Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
com
Review
Departement de Technologie Nucleaire, Commissariat a` lEnergie Atomique de Cadarache, 13108 St. Paul-lez-Durance Cedex, France
b Groupe Pizzorno Environnement, 109, Rue Jean Aicard, 83300 Draguignan, France
c Universit
e Paul Cezanne Aix Marseille, Departement en Procedes Propres et Environnement (DPPE-UMR 6181), Europole de lArbois,
BP 80, Batment Laennec, Hall C, 13545 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 4, France
Received 16 July 2007; received in revised form 18 September 2007; accepted 19 September 2007
Available online 26 September 2007
Abstract
In most countries, sanitary landfilling is nowadays the most common way to eliminate municipal solid wastes (MSW). In spite of many advantages,
generation of heavily polluted leachates, presenting significant variations in both volumetric flow and chemical composition, constitutes a major
drawback. Year after year, the recognition of landfill leachate impact on environment has forced authorities to fix more and more stringent
requirements for pollution control. This paper is a review of landfill leachate treatments. After the state of art, a discussion put in light an
opportunity and some results of the treatment process performances are given. Advantages and drawbacks of the various treatments are discussed
under the items: (a) leachate transfer, (b) biodegradation, (c) chemical and physical methods and (d) membrane processes. Several tables permit to
review and summarize each treatment efficiency depending on operating conditions. Finally, considering the hardening of the standards of rejection,
conventional landfill leachate treatment plants appear under-dimensioned or do not allow to reach the specifications required by the legislator. So
that, new technologies or conventional ones improvements have been developed and tried to be financially attractive. Today, the use of membrane
technologies, more especially reverse osmosis (RO), either as a main step in a landfill leachate treatment chain or as single post-treatment step has
shown to be an indispensable means of achieving purification.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Landfill leachate; Wastewater treatment; Review
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leachate characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review and evolution of landfill leachate treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Conventional treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1. Leachate transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2. Biological treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3. Physical/chemical treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4. Conclusion on conventional treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. New treatments: the use of membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1. Microfiltration (MF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2. Ultrafiltration (UF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
469
470
472
472
472
473
478
482
483
483
483
Abbreviations: AOP, advanced oxidation processes; AS, activated sludge; BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; DOC, dissolved
organic carbon; GAC, granular activated carbon; HRT, hydraulic retention time; MAP, magnesium ammonium phosphate; MBBR, moving-bed biofilm reactor;
MSW, municipal solid waste; MSWLF, municipal solid waste landfill; PAC, powdered activated carbon; RDVPF, rotary drum vacuum precoat filter;
RO, reverse osmosis; SBR, sequencing batch reactor; SCBR, suspended-carrier biofilm reactor; SRT, sludge retention time; SS, suspended solids;
TKN, total Kjeldahl nitrogen; TOC, total organic carbon; UASB, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket; VFA, volatil fatty acids.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 4290 8501; fax: +33 4 4290 8515.
E-mail address: philippe.moulin@univ-cezanne.fr (P. Moulin).
0304-3894/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.077
4.
469
486
486
487
489
1. Introduction
Increasingly affluent lifestyles, continuing industrial and
commercial growth in many countries around the world in the
past decade has been accompanied by rapid increases in both
the municipal and industrial solid waste production. Municipal
solid waste (MSW) generation continues to grow both in per
capita and overall terms. For example, in 1997, waste production in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was 8042 tonnes day1 compared
to 6200 tonnes day1 in 1994, despite the fact that population
growth during that period was practically zero. Waste production increased by 3% and 4.5% per year between 1992 and 1996,
respectively, in Norway and in the USA. During the latter part of
the 1990s, annual waste production ranged from 300 to 800 kg
per person in the more developed countries to less than 200 kg
in other countries [1]. In 2002, French population produced 24
million of MSW, namely 391 kg per person [2].
The sanitary landfill method for the ultimate disposal of solid
waste material continues to be widely accepted and used due to
its economic advantages. Comparative studies of the various
possible means of eliminating solid urban waste (landfilling,
incineration, composting, . . ., etc.) have shown that the cheapest, in term of exploitation and capital costs, is landfilling. In
2002, 52% of waste production in France was landfilled into regulated centers [2]. Besides its economic advantages, landfilling
minimizes environmental insults and other inconveniences, and
allows waste to decompose under controlled conditions until its
eventual transformation into relatively inert, stabilized material.
So, the worldwide trend is for controlled sanitary landfilling
as the preferred means of disposing of both solid urban refuse
and a large proportion of solid industrial waste. It concerns both
industrialized cities (11,500 tonnes day1 of MSW in Mexico
city) and rural areas (about 40,000 tonnes year1 in the Kyletalesha landfill site, Ireland). Also, recent estimates indicates
that 52, 90 and 95% of urban wastes are disposed of at landfill
sites, respectively, in Korea, Poland and Taiwan. However, the
release from a sanitary landfill consist mainly of leachate which
has became the subject of recent interest as a strongly polluted
wastewater and biogas, that is a resource which can be utilized
for energy production [3].
There is now extensive scientific literature on the collection, storage and suitable treatment of its highly contaminated
leachates, threatening surface and ground waters. Fig. 1 summarizes the evolution of main published research, concerning landfill leachate treatment, reported in the worlds journal and patent
literature since 1973 (data extracted from Chemical Abstracts).
Leachates are defined as the aqueous effluent generated as a
consequence of rainwater percolation through wastes, biochemical processes in wastes cells and the inherent water content
of wastes themselves. Leachates may contain large amounts of
organic matter (biodegradable, but also refractory to biodegradation), where humic-type constituents consist an important group,
as well as ammonia-nitrogen, heavy metals, chlorinated organic
and inorganic salts. The removal of organic material based on
chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and ammonium from leachate is the usual prerequisite
before discharging the leachates into natural waters. Toxicity
analysis carried out using various test organisms (Vibrio fisheri,
Daphnia similes, Artemia salina, Brachydanio rerio . . .) have
confirmed the potential dangers of landfill leachates [48] and
the necessity to treat it so as to meet the standards for discharge
in receiving waters.
According to this fact, governments apply enhanced regulation for non-biodegradable organic matter and for nitrogenous
compounds. In 1997, French authorities have fixed more stringent requirements concerning discharge into surface waters
(Table 1). Fortunately, the remarkable growth in economics and
living standard has accelerated the development of water and
wastewater purification technologies.
Table 1
Revised French regulation criteria (selected), in 1997
Item
Volumetric
classification
(kg day1 )
COD
<100
>100
TOC
Criterion after
revision (mg L1 )
300
125
70
100
35
BOD5
<30
>30
100
30
Total nitrogen
>50
30
470
Table 2
Leachate composition (COD, BOD, BOD/COD, pH, SS, TKN, NH3 -N)
Age
Landfill site
COD
BOD
BOD/COD
pH
SS
TKN
NH3 -N
Reference
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Canada
Canada
China, Hong Kong
China, Hong Kong
13,800
1870
15,700
17,000
13,000
50,000
19003180
70,900
19,900
10,540
24,400
9660
90
4200
7300
5000
22,000
37008890
26,800
4000
2300
10,800
0.70
0.05
0.27
0.43
0.38
0.44
0.360.51
0.38
0.20
0.22
0.44
5.8
6.58
7.7
7.08.3
6.89.1
7.89.0
7.48.5
6.2
8
8.2
7.3
>5000
2000
2000
950
1666
2400
212
75
3,200
11,000
13,000
3,400
1,766
42
10
2,260
3,000
11,000
13,000
6301,800
3,100
3,917
5,210
1,682
[16]
Turkey
16,20020,000
35,00050,000
10,80011,000
21,00025,000
0.550.67
0.50.6
7.37.8
5.67.0
1,1202,500
2,020
[23]
Y
Y
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Turkey
Turkey
Canada
China
China, Hong Kong
Germany
Germany
Greece
Italy
Italy
Poland
Taiwan
Turkey
Brazil
Estonia
Finland
Finland
France
France
France
Malaysia
South Korea
Turkey
35,00050,000
10,75018,420
32109190
5800
7439
3180
4000
5350
5050
3840
1180
6500
9500
3460
2170
556
340920
500
100
1930
15332580
1409
10,000
21,00025,000
63809660
430
1436
1060
800
1050
1270
1200
331
500
150
800
62
84
7.1
3
48105
62
0.50.6
0.520.59
0.07
0.19
0.33
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.31
0.28
0.08
0.04
0.37
0.11
0.090.25
0.01
0.03
0.030.04
0.04
5.67.0
7.78.2
6.99.0
7.6
8.22
7.9
8.38
8
8
8.1
8.15
8.2
11.5
7.17.6
7.5
7.7
7
7.59.4
8.57
8.6
26303930
10131540
784
480
130
131480
159233
404
1600
2,370
1,135
1,100
1,670
1,450
192
540
5960
141
1,680
2,020
1,9462,002
884
800
940
1,330
743
5,500
1,270
800
159
330560
430
0.2
295
1,522
1,590
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[20]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[7]
[36]
[37]
[5]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[19]
[20]
[3]
[21]
[22]
China, Mainland
Greece
Italy
Italy
South Korea
[17]
[18]
Y: young; MA: medium age; O: old; all values except pH and BOD/COD are in mg L1 .
471
472
Table 3
Heavy metals composition in landfill leachate
Age
Landfill site
Fe
Mn
Ba
Cu
Al
Si
Reference
Y
MA
MA
MA
MA
O
O
O
O
Italy
Canada
Hong Kong
South Korea
Spain
Brazil
France
Malaysia
South Korea
2.7
1.284.90
3.811
76
7.45
5.5
26
4.119.5
0.04
0.0281.541
0.182
16.4
0.17
0.2
0.13
15.5
0.298
0.0060.164
0.15
0.12
0.78
0.26
0.08
0.0050.04
0.031
<0.020.92
<1
2
3.7210.48
<5
[21]
[26]
[28]
[22]
[44]
[7]
[39]
[41]
[42]
Table 4
Landfill leachate classification vs. age [15]
Age (years)
pH
COD (mg L1 )
BOD5 /COD
Organic compounds
Heavy metals
Biodegradability
Recent
Intermediate
Old
<5
6.5
>10,000
>0.3
80% volatile fat acids (VFA)
Lowmedium
Important
510
6.57.5
400010,000
0.10.3
530% VFA + humic and fulvic acids
>10
>7.5
<4000
<0.1
Humic and fulvic acids
Low
Low
Medium
0.11 (1:9)
6.713.3
520
525
1
1.3
110
20
22
2
2
3.6 (aeration tank); 2.5
(settling tank)
SBR
AS
AS
AS
0.4
0.59
0.20.4
0.55
1090
10,750
243137,024
10,75018,420
8.2
7.37.9
7.78.2
Feeding
Table 5
Combined treatment with domestic sewage
Operational conditions
T ( C)
HRT (days)
95 BOD
6090 COD
1688 COD
Performance
removal (%)
[46]
[47]
[49]
[25]
Reference
473
474
Table 6
Landfill leachate recycling
Feeding
COD
(mg L1 )
80,000
47,00052,000
7161765
25605108
Operational conditions
( C)
pH
From
5.56.5
7.587.60
8.008.43
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Pilot plant
Landfill
707
70
36
35
Recirculation rate
Reference
98 COD
6370 COD
[56]
[55]
[52]
(L day1 )
921
40
40
Table 7
Lagooning performance
Feeding
COD
(mg L1 )
Operational conditions
BOD/COD
pH
From
5518
0.7
5.8
Landfill
Landfill
1182
0.26
Landfill
0.430.53
8.712.5
Landfill
0.25
8.38
Landfill
7653090
5050
( C)
Reference
Kind of lagoon
Size
Aerated lagoon
(1) Anaerobic pond
(2) aerated lagoon
(3) constructed wetlands
(4) free water surface
(1) Primary lagoon
(2) aerated wetlands
(3) final surge lagoon
(1) Aerated lagoon
(2) polishing lagoon
(laboratory-scale)
Non-aerated lagoon
1000 m3
>10
40
97 COD
6095 COD
[65]
[66]
20
89 COD
[67]
(1) 17 L
(2) 9.7 L
19
(1) 1622
(2) 9.112.6
5564 COD
[36]
9960 m2
22.8
32
40 COD
[31]
(1) 400 m3
(2) 4000 m3
(3) 400 m2
(4) 2000 m2
(1) 113,400 m3
(2) 4528 m3
HRT (days)
Performance
removal (%)
Table 8
Different aerobic reactors performance
Feeding
COD
(mg L1 )
Operational conditions
2110
1183
15,000
9500
7000
5750
Moving-bed biofilm reactor
20003000
17404850
8001300
108
8002000
5000
480
Trickling filter
8501350
2560
230510
Reference
pH
From
HRT (days)
0.6
0.410.59
0.33
0.66
7
5.95
8
1213
6.87.4
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Coke-plant
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
>4
20
470
6,700
5.9
65,000 m2
0.5
2025
510
21
25
24
35
10 (SRT)
1.5
6.25
2.75
51.3 TOC
>92 COD
96 COD
4664 COD
59 COD
75 COD
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[29]
[76]
Landfill
25
0.52
97 COD
87.5 N-NH4 +
[77]
8
7.5
7.3
8.22
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
UASB reactor pre-treatment
Landfill
Landfill
Municipal solid waste
30
3.35
40
2
9
25
20
510
23
3.4 h
3
10
1
4.5
69 COD
50 COD
8090 COD
7898 COD
8589 COD
[78]
[79]
[60]
[37]
[22]
[28]
[80]
0.49
0.07
9.1
8.6
Landfill
Landfill
1020
25
0.5
2040
[81]
[18]
0.40.5
6.9
8
7.5
7
7
8.6
32
45
8
18.8
18.8
5
20
4050
20
25
25
3.2
1
1.25
1.25
62 DOC
4869 COD
>99 NH4 +
91 COD
6.7 COD
75 COD
74 COD
75 COD
62 COD
0.410.59
0.050.1
0.1
0.06
0.2
1213
9
8
8
>7.5
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
1
1.5
0.220.6
4.5
5,000
8
21
20
522
20
17
25
4
2024
0.05
7.7
Landfill (preozonation)
0.10.2
0.040.08
8.08.5
8
6.57
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
16,500
141
9.4
1.719.7
25
525
0.56
[68]
[33]
[82]
[83]
[84,85]
[43]
[75]
[86]
[12]
[87]
[88]
[70]
75 COD
60 COD
2030 COD
4257 DOC
20 COD
81 COD
85 NH3
6080 TOC
0.64.5
2.19.6
87 BOD
90 NH4 +
[40]
[78]
[90]
BOD/COD
50006000
2560
2001200 (NH4 + )
3130
2701000
24,400
7439
540020,000
( C)
[89]
475
476
Table 9
Different anaerobic reactors performance
Feeding
Operational conditions
BOD/COD
pH
From
Digester
4000 (BOD)
Landfill
0.40.6
0.430.50
8
8
7.69.3
7.5
Landfill
Landfill
Coke-plant
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
7.37.8
7.5
Landfill
Landfill (stabilized
leachate)
Landfill
37,00066,660
10004000
1537
2560
51008300
2001200 (NH4 + )
8002000
5750
10,00064,000
30004300
0.650.67
15003200
0.610.71
30,000
380015,900
0.540.67
32109190
926412,050
8.6
0.50.6
7.3
5.67.0
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Anaerobic digestion plant
sludge + septage + leachate
Landfill
Landfill
Municipal solid waste
Anaerobic filter
14,000
