J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
DOI 10.1007/s10163-015-0372-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Investigating the performance of aerobic, semi-aerobic,
and anaerobic bioreactor landfills for MSW management
in developing countries
M. Ahmadifar1 • Majid Sartaj2 • M. Abdallah2
Received: 8 June 2014 / Accepted: 11 March 2015
Ó Springer Japan 2015
Abstract Three different laboratory bioreactors, each
duplicated, with dimensions 0.5 9 0.5 9 1 m were set up
and monitored for 160 days. Municipal Solid Wastes with
an organic content of *80 % and a density of 550 kg/m3
were placed in bioreactors. Fresh leachate collected from
waste collection vehicles was used with a recirculation rate
of 28 L/day. Aerobic bioreactors were aerated at a rate of
0.15–0.24 L/min/kg of waste. Almost the same level of
treatment was observed in terms of chemical oxygen de-
mand reduction of leachate, which was in the range of
91–93 %. However, for anaerobic bioreactor, it took al-
most twice the time, 160 vs. 76 days, to reach the same
level of treatment and stabilization. The behavior of semi-
aerobic bioreactor was somewhere between the aerobic and
anaerobic ones. Total biogas production for anaerobic
bioreactors was 90 L/kg of waste, which contained
57–63 % methane. Methane concentration measured in
semi-aerobic bioreactor was below 5 %. The main advan-
tage of aerobic bioreactor was the fast rate of the process,
while for semi-aerobic bioreactor, it was the elimination of
the need for energy to maintain aerobic conditions, and for
anaerobic bioreactor it was the production of biogas and
potential energy recovery.
Keywords Bioreactor landfill
Aerobic
Semi-aerobic

Anaerobic
Leachate recirculation
& Majid Sartaj
msartaj@uottawa.ca
1
Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
2
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Introduction
Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) management issues vary
dramatically and display striking differences between de-
veloped and developing countries. Implementing sustain-
able development and management plans in developed
countries has resulted in increasing diversion of MSW
through recycling, composting, and incineration over the
last couple of decades. For example, in 2012, as much as
46 % by weight of MSW generated in USA was diverted
from the MSW stream and the remaining 54 % was de-
posited in landfills [1]. Majority of these landfills have been
also operated as engineered landfills, with a new trend
toward favoring building and operating new landfills as or
converting the existing ones to bioreactor landfills. These
landfilling technologies utilize reliable control systems in
place for collecting and managing landfill leachate and
gases. MSW per capita generation rates in developed
countries have also reached or approaching a stable stage
or peak values. In 2012, MSW generation rate in USA was
4.38 lb/person/day, which was slightly less than 4.55 lb/
person/day measured in 2008 [1]. The situation in devel-
oping countries is very different. The amount of MSW
continues to rapidly increase due to rapid population
growth and accelerated urbanization and industrialization.
The growing urbanization and higher standards of living
are also pushing the per capita waste generation rates
higher. The urban population in China increased from
1.44 9 108 in 1981 to 3.52 9 108 in 2002, and the per
capita MSW generation rate increased from 0.5 to 1.1 kg/
person/day during the same period [2]. MSW composition
is another noticeable difference between developed and
developing countries. The composition of MSW depends
on many factors, such as socio-economic, climatic and
geographical conditions, etc. [3]. The organic fraction
123

(60–90 %) and moisture content (60–80 %) of MSW in
developing countries are much higher than developed
countries. The organic fraction is the predominant com-
pound in the MSW stream in developing countries [2–4]. In
addition, landfill sites in developing countries are mostly
practicing either open dumping or using covered trenches
without appropriate leachate and gas control systems. This
is mainly due to technological and financial constraints and
the lack of proper management and skilled operators [4, 5].
In 2002, about 46 % of MSW generated in China was
discarded in dumps and only 6 % diverted through incin-
eration and composting [2].
Sustainable management of MSW is one of the biggest
challenges for developing countries. Clearly open dumping
and/or covered trench method (with no leachate and gas
control system) are not acceptable waste management
practices and will result in significant environmental im-
pacts that could last for several decades. Production of
landfill leachate and contamination of water resources in
the event of leachate migration is one the most important
issues of concern [6]. Landfills are also considered an
important source for greenhouse gases and contribute to
global warming [3]. Considering above, there is a need to
upgrade the existing landfill sites and design, build, and
operate the new ones in developing countries using sus-
tainable development strategies and technologies.
A promising method to improve landfill operation and
management is bioreactor landfill technology. Bioreactor
landfills are a development of regulated landfills where
leachate is commonly collected and recirculated back
through the waste material. It aims at enhancing the phy-
sical/chemical/biological conditions to enhance biodegra-
dation and reduce the waste stabilization time. Leachate
recirculation increases the moisture content within the
waste material, dilutes potential inhibitors to methano-
genesis, enhances the distribution of nutrients and enzymes
between methanogens and solid/liquids, increases the rate
of MSW settlement, and reduces the post-closure activities
[7–10]. Leachate recirculation is also reported to be an
effective treatment and control method for leachate man-
agement [11–14].
Based on the method of aeration, bioreactor landfills are
classified as aerobic, semi-aerobic (also called hybrid), and
anaerobic, with anaerobic bioreactor being the most com-
mon method of practice. It is recommended that leachate
should be introduced slowly in anaerobic bioreactors since
high flow rates may deplete buffering capacity and remove
methanogens. As gas production is established, the flow
rates and frequency of recirculation could be increased
[15]. The effect of leachate recirculation with supplemental
water addition was investigated for laboratory anaerobic
bioreactors. The reactor with leachate recirculation and
supplemental water addition reached the stabilization phase
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
after 180 days with total methane production of 54.87 L/kg
dry weight of MSW compared to 290 days and a total
methane production of 17.04 L/kg dry weight of MSW for
the bioreactor with only leachate recirculation and no ad-
ditional water. The leachate recirculation rates were 5–11
and 5–12.5 % of waste volume for bioreactors with lea-
chate recirculation only and leachate recirculation plus
supplemental water, respectively [16]. Rich et al. [17] re-
viewed the use of aerobic landfill worldwide. They stated
that old landfill sites might require aftercare for decades or
even centuries and the use of aerobic landfill techniques
could decrease the risks associated with current landfill
practices. Read et al. [18] reported on successful operation
of two separate aerobic landfill systems in Georgia, USA.
The key to the aerobic landfill’s effectiveness was the
proper control of aerobic conditions, where by waste mass
temperatures and moisture were maintained within optimal
ranges. Methane concentrations decreased by at least 80 %
in three weeks after system startup and remained consis-
tently below 15 % (v/v) for most of the project. A study
reported that the range of aeration rates used in aerobic
reactors is wide, as low as 0.17 L/min/kg waste and as high
as 0.97 L/min/kg waste. An aeration rate of 0.2 L/min/kg
MSW was applied in a comparative study of four aerobic
and anaerobic laboratory reactors [19]. A particular type of
the in situ aeration technology, also known as Fukuoka
method, was developed in Japan and was first tested in the
construction of Shin-Kamata Landfill in 1975. This semi-
aerobic landfill system can be explained as a system where
the leachate and gas are continuously removed from the
waste mass using a common piping system for collection of
leachate and gas. The ambient air flows into the waste body
passively through the head space of the leachate collection
pipes that are open to the atmosphere. A leachate recircu-
lation system sometimes is incorporated when applicable,
where the leachate collected is recirculated using a pump
from the top into the waste layers. The temperature dif-
ference between the interior landfill and the outside air
produces a chimney effect, where air is drawn into the
pipes and circulated throughout the waste mass. This
technology has been used in some countries such as
Malaysia, China, and Iran [5, 20].
Cossu et al. [21] compared aerobic and anaerobic ex-
perimental bioreactor columns. Aeration of the waste mass,
either with forced aeration or in semi-aerobic like condi-
tions, produced a rapid and marked oxidation of organics
and nitrogen. Sun et al. [22] compared semi-aerobic and
anaerobic degradation of refuse with recirculation after
leachate treatment by aged-refuse bioreactor. The results
showed that the time required to meet the discharge stan-
dard and the time of stabilization of the refuse was short-
ened considerably, 2.2 years for anaerobic process vs.
100 days for the semi-aerobic process. Erses et al. [23] also
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
compared aerobic and anaerobic bioreactors and stated that
aerobic reactors had higher organic, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and alkali metal removal efficiencies than the anaerobic
one. Furthermore, stabilization time considerably de-
creased when using aerobic processes with leachate recir-
culation compared to the anaerobic system with the same
recirculation scheme.
Aerobic bioreactor technology is highly demanding in
terms of costs and operation. The major advantage though
is the reduced stabilization time of waste material,
elimination of methane production, and significantly less
after closure activities. Anaerobic bioreactor technology,
similar to aerobic method, is considered as a high cost and
technologically demanding process. The main advantage is
the possibility of extracting energy through the collection
and utilization of methane gas. The semi-aerobic landfill
system seems a suitable alternative for developing coun-
tries because of the simple and low-cost technology com-
pared to the other two methods [24]. As stated above, there
is a need to upgrade the existing landfill sites and/or design
and build the new ones in developing countries in order to
achieve sustainable management of MSW. Bioreactor
landfilling technology is a viable sustainable MSW man-
agement approach; however, there are different methods
(aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic) with different levels
of technological and financial demands. Considering this,
and the fact that there is limited information in the lit-
erature on feasibility study and simultaneous comparison
of these methods and considerably different composition
MSW between developed and developing countries, the
aim of this research was to study the feasibility and to
investigate and compare the performance of aerobic, semi-
aerobic, and anaerobic bioreactors using experimental
laboratory reactors and for a typical high organic content
MSW produced in developing countries.
Materials and methods
Three types of laboratory bioreactors were set up and
monitored to simulate the aerobic, anaerobic, and semi-
aerobic bioreactor landfills. The bioreactors were dupli-
cated, so there were a total of 6 bioreactors. Summary of
Table 1 Experimental setup Type of reactor:
and operating conditions for
reactors Size
Density
Rate of leachate recirculation
Mode of aeration and rate
Heating of leachate
pH adjustment
the experimental setup and operating conditions is pre-
sented in Table 1. Also, images of laboratory setup and
cross section of bioreactors are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2,
respectively. The bioreactors were plastic containers with a
cross-sectional area of 0.5 9 0.5 m, and a height of 1 m.
Two leachate holding tanks were installed for each biore-
actor, one at the top and one at the bottom. For each
bioreactor, initially leachate was added to the top tank,
passed through the bioreactor by gravity, and collected in
the bottom tank. Collected leachate was then pumped back
to the tank at the top, from which leachate was recirculated
back into the waste mass. The top tank was equipped with a
valve to stop the leachate flow when necessary or allow the
slow release of leachate according to the recirculation
schedule. A 5-cm layer of gravel was placed at the bottom
and top of all bioreactors to facilitate the collection of
leachate at the bottom and better distribution of leachate at
the top. Leachate was distributed in four different points at
the top of gravel layer. The bioreactors were covered with a
hard plastic plate at the top and were water and gas proofed
using a flange and a rubber washer. A flexible pipe was
provided at the top of all bioreactors for biogas collection
using tedlar bags.
For aerobic bioreactors, two sets of perforated aeration
pipes, see Fig. 1, made from polypropylene were placed in
the middle and the bottom of each bioreactor and con-
nected to an air compressor in order to inject the air into the
waste mass. The aeration pipes were wrapped in a fine
mesh to prevent any clogging. An airflow meter was used
to measure the amount of aeration provided for aerobic
bioreactors. As mentioned above, a wide range of airflow
rate is reported in the literature. For the present study, an
airflow rate was chosen based on a previous study with a
600 kg/m3 density of waste for laboratory bioreactors
which is close to the density used in this study (600 kg/m3)
[19]. It was also decided to use a varying rate of airflow as
opposed the constant rate used in the above study. As such
the airflow was maintained at 0.24 L/min kg of waste for
the first 2 weeks, 0.20 L/min kg of waste for weeks 3–6,
and 0.15 L/min kg of waste for weeks 7 till the end of
experiment.
Anaerobic bioreactors were similar to aerobic ones, but
did not have any aeration system inside. The bioreactors
Anaerobic Semi-aerobic Aerobic
0.5 9 0.5 9 1.0 m
550 kg/m3
28 L/day (*11 % waste vol.)
NA Passive Forced 0.15–0.24 l/min/kg
Yes (35 °C) Yes (35 °C) No
Yes No No
123
 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Fig. 1 Laboratory setup: a bioreactors (left), b top plate with leachate distribution pipes and gas collection pipe (top right), c aeration pipes used
for aerobic and semi-aerobic bioreactors (bottom right)

Fig. 2 Cross section of laboratory bioreactors

were also wrapped with a 5-cm-thick fiberglass insulating temperature of the leachate in the upper tank around 35 °C
cover; see Fig. 1, to reduce the heat loss through the walls. (mesophilic range). pH of the leachate was adjusted, when
In addition, a heating wire element was used to keep the necessary, by adding NaOH to the leachate before

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
Table 2 Composition of the waste used for experiments
Organic Plastic Paper/cardboard Textile/leather Glass
78.9 9.6 4.8 3.4 1.7
recirculating it back to the bioreactor. This is further dis-
cussed in a later section which presents the results on pH
monitoring.
The conditions in semi-aerobic bioreactor were some-
where between the aerobic and anaerobic ones. A set of
aeration pipes similar to the ones used in the aerobic sys-
tem was placed at the base and in the mid height of the
reactor, but the ends of these pipes were open to the outside
ambient air and no pump was used to force the air inside
the reactors. Therefore, the aeration was enhanced by
natural upward flow of the warmer air inside the reactor.
Similar to anaerobic bioreactors, semi-aerobic bioreactors
were covered with the same insulating cover material and
the temperature of the leachate in the upper tank was kept
around 35 °C (mesophilic range).
The input of the screen unit of Isfahan composting and
recovery plant, Isfahan, Iran, was used as waste material.
The composition of the waste was determined by manually
separating and weighing different components of three
200–300 kg waste samples. Table 2 represents the com-
position of the modified waste used in the experiment. As
presented, the organic content of the waste, like most de-
veloping countries and also due to separation of a portion
of recyclable materials such as papers, is very high. The
large components were shredded to a maximum size of
8 cm. The waste was placed in layers and compacted
manually with a plate to reach a density of 550 kg/m3.
Fig. 3 Average COD
concentration in leachate in
different bioreactors
Fresh leachate from leachate containers installed in
Metal
municipal waste collection vehicles was collected and
transferred to the laboratory. Initially, enough leachate was
1.6 added to each bioreactor to bring the moisture content of
the waste material to field capacity. Then 28 L of leachate
was recirculated daily for the duration of the experiments.
This is about 11 % of waste volume in each reactor and is
within the range reported in a previous research [15].
Samples of the leachate from all bioreactors were collected
and analyzed for chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
solids (TS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended
solids (TSS), pH, and heavy metals concentrations ac-
cording to methods presented by Standard Methods [25].
Biogas samples were also collected and analyzed for their
composition using a Gas Chromatographer (GC). The
temperature of the bioreactors was monitored on a regular
basis as well.
Results and discussions
COD
Variation of the average COD concentrations of the lea-
chate is presented in Fig. 3. The fluctuation for COD
measurements between the duplicate reactors was in the
range of 3–7 %. Since the organic fraction of waste was
high (*80 %), the organic matter concentration of the
produced leachate was expected to be high. The initial
COD concentrations of the leachate measured on the first
day, after the first recirculation, were 40,500, 48,000, and
40,000 mg/L for aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic
bioreactors, respectively. During the initial stages of
123

Fig. 4 Average pH of leachate
in different bioreactors
Fig. 5 Average temperature
measurement of leachate in
different bioreactors
recirculation, the COD concentrations increased to
44,800 mg/L on day 4 for aerobic bioreactor, 56,000 mg/L
on day 7 for semi-aerobic bioreactor, and 64,900 mg/L on
day 28 for anaerobic bioreactor, respectively. This increase
was mainly due to a combination of rapid initial dissolution
and release of organic matter and hydrolysis in the biore-
actor. After acclimatization and establishment of microor-
ganisms, biodegradation of organic matter started. As can
be seen, the major reduction of COD in aerobic bioreactor
occurred during the period of day 4 to day 28, where COD
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
of the leachate was reduced from 44,800 to 8450 mg/L.
This is equal to 81 % COD reduction compared to the
maximum COD. From day 28 until day 76, COD of the
leachate was further reduced to 3840 mg/L, but at a much
slower rate, showing a total COD removal efficiency of
91 % compared to the maximum COD. This is similar to
91 % reduction for COD reported by Sanphoti et al. [16].
This shows that degradation of organic matter portion of
the MSW and leachate treatment using aerobic scheme plus
leachate recirculation is a feasible, fast, and effective
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
Fig. 6 Average TDS of
leachate in different bioreactors
in situ process. In the case of semi-aerobic bioreactor, COD
started to reduce at a steady rate from 56,000 mg/L on day
7 to 5400 mg/L on day 109 (90 % removal compared to the
maximum COD), and to 3550 mg/L on day 160 at a slower
rate (93 % total removal compared to the maximum COD).
The biodegradation process was even slower in anaerobic
system as it took 132 days for COD to reduce from the
maximum concentration of 64,900 mg/L on day 28 to de-
crease to a concentration of 5300 mg/L on day 160 (92 %
removal compared to the maximum COD). Also, no sig-
nificant reduction in COD was observed in the early stage
with COD concentration gradually accumulating in the
leachate until the peak indicating that acidogenesis was
progressing at a faster rate than methanogenesis. The
anaerobic bioreactor then entered methanogenesis and gas
production stage with accompanying COD reduction. From
Fig. 7 Gas composition from anaerobic bioreactor
the slope of the last segment, it seems that biodegradation
was still continuing, but the experiment was terminated.
The anaerobic system was slower than aerobic system in
terms of COD reduction, but the advantage was the lack of
need for energy for aeration. On the other hand, the
anaerobic system has the potential of biogas production as
will be further discussed at a later section. The remaining
COD in all bioreactors is the slowly degradable or recal-
citrant portion of organic matter present in the leachate,
which was in the range of 3550–5300 mg/L.
pH
Figure 4 shows the average pH measurements for all three
bioreactors. The fluctuation for pH measurements between
the duplicate reactors was below 5 %. The initial pH of
leachate measured on day 1 was 3.9. pH of the leachate in
the aerobic bioreactor was quickly increased and reached a
value of 7.9 on day 16 and remained in the range of 8–8.5
for the remaining period of the experiments. In the case of
the anaerobic bioreactor, pH increased to a value of 6.3 on
day 13 and then started to drop. This is due to the fact that
bioreactor was in the acid phase of anaerobic processes at
this stage. To enhance the speed of the process, the pH of
leachate was adjusted gradually starting on day 35. To
prevent any shock, the adjustment was kept close to 0.3 pH
units at each adjustment event. pH adjustment was stopped
when the pH reached a value of 7. At this point, around day
90, the anaerobic bioreactor was stable and was in the
methane production phase. The COD of the leachate also
started to decrease at a fast rate (Fig. 3) confirming this.
Similar to the trend observed for COD, the behavior of
123

Fig. 8 Daily (top) and
cumulative (bottom) biogas
production in anaerobic
bioreactor
semi-aerobic bioreactor is somewhere between the aerobic
and anaerobic bioreactor. The pH of the semi-aerobic
bioreactor also increased quickly and reached a value of 7
on day 19, and then gradually increased over the period of
experiment to a maximum value of 7.9 at the end of
experiment.
Temperature
Average temperature variation of the bioreactors is pre-
sented in Fig. 5. The fluctuation for temperature mea-
surements between the duplicate reactors was below 5 %.
As shown, the temperature inside the aerobic bioreactor
increased initially and reached a maximum of 53 °C on
day 7 and then dropped back to values in the range of
25–30 °C for significant portion of the remaining time. On
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
day 67, the average temperature inside aerobic bioreactors
dropped to 24 °C, which was close to the room tem-
perature. The high temperatures observed during the ini-
tial stages were the result of rapid aerobic biodegradation
of the organic matter and subsequent heat generation and
had a similar trend to COD. As for semi-aerobic and
anaerobic bioreactors, the temperature initially increased
and then was kept in the range of 30–32 °C by heating the
leachate.
TDS, TS, and TSS
Variation of the average TDS of leachate in different
bioreactors is illustrated in Fig. 6. Initial rise and subse-
quent decrease in TDS followed similar trends as COD and
temperature variations. The initial rise was due to
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
recirculation of leachate and subsequent dissolution and
release of organic and inorganic matter contained in WSM.
Average TDS increased from an initial value of 22,280 mg/
L to a maximum value of 28,360 mg/L on day 4 for aerobic
bioreactor, from an initial value of 23,000 mg/L to a
maximum value of 31,400 mg/L for semi-aerobic biore-
actor, and from an initial value of 19,360 mg/L to a max-
imum value of 37,100 mg/L on day 10 for anaerobic
bioreactor, respectively. Average TDS then quickly drop-
ped to values below 15,000 on day 22, and then gradually
decreased further and reached a final value of 12,370 mg/L
for aerobic bioreactor at the end of the experiment. This
shows a total of 56 % reduction for total dissolved solids
compared to the maximum TDS measured value and 44 %
Fig. 9 Concentration of heavy
metals in leachate in bioreactors
reduction compared to the initial value. For semi-aerobic
bioreactor, average TDS was decreased from 31,400 mg/L
to a final value of 9800 mg/L, which shows a 69 % re-
duction compared to the maximum TDS and 57 % reduc-
tion compared to the initial value. And for anaerobic
bioreactor, average TDS stayed above 30,000 mg/L range
for 90 days, similar to COD, and then started to drop to
final value of 11,200 mg/L at the end of experiment
showing a 70 % reduction compared to the maximum TDS
and 42 % reduction compared to the initial value. TS fol-
lowed the same trend as TDS with reduction removals of
55, 69, and 69 % for aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic
bioreactors, respectively. As for TSS, there was a general
decrease but no specific trend was observed.
123

Fig. 9 continued
Biogas
During the course of the experiment, some samples of
biogas generated in anaerobic bioreactors as well as the gas
collected from the headspace of semi-aerobic and aerobic
bioreactors were collected and analyzed by GC for gas
composition. No methane was detected in aerobic biore-
actors. Methane concentration measured in semi-aerobic
bioreactor was negligible as it was below 5 %. Figure 7
illustrates the gas composition of biogas generated in
anaerobic bioreactor for day 88 where COD concentration
was still high (*50,000 mg/L), day 98 where COD was
quickly being degraded (*30,000 mg/L), and day 117
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
where majority of COD was degraded (*12,000 mg/L).
