Next Article in Journal
Chemical Elements in Hair and Their Association with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comprehensive Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Toward Climate Neutrality: A Comprehensive Overview of Sustainable Operations Management, Optimization, and Wastewater Treatment Methods
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Review of Contaminants of Concern in Uganda: Occurrence, Sources, Potential Risks, and Removal Strategies

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering & Construction, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland PKWY, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA
2
Department of Physical Sciences, School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Kampala International University, Kampala P.O. Box 20000, Uganda
3
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Kampala International University, Kampala P.O. Box 20000, Uganda
4
Department of Chemistry, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram 695581, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pollutants 2023, 3(4), 544-586; https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants3040037
Submission received: 5 September 2023 / Revised: 7 November 2023 / Accepted: 15 November 2023 / Published: 4 December 2023

Abstract

:
Contaminants of concern (CoCs) pose significant threats to Uganda’s ecosystems and public health, particularly in the face of rapid urbanization, industrial expansion, and intensified agriculture. This systematic review comprehensively analyzed Uganda’s CoC landscape, addressing imminent challenges that endanger the country’s ecosystems and public health. CoCs, originating from urban, industrial, and agricultural activities, encompass a wide range of substances, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, radionuclides, biotoxins, disinfection byproducts, hydrocarbons, and microplastics. This review identified the major drivers of CoC dispersion, particularly wastewater and improper waste disposal practices. From an initial pool of 887 articles collected from reputable databases such as PubMed, African Journal Online (AJOL), Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, 177 pertinent studies were extracted. The literature review pointed to the presence of 57 pharmaceutical residues and personal care products, along with 38 pesticide residues and 12 heavy metals, across various environmental matrices, such as wastewater, groundwater, seawater, rainwater, surface water, drinking water, and pharmaceutical effluents. CoC concentrations displayed significant levels exceeding established regulations, varying based on the specific locations, compounds, and matrices. This review underscores potential ecological and health consequences associated with CoCs, including antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, and carcinogenicity. Inefficiencies in traditional wastewater treatment methods, coupled with inadequate sanitation practices in certain areas, exacerbate the contamination of Uganda’s aquatic environments, intensifying environmental and health concerns. To address these challenges, advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) emerge as promising and efficient alternatives for CoC degradation and the prevention of environmental pollution. Notably, no prior studies have explored the management and mitigation of these contaminants through AOP application within various aqueous matrices in Uganda. This review emphasizes the necessity of specific regulations, improved data collection, and public awareness campaigns, offering recommendations for advanced wastewater treatment implementation, the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, and the enforcement of source control measures. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of further research to bridge knowledge gaps and devise effective policies and interventions. Ultimately, this comprehensive analysis equips readers, policymakers, and regulators with vital knowledge for informed decision-making, policy development, and the protection of public health and the environment.

1. Introduction

Environmental pollution, with its multifaceted dimensions, is a growing concern worldwide, with developing countries often facing the brunt of its consequences [1,2,3,4]. This issue has escalated due to the rapid industrialization, urbanization, and modernization processes taking place across the world [1,2]. These processes have led to the release of a diverse array of pollutants into various environmental compartments, giving rise to the concept of “contaminants of concern (CoCs)” [5]. These CoCs, often originating from new technologies, industrial processes, and urban activities, have the potential to pose significant ecological and human health risks [6,7].
CoCs encompass a wide array of substances, including emerging contaminants (Ecs) and legacy contaminants, both raising heightened environmental and public health concerns. Ecs include previously unidentified or underrecognized substances, such as industrial byproducts, pharmaceutical residues, pesticides, personal care products, flame retardants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated compounds (PCBs), mycotoxins, and microplastics, whose presence and potential environmental implications were not widely known, necessitating ongoing investigations [8,9,10,11]. In contrast, legacy contaminants are well-established and regulated, with documented adverse consequences for ecosystems and public health. This category comprises familiar contaminants such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [4,12,13,14].
Notably, many of these CoCs, particularly Ecs, currently lack established regulatory standards, demanding continuous monitoring due to their bioaccumulation potential, and persistence in various environmental compartments [15]. Understanding their presence, sources, distribution, and potential impacts is essential for sustainable environmental management and public health protection [16]. However, the scarcity of data regarding their occurrence, transport, and fate, and the absence of standardized detection methods are significant challenges. Advanced analytical chemistry and instrumentation have played a pivotal role in revealing these substances, with the ability to detect them at minute concentrations, often in parts per trillion (ppt) or even parts per quadrillion (ppq). These substances enter water bodies, soil, and the atmosphere through various pathways, including industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, improper waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition as illustrated in Figure 1, where they persist, accumulate in organisms, and potentially cause adverse effects [4,5,17,18,19].
Uganda, renowned for its rich biodiversity and stunning landscapes, faces mounting challenges with the rise of CoCs. These pose significant threats to the country’s ecosystems, public health, and socio-economic development [4,20,21]. Uganda’s contribution to the continent’s overall contaminant pollution is estimated to be between 6–8%, primarily resulting from rapid urbanization, industrial growth, importation of electric waste, and intensified agricultural practices, all contributing to the release of various contaminants into the environment [21]. These developments have triggered concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of the region [21,22,23]. Furthermore, the status of ambient air quality in Uganda presents alarming figures, with PM2.5 mass concentrations exceeding the US 24 h PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS; 35 μg/m3) and the WHO air quality guidelines (25 μg/m3) by three to four times, highlighting a dangerous level of air pollution, particularly detrimental to susceptible populations such as children and the elderly [24]. The impacts of these contaminants can be profoundly detrimental to both the environment and human health. They have been associated with ecosystem disruption [25], biodiversity loss, hormonal imbalances in wildlife, and reproductive impairments [3,20,26,27]. In humans, exposure to these pollutants has been linked to various health issues, including endocrine disruption, developmental abnormalities, neurological disorders, and increased risks of certain cancers [28,29]. Despite considerable efforts to monitor and regulate legacy contaminants, the knowledge about different types of CoCs and their impact on Ugandan ecosystems and public health remains limited. The persistence and potential adverse effects of CoCs raise significant concerns as these substances are characterized by their diverse behavior and sources of production, making their detection and characterization challenging. Some CoCs, previously identified as “legacy persistent organic pollutants”, have been restricted under the Stockholm Convention due to their environmental persistence, wide distribution, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity to humans and wildlife [15]. The detection of these CoCs necessitates the use of sophisticated analytical techniques capable of detecting trace levels of these compounds in environmental matrices.
Several studies in Uganda have investigated the sources, presence, and concentrations of CoCs in various environmental systems, revealing a range of compounds, including pharmaceutical residues, personal care products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, microplastics, and heavy metals. However, concentrations vary depending on the sampling location, environmental matrix, and analytical techniques employed. Several researchers have employed various analytical methods, including liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), to assess the presence and concentrations of CoCs in different environmental compartments [30]. The diverse nature of CoCs necessitates a comprehensive investigation of their occurrence in various matrices, including surface water bodies (lakes, rivers, and wetlands), groundwater, sediments, soils, air, and biota (aquatic and terrestrial organisms). Understanding the distribution and concentrations of CoCs in various environmental compartments is crucial for assessing their potential risks and designing effective management strategies.
Several studies conducted in Uganda have investigated the sources, presence, and concentrations of CoCs in various environmental systems, including water bodies [31,32], sediments [31,33], surface waters [34,35,36], food crops [37,38], edible insects [39], breastmilk [40], and fish [34]. These studies have identified a range of compounds, including pharmaceutical residues like antibiotics and analgesics [30,41,42], personal care products like fragrances and UV filters [43], pesticides like herbicides and insecticides [31,39,44,45], industrial chemicals like flame retardants and plasticizers [40,43,46], microplastics, and heavy metals [32,47,48]. The reported concentrations of these CoCs exhibit variation depending on the sampling location, environmental matrix, and analytical techniques used. For example, antibiotics have been detected in surface waters at concentrations ranging from 1 ng/L to 5600 ng/L, highlighting the potential ecological impact of pharmaceutical pollution [30,42]. However, there is limited information on healthcare professionals’ disposal methods and adherence to disposal guidelines in Uganda, particularly for pharmaceutical waste [42]. This lack of data, combined with the absence of robust national guidelines and low compliance with existing protocols, heightens the risk of environmental contamination and the ingestion of toxic pharmaceutical waste by humans and animals. Likewise, various chemicals, including pesticides [31,49], perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) [50], personal care products [43], and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [40], have been observed in surface waters, occasionally exceeding regulatory limits, indicating potential threats to agricultural productivity and human health [23,42,51]. The contamination of surface waters by these emerging contaminants poses a considerable public health concern, similar to the concerns raised in previous studies [42]. In addition, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents have been identified as significant sources of contamination in Uganda, with some compounds poorly degrading due to a lack of specific treatment methods for organic pollutants [41,42,51,52,53]. The role of hospitals and households in the pharmaceutical contamination of WWTPs is concerning [30,54]. Urban discharges, including separate or combined sewer overflows, can impact receiving waters in Uganda, similar to other regions. Urban stormwaters contain a variety of contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), alkylphenols, and pesticides, contributing to the pollution of surface waters in urban areas [21,41,42,50,51,52,55]. Furthermore, Uganda faces challenges related to the importation and management of electronic waste (E-waste) due to its poor recycling infrastructure, reliance on informal sectors with crude dismantling, and artisanal recycling techniques [56,57,58,59]. As a result, Uganda’s soil, water, and air are contaminated with substances such as brominated flame retardants, non-dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PAHs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PBDFs), and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs) [35,40,43,46,60,61]. The crude activities involved in E-waste management, including waste dumping in agricultural farmlands and water bodies, further exacerbate environmental pollution in Uganda [56,59].
Beyond the context of Uganda, various African regions, covering approximately 17 percent of the continent’s countries, have also reported the presence of CoCs. Notably, 59 percent of these occurrences stem from studies conducted in South Africa, with contributions of 9 percent each from Tunisia and Nigeria, along with 7 percent from Kenya [62,63,64,65]. The documentation of CoCs extends throughout the African landscape, including sediments, sludge, treated drinking water, surface water, wastewater, groundwater, and solid deposits. However, limited knowledge about contaminant sources, pathways, properties, and analytical detection techniques hampers the systematic inclusion of CoCs in groundwater monitoring and protection policies. Improper disposal practices further exacerbate Uganda’s CoC issues [28,53,58]. The improper disposal of expired medications and electronic waste presents additional risks to the environment and human health [58,66]. The indiscriminate disposal of pharmaceutical waste and the lack of adequate protocols for drug disposal contribute to potential water and soil contamination. The improper recycling and open burning of electronic waste introduce substances such as brominated flame retardants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins into the environment, polluting soil, water, and air [35,67].
This systematic review aimed to provide a holistic understanding of the status, sources, and impacts of CoCs in Uganda. It offers valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders, ultimately guiding the development of evidence-based interventions and fostering sustainable practices that protect Uganda’s natural resources and promote a healthier environment for future generations. Importantly, this review article serves as a critical resource for raising awareness about the prevalence and implications of CoCs in Uganda. It underscores the urgency of addressing these pollutants’ sources and effects, both in Uganda and across Africa. By shedding light on the multifaceted challenges posed by contaminants of emerging concern, this article equips readers with essential knowledge for implementing effective management and mitigation strategies. It provides a foundation for informed decision-making, the development of sustainable environmental policies, and the protection of public health, ecosystems, and the country’s long-term socio-economic development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This review followed a comprehensive and structured approach to assess the state of CoCs in Uganda. The review was guided by the established methodologies for systematic reviews, including a systematic search strategy, data extraction, and quality assessment of selected studies.

2.2. Search Strategy

A systematic search of relevant literature was conducted to identify studies on CoCs in Uganda. Multiple electronic databases, such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, were searched using appropriate keywords and Boolean operators. The search terms included combinations such as “contaminants of concern, Uganda”, “emerging contaminants in Uganda”, or “Emerging pollutants in surface water, Uganda”, “Emerging contaminants in soils, Uganda”, or “Emerging contaminants in the air, Uganda”, or “Emerging contaminants in wastewater, Uganda”, and related terms. The search was limited to studies published in English up until the cutoff date of this review (September 2023).

2.3. Study Selection

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were predefined to ensure the selection of studies relevant to the topic. Studies that focused on the identification, characterization, and assessment of CoC concentrations in Uganda were included. Both peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, such as reports and conference proceedings, were considered. Studies that did not specifically address CoCs in Uganda or lacked sufficient data were excluded.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data was extracted from the selected studies using a standardized data extraction form. The information collected included study characteristics (e.g., authors, year of publication), study design, sampling methods, analytical techniques, types of CoCs investigated, pollutant sources and concentrations, and any reported impacts or observations. The extracted data were organized comprehensively for further analysis and synthesis.

2.5. Quality Assessment

The quality and reliability of the selected studies were assessed to ensure the inclusion of robust and valid data. Quality assessment criteria were developed based on established guidelines for systematic reviews. The criteria included study design, sample representativeness, data collection methods, analytical techniques, and reporting clarity. Each study was independently evaluated by two reviewers, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus.

2.6. Data Analysis and Synthesis

The extracted data was analyzed and synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of CoCs in Uganda. The data were summarized descriptively, highlighting key findings regarding the nature, sources, distribution, and potential impacts of the identified pollutants. Where applicable, quantitative data were synthesized using appropriate statistical methods. The results were presented in tables, figures, and narrative summaries.

2.7. Limitations

The review had potential limitations including the inclusive consideration of English-language studies, which may introduce language bias. Additionally, the review was limited to the available literature only until September 2023, possibly overlooking newer studies. Challenges in data synthesis and comparison may arise due to variations in methodologies and data reporting across different studies. Notably, being a literature review, ethical approval was not required; however, all selected studies were conducted adhered to ethical guidelines, and obtained appropriate ethical clearance where applicable.

3. Results and Discussion

In this review, a comprehensive analysis of 177 articles was conducted to investigate the presence and concentrations of CoCs in Uganda. Employing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart facilitated the study selection process, providing a transparent overview of the search and screening procedure (see Figure 2) [68]. We initially identified 887 articles from various electronic databases. After the elimination of duplicate entries, 859 articles remained in the pool. Subsequently, we screened the titles and abstracts of these articles for relevance, leading to the exclusion of 214 articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Following the elimination of irrelevant articles, we sought the retrieval of the remaining 645 articles, while 305 articles could not be retrieved. We then carefully assessed the full texts of the remaining 340 articles for eligibility. After a meticulous evaluation, we excluded an additional 163 articles due to inadequate data or irrelevance, which ultimately resulted in the inclusion of 177 studies in the systematic review. A detailed summary of the characteristics of the included studies can be found in Table 1. This summary provides information such as author names, publication year, the classes of pollutants investigated, the areas of detection, sources, and concentrations in different environmental systems. The selected studies utilized a wide range of research approaches, including laboratory analyses, field studies, and monitoring programs.
This systematic review successfully identified more than 194 CoC in Uganda, which were subsequently categorized into 12 major classifications, as illustrated in Figure 3. These classifications encompass pharmaceuticals, pesticides, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), personal care products, heavy metals, hydrocarbon compounds, biotoxins, radionuclides, electromagnetic radiations, microplastics, disinfection byproducts, and particulates, with detailed information provided in Table 1 and Table 2.
The findings from these studies yield valuable insights into the state of CoCs in Uganda, shedding light on their potential implications for both human and environmental health. This diversity underscores the complex nature of pollution sources, arising from urbanization, industrial activities, agricultural practices, and improper waste management, highlighting the pressing need for comprehensive monitoring and assessment programs to better understand their occurrence, behavior, and potential risks to the environment and human health. One prominent category revealed in the reviewed studies is the pharmaceutical compounds. Antibiotics, analgesics, hormones, and antidepressants have been detected in various environmental matrices such as water bodies and soils. These compounds enter the environment primarily through wastewater discharge and improper disposal of unused medications, raising concerns about ecological impacts and antibiotic resistance [30,42].

