p-ISSN: 0972-6268

Nature Environment and Pollution Technology (Print copies up to 2016)

Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 833-842 2021
An International Quarterly Scientific Journal
e-ISSN: 2395-3454

Original Research Paper https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2021.v20i02.046

Original Research Paper Open Access Journal

Potential Ecological and Health Risk Assessment of Dumpsite from Ibadan,

Southwestern Nigeria
R. A. Obasi† and H. Y. Maduekwe
Department of Geology, Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria
†Corresponding author: R.A Obasi; romanus.obasi@eksu.edu.ng

Nat. Env. & Poll. Tech.
Website: www.neptjournal.com
Received: 05-04-2020
Revised: 19-06-2020
Accepted: 25-06-2020
Key Words:
Dumpsites
Ecological risks
Hazard index
Cancer risks
ABSTRACT
Dumpsites have elevated the contamination and pollution of soils by heavy metals, hence the need
to study the potential ecological and health risks impact on the soil and humans. Ten soil samples
collected from the soil around the dumpsites at Awotan Ibadan were analysed using the inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analytical technique. The data were interpreted using
contamination indices such as contamination and enrichment factors, geo-accumulation index and
pollution index to determine the ecological and health risks posed by the heavy metals. The results
of the spatial distribution of heavy metals across the sampling sites showed the following ranges:
Cu (43.71-469.64) with a mean of 113.74 mg/kg, Zn (53.50-615.60) with a mean of 130.52 mg/kg,
Rb (83.14-225.35) with a mean value of 145.37 g/kg and Pb (28.38-209.15) with a mean of 68.01
mg/kg in descending order: Zn > Cu >Rb> Pb >V. The enrichment factors indicated very high enrichment
of Cu (25.07), significant enrichment of Pb (18.78) and moderate enrichment of Zn (15.14) and minor
enrichments of Co, Ni, Rb and Cs. The results of the contamination factor showed that Sc, Co, Zn, Rb,
Cs have moderate contamination while Cu and Pb indicated high contamination. The results of geo-
accumulation (Igeo) indicated that Cu and Pb are positive in contrast to the other metals suggesting
some anthropogenic influences of the duo heavy metals in the study area. Cu and Zn indicated low
ecological risks however, Cu and Pb showed considerable risks (Er 80-160) and moderate risk (Er
40- 80) respectively in sample site number one. The results of the modified ecological risk index (MRI)
revealed that about 62.53% of this sample site number one showed a considerable ecological risk of
the heavy metal Cu and 47.61% of the moderate ecological risk of Pb. The health-risk study indicated
that hazard quotient HQing, HQderm and hazard index (HI) values were below the acceptable limit of
1×10–6 and 1×10–4 and therefore showed no obvious non-carcinogenic risk and negligible cancer risk
from the soils and environment.

INTRODUCTION
Nigeria like any other developing country of the world
increases in population on daily basis, and this increases
infrastructure and waste discharges. Cities such as Ibadan the
second largest after Lagos in South-West Nigeria produces
large quantities of solid wastes from domestic, industrial and
institutional wastes. These wastes exist in semi-solid or solid
form except for industrial hazardous wastes (USEPA 2012).
In most cities in Nigeria, the wastes are not sorted out unlike
in developed countries like the UK where there are separate
containers for semi and solid wastes collections and these
are disposed of according to the environmental protection
guidelines of the country in question. In Nigeria, the wastes
are dumped in open places called dumpsites or landfills.
The wastes decompose or broken down by microorganisms
producing leachates which filtrate into the soils and reposited.
The plants absorb the leachates through their roots and some
of the leached constituents enter the water regime to make it
unusable for a drink. Some major problems faced by the cities
concerning wastes are improper disposal methods which
have serious negative effects on human beings, animals
and the environment. The environment represented by the
ecosystem via the soil becomes the repository of the heavy
metals. Heavy metals are one of the important pollutants in
the environment through natural or anthropogenic activities
of man. Living organisms require a trace amount of heavy
metals but excess of it could be deleterious to them.
Exposures of heavy metals can lead to accumulation in
human body parts such as the brain, liver, bones, and kidneys
resulting in serious health hazards (Kamunda et al. 2016).
Health risk assessment of heavy metals is usually performed
to estimate the total exposure to heavy metals among the
residents in a particular area. Risk assessment of contami-
nants in humans is based on the fact that the leachates from
the heavy metals can contain chemicals that may either be
carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic (Dorne et al. 2011). In
the same way, the accumulation of these metals in the body
834 R.A. Obasi and H.Y. Maduekwe

system could result in serious life-threatening illnesses and enter the food chain as a result of their uptake by edible
in some cases death. plants (Shaapera et al. 2013). Ibadan, like any other city in
However, the accumulation of these metals in the body South-Western Nigeria, faces problems of environmental
of mammals over time can cause serious illness (Aderinola sanitation such as improper disposal of refuse near residential
et al. 2009). Another way heavy metals could be deposited in areas, along the roads and streets, poor refuse collection and
the body is through agricultural activities. Crop cultivation, handling. There are four major dumpsites in Ibadan namely;
happening around dump site could be contaminated since Lapite, Awotan, Ajakanga and Aba Eku and unfortunately
some of the heavy metals gets leached deep into the soil and farmers use them as fertilizers. This, however, leads to the
crops get their nutrient from the soil. When such food is con- accumulation of heavy metals in plants grown around the
sumed by man, he unintentionally ingests these metals along dumpsite soils or on soils fertilized with dumpsite manure
them as his
with the food, poisoning fertilizers.
system andThis, however,
if not leads
checked, to thethus
over posing potential
accumulation of heavyhealth risks.in plants grown around the
metals
time could resultdumpsite soils or on issues.
in life-threatening soils fertilized with dumpsite Dumpsite
Environmental manure thus posing
wastes potential health
are commonly risks.
burnt and ashes produced
contamination by heavy metals has become a worldwide are richer in metal contents. These ashes are either dissolved
Dumpsite wastes are commonly burnt and ashes produced are richer in metal contents. These ashes are
problem in recent years since heavy metals unlike some other in rainwater and leached into the soil contaminating the
either dissolved in rainwater and leached into the soil contaminating the underground water, or washed
pollutants are not biodegradable (Bazrafshan et al. 2015). underground water, or washed away by runoff into streams
away by runoff into streams and rivers, thereby contaminating the environment. It is based on these facts
Soil pollution by heavy metals has serious health implication and rivers, thereby contaminating the environment. It is based
that this study is aimed at determining the total lethal concentrations or otherwise of Scandium (Sc), Lead
especially with regards to crops/vegetables
(Pb), Copper (Cu), Nickel (Ni), grown on such (V),onRubidium
Vanadium these facts(Rb),
that this study is aimed
Molybdenum at determining
( Mo), Cobalt (Co),the total
Cesium
soils (Steffan et al. 2017, and Nwaogu et al. 2014). Most of lethal concentrations or otherwise
( Sc) and Zinc ( Zn) in dumpsite soils in Ibadan area, Nigeria. The topography of the sites is gentlyof Scandium (Sc), Lead
these heavy metals are necessary
undulating for bothinselbergs
with isolated plants andatanimal
the Awotan area.
(Pb), Migmatite
Copper (Cu), gneisis
Nickel and(Ni),quartz schist ridges
Vanadium dominate
(V), Rubidium
growths at uncontaminated
the terrain. levels.
The annual average rainfall in the area (Rb),is Molybdenum
1300 mm (Ileoje 1987).
( Mo), The vegetation
Cobalt (Co), Cesium is the tropical
( Sc) and
rain forest with thick undergrowth.
Long-term effect of heavy metal exposure to human Dendritic drainage
Zinc ( Zn) pattern
in characterizes
dumpsite soils in the
Ibadanarea with
area, unmodified
Nigeria. The
and higher animalsstream channels
includes flowing
mental lapse,in kidney
the southward
failure, andtopography
east-west directions.
of the sitesThe Awotan
is gently dumpsite with
undulating is drained by
isolated
River Alapata and its tributaries. The area is usually well-drained during the rainy
and central nervous system disorder (Nwaogu et al. 2014). inselbergs at the Awotan area. Migmatite gneisis and quartz season but the tributaries
Exposure to leaddry(Pb)up during the dry
may cause season. The
anaemia, main rock types
nephropathy, underlying
schist the dumpsite
ridges dominate belong
the terrain. Thetoannual
the Migmatite-gneiss-
average rainfall
gastrointestinal colic, and central nervous system symptoms in the area is 1300 mm (Ileoje 1987). Thewhile
quartzite complex (Rahaman 1976, 1988) consisting of quartz, schist and migmatite gneiss, pegmatite
vegetation is
and quartz occur as veins in the major rocks (Fig. 1). The quartz schist and the
(Hu et al. 2017). As a result of increasing anthropogenic the tropical rain forest with thick undergrowth. Dendritic biotite gneiss trend North-
activities, heavy South direction
metals and are
pollution variously
of soil, jointed.
water, and The quartz pattern
drainage schist covers more than
characterizes the 60%
area of theunmodified
with area while
migmatite gneiss covers the remaining 40% area. The migmatite gneiss occurs mainly as low-lying outcrops
atmosphere represents growing environmental problems stream channels flowing in the southward and east-west
while the quartz schist forms ridges.
affecting food quality and human health. Heavy metals may directions. The Awotan dumpsite is drained by River Alapata

Fig. 1: Geological map of Ibadan showing the study area (Oladunjoye et al. 2013).

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2021 • Nature Environment and Pollution Technology

 Nigeria (Fig. 2). The Awotan area has a unique environmental setting characterized by a wide range of
land-use activities such as small scale arable farming, animal husbandry, residential and commercial
settlements. Leachate
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICALemanating
ANDfrom the wastes
HEALTH is washed downOFinto
RISK ASSESSMENT the surrounding areas835
DUMPSITE thereby
impacting the soils within the area.

a b
Fig. 2: Awotan dumpsite areas.
Fig. 2: Awotan dumpsite areas.

and its tributaries.Sample

The areaCollection
is usually well-drained during were collected. The sampling points are presented in Fig. 3.
Ten
the rainy season but the (10)tributaries
soil samples
dry were collected
up during for thisEach
the dry study. Sampling
sample was done at placed
was immediately regularinintervals
a plasticwith
bag the
andaid of
season. The main rock types underlying the dumpsite belong tightly sealed to avoid contamination from the environmentto the
an auger at a depth of 0-30 cm. The soil samples were stored in plastic bags and labelled according
location at which
to the Migmatite-gneiss-quartzite they (Rahaman
complex were collected.
1976, Theand sampling points are presented in Fig. 3. Each sample was
transportation.
immediately placed in a plastic bag
1988) consisting of quartz, schist and migmatite gneiss, while and tightly sealed to avoid contamination from the environment and
transportation.
pegmatite and quartz occur as veins in the major rocks (Fig. Sample Analysis
1). The quartz schist and the biotite gneiss trend North-South The heavy metals were analysed by the inductively coupled
direction and are variously jointed. The quartz schist covers plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and X-Ray fluores-
more than 60% of the area while migmatite gneiss covers the cence spectrometry (XRF) methods. Ten soil samples were
remaining 40% area. The migmatite gneiss occurs mainly analysed by Laser ablation microprobe Inductivity Coupled
as low-lying outcrops while the quartz schist forms ridges. Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (La ICP-MS) method (Jackson
et al. 1992) at the Central laboratory of the Stellenbosch
MATERIALS AND METHODS University, South Africa. The ICP-MS instrument is Per-
Study Area kin-Elma Sciex ELAN 5100 coupled with a UV (266 µm)

The Awotan dumpsite is located between Latitudes

7°27.59’N and 7°27.73’N and Longitudes 3°50.93’ E and
3°51.17’ E and found along Awotan-Akufo Road, Apete 4
area of Ibadan Metropolis, Southwestern Nigeria (Fig.
2). The Awotan area has a unique environmental setting
characterized by a wide range of land-use activities such as
small scale arable farming, animal husbandry, residential
and commercial settlements. Leachate emanating from the
wastes is washed down into the surrounding areas thereby
impacting the soils within the area.

Sample Collection
Ten (10) soil samples were collected for this study. Sampling
was done at regular intervals with the aid of an auger at a
depth of 0-30 cm. The soil samples were stored in plastic
bags and labelled according to the location at which they Fig. 3: Map of the study area.
Fig. 3: Map of the study area.

Sample Analysis
Nature Environment and Pollution Technology • Vol. 20, No.2, 2021
The heavy metals were analysed by the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-
Ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) methods. Ten soil samples were analysed by La
microprobe Inductivity Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (La ICP-MS) method (Jackson et
 Methods of Assessment of Contamination in Dumpsite
836 R.A. Obasi and H.Y. Maduekwe
Contamination indices used to assess the heavy metal con
laser. The laser was operated with 1 mJ/Pulse energy and include the
Enrichment enrichment factor (Ef), contamination factor (C
Factor
4 Hz frequency for carbonates and silicate glass. The spot index (PLI), degree of contamination (Cd), and ecological
diameter for these analyses is 30-50 m. NIST 610 glass was The computation of enrichment factor (EF) has been adopted
Enrichment
to evaluate Factor
the impact of anthropogenic and naturally occur-
used as a calibration standard for all the samples with 44Ca
ring sources of heavy metals as well as the metal abundance
as an internal standard. The analytical precision is 5% at the The computation of enrichment factor (EF) has been adop
in soil. Yongming (2006) stated that EF has been used to
ppm level. Details of ICP-MS and laser operating conditions naturally occurring sources of heavy metals as well as the m
determine the degree of modification in the composition of
heavythat EF inhas
thebeen used to determine the sediments,
degree of modific
have been published by Norman et al. (1996) and Norman
(1998). The results of the compositions of the heavy metals metals area of atmospheric aerosols,
area
soil and of wastes.
solid atmospheric
The EFaerosols, sediments,
of metals has soilusing
been defined and solid w
are presented in Table 1. Scandium (Sc) as a natural element of reference.
Scandium (Sc) as a natural element of reference.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION EF =
Cx(sample)/Cref(sample)
…(1)
Bn(background)/Bref(background)
The variations in the concentrations of each heavy metal
Where,
Where, CxCx(sample) is theisconcentration
(sample) of the element
the concentration of the in
element in
across the sampling points showed the following ranges:
the examined environment and C
the concentration of the reference
ref (sample)elementconcen-
is the for normalizat
Cu (43.71-469.64) with a mean of 113.74 mg/kg, Zn (53.50-
tration of the reference element for normalization, Bx(back-
615.60) with a mean of 130.52 mg/kg, Rb (83.14-225.35) element in the crust, and Bref is the concentration of the ref
ground) is the concentration of the element in the crust, and
with a mean value of 145.37 mg/kg and Pb (28.38-209.15) crust (Ato et al. 2010, Cevik 2009). Five contaminat
Bref is the concentration of the reference element used for
with a mean of 68.01 mg/kg. The concentration of some enrichment in
the normalization factor where
the crust (AtoEF < 2010,
et al. 2 = minor enrichment; E
Cevik 2009).
heavy metals in the soil of the dumpsite is presented in significant enrichment; EF = 20–40
Five contamination categories have been suggested based= very high enrich
on enrichment factor where EF < 2 = minor enrichment; factors
(Yongming 2006). The maximum enrichment sho
descending order as Zn > Cu >Rb> Pb >V.
EF
Methods of Assessment of Contamination in Dumpsite
Cu, (very high enrichment), 18.78 for Pb
= 2–5 = moderate enrichment; EF = 5–20 = significant en- and 15.14 for Zn
Soil enrichment)
richment; EF = 20–40and=Co,
veryNi, Rbenrichment;
high and Cs have andminor enrichmen
EF > 40
extremely high enrichment (Yongming 2006). The maximum
Contamination indices used to assess the heavy metal con- enrichment factors shown in Table 2 in decreasing values
tamination levels in the soil around the dumpsite include the Tablefor2:Cu,
are 25.07 Average, minenrichment),
(very high and max values18.78 of
forEnrichment
Pb and Fac
enrichment factor (Ef), contamination factor (Cf), geo-accu- 15.14 for Zn (significant enrichment), 2.05 for Mo (moderate
mulation index (Igeo), pollution load index (PLI), degree of enrichment) and Co, V Ni, Rb and CoCs have minor
Ni enrichment Cu Zn
contamination (Cd), and ecological risk index. (Er). since they are less0.65
than two (2)0.85 0.79
(Birch 2003). 3.63 2.1
Average
Table 1: Heavy metal concentration (mg/kg) in soil obtained from the dumpsites. Min 0.57 0.33 0.38 0.49 0.2
Sampling point Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn 0.82 Rb 1.16 Mo 1.63
Cs Pb25.07 15.
1 11.35 70.34 16.92 46.55
Max
469.64 615.60 122.65 2.72 4.18 164.39
2 11.10 70.95 15.95 28.85 52.00 81.30 138.35 1.56 4.39 39.02
3 13.02 87.78 21.27 38.95 64.65 77.95 158.95 1.72 4.48 50.69
6
4 18.47 137.30 28.79 57.50 53.43 72.35 151.65 2.39 6.29 41.75
5 21.86 165.85 26.67 65.95 61.20 91.85 186.81 2.73 7.82 34.76
6 18.19 130.64 17.45 52.95 64.72 101.25 225.35 1.97 7.79 28.38
7 17.70 115.50 16.99 46.60 59.90 88.75 182.65 1.95 7.43 31.84
8 21.25 131.30 16.09 42.00 43.71 53.50 83.14 2.45 4.99 39.09
9 19.94 122.95 17.04 42.35 123.36 60.05 98.04 2.65 4.48 41.03
10 19.82 166.07 47.89 42.75 144.80 62.60 106.08 1.46 4.12 209.15
Min 11.10 70.34 15.95 28.85 43.71 53.50 83.14 1.46 4.12 28.38
Max 21.86 166.07 47.89 65.95 469.64 615.60 225.35 2.73 7.82 209.15
Mean 17.27 119.87 22.50 46.45 113.74 130.52 145.37 2.16 5.59 68.01
SD 4.00 34.49 10.02 10.33 129.34 171.10 44.66 0.49 1.57 63.76

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2021 • Nature Environment and Pollution Technology

 0.07 0.26 0.32 7.59 4.58 0.40 0.47 0.27 5.51
SD
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF DUMPSITE 837

Table 2: Average, min and max values of Enrichment Factor.

V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb
Average 0.65 0.85 0.79 3.63 2.12 0.91 0.76 0.92 3.24
Fig.
Min4 presents the histogram of0.33
0.57 the average enrichment
0.38 of0.49
Cu, Pb and Zn
0.20along with0.11
the other heavy metals
0.50 0.27 0.91
in the soil. The very high and significant enrichment of Cu, Pb and Zn is an initial indication of an
Max 0.82 1.16 1.63 25.07 15.14 1.43 2.05 1.33 18.78
anthropogenic influence of the metals in the soil.
SD 0.07 0.26 0.32 7.59 4.58 0.40 0.47 0.27 5.51

4.5 values from a geologically similar and uncontaminated area

4 3.63
(Tijani et al. 2004). It is expressed in equation 2 given by
3.5 3.24 Hakanson (1980) as:
ENRICHMENT FACTOR

3 CF = Cx/Bm …(2)
2.5 2.12 Where, Cx and Bm are the concentrations of metal in
2
a soil sample and background environments. The back-
1.5
0.91 0.92
ground values of heavy metals were taken from Taylor and
0.85 0.79 0.76
1 0.67 McLennan (1995). The CF is classified into four groups
0.5
(CF < 1; indicates low metal contamination), (1 ≤ CF < 3;
0
V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb
indicates moderate contamination), (3 ≤ CF ≤ 6; indicates
HEAVY METAL considerable contamination), and (CF > 6 indicates very high
contamination) (Hakanson 1980).
Fig. 4: Average
Fig. 4:enrichment of Cu, Pbofand
Average enrichment Cu, Zn.
Pb and Zn. The results of the contamination factor (CF) for the heavy
Fig. 4 presents the histogram of the average enrichment metals are presented in Table 3. The results show that Cu
ofContamination
Cu, Pb and Zn Factor (CF)
along with the other heavy metals in the ranges from 0.53 to 23.02 mg/kg with a mean value of 3.90
Contamination factor is a quantification of the degree of contamination relative to either the average
soil. The very high
crustal composition of anda respective
significantmetal
enrichment
or to the of Cu, Pb background
measured and mg/kg, Znfrom
values varies from 0.38 to 12.37 mg/kg with a mean of
a geologically
Zn is anand
similar initial indication area
uncontaminated of an(Tijani
anthropogenic
et al. 2004).influence of in1.98
It is expressed while2 given
equation Pb varies between 1.12 and 15.35 mg/kg with a
by Hakanson
(1980)
the as: in the soil.
metals mean value of 363.72 mg/kg with a mean of 3.22. Going
𝐶𝐶 by the groupings and using the mean values V, Ni and Mo
Contamination
𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹 = 𝑥𝑥⁄𝐵𝐵 Factor (CF) …(2)
𝑚𝑚 have values that are less than one showing low contamination
Contamination
Where, Cx and Bm factor
are is
theaconcentrations
quantificationof of theindegree
metal of (CF<
a soil sample 1). Sc, Co,environments.
and background Zn, Rb, Cs have
The values that are more than
background values
contamination of heavy
relative metalsthe
to either were taken crustal
average from Taylor 1 and less
and McLennan
compo- thanThe
(1995). three (1<CF<3)
CF is classified thus indicating moderate
into four
sition of a groups
respective(CF metal
< 1; orindicates low metal background
to the measured contamination), contamination.
(1 ≤ CF < 3; Cu indicates
and Pbmoderate
have values that are more than 3
contamination), (3 ≤ CF ≤ 6; indicates considerable contamination), and (CF > 6 indicates very high
contamination) (Hakanson 1980).
Table 3: Contamination factors, (CF), PLI and mCd.
Table 3: Contamination factors, (CF), PLI and mCd.
Sample no Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb PLI mCd
Sample Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb PLI mCd
1no 0.82 0.41 0.93 1.33 23.02 12.37 0.94 0.17 0.69 15.35 1.69 5.60
21 0.82
0.91 0.41
0.37 0.930.86 1.330.52 23.020.5312.37 0.72
0.94 0.17
0.82 0.69
0.05 15.35
0.99 1.69
1.12 5.60 0.55 0.69
32 0.91
0.81 0.37
0.42 0.860.83 0.520.64 0.53 2.120.72 0.990.82 0.05
1.16 0.99
0.08 1.12
0.77 0.55
2.81 0.69 0.77 1.06
4 1.21 0.55 1.40 0.91 1.09 0.64 1.11 0.06 1.03 2.24 0.79 1.02
7
5 1.64 0.97 1.63 1.37 1.59 0.89 1.04 0.12 1.48 1.93 1.06 1.27
6 1.69 0.87 1.19 1.30 1.47 1.05 1.62 0.09 1.65 1.55 1.03 1.25
7 1.12 0.58 0.65 0.81 1.77 1.07 1.60 0.06 1.46 1.32 0.81 1.04
8 1.59 0.71 1.14 1.05 1.24 0.80 1.00 0.09 1.52 1.85 0.90 1.10
9 1.70 0.75 0.56 0.64 0.94 0.38 0.18 0.11 0.45 2.08 0.56 0.78
10 1.36 0.62 1.23 1.06 5.23 0.90 1.22 0.09 1.34 1.99 1.04 1.50
Mean 1.28 0.62 1.04 0.96 3.90 1.98 1.07 0.09 1.14 3.22 0.92 1.53
Max 1.70 0.97 1.63 1.37 23.02 12.37 1.62 0.17 1.65 15.35 1.69 5.98
Min 0.81 0.37 0.56 0.52 0.53 0.38 0.18 0.05 0.45 1.12 0.55 0.50

Nature Environment and Pollution Technology • Vol. 20, No.2, 2021

 heavy metals. It should be noted that sampling site one (1) has high contaminations of Cu (23.02), Zn
(12.37) and Pb (15.35) respectively. The modified degree of contamination (mCd) expressed in Fig. 6
agrees with the contamination levels at site one (1) with a value of 5.60 (Table 3).
838 R.A. Obasi and H.Y. Maduekwe

4.00
3.47
mCd mCd
3.50 3.22 6.00
6.00
3.00
CONTAMINATION FACTOR

5.00
2.50
5.00 1.98
2.00
4.00

1.50 1.28 4.00 3.00

1.04 1.07 1.14
0.87 0.96 0.9
1.00
3.00 2.00
0.50
1.00
0.00 2.00
Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb
0.00
HEAVY METAL
1.00 RO1 RO2 RO3 RO4 RO5 RO6 RO7 RO8 RO9 RO10

Fig. 5: Histogram
0.00 of contaminating heavy metals.
Fig. 5: Histogram of contaminating heavy metals. Fig. 6: Histogram of the modified degree of contamination (mCd).
RO1 RO2 RO3 RO4 RO5 RO6 RO7 Fig.RO8
6: Histogram
RO9 of the modified degree of contamination (mCd).
RO10

