MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ART AND TECHNOLOGY (CEDAT)

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

CIV 4100: CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT I

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF LANDFILL LEACHATE ON SURFACE AND

GROUND WATER: A CASE OF KITEEZI LANDFILL, KAMPALA

BY

Otoka Joshua REG. NO 17/U/1048

Otto Denis Lukweli REG. NO 17/U/18622

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of a Degree of Bachelor
of Science in Civil Engineering

…………………………………….. ………………………………..

Dr. Charles B. Niwagaba Dr. Swaib Semiyaga

MAIN SUPERVISOR CO-SUPERVISOR

NOVEMBER, 2021
 DECLARATION

We declare to the best of our knowledge that the work presented in this proposal is our own
original work and has not been presented to any other institution. The information presented in
this proposal has no plagiarism from any source and the necessary citations have been made
where the information was acquired from other sources

……………………………………………………….

Otoka Joshua

17/U/1048

………………………………………………………

Otto Denis Lukweli

17/U/18622

i
 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALPHA: American Public Health Association

CEDAT: College of engineering, Design, Art and Technology

CONAS: College of Natural Sciences

EAC: East African Community

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

KCC: Kampala City Council

NEMA: National Environmental and Management Authority

NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

NSDWQ: National Standards for Drinking Water Quality

SDWA: The Safe Drinking Water Act

UN WWAP: United Nations World Water Assessment Programme

WHO: World Health Organization

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Showing conceptual framework...................................................................................................4
Figure 2 Showing sampling points for water resources.............................................................................14

iii
TABLE CONTENTS
DECLARATION..............................................................................................................................i
LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................iii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives of the Study......................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 Main Objective...........................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives.....................................................................................................................3
1.4 Justification of the Study...................................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope of the Study.............................................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Geographical Scope....................................................................................................................3
1.5.2 Time Scope.................................................................................................................................4
1.6 Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................5
2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Leachate Generation..........................................................................................................................5
2.3 Leachate characteristics.....................................................................................................................6
2.4 Quality of surface and Ground water resources around Landfill leachate..........................................8
2.4.1 Physical parameters of water quality..........................................................................................8
2.4.2 Chemical parameters of water quality.........................................................................................9
2.4.3 Biological parameters of water quality.....................................................................................10
2.5 Water quality requirements..............................................................................................................11
2.6 Drinking Water quality Standards....................................................................................................11
2.7 The Discharge Standards for Waste water.......................................................................................12
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................13
3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................13
3.2 Surface water, Ground Water and Leachate Sampling.....................................................................13
3.3 Laboratory tests...............................................................................................................................15
iv
 3.4 Data Analysis...................................................................................................................................15
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................................................20

v
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Globally, most solid wastes are presently dumped or disposed of in landfills (37% landfills, 8%
sanitary landfills, and 31% open dumping), making landfilling, due to economic advantages, the
main mode of waste elimination in the world (Nawaz et al., 2020). Once disposed of in landfill,
solid waste undergoes various physico-chemical and biological changes. Consequently, the
degradation of the organic fraction of the wastes in combination with percolating rainwater leads
to the generation of a highly contaminated liquid called leachate (Kurniawan et al., 2006). The
volume of leachate varies from one country to another; for example in 2013, about 1.1 million
m3 of landfill leachate were produced from municipal solid wastes in the Republic of Ireland
(Brennan et al., 2016).

Landfill leachate is a liquid composed of absorbed components which may be soluble solids or
any other undesirable components present in the landfill. It is formed when water passes through
the landfill waste in the form of rain and seeps through the stockpile consisting of waste
materials from different sources such as municipal and industrial wastes.  Since the waste
material can comprise of various chemicals, organic and inorganic compounds in large volume
which also gets decomposed, the leachate that is formed is generally high in toxicity. The most
important potential environmental influences associated with landfill leachate are contamination
of groundwater and surface water (Kjeldsen et al., 2002). In many cases, municipal wastes are
not well managed in developing countries, including Uganda as cities and municipalities cannot
cope with the accelerated pace of waste production. Protecting groundwater is a major
environmental issue since the importance of water quality on human health has attracted a great
deal of interest lately.

