| Literature DB >> 29224046 |
E Zinabu1,2,3, P Kelderman4, J van der Kwast4, K Irvine4,5.
Abstract
Kombolcha, a city in Ethiopia, exemplifies the challenges and problems of the sub-Saharan countries where industrialization is growing fast but monitoring resources are poor and information on pollution unknown. This study monitored metals Cr, Cu, Zn, and Pb concentrations in five factories' effluents, and in the effluent mixing zones of two rivers receiving discharges during the rainy seasons of 2013 and 2014. The results indicate that median concentrations of Cr in the tannery effluents and Zn in the steel processing effluents were as high as 26,600 and 155,750 µg/L, respectively, much exceeding both the USEPA and Ethiopian emission guidelines. Cu concentrations were low in all effluents. Pb concentrations were high in the tannery effluent, but did not exceed emission guidelines. As expected, no metal emission guidelines were exceeded for the brewery, textile and meat processing effluents. Median Cr and Zn concentrations in the Leyole river in the effluent mixing zones downstream of the tannery and steel processing plant increased by factors of 52 (2660 compared with 51 µg Cr/L) and 5 (520 compared with 110 µg Zn/L), respectively, compared with stations further upstream. This poses substantial ecological risks downstream. Comparison with emission guidelines indicates poor environmental management by industries and regulating institutions. Despite appropriate legislation, no clear measures have yet been taken to control industrial discharges, with apparent mismatch between environmental enforcement and investment policies. Effluent management, treatment technologies and operational capacity of environmental institutions were identified as key improvement areas to adopt progressive sustainable development.Entities:
Keywords: Ethiopia; Industrial effluents; Kombolcha; Policy enforcement; metals
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29224046 PMCID: PMC5849661 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0970-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.266
Fig. 1Location of the study area. a Study area in East Africa, northern Ethiopia, b Kombolcha industrial area (source: Kombolcha administration city office (2014)
Fig. 2Schematic outlines of the rivers receiving the effluents of five industries, the factories’ effluent discharge points and the monitoring stations and codes (LD1 (Confluence point of upper part tributaries and start of upstream Leyole river); LD2 (Steel processing effluent mixing zone in the Leyole river); LD3 (Textile effluent mixing zone in the Leyole river); LD4 (Tannery effluent mixing zone in the Leyole river); LD5 (Meat processing effluent mixing zone in the Leyole river); WD1 (Upstream Worka river); and WD2 (Brewery effluent mixing zone in the Worka river)) along the Leyole and Worka rivers flowing into the Borkena river
Estimates of EC, pH, and of effluent concentrations and guidelines (μg/L), as well as standard errors (μg/L), effluent discharges (L/s) and daily loadings (g/day) of metals in the five factories’ effluents, during the first (C1) and second campaign (C2), from June–September 2013 and 2014, respectively. For the effluent loadings, the “direct median loading method” was used, n = 8
| Factory | Steel | Textile | Tannery | Meat processing | Brewery | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign ( | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | |
| EC (µS/cm) | Median | 5730 | 3800 | 932 | 760 | 710 | 4470 | 1480 | 1590 | 920 | 1130 |
| Mean | 14,400 | 4000 | 920 | 800 | 2200 | 5200 | 920 | 1200 | 2100 | 1800 | |
| Maximum | 78,000 | 7460 | 1190 | 1010 | 10,570 | 12,280 | 1170 | 1740 | 7100 | 3070 | |
| Minimum | 1430 | 620 | 730 | 480 | 450 | 800 | 560 | 740 | 720 | 1,070 | |
| Standard error | 920 | 790 | 54 | 63 | 1240 | 1500 | 77 | 116 | 731 | 247 | |
| pH | Median | 6.1 | 5.5 | 10.3 | 8.2 | 7.8 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 7.2 | 11.1 | 11.2 |
| Maximum | 6.1 | 10.9 | 10.2 | 8.8 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 11.8 | 11.4 | |
| Minimum | 0.4 | 2.2 | 7.5 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 5.6 | 6.7 | 7.1 | 5.2 | 6.9 | |
| Standard error | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | |
| Cr | Median (µg/L) | 89 | 17 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 6.1 | 26,800 | 2.2 | 9 | 10 | 40 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 150 | 32 | 4.1 | 45 | 22 | 33,270 | 2.1 | 60 | 8 | 36 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 485 | 85 | 4.9 | 297 | 131 | 64,600 | 2.1 | 215 | 16 | 77 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 2.1 | 1.1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 813 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 60 | 11 | 0.7 | 36 | 17 | 7,850 | 0 | 34 | 2 | 8 | |
| USEPA guidelinea (µg/L) | 1300 | 1300 | N.A.b | N.A. | 12,000 | 12,000 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| EMoI guidelinec (µg/L) | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 2000 | 2000 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Mean effluent (L/s) | 1.7 | 2.2 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 6.8 | 8.4 | 11 | 8.8 | 8.2 | 21 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 11 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2.5 | 18,500 | 1.1 | 6 | 4 | 40 | |
| Cu | Median (µg/L) | 65.2 | 99 | 14 | 6.9 | 11 | 15 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 25 | 26 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 125 | 137 | 58 | 13 | 125 | 22 | 31 | 6.8 | 111 | 43 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 440 | 340 | 290 | 50 | 290 | 85 | 160 | 20 | 290 | 200 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 8.5 | 0.1 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 8.1 | 0.1 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 4.9 | 1.4 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 45 | 54 | 34 | 6 | 51 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 3 | 47 | |
| USEPA guideline (µg/L) | 1300 | 1300 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| EMoI guideline (µg/L) | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Mean effluent (L/s) | 1.7 | 2.2 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 6.8 | 8.4 | 11 | 8.8 | 8.2 | 21 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 6 | 20 | 22 | 9 | 6.3 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 17 | 29 | |
| Zn | Median (µg/L) | 60,040 | 155,750 | 120 | 110 | 90 | 280 | 110 | 140 | 150 | 210 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 170,000 | 172,600 | 200 | 230 | 980 | 390 | 160 | 150 | 210 | 220 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 662,700 | 450,700 | 7190 | 640 | 7190 | 1250 | 180 | 330 | 720 | 440 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 14,100 | 14,150 | 26 | 29 | 26 | 130 | 25 | 44 | 20 | 68 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 87,800 | 50,110 | 76 | 85 | 887 | 0 | 125 | 43 | 33 | 76 | |
| USEPA guideline (µg/L) | 3500 | 3500 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| EMoI guideline (µg/L) | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Mean effluent (L/s) | 1.7 | 2.2 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 6.8 | 8.4 | 11 | 8.8 | 8.2 | 21 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 4950 | 17,300 | 207 | 160 | 54 | 210 | 47 | 100 | 114 | 280 | |
| Pb | Median (µg/L) | 5.1 | 8.2 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 5.9 | 1.1 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 16 | 22 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 3.1 | 130 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 4.9 | 2.1 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 43 | 66 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 1670 | 4.1 | 2.9 | 8.1 | 2.9 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 5.7 | 9.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 233 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | |
| USEPA guideline (µg/L) | 120 | 120 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| EMoI guideline (µg/L) | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | |
| Mean effluent (L/s) | 1.7 | 2.2 | 15.4 | 16.5 | 6.8 | 8.4 | 11 | 8.8 | 8.2 | 21 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 1 | 1.3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0.6 | 3 | 2 | |
a USEPA (2014)
b N.A. not available; no guideline concentration is given
c EMoI (2014)
Estimates of EC, pH, and the metal concentrations (μg/L), flow rates (L/s) and loadings (g/day) for the industrial effluents mixing zones (M.z.) of the Leyole and Worka rivers. The flow rates (in italic) at LD 2–4 were estimated by interpolation, taking the average of flow rates at LD1 and LD5. The loadings were calculated as the product of median concentrations and flow rates of the rivers
| Station | LD1 | LD2 (M.z. steel) | LD3 (M.z. textile) | LD4 (M.z. tannery) | LD5 (M.z. meat proc.) | WD1 | WD2 (M.z. Brewery) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaigns ( | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | C1 | C2 | |
| EC (µS/cm) | Median | 620 | 530 | 570 | 460 | 750 | 550 | 750 | 980 | 760 | 850 | 430 | 340 | 680 | 1240 |
| Mean | 540 | 490 | 540 | 420 | 700 | 550 | 740 | 1050 | 770 | 850 | 400 | 350 | 700 | 1280 | |
| Maximum | 718 | 685 | 617 | 574 | 1080 | 650 | 1010 | 1480 | 1110 | 1260 | 480 | 470 | 990 | 2850 | |
| Minimum | 200 | 150 | 280 | 180 | 520 | 400 | 420 | 710 | 440 | 290 | 290 | 240 | 430 | 570 | |
| Standard error | 66 | 65 | 38 | 43 | 62 | 32 | 66 | 105 | 69 | 113 | 24 | 27 | 71 | 241 | |
| pH | Median | 7.5 | 8.0 | 8.1 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.9 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 8.1 | 8.4 | 6.3 | 9.5 |
| Maximum | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 8.8 | 8.5 | 8.2 | 7.9 | 8.5 | 7.9 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 9.5 | 11.2 | |
| Minimum | 7.3 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.6 | 7.9 | 7.6 | 7.1 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 6.4 | 8.0 | 4.4 | 6.9 | |
| Standard error | 0.8 | 0.13 | 0.8 | 0.13 | 0.89 | 0.13 | 0.83 | 0.07 | 0.84 | 0.09 | 0.83 | 0.1 | 0.74 | 0.58 | |
| Cr | Median (µg/L) | 3.9 | 2.1 | 12 | 6.1 | 7.9 | 51 | 9.1 | 2660 | 8.9 | 280 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 7.1 | 38 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 3 | 440 | 11 | 380 | 6.9 | 230 | 9 | 6880 | 11 | 4280 | 3.1 | 37 | 7.9 | 30 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 21 | 2690 | 44 | 2160 | 25 | 1130 | 15 | 25,900 | 16 | 18,250 | 4.9 | 154 | 13 | 73 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 1.9 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 206 | 2.1 | 26 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 2.1 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 4.1 | 330 | 5.1 | 260 | 3.1 | 140 | 8.9 | 3360 | 6.1 | 2580 | 0.1 | 22 | 1.1 | 9.1 | |
| Mean river flows (L/s) | 98 | 184 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 142 | 296 | 360 | 1320 | 360 | 1,320 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 34 | 32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Cu | Median (µg/L) | 23 | 0.4 | 17 | 14 | 63 | 41 | 10 | 21 | 14 | 27 | 8 | 0.2 | 13 | 33 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 80 | 300 | 83 | 270 | 100 | 160 | 41 | 85 | 65 | 190 | 51 | 34 | 73 | 350 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 303 | 1900 | 248 | 1540 | 250 | 830 | 250 | 360 | 270 | 1180 | 270 | 150 | 270 | 2450 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 3.1 | 0.1 | 6.9 | 0.1 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 2.1 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 0.1 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 37 | 240 | 36 | 190 | 37 | 100 | 30 | 45 | 33 | 140 | 33 | 22 | 35 | 300 | |
| Mean river flows (L/s) | 98 | 180 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 140 | 300 | 360 | 1,320 | 360 | 1,320 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 195 | 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 249 | 23 |
|
| |
| Zn | Median (µg/L) | 72 | 110 | 95 | 520 | 71 | 187 | 30 | 205 | 81 | 214 | 41 | 137 | 106 | 194 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 77 | 110 | 109 | 886 | 91 | 525 | 52 | 384 | 127 | 528 | 67 | 151 | 194 | 175 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 126 | 3310 | 367 | 2780 | 218 | 1600 | 131 | 1050 | 611 | 2120 | 143 | 338 | 855 | 278 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 26 | 16 | 29 | 9.1 | 54 | 34 | 15 | 67 | 15 | 25 | 8.9 | 12 | 14 | 46 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 15 | 402 | 37 | 365 | 21 | 209 | 17 | 127 | 65 | 250 | 19 | 45 | 92 | 29 | |
| Mean river flows (L/s) | 98 | 184 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 142 | 296 | 360 | 1320 | 360 | 1320 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 610 | 1750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1280 | 15,630 |
|
| |
| Pb | Median (µg/L) | 2.1 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 3.9 | 5.1 | 3.1 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 3.9 | 1.1 |
| Mean (µg/L) | 1.1 | 11 | 1.1 | 9.9 | 1.1 | 8.1 | 0.4 | 128 | 1.1 | 7.9 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.1 | |
| Maximum (µg/L) | 4.9 | 70 | 6.1 | 60 | 4.9 | 34 | 4.1 | 980 | 4.1 | 44 | 3.9 | 7.1 | 4.9 | 5.1 | |
| Minimum (µg/L) | 2.1 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.1 | |
| Standard error (µg/L) | 0.4 | 8 | 0.7 | 7 | 0.4 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 121 | 0.4 | 5.1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
| Mean river flows (L/s) | 98 | 184 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 142 | 296 | 360 | 1320 | 360 | 1320 | |
| Loadings (g/day) | 17 | 16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 62 | 114 |
|
| |
Fig. 3Water flows of the rivers. a Water flows (m3/s) of upstream Leyole river at station LD1, b downstream at station LD5, and c at the downstream Worka river station WD2, from 1 June to 30 September 2013 and 2014. Note the logarithmic scale in Fig. 3b
Expected effluent compositions for the five Kombolcha industries, type of treatment facility, and emission monitoring, as observed in 2015
| Factory | Expected effluent composition | Treatment facility |
|---|---|---|
| Steel processing | toxics: As, CN, Cr, Cd, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Zn; non-toxic: Fe3+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Mn2+. | Retaining ponds |
| Textile | Acid and alkaline, disinfectants: C12, H2O2, formalin, phenol | Facultative lagoons |
| Tannery | Cr and organic wastes (i.e. Bio- oxidizables (BOD)) | Anaerobic lagoons |
| Meat processing | Organic wastes, suspended solids, and BOD, nutrients (P, N) | Anaerobic lagoons |
| Brewery | organic wastes, suspended solids, BOD, nutrients (P, N) | No treatment facility |
Metals discharges from selected factories in Sub-Saharan and other developing countries
| Factory effluent | Metals | Concentration (µg/L) | Country | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tannery | Cr | 23,020 | Kenya | Mwinyikione et al. ( |
| 10,820 | Ethiopia | Gebrekidan et al. ( | ||
| 5790 | Nigeria | Emmanuel and Adepeju ( | ||
| 3540 | Ethiopia | Ayalew and Assefa ( | ||
| 264,000 | Uganda | Oguttu et al. ( | ||
| 811,410 | Morocco | Ilou et al. ( | ||
| 95,000 | India | Ganesh et al. ( | ||
| 77,000 | Albania | Floqi et al. ( | ||
| 5, 420,000 | Bangladesh | Hashem et al. ( | ||
| Pb | 1060–1920 | Nigeria | Akan et al. ( | |
| 2870–3100 | Nigeria | Emmanuel and Adepeju ( | ||
| 760 | Morocco | Ilou et al. ( | ||
| 1970 | Pakistan | Tariq et al. ( | ||
| Steel processing | Zn | 5520 | Nigeria | Adakole and Abolude ( |
| 2900 | Bangladesh | Ahmed et al. ( | ||
| 168,150 | Romania | Alexa ( | ||
| 498,500 | India | Majumdar et al. ( | ||
| Textile | Cu | 5140 | Nigeria | Yusuff and Sonibare ( |
| 2200–4500 | Nigeria | Ohioma et al. ( | ||
| 1090 | Pakistan | Sial et al. ( | ||
| 1700 | Pakistan | Manzoor et al. ( |
Description of Ethiopian pollution regulation and control components and, analysis of strengths, weakness and and possible solutions
| Issue | Industrial effluent pollution | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pollution regulation and control | ||||
| Regulatory structures | Federal level (EEPA), Regional level (REPA), Local level (Kombolcha Bureau of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use (EPLAU)) | |||
| Regulatory organs | Federal environmental institutions and the Council (Ethiopian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change), Regional environmental institutions, Sectorial environmental institutions | |||
| Control and command | Emission standards (limits of effluent quality discharge into water for eight categories of industries includinga (EEPA | |||
| Tanning and the production of leather goods; The manufacture of textiles; Extraction of mineral ores, the production of metals and metal products; The manufacture of cement and cement products; Preservation of woods and manufacture of wood products including furniture; The production of pulp, paper and paper products and; The manufacture and formulation of chemical products including pesticides. | ||||
| Strengths | Manifestation of Ethiopian Environmental Policy | |||
| Formulation of laws and regulation to control industrial pollution (proclamations of the environmental protection organs; Environmental Pollution Control proclamation; the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) proclamations; and the Water Resources and Management proclamation) | ||||
| Weaknesses | Priority given to development over environmental protection | Lack of regulatory oversight relating to EIA | Reliance on use of effluent limits | Absence of any requirement to monitor or report for compliance of effluent limits |
| Source of weaknesses | • Lack of awareness and political commitments to environmental protection• Absence of clear links between development objectives and environmental protection• Foreign investor indifference to environmental protection | • Lack of effective rules and legal enforcement for EIA• Lack of environmental protection awareness by EIA licensing bodies• Absence of political commitment• Lack of communication among EIA regulatory institutions | • Lack of financial and technical resources by concerned institutions• Lack of economic incentive• Limited monitoring infrastructure for effluent receiving environments such as rivers• Lack of clear protection guidelines to effluent mixing environments | • Absence of rules for clear monitoring schemes for industrial pollutants• Limited professional, technical/finance capacity• Absence of technology standards to control pollution by industries• Lack of enforcement to compliance emission guidelines• Lack of transparency (for public use) in monitoring records |
| Possible solutions | • Awareness raising of decision makers in environmental protection• Prioritizing sustainable development in policy formulation and guidance | • Reformulating clear rules and strict implementation of EIA legal enforcement• Systematic use of EIA and coordinating the tasks of EIA regulatory institutions (e.g. licensing organization and EEPA) | • Introducing economic incentives schemes i.e. collecting revenue from emission fees, taxes and subsidies• Expanding monitoring infrastructures• Developing effect based water quality guidelines after mixing of effluents in receiving water bodies | • Formulating clear rules for emission monitoring in industries• Developing technology based emission guidelines• Capacity building of emission controlling institutions• Strict follow up of legal enforcements• Public disclosure of available monitoring records• Development of environmental management systems linked with monitoring and reporting |