| Literature DB >> 27594788 |
Marian A Nkansah1, Francis Opoku1, James H Ephraim1, David D Wemegah2, Luke P M Tetteh1.
Abstract
Due to the increase in students' population over the years, the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana, and its surrounding communities have seen an increase in the number of beauty salons. The assessment of the quality of salon wastewater has received little attention, as a potential source of environmental and public health hazard, due to the lack of literature on this issue. The main aim of this study is to assess wastewater effluent characteristics in KNUST and its surrounding areas, in relation to its physicochemical and microbial parameters. A total of 48 wastewater samples were collected monthly in 250 L polystyrene bottles, over a two-month period from the KNUST and Ayigya, Ayeduase, and Bomso communities. Standard methods of American Public Health Association (APHA, 19th edition) were employed in the determination of the physicochemical parameters and microbial content of the wastewater samples. The results showed that all the sampling towns had mean chemical oxygen demand (COD; 60.04 ± 1.82 mg/L), biological oxygen demand (BOD; 30.03 ± 9.11 mg/L), dissolved oxygen (DO; 3.00 ± 0.53 mg/L), pH (9.55 ± 0.42), nitrate (5.42 ± 0.36 mg/L), phosphate (23.61 ± 0.16 mg/L), acidity (1.70 ± 0.01 mg/L), alkalinity (70.88 ± 2.59 mg/L), turbidity (20.29 ± 3.86 NTU), electrical conductivity (EC; 1404.89 ± 114.11 μm/S), and total dissolved solids (TDS; 1150.25 ± 262.10 mg/L) in the salon waste. In the case of bacterial levels, pathogenic bacteria such as fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, Shigella dysenteriae, and Salmonella enterica were absent, while the levels of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa did not pose any health risk. The correlation matrix showed a significant positive correlation between and among pH, alkalinity, TDS, and turbidity (P < 0.05). The results revealed that the wastewater collected from the salon effluents contain pollution indicator parameters such as EC, pH, PO4 (3-), BOD, and turbidity, considerably higher than the tolerance limits recommended by the World Health Organization. The principal component analysis indicated that pH, alkalinity, acidity, COD, PO4 (3-), S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, turbidity, TDS, EC, DO, and BOD were the most influential parameters to wastewater variations. Based on these characteristics, a call for a regular and persistent monitoring strategy by the relevant authorities is significant to ensure best practices with respect to the discharge of salon wastewater into the environment.Entities:
Keywords: beauty salon; microbial; physicochemical; principal component analysis; wastewater
Year: 2016 PMID: 27594788 PMCID: PMC5004995 DOI: 10.4137/EHI.S40360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Insights ISSN: 1178-6302
Figure 1Map of study area indicating sampling points.
Typical wastewater characterization adopted from the study by Metcalf and Eddy.29
| PARAMETER | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW |
|---|---|---|---|
| COD | 1200 | 750 | 500 |
| BOD | 560 | 350 | 230 |
| pH | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Alkalinity | 7 | 4 | 1 |
| COD/BOD | 2.5–3.5 | 2.0–2.5 | 1.5–3.5 |
Physicochemical parameters of wastewater samples from different communities.
| PARAMETERS | SAMPLE POINTS | ALL TOWNS | WHO (2004) | GHANA EPA (EPA-GHANA 2007) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYEDUASE | AYIGYA | BOMSO | KNUST | |||||
| Turbidity | Range | 18.51–35.21 | 22.54–30.23 | 9.52–38.40 | 12.53–36.24 | 9.52–38.40 | 5 | 75 |
| Mean ± SD | 23.08 ± 4.21 | 24.13 ± 4.04 | 16.61 ± 2.65 | 17.34 ± 4.71 | 20.29 ± 3.86 | |||
| TDS | Range | 1097–2021 | 1240.00–1998.00 | 714.00–1610.00 | 945.00–1864.00 | 714.00–1998.00 | 2000 | 1500 |
| Mean ± SD | 1360.00 ± 210.00 | 1384.00 ± 242.00 | 861.00 ± 216.00 | 996.00 ± 233.00 | 1150.25 ± 262.10 | |||
| EC | Range | 980.00–2580.00 | 99.00–2980.00 | 1060.00–2250.00 | 1150.00–2450 | 99.00–2980.00 | 1000 | 1500 |
| Mean ± SD | 1350.35 ± 430.00 | 1490.65 ± 400.00 | 1270.45 ± 380.00 | 1508.12 ± 210.00 | 1404.89 ± 114.11 | |||
| pH | Range | 9.00–12.40 | 9.60–12.40 | 10.10–12.42 | 10.80–12.60 | 9.00–12.60 | 6–9 | 6–9 |
| Mean ± SD | 9.18 ± 1.74 | 9.37 ± 1.70 | 9.49 ± 1.91 | 10.14 ± 1.97 | 9.55 ± 0.42 | |||
| NO3– | Range | 5.26–9.80 | 5.21–10.00 | 3.24–7.42 | 3.40–8.24 | 3.24–5.21 | 45 | 50 |
| Mean ± SD | 5.85 ± 0.91 | 5.59 ± 1.00 | 5.15 ± 1.00 | 5.09 ± 0.77 | 5.42 ± 0.36 | |||
| PO43− | Range | 17.00–41.80 | 14.16–44.96 | 11.60–56.00 | 23.40–70.40 | 11.60–70.40 | 5 | 2 |
| Mean ± SD | 23.75 ± 3.34 | 23.47 ± 3.34 | 23.47 ± 7.34 | 23.75 ± 3.34 | 23.61 ± 0.16 | |||
| Alkalinity | Range | 69.00–112.00 | 70.00–125.00 | 42.00–117.00 | 50.00–119.00 | 42.00–70.00 | (–) | (–) |
| Mean ± SD | 69.00 ± 13.00 | 71.00 ± 13.00 | 74.50 ± 9.33 | 69.00 ± 13.00 | 70.88 ± 2.59 | |||
| Acidity | Range | 1.23–3.25 | 1.25–2.45 | 1.35–3.47 | 1.44–3.20 | 1.23–3.47 | (–) | (–) |
| Mean ± SD | 1.69 ± 0.26 | 1.70 ± 0.26 | 1.70 ± 0.57 | 1.69 ± 0.26 | 1.70 ± 0.01 | |||
| COD | Range | 48.00–86.00 | 52.00–89.00 | 69.00–84.00 | 50.00–84.00 | 48.00–89.00 | 250 | 250 |
| Mean ± SD | 58.86 ± 13.00 | 58.29 ± 14.83 | 60.71 ± 13.67 | 62.29 ± 7.66 | 60.04 ± 1.82 | |||
| BOD | Range | 26.00–47.56 | 29.00–45.25 | 12.20–45.00 | 15.00–45.20 | 12.20–47.56 | 30 | 50 |
| Mean ± SD | 42.87 ± 31.19 | 29.46 ± 7.55 | 21.86 ± 6.93 | 25.91 ± 6.32 | 30.03 ± 9.11 | |||
| DO | Range | 2.23–4.94 | 2.47–5.10 | 1.22–4.50 | 1.80–4.60 | 1.22–5.10 | 4 | 5 |
| Mean ± SD | 3.19 ± 0.37 | 3.46 ± 0.31 | 2.24 ± 0.70 | 3.11 ± 0.31 | 3.00 ± 0.53 | |||
Notes: All units of parameters are in mg/L except pH, turbidity (NTU), and EC (μS/cm); (–) indicates not available.
Figure 2COD/BOD ratio for beauty salon waste.
Mean microbial count of wastewater samples from different communities.
| MICROBIAL | SAMPLE POINTS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AYEDUASE | AYIGYA | BOMSO | KNUST | |
| Total plate count | 102.00–224.00 | 218.00–415.00 | 217.00–378.00 | 101.00–367.00 |
| 1.35–8.12 | 1.10–7.11 | 1.06–7.11 | 1.00–3.79 | |
| 1.67–7.08 | 1.13–4.24 | 1.36–4.24 | 1.33–8.44 | |
| Fecal coliforms | Nil | Nil | Nil | Nil |
| Nil | Nil | Nil | Nil | |
| Nil | Nil | Nil | Nil | |
Note: All units of microbial counts are in 1 mL (CFu) × 103.
Correlation matrix of physicochemical parameters in beauty salon wastewater.
| TURBIDITY | TDS | EC | pH | ALKALINITY | ACIDITY | COD | BOD | DO | NO3– | PO43− | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turbidity | 1.0 | ||||||||||
| TDS | 0.988 | 1.0 | |||||||||
| EC | 0.301 | 0.372 | 1.0 | ||||||||
| pH | −0.672 | −0.590 | 0.495 | 1.0 | |||||||
| Alkalinity | −0.864 | −0.825 | 0.214 | 0.960 | 1.0 | ||||||
| Acidity | −0.519 | −0.405 | 0.585 | 0.934 | 0.808 | 1.0 | |||||
| COD | −0.905 | −0.836 | 0.065 | 0.895 | 0.939 | 0.829 | 1.0 | ||||
| BOD | 0.719 | 0.776 | −0.014 | −0.579 | −0.791 | −0.329 | −0.580 | 1.0 | |||
| DO | 0.779 | 0.843 | 0.800 | −0.065 | −0.394 | 0.129 | −0.447 | 0.550 | 1.0 | ||
| NO 3− | 0.908 | 0.907 | −0.034 | −0.811 | −0.625 | −0.965 | −0.870 | 0.906 | 0.571 | 1.0 | |
| PO 43− | −0.499 | −0.379 | 0.578 | 0.943 | 0.998 | 0.779 | 0.819 | −0.274 | 0.148 | −0.587 | 1.0 |
Notes:
P = 0.05,
P = 0.01; significant correlation (two-tailed).
Principal components and explained variance of wastewater quality parameters in the beauty salon waste.
| COMPONENTS | EIGENVALUE | % OF VARIANCE | CUMULATIVE % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.521 | 42.469 | 42.469 |
| 2 | 4.217 | 32.436 | 74.905 |
| 3 | 3.262 | 25.095 | 100.000 |
Component loading for each variable in the salon wastewater.
| COMPONENTS (FACTORS) | LOADINGS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| >0.75 | 0.50–0.75 | 0.30–0.50 | |
| 1 | pH, alkalinity, acidity, COD, PO43− | EC | – |
| 2 | turbidity, TDS, EC, DO | NO3–, BOD | – |
| 3 | BOD, | NO3– | – |