Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

A survey on experiences in leachate treatment: Common practices,

differences worldwide and future perspectives
Yuri Abner Rocha Lebron *, Victor Rezende Moreira **, Yara Luiza Brasil,
Ana Flávia Rezende Silva, Lucilaine Valéria de Souza Santos, Liséte Celina Lange,
Míriam Cristina Santos Amaral
Department of Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Avenue Antônio Carlos, 6627, Campus Pampulha,
MG, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The necessity for landfill leachate treatment is a requisite to reduce the environmental impact related to
Landfill leachate municipal solid waste landfills and different aspects must be considered while deciding for an appropriate
Integrated treatment routes treatment process. For example, it was demonstrated that the landfill leachate stabilization in tropical regions is
Membrane bioreactors
achieved right after its first year of operation, requiring technologies capable of treating leachates of a higher
Reverse osmosis
recalcitrant character if compared to those leachates from temperate regions and same landfill age. In view of its
Nanofiltration
complexity and variability, stand-alone processes (either biological or physicochemical) are often ineffective in
attaining the threshold values for its discharge in receiving bodies. Due to that fact, full-scale facilities have
adopted integrated routes, harvesting the benefits of both biological and physicochemical processes. The
implementation of membrane bioreactors followed by polishing membrane separation process (nanofiltration
and reverse osmosis) seems to be a trend in leachate treatment by full-scale treatment plants. This technology is
widely employed in China, European countries, and tropical countries as Brazil, generally with a treatment cost
lower than the costs related to its disposal in domestic effluent collection systems. From the technologies already
employed by full-scale facilities, four integrated routes were proposed for a sensitive analysis considering the
treatment of a landfill leachate of different physicochemical characteristics. From all routes, those employing the
membrane separation process as a polishing step had a better efficacy in attaining the threshold values for
leachate disposal, being that an interesting alternative for leachate polishing by full-scale facilities.

1. Introduction et al., 2015).

The increase in municipal solid waste (MSW) generation has become
a major challenge for our society in view of the environmental and
economic problems associated with its disposal. Compared to other
technologies, such as incineration and composting, the disposal of MSW
in landfills is relatively fast, inexpensive and still a widely used method
for its management (Luo et al., 2017; Renou et al., 2008). It is estimated
that approximately 95% of all MSW collected worldwide is disposed in
landfills (Gao et al., 2015). Although modern landfills facilities are
designed to eliminate or minimize the adverse impact of MSW disposal,
the leachate generation is still a subject of concern, threatening the
integrity of the soil, surface and groundwater (Luo et al., 2019; Yan
Once in the landfill, the MSW (more specifically the organic matter)
undergoes through a series of degradation pathways (Fig. 1) that con­
tributes to the leachate production. For young landfills, which contains
high amounts of biodegradable organic matter, rapid fermentation oc­
curs resulting in volatile fatty acids (VFA) as the main products. Acid
fermentation is enhanced by a high moisture or water content in solid
waste (Wang et al., 2003). This initial stage in a young landfill is referred
to the acidogenic phase and is responsible to the release of large
amounts of free VFA (up to 95% of the organic content) (Renou et al.,
2008). In a mature landfill, the methanogenic phase occurs, in which the
VFAs are converted into biogas (mainly CH4 and CO2). In that phase, the
refractory compounds as humic substances predominates the leachate

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yuri.lebron@outlook.com (Y.A.R. Lebron), victorrznde.eng@gmail.com (V.R. Moreira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112475
Received 26 January 2021; Received in revised form 12 March 2021; Accepted 22 March 2021
Available online 7 April 2021
0301-4797/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Fig. 1. COD balance in the organic fraction of landfill leachate (adapted from
Renou et al., 2008).
organic fraction (Renou et al., 2008). However, a complete conversion
of the organic matter in MSW to CH4 and CO2 as represented in Fig. 1
does not always occurs, which results in a high load of recalcitrant and
toxic compounds in the final leachate composition. Due to that fact, an
effective treatment route is required to treat landfill leachate and reduce
the environmental impact related to landfilling.
In this paper, a concise literature review was carried out to sum­
marize the treatment routes current available, considering the following
database and search engines: Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct,
and Google Scholar. The keywords searched for were leachate treat­
ment, full-scale, pilot-scale, biological leachate treatment, physico­
chemical leachate treatment and advanced leachate treatment. More
than 180 research papers were consulted from 1979 to 2020. The
research fields with major contributions (87%) for the published
research papers were Environmental Science, Engineering Environ­
mental, Water Sources and Engineering Chemistry. The authors decided
to report the studies focused on full- and pilot-scale studies, however,
some bench scale test results were reported to give a perspective into
what technologies may be implemented in pilot or even at full-scale in
the future. The aim of this review is the discussion of the different
processes used in the landfill leachate treatment according to the
research papers found. In this sense, the treatment processes were
evaluated individually, with the description of their operation, followed
by the presentation of the papers that evaluated the system. Further­
more, a special attention was given to tropical regions, which differ the
current review paper from those already available in current literature.
The higher temperature in these regions compared to temperate regions
seems to promote a faster stabilization of the organic matter, leading to a
leachate of higher recalcitrant character in which the biological treat­
ments commonly employed could be ineffective. Therefore, more robust
2
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
technologies are being sought, expanding the knowledge in complex
wastewater treatments such as leachate.
2. Leachate characterization
There are different factors that can affect the leachate composition.
Among them are the landfill age, rainfall, climate and seasonal varia­
tion, type and composition of waste disposed, the waste compaction,
among other aspects (Dias, 2012; Magalhães, 2005). From that, it is
presumable that the leachate composition varies considerably between
landfills, as well as different seasons for the same installation (Kuli­
kowska and Klimiuk, 2008).
Table 1 brings range values for the main physicochemical charac­
teristics for the leachate according to the landfill age. Despite the high
variability, in general the leachate is characterized by high concentra­
tions of ammoniacal nitrogen (N–NH3), chloride, sulfate, in addition to
heavy metals and other organic compounds in smaller proportions.
Furthermore, Fig. 2 shows the variability of the physicochemical pa­
rameters considering a survey of 27 leachates (Amaral et al., 2016;
Argun et al., 2020; Azari et al., 2017; Bakhshoodeh et al., 2017; Cin­
golani et al., 2018; 2017; Contrera et al., 2014; Fudala-Ksiazek et al.,
2018; Geenens et al., 2001; Li et al., 2009; Mannarino et al., 2006;
Morling, 2010; Ozturk et al., 2003; Remmas et al., 2018; Ribera-Pi et al.,
2020; Sadeghi et al., 2018; Sheng et al., 2020; Soares et al., 2017; Speer
et al., 2012; Theepharaksapan et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2010; Welander
et al., 1998; Yaman et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019a,
b). It is worth noting that leachate has, commonly, a low biodegradable
fraction, which tends to decrease with the advancement of the landfill
age (Assou et al., 2016). The same could be observed for the parameters
ammoniacal nitrogen and chloride which, although in smaller pro­
portions in leachates from older landfills, are still present in high con­
centrations. The leachate biodegradability could be even smaller in
tropical regions compared to others of temperate climate, due to the
greater biological activity under warmer conditions (Chen, 1996). The
predominance of recalcitrant compounds in leachate would occur, ac­
cording to several authors (Chen, 1996; Ferreira, 2010; Lima et al.,
2016), within 1.5 years of the start of the landfill operation. Lima (1989)
monitored the physicochemical characteristics of a landfill located in
Brazil (Landfill of Santa Bárbara landfill, Campinas – SP), reporting a
peak for the chemical oxygen demand (COD, 100,000 mg/L) in the 2nd
month of operation. Thereafter, organic matter seems to have stabilized
and in the 10th month the leachate has reached COD levels similar to
landfills older than 10 years located in temperate climates (COD ~ 1000
mg/L).
To show that in tropical regions the BOD/COD achieve lower values
a survey of this topic was carried out and the results were organized in
Fig. 3. In Fig. 3a the significant negative correlation (ρ = − 0.663 and
− 0.896 for temperate and tropical climates, respectively) between the
landfill age and the BOD/COD ratio is highlighted. This occurs mainly
because in mature landfills, the methanogenic phase is pronounced, so
the biodegradable organic matter is converted into biogas (mainly CH4
and CO2), leaving recalcitrant compounds such as humic substances in
the leachate (Renou et al., 2008). Furthermore, a significant difference
in BOD/COD ratio (p = 0.002) was found between the two climates,
which could also be seen in Fig. 3a – for any given landfill age the
BOD/COD ratio for the tropical climate is lower. The warmer climate in
tropical regions can be the precursor for changes in microbiome and
enhanced microbiological activity (Chen, 1996; Ferreira, 2010; Lima
et al., 2016; Renou et al., 2008), which ultimately translates to the rapid
stabilization of biodegradable organic matter which reduces the
BOD/COD ratio. The rapid biodegradable organic matter stabilization
was also observed in a different leachate located in Brazil (Landfill of
São Giácomo, Caxias do Sul – RS) (Souto, 2009). In this case, both COD
and the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) decreased to values around
1000 mg/L, however after 400 days of operation.
Another correlation that can be seen is between the leachate flow
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Table 1
Physicochemical characteristics of landfill leachate according to the age of the landfill, and its comparison with domestic effluent. References (Cano, 2014; Costa et al.,
2019; Dias, 2012; Farquhar, 1989; Gao et al., 2015; Metcalf et al., 1979):
Parameters Landfill age and leachate characteristics in temperate regions Landfill age and characteristics in tropical regions Domestic effluent

0–5 years 5–10 years 10–20 years 0.5–2 years 1.7–2.1 years 7.2–14.4 years –

pH 3–6 6–7 >7.5 7.80–8.50 6.2–8.3 7.3–8.4 7

BOD (mg/L) 10,000–25,000 1000–4000 50–1000 275–453 1-7068 1-12,766 200
COD (mg/L) 15,000–40,000 10,000–20,000 1000–5000 1230–6027 164-17,440 576-21,137 400
BOD/COD 0.6–0.7 0.1–0.2 0.1–0.2 – <0.006–0.3 <0.002–0.3 0.5
Biodegradability medium-high medium low – low low medium-high
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 1500–4500 400–800 75–300 – – – 40
Ammoniacal nitrogen (mg/L) 1500–4250 250–700 50–200 526-1787 21.1–1120 133-2808 25
Chloride (mg/L) 1000–3000 500–2000 100–500 2499–4204 – – 50
Phosphorous (mg/L) 100–300 10–100 – 3.81–7342 – – 7
Alkalinity (mg/L) 8000–18,000 4500–6000 – 3325–5015 – – 140
Conductivity (mS/cm) 15–41.5 6.0–14.0 – 8900–10,872 677-14,590 3920–25,630 –
Sulfate (mg/L) 500–2000 200–1000 50–200 – – – 30
Iron (mg/L) 500–1500 500–1000 100–500 38–46 – – –
Zinc (mg/L) 100–200 50–100 10–50 0.5–13.7 – – –
Trace metals (mg/L) >2 <2 <2 <2 <3.88 <1.6 –
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 10,000–25,000 5000–10,000 2000–5000 70-5885 310-3480 720

Fig. 2. Common pollutants found in the leachate (A) nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2) and total phosphorus (TP); (B) biochemical and chemical oxygen demand (BOD and
COD, respectively) and their ratio (BOD/COD); (C) Total nitrogen kjeldahl (NTK), NH3–N and NH4–N; (D) dissolved metals and metalloid.

rate and the waste disposed in the landfill (Fig. 3b). In this case, higher
waste disposal showed strong correlations (ρ = 0.939 and 0.927 for
tropical and temperate climates) with the leachate flowrate. Although
some other factors such as climate and mean precipitation can influence
the leachate flowrate, in this survey there was no significant difference
(p = 0.254) between the two climates assessed.
An important comparison to be mentioned is between the leachate
and domestic effluents in terms of recalcitrance and its content of
inorganic species, which could be responsible for the inhibition of the
biological sludge activity. This fact suggests the necessity for different
treatment technologies for both effluents, capable of removing organic
matter while withstanding the toxicity in landfill leachate - mainly
caused by high concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen (Amaral et al.,
2008). That would justify the inefficiency of conventional biological
process, commonly designed for domestic effluent treatment, in attain­
ing the threshold values for treated leachate disposal when applied as
standalone processes (Cano, 2014; Mannarino et al., 2011). Further­
more, although the BOD/COD ratio is widely used to assess the domestic
effluent biodegradability, its application for leachate and industrial ef­
fluents can lead to erroneous conclusions. Aiming for a more assertive
conclusion about the real biodegradability of leachate, it is suggested to
carry out bench scale biodegradability tests, like the one performed by

3
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Kamaruddin et al. (2017)

Kashiwada et al. (2005)
Meio Ambiente (2011)

Trebouet et al. (2001)

Conselho Nacional do

Ngo et al. (2008)

Rukapan (2007)

(R et al., 2005)
WPCO (1997)

Oliver (2005)
EQA (2009)

EPA (2008)
Ref.
N–NH3 (mg/

Nitrogen)

Nitrogen)
70 (Total

30 (Total
5.0

5.0

2.0

0.5
20

25

10
L)

–
(mg/L)
Nitrate

50

2
–

–
–

–
–

–
–
(mg/L)
Nitrite

1
–

–
–

–
–

–
–

–
–
(mg/L)
Sulfate

–
–

–
–

–
–

–
–

–
–
solids (mg/L)
Suspended

700
30

50

30
30

20
35

20
30
–

–
(mg/L)

1500
COD

180

100

400

120
100

200
200

120
–

–
(mg/L)

Fig. 3. (a) BOD/COD ratio over the landfill age in different climates and (b)
BOD

700

leachate flowrate in different climates over the waste disposed in the landfill.
60

30

20

20
30

20
20

10
30
–
vegetable oil (mg/

Amaral et al. (2008).