4. Challenges of CoCs in Uganda

4.1. Sources, Occurrence, Fate, and Transport of CoCs in Uganda

Several studies conducted in Uganda have identified and quantified various classes of CoCs in different environmental matrices, including WWTP and industrial effluents, surface and groundwater, food items, air, sediments, edible insects, and soil. Surface waters were identified with the highest pollution levels (58%) for all the detected CoC in Uganda as illustrated in Figure 4. In addition, pharmaceutical residues, pesticides and POPs were the mostly detected CoC in all the available literature as illustrated in Figure 5. Furthermore, this review unveiled the distribution patterns and sources of CoCs in Uganda, shedding light on areas with substantial pollution loads. Urban areas, industrial zones, and agricultural regions emerged as the most prominent sources of both legacy and ECs in Uganda. Rapid urbanization sweeping across the country, coupled with inadequate waste management practices, are identified as the biggest contributors of most CoC that find their way into various environmental compartments in Uganda, contaminating both surface and groundwater resources [28,71,130]. Industrial activities on the other hand, are identified as the biggest contributors of multitudes of chemical byproducts into the various environmental matrices [41,48,50,87], followed by agricultural practices characterized by the application of pesticides and fertilizers, leading to significant soil and water pollution [69,77,78,81]. Additionally, the uncontrolled municipal waste disposal, WWTP effluents, and urban center runoffs are identified as the main drivers for the presence of most CoC in different matrices.
Considering all the 82 articles related to the occurrence of CoCs in Uganda out of 177 articles selected for this study, a total of 194 contaminants were detected in 121 districts out of the 136 in the five regions of the country and in different environmental matrices. Central Uganda which hosts the country’s capital city—Kampala emerged with the greatest pollution indices, attributed to the industrial growth and urban activities, this is followed by eastern Uganda where most of the industrial parks are located, then western Uganda renowned for agricultural activities, southern, and finally northern parts of Uganda with the least pollution indices as illustrated in Figure 6a.
Furthermore, these CoCs from different sources eventually find their way into various environmental compartments, including soil, rivers, lakes, air, and even drinking water where they accumulate. Pharmaceutical residues have the highest accumulation rate (21%), followed by the pesticides (17%) and the least is observed in microplastics from the available literature as illustrated in Figure 6b [131,132]. The introductions and accumulation of these compounds can have detrimental consequences for ecosystems and eventually humans. The fate and persistence of these contaminants are strongly influenced by the physicochemical properties of the environmental compartments they interact with as illustrated in Figure 7. The primary processes that dictate the fate of CoCs in the environment include their biodegradation rate, photodegradation rate, and sorption kinetics [4,133]. Humans and animals may consume these contaminants for diverse reasons, such as for medical or recreational purposes, including veterinary drugs in the case of animals or pesticides and herbicides used in agriculture. Upon ingestion, biotransformation processes occur, leading to the release of drug residues and metabolites into the environment. These substances, which can end up in water bodies or sewage systems, can adversely affect various organisms, from humans to large mammals and other life forms [134,135].
Sewage, which contains waste from residential, industrial, and clinical sources, is usually mixed in waste stabilization ponds, contributing to the chemical burden. This water is then reused in agriculture and aquaculture, and sludge, laden with active chemicals, is used as fertilizer. This reinserts active chemicals into the soil, ultimately leading to their presence in food crops. The consequence of this cycle is that active chemicals find their way into the food chain, taken up by plants and algae, leading to bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems. This can subsequently result in bioconcentration and biomagnification as they move through the food chain, as established by previous studies. This dynamic interaction between active chemicals, ecosystems, and human consumption highlights the need for comprehensive monitoring and assessment programs to understand their occurrence, behavior, and potential risks. Additionally, it underscores the importance of adopting measures to manage and mitigate the introduction and proliferation of these contaminants throughout the environment. The coalescence of these findings provides a holistic view of the sources and environmental fate of CoCs in Uganda, emphasizing the urgency of regulatory measures and sustainable practices to safeguard both ecosystems and human health.

4.1.1. CoCs in Ugandan Surface Waters

From the available literature, this review identified that about 58% of the surface waters are contaminated with a widespread CoC across Uganda. One prominent category revealed in the reviewed studies is the pharmaceutical compounds. Antibiotics, analgesics, hormones, and antidepressants, have been detected within various environmental matrices, particularly within water bodies. The concentration levels, for instance, ranging from 1–5600 ngL−1 in surface water samples at Murchison Bay of Lake Victoria strongly underscore their classification as CoC [30,42]. These compounds carry the potential for detrimental effects on aquatic organisms and ecosystems, with implications extending to the development of antibiotic resistance and disruption of endocrine systems [41,136].
Furthermore, numerous studies highlighted the widespread use of pesticides in Ugandan agriculture. These studies have identified multiple classes of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, in soil and water samples [49,78,81]. The detection of pesticide residues not only poses risks to human health but also bears environmental consequences, thus emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to proper pesticide management practices and promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural methods [44]. Moreover, the presence of microplastics within various water bodies, including lakes and rivers, and their occurrence within fish species consumed by humans, has been emphasized by several studies [125]. The ubiquitous distribution of microplastics in the environment raises concerns about their impact on aquatic ecosystems, further raising concerns about human ingestion through the food chain.
In addition to pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and microplastics, the presence of personal care products within water sources and aquatic ecosystems has been noted in multiple studies [30,73,77]. These products, which often contain substances like fragrances, UV filters, and preservatives, are commonly used in cosmetics and personal care items and find their way into the environment through various pathways. Detecting these chemicals in the environment highlights the imperative role of rigorous wastewater treatment practices, which are vital for preventing their release into water bodies. The potential consequences of these substances finding their way into water bodies include ecological impacts and potential human health concerns, making proper wastewater treatment a priority for mitigating these effects.

4.1.2. Urban Runoffs and Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) Effluents as Sources of CoCs

Wastewater has emerged as a significant source of CoCs in Uganda [43,52,137]. In WWTP effluents, a troubling array of substances, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and various chemical compounds, has been identified. Specifically, industrial and municipal wastewater originating from Kampala city, coursing through the Nakivubo channel, and emanating from the Bugolobi WWTP, have exhibited notable contamination [43]. A compelling example of this contamination includes the presence of 89–1400 ngL−1 of triclosan, an antibiotic found in soaps, toothpastes, and detergents detected in the effluents from Bugolobi WWTP [43]. Furthermore, the detection of 0.84–1.04 mg/kg of cadmium, a toxic heavy metal, in both the water and sediments of the Nakivubo channel, points to the detrimental impact of untreated industrial effluents on this drainage channel [33]. This worrisome trend can be attributed to inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure and practices, especially prevalent in urban areas and regions characterized by high population densities. The presence of these emerging CoCs in wastewater underscores the immediate necessity for improved treatment technologies and the implementation of stringent regulatory measures. These measures are imperative to ensure the removal or reduction of these contaminants before their discharge into the environment, thereby preventing further pollution and safeguarding aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, the effluents from the Bugolobi Wastewater Treatment Plant have been found to contain a concentration of 100–500 ngL−1 of diclofenac, a common pharmaceutical compound [41,42]. The presence of such pharmaceutical compounds within wastewater effluents is typically a result of improper disposal of unused medications and their discharge into the wastewater systems. This situation raises serious concerns about the potential ecological impacts and the development of antibiotic resistance, as well as the disruption of endocrine systems [30,42]. It is crucial to recognize that these contaminants, once present in wastewater, ultimately enter aquatic environments and ecosystems. In such environments, these substances can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms and ecosystems, potentially leading to the development of antibiotic resistance and disruption of endocrine systems, further emphasizing the urgency of addressing this issue comprehensively and effectively [41,136].

4.1.3. CoCs in Sediments

Sediments serve as a sink for pollutants, accumulating various contaminants of concern over time. The comprehensive review identified the presence of heavy metals [32], pesticides [31], and microplastics [55] in sediment samples from different water bodies in Uganda. The sources of sediment pollution were traced back to industrial activities, mining, and runoff from agricultural operations [104]. Of note, a study conducted by [33] detected substantial concentrations of lead, ranging from 79 to 138.18 mg/kg within both the water and sediments of the Nakivubo channel. The persistence of these contaminants in sediments raises significant concerns regarding potential long-term impacts on benthic organisms and the potential for their re-entry into the water column. Consequently, the implementation of effective sediment management strategies, including remediation efforts and the adoption of best management practices within industrial and agricultural sectors, becomes vital. Such measures are critical for minimizing the consequences of emerging CoCs on sediments and the ecosystems they are a part of.
Moreover, the systematic review unveiled reports detailing the occurrence of persistent organic pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans, in the Ugandan environment [35,40]. These toxic compounds, renowned for their resistance to degradation, were identified within both sediments and aquatic organisms, raising considerable concerns regarding potential health effects on humans consuming contaminated fish and other aquatic products.
In another context of this systematic review, there was a focus on the examination of heavy metal contamination in Uganda, focusing on metals like lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), and chromium (Cr) [32,33,47]. Elevated concentrations of heavy metals were attributed to industrial activities, mining, and urbanization. The accumulation of heavy metals within the environment can lead to adverse health effects on humans and contribute to ecological disruptions.

4.1.4. Ambient Air as a Transport Medium for CoCs in Uganda

Hydrocarbon compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene, were detected in soil and air samples across Uganda [67,69]. These compounds originate from various sources such as vehicle emissions, industrial processes, and the burning of biomass, highlighting the potential carcinogenic and toxic effects of hydrocarbon compounds. This emphasizes the importance of robust air quality management and the implementation of emission control measures.
Furthermore, the systematic review brought to light the occurrence of biotoxins, particularly mycotoxins, in agricultural products and food items. Aflatoxins and other fungal toxins were detected in crops such as maize and groundnuts [101,114,115,138]. Consuming mycotoxin-contaminated foods can pose significant health risks, including liver damage and cancer.
The review also identified reports on natural radionuclides such as uranium and thorium in soil and water samples [121,124]. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding potential exposure to electromagnetic radiations, including radiofrequency and microwaves, emanating from sources like mobile communication towers [56,58,66]. It is important to note that some CoCs can also be transported through the air. Airborne particles and gases can carry pollutants, including persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and microplastics, over long distances, leading to their deposition in ecosystems, including water bodies and soils. For instance, a study conducted by [24,128] measured 152.6 µg/m3 of PM2.5 and 208 µg/m3 of PM10 in air samples around the districts of Kampala, Jinja, and Mbarara in Uganda. Despite limited research on airborne emerging contaminants of concern, it is essential to consider the industrial growth, vehicular emissions, and open burning practices prevalent in specific regions, warranting further investigation into the potential presence and impacts of such contaminants in Uganda.
The review identified reports on disinfection byproducts, such as trihalomethanes (THMs), in drinking water supplies [126]. In addition, particulate matter, including fine and coarse particulates (PM2.5 and PM10), was also a subject of investigation in air quality studies [24,102,128].

4.1.5. CoCs Detected in Various Food Items Grown in Uganda

Although this comprehensive review primarily focused on the distribution of CoCs in various environmental matrices, it is crucial to address the potential transfer of these CoCs into the food chain. Contaminated water, soil, and sediments can contribute to the accumulation of contaminants in crops, aquatic organisms, and livestock. For example, processed peanuts contained 0.5–4.6 ppm of arsenic [101], and raw bovine milk and herbal medicines in the Kampala and Wakiso districts in Uganda were found to have 156.9 ppm of chromium. Such contamination poses risks to human health through the consumption of tainted food products, potentially leading to various health issues. The presence of pesticides, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical residues in food items can lead to acute or chronic health effects, such as pesticide toxicity or the introduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. To ensure food safety and minimize consumers’ exposure to these emerging contaminants of concern, the implementation of robust monitoring programs and adherence to good agricultural practices are imperative. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the nature, sources, distribution, and potential impacts of these contaminants in the country. The discussion of the results delves into key findings, and their implications, and offers recommendations for future research and policy interventions. The transfer of these contaminants into food crops and the subsequent effects on human health should be a subject of ongoing research to comprehensively address the broader implications of emerging pollutants in Uganda. Understanding the pathways and consequences of these contaminants in the food chain is vital for developing strategies to ensure food safety and protect human health.
The reviewed studies underscore the environmental impact of CoCs on ecosystems and biodiversity. These pollutants, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, heavy metals, and pesticides, have been identified in surface waters, posing significant risks to both human and aquatic organisms as shown in Figure 7. They have the potential to disrupt endocrine systems and reproductive processes Figure 8 [30,32,33,42,61]. Pesticide residues in soils can adversely affect soil health, microbial communities, and non-target organisms, contributing to ecological imbalances, as shown in [73,77].
Waterborne exposure to CoCs through drinking water sources can have lasting consequences, including antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption [30,40,42]. Contaminants accumulating in biota can propagate risks through the food chain, potentially causing acute toxicity, chronic health conditions, and further endocrine disruption [4,32,139]. Moreover, occupational exposure to these contaminants, particularly among workers in agriculture and waste management sectors, has been linked to various acute and chronic health effects.
In addition to these well-documented health effects, it is critical to consider the potential association of CoCs with cancer risks in Uganda. Emerging evidence from epidemiological studies suggests a concerning link between environmental exposures to CoCs and cancer incidence rates in Uganda, estimated to be around 109.9 and 99.9 per 100,000 in males and females [140]. Specifically, certain CoCs, such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, and specific pesticides, have been implicated in increasing the risk of cancer among exposed populations as illustrated in Table 3. Prolonged exposure to these substances through contaminated water sources, agricultural practices, and other routes could potentially elevate the cancer risk within the Ugandan population, emphasizing the urgency of comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation strategies. The complex interplay between CoCs and cancer risks requires further research and attention to safeguard the well-being of Ugandan communities.
The presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in Lake Victoria, a primary source of drinking water in Uganda, raises concerns about antibiotic resistance development and water resource contamination [30,73,77]. In agricultural areas like Kakira and Entebbe, pesticide residues have been identified in soils, surface waters, and crops, signifying ecological disruption and human exposure risks [31,73,77]. Urban areas have reported the presence of microplastics in various environmental compartments, including water bodies, soils, and the air, suggesting potential impacts on human health and the environment [125]. Addressing these emerging CoCs is essential to safeguard ecosystems, biodiversity, and human health in Uganda. These risks are not confined to aquatic environments. Airborne emerging contaminants of concern, including volatile organic solvents, different particles like microplastics and engineered nanoparticles, and bio-aerosols, can infiltrate the human body through inhalation, dermal contact, or ingestion, leading to a range of health issues [3,4,17,141].
Waterborne CoCs, primarily stemming from agricultural, industrial, and domestic activities, can contaminate surface water, groundwater, municipal wastewater, and drinking water sources [5,17]. Microplastics, a notable emerging pollutant in water, accumulate various contaminants as they traverse the food chain, amplifying the risk [5,55,125,142]. The contamination of surface waters, including rivers and lakes, with CoCs like pesticides, pharmaceuticals, perfluorinated alkylated substances, and personal care products, has become a growing concern due to its potential harm to freshwater resources and public health. Furthermore, CoCs can also jeopardize groundwater quality, which serves as a critical source of fresh water for various purposes. While traditional pollutants are well-regulated, the emergence of new substances with uncertain immediate effects presents a substantial challenge to groundwater protection.
Figure 8. Health effects of some CoCs on human body systems (adapted from [143]).
Figure 8. Health effects of some CoCs on human body systems (adapted from [143]).
Pollutants 03 00037 g008

5. Current Monitoring and Regulation Efforts in Uganda

In Uganda, a concerted effort has been made to monitor and assess emerging contaminants of concern, seeking to understand their presence, concentrations, and potential risks to the environment and public health. Collaborative initiatives with institutions like the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) have played a crucial role in environmental management and hotspot identification [144]. The Ministry of Water and Environment, particularly the Directorate of Water Resources Management, conducts routine water quality assessments, extending their scope to encompass emerging CoCs in surface waters, groundwater, and drinking water sources. Furthermore, academic and research institutions, including universities and research centers, actively contribute to monitoring by evaluating these contaminants in various environmental compartments and providing valuable scientific insights to inform policymaking.
While Uganda has made significant progress in monitoring contaminants of concern, challenges persist in their effective regulation and management. Existing regulatory mechanisms, spearheaded by NEMA, establish a foundation for addressing these pollutants through environmental regulations, guidelines, and standards [144,145]. However, opportunities for improvement exist, particularly in the formulation of comprehensive, targeted regulations dedicated to CoCs and improved data collection and accessibility. Constraints in monitoring capacity and resource availability hinder the implementation of comprehensive, routine monitoring programs. Therefore, there is a pressing need to expand research efforts to deepen our understanding of the prevalence, fate, and impacts of contaminants of concern. Access to comprehensive data is pivotal for the development of effective mitigation strategies.
It is imperative to strengthen technical expertise and monitoring capabilities regarding CoCs, necessitating the use of advanced analytical techniques and fostering collaboration between research institutions and regulatory bodies. Additionally, refining regulatory frameworks to specifically address CoCs, including the formulation of guidelines and standards, is vital. Raising awareness among the public, policymakers, and industries is also imperative and can be achieved through educational and outreach programs that promote responsible practices and sustainable alternatives. By addressing these gaps and challenges, Uganda can significantly enhance its monitoring, regulation, and management of contaminants of concern.

6. Mitigation Strategies and Future Directions for Addressing Risks Posed by CoCs

Addressing the risks posed by CoCs, both in Uganda and on a global scale, is a complex challenge requiring effective approaches and advanced technologies. In the Ugandan context, upgrading wastewater treatment systems is paramount, and this can be achieved through the implementation of advanced technologies such as advanced oxidation, activated carbon adsorption, and membrane filtration, which have demonstrated their effectiveness in removing a wide range of CoCs, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other emerging pollutants [4,146,147,148]. Furthermore, promoting sustainable agricultural practices is essential in mitigating CoC risks. Techniques like integrated pest management (IPM) and organic farming offer promising avenues to reduce pesticide usage, a common source of contamination. Implementing source control measures and improving waste management practices can effectively prevent the release of CoCs. Encouraging the adoption of green chemistry principles and developing eco-friendly alternatives are key steps in minimizing the generation and release of CoCs. While these strategies are well-established globally, it is noteworthy that there has been a lack of studies conducted in Uganda regarding the mitigation, prevention, or remediation of CoCs. However, based on the removal efficiencies provided in Table 4, AOPs stand out as the most promising option, with treatment efficiencies ranging from 95 to 99%.
On a global scale, the management of CoCs also presents a multifaceted challenge due to its diverse sources and potential ecological and human health risks [5,149]. To mitigate these concerns, different efficient treatment and removal strategies have been explored of which some have shown promising results in elimination. CoCs often found in industrial and municipal wastewater are resistant to conventional treatment methods, necessitating the application of advanced treatment technologies. Among the explored methods, include physicochemical and biological processes, such as sand and media filtration, chlorination, advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), adsorption using granular activated carbon, zeolite, hydrolysis processes, constructed wetlands, membrane bioreactors, phytoremediation, and biosorption, all of which offer distinct advantages in treating effluents contaminated with CoCs, as illustrated in Table 4 [150,151]. Biological processes, in particular, have played a crucial role in addressing the challenge of CoCs in wastewater [152,153]. Constructed wetlands have shown promise, offering low-energy, cost-effective, and efficient treatment of organics and nutrients. While much of the research on CoC removal in constructed wetlands has been conducted on a small scale, there is potential for larger-scale implementation. Biological membrane reactors (MBRs) have proven effective for CoC removal, achieving substantial efficiency, especially when combined with other treatment methods like ozonation and activated carbon. Anaerobic MBRs, with their biogas generation and high-efficiency biodegradation of emerging pollutants, are gaining traction. Additionally, biosorption, a biological treatment technology that utilizes various materials from biomass as adsorbents, has emerged as an eco-friendly option. It offers low costs due to the abundance of biomass, possibilities for regeneration, and high selectivity [154]. This method has demonstrated its effectiveness in the removal of emerging pollutants from secondary and tertiary effluents, particularly pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and other persistent pollutants [155,156].
Table 4. Advantages, challenges, removal efficacies, and treatment efficiencies of different technologies in the removal of contaminants of concern.
Table 4. Advantages, challenges, removal efficacies, and treatment efficiencies of different technologies in the removal of contaminants of concern.
Treatment MethodAdvantagesChallengesContaminants RemovedTreatment Efficiency (%)References
Conventional Methods
CoagulationEffective for suspended particles and some heavy metals with relatively low operational costsChemical costs Sludge disposal can be problematicPesticides, heavy metals80–95%[157,158]
FlocculationEffective for particulate matter Chemical usage and residual disposalHeavy metals, [157,158]
SedimentationCost-effective and reduces suspended solidsInefficient for dissolved contaminants Large space requirementsSuspended solids, radionuclides60–90%[159]
Filtration (Sand/Granular Media)Effective for removing a wide range of contaminantsClogging and frequent backwashingTurbidity, bacteria, protozoa, microplastics95–99%[157,160]
Unconventional
Membrane Filtration,Robust against variations in waterfouling and scaling issues in membranesMicroplastics, pharmaceuticals4–56%[157,161]
Activated Carbon Adsorption)Removes most contaminantsEnergy intensive for preparation of activated carbonPersonal care products, hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, biotoxins, and mycotoxins99.7%[162,163]
Membrane bioreactors (MBR)Sustainable and breaks down organic matter Slower treatment compared to other methodsOrganic compounds, pharmaceuticals70–90%[164,165]
Constructed wetlandsCost-effective natural system, effective for wastewaterSeasonal performance variability, limited removal of some contaminantsPathogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, pharmaceutical residues74–99%[164,165]
Chemical processes
Advanced Oxidation Processes [AOP]Effective for breaking down organic compoundsHigh operational costsOrganic compounds, pesticides, pharmaceuticals95–99%[166,167]
Chemical extraction/Solvent extractionEffective for the removal of heavy metals, applicable to a wide range of contaminant removalHigh operational costs, potential risks associated with solventsModel pollutants, bromocresol green, and phenols, oil-based drilling cuttings99%[168,169]
Fenton and Photo-Fenton oxidationDegradation and mineralization of persistent organic compoundsDifficult to treat large volumes of wastewaterOrganic pollutants in cosmetic water95%[170,171]
Photocatalysis (TiO2)High reaction rates upon using a catalystCost associated with artificial UV lamps and electricityPharmaceuticals, volatile organic compounds, synthetic dyes, and biocides90%[172,173]
Physical processes
Ultraviolet (UV) DisinfectionNo chemical addition Effective for disinfection and low energy consumptionIneffectiveness against organic contaminantsPersistent organic pollutants, pharmaceuticals91.1%[174]
Filtration (Membrane)Effective for removing microorganisms and nanoparticlesMembrane fouling High operational costsMicroorganisms, nanoparticles90–99%[175,176]
Micro or UltrafiltrationEffective removal of pathogensNot fully effective in removing some EPs as pore sizes vary from 100 to 1000 times, larger than the micropollutants, membrane foulingMicro- and nano-plastics for particles larger than 100 μm86.5–99.9%[177]
Reverse OsmosisRemoves a wide range of contaminants, including saltsHigh energy requirements, membrane foulingDissolved salts, particles, colloids, organic compounds, bacteria, and pyrogens90–99%[178,179]
To facilitate effective monitoring, regulation, and enforcement of CoCs in Uganda, it is crucial to establish dedicated regulations accompanied by guidelines, standards, and monitoring requirements. Increasing funding and resources for monitoring programs, coupled with the capacity building for regulatory agencies and research institutions, will strengthen oversight and enforcement. Improving data collection and sharing mechanisms will enhance our understanding of the presence and distribution of CoCs. Conducting public awareness campaigns is a valuable tool to educate the public about emerging pollutants, specifically CoCs, and promote responsible practices and sustainable alternatives. These policy recommendations will contribute to the effective monitoring, regulation, and management of emerging pollutants in Uganda.
Research gaps regarding the occurrence, impact, ecological effects, presence in food crops and livestock, fate and transport mechanisms, and potential health risks associated with exposure to CoCs need to be bridged. Addressing these gaps will provide a better understanding of emerging pollutants and inform the development of effective policies and interventions aimed at minimizing their environmental and health effects, safeguarding natural resources, and securing the well-being of the population.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

In this comprehensive review, we conducted a thorough assessment of CoCs in Uganda, highlighting their sources, distribution, and potential impacts. Our findings reveal the pervasive presence of a diverse array of these contaminants, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and microplastics, across various environmental compartments in Uganda. Notably, higher concentrations are observed in urban, agricultural, and industrial areas. The primary drivers of CoC release are rapid urbanization, inadequate waste management, industrial activities, and prevailing agricultural practices.
The implications of these findings are profound, with the potential to harm ecosystems, biodiversity, and human health. To effectively address these challenges, it is imperative to establish robust policies and regulations. Strengthening waste management practices, promoting sustainable agriculture, and implementing pollution control measures are critical steps in reducing the impact of CoCs. Moreover, comprehensive and continuous monitoring programs should be established to track pollutant levels and assess their long-term impacts.
To effectively address the challenges posed by CoCs in Uganda, several recommendations are proposed. Firstly, further research is crucial to fill existing knowledge gaps, particularly in assessing ecological effects, the presence of contaminants in the air, understanding their fate and transport mechanisms, and comprehensively studying their long-term impacts on human health. Strengthening monitoring programs, enhancing technical capabilities, and promoting data sharing and accessibility are essential to track pollutant levels and assess their enduring effects. Additionally, it is imperative to improve regulatory frameworks with a specific focus on contaminants of concern. This includes setting guidelines, standards, and monitoring requirements. Public awareness campaigns should be initiated to educate the community on responsible practices and sustainable alternatives. The promotion of sustainable practices across various sectors in Uganda and Africa is essential. Collaboration among government agencies, research institutions, industries, and the public is paramount. By prioritizing research, implementing effective mitigation strategies, and refining regulatory frameworks, Uganda can work towards minimizing the release and impact of contaminants of concern. This concerted effort will contribute to sustainable environmental management, the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the reduction of risks to public health, ensuring a cleaner and healthier environment for present and future generations.

Author Contributions

G.B. (Gabson Baguma): literature editing, manuscript writing, and conceptualization, G.B. (Gadson Bamanya): literature search and draft manuscript, W.A.: literature search, A.G.: draft manuscript, and P.O.: literature search and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received no funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

All authors have read and given consent to the publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this review have been included in this published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of George William Kajjumba, University of South Africa, SA, and Hannington Twinomuhwezi, Kampala International University (KIU), for their input during the manuscript development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed in this published article.

References

  1. McMichael, A.J. The urban environment and health in a world of increasing globalization: Issues for developing countries. Bull. World Health Organ. 2000, 78, 1117–1126. [Google Scholar]
  2. Santhakumari, M.; Sagar, N. The Environmental Threats Our World Is Facing Today. In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management; Hussain, C., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bunke, D.; Moritz, S.; Brack, W.; Herráez, D.L.; Posthuma, L.; Nuss, M. Developments in society and implications for emerging pollutants in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2019, 31, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gavrilescu, M.; Demnerová, K.; Aamand, J.; Agathos, S.; Fava, F. Emerging pollutants in the environment: Present and future challenges in biomonitoring, ecological risks, and bioremediation. New Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Geissen, V.; Mol, H.; Klumpp, E.; Umlauf, G.; Nadal, M.; van der Ploeg, M.; van de Zee, S.E.A.T.M.; Ritsema, C.J. Emerging pollutants in the environment: A challenge for water resource management. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2015, 3, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Calvo-Flores, F.G.; Isac-García, J.; Dobado, J.A. Emerging Pollutants: Origin, Structure and Properties; John Wiley & Sons: Weinheim, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  7. Xu, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, H.; Xu, S.; Du, J.; Chen, Y.; Ma, C.; Tang, J. Concentration, distribution, source apportionment, and risk assessment of surrounding soil PAHs in industrial and rural areas: A comparative study. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, B.; Zhang, S.; Chang, C.-C. Emerging Pollutants—Part II: Treatment. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 1792–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bell, K.Y.; Bandy, J.; Beck, S.; Keen, O.; Kolankowsky, N.; Parker, A.M.; Linden, K. Emerging Pollutants—Part II: Treatment. Water Environ. Res. 2012, 84, 1909–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahmed, M.B.; Zhou, J.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Xu, J. Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant removal from wastewater: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 323, 274–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Daughton, C.G. Non-regulated water contaminants: Emerging research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 711–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pitarch, E.; Cervera, M.I.; Portolés, T.; Ibáñez, M.; Barreda, M.; Renau-Pruñonosa, A.; Morell, I.; López, F.; Albarrán, F.; Hernández, F. Comprehensive monitoring of organic micro-pollutants in surface and groundwater in the surrounding of a solid-waste treatment plant of Castellón, Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 548–549, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Murray, K.E.; Thomas, S.M.; Bodour, A.A. Prioritizing research for trace pollutants and emerging contaminants in the freshwater environment. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 3462–3471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pal, A.; Gin, K.Y.H.; Lin, A.Y.C.; Reinhard, M. Impacts of emerging organic contaminants on freshwater resources: Review of recent occurrences, sources, fate, and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 6062–6069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, X.; Gao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Pan, Y. Emerging persistent organic pollutants in Chinese Bohai Sea and its coastal regions. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 608231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bao, L.J.; Wei, Y.L.; Yao, Y.; Ruan, Q.Q.; Zeng, E.Y. Global trends of research on emerging contaminants in the environment and humans: A literature assimilation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 1635–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vasilachi, I.C.; Asiminicesei, D.M.; Fertu, D.I.; Gavrilescu, M. Occurrence and fate of emerging pollutants in water environment and options for their removal. Water 2021, 13, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kumar, A.; Singh, K.; Dixit, U.; Ahmad Bhat, R.; Prakash Gupta, S. Removal of Arsenic—“A Silent Killer” in the Environment by Adsorption Methods. In Arsenic Monitoring, Removal and Remediation; Stoytcheva, M., Zlatev, R., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. Patel, A.B.; Shaikh, S.; Jain, K.R.; Desai, C.; Madamwar, D. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Sources, Toxicity, and Remediation Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 562813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murray, F.; McGranahan, G.; Kuylenstierna, J.C.I. Assessing health effects of air pollution in developing countries. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2001, 130, 1799–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pierre, F.; Wondwosen, S. Assessment of the environment pollution and its impact on economic cooperation and integration initiatives of the IGAD region. In National Environment Pollution Report—Djibouti; Research Gate 2016, Technical report, 3 February; IGAD: Djibouti City, Djibouti, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  22. Matagi, S.V. Some issues of environmental concern in Kampala, the capital city of Uganda. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2002, 77, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akurut, M.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Willems, P. Long-term variations of water quality in the Inner Murchison Bay, Lake Victoria. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kirenga, B.J.; Meng, Q.; Van Gemert, F.; Aanyu-Tukamuhebwa, H.; Chavannes, N.; Katamba, A.; Obai, G.; Van Der Molen, T.; Schwander, S.; Mohsenin, V. The state of ambient air quality in two Ugandan cities: A pilot cross-sectional spatial assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 8075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dulio, V.; van Bavel, B.; Brorström-Lundén, E.; Harmsen, J.; Hollender, J.; Schlabach, M.; Slobodnik, J.; Thomas, K.; Koschorreck, J. Emerging pollutants in the EU: 10 years of NORMAN in support of environmental policies and regulations. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sharma, V.K.; Zboril, R.; McDonald, T.J. Formation and toxicity of brominated disinfection byproducts during chlorination and chloramination of water: A review. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2014, 49, 212–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lee, Y.J. Potential health effects of emerging environmental contaminants perfluoroalkyl compounds. Yeungnam Univ. J. Med. 2018, 35, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kulabako, R.N.; Nalubega, M.; Wozei, E.; Thunvik, R. Environmental health practices, constraints and possible interventions in peri-urban settlements in developing countries—A review of Kampala, Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2010, 20, 231–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Haddaoui, I.; Mateo-Sagasta, J. A review on occurrence of emerging pollutants in waters of the MENA region. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 68090–68110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Nantaba, F.; Wasswa, J.; Kylin, H.; Palm, W.U.; Bouwman, H.; Kümmerer, K. Occurrence, distribution, and ecotoxicological risk assessment of selected pharmaceutical compounds in water from Lake Victoria, Uganda. Chemosphere 2020, 239, 124642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wasswa, J.; Kiremire, B.T.; Nkedi-Kizza, P.; Mbabazi, J.; Ssebugere, P. Organochlorine pesticide residues in sediments from the Uganda side of Lake Victoria. Chemosphere 2011, 82, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Baguma, G.; Musasizi, A.; Twinomuhwezi, H.; Gonzaga, A.; Nakiguli, C.K.; Onen, P.; Angiro, C.; Okwir, A.; Opio, B.; Otema, T.; et al. Heavy Metal Contamination of Sediments from an Exoreic African Great Lakes’ Shores (Port Bell, Lake Victoria), Uganda. Pollutants 2022, 2, 407–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sekabira, K.; Origa, H.O.; Basamba, T.A.; Mutumba, G.; Kakudidi, E. Assessment of heavy metal pollution in the urban stream sediments and its tributaries. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ogwok, P.; Muyonga, J.H.; Sserunjogi, M.L. Pesticide residues and heavy metals in Lake Victoria Nile Perch, Lates niloticus, Belly Flap Oil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 82, 529–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ssebugere, P.; Sillanpää, M.; Kiremire, B.T.; Kasozi, G.N.; Wang, P.; Sojinu, S.O.; Otieno, P.O.; Zhu, N.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, H.; et al. Polychlorinated biphenyls and hexachlorocyclohexanes in sediments and fish species from the Napoleon Gulf of Lake Victoria, Uganda. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 481, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Abondio, R.B.; Komakech, A.J.; Kambugu, R.K.; Kiggundu, N.; Wanyama, J.; Zziwa, A.; Kyamanywa, S. Assessment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste, as a Potential Feedstock for Briquette Production in Kampala, Uganda. J. Sustain. Bioenergy Syst. 2020, 10, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khalid, S.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.K.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Dumat, C. A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 182, 247–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Amusan, A.A.; Ige, D.V.; Olawale, R. Characteristics of Soils and Crops’ Uptake of Metals in Municipal Waste Dump Sites in Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 2005, 17, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Labu, S.; Subramanian, S.; Cheseto, X.; Akite, P.; Kasangaki, P.; Chemurot, M.; Tanga, C.M.; Salifu, D.; Egonyu, J.P. Agrochemical contaminants in six species of edible insects from Uganda and Kenya. Curr. Res. Insect Sci. 2022, 2, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Matovu, H.; Li, Z.M.; Henkelmann, B.; Bernhöft, S.; De Angelis, M.; Schramm, K.W.; Sillanpää, M.; Kato, C.D.; Ssebugere, P. Multiple persistent organic pollutants in mothers’ breastmilk: Implications for infant dietary exposure and maternal thyroid hormone homeostasis in Uganda, East Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 145262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Dalahmeh, S.; Björnberg, E.; Elenström, A.K.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Komakech, A.J. Pharmaceutical pollution of water resources in Nakivubo wetlands and Lake Victoria, Kampala, Uganda. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kayiwa, R.; Kasedde, H.; Lubwama, M.; Kirabira, J.B.; Kayondo, T. Occurrence and toxicological assessment of selected active pharmaceutical ingredients in effluents of pharmaceutical manufacturing plants and wastewater treatment plants in Kampala, Uganda. Water Pract. Technol. 2022, 17, 852–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nantaba, F.; Palm, W.U.; Wasswa, J.; Bouwman, H.; Kylin, H.; Kümmerer, K. Temporal dynamics and ecotoxicological risk assessment of personal care products, phthalate ester plasticizers, and organophosphorus flame retardants in water from Lake Victoria, Uganda. Chemosphere 2021, 262, 127716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kampire, E.; Kiremire, B.T.; Nyanzi, S.A.; Kishimba, M. Organochlorine pesticide in fresh and pasteurized cow’s milk from Kampala markets. Chemosphere 2011, 84, 923–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Oltramare, C.; Weiss, F.T.; Staudacher, P.; Kibirango, O.; Atuhaire, A.; Stamm, C. Pesticides monitoring in surface water of a subsistence agricultural catchment in Uganda using passive samplers. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 10312–10328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Arinaitwe, K.; Muir, D.C.G.; Kiremire, B.T.; Fellin, P.; Li, H.; Teixeira, C. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and alternative flame retardants in air and precipitation samples from the Northern Lake Victoria Region, East Africa. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1458–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pule, S.; Barakagira, A. Heavy Metal Assessment in Domestic Water Sources of Sikuda and Western Division Located in Busia District, Uganda. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2022, 41, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mbabazi, J.; Wasswa, J.; Kwetegyeka, J.; Bakyaita, G.K. Heavy metal contamination in vegetables cultivated on a major Urban wetland inlet drainage system of Lake Victoria, Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 67, 333–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kasozi, G.N.; Kiremire, B.T.; Bugenyi, F.W.B.; Kirsch, N.H.; Nkedi-Kizza, P. Organochlorine Residues in Fish and Water Samples from Lake Victoria, Uganda. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 584–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Arinaitwe, K.; Keltsch, N.; Taabu-Munyaho, A.; Reemtsma, T.; Berger, U. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria: Spatial distribution, catchment release and public exposure risk via municipal water consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Dalahmeh, S.; Tirgani, S.; Komakech, A.J.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Ahrens, L. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water, soil, and plants in wetlands and agricultural areas in Kampala, Uganda. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631–632, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Atwebembeire, J.; Andama, M.; Yatuha, J.; Lejju, J.B.; Rugunda, G.K.; Bazira, J. The Physico-Chemical Quality of Effluents of Selected Sewage Treatment Plants Draining into River Rwizi, Mbarara Municipality, Uganda. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2019, 11, 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Okot-Okumu, J.; Nyenje, R. Municipal solid waste management under decentralisation in Uganda. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 537–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Petrie, B.; Barden, R.; Kasprzyk-Hordern, B. A review on emerging contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: Current knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future monitoring. Water Res. 2015, 72, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Komakech, A.J.; Banadda, N.E.; Kinobe, J.R.; Kasisira, L.; Sundberg, C.; Gebresenbet, G.; Vinnerås, B. Characterization of municipal waste in Kampala, Uganda. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2014, 64, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wasswa, J.; Schluep, M.; Empa.e-Waste Assessment in Uganda. A Situational Analysis of E-Waste Management and Generation with Special Emphasis on Personal Computers 6 May 2018. Available online: https://docplayer.net/22226699-E-waste-assessment-in-uganda.html (accessed on 14 September 2023).
  57. Breivik, K.; Gioia, R.; Chakraborty, P.; Zhang, G.; Jones, K.C. Are reductions in industrial organic contaminants emissions in rich countries achieved partly by export of toxic wastes? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 9154–9160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Nuwematsiko, R.; Oporia, F.; Nabirye, J.; Halage, A.A.; Musoke, D.; Buregyeya, E. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Practices of Electronic Waste Management among Consumers in Kampala, Uganda. J. Environ. Public Health 2021, 2021, 3846428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Schluep, M.; Wasswa, J.; Kreissler, B.; Nicholson, S. E-waste generation and management in Uganda. In Proceedings of the 19th Waste Management Conference of the IWMSA (WasteCon2008), Durban, South Africa, 6–10 October 2008; pp. 510–515, ISBN 978-0-620-40434-1. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ssebugere, P.; Kiremire, B.T.; Henkelmann, B.; Bernhöft, S.; Kasozi, G.N.; Wasswa, J.; Schramm, K.W. PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in fish species from Lake Victoria, East Africa. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 317–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wang, S.; Steiniche, T.; Romanak, K.A.; Johnson, E.; Quirós, R.; Mutegeki, R.; Wasserman, M.D.; Venier, M. Atmospheric Occurrence of Legacy Pesticides, Current Use Pesticides, and Flame Retardants in and around Protected Areas in Costa Rica and Uganda. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 6171–6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Olaitan, J.O.; Anyakora, C.; Adetifa, I.O.; Adepoju-Bello, A.A. A Screening for Selected Human Pharmaceuticals in Water Using SPE-HPLC, Ogun State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Pharm. Sci. Pharm. 2017, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  63. K’oreje, K.O.; Kandie, F.J.; Vergeynst, L.; Abira, M.A.; Van Langenhove, H.; Okoth, M.; Demeestere, K. Occurrence, fate and removal of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and pesticides in wastewater stabilization ponds and receiving rivers in the Nzoia Basin, Kenya. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Belhaj, D.; Athmouni, K.; Jerbi, B.; Kallel, M.; Ayadi, H.; Zhou, J.L. Estrogenic compounds in Tunisian urban sewage treatment plant: Occurrence, removal and ecotoxicological impact of sewage discharge and sludge disposal. Ecotoxicology 2016, 25, 1849–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Egbuna, C.; Amadi, C.N.; Patrick-Iwuanyanwu, K.C.; Ezzat, S.M.; Awuchi, C.G.; Ugonwa, P.O.; Orisakwe, O.E. Emerging pollutants in Nigeria: A systematic review. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 85, 103638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sansa-Otim, J.S.; Lutaaya, P.; Kamya, T.; Lubega, S.M. Analysis of mobile phone e-waste management for developing countries: A case of Uganda. In Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference, AFRICOMM 2012, Yaounde, Cameroon, 12–14 November 2012; pp. 174–184. [Google Scholar]
  67. Kerebba, N.; Ssebugere, P.; Kwetegyeka, J.; Arinaitwe, K.; Wasswa, J. Concentrations and sources apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments from the Uganda side of Lake Victoria. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2017, 19, 570–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimized digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Twinomucunguzi, F.R.B.; Nyenje, P.M.; Kulabako, R.N.; Semiyaga, S.; Foppen, J.W.; Kansiime, F. Emerging organic contaminants in shallow groundwater underlying two contrasting peri-urban areas in Uganda. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mukonzo, J.K.; Namuwenge, P.M.; Okure, G.; Mwesige, B.; Namusisi, O.K.; Mukanga, D. Over-the-counter suboptimal dispensing of antibiotics in Uganda. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2013, 6, 303–310. [Google Scholar]
  71. Nsubuga, F.B.; Kansiime, F.; Okot-Okumu, J. Pollution of protected springs in relation to high and low density settlements in Kampala—Uganda. Phys. Chem. Earth 2004, 29, 1153–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ntirushize, B.; Wasswa, J.; Ntambi, E.; Adaku, C. Analysis for Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in Honey from Kabale District, South-Western Uganda. Am. J. Anal. Chem. 2019, 10, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Arinaitwe, K.; Kiremire, B.T.; Muir, D.C.G.; Fellin, P.; Li, H.; Teixeira, C.; Mubiru, D.N. Legacy and currently used pesticides in the atmospheric environment of Lake Victoria, East Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 543, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Sserunjoji, J.M.S. A Study of Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Uganda, with Special Reference to Dieldrin and DDT. In Comparative Studies of Food and Environmental Contamination; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 1974; pp. 43–47. [Google Scholar]
  75. Staudacher, P.; Fuhrimann, S.; Farnham, A.; Mora, A.M.; Atuhaire, A.; Niwagaba, C.; Stamm, C.; Eggen, R.I.L.; Winkler, M.S. Comparative Analysis of Pesticide Use Determinants Among Smallholder Farmers From Costa Rica and Uganda. Environ. Health Insights 2020, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wandiga, S.O. Use and distribution of organochlorine pesticides. The future in Africa. Pure Appl. Chem. 2001, 73, 1147–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Henry, L.; Kishimba, M.A. Pesticide residues in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and Nile perch (Lates niloticus) from Southern Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 140, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ben Mukiibi, S.; Nyanzi, S.A.; Kwetegyeka, J.; Olisah, C.; Taiwo, A.M.; Mubiru, E.; Tebandeke, E.; Matovu, H.; Odongo, S.; Abayi, J.J.M.; et al. Organochlorine pesticide residues in Uganda’s honey as a bioindicator of environmental contamination and reproductive health implications to consumers. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 214, 112094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ssebugere, P.; Kiremire, B.T.; Kishimba, M.; Wandiga, S.O.; Nyanzi, S.A.; Wasswa, J. DDT and metabolites in fish from Lake Edward, Uganda. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 212–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ejobi, F.; Kanja, L.W.; Kyule, M.N.; Müller, P.; Krüger, J.; Nyeko, J.H.P.; Latigo, A.A.R. Organochlorine pesticide residues in cow’s milk in Uganda. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 56, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ssebugere, P.; Wasswa, J.; Mbabazi, J.; Nyanzi, S.A.; Kiremire, B.T.; Marco, J.A.M. Organochlorine pesticides in soils from south-western Uganda. Chemosphere 2010, 78, 1250–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Denison, M.; De Vito, M.; Farland, W.; Feeley, M.; Fiedler, H.; Hakansson, H.; Hanberg, A.; Haws, L.; et al. The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 93, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mbabazi, J.; Twinomuhwezi, H.; Wasswa, J.; Ntale, M.; Mulongo, G.; Kwetegyeka, J.; Schrǿder, K.H. Speciation of heavy metals in water from the Uganda side of Lake Victoria. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 67, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Twinamatsiko, R.; Mbabazi, J.; Twinomuhwezi, H. Toxic Metal Levels in Food Crops Grown From Dump-Sites Around Gulu Municipality, Northern Uganda. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Technol. 2016, 1, 22–45. [Google Scholar]
  85. Mbabazi, J.; Bakyayita, G.; Wasswa, J.; Muwanga, A.; Twinomuhwezi, H.; Kwetegyeka, J. Variations in the contents of heavy metals in arable soils of a major urban wetland inlet drainage system of Lake Victoria, Uganda. Lakes Reserved. Res. Manag. 2010, 15, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kasozi, K.I.; Natabo, P.C.; Namubiru, S.; Tayebwa, D.S.; Tamale, A.; Bamaiyi, P.H. Food Safety Analysis of Milk and Beef in Southwestern Uganda. J. Environ. Public Health 2018, 2018, 1627180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Namuhani, N.; Cyrus, K. Soil Contamination with Heavy Metals around Jinja Steel Rolling Mills in Jinja Municipality, Uganda. J. Health Pollut. 2015, 5, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Mongi, R.; Chove, L. Heavy metal contamination in cocoyam crops and soils in countries around the Lake Victoria basin (Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya). Tanzan. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 19, 148–160. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nabulo, G.; Oryem-Origa, H.; Diamond, M. Assessment of lead, cadmium, and zinc contamination of roadside soils, surface films, and vegetables in Kampala City, Uganda. Environ. Res. 2006, 101, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tumwine, J.; Nassanga, H.B.; Kateregga, J.; Tumwine, G.; Kitimbo, J. An Experimental Study Determining Levels of Lead Contamination of Dioscorea spp. (Yams) from Selected Regions of Kampala Capital City, Uganda. Stud. J. Health Res. Afr. 2022, 3, 9. [Google Scholar]
  91. Mpewo, M.; Kizza-Nkambwe, S.; Kasima, J.S. Heavy metal and metalloid concentrations in agricultural communities around steel and iron industries in Uganda: Implications for future food systems. Environ. Pollut. Bioavailab. 2023, 35, 2226344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. William, W.; Njenga, H. Investigation of Levels of Some Selected Heavy Metals in Raw Bovine Milk from Oyam District, Uganda and Estimation of Potential Health Risks. Am. J. Appl. Ind. Chem. 2007, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  93. Kasozi, K.I.; Otim, E.O.; Ninsiima, H.I.; Zirintunda, G.; Tamale, A.; Ekou, J.; Musoke, G.H.; Muyinda, R.; Matama, K.; Mujinya, R.; et al. An analysis of heavy metals contamination and estimating the daily intakes of vegetables from Uganda. Toxicol. Res. Appl. 2021, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Fuhrimann, S.; Stalder, M.; Winkler, M.S.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Babu, M.; Masaba, G.; Kabatereine, N.B.; Halage, A.A.; Schneeberger, P.H.H.; Utzinger, J.; et al. Microbial and chemical contamination of water, sediment, and soil in the Nakivubo wetland area in Kampala, Uganda. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Tagumira, A.; Biira, S.; Amabayo, E.B. Concentrations and human health risk assessment of selected heavy metals in soils and food crops around Osukuru phosphate mine, Tororo District, Uganda. Toxicol. Rep. 2022, 9, 2042–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kasozi, K.I.; Namubiru, S.; Kamugisha, R.; Eze, E.D.; Tayebwa, D.S.; Ssempijja, F.; Okpanachi, A.O.; Kinyi, H.W.; Atusiimirwe, J.K.; Suubo, J.; et al. Safety of Drinking Water from Primary Water Sources and Implications for the General Public in Uganda. J. Environ. Public Health 2019, 2019, 7813962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kasozi, K.I.; Hamira, Y.; Zirintunda, G.; Alsharif, K.F.; Altalbawy, F.M.A.; Ekou, J.; Tamale, A.; Matama, K.; Ssempijja, F.; Muyinda, R.; et al. Descriptive Analysis of Heavy Metals Content of Beef From Eastern Uganda and Their Safety for Public Consumption. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 592340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ssempijja, F.; Iceland Kasozi, K.; Daniel Eze, E.; Tamale, A.; Ewuzie, S.A.; Matama, K.; Ekou, J.; Bogere, P.; Mujinya, R.; Musoke, G.H.; et al. Consumption of Raw Herbal Medicines Is Associated with Major Public Health Risks amongst Ugandans. J. Environ. Public Health 2020, 2020, 8516105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Abraham, M.R.; Susan, T.B. Water contamination with heavy metals and trace elements from Kilembe copper mine and tailing sites in Western Uganda; implications for domestic water quality. Chemosphere 2017, 169, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Ahimbisibwe, O.; Byamugisha, D.; Mukasa, P.; Omara, T.; Ntambi, N. Leaching of Lead, Chromium and Copper into Drinks Placed in Plastic Cups at Different Conditions. Am. J. Anal. Chem. 2022, 13, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  101. Baluka, S.A.; Schrunk, D.; Imerman, P.; Kateregga, J.N.; Camana, E.; Wang, C.; Rumbeiha, W.K. Mycotoxin and metallic element concentrations in peanut products sold in Ugandan markets. Cogent Food Agric. 2017, 3, 1313925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bakamwesiga, H.; Mugisha, W.; Kisira, Y.; Muwanga, A. An Assessment of Air and Water Pollution Accrued from Stone Quarrying in Mukono District, Central Uganda. J. Geosci. Environ. Prot. 2022, 10, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Omara, T.; Karungi, S.; Kalukusu, R.; Nakabuye, B.V.; Kagoya, S.; Musau, B. Mercuric pollution of surface water, superficial sediments, Nile tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica Linnaeus 1758 [Cichlidae]) and yams (Dioscorea alata) in auriferous areas of Namukombe stream, Syanyonja, Busia, Uganda. PeerJ 2019, 2019, e7919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Muwanga, A.; Barifaijo, E. Impact of industrial activities on heavy metal loading and their physicochemical effects on wetlands of Lake Victoria basin (Uganda). Afr. J. Sci. Technol. 2010, 7, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
  105. Ssebugere, P.; Kiremire, B.T.; Henkelmann, B.; Bernhöft, S.; Wasswa, J.; Kasozi, G.N.; Schramm, K.W. PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in surface sediments from Lake Victoria, East Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 454–455, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Abayi, J.J.M.; Gore, C.T.; Nagawa, C.; Bandowe, B.A.M.; Matovu, H.; Mubiru, E.; Ngeno, E.C.; Odongo, S.; Sillanpää, M.; Ssebugere, P. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments and fish species from the White Nile, East Africa: Bioaccumulation potential, source apportionment, ecological and health risk assessment. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 278, 116855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kaaya, A.N.; Harris, C.; Eigel, W. Peanut Aflatoxin Levels on Farms and in Markets of Uganda. Peanut Sci. 2006, 33, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Osuret, J.; Musinguzi, G.; Mukama, T.; Halage, A.A.; Natigo, A.K.; Ssempebwa, J.C.; Wang, J.S. Aflatoxin contamination of selected staple foods sold for human consumption in Kampala markets, Uganda. J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 16, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lukwago, F.B.; Mukisa, I.M.; Atukwase, A.; Kaaya, A.N.; Tumwebaze, S. Mycotoxins contamination in foods consumed in Uganda: A 12-year review (2006-18). Sci. Afr. 2019, 3, e00054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kitya, D.; Bbosa, G.S.; Mulogo, E. Aflatoxin levels in common foods of South Western Uganda: A risk factor to hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2010, 19, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Kaaya, A.N.; Eboku, D. Mould, and aflatoxin contamination of dried cassava chips in Eastern Uganda: Association with traditional processing and storage practices. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 10, 718–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Echodu, R.; Maxwell Malinga, G.; Moriku Kaducu, J.; Ovuga, E.; Haesaert, G. Prevalence of aflatoxin, ochratoxin and deoxynivalenol in cereal grains in northern Uganda: Implication for food safety and health. Toxicol. Rep. 2019, 6, 1012–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Wokorach, G.; Landschoot, S.; Anena, J.; Audenaert, K.; Echodu, R.; Haesaert, G. Mycotoxin profile of staple grains in northern Uganda: Understanding the level of human exposure and potential risks. Food Control 2021, 122, 107813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Onen, P.; Watmon, J.; Omara, T.; Ocira, D. Aflatoxin content and health risks associated with consumption of some herbal products sold in Kampala, Uganda. Fr. Ukr. J. Chem. 2021, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sserumaga, J.P.; Ortega-Beltran, A.; Wagacha, J.M.; Mutegi, C.K.; Bandyopadhyay, R. Aflatoxin-producing fungi associated with pre-harvest maize contamination in Uganda. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 313, 108376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Taligoola, H.K.; Ismail, M.A.; Chebon, S.K. Toxigenic fungi, and aflatoxins associated with marketed rice grains in Uganda. J. Basic Appl. Mycol. 2010, 1, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
  117. Atukwase, A.; Muy, C.; Kaaya, A.N. Potential for fumonisin production by strains of Gibberella fujikurioi species comples isolated from maize produced in Uganda. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 12, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Namulawa, V.T.; Mutiga, S.; Musimbi, F.; Akello, S.; Ngángá, F.; Kago, L.; Kyallo, M.; Harvey, J.; Ghimire, S. Assessment of fungal contamination in fish feed from the Lake Victoria Basin, Uganda. Toxins 2020, 12, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Atukwase, A.; Kaaya, A.N.; Muyanja, C.; Vismer, H.; Rheeder, J.P. Diversity of Gibberella fujikuroi Species Complex Isolated from Maize Produced in Uganda. Int. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Waliyar, F.; Kumar, P.L.; Ntare, B.R.; Diarra, B. And Kodio, O. Pre- and post-harvest management of aflatoxin contamination in peanuts. In Mycotoxins: Detection Methods, Management, Public Health, and Agricultural Trade; Leslie, J.F., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 209–218. [Google Scholar]
  121. Biira, S.; Ochom, P.; Oryema, B. Evaluation of radionuclide concentrations and average annual committed effective dose due to medicinal plants and soils commonly consumed by pregnant women in Osukuru, Tororo (Uganda). J. Environ. Radioact. 2021, 227, 106460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Background Radiations and Radon Concentrations in the Dormitories of Secondary Schools in Otuke District, Uganda. J. Radiat. Nucl. Appl. 2020, 5, 211–218. [CrossRef]
  123. Biira, S.; Kisolo, A.W.; D’ujanga, F.M. Concentration levels of radon in mines, industries, and dwellings in selected areas of Tororo and Busia districts, Eastern Uganda. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 2014, 5, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  124. Silver, T.E.R.; Jurua, E.; Oriada, R.; Mugaiga, A.; Enjiku, B. Determination of Natural Radioactivity Levels due to Mine Tailings from Selected Mines in Southwestern Uganda. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 6, 154–163. [Google Scholar]
  125. Egessa, R.; Nankabirwa, A.; Ocaya, H.; Pabire, W.G. Microplastic pollution in surface water of Lake Victoria. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Nshemereirwe, A.; Zewge, F.; Malambala, E. Evaluation of formation and health risks of disinfection by-products in drinking water supply of Ggaba waterworks, Kampala, Uganda. J. Water Health 2022, 20, 560–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Galiwango, R.; Bainomugisha, E.; Kivunike, F.; Kateete, D.P.; Jjingo, D. Air pollution and mobility patterns in two Ugandan cities during COVID-19 mobility restrictions suggest the validity of air quality data as a measure for human mobility. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 34856–34871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Onyango, S.; Parks, B.; Anguma, S.; Meng, Q. Spatio-temporal variation in the concentration of inhalable particulate matter (PM10) in Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kiggundu, A.T. Capabilities and gaps assessments of urban air quality management in Uganda. Indones. J. Geogr. 2015, 47, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kinobe, J.R.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Gebresenbet, G.; Komakech, A.J.; Vinnerås, B. Mapping out the solid waste generation and collection models: The case of Kampala City. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Gogoi, A.; Mazumder, P.; Tyagi, V.K.; Tushara Chaminda, G.G.; An, A.K.; Kumar, M. Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in water environment: A review. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 6, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Verlicchi, P.; Al Aukidy, M.; Zambello, E. Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater: Removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatment-A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 429, 123–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Petrovic, M.; Sabater, S.; Elosegi, A.; Barceló, D. Emerging Contaminants in River Ecosystem: Occurrence and Effects Under Multiple Stress. In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 46. [Google Scholar]
  134. Hossein, M. Toxicological aspects of emerging contaminants. In Emerging and Eco-Friendly Approaches for Waste Management; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 33–58. [Google Scholar]
  135. Munschy, C.; Vigneau, E.; Bely, N.; Héas-Moisan, K.; Olivier, N.; Pollono, C.; Hollanda, S.; Bodin, N. Legacy and emerging organic contaminants: Levels and profiles in top predator fish from the western Indian Ocean in relation to their trophic ecology. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Landecker, H. Antimicrobials before antibiotics: War, peace, and disinfectants. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Hanigan, D.; Truong, L.; Simonich, M.; Tanguay, R.; Westerhoff, P. Zebrafish embryo toxicity of 15 chlorinated, brominated, and iodinated disinfection by-products. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 58, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Omara, T. Aflatoxigenic contamination of freshly harvested white maize (Zea mays L.) from some selected Ugandan districts. PeerJ Prepr. 2019, 7, e27888v1. [Google Scholar]
  139. Järup, L. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Nakaganda, A.; Spencer, A.; Orem, J.; Mpamani, C.; Wabinga, H.; Nambooze, S.; Kiwanuka, G.N.; Atwine, R.; Gemmell, I.; Jones, A.; et al. Estimating cancer incidence in Uganda: A feasibility study for periodic cancer surveillance research in resource limited settings. BMC Cancer 2023, 23, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lei, M.; Zhang, L.; Lei, J.; Zong, L.; Li, J.; Wu, Z.; Wang, Z. Overview of emerging contaminants and associated human health effects. Biomed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 404796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ivy, N.; Bhattacharya, S.; Dey, S.; Gupta, K.; Dey, A.; Sharma, P. Effects of microplastics and arsenic on plants: Interactions, toxicity and environmental implications. Chemosphere 2023, 338, 139542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Steensberg, J. Health effects of chemical products. Ecol. Dis. 1982, 1, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  144. Environmental management in Uganda: A reflection on the role of NEMA and its effectiveness in implementing Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). J. Adv. Res. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2020, 5, 1–13.
  145. NEMA. 2016. National Implementation Plan II for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2016–2025). Available online: https://www.informea.org/en/national-implementation-plan-ii-nipii-stockholm-convention-persistent-organic-pollutants-pops-2016 (accessed on 14 September 2023).
  146. Rivera-Utrilla, J.; Sánchez-Polo, M.; Ferro-García, M.Á.; Prados-Joya, G.; Ocampo-Pérez, R. Pharmaceuticals as emerging contaminants and their removal from water. A review. Chemosphere 2013, 93, 1268–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Rodríguez, A.; Rosal, R.; Perdigón-Melón, J.A.; Mezcua, M.; Agüera, A.; Hernando, M.D.; Letón, P.; Fernández-Alba, A.R.; García-Calvo, E. Ozone-based technologies in water and wastewater treatment. In Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 127–175, Part S/2. [Google Scholar]
  148. Barbosa, M.O.; Moreira, N.F.F.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Pereira, M.F.R.; Silva, A.M.T. Occurrence and removal of organic micropollutants: An overview of the watch list of EU Decision 2015/495. Water Res. 2016, 94, 257–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Sanchez, W.; Egea, E. Health and environmental risks associated with emerging pollutants and novel green processes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 6085–6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Egea-Corbacho Lopera, A.; Gutiérrez Ruiz, S.; Quiroga Alonso, J.M. Removal of emerging contaminants from wastewater using reverse osmosis for its subsequent reuse: Pilot plant. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 29, 100800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Mohapatra, D.P.; Kirpalani, D.M. Advancement in treatment of wastewater: Fate of emerging contaminants. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2019, 97, 2621–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Crespo, J.G.; Velizarov, S.; Reis, M.A. Membrane bioreactors for the removal of anionic micropollutants from drinking water. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2004, 15, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ji, J.; Kakade, A.; Yu, Z.; Khan, A.; Liu, P.; Li, X. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for treatment of emerging contaminants: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Gavrilescu, M. Removal of heavy metals from the environment by biosorption. Eng. Life Sci. 2004, 4, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Chen, J.; Huang, X.; Lee, D. Bisphenol A removal by a membrane bioreactor. Process Biochem. 2008, 43, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kim, M.; Guerra, P.; Shah, A.; Parsa, M.; Alaee, M.; Smyth, S.A. Removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in a membrane bioreactor wastewater treatment plant. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 2221–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Hannah, S.A.; Austern, B.M.; Eralp, A.E.; Wise, R.H. Comparative removal of toxic pollutants by six wastewater treatment processes. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1986, 58, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  158. Menezes, F.M.; Amal, R.; Luketina, D. Removal of particles using coagulation and flocculation in a dynamic separator. Powder Technol. 1996, 88, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Micek, A.; Jóźwiakowski, K.; Marzec, M.; Listosz, A.; Malik, A. Efficiency of pollution removal in preliminary settling tanks of household wastewater treatment plants in the Roztocze National Park. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Negrete Velasco, A.; Ramseier Gentile, S.; Zimmermann, S.; Le Coustumer, P.; Stoll, S. Contamination and removal efficiency of microplastics and synthetic fibres in a conventional drinking water treatment plant in Geneva, Switzerland. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 880, 163270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Mortula, M.M.; Abdelrahman, M.; Tatan, B. Comparative Evaluation of Membrane Filtration on the Tertiary Treatment of Synthetic Secondary Effluent. Separations 2022, 9, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Liu, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, J.; Zhou, Y. Novel cyclodextrin-based adsorbents for removing pollutants from wastewater: A critical review. Chemosphere 2020, 241, 125043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Chavoshani, A.; Hashemi, M.; Amin, M.M.; Ameta, S.C. Micropollutants and Challenges: Emerging in the Aquatic Environments and Treatment Processes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 35–90. [Google Scholar]
  164. Gorito, A.M.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Silva, A.M.T. A review on the application of constructed wetlands for the removal of priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern listed in recently launched EU legislation. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 227, 428–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Yang, L.; Wen, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Q.; Bürgmann, H. New insight into effect of antibiotics concentration and process configuration on the removal of antibiotics and relevant antibiotic resistance genes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 373, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Jiao, J.; Li, Y.; Song, Q.; Wang, L.; Luo, T.; Gao, C.; Liu, L.; Yang, S. Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) by Free Radicals in Advanced Oxidation Processes. Materials 2022, 15, 8152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ghime, D.; Ghosh, P. Advanced Oxidation Processes: A Powerful Treatment Option for the Removal of Recalcitrant Organic Compounds. In Advanced Oxidation Processes—Applications, Trends, and Prospects; In Bustillo-Lecompte, C., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; p. 3. [Google Scholar]
  168. López-Montilla, J.C.; Pandey, S.; Shah, D.O.; Crisalle, O.D. Removal of non-ionic organic pollutants from water via liquid-liquid extraction. Water Res. 2005, 39, 1907–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Hu, Y.; Chen, X.; Mu, S.; Li, Q. Extraction and separation of petroleum pollutants from oil-based drilling cuttings using methanol/n-hexane solvent. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 168, 760–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Ebrahiem, E.E.; Al-Maghrabi, M.N.; Mobarki, A.R. Removal of organic pollutants from industrial wastewater by applying photo-Fenton oxidation technology. Arab. J. Chem. 2017, 10, S1674–S1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Shokri, A.; Fard, M.S. A critical review in Fenton-like approach for the removal of pollutants in the aqueous environment. Environ. Chall. 2022, 7, 100534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Borges, M.E.; de Paz Carmona, H.; Gutiérrez, M.; Esparza, P. Photocatalytic Removal of Water Emerging Pollutants in an Optimized Packed Bed Photoreactor Using Solar Light. Catalysts 2023, 13, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ahmad, K.; Ghatak, H.R.; Ahuja, S.M. A review on photocatalytic remediation of environmental pollutants and H2 production through water splitting: A sustainable approach. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 19, 100893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Ikonen, J.; Nuutinen, I.; Niittynen, M.; Hokajärvi, A.M.; Pitkänen, T.; Antikainen, E.; Miettinen, I.T. Presence and reduction of anthropogenic substances with UV light and oxidizing disinfectants in wastewater—A case study at Kuopio, Finland. Water 2021, 13, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Zhu, Z.; Liu, D.; Cai, S.; Tan, Y.; Liao, J.; Fang, Y. Dyes removal by composite membrane of sepiolite impregnated polysulfone coated by chemical deposition of tea polyphenols. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2020, 156, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Yang, C.; Xu, W.; Nan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, Y.; Gao, C.; Chen, X. Fabrication and characterization of a high performance polyimide ultrafiltration membrane for dye removal. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2020, 562, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Zhang, Y.; Diehl, A.; Lewandowski, A.; Gopalakrishnan, K.; Baker, T. Removal efficiency of micro- and nanoplastics (180 nm–125 μm) during drinking water treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. PureTec. Puretec Industrial Water | What Is Reverse Osmosis? [Internet]. Puretecwater.Com. 2022. Available online: https://puretecwater.com/reverse-osmosis/what-is-reverse-osmosis#recovery (accessed on 14 September 2023).
  179. Cevallos-Mendoza, J.; Amorim, C.G.; Rodríguez-Díaz, J.M.; Montenegro, M.d.C.B.S.M. Removal of Contaminants from Water by Membrane Filtration: A Review. Membranes 2022, 12, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sources, pathways, and distribution of CoCs in different environmental compartments in Uganda.
Figure 1. Sources, pathways, and distribution of CoCs in different environmental compartments in Uganda.
Pollutants 03 00037 g001
Figure 2. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram for the literature survey.
Figure 2. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram for the literature survey.
Pollutants 03 00037 g002
Figure 3. Major groups of CoCs detected in Ugandan environmental systems.
Figure 3. Major groups of CoCs detected in Ugandan environmental systems.
Pollutants 03 00037 g003
Figure 4. Percentage contaminations of different matrices from the conducted studies in Uganda.
Figure 4. Percentage contaminations of different matrices from the conducted studies in Uganda.
Pollutants 03 00037 g004
Figure 5. Percentage occurrences of CoCs in different matrices in Uganda.
Figure 5. Percentage occurrences of CoCs in different matrices in Uganda.
Pollutants 03 00037 g005
Figure 6. (a) Percentage numbers of CoCs investigated in the available literature in Uganda; (b) percentage levels of CoCs in different regions of Uganda from the conducted studies.
Figure 6. (a) Percentage numbers of CoCs investigated in the available literature in Uganda; (b) percentage levels of CoCs in different regions of Uganda from the conducted studies.
Pollutants 03 00037 g006
Figure 7. Flow of CoCs across various environmental compartments, following their introduction; these substances transform, giving rise to secondary contaminants that have the potential to impact human health. This dynamic interplay suggests that human beings play a dual role as both sources and recipients of these contaminants.
Figure 7. Flow of CoCs across various environmental compartments, following their introduction; these substances transform, giving rise to secondary contaminants that have the potential to impact human health. This dynamic interplay suggests that human beings play a dual role as both sources and recipients of these contaminants.
Pollutants 03 00037 g007
Table 1. Major groups of CoCs; their descriptions, components, and properties, detected in Ugandan environmental systems.
Table 1. Major groups of CoCs; their descriptions, components, and properties, detected in Ugandan environmental systems.
Category of CoCDescriptionComponentsPersistence and Bioaccumulation
PharmaceuticalsMedicinal compounds, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, enter the environment through human excretion and wastewater.Antibiotics, Analgesics, Hormones, Antidepressants, Beta-Blockers, Diuretics, Antihypertensive, Fibrate, and AntiparasiticLow to Medium Persistence, some are bioaccumulative in zoobenthos
PesticidesChemical substances used to control pests in agriculture can leach into soil and water, impacting non-target organisms.Insecticides, Herbicides, Fungicides, and RodenticidesMedium to High Persistence, some are bioaccumulative such as the cases of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)Organic compounds that resist degradation, such as certain pesticides and industrial chemicals, with potential long-range transport effects.Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Dioxins, and Furans, among othersHigh persistence and Bioaccumulative
Personal Care ProductsChemicals found in cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and perfumes can be washed into water bodies and contribute to water pollution.Fragrances, UV Filters, Preservatives, and SurfactantsLow to Medium Persistence
Heavy metalsMetallic elements like lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium can accumulate in the environment and pose health risks to living organisms.Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Nickle (Ni) among othersMedium to High Persistence, some are bioaccumulative
Hydrocarbon CompoundsOrganic compounds derived from petroleum, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are often associated with oil spills.Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and BenzeneLow to Medium Persistence, Bioaccumulative
Biotoxins–MycotoxinsToxins are produced by organisms like fungi (mycotoxins) and harmful algae, which can contaminate water and food sources, posing health risks.Aflatoxins, Ochratoxins, and Fusarium ToxinsLow Persistence, bioaccumulative in humans and animals
Radionuclides and Electromagnetic radiationsRadioactive elements and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation that can impact human health and the environment.Uranium (U), Thorium (Th), 40-K and Radon (Rn), Radiofrequency (RF), Microwaves, Electromagnetic Fields,Low to High persistence
Other Contaminants of concernVarious emerging contaminants, like flame retardants and nanomaterials, whose impacts on the environment and health are under investigation.Flame Retardants, and Nanomaterials,Persistent and highly Bioaccumulative, atmospheric deposition
MicroplasticsTiny plastic particles result from the breakdown of larger plastic waste, which can be ingested by organisms and enter the food chain.Microplastic particles, and Microfibers,Low to Medium Persistence, atmospheric deposition
Disinfection byproductsChemical compounds formed when disinfectants like chlorine react with organic matter in water, potentially leading to health risks.Trihalomethanes (THMs)Low to Medium Persistence
ParticulatesTiny solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in the air can have adverse health effects when inhaled by humans and animals.PM2.5 (Fine Particulate Matter), PM10 (Coarse Particulate Matter), Gases, Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Ozone (O3), and Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)Low Persistence
Table 2. Sources and occurrence of different categories/classes of detected concentrations of CoCs in Ugandan environmental compartments.
Table 2. Sources and occurrence of different categories/classes of detected concentrations of CoCs in Ugandan environmental compartments.
Categories of CoCClassesCoC (s)Use/ApplicationSampling MatrixDetected LevelsPlace of StudyDetection PeriodsReferences
PharmaceuticalsAntibioticsSulfamethoxazolePharmaceuticalWastewater Effluents, Sediments, Soil, Surface Waters1–5600 ngL−1Murchison Bay on L. Victoria and Bugolobi wastewater treatment plant, Kampala, Uganda2020–2022[30,41,42]
TrimethoprimPharmaceutical1300–22,600 ngL−1
SulfamethazinePharmaceutical2.4–50 ngL−1
SulfacetamidePharmaceutical0.8–13 ngL−1
TetracyclinePharmaceutical3–70 ngL−1
ErythromycinPharmaceutical10–66 ngL−1
CarbamazepinePharmaceutical5–72 ngL−1
OxytetracyclinePharmaceutical17–300 ngL−1
TetracyclinePharmaceutical2.7–70 ngL−1
ErythromycinPharmaceutical10–66 ngL−1
AzithromycinPharmaceutical14–60 ngL−1
CiprofloxacinPharmaceutical2.0–41 ngL−1
LevofloxacinPharmaceutical1.8–29 ngL−1
NorfloxacinPharmaceutical1.9–26 ngL−1
EnoxacinPharmaceutical5.9–51 ngL−1
AmpicillinPharmaceuticalWastewater Effluents, Ground Water, Runoffs1350 ngL−1Bwaise Wobulenzi city suburbs, Kampala, Uganda2013–2022[42,69,70]
ChlortetracyclinePharmaceutical394 ngL−1
CiprofloxacinPharmaceutical340 ngL−1
EnrofloxacinPharmaceutical17 ngL−1
MetacyclinePharmaceutical17 ngL−1
Nalidixic acidPharmaceutical2340 ngL−1
OxytetracyclinePharmaceutical17 ngL−1
Penicillin G (benzylpenicillin)Pharmaceutical800 ngL−1
SulfathiazolePharmaceutical140 ngL−1
TetracyclinePharmaceutical47.3 ngL−1
Analgesic/Anti-inflammatoryIbuprofenPharmaceuticalWastewater treatment plant (WWTP) Effluents, Runoffs, sewer channel wastewater5.9–780 ngL−1Nakivubo sewer channel, Murchison Bay on L. Victoria and Bugolobi wastewater treatment plant, Uganda2020[30,41]
DiclofenacPharmaceutical100–500 ngL−1
AcetaminophenPharmaceutical1.6–27 ng/L
Antiepileptics/antidepressantCarbamazepinePharmaceutical200–1300 ngL−1 346.496 µgL−1 *CEC
Beta-BlockersAtenololPharmaceutical24–380 ngL−1
MetoprololPharmaceutical0.4–21 ngL−1
DiureticsFurosemidePharmaceutical160–1300 ngL−1
HydrochlorothiazidePharmaceutical230–1350 ngL−1
AntihypertensiveLosartanPharmaceutical100–160 ngL−1
FibrateGemfibrozilPharmaceutical190–800 ngL−1
AntiparasiticPyrimethaminePharmaceutical8.4–14.0 ngL−1
PesticidesOrganochlorine pesticides (OCPs)Endosulfan sulfateHerbicide, insecticides and fungicidesAir, sediment, and surface water samples0.82–5.62 µg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2011)Murchison, Waiya, Thurston Bays, and Napoleon Gulf on the Ugandan side of L. Victoria2004–2022[23,31,34,39,45,49,52,71,72,73,74]
AldrinHerbicide, insecticide0.22–15.96 µg kg−1 d.w (MRL = 0.1 mg kg−1) (Banned for all users in 2001)
DieldrinSoil insecticide and for control of mosquitoes.0.94–7.18 µg kg−1 d.w (MRL = 0.1 mg kg−1) (Banned for all users in 2001)
LindaneInsecticide7–11.4 μg kg−1 d.w. (MRL = 0.5 mg kg−1)
ChlordaneInsecticide3.82–35.6 pgm−3 (Banned for all users in 2001)
HexachlorocyclohexanesInsecticide3.72–81.8 pg m−3 (Banned for all users in 2009)
HeptachlorInsecticide0.81 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2001)
Heptachlor epoxideInsecticide. Used for fire ant control in power transformers3.19 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2001)
p, p′- dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)Insecticides0.11–3.59 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in
p, p′-DDD0.38–4.02 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in
p, p′-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)0.04–1.46 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in
o, p′-DDE0.07–2.72 μg kg−1 d.w.
o, p′-DDT0.01–1.63 μg kg−1 d.w.
Total EndosulfanIsomer of Endosulfan. Insecticide and acaricide12.3–282 pg m−3 (Banned for all users in 2011)Air and water samples of Lake Victoria Northern shore watershed, areas of Kakira and Entebbe, Uganda2006–2022[31,45,49,69,72,73,75,76,77,78]
Total DDT-related compoundsInsecticide used in agriculture22.8–130 pg m−3 (Banned in 2001, production for the specific uses)
Endosulfan sulphateInsecticide and acaricide0.82–5.62 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2011)
α-Endosulfan 7.59 and 6.00 μg kg−1 (MRL = 0.1 mg kg−1) (Banned for all users 2011)Napoleon Gulf on L. Victoria, Uganda2004–2022[34,49,73,79]
p, p′-1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis-(4-chlorophenyl) ethylene (p, p′-DDE)InsecticideAir, Surface waters, Fish Tissues6.10 and 3.44 μg kg−1Napoleon Gulf on L. Victoria, Uganda2006–2010[31,45,77]
p, p′-1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis-(4-chlorophenyl) ethane (p, p′-DDT)7.34 and 4.30 μg kg−1 (MRL = 0.1 mg kg−1)
∑DDTs503.6 μg kg−1 d.w. Abandoned pesticide store in Masindi district in western Uganda2020[78]
Endosulfans1.55 μg kg−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2011)
p, p’DDE125 mg/kgKampala and Iganga districts in Uganda1996–2011[44,80]
Dieldrin123 mg/kg
p, p’DDD24 mg/kg
p, p, DDT13 mg/kg
o, p’DDT23 mg/kg
α-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)54 mg/kg (Banned for all users in 2009)
β-HCH10 mg/kg (Banned for all users in 2009)
Total Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (ΣDDTs) 22.8–130 pg/m3Kakira and Entebbe, northern shore of L. Victoria, Uganda2016[73]
Total hexachlorocyclohexanes (ΣHCHs)3.72–81.8 pg/m3
Total Endosulfan (ΣEndo) 12.3–282 pg/m3
CarbamatesCarbofuranInsecticideAir, Surface waters, Fish Tissues83.3 pg/m3Air samples from Kakira and Entebbe, northern shore of L. Victoria, Uganda2010–2019[72,78,81]
Organophosphates (OPPs)Chlorpyrifos93.5 ng/m3
ChlorthalonilFungicide<0.10–24.0 pg m−3
MetribuzinHerbicide<0.02–0.53 ng m−3
Trifluralin0.02–0.32 pg m−3
MalathionInsecticide<0.08–193 pg m−3
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)Brominated Flame Retardantspolybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)Are used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipmentSediment samples9.84 pg g−1 dry weight (Banned for all users in 2001)Napoleon Gulf and Thurston Bay on the northern shore of L. Victoria, Uganda2013[46]
Chlorinated Flame RetardantsDioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)136 pg g−1 dw (Banned for all users in 2001)2006–2021[40,46,60,82]
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/furans (PCDD/Fs)44.1 pg g−1 d.w. 0.07–5.53 pg Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEQ) g−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2001)2006–2021[40,60,82]
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)0.07–5.61 pg g−1 d.w. 0.01–0.23 pg TEQ g−1 d.w. (Banned for all users in 2001)2006–2021[40,60,82]
Organochlorine pesticidesPymetrozinePesticideEdible Insects0.02 pg g−1 d.w.Ugandan districts2022[39]
Methabenzthiazuron0.08 pg g−1 d.w.
Metazachlor1.4 ± 0.03 pg g−1 d.w.
Fenimorph 0.04 ± 0.03 pg g−1 d.w.
Fludioxonil Fungicide0.29 pg g−1 d.w.
Metalaxyl 0.01 ± 0.01 pg g−1 d.w.
Organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs)Tricresyl phosphateUsed as a plasticizerWaters, sediments, and soil samples25–8100 ngL−1Napoleon gulf, Murchison, Waiya, Entebbe, and Thurston bays, Uganda2006–2021[31,43,44,49,72,74,76,77,78]
Tris-(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)Widely used as a plasticizer, fire retardant, and solvent24–6500 ngL−1
Triphenyl phosphate (TPP)54–4300 ngL−1
Tris-(2-ethylexyl) phosphate (TEHP)4300 ngL−1
2-Ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate (EHDPP)7.7–730 ngL−1
Tricresyl phosphate (TCP)8100 ngL−1
Tris-(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCPPi)Used as plasticizers and antifoam agents25–600 ngL−1
Tributyl phosphate (TBP)29 ngL−1
Triethyl phosphate (TEP)9.6–500 ngL−1
Phthalate ester plasticizers (PEP)Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)Are added to polymers to ease processing and to enhance flexibility and toughness of the final productWaters, sediments, and soil samples350–16,000 ngL−1Napoleon gulf, Murchison, Waiya, Entebbe, and Thurston bays, Uganda2021[43]
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)210–23,000 ngL−1
Dimethyl phthalate6.8–400 ngL−1
Diethyl phthalate (DEP)38–1100 ngL−1
N-butyl benzenesulfonamide (NBBS)7.5–200 ngL−1
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA)12–6100 ngL−1
Personal Care ProductsAntimicrobialTriclosanAntibiotics in soaps, toothpaste, detergentsWastewater Effluents89–1400 ngL−1Napoleon gulf, Murchison, Waiya, Entebbe, and Thurston bays, Uganda2021[43]
Organic sunscreensBenzophenoneProtect the products from UV light36–1300 ngL−1
4-methylbenzylidine camphorOrganic UV filters21–1500 ngL−1
Phenolic antioxidantsButylated hydroxytolueneUsed as an antioxidant in cosmetic product formulations14–750 ngL−1
Synthetic musk fragrancesMusk ketoneUsed in cleaning and washing agents, surface treatments, lubricants and additives7.3–460 ngL−1
PreservativesChloropheneUsed to be applied as a preservative and disinfectant in personal care products21–310 ngL−1
Masking agentAcetophenoneCovers the unpleasant scents of other ingredients2.2–100 ngL−1
3-methylindoleIt is used as a flavoring ingredient1.8–130 ngL−1
Insect repellentsN, N-diethyltoluamideIs an active ingredient in many insect-repellent products3.9–98 ngL−1
Preservatives3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy anisoleIs used as an antioxidant and preservative7.3–100 ngL−1
Antioxidant2,6-di-tert-butyl-phenolThey are used as stabilizers, free-radical scavengers, and antioxidants66 ngL−1
Heavy metalsPost-transition metalsPbBattery assembling, in gasolineWater, sediments, dairy, and beef product samples79–138.18 mg/kgNakivubo channelized stream sediments and in Kampala markets, Uganda2009–2021[32,34,47,48,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]
Transition metalsCdFind applications in batteries, alloys, coatings (electroplating), solar cells, plastic stabilizers, and pigmentsWater, sediments, Roadside soils, surface films, and selected vegetable weeds0.84–1.04 mg/kg
Transition metalsCuFind applications in electrical wiring, roofing, plumbing, and industrial machinery.Sludge waste, dairy and beef products, soil, food crops, groundwater, Industrial effluents, Herbal medicine, rainwater, sediments, food items, water sediments, dumpsites28.84–38.01 mg/kgNakivubo stream, Southwestern Uganda, Kilembe copper mines, Jinja steel rollings and Osukuru phosphate mines, Kampala markets, L. Victoria2006–2021[32,33,36,47,86,87,88,89,90,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102]
Trace elementZnSmelting and galvanizationRoadside soils, surface films, and selected vegetable weeds177.89–442.40 mg/kgKampala city roads, Uganda2017–2022[47,83,89,101,102]
Transition metalsMnWelding, making structural alloysFood crops, 363.47 mg/kgKampala City, Uganda2004–2019[33,48,52,71]
Transition metalFeMaking alloy steelsGroundwater, soils, stream sediments, and food crops.30,085.33–5835.00 mg/kgNakivubo stream, Kilembe copper mines, southwestern Uganda areas2004–2021[33,91,92,95,99,103]
Transition metalNiUse in alloying such as in armor platingSoils, surface water, herbal medicines, and food items2.2–9.40 ppmJinja steel rolling mills, areas of southwestern Uganda, and Kampala markets2015–2020[87,98,99]
MetalloidAsUsed as an allowing agent as well as in making glass, pigments, textiles, and both metal and wood adhesivesUp and Downstream waters, soil, surface water, and plant tissues 0.5–4.6 ppmRoofings rolling mills, steel and tube industries in Nakawa Industrial area and areas of Kilembe copper mines, Uganda2007–2022[47,87,91,92]
Transition metalsCoMaking alloys, find applications in magnets and is also used as a catalyst in petroleum industries.Surface water, vegetables, and medicinal herbal samples0.233 g/mLRiver Nyamwamba areas in Kasese, southwestern Uganda parts, and Soroti district2010–2020[33,86,98]
Transition metalsHgFind applications in gold extraction and also used in manometersSoils, Food samples, Surface waters0.05 ± 0.01 ppmKampala, Wakiso and Busia districts, Uganda2009–2022[34,47,103]
Transition metalsCrApplied in the manufacture of steel as well as hardening steelSoils, Dairy products, Herbal samples, Food samples156.9 ppmSteel and Tube industrial area, Roofings rolling mills area, Kampala and Soroti districts, Uganda2010–2022[32,104]
Transition metalFeMaking alloy steelsSediments, Soils, Surface Waters, 64.05–147.40 mg/KgIndustrial effluents in Kampala and Soroti districts, Nakivubo stream, and Osukuru phosphate mines areas, Uganda2007–2022[87,91,92]
Hydrocarbon CompoundsHigh and Low molecular Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)AcenaphtheneUsed to prepare naphthalene dicarboxylic anhydride, which is a precursor to dyesLeachates and Groundwater samples1020 ng/LBwaise and Wobulenzi towns in Kampala district, Uganda2013–2021[67,69,105]
AcenaphthyleneUsed to make electrically conductive polymers92 ng/L
AnthraceneUsed in the manufacture of red dye alizarin, wood preservation, insecticide, coating of material340 ng/L
Benzo[a]pyreneNo known uses405 ng/L
1.1 ng/L
Benzo[k]fluorantheneMajorly used for research purposes180 ng/L
226 ng/L
ChryseneUsed to make some dyes.102 ng/L
224 ng/L
FluorantheneNo found uses but is produced by some plants.550 ng/L
580 ng/L
FluoreneUsed to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.480 ng/L
240 ng/L
NaphthaleneIndustrial solvent570 ng/L
258 ng/L
PhenanthreneUsed to make dyes, plastics and pesticides, explosives and drugs220 ng/L
1050 ng/L
PyreneUsed to produce dyes, plastics, and pesticides.40–687 ng/L
BTEX compoundsBenzeneIndustrial solvent86.7 ng/L
EthylbenzeneIndustrial solvent5–960 ng/L
XyleneIndustrial solvent410 ng/L
Low and High Molecular Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)NaphthaleneNaphthaleneSediments and Fish tissues184–239 ng g−1 d.w. The White Nile environment near melt oil fields, South Sudan, Uganda Napoleon Gulf, and Murchison Bays2017–2021[67,105,106]
AcenaphthyleneUsed to make electrically conductive polymers16–20.5 ng g−1 d.w.
FluoreneUsed to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.148–156 ng g−1 d.w.
AnthraceneUsed in the artificial manufacture of red dye alizarin, wood preservation, insecticide, coating of material79.3–112 ng g−1 d.w.
FluorantheneNo found uses and is said to be produced by some plants.2.46–8.73 ng g−1 d.w.
PyreneUsed to produce dyes, plastics, and pesticides.2.09–5.7 ng g−1 d.w.
Benzo[a]anthraceneCan be found in coal tar, roasted coffee, smoked foods, and automobile exhaust and is used in research laboratories0.5–1.3 ng g−1 d.w.
ChryseneUsed to make some dyes.8.4–25 ng g−1 d.w.
Benzo[b]fluorantheneResearch purpose2.7–9.3 ng g−1 d.w.
Benzo[k]fluorantheneResearch purpose0.6–6.5 ng g−1 d.w.
Benzo[a]pyreneNo known use0.02–1.06 ng g−1 d.w.
Dibenzo [a, h] anthraceneIs used only for research purposes to induce tumorigenesis1.0–1.9 ng g−1 d.w.
Chlorinated aromatic chemicalsPolychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)Applicable in chemicals, notably herbicidesSediments44.1 pg g−1 dry weight (d.w.)Napoleon Gulf and Thurston Bay on the northern shore of L. Victoria, Uganda
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)5.61 pg g−1 dry weight (d.w.)
Dioxin-like Polychlorinated biphenyls (di-PCBs)136 pg g−1 d. w.
Biotoxins–MycotoxinsAflatoxinsAflatoxin B1 (AFB1)Exert inhibitory effects on biological processes including DNA synthesis, DNA-dependent RNA synthesis, DNA repair, and protein synthesisFood Samples16.0 ± 3.6 µg/kgKitgum district2006–2010[107,108,109,110]
1.9 ± 0.9 µg/kgKitgum and Lamwo districts, Uganda2021–2022[101,110,111,112,113]
2.9 ± 1.2 µg/kg
4.3 ±1.5 µg/kg
2.4 ± 1.1 µg/kg
3.5 ± 2.9 µg/kg
16.0 ± 3.6 µg/kg
Fish Tissues148 ± 46.9 µg/kgLake Victoria Basin, Uganda
Fish Tissues110 ± 39.9 μg/kgLake Victoria Basin, Uganda2006–2016[107,108]
Aflatoxin B2 (AFB2)Food Samples0–540 μg/kgMubende, Uganda2006–2016[107,108]
10.5 ± 6.15 μg/kgIganga markets, Uganda
7.3 ± 4.98 μg/kgMayuge markets, Uganda
11.5 ± 0.43 μg/kgSouthwestern Uganda markets2010–2021[110,114]
Food Samples15.2 ± 0.20 μg/kgSouthwestern Uganda markets2016–2018[86,108]
14.0 ± 1.22 μg/kgSouthwestern Uganda markets2010[110]
Aflatoxin G1 [AFG1]16.0 ± 1.66 μg/kgSouthwestern Uganda2010–2016[108,110]
18.6 ± 2.40 (μg/kg)Southwestern Uganda[110]
0–540 μg/kgKampala markets, Uganda[101,107]
9.6 ± 4.20 μg/kgMubende markets, Uganda[110,114]
10.1 ± 3.10 μg/kgIbanda markets, Uganda2010–2020[108,113,115]
9.1 ± 4.35 μg/kgJinja markets, Uganda2010–2020
11.0 ± 3.01 μg/kgHoima markets, Uganda
Aflatoxin G2 (AFG2)10.6 ± 1.63 μg/kgMayuge markets, Uganda
6.5 ± 0.60 μg/kgBuikwe markets, Uganda
3.8 ± 1.30 μg/kgMpigi markets, Uganda
7.2 ± 1.99 μg/kgMasindi markets, Uganda
8.5 ± 2.56 μg/kgBugiri markets, Uganda2021[114]
Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1)Aflatoxin M1 is usually present in the fermentation broth of Aspergillus parasiticus and is a metabolite of aflatoxin B1 in humans and animalsFood Samples60.3 ± 27.99 μg/kgKalerwe markets, Uganda2010–2017[101,110]
40.5 ± 12.82 μg/kgBukoto markets, Uganda
10.3 ± 3.54 μg/kgNakawa markets, Uganda2010–2017[101,115]
143.1 μg/kgOwino markets, Uganda2017[101]
5.8 ± 12.3 μg/kgBugiri markets, Uganda2010[115]
Food Samples 2.9 ± 6 μg/kgBulambuli markets, Uganda2010[115]
0.7 ± 0.3 μg/kgBundibugyo areas, Uganda
1.0 ± 0.9 μg/kgGulu markets, Uganda
290.7 μg/kgHoima areas, Uganda
2.4 ± 4.0 μg/kgIganga markets, Uganda
145.5 μg/kgKabale markets, Uganda
1.0 ± 0.7 μg/kgKapchorwa areas, Uganda
1.7 ± 0.5 μg/kgKasese markets, Uganda
1.7 ± 0.5 μg/kgKiryadongo areas, Uganda
Food Samples6.87 μg/kgNorthern Uganda2010–2020[108,112,113,115]
6.77 μg/kgNorthern Uganda
1.46 μg/kgNorthern Uganda
10.24 μg/kgNorthern Uganda
Ochratoxins (OTA)OTA-A, B, and CCan benefit humans by their use as antibiotics (penicillins), immunosuppressants (cyclosporine), and in control of postpartum hemorrhage and migraine headachesFood Samples4.4 ± 0.8 nKitgum markets, Uganda2019–2021[112,113,115,116]
3.5 ± 0.7 ng/gLamwo Markets, Uganda2010–2020
3760 ng/gKitgum markets, Uganda
0.3 ± 0.1ng/gLamwo Markets, Uganda
1.1 ± 0.3 ng/gKitgum markets, Uganda
1.0 ± 0.3 ng/gLamwo Markets, Uganda
1.5 ± 0.3 ng/gKitgum markets, Uganda
1.4 ± 0.2 ng/gLamwo market, Uganda s
4.89 ng/gNorthern Uganda
0.37 ng/gNorthern Uganda
1.32 ng/gNorthern Uganda
7.44 ng/gNorthern Uganda
FumonisinsA, B, C, and P-seriesAre usually esterified with propane tricarboxylic acid to provide a hydrophobic/hydrophilic dichotomy that is unique among the mycotoxinsFish Tissues0.3 ± 0.19 μg/kgLake Victoria Basin, Uganda2011–2021[113,117,118,119]
0.2 ± 0.24 μg/kgLake Victoria Basin, Uganda2021[113]
Food Samples80.2–0.6 μg/kgKampala markets2016[108]
1.19 μg/kgNorthern parts of Uganda’s markets2000–2021[113,115,120]
19.4–99.8 μg/kg2011–2021[113,117,118,119]
0.76 μg/kg
4.402 μg/kg
TrichotheceneVomitoxin/DeoxynivalenolIs used as a mycotoxin to induce cytotoxicity in porcine jejunal epithelial cells and study the protective effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the cell viability of host cells.Food Samples0.153 μg/kgNorthern parts of Uganda’s markets2011–2021[113,117,118,119]
0.92793 μg/kg
0.153 μg/kg
0.823 μg/kg
Radionuclides and electromagnetic radiationPrimordial radionuclides (naturally occurring noble gases)Radon (226Ra)Uranium-238. Used in making nuclear weapons as a ‘tamper’ material.Plant Tissues and Food samples8.06 Bq/kgOsukuru phosphate factory areas, Tororo District, Uganda2020–2021[121,122]
7.08 Bq/kg
3.55 Bq/kg
9.14 Bq/kg
5.34 Bq/kg
4.35 Bq/kg
10.02 Bq/kg
4.88 Bq/kg
2.99 Bq/kg
Tororo cement factory area18 ± 3 Bqm−3Dormitories at Adwari S.S., Uganda2014–2020[98,121,122,123]
31 ± 3 Bqm−3Dormitories at Ogor Seed S.S., Uganda
26 ± 3 Bqm−3Dormitories at Okwang S.S., Uganda
26 ± 2 Bqm−3School Dormitories at Orum S. S, Uganda
49 ± 5 Bqm−3Dormitories at Otuke S.S., Uganda
Tororo mining area 97 ± 5 Bqm−3Tororo district
Chemical Laboratory tests96 ± 4 Bqm−3Eastern Uganda2014–2022[95,121,122,123]
Steel company area72 ± 3 Bqm−3Steel Works in Eastern Uganda
Hospital area51 ± 2 Bqm−3Hospitals in Eastern Uganda
Hotel28 ± 1 Bqm−3TLT Hotel in Eastern Uganda
Residential houses92 ± 4 Bqm−3Residential houses (closed) in Eastern Uganda
Homesteads45 ± 1 Bqm−3Houses (Far away) in Eastern Uganda
Thorium (232Th)Used in making lenses for cameras, scientific instruments, high-temperature crucibles, and electrical equipmentSoil mine tailings119.3–376.7 Bq kg−1Mashonga Gold Mine, Uganda2016[124]
211.7 ± 17.3 Bq kg−1Kikagati Tin mine, Uganda
244.4 ± 10.9 Bq kg−1Butare Iron ore mine, Uganda
Food Samples18.60 Bq/kgMedicinal plants in Osukuru, Tororo District, Uganda
15.51 Bq/kg
7.67 Bq/kg
11.26 Bq/kg
11.57 Bq/kg
5.98 Bq/kg
13.28 Bq/kg
7.37 Bq/kg
3.00 Bq/kg
2.24 Bq/kg
Air181.2 ± 66.8 nGy h−1Mashonga Gold Mine, Uganda2016[124]
167.2 ± 43.0 nGy h−1Kikagati Tin mine, Uganda
191.6 ± 29.6 nGy h−1Butare Iron ore mine, Uganda
40K (Potassium-40)Acts as a signaling molecule in a wide variety of processesFood Samples350.17 Bq kg−1Osukuru mines, Tororo District, Uganda2021[121]
141.0–1658.5 Bq kg−1
365.35 Bq/kg
297.81 Bq/kg
437.92 Bq/kg
419.72 Bq/kg
343.78 Bq/kg
379.21 Bq/kg
363.99 Bq/kg
275.86 Bq/kg
361.07 Bq/kg
Soil mine tailings391.5 ± 46.3
Uranium (238U)Used in making nuclear weapons as a ‘tamper’ material.Soil mine tailings35.5–147.0 Bq kg−1Southwestern Uganda2016[124]
58.7 ± 8.8 Bq kg−1Mashonga Gold Mine, Uganda
49.7 ± 3.1 Bq kg−1 Kikagati Tin mine, Uganda
57.6 ± 2.9 Bq kg−1Butare Iron ore mine, Uganda
Other emerging CoCPer- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)Food package material, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, non-stick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, fire-fighting foams, industrial facilities (e.g., chrome plating, electronic goods, and oil recovery), Landfill wastewater treatment plant, and living organisms (e.g., fish, animals, and humans) due to the accumulation and persistence over timeWastewater effluent1.3–2.4 ng L−1Nakivubo wetland area, downstream of Bugolobi WWTP and upstream of L. Victoria, Uganda2018–2021[50,51]
Soils600–3000 pg g−1 (Banned in 2009, production for specified uses)
Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA)Surface water1.5–2.4 ng L−1
Soils480–910 pg gL−1 d.w. (Banned in 2019, production for specified uses)
Perfluoroheptanoate (PFHpA)Plant tissues0.65–0.67 pg gL−1 d.w.
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)Soils210–460 pg gL−1 d.w. (Banned in 2022 for all users)
Average Perfluoroalkane sulfonates (∑PFSAs)Urban runoffs8.5–14 ngL−1
Wetland soil4200–5300 pg g−1 d.w.Nakivubo Wetland, Uganda2018–2021[50,51]
Sugarcane soil3000–7900 pg g−1 d.w.
Maize soil 1600–4900 pg gL−1- d.w.
MicroplasticsMicroplastics<1 mm sizePlastic materials utilized by communities Surface water 0.69–2.19 particles/m3Surface water of northern L. Victoria, Uganda2020[125]
Disinfection byproductsTrihalomethanesChloroformUses as an extraction solventDrinking water23.07 µg/LGgaba water treatment plant and water distribution lines, Uganda2022[126]
BromodichloromethaneWas formerly used as a flame retardant but now is used as a reagent or an intermediate in organic chemistry.10.5 µg/L
Total trihalomethane (TTHM)Used in the treatment of water to kill disease-causing microorganisms.32.89 µg/L
ParticulatesParticulate matterPM2.5Help in the implementation of effective pollution control measures and public health interventions to protect people and improve air qualityAir samples152.6 µg/m3 Kampala, Jinja, Mbarara, kyebando, and Rubindi districts, Uganda2010–2022[24,102,127,128,129]
Long-term particulate matterPM10208 µg/m3
Gas Phase PollutantsNO2Used in the production of nitric acid, lacquers, dyes, and other chemicals24.9 µg/m3
SO2Used in the preparation of sulfuric acid, sulfur trioxide, and sulfites3.7 µg/m3
O3Is extensively applied for decontamination purposes11.4 µg/m3
CEC—Critical Environmental concentration values [42]. MRL—Maximum residue limits.
Table 3. Toxic effects of different categories of CoCs, and their ecological and human health effects.
Table 3. Toxic effects of different categories of CoCs, and their ecological and human health effects.
Category of CoCEcological EffectHuman Health Effects
PharmaceuticalsAltered aquatic ecosystems due to bioaccumulation of pharmaceutical residues.Antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption
PesticidesSoil health and microbial community disruption, non-target organism harm, ecological imbalancesAcute and chronic toxicity, reproductive and endocrine disruption, carcinogenicity
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)Bioaccumulation, endocrine disruption, harm to aquatic life, disruption of food chains.Cancer, developmental and reproductive disorders, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity
Personal Care ProductsEnvironmental toxicity to aquatic organisms, ecological disruption, contamination of water resourcesSkin and eye irritation, allergies, hormonal disruptions
Heavy metalsSoil and water contamination, impact on aquatic life, potential bioaccumulation, disruption of aquatic food chainsPotential health issues from exposure include: neurological damage, kidney damage, cardiovascular issues, developmental problems, cancer risks
Perfluorinated compoundsBioaccumulation in fish and fish productsAccumulates primarily in the serum, kidney, and liver, potentially diverse effects on developmental, and reproductive systems and other damaging outcomes.
Biotoxins–MycotoxinsHarm to aquatic organisms, food chain disruption, and ecological imbalance.Acute poisoning, mycotoxicosis, neurotoxicity
Radionuclides and Electromagnetic radiationsGenetic and ecological impacts due to radiation exposure, potential harm to organisms and ecosystemsIncreased cancer risk, radiation sickness, tissue damage, genetic mutations
Engineered nanoparticlesToxicity in plants, fish, earthworms, and bacteria (growth, mortality, reproduction, gene expression)Cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, inflammatory effects in lungs, genotoxicity, carcinogenic effects, granulomas, thickening of alveolar walls, and augmented intestinal collagen staining
MicroplasticsAccumulation in ecosystems, potential harm to marine life, potential disruption of the food chainHealth effects from potential ingestion, respiratory problems, skin irritation, potential carcinogenicity
Disinfection byproductsPotential harm to aquatic life, impact on water quality, aquatic ecosystem disruptionCarcinogenic risk, skin and eye irritation, potential reproductive and developmental effects
ParticulatesAir quality deterioration, potential harm to the respiratory health of ecosystem organismsRespiratory issues, cardiovascular diseases, decreased lung function, cancer risks
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baguma, G.; Bamanya, G.; Gonzaga, A.; Ampaire, W.; Onen, P. A Systematic Review of Contaminants of Concern in Uganda: Occurrence, Sources, Potential Risks, and Removal Strategies. Pollutants 2023, 3, 544-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants3040037

AMA Style

Baguma G, Bamanya G, Gonzaga A, Ampaire W, Onen P. A Systematic Review of Contaminants of Concern in Uganda: Occurrence, Sources, Potential Risks, and Removal Strategies. Pollutants. 2023; 3(4):544-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants3040037

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baguma, Gabson, Gadson Bamanya, Allan Gonzaga, Wycliffe Ampaire, and Patrick Onen. 2023. "A Systematic Review of Contaminants of Concern in Uganda: Occurrence, Sources, Potential Risks, and Removal Strategies" Pollutants 3, no. 4: 544-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants3040037

APA Style

Baguma, G., Bamanya, G., Gonzaga, A., Ampaire, W., & Onen, P. (2023). A Systematic Review of Contaminants of Concern in Uganda: Occurrence, Sources, Potential Risks, and Removal Strategies. Pollutants, 3(4), 544-586. https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants3040037

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop