Predictive simulation of groundwater contamination due to landfill leachate: A case study on the Robinson Deep Landfill, Johannesburg, South Africa
Main Article Content
Keywords
Predictive simulation, groundwater contamination, transport modelling, landfill leachate, Robinson Deep landfill
Abstract
Groundwater contamination from municipal solid waste landfills is a global issue, including South Africa. The Robinson Deep landfill (RDL) in Johannesburg lacks necessary leachate collection and handling facilities, has a shallow groundwater table, and no groundwater quality forecast tool. This situation poses a risk of groundwater contamination. This study aimed to construct groundwater flow and contaminant transport models to predict contamination from leachate migration at RDL. Visual MODFLOW Flex software was used for model construction and verification. Heavy metal concentration observations (Al, Cd, Mn, and Pb) from boreholes BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, and BH-H near the RDL were used to calibrate and validate the contaminant transport model (CTM). The result of the CTM predictive simulations for 2030 show Mn and Pb concentrations in the BH-H groundwater could reach 4.28 mg/L and 6.85 mg/L, respectively, exceeding permissible limits of 0.01 mg/L for Pb and 0.4 mg/L for Mn. The simulations indicate that the RDL threatens groundwater quality, especially in the northern areas of the landfill. Based on these findings, a recommendation is made for future studies on assessment and modelling of groundwater quality to focus on areas where increased concentrations of Pb and Mn are predicted. Further, it is recommended that precautionary preventive measures be implemented to mitigate possible contamination of groundwater in the northern areas of the landfill.
Article Metrics Graph
References
[1] Sheng D, Meng X, Wen X, Wu J, Yu H, Wu M. Contamination characteristics, source identification, and source-specific health risks of heavy metal(loid)s in groundwater of an arid oasis region in Northwest China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022;841:156733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156733
[2] Abiriga D, Vestgarden l, Klempe H. Groundwater contamination from a municipal landfill: effect of age, landfill closure, and season on groundwater chemistry. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;737:140307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140307
[3] Ravenscroft P, Lytton L. Seeing the invisible: A strategic report on groundwater quality. Report no. 169674. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2022.
[4] United Nations, 2024. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2024: Water for Prosperity and Peace. UNESCO, Paris. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210050000
[5] Sibiya IV, Olukunle OI, Okonkwo. Seasonal variations and the influence of geomembrane liners on the levels of PBDES in landfill leachates, sediment and groundwater in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Emerg. Contam. 2017;3(2):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2017.05.002
[6] Edokpayi JN, Durowoju OS, Odiyo JO. Assessment of heavy metals in landfill leachate: A case study of Thohoyandou landfill, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Heavy Met. 2018;16:214–227. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74009
[7] Nevondo V, Daso AP, Okonkwo OJ, Malehase T. Leachate seepage from landfill: a source of groundwater mercury contamination in South Africa. Water Sa. 2019;45(2):225-231. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-15974e82c8
[8] Sibiya I, Poma G, Cuykx M, Covaci A, Adegbenro PD, Okonkwo J. Targeted and non-target screening of persistent organic pollutants and organophosphorus flame retardants in leachate and sediment from landfill sites in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;653:1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.356
[9] Makhadi r, Oke SA, Ololade OO. The influence of non-engineered municipal landfills on groundwater chemistry and quality in Bloemfontein, South Africa. Molecules. 2020;25(23):5599. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25235599
[10] Mepaiyeda S, Madi K, Gwavava O, Baiyegunhi C. Geological and geophysical assessment of groundwater contamination at the Roundhill landfill site, Berlin, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Heliyon. 2020;6(7):E04249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04249
[11] Boateng TK, Opoku F, Akoto O. Heavy metal contamination assessment of groundwater quality: A case study of Oti landfill site, Kumasi. Appl. Water Sci. 2019;9:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0915-y
11. El mouine Y, Amal el H, Moad M, Vincent V, Hasna Y, Houria D. Groundwater contamination due to landfill leachate—A case study of Tadla Plain. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2020;16(1):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022016053
12. Lindamulla L, Nanayakkara N, Othman M, Jinadasa S, Herath G, Jegatheesan V. Municipal solid waste landfill leachate characteristics and their treatment options in tropical countries. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2022;8:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-022-00222-x
13. Wdowczyk A, szymańska-pulikowska A. Analysis of the possibility of conducting a comprehensive assessment of landfill leachate contamination using physicochemical indicators and toxicity test. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021;221:112434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112434
14. Teng C, Chen W. Technologies for the treatment of emerging contaminants in landfill leachate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 2023;31:100409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100409
15. Bakker M, Post V. Analytical groundwater modelling—Theory and applications using Python. London, UK. Taylor & Francis Group; 2022.
16. Gahala AM, Bristow ELD, Sharpe JB, Metcalf BG, Matson LA. Simulation of groundwater and surface-water interaction and lake resiliency at Crystal Lake, City of Crystal Lake, Illinois. Reston, VA: USGS; 2024. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245007
17. Kumar CP. An overview of commonly used groundwater modelling software. Int. J. Adv Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2019; 6(1):7854-7865.
18. Langevin CD, Hughes JD, Banta ER, Niswonger RG, Panday S, Provost AM. Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 groundwater flow model. Reston, VA: USGS; 2017. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6A55
19. Kumar CP. modelling of groundwater flow and data requirements. Int. J. Mod. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015;2(2):18-27.
20. Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. USGS. Book 6, Chapter A1:586; 1988. https://doi.org/10.3133/twri06A1
21. Rwanga S, Ndambuki J. Solving groundwater problems fraught with uncertain recharge: An application to Central Limpopo, South Africa. Groundw. sustain. dev. 2020;10:100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100305
22. Doherty J. Calibration and uncertainty analysis for complex environmental models. Brisbane, Australia: Watermark Numerical Computing; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12360
23. Jovanovic N, Bugan RD, Tredoux G, Israel S, BIshop R, Marinus V. Hydrogeological modelling of the Atlantis aquifer for management support to the Atlantis Water Supply Scheme. Water S.A. 2017;43(1):122-138. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v43i1.15
24. Zheng C, Wang PP. MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide. Contract report SERDP-99-1. Vicksburg, USA. US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Centre; 1999.
25. Sundararaj C, Muthukaruppan K, Mariappan D, Veluswamy K. Groundwater contaminant transport modelling using Visual MODFLOW: A case study of corporation sewage farm in South Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022;15(18):1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10804-0
26. Akinsulie OO. Material flow analysis on a landfill site in Johannesburg. Dissertation (M.Sc.). Johannesburg: The University of the Witwatersrand; 2016.
27. Musekiwa C, Majola K. Groundwater vulnerability map for South Africa. S.A. J. Geomat. 2013;2(2):152–162.
28. Barnard HC. Hydrogeological map of Johannesburg 2526 (1:500 000). Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, Johannesburg, South Africa; 1999.
29. Coetzee LE. Geological series 2628 East Rand (1:250000). South African Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria; 1986.
30. De Beer JH. Geology of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. 1986;23(2):101-137. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxiii.2.101
31. Wilkinson KJ. Geological Series 2626 West Rand (1:250000). South African Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria; 1986. Downloadable Material - Council for Geoscience
32. Johnson MR, Wolmarans LG. Simplified geological map of the Republic of South Africa and the kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:2 000 000. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria; 2008.
33. Burger M, Vermeulen PD. The groundwater interaction of a deeper lying gold mine and a shallower lying coal mine through the presence of naturally occurring as well as induced preferential flow paths. Presented at: 11th International Mine Water Association Congress–Mine Water–Managing Challenges Conference. Aachen, Germany. IMWA; 2011.63-567.
34. Mokhahlane LS, Mathoho G, Gomo M, Vermeulen D. Qualitative hydrogeological assessment of vertical connectivity in aquifers surrounding an underground coal gasification site. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2018;118(10):1047-1052.
35. Waterloo Hydrogeologic. Visual MODFLOW version 8.0 user’s manual-integrated conceptual and numerical groundwater modelling software. Ontario, Canada: Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc.; 2022. Visual MODFLOW Flex 8.0 Product Release (waterloohydrogeologic.com)
36. Niswonger RG, Panday S, Motomu I. MODFLOW-NWT, A newton formulation for MODFLOW-2005: US Geological Survey techniques and methods.2011;6–A37:44p. http://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/tm/tm6a37/index.html
37. Leketa k. Abiye T. Using environmental tracers to characterise groundwater flow mechanisms in the fractured crystalline and karst aquifers in Upper Crocodile River basin, Johannesburg, South Africa. Hydrology. 2021;8(1):50–50. https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/8/1/50
38. Vermaak JJG. Geotechnical and hydrogeological characterization of residual soils in the vadose zone. Thesis (Doctoral). Pretoria: University of Pretoria; 2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/30093
39. Xu M. Eckstein Y. Use of weighted least‐squares method in evaluation of the relationship between dispersivity and field scale. Groundwater. 1995;33(6):905-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1995.tb00035.x
40. Khadri SFR. Pande C. Groundwater flow modelling for calibrating steady state using MODFLOW software: A case study of Mahesh River Basin, India. MESE. 2016;2(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0049-7
41. Shamsi UMS, Koran J. Continuous calibration. JWMM. 2017;25:C414. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.C414
42. Baalousha HM, Fahs M, Ramasomanana F, Younes A. Effect of pilot-points location on model calibration: Application to the northern karst aquifer of Qatar. Water. 2019;11(4):679. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040679
43. Osman OA, Ochieng GM, Rwanga S. Assessment of groundwater quality correlation to proximate landfill leachate: A case study on a selected landfill in Johannesburg, South Africa. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Civil Engineering, Vaal University of Technology; 2024.
44. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs, South Africa). South African water quality guidelines, volume 1, 2nd edn. Domestic water use. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 1996.
45. SABS (South African Bureau of Standards). SANS 241:1 Drinking Water. Pretoria, South Africa: SABS Standards Division; 2015.
46. WHO (World Health Organization). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Incorporating the first and second addenda. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2022.
[2] Abiriga D, Vestgarden l, Klempe H. Groundwater contamination from a municipal landfill: effect of age, landfill closure, and season on groundwater chemistry. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;737:140307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140307
[3] Ravenscroft P, Lytton L. Seeing the invisible: A strategic report on groundwater quality. Report no. 169674. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2022.
[4] United Nations, 2024. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2024: Water for Prosperity and Peace. UNESCO, Paris. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210050000
[5] Sibiya IV, Olukunle OI, Okonkwo. Seasonal variations and the influence of geomembrane liners on the levels of PBDES in landfill leachates, sediment and groundwater in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Emerg. Contam. 2017;3(2):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2017.05.002
[6] Edokpayi JN, Durowoju OS, Odiyo JO. Assessment of heavy metals in landfill leachate: A case study of Thohoyandou landfill, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Heavy Met. 2018;16:214–227. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74009
[7] Nevondo V, Daso AP, Okonkwo OJ, Malehase T. Leachate seepage from landfill: a source of groundwater mercury contamination in South Africa. Water Sa. 2019;45(2):225-231. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-15974e82c8
[8] Sibiya I, Poma G, Cuykx M, Covaci A, Adegbenro PD, Okonkwo J. Targeted and non-target screening of persistent organic pollutants and organophosphorus flame retardants in leachate and sediment from landfill sites in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;653:1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.356
[9] Makhadi r, Oke SA, Ololade OO. The influence of non-engineered municipal landfills on groundwater chemistry and quality in Bloemfontein, South Africa. Molecules. 2020;25(23):5599. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25235599
[10] Mepaiyeda S, Madi K, Gwavava O, Baiyegunhi C. Geological and geophysical assessment of groundwater contamination at the Roundhill landfill site, Berlin, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Heliyon. 2020;6(7):E04249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04249
[11] Boateng TK, Opoku F, Akoto O. Heavy metal contamination assessment of groundwater quality: A case study of Oti landfill site, Kumasi. Appl. Water Sci. 2019;9:33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-019-0915-y
11. El mouine Y, Amal el H, Moad M, Vincent V, Hasna Y, Houria D. Groundwater contamination due to landfill leachate—A case study of Tadla Plain. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2020;16(1):53. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022016053
12. Lindamulla L, Nanayakkara N, Othman M, Jinadasa S, Herath G, Jegatheesan V. Municipal solid waste landfill leachate characteristics and their treatment options in tropical countries. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2022;8:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-022-00222-x
13. Wdowczyk A, szymańska-pulikowska A. Analysis of the possibility of conducting a comprehensive assessment of landfill leachate contamination using physicochemical indicators and toxicity test. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021;221:112434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112434
14. Teng C, Chen W. Technologies for the treatment of emerging contaminants in landfill leachate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health. 2023;31:100409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100409
15. Bakker M, Post V. Analytical groundwater modelling—Theory and applications using Python. London, UK. Taylor & Francis Group; 2022.
16. Gahala AM, Bristow ELD, Sharpe JB, Metcalf BG, Matson LA. Simulation of groundwater and surface-water interaction and lake resiliency at Crystal Lake, City of Crystal Lake, Illinois. Reston, VA: USGS; 2024. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245007
17. Kumar CP. An overview of commonly used groundwater modelling software. Int. J. Adv Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2019; 6(1):7854-7865.
18. Langevin CD, Hughes JD, Banta ER, Niswonger RG, Panday S, Provost AM. Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 groundwater flow model. Reston, VA: USGS; 2017. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6A55
19. Kumar CP. modelling of groundwater flow and data requirements. Int. J. Mod. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015;2(2):18-27.
20. Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. USGS. Book 6, Chapter A1:586; 1988. https://doi.org/10.3133/twri06A1
21. Rwanga S, Ndambuki J. Solving groundwater problems fraught with uncertain recharge: An application to Central Limpopo, South Africa. Groundw. sustain. dev. 2020;10:100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100305
22. Doherty J. Calibration and uncertainty analysis for complex environmental models. Brisbane, Australia: Watermark Numerical Computing; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12360
23. Jovanovic N, Bugan RD, Tredoux G, Israel S, BIshop R, Marinus V. Hydrogeological modelling of the Atlantis aquifer for management support to the Atlantis Water Supply Scheme. Water S.A. 2017;43(1):122-138. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v43i1.15
24. Zheng C, Wang PP. MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide. Contract report SERDP-99-1. Vicksburg, USA. US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Centre; 1999.
