systems. The present study endeavors to quantify the human health risk to contamination from MSW landfill leachate using multiple simulations for various EBSs. To quantify the variation in health risks to groundwater consumption to the child and adult populations, the Turbhe landfill of Navi Mumbai in India has been selected. The leachate and groundwater samples were collected continuously throughout January–September in 2015 from the landfill site, and heavy metal concentrations were analyzed using an inductively coupled plasma system. The LandSim 2.5 Model, a landfill simulator, was used to simulate the landfill activities for various time slices, and non-carcinogenic human health risk was determined for selected heavy metals. Further, the uncertainties associated with multiple input parameters in the health risk model were quantified under a Monte Carlo simulation framework.


Heavy metal Human health risk LandSim Liner systems Monte Carlo Mumbai Turbhe 

Supplementary material

11356_2017_717_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Asnani PU (2006) Solid waste management. India infrastructure report 570Google Scholar
  3. Bonaparte R, Daniel D, Koerner RM (2002) Assessment and recommendations for improving the performance of waste containment systems. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  4. Butt TE, Clark M, Coulon F, Oduyemi KO (2009) A review of literature and computer models on exposure assessment. Environ Technol 30(14):1487–1501. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butt TE, Gouda HM, Baloch MI, Paul P, Javadi AA, Alam A (2014) Literature review of baseline study for risk analysis—the landfill leachate case. Environ Int 63:149–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butt TE, Ingles AJD, Baloch MI (2011) A conceptual model outline for integrated exposure assessment of waste disposal sites. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 30(4):696–708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butt TE, Lockley E, Oduyemi KOK (2008) Risk assessment of landfill disposal sites—state of the art. Waste Manag 28(6):952–964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butt TE, Oduyemi KOK (2003) A holistic approach to concentration assessment of hazards in the risk assessment of landfill leachate. Environ Int 28(7):597–608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey P, Carty G (2000) Landfill manuals: landfill site design. Environmental Protection Agency, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  10. Central Pollution Control Board (2008) Guidelines and check-list for evaluation of MSW landfills proposals with information on existing landfills. Available at:, Accessed January 2017
  11. Chourey P, Yatish L, Tomar S, Dessai P (2014) Environmental status report of Navi Mumbai municipal corporation 2013-14. TERI p 157Google Scholar
  12. Christensen TH, Kjeldsen P, Bjerg PL, Jensen DL, Christensen JB, Baun A, Albrechtsen HJ, Heron G (2001) Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Appl Geochem 16(7):659–718. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davoli E, Fattore E, Paiano V, Colombo A, Palmiotto M, Rossi AN, Il GM, Fanelli R (2010) Waste management health risk assessment: a case study of a solid waste landfill in South Italy. Waste Manag 30(8):1608–1613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong Z, Liu Y, Duan L, Bekele D, Naidu R (2015) Uncertainties in human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants: a review and perspective. Environ Int 85:120–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drury D, Hall DH, Dowle J (2003) The development of LandSim 2.5. NGCLC Report GW/03/09. Environment Agency, SolihullGoogle Scholar
  16. FICCI (2009) Survey on the current status of municipal solid waste management in Indian cities and the potential of landfill gas to energy projects in India. Available at:, Accessed January 2017
  17. Fityus SG, Smith DW (1998) Modelling of a geomembrane in a landfill liner. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, Lisbon, Portugal, 2:807–812Google Scholar
  18. Foose GJ, Benson CH, Edil TB (2001) Predicting leakage through composite landfill liners. J Geotech Geoenviron 127(6):510–520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giroud JP (1997) Equations for calculating the rate of liquid migration through composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geosynth Int 4(3–4):335–348Google Scholar
  20. Giroud JP, Bonaparte R (1989) Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes—part I. Geomembrane liners. Geotext Geomembr 8(1):27–67.
  21. Hall DH, Drury D, Gronow JR, Rosevear A, Pollard SJ, Smith R (2006a) Estimating pollutant removal requirements for landfills in the UK: I. Benchmark study and characteristics of waste treatment technologies. Environ Technol 27(12):1309–1321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall DH, Drury D, Gronow JR, Rosevear A, Pollard SJ, Smith R (2006b) Estimating pollutant removal requirements for landfills in the UK: II. Model development. Environ Technol 27(12):1323–1333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hassan AA (2014) Hydraulic performance of compacted clay liners (CCLs) under simulated landfill conditions. Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University Ottawa.Google Scholar
  24. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban development series knowledge papers 15:1–98Google Scholar
  25. Hughes KL, Christy AD, Heimlich JE (2007) Landfill types and liner systems. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-138Google Scholar