Uganda is facing rapid urbanization of 5.1% per annum, leading to overcrowding and the
development of slums and informal settlements with poor waste management practices (Mukama
et al., 2016).The amount of solid waste has been increasing with increasing population and
changing socio-economic standards. Kampala City Council (KCC) has had conflicts with people
living near its dumpsites (Kikonyogo, 2000). The conflicts stem from bad odour, leachate (which
pollutes water resources) and scattering of wastes from the dumping sites by wind and
scavengers like Marabou storks. Due to environmental pollution and increased conflicts with the
local communities, several of the KCC dumping sites have been closed (NEMA, 1998). KCC

1
currently dumps its waste at Mpererwe landfill site (Kiteezi) located 12 km from the city center.
People living near the landfill site have complained that this landfill has made their place
inhabitable and that land has lost value (Kikonyogo, 2000).
Groundwater is the most important source of potable water in Uganda, especially in the rural
areas, and provides 80% or more of the water supply . Majority of the people living around
Kiteezi landfill depend on shallow groundwater wells and boreholes for their portable water
needs, which is promoted by inadequate and seemingly unaffordable public water supply

infrastructures. This raised a concern about the hazard Kiteezi leachate landfill may pose on the
surface and ground water. Thus, the impact of leachate generated from the landfill on the
surrounding surface and ground water is worth investigating.
1.2 Problem Statement
Landfills have been identified as one of the major threats to surface and ground water sources not
only in Uganda but throughout the world. The impact of leachate on surface and groundwater
attracted a lot of care because of its devastating environmental significance. Leachate migration
from landfills poses a high risk to surface and groundwater resources if not satisfactorily
managed (Patil et al., 2013).

Most of the landfills in developing countries including Uganda lack proper leachate collection
and treatment facilities. Kiteezi landfill has a treatment plant, designed to treat the leachate from
the landfill in an aerobic activated sludge process. However, the leachate treatment units do not
work and the leachate flows directly in to the receiving environment without undergoing
treatment. The landfill however, continues to receive solid waste on a daily basis which is an
indication that the landfill leachate has not reached the stabilized state. This has posed a serious
threat to the quality of water resources, soils and plants around the landfill.

Chan et al. (1999) reported that leachates from landfill have high pH values, which enhance
metal toxicity due to changing chemical forms. Hossain et al., (2014) studied impact of landfill
leachate on surface and ground water quality, Singh & Mittal (2011) studied ground water
pollution by municipal solid waste landfill leachate and Mwiganga & Kansiime studied the effect
of landfill in surrounding environment. However, none of these studies characterized landfill
leachate, examined quality of surface and ground water as well as evaluating the suitability of
water resources for human consumption and other uses. Furthermore, periodically these studies
were carried out almost 10 years ago which do not reflect the current situations and

2
geographically studies are lacking on the impact of landfill leachate on surface and ground water
in Uganda. Therefore, basing on the aforementioned problems, this study seeks to investigate the
impact of Kiteezi landfill leachate on surface and ground water resources.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 Main Objective
To assess the impact of Kiteezi landfill leachate on surface and ground water resources around
the landfill

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The study will be guided by the following specific objectives;

1. To determine the characteristics of leachate from Kiteezi landfill.

2. To determine the quality of surface and ground water resources around Kiteezi landfill.
3. To examine the impacts of leachate on quality of water resources around Kiteezi landfill
4. To evaluate the suitability of water resources for human consumption and other uses.

1.4 Justification of the Study

Solid waste is one of the greatest challenges facing urban authorities today with the amount of
waste generated exceeding their capacity both technically and financially to collect and dispose
of. The most common way of disposing wastes are through landfilling. In a country like Uganda
where urbanization is progressing at a faster rate, there are tremendous problems associated with
solid waste and it’s by products like leachate and gaseous products arising from it. The most
commonly reported danger to the human health from these landfills is from the use of
groundwater that has been contaminated by leachate. Very few studies have been conducted in
Uganda to assess the impacts of landfill leachate on surface and ground water sources despite
landfills being the preferred choice of waste disposal.

1.5 Scope of the Study

1.5.1 Geographical Scope
This study shall be conducted in Kiteezi landfill site, located at the north of Kampala City, an
average distance of 12 km from the city central. Kiteezi landfill site serves the 5 divisions of
Kampala, namely, Kampala Central, Nakawa, Lubaga, Makindye and Kawempe. The present
access to the site from Kampala City is through Kampala- Gayaza road (about 9 km), then
branch off to the left from Mpererwe and follow the road heading to Namulonge for about 4km.
Currently, it is the only landfill site at which Kampala's solid waste is disposed. The neighboring
3
areas of Kiteezi landfill include: Kasangati, Kawempe, Nangabo, Namalere, Bulamoiro, Buye
and Kalerwe. Geographically, Kiteezi is located at latitude: 0° 25' 0" and longitude: 32° 34' 00".
The site was opened in 1996 and it covers an area of 29 acres. By then, KCCA, (2007) acquired
an additional six acres to the south of the existing landfill for expansion purposes.

1.5.2 Time Scope

The experiment and analysis will be conducted within one month and half months that is to say,
Late November, and December, 2021 and early January 2022.

1.6 Conceptual Framework

The study framework will be conceptualized on landfill leachate as the independent variable on
which the quality of the water resources depend. Figure 1 below shows a schematic of the
conceptual framework.

