See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280126045

Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Chapter · March 2014

DOI: 10.12983/1-2014-03-01

CITATIONS READS

22 4,339

4 authors:

Shuokr Qarani Aziz Hamidi Abdul Aziz

Salahaddin University - Erbil Universiti Sains Malaysia
118 PUBLICATIONS   1,861 CITATIONS    519 PUBLICATIONS   12,880 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammed J.k Bashir Amin Mojiri

Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Hiroshima University
234 PUBLICATIONS   5,319 CITATIONS    111 PUBLICATIONS   2,560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post treatment of Palm oil Mill eflluent using advanced oxidation processes View project

Elsevier Book - Call for chapters " The Pharmaceutical wastewater treatment- Innovative technologies and the adaptation of treatment systems" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shuokr Qarani Aziz on 13 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/books
©2014 IJSRPUB

Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Shuokr Qarani Aziz1, 2, *, Hamidi A. Aziz2, Mohammed J.K. Bashir3, Amin Mojiri2
1
Dept. of Civil Eng., College of Eng., University of Salahaddin–Erbil, Iraq
2
School of Civil Eng., Eng. Campus, USM, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Eng. and Green Tech. (FEGT), Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, 31900 Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author, shoker71@eng-usalah.org, shoker71@yahoo.com, H/P: 00964 750 462 5426

Abstract. Production of raw leachate from landfills regards as shortcoming for the sanitary landfills. Unprocessed landfill
leachate requires treatment prior disposal to the natural environment. In this work, leachate channeling, biological, and
physical-chemical treatment processes for treatment of formed landfill leachate were presented in details. Definite treatment
processes were resulted in high removal of pollutants such as ammonia (NH3-N), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), phenols, color etc. Practically, age of produced leachate have influence on the treatment
systems. Efficient treatment methods were explained for fresh, medium, and stabilized landfill leachates.

Keywords: Landfill, leachate, treatment, municipal solid waste, pollutants, removal efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION adsorbent, reverse osmosis, coagulation–flocculation,

Sanitary landfill is the most common municipal solid
waste (MSW) disposal method due to such advantages
as simple disposal procedure, low cost, and landscape-
restoring effect on holes from mineral workings.
However, the production of highly contaminated
landfill leachate is a chief weakness of this system
(Aziz et al., 2010). The generation of highly
contaminated leachate that can seep into the ground
and contaminate the ground water, surface water, and
soil is principally a main negative aspect associated to
municipal sanitary landfill disposal method (Bashir et
al., 2012. Additionally, leachate is liquid contain large
amounts of organic compounds measured as chemical
oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N), halogenated
hydrocarbons suspended solid, significant
concentration of heavy metals, and inorganic salts
(Aziz, 2013; Bashir et al., 2012; Aziz et al., 2010;
Uygur and Kargi, 2004).
If not treated and disposed safely, landfill leachate
could be a major source of water contamination
because it could percolate through soil and subsoil,
causing high pollution to receiving waters. Thus, the
treatment of hazardous leachate constituents before
discharge has been made a legal requirement to
prevent pollution of water resources and to avoid both
acute and chronic toxicities (Aziz et al., 2011).
To reduce the negative impacts of discharged
leachate on the environment, several techniques of
water and wastewater treatment have been used,
including aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment,
chemical and electrochemical oxidation processes,
chemical precipitation, adsorption using various
membrane processes, and ion exchange (Aziz et al.
2013; Bashir et al., 2012; Aziz et al., 2011; Abbas et
al 2009; Renou et al., 2008).
The current work was aimed to present appropriate
landfill leachate treatment techniques for unprocessed
landfill leachates. Giving detailed information on
leachate channeling, biological, and physical-chemical
treatment processes for raw leachates was another
goal for the present study. Furthermore, suggestion of
efficient treatment methods for different sorts of
produced landfill leachates from various sanitary
landfills was illustrated as well.
2. LANDFILL LEACHATE
2.1 Types of leachate based on landfill design
According to Yamamoto, (2002) and Matsufuji et al.
(1993), in an anaerobic landfill, solid wastes are
dumped in an excavated area of a plane field, which is
filled with water in an anaerobic condition. Typically,
anaerobic sanitary landfills are recognized by its
sandwich-shaped cover. On the other hand, semi-
aerobic landfills have a leachate collection duct. The
opening of the duct is surrounded by air, and the duct
is covered with small crushed stones. Moisture
content in solid waste is small, and oxygen is supplied
to the solid waste from the leachate collection duct.
The schematic diagram of anaerobic and semi-aerobic
(Fukuoka method) landfills is demonstrated in Figure
1 (JICA, 2005). Characteristics of fresh landfill
leachates at semi-aerobic and anaerobic landfills are
given in Table 1.

2
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
Fig.1: Schematic diagram of anaerobic and semi-aerobic landfill
2.2 Significance of leachate problem
Tatsi et al. (2003) and Renou et al. (2008) reported
that landfill leachate can be characterized by two main
factors: quantity (volumetric flow rate) and quality
(chemical composition). El-Fadel et al. (2002)
indicated that the quantity of leachate generation is
affected by landfill moisture distribution influencers
namely refuse age, pretreatment, permeability,
compaction, particle size and density and direct
landfill moisture contributors like rainfall, snowmelt,
groundwater intrusion, initial moisture and leachate
recirculation. Seriously, leachate production is rapid
in tropical countries such as Malaysia since the
rainfall normally exceeds the quantity that can be
evaporated during the rainy season (Lema et al.,
1988).
Usually, leachate contains a complex variety of
substances and organic compounds such as humic
substances, fatty acids, heavy metals and many other
hazardous chemicals. Regardless of the concentration
changes and show a discrepancy based on a complex
set of interconnected factors, the complexity of the
landfill leachate can be categorized on the basis of
four major groups of pollutants i.e. dissolved organic
substances, inorganic macro-components, heavy
metals and xenobiotic organic compounds
(Widziewicz et al., 2012; Schrab et al., 1993).
Bashir et al (2010; 2012) and Aziz et al. (2011)
reported that the common features of raw leachate
generated from Malaysian landfill sites are its high
strength of recalcitrant compounds (as reflected by its
chemical oxygen demand (COD) value) and high
concentrations of ammonia –nitrogen (NH3-N).
Ammonia resulting from the decomposition process of
organic nitrogen, has been recognized not only as a
major long-term noxious waste, but also as the
3
primary cause of acute toxicity (Ernst et al., 1994;
Baun et al., 1999). Bashir et al. (2010) stated that the
existence of high amount of NH3–N in leachate over a
long period of time is one of the most important
problems routinely faced by landfill operators. This
high quantity of unprocessed NH3–N leads to the
depletion of dissolved oxygen which is also
recognized as eutrophication. Because NH3-N is stable
under anaerobic situations, it typically accumulates in
the leachate (Ernst et al., 1994). With a concentration
of higher than 100 mg/L, untreated NH3-N is highly
toxic to aquatic organisms (Widziewicz et al., 2012;
Burton and Watson-Craik, 1998; Silva et al., 2004;
Bagchi, 1994). Unless appropriately treated, leachate
that seeps from a landfill can get into and contaminate
the underlying groundwater.
In line with the abovementioned, if the leachate
escapes to the water bodies, it is very complicated and
costly to have it controlled and cleaned up,
consequently posing potentially serious hazards to
living organisms, as well as public health in the long
term. In most cases, it is very hard to restore the
contaminated water bodies to its original state.
Recently, the hazard of groundwater pollution due to
leachate seepage has turn out to be a main
environmental concern worldwide. Therefore, an
adequate engineering plan and design of a municipal
landfill can avoid or reduce the seepage of leachate
from reaching the water bodies.
Typically, the concentration of leachate parameters
changes with the age of the leachate. The phases of
leachate are transition (0 -5 years), acid-formation (5 -
10 years), methane fermentation (15 - 20 years), and
final maturation (greater than 20 years). The age of
the landfill is one of the most important factors that
affect leachate characteristics (Kostova, 2006; Aziz,
2013) The levels of some leachate characteristics such
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), COD, total
organic carbon (TOC), NH3-N, nitrite ( NO2-N) and
total dissolved salts (TDS) in different phases are
presented in Table 1.
According to the literature, as a landfill becomes
older, the biological decomposition of the deposited
wastes shifts from a relatively shorter initial period to
a longer decomposition period, which has two distinct
sub-phases: acidic and methanogenic. Leachates from
these distinct stages contain different constituents;
therefore, young leachates tend to be acidic due to the
presence of volatile fatty acids.

Fig. 2: Diagram of landfill leachate treatment techniques, based on Abbas et al. (2009); Renou et al. (2008)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS potentially hazardous constituents of leachate prior to

If raw leachate is disposed without treatment, it could
become a major source of water pollution because it
can percolate through soils and sub-soils, causing high
contamination of the receiving water. The treatment of
discharge is a legal requirement to avoid
contamination of water resources to prevent both
acute and chronic toxicity (Ziyang et al., 2009; Oman
and Junestedt, 2008; Sanphoti et al. 2006; ARRPET,
2004).

4
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
To reduce the negative impact of discharged
leachate on environment, several techniques of water
and wastewater treatment have been used. The
technologies which were developed for the treatment
of landfill leachate could be classified as physical,
chemical, and biological (Abbast et al., 2009; Renou
et al., 2008). Normally, the techniques are applied as
an integrated system because it is not easy to achieve
the satisfying treatment efficiency by using only one
technology. Traditional treatment techniques
generally demand multistage process treatment. To set
up acceptable treatment process for removal of
contaminates from leachates, various physicochemical
and biological techniques and/or their different
combinations could be applied.
The implementation of the most suitable technique
for the treatment of leachate is directly governed by
the characteristics of the leachate. An overview of
leachate treatment methods is shown in Figure 2,
(Abbas et al., 2009; Renou et al., 2008)
Comparison of the above techniques for different
landfill ages with changeable success is illustrated in
Table 2. In addition, the most important advantages
and disadvantages of the different leachate treatment
methods are reviewed in the following sections. In
general, biological treatment processes are effective
for young or freshly (<5 years) produced leachate, but
are ineffective for leachate from older landfills (>10
years old). In contrast, physical–chemical methods
which are not favoured for young leachate treatment
are advised for older leachate treatment (Ghafari et al.,
2009).
3.1. Leachate Channeling
3.1.1. Combined treatment with domestic sewage
General means of landfill leachate disposal is piping
into the sewerage system for discharge into the sea or,
if possible, for combined treatment with domestic
sewage at traditional wastewater treatment plant. It
was favoured for its low operating costs and simple
maintenance (Ahn et al., 2002). This alternative has
been increasingly inquired due to the presence of
organic inhibitory compounds in leachate with low
BOD5/COD and heavy metals that might decrease
treatment efficiency and increase concentrations in the
5
effluent (Cecen and Aktas, 2004). A disagreement to
this treatment option is that phosphorus (brought by
sewage) and nitrogen (brought by leachate) are not
required to be added to the treatment scheme (Abbas
et al., 2009).
Cecen and Aktas (2001) investigated the combined
biological treatability of domestic wastewater and
landfill leachate in both continuous flow and semi-
continuously fed batch activated sludges, with
recycling mechanism. In addition, the researchers
added powdered activated carbon (PAC) in order to
examine the improvement in nitrification process and
organic carbon removal. The obtained results showed
that in both types of operations, NH3-N and COD
removal efficiencies decreased with an increase in the
leachate to total wastewater ratio. When the leachate
ratio increased, the positive effects of PAC on the
removal of COD and nitrification process became
more obvious.
3.1.2. Recycling
A common system used in many landfills consists of
recycling landfill leachate back through the tip
because it was one of the cheapest alternatives (Lema
et al., 1988). Bae et al. (1998) explained that the
leachate recirculation increased the moisture content
in a controlled reactor method and offered the
distribution of enzymes and nutrients between
solids/liquids and methanogens. Chugh et al., (1998)
stated that lowering COD and methane production
was observed to be important as the recycled leachate
quantity was 30% of the initial waste bed quantity.
The recirculation of leachate not only improves the
leachate characteristics, but also shortens the required
time for stabilization of leachate from several decades
to 2-3 years (Reinhart and Al-Yousisfi, 1996). High
recirculation rates of leachate could negatively
influence anaerobic degradation of solid wastes.
Recirculation of leachate could cause the inhibition of
methanogenesis as it may lead to high concentrations
of organic acids, pH less than 5, which are toxic for
the methanogens. In addition, if the amount of
recycled leachate is very high, problems such as
saturation, acidic conditions, and ponding may happen
(Abbas et al., 2009).
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics

Table 1: Characteristics of raw leachate at semi-aerobic and anaerobic landfills (Aziz et al., 2010)
Semi- aerobic Pulau Burung site Kulim site Standard B
No. Parameter Unaerated Intermittently aerated Anaerobic
Discharge limit b
Range Averagea Range Averagea Range Averagea
1 Phenols (mg/L) 0.35-2.07 1.2 2.85-10.5 6.7 1-5.25 2.6 …
2 Total nitrogen (mg/L N-TN) 200-700 483 700-1800 1200 100-600 300 …
3 Ammonia-N (mg/L NH3-N) 360-730 542 1145-2150 1568 130-1039 538 …
-
4 Nitrate-N (mg/L NO3 -N) 900-3200 2200 2900-7900 5233 400-2600 1283 …
5 Nitrite-N (mg/L NO2--N) 44-270 91 20-120 49 30-60 52 …
6 Total phosphorus (mg/L PO43--TNT) 10-43.0 21 10.0-25 17 8.0-40 19 …
7 Ortho-Phosphorus (mg/L PO43- mv ) 84-274 141 94-210 159 57-197 94 …
8 BOD5 (mg/L) 67-93 83 146-336 243 135-476 326 50
9 COD (mg/L) 600-1300 935 1680-4020 2345 630-2860 1892 100
10 BOD5/COD 0.051-0.12 0.096 0.036-0.186 0.124 0.088-0.35 0.205 0.5
11 pH 8.05-8.35 8.20 8.14-8.37 8.28 6.93-8.26 7.76 5.5-9
12 Electrical conductivity (ms/cm) 10.14-13.630 12.17 21.500-22.500 22.10 5.250-13.92 8.55 …
13 Turbidity (FAU) 600-3404 1546 149-211 180 490-4500 1936 …
14 Color (Pt Co) 1944-4050 3334 2310-4390 3347 1950-7475 4041 …
15 Total solids (mg/L) 5138-7404 6271 8860-11084 9925 4520-10568 6336 …
16 Suspended solids (mg/L) 906-2220 1437 374-1372 837 232-1374 707 100

17 Total iron (mg/L Fe) 2-29.5 7.9 0.9-8.8 3.4 0.6-11.4 5.3 5
18 Zinc (mg/L Zn) 0-3 0.6 0.01-2 0.5 0-1 0.2 1
19 Total coliform … … … <50 (0.77-0.85)x104 0.81x104 …

20 E-Coli … … … 0.00 (0.18-0.22)x104 0.20x104 …

a
Average value of six samples
b
Standard B of the Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluents) Regulations 1979, under the Environmental Quality Act of Malaysia, 1974 (MDC, 1997).

6
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview

Table 2: Effectiveness of leachate treatment techniques versus leachate age (Abbas et al., 2009)
No. Type of treatment Leacgate age (year)

Young (<5) Medium (5-10) Old (>10)

1 Combined treatment with Good Fair poor

domestic sewage
2 Recycling Good Fair poor

3 Aerobic processes Good Fair poor

4 Anaerobic processes Good Fair poor

5 Coagulation/flocculation Poor Fair Fair

6 Chemical precipitation Poor Fair Poor

7 Adsorption Poor Fair Good

8 Oxidation Poor Fair Fair

9 Stripping Poor Fair Fair

10 Ion exchange Good Good Good

11 Microfiltration Poor - -

12 Ultrafiltration Poor - -

13 Nanofiltration Good Good Good

14 Reverse osmosis Good Good Good

3.2. Biological treatment The main fraction of mature or biologically treated

The biological purification processes have been well
recognized and effectively employed for the treatment
of domestic wastewater. Biological treatments are
categorized as aerobic or anaerobic depending on
whether or not the biological processing medium
needs oxygen (O2) supply. In aerobic treatment,
organic contaminants are mostly transformed into
carbon dioxide (CO2) and sludge by using the
atmospheric O2 transferred to the wastewater. While,
in anaerobic processing, organic matter is converted
into biogas, a mixture mainly comprising of CO2 and
CH4, and biological sludge (Lema et al., 1988).
Because of its simplicity, reliability, and high-cost
effectiveness, biological purification (suspended or
attached growth) is mainly employed to treat landfill
leachate containing extreme concentrations of BOD5
(Renou et al., 2008). Biological techniques have been
recognized to be very effective for young leachate
treatment since the BOD5/COD ratio is high (> 0.5).
However, the biodegradability ratio commonly
decreases as the landfill ages, due to the presence of
pollutants that decrease biomass activity and/or are
refractory to biological processes (Lema et al., 1988).
7
leachate is large unmanageable organic compounds
that are not easily removed through biological
treatment. Thus, to meet the allowable standards for
direct discharge of leachate into the environment, a
development of integrated treatment methods is
required, i.e. a combination of biological, physical,
and chemical, and other process steps (Tauchert et al.,
2006).
3.2.1 Aerobic treatment
Destruction of biodegradable organic matter occurs
via aeration in aerobic process. Aerobic biological
methods consist of suspended-growth and attached-
growth biomass processes. The former method has
been extensively applied for treatment of municipal
landfill leachate and wastewater (Abbas et al., 2009;
Renou et al., 2008).
i) Suspended-growth biomass process
Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons have commonly been viewed as a
successful and economical technique for the removal
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
of pathogens, organic and inorganic matters. Low
operation and maintenance costs have made them an
accepted option for wastewater treatment, particularly
in developing countries. Further, it requires a little
professional skill to operate the system (Maynard et
al., 1999). Maehlum (1995) studied biological
treatment of leachate using anaerobic–aerobic lagoons
and constructed wetlands and more than 70% of
nitrogen, phosphorus and ferrous removals were
obtained for diluted landfill leachate. Generally,
treatment of landfill leachate in lagoons and wetlands
need 10 to 20 days retention time (Robinson et al,
1992, Maehlum, 1995). In spite of its lower costs, this
process might not be entirely satisfactory treatment
option for leachate treatment (Zaloum and Abbott,
1997). Finally, large area requirements, aerosol and
formation are other shortcomings of this method
(Robinson et al, 1992, Maehlum, 1995).
Activated sludge process
Activated sludge process could be defined as a
suspended growth process that utilizes aerobic
microorganisms to biodegrade organic matters in
wastewater or leachate. Activated sludge technology
has been extensively used for the treatment of
wastewater and leachate. However this process has a
good ability in the removal of nutrients but it has
some weaknesses such as: 1) Excess sludge
production, 2) Sludge settleability (i.e. high SVI
values), 3) High energy requirements, 4) The need for
longer contact times, and 5) Microbial inhibition due
to high ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) strength
(Loukidou and Zouboulis, 2001; Lin et al., 2000;
Lema et al., 1988).
Hoilijoki et al. (2000) added plastic carrier
material to activated sludge process and examined
nitrification of anaerobically pre-treated landfill
leachate in a lab-scale at different temperatures (5-
10°C). They stated that the concentration of effluent
parameters (COD, BOD5, and NH3-N) for aerobic
post-treatment were 150-500 mg/L, < 7 mg/L , and <
133 mg/L, respectively. PAC supplemented to
activated sludge processes improved nitrification
efficiency in biological treatment of landfill leachate.
Aghamohammadi (2006) studied treatment of
semi-aerobic landfill leachate from PBLS by using
PAC augmented activated sludge process. The author
reported that the leachate characteristic had great
affect on the removal of organic matter using
activated sludge treatment. Removal efficiencies of
colour, COD, and NH3-N during the treatment of
landfill leachate for leachate from PBLS were 21%,
29%, and 60%, respectively.
8
SBR (Sequencing batch reactor)
SBR process varies from activated-sludge
techniques, because SBR merges all treatment units
and processes into a single basin; whereas traditional
systems rely on various tanks. Typical SBR is divided
into five time periods: fill, react, settle, draw, and idle.
SBR is used for the treatment of wastewater and
landfill leachates (Mahvi 2008; Al-Rekabi et al.,
2007). Due to low BOD5/COD ratio, high
concentration of COD, NH3-N, heavy metals, and
other compounds in landfill leachate, the capability of
SBR in leachate treatment is relatively weaker than
for municipal and industrial wastes (Uygur and Kargi,
2004). In literature, SBR was used for the treatment of
leachate with low BOD5/COD ratio of 0.09 to 0.37
(Guo et al., 2010; Spagni et al., 2008; Klimiuk and
Kulikowska, 2006).
SBR augmented powdered activated carbon (PAC-
SBR) showed higher removal efficiencies of NH3-N,
COD, colour, and TDS when compared with normal
SBR. Furthermore, PAC-SBR improved sludge
volume index (SVI) (Aziz et al. 2011; 2013)
ii) Attached-growth biomass systems
A number of attached-growth biomass processes by
using biofilm have been recently developed to
overcome the problems of activated sludge,
specifically sludge bulking (Dollerer and Wilderer,
1996). These methods offer the advantage of not
suffering from loss of active biomass. In addition,
nitrification is less affected by low temperature than in
suspended-growth methods, and by inhibition due to
high nitrogen content.
Moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
MBBR technique is based on the use of suspended
porous polymeric carriers, kept in continuous
movement in the aeration basin; whereas the active
biomass grows like a biofilm on their surfaces. The
main advantages of this process compared to normal
suspended growth methods seems to be:1) Higher
biomass concentrations, 2) Lower sensitivity to toxic
compounds, 3) Lower sludge-settling periods, and 4)
Both organic and high NH3-N removals in a single
process. Based on literature, this system could remove
60-81% of COD and 85-90% of NH3-N from landfill
leachate (Loukidou and Zouboulis, 2001; Horan et al.,
1997). Welander et al. (1998) reported that MBBR
resulted in about 90% and 20% removal of nitrogen
and COD while no inhibition of nitrification was
encountered during the treatment of high strength
ammonia leachate. Further, using adsorbent (i.e.
granular activated carbon) offers a suitable surface to
adsorb organic substance and enhanced
biodegradation. Thus, a steady-state equilibrium is
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
recognized between adsorption and biodegradation
(Horan et al., 1997).
Trickling filters
Trickling filters have been tested for lowering the
biological nitrogen from landfill leachate. Because of
low-cost filter media, biofilters remain an attractive
and interesting alternative for nitrification process
(Jokela et al., 2002). In literature, biological nitrogen
removal from municipal landfill leachate was
examined by Jokela et al. (2002) and nitrification of
leachate over 90% was achieved by using biofilters.
They concluded that nitrification in a low-cost
biofilter followed by denitrification in a landfill body
appeared to be applicable for the removal of nitrogen
in landfill leachate in colder climates (Jokela et al.,
2002). Maximum NH3-N removal of 75 % was
obtained by Martienssen and Schops (1997).
3.2.2. Anaerobic treatment
Anaerobic digestion is the oldest system used for
treatment of wastewater. It is suitable for the
treatment of high strength organic pollutants, such as
young leachate. Opposite to aerobic processes,
anaerobic digestion method saves energy and
produces very few solids; but it suffers from low
reaction rates. Further, the produced CH4 could be
used for warming the digester that generally works at
35°C (Renou et al., 2008; Sung et al., 1997).
Anaerobic digestion comprises suspended-growth
digester (anaerobic SBR and up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor, UASBR) and attached-growth
biomass system (anaerobic filter, hybrid filter, and
fluidized bed filter).
i) Suspended-growth digester
Bull et al. (1983) and Sung et al. (1997) studied the
performances of conventional anaerobic suspended
growth digester. The researchers reported that the
typical values for COD removal in anaerobic lab-scale
basin at 35°C and ambient temperature were 80-90%
and nearly 55%, respectively.
Anaerobic SBR
Anaerobic SBR is a type of suspended-growth
digester. Some studies have shown good
performances of anaerobic SBRs. These technologies
are able to obtain solid capture and organic lowering
in one reactor (Timur and Ozturk, 1999). Uygar and
Kargi (2004) used lab-scale SBR for the reduction of
nutrient from pre-treated leachate. The researchers
reported that, at the end of cycle time of 21 h,
sequential anaerobic/aerobic operations offered
removal efficiencies of 62% for COD, 31% for NH3-
9
N, and 19 % for PO43--P. Kettunen and Rintala (1995)
explained that COD removal in the anaerobic stage
was 35%; whereas removal efficiencies of COD and
BOD5 in the combined process were up to 75% and
99%, respectively.
Timur and Ozturk (1999) examined anaerobic
treatability of municipal landfill leachate by using lab-
scale anaerobic SBR at 35oC. Based on the obtained
results, about 83% of COD removed during the
treatment was converted to methane. In addition, the
average biomass yield was 0.12 g volatile suspended
solids per gram of COD removed.
Upflow-anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASBR)
UASBR technique is a modern anaerobic treatment
process that can have high treatment efficiency and a
short HRT (Lin et al., 2000). In addition, Garcia et al.
(1996) reported that UASBR exhibited higher
performances compared to other types of anaerobic
reactors, when they submitted to high volumetric
organic loading rates.
A pilot-scale UASBR at low temperature was used
for the treatment of municipal landfill leachate.
Removal efficiencies of COD and BOD5 at organic
loading rate of 2-4 kg/m3/d of COD were 65-75 % and
up to 95 %, respectively (Kettunen and Rintala, 1995).
At organic loading rates between 6 and 19.7 g/L/d of
COD, Kennedy and Lentz (2000) obtained COD
removal efficiency of 92%. Generally, for anaerobic
treatment with UASBRs, the process temperatures are
reported to be between 20–35 ◦C. (Akkaya et al.,
2010). However, several studies were conducted at
temperatures between 11 to 23°C (Kettunen and
Rintala, 1995; Garcia et al., 1996). Sensitivity to toxic
substances is the main disadvantages of UASBRs
(Sung et al., 1997).
ii) Attached-growth biomass systems
Anaerobic filter
Anaerobic filter method is a high rate system that
collects the advantages of other anaerobic methods
and decreases the shortcomings. The filtration process
may be down-flow or up-flow. Packed filter media
provides the mechanism for separating the solids and
the gas that are produced within the digestion process.
In an up-flow anaerobic filtration process, biomass is
retained as biofilms on the supporting material, such
as plastic rings (Nedwell and Reynolds, 1996). At
loading rates of 1.26-1.45 kg/m3/d of COD and for
different ages of landfill leachate, anaerobic filter
removed 90% of COD. Further, anaerobic filter
resulted in total biogas production ranged between
400 to 500 Lgas/kg COD destroyed and methane
content of 75% and 85% (Henry et al., 1987).
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
Hybrid filter
Hybrid bed filter consists of an up-flow sludge
blanket at the bed and an anaerobic filter on the top.
This technique acts as a gas-solid separator and
improves solid’s retention without causing
channelling or short-circuiting. A hybrid bed filter
(consisted of anaerobic filter and up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor) with a filter volume of 2.75 L
and HRT of 2.4 d at temperature of 35 oC resulted in
removal of about 37.5 to 76 % COD from landfill
leachate (Timur and Ozturk, 1997). Nedwell and
Reynolds(1996) showed steady state COD removal
efficiencies of 81-97% under methanogenic digestion
was based on organic loading rate; and effective
treatment occurred up to a volumetric COD loading
rate of 3.75 kg COD/m3·d1. One disadvantage of
hybrid bed filter, as well as anaerobic filter, is the
additional cost of the supporting media.
Fluidized bed filter
Imai et al. (1993) applied microorganism-attached
activated carbon fluidized bed technique for the
treatment of real landfill leachate containing
refractory organics and a high concentration of NH4-
N. They reported that the microorganism-attached
activated carbon fluidized bed method removed about
60% and 70% of refractory organics and nitrogen,
respectively. A number of researches on carbon-
assisted fluidized beds have been conducted (Gulsen
and Turan, 2004; Suidan et al., 1993). Suidan et al.
(1993) stated that about 82% of COD was removed
from leachate via fluidized bed reactor at temperature
of 35 oC and volume of 7.9 L.
3.3. Physical/chemical treatment
Physico-chemical processes are used along with the
biological processes generally to enhance treatment
efficiency or to enhance biodegradability when the
biological oxidation method is disadvantaged by the
occurrence of bio-refractory materials. A number of
physical/chemical treatment techniques which
includes coagulation/flocculation, flotation, chemical
precipitation, adsorption, ammonium stripping,
chemical oxidation, ion exchange, electrochemical
oxidation, and membrane filtration are used for
removing non-biodegradable (humic and fulvic acid)
and/or unwanted compounds (such as heavy metals)
from the landfill leachate (Abbas et al., 2009; Renou
et al., 2008; Zouboulis et al., 2004)
3.3.1. Coagulation/flocculation
Coagulation–flocculation technique is considered as a
simple physical–chemical process in landfill leachate
treatment (Aziz et al. 2009; Ghafari et al., 2009). It is
10
an effective pretreatment process if used prior to
reverse osmosis or biological treatment or as a last
polishing treatment so as to remove or decrease non-
biodegradable organic matter in landfill leachate
(Amokrane et al., 1997). Due to its limited efficiency
for the removal of organic matter, it is not suitable for
a full treatment of landfill leachate. Duan and Gregory
(2003) reported that the removal mechanism of the
coagulation process mainly consists of charge
neutralization of negatively charged impurities by
cationic hydrolysis products followed by integration
of colloids in an amorphous hydroxide precipitate
during flocculation process.
In literature, aluminum sulfate, ferrous sulfate,
ferric chlorosulfate, and ferric chloride were generally
used as coagulants (Zouboulis et al., 2004; Amokrane
et al. 1997). Dialynas et al. (2008) investigated that
ferric chloride is more effective than alum in
eliminating organic constituent of landfill leachate,
particularly at pH values more than 9. It was sued to
the fact that ferric chloride enlarges floc size and
reduces settling time more than alum.
Ghafari et al. (2009) explained that by using alum
as coagulant, the optimum removal efficiencies of
COD, colour, turbidity, and suspended solids from
stabilized leachae were 62.8 %, 86.4%, 88.4%, and
90.1 %, respectively. Aziz et al. (2007) used
aluminum (III) sulphate (alum), ferric (III) chloride,
ferrous (III) sulphate and ferric (III) sulphate as
coagulants. The obtained results showed that ferric
chloride was better than the other coagulants with a
colour removal of 94 %.
However, coagulation/flocculation process have a
number of shortcomings, such as inefficiency in NH3-
N removal, low removal efficiency of high strength
landfill leachate, an increase on the concentration of
iron or aluminum could also be noticed in the liquid
phase, and production of huge volume of sludge
(Duan and Gregory, 2003; Tatsi et al., 2003; Silva et
al., 2004; Amokrane et al., 1997).
Al-Hamadani et al. (2011) studied the feasibility of
using psyllium husk as coagulant and coagulant aid
(with poly-aluminum chloride and aluminum sulfate)
for the treatment of semi-aerobic landfill leachate
from PBLS. When psyllium husk was used as primary
coagulant, the removal efficiencies for COD, colour
and suspended solids were 55 %, 80% and 95%,
respectively; whereas the removal efficiencies of
COD, colour, and suspended solids for psyllium husk
as coagulant aid with poly-aluminum chloride were
64, 90 and 96%, respectively. The researchers
reported that psyllium husk was more effective as
coagulant aid with poly-aluminum chloride in the
removal of COD, colour and suspended solids, as
compared to aluminum sulfate.
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
3.3.2. Flotation
Dissolved air flotation could be defined as
disconnection of suspended solids from liquids by
carrying the particles to the surface of the liquid (Al-
Shamrani et al., 2002). For many years, flotation
technique has been widely used and focused on the
reduction of ions, colloids, microorganisms,
macromolecules, and fibers (Zouboulis et al., 2003).
This technique was used extensively for the treatment
of oily wastewater.
Zouboulis et al. (2003) examined the use of
flotation in column, as a post-treatment step for the
removal of residual humic acids (non-biodegradable
compounds) from simulated landfill leachates. Under
optimum operational conditions, the researchers
obtained about 60% humic acids removal.
Lately, using dissolved air flotation process for the
treatment of landfill leachate in the presence and
absence of coagulation process was studied by Adlan
et al. (2011) and Palaniandy et al. (2010). Based on
the obtained results by Palaniandy et al. (2010), the
removal efficiencies of colour, COD, and turbidity
from leachate using dissolved air flotation process
(without coagulation process) were 36%, 33%, and
32%, respectively; whereas the removal efficiencies
with the coagulation process were 70%, 79%, and
42%, respectively.
3.3.3. Chemical precipitation
Chemical precipitation method has been extensively
employed as leachate pre-treatment because of its
simplicity, capability, and low-cost equipment used.
This method is efficient in removing NH3-N, non-
biodegradable compounds, and heavy metals from
landfill leachate (Akkaya et al., 2010; Zhang et al.,
2009; Calli et al., 2005; Ozturk et al., 2003).
Li et al. (1999) stated that the performance of a
conventional activated sludge technique could be
significantly affected by the high concentration of
NH4+-N. Struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate
hexahydrate, MgNH4PO4.6H2O) precipitation was
firstly distinguished as a phenomenon to be controlled
because it could cause problems throughout the
operation of wastewater treatment and other processes
where high concentrations of ammonium, magnesium,
and phosphate are present.
Ozturk et al. (2003) used Struvite as precipitant for
the removal of NH3-N from anaerobically pre-treated
leachate. The removal efficiency of NH3-N and COD
were 90% and 50%, respectively. It is confirmed that
the ammonium concentration in leachate could be
considerably reduced by struvite precipitation.
However, this process requires relatively expensive
chemicals (Kochany and Lipczynska-Kochany, 2009).
11
3.3.4. Adsorption
Adsorption technique is recognized as the efficient
and promising elementary approach in wastewater
treatment processes (Foo and Hameed, 2009). It is
used as a stage of integrated chemical-physical-
biological method for leachate treatment, or
simultaneously with a biological process. The most
commonly used adsorbent is granular activated carbon
or PAC (Abbas et al., 2009).
PAC as adsorbent improved performance of SBR
process. Results revealed that the PAC-SBR offered
better removal efficiencies of pollutants and improved
sludge characteristics (Aziz et al. 2011; 2013)
3.3.5. Ammonium stripping
Because of its high removal efficiency, the
ammonium stripping treatment method is the most
widely used for the removal of NH3-N from landfill
leachate. High concentrations of NH4-N are
commonly found in landfill leachates, which lead to
increasing wastewater toxicity. This method usually
changes dissolved NH3-N and dissolved CH4 in
leachate to gases. High pH values must be provided in
this method so as the column works efficiently (Hao
et al., 2010; Ozturk et al., 2003; Marttinen et al.,
2002).
Sincero and Sincero (2003) explained that
stripping was completed via introducing wastewater at
the upper part of the stripping column and permitting
it to flow the air down in the column. Marttinen et al.
(2002) reported that this method at operation
condition of pH value equal to 11, temperature of
20°C, and retention time of 24 h resulted in NH3-N
removal of 89%. In a research conducted by Silva et
al. (2004), the researchers obtained NH3-N removal
efficiency of 99.5%. Calli et al. (2005) explained that
the removal efficiencies of NH3-N and COD for initial
concentration of 3260 mg/L were 94 % and <15%,
respectively.
Comparing with other treatment techniques such as
reverse osmosis and nanofiltration ammonium
stripping discovered to be more economical in terms
of operational costs. Regardless of its advantages, the
main disadvantages of this technique are: 1) The
release of NH3-N gas to the atmosphere, 2) The
scaling of CaCO3 when lime is used for pH adjustment
in the stripping tower, and 3) Adjustment of effluent
pH value prior discharge (Li et al., 1999).
3.3.6. Chemical oxidation
Oxidation and reduction process are based on transfer
of electrons. In this process, one compound gives
electrons whereas the other receives electrons. When
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
biological treatments are inefficient, this method is
used to achieve desired objectives. Chemical
oxidation process is required for the treatment of
wastewater containing non-biodegradable and/or toxic
pollutants. So, this method is an efficient technique
for the treatment of low BOD5/COD (i.e. stabilized)
landfill leachates (Derco et al., 2010; Mohajeri et al.,
2010; Rivas et al., 2003; Droste, 1997; Marco et al.,
1997).
Amokrane et al. (1997) used oxidants, such as
chlorine, potassium permanganate, ozone, and
calcium hydrochloride, for landfill leachate treatment
and found COD removal of 20–50%. Researchers
reported that the efficiency of COD reduction for
mature and biologically pretreated landfill leachates
were 60 to 75 %, respectively by using Fenton reagent
(Lopez et al., 2004; Kang and Hwang, 2000).
Fenton oxidation was used by Mohajeri et al.
(2010) for the removal of colour and COD from Pulau
Burung stabilized landfill leachate whereby colour
and COD removal were 78% and 58%, respectively
(Mohajeri et al., 2010). Additionally, Gotvajn et al.
(2009) mentioned that the removal efficiency of NH3-
N by using Fenton oxidation was 40%.
According to Lopez et al. (2004), Fenton process
seemed to be the best compromise because it is
technically simple. In spite of simplicity of Fenton
process, it requires low pH and a modification of this
parameter is necessary. Further, high demand of
electrical energy and high oxidant doses are other
disadvantages of this method that makes the process
expensive (Bashir, 2011).
3.3.7. Ion exchange
Ion exchange process could be defined as reversible
interchange of ions among the liquid and solid phases
where no significant change in the structure of the
solid is observed. This treatment process is capable of
efficiently removing the traces of metal impurities to
meet the increasingly strict discharge standards in
developed countries. However, the application of ion
exchange is not generally used for the treatment of
landfill leachate, but it received great attention in
Germany for the removal of non-biodegradable
compounds that contained humic substances (Fettig,
1999).
Researchers explained that ion exchange resins are
generally and capably used for the removal of organic
compounds and ions from water and wastewater and
as a polishing step in landfill leachate treatment. Prior
to ion exchange process, leachate should initially be
subjected to biological treatment (Bashir et al., 2010;
Kurniawan et al., 2006). All soluble metallic elements
(anionic or cationic) could be efficiently removed or
reduced by using ion exchange technique. The resin is
12
prepared of synthetic organic polymers or natural
zeolite. Ions such as H+, OH-, Na+, and Cl- are joined
to the resin by weak electrostatic forces. These ions
are exchanged with ions in the contaminated product
that have more similarity for the resin. Resins could
be prepared to pick particular ions. The application of
ion exchange is economically limited due to high
operational cost. Another limitation is the requirement
of suitable pre-treatment system such as the removal
of suspended solids from landfill leachate. However,
ion exchange process is proper for heavy metal
removal from leachate (Kurniawan et al., 2006).
3.3.8. Electrochemical oxidation
Recently, electrochemical oxidation process has
received important consideration for wastewater
treatment because of its efficient and simple
operation. This treatment process has the ability to
destroy refractory pollutants. In this process,
refractory pollutants could be destroyed by direct
anodic oxidation, electro-chemically, or by indirect
oxidation (Atmaca, 2009; Deng and Englehrdt, 2007,
Chiang et al., 1995). Several types of electrodes have
been examined for electrochemical treatment such as
Ti, TiO2, PbO2/Ti, SnO2/Ti, Fe, aluminum, iron, and
graphite (Atmaca, 2009; Irdemez et al., 2006; Shen et
al., 2006; Chiang et al., 1995).
Atmaca (2009) used cast iron plates for both
anodes and cathodes with surface area of 22.6 cm2. At
operational conditions of 20 min treatment duration,
constant DC current of 3A, H2O2 concentration of
2000 mg/L, and at initial pH 3, removal efficiencies of
colour and COD were 90% and 72 %, respectively.
Electrochemical oxidation process was used for the
treatment of Pulau Burung semi-aerobic landfill
leachate, Malaysia. Sodium sulphate Na2SO4 (as
electrolyte) and carbon electrodes were used in the
treatment process. At optimum operational conditions
(1414 mg/L influent COD, 79.8 m A/cm2 current
density and 4 h reaction time), the removal
efficiencies of BOD5, COD, and colour were 69.8 %,
67.6 %, and 83.7 %, respectively. Further, graphite
carbon electrode showed better performance in the
removal of BOD5, COD and colour (Bashir, 2007).
The disadvantages of this method are: 1) It is more
expensive than other treatment processes because of
high energy consumption, 2) It is less widely used for
the treatment of stabilized leachate, 3) High current
density could increase corrosion rate of electrodes,
and 4) It is inefficient for the removal of inorganic
substances and NH3-N.
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
3.3.9. Membrane filtration
A membrane could be defined as a material that
creates a thin barrier capable of selectively resisting
the move of different constituents of a fluid and
therefore affecting separation of the constituents
(Visvanathan et al., 2000). Usually, a thin layer of
material with a high surface porosity and a narrow
domain of pore size affect the physical structure of the
membrane. Different membrane filtration techniques:
microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis are used in landfill leachate treatment.
i) Microfiltration
Microfiltration with pore sizes of 0.05 to 10 microns
is employed to capture microbial cells, small particles,
and large colloidal. According to landfill leachate
treatment, this method is not suitable to be used alone.
It is recommended to be used as pretreatment process
with other membrane processes (i.e. ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration or reverse osmosis) or in combination
with chemical treatment processes so as to remove
suspended matters and colloids. Piatkiewicz et al.
(2001) used this method as pre-filtration stage and
obtained COD removal of 25% to 35 %.
ii) Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration is a selective process utilizing pressures
up to 10 bar. This technique is efficient to remove
suspended matters either by direct filtration or with
biological treatment to replace sedimentation unit. It is
strongly dependant on the kind of material
constituting the membrane. Syzdek and Ahlert (1984)
proposed that this process might prove to be useful as
a pre-treatment method for reverse osmosis. It could
be employed to eliminate the larger molecular weight
components of leachate that tend to foul reverse
osmosis membranes (Bohdziewicz et al., 2001;
Rautenbach et al., 1996). COD removal of 50% was
obtained by using ultrafiltration alone (Bohdziewicz et
al., 2001)
Lastly, Tabet et al. (2002) reported that
ultrafiltration membranes have been successfully
employed in full scale membrane bioreactor plants by
combination of bioreactors and membrane technology.
High levels for landfill leachate treatment have been
obtained by using this method.
iii) Nanofiltration
Because of its unique properties between
ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes,
nanofiltration has discovered a place in the
elimination of refractory organic compounds and
13
heavy metals from landfill leachate (Ozturk et al.,
2003). Removals of COD and NH3-N from landfill
leachate by using this process were 60 % to 70 % and
50 %, respectively (Trebouet et al., 2001; Linde and
Jonsson, 1995). In another research conducted by
Trebouet et al. (2001), nanofiltration was employed in
combination with physical processes which offered
acceptable COD removal (70% to 80 %) from landfill
leachate. Based on the results achieved by Linde and
Jonsson (1995), removal efficiencies of sulphate salts,
chloride, and other (Pb2+, Zn2+, and Cd2+) from landfill
leachate were 88-96%, 12-47 %, and > 88 %,
respectively.
On the other hand, successful use of membrane
technique needs effective control of membrane
fouling. An extensive spectrum of components could
contribute to membrane fouling in leachate
nanofiltration which includes inorganic substances,
dissolved organic, suspended particles, and colloidals
(Trebouet et al., 2001).
iv) Reverse osmosis
Membrane techniques, specifically reverse osmosis, is
a relatively new method that seems to be a more
efficient alternative than traditional methods for
mature landfill leachate treatment. This method
involves separating two solutions with various
concentrations by using a semi-permeable membrane
(Kurniawan et al., 2006; Ahn et al., 2002; Chianese et
al., 1999).
Ahn et al. (2002) stated that a landfill leachate
treatment plant in Korea was retrofitted to improve
treatment efficiency by employing integrated
membrane technique that was composed of membrane
bioreactor and reverse osmosis method. The removal
efficiencies of COD and NH3-N from young landfill
leachate were 96 % and 97 %, respectively. Other
researchers stated that the removal of COD and NH3-
N from landfill leachate was 98% (Linde et al., 1995).
Although, reverse osmosis technique was reported
as the most efficient in the removal of COD among
various physical-chemical technologies assessed
(Peters 1998), some disadvantages have been noticed
for membrane techniques. They include membrane
clogging which reduces the overall process
performance by lowering the reject concentration
while the cleaning of such membranes also reduces
their lifetime. Additionally, the production of large
quantitities of residuals which are generally useless
and required to be discharged or need further
treatment (Li et al., 2009; Wiszniowski et al., 2006).
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
4. CONCLUSIONS
Design of landfill, age of landfill leachate, climate etc.
have great effect on leachate treatment. In this work,
detailed review on various treatment techniques were
explained. Results revealed that combined treatment
with domestic sewage, recycling, and biological
systems are efficient for processing young landfill
leachate. Commonly, physical-chemical treatment
methods are competent for treating medium and
old/stabilized leachates. Further, augmenting physical
and chemical methods or biological and physical-
chemical processes enhanced treatment of stabilized
leachate.
REFERENCES
Abbas AA, Jingsong G, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi
WS (2009). Review on landfill leachate
treatments. Journal of Applied Sciences
Research, 5(5): 534–545.
Adlan MN, Palaniandy P, Aziz HA (2011).
Optimization of coagulation and dissolved air
flotation (DAF) treatment of semi-aerobic
landfill leachate using response surface
methodology (RSM). Desalination, 277(1–3):
74–82.
Aghamohammadi N (2006). Semi-aerobic leachate
treatment using powdered activated carbon
augmented activated sludge process.
Unpublished, M.Sc. thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Ahn S, Congeevaram S, Choung YK, Park J (2008).
Enhanced phenol removal by floating fungal
populations in a high concentration phenol–fed
membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 221: 494–
501.
Ahn WY, Kang MS, Yim SK, Choi KH (2002).
Advanced landfill leachate treatment using an
integrated membrane process. Desalination,
149: 109–l 14.
Akkaya E, Demir A, Karadag D, Varank G, Bilgili
MS, Ozkaya B (2010). Post-treatment of
anaerobically treated medium-age landfill
leachate. Environmental Progress and
Sustainable Energy, 29(1): 78–84.
Al-Hamadani YAJ, Yusoff MS, Umar M, Bashir
MJK, Adlan MN (2011). Application of
psyllium husk as coagulant and coagulant aid in
semi-aerobic landfill leachate treatment. Journal
of Hazardous Materials, 190: 582–587.
Al-Rekabi WS, Qiang H, Qiang WW (2007). Review
on sequencing batch reactors. Pakistan Journal
of Nutrition, 6(1): 11–19.
Al-Shamrani AA, James A, Xiao H (2002). Separation
of oil from water by dissolved air flotation.
14
Colloids and surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 209(1): 15–26.
Amokrane A, Comel C, Veron J (1997). Landfill
leachates pretreatment by coagulation–
flocculation. Water Research, 31(11): 2775–
2782.
Asian Regional Research Programme on
Environmental Technology, ARRPET (2004).
State of the art review landfill leachate
treatment. Asian Institute of Technology,
Tongji University.
Atmaca E (2009) Treatment of landfill leachate by
using electro-Fenton method. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 163(1): 109–114.
Aziz HA, Alias S, Adlan MN, Faridah Asaari AH,
Zahari MS (2007). Colour removal from
landfill leachate by coagulation and flocculation
processes. Bioresource Technology, 98: 218–
220.
Aziz HA, Daud Z, Adlan MN, Hung YT (2009). The
use of polyaluminium chloride for removing
colour, COD and ammonia from semi-aerobic
leachate. Int. J. Environmental Engineering,
1(1): 20–35.
Aziz SQ (2013). Produced Leachate from Erbil
Landfill Site, Iraq: Characteristics, Anticipated
Environmental Threats and Treatment. The
16th International Conference on Petroleum,
Mineral Resources and Development, Cairo,
Egypt. 10-12 Feb., 2013.
Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Bashir MJK (2011).
Landfill leachate treatment using powdered
activated carbon augmented sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) process: Optimization by
response surface methodology. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 189: 404-413.
Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Mojiri A, Bashir MJK, Abu Amr
S (2013). Landfill Leachate Treatment Using
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Process:
Limitation of Operational Parameters and
Performance. International Journal of Scientific
Research in Knowledge (IJSRK), 1(3): 34-43.
Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Bashir MJK, Umar M
(2010). Leachate characterization in semi-
aerobic and anaerobic sanitary landfills: A
comparative study. Journal of Environmental
Management, 91: 2608-2614.
Bae JH, Cho KW, Bum BS, Lee SJ, Yoon BH (1998).
Effects of leachate recycle and anaerobic
digester sludge recycle on the methane
production from solid waste. Water Science and
Technology, 38(2): 159–168.
Bagchi A (1994). Design Construction and
Monitoring of Landfills, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
Bashir MJK (2007). Landfill leachate treatment by
electrochemical oxidation. Unpublished, M.Sc.
thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti
Sains Malaysia.
Bashir MJK (2011). Removal of colour, COD and
NH3-N from landfill leachate using anionic and
cationic resin. Unpublished, PhD thesis, School
of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Bashir MJK, Aziz HA, Aziz SQ, Abu Amr SS (2012).
An overview of electro-oxidation processes
performance in stabilized landfill leachate
treatment. Desalination and Water Treatment,
DOI:10.1080/19443994.2012.734698.
Bashir MJK, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN (2010).
Application of response surface methodology
(RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal nitrogen
removal from semiaerobic landfill leachate
using ion exchange resin. Desalination, 254:
154–161.
Baun A, Kløft L, Bjerbg PL, Nyholm N (1999).
Toxicity testing of organic chemicals in
groundwater polluted with landfill leachate,
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2046–2053.
Burton, S.Q., Watson-Craik, I.A. (1998) Ammonia
and nitrogen fluxes in landfill sites:
applicability to sustainable landfilling, Waste
Manage. Res. 16, 41–53.
Bohdziewicsz J, Bodzek M, Gorska J (2001).
Application of thee pressure-driven membrane
techniques to biological treatment of landfill
leachate. Process Biochemistry, 36: 641–646.
Bull PS, Evans JV, Wechsler RM, Cleland KJ (1983).
Biological technology of the treatment of
leachate from sanitary landfills. Water
Research, 17: 1473–1481.
Calli B, Metroglu B, Inanc B (2005). Landfill leachate
management in Istanbul: Application and
alternatives. Chemosphere, 59 (6): 819–829.
Cecen F, Aktas O (2001) Effect of PAC addition in
combined treatment of landfill leachate and
domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fed
batch and continuous–flow reactors. Water SA,
27(2).
Cecen F, Aktas O (2004). Aerobic co-treatment of
landfill leachate with domestic wastewater.
Environmental Engineering Science, 21: 303–
312.
Chianese A, Ranauro R, Verdone N (1999). Treatment
of landfill leachate by reverse osmosis. Water
Research, 33 (3), 647–652.
Chiang LC, Chang JE, Wen TC (1995). Indirect
oxidation effect in electrochemical oxidation
treatment of landfill leachate. Water Research,
29 (2): 671–678.
Chugh S, Clarke W, Pullammanappallil P, Rudolph V
(1998). Effect of recirculated leachate volume
15
on MSW degradation. Waste Management and
Research, 16: 564–573.
Deng Y, Englehardt JD (2007). Electrochemical
oxidation for landfill leachate treatment. Waste
Management, 27(3): 380–388.
Derco J, Gotvajn AZ, Zagorc-Koncan J, Almasiova B,
Kassai A (2010). Pretreatment of landfill
leachate by chemical oxidation processes.
Chemical papers, 64(2): 237–245.
Dialynas E, Mantzavinos D, Diamadopoulos E
(2008). Advanced treatment of the reverse
osmosis concentrate produced during
reclamation of municipal wastewater. Water
Research, 42 (18): 4603–4608.
Dollerer J, Wilderer PA (1996). Biological treatment
of leachates from hazardous waste landfills
using sbbr technology. Water Science and
Technology, 34 (7–8): 437–444.
Droste R (1997) Theory and practice of water and
wastewater treatment. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., USA.
Duan J, Greogory J (2003). Coagulation by
hydrolyzing metal salts. Advances in Colloid
and Interface Science, 100–102: 475–502.
El-Fadel M, Bou-Zeid E, Chahine W, Alayli B (2002).
Temporal variation of leachate quality from
pre-sorted and baled msw with high organic and
moisture content. Waste Management, 22: 269–
282.
Ernst WR, Hennigar P, Doe K, Wade S, Julien G
(1994). Characterization of the chemical
constituents and toxicity to aquatic organisms
of a municipal landfill leachate, Water Pollut.
Res. J. Can., 29: 89–101.
Fettig J (1999) Removal of humic substances by
adsorption/ion exchange. Water Science and
Technology, 40 (9): 173–182.
Foo KY, Hameed BH (2009). An overview of landfill
leachate treatment via activated carbon
adsorption process. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 171: 54–60.
Garcia H, Rico JL, Garcia PA (1996). Comparison of
anaerobic treatment of leachates from an urban-
solid-waste landfill at ambient temperature and
at 35°C. Bioresource Technology, 58 (3), 273–
277.
Ghafari S, Aziz HA, Isa, MH, Zinatizadeh AA (2009).
Application of response surface methodology
(RSM) to optimize coagulation-flocculation
treatment of leachate using poly–aluminum
chloride (PAC) and alum. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 163: 650–656.
Gotvajn AZ, Tisler T, Zagorc–Koncan J (2009).
Comparison of different treatment strategies for
industrial landfill leachate. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 162(2–3): 1446–1456.
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
Gulsen H, Turan M (2004). Startup of anaerobic
fluidized bed reactor for landfill leachate
treatment. Environmental Technology, 25(10):
1107–1114.
Guo JS, Abbas AA, Chen YP, Liu ZP, Chen P (2010)
Treatment of landfill leachate using a combined
stripping, Fenton, SBR, and coagulation
process. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 178:
699 –705.
Hao YJ, Chen YX, Wu WX, Zhang SG, Liu HQ, Ji M
(2010). The pathway in–situ ammonium
removal from aerated municipal solid waste
bioreactor: Nitrification/denitrification or air
stripping? Waste Management and Research, 1-
8.
Henry JG, Prasad D, Young H (1987). Removal of
organics from leachates by anaerobic filter.
Water Research, 21 (11), 1395–1399.
Hoilijoki TH, Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (2000).
Nitrification of anaerobically pretreated
municipal landfill leachate at low temperature.
Water Research, 34(5): 1435–1446.
Horan NJ, Gohar H, Hill B (1997). Application of a
granular activated carbon–biological fluidized
bed for the treament of landfill leachate
containing high concentrations of ammonia.
Water Science and Technology, 36: 369–375.
Imai A, Iwami N, Matsushige K, Inamori Y, Sudo R
(1993). Removal of refractory organics and
nitrogen from landfill leachate by the
microorganism-attached activated carbon
fluidized bed process. Water Research, 27:
143–145.
Irdemez S, Demircioglu N, Yildiz YS, Bingul Z
(2006). The effects of current density and
phosphate concentration on phosphate removal
from wastewater by elctro coagulation using
aluminum and iron plate electrodes. Separation
and Purification Technology, 52: 218–223.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
(2005). A practical guide to landfill
management in Pacific island countries,
Volume-1: Inland-based waste disposal.
Jokela JPY, Kettunenb RH, Sormunena KM, Rintala
JA (2002). Biological nitrogen removal from
municipal landfill leachate: Low–cost
nitrification in biofilters and laboratory scale in-
situ denitrification. Water Research, 36: 4079–
4087.
Kang YW, Hwang KY (2000). Effects of reaction
conditions on the oxidation efficiency in the
Fenton process.Water Research, 34(10): 2786–
2790.
Kennedy KJ, Lentz EM (2000). Treatment of landfill
leachate using sequencing batch and continuous
16
flow upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactors. Water Research, 34 (14), 3640–3656.
Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (1995). Sequential
anaerobic-aerobic treatment of sulphur rich
phenolic leachates. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology, 62(2): 177–
184.
Klimiuk E, Kulikowska D (2006) The influence of
hydraulic retention time and sludge age on the
kinetics of nitrogen removal from leachate in
SBR. Polish Journal of Environmental Studuies,
15(2): 283–289.
Kochany J, Lipczynska-Kochany E (2009) Utilization
of landfill leachate parameters for pretreatment
by Fenton reaction and struvite precipitation–A
comparative study. Journal of Hazardous
Material, 166: 248–254.
Kostova I (2006). Leachate from Sanitary
LandfillseOrigin, Characteristics,
Treatment.University of Architecture, Civil
Engineering and Geodesy, “Iskar’s Summer
School”-Borovetz, 26-29 July.
Kurniawan TA, Lo WH, Chan GYS (2006). Physico–
chemical treatments for removal of recalcitrant
contaminants from landfill leachate. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 129(1–3): 80-100.
Lema JM, Mendez R, Blazquez R (1988).
Characteristics of landfill leachates and
alternatives for their treatment: A review. Water
Air and Soil Pollution–Water, Air, & Soil
Pollution, 40(3–4): 223–250.
Li HS, Zhou SQ, Sun YB, Feng P, Li JD (2009).
Advanced treatment of landfill leachate by a
new combination process in a full–scale plant.
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172(1): 408–
415.
Li XZ, Zhao QL, Hao XD (1999). Ammonium
removal from landfill leachate by chemical
precipitation. Waste Management, 19(6): 409–
415.
Lin CY, Chang FY, Chang CH (2000). Co–digestion
of leachate with septage using a UASB reactor.
Bioresource Technology, 73: 175–178.
Linde K, Jonsson AS (1995). Nanofiltration of salt
solution and landfill leachate. Desalination,
103: 223–232.
Linde K, Jonsson AS, Wimmerstedt R (1995).
Treatment of three types of landfill leachate
with reverse osmosis. Desalination, 101(1): 21–
31.
Lopez A, Pagano M, Volpe A, Pinto ACD (2004).
Fenton's pre–treatment of mature landfill
leachate. Chemosphere, 54(7): 1005–1010.
Loukidou MX, Zouboulis AI (2001). Comparison of
two biological treatment process using attached
growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate
 Aziz et al.
Municipal Landfill Leachate Treatment Techniques: An Overview
treatment. Environmental pollution, 111(2):
273–281.
Maehlum T (1995). Treatment of landfill leachate in
on-site lagoons and constructed wetlands.
Water Science and Technology, 32: 129–135.
Mahvi AH (2008) Sequencing batch reacttor: A
promising technology in wastewater treatment,
Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng., 5(2): 79–90.
Marco A, Esplugas S, Saum G (1997). How and why
combine chemical and biological processes for
wastewater treatment. Water Science and
Technology, 35(4): 321–327.
Martienssen M, Schops R (1997). Biological
treatment of leachate from solid waste landfill
sites-Alterations in the bacterial community
during the denitrification process. Water
Research, 31(5): 1164–1170.
Marttinen SK, Kettunen RH, Sormunen KM,
Soimasuo RM, Rintala JA (2002). Screening of
physical-chemical methods for removal of
organic material, nitrogen and toxicity from low
strength landfill leachates. Chemosphere, 46(6):
851–858.
Maynard HE, Ouki SK, Williams SC (1999). Tertiary
lagoons: A review of removal mechanisms and
performance. Water Research, 33: 1–13.
Mohajeri S, Aziz HA, Isa MH, Zahed MA, Adlan MN
(2010). Statistical optimization of process
parameters for landfill leachate treatment using
electro-Fenton technique. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 176: 749–758.
Matsufuji Y, Hanashima M, Nagano S, Tanaka A
(1993). Generation of Greenhouse Effect Gases
from Different Landfill Type. Engineering
Geology, 34: 181-197.
Nedwell DB, Reynolds PJ (1996). Treatment of
landfill leachate by methanogenic and sulphate
reducing digestion. Water Research, 30: 21–28.
Oman CB, Junestedt C (2008). Chemical
characterization of landfill leachates–400
parameters and compounds. Waste
Management, 28: 1876–1891.
Oztruk I, Atinbas M, Koyuncu I, Arikan Q, Gomec–
Yangin C (2003). Advanced physic–chemical
treatment experiences on young municipal
landfill leachates. Waste Management, 23(5):
441–446.
Palaniandy P, Adlan MN, Aziz HA, Murshed MF
(2010). Application of dissolved air flotation
(DAF) in semi-aerobic leachate treatment.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 157: 316–322.
Peters, T.A. (1998) Purification of landfill leachate
with reverse osmosis and nanofiltration.
Desalination, 119(1–3): 289–293.
Piatkiewicz W, Biemacka E, Suchecka T (2001). A
polish study: Treating landfill leachate with
17
membranes. Filtration and Separation, 38: 22–
26.
Rautenbach R, Vossenkaul K, Linn T, Katz T (1996).
Wastewater treatment by membrane processes–
New development in ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.
Desalination, 108: 247–253.
Reinhart DR, Al-Yousfi AB (1996) The impact of
leachate recirculation on municipal solid waste
landfill operating characteristics. Waste
Management and Research, 14: 337–346.
Renou S, Givaudan GJ, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F,
Moulin P (2008). Landfill leachate treatment:
Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 150: 468–493.
Rivas FJ, Beltran F, Gimeno O, Acedo B, Carvalho F
(2003). Stabilized leachates: Ozone-activated
carbon treatment and kinetics. Water Research,
37(20): 4823–4834.
Robinson HD, Barr MJ, Last SD (1992). Leachate
collection, treatment and disposal. Water and
Environmental Journal, 6(4): 321–332.
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.
Journal of Environmental Management, 81: 27–
35.
Schrab GE, Brown KW, Donnelly KC (1993) Acute
and genetic toxicity of municipal landfill
leachate. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 69: 99–
112.
Shen ZM, Wu, D, Yang J, Yuan T, Wang WH, Jia JP
(2006). Methods to improve electrochemical
treatment effect of dye wastewater. Journal of
Hazrdous Materials, 131(1–3): 90–97.
Silva AC, Dezotti M, Sant'Anna JGL (2004).
Treatment and detoxification of a sanitary
landfill leachate. Chemosphere, 55: 207–214.
Sincero AP, Sincero GA (2003). Physical-chemical
treatment of water and wastewater. I WA
Publishing, CRC Press, New York, USA.
Spagni A, Marsili-Libelli S, Lavagnolo MC (2008).
Optimisation of sanitary landfill leachate
treatment in a sequencing batch reactor, Journal
of Water Science and Technology, 58(2): 337–
443.
Suidan MT, Schroeder A, Nath R, Krishnan E,
Brenner R (1993). Treatment of cercla
(Comprehensive environmental response,
compensation, and liability act) leachates by
carbonassisted anaerobic fluidized beds. Water
Science and Technology, 27: 273–282.
Sung MS, Chang D, Lee HY (1997). Performance
improvement of an unstable anaerobic leachate
 Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
Chapter 1: Wastewater Types and Characteristics
treatment system in an industrial waste landfill.
Water Science and Technology, 36(12): 333–
340.
Syzdek AC, Ahlert RC (1984). Separation of landfill
leachate with polymeric ultrafiltration
membranes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 9:
209–220.
Tabet K, Moulin P, Vilomet JD, Amberto A, Charbit
F (2002). Purification of landfill leachate with
membrane processes: Preliminary studies for an
industrial plant. Separation Science and
Technology, 37(5): 1041–1063.
Tatsi AA, Zouboulis AI, Matis KA, Samaras P (2003)
Coagulation–flocculation pretreatment of
sanitary landfill leachates. Chemosphere, 53(7):
737–744.
Tauchert E, Schneider S, Morais JLD, Peralta-Zamora
P (2006). Photochemically–assisted
electrochemical degradation of landfill leachate.
Chemosphere, 64: 1458–1463.
Timur H, Ozturk I (1999). Anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor treatment of landfill leachate.
Water Research, 33(15): 3225–3230.
Timur H, Ozturk I (1997). Anaerobic treatment of
leachate using sequencing batch reactor and
hybrid bed filter. Water Science and
Technology, 36(6–7): 501–508.
Trebouet D, Schlumpf JP, Jaouen P, Quemeneur F
(2001). Stabilized landfill leachate treatment by
combined physicochemical–nanofiltration
processes. Water Research, 35(12): 2935–2942.
Uygur A, Kargi F (2004) Biological nutrient removal
from pre-treated landfill leachate in a
sequencing batch reactor. Journal of
Environmental Management, 71: 9–14.
Visvanathan C, Aim RB, Parameshwaran K (2000)
Membrane separation bioreactors for
wastewater treatment. Environmental Science
and Technology, 30(1): 1–48.
Welander U, Henrysson T, Welander T (1998).
Biological nitrogen removal from municipal
18
View publication stats
landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended
carrier biofilm process. Water Research, 32(5):
1564–1670.
Widziewicz K, Kalka J, Skonieczna M, Madej P
(2012). The Comet Assay for the Evaluation of
Genotoxic Potential of Landfill Leachate. The
Scientific World Journal, Volume 2012, 1-8,
Article ID 435239, doi:10.1100/2012/435239.
Wiszniowski J, Robert D, Surmacz-Gorska J, Miksch
K, Weber JV (2006). Landfill leachate
treatment methods: A review. Environmental
Chemistry Letters, 4(1): 51–61.
Yamamoto O (2002). Solid waste treatment and
disposal experiences in Japan. Proceedings of
International Symposium on Environmental
Pollution Control and Waste Management
(EPCOWM’2002), Tunis, 417-424.
Zaloum R, Abbott M (1997). Anaerobic pretreatment
improves single sequencing batch reactor
treatment of landfill leachates. Water Science
and Technology, 35 (1): 207–214.
Zhang T, Ding L, Ren H (2009). Pretreatment of
ammonium removal from landfill leachate by
chemical precipitation. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 166(2–3): 911–915.
Ziyang L, Youcai Z, Tao Y, Yu S, Huili C, Nanwen
Z, Renhua H (2009) Natural attenuation and
characterization of contaminants composition in
landfill leachate under different disposing ages.
Science of the Total Environment, 407: 3385–
3391.
Zouboulis AI, Chai XL, Katsoyiannis IA (2004). The
application of bioflocculant for the removal of
humic acids from stabilized landfill leachates.
Journal of Environmental Management, 70: 35–
41.
Zouboulis AI, Jun W, Katsoyiannis IA (2003).
Removal of humic acids by flotation. Colloids
and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, 231: 181–193.