Civil Engineering Department

Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES FOR LECHAEATE

TREATMENT

Prepared By: Sherieen yehia, MSc Eng (1)

Ahmed M. Atta, MSc Eng (2)
Nagwan Gamal , MSc Eng (3)

Supervised By: Prof. Dr. Hisham Abdel Halim (4)

(1) Researcher, National Nile Research Institute , Egypt

(2) Senior product Development Engineer , Bamag GmbH
(3) Lecturer Associate – Faculty of Engineering , Cairo University, Egypt
(4) Professor of Sanitation Engineering , Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

1 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4
2. EFFECTS OF LEACHATE ON GROUNDWATER ................................... 5
3. LEACHATE COLLECTION .......................................................................... 8
4. LEACHATE TREATMENT ......................................................................... 10
1.1. Biological treatment ............................................................................................. 12
Activated Sludge (AS) ........................................................................................................... 12
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) ................................................................................... 12
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR).......................................................................................... 13
Constructed Wetlands (CW or reed beds) ............................................................................. 15
Aerated Lagoons .................................................................................................................... 16
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) .............................................................................................. 17
Anaerobic Digestion Filters (AF) .......................................................................................... 18
1.2. Physiochemical treatment .................................................................................... 19
Coagulation and Flocculation ................................................................................................ 19
Precipitation ........................................................................................................................... 21
Activated Carbon Adsorption (AC) ....................................................................................... 22
Chemical Oxidation ............................................................................................................... 24
1.3. Advanced treatment .............................................................................................. 25
Recirculation and Injection .................................................................................................... 25
Membrane Solution ............................................................................................................... 26
Disc Tube Technology........................................................................................................... 31
5. Recent Studies on Advanced Treatment Technologies ............................... 32
5.1. Municipal landfill leachate treatment by SBBGR technology ............................. 33
A. Introduction: ............................................................................................................... 33
B. Treatment by SBBGR:................................................................................................ 34
C. Results of SBBGR O&M: .......................................................................................... 35

2 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

D. Conclusion: ................................................................................................................. 38
5.2. Treatment by Electrochemical Oxidation ............................................................ 39
A. Introduction: ............................................................................................................... 39
B. Conceptual Design of Treatment Reactor and Process Description: .......................... 39
C. Removal Efficiencies:................................................................................................. 41
D. Conclusion: ................................................................................................................. 42
5.3. Treatment of Leachate by MBR: The Wehrle Experience ................................... 43
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 43
B. Membrane Application ............................................................................................... 43
5.4. Application of V✧SEP membranes for leachate treatment ............................... 48
5.5. Constructed Wetland for landfill leachate treatment ........................................... 50
6. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 54
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 55

3 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

INTRODUCTION
A landfill is defined as a system that is designed and constructed to dispose of discarded waste by
burial in land, see figure (1) and (2). The collection and disposal of waste materials into centralized
locations helps minimize risks to public health and safety and minimize the release of contaminants
to the environment. Solid waste landfills may accept a variety of solid, semi-solid, and small
quantities of liquid wastes. When biodegradable waste; such as paper, card and waste food; is
disposed of to the oxygen-free (anaerobic) conditions of a landfill, breakdown by bacteria produces
gas and soluble chemicals.

Figure (1): Landfill body

Figure (2): Landfill site before burring solid wastes

Landfill leachate is the liquid that forms when rain water
percolates through the waste deposited in a landfill. As the
water passes through landfill deposits, landfill waste
contaminates the water, making leachate, see figure (3).
Landfill leachate contains soluble chemicals, biologicals, and
4 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

metal ions such as iron. It is both anoxic and acidic, and has a distinct odor. Although the bacteria
will degrade the waste to a state which will be relatively harmless if escape to the environment
occurs, this can take many tens and perhaps hundreds of years. Unless a landfill has a method of
collecting and purifying the leachate, it will enter and contaminate groundwater supplies.

Figure (3): Leachate formation

The health risks, if leachate is left untreated and allowed to contaminate groundwater supplies,
include: skin irritation, nausea, vomiting, and headache. While chronic exposure can lead to anemia,
kidney damage, prostate cancer, lung cancer, memory loss, coma, headaches, and depression.
Successful and cost effective leachate treatment methods are difficult to find. Collection and
recycling are the most common ways of dealing with landfill leachate, but these methods of
eliminating contaminants are neither effective nor economically attractive. Leachate are often
discharged to local wastewater treatment plant in order to obtain sufficient treatment though it may
be advantageous from an economic point of view to have final treatment of leachate on site.

EFFECTS OF LEACHATE ON GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

In older landfills and those with no membrane between the waste and the underlying geology,
leachate is free to egress the waste directly into the groundwater. In such cases high concentrations
of leachate are often found in nearby springs and flushes. As leachate first emerges it can be black
in color, anoxic and may be effervescent with dissolved and entrained gases. As it becomes
oxygenated it tends to turn brown or yellow because of the presence of Iron salts in solution and in
suspension. It also quickly develops a bacterial flora often comprising substantial growths of
Sphaerotilus.
5 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Leachate composition varies relative to the amount of precipitation and the quantity and type of
wastes disposed. In addition to numerous hazardous constituents, leachate generally contains
nonhazardous parameters that are also found in most groundwater systems, see table (1). These
constituents include dissolved metals (e.g., iron and manganese), salts (e.g., sodium and chloride),
and an abundance of common anions and cations (e.g., bicarbonate and sulfate). However, these
constituents in leachate typically are found at concentrations that may be an order of magnitude (or
more) greater than concentrations present in natural groundwater systems.
A release of leachate to the groundwater may present several risks to human health and the
environment. The release of hazardous and nonhazardous components of leachate may render an
aquifer unusable for drinking-water purposes and other uses. Leachate impacts to groundwater may
also present a danger to the environment and to aquatic species if the leachate-contaminated
groundwater plume discharges to wetlands or streams.
A number of forces may act on or react with the migrating leachate, resulting in changes of
chemistry and a general reduction of strength from the original release. These forces are physical
(filtration, sorption, advection, and dispersion), chemical (oxidation-reduction, precipitation-
dissolution, adsorption-desorption, hydrolysis, and ion exchange), and biological (microbial
degradation). The extent of these reactions depends on the materials underlying the landfill, the
hydraulics of the groundwater system, and the chemistry of the leachate.
Although many of these reactions have the capability to reduce the potential impact to groundwater,
some (such as microbial degradation) can actually increase the toxicity by producing by-products
that are more hazardous than the original contaminant. This can be seen, for example, in the creation
of vinyl chloride from the degradation of trichloroethene.
Table (1): Typical leachate quality of municipal waste.
Typical Range Upper Limit
Parameter (mg/lit, unless otherwise is (mg/lit, unless otherwise is
noted) noted)
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO 3
730–15,050 20,850
)
Calcium 240–2,330 4,080
Chloride 47–2,400 11,375
Magnesium 4–780 1,400
Sodium 85–3,800 7,700
Sulfate 20–730 1,826
Specific Conductance 2,000–8,000 μmhos/cm 9,000 μmhos/cm
TDS 1,000–20,000 55,000
COD 100–51,000 99,000
BOD 1,000–30,300 195,000
Iron 0.1–1,700 5,500
6 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Total Nitrogen 2.6–945 1,416

Potassium 28–1,700 3,770
Chromium 0.5–1.0 5.6
Manganese Not detected – 400 1,400
Copper 0.1–9.0 9.9
Lead Not detected – 1.0 14.2
Nickel 0.1–1.0 7.5
SOURCE: Based on Canter et al. (1988), McGinley and Kmet (1984), and Lee and Jones (1991)

The risks from waste leachate are due to its high organic contaminant concentrations and high
concentration of ammonia. Pathogenic microorganisms that might be present in it are often cited as
the most important, but pathogenic organism counts reduce rapidly with time in the landfill, so this
only applies to the mostly fresh leachate. Toxic substances may however be present in variable
concentration and their presence is related to the nature of waste deposited.

The risk of groundwater contamination by any leachate that is not caught by collection systems is
determined by the following factors:
1- Depth of the water table: If the water table is low (far below the ground surface), water will
become partially filtered as it percolates downward through the soil. If the water table is high
(close to the ground surface), contaminants can enter the groundwater directly, without
filtration by soil.

2- Concentration of contaminants: A high concentration of contaminants in leachate will

make groundwater pollution more likely.

3- Permeability of the geologic strata: Highly permeable geologic strata allow water to
quickly percolate through, receiving little filtration along the way. Strata consisting of
relatively impermeable materials such as silt and clay impede the downward percolation of
water.

4- Type of geologic strata: Some earth materials, such as clay, are more effective at filtering
out contaminants, not just because they are impermeable but because chemicals can bind to
their particle's surfaces.

5- The toxicity of the contaminants: Leachate is produced when water filters downward
through a landfill, picking up dissolved materials from the decomposing wastes. Depending
on characteristics of the landfill and the wastes it contains, the leachate may be relatively
harmless or extremely toxic. Generally leachate has a high biochemical oxygen demand
7 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

(BOD) and high concentrations of organic carbon, nitrogen, chloride, iron, manganese, and
phenols. Many other chemicals may be present, including pesticides, solvents, and heavy
metals.

6- The direction of groundwater flow: Groundwater moves slowly and continuously through
the open spaces in soil and rock. If a landfill contaminates groundwater, a plume of
contamination will occur. Wells in that plume will be contaminated, but other wells, even
those close to the landfill, may be unaffected if they are not in the plume.

Leachate streams running directly into the aquatic environment have both an acute and chronic
impact on the environment which may be very severe and can severely diminish bio-diversity and
greatly reduce populations of sensitive species. Where toxic metals and organics are present this can
lead to chronic toxin accumulation in both local and far distant populations. The health risks, if
leachate is allowed to contaminate groundwater supplies being used as drinking water source
include skin irritation, nausea, vomiting, and headache. While chronic exposure can lead to anemia,
kidney damage, prostate cancer, lung cancer, memory loss, coma, headaches, and depression. Rivers
impacted by leachate are often yellow in appearance and often support severe overgrowths of
sewage fungus.

LEACHATE COLLECTION
A landfill's major purpose and one of its biggest challenges is to contain the trash so that the trash
doesn't cause problems in the environment. To achieve this goal, bottom liners are being used to
prevent the trash from coming in contact with the outside soil, particularly the groundwater, see
figure (4). In MSW landfills, the liner is usually some type of durable, puncture-resistant synthetic
plastic (polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, polyvinylchloride). It is usually 30-100 mm thick.
The plastic liner may also be combined with compacted clay soils as an additional liner. The plastic
liner may also be surrounded on either side by a fabric material (geo-textile) that will help to keep
the plastic liner from tearing or puncturing from the nearby rock and gravel layers.

8 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (4): Landfill lining and leachate collection system

Excess leachate collecting in a landfill will in all normal cases require leachate collection and being
sent to treatment, or in some cases recirculation back into the waste, before disposal to the
environment. Leachate collection entails placing a drainage medium above the landfill liner and
very often leachate collection pipes within the drainage medium (usually stone but waste tyres have
been used on occasions), see figure (5).

Figure (5): Leachate collection

A sump or sumps will be required to provide a low point in which the leachate will collect and from
the leachate drainage stone layer and any pipes laid in that material to facilitate leachate collection,
see figure (6). These sumps usually need to be sunk below the top of the liner to comply with
9 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

licensing requirements which usually stipulate that leachate shall not be present within any landfill
cell to a depth in excess of one meter.

Figure (6): Layout of leachate pipelines

In most cases the leachate sump should be provided on secure foundations and the structure is
designed such that its depth can be increased as waste deposits rise around it, and withstand lateral
forces which will inevitably act upon it.
Leachate collection entails provision for installing pumps for leachate extraction and its delivery to
a suitable location for its subsequent treatment and discharge. Leachate collection sumps will
require facilities to pump leachate from the sumps either to a treatment facility or a sewer.

LEACHATE TREATMENT
No two leachates are the same. Since each landfill has its own constituents, the liquid that passes
through the solid waste takes on its own unique properties. Leachate quality also changes over time,
so a treatment system must be sized according to individual parameters and should be flexible
enough to treat a varied influent stream.
The most common method of handling collected leachate is on-site treatment. When treating
leachate on site, the leachate is pumped from the sump into the treatment tanks. The leachate may
then be mixed with chemical reagents to modify the pH and to coagulate and settle solids and to
reduce the concentration of hazardous matter. Further treatment is typically a modified form of
activated sludge to substantially reduce the dissolved organic content. Nutrient imbalance can cause
difficulties in maintaining an effective biological treatment stage. The treated liquor is rarely of
sufficient quality to be released to the environment and may be tanked or piped to a local sewage
treatment facility.
In some older landfills, leachate was directed to the sewers, but this can cause a number of
problems. Toxic metals from leachate passing through the sewage treatment plant concentrate in the
sewage sludge, making it difficult or dangerous to dispose of the sludge without incurring a risk to
10 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

the environment. Regulations and controls have improved in recent decades in some developed
countries and toxic wastes are now no longer permitted to be disposed of to the Municipal Solid
Waste landfills, and in most developed countries the metals problem has diminished. Paradoxically,
however, as sewage treatment works discharges are being improved, the sewage treatment works
operators are finding that leachate is difficult waste streams to treat. This is because leachate
contains very high ammonia nitrogen concentrations, they are usually very acidic, they are often
anoxic and, if received in large volumes relative to the incoming sewage flow, they lack the
Phosphorus needed to prevent nutrient starvation for the biological communities that perform the
sewage treatment processes. The result is that leachate is a difficult-to-treat waste stream. However,
within aging municipal solid waste landfills, this may not be a problem as the pH returns close to
neutral after the initial stage of acidogenic leachate decomposition. Many sewer undertakers limit
maximum ammonia nitrogen concentration in their sewers to 250 mg/l to protect sewer maintenance
workers, as the WHO's maximum occupational safety limit would be exceeded at above pH 9 to 10,
which is often the highest permitted pH of permitted sewer discharges.
Many older leachate streams also contained a variety of synthetic organic species and their
decomposition products, some of which had the potential to be acutely damaging to the
environment.
The quality of the leachate stream is an important management issue. Leachate is categorized by
water chemistry, heavy metals and volatile and semi-volatile compounds. Landfill leachate
composition is the leading factor in selecting the most appropriate treatment process. Factors
affecting the composition of landfill leachate include:

1- Landfill material: Is it biodegradable or non-biodegradable? Is it soluble or insoluble?

Organic or inorganic? Liquid or solid? Toxic or nontoxic?

2- Landfill conditions: The pH, temperature, degree of ongoing decomposition, moisture

content, climate, and landfill age.

3- Characteristics of entering water: The pH, temperature, and amount.

4- Soil characteristics under the landfill: Permeability, depth and thickness of geologic strata,
and mineral content.

Leachate can either be treated or pretreated, depending on the discharge options and regulatory
standards. Pretreatment usually applies before the leachate is discharged into a wastewater treatment
plant. The typical processes used for pretreatment include equalization, aeration, pH adjustment and
metals removal.

Leachate treatment technologies fall into two basic types: biological and physiochemical
(physical/chemical). In large systems, these types often can be combined to meet high discharge

11 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

standards. Recently, some advanced treatment techniques approved good efficiency in treating
landfill leachate.

1.1. Biological treatment

Biological treatment techniques that are widely used in leachate treatment include activated sludge
(AS), rotating biological container (RBC), sequencing batch reactors (SBR), constructed wetlands
(CW or reed beds), aerated lagoons, membrane bioreactors (MBR), and anaerobic digestion filters
(AF).

Activated Sludge (AS): The most common biological treatment is activated sludge, a suspended-
growth process that uses aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants in leachate.
With conventional activated-sludge treatment, the leachate is aerated in an open tank with diffusers
or mechanical aerators. After the aeration phase, the mixed liquor of microorganisms and leachate is
pumped to a gravity clarifier, see figure (7).

The aeration tank is completely mixed, generally by use of a vigorous aeration system, and receives
controlled and steady inflows of raw leachate continuously. Mixed liquor overflows continuously
from the aeration tank, into a sludge separation stage, generally comprising a settlement reactor.
Here, biomass/sludge is settled, to be returned into the aeration reactor, and a clarified effluent is
decanted from the surface, for discharge or further treatment.

Figure (7): Activated sludge process

Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC): The Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) is an aerobic,
biological attached-growth treatment process, in which a series of discs are partially submerged in a
tank of leachate. Media in the form of large, flat disks mounted on a common shaft are rotated
through specially contoured tanks in which wastewater flows on a continuous basis. The medium
consist of many plastic sheets, such as polythene, PVC, and expanded polystyrene, of up to 4 m in

12 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

diameter, arranged on a central horizontal shaft. Spacing between flat disks is approximately 15 to
40 mm, see figure (8).

Figure (8): Rotating Biological Contactor process (RBC)

The discs are submerged in wastewater to about 40 percent of their diameter and are rotated by
electric motor via a gearbox, or by air or water drive. The discs are alternately immersed in the
waste water and then exposed to the atmosphere above the liquid. Rotational speed of the unit
ranges from 1 to 2 r/min. Micro-organisms growing on the medium surface remove nutrients from
the wastewater and consume oxygen from the air to sustain their metabolic processes. As the
biofilm grows and thickens, anaerobic conditions may develop in the lower layers and parts of the
biofilm will slough from the media, to be replaced by new growth. The rotational shear forces strip
off the excess solids and carry them with the effluent to a clarifier, where they are settled and
separated from the treated waste. The disc system can be staged in series to obtain nearly any
detention time or degree of removal required.

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR): The Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge
process designed to operate under non-steady state conditions. An SBR operates in a true batch
mode with aeration and sludge settlement both occurring in the same tank. The major differences
between SBR and conventional continuous-flow, activated sludge system is that the SBR tank
carries out the functions of equalization aeration and sedimentation in a time sequence rather than in
the conventional space sequence of continuous-flow systems. In addition, the SBR system can be
designed with the ability to treat a wide range of influent volumes whereas the continuous system is
based upon a fixed influent flowrate. Thus, there is a degree of flexibility associated with working
in a time rather than in a space sequence. SBRs produce sludge with good settling properties
providing the influent wastewater is admitted into the aeration in a controlled manner.

As currently used, all SBR systems have five steps in common that are carried out in sequence as
follows, see figure (9):

13 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (9): Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process steps

 Fill: The purpose of the fill operation is to add substrate (raw wastewater or primary effluent)
to the reactor. The fill process typically allows the liquid level in the reactor to rise from 25
percent of capacity (at the end of idle) to 100 percent. If controlled by time, the fill process
normally lasts approximately 25 percent of the full cycle time.

 React: The purpose of react is to complete the reactions that were initiated during fill.
Typically, reaction takes up 35 percent of the total cycle time.
14 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

 Settle: The purpose of settle is to allow solids separation to occur, providing a clarified
supernatant to be discharged as effluent. In an SBR, this process is normally much more
efficient than in a continuous - flow system because in the settle mode the reactor contents
are completely quiescent.

 Draw: The purpose of draw is to remove clarified treated water from the reactor. Many types
of decant mechanisms are in current use, with the most popular being floating or adjustable
weirs. The time dedicated to draw can range from 5 to 30 percent of the total cycle time (15
minutes to 2 hours), with 45 minutes being a typical draw period.

 Idle: The purpose of idle in a multi-tank system is to provide time for one reactor to
complete its fill cycle before switching to another unit. Because idle is not a necessary phase,
it is sometimes omitted.

Constructed Wetlands (CW or reed beds): Constructed wetlands and reed beds are designed
and man-made systems which attempt to simulate treatment that has been observed to take place
when polluted water passes through natural wetlands. In the UK these systems tend to be called
“reed beds”, but internationally they are usually called constructed wetlands (CW). Systems are able
to treat wastewaters by degrading organic matter (BOD and COD) and oxidizing ammonia-N,
removing suspended solids, and to a lesser extent reducing concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus.
Treatment mechanisms are complex and involve bacterial oxidation, filtration, nitrification and
chemical precipitation.

The treatment technology generally relies on processes similar to those used extensively in gravel
“filter beds”, enhanced by the extensive rhizomatous root system of the reed plants which can
transfer limited quantities of oxygen into the surrounding media, stimulating bacterial communities.
Although aerial growth of the reed plants (which can reach 2-3m high) dies down during the winter
months, treatment has been demonstrated to continue effectively. In situations where effluent from a
previous treatment process, such as an SBR, may be warm (20-25°C), the dead reed stems typically
mat down on the gravel surface of the bed, providing heat insulation and maintaining adequate
temperatures within the root zone of the reeds at all times, see figure (10).

15 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (10): Constructed Wetland (CW) cross-section

During the last 20 years, reed bed systems or “constructed wetlands” have been employed for
treatment of a variety of wastewaters, often being used for polishing of effluents that have
previously received initial treatment using a separate process.

Constructed wetlands have become popular across Europe, because they are seen to have the
following advantages:

 Relatively low capital and operating costs.

 Simplicity of operation (low requirement for operator supervision.)
 Suitable treatment for low flows, previously untreated.
 Seen as a natural and therefore “green” process.
 They are attractive and provide wildlife habitat.
 As a polishing stage they can improve and enhance performance of initial treatment
processes.

Aerated Lagoons: First attempts to treat leachates, during the 1970s and 1980s, used simple
aerated lagoons, and achieved some successes. Lagoons were often large, typically 1-2m in deep,
and usually designed to look like natural lakes, with vegetation around their perimeter, see figure
(11). A small, sub-surface aeration system has generally been used to provide oxygen inputs and
slow circulation of the lagoon, but is rarely adequate to provide turbulent mixing of biological
solids, which generally settle out in more quiescent areas of the lagoon.

16 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (11): Aerated lagoons

Biodegradable organic matter is stabilized by a combination of aerobic and anaerobic processes.
The lower part of the lagoon is generally anaerobic, as sludge and solids settle there to be converted
to carbon dioxide and methane. The upper portion of the lagoon is aerobic, oxygen being provided
by a combination of the aeration system, passive surface aeration across the water/air interface, and
also to a significant extent in some locations, by algal growth during daylight hours. The aerobic
upper layers act as a “cap” to oxidize reduced compounds from the underlying anaerobic zone,
minimizing odor releases.
Effluent is withdrawn from the upper aerobic zone, generally over an overflow arrangement,
although a secondary settlement lagoon, or reed bed filtration system, is normally required where a
discharge to surface waters in envisaged. The main technical installation is the aeration system of
the lagoon.

Membrane Bioreactors (MBR): The Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process is essentially an

advanced form of the traditional activated sludge process, where the biological part of the process is
combined with ultrafiltration membrane technology, for separation of return sludge from a
clarified/filtered effluent. This replaces the need for a separate settlement tank, which is often the
rate-limiting step in conventional effluent treatment.

The separation of biomass from a clarified and treated effluent is accomplished by a cross flow
filtration process, within an efficient ultrafiltration (UF) system, see figure (12). This retains all
biomass, and all suspended solids typically larger than about 0.02 μm, including all bacteria. The
concentrated sludge separated out by the system is continually returned to the bioreactor as return
sludge, as in a conventional activated sludge system. However, because of the improved efficiency
of the solids separation stage much higher concentrations of biomass can be maintained within the
bioreactor, where Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) values of up to 20,000 mg/l are typical.
This allows more intensive treatment to take place, reducing the size of plant required for a given
loading of contaminants.

17 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

BIOREACT MEMBRANE
OR FILTRATION air outlet
wastewater

treated water
(reuse)

excess sludge

aeration

Figure (12): Membrane bioreactor (MBR)

Anaerobic Digestion Filters (AF): Anaerobic digestion is a process for degrading organic matter
in closed vessels in the absence of air. Biogas comprising methane and carbon dioxide is a product
of the process, which may be used to generate electricity at very large treatment plants, but is more
commonly used to provide heating of the reactor, the process requiring temperatures in excess of
30ºC for optimum performance. Main benefits of anaerobic treatment usually relate to reduction of
high COD values, with consequent reductions in trade effluent charges, or to conditioning of
sludges, with typical applications being for treatment of wastewaters from dairies, breweries, and
paper mills.

Process reactor tanks may have fixed media, onto which anaerobic bacteria attach, or may be of the
fluidized bed type, which uses either granules of sand, or sometimes activated carbon, to allow the
formation of “bacterial granules” which move around in the reactor, see figure (13). A common
form of such a process is the “Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket”, or UASB reactor. Heaters
fuelled by the biogas being generated will usually be needed, but supplementary gas must also be
available (possibly landfill gas may be used), for occasions when the reactor is not working fast
enough to be self-sufficient in biogas, for example when flows are being increased.

18 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (13): Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor (UASB)

1.2. Physiochemical treatment

Physiochemical treatment techniques that are widely used in leachate treatment include coagulation
and flocculation, precipitation, activated carbon adsorption (AC), flotation, and chemical oxidation.

Coagulation and Flocculation: Coagulation is a process for increasing the tendency of small
particles in an aqueous suspension to attach to one another and to attach to surfaces such as the
grains in a filter bed. It is also used to effect the removal of certain soluble materials by adsorption
or precipitation. The coagulation process typically includes promoting the interaction of particles to
form larger aggregates.

Chemical coagulation and flocculation are used for the removal of waste materials present in
suspended or colloidal form. Colloids represent particles typically within a size range from 1.0nm to
0.1nm (10 - 7 to 10 - 8 cm). These particles do not settle out on standing, and are not readily
removed by conventional physical treatment processes.

Coagulants, usually salts of iron or aluminum, are added at controlled pH-values to form solid
precipitates termed flocs, which contain the colloidal particles, and can then be separated out using
conventional solid, liquid separation processes. The process of flocculation encourages flocs growth
by gentle mixing, to suite the subsequent separation process being used, see figure (14).

19 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Coagulati Flocculati
on on
Figure (14): Coagulation-Flocculation process

Coagulation and flocculation processes are more widely applied to both raw and treated leachates,
and extensive experience is available. Common applications have included:

 Removal of turbidity and color from biological treatment effluents

 Reduction in COD values associated with colloidal materials
 Removal of powdered activated carbon (PAC) in effluent polishing separate section)
 Reduction in suspended solids concentrations to protect subsequent treatment stages (e.g. in
activated carbon columns.)

Coagulant aids, often polyelectrolyte compounds, may be added to enhance coagulation by

promoting the development of large, rapid-setting flocs. Poly-electrolytes are high-molecular-
weight polymers that form bridges between particles or charged flocs, when added at low
concentrations (1-5 mg/l) in conjunction with alum or ferric chloride.

The key to successful coagulation and flocculation is detailed jar-scale, see figure (15), laboratory
testing, to establish the optimum pH-value and coagulant dosing for treatment of a specific leachate
or effluent. Good mixing at the point of chemical dosing, and tight control of coagulant dose and
pH-value are essential, as is optimization of the physical process of flocs formation. In large-scale
wastewater treatment processes, sophisticated feedback controls are routinely used, which may be
more difficult to apply to smaller leachate treatment applications.

20 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (15): Jar-Test apparatus

The removal of microbiological contaminants continues to be an important reason for using

coagulation. A newer objective, the removal of natural organic material (NOM), is growing in
importance. Aluminum and ferric iron salts have long been used to remove color caused by NOM.

Precipitation: The term 'precipitation' is used to describe the phase that straight away follows
flocculation, and, also, to the formation of insoluble compounds got by adding reagents which shift
the chemical equilibrium towards the insoluble form of the compound or the elements which need to
be removed.

Precipitation is principally applied to metals removal (particularly heavy metals), with metal
hydroxide or metal sulphide formation, or phosphorus removal by formation of insoluble
compounds with cationic metals, including Al or Fe coagulants, see figure (16). Many experimental
studies utilizing coagulation/flocculation for the removal of organic substances from raw leachate
have been conducted, essentially in the 1970s.

Salts of Aluminium and Iron together with lime were principally made use of as precipitation
agents. Results were adverse, as COD removal potency lower than 40% was noted. The reason
behind these low efficiencies can be ascribed to the incapacity of the method to get rid of substances
aside from molecules of large dimensions and high molecular weight.

21 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Coagulatio Flocculati Precipitati

n on on
Figure (16): Flocculation-Precipitation process

It was concluded that, higher treatment potency is possible but just for 'old leachate' (with low BOD
/ COD ratios) or for biologically pre-treated leachate. In fact it is most often needed for 'young
leachate' (acetogenic leachate) which is distinguished by high levels of volatile trans-acids, i.e.
small dimensions and only a little in the way of precipitable molecules, so that the removal involves
only a minor fragment of the total of organic compounds in raw leachate.

Researchers also cite many other drawbacks like the rise of salt content and the low potency of
ammonia compound removal. This last is almost always the final concern which rules out the use of
this process in the minds of most leachate treatment experts.

Activated Carbon Adsorption (AC): Activated carbon (also called activated charcoal) is the
more general term which includes carbon material mostly derived from charcoal. It denotes a
material which has an exceptionally high surface area, typically determined by nitrogen adsorption,
and includes a large amount of micro-porosity, see figure (17).

Adsorption is the process by which Activated Carbon removes substances from water. Defined,
adsorption is "the collection of a substance onto the surface of adsorbent solids." It is a removal
process where certain particles are bound to an adsorbent particle surface by either chemical or
physical attraction. In the mid-nineteenth century, carbon was used to remove odors and tastes in
drinking waters and since then, water and wastewater treatment with carbon has become widespread
in municipal and industrial processes.

22 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (17): Activated carbon, as viewed by an electron microscope

Activated carbon does not bind well to certain chemicals, including alcohols, glycols, strong acids
and bases, metals and most inorganics, such as lithium, sodium, iron, lead, arsenic, fluorine, and
boric acid.

The performance of an activated carbon column is often measured by the reduction in concentration
of collective parameters such as TOC, COD or dissolved organic carbon (DOC). The activated
carbon process, see figure (18), regardless of the applied mode, has process limitations and should
be carefully investigated prior to making process commitments. It should be recognized that many
classes of organic compounds are not amenable to carbon adsorption - particularly oxygenated
organic substances - and show up as residual BOD 5, COD, or TOC in carbon column effluent. This
limits the overall process efficiency of activated carbon when treating many industrial wastewaters.

The adsorption capabilities of activated carbon are influenced by several factors. Some of the
factors affecting adsorption Include:

 The physical and chemical characteristics of the adsorbent, such as surface area, pore-size,
chemical composition, etc.
 The physical and chemical characteristics of the adsorbate, such as molecular size, molecular
polarity, chemical composition, etc.
 The concentration of the adsorbate in the liquid phase (solution).
 The characteristics of the liquid phase, such as pH, temperature.
 The residence time of the system.

23 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (18): Activated carbon adsorption unit

Chemical Oxidation: Chemical oxidation processes, see figure (19), are potential treatment
options for the removal of specific organic and inorganic pollutants from landfill leachates, but are
unlikely to provide full treatment of the wide range of contaminants present in typical samples.

Oxidation involves the loss of one or more electrons from the element being oxidized the electron
acceptor being another element, including an oxygen molecule, or a chemical species containing
oxygen, such as hydrogen peroxide, ozone, or some other electron acceptor.

Figure (19): ultraviolet-light oxidation unit

24 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

In practice, the application of such processes will be restricted by cost, by the rate of reaction
possible (oxidation rates for some organic compounds may be too slow), and by the availability of
alternative treatment processes for specific contaminants.

In a complex wastewater such as leachate, the amount of chemical oxidant required in practice, is
generally greater than the theoretical mass calculated from first principles. This results from a
number of reasons, including incomplete oxidant consumption, and lack of specificity of the desired
process oxidant also being consumed by other chemical reactions. Oxidation reactions are often pH-
dependent, and control of pH-values may be an important consideration.

For treatment of landfill leachates, a limited range of oxidants have found successful application to
date, primarily ozone or hydrogen peroxide. Use of others has been limited by concerns about
formation of toxic reaction by-products for example, chlorine and chlorine compounds giving rise to
trihalomethanes, or other halogenated compounds.

Nevertheless, in specific situations, chemical oxidation processes can provide particular benefits for
example, at elevated pH-values; cyanide can be oxidized to carbon dioxide and nitrogen using
sodium hypochlorite. It is likely, therefore, that chemical oxidation processes will find only
occasional application in leachate treatment, and then to deal with individual and site-specific
circumstances. Ozonation and use of hydrogen peroxide will probably account for most
applications.

1.3. Advanced treatment

The new landfill regulations have made some treatment systems obsolete. Many landfill operators
are now choosing new systems that produce a cleaner effluent and can reduce capital and operating
expenses. Such systems include recirculation and injection, membrane solution, reverse osmosis
(RO), and disc tube technology.

Recirculation and Injection: Direct recirculation distributes the leachate onto the landfill in a
semi-closed loop process. While promising, this system has limitations of recalculating 100 percent
of the leachate without literally soaking the landfill. However, leachate recirculation at landfills has
shown to reduce leachate treatment costs, elevate landfill gas generation, and lessen the long term
pollution potential.

Essentially, the landfill is converted to an active in-situ bioreactor whereby anaerobic microbes are
enhanced, which accelerate treatment of leachate and the organic stabilization process of the
landfill. Advantages of leachate recirculation include:

1- Waste Stabilization
25 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

2- Increased Gas Production

3- Decreased Disposal Cost
4- Speeds Waste Settlement

Typically leachate is pumped from a collection system to a variety of discharge points, including:

a) Vertical and/or horizontal injection wells

b) Spray aerators
c) Trickle irrigation networks
d) Ponds or lagoons

This process is often combined with a methane gas extraction system. The enhanced organic
degradation from the recirculation of leachate elevates methane production. Leachate spraying has
been effective at some sites, and represents the greatest potential of actual reduction of leachate to
evaporation and evapo-transpiration through vegetation. Trickle irrigation can also reduce leachate.
Leachate is actively or passively aerated when it is directed to surface ponds or lagoons.

Membrane Solution: Membrane technology can be adapted to many steps of purification and
keep clean-up standards at a high level. Membranes can remove contaminants without extensive
biological infrastructure or toxic chemicals. Such system includes microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and
nanofiltration, reverse osmosis (RO). Selection of suitable system depends on size of particulates
required to be removed, see figure (21).

Simple filtration system can remove particulates smaller than 100 µm till 10 µm, while
microfiltration can remove particles with particle size smaller than 10 µm till 1 µm. Ultrafiltration
can remove micro-particles with particle size smaller than 1 µm till 0.1 µm. Nanofiltration can
remove molecules with particle size smaller than 0.1 µm till 0.01 µm. Reverse Osmosis and reverse
electrodialysis can remove ions with particle size smaller than 0.01 µm till 0.001 ~ 0.0001 µm.

26 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (21): Difference in filtration ability between different filtration units

Microfiltration (MF)

Microfiltration (MF) is a membrane technical filtration process which removes contaminants from
water by passage through a micro-porous membrane, see figure (22). A typical microfiltration
membrane pore size range is 0.1 to 10 micrometers (µm). Microfiltration is fundamentally different
from reverse osmosis and nanofiltration because those systems use pressure as a means of forcing
water to go from low pressure to high pressure. Microfiltration can use a pressurized system but it
does not need to include pressure.

Microfiltration is the process of filtration with a micrometer sized filter. The filters can be in a
submerged configuration or a pressure vessel configuration. They can be hollow fibers, flat sheet,
tubular, spiral wound, hollow fine fiber or track etched. These filters are porous and allow water,
mono-valent species (Na+, Cl-), dissolved organic matter, small colloids and viruses through but do
not allow particles, sediment, algae or large bacteria through.

Microfiltration systems are designed to remove suspended solids down to 0.1 micrometers in size,
in a feed solution with up to 2-3% in concentration.

27 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (22): Microfiltration unit

Ultrafiltration (UF)

Ultrafiltration (UF) is a variety of membrane filtration in which hydrostatic pressure forces a liquid
against a semi-permeable membrane. Suspended solids and solutes of high molecular weight are
retained, while water and low molecular weight solutes pass through the membrane. Ultrafiltration
is different from microfiltration and nanofiltration in terms of the size of the molecules it retains.
Ultrafiltration is applied in cross-flow or dead-end mode and separation in ultrafiltration undergoes
concentration polarization.

Ultrafiltration systems eliminate the need for clarifiers and multimedia filters for waste streams to
meet critical discharge criteria or to be further processed by wastewater recovery systems for water
recovery. Efficient ultrafiltration systems utilize membranes which can be submerged, back-
flushable, air scoured, spiral wound UF/MF membrane that offers superior performance for the
clarification of wastewater and process water.

Ultrafiltration systems have different membrane geometries, such as spiral wound module [see
figure (23)], tubular membrane, and hollow fiber membrane. Ultrafiltration module configurations
are either pressurized system (pressure-vessel configuration), or immersed system.

28 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (23): Ultrafiltration membrane – spiral wound module

Nanofiltration (NF)

Nanofiltration (NF) is a relatively recent membrane filtration process used most often with low total
dissolved solids water, with the purpose of softening (polyvalent cation removal) and removal of
disinfection by-product precursors such as natural organic matter and synthetic organic matter.
Nanofiltration (NF) is a cross-flow filtration technology which ranges somewhere between
ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO). The nominal pore size of the membrane is typically
about 1 nanometer, see figure (24). Nanofilter membranes are typically rated by molecular weight
cut-off (MWCO) rather than nominal pore size. The MWCO is typically less than 1000 atomic mass
units. The transmembrane pressure, pressure drop across the membrane, required is lower (up to 3
MPa) than the one used for RO, reducing the operating cost significantly. However, NF membranes
are still subject to scaling and fouling and often modifiers such as anti-scalants are required for use.

29 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (24): Nanofiltration membrane

Reverse Osmosis (RO)

Reverse osmosis (RO), see figure (25), is a membrane technical filtration method that removes
many types of large molecules and ions from solutions by applying pressure to the solution when it
is on one side of a selective membrane. The result is that the solute is retained on the pressurized
side of the membrane while the pure solvent is allowed to pass to the other side. To be "selective,"
this membrane should not allow large molecules or ions through the pores, but should allow smaller
components of the solution (such as the solvent) to pass freely.

In the normal osmosis process the solvent naturally moves from an area of low solute concentration
(High Water Potential), through a membrane, to an area of high solute concentration (Low Water
Potential). The movement of a pure solvent to equalize solute concentrations on each side of a
membrane generates osmotic pressure. Applying an external pressure to reverse the natural flow of
pure solvent, thus, is reverse osmosis. The process is similar to other membrane technology
applications. However, there are key differences between reverse osmosis and filtration. The
predominant removal mechanism in membrane filtration is straining, or size exclusion, so the
process can theoretically achieve perfect exclusion of particles regardless of operational parameters
such as influent pressure and concentration.

Prior to 1988, reverse osmosis wasn't able to treat leachate successfully due to the core membrane
design of spiral wound modules, which were state-of-the-art at that time. While this method
produced efficient results, it also promoted bio-fouling and premature clogging.

30 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (25): Reverse osmosis membrane unit

Disc Tube Technology: This technology has been installed in more than 35 European landfills to
treat feed waters that would foul conventional RO configurations. After the contaminated water is
fed into the tubular chamber, its flow is controlled as it passes through a system of discs and over
flat membrane cushions, see figure (26), removing clean water and concentrating the waste material.
The turbulent flow reduces the membranes' tendency to scale or foul and requires cleaning less
frequently.

The system removes heavy metals, suspended solids, ammonia and hazardous non-degradable
organics including pesticides and herbicides without extensive pre-treatment systems. The pure
water is clean enough for direct discharge into the environment and accounts for 75 to 92 percent of
the leachate. The remaining concentrate can then be recycled to the landfill or further processed.