Water Impacts of
Landfill resources leachate on
leachate (Surface & water
ground water) resources

Figure 1: Showing conceptual framework

4
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews empirical works done by other scholars which is related to impact of
landfill leachate on surface and ground water resources. The chapter is organized to capture main
themes of the research study objectives as set in chapter one. It focuses majorly on the leachate
characteristic, water quality and its requirements, and the wastewater discharge requirements.

The correlation between the 48% increase in waste quantity and 53.5% population increase in
Kampala indicates that for every percentage increase in population, there was an almost equal
increase (0.9%) in waste generated (Aryampa et al., 2019). This close relationship between waste
and population shows that population growth was probably the most important influencer of
waste generation in Kampala with minimal influence from other factors known to influence
waste generation rates as discussed by Hoornweg et al. The waste generation rate of 0.47
kg/capita/day was within the general range of EAC cities that has been reported earlier, from
0.26 kg/capita/day for low-income areas to 0.78 kg/capita/day for high-income areas.

2.2 Leachate Generation

Leachate from landfills originate from percolated rainwater, waste decomposition, runoff, and
water content of the waste itself. The quality and quantity of leachate is highly variable and is
directly related to fluctuations of rainfall amount, characteristics of the waste, age, and landfill
operational patterns (Eka Sri Yusmartini et.al., 2013).
The degradation process of the waste in a landfill passes through different phases. These phases
are distinguished based on changes in the concentrations of the principle contaminants (mainly
organics, nitrogen, and heavy metals), gas production and quality. In young landfills, containing
large amounts of biodegradable organic matter, a rapid anaerobic fermentation takes place,
resulting in volatile fatty acids (VFA) as the main fermentation products. Acid fermentation is
enhanced by a high moisture content in the solid waste. Early phase of a landfill’s lifetime is
called the acidogenic phase, and leads to the release of large quantities of free VFA, as much as
95% of the organic content. As a landfill matures, the methanogenic phase occurs; Methanogenic
microorganisms develop in the waste, and the VFA are converted to biogas (methane,
carbondioxide). The organic fraction in the leachate becomes dominated by refractory (non-
biodegradable) compounds such as humic substances (Barjinder et.al., 2013) .

5
2.3 Leachate characteristics.
The characteristics of the landfill leachate can usually be represented by the basic parameters
COD, BOD, the ratio BOD/COD, pH, Turbidity, Suspended Solids (SS), Ammonium nitrogen
(NH3 -N), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and heavy metals (Esrat et.al., 2016).
Leachate pH.
Generally, the pH of any landfill leachate is alkaline, regardless of age. Leachate alkalinity is
attributed to the presence of acetate and formic acids (Barjinder et.al., 2013). According to Razak
and Zanguina 2020, the high pH of old leachate is due to the low levels of volatile compounds.
Young landfills are characterized by a pH of less than 6.5,while in the later stable methanogenic
phase, the pH of leachate increases, up to a range between 7.5 and 9 (Barjinder et.al., 2013).
Leachate colour.
Colour in leachate is caused by metallic substances like salts of iron, manganese, humus
materials, tannins, peat, algae, weeds, protozoa, industrial effluents from paper and pulp, textile,
tanneries (Naveen et al., 2014)
Turbidity
The turbidity of leachate is an indication of finely divided organic and inorganic matter,
microorganisms and colloidal suspensions such as clay (Naveen et al., 2014). According to
Hussein (2005), TSS and turbidity help in estimating solids content of the leachate and their
effects on other characteristics of the leachate. Too much turbidity and TSS in leachate results in
reduction of the treatment capacity of the plant and deterioration of the material by abrasion.
Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids
These parameters are generally influenced by the total amount of dissolved organic and
inorganic materials present in the solution, and are used to demonstrate the degree of salinity and
mineral contents of leachate. Total mineral content further reflects the strength and overall
pollutant load of the leachate. The salt content in the leachate is due to presence of potassium,
sodium, chloride, nitrate, sulphate and ammonia salts. The leachate sample seems to be high
values (EC=4210μS/cm) due to the effects of the concentration of salts as a consequence of
degradation of organic matter (Naveen et al., 2014).
Total phosphorous and nitrates
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals and is a
backbone of the kerb’s cycle. Phosphorous transported from agricultural lands to surface water
can promote eutrophication, which is one of the leading water quality issues in lakes and
reservoirs Nitrates represent the most oxidized form of nitrogen found in natural system. It is
6
often regarded as an unambiguous indicator of domestic and agricultural pollution. In leachate
sample, it is formed primarily as a result of oxidation of ammonium to nitrite and subsequently,
to nitrates by nitrification process (Naveen et al., 2014). Together with phosphorous, nitrates in
excess amounts can accelerate eutrophication, causing an increase in aquatic plant growth in a
stream
Heavy metals
Heavy metal concentrations in the leachate are mostly less than 1.0 mg/L (Bhalla, B., Saini, M.,
& Jha, M. K., 2012). Concentration of heavy metals in a landfill is generally higher at earlier
stages because of higher metal solubility as a result of low pH caused by production of organic
acids. As a result of decreased pH at later stages, a decrease in metal solubility occurs resulting
in rapid decrease in concentration of heavy metals. These low concentrations reflect a very small
proportion (0.02 %) of leachate metals from the initial content introduced into the landfill. These
low concentrations are also attributed to the adsorption of metals to the surface of the colloids
and the co-precipitation of metals with certain organic and inorganic compounds in the leachate
Common metals present in the landfill leachate include Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Cadmium,
Copper, Nickel, Silver, and Lead (Baun & Christensen., 2004).
BOD and COD
The high percentage of organic matter in the deposited waste (60-80%) implies a high organic
load, and therefore a high amount of oxygen consumed by organic substances and oxidized
mineral salts. Also the organic matter content of the leachate is an indicator of anaerobic
fermentation by organic compounds during the acid phase. The amount of organic matter is
measured by BOD and COD (Dia et al, 2018).
BOD is the measure of biodegradable organic mass of leachate and that indicates the maturity of
the landfill which typically decreases with time. This is due to the reason that with time the solid
waste material gets degraded and the waste constituents percolate down along with rainwater.
BOD value varies according to age of landfills. The young landfill leachate is commonly
characterized by high BOD (4000–13,000 mg/L) and COD (30,000–60,000 mg/L), moderately
high content of ammonium nitrogen (500–2000 mg/L), high ratio of BOD/COD (ranging from
0.4 to 0.7), With an increase in the landfill age and decomposing of VFAs in the landfill
leachate by anaerobe bacteria over a period of 10 years, the old leachates are catalogued as
stabilized and characterized by a relatively low COD (<4000 mg/L) (Wei Li., Qixing Z. & Tao
H., 2010).

