Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Evaluations of groundwater contamination by leachates around

Olusosun open dumpsite in Lagos metropolis, southwest Nigeria
Olatunji Sunday Aboyeji*, Stephen Femi Eigbokhan
Regional Centre for Training in Aerospace Surveys (RECTAS), Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A major cause of groundwater pollution in urban areas is contamination by leachates emanating from
Received 28 March 2016 municipal solid waste dumpsites. The study evaluated the quality of water of selected boreholes and
Received in revised form wells around Olusosun open solid waste dumpsite in Lagos metropolis, using water quality index (WQI)
30 August 2016
rating and geospatial techniques. Water samples were randomly collected from fifteen boreholes and five
Accepted 1 September 2016
Available online 5 September 2016
wells downslopes of the dumpsite. The samples were analysed for the physico-chemical parameters and
heavy metals. Factor Analysis was employed to analyse the information content of the water quality
indicators to determine their appropriateness for indexing. The spatial distribution of the WQIs deter-
Keywords:
Solid waste
mined using Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) interpolation procedure. Results showed that the waters
Dumpsite were generally acidic with 85% of pH values below the range suggested by WHO for drinking water. All
Groundwater samples contained concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) in quantities higher than the recommended
Leachate limit of 2.0 mg/l (average ¼ 4.97 mg/l), while 40% of the samples contained concentration of K above the
Water quality index recommended limit. The concentration of heavy metals was generally low. The major cations (Mg, Na,
and K) were highly positively correlated, and were positively correlated with pH, TA, TAL, TH and Cl.
Negative correlations were observed between TDS, NO3 and PO34 ; NO3 and Ag; and DO with the heavy
metals. Eighteen parameters consisting of pH, EC, TDS, TA, TAL, TH, Cl, NO3 , PO34 , Mg, Na, K, Zn, Mn, Fe,
Cd, Ag and Pb were found to be the main indicators of groundwater pollution caused by landfill leachate
percolation. Evaluation of the WQIs indicated that 35% of the water samples were unsuitable for con-
sumption, while 15%, 15% and 35% were in the good, very good and excellent categorises, respectively.
The degree of suitability of the borehole and well waters was closely related to proximity to the
dumpsite. It is imperative that appropriate remediation strategies are adopted to forestall further
contamination of the groundwater by leachates in the area.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction microbiological pollutants in groundwater have been reported in

Groundwater is one of the major sources of fresh water for
drinking in communities around the world. It is an important
renewable resource with several advantages over surface water.
Groundwater is typically less polluted compared to the surface
water because of its high self-cleansing ability and ease of treat-
ment (Oluyemi et al., 2009). However, due to human development
activities, this valuable source of water is vulnerable to pollution.
One of the leading causes of groundwater pollution in urban areas
is contamination by leachates emanating from municipal solid
waste dumpsites. A large number of organic, inorganic and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: olatunjiaboyeji@yahoo.com (O.S. Aboyeji).
several researches in different parts of the world (Christensen et al.,
2001; Han et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Oluyemi et al., 2009; Rapti-
Caputo and Vaccaro, 2006), and much resources have been
committed to efforts to remediate the problems.
Waste disposal is a global problem, particularly in developing
countries due to increase in population, economic growth, urban-
ization and industrialization, coupled with poor waste manage-
ment practices. Uncontrolled dumping of municipal solid waste
particularly in non-engineered open dumps is a major practice in
many developing countries. In particular, inadequate solid waste
management is a major environmental problem in Lagos metrop-
olis where properly designed waste facilities are inexistent (Ikem
et al., 2002; Kola-Olusanya, 2010; Oyelami et al., 2013). Wastes
are typically deposited in non-engineered dumpsites from where
emanating leachates containing dissolved organic matters,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.002
0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
334 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341
inorganic compounds (such as ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
sodium, potassium, iron, sulphates, chlorides and heavy metals like
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc and nickel) and xenobiotic
organic substances can enter the soils to pollute surface and ground
water. The scale of this threat depends on the concentration and
toxicity of the contaminants, type and depth of water table, and
direction of groundwater flow (Aderemi et al., 2011).
There have been many studies in different parts of the world on
the environmental impact of waste. Rapti-Caputo and Vaccaro
(2006) evaluated the geochemical evidences of landfill leachate in
groundwater in Ferrara Province, Northern Italy, and found that the
propagation of the polluting fluids in the deeper aquifers can be
attributed to the deeper propagation of the leachates. Liu et al.
(2010) investigated the impact of Municipal Solid Waste landfill
on the contamination of phthalate esters (PAEs) in nearby envi-
ronment in Wuhan, China. They found that the landfill had an
obvious effect on the contamination of PAEs in groundwater. Han
et al. (2014) examined groundwater inorganic contamination
around a municipal landfill site in Zhoukou city, Henan province,
China, and found that the shallow groundwater (within 30 m
depth) around the landfill is not suitable for drinking, and recom-
mended improvement of pollution control. Peng et al. (2014)
investigated the occurrence and ecological potential of pharma-
ceuticals and personal care products in groundwater and reservoirs
in the vicinity of municipal landfills. It was found that pharma-
ceutical and personal care products contaminants and subsequent
ecological risks in the groundwater and surface water near the
landfills might be of serious concern. Porowska (2015) determined
the origin of dissolved inorganic carbon in groundwater around a
reclaimed landfill in Otwock (Poland) using stable carbon isotopes.
She found that in the leachate-contaminated groundwater, about
20e53% of the dissolved inorganic carbon was derived from organic
matter degradation of natural origin, and 80e47% from biodegra-
dation of organic matter stored in the landfill. Little studies,
particularly in the study area (Oladimeji et al., 2010; Oluyemi et al.,
2009; Oyelami et al., 2013) have explored the use of water quality
indexing techniques to evaluate the phenomenon of municipal
solid waste leachates into the groundwater. In addition, there is
dearth of literature on the use of geospatial technique in modelling
the spatial characteristics of contaminants in the study area. The
use of geographical information system (GIS) is of great value in the
storage, retrieval, processing and analysis of multifunctional and
multidisciplinary data and has greatly simplified assessment of
natural resources. In groundwater studies, GIS is commonly used
for site suitability analysis, manage site inventory data; estimate
groundwater vulnerability to contamination; model groundwater
flow, solute transport and leaching; and integrate groundwater
quality assessment models with spatial data to create spatial de-
cision support systems. GIS can be a valuable tool in understanding
the spatial pattern and migration of contaminants and can help in
tracking site treatment and remediation progress (Engel and
Navavulur, 1999; Johnson, 2008). This study evaluated the
groundwater quality around Olusosun open solid waste dumpsite
in Lagos metropolis using water quality index rating and geospatial
techniques. This is with a view to understanding the level of
contamination and spatial pattern quality of groundwater around
the site. The efforts should aid water pollution remediating stra-
tegies and groundwater resources management of the area.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the study area
Olusosun dumpsite is located in Ojota area of Lagos metropolis
between latitudes 2 420 E and 3 420 E, and longitudes 6 230 N and
6 410 N (Fig. 1). The site was originally located at the outskirt of the
city, but it is now within the city due to urbanization. The dumpsite
is the largest in Lagos state covering about 42 ha and collects more
than 50% of the waste generated. Large numbers of scavengers live
and make earnings on the dumpsite (Balogun and Longe, 2010).
The environment of Lagos metropolis consists of four aquiferous
units (Bale et al., 2004). The upper aquifer consists of alteration
layers of clay and sand, and extends from the ground level to about
12 m from the ground surface. Because it is shallow, the unit is of
minor importance for dependable water supply purposes. Shallow
hand-dug wells in the area are prone to contamination by surface
pollutants. The second aquifer is between 20 and 100 m below the
ground around Ikeja and Ojota area. The zone is of greater impor-
tance for water supply purposes because it is deeper and less prone
to pollution (Bale et al., 2004). The groundwater of the third and
fourth aquifers can be encountered between 130 m and 160 m and
450 m below the sea level, respectively. These aquifers are more
expensive to abstract due to their great depth.
Lagos area is generally low-lying, flat towards and gently slopes
seaward. The coastal plain is underlain by sedimentary sequence of
varying ages, which overlie the crystalline basement of Precam-
brian to lower Palaeozoic age (Bale et al., 2004). The coastal plain
sand consist of extensive red earths and loose poorly sorted sands
mixed with abundant clay (Afolayan and Ogundele, 2012). The area
is characterised by reddish brown loamy soils known as nitrisols.
The deeply weathered soil type is formed by hydromorphic and
organic soils which lie across the lagoon depressions, and are
generally considered to be fertile (Afolayan and Ogundele, 2012).
The study area is known for industrial and commercial activities,
which are concentrated in Oregun and Ojota areas. Field observa-
tions showed that boreholes and wells are the major source of
water. Government-supplied pipe-borne water serves only a small
proportion of the population, and it is irregularly supplied.
2.2. Field and analytical procedures
The choice of sampling for this study took into topography
consideration (Leung and Jiao, 2006). Before the samples were
collected, the slope map of the study area was generated from DEM
and the partitioned into upslope and down slope. Samples were
randomly collected from wells and boreholes located down slopes
of the dumpsite at distances ranging from 120 m to 2 km (Fig. 2). A
sample was taken in a residential area outside the study area (i.e.
from the dumpsite) as control location where the influence of
leachates from the dumpsite was considered irrelevant to
groundwater quality (Amadi et al., 2012). The site was chosen to
exclude areas where impacts of anthropogenic factors such as in-
dustrial, agricultural and commercial activities are negligible.
Water Temperature, electrical conductivity (EC) and pH were
measured in situ with portable digital meter and pen type pH meter
(PH-03 (1)), respectively. Twenty (20) samples comprising five
from hand-dug wells and fifteen from boreholes were collected.
Collection bottles were rinsed with water taken from the sample
point before the samples were taken. The samples were labelled
and stored chilled en-route the laboratory where the physic-
chemical constituents were analysed. The geographic locations of
the sample points were determined using a hand-held GPS (Ger-
main GPSmap 76).
The water samples were analysed for physical parameters,
appearance, total suspended solid (TSS), total dissolved solid (TDS)
and turbidity. The general chemical parameters include total acid-
ity, total alkalinity, total hardness and electrolytic conductivity. The
major ions analysed includes; chloride (Cl ), nitrates (NO3 ), phos-
phate (PO34 ), magnesium (Mg2þ), sodium (Naþ), Potassium (Kþ),
and the heavy metals analysed include; zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn),
 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341
Fig. 1. The study area.
iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), cadmium (Cd), silver (Ag) and lead (Pb). Ox-
ygen parameter includes; dissolved oxygen (DO). Total suspended
solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS) were analysed using
gravimetric method, and turbidity was analysed using spectro-
photometric method. Total acidity and alkalinity were analysed
using acid-base titrimetric methods, total hardness, chloride and
dissolved oxygen were also analysed with titrimetric method.
Phosphate and nitrate were analysed using colorimetric method.
Cations and heavy metals were analysed using spectrophotometric
method except for sodium and potassium that were analysed with
atomic flame emission photometry. Sampling and analytical tech-
niques followed the suggestions by American Public Health
Association (APHA) (1998).
2.3. Determination of groundwater quality index
Typical urban dumpsites usually consist a wide range of
pollutant compounds emanating from a mixture of municipal,
commercial and industrial wastes. As such, it is always costly to
obtain comprehensive datasets to ascertain the level of hazardous
leachates in groundwater, particularly in developing countries.
Factor Analysis (using Principal component extraction method) was
employed to analyse the information content of the indicators. The
approach was adopted as data reduction tools to distinguish the
hydrochemical constituents that best explain the groundwater
quality. The factors (Fs) with eigenvalues  1 and those that
335
explained at least 5% of the variability in the water samples were
assumed to best represent the variation in the data (Andrews et al.,
2002; Lobato et al., 2015). These were considered potential mem-
bers for inclusion into WQI. The components with eigenvalues <1
had less variation than an individual variable (Askari and Holden,
2014). Varimax rotation was performed on factors to enhance the
interpretation of the results (Andrews et al., 2002; Askari and
Holden, 2014; Lobato et al., 2015). Highly weighted parameters
defined to be those having factor loading of 0.50 and whose
commonalities were above 0.50 were selected in each factor for the
indexing (Chen et al., 2013; Lobato et al., 2015; Swanepoel et al.,
2014).
Three steps were followed in the calculation of WQI. Firstly, the
parameters were assigned weights (Wi) based on their importance
to water quality assessment and health implication. The relative
weights were based on the communalities between the variables
(chemical parameters) derived through Factor analysis. The com-
munalities were calculated as
h2j ¼ a2j1 þ a2j2 … a2jn (1)
where h2j is the communality and a is the factor loadings for var-
iable j.
The weight of each parameter (Wi) was calculated as the quo-
tient of the communality divided by the sum of the communality of
parameter (Equation (2)).
336 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341

Fig. 2. Water sampling locations.

each water sample; V ¼ the ideal value of parameters in pure water

h2 (7.0 for pH and 14.6 for DO); S ¼ WHO Standard for drinking water
Wi ¼ Pni 2 (2) for each parameter; and i is the quality parameter.
i h
Equation (5) was used to calculate the sub-index of the ith
where W is the relative weight; h2 is the communality of each parameter before the final groundwater quality index was deter-
parameter; i is the water quality parameter; and n is the number of mined with Equation (6).
parameters.
Secondly, the rating scale (Qi) was assigned to each parameter SIi ¼ Wi Qi (5)
by dividing its concentration in the water samples by its respective
where SI ¼ sub-index of the ith parameter, W ¼ relative weight and
standard according to the guidelines laid down by WHO guidelines
Q ¼ quality rating and where i is the quality parameter.
for drinking water. The result was then multiplied by 100 (Ishaku,
2011; Sharma et al., 2014) Equation (3). Pn
i¼1 SIi

WQI ¼ P (6)
wi
C
 
Qi ¼ i 100 (3)
Si where WQI is the water quality index, SI is the sub-index of the ith
parameter, and is the weight of the ith parameter.
where, Q ¼ quality rating, C ¼ concentration of each parameter in
The water quality indices were categorized into five categories:
each water sample, S ¼ WHO Standard for drinking water for each
Excellent (0e25), Very good (26e50), Good (61e75), Poor (76e100)
parameter and i ¼ quality parameter.
and Unsuitable (>100) (Sharma et al., 2014).
The groundwater quality rating (Qi) of pH was determined
differently because the recommended value for drinking is in the
range of 6.5e8.5 (WHO, 2011). The rating was determined using 2.4. Analysis of the spatial distribution of water quality indices
equation (3) (Sharma et al., 2014; Wanda et al., 2012). around the dumpsite
 
CpH 6:5 The spatial distribution of the WQI around the dumpsite was
QpH ¼ *100 (4)
½8:5 6:5Š modelled using Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) interpolation
procedure. IDW interpolation function estimates the unknown
where, Q ¼ quality rating; C ¼ concentration of each parameter in points using weighted averages of the known measurements
 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341 337

