General Discussion

  • Mwinyikione Mwinyihija


This is a concluding chapter and served the purpose of addressing the three key specific objectives mentioned at the beginning chapters of this book. Indeed the studies reported in this book, indicated that a multifaceted approach was important and thus adopted, to investigate the impact of the tanning ­industry to ­various ecosystems. Such approaches included novel techniques entailing ­biological, chemical and physico-chemical assays. Finally the study highlighted the value of a true, multidisciplinary approach to resolve the environmental impact of anthropogenic activities associated with the tanning industry and to identify strategies for environmental and waste remediation. However, the cost effectiveness of the strategies recommended needs to be investigated further. The policy of the polluter pays needs to be tied to effective ecological risk management strategies to ensure compliance and portend the sector’s role as an economic driver for ­development rather than a threat to environmental sustainability.


Life Cycle Assessment Ecological Risk Assessment Anaerobic Lagoon Respirable Dust River Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Benton MJ, Malott ML, Knight SS, Cooper CM, Benson WH (1995) Influence of sediment ­composition on apparent toxicity in a solid-phase test using bioluminescent bacteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 14: 411–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosma TNP, Middeldrop PJM, Schraa G, Zehnder AJB (1997) Mass transfer limitations of biotransformation; quantifying bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 31: 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brower H, Murphy T, McArdle L (1990) Sediment-contact bioassay contact with Photobacterium phosphoreum. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1353–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dombroski EC, Gaudet ID, Florence LZ (1996) A comparison of techniques used to extract solid samples prior to acute toxicity analysis using the microtox test. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 11: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerba CP (1996) Risk assessment. chapter 22 pp. 346-355. In: Pepper LI, Gerba PC, Brusseau ML (eds.) Pollution science. Academic Press (Elsevier Science, USA), San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Goicolea A, Barrio RJ, Balugera ZG, Gorostiza I, San Vicente A, Diaz AI (1998) Study of the toxicity in industrial soils by the luminescence assay. J Environ Sci Health A 33: 863–875.Google Scholar
  7. Bondarenko O, Rõlova T, Kahru A, Ivask A (2008) Bioavailability of Cd, Zn and Hg in soil to nine recombinant luminescent metal sensor bacteria. Sensors 8: 6899–6923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ringwood AH, Delorenzo ME, Ross PE, Holland AF (1997) Interpretation of Microtox solid-phase toxicity tests: the effects of sediment composition. Environ Toxicol Chem 16: 1135–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rönnpagel K, Liß W, Ahlf W (1995) Microbial bioassays to assess the toxicity of solid-associated contaminants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 31: 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Statutory Instrument UK No 2677 (2002) The control of substances hazardous to health regulations 2002, ISBN 0 11 042919 2.Google Scholar
  11. Steevens JA, Henson WH (2001) Toxicokinetics interaction and survival of Hyalella azteca exposed to binary mixtures of chlorpyrifos, deldrin, and methyl mercury. Aquat Toxicol 51: 377 – 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stuhlfauth T (1995) Ecotoxicological monitoring of industrial effluents, chapter 14. pp. 187. In: Richardson M (ed.) Environmental Toxicology Assessment, Taylor & Francis, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  13. Suter GW (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Tripathi RD, Smith S (1996) Effect of chromium (VI) on growth, pigment content photosynthesis, nitrate reductase activity, metabolic nitrate pool and protein content in duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza). pp. 159. In: Yunnus M (ed.) ICPEP, 1996. Book of Abstracts, India.Google Scholar
  15. UNEP IE/PAC (1994) Tanneries and the Environment – A Technical Guide, Technical Report (2nd Print) Series No 4, ISBN 92 807 1276 4.Google Scholar
  16. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), (1991) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations: Phase I toxicity characterisation procedures. 2nd Edition EPA/600/6-91/003. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  17. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1993a) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations: Phase II toxicity characterisation procedures. 2nd Edition EPA/600/R-92/080. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  18. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1993b) Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations: Phase III toxicity characterisation procedures. 2nd Edition EPA/600/R-92/081. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  19. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1997) Marine toxicity identification evaluations (TIE): Phase I guidance document. EPA/600R92054. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  20. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95002F. Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Woodman JN, Cowling EB (1987) Airborne chemicals and forest health. Environ Sci 21: 120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leather Development CouncilNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations