Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

Review

Landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunityS. Renou a, J.G. Givaudan a, S. Poulain a, F. Dirassouyan b, P. Moulin c,

a Departement de Technologie Nucleaire, Commissariat a` lEnergie Atomique de Cadarache, 13108 St. Paul-lez-Durance Cedex, Franceb Groupe Pizzorno Environnement, 109, Rue Jean Aicard, 83300 Draguignan, France

c

Abstract

In most cogeneration odrawback. Yrequirementopportunityunder the items: (a) leachate transfer, (b) biodegradation, (c) chemical and physical methods and (d) membrane processes. Several tables permit toreview and summarize each treatment efficiency depending on operating conditions. Finally, considering the hardening of the standards of rejection,conventional landfill leachate treatment plants appear under-dimensioned or do not allow to reach the specifications required by the legislator. Sothat, new technologies or conventional ones improvements have been developed and tried to be financially attractive. Today, the use of membranetechnologies, more especially reverse osmosis (RO), either as a main step in a landfill leachate treatment chain or as single post-treatment step hasshown to be 2007 Else

Keywords: L

Contents

1. Introd2. Leach3. Revie

3.1.

3.2.

Abbreviatorganic carboMSW, municRO, reverse oTKN, total K

CorresponE-mail ad

0304-3894/$doi:10.1016/jan indispensable means of achieving purification.vier B.V. All rights reserved.

andfill leachate; Wastewater treatment; Review

uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469ate characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470w and evolution of landfill leachate treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472Conventional treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4723.1.1. Leachate transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4723.1.2. Biological treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4733.1.3. Physical/chemical treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4783.1.4. Conclusion on conventional treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482New treatments: the use of membrane processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4833.2.1. Microfiltration (MF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4833.2.2. Ultrafiltration (UF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483

ions: AOP, advanced oxidation processes; AS, activated sludge; BOD, biological oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; DOC, dissolvedn; GAC, granular activated carbon; HRT, hydraulic retention time; MAP, magnesium ammonium phosphate; MBBR, moving-bed biofilm reactor;ipal solid waste; MSWLF, municipal solid waste landfill; PAC, powdered activated carbon; RDVPF, rotary drum vacuum precoat filter;smosis; SBR, sequencing batch reactor; SCBR, suspended-carrier biofilm reactor; SRT, sludge retention time; SS, suspended solids;jeldahl nitrogen; TOC, total organic carbon; UASB, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket; VFA, volatil fatty acids.ding author. Tel.: +33 4 4290 8501; fax: +33 4 4290 8515.dress: philippe.moulin@univ-cezanne.fr (P. Moulin).

see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved..jhazmat.2007.09.077Universite Paul Cezanne Aix Marseille, Departement en Procedes Propres et Environnement (DPPE-UMR 6181), Europole de lArbois,BP 80, Batment Laennec, Hall C, 13545 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 4, France

Received 16 July 2007; received in revised form 18 September 2007; accepted 19 September 2007Available online 26 September 2007

untries, sanitary landfilling is nowadays the most common way to eliminate municipal solid wastes (MSW). In spite of many advantages,f heavily polluted leachates, presenting significant variations in both volumetric flow and chemical composition, constitutes a majorear after year, the recognition of landfill leachate impact on environment has forced authorities to fix more and more stringent

s for pollution control. This paper is a review of landfill leachate treatments. After the state of art, a discussion put in light anand some results of the treatment process performances are given. Advantages and drawbacks of the various treatments are discussed

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 469

3.2.3. Nanofiltration (NF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4863.2.4. Reverse osmosis (RO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

4. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487Refer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

1. Introdu

Increasicommerciapast decadthe municisolid wastecapita andtion in Rioto 6200 tongrowth durtion increasrespectivelthe 1990s,per personin other comillion of M

The sanwaste mateits econompossible mincineratioest, in term2002, 52%ulated centminimizesallows waseventual tra

So, the was the prefand a largeindustrializcity) and rtalesha lanthat 52, 90sites, resperelease fromhas becamewastewaterfor energy

There istion, storagleachates, trizes the evfill leachateliterature si

Leachatconsequencical procesof wastes t

voluturce:

c maher

l as aorgaal oanddisc

is caia sied

essiivingordir nounds. In 1997, French authorities have fixed more strin-equirements concerning discharge into surface waters1). Fortunately, the remarkable growth in economics andstandard has accelerated the development of water andater purification technologies.

French regulation criteria (selected), in 1997Volumetricclassification(kg day1)

Criterion afterrevision (mg L1)

100 125

70

spended solids (TSS) 15 35

30 30

>50 30

470 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

In summary, MSW management constitutes today a majorenvironmental, economical and social problem worldwide,mainly because the waste volume is growing faster than theworlds population. Moreover, as stricter environmental require-ments are continuously imposed regarding ground and surfacewaters, the treatment of landfill leachate becomes a major envi-ronmental concern. This review, therefore, focuses on the stateof art in landfill leachate treatment and provides a compara-tive evaluation of various treatment processes. New treatmentalternatives and conventional technology improvements arehighlighted and examinated.

2. Leachate characteristics

The two factors characterizing a liquid effluent are the vol-umetric flow rate and the composition which in the case ofleachate are related. Fig. 2 illustrates water cycle in a land-fill. Leach(P), surfacsion of groutechnique (geotextilesquantity ofpollution [1productionlosses throdepends ontent and itsgenerally gcompaction

There ari.e., age, pand composurroundincompositioage of thedation scheIn young lorganic mresulting intion produmoisture co

early phase of a landfills lifetime is called the acidogenic phase,and leads to the release of large quantities of free VFA, asmuch as 95% of the organic content [14]. As a landfill matures,the methanogenic phase occurs. Methanogenic microorganismsdevelop in the waste, and the VFA are converted to biogas (CH4,CO2). The organic fraction in the leachate becomes dominatedby refractory (non-biodegradable) compounds such as humicsubstances [15].

The characteristics of the landfill leachate can usually berepresented by the basic parameters COD, BOD, the ratioBOD/COD, pH, suspended solids (SS), ammonium nitrogen(NH3-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and heavy metals.The leachate composition from different sanitary landfills, asreported in the literature, show a wide variation. Tables 2 and 3summarize the ranges of leachate composition. These data showthat the age of the landfill and thus the degree of solid waste sta-bilization has a significant effect on water characteristics. Values

vary from 70,900 mg L1 with leachate sample obtainede Thessaloniki Greater Area (Greece) to 100 mg L1 withfrom an more than 10-year old landfill near Marseille

e). With few exceptions, the pH of leachates lie in the5.88.5, which is due to the biological activity inside theis also important to notice that the majority of TKN isnia, 1tio oe agge requenf BOhougcess

of thd accn thay p

. 3. Cate flow rate (E) is closely linked to precipitatione run-off (Rin, Rext), and infiltration (I) or intru-ndwater percolating through the landfill. Landfillingwaterproof covers, liner requirements such as clay,and/or plastics) remains primordial to control thewater entering the tip and so, to reduce the threat0]. The climate has also a great influence on leachatebecause it affects the input of precipitation (P) and

ugh evaporation (EV). Finally, leachates productionthe nature of the waste itself, namely its water con-degree of compaction into the tip. The production isreater whenever the waste is less compacted, sincereduces the filtration rate [10].

e many factors affecting the quality of such leachates,recipitation, seasonal weather variation, waste typesition (depending on the standard of living of theg population, structure of the tip). In particular, then of landfill leachates varies greatly depending on thelandfill [11]. Fig. 3 [10] proposes anaerobic degra-me for the organic material in a sanitary landfill.

andfills, containing large amounts of biodegradableatter, a rapid anaerobic fermentation takes place,

volatile fatty acids (VFA) as the main fermenta-cts [12]. Acid fermentation is enhanced by a highntent or water content in the solid waste [13]. This

Fig. 2. Water cycle in a sanitary landfill [9].

of CODfrom thsample(Francrangetip. Itammo

The rawith ththe larConseratio o

Altthe sucstagesdefinebetweetion m

Figwhich can range from 0.2 to 13,000 mg L of N.f BOD/COD, from 0.70 to 0.04, decrease rapidlying of the landfills [15]. This is due to the release ofcalcitrant organic molecules from the solid wastes.tly, old landfill leachate is characterized by its lowD/COD and fairly high NH3-N.h leachate composition may vary widely withinive aerobic, acetogenic, methanogenic, stabilizatione waste evolution, three types of leachates have beenording to landfill age (Table 4). The existing relatione age of the landfill and the organic matter composi-rovide a useful criteria to choose a suited treatment

OD balance of the organic fraction in a sanitary landfill [10].

S.Renouet

al./Journ

alofH

azardousMaterials150(2008)468493

471

Table 2Leachate composition (COD, BOD, BOD/COD, pH, SS, TKN, NH3-N)Age Landfill site COD BOD BOD/COD pH SS TKN NH3-N Reference

Y Canada 13,800 9660 0.70 5.8 212 42 [16]Y Canada 1870 90 0.05 6.58 75 10Y China, Hong Kong 15,700 4200 0.27 7.7 2,260 [17]Y China, Hong Kong 17,000 7300 0.43 7.08.3 >5000 3,200 3,000 [18]Y 13,000 5000 0.38 6.89.1 2000 11,000 11,000Y 50,000 22,000 0.44 7.89.0 2000 13,000 13,000Y China, Mainland 19003180 37008890 0.360.51 7.48.5 6301,800 [19]Y Greece 70,900 26,800 0.38 6.2 950 3,400 3,100 [20]Y Italy 19,900 4000 0.20 8 3,917 [3]Y Italy 10,540 2300 0.22 8.2 1666 5,210 [21]Y South Korea 24,400 10,800 0.44 7.3 2400 1,766 1,682 [22]Y Turkey 16,20020,000 10,80011,000 0.550.67 7.37.8 1,1202,500 [23]

35,00050,000 21,00025,000 0.50.6 5.67.0 2,020

Y Turkey 35,00050,000 21,00025,000 0.50.6 5.67.0 26303930 2,370 2,020 [24]Y Turkey 10,75018,420 63809660 0.520.59 7.78.2 10131540 1,9462,002 [25]MA Canada 32109190 6.99.0 [26]MA China 5800 430 0.07 7.6 [27]MA China, Hong Kong 7439 1436 0.19 8.22 784 [28]MA Germany 3180 1060 0.33 1,135 884 [29]MA Germany 4000 800 0.20 800 [30]MA Greece 5350 1050 0.20 7.9 480 1,100 940 [20]MA Italy 5050 1270 0.25 8.38 1,670 1,330 [31]MA Italy 3840 1200 0.31 8 [32]MA Poland 1180 331 0.28 8 743 [33]MA Taiwan 6500 500 0.08 8.1 5,500 [34]MA Turkey 9500 8.15 1,450 1,270 [35]O Brazil 3460 150 0.04 8.2 800 [7]O Estonia 2170 800 0.37 11.5 [36]O Finland 556 62 0.11 192 159 [37]O Finland 340920 84 0.090.25 7.17.6 330560 [5]O France 500 7.1 0.01 7.5 130 540 430 [38]O France 100 3 0.03 7.7 131480 5960 0.2 [39]O France 1930 7 295 [40]O Malaysia 15332580 48105 0.030.04 7.59.4 159233 [41]O South Korea 1409 62 0.04 8.57 404 141 1,522 [42]O Turkey 10,000 8.6 1600 1,680 1,590 [43]

Y: young; MA: medium age; O: old; all values except pH and BOD/COD are in mg L1.

