Advertisement

Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 201–211 | Cite as

Health risks and economic costs of exposure to PCDD/Fs from open burning: a case study in Nairobi, Kenya

  • Yi-Hsuan Shih
  • Stephanie Jepng’etich Kasaon
  • Chao-Heng Tseng
  • Huang-Chin Wang
  • Ling-Ling Chen
  • Yu-Ming Chang
Article

Abstract

This study assesses the incremental health risk of exposure to dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs) from indiscriminate burning of wastes in Nairobi and the potential economic benefits of reductions in dioxin-induced cancer mortality contributed by proper waste management. Fugacity models level III incorporated with the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (USEPA 2005a) and CalTOX were utilized to simulate the PCDD/F levels in biotic environmental compartments. PCDD/F concentrations in samples of potatoes, eggs, beef, and long life milk were analyzed and compared with the modeled values. The PCDD/F concentration of 3.35 pg TEQ/g in the milk sample was observed to rank the highest in food samples and exceeded the European Union criteria. Comparison results suggest that the level III + HHRAP is more conservative than CalTOX in health risk assessment. Regularities in the analyzed WHO-TEQ congener profiles for the food samples were discussed. The incremental dietary exposure to PCDD/Fs for the residents in Nairobi was estimated to be 0.08–2.15 pg TEQ/kg-day, falling within the WHO tolerable daily intake of 1–4 pg TEQ/kg-day. Potential excess cancers due to dietary exposure to PCDD/F associated with all illegal waste burning in Nairobi were estimated to be 636 cases over the 30-year time period or 21 cases/year, accounting for 0.05 % of cancer cases in the entire country of Kenya. With the waste recycling rate increased by 5 % and the opening of the new sanitary landfill that can reduce 50 % of waste disposed at the Dandora dumpsite, the economic benefits of avoided cancer deaths is expected to be US$ 0.16–1.93 million. These results indicate that additional actions on waste management, e.g., waste minimization and construction of sanitary landfill, should be implemented for the public health of Kenyans.

Keywords

PCDD/Fs Fugacity model Risk assessment Economic costs Waste management Open burning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National Science Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan under contract no. NSC 100-2628-E-027-007-MY3. We would also like to express appreciation to Faiza Ramadhan, Marion Amulyoto, and Joseph Kasaon for sample collection and exportation.

References

  1. Aderemi AO, Falade TC (2012) Environmental and health concerns associated with the open dumping of municipal solid waste: a Lagos, Nigeria experience. Am J Environ Eng 2(6):160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlborg UG, Brouwer A, Fingerhut MA et al (1992) Impact of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls on human and environmental health, with special emphasis on application of the toxic equivalency factor concept. Eur J Pharmacol 228(4):179–199Google Scholar
  3. Benkhalifa A, Ayadi M, Lanoie P (2012) Estimated hedonic wage function and value of life in an African country. Available at http://www.hec.ca/iea/cahiers/2012/iea1201_lanoiep.pdf
  4. Cangialosi F, Intini G, Liberti L et al (2008) Health risk assessment of air emissions from a municipal solid waste incineration plant—a case study. Waste Manag 28(5):885–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowan-Ellsberry CE, McLachlan MS, Arnot JA et al (2009) Modeling exposure to persistent chemicals in hazard and risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5(4):662–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EU (2011) European Commission Regulation No. EU 1259/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs. Accessed at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dioxins.htm
  7. Fiedler H (1996) Sources of PCDD/PCDF and impact on the environment. Chemosphere 32(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henry RK, Yongsheng Z, Jun D (2006) Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries—Kenyan case study. Waste Manag 26(1):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsu et al. (2007) A total diet study to estimate PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs intake from food in Taiwan. Chemosphere 67(9):S65–S70Google Scholar
  10. Hu S, ChangChien G, Chan C (2004) PCDD/Fs levels in indoor environments and blood of workers of three municipal waste incinerators in Taiwan. Chemosphere 55(4):611–620Google Scholar
  11. Kim S-J, Moon H-B (2013) Occurrence and human exposure of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in house dust from Busan, Korea: comparison with seafood consumption. Toxicol Environ Health Sci 5(3):155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimani NG (2007) Environmental pollution and impacts on public health: implications of the Dandora Municipal Dumping Site in Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Accessed at http://www.kutokanet.com/Storage/UNEP_Dandora_Environmental_Pollution_and_Impact_To_Public_Health_2007.pdf
  13. Kishimoto A et al (2001) Cost effectiveness of reducing dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators in Japan. Environ Sci Technol 35(14):2861–2866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ENVILEAD (Environmental Liaison, Education and Action for Development) (2005) The International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP): a study on waste incineration activities in Nairobi that release dioxin and furan into the environment. Accessed at http://www.ipen.org/ipepweb1/library/ipep_pdf_reports/4ken%20kenya%20waste%20burning%20and%20incineration.pdf
  15. Lin YS, Caffrey JL, Hsu PC et al (2012) Environmental exposure to dioxin-like compounds and the mortality risk in the U.S. population. Int J Hyg Envir Heal 215(6):541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lohman K, Seigneur C (2001) Atmospheric fate and transport of dioxins: local impacts. Chemosphere 45:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lohmann R, Jones KC (1998) Dioxins and furans in air and deposition: a review of levels, behaviour and processes. Sci Total Environ 219:53–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lohmann R, Green NJL, Jones KC (1999) Atmospheric transport of PCDD/Fs across the UK and Ireland: evidence of emission and degradation. Environ Sci Technol 33:2872–2878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackay D (2001) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackay D, Paterson S, Shiu WY et al (1992) Generic models for evaluating the regional fate of chemicals. Chemosphere 24(6):695–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackay D et al (1996) Evaluating the environmental fate of a variety of types of chemicals using the EQC model. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1627–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maddalena RL, McKone TE, Layton DW, Hsieh DP (1995) Comparison of multi-media transport and transformation models: regional fugacity model vs. CalTOX. Chemosphere 30(5):869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKone TE (1993) CalTOX: a multimedia total-exposure model for hazardous-wastes sites. California Environmental Protection Agency, CA, USGoogle Scholar
  24. Meneses M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2004) Health risk assessment of emissions of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator: comparison with other emission sources. Environ Int 30(4):481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mizukami Y (2005) Frontier density pattern of dioxins. J Mol Struc THEOCHEM 713(1–3):15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onofrio M, Spataro R, Botta S (2011) The role of a steel plant in north-west Italy to the local air concentrations of PCDD/Fs. Chemosphere 82:708–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Postle M et al. (2003) Assessment of the impact of the new chemicals policy on occupational health: final report. European Commission—Environment Directorate-General. 96pp. Norfolk, UK. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/luxembourg/PageFiles/344421/assessment-impact.pdf
  28. Rappe C et al (1987) Sources and relative importance of PCDD and PCDF emissions. Waste Manag Res 5(3):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schecter A, Birnbaum L, Ryan JJ, Constable JD (2006) Dioxins: an overview. Environ Res 101:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuhmacher M et al (2001) The use of Monte-Carlo simulation techniques for risk assessment: study of a municipal waste incinerator. Chemosphere 43(4–7):787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steyn NP, Nel JH (2006) Dietary intake of adult women in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria with a focus on the use of spreads. Available from: http://www.mrc.co.za/chronic/kenyareport.pdf
  32. UNEP (2005) Standardized toolkit for identification and quantification of dioxin and furan releases, 2nd edition. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed at http://www.chem.unep.ch/POPs/pcdd_activities/toolkit/default.htm
  33. UNEP (2010) Solid Waste Management in Nairobi: a situation analysis, technical document accompanying the integrated solid waste management plan. Prepared for the City Council of Nirobi by the University of Cape Town. Prepared by Kasozi A, von Blottnitz H. Accessed at http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/GPWM/data/T3/IS_6_1_Nairobi_SWM_SituationAnalysis.pdf
  34. USEPA (1994) Method 1613: tetra-through octa-chlorinated dioxins and furans by isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303). Accessed at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/organics/dioxins/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_dioxins_1613.pdf
  35. USEPA (1999) Human health and ecological risk assessment support to the development of technical standards for emissions from combustion units burning hazardous wastes: background document. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/td/combust/pdfs/rabdmain.pdf
  36. USEPA (2005a) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for hazardous waste combustion facilities, final. Report EPA520-R-05-006, Office of Solid Wastes, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (2005b) The inventory of sources and environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the United States (External Review Draft 2005). EPA/600/p-03/002A, EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment. Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/2k-update/
  38. USEPA (2010) The U.S. EPA’s Draft Oral Slope Factor (OSF) for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). Prepared by G. Rice, Science Advisory Board Dioxin Review Panel Meeting; Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. USEPA (2012) EPA’s reanalysis of key issues related to dioxin toxicity and response to NAS comments, Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/038F. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/1024index.html
  40. van den Berg M et al (2006) The 2005 World Health Organization re-evaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Tox Sci 93:223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Leeuwen FXR et al (2000) Dioxins: WHO’s tolerable daily intake (TDI) revisited. Chemosphere 40(9–11):1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wania F, Mackay D (1999) The evolution of mass balance models of persistent organic pollutant fate in the environment. Environ Pollut 100(1–3):223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Webster E and Mackay D (2007) Modelling the environmental fate of dioxins and furans released to the atmosphere during incineration. Available at http://www.trentu.ca/academic/aminss/envmodel/
  44. Wright JC, Millichamp P, Buckland SJ (2001) The cost-effectiveness of reductions in dioxin emissions to air from selected sources: economic analysis for section 32 of the resource management act. Ministry for the Environment: Wellington, New Zealand. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/hazardous/dioxin-reduction-cost-effectiveness-aug01.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Hsuan Shih
    • 1
  • Stephanie Jepng’etich Kasaon
    • 2
  • Chao-Heng Tseng
    • 1
  • Huang-Chin Wang
    • 1
  • Ling-Ling Chen
    • 1
  • Yu-Ming Chang
    • 1
  1. 1.National Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiRepublic of China
  2. 2.Graduate School of Global Environmental StudiesSophia UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations