Journal of Environmental Analytical Yerima EA, et al.

, J Environ Anal Chem 2018, 5:4

DOI: 10.4172/2380-2391.1000251

Chemistry
Research Article Open Access

Assessment of Heavy Metals Level of Soils Around Sacks and Packaging

Company, Akwanga Nasarawa State, Nigeria
Emmanuel Amuntse Yerima*, Raymond Bwano Donatus, Ifeoma Juliet Opara, Godwin Ogbaji Egah and Joseph Dennis Ani
Department of Chemical Sciences, Federal University Wukari, PMB 1020, Taraba State, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: Yerima EA, Department of Chemical Sciences, Federal University Wukari, PMB 1020, Taraba State, Nigeria, Tel: +234800000000; E-Mail:
[email protected]
Received date: November 12, 2018; Accepted date: December 05, 2018; Published date: December 10, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Yerima, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Increasing industrial activity around the world has left behind large number of contaminants such as heavy metals
which can easily get into food chain and bio-cumulate in tissues of living organism with detrimental effect. This study
was carried out to assess the impact of activities in a sack production and packaging company on the level of heavy
metal on soils around the industrial layout. The results obtained from the soil analysis reveals that the pH, organic
carbon and organic matter content of the test and control soils were (8.40 ± 0.20 and 8.51 ± 0.01), (1.76 ± 0.030 and
0.92 ± 0.02%) and (3.03 ± 0.33 and 0.55 ± 0.05%) respectively. While the available phosphorus content, nitrogen
and effective cation exchange capacity of the test and control soil samples were (3.62 ± 0.02 and 4.11 ± 0.10%),
(0.251 ± 0.01 and 0.078 ± 0.001%) and (65.59 ± 0.05 and 14.78 ± 0.01 Meq/100 g) respectively which were within
the limits of normal agronomical soil. The mean ± standard deviation of heavy metal concentrations in the test and
control soil were Fe (4625.32 ± 0.252 mg/kg and 3676.44 ± 0.57 mg/kg), Ni (48.20 ± 0.128 mg/kg and 27.50 ± 0.11
mg/kg) Co (36.85 ± 0.046 mg/kg and 37.05 ± 0.044 mg/kg) and Pb (321.45 ± 0.038 mg/kg and 174.23 ± 0.088
mg/kg) respectively where the mean concentrations of the heavy metals in the soil are in the order: Fe>Pb>Ni>Co
while Cd and Cr were below detection limit. The impact of the industrial activities determines using indices such as
Geo-accumulation index and contamination factor indicates high contamination of the soil with lead, a non-essential
element responsible for lead poisoning. Also, the statistical analysis showed a general significant difference between
the mean content of heavy metal between the soil around the industry and the soil around the control site
suggesting that metal enrichment is likely due to anthropogenic activity since the metal level in the test soil were
generally higher with the exception of cobalt.

Keywords: Soil; Heavy metals; Geo accumulation index; aspects of trace metals in the environment is also increasing [2]. The
Contamination factor industrialization of the world has led to a dramatic increase in the
overall environmental load of heavy metal. Industrial processes that
Introduction release a variety of heavy metals into the environment may include
mining, smelting, refining and almost all industrial processes that
Older packaging methods like multi-ply paper sacks, cotton bags, produce waste discharges are potential sources of heavy metals to the
jute bags, had been used to cart away agricultural produce and environment [3]. Heavy metals can easily get into food chain and bio-
industrial products. Due to the inadequacy of these packaging cumulate in tissues of living organism resulting in detrimental effect
methods to withstand various atmospheric conditions, leading especially when present in elevated concentration hence the need to
produce spoilage and financial losses and frustration to farmers and employ technologies that can remove contaminants in the
producers has led to the production of synthetic sacks from environment [4]. Nevertheless, the aim of this work is to assess the
polypropylene. Polypropylene sacks are suitable for almost all the impact of activities in the sack production and packaging industry on
products that have used paper sacks, cotton bags, jute bags for the concentration of heavy metals on surrounding soils.
packaging. These sacks are better suited for storage due to their
strength, durability and ability to withstand water and pests [1]. Study area
The use of synthetic sacks is steadily increasing in the agricultural Nasara sacks and packaging company, Akwanga with the
and manufacturing sector, with increasing agricultural yields alongside geographical coordinates 55’20.964’’ N (latitude) and 21’25.74612” E
other industrial products with polypropylene being the major raw (longitude), is situated along Akwanga - Abuja road in Akwanga about
material which is said to affect the endocrine system, cause genetic 58.4 km from Lafia the capital of Nasarawa State located in the North-
mutations and tumors. Also, unlike the tradition sack, synthetic sack is Central geopolitical zone of Nigeria. The industry was established in
not easily degradable by nature and steps involve during production as the year 2010.
well as the raw materials employed may impart the environment and
hence this study seek to evaluate the impact of activities on Nasara
Sample collection
Packaging company on some heavy metal concentration which is now
a global phenomenon. As a result of the increasing concern on the The stratified sampling technique was applied for soil sample
potential effects of the metallic contaminants on human and collection with little modification [5]. Under this sampling technique,
environment health, the research on fundamental, applied and health the sampling site was broken into four (4) stratums (small areas) north,

J Environ Anal Chem, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • 1000251

2380-2391
Citation: Yerima EA, Donatus RB, Opara IJ, Egah GO, Ani JD (2018) Assessment of Heavy Metals Level of Soils Around Sacks and Packaging
Company, Akwanga Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Environ Anal Chem 5: 251. doi:10.4172/2380-2391.1000251

Page 2 of 5

south, east and west with respect to Nasara sacks and packaging based on the increasing numerical values of the index (Table 1). The
company. Each strata were further subdivided into four quadrants of index of geo accumulation was calculated using the Equation (1).
equal size before five (5) samples were taken randomly by grab method
Igeo=Io[Cn/1.5 Bn] (1)
within the depth of 0-15 cm in the individual quadrant (smaller area)
making a total of twenty (20) samples per strata (small area) and a total where, Cn is the measured concentration of the element in soil or
of eighty (80) samples from the four stratums situated at the north, sediment and Bn is the geochemical background value. The constant
south, east and west of the industry were pooled together to form the value, 1.5, is back-ground matrix correction factor due to the
composite sample labeled to enable detailed representation of lithological variations. Table 1: presents a descriptive classification for
variability within the study area. The control soil sample for the the Igeo values [15].
industry was collected in a farmland within 1.4 km radius from the
industry from site remote to possible sources of contamination Igeo Igeo class Description of soil quality
associated with the industry. 0 0 Uncontaminated

Sample preparation 0-1 1 Uncontaminated to moderately contaminated

The composite and the control sample were each sorted, pebbles and 1-2 2 Moderately contaminated
coarse materials removed and then air-dried at room temperature over
2-3 3 Moderately to strongly contaminated
three days with occasional breaking of aggregated materials with
wooden roller; followed by sieving through a nonmetallic sieve with 3-4 4 Strongly contaminated
mesh hole of 2 mm diameter to remove stones, plant and animal’s
debris. The air dried and sieved soil was employed as soil sample for 4-5 5 Strongly to extremely strongly contaminated

extraction and analysis. 5-6 6 Extremely contaminated

Determination of soil physiochemical parameters Table 1: Classification of geo-accumulation index.

The pH was determined by homogenizing of the sample in 10 c
distilled water and stirred gently to enhance H+ (Hydrogen ions) Contamination factor
release from soil, the mixtures was then be allowed to stand for 30 min.
The assessment of soil contamination was also carried out using the
pH meter (JENWAY 2000) was used to read the pH value after
contamination factor (CF) which is a single element index as well as
calibration with buffer solutions of pH values 5.5, 7.0 and 8.0
the degree of contamination Cd which is the sum of contamination
respectively [6].
factors (CF) for all elements examined in the environment; the
Soil organic carbon was determined by means of wet dichromate contamination factor was calculated using Equation (2).
oxidation by the addition of 50 mL potassium dichromate (0.5 M K)
CF ≡ [M]/[M]b
and 2.5 mL concentrated sulphuric acid in 5% FeS. Considering that
the average content of carbon in soil organic matter is equal to 58% the Where [M]=Concentration of heavy metal in the studied area;
conversion factor 1.724 was used to calculate the percentage of organic [M]b=Background concentration levels of metals in soil. Background
matter from the content of organic carbon [7,8]. Nitrogen in the soil value of the metal is equal to the world surface rock average given by
was estimated using distillation and titrimetric method describe by Barbalace [16]. The CF values between 0.5 and 1.5 indicates that the
Kjeldahl while the phosphorus content using molybdate reagent on the metals are entirely from the coastal materials whereas CFvalues greater
spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 660 nm [9,10]. than 1.5 indicates that the sources are most likely to be anthropogenic
activities [17]. The different levels of degree of contamination include:
Cation exchange capacity was determined by weighing 5.0 g of the
low contamination for CF value<1; moderate contamination for CF ≥
dried soil was extracted with 25 mL of 1 M NHAc solution four
1 to<3; considerable contamination for CF value ≥ 3 to<6 and very
consecutive times. The leachate was used for atomic absorption
high contamination for CF value ≥ 6 as describe by Rahman et al. [18].
spectrophotometric determination of Ca and Mg while flame
photometer was used for the determination of K and Na [11,12]. While
the textural property of the soil was determined using the Hydrometer Results and Discussion
method [10]. As presented in Table 2, the pH, organic carbon and organic matter
Determination of Heavy Metals: The concentration of the heavy content of the test and control soils were (8.40 ± 0.20 and 8.51 ± 0.01),
metal was determined using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (1.76 ± 0.030 and 0.92 ± 0.02%) and (3.03 ± 0.33 and 0.55 ± 0.05%)
equipped with Zeeman’s background correction. Prior to sample respectively. With the exception of pH, there is generally a significant
analysis, the flame condition was optimized for maximum absorbency difference between the test and control soil at 95% confidence limit
and linear response while aspirating known standards. suggesting that activities around the industry may be responsible for
the variation. The pH values were moderately alkaline and are
Impact assessment generally within the acceptable status of agronomical soil. The organic
carbon content of the test soil was about twice the content of the
The index of geo accumulation (Igeo) actually enables the assessment control soil while the organic matter content was more than five times
of contamination by comparing the current status and pre-industrial the content in the control sample suggesting enrichment in carbon
concentrations originally bottom sediments [13, 14]; it has also been content due to the industrial activity on the soil. Organic matter
applied in the assessment of soil contamination. The method assesses consists of plant and animal residues at various stages of
the degree of metal pollution in terms of seven enrichment classes decomposition, cells and tissues of soil organisms as well as substances

J Environ Anal Chem, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • 1000251

2380-2391
Citation: Yerima EA, Donatus RB, Opara IJ, Egah GO, Ani JD (2018) Assessment of Heavy Metals Level of Soils Around Sacks and Packaging
Company, Akwanga Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Environ Anal Chem 5: 251. doi:10.4172/2380-2391.1000251

Page 3 of 5

synthesized by soil organisms which help in improving the soil The available phosphorus content, nitrogen and effective cation
structure, enhanced cation exchange capacity and minimize erosion exchange capacity of the test and control soil samples were (3.62 ± 0.02
[14]. and 4.11 ± 0.10%), (0.251 ± 0.01 and 0.078 ± 0.001%) and (65.59 ± 0.05
and 14.78 ± 0.01 Meq/100 g) respectively as shown in Table 2, where
S/No Parameter Test soil Control soil USDA standard the available phosphorus were approximately same between the test
1 pH 8.4 ± 0.20 8.51 ± 0.01 6.1-8.5
soil and the control soil; the nitrogen content of the test soil is more
than 3 fold the content in the control soil while the effective cation
2 Organic carbon (%) 1.76 ± 0.03 0.92 ± 0.02 - exchange capacity of the test soil is more than 3 times the capacity of
the control soil which is traceable to the to the elevated organic matter
3 Organic matter (%) 3.03 ± 0.33 0.55 ± 0.05 0.4-1.5
content in the test soil compare to the control soil [19]. Cation
4 Nitrogen (%) 0.251 ± 0.01 0.078 ± 0.001 0.1-0.2 exchange capacity (CEC) of a soil is a measure of the quantity of
negatively charged sites on soil surfaces that can retain positively
5 Avail P(mg/kg) 3.62 ± 0.02 4.11 ± 0.10 1.0-10 charged ions especially when the soil is rich in clay and organic matter
6 K (Meq/10) 1.02 0.20 0.2-1.0
at pH near neutral [12]. The available phosphorus and nitrogen were
generally within the limits of normal agronomical soil stipulated by
7 Na (Meq/100 g) 1.04 2.26 0.1-2 USDA except the nitrogen content that is slightly higher.
8 Ca (Meq/100 g) 47.20 9.40 2.0-20
Determination of iron concentration
9 Mg (Meq/100 g) 16.33 2.92 0.3-8.0
The mean concentrations of iron in the test and control soil were
10 AE (H++A+) 0.05 0.05 0.05-2.5 4625.32 ± 0.252 and 3676.44 ± 0.57 mg/kg respectively as presented in
(Meq/10) Table 3 and Figure 1, there is a significant difference between the iron
content of the test and control soil at 95% confidence limit which may
11 ECEC (Meq/100 g) 65.59 ± 0.05 13.78 ± 0.01 -
be traceable to industrial activities. The mean concentrations of iron
12 Sand (%) 46 53 - recorded are generally far below the average crustal value (background
concentration) 41000 mg/kg of Iron reported by Barbalace, [16].
13 Silt (%) 49 40 - Likewise, the Igeo and CF pollution indices indicate non-contamination
14 Clay (%) 5 7 - on soils around both the industry and the control site as describe in
Table 1.
15 Textural class base Sandy Sandy Loam -
on USDA standard Loam

Table 2: Physicochemical parameters of soil samples around sack and

packaging company.

Parameter Fe Ni Co Pb Cd Cr

Test Mean (mg/kg) 4625.32 ± 0.252 48.20 ± 0.128 36.85 ± 0.046 321.45 ± 0.038 ND ND
Soil
average shale 41000 80 20 14 0.11 90
(mg/kg)

Igeo value <0 <0 0.30 3.9 <0 <0

Igeo class Uncont. Uncont. Uncont. Moderately cont. Uncont. Uncont.

CF 0.113 0.603 1.842 22.96 <0 <0

CF remark Uncont. Uncont. Cont. Cont. Uncont. Uncont.

Control Mean (mg/kg) 3675.44 ± 1.14 27.49 ± 0.22 37.05 ± 0.044 174.23 ± 0.088 ND ND
Soil
average shale 41000 80 20 14 0.11 90
(mg/kg)

Igeo value 0 0 0.31 3.1 <0 <0

Igeo class Uncont. Uncont. Uncont. Strongly cont. Uncont. Uncont.

CF 0.089 0.343 1.852 12.445 <0 <0

CF remark Uncont. Uncont. Cont. Cont. Uncont. Uncont.

Table 3: Mean concentration (mg/kg) average shale (mg/kg), geo-accumulation index (Igeo) values and enrichment factor of heavy metals in
soils.

J Environ Anal Chem, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • 1000251

2380-2391
Citation: Yerima EA, Donatus RB, Opara IJ, Egah GO, Ani JD (2018) Assessment of Heavy Metals Level of Soils Around Sacks and Packaging
Company, Akwanga Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Environ Anal Chem 5: 251. doi:10.4172/2380-2391.1000251

Page 4 of 5

Determination of nickel concentration Statistical analysis

The mean concentrations of Ni in the test and control soil were Comparing mean using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 reveals that there is
48.20 ± 0.128 and 27.50 ± 0.11 mg/kg respectively as presented in Table significance difference in organic carbon, organic matter, nitrogen,
3, there is a significant difference between the nickel content of the test available phosphorus and the cation exchange capacity except pH,
and control soil at 95% confidence limit where the content in the test likewise the mean concentration of metals in soils around the
soil is about double the content in the control soil. Nevertheless, these packaging company significantly different with that in the control soil
concentrations are generally lower than the 80 mg/kg concentration of (P<0.05) suggesting that anthropogenic activity may have brought
Ni in the background as reported by Barbalace, [16] and as well as the about the variation. Correlation analysis of the physiochemical
75 mg/kg maximum limit set by the European Union [20,21]. Likewise, properties and metal content of the test soil reveals a strong positive
the Igeo and CF pollution indices indicate uncontamination with relationship between cation exchange capacity versus organic carbon
respect to Ni on soils around both the industry and the control site as and organic matter content (P ≤ 0.01) implying that their presence in
describe in Table 1. the soil enhances the capacity of the soil to hold and retain cations. A
significant correlation was equally obtaining among nickel, available
Determination of cobalt concentration phosphorus and nitrogen (P ≤ 0.01) suggesting that they might have
emanate from the same source.
The mean concentrations of cobalt in the test and control soil were
36.85 ± 0.046 and 37.05 ± 0.044 mg/kg respectively as presented in
Table 3 and Figure 1, These concentrations are generally higher than
Conclusion
the 20 mg/kg concentration of Co in the background as reported by The results obtained from the analysis of soils around packaging
Barbalace [16] but are generally below the 50 mg/kg maximum limit of company, Akwanga in order to assess the impact of the industry on the
Australian standard for soils [21]. Likewise, the Igeo and CF pollution metal levels of surrounding soil reveals that the dominant metal
indices of (0.30 and 0.31) and (1.842 and 1.852) respectively indicates concentrations were in the order: Fe>Pb>Ni>Co while Cd and Cr were
un-contamination as describe in Table 1. below detection limit. The Geo-accumulation index and
contamination factor indicates high contamination of the soil with
Determination of lead concentration lead which a non-essential element responsible for lead poisoning.
Also, the statistical analysis reveals a significant difference between the
The mean concentrations of lead in the test and control soil were mean content of heavy metal between the soil around the industry and
321.45 ± 0.038 and 174.23 ± 0.088 mg/kg respectively as presented in the soil around the control site cobalt suggest metal enrichment is due
Table 3 and Figure 1, there is a significant difference between the lead to anthropogenic activity since the metal level in the test soil were
content of the test and control soil at 95% confidence limit. Also, these generally higher with exception of cobalt.
concentrations are generally much higher than the 14 mg/kg
concentration of Pb in the background as reported by Barbalace [16]
and are also above the 100 mg/kg maximum limit of Australian Competing Interests
standard [21]; as well as the 210 mg/kg intervention values set by the Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Department of Petroleum Resources except the control soil which is
below the intervention level [22,23]. Likewise, the Igeo and CF
References
pollution indices of (3.9 and 3.1) and (22.96 and 12.445) respectively
indicating strong contamination. High lead in the soil can be transfer 1. Foramfera (2018) Foraminifera Market Research Reports.
into biota resulting in health challenge associated with brain damage in 2. Erdogan M (2009) Monitoring and Statistical Assessment of Heavy Metal
children and other symptoms may include abdominal pain, Pollution in Sediments along Izmir Bay Using ICP-MS. A Thesis,
constipation, headaches, irritability, memory problems, inability to Graduate School of Engineering and Sciences of Yzmir Institute of
have children, and tingling in the hands and feet [24-26]. Technology, Turkey, pp: 1-100.
3. Denton GRW, Bearden BG, Concepcion LP, Siegrist HG, Vann DT, et al.
(2001) Contaminant Assessment of Surface Sediments from Tanapag
Lagoon, Saipan. Water and Environmental Research Institute of the
Western Pacific, University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam, USA.
4. Sepehri A, Sarrafzadeh MH (2018) Effect of nitrifiers community on
fouling mitigation and nitrification efficiency in a membrane bioreactor.
Chemical Engineering and Processing-Process Intensification 128: 10-18.
5. Xie XJ, Cheng HX (2001) Global Geochemical Mapping and its
Implementation in the Asia-Pacific Region. Appl Geochem 16:
1309-1321.
6. Motsara MR, Roy RN (2008) Guide to laboratory establishment for plant
nutrient analysis. Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 19: 17-22.
7. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An Examination of the Degtjareff Method for
Determining Organic Carbon in Soils: Effect of Variations in Digestion
Conditions and Inorganic Soil Constituents. Soil Science 63: 251-263.
Figure 1: Mean concentration of heavy metals in soil around the 8. Souza DM, Morais PAO, Matsushige I, Rosa LA (2016) Development of
packaging industry. Alternative Methods for Determining Soil Organic Matter. Rev Bras
Cienc Solo 40: 1-17.
9. Bray RH, Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total, organic and available
forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci 59: 30-45.

J Environ Anal Chem, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • 1000251

2380-2391
Citation: Yerima EA, Donatus RB, Opara IJ, Egah GO, Ani JD (2018) Assessment of Heavy Metals Level of Soils Around Sacks and Packaging
Company, Akwanga Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Environ Anal Chem 5: 251. doi:10.4172/2380-2391.1000251

Page 5 of 5

10. Motsara MR, Roy RN (2008) Guide to laboratory establishment for plant Dhaka Export Processing Zone (DEPZ), Bangladesh: Implication of
nutrient analysis. Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 19: 17-22. Seasonal Variation and Indices. Applied Sci 2: 584-601.
11. Brown JR, Warncke DD (1988) Recommended cation tests and measures 19. Ramos FT, Dores EFC, Weber OLDS, Beber DC, Campelo JHJ, et al.
of cation exchange capacity. Agric Exp Sta, pp: 15-16. (2018) Soil organic matter doubles the cation exchange capacity of
12. Ross D (2009) Soil Cation Exchange Capacity in Recommended Soil tropical soil under no-till farming in Brazil. J Sci Food Agric 98:
Testing Procedures for the North Eastern United States. 3595-3602.
13. Muller G (1969) Index of Geoaccumulation in sediments of the Rhine 20. McGrath S, Chang A, Page A, Witter E (1994) Land application of sewage
River. Geo J 2:108-118. sludge: scientific perspectives of heavy metal loading limits in Europe and
14. Itodo AU, Ubi-mago M, Wuana RA (2018) Environmental Impact of the United States. Environ Rev 2:108-118.
Abandoned Asphalt Production Site on Soil, Water and Vegetables from 21. Maleki A, Hassan A, Nazmara S, Zandi S, Mahvi AH (2014) Spatial
Near Farmlands. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection 6: distribution of heavy metal in soil, water and vegetation of farms in
107-122. Sanandaj, Kurdistan, Iran. Journal of Environ Health Sci Eng 12: 136-142.
15. Shaari H, Bidai J, Hidayu SN, Azmi, Sultan YM (2015) Spatial 22. EGASPIN (2002) Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the
Distribution of Selected Heavy Metals in Surface Sediments of the EEZ of Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN). Department of Petroleum
the East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Resources, Lagos, Nigeria.
Oceanography 1: 1155-1166. 23. Agbaji EB, Abechi SE, Emmanuel SA (2015) Assessment of Heavy Metals
16. Barbalace K (2007) Periodic Table of Elements. Available from: https:// Level of Soil in Kakuri Industrial Area of Kaduna, Nigeria. Journal of
wwwnvironmentalChemistryom. Scientific Research and Reports 4: 68-78.
17. Zhang J, Liu CL (2002) Riverine composition and estuarine geochemistry 24. Castellino N, Sannolo N, Castellino P (1994) Inorganic Lead Exposure
of particulate metals in China-Weathering features anthropogenic impact and Intoxications CRC Press, p: 86.
and chemical fluxes. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 54: 1051-1070.
18. Rahman SH, Khanam D, Adyel TM, Islam MS, Ahsan MA, et al. (2012)
Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination of Agricultural Soil around

J Environ Anal Chem, an open access journal Volume 5 • Issue 4 • 1000251

2380-2391