Journal of Geographical Studies Volume 9 (2025), Issue 1 · pp. 69-90
Original Research Paper Open Access
Trash to Trouble: Revealing the Environmental Costs of Poor Waste Management in Durgapur
- Department of Geography, Rajendra University, Prajna Vihar, Balangir, Odisha- 767002, India.
* Corresponding author: MD MAINUL SK, mainuls919@gmail.com
Contents
- Highlights
- Abstract
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Materials And Methods
-
3. Results
- 3.1 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Groundwater Contamination
- 3.1.1 Assessment of Groundwater Quality
- 3.1.2 Assessment of water quality index
- 3.2 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Surface Water Contamination
- 3.2.1 Analysis of surface water quality
- 3.2.2 Assessment of water quality index
- 3.3 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Air Pollution
- 3.3.1 Analysis of ambient air quality
- 3.3.2 Assessment of Air Quality Index (AQI)
- 3.4 Environmental Impact Assessment of Improper Solid Waste Disposal
- 4. Discussion
- 5. Implications For Policy And Waste Management Practices
- 6. Conclusion
- Conflict of interest
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Article information
- References
-
- Figure 1. Study area
- Figure 2. Location of groundwater sampled stations
- Figure 3. Stations for surface water sampling
- Figure 4. Stations for air quality sampling
- Figure 5: Groundwater quality index
- Figure 6: Surface water quality index
- Figure 7. Buffer from the location of dustbins
- Figure 8. Buffer from the location of open dumpsite
- Figure 9. Buffer from densely populated areas
- Figure 10. Buffer from air sampled stations
- Figure 11. Correlation between groundwater quality and system of soli…
- Figure 12. Correlation between surface water quality and system of so…
- Figure 13. Correlation between air quality and open disposal site (su…
- Figure 14. Correlation between air quality and open disposal site (wi…
-
- Table 1. Groundwater sampled stations
- Table 2. Analytical Parameters for Water Quality Assessment
- Table 3. Surface water sampled stations
- Table 4. Air quality assessment methodology – APN 460 NL and APM 411 …
- Table 5. Air quality sampled stations
- Table 6. Measured values of physicochemical parameters (groundwater)
- Table 7. Drinking Water Quality Standards as per IS 10500:2012 (India)
- Table 8. Ground water quality index
- Table 9. Classification of Groundwater Quality Based on WQI
- Table 10. Measured values of physicochemical parameters (surface wate…
- Table 11. Standards for Surface Water Quality (BIS-2012)
- Table 12. Sampled stations and surface water quality index
- Table 13: Surface water quality index and status
- Table 14. Air quality status of sampled stations (summer season)
- Table 15. Air quality status of sampled stations (winter season)
- Table 16. Permissible Ambient Air Quality Levels for Landfill Sites
- Table 17. Ambient air quality status
Highlights
- Improper solid waste disposal severely contaminates groundwater and surface water.
- High concentrations of Cd, Hg, and Pb exceed BIS drinking water limits near dump sites.
- Surface water bodies in Durgapur show degraded quality due to leachate and runoff intrusion.
- High PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ levels indicate severe air pollution from open waste burning.
- Strong correlation (R² = 0.85–0.88) observed between waste sites and environmental pollution.
- Recommends engineered landfills, waste segregation, and GIS-based monitoring for policy action.
Abstract
Rapid industrial, urbanisation and population growth have recently led to increased pressure on the solid waste management infrastructure of Durgapur city, resulting in negative impacts to water and air quality. The study assesses the environmental impacts of insufficient solid waste disposal activities on the groundwater, surface water and air. The results indicate that areas around open dumping sites are severely deteriorated with high groundwater, surface water pollution and increased particulate matter in the air especially in winter. These findings suggest that buffer zones, containment infrastructure and improved air quality monitoring will be needed to regulate air pollution from this sector. The study highlights for the policymakers and urban planners to consider a sustainable waste management framework which would help to ensure the protection of the environment and public health of the Durgapur.
Keywords spatial analysisAir Quality IndexWater Quality IndexSurface Water ContaminationGroundwater qualityEnvironmental Impact AssessmentSolid Waste Management
1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization, increasing industrial activities and changing consumption patterns have caused the exponential rise in waste generation in developing countries (Sharma et al., 2021; Sk et al., 2020a). Furthermore, limited infrastructure, financial resources and weak regulatory frameworks have hindered cities worldwide in addressing the ever-increasing waste (Batista et al., 2021; Mainul, 2019; Zohoori and Ghani, 2017). Improper Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) disposal has become an important environmental concern, which affects the quality of air, water and soil, and it also poses significant health hazards to the urban population (Khan et al., 2022; Siddiqui et al., 2021). Such practices, therefore, worsen environmental degradation and impedes the sustainable urban growth (Chakraborty et al., 2025; Sukanya and Tantia, 2023).
India currently generates 62 million tons of MSW each year and of which 75–80% gets collected and 22–28% of it is scientifically treated. The remaining waste is often dumped in open places posing significant environmental risks (TerraGreen, 2022). The projection shows that India will generate 165 million tons of MSW by 2031 and 436 million tons by 2050 (Siddiqua et al., 2022; Iqbal et al., 2020). As a result, mixed waste streams that escalate in their pollution levels make urban industrial cities such as Durgapur more exposed to these risks (Sk et al., 2020b).
Poor waste management leads to one of the world’s most concerning outcomes, namely ground water contamination (Abanyie et al., 2022). Heavy metals and organic matter found in the leachate infiltrate into soil and pollute groundwater, which is of much concern to water quality and health (Toha et al., 2024; Igwegbe et al., 2024). Open dumpsites in Durgapur city is devoid of leachate management systems and the people of the city depend on groundwater for drinking purpose containing high concentration of nitrates, chlorides, heavy metals cadmium and lead (values greater than WHO limits for safe drinking water)
(Mawari et al., 2022). Similar studies reveal leachate pollutes surface water through rising BOD and COD levels (Karagozoglu and Asar, 2023; Tesseme et al., 2022). Dumping of waste in the city causes solid waste pollution in surface water bodies like the Damodar River which in turn degrades drinking water quality, impacts aquatic life and causes huge ecological damage (Sk, 2024a; Dutta and Chaudhuri, 2024; Seal et al., 2022).
Air pollution is another significant consequence caused by open burning and dumping sites. Pollutants such as SO₂, NOₓ, PM and VOC are released through open burning at waste dumping sites (Sethy et al., 2024; Izah et al., 2024). Hazardous waste burning in industrial cities like Durgapur releases toxic and long-lasting pollutants (POPs) (Singh et al., 2022; Chattopadhyay et al., 2019). Furthermore, methane emissions from the decomposition of waste in landfills also add greenhouse gas leading to global warming (Sk et al., 2025; Kiehbadroudinezhad et al., 2024; Sk, 2024b; Singh et al., 2017).
Though extensive studies have been done to examine the impacts of MSW in Indian cities, limited research work has focused on Durgapur. To fill these gaps, this study examines the environmental impacts of MSW disposal on groundwater, surface water, and air quality. The findings are intended to contribute to development of sustainable waste management strategies in industrial urban regions.
2. Materials And Methods
2.1 Study Area
Durgapur is an important industrial city of East India, situated on the left bank of Damodar River (Figure1). Durgapur is located approximately 170 kilometres (110 miles) northwest of Kolkata (state capital). The city is often called as ‘Steel City’ because of steel productions and heavy industries like Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur Projects Ltd. and a number of chemical and engineering plants. However, these industries have been crucial to the city’s fast economic growth, but they have also created environmental problems in the city, especially in the generation and disposal of municipal solid wastes (MSW). Durgapur has been characterized by rapid urbanization and industrial activities which have resulted into huge solid waste generation, and much of these wastes are disposed of in open dumping grounds and unmanaged landfills (Sk, 2023). These practices endanger the quality of local groundwater, surface water and, air in Durgapur and adversely impact the health of its residents and its surrounding ecosystems. The Durgapur Municipal Corporation (DMC), responsible for management of solid waste, has been struggling with limited resources, inadequate waste segregation practice and an improper way to dispose of the waste. The unchecked proliferation of dumping sites without an underpinned well planned waste management infrastructure has left a mark of further environmental pollution.

2.2 Data
2.2.1 Groundwater Sampling
The study involved groundwater samples collection from different wells to examine the level of leachate contamination in groundwater. These sites (wells) were chosen based on proximity to waste disposal and their use as sources of domestic water. The GPS coordinates for each sampling station are provided in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Samples were collected from a depth of 30 cm below the water surface in clean and distilled plastic containers. The natural chemistry of water samples was maintained using different preservation method like pH control, and avoided from sunlight and stored in a cool place. Groundwater samples of selected parameters from 2022 (pre- and post-monsoon) were analysed for physicochemical properties (Table 2) at A.M.U.’s Environmental Engineering Laboratory and WBPCB’s Durgapur Regional Office.
Table 1. Groundwater sampled stations
|
Stations |
Locations |
Latitudes |
Longitudes |
|
1 |
Raghunathpur |
23°34'55.04"N |
87°17'48.66"E |
|
2 |
Main Gate |
23°33'55.73"N |
87°15'04.49"E |
|
3 |
Natun Pally Punjabi Para |
23°33'34.09"N |
87°15'58.80"E |
|
4 |
Vidyasagar Primary Vidyalaya |
23°33'13.96"N |
87°16'56.28"E |
|
5 |
Jharna Pally |
23°31'52.23"N |
87°20'27.64"E |
|
6 |
Bijra |
23°34'48.54"N |
87°21'02.79"E |
|
7 |
Ispat Nagari Free Primary Schoo |
23°34'03.48"N |
87°18'28.14"E |
|
8 |
Raturiya |
23°29'58.78"N |
87°16'53.26"E |
|
9 |
DPL Coke Oven Colony |
23°29'55.78"N |
87°17'56.54"E |
|
10 |
Khejurtala |
23°29'37.45"N |
87°18'13.78"E |
|
11 |
Near Final Dumping Site |
23°32'39.60"N |
87°21'31.37"E |
Source: Based on field survey by the researcher, 2022.

2.2.2 Surface Water Sampling
Surface water samples were obtained from 11 ponds situated near dumping sites (pre- and post - monsoon seasons in 2022) to assess contamination from leachate runoff. These water bodies are commonly used for households, agriculture, and industrial activities. The GPS coordinates for each sampling location are
provided in Table 3 and shown in Figure 3. From each sampling location, water was gathered in 1-liter plastic containers and stored under refrigeration at 4°C. The surface water parameters considered for the analysis of physico-chemical properties are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Analytical Parameters for Water Quality Assessment
|
No. |
Parameter |
Unit |
Analytical Method |
|
1 |
pH |
mg/L |
Potentiometry (pH meter) |
|
2 |
Conductivity (Electrical) |
μS/cm |
Measured using a conductivity meter |
|
3 |
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) |
mg/L |
Gravimetric analysis (dried at 105°C) |
|
4 |
Total Hardness (TH) |
mg/L |
EDTA titration method |
|
5 |
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) |
mg/L |
Dichromate oxidation technique |
|
6 |
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD₅) |
mg/L |
Modified Winkler’s Azide procedure |
|
7 |
Chloride (Cl⁻) |
mg/L |
Silver nitrate titration |
|
8 |
Phosphate (PO₄³⁻) |
mg/L |
Phenol-disulfonic acid technique |
|
9 |
Sulfate (SO₄²⁻) |
mg/L |
Turbidimetric analysis |
|
10 |
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH₄⁺-N) |
mg/L |
Colorimetric determination |
|
11 |
Arsenic (As) |
mg/L |
Cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry |
|
12 |
Cadmium (Cd) |
mg/L |
Atomic absorption spectrometry |
|
13 |
Chromium (Cr) |
mg/L |
AAS analysis |
|
14 |
Mercury (Hg) |
mg/L |
Cold vapor AAS technique |
|
15 |
Lead (Pb) |
mg/L |
AAS measurement |
Source: Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2007-08
Table 3. Surface water sampled stations
|
Stations |
Locations |
Latitudes |
longitudes |
|
1 |
Near Raghunathpur |
23°35'09.68"N |
87°18'14.64"E |
|
2 |
Near Kada Road |
23°34'03.65"N |
87°15'00.15"E |
|
3 |
Natun Pally Near Punjabi Para |
23°33'33.06"N |
87°16'12.42"E |
|
4 |
Near Anandpausi Co-op. |
23°32'40.85"N |
87°17'08.63"E |
|
5 |
Near Fuljore |
23°32'05.85"N |
87°20'33.60"E |
|
6 |
Bijra Bandh |
23°34'41.29"N |
87°21'02.84"E |
|
7 |
Near Ispat Free Primary School |
23°33'58.01"N |
87°18'29.28"E |
|
8 |
Near DCL Colony |
23°29'53.05"N |
87°17'12.98"E |
|
9 |
Near Ashis Nagar Colony |
23°29'37.71"N |
87°17'26.08"E |
|
10 |
Near Khejurtala |
23°29'35.65"N |
87°18'09.25"E |
|
11 |
Near Final Dumping site-3 |
23°32'40.66"N |
87°21'32.26"E |
Source: Based on the field survey by the researcher, 2022.
2.2.3 Air Quality Monitoring
For air quality analysis, four monitoring sites were selected around the Shankarpur landfill based on the wind direction during both summer and winter seasons to ensure comprehensive coverage. The primary air quality parameters measured included PM10, and PM2.5, SO2, and NOx. Sampling procedures have been followed the standard guidelines established by the WBPCB (Table 4). Detailed information about the sampling locations and wind directions are provided in Table 5 and shown in Figure 4. Laboratory analyses have been conducted to evaluate ambient air quality and identify pollution sources in the vicinity of the landfill.
The collected data was analyzed using statistical methods in SPSS, including Pearson correlation coefficients to identify relationships between pollutants and z-scores to detect outlier contamination levels. Spatial pollutant distribution was visualized using ArcGIS. To evaluate water and air quality, indices such as WQI and AQI were calculated to assess the severity of pollution relative to national standards.
2.2.4 Water Quality Index (WQI) Calculation
To calculate the WQI from sampled data on water quality, three-steps methodology was adopted. Firstly, key parameters were ranked ( \(K^n\) ) based on their importance in water quality assessment and environment impact. Secondly, the relative weight ( \(W_g\) ) of each parameter was calculated using Equation (1):
\(W_g = \frac{K^n}{\sum_{g=1}^{n} K^n}\) (1)
Where, \(W_g\) is relative weight, \(K^n\) indicates parameter rank and n is the total parameters.
Finally, a quality rating ( \(R_q\) ) was allotted to each parameter by comparing its measured concentration ( \(P_c\) ) against the permissible limit ( \(D_i\) ) specified by the BIS-2012 scaled to 100 using Equation (2):
\(R_q = \frac{P_c}{D_i} \times 100\) (2)
Now, for computing the WQI, the SI value for each parameter was carried out. This value is then used in the following formula (Equation 3) (Ali and Ahmad, 2020):
\(SIi=W_g×R_q\)
\(WQI= ∑ SIi\) (3)
Where, SIi is the sub-index of ith parameter, \(R_q\) indicates
the rating value based on the concentration of the qth parameter, and n is the total number of parameters considered. Water quality is categorized into five classes based on the WQI values ranging from excellent to unsuitable for drinking.
Table 4. Air quality assessment methodology – APN 460 NL and APM 411 TE comparison
|
Parameter |
RSPM (APN 460 NL) |
SO₂ and NO₂ (APM 411 TE) |
|
Sampling Device |
Respirable Dust Sampler (RDS) |
RDS with Impinger attachment |
|
Media Used |
Glass Fiber Filter (GF/A) |
TCM, NaOH, Distilled Water (DW) |
|
Flow Rate |
1.0 - 1.3 m³/min |
0.5 L/min |
|
Sampling Frequency |
24-hour cycles |
8-hour intervals |
|
Analysis Technique |
Gravimetric measurement |
Spectrophotometric analysis |
|
Sampling Duration |
Continuous 24-hour monitoring |
- |
|
Sampling Days per Site |
Twice per fortnight |
Twice per fortnight |
Source: West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB), Durgapur Regional Office (2022).


Table 5. Air quality sampled stations
|
Stations |
Locations |
Longitude |
Latitude |
Wind direction |
|
1 |
North of Landfill site1 |
87°21'34.75"E |
23°32'40.50"N |
Windward |
|
2 |
North of landfill site2 |
87°21'38.55"E |
23°32'38.37"N |
Windward |
|
3 |
South of landfill site1 |
87°21'31.44"E |
23°32'29.54"N |
Downward |
|
4 |
South of landfill site2 |
87°21'35.26"E |
23°32'27.90"N |
Downward |
Source: Based on field survey by the researcher, 2022.
2.2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI) Computation
AQI serves as a daily indicator to measure regional air pollution levels and its potential short-term health consequences. This index represents how the public understand about local air conditions may affect their well-being. In this study, AQI was calculated based on the methodology outlined by Kaushik et al., (2006). First of all, the air quality rating of each pollutant is calculated by the following formula (Equation 4):
\(R = 100 \frac{\cdot O_v}{S_v} \) (4)
Where, \(R\) = quality rating, \(Q_v\) = observed pollutant concentration and \(S_v\) = the corresponding standard value from NAAQS.
If total ‘n’ numbers of pollutants are considered for air quality measuring, the geometric mean of these ‘n’ number of quality rating is calculated as (Equation 5):
\(\text{GEO}_{\text{MEN}} = \text{anti}_{\text{log}} \left( \frac{\log x + \log y + \log z + \cdots + \log i}{N} \right)\) (5)
Where \(\text{GEO}_{\text{MEN}}\) is the geometric mean, while x, y, z, and i represent different values of air quality rating, and \(N\) is the number of values of air quality rating.
An AQI value between 51–100 indicates moderate air quality, which, while generally acceptable, may pose mild health risks particularly for individuals sensitive to air pollution, who could experience respiratory discomfort.

3. Results
3.1 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Groundwater Contamination
3.1.1 Assessment of Groundwater Quality
The groundwater quality reveals significant variations in chemical parameters, with values near or exceeding BIS standards, particularly in areas close to dumping sites (Table 6). The mean values of each parameter of groundwater for pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons are shown in Table 6. The measured values of each parameter have been compared with the standards given by the BIS (IS 10500:2012) (Table 7). It has been found that the pH values at most locations are within BIS’s permissible range, however, Raghunathpur (8.7 mg/lit), near the final dump site (8.8 mg/lit), and Main gate (8.5 mg/lit) show slightly higher levels. The electrical conductivity (EC) ranges between 1335 μS/cm and 1808 μS/cm, with higher values near the dump site. Similarly, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations, while within BIS’s upper permissible limit of 2000 mg/l, exceed the acceptable threshold of 500 mg/l, particularly near dumping areas. Total hardness levels across most locations surpass the acceptable BIS limit of 200 mg/l, reaching as high as 735 mg/l near waste areas. However, they remain under the permissible upper limit of 600 mg/l, with lower values observed further from dumping sites. Chloride concentrations are within BIS limits but range from 365.78 mg/l to 552.4 mg/l, with higher values closer to the dumpsite. Sulphate levels, on the other hand, are within safe limits at all locations, ranging from 17.5 mg/l to 28.8 mg/l.
COD values across all sampled locations range between 15 mg/l and 26 mg/l, indicating acceptable but slightly higher levels near the final dump site, likely due to organic waste. BOD levels, with a range of 0.16 mg/l to 0.32 mg/l, are within BIS standards but display similar trends of higher concentrations in proximity to waste areas. Phosphate concentrations, although minimal (0.14 mg/l to 0.27 mg/l), remain within safe drinking standards but are slightly higher near the dump. Ammoniacal nitrogen values range between 0.12 mg/l and 0.26 mg/l with the highest values found near the dump site. Arsenic concentrations (0.007 mg/l to 0.019 mg/l) remain under BIS’s permissible limit of 0.05 mg/l but are higher near the waste areas. Chromium levels vary between 0.012 mg/l and 0.025 mg/l, below the permissible limit of 0.05 mg/l, yet elevated values near dumping areas. Heavy metal contamination is most concerning, with cadmium levels ranging from 0.05 mg/l to 0.15 mg/l, significantly exceeding the BIS acceptable limit of 0.003 mg/l at all locations, especially near waste disposal sites. Mercury concentrations between 0.13 mg/l and 0.26 mg/l also exceed the BIS limit of 0.001 mg/l particularly around the dump. Lead levels (0.031 mg/l to 0.057 mg/l) likewise surpass the acceptable BIS limit of 0.01 mg/l, with the highest concentrations near the final dumping site.

Table 6. Measured values of physicochemical parameters (groundwater)
|
Sampled stations |
pH |
EC |
TDS |
TH |
COD |
BOD5 |
Cl- |
PO43− |
SO42− |
NH4+-N |
As |
Cd |
Cr |
Hg |
Pb |
|
Raghunathpur |
8.7 |
1762 |
1345 |
720 |
24 |
0.3 |
548.5 |
0.26 |
28.3 |
0.24 |
0.017 |
0.14 |
0.023 |
0.25 |
0.056 |
|
Main gate |
8.5 |
1705 |
1315 |
690 |
22 |
0.28 |
522.45 |
0.24 |
27.5 |
0.22 |
0.015 |
0.12 |
0.021 |
0.23 |
0.053 |
|
Natun pally Punjabi para |
8.3 |
1658 |
1305 |
685 |
21 |
0.26 |
522.25 |
0.22 |
26.2 |
0.2 |
0.014 |
0.11 |
0.02 |
0.22 |
0.052 |
|
Vidyasagar Primary Vidyalaya |
8.1 |
1635 |
1265 |
660 |
20 |
0.25 |
515.75 |
0.2 |
25.8 |
0.19 |
0.012 |
0.1 |
0.018 |
0.19 |
0.047 |
|
Jharna pally |
7.9 |
1575 |
1225 |
625 |
19 |
0.24 |
465.8 |
0.19 |
23.8 |
0.17 |
0.011 |
0.09 |
0.017 |
0.18 |
0.044 |
|
Bijra |
7.5 |
1505 |
1180 |
600 |
18 |
0.22 |
421.3 |
0.17 |
22.8 |
0.15 |
0.008 |
0.07 |
0.014 |
0.16 |
0.038 |
|
Ispat nagari free Primary school |
7.1 |
1335 |
1105 |
540 |
16 |
0.16 |
365.78 |
0.14 |
18.9 |
0.12 |
0.007 |
0.05 |
0.012 |
0.14 |
0.032 |
|
Raturiya |
7.5 |
1545 |
1165 |
585 |
18 |
0.2 |
412.65 |
0.17 |
21.5 |
0.15 |
0.009 |
0.09 |
0.016 |
0.16 |
0.04 |
|
DPL coke oven Colony |
7.1 |
1405 |
1130 |
545 |
15 |
0.19 |
375.44 |
0.15 |
17.5 |
0.13 |
0.008 |
0.06 |
0.015 |
0.13 |
0.031 |
|
Khejurtala |
7.3 |
1445 |
1165 |
550 |
17 |
0.2 |
388.66 |
0.18 |
19.7 |
0.14 |
0.009 |
0.07 |
0.014 |
0.14 |
0.037 |
|
Near final Dumping site |
8.8 |
1808 |
1400 |
735 |
26 |
0.32 |
552.4 |
0.27 |
28.8 |
0.26 |
0.019 |
0.15 |
0.025 |
0.26 |
0.057 |
Source: Based on field survey, the samples tested by the Environmental Laboratory of A.M.U., Aligarh, 2022.
Note: 1. EC- Electrical Conductivity, TDS- Total Dissolved Solid, TH-Total Hardness, COD- Chemical Oxygen Demand, BOD5- Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Cl-Chloride, PO43− -Phosphate, (SO42−) - Sulphate, NH4+-N-Ammoniacal nitrogen, As- Arsenic, Cd- Cadmium, Cr- Chromium, Hg- Mercury, Pb- Lead. 2. (All units are in mg/l except EC- μS/cm.)
Table 7. Drinking Water Quality Standards as per IS 10500:2012 (India)
|
Parameter |
Acceptable Limit |
Maximum Permissible Limit |
Test Method Reference |
Potential Health/Usage Effects Beyond Limits |
|
pH |
6.5–8.5 |
No relaxation |
IS 3025 (Part 11) |
Can harm mucous membranes and water supply systems |
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
1 |
5 |
IS 3025 (Part 10) |
Reduced consumer acceptance above 5 NTU |
|
Odour |
Agreeable |
Agreeable |
IS 3025 (Part 5) |
– |
|
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) |
500 |
2,000 |
IS 3025 (Part 16) |
May cause gastrointestinal irritation |
|
Electrical Conductivity |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Total Hardness (TH) |
200 |
600 |
IS 3025 (Part 21) |
Negative impact on domestic use |
|
Chloride (Cl⁻) |
250 |
1,000 |
IS 3025 (Part 32) |
Affects taste, causes corrosion |
|
Sulphate (SO₄²⁻) |
200 |
400 |
IS 3025 (Part 24) |
Gastrointestinal issues (with Mg/Na presence) |
|
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH₄⁺-N) |
0.5 |
No relaxation |
IS 10500 |
– |
|
Iron (Fe) |
0.3 |
No relaxation |
IS 3025 (Part 53) |
Alters taste/appearance; impacts domestic use |
|
Manganese (Mn) |
0.1 |
0.3 |
IS 3025 (Part 59) |
Affects taste/appearance; domestic issues |
|
Zinc (Zn) |
5 |
15 |
IS 3025 (Part 49) |
Causes astringent taste and water opalescence |
|
Fluoride (F⁻) |
1 |
1.5 |
IS 3025 (Part 60) |
Excess leads to fluorosis |
|
Sulphide (H₂S) |
0.05 |
No relaxation |
IS 3025 (Part 29) |
– |
|
Arsenic (As) |
0.01 |
0.05 |
IS 3025 (Part 37) |
Toxic at higher concentrations |
|
Cadmium (Cd) |
0.003 |
No relaxation |
IS 3025 (Part 41) |
Toxic |
|
Mercury (Hg) |
0.001 |
IS 3025 (Part 48) |
Toxic |
|
|
Lead (Pb) |
0.01 |
IS 3025 (Part 47) |
Toxic |
|
|
Chromium (Cr) |
0.05 |
IS 3025 (Part 52) |
Carcinogenic potential |
|
|
Nickel (Ni) |
0.02 |
IS 3025 (Part 54) |
– |
|
|
Cyanide (CN⁻) |
0.05 |
IS 3025 (Part 27) |
Toxic |
|
|
Chloroform |
0.2 |
APHA 6232 |
– |
Source: Researcher’s compilation based on IS 10500:2012 standards.
Note: All units are in mg/l, max. - Not available
3.1.2 Assessment of water quality index
In this study, groundwater quality index has been calculated as per the standard value of BIS, 2012. The status of groundwater and classification of water quality in WQI has been presented in Table 8 and Table 9. Table 8 shows that the quality of groundwater in 4 sampled stations out of total 11 stations named Raghunathpur, Main Gate, Natun Pally Punjabi Para and near-final dumping site exceeds the value of more than 294 which is unfit for drinking purpose. The water qualities in these places have been highly deteriorated due to heavy absorption of pollutants discharged from nearby solid waste dumping sites. There is an immediate need for water treatment for these places before uses.
The status of water quality in 1 sampled station Vidyasagar Primary Vidyalaya is very poor, which is considered only for restricted use in irrigation. The people in Bijra predominantly use the well water for drinking, bathing and other domestic activities. The quality of water in this place has been highly contaminated with heavy pollutants and has been considered as poor status as per the WQI (Figure 5).
The status of groundwater quality of only two sampled stations named Ispat Nagari Free Primary school and DPL Coke Oven Colony range from 241 to 255 have been considered as good which is fit for domestic, irrigation and industrial activities but not for drinking (Table 9). There is not a single groundwater sampled station which is suitable for drinking purposes in the study area, but majority of the people in ward numbers 1 and 2 uses well water for drinking purposes.
3.2 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Surface Water Contamination
3.2.1 Analysis of surface water quality
The physico-chemical parameters of the analyzed surface water samples of Durgapur city, including statistical mean values of pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, are presented in Table 10. Fifteen parameters of surface water have been selected for the analysis of the quality of sampled surface water bodies in the study area (Table 11). The measured values of each parameter of water have been compared with the standards given by BIS-2012 (Table 10).
The surface water quality analysis of the sampled locations reveals notable variations across key chemical parameters, with certain values approaching or exceeding BIS standards, particularly near waste dumping sites. Most sampled sites exhibit pH levels within the BIS range (6.5-8.5); however, one site near the final dump shows a higher pH of 8.7, indicating minor alkalinity likely due to waste leaching. The EC values range from 1710 to 2110 μS/cm, with maximum concentration found near the final dumping site, suggesting increased dissolved ions from contaminants. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels remain within BIS’s permissible range of 500-2000 mg/l, though highest near the dumping area, indicating salinity and potential leachate influence.
Table 8. Ground water quality index
|
Stations |
GWQI |
|
|
Raghunathpur |
313.16 |
|
|
Main gate |
303.43 |
|
|
Natun Pally Punjabi Para |
299.25 |
|
|
Vidyasagar Primary Vidyalaya |
292.04 |
|
|
Jharna Pally |
279.43 |
|
|
Bijra |
266.69 |
|
|
Ispat Nagari Free Primary School |
242.20 |
|
|
Raturiya |
266.10 |
|
|
DPL Coke Oven Colony |
249.52 |
|
|
Khejurtala |
256.59 |
|
|
Near Final Dumping site |
322.49 |
Source: Calculated by the researcher, 2022.
Table 9. Classification of Groundwater Quality Based on WQI
|
No. |
Water Quality Index (WQI) Range |
Quality Status |
Recommended Applications |
|
1 |
Below 241 |
Excellent |
Potable use, agricultural, and industrial |
|
2 |
241 – 255 |
Good |
Household, farming, and industrial purposes |
|
3 |
255 – 268 |
Moderate |
Suitable for irrigation and industrial use |
|
4 |
268 – 281 |
Poor |
Limited to irrigation only |
|
5 |
281 – 294 |
Very Poor |
Highly restricted irrigation use |
|
6 |
Above 294 |
Unsuitable |
Requires treatment before any application |
Source: Research findings, 2022.
Table 10. Measured values of physicochemical parameters (surface water)
|
Name |
pH |
EC |
TDS |
TH |
COD |
BOD5 |
Cl- |
P043- |
S042- |
NH4+-N |
As |
Cd |
Cr |
Hg |
Pb |
|
Near Raghunathpur |
8.2 |
1964 |
1568 |
744 |
91.34 |
27.22 |
291.65 |
1.313 |
167.25 |
0.605 |
0.0066 |
0.07 |
0.067 |
0.083 |
0.117 |
|
Near Kada Road |
8.4 |
1922 |
1504 |
703 |
87.32 |
26.54 |
284.55 |
1.222 |
162.3 |
0.588 |
0.0064 |
0.068 |
0.064 |
0.081 |
0.112 |
|
Natun Pally Near Punjabi Para |
8.3 |
1932 |
1498 |
707 |
81.63 |
25.37 |
257.63 |
0.988 |
156.3 |
0.567 |
0.0057 |
0.062 |
0.062 |
0.075 |
0.101 |
|
Near Anandpausi Co-op. |
8.2 |
1928 |
1478 |
702 |
78.35 |
25.05 |
255.65 |
0.967 |
145.38 |
0.532 |
0.0049 |
0.054 |
0.053 |
0.072 |
0.096 |
|
Near Fuljore |
8 |
1845 |
1421 |
677 |
75.43 |
24.38 |
252.45 |
0.878 |
134.5 |
0.511 |
0.0045 |
0.043 |
0.047 |
0.067 |
0.092 |
|
Bijra Bandh |
6.8 |
1825 |
1400 |
622 |
74.95 |
21.85 |
248.54 |
0.827 |
128.1 |
0.412 |
0.0039 |
0.041 |
0.043 |
0.061 |
0.09 |
|
Near Ispat Free Primary School |
6.7 |
1710 |
1255 |
525 |
63.66 |
18.32 |
213.16 |
0.678 |
109.5 |
0.363 |
0.0028 |
0.028 |
0.032 |
0.042 |
0.076 |
|
Near DCL Colony |
7 |
1805 |
1388 |
605 |
68.73 |
19.23 |
244.45 |
0.766 |
129.2 |
0.405 |
0.0033 |
0.033 |
0.038 |
0.056 |
0.082 |
|
Near Ashis Nagar Colony |
6.1 |
1605 |
1216 |
522 |
62.57 |
18.55 |
221.69 |
0.723 |
113.4 |
0.352 |
0.0024 |
0.027 |
0.032 |
0.041 |
0.068 |
|
Near Khejurtala |
6.6 |
1715 |
1245 |
535 |
65.64 |
19.12 |
243.44 |
0.812 |
119.5 |
0.344 |
0.0028 |
0.035 |
0.033 |
0.036 |
0.077 |
|
Near Final Dumping site |
8.7 |
2110 |
1670 |
760 |
93.3 |
27.92 |
318.23 |
1.341 |
185.4 |
0.621 |
0.007 |
0.071 |
0.068 |
0.086 |
0.121 |
Source: Based on field survey, the samples tested by the Environmental Laboratory of A.M.U., Aligarh, 2022.
Note: All units are in mg/l, max. except EC–μS/cm.
Table 11. Standards for Surface Water Quality (BIS-2012)
|
No. |
Parameter |
Inland Surface Water |
Public Sewers |
Irrigation Use |
|
1 |
pH Level |
5.5 – 9.0 |
5.5 – 9.0 |
5.5 – 9.0 |
|
2 |
Total Suspended Solids (TSS, mg/L) |
100 |
600 |
200 |
|
3 |
Temperature (°C) |
≤ 5°C above ambient |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
4 |
Residual Chlorine (mg/L) |
1 |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
5 |
Ammonical Nitrogen (as N, mg/L) |
50 |
50 |
Not specified |
|
6 |
Total Nitrogen (as N, mg/L) |
100 |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
7 |
Free Ammonia (as NH₃, mg/L) |
5 |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
8 |
BOD₅ (mg/L) |
30 |
350 |
100 |
|
9 |
COD (mg/L) |
250 |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
10 |
Arsenic (as As, mg/L) |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
11 |
Mercury (as Hg, mg/L) |
0.01 |
0.01 |
Not specified |
|
12 |
Lead (as Pb, mg/L) |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Not specified |
|
13 |
Cadmium (as Cd, mg/L) |
2 |
1 |
Not specified |
|
14 |
Total Chromium (as Cr, mg/L) |
2 |
2 |
Not specified |
|
15 |
Copper (as Cu, mg/L) |
3 |
3 |
Not specified |
|
16 |
Zinc (as Zn, mg/L) |
5 |
15 |
Not specified |
|
17 |
Fluoride (as F, mg/L) |
2 |
15 |
Not specified |
|
18 |
Sulphide (as S, mg/L) |
2 |
Not specified |
Not specified |
|
19 |
Iron (as Fe, mg/L) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Source: Prepared by the researcher based on IS: 2012.
Total hardness values range from 522 to 760 mg/l, exceeding the BIS acceptable limit of 200 mg/l but falling within the upper permissible limit of 600 mg/l in most locations, with hardness generally higher near the final dumping site. COD and BOD levels remain within permissible ranges, yet display slightly elevated concentrations near the final dumping site, hinting at organic contamination. Chloride levels across sampled sites are within BIS standards, though readings are highest near the dumpsite, highlighting potential contamination risks. Trace elements like arsenic, cadmium, and chromium are detected in concentrations below BIS thresholds, but mercury levels exceed safe limits across several sites, particularly near the final dumping site, suggesting bioaccumulative pollution from solid waste. Maximum lead concentrations are also noted at sites near the final dumping area, posing health risks, particularly for sensitive groups. In summary, the analysis points to significant pollutant influx in surface water near waste areas, requiring monitoring to mitigate health and ecological impacts.
3.2.2 Assessment of water quality index
Surface water quality index of the sampled stations was calculated considering the standard value of BIS, 2012. The status of surface water quality and classification of water quality in WQI are shown in Table 12 and 13, respectively. Considering the status of surface water quality of the sampled stations, SWQI was classified into six classes (Table 13). Table 12 shows that the quality of surface water in 2 sampled stations Raghunathpur, and Natun Pally Punjabi Para exceeds the value of more than 287 which has been considered as unsafe for any uses. Three stations viz. near Kada Road, Natun Pally near Punjabi Para and near Anandpausi Co-op. come under very poor status while another 3 sampled stations, i.e., near Fuljhore, Bijra Bandh and DCL colony ranging WQI from 257 to 272 come under the poor quality of water. The surface water quality in sampled stations near Ispat Free Primary School, Ashis Nagar Colony, and Khejurtala are considered as good quality of water. The water quality in these sampled stations is not much contaminated due to its distant location from open dumping sites (Figure 4).
3.3 Improper Solid Waste Disposal and Air Pollution
3.3.1 Analysis of ambient air quality
The status of ambient air quality of the sampled stations located in the vicinity of open dumping sites was analyzed for summer and winter seasons. The mean values of PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and NOx in Table 14 and 15, respectively. The stations for ambient air quality monitoring were fixed considering the direction of wind flow in the area. The general wind direction during summer seasons is from south to north and from north to south during the winter season. Considering the locations of solid waste dumping site, two sampled stations were selected in the windward side and two stations on leeward side of the wind flow. The monitoring of AAQ was carried out as per the standard procedure. The details of the methodology for assessing air quality are presented in Table 4. The ambient air quality status around the landfill site was analyzed as per the Standards of Ambient Quality for landfills sites as suggested by MSW Rules 2016, MoEF, GoI (Table 16).
Tables 14 and 15 present the concentration levels of SO₂, NOₓ, PM₁₀, and PM₂.₅ across four stations near the dumping site during both summer and winter. It is found that SO₂ concentrations range from 15.1 to 18.4 μg/m³ in summer and 19.5 to 23.5 μg/m³ in winter, with the highest levels observed on the windward side of the sites. This variation is largely due to the combustion of sulfur-containing wastes like plastics and rubber. NOₓ concentrations vary from 15.2 to 19.2 μg/m³ in summer and 26.1 to 29.1 μg/m³ in winter. Both SO₂ and NOₓ levels remain within limits as specified by MSW Rules 2000, MoEF, Government of India.
Table 12. Sampled stations and surface water quality index
|
Stations |
SWQI |
|
Near Raghunathpur |
295.46 |
|
Near Kada Road |
285.10 |
|
Natun Pally Near Punjabi Para |
282.47 |
|
Near Anandpausi Co-op. |
285.10 |
|
Near Fuljore |
267.97 |
|
Bijra Bandh |
261.84 |
|
Near Ispat Free Primary School |
235.18 |
|
Near DCL Colony |
258.51 |
|
Near Ashis Nagar Colony |
227.89 |
|
Near Khejurtala |
237.99 |
|
Near Final Dumping Site |
314.88 |
Source: Calculated by the researcher, 2022.
Table 13: Surface water quality index and status
|
Sl. No. |
WQI |
Status |
|
1 |
< 227 |
Excellent |
|
2 |
227 – 242 |
Good |
|
3 |
242 – 257 |
Fair |
|
4 |
257 – 272 |
Poor |
|
5 |
272 – 287 |
Very Poor |
|
6 |
> 287 |
Unsafe for using |
Source: Calculated by the researcher, 2022.

Table 14. Air quality status of sampled stations (summer season)
|
Stations |
Locations |
Longitude |
Latitude |
Wind direction |
PM10 |
PM2.5 |
SO2 |
NOx |
|
1 |
North of Landfill site1 |
87°21'34.75"E |
23°32'40.50"N |
Windward |
233 |
84 |
18.2 |
19.2 |
|
2 |
North of landfill site2 |
87°21'38.55"E |
23°32'38.37"N |
Windward |
230 |
81 |
18.4 |
19 |
|
3 |
South of landfill site1 |
87°21'31.44"E |
23°32'29.54"N |
Downward |
210 |
57 |
15.5 |
15.2 |
|
4 |
South of landfill site2 |
87°21'35.26"E |
23°32'27.90"N |
Downward |
208 |
61 |
15.1 |
15.5 |
Source: Calculation is based on the field survey and laboratory experiment, 2022.
Note: 1. SO2- Sulphur dioxide, NOx- Nitrogen dioxide, 2. all units are in μg/m3
Table 15. Air quality status of sampled stations (winter season)
|
Stations |
Locations |
Longitude |
Latitude |
Wind direction |
PM10 |
PM2.5 |
SO2 |
NOx |
|
1 |
North of Landfill site1 |
87°21'34.75"E |
23°32'40.50"N |
Downward |
245 |
165 |
19.8 |
26.1 |
|
2 |
North of landfill site2 |
87°21'38.55"E |
23°32'38.37"N |
Downward |
246 |
168 |
19.5 |
26.3 |
|
3 |
South of landfill site1 |
87°21'31.44"E |
23°32'29.54"N |
Windward |
267 |
190 |
23.5 |
29.1 |
|
4 |
South of landfill site2 |
87°21'35.26"E |
23°32'27.90"N |
Windward |
265 |
195 |
23.3 |
28.5 |
Source: Calculation is based on the field survey and laboratory experiment, 2022.
Note: 1. SO2- Sulphur dioxide, NOx- Nitrogen dioxide, 2. all units are in μg/m3
Table 16. Permissible Ambient Air Quality Levels for Landfill Sites
|
No. |
Parameter |
Allowable Limits |
|
1 |
Sulphur dioxide (SO₂) |
50 μg/m³ (Yearly average*), 80 μg/m³ (24-hour max**) |
|
2 |
Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) |
40 μg/m³ (Yearly average*), 80 μg/m³ (24-hour max**) |
|
3 |
Particulate matter (PM₁₀) |
60 μg/m³ (Yearly average*), 100 μg/m³ (24-hour max**) |
|
4 |
Particulate matter (PM₂.₅) |
40 μg/m³ (Yearly average*), 60 μg/m³ (24-hour max**) |
|
5 |
Carbon monoxide (CO) |
1-hour max: 4 mg/m³, 8-hour max: 2 mg/m³ |
|
6 |
Ammonia (NH₃) |
100 μg/m³ (Yearly average*), 400 μg/m³ (24-hour max**) |
|
7 |
Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) (particulate) |
1 ng/m³ (Yearly average*) |
Source: Developed by the author using guidelines from the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Landfills under the MSW Rules 2016, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. Note: The annual average values (*) are based on the arithmetic mean of at least 104 measurements taken twice per week over a year, while the 24-hour, 8-hour, or 1-hour maximum limits (**) must be met 98% of the time annually, allowing exceedances up to 2% of the time, provided they do not occur on two consecutive monitoring days.
Table 17. Ambient air quality status
|
Locations |
Summer season |
Winter season |
||||||
|
PM10 |
PM2.5 |
SO2 |
NOx |
PM10 |
PM2.5 |
SO2 |
NOx |
|
|
North of Landfill site1 |
233.00 |
140.00 |
22.75 |
24.00 |
245.00 |
275.00 |
24.75 |
32.63 |
|
North of landfill site2 |
230.00 |
135.00 |
23.00 |
23.75 |
246.00 |
280.00 |
24.38 |
32.88 |
|
South of landfill site1 |
210.00 |
95.00 |
19.38 |
19.00 |
267.00 |
316.67 |
29.38 |
36.38 |
|
South of landfill site2 |
208.00 |
101.67 |
18.88 |
19.38 |
265.00 |
325.00 |
29.13 |
35.63 |
Source: Calculated by the researcher, 2022.


For particulate matter, PM₁₀ concentrations range from 208 to 233 μg/m³ in summer and 245 to 267 μg/m³ in winter, while PM₂.₅ levels are in between 57 and 84 μg/m³ in summer and 165 to 195 μg/m³ in winter. Higher concentrations in winter are attributed to poor air circulation. Although PM₁₀ exceeds regulatory limits at all stations, PM₂.₅ levels exceed standards at all stations except the southern station, downwind of the landfill.
3.3.2 Assessment of Air Quality Index (AQI)
The AQI was calculated following the method by Kaushik et al. (2006). The status of air quality index of the sampled stations for both summer and winter seasons is shown in Table 17. Table 17 shows that the values of SO2 and NOx in all the four sites remained within the acceptable limits. During the winter season, the values of SO2 and NOx were recorded higher than the summer season. But, the level of concentration of PM10and PM2.5 in all four stations during both summer and winter seasons were found to be exceeding the acceptable limits. The highest concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 is found in the south of landfill site-2 (windward) during the winter season which may affect the people living nearby the dumping site.
To further assess environmental impacts, spatial buffers were created around key pollution sources such as dustbins, open dumpsites, densely populated areas, and the Shankarpur landfill site. This helped in identifying zones affected by groundwater and surface water pollution, as well as air quality degradation (Figure 7, 8, 9 and 10). These buffer zones highlight regions at risk of groundwater, surface water, and ambient air pollution.
3.4 Environmental Impact Assessment of Improper Solid Waste Disposal
The environmental impact assessment of improper disposal of solid waste on surface water, groundwater, and the air was analyzed with help of standard statistical technique to find out the degree of correlation with improper management of solid waste and water and air. The correlation between groundwater quality and proximity to dustbins, open dumping sites, and densely populated areas is shown in Figure 11. The analysis reveals that nearness to dustbins, open dumping sites and densely populated areas are positively correlated with poor groundwater quality with R2 value 0.85. It is found that the groundwater quality is good in those sampled stations which are far away from open disposal sites, dustbins and low vulnerable areas to solid waste management.



Similar results are found in case of surface water quality and locations of dustbins, open dump sites and highly densely populated areas. Figure 12 illustrates the correlation between surface water quality and proximity to dustbins, open dumps, and densely populated areas with R2 value 0.88. It is found that the surface water quality is good in those sampled stations which are far away from open disposal sites, dustbins and low vulnerable areas to solid waste management and vice-versa.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 display the correlation between air quality (specifically PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ levels) and proximity to open dumping sites and densely populated areas in both seasons. The results indicate that PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ levels are significantly higher in winter, likely due to reduced air circulation, and exhibit a stronger correlation with waste disposal sites and high-density areas compared to summer levels.
4. Discussion
The analysis of improper solid waste disposal and its impact on groundwater, surface water, and air quality highlights serious environmental challenges. The findings show strong correlations between waste disposal practices and environmental degradation which align with observations from similar urban-industrial regions globally (Sk et al., 2023; Abubakar et al., 2022; Deus et al., 2020). The study reveals a strong positive correlation (R²=0.85) between groundwater contamination and proximity to dustbins, open dumping sites, and densely populated areas. High concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead in groundwater have been identified near waste disposalsites. These results are consistent with studies conducted in other industrial cities, where improper waste management similarly lead to groundwater contamination (Alam et al., 2024; Sarkar, 2024; Sharma et al., 2019). In Kolkata, for instance, leachate from unregulated landfills was identified as a primary source of heavy metal pollution in groundwater, representing the contamination patterns observed in Durgapur (Ali and Ahmad, 2020). These findings are consistent with studies highlighting that groundwater in regions with inadequate waste containment is at high risk of contamination, posing health risks to communities reliant on groundwater for drinking and agriculture (Abanyie et al., 2023; Li et al., 2021). Moreover, the regional hydrology of Durgapur, characterized by an unconfined to semi-confined groundwater system, facilitates the rapid migration of contaminants. This is comparable to findings from Nadia district by Dey et al. (2022), where the geology and hydrogeology significantly influence pollutant dispersion, resulting in widespread groundwater contamination near waste disposal sites. The similarity in groundwater flow patterns and contamination sources emphasizes the critical need for implementing robust containment and treatment measures to protect aquifers in industrial urban centers.


The study also demonstrates positive correlation between surface water quality decline and proximity to waste sources (R² = 0.88) reflects the susceptibility of surface water bodies to contamination from nearby waste disposal activities. High concentrations of EC, TDS, and BOD near dumping sites indicate substantial leachate infiltration into surface water bodies. These findings resonate with research conducted by Alo et al., 2023, where improper waste disposal has similarly led to the deterioration of riverine water quality. In Durgapur, surface water bodies near dumping sites results in high concentrations of TDS and EC levels, consistent with studies by Tesseme et al. (2022), where runoff from unmanaged landfills contributes to increased salinity and ion concentration in adjacent water bodies. The presence of heavy metals and organic pollutants in surface waters not only compromises water usability for domestic and agricultural purposes but also poses significant risks to aquatic life. Comparative analysis with Bangalore reveals that integrated waste management practices, including leachate treatment and effective runoff control, are essential to mitigate similar water quality issues (Cumar and Nagaraja, 2011).
Additionally, air quality analysis in Durgapur highlights high levels of particulate matter (PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅) and gaseous pollutants (SO₂ and NOₓ) near open dumping sites, particularly during the winter season. The correlation between waste disposal proximity and increased pollutant concentrations is evident, with PM levels exceeding national standards. These results are in line with studies from Chennai and Mumbai, where open burning of municipal solid waste significantly raises PM and gaseous pollutant levels, leading to adverse health effects (Peter and Nagendra, 2021; Singh et al., 2021). In winter, the reduced atmospheric dispersion and increased combustion of sulfur-containing materials contribute to higher pollutant concentrations, similar to the seasonal air quality variations observed in Delhi (Awasthi et al., 2024). The persistent high levels of PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅ are particularly concerning due to their association with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reinforcing the urgent need for implementing stricter air quality management practices. Comparative study by Mukherjee et al., (2020) has shown that the adoption of waste-to-energy technologies and improved waste segregation can significantly reduce airborne pollutants, offering viable solutions for Durgapur.
5. Implications For Policy And Waste Management Practices
The findings from Durgapur highlight the need for inclusive waste management strategies that address the multifaceted impacts of solid waste disposal on environmental quality. Effective policy measures should include the establishment of engineered landfills with proper leachate management systems, implementation of waste segregation at source, and promotion of recycling and composting initiatives. These measures are supported by successful models from Ghana, where stringent waste management policies have resulted in minimal environmental contamination and enhanced public health outcomes (Williams et al., 2023). Additionally, continuous monitoring and enforcement of environmental standards are imperative to ensure compliance and mitigate pollution. The integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for spatial analysis, as employed in this study, can aid policymakers in identifying high-risk areas and prioritizing interventions. Community engagement and public awareness campaigns are also crucial in fostering responsible waste disposal behaviors, as evidenced by community-driven waste management programs in Fiji (Sewak et al., 2021).
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study underscores the environmental consequences associated with improper management of solid waste, particularly concerning its detrimental effects on groundwater, surface water, and air quality. The findings of this research insist the necessity of implementing focused measures-controlling groundwater leachate, preventing contamination from surface runoff, and minimizing airborne pollutants in areas near waste disposal sites. These actions are vital to fostering sustainable waste management within urban settings. By presenting clear evidence of the connections between waste site proximity and environmental degradation, this study advocates for well-considered policy interventions. It is hoped that these insights will serve as a guiding force for policymakers and urban planners, leading to the development of resilient waste management systems that safeguard environmental integrity and public health.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no known conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that could influence the research findings or the publication of this work.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support and facilities provided by the Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. Special thanks to the local authorities and community members of Durgapur for their cooperation during data collection.
Abbreviations
AMU: Aligarh Muslim University; AQI: Air Quality Index; As: Arsenic; BIS: Bureau of Indian Standards; BOD₅: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day); Cd: Cadmium; Cl⁻: Chloride Ion; COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand; CPCB: Central Pollution Control Board; Cr: Chromium; DMC: Durgapur Municipal Corporation; DPL: Durgapur Projects Limited; DW: Distilled Water; EC: Electrical Conductivity; GF/A: Glass Fiber Filter (Type A); GIS: Geographic Information System; GoI: Government of India; Hg: Mercury; IS: Indian Standard; MoEF: Ministry of Environment and Forests; MSW: Municipal Solid Waste; NH₄⁺-N: Ammoniacal Nitrogen; NOₓ: Nitrogen Oxides; Pb: Lead; PM₁₀: Particulate Matter ≤10 Micrometers; PM₂.₅: Particulate Matter ≤2.5 Micrometers; PO₄³⁻: Phosphate Ion; R²: Coefficient of Determination; RDS: Respirable Dust Sampler; SO₂: Sulphur Dioxide; SO₄²⁻: Sulphate Ion; SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; TDS: Total Dissolved Solids; TCM: Tetrachloromercurate Solution; TH: Total Hardness; WBPCB: West Bengal Pollution Control Board; WHO: World Health Organization; WQI: Water Quality Index
Article information
- Received
- 12 May 2025
- Revised
- 7 Oct 2025
- Accepted
- 16 Sep 2025
- Published
- 9 Oct 2025
- Handling editor
- Professor. Masood Ahsan Siddiqui
- Licence
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
- Journal
- Journal of Geographical Studies, ISSN 2582-1083
References
-
Abanyie, S. K., Amuah, E. E. Y., Douti, N. B., Antwi, M. N., Fei-Baffoe, B. and Amadu, C. C., 2022. Sanitation and waste management practices and possible implications on groundwater quality in peri‑urban areas, Doba and Nayagenia, northeastern Ghana. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100546.
Crossref -
Abanyie, S. K., Apea, O. B., Abagale, S. A., Amuah, E. E. Y. and Sunkari, E. D., 2023. Sources and factors influencing groundwater quality and associated health implications: A review. Emerging Contaminants, 9(2), 100207.
Crossref -
Abubakar, I. R., Maniruzzaman, K. M., Dano, U. L., AlShihri, F. S., AlShammari, M. S., Ahmed, S. M. S., Al-Gehlani, W. A. G. and Alrawaf, T. I., 2022. Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in the global South. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(19), 12717.
Crossref -
Alam, A., Shamim, S., Fatima, S., Siddiqui, A. H., Alam, M. M. and Khan, W. U., 2024. Assessing the influence of Bandhwari landfills on groundwater quality using pollution index of groundwater (PIG) and leachate pollution index (LPI) in Gurugram, India. African Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(9), 2773-2783.
-
Ali, S. A. and Ahmad, A., 2020. Analysing water-borne diseases susceptibility in Kolkata Municipal Corporation using WQI and GIS based Kriging interpolation. GeoJournal, 85(4), 1151-1174.
Crossref -
Awasthi, A., Sinha, B., Hakkim, H., Mishra, S., Mummidivarapu, V., Singh, G. and Rajeevan, M. N., 2024. Biomass-burning sources control ambient particulate matter, but traffic and industrial sources control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and secondary-pollutant formation during extreme pollution events in Delhi. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24(18), 10279-10304.
Crossref -
Batista, M., Caiado, R. G. G., Quelhas, O. L. G., Lima, G. B. A., Leal Filho, W. and Yparraguirre, I. T. R., 2021. A framework for sustainable and integrated municipal solid waste management: Barriers and critical factors to developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127516.
Crossref -
Chakraborty, P., Sk, M. M., Patra, T. R., Sarkar, L., Ghosh, S. and Sardar, K., 2025. Urban heat island dynamics of the fast-growing Cuttack–Bhubaneswar twin city: A geospatial-temporal analysis. Current World Environment, 20(1), 337–353.
Crossref -
Chattopadhyay, P., Chattopadhyay, P. and Palit, D., 2019. Effect of environmental pollution on health and its prevention: An overview. In Environmental and sustainable development through forestry and other resources (38).
Crossref -
Cumar, S. K. M. and Nagaraja, B., 2011. Environmental impact of leachate characteristics on water quality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 178(1-4), 499-505.
Crossref -
Deus, R. M., Mele, F. D., Bezerra, B. S. and Battistelle, R. A. G., 2020. A municipal solid waste indicator for environmental impact: Assessment and identification of best management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118433.
Crossref -
Dey, U., Sarkar, S., Duttagupta, S., Bhattacharya, A., Das, K., Saha, S. and Mukherjee, A., 2022. Influence of Hydrology and Sanitation on Groundwater Coliform Contamination in Some Parts of Western Bengal Basin: Implication to Safe Drinking Water. Frontiers in Water, 4, 875624.
Crossref -
Dutta, T. and Chaudhuri, H., 2024. Impact of industrial hotspots on Tamla nala and Nunia nala confluence–a tributary of the Damodar River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196(5), 1-16.
Crossref -
Igwegbe, C. A., López-Maldonado, E. A., Landázuri, A. C., Ovuoraye, P. E., Ogbu, A. I., Vela-García, N. and Białowiec, A., 2024. Sustainable municipal landfill leachate management: Current practices, challenges, and future directions. Desalination and Water Treatment, 100709.
Crossref -
Iqbal, A., Liu, X. and Chen, G. H., 2020. Municipal solid waste: Review of best practices in application of life cycle assessment and sustainable management techniques. Science of The Total Environment, 729, 138622.
Crossref -
Izah, S. C., Ogwu, M. C., Etim, N. G., Shahsavani, A. and Namvar, Z., 2024. Short-term health effects of air pollution. In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Crossref -
Karagozoglu, M. B. and Asar, M., 2023. Physico-chemical characteristics of leachate from landfills and its impact on surface water quality: Case study in Osmaniye/Turkey. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 9(4), 125.
Crossref -
Kaushik, C. P., Ravindra, K., Yadav, K., Mehta, S. and Haritash, A. K., 2006. Assessment of ambient air quality in urban centres of Haryana (India) in relation to different anthropogenic activities and health risks. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 122, 27-40.
Crossref -
Khan, S., Anjum, R., Raza, S. T., Bazai, N. A. and Ihtisham, M., 2022. Technologies for municipal solid waste management: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere, 288, 132403.
Crossref -
Kiehbadroudinezhad, M., Merabet, A. and Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., 2024. Landfill source of greenhouse gas emission. In Advances and Technology Development in Greenhouse Gases: Emission, Capture and Conversion (123-145). Elsevier.
Crossref -
Li, P., Karunanidhi, D., Subramani, T. and Srinivasamoorthy, K., 2021. Sources and consequences of groundwater contamination. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology, 80, 1-10.
Crossref -
Mainul, S., 2019. Challenges in the management of single-use plastic carrier bags in Aligarh City: A study on sellers and consumer attitude. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(7), 732–750.
-
Mawari, G., Kumar, N., Sarkar, S., Frank, A. L., Daga, M. K., Singh, M. M., Joshi, T. K. and Singh, I., 2022. Human health risk assessment due to heavy metals in ground and surface water and association of diseases with drinking water sources: A study from Maharashtra, India. Environmental health insights, 16.
Crossref -
Mukherjee, C., Denney, J., Mbonimpa, E. G., Slagley, J. and Bhowmik, R., 2020. A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119, 109512.
Crossref -
Peter, A. E. and Nagendra, S. S., 2021. Dynamics of PM 2.5 pollution in the vicinity of the old municipal solid waste dumpsite. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193, 1-16.
Crossref -
Sarkar, L., 2024. Assessing the heavy metal contamination prevailing in groundwater at Rishipur village, West Bengal, India. Current World Environment, 19(2).
Crossref -
Seal, K., Chaudhuri, H., Pal, S., Srivastava, R. R. and Soldatova, E., 2022. A study on water pollution scenario of the Damodar River basin, India: assessment of potential health risk using long term database (1980–2019) and statistical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(35), 53320-53352.
Crossref -
Sethy, T., Sk, M. M., Patra, T. R. and Numan, M., 2024. Is biomining a feasible solution for E-waste management? International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 13(2), 3621–3627.
Crossref -
Sewak, A., Deshpande, S., Rundle-Thiele, S., Zhao, F. and Anibaldi, R., 2021. Community perspectives and engagement in sustainable solid waste management (SWM) in Fiji: A socioecological thematic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113455.
Crossref -
Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Samal, B., Cheela, V. S., Dubey, B. K. and Bhattacharya, J., 2021. Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Science of the Total Environment, 800, 149605.
Crossref -
Sharma, S., Nagpal, A. and Kaur, I., 2019. Appraisal of heavy metal contents in groundwater and associated health hazards posed to human population of Ropar wetland, Punjab, India and its environs. Chemosphere, 227, 179-187.
Crossref -
Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J. N., and Al-Attiya, W. A. K., 2022. An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(39), 58514-58536.
Crossref -
Siddiqui, M. A., Sk, M. M., Jinnah, M. A. and Anjum, R., 2021. Assessment of physico-chemical properties of ground water in Aligarh city. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 5(2), 917–924.
-
Singh, C. K., Kumar, A. and Roy, S. S., 2017. Estimating potential methane emission from municipal solid waste and a site suitability analysis of existing landfills in Delhi, India. Technologies, 5(4), 62.
Crossref -
Singh, S. K., Chokhandre, P., Salve, P. S. and Rajak, R., 2021. Open dumping site and health risks to proximate communities in Mumbai, India: A cross-sectional case-comparison study. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, 9, 34-40.
Crossref -
Singh, S., Ashesh, A., Devi, N. L. and Yadav, I. C., 2022. A comprehensive review on occurrence, source, effect, and measurement techniques of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in India. Microchemical Journal, 183, 108005.
Crossref -
Sk, M. M., 2023. Spatial Analysis of Solid Waste Generation Patterns in a Fast-Growing Industrial City-Durgapur, India. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 10(7), e245-253.
-
Sk, M. M., 2024a. Assessing vulnerability of a solid waste management system through GIS and the Rank Sum method: A case study of Durgapur city, India. Advances in Environmental Technology, 11(1), 36-62.
Crossref -
Sk, M. M., 2024b. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfill, Durgapur, India. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 31(5). 200-216.
Crossref -
Sk, M. M., Ali, S. A. and Ahmad, A., 2020a. Forecasting municipal solid waste generation in a fast-growing industrial region using systematic approach. Studies in Indian Place Names, 40(71), 284-300.
-
Sk, M. M., Ali, S. A. and Ahmad, A., 2020b. Optimal sanitary landfill site selection for solid waste disposal in Durgapur city using geographic information system and multi-criteria evaluation technique. KN-Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information, 70, 163-180.
Crossref -
Sk, M. M., Chakraborty, P., Shaikh, M. K., Patra, T. R., Mishra, S. R., Naik, D. and Sardar, A., 2025. Sustainable development and climate change in India: Understanding the key themes and emerging areas. Current World Environment, 20(1), 155–181.
Crossref -
Sk, M. M., Qamar, S. and Sethy, T., 2023. Solid waste management in Indian perspectives: A comprehensive review. Humanities and Social Science Studies, 12(1), 35.
-
Sukanya, R. and Tantia, V., 2023. Urbanization and the impact on economic development. In New Perspectives and Possibilities in Strategic Management in the 21st Century: Between Tradition and Modernity (pp. 369-408). IGI Global.
-
TerraGreen., 2022. MSW Management: The pitiable situation of Municipal Solid Waste Management. The Energy and Resources Institute.
-
Tesseme, A. T., Vinti, G. and Vaccari, M., 2022. Pollution potential of dumping sites on surface water quality in Ethiopia using leachate and comprehensive pollution indices. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(8), 545.
Crossref -
Toha, M., Sikder, S. and Mostafizur Rahman, M., 2024. Assessing the impact of landfill leachate on surface and ground water in Bangladesh: A comparison with other South Asian Regions. In A Review of Landfill Leachate: Characterization Leachate Environment Impacts and Sustainable Treatment Methods (109-128).
Crossref -
Williams, P. A., Narra, S., Antwi, E., Quaye, W., Hagan, E., Asare, R., Owusu-Arthur, J. and Ekanthalu, V. S., 2023. Review of barriers to effective implementation of waste and energy management policies in Ghana: Implications for the promotion of waste-to-energy technologies. Waste, 1(2), 313–332.
Crossref -
Zohoori, M. and Ghani, A., 2017. Municipal solid waste management challenges and problems for cities in low-income and developing countries. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Appl, 6(2), 39-48.