Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies

Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/books

©2014 IJSRPUB

Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Shuokr Qarani Aziz1, 2, *, Hamidi A. Aziz2, Mohammed J.K. Bashir3, Amin Mojiri2
1
Dept. of Civil Eng., College of Eng., University of Salahaddin–Erbil, Iraq
2
School of Civil Eng., Eng. Campus, USM, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Eng. and Green Tech. (FEGT), Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, 31900 Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author, shoker71@eng-usalah.org, shoker71@yahoo.com, H/P: 00964 750 462 5426

Abstract. Production of raw leachate from landfills regards as shortcoming for the sanitary landfills. Unprocessed landfill
leachate requires treatment prior disposal to the natural environment. In this work, leachate channeling, biological, and
physical-chemical treatment processes for treatment of formed landfill leachate were presented in details. Definite treatment
processes were resulted in high removal of pollutants such as ammonia (NH3-N), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), phenols, color etc. Practically, age of produced leachate have influence on the treatment
systems. Efficient treatment methods were explained for fresh, medium, and stabilized landfill leachates.

Keywords: Landfill, leachate, treatment, municipal solid waste, pollutants, removal efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION adsorbent, reverse osmosis, coagulation–flocculation,

membrane processes, and ion exchange (Aziz et al.
Sanitary landfill is the most common municipal solid 2013; Bashir et al., 2012; Aziz et al., 2011; Abbas et
waste (MSW) disposal method due to such advantages al 2009; Renou et al., 2008).
as simple disposal procedure, low cost, and landscape- The current work was aimed to present appropriate
restoring effect on holes from mineral workings. landfill leachate treatment techniques for unprocessed
However, the production of highly contaminated landfill leachates. Giving detailed information on
landfill leachate is a chief weakness of this system leachate channeling, biological, and physical-chemical
(Aziz et al., 2010). The generation of highly treatment processes for raw leachates was another
contaminated leachate that can seep into the ground goal for the present study. Furthermore, suggestion of
and contaminate the ground water, surface water, and efficient treatment methods for different sorts of
soil is principally a main negative aspect associated to produced landfill leachates from various sanitary
municipal sanitary landfill disposal method (Bashir et landfills was illustrated as well.
al., 2012. Additionally, leachate is liquid contain large
amounts of organic compounds measured as chemical 2. LANDFILL LEACHATE
oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N), halogenated 2.1 Types of leachate based on landfill design
hydrocarbons suspended solid, significant
concentration of heavy metals, and inorganic salts According to Yamamoto, (2002) and Matsufuji et al.
(Aziz, 2013; Bashir et al., 2012; Aziz et al., 2010; (1993), in an anaerobic landfill, solid wastes are
Uygur and Kargi, 2004). dumped in an excavated area of a plane field, which is
If not treated and disposed safely, landfill leachate filled with water in an anaerobic condition. Typically,
could be a major source of water contamination anaerobic sanitary landfills are recognized by its
because it could percolate through soil and subsoil, sandwich-shaped cover. On the other hand, semi-
causing high pollution to receiving waters. Thus, the aerobic landfills have a leachate collection duct. The
treatment of hazardous leachate constituents before opening of the duct is surrounded by air, and the duct
discharge has been made a legal requirement to is covered with small crushed stones. Moisture
prevent pollution of water resources and to avoid both content in solid waste is small, and oxygen is supplied
acute and chronic toxicities (Aziz et al., 2011). to the solid waste from the leachate collection duct.
To reduce the negative impacts of discharged The schematic diagram of anaerobic and semi-aerobic
leachate on the environment, several techniques of (Fukuoka method) landfills is demonstrated in Figure
water and wastewater treatment have been used, 1 (JICA, 2005). Characteristics of fresh landfill
including aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment, leachates at semi-aerobic and anaerobic landfills are
chemical and electrochemical oxidation processes, given in Table 1.
chemical precipitation, adsorption using various

2
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Fig.1: Schematic diagram of anaerobic and semi-aerobic landfill

2.2 Significance of leachate problem primary cause of acute toxicity (Ernst et al., 1994;
Baun et al., 1999). Bashir et al. (2010) stated that the
Tatsi et al. (2003) and Renou et al. (2008) reported existence of high amount of NH3–N in leachate over a
that landfill leachate can be characterized by two main long period of time is one of the most important
factors: quantity (volumetric flow rate) and quality problems routinely faced by landfill operators. This
(chemical composition). El-Fadel et al. (2002) high quantity of unprocessed NH3–N leads to the
indicated that the quantity of leachate generation is depletion of dissolved oxygen which is also
affected by landfill moisture distribution influencers recognized as eutrophication. Because NH3-N is stable
namely refuse age, pretreatment, permeability, under anaerobic situations, it typically accumulates in
compaction, particle size and density and direct the leachate (Ernst et al., 1994). With a concentration
landfill moisture contributors like rainfall, snowmelt, of higher than 100 mg/L, untreated NH3-N is highly
groundwater intrusion, initial moisture and leachate toxic to aquatic organisms (Widziewicz et al., 2012;
recirculation. Seriously, leachate production is rapid Burton and Watson-Craik, 1998; Silva et al., 2004;
in tropical countries such as Malaysia since the Bagchi, 1994). Unless appropriately treated, leachate
rainfall normally exceeds the quantity that can be that seeps from a landfill can get into and contaminate
evaporated during the rainy season (Lema et al., the underlying groundwater.
1988). In line with the abovementioned, if the leachate
Usually, leachate contains a complex variety of escapes to the water bodies, it is very complicated and
substances and organic compounds such as humic costly to have it controlled and cleaned up,
substances, fatty acids, heavy metals and many other consequently posing potentially serious hazards to
hazardous chemicals. Regardless of the concentration living organisms, as well as public health in the long
changes and show a discrepancy based on a complex term. In most cases, it is very hard to restore the
set of interconnected factors, the complexity of the contaminated water bodies to its original state.
landfill leachate can be categorized on the basis of Recently, the hazard of groundwater pollution due to
four major groups of pollutants i.e. dissolved organic leachate seepage has turn out to be a main
substances, inorganic macro-components, heavy environmental concern worldwide. Therefore, an
metals and xenobiotic organic compounds adequate engineering plan and design of a municipal
(Widziewicz et al., 2012; Schrab et al., 1993). landfill can avoid or reduce the seepage of leachate
Bashir et al (2010; 2012) and Aziz et al. (2011) from reaching the water bodies.
reported that the common features of raw leachate Typically, the concentration of leachate parameters
generated from Malaysian landfill sites are its high changes with the age of the leachate. The phases of
strength of recalcitrant compounds (as reflected by its leachate are transition (0 -5 years), acid-formation (5 -
chemical oxygen demand (COD) value) and high 10 years), methane fermentation (15 - 20 years), and
concentrations of ammonia –nitrogen (NH3-N). final maturation (greater than 20 years). The age of
Ammonia resulting from the decomposition process of the landfill is one of the most important factors that
organic nitrogen, has been recognized not only as a affect leachate characteristics (Kostova, 2006; Aziz,
major long-term noxious waste, but also as the 2013) The levels of some leachate characteristics such
3
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), COD, total wastes shifts from a relatively shorter initial period to
organic carbon (TOC), NH3-N, nitrite ( NO2-N) and a longer decomposition period, which has two distinct
total dissolved salts (TDS) in different phases are sub-phases: acidic and methanogenic. Leachates from
presented in Table 1. these distinct stages contain different constituents;
According to the literature, as a landfill becomes therefore, young leachates tend to be acidic due to the
older, the biological decomposition of the deposited presence of volatile fatty acids.

Fig. 2: Diagram of landfill leachate treatment techniques, based on Abbas et al. (2009); Renou et al. (2008)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS potentially hazardous constituents of leachate prior to

discharge is a legal requirement to avoid
If raw leachate is disposed without treatment, it could contamination of water resources to prevent both
become a major source of water pollution because it acute and chronic toxicity (Ziyang et al., 2009; Oman
can percolate through soils and sub-soils, causing high and Junestedt, 2008; Sanphoti et al. 2006; ARRPET,
contamination of the receiving water. The treatment of 2004).

4
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

To reduce the negative impact of discharged effluent (Cecen and Aktas, 2004). A disagreement to
leachate on environment, several techniques of water this treatment option is that phosphorus (brought by
and wastewater treatment have been used. The sewage) and nitrogen (brought by leachate) are not
technologies which were developed for the treatment required to be added to the treatment scheme (Abbas
of landfill leachate could be classified as physical, et al., 2009).
chemical, and biological (Abbast et al., 2009; Renou Cecen and Aktas (2001) investigated the combined
et al., 2008). Normally, the techniques are applied as biological treatability of domestic wastewater and
an integrated system because it is not easy to achieve landfill leachate in both continuous flow and semi-
the satisfying treatment efficiency by using only one continuously fed batch activated sludges, with
technology. Traditional treatment techniques recycling mechanism. In addition, the researchers
generally demand multistage process treatment. To set added powdered activated carbon (PAC) in order to
up acceptable treatment process for removal of examine the improvement in nitrification process and
contaminates from leachates, various physicochemical organic carbon removal. The obtained results showed
and biological techniques and/or their different that in both types of operations, NH3-N and COD
combinations could be applied. removal efficiencies decreased with an increase in the
The implementation of the most suitable technique leachate to total wastewater ratio. When the leachate
for the treatment of leachate is directly governed by ratio increased, the positive effects of PAC on the
the characteristics of the leachate. An overview of removal of COD and nitrification process became
leachate treatment methods is shown in Figure 2, more obvious.
(Abbas et al., 2009; Renou et al., 2008)
Comparison of the above techniques for different 3.1.2. Recycling
landfill ages with changeable success is illustrated in
Table 2. In addition, the most important advantages A common system used in many landfills consists of
and disadvantages of the different leachate treatment recycling landfill leachate back through the tip
methods are reviewed in the following sections. In because it was one of the cheapest alternatives (Lema
general, biological treatment processes are effective et al., 1988). Bae et al. (1998) explained that the
for young or freshly (<5 years) produced leachate, but leachate recirculation increased the moisture content
are ineffective for leachate from older landfills (>10 in a controlled reactor method and offered the
years old). In contrast, physical–chemical methods distribution of enzymes and nutrients between
which are not favoured for young leachate treatment solids/liquids and methanogens. Chugh et al., (1998)
are advised for older leachate treatment (Ghafari et al., stated that lowering COD and methane production
2009). was observed to be important as the recycled leachate
quantity was 30% of the initial waste bed quantity.
3.1. Leachate Channeling The recirculation of leachate not only improves the
leachate characteristics, but also shortens the required
3.1.1. Combined treatment with domestic sewage time for stabilization of leachate from several decades
to 2-3 years (Reinhart and Al-Yousisfi, 1996). High
General means of landfill leachate disposal is piping recirculation rates of leachate could negatively
into the sewerage system for discharge into the sea or, influence anaerobic degradation of solid wastes.
if possible, for combined treatment with domestic Recirculation of leachate could cause the inhibition of
sewage at traditional wastewater treatment plant. It methanogenesis as it may lead to high concentrations
was favoured for its low operating costs and simple of organic acids, pH less than 5, which are toxic for
maintenance (Ahn et al., 2002). This alternative has the methanogens. In addition, if the amount of
been increasingly inquired due to the presence of recycled leachate is very high, problems such as
organic inhibitory compounds in leachate with low saturation, acidic conditions, and ponding may happen
BOD5/COD and heavy metals that might decrease (Abbas et al., 2009).
treatment efficiency and increase concentrations in the

5
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

Table 1: Characteristics of raw leachate at semi-aerobic and anaerobic landfills (Aziz et al., 2010)
Semi- aerobic Pulau Burung site Kulim site Standard B
No. Parameter Unaerated Intermittently aerated Anaerobic
Discharge limit b
Range Averagea Range Averagea Range Averagea
1 Phenols (mg/L) 0.35-2.07 1.2 2.85-10.5 6.7 1-5.25 2.6 …
2 Total nitrogen (mg/L N-TN) 200-700 483 700-1800 1200 100-600 300 …
3 Ammonia-N (mg/L NH3-N) 360-730 542 1145-2150 1568 130-1039 538 …
4 Nitrate-N (mg/L NO3 -N)-
900-3200 2200 2900-7900 5233 400-2600 1283 …
5 Nitrite-N (mg/L NO2--N) 44-270 91 20-120 49 30-60 52 …
6 Total phosphorus (mg/L PO43--TNT) 10-43.0 21 10.0-25 17 8.0-40 19 …
7 Ortho-Phosphorus (mg/L PO43- mv ) 84-274 141 94-210 159 57-197 94 …
8 BOD5 (mg/L) 67-93 83 146-336 243 135-476 326 50
9 COD (mg/L) 600-1300 935 1680-4020 2345 630-2860 1892 100
10 BOD5/COD 0.051-0.12 0.096 0.036-0.186 0.124 0.088-0.35 0.205 0.5
11 pH 8.05-8.35 8.20 8.14-8.37 8.28 6.93-8.26 7.76 5.5-9
12 Electrical conductivity (ms/cm) 10.14-13.630 12.17 21.500-22.500 22.10 5.250-13.92 8.55 …
13 Turbidity (FAU) 600-3404 1546 149-211 180 490-4500 1936 …
14 Color (Pt Co) 1944-4050 3334 2310-4390 3347 1950-7475 4041 …
15 Total solids (mg/L) 5138-7404 6271 8860-11084 9925 4520-10568 6336 …
16 Suspended solids (mg/L) 906-2220 1437 374-1372 837 232-1374 707 100

17 Total iron (mg/L Fe) 2-29.5 7.9 0.9-8.8 3.4 0.6-11.4 5.3 5
18 Zinc (mg/L Zn) 0-3 0.6 0.01-2 0.5 0-1 0.2 1
19 Total coliform … … … <50 (0.77-0.85)x104 0.81x104 …

20 E-Coli … … … 0.00 (0.18-0.22)x104 0.20x104 …

a
Average value of six samples
b
Standard B of the Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979, under the Environmental Quality Act of Malaysia, 1974 (MDC, 1997).

6
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Table 2: Effectiveness of leachate treatment techniques versus leachate age (Abbas et al., 2009)
No. Type of treatment Leacgate age (year)

Young (<5) Medium (5-10) Old (>10)

1 Combined treatment with Good Fair poor

domestic sewage
2 Recycling Good Fair poor

3 Aerobic processes Good Fair poor

4 Anaerobic processes Good Fair poor

5 Coagulation/flocculation Poor Fair Fair

6 Chemical precipitation Poor Fair Poor

7 Adsorption Poor Fair Good

8 Oxidation Poor Fair Fair

9 Stripping Poor Fair Fair

10 Ion exchange Good Good Good

11 Microfiltration Poor - -

12 Ultrafiltration Poor - -

13 Nanofiltration Good Good Good

14 Reverse osmosis Good Good Good

3.2. Biological treatment The main fraction of mature or biologically treated

leachate is large unmanageable organic compounds
The biological purification processes have been well that are not easily removed through biological
recognized and effectively employed for the treatment treatment. Thus, to meet the allowable standards for
of domestic wastewater. Biological treatments are direct discharge of leachate into the environment, a
categorized as aerobic or anaerobic depending on development of integrated treatment methods is
whether or not the biological processing medium required, i.e. a combination of biological, physical,
needs oxygen (O2) supply. In aerobic treatment, and chemical, and other process steps (Tauchert et al.,
organic contaminants are mostly transformed into 2006).
carbon dioxide (CO2) and sludge by using the
atmospheric O2 transferred to the wastewater. While, 3.2.1 Aerobic treatment
in anaerobic processing, organic matter is converted
into biogas, a mixture mainly comprising of CO2 and Destruction of biodegradable organic matter occurs
CH4, and biological sludge (Lema et al., 1988). via aeration in aerobic process. Aerobic biological
Because of its simplicity, reliability, and high-cost methods consist of suspended-growth and attached-
effectiveness, biological purification (suspended or growth biomass processes. The former method has
attached growth) is mainly employed to treat landfill been extensively applied for treatment of municipal
leachate containing extreme concentrations of BOD5 landfill leachate and wastewater (Abbas et al., 2009;
(Renou et al., 2008). Biological techniques have been Renou et al., 2008).
recognized to be very effective for young leachate
treatment since the BOD5/COD ratio is high (> 0.5). i) Suspended-growth biomass process
However, the biodegradability ratio commonly
decreases as the landfill ages, due to the presence of Aerated lagoons
pollutants that decrease biomass activity and/or are Aerated lagoons have commonly been viewed as a
refractory to biological processes (Lema et al., 1988). successful and economical technique for the removal
7
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

of pathogens, organic and inorganic matters. Low SBR (Sequencing batch reactor)
operation and maintenance costs have made them an SBR process varies from activated-sludge
accepted option for wastewater treatment, particularly techniques, because SBR merges all treatment units
in developing countries. Further, it requires a little and processes into a single basin; whereas traditional
professional skill to operate the system (Maynard et systems rely on various tanks. Typical SBR is divided
al., 1999). Maehlum (1995) studied biological into five time periods: fill, react, settle, draw, and idle.
treatment of leachate using anaerobic–aerobic lagoons SBR is used for the treatment of wastewater and
and constructed wetlands and more than 70% of landfill leachates (Mahvi 2008; Al-Rekabi et al.,
nitrogen, phosphorus and ferrous removals were 2007). Due to low BOD5/COD ratio, high
obtained for diluted landfill leachate. Generally, concentration of COD, NH3-N, heavy metals, and
treatment of landfill leachate in lagoons and wetlands other compounds in landfill leachate, the capability of
need 10 to 20 days retention time (Robinson et al, SBR in leachate treatment is relatively weaker than
1992, Maehlum, 1995). In spite of its lower costs, this for municipal and industrial wastes (Uygur and Kargi,
process might not be entirely satisfactory treatment 2004). In literature, SBR was used for the treatment of
option for leachate treatment (Zaloum and Abbott, leachate with low BOD5/COD ratio of 0.09 to 0.37
1997). Finally, large area requirements, aerosol and (Guo et al., 2010; Spagni et al., 2008; Klimiuk and
formation are other shortcomings of this method Kulikowska, 2006).
(Robinson et al, 1992, Maehlum, 1995). SBR augmented powdered activated carbon (PAC-
SBR) showed higher removal efficiencies of NH3-N,
Activated sludge process COD, colour, and TDS when compared with normal
Activated sludge process could be defined as a SBR. Furthermore, PAC-SBR improved sludge
suspended growth process that utilizes aerobic volume index (SVI) (Aziz et al. 2011; 2013)
microorganisms to biodegrade organic matters in ii) Attached-growth biomass systems
wastewater or leachate. Activated sludge technology
has been extensively used for the treatment of A number of attached-growth biomass processes by
wastewater and leachate. However this process has a using biofilm have been recently developed to
good ability in the removal of nutrients but it has overcome the problems of activated sludge,
some weaknesses such as: 1) Excess sludge specifically sludge bulking (Dollerer and Wilderer,
production, 2) Sludge settleability (i.e. high SVI 1996). These methods offer the advantage of not
values), 3) High energy requirements, 4) The need for suffering from loss of active biomass. In addition,
longer contact times, and 5) Microbial inhibition due nitrification is less affected by low temperature than in
to high ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) strength suspended-growth methods, and by inhibition due to
(Loukidou and Zouboulis, 2001; Lin et al., 2000; high nitrogen content.
Lema et al., 1988).
Hoilijoki et al. (2000) added plastic carrier Moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
material to activated sludge process and examined MBBR technique is based on the use of suspended
nitrification of anaerobically pre-treated landfill porous polymeric carriers, kept in continuous
leachate in a lab-scale at different temperatures (5- movement in the aeration basin; whereas the active
10°C). They stated that the concentration of effluent biomass grows like a biofilm on their surfaces. The
parameters (COD, BOD5, and NH3-N) for aerobic main advantages of this process compared to normal
post-treatment were 150-500 mg/L, < 7 mg/L , and < suspended growth methods seems to be:1) Higher
133 mg/L, respectively. PAC supplemented to biomass concentrations, 2) Lower sensitivity to toxic
activated sludge processes improved nitrification compounds, 3) Lower sludge-settling periods, and 4)
efficiency in biological treatment of landfill leachate. Both organic and high NH3-N removals in a single
Aghamohammadi (2006) studied treatment of process. Based on literature, this system could remove
semi-aerobic landfill leachate from PBLS by using 60-81% of COD and 85-90% of NH3-N from landfill
PAC augmented activated sludge process. The author leachate (Loukidou and Zouboulis, 2001; Horan et al.,
reported that the leachate characteristic had great 1997). Welander et al. (1998) reported that MBBR
affect on the removal of organic matter using resulted in about 90% and 20% removal of nitrogen
activated sludge treatment. Removal efficiencies of and COD while no inhibition of nitrification was
colour, COD, and NH3-N during the treatment of encountered during the treatment of high strength
landfill leachate for leachate from PBLS were 21%, ammonia leachate. Further, using adsorbent (i.e.
29%, and 60%, respectively. granular activated carbon) offers a suitable surface to
adsorb organic substance and enhanced
biodegradation. Thus, a steady-state equilibrium is

8
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

recognized between adsorption and biodegradation N, and 19 % for PO43--P. Kettunen and Rintala (1995)
(Horan et al., 1997). explained that COD removal in the anaerobic stage
was 35%; whereas removal efficiencies of COD and
Trickling filters BOD5 in the combined process were up to 75% and
Trickling filters have been tested for lowering the 99%, respectively.
biological nitrogen from landfill leachate. Because of Timur and Ozturk (1999) examined anaerobic
low-cost filter media, biofilters remain an attractive treatability of municipal landfill leachate by using lab-
and interesting alternative for nitrification process scale anaerobic SBR at 35oC. Based on the obtained
(Jokela et al., 2002). In literature, biological nitrogen results, about 83% of COD removed during the
removal from municipal landfill leachate was treatment was converted to methane. In addition, the
examined by Jokela et al. (2002) and nitrification of average biomass yield was 0.12 g volatile suspended
leachate over 90% was achieved by using biofilters. solids per gram of COD removed.
They concluded that nitrification in a low-cost
biofilter followed by denitrification in a landfill body Upflow-anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASBR)
appeared to be applicable for the removal of nitrogen UASBR technique is a modern anaerobic treatment
in landfill leachate in colder climates (Jokela et al., process that can have high treatment efficiency and a
2002). Maximum NH3-N removal of 75 % was short HRT (Lin et al., 2000). In addition, Garcia et al.
obtained by Martienssen and Schops (1997). (1996) reported that UASBR exhibited higher
performances compared to other types of anaerobic
3.2.2. Anaerobic treatment reactors, when they submitted to high volumetric
organic loading rates.
Anaerobic digestion is the oldest system used for A pilot-scale UASBR at low temperature was used
treatment of wastewater. It is suitable for the for the treatment of municipal landfill leachate.
treatment of high strength organic pollutants, such as Removal efficiencies of COD and BOD5 at organic
young leachate. Opposite to aerobic processes, loading rate of 2-4 kg/m3/d of COD were 65-75 % and
anaerobic digestion method saves energy and up to 95 %, respectively (Kettunen and Rintala, 1995).
produces very few solids; but it suffers from low At organic loading rates between 6 and 19.7 g/L/d of
reaction rates. Further, the produced CH4 could be COD, Kennedy and Lentz (2000) obtained COD
used for warming the digester that generally works at removal efficiency of 92%. Generally, for anaerobic
35°C (Renou et al., 2008; Sung et al., 1997). treatment with UASBRs, the process temperatures are
Anaerobic digestion comprises suspended-growth reported to be between 20–35 ◦C. (Akkaya et al.,
digester (anaerobic SBR and up-flow anaerobic sludge 2010). However, several studies were conducted at
blanket reactor, UASBR) and attached-growth temperatures between 11 to 23°C (Kettunen and
biomass system (anaerobic filter, hybrid filter, and Rintala, 1995; Garcia et al., 1996). Sensitivity to toxic
fluidized bed filter). substances is the main disadvantages of UASBRs
(Sung et al., 1997).
i) Suspended-growth digester
ii) Attached-growth biomass systems
Bull et al. (1983) and Sung et al. (1997) studied the
performances of conventional anaerobic suspended Anaerobic filter
growth digester. The researchers reported that the Anaerobic filter method is a high rate system that
typical values for COD removal in anaerobic lab-scale collects the advantages of other anaerobic methods
basin at 35°C and ambient temperature were 80-90% and decreases the shortcomings. The filtration process
and nearly 55%, respectively. may be down-flow or up-flow. Packed filter media
provides the mechanism for separating the solids and
Anaerobic SBR the gas that are produced within the digestion process.
Anaerobic SBR is a type of suspended-growth In an up-flow anaerobic filtration process, biomass is
digester. Some studies have shown good retained as biofilms on the supporting material, such
performances of anaerobic SBRs. These technologies as plastic rings (Nedwell and Reynolds, 1996). At
are able to obtain solid capture and organic lowering loading rates of 1.26-1.45 kg/m3/d of COD and for
in one reactor (Timur and Ozturk, 1999). Uygar and different ages of landfill leachate, anaerobic filter
Kargi (2004) used lab-scale SBR for the reduction of removed 90% of COD. Further, anaerobic filter
nutrient from pre-treated leachate. The researchers resulted in total biogas production ranged between
reported that, at the end of cycle time of 21 h, 400 to 500 Lgas/kg COD destroyed and methane
sequential anaerobic/aerobic operations offered content of 75% and 85% (Henry et al., 1987).
removal efficiencies of 62% for COD, 31% for NH3-
9
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

Hybrid filter an effective pretreatment process if used prior to

Hybrid bed filter consists of an up-flow sludge reverse osmosis or biological treatment or as a last
blanket at the bed and an anaerobic filter on the top. polishing treatment so as to remove or decrease non-
This technique acts as a gas-solid separator and biodegradable organic matter in landfill leachate
improves solid’s retention without causing (Amokrane et al., 1997). Due to its limited efficiency
channelling or short-circuiting. A hybrid bed filter for the removal of organic matter, it is not suitable for
(consisted of anaerobic filter and up-flow anaerobic a full treatment of landfill leachate. Duan and Gregory
sludge blanket reactor) with a filter volume of 2.75 L (2003) reported that the removal mechanism of the
and HRT of 2.4 d at temperature of 35 oC resulted in coagulation process mainly consists of charge
removal of about 37.5 to 76 % COD from landfill neutralization of negatively charged impurities by
leachate (Timur and Ozturk, 1997). Nedwell and cationic hydrolysis products followed by integration
Reynolds(1996) showed steady state COD removal of colloids in an amorphous hydroxide precipitate
efficiencies of 81-97% under methanogenic digestion during flocculation process.
was based on organic loading rate; and effective In literature, aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate,
treatment occurred up to a volumetric COD loading ferric chlorosulfate, and ferric chloride were generally
rate of 3.75 kg COD/m3·d1. One disadvantage of used as coagulants (Zouboulis et al., 2004; Amokrane
hybrid bed filter, as well as anaerobic filter, is the et al. 1997). Dialynas et al. (2008) investigated that
additional cost of the supporting media. ferric chloride is more effective than alum in
eliminating organic constituent of landfill leachate,
Fluidized bed filter particularly at pH values more than 9. It was sued to
Imai et al. (1993) applied microorganism-attached the fact that ferric chloride enlarges floc size and
activated carbon fluidized bed technique for the reduces settling time more than alum.
treatment of real landfill leachate containing Ghafari et al. (2009) explained that by using alum
refractory organics and a high concentration of NH4- as coagulant, the optimum removal efficiencies of
N. They reported that the microorganism-attached COD, colour, turbidity, and suspended solids from
activated carbon fluidized bed method removed about stabilized leachae were 62.8 %, 86.4%, 88.4%, and
60% and 70% of refractory organics and nitrogen, 90.1 %, respectively. Aziz et al. (2007) used
respectively. A number of researches on carbon- aluminum (III) sulphate (alum), ferric (III) chloride,
assisted fluidized beds have been conducted (Gulsen ferrous (III) sulphate and ferric (III) sulphate as
and Turan, 2004; Suidan et al., 1993). Suidan et al. coagulants. The obtained results showed that ferric
(1993) stated that about 82% of COD was removed chloride was better than the other coagulants with a
from leachate via fluidized bed reactor at temperature colour removal of 94 %.
of 35 oC and volume of 7.9 L. However, coagulation/flocculation process have a
number of shortcomings, such as inefficiency in NH3-
3.3. Physical/chemical treatment N removal, low removal efficiency of high strength
landfill leachate, an increase on the concentration of
Physico-chemical processes are used along with the iron or aluminum could also be noticed in the liquid
biological processes generally to enhance treatment phase, and production of huge volume of sludge
efficiency or to enhance biodegradability when the (Duan and Gregory, 2003; Tatsi et al., 2003; Silva et
biological oxidation method is disadvantaged by the al., 2004; Amokrane et al., 1997).
occurrence of bio-refractory materials. A number of Al-Hamadani et al. (2011) studied the feasibility of
physical/chemical treatment techniques which using psyllium husk as coagulant and coagulant aid
includes coagulation/flocculation, flotation, chemical (with poly-aluminum chloride and aluminum sulfate)
precipitation, adsorption, ammonium stripping, for the treatment of semi-aerobic landfill leachate
chemical oxidation, ion exchange, electrochemical from PBLS. When psyllium husk was used as primary
oxidation, and membrane filtration are used for coagulant, the removal efficiencies for COD, colour
removing non-biodegradable (humic and fulvic acid) and suspended solids were 55 %, 80% and 95%,
and/or unwanted compounds (such as heavy metals) respectively; whereas the removal efficiencies of
from the landfill leachate (Abbas et al., 2009; Renou COD, colour, and suspended solids for psyllium husk
et al., 2008; Zouboulis et al., 2004) as coagulant aid with poly-aluminum chloride were
64, 90 and 96%, respectively. The researchers
3.3.1. Coagulation/flocculation reported that psyllium husk was more effective as
coagulant aid with poly-aluminum chloride in the
Coagulation–flocculation technique is considered as a removal of COD, colour and suspended solids, as
simple physical–chemical process in landfill leachate compared to aluminum sulfate.
treatment (Aziz et al. 2009; Ghafari et al., 2009). It is
10
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

3.3.2. Flotation 3.3.4. Adsorption

Dissolved air flotation could be defined as Adsorption technique is recognized as the efficient
disconnection of suspended solids from liquids by and promising elementary approach in wastewater
carrying the particles to the surface of the liquid (Al- treatment processes (Foo and Hameed, 2009). It is
Shamrani et al., 2002). For many years, flotation used as a stage of integrated chemical-physical-
technique has been widely used and focused on the biological method for leachate treatment, or
reduction of ions, colloids, microorganisms, simultaneously with a biological process. The most
macromolecules, and fibers (Zouboulis et al., 2003). commonly used adsorbent is granular activated carbon
This technique was used extensively for the treatment or PAC (Abbas et al., 2009).
of oily wastewater. PAC as adsorbent improved performance of SBR
Zouboulis et al. (2003) examined the use of process. Results revealed that the PAC-SBR offered
flotation in column, as a post-treatment step for the better removal efficiencies of pollutants and improved
removal of residual humic acids (non-biodegradable sludge characteristics (Aziz et al. 2011; 2013)
compounds) from simulated landfill leachates. Under
optimum operational conditions, the researchers 3.3.5. Ammonium stripping
obtained about 60% humic acids removal.
Lately, using dissolved air flotation process for the Because of its high removal efficiency, the
treatment of landfill leachate in the presence and ammonium stripping treatment method is the most
absence of coagulation process was studied by Adlan widely used for the removal of NH3-N from landfill
et al. (2011) and Palaniandy et al. (2010). Based on leachate. High concentrations of NH4-N are
the obtained results by Palaniandy et al. (2010), the commonly found in landfill leachates, which lead to
removal efficiencies of colour, COD, and turbidity increasing wastewater toxicity. This method usually
from leachate using dissolved air flotation process changes dissolved NH3-N and dissolved CH4 in
(without coagulation process) were 36%, 33%, and leachate to gases. High pH values must be provided in
32%, respectively; whereas the removal efficiencies this method so as the column works efficiently (Hao
with the coagulation process were 70%, 79%, and et al., 2010; Ozturk et al., 2003; Marttinen et al.,
42%, respectively. 2002).
Sincero and Sincero (2003) explained that
3.3.3. Chemical precipitation stripping was completed via introducing wastewater at
the upper part of the stripping column and permitting
Chemical precipitation method has been extensively it to flow the air down in the column. Marttinen et al.
employed as leachate pre-treatment because of its (2002) reported that this method at operation
simplicity, capability, and low-cost equipment used. condition of pH value equal to 11, temperature of
This method is efficient in removing NH3-N, non- 20°C, and retention time of 24 h resulted in NH3-N
biodegradable compounds, and heavy metals from removal of 89%. In a research conducted by Silva et
landfill leachate (Akkaya et al., 2010; Zhang et al., al. (2004), the researchers obtained NH3-N removal
2009; Calli et al., 2005; Ozturk et al., 2003). efficiency of 99.5%. Calli et al. (2005) explained that
Li et al. (1999) stated that the performance of a the removal efficiencies of NH3-N and COD for initial
conventional activated sludge technique could be concentration of 3260 mg/L were 94 % and <15%,
significantly affected by the high concentration of respectively.
NH4+-N. Struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate Comparing with other treatment techniques such as
hexahydrate, MgNH4PO4.6H2O) precipitation was reverse osmosis and nanofiltration ammonium
firstly distinguished as a phenomenon to be controlled stripping discovered to be more economical in terms
because it could cause problems throughout the of operational costs. Regardless of its advantages, the
operation of wastewater treatment and other processes main disadvantages of this technique are: 1) The
where high concentrations of ammonium, magnesium, release of NH3-N gas to the atmosphere, 2) The
and phosphate are present. scaling of CaCO3 when lime is used for pH adjustment
Ozturk et al. (2003) used Struvite as precipitant for in the stripping tower, and 3) Adjustment of effluent
the removal of NH3-N from anaerobically pre-treated pH value prior discharge (Li et al., 1999).
leachate. The removal efficiency of NH3-N and COD
were 90% and 50%, respectively. It is confirmed that 3.3.6. Chemical oxidation
the ammonium concentration in leachate could be
considerably reduced by struvite precipitation. Oxidation and reduction process are based on transfer
However, this process requires relatively expensive of electrons. In this process, one compound gives
chemicals (Kochany and Lipczynska-Kochany, 2009). electrons whereas the other receives electrons. When
11
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

biological treatments are inefficient, this method is prepared of synthetic organic polymers or natural
used to achieve desired objectives. Chemical zeolite. Ions such as H+, OH-, Na+, and Cl- are joined
oxidation process is required for the treatment of to the resin by weak electrostatic forces. These ions
wastewater containing non-biodegradable and/or toxic are exchanged with ions in the contaminated product
pollutants. So, this method is an efficient technique that have more similarity for the resin. Resins could
for the treatment of low BOD5/COD (i.e. stabilized) be prepared to pick particular ions. The application of
landfill leachates (Derco et al., 2010; Mohajeri et al., ion exchange is economically limited due to high
2010; Rivas et al., 2003; Droste, 1997; Marco et al., operational cost. Another limitation is the requirement
1997). of suitable pre-treatment system such as the removal
Amokrane et al. (1997) used oxidants, such as of suspended solids from landfill leachate. However,
chlorine, potassium permanganate, ozone, and ion exchange process is proper for heavy metal
calcium hydrochloride, for landfill leachate treatment removal from leachate (Kurniawan et al., 2006).
and found COD removal of 20–50%. Researchers
reported that the efficiency of COD reduction for 3.3.8. Electrochemical oxidation
mature and biologically pretreated landfill leachates
were 60 to 75 %, respectively by using Fenton reagent Recently, electrochemical oxidation process has
(Lopez et al., 2004; Kang and Hwang, 2000). received important consideration for wastewater
Fenton oxidation was used by Mohajeri et al. treatment because of its efficient and simple
(2010) for the removal of colour and COD from Pulau operation. This treatment process has the ability to
Burung stabilized landfill leachate whereby colour destroy refractory pollutants. In this process,
and COD removal were 78% and 58%, respectively refractory pollutants could be destroyed by direct
(Mohajeri et al., 2010). Additionally, Gotvajn et al. anodic oxidation, electro-chemically, or by indirect
(2009) mentioned that the removal efficiency of NH3- oxidation (Atmaca, 2009; Deng and Englehrdt, 2007,
N by using Fenton oxidation was 40%. Chiang et al., 1995). Several types of electrodes have
According to Lopez et al. (2004), Fenton process been examined for electrochemical treatment such as
seemed to be the best compromise because it is Ti, TiO2, PbO2/Ti, SnO2/Ti, Fe, aluminum, iron, and
technically simple. In spite of simplicity of Fenton graphite (Atmaca, 2009; Irdemez et al., 2006; Shen et
process, it requires low pH and a modification of this al., 2006; Chiang et al., 1995).
parameter is necessary. Further, high demand of Atmaca (2009) used cast iron plates for both
electrical energy and high oxidant doses are other anodes and cathodes with surface area of 22.6 cm2. At
disadvantages of this method that makes the process operational conditions of 20 min treatment duration,
expensive (Bashir, 2011). constant DC current of 3A, H2O2 concentration of
2000 mg/L, and at initial pH 3, removal efficiencies of
3.3.7. Ion exchange colour and COD were 90% and 72 %, respectively.
Electrochemical oxidation process was used for the
Ion exchange process could be defined as reversible treatment of Pulau Burung semi-aerobic landfill
interchange of ions among the liquid and solid phases leachate, Malaysia. Sodium sulphate Na2SO4 (as
where no significant change in the structure of the electrolyte) and carbon electrodes were used in the
solid is observed. This treatment process is capable of treatment process. At optimum operational conditions
efficiently removing the traces of metal impurities to (1414 mg/L influent COD, 79.8 m A/cm2 current
meet the increasingly strict discharge standards in density and 4 h reaction time), the removal
developed countries. However, the application of ion efficiencies of BOD5, COD, and colour were 69.8 %,
exchange is not generally used for the treatment of 67.6 %, and 83.7 %, respectively. Further, graphite
landfill leachate, but it received great attention in carbon electrode showed better performance in the
Germany for the removal of non-biodegradable removal of BOD5, COD and colour (Bashir, 2007).
compounds that contained humic substances (Fettig, The disadvantages of this method are: 1) It is more
1999). expensive than other treatment processes because of
Researchers explained that ion exchange resins are high energy consumption, 2) It is less widely used for
generally and capably used for the removal of organic the treatment of stabilized leachate, 3) High current
compounds and ions from water and wastewater and density could increase corrosion rate of electrodes,
as a polishing step in landfill leachate treatment. Prior and 4) It is inefficient for the removal of inorganic
to ion exchange process, leachate should initially be substances and NH3-N.
subjected to biological treatment (Bashir et al., 2010;
Kurniawan et al., 2006). All soluble metallic elements
(anionic or cationic) could be efficiently removed or
reduced by using ion exchange technique. The resin is
12
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

3.3.9. Membrane filtration heavy metals from landfill leachate (Ozturk et al.,
2003). Removals of COD and NH3-N from landfill
A membrane could be defined as a material that leachate by using this process were 60 % to 70 % and
creates a thin barrier capable of selectively resisting 50 %, respectively (Trebouet et al., 2001; Linde and
the move of different constituents of a fluid and Jonsson, 1995). In another research conducted by
therefore affecting separation of the constituents Trebouet et al. (2001), nanofiltration was employed in
(Visvanathan et al., 2000). Usually, a thin layer of combination with physical processes which offered
material with a high surface porosity and a narrow acceptable COD removal (70% to 80 %) from landfill
domain of pore size affect the physical structure of the leachate. Based on the results achieved by Linde and
membrane. Different membrane filtration techniques: Jonsson (1995), removal efficiencies of sulphate salts,
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and chloride, and other (Pb2+, Zn2+, and Cd2+) from landfill
reverse osmosis are used in landfill leachate treatment. leachate were 88-96%, 12-47 %, and > 88 %,
respectively.
i) Microfiltration On the other hand, successful use of membrane
technique needs effective control of membrane
Microfiltration with pore sizes of 0.05 to 10 microns fouling. An extensive spectrum of components could
is employed to capture microbial cells, small particles, contribute to membrane fouling in leachate
and large colloidal. According to landfill leachate nanofiltration which includes inorganic substances,
treatment, this method is not suitable to be used alone. dissolved organic, suspended particles, and colloidals
It is recommended to be used as pretreatment process (Trebouet et al., 2001).
with other membrane processes (i.e. ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration or reverse osmosis) or in combination iv) Reverse osmosis
with chemical treatment processes so as to remove
suspended matters and colloids. Piatkiewicz et al. Membrane techniques, specifically reverse osmosis, is
(2001) used this method as pre-filtration stage and a relatively new method that seems to be a more
obtained COD removal of 25% to 35 %. efficient alternative than traditional methods for
mature landfill leachate treatment. This method
ii) Ultrafiltration involves separating two solutions with various
concentrations by using a semi-permeable membrane
Ultrafiltration is a selective process utilizing pressures (Kurniawan et al., 2006; Ahn et al., 2002; Chianese et
up to 10 bar. This technique is efficient to remove al., 1999).
suspended matters either by direct filtration or with Ahn et al. (2002) stated that a landfill leachate
biological treatment to replace sedimentation unit. It is treatment plant in Korea was retrofitted to improve
strongly dependant on the kind of material treatment efficiency by employing integrated
constituting the membrane. Syzdek and Ahlert (1984) membrane technique that was composed of membrane
proposed that this process might prove to be useful as bioreactor and reverse osmosis method. The removal
a pre-treatment method for reverse osmosis. It could efficiencies of COD and NH3-N from young landfill
be employed to eliminate the larger molecular weight leachate were 96 % and 97 %, respectively. Other
components of leachate that tend to foul reverse researchers stated that the removal of COD and NH3-
osmosis membranes (Bohdziewicz et al., 2001; N from landfill leachate was 98% (Linde et al., 1995).
Rautenbach et al., 1996). COD removal of 50% was Although, reverse osmosis technique was reported
obtained by using ultrafiltration alone (Bohdziewicz et as the most efficient in the removal of COD among
al., 2001) various physical-chemical technologies assessed
Lastly, Tabet et al. (2002) reported that (Peters 1998), some disadvantages have been noticed
ultrafiltration membranes have been successfully for membrane techniques. They include membrane
employed in full scale membrane bioreactor plants by clogging which reduces the overall process
combination of bioreactors and membrane technology. performance by lowering the reject concentration
High levels for landfill leachate treatment have been while the cleaning of such membranes also reduces
obtained by using this method. their lifetime. Additionally, the production of large
quantitities of residuals which are generally useless
iii) Nanofiltration and required to be discharged or need further
treatment (Li et al., 2009; Wiszniowski et al., 2006).
Because of its unique properties between
ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes,
nanofiltration has discovered a place in the
elimination of refractory organic compounds and
13
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

4. CONCLUSIONS Colloids and surfaces A: Physicochemical and

Engineering Aspects, 209(1): 15–26.
Design of landfill, age of landfill leachate, climate etc. Amokrane A, Comel C, Veron J (1997). Landfill
have great effect on leachate treatment. In this work, leachates pretreatment by coagulation–
detailed review on various treatment techniques were flocculation. Water Research, 31(11): 2775–
explained. Results revealed that combined treatment 2782.
with domestic sewage, recycling, and biological Asian Regional Research Programme on
systems are efficient for processing young landfill Environmental Technology, ARRPET (2004).
leachate. Commonly, physical-chemical treatment State of the art review landfill leachate
methods are competent for treating medium and treatment. Asian Institute of Technology,
old/stabilized leachates. Further, augmenting physical Tongji University.
and chemical methods or biological and physical- Atmaca E (2009) Treatment of landfill leachate by
chemical processes enhanced treatment of stabilized using electro-Fenton method. Journal of
leachate. Hazardous Materials, 163(1): 109–114.
Aziz HA, Alias S, Adlan MN, Faridah Asaari AH,
REFERENCES Zahari MS (2007). Colour removal from
landfill leachate by coagulation and flocculation
Abbas AA, Jingsong G, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi processes. Bioresource Technology, 98: 218–
WS (2009). Review on landfill leachate 220.
treatments. Journal of Applied Sciences Aziz HA, Daud Z, Adlan MN, Hung YT (2009). The
Research, 5(5): 534–545. use of polyaluminium chloride for removing
Adlan MN, Palaniandy P, Aziz HA (2011). colour, COD and ammonia from semi-aerobic
Optimization of coagulation and dissolved air leachate. Int. J. Environmental Engineering,
flotation (DAF) treatment of semi-aerobic 1(1): 20–35.
landfill leachate using response surface Aziz SQ (2013). Produced Leachate from Erbil
methodology (RSM). Desalination, 277(1–3): Landfill Site, Iraq: Characteristics, Anticipated
74–82. Environmental Threats and Treatment. The
Aghamohammadi N (2006). Semi-aerobic leachate 16th International Conference on Petroleum,
treatment using powdered activated carbon Mineral Resources and Development, Cairo,
augmented activated sludge process. Egypt. 10-12 Feb., 2013.
Unpublished, M.Sc. thesis, School of Civil Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Bashir MJK (2011).
Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Landfill leachate treatment using powdered
Ahn S, Congeevaram S, Choung YK, Park J (2008). activated carbon augmented sequencing batch
Enhanced phenol removal by floating fungal reactor (SBR) process: Optimization by
populations in a high concentration phenol–fed response surface methodology. Journal of
membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 221: 494– Hazardous Materials, 189: 404-413.
501. Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Mojiri A, Bashir MJK, Abu Amr
Ahn WY, Kang MS, Yim SK, Choi KH (2002). S (2013). Landfill Leachate Treatment Using
Advanced landfill leachate treatment using an Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Process:
integrated membrane process. Desalination, Limitation of Operational Parameters and
149: 109–l 14. Performance. International Journal of Scientific
Akkaya E, Demir A, Karadag D, Varank G, Bilgili Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(3): 34-43.
MS, Ozkaya B (2010). Post-treatment of Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Bashir MJK, Umar M
anaerobically treated medium-age landfill (2010). Leachate characterization in semi-
leachate. Environmental Progress and aerobic and anaerobic sanitary landfills: A
Sustainable Energy, 29(1): 78–84. comparative study. Journal of Environmental
Al-Hamadani YAJ, Yusoff MS, Umar M, Bashir Management, 91: 2608-2614.
MJK, Adlan MN (2011). Application of Bae JH, Cho KW, Bum BS, Lee SJ, Yoon BH (1998).
psyllium husk as coagulant and coagulant aid in Effects of leachate recycle and anaerobic
semi-aerobic landfill leachate treatment. Journal digester sludge recycle on the methane
of Hazardous Materials, 190: 582–587. production from solid waste. Water Science and
Al-Rekabi WS, Qiang H, Qiang WW (2007). Review Technology, 38(2): 159–168.
on sequencing batch reactors. Pakistan Journal Bagchi A (1994). Design Construction and
of Nutrition, 6(1): 11–19. Monitoring of Landfills, John Wiley & Sons,
Al-Shamrani AA, James A, Xiao H (2002). Separation New York.
of oil from water by dissolved air flotation.
14
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Bashir MJK (2007). Landfill leachate treatment by on MSW degradation. Waste Management and
electrochemical oxidation. Unpublished, M.Sc. Research, 16: 564–573.
thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Deng Y, Englehardt JD (2007). Electrochemical
Sains Malaysia. oxidation for landfill leachate treatment. Waste
Bashir MJK (2011). Removal of colour, COD and Management, 27(3): 380–388.
NH3-N from landfill leachate using anionic and Derco J, Gotvajn AZ, Zagorc-Koncan J, Almasiova B,
cationic resin. Unpublished, PhD thesis, School Kassai A (2010). Pretreatment of landfill
of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia. leachate by chemical oxidation processes.
Bashir MJK, Aziz HA, Aziz SQ, Abu Amr SS (2012). Chemical papers, 64(2): 237–245.
An overview of electro-oxidation processes Dialynas E, Mantzavinos D, Diamadopoulos E
performance in stabilized landfill leachate (2008). Advanced treatment of the reverse
treatment. Desalination and Water Treatment, osmosis concentrate produced during
DOI:10.1080/19443994.2012.734698. reclamation of municipal wastewater. Water
Bashir MJK, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN (2010). Research, 42 (18): 4603–4608.
Application of response surface methodology Dollerer J, Wilderer PA (1996). Biological treatment
(RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal nitrogen of leachates from hazardous waste landfills
removal from semiaerobic landfill leachate using sbbr technology. Water Science and
using ion exchange resin. Desalination, 254: Technology, 34 (7–8): 437–444.
154–161. Droste R (1997) Theory and practice of water and
Baun A, Kløft L, Bjerbg PL, Nyholm N (1999). wastewater treatment. John Wiley and Sons,
Toxicity testing of organic chemicals in Inc., USA.
groundwater polluted with landfill leachate, Duan J, Greogory J (2003). Coagulation by
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2046–2053. hydrolyzing metal salts. Advances in Colloid
Burton, S.Q., Watson-Craik, I.A. (1998) Ammonia and Interface Science, 100–102: 475–502.
and nitrogen fluxes in landfill sites: El-Fadel M, Bou-Zeid E, Chahine W, Alayli B (2002).
applicability to sustainable landfilling, Waste Temporal variation of leachate quality from
Manage. Res. 16, 41–53. pre-sorted and baled msw with high organic and
Bohdziewicsz J, Bodzek M, Gorska J (2001). moisture content. Waste Management, 22: 269–
Application of thee pressure-driven membrane 282.
techniques to biological treatment of landfill Ernst WR, Hennigar P, Doe K, Wade S, Julien G
leachate. Process Biochemistry, 36: 641–646. (1994). Characterization of the chemical
Bull PS, Evans JV, Wechsler RM, Cleland KJ (1983). constituents and toxicity to aquatic organisms
Biological technology of the treatment of of a municipal landfill leachate, Water Pollut.
leachate from sanitary landfills. Water Res. J. Can., 29: 89–101.
Research, 17: 1473–1481. Fettig J (1999) Removal of humic substances by
Calli B, Metroglu B, Inanc B (2005). Landfill leachate adsorption/ion exchange. Water Science and
management in Istanbul: Application and Technology, 40 (9): 173–182.
alternatives. Chemosphere, 59 (6): 819–829. Foo KY, Hameed BH (2009). An overview of landfill
Cecen F, Aktas O (2001) Effect of PAC addition in leachate treatment via activated carbon
combined treatment of landfill leachate and adsorption process. Journal of Hazardous
domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fed Materials, 171: 54–60.
batch and continuous–flow reactors. Water SA, Garcia H, Rico JL, Garcia PA (1996). Comparison of
27(2). anaerobic treatment of leachates from an urban-
Cecen F, Aktas O (2004). Aerobic co-treatment of solid-waste landfill at ambient temperature and
landfill leachate with domestic wastewater. at 35°C. Bioresource Technology, 58 (3), 273–
Environmental Engineering Science, 21: 303– 277.
312. Ghafari S, Aziz HA, Isa, MH, Zinatizadeh AA (2009).
Chianese A, Ranauro R, Verdone N (1999). Treatment Application of response surface methodology
of landfill leachate by reverse osmosis. Water (RSM) to optimize coagulation-flocculation
Research, 33 (3), 647–652. treatment of leachate using poly–aluminum
Chiang LC, Chang JE, Wen TC (1995). Indirect chloride (PAC) and alum. Journal of Hazardous
oxidation effect in electrochemical oxidation Materials, 163: 650–656.
treatment of landfill leachate. Water Research, Gotvajn AZ, Tisler T, Zagorc–Koncan J (2009).
29 (2): 671–678. Comparison of different treatment strategies for
Chugh S, Clarke W, Pullammanappallil P, Rudolph V industrial landfill leachate. Journal of
(1998). Effect of recirculated leachate volume Hazardous Materials, 162(2–3): 1446–1456.
15
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

Gulsen H, Turan M (2004). Startup of anaerobic flow upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
fluidized bed reactor for landfill leachate reactors. Water Research, 34 (14), 3640–3656.
treatment. Environmental Technology, 25(10): Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (1995). Sequential
1107–1114. anaerobic-aerobic treatment of sulphur rich
Guo JS, Abbas AA, Chen YP, Liu ZP, Chen P (2010) phenolic leachates. Journal of Chemical
Treatment of landfill leachate using a combined Technology and Biotechnology, 62(2): 177–
stripping, Fenton, SBR, and coagulation 184.
process. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 178: Klimiuk E, Kulikowska D (2006) The influence of
699 –705. hydraulic retention time and sludge age on the
Hao YJ, Chen YX, Wu WX, Zhang SG, Liu HQ, Ji M kinetics of nitrogen removal from leachate in
(2010). The pathway in–situ ammonium SBR. Polish Journal of Environmental Studuies,
removal from aerated municipal solid waste 15(2): 283–289.
bioreactor: Nitrification/denitrification or air Kochany J, Lipczynska-Kochany E (2009) Utilization
stripping? Waste Management and Research, 1- of landfill leachate parameters for pretreatment
8. by Fenton reaction and struvite precipitation–A
Henry JG, Prasad D, Young H (1987). Removal of comparative study. Journal of Hazardous
organics from leachates by anaerobic filter. Material, 166: 248–254.
Water Research, 21 (11), 1395–1399. Kostova I (2006). Leachate from Sanitary
Hoilijoki TH, Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (2000). LandfillseOrigin, Characteristics,
Nitrification of anaerobically pretreated Treatment.University of Architecture, Civil
municipal landfill leachate at low temperature. Engineering and Geodesy, “Iskar’s Summer
Water Research, 34(5): 1435–1446. School”-Borovetz, 26-29 July.
Horan NJ, Gohar H, Hill B (1997). Application of a Kurniawan TA, Lo WH, Chan GYS (2006). Physico–
granular activated carbon–biological fluidized chemical treatments for removal of recalcitrant
bed for the treament of landfill leachate contaminants from landfill leachate. Journal of
containing high concentrations of ammonia. Hazardous Materials, 129(1–3): 80-100.
Water Science and Technology, 36: 369–375. Lema JM, Mendez R, Blazquez R (1988).
Imai A, Iwami N, Matsushige K, Inamori Y, Sudo R Characteristics of landfill leachates and
(1993). Removal of refractory organics and alternatives for their treatment: A review. Water
nitrogen from landfill leachate by the Air and Soil Pollution–Water, Air, & Soil
microorganism-attached activated carbon Pollution, 40(3–4): 223–250.
fluidized bed process. Water Research, 27: Li HS, Zhou SQ, Sun YB, Feng P, Li JD (2009).
143–145. Advanced treatment of landfill leachate by a
Irdemez S, Demircioglu N, Yildiz YS, Bingul Z new combination process in a full–scale plant.
(2006). The effects of current density and Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172(1): 408–
phosphate concentration on phosphate removal 415.
from wastewater by elctro coagulation using Li XZ, Zhao QL, Hao XD (1999). Ammonium
aluminum and iron plate electrodes. Separation removal from landfill leachate by chemical
and Purification Technology, 52: 218–223. precipitation. Waste Management, 19(6): 409–
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) 415.
(2005). A practical guide to landfill Lin CY, Chang FY, Chang CH (2000). Co–digestion
management in Pacific island countries, of leachate with septage using a UASB reactor.
Volume-1: Inland-based waste disposal. Bioresource Technology, 73: 175–178.
Jokela JPY, Kettunenb RH, Sormunena KM, Rintala Linde K, Jonsson AS (1995). Nanofiltration of salt
JA (2002). Biological nitrogen removal from solution and landfill leachate. Desalination,
municipal landfill leachate: Low–cost 103: 223–232.
nitrification in biofilters and laboratory scale in- Linde K, Jonsson AS, Wimmerstedt R (1995).
situ denitrification. Water Research, 36: 4079– Treatment of three types of landfill leachate
4087. with reverse osmosis. Desalination, 101(1): 21–
Kang YW, Hwang KY (2000). Effects of reaction 31.
conditions on the oxidation efficiency in the Lopez A, Pagano M, Volpe A, Pinto ACD (2004).
Fenton process.Water Research, 34(10): 2786– Fenton's pre–treatment of mature landfill
2790. leachate. Chemosphere, 54(7): 1005–1010.
Kennedy KJ, Lentz EM (2000). Treatment of landfill Loukidou MX, Zouboulis AI (2001). Comparison of
leachate using sequencing batch and continuous two biological treatment process using attached
growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate
16
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

treatment. Environmental pollution, 111(2): membranes. Filtration and Separation, 38: 22–
273–281. 26.
Maehlum T (1995). Treatment of landfill leachate in Rautenbach R, Vossenkaul K, Linn T, Katz T (1996).
on-site lagoons and constructed wetlands. Wastewater treatment by membrane processes–
Water Science and Technology, 32: 129–135. New development in ultrafiltration,
Mahvi AH (2008) Sequencing batch reacttor: A nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.
promising technology in wastewater treatment, Desalination, 108: 247–253.
Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng., 5(2): 79–90. Reinhart DR, Al-Yousfi AB (1996) The impact of
Marco A, Esplugas S, Saum G (1997). How and why leachate recirculation on municipal solid waste
combine chemical and biological processes for landfill operating characteristics. Waste
wastewater treatment. Water Science and Management and Research, 14: 337–346.
Technology, 35(4): 321–327. Renou S, Givaudan GJ, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F,
Martienssen M, Schops R (1997). Biological Moulin P (2008). Landfill leachate treatment:
treatment of leachate from solid waste landfill Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous
sites-Alterations in the bacterial community Materials, 150: 468–493.
during the denitrification process. Water Rivas FJ, Beltran F, Gimeno O, Acedo B, Carvalho F
Research, 31(5): 1164–1170. (2003). Stabilized leachates: Ozone-activated
Marttinen SK, Kettunen RH, Sormunen KM, carbon treatment and kinetics. Water Research,
Soimasuo RM, Rintala JA (2002). Screening of 37(20): 4823–4834.
physical-chemical methods for removal of Robinson HD, Barr MJ, Last SD (1992). Leachate
organic material, nitrogen and toxicity from low collection, treatment and disposal. Water and
strength landfill leachates. Chemosphere, 46(6): Environmental Journal, 6(4): 321–332.
851–858. Sanphoti N, Towprayoon S, Chaiprasert P,
Maynard HE, Ouki SK, Williams SC (1999). Tertiary Nopharatana A (2006). The effects of leachate
lagoons: A review of removal mechanisms and recirculation with supplemental water addition
performance. Water Research, 33: 1–13. on methane production and waste
Mohajeri S, Aziz HA, Isa MH, Zahed MA, Adlan MN decomposition in a simulated tropical landfill.
(2010). Statistical optimization of process Journal of Environmental Management, 81: 27–
parameters for landfill leachate treatment using 35.
electro-Fenton technique. Journal of Hazardous Schrab GE, Brown KW, Donnelly KC (1993) Acute
Materials, 176: 749–758. and genetic toxicity of municipal landfill
Matsufuji Y, Hanashima M, Nagano S, Tanaka A leachate. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 69: 99–
(1993). Generation of Greenhouse Effect Gases 112.
from Different Landfill Type. Engineering Shen ZM, Wu, D, Yang J, Yuan T, Wang WH, Jia JP
Geology, 34: 181-197. (2006). Methods to improve electrochemical
Nedwell DB, Reynolds PJ (1996). Treatment of treatment effect of dye wastewater. Journal of
landfill leachate by methanogenic and sulphate Hazrdous Materials, 131(1–3): 90–97.
reducing digestion. Water Research, 30: 21–28. Silva AC, Dezotti M, Sant'Anna JGL (2004).
Oman CB, Junestedt C (2008). Chemical Treatment and detoxification of a sanitary
characterization of landfill leachates–400 landfill leachate. Chemosphere, 55: 207–214.
parameters and compounds. Waste Sincero AP, Sincero GA (2003). Physical-chemical
Management, 28: 1876–1891. treatment of water and wastewater. I WA
Oztruk I, Atinbas M, Koyuncu I, Arikan Q, Gomec– Publishing, CRC Press, New York, USA.
Yangin C (2003). Advanced physic–chemical Spagni A, Marsili-Libelli S, Lavagnolo MC (2008).
treatment experiences on young municipal Optimisation of sanitary landfill leachate
landfill leachates. Waste Management, 23(5): treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, Journal
441–446. of Water Science and Technology, 58(2): 337–
Palaniandy P, Adlan MN, Aziz HA, Murshed MF 443.
(2010). Application of dissolved air flotation Suidan MT, Schroeder A, Nath R, Krishnan E,
(DAF) in semi-aerobic leachate treatment. Brenner R (1993). Treatment of cercla
Chemical Engineering Journal, 157: 316–322. (Comprehensive environmental response,
Peters, T.A. (1998) Purification of landfill leachate compensation, and liability act) leachates by
with reverse osmosis and nanofiltration. carbonassisted anaerobic fluidized beds. Water
Desalination, 119(1–3): 289–293. Science and Technology, 27: 273–282.
Piatkiewicz W, Biemacka E, Suchecka T (2001). A Sung MS, Chang D, Lee HY (1997). Performance
polish study: Treating landfill leachate with improvement of an unstable anaerobic leachate
17
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

treatment system in an industrial waste landfill. landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended
Water Science and Technology, 36(12): 333– carrier biofilm process. Water Research, 32(5):
340. 1564–1670.
Syzdek AC, Ahlert RC (1984). Separation of landfill Widziewicz K, Kalka J, Skonieczna M, Madej P
leachate with polymeric ultrafiltration (2012). The Comet Assay for the Evaluation of
membranes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 9: Genotoxic Potential of Landfill Leachate. The
209–220. Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, 1-8,
Tabet K, Moulin P, Vilomet JD, Amberto A, Charbit Article ID 435239, doi:10.1100/2012/435239.
F (2002). Purification of landfill leachate with Wiszniowski J, Robert D, Surmacz-Gorska J, Miksch
membrane processes: Preliminary studies for an K, Weber JV (2006). Landfill leachate
industrial plant. Separation Science and treatment methods: A review. Environmental
Technology, 37(5): 1041–1063. Chemistry Letters, 4(1): 51–61.
Tatsi AA, Zouboulis AI, Matis KA, Samaras P (2003) Yamamoto O (2002). Solid waste treatment and
Coagulation–flocculation pretreatment of disposal experiences in Japan. Proceedings of
sanitary landfill leachates. Chemosphere, 53(7): International Symposium on Environmental
737–744. Pollution Control and Waste Management
Tauchert E, Schneider S, Morais JLD, Peralta-Zamora (EPCOWM’2002), Tunis, 417-424.
P (2006). Photochemically–assisted Zaloum R, Abbott M (1997). Anaerobic pretreatment
electrochemical degradation of landfill leachate. improves single sequencing batch reactor
Chemosphere, 64: 1458–1463. treatment of landfill leachates. Water Science
Timur H, Ozturk I (1999). Anaerobic sequencing and Technology, 35 (1): 207–214.
batch reactor treatment of landfill leachate. Zhang T, Ding L, Ren H (2009). Pretreatment of
Water Research, 33(15): 3225–3230. ammonium removal from landfill leachate by
Timur H, Ozturk I (1997). Anaerobic treatment of chemical precipitation. Journal of Hazardous
leachate using sequencing batch reactor and Materials, 166(2–3): 911–915.
hybrid bed filter. Water Science and Ziyang L, Youcai Z, Tao Y, Yu S, Huili C, Nanwen
Technology, 36(6–7): 501–508. Z, Renhua H (2009) Natural attenuation and
Trebouet D, Schlumpf JP, Jaouen P, Quemeneur F characterization of contaminants composition in
(2001). Stabilized landfill leachate treatment by landfill leachate under different disposing ages.
combined physicochemical–nanofiltration Science of the Total Environment, 407: 3385–
processes. Water Research, 35(12): 2935–2942. 3391.
Uygur A, Kargi F (2004) Biological nutrient removal Zouboulis AI, Chai XL, Katsoyiannis IA (2004). The
from pre-treated landfill leachate in a application of bioflocculant for the removal of
sequencing batch reactor. Journal of humic acids from stabilized landfill leachates.
Environmental Management, 71: 9–14. Journal of Environmental Management, 70: 35–
Visvanathan C, Aim RB, Parameshwaran K (2000) 41.
Membrane separation bioreactors for Zouboulis AI, Jun W, Katsoyiannis IA (2003).
wastewater treatment. Environmental Science Removal of humic acids by flotation. Colloids
and Technology, 30(1): 1–48. and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Welander U, Henrysson T, Welander T (1998). Engineering Aspects, 231: 181–193.
Biological nitrogen removal from municipal

18