7
Organics in leachate are characterized by different levels of Biodegradability, which can be
represented by the BOD5/COD ratio. Generally, the BOD5/COD ratio describes the degree of
biodegradation and gives information on the age of a landfill. The low BOD 5/COD ratio shows
the high concentration of non-biodegradable organic compounds and thus the difficulty to be
biologically degraded (Barjinder et.al., 2013).
2.4 Quality of surface and Ground water resources around Landfill leachate
Based on its source, water can be divided into ground water and surface water. Both types of
water can be exposed to contamination risks from agricultural, industrial, and domestic activities,
which may include many types of pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers,
hazardous chemicals, and oils.

Water quality parameters include chemical, physical, and biological properties and can be tested
or monitored based on the desired water parameters of concern. Parameters that are frequently
sampled or monitored for water quality include temperature, solids, color, pH, conductivity,
turbidity. However water monitoring may also include iron, total phosphorus, nitrate, or
laboratory parameters such as BOD, COD and microbial parameters (E coli and salmonella).

2.4.1 Physical parameters of water quality

Turbidity

It is a measure of the ability of light to pass through water. It is caused by suspended material
such as clay, silt, organic material, plankton, and other particulate materials in water.

Turbidity in drinking water is esthetically unacceptable, which makes the water look
unappetizing. Turbidity more than 5 NTU can be visible to the average person while turbidity in
muddy water, it exceeds 100 NTU. Groundwater normally has very low turbidity because of the
natural filtration that occurs as the water penetrates through the soil. (Omer, 2019)

Temperature

Palatability, viscosity, solubility, odors, and chemical reactions are influenced by temperature.
Thereby, the sedimentation and chlorination processes and biological oxygen demand (BOD) are
temperature dependent. It also affects the bio sorption process of the dissolved heavy metals in
water. Most people find water at temperatures of 10–15°C most palatable, (Omer, 2019).

Color

8
Color is measured by comparing the water sample with standard color solutions or colored glass
disks. One color unit is equivalent to the color produced by a 1 mg/L solution of platinum
(potassium chloroplatinate (K2PtCl6)). The color of a water sample can be reported as apparent
or true color, (Gorde S.P et al., 2013).

Solids

Solids occur in water either in solution or in suspension. These two types of solids can be
identified by using a glass fiber filter that the water sample passes through. By definition, the
suspended solids are retained on the top of the filter and the dissolved solids pass through the
filter with the water. Total solids is equivalent to sum of total suspended solids and total
dissolved solids (Gorde S.P et al., 2013).

Electrical conductivity (EC)

The electrical conductivity (EC) of water is a measure of the ability of a solution to carry or
conduct an electrical current. Since the electrical current is carried by ions in solution, the
conductivity increases as the concentration of ions increases. Therefore, it is one of the main
parameters used to determine the suitability of water for irrigation and firefighting. (Gorde S.P et
al., 2013)

2.4.2 Chemical parameters of water quality

pH

pH is the measure of the acidity of a solution of water. The pH scale commonly ranges from 0 to
14. The scale is not linear but rather it is logarithmic. For example, a solution with a pH of 6 is
ten times more acidic than a solution with a pH of 7. Pure water is said to be neutral, with a pH
of 7. Water with a pH below 7.0 is considered acidic while water with pH greater than 7.0 is
considered basic or alkaline (Gorde S.P et al., 2013).

