Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/jenvman

Research article

Treatment of landfill leachate in municipal wastewater treatment

plants and impacts on effluent ammonium concentrations
R.B. Brennan a, b, *, E. Clifford a, b, C. Devroedt a, c, L. Morrison b, d, M.G. Healy a, b
a
Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
b
Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
c
Institut National des Sciences Appliqu
ees de Lyon, Lyon, France
d
Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Landfill leachate is the result of water percolating through waste deposits that have undergone aerobic
Received 14 January 2016 and anaerobic microbial decomposition. In recent years, increasingly stringent wastewater discharge
Received in revised form requirements have raised questions regarding the efficacy of co-treatment of leachate in municipal
7 September 2016
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). This study aimed to (1) examine the co-treatment of leachate
Accepted 24 November 2016
with a 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5): chemical oxygen demand (COD) ratio less than or
slightly greater than 0.26 (intermediate age leachate) in municipal WWTPs (2) quantify the maximum
hydraulic and mass (expressed as mass nitrogen or COD) loading of landfill leachate (as a percentage of
Keywords:
Landfill leachate co-treatment
the total influent loading rate) above which the performance of a WWTP may be inhibited, and (3)
Ammonium quantify the impact of a range of hydraulic loading rates (HLRs) of young and intermediate age leachate,
Activated sludge loaded on a volumetric basis at 0 (study control), 2, 4 and 10% (volume landfill leachate influent as a
Nitrification inhibition percentage of influent municipal wastewater), on the effluent ammonium concentrations. The leachate
Municipal solid waste loading regimes examined were found to be appropriate for effective treatment of intermediate age
landfill leachate in the WWTPs examined, but co-treatment may not be suitable in WWTPs with low
ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) and total nitrogen (TN) emission limit values (ELVs). In addition, inter-
mediate leachate, loaded at volumetric rates of up to 4% or 50% of total WWTP NH4-N loading, did not
significantly inhibit the nitrification processes, while young leachate, loaded at volumetric rates greater
of than 2% (equivalent to 90% of total WWTP NH4-N loading), resulted in a significant decrease in
nitrification. The results show that current hydraulic loading-based acceptance criteria recommendations
should be considered in the context of leachate NH4-N composition. The results also indicate that co-
treatment of old leachate in municipal WWTPs may represent the most sustainable solution for
ongoing leachate treatment in the cases examined.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction several hundred years after it is decommissioned (Wang, 2013). The

control of a landfill site, and appropriate treatment of the leachate it
Landfill leachate is the result of water percolating through waste produces, is paramount in the protection of the surrounding envi-
deposits that have undergone aerobic and anaerobic microbial ronment, as leachate contamination of groundwater, rivers, lakes
decomposition (Chofqi et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 2014; Mukherjee and soils has the potential to negatively affect local habitats, re-
et al., 2014). Its composition is a function of the type of waste in sources and human health (Ag dag
 and Sponza, 2005; Marshall,
the landfill, landfill age, climate conditions, and hydrogeology of 2009).
the landfill site (Chofqi et al., 2004; Slack et al., 2005). A landfill site The European Union (EU) Landfill Council Directive 1999/31/EC
will produce leachate throughout its working life and also for (EC, 2001) and subsequent waste management legislation (EC,
2008) have resulted in major changes in the waste management
sector in Europe over the last 30 years. The Landfill Directive sets
* Corresponding author. Room 1-029, New Engineering Building, NUI Galway, targets that (1) reduce the percentage of waste that can be con-
Galway, Ireland. signed to landfill for each member state (2) decrease the quantity of
E-mail address: raymondbbrennan@[Link] (R.B. Brennan).

[Link]
0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72 65

biodegradable municipal waste sent to a landfill, and (3) places COD) loading of landfill leachate (as a percentage of the total
responsibility on landfill owners to budget for the aftercare of a influent loading rate) above which the performance of a WWTP
landfill site for a minimum of 30 years after operation has ceased. may be inhibited and (2) quantifies the impact of a range of volu-
Prior to the implementation of this Directive, landfilling across the metric loading rates (VLRs) of young and intermediate age leachate,
EU was unregulated and poorly planned (EC, 2007). The Directive loaded on a volumetric basis at 0, 2, 4 and 10% (expressed as volume
has resulted in dramatic improvements in the manner in which landfill leachate treated in the WWTP as a percentage of the total
landfills, and specifically landfill leachate, is managed (McCarthy influent wastewater to the WWTP), on NH4-N removal. The study is
et al., 2010; Brennan et al., 2015). While there has been a decline thus focused on the identifying the optimum leachate loading
in landfilling in recent years, leachate generation is a legacy prob- strategy adoptable which will minimize the adverse effects of
lem, and the treatment of leachate is the major management issue landfill leachate presence in the WWTP and ensure effective
facing landfill operators (Zhang et al., 2009; Brennan et al., 2015). treatment of wastewater and leachate.
Many landfills are not located close to suitable receiving waters
(Knox et al., 2015). Therefore, the most sustainable option may be to 2. Materials and methods
transfer leachate to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for final
treatment. 2.1. Study sites
Leachate contains high levels of 5-day biochemical oxygen de-
mand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonium- Three activated sludge WWTPs, two of which were represen-
nitrogen (NH4-N), chloride (Cl), sodium (Na), potassium (K), ni- tative of WWTPs co-treating leachate in Ireland and another which
trogen (N), boron (B), solvents, phenols, hardness and metals, had not received landfill leachate in over one year and hereafter
including iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cobalt referred to as Sites 1, 2 and 3, were selected for use in this study.
(Co), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) (Tatsi Landfill leachate (LL) accepted at Site 1 and 2 (intermediate) and a
and Zouboulis, 2002; Chofqi et al., 2004; Ag dag and Sponza, 2005; young landfill leachate from another landfill (young) were identi-
Marzougui and Ben Mammou, 2006). Young leachate (generated in fied and hereafter referred to as LL 1, 2 and 3.
operational landfills or landfills closed for less than five years
(Renou et al., 2008)) is highly biodegradable and exhibits COD and 2.2. WWTP monitoring
NH4-N concentrations of up to 80,000 and 3100 mg L
1, respec-
tively, and BOD5:COD ratios of up to 0.7 (Stegmann et al., 2005). As a Sites 1 and 2 were selected and monitored to determine the
result, biological treatment methods are reasonably efficient in the impact of leachate loading regime on WWTP performance. Their
removal of COD, NH4 and metals (Kurniawan et al., 2006). operational information is given in Table 1. Both WWTPs received
Conversely, older (stabilised) leachate is less biodegradable and leachate (Table 2) at average VLRs, of 1.2 and 2.3%. Leachate loading
contains methanogenic leachate with BOD5:COD ratios < 0.2 regimes examined during the study were: (1) drip-feed (2) no-
(Stegmann et al., 2005), and therefore is not as efficiently treated leachate addition and (3) shock loading (i.e. relatively large
using biological methods. In the current paper, landfills are defined leachate volumes added to the WWTP in a brief pulse). Drip-feed
as young (operational/closed less than five years), intermediate and no-leachate scenarios were examined at Site 1, whereas
(closed more than five year but less than 10), and old (closed more shock loading was examined at both Site 1 and 2 (Table 3).
than ten years) (after Renou et al., 2008). Refrigerated automatic wastewater samplers (Aqua Cell, UK) were
To date, there has been limited work regarding the impacts of used to collect grab samples at eight-hour intervals at the head of
co-treatment of landfill leachate and municipal wastewater in the works prior to primary settlement and at effluent discharge
WWTPs (Renou et al., 2008), and studies have been largely limited points (effluent wastewater samples) of Sites 1 and 2. Influent and
to laboratory-scale batch experiments (Diamadopoulos et al., 1997; effluent flows were recorded using on-site flow recording equip-
Çeçen and Aktaş, 2004; Capodici et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015; Mojiri ment. For operational reasons, it was not practical to monitor each
et al., 2014). These studies have generally concluded that WWTP loading regime for a time period longer than the sludge age of the
removal efficiency is not adversely affected, provided the total WWTP, and this must be taken into account when interpreting
hydraulic loading of leachate does not exceed 10% of the total differences between leachate loading regimes.
municipal wastewater entering the WWTP. However, at these
volumetric loading rates effluent NH4-N and total nitrogen (TN) 2.3. Analysis of wastewater and landfill leachate
may be significantly impacted due to their relatively high concen-
trations in landfill leachate (Diamadopoulos et al., 1997; Ye et al., Samples were analysed for BOD5, COD, CODs, filtered total ni-
2014; Ferraz et al., 2014). The lack of recent studies examining trogen (TNf), filtered total inorganic carbon (TICf), filtered total
co-treatment of leachate in operational municipal WWTPs is a organic carbon (TOCf), ortho-phosphorus (PO4-P), nitrate-nitrogen
concern for WWTP managers, as wastewater effluent is subject to (NO3-N), nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N), alkalinity, sulphate, chloride,
increasingly stringent legislation in the EU. There is a concern that NH4-N and suspended solids (SS). All analyses were conducted in
recommendations based on laboratory studies and, not site-specific accordance with the standards method for the examination of
data, may result in failures to achieve compliance. water and wastewater (APHA, 2012). Conductivity and pH were
Studies have demonstrated that co-treatment of young leachate determined using a SAC950 sample changer and a Titralab 870.
with municipal wastewater does not adversely affect WWTP per- Total metal concentrations for Cu, Cd, Cr, As, Pb, Hg, and Ni were
formance (Diamadopoulos et al., 1997; Kalka, 2012; Ye et al., 2014); determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
however, the effect of old landfill leachate (BOD5:COD < 0.01; (ICP-MS) (Agilent 7500a Technologies Inc. USA) following micro-
Renou et al., 2008) has not been widely examined with the wave digestion (CEM Discover SPD Microwave Digester) using
exception of Del Borghi et al. (2003), who concluded that old Trace Metal Grade Nitric Acid (Fisher, UK).
leachate should mixed with young leachate before treatment. The
current study (1) examines the co-treatment of leachate with a 2.4. Nitrification inhibition batch experiments
BOD5: COD ratio less than or slightly greater than 0.26 (interme-
diate age leachate) in municipal WWTPs and attempts to quantify Laboratory batch experiments, conducted to supplement the
the maximum hydraulic and mass (expressed as mass nitrogen or results of the WWTP study, examined the impact of various landfill
66 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72

Table 1
Study site wastewater treatment plant operational information (Annual data 2013).

WWTP identifier Site 1 Site 2

Design P.E. PE 5000 25,000

Operating P.E. 2000 19,000
Leachate treated at WWTP LL1 LL2
Transportation method Tanker Sewer
Leachate entry point Aeration tank Sewer
Leachate pre-treatment None None
Annual volume leachate accepted m3yr
1 7302 47,744
Yearly average leachate influent volume as percentage of total effluent % 1.17 2.3

WWTP: wastewater treatment plant; P.E.: population equivalent; LL1 and 2: landfill leachate from sites 1, and 2 respectively.

Table 2
Study site landfill leachate characterisation.

Leachate entering Site 1 Leachate entering Site 2

Range Mean Std. Dev. Range Mean Std. Dev.

pH pH 6.8e7.8 7.3 1 7.8e8 8 0.12

Conductivity ms cm
1 6840e6870 6855 21 3117e4578 3803 735

1
Ammonium as N mg L 245e378 311a 67 120e246 183a 89
Total nitrogen mg L
1 279e429 351a 75 130e380 253a 130
BOD5 mg L
1 8e20 14 6 100e700 396 300
COD mg L
1 274e420 361a 77 698e2190 1362 759
BOD5:COD ratio 0.03e0.05 0.04 0.01 0.14e0.32 0.26 0.1
Alkalinity mg L
1 10e1083 547 759 1306e1918 1554 322
Chloride mg L
1 130e201 163 36 160e371 290 114
Sulphate mg L
1 109e320 210 106 7.2e93 43 45
SS mg L
1 12e89 44a 40 45e126 79a 42

BOD5: 5-day biochemical oxygen demand; COD chemical oxygen demand; Sig.: significance level; letters denote leachate concentrations which are not significantly different
to each other when comparing between leachates.

Table 3
Wastewater treatment plant influent and effluent daily loads (kg d
1) and percentage removal efficiency at each study site WWTP.

WWTP Reg. Average volume m3d
1 BOD5 (kgd
1) COD (kgd
1) TICf (kgd
1) TOCf (kgd
1) TNf (kgd
1) NH4-N (kgd
1) COD:TNf

Inf Eff % Inf Eff % Inf Eff % Inf Eff % Inf Eff % Inf Eff %

Site 1 D 2040 319 2 99 487 68 91 27 13 34 32 10 55 26 42
2 24 2 91 10:1-33:1

N 2470 512 9 97 905 97 88 37 26 16 46 11 47 49 30 39 44 3 96 16:1-19:1
S 2400 600 7 99 803 75 90 80 39 55 56 12 62 46 49 8 40 3 95 5:1-32:1
Site 2 SH 6450 1926 146 91 3742 394 88 324 144 52 436 106 75 238 174 20 200 30 87 9:1-25:1
SL 6210 1069 71 94 4082 270 93 294 79 69 323 72 77 217 149 29 191 4 98 11:1-19:1

WWTP: Wastewater treatment plant; Reg.: landfill leachate loading regime; D: drip feed; N: No leachate; S: shock load; L: low loading; H: high loading; BOD: biochemical
oxygen demand; COD: chemical oxygen demand; TICf: total filtered inorganic carbon; TOCf: total filtered organic carbon; TN: total nitrogen; NH4-N: ammonium nitrogen.

leachate on NH4-N removal in controlled experiments. Landfill analysis.

leachate LL1 and LL3 were added to a mixed liquor suspended
solids (MLSS) samples from Sites 1 and 3 at volumetric loading
rates (volume LL/volume MLSS sample) of 0, 2, 4 and 10% (n ¼ 3 for 2.5. Data analysis
each experiment). Landfill leachate and MLSS were collected,
transported to the laboratory, and stored at 4  C. Batch experiments Daily VLR was determined by expressing the daily volume of
were conducted within 12 h of sample collection. Experiments leachate treated as a percentage of the daily effluent treated at the
were conducted in triplicate using 2 L-capacity beakers in a cold WWTP. The instantaneous leachate loading rate (VLRi) was
room with a controlled temperature of 10  C, which is similar to determined by expressing the volume of leachate treated as a
mean air temperatures observed in Ireland (Met Eireann, 2015). percentage of the volume of effluent treated during the time the
Wastewater/wastewater and leachate mixtures were added to the leachate was discharged to the WWTP/sewer from the tanker or
beakers and immediately following this, aeration commenced us- on-site storage tank. Daily leachate BOD5, COD and NH4-N mass
ing an air-stone placed at the base of each beaker. Beakers were loads were also expressed as a percentage of daily WWTP influent
constantly aerated with an air flow sufficient to ensure suspension BOD5, COD and NH4-N mass loads. Data were analysed using
of solids throughout the experiment. Wastewater/wastewater and ANOVA in SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics 20 Core System, Version 20).
leachate mixture pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured Beaker experimental data satisfied the normality assumption,
and samples withdrawn from the beakers (2 mL) for alkalinity, while logarithmic transformations were required for the site
NH4-N and NO3-N analysis at t ¼ 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 24 and monitoring data to satisfy the normality assumption, based on
48 h. After 48 h aeration ceased, and filtered and unfiltered samples checking post-analysis residuals for normality and homogeneity of
were taken for analysis for COD and CODs (soluble faction of COD) variance. Free ammonia concentrations were estimated after
Anthonisen et al. (1976) using Eq. (1):
 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72 67

 leachate loading regime, while the equivalent daily BOD5 loading

½NH4
N  10pH ratios decreased from 5% to 0.7%, COD from 5.3% to 0.8%, and NH4-N
½FA ¼ (1)
Exp½6334=ð273 þ TÞ þ 10pH from 16% to 1.1%. The VLRi decreased from 15.2 to 1.9% during the
high and low leachate loading phases (Fig. 1). The leachate loading
regime at Site 2 did not significantly impact the COD and BOD5
removals when comparison was made between the effluent from
3. Results each leachate loading regime (Table 3). The range of COD:TNf ratio
observed at study sites shown in Table 3. However, TICf (p < 0.05),
3.1. Landfill leachate characterisation TOCf (p < 0.05) and NH4-N (p < 0.001) removals increased signifi-
cantly when the leachate loading regime was reduced from a high
The range and mean concentrations of pH, conductivity, NH4-N, to a low loading rate. Decreasing leachate loading resulted in
TN, BOD5, COD, BOD5:COD ratio, alkalinity, chloride, sulphate and decreased effluent NH4-N concentrations, with mean NH4-N con-
SS in landfill leachate accepted at the two study sites are shown in centrations decreasing from 4.0 mg L
1 during the high loading
Table 2. Concentrations of inhibiting compounds such as NH4-N period to 0.65 mg L
1 during the low loading period (p < 0.001)
(Table 2), As and Cu (Table 4) were not above typical inhibitory (Fig. 2).
thresholds (480 mg L
1, 0.05e0.1 mg L
1 and 0.1e0.35 mg L
1,
respectively) for nitrifying populations in inactivated sludge 3.3. Laboratory batch experiments
(Gerardi, 2002; Henze et al., 2002).
Initial CODf, CODt, NH4-N, total oxidised nitrogen (TON), alka-
3.2. WWTP monitoring linity, MSLL and VSS concentrations for leachate used in laboratory
batch experiments are shown in Table 5. Addition of intermediate
3.2.1. Site 1 and young leachate to MLSS increased initial NH4-N and alkalinity
Influent volume, COD, BOD5, TICf, TOCf, TNf and NH4-N daily concentrations (t ¼ 0.125 h) compared to the control (Fig. 3) for Site
mass loads and concentrations did not significantly differ between 1 wastewater and Site 3 wastewater. These increases were statis-
the three loading regimes (drip-feed, no leachate and shock tically significant for the young leachate, but not for the interme-
loading; p < 0.05) (Table 3). There were no significant difference diate age leachate (p < 0.05). Ammonium and alkalinity
between influent and effluent As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, and Ni con- concentrations were observed to decrease relatively steadily until
centrations (Table 4). Daily carbon loading rates were similar to VLR approximately 6 h after the experiment started (Fig. 3). Following
(Fig. 1), with average daily leachate loading accounting for less than this, a plateau effect was observed, with little further decrease in
0.1% and 2% of total BOD5 and COD loads to the WWTP throughout NH4-N and alkalinity concentrations with time. However, young
the study, while average daily TN and NH4-N loading accounted for leachate, added at a volumetric loading ratio of 4% or above,
a maximum of 9% and 8% of TN and NH4-N daily loads to the WWTP, significantly increased NH4-N concentrations compared to the
respectively. The VLRi was unchanged during the drip-flow phase, control (p < 0.05). Table 6 shows wastewater/wastewater and
but increased to 16% during the shock loading phase (Fig. 1) while leachate mixture pH and DO at t ¼ 0.125 and t ¼ 48 h. As the
instantaneous TN and NH4-N loading increased to 40% and 39%, leachate loading increased the treatments receiving leachate LL1
respectively. The leachate loading regime at Site 1 did not have a tended to approximately 7.3e7.4 and LL3 tended to 8.1e8.4
statistically significant impact (p < 0.05) on percentage removals of regardless of initial wastewater pH.
BOD5, COD, TICf, TOCf, TNf, or NH4-N (Table 3) or effluent concen-
trations (Fig. 2) when comparison was made between effluent from 4. Discussion
drip-feed, no-leachate and shock loading regimes.
The mean concentrations of BOD5, COD, NH4-N and chloride in
3.2.2. Site 2 landfill leachate accepted at the two study sites examined were
Influent volume, COD, BOD5, TICf, TOCf, TNf and NH4-N mass consistent with values reported in literature for intermediate
loads and concentrations did not significantly differ between high landfills (Frascari et al., 2004). The leachate volumetric loading
and low shock loading regimes (p < 0.05) (Table 3). There were no regime had no impact on WWTP performance and effluent con-
significant difference between influent and effluent As, Cd, Cr, Cu, centrations at Site 1 over the study period. Changing leachate
and Ni concentrations, but there were significant differences in loading regime at Site 2 from high to low shock loads increased
influent and effluent Pb and Hg (Table 4). The VLR decreased from NH4-N removal efficiency and decreased effluent NH4-N concen-
2.5 to 0.3% when the loading regime was changed from high to low trations. Wastewater treatment plant managers must ensure that

Table 4
Metal concentrations in WWTP influent, effluent and landfill leachate accepted at each study site WWTP.

Parameter units Cadmium* mg Lead* mg Mercury* mg Nickel* mg Arsenic mg Chromium mg Copper mg

L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1

Site Influent (before leachate added to aeration 0.3a (0) 1.7a (1.09) 0.06a(0) 6.3a (2.9) 1.06a (0.13) 5.7a (4.6) 0.01a (0.01)
1 tank)
Effluent 0.3a (0) 1.1a (0.51) 0.11a(0.17) 5.6a (1.47) 1 (0)a 4.1a (1.02) 0.01a (0)
Leachate at point of entry to sewer 0.6a (0) 3.17 (1) 0.12a(0) 57 (5) 33 (1) 93 (23) 0.03 (0)
Site Influent (including leachate which was in 0.3a (0) 4.41 (2.15) 0.08a (0.03) 5.7 (1.85) 1.55a (1.14) 6.2a (5.7) 0.12 (0.05)
2 sewer)
Effluent 0.3a (0) 0.91a (0.03) 0.06a(0) 4.57 (0.29) 1.01a (0.03) 4.1a (2.8) 0.04a (0.03)
Leachate at point of entry to WWTP 0.23a (0.1) 2.25a (1.85) 0.06(0.03) 31 (16.5) 22 (10.03) 63 (29) 0.02a (0.01)
Nitrification inhibiting value** 1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.05e0.1 1 0.1e0.35

Standard deviation in parenthesis; p < 0.05: significance level; letters denote leachate concentrations which are not significantly different to each other when comparing
between leachates.*metals on priority substances list (EC, 2008a); **Hanmer et al. (1983).
68 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72

Fig. 1. Bar chart showing leachate daily and instantaneous volumetric loading rates (VLR and VLRi), BOD5, COD, TN and NH4-N mass loads as a percentage of WWTP influent mass.
Units: %; D: drip feed; S: shock load; L: low loading; H: high loading; BOD: biochemical oxygen demand; COD: chemical oxygen demand; TN total nitrogen; NH4-N: ammonium
nitrogen; VLR: volumetric loading rate. WWTP: wastewater treatment plant; *denotes VLRi which in the instantaneous volumetric rate determined by expressing the volume of
leachate treated as a percentage of the volume of effluent treated during the time the leachate was discharged to the WWTP/sewer from the tanker or on-site storage tank.

Fig. 2. Boxplot showing wastewater treatment plant effluent concentrations. Units: mg L
1; D: drip feed; N: No leachate; S: shock load; L: low loading; H: high loading; BOD:
biochemical oxygen demand; COD: chemical oxygen demand; NH4-N: ammonium nitrogen; nitrate (NO3-N).

the final discharge to receiving waters is within the maximum set by the relevant authority. Wastewater treatment plant ELVs
permissible effluent concentrations or emission limit values (ELVs) depend on the size and water quality status of the waterbody
 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72 69

Table 5
Beaker experiment initial leachate and MMLS characterisation.

COD NH4-N Alkalinity TON MLSS VSS

Activated sludge from Site 1 3664 4.76 62.5 0.63 3265 2585
Activated sludge from Site 3 3232 5.93 34 6.94 1475 1075
Leachate from landfill 1 (LL1) 1236 134 700 1.034 135 60
Leachate from landfill 3 (LL3) 11,373 2800 7820 1.1 360 195

Units: mg L
1; WW: Wastewater; LL: landfill leachate; COD: chemical oxygen demand; NH4-N: ammonium nitrogen; TON: total oxidized nitrogen (NO3-N þ NO2-N); MLSS:
mixed liquor suspended solids; VSS: volatile suspended solids.

Fig. 3. Nitrification inhibition experiment ammonium (NH4-N), nitrate (NO3-N) and alkalinity trends at 0, 2, 4 and 10% leachate loading rates. Units: mg L
1; Error bars denote
standard deviation; WW: wastewater; LL: landfill leachate; NH4-N: ammonium nitrogen; NO3-N: Nitrate nitrogen.

receiving the treated effluent and are unique to each WWTP. loading regimes. At Site 2 final discharge NO3-N concentrations
Effluent concentrations were lower at Site 1 with an ELV of 1 mg were greater during the low leachate loading period, possibly
NH4-N L
1 compared to Site 2 with an ELV of 10 mg NH4-N L
1; indicating the inhibition of ammonium oxidizing bacteria during
however, concentrations exceeded ELVs for Site 1 for all loading the high leachate loading period.
regimes examined and not Site 2. There was a correlation between When treating wastewater, it is usually stated that the ratio of
WWTP VLRi and effluent NH4-N for Site 2 (R2 ¼ 0.68; p < 0.05) but COD:N: in the wastewater to be treated should be approximately
not for Site 1. These results demonstrate the challenges faced in 20:1 for aerobic treatment. At Site 1 COD:TNf varied between 10
treating landfill leachate in WWTPs with low ELVs. Future re- and 33 for the drip-feed treatment, 5e32 for shock and 16e19 for
ductions to ELVs pose a significant threat to continued co- no leachate treatment. Clearly leachate addition altered with the
treatment of landfill leachate worldwide. C:N balance within the WWTP particularly during the shock
Leachate-derived NH4-N accounted for 18% and 32% of TN loading period. At Site 2, however, there was not as significant
treated at Sites 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore, leachate co- variation between treatments.
treatment has the potential to have an adverse impact on aera- The batch experiments were in agreement with site monitoring
tion requirements, nitrification efficiency and WWTP operating results and demonstrate that intermediate age leachate loaded at
cost, as demonstrated at Site 2. Observed final discharge NO3-N volumetric ratios up to 4% or approximately 50% of total WWTP
concentrations indicate that nitrification occurred at Site 1 (Fig. 2), NH4-N loading do not significantly inhibit nitrification processes
although there were no significant differences between loading (Fig. 4). These findings have significant implications for WWTPs
regimes. Nitrate-N concentrations in the final discharge were accepting young leachate similar to LL3 with high NH4-N concen-
highest during the drip-feed phase, indicating that leachate trations, as co-treatment at recommended VLRs may inhibit nitri-
improved plant performance compared to no-leachate and shock fication processes, as demonstrated in the current study. When
70 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72

Table 6
Wastewater and leachate chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), free ammonia and COD: ammonium ratio for all beaker experiments conducted.

Volume COD pH Dissolved oxygen Free ammonia COD:NH4-N

mg L
1 mg L
1 mg L
1

48 hr 0.125 hr 48 hr 0.125 hr 48 hr

Site 1 w/w þ LL1 0% 3750 (1490) 6.3 (0) 5.3 (0) 9 (0.4) 9.9 (0.2) 0.00 424:1
2% 3250 (1070) 6.5 (0.2) 5.5 (0) 9.1 (0.2) 10 (0.6) 0.01 287:1
4% 2660 (2090) 6.8 (0.1) 5.3 (0.1) 8.6 (0.2) 9.8 (0.2) 0.02 161:1
10% 4630 (695) 7.4 (0) 5.3 (0.1) 7.5 (1.5) 9.7 (0.2) 0.04 658:1
Site 1 w/w þ LL3 0% 2020 (2290) 6 (0.2) 5.6 (0.2) 8.3 (1.2) 11.5 (0.4) 0.00 362:1
2% 2430 (1780) 7.1 (0.2) 5.5 (0.7) 8.6 (1.3) 11.2 (0.3) 0.15 41:1
4% 2570 (977) 7.6 (0.2) 6.8 (0.7) 9.5 (0.2) 10.4 (0.4) 0.91 23:1
10% 2580 (1960) 8.1 (0.1) 9.4 (0.1) 9 (1) 10.2 (1.5) 8.27 8:1
Site 3 w/w þ LL1 0% 3910 (1340) 8 (0.2) 8 (0) 7.9 (0.1) 2.5 (0.3) 0.09 876:1
2% 4000 (2320) 7.8 (0.2) 8 (0.1) 8.1 (0.2) 1.9 (0) 0.15 335:1
4% 3850 (2160) 7.5 (0.1) 8 (0.1) 6 (1) 1.6 (0.3) 0.06 421:1
10% 5910 (411) 7.3 (0.3) 7.8 (0.2) 9.5 (15.2) 1.5 (0.1) 0.07 342:1
Site 3 w/w þ LL3 0% 5040 (2010) 7 (0.1) 6.8 (0.2) 4.2 (0.7) 8.3 (1.7) 0.02 676:1
2% 4610 (994) 7.6 (0.1) 6.7 (0.3) 3 (2) 8.5 (0.8) 0.48 77:1
4% 2360 (1560) 7.9 (0.2) 6.9 (0.7) 4.1 (0.6) 8.1 (1.7) 1.71 22:1
10% 6360 (928) 8.4 (0.2) 8.8 (0.1) 5.8 (2.2) 8.9 (0.6) 15.9 18:1

Standard deviation in parenthesis; p < 0.05: significance level.

Fig. 4. Bar chart showing leachate volumetric loading rate (VLR), COD and NH4-N mass loads as a percentage of WWTP influent mass for laboratory batch experiments. Units: %;
COD: chemical oxygen demand; NH4-N: ammonium nitrogen; WWTP: wastewater treatment plant.

using a volumetric loading rate of >4% (which corresponded to an MLSS in beaker experiments increased initial NH4-N concentra-
initial concentration of approximately over 350 mg NH4-N L
1 tions compared to the control. Addition of leachate to wastewater
when LL3 was added to wastewater from Sites 1 and 3) nitrification MLSS was observed to increase initial alkalinity concentrations
inhibition occurred. It was not possible to determine an appropriate (t ¼ 0.125 h) compared to the control, but these increases were not
NH4-N based leachate loading recommendation. However, a statistically significant. Addition of intermediate age leachate had
loading rate of 2% (approximately 90% of total WWTP NH4-N load) no impact on final alkalinity (t ¼ 48 h), but young leachate added at
may be more appropriate for the young leachate. This could vary all rates examined, significantly increased alkalinity compared to
between leachates depending on NH4-N concentration and pres- the control (p < 0.05). Alkalinity was observed to decrease steadily
ence of other inhibitory compounds which were not observed in in all beakers, reaching a plateau at approximately 6 h. This in-
levels likely to inhibit nitrification in this study (Table 4). The re- dicates most of the nitrification occurred within the first 6 h of the
sults of the beaker experiment were generally in agreement with batch experiment.
the results from the site monitoring conducted during the current Effluent NO3-N concentrations indicate that nitrification
study (Fig. 2) and previous studies (Kalka, 2012; Ye et al., 2014). occurred in all beakers (Fig. 3) with the exception of leachate from
These results demonstrate that hydraulic loading-based acceptance Site 1 co-treated with wastewater from Site 1 and young leachate
criteria recommendations are not appropriate when co-treating co-treated with wastewater from Site 1 and 3 when added at 10%
leachate with municipal wastewater, unless leachate NH4-N (p < 0.05). It is likely that insufficient alkalinity in the wastewater
composition is considered and known in advance of acceptance. collected from Site 1 caused nitrification inhibition, as there was
Addition of intermediate and young leachate to wastewater insufficient alkalinity present to ensure that complete nitrification
 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72 71

occurred (Tchobanoglous et al., 2004). There are a number of and all stakeholders for facilitating sample collection and providing
possible reasons for the observed inhibition in young leachate (10%) data for the study.
treatments for both wastewaters. The most likely of these include
leachate toxicity, elevated free ammonia concentrations and
References
unfavourable C:N ratio. These results indicate that the inhibition
was to some extent caused by leachate toxicity, as alkalinity was not Anthonisen, A.C., Loehr, R.C., Prakasam, T.B.S., Srinath, E.G., 1976. Inhibition of
depleted entirely. In a subsequent experiment (unpublished data), nitrification by ammonia and nitrous Acid. J. (Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48.5,
leachate was pre-treated with ferric chloride (FeCl3) and decanted 835e852.

Agdag , O.N., Sponza, D.T., 2005. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment of municipal landfill
before being co-treated with wastewater from Site 3 at 4% in a leachate in sequential two-stage up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
beaker experiment. Coagulation did not have any impact on initial (UASB)/completely stirred tank reactor (CSTR) systems. Process Biochem. 40 (2),
NH4-N concentration; however, 48 h NH4-N concentration was 895e902.
APHA, 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
lower than untreated leachate (p < 0.05), indicating that coagula-
American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington.
tion in WWTPs could result in a decrease in ammonium concen- Brennan, R., Healy, M., Morrison, L., Hynes, S., Norton, D., Clifford, E., 2015. Man-
tration in effluent. It was not possible to determine the cause of this agement of landfill leachate: the legacy of european union directives. Waste
decrease in toxicity; however, this indicates that NH4-N toxicity Manag. 55, 355e363.
Capodici, M., Di Trapani, D., Viviani, G., 2014. Co-treatment of landfill leachate in
alone was not the cause. Free ammonia concentrations observed laboratory-scale sequencing batch reactors: analysis of system performance
were below the lower AOB inhibiting threshold of 10 mg L
1 re- and biomass activity by means of respirometric techniques. Water Sci. Technol.
ported by Kim et al. (2008) with the exception of the young 69 (6), 1267e1274. [Link]
€ 2004. Aerobic Co-Treatment of landfill leachate with domestic
Çeçen, F., Aktaş, O.,
leachate (10%) treatments for both wastewaters which significantly wastewater. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21 (3), 303e312.
were below the upper threshold of 160 mg L
1. Similarly the ratio of Chofqi, A., Younsi, A., Lhadi, E.K., Mania, J., Mudry, J., Veron, A., 2004. Environmental
COD:NH4-N was above the 20:1 limiting ration for all treatments impact of an urban landfill on a coastal aquifer (El Jadida, Morocco). J. Afr. Earth
Sci. 39 (3e5), 509e516.
except the young leachate (10%) treatments for both wastewaters. Del Borghi, A., Binaghi, L., Converti, A., Del Borghi, M., 2003. Combined treatment of
These results indicate the need for site-specific nitrification trials to leachate from sanitary landfill and municipal wastewater by activated sludge.
be conducted when accessing the potential impact of leachate Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 17 (4), 277e284.
Diamadopoulos, E., Samaras, P., Dabou, X., Sakellaropoulos, G.P., 1997. Combined
acceptance, especially for young leachate. treatment of landfill leachate and domestic sewage in a sequencing batch
reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 36 (2e3), 61e68.
5. Conclusions EC, 2001. Council Directive Concerning Urban-waste-water Traetment. Available at:
[Link] on
16th May 2015.
These results demonstrate the complexity of recommending EC, 2007. European Comission, DG Environment. Follow-up Study on the Imple-
appropriate management practices for WWTPs accepting landfill mentation of Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste in EU-25.
leachate. Throughout the world, landfilling is in decline and landfill EC, 2008. Official Journal of the European Union. Waste Framework Directive.
Available at: [Link]
leachate has become a legacy problem. Unmanned landfill sites will 32008L0098&from¼EN. on 18th May 2015.
require sustainable leachate treatment options to be developed. Ferraz, F.M., Povinelli, J., Pozzi, E., Vieira, E.M., Trofino, J.C., 2014. Co-treatment of
These findings indicate that although co-treatment of landfill landfill leachate and domestic wastewater using a submerged aerobic biofilter.
J. Environ. Manag. 141 (0), 9e15.
leachate at WWTPs may be appropriate in some circumstances, the Frascari, D., Bronzini, F., Giordano, G., Tedioli, G., Nocentini, M., 2004. Long-term
inherent variability in leachate composition and treatability ne- characterization, lagoon treatment and migration potential of landfill leachate:
cessitates a conservative approach. The main findings of this study a case study in an active Italian landfill. Chemosphere 54 (3), 335e343.
Gerardi, M.H., 2002. Nitrification and Denitrification in the Activated Sludge Pro-
are as follows: cess. Wiley-Interscience. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York.
Gupta, A., Zhao, R., Novak, J.T., Goldsmith, C.D., 2014. Variation in organic matter
1. Leachate loading regimes examined were found to be appro- characteristics of landfill leachates in different stabilisation stages. Waste
Manag. Res. 32 (12), 1192e1199.
priate for effective treatment of intermediate age landfill
Hanmer, R., Barrett, B.R., Prothro, M.G., Gallup, J.D., 1983. US Environmental Pro-
leachate in the WWTPs examined, but co-treatment may not be tection Agency. Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program
suitable in WWTPs with low NH4-N and TN ELVs. Development.
Henze, M., Harremoes, P., La Cour Jansen, J., Arvin, E., 2002. Wastewater Treatment:
2. Intermediate leachate, loaded at volumetric ratios of up to 4% or
Biological and Chemical Processes, second ed.
50% of total WWTP NH4-N loading, did not significantly inhibit Kalka, J., 2012. Landfill leachate toxicity removal in combined treatment with
nitrification processes. municipal wastewater. ScientificWorldJournal 2012, 202897.
3. Young leachate, loaded at volumetric ratios greater than 2% or Kim, J.H., Guo, X.J., Park, H.S., 2008. Comparison study of the effects of temperature
and free ammonia concentration on nitrification and nitrite accumulation.
approximately 90% of WWTP NH4-N load, resulted in a signifi- Process Biochem. 43, 154e160.
cant decrease in nitrification. Knox, K., Kowlesser, P., Rampersad, V., 2015. A case study of leachate management
4. Site-specific inhibition experiments may be necessary to at tropical landfills: mare Chicose, Mauritius. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2015,
Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Mar-
determine appropriate loading rates. These results demonstrate gherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, pp. 5e9. October 2015.
that hydraulic loading-based acceptance criteria recommenda- Kurniawan, T.A., Lo, W.H., Chan, G.Y., 2006. Physico-chemical treatments for
tions are not appropriate when co-treating young leachate with removal of recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J. Hazard Mater. 129
(1e3), 80e100.
municipal wastewater in that leachate NH4-N composition and Marshall, R., 2009. Guidance on Monitoring of Landfill Leachate, Groundwater and
impact on C:N balance must be considered and advance of Surface Water. Environmental Agency. Available: file:///C:/Users/0109448s/Do
leachate acceptance. wnloads/environmental_permitting_regulations_inert_waste_guidance.pdf
(Accessed 25 March 2015).
5. Nitrogen loading should be considered when estimating the Marzougui, A., Ben Mammou, A., 2006. Impacts of the dumping site on the envi-
cost of leachate treatment, as leachate may comprise up to 48% ronment: case of the henchir el yahoudia site, Tunis, Tunisia. Comptes Rendus
of TN and 32% of NH4-N loading, accounting for a significant Geosci. 338 (16), 1176e1183.
McCarthy, S., Moriarty, J., O'Riordan, D., O'Leary, G., 2010. The Environmental Pro-
portion of WWTPs aeration requirements.
tection Agency. Focus on Landfilling in Ireland.
Met Eireann, 2015. Temperature Data. Assessed 14th January 2016. [Link]
Acknowledgements [Link]/climate-ireland/[Link].
Mojiri, A., Aziz, H.A., Zaman, N.Q., Aziz, S.Q., Zahed, M.A., 2014. Powdered ZELIAC
augmented sequencing batch reactors (SBR) process for co-treatment of landfill
The authors wish to thank the Irish Environmental Protection leachate and domestic wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 139, 1e14.
Agency for funding this project (EPA Research Code: 2013-W-FS-13) Mukherjee, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., Hashim, M.A., Sen Gupta, B., 2014. Contemporary
72 R.B. Brennan et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 188 (2017) 64e72

environmental issues of landfill leachate: assessment and remedies. Crit. Rev. Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (5), 472e590. Wang, Y., 2013. Leachate Management in the Aftercare Period of Municipal Waste
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., Moulin, P., 2008. Landfill Landfills. PhD, Aalto University [Online] Available at: [Link]
leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J. Hazard. Mater. 150 (3), 468e493. sbn9789526051413/[Link] (Assessed 14th January 2016.
Slack, R.J., Gronow, J.R., Voulvoulis, N., 2005. Household hazardous waste in Wu, L., Zhang, L., Shi, X., Liu, T., Peng, Y., Zhang, J., 2015. Analysis of the impact of
municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci. Total Environ. 337 (1e3), reflux ratio on coupled partial nitrificationeanammox for co-treatment of
119e137. mature landfill leachate and domestic wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 198,
Stegmann, R., Heyer, K.U., Cossu, R., 2005. Leachate treatment. In: Proceedings 207e214.
Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium Ye, Z.-L., Xie, X., Dai, L., Wang, Z., Wu, W., Zhao, F., Xie, X., Huang, S., Liu, M., Chen, S.,
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, pp. 3e7. October 2005. 2014. Full-scale blending treatment of fresh MSWI leachate with municipal
Tatsi, A.A., Zouboulis, A.I., 2002. A field investigation of the quantity and quality of wastewater in a wastewater treatment plant. Waste Manag. 34 (11), 2305e2311.
leachate from a municipal solid waste landfill in a Mediterranean climate Zhang, L., Li, A., Lu, Y., Yan, L., Zhong, S., Deng, C., 2009. Characterization and
(Thessaloniki, Greece). Adv. Environ. Res. 6 (3), 207e219. removal of dissolved organic matter (DOM) from landfill leachate rejected by
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2004. Wastewater Engineering: nanofiltration. Waste Manag. 29 (3), 1035e1040.