3750
50006000
0.7
0.3
5.8
6.356.58
Young landfill
Old landfill
Landfill
0.410.59
0.53
0.53
0.06
24,400
35,00050,000
540020,000
7.68.7
617.8
6.87.4
6.57.0
7.37.8
6.99.0
7.2
1213
6.87.4
6.57.5
7.37.8
8
Volume of
reactor (L)
>4
2
6
155
3300
30
1.25
900
T ( C)
2025
24
35
25
15.535
20
17
2
8
35
4050
25
Reference
96 BOD
53 COD
[71]
92.5 COD
95.7 COD
5670 COD
20 COD
[100]
[73]
[74]
[78]
[101]
[79]
[88]
73.9 TOC
75 COD
[102]
[82]
62 COD
[43]
88 COD
82 COD
4571 COD
6575 COD
82 COD
83 COD
7791 COD
58 COD
[103]
[76]
[104]
[105]
[23]
[26]
[63]
HRT (days)
86
30
120
0.75
210
1.72 h
0.72
101.5
3.5
0.38
40
4.6
2
6.2
13.5
1535
1124
1323
30
35
35
35
20
2.5
36
3742
1.25
8090 COD
9698 COD
[22]
[24]
[80]
2125
35
6895 COD
6095 COD
87.5 NH4 +
[16]
24
0.51
62
1.4
2.55
5.10.9
75 COD
56 COD
8197 COD
65.3 TOC
[75]
[76]
[106]
[102]
4257 DOC
82 COD
[87]
[107]
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
2.5
0.56
22
3.35
21
11
30
35
Landfill
Landfill
4.5
7.9
20
35
2.4
0.60.1
0.41.4
0.961.30
0.75
101.5
0.51
1.510
[77]
COD (mg L1 )
Performance
removal (%)
477
8.223.5 COD
57 COD
39 COD
4050 COD
42 COD
53 COD
3848 TOC
2035 COD
70 COD
5570 color
39 COD
75 COD
67 COD
4090 COD
1025 COD
85 humic acid 40 COD
6 kg m3
0.54.0 + 00.2 g L1
0.010.07 M
1.5 + 1.0 kg m3
0.11.0 g L1
0.81.0 g L1
0.150 g L1 Al + 0.05 g L1
0.3 g L1 Fe
0.738 + 1.136 g L1
0.21.2 g L1
1.05.0 g L1
1.83.0 + 1.02.0 g L1
0.01 M
0.7 g L1
0.010.02 g L1
Ca(OH)2
Ca(OH)2
Ca(OH)2 + Fe2 (SO4 )3
FeCl3 or Al2 (SO4 )3
Ca(OH)2 + Al2 (SO4 )3
FeCl3 + Al2 (SO4 )3
FeCl3
Al2 (SO4 )3 + FeCl3
Fe2 (SO4 )3
Al2 (SO4 )3 + FeCl3
FeCl3
FeCl3 + Al2 (SO4 )3
Fe2 (SO4 )3 + Al2 O3
FeCl3
Al2 (SO4 )3
Bioflocculant (Rhizomonas)
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Aerated lagoon
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
10,850 BOD
1500 BOD
0.15
0.05
0.110.17
0.02
0.070.15
0.27
0.04
0.2
<0.01
0.050.06
0.04
0.08
40008810
4100
60008200
330 (biologically treated)
282417 TOC
7821585
15,700
12001500
5350
5000
74008800
3460
750
6.55
8.3
8.2
7.5
7.68.2
7.7
6.87.5
7.9
8.59.0
8.28.5
7.5
Reference
Removal (%)
Concentration range
From
pH
BOD/COD
3.1.3.2. Coagulationocculation. Coagulation and flocculation may be used successfully in treating stabilized and old
landfill leachates [7,111,112]. It is widely used as a pre-treatment
[20,113,114], prior to biological or reverse osmosis step, or
as a final polishing treatment step in order to remove nonbiodegradable organic matter. Aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate,
ferric chloride and ferric chloro-sulfate were commonly used
as coagulants [113,115]. The application of bioflocculant, in
comparison with traditional inorganics coagulants has been
investigated by Zouboulis et al. [116], for the lowering of humic
acids. It revealed as a viable alternative since 20 mg L1 bioflocculant dosage was sufficient in providing more than 85% humic
acid removal.
Several studies have been reported on the examination of
coagulationflocculation for the treatment of landfill leachates,
aiming at process optimisation, i.e., selection of the most appropriate coagulant [20], identification of optimum experimental
conditions and assessment of pH effect [113,117]. Synthesis
of recent works, presented in Table 10, clearly reveal that
iron salts are more efficient than aluminum ones, resulting in
sufficient chemical oxygen demand (COD) reductions (up to
Table 10
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of coagulation/flocculation
3.1.3.1. Flotation. For many years, flotation has been extensively used and focused on the decrease of colloids, ions,
macromolecules, microorganisms and fibers [109]. However,
until to date, very few studies have been devoted to the application of flotation for the treatment of landfill leachate. Recently,
Zouboulis et al. [110] investigated the use of flotation in column,
as a post-treatment step for removing residual humic acids (nonbiodegradable compounds) from simulated landfill leachates.
Under optimised conditions, almost 60% humic acids removal
has been reached.
Coagulant
0.30.6 g L1
[118]
[119]
[120]
[113]
[121]
[94]
[122]
[10]
[19]
[114]
[123]
[20]
[112]
[44]
[7]
[116]
COD (mg L1 )
478
479
Table 11
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of chemical precipitation
COD (mg L1 )
BOD/COD
pH
From
Precipitant
(1 g L1 )
0.07
0.19
8.2
8.22
Landfill
Landfill
Ca(OH)2
MgCl2 6(H2 O) + Na2 HPO4 12(H2 O)
(Mg:NH4 :PO4 = 1:1:1)
651047
7.798.52
Landfill
35,00050,000
0.50.6
5.67.0
Landfill
Removal (%)
Reference
27 COD
40 COD
[11]
[124]
98 N-NH4 +
98 N-NH4 +
[28]
50 COD
[24]
Table 12
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of adsorption
COD (mg L1 )
BOD/COD
pH
From
Adsorbent
Removal (%)
Reference
879940 (biologically
pre-treated)
640
0.03
7.5
Landfill
91 COD
[128]
Landfill
[127]
108
0.06
Landfill
[87]
8002000
0.040.07
Landfill
96 TOC
[88]
Landfill
5570 color
[114]
625
9500
0.3
7.9
7
Landfill
Landfill
69 COD
38 COD
[129]
[35]
15332580
0.030.04
7.59.4
Landfill
90 COD
[41]
10,75018,420
0.55
7.78.2
[25]
7000
Landfill
leachate + municipal
sewage
Synthetic wastewater
90 COD
[84,85]
7161765
7.587.60
Pilot plant
Granular activated
carbon (columns)
Granular activated
carbon (columns)
Powdered activated
carbon
Activated carbon
(concentration range
210 g L1 )
Powdered activated
carbon (2 g L1 )
Peat
Powdered activated
carbon (02 g L1 )
CaCO3 (particle size
range 24 mm)
Powdered activated
carbon (concentration
range 0.13.5 g L1 )
Powdered activated
carbon (02 g L1 )
Granular activated
carbon and resins
85 non-biodegradable
COD (GAC)
59 non-biodegradable
COD (resin)
[52]
480
3.1.3.4. Adsorption. The adsorption of pollutants onto Activated Carbon in columns [87,127,128] or in powder form
[35,85,88,114] provides better reduction in COD levels than
the chemicals methods, whatever the initial organic matter
concentration (Table 12). The main drawback is the need for
frequent regeneration of columns or an equivalently high consumption of powdered activated carbon (PAC). Adsorption by
activated carbon has been used along with biological treatment
for effective treatment of landfill leachate [25,47,128,130]. Nonbiodegradable organics, inert COD and the color may be reduced
to acceptable levels for biologically treated landfill leachate.
Rodriguez et al. [52] studied PAC and different resins efficiency in the reduction of non-biodegradable organic matter
from landfill leachate. Activated carbon presented the highest
adsorption capacities with 85% COD decrease and a residual
COD of 200 mg L1 .
Recently, simultaneous adsorption and biological treatment has been tested. For instance, pre-treated leachate
(coagulationflocculation and air stripping of ammonia) was
subjected to biological treatment in an aeration tank operated in repeated fed-batch mode in the presence of adsorbent
(PAC and powdered zeolite) [84]. Nearly 87% and 77% COD
removals were achieved with PAC and zeolite concentrations of
2 g L1 , respectively. Other adsorbent media have been studied. Heavey [129] used a pre-treated peat as the treatment
medium. Almost 100% removal of both BOD and ammonia, and
69% removal of COD were achieved. Moreover, treatment rates
of 36 g BOD m2 day1 and 11 g ammonia m2 day1 , similar
with those obtained by high cost aerobic lagoons systems, were
noticed. In 1988, McLellan and Rock [131] already concluded
that filtration through peat can be used only as a pre-treatment
process to reduce metal concentrations prior to a conventional
treatment. Finally, limestone has been proven effective in removing metals from wastewaters. Aziz et al. [41] indicated that 90%
of Fe could be removed from semi-aerobic landfill leachate by
limestone filter, based on retention time of 57.8 min and surface
loading of 12.2 m3 m2 day1 .
3.1.3.5. Chemical oxidation. Chemical oxidation is a widely
studied method for the treatment of effluents containing refractory compounds such as landfill leachate. Growing interest has
been recently focused on advanced oxidation processes (AOP).
Most of them, except simple ozonation (O3 ), use a combination
of strong oxidants, e.g. O3 and H2 O2 , irradiation, e.g. ultraviolet
(UV), ultrasound (US) or electron beam (EB), and catalysts, e.g.
transition metal ions or photocatalyst. Table 13 lists typical AOP
systems currently reported in the literature. All these processes
have been recently reviewed by Wang et al. [13]. Authors confirmed that AOP, adapted to old or well-stabilized leachate, are
applied to:
- oxidize organics substances to their highest stable oxidation
states being carbon dioxide and water (i.e., to reach complete
mineralization),
- improve the biodegradability of recalcitrant organic pollutants up to a value compatible with subsequent economical
biological treatment.
Table 13
List of typical AOP systems [132]
Homogeneous system
With irradiation
O3 /ultraviolet (UV)
H2 O2 /UV
Electron beam
Ultrasound (US)
H2 O2 /US
UV/US
H2 O2 /Fe2+ /UV (photo-Fentons)
Without irradiation
O3 /H2 O2
O3 /OH
H2 O2 /Fe2+ (Fentons)
Heterogeneous systems
With irradiation
TiO2 /O2 /UV
TiO2 /H2 O2 /UV
Without irradiation
Electro-Fenton
481
Table 14
O3 , O3 /H2 O2 and O3 /UV treatments of leachates (updated from Wang et al. [13])
COD
(mg L1 )
BOD
(mg L1 )
pH
COD
removal (%)
BOD/COD
after treatment
O3 /COD
(g/g)
Ozonation
1610
2300
2300
2300
740
4000
640
460
1050
500
3001200
151
330
1585
518
895
3500
480
14,600
23004970
6500
3460
210
210
210
240
230
205 DOC
30
<10
5
<8
111
43
25
25
2920
290850
500
150
8
3
8
8.5
8.5
7
7.08.0
8.1
7.5
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
7.7
7.8
7.909.02
8.1
8.3
44
62
50
50
25
71
67
80
33
35
2332
66
30
67
>50
56
30
15
2.548
0.4
140 mg L1 BOD5
0.35
0.15
0.11
0.21
0.25
0.32
0.25
0.5
1.3
1.5
0.5
1
0.53
1.281.92
1.8
1.7
0.11
3
3.5
1.7
1.7
1.11
0.7
0.5
3.1
1.31.5
1.2 g L1 (O3 dose)
0.13 g L1 (O3 dose)
O3 /H2 O2
2000
600
2000
895
1360
480
160
43
<5
25
8.4
8
8
8.2
8.4
7.7
95
92
92
97
70
28
93
40
0.13
0.14
0.32
0.13
3.5
3.3
1.5
2.5 g L1 (O3 dose)
0.76
1.5
0.050.5
O3 /UV
1280
1280
2300
430 TOC
26,000
26,000
100
100
210
2920
2920
2
2
8
7.8
7.8
54
47
50
51 TOC
63
61
0.32
0.35
1
0.1 g L1 (O3 dose)
3.5
4.7
H2 O2 /O3
(g/g)
UV (W)
Reference
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[127]
[136]
[137]
[138]
[87]
[94]
[11]
[139]
[140]
[141]
[89]
[142]
[117]
[34]
[7]
0.4
0.4
0.3
1
0.5
0.3
0.251
[143]
[133]
[144]
[145]
[89]
100
500
15
300
1500
1500
[146]
[133]
[147]
[142]
482
Table 15
H2 O2 /UV, H2 O2 /Fe2+ and H2 O2 /Fe2+ /UV in leachates treatment (updated from Wang et al. [13])
COD (mg L1 )
BOD (mg L1 )
pH
BOD/COD after
treatment
UV (W)
H2 O2 (g L1 )
H2 O2 /UV
760
760
10001200
10001000
1280
1280
430 TOC
26,000
26,000
26,000
<10
<10
100
100
2920
2920
2920
3
3.04.0
3.04.0
2
2
3
3
3
22
99
90
85
57
59
42 TOC
79
91
96
0.37
0.4
0.45
150
150
15
150
100
500
300
1500
1500
1500
3.4
3.4
0.5
0.5
5.19
13
26
H2 O2 /Fe2+
10502020
1200
1150
2000
330
282417 TOC
1500
Old leachate
1800
1800
1500
1500
10,540
50270
35
87
<8
30
225
225
75
75
2300
3
4
3
3.5
7.5
3
3
3.5
3
4.5
6
8.5
8.2
50
60
63
70
69
72
4976 TOC
55
75
52
45
70
14
60
0.15
0.58
0.3
0.22
0.27
0.5
H2 O2 /Fe2+ /UV
1150
1150
440
35
3
3.2
2.7
70
70
78
1.6
0.2
2.44
1.5
10 mL L1
1
2.2
1.65
1
1.5
1.2
0.2
0.2
1
5001000
UVA
UVA
1.15
1.15
0.44
Fe2+ (mg L1 )
Reference
[144]
[138]
[146]
[147]
[142]
600800
56
120
20
1250
645
1000
2000
1500
300
300
830
56
72
30
[144]
[148]
[77]
[149]
[150]
[94]
[122]
[111]
[114]
[151]
[17]
[21]
[149]
[152]
Table 16
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of air stripping
From
NH4 + -N (mg L1 )
Reference
Landfill
Landfill
Synthetic wastewater
Landfill
Landfill
556705
74220
1270
1025
800
24
24
0.75
17
120
7693
89
45
85
99.5
[155]
[5]
[35,83]
[24]
[7]
7.5
2300
Landfill
4.14.3
0.11
0.2 m
Polypropylene/tubular (Membrana GmbH/Accurel)
20
T ( C)
Velocity (m s1 )
P (bar)
Feeding
Operating conditions
3.2.2.1. Membrane bioreactors. The combination of membrane separation technology and bioreactors has led to a new
focus on wastewater treatment. It contributes to very compact
systems working with a high biomass concentration and achieving a low sludge production with an excellent effluent quality.
Membrane bioreactors have been widely applied at full scale
on industrial wastewater treatment and some plants have been
adapted to leachate treatment [30]. However, few research studies are related to landfill leachate purification by membrane
bioreactors (Table 19). Pirbazari et al. [6] used a hybrid technology known as the ultrafiltration-biologically active carbon
(UF-BAC) process that amalgamates adsorption, biodegrada-
Table 17
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of microfiltration
Performance
Flux
[156]
Reference
483
484
Table 18
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of ultrafiltration
Operating conditions
Feeding
(m2 )
( C)
Performance
(mg L1 )
pH
Flux
(L h1
Reference
m2 )
From
COD
Landfill
14,00017,000 (TOC)
7.0
30180
[157]
2045
2022 p.s.i.
Landfill
83009500
7.0
9598
[6]
25
2.5
Landfill
1660
8.6
50
[33]
20
4.14.3
Landfill
1700
510
[156]
Cut-off
Surface
0.5300 kDa
dp = 0.2 m
0.0065
2055 kDa
300 kDa
5080 kDa
0.0155
0.025
0.15
COD removal
(%)
Table 19
Membrane bioreactor effectiveness for the treatment of landfill leachates
Feeding
COD
(g L1 )
4000
27503105
27403200
Operational conditions
Performance
BOD/COD
pH
From
Kind of reactor
Volume of reactor
0.2
0.48
0.51
6.57.5
Landfill
Landfill
Industrial scale
Stirred tank/biologically active carbon process
180
15
Landfill
Pilot research
(m3 )
( C)
Reference
HRT (days)
2830
34
>90
9598 TOC
[158]
[6]
90
[30]
P (bar)
Material/geometry
Velocity
(m s1 )
Table 20
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of nanofiltration
Operating conditions
Feeding
Cut-off
Surface
450 Da
450 Da
1000 Da
450 Da
450 Da
200300 Da
0.04
0.007
0.007
0.125
0.049
0.0045
( C)
Performance
Velocity
(m s1 )
P (bar)
From
COD
25
25
2.8
15
8.5
1530
015
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
25
20
25
68
(mg L1 )
Reference
pH
Flux
(L h1 m2 )
142 TOC
5502295
7.47.8
Landfill
500
7.5
Landfill
200600
7.37.9
712
5575
18
52
57
80
60
97.599
5560 TOC
60
75
65
74
80
5266
[73]
[160]
[161,162]
[38]
[5]
Table 21
Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of reverse osmosis
Operating conditions
Feeding
Material/geometry
Surface
Composite/tubular (PCI
Membrane Systems)
Tubular/spiral wound
Spiral wound
Cellulose acetate/flat (Osmonics)
Spiral wound
Polyamide/spiral wound (Filmtec)
Polyamide (Desal)
0.013
(m2 )
( C)
Performance
P (bar)
From
COD
20
40
Landfill
0.0155
6.7
0.0044
25
28
25
20
40
2053
27.6
60
Polyamide/DT-module (Pall)
7.6
7.6
7.9
15.531.8
970.5
311
26174
Landfill
Spiral wound
30
25
55
Landfill
(mg L1 )
(L h1
m2 )
Reference
pH
Flux
335925
348
>98 COD
[163]
1301
01.749
846
1820
211856
200.5
6
8.8
5.66.6
30
20.729
99 COD
9698 COD
93 COD
97 COD
8690 COD
[29]
[32]
[33]
[156]
[45]
[3]
4.87.0
5.05.9
47.2102.8 L/h/module
50105.8 L/h/module
5085 COD
8090 COD
[168]
32
58
99 COD
89 COD
[24]
1700
3000
Removal (%)
Material/geometry
(m2 )
485
Concentrate
Concentrate
Concentrate
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
>99
6080
6080
>90
50
6080
>90
80
>90
Good
Good
PoorFair
Good
Good
Membrane filtration
Ultrafiltration
Nanofiltration
Reverse osmosis
Good
Good
Excess biomass
Excess biomass
Excess biomass
4060
6080
6080
>99
>80
>80
>80
6090
6080
>85
>80
>80
>80
Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Biological
Aerobic processes
Anaerobic processes
Membrane bioreactor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Sludge
Sludge
Residual O3
AirNH3 mixture
>80
>80
5070
>80
3040
>80
3040
<30
<30
>80
4060
<30
7090
3090
<30
>80
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Physico/chemical
Coagulation/flocculation
Chemical precipitation
Adsorption
Oxidation
Stripping
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
4095
>80
3040
3040
>90
80
Poor
Poor
Poor
Old
Medium
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
BOD
Young
COD
TKN
SS
Table 22
Effectiveness of treatment vs. leachate characteristics
Turbidity
Transfer
Combined treatment with domestic sewage
Recycling
Lagooning
Residues
Excess biomass
Sludge
Process
486
487
Optimal leachate treatment, in order to fully reduce the negative impact on the environment, is todays challenge. But, the
complexity of the leachate composition makes it very difficult
to formulate general recommendations. Variations in leachates,
in particular their variation both over time and from site to site,
means that the most appropriate treatment should be simple,
universal and adaptable. The various methods presented in the
previous sections offer each advantages and disadvantages with
respect to certain facets of the problem.
Suitable treatment strategy depends on major criteria:
- The initial leachate quality. Table 22 summarizes the effectiveness of treatment process according to key leachate
characteristics: COD, BOD/COD and age of the fill. The
knowledge of these specific parameters may help to select
suitable treatment processes for the lowering of organic matter
present in leachate.
- The nal requirements given by local discharge water standards. Year after year, the recognition of landfill leachate
impact on environment have forced authorities to fix more and
488
scraping of the diatomaceous layer. The interesting characteristics of the sludges obtained (siccity, dehydratability, stability,
low volume and very good pelletability) make it possible to consider an easy and well-advised storage of these sludges at the
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) site.
In comparison with ultrafiltration, the operation and capital
costs of such a pre-treatment lime + RDVPF are, respectively,
reduced for 80 and 50%. Volumes of residues are also largely
reduced. Moreover, applying this pre-treatment makes it possible to considerably reduce the operating costs of the RO unit
by reducing both the working pressures (by 820%) and the
concentrate volumes generated by operating at up to 3 times
higher VRF (Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 6, this pre-treatment also
eliminates almost all the fouling, probably due to the humic
acids co-precipitated during the lime precipitation. A significant decrease in the frequency of membrane washings and in
the use of cleaning chemicals can be expected. Considering a
stabilized leachate with an average conductivity of 15 mS cm1 ,
the process combination would make it possible to reach global
conversion rates close to 90%, rather than the current 60% conversion rates at most industrial sites (Fig. 7). As for the fate
and the handling of the low volume of concentrate generated
by RO, several solutions can be considered: (i) storing it at the
site, which would entail a premature increase in the salt load
of the tip and (ii) eliminating it by incineration, at a cost of
810D /m3 (Soumont, France) This combination of processes
has been subject to a European patent pending process [184].
References
[1] R. Warah, The state of the Worlds citiesUrban Waste, 2001, pp. 7071.
489
490
[28] X.Z. Li, Q.L. Zhao, Efficiency of biological treatment affected by high
strength of ammonium-nitrogen in leachate and chemical precipitation of ammonium-nitrogen as pretreatment, Chemosphere 44 (2001)
3743.
[29] G. Baumgarten, C.F. Seyfried, Experiences and new developments in
biological pretreatment and physical post-treatment of landfill leachate,
Water Sci. Technol. 34 (1996) 445453.
[30] L. Van Dijk, G.C.G. Roncken, Membrane bioreactors for wastewater
treatment: the state of the art and new developments, Water Sci. Technol.
35 (1997) 3541.
[31] D. Frascari, F. Bronzini, G. Giordano, G. Tedioli, M. Nocentini, Longterm characterization, lagoon treatment and migration potential of landfill
leachate: a case study in an active Italian landfill, Chemosphere 54 (2004)
335343.
[32] A. Chianese, R. Ranauro, N. Verdone, Treatment of landfill leachate by
reverse osmosis, Water Res. 33 (1999) 647652.
[33] J. Bohdziewicz, M. Bodzek, J. Gorska, Application of pressure-driven
membrane techniques to biological treatment of landfill leachate, Process
Biochem. 36 (2001) 641646.
[34] J.J. Wu, C. Wu, H. Ma, C.C. Chang, Treatment of landfill leachate
by ozone-based advanced oxidation processes, Chemosphere 54 (2004)
9971003.
[35] F. Kargi, M. Pamukoglu, Simultaneous adsorption and biological treatment of pre-treated landfill leachate by fed-batch operation, Process
Biochem. 38 (2003) 14131420.
[36] K. Orupold, T. Tenno, T. Henrysson, Biological lagooning of phenolscontaining oil shale ash heaps leachate, Water Res. 34 (2000) 4389
4396.
[37] T.H. Hoilijoki, R.H. Kettunen, J.A. Rintala, Nitrification of anaerobically
pretreated municipal landfill leachate at low temperature, Water Res. 34
(2000) 14351446.
[38] D. Trebouet, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, J.P. Maleriat, F. Quemeneur, Effect
of operating conditions on the nanofiltration of landfill leachates: pilotscale studies, Environ. Technol. 20 (1999) 587596.
[39] K. Tabet, P. Moulin, J.D. Vilomet, A. Amberto, F. Charbit, Purification
of landfill leachate with membrane processes: preliminary studies for an
industrial plant, Sep. Sci. Technol. 37 (2002) 10411063.
[40] R. Gourdon, C. Comel, P. Vermande, J. Veron, Fractionation of the organic
matter of a landfill leachate before and after aerobic or anaerobic biological treatment, Water Res. 23 (1989) 167173.
[41] H.A. Aziz, M.S. Yussff, M.N. Adlan, N.H. Adnan, S. Alias, Physicochemical removal of iron from semi-aerobic leachate by limestone filter,
Waste Manage. 24 (2004) 353358.
[42] S.P. Cho, S.C. Hong, S. Hong, Photocatalytic degradation of the landfill
leachate containing refractory matters and nitrogen compounds, Appl.
Catal. B: Environ. 39 (2002) 125133.
[43] A. Uygur, F. Kargi, Biological nutrient removal from pre-treated landfill
leachate in a sequencing batch reactor, J. Environ. Manage. 71 (2004)
914.
[44] F.J. Rivas, F. Beltran, O. Gimeno, B. Acedo, F. Carvalho, Stabilized
leachates: ozone-actived carbon treatment and kinetics, Water Res. 37
(2003) 48234834.
[45] W.-Y. Ahn, M.-S. Kang, S.-K. Yim, K.-H. Choi, Advanced landfill
leachate treatment using integrated membrane process, Desalination 149
(2002) 109114.
[46] E. Diamadopoulos, P. Samaras, X. Dabou, G.P. Sakellaropoulos, Combined treatment of leachate and domestic sewage in a sequencing batch
reactor, Water Sci. Technol. 36 (1997) 6168.
[47] F. Cecen, O. Aktas, Effect of PAC addition in combined treatment of
landfill leachate and domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fed-batch
and continuous-flow reactors, Water SA 27 (2001) 177188.
[48] S.D.J. Booth, D. Urfer, G. Pereira, K.J. Cober, Assessing the impact
of a landfill leachate on a Canadian wastewater treatment plant, Water
Environ. Res. 68 (1996) 11791186.
[49] F. Cecen, D. Cakiroglu, Impact of landfill leachate on the co-treatment of
domestic wastewater, Biotechnol. Lett. 23 (2001) 821826.
[50] J.-H. Bae, K.-W. Cho, B.-S. Bum, S.-J. Lee, B.-H. Yoon, Effects of
leachate recycle and anaerobic digester sludge recycle on the methane
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
491
492
493
[177] C.S. Slater, R.C. Ahlert, C.G. Uchrin, Treatment of landfill leachates by
reverse osmosis, Environ. Prog. 2 (1983).
[178] C.S. Slater, C.G. Uchrin, R.C. Ahlert, Physico-chemical pretreatment of
landfill leachates using coagulation, J. Environ. Sci. Health A18 (1983)
125134.
[179] C.S. Slater, C.G. Uchrin, R.C. Ahlert, Ultrafiltration processes for the
characterization and separation of landfill leachates, J. Environ. Sci.
Health A20 (1985) 97111.
[180] A. Esparza, A. Girou, H. Roques, A. Durand, Traitement des effluents
urbains ou industriels par entrainement des polluants a` loccasion dune
precipitation de CaCO3, Water Res. 14 (1980) 14591466.
[181] M.Y. Liao, S.J. Randtke, Removing fulvic acid by lime softening, J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 77 (1985) 7888.
[182] M.Y. Liao, S.J. Randtke, Predicting the removal of soluble organic contaminants by lime softening, Water Res. 20 (1986) 2735.
[183] S.J. Randtke, C.E. Thiel, M.Y. Liao, C.N. Yamaya, Removing soluble
organic contaminants by lime softening, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 74
(1982) 192202.
[184] S. Renou, S. Poulain, J.G. Givaudan, Procede de traitement de lixiviat
06/07131, 2006.