Lesson 1:

Waste managment-
landfill

1
 Lanfill typologies
Legislations variously define “landfill” as “an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are placed for
permanent disposal” (US 40 CFR x257.2.) or “a waste disposal site for the deposit of the waste onto or
into the land (i.e., underground)” (EU Landfill Directive, Article 2 (g)) or Inert
simply as “a site serving for
waste landfill sites shall be used only for inert waste
landfill disposal” (Japan Cabinet Order No. 300 of 1971, Article 5). According to Article 5 of 1999/31/EC Directive, “Memb
for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable w
amount of biodegradable organic matter landfilled, lower th
shorter the necessary aftercare period.
Waste The
nonfollowing
acceptedwastes
inmay
anynotofbethese
accepted in a landfill:
categories
• liquid waste;
• flammable waste;
• explosive or oxidizing waste;
• hospital and other clinical waste, which is infectious;
• used tires, with certain exceptions;
• any other type of waste that does not meet the acceptance
In Table 1.2.5, a synoptic view is given of the landfilling pe
streams. The main features in landfill behavior, the level of
landfill category they are suited for, the indicative eligib
in situ treatment methodology, and the evidence and entity
very general term.
In the following sections of this chapter, some selected was
characteristics important for landfilling are illustrated.
 scheme in Fig. 1.1.2.
stocks of raw materials to the increasing anthropogenic stocks of materials. This creates the base for
Fossil materials are extracted from the soil to feed industrial production. Processing of the extracted
Concept of landfill based the new concept of waste hierarchy
material mobilizes the elements and compounds, which were naturally in a nonmobile form. During
the production phase emissions of contaminants, even in low d4 concentrations that respect the limits
set by national regulations, are originated and may continue once the products are used (e.g., use of
d3
cars). At the end of their life, products will become residues. Handling of residues and recovery of re-
sources (sorting, transporting, preparing d2 for recycling) will once again produce diffuse emissions.
Waste L mining
Recovered waste resources can either be reused or recycled deliveryto the production processing. The excava-
RESOURCES
tion of waste from old landfillsd1 may provide additional
Use R RECOVERY
resources (see Chapter 19.3), although giving
rise to further emissions. At the end of any material recovery strategy, a final waste, 1.1.3 The
Figurewhich may COSTE
be (COSsueSTEgmann) logo, which de
suit-
Riuso d5 contributing toward reducing the global pollution
landfilling in
able for additional recovery, is generated.
ProductionThe disposal of these materialsTreatment
maycling
be loops,
problematic
materials as the from the soil (where they were in
extracted
Ricircolo
toxic substances present in the recycled residues are frequently accumulated. returned ToI
to the
avoid soilkind
any in a nonmobile
of form. Landfilling represents
1.1.3 The
Figurepollution, COSTE (COSsueSTEgmann) logo, which
Anthropogenic describes
stocks graphically
residual wastes should beEtreated to immobilize the contaminants and aTosuitable
the modern
sinkhow
should
role of
understand
SOIL to achieve the latter (control and minimiza
landfilling in contributing toward reducing
be considered to close the loop. Extraction of
the global pollution problem. After
Final sink production and recy-
Fixed stocks prove helpful:
cling loops, materials extracted from the soil (where they were in a nonmobile form) should again be
no-renewable
Considering the system described in Fig. 1.1.2, the following mass balance can then be drafted:
raw materials Sdi ¼ E " DR " DL " I
returned to the soil in a nonmobile form. Landfilling represents one of the possible final sinks.
E ¼asDR
Figure 1.1.2 Role of landfilling þ DL
a final sinkþinSdi þ I waste managementAnalyzing
circular strategiesEq.
in (2) is(1)
theitmaterial’s
clear what should be done to minim
To understandlife
how toModified
cycle. achievefrom
the Cossu
latteret(control
al. (2012).and minimization), a rearrangement of Eq.
risks of environmental (1) may
pollution:
where: E, extracted raw material; DR, recycled and reused material (secondary raw materials); DL,
prove helpful: • minimization of the extraction of raw materials
recovered material from landfill mining (secondary raw materials); di, diffuse mass emissions/loss
• maximization of theasso-
recovery, reuse, and recycle of residues
ciated with the specific
CHAPTER 1 j steps
Wasteand processes;
Management and I,and
Strategies immobilized material in the• final
Role of Landfilling sink. of the mining of
maximization 9 old landfills
Sdi ¼ E " DR " DL " I increase of the immobilization
(2)
of materials in final sink (Cos
It is evident that the sum of diffuse emissions should be carefully controlled• and minimized being
the main cause underlying the progressive deterioration of global environmental The last point represents the key to allow us to fully grasp th
quality.
Analyzing Eq. (2) it is clear what should be done to minimize diffusefilling:
emissions
to act asand
a toolconsequent
with which to close the material loop, r
risks of environmental pollution: form, materials that originated from the soil.
This concept has been simplified in a logo represented in Fi
 The size and size distribution of the different waste components is of special interest when waste
ition of the wastes, the season of the year, and weather conditions (Table 1.2.1).
pretreatment is envisaged.
MSW characterization In landfilling particle size strongly influences the compaction degree of waste and the degradation
Table 1.2.1 Moisture content values for different MSW fractions (Christensen,
2011)Moisture content rate of degradable fractions.