472 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

Table 3Heavy metals composition in landfill leachate

Age Landfill site Fe Mn Ba Cu Al Si Reference

Y Italy 2.7 0.04 [21]MA Canada 1.284.90 0.0281.541 0.0060.164 7.5

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 473

Tabl

e5

Com

bine

dtr

eatm

entw

ithdo

mes

ticse

wag

e

Feed

ing

Ope

ratio

nalc

on

ditio

nsPe

rform

ance

rem

oval

(%)

Ref

eren

ce

COD

(mgL

1)

BO

D/C

OD

pHFr

omK

ind

ofr

eact

orVo

lum

eo

frea

ctor

(L)

T( C

)H

RT(da

ys)

Volu

met

ricra

tio(%

)10

900.

4

Land

filll

each

ate+

mu

nic

ipal

sew

age

SBR

20

10.

11(1:

9)95

BO

D[4

6]10

,750

0.59

8.2

Land

fill

AS

2

1.3

6.7

13.3

609

0CO

D[4

7]24

313

7,02

40.

20.

47.

37.

9La

ndfil

lA

S2

221

105

2016

88

COD

[49]

10,7

501

8,42

00.

557.

78.

2La

ndfil

llea

chat

e+m

un

icip

alse

wag

eA

S3.

6(ae

ration

tank

);2.

5(se

ttling

tank

)

5

25

[25]

tion rates may adversely affect anaerobic degradation of solidwastes. For instance, Ledakowicz and Kaczorek [57] observedthat leachagenesis as(pH < 5) wif the volusuch as sa[58,59].

3.1.2. BiolDue to i

biological tused for thconcentratimicroorganbon dioxid(a mixturebic conditibe very efffrom immavalue (>0.5pounds (maeffectivene

3.1.2.1. Aea partial ashould alsobic biologisuch as aecesses andstudied andrecently att(MBBR) ation technomembranetreatment.

3.1.2.1.1Lagoonineffective aand inorgcosts havement, parneed for stions in threviewedsite anaerbiologicalremovalsleachate. Oto treat phment of 55However,not be a cin spite othat the telimitationte recirculation can lead to the inhibition of methano-it may cause high concentrations of organic acidshich are toxic for the methanogens. Furthermore,me of leachate recirculated is very high, problemsturation, ponding and acidic conditions may occur

ogical treatmentts reliability, simplicity and high cost-effectiveness,reatment (suspended/attached growth) is commonlye removal of the bulk of leachate containing highons of BOD. Biodegradation is carried out byisms, which can degrade organics compounds to car-

e and sludge under aerobic conditions and to biogascomprising chiefly CO2 and CH4) under anaero-

ons [10]. Biological processes have been shown toective in removing organic and nitrogenous matterture leachates when the BOD/COD ratio has a high). With time, the major presence of refractory com-inly humic and fulvic acids) tends to limit processs

ss.

robic treatment. An aerobic treatment should allowbatement of biodegradable organic pollutants andachieve the ammonium nitrogen nitrification. Aero-

cal processes based on suspended-growth biomass,rated lagoons, conventional activated sludge pro-sequencing batch reactors (SBR), have been widelyadopted [28,6063]. Attached-growth systems have

racted major interest: the moving-bed biofilm reactornd biofilters. The combination of membrane separa-logy and aerobic bioreactors, most commonly calledbioreactor, has also led to a new focus on leachate

. Suspended-growth biomass processes.g. Aerated lagoons have generally been viewed as annd low-cost method for removing pathogens, organicanic matters. Their low operation and maintenance

made them a popular choice for wastewater treat-ticularly in developing countries since there is a littlepecialised skills to run the system [64]. Wide varia-e standard performance of lagoon systems have beenin the literature (Table 7). Maehlum [66] used on-obicaerobic lagoons and constructed wetlands fortreatment of landfill leachate. Overall N, P and Fe

obtained in this system were above 70% for dilutedrupold et al. [36] studied the feasibility of lagooning

enolic compounds as well as organic matter. Abate-64% of COD and 8088% of phenol was achieved.as stricter requirements are imposed, lagooning mayompletely satisfactory treatment option for leachatef its lower costs [68]. In particular, authors claimedmperature dependence of lagooning is a significantbecause it mainly affects microbial activity.

474 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

Table 6Landfill leachate recycling

Feeding Operational conditions Performance removal (%) ReferenceCOD (mg L1) pH From Volume of reactor (L) T (C) Recirculation rate (L day1)80,000 5.56.5 Pilot plant 707 36 98 COD [56]47,00052,000 Pilot plant 70 35 921 [55]7161765 7.587.60 Pilot plant 40 6370 COD [52]25605108 8.008.43 Landfill 40

Activated sludge processes. They are extensively applied forthe treatment of domestic wastewater or for the co-treatmentof leachate and sewage. However, this method has been shownin the more recent decades to be inadequate for handling land-fill leachate treatment [69]. Even if processes were proved tobe effective for the removal of organic carbon, nutrients andammonia content, too much disadvantages tend to focus onothers technologies:- inadequate sludge settleability and the need for longer aera-

tion times [70],- high en- microbi

strengthConseq

cerning la(Table 8).obically pactivatedand with ttreatmentthan 7 mgN L1. Anitrificatioleachate [Sequencinnitrificatiooperationbon oxidasummarizand Wild

fill leachate treatment [43,61,63,68,92]. Many authors havereported COD removals up to 75% (Table 8). Also, 99% NH4+-N removal has been observed by Lo [18] during the aerobictreatment of domestic leachates in a SBR with a 2040 daysresidence time. The greater process flexibility of SBR is partic-ularly important when considering landfill leachate treatment,which have a high degree of variability in quality and quantity[26].

3.1.2.1.2. Attached-growth biomass systems. Due to mainms otioncess, ha

vantaationded-nten

linggicaltersn dueters,nt woratng ra

ands 51onia

Table 7Lagooning pe

Feeding

COD (mg L e5518 00 m3

400 m4000

1182

7653090

5050ergy demand and excess sludge production [37],al inhibition due to high ammonium-nitrogen[10].

uently, only few works are recently available con-ndfill leachate treatment by activated sludge methodsHoilijoki et al. [37] investigated nitrification of anaer-re-treated municipal landfill leachate in lab-scalesludge reactor, at different temperatures (510 C)he addition of plastic carrier material. Aerobic post-produced effluent with 150500 mg COD L1, lessBOD L1 and on an average, less than 13 mg NH4+-

ddition of PAC to activated sludge reactors enhancedn efficiency on biological treatment of landfill

91].g batch reactor. This system is ideally suited tondenitrification processes since it provides anregime compatible with concurrent organic car-tion and nitrification [46]. Process characteristics,ed by Diamadopoulos et al. [46] and Dollerererer [81], resulted in a wide application for land-

probleconven

bic probiofilmthe adnitrificsuspengen co

TrickbioloBioficatiobiofila rece

in labloadi25 Clow aamm

rformance

Operational conditions1) BOD/COD pH From Kind of lagoon Siz

0.7 5.8 Landfill Aerated lagoon 10 Landfill (1) Anaerobic pond (1)

(2) aerated lagoon (2)

(3) constructed wetlands (3) 400 m(4) free water surface (4) 2000

0.26 Landfill (1) Primary lagoon (1) 113,(2) aerated wetlands (2) 4528(3) final surge lagoon

0.430.53 8.712.5 Landfill (1) Aerated lagoon (1) 17 L(2) polishing lagoon

(laboratory-scale)(2) 9.7 L

0.25 8.38 Landfill Non-aerated lagoon 9960 m2f sludge bulking or inadequate separability [81] inal aerobic systems, a number of innovative aero-es, called attached-growth biomass systems, usingve been recently developed. These systems presentge of not suffer from loss of active biomass. Alsois less affected by low temperatures [62] than in

growth systems, and by inhibition due to high nitro-t.

lters. This method has been investigated for thel nitrogen lowering from municipal landfill leachate.remain an interesting and attractive option for nitrifi-to low-cost filter media [90]. Typical efficiencies of

encountered in literature, are presented in Table 8. Inork, above 90% nitrification of leachate was achievedory and on-site pilot aerobic crushed brick filters withtes between 100 and 130 mg NH4+-N L1 day1 at50 mg NH4+-N L1 day1 even at temperatures as0 C, respectively [90]. In the last decade, maximumrejection of 97 and 75% in a trickling filter were,

Performanceremoval (%)

Reference

T (C) HRT (days) >10 97 COD [65]

3 40 6095 COD [66]

m32m2

400 m3 20 89 COD [67]m3

19 (1) 1622 5564 COD [36](2) 9.112.6

22.8 32 40 COD [31]

S.Renouet

al./Journ

alofH

azardousMaterials150(2008)468493

475Table 8Different aerobic reactors performance

Feeding Operational conditions Performance removal (%) ReferenceCOD (mg L1) BOD/COD pH From Volume of reactor (L) T (C) HRT (days)Activated sludge reactor

4000 (BOD) 7 Landfill >4 2025 35 51.3 TOC [71]5000 0.6 5.95 Landfill 20 510 10 (SRT) >92 COD [72]10004000 Landfill 470 [73]1537 8 Coke-plant 6,700 1.5 96 COD [74]20004600 0.410.59 1213 Landfill 5.9 21 6.25 4664 COD [75]3176 0.33 Landfill 65,000 m2 25 59 COD [29]2900 0.66 6.87.4 Landfill 0.5 24 2.75 75 COD [76]50006000 Landfill 5 25 0.52 97 COD [77]

87.5 N-NH4+

2560 8 Landfill 30 25 [78]2001200 (NH4+) 7.5 Landfill 20 3.4 h [79]3130 0.56 Landfill 3 69 COD [60]2701000 UASB reactor pre-treatment 3.35 510 10 50 COD [37]24,400 7.3 Landfill 40 23 8090 COD [22]7439 8.22 Landfill 2 1 7898 COD [28]540020,000 Municipal solid waste 9 4.5 8589 COD [80]

Sequencing batch reactor5295 0.49 9.1 Landfill 1020 25 0.5 62 DOC [81]2560 0.07 8.6 Landfill 2040 4869 COD [18]

>99 NH4+2110 0.40.5 6.9 Anaerobic lagoon pre-treatment 32 20 3.2 91 COD [68]1183 8 Landfill 45 1 6.7 COD [33]15,000 7.5 Landfill 8 4050 75 COD [82]9500 7 Landfill 18.8 20 1.25 74 COD [83]7000 7 Synthetic wastewater 18.8 25 1.25 75 COD [84,85]5750 8.6 Landfill 5 25 62 COD [43]