and less than 6 indicating high contamination. Fig. 5 pre- pollution; Igeo (4-5) severe pollution and Igeo (> 5) extreme
sents a picture of the contaminating heavy metals. It should pollution. The results of Igeo indicated that Cu and Pb are
be noted that Fig. 6: Histogram
sampling site one (1)ofhas
thehigh
modified degree of contamination
contaminations positive (Fig.7) (mCd). in contrast to the other metals suggesting
of Cu (23.02), Zn (12.37) and Pb (15.35) respectively. The some anthropogenic influences of these heavy metals in the
modified degree of contamination (mCd) expressed in Fig. study area. The Cuindex
Geo-accumulation (3.77), Zn (3.04), and Pb (3.35) at site one
(Igeo)
6 agrees with the contamination levels at site one (1) with a (1) have values that are more than 3, Igeo (3-4), indicating
value of 5.60 (Table 3). The geo-accumulation
very high pollution inindex of and
the soil (Igeo) is widely
tandem withused to measure
(Fig.6) mCd. the level o
metals in the soil. The Igeo values were calculated using equation 3 first propo
Similarly, Cu alone at site ten (10) has a value of 1.63, Igeo
Geo-accumulation Index (Igeo) 8 (1-2), 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪
𝑰𝑰𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈 =thereby
𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝟐𝟐 [ showing
] strong pollution.
Geo-accumulation index (Igeo) 𝟏𝟏.𝟓𝟓𝑩𝑩𝒏𝒏
The geo-accumulation index of (Igeo) is widely used to Ecological Risk Assessment (RI).
Where, Cx represents the measured concentration of the elements studied
measure the level of pollution caused by heavy metals in the
The geo-accumulation index of (Igeo) is widely used value
background to measure the level
of the element of pollution
or average shale (Taylor caused by heavy
& McLennan 1985
soil. The Igeo values were calculated using equation 3 first The ecological
of changes in therisk index (RI)ofevaluates
concentration the heavythe potential
metals in theecolog-
environment (Wei
metals in the
proposed by Muller (1969) as:
soil. The I geo values were calculated using equation 3 first proposed by Muller (1969) as:
ical risk Igeo
of heavy
grouped as Igeometals in pollution;
≤ 0 = no the sediment /soil as
Igeo (0-1), suggested
moderate pollution; Igeo
𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 (2-3),
by high
Hakanson pollution;
(1980) Igeo
in (3-4),
Equationvery high
4. pollution; Igeo (4-5) severe pollu
𝑰𝑰𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈𝒈 = 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝟐𝟐 [ ] …(3) pollution. The results of Igeo indicated that Cu and Pb are …(3)positive (Fig.7) in
𝟏𝟏.𝟓𝟓𝑩𝑩𝒏𝒏 RI = CFn influences
TR …(4)
suggesting some anthropogenic of these heavy metals in the study a
Where, Cx represents the measured concentration of the and Pb (3.35) at site one (1) have values that are more than 3, Igeo (3-4), indi
Where, Cx represents the measured concentration of the Where, C Fn elements
and T R are CF studied and Bn is the geochemical
and the toxicological response
elements studied and Bn is the geochemical background factor the soil and tandem with (Fig.6) mCd. Similarly, Cu alone at site ten (10) ha
background value of the element or average shale thereby(Taylor
of
showing&
individual McLennan
strong pollution.1985). The constant 1.5 takes care
heavy namely Cu (5), Zn (1) Ni (5) and
value of the element or average shale (Taylor & McLennan Pb
of changes in the concentration of the heavy metals in the
(5) (Hakanson environment
1980, Kumar
1985). The constant 1.5 takes care of changes in the con- know the ecological risks of anthropogenic and lithogenic
(Wei & 2018).
et al. Yang 2010,In a way Loskato 2004)
centration of grouped
the heavyIgeometalsas in Igeo the≤environment
0 = no pollution;
(Wei &Igeoinfluences,
(0-1), moderate pollution; Igeo (1-2), strong pollution; Igeo
the CFn in the RI is replaced by and
computation
(2-3), high pollution; Igeo
Yang 2010, Loska 2004) grouped Igeo as Igeo ≤ 0 = no (3-4), very high pollution; Igeo (4-5) severe pollution Igeo (>with 5) extreme
pollution. The results of Igeo indicated that EF.
Cu The
and ecological
Pb are RI
positiveworked
(Fig.7)out from
in EF
contrast is the
to modified
the other metals
pollution; Igeo (0-1), moderate pollution; Igeo (1-2), strong
suggesting some anthropogenic influences of potential
these ecological
heavy metals index
in theMPI
study(Kumar
area. etThe
al. (2018)
Cu written
(3.77), Zn (3.04),
pollution; Igeo (2-3), high pollution; Igeo (3-4), very high
and Pb (3.35) at site one (1) have values that as areinmore
Equationthan5.3, Igeo (3-4), indicating very high pollution in
1 the soil and tandem with (Fig.6) mCd. Similarly, Cu alone atMPI
site=ten  Trhas a value of 1.63,
EFn(10) Igeo (1-2),
…(5)
0.8
thereby showing strong pollution. 0.58 Where, EFn and Tr are the EF and the toxicological re-
0.6
sponse factor of individual heavy metals respectively. The
Geo-accumulation Index

0.4
0.19
0.2 classes used for risk assessment are as follows:
0
Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb
Er < 40 (low risk); 40- 80 (moderate risk); 80 -160
-0.2
-0.4
(considerable risk); 160-320 (high risk) and 9> 320 (very
-0.28
-0.6 -0.5
high risk). In the case of risk index, (equation 5) RI < 95
-0.54
-0.8 -0.6
-0.71
indicates a low potential ecological risk; 95-190 moderate
-1 -0.86 -0.87 -0.83 risk; 190-380 considerable risk while RI > 380 very high risk.
-1.2
Heavy Metal The ecological risks of Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb were assessed
using the potential ecological risk index RI (Fig. 8) and the
Fig.7: Average geo-accumulation of the heavy metals.
Fig.7: Average geo-accumulation of the heavy metals. modified potential ecological risk index MRI (Fig. 9).
Ecological Risk Assessment (RI).
Vol. 20, No. 2, 2021 • Nature Environment and Pollution Technology
The ecological risk index (RI) evaluates the potential ecological risk of heavy metals in the sediment /soil
as suggested by Hakanson (1980) in Equation 4.
 190 moderate risk; 190-380 considerable risk while RI > 380 very high risk.
The ecological risks of Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb were assessed using the potential ecological risk index RI (Fig.
8) and the modified potential ecological risk index MRI (Fig. 9).
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF DUMPSITE 839

ECOLOGICAL RISK 120.00

100.00
150

Ecological Risk Index

80.00
100 nickel
60.00
copper
40.00
50
zinc
20.00
0 lead
0.00
RO1 RO2 RO3 RO4 RO5 RO6 RO7 RO8 RO9 RO10 RO RO RO RO RO RO RO RO RO RO
Assessment of Ecological Risks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ni Cu Zn Pb Sampling sites

The variation in the ecological risk index of the hea

Fig. 8: The ecological risk factor (RI) for Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb in each sample
Fig. 8: The ecological risk factor (RI) for Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb in each Assessment
9.Modified
sites. of Ecological
The relatively considerable Risks ecological risk index
sample sites. Fig. 9:Fig. 9:
Modified potentialecological
potential ecological risk index
risk (MRI).
index (MRI).
respectively at sampling sites one (1) suggests an a
10 Cu HEALTH The study variation
area. in the ecological risk index of the heav
The results in Table 4 revealed that Er values for The resultsRISK ASSESSMENT
in Table 4 revealed that Er values for Cu and Zn are less
and Zn are less than 40 (Er <40) respectively indicating 9. The relatively considerable ecological risk index
low ecological
Health risk risk ofinthese
assessment this heavyismetals.
study a way Cudetermine
to and Pb have
the varying v
low ecological risk of these heavy metals. Cu and Pb have values thatrespectively
are less than at40sampling
showing sitesecological
low one (1) suggests
risks by an a
these
varying values. Sampling sites from 2 to 10 have values that probable HEALTH
level
the value study
of the
of 115.10
RISK
harmful
area. ASSESSMENT
health impacts of heavy metals
for Cu and 76.74 for Pb indicating considerable
are less than 40 showing low ecological risks by these heavy on the soil. The assessment of each metal contaminant is
40- 80) respectively. The results in of MRIstudy revealed that to
about
metals, however, site one (1) has the value of 115.10 for Cu based on theHealth
level ofrisk
riskassessment
of using the soilthis is a way
and it is classified dete
considerable ecological
of heavy metalsrisk of the heavy metal Cu and 47.61%
and 76.74 for Pb indicating considerable risks (Er 80-160) HEALTH
as carcinogenic
respectively RISKonASSESSMENT
or non-carcinogenic the health
soil. The assessment
hazards (Wong- of each
using
sasuluk et al. theHazard
2014). soil and it is classified
quotients as carcinogenic
(HQ), Hazard index or n
and moderate risk (Er 40- 80) respectively. The results of . Health
MRI revealed that about 62.53% of sample site one showed (HI), are used in therisk
2014). Hazardassessmentof thein
quotients
calculation this study
(HQ),
potential Hazard is aindex
carcinogenicway to deter
(HI), a
and of
and heavy
non-carcinogenic metals
non-carcinogenic
health on
risk the soil. through
health
caused The
risk assessment
caused of each
through
ingestion ing
a considerable ecological risk of the heavy metal Cu and Table 4: Ecological risk factor for nickel, copper, zinc and lead.
47.61% of the moderate ecological risk of Pb respectively and dermalusing
soil bythe
absorption soil
adults. and
HQitmetals
of heavy is classified
(for each heavy
in the as by
soil carcinogenic
metal)
adults. or n
is the ratio
HQSample 2014).
no.
metal
(for each heavy Hazard
ingestedNi quotients
metal) to the ratio
is the (HQ),
reference CuHazard
of an oral dose
average index
(RfD)
daily (HI),
Zn throa
Assessment of Ecological Risks intake (ADI, and non-carcinogenic
residents
mg/kg/day)around the
of metal health risk
environment.
ingested caused
to the ADI through ing
(mg/kg-day)
reference
oral1 dose (RfD)
soil by adults.
through
exposure
6.65ingestion and dermal
oral HQ (for
equations (6) each
and (7)
115.10absorption 12.37
heavy metal)2012).
(USEPA is the ratio
The variation in the ecological risk index of the heavy for2the adultmetal ingested
residents around
2.61to the
the reference
environment. oralADI
2.65 dose(mg/
(RfD) throu
0.72
metals across the sampling sites is presented in Fig. 9. The kg-day) forresidents around
the different pathways the environment.
were calculatedADI using(mg/kg-day)
the
relatively considerable ecological risk index recorded for Cu 3
exposure equations 3.20 10.61 0.99
exposure(6)equations
and (7) (USEPA
(6) and2012).
(7) (USEPA 2012).
and moderate ecological risk of Pb respectively at sampling Ingestion of Heavy Metals through Soil
sites one (1) suggests an anthropogenic source of Cu and Pb 4
Ingestion 4.56through Soil 5.46
of Heavy Metals 0.64
in this part of the study area. 
5 𝑐𝑐 × 6.87
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 7.94 0.89
Table 4: Ecological risk factor for nickel, copper, zinc and lead.
Ingestion
ADIing = of Heavy Metals through Soil …(6)
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
6 6.50 7.35 1.05
Sample no. Ni Cu Zn Pb Where, Where, ADI
ADIingestion is ingestion
the averageis thedaily intakedaily
average of heavy
intake of he
7 ingested from the
metals 4.04
𝑐𝑐 ×soil
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 C8.83
in×heavy
mg/kg-day, =inconcentration 1.07
1. 6.65 115.10 12.37 76.74 ADI
concentration
ing = of metal mg/kg for soil. IR
of 8heavy metal in mg/kg for𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
soil. IR in is
mg/day is the inges-
2. 2.61 2.65 0.72 5.61 exposure frequency,
5.23 ED the
6.21exposure duration
0.80 in
3. 3.20 10.61 0.99 14.04 Where,
tion rate, EF
ininkg, ATADI
days/year is the
is ingestion
the time is the average
exposure
over frequency,
which daily
the EDintake
dose is of he
is average
the9exposure duration in 3.21
years, BW is the 4.71
bodyweight
concentration of heavy metal in mg/kg for soil. of the 0.38IR
4. 4.56 5.46 0.64 11.18
5. 6.87 7.94 0.89 9.66 10 Inhalation
exposed individual
exposure kg,of
in frequency,
AT
5.28 Heavy
is theED Metals
time isover
the Via
which Soil
exposure
26.13
theParticulates
dose
duration
0.90 in y
is averagedininkg,
days. CF is
AT 𝑐𝑐is×the the conversion
time over factor
which in
the kg/mg.
dose is average
6. 6.50 7.35 1.05 7.73 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
TR ADIinh = 5 5 1
Inhalation of Heavy Metals
Inhalation of HeavySoil
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 × Via
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 Particulates
7. 4.04 8.83 1.07 6.62 Metals Via Soil Particulates
Mean Where ADI 4.815 19.4975 1.98057
8 5.23 6.21 0.80 9.26 inh is the average daily intake of heavy
𝑐𝑐 × 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
9. 3.21 4.71 0.38 10.41 Ranges ADI inh =
concentration of heavy metal
2.61-6.65 in the soil in0.38-12
2.65-115.10
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
…(7) mg/kg
10. 5.28 26.13 0.90 9.93 particulate emission factor in m3/kg. EF, ED, BW a
Where ADI inh isADI
Where the average daily intake of heavy metals
inh is the average daily intake of heavy
TR 5 5 1 5
inhaled from
concentration of heavyCS
the
Dermal soil in mg/kg-day,
Contact with Soilis the in
metal concentration
the soil in mg/kg
Mean 4.815 19.4975 1.980579 16.1175 of heavy metal in the soil in mg/kg, IRair is the inhalation
particulate emission
× 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 EF, ED, BW a
factor in m3/kg.
Ranges 2.61-6.65 2.65-115.10 0.38-12.37 6.67-76.74 rate in m3/day, PEF,=is 𝑐𝑐the
ADIdems particulate emission factor in
Dermal Contact with Soil
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 11
Where ADI𝑐𝑐dems is the exposure dose via dermal co
× 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
ADI
metal
Nature Environment and
dems =the soilTechnology
inPollution in mg/kg, •SAVol. is
20,exposed skin area
No.2, 2021
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
to the soil, AF is the soil adherence factor in mg/cm
Where ADIdems is the exposure dose via dermal co
 Inhalation of Heavy Metals Via Soil Particulates
𝑐𝑐 × 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅ℎ × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
ADIinh = …(7)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
840 R.A. Obasi and H.Y. Maduekwe
Where ADIinh is the average daily intake of heavy metals inhaled from the soil in mg/kg-day, CS is the
m3/kg.concentration of heavy
EF, ED, BW and AT aremetal in the
as defined soilinin
earlier mg/kg,7.85357×10
Equa- IRair is the
-7
inhalationimplying
respectively rate in that
m3/day, PEF,are
the values is less
the
particulate
tion (7) above. emission factor in m3/kg. EF, ED, BW and thanAT
oneare as<defined
(HI earlier
1) and no in Equation
obvious risks. (7) above.
The HI value for ingestion is greater than that of the
Dermal
Dermal Contact
Contact with Soil
with Soil
dermal pathway indicating that the ingestion pathway con-
𝑐𝑐 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 tributes the greatest non-carcinogenic effect. The inhalation
ADIdems = …(8) …(8)
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 pathway is the least contributor (Fig. 10). Sultana et al.
Where
Where ADI
ADI is the
demsdems exposure
is the exposuredose viadose dermal (2019)insuggested
contact contact
via dermal that when
mg/kg/day. CS is HIthe
> 1 concentration
there is the possibility that
of heavy
in mg/kg/day. CS is the concentration of heavy metal in non-carcinogenic
2 impacts may occur in the adult residents
metal in the soil in mg/kg, SA is exposed skin area in cm , FE is the fraction of the dermal exposure ratio
the soil in mg/kg, SA is exposed skin area in cm2, FE is the whereas when HI < 1 it is expected that the exposed person
to the soil, AF is the soil adherence factor in mg/cm2, ABS is the fraction of the applied dose absorbed on
fraction of the dermal exposure ratio to the soil, AF is the may not experience noticeable harmful health impacts.
the skin. EF, ED,Table BW,5:CF TheandHazard
AT Index
are as(HI) of some
defined selected
earlier in heavy metals.
Equation (8).
soil adherence factor in mg/cm2, ABS is the fraction of the
applied dose absorbed on the skin. EF, ED, BW, PbCF and ATNi Carcinogenic Cu RiskZn HI
Non-Carcinogenic Risk
are as defined earlier in Equation
HQ ingestion (8). (ing) 7.01E-05 9.42E-06 1.65E-05
The results of the 2.45473E-06
carcinogenic risk 9.84636E-05
calculated for heavy
The results for ingestion, inhalation and dermal pathways metals-5presented in Table
are presented 5 indicated
in Table 6. Pb is that HIout
singled values for
for car-
Non-Carcinogenic
ingestion pathwaysRisk HQ and inhalation
dermal(inh) pathways- -
are 9.84636×10 -
and 7.85357×10- -7 -
respectively implying that the
cinogenic health risk assessment because of its toxicity and
valuesfor
The results areingestion,
less thanHQ one (HI <and
dermal
inhalation 1) and
dermal-no obvious risks.
pathways3.83E-07
its known2.9E-07
CSF. The1.11936E-07 7.85357E-07
cancer slope factor is defined as the risk
presented in Table 5 indicated that
Risk pathway ing HI values for
2.14E-09 inges-- generated- by a lifetime
- average amount
- of one mg/kg/day of
tion pathways and dermal pathways are 9.84636×10-5 and carcinogen around the sampled area. Table 6 indicated that
Risk pathway inh 2.81E-10 - 12 - - -
Table 5: The Hazard Index (HI) of some selected heavy metals.
Risk Total 2.43E-09 - - - -
Pb Ni Cu Zn HI
HQ ingestion (ing) 7.01E-05 9.42E-06 1.65E-05 2.45473E-06 9.84636E-05
HQ inhalation (inh) - - - - -
HQ dermal The HI value
- for ingestion is 3.83E-07
greater than that of the dermal pathway
2.9E-07 indicating that the7.85357E-07
1.11936E-07 ingestion pathway
Risk pathway ing contributes the greatest non-carcinogenic
2.14E-09 - effect. The
- inhalation pathway
- is the least contributor
- (Fig. 10).
Sultana et al. (2019) suggested that when HI > 1 there is the possibility that non-carcinogenic impacts
Risk pathway inh 2.81E-10 - - - -
may occur in the adult residents whereas when HI < 1 it is expected that the exposed person may not
Risk Total experience2.43E-09
noticeable harmful- health impacts. - - -

