EFFECTS OF LANDFIL DEVELOPMENT ON

LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS

E. D. YILDIZ AND K. ÜNLÜ

Middle East Technical University, Department of Environmental Engineering, 06531
Ankara Turkey

SUMMARY: In this paper, selected applications of a developed mathematical model were

presented to demonstrate the effect of time dependent landfill development (waste placement) on
landfill leachate quality and quantity. The developed model was calibrated and partially verified
using the leachate data of the Keele Valley Landfill in Ontario, Canada, and used to simulate the
leachate behavior of the same landfill. Model development and calibration were presented
elsewhere (Demirekler et al., 2000; and Yildiz et al., 2003). The results of model applications
suggested that the sequence of waste placement was one of the most important factors affecting the
leachate quantity and quality. Vertically dominated landfill development with smaller base area and
higher waste thickness caused lower leachate generation rates with lower mass concentrations
compared to horizontally dominated landfill development with larger base area and smaller waste
thickness. Leachate quality was mainly controlled by the hydrolysis rate and biokinetics of organic
material in the system whereas leachate quantity was mostly affected by moisture infiltration and
physical characteristics of waste such as density, age and thickness. The increases in the leachate
chloride concentrations corresponded to times of decreased leachate flow rates. Sudden increases in
BOD were observed when new waste columns were formed on the bare landfill base whereas BOD
decreased when fresh wastes were added only on top of the older wastes.

1. INTRODUCTION

Operational phase of landfills may last as long as 20 years or more. Significant changes in
leachate quality and generation rate may occur during this operational period. A mathematical
model is developed to simulate the landfill leachate behavior and distributions of moisture and
leachate constituents through the landfill, taking into consideration of the effects of time
dependent landfill development on the hydraulic characteristics of waste and composition of
leachate. The model incorporates governing equations that describe processes influencing the
leachate production and biochemical processes taking place during the stabilization of wastes,
including leachate flow, hydrolysis, acidogenesis, methanogenesis. The hydraulic and waste
stabilization components of the model were calibrated and partially verified using data available
from the Keele Valley Landfill in Ontario, Canada and the data obtained from the literature. A
sensitivity analysis shows that leachate generation and composition is highly sensitive to the
volumetric moisture content distribution through the waste, the dissolution rate and most
biokinetic parameters. The details of model development and calibration were presented
elsewhere (Demirekler et al., 2000; and Yildiz et al., 2003).

Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 6 - 10 October 2003
 2003 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
The mathematical model was composed of two parts: the hydraulic model and the waste
stabilization model. Equations [1] through [5] in Table 1 describe the hydraulic behavior of the
landfill. The relationship between the hydraulic conductivity and overburden pressure obtained
from laboratory and field test results reported in the literature were given by equation [4]. The
concentration of very soluble inorganics (such as chloride) in the landfill leachate were
controlled by the dissolution rate of the inorganic constituents into the landfill moisture (given
by equation [6]) and the dilution rate of these constituents. Equations [7] through [18] in Table 1
give the governing equations used in the model to describe the waste stabilization processes. The
stabilization processes of the organic constituents include the solubilization of the organics,
acidogenesis, methanogenesis. The mathematical model can estimate the amount of organic
material remaining in the solid phase (SOM), the concentration of organic material in the leachate,
(COM), acetic acid (A), acidogenic biomass (Xa), and methanogenic biomass (Xm). Table 2
summarizes the calibrated values and the range of values reported in the literature for the input
parameters used in the model.

2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF MODEL APPLICATIONS

Leachate production and waste stabilization processes were investigated via application of the
calibrated model for two specific cases. In the first case of the model application, the calibrated
leachate model was used to estimate the produced leachate quantity and quality in the Keele
Valley Landfill. In the second case, the effects of time dependent landfill development on
leachate quality and quantity were investigated for two different waste placement sequences in
the same landfill.

2.1 Simulation of the Keele Valley Landfill

The Keele Valley Landfill, which is located in Ontario, Canada, covers an area of 99 hectares.
The landfill has a design capacity of 33,000,000 m3 and has been developed in four stages, with
Stage 1 starting operation in 1983. At the present time, the landfill is still under operation and
Stage 4 is being developed.
In Keele Valley Landfill, routine chemical characteristics of the leachate have been measured
monthly since 1984. Although there is monthly data on the leachate characteristics of the Keele
Valley Landfill, in the model runs the yearly average values were used since the waste placement
data was available only as yearly averages. The yearly averages from the 6th month of one year
to the 6th month of the following year were used because contour maps of waste elevations for
the Keele Valley Landfill were available for the 6th month of each year.
The waste placement sequence and the amount of waste placed in the landfill site for the years
1989 through 1998 were estimated from the available elevation contour maps of the landfill site.
The landfill was discretized into blocks and for each block, the elevation difference between two
consecutive years was assumed to be equal to the height of the waste placed to that block during
that year. There was no waste placement data for the period from 1983, which is the starting year
of operation in Keele Valley Landfill, to 1988. The available data is the initial contours for the
year 1983 prior to the start of operation in Keele Valley Landfill and the contours in the year
1988. For the years from 1983 to 1988, the waste placement was estimated based on the staging
plan for the site.
Table 1. Equations used in the mathematical model (see Table 2 for notation).
γ
θ 
qi = − K s ,i  i  (1)
 θs 
dθi (qi -1 − qi )
= (2)
dt h
qo = cp (3)
K s,i = αe -βPi (4)
n
Pi = 9.81H ( Dsw + Dw ∑ θ i ) (5)
i =1
dS Cl,i
= −k (6)
dt
dCCl,i 1  qi -1CCl,i -1 qi CCl,i dS Cl,i 
=  − +  (7)
dt θ i  h h dt 
a
S i 
dS OM,i
dt
= − OM,
0
 b COM
 (
max
)
µ X
− COM,i θ i − a,i a,i θi
Yso
(8)
 S OM 
dX a,i qi - 1 X a,i - 1 − qi X a,i
= + µ a,i X a,i − K d a X a,i (9)
dt θih
µ amax
µ a,i = (10)
K A
1 + xa + h,i
COM,i K ixa
Ai H i +
Ah,i = (11)
Ke
d pH  dBOD  dBOD
= −e   if ≤0 (12)
dt  dt  dt
d pH  dBOD  dBOD
=−f   if >0 (13)
dt  dt  dt
pH = − log( H + ) (14)

dAi qi - 1 Ai - 1 − qi Ai µ a,i X a,i µ m,i X m,i

= + − (15)
dt θih Yva Ym
dCOM,i  qi -1COM,i -1 qi C OM,i dS OM,i  µ a,i X a,i
1
= − + − (16)
dt  θi h h dt  Ya
dX m,i qi - 1 X m,i - 1 − qi X m,i
= + µ m,i X m,i − K d m X m,i (17)
dt θih
max
µm
µ m,i = (18)
K Ah,i
1 + xm +
Ah,i K ixm
Table 2. Calibrated values and the range of values reported in the literature for model input
parameters.
Range of Calibra-
Parameter Description Units values in tion
literature values
γ (1,2,3) Empirical constant related to waste characteristics - 8-12 8
k (4) Dissolution rate constant mg.L.d-1 - 0.00028
α (4) Empirical constant for permeability and effective stress m.s-1 2x10 -6x10-4
-7
9.3x10-6
β (4) Empirical constant for permeability and effective stress kPa-1 0.0035-0.045 0.01
θs (3,5) Saturated volumetric moisture content cm3.cm-3 0.40-0.55 0.5
θo (6) Initial volumetric moisture content cm3.cm-3 0.15-0.4 0.21
h (4) Layer thickness m - 0.5
c (13) Fraction of the precipitation infiltrating into the landfill - 0.05-0.12 0.1
Dsw (3) Density of waste kg. m-3 475-830 700
FCl (8) Initial chloride fraction of the waste g .g-1 0.001-0.002 0.0018
a (1) Emprical constant - 1-2 1
b (1) Rate constant d-1 0.00375 0.025
Yso (7) Soluble organic yield coefficient mg.mg-1 0.24-0.25 0.24
Ya (7,9,10) Yield coefficient for acid formers mg.mg-1 0.15-0.5 0.4
Yva (7,10) Yield of acetic acid from soluble organics mg.mg-1 0.41-2.65 0.5
Ym (7,9,10) Yield coefficient for methane formers mg.mg-1 0.05-0.82 0.09
µamax (7,9,10,11) Maximum specific growth rate of acidogenic biomass d-1 0.1-30 0.19
µmmax Max. specific growth rate of methanogenic biomass d-1 0.1-0.5 0.12
(7,9,10,11)
Kxa Saturation constant for acidogenic bacteria growth g.L-1 0.01-5.0 1.0
(7,9,10,12,13)
Kxm (7,9,10,11) Saturation constant for methanogenic bacteria growth g.L-1 0.003-2.5 0.002
Km (10) Saturation constant of methane production g.L-1 0.0208 0.0208
Kixa (7,10) Inhibition constant for acidogenic bacteria growth g.L-1 0.02-1.0 0.3
Kixm (7,10) Inhibition constant for methanogenic bacteria growth g.L-1 0.04-0.3 1.0
Kim (10) Inhibition constant of acetic acid on methane product g.L-1 0.059 0.059
Ke (10) Dissolution constant for acetic acid (at 35°C) - 1.728x10-5 1.73x10-5
K d a (7,9) Death rate of acidogenic biomass d-1 0.01-0.4 0.03
K d m (7,9,10) Death rate of methanogenic biomass d-1 0.01-0.04 0.03
e (4) Empirical constant for pH - - 0.0045
f (4) Empirical constant for pH - - 0.002
max
COM (1) Max. concentration of soluble organics in leachate g.L-1 40-50 50
C0Cl ( 4) Initial chloride concentration in leachate g.L-1 - 0.26
0 -1
BOD (1,3,6) Initial BOD in leachate g.L 0-375 1.0
S0OM (1) Initial mass of leachable organics per volume of waste % 12 6.6
X oa (1) Initial acidogenic biomass concentration g.L-1 0.002 0.003
-1
X om (1) Initial methanogenic biomass concentration g.L 0.002 0.003
Ao (10) Initial acetic acid concentration g.L-1 1.0 0.5
1 2 3
Straub and Lynch (1982) Lu and Bai (1991) Reinheirt and Townsend (1997) 4Calibration
5 6 7 8
Demetracopoulos et al. (1986) Tchobanoglous (1993) Hill and Bart (1977) Rowe (1995)
9 10 11 12
El-Fadel et al. (1996) Kiely et al. (1997) Moletta et al. (1986) Speece (1996)
13
Al-Yousfi(1992)

Figure 1 shows the leachate production rate estimated by the model and the data obtained from
the Keele Valley Landfill. The model simulated the general trend of the leachate production from
the landfill. However, severe fluctuations observed in the measured leachate production data
were not reflected adequately by the simulation results. Between the years 10 and 11, there was
addition, besides natural precipitation, of excess run-off water into the landfill site through
infiltration trenches. The amount of added run-off water was about 125,000 m3 in the 10th and
22,200 m3 in the first three months of 11th year of operation, respectively. Since the run-off water
was injected using infiltration trenches through only a small portion of the landfill, and not
uniformly distributed over the entire landfill surface, this mode of water application could not be
simulated, and therefore, the leachate generation rate measured during the injection period
deviated from the predicted data. Excluding the years of non-uniform water addition to the
landfill, the predictions of leachate flow rates by the model reasonably fit the measured leachate
flow rates. Additional sources of error preventing the achievement of better match between the
measured and predicted leachate production in the Keele Valley Landfill stem from the
uncertainty in the input data regarding the infiltration rate and the waste placement.

Figure 1. Simulated and measured leachate production rate from the Keele Valley Landfill,
Ontario, Canada.

Figure 2. Simulated BOD and acetic acid and measured BOD values for the Keele Valley
Landfill, Ontario, Canada.

Figure 2 shows the simulated BOD values and acetic acid concentrations in the leachate and the
field-measured BOD data for the Keele Valley Landfill. There was no BOD data for the first 4
years of the landfill operation. A good fit was obtained between the available measured BOD
data and the model predictions. The leachate collected from the Keele Valley Landfill was a
mixture of leachate penetrating through both fresh and old wastes. The leachate with low BOD
values coming from the old waste columns diluted the leachate collected from the fresh waste
columns. If there is no new waste column placed in the landfill for a period long enough to
stabilize the leachate from all waste columns, the resultant BOD values in the leachate collection
system will be low, and when new waste columns are introduced to the landfill, the BOD values
suddenly increase. An examination of the waste placement data, the simulation results and the
field BOD data (Figure 2) all supported this conclusion. Until the 6th year, there were 5-7 new
waste columns added to the Keele Valley Landfill every year. In the 7th year, there was only one
new waste column added. Hence, during the 7th year, BOD decreased down to 5,370 mg/l, in the
8th year with the addition of 8 new waste columns, BOD values sharply increased to over 10,800
mg/l. In year 9, new waste columns were placed on newly constructed liner and collection
system and hence the BOD values remained high during this year. Between years 10 and 12 no
new waste columns were added so BOD values decreased below 3,800 mg/l in the 12th year.
Another sharp increase was observed in the 13th year due to the addition of 12 new waste
columns. As indicated by Figure 2, the fresh waste cells added on top of the older ones did not
cause any increase in the BOD collected at the bottom of a multi-cell waste column. Therefore,
the peaks of BOD observed during the 8th and 13th years were not caused by the new waste cells
placed on top of the older cells but, rather, were due to the development of completely new waste
columns constructed in newly opened portions of the landfill. These results imply that the waste
placement sequence can be an important factor affecting the leachate quality. The analysis of
Keele Valley Landfill data by Armstrong and Rowe (1999) supported this conclusion and
suggested that when fresh waste cells were placed on older waste, the older waste acts as a
bioreactor and treat the leachate generated from the new waste.

2.2 Effects of Time Dependent Landfill Development

Landfilling is a process that may continue over a period of time as long as 20 years or more.
During the operational period, it is expected that separate cells of the same landfill will be at
different stages of decomposition. At the same time, the older wastes under the fresh waste act as
a bioreactor and treat the leachate generated by the new waste. Therefore, leachate collected
from different parts of the landfill has different quality and quantity, which depends on the waste
placement sequence in the landfill. An examination of the waste placement data and the field
BOD data from the Keele Valley Landfill as well as the simulation results supported this
conclusion. In this section, the effect of time dependent landfill development on leachate quality
and quantity has been further investigated. For this purpose, simulation runs were performed
using the developed mathematical model for two different waste placement sequences in the
Keele Valley Landfill.

2.2.1 Alternative Waste Placement Sequences

Two alternative waste placement sequences were considered in the simulation runs to analyze
the effect of time dependent landfill development on leachate quality and quantity. Alternative 1
represents the actual landfill development, i.e., waste placement sequences observed in the Keele
Valley Landfill, whereas Alternative 2 consists of hypothetical waste placement sequences
different from Alternative 1. Table 3 shows for both alternatives the total number of waste
columns present in the landfill, the number of new waste columns added to the landfill and the
total volume of waste present in the landfill in each year. In Alternative 1, the distribution of the
number of new waste columns added to the landfill with time is more homogenous in terms of
formation of new waste columns. Except for years from 10 to 12, each year there were a number
of new waste columns added to the landfill. Between years 10 and 12, the new cells were added
only on top of already existing waste columns. In Alternative 2, on the other hand, ten new waste
columns were formed on bare landfill base every two years and in other years waste is added
only on the top of older waste columns, resulting in somewhat more heterogeneous waste
placement compared to Alternative 1. The waste volumes added in Alternative 2 were arranged
such that the total amount of waste added to the landfill was equal to the actual waste volume
added to the Keele Valley Landfill in that year. Since the waste volumes added in the two
alternatives are the same, the differences in the estimated leachate quality and quantity can only
be attributed to the differences in the placement sequence of waste cells.

2.2.2 Effect of Waste Placement Sequence on Leachate Flow Rate

Figure 3 shows the simulated leachate flow rates obtained for the two different waste placement
alternatives. The fluctuations in leachate flow rate were less for Alternative 1 compared to
Alternative 2. In Alternative 1, every year, except the years 7, 10, 11, and 12, there were more
than 5 new waste columns added to the landfill. Except these years, there was a continuous
increase in leachate flow rate. In Alternative 2, on the other hand, new waste columns were
formed every two years. A decrease in leachate flow rate was observed for the years in which
new cells were added only on top of the older waste. The decrease in leachate flow rates was
caused by the increased moisture detention in the landfill and the decrease in the hydraulic
conductivity at deeper depths of the landfill resulting from the increased overburden pressure.

Table 3. Time distribution of waste columns in the landfill for both alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Volume of
Waste Added
Year Total Number Number of New Total Number Number of
of Waste Waste Columns of Waste New Waste (m3*106)
Columns Columns Columns
1 7 7 10 10 109
2 12 5 10 0 165
3 19 7 20 10 203
4 28 9 20 0 193
5 33 5 30 10 206
6 39 6 30 0 257
7 40 1 41 11 205
8 47 7 41 0 275
9 54 7 51 10 182
10 54 0 51 0 131
11 54 0 61 10 188
12 54 0 61 0 138
13 65 11 72 9 158
14 72 7 75 3 177
Figure 3. Simulation results showing the effect of waste placement sequence on leachate flow rate.

Figure 4. Simulation results showing the effect of waste placement sequence on leachate chloride
concentration.

2.2.3 Effect of Waste Placement Sequence on Leachate Chloride Concentration

Figure 4 shows the effect of waste placement sequence on leachate chloride concentration
obtained for the two different waste placement alternatives. Concentration differences up to 60
percent were obtained from the simulations with different waste placement alternatives.
Alternative 2 produced a highly fluctuating leachate behavior. Increases in the chloride
concentrations coincided with the years of decreased leachate flow.

2.2.4 Effect of Waste Placement Sequence on Organic Waste Stabilization

Figure 5 shows that waste placement sequence is one of the most important factors affecting the
leachate quality in terms of BOD. In Alternative 2, sharp increases in BOD were observed in the
years of new waste column addition on bare landfill base and sharp BOD decreases in the years
of the new waste addition only on top of the older waste. BOD in the leachate reached to a
maximum value of 24000 mg/L in about 200 days and decreased below 2300 mg/L in 500 days.
Therefore, wastes older than 500 days would release leachate with a BOD below 2300 mg/L.
Since the older waste under the fresh waste acted as a bioreactor to treat the leachate generated
by the new waste, the leachate coming out of the landfill bottom had low BOD, even when new
waste was added on top of the older waste. This situation is clearly shown in Figure 5, since the
large fluctuations in BOD values of leachate observed during the early stages of waste placement
attenuate gradually during the later stages as the waste age gets older.

Figure 5. Simulation results showing the effect of waste placement sequence on the BOD of
leachate.

Figure 6. Simulation results showing the effect of waste placement sequence on the pH of
leachate.

Figure 6 shows the change in the pH with time for the two waste placement alternatives. For
both alternatives, the pH of the leachate increased as the BOD decreased. Thus, there were more
fluctuations in the pH values of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1.
Overall results from the simulation runs with the two alternative waste placement sequences
showed that the variations (i.e., fluctuations) in the leachate flow rate and leachate quality
parameters increased as the number of new waste columns (i.e., waste cells not underlain by
older waste) increased during the period of landfill development. Vertically dominated landfill
development, i.e., storing a given amount of waste within landfill volume having a smaller base
area but larger height caused generation of lower leachate flow rates with lower mass
concentrations compared to horizontally (areally) dominated landfill development, i.e., storing a
given amount of waste within landfill volume having a larger base area but smaller height.

3. CONCLUSIONS

From the results of model applications, the following general conclusions were drawn. The
factors affecting the leachate quality and quantity are various. The hydrolysis rate of organic
material and the biokinetics of the system are the dominating processes affecting the waste
stabilization rate, and therefore the leachate quality. The dilution of leachate due to infiltrating
precipitation and/or advective mass removal have secondary effect on leachate quality. The
leachate quantity is mostly affected by the moisture flux into the landfill as well as the physical
characteristics of the waste such as density and thickness of the waste. Similarly, the moisture
distribution in landfills change with waste age, the overall waste thickness and also the rate of
waste addition on top of the waste column.
Because chloride is an inert chemical, dilution is the only process affecting its concentration.
If the dissolution rate of chloride is higher than the dilution rate of leachate, chloride
concentration increases until the dilution rate exceeds the chloride dissolution rate. If the
leachate dilution rate is less than the chloride dissolution rate, then chloride concentration will
increase until all the chloride in the waste is dissolved. The dilution of leachate can be caused by
rainfall infiltration and macro-pore water channeling in the landfill.
Waste placement sequence was one of the most important factors affecting the leachate
quality and the quantity. The effects of waste placement sequence on leachate quality and
quantity were identified as follows. Leachate flow rate decreases when the new waste was added
only on top of the older waste. The decrease in leachate flow rate was caused by increased
moisture detention in the landfill and reduced hydraulic conductivity at deeper depths of the
landfill due to increased overburden pressure. The increases in the leachate chloride
concentrations corresponded to the years in which leachate flow decreased. Sharp increases in
BOD were observed in the years when new waste columns were added on bare landfill base and
BOD decreased in the years when the waste additions were only on top of the older waste.
Wastes older than 500 days released leachate with low BOD (below 2300 mg/l), and since the
older waste under the fresh waste acted as a bioreactor and treated the leachate generated by the
new waste, the leachate coming out of the landfill bottom had low BOD even when new waste
was added on top of older waste. The pH of the leachate increased as the BOD decreased. As a
result, the waste placement sequences resulting in high BOD fluctuations also resulted in high
pH fluctuations. Storing a given amount of waste over a smaller base area yielded generation of
lower leachate flow rates with lower mass concentrations compared to storing the waste over a
larger base area.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Professor R. Kerry Rowe of the Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada
for providing the Keele Valley Landfill data and to the Scientific and Technical Research
Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for financial support.

REFERENCES

Al-Yousfi, A.B. (1992). Modeling of leachate and gas generation and composition at sanitary
landfills, M. S. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Armstrong, M.D., and Rowe, R.K. (1999). Effect of landfill operations on the quality of
municipal solid waste leachate. Proc., Sardinia 99 –7th Int. Landfill Symp., T. H. Christensen,
R. Cossu, and R. Stegmann, ed.,Volume II, 81-88.
Demetracopoulos, A.C., Korfiatis, G.F., Bourodimos, and E.L., Nawy, E.G. (1986a).
Unsaturated flow through solid waste landfills: Model and sensitivity analysis. Water
Resources Bulletin, 22(4), 601-609.
Demirekler, E, Ünlü, K., Rowe, R.K., and Armstrong, M. (1999). Leachate quality and quantity
modeling in municipal solid waste landfills.” Proc., London, Ontario 2000 –6th
Environmental Engineering Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers,
17-24.
El-Fadel M., Findikakis A.N., and Leckie J.O. (1996). Numerical modeling of generation and
transport of gas and heat in landfills: I. Model formulation. Waste Management & Research,
14, 483-503.
Hill, D.T., and Barth, C.L. (1977). A dynamic model for simulation of animal waste digestion. J.
Water Poll. Control Feder., 10, 2129-2143.
Kiely, G., Tayfur, G., Dolan, C., and Tanji, K. (1997). Physical and mathematical modeling of
anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. Water Research, 31(3), 534-540.
Lu, C., and Bai, H. (1991). Leaching from solid waste landfills, Part I: Modeling. Environmental
Technology, 12, 545-558.
Moletta, R., Verrier, D., and Albagnag, G. (1986). Dynamic modeling of anaerobic digestion.
Water Research, 20(4), 427-434.
Reinhart, D.R., and Townsend, T.G. (1997). Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation, Lewis
Publishers, New York.
Rowe, R.K. (1995). Leachate characteristics for MSW landfills. Proc., Sardinia 95 –5th Int.
Landfill Symp., 327-344.
Speece, R.E. (1996). Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewaters, Archae Press,
Tennesse.
Straub, W.A., and Lynch, D.R. (1982a). Models of landfill leaching: Moisture flow and
inorganic strength. J. Envir. Engrg., ASCE, 108(EE2), 231-250.
Straub, W.A., and Lynch, D.R. (1982b). Models of landfill leaching: Organic strength. J. Envir.
Engrg., ASCE, 108(EE2), 251-268.
Thchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Vigil, S.A. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Yildiz, E.D., Ünlü, K., Rowe, R.K. (2003). Modeling leachate quality and quantity in municipal
solid waste landfills. Waste Management & Research, in review.