(sampled points) at nearby points, giving the greatest value to surface water, ground water and soil in Owo township, Ondo State,
points closest to the point being estimated. That is, the locations Nigeria. Values of total alkalinity (TAL) in all the samples except two
with known WQI index value have a local weighted value that di- were below the threshold suggested by WHO standard. The results
minishes away with distance to the surrounding known locations. thus agree with the generally low pH values in water samples. High
The interpolation procedure produces predicted values for the alkalinity in water is considered undesirable because of excessive
unknown locations that are within the range (maximum e mini- hardness and high concentration of sodium salts.
mum) of data values for the known points (Dixon and Uddameri, Likewise, 40% of the samples were not compliant with the rec-
2016). The general equation for the IDW is given as ommended limit of potassium in drinking water. All the water
! samples contained concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) in
Ps 1 quantities higher than the recommended limit of 2.0 mg/l
i¼1 zi dki (average ¼ 4.97 mg/l). High DO content in drinking water can speed
z0 ¼ ! (7) up corrosion in water pipes. The concentration of heavy metal was
Ps 1 generally low in the samples analysed. Zn, Mn, Ni, cd, Ag and Pb
i¼i dki
were below the detection level of atomic absorption spectropho-
tometry in many samples. However, a high value of 0.66 mg/l of Pb
where z0 is the estimated value at point 0; zi is the z-value at the was recorded in Well 1. This level of concentration is higher than
known point i; di is the distance between points i and 0; s is the the WHO recommended threshold of 0.02 mg/l in drinking water.
number of known points used in the estimation; and k is the power The spike in concentration may be due to contamination by
function indicating degree of weight which is often assumed to be leachates from the waste dumps that moved downslope to the well
two (Dixon and Uddameri, 2016). (Oluyemi et al., 2009). Exposure to high concentration of Pb can
The IDW interpolation was implemented in ArcGIS 10.2.1 soft- lead to multiple effects such as hypertension, problems in gastro-
ware environment. intestinal systems, kidney disease, encephalopathy, decreased
growth, among others (Dooyema et al., 2012; Fewtrell et al., 2004;
3. Results and discussion Pruss-Ustun et al., 2004; Udiba et al., 2012).

3.1. Physico-chemical and heavy metal concentration in 3.2. Correlation of groundwater quality parameters
groundwater around the dumpsite
Table 2 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the
The water quality parameters around the dumpsite are pre- water quality parameters. The significant correlations (a ¼ 0.05) are
sented in Table 1. The observed variations are due to differences in bold face. The major cations (Mg, Na, and K) were highly posi-
prevailing in the sampling environment, and are reflected in the tively correlated, and were positively correlated with pH, TA, TAL,
pattern of WQI discussed in Section 3.3. The waters are generally TH and Cl. Similarly, pH was positively correlated with TBD, TA, TAL
acidic with 85% of pH values below the range of 6.5e8.5 for TH Mg, Na, K, and Fe. The high positive correlation between the
drinking water suggested by WHO (2011). This may be due to the chemical parameters is an indication that they are of common
leaching of minerals into the wells and boreholes. The result is source (Tang et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2014). Negative correlations
similar to observations of Oladimeji et al. (2010) in their study of were observed between TDS, NO3 and PO34 ; NO3 and Ag; and DO
the effect of refuse dumps on the physicochemical properties of with the heavy metals.
The results of Factor Analysis indicate that the first five Factors
(Fs) had eigenvalues > 1 and accounted for 69.9% of variance in the
Table 1 measured variables (Table 3). Factor 1 (F1) explained 30.8% of the
Summary statistics of physico-chemical and heavy metal concentration in ground-
total variance, while F2, F3, F4 and F5 explained 17.5%, 10.6%, 5.9%
water around the dumpsite.
and 5.2%, respectively. All the parameters, except Ni had the
Statistic Min. Max. Mean STD CV threshold factor loadings of 0.5 in at least one of the Fs. For each
Temperature ( C) 26.20 28.10 27.04 0.53 0.02 factor, the variance explained by the extracted factors (commu-
pH 4.40 6.90 5.44 0.83 0.15 nality) indicated  50% in all the parameters except Ni, which
TBD (mg/l) 0.10 99.00 18.43 30.61 1.66 exhibited weakest relationship (0.24) with other water quality in-
EC (mS/cm) 0.14 1.13 0.48 0.33 0.69
TSS (mg/l) 0 40.00 10.90 9.88 0.91
dicators. Thus, pH, EC, TDS, TA, TAL, TH, Cl, NO3 , PO34 , Mg, Na, K, Zn,
TDS (mg/l) 3.21 19.50 10.24 5.18 0.51 Mn, Fe, Cd, Ag and Pb were considered for the determination of
TA (mg/l) 2.00 152.00 65.35 42.31 0.65 groundwater quality indices around the dumpsite.
TAL (mg/l) 3.00 390.00 70.15 130.99 1.87
TH (mg/l) 8.00 292.00 58.40 77.52 1.33
3.3. Groundwater quality parameter scores and indices
Cl (mg/l) 0 167.00 27.50 45.40 1.65
NO3 (mg/l) 1.10 8.41 4.71 1.93 0.41
PO34 (mg/l) 0.53 4.91 3.15 1.08 0.34 Table 4 shows the relative weight (Wi) assigned to each
Mg (mg/l) 0 0.1791 0.0389 0.0590 1.52 parameter which was based on the values of their communalities.
Na (mg/l) 0 2.1338 0.6522 0.4634 0.71 Communality estimates reflect the variance of a variable in com-
K (mg/l) 0 2.4298 0.4158 0.7952 1.91
DO (mg/l) 3.98 5.7800 4.9715 0.5054 0.10
mon with all others together (Yong and Pearce, 2013). The more the
Zn (mg/l) 0 0.0031 0.0004 0.0009 2.43 communalities, the greater the assigned weights. Thus, Mg and Fe
Mn (mg/l) 0 0.0164 0.0021 0.0042 1.95 with communality of one have the greatest weights, while PO34 ,
Fe (mg/l) 0 0.5643 0.0850 0.1554 1.83 which had the lowest value, had the least assigned weight. The
Ni (mg/l) 0 0.1508 0.0149 0.0352 2.37
relative weights sum to one.
Cd (mg/l) 0 0.0119 0.0008 0.0026 3.35
Ag (mg/l) 0 0.0116 0.0017 0.0034 2.01 The computed water quality indices at each sampled locations
Pb (mg/l) 0 0.6556 0.0414 0.1468 3.55 are depicted in Table 5. Values range from 13.48 to 702.89, with an
T C ¼ temperature; TBD ¼ turbidity; TSS ¼ total suspended solids; TDS ¼ total
average and standard deviation of 163.6 and 233.12, respectively.
dissolved solid; TA ¼ total acidity; TAL ¼ total alkalinity; TH ¼ total hardness; Value obtained for the control site was 7.82, lower than result ob-
DO ¼ dissolved oxygen. tained for any single sample location around the dumpsite. This
338 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341

Table 2
Correlation matrix of groundwater quality parameters.

Parameters T C pH TBD EC TSS TDS TA TAL TH Cl NO3

T C 1
pH 0.28 1
TBD 0.09 0.48 1
Cond 0.08 0.24 0.39 1
TSS 0.30 0.36 0.54 0.17 1
TDS ¡0.45 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.14 1
TA 0.37 0.54 0.05 0.08 0.30 0.53 1
TAL 0.08 0.74 0.31 0.23 0.46 ¡0.23 0.80 1
TH 0.18 0.53 0.17 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.66 1
Cl 0.42 0.43 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.33 0.68 0.52 0.02 1
NO3 0.17 0.36 ¡0.61 0.21 0.27 0.05 0.26 ¡0.50 0.18 0.21 1
PO3-
4 0.27 0.04 0.22 0.15 0.20 ¡0.51 0.01 0.22 0.39 0.14 0.27
Mg 0.03 0.74 0.22 0.35 0.31 0.17 0.73 0.92 0.82 0.52 0.33
Na 0.19 0.55 0.07 0.27 0.10 0.34 0.66 0.51 0.54 0.60 0.20
K 0.00 0.45 0.17 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.57 0.59 0.67 0.40 0.27
Zn 0.22 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.27 0.38 0.46 0.12 0.06 0.43 0.15
Mn 0.01 0.28 0.03 0.44 0.29 0.01 0.38 0.48 0.54 0.22 0.05
Fe 0.20 0.51 0.53 0.10 0.53 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.10 0.15 0.13
Ni 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.49 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.06 0.12
Cd 0.33 0.20 0.23 0.45 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.33
Ag ¡0.57 0.14 0.28 0.52 0.31 0.17 0.01 0.24 0.31 0.22 ¡0.50
Pb 0.35 0.16 0.24 0.41 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.31
DO 0.44 0.11 0.24 0.38 0.15 0.06 0.23 0.12 0.26 0.13 0.13

PO3-
4 Mg Na K Zn Mn Fe Ni Cd Ag Pb DO

1
0.27 1
0.12 0.68 1
0.32 0.69 0.65 1
0.21 0.20 0.62 0.40 1
0.39 0.65 0.38 0.26 0.03 1
0.03 0.29 0.16 0.06 0.47 0.11 1
0.13 0.23 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.20 0.19 1
0.24 0.18 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.17 1
0.16 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.66 1
0.24 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.15 0.98 0.66 1
0.23 0.19 0.22 0.32 0.31 0.35 0.21 0.07 ¡0.45 ¡0.49 ¡0.50 1

Values in bold are different from 0 with a significance level alpha ¼ 0.05.
T C ¼ temperature; TBD ¼ turbidity; Cond ¼ conductivity; TSS ¼ total suspended solids; TDS ¼ total dissolved solid; TA ¼ total acidity; TAL ¼ total alkalinity; TH ¼ total
hardness; DO ¼ dissolved oxygen.

Table 3 Table 4
Results of Factor analysis to obtain the relevant parameters for determination of Parameters and their assigned weight.
Water Quality Indicator (WQI).
Parameter WHO standard (2011) Communality Relative weight
Parameters F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Communality
pH 6.5e8.5 0.66 0.04
pH 0.74 0.09 0.05 0.29 0.00 0.66 EC 1.0 mS/cm 0.53 0.04
EC 0.32 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.53 TDS 1200 mg/l 0.79 0.05
TDS 0.31 0.37 0.60 0.17 0.15 0.79 TA 100 mg/l 0.78 0.05
TA 0.83 0.14 0.25 0.05 0.10 0.78 TAL 200 mg/l 0.97 0.07
TAL 0.90 0.04 0.14 0.35 0.06 0.97 TH 100 mg/l 0.83 0.06
TH 0.73 0.16 0.45 0.16 0.19 0.83 Cl 200 mg/l 0.65 0.04
Cl 0.57 0.27 0.25 0.07 0.43 0.65 NO3 10 mg/l 0.56 0.04
NO3 0.36 ¡0.42 0.04 0.37 0.31 0.56 PO3-
4 5 mg/l 0.51 0.03
PO3-
4 0.17 0.44 ¡0.45 0.06 0.08 0.51 Mg 150 mg/l 1.00 0.07
Mg 0.96 0.03 0.26 0.06 0.02 1.00 Na 200 mg/l 0.82 0.06
Na 0.78 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.19 0.82 K 0.02 mg/l 0.79 0.05
K 0.72 0.03 0.17 0.35 0.26 0.79 Zn 3 mg/l 0.92 0.06
Zn 0.43 0.21 ¡0.64 0.47 0.00 0.92 Mn 0.4 mg/l 0.57 0.04
Mn 0.54 0.09 0.32 0.12 0.30 0.57 Fe 0.3 mg/l 1.00 0.07
Fe 0.44 0.07 0.43 0.31 0.54 1.00 Cd 0.002 mg/l 0.96 0.07
Ni 0.23 0.25 0.13 0.06 ¡0.25 0.24 Ag 0.015 mg/l 0.64 0.04
Cd 0.13 0.88 0.37 0.06 0.15 0.96 Pb 0.015 mg/l 0.96 0.07
Ag 0.19 0.77 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.64 DO 2.0 mg/l 0.68 0.05
Pb 0.09 0.86 0.44 0.05 0.06 0.96
DO 0.27 ¡0.57 0.19 0.43 0.25 0.68
Eigenvalue 6.17 3.49 2.12 1.17 1.04
Variability (%) 30.83 17.45 10.58 5.85 5.19 indicates that the groundwater near the dumpsite was generally
Cumulative % 30.83 48.28 58.86 64.72 69.91 not of good quality compared to locations where there are no solid
Values in bold correspond for each variable to the factor for which the squared waste dumps. Fig. 3 illustrates the spatial pattern of the indices.
cosine is the largest. There was a progressively poorer groundwater quality with prox-
imity to the dumpsite. This is similar to the results obtained by
 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341 339

Table 5
Computed water quality value (SI) of parameters at each sampled point.

Sample points pH Cond TDS TA TAL TH Cl NO3 PO3-

4 Mg Na K Zn Mn Fe Cd Ag Pb DO WQI

Well 1 3.08 0.0034 0.06 2.61 0.5 0.57 0.09 0.7 1.34 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.98 39.3 3.39 429.32 1.28 483.21
Well 2 4.36 0.0014 0.03 7.87 12.93 0.79 3.29 0.84 2.24 0.01 0.02 9.04 0 0.07 7.36 0 0 13.88 1.79 64.52
Well 3 3.85 0.0031 0.02 3.08 1.33 0.79 0.24 1.41 2.81 0 0.02 0.95 0 0 7.14 2.31 0 0 1.64 25.6
Well 4 4.43 0.0028 0.02 8.08 12.93 16.57 0.29 1.56 2.17 0.01 0.04 451.01 0 0.07 4.55 0 2.42 0 1.46 505.61
Well 5 4.11 0.0014 0.07 5 10.11 13.51 0.51 0.42 0.37 0.01 0.03 618.77 0 0.06 4.61 0 0.76 0 1.4 659.72
BH 1 3.66 0.0005 0.02 4.2 0.17 0.45 0.2 2.74 2.36 0 0.02 2.57 0.01 0 12.89 0.33 0 73.34 1.42 104.38
BH 2 2.89 0.0011 0.02 2.39 0.2 1.82 0.44 1.91 3.05 0 0.02 12.65 0 0.01 0 0.99 0 14.6 1.57 42.56
BH 3 4.04 0.0016 0.02 7.97 5.14 4.77 3.69 1.67 2.81 0.01 0.06 657.98 0.01 0.03 0.37 1.98 0 10.81 1.53 702.89
BH 4 2.82 0.0016 0.05 1.22 0.33 0.79 0.22 1.56 2.87 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.34 0 1.72 0 1.53 13.48
BH 5 4.3 0.0013 0.08 0.11 0.93 2.72 0 1.03 2.78 0 0.02 37.67 0 0 0.51 0 1.52 0 1.72 53.39
BH 6 2.89 0.0005 0.07 2.07 0.3 0.68 0.22 2.37 1.63 0 0 307.84 0 0 0 1.65 0 0 1.58 321.31
BH 7 3.21 0.0015 0.08 2.66 0.2 1.82 0.73 1.73 2.12 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 1.64 14.54
BH 8 3.21 0.0031 0.06 2.61 0.23 5.79 0.29 2.72 1.41 0 0.02 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 1.37 17.88
BH 9 3.66 0.0025 0.05 0.85 0.3 6.47 0.6 3.2 2.22 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.05 0.33 0 0 1.85 19.59
BH 10 3.27 0.0004 0.09 2.29 0.2 1.48 0.18 2.42 1.48 0 0.01 136.7 0 0 0 1.32 0 0 1.67 151.09
BH 11 3.02 0.0007 0.04 4.52 0.1 0.68 0.29 2.32 3.4 0 0.02 1.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.45 16.9
BH 12 2.95 0.001 0.03 2.71 0.1 2.84 0.35 1.24 1.41 0 0.02 15.87 0 0.02 0 0.66 0 0 1.77 29.98
BH 13 3.21 0.0004 0.01 3.08 0.17 1.25 0.24 2.32 2.99 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 2.64 0 0 1.72 17.64
BH 14 3.21 0.0005 0.04 3.4 0.13 1.13 0.18 2.01 2.11 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.72 13.94
BH 15 3.66 0.0005 0.05 2.76 0.23 1.36 0.11 1.64 2.15 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 13.76
Control Site 2.82 0 0.42 1.22 0.33 1.02 0.1 0.04 0.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.05 7.82

Fig. 3. Spatial variation of groundwater quality downslopes of the dumpsite.

Akinbile and Yusoff (2011) and (Mor et al., 2006), in their respective
assessments of groundwater quality near unlined municipal land-
fills in Akure, Nigeria and Gazipur, Delhi (India).
The results indicate that 35% of the water samples were un-
suitable for consumption, while 15%, 15% and 35% were in the
category of good, very good and excellent, respectively. The high
values obtained in some locations were due to high concentration
of K and Pb in the samples. The concentration of these water quality
indicators were higher than the recommended threshold for
drinking by the WHO standard. Samples with unsuitable WQI rat-
ing were mainly from the wells sited around the dumpsite (Fig. 3)
which may have suffered from anthropogenic influence. Water
340 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341
from these locations can be regarded as unfit for consumption and
needs to be remediated to prevent further contamination. It is
imperative that the site be replaced with modern engineering
landfill in order to forestall further groundwater contamination by
leachates.
4. Conclusions
The study evaluated the groundwater quality around Olusosun
open solid waste dumpsite in Lagos metropolis using water quality
index rating and geospatial techniques. The groundwater samples
around the dumpsite were generally acidic with 85% of the pH
values below the range of 6.5e8.5 in drinking water suggested by
WHO (2011). About 40% of potassium (K) in the waters was higher
than the recommended limit.
The concentration of heavy metals was generally low in the
groundwater samples. The concentrations of Zn, Mn, Ni, cd, Ag and
Pb were below the detection level of atomic absorption spectro-
photometry in many of the samples. However, at a site (Well 1), a
high value of 0.66 mg/l of Pb was recorded. This level of concen-
tration is above the WHO recommended threshold of 0.02 mg/l in
drinking water. The major cations (Mg, Na, and K) were highly
positively correlated, and were positively correlated with pH, TA,
TAL, TH and Cl.
All the parameters (pH, EC, TDS, TA, TAL, TH, Cl, NO3 , PO34 , Mg,
Na, K, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cd, Ag and Pb) except Ni, which exhibited weakest
relationship with other water quality indicators, were found to be
the main indicators of groundwater pollution caused by landfill
leachate percolation. Analysis of WQIs indicated that 35% of the
water samples were unsuitable for consumption, while 15%, 15%
and 35% were categorized as good, very good and excellent,
respectively. The high value obtained in some locations was majorly
because of high concentration of K and Pb in the water samples.
Samples with unsuitable WQI rating were mainly from the wells
dug downslopes of the dumpsite, which may have suffered from
anthropogenic influence. These results suggest that waters from
these locations can be regarded as unfit for consumption and
remedial measures are required to prevent further contamination.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and editorial team
whose constructive comments greatly improved the manuscript.
References
Aderemi, A.O., Oriaku, A., Adewumi, G.A., Otitoloju, A.A., 2011. Assessment of
groundwater contamination by Leachate near a municipal solid waste landfill.
Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 5, 933e940.
Afolayan, O., Ogundele, F., 2012. Comparative analysis of the effect of closed and
operational landfills on groundwater quality in Solous Lagos, Nigeria. J. Environ.
Sci. Water Res. 1, 52e58.
Akinbile, C.O., Yusoff, M., 2011. Assessment of Groundwater Quality Near a
Municipal Landfill in Akure, Nigeria, 2nd International Conference on Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology. IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Amadi, A., Olasehinde, P., Yisa, J., Okosun, E.N., 2012. Geostatistical assessment of
groundwater quality from coastal aquifes of eastern Niger delta, Nigeria. Int. J.
Geosci. 2, 51e59.
American Public Health Association (APHA), 1998. American Water Works Associ-
ation and Water Environment Federation. Standard Methods for the Exami-
nation of Water and Wastewater, 20 ed. American Public Health Association,
Washington, USA.
Andrews, S.S., Karlen, D.L., Mitchell, J.P., 2002. A comparison of soil quality indexing
methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agric. Eco-
syst. Environ. 90, 25e45.
Askari, M.S., Holden, N.M., 2014. Indices for quantitative evaluation of soil quality
under grassland management. Geoderma 230e231, 131e142.
Bale, R.B., Adelana, S.M.A., Wu, M., 2004. Water quality in a growing urban centre
along the coast of southwestern Nigeria. In: Xi, R.-Z., Seiler, K.-P., Gu, W.-Z.
(Eds.), Research Basins and Hydrological Planning: Proceedings of the
International Conference. Taylor & Francis, Hefei/Anhui, pp. 83e91.
Balogun, M.R., Longe, E.O., 2010. Groundwater quality assessment near a muuni-
cipal landfill, in Lagos, Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Tech. 2, 39e44.
Chen, Y.-D., Wang, H.-Y., Zhou, J.-M., Xing, L., Zhu, B.-S., Zhao, Y.-C., Chen, X.-Q., 2013.
Minimum data set for assessing soil quality in farmland of northeast China.
Pedosphere 23, 564e576.
Christensen, T.H., Kjeldsen, P., Bjerg, P.L., Jensen, D.L., Christensen, J.B., Baun, A.,
Albrechtsen, H.J., Heron, G., 2001. Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes.
Appl. Geochem 16, 659e718.
Dixon, B., Uddameri, V., 2016. GIS and Geocomputation for Water Resource Science
and Engineering, first ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, UK.
Dooyema, C.A., Neri, A., Lo, Y., Durant, J., Dargan, P.I., Biya, O., Gidado, S.O., Haladu, S.,
Sani-Gwarzo, N., Swarthout, T., Nguku, P.M., Idris, S., Bashir, A.M., Brown, M.J.,
2012. Outbreak of fatal childhood lead poisoning related to artisanal gold
mining in northwestern Nigeria, 2010. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 601e607.
Engel, B.A., Navavulur, K.S., 1999. The role of geographical information systems in
groundwater engineering. In: Delleur, J.W. (Ed.), The Handbook of Groundwater
Engineering. CRC Press, pp. 703e718.
Fewtrell, L.J., Pruss-Ustun, A., Landrigan, P., Ayuso-Mateos, J.L., 2004. Estimating the
global burden of disease of mild mental retardation and cardiovascular diseases
from environmental lead exposure. Environ. Res. 94, 120e133.
Han, D., Tong, X., Currell, M.J., Cao, G., Jin, M., Tong, C., 2014. Evaluation of the
impact of an uncontrolled landfill on surrounding groundwater quality, Zhou-
kou, China. J. Geochem. Explor 136, 24e39.
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, Soil Pollut. 140, 307e333.
Ishaku, J.M., 2011. Assessment of groundwater quality index for jimeta-yola area,
northeastern Nigeria. J. Geol. Res. 3, 219e231.
Johnson, L.E., 2008. Geographic Information Systems in Water Resources Engi-
neering. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton.
Kola-Olusanya, A., 2010. Impact of municipal solid wastes on underground water
sources. Niger. Eur. Sci. J. 8, 590e598.
Leung, C.M., Jiao, J.J., 2006. Heavy metal and trace element distributions in
groundwater in natural slopes and highly urbanized spaces in Mid-Levels area,
Hong Kong. Water Res. 40, 753e767.
Liu, H., Liang, Y., Zhang, D., Wang, C., Liang, H., Cai, H., 2010. Impact of MSW landfill
on the environmental contamination of phthalate esters. Waste Manag. 30,
1569e1576.
Lobato, T.C., Hauser-Davis, R.A., Oliveira, T.F., Silveira, A.M., Silva, H.A.N.,
Saraiva, A.C.F., Tavares, M.R.M., 2015. Construction of a novel water quality in-
dex and quality indicator for reservoir water quality evaluation: a case study in
the Amazon region. J. Hydrol. 522.
Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R.P., Chandra, A., 2006. Leachate characterization and
assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 118, 435e456.
Oladimeji, M.O., Abata, E., Dawodu, M.O., Ipeaiyeda, A.R., 2010. Effect of refuse
dumps on the physicochemical properties of surface water, ground water and
soil in Owo township, Ondo state, Nigeria. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 91, 979e987.
Oluyemi, E.A., Makinde, W.O., Oladipo, A.A., 2009. Potential groundwater contam-
ination with toxic metals around refuse dumps in some parts of Lagos
metropolis, Nigeria. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 91, 933e940.
Oyelami, A.C., Aladejana, J.A., Agbede, O.O., 2013. Assessment of the impact of open
waste dumpsites on groundwater quality: a case study of the Onibu-Eja
dumpsite, southwestern Nigeria. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 648e651.
Peng, X., Ou, W., Wang, C., Wang, Z., Huang, Q., Jin, J., Tan, J., 2014. Occurrence and
ecological potential of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in
groundwater and reservoirs in the vicinity of municipal landfills in China. Sci.
Total Environ. 490, 889e898.
Porowska, D., 2015. Determination of the origin of dissolved inorganic carbon in
groundwater around a reclaimed landfill in Otwock using stable carbon iso-
topes. Waste Manag. 39, 216e225.
Pruss-Ustun, A., Fewtrell, L., Landrigan, P.J., Ayuso-Mateos, J.L., 2004. Lead exposure.
In: Ezzati, M., Lopez, A.D., Rodgers, A., Murray, C.J.L. (Eds.), Comparative
Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attrib-
utable to Selected Major Risk Factors. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Rapti-Caputo, D., Vaccaro, C., 2006. Geochemical evidences of landfill leachate in
groundwater. Eng. Geol. 85, 111e121.
Sharma, P., Meher, P.K., Kumar, A., Gautam, Y.P., Mishra, K.P., 2014. Changes in water
quality index of Ganges river at different locations in Allahabad. Sustain. Water
Qual. Ecol. 3e4, 67e76.
Swanepoel, P.A., du Preez, C.C., Botha, P.R., Snyman, H.A., Habig, J., 2014. Soil quality
characteristics of kikuyueryegrass pastures in South Africa. Geoderma
232e234, 589e599.
Tang, Z., Zhang, L., Huang, Q., Yang, Y., Nie, Z., Cheng, J., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Chai, M.,
2015. Contamination and risk of heavy metals in soils and sediments from a
typical plastic waste recycling area in North China. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 122,
343e351.
Udiba, U.U., Ogabiele, E.E., Hammuel, C., Mgomya, A.M., Yebpella, G.G., Ade-
Ajayi, A.F., Odey, M.O., Gauje, B., 2012. Post remediation assessment of con-
taminants levels in soil, dareta village, zamfara, Nigeria. Trends Adv. Sci. Eng. 4,
70e79.
Wanda, E.M.M., Gulula, L.C., Phiri, G., 2012. Determination of characteristics and
drinking water quality index in Mzuzu City, Northern Malawi. Phy. Chem. Earth
50e52, 92e97.
 O.S. Aboyeji, S.F. Eigbokhan / Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016) 333e341 341

WHO, 2011. Guideline for Drinking Water Quality, fourth ed. World Health Orga- region, NW China. J. Geochem. Explor 136, 118e126.
nization, Geneva, Switzerland. Yong, A.G., Pearce, S., 2013. A Beginner's guide to factor analysis: focusing on
Xiao, J., Jin, Z., Wang, J., 2014. Geochemistry of trace elements and water quality exploratory factor analysis tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 9, 79e94.
assessment of natural water within the Tarim River Basin in the extreme arid