The biogas contained about 57–63 % methane. Average
daily and cumulative biogas productions in anaerobic
bioreactors are illustrated in Fig. 8. The fluctuation for
biogas production between the duplicate reactors was be-
low 7 %. The average total biogas production for anaerobic
bioreactors was about 10,800 L. Considering that 120 kg
of waste was placed in each bioreactor, the biogas pro-
duction rate was 90 L/kg of waste. Moisture content of the
MSW used in this study was in the range of 60–65 %.
Therefore, the biogas production was about 27–31 L/kg
dry weight of MSW, which is close to a value of 55 L/kg
dry weight of MSW reported in the literature [16].
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
Heavy metals
The presence of heavy metals in landfill leachate is one of
the environmental concerns associated with leachate. It is
expected that recirculation of leachate will result in reduc-
tion of heavy metals in leachate. Samples of leachate were
analyzed for Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn, and the results are pre-
sented in Fig. 9. Regardless of the fluctuations observed,
recirculation of leachate within the mass of MSW was very
effective in reducing heavy metal content of the leachate.
Average removal efficiencies obtained for all bioreactors
for Fe, Mn, Zn, and Pb were 85–90, 93–97, 76–84, and
43–89 %, respectively. Also, the average removal effi-
ciencies for all heavy metals for aerobic, semi-aerobic, and
anaerobic bioreactors were 76, 88, and 88 %, respectively.
The main mechanism for removal of heavy metals might
probably be precipitation and/or adsorption on MSW as the
leachate was recirculated through the waste material.
Conclusions
Overall, bioreactor technology using leachate recirculation
proved to be a feasible and effective method for all three
aeration schemes examined, but there were considerable
differences in their performance. Although almost the same
level of treatment was observed in terms of COD reduction
of leachate (91–93 %), the majority of COD reduction in
the aerobic bioreactor occurred in a fast stage followed by a
slow stage. For anaerobic bioreactor, it took almost twice
the time, 160 vs. 76 days, even with the pH adjustment to
speed up the process, to reach the same level of treatment
and stabilization. The behavior of the semi-bioreactor was
somewhere between the aerobic and anaerobic ones.
Methane concentration measured in semi-aerobic bioreac-
tor was negligible showing that semi-aerobic aeration was
able to provide enough oxygen to maintain near aerobic
conditions in bioreactors while eliminating the need for
energy required in aeration scheme. As such, semi-aerobic
could be a viable MSW alternative for developing coun-
tries. One of the benefits of anaerobic bioreactor is the
production of biogas and potential energy recovery. The
biogas generated in anaerobic bioreactors contained about
57–63 % methane. Average total biogas production for
anaerobic bioreactors was 90 L/kg of waste.
The first stage in the aerobic bioreactor was accompanied
by considerable heat generation, and a maximum tem-
perature of 53 °C on day 7 was observed. This confirms the
occurrence of the fast aerobic degradation of organic matter.
Leachate recirculation employed in all three types of
bioreactors was very effective in reducing heavy metal
content of the leachate.
References
1. US EPA (2014) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and
disposal in the United States: tables and figures for 2012, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery. Feb 2014
2. Huang Q, Wang Q, Dong L, Xi B, Zhou B (2006) The current
situation of solid waste management in China. J Mater Cycles
Waste Manag 8:63–69
3. Bastian L, Yano J, Hirai Y, Sakai S (2013) Greenhouse gas
emissions from biogenic waste treatment: options and uncer-
tainty. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15:49–60
4. Zairi M, Aydi A, Dhia HB (2014) Leachate generation and biogas
energy recovery in the Jebel Chakir municipal solid waste land-
fill, Tunisia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 16:141–150
5. Chong TL, Matsufuji Y, Hassan MN (2005) Implementation of
the semi-aerobic landfill system (Fukuoka method) in developing
countries: a Malaysia cost analysis. Waste Manag 25:702–711
6. Kheradmand S, Karimi-Jashni A, Sartaj M (2010) Treatment of
municipal landfill leachate using a combined anaerobic di-
gesterand activated sludge system. Waste Manag 30:1025–1031
7. Warith M (2002) Bioreactor landfills: experimental and field re-
sults. Waste Manag 22:7–17
8. Sponza DT, Agdag ON (2004) Impact of leachate recirculation
and recirculation volume on stabilization of municipal solid
wastes in simulated anaerobic bioreactors. Process Biochem
39:2157–2165
9. Ozkaya B, Demir A, Bilgili MS (2006) Mathematical simulation
and long-term monitoring of leachate components from two
different landfill cells. J Hazard Mater A135:32–39
10. Bilgili MS, Demir A, Ince M, Ozkaya B (2007) Metal concen-
trations of simulated aerobic and anaerobic pilot scale landfill
reactors. J Hazard Mater 145:186–194
11. Townsend TG, Miller WL, Lee H, Earle JFK (1996) Acceleration
of landfill stabilization using leachate recycle. ASCE J Environ
Eng 122(4):263–268
12. Christensen TH, Kjeldsen P, Bjerg PL, Jensen DL, Christensen
JB, Baun A, Albrechtsen HJ, Heron G (2001) Review: biogeo-
chemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Appl Geochem 16:659–718
13. Erses SA, Fazal MA, Onaya TT, Craig WH (2005) Determination
of solid waste sorption capacity for selected heavy metals in
landfills. J Hazard Mater B121:223–232
14. He R, Liu X, Zhang Z, Shen D (2007) Characteristics of the
bioreactor landfill system using an anaerobic–aerobic process for
nitrogen removal. Bioresour Technol 98:2526–2532
15. San I, Onay TT (2001) Impact of various leachate recirculation
regimes on municipal solid waste degradation. J Hazard Mater
87:259–271
16. Sanphoti N, Towprayoon S, Chaiprasert P, Nopharatana A (2006)
The effects of leachate recirculation with supplemental water
addition on methane production and waste decomposition in a
simulated tropical landfill. J Environ Manag 81:27–35
17. Rich C, Gronow J, Voulvoulis N (2008) The potential for aeration
of MSW landfills to accelerate completion. Waste Manag
28:1039–1048
18. Read AD, Hudgins M, Harper S, Phillips P, Morris J (2001) The
successful demonstration of aerobic landfilling—the potential for
a more sustainable solid waste management approach? Resour
Conserv Recycl 32:115–146
19. Nikolaou A, Giannis A, Gidarakos E (2010) Comparative studies
of aerobic and anaerobic treatment of MSW organic fraction in
landfill bioreactors. Environ Technol 31:1381–1389
20. Fakharian K, Alami R, Abdi M (2003). Investigating the stability
of Fukuoka method landfill at Kahrizak landfill, Tehran (in
123

Persian). In: 6th International conference on civil engineering
(ICCE2003), Isfahan, Iran, 2003
21. Cossu R, Raga R, Rossetti D (2003) The PAF model: an inte-
grated approach for landfill sustainability. Waste Manag
23:37–44
22. Sun Y, Sun X, Zhao Y (2011) Comparison of semi-aerobic and
anaerobic degradation of refuse with recirculation after leachate
treatment by aged refuse bioreactor. Waste Manag 31:1202–1209
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
23. Erses SA, Onay TT, Yenigun O (2008) Comparison of aerobic
and anaerobic degradation of municipal solid waste in bioreactor
landfills. Bioresour Technol 99:5418–5426
24. Hirata O, Matsufuji Y, Tachifuji A, Yanase R (2012) Waste
stabilization mechanism by a recirculatory semi-aerobic landfill
with the aeration system. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 14:47–51
25. APHA (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. APHA, AWWA, WEF