Nitrogen

There are four forms of nitrogen in water and wastewater: organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen,
nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. If water is contaminated with sewage, most of the nitrogen
is in the forms of organic and ammonia, which are transformed by microbes to form nitrites and
nitrates. A high concentration of nitrate in surface water can stimulate the rapid growth of the
algae which degrades the water quality. Nitrates can enter the groundwater from chemical

9
fertilizers used in the agricultural areas. Excessive nitrate concentration (more than 10 mg/L) in
drinking water causes an immediate and severe health threat to infants. (Omer, 2019).

Iron and manganese

Although iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) do not cause health problems, they impart a noticeable
bitter taste to drinking water even at very low concentration.

These metals usually occur in groundwater in solution as ferrous (Fe2+) and manganous (Mn2+)
ions. When these ions are exposed to air, they form the insoluble ferric (Fe 3+) and manganic
(Mn3+) forms making the water turbid and unacceptable to most people. (Gorde S.P et al., 2013)

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

Bacteria and other microorganisms use organic substances for food. As they metabolize organic
material, they consume oxygen. The organics are broken down into simpler compounds, such as
CO2 and H2O, and the microbes use the energy released for growth and reproduction.

When this process occurs in water, the oxygen consumed is the DO in the water. If oxygen is not
continuously replaced by natural or artificial means in the water, the DO concentration will
reduce as the microbes decompose the organic materials. This need for oxygen is called the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The more organic material there is in the water, the higher
the BOD used by the microbes will be. (Omer, 2019)

The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is a parameter that measures all organics: the
biodegradable and the non-biodegradable substances. It is a chemical test using strong oxidizing
chemicals (potassium dichromate), sulfuric acid, and heat, and the result can be available in just
2 h. COD values are always higher than BOD values for the same sample. (Omer, 2019)

2.4.3 Biological parameters of water quality

One of the most helpful indicators of water quality may be the presence or lack of living
organisms. Microorganisms exist everywhere in nature. Human bodies maintain a normal
population of microbes in the intestinal tract; a big portion of which is made up of coliform
bacteria. Although there are millions of microbes per milliliter in wastewater, most of them are
harmless. It is only harmful when wastewater contains wastes from people infected with diseases
that the presence of harmful microorganisms in wastewater is likely to occur. (Omer, 2019).

Indicator organisms

10
A very important biological indicator of water and pollution is the group of bacteria called
coliforms. Pathogenic coliforms always exist in the intestinal system of humans, and millions are
excreted with body wastes. Consequently, water that has been recently contaminated with
sewage will always contain coliforms. (Omer, 2019 & Gorde S.P et al., 2013).

A particular species of coliforms found in domestic sewage is Escherichia coli E. coli. Even if
the water is only slightly polluted, they are very likely to be found. There are roughly 3 million
of E.coli bacteria in 100 mL volume of untreated sewage. Coliform bacteria are aggressive
organisms and survive in the water longer than most pathogens. (Omer, 2019)

2.5 Water quality requirements

Water quality requirements differ depending on the proposed used of water. As reported by
Tchobanoglous et al., “water unsuitable for one use may be quite satisfactory for another and
water may be considered acceptable for a particular use if water of better quality is not
available.”

Water quality requirements should be agreed with the water quality standards, which are put
down by the governmental agency and represent the legislation requirements. In general, there
are three types of standards: in-stream, potable water, and wastewater effluent, each type has its
own criteria by using the same methods of measurement. The World Health Organization
(WHO) has established minimum standards for drinking water that all countries are
recommended to meet.

2.6 Drinking Water quality Standards

Under normal circumstance there should be no variation in the concentration of the constituents
of water. On the contrary variation in the ionic concentration of groundwater is expected in the
direction of groundwater flow. The pH value for groundwater samples is slightly acidic to
neutral in which the range is from 6.3 – 7.0. These values are consistent with the World Health
Organization (WHO) standard for drinking water quality (NSDWQ) permissible limit for
portable drinking water (Okoro et al., 2017).

EPA sets legal limits on over 90 contaminants in drinking water. The legal limit for a
contaminant reflects the level that protects human health and that water systems can achieve
using the best available technology. EPA rules also set water-testing schedules and methods that
water systems must follow (Mermelstein, 2014). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) gives

11
individual states the opportunity to set and enforce their own drinking water standards if the
standards are at a minimum as stringent as EPA's national standards.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards and regulations for many
different contaminants in public drinking water, including disease-causing germs and chemicals
(Lam et al., 1994). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress in 1974, with
amendments added in 1986 and 1996, to protect our drinking water. Under the SDWA, EPA sets
the standards for drinking water quality and monitors states, local authorities, and water suppliers
who enforce those standards. As part of the SDWA, EPA has set maximum contaminant levels,
as well as treatment requirements for over 90 different contaminants external icon in public
drinking water.