31 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (26): Disc tube-reverse osmosis technology

Recent Studies on Advanced Treatment Technologies

In the following section of this research, a few chosen recent studies are presented that the study
team had collected to be introduced as to follow up with the advanced treatment technologies for
leachate .At the beginning there are summary for five rules for Successful Leachate Management
that may be a guide for researchers in this field mentioned by "IPPTS Associates -steve last,2011"
Five Golden Rules
So here are the Golden Rules, these are the Five Best Rules for managing leachate on a landfill site.
they're permanent markers to guide all those involved in Leachate Management and keep us moving
in the direction of sustainability, and profitability, while also protecting the environment around
landfills.
Golden Rule # 1 – The Bad Weather Rule

Always plan for bad weather The reason for doing that this way is that when heavy rain occurs there
is seldom time to react, and install additional leachate management measures, before a large body of
contaminated leachate builds up. When this happens the landfill operator will usually be in
contravention of the local environmental regulator's waste regulations, unless measures are already
in place to store and handle this leachate. which trickles down through the waste much faster than
the bulk permeability would suggest will happen, and the expected absorptive capacity within the
waste won't be utilized immediately, so the volume is higher than expected.
In any event, due to the use of "average" figures in modeling, individual storms will vary, and quite
often must be expected to exceed the predictions of modeling
Golden Rule # 2 – The “Use Absorptive Capacity” Rule

Once a new landfill or a new cell in an existing landfill is producing leachate, always look for ways
to use the remaining absorptive capacity (i.e. material which is still capable of absorbing moisture)
in the waste to absorb more water (that is - absorb as much as possible of the leachate) without
saturating it.
This is very important because by doing this you will minimize the net leachate production, and
reduce your leachate disposal costs by soaking it into waste In addition, pockets of dry waste will
not contribute fully to landfill gas production
Golden Rule # 3 – Use the Landfill Itself to Treat Its Own Leachate

A fresh young leachate of the sort that is highly odourous, and often black in colour, and
pump it back into a methanongenic part of a landfill
The reason that this is important is because fresh (acetogenic) leachate has a very high Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Satisfying the oxygen demand
during leachate treatment is expensive, whether treated on site or at a sewage works, so the cost of

32 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

leachate treatment will be reduced very substantially (in almost all cases) by providing it with a
residence period in a methanogenic landfill.
Golden Rule # 4 – It is Best toTreat Leachate On Site

It is not generally a good policy to treat strong leachate from modern sanitary landfills after
discharging it into sewer, mixing it with sewage.
Leachate has an extremely high ammoniacal nitrogen (“ammonia”) concentration when compared
with the much weaker contamination levels in domestic and commercial/industrial foul sewage at
sewage works.
In fact, unless the sewage works has a highly nitrifying type process, one of the most potentially
damaging types of contaminants in leachate may simply be diluted by the weaker strengths ofthose
contaminants in the sewage, and not treated (chemically converted to environmental safe chemicals
Such treatment solutions normally include nitrification, and may also include denitrification, and
membrane technology, depending on local regulatory requirements, and environmental needs all
leachate which is removed from a landfill which is producing landfill gas (which is 40% to 60%
methane), will contain some of this explosive, high risk gas, in solution.
So, another reason for treating leachate on site and for Rule #4, is that leachate will normally need
the landfill gas removed before an off site sewer discharge can be made. This comes at yet more
cost, and no benefit to the landfill operator, other than compliance with sewer safety (flammable
discharge) regulations
Golden Rule # 5 – Use a Leachate Specialist!

Despite what is common perception, highly cost effective, proven and reliable biological leachate
treatment on site (combined where appropriate with membrane treatment) is not difficult to achieve
under the supervision of a leachate specialist, and has been achieved on many hundreds of landfill
sites.
It is not surprising therefore that such prototype fail when applied to leachate treatment by water
process designers more used to designing for much less contaminated effluents than leachate

5.1. Municipal landfill leachate treatment by SBBGR technology

A. Introduction:

The treatment of municipal landfill leachates involves problems linked to the presence of high
concentrations of organic compounds (i.e. COD), ammonia, toxic compounds (such as metal ions),
chlorides, sulphates, salts and alkalinity (Ehrig, 1989; Irene, 1996; Lema et al., 1988; Andreottola et
al., 1990). The composition of the landfill leachates varies depending on the nature of the deposited
wastes, on soil characteristics, rainfall patterns and on the “age” of the landfill (Chen, 1996; Park et
al., 2001). Usually, “young landfill leachates”, containing high amounts of volatile fatty acids (i.e. a
high BOD/COD ratio), are easier to treat than “old leachates”, since a fraction of the organic
compounds in the latter is recalcitrant to biological treatment. Unfortunately, the physico-chemical
33 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

treatment necessary to remove recalcitrant pollutants in such cases produces a huge amount of
residues that require further treatment or disposal (Trebouet et al., 2001). There is a wide range of
different approaches and technologies available for efficient treatment of a leachate. Biological
treatment, often an activated sludge system, is the most economically efficient method for the
removal of biodegradable organic compounds. However, problems with the high concentration of
suspended solids in the effluent of activated sludge systems have been observed due to sludge
bulking or dispersed growth phenomena (Doller and Wilderer, 1996). Such phenomena cause the
loss of slow growing organisms such as nitrifiers or organisms which are able to remove the
biodegradable pollutants slowly. Furthermore, biological nitrification is also difficult to obtain
because of the large amount of inhibitory compounds and high salinity present (Melbinger and
Donnellon, 1971).

B. Treatment by SBBGR:

The results show that the SBBGR (Sequencing Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor) was able to
remove roughly 80% of COD in leachate, up to an organic loading value of 1.1 kg COD/(m3·d). No
further increase in COD removal efficiency was recorded when the high ammonia content (i.e.
about 3,200 mg/L) of the investigated leachate was removed by magnesium ammonium phosphate
precipitation and the organic loading reduced.
A reduction of only 10% in COD removal efficiency was recorded when the organic loading value
was increased from 1.1 to 4.5 kg COD/(m3·d). Ammonia removal efficiency was very low (lower
than 20%) because of the presence of high salinity and inhibitory compounds in the investigated
leachate. The process was characterized by very low sludge production (lower than 0.02 kg TSS/kg
COD removed).
SBBGR is the new system featured by maximum efficiency, minimum sludge production and low
overall costs. It is based on a submerged biofilter with aerobic granular biomass working in a “fill
and draw” mode (Di Iaconi et al., 2005a), see figure (27).

34 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (27): A sketch of the laboratory SBBGR.

The advantages of such a technology are:

 High conversion capacities with consequent reduction of reaction volumes
 The absence of a secondary settling tank;
 A high degree of compactness, since all the steps of a biological treatment (carbon removal,
nitrogen removal, secondary sedimentation) can be to carried out in a single operative unit
 The selection of a biomass particularly effective for degrading toxic and/or recalcitrant
compounds and also the possibility of treating industrial wastewater successfully (Ellis et al.,
1996; Irvine et al., 1997);
 Its great flexibility, which allows the treatment of wastewater, such as leachates, with
variable volumetric flow rate and composition;
 Reduction of sludge production (Ramdori et al., 2005).

C. Results of SBBGR O&M:

35 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figures (28) and (29) show the concentration/time profiles of COD and NH4-N, respectively, as
well as their relative removal efficiencies, recorded during the start-up period.
Regarding COD, the data in figure 2 show an increase in removal efficiency (from 43 to 86%) with
the decrease of dilution ratio, up to day 25, at least. This result can be ascribed to the improving
acclimatization of the micro-organisms to inhibitory compounds present in the leachate during the
start-up period. Furthermore, it is interesting to observe that from day 35 the removal efficiency
continuously decreased, reaching a value of 78% at the end of the start-up period. This reduction
could have been due to the increase in salinity as the dilution ratio was decreased, since beyond a
certain value salinity negatively influences the metabolism of micro-organisms, or merely to the
increase in organic loading.
However, the data in figure 2 indicate that at the end of sub-period 1, i.e. when undiluted leachate
was fed into the SBBGR, despite quite high COD removal efficiencies (on average 78%), the
concentration in the effluent was still too high (about 5.5 g/L). This could be due either to the
presence in the leachate of a relevant fraction of recalcitrant pollutants or to the high volumetric
organic loading value applied.

Figure (28): The concentration/time profile of COD.

36 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (29): The concentration/time profile of NH4-N.

Referring to ammonia, figure 3 shows that the removal efficiency of this parameter changed
suddenly in the range from 60 to 96%. This result, together with the low concentration of oxidized
nitrogen in the treated effluent (lower than 100 mg/L), which is fairly strange for a wastewater
characterized by a COD/NH4+N ratio value that one would not expect to allow complete de-
nitrification, called the authors’ attention to the existence of other possible ammonia removal
processes.
Considering both the high pH value of the wastewater (i.e. 8.5) and the airflow bubbled into the
reactor, it was deduced that stripping phenomena of ammonia might have taken place. In order to
avoid the ammonia stripping, a pH controller was set in the plant and the pH was adjusted in the
range 7.0-7.2 by dosing sulphuric acid. In such a pH range, one would expect ammonia to occur as
ammonium ions. However, specific measurements of ammonia carried out in the gas flow from the
reactor confirmed the absence of such a pollutant. Figure 4 reports the concentration/time profiles of
NH4-N in the influent and effluent of the SBBGR, as well as removal efficiencies during the period
in which the pH was adjusted in the range 7.0-7.2.
Table (2) reports average COD, ammonia and TSS concentrations in the influent and effluent of the
SBBGR as well as their relative removal efficiencies recorded during sub-periods 3 and 4. In
addition, the data of sub-period 2 are also reported as a comparison.
Table (2): Influent and effluent parameters for SBBGR..
Sub-period
PARAMETER
2 3 4
Volumetric organic loading
1.5 1.1 0.6
(kg COD/m3.d)
COD inf (mg/L) 23,420 22,412 21,012
COD eff (mg/L) 5,148 4,637 3,860

37 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

COD removal efficiency (%) 78 79 81

NH4+-N inf (mg/L) 3,173 3,166 3,190
NH4+-N eff (mg/L) 2,484 2,568 2,465
NH4+-N removal efficiency (%) 21 19 22
TSS inf (mg/L) 1,625 1,613 1,471
TSS eff (mg/L) 355 345 314
TSS removal efficiency (%) 78.1 78.6 78.6

The data reported in table (2) show that:

 The high COD concentrations in the treated effluent are due to the presence in the leachate of
a relevant fraction of recalcitrant organics. This is proved by the fact that, regardless of the
organic load values, almost the same value of COD removal efficiency is obtained (i.e. 78%,
79% and 81% in sub-period 2, 3 and 4, respectively).
 The ammonia removal efficiency is almost the same (i.e. about 20%) despite the decrease in
organic loading value. This indicates the presence of inhibitory compounds in the leachate,
such as ammonia or high salinity. Moreover, this result suggests that a further reduction of
organic loading would not improve the ammonia removal efficiency. Therefore, a physio-
chemical treatment for removing this pollutant would appear to be the only solution.
 The suspended solid removal efficiency was about 78% and TSS concentrations in treated
effluent was about 320 mg/L. TSS removal efficiency was partly limited by the bed porosity
value that was never lower than 0.4 because of the very low sludge production (as reported
below).