Material Fraction Moisture Content (%)

Density data are of interest when calculating the amount
Range Typical of total waste that can be landfilled until the prescribed
Table 1.2.2 Typical densities of different municipal solid waste fractions
height and
(Christensen, size is reached
2011)
Aluminum cans 2e4 3

Cardboard 4e8 5
Material Fraction Material Density (kg/m3)
Fines (dirt, etc.) 6e12 8

Food waste 50e80 70 Aluminum 2700 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

The size and size distribution of the different waste components
Glass 1e4 2 Steel 7700 is of special interest when waste pretreatment is envisaged.
Grass 40e80 60 In landfilling particle size strongly influences the compaction
Iron 5500
degree of waste and the degradation rate of degradable fractions.
Leather 8e12 10
Food waste 600e750
Leaves 20e40 30
Glass 2500
Paper 4e10 6
Wood 600e800
Plastics 1e4 2
Paper 700e1150
Rubber 1e4 2

Steel cans 2e4 3

Cardboard 700

Textiles 6e15 10 Plastic, HDPE 960

Wood 15e40 20 Plastic, polypropylene 900

Yard waste 30e80 60

Plastic, polystyrene 1050

The field capacity is the maximum amount of moisture Plastic, PVC 1250
thatWASTE
SOLID can LANDFILLING
be retained by theProcesses,
j Concepts, waste.Technologies
Water in j excess
R. Cossu, of the
R. Stegmann
field capacity will be released as leachate. The field
capacity varies with the waste typology, the degree of
compaction, and the progressing of waste degradation. CHAPTER 1 j Waste Input to Landfills 17
The field capacity of uncompacted wastes from residential
and commercial sources is in the range of 50%e60%.
 mingled wastes from residential and commercial sources is in the range of 50%e60%.
MSW characterization:
Chemical physical and chemical properties
and Physical-Chemical Properties
Material Fraction TS % Wet
Weight
VS % TS Ash % TS Lower Heating
Value
C (%) H (%) O (%) S (%)

(Mj/kg wet)
Important chemical properties measured for solid waste are
Vegetable food 23.00 96.40 5.20 2.5 47.7 6.6 39.460 0.1840
• Total solids (residues at 105! C for 24 h); waste
• Volatile matter (loss on ignition at 550! C for 4 h);
• Ash (nonvolatile solids); Animal food 42.90 94.20 8.70 9.2 56.5 7.9 18.220 0.3780
waste
• Fixed and organic carbon;
• Melting point of ash (the temperature at which the ash resulting from the burning of waste will Wood 84.10 90.60 10.00 15.6 52.1 6.4 30.490 0.0836
form a solid (clinker) by fusion and agglomeration. Typical fusing temperature for the formation
Newsprints 87.00 92.70 8.20 14.6 44.8 5.7 44.210 0.0319
of clinker from solid waste ranges from 1100 to 1200! C);
• Heating value; Magazines 93.80 76.70 34.00 10.6 34.2 4.2 27.450 0.0724
• Percent of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and ash.
Advertisements 91.30 75.10 27.40 14.4 34.6 4.8 32.940 0.0784
Typical values of different chemical and physicalechemical parameters characterizing different
MSW fractions are reported in Table 1.2.3. Books and 89.50 86.10 17.90 13.4 40.6 5.16 38.055 0.0487
phonebooks
MSW
Biologicalcharacterization:
Properties biological properties Office paper 91.30 87.80 20.70 11.2 37.5 5.0 36.690 0.0643
Biological stability of solid waste represents the extent to which readily biodegradable organic fractions
are decomposed. It is one of the main issues related to the evaluation of the long-term emission po- Paper and carton 77.70 88.80 13.40 13.5 41.1 5.6 39.610 0.1000
• Biological stability of solid waste represents the extent to which readily biodegradable organic containers
tential andare
fractions thedecomposed.
environmentalIt impact of the
is one of landfills
main (Cossu
issues and Raga,
related 2008,
to the Cossu etofal.,
evaluation the2012).
long-
Theemission
term biological stabilityand
potential of the
waste material canimpact
environmental be detected by means of respiration tests, which Cardboard
of landfills 83.50 89.00 14.00 12.2 40.9 5.4 39.480 0.0631