25. Sundararaj C, Muthukaruppan K, Mariappan D, Veluswamy K. Groundwater contaminant transport modelling using Visual MODFLOW: A case study of corporation sewage farm in South Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022;15(18):1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10804-0
26. Akinsulie OO. Material flow analysis on a landfill site in Johannesburg. Dissertation (M.Sc.). Johannesburg: The University of the Witwatersrand; 2016.
27. Musekiwa C, Majola K. Groundwater vulnerability map for South Africa. S.A. J. Geomat. 2013;2(2):152–162.
28. Barnard HC. Hydrogeological map of Johannesburg 2526 (1:500 000). Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, Johannesburg, South Africa; 1999.
29. Coetzee LE. Geological series 2628 East Rand (1:250000). South African Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria; 1986.
30. De Beer JH. Geology of Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. 1986;23(2):101-137. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxiii.2.101
31. Wilkinson KJ. Geological Series 2626 West Rand (1:250000). South African Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Pretoria; 1986. Downloadable Material - Council for Geoscience
32. Johnson MR, Wolmarans LG. Simplified geological map of the Republic of South Africa and the kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:2 000 000. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria; 2008.
33. Burger M, Vermeulen PD. The groundwater interaction of a deeper lying gold mine and a shallower lying coal mine through the presence of naturally occurring as well as induced preferential flow paths. Presented at: 11th International Mine Water Association Congress–Mine Water–Managing Challenges Conference. Aachen, Germany. IMWA; 2011.63-567.
34. Mokhahlane LS, Mathoho G, Gomo M, Vermeulen D. Qualitative hydrogeological assessment of vertical connectivity in aquifers surrounding an underground coal gasification site. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2018;118(10):1047-1052.
35. Waterloo Hydrogeologic. Visual MODFLOW version 8.0 user’s manual-integrated conceptual and numerical groundwater modelling software. Ontario, Canada: Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc.; 2022. Visual MODFLOW Flex 8.0 Product Release (waterloohydrogeologic.com)
36. Niswonger RG, Panday S, Motomu I. MODFLOW-NWT, A newton formulation for MODFLOW-2005: US Geological Survey techniques and methods.2011;6–A37:44p. http://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/tm/tm6a37/index.html
37. Leketa k. Abiye T. Using environmental tracers to characterise groundwater flow mechanisms in the fractured crystalline and karst aquifers in Upper Crocodile River basin, Johannesburg, South Africa. Hydrology. 2021;8(1):50–50. https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/8/1/50
38. Vermaak JJG. Geotechnical and hydrogeological characterization of residual soils in the vadose zone. Thesis (Doctoral). Pretoria: University of Pretoria; 2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/30093
39. Xu M. Eckstein Y. Use of weighted least‐squares method in evaluation of the relationship between dispersivity and field scale. Groundwater. 1995;33(6):905-908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1995.tb00035.x
40. Khadri SFR. Pande C. Groundwater flow modelling for calibrating steady state using MODFLOW software: A case study of Mahesh River Basin, India. MESE. 2016;2(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-015-0049-7
41. Shamsi UMS, Koran J. Continuous calibration. JWMM. 2017;25:C414. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.C414
42. Baalousha HM, Fahs M, Ramasomanana F, Younes A. Effect of pilot-points location on model calibration: Application to the northern karst aquifer of Qatar. Water. 2019;11(4):679. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040679
43. Osman OA, Ochieng GM, Rwanga S. Assessment of groundwater quality correlation to proximate landfill leachate: A case study on a selected landfill in Johannesburg, South Africa. [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Civil Engineering, Vaal University of Technology; 2024.
44. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs, South Africa). South African water quality guidelines, volume 1, 2nd edn. Domestic water use. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; 1996.
45. SABS (South African Bureau of Standards). SANS 241:1 Drinking Water. Pretoria, South Africa: SABS Standards Division; 2015.
46. WHO (World Health Organization). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Incorporating the first and second addenda. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2022.
Article Sidebar
Published
Dec 27, 2024
Article Details
How to Cite
Predictive simulation of groundwater contamination due to landfill leachate: A case study on the Robinson Deep Landfill, Johannesburg, South Africa. (2024). Journal of Digital Food, Energy & Water Systems, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.36615/kk9c4b32
Issue
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Licensing information
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License
How to Cite
Predictive simulation of groundwater contamination due to landfill leachate: A case study on the Robinson Deep Landfill, Johannesburg, South Africa. (2024). Journal of Digital Food, Energy & Water Systems, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.36615/kk9c4b32