D. Conclusion:

The main results of this investigation specifically aimed at evaluating the performances of a
periodic bio-filter with granular biomass (SBBGR) for treating a mature municipal landfill leachate
are:
 An SBBGR system is suitable for removing 80% of the COD content of a leachate at least up
to an applied volumetric organic loading value of 1.1 kg COD/(m3·d), thus reducing the COD
burden in subsequent treatment processes such as oxidation, precipitation, evaporation etc;
 An increase in volumetric organic loading up to 4 times (i.e. 4.5 kg COD/m3·d) causes only a
slight reduction (i.e. 10%) in COD removal efficiency;
 The ammonia removal efficiency was low (lower than 20%) because of presence in the
leachate of high salinity and inhibitory compounds;
 The process was characterized by very low sludge production (lower than 0.02 kg TSS/kg
COD removed).
38 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

5.2. Treatment by Electrochemical Oxidation

A. Introduction:

Electrochemical oxidation can significantly reduce concentrations of organic contaminants,

ammonia, and color in leachate. Pretreatment methods, anode materials, pH, current density,
chloride concentration, and other additional electrolytes can considerably influence performance.
Although high energy consumption and potential chlorinated organic formation may limit its
application, electrochemical oxidation is a promising and powerful technology for treatment of
landfill leachate.
An understanding of the characteristics of landfill leachate is needed to interpret the variable
performance found when treating leachates with electrochemical oxidation. Typical characteristics
of landfill leachate are listed in Table (3). Organic compounds and ammonia nitrogen in landfill
leachate are two principal chemical characteristics of environmental concern. Organic contaminants
in leachate are described mainly using global parameters such as chemical oxygen demand (COD),
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and total organic carbon (TOC).
Table (3): Typical characteristics of landfill leachate

B. Conceptual Design of Treatment Reactor and Process Description:

A basic conceptual diagram of electrolysis is shown in Figure (30), including a direct current (DC)
power supply, a cathode, an anode, and the electrolyte (a medium that provides the ion transport
mechanism between the anode and the cathode necessary to sustain the electrochemical process). At
the cathode, an electrode at which reduction occurs and from which electrons are repelled, metal-
cations (mostly heavy metals) can be removed; and at the anode, a electrode at which oxidation
occurs and to which electrons travel, some pollutants (e.g., organic compounds) can be directly
oxidized. Additionally, an oxidation reaction may occur in bulk solution by an oxidant generated by

39 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

the electrodes. Electrochemical oxidation has been widely investigated as an efficient means of
controlling pollution in water and wastewater treatment.
An important advantage of electrochemical oxidization is to oxidize organic pollutants into CO 2 and
water to avoid a problem of contaminants shifting from one phase to another. Also, the operation at
room temperature and atmospheric pressure prevents volatilization and discharge of un-reacted
wastes, and the reaction can be simply terminated in seconds by cutting off the power

Figure (30): Conceptual diagram of electrolysis.

Electro-oxidation of pollutants in wastewater is fulfilled through two different approaches: indirect
oxidation, where a mediator is electrochemically generated to carry out the oxidation, and direct
anodic oxidation, where pollutants are destroyed on the anode surface, see figure (31). During
indirect oxidation, the agents generated anodically, which are responsible for oxidation of inorganic
and organic pollutants, may be chlorine and hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, ozone and metal
mediators such as Ag2+ . Furthermore, hydroxyl radicals can also be generated to enhance oxidation
through electro-Fenton reactions where added ferrous ion reacts with electrochemically generated
hydrogen peroxide
Direct anodic oxidation is achieved through two different pathways: electrochemical conversion and
electrochemical combustion during electrolysis, two species of active oxygen can be
electrochemically generated on oxide anodes (MOx). One is the chemisorbed “active oxygen’’
(oxygen in the oxide lattice, MOx+1), responsible for electrochemical conversion while the other is
the physisorbed ‘‘active oxygen. Adsorbed hydroxyl radicals, OH-, is responsible for
electrochemical combustion.

40 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Figure (31): Pollutant removal pathways in electrochemical oxidation (indirect and direct
oxidation).
During electrochemical conversion, organic compounds are only partially oxidized so that a
subsequent biological treatment may be required. In contrast, electrochemical combustion yields
CO2 and water to complete full purification
During the electrochemical oxidation of landfill leachate, pollutant removal may be primarily due to
indirect oxidation, utilizing chlorine/hypochlorite formed by anodic oxidation of chlorine originally
existing or added in the leachate (Chiang et al., 1995c), although direct anodic oxidation may to
some extent destroy pollutants adsorbed on the anode surface (Li et al., 2001). A series of reactions
involve indirect oxidation during electro-oxidation.
Hypochlorite (OCl-) generated is a strong oxidant that can oxidize aqueous organic compounds.
Chiang et al. (1995c) found that anode material, current density, and chloride concentration had
similar effects on chloride/hypochlorite production efficiency for electrolysis of both saline water
and landfill leachate. They also found that COD and NH3–N removal efficiencies in electro-
oxidation of leachate increased with increases in current density. However, in a direct
electrochemical oxidation, pollutant removal efficiency at the same charge loading (in coulomb per
liter) is independent of current density (Murphy et al., 1992). Hence, Chiang et al. (1995c)
suggested that indirect oxidation was the main process during electrochemical oxidation of leachate.
Moreover, they proposed that NH3–N removal could be due to a series of reactions between
hypochlorite and ammonia, similar to ‘‘breakpoint reactions’’ described by White (1986), instead of
air stripping or direct anodic oxidation.

C. Removal Efficiencies:

During electro-oxidation of leachate, COD reduction efficiency ranges from 70% up to above 90%,
and NH3–N removal efficiency almost reaches 100% under appropriate conditions (Leu and Chang,
1999; Chiang et al., 2001; Ihara et al., 2004). The result for removal of organic compounds in
electro-oxidation of leachate is superior to those reported in coagulation/flocculation (Amokrane et
41 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

al., 1997), light-enhanced oxidation (Ince, 1998), combination of UV and O3/H2O2 (Qureshi et al.,
2002), Fenton process (Lopez et al., 2004), ultrasound (Gonze et al., 2003), and other
physical/chemical processes. Kinetic data and competition of removals for organics and ammonia
have been investigated in past research efforts. Different results on kinetic tests have been reported.
Chiang et al. (2001) found that COD and NH3–N removal had pseudo-first-order and zero-order
kinetic rate constants, respectively. However, Moraes and Bertazzoli (2005) reported that decaying
profiles of COD and TOC both followed pseudo-second-order kinetics, and that a competition
between COD and NH3–N removal Existed during the electrochemical oxidation process. Li et al.
(2001) reported that when indirect oxidation predominated, most of NH3–N and only 30% of COD
were removed in the first hour, and subsequently the remaining 70% of COD began to decline
during electro-oxidation of a leachate subsequent to a sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Chiang et al.
(1995c) also found that removal of NH3–N was obviously dominant when in competition with
removal of COD under indirect oxidation during electro-oxidation of an old leachate. Cossu et al.
(1998) reported that the removal rate of NH3–N was lower than that of COD at the initial stage of
electro-oxidation of an old leachate when direct oxidation predominated, and then NH 3–N was
substantially removed in the subsequent electro-oxidation stage when indirect oxidation became
prevalent. Marinci and Leitz (1978) also found that a direct anodic oxidation of ammonia was a
fairly slow procedure. Based on the above reports, the rule of competition between removal of COD
and NH3–N seems to be that the removal of NH3–N is greater than that of COD when indirect
oxidation is dominant, while removal rate of COD takes priority under direct anodic oxidation.
Removal of color during electro-oxidation of leachate also has been investigated by Moraes and
Bertazzoli (2005). The researchers reported that 86% of color was removed within 180 min of
electrochemical oxidation, and color removal had a pseudo-second-order kinetic constant.

D. Conclusion:

Electrochemical oxidation of landfill leachate under appropriate conditions can remove most COD
and almost all ammonia, and also significantly remove color. During electro-oxidation, reduction of
pollutants appears to be primarily due to indirect oxidation. Pretreatment methods, anode materials,
pH, current density, chloride concentration and electrolytes added all influence removal efficiencies
of pollutants and energy consumption. Two drawbacks of electro-oxidation may limit its wide
application for landfill leachate treatment: high energy consumption, and potential for formation of
chlorinated organics. Especially because of its expensive operating costs compared with other
available technologies (for example, biological processes), electro-oxidation will be favored as a
finishing step in a combined process or an auxiliary unit in emergency situations, instead of a full
treatment for landfill leachate (Cossu et al., 1998). However, electrochemical oxidation is still a
promising and powerful technology, especially for low BOD5/COD or high toxic landfill leachate
where biological processes suffer. Future work is expected to clarify the influence of pH and the
risk of formation of chlorinated organics during electro-oxidation of landfill leachate. Additionally,
development of material science for more economical and effective electrodes is expected to
improve the application of electro-oxidation of landfill leachate.

42 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

5.3. Treatment of Leachate by MBR: The Wehrle Experience

A. Introduction

By definition, a landfill site is a large area of ground, normally lined, that is used for
tipping/disposal of waste material. As long as the rainfall is greater than the rate of water
evaporation then the liquid level (leachate) within the landfill area will tend to rise. Environmental
regulations require that the leachate level be controlled, which means that excess leachate must be
removed and disposed of.

Generally, the lowest cost form of leachate disposal is to a local watercourse or sewer, although on
site treatment is invariably a prerequisite. This can be performed in several ways depending upon
the nature of the leachate

The most cost effective form of treatment for high levels of BOD, COD and ammonia is intense
biological oxidation, and in the UK the sequential batch reactor is the most common technology
used. The sequence batch reactor (SBR) is a form of activated sludge treatment.

The fundamental difference between an SBR and a traditional activated sludge/settlement

process is that biological degradation and solids settlement are carried out in the same tank.
However, the SBR does have its negative aspects, which can be overcome with the incorporation of
membrane technology.

B. Membrane Application

The application of membranes (MF, UF, NF and RO) did not start with the introduction of MBR in
to Germany. In the late ‘80s UF and RO systems were being used to clean leachate by separating
and concentrating the solids. The UF plants at the time were using 12-25 mm tubular membranes.
Spiral wound membranes were used for the RO systems. The UF plant had to be used to ‘pre-clean’
the leachate (removal of high molecular weight colloidal compounds and suspended solids in order
to prevent blocking the RO membranes). This form of treatment was considered to be cost effective,
but resulted in serious consequences for some landfill sites .

The operating contract for the site was due to be renewed in the latter part of 1998. The
landfill operator decided to replace the MBR process with a direct Reverse Osmosis system.
The main reason for choosing the RO system was its lower operating costs in comparison to other
treatment technologies, including the incumbent MBR process.

RO Osmotic Pressure
Reverse Osmosis plants, by definition have to operate at high pressures in order to overcome the
osmotic pressure of the liquids being concentrated. For example, if a salt solution has an osmotic
43 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

pressure of 18 bar and the system pressure is 30 bar, then the net filtration pressure for the process is
30-18 bar, i.e. 12 bar.
However, the osmotic pressure is directly proportional to the liquid salinity. As the concentration of
the combined “salts” increase, which is what happens when the RO concentrate is returned to the
landfill, then the osmotic pressure will rise accordingly. If the RO process plant conditions remain
constant, this will create an overall reduction in the net filtration pressure, which will result in a
lower permeate flow rate.
Therefore, in order to achieve the same original flow rate the RO plant will need to operate at a
higher pressure (more energy and investment, if a larger pump is required) or additional membrane
surface needs to be installed
In summary, reverse osmosis has a role to play in the treatment of leachate but not as the
primary process. RO can be installed after an MBR process where there is a need to remove low
MW compounds from the treated leachate.

The Wehrle BIOMEMBRATR process addresses the above issue head on and is an optimal solution
for the treatment of many industrial wastewaters and landfill leachate. Both atmospheric and
pressurised bioreactors are used depending upon the process circumstances.
The bioreactors can be operated at up to 25 kg/m3 MLSS, which minimises reactor volume for a
given sludge loading. However, membrane flux performance deteriorates with an increase in MLSS
and the optimal sludge concentration is on average 17-20 kg/m3.

Sludge foaming is often a problem associated with treating leachate, which results in choosing the
use of a pressurized bioreactor for the MBR process. The smaller aeration tanks can be pressurized
at up to 3 bar to facilitate the provision of optimum dissolved oxygen concentration even at a high
organic loading. The pressurized tanks also minimize the airflow, reducing the risk of stripping out
volatile compounds, and reducing the size of air scrubbers when these are required

44 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

A further effect of using a smaller aeration tank is that the energy from the exothermic bioprocess,
aeration blowers and pumps is used to heat a relatively small volume of liquid. This enables the
Biomembrat process to operate at an elevated temperature, usually 30 to 35°C, providing the
following advantages:

Biology
Ø Increased rate of bio-oxidation of pollutants.
Ø Improved performance of ‘hard’ COD removal.
Ø Higher rate of nitrification.
Ø Lower sludge production.
Ultrafiltration
Ø Increased flux rates with increased temperature.

For leachate, where complex organic substances often occur, it can be necessary to operate in a low
F/M (sludge loading) – long sludge age mode. The high MLSS in the BIOMEMBRAT facilitates
this mode of operation, which together with the retention of bacteria by the membranes maximises
the biodegradation. This is reflected in the observed improvement in ‘hard’ COD reduction when
the treatment of leachate by BIOMEMBRAT was compared with a conventional activated sludge
process.
A low F/M loading is also necessary for nitrification, and in turn minimizes the production of
surplus sludge.
Plants can be designed to incorporate a denitrification stage if required. Denitrification takes place
in an anoxic tank, which precedes the aeration tank, and receives both the flow of incoming
wastewater and the recycled thickened sludge from the ultrafiltration unit.

Methanol is dosed to this tank as necessary to ensure an adequate carbon source.

The advantages are highlighted below:

1. The membranes are separate from the bioreactor and cannot affect the efficiency of the aeration
2. The ‘self scouring’ action created by the velocity of the sludge along the surface of a tubular
membrane, in fact, considerably reduces the rate of fouling.
45 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

3. The membranes can also be easily chemically cleaned ‘in situ’ (CIP).
4. Reduced maintenance and plant downtime costs. Module replacement takes about 5 minutes to
accomplish
5. Some wastewater including leachate can contain high levels of inorganic dissolved solids, which
tend to precipitate salts during biotreatment. These most certainly will cause scaling problems for
membranes that are not subject to high levels of agitation.
This problem is greatly reduced with tubular membranes as described in (2) above and any
precipitate layers formed are easily removed with the CIP as highlighted in (3) above.
6. Ability to operate the plant at a higher MLSS than is possible with alternative systems
7. It is not necessary to use additional aeration for cleaning the membranes in situ

Membrane Fouling
Domestic or municipal sludge has a relatively low fouling factor and hence its suitability to be
treated by submerged MBR systems. Unfortunately, the same does not apply to MBR systems
treating industrial effluent or landfill leachate. The graph highlights the fact that membrane flux
rates for leachate treatment plants will always tend to be lower.
The effects of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, etc, on the performance of the membranes is reasonably
well documented. However, leachate will vary from one landfill site to another.
The co-disposal of waste until the implementation of the Landfill Regulations means that each site
has its own ‘mix’ of chemical compounds, which is dependent upon the type of waste being
deposited since the set up of the individual cells. Therefore, on site trials are recommended before
initiating an MBR design.

The ‘biological health’ of the process also plays a major role at establishing membrane
performance. MBR is often referred to as a modification, or advancement of the activated sludge
(AS) process. Theoretically this might be true except for one point – The AS process is based upon
creating flocs, which imposes limitations upon the operating conditions, whereas the MBR system
creates the complete opposite. It does not need to create a settleable sludge and this removes some
of the restrictions upon the operating conditions that are required for the AS process. But, some
factors – for example organic load and low DO – can adversely affect membrane performance.

The Low Energy Sidestream MBR

The optimum solution would be to combine the benefits of submerged and sidestream membranes
in to one system

46 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

The membrane modules are mounted in the vertical plane. Compressed air is injected into a
specially designed air bubble distributor, located under the module tube plate. The bubbles rise
inside the membrane tubes creating an upward flow of sludge. However, the main advantage is the
scouring action created by the rising bubbles – these expand as they rise, wiping clean the
membrane wall.

The biomass (sludge) flow is controlled by the\variable speed circulation pump where the
optimum tubular flow velocity is 2 m/s. The membrane plant is being operated at
lower pressures with a wide range of flow velocities, ranging from 2 – 4 m/s. Therefore, typical
operating parameters are as follows:
4 m/s >>> 80-90 l/h.m2 >>> 5-6 kW/m3
47 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

2 m/s >>> 50-60 l/h.m2 >>> 2-3 kW/m3

The variable speed pump offers the following flexibility:

Ø During summer months of low rainfall the volumetric demand on the MBR is low and the
circulation pump was either switched off or operating at low flow. Sometimes the forward flow
provided by the rising air bubbles alone is sufficient to provide the necessary membrane flux rate.
Ø Under conditions of excessive rainfall the circulation pump speed was increased to its maximum
– resulting in the permeate flow rate being raised to 90 l/h.m2.
Ø The pump was used to provide the high flow velocities required for highly turbulent CIP
conditions.
It is worth noting that the Freiburg plant is operating under the following biological conditions:
Inlet Outlet (Consent to Sewer) COD: 1,500 mg/l 400 mg/l
Ammonia: 900 mg/l 100 mg/l

These conditions are not excessive and the leachate from the Freiburg landfill site could be
considered as weak. This allows the bioreactor to operate with an MLSS of ~ 12-15 g/l, which helps
to facilitate the measured flux rates.
Although the low energy BioLoop design at Freiburg has been successful there are three
reasons why this approach has not yet been proposed for the UK landfill sector.
Generally, leachates from UK landfill sites are ‘stronger ‘ in COD and Ammonia.The prices of side
stream tubular membranes are still too high.

5.4. Application of V✧SEP membranes for leachate treatment

One of the most important problems with designing and maintaining a landfill is managing the
leachate that is generated when water passes through the waste. The leachate consists of many
different organic and inorganic compounds that may be either dissolved or suspended.
Regardless of the nature of the compounds, they pose a potential pollution problem for local ground
and surface waters
However, with stricter regulations regarding ground and surface water contamination, landfills are
having to find new treatment alternatives.

One treatment approach is to use V✧SEPTM (Vibratory Shear Enhanced Processing).Developed

by New Logic International, Inc. of Emeryville, California, this advanced membrane technology has
48 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

made it possible to filter streams containing a variety of components without the fouling problems
exhibited by conventional membrane systems
This new type of membrane system does not only filter the suspended solids but also reduces or
eliminates dissolved organics and inorganics. The result is a crystal-clear water stream and a
concentrated sludge
The main difference between V✧SEP and traditional crossflow membrane filtration is the
mechanism by which the foulants are prevented from accumulating on the membrane surface
This mechanism enables the filter to maintain higher, sustained throughput rates and process larger
volumes of material economically without the pretreatment costs of conventional crossflow
systems. V✧SEP successfully eliminates diffusion polarization at the membrane surface.

Depending on the location of the landfill, the chemistry of the leachate and the discharge
specifications have differed. The most extensive test work has been completed on leachate from a
landfill located in the Western U.S. The discharge specification at that location requires the
reduction of chelated nickel.
Unlike other chemical treatment systems where chemical flocculants are added which substantially
increase the volume of waste material, V✧SEP volume reduces the material to 10% of its original.
Then with the following solidification by drying, the ending volume of dry solids is only 2% of the
original volume. The dry solid can be sent back as landfill. The remaining 98% of the volume is
disposed of or reused as clean clear filtrate.
The advantages of V✧SEP include:
_ No chemical pre-treatment
_ Simple single step processing
_ Small footprint
_ Automated and very energy efficient
_ Precise molecular separation
In addition to these benefits, our customers take full advantage of the public relations aspects of the
new treatment system. V✧SEP represents a brand new cutting edge technology for dealing with
this wastewater problem_ V✧SEP offered many advantages compared to alternative treatment
systems which included large amounts of chemical addition or required extensive space for
installation.
49 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

The vibrating membrane units are compact, cost effective and easy to maintain. VSEP units are
flexible in that they can be manufactured with almost any membrane media.
This feature enables the systems to be customized to fit the processing requirements for different
leachates given the chemical composition of the stream.
The membrane filter packs are modular and can be replaced to meet changing processing
requirements.

Though membranes have experienced great advances in the past twenty years, their use in leachate
treatment has only been explored recently. With more stringent regulations placing greater emphasis
on leachate treatment, the industry is seeking new technologies to solve the problem. Offering
economic and operating advantages, V✧SEP is a leading technology for treating landfill leachate
and will continue to revolutionize the use of membranes in the industry.

5.5. Constructed Wetland for landfill leachate treatment

Constructed wetlands treat a wide variety of wastewaters and runoff waters using emergent plants.
Free-water surface (FWS), subsurface flow (SSF), and vertical flow (VF) constructed wetlands all
use a combination of fixed-film biological activity and physical, chemical, or photochemical
mechanisms. The treatment of landfill leachate is one particular application for which constructed
wetlands have been used widely (Crites, et al., 2005).

50 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Vertical flow wetlands recently planted with bulrush in Salem, Oregon

While all types of constructed wetlands have been used to treat landfill leachate, VF wetlands have
been most successful, particularly for ammonia reduction. These wetlands are two-to three-foot
deep sand beds that are underdrained, and have bulrush or reeds on the surface. Leachate is
collected into a storage tank from which it is pumped to the wetlands. Periodic or intermittent
dosing onto the wetlands often lasts for an hour followed by five hours of resting. To accommodate
this intermittent application, the site is divided into six sub-basins; one is wetted while the other five
are drying.
A combination system utilizing a VF wetland bed followed by an FWS wetland has been used to
treat landfill leachate at various sites in Indiana
In some cases the leachate is applied directly to the wetland; in others the leachate flows to an
equalization pond, from where it is transferred to the wetland unit. A wetland at the Escambia
County landfill in Florida is aerated to reduce the organic loading from septage that is also added to
the pond.

Design and Siting Factors

Leachate composition depends on the type and quantity of materials placed in the landfill and on the
time since placement. Thus, characterization of the leachate is essential for proper wetland design
because it can contain high concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia,
metals, high or low pH, and possibly priority pollutants of concern. In addition, the nutrient balance
in the leachate may be inadequate to support vigorous plant growth in the wetland and supplemental
potassium, phosphorus, and other micronutrients may be necessary

Typically, the wetland will be sized to achieve a specific level of ammonia or total nitrogen in the
final effluent. This may be accomplished with a single FWS or VF wetland or with a series of VF
cells. As an example, a VF wetland recently designed to treat 15 gallons per minute of landfill
leachate required approximately one-half acre.

51 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Because leachate is collected from the subsurface of the landfill, the treatment wetlands are usually
sited downgradient from the landfill or the leachate is pumped to the wetlands

Wetlands also can be constructed in modules as the landfill is built out. Other Factors: BOD,
Ammonia, and Climate Atmospheric exposure and the relatively long hydraulic retention times of
the wetlands options result in very effective removal of the volatile priority pollutants. If the
leachate BOD is consistently above 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L), then the use of a preliminary
anaerobic pond or a VF wetland cell should be considered.

For landfill leachates with high ammonia content on the order of 300 mg/L or more, VF wetlands
are usually required because they facilitate transfer of oxygen into the wetlands. These wetlands can
be combined in series or with recirculation to treat high ammonia concentrations because they can
transfer oxygen from the atmosphere into the sand where nitrification can occur. Intermittent dosing
of VF wetlands (alternately wetting and drying) is similar in concept to using recirculating sand
filters (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).

Some advantages and benefits of the SSF wetland concept, such as preventing public contact with
the wastewater, are not necessary at most landfill locations, so an FWS wetland may be a more cost-
effective choice even if it requires more land. The exception may be in cold climates, where the
thermal protection provided by SSF wetlands offers an operational advantage. The table on page 29
shows the performance of an FWS wetland treating landfill leachate in Mobile County, Alabama.

52 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Egyptian landfills Examples!!!!!!!!!

For the purpose of research and studying the landfills in Egypt ,several landfills were on a list to be
visited by the study team in order to watch from near all the details for the different landfills .the
following is a summary for there field trips discussing the collected data for the different landfills.
Sanitary landfill in 6th October city
A group of the research team went for a site trip in 6th October city sanitary landfill to investigate
the procedures done for solid wastes management.
Its location is in way from 6th October city to oasis, several kilometers away from urban where the
land is available and unbuilt .
The place was prepared to be away from the buildings and inside town but near the road for the
trucks to be able to collect the solid wastes and dump on the site easily.
When the study team arrived there ,we entered the roadway for the trucks in which we could see
several cars going into the landfill full with solid wastes and others which have emptied their load .
And by asking for the leader person ,we were introduced to him and accordingly we asked about the
procedures and design of the landfill.
The leader person told the study team that the trucks collect the garbage from different locations
down city and bringes it to the landfill

The workers in the landfill prepare the site by digging a huge wide hole where it is lined with plastic
sheets and the solid wastes are dumped there.
After that a number of workers start secreting and sorting the solid wastes ,making papers in a side
,plastics in another ,wood in another…etc until all the solides are sorted leaving only the domestic
wastes.

53 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

Each kind of wastes is sent to a known factory to be recycled according to its characteristics, while
the domestic wastes are left ,and finally a loader covers the remains with sand which is found in the
same site, compacting it to dump over it again until the wide hole is filled to the road level, Then
another wide hole will be dug .

According to leader person words ,there are some factories brings its wastes and dump it by
themselves in a known hole specially for them and the landfill workers do not interfere as it is
already sorted as being from one factory wastes.
The garden wastes are also buried in separate holes other than the domestic or industrial wastes
holes.
Unfortunately ,the study team was informed that the leachate is not collected by any means and the
landfill was not designed to collect and off course ,there was no opportunity to study the leachate
and its treatment.

SUMMARY
Landfills are engineering systems designed and constructed to handle disposal of different types of
solid wastes. Although landfills construction targets minimizing environmental risks of discarded
solid wastes, some decomposition by-products, such as gases and leachate, may be hazardous for
the surrounding environment, atmosphere and groundwater aquifers.

Leachate, leaking from landfills carrying biological and chemical contaminants, has unique
characteristics varies from landfill to another, and requires different treatment processes to handle
and treat whether in-situ or in wastewater treatment plants.

Treatment processes may be classified into two categories, biological and physiochemical. Selection
of appropriate treatment process depends on leachate characteristics and degree of treatment
required to be achieved. All designed treatment processes are to meet the environmental standards
and regulations established by different environmental agencies.

54 of 55
Civil Engineering Department
Public Works Engineering

Cairo University
Faculty of Engineering

REFERENCES

1- Claudio Di Iaconi, Guido Del Moro, Michele Pagano, Roberto Ramadori, (2009). Municipal
landfill leachate treatment by SBBGR technology. International Journal of Environment and
Waste Management. 4 (3-4): 422-432(11).
2- David W. Graham, (1977). Biological-chemical treatment of landfill leachate, Master of Science
Thesis, University of British Columbia
3- Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), (February 2007). Guidance for the
Treatment of Landfill Leachate, Sector Guidance Note IPPC S5.03, (www.environment-
agency.gov.uk)
4- Irina Kostova, (2006). Leachate from sanitary landfills – origin, characteristics, treatment,
Assoc. Prof. at University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, “Iskar’s Summer
School” – Borovetz, 26-29 July 2006
5- Jude Ifeanyichukwu Madu, (2002). New leachate treatment methods, Lund University,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering
6- Michele Monroe (2011) Application Note: Landfill Leachate Treatment,V✧SEP Offers a
Revolutionary Solution , New Logic International.
7- Mohd Razman Sali, (1992). Comparative Studies of Leachate Treatment Using Aerobic,
Anaerobic and Adsorption Systems, Doctoral of Philosophy Thesis, University of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, Department of Civil Engineering, Division of Environmental Engineering.
8- Norfahana Binti Rashid, (2009). Leachate Treatment: Chitosan As An Adsorption For Heavy
Metal Ions, Bachelor of Civil Engineering Thesis, University Malaysia Pahang, Faculty of Civil
Engineering & Earth Resources.
9- Robinson AH, Wehrle Environmental (2005). Landfill Leachate Treatment,.Paper prepared for
“MBR 5 – The 5th International Conference on Membrane Bioreactors”, Cranfield University.
10- Ronald W. Crites and Bryan Plude-Brown and Caldwell ( January/February 2006). Southwest
hydrology , p.29,32.
11- -Steve last, IPPTS Associates (2011), "Five Golden Rules for landfill leachate Management".
12- Yang Deng , James D. Englehardt (2006). Electrochemical oxidation for landfill leachate
treatment. Water research. 40(20):3683-94.

55 of 55