agricultural topsoil degradation assessment around brick ... · abstract: the present case study...

© 2020, IJSRMS All Rights Reserved 54

International Journal of Scientific Research in ___________________________ Research Paper . Multidisciplinary Studies E-ISSN: 2454-9312

Vol.6, Issue.5, pp.54-65, May (2020) P-ISSN: 2454-6143

Agricultural Topsoil Degradation Assessment around Brick Kiln-A

Case Study

Shashank Shekhar Pathak

SAWEN Consultancy Services Private Limited, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Author’s Mail id: [email protected]

Available online at: www.isroset.org

Received: 13/May/2020, Accepted: 20/May/2020, Online: 31/May/2020 Abstract: The present case study exemplifies the use of soil pollution indices and health risk assessment models for

monitoring and assessment of agricultural soil quality. Brick kilns contaminate the agricultural soil through emission of air

pollutants and use of non eco-friendly materials and processes. In the present study, the quality of agricultural soil near the

brick kiln was assessed on the basis of pH, Organic matter content, Organic carbon content, Lead concentration, Chromium

concentration and Cadmium concentration. Agricultural soil, from all four directions, at the distance of 100m, 200m and

300m from the kiln was collected and analyzed. Heavy metal concentrations were compared with the WHO standards for

the target value in soil and permissible level in plants. Lead and chromium concentrations were in limit as per the target

value in soil but was way out of the limit as per the permissible value allowed for the plants while cadmium concentration

was above the target value for soil as well as the permissible value for plants. Heavy metal contamination was estimated

using soil pollution indices. Health risk assessment was done using the non-carcinogenic health risk model and the

carcinogenic health risk model. Three pathways (ingestion pathway, inhalation pathway and the dermal contact pathway) were considered for the calculation of the average daily intake of the toxic contaminants by the humans. Separate

calculations were done for the child population and the adult population.

Keywords: Heavy metal contamination, Soil pollution indices, Health risk assessment models, Carcinogenic health risk,

Non-carcinogenic health risk, risk pathways.

I. INTRODUCTION

Rapid urbanization has been escalating brick demand. Clay bricks still remain major contributor in construction activities

despite various eco-friendly techniques being developed through cutting edge research. Process of brick manufacturing

involves processes that release environmental contaminants into the atmosphere owing to the use of poor quality fuel [1-

12]. This scenario depletes soil quality through reduction in its physico-chemical superiority and built-up of heavy metal

load [13-21]. These pollutants accumulate in the soil through natural settling process and thus enter the human body via

ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact pathways besides negatively affecting cation exchange capacity of the soil that

eventually lowers water holding capacity of the soil due to reduced organic carbon content [22-25]. Hence operation of

brick manufacturing activities just adjacent to active agricultural land can be a serious concern due to significant bioaccumulation potential of associated pollutants [26-31]. Mobility of these pollutants may even make them percolate

through the soil and contaminate ground water thereby advocating for their toxicity potential.

Heavy metal toxicity to humans is a known fact. Brick manufacturing involves release of toxic metals like lead, chromium

and cadmium among others. These metals are known carcinogens. Chronic accumulation of these metals induces pro-

oxidative and pro-inflammatory responses in the human body that enhance risk of neurodegenration [32-42]. Hence it is

imperative to utilize scientific methods and techniques for timely investigation of soil quality around the brick kilns. Soil

pollution indices and health risk assessment are proven and effective methods for evaluating pollution load and thus

formulate timely strategy for remediation [43-52].

In the present study agricultural soil quality adjacent to the brick kiln in Rampur bahera village, Lucknow-Sitapur highway

was assessed. Study of the following parameters forms the objective of the study:-pH, Organic carbon content, Organic matter content, Lead (Pb) concentration, Chromium (Cr) concentration, Cadmium (Cd) concentration. Heavy metal

contamination was assessed using Geoaccumulation index and Pollution load index. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic

health risk assessment models were used to find out the potential health threat to humans near the kiln due to the

contamination of the agricultural soil near the kiln. The health risk assessment was done for three possible pathways (Oral

http://www.isroset.org/

Int. J. Sci. Res. in Multidisciplinary Studies Vol.6, Issue.5, May 2020


or the ingestion pathway, Inhalation pathway, Dermal contact pathway) through which the contaminated soil can enter the

human body, apart from the entrance through the plants.

II. RELATED WORK

Bisht and Neupane [3] assessed the soil quality of agricultural fields near functional brick kiln in Bhaktapur area of Nepal.

Soil samples from each of the four directions at 50m, 100m and 150m distance from the kiln were taken. Soil was collected

up to a depth of 30cm. The organic carbon content varied from 0.277% to0.93% with greater values being observed at

greater distance from the kiln. Subsequently, organic matter content was also found to be low near the kiln. The soil pH

was observed to be acidic near the kiln while it improved with increasing distance. The team also investigated lead and

chromium concentration in the samples that showed higher heavy metal accumulation near the kiln suggesting kiln

emission induced soil pollution. Correlation analysis of the data showed that the soil organic carbon decreased with

increasing heavy metal load. Sikder et al. [14] assessed the soil quality of agri-environmental ecosystem around brick kilns

in young Brahmaputra and Jamuna floodplain across three districts (Mawna, Kalampur and Noyadingi) in Bangladesh. The

soil samples were collected from all four directions at a distance of 250m, 500m, 1000m and 1500m. The results showed

that the soil organic carbon content increased as the team moved away from the kiln while the soil pH moved towards

neutral nature with the increasing distance. Heavy metal accumulation was also found to be significantly high near the kilns suggesting emission regulated increase in toxicant concentration in the soil. Similar trends were observed by

Achakzai et al. [13]. The team studied three brick kiln sites and collected samples at a distance of 100m, 300m and 500m

from the kiln. Soil samples were taken from a depth of 15cm. the team studied the accumulation of zinc, lead, copper,

nickel and cadmium in the soil and plant samples (Calotropis procera, Datura inoxia, Triticum aestivum). The

concentration of heavy metals in soil largely decreased with increasing distance with cadmium concentration being mostly

distance dependent. Fuel burning in the kiln leading to pollution load and brick baking was attributed for the increased

heavy metal load near the kiln. In the plants, the heavy metal concentration reduced with increasing distance, however the

accumulation was also dependent on plant species. The team reported that the heavy metal concentration in the soil and

plants was above the permissible limit prescribed by WHO. Skinder et al. [2] also studied the effect of brick kiln emissions

on plants in Kashmir valley. The team studied the effect on three prominent vegetables (Brassica oleracea L., Phaseolus

vulgaris L., and Solanum melongena L.). Emission from the brick kiln was found to be responsible for altered biochemical values and quality of the vegetables. The plant quality with respect to total chlorophyll, total phaeophytin, carotenoids,

protein, carbohydrate, and lipids decreased with increasing pollution load from the brick kilns. However, this deterioration

was species dependent. The accumulation of heavy metals in soil and sediments have been previously analyzed through

soil pollution indices and health risk assessment models [45-52] in order to draw a scientific conclusion regarding the

pollution load in the soil samples from the immediate source of pollution. These models facilitate for the prediction of risk

probability and thus can play vital role in the formulation of remediation techniques.

III. METHODOLOGY

1. Sampling site: The selection of the site was dependent on the factor that the selected kiln should have agricultural land

all around it in all the four directions. The selected kiln site was located in Rampur bahera village along the Sitapur –

Lucknow highway. The latitude and longitude of Rampur bahera village is 26.86994 and 80.93834. The locality is 166m above the sea level. The average summer temperature of the region ranges from 42oC to 45oC while the average

winter temperatures range from 5oC to 8oC. Average yearly rainfall in the area is of about 950mm. The kiln was a fixed

chimney type kiln with inner length of 65m and outer length of 85m. The height of the chimney was 10m while the

diameter of the top of the chimney was 0.8m. The average production of the kiln per day was about 30,000 bricks with

the consumption of almost 150Kg coal. The firing fuel included lignite coal along with firewood and saw dust.

2. Collection of soil samples: Soil samples were collected from the sampling site from each direction i.e. east, west, north

and south at a distance of 100m, 200m and 300m from the brick kiln. This distance from the kiln for the collection of

soil samples was chosen randomly just to study the effect of brick kilns on soil with increasing distance. Since the study

involves the study of the impact of brick kilns on agricultural top soil hence in each soil sample, soil up to 15 cm depth

was taken with the help of a scud. Top soil is also called the surface soil and it is up to 15cm depth. The soil samples were collected in plastic bags and were numbered and taken to the lab for the testing work.

3. Pretreatment and digestion of the soil samples: Soil samples were sealed in plastic bags at the site and were labeled

properly. External substances were removed and then the samples were air dried at room temperature. Soil samples

were then sieved using sieving apparatus (> 2mm) and were stored thereafter. Extraction of the soil samples and

subsequent determination of pH, organic carbon and organic matter content was done as per the procedure previously

used [3]. The samples were digested and the heavy metals concentration was determined as per previously described

protocol [13].



4. Mathematical, statistical and graphical analysis: Microsoft Excel data analysis pack 2013 was used for analyzing the

data and doing all the calculations.

5. Soil pollution indices: In order to make a clear picture of the soil contamination with the heavy metals, various

pollution indices were used. These pollution indices show the extent of heavy metal accumulation and pollution in the soil. The following pollution indices were used in the study:-

5.1. Geoaccumulation index: Geo-accumulation (Igeo) index, defined by Müller in 1969, is used to determine and

define metal contamination in sediments. It compares current concentrations with that in pre-industrial levels. It was used

in the present study as previously described [46] and discussed below:-

Igeo = log2[Csample / Cbackground] (1)

Where, Csample = concentration of the respective heavy metal in the sample in mg/Kg And Cbackground = background value of the respective heavy metal in the soil.

The geo-accumulation index (Igeo) has seven classes which are: Igeo ≤ 0 = Class 0 (Unpolluted); 0 < Igeo ≤ 1 = Class 1

(From unpolluted to moderately polluted); 1 < Igeo ≤ 2 = Class 2(Moderately polluted); 2 < Igeo ≤ 3 = Class 3 (From

moderately to strongly polluted); 3 < Igeo ≤ 4 = Class 4 (Strongly polluted); 4 < Igeo ≤ 5 = Class 5 (From strongly to

extremely polluted); Igeo > 5 = Class 6 ( Extremely polluted). .

5.2. Pollution load index: The pollution load index (PLI) has been calculated using the values of the concentration

factor, as described previously [46]. The PLI value of > 1 means the soil is polluted, whereas <1 indicates no pollution.

The pollution load index is obtained by using the following formula :-

PLI = (PI1 x PI2 x PI3 x …… )1/n (2)

Where, n = number of metals (3 in the present study) and PI = pollution index of the individual heavy metal and is given as

follows:-

PI = Csample / Cbackground (3)

5.3. Background values: The background values refer to the geochemical background value in fossil argillaceous

sediment. Table 1 shows the background values of Cd, Cr and Pb as used in the present study [21]:-

Table 1: Background values of heavy metals under consideration in the present study.

Heavy metal Background value (mg/Kg)

Cd 0.097

Pb 26

Cr 61

6. Health risk assessment: This process estimates the health effects from exposure to carcinogenic and non-

carcinogenic chemicals. It is made up of four steps. The selection of three carcinogenic heavy metals for the study forms

the basic step of hazard identification in the present study. The second step of exposure assessment was carried out in this

study by measuring the average daily intake (ADI) of heavy metals through ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact in

adults and children population. Adults and children have behavioral and physiological differences and thus are assessed

differently. Next step is the toxicity or the dose-response assessment that determines the toxicity due to the exposure to the toxicant under concern. The cancer slope factor (CSF, a carcinogen potency factor) and the reference dose (RfD, a non-

carcinogenic threshold) are the two important toxicity indices which are used in the present study for the health risk

assessment. The last and the fourth step is risk characterization where the risk probability is expressed quantitatively and

assessed qualitatively. Risk characterization is important and vital in predicting the probable cancerous and non-cancerous

health risks to children and adult population in the study area.

6.1. Calculation of Average Daily Intake through different pathways:-

a. Ingestion pathway:

The average daily intake by ingestion (ADI)ing) is given by the following formula [51]:-

(ADI)ing = (C x IR x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x AT) (4)



Where, C = heavy metal concentration in mg/Kg in the soil, IR = rate of ingestion in mg/day, EF = frequency of exposure

in days/year, ED = duration of exposure in years, BW = exposed individual’s body weight in Kg, AT = time period over

which the dose is averaged in days and CF = conversion factor in Kg/mg.

b. Inhalation pathway: The average daily intake by inhalation ((ADI)inh) is given by the following formula [51]:-

(ADI)inh = (C x IRair x EF x ED)/(BW x AT x PEF) (5)

Where, IRair = inhalation rate in m3/day and PEF = particulate emission factor in m3/Kg.

c. Dermal contact pathway:

The average daily intake of the contaminants through dermal contact with soil ((ADI)derm) is given by the following

formula [51]:-

(ADI)derm = (C x SA x FE x AF x ABS x EF x ED x CF)/(BW x AT) (6)

Where, SA = exposed area of the skin in cm2, FE = dermal exposure ratio fraction of soil, AF = adherence factor of the soil

in mg/cm2, ABS = applied dose fraction absorbed across the skin.

Table 2 shows the values of the exposure parameters used in the present study [51]. The exposure parameters used for

health risk assessment are for standard residential exposure scenario through different exposure pathways.

Table 2: Values for the exposure parameters used for health risk assessment through different exposure pathways for the soil.

Parameter Unit Child Adult

Body weight (BW) Kg 15 70

Exposure frequency (EF) Days/year 350 350

Exposure duration (ED) Years 6 30

Ingestion rate (IR) mg/day 200 100

Inhalation rate (IRair) m3/day 10 20

Skin surface area (SA) cm2 2100 5800

Soil adeherence factor (AF) mg/cm2 0.2 0.07

Dermal absorption factor (ABS) None 0.1 0.1

Dermal exposure ratio (FE) None 0.61 0.61

Particulate emission factor (PEF) m3/Kg 1.3 x 109 1.3 x 109

Conversion factor (CF) Kg/mg 10-6 10-6

Average time (AT) Carcinogens Days 365 x 70 365 x 70

Non carcinogens Days 365 x ED 365 x ED

6.2. Non carcinogenic risk assessment:

The term hazard quotient (HQ) is used for the quantifying non carcinogenic risk posed by the contaminants. It is the

probability that an individual would suffer from an adverse effect [51].

HQ = ADI/RfD (7)

The hazard quotient gives result for specific metal. To assess the non-carcinogenic effect in totality, hazard index (HI) is

used. It is the summation of all the hazard quotients for each individual metal [51]. The formula for calculating the hazard

index is given as follows:-

HI = ∑HQ (8)

Where, ∑HQ = summation of hazard quotients for each respective heavy metal. HI value greater than 1 signifies enhanced probability for non-carcinogenic effects like respiratory problems.



6.3. Carcinogenic risk assessment:

Carcinogenic risk is estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime due to

exposure to pollutants under concern. The incremental risk is estimated using the procedure described below:-

(RISK)pathway = ∑[(ADI)x(CSF)] (9)

Where, CSF = cancer slope factor (mg/Kg/day)-1 and (RISK)pathway = risk of developing cancer from respective pathways

for each respective metal.

The total excess lifetime cancer risk for an individual is finally determined by adding the share of the individual heavy

metals with respect to all the pathways using the following equation [51]:

(RISK)total = (RISK)ing + (RISK)inh + (RISK)derm (10)

Where, (RISK)ing = risk of developing cancer from the ingestion pathway, (RISK)inh = risk of developing cancer from inhalation pathway and

(RISK)derm = risk of developing cancer from dermal contact pathway.

Table 3 shows the values of the cancer slope factor for the respective heavy metals and table 4 shows the values of

reference dose for the respective heavy metal. The acceptable cancer risk lies in the range of 1 × 10−6

to 1 × 10−4

[51].

Table 3: Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) in (mg/Kg-day)-1 for the heavy metals under consideration.

Heavy metal Oral (Ingestion) CSF Dermal CSF Inhalation CSF

Lead 0.00850 - 0.0420

Chromium 0.500 - 41

Cadmium - - 6.30

Table 4: Values of the reference dose (RfD) in mg/Kg-day for the heavy metals under consideration.

Heavy metal Oral (ingestion) RfD Dermal RfD Inhalation RfD

Lead 0.00360 - -

Chromium 0.00300 - 0.0000300

Cadmium 0.000500 0.000500 0.0000570

IV. RESULTS

1. Variation of Soil pH with distance

Figure 1 shows the variation of the soil pH with respect to the distance from the kiln. pH tending towards acidic is never

good for the soil fertility status. Soil pH greatly affects microbial activity and nutrient solubility in the soil. Acidic soil

increases metal solubility and therefore may be beneficial in terms of nutrient availability. However, this also may lead to

accumulation of too much metallic load leading to toxic conditions both in soil and plants.

Figure 1: Variation of pH of the soil with increasing distance from the kiln.

6.7

6.8

6.9

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

100m 200m 300m

pH



2. Variation of organic matter and organic carbon content of the soil

The organic matter content of the soil varied from 0.067% to 0.485%. Soil samples collected from near the kiln generally

had lower organic matter content. The soil organic matter content increased as we moved away from the kiln which is

evident from figure 2. The soil near the brick kiln gets burnt due to the baking process and due to this the organic matter

content of the soil samples near the kilns is relatively less. Organic carbon is a vital parameter of soil. It improves soil structure, increases aeration and water penetration, enhances water holding capacity, and provides nutrient load for the

growth of plants. Organic carbon levels greater than 0.8% signify good quality of soil with enhanced fertility. The organic

carbon levels in the present study varied from 0.038% to 0.280% which is very low as per what it should be (figure 2) and

this shows the acute degradation of the top soil by the brick kiln in the study area. Organic carbon content was minimum at

100m distance from the kiln and it improved with increasing distance.

Figure 2: Variation of organic matter and organic carbon content in the soil with respect to distance from the kiln.

3. Variation of heavy metal concentration in the soil samples

The lead concentration in soil samples varied from being Below Detection Limit to 12.60 mg/Kg. The chromium concentration in the soil samples varied from 4.80 mg/Kg to 33.20 mg/Kg and the cadmium concentration in the soil

samples varied from 2.41 mg/Kg to 12 mg/Kg. Table 5 shows the permissible limits, issued by WHO (World Health

Organization) [54], for the three heavy metals studied i.e. Lead (Pb), Chromium (Cr) and Cadmium (Cd). Separate limits of

the metals for soil and plants are shown in table 5. Lead and chromium concentration were within limit as per target value

in the soil however cadmium concentration was above the given limit. Figure 3 clearly indicates heavy metal accumulation

near the kiln. The metal concentration goes on decreasing as we move away from the kiln which clearly shows that the soil

near the brick kiln is contaminated with these toxic heavy metals.

Table 5: WHO permissible limits for heavy metals in plants and soil.

Elements Target value in soil (mg/Kg) Permissible value in plants (mg/Kg)

Cadmium (Cd) 0.8 0.02

Chromium (Cr) 100 1.30

Lead (Pb) 85 2

Figure 3: Variation of mean heavy metal concentration with the increasing distance from the kiln.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

100m 200m 300m

Organic matter

Organic carbon



4. Estimation of heavy metal contamination of soil samples using soil pollution indices

The minimum, maximum and the mean values of the heavy metal concentration, obtained through simple statistical

analysis, is used to calculate the respective pollution indices and then those values will be compared with the respective

division of the soil quality which is given according to the values of the pollution indices.

a. Geoaccumulation index:

The geoaccumulation indices for the metals lead and chromium were all negative or < 0 which shows that the area was

unpolluted with these two metals. Geoaccumulation index value < 0 indicates that the respective metal is not polluting the

area in the present scenario. However, the geoaccumulation index values for the cadmium were very high.

Geoaccumulation index value above 5 is kept in class 6 which indicates extreme pollution levels. Hence cadmium is in

dangerously high pollution state in the study area. Figure 4 (A and B) shows the variation of mean values of the

geoaccumulation index for the three metals in the soil sample. The Igeo values are maximum at 100m distance from the kiln

for all the three heavy metals which is evident from figure 4 (A and B). This clearly shows the accumulation of these toxic

heavy metals near the kiln and eventual degradation of the agricultural topsoil.

Figure 4: (A) Variation of Igeo values for lead and chromium with respect to distance from the kiln. (B) Variation of Igeo

values for cadmium with respect to distance from the kiln.

b. Pollution load index

Pollution load index shows the overall load of pollution on the ecological environment due to the accumulation of the toxic

contaminants. This index is used to show the overall effect of the contaminants on the ecological environment. The

pollution load index decreased as we moved away from the kiln (figure 5). This shows that the agricultural soil near the

kiln in subjected to more severe pollution load. We know that the values of PLI > 1 show that the soil is polluted while

PLI<1 show that the soil is not polluted. We can see that the mean values of the PLI is always greater than 1 at every

distance; however it decreases as we move away from the kiln. Hence we can conclude that the soil in the area is highly

polluted and is having a high load of pollution on it and the load of toxic pollutants is increasing as we move towards the

kiln which clearly shows that the kiln is responsible for the top soil degradation and toxic contamination of the agricultural

soil of the area which is in the immediate vicinity of the kiln.

Figure 5: Variation of mean PLI values with respect to distance from the kiln.

5. Health risk assessment:

While talking about toxic metals, it becomes inevitable to talk about the health implications of those metals. The health risk

assessment has been done separately for child and adult.

a. Non carcinogenic health risk assessment:

From the figure 6 (A and B), which shows the variation of hazard index values for child and population, we can see that the hazard index values for each respective metal is maximum at 100m distance from the kiln. We can see that the highest

hazard index value is noted for cadmium. For all the respective metals, the hazard index was found to be maximum at

100m distance from the kiln. The hazard index values goes on decreasing as we move away from the kiln which shows that

the soil near to kiln poses more non carcinogenic health risk. Among the three metals, the hazard index value from

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

lead chromium

100m

200m

300m

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

cadmium

100m

200m

300m

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

100m 200m 300m

Column2

A B



cadmium was maximum. We can observe that the hazard index values so obtained are all less than 1 which shows that the

population is not about to experience any serious non carcinogenic threat. However greater absolute values of the hazard

index at 100m distance from the kiln shows that the soil near the kiln is more polluted and is more likely to cause health

effects.

Figure 6: (A) Variation of hazard index for child population at respective distance from the kiln for each respective heavy metal. (B)

Variation of hazard index for adult population at respective distance from the kiln for each respective heavy metal.

Figure 7 (A, B and C) represent the comparison of the hazard index values for child and adult population for all the three

metals at 100m, 200m and 300m respectively. From the graphs we can clearly make out that the hazard index values for all

the metals in each case is more for child population and hence children are more vulnerable to the non-carcinogenic risk

due to soil contamination from the toxic heavy metals.

0

0.05

0.1

lead chromium cadmium

100m

200m

300m

0

0.02

0.04

0.06


100m

200m

300m

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1


child

adult

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1


child

adult

A

B

A

B



Figure 7: (A) Comparison of hazard index values for each respective metal, for child and adult population, at 100m distance from the

kiln. (B) Comparison of hazard index values for each respective metal, for child and adult population, at 200m distance from the kiln. (C) Comparison of hazard index values for each respective metal, for child and adult population, at 300m distance from the kiln.

b. Carcinogenic health risk assessment

Lead, Chromium and Cadmium are proven human carcinogens and are thus of great concern. Hence it becomes inevitable

to calculate the carcinogenic risk arising due to the pollution of soil from these toxic heavy metals. The carcinogenic risk for each pathway is calculated using the values of cancer slope factor for each metal and then the total carcinogenic risk is

calculated separately for child and adult population. Figure 8 shows the variation of total carcinogenic risk, from each

respective heavy metal, for child population and adult population respectively. Highest carcinogenic risk was found to be

from chromium followed by lead and cadmium. Very high concentration of chromium in the soil samples is responsible for

this. While the carcinogenic risk due to lead and cadmium was found to be less than 1 in a million, it was more than 1 in a

million due to chromium. The total carcinogenic risk in the soil samples was found in the order of Cr>Pb>Cd. Children are

found to be more prone to the effects.

Figure 8: Variation of total carcinogenic RISK, for child and adult population, from each respective metal with respect to

the distance from the kiln.

V. DISCUSSION

This experimental study was conducted in order to assess the topsoil degradation and contamination of the agricultural

topsoil near brick kiln. Soil pollution indices; geoaccumulation index and pollution load index, and health risk assessment

models; non carcinogenic health risk assessment model and carcinogenic health risk assessment model, were used to assess

the soil contamination and the potential health risk posed.

The organic matter and organic carbon content of the soil was found to be low near the kiln. The soil organic carbon

content improved as we moved away from the kiln which shows that the emission from the brick kiln is responsible for the

degradation of fertile topsoil. Low organic carbon content simply means low fertility and low water absorption capacity of

the soil. Heavy metal accumulation came out to be more near the kiln and it went on decreasing as we moved away from

the kiln. The heavy metal pollutants from the brick kilns settle around the kiln in the near by agricultural soil. From there

these toxic heavy metals enter into the food chain and eventually enter into the human body. With time, these metals get accumulated in the body and start interfering with the cellular activities and may even lead to nerve cell death which

eventually becomes the cause for the onset of neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s Disease. Lead has been found to

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07


child

adult

1.00E-09

1.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

100m

200m

300m

C



promote apoptosis which is a process of excess nutrient loss from the cell which eventually leads to cell death and is

responsible for the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Lead has been documented to particularly toxic for children. Chromium

and cadmium are also considered to be very toxic for all forms of life. These heavy metals are also well known for their

carcinogenic activities in the human body. These metals have been documented to cause cancer in animals as well as

humans. The pollution indices showed an out of limit overall contamination load on the soil which indicates that the kiln is responsible for the heavy metal accumulation and contamination of the agricultural soil near the kiln. The analysis of the

data from the health risk assessment models showed that ingestion pathway is the main contributor towards the daily intake

of these toxic pollutants from the soil. The average daily intake value for both child and adult population was maximum at

100m distance from the kiln and it decreased on moving away from the kiln, for each respective heavy metal. This shows

that the brick kiln operations are resulting in the accumulation of the toxic contaminants in the agricultural soil. The hazard

index values, however, were below 1 which shows that the population did not have any serious non carcinogenic threat but

the hazard index values for all the metals were greater near the kiln and decreased as we moved away from the kiln. This

shows agricultural topsoil degradation near the kiln. The hazard index values were found to be maximum for the cadmium

for both child and adult population. Cadmium is a highly toxic metal and is a proven human carcinogen and hence higher

value of hazard index for cadmium is an alarming situation for the population of the area. The hazard index values for the

child and adult population were compared and it was found that the children are more prone to the adverse effects of these

contaminants. The carcinogenic health risk assessment showed that the values of total carcinogenic risk for chromium was out of the safe limit, while that of lead and cadmium was under safe limit. For each respective metal under consideration,

the carcinogenic risk at 100m distance from the kiln was found to be the maximum and it decreased on moving away from

the kiln which showed that the soil near the kiln is more likely to show carcinogenic effects. The comparison of the total

carcinogenic risk of the child population and the adult population made it clear that the children are more prone to the

carcinogenic effects in the area due to the soil contamination from the brick kiln operations.

VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

The study demonstrated efficient use of soil pollution indices and health risk assessment models for predicting soil

contamination level and possible health related effects. Such quantitative assessment can prove to be of great help in the

formulation of remediation and prevention policies. The study can be taken forward with the use of pollution dispersion models and quantitative assessment of exact plume behavior in order to locate the point of highest impact of brick kiln

emission regulated contamination of the soil. Involvement of macro nutrients in soil and more heavy metals can also

broaden the scope of the study.

REFERENCES

[1] A.H.F. Sikder, K. Begum, Z. Parveen, Md.F. Hossain, “Assesment of macro and micro nutrients around brick kilns’ agricultural

environment,” Information Processing in Agriculture, Vol. 3, pp.61-68, 2016.

[2] B.M. Skinder, A.Q. Sheikh, A.K. Pandit, B.A. Ganai, A.H. Kuchy, “Effect of Brick Kiln emissions on commonly used vegetables of

Kashmir valley,” Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 3, Issue.6, pp.604-611, 2015.

[3] G. Bisht, S. Neupane, “Impact of Brick Kilns’ emission on soil quality of agricultural fields in the vicinity of selected Bhaktapur area of

Nepal,” Applied and Environmental soil science, pp.1-8, 2015.

[4] K.K. Sampath, S.C. Jakkoji, S.B. Chinagodaba, K. Karne, G.V. Kumar, “Role of soil Brick industry in the degradation of land and

environment-a case study of Mallaram in Nizamabad, Telangana state,” International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Research, Vol. 3, Issue.1, pp.222-227, 2015.

[5] P. Singh, R. Devi, R.S. Hooda, “Evaluation of Spatiotemporal Change of Micronutrient Status in Parts of National Capital Region (NCR)

of Haryana State (India),” International Journal of Scientific Research and Reviews, Vol. 5, Issue.2, pp.1-19, 2016.

[6] Md.S. Islam, S.A. Mamun, Muliadi, S. Rana, T.R. Tusher, S. Roy, “The impact of brick kiln operation to the degradation of topsoil quality

of agricultural land,” Agrivita, Vol. 37, Issue.3, pp.204-209, 2015.

[7] B.M. Skinder, A.K. Pandit, A.Q. Sheikh, B.A. Ganai, “Brick kilns: Cause of Atmospheric Pollution,” Pollution Effects and Control, Vol.

2, Issue.2, pp.1-7, 2014.

[8] N. Akhtar, S. Begum, M. Adnan, M.A. Aziz, “Chemical investigation of soil and vegetation in the vicinity of brick kilns in Fateh Jang

region of Pakistan,” Journal of HImalyan Earth Sciences, Vol. 48, Issue.2, pp.32-41, 2015.

[9] B.M. Skinder, A.Q. Sheikh, A.K. Pandit, B.A. Ganai, “Brick kiln emissions and its environmental impact: A review,” Journal of Ecology

and the Natural Environment, Vol. 6, Issue.1, pp.1-11, 2014.

[10] P. Patra, A. Guray, S. Ganguly, “A study on brick kiln industry in pursura block of Hooghly district, west Bengal,” International Journal

of Applied Research, Vol. 1, Issue.9, pp.95-99, 2015.

[11] P. Singh, R. Devi, R.S. Hooda, “Dynamics of soil desurfacing due to brick kilns and suggestive management techniques,” International

Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, Vol. 2, Issue.4, pp.292-298, 2015.

[12] I. Abdalla, S.B. Abdalla, K. El-Siddig, D. Moller, A. Buerkert, “Effects of red brick production on land use, household income, and

greenhouse gas emissions in Khartoum, Sudan,” Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics , Vol. 113.

Issue.1, pp.51-60, 2012.

[13] K. Achakzai, S. Khalid, A. Bibi, “Determination of heavy metals in agricultural soil adjacent to functional brick kilns: A case study of

Rawalpindi,” Science, Technology and Development, Vol. 34, Issue.3, pp.122-129, 2015.