2.7 The Discharge Standards for Waste water

Globally water management systems are facing enormous challenges of accelerating water
insecurity, flooding, and contamination of water resources. According to the UN 80% of sewage
is currently discharged without treatment (UN WWAP (United Nations World Water
Assessment Programme), 2017). Recognizing these urgent pressures, several jurisdictions within
India have established reuse policies and Zero Liquid Discharge regulations. However,
implementing these initiatives is currently challenging due to national standards for treated
wastewater which undergo frequent change and have ceased to distinguish between wastewater
re-use for irrigation and wastewater discharge to surface or ground waters. 

NPDES permits establish discharge limits and conditions for discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities to waters of the United States (Bastian et al., 2020). Resources for
discharge requirements include: Overview of municipal processes used to treat domestic
wastewater before discharge to the nation's waters, Framework for establishing water quality and
technology-based NPDES permit limits, Minimum, technology-based standards for discharges
from municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

12
 CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the methods and materials of the study. It highlights the field observations,
ground water and leachate sampling and laboratory analysis.

3.2 Surface water, Ground Water and Leachate Sampling

To study the impact of leachate from the landfill site on the water resources, leachate and water
resources within the vicinity of the landfill shall be sampled and analyzed.

Water Samples shall be obtained from the protected springs, shallow wells and community
boreholes, and from the surface water stream along which the leachate flows. The water samples
shall be collected from upstream sources and downstream sources. The upstream sources shall be
taken as control sources against which the quality of water from downstream sources shall be
compared. One sample shall be considered for each source upstream and shall be designated as
BH1, SW1, and SWP 1 for the borehole, protected spring and surface water points respectively.

Water sources downstream shall be considered based on distance from the landfill. For the case
of boreholes and protected springs, Samples from sources close to each other shall be taken as
composite samples. Samples from sources closer to the landfill shall be designated as BH2 and
SW2 for boreholes and protected springs. Sources further downstream shall be named BH3 and
SW3 respectively. The samples shall be mixed on site in equal volumes.

The downstream water sources shall be taken at different distances along the stream from the
point of discharge of the leachate. Three points shall be considered along the stream and the
points shall be designated as SWP2, SWP3, and SWP4 with increasing distance from the point of
discharge. At least six (6) samples shall be taken for both wet and dry seasons (3 for wet seasons
and 3 for dry seasons) totaling to 60 samples.

Leachate samples shall be collected at the single point of discharge. A total of twelve (12)
leachate samples including six (6) wet season samples and six (6) dry season samples shall be
collected for analysis. The sample design is shown in table 1 below while figure 2 below shows
the schematic of all the sampling points mapped on the study area.

13
 SAMPLE
SAMPLE SAMPLING POINT DESIGNATION LOCATION
SW1 SW1 upstream
protected spring
S1+S2 SW2 downstream
BH1 BH1 upstream
Borehole B1+B2 BH2 downstream
B3+B4 BH3
SWP1 SWP1 upstream
SWP2 SWP2 downstream
surface water point
SWP3 SWP3
SWP4 SWP4
Leachate LCT LCT Leachate collection point
Daily total   10  
(S1+S2), (S3+S4), (B1+B2) and (B3+B4) are composite samples.

Groundwater samples will be collected according to the description in American Public Health
Association (APHA) and surface water will be collected directly into sampling bottles. All the
samples collected for analysis shall be contained in tight-capped polyethylene bottles as a
preservation means.

Seasonal variations shall be considered in the sample collection to establish the climatic effects
on the concentration of the different parameters on the leachate and water. In a season of dry
spell, a period of 24 to 48 hours of rainfall shall be considered wet season and therefore, the
samples collected shall be taken as wet season samples.

Figure 2 Showing sampling points for water resources.

14
3.3 Laboratory tests.
Laboratory tests shall be conducted on the samples for selected parameters to determine the
characteristics of the leachate and water quality in accordance with the APHA (1994) methods
(details shown in appendix 1). Analysis on the surface water shall be carried out to determine the
degree of purification and pollution downstream. The various biological, physico-chemical and
microbial parameters for groundwater shall be analyzed for all the samples including pH, total
dissolved solids (TDS), electrical conductivity (EC), nitrates (NO3- ), phosphates( PO4), Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen , biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), Heavy
metals will include iron (Fe3+), Lead, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc, Copper etc. The microbial
parameters shall include E.coli and total coliforms. The APHA methods for testing these
parameters are summarized in the appendix

3.4 Data Analysis.

Data analysis will be done using R-Console statistical software to determine the descriptive
statistics that is arithmetic mean and standard deviation that shall be used to describe the
characteristics of all the test parameters. Pearson correlation analysis will be applied to analyze
and establish physico-chemical relationships of landfill leachate and groundwater, and surface
water. Data interpretation will then be based on generated descriptive and inferential statistics.

The suitability for use of the surface and ground water resources shall be examined by
comparing the water quality with the Uganda standards for the different water uses.

15
 REFERENCES

Aryampa, S., Maheshwari, B., Sabiiti, E., Bateganya, N. L., & Bukenya, B. (2019). Status of waste
management in the East African Cities: Understanding the drivers of waste generation, collection
and disposal and their impacts on Kampala City’s sustainability. Sustainability, 11(19), 5523.

Bastian, R. K., Shanaghan, P. E., & Thompson, B. P. (2020). Use of wetlands for municipal wastewater
treatment and disposal–Regulatory issues and EPA policies. Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment, 265-278.

Baun, D. L., & Christensen, T. H. (2004). Speciation of heavy metals in landfill leachate: a review.  Waste
management & research, 22(1), 3-23.

Bhalla, B., Saini, M. S., & Jha, M. K. (2012). Characterization of leachate from municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfilling sites of Ludhiana, India: a comparative study. International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications, 2(6), 732-745.

Brennan, R. B., Healy, M. G., Morrison, L., Hynes, S., Norton, D., & Clifford, E. (2016). Management of
landfill leachate: The legacy of European Union Directives. Waste management, 55, 355-363.

Britz, T. J., Van Der Merwe, M., & Riedel, K. H. (1992). Influence of phenol additions on the efficiency
of an anaerobic hybrid digester treating landfill leachate. Biotechnology letters, 14(4), 323-328.

Christensen, T. H., Kjeldsen, P., Bjerg, P. L., Jensen, D. L., Christensen, J. B., Baun, A., & Heron, G.
(2001). Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Applied geochemistry, 16(7-8), 659-718.

Dzifa, D., Akiti, T. T., Osae, S., Tutu, A. O., Blankson, S., Ayivor, J. E., & Egbi, C. (2012). Leachate
Characterization and Assessment of Unassured Zone Pollution near Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Site at Oblogo, Accra-Ghana. Research Journal of Environmental Earth Science, 4, 134-
141.

Fan, H. J., Shu, H. Y., Yang, H. S., & Chen, W. C. (2006). Characteristics of landfill leachates in central
Taiwan. Science of the total environment, 361(1-3), 25-37.

Fredrick, M., Oonyu, J., & Sentongo, J. (2017). Assessment of performance of government and the
private sector in the collection and disposal of solid waste in Kampala City during the period
2008-2012. African Journal of Environmental and Waste Management ISSN, 4(5), 227-238.

16
Hilles, A. H., Amr, S. S. A., Hussein, R. A., Arafa, A. I., & El-Sebaie, O. D. (2015). Effect of persulfate
and persulfate/H2O2 on biodegradability of an anaerobic stabilized landfill leachate. Waste
Management, 44, 172-177.

Ikem, A., Osibanjo, O., Sridhar, M. K. C., & Sobande, A. (2002). Evaluation of groundwater quality
characteristics near two waste sites in Ibadan and Lagos, Nigeria. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, 140(1), 307-333.

Kanmani, S., & Gandhimathi, R. (2013). Assessment of heavy metal contamination in soil due to leachate
migration from an open dumping site. Applied Water Science, 3(1), 193-205.

Kasam, S., Syamsiah, S., & Prasetya, A. (2016). Pattern of characteristics of leachate generation from
municipal solid waste landfill by Lysimeter experiment. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Development, 7(10), 768-771.

Kikonyogo, C. N. (2000). Recent developments in Uganda Financial Sector,‘. Crisis or Transition.

Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2002). Present and
long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Critical reviews in environmental
science and technology, 32(4), 297-336.

Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2002). Present and
long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Critical reviews in environmental
science and technology, 32(4), 297-336.

Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2002). Present and
long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Critical reviews in environmental
science and technology, 32(4), 297-336.

Kurniawan, T. A., Chan, G. Y., Lo, W. H., & Babel, S. (2006). Physico–chemical treatment techniques
for wastewater laden with heavy metals. Chemical engineering journal, 118(1-2), 83-98.

Lam, R. H., Brown, J. P., Fan, A. M., & Milea, A. (1994). Chemicals in California drinking water: source
contaminants, risk assessment, risk management, and regulatory standards. Journal of hazardous
materials, 39(2), 173-192.

Legret, M. (1993). Speciation of heavy metals in sewage sludge and sludge-amended soil. International
journal of environmental analytical chemistry, 51(1-4), 161-165.

Mermelstein, N. H. (2014). Water, Water, Everywhere. FOOD TECHNOLOGY, 68(10), 73-76.

17
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R. P., & Chandra, A. (2006). Leachate characterization and assessment of
groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site. Environmental monitoring and
assessment, 118(1), 435-456.

Mukama, T., Ndejjo, R., Musoke, D., Musinguzi, G., Halage, A. A., Carpenter, D. O., & Ssempebwa, J.
C. (2016). Practices, concerns, and willingness to participate in solid waste management in two
urban slums in Central Uganda. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2016.

Mwiganga, M., & Kansiime, F. (2005). The impact of Mpererwe landfill in Kampala–Uganda, on the
surrounding environment. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30(11-16), 744-750.

Naminata, S., Kwa-Koffi, K. E., Marcel, K. A., & Marcellin, Y. K. (2018). Assessment and Impact of
Leachate Generated by the Landfill City in Abidjan on the Quality of Ground Water and Surface
Water (M’Badon Bay, Côte d’Ivoire). Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10(01), 145.

Nawaz, T., Rahman, A., Pan, S., Dixon, K., Petri, B., & Selvaratnam, T. (2020). A review of landfill
leachate treatment by microalgae: Current status and future directions. Processes, 8(4), 384.

Nicholson, F. A., Smith, S. R., Alloway, B. J., Carlton-Smith, C., & Chambers, B. J. (2003). An inventory
of heavy metals inputs to agricultural soils in England and Wales. Science of the total
environment, 311(1-3), 205-219.

Okoro, N., Omeje, E. O., & Osadebe, P. O. (2017). Comparative analysis of three borehole water sources
in Nsukka Urban Area, Enugu State, Nigeria.

Razak, M. W. A., & Adamou, Z. (2020). Caractérisation Physico-Chimique Des Lixiviats Des Décharges:
CAS De La Décharge non Contrôlée de Niamey 2000 (Niamey-Niger). European Scientific
Journal, ESJ, 16(9), 42.

Singh, V., & Mittal, A. K. (2011). Groundwater pollution by municipal solid waste landfill leachate: a
case study of Okhla Landfill Delhi. In IWRA World Water Congress Proceedings.

Tewari, S., Sehrawat, R., Nema, P. K., & Kaur, B. P. (2017). Preservation effect of high pressure
processing on ascorbic acid of fruits and vegetables: A review. Journal of Food
Biochemistry, 41(1), e12319.

Vasudevan, U., Gantayat, R. R., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M. V., Venkatramanan, S., Devaraj, N., &
Ganesh, N. (2021). Microbial contamination and its associations with major ions in shallow
groundwater along coastal Tamil Nadu. Environmental geochemistry and health, 43(2), 1069-
1088.

18
Xu, P., Zeng, Y., Fong, Q., Lone, T., & Liu, Y. (2012). Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for green-
and eco-labeled seafood. Food control, 28(1), 74-82.

Zaafour, D. (2012). Impact des décharges sauvages sur les Zones Humides de la région d’El-
Tarf (Doctoral dissertation, Annaba).

APPENDIX 1
The time schedule for the project

19
 APPENDIX 2

BUDGET FOR THE FINAL YEAR PROJECT.

(impact of landfill leachate on water resources)
1. LABORATORY TESTS COST
TESTS LOCATION UNITS QUANTITY RATE (SHS) AMOUNT(SHS)
leachat Water
e
pH Chemistry lab per test 12 72 - -
TSS and TDS Chemistry lab per filter 12 72 3,500 294,000
paper
Apparent colour Chemistry lab per test 12 72 - -
Turbidity Chemistry lab per test 12 72 - -
Electrical Chemistry lab per test 12 72 - -
conductivity
Total phosphorus Chemistry lab per test 12 72 25,000 2,100,000
Nitrates Chemistry lab per test 12 72 25,000 2,100,000
Lead Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
Iron Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
cadmium Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
chromium Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 30,000 2,520,000
mercury Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 30,000 2,520,000
copper Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 30,000 2,520,000
zinc Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
manganese Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
Total alkalinity Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
Dissolved oxygen Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
Total coliforms Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
E.coli Chemistry lab Per test 12 72 20,000 1,680,000
BOD5 Chemistry lab per test 12 72 30,000 2,520,000
COD Chemistry lab per test 12 72 25,000 2,100,000
SUB - TOTAL 1         31,794,000

2. ASSOCIATED COSTS
Transport   Trips 12 30,000 360,000
Communication   Ls 50,000 50,000
Personal protective Gumboots Pcs 2 15,000 30,000
equipment Rubber gloves dozen 2 12,000 24,000
overalls Pcs 2 35,000 70,000

Vaccination for A doses 4 140,000 560,000

(Hepatitis A and B) B doses 6 25,000 150,000
Meteorological data 100,000
Stationary and   Ls 1 50,000 50,000
printing
20
Miscellaneous   Ls 1 200,000 200,000
SUB - TOTAL 2         1,594,00
0
GRAND TOTAL         33,388,000
Estimated budget for the project

21