Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2020) 27:45108–45120

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10397-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ammonia recovery from air stripping process applied to landfill

leachate treatment
Heloísa Alves Pereira dos Santos 1 & Armando Borges de Castilhos Júnior 1 & Willian Cézar Nadaleti 2 &
Vitor Alves Lourenço 2

Received: 30 March 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published online: 10 August 2020
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The leachate is a type of effluent from landfills containing high concentrations of ammonia, even after normal treatment
procedures are applied. Due to its characteristic, the leachate can adversely impact the environment and public health.
Leachate treatment seeks to remove a series of compounds with adverse characteristics present in this type of effluent.
Ammonia nitrogen is the main problem, easily observed in concentrations near 2000 mg/L. The effluents with high concentra-
tions of ammonia nitrogen can stimulate the growth of algae, reduce the dissolved oxygen in rivers, and cause toxicity on the
aquatic biota, even in low concentrations. Many research for treatment methods aiming to remove this compound, specifically,
have been increasingly deeper, mainly by physical-chemical processes. This study aimed to test the process of air stripping in a
closed system and pilot scale, applied on leachate treatment of landfills, to remove the high concentrations of ammonia nitrogen
and its recovery by the chemical absorption of ammonia on phosphoric acid, resulting in a product with potential application as
agricultural fertilizer, the ammonia phosphate. The leachate flows used were 9, 18, 20, and 40 L/h, and the air flows were 1800
and 3600 L/h. Calcium carbonate (standard grade), commercial hydrated lime (CHL), and sodium hydroxide (standard grade)
were used for pH adjustments. To the ammonia recovery, three flasks were used with 2.5 L of a phosphoric acid solution of 0.12
and 0.24 mol/L. The air stripping tower removed an average of 98% of ammoniacal nitrogen, with an operating time of 4 to
9 days. The volume of air consumed to remove 1 g of ammoniacal nitrogen varied from 9, 91, and 21.6 m3. The ammonia
recovery was about 92% using a phosphoric acid solution, producing the ammonia phosphate.

Keywords Landfill leachate . Ammonia . Air stripping . Nitrogen . Nitrogen recovery

Abbreviations LARESO Solid Waste Research Laboratory

AS Analytical standard LIMA Integrated Environment Laboratory
BOD5 Biological oxygen demand N Nitrogen
Ca(OH)2 Calcium hydroxide NaOH Sodium hydroxide
CHL Commercial hydrated lime NH3 Free ammonia
COD Chemical oxygen demand NH4+ Ammonium ion
NH3-N Ammonia nitrogen
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit
QAIR Airflow
* Willian Cézar Nadaleti QLIX Leachate flow
williancezarnadaletti@gmail.com R Removal
SS Sedimentable solids
1
Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal
SWL Scheduled waste landfill
University of Santa Catarina - UFSC/CTC/ENS, T System operating time
Florianópolis, SC 88010-970, Brazil TFS Total fixed solids
2
Engineering Center, Laboratory of Energy and Environmental TS Total solids
Engineering – LEAE, Post-Graduation Program in Environmental TVS Total volatile solids
Sciences, Federal University of Pelotas – UFPel, CU Color unit
Pelotas, RS 96085-000, Brazil
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
UFSC Federal University of Santa Catarina
C.H.C. Commercial hydrated lime
Symbols
% Percentage
μS Microsiemens
cm Centimeter
g Gram
h Hours
L Liter
min Minute
mL Milliliter
mm Millimeter
W Watt
Introduction
Landfill leachate is a by-product generated from the final dis-
posal of solid waste, considered an environmental liability
with negative impacts on human health and the environment
(Sprovieri et al. 2020). Its composition varies according to the
characteristics of the site, age, and seasonality of the landfill.
Generally, this residue presents high concentrations of chlo-
rides, biodegradable and refractory organic matter, solids,
heavy metals, xenobiotic compounds, inorganic salts, micro-
organisms, and ammoniacal nitrogen (Costa et al. 2019;
Baettker et al. 2020).
The leachate generated in Brazilian landfills presents high
concentrations of organic material, a result of the consumption
profile of the local population (Costa et al. 2019).
Furthermore, according to Monteiro et al. (2002) and
Tränkler et al. (2005), the country’s tropical climate, with high
temperatures and volumes of precipitation, favors the process
of waste degradation and the formation of leachate. Low con-
centrations of biodegradable organic matter, and so a higher
content of recalcitrant organic matter, usually occur only in
old landfills (Costa et al. 2019; Baettker et al. 2020). However,
according to Costa et al. (2019), the country has several land-
fills at an advanced age, and it is precisely these landfills
which contain high concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen
in the leachate.
In addition to toxicity due to the microorganisms responsi-
ble for the biological treatment applied to the leachate, high
concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen in the post-treatment
effluent can stimulate the growth of algae, promoting the de-
pletion of dissolved oxygen and becoming toxic to the aquatic
biota due to the presence of ammonia (Sprovieri et al. 2020).
The presence of nitrogen compounds, mainly in the ammoni-
acal form in Brazilian leachate, has environmental and public
health relevance, as they reach concentrations above 2000 mg/
L (Gomes et al. 2009; Costa et al. 2019). Its inefficient remov-
al results in economic and health problems, requiring adequate
treatment before releasing this wastewater into water bodies
45109
(Sprovieri et al. 2020). Traditional treatment methods have
been insufficient to meet the wastewater discharge standard
established by CONAMA Resolution Number 430/11 (Brazil
2011) whose maximum allowable concentration for total am-
monia nitrogen is 20 mg/L.
Technological alternatives for initial or post-treatment of
leachate specifically target the removal of ammoniacal nitro-
gen, such as the physical-chemical process named air extrac-
tion, which consists of the removal of one or more volatile
components from the liquid phase, with the passage of forced
air through the liquid (Metcalf and Eddy 2003). This method
is based on favoring the non-ionized ammonia volatilization,
usually obtained by increasing the contact between the leach-
ate and the air and by raising the pH (Gomes et al. 2009).
Ammonia volatilization to the atmosphere is one of the main
mechanisms of ammonia nitrogen removal. In wastewater,
free ammonia (NH3), which is volatile, is in equilibrium with
ammonium ion (NH4+) as presented in Eq. 1:
NH3 ðgÞ þ H2 O↔NHþ −
4 ðaqÞ þ OH ðaqÞ ð1Þ
This chemical equilibrium is directly influenced by the ef-
fluent pH. The pH of crude leachate generally ranges from 3 to
7.5, depending on the degradation phase of the landfill (Costa
et al. 2019). Thus, to favor the volatilization of ammonia
which at pH 9.25 is 50% ionized and 50% free, the pH should
be increased by adding an alkalinizing chemical species,
correcting the pH to 11 units and temperature of 25 °C.
Therefore, the percentage of free ammonia will rise to 99%.
Based on this property, the process of air stripping (Metcalf
and Eddy 2003) occurs when the free-form ammonia-contain-
ing liquid effluent comes into contact with a forced air stream,
transferring it from a liquid phase to a gas phase, called a gas
phase “Drag Air.”
The application of the air stripping process is widespread in
several industrial segments (Leite et al. 2009), but regarding
the landfill leachate, there are still knowledge gaps to be filled
to allow a wide process use. Therefore, the application of air
stripping in a closed system removing the ammonia, instead of
being released into the atmosphere, has a good perspective of
use. It is still usual to adopt open systems, in stuffed towers or
drag tanks, to remove ammonia from the leachate and then
release it in the gaseous form directly into the atmosphere.
Furthermore, although there are studies on the use of closed
systems, they are still scarce when compared to open systems.
In addition to air pollution, depending on the level of contact
and the period of exposure, gaseous ammonia can cause re-
spiratory, eye, and throat irritation, and even pulmonary prob-
lems and severe skin irritation (USEPA – UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1993,
1995).
The air stripping process can decrease ammonia nitrogen
(NH3-N) concentrations by adjusting the pH of wastewater to
45110
an alkaline range by increasing the gas-liquid interface and
decreasing the partial pressure of nitrogen by explosion aera-
tion, removing up to 99% of free ammonia from wastewater
(Youcai 2018). In addition to issues related to workers’ health
and safety, the environmental reason is equally present, as
ammonia recovery is potentially important for agricultural
use as nitrogen fertilizer. Ferraz (2010) evaluated the chemical
absorption of ammonia by sulfuric acid and obtained recovery
efficiencies of up to 80% in washer flasks.
Hence, this study aimed to test the main factors that can
improve the application of the air stripping technique to re-
move ammoniacal nitrogen from leachate, evaluating an alter-
native for ammonia recovery, with gas scrubbing flasks. The
goal is to try to contribute to the improvement of a treatment
technology that aims to adapt the treated leachate to current
standards as well as the non-transference of a pollutant to the
atmosphere, minimizing the environmental impact. The treat-
ment efficiency on the variables such as color, turbidity, chem-
ical oxygen demand (COD), and solids was also evaluated.
Methodology
The pilot-scale tests took place at the Solid Waste Research
Laboratory (LARESO), while bench tests and physical-
chemical analyzes were performed at the Integrated
Environment Laboratory (LIMA). Both laboratories belong to
the analytical structure of the Department of Sanitary and
Environmental Engineering at the Federal University of Santa
Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. The raw leachate used in the experi-
ments was collected in an equalization tank at a landfill located in
Biguaçu/SC, Brazil and transported in a tanker truck to UFSC,
where it remained stored in a 5000-L fiberglass reservoir.
Bench tests
In the bench tests, ammonia stripping was not evaluated, as
there was no introduction of air; thus, only alkalizing agents
were evaluated. Alkalization tests evaluated three chemicals to
be used to raise the pH of the raw leachate: calcium hydroxide
(Ca(OH)2) (analytical standard), commercial hydrated lime
(CHL) (type CHIII), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) analyti-
cal standard (AS). The performance of the alkalizing products
was evaluated under three aspects: cost (US$/liter), efficiency
in removing color and turbidity parameters, and volume (mL)
and dry mass (g) of sludge (48 h in a 105 °C greenhouse)
generated after sedimentation for 1 h. For each alkalization
assay, 1 L of crude leachate was added to a beaker and kept
under constant stirring promoted by a magnetic stirrer, where
small portions of the evaluated chemical were added until the
pH raised to 12 units. After this procedure, the leachate was
transferred to an Imhoff cone where it remained for sedimen-
tation for 1 h. After this period, the supernatant was then
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
separated from the sludge deposited at the bottom of the cone,
being analyzed for total, fixed, volatile, and sedimentary
solids. Besides the solids, the control variables of the tests
were pH, apparent color, turbidity, electrical conductivity, to-
tal COD and NH3-N.
Pilot scale tests
Experimental apparatus
The experimental apparatus consisted of a tower constructed
of 150-mm-diameter PVC pipe pieces, the useful height of
1.95 m, stuffed with raschig rings, manufactured from 5 cm
long cut conduits, and 25 mm internal diameter. The tower
operated counter-current with downward leachate flow and
upward airflow. The crude leachate was placed in an HDPE
reservoir, about 25 L in capacity and drowned centrifugal
pump, with a power of 80 W (1/9 cycle), and pumped it to
the top of the tower. The pump capacity was a maximum of
55 L/min.
The bottom of the tower was fitted with a 150 × 100 mm
sanitary tee, and a hose fitting returned the leachate to the
reservoir.
The lateral end was closed with a 100 mm cap, where a
fitting was fitted for the inlet of the 120 W radial air compres-
sor hose, capable of pumping up to 3 L/s. The upper part of the
tower was closed by a 150-mm cap and used to seal the leach-
ate inlet and outflow of ammonia gas along with air as well as
the commercial shower for the distribution of the raw leachate.
The void content of the filling material is 78%, the specific
area of 220 m2/m3, the usable volume of the 32.2-L air strip-
ping tower, and the 22-L leachate reservoir.
The proposed system for the recovery of ammonia re-
moved by the air stripping tower consisted of a sequence of
3 washer bottles (FI = washer bottle 1; F2 = washer bottle 2;
F3 = washer bottle 3) adapted from glass containers, closed
with plastic caps with holes for passing the gas conductive
hose from one container to another. All contained a capacity
of 3.5 L each and were filled with 2.5 L diluted phosphoric
acid solution (0.12 mol/L). To calculate the dilution of the
acidic solution, an initial ammonia concentration in the crude
leachate equal to 2000 mg/L was considered, which was
completely removed by the tower and absorbed by the solu-
tion contained in the 3 vials. The experimental pilot and the
material used are presented in Fig. 1.
Pilot scale tests
To test the treatment by air stripping with pH elevation, and
the NH3-N recovery efficiency by the gas scrubber system, 7
tests were performed under different operating conditions,
evaluating the interference of the flow rates and leachate on
treatment (Table 1):
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120 45111

a c

I
H J
Fig. 1 General scheme of pilot operation (a), details of the air stripping tower, ammonia-absorbing scrubber flasks (b), and tower filling material (c)

In tests E4, E5, E6, and E7, where the previous alkalization
of the leachate was evaluated, the reagent mass required for
the alkalization of 1 L of leachate obtained in the bench tests
was considered. This value was then multiplied by the volume
required in the pilot-scale 22 L leachate assays, and the re-
agent was mixed and further sedimented for 1 h using only the
supernatant in the tower. All assays were performed in the
batch regime, and monitoring was performed by analyzing
the physicochemical variables presented in Table 2, as well
as the analytical methods applied.
Operating cost analysis
To assess the costs of treatment by air stripping and the am-
monia collection system, under the different operational con-
ditions studied, the analysis considered an effluent which the

Table 1 Pilot scale test operating

conditions Tests Alkalization QAIR (L/h) QLIX (L/h) QAIR/QLIX NH3-N recovery

E1 No 3600 18 200 No
E2 No 1800 9 200 No
E3 No 1800 20 90 Yes/0.12 mol/La
E4 Yes/C.H.C. 1800 20 90 Yes/0.12 mol/La
E5 Yes/NaOH AS 1800 20 90 Yes/0.12 mol/La
E6 Yes/C.H.C. 1800 20 90 Yes/0.24 mol/La
E7 Yes/C.H.C. 1800 40 45 Yes/0.24 mol/La
a
Alkalizing agent
45112
Table 2 Physicochemical variables analyzed and APHA (2005)
analytical methods used
Variable Analytical method
pH Potentiometric
Conductivity (μS/cm) Conductivity meter
Total COD (mg O2/L) Colorimetric/Closed reflux
Ammonia nitrogen (mg NH3/L) Colorimetric/Nessler reagent
Total Kjeldhal nitrogen (mg NH3/L) Kjeldhal distillation
TS, VS, FS (mg/L) Gravimetric
SS (mL/L) Imhoff cone
Color (CU) Colorimetric
Turbidity (NTU) Nephelometric
final concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen was equal to or
less than 20 mg/L. In the economic analysis, the following
parameters were considered: electricity costs (equipment op-
eration), with alkalinization of the leachate (for the
alkalinizers studied), cost of the acid solution (in the concen-
trations used), and the profit earned on the compound formed
with the collection of ammonia. The calculation of the total
cost of electricity (CTE) considered the electricity expenses
for the operation of the electrical equipment used in the pilot
(centrifugal pump and the compressor). The price of kWh
used in the calculations followed the data from the National
Electric Energy Agency with reference to the conventional
tariff and the value without taxes of Class B3 (other classes:
industrial, commercial, services and other activities, public
power, and public service). The cost attributed to the alkalin-
ization considered the alkalinizing reagent consumption for
pH adjustment, in US$/m3 of leachate. The cost of collecting
ammonia is related to the expenses with the reagent to prepare
the acidic solution, and the profit if the by-product of this step
was commercialized.
Results and discussion
The raw leachate used in the tests presented high pH values,
typical of leachate in methanogenic degradation phase (Lange
and Amaral 2009) (Table 3). NH3-N concentrations showed
greater oscillation, and the maximum obtained for the
parameter was 1612 mg/L N, considered low. Costa et al.
(2019) report that in Brazil, ammoniacal nitrogen values can
reach up to 2185 mg/L in a stabilized leachate. Li et al. (1999)
observed concentrations between 3000 and 6000 mg/L in
landfill leachate in Hong Kong.
During the bench tests evaluating different alkalizing re-
agents, the best results were obtained using CHL, showing an
average color removal and turbidity of 76 and 62%, respec-
tively, and generating about 65 g of sludge/L after 1 h of
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
sedimentation. After this first stage of testing, the use of the
analytical standard calcium hydroxide reagent was discarded
because it was too expensive, which would make its use on a
real scale unfeasible, and because it did not show significantly
higher results than CHL, with a cost up to 100 times lower.
As for the removal of color and turbidity, the high-
efficiency of alkalinization is clear. It was observed that to
color removal, Ca(OH)2 and CHL had practically the same
performance, close to 80%, while NaOH AS promoted re-
moval of only 40%. Regarding the removal of turbidity, there
was no great difference between the three reagents. Again, the
reagent that showed the worst performance was NaOH AS. It
was also verified the high sludge production promoted by the
addition of alkalizing agents, mainly calcium hydroxide, both
the analytical standard and the CHL. In the general perfor-
mance evaluation of the studied alkalizing reagents, although
there were small differences between Ca(OH)2 AS and CHL
with regard to color removals and turbidity and sludge gener-
ation, the cost with reagent is a limiting factor to the use of AS.
The efficiency of air stripping treatment, evaluated on a
pilot scale, varied greatly depending on the presence or ab-
sence of the earlier alkalization step and the applied QAIR/
QLIX ratio. The system shutdown moment was conditioned
to NH3-N concentrations below the standard established by
CONAMA Resolution Number 430/11, which is 20 NH3-N/L.
Figures 2 and 3 give the decay of ammoniacal nitrogen
concentration and an increase in pH over the 4 days in which
the tower was operated. The increase in pH naturally favored
the removal of ammonia, which becomes volatile gas only
when it is in the non-ionized form (NH3). At pH 9.25, ammo-
nia is 50% ionized and 50% non-ionized. The increase in pH
is commonly observed in experiments with the application of
leachate in air stripping towers and results from the chemical
balance of the carbonate system, which captures the H+ ions
released in the removal of ammonia. The efficiency of the
removal of N-NH3 was 99% and 85% compared to NTK
(Fig. 3):
The operation of the air stripping tower with a QAIR/QLIX
ratio = 90 and without previous alkalinization of the leachate
required 8 days of operation for the concentration of
ammoniacal nitrogen to drop from 744 to 17 mg/L, a value
within standards established by CONAMA Resolution 430/
11. Santos (2011) obtained N-NH3 removal efficiencies great-
er than 98% only after an operation time of 4 to 9 days, even
adopting alkalinization of the leachate using standard analyt-
ical calcium hydroxide, type hydrated lime, and standard an-
alytical sodium hydroxide. According to the author, the vol-
ume of air consumed varied from 9.9 to 21.6 m3 for each gram
of N-NH3 removed in the tower. Figure 4 shows the decay of
N-NH3 and NTK concentrations. It is noticed that the decay of
NTK is associated with the removal of ammonia.
Figure 5 demonstrates the correlation between the conduc-
tivity and the ammoniacal nitrogen concentration:
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120 45113

Table 3 Physical and chemical

characterization of crude leachate Parameter Unit n Minimum Maximum Average
samples
pH – 10 8.13 8.80 8.51
Conductivity mS/cm 9 16.70 17.89 17.44
COD mg/L 7 3200 5832 4316
Color CU 10 2025 3700 2647
Turbidity N.T.U 10 180 363 261
Ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N) mg/L 10 744 1612 1158
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (NTK) mg/L 9 1104 2076 1584
TS (dry mass) mg/L 10 7642 13,180 8901
TVS mg/L 10 495 4260 2495
TFS mg/L 10 4698 8930 6405
SS mL/L 10 0 3 1

During the alkalinization, there was a small removal of
ammoniacal nitrogen due to the agitation promoted to homog-
enize the mixture. With the increase of the pH, naturally, the
ammonia started to volatilize and was lost to the atmosphere
during this process. The reduction in the concentration of
NH3-N in this stage was 15%, going from 1253 to 1087 mg/
L. Figure 6 shows the decay in the concentrations of NTK and
NH3-N, as well as the effect of the previous alkalinization on
these two parameters.
The removal of ammoniacal nitrogen promoted by alkalin-
ization results in a decrease in the NTK concentration, since in
the samples used in this study, NH3-N represents on average
about 70% of NTK. It was also noted that alkalinization
causes a greater removal of ammoniacal nitrogen in the first
days of the experiment. Figure 7 shows the decay of the am-
moniacal nitrogen concentration and the pH behavior, which
initially was 8.67 in raw leachate and 12.08 after alkaliniza-
tion. During the experiment, the pH decreases again until
reaching 9.3 after 7 days. This decrease in pH was also ob-
served in the E2 experiment using commercial hydrated lime.
The removal of NH3-N in 7 days of the experiment was
98%, reaching in this period the final concentration of 18 mg/
L. About 14 m3air/g of NH3-N was removed by the tower.
Comparing to the result obtained in the E2 experiment, where
the tower was operated under the same conditions (alkaliniza-
tion with Cal. Hydr.), practically the same performance was
obtained. Once again, the correlation between the conductiv-
ity parameter and the ammoniacal nitrogen concentration is
shown in Fig. 8.
The raw leachate was made alkaline with the addition of
commercial hydrated lime, with 60 g/L of leachate concentra-
tion, which raised the pH from 8.35 to 12. With alkalinization
and subsequent sedimentation for 1 h, 81% color and 75%
turbidity were removed and the volatilized ammonia was
13%. This occurs spontaneously due to the elevation of the
pH and the agitation promoted to homogenize the mixture of
leachate and lime. After sedimentation, the supernatant was
recirculated in the air stripping tower for 9 days. The final
concentration of N-NH3 reached 10 mg/L, a removal equiva-
lent to 99%. Figure 9 demonstrates the decline in N-NH3

Fig. 2 Behavior of pH and N-

NH3 concentration (QAIR =
3600 L/h; QLIX = 18 L/h; t = time
in days, T = 18.5 °C)
45114
Fig. 3 Behavior of pH and NH3-
N concentration (QAIR =
1800 L h; QLIX = 9 L/h; t = time in
days, T = 18.5 °C)
concentration and pH over the days that the system was oper-
ated. There was also a 75% removal of NTK.
Table 4 shows the performance of the air stripping tower in
the different proposed treatments. The results obtained from
E1 and E2 showed that, even without the previous leachate
alkalization step, it was possible to remove up to 99% of
ammonia nitrogen in the shortest time (96 h), due to the ap-
plication of the higher QAIR/QLIX (equal to 200). In terms of
air volume required for ammonia removal, the lowest values
were also obtained, approximately 10 m3/g of ammonia nitro-
gen removed.
At E4, when the system operated under the same condi-
tions as E3, the effects of the previous alkalization were eval-
uated again, and a consumption of 13 m3 air/g of ammonia
nitrogen was removed, with 98% of ammonia removed at
168 h and 55% absorbed in the washing bottles. In E5, which
aimed to evaluate the performance of another alkalizing agent,
NaOH AS and its effect on air stripping and the recovery
Fig. 4 Behavior of NH3-N and
NTK concentrations (QAIR =
1.800 L/h; QLIX = 20 L/h; with
0.12 mol/L H3PO4 solution
withdrawal, T = 18.5 °C)
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
system, no significant differences were observed in its perfor-
mance when compared to the hydrated lime tests. The latter is
much more cost-effective, about 10 times cheaper than the
analytical standard reagent. A positive point regarding the
use of NaOH AS is the lower generation of sludge, about
2 g of dry sludge for each liter of leachate, while the addition
of commercial hydrated lime yielded about 65 g/L about.
The costs for operating the air stripping tower are high. The
highest cost is associated with the consumption of electricity.
The best performance was obtained with operation of the tow-
er at a ratio of QAR/QLIX = 200, with an average cost of ap-
proximately 270 R$/m3 of treated leachate, or 51.642 US$/m3
according to the currency converter of the Central Bank of
Brazil in on July 21, 2020. Regarding the costs of the collec-
tion system, the best performance was obtained with the use of
less concentrated acid solution due to the high price of the
reagent used. In general, these two technologies combined
proved to be efficient in removing ammoniacal nitrogen and
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
Fig. 5 Relation between the
conductivity and the NH3-N (E1)
concentration
recovering ammonia. However, a simplified financial analysis
showed that the operational cost of these two combined pro-
cesses can make the application of the system on a full-scale
unfeasible.
The main objective of E6 was to evaluate the performance
of the ammonia absorption system using a more concentrated
acidic solution. Regarding the chemical absorption of ammo-
nia, the increase of H+ ions promoted by the lower dilution of
the acid solution made the ammonia recovery reach 90% ef-
ficiency. Analyzing the performance of vial 1 in relation to the
total ammonia recovered by the system shows that over 70%
of the recovered ammonia is retained in the first vial.
Therefore, an alternative to facilitate the operation of the ab-
sorption system would be to size the first vial with a larger
volume of solution, or more concentrated solution than the
other vials, designed only to absorb the excess ammonia.
Experiment E7 evaluated the influence of leachate flow on
drag tower performance in terms of ammonia nitrogen
Fig. 6 Behavior of NH3-N and
NTK concentrations (QAIR =
1800 L/h; QLIX = 20 L/h;
alkalization with Cal. Hydr.
Com., with 0.12 mol/L H3PO4
solution withdrawal, T = 18.5 °C)
45115
removal and ammonia recovery system. First, with
alkalization and subsequent sedimentation for 1 h, 81% color
and 75% turbidity were removed and volatilized ammonia
was 13%. This occurs spontaneously due to increased pH
and agitation promoted for homogenization of the leachate
and lime mixture. After sedimentation, the supernatant was
recirculated in the air stripping tower for 216 h. The final
concentration of NH3-N reached 10 mg/L, a 99% equivalent
removal. In all trials, it was noted that NTK removal is asso-
ciated with ammonia removal, as reported by Souto (2009) in
his experiments in which no significant change in organic
nitrogen was observed during the application of the air strip-
ping process. Ammonia mass removed by air stripping was
20.69 g and air consumption 388.8 m3, which is equivalent to
a ratio of 18.9 m3 air/g NH3-N removed.
Ferraz (2010) obtained similar results, 21 m3 air/g of am-
monia nitrogen removed for experiments where commercially
hydrated lime alkalinized leachate, also type CHIII, and 29 m3
45116
Fig. 7 Behavior of NH3-N
concentration and pH (QAIR =
1800 L/h; QLIX = 20 L/h;
alkalization with Cal. Hydr.
Com., with collection in
3.5 mol/L H3PO4 solution)
air/g of ammonia nitrogen removed for experiments with non-
alkaline leachate. COD removal was 36%, the highest among
all treatments proposed in previous trials. This may be related
to the system operating time in this experiment, which was
also longer than the others, exposing the leachate to aeration
longer. An effluent that has ammoniacal nitrogen in concen-
trations above 500 mg/L, COD values above 2000 mg/L, and
high alkalinity is considered difficult to treat by biological
process, mainly due to the high toxicity of nitrogen. For this
reason, there is a need to remove ammonia before a biological
process, so that microorganisms that degrade organic matter
do not have their metabolism affected by the toxic effect of
ammonia (Clement and Merlin 1995). Regarding ammonia
absorption, there was no influence of the QAIR/QLIX ratio on
the ammonia recovery by the flasks. Regarding the mass of
ammonia removed by air stripping, the system recovered
Fig. 8 Relationship between
conductivity and NH3-N (E4)
concentration. T = 18.5 °C
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
92%, performance similar to that obtained in the previous
experiment.
The experiments carried out in this study showed that, in
general, the air stripping technique applied to leachate treatment
is efficient from the point of view of ammonia nitrogen remov-
al, where removals above 98% were obtained. Comparing these
results with other studies already developed in this area is a
difficult task, as each proposed treatment presents particularities
that are often unclear or not mentioned in the source. Another
aspect that makes it difficult to compare results with other stud-
ies is the size of the experimental apparatus. In most cases,
studies have been carried out on benchtops with a leachate
volume of less than 10 L (Cheung et al. 1997; Marttinen et al.
2002; Huang and Shang 2006; Yokoyama et al. 2009), and
sometimes studies have been carried out not on towers but on
aerated drag tanks provided by mechanical stirrers.
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
Fig. 9 Behavior of N-NH 3
concentration and pH (QAIR =
1800 L/h; QLIX = 40 L/h;
alkalization with Cal. Hydr.
Com., With collection in
3.5 mol/L H3PO4 solution, T =
18.5 °C)
From the studies found in the literature, two of them were
widely used in order to make comparisons, Souto (2009) and
Ferraz (2010), because they were studies where air stripping
towers with similar dimensions and operating conditions were
used. Regarding the recovery of ammonia associated with the
air stripping process, the number of scientific works is even
reduced.
Ferraz (2010) using ammonia absorption in sulfuric acid
solution reports 67 to 97% efficiencies in ammonia absorp-
tion. Comparing with the results obtained in this study, it is
clear that the use of phosphoric acid can also be a viable
alternative. Ferraz et al. (2013) studied the treatment of old
leachate from landfills in an aerated tower on a pilot scale for
the total removal of ammoniacal nitrogen. The removed am-
monia was recovered with a solution of 0.4 mol L−1 of H2SO4
and deionized water. According to the authors, the solution
was able to neutralize 80% of the ammonia in 12 L of leachate.
The effectiveness of neutralizing ammonia with deionized
water was 75%. Leite et al. (2018) approached in his studies
a pickling process, without the addition of alkaline chemical
species and without airflow for the removal of ammonia gas,
to reduce the concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen in the
landfill leachate, obtaining a removal efficiency of 99–
99.5% ammoniacal nitrogen and 29.23–69.20% COD.
Liu et al. (2015) used a combined treatment process of air
stripping, Fenton, sequencing batch reactor, and coagulation to
remove the pollutants in landfill leachate. The experiment
showed that the removal rate of COD, 5-day BOD, and ammo-
nia nitrogen were 92.8%, 87.8%, and 98.0%, respectively.
Hanira et al. (2017a, b) used a lab-scale ammonia stripping
reactor was used to treat raw and diluted scheduled waste land-
fill leachate. The experiment successfully removed 76% for raw
leachate and 80% for diluted leachate of NH3-N, respectively.
Campos et al. (2013) studied the process of the air stripping
technology for the removal of ammonia from landfill
45117
leachates. According to the study, the best results were obtain-
ed with a temperature of 60 °C, and they were independent of
the pH value for 7 h of operation with the ammonia nitrogen
removal was greater than 95%. Smaoui et al. (2018) studied
the possibility of pretreatment, using coagulation-flocculation,
Fenton oxidation, or air stripping processes, to improve anaer-
obic conditions in terms of biogas production during the treat-
ment of landfill leachate. Under optimized conditions, the au-
thors obtained removals of 85% ammonia and 26% COD. Air
stripping was demonstrated as providing a better biogas yield
than other pretreatments and the better methane yield.
To Hanira et al. (2017a, b), the effect of the height of the
filling and the types of filling material was more significant
than the liquid air ratio and the dose of alkalizing agent for
removing NH3-N in their studies. According to the results
obtained, an increase in the packing height of the removal
reactor results in greater ammonia removal efficiency due to
the increased contact time between air and liquid. Regarding
the type of filling, the authors cite that light, easily produced,
and high surface area of packing materials gave the best
performance for ammonia removal. Bravin Junior et al.
(2016) investigated the application of corrugated conduct in
air stripping of ammoniacal nitrogen. The authors observed
that the higher the airflow and the lower the liquid flow, the
more efficient was the removal of NH3-N by reducing the
resistance to mass transfer. With a ratio of 4000 between the
flows, they obtained 70.9% removal with a loss of pressure of
5 mmca, lower than that seen in conventional towers with the
same dimensions. The authors emphasize that this difference
is due to the absence of filling in the corrugated ducts, reduc-
ing the power required for air insufflation. Thus, considering
the absence of filling and adoption of corrugated ducts, it can
be inferred that the duct cavities allow flow with high turbu-
lence and renewal of the contact surfaces, reducing the resis-
tance to mass transfer.
 45118

Table 4 Air stripping tower performance in the different treatments proposed

Parameter Unit E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7

Initial–Final R Initial–Final R Initial–Final R Initial–Final R Initial–Final R Initial–Final R Initial–Final R

(T = 96 h) (%) (T = 96 h) (%) (T = 192 h) (%) (T = 168 h) (%) (T = 192 h) (%) (T = 168 h) (%) (T = 216 h) (%)

pH – 8.45–9.13 – 8.49–9.13 – 8.8–9.21 – 12.05–9.25 – 12.1–10.11 – 12.08–9.3 – 12–9.05 –

Conductivity mS/cm 17.5–14.9 15 17.2–14.3 17 16.7–12.9 23 15.9–12.8 19 > limit NR 15.6–13.3 15 15.9–13.2 17
COD mg/L 5832.7–2616 55 4980–3081 38 3200–2109 34 3990–2854 28 3769–2794 26 3610–2757 24 3420–2185 36
Color U.C 2025–1319 35 2980–2292 23 2790–2321 17 530–421 21 1190–762 36 410–345 16 386–312 19
Turbidity N.T.U 180–113 37 310–227 27 250–177 29 65–52 20 155–106 32 55–43 22 54–32 41
NH3-N mg/L 1563–16 99 809–17 98 744–17 98 1087–15 99 1103–20 98 995–18 98 950–10 99
NTK mg/L 2010–319 84 1230–321 74 1104–287 74 1405–339 76 1300–287 78 1308–355 73 1228–302 75
TS mg/L 13,150–12,980 1 7764–7629 2 7716–7682 <1 2565–2445 5 3345–3228 3 3790–3660 3 3610–3530 2
VTS mg/L 4220–4090 3 537–439 18 495–457 8 955–835 13 1405–1368 3 1000–980 2 930–870 6
FTS mg/L 8930–8890 <1 7227–7190 <1 7221–7225 0 1610–1609 <1 1940–1860 4 2790–2680 4 2680–2660 <1
SS mL/L 0–NR – 0–NR – 0–NR – NR–NR – NR–NR – NR–NR – NR–NR –

T = system operating time (h); R = removal (%)

In these tests, the system for ammonia recovery was not coupled, as it could hinder the drag airflow at the tower exit. In test E3, the gas scrubber system was coupled and for a QAIR/QLIX ratio of 90, it took
2 times longer operation time of the air stripping tower for the same ammonia removal efficiency. In this case, in terms of the volume of air required for removal, it was also necessary to double tests 1 and 2,
about 21 m3 air/g of ammonia nitrogen removed. However, 62% of the removed ammonia was recovered from the washer flasks
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
Conclusions
Regarding the performance evaluation of the three alkalizing
reagents tested, it is highlighted:
1. CHL, in addition to raising the leachate pH, promoted
significant removal of color and turbidity, on average 76
and 62%. CHL also has the lowest cost among the re-
agents evaluated and is an easily purchased product.
However, the use of 60 g/L leachate promoted the forma-
tion of approximately 65 g of dry sludge, which would
represent an additional work in the operation of the leach-
ate treatment plant using this technique. It is recommend-
ed for future studies to investigate the applicability of the
sludge generated in the previous alkalinization process at
the landfill itself as a covering material.
2. The air stripping process removed on average 98% of am-
monia nitrogen, with an operating time of 4 to 9 days and
using 9 to 21 m3 of air for every 1 g of NH3-N removed.
However, the system showed little potential for COD re-
moval, with a maximum removal efficiency of 36%.
3. With regard to the ammonia absorption system, efficiencies
were obtained which ranged from 55 to 92%, which is re-
lated mainly to the airflow in which the tower was operated
and the concentration of acid absorption solution. The best
performance of this system was obtained with QAIR/QLIX
ratio = 45 and acid solution concentration of 0.24 mol/L.
4. The costs for operating the air stripping tower are high,
with the highest cost being associated with electricity con-
sumption. The best performance was achieved with the
operation in a QAR/QLIX = 200 ratio tower, with an aver-
age cost of approximately 51.642 US$/m3 of treated
leachate. And in relation to the costs of the absorption
system, the acid solution has a very high cost, being nec-
essary the study of less expensive alternatives. However,
there is the possibility of the sale of the fertilizer solution
generated from the chemical absorption of ammonia.
Moreover, in terms of electricity costs, landfills are in-
creasingly implementing CDM projects aimed at selling
carbon credits, where methane gas generated in landfills is
burned or reused as energy. As a result, electricity costs
would not be really a problem. In addition, proceeds from
the sale of credits can also be reapplied to improve efflu-
ent treatment technologies.
References
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works
Association (AWWA) & Water Environment Federation (WEF)
(2005) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater
45119
Baettker E, Kozak C, Knapik HG, Aisse MM (2020) Applicability of
conventional and non-conventional parameters for municipal land-
fill leachate characterization. Chemosphere 126414:126414. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126414
BRAZIL, MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE, CONSELHO
NACIONAL DO MEIO AMBIENTE – CONAMA (2011)
Resolução n° 430 de maio de 2011. Dispõe sobre as condições e
padrões de lançamento de efluentes; complementa e altera a
Resolução no 357, de 17 de março de 2005, do Conselho
Nacional do Meio Ambiente-CONAMA. D.O.U
Campos JC, Moura D, Costa AP, Yokoyama L, Araujo FVDF,
Cammarota MC, Cardillo L (2013) Evaluation of pH, alkalinity
and temperature during air stripping process for ammonia removal
from landfill leachate. Journal of Environmental Science and Health
Part A 48(9):1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2013.
774658
Cheung KC, Chu LM, Wong MH (1997) Ammonia stripping as a pre-
treatment for landfill leachate. Water Air Soil Pollut 94:209–221.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02407103
Clement B, Merlin G (1995) The contribution of ammonia and alkalinity
to landfill leachate toxicity to duckweed. The Science of the Total
Environmental 17:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)
04563-G
Costa AM, Alfaia RG d SM, Campos JC (2019) Landfill leachate treat-
ment in Brazil—an overview. J Environ Manag 232:110–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.006
Ferraz FM (2010) Recuperação da amônia liberada no processo de “air
stripping” aplicado ao tratamento de lixiviado de aterros sanitários.
Dissertation, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos da Universidade
de São Paulo
Ferraz FM, Povinelli J, Vieira EM (2013) Ammonia removal from land-
fill leachate by air stripping and absorption. Environ Technol
34(15):2317–2326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.767283
Gomes LP et al (2009) Estudos de caracterização e tratabilidade de
lixiviados de aterros sanitários para as condições brasileiras.
ABES. Projeto PROSAB, Rio de Janeiro
Hanira NML, Hasfalina CM, Rashid M, Luqman CA, Abdullah AM
(2017a) Effect of dilution and operating parameters on ammonia
removal from scheduled waste landfill leachate in a lab-scale am-
monia stripping reactor. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering 206(1):012076
Hanira NML, Hasfalina CM, Rashid M, Luqman CA, Abdullah AM
(2017b) Effect of dilution and operating parameters on ammonia
removal from scheduled waste landfill leachate in a lab-scale am-
monia stripping reactor. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering 206:1–10
Huang JC, Shang C (2006) Air stripping. Advanced physicochemical
treatment. Handbook of Environmental Engineering. Human Press
Junior ASB, Delduque T P, Valéria K, Prates C, Fazolo A (2016)
Aplicação de conduto corrugado em air stripping de nitrogênio
amoniacal. Congresso Técnico Científico da Engenharia e da
Agronomia CONTECC’2016, Foz do Iguaçu-PR
Lange LC, Amaral MCS (2009) Geração e Características do Lixiviado.
In: Gomes, L. P. (Coord). Estudos de caracterização e tratabilidade
de lixiviados de aterros sanitários para as condições brasileiras. Rio
de Janeiro: ABES. Projeto PROSAB
Leite VD, Fernandes F, Jucá JFT, Gomes LP, Lopes WS, Sousa JT, Silva
FMF, Caetano MO (2009) Estudo do Processo de Stripping de
Amônia de Lixiviado de Aterro Sanitário. In: Gomes, L. P.
(Coord). Estudos de caracterização e tratabilidade de lixiviados de
aterros sanitários para as condições brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro:
ABES. Projeto PROSAB
Leite VD, Paredes JM, de Sousa TA, Lopes WS, de Sousa JT (2018)
Ammoniacal nitrogen stripping from landfill leachate at open hori-
zontal flow reactors. Water Environment Research 90(5):387–394.
https://doi.org/10.2175/106143017X15131012152942
45120
Li XZ, Zhao QL, Hao XD (1999) Ammonium removal from landfill
leachate by chemical precipitation. Waste Manag 19:409–415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(99)00148-8
Liu Z, Wu W, Shi P, Guo J, Cheng J (2015) Characterization of dissolved
organic matter in landfill leachate during the combined treatment
process of air stripping, Fenton, SBR and coagulation. Waste
Manag 41:111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.044
Marttinen SK, Kettunen RH, Sormunen KM, Soimasuo RM, Rintala JA
(2002) Screening of physical–chemical methods for removal of or-
ganic material, nitrogen and toxicity from low strength landfill
leachates. Chemosfere 46(6):851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0045-6535(01)00150-3
Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. 4ª
Ed. International Edition
Monteiro VED, Melo MC, Jucá JFT (2002) Biological degradation anal-
ysis in Muribeca solid waste landfill associated with local climate,
Recife, Brazil. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress
on Environmental Geotechnics, Brazil
Santos HAP (2011) Recuperação da amônia removida por processo de air
stripping aplicado ao tratamento de lixiviados de aterro sanitário:
estudo em escala piloto. 2011. 107 f. Dissertation, Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina
Smaoui Y, Mlaik N, Bouzid J, Sayadi S (2018) Improvement of anaero-
bic digestion of landfill leachate by using coagulation-flocculation,
Fenton's oxidation and air stripping pretreatments. Environ Prog
Sustain Energy 37(3):1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12781
Souto GDB (2009) Lixiviado de aterros sanitários brasileiros: estudo de
remoção do nitrogênio amoniacal por processo de arraste com ar
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:45108–45120
(“stripping”). Thesis, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos da
Universidade de São Paulo
Sprovieri JAS, Octavio de Souza TS, Contrera RC (2020) Ammonia
removal and recovery from municipal landfill leachates by heating.
J Environ Manag 256:109947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2019.109947
Tränkler J, Visvanathan C, Kuruparan P, Tubtimthai O (2005) Influence
of tropical seasonal variation on landfill leachate characteristics—
results from lysimeter studies. Waste Manag 25:1013–1020. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.004
USEPA – UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (1993) Nitrogen Control. US. Environmental Protection
Agency – Technology Transfer
USEPA – UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (1995) Control and pollution prevention options for am-
monia emissions. US. Environmental Protection Agency –
Technology Transfer
Yokoyama LK, Campos JCK, Moura DAGK, Costa APMK, Cardillo L
(2009) Ammonia removal from landfill leachate by air stripping. In:
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 12,
2009, Sardinia. International Waste Working Group. CD ROM
Youcai Z (2018) Pollution control Technology for Leachate from munic-
ipal solid waste: landfills, incineration plants, and transfer stations.
Butterworth-Heinemann
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.