1. ESTIMATED COMPOSITION Of Solid WASTES
THE XXII. NATIONAL CHEMISTRY CONGRESS, October 6 – 9, FAMAGUSTA, NORTH CYPRUS, TURKEY
ANALYTICAL CONTROL OF SOIL AND GROUND WATER QUALITY ON A NORTHERN ROMANIAN SOLID WASTE LANDFILL ZAHARIA Carmen*, MACOVEANU Matei and ŞUTEU Daniela
“Gheorghe Asachi” TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF IASI, FACULTY OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 71A Prof.D.Mangeron Blv., IASI, ROMANIA, corresponding
Abstract
In Romania, the landfilling of solid wastes continues to be a necessary part of the integrated solid waste management systems [1]. The analytical control of soil and ground water quality during the solid waste
deposition activities is a priority to express the environment pollution level into the area of deposition and proximity [2-5].
In this poster is analyzed a case study of a northern Romanian urban landfill (total capacity of m3, and total waste capacity of ca m3) that deserves a city having ca inhabitants and ca
650 economic companies and institutes (2003).
The whole surface of urban landfill (13.75 ha) is a fixed pollution source and must be continuously monitoring for specific pollutants into some prelevation points on soil (e.g., 6 soil prelevation points and
4 drilling wells). The principal pollutants analyzed into the drilling wells for appreciation of ground water quality were pH, COD, ammonia, total nitrogen, sulphate, residues, extractible substances [6] and some
dangerous compounds as detergents, total cyanides, some heavy metal ions (Zn2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, Pb2+, Cd2+), trichlorobenzene, PAHs, anthracene, chloroalcans C10-C13, octyl phenol etc. The concentration for
some pollutants exceeds the Romanian maximum admissible concentration (MAC) (e.g., nitrate, nitrite, hardness, residues, extractible substances, total cyanides) but generally can be considered no polluted.
This fact can be explained by the good quality of the loessian layer that kept the pollutants from landfill and not permit the contact with ground waters.
The principal pollutants controlled for soil quality were pH, total organic carbon (TOC), extractible and petroleum products [6], phenols, some heavy metal ions (Ni2+, Pb2+, etc.). The concentration of extractible
and phenolic compounds exceeds the maximum admissible concentration. The pollution of soil is mainly generated by the penetration of some pollutants from landfill, leachate and infiltration of rain waters into
soil after passing through the waste landfill [7-10].
The evaluation of environmental impact for soil and ground water is indicated that the environment was modified by waste landfilling generated discomfort effects.
1. Introduction. Case study of a Northern Roumanian landfill
2. Analytical control of soil quality on waste landfill area
The wastes landfill was considered a deposit of non-dangerous solid wastes from population and non-dangerous assimilable solid wastes from economic agents or companies (municipal wastes).
Our previous researches [3,9,10] were indicated that the environment was modified by municipal waste deposition activities generating distress to life forms (evaluation by global pollution index, IPG=3.44 [9]).
Other researches using the integrated environmental impact and risk assessment (EIRA) method [5,8] were concluded that there is no major impact and moderate risk of solid waste deposition against the water quality, imposing monitoring actions in order to prevent environmental pollution and control impact and risk measures.
In this context, other new quality indicators were investigated (e.g. heavy metals, trichlorobenzene, PAHs, anthracene, chloroalcans, octyl phenol etc.), and the common quality indicators for soil and ground waters were controlled twice times per year. These new experimental data were synthetized into the next part of the poster.
Table 1: Indicators for Soil Quality (5 cm)
Table 2: Indicators for Soil Quality (30 cm)
Physicochemical indicators
Value, mg/Kg dry soil
Normal value*, mg / Kg dry soil pH
8.317;7.921;7.909; 7.881; 7.747; Reference soil: 7.12
Neutral or low basic
Total organic carbon (TOC), %
0.45; 0.91; 2.09; 6.26; 6.87; Reference soil: 1.2
(0 - 1 %) unpolluted soil
Total oil hydrocarbons
1080; 243; 295; 385; 954; 453. Reference soil: 85
< 100
Extractable compounds
2200; 240; 190; 210; 440; 500. Reference soil: 135
 100
Phenolic compounds
0.72; 1.35; 2.14; 2.22; 1.72; Reference soil: 0.73
 0.02
Nickel
23.75;140.23;52.20;54.12;145.22; Reference soil: 20.12 20
Lead
49.15;16.30;47.20; 70.50; 62.22; Reference soil: 14.25
Physicochemical indicators
Value, mg/Kg dry soil
Normal value*,
mg / Kg dry soil pH
7.97; 8.068; 8.045; 7.837; 7.802; Reference soil: 7.22
Neutral or low basic
Total organic carbon (TOC), %
0.45; 2.25; 4.41; 9.19; 5.11; Reference soil: 1.08
(0 - 1 %) unpolluted soil
Total oil hydrocarbons
520; 856; 264; 432; 1085; 475. Reference soil: 124
< 100
Extractable compounds
390; 1780; 220; 420; 300; 170. Reference soil: 130
 100
Phenolic compounds
0.45; 0.82; 1.98; 1.79; 1.41; Reference soil: 0.52
 0.02
Nickel
24.81; 50.15; 50.12; 51.20; 75.14; Reference soil: 19.24 20
Lead
44.20; 20.15; 54.14; 75.12; 89.15; Reference soil: 20.12
Number of deserved population and economic agents
inhabitants and 171 economic agents
Location
5 km far from town
Opening data
1984
Occupied surface, ha
13.75
Total waste quantity, m3
Total capacity of landfill, m3
Number of wastes collection points
244
ESTIMATED COMPOSITION Of Solid WASTES
Paper and cardboard, %
1.5
Glass, % 3
Plastics, %
Textiles, % 4
Metallic bodies, %
Organic materials, %
42.5
Other wastes (inert materials as soil, ashes, dust, % 31
* Normal value for soil according to Order no.756/1997 (Ministry of Environment and Water Management), and international recommendations (e.g., Parrakova included the soil into 4 categories according with total organic content (TOC) as (0 - 1) % unpolluted soil, (1 -3) % low polluted soil, (4 - 6) % average polluted soil, ( 6) % high polluted soil).
Six soil samples from landfill area (at 5 cm and 30 cm depth, according to landfill surface) were analyzed, together with one reference soil sample from 5-6 km far from the landfill area.
The quality indicators have been analyzed by standardized methods, according to Government Acts and standards, and other agreed methods [6].
4. Monitoring of soil quality on waste landfill area
3. Analytical control of ground water quality on waste landfill area
Table 3: Common Indicators for Ground Water Quality
Table 4: Dangerous Compounds for Ground Water Quality
Quality indicator
Drilling well 1
Drilling well 2
Drilling
Well 3
Drilling well 4
M.A.C.* pH
7.634
8.191
7.622
8.190
Total suspended solids, mg/L 32 37 20 17 -
Turbidity (FTU) 31 27 16 1
< 5
COD, mgO2/L
11.73
17.20
35.29
1.09 5
COB5, mgO2/L
1.91
3.71
1.81
0.96
Nitrate, mg/L N-NO3
0.25
5.48
14.21
108.9
11.28
Ammonia, mg/L
0.5
Nitrite, mg/L N-NO2
0.028
0.050
0.025
0.181
0.15
Phosphate, mg P/L
0.114
without
0.10
Sulphate, mg/Ll
6852.3
244.19
250
Chloride, mg/L
145.55
418.9
3493.2
53.25
Sulphide and H2S, mg/L
0.21
0.64
0.62
abs
0.1
Hardness, ° G
75.6
95.48
161.28
21.95
Min. 5
Extractible substances, mg/l
95.5
15.5
45.5
19.5
Residues, mg/l
6024
11764
9860
958
800
Quality indicator
Drilling well 1
Drilling well 2
M.A.C.*
Detergents
0.25
1.0 5
Total cyanides, mg/L
0.65
0.1
Total chrome, mg/L
0.015
0.05
Zinc, mg/L
0.58
0.80
Cooper, mg/L
0.33
0.68
0.2
Nickel, mg/L
0.025
Lead, mg/L
0.01
0.5
Cadmium, mg/L
0.02
Trichlorobenzene, mg/L
0.4
Trichloroethylene, mg/L
UDL 10
Tetrachloroethylene, mg/L
Chloroalcans C10-C13, mg/l
0.41
Anthracene, mg/L
0.063
Chloroform, mg/L
USL
Dichloromethane, mg/L
8.2
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mg/L
0.0004
Naphtalene, mg/L
2.4
Total PAHs, mg/L
(Octyl)phenol, mg/L
0.122
Figure 1b: Monitoring of specific quality indicators
for soil sample (S1), 30 cm
Figure 1a: Monitoring of specific quality indicators
for soil sample (S1), 5 cm
Conclussions
1. Monitoring of the most important quality indicators of soil and ground waters on the waste landfill area indicates an
Improvement of soil and ground waters quality based on the technical measures performed by the private company that
managed the northern Romanian waste landfill.
2. The monitoring actions must continued in order to establish the evolution of pollution level, environmental impact and
risk assessment of wastes deposition activities.
3. Wastes landfilling will continue to be an important and agreed activity onto integrated waste management strategy.
* Maximum admissible concentration according to Law no. 311/2004
5. Monitoring of ground water quality on waste landfill area
Selected references
1. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “Municipal waste landfilling, a source of environment pollution”, Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry, 17 (1), 54-57, 2006
2. Atudorei A., Paunescu I., Management of Urban Wastes, MatrixRom Ed., Bucuresti, 2002
3. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste deposition”, Proceeding of the 6th International Congress of Chemistry "Chemistry and Sustainable Development", Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain, December 5-7, , 2006
4. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “Evaluation of environmental impact generated by the urban waste deposition into a Moldavian county”, Proceedings of XIV-th Romanian International Conference on Chemistry and Chemical Engineering – RICCCE 14, Bucharest, September 22-24, vol.4: Inorganic Chemistry and Environmental Protection, S S06-119, 2005
5. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., Macoveanu M., “The environmental impact and risk assessment of a municipal waste landfill against the water quality”, Proceeding of International Conference: Disaster and Pollution Monitoring, 2nd edition, Iaşi, November 17-19, , 2005
6. Surpăţeanu M., Zaharia C., ABC – Analysis methods for the quality of environmental factors, T Ed., Iaşi, 2002
7. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “Environmental impact and quality control on an old moldavian municipal wastes landfill”, Bull.Instit.Polytech., Iaşi, series Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, tom L (LIV), 3-4, , 2005
8. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “The environmental impact of municipal wastes deposition on water quality”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 5(1), 69-78, 2006
9. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., Macoveanu M., “Assessment of environmental impact generated by municipal waste deposition into a Romanian landfill”, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 8(2), , 2007
10. Zaharia C., Surpăţeanu M., “Comparative study of environmental impact assessment using the global pollution method applied in the case of four moldavian solid wastes landfills”, Bull.Instit.Polytech., Iaşi, series Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, tom LII(52), 1-2, , 2007
Figure 2a,b: Monitoring of some quality indicators for ground
waters