See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234840428

Produced Leachate from Erbil Landfill Site, Iraq: Characteristics, Anticipated

Environmental Threats and Treatment

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

4 1,167

1 author:

Shuokr Qarani Aziz

Salahaddin University - Erbil
81 PUBLICATIONS   756 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wastewater treatment using biological filtartion View project

Design of Water Distribution System for Zin City, Erbil-Iraq View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shuokr Qarani Aziz on 06 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Produced Leachate from Erbil Landfill Site, Iraq: Characteristics,
Anticipated Environmental Threats and Treatment
AZIZ, S.Q.*

*: Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Salahaddin–Erbil,

Iraq.
E-Mail: shoker71@yahoo.com H/P: 00964 750 462 5426

Abstract:

Presently, estimated disposed municipal solid waste at Erbil landfill site (ELS)
exceeded 700 tons/day. ELS is considered as Level 2 (sanitary landfill with daily cover)
and anaerobic landfill. Based on the age of ELS, it is in the methane formation phase.
Produced leachate from ELS regards as mature leachate. The values of parameters such
as pH (>7.5), NH3-N (> 400 mg/L), COD (<4000 mg/L), BOD5 (100-3500 mg/L),
BOD5/COD (< 0.1), TOC (5200 mg/L), TOC/COD (> 0.5), NO2-N (0.1-1.5 mg/L) and
TDS (1100- 6400 mg/L) for stabilized leachate at ELS were clarified. Furthermore,
some physical and chemical characteristics of surface water and groundwater were
explained. Movement of the generated fresh leachate from ELS causes threats for the
surrounded environment, particularly water sources. Outcomes of the current work
showed that the appropriate collection and treatment of generated mature leachate from
ELS before discharge to the natural environment has been made a legal requirement to
avoid pollution of water resources and prevent both acute and chronic toxicities.

Keywords: Landfill, leachate, Erbil, Pollution, MSW and Treatment

I. INTRODUCTION

Municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal by sanitary landfilling continues to be widely

allowed and employed due to its economic advantages. Sanitary landfilling has been
shown to be the most economic MSW disposal method when compared with other
means of disposal such as compositing and incineration etc. [1]. In addition to its
benefits, the production of leachate is one of the major weaknesses of landfills. Gas and
inert solids are other productions of landfills. Landfill leachate is liquid produced
mainly by the percolation of precipitation water through an open landfill or through the
cap of a completed landfilling site. Leachates may comprise large quantities of organic
pollutants measured as chemical oxygen demand (COD), 5 days biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), significant concentration of heavy metals,
and inorganic salts. It is also rich in phenol, nitrogen, and phosphorus. If not treated and
safely disposed, landfill leachate could be a potential source of surface and ground
water contamination, as it could percolate through soils and subsoils, causing severe
contamination to water sources [1-2]. Commonly, the threats of the formed leachate on
the natural environment are determined by comparing leachate characteristics with the
standards.

The nature of landfill leachate depends on the type of MSW being buried, landfill age,
moisture content, seasonal and weather variations, site hydrology, the stage of
decomposition in the landfill, pH, and biodegradability ratio and it could be classified as
young, intermediate, and mature. Noticeably, as landfill age increases, the
biodegradable fraction of organic contaminants in leachate decrease as an outcome of
the anaerobic decomposition happening in landfill site. Therefore, it contains much
more refractory organics than young leachate [2-4].

Presently, there are a number of landfills in Erbil Province, Iraq. Most are simply
dumping grounds without any environmental security. The formed leachate is
discharged directly into water sources and natural environment without any
management, which can threaten the surrounding ecosystem, principally in cases where
landfills are located upstream of water intakes. In the present literature, a gap of
information could be found regarding produced leachate from Erbil landfill site (ELS)
and the anticipated risks on the water sources. Consequently, the current research was
focused on the threats of formed leachate from ELS on the surrounded water sources.
Formerly, this type of work has not been conducted.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Site Characteristics
ELS is situated near Kani-Qrzhala Sub-District (from left-side of Erbil-Mosul main
road) in Erbil City, Iraq. It is approximately 15 km far from city centre of Erbil City
(Figure 1). The total landfill site area is 37 ha, but only a part is currently operational in
receiving more than 700 tons of solid waste daily. This site was opened in 2001.
Normally, this site has a natural sandy gravel and clay layers. The buried municipal
solid waste (MSW) is mixed without proper separation of the components, Figure 2.
Thus far, the scientific documents on the MSW characteristics in Erbil City are very
limited. At present, a part of recyclable materials (particularly plastic, glass and metals)
are separated by scavengers. Due to lack of scientific sanitary landfill design in this site,
the raw landfill leachate mixes with the natural environment, particularly water sources.
 Erbil landfill site

Figure 1: Satellite image of Erbil landfill site [5]

Figure 2: Disposed MSW at Erbil landfill site

B. Types of Landfills
Based on landfill structure, there were various types of landfill sites (Table1). This
categorization of landfills is based on the landfill structure. Furthermore and depending
on Action Plan 1988-Malaysia, there were 4 levels improvement aimed for landfills [6]
which were: Level 1: controlled dumping, Level 2: sanitary landfill with daily cover,
Level 3: sanitary landfill with leachate circulation, and Level 4: sanitary landfill with
leachate treatment facilities. ELS is remain within Level 2 and it is anaerobic landfill.
 Table 1: Categorization of landfill structure [6]

No. Category Details

Disposed solid wastes are filled in digged area of plane field or
Anaerobic
1 valley. The wastes are filled with water under anaerobic
landfill
condition.
Anaerobic
Anaerobic landfill with cover like sandwich shape. Conditions
2 sanitary
of disposed wastes are similar as type 1.
landfill
Improved This kind has leachate collection system in the bottom of the
anaerobic landfill site. Other parameters are same as anaerobic sanitary
3
sanitary landfill. The conditions are still anaerobic and moisture content
landfill is much less than anaerobic sanitary landfill.
Leachate collection pipe is larger than the one of improved
sanitary landfill. The openings of the pipe are surrounded by air
Semi-aerobic
4 and the pipe is covered with small crushed stones. Moisture
landfill
content in disposed solid waste is low. Oxygen is supplied to
solid waste from leachate collection pipe.
Besides of the leachate collection pipe, air supply pipes are
Aerobic
5 attached and air is obligated to enter the solid waste of which
landfill
condition becomes more aerobic than semi-aerobic landfill.

C. Characteristics of Landfill Leachate

MSW placed in a sanitary landfill could undergo through a number of physical,
chemical, and biological processes as mentioned earlier. Aerobic and anaerobic
decomposition of the organic materials results in both liquid (leachate) and gaseous end
products. Formed landfill leachate could contain large quantities of pollutants measured
as COD, BOD5, NH3–N, suspended solids, heavy metals, phenols, and phosphorus [1, 3,
7]. Commonly, the contaminants in leachate could be classified into three groups: 1)
Organic matter including dissolved organic matter (volatile fatty acids, humic and fulvic
compounds); 2) Inorganic matter (NH3-N, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphate, chlorides,
and sodium); and 3) Heavy metals such as iron, zinc, copper, lead, manganese etc.
(Tables 2 and 3).
 Table 2: Typical landfill leachate characteristics [8-9]

Type of landfill leachate

No. Parameter Unit Young Intermediate Stabilized

(< 5 years) (5–10years) (> 10 years)

1 pH <6.5 6.5–7.5 >7.5

2 COD mg/L >10000 4000–10000 <4000
3 BOD5/COD 0.5–1.0 0.1–0.5 <0.1
Organic compound 5–30% VFAa +
4 80% VFAa HFAb HFAb
HFAcb
5 NH3-N mg/L <400 NA >400
6 TOC/COD <0.3 0.3 –0.5 >0.5
7 Kjeldahl nitrogen g/L 0.1–0.2 NAc NAc
Low to
8 Heavy metals mg/L Low Low
medium
9 Biodegradability Important Medium Low
a b c
= Volatile fatty acids, =Humic and fulvic acids, and = Not available

Table 3: Landfill leachate constituent concentration ranges as a function of the degree of

landfill stabilization [10]
Phases

Acid- Methane Final

Parameters Transition
formation formation maturation

(0-5 years) (5-10 years) (10-20 years) (>20 years)

BOD5 100-11000 1000-57000 100-3500 4-120

COD 500-22000 1500-71000 150-10000 30-900

TOC 100-3000 500-28000 50-2200 70-260

NH3-N 0-190 30-3000 6-430 6-430

NO2--N 0.1-500 0.1-20 0.1-1.5 0.5-0.6

TDS 2500-14000 4000-55000 1100-6400 1460-4640

 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Status of Erbil Landfill Site
Figure 3 illustrates the schematic diagram of anaerobic, semi-aerobic, and aerobic
landfills. Generally, landfill structure affects the characterization of produced leachate.
The effect of landfill structure on the decomposition of organic materials, particularly
BOD5 concentration, of landfill leachate is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of landfill design [11]

 Figure 4: Change in the BOD concentration of leachate by landfill type [11]

In aerobic and semi-aerobic landfill kinds, the characteristics of landfill leachate

improves significantly and more rapidly than in anaerobic landfills so that treatment
costs for leachate could be reduced. In semi-aerobic system, the application of Fukuoka
method results in much faster stabilization of landfill due to SPREP and JICA [11]: i)
decrease in methane generation and therefore contributes to prevention of global
warming, ii) enhanced settlement process of the landfill making it possible to return the
finished landfill site to other uses, and iii) general effectiveness of semi-aerobic landfills
based on the ability to continuously observe different performance parameters such as
characteristics of landfill leachate (pH, colour, BOD5, COD, suspended solid,
settlement, gases etc.). Lastly, the aerobic conditions enhance the quality of produced
landfill leachate by reducing the concentration of contaminants in the leachate and
lowering the volume of produced gases; all of which guide to rapid stabilization of
landfill leachate (Figures 3-4).

At present, ELS could be regarded as landfill with daily cover (Level 2) and anaerobic
landfill. As revealed previously, the concentration of contaminants for produced
leachate from ELS (particularly concentration of organic materials) considered high
when compared with semi-aerobic and aerobic landfills.

B. Leachate Characteristics and Effects on the Water Sources

Generally, leachate characterization changes with the climatic regions in addition to the
landfill operational practices. The chief aspects that affect the leachate characteristics
are: 1) Waste composition, biodegradable or non-biodegradable, soluble or insoluble,
organic or inorganic, liquid or solid, and toxic or nontoxic; 2) Design and operation of
the landfill and its age; 3) Obtainability of moisture and oxygen; and 4) Site hydrology
[12-13]. Furthermore, authors studied landfill leachate characteristics in a number of
countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, South Africa, Korea, the United
Kingdom, the Island of Mauritius, and New Zealand). The author reported that
characteristics of landfill leachates during methanogenic phase of solid waste
decomposition at very large landfills were remarkably regular, in spite of variances in
solid waste sorts, climate, and countries (whether developed or developing) [6].

Clearly, as landfill age increases, the biodegradable fraction of organic contaminants in

leachate decrease as an outcome of the anaerobic decomposition occurring in landfill
site. Therefore, mature or stabilized leachate contains much more refractory organics
than young leachate. In this respect, young landfill leachate (age < 5 years) is typically
characterized by high BOD5 (4000–13000 mg/L) and COD (30000–60000 mg/L)
concentrations, fairly high amount of NH3-N (< 400 mg/L), high ratio of BOD5/COD
(0.4 - 0.7), and a pH value < 6.5. In contrast, stabilized landfill leachate (age > 10 years)
usually contains high amount of NH3-N (> 400 mg/L), moderately high strength of
COD (<4000 mg/L), and a low BOD5/COD ratio of less than 0.1 (Tables 2 and 3).

Based on the age of ELS, landfill leachate at ELS could be considered as mature
(stabilized) leachate; Characteristics of produced leachate from ELS are shown in Table
4.

Table 4: Characteristics of Landfill leachate at ELS

No. Parameter Value

1- pH > 7.5
2- NH3-N (mg/L) > 400 mg/L
3- COD (mg/L) <4000 mg/L
4- BOD5 (mg/L) 100-3500
5- BOD5/COD < 0.1
6- TOC (mg/L) 50-2200
7- TOC/COD > 0.5
8- NO2—N (mg/L) 0.1-1.5
9- TDS (mg/L) 1100-6400

In Erbil City both surface and groundwater are used by consumers for drinking and
other daily uses. Table 5 shows the characteristics of water sources (groundwater and
river water) in Erbil City. Characteristics of groundwater and Greater-Zab river water
were monitored throughout 12 months. Collection of samples and the experiments in the
laboratory were carried out according to APHA [14]. To provide drinkable water for
the consumers in Erbil City, surface water from Greater-Zab treats via Ifraz treatment-
plants; While, groundwater enters water distribution systems after chlorination process.

If raw leachate is disposed to the natural environment without treatment, it could

become a main source of water pollution because it can percolate through soils and sub-
soils, causing high contamination of the receiving water (Figure 5). The treatment of
potentially hazardous constituents of leachate prior to discharge is a legal requirement to
avoid contamination of water sources to prevent both acute and chronic toxicity [15-18].
 Table 5: Characteristics of groundwater and Greater-Zab river in Erbil City, Iraq

Source
No. Parameter Groundwater Greater -Zab water
Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average
1 Temperature (oC) 21.0 23.0 22.3 7.5 29.0 17.9
2 Turbidity (NTU) 0.3 2.7 1.2 6.9 320.0 89.6
3 EC (u mohs/cm) 416.0 613.0 503.0 271.0 439.0 366.3
4 pH 7.19 7.92 7.63 7.45 8.52 8.06
T. alkalinity
5
(mg/L) 180.0 219.0 216.8 146.0 212.0 173..3
6 T. hardness (mg/L) 167.0 288.0 236.3 134.0 276.0 204.2
7 Sodium (mg/L) 4.0 8.4 6.6 2.0 13.4 5.9
8 Potassium (mg/L) 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.5 1.0
9 Calcium (mg/L) 24.0 36.0 31.5 21.0 35.2 28.0
10 Magnesium (mg/L) 18.7 50.0 38.1 16.0 51.0 32.4
11 Chloride (mg/L) 17.8 42.0 30.4 10.6 28.4 16.0
12 Nitrate (mg/L) 20.5 45.0 32.8 0.1 10.0 4.9

Due to lack of the suitable design for ELS, the produced raw landfill leachate can not be
collected and monitored. Thus, it mixes with the natural environment. Of course, mixing
untreated landfill leachtae from ELS with the natural environment causes threaten to the
natural environment (particularly water sources).

Figure 5: Pollution of water sources by produced landfill leachate [18]

C. Potential Treatment Techniques for Produced Leachate from ELS

To reduce the negative effect of discharged raw leachate on the natural environment,
several methods of water and wastewater treatment have been used. The processes for
the treatment of landfill leachate could be classified as physical, chemical, and
biological [1, 19]. Generally, the methods are applied as an integrated system because it
is not easy to obtain the satisfied treatment efficiency by using only one technique.
Normal treatment techniques commonly need multistage process treatment. To set up
adequate treatment process for removal of pollutants from leachates, various
physicochemical and biological techniques and/or their different combinations could be
used.

The application of the most appropriate method for the treatment of leachate is directly
governed by the characteristics of the leachate. Comparison of the processes for
different landfill ages with variable success is shown in Table 6. Generally, biological
treatment methods are effective for young or freshly (<5 years) produced leachate, but
are ineffective for leachate from older landfills (>10 years old). In contrast, physical–
chemical techniques which are not favoured for young leachate treatment are advised
for older leachate treatment [20]. As stated previously, produced landfill leachate from
ELS considered as mature (stabilized) leachate. Consequently, physical-chemical
techniques are advised for treatment of leachate from ELS [3, 6]. Additionally, recently
published works revealed that combination of physical-chemical and biological methods
(such as adsorption and aerobic processes) is efficient in removal of hazardous
contaminants from mature landfill leachate [4, 6].

Table 6: Effectiveness of leachate treatment methods versus leachate age [19]

Leachate age (year)

No. Type of treatment Mature
Young (<5) Medium (5-10)
(>10)
Combined treatment with domestic
1 Good Fair poor
sewage
2 Recycling Good Fair poor
3 Aerobic processes Good Fair poor
4 Anaerobic processes Good Fair poor
5 Coagulation/flocculation Poor Fair Fair
6 Chemical precipitation Poor Fair Poor
7 Adsorption Poor Fair Good
8 Oxidation Poor Fair Fair
9 Stripping Poor Fair Fair
10 Ion exchange Good Good Good
11 Microfiltration Poor - -
12 Ultrafiltration Poor - -
13 Nanofiltration Good Good Good
14 Reverse osmosis Good Good Good

IV. CONCLUSIONS
ELS could be regarded as Level 2 (sanitary landfill with daily cover), anaerobic landfill,
and in the methane formation phase. Produced landfill leachate from ELS considered as
stabilized leachate (low biodegradability ratio, high concentration of COD, and low
concentration of NH3-N) and it deteriorates the characteristics of the surrounded water
sources. For this type of leachate, physical-chemical treatment method is effective. To
minimize the threaten of the leachate from ELS on the natural environment, upgrading
the site from Level 2 to Level 4 is essential.

V. REFERENCES
[1] S. Renou, G.J. Givaudan, S. Poulain, F. Dirassouyan and P. Moulin ”Landfill
leachate treatment: Review and opportunity”, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
2008, Vol. 150. 468–493.
[2] S.Q. Aziz, H.A. Aziz, M.S. Yusoff, M.J.K. Bashir and M. Umar “Leachate
characterization in semi-aerobic and anaerobic sanitary landfills: A comparative
study”, Journal of Environmental Management, 2010, Vol. 91. 2608–2614.
[3] K.Y. Foo and B.H. Hameed “An overview of landfill leachate treatment via
activated carbon adsorption process”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2009, Vol.
171. 54–60.
[4] S.Q. Aziz, H.A. Aziz, M.S. Yusoff and M.J.K. Bashir ” Landfill leachate treatment
using powdered activated carbon augmented sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
process: Optimization by Response Surface Methodology”, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 2011, Vol. 189. 404–413.
[5] Satellite image of Erbil landfill site. [Online] January 5, 2012. [Cited: January 6, 2012]
http://www.ierbil.com/erbil-map#!3
[6] S.Q. Aziz “Landfill leachate treatment using powdered activated carbon augmented
sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process", Unpublished PhD thesis, University
Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, 2011.
[7] A. Uygur and F. Kargi ”Biological nutrient removal from pre-treated landfill
leachate in a sequencing batch reactor”, Journal of Environmental Management,
2004, Vol. 71. 9–14.
[8] H. Alvarez-Vazquez, B. Jefferson and S.J. Judd “Membrane bioreactors vs
conventional biological treatment of landfill leachate: A brief review”, Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 2004, Vol. 79. 1043–1049.
[9] E.S.K. Chian and F.B. DeWalle “Sanitary landfill leachates and their leachate
treatment”, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, 1976, Vol. 102.
411–432.
[10] I. Kostova “Leachate from sanitary landfills–origin, characteristics, treatment”,
University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, “Iskar’s Summer
School”–Borovetz, 26-29 July 2006.
 [11] SPREP, Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA ” A practical guide to
landfill management in Pacific island countries”, Volume-1: Inland-based waste
disposal, Second edition, 2010.
[12] H.A. Aziz, M.S. Yusoff, M.N. Adlan, N.H. Adnan and S. Alias “Physico–chemical
removal of iron from semi–aerobic landfill leachate by limestone filter”, Waste
Management”, 2004, Vol. 24. 353–358.
[13] A. Bagchi “Design, of landfills and integrated solid waste management”, Third
edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004.
[14] American Public Health Association, APHA ”Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater”, 21st edition, Washington, D.C., 2005.
[15] L. Ziyang, Z. Youcai, Y. Tao, S. Yu, C. Huili, Z. Nanwen and H. Renhua “Natural
attenuation and characterization of contaminants composition in landfill leachate
under different disposing ages”, Science of the Total Environment, 2009, Vol.
407.3385–3391.
[16] C.B. Oman and C. Junestedt,”Chemical characterization of landfill leachates–400
parameters and compounds”, Waste Management, 2008, Vol. 28. 1876–1891.
[17] N. Sanphoti, S. Towprayoon and P. Chaiprasert “Nopharatana, A.: The effects of
leachate recirculation with supplemental water addition on methane production
and waste decomposition in a simulated tropical landfill”, Journal of
Environmental Management, 2006, Vol. 81. 27–35.
[18] Asian Regional Research Programme on Environmental Technology, ARRPET”
State of the art review landfill leachate treatment”, Asian Institute of Technology,
Tongji University, 2004.
[19] A.A. Abbas, G. Jingsong, L.Z. Ping, P.Y. Ya and W.S. Al-Rekabi “Review on
landfill leachate treatments”, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2009, Vol. 5.
534–545.
[20] S. Ghafari, H.A. Aziz, M.H. Isa and A.A. Zinatizadeh “Application of response
surface methodology (RSM) to optimize coagulation-flocculation treatment of
leachate using poly–aluminum chloride (PAC) and alum”, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 2009, Vol. 163. 650–656.

View publication stats