Moving-bed biofilm reactor20003000 0.410.59 1213 Landfill 1 21 1 75 COD [75]17404850 0.050.1 9 Landfill 1.5 20 60 COD [86]8001300 0.1 8 Landfill 0.220.6 522 25 2030 COD [12]108 0.06 8 Landfill 4.5 20 4257 DOC [87]8002000 Landfill 5,000 17 4 20 COD [88]5000 0.2 >7.5 Landfill 8 2024 81 COD [70]

85 NH3480 0.05 7.7 Landfill (preozonation) 2 6080 TOC [89]

Trickling filter8501350 0.10.2 8.08.5 Landfill 16,500 1.719.7 0.64.5 87 BOD [40]2560 8 Landfill 141 25 [78]230510 0.040.08 6.57 Landfill 9.4 525 2.19.6 90 NH4+ [90]

476S.Renou

etal./Jo

urn

alofH

azardousMaterials150(2008)468493

Table 9Different anaerobic reactors performance

Feeding Operational conditions Performanceremoval (%)

Reference

COD (mg L1) BOD/COD pH From Volume ofreactor (L)

T (C) HRT (days)

Digester4000 (BOD) 7 Landfill >4 2025 86 96 BOD [71]

2 24 30 53 COD

37,00066,660 0.40.6 Landfill 6 35 120 92.5 COD [100]10004000 Landfill 155 [73]1537 8 Coke-plant 3300 0.75 95.7 COD [74]2560 8 Landfill 30 25 [78]51008300 0.430.50 7.69.3 Landfill 1.25 15.535 210 5670 COD [101]2001200 (NH4+) 7.5 Landfill 20 1.72 h [79]8002000 Landfill 900 17 0.72 20 COD [88]

Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor5465770 (TOC) 0.53 7.37.8 Landfill 2 35 101.5 73.9 TOC [102]15,000 7.5 Landfill (stabilized

leachate)8 4050 75 COD [82]

5750 8.6 Landfill 5 25 62 COD [43]Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor

664915,425 7.68.7 Landfill 2.4 88 COD10,00064,000 617.8 Landfill 3.5 1535 0.60.1 82 COD [103]30004300 0.650.67 6.87.4 Landfill 0.38 1124 0.41.4 4571 COD [76]15003200 0.610.71 6.57.0 Landfill 40 1323 0.961.30 6575 COD [104]30,000 Landfill 4.6 30 0.75 82 COD [105]380015,900 0.540.67 7.37.8 Landfill 2 35 101.5 83 COD [23]32109190 6.99.0 Landfill 6.2 35 0.51 7791 COD [26]926412,050 7.2 Anaerobic digestion plant

sludge + septage + leachate13.5 35 1.510 58 COD [63]

24,400 7.3 Landfill 20 36 8090 COD [22]35,00050,000 0.50.6 5.67.0 Landfill [24]540020,000 Municipal solid waste 2.5 3742 1.25 9698 COD [80]

Anaerobic filter14,000 0.7 5.8 Young landfill 3 2125 24 6895 COD [16]3750 0.3 6.356.58 Old landfill 0.51 6095 COD50006000 Landfill 4 35 87.5 NH4+ [77]

Hybrid bed filter20003000 0.410.59 1213 Landfill 2.5 21 62 75 COD [75]1800 0.53 6.87.4 Landfill 0.56 11 1.4 56 COD [76]19,60042,000 6.57.5 Landfill 22 30 2.55 8197 COD [106]12504490 (TOC) 0.53 7.37.8 Landfill 3.35 35 5.10.9 65.3 TOC [102]

Fluidized bed reactor108 0.06 8 Landfill 4.5 20 4257 DOC [87]11003800 Landfill 7.9 35 82 COD [107]

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 477

respectively, claimed by Knox and Jones [93] and Martienssenand Schops [78].Moving-bbiolm recess is baskept in coactive bioMains adsuspendedcentrationto toxic cnia removet al. [94COD wasnia leachaMoreovermaterial oter and opThus, a stetion and ban efficienNearly, 7biologicalmising thLoukidouammonia

3.1.2.2. Anment of leabeing thusorganic efflContrary toenergy andtion rates [9to warm thfavourable

3.1.2.2.1Digester.growth d8090%anaerobicrespectiveSequencinrevealedreactors. Torganic lofier. Recencarried ouSequentiaNH4+-N atively, atperiod ofobic reactenhance bThereforedown sim

For instance, Kettunen and Rintala [75] showed that CODremoval was 35% in the anaerobic stage while in the com-

pro9%.last dobicigh rdigendeds enc

ow ass isent

B rerganirmanThe5 Ccon

encyempe

decandCO

d at tughtries.e trescaleentOD

ng raudederatuthatthe n

thusdisaance

.2.2.2anc

robicrs thize

ass ic rinnaer

varyiffereeen 4nt beid beottomas

ausined biolm reactor (MBBR) (or suspended-carrieractor (SCBR) or uidized bed reactor). MBBR pro-ed on the use of suspended porous polymeric carriers,ntinuous movement in the aeration tank, while themass grows as a biofilm on the surfaces of them.vantages of this method compared to conventional-growth processes seems to be: higher biomass con-s, no long sludge-settling periods, lower sensitivityompounds [70] and both organic and high ammo-als in a single process [86]. For instance, Welander] reported nearly 90% nitrogen removal while thearound 20%. In case of treating high strength ammo-te, no inhibition of nitrification is encountered [12]., the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) as porousffers an appropriate surface to adsorb organic mat-timised conditions for enhanced biodegradation [86].ady-state equilibrium is established between adsorp-iodegradation [95]. Imai et al. [87,96,97] developedt biological activated carbon fluidized bed process.

0% refractory organics were removed by couplingtreatment and adsorption process [87]. After opti-

e reactor operating regime, Horan et al. [86] andand Zouboulis [70] proved possible to reach 8590%reduction and 6081% COD reduction.

aerobic treatment. An anaerobic digestion treat-chates allows to end the process initiated in the tip,particularly suitable for dealing with high strengthuents, such as leachate streams from young tips [98].

aerobic processes, anaerobic digestion conservesproduces very few solids, but suffers from low reac-9]. Moreover, it is possible to use the CH4 producede digester, that usually works at 35 C and, underconditions, for external purposes.

. Suspended-growth biomass processes.Performances of conventional anaerobic suspended-igester are reported in Table 9. Typical values ofand nearly 55% COD removals were reached inlab-scale tank at 35 C and ambient temperature,

ly [71,100,101].g batch reactor. Some studies, presented in Table 9,

good performances of anaerobic sequencing batchhese systems are able to achieve solid capture and

wering in one vessel, eliminating the need for a clari-tly, nutrient reduction from pre-treated leachate wast using a lab-scale SBR by Uygur and Kargi [43].l anaerobicaerobic operations resulted in COD,nd PO43-P removal of 62%, 31% and 19%, respec-the end of cycle time (21 h). Also, in the initial

the landfill, sufficient organic abatement in the anaer-or through methanogenesis and denitrification, canetter nitrification in the following aerobic reactor., anaerobicaerobic system is recommended to bringultaneously organic and nitrogen matter [78,79,94].

binedand 9

Inanaer

so, hlongsuspecesse

Up-procetreatmUASric operfotors.203theseefficient tCODat low19.7 gductealthocoun

can bpilot-treatmand Bloadiconcltempshowimisemaymainsubst

3.1perform

Anaegatheminimbiomplastithat aratesfor dbetwconteHybrthe bas a gout ccess the COD and BOD7 removals were up to 75%

ecades, the performance improvement of the existingprocess was believed to be a promising option andate reactors have been designed in order to reducestion time [69]. Except the conventional anaerobic-growth reactor, UASB reactors are the main pro-ountered in the literature (Table 9).naerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. UASBa modern anaerobic treatment that can have high

efficiency and a short hydraulic retention time [69].actors, when they are submitted to high volumet-c loading rate values [103], have exhibited higherces compared to other kinds of anaerobic reac-process temperatures reported have generally beenfor anaerobic treatment with UASB reactors. In

ditions, the average performance of COD decrease(Table 9) was always higher than 70% at ambi-rature (2023 C) and 80% at 35 C. Up to 92%reases were obtained by Kennedy and Lentz [26]

intermediate organic loading rates (between 6 andD L1 day1). Only a few studies have been con-emperatures between 11 and 23 C [76,103,104,108]leachates may be cooler than that, especially in cold

Kettunen and Rintala [104] showed that leachateated on-site UASB reactor at low temperature. Areactor was used to study municipal landfill leachate(COD 1.53.2 g L1) at 1323 C. COD (6575%)7 (up to 95%) removals were achieved at organictes of 24 kg COD m3 day1. Garcia et al. [103]that COD rejection efficiency was not affected by

re between 15 and 35 C. These promising resultshigh-rate treatment at low temperature may min-eed for heating the leachate prior to treatment, which

provide an interesting cost-effective option [76]. Thedvantages of such a treatment stay sensitivity to toxics [101].

. Attached-growth biomass processes. Typicales of such systems are presented in Table 9.

lter. The anaerobic filter is a high rate system thate advantages of other anaerobic systems and that

s the disadvantages. In an up-flow anaerobic filter,s retained as biofilms on support material, such asgs [106]. For instance, Henry et al. [16] demonstratedobic filter could reduce the COD by 90%, at loadinging from 1.26 to 1.45 kg COD m3 day1, and thisnt ages of landfill. Total biogas production ranged00 and 500 L gas kg1 COD destroyed and methanetween 75 and 85%.d lter. It consists on an up-flow sludge blanket at

and an anaerobic filter on top. This device actssolid separator and enhances solids retention with-g channelling or short-circuiting [102]. Enhanced

478 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

performances of such a process results from maximizationof the biomass concentration in the reactor. Nedwell andReynoldscies of 81organic loas anaero

Fluidized[87,96,97The comba means fImai et alidized belandfill lesludge anthis proce

3.1.3. PhyPhysica

pended soltoxic compadsorption,cal/chemicaddition ator to treat a

3.1.3.1. Flsively usedmacromoleuntil to dattion of flotZouboulis eas a post-trbiodegradaUnder optihas been re

3.1.3.2. Cotion may blandfill leac[20,113,11as a finalbiodegradaferric chloas coagulacomparisoninvestigateacids. It revculant dosaacid remov

Severalcoagulationaiming at ppriate coagconditionsof recentiron salts asufficient c Ta

ble

10Tr

eatm

ente

ffect

iven

ess

ofl

andfi

llle

acha

tew

ithth

eu

seo

fco

agul

atio

n/flo

ccul

atio

n

COD

(mgL

1)

BO

D/C

OD

pHFr

omCo

agul

ant

Conc

entra

tion

ran

geR

emov

al(%

)R

efer

ence

10

,850

BO

D6.

55La

ndfil

lCa

(OH)

20.

30.

6gL

18.

223

.5CO

D[1

18]

15

00B

OD

La

ndfil

lCa

(OH)

26k

gm3

57CO

D[1

19]

4000

881

00.

158.

3La

ndfil

lCa

(OH)

2+

Fe2(S

O 4) 3

0.5

4.0+

00.

2gL

139

COD

[120

]41

000.

058.

2La

ndfil

lFe

Cl3

or

Al 2

(SO 4

) 30.

010

.07M

405

0CO

D[1

13]

6000

820

00.

110

.17

La

ndfil

lCa

(OH)

2+

Al 2

(SO 4

) 31.

5+1.

0kgm

342

COD

[121

]33

0(bi

ologic

allyt

reat

ed)

0.02

7.5

Land

fill

FeCl

3+

Al 2

(SO 4

) 30.

11.

0gL

153

COD

[94]

282

417

TOC

Aer

ated

lago

onFe

Cl3

0.8

1.0g

L1

384

8TO

C[1

22]

782

1585

0.07

0.1

57.

68.

2La

ndfil

lA

l 2(S

O 4) 3

+Fe

Cl3

0.15

0gL

1A

l+0.

05gL

120

35

COD

[10]

15,7

000.

277.

7La

ndfil

lFe

2(SO 4

) 30.

3gL

1Fe

70CO

D[1

9]

Land

fill

Al 2

(SO 4

) 3+

FeCl

30.

738+

1.13

6gL

155

70

colo

r[1

14]

1200

150

00.

046.

87.

5La

ndfil

lFe

Cl3

0.2

1.2g

L1

39CO

D[1

23]

5350

0.2

7.9

Land

fill

FeCl

3+

Al 2

(SO 4

) 31.

05.

0gL

175

COD

[20]

5000

90 [158]27503105 0.48 6.57.5 Landfill Stirred tank/biologically active carbon process 15 2830 34 9598 TOC [6]27403200 0.51 Landfill Pilot research 90 [30]

S.Renouet

al./Journ

alofH

azardousMaterials150(2008)468493

485

Table 20Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of nanofiltration

Operating conditions Feeding Performance Reference

Material/geometry Cut-off Surface (m2) T (C) Velocity(m s1)

P (bar) From COD (mg L1) pH Flux(L h1 m2)

COD removal (%)

Spiral wound (Desal) 50% NaCl 1 ppm 8.5 Landfill 712 97.599 [73]Organic/tubular (PCI Membrane Systems) 0.04 25 2.8 1530 Landfill 142 TOC 5575 5560 TOC [160]Polyacrilonitrile/flat (KochWeizmann) 450 Da 0.007 25 15 015 Landfill 5502295 7.47.8 18 60 [161,162]Polysulfone/flat (KochWeizmann) 450 Da 0.007 52 75Oxide de zirconium/tubular (KochWeizmann) 1000 Da 0.125 57 65Polyacrilonitrile/tubular (KochWeizmann) 450 Da 0.049 25 3 20 Landfill 500 7.5 80 74 [38]Polysulfone/tubular (KochWeizmann) 450 Da 60 80Polymer/flat sheet (Desal) 200300 Da 0.0045 25 3 68 Landfill 200600 7.37.9 5266 [5]

Table 21Treatment effectiveness of landfill leachate with the use of reverse osmosis

Operating conditions Feeding Performance Reference

Material/geometry Surface (m2) T (C) P (bar) From COD (mg L1) pH Flux (L h1 m2) Removal (%)Composite/tubular (PCIMembrane Systems)

0.013 20 40 Landfill 335925 348 >98 COD [163]

Tubular/spiral wound 25 40 Landfill (biological pre-treatment) 1301 30 99 COD [29]Spiral wound 28 2053 Landfill 01.749 6 9698 COD [32]Cellulose acetate/flat (Osmonics) 0.0155 25 27.6 Landfill 846 8.8 93 COD [33]Spiral wound 20 Landfill 1820 5.66.6 [156]Polyamide/spiral wound (Filmtec) 6.7 Landfill (MBR pre-treatment) 211856 97 COD [45]Polyamide (Desal) 0.0044 60 Landfill (evaporation pre-treatment) 200.5 8 20.729 8690 COD [3]Polyamide/DT-module (Pall) 7.6 15.531.8 970.5 Landfill 4.87.0 47.2102.8 L/h/module 5085 COD [168]

7.6 311 5.05.9 50105.8 L/h/module 8090 COD7.9 26174

Spiral wound 2 30 25 Landfill 1700 8 32 99 COD [24]55 3000 58 89 COD

486 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

tion and membrane filtration. The process efficiencies were inthe range of 9598% in terms of TOC reduction, and exceeded97% for spsystems, oable to degout of the s

3.2.3. NanNF tech

water qualiand microbally made o200 and 20for dissolvrejection fotrate [159].leachates [ammonia wand geomevelocity of30 bar. Phytration andCOD from

Howeverequires eftrum of coleachates nstances, conatural org[165,166].

3.2.4. ReveRO seem

ods amongthe past, sescale, havearation of pthe rejectiometal concreported (Tthe first meof landfillogy was inthe disc-tuThanks tohigh efficiebiofouling80% of theRO use a DNorth Ame

Dependation timeranges betwspecific pespecific enpermeate f Pr

oces

sCh

arac

tero

flea

chat

eAv

erag

ere

moval

(%)

SSTu

rbid

ityR

esid

ues

You

ng

Med

ium

Old

BO

DCO

DTK

N

Tran

sfer

Com

bine

dtr

eatm

entw

ithdo

mes

ticse

wag

eG

ood

Fair

Poor

Dep

endi

ngo

ndo

mes

ticw

ater

trea

tmen

tpla

ntEx

cess

biom

ass

Rec

yclin

gG

ood

Fair

Poor

>90

608

0

Lago

onin

gG

ood

Fair

Poor

8040

95

>80

304

030

40

Slud

ge

Phys

ico/

chem

ical

Coag

ulat

ion/

flocc

ulat

ion

Poor

Fair

Fair

40

60

80

>80

Slud

geCh

emic

alpr

ecip

itatio

nPo

orFa

irPo

or

8070

90

507

0

Oxi

datio

nPo

orFa

irFa

ir

309

0

>

80R

esid

ualO

3St

rippi

ngPo

orFa

irFa

ir

80

30

40

Air

NH

3m

ixtu

re

Bio

logi

cal

Aer

obic

proc

esse

sG

ood

Fair

Poor

>80

609

0>

8060

80

Ex

cess

biom

ass

Ana

erob

icpr

oces

ses

Goo

dFa

irPo

or>

8060

80

>80

608

0

Exce

ssbi

omas

sM

embr

ane

bior

eact

orG

ood

Fair

Fair

>80

>85

>80

>99

406

0Ex

cess

biom

ass

Mem

bran

efil

tratio

nU

ltrafi

ltrat

ion

Poor

Fai

r

5060

80

>99

>99

Conc

entra

teN

anofi

ltrat

ion

Goo

dG

ood

Goo

d80

608

060

80

>99

>99

Conc

entra

teR

ever

seo

smo

sisG

ood

Goo

dG

ood

>90

>90

>90

>99

>99

Conc

entra

teecific organic pollutants. Contrary to conventionalrganisms such as nitrifiers or organisms which arerade slowly biodegradable substances are not washedystem and no loss of process activity occurs.

oltration (NF)nology offers a versatile approach to meet multiplety objectives, such as control of organic, inorganic,ial contaminants. NF studied membranes are usu-f polymeric films with a molecular cut-off between00 Da. The high rejection rate for sulfate ions and

ed organic matter (Table 20) together with very lowr chloride and sodium reduces the volume of concen-Few studies mention the use of NF to treat landfill

5,38,73,162164]. Nearly 6070% COD and 50%ere removed by NF, whatever membrane material

try (flat, tubular, or spiral wounded), with an average3 m s1 and a transmembrane pressure between 6 andsical methods were used in combination with nanofil-it was found satisfactory for removal of refractorythe leachate used. COD removal was 7080% [162].r, successful application of membrane technologyficient control of membrane fouling. A wide spec-nstituents may contribute to membrane fouling inanofiltration: dissolved organic and inorganic sub-lloidal and suspended particles [162]. In particular,anic matter fouling has recently gained interest

rse osmosis (RO)s to be one of the most promising and efficient meth-the new processes for landfill leachate treatment. Inveral studies, performed both at lab and industrialalready demonstrated RO performances on the sep-ollutants from landfill leachate [163,167]. Values ofn coefficient referred to COD parameter and heavyentrations higher than 98 and 99%, respectively, wereable 21). Tubular and spiral wounded modules weredium used in the early RO systems for the purificationleachate starting in 1984. An innovative technol-troduced to this market in 1988 with great success:be-module (DT-module) developed by Pall-Exekia.open channel module, systems can be cleaned withncy with regard to scaling, fouling and especially[169]. In 1998, Peters [170] reported that more thantotal capacity installed for leachate purification byT-module (Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland,rica. . .).ing on the salt content of the feed water and the oper-between the cleaning cycles, the operating pressure

een 30 and 60 bar at ambient temperature and thermeate flux reach 15 L h1 m2 [171]. The averageergy demand is low with less than 5 kW h m3 ofor a recovery rate of 80% [169]. Tab

le22

Effe

ctiv

enes

so

ftre

atm

entv

s.le

acha

tech

arac

teris

tics

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 487

Fig.

Howeveas major dmembranetreatment:treatment oshort lifetimtivity) andis unusableearly 1990sstriving forresulted inon the DT-m120 and 20salt fractionof the permtration fact

4. Discuss

Optimalative impaccomplexityto formulatin particulameans thatuniversal aprevious serespect to c

Suitable

- The inititivenesscharacterknowledsuitable tpresent i

- The naldards. Yimpact o

more stringent requirements for pollution control. Even bycombining biological and physico/chemical processes, only

al destruction of contaminants will be achieved. Due too-called hard COD, new regulations will not be reached.cent years, membrane filtration has emerged as a viablement alternative to comply with existing and pendingr quality regulations.

ay, the hardening of landfill regulations, controls andement hamper an efficient conventional treatment (suchbic or anaerobic biological methods, physico/chemical

ents), which appears under-dimensioned or does not allowh the specifications required by the legislator. So that,

rane processes, and most particularly RO offers the bestn, and have been proved to be the more efficient, adaptable

dispensable means of both:

eving full purification (rejection rates of 9899% for RO),ing the growing problem of water pollution.

ig. 4 concerning leachate treatments distribution, Frenchlearly reflects the worldwide trend, namely a markede of pressure-driven membrane processes in comparison

iologeve

byof th

foulinmen

un

led.rning(inosts73,14. Landfill leachate treatment distribution, in France [2].

r, two issues have been identified, and remain today,rawbacks for the implementation of pressure-drivenprocesses, and particularly RO, to landfill leachatemembrane fouling (which requires extensive pre-r chemical cleaning of the membranes, results in ae of the membranes and decreases process produc-

the generation of large volume of concentrate (whichand has to be discharged or further treated). In the, steady improvement of membrane technology andhigh water recoveries in landfill leachate treatmentdevelopment of a high pressure RO system basedodule and operating at transmembrane pressures of