National and international legislation relevant to the disposal of effluents in receiving bodies.

Table 2 presents the discharge limits for treated effluents in different

Grease and

countries, serving as a basis for the establishment of routes can attain

these parameters, especially in terms of COD, BOD and N–NH3.
100
50

15
50

10

10
10
L)

–
–
3. Landfill leachate treatment
Mineral oils

Different technologies are available for landfill leachate treatment,

(mg/L)

they are based on biological processes (activated sludge, aerobic and

20

15

10

10
–

–
–

–
–

anaerobic stabilization ponds and biological filters), physicochemical

processes (coagulation/flocculation, adsorption, chemical precipitation,
Sedimentable solids

stripping, chemical oxidation, ion exchange and electrochemical treat­

ment), membrane filtration (microfiltration/ultrafiltration, nano­
(mL/min)

filtration and reverse osmosis), advanced oxidative processes (Fenton

and ozonation) and natural systems (wetlands). The decision for the
most appropriate technology should consider, among other variables,
1

–
–

–
–

–
–

–
–

–
–

the relationship between the landfill age and the leachate composition.
As shown in Table 3, only a few processes would perform well inde­
Temperature

pendently of the landfill age.

(summer)

(winter)
<40 ◦ C

<45 ◦ C

<40 ◦ C

<38 ◦ C

<35 ◦ C

<32 ◦ C
<40 ◦ C

<25 ◦ C

Although biological processes are recognized for their operational

simplicity and favorable cost-benefit, their effectiveness would be
–

restricted to landfills whose biodegradable fraction is greater than

6.0–9.0

6.0–9.0
5.5–9.0

5.5–9.0
6.0–9.0

6.5–8.5
5.0–9.0

6.5–9.0
5.5–8.5
6.5–10

10,000 mg/L, which corresponds to landfills between 0 and 2 years of

5–9
pH

operation in the case of tropical regions, and 0–10 years for temperate
regions. Even so, the high concentrations of cyanide, chromium, nickel
China (Hong

and zinc, can promote the inhibition of the microorganisms responsible

Kingdom

Germany

Australia
Malaysia

Thailand

for the ammonia removal (Brennan et al., 2016). With the increase in
Kong)
Country

States

Canada
Table 2

United

United

France
China
Brazil

landfill age, and due to the high ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations,

the biological treatment processes could become ineffective in attaining

4
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Table 3 3.1. Biological process for leachate treatment

Treatments applied to leachate treatment classified according to their effec­
tiveness: good performance ( ), satisfactory performance ( ), inadequate ( ) A common solution still employed, especially in short-income
Reference: (Costa et al., 2019). countries, is to treat landfill leachate alongside with domestic effluent
Process Landfill age (years) (Costa et al., 2019). The practice is still adopted due to the low operating
0–5 5–10 10–20 costs and operational facility. However, this option has been questioned
in recent years in view of the presence of inhibitory compounds with low
Biological process
Aerobic
biodegradability and trace metals, that can reduce the biological treat­
Anaerobic ment efficiency (Çeçen and Aktaş, 2004). Due to that fact, it is of
Membrane bioreactors fundamental importance to know the leachate characteristics while
Physicochemical process stablishing the most appropriate form for its treatment (Dias, 2012).
Coagulation – flocculation
For leachates with a high BOD/COD ratio (>0.5; obtained at early
Chemical precipitation
Adsorption years of landfill operation), the application of biological process is still
Oxidative processes an effective alternative (Miao et al., 2019). Depending on the oxygen
Stripping availability, the biological treatment can be divided into aerobic and
Membranes anaerobic. Under aerobic conditions, microorganisms convert organic
Ultrafiltration
compounds into carbon dioxide (CO2) and sludge, whereas in anaerobic
Nanofiltration conditions they convert organic matter into biogas (for example, CO2
Reverse osmosis and CH4).

3.1.1. Stabilization ponds

the threshold values stablished in legislation for its discharge into water
bodies (Kurniawan et al., 2006). Thus, the integration of biological and
physicochemical processes appears to be an interesting alternative to
harvest the advantages of both technologies. Generally, physical and
chemical technologies are implemented aiming at ammonia removal, in
cases that they are used as pre-treatment, and aimed at recalcitrant
compounds removal, in post-treatment stages.
Among the physicochemical process, the chemical precipitation
shows operational simplicity and a fast reaction rate – in most cases
higher than biological processes. On the other hand, this technique is
often inefficient for organic matter and total solids removal (Gomes,
2009). High concentrations of phosphorus have also been reported in
the effluent after precipitation processes, which could favor the eutro­
phication of receiving bodies.
In addition to the techniques mentioned so far, membrane separation
technology presents itself as an interesting alternative whenever is
necessary to eliminate colloids and suspended materials in pre-
treatment steps, in this case using micro or ultrafiltration membranes,
or as a polishing process, using nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis
(RO). The RO, for example, have shown COD and ammoniacal nitrogen
rejection greater than 98%, uprising as a promising alternative for
leachate treatment as will be further discussed (Peng, 2017).
Ponds (aerobic and anaerobic, Fig. 4) are, generally, an effective and
low-cost method for removing pathogens, organic and inorganic matter.
Its low operation and maintenance cost put forward its application,
being a recurrent choice for leachate treatment especially in developing
countries (Renou et al., 2008). The first attempts to treat leachate (1970s
and 1980s) based on stabilization ponds used a set of aerated lagoons
and achieved interesting results. The ponds were large, typically 1–2 m
deep and generally designed to look like natural lakes, with vegetation
around their perimeter. A small subsurface aeration system is used to
supply the oxygen requirements and maintain a circulation rate, but it
was rarely suitable for providing a turbulent mixture of biological solids,
which usually settle in stagnation areas of the lagoon (IPPC and SEPA,
2007).
In stabilization ponds, the biodegradable organic matter is stabilized
by a combination of aerobic and anaerobic processes. Without an
aeration system, the bottom of the lagoon becomes anaerobic, in which
the biological sludge and solids settle to be converted into carbon di­
oxide and methane. Conversely, the upper part of the lagoon is aerobic,
with oxygen supplied by a combination of the aeration system, passive
aeration through the water/air interface and the algae growth. The
upper aerobic layers act as a barrier to oxidize reduced compounds
derived from the underlying anaerobic zone, minimizing the release of

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of a facultative stabilization lagoon system applied to leachate treatment.

5
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
undesirable odors (Von Sperling, 2014).
A few limitations of these systems can be mentioned. In general, the
effectiveness of ponds is constrained in treating relatively weak leachate
(ammoniacal nitrogen <300 mg/L), which not necessarily comprises the
values observed for leachates reported in Table 1. Therefore, they are
often unable to provide a consistent treatment in addition to having high
hydraulic retention times, upwards of weeks (IPPC and SEPA, 2007).
Nonetheless, the environmental impacts and concerns related to this
type of technology include the large area requirement for installation,
difficulties in removing excessive sludge from the ponds, temperature
sensitivity and potential for undesirable odors production (Renou et al.,
2008).
The performance of stabilization ponds varies between the different
studies available in the literature, which reinforces the statement about
their robustness, and subjection to the landfill age and the leachate
characteristics. Mæhlum (1995) assessed a set of anaerobic-aerobic la­
goons, followed by wetlands, for landfill leachate treatment and re­
ported removal values of N, P and Fe greater than 70% for a diluted
leachate. In this treatment plant, Stage 1 is composed of 400 m3
anaerobic lagoon with a retention time of 3 days. Stage 2 is composed of
4000 m3 aerated lagoon with a theoretical retention time of 30 days. In
Stage 3 there are two parallel horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetlands, with a retention time of 5 days or more. The last Stage, 4, is a
2000 m2 free surface flow constructed wetlands. Frascari et al. (2004)
evaluated the efficiency of non-aerated lagoons system and reported a
COD removal efficiency of 40% while treating a more recalcitrant
leachate (BOD/COD = 0.25, landfill age >10 years). The system pre­
sented by the authors consists of two lagoon systems characterized by
anaerobic conditions with a 32-day retention time, and three facultative
lagoons with 240-day retention time.
Despite the environmental impacts and unstable performance, sta­
bilization ponds are still used to treat leachate from several sanitary
landfills in Brazil (Dias, 2012). From the landfills surveyed by Dias
(2012) (32 in total), 13 accounted with stabilization ponds in their
leachate treatment plants. However, about 70% of these lagoons per­
formed below expectations, acting as accumulation and evaporation
tanks and, therefore, not adjusting the leachate to the standards required
for its disposal (BOD concentrations > 68 mg/L). Although considered
efficient for BOD and COD removal by the authors, the values for total
suspended solids and ammoniacal nitrogen were still high after the
leachate treatment, indicating the necessity for the additional treatment
processes (Dias, 2012). It must also be mentioned that the BOD and COD
removals reported by Dias (2012) came with a cost of a high hydraulic
retention time, in some cases reaching 122 days, which makes the
operation of these systems unfeasible. The results observed by Dias is in
accordance with others available on recent literature. Another study by
Vieira et al. (2020) showed that the leachate treatment from a sanitary
landfill by a series of lagoons did not achieved the threshold values for
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of an activated sludge system applied to leachate treatment.
6
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
disposal, especially in terms of ammoniacal nitrogen concentration. The
authors evaluated a treatment plant located in Lages (Santa Catarina,
Brazil). The system has an average total hydraulic retention time (HRT)
of 118 days, consisting of one anaerobic lagoon (HRT = 20 days), two
facultative lagoons (HRT = 92 days), two aerated lagoons (HRT = 4
days), physicochemical treatment based on coagulation/flocculation,
two settling lagoons (HRT = 2 days) and disinfection.
3.1.2. Activated sludge systems
The activated sludge is a mixture of microorganisms cultivated
within a reactor, responsible for organic matter consumption and further
transformation, via aerobic metabolism, into new biological biomass,
CO2, water, and minerals. The activated sludge system (Fig. 5) is
considered a more intensive treatment compared to stabilization ponds,
operating with higher population of acclimated bacteria combined with
more intense and vigorous aeration. The mixed liquor overflows
continuously from the biological tank to a separation stage, usually
comprised by a settling tank. Here, the biomass/sludge is decanted and
returned to the biological reactor whereas the clarified effluent is
collected from its surface, either for discharge or further treatment. The
activated sludge is widely used for municipal wastewater treatment or in
the co-treatment of leachate and domestic effluent in a combined stream
(IPPC and SEPA, 2007; Luo et al., 2020). However, as a standalone
process, this method has proven to be inadequate to attain the threshold
values for landfill leachate disposal (Lin et al., 2000).
Baumgarten and Seyfried (1996) evaluated the efficiency of an
activated sludge system for leachate treatment (BOD/COD = 0.33) and
reported an average efficiency of 59% for COD removal. One of the
weakness of the activated sludge process for leachate treatment is the
necessity for the sludge separation from the treated effluent (Loukidou
and Zouboulis, 2001). Any short-term variations in the biomass’s ability
to flocculate and sediment are quickly reflected in a final effluent of low
quality. Furthermore, although the ammoniacal nitrogen could be con­
verted into nitrite and nitrate, denitrification does not occur effectively
in these systems. For this reason, the standards for total nitrogen in the
final effluent is not often attained. In particular, leachate with a high
nitrate concentration can favor the development of anoxic conditions in
the settling tank and, therefore, lead to uncontrolled denitrification.
Consequently, nitrogen gas bubbles are generated that bind to the sludge
flocks, favoring its flotation in the settling tank and impacting the
quality of the effluent treated. Other limitations related to activated
sludges are the microbial inhibition due to the high concentration of
ammoniacal nitrogen, high energy demand and excessive sludge pro­
duction (Hoilijoki, 2000).
3.1.3. Biological filters
A trickling filter (Fig. 6) is an aerobic system that comprises a fixed
bed reactor, over which bacterial films grow attached to a media
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Fig. 6. Schematic representation of a biological filter applied to leachate treatment.
support. The height of the filter varies between 2 and 4 m, fulfilled by
different materials that serves as a support, which varies from blast
furnace slag or cuttings, to specialized plastic units (media) designed
with a high surface area. The media itself does not participate in the
treatment, acting only as a surface to which the biological films are
effectively attached.
In these systems, the effluent is evenly irrigated over the top of the
trickling system and percolates under the gravity effect (Matthews et al.,
2009). The downstream collected at the bottom of the filter is conducted
to a clarifier in order to remove biological solids that eventually come off
from the media (IPPC and SEPA, 2007). Due to the inevitable obstruc­
tions caused by biomass, biological filters are not suitable for treating
effluents with a high concentration of organic matter, such as leachate
from young landfills, but can still be used for the biological treatment of
diluted leachate (Torretta et al., 2016).
Mondal and Warith (2008) assessed the efficiency of a bench-scale
biological filter for leachate treatment. The authors reported 76% of
COD removal efficiency (HRT = 21 days), 81% of BOD (HRT = 21 days)
and 15% of ammonia (removal in 7 days). The effectiveness of these
systems is generally limited to leachates with an ammoniacal nitrogen
concentration <50 mg/L, and the use of biological filters for leachates of
a more pronounced recalcitrant character has failed on many occasions.
Typical reasons for its inefficiency are: (i) filter media clogging with
organic and inorganic sludge; (ii) nitrification inhibition in view of the
lower temperatures, daytime (at night) or seasonally (in winter); (iii)
inability to provide the alkalinity requirements for an uniform nitrifi­
cation; (iv) inhibition of nitrifying agents in the top of the filter as the
Fig. 7. Schematic representation of a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) applied to leachate treatment.
7
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
upper layers receive higher concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen,
which leads to a significant inhibition of these microorganisms; (v)
inability to attain the oxygen requirements (IPPC and SEPA, 2007).
3.1.4. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
Due to the main problems of sludge sedimentation or inadequate
separability in conventional aerobic systems, several innovative aerobic
processes, through which biomass grows adhered to a support medium,
were developed. These systems have the advantage of not suffering loss
of active biomass. In addition, the process efficiency is more resilient
towards high content of ammoniacal nitrogen (Loukidou and Zouboulis,
2001).
The MBBR system (Fig. 7) consists of an aerated biological tank
(similar to an activated sludge tank) with special supports (media) that
provide surface area on which a biofilm can grow. This support medium
is mixed in the biological tank by the aeration system and, therefore,
there is a good contact between the substrate in the wastewater and the
biomass in the support medium. Other MBBR advantages over activated
sludge include high concentrations of biomass, reduced settling time,
less sensitivity to toxic compounds and high organic and ammonia re­
movals in a single process (Horan et al., 1997; Renou et al., 2008;
Welander et al., 1997).
Loukidou and Zouboulis (2001) showed that it was possible to ach­
ieve 85–90% reduction in ammonia and 60–81% reduction in COD with
the use of a laboratory-scale MBBR treating a leachate with a BOD/COD
ratio ~ 2.5. More recently Xiong et al. (2018) showed that the
laboratory-scale MBBR technology was able to tolerate large
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
fluctuations in the concentrations of NH4–N in leachate from a landfill
over the age of 10 and maintain a nitrification efficiency above 60%,
reaching up to 85%. Nascentes et al. (2016) evaluated the efficiency of a
laboratory-scale MBBR in the treatment of a leachate with COD equal to
722 mg/L and ammonia 203.5 mg/L. The authors reported a COD
removal efficiency of 80% using a hydraulic retention time of 16 h.
Welander et al. (1998) reported an efficiency of 90% total nitrogen and
20% COD, reaching the discharge limits for COD but failing for total
nitrogen. The authors carried out the experiments in a pilot scale
two-stage suspended carrier biofilm process. The reactors were operated
aerobically, each with HRT of 4 days, for nitrification and removal of
organic matter in the first reactor, and for denitrification in the second
reactor. The pilot-scale study by Canziani et al. (2006) showed that
when an MBBR is preceded by a MBR, COD removal is greater than 90%
and total nitrogen removal exceeds 95%, in the case studied the total
nitrogen concentration in the effluent never exceeded 50 mg/L.
3.1.5. Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process (Fig. 8) is essentially an
advanced form of the traditional activated sludge process, where the
biological part of the process is combined with a micro- or ultrafiltration
membrane technology (MF and UF respectively) that guarantee a longer
sludge retention time. This replaces the need for a separate settling tank,
which is usually the rate limiting step in conventional wastewater
treatment. In addition, when compared with conventional biological
processes, MBRs have higher degradation rate of contaminants, in
addition to lower demands for area per installation (Zhang et al., 2006).
Due to the improved efficiency of solids separation by the membrane,
much higher biomass concentrations can be maintained in the biore­
actor, where values of solids suspended in mixed liquor of up to 20,000
mg/L are typical. This allows for more intensive treatment and reduces
the plant size required for a given load of contaminants.
The recent developments in membrane filtration units is an impor­
tant aspect that favors their application in MBR systems. Strategies as
turbulent and directed air flow along the membrane surfaces have also
contributed to better membrane fouling control, therefore reducing the
size of the ultrafiltration/microfiltration units required for a given
application. In addition, MBR systems today are equipped with auto­
matic backwash control systems to keep the filtration rate constant
(Drews, 2010).
Data extracted from different references (Bove et al., 2015; Campa­
gna et al., 2013; Coppini et al., 2018; Hua and Zhang, 2012; Li et al.,
Fig. 8. Schematic representation of a membrane bioreactor applied to leachate treatment.
8
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
2009; Remmas et al., 2018) showed that MBRs are highly robust when
treating landfill leachate if compared to other biological treatments.
This is because MBR reached an average COD removal of 89.6%, BOD
92.9% and NH3–N 97.5%, resisting the high variability in the leachate
physicochemical characteristics. The leachate treated by MBRs com­
bined with subsequent polishing steps such as NF can have character­
istics such that they can be disposed of in receiving bodies, without
violating the concentration of total ammoniac nitrogen and COD (Hasar
et al., 2009; Silva et al., 2019). Applying MBRs, Hasar et al. (2009)
showed COD values and ammonia nitrogen of <4 mg/L and <20 mg/L,
respectively, for leachate after tertiary treatment with RO membranes.
Ozturk et al. (2003) also reported a high efficiency in removing COD
(99% 1700 mg/L) from a pre-treated leachate through UASB reactors
followed by RO. The estimated cost by the authors for the RO system
operation in this case was 0.97 €/m3.
It is important to note that this technology is strongly consolidated in
China, where in 2010 the national government of the country published
a technical note entitled “National Technical Specification of the Project for
Leachate Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (HJ 564–2010)”
where MBR is listed as a consolidated technology commonly used for
leachate treatment. The same technical note brings detailed recom­
mendations for MBR operations, being an interesting guideline to keep
in mind while deciding for a MBR system in leachate treatment.
3.1.6. Microalgae biotechnology
The use of microalgae is an alternative for the biological treatment of
landfill leachate based on phytoremediation. Besides being able to
remove organic matter in terms of COD and heavy metals, microalgae
also have the ability to remove nutrients such as ammoniacal nitrogen
(Paskuliakova et al., 2018). Furthermore, microalgae are considered to
be one of the most promising feedstocks in the production of renewable
biofuels. However, as their cultivation depends on large amounts of
water and nutrients, it is relevant the search for alternatives from in­
dustrial waste to meet this demand, such as the use of leachate (Zhao
et al., 2014).
The use of algae is advantageous due to its tolerance to acidic en­
vironments, heavy metals, and by providing additional amounts of ox­
ygen for bacteria to promote the oxidation of organic matter (Lin et al.,
2007). Another advantage is that cultivated algae can be harvested and
used for animal feed (Lin et al., 2007), fertilizer, biofertilizer, and CO2
reduction from the environment (Mustafa et al., 2012). In contrast,
dilution of the leachate is necessary to enable microalgae growth, as
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
concentrations of ammoniacal nitrogen, recalcitrant organic matter, and
color, for example, are high (Sonawane et al., 2017). According to
Muñoz et al. (2005), the main factor of the inhibition of microalgal
activity is the combined effect of high pH and ammoniacal nitrogen
values.
The inorganic salts in the leachate can be used by microalgae cells as
a source of nutrients for bioenergy production, such as biolipid and
carbohydrate (Liao et al., 2018). Since microalgae need both light and
heat for their development, the application of this technology in tropical
climate regions for leachate treatment and energy generation is a
promising alternative. El Ouaer et al. (2017) found that lipid produc­
tivity using a 10% ratio of leachate diluted in distilled water was 4.74
mg/L.d, with 60% NH+ 4 removal. Zhao et al. (2014) used the same ratio
in a mixture of leachate and municipal wastewater and found produc­
tivity of 24.1 mg/L.d and 99% ammonia removal.
Although dilution of the leachate, and consequently ammonia, re­
duces the toxic effects on the microalgae, other factors such as turbidity
that were brought into the microalgae cultures along with municipal
wastewater can reduce the net energy efficiency in lipid production. An
alternative is the use of ion exchange membranes to separate the
microalgae culture medium and the leachate. The negative effect is
offset because only inorganic ions are transported into the microalgae
culture, while suspended solids are hardly permeated through the
membrane. In addition, the ammonia concentration does not accumu­
late at high levels in the medium (Chang et al., 2019). Chang et al.
(2018) used a membrane photobioreactor (m-PBR) for bio-lipid pro­
duction by microalgae from the inorganic salts present in the leachate.
In this study it was possible to observe that almost all NO−3 , NH+ 4 and
PO3−4 in the leachate was removed by the microalgae, and the maximum
lipid yield was approximately 80 mg/L.d. It is emphasized that there was
no prior dilution of the leachate. Chang et al. (2019)obtained maximum
lipid production of 404.98 mg/L.d in a scalable membrane-based
tubular photobioreactor (SM-PBR).
3.2. Physicochemical processes for the leachate treatment
Among the various physical chemical processes, it is possible to
highlight those that are most used in the treatment of landfill leachate.
They include, coagulation-flocculation, precipitation, stripping, mem­
brane separation processes, chemical oxidation processes and advanced
oxidation processes.
3.2.1. Coagulation-flocculation
The coagulation-flocculation process (Fig. 9) is responsible for
destabilizing small particles in suspension so that they can aggregate
and form flocs that will later be removed by sedimentation, flotation, or
filtration techniques. Thus, it is expected that these processes will
contribute to the removal of non-biodegradable matter and metal ions
(Tatsi et al., 2003). Even so, they are technologies whose efficiency is
subject to the characteristics of the raw leachate, and there may be a
need for periodic adjustment of operating conditions. Studies that
assessed the leachate treatment by coagulation-flocculation indicated
that iron salts are more efficient than aluminum salts for reducing COD,
Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the involved coagulation-flocculation process applied to the leachate treatment.
9
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
reaching removal efficiencies close to 50% and 10–40%, respectively
(Alfaia et al., 2019; Amokrane et al., 1997; Renou et al., 2008).
Considering the optimal FeCl3 and Al2(SO4)3 dosages defined by
Amokrane et al. (1997), COD concentrations after the coagulation pro­
cess were 1700 mg/L and 2200 mg/L, respectively, for a leachate that
had an initial concentration of 3800 mg/L.
Although it is a process recognized for its operational simplicity,
coagulation-flocculation are not efficient as standalones in conditioning
the leachate into the discharge standards set by legislations. For this
reason, they are often used as pre-treatment. When combined with
membrane separation processes, for example, the coagulation-
flocculation implementation could minimize membrane fouling, thus
allowing for a stable operation and with less flux decline (Alfaia et al.,
2019). Furthermore, depending on the coagulating agent used (e.g.
calcium oxide), the coagulation-flocculation is also able to reduce the
alkalinity of the leachate and generate a sludge considered to be
chemically inert which is easily disposed of (de Almeida et al., 2019).
3.2.2. Precipitation
The chemical precipitation processes aim at the insoluble complexes
formation that would be easily separated from the aqueous phase. In
addition to recalcitrant compounds and heavy metals, the technique also
contributes to the removal of ammoniacal nitrogen. Usually, the metals
precipitation from the solution is favored using calcium oxide, while the
removal of ammoniacal nitrogen occurs with magnesium and/or phos­
phorus salts as the precipitating agent. In this case, the complex formed
can be used as a fertilizer if it is properly recovered and it is absent of
other contaminants. The ammonia precipitation technique still stands
out from other techniques, such as stripping, biological denitrification
processes and electrochemical conversion, as they have lower costs and
are faster processes (Chen et al., 2013).
Although precipitation is an efficient technique in the ammonia
removal (~90% (Calli et al., 2005; Kurniawan et al., 2006)), biological
processes subsequent to the precipitation stages would still be required
in order to guarantee the adequate removal of organic matter (Chen
et al., 2013; X.Z. Li and Zhao, 2001). Other disadvantages of the
chemical precipitation are the high demand for precipitating agents and
the susceptibility of the process efficiency to small variations in the
medium pH. Furthermore, the use of phosphorus salts as precipitating
agent still contributes to a high phosphorus load in the final effluent,
which increases the need for further steps to guarantee its removal.
Otherwise, the disposal of phosphorus-rich currents would contribute to
the eutrophication of the recipient water bodies (Gomes, 2009). It is also
necessary to consider the generation of sludge after the chemical pre­
cipitation process, which must be disposed of properly.
3.2.3. Stripping
Stripping consists of the passage of a large air volume through the
leachate, in order to promote the mass transfer of undesirable substances
from the liquid to the gas phase (Yuan et al., 2016) (Fig. 10). Air
stripping can be used to remove methane, ammonium ions and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from leachate. As an alternative to biolog­
ical nitrification, stripping ammonium is the most widely applied
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Fig. 10. Schematic representation of the stripping process applied to
leachate treatment.
treatment for the removal of ammoniacal nitrogen from leachate. The
stripping efficiency can be favored by controlling the conditions of pH,
temperature and retention time (Renou et al., 2008).
In developing countries, stripping is often employed as an isolated
process in leachate treatment. In cases of high ammonium concentra­
tions, the technique allows its recovery as by-product which confers an
advantage to the process. When combined to other technologies, strip­
ping can be effectively employed as a pre-treatment of the biological
process.
Marttinen et al. (2002) reported an 89% reduction in ammonia (re­
sidual concentration of ~16.17 mg/L) at pH = 11 and 20 ◦ C with a 24-h
retention time. High rates of ammonia removal were achieved by
Cheung et al. (1997) despite the high initial concentration of ammonia.
Their results showed that 93% of the 309–368 mg/L of ammonia were
removed with a 24-h retention time. Other studies showed that 85 and
99.5% of ammonia removal were achieved, respectively, by Ozturk et al.
(2003) and Silva et al. (2004) in leachate with an initial NH3 concen­
tration of 2020 mg/L and 800 mg/L.
Stripping can also be considered in order to remove the ammonia
present in the raw leachate, in addition to COD and methane in smaller
proportions (Cheung et al., 1997; IPPC and SEPA, 2007). That said, the
decision for the best route of operation must be based mainly on the
economic viability of the process, remembering that the treatment costs
tend to be higher as the leachate recalcitrance increases.
One of the problems caused by the ammonia removal by stripping is
the release of NH3 into the atmosphere, a pollutant with a great envi­
ronmental impact that must be previously absorbed by H2SO4, forming
ammonium salt (ammonium sulfate – (NH4)2SO4). This fertilizer pro­
vides essential nutrients for plants in the form of nitrogen (N) and sulfur
10
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
(S), with benefits compared to other nitrogen-based fertilizers.
Other disadvantages include: (i) formation of calcium carbonate
precipitation in the stripping tower when the lime is used to adjust the
pH; (ii) the need for a large stripping tower to avoid the problem of
foaming; and (iii) very limited COD removal efficiency.
3.2.4. Membrane separation processes (MSP)
MSPs are promising alternatives for removing pollutants from
aqueous matrices. Among these processes are those in which the mem­
brane acts as a filtering medium and has the hydraulic pressure as
driving force, i.e.: microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nano­
filtration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO), represented in Fig. 11. In
general, a membrane is a barrier that separates two phases, selectively
restricting the movement of components through it. Membranes have
been around since the 18th century, and ever since, several advances
have taken place to make membranes more diverse and suitable for
multiple applications (Fane et al., 2011).
Despite the different MSPs employed for leachate treatment, those
that are more efficient are the NF and RO membranes, especially when
coupled with other processes, such as MBRs. The NF offers a versatile
approach that meets different water quality requirements, such as the
retention organic, inorganic, and microbial contaminants. NF mem­
branes are generally made of polymeric films with a molecular weight
cut off between 200 and 2000 Da. These membranes have a high flux
and rejection rate of sulfate and multivalent ions, in addition to dis­
solved organic matter, however present low rejection for monovalent
ions such as sodium and chloride. Some studies report the treatment
efficiency of landfill leachate by NF (Marttinen et al., 2002; Rautenbach
and Mellis, 1994), with an average COD and N–NH3 removal of 65% and
50%, respectively, operating at 6–30 bar.
RO seems to be one of the most promising and efficient method for
landfill leachate treatment, being quite insensitive to changes in the
leachate composition. Several studies carried out on both laboratory and
industrial scale have already demonstrated the performance of RO for
pollutants separation from landfill leachate. Most commercially avail­
able plants are built as two-stage plants (Fig. 12), with contaminant
removal rates greater than 99.6% (IPPC and SEPA, 2007).
The RO permeate flux depends on different parameters, but for
leachate treatment, typical values between 3 and 58 L/m2h are reported.
This flux gradually decreases between the membrane cleaning intervals
and at the end of its lifespan, which is usually 3–5 years. There are a
variety of RO systems commercially available, however many of them
have restrictions regarding the presence of solids in the leachate. For this
reason, RO plants incorporate a stage of pre-filtering by sand filters and
fine filters.
It is important to note that the MSPs generate a stream called
concentrate, where the ions retained from the feed can be found at
higher concentrations. However, this stream can be easily treated by
conventional methods, such as chemical precipitation, and because it
has a smaller volume (70% less than the feed (Hunce et al., 2012)) and
higher concentrations, there is a significant increase in terms of effi­
ciency, in addition to reducing the generation of sludge. One of the al­
ternatives to treat this concentrate would be to recirculate it back to the
landfill itself (Calabrò et al., 2018; Talalaj and Biedka, 2015), a practice
initially adopted in Wischhafen (landfill located in Germany) (Robinson,
2005). The landfill had a RO system installed, however, the practice of
returning the concentrate to the landfill was responsible for increasing
the COD and ammonia nitrogen load in the raw leachate, and conse­
quently in the permeate. Due to this fact, different alternatives have
been proposed with emphasis on techniques based on concentrate
evaporation principles (Zhang et al., 2019a,b). These have shown
greater technical and economic effectiveness compared to advanced
oxidative processes, incineration, and solidification/stabilization
technics.
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Fig. 11. Representation of conventional membrane separation processes.

Fig. 12. Schematic representation of a two-step reverse osmosis process applied to leachate treatment.

3.2.5. Advanced oxidation processes
The advanced oxidation processes are the most effective in the
degradation of refractory compounds among the various physical-
chemical processes. They are based on the generation of free radicals
with high oxidizing power and responsible for the degradation of
recalcitrant compounds (Fioreze et al., 2014).
Ozonation processes stand out for their high oxidation efficiency.
Therefore, the technique has been considered in several preliminary
studies and even on a pilot scale. Due to their versatility, ozonation
processes can be used both as pre- and post-treatment. The advantages of
being used in pre-treatment stages are the lowest energy requirement,
since in this case it is not necessary to completely mineralize the recal­
citrant compounds. Thus, the ozonation process would be responsible
for the decomposition of the recalcitrant compounds into others that are
more easily assimilated by the microorganisms in subsequent steps.
Geenens et al. (2001) used ozonation in conjunction with hydrogen
peroxide to increase the leachate’s biodegradability prior to its treat­
ment by activated sludge. Despite the lower COD removal reported by
the authors, the leachate biodegradability increased and favored a more
effective treatment by the activated sludge process. The cost estimate for

11
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
this treatment was 1.34 €/kgCOD, with a major contribution from the
hydrogen peroxide consumption. A similar study (Cortez et al., 2011)
demonstrated that advanced oxidative processes such as Fenton and
ozonation, when used as a pre-treatment for leachate, increase biode­
gradability up to 93%. These authors also estimated the operational cost
of the process and reported a value of 8.53 €/m3, a value that does not
yet consider the initial investment cost, maintenance, or labor cost.
Gomes and Schoenell (2018) evaluated the efficiency of using ozone and
ozone + hydrogen peroxide techniques to remove recalcitrant com­
pounds in leachate after stabilization ponds. High removals of apparent
color, COD and TOC were observed, reaching 99, 88 and 66%, respec­
tively, although still not able to meet the local discharge standards.
Fenton processes are also an example of an advanced oxidation
technique and an alternative to ozonation. The treatment consists in a
combined action of hydrogen peroxide and iron salts for the generation
of oxidizing species and subsequent degradation of the recalcitrant
organic matter. Some advantages to this oxidation form are the rela­
tively low costs of the reagents required as well as the low toxicity that
they present. For this reason, they are often considered a more feasible
technique than the ozonation processes (Li et al., 2010). Even so, Fenton
processes still present greater operational complexity since it involves a
previous adjustment of the leachate’s pH and, after the treatment, a
subsequent neutralization, coagulation and precipitation in order to
ensure a high COD removal efficiency (Li et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2000).
A third alternative, still under development, is based on the elec­
trochemical oxidation of pollutants (Deng and Englehardt, 2007). Under
appropriate conditions, the technique allows to remove most COD and
color from the leachate. It is worth noting that the products generated
after the electrochemical oxidation process are mostly CO2 and water,
thus avoiding the problem of changing contaminants from one phase to
another (Grimm et al., 1998). However, electrochemical oxidation is an
energy intensive technic, a fact that limit its application in full-scale
facilities for landfill leachate treatment (Grimm et al., 1998).
As unique treatment stages, as well as the other physicochemical
treatment technologies presented above, advanced oxidative processes
are often ineffective in attaining the discharge standards established by
legislation. Otherwise, high doses of oxidant would be necessary, and
the reaction time would be significantly longer, leading to unaffordable
processes (Li et al., 2010; Ntampou et al., 2006). As an alternative,
oxidative techniques could be combined with other treatment to ensure
that the leachate is adequate to its discharge with a favorable
cost-benefit ratio.
It is worth mentioning the ineffectiveness of these processes in the
removal of ammonia and chloride, presenting considerable concentra­
tion values even after the leachate treatment (Cortez et al., 2010). In
addition, it is necessary to take into account the possibility of obtaining
products of greater toxicity after treatment by oxidative processes,
requiring subsequent steps for these compounds to be removed (Zolfa­
ghari et al., 2016).
Another strategy would be to use oxidative processes as a previous
step to biological stages since they are recognized for increasing the
biodegradability of the effluent (Cortez et al., 2010). Geenens et al.
(2001) used ozonation together with hydrogen peroxide on a pilot scale
to increase the biodegradability of leachate from a landfill in Belgium to
later be treated by activated sludge. The maximum COD removal was
30%, but the biodegradability of the effluent increased by 26%, making
the activated sludge process more efficient. The cost estimate for this
treatment was 1.34 €/kgCOD, mainly related to the consumption of
chemicals and electricity. Wang et al. (2003) reported the efficiency of
COD removal and the increased biodegradability of leachate through the
use of different advanced oxidation techniques. In most cases where this
process is used independently, there is a difficulty in reaching the release
standards and still a high consumption of chemicals and/or energy.
Thus, the authors suggest the integration of these processes with other
technologies.
A summary of the treatment techniques discussed, both biological
12
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
and physicochemical, is presented in Table 4 and Fig. 13 together with
the respective advantages and limitations for each technique.
4. Full-scale experiences in leachate treatment
Standalones biological processes are still the most common ways to
treat leachate generated in developing countries as Brazil. Examples are
the landfills located in Muribeca (PE, Brazil), Palmas (TO, Brazil) and
Dourados (MS, Brazil) (Table 5). In Minas Gerais (Brazil), stabilization
ponds are often used even though they are performing below expecta­
tions (Dias, 2012). This is the case of the landfill located in Visconde do
Rio Branco (MG, Brazil), where COD concentrations after the stabiliza­
tion pond was higher than 100 mg/L over the monitored period
(2010–2011) (Nakamura, 2012). Other studies involving landfills
located in the state of Minas Gerais are shown in Table 5. A critical
problem faced in the biological landfill leachate treatment design is that
many of the them have reproduced the consolidated model from do­
mestic effluent treatment plants (Gomes, 2009). Thus many of the
treatment plants were implemented without the knowledge of the
leachate recalcitrant character, therefore have been showing low
treatment efficiencies (Costa et al., 2019; Gomes, 2009).
In China, the accumulated leachate treatment capacity of landfills
exceeded 65,000 m3/d in 2018, where 175 MBRs are operated on a full
scale (with individual treatment capacity of ≥100 m3/d) (Zhang et al.,
2020). The treatment route most applied in this country is a
pre-treatment, followed by biological treatment and tertiary treatment,
with MBRs being applied in the part of biological treatment. NF and/or
RO are widely used after MBRs (i.e.: MBR + NF/RO) so that the treated
leachate meets the release standards (Zhang et al., 2020). In these cases,
the recommendation is that the concentrate generated by these pro­
cesses should be incinerated or treated by evaporation.
RO leachate treatment plants are widely used in landfills in Europe,
including Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy,
Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Currently, more than 100
plants are in operation, some of them for more than ten years (IPPC and
SEPA, 2007). During the late 1990s, many leachate treatment systems
with RO (two-step) were designed with an aerated lagoon as a pre­
treatment. The advantage of this configuration is that an aerated lagoon
reduces the ammoniacal nitrogen, BOD and COD concentration by its
biological activity. In this configuration, four different landfills - Nei­
mark landfill in Germany; ZMD-Rastorf landfill in Germany; Suldoro
landfill in Portugal and Lamego landfill in Portugal, reached contami­
nant rejection higher than 99.9% with residual concentrations of
N–NH3, COD and BOD lower than 1.01 mg/L, 15 mg/L and 0.6 mg/L
respectively (IPPC and SEPA, 2007). It is also worth noting that at the
Suldoro landfill in Portugal the concentration of crude leachate in terms
of COD and ammoniacal nitrogen was 177,802 mg/L and 3140 mg/L
respectively, which shows once again the robustness of the RO process,
especially when coupled to other technologies. It is necessary to
emphasize the RO effectiveness when used after biological processes,
ensuring compliance with the discharge limits provided for in legisla­
tion. For this reason, polishing techniques are used in several countries
(Brennan et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2015).
When evaluating the different leachate treatment alternatives, it is
necessary to take into account the characteristics of the leachate being
treated and the efficiency of the process in complying with the current
legislation for treated leachate discharge in receiving bodies (Table 2).
In order to overcome this problem, the Gramacho (RJ, Brazil), São
Gonçalo (RJ, Brazil) and Campos (RJ, Brazil) landfills uses polishing
steps for the effluent generated in biological processes using NF and RO
membranes.
The leachate treatment station in São Gonçalo accounts with a pre­
liminary treatment to remove coarse solids (sieve, sand filter and car­
tridge filter) followed by a three-pass RO system, with a treatment
capacity of 120 m3/day. The quality of the permeate monitored over the
years 2014–2016 was in line with the legislation for all parameters
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Table 4
Summary of biological and physicochemical treatment techniques including their advantages and disadvantages and efficiency reported in the literature.
Type of Technology Advantages
treatment
Biological Stabilization pond (Frascari et al., 2004) • Low installation and operating
cost
Activated sludge (Baumgarten and Seyfried, • More intensive treatment than
1996) lagoons
MBBR (Loukidou and Zouboulis, 2001) • Solves sludge separation
problems
• Withstands high ammoniacal
nitrogen content
Biological filters (Mondal and Warith, 2008) • Ease of operation
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) (Bove et al., • Longer sludge retention time
2015; Campagna et al., 2013; Coppini et al., • Efficient sludge separation
2018; Hua and Zhang, 2012; Li et al., 2009; • Intensive treatment
Remmas et al., 2018; Yaman et al., 2012) • Lower area demand
• High robustness
Microalgae biotechnology (Chang et al., 2018, • Use in biofuel production
2019) (biolipid and carbohydrate)
• Reduction of CO2 in the
environment
Physico- Coagulation-flocculation (Alfaia et al., 2019; • Consolidated technique
chemical Amokrane et al., 1997) • Operational simplicity
processes • Best used as pre-treatment for
biological and/or polishing
processes
Precipitation (Calli et al., 2005; X. Z. Li and • Allows the recovery of by-
Zhao, 2001) products in the form of
fertilizers
• Lower costs compared to other
physical-chemical processes
• Faster than biological
processes
Stripping (Calli et al., 2005) • Efficient ammonia removal
processes even at high initial
concentrations
Micro- and ultrafiltration (Rukapan et al., 2015) • Effective pre-treatment to
remove suspended solids
Nanofiltration (Marttinen et al., 2002; Trebouet • High rejections for multivalent
et al., 2001) ions and removal of dissolved
organic matter
• Operational stability
• Higher flow and less energy
requirement when compared
to reverse osmosis processes
Reverse osmosis (IPPC and SEPA, 2007) • Robust and effective process
for polishing leachate
Advanced oxidative processes (Tizaoui et al., • Effective in degrading
2007) recalcitrant compounds
• Lower operating costs if used
as pre-treatment or polishing
• Effective in increasing leachate
biodegradability
13
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
Drawbacks Scale Results
• Low efficiency Pilot 40% COD removal
• Need to combine with other
processes to achieve launch
standards
• Wide variations in efficiency;
high area requirement
• Sensitivity to temperature
changes
• Difficulty in sludge separation Pilot 59% COD removal
• Sensitive to the leachate
characteristic variation
• Microbial inhibition due to
high concentration of
ammoniacal nitrogen
• Higher cost than activated Bench 60–81% COD removal
sludge and lagoons
• Clogging problems in case of Bench 44% COD removal, 60%
high organic load BOD removal, 15% N–NH3
• Bacterial inhibition of nitrifiers removal
since the upper part of the filter
receives more N–NH3
• Propensity for membrane Full 89% COD removal, 92%
fouling BOD removal, 97% N–NH3
removal
• High ammonia concentrations Bench Increased lipid yield using
(>500 mg/L) are toxic to ion exchange membranes
microalgae >70% N–NH3 removal
• Subject to the characteristics of Bench Low COD removals
the raw leachate (10–50%)
• There may be a need for
periodic adjustment to
operational conditions
• High demand for precipitating Bench Ammonia removals close
agents to 90%, but ineffective in
• Efficiency of the process is reducing organic matter
conditioned to narrow pH
ranges
• The efficiency of the process is Bench Effective in removing
conditioned by high ammonia (89–99.5%) but
temperatures and pH values, has low COD removals
• High energy demand and
chemical inputs
• Limitations in the removal of Pilot COD removal around 20%,
low molecular weight total nitrogen 88% and
recalcitrant compounds suspended solids >99.9%
• Membranes have limited useful Pilot Removals of 65 and 50%
life (around 5 years) COD and ammonia
• Periodic cleaning processes are nitrogen, respectively
required
• Membranes have limited useful Pilot Contaminant removal
life (around 5 years) greater than 99.6%
• Periodic cleaning processes are
required
• Greater energy requirement
among the available membrane
separation processes
• High energy demand and Bench COD removals of less than
chemical inputs 50% in ozonation
• Long processes when necessary processes
the complete mineralization of
the recalcitrant organic matter
• Possibility to form by-products
of greater toxicity
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Fig. 13. Pollutant removal efficiencies for various full- and pilot-scale pro­
cesses for leachate treatment.
(COD: 35.0 mg/L, BOD: 35.6 mg/L, ammoniacal nitrogen: 10.8 mg/L),
established by the national legislation (CONAMA nº 430/2011)
(Table 2), except, only, for phenol in November 2015 (leachate con­
centration: 513 μg/L; CONAMA 430: 500 μg/L) (Soaeres et al., 2017). In
the case of the São Gonçalo landfill, the strategy adopted for treating the
concentrate is its recirculation to the landfill; however, following a good
practice manual to avoid the concentration effect promoted by recir­
culation (Soaeres et al., 2017).
In fact, RO treatment systems are easy to install, and allow them to be
operated remotely. In the case of compact systems, RO units have low
demand for installation area, usually installed in containers. Further­
more, due to the quality of the permeate generated, they allow it to be
used as reuse water or even commercialized, a practice that has been
adopted in several sanitary landfills that account with RO systems
(Soares et al., 2017).
Just like the São Gonçalo, the landfills of Seropédica (RJ, treatment
capacity: 1000 m3/d), Nova Friburgo (RJ, treatment capacity: 30 m3/
day), Campos dos Goitacazes (RJ, treatment capacity: 60 m3/day),
Macaúba (MG, treatment capacity: 200 m3/day), Foz do Iguaçu (PR,
treatment capacity: 30 m3/day), Ipojuca (PE, treatment capacity: 30 m3/
day), all located in Brazil, also employ the RO system as part of the
leachate treatment route. In all these cases, the leachate is subjected to a
physical-chemical treatment processes, followed by the RO systems, and
finally the degassing of the permeate generated. It should also be noted
that in many of these cases, the cost of treatment for RO is lower
compared to the cost associated with the disposal of leachate in the
domestic effluent collection network.
In Minas Gerais, two landfills in Macaúbas, operated by Vital
Ambiental in partnership with AST Ambiente, use RO to treat leachate.
The first plant, inaugurated in 2016, with a treatment capacity of 200
m3/d, and accounts with a pre-physicochemical treatment followed by
reverse osmosis in 3 stages and finally the permeate degassing. In the
same state, another plant with a capacity of over 200 m3/d was inau­
gurated in 2020 with the same configuration previously mentioned,
which affirms the success and efficiency of the treatment route adopted.
Many successful cases, especially when membrane separation pro­
cesses are used, have been reported. The first one depicts the landfill in
Maceió. There, the treatment consists of initial stages of biological
treatment, coagulation-flocculation, followed by filtration with Zeolite,
in these cases aiming at the retention of particulate material, activated
carbon, for removal of organic matter and particulate material, and
finally polishing steps with nanofiltration. In this system, there is the
14
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
generation of treated water with sufficient physical and chemical
characteristics to be reused for industrial purposes.
Another successful cases of the implementation in Brazil are the
leachate treatment system of the landfills in Cariacica (ES) and São
Gonçalo (RJ) that included RO process. In these cases, the cost of
treatment by reverse osmosis is lower than to pay for the co-treatment
with domestic effluent. In the case of the São Gonçalo landfill (RJ),
savings of 300 thousand BRL were achieved in 2 months of operation, in
addition to the generation of water with excellent physical-chemical
characteristics, which in the future plan to practice its commercializa­
tion (for the purpose of industrial reuse) in order to raise more resources
(Costa et al., 2019).
5. Integrated routes for the leachate treatment
From the treatment process currently available, five integrated
routes, combining biological and physicochemical processes, have been
evaluated for leachate treatment considering the typical variation of
organic matter and ammonia due to landfill aged. The processes were
chosen from those already employed by full-scale plants dealing with
leachate treatment, combined with promising alternatives noticed along
the literature review. Their efficiency on COD, BOD and N–NH3
removal, as well as their energy consumption, was also based in results
reported in previous research paper. Complementarily, their efficiency
was compared for different leachate composition in a sensitive analysis,
which results were shown in Fig. 14 and Table 6. The threshold values
stablished in the Brazilian Legislation for Wastewater Disposal (CON­
AMA nº 430/2011; COD: 180 mg/L; BOD: 60 mg/L; N–NH3: 20 mg/L)
and the lowest value found in Table 2 (threshold values stablished
around the world) were taken for comparison. Routes 1 and 2 comprises
the use of MBRs followed by RO and NF, respectively. The fourth route
(Route 3) has filters (sand and cartridges) followed by RO stages.
Finally, the last route (Route 4) is based on a lagoon system that pre­
cedes an RO system.
From all routes proposed, Route 1 was the one with the highest
estimated energy requirement given the energy demand for the MBR and
RO processes. Routes 1, 3 and 4 presented higher robustness in leachate
treatment, ensuring that the BOD, COD and N–NH3 concentrations were
below the threshold values imposed by Brazilian legislation regardless of
the leachate physicochemical characteristics.
Route 1 comprises the integration of a MBR and RO, which have
better performance for effluent polishing and ensures an effective
removal of residual organic and inorganic matter, metals, ammonia,
phosphorus, among other salts. In this route, it is expected that the
removal of organic matter and nitrogen will occur in the membrane
bioreactor. Although they are more effective than lagoons, the MBR
system presents a higher energy demand which is compatible with
MBBR systems. Still, the performance would be superior to Route 3 and
1 especially in the retention of ammonia and low molecular weight
organic compounds. Moreover, the permeate obtained from Route 1
could be reused for irrigation, dust control and truck washing, reducing
the volume disposed in receiving bodies. Another aspect to me mention
is the ability of RO systems to reduce the toxicity associated with organic
matter, which implies a lower environmental impact on the recipient
body (Reis et al., 2017).
In Route 2, the RO membranes are replaced by NF membranes for
additional contribution to the removal of residual organic matter that
was not removed by the MBR. Despite the lower energy requirements
presented by Route 2 compared to Route 1, the residual concentration of
COD, BOD and N–NH3 would be superior to the recommended values for
treated leachate discharge depending on the raw leachate concentration.
Complementarily, it is important to mention the waste generated by
routes involving biological and NF/RO systems (Routes 1 and 2), which
includes chemical and/or biological sludge and a concentrate stream,
which requires a special attention for their disposal.
Route 3 comprises the integration of filtration steps (sand and
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Table 5
Summary of different landfills and their treatment employed for the leachate treatment.
Local Operation Inhabitants Amount of solid Average flow of Characteristics Treatment employed
served waste disposed of treated leachate
(ton/d) (m3/d)

Bandeirantes (São Paulo) Brazil ( 1979–2007 – 7000 (in 2007) 1500 BOD: 2060 mg/L Serial stabilization ponds
Queiroz et al., 2011) COD: 7373 mg/L
NH+ 4 -N: 2183 mg/L
(in 2011)
Visconde do Rio Branco (Minas 2004 – 37,952 25 0,5 BOD: 761 mg/L Stabilization ponds (anaerobic
Gerais) Brazil (Nakamura, 2012) today COD: 2488 mg/L followed by facultative)
NH+ 4 -N: 263 mg/L
(in 2010)
Manaus (Amazonas) Brazil (de Lima 1986 – 2,074,070 2800 112 – Stabilization Ponds, Activated
et al., 2011; Pereira and Costa, today Sludge, Decantation,
2016) Clariflocculation
Muribeca (Pernanbuco) Brazil (Mello 1985–2009 ~1,900,000 2000 (in 2009) 432 BOD: 1510 mg/L Serial stabilization ponds
et al., 2012; Ramos, 2008) COD: 2822 mg/L
NH+ 4 -N: 2365 mg/L
(in 2010)
Rio Claro (São Paulo) Brazil (Barrios, 2001 – 115,000 175 – – Stabilization ponds, Bioreactors
1987) today with membranes
Palmas (Tocantins) Brazil (Souza 2001 – 245,550 220 – BOD: 1517 mg/L Interconnected anaerobic lagoons
et al., 2011) today COD: 10,823 mg/L
NH+ 4 -N: 580 mg/L
(in 2009)
Dourado (Mato Grosso do Sul) Brazil 2004 – 207,498 180 34 – Anaerobic ponds,
(Costa et al., 2019; Riguetti et al., today
2015)
AS2 (Minas Gerais) Brazil – – 38 – COD: 5118 mg/L Anaerobic lagoon followed by
BOD: 2441 mg/L facultative lagoon
NH+ 4 -N: 431 mg/L
AS5 (Minas Gerais) Brazil – – 80 – COD: 1262 mg/L Anaerobic lagoon followed by
BOD: 2441 mg/L facultative lagoon
NH+ 4 -N: 588 mg/L
AS12 (Minas Gerais) Brazil – – 20 – COD: 1941 mg/L Anaerobic lagoon and two
BOD: 427 mg/L facultative lagoons
NH+ 4 -N: 641 mg/L
AS17 (Minas Gerais) Brazil – – 450 – COD: 6128 mg/L Biological filter
BOD: 2242 mg/L
NH+ 4 -N:1624 mg/L
Piraí (Rio de Janeiro) Brazil (Cunha 2000 – 66,225 20 3 BOD: 74 mg/L Ponds, Biological Filters, and a
et al., 2020; Mannarino et al., today COD: 768 mg/L Wetland
2006) NH+ 4 -N: 323 mg/L
(in 2005)
Gramacho (Rio de Janeiro) Brazil ( 1978–2012 – 9000 1300 BOD: 277 mg/L Preliminary physical-chemical
Mannarino et al., 2006) COD: 2155 mg/L treatment, activated sludge and
NH+ 4 -N: 371 mg/L nanofiltration
(in 2005)
São Gonçalo (Rio de Janeiro) Brazil ( 2014 – 1,022,471 2,5 120 BOD: 35,666 mg/L Pre-filtration, Reverse Osmosis
Cunha et al., 2020; Soares et al., today COD: 35,080 mg/L
2017) NH+ 4 -N: 10,853 mg/
L (in 2017)
Campos (Rio de Janeiro) Brazil ( 2009 – 545,767 430 200 – Pre-filtration, Reverse Osmosis
Cunha et al., 2020) today
Suldouro Portugal (IPPC and SEPA, – – – 57 COD: 177,802 mg/L Aerated lagoons, Reverse Osmosis
2007) NH+4 -N: 3140 mg/L
Odayeri Sanitary Landfill Istanbul ( 1995–2013 – – 2000 COD: 16,360 MBR (anoxic and aerobic processes)
Campagna et al., 2013) NH+4 -N: 2532 (in and NF membrane
2013)
Anthemounta, Chalkidiki, Greece ( – 40,000 86 – BOD: 183 mg/L SBR
Remmas et al., 2018) COD: 727 mg/L
NH+4 -N: 365 mg/L
Nonthaburi, Thailand ( – 900,000 900 – BOD: 400 mg/L Coagulation flocculation, Reverse
Theepharaksapan et al., 2011) COD: 2700 mg/L Osmosis
NH+4 -N: 112 mg/L
Taiwan (Wang et al., 2010) – – – 304 BOD: 57 mg/L Activated Sludge, Reverse Osmosis,
COD: 554 mg/L Stripping
NH+4 -N: 643 mg/L
Marche Region, Italy (Cingolani – 460,000 317 243 COD: 3657 mg/L Reverse Osmosis
et al., 2017) NH+4 -N: 937 mg/L
Norsa, Sweden (Morling, 2010) – – – 160 BOD: 60 mg/L SBR
COD: 164 mg/L
NH+4 -N: 139 mg/L
Isatra, Sweden (Morling, 2010) – 86 BOD: 250 mg/L SBR
COD: 452 mg/L
NH+4 -N: 133.5 mg/L

15
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Fig. 14. Residual concentration of (a) BOD, (b) N–NH3 and (c) COD expected
for the different treatment routes proposed as an alternative to leachate treat­
ment. Route 1: MBR and RO; Route 2: MBR and NF; Route 3: Filters and RO;
Route 4: Lagoons and RO. “Limit (BR)” is the threshold values stablished in the
Brazilian Legislation for Wastewater Disposal. “Limit” is the lowest threshold
values stablished considering Table 2.
16
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
cartridge) with RO processes. The route is characterized for being
compact and modular, facilitating future upgrades on the treatment
capacity, it is usually installed in containers without the requirements
for civil works and reducing the installation period, and with the pos­
sibility of remote operation. It is a route whose performance is less
influenced by the variation of the leachate composition, as it does not
depend on its biodegradability. On the other hand, the greater organic
and inorganic load will require a larger area of RO membrane compared
to Route 1. Similarly, to route 1 and 2, an advantage associated with
route 3 is a possible reuse of the treated leachate.
Finally, route 4 comprises the integration of the lagoons and RO. The
biological process allows for a reduction in the organic and nitrogenous
load of the leachate that would be latter treated by RO, especially during
the first years of operation of the landfill. The biological process would
have a lower energy requirement compared to route 2, however an also
lower efficiency on organic and nitrogenous removal and a higher de­
mand for installation area. Still, similar to route 1, 2 and 3, an advantage
associated with the route is the possibility of reusing treated leachate for
the purposes previously mentioned. A detailed information related to
the removal efficiency of each route, including its energy requirement,
was summarized in Table 6.
6. Leachate treatment prospects and concluding remarks
Among the topics pointed out in this review, the aspect related to the
physicochemical complexity of the leachate deserves to be highlighted,
which implies that the decision of the best available treatment cannot be
outlined only based on the BOD, COD and nitrogen compounds content.
It is of utmost importance that in addition to being able to remove the
previously mentioned parameters and meet the current discharge leg­
islations, the treatment be able to remove other components, such as
chlorides, trace metals and compounds with associated toxicity. In
addition, the use of typical domestic effluent treatment processes and
design parameters for the design of biological reactors for leachate
treatment can lead to operational incompatibilities since it has different
physical and chemical characteristics from domestic effluent.
From the trends that have been observed, pilot scale studies
combining both biological processes with subsequent polishing steps
have been demonstrating promising results for leachate treatment. Due
to the physicochemical characteristics of the leachate, combined routes
become an interesting strategy to attain the standards established in
legislation. Furthermore, the implementation of a polishing step
including nanofiltration or reverse osmosis is a growing practice
worldwide, even in low-income country like as Brazil. This polishing
step ensures compliance with the limits established in the project or by
legislation regardless of the leachate variability, and compliance with
other parameters such as trace metals, chloride, in addition to nitrite and
nitrate. Not only polishing steps, but also the implementation of MBR
systems preceding reverse osmosis is a case of success in China and has
been attracting attention in the leachate treatment topic. In addition,
these routes have one more major advantage, which is the generation of
a reuse water that can be used for irrigation in the landfill area, dust
control and truck washing, contributing to the reduction or even
exemption of leachate discharge into a receiving water body.
The leachate treatment should not only focus on compliance with
legislation and water reuse, but also on the resources recovery. The
leachate treatment by anaerobic biological routes allows the conversion
of organic matter into biogas. This resource can be used to supply the
energy demand of the wastewater treatment plant. Furthermore, the use
of the inorganic salts present in the leachate for the production of bio­
fuels (biolipid and carbohydrate) by microalgae is also promising due to
the increasing demand for fossil fuels and concerns associated with
global warming. Finally, the leachate treatment through the air-
stripping/absorption and membrane contactors to produce ammonium
sulfate as a fertilizer through the ammonia recovery shows as an
advantage in the recovery of nutrients existing in this effluent and
Y.A.R. Lebron et al. Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475

Table 6
Expected efficiency for different routes proposed for leachate treatment. *Residence time: 122 days; **TL: treated leachate characteristics; ***Estimated energy
demand expressed in (kVA). For the routes comprised with NF and RO, a forecast of the energy required for the concentrate evaporation was also considered. Ref­
erences: Route 1: (Bove et al., 2015; Calabrò et al., 2018; Campagna et al., 2013; Coppini et al., 2018; Hua and Zhang, 2012; Hunce et al., 2012; Li et al., 2009; Remmas
et al., 2018; Robinson, 2005; Soaeres et al., 2017; Talalaj and Biedka, 2015; Yaman et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2019a,b). Route 2: (Bove et al., 2015; Campagna et al.,
2013; Coppini et al., 2018; Hua and Zhang, 2012; Li et al., 2009; Marttinen et al., 2002; Rautenbach and Mellis, 1994; Reis et al., 2017; Remmas et al., 2018; Trebouet
et al., 2001; Yaman et al., 2012). Route 3: (Calabrò et al., 2018; Hunce et al., 2012; Robinson, 2005; Soaeres et al., 2017; Talalaj and Biedka, 2015; Zhang et al., 2019a,
b). Route 4: (Calabrò et al., 2018; Dias, 2012; Frascari et al., 2004; Hunce et al., 2012; Robinson, 2005; Soaeres et al., 2017; Talalaj and Biedka, 2015; Vieira et al.,
2020; Zhang et al., 2019a,b).
Leachate characteristics (mg/L) Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4

MBR RO TL** MBR NF TL** Filters RO TL** Lagoons* RO TL**

BOD 5000 90 97 15 90 85 75 85 97 23 80 97 30
COD 16,667 87 98 43 87 85 325 85 98 50 70 98 100
BOD/COD 0.3 – – 0.3 – – 0.2 – – 0.5 – – 0.3
N–NH3 1500 85 95 11 85 65 79 78 95 17 80 95 15
Phosphorous 4000 65 93 98 65 87 182 70 93 84 60 93 112
Iron 100 30 97 2 30 90 7 75 97 1 50 97 2
Trace metals 3 30 97 0 30 90 0 75 97 0 50 97 0
Total dissolved solids 3500 60 99 14 60 95 70 80 99 7 70 99 11
Energy requirement*** 24.1 22.6 17.8 17.2

transform them into value-added by-products.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Coordination of Superior Level Staff
Improvement (CAPES); National Council for Scientific and Technolog­
ical Development (CNPq); Foundation for Research Support of the State
of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).
References
Alfaia, R.G.S.M., Nascimento, M.M.P., Bila, D.M., Campos, J.C., 2019. Coagulation/
flocculation as a pretreatment of landfill leachate for minimizing fouling in
membrane processes. Desalin. WATER Treat. 159, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.5004/
dwt.2019.24280.
Amaral, M.C.S., Ferreira, C.F.A., Lange, L.C., Aquino, S.F. de, 2008. Avaliação da
biodegradabilidade anaeróbia de lixiviados de aterro sanitários. Eng. Sanitária
Ambient. 13, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522008000100006.
Amaral, M.C.S., Moravia, W.G., Lange, L.C., Zico, M.R., Magalhães, N.C., Ricci, B.C.,
Reis, B.G., 2016. Pilot aerobic membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration for municipal
landfill leachate treatment. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst.
Environ. Eng. 51, 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1159874.
Amokrane, A., Comel, C., Veron, J., 1997. Landfill leachates pretreatment by
coagulation-flocculation. Water Res. 31, 2775–2782. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0043-1354(97)00147-4.
Argun, M.E., Akkuş, M., Ateş, H., 2020. Investigation of micropollutants removal from
landfill leachate in a full-scale advanced treatment plant in Istanbul city, Turkey. Sci.
Total Environ. 748, 141423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141423.
Assou, M., El Fels, L., El Asli, A., Fakidi, H., Souabi, S., Hafidi, M., 2016. Landfill leachate
treatment by a coagulation–flocculation process: effect of the introduction order of
the reagents. Desalin. Water Treat. 57, 21817–21826. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2015.1127779.
Azari, M., Walter, U., Rekers, V., Gu, J.-D., Denecke, M., 2017. More than a decade of
experience of landfill leachate treatment with a full-scale anammox plant combining
activated sludge and activated carbon biofilm. Chemosphere 174, 117–126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.123.
Bakhshoodeh, R., Alavi, N., Majlesi, M., Paydary, P., 2017. Compost leachate treatment
by a pilot-scale subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 105,
7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.058.
Barrios, R., 1987. O lixo domiciliar e seu destino na cidade de Rio Claro - SP. I Encontro
de Geografos Da América Latina.
Baumgarten, G., Seyfried, C.F., 1996. Experiences and new developments in biological
pretreatment and physical post-treatment of landfill leachate. Water Sci. Technol.
34, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(96)00777-9.
Bove, D., Merello, S., Frumento, D., Arni, S. Al, Aliakbarian, B., Converti, A., 2015.
A critical review of biological processes and technologies for landfill leachate
treatment. Chem. Eng. Technol. 38, 2115–2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ceat.201500257.
Brennan, R.B., Healy, M.G., Morrison, L., Hynes, S., Norton, D., Clifford, E., 2016.
Management of landfill leachate: the legacy of European Union Directives. Waste
Manag. 55, 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.010.
Calabrò, P.S., Gentili, E., Meoni, C., Orsi, S., Komilis, D., 2018. Effect of the recirculation
of a reverse osmosis concentrate on leachate generation: a case study in an Italian
landfill. Waste Manag. 76, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.03.007.
Calli, B., Mertoglu, B., Inanc, B., 2005. Landfill leachate management in Istanbul:
applications and alternatives. Chemosphere 59, 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2004.10.064.
Campagna, M., Çakmakcı, M., Büşra Yaman, F., Özkaya, B., 2013. Molecular weight
distribution of a full-scale landfill leachate treatment by membrane bioreactor and
nanofiltration membrane. Waste Manag. 33, 866–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2012.12.010.
Cano, V., 2014. Estratégias de tratamento de lixiviado de aterro sanitário com foco na
matéria orgânica biodegradável e nitrogênio amoniacal. Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo. https://doi.org/10.11606/D.6.2014.tde-12092014-085944.
Canziani, R., Emondi, V., Garavaglia, M., Malpei, F., Pasinetti, E., Buttiglieri, G., 2006.
Effect of oxygen concentration on biological nitrification and microbial kinetics in a
cross-flow membrane bioreactor (MBR) and moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
treating old landfill leachate. J. Membr. Sci. 286, 202–212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2006.09.044.
Çeçen, F., Aktaş, Ö., 2004. Aerobic Co-treatment of landfill leachate with domestic
wastewater. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1089/
109287504323066941.
Chang, H., Fu, Q., Zhong, N., Yang, X., Quan, X., Li, S., Fu, J., Xiao, C., 2019. Microalgal
lipids production and nutrients recovery from landfill leachate using membrane
photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 277, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2019.01.027.
Chang, H., Quan, X., Zhong, N., Zhang, Z., Lu, C., Li, G., Cheng, Z., Yang, L., 2018. High-
efficiency nutrients reclamation from landfill leachate by microalgae Chlorella
vulgaris in membrane photobioreactor for bio-lipid production. Bioresour. Technol.
266, 374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.077.
Chen, P.H., 1996. Assessment of leachates from sanitary landfills: impact of age, rainfall,
and treatment. Environ. Int. 22, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(96)
00008-6.
Chen, Y., Liu, C., Nie, J., Luo, X., Wang, D., 2013. Chemical precipitation and biosorption
treating landfill leachate to remove ammonium-nitrogen. Clean Technol. Environ.
Pol. 15, 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0511-4.
Cheung, K.C., Chu, L.M., Wong, M.H., 1997. Ammonia stripping as a pretreatment for
landfill leachate. Water Air Soil Pollut. 94, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02407103.
Cingolani, D., Eusebi, A.L., Battistoni, P., 2017. Osmosis process for leachate treatment in
industrial platform: economic and performances evaluations to zero liquid
discharge. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 782–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2016.05.012.
Cingolani, D., Fatone, F., Frison, N., Spinelli, M., Eusebi, A.L., 2018. Pilot-scale multi-
stage reverse osmosis (DT-RO) for water recovery from landfill leachate. Waste
Manag. 76, 566–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.014.
Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, C., 2011. Conselho Nacional Do Meio Ambiente
No, p. 430.
Contrera, R.C., da Cruz Silva, K.C., Morita, D.M., Domingues Rodrigues, J.A., Zaiat, M.,
Schalch, V., 2014. First-order kinetics of landfill leachate treatment in a pilot-scale
anaerobic sequence batch biofilm reactor. J. Environ. Manag. 145, 385–393. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.013.
Coppini, E., Palli, L., Fibbi, D., Gori, R., 2018. Long-term performance of a full-scale
membrane plant for landfill leachate pretreatment: a case study. Membranes 8, 52.
https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes8030052.

17
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Cortez, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., Mota, M., 2011. Evaluation of Fenton and ozone-
based advanced oxidation processes as mature landfill leachate pre-treatments.
J. Environ. Manag. 92, 749–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.035.
Cortez, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., Mota, M., 2010. Ozonation as polishing treatment of
mature landfill leachate. J. Hazard Mater. 182, 730–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2010.06.095.
Costa, A.M., Alfaia, R.G. de S.M., Campos, J.C., 2019. Landfill leachate treatment in
Brazil – an overview. J. Environ. Manag. 232, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2018.11.006.
Cunha, C.E.S.C.P. da, Ritter, E., Ferreira, J.A., 2020. O uso de indicadores de
desempenho na avaliação da qualidade operacional dos aterros sanitários do estado
do Rio de Janeiro no triênio 2013-2015. Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 25, 345–360.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522020187467.
de Almeida, R., Moraes Costa, A., de Almeida Oroski, F., Carbonelli Campos, J., 2019.
Evaluation of coagulation–flocculation and nanofiltration processes in landfill
leachate treatment. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A 54, 1091–1098. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10934529.2019.1631093.
de Lima, J.D., de Carvalho Jr., F.H., Cardillo, L., Nogueira, G.A.B., Lins, E.A.M., 2011.
O sistema de tratamento de efluentes líquidos do aterro sanitário de Manaus -
Amazônia - Brazil. In: 26◦ Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e
Ambiental2. Porto Alegre, p. 6.
Deng, Y., Englehardt, J.D., 2007. Electrochemical oxidation for landfill leachate
treatment. Waste Manag. 27, 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2006.02.004.
Dias, A.L.S., 2012. Análise de desempenho de lagoas de estabilização empregadas para
tratamento de lixiviados de aterros sanitários. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Drews, A., 2010. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors—characterisation,
contradictions, cause and cures. J. Membr. Sci. 363, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.memsci.2010.06.046.
El Ouaer, M., Kallel, A., Kasmi, M., Hassen, A., Trabelsi, I., 2017. Tunisian landfill
leachate treatment using Chlorella sp.: effective factors and microalgae strain
performance. Arab. J. Geosci. 10, 457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3241-
4.
EPA, U.S.E.P.A., 2008. Environmental Risk Assessment: Part 2-Assessment of Point
Source Releases and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Environment Agency, Bristol, United
Kingdom.
EQA, 2009. Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer
Station and Landfill) Regulation 2009, Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution
from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulation.
Fane, A.G., Wang, R., Jia, Y., 2011. Membrane technology: past, present and future. In:
Membrane and Desalination Technologies. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 1–45.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-278-6_1.
Farquhar, G.J., 1989. Leachate: production and characterization. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 16,
317–325. https://doi.org/10.1139/l89-057.
Ferreira, A.G., 2010. Estudo dos lixiviados das frações do aterro sanitário de São Carlos -
SP por meio da caracterização físico-química. Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos.
https://doi.org/10.11606/D.18.2010.tde-14072010-105334.
Fioreze, M., Santos, E.P. dos, Schmachtenberg, N., 2014. PROCESSOS OXIDATIVOS
AVANÇADOS: FUNDAMENTOS E APLICAÇÃO AMBIENTAL. Rev. Eletrônica em
Gestão, Educ. e Tecnol. Ambient. 18 https://doi.org/10.5902/2236117010662.
Frascari, D., Bronzini, F., Giordano, G., Tedioli, G., Nocentini, M., 2004. Long-term
characterization, lagoon treatment and migration potential of landfill leachate: a
case study in an active Italian landfill. Chemosphere 54, 335–343. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.08.013.
Fudala-Ksiazek, S., Pierpaoli, M., Luczkiewicz, A., 2018. Efficiency of landfill leachate
treatment in a MBR/UF system combined with NF, with a special focus on phthalates
and bisphenol A removal. Waste Manag. 78, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.05.012.
Gao, J., Oloibiri, V., Chys, M., Audenaert, W., Decostere, B., He, Y., Van Langenhove, H.,
Demeestere, K., Van Hulle, S.W.H., 2015. The present status of landfill leachate
treatment and its development trend from a technological point of view. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Bio/Technology 14, 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-
9349-z.
Geenens, D., Bixio, B., Thoeye, C., 2001. Combined ozone-activated sludge treatment of
landfill leachate. Water Sci. Technol. 44, 359–365. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2001.0790.
Gomes, L.P., 2009. Resíduos Sólidos: Estudos de Caracterização e Tratabilidade de
Lixiviados de Aterros Sanitários para as Condições Brasileiras (Rio de Janeiro).
Gomes, L.P., Schoenell, E.K., 2018. Aplicação de ozônio e de ozônio + peróxido de
hidrogênio para remoção de compostos recalcitrantes em lixiviados de aterros
sanitários. Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 23, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-
41522018155758.
Grimm, J., Bessarabov, D., Sanderson, R., 1998. Review of electro-assisted methods for
water purification. Desalination 115, 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-
9164(98)00047-2.
Hasar, H., Unsal, S.A., Ipek, U., Karatas, S., Cınar, O., Yaman, C., Kınacı, C., 2009.
Stripping/flocculation/membrane bioreactor/reverse osmosis treatment of
municipal landfill leachate. J. Hazard Mater. 171, 309–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.003.
Hoilijoki, T., 2000. Nitrification of anaerobically pretreated municipal landfill leachate
at low temperature. Water Res. 34, 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-
1354(99)00278-X.
Horan, N.J., Gohar, H., Hill, B., 1997. Application of a granular activated carbon-
biological fluidised bed for the treatment of landfill leachates containing high
concentrations of ammonia. Water Sci. Technol. 36, 369–375. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00410-1.
18
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
Hua, J., Zhang, J., 2012. Upgrading of a landfill leachate treatment plant for capacity
expansion and new discharge standards. In: 2012 2nd International Conference on
Remote Sensing. Environment and Transportation Engineering. IEEE, pp. 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1109/RSETE.2012.6260801.
Hunce, S.Y., Akgul, D., Demir, G., Mertoglu, B., 2012. Solidification/stabilization of
landfill leachate concentrate using different aggregate materials. Waste Manag. 32,
1394–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.010.
IPPC, I.P.P. and C., SEPA, S.En.P.A., 2007. Guidance for the Treatment of Landfill
Leachate.
Kamaruddin, M.A., Yusoff, M.S., Rui, L.M., Isa, A.M., Zawawi, M.H., Alrozi, R., 2017. An
overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill leachate treatment:
Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 26988–27020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0303-9.
Kashiwada, S., Osaki, K., Yasuhara, A., Ono, Y., 2005. Toxicity studies of landfill
leachates using Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Australas. J. Ecotoxicol. 11,
59–72.
Kulikowska, D., Klimiuk, E., 2008. The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate
composition. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 5981–5985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2007.10.015.
Kurniawan, T., Lo, W., Chan, G., 2006. Physico-chemical treatments for removal of
recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J. Hazard Mater. 129, 80–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.010.
Li, H., Zhou, S., Sun, Y., Feng, P., Li, J., 2009. Advanced treatment of landfill leachate by
a new combination process in a full-scale plant. J. Hazard Mater. 172, 408–415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.07.034.
Li, W., Zhou, Q., Hua, T., 2010. Removal of organic matter from landfill leachate by
advanced oxidation processes: a review. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2010/270532, 2010.
Li, X.Z., Zhao, Q.L., 2001. Efficiency of biological treatment affected by high strength of
ammonium-nitrogen in leachate and chemical precipitation of ammonium-nitrogen
as pretreatment. Chemosphere 44, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(00)
00382-9.
Liao, Q., Chang, H.-X., Fu, Q., Huang, Y., Xia, A., Zhu, X., Zhong, N., 2018. Physiological-
phased kinetic characteristics of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris growth and lipid
synthesis considering synergistic effects of light, carbon and nutrients. Bioresour.
Technol. 250, 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.086.
Lima, L.M.Q. de, 1989. Estudo da influência da reciclagem de chorume na aceleração da
metanogenese em aterro sanitário. Universidade de São Paulo.
Lima, R.N. de S., Ribeiro, C.B. de M., Barbosa, C.C.F., Rotunno Filho, O.C., 2016. Estudo
da poluição pontual e difusa na bacia de contribuição do reservatório da usina
hidrelétrica de Funil utilizando modelagem espacialmente distribuída em Sistema de
Informação Geográfica. Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 21, 139–150. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S1413-41520201600100127676.
Lin, C.-Y., Chang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-H., 2000. Co-digestion of leachate with septage using a
UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 73, 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
8524(99)00166-2.
Lin, L., Chan, G.Y.S., Jiang, B.L., Lan, C.Y., 2007. Use of ammoniacal nitrogen tolerant
microalgae in landfill leachate treatment. Waste Manag. 27, 1376–1382. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.001.
Loukidou, M.X., Zouboulis, A.I., 2001. Comparison of two biological treatment processes
using attached-growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate treatment. Environ.
Pollut. 111, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00069-5.
Luo, H., Cheng, Y., He, D., Yang, E.-H., 2019. Review of leaching behavior of municipal
solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 90–103. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.004.
Luo, H., Wu, Y., Zhao, A., Kumar, A., Liu, Y., Cao, B., Yang, E.-H., 2017. Hydrothermally
synthesized porous materials from municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash
and their interfacial interactions with chloroaromatic compounds. J. Clean. Prod.
162, 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.082.
Luo, H., Zeng, Y., Cheng, Y., He, D., Pan, X., 2020. Recent advances in municipal landfill
leachate: a review focusing on its characteristics, treatment, and toxicity assessment.
Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135468.
Mæhlum, T., 1995. Treatment of landfill leachate in on-site lagoons and constructed
wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 32, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223
(95)00613-3.
Magalhães, A. de F., 2005. Avaliação do desempenho de técnicas de bioengenharia na
proteção e conservação da covertura final de taludes em aterros de disposição de
resíduos sólidos urbanos: estudo de caso paa o aterro sanitário de Belo Horizonte,
MG. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Mannarino, C.F., Ferreira, J.A., Campos, J.C., Ritter, E., 2006. Wetlands para tratamento
de lixiviados de aterros sanitários: experiências no aterro sanitário de Piraí e no
aterro metropolitano de Gramacho (RJ). Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 11, 108–112.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522006000200002.
Mannarino, C.F., Ferreira, J.A., Moreira, J.C., 2011. Tratamento combinado de lixiviado
de aterros de resíduos sólidos urbanos e esgoto doméstico como alternativa para a
solução de um grave problema ambiental e de saúde públixa - revisão bibliográfica.
Cad. Saude Coletiva 11–19.
Marttinen, S., Kettunen, R., Sormunen, K., Soimasuo, R., Rintala, J., 2002. Screening of
physical–chemical methods for removal of organic material, nitrogen and toxicity
from low strength landfill leachates. Chemosphere 46, 851–858. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00150-3.
Matthews, R., Winson, M., Scullion, J., 2009. Treating landfill leachate using passive
aeration trickling filters; effects of leachate characteristics and temperature on rates
and process dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 2557–2564. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.01.034.
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Mello, V.F.B., Abreu, J.P. da G., Ferreira, J.M., Juca, J.F.T., Motta Sobrinho, M.A. da,
2012. Variaveis no processo de coagulação/floculacao/decantacao de lixiviados de
aterros sanitarios urbanos. Ambient. e Agua - an Interdiscip. J. Appl. Sci. 7, 88–100.
https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.861.
Metcalf, L., Eddy, H.P., Tchobanoglous, G., 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment,
Disposal, and Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Miao, L., Yang, G., Tao, T., Peng, Y., 2019. Recent advances in nitrogen removal from
landfill leachate using biological treatments – a review. J. Environ. Manag. 235,
178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.057.
Mondal, B., Warith, M.A., 2008. Use OF shredded tire CHIPS and tire crumbs as packing
media IN trickling filter systems for landfill leachate treatment. Environ. Technol.
29, 827–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330801987566.
Morling, S., 2010. Nitrogen removal and heavy metals in leachate treatment using SBR
technology. J. Hazard Mater. 174, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2009.09.104.
Muñoz, R., Rolvering, C., Guieysse, B., Mattiasson, B., 2005. Photosynthetically
oxygenated acetonitrile biodegradation by an algal-bacterial microcosm: a pilot-
scale study. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 261–265. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2005.0479.
Mustafa, E.-M., Phang, S.-M., Chu, W.-L., 2012. Use of an algal consortium of five algae
in the treatment of landfill leachate using the high-rate algal pond system. J. Appl.
Phycol. 24, 953–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-011-9716-x.
Nakamura, C.Y., 2012. Estudos de um sistema de lagoas de estabilização no tratamento
de lixiviado e da água subterrânea no entorno de aterros sanitários em Minas Gerais.
Universidade Federal de Viçosa.
Nascentes, A.L., Do Nascimento, M.M.P., Brasil, F.D.C., Campos, J.C., Ferreira, J.A.,
2016. Tratamento combinado de lixiviado de aterro sanitário e esgoto doméstico -
Aspectos operacionais e microbiológicos. Rev. Eletrônica TECCEN 8, 5. https://doi.
org/10.21727/teccen.v8i1.222.
Ngo, H., Guo, W., Xing, W., 2008. Applied technologies in municipal solid waste landfill
leachate treatment. Encycl. life Support Syst 17.
Ntampou, X., Zouboulis, A.I., Samaras, P., 2006. Appropriate combination of physico-
chemical methods (coagulation/flocculation and ozonation) for the efficient
treatment of landfill leachates. Chemosphere 62, 722–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2005.04.067.
Oliver, N., 2005. Hazardous Waste Legislation Guide. Ministry of Environment, British
Columbia. Canada.
Ozturk, I., Altinbas, M., Koyuncu, I., Arikan, O., Gomec-Yangin, C., 2003. Advanced
physico-chemical treatment experiences on young municipal landfill leachates.
Waste Manag. 23, 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00061-8.
Paskuliakova, A., McGowan, T., Tonry, S., Touzet, N., 2018. Microalgal bioremediation
of nitrogenous compounds in landfill leachate – the importance of micronutrient
balance in the treatment of leachates of variable composition. Algal Res 32,
162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.03.010.
Peng, Y., 2017. Perspectives on technology for landfill leachate treatment. Arab. J.
Chem. 10, S2567–S2574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.09.031.
Pereira, U. de A., Costa, R.C., 2016. Impactos dos resíduos sólidos urbanos de Manaus. In:
XVIII Encontro Nacional de Geógrafos.
Queiroz, L.M., Amaral, M.S., Morita, D.M., Yabroudi, S.C., Sobrinho, P.A., 2011.
Aplicação de processos físico-químicos como alternativa de pré e pós-tratamento de
lixiviados de aterros sanitários. Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 16, 403–410. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S1413-41522011000400012.
R, S., U, H., R, C., 2005. Leachate treatment. In: Tehnth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, pp. 3–7.
Ramos, J.B.E., 2008. Estudo da viabilidade técnica dos processos de georremediação e
oxidação úmida para tratamento de percolados de aterros sanitários (chorume da
ETP-Muribeca: um estudo de caso). Universidade Federal do Pernambuco.
Rautenbach, R., Mellis, R., 1994. Waste water treatment by a combination of bioreactor
and nanofiltration. Desalination 95, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164
(94)00012-3.
Reis, B.G., Silveira, A.L., Tostes Teixeira, L.P., Okuma, A.A., Lange, L.C., Amaral, M.C.S.,
2017. Organic compounds removal and toxicity reduction of landfill leachate by
commercial bakers’ yeast and conventional bacteria based membrane bioreactor
integrated with nanofiltration. Waste Manag. 70, 170–180. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.030.
Remmas, N., Ntougias, S., Chatzopoulou, M., Melidis, P., 2018. Optimization aspects of
the biological nitrogen removal process in a full-scale twin sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) system in series treating landfill leachate. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part A 53,
847–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.1455375.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., Moulin, P., 2008. Landfill
leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J. Hazard Mater. 150, 468–493. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.077.
Ribera-Pi, J., Badia-Fabregat, M., Espí, J., Clarens, F., Jubany, I., Martínez-Lladó, X.,
2020. Decreasing environmental impact of landfill leachate treatment by MBR, RO
and EDR hybrid treatment. Environ. Technol. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2020.1734099 (United Kingdom).
Riguetti, P.F., Cardoso, C.A.L., Cavalheiro, A.A., Lenzi, E., Fiorucci, A.R., Da Silva, M.S.,
2015. Manganês, zinco, cádmio, chumbo, mercúrio e crômio no chorume de aterro
sanitário em Dourados, MS, Brasil. Ambient. e Agua - an Interdiscip. J. Appl. Sci. 10
https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1538.
Robinson, A., 2005. Landfill leachate treatment. In: MBR 5 - the 5th International
Conference on Membrane Bioreactors. Cranfield, Reino Unido, p. 14.
Rukapan, W., 2007. Improvement of leachate management in solid waste disposal
facilities: case study in Thailand. Payatas Seminar. UP National Center for
Transportation Studies (NCTS). Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.
19
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
Rukapan, W., Khananthai, B., Srisukphun, T., Chiemchaisri, W., Chiemchaisri, C., 2015.
Comparison of reverse osmosis membrane fouling characteristics in full-scale
leachate treatment systems with chemical coagulation and microfiltration pre-
treatments. Water Sci. Technol. 71, 580–587. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2014.468.
Sadeghi, M., Fadaei, A., Tadrisi, M., Bay, A., Naghizadeh, A., 2018. Performance
evaluation of a biological landfill leachate treatment plant and effluent treatment by
electrocoagulation. Desalin. WATER Treat. 115, 82–87. https://doi.org/10.5004/
dwt.2018.22263.
Sheng, B., Wang, D., Liu, X., Yang, G., Zeng, W., Yang, Y., Meng, F., 2020. Taxonomic
and functional variations in the microbial community during the upgrade process of
a full-scale landfill leachate treatment plant — from conventional to partial
nitrification-denitrification. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 14, 93. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11783-020-1272-7.
Silva, N.C.M., Moravia, W.G., Amaral, M.C.S., Figueiredo, K.C.S., 2019. Evaluation of
fouling mechanisms in nanofiltration as a polishing step of yeast MBR-treated
landfill leachate. Environ. Technol. 40, 3611–3621. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2018.1482568.
Soaeres, A.C.P., Pinheiro, C.E.S.C., Soares, R., Soares, A.C.P., Pinehrio, C.E.S.C.,
Soares, R., 2017. Análise da eficácia técnica e ambiental do tratamento de chorume
por osmose reversa na central de tratamento de resíduos de são gonçalo, RJ. In: 6◦
Simpósio de Gestão Ambiental e Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, p. 10.
Sonawane, J.M., Adeloju, S.B., Ghosh, P.C., 2017. Landfill leachate: a promising
substrate for microbial fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 23794–23798. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.137.
Souto, G.D. de B., 2009. Lixiviado de aterros sanitários brasileiros: estudo de remoção do
nitrogênio amoniacal por processo de arraste com ar (“stripping”). Universidade de
São Paulo, São Carlos. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.18.2009.tde-19022009-121756.
Souza, P.A., Lucena, F.M.C., Takada, C.R. da S., de Sousa, F.P., Picanço, A.P., 2011.
Monitoramento da eficiência de tratamento do chorume do aerro sanitário de
Palmas-TO utilizando lagoas de estabilização. In: 26◦ Congresso Brasileiro de
Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. Porto Alegre.
Speer, S., Champagne, P., Anderson, B., 2012. Pilot-scale comparison of two hybrid-
passive landfill leachate treatment systems operated in a cold climate. Bioresour.
Technol. 104, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.067.
Talalaj, I.A., Biedka, P., 2015. Impact of concentrated leachate recirculation on
effectiveness of leachate treatment by reverse osmosis. Ecol. Eng. 85, 185–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.10.002.
Tatsi, A.A., Zouboulis, A.I., Matis, K.A., Samaras, P., 2003. Coagulation–flocculation
pretreatment of sanitary landfill leachates. Chemosphere 53, 737–744. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00513-7.
Theepharaksapan, S., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Yamamoto, K., 2011. Removal
of pollutants and reduction of bio-toxicity in a full scale chemical coagulation and
reverse osmosis leachate treatment system. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 5381–5388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.11.091.
Tizaoui, C., Bouselmi, L., Mansouri, L., Ghrabi, A., 2007. Landfill leachate treatment with
ozone and ozone/hydrogen peroxide systems. J. Hazard Mater. 140, 316–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.09.023.
Torretta, V., Ferronato, N., Katsoyiannis, I., Tolkou, A., Airoldi, M., 2016. Novel and
conventional technologies for landfill leachates treatment: a review. Sustainability 9,
9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010009.
Trebouet, D., Schlumpf, J., Jaouen, P., Quemeneur, F., 2001. Stabilized landfill leachate
treatment by combined physicochemical–nanofiltration processes. Water Res. 35,
2935–2942. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00005-7.
Vieira, R.M., Souza, D.H., Göde, J.N., Bittar, B.D., Trevisan, V., Skoronski, E., 2020.
Avaliação do desempenho operacional de uma estação de tratamento de lixiviado de
aterro sanitário. Rev. Ibero-Americana Ciências Ambient. 11, 131–145. https://doi.
org/10.6008/CBPC2179-6858.2020.001.0013.
Von Sperling, M., 2014. Introdução à qualidade das águas e ao tratamento de esgotos,
fourth ed. Belo Horizonte.
Wang, C.-C., Lee, P.-H., Kumar, M., Huang, Y.-T., Sung, S., Lin, J.-G., 2010. Simultaneous
partial nitrification, anaerobic ammonium oxidation and denitrification (SNAD) in a
full-scale landfill-leachate treatment plant. J. Hazard Mater. 175, 622–628. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.052.
Wang, F., Smith, D.W., El-Din, M.G., 2003. Application of advanced oxidation methods
for landfill leachate treatment – a review. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2, 413–427. https://
doi.org/10.1139/s03-058.
Wang, P., Lau, I.W.C., Fang, H.H.P., Zhou, D., 2000. Landfill leachate treatment with
combined UASB and fenton coagulation. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. - Part A Toxic/
Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 35, 1981–1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10934520009377093.
Welander, U., Henrysson, T., Welander, T., 1998. Biological nitrogen removal from
municipal landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended carrier biofilm process. Water
Res. 32, 1564–1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00351-5.
Welander, U., Henrysson, T., Welander, T., 1997. Nitrification of landfill leachate using
suspended-carrier biofilm technology. Water Res. 31, 2351–2355. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00080-8.
WPCO, W.P.C.O., 1997. Water Pollution Control Ordinance - Technical Memorandum
Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and
Coastal Waters (Hong Kong. Hong Kong).
Xiong, J., Zheng, Z., Yang, X., He, J., Luo, X., Gao, B., 2018. Mature landfill leachate
treatment by the MBBR inoculated with biocarriers from a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 119, 304–310. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2018.08.019.
Y.A.R. Lebron et al.
Yaman, C., Ozcan, H.K., Demir, G., Okten, H.E., Yildiz, S., Coban, A., Balahorli, V., 2012.
Landfill leachate treatment: a case study for istanbul city. Clean 40, 706–711.
https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201100132.
Yan, H., Cousins, I.T., Zhang, C., Zhou, Q., 2015. Perfluoroalkyl acids in municipal
landfill leachates from China: occurrence, fate during leachate treatment and
potential impact on groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 524 (525), 23–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.111.
Yuan, M.-H., Chen, Y.-H., Tsai, J.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., 2016. Ammonia removal from
ammonia-rich wastewater by air stripping using a rotating packed bed. Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 102, 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.06.021.
Zhang, J., Chua, H.C., Zhou, J., Fane, A.G., 2006. Factors affecting the membrane
performance in submerged membrane bioreactors. J. Membr. Sci. 284, 54–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.06.022.
Zhang, J., Wu, X., Qiu, D., Mao, J., Zhang, H., 2019a. Pilot-scale in situ treatment of
landfill leachate using combined coagulation–flocculation, hydrolysis acidification,
SBR and electro-Fenton oxidation. Environ. Technol. 40, 2191–2200. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1329347.
20
Journal of Environmental Management 288 (2021) 112475
Zhang, J., Xiao, K., Huang, X., 2020. Full-scale MBR applications for leachate treatment
in China: practical, technical, and economic features. J. Hazard Mater. 389, 122138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122138.
Zhang, L., Lavagnolo, M.C., Bai, H., Pivato, A., Raga, R., Yue, D., 2019b. Environmental
and economic assessment of leachate concentrate treatment technologies using
analytic hierarchy process. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 474–480. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.007.
Zhao, X., Zhou, Y., Huang, S., Qiu, D., Schideman, L., Chai, X., Zhao, Y., 2014.
Characterization of microalgae-bacteria consortium cultured in landfill leachate for
carbon fixation and lipid production. Bioresour. Technol. 156, 322–328. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.112.
Zolfaghari, M., Jardak, K., Drogui, P., Brar, S.K., Buelna, G., Dubé, R., 2016. Landfill
leachate treatment by sequential membrane bioreactor and electro-oxidation
processes. J. Environ. Manag. 184, 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2016.10.010.