0.0000008
0.0000007
0.0000006
0.0000005
0.0000004
0.0000003
0.0000002
0.0000001
0
ADI ing ADI inh ADI derm

Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb

Fig.10: Histogram of heavy

Fig.10: metals
Histogram in different
of heavy metals inpathways.
different pathways.

Carcinogenic Risk
Table 6: Average daily intake (ADI) of heavy metals in the sampled soil.
The results of the carcinogenic risk calculated for heavy metals are presented in Table 6. Pb is singled out
Sc V Co Ni Cu Zn Rb Mo Cs Pb
for carcinogenic health risk assessment because of its toxicity and its known CSF. The cancer slope factor
ADI 6.54E -08 4.4E -
07
is defined 7.74E-08
as the risk1.88356E-07
generated by6.10489E-07 7.36419E-07
a lifetime average amount 5.87E-07 9.23E-09of 2.23E-08
of one mg/kg/day carcinogen2.52329E-07
around the
ingestion sampled area. Table 6 indicated that the values of the heavy metals are less than one meaning that it is
ADI 1.73E-09 below the 2.05E-09
1.17E-08 generally 4.9859E-09
acceptable value which Tepanosyan
1.616E-08 1.94934E-08(2017) suggested
1.55E-08 2.44E-10 be 1×10-6 6.67929E-09
should 5.9E-10 for a single
inhalation carcinogenic element and 1×10-4 f for multi-element carcinogens. The value 2.43×10-9 is less than the
ADI dermal 7.45E-10 acceptable8.83E-10
5.02E-09 value implying a negligible
2.14726E-09 cancer risk
6.95958E-09 for the soils6.69E-09
8.39517E-09 of the dumpsites.
1.05E-10 2.54E-10 2.87655E-09

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2021 • Nature Environment and Pollution Technology

 POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF DUMPSITE
the values of the heavy metals are less than one meaning that
it is below the generally acceptable value which Tepanosyan
(2017) suggested should be 1×10-6 for a single carcinogenic
element and 1×10-4 f for multi-element carcinogens. The
value 2.43×10-9 is less than the acceptable value implying a
negligible cancer risk for the soils of the dumpsites.
CONCLUSIONS
The ecological and health risks of some heavy metals of
dumpsites at Wotan, Ibadan were studied. The results of
the enrichment factor indicated a very high enrichment of
Cu (25.07), and 15.14 significant enrichment of Pb (18.78),
moderate enrichment of Zn (15.14) and minor enrichment of
Co, Ni, Rb and Cs. The very high, significant and moderate
enrichments of Cu, Pb and Zn are an initial indication of
an anthropogenic influence of the metals in the soil. V, Ni
and Mo have shown low contamination. Sc, Co, Zn, Rb, Cs
indicated moderate contamination while Cu and Pb indicated
high contamination. It should be noted that sampling site
one (1) has high contaminations of Cu (23.02), Zn (12.37)
and Pb. Cu and Pb exhibited high contamination levels. The
relatively considerable ecological risk index recorded for Cu
and moderate ecological risk of Pb respectively at sampling
sites one (1) suggests an anthropogenic source of Cu and
Pb in this part of the study area. The health-risk study indi-
cated that hazard quotient HQing, HQderm and hazard index
(HI) values were below the acceptable limits of 1x10−6 and
1x10−4 and therefore showed no obvious non-carcinogenic
risk and negligible cancer risk from the soils on health and
environment.
REFERENCES
Aderinola, O.J., Clarke, E.O., Olarinmoye, O.M., Kusemiju, V. and
Anatekhai, M.A. 2009. Heavy metals in surface water, sediments,
fish and perwinkles of Lagos lagoon. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &
Environ. Sci., 5 (5): 609-617.
Ato, A.F., Samuel, O., Oscar, Y.D., Alex, P., Moi, N. and Akoto, B. 2010.
Mining and heavy metal pollution assessment of aquatic environments
in Tarkwa, Ghana using multivariate statistical analysis. Journal of
Environmental Statistics, 1(4): 1-13.
Bazrafshan, E., Leli, M., Alireza, A.M. and Amir, H.M. 2015. Heavy metal
removal from aqueous environments by electrocoagulation process- a
systematic review. Journal of Environmental Health Science and
Engineering, 13(1): 1-16.
Birch, G. and Woodroffe, F. 2003. Coastal GIS 2003, Wolloongong
University Papers in Center of Maritime Policy, 14, Australia, Edition
Edn.
Cevik, F., Goksu, M. Z.L., Derici, O.B. and Findik, O. 2009. An assessment
of metal pollution in surface sediments of Seyhan dam by using
enrichment factor, geo-accumulation index and statistical analyses.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 152(1-4): 309-317.
Dorne, J., Kass, G., Bordajandi, L.R., Amzal, B., Bertelsen, U., Castoldi,
A.F., Heppner, C., Eskola, M., Fabiansson, S. and Ferrari, P. 2011.
Human risk assessment of heavy metals: Principles and applications.
Met. Ions Life Sci., 8: 159-171.
Nature Environment and Pollution Technology • Vol. 20, No.2, 2021
841
Hakanson, L. 1980. Ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control, a
sedimentological approach. Water Research, 14(8): 975-1001.
Hu, Z., Yang, Z., Liang, X., Salakhutdino, V. and Xing, E.P. 2017. On
unifying deep generative models arxiv preprint arxiv 1706. 00550 3-10.
Ileoje, N.P. 1987. A New Geography of Nigeria. Longman Nigeria Limited,
Ikeja, pp. 201.
Jackson, S.E., Longerich, H.P., Dunning, G.R and Fryer, B.J. 1992. The
application of Laser- ablation micro- probe-inductively coupled
plasma-mass spectrometry (LAM-ICP-MS) to in situ trace element
determination in minerals. Canadian Mineralogist 30, 1049-1064.
Kamunda, C., Mathuthu, M. and Madhuku, M. 2016. Health risk assessment
of heavy metals in soils from Witwatersrand gold mining basin, South
Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 13: 663.
Kumar, V., Sharma A., Minakshi, S. 2018. Temporal distribution, source
apportionment, and pollution assessment of metals in the sediments
of Beas river, India. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5: 1–20. Doi.org/10.1080
/10807039.2018.144052
Loska, K., Wiechula, D. and Korus, I. 2004. Metal contamination of farming
soils affected by industry. Environment International, 30:159 -165.
Muller, G. 1969. Index of geo-accumulation in the sediments of the Rhine
River. Geojournal, 2: 108-118.
Nwaogu, L.A., Ujowundu, C.O., Iheme, C.I., Ezejiofor, T.N. and
Belonwu, D.C. 2014. Effect of sublethal concentration of
heavy metal contamination on soil physicochemical properties,
catalase and dehydrogenase activities. International Journal of
Biochemistry Research & Review, 4(2): 141-149.
Norman, M. D., Pearson, N. J., Sharma, A. and Griffin, W. L. 1996.
Quantitative analysis of trace elements in geological materials by laser
by ablation ICPMS: instrumental operating conditions and calibration
values of NIST glasses. Geostandards Newsletter, 20: 247-261.
Norman, M.D. 1998. Melting and metasomatism in the continental
lithosphere: laser ablation ICPMS analyses of minerals in spinel,
herzolites from eastern Australia. Contributions to Mineralogy and
Petrology, 130: 240-255.
Oladunjoye, M.A., Sanuade, O.A., and Olaojo, A..A. 2013. “Variability
of Soil Thermal Properties of a seasonally cultivated Agricultural
Teaching and Research Farm, University of Ibadan, South-western
Nigeria,” Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Agriculture and
Veterinary, vol. 13, no. 8, 40-64
Rahaman, M.A. 1976. Review of the basement geology of southwestern
Nigeria, In: Kogbe, C.A. (ed.) Geology of Nigeria. Elizabethan
Publishing Company, Lagos, pp. 5-41.
Rahaman, M.A. 1988. Recent advances in the study of the basement complex
of Nigeria. In: Geological Survey of Nigeria (ed) Precambrian Geol.,
Nigeria, pp. 11-43.
Shaapera, U., Nnamonu, L.A. and Eneji, I.S. 2013. Assessment of heavy
metals in Rana esculenta organs from River Guma, Benue State
Nigeria. American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 4(9): 496-500.
Steffan, J.J., Brevik, E.C., Burgess, L.C. and Cerda, A. 2017. The
effect of soil on human health: an overview. European Journal
of Soil Science, 159-171.
Sultana, M.S., Rana, S., Yamazaki, S., Aono, T. and Yoshida, S. 2019.
Health risk assessment for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic heavy
metal exposures from vegetables and fruits of Bangladesh. Cogent.
Environ. Sci., 543-552.
Taylor, S.R. and Mclennan, S.M. 1985. The Continental Crust: Its
Composition and Evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, pp.312.
Taylor, S.R. and Mclennan, S.M. 1995. The geochemical evolution of the
continental crust. Reviews of Geooysics, 33(2): 241-265.
Tepanosyan, G., Maghakyan, N., Sahakyan, L. and Saghatelyan, A. 2017.
Heavy metals pollution levels and children health risk assessment of
Yerevan kindergartens soils. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 142: 257-265.
Tijani, M.N., Jinno, K. and Hiroshiro, Y. 2004. Environmental
impact of heavy metal distribution in water and sediments of Ogunpa
842 R.A. Obasi and H.Y. Maduekwe
River, Ibadan area, southwestern Nigeria. J. Mining Geol., 40(1):
73-83.
USEPA 2012. Integrated Risk Information System of the US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response:
Washington, DC, USA,
Wei, B. and Yang L. 2010. A review of heavy metal contaminations in urban
soils, urban road dusts and agricultural soils from China. Microchemical
Journal, 94(2): 99-107.
Vol. 20, No. 2, 2021 • Nature Environment and Pollution Technology
Wongsasuluk, P., Chotpantarat, S., Siriwong, W. and Robson, M. 2014.
Heavy metal contamination and human health risk assessment in
drinking water from shallow groundwater wells in an agricultural area
in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand. Environ. Geochem. Health,
36: 169-182.
Yongming, H., Peixuan, D., Junji, C., & Posmentier, E. 2006. Multivariate
analysis of heavy metal contamination in urban dusts of Xi’an, Central
China. Science of the Total Environment, 355(1–3), 176–186.