0 bar. An adapted process permits to reduce certains by controlled precipitation. This means an increaseeate recovery from about 80% to 90% with a concen-or of 10 and a reduction of concentrate volume [172].

ion and conclusion

leachate treatment, in order to fully reduce the neg-t on the environment, is todays challenge. But, theof the leachate composition makes it very difficult

e general recommendations. Variations in leachates,

partithe sIn retreatwate

Todmanagas aero

treatmto reacmembsolutioand in

- achi- solv

In Fcase c

increaswith b

Howtionedchoicebraneenvirousuallylandfilthe buoptionment c[170,1r their variation both over time and from site to site,the most appropriate treatment should be simple,

nd adaptable. The various methods presented in thections offer each advantages and disadvantages withertain facets of the problem.treatment strategy depends on major criteria:

al leachate quality. Table 22 summarizes the effec-of treatment process according to key leachateistics: COD, BOD/COD and age of the fill. Thege of these specific parameters may help to selectreatment processes for the lowering of organic mattern leachate.requirements given by local discharge water stan-

ear after year, the recognition of landfill leachaten environment have forced authorities to fix more and

Fig. 5. RO tr(10 L h1 mwound membical treatment plants.r, landfill leachate RO feasibility is highly condi-the control of concentrate treatment costs and thee feed pre-treatment mode in order to reduce mem-ng. Residue production, which constitute a capitaltal concern, still remain major hurdle, since it is

usable and has to be discharged, further treated orThe transport to an incineration plant equipped for

of liquid hazardous waste remains the preferredspite of many controversies) but leads to high treat-. Others possibilities are slowly gaining importance74]:

eatment, in a concentration mode and constant permeate flux2), of raw and pre-treated leachate (lime + RDVPF)spiralrane (Koch Membrane Systems), 20 C.

488 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

- the solidification of residues with different materials, like flyash or sludges from wastewater treatment plants, and disposalon the la

- controlleof the lan

Methoddevelopedical requirepermits int

Moreoving needchoice, mness or hysurface. . .)tive as RO

On the coption for tof colloidaprincipal Rsame way,suitable, prprocess as

Althougthe temporashown by aor surfaceprecipitatiosuch as humbrane foulitherefore ament by ROthe separathere the soformed usiThis type oof inorganients, and da filter forpresent sev

- the guarathanks to

- the elimsmall-siz

- the reduc- a reduct

decanter.

Preliminoptimum dtion of thethrough elpresence ocipitation oto removemacromole

according to a mechanism of co-precipitationmechanism val-idated by Scanning Electron Microscopy visualization.

RDVPF is particularly efficient in separating of the pre-ed phase essentially composed of calcium carbonate ted by the lime pre-treatment. The continuous de-scalingfiltration surface by means of the micrometric advanc-ife allows relatively high fluxes ranging from 650 toh1 m2 to be reached with this type of facility. The

ludge production at the end of the RDVPF step reachesrage 5 g dry sludge L of pre-treated leachate, resulting one at 85% from the formation of CaCO3, at 10% from thecipitation of organic macromolecules and at 5% from the

RO trstanteacha), 20ndfill itself,d reinjection of the concentrate into changing areasdfill.

s to reduce the cost of treatment residues must beor improved with respect to ecological and econom-ments, biogas capture must be promoted, because iteresting exploitation cost reductions.er, techniques to prevent or control membrane foul-to be further investigated (suitable pre-treatmentodifications affecting surface membrane rough-drophilicity/hydrophobicity, cleaning of membrane. Biological pre-treatment are often proved ineffec-pre-treatment [15,45,175].ontrary, lime precipitation appears like a promisinghe pre-treatment of RO membranes and the removall particles and organic macromolecules that are theO foulants of landfill leachates [15,176,177]. In themicrofiltration and ultrafiltration have proved to beovided that they are preceded by physico/chemicallime precipitation [157,178,179].h lime precipitation is traditionally used to eliminatery hardness of the water by decarbonation, it has beennumber of studies focusing mainly on undergroundwater treatment to be able of removing by co-n certain high molecular weight organic moleculesic and fulvic acids, responsible for irreversible mem-ng [180183]. Pre-treatment by lime precipitation

ppears as a promising approach for the leachate treat-. However, whereas in the above-mentioned studies

ion of the precipitate was done through decantation,lid/liquid separation upstream of the RO unit is per-ng a rotatory drum vacuum precoat filter (RDVPF).f filter has already proved efficient for the separationc solid phases during the treatment of nuclear efflu-uring clarification of grape must. The use of suchthe clarification of lime pre-treated leachates woulderal advantages over decantation:

ntee of a constant quality of the pre-treated leachate,the use of a filter medium in place of the decanter,

ination by the filtering layer of the non-settleableed particles,tion of the volumes of sludge generated,

ion of the size of the facility by suppressing the

ary experiments showed that the addition of lime atoses of 5 g L1 triggers a mechanism of decarbona-leachates, that is, a 1540% decrease in the salinityimination of the temporary hardness linked to thef calcium and magnesium and through massive pre-f CaCO3. This pre-treatment also makes it possible2030% of the COD, essentially refractory organiccules (PM > 50,000 g mol1) such as humic acids,

Thecipitatgeneraof theing kn1000 Ltotal son ave

averagco-pre

Fig. 6.and contreated lSystemseatment, in a constant volumetric reduction factor (VRF) modepermeate flux (10 L h1 m2), of (a) raw leachate and (b) pre-te (lime + RDVPF)spiral wound membrane (Koch MembraneC.

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 489

Fig. 7. Compand (b) pre-tron RDVPF p

scraping ofistics of thelow volumesider an eamunicipal s

In compcosts of sucreduced foreduced. Mble to consby reducinconcentratehigher VRFeliminatesacids co-prcant decreathe use ofstabilized lthe processconversionversion ratand the haby RO, sevsite, whichof the tip810D /mhas been su

Reference

[1] R. War

[2] Agence De lEnvironnement et de Matrise de lEnergie, Enquete sur lesinstallations de traitement des dechets menagers et assimiles, 2002.

. Di Palma, P. Ferrantelli, C. Merli, E. Petrucci, Treatment of industrialndfillanag. Clemf land7832.K. Mintalaateriahemo. Pirb

ltratio706..C. Sf a san.L. Saumgcute te. BillM. Lend alt988)

. Baiachat22.. Welsing3512. Wanethod

1342Hars

p, Wa.S.K.ent, JG. HenaerobW.C.arison of RO plant performance with (a) raw (industrial operation)eated (expected improvement with lime precipitation + filtrationre-treatment) landfill leachate.

the diatomaceous layer. The interesting character-sludges obtained (siccity, dehydratability, stability,and very good pelletability) make it possible to con-

sy and well-advised storage of these sludges at theolid waste landfill (MSWLF) site.arison with ultrafiltration, the operation and capitalh a pre-treatment lime + RDVPF are, respectively,

r 80 and 50%. Volumes of residues are also largely

[3] LlaM

[4] Bo

2[5] S

Rm

C[6] M

fi2

[7] Ao

[8] CPa

[9] H[10] J.

a

(1[11] S

le1

[12] Uu

2[13] F

m

4[14] J.

ti[15] E

m

[16] J.a

[17] I.

oreover, applying this pre-treatment makes it possi-iderably reduce the operating costs of the RO unitg both the working pressures (by 820%) and the

volumes generated by operating at up to 3 times(Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 6, this pre-treatment also

almost all the fouling, probably due to the humicecipitated during the lime precipitation. A signifi-se in the frequency of membrane washings and incleaning chemicals can be expected. Considering aeachate with an average conductivity of 15 mS cm1,combination would make it possible to reach globalrates close to 90%, rather than the current 60% con-es at most industrial sites (Fig. 7). As for the fatendling of the low volume of concentrate generatederal solutions can be considered: (i) storing it at thewould entail a premature increase in the salt load

and (ii) eliminating it by incineration, at a cost of3 (Soumont, France) This combination of processesbject to a European patent pending process [184].

s

ah, The state of the Worlds citiesUrban Waste, 2001, pp. 7071.

treated66666

[18] I. Lo, CEnviro

[19] B. Wanas a hymunici

[20] A.A.CoagulChemo

[21] A. Lopmature

[22] J.-H. Imorganicanaerob

[23] H. Timlandfill

[24] I. OztuAdvanclandfill

[25] F. Cecetic was

[26] K.J. Keing batreactor

[27] Z.-P. WleachatMater.leachate by means of evaporation and reverse osmosis, Wastee. 22 (2002) 951955.

ent, R.C. Janssen, A. Le Du-Delepierre, Estimation of the hazardfills through toxicity testing of leachates, Chemosphere 35 (1997)796.arttinen, R.H. Kettunen, K.M. Sormunen, R.M. Soimasuo, J.A., Screening of physicalchemical methods for removal of organicl, nitrogen and toxicity from low strength landfill leachates,sphere 46 (2002) 851858.azari, V. Ravindran, B.N. Badriyha, S. Kim, Hybrid membranen process for leachate treatment, Water Res. 30 (1996) 2691

ilva, M. Dezotti, G.L. SantAnna Jr., Treatment and detoxicationitary landfill leachate, Chemosphere 55 (2004) 207214.

isinno, E.C. Oliveira-Filho, M.C. Dufrayer, J.C. Moreira, F.J.R.arten, Toxicity evolution of a municipal leachate using zebrafishsts, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 64 (2000) 107113.

ard, Centre de stockage des dechets Exploitation, 2001.ma, R. Mendez, R. Blazquez, Characteristics of landfill leachates

ernatives for their treatment: a review, Water Air Soil Pollut. 40223250.g, I. Coulomb, P. Courant, P. Liechti, Treatment of landfilles: Lapeyrouse and Satrod case studies, Ozone Sci. Eng. 21 (1999)

ander, T. Henryson, T. Welander, Nitrification of landfill leachatesuspended-carrier biofilm technology, Water Res. 31 (1997)355.g, D.W. Smith, M.G. El-Din, Application of advanced oxidations for landfill leachate treatment, J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2 (2003)7.em, Identification of organic compounds in leachate from a wasteter Res. 17 (1983) 699705.Chian, F.B. DeWalle, Sanitary landfill leachates and their treat-. Environ. Eng. Div. (1976) 411431.nry, D. Prasad, H. Young, Removal of organics from leachates byic filter, Water Res. 21 (1987) 13951399.Lau, P. Wang, H.H.P. Fang, Organic removal of anaerobicallyleachate by Fenton coagulation, J. Environ. Eng. Sci. (2001)9.haracteristics and treatment of leachates from domestic landfills,

n. Int. 22 (1996) 433442.g, Y. Shen, Performance of an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)

drolysisacidogenesis unit in treating landfill leachate mixed withpal sewage, Water Sci. Technol. 42 (2000) 115121.

Tatsi, I. Zouboulis, K.A. Matis, P. Samaras,ationflocculation pretreatment of sanitary landfill leachates,spher 53 (2003) 737744.ez, M. Pagano, A. Volpe, A. Di Pinto, Fentons pre-treatment oflandfill leachate, Chemosphere 54 (2004) 10051010., H.-J. Woo, M.-W. Choi, K.-B. Han, C.-W. Kim, Simultaneousand nitrogen removal from municipal landfill leachate using anicaerobic system, Water Res. 35 (2001) 24032410.ur, I. Ozturk, Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treatment ofleachate, Water Res. 33 (1999) 32253230.rk, M. Altinbas, I. Koyuncu, O. Arikan, C. Gomec-Yangin,ed physico-chemical treatment experiences on young municipalleachates, Waste Manage. 23 (2003) 441446.n, O. Aktas, Aerobic co-treatment of landfill leachate with domes-tewater, Environ. Eng. Sci. 21 (2004) 303312.nnedy, E.M. Lentz, Treatment of landfill leachate using sequenc-ch and continuous flow upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)s, Water Res. 34 (2000) 36403656.ang, Z. Zhang, Y.-J. Lin, N.-S. Deng, T. Tao, K. Zhuo, Landfille treatment by a coagulationphotooxidation process, J. Hazard.B95 (2002) 153159.

490 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

[28] X.Z. Li, Q.L. Zhao, Efficiency of biological treatment affected by highstrength of ammonium-nitrogen in leachate and chemical precipita-tion of ammonium-nitrogen as pretreatment, Chemosphere 44 (2001)3743.

[29] G. BaubiologiWater S

[30] L. Vantreatme35 (199

[31] D. Frasterm chleachat33534

[32] A. Chireverse

[33] J. BohmembrBioche

[34] J.J. Wuby ozo99710

[35] F. Kargment oBioche

[36] K. Orucontain4396.

[37] T.H. Hpretrea(2000)

[38] D. Trebof operscale st

[39] K. Tabof landindustr

[40] R. Goumatterical tre

[41] H.A. AchemicWaste

[42] S.P. ChleachatCatal. B

[43] A. Uygleachat914.

[44] F.J. Rileachat(2003)

[45] W.-Y.leachat(2002)

[46] E. Diambined treactor

[47] F. Ceclandfilland con

[48] S.D.J.of a laEnviro

[49] F. Cecedomest

[50] J.-H. Bleachat

production from solid waste, Water Sci. Technol. 38 (1998) 159168.

[51] S. Chugh, W. Clarke, P. Pullammanappallil, V. Rudolph, Effect of recir-ulated998)Rodr

f nonon, W.R. Runicies. 14.M. Ocyclendfill.T. Scircumula165.Rodrndreses. 34. Ledaon of.Y.S.n biogwage

99.San,

n mu

5927. Bae,ated s6692. Hos

equenunici

ompo. Kno9 (198.H. Lienton000).E. Mmova

.D. Rte aer2 (198. Maeructe.D. Mrface

3 (199. Zalog bat997).Y. Lising a.X. Lent peatme.S. Buf the t4731.D. Rastesachat. Rauioreacmgarten, C.F. Seyfried, Experiences and new developments incal pretreatment and physical post-treatment of landfill leachate,ci. Technol. 34 (1996) 445453.Dijk, G.C.G. Roncken, Membrane bioreactors for wastewater

nt: the state of the art and new developments, Water Sci. Technol.7) 3541.cari, F. Bronzini, G. Giordano, G. Tedioli, M. Nocentini, Long-aracterization, lagoon treatment and migration potential of landfille: a case study in an active Italian landfill, Chemosphere 54 (2004)3.

anese, R. Ranauro, N. Verdone, Treatment of landfill leachate byosmosis, Water Res. 33 (1999) 647652.

dziewicz, M. Bodzek, J. Gorska, Application of pressure-drivenane techniques to biological treatment of landfill leachate, Processm. 36 (2001) 641646., C. Wu, H. Ma, C.C. Chang, Treatment of landfill leachate

ne-based advanced oxidation processes, Chemosphere 54 (2004)03.i, M. Pamukoglu, Simultaneous adsorption and biological treat-f pre-treated landfill leachate by fed-batch operation, Processm. 38 (2003) 14131420.pold, T. Tenno, T. Henrysson, Biological lagooning of phenols-ing oil shale ash heaps leachate, Water Res. 34 (2000) 4389

oilijoki, R.H. Kettunen, J.A. Rintala, Nitrification of anaerobicallyted municipal landfill leachate at low temperature, Water Res. 3414351446.ouet, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, J.P. Maleriat, F. Quemeneur, Effectating conditions on the nanofiltration of landfill leachates: pilot-udies, Environ. Technol. 20 (1999) 587596.et, P. Moulin, J.D. Vilomet, A. Amberto, F. Charbit, Purificationfill leachate with membrane processes: preliminary studies for anial plant, Sep. Sci. Technol. 37 (2002) 10411063.rdon, C. Comel, P. Vermande, J. Veron, Fractionation of the organicof a landfill leachate before and after aerobic or anaerobic biolog-atment, Water Res. 23 (1989) 167173.ziz, M.S. Yussff, M.N. Adlan, N.H. Adnan, S. Alias, Physico-al removal of iron from semi-aerobic leachate by limestone filter,Manage. 24 (2004) 353358.o, S.C. Hong, S. Hong, Photocatalytic degradation of the landfille containing refractory matters and nitrogen compounds, Appl.: Environ. 39 (2002) 125133.

ur, F. Kargi, Biological nutrient removal from pre-treated landfille in a sequencing batch reactor, J. Environ. Manage. 71 (2004)

vas, F. Beltran, O. Gimeno, B. Acedo, F. Carvalho, Stabilizedes: ozone-actived carbon treatment and kinetics, Water Res. 3748234834.Ahn, M.-S. Kang, S.-K. Yim, K.-H. Choi, Advanced landfille treatment using integrated membrane process, Desalination 149109114.adopoulos, P. Samaras, X. Dabou, G.P. Sakellaropoulos, Com-

reatment of leachate and domestic sewage in a sequencing batch, Water Sci. Technol. 36 (1997) 6168.en, O. Aktas, Effect of PAC addition in combined treatment ofleachate and domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fed-batchtinuous-flow reactors, Water SA 27 (2001) 177188.

Booth, D. Urfer, G. Pereira, K.J. Cober, Assessing the impactndfill leachate on a Canadian wastewater treatment plant, Watern. Res. 68 (1996) 11791186.n, D. Cakiroglu, Impact of landfill leachate on the co-treatment ofic wastewater, Biotechnol. Lett. 23 (2001) 821826.ae, K.-W. Cho, B.-S. Bum, S.-J. Lee, B.-H. Yoon, Effects ofe recycle and anaerobic digester sludge recycle on the methane

c

(1[52] J.

o

ti[53] D

m

R[54] D

re

la[55] D

re

si2

[56] J.AR

[57] Sti

[58] Go

se

3[59] I.

o

2[60] B

v

2[61] M

Sm

c

[62] K1

[63] SF(2

[64] Hre

[65] Hsi2

[66] Tst

[67] Csu

1[68] R

in(1

[69] Cu

[70] Mm

tr[71] P

o

1[72] H

w

le[73] R

bleachate volume on MSW degradation, Waste Manage. Res. 16564573.iguez, L. Castrillon, E. Maranon, H. Sastre, E. Fernandez, Removal-biodegradable organic matter from landfill leachates by adsorp-ater Res. 38 (2004) 32973303.einhart, A.B. Al-Yousfi, The impact of leachate recirculation onpal solid waste landfill operating characteristics, Waste Manage.(1996) 337346.Keefe, D.P. Chynoweth, Influence of phase separation, leachateand aeration on treatment of municipal solid waste in simulatedcells, Bioresour. Technol. 72 (2000) 5566.ponza, O.N. Agdag, Impact of leachate recirculation andlation volume on stabilization of municipal solid wastes inted anaerobic bioreactors, Process Biochem. 39 (2004) 2157

iguez Iglesias, L. Castrillon Pelaez, E. Maranon Maison, H. Sastre, Biomethanization of municipal solid waste in a pilot plant, Water(2000) 447454.kowicz, K. Kaczorek, Laboratory simulation of anaerobic diges-

municipal solid waste, J. Environ. Sci. Health A39 (2004) 859871.Chan, L.M. Chu, M.H. Wong, Effects of leachate recirculationas production from landfill co-disposal of municipal solid waste,sludge and marine sediment, Environ. Pollut. 118 (2002) 393

T.T. Onay, Impact of various leachate recirculation regimesnicipal solid waste degradation, J. Hazard. Mater. B87 (2001)1.E. Jung, Y. Kim, H. Shin, Treatment of landfill leachate using acti-

ludge process and electron-beam radiation, Water Res. 33 (1999)673.omi, K. Matsusige, Y. Inamori, R. Sudo, K. Yamada, Z. Yoshino,cing batch reactor activated sludge processes for the treatment ofpal landfill leachate: removal of nitrogen and refractory organicunds, Water Sci. Technol. 21 (1989) 16511654.x, Leachate treatment with nitrification of ammonia, Water Res.5) 895904.n, C.C. Chang, Treatment of landfill leachate by combined electro-oxidation and sequencing batch reactor method, Water Res. 3442434249.aynard, S.K. Ouki, S.C. Williams, Tertiary lagoons: a review ofl mechanisms and performance, Water Res. 33 (1999) 113.obinson, G. Grantham, The treatment of landfill leachates in on-ated lagoon plants: experience in Britain and Ireland, Water Res.8) 733747.hlum, Treatment of landfill leachate in on-site lagoons and con-d wetlands, Water Sci. Technol. 32 (1995) 129135.artin, K.D. Johnson, The use of extended aeration and in-series-flow wetlands for landfill leachate treatment, Waste Manage. Res.5) 103121.um, M. Abbott, Anaerobic pretreatment improves single sequenc-ch reactor treatment of landfill leachates, Water Sci. Technol. 35207214.n, F.Y. Chang, C.H. Chang, Co-digestion of leachate with septageUASB reactor, Bioresour. Technol. 73 (2000) 175178.oukidou, A.I. Zouboulis, Comparaison of two biological treat-

rocess using attached-growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachatent, Environ. Pollut. 111 (2001) 273281.ll, J.V. Evans, R.M. Wechsler, K.J. Cleland, Biological technologyreatment of leachate from sanitary landfills, Water Res. 17 (1983)481.obinson, P. Maris, The treatment of leachates from domesticin landfillsI: aerobic biological treatment of a medium-strengthe, Water Res. 17 (1983) 15371548.tenbach, R. Mellis, Waste water treatment by a combination oftor and nanofiltration, Desalination 95 (1994) 171188.

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 491

[74] Q. Yi, W. Yibo, Z. Huiming, Efficacy of pre-treatment methods in the acti-vated sludge removal of refractory compounds in coke-plant wastewater,Water Res. 28 (1994) 701707.

[75] R.H. Ksulphur17718

[76] R.H. Kanaerobperatur

[77] J.-H. Bremova

via Fen36 (199

[78] M. Mawaste ldenitrifi

[79] D.M. Sleachat32 (199

[80] O.N. AlandfillreactorBioche

[81] J. Dollardous(1996)

[82] A.I. Zoof sani

[83] F. Kargfill leac58859

[84] F. KargtreatedMicrob

[85] F. Kargment oTechno

[86] N.J. Hcarbontaining36937

[87] A. Imarefractobed pro

[88] U. Welleachat

[89] P. Haalandfillozonatitreatme

[90] J.P.Y. Jnitrogein biofi(2002)

[91] O. AktareactorChem.

[92] R.L. Irof leac

[93] K. Knoleachat

[94] U. Welfrom mprocess

[95] N. IwaleachatmicrooSci. Te

[96] A. Imai, N. Iwami, K. Matsushige, Y. Inamori, R. Sudo, Removalof refractory organics and nitrogen from landfill leachate by themicroorganism-attached activated carbon fluidized bed process, Water

es. 27. Imaifracto

ed pro. Pokview,Berr

actor.-Y. L0130. Sun

nstablll, Wa. Timatch re. Garachat

t 35 C.H. Keating. Borzenitrient: pechno.B. Nethan

128..T. S

f cercility aci. Te. MenigestibndfillRubieatme. Zouon, C.W. Kfficien

Monationachat004). Am

oagula. Zament o

oagulaon, W.-J. Easte M. Zount fornviro.J. Riachat

ess, J.. Thoon, J.Keen

6 (198. Loi

f land0591ettunen, J.A. Rintala, Sequential anaerobicaerobic treatment ofrich phenolic leachates, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 62 (1995)4.ettunen, T.H. Hoilijoki, J.A. Rintala, Anaerobic sequentialicaerobic treatments of municipal landfill leachate at low tem-

es, Bioresour. Technol. 58 (1996) 3140.ae, S. Kim, H. Chang, Treatment of landfill leachates: ammonial via nitrification and denitrification and further COD reductiontons treatment followed by activated sludge, Water Sci. Technol.7) 341348.

rtienssen, R. Schops, Biological treatment of leachate from solidandfill sitesalterations in the bacterial community during thecation process, Water Res. 31 (1997) 11641170.

hiskoswski, D.S. Mavinic, Biological treatment of a high ammoniae: influence of external carbon during initial startup, Water Res.8) 25332541.gdag, D.T. Sponza, Anaerobic/aerobic treatment of municipalleachate in sequential two-stage up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket(UASB)/completely stirred tank reactor (CSTR) systems, Processm. 40 (2004) 895902.erer, P.A. Wilderer, Biological treatment of leachates from haz-waste landfills using SBBR technology, Water Sci. Technol. 34437453.uboulis, M.X. Loukidou, K. Christodoulou, Enzymatic treatmenttary landfill leachate, Chemosphere 44 (2001) 11031108.i, M. Pamukoglu, Aerobic biological treatment of pre-treted land-hate by fed-batch operation, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 33 (2003)5.i, M. Pamukoglu, Repeated fed-batch biological treatment of pre-landfill leachate by powdered actived carbon addition, Enzyme. Technol. 34 (2004) 422428.i, M.Y. Pamukoglu, Adsorbent supplemented biological treat-

f pre-treated landfill leachates by fed-batch operation, Bioresour.l. 94 (2004) 285291.oran, H. Gohar, B. Hill, Application of a granular actived-biological fluidized bed for the treament of landfill leachates con-high concentrations of ammonia, Water Sci. Technol. 36 (1997)5.i, K. Onuma, Y. Inamori, R. Sudo, Effects of pre-ozonation inry leachate treatment by the biological actived carbon fluidizedcess, Environ. Technol. 19 (1998) 213221.

ander, T. Henrysson, Physical and chemical treatment of a nitrifiede from a municipal landfill, Environ. Technol. 19 (1998) 591599.pea, S. Korhonen, T. Tuhkanen, Treatment of industrialleachates by chemical and biological methods: ozonation,

on + hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen peroxyde and biological post-nt for ozonated water, Ozone Sci. Eng. 24 (2002).okela, R.H. Kettunen, K.M. Sormunen, J.A. Rintala, Biologicaln removal from municipal landfill leachate: low-cost nitrificationlters and laboratory scale in-situ denitrification, Water Res. 3640794087.s, F. Cecen, Addition of activated carbon to batch activated sludge

s in the treatment of landfill leachate and domestic wastewater, J.Technol. Biotechnol. 76 (2001) 793802.vine, S.A. Sojka, J.F. Colaruotolo, Enhanced biological treatmenthates from industrial landfills, Hazard. Waste 1 (1984) 123135.x, P.H. Jones, Complexation characteristics of sanitary landfilles, Water Res. 13 (1979) 839846.ander, T. Henrysson, T. Welander, Biological nitrogen removalunicipal landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended carrier biofilm, Water Res. 4 (1998) 95102.mi, A. Imai, Y. Inamori, R. Sudo, Treatment of a landfille containing refractory organics and ammonium nitrogen by therganism-attached activated carbon fluidized bed process, Waterchnol. 26 (1992) 19992002.

R[97] A

re

b[98] D

re

[99] J.re

[100] C3

[101] Mu

fi[102] H

b[103] H

lea

[104] Rtr

[105] LDm

T[106] D

m

2[107] M

o

bS

[108] Rdla

[109] J.tr

[110] Ati

[111] Ye

[112] I.m

le(2

[113] Ac

[114] Rm

c

ti[115] H

W[116] A

laE

[117] Flec

[118] Rti

[119] J.5

[120] Mo

1(1993) 143145., K. Onuma, Y. Inamori, R. Sudo, Biodegradation and adsorption inry leachate treatment by the biological activated carbon fluidizedcess, Water Res. 29 (1995) 687694.hrel, T. Viraraghavan, Leachate generation and treatmentaFresenius Environ. Bull. 13 (2004) 223232.

ueta, L. Castrillon, Anaerobic treatment of leachates in UASBs, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 54 (1992) 3337.in, Anaerobic digestion of landfill leachate, Water SA 17 (1991)6.g Sung, D. Chang, H.Y. Lee, Performance improvement of ane anaerobic leachate treatment system in an industrial waste land-ter Sci. Technol. 36 (1997) 333340.ur, I. Ozturk, Anaerobic treatment of leachate using sequencingactor and hybrid bed filter, Water Sci. Technol. 36 (1997) 501508.

cia, J.L. Rico, P.A. Garcia, Comparaison of anaerobic treatment ofes from an urban-solid-waste landfill at ambient temperature and, Bioresour. Technol. 58 (1996) 273277.

ettunen, J.A. Rintala, Performance of an on-site UASB reactorleachate at low temperature, Water Res. 32 (1998) 537546.

acconi, G. Ottonello, E. Castello, H. Pelaez, A. Gazzola, M. Vinas,fication in a carbon and nitrogen removal system for leachate treat-erformance of a upflow sludge blanket (USB) reactor, Water Sci.l. 40 (1999) 145151.edwell, P.J. Reynolds, Treatment of landfill leachate by

ogenic and sulphate-reducing digestion, Water Res. 30 (1996)

uidan, A. Schroeder, R. Nath, E. Krishnan, R. Brenner, Treatmentla (comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and lia-ct) leachates by carbon-assisted anaerobic fluidized beds, Waterchnol. 27 (1993) 273282.dez, J.M. Lema, R. Blazquez, M. Pan, C. Forjan, Characterization,ility and anaerobic treatment of leachates from old and young

s, Water Sci. Technol. 21 (1989) 145155.o, M.L. Souza, R.W. Smith, Overview of flotation as a wastewaternt technique, Miner. Eng. 15 (2002) 139155.boulis, W. Jun, A. Katsoyiannis, Removal of humic acids by flota-olloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 231 (2003) 181193.ang, K.-Y. Hwang, Effects of reaction conditions on the oxidationcy in the Fenton process, Water Res. 34 (2000) 27862790.je Ramirez, M.T. Orta de Velasquez, Removal and transfor-of recalcitrant organic matter from stabilized saline landffill

es by coagulationozonation coupling process, Water Res. 3826052613.okrane, C. Comel, J. Veron, Landfill leachates pretreatment bytionflocculation, Water Res. 31 (1997) 27752782.ora, A. Moreno, M. Orta de Velasquez, I. Ramirez, Treat-f landfill leachates by comparing advanced oxidation andtionfloculation processes coupled with actived carbon adsorp-ater Sci. Technol. 41 (2000) 231235.hrig, Treatment of sanitary landfill leachate: biological treatment,

anage. Res. 2 (1984) 131152.boulis, X. Chai, I. Katsoyiannis, The application of biofloccu-the removal of humic acids from stabilized landfill leachates, J.

n. Manage. 70 (2004) 3541.vas, F. Beltran, F. Carvalho, B. Acedo, O. Gimeno, Stabilizedes: sequential coagulationfloculation + chemical oxidation pro-Hazard. Mater. (2004).

rnton, F. Blanc, Leachate treatment by coagulation and precipita-Environ. Eng. Div. (1973) 535544.an, R. Steiner, A. Fungaroli, Landfill leachate treatment, J. WPCF4) 2733.

zidou, N. Vithoulkas, E. Kapetanios, Physical chemical treatmentfill leachate from landfill, J. Environ. Sci. Health A27 (1992)073.

492 S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493

[121] A. Papadopoulos, D. Fatta, M. Loizidou, Treatment of stabilized landfillleachate by physico-chemical and bio-oxidation processes, J. Environ.Sci. Health A33 (1998) 651670.

[122] J. Yoonton rea38 (199

[123] H.-C. YoxidatiHealth

[124] X.Z. Liby chem

[125] C. Yancombincoastal

[126] M. Altcally tr(2002)

[127] J. Fettiby preoTechno

[128] B. MorformanProces

[129] M. HeManag

[130] F. Cecetion ontreatme

[131] J.K. M[132] C.P. Hu

role an13 (199

[133] V. Bigocompaof theSwitze

[134] R. Hauperoxidings ofLille, F

[135] B. SanPrelimlandfillnationa

[136] P.A. BaadvancSci. Te

[137] N.J. Kbiologicompo

[138] M. Stecompa(1997)

[139] S. BaigWater S

[140] D. Geetreatme365.

[141] J. Dercability4144.

[142] T.I. Qusolid-wJ. Chem

[143] O. Waleachatceedingfor Wa

[144] P. Schulte, A. Bayer, F. Kuhn, T. Luy, M. Volkmer, H2O2/O3, H2O2/UVand H2O2/Fe2 + processes for the oxidation of hazardous wastes, OzoneSci. Eng. 17 (1995) 119134.

. Geendfill

gemen.H. Inunici. Wentants

3794.H. Grganic.M. Khotoa.-K. Ky chemS. Kim

stabhines.M. Kenton. Be

atalytlean-uhotocWisz

. Webf orgafluen.C. Ceatme0922. Piat

ll leac.C. Sltrafil. Wehayernnneriinfilt.A. Piltrat.. Linachat. Treraitemanofil. Trebachatater R. Linf land130.. Treraitemanofil. Brarane s0871. Honatter997)

. Bilsater S. Ushmoto002), S. Cho, Y. Cho, S. Kim, The characteristics of coagulation of fen-ction in a removal of landfill leachate organics, Water Sci. Technol.8) 209214.oo, S.-H. Cho, S.-O. Ko, Modification of coagulation and Fenton

on processes for cost-effective leachate treatment, J. Environ. Sci.A36 (2001) 3948., Q.L. Zhao, X.D. Hao, Ammonium removal from landfill leachate

ical precipitation, Waste Manage. 19 (1999) 409415.gin, S. Yilmaz, M. Altinbas, I. Ozturk, A new process for theed treatment of municipal wastewaters and landfill leachates inareas, Water Sci. Technol. 46 (2002) 111118.

inbas, C. Yangin, I. Ozturk, Struvite precipitation from anaerobi-eated municipal and landfill wastewaters, Water Sci. Technol. 46271278.g, H. Stapel, C. Steinert, M. Geiger, Treatment of landfill leachatezonation and adsorption in actived carbon columns, Water Sci.l. 34 (1996) 3340.awe, D.S. Ramteke, A. Vogelpohl, Activated carbon column per-ce studies of biologically treated landfill leachate, Chem. Eng.s. 34 (1995) 299303.avey, Low-cost treatment of landfill leachate using peat, Wastee. 23 (2003) 447454.n, A. Erdincler, E. Kilic, Effect of powdered activated carbon addi-sludge dewaterability and substrate removal in landfill leachatent, Adv. Environ. Res. 7 (2003) 707713.cLellan, C.A. Rock, Water Air Soil Pollut. (1988).ang, C. Dong, Z. Tang, Advanced chemical oxidation: its presentd potential future in hazardous waste treatment, Waste Manage.3) 361377.t, F. Luck, H. Paillard, A. Wagner, Landfill leachate treatment:

rison of three oxidation processes using ozone, in: ProceedingsInternational Ozone Association Regional Conference, Zurich,rland, 1994.sler, M.A. Desjardins, D. Drouin, Utilization of ozone, hydrogene and their combination in the treatment of leachate, in: Proceed-the 12th World Congress of the International Ozone Association,rance, 1995.dya, S. Muttamara, C. Visvanathan, S. Boonthanon, J.C. Mora,inary investigations on ozone colour removal from a solid wasteleachate, in: Proceedings of the 12th World Congress of the Inter-l Ozone Association, Lille, France, 1995.rratt, A. Baumgartl, N. Hannay, M. Vetter, F. Xiong, ChemoxTM:ed waste water treatment with the impinging zone reactor, Waterchnol. 35 (1997) 347352.arrer, G. Ryhiner, E. Heinzle, Applicability test for combinedcalchemical treatment of wastewaters containing biorefractoryunds, Water Res. 31 (1997) 10131020.ensen, Chemical oxidation for the treatment of leachate-processrison and results from full-scale plants, Water Sci. Technol. 35249256., P.A. Liechti, Ozone treatment for biorefractory COD removal,ci. Technol. 43 (2001) 197204.nens, B. Bixio, C. Thoeye, Combined ozone-activated sludgent of landfill leachate, Water Sci. Technol. 44 (2000) 359

o, A. Gulyasova, M. Hornak, Influence of ozonation on biodegrad-of refractory organics in a landfill leachate, Chem. Papers 56 (2002)

reshi, H.-T. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, UV-catalytic treatment of municipalaste landfill leachate with hydrogen peroxide and ozone oxidation,. Eng. 10 (2002) 444449.

ble, M. Jousset, P. Courant, J.P. Duguet, Oxidation of landfilles by ozone and hydrogen peroxide: a French example, in: Pro-s of the International Symposium on Ozone-Oxidation Methods

ter and Wastewater treatment, Berlin, Germany, 1993.

[145] Dlaa

[146] Nm

[147] Alu9

[148] So

[149] Sp

[150] Yb

[151] J.inC

[152] SF

[153] Mc

c

p[154] J.

Vo

in[155] K

tr2

[156] Wfi

[157] Au

[158] ABtad

[159] TF

[160] Kle

[161] DTn

[162] DleW

[163] Ko

2[164] D

Tn

[165] Ab1

[166] Sm

(1[167] T

W[168] K

su

(2nens, B. Bixio, C. Thoeye, Advanced oxidation treatment ofleachate, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Waste Man-t and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, Italy, 1999.ce, Light-enhanced chemical oxidation for teritary treatment of

pal landfill leachate, Water Environ. Res. 70 (1998) 11611169.zel, A. Gahr, R. Niessner, TOC-removal and degradation of pol-in leachate using a thin-film photoreactor, Water Res. 33 (1999)6.au, F.S. Chang, Improved fenton method to remove recalcitrants in landfill leachate, Water Sci. Technol. 34 (1996) 455462.im, S.U. Geissen, A. Vogelpohl, Landfill leachate treatment by assisted fenton reaction, Water Sci. Technol. 35 (1997) 239248.im, I.-R. Huh, Enhancing biological treatability of landfill leachateical oxidation, Environ. Eng. Sci. 14 (1997) 7379., H.Y. Kim, C.H. Won, J.G. Kim, Treatment of leachate produced

ilized landfills by coagulation and Fenton oxidation process, J.e Inst. Chem. Eng. 32 (2001) 425429.im, A. Vogelpohl, Degradation of organic pollutants by the photo--process, Chem. Eng. Technol. 21 (1998) 187191.kbolet, M. Lindner, D. Weighgrebe, D.W. Bahnemann, Photo-ic detoxification with the thin-film fixed-bed reactor (TFFBR):p of highly polluted landfill effluents using a novel TiO2-atalyst, Solar Energy 56 (1996) 455469.niowski, D. Robert, J. Surmacz-Gorska, K. Miksch, S. Malato, J.-er, Solar photocatalytic degradation of humic acids as a modelnic compounds of landfill leachate in pilot-plant experiments:ce of inorganic salts, Appl. Catal. B: Environ. 53 (2004) 127137.heung, L.M. Chu, M.H. Wong, Ammonia stripping as a pre-nt for landfill leachate, Water Air Soil Pollut. 94 (1997)1.kiewicz, E. Biemacka, T. Suchecka, A polish study: treating land-hate with membranes, Filtrat. Sep. 38 (2001) 2226.

yzdek, R.C. Ahlert, Separation of landfill leachate with polymerictration membranes, J. Hazard. Mater. 9 (1984) 209220.rle Werk, Thor Chimie SARL, Speyer, Epuration des eaux usees;Cuir SARL & Co, Neutraubling, Epuration des eaux usees de

e; Decharge dordures menage`res, Kahlenberg, Epuation des eauxration, 1995.eters, Purification of landfill leachate with membrane filtration,Sep. 35 (1998) 3336.de, A.-S. Jonsson, Nanofiltration of salt solutions and landfille, Desalination 103 (1995) 223232.bouet, A. Berland, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, F. Quemeneur,ent des lixiviats stabilises de decharge par des membranes de

tration, Revue des Sciences de leau 3 (1998) 365381.ouet, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, F. Quemeneur, Stabilized landfill

e treatment by combined physicochemicalnanofiltration process,es. 35 (2001) 29352942.

de, A.-S. Jonsson, R. Wimmerstedt, Treatment of three typesfill leachate with reverse osmosis, Desalination 101 (1995)

bouet, A. Berland, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, F. Quemeneur,ent de lixiviats stabilises de decharge par des membranes de

tration, Revue des Sciences de leau 11 (1998) 365381.ghetta, F. DiGiano, W. Ball, NOM accumulation at NF mem-urface/impact of chemistry and shear, J. Environ. Eng. (1998)098.

g, M. Elimelech, Chemical and physical aspects of natural organic(NOM) fouling of nanofiltration membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 132159181.tad, M.V. Madland, Leachate minimization by reverse osmosis,ci. Technol. 25 (1992) 117120.

ikoshi, T. Kobayashi, K. Uematsu, A. Toji, D. Kojima, K. Mat-, Leachate treatment by reverse osmosis system, Desalination 150121129.

S. Renou et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 150 (2008) 468493 493

[169] T.A. Peters, Purification of Landfill Leachate with Membrane Technology,WQI Casebook, 1996.

[170] T.A. Peters, Purification of landfill leachate with reverse osmosis andnanofiltration, Desalination 119 (1998) 289293.

[171] T.A. Peters, Losmose inverse et le disc-tube module dans le traitementdes lixiviats, Tribune de leau 566 (1993) 6770.

[172] R. Rautenbach, T. Linn, L. Eilers, Treatment of severely contaminatedwaste water by a combination of RO and NFpotential and limits of theprocess, J. Membr. Sci. 174 (2000) 231241.

[173] B. Van Der Bruggen, L. Lejon, C. Vandecasteele, Reuse, treatment, anddischarge of the concentrate of pressure-driven membrane processes,Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (2003) 37333738.

[174] B. Van der Bruggen, C. Vandecasteele, T. Van Gestel, W. Doyen, R.Leysen, A review of pressure-driven membrane processes in wastewatertreatment and drinking water production, Environ. Prog. 22 (2003) 4656.

[175] A.H. Robinson, Landfill leachate treatment, Membr. Technol. (2005)612.

[176] C.S. Slater, R.C. Ahlert, C.G. Uchrin, Applications of reverse osmo-sis to complex industrial wastewater treatment, Desalination 48 (1983)171187.

[177] C.S. Slater, R.C. Ahlert, C.G. Uchrin, Treatment of landfill leachates byreverse osmosis, Environ. Prog. 2 (1983).

[178] C.S. Slater, C.G. Uchrin, R.C. Ahlert, Physico-chemical pretreatment oflandfill leachates using coagulation, J. Environ. Sci. Health A18 (1983)125134.

[179] C.S. Slater, C.G. Uchrin, R.C. Ahlert, Ultrafiltration processes for thecharacterization and separation of landfill leachates, J. Environ. Sci.Health A20 (1985) 97111.

[180] A. Esparza, A. Girou, H. Roques, A. Durand, Traitement des effluentsurbains ou industriels par entrainement des polluants a` loccasion duneprecipitation de CaCO3, Water Res. 14 (1980) 14591466.

[181] M.Y. Liao, S.J. Randtke, Removing fulvic acid by lime softening, J. Am.Water Works Assoc. 77 (1985) 7888.

[182] M.Y. Liao, S.J. Randtke, Predicting the removal of soluble organic con-taminants by lime softening, Water Res. 20 (1986) 2735.

[183] S.J. Randtke, C.E. Thiel, M.Y. Liao, C.N. Yamaya, Removing solubleorganic contaminants by lime softening, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 74(1982) 192202.

[184] S. Renou, S. Poulain, J.G. Givaudan, Procede de traitement de lixiviat06/07131, 2006.

Landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunityIntroductionLeachate characteristicsReview and evolution of landfill leachate treatmentsConventional treatmentsLeachate transferCombined treatment with domestic sewageRecycling

Biological treatmentAerobic treatmentSuspended-growth biomass processesAttached-growth biomass sy