Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill: A source of microplastics?

-Evidence of microplastics in landfill leachate
Pinjing He a, c, d, Liyao Chen a, b, Liming Shao c, d, Hua Zhang b, Fan Lü a, b, *
a
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Source Reuse, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, People's Republic of China
b
Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological Security, Shanghai, 200092, People's Republic of China
c
Institute of Waste Treatment and Reclamation, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, People's Republic of China
d
Centre for the Technology Research and Training on Household Waste in Small Towns & Rural Area, Ministry of Housing and UrbaneRural Development of
PR China (MOHURD), Shanghai, 200092, People's Republic of China

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

Article history: Although landfill is suspected to be releasing microplastics to the environment, there is few empirical
Received 15 January 2019 researches carried out. To clarify suspicions of landfills as potential sources of microplastics, twelve
Received in revised form leachate samples from four active and two closed municipal solid waste landfills were investigated.
28 April 2019
Microplastics were found in all the landfill leachate samples. In total, seventeen different types of plastics
Accepted 30 April 2019
Available online 2 May 2019
were identified in the leachate samples with calculated concentration ranging from 0.42 to 24.58 items/L.
Polyethylene and polypropylene were the predominant polymer types. 99.36% microplastics were
derived from the fragmentation of plastic waste buried in landfills. The size of 77.48% microplastics was
Keywords:
Microplastic
between 100 and 1000 mm. The study shows that the generation, accumulation and release of micro-
Active and closed landfills plastic in landfills is a long-term process. The results of our study provide preliminary evidence and
Landfills leachate plastic waste validate that landfill isn't the final sink of plastics, but a potential source of microplastics.
Secondary microplastics © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Plastic is indispensable in contemporary daily life. The devel-
opment of plastic has been increasing considerably since the 1950s.
In the year 2017, the world plastic production reached 348 million
tons (PlasticEurope, 2018). Approximately 50% of plastics are used
for single-use disposable products (Hopewell et al., 2009), a large
amount of abandoned plastics accumulating in the environment
has been causing serious environmental problems (Barnes et al.,
2009). In recent years, microplastics have been receiving consid-
erable attentions. Microplastics, defined as plastic particles <5 mm,
can be divided in to “primary microplastics” (intentionally pro-
duced small plastic particles) and “secondary microplastics”
(formed from breakdown of larger plastic material) according to
sources (Arthur et al., 2009). Microplastics are widespread and
ubiquitous in environment, their occurrence have been reported in
marine (Bergmann et al., 2015; Desforges et al., 2014; Law et al.,
2014; Wieczorek et al., 2018; Woodall et al., 2014), fresh water
* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Source
Reuse, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, People's Republic of China.
E-mail address: lvfan.rhodea@tongji.edu.cn (F. Lü).
(Imhof et al., 2013; Yonkos et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017), atmo-
sphere (Dris et al., 2016; Gasperi et al., 2018; Prata, 2017), soil
(Nizzetto et al., 2016b; Zubris and Richards, 2005) and wastewater
treatment plants (Carr et al., 2016; Mahon et al., 2017; Murphy
et al., 2016; Ziajahromi et al., 2017).
There is no doubt that the best way to eliminate microplastics
pollution is to control and prevent plastics from entering the
environment. The control strategies are determined by sources, so
it is of great importance to understand the sources and pathways
for microplastics to the environment (Arthur et al., 2009; Browne
et al., 2011). The major release of microplastics to the environ-
ment is generally recognized as the result of inappropriate waste
management and improper human behavior (Barnes et al., 2009;
Jambeck et al., 2015). Plastic beads used for exfoliation or cleansing
in cosmetics and personal care products (Eriksen et al., 2013;
Fendall and Sewell, 2009), unintentional loss of plastic pellets from
factory and transportation (Lechner et al., 2014; Sundt et al., 2014),
fiber loss from textile during washing (Hernandez et al., 2017) were
also reported to have been releasing microplastics to environment.
Despite of the large number of existing researches covering the
abundance, composition, sources and impact of microplastics, as a
new environmental challenge, their sources are not comprehen-
sively understood (Sundt et al., 2014).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060
0043-1354/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45 39

Leachate samples were collected from collecting wells or/and

Abbreviation equalization basins considering the access to the pre-treatment
leachate. Information about the investigated landfills and sam-
ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin pling sites is listed in Table 1. For each individual sampling site, 24 L
ALK alkyd leachate was collected in a PE bucket. The buckets were well sealed
BOD5 biochemical oxygen demand and brought back to the laboratory for subsequent study.
COD chemical oxygen demand Basic physicochemical properties including pH, chemical oxy-
DOC dissolved organic carbon gen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), dis-
DN dissolved nitrogen solved organic carbon (DOC), ammonia nitrogen (NH3eN) and
EP epoxy resin dissolved nitrogen (DN) were studied (Table 2). Information about
NH3eN ammonia nitrogen methodology for measurements was provided in SI-1.
PA polyamide
PDMS polydimethylsiloxane 2.2. Method for the extraction and identification of microplastics
PE polyethylene
PES polyester The method applied for extraction and identification of micro-
PET polyethylene terephthalate plastics in leachate was a modification of NOAA laboratory methods
PF phenol-formaldehyde resin (Masura et al., 2015).
PMMA polymethyl methacrylate
PP polypropylene 2.2.1. Extraction of microplastics
PS polystyrene The sample was filtered through a stack of stainless-steel sieves
PVC polyvinyl chloride (FA ¼ 20 cm) with descending mesh sizes of 150, 75, 45 and 25 mm.
All the solid screened out on the four sieves was carefully rinsed
into a 500 ml beaker with distilled water. Then wet peroxide
oxidation was performed to remove natural organic materials,
Landfilling, as a widely applied strategy in the world for the 40 ml 0.05 M Fe (II) solution and 40 ml 30% hydrogen peroxide was
disposal of waste, was estimated to store 21e42% of the global added into the beaker. Additional Fe (II) solution and hydrogen
plastic waste production (Nizzetto et al., 2016a). A large amount of peroxide were supplemented until the mixture turned clear and no
plastics are buried in landfills. As relatively closely sealed con- foam was floating on the surface. Then the mixture was filtered
tainers with complex biochemical reactions and physical changes, with a vacuum filter through a 0.45 mm filter membrane.
plastic waste buried in landfills are subjected to much more severe Then a dual density separation was conducted to remove inor-
environmental conditions, e.g., leachate pH (varying from 4.5 to 9), ganic and the remaining natural organic material. The first step was
high salinity, fluctuating temperature, gas generation (e.g., CO2 and to remove the inorganic matter. Particles contained on the filter
CH4), physical stress and microbial degradation (Hanson et al., membrane was rinsed with sodium iodide solution (~1.7 g/cm3)
2005; Kjeldsen et al., 2002; Ling et al., 1998; Pramila and Ramesh, into a 50 ml beaker (Nuelle et al., 2014). After 2 h' settling, the su-
2017; Zettler et al., 2013). All of the above factors may lead to the pernatant was filtered with a vacuum filter through a 0.45 mm filter
fragmentation of plastics to microplastics, and small plastic debris membrane, Then, the particles on the filter membrane was rinsed
would be carried out by the discharge of leachate. Imhof et al. with ethanol (~0.79 g/cm3) into a 50 ml beaker, and the supernatant
(2013) believed the land-based source of microplastics entering was discarded after 2 h’ settling. The particles were then rinsed into
the lake may originate from landfill. Experts on landfilling and the vacuum filter with a 0.45 mm filter membrane. Every density
hazardous substances in Norway believe that landfills might have separation was conducted for three times. After filtering, the filter
been leaking microplastic (Sundt et al., 2014). Alimi et al. (2018) membrane was placed in a clean glass Petri dish and dried at
thought microplastics may be introduced to soils by landfill ambient temperature.
leachate. However, microplastic pollution has not been a widely
considered topic in the field of waste treatment industry (Praagh 2.2.2. Sorting and identification
et al., 2018), In previous works, Kilponen (2016) assessed micro- Sorting was based on the structure properties of the debris.
plastics in a brook which was the recipient of leachate from an old- Particles with consolidated structure that would not fragment into
closed landfill. Russo (2018) studied the treated leachate from eight smaller parts in response to the stress from a tweezer were picked
waste treatment facility to investigate the spread of microplastics out. For some samples, it seemed neither practical nor viable to
via leachate in Sweden. Nordic Council of Ministers commissioned identify all the particles, thus it was necessary to take subsamples
a project to investigate the occurrence of microplastics in landfill (Murphy et al., 2016). However, the size of suspicious plastic par-
leachate in the Nordic countries (Praagh et al., 2018). Until now, ticles ranged from 25 mm to 13 mm, it is unreasonable to take
empirical researches carried out on microplastics in landfills are subsample right after the exaction. In order to get as much infor-
still rare. In order to clarify the suspicion of landfills as sources of mation about microplastics as possible. In this study, bigger
microplastics and address the importance of microplastic re- (>1 mm) and conspicuous particles which could be easily manip-
searches on landfills. We investigated the occurrence and charac- ulated by tweezer was firstly picked out. Subsamples were taken
teristics of microplastics in landfill leachate from six different MSW from the remaining smaller particles with modified method
landfills and discussed the potentiality of MSW landfills as sources described in a study on marine snow (Zhao et al., 2017). The
of microplastics. remaining particles were resuspended with V1 ml ethanol in a
tube. The tube was shaken slightly to make the liquid homoge-
2. Materials and methods neous, then V2 ml of the liquid was deposited on a potassium
bromide window disk (FA ¼ 12 mm) and dried at ambient tem-
2.1. Sampling and characterization perature in a clean glass Petri dish. The ratio of subsample was
determined according to the pre-experiment experience to control
Leachate sampling was conducted at six MSW landfills from four the amount of particles in subsamples less than 100. Particles
different cities (Shanghai, Wuxi, Suzhou and Changzhou) in China. (>1 mm) were examined by a Fourier Transform infrared
40 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45

Table 1
Information about sampling sites from 6 MSW landfills.

Landfill No. City Topography type Status Operation time Disposal capacity tons/d Storage million tons Sample No. Sample sites

LF1 Shanghai Plain-type active 2013~now 7000 6.9 S1, S2, S3 collecting wells
S4 equalization basin
LF2 Shanghai Plain-type closed 2010e2016 * 3.8 S5, S6 collecting wells
LF3 Shanghai Plain-type closed 1989e2014 * 0.23 S7 equalization basin
LF4 Wuxi Valley-type active 2008~now 800 4.23 S8 collecting well
S9 equalization basin
LF5 Suzhou Valley-type active 1993~now 2400 12.0e13.0 S10 equalization basin
LF6 Changzhou Valley-type active 2003~now 400e500 3.0 S11, S12 collecting wells

Table 2 3. Results
Characterization of leachate samples.

Samples pH COD mg/L BOD5 mg/L NH3eN mg N/L DOC mg/L DN mg/L In order to avoid false positive result caused by the airborne
microplastics (main fibers) during sampling and lab work stages,
S1 7.7 4266 171 2211 1892 2277
S2 7.7 1130 30 599 458 814 fibers in all leachate samples were excluded in this study. As a
S3 7.8 3871 196 2160 1606 2188 result, 2.67 ± 1.70 per 24 L non-fiber plastic particles were found in
S4 7.9 2940 e 2360 e e blank control group (SI-2). Comparing to the amount of plastic
S5 7.8 2910 420 2055 996 2404
items found in leachate samples, contamination during the pro-
S6 8.2 899 169 793 340 1110
S7 7.7 880 36 1044 668 1217
cedure was acceptable, which suggested that the results were
S8 8.2 17400 4019 3489 5600 4918 reliable.
S9 7.6 7040 722 2134 2818 2503 Plastic particles were indeed found in all the 12 leachate sam-
S10 7.9 3960 1520 1995 1147 2199 ples from active landfills and closed landfills. In total, 621 plastic
S11 8.1 11620 1659 3971 1957 4583
items were identified by FTIR from the leachate samples. According
S12 7.9 8010 3327 3230 1555 3628
to Equation (1), the concentration of microplastics in the 12 sam-
‘–’ means ‘no data’.
ples is calculated as showed in Table 3. The concentration were
different among samples, ranging from 0.42 items/L to 24.58 items/
L. The lowest concentration of microplastics was found in S9, while
spectroscopy (FTIR) spectrometer in attenuated total reflectance
the highest concentration of microplastics was found in S4, which is
(ATR) mode (Thermo Scientific Nicolet 6700). Particles (<1 mm)
about 58 times the concentration of S9. The concentration of
were examined using the micro-FTIR in transmission mode
microplastics will affect the bioavailability. With the increase of the
(Thermo Scientific Nicolet iN 10). And all the spectrums were
concentration, the bioavailability also increase (Auta et al., 2017;
matched with the Hummel Polymer and Additives library.
Wright et al., 2013). Nearly all the researches on microplastics have
The concentration all plastic particles from the leachate was
reported the concentration. However, there is no standardized
estimated using Equation (1).
analytical methods for the exaction, identification and quantifica-
tion. Due to the different methodologies, it is difficult to compare
Concentration of plastic particles (per liter) ¼ (FI þ FII/ratio)/
the results of different researches (Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Shim
Vleachate (1)
et al., 2017).
Where.
3.1. Plastic composition
FI: Amount of plastic particles picked out first;
FII: Amount of plastic particles from the subsample; Ratio: V2/ In total, 17 different kinds of plastics were found in the leachate:
V1; PE (34.94%), PP (34.94%), PVC (0.32%), PS (4.99%), ABS (0.32%), PET
Vleachate: Volume of sampling leachate. (5.96%), PUR (1.45%), EVA (0.64%), PA (0.64%), PES (2.74%), EP
(0.32%), PF (0.16%), PPC (0.16), PMMA (0.32%), ALK (4.35%), PMDS
(2.25%), PTFE (5.48%). Only 3 types of plastics were found in S3,
while 10 types were found in S4. PMMA was detected in S2
2.3. Contamination mitigation
exclusively, PTFE was only found in S10. The difference of plastic
All apparatuses (sampling buckets, stainless sieves, beakers,
petri dishes, tubes and vacuum filter) used in the experiment were Table 3
carefully cleaned with tap water for several times and then with Amount and concentration of plastic items of the 12 leachate samples.
distilled water for three times before use. The sieves, beakers and No. FI FII Ratio Concentration (items/L)
filter were covered with aluminum foil during procedure, and the
S1 22 8 1/8 3.58
sorting of suspicious particles was conducted in a vertical flow S2 81 15 1/24 18.38
cabinet to avoid the contamination of the airborne microplastics. A S3 19 0 1 0.79
cotton lab coat and butyronitrile gloves were worn all the time S4 140 9 1/50 24.58
during the sampling process and lab work. Lab blank control group S5 33 0 1 1.38
S6 28 0 1 1.17
were conducted to evaluate the contamination during the pro-
S7 23 0 1 0.96
cedure. The triplicate blanks were made by collecting distilled S8 23 0 1 0.96
water in pre-cleaned plastic bucket for 10 h (i.e., equal to the time S9 10 0 1 0.42
spent between sampling and lab work) at ambient temperature and S10 71 0 1 2.96
then treated the same extraction, sorting and identification pro- S11 53 0 1 2.21
S12 86 0 1 3.58
cedure as the leachate samples as referring to Talvitie et al. (2017).
 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45 41

Table 4
Polymer composition of microplastics found in all the 12 leachate samples.

Polymer S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Total

PE 3 22 13 105 6 7 15 10 6 11 9 10 217
PP 8 46 1 25 7 7 3 5 2 23 31 59 217
PVC 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PS 0 9 0 4 12 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 31
ABS 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
PET 5 0 0 5 8 2 3 1 2 1 5 5 37
PU 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 9
EVA 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
PA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
PES 1 1 4 3 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 17
EP 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
PF 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PPC 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
PMMA 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
ALK 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 27
PDMS 6 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 14
PTFE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 34
Total 30 96 19 149 33 28 23 23 10 71 53 86 621

types in landfill leachate may be related to the regional difference
of MSW composition and landfill conditions. PE and PP, as two of
the most commonly produced and used polymers (PlasticEurope,
2018), were found in all the leachate samples andcon-
stituted69.89% of all the identified polymer (Table 4). The obser-
vation about the predominance of PE and PP were also reported in
several previous researches on fresh water (Lin et al., 2018;
Rodrigues et al., 2018; Xiong et al., 2018).
3.2. Characteristics of microplastics
The identified microplastics were categorized into 5 groups:
lines, flakes, fragments, pellets and foams. Lines were elongated
particles with one dimension greater than the other two; flakes
were sheets of plastic with their thickness significantly lower than
other two dimensions; fragments were pieces of irregular thick
plastic with all three size dimensions comparable; pellets were
spherical particles; foams were particles with spongy texture (van
der Hal et al., 2017; Zobkov and Esiukova, 2017). Fragments and
flakes were found in all samples. Pellets were only found in S2 and
S4. Foams were only found in S2 and S5 (Fig. 1 a). All the foams
found in the samples were PS. In total, the proportions of lines,
flakes, fragments, pellets and foams were 14.81%, 22.87%, 58.62%,
0.64 %and 3.06% respectively (Fig. 2 a). Line, flake, foam and frag-
ment composed the majority (99.36%) of all the plastic particles.
Nearly all microplastics found in landfill leachate were with
irregular shape and rough edges (Fig. 3). Shape is connected with
the sources of microplastics. Antunes et al. (2018) found resin pellet
were the dominant category near industrial areas and high con-
centration of fragment and foam in fishing port (Antunes et al.,
2018). In domestic sewage and waste water treat plant, plastic
beads found in personal care products and fibers from the washing
of polyester or other synthetic textile are two main microplastic
inputs (Fendall and Sewell, 2009; Hernandez et al., 2017). The
irregular shapes and rough edges of microplastics found in the
landfill leachate indicated the fragment progress of larger plastic
waste buried in landfill (More
t-Ferguson et al., 2010). Microplastics
were found in both active and closed landfill leachate. Considering
the substantial plastics buried in landfills, the fragmentation im-
plies a long-term process of generation, accumulation and release
of microplastics in the landfills.
The size refers to the largest length of the plastic particles. Only
microplastics >100 mm were detected in this study. Because large
plastic items would ultimately degrade in to microplastics (Law and
Thompson, 2014). Plastic items >5 mm were also included in this
study. Size distribution was different in all the samples, Plastic
items >5 mm were found in S3, S4 and S5. No microplastics
<1000 mm were found in S5 (Fig. 1b). In total, 27 (4.35%) plastic
items from the samples were larger than 5 mm. The size of most
plastic items was 100e1000 mm (74.88%), the number of plastics
items increased with the decreasing of size (Fig. 2b). The predom-
inance of small microplastics implies that the fragmentation in the

Fig. 1. Proportion of shapes (a) and size (b) in the 12 leachate samples.
42 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45

landfills is severe and smaller plastic debris is easier to be carried

out by leachate. Size is very important when considering which
potential organisms may ingest the microplastics and how the
plastic debris may absorb organic pollutants (More
t-Ferguson et al.,
2010). As the size of the microplastic decline, microplastics can be
ingested by a wider range of organisms (Cozar et al., 2014).
Meanwhile, small particles with high surface to volume ratio of
microplastics strongly increase the amount of contaminants
absorbed from the ambient environment per gram plastic
(Bouwmeester et al., 2015). It has been reported that the concen-
tration of microplastics using 80 mm mesh is up to 100,000 times
higher than using 450 mm mesh (OSPAR, 2009). It is impossible to
identify all the microplastics in samples and the selection of the
lower limit of size would have a significant effect on the quantifi-
cation of microplastics.

4. Discussion

4.1. Potential pathways for plastic debris in landfills to the

environment

Microplastics in leachate can be carried into the environment

Fig. 2. Proportion of five different shapes (a) and size (b) in all leachate samples.
through leachate leakage and discharge of leachate collecting and
treatment systems. Despite carefully controlled manufacturing and
installation, defects in geomembranes (landfill liner) occur. Leakage
through landfill liners would be a pathway for microplastics to
enter the environment (Foose et al., 2001). Leachate is a kind of
heavily polluted water, its treatment is much more complex than
that of municipal wastewater. During treatment, leachate is
collected in an equalization basin and then transferred to subse-
quent treatments, including biological and physical/chemical
treatments (Renou et al., 2008; Wiszniowski et al., 2006). Mem-
brane treatment is also widely applied in order to remove complex

Fig. 3. Photographs of microplastics from the leachate samples. (a) PS foams and a PMMA pellet. (b) PE flakes. (c) PP lines. (d) PE fragments.
 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45
chemicals from the leachate (Peters, 1998). Though even the
treatment process of municipal waste water can remove more than
98% microplastics (Magnusson and Nore
n, 2014; Murphy et al.,
2016). But it should be emphasized that microplastics won't be
thermally, chemically or biologically degraded during the treat-
ment process. Treatment only changes the distribution of micro-
plastics in raw leachate. Microplastics with high density (modified
by weathering and biofouling) (Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010) would
deposit in the bottom of the equalization basin, and the micro-
plastics entering the subsequent treatment work would be
distributed into the sludge and even the final effluent. The re-
distribution of microplastics and subsequent treatment of sludge
would determine the load and pathways for microplastics to the
environment, which should call for rigorous management of
leachate treatment facilities. According to the results in this study,
microplastics were also found in closed landfill leachate. Collecting
and treatment of closed landfill leachate is conducted for 30 years
in US and EU. In China, the post-close care should be conducted
until the pollutant in leachate meet a series of standards (Mnistry of
Ecology and Environment, PRC, 2008; US EPA, 2012; EUR-lex, 1999).
Fragmentation and release of microplastics is a long-term process.
But microplastic is not listed as pollutant in the any country's
regulations of landfill. After the stop of post-closure care, micro-
plastics in leachate would be discharged directly in to natural water
bodies.
To be noticed, we measured the microplastics concentration was
0.42e24.58 items/L in our leachate taken from the southern China,
while it was 0e4.51 items/L in the leachates from Nordic countries
(Praagh et al., 2018). The proportion of plastics in municipal solid
waste in China is slightly low compared to that in western countries
(Yang et al., 2018). The former is 12.9% ± 5.3% in wet basis for the
waste in 18 Chinese cities, while the latter is 16.1% in wet basis for
Danish waste (Yang et al., 2018). In contrast, leachate generation
rate in the southern China is significantly high. Accumulated
leachate generation in 15 cities located in the southern China is
estimated to be 1300e3200 L/t-waste (or 1970 ± 540 L/t-waste) for
a 100-years period (Yang et al., 2015), while the leachate generation
€
in Amm €ssuo Landfill in Finland is estimated to be 1430 L/waste for
a Acknowledgement
a 100-years period (Niskanen et al., 2009). Therefore, taking all
these information for accounting, the issue of microplastics
released from leachate into environment requires more attention.
It is reasonable to believe that most microlastics are contained
in landfills instead of being carried out by leachate. In some
countries, landfill mining is conducted to excavate, screen and
separate the materials in landfills. It is a strategy addressed to the
pollution concerns of landfills, limitations on urban development
and recovery of deposited material of landfill (Krook et al., 2012).
Several studies considered the predominantly fine soil-like fraction
of a landfill can potentially be applied as compost or soil fertilizer
for soil amendments if mature organic content is relatively high
and heavy metals is low (Hogland et al., 2004; Joseph et al., 2003;
Quaghebeur et al., 2013). The soil application of the fine solid-like
fraction of landfill bodies may introduce microplastics into the
terrestrial environment. Microplastics are likely to accumulate in
soils, meanwhile microplastics in soil may be transported and
redistributed by wind or carried by surface run-off to the aquatic
environment (Duis and Coors, 2016; Zubris and Richards, 2005).
Besides, microplastics contained in landfills may also be
released via positive ventilation in aerated bioreactor landfills or
natural ventilation in closed landfills. The microplastics deep in
landfill bodies will then flow with the airstream.
4.2. Future research directions
Barnes et al. (2009) pointed out that placing plastics in landfill
43
may simply be sorting a problem for the future. The occurrence of
microplastics in landfill leachate is an alarm of this concern. It is
economically and technologically unfeasible to remove micro-
plastics from the environment, preventing inputs of plastic/
microplastic during all stages of plastic life circle to the environ-
ment is essential to solve microplastic problem (Brandon et al.,
2016; Eriksen et al., 2018; Jambeck et al., 2015). More researches
should concentrate on microplastic sources and serve for solutions.
Researches is urgently need on establishing a standardized
microplastic analytical methods for different objects, it is essential
for sound evaluation, meaningful comparison and monitoring
(Hidalgo-Ruz et al., 2012; Shim et al., 2017). Spatiotemporal vari-
ability in microplastic can cause great difference in investigating
the concentration of microplastics (Law et al., 2014). Long-term
monitoring is necessary to get more information of microplastics
in landfill, temporal pattern should be conducted in further studies.
The variation of microplastics in leachate may also be effected by
landfill conditions MSW composition, age, status (active and
closed) and technology of landfills, which should also be consid-
ered in further studies. The removal of microplastics during
leachate treatment process is connected with loads and possible
pathways for microplastics entering to the environment. Identi-
fying the removal effectiveness at different stages of treatment will
help understand the re-distribution of microplastics during the
treatment process and help take actions to avoid the release of
microplastics.
5. Conclusion
Microplastics were identified in the leachate from both active
and closed landfills. The results provided important information on
the possibility of landfills as a source of microplastics. To confirm
the role MSW landfills play as a source of microplastics, more
studies are needed. Results of these studies may will have an
important impact on landfill management and even the disposal of
plastic waste.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from Na-
tional Key R&D Program of China (2018YFD1100600). We thank Mr.
Kejian Guo (Tongji University, China), Mr. Xiangxiang Cheng (Tongji
University, China) and staffs of the landfill. We are also grateful to
Ms. Lan Li (Donghua University, China), Ms. Yuanyuan Xie (Thermo
Fisher Scientific Co., Ltd, China) and Ms. Hua Lin (Thermo Fisher
Scientific Co., Ltd, China) for their technical supports on
identification.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.060.
References
Alimi, O.S., Farner Budarz, J., Hernandez, L.M., Tufenkji, N., 2018. Microplastics and
nanoplastics in aquatic environments: aggregation, deposition, and enhanced
contaminant transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (4), 1704e1724.
Antunes, J., Frias, J., Sobral, P., 2018. Microplastics on the Portuguese coast. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 131, 294e302.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., 2009. In: Proceedings of the international research
workshop on the occurrence, effects and fate of microplastic marine debris.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR & R-30, pp. 10e11.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U., Fauziah, S.H., 2017. Distribution and importance of
microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects,
and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 102, 165e176.
Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and frag-
mentation of plastic debris in global environments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364
44 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45
(1526), 1985e1998.
Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., 2015. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer,
pp. 29e49.
Bouwmeester, H., Hollman, P.C., Peters, R.J., 2015. Potential health impact of envi-
ronmentally released micro- and nanoplastics in the human food production
chain: experiences from nanotoxicology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (15),
8932e8947.
Brandon, J., Goldstein, M., Ohman, M.D., 2016. Long-term aging and degradation of
microplastic particles: comparing in situ oceanic and experimental weathering
patterns. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 110 (1), 299e308.
Browne, M.A., Crump, P., Niven, S.J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T.,
Thompson, R., 2011. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide:
sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (21), 9175e9179.
Carr, S.A., Liu, J., Tesoro, A.G., 2016. Transport and fate of microplastic particles in
wastewater treatment plants. Water. Res. 91, 174e182.
Cozar, A., Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Ubeda, B., Hernandez-
Leon, S., Palma, A.T., Navarro, S., Garcia-de-Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., Fernandez-de-
Puelles, M.L., Duarte, C.M., 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (28), 10239e10244.
Desforges, J.P., Galbraith, M., Dangerfield, N., Ross, P.S., 2014. Widespread distri-
bution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 79 (1e2), 94e99.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Saad, M., Mirande, C., Tassin, B., 2016. Synthetic fibers in at-
mospheric fallout: a source of microplastics in the environment? Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 104 (1e2), 290e293.
Duis, K., Coors, A., 2016. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment:
sources (with a specific focus on personal care products), fate and effects. En-
viron. Sci. Eur. 28 (1), 9e12.
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Box, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H.,
Amato, S., 2013. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the laurentian
great lakes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1e2), 177e182.
Eriksen, M., Thiel, M., Prindiville, M., Kiessling, T., 2018. Microplastic: what Are the
Solutions. Springer, Heidelberg.
EUR-lex, 16.7.1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
waste. Off. J. L 182, 1e19, 16/07. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri¼CELEX:31999L0031.
Fendall, L.S., Sewell, M.A., 2009. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your
face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58 (8), 1225e1228.
Foose, G.J., Benson, C.H., Edi, T.B., 2001. Predicting leakage through composite
compositee landfill liners. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (6), 510e520.
Gasperi, J., Wright, S.L., Dris, R., Collard, F., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V.,
Kelly, F.J., Tassin, B., 2018. Microplastics in air: are we breathing it in? Cur. Opin.
Environ. Sci. Health. 1, 1e5.
Hanson, J.L., Yesiller, N., Kendall, L.A., 2005. Integrated temperature and gas analysis
at a municipal solid wast landfill. Civ. Environ. Eng. 136.
Hernandez, E., Nowack, B., Mitrano, D.M., 2017. Polyester textiles as a source of
microplastics from households: a mechanistic study to understand microfiber
release during washing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (12), 7036e7046.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Gutow, L., Thompson, R.C., Thiel, M., 2012. Microplastics in the
marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification and
quantification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (6), 3060e3075.
Hogland, W., Marques, M., Nimmermark, S., 2004. Landfill mining and waste
characterization: a strategy for remediation of contaminated areas. J. Mater.
Cycles. Waste. Manag. 6 (2), 119e124.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., 2009. Plastics recycling: challenges and oppor-
tunities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364 (1526), 2115e2126.
Imhof, H.K., Ivleva, N.P., Schmid, J., Niessner, R., Laforsch, C., 2013. Contamination of
beach sediments of a subalpine lake with microplastic particles. Curr. Biol. 23
(19), R867eR868.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,
Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.
Science 347 (6223), 768e771.
Joseph, K., Palanivelu, K., Selvam, A., 2003. Studies on landfill mining at solid waste
dumpsites in India. In: Proceedings Sardinia, 3, pp. 248e255.
Kilponen, J., 2016. Microplastics and Harmful Substances in Urban Runoffs and
Landfill Leachates Possible Emission Sources to Marine Environment. Bachelor`s
Thesis. Lahti University of Applied Sciences.
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M.A., Rooker, A.P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., Christensen, T.H., 2002.
Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (4), 297e336.
Krook, J., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., 2012. Landfill mining: a critical review of two
decades of research. Waste. Manag. 32 (3), 513e520.
Law, K.L., Thompson, R.C., 2014. Microplastics in the seas. Science 345 (6193),
144e145.
Law, K.L., Moret-Ferguson, S.E., Goodwin, D.S., Zettler, E.R., Deforce, E., Kukulka, T.,
Proskurowski, G., 2014. Distribution of surface plastic debris in the eastern
Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data set. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (9), 4732e4738.
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M.,
Glas, M., Schludermann, E., 2014. The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic
litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe's second largest river. Environ. Pollut.
188, 177e181.
Lin, L., Zuo, L.Z., Peng, J.P., Cai, L.Q., Fok, L., Yan, Y., Li, H.X., Xu, X.R., 2018. Occurrence
and distribution of microplastics in an urban river: a case study in the Pearl
River along Guangzhou City, China. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 375e381.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Mohri, Y., Kawabata, T., 1998. Estimation of municipal
solid waste landfill settlement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (1), 21e28.
Magnusson, K., Nore
n, F., 2014. Screening of Microplastic Particles in and Down-
Steam Wastewater Treatment Plant. Swedish Environmental Research Insti-
tute, pp. 11e15.
Mahon, A.M., O'Connell, B., Healy, M.G., O'Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R.,
Morrison, L., 2017. Microplastics in sewage sludge: effects of treatment. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 51 (2), 810e818.
Masura, J., Baker, J., Foster, G., Arthur, C., 2015. In: Laboratory methods for the
analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for
quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS-OR&R-48, pp. 3e12.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment, PRC, 2018. Standard for Pollution Control on
the Landfill Site of Municipal Solid Waste GB16889-2008. http://kjs.mee.gov.cn/
hjbhbz/bzwb/gthw/gtfwwrkzbz/200804/t20080414_121136.shtml.
More
t-Ferguson, S., Law, K.L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E.K., Peacock, E.E.M.,
Reddy, C., 2010. The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western
North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1873e1878.
Moret-Ferguson, S., Law, K.L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E.K., Peacock, E.E.,
Reddy, C.M., 2010. The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the
western North Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (10), 1873e1878.
Murphy, F., Ewins, C., Carbonnier, F., Quinn, B., 2016. Wastewater treatment works
(WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (11), 5800e5808.
Niskanen, A., Manfredi, S., Christensen, T.H., Anderson, R., 2009. Environmental
assessment of Amm € €ssuo Landfill (Finland) by means of LCA-modelling
a
(EASEWASTE). Waste. Manag. Res. 27 (5), 542e550.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D., Whitehead, P.G., 2016.
A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in river catchments and their
retention by soils and river sediments. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts. 18 (8),
1050e1059.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M., Langaas, S., 2016. Are agricultural soils dumps for micro-
plastics of urban origin? Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (20), 10777e10779.
Nuelle, M.T., Dekiff, J.H., Remy, D., Fries, E., 2014. A new analytical approach for
monitoring microplastics in marine sediments. Environ. Pollut. 184, 161e169.
OSPAR, 2019. Marine litter in the North-East Atlantic region: Assessment and pri-
orities for response. https://www.ospar.org/documents?v¼7129.
Peters, T.A., 1998. Purification of landfill leachate with membrane filtration. Filtr.
Sep. 35 (1), 33e36.
PlasticEurope, 2018. Plastics the Facts 2018. https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/
resources/publications/619-plastics-facts-2018.
Praagh, M., Hartman, C., Brandmyr, E., 2018. Microplastics in Landfill Leachates in
the Nordic Countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, pp. 1e53.
Pramila, R., Ramesh, K.V., 2017. Biodegradation of low density polyethylene (LDPE)
by fungi isolated from municipal landfill area. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Res. 1 (4),
131e136.
Prata, J.C., 2017. Airborne microplastics: consequences to human health? Environ.
Pollut. 234, 115e126.
Quaghebeur, M., Laenen, B., Geysen, D., Nielsen, P., Pontikes, Y., Van Gerven, T.,
Spooren, J., 2013. Characterization of landfilled materials: screening of the
enhanced landfill mining potential. J. Clean. Prod. 55, 72e83.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., Moulin, P., 2008. Landfill
leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J. Hazard. Mater. 150 (3), 468e493.
Rodrigues, M.O., Abrantes, N., Goncalves, F.J.M., Nogueira, H., Marques, J.C.,
Goncalves, A.M.M., 2018. Spatial and temporal distribution of microplastics in
water and sediments of a freshwater system (Antua River, Portugal). Sci. Total.
Environ. 633, 1549e1559.
Russo, V.E., 2018. Microplastics in Treated Leachate e a Case Study of Eight Waste
Treatment Facilities. Swedish Waste Association.
Shim, W.J., Hong, S.H., Eo, S.E., 2017. Identification methods in microplastic analysis:
a review. Anal. Chem. 9 (9), 1384e1391.
Sundt, P., Schulze, P.-E., Syversen, F., 2014. Sources of Microplastic Pollution to the
Marine Environment. Mepex Report for the Norwegian Environment Agency,
pp. 49e50.
Talvitie, J., Mikola, A., Koistinen, A., Setala, O., 2017. Solutions to microplastic
pollution - removal of microplastics from wastewater effluent with advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Water Res. 123, 401e407.
US EPA, 2012. Subtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(1976) under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258 (40CFR258);
Criteria for municipal solid waste landfills. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol26/xml/CFR-2012-title40-vol26-part258.xml.
van der Hal, N., Ariel, A., Angel, D.L., 2017. Exceptionally high abundances of
microplastics in the oligotrophic Israeli Mediterranean coastal waters. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 116 (1e2), 151e155.
Wieczorek, A.M., Morrison, L., Croot, P.L., Allcock, A.L., MacLoughlin, E., Savard, O.,
Brownlow, H., Doyle, T.K., 2018. Frequency of microplastics in mesopelagic
fishes from the northwest Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 1e7.
Wiszniowski, J., Robert, D., Surmacz-Gorska, J., Miksch, K., Weber, J.V., 2006. Landfill
leachate treatment methods: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 4 (1), 51e61.
Woodall, L.C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L., Coppock, R., Sleight, V.,
Calafat, A., Rogers, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Thompson, R.C., 2014. The deep
sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open. Sci. 1 (4), 140317.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of micro-
plastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483e492.
Xiong, X., Zhang, K., Chen, X., Shi, H., Luo, Z., Wu, C., 2018. Sources and distribution
of microplastics in China's largest inland lake - Qinghai Lake. Environ. Pollut.
 P. He et al. / Water Research 159 (2019) 38e45
235, 899e906.
Yang, N., Damgaard, A., Kjeldsen, P., Shao, L.-M., He, P.-J., 2015. Quantification of
regional leachate variance from municipal solid waste landfills in China. Waste
Manag. 46, 362e372.
Yang, N., Damgaard, A., Scheutz, C., Shao, L.-M., He, P.-J., 2018. A comparison of
chemical MSW compositional data between China and Denmark. J. Environ. Sci.
74, 1e10.
Yonkos, L.T., Friedel, E.A., Perez-Reyes, A.C., Ghosal, S., Arthur, C.D., 2014. Micro-
plastics in four estuarine rivers in the Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48 (24), 14195e14202.
Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A., 2013. Life in the "plastisphere": Mi-
crobial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (13),
7137e7146.
45
Zhang, K., Xiong, X., Hu, H., Wu, C., Bi, Y., Wu, Y., Zhou, B., Lam, P.K., Liu, J., 2017.
Occurrence and characteristics of microplastic pollution in Xiangxi Bay of Three
Gorges Reservoir, China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (7), 3794e3801.
Zhao, S., Danley, M., Ward, J.E., Li, D., Mincer, T.J., 2017. An approach for extraction,
characterization and quantitation of microplastic in natural marine snow using
Raman microscopy. Anal. Chem. 9 (9), 1470e1478.
Ziajahromi, S., Neale, P.A., Rintoul, L., Leusch, F.D., 2017. Wastewater treatment
plants as a pathway for microplastics: Development of a new approach to
sample wastewater-based microplastics. Water. Res. 112, 93e99.
Zobkov, M., Esiukova, E., 2017. Microplastics in Baltic bottom sediments: Quantifi-
cation procedures and first results. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 114 (2), 724e732.
Zubris, K.A., Richards, B.K., 2005. Synthetic fibers as an indicator of land application
of sludge. Environ. Pollut. 138 (2), 201e211.