determine the uptake of oxygen into the waste sample and express the microbial degradation activity. Plastic bottles 89.50 93.80 6.10 32.5 77.2 11.3 5.200 0.1090
• The
Thetest result isstability
biological usuallyofexpressed as a rate,
waste material cane.g., mg O2/kg
be detected byDM/h,
means or as cumulative
of respiration uptake
tests, over a
which
determine the uptake of oxygen into the waste sample Hard plastic 96.80 98.10 2.20 36.1 79.9 10.5 1.730 0.0988
number of days, e.g., mg O2/kg DM during 4 days. Theand express the
respiration testsmicrobial degradation
can be static or dynamic,
activity.
depending on the absence (static) or presence (dynamic) of continuous aeration of the biomass. The Glass 88.00 0.00 100.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0832
respiration index (IR4), generally used in Germany with the acronym AT4, may be considered static:
Metal containers 86.80 0.00 100.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0099
although the oxygen consumed during the test is constantly replaced in the reactor, no airflow
through the waste sample is provided, as in dynamic respiration tests (Cossu and Raga, 2008). Diapers and 54.50 94.20 8.30 11.1 55.3 8.0 27.330 0.0718
tampons
With the Dynamic Respiration Index (DRI) the continuous aeration is still maintained for 4 days,
in a specific equipment, and the final value is calculated as average of the values measured every hour Textiles 94.00 96.60 3.60 18.5 52.1 6.0 34.800 0.3970

along 24h, during the highest microbial activity period (Adani et al., 2004). Leather 93.30 89.00 12.60 22.9 61.3 7.3 13.780 0.6594
Fermentation tests are an alternative way to identify the biological stabilization degree of waste
material; they consist in measuring the biogas produced under anaerobic conditions for 21 days for the respiration test AT and 20 NL/kg DM for the GB index (Cossu and Raga, 2008). For the
4 21
(GB21), and results are expressed as normal liter of biogas per kilogram of dry matter. Dynamic Respirometric Index a value of 1000 mg O2/kgVS/h is often proposed in Italy for the sta-
CHAPTER 1 j Waste Input to Landfills
Main features in waste landfilling
Table 1.2.5 Synoptic view of the main features in landfilling of some specific solid waste streams

Waste Typology Main Feature Mobility Level Landfill Eligible Pretreatment In Situ Carbon Sink
Class Treatment

Municipal solid waste Variable moisture and density, high NH Mechanical biological Flushing, **
size and quality dishomogeneity, treatment (MBT), aeration
high compressibility, putrescible Thermal treatment,
contents washing, Sorting

MBT Waste Low mechanical strength, medium NH Baling (with no plastic Aeration **
organics and ammonia leaching, wrapping)
gas production

Mixed plastic Low density, low organics low NH/M Washing Flushing ***
residues from leaching, dust emissions,
recycling separately increased risk of fires
collected plastics

Municipal solid waste Dust emissions, temperature medium M Carbonatization, Flushing, negligible
incineration (MSWI) rising, hydrogen production Washing aeration
bottom ashes

MSWI Fly ashes Heavy metals leachability, no high- H/M Inertization, Roof cover, negligible
mechanical strength, small size hazardous encapsulation Big bag
particles packaging

Construction and Dishomogeneity, dust, specific low I/NH Recycling Flushing *

demolition (C&D) caseerelated problems
waste and excavated
materials

WEEEdWaste High content of toxic and high H Recycling Big bag, ***
Electrical and hazardous leaching substances impervious
Electronic Equipment top cover

