Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Characteristics of leachate from landfills and dumpsites in Asia, Africa

and Latin America: an overview
Mentore Vaccari a,⇑, Terry Tudor b, Giovanni Vinti a
a
Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy
b
Faculty of Arts, Science and Technology, The University of Northampton, Waterside Campus, University Drive, Northampton NN1 5PH, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Using published data, this study examined differences in pollutant levels in the leachate between landfills
Received 14 January 2019 and dumpsites in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is the first to focus on the impacts of climate and the
Revised 24 April 2019 age of the site on the pollutants in these continents, from a holistic perspective. Differences between geo-
Accepted 17 June 2019
graphical regions were limited. While it was found that there were statistically significant differences in
organic, inorganic loads and heavy metals between landfills and dumpsites, with higher concentration of
pollutants in dumpsites. Links between selected metals were found, in particular for Cu, Cr, Zn, Pb and
Keywords:
Mn. Contrary to the findings of others, climate and the age of the site generally did not have statistically
Climate
Dumpsite
significant impacts on pollutant levels. This suggests that the concentration of pollutants from sites in the
Landfill three continents may be more influenced by local conditions, consumption patterns and the waste man-
Leachate agement habits of individuals. Implications for governance are discussed.
Pollutants Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Developing countries

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
3.1. Key types of sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
3.2. Parameters chosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
3.3. Characterisation of the landfills and dumpsites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
3.4. Statistical analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
4.1. Key types of sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
4.2. Leachate quality by site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Annex 1. Data of the dumpsites analysed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Annex 2. Data of the landfills analysed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
Annex 3. Results of statistical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

1. Introduction son per day. With rapid population growth and urbanization,
annual waste generation is expected to increase by 70% from
Globally, waste generation rates are rising (Kaza et al., 2018; 2016 levels to 3.40 billion tonnes in 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018).
Mor et al., 2018). In 2016, the worlds’ cities generated 2.01 billion According to the World Bank (2018), ‘developing’ countries are
tonnes of solid waste, amounting to a footprint of 0.74 kg per per- those with a per capita gross national income (GNI) of $US12,055
(i.e. upper middle income), with ‘developed’ countries being those
⇑ Corresponding author. with a higher GNI. Managing waste effectively is essential for
E-mail address: mentore.vaccari@unibs.it (M. Vaccari). building sustainable and liveable cities, but it remains a challenge

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.032
0956-053X/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431
for many developing countries and cities (Collivignarelli et al.,
2011; Di Bella and Vaccari, 2014; Ravindra et al., 2015; UNEP
and ISWA, 2015; Mor et al., 2018).
The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA, 2016) states
that dumpsites receive roughly 40% of the world’s waste and they
serve around 3–4 billion people. Most of the world’s dumpsites and
non-engineered landfills are located in Africa, Latin America and
Asia, and impact directly on the public and environmental health
of approximately 64 million people (Mavropoulos and Newman,
2015; ISWA, 2016). At the same time, some two billion people have
no waste collection and three billion no controlled waste disposal
(CIWM and WasteAid UK, 2018). As a result around nine million
people die each year of diseases linked to either mismanagement
of waste or pollutants.
ISWA (2012) notes that in many developing economies, uncon-
trolled open dumpsites are more widely employed than controlled
and engineered landfills. Residents in developing countries
(especially the urban poor), are particularly severely impacted by inef-
fective management of waste. According to the World Bank (2018),
waste management can often comprise 20–50% of municipal budgets.
Thus in developing countries, over 90% of the waste is often disposed
in unregulated dumps or openly burned. Some 38 out of 50 of the
world’s largest uncontrolled dumpsites are in coastal areas, meaning
that the waste and leachate go directly into the water courses and
sea (ISWA, 2016). Indeed, Cole (2018) argues that more effective man-
agement of waste in developing countries could halve the quantity of
plastics going into the world’s oceans. Bhatt et al. (2017) note that dri-
ven by increasingly stringent international policies, it is likely that the
frequency and range of monitoring various leachate quality parame-
ters (e.g. BOD, COD, alkalinity, organic compounds, total dissolved
solids, etc.) in developing countries will increase.
Understanding the risks posed by the sites in developing
countries, and the key factors influencing these risks (particularly
leachate contaminant levels), is therefore crucial to the develop-
ment of measures to mitigate them (Zurbrügg et al., 2014;
Perteghella and Vaccari, 2017). While various studies have sought
to examine a range of issues related to landfill leachate (e.g. quan-
tities, treatment and sources), none has sought to undertake a large
scale, empirical characterisation of leachate from landfills and
dumpsites in developing countries. This study therefore aimed to
empirically compare and contrast the nature of the risks posed
by leachate from landfills and dumpsites, in developing countries.
2. Literature review
Open dumps and non-engineered landfills are common in devel-
oping countries (ISWA, 2016; Kaza et al., 2018; Costa et al., 2019;
Idowu et al., 2019). For example, studies have suggested that less
than 10% of the waste in Nigeria and Ghana goes to an engineered
landfill site (Aziale and Asafo-Adjei, 2013). While, Adeniran et al.
(2014) found that some 68% of the waste in Nigeria is indiscrimi-
nately dumped. Despite the fact that the sites are commonly used,
studies examining the factors driving the composition of the lea-
chate (the effluent that forms at the bottom of the landfill), from
these sites are often dated, and tend to be focused at a country level
(e.g. Gomez Martin et al., 1995; Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002; Al-Yaqout
and Hamoda, 2003; Kylefors, 2003; Eusufet al., 2007; Kulikowska
and Klimiuk, 2008; Sourmunen et al., 2008). There are only a very
limited number of studies that have attempted a more global analy-
sis (e.g. Zacharof and Butler, 2004; Bhatt et al., 2017). However,
Zacharof and Butler (2004)’s work focuses only on estimating total
organic carbon, BOD, and ammonia over time. While Bhatt et al.
(2017) is concerned primarily with COD and BOD.
Key influencing factors on leachate composition have been found
to include the types of waste received, the age of the landfill and the
climate (Kjeldsen et al., 2002; Castillo et al., 2007; Naveen et al.,
417
2017). For example, in tropical climates such as in Brazil, elevated
temperatures and volumes of precipitation speed up the process of
waste degradation and leachate formation (Monteiro et al., 2002;
Tränkler et al., 2005). The quantity and type of waste received by
landfills is also important (ISWA, 2012). For example, higher quanti-
ties of bio-waste may accentuate environmental degradation and/or
climate impacts. For older landfills and those with no liners, leachate
is often rarely collected and therefore will percolate into the ground-
water (Qi et al., 2018). Various authors (e.g. Sinha et al., 1978; Zan
et al., 2013), have shown that the free ion activity of Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd,
and Pb in metal-contaminated soil is a function of pH and soil
organic carbon. For example, the lower the pH, the higher the solu-
bility of the cations (Martı´nez and Motto, 2000).
In ‘young’ landfills (0–5 years, i.e. the acid phase), the leachate
has a low pH and high concentrations of easily degraded organic
matter and volatile acids. In mature landfills (the methanogenic
phase), methane production is high, the pH of the leachate is high
and the organic material is present primarily as humic and fulvic
fractions (Kurniawan et al., 2006; Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008;
Ziyang et al, 2009).
Open dumps and poorly managed landfills pose a risk to health
and safety, as well as to the environment. The risks posed by the
leachate, are amplified by the lack of leachate containment sys-
tems in many developing countries, leading to high concentrations
of organic and inorganic pollutants in the surface and ground
water (Oyelami et al., 2013; Maiti et al., 2016; ISWA, 2016;
Naveen et al., 2017). In a previous study by the authors (Vaccari
et al., 2018), it was found that the concentration of the hazards
determined in leachate from dumpsites in developing countries,
strongly influenced the geographical range of the risk. Risks are
therefore posed not only to individuals (directly and indirectly),
but also to the surrounding animals and plants, and ecosystems.
Therefore, ineffective landfills and dumpsites in developing
countries can result in both environmental hazards (e.g. surface
and ground water pollution, fires and the production of greenhouse
gases), and public health hazards (Kaza et al., 2018; Vaccari et al.,
2018). For example, Cole (2018) notes that if the growing volume
of waste in emerging economies is not properly controlled, dump-
sites could account for 8–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions
by 2025.
These hazards result because leachate contains various organic
materials (e.g. biodegradable and non-biodegradable carbon,
including humic compounds) and inorganic materials (e.g. heavy
metals), nitrogen compounds (e.g. organic nitrogen, ammonia-
nitrogen, nitrites and nitrates), and inorganic salts (Kamaruddin
et al., 2017; Saleem et al., 2018). Among the key heavy metals mainly
present in leachate are Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Hg and As (Shehzad et al.,
2015). Oyelami et al. (2013) found that for most of the trace metals,
the concentrations were below detectable limits, except for Zn, Fe,
and Mn. Fe and Zn concentrations fell well within the acceptable
limit of both World Health Organization (WHO) and National Stan-
dards for Drinking Water Quality (NSDWQ) standards, while Mn
concentrations were above the limit in most of the surface and shal-
low groundwater downslope of the dumpsite. However, the risks
(e.g. the concentrations of BOD and COD in particular), can decrease
as a function of time and space (Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008;
Bhatt et al., 2017). Given the changing nature of waste being gener-
ated (e.g. with growing quantities of electrical and electronic wastes,
containing a range of heavy metals), and expected increased moni-
toring regime in developing countries, it is important to have an
understanding of the potential risks posed.
Thus while previous studies have examined various hazards
posed by landfills and dumpsites in developing countries, they
have been limited, and in some cases inconclusive. A more holistic
study examining a wider range of geographical and environmental
parameters is therefore needed.
418 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

3. Methods 3.4. Statistical analyses

3.1. Key types of sites A defined significance level, a, is the probability of a study
rejecting the null hypothesis. While the p-value is the probability
Three main types of sites were initially distinguished of obtaining a result at least as extreme, assuming the null hypoth-
(Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012; Mavropoulos and Newman, esis was true (Dalgaard, 2008).
2015): The unpaired Student’s t-test was first conducted (Armitage and
Berry, 1994; Coombs et al., 1996; Ruxton, 2006). However, since the
– dumpsites: open and not regulated holes in the ground with no unpaired t-test is not very strong when the two population variances
environmental protection; are not assumed to be equal, further analysis through the Welch’s
– engineered landfill: characterized by the registration and place- test was then undertaken (Derrick et al., 2016; Ruxton, 2006). As a
ment/compaction of waste; it uses daily cover material, surface consequence, finally, only the Welch’s test results are reported.
and ground water monitoring, infrastructure and a liner; For the Welch’s test, Eqs. (5) and (6) were utilised as follows
– sanitary landfill: characterized by the registration and place- (Derrick et al., 2016):
ment/compaction of waste; it uses daily cover, measures for final l  l2
top cover and closure, proper siting, infrastructure, a liner and t ¼ q1ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
d21 d2
leachate treatment are in place, as well as a post-closure plan. n1
þ n22
2 2
d1 d2
A search was made using relevant search engines (e.g. Science- n1
þ n22
Direct) and key search words (e.g. landfills, dumpsites, leachate
m ¼  2 2  2 2 ð6Þ
d d
1 2
and developing countries). As the aim was to look at developing n1 n2
þ ðn2 1Þ
ðn1 1Þ
countries, the search focused on landfills and dumpsites in Asia,
Africa and Latin America. Papers from 2005 were chosen to ensure Once t and m were computed, these statistics were then used
the currency of the information. Only an interesting paper was older with the t-distribution to test the null hypothesis that the two pop-
(Stuart and Klinck, 1998). In total, 137 samples from 104 landfills ulation means were equal (Coombs et al., 1996). The probability of
from Latin America, Asia and Africa were analysed. In some cases, the null hypothesis occurring was indicated by the p-value.
the articles did not give a clear distinction between sanitary and
engineered landfills, as a result the two categories were combined. 4. Results and discussion
Specific information related to each site analysed are available in
Annex 1 and Annex 2, concerning dumpsites and landfills, 4.1. Key types of sites
respectively.
As shown in Fig. 1, most of the samples in Latin America (70%)
were from sanitary or engineered landfills, while in Asia more than
3.2. Parameters chosen a half (57%) were dumpsites, and in Africa most (62%) came from
sanitary or engineered landfills.
Municipal solid waste composition, elapsed time, temperature, Fig. 2 shows that in Latin America most (80%) of the landfills
moisture and available oxygen are important factors influencing were in an area where the annual rainfall is between 1000–
the leachate quality. Thus, the type and age of the site as well as 1500 mm. In Asia, almost half (46.24%) of the landfills were in an
any pre-treatment of the waste or the presence of liners were area where the annual rainfall is over 1500 mm, while in Africa
noted. Based on Kamaruddin et al. (2017), the main parameters there was a fairly even spread of rainfall levels. Furthermore, most
selected were COD, BOD5, Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N), Al, As, Cd, of the data were from (dump) sites in Asian countries (indeed, 93
Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn. For each parameter, the mean of the 137 samples were from Asia), and they experienced high
l, standard deviation r, median Me and coefficient of variation levels of rainfall (>1500 mm). Therefore, the quantity of leachate
CV were calculated to determine the spread of the factors and produced would have been high. In addition, this quantity of lea-
impact of each at the site. chate would have led to a higher degree of solubilisation and the
In any paper when the value assigned to a parameter was given transport of the heavy metals.
as ‘‘less than . . .”, this value was used. When a range was indicated,
the mean of the two values was used. 4.2. Leachate quality by site

Almost all of the sites (both dumpsites and sanitary landfills)

3.3. Characterisation of the landfills and dumpsites were from zones A (equatorial) and C (warm temperate). Only four

As temperature and precipitation can have a significant impact

upon leachate generation, the data were first categorised according
to climatic conditions. The Köppen-Geiger climate classification
map, which is the most frequently used, was utilised (Kottek et al.,
2006; Rubel and Kottek, 2010; Rubel et al., 2016) to categorise the
sites into climatic zones. The updated open source version available
online (version March 2017) using Google Earth (Kottek and Rubel,
2017) was taken as a reference. The following classification used
by Köppen-Geiger map was adopted in this paper: A (equatorial),
B (arid), C (warm temperate), D (snow) and E (polar).
Next, the data were categorised on the basis of the age of the
landfill as well, whether it was
10 years or >10 years. Finally,
the data were divided by function both of the climatic zone, as well
as of the age of the landfill. Fig. 1. Number of samples analysed according to their typology and continent.
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431 419

Table 2
Statistical comparison of pollutant levels in dumpsites and sanitary landfills (values
are expressed as mg/L).

Welch’s test
t m p
COD 2.60 80.42 <0.05
BOD5 0.67 86.84 >0.5
NH3-N 0.13 78.90 >0.5
As 4.00 12.06 <0.005
Cd 2.87 33.14 <0.01
Cr 2.01 33.55 <0.1
Fig. 2. Number of samples analysed according to the annual rainfall of the zone and Cu 3.05 47.86 <0.005
continent. Fe 1.08 33.79 <0.3
Mn 2.97 32.80 <0.01
Ni 0.96 39.38 <0.4
Pb 2.33 57.69 <0.05
Zn 2.69 36.79 <0.02

soluble Fe2+, to less soluble Fe3+. An indication of the states of

Fig. 3. Number of samples analysed according to the type of site and climatic zone.
dumpsites and two sanitary landfills were in zone B (arid)
(see Fig. 3).
For this reason, in many cases the statistical analysis focused
only on data from zones A and C (i.e. Tables 3, 4, 6).
Table 1 illustrates that the range of the parameters was wide,
suggesting that the leachate was very heterogeneous. This there-
fore confirms previous studies (e.g. Kamaruddin et al., 2017;
Saleem et al., 2018). In addition, it is evident that the levels of all
the pollutants in the dumpsites were higher than in the landfills.
This result is probably due to the fact that dumpsites are less ‘‘con-
trolled” and therefore it is easier to throw any kind or amount of
waste into them. Increased levels of heavy metals are thought to
be driven primarily by increasing use and disposal of electronic,
electrical equipment (Kamaruddin et al., 2017).
At the same time, comparing the pollutant levels of the dump-
sites and landfills, statistically significant differences were seen for
the majority of them (i.e. COD, Mn, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and As) but not
for all (Table 2). This confirms the validity of the results showed in
Table 1.
In climatic zone A, pollutant levels were generally higher in the
dumpsites as compared to the landfills (Table 3). This is particu-
larly true in the case of Zn. The exception to this general trend
was for Fe, which tended to be lower in dumpsites. This difference
may relate to the different states that Fe can take, from highly
the cations in the data would therefore have been useful.
At the same time this difference was statistically significant just
for three heavy metals (i.e. Ni, Cr, Zn). For more details, it is possi-
ble to see Annex 3, Table A3.13.
Table 4 shows that in climatic zone C macropollutant levels
were higher in the landfill sites, as compared to the dumpsites.
With regards to the micropollutants, Fe and Pb (the only two com-
pared), were higher in the dumpsites.
Further analyses (see Annex 3, Table A3.14) indicate that, how-
ever, the differences in pollutant levels between the dumpsites and
landfills in zones C were not statistically significant.
As the age of the leachate is an important factor, comparisons of
sites that were >10 years, were made with those that were

10 years. As all of the dumpsites except two were >10 years old
and as consequence a comparison between ‘‘old” and ‘‘young”
dumpsites was not possible, the analyses were conducted only
for the landfills. Table 5 suggests that pollutant levels were in most
cases higher in landfills of >10 years. However, levels of BOD5, as
well as Cu, Cr and Zn were higher in the landfills
10 years. Further
analyses suggest that there were no statistically significant differ-
ences in pollutant levels of landfills that were >10 years old com-
pared to those that were
10 years (Annex 3, Table A3.15). As a
consequence, these values cannot be considered very reliable.
Finally, analyses were undertaken taking into account both the
climatic zone and the age of the landfills. Due to limitations in the
availability of the data, the analyses focused only on landfills of

10 years comparing climatic zone A and C. Table 6 illustrates that
BOD and COD levels were higher in the landfills of climatic zone A.
However, ammonia levels were higher in the landfills of climatic
zone C.
Further analyses suggest that there was no statistically signifi-
cant differences in pollutant levels (see Annex 3, Table A3.17).

Table 1
A comparison of the biochemical parameters in the landfills and dumpsites (values are expressed as mg/L).

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median

Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite
COD 6430.47 13165.56 8658.71 17916.37 1.35 1.36 3326.50 4705.00
BOD5 2448.95 3385.08 5582.79 8308.32 2.28 2.45 935.00 937.00
NH3-N 1388.09 1432.02 1840.62 1239.09 1.33 0.87 957.00 1055.30
As 0.01 0.51 0.02 0.45 1.43 0.88 0.01 0.52
Cd 0.03 0.21 0.06 0.34 1.82 1.59 0.01 0.05
Cr 0.40 1.07 0.86 1.47 2.17 1.38 0.11 0.36
Cu 0.29 1.06 0.74 1.06 2.59 1.00 0.05 0.60
Fe 21.88 67.55 42.53 240.21 1.94 3.56 7.67 4.55
Mn 1.07 10.27 1.83 17.29 1.71 1.68 0.21 1.79
Ni 0.47 0.74 0.99 0.94 2.12 1.27 0.12 0.40
Pb 0.39 0.95 0.64 1.27 1.62 1.33 0.22 0.47
Zn 1.35 4.21 1.87 5.76 1.38 1.37 0.41 1.62
420 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Table 3
Comparison of biochemical parameters between dumpsites and landfills from climatic zone A (values are expressed as mg/L).

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median

Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite
COD 7510.02 14359.23 10963.96 19687.89 1.46 1.37 3561.50 4941.50
BOD5 3067.42 3545.92 7291.20 8950.24 2.38 2.52 1100 1220
NH3-N 1035.34 1511.88 674.53 1438.12 0.65 0.95 1172 1150
As – 0.55 – 0.45 – 0.81 – 0.60
Cd – 0.29 0.40 – 1.35 – 0.07
Cr 0.11 1.20 0.18 1.57 1.7 1.31 0.06 0.36
Cu 0.36 0.70 0.99 0.70 2.73 1.00 0.05 0.54
Fe 35.83 34.07 59.34 76.72 1.66 2.25 11.16 5.45
Mn – 3.91 – 6.39 – 1.63 – 1.06
Ni 0.34 0.90 0.42 1.08 1.25 1.20 0.12 0.42
Pb 0.63 1.00 0.85 1.31 1.34 1.31 0.29 0.49
Zn 1.46 4.10 1.80 5.12 1.24 1.25 0.71 1.66

Table 4
A comparison of the biochemical parameters in dumpsites and landfills from climatic zone C (values are expressed as mg/L).

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median

Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite Landfill Dumpsite
COD 5043.50 4917.32 5476.38 5671.12 1.09 1.15 2572.00 2450.00
BOD5 1748.44 1180.20 2460.34 1937.11 1.41 1.64 589.00 702.00
NH3-N 1599.15 1013.61 2340.48 584.08 1.46 0.52 911.50 959.00
Cr 0.78 – 1.24 – 1.59 – 0.30 –
Fe 10.40 140.91 12.00 427.45 1.15 3.03 7.40 4.05
Mn – 21.53 – 25.59 – 1.19 – 10.69
Pb 0.16 0.79 0.18 1.27 1.16 1.62 0.06 0.42
Zn 0.93 – 1.67 – 1.79 – 0.17 –

Table 5
Comparison of biochemical parameters in landfills aged more than 10 years, and less than or equal to 10 years (values are expressed as mg/L).

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median

10 years >10 years
10 years >10 years
10 years >10 years
10 years >10 years
COD 4742.27 7932.44 4545.14 9232.43 0.96 1.16 3359.00 3212.00
BOD5 1952.74 1326.54 2644.19 1422.02 1.35 1.07 898.50 935.00
NH3-N 1330.36 1553.16 2161.70 980.99 1.62 0.63 817.00 1886.50
Cd 0.02 – 0.02 – 0.96 – 0.02 –
Cr 0.46 0.26 1.01 0.37 2.19 1.43 0.18 0.10
Cu 0.40 0.18 1.08 0.17 2.70 0.92 0.02 0.10
Fe 15.22 18.04 34.49 20.24 2.27 1.12 7.15 7.40
Ni 0.37 0.56 0.44 1.35 1.19 2.43 0.12 0.10
Pb 0.32 0.42 0.78 0.43 2.45 1.02 0.07 0.31
Zn 1.71 0.72 1.97 1.55 1.15 2.14 1.00 0.29

Table 6
Comparison of biochemical parameters in landfills with age
10 years in climatic zones A or C (values are expressed as mg/L).

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median

10 years and
10 years
10 years and
10 years and
10 years and
10 years and
10 years and
10 years and
climatic zone C climatic zone A climatic zone C climatic zone A climatic zone C climatic zone A climatic zone C climatic zone A
COD 3952.53 5698.26 4005.24 5068.20 1.01 0.89 2424 4917
BOD5 1752.29 2153.19 2601.54 2742.08 1.48 1.27 620 1500
NH3-N 1496.08 1140.95 2797.56 774.66 1.87 0.68 793 1193
Cr 0.93 0.13 1.49 0.22 1.61 1.72 0.30 0.05
Fe 8.83 8.76 0.99 7.15
Zn – 2.01 – 1.99 – 0.99 – 1.71

Overall, differences in pollutant levels between zones A and C
were not found to be statistically significant. The only exception
was COD (see Annex 3, Table A3.12), which was statistically signif-
icant higher in the case of dumpsites from climatic zones A com-
pared to C.
The existence of links between Cu, Cr, Zn, Pb and Mn (Table 2;
Table A3.11 and A3.13 Annex 3) is an interesting one as it con-
firms the findings of others (e.g. Sinha et al., 1978; Martı´nez and
Motto, 2000; Zan et al., 2013). For example, Sinha et al. (1978)
postulated on a solubility relationship between Fe, Mn, Cu and
Zn in alkaline and calcareous soils. The pH of the soil, as well
as its organic matter content were found to significantly affect
the solubility of the four micronutrient cations. It would be
interesting therefore to undertake further work on the nature
of the soils within the sites in the different regions. Such work
would provide further evidence as regards the nature of the risks
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431 421

and the pathways, and serve to inform the design of sites, exclu-

(continued on next page)

sion zones and policy development.

[mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]

Contrary to the findings of others (e.g. Kjeldsen et al., 2002;

Hg
Castillo et al., 2007; Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008; Naveen et al.,
2017; Mor et al., 2018), in this study, climate and age generally

As
did not appear to have statistically significant differences in pollu-
tant levels (Tables A3.12–A3.17, Annex 3). This leads to the infer-

0.1437 0.86091 0.15

0.1258 0.21928 0.23

0.52

0.52
0.0837 0.00793 0.2
ence that the concentration of the pollutants from sites in the

Zn
three continents may be more influenced by local conditions, con-

0.4596 1.5432
0.3009 0.6244
[mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
sumption patterns and the waste management habits of individu-

Cr
als, than climate and the age of the site. For example, it is known
that the income level of a country influences the solid waste com-
position as well as the solid waste generation per capita (UNEP

Ni
and ISWA, 2015), factors which condition the quality of leachate.

0.02772 20.13
This is an issue that warrants further investigation.

6.54

0.04532 1.14

3.83

6.14
Al
Further analyses showed that there were no statistically signif-
icant differences in the pollutant levels of sites that were
10 years

0.1714

0.4552
[mg/l] [mg/l]

0.420
0.64

0.68
old in climatic zone A, compared to those that were
10 years in

Pb
climatic zone C (see Annex 3, Table A3.17). However, this may sim-

2.657

2.711
ply have been due to limitations in the number of available data to

Cu
use (see Annex 3, Tables A39 and A310).
It is important to note that the only statistical significant differ-

0.02172

0.05784
0.00266

0.01021
nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]

0.046

<0.05
ence for almost all the pollutants was found when comparing dump-

Cd
sites and landfills. In this case, as already highlighted, the pollutant
concentrations were higher in the dumpsites.

1.99

5.76

4.55
3.6

4.5
Fe

24.51

43.83

61.34

63.35
5. Conclusions

9.78

31.3
Ammonia Mn

This study is the first holistic study to have characterised land-

1253.5
1060.6
[mg/l]

fill leachate from Africa, Latin America and Asia, using existing

2776
930
data. Comparing dumpsites and landfills from climatic zone A, only
the concentrations of three heavy metals (Cr, Ni, Zn) were statisti-
[mg/l]
BOD5

cally significant higher in dumpsites than in landfills. While com-

6581.54 684

720

32
paring the concentration of pollutants in dumpsite leachate from
different climatic zone (A and C), only COD was statistically signif-

23,306

27,200
[mg/l]

7845
COD

icantly higher in climatic zone A. The findings suggest that the con-
centration of pollutants from sites in the three continents are
influenced largely by local conditions, consumption patterns and
Rainfall the site
[mm/y] [years]
Climaticzone Annual Age of

the waste management habits of individuals.

47

47

47

47

47

13
14

12

22
50

50

Evidently engineered landfill sites are more effective at reduc-

ing the risks associated with pollutants. Campaigns such as those
1089

1089

1089

1089

1089

1089

1089

721

185

721
by the ISWA to close dumpsites and poorly managed landfills are 540
therefore vital. However, engineered sites are financially expensive
to build and maintain. This is often well beyond the resources of
many developing countries. In addition, closing dumpsites is not
an easy or quick process. In many cases, there are also other factors
C

B
C

to be considered including that for many, the sites are a source of

Beyene and Banerjee

Beyene and Banerjee

Beyene and Banerjee

Beyene and Banerjee

Beyene and Banerjee

livelihoods. Completely closing all dumpsites is therefore highly

Woldeyohans et al.

Woldeyohans et al.

Singh et al. (2009)

Singh et al. (2009)

Aziz and Maulood

Stuart and Klinck

unlikely. The quantities and types of waste being disposed of are

Annex 1. Data of the dumpsites analysed

rising, with for example, increasing concerns over plastics and

heavy metals from electrical and electronic wastes. With more
Source

(1998)
(2014)

(2014)

(2011)

(2011)

(2011)

(2011)

(2011)

(2015)

stringent policies (e.g. ISWA, 2016; Bhatt et al., 2017), and growing
public opinion to address the issues, a more detailed and holistic
understanding of the key risks, and the factors driving them, are
crucial to mitigating the risks.
Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Ethiopia
Country

Jordan

Given the importance of this issue, it would be desirable for the

India

India
Iraq

future to create a global database, with verifiable sources. Such a

database would enable more detailed analyses, as well as the shar-
Addis Ababa Waste

Addis Ababa Waste

Addis Ababa Waste

Addis Ababa Waste

Addis Ababa Waste

Rephi, Addis Ababa

Rephi, Addis Ababa

ing of information on leachate characteristics in sanitary landfills

Disposal Site

Disposal Site

Disposal Site

Disposal Site

Disposal Site

and dumpsites from all over the world. This database should focus
not solely on the leachate, but also on the soils and surrounding
Erbil City

environmental conditions faced by the sites. Further work on pol-

Ruseifa

lutant levels and public health incidences would also be vital to

Delhi

Delhi
Site

building a more holistic overview, and informing the development

of an overarching governance strategy.
 422
Annex 1 (continued)

Site Country Source Climaticzone Annual Age of COD BOD5 Ammonia Mn Fe Cd Cu Pb Al Ni Cr Zn As Hg

Rainfall the site [mg/l] [mg/l] nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
[mm/y] [years] [mg/l]
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 26,880 1050
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 27,840 1100
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 31,680 1580
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 45,120 3750 0.1605 2.44 0.16410 1.9182 0.7655
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 32,640 1580 0.5534 3.26 0.35100 1.1649 1.7911
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 38,400 1910 1.0580 6.28 0.60340 2.6886 2.9310
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 37,440 3450 1.7893 6.01 0.83120 1.5149 4.1013
Gandhimathi (2013)
Tiruchirappalli India Kanmani and A 842.6 40 41,280 1650 1.7962 8.51 1.03720 0.5460 5.1485

M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Gandhimathi (2013)
Bangalore India Cumar and Nagaraja A 974.5 32 3250 1380 0.58 0.05 0.18
(2011)
Saida, Beirut Lebanon Chantou et al. (2013) C 893 31 0.05 2.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 10.6 0.02 0.1
Gazipur, Delhi India Mor et al. (2006) B 642 21 27,200 19,000 2675 70.62 0.06 0.93 1.54 0.41 0.29 2.21
Pune City India Kale et al. (2010) A 550 23 6834 4122 4.15 78.75 0.93 0.9 0.84 7.46 2.05 2.87 1.63
Pune City India Kale et al. (2010) A 550 23 9200 6892 6.84 125 1.24 1.47 0.8 11.12 2.72 5.22 1.91
Uruli Devachi, Puni India Wagh et al. (2014) A 722 26 78,350 30,100
Uruli Devachi, Puni India Wagh et al. (2014) A 722 26 31,244 10,112
Uruli Devachi, Puni India Wagh et al. (2014) A 722 26 834 703
Uruli Devachi, Puni India Wagh et al. (2014) A 722 26 716 412.16
Uruli Devachi, Puni India Wagh et al. (2014) A 722 26 2226 3.27
Chennai India Singh et al. (2009) A 1200 18 1100
Chennai India Singh et al. (2009) A 1200 18 2000
Kodungaiyur, India Karthikeyan et al. A 1392 16 4320– 115– 1029
Chennai (2007) 13,600 5500
Kodungaiyur, India Karthikeyan et al. A 1392 16 260– 16–115 745.5
Chennai (2007) 5200
Kodungaiyur, India Karthikeyan et al. A 1392 17 658– 71–96 221
Chennai (2007) 1290
Sukawinatan Landfill, Indonesia Yusmartini et al. A 1362 15 291.1 145.7 65 0.2 1.6 0.05 0.05
Palembang (2013)
Sukawinatan Landfill, Indonesia Yusmartini et al. A 1362 15 354.8 218.1 11.324 0.4 1.8 0.04 0.06
Palembang (2013)
Hambantota Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 1050 >10 2470 49.1 80.69 1.06 5.34 0.17 0.17 0.49 0.23 0.08 19.91 0.68
(2013)
Kataragama Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 1125 >10 1040 37.6 33.79 0.47 1.12 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.01 0.64 0.11
(2013)
Nagpur India Singh et al. (2009) A 1050 34 2500
Incheon South Lee and Hur (2016) C 1499.7 23 1436.7 181.6
Korea
Incheon South Lee and Hur (2016) C 1499.7 23 1713.3 170.4
Korea
Rasht city Iran Nakhaei et al. (2015) C 1360 29 5060 1092 2068 0.1 0.6
Rasht city Iran Nakhaei et al. (2015) C 1360 29 4350 820 1780 0.38 1
Rasht city Iran Nakhaei et al. (2015) C 1360 29 1680 630 700 0.012 0.3
Matuail Landfill, Bangladesh Mahmud et al. A 1854 15 9060 2700 3671
Dhaka City (2012)
Annex 1 (continued)

Site Country Source Climaticzone Annual Age of COD BOD5 Ammonia Mn Fe Cd Cu Pb Al Ni Cr Zn As Hg

Rainfall the site [mg/l] [mg/l] nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
[mm/y] [years] [mg/l]
Lat Krabang Thailandia Stuart and Klinck A 1530 17 2207 5.93 0.05
(1998)
Matale Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 1750 >10 4230 71.4 2750 5.3 60.76 0.1 0.57 1.78 1.15 0.35 6.88 0.52
(2013)
Bandaragama Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 3250 >10 9280 937 1050 0.39 7.17 0.09 0.23 0.48 0.91 0.33 5.36 0.72
(2013)
Kolonnawa Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 2424 >10 82,500 49,600 1630 28.39 346 0.02 0.06 0.42 4.47 1.97 11.76 0.71
(2013)
Gampola Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 2250 >10 1250 40.9 1600 0.19 5.55 0 0.73 0.03 0.33 0.22 0.466 0.16
(2013)
Gohagoda Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 2250 >10 714 19.1 674 0.46 3 0 0.33 0.02 0.33 0.14 0.39 0.15
(2013)
Wennapuwa Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 1750 >10 2400 86.2 444 0.65 2.5 0.05 0.43 0.09 0.4 0.36 0.41 0.94
(2013)
Rathnapura Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 3749 >10 13,900 3750 2720 11.61 56.34 0.05 0.63 0.17 1.31 0.44 1.68 1.55

M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

(2013)
Negombo Sri Lanka Sewwandi et al. A 1750 >10 18,300 293 1680 6.14 20.11 0.05 0.54 0.33 0.67 0.33 2.06 0.85
(2013)
Leuwigadja, Bandung Indonesia Stuart and Klinck A 2370 16 1250 4.57 0.05
(1998)
Trang Cat Landfill, Vietnam Khanh et al. (2007) C 1696 6 76– 20–1690
Haiphong City 2630
Kolkata India Singh et al. (2009) A 1650 35 22,000
Dhapa, Kolkata India Ziyang et al. (2009) A 1735 34 5653 2641.58 5529.22 4.26 0.32 0.6 0.51 3.22 7.61 0.03 0.87
Dhapa, Kolkata India Ziyang et al. (2009) A 1735 34 2775 1343.25 2846 3.16 0.27 0.69 0.43 1.19 3.26 0.22 0.87
Aba Eku dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1233 50 1780 507 0.3 0.36 1.54
Ibadan (2015)
Lapite dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1233 50 3520 1910 0.13 0.19 1.61
Ibadan (2015)
Awotan dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1233 47 1020 253 0.12 0.16 0.83
Ibadan (2015)
Olusosun dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1506 47 8530 2620 2.2 0.39 11.8
Lagos (2015)
Solous 3 dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1506 47 2200 523 0.07 0.23 1.45
Lagos (2015)
Solous 2 dumpsite - Nigeria Oketola and Akpotu A 1506 47 6340 1340 1.38 1.09 8.95
Lagos (2015)
sao Carlos Brazil Shinzato et al. (2013) C 1440 47 1094 866 162 0.4 29.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 7.1 0.3 0.2 1
sao Carlos Brazil Shinzato et al. (2013) C 1440 13 20,527 6606 988 11.6 1357.2 0.2 3.9 4.5 279.7 1.4 4.6 22.7
Morelia Mexico Israde-Alcantara C 764 14 0.000462 2.403 1.102 0.010 0.04773 6.389
et al. (2005)
Dadumajra landfill, India Kaur et al. (2016) C 1110.7 10 2300– 339
Chandigarh 2600

423
 424
Annex 2. Data of the landfills analysed

Site Country Source Climaticzone Annual Age of COD BOD5 Ammonia Mn Fe Cd Cu Pb Al Ni Cr Zn As Hg

Rainfall the site [mg/l] [mg/l] nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
[mm/y] [years] [mg/l]
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 677 405 7.4 0.008 0.21
(2005)
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 9158 5089 291 0.084 2.02
(2005)
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 3271 1950 110 0.02 0.37
(2005)
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 6568 3450 637 <0.02 4.14
(2005)
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 5269 1711 1172 0.21 1.55
(2005)
Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 3593 1614 1289 <0.06 1.7
(2005)

M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Mare Chicose Landfill Mauritius Robinson A 3000 1.5 4917 2172 1193 <0.06 1.72
(2005)
Buffelsdraai Landfill, South Africa Strachan C 828 1 5791 1400 156 <0.1 0.14 <0.05 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1
Durban et al. (2007)
Buffelsdraai Landfill, South Africa Strachan C 828 1 1815 400 414 2.4 5.85 0.01 0.09 0.22 0.09
Durban et al. (2007)
Mariannhill South Africa Robinson C 924.7 8 1605 695 675 0.86 18.6 <0.001 <0.051 <0.004 0.12 0.080 0.17 0.0620
(2005)
Vissershok South Africa Robinson C 475 32 13,156 2197
et al. (2007)
Vissershok South Africa Robinson C 475 32 7518 2265
et al. (2007)
Bisasar road, Durban South Africa Robinson C 828 25 2488 300 1917 0.012 2.7 <0.01 <0.05 0.056 0.09 0.115 0.08 0.0022
(2005)
Bisasar road, Durban South Africa Robinson C 828 6 2021 957 2.29 0.001 0.05 0.0069 0.182 0.0076 <0,0005
(2005)
Vissershok South Africa Robinson C 475 33 3382 1998 7.32 0.064
(2005)
Belo Horizonte Brazil Amaral et al. C 1491.3 20 1352 76 451
(2007)
Belo Horizonte Brazil Amaral et al. C 1491.3 6 2783 150 793
(2007)
São Leopoldo Brazil Ferrari and C 1141.6 1 8866 3070
Pradella
(2011)
Belo Horizonte Brazil Amaral et al. C 1491.3 10 2572 168 12,401
(2007)
Rio Das Ostras, Rio De Brazil Ferreira A 1172.9 15 839– 26–899
Janeiro et al. (2007) 1064
Delta A, Campinas city Brazil Miguel et al. C 1425 15 1920 0.3 48.8 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1
(2012)
Laogang Refuse China Ziyang et al. C 1112 3 (age of 3471.3 3821
landfill, Shangai (2009) leachate)
Laogang Refuse China Ziyang et al. C 1112 6 (age of 2424 1273.6
landfill, Shangai (2009) leachate)
Laogang Refuse China Ziyang et al. C 1112 9 (age of 1015 807.4
landfill, Shangai (2009) leachate)
Annex 2 (continued)

Site Country Source Climaticzone Annual Age of COD BOD5 Ammonia Mn Fe Cd Cu Pb Al Ni Cr Zn As Hg

Rainfall the site [mg/l] [mg/l] nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
[mm/y] [years] [mg/l]
Laogang Refuse China Ziyang et al. C 1112 12 (age of 695.2 238.2
landfill, Shangai (2009) leachate)
San Sai, Chiang Mai Thailandia Stuart and A 1430 <10 817 6.38 <0.05
Klinck
(1998)
Supit Urang landfill, Indonesia Sholichin A 862 <10 248 152.1
Malang (2012)
Supit Urang landfill, Indonesia Sholichin A 862 <10 120 51.97
Malang (2012)
Supit Urang landfill, Indonesia Sholichin A 862 <10 64 36.49
Malang (2012)
Namson Landfill, Vietnam Khanh et al. C 1680 6 9225– 6055– <0.01 0,05– 0,001– 0,0001–
Hanoi city (2007) 22780 12300 0,07 0,002 0,0002
Namson Landfill, Vietnam Khanh et al. C 1680 6 2152– 780– 0,01– 0,01– 0,001– 0,0001–
Hanoi city (2007) 6245 4250 0,02 0,09 0,003 0,0009

M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Gocat and Phouc Hiep Vietnam Khanh et al. A 1806 new 38533– 30000– 781– 204– 0,02– 0,32–
Landfill in (2007) landfill 65333 48000 1574 208 0,1 1,9
HoChiMinh City
Bukit Tagar Landfill, Malaysia Kortegast A 2366.2 1 20,000 12,000 1250
Kuala Lumpur et al. (2007)
Bukit Tagar Landfill, Malaysia Kortegast A 2366.2 1 3000 600 1500
Kuala Lumpur et al. (2007)
Touwu, Miaoli Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 1214 967 133 28.6 0.3 1
(2009)
Tatun, Taichung Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 1944 414 866 6.6 5 5.6
(2009)
Tienchung, Changua Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 3641 743 1452 11.8 1.3
Co. (2009)
Ppeitou, Changua Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 1311 247 379 0.8
(2009)
Puyen, Changua Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 825 43 13 9.8 0.3
(2009)
Tienwei, Changua Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 1456 70 477 21.8 0.5 0.6
(2009)
Hsichou, Changua Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 2282 386 962 8.4 0.3
(2009)
Fangyuan, Changua Co. Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 204 18 29 1 0.2
(2009)
Taichung City Taiwan Liermann C 2500 1–4 3447 620 2505 7.7 1.1 3.4
(2009)
Gocat and Phouc Hiep Vietnam Khanh et al. A 1806 old 1079– 200– 512– 4,5–64
Landfill in (2007) landfill 2507 735 1874
HoChiMinh City
Khulna city Bangladesh Rafizul et al. A 1809.4 27 896 920 30.8 0.09 0.18 0.075 0.07 0.88 0.01
(2011)
Khulna city Bangladesh Rafizul et al. A 1809.4 27 9360 1160 51.6 0.05 0.392 0.045 0.056 0.23 0.01
(2011)
Khulna city Bangladesh Rafizul et al. A 1809.4 27 3042 950 53.2 0.06 0.78 0.058 0.03 0.17 0.01
(2011)
Khulna city Bangladesh Rafizul et al. A 1809.4 27 34,480 990 8.67 0.05 0.29 0.045 0.025 0.29 0.01
(2011)
Turbhe Landfill, Navi India Mishra et al. A 2623.4 7 6444 3391 1.6 166 3.62 12.92 0.38 0.84 7.59
Mumbai (2016)

425
(continued on next page)
 426
Annex 2 (continued)

Site Country Source Climaticzone Annual Age of COD BOD5 Ammonia Mn Fe Cd Cu Pb Al Ni Cr Zn As Hg

Rainfall the site [mg/l] [mg/l] nitrogen [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l]
[mm/y] [years] [mg/l]
Pulau Burung PBLS Malaysia Umar et al. A 2500 9 1788 358 3.6 0.01 3 0.1 0.2 0.3
(2010)
Kulim Malaysia Aziz et al. A 2599 18 1295 285 562 3.82 0.33
(2015)
Kulim KLS Malaysia Umar et al. A 2500 18 1593 515 6 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.3
(2010)
kuala Sepetang Malaysia Aziz et al. A 4000 16 1456 257 564 3.43 0.22
(2015)
Air Hitam sanitary Malaysia Emenike A 3192 17 (closed 10,234 3500 880 0.12 3.1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.29 0.11 0.12
landfill et al. (2012) for
6 years)
Heimifeng, Changsha China Hu et al. C 1516 >10 6140 558 1856 0.013 0.43 0.31 0.052
(2016)
OUM-AZZA landfill, Morocco Bakraouy C 554.9 10 11,520 6710

M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

located in Rabat et al. (2017)
Mpasa landfill, Democratic Mavakala A 1482 5 0.03912 0.8663 0.00021 0.00344 0.00278 0.0244 0.03836 0.04896 0.00395
Kinshasa city Republic of et al. (2016)
Congo
Mpasa landfill, Democratic Mavakala A 1482 5 0.1237 3.3804 0.00104 0.46116 0.08722 0.11638 0.16981 0.71418 0.00707
Kinshasa city Republic of et al. (2016)
Congo
Staoueli’s landfill, Algieria Azzouz et al. C 598.3 8 10,500 5500 311.51 0.27 0.014 0.005 0.017
Algiers (2018)
Jebel Chakir landfill, Tunisia El Ouaer C 465.5 15 23,926 2841 2858.5 7.67 0.37 0.48 0.3 0.92 0.47
Tunis et al. (2017)
Papan Sanitary landfill Malaysia Yong et al. A 3218 <10 3530 830
(2018)
Papan Sanitary landfill Malaysia Yong et al. A 3218 <10 6420 1100
(2018)
Mavallipura landfill India Naveen A 978 <10 10,400 1500 1803 11.16 0.035 0.151 0.3 1.339 0.021 3
site, Bangalore et al. (2017)
Mavallipura landfill India Naveen A 978 <10 12,000 1500 2593 12.04 0.032 0.008 0.28 1.004 0.024 2.4
site, Bangalore et al. (2017)
Mavallipura landfill India Naveen A 978 <10 10,800 3000 2170 11.25 0.024 0.002 0.22 0.683 0.011 2.4
site, Bangalore et al. (2017)
Léon Mexico Stuart and B 600 8 644 0.83 3 <0.015 0.02 <0.3 0.43 <0.03 0.43 0.15
Klinck
(1998)
Jebel Chakir Tunisia Sellami C 470 13 14,950 4894 2570 7.4 0.37 0.48 0.3 1.05 0.44
et al. (2009)
Deir el-Balah Palestine Hilles et al. B 386 18 19,814 1325.5 2925 0.08 0.259 0.44 0.143 4.63 5.84
(2016)
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431 427

Annex 3. Results of statistical analysis

See Tables A3.1–A3.17

Table A3.1
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in dumpsites.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 13165.56 17916.37 1.36 4705.00 58
BOD5 [mg/L] 3385.08 8308.32 2.45 937.00 51
NH3-N [mg/L] 1432.02 1239.09 0.87 1055.30 32
Mn [mg/L] 10.27 17.29 1.68 1.79 32
Fe [mg/L] 67.55 240.21 3.56 4.55 33
Cd [mg/L] 0.21 0.34 1.59 0.05 31
Cu [mg/L] 1.06 1.06 1.00 0.60 28
Pb [mg/L] 0.95 1.27 1.33 0.47 38
Ni [mg/L] 0.74 0.94 1.27 0.40 30
Cr [mg/L] 1.07 1.47 1.38 0.36 24
Zn [mg/L] 4.21 5.76 1.37 1.62 32
As [mg/L] 0.51 0.45 0.88 0.52 13

Table A3.2
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in sanitary landfills.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 6430.47 8658.71 1.35 3326.50 64
BOD5 [mg/L] 2448.95 5582.79 2.28 935.00 54
NH3-N [mg/L] 1388.09 1840.62 1.33 957.00 49
Mn [mg/L] 1.07 1.83 1.71 0.21 12
Fe [mg/L] 21.88 42.53 1.94 7.67 37
Cd [mg/L] 0.03 0.06 1.82 0.01 18
Cu [mg/L] 0.29 0.74 2.59 0.05 23
Pb [mg/L] 0.39 0.64 1.62 0.22 27
Ni [mg/L] 0.47 0.99 2.12 0.12 22
Cr [mg/L] 0.40 0.86 2.17 0.11 36
Zn [mg/L] 1.35 1.87 1.38 0.41 36
As [mg/L] 0.01 0.02 1.43 0.01 10

Table A3.3
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in dumpsites from climatic zone A.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 14359.23 19687.89 1.37 4941.50 44
BOD5 [mg/L] 3545.92 8950.24 2.52 1220.00 40
NH3-N [mg/L] 1511.88 1438.12 0.95 1150.00 20
Mn [mg/L] 3.91 6.39 1.63 1.06 21
Fe [mg/L] 34.07 76.72 2.25 5.45 22
Cd [mg/L] 0.29 0.40 1.35 0.07 20
Cu [mg/L] 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.54 21
Pb [mg/L] 1.00 1.31 1.31 0.49 26
Ni [mg/L] 0.90 1.08 1.20 0.42 20
Cr [mg/L] 1.20 1.57 1.31 0.36 14
Zn [mg/L] 4.10 5.12 1.25 1.66 22
As [mg/L] 0.55 0.45 0.81 0.60 12

Table A3.4
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in dumpsites from climatic zone C.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 4917.32 5671.12 1.15 2450.00 11
BOD5 [mg/L] 1180.20 1937.11 1.64 702.00 10
NH3-N [mg/L] 1013.61 584.08 0.52 959.00 10
Mn [mg/L] 21.53 25.59 1.19 10.69 10
Fe [mg/L] 140.91 427.45 3.03 4.05 10
Pb [mg/L] 0.79 1.27 1.62 0.42 11
428 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

Table A3.5
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills from climatic zone A.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 7510.02 10963.96 1.46 3561.50 30
BOD5 [mg/L] 3067.42 7291.20 2.38 1100.00 29
NH3-N [mg/L] 1035.34 674.53 0.65 1172.00 19
Fe [mg/L] 35.83 59.34 1.66 11.16 17
Cu [mg/L] 0.36 0.99 2.73 0.05 13
Pb [mg/L] 0.63 0.85 1.34 0.29 13
Ni [mg/L] 0.34 0.42 1.25 0.12 13
Cr [mg/L] 0.11 0.18 1.70 0.06 20
Zn [mg/L] 1.46 1.80 1.24 0.71 21

Table A3.6
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills from climatic zone C.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 5043.50 5476.38 1.09 2572.00 33
BOD5 [mg/L] 1748.44 2460.34 1.41 589.00 24
NH3-N [mg/L] 1599.15 2340.48 1.46 911.50 28
Fe [mg/L] 10.40 12.00 1.15 7.40 19
Pb [mg/L] 0.16 0.18 1.16 0.06 12
Cr [mg/L] 0.78 1.24 1.59 0.30 15
Zn [mg/L] 0.93 1.67 1.79 0.17 13

Table A3.7
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills of more than 10 years.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 7932.44 9232.43 1.16 3212.00 20
BOD5 [mg/L] 1326.54 1422.02 1.07 935.00 14
NH3-N [mg/L] 1553.16 980.99 0.63 1886.50 14
Fe [mg/L] 18.04 20.24 1.12 7.40 13
Cu [mg/L] 0.18 0.17 0.92 0.10 12
Pb [mg/L] 0.42 0.43 1.02 0.31 12
Ni [mg/L] 0.56 1.35 2.43 0.10 11
Cr [mg/L] 0.26 0.37 1.43 0.10 11
Zn [mg/L] 0.72 1.55 2.14 0.29 13

Table A3.8
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills of
10 years.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 4742.27 4545.14 0.96 3359.00 42
BOD5 [mg/L] 1952.74 2644.19 1.35 898.50 38
NH3-N [mg/L] 1330.36 2161.70 1.62 817.00 33
Fe [mg/L] 15.22 34.49 2.27 7.15 22
Cd [mg/L] 0.02 0.02 0.96 0.02 13
Cu [mg/L] 0.40 1.08 2.70 0.02 11
Pb [mg/L] 0.32 0.78 2.45 0.07 14
Ni [mg/L] 0.37 0.44 1.19 0.12 11
Cr [mg/L] 0.46 1.01 2.19 0.18 25
Zn [mg/L] 1.71 1.97 1.15 1.00 23

Table A3.9
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills of
10 years and climatic zone A.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 5698.26 5068.20 0.89 4917.00 19
BOD5 [mg/L] 2153.19 2742.08 1.27 1500.00 19
NH3-N [mg/L] 1140.95 774.66 0.68 1193.00 13
Cr [mg/L] 0.13 0.22 1.72 0.05 14
Zn [mg/L] 2.01 1.99 0.99 1.71 14
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431 429

Table A3.10
Evaluation of biochemical parameters in landfills of
10 years and climatic zone C.

Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of Variation Median number of data

COD [mg/L] 3952.53 4005.24 1.01 2424.00 23
BOD5 [mg/L] 1752.29 2601.54 1.48 620.00 19
NH3-N [mg/L] 1496.08 2797.56 1.87 793.00 19
Fe [mg/L] 8.83 8.76 0.99 7.15 14
Cr [mg/L] 0.93 1.49 1.61 0.30 10

Table A3.14
Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.5 (landfills
from climatic zone A) and Table A3.6 (landfills from climatic zone C).

Welch’s test
Table A3.11
t m p
Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.1 (dumpsites)
and Table A3.2 (sanitary landfills). COD 1.11 41.70 <0.3
BOD5 0.91 35.42 <0.4
Welch’s test NH3-N 1.20 33.27 <0.3
t m p Fe 1.74 17.17 <0.1
Pb 1.95 13.16 <0.1
COD 2.60 80.42 <0.05 Cr 2.08 14.44 <0.1
BOD5 0.67 86.84 >0.5 Zn 0.87 27.07 <0.4
NH3-N 0.13 78.90 >0.5
Mn 2.97 32.80 <0.01
Fe 1.08 33.79 <0.3
Cd 2.87 33.14 <0.01
Cu 3.05 47.86 <0.005 Table A3.15
Pb 2.33 57.69 <0.05 Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.7 (landfills of
Ni 0.96 39.38 <0.4 >10 years) and Table A3.8 (landfills of
10 years).
Cr 2.01 33.55 <0.1
Zn 2.69 36.79 <0.02 Welch’s test
As 4.00 12.06 <0.005 t m p
COD 1.46 23.49 <0.2
BOD5 1.09 42.81 <0.3
NH3-N 0.64 33.03 >0.5
Fe 0.30 33.00 >0.5
Cu 0.67 10.45 >0.5
Table A3.12 Pb 0.41 20.77 >0.5
Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.3 (dumpsites Ni 0.44 12.10 >0.5
from climatic zone A) and Table A3.4 (dumpsites from climatic zone C). Cr 0.87 33.41 <0.4
Zn 1.67 30.19 <0.2
Welch’s test
t m p
COD 2.76 51.76 <0.01
Table A3.16
BOD5 1.53 47.72 <0.2
Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.4 (dumpsites in
NH3-N 1.34 27.33 <0.2
climatic zone C) and Table A3.6 (landfills in climatic zone C).
Mn 2.15 9.54 <0.1
Fe 0.78 9.26 <0.5 Welch’s test
Pb 0.46 19.45 >0.5
t m p
COD 0.06 16.68 >0.5
BOD5 0.72 21.38 <0.5
NH3-N 1.22 34.12 <0.3
Fe 0.97 9.01 <0.4
Table A3.13 Pb 1.63 10.37 <0.2
Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.3 (dumpsites in
climatic zone A) and Table A3.5 (landfills in climatic zone A).

Welch’s test Table A3.17

t m p Evaluation of statistical significance of the results comparing Table A3.9 (landfills of

10 years in climatic zone A) and Table A3.10 (landfills of
10 years in climatic zone
COD 1.91 69.65 <0.1 C).
BOD5 0.24 66.02 >0.5
NH3-N 1.34 27.27 <0.2 Welch’s test
Fe 0.08 37.00 >0.5
t m p
Cu 1.08 19.46 <0.3
Pb 1.06 34.24 <0.3 COD 1.22 33.97 <0.3
Ni 2.09 26.59 <0.05 BOD5 0.46 35.90 >0.5
Cr 2.59 13.24 <0.05 NH3-N 0.52 21.85 >0.5
Zn 2.28 26.33 <0.05 Cr 1.468 9.28 <0.2
430 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431

References Monteiro, V.E.D., Melo, M.C., Jucá, J.F.T., 2002. Biological degradation analysis in
Muribeca solid waste landfill associated with local climate, Recife, Brazil. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Environmental
Al-Yaqout, A., Hamoda, M., 2003. Evaluation of landfill leachate in arid climate —A
Geotechnics. August 11th - 15th. Rio Janeiro, Brazil, (in Portuguese).
case study. Environ. Int. 29, 593–600.
Mor, S., Negi, P., Ravindra, K., 2018. Assessment of groundwater pollution by
Armitage, P., Berry, G., 1994. Statistical methods in medical research. Blackwell
landfills in India using Leachate Pollution Index and Estimation of Error.
Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring and Management. Accepted for
Adeniran, A.A., Adewole, A.A., Olofa, S.A., 2014. Impact of solid waste management
publication.
on Ado Ekiti property values. Civil and Environmental Research. 6 (9), 29–35.
Naveen, B.P., Mahapatra, D.M., Sitharam, T.G., Sivapullaiah, P.V., Ramachandra, T.V.,
Aziale, L.K., Asafo-Adjei, E., 2013. Logistic challenges in urban waste management in
2017. Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal
Ghana (a case of tema metropolitan assembly). Eur. J. Busin. Manage. 5 (32),
landfill leachate. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1–12.
116–128.
Oyelami, A.C., Agbede, Aladejana JA, Oyelami, O.O., 2013. Assessment of the impact
Bhatt, A.H., Karanjekar, R.V., Altouqi, S., Sattler, M.L., Hossain, M.D.S., Chen, V.P.,
of open waste dumpsites on ground water quality: a case study of the Onibu-Eja
2017. Estimating landfill leachate BOD and COD based on rainfall, ambient
dumpsite, southwestern Nigeria. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 648–651.
temperature, and waste composition: Exploration of a MARS statistical
Perteghella, A., Vaccari, M., 2017. Organic waste valorization through composting
approach. Environ. Technol. Innovation 8, 1–16.
process: A full-scale case study in Maxixe, Mozambique. Environ. Eng. Manage.
Castillo, E., Vergara, M., Moreno, Y., 2007. Landfill leachate treatment using a
J. 16 (8), 1819–1826.
rotating biological contractor and upward-flow anerobic sludge bed reactor.
Qi, C., Huang, J., Wang, B., Deng, S., Wang, Y., Yu, G., 2018. Contaminants of emerging
Waste Manage. 27, 720–726.
concern in landfill leachate in China: a review. Emerg. Contamin. 1, 10 (in
CIWM and WasteAid UK (2018). From the land to the sea. Northampton. UK.
press).
Cole, C., (2018). Plastic crisis: divert foreign aid to dumpsites in developing countries.
Ravindra, K., Kaur, K., Mor, S., 2015. System analysis of municipal solid waste
Available at: https://theconversation.com/plastic-crisis-divert-foreign-aid-to-
management in Chandigarh and minimization practices for cleaner emissions. J.
dumpsites-in-developing-countries-94341 (accessed 22 April 2019).
Cleaner Prod. 89, 251–256.
Collivignarelli, C., Vaccari, M., Di Bella, V., Giardina, D., 2011. Techno-economic
Rubel, F., Brugger, K., Haslinger, K., Auer, I., 2016. The climate of the European Alps:
evaluation for the improvement of MSW collection in Somaliland and Puntland.
Shift of very high resolution Köppen-Geiger climate zones 1800–2100.
Waste Manage. Res. 29 (5), 521–531.
Meteorol. Z. 26 (2), 115–125.
Coombs, W.T., Algina, J., Oltman, D., 1996. Univariate and multivariate omnibus
Rubel, F., Kottek, M., 2010. Observed and projected climate shifts 1901–2100
hypothesis tests selected to control type I error rates when population
depicted by world maps of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification. Meteorol.
variances are not necessarily equal. Rev. Edu. Res. 66, 137–179.
Z. 19 (2), 135–141.
Costa, A.M., Alfaia, R.G.M., Campos, J.C., 2019. Landfill leachate treatment in Brazil –
Ruxton, G.D., 2006. The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to
An overview. J. Environ. Manage. 232, 110–116.
Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav. Ecol. 17 (4), 688–690.
Dalgaard, P., 2008. Introductory Statistics with R, pp. 155–162. Series Editors: J.
Saleem, M., Spagni, A., Alibardi, L., Bertucco, A., Lavagnolo, M.C., 2018. Assessment
Chambers, D. Hand, W. Hardle. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-79053-4.
of dynamic membrane filtration for biological treatment of old landfill leachate.
Derrick, B., Toher, D., White, P., 2016. Why Welch’s test is Type I error robust. Quant.
J. Environ. Manage. 213, 27–35.
Methods Psychol. 12 (1), 30–38.
Shehzad, A., Bashir, M.J.K., Sethupathi, S., Lim, J.W., 2015. An overview of
Di Bella, V., Vaccari, M., 2014. Constraints for solid waste management in
heavily polluted landfill leachate treatment using food waste as an
Somaliland. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.: Waste Resour. Manage. 167 (2), 62–71.
alternative and renewable source of activated carbon. Process Saf.
Eusuf, M.A., Hossain, I., Noorbatcha, I.A., Zen, I.H., 2007. The effects of climate and
Environ. Prot. 98, 309–318.
waste composition on leachate and emissions of gas: A case study in Malaysian
Sinha, M.K., Dhillon, S.K., Dhillon, K.S., Dyanand, S., 1978. Solubility relationships of
context. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Solid
iron, manganese, copper and zinc in alkaline and calcareous soils. Aust. J. Soil
Waste Management, pp. 437–443.
Res. 16 (1), 19–26.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a waste. World Bank. Washington. DC,
Sourmunen, K., Ettala, M., Rintala, J., 2008. Internal leachate quality in a municipal
USA.
solid waste landfill: Vertical, horizontal and temporal variation and impacts of
Gomez Martin, M.A., Antiguedad Auzmendi, I., Pérez Olozaga, C., 1995. Landfill
leachate recirculation. J. Hazard. Mater. 160 (2), 601–607.
leachate: variation of quality with quantity. In: Christensen, T.H., Cossu, R.,
Stuart, M.E., Klinck, B.A., 1998. A catalogue of leachate quality for selected landfills
Stegmann, R. (Eds.). Sardinia ’95, Fifth International Landfill Symposium. S.
from newly industrialised countries. BGS Technical Report WC/98/49.
Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, 2–6 October, vol. I(III). CISA (Environmental
Tatsi, A., Zouboulis, A., 2002. A field investigation of the quantity and quality of
Sanitary Engineering Centre), Cagliari. 345–354.
leachate from a municipal solid waste landfill in a Mediterranean climate
Idowu, I.A., Atherton, W., Hashim, K., Kot, P., Alkhaddar, R., Alo, B.I., Shaw, A., 2019.
(Thessaloniki, Greece). Adv. Environ. Res. 6 (3), 207–219.
An analyses of the status of landfill classification systems in developing
Tränkler, J., Visvanathan, C., Kuruparan, P., Tubtimthai, O., 2005. Influence of
countries: Sub Saharan Africa landfill experiences. Waste Manage. 87, 761–771.
tropical seasonal variation on landfill leachate characteristics- Results from
ISWA (International Solid Waste Association) (2012). State of the nation report:
lysimeter studies. Waste Manage. 25, 1013–1020.
landfilling practices and regulation in different countries.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme); International Solid Waste
ISWA (International Solid Waste Association) (2016). A roadmap for closing waste
Association (ISWA), 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook; United
dumpsites: the world’s most polluted places.
Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya; ISBN 978-92-807-3479-9.
Kamaruddin, M.A., Yusoff, M.S., Rui, L.M., Isa, A.M., Zawawi, M.H., Alrozi, R., 2017. An
Vaccari, M., Vinti, G., Tudor, T., 2018. An analysis of the risk posed by leachate from
overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill leachate
dumpsites in developing countries. Environments 5 (9), 99.
treatment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (35),
World Bank, 2018. New country classifications by income level: 2018-2019.
26988–27020.
Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-
Kaza, S., Yao, L.C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., 2018. What a Waste 2.0: a global
classifications-income-level-2018-2019 (accessed 22 April 2019).
snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development.
Zacharof, A.I., Butler, A.P., 2004. Stochastic modelling of landfill leachate and biogas
Washington, DC. World Bank.
production incorporating waste heterogeneity. Model formulation and
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M.A., Rooker, A.P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., Christensen, T.H., 2002.
uncertainty analysis. Waste Manage. 24 (5), 453–462.
Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Critic.
Zan, N.R., Datta, S.P., Rattan, R.K., Dwevedi, B.S., Meena, M.C., 2013. Prediction of the
Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3, 297–336.
solubility of zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium, and lead in metal-contaminated
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F., 2006. World Map of the Köppen-
soils. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185 (12), 10015–10025.
Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15 (3), 259–263.
Zurbrügg, C., Caniato, M., Vaccari, M., 2014. How assessment methods can support
Kottek, M., Rubel, F., 2017. World maps of Köppen-Geiger climate classification.
solid waste management in developing countries – A critical review.
High resolution map and data (Version March 2017). Available online at: http://
Sustainability 6 (2), 545–570.
koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/present.htm (accessed 22 December 2018).
Kulikowska, D., Klimiuk, E., 2008. The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate References of Annex 1 and Annex 2
composition. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 5981–5985.
Kurniawan, T.A., Lo, W., Chan, G.Y.S., 2006. Physical-chemical treatments for Amaral, M.C.S., Ferreira, C.F.A., Lange, L., Aquino, S.F., 2007. Evaluation of the
removal of recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J. Hazard. Mater. molecular size distribution and anaerobic biodegradability landfill leachate.
129, 80–100. Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and
Kylefors, K., 2003. Evaluation of leachate composition by multivariate data analysis Landfill Symposium.
(MVDA). J. Environ. Manage. 68 (4), 367–376. Aziz, S.Q., Aziz, H.A., Bashir, M.J.K., Mojiri, A., 2015. Assessment of various tropical
Maiti, S.K., De, S., Hazra, T., Debsarkar, A., Dutta, A., 2016. Characterization of municipal landfill leachate characteristics and treatment opportunities. Global
leachate and its impact on surface and groundwater quality of a closed NEST J. 17 (3), 439–450.
dumpsite—A case study at Dhapa, Kolkata, India. Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 391– Aziz, S.Q., Maulood, Y.I., 2015. Contamination valuation of soil and groundwater
399. source at anaerobic municipal solid waste landfill site. Environ. Monit. Assess.
Martı́nez, C.E., Motto, H.L., 2000. Solubility of lead, zinc and copper added to mineral 187 (12), 755.
soils. Environ. Pollut. 101 (1), 153–158. Azzouz, L., Boudjema, N., Aouichat, F., Kherat, M., Mameri, N., 2018. Membrane
Mavropoulos, A., Newman, D., 2015. Wasted health-the Tragic case of dumpsites. bioreactor performance in treating Algiers’ landfill leachate from using
https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Task_Forces/THE_TRAGIC_CASE_OF_ indigenous bacteria and inoculating with activated sludge. Waste Manage. 75,
DUMPSITES.pdf (accessed 30 November 2018). 384–390.
 M. Vaccari et al. / Waste Management 95 (2019) 416–431
Bakraouy, H., Souabi, S., Digua, K., Dkhissi, O., Sabar, M., Fadil, M., 2017.
Optimization of the treatment of an anaerobicpretreated landfill leachate by
acoagulation–flocculation process usingexperimental design methodology.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 109, 621–630.
Beyene, H., Banerjee, S., 2011. Assessment of the pollution status of the solid waste
disposal site of addis ababa city with some selected trace elements, Ethiopia.
World Appl. Sci. J. 14 (7), 1048–1057.
Chantou, T., Lemunier, M., Martel, J.-L., Straka, M., Oberti, O., 2013. Physico-chemical
and biological assessment of the stability state of landfilled waste in a dump
site. Proceedings Sardinia 2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium.
Cumar, S.K.M., Nagaraja, B., 2011. Environmental impact of leachate characteristics
on water quality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 178, 499–505.
El Ouaer, M., Kallel, A., Kasmi, M., Hassen, A., Trabelsi, I., 2017. Tunisian landfill
leachate treatment using Chlorella sp.: effective factors and microalgae strain
performance. Arabian J. Geosci. 10 (20), 1–9.
Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., Agamuthu, P., 2012. Characterization and toxicological
evaluation of leachate from closed sanitary landfill. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (9),
888–897.
Ferrari, A., Pradella, I., 2011. Leachate management with an evaporator using biogas
and lagoons with floating cover in a Brazilian sanitary landfill – A case study.
Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium.
Ferreira, J.A., Ritter, E., Pires, J.A.C., Valladão, I.C., 2007. Diffusion on the compacted
soil foundation and geomembrane in Rio das Ostras sanitary landfill, Brazil.
Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium.
Hilles, A.H., Abu Amr, S.S., Hussein, R.A., El-Sebaie, O.D., Arafa, A.I., 2016.
Performance of combined sodium persulfate/H2O2 based advanced oxidation
process in stabilized landfill leachate treatment. J. Environ. Manage. 166, 493–
498.
Hu, L., Zeng, G., Chen, G., Dong, H., Liu, Y., Wan, J., Chen, A., Guo, Z., Yan, M., Wu, H.,
Yu, Z., 2016. Treatment of landfill leachate using immobilized Phanerochaete
chrysosporium loaded with nitrogen-doped TiO2 nanoparticles. J. Hazard.
Mater. 301, 106–118.
Israde-Alcantara, I., Delgado, O.B., Chavez, A.C., 2005. Geological characterization
and environmental implications of the placement of the Morelia Dump,
Michoacán, Central Mexico. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 55, 755–764.
Kale, S.S., Kadam, A.K., Kumar, S., Pawar, N.J., 2010. Evaluating pollution potential of
leachate from landfill site, from the Pune metropolitan city and its impact on
shallow basaltic aquifers. Environ. Monit. Assess. 162, 327–346.
Kanmani, S., Gandhimathi, R., 2013. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in
soil due to leachate migration from an open dumping site. Appl. Water Sci. 3,
193–205.
Karthikeyan, O.P., Kurian, J., Nagendran, R., 2007. Leachate recirculation to reduce
the pollution potential of waste mined from open dumpsite – A lysimeter study.
Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium.
Kaur, K., Mor, S., Ravindra, K., 2016. Removal of chemical oxygen demand from
landfill leachate using cow-dung ash as a low-cost adsorbent. J. Colloid Interface
Sci. 469, 338–343.
Khanh, N.H., Linh, P.T., Cat, L.V., 2007. The characteristic of leachate and current
status of leachate treatment technology in Vietnam. Proceedings Sardinia 2007,
Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
Kortegast, A.P., Eldridge, S.F., Richards, B.A., Yong, S., Chock, E.T., Bryce, A., Robinson,
H., Carville, M., 2007. Leachate generation and treatment at the Bukit Tagar
landfill, Malaysia. Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium.
Lee, S., Hur, J., 2016. Heterogeneous adsorption behavior of landfill leachate on
granular activated carbon revealed by fluorescence excitation emission matrix
(EEM)-parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC). Chemosphere 149, 41–48.
Liermann, T.A., 2009. Fiji Islands’ naboro landfill leachate quality analysis and the
applicability of developed versus small island developing state discharge
standards Degree of master of science in environmental engineering. Michigan
Technological University.
Mahmud, K., Hossain, D., Shams, S., 2012. Different treatment strategies for highly
polluted landfill leachate in developing countries. Waste Manage. 32, 2096–
2105.
431
Mavakala, B.K., Faucheur, S.L., Mulaji, C.K., Laffite, A., Devarajan, N., Biey, E.M.,
Giuliani, G., Otamonga, J., Kabatusuila, P., Mpiana, P.T., Poté, J., 2016. Leachates
draining from controlled municipal solid waste landfill: Detailed geochemical
characterization and toxicity tests. Waste Manage. 55, 238–248.
Miguel, M.G., Belinassi, L., Dominguesa, L.M., Nour, E.A.A., Pereira, S.Y., 2012.
Variations of the physical and chemical characteristics of sanitary landfill
leachate after percolation into tropical soils. Chem. Eng. Trans. 28, 19–24.
Mishra, H., Rathod, M., Karmakar, S., Kumar, R., 2016. A framework for assessment
and characterisation of municipal solid waste landfill leachate: an application
to the Turbhe landfill, Navi Mumbai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188, 357.
Mor, M., Ravindra, K., Dahiya, R.P., Chandra, A., 2006. Leachate characterization and
assessment of groundwater pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 118, 435–456.
Nakhaei, M., Amiri, V., Rezaei, K., Moosaei, F., 2015. An investigation of the potential
environmental contamination from the leachate of the Rasht waste disposal site
in Iran. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74, 233–246.
Oketola, A.A., Akpotu, S.O., 2015. Assessment of solid waste and dumpsite leachate
and topsoil. Chem. Ecol. 31 (2), 134–146.
Rafizul, I.M., Alamgir, M., Islam, M.M., 2011. Evaluation of contamination potential
of sanitary landfill lysimeter using leachate pollution index. Proceedings
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium.
Robinson, H., 2005. The composition of leachates from very large landfills: an
international review. Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium.
Robinson, H.D., Van Der Merwe, W., Mitchell, C., Gombault, E., Novella, P., Carville,
M.S., 2007. Treatment of leachate from a large hazardous waste landfill site in
South Africa. Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium.
Sellami, I., Trabelsi, I., Sayadi, S., Aloui, F., Medhioub, K., Ghrabi, A., Bousselmi, L.,
2009. Characterization and anaerobic batch reactor treatment of Jebel Chakir
Landfill leachate. Desalination 246, 417–424.
Sewwandi, B.G.N., Takahiro, K., Kawamoto, K., Hamamoto, S., Asamoto, S., Sato H.,
2013. Evaluation of leachate contamination potential of municipal solid waste
dumpsites in Sri Lanka using leachate pollution index. Proceedings Sardinia
2013, Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Shinzato, M., Martins, M., Schalch, V., Wendland, E., 2013. Characteristics of landed
material from an abandoned waste dump in Brazil. Proceedings Sardinia 2013,
Fourteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Sholichin, M., 2012. Field investigation of groundwater contamination from solid
waste landfill in Malang, Indonesia. Int. J. Civil Environ. Eng. 12 (02).
Singh, R.K., Datta, M., Nema, A.K., 2009. A new system for groundwater
contamination hazard rating of landfills. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 344–357.
Stuart, M.E., Klinck, B.A., 1998. A catalogue of leachate quality for selected landfills
from newly industrialised countries. BGS Technical Report WC/98/49.
Strachan, L.J., Robinson, H.D., Last, S.D., Payne, G., Wright, M., 2007. Development of
leachate treatment at a large new tropical landfill site. Proceedings Sardinia
2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
Umar, M., Abdul Aziz, H., Yusoff, M.S., 2010. Variability of Parameters Involved in
Leachate Pollution Index and Determination of LPI from Four Landfills in
Malaysia. International Journal of Chemical Engineering. Volume 2010, Article
ID 747953, 6 pages.
Wagh, M.P., Bhandari, P.K., Kurhade, S., 2014. Ground Water Contamination by
Leachate. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering
and Technology Volume 3, Special Issue 4.
Woldeyohans, A.M., Worku, T., Kloos, H., Mulat, W., 2014. Treatment of leachate by
recirculating through dumped solid waste in a sanitary landfill in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Ecol. Eng. 73, 254–259.
Yong, Z.J., Bashir, M.J.K., Ng, C.A., Sethupathi, S., Lim, J., 2018. A sequential treatment
of intermediate tropical landfill leachate using a sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
and coagulation. J. Environ. Manage. 205, 244–252.
Yusmartini, E.S., Setiabudidaya, D., Ridwan, Marsi, Faizal, 2013. Characteristics of
leachate at sukawinatan LANDFill, Palembang, Indonesia. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. vol.
423 (1), 12048-12052.
Ziyang, L., Youcai, Z., Tao, Y., Yu, S., Huili, C., Nanwen, Z., Renhua, H., 2009. Natural
attenuation and characterization of contaminants composition in landfill
leachate under different disposing ages. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3385–3391.