Hindawi

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Volume 2021, Article ID 6921607, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6921607

Review Article
Design and Operation of Effective Landfills with Minimal
Effects on the Environment and Human Health

Gulnihal Ozbay , Morgan Jones, Mohana Gadde, Shehu Isah, and Tahera Attarwala
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Gulnihal Ozbay; [email protected]

Received 15 July 2020; Accepted 10 August 2021; Published 7 September 2021

Academic Editor: John Yabe

Copyright © 2021 Gulnihal Ozbay et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Totaling at 7.4 billion people, the world’s population is rapidly growing, bringing along with it an increase in waste generation. The
impact of this exponential increase in waste generation has resulted in the increased formation and utilization of landfills. In the
present day, landfills are utilized to dispose of chemical, hazardous, municipal, and electronic wastes. However, despite their
convenience, most landfills are improperly managed and face constant changes from the surrounding environment that interfere
with their internal landfill processes. The objectives of this mixed review are to highlight the negative impacts landfills have on the
environment and public health as well as outline the need for proper management practices to mitigate these effects. Inadequate
management of landfills leads to issues concerning leachate collection and landfill gas (LFG) generation, which give rise to
groundwater contamination and air pollution. This paper recognizes the disadvantages of utilizing landfills as the main disposal
method by focusing on these two primary effects that improper management of landfills has on the environment and human
health. Many experts have also reported that communities within close proximity to improperly managed landfills have an
increased risk of health issues. Apart from implementing proper landfill management practices, it is important to develop
solutions to reduce waste generation altogether. This review discusses some of the innovative methods implemented by other
countries to reduce landfill waste and the production of greenhouse gases as well as possible steps individuals can take to minimize
their ecological footprints.

1. Introduction which varies globally. A landfill is defined as a well-engi-

neered depression in the ground used for the disposal of
Waste management is a global issue, especially with the solid waste. Landfills contain a variety of wastes, mainly
increased accumulation of solid waste every year [1]. In the consisting of municipal solid waste (MSW) or everyday
1990s, developed countries produced up to 800 kg of waste single-use items such as packaging, grass clippings, furni-
per capita, while developing countries produced a maximum ture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances,
of 200 kg per capita [2]. In 2010, the global solid waste paint, and batteries [4].
production was estimated to be two billion tons [3]. De- Municipal solid waste management differs throughout
veloped countries (the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New the world. For instance, zero percent of MSW in Sweden
Zealand, and Western Europe) accounted for half of this ends up in landfills, while in Bulgaria, almost 100 percent of
estimate. However, this estimate will reportedly change with their MSW ends up in landfills. In 2014, Europe overall sent
urban population growth in developing countries. Further 41% of collected MSW to landfills [1]. Unlike Europe, many
estimations show that by 2035, Asian and African countries Asian countries have other means of waste disposal such as
will produce twice as much solid waste, while developed open dumping and burning; therefore, any waste placed in
countries will produce less waste [3]. Nonetheless, current landfills is done through unsanitary and unregulated
and future waste productions require effective landfill use, methods. In the United States, over 50 percent of waste was
2 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

landfilled in 2015 [1]. Although there are multiple means of still contribute to many environmental issues including
waste disposal around the world, the use of landfills is one of groundwater contamination from leachate generation and
the most common methods. This review will focus on landfill emission of greenhouse gases from landfill gas (LFG) gen-
management in the US, with the majority of the data rep- eration [7]. Landfills can also render surrounding soil and
resenting US waste generation. land unusable. With the population increase and the in-
According to the United States Environmental Protec- evitable growth in waste production, efforts toward proper
tion Agency [4], every year the United States generates at waste management and waste reduction in the United States
least 254 million tons of waste. This translates to about two must be made to prevent further environmental damage [8].
kg of waste generated per person, each day. Treatment of The objectives of this mixed review are to (i) highlight
municipal solid waste in the United States (US) includes the negative impacts landfills have on the environment and
landfills (52.1%), recycling (25%), incineration or com- public health, (ii) outline the need for proper management
busting with energy recovery (12.7%), and composting practices to mitigate these effects, and (iii) evaluate possible
(10.1%) [4]. solutions to manage waste generation, through the use of
Relative proportions of these treatment methods from past case studies and research conducted on this topic and
1960 to 2017 are shown in Figure 6. According to the data, data provided by the Environmental Protection Agency. Bias
landfills are a more convenient waste disposal method, is handled in this review by including multiple credible
representing over 52% of waste disposed of in the US as of sources that support the claim that landfills have negative
2017. Our dependency on landfills has only continued to impacts on the environment and public health and by in-
increase over the years due to an increase in population size. cluding both statistical data and photo evidence that further
In 2000, the United States’ population was 281.4 million, demonstrate this issue. This review will bridge the research
308.7 million in 2010, and 323.1 million in 2016 [5]. With gap from previous studies by comparing the practice and
this population increase, the demand for manufactured effectiveness of multiple landfill types as well as evaluating
products and materials grows, increasing waste generation innovative methods to reduce landfill waste.
as shown in Figure 7.
Consequently, different types of landfills exist in the US, 2. Design and Regulations of Landfills
each requiring different handling techniques and regulations
for specific waste types. There are three main landfill types: In the US, all municipal solid waste landfills, industrial
industrial landfills, municipal solid waste landfills, and landfills, and hazardous landfills are expected to meet
hazardous waste landfills. Industrial landfills process non- minimum national criteria under the “Resource Conser-
hazardous waste produced by industrial activities; municipal vation and Recovery Act (RCRA)” to ensure the protection
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) mainly collect household of human health and the environment [9]. An industrial
and other general solid waste; and hazardous waste landfills waste landfill for disposal of nonhazardous industrial waste
process hazardous or toxic waste and are the most regulated or commercial solid waste is regulated by RCRA subtitle D
and structured landfills. Each of these landfills have devel- wastes. Specific regulations for handling various types of
oped systems to manage the waste, which comprises liners, hazardous wastes are contained under subtitle C of RCRA in
leachate collection, gas collection, drainage systems, runoff title 40 of the code of federal regulations (CFR): part 264 for
control, etc. There are also additional categories of landfills permitted facilities and part 265 for interim status facilities
described in Section 2. Most wastes generated from our [9]. These standards, in general, apply to owners and op-
hospitals, schools, homes, and businesses are put into erators of landfill facilities across the United States of
municipal solid waste landfills. Municipal solid waste America.
landfills can also receive nonhazardous sludge, industrial There are multiple different landfill designs, each with
solid waste, and construction debris, which can contribute to their own separate processes and characteristics. Each
groundwater pollution, air pollution, and habitat destruc- landfill design has varying degrees of sustainability. These
tion [4]. Many of these waste materials are nonbiodegrad- landfills include open dump landfills, controlled landfills,
able and can sit in landfills for years without decomposing engineered landfills, and sustainable landfills.
[4]. Landfills need to be continuously managed over long
periods. Landfills are engineered so that they are located,
designed, operated, and monitored to ensure compliance 2.1. Open Dump Landfills. Open dumping is a common
with federal regulations [4]. According to the Environmental practice in many developing countries around the world and
Defense Fund [6], there are currently over 3,000 landfills in is defined as a method of disposal of solid wastes indis-
the United States. criminately without planning or control mechanisms. About
Although landfills have satisfied the need for immediate 70% of countries around the world use “open dumping” as a
waste disposal, this method is not ideal for long-term waste method of disposal of municipal solid waste. Since these
management and has multiple negative effects on the en- open dumpsites are not regulated, they are susceptible to
vironment and public health. There are solid waste landfills open burning, scavengers, disease vectors, and elements [10].
that are well managed and designed as part of the integrated The characteristics of these open dumpsites include lack of
waste management system and protect the environment planning and control of dumpsites, inadequate or lack of
from contaminants that may be present in the solid waste regulation of types of wastes entering the site, waterlogging
stream; however, that is not always the case. Most landfills and leaching resulting in water pollution, open defecation by
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 3

the public, lack of confinement of waste body, and un-

controlled burning of waste materials leading to air pollu-
tion. Open dump landfills are prohibited in the US [11]. A
typical open dumpsite is shown in Figure 1.
These open dumpsites have no proper engineering de-
sign and therefore have no groundwater protection or
drainage controls. Environmental risks posed by these open
dump landfills need to be investigated to determine remedial
actions on whether to close or upgrade the open dump to a
controlled landfill. Environmental impact assessments
(EIAs) should include flaws in site location (floodplains or
groundwater), depth of existing open dumpsite and degree
of compaction, variability of wastes within the site, and
potential for mining decomposed organic materials [12].
Figure 1: An open dump landfill (reprinted from HelpSave Nature,
https://helpsavenature.com/).
2.2. Controlled Landfills. Controlled landfills are one level
above open dump landfills, as controlled landfills are subject
to basic control mechanisms such as the presence of an
authority figure on site, control of vehicular movement and
access to landfill, and basic waste handling techniques to
ensure control and consolidation of the total body of wastes.
At these sites, there is an installation of preliminary drainage
control measures and a lack of uncontrolled burning of
waste, and scavenging and foraging animals are minimized.
Although controlled landfills are more regulated than
open dump landfills, they are still not viable since they do
not conform with the fundamental principles of waste
compaction and covering. Typical operational procedures
include limiting the working face area, installation of litter
barrier, and provision of daily cover. Waste volume is
subject to control, as well as drainage systems and water
quality.
Figure 2: Mid-Michigan Engineered landfill design, https://www.
grangernet.com./

2.3. Engineered Landfills. Engineered landfills are disposal

sites that are constructed through planning and adoption of requirements are much more stringent than other types of
engineering techniques that ensure control of waste and landfills. Thus, sanitary or engineered landfills are consid-
avoidance of surface water through the installation of well- ered to have the least impact on public health and the en-
designed and well-constructed surface drainage. Other vironment [13].
characteristics include excavation and spreading of soil
materials to cover the body of wastes, compacting of wastes
into smaller layers, removal of leachate from wastes into 2.4. Sustainable Landfills. The major driver of engineered or
lagoons or similar structures, venting of landfill gas out of sanitary landfills has been the prevention of waste saturation
wastes, and most importantly planned isolation of landfills to minimize the likelihood of leachate leaking into the
from surrounding geology. These modern landfills are based surrounding ground. This approach has led to a very slow
on the concept of isolating landfills from the environment rate of waste degradation, with a projected stabilization
for proper stabilization of wastes and rendering them in- period in the order of hundred years. However, degradation
nocuous through biological, chemical, and physical treat- can be accelerated in principle by the controlled circulation
ments. An engineered landfill is represented by the Mid- of fluids through the waste and thus operating such engi-
Michigan landfill design in Figure 2. neered landfill as a bioreactor. This approach is more sus-
Engineered landfills are often referred to as sanitary tainable with regard to airspace, processes, control, and
landfills due to the high standard of waste disposal. Sanitary product utilization with minimal negative impacts on the
landfills require a protected bottom where trash is buried in environment and human health.
layers and compressed as a compact solid to ensure the safety Sustainable landfills often have two different approaches
of accumulated waste and ease of decomposition. The de- with regard to parameters that control chemical and bio-
sign, construction, and development of these landfills re- logical processes such as water content, temperature, mi-
quire sufficient planning from inception to its after-use croflora, and compaction rates. These led to anaerobic
stage. Location siting, construction, and operational bioreactors and aerobic biocells [14, 15]. Anaerobic
4 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

bioreactors are similar in design to an engineered landfill

with the following basic difference in their operational
practice: a built-in leachate collection and recirculation
system to enhance waste stabilization, geomembrane liners,
a gas collection system, and final cover. Using this system,
the methane gas that is predominantly produced can be
collected, purified, and sold. Aerobic biocell systems utilize
air circulation to maximize the rate of decomposition of
waste. This latter system generates carbon dioxide as a
preferred gas. A sustainable landfill utilizing an aerobic
biocell design built by the Environmental Control System,
Inc. (2001), in South Carolina is shown in Figure 3.
Stabilized waste in this system has limited methane gas
and odor production, generates less harmful leachate ca-
pable of impacting groundwater, and ensures that the landfill
recovers valuable airspace paving the way for a recycle
(reusable) and sustainable landfill system.
Collected leachate
Injected Leachate
3. Environmental and Human Health Injected Air
Risks from Landfills Figure 3: Aerobic biocell designed by the Environmental Control
System, Inc., in South Carolina (2001).
A decision as to whether a landfill should be closed, reha-
bilitated, or remediated involves technical investigations and
environmental impact assessments (EIAs). This requires a 3.1. Environmental Impacts of Landfills
wide range of consultations with interested parties, espe-
cially the adjacent communities. A typical risk assessment 3.1.1. Leachate Infiltration into Groundwater. Leachate is
process includes a set of logical, systemic, and well-defined one of the three most common landfill problems, aside from
activities that provide sound and unambiguous identifica- toxins and greenhouse gases [8]. Leachate production and
tion, measurement, quantification, and evaluation of the poor management techniques associated with uncontrolled
risks associated with landfills. Potential adverse effects to landfills (especially open dump landfills) pose a significant
public health and the environment require evaluations of threat to groundwater. Leachate is the contaminated liquid
waterborne and airborne pollutants, assessment of the that drains from the waste material. Leachate is generated
number of people affected by these pollutants, characteristics when rainwater filters through the waste, and the liquid is
of wastes associated with the landfills, size of the landfill leached or drawn out. Chemicals and other constituents
defined by the total amount of solid waste disposed of, and from the waste are potent in the leachate [8, 17]. The
potential health conditions and psychological effects to contaminated liquid collects at the bottom of the landfill
public health. where it is typically withdrawn through a collection system.
Some simple quantification tools for risk assessments Leachate needs to be properly managed because it can
include hazard potential rating developed by Saxena and percolate into and contaminate groundwater. One of the
Bhardwaj [16] for an upgrade of existing municipal solid major targets of a landfill is to avoid any hydraulic or water-
waste. Attributes are often grouped and weighed and related connection between the waste and the surrounding
therefore assigned weightage of attribute (Wi) such that the environment because the primary environmental problem
total weight was 1000. Each attribute is also measured in arising from landfills is groundwater contamination [17].
terms of sensitivity index (Si) on a scale of 0 to 1 to facilitate Several hazardous waste materials are deposited into landfills
computation of cumulative scores called risk index (RI). that can decompose, and if not properly managed (open
Computed risk indexes are used to classify landfills for their dumping system), will end up in the groundwater (Figures 1
environmental and public health impact. The RI is calculated and 4). The toxic products in the landfills can range from
according to industrial solvents to household cleaners. In a study con-
ducted by the USGS on contaminants of emerging concerns
RI � 􏽘 Wi Si , (1) (CECs) in landfill leachate, scientists used three analytical
methods to determine CEC concentrations: a liquid chro-
where Wi is the weightage of the i-th variable ranging from 0 matography-tandem mass spectrometry, a gas chromatog-
to 1000; Si is the sensitivity index of the i-th variable ranging raphy, and a GC/MS method. They found that “final leachate
from 0 to 1; and RI is the environmental risk index. samples contained 101 of the 190 chemicals analyzed for the
Landfills with high RI scores indicate a greater risk to study, with chemicals present in every final leachate sample
human health and require immediate remedial measures. collected at levels ranging from as low as 2 nanograms per
Landfills with low RI scores indicate low sensitivity and liter (ng/L) to as high as 17,200,000 ng/L” (2015, p.11).
significant environmental impacts. Table 1 summarizes Quality-control samples were collected and analyzed to
some of the tools that can be used for risk index assessments. evaluate bias, accuracy, and precision of CEC concentrations
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 5

Table 1: Some specific criteria for rapid risk assessment of landfills [16].

SI. Attribute Sensitivity index

Attribute (site-specific criteria)
no. weightage 0.0–0.25 0.25–0.5 0.5–0.75 0.75–1.0

1. Distance from nearest water supply source (m) 69 >5000 2500–5000 1000–2500 <1000
2. Depth of filling of waste (m) 64 <3 3–10 10–20 >20
3. Area of dumpsite (ha) 61 <5 5–10 10–20 >20
4. Groundwater depth (m) 54 >20 10–20 3–10 <3
5. Permeability of soil (1 × 10−6 cm/s) 54 <0.1 1–0.1 1–10 >10
Not a Potable if no
6. Groundwater quality 50 Potable Nonpotable
concern alternative
Distance to critical habitats such as wetlands and
7. 46 >25 10–25 5–10 <5
reserved forest (km)
8. Distance to the nearest airport (km) 46 >20 10–20 5–10 <5
9. Distance from surface water body (m) 41 >8000 1500–8000 500–1500 <500
10. Type of underlying soil (% clay) 41 >50 30–50 15–30 0–15

Goundwater contamination from a waste disposal site with groundwater contamination from leachate [21]. Cap-
ping, the term used to describe covering a landfill, is one of
the practices used by companies to prevent further toxic
spills and leachate infiltration. While caps are not designed
to remove or reduce contaminants, they do isolate and
prevent the further spread of those contaminants. This is not
an ideal method to eliminate or reduce contamination, but it
is an effective short-term solution for containing those
contaminants from polluting our lakes, streams, or
groundwater [22].
The proper containment and storage of leachate is im-
portant, but eventually, the implementation of leachate
treatment will be necessary for a long-term solution since the
Figure 4: Potential contaminant sources from a waste disposal site infrastructure holding the leachate can only withstand so
(source: Walsh [18], National Academy of Sciences, Washington long. There are various treatment options available to treat
DC).
leachate (i.e., biological treatment via biofilters to remove
nitrogen and other compounds and physical-chemical
in leachate samples (2015, p.4). Lastly, a one-sided Wilcoxon processes via oxidation, flocculation, adsorption, etc.);
rank sum test was used to test for any significant differences however, it is debatable how cost-effective those treatments
in the distribution of CEC concentrations between each are [8]. More research will need to be conducted to deter-
sample group. The USGS scientists provided a list of all the mine the most viable and cost-effective method for leachate
chemicals found in the leachate [19] (Table 2). treatment.
Besides the chemicals from household and industrial
products, there are also electronic wastes found in landfills
that contain lead and mercury. A large percentage of these 3.1.2. Landfill Gas Generation and Air Pollution. Another
landfill toxins need to be properly managed in engineered important detrimental effect of uncontrolled landfills on the
landfills to avoid infiltration of these contaminants into the environment is the generation of LFG. The primary LFG
freshwater housed in underground aquifers. Eventually, the emissions are methane and carbon dioxide. However, gases
toxins may end up in domestic water and sometimes in the such as hydrogen sulfide and mercury vapor can be emitted
foods that we consume. The contamination can also harm at low concentrations, while a mixture of volatile organic
animal and plant life [20]. Research conducted by the United compounds (VOCs) comprises approximately 0.5% of gases
States Environmental Protection Agency [4] reveals that emitted [4, 23]. The extraction of LFGs is crucial because the
82% of landfills have leaks that require rehabilitation or gases are an explosive hazard. Furthermore, exposure to
remediation for a sustainable system (Figure 5). In a Na- these gases can pose a threat to the surrounding population
tional Geographic article titled Human Footprint, Kulpinski [4].
[20] states that an “increase in the risk of severe health and Companies can extract these gases since landfills are
environmental implications has been reported in individuals prime candidates for gas recovery and allows companies to
living next to landfill areas in numerous studies.” This calls execute gas-to-energy projects. This means that the gas
for comprehensive EIAs to classify the risk index (RI) factor generated by the landfill can be taken, converted, and then
associated with most landfills. There are many public health utilized to generate electricity in the form of heat or steam
concerns for people living close to uncontrolled landfills, a [21]. For landfill sites that do not have gas-to-energy
large proportion of those health concerns being associated projects, there are gas flare stations that are used to burn off
6 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Table 2: List of 101 chemicals found in leachate samples from 22 landfills in the US.
RL range Frequency Maximum Detection
Chemicala CASRNb Primary chemical use
(ng/L) (T) (ng/L) medianc (ng/L)
Antianxiety, sleep aid,
Diazepam (1) 439-14-5 2-44 5 E 42. 1 E 42. 1
anticonvulsant
42399-41-
Diltiazem (1) 10-204 5 12.0 12.0 Calcium channel blocker
7
Erythromycin (1) 114-07-8 53-1060 5 204 204 Antibiotic
86386-73-
Fluconazole (1) 71-1420 50 1520 180 Triazole antifungal
4
29094-61-
Glipizide (1) 35-692 5 155 155 Antidiabetic
9
10238-21-
Glyburide (1) 4-79 9 25.8 24.4 Antidiabetic
8
53179-11-
Loperamide (1) 11-230 5 47.4 47.4 Antidiarrheal
6
Lorzepam (1) 846-49-1 116-1160 5 E 4820 E 4820 Antianxiety
Meprobamate (1) 57-53-4 86-1720 36 E 1530 467 Carbamate derivative, anxiolytic
Metaxalone (1) 1665-48-1 15-312 41 1710 303 Muscle relaxant
Metformin (1) 657-24-9 13-262 41 838 395 Antidiabetic
Methadone (1) 76-99-3 7-152 9 1932 981 Synthetic opioid, analgesic
Methocarbamol (1) 532-03-6 9-174 36 1210 144 Muscle relaxant
Methotrexate (1) 59-05-2 52-1050 9 315 254 Antifolate
51384-51-
Metoprolol (1) 28-550 14 E 461 E 423 Antihypertensive
1
42200-33-
Nadolol (1) 81-1620 9 E 319 238 Beta blocker
9
76963-41-
Nizatidine (1) 19-380 5 25.3 25.3 Acid inhibitor
2
196618-
Oseltamivir (1) 15-292 9 E 147 E 83.3 Antiviral
13-0
61869-08-
Paroxetine (1) 21-412 5 E 73.3 E 73.3 Antidepressant
7
39809-25-
Penciclovir (1) 40-400 5 E 2140 E 2140 Antiviral
1
Circulation enhancer (peripheral
Pentoxifylline (1) 6493-05-6 9-187 23 2841 856
blood flow)
Phendimetrazine (1) 634-03-7 31-622 5 E 1110 E1110 Appetite suppressant
Phenytoin (1) 57-41-0 188-3760 32 2410 274 Antiepileptic
Antimalarial, flavorant, mild
Quinine (1) 130-95-0 79-1600 5 E 284 E 284
antipyretic and analgesic
Sulfadimethoxine (1) 122-11-2 65-1310 18 E 401 183 Antibiotic
Sulfamethizole (1) 144-82-1 104-2080 5 861 861 Antibiotic
Thiabendazole (1) 148-79-8 4-82 55 1770 211 Parasiticide, fungicide
27203-92-
Tramadol (1) 15-302 55 1490 279 Opiate
5
Triamterene (1) 396-01-0 5-105 18 14.9 12.7 Diuretic
124832-
Valacyclovir (1) 163-3260 5 E 765 E 765 Antiviral
26-4
93413-69-
Venlafaxine (1) 5-90 5 168 168 Antidepressant
5
Warfarin (1) 81-81-2 6-121 36 E 70 23.0 Anticoagulant, rodenticide
Steroid hormones
cis-Androsterone (2) 53-41-8 0.8 23 125 72.3 Natural androgen
Natural equine estrogen,
Equilenin (2) 517-09-0 1 5 18 18
hormone replacement therapy
Estriol (2) 50-27-1 2 9 6.50 5.01 Natural estrogen
Estrone (2) 53-16-7 0.8 23 145 18.1 Estradiol degradate
Norethindrone (2) 68-22-4 0.8 5 30. 1 30.1 Synthetic progestin
Household chemicals
Acetophenone (3) 98-86-2 4000 23 E 63800 15800 Fragrance and/or flavorant
Benzophenone (3) 119-61-9 400-1600 32 E 7310 2690 Fixative for perfumes and soaps
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 7

Table 2: Continued.
RL range Frequency Maximum Detection
Chemicala CASRNb Primary chemical use
(ng/L) (T) (ng/L) medianc (ng/L)
Component of plastics and
Bisphenol A (BPA) (2) 80-05-7 100 77 E 17200000 E 45400
thermal paper
Camphor (3) 72-22-2 400 55 E 342000 62400 Fragrance and/or flavorant
d-Limonene (3) 5989-27-5 1600 5 E 3400 E 3400 Pesticide, fragrance in aerosols
Galaxolide (3) 1222-05-5 200 14 E 928 302 Polycyclic musk fragrance
Isoquinoline (3) 119-65-3 400 5 801 801 Fragrance and/or flavorant
Menthol (3) 1490-04-6 3200 18 82900 27800 Flavorant
N, N-diethyltoluamide
134-62-3 400 68 E 431000 45500 Insect repellent
(DEET) (3)
Skatol (3) 83-34-1 400 23 31900 8200 Fragrance
Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate
115-96-8 6400 27 9100 8100 Plasticizer, flame retardant
(3)
Tri(dichlorisopropyl) 13674-87-
1600 9 E 2390 E 2070 Flame retardant
phosphate (3) 8
Antifoaming agent, flame
Tributylphosphate (3) 126-73-8 640 45 7770 2000
retardant
Industrial chemicals
Moth repellent, fumigant,
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (3) 106-46-7 400 32 2830 E 797
deodorant
1-Methylnaphthalene (3) 90-12-0 400 18 2260 983 Component of petroleum
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene (3) 581-42-0 400 5 421 421 Component of diesel/kerosene
2-Methylnaphthalene (3) 91-57-6 400 9 2840 1900 Component of petroleum
3,4,Dichlorophenyl
102-36-3 200 5 E 1010 E 1010 Industrial chemical intermediate
isocyanate (3)
4-Cumylphenol (3) 599-64-4 400 18 E 12800 E 10000 Plasticizer, flame retardant
84852-15-
4-Nonylphenol (3) 200 32 E 83200 E 18500 Nonionic detergent degradate
3
4-Nonylphenol diethoxylate 26027-38-
2000 18 E 146000 24500 Nonionic detergent degradate
(3) 2
4-Tert-octylphenol (3) 140-66-9 400 55 E 6870 E 1860 Nonionic detergent degradate
4-Tert-octylphenol
2315-61-9 2000 5 47000 47000 Nonionic detergent degradate
diethoxylate (3)
4-Tert-octylphenol
2315-67-5 2000 5 15300 15300 Nonionic detergent degradate
monoethoxylate (3)
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole Antioxidant in antifreeze and
136-85-6 3200 18 E 6480 E 5820
(3) deicers
Component of tar, diesel, or
Anthracene (3) 120-12-7 200 27 1570 631
crude oil
Dye/textiles, seed treatment, bird
Anthraquinone (3) 84-65-1 400 14 E 691 E 532
repellent
Plasticizer for polymers and
Diethyl phthalate (3) 84-66-2 2000 18 E 14100 6500
resins
Component of coal tar and
Fluoranthene (3) 206-44-0 200 5 E 430 E 430
asphalt
Isopropylbenzene (3) 98-82-8 400 18 1110 964 Fuels and paint thinner
29385-43-
Methyl-1H-benzotriazole (1) 141-2820 59 E 9660 1310 Corrosion inhibitor
1
Fumigant, component of
Naphthalene (3) 91-20-3 200 55 17300 598
gasoline
Para-cresol (3) 106-44-5 800 32 1580000 117000 Wood preservative
Explosives, component of tar and
Phenanthrene (3) 85-01-8 200 23 3600 358
diesel fuel
Phenol (3) 108-95-2 1600 27 E 1190000 E 98500 Disinfectant
Nonprescription pharmaceuticals and degradates
Acetaminophen (1) 103-90-2 7-143 41 42600 5300 Analgesic, antipyretic
Caffeine (1) 58-08-2 900-1810 32 3360 1340 Stimulant
51481-61- Histamine H2-receptor
Cimetidine (1) 27-556 18 1085 211
9 antagonist
Cotinine (1) 486-56-6 18-127 86 E 30400 E 597 Nicotine degradate
8 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Table 2: Continued.
RL range Frequency Maximum Detection
Chemicala CASRNb Primary chemical use
(ng/L) (T) (ng/L) medianc (ng/L)
Dextromethorphan (1) 125-71-3 8-64 18 204 70.3 Cough suppressant
Diphenhydramine (1) 147-24-0 6-116 9 24 15.7 Antihistamine
83799-24- Antihistamine, terfenadine
Fexofenadine (1) 20-398 14 E 252 E 237
0 degradate
Lidocaine (1) 137-58-6 15-304 91 E 47900 5380 Local anesthetic
79794-75-
Loratadine (1) 7-139 5 E 202 E 202 Antihistamine
5
Nicotine (1) 54-11-5 1160 23 E 43800 E 6080 Alkaloid stimulant
Piperonyl butoxide (1) 51-03-6 3-161 23 E 238 35.7 Pesticide synergist
Appetite suppressant,
Pseudoephedrine (1) 90-82-4 11-222 45 E 6200 2150
decongestant, stimulant
Pesticides and degradates
Atrazine (1) 1912-24-9 19-388 9 507 466 Herbicide
Carbaryl (3) 63-25-2 600 5 E 2530 E 2530 Insecticide
Plant and animal sterols
3-Beta-coprostanol (3) 360-68-9 200 59 176000 7980 Fecal indicator
Beta-sitosterol (3) 83-46-5 24000 5 190000 190000 Phytoestrogen
Cholesterol (3) 57-88-5 200 73 32300 7300 Plant and animal sterol
19466-47-
Stigmastanol (3) 17000 9 164000 143000 Phytosterol
8
Prescription pharmaceuticals and degradates
64520-05-
1-Hydroxy-amitriptyline (1) 8-166 5 415 415 Amitriptyline degradate
4
136470- Antiviral, reverse transcriptase
Abacavir (1) 22-444 5 38.1 38.1
78-5 inhibitor
59277- Antiviral, reverse transcriptase
Acyclovir (1) 22-444 27 2720 582
8403 inhibitor
18559-94-
Albuterol (1) 6-121 18 377 268 Bronchodilator
9
Amphetamine (1) 300-62-9 8-163 45 11900 614 Psychostimulant
Antipyrine (1) 60-80-0 116-2320 23 E 1060 189 Analgesic, antipyretic
29122-68-
Atenolol (1) 13-266 32 1042 E 178 Beta blocker
7
34841-39-
Bupropion (1) 17-356 5 38.8 38.8 Antidepressant
9
Anticonvulsant and mood
Carbamazepine (1) 298-46-4 4-83 77 E 810 165
stabilizer
Carisoprodol (1) 78-44-4 13-250 82 E 3060 322 Muscle relaxant
93413-62-
Desvenlafaxine (1) 7-150 7 E 656 225 Venlafaxine degradant
8
a
Value in parentheses indicates method: (1) � liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) pharmaceuticals; (2) � gas chromatography-
tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) steroid hormones; (3) � gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) household/industrial chemicals.
b
Chemical abstracting service report number. cMedian of detected concentrations. CEC � contaminant of emerging concern; E � flagged due to concentration
being less than the RL or greater than the highest point on calibration curve; RL � reporting limit; Maximum � maximum concentration. Note. Reprinted
from Landfill Leachate as a Mirror of Today’s Disposable Society: Pharmaceuticals and Other Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Final Leachate from
Landfills in the Conterminous United States, by Masoner, J.R., Koplin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Cozzarelli, I.M., and Gray, J.L. (2015b). Retrieved from https://
setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/etc.3219 copyright 2015 by Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

the flammable gas that is released by pressure relief valves carbon dioxide. The outcome from the release of these gases
[24]. Although there are other toxic gases emitted from from the landfill is increased global temperatures. Aside
landfills, methane and carbon dioxide are the primary from methane gas, other household and agricultural
emissions, with methane being the most environmentally chemicals like bleach and ammonia can generate toxic gases
damaging [25]. Methane gas is naturally produced during that can greatly impact the air quality within the landfill
the process of organic matter decay (food, wood, textiles, vicinity [26]. Dust, particulate matter, and other non-
garden waste, etc.) from bioreactors. The United States chemical contaminants can also be expelled into the at-
Environmental Protection Agency [4] reported that the mosphere, contributing to poor air quality. As stated above,
methane expelled during the decomposition of organic methane is flammable and LFGs combined with a large
matter, if unmanaged within the landfill, has the potential of amount of landfill waste can easily lead to a fire outbreak if
trapping solar radiation 20 times more effectively than not properly contained. Once fires are ignited, it can be
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 9

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Sites undergoing rehabilitation for municipal solid waste landfill. (a) Reprinted from City of Springfield, https://www.
springfieldmo.gov/2331/Solid-Waste-Management-Recycling-and-sanitary-landfill. (b) Reprinted from FABRIMETIRCS PHIL, INC.,
https://fabphils.com/proj006-bataan-sanitary-landfill-phase-2.

challenging to extinguish them, resulting in further air Table 3: Different uses for LFG energy.
pollution and destruction of neighboring habitats [27]. Number of
Combustion of the landfill worsens the situation, as the Landfill-gas energy use
projects
burning of the chemicals adds more chemical load into the Electric
area. The Environmental Defense Fund [6] states that Reciprocating engines 187
methane is “84 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the Gas turbines 31
short term.” LFG needs to be constantly monitored and Other 25
extracted, as the production of toxic gases and odors can All electric 243
significantly impact air quality (United States Environ- Direct
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) [28]). Boilers 29
As part of their Landfill Methane Outreach Program, the Direct thermal and leachate
47
USEPA [28] stated that “instead of escaping into the air, LFG evaporation
can be captured, converted, and used as a renewable energy Other 31
All direct 107
resource.” By converting LFG, there is a reduction of odor
Total 350
and lower emissions of other hazards associated with LFG. All landfills 2,239
This utilization prevents methane from migrating into the
Note. Reprinted from Is Landfill Gas Green Energy?, by Chen and Greene
atmosphere, where it could contribute to local smog and [29]. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/lfg.pdf copy-
global climate change. Besides a reduction in environmental right 2003 by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
pollution, using LFG as an energy source can also produce
jobs and increase revenue [28]. The agency stated that
generating power from the emitted methane is a clean, possible routes of exposure include direct contact through
positive action taken by landfills and is a renewable solution the contamination of soil, ground, and surface water or
(USEPA, 2018) [28]. Chen and Greene [29] of the Natural inhalation via pollution of indoor air in the case of evap-
Resources Defense Council compiled a table of LFG Energy- oration of volatile organic compounds into basements of
Use projects (Table 3). Noticeably, LFG has many energy nearby houses” [30]. If the water used by residents becomes
applications. heavily contaminated, other water uses such as bathing may
also lead to exposure to evaporated VOCs released from
waste [31]. Areas surrounding uncontrolled landfills have
3.2. Human Health Implications. There have been multiple increased incidences of health issues such as respiratory
studies that show that residents living in the surrounding issues, skin irritations, gastrointestinal problems, fatigue,
communities to uncontrolled landfills have negative health headaches, and psychological disorders [30]. Studies on
effects, some of which are related to groundwater con- landfill influence on public health are typically only con-
tamination and air pollution. In a review article by Vrijheid ducted after officials have been notified about an odor being
[30] titled Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste released from a landfill site or after residents have already
Landfill Sites, multiple study sites situated near landfills that begun to experience adverse health effects. These are self-
may or may not have already experienced environmental reported cases, which show increased effects in populations
issues were observed. The findings were based on frequent exposed to waste sites compared with unexposed pop-
concerns from the public of exposure to toxins (whether in ulations [32]. The review references a study done in Woburn,
the air or water) at a specific site and the health outcomes Massachusetts, where toxic chemicals from an uncontrolled
reported within the surrounding populations. Landfill sites waste disposal site were detected in municipal drinking
may be a source of airborne chemical contamination water wells [33]. Residents of Woburn reported a cluster of
through the migration of gases, particles, and chemicals that leukemia cases in children. These reports were confirmed
adhere to dust [30]. This article also states that “other through hospital and pathology records, and a first study
10 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Municipal Solid Waste Management: 1960-2017

300,000,000

200,000,000
Tons

100,000,000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017
Year
Recycling Combustion with Energy Recovery
Composting Landfill
Figure 6: Composition of the US municipal solid waste management between 1960 and 2017 [9].

300 10 Other 3.3%

254.1
253.7 250.6
243.5
Per captia generation (Ibs/personlday)
Total MSW generation (million tons)

250
8
217.3
208.3
200 Food 14.6%
166.3 6 Paper 27%
151.6
150
127.8
121.1 Yard trimmings
104.4 4.57 4.52 4.74 4.69 4.44 4
4.40 13.5%
100 88.1 3.83
3.66
2.96 3.25 3.25 Glass 4.5%
2.68 2 Wood
50 6.2%
Metals
0 0 9.1%
Plastics
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
12.8%
Rubber, leather
Total MSW generation
& textiles 9%
Per capita generation

(a) (b)

Figure 7: 1960–2013 MSW generation (reprinted from EPA Archive, https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/).

confirmed that this number was significantly higher than hazardous wastes that are not properly stored and disposed
expected based on national rates [33]. The parents of the of in engineered landfills: particularly implicated are inci-
leukemia patients were later interviewed by selecting parents dences related to gastrointestinal, esophageal, stomach,
of two exact age and sex-matched well controls—one who colon, and rectal cancers. On the other hand, Budnick et al.
lived close to the patient and the other who lived in the distal [35] studied the superfund site in Clinton County, Penn-
half of the city. Most of the East Woburn residents reported sylvania, and had found that the site was contaminated with
poor water quality, noting its bad odor, taste, color, and the carcinogens β-naphthylamine, benzidine, and benzene.
corrosiveness. Findings in these studies are consistent with According to their study, they found an increased number of
conclusions made above: poor landfill management leads to bladder cancer deaths among white males in Clinton County
air pollution and groundwater contamination, harming both and a substantial increase in the number of other cancer
the environment and people. deaths in the general population of Clinton and three
According to Rushton [21], “reproductive effects asso- surrounding counties during the 1970s [35]. However, no
ciated with landfill sites have been extensively researched specific birth defects were significantly associated with the
and include low birth weight (less than 2500 g), fetal and superfund site in this study.
infant mortality, spontaneous abortion, and the occurrence
of birth defects” (p.188). Furthermore, Rushton [21] and 4. Innovative Methods Utilized at Landfills
Griffith et al. [34] stated that through the use of National
Priorities Listing (NPL) of hazardous waste sites developed 4.1. Reducing Landfill Waste. Though a majority of waste
by the US Environmental Protection Agency, there was an that ends up in landfills could potentially be minimized by
increased frequency of cancers in counties containing implementing practices such as reducing, reusing, and
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 11

recycling or completely getting rid of the plastic industry, it [39].”After implementing this technology at a Danish
is just not feasible. Geyer et al. [36] wrote, “as of 2015, landfill site, they found that they were able to reduce
approximately 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, methane production from 10 kg/hr to just 1 kg/hr [39]. This
around 9% of which had been recycled, 12% was incinerated, technology has proven effective in managing one greenhouse
and 79% was accumulated in landfills or the natural envi- gas and has the potential to be utilized worldwide, greatly
ronment. If current production and waste management reducing methane emissions at landfill sites.
trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in
landfills or the natural environment by 2050”. However, 5. Discussion
there are natural methods of waste disposal that can be
utilized upon further investigation. One method is the usage Determining and assessing the risks posed by landfills is
of Galleria mellonella, commonly known as wax moth essential to relieving their direct effects on the environment.
caterpillars. Polyethylene (PE) is a form of plastic that It is important to stress the issue of proper landfill man-
cannot biodegrade, as it is held together by C-C bonds [37]. agement as a means of decreasing leachate and LFG con-
In a study conducted by Bombelli et al. [37], the researchers tamination. Although landfills are environmentally
placed a PE film next to the caterpillars and found de- straining, some actions can be taken to alleviate negative
struction of the plastic within 40 minutes. The researchers impacts. When a landfill reaches the end of its lifespan and
reported that after placing 100 caterpillars in contact with a can no longer collect any more waste, the waste management
plastic bag for 12 hours, there was a 92 mg reduction in the company will cap it [4]. Once closed, the landfill goes into
mass of the bag [37]. To account for the possibility that the postclosure process where the company is responsible
mechanical action was solely responsible for the PE for managing that landfill for at least the next 30 years.
breakdown, worm homogenates were smeared on and left in Management is necessary as leachate and gas do not stop
contact with the PE films. Gravimetric analysis of the treated being produced. Once a landfill has been shut down, that
samples confirmed significant mass loss of 13% PE over the land does not have many alternative uses [4]. However,
span of 14 hours compared with the untreated samples [37]. companies are beginning to develop solar farms on top of
The G. mellonella caterpillars achieved this by breaking landfills, which helps generate revenue. Furthermore, the
down the chemical bonds that the PE consists of according multiple tax incentives provide more reason for companies
to FTIR analysis. However, further research is necessary to to engage in the renewable energy industry.
determine whether the hydrocarbon-digesting activity of Another important step that can be taken is to enforce
G. mellonella is derived from the organism or from enzy- federal regulation of landfills, which would ensure that the
matic activities of its intestinal flora [37, 38]. Hopefully, construction of landfills is well engineered and properly
further research and understanding of the G. mellonella managed. Enforcement can significantly lessen the impacts a
caterpillars will one day be implemented on a larger scale to landfill has on the quality of soil, air, and water [4]. Landfills
combat landfill waste. that are well designed and properly operated ensure com-
pliance with environmental preservation requirements and
ultimately ensure that the environment is contaminant-free
4.2. Reducing Gas Emissions. Other approaches considered [28]. Proper construction and maintenance also ensures that
more sustainable with regard to airspace, processes, control, landfills are not located in environmentally sensitive areas
and product utilization with minimal negative effects on the and are incorporated with on-site environmental moni-
environment and human health include integrating engi- toring systems that track signs of gas release and ground-
neered landfills with anaerobic bioreactors or aerobic bio- water contamination [28]. Landfill management will need to
cells. These systems will help reduce methane gas emissions focus on designing and operating sustainable landfills.
by capturing, purifying, and redirecting the gas to be used Similarly, communities also need to be a part of this sus-
toward energy projects. tainable future by focusing on decreasing their waste gen-
As mentioned in an earlier section, methane is one of the eration and thereby effectively limiting the negative effects of
primary greenhouse gases emitted from landfills. A jour- landfills [9].
nalist at the Technical University of Denmark, Jensen [39],
writes that compared with carbon dioxide, methane is 25 6. Conclusion
times more detrimental. Thus, it is important to mitigate its
effects. A common method utilized to reduce the release of According to the United States Environmental Protection
methane is using soil to cover up landfill sites. However, not Agency [4], the following steps can be taken to reduce our
all gas is contained with this method [39]. In a pilot study waste production and protect the environment: (1) respect
conducted by Denmark researchers Schuetz et al. [40], a new the planet and all of its living and nonliving components, (2)
biocover technology was utilized to achieve just this. This rethink our consumption needs and avoid spending money
biocover technology functions by “sealing the surfaces of old on unnecessary things, (3) reduce wastage and waste ac-
landfills to prevent methane from penetrating them. cumulation, and (4) reuse and recycle products when
Instead—by means of a gas drainage system—the gas is possible. According to Annenberg Foundation [41], we can
distributed through so-called ‘biowindows,’ which are most eventually reuse or recycle more than 70 percent of landfilled
comparable to a compost bed. Here, the natural microor- wastes, as the majority comprises valuable materials such as
ganisms of the compost transform methane into CO2 glass, metal, and paper. By reusing and recycling those
12 Journal of Environmental and Public Health

materials, the demand for original natural sources of these [4] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
materials can be reduced, and this can potentially eliminate “Municipal solid waste,” 2016, https://archive.epa.gov/
severe environmental, economic, and public health issues. All epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/.
in all, with our increasing population, waste generation will also [5] P. Mackun and S. Wilson, Population Distribution and
increase, so it is crucial to recognize and mitigate the issues of Change: 2000 to 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, Suitland, Suitland-
Silver Hill, MD, USA, 2011, https://www.census.gov/prod/
leachate production and LFG generation to protect the envi-
cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf.
ronment and human health. Waste management companies [6] Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Methane: The Other
need to enforce strict landfill regulations and people need to Important Greenhouse Gas, Environmental Defense Fund,
take it upon themselves to reduce their waste generation, which New York, NY, USA, 2018, https://www.edf.org/methane-
will reduce both the toxicity and volume of waste that ends up other-important-greenhouse-gas.
in landfills. However, in the time being, further studies need to [7] Y. Jayawardhana, P. Kumarathilaka, I. Herath, and
be conducted to achieve greater insight into G. mellonella M. Vithanage, “Municipal solid waste biochar for prevention
caterpillars and biocover technology, as both methods have of pollution from landfill leachate,” in Environmental Ma-
proven effective and could be crucial in reducing the detri- terials and Waste. Resources Recovery and Pollution Preven-
mental effects of landfills and landfill waste worldwide. tion, M. N. V. Prasad and K. Shih, Eds., Academic Press,
Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 117–148, 2016.
[8] B. Bausback, “The 3 most common landfill problems & so-
Data Availability lutions,” 2016, https://www.hcr-llc.com/blog/the-3-most-
common-landfill-problems-solutions.
No data set was generated in this review article. References [9] United States Environmental Protection Agency Community-
are provided for the data used in this review. Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool (USEPA
C-FERST), “View your community,” 2017, https://www.epa.
gov/c-ferst.
Conflicts of Interest [10] P. Rushbrook, Guidance on Minimum Approaches for Im-
provements to Existing Municipal Waste Dumpsites, Institu-
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
tional Repository for Information Sharing. EUR/01/5021815,
WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark,
Authors’ Contributions 2001, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108432.
[11] Federal facilities environmental stewardship and compliance
Dr. Gulnihal Ozbay outlined and planned the review article, center, https://www.fedcenter.gov/assistance/facilitytour/
provided supervision and guidance to the coauthors, and solid/dumping/, 2017.
contributed to writing, editing, and commenting on this [12] HelpSave Nature, “Difference between sanitary landfills
review article. She helped both students extend the subject and open dumps you must know,” February 2015, https://
content and provided necessary revisions for article prepa- helpsavenature.com/difference-between-sanitary-landfills-
ration. Morgan Jones reviewed the background contents and open-dumps.
[13] K. Joseph, R. Nagengran, and K. Thanasekaran, Dumpsite
incorporated the first draft and discussion on the review.
Rehabilitation Manual, Center for Environmental Studies,
Mohana Gadde assisted with the review and added mini- Chennai, India, 2013.
mizing waste and greenhouse gases section. Dr. Shehu Isah [14] D. R. Reinhart and T. G. Townsend, Landfill Bioreactor Design
and Tahera Attarwala provided further edits and comments and Engineering, CRC Press, New York, NY, USA, 1998.
and added sections to clarify the contents of the review article. [15] C. Zurbrugg, “The challenge of solid waste disposal in
developing countries,” SANDEC News, EAWAG, vol. 4,
pp. 10–14, 1999.
Acknowledgments [16] A. K. Saxena and K. D. Bhardwaj, “Environmental Assessment
This review was funded by USDA NIFA Capacity Building and up-gradation plan for existing municipal waste disposal
site—a case study,” in Proceeding of Workshop on Sustainable
Grant Programs (Award# 2013-38821-21246 and Award#
Landfill Management, pp. 287–301, Chennai, India, 2003.
2016-06642) and the National Science Foundation EPSCoR [17] J. R. Masoner, D. W. Kolpin, and K. E. Lee, Landfill Leachate
Grant No. 1757353 and the State of Delaware. Released to Wastewater Treatment Plants and Other Environ-
mental Pathways Contains a Mixture of Contaminants Including
References Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Washington, DC, USA, 2015a, https://toxics.usgs.
[1] M. A. Karim and J. T. Wetterhan, “A comparative study of gov/highlights/2015-11-13-leachate_pathways.html.
solid waste management in the United States, Europe and [18] J. Walsh, Report: Cleanup of Some Contaminated Ground-
Asia,” Annals of Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 4, water Sites in the U.S. Unlikely for Decades, http://www.
pp. 003–011, 2020. constantinealexander.net/2012/11/report-cleanup-of-some-
[2] M. D. Vaverkova, “Landfill impacts on the environment- contaminated-groundwater-sites-in-the-us-unlikely-for-
review,” Geosciences, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 2–16, 2019. decades.html, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
[3] D. C. Wilson and C. A. Velis, “Waste management—still a DC, USA, 2012, http://www.constantinealexander.net/2012/
global challenge in the 21st century: an evidence-based call for 11/report-cleanup-of-some-contaminated-groundwater-
action,” Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a sites-in-the-us-unlikely-for-decades.html.
Sustainable Circular Economy, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1049–1051, [19] J. R. Masoner, D. W. Kolpin, E. T. Furlong, I. M. Cozzarelli,
2015. and J. L. Gray, “Landfill leachate as a mirror of today’s
Journal of Environmental and Public Health 13

disposable society: Pharmaceuticals and other contaminants Pennsylvania,” Archives of environmental health, vol. 39, no. 5,
of emerging concern in final leachate from landfills in the pp. 409–413, 1984.
conterminous United States,” Environmental Toxicology & [36] R. Geyer, J. R. Jambeck, and K. L. Law, “Production, use, and
Chemistry, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 906–918, 2015b. fate of all plastics ever made,” Science Advances, vol. 3, no. 7,
[20] D. Kulpinski, Human Footprint. Human Footprint | National Article ID e1700782, 2017.
Geographic Channel, https://www.google.com/url?q=https:// [37] P. Bombelli, C. J. Howe, and F. Bertocchini, “Polyethylene
groups.google.com/forum/%23!topic/waitersworld-google/ bio-degradation by caterpillars of the wax moth Galleria
AunIrh3Zk7A&sa=D&ust=1546039674972000&usg=AFQj mellonella,” Current Biology, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. R292–R293,
CNGz7q1Zsj5B3J8QWU1ayJArZh1Clg, 2018. 2017.
[21] L. Rushton, “Health hazards and waste management,” British [38] A. Dickman, “Studies on the waxmoth, Galleria mellonella,
Medical Bulletin, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 183–197, 2003. with particular reference to the digestion of wax by the lar-
[22] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), “A vae,” Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, vol. 3,
citizens guide to capping. Office of solid waste and emergency no. 2, pp. 223–246, 1933.
response (5102G). National service center for environmental [39] T. V. Jensen, “New technology reduces dangerous meth-
publications EPA 542-F-12-004,” 2012, https://www.epa.gov/ ane,” 2015, https://www.dtu.dk/english/News/2015/07/New-
sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/a_citizens_guide_ technology-reduces-dangerous-methane?id=7650c52d-103f-
45a5-b0b0-8db64a9ceb30.
to_capping.pdf.
[40] C. Schuetz, F. Cassini, J. D. Schoenmaeker, and P. Kjeldsen,
[23] D. Zmirou, A. Deloraine, P. Saviuc, C. Tillier, A. Boucharlat,
“Mitigation of methane emissions in a pilot-scale biocover
and N. Maury, “Short-term health effects of an industrial toxic
system at the AV Miljø Landfill, Denmark: 2. Methane oxida-
waste landfill: a retrospective follow-up study in Montchanin,
tion,” Waste Management, vol. 63, pp. 203–212, 2017, https://
France,” Archives of Environmental Health: An International
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X17300120?
Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 228–238, 1994. via%3Dihub.
[24] Republic Services, “Landfills. Responsible landfill manage- [41] Annenberg Foundation, Garbage: Solid Waste, Annenberg
ment,” 2018, http://www.republicservices.com/customer- Foundation, 2016, http://www.learner.org/exhibits/garbage/
support/facilities. solidwaste.html.
[25] Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Fact
Sheet, “Scottish pollutant release inventory. Methane,” 2018,
http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.
aspx?pid=65.
[26] Conserve Energy Future, “What are landfills?,” 2018, https://
www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-
landfills.php.
[27] J. Skye, “Environmental problems: landfills,” 2014, https://
excesslogic.com/environmental-problems-landfills.
[28] United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
“Basic information about landfill gas,” 2018, https://www.epa.
gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas.
[29] C. Chen and N. Greene, Is Landfill Gas Green Energy?, Natural
Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, USA, 2003,
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/lfg.pdf.
[30] M. Vrijheid, “Health effects of residence near hazardous waste
landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature,” Environ-
mental Health Perspectives, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 101–112, 2000.
[31] C. S. Clark, C. R. Meyer, P. S. Gartside et al., “An environ-
mental health survey of drinking water contamination by
leachate from a pesticide waste dump in Hardeman County,
Tennessee,” Archives of Environmental Health: An Interna-
tional Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 9–18, 1982.
[32] J. N. Logue and J. M. Fox, “Residential health study of families
living near the drake chemical superfund site in Lock Haven,
Pennsylvania,” Archives of Environmental Health: An Inter-
national Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 222–228, 1986.
[33] J. J. Cutler, G. S. Parker, S. Rosen, B. Prenney, R. Healey, and
G. G. Caldwell, “Childhood leukemia in Woburn, Massa-
chusetts, USA,” Public Health Reports 101:201-205, SAGE
Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1986.
[34] J. Griffith, R. C. Duncan, W. B. Riggan, and A. C. Pellom,
“Cancer mortality in U.S. Counties with hazardous waste sites
and ground water pollution,” Archives of Environmental
Health: An International Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 69–74,
1989.
[35] L. D. Budnick, J. N. Logue, D. C. Sokal, J. M. Fox, and H. Falk,
“Cancer and birth defects near the drake superfund site,