  26. Jagloo K (2002) Groundwater risk analysis in the vicinity of a landfill: a case study in Mauritius. Royal Inst. of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalberlah F, Schneider K, Schuhmacher-Wolz U (2003) Uncertainty in toxicological risk assessment for non-carcinogenic health effects. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 37(1):92–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kale SS, Kadam AK, Kumar S, Pawar NJ (2010) Evaluating pollution potential of leachate from landfill site, from the Pune metropolitan city and its impact on shallow basaltic aquifers. Environ Monit Assess 162(1–4):327–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katsumi T, Benson CH, Foose GJ, Kamon M (2001) Performance-based design of landfill liners. Eng Geol 60(1):139–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kentel E, Aral MM (2004) Probabilistic-fuzzy health risk modeling. Stoch Env Res Risk A 18(5):324–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumar D, Alappat BJ (2003) Analysis of leachate contamination potential of a municipal landfill using leachate pollution index. Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management, pp:147–153Google Scholar
  32. Kumar S, Bhattacharyya JK, Vaidya AN, Chakrabarti T, Devotta S, Akolkar AB (2009) Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities, state capitals, class I cities, and class II towns in India: an insight. Waste Manag 29(2):883–895. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra H, Karmakar S, Kumar R, Singh J (2016b) A framework for assessing uncertainty associated with human health risks from MSW landfill leachate contamination. Risk Anal 37(7):1237–1255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishra H, Rathod M, Karmakar S, Kumar R (2016a) A framework for assessment and characterisation of municipal solid waste landfill leachate: an application to the Turbhe landfill, Navi Mumbai, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(6), 357(1–26)Google Scholar
  35. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. Committee on the institutional means for assessment of risks to public health. In: Commission on life sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council (2007) Assessment of the performance of engineered waste containment barriers. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (2010) Navi Mumbai environmental plan for clean, green and healthy city, environmental status report. Available at:, Accessed January 12, 2016
  38. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (2013) Solid waste management, environmental status report. Available at:, Accessed January 12, 2016
  39. Palmeri E, Mancini G, Luciano A, Viotti P (2012) Risk analysis of a disused landfill as support tool for defining strategy and priority of the remediation actions. Chemical Engineering Transaction 28:43–48Google Scholar
  40. Penningroth S (2010) Essentials of toxic chemical risk science and society, 1st edn. Boca Raton FL CRC Press, New York. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plimmer BR, Pringle AB, Moncaster SJ (1999) A probabilistic risk assessment methodology for landfills, with particular reference to the representation of chemical containment. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ 157(1):275–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rathod M, Mishra H, Karmakar S (2013) leachate characterization and assessment of water pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site. Int J Chem Phys Sci 2013; Vol. 2, Special IssueGoogle Scholar
  43. Roseberry AM, Burmaster DE (1992) Lognormal distributions for water intake by children and adults. Risk Anal 12(1):99–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowe RK, Fraser MJ (1994) Consideration of uncertainty regarding service lives of engineered systems in assessing potential contaminant impact. CSCE Special Publication—Engineering Materials for Waste Isolation, pp. 119–146Google Scholar
  45. Rowe RK, Sangam HP (2002) Durability of HDPE geomembranes. Geotext Geomembr 20(2):77–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schuhmacher M, Meneses M, Xifró A, Domingo JL (2001) The use of Monte-Carlo simulation techniques for risk assessment: study of a municipal waste incinerator. Chemosphere 43(4):787–799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slack RJ, Gronow JR, Hall DH, Voulvoulis N (2007) Household hazardous waste disposal to landfill: using LandSim to model leachate migration. Environ Pollut 146(2):501–509. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slack RJ, Gronow JR, Voulvoulis N (2005) Household hazardous waste in municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci Total Environ 337(1):119–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stackelberg KV, Burmaster DE (1994) A discussion on the use of probabilistic risk assessment in human health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 14(5):385–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Talalaj IA, Biedka P (2016) Use of the landfill water pollution index (LWPI) for groundwater quality assessment near the landfill sites. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(24):24601–24613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. U.S. EPA (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-03/0018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Program in Climate StudiesIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Centre for Urban Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia
  4. 4.National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations