Assessment of Mercury Pollution at Mare Chicose Landfill in Mauritius

  • V. Dookhun
  • K. Mahadeo


Modern society has resorted to the extensive use of chemicals either natural or synthetic over the last several decades. These chemicals are utilized for controlling diseases, increasing food production, and to provide convenience in our daily lives. Ironically, many of these well-intentioned chemicals are now wreaking havoc around the world, threatening the health of wildlife and people. Mercury, one of those chemicals, has become a prime subject as far as its release to the environment is concerned. This project is about assessing the release pathway of mercury from the landfill and determining the status of mercury pollution there. Mercury is not produced in Mauritius and the sources were mainly from waste consumer products and industrial releases. The amount of mercury entering Mauritius through consumer products and raw materials for industries imported since the last 5 years was determined and eventually, the mercury reaching the landfill was estimated. The laboratory analysis for landfill leachate and ground water revealed no presence of mercury above 0.0002 mg/l and 0.0001 mg/l, respectively. Simulation results for workface releases showed that the workers’ exposure were significant (Figs. 1 and 2).


Mercury Concentration Methyl Mercury Landfill Leachate Mercury Emission Mercury Pollution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We are very thankful to Mr. Jokhun and Mr. Radha, the technical staff of University of Mauritius; Mr. Ghoorun, Technical Manager at Mauritius Standards Bureau; Mr. P. Kowlessur, Director of Ministry of Local Government; Mr. D. Dookhee, Mr. B. Beerachee and Mrs. S. Ramracheya, the technical team of the Solid Waste Management Division for their support, guidance and advice.


  1. 1.
    Boening D W (2000) Ecological effects, transport, and fate of mercury; a general review. Chemosphere Vol. 40: 1335–1351. In UNEP, 2002. Global Mercury Assessment. Geneva: UNEP: 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    COWI (2002): ACAP and Danish EPA Reduction of Atmospheric mercury emissions from Arctic countries – Questionnaire on emissions and related topics. In UNEP(2005) Toolkit for identification and quantification of mercury releases: 234.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Neil P (1985) Environmental Chemistry. London.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    UNEP (2002) Global Mercury Assessment report, Geneva. UNEP.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNEP June 2004. Regional Awareness-Raising Workshop on Mercury Pollution - A global problem that needs to be addressed; Pretoria, South Africa, 1–4 June 2004. Geneva: UNEP.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    UNEP (2005) Toolkit for identification and quantification of mercury releases, Geneva: UNEP: 237.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    US EPA (2005) Landfill Gas Emission Model Version 3.02 User’s Guide. US EPA Research Office. Washington DC: 3.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization (1989). Mercury, Environmental Aspects. Environmental Health Criteria. Vol. 86. WHO.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    (2006) ATSDR, 2005. CERCLA Priority list of hazardous substances. [Online]. Accessed 20 December 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering,Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of MauritiusReduitMauritius

Personalised recommendations