[14] A.H.F. Sikder, Md.D.H. Molla, Md.F. Hossain, Z. Parveen, “Lead and Cadmium accumulation in nearby brick kiln agri-environmental

ecosystems,” Bangladesh Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 28, Issue.1, pp.51-59, 2015.



[15] K. Achakzai, S. Khalid, A. Bibi, A. (2015). “Determination of Heavy Metals in Agricultural Soil Adjacent to Functional Brick Kilns: A

Case Study of Rawalpindi,” Science, Technology and Development, 34(3), 122-129.

[16] M. Ismail, D. Muhammad, F.A. Khan, F. Munsif, T. Ahmad, S. Ali, M. Khalid, N.U. Haq, M. Ahmad, “Effect of brick kiln emissions on

heavy metal (Cd and Cr) content of contiguous soil and plants,” Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, Vol. 28, Issue.2, pp.165-170, 2012.

[17] S.H. Rahman, D. khanam, T.M. Adyel, M.S. Islam, M.A. Ahsan, M.A. Akbor, “Assesment of heavy metal contamination of agricultural

soil around Dhaka export processing zone, Bangladesh: Implication of seasonal variation and indices,” Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, pp.584-

601, 2012.

[18] Z. He, J. Shentu, X.Yang, V.C. Baligar, T. Zhang, P.J. Stofella, “Heavy metal contamination of soil: sources, indicators and assessment,”

Journal of Environmental Indicators, Vol. 9, pp.17-18, 2015.

[19] R. Proshad, M.M. Rahman, M.S. Islam, T. Kumar, M.M. Islam, “Apportoinment of hazardous elements in agricultural soils around the

vicinity of brick kiln in Bangladesh,” International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture, Vol. 3, Issue.4, pp.69-78, 2017.

[20] J. Bu, Z. Sun, A. Zhou, Y. Xu, R.Ma, W. Wei, M. Liu, “Heavy Metals in Surface Soils in the Upper Reaches of the Heihe River,

Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 13, Issue.247, pp.1-19,

2016.

[21] C. Su, L. Jiang, W. Zhang, “A review on heavy metal contamination in the soil worldwide: Situation, impact and remediation techniques,”

Environmental Skeptics and Critics, Vol. 3, Issue.2, pp.24-38, 2014.

[22] D. Zuazagoitia, J.D. Villarroel, “Studying the importance of soil organic matter: An educational proposal for secondary education,”

Educacion Quimica, Vol. 27, pp.37-42, 2016.

[23] J. Singh, A.S. Kalamdhad, “Effects of heavy metals on soil, plants, human health and aquatic life,” International Journal of Research in

Chemistry and Environment, Vol. 1, Issue.2, pp.15-21, 2011.

[24] R. Singh, N. Gautam, A. Mishra, R. Gupta, “Heavy metals and living systems: an overview,” Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 43,

Issue.3, pp.246-253, 2011.

[25] D. Khadka, “Assesment of relationship between soil organic matter and macronutrients, western Nepal,” Journal of Biological,

Pharmaceutical and Chemical Research, Vol. 3, Issue.1, pp.4-12, 2016.

[26] I.M.F. Abdalla, “Environmental Impact of Red Brick Manufacturing on the Bank of the Blue Nile at Soba West, Khartoum, Sudan,”

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4, Issue.4, pp.800-804, 2015.

[27] R. Suraj, R. Neelkantan, “Clay mining areas and its impact over the hydrologic ecosystem in a mining district, South India,” International

Journal of Advancement in Remote Sensing, GIS and Geography. Vol. 2, Issue.2, pp.18-26, 2014.

[28] R. Dixit, Wasiullah., D. Malviya, K. Pandiyan, U.B. Singh, A. Sahu, R. Shukla, B.P. Singh, J.P. Rai, P.K. Sharma, H. Lade, D. Paul,

“Bioremediation of heavy metals from soil and aquatic environment: An overview of principles and cr iteria of fundamental processes,”

Sustainability, Vol. 7, Issue.2, pp.2189-2212, 2015.

[29] J.E. Gall, R.S. Boyd, N. Rajakaruna, “Transfer of heavy metals through terrestrial food webs: a review,” Environmental Monitoring and

Assesment, Vol. 187, Issue.4, pp.1-21, 2015.

[30] Y. Qihe, Z. Xianlu, Z. Jingying, K. Wei, L. Deliang, “Heavy metal enrichment and bioaccumulation of equisetum ramosissimum in Pb-Zn

tailings,” Academia Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 4, Issue.10, pp.368-375, 2016.

[31] E.K. Mahmoud, A.M. Ghoneim, “Effect of polluted water on soil and plant contamination by heavy metals in El-Mahla El-Kobra, Egypt,”

Solid Earth, Vol. 7, Issue.2, pp.703-711, 2016.

[32] M. Yegambaram, B. Manivannan, T.G. Beach, R.U. Halden, “Role of environmental contaminants in the etiology of Alzheimer’s Disease:

A review,” Current Alzheimer Research, Vol. 12, Issue.2, pp.116-146, 2015.

[33] P. Chen, M.R. Miah, M. Aschner, “Metals and Neurodegeneration,” F1000Research, Vol. 5, Issue.366, pp.1-12, 2016.

[34] M. Chin-Chan, J. Navarro-Yepes, B. Quintanilla-Vega, “Environmental Pollutants as risk factors for neurodegenerative disorders :

Alzheimers and Parkinsons Disease,” Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, Vol. 9, Issue.124, pp.1-22, 2015.

[35] K.M. Bakulski, L.S. Rozek, D.C. Dolinoy, H.L. Paulson, H. Hu, “Alzheimer’s Disease and environmental exposure to lead: The

epidemiologic evidence and potential role of epigenetics,” Current Alzheimer Research, Vol. 9, Issue.5, pp.563-573, 2012.

[36] S. Tobwala, H. Wang, J.W. Carey, W.A. Banks, N. Ercal, “Effects of lead and cadmium on brain endothelial cell survival, monolayer

permeability, and crucial oxidative stress markers in an in vitro model of the blood brain barrier,” Toxics, Vol. 2, pp.258-275, 2014.

[37] M. Jaishankar, T. Tseten, N. Anbalagan, B.B. Mathew, K.N. Beeregowda, “Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy

metals,” Interdisciplinary Toxicology, Vol. 7, Issue.2, pp.60-72, 2014.

[38] E.A. Lane, M.J. Canty, S.J. More, “Cadmium exposure and consequence for the health and productivity of farmed ruminants,” Research in

Veterinary Sciences, Vol. 101, pp.132-139, 2015.

[39] P.B. Tchounwou, C.G. Yedjou, A.K. Patlolla, D.J. Sutton, “Heavy metals toxicity and the environment,” Experientia Supplementum, Vol.

101, pp.133-164, 2012.

[40] C. Su, “Heavy metal and cancer risk,” SM Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, Vol. 1, Issue.4, pp.1-3, 2015.

[41] J.R. Cannon, J.T. Greenamyre, “The role of environmental exposures in neurodegeneration and neurodegenerative diseases,”

Toxicological Sciences, Vol. 124, Issue.2, pp.225-250, 2011.

[42] A.S. Andullahi, “Toxic effects of lead in humans: an overview,” Global Advanced Research Journal of Environmental Science and

Toxicology, Vol. 2, Issue.6, pp.157-162, 2013.

[43] Y.N. Vodyanitsikii, “Standards for the contents of heavy metals in soils of some states,” Annals of Agrarian Science, Vol. 14, pp.257-263,

2016.

[44] S. Odat, “Calculating Pollution Indices of Heavy Metal along Irbid/Zarqa Highway-Jordan,” International Journal of Applied Science and

Technology, Vol. 3, Issue.8, pp.72-76, 2013.

[45] S. Gupta, V. Jena, N. Matic, V. Kapraloava, J.S. Solanki, “Assessment of geo-accumulation index of heavy metal and source of

contamination by multivariate factor analysis,” International Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 2, Issue.2, pp.18-22, 2014.

[46] T.A. Mohamed, M.A. Mohamed, R. Rabeiy, M.A. Ghandour, “Application of pollution indices for evaluation of heavy metals in soil close

to phosphate fertilizer plant, Assiut, Egypt,” Assiut University Bulletin for Environmental Researches, Vol. 17, Issue.1, pp.45-55, 2014.

[47] M.C. Ong, D. Menier, N.A.M. Shazili, B.Y. Kamaruzzaman, “Geochemical Characteristics of Heavy Metals Concentration in Sediments

of Quiberon Bay Waters, South Brittany, France,” Oriental Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 29, Issue.1, pp.39-45, 2013.

[48] A.M. Rabee, Y.F. Al-Fatlawy, A.A.N.A. Own, M. Nameer, “Using Pollution Load Index (PLI) and Geoaccumulation Index (I-Geo) for

the Assessment of Heavy Metals Pollution in Tigris River Sediment in Baghdad Region,” Journal of Al-Nahrain University, VOl. 14,

Issue.4, pp.108-114, 2011.



[49] X. Xu, X. Lu, X. Han, N. Zhao, “Ecological and health risk assessment of metal in resuspended particles of urban street dust from an

industrial city in China,” Current Science, Vol. 108, Issue.1, pp.72-79, 2015.

[50] A. Mohseni-Bandpei, S.D. Ashrafi, H. Kamani, A. Paseban, “Contamination and Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Surface

Soils of Esfarayen City, Iran,” Health Scope, Vol. 6, Issue.2, pp.1-7, 2017.

[51] C. Kamunda, M. Mathuthu, M. Madhuku, “Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Soils from Witwatersrand Gold Mining Basin,

South Africa,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , Vol. 13, Issue.663, pp.1-11, 2016.

[52] C. Liu, L. Lu, T. Huang, L. Ding, W. Zhao, “The Distribution and Health Risk Assessment of Metals in Soils in the Vicinity of Industrial

Sites in Dongguan, China,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 13, Issue.832, pp.1-17, 2016.

[53] S. Dey, M. Dey, “Soil fertility loss and heavy metal accumulation in and around functional brick kilns in cachar district, Assam, India: A

multivariate analysis,” Journal of Bioinnovation, Vol. 6, Issue.5, pp.768-781, 2017.

[54] D.T. Ogundele, A.A. Adio, O.E. Oludele, “Heavy metal concentrations in plants and soil along heavy traffic roads in North Central

Nigeria,” Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 5, Issue.334, pp.2161-0525, 2015.

agricultural topsoil degradation assessment around brick ... · abstract: the present case study...

Documents