(Continued)
25
Landfill components Landfills are composed by cells. We produce gas, it is fundamental the
gas collection system. The cover is used to avoid water entering the cell,
the cover is usually made by the soil we have in the landfill.
Also we have the leachate collector, we need the treatment pond for that
leachate
 "' ")& % 7$ & 5 $ "$ 1"' / 5 ( 1 1
"' / $ * - # & . * 2 - $ * - 2&6- *7$ 5"2 ( 1 ( )7
S
1"' / 5 ( 1 1 $ !" # $ 2& ' 6- *# ( & '
H.#01,0*+28%4"*(.%+2%-"2&5+--*%2"(6)"--'% 0 ( ' / * & 0 $ 2& % + & #) ( ' !
,)0&6#.*%1.($"2.%8"*9%=$.%8"*%+*%#0--.#(.&% @ ). . 2 4" *(. % ( $ "( % #0 1 . * % 5 )0 1 % A < %
( $ )0 6 8 $ % , + , . * % ( $ . 2 % * . 2 ( % (0% " % 5" # + - + ( ' % 50 ) % 2& ' / - ' # ") - $ "' / $ 1 - "2 3 ") - $ ).*+&.2(*B%#6)C*+&.%C+2*%+*%"%).*06)#.9%
#023.)*+02%(0%).2.4"C-.%.2.)8'%0)%(0%C.%5-").&9 / - # ( 1) ( ' ! $ , " # ( ' #)& *"! - $ )"' 4# =$)068$%#01,0*(+28/%+(%C.#01.*%"%*0+-%
H.*+-(+28%C"*+2*%$.-,%,)0(.#(%06)%*()."1*%"2&% "1.2&1.2(%($"(%.3.2(6"--'%+*%).(6)2.&%
:." # $ "(. % + * % - + ; 6 + & % ( $ "( % ). * 6 - (* % 5 )0 1 % & . #0 1 , 0* + 2 8 %
0#."29%=$.'%#",(6).%*(0)1%4"(.)%)620G%"2&%()",% (0%($.%#01162+('9%=$.%,)0#.**%(">.*%
4" *(. 9 % < 0 2 & . 2 * "(. % + * % ( $ . % - + ; 6 + & % ( $ "( % 50 ) 1 * % + 2 * + & . % ( $ . %
*.&+1.2(/%>..,+28%+(%5)01%.2(.)+28%($.%).8+02"-% 5)01%($)..%(0%*+D %102($*/%"2&%*,.#+"--'%
- " 2 & 5 + - - % 8" * % #0- - . #( + 0 2 % * ' *(. 1 9 % = $ . * . % - + ; 6 + & * % " ). %
*(0)14"(.)%1"2"8.1.2(%+25)"*()6#(6).9% ()"+2.&%A<EF%*("G%102+(0)/%(6)2%"2&%
#0- - . #(. & % " 2 & % *(0 ). & % + 2 % (" 2 > * 9 % ? 0 1 . % 05 % ( $ . % #0- - . #(. & %
(.*(%($.%,+-.*9%
- + ; 6 + & % + * % 6 * . & % 50 ) % & 6 *( % #0 2 ( )0- 9 %

I 2 * - ") ( ' ! $ "$ 2 - 1 1

!"#$%&"'%()"*$%+*%,-"#.&/%#01,"#(.&%
"2&%#03.).&%4+($%"%-"'.)%05%*0+-%0)% O T
("),*%+2%*.#(+02*%62(+-%"%*,.#+5+.&%
*+7.%+*%)."#$.&/%50)1+28%"%#.--9

1,/"6#$%&'(/$3':/%&,
! * & . ' / $ 0 ") - * 9"*,$6'9$3#&,
% & ' ( )& * ( ' ! $ 0 - 1 1 8,"%&3 !"#$%&'()&*('!$+*&,-

13"5#$6'.$7&,
./0'1&,2&"*3&'."4&, :/7-&75"#&':/33&6#$/7'1$<&

!"#$%&'()*+,"-&
.&"6;"#&':/33&6#$/7'1$<&5 .&"6;"#&':/33&6#$/7'1$<&
- ' 6( * & ' % - ' )"1 $ + * &) - 2) ( & '

K E.--*%").%6*.&%(0%102+(0)%50)%"2'%+1,"#(*%5)01%($.% M N0)("C-.%*#)..2*%").%6*.&%(0%()",%"2&%#0--.#(%"2'%*()"'% J P62&).&*%05%,)0C.*%102+(0)%*6C*6)5"#.%8"*%"(%3")+06*%.-.3"(+02*%"2&%&.(.#(% S U+)&%VC"(.1.2(%W%V%5"-#02)'%,)08)"1%>..,%C+)&*%5)01%

-"2&5+--%(0%($.%8)062&4"(.)%C.2."($%($.%-"2&5+--9% -+((.)/%(0%>..,%+(%5)01%5-'+28%"4"'9%=$.'%#"2%C.%103.&% +5%"2'%.*#",.*9 5..&+28%02%4"*(./%>..,+28%()"*$%4$.).%+(%C.-028*%50)%"%
C"*.&%02%4+2&%&+).#(+02*9% *"5.)%"2&%#-."2.)%#01162+('9%
8
I =0%#02()0-%&6*(/%()6#>*%*,)"'%&+)(%")."*%"*%2..&.&%6*+28% L ?,.#+"-%1+*(+28%1"#$+2.*%*,)"'%"%3.)'%5+2.%1+*(%+2(0%($.% O Q2%"&&+(+02%(0%4"*(.%&+*,0*"-%A<B*%-"2&5+--*%"-*0%*.)3.%"*%F.*06)#.%F.#03.)'% T :.8+*-"(+02%W%X.4%*("(.%-"4*%1">.%).#'#-+28%10).%
-+;6+&*%).#'#-.&%5)01%($.%-"2&5+--9% "+)%(0%$.-,%#025+2.%0&0)*9 R"#+-+(+.*/%4$+#$%&+3.)(%).*06)#.%1"(.)+"-*%*6#$%"*%8)..24"*(./%1.("-%"2&% +1,0)("2(%($"2%.3.)/%4+($%500&%"2&%8)..2%4"*(.%"*%"%
1"(().**.*%50)%).6*.9%F.*06)#.%).#03.)'%,).*.)3.*%-"2&5+--%#","#+('%($"(%+*%"2% C+8%,")(%05%($.%).#'#-+28%*()."19%
+1,0)("2(%#01,02.2(%05%06)%#01162+('B*%4"*(.%1"2"8.1.2(%*'*(.19%
YIZII%<062('%05%A)"28.%A<%E"*(.%[%F.#'#-+28
 The principal methods used for the landfilling of MSW may be classified as (1) excavated
cell/trench, (2) area, and (3) canyon. The principal features of these types of landfills, illus-

Typology of landfill
trated in Fig. 14.2, are described as follows. Landfill design details are presented later in the
chapter.

Excavated cell/trench: cell/trench method of land lling is suited to areas where an adequate
depth of cover material is available at the site and where the water table is not near the
surface. Typically, solid wastes are placed in cells or trenches excavated in the soil. The soil
excavated from the site is used for daily and nal cover. The excavated cells or trenches are
lined with synthetic membrane liners, low- permeability clay, or a combination of the two to
limit the movement of both land ll gases and leachate.

(a)

Area: The area method is used when the terrain is unsuitable for the excavation of cells or
trenches in which to place the solid wastes. Site preparation includes the installation of a liner
and leachate manage- ment system. Cover material must be hauled in by truck or
earthmoving equipment from adjacent land or from borrow-pit areas. As noted, in locations
with limited material that can be used as cover, compost produced from yard wastes and
MSW, foundry sand, and auto shredder uff have been used successfully as intermediate
cover material.

(b)
Canyon/Depression Method: Canyons, ravines, dry borrow pits, and quarries have been
used for land lls. The techniques to place and compact solid wastes in canyon/depression
land lls vary with the geometry of the site, the characteristics of the avail- able cover material,
the hydrology and geology of the site, the type of leachate and gas control facilities to be used,
and the access to the site. Control of surface drainage often is a critical factor in the
development of canyon/depression sites. Typically, lling starts at the head end of the canyon
and ends at the mouth, so as to prevent the accumulation of water behind the land ll. Canyon/
depression sites are lled in multiple lifts, and the method of operation is essentially the same
as previously described.
(c)

FIGURE 14.2 Commonly used landfilling methods: (a) excavated cell/trench; (b) area; (c) canyon/depression.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
 Typology of landfill

It is really new technology. Industrial water, waste of agriculture (high amount of

BIOREACTOR LANDFILL LANDFILLING 14.7
water, suitable for a anaerobic reaction to produce metane)

Landfill gas to
recovery system Leachate Bioreactor landfill: A bioreactor landfill is constructed and operated in a
Active bioreactor cell recirculated manner that will enhance the decomposition rate of the organic material within
to landfill
municipal solid waste. Operating procedures are adjusted from those used at
conventional landfills to quickly initiate the decomposition of the waste. Gas
Working face collection facilities are installed immediately upon the construction of the landfill
cell so that methane gas can be recovered. To accelerate the decomposition
rate, the leachate withdrawn from the base of the landfill is recycled and, in
addition, other sources of moisture, such as sewage sludge, may be added to
the waste profile.

Leachate collection Excess

and storage system leachate
to treatment
facility
FIGURE 14.3 Bioreactor landfill with leachate recirculation and landfill gas recovery. (Adapted from Solid
and Hazardous Waste Education Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2000.)

tor landfills are being viewed as an option that will reduce the long-term care period of land-
fills after they are closed by quickly stabilizing the waste. In addition, some designs have as
their goal reducing the waste volume to the maximum extent possible and in the shortest
period of time so that more waste material can be disposed of on the original landfill site. The
methods for lining and covering bioreactor landfills are still under consideration. Design
issues that are currently being evaluated are those associated with slope stability, landfill liner
leakage, methods for collecting landfill gas in a partially opened cell, and constructing
leachate recirculation systems that will be effective in inclement weather and will minimize
odors (Pohland and Kim, 2000).
10
Reactions Occurring in Landfills
Solid wastes placed in a sanitary landfill undergo a number of simultaneous and interrelated
 Requirment for landfill installation
TABLE 14.1 Summary of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Item Requirement
Applicability All active landfills that receive municipal solid waste (MSW) after October 9, 1993.
Certain requirements also apply to landfills which received MSW after October 9, 1991, but closed
within 2 years.
Certain exemptions for very small landfills.
Some requirements are waived for existing landfills.
New landfills and landfill cells must comply with all requirements.
Location Airport separation distances of 5000 and 10,000 ft, and in some instances greater than 6 mi are
requirements required.
Landfills located on floodplains can operate only if flood flow is not restricted.
Construction and filling on wetlands is restricted.
Landfills over faults require special analysis and possibly construction practices.
Landfills in seismic impact zones require special analysis and possibly construction practices.
Landfills on unstable soils require special analysis and possibly construction practices.
Operating Landfill operators must conduct a random load-checking program to ensure exclusion of hazardous
criteria waste.
Daily cover with 6 in of soil or other suitable materials is required.
Disease vector control is required.
Permanent monitoring probes are required.
Probes must be tested every 3 months.
Methane concentrations in occupied structures cannot exceed 1.25 percent.
Methane migration off-site must not exceed 5 percent at the property line.
Clean Air Act criteria must be satisfied.
Access must be limited by fences or other structures.
Surface water drainage run-on to the landfill and runoff from the working face must be controlled for
25-year rainfall events.
Appropriate permits must be obtained for surface water discharges.
Liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids cannot be landfilled.
Extensive landfill operating records must be maintained.
Liner design Geomembrane and soil liners or equivalent are required under most new landfill cells.
criteria Groundwater standards may be allowed as the basis for liner design in some states.
Groundwater Groundwater monitoring wells must be installed at many landfills. 11
monitoring Groundwater monitoring wells must be sampled at least twice per year.
A corrective action program must be initiated where groundwater contamination is detected.
Closure and Landfill final cover must be in place within 6 months of closure.
 biogas, mainlybarriers
by biological methane
should be structured oxidation.
to afford mechanicalAdditionally,
protection to thethe top components,
different barriers should suppo
mechanical
ed to block or minimize the advective flow of liquid and gas; support to the waste mass, and resistance to the water pressure.
functional layers in line with the different afteruse options (soil for vegetation, erosion control,
moting the collection and removal of fluids blocked by the liner, thus avoiding Top barriers should be equipped with drainage systems both for gas, which might otherwise
n in the waste mass; and In the construction
escape into of
the barrier systems,
atmosphere, and fordifferent
infiltratingkinds of materials,
water (see Chapters 8.2both natural
and 11.1). and system
A lining syntheti
Lanfill components: barriers for environment
intended to attenuate the load of contaminants associated with leachate and gas. be used individually or as a component
or low-permeability of composite
layer is applied to control thefabrics,
rate of in relationwater
infiltrating to theby functions requir
optimizing two

mponents plays a specific role in controlling the potentially uncontrolled emission Fig. 7.1.3 thecontrasting
most typicalneeds:materials
by assuringused
the amount of water
in landfill required
physical for waste
barrier reactions
systems are and preventing
listed.
excessive leachate generation. The reactive layer is aimed at attenuating the residual emissions of
schematically described in Fig. 7.1.2. Synthetic material
biogas, mainly by biological methane oxidation. Additionally, the top barriers should support the
Natural material functional layers in line with the different afteruse options (soil for vegetation, erosion control, etc.).
In the construction of barrier systems, different kinds of materials, both natural and synthetic, may
be used individually or as a component of composite fabrics, in relation to the functions required. In
• Clayey soil is the most common natural lining materialFig. 7.1.3 the most typical materials used in landfill physical barrier systems are listed.

(A)

(B)
(A)

• Bentonite: clay minerals capable of swelling (B)

(D)
e of the role of the three main barrier components in controlling landfill emissions
(C)
(D)
(C)
missions from basal barriers, gas emissions from top barrier).
Figure 7.1.3 Picture of geosynthetics commonly used in physical landfill barriers. (A) High-d
Figure 7.1.3 Picture of geosynthetics commonly used in physical landfill barriers. (A) High-density
polyethylene
• Gravel is the main material for filtering and Geomembrane
draining polyethylene 2.0 mm;
Geomembrane 2.0 (B)
mm; Geosynthetic
(B) Geosynthetic clay liner(a (a
clay liner sandwich
sandwich of twoofgeotextiles
two geot
TE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann with a thin layer
withof sodium
a thin layer ofbentonite in between);
sodium bentonite (C)(C)Geodrain
in between); (theoneone
Geodrain (the in photo
in the the photo is a sandw
is a sandwich of
twowith
two geotextiles geotextiles with a geonet);
a geonet); and (D) andGeonet.
(D) Geonet.

CHAPTER 7 j Physical Landfill Barriers: Principles and Engineering 273

CHAPTER 7 j Physical Landfill Barriers: Principles and Engineering

(vertical flow) and drainage (horizontal flow), reinforcement, mechanical protection, separation,
erosion control, water filtration and drainage, biogas migration control, and attenuation of leachate
Applicability
and biogas. In Fig. 7.1.4 theseof materials
functions asaccording
are evaluated barriersto the material adopted, as also
discussed herein.

FUNCTIONS
APPLICABILITY

Attenuation of leachate
Mechanical protection

Gas migration control

High

Leachate percolation

Soil reinforcement
Leachate drainage

Attenuation of gas
Water drainage
Water filtration
Erosion control
Medium

Separation
Low

Lining
BT. Bentonite soil mixture
MATERIALS CL. Clayey soil
NATURAL

SD. Sand
GV. Gravel
SL. Soil/Compost, etc.
GM. Geomembrane
GT. Geotextile
MATERIALS
SYNTHETIC

GT. Geonet
GG. Geogrid
GB. Geocomposite bentonite
GD. Geocomposite drain

Figure 7.1.4 Level of applicability of different landfill materials with regard to the required function.
The indicative evaluation is given on the base of material property, performance, and cost.
 Barrier configuration
Table 7.1.1 Legal requirements for basal barriers in nonhazardous municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in Italy, Germany, United Kingdom,
United States, Japan, and China

Italy Germany United Kingdom China Japan United States

Nonhazardous Waste Landfills Class I and II1 Nonhazardous Nonhazardous Waste Nonhazardous Waste Nonhazardous
Landfills Waste Landfills Landfills Landfills Waste Landfills

Leachate !0.5 m !0.5 m !0.5 m !0.3 m !0.5 m Mandatory

drainage (designed and
layer constructed to
maintain
leachate level
over the
liner < 30 cm)

Additional Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Minimum 30 mil

impermeable (geomembranedintimate (geomembrane) (geomembrane) (geomembrane or (geomembranedintimate (z0.8 mm)
layer contact with compacted geosynthetic clay liner) contact with compacted flexible
mineral layer) mineral layer) membrane liner
or 60 mil
(z1.5 mm)
thick high-
density
polyethylene

Low- Compacted mineral Compacted mineral Compacted Compacted mineral Compacted mineral Compacted
permeability layer ! 1 m, k " 10#9 m/s layer ! 1 m, mineral layer ! 0.75 m, layer ! 0.5 m, soil ! 2 foot
layer k " 10#9 m/s layer ! 1 m,2 k " 10#9 m/s k " 10#9 m/s (z60 cm),
k " 10#9 m/s k " 10#9 m/s

Reference D. Lgs. 36/2003. Deponieverordnung. The Landfill Standards for pollution Ministry of Environment Code of Federal
Attuazione della direttiva DepV/2009 (England and control on the landfill No. 12, 2017 Regulations
1999/31/CE relativa alle Wales) site of MSW (GB (Title 40)
discariche di rifiuti Regulations, 16889-2008),
1559/2002 Technical code for
MSW sanitary landfill
(GB 50869-2013)
1
Landfills of Class I and II are landfills for nonhazardous waste (e.g., MSW). Class II landfills contain a higher amount of biodegradable waste compared with Class I.
2
The thickness can be reduced to a minimum of 0.5 m if the permeability of the barrier is decreased (Fowmes et al., 2007).
 Landfill component: system for gas collection (vertical) 14.24 CHAPTER FOURTEEN

LANDFILLING 14.23

FIGURE 14.9 Landfill gas recovery system using vertical wells.

Vertical gas extraction wells are usually installed after the landfill or portions of the land-
fill have been completed. In older landfills, vertical wells are installed both to recover energy FIGURE 14.10 Typical landfill gas extraction well. (Courtesy of California Integrated Waste Man-
and to control the movement of gases to adjacent properties. The typical extraction well agement Board.) 15
design consists of 4- to 6-in pipe casing—usually polyvinylchloride (PVQ) or polyethylene
(PE)—set in an 18- to 36-in borehole (see Fig. 14.10). The bottom third to half of the casing is sate traps are installed at the low spots in the line (see Fig. 14.9). A typical condensate trap in
which the condensate is collected in a holding tank is shown in Fig. 14.14. Condensate from
 Landfill component: system for gas collection (horizontal)
14.26 CHAPTER FOURTEEN

(a) (b)

FIGURE 14.13 Details of horizontal gas extraction trench: (a) section through trench; (b) side view. (Courtesy
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.)

16
If the methane in the venting gas is of sufficient concentration, several vents can be con-
nected and equipped with a gas burner (see Fig. 14.16). Where waste gas burners are used, it
Landfill: gas collection
Leachate treatments
 Mobilization may of course occur with any contaminant, including heavy metals and other nonde-
gradable substances. The conversion processes
Minimization of environmental impact of a landfill: (leaching, precipitation, complexation, etc.) are depen-
dent on the individual substances.
Concept of modern landfill
Considering the landfill as black box reactor, the mass balance equation can be summarized as
follows:
Table 2.2.1 Mean composition of a general European

Composition of MSW
waste expressed as a percentage of total solids (Stegmann
and Ritzkowski, 2008; Zeschmar-Lahl, 2003a, 2003b)
Accumulation ¼ IN " OUT " Reacted (1)

Component %

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Lignin 6 SOLID WASTE LANDFILLING j Concepts, Processes, Technologies j R. Cossu, R. Stegmann

Hemicellulose 7

Proteins 3

Paper additives (organic þ inorganic) 8

Cellulose 16

Hydrocarbons 9

Fats, resins, waxes 2

Plastic 18

INORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Plastic additives 3

Minerals 13

Ashes 4
Figure 2.2.1 Graphical representation of mass balance terms, considering carbon as a contaminant, in
Hazardous substances 1
an municipal solid waste landfill reactor.
Metals 10

By moving to the first part of Eq. (6), the terms expressing the uncontrolled emissions of mobile
carbon,
bilization may of course occur with any contaminant, including heavy metals and other nonde-
e substances. The conversion processes (leaching, precipitation, complexation, etc.) are depen-
the following expression is obtained:
 3
nd leachatewhere: (qL,n,mnumber /year). of Taking
X
X
waste
nn
streams carbon
of as contaminant
different typologies “i”; Q and
, flow denoting
rate of the the con-
individual waste
IN ¼ Qi sSi i (2)
resent, respectively,
typology “i” (t/y); INlandfill
in sSi¼ Qi sSi of mobile fraction of contaminant in waste typology “i”(2)(g/t).
i ¼ 1 gas (CO2, methane, etc.) and leachate (TOC) as
, concentration
The term “OUT ” in Eq. i ¼ 1(1) represents the mass released from landfill associated with emission rates
mg/L),
ber of waste theofstreams
released
gas (qGof, Nm mass
3
/year)associated
different typologies
and Minimization
leachate (qwith
“i”;
L , Q
m 3 carbon emissions
i,
/year).
flow rate
Taking of the
carbon of
individual
as environmental
can be
waste
contaminant calculated
and denoting as
the con- impact of a landfill:
waste
/y);
OUT in
streams
sSi, concentration
Eq. (1)
of ofdifferent
centrations
represents
(mg/Nm 3
mobile
of
the smass
) and
typologies
carbonfraction
present, of
released
(mg/L),
Concept
the
contaminant
respectively,
from
“i”;
released
Q
landfill
i,
in
in landfillflowof
waste
mass associated
associated
ratemodern
(CO2,of
gas typology the
methane,
“i”
with carbon
with
(g/t).
emission
landfill
individual waste
etc.) and leachate
rates“i” can
emissions
(TOC) as
be calculated as
concentration
” sG of mobile Lfraction of contaminant in waste typology (g/t).
3
to the
/year) mass
and of
follows:
leachate a given
OUT
(q L , m 3
contaminant
/year).
¼ s L $q
Taking L þ s
carbonin$q the deposited
asG contaminant
n Eq. (1) represents the mass released from landfill associated with emission rates
G and waste
denoting over theacon-
given period (3)
carbon present, respectively, in landfill gas (CO2, methane, etc.) and leachate (TOC) as
hand a volume V. It can 3 be expressed as follows: L L OUT ¼ s $q þ s $q (3)
and sLleachate (qLreleased
, m /year). Taking carbon as contaminant
emissions can beand denoting as the con-
G G
(mg/L), the mass associated with carbon calculated
e fractions of
present, respectively,
landfill gas
in landfill
and leachate
gas (CO
collected (q Lc and q Gc ) from the fraction
By distinguishing X
then fractions 2, methane,
of landfill gas and leachateetc.)collected
and leachate
(qLc and q(TOC)
Gc) from the asfraction
rolled manner
(mg/L), the releasedOUT through
dispersed inIN an ¼the landfill
uncontrolled
mass¼ associated Q i s
manner
Si barrier
through
with systems
the
carbon landfill (qbarrier
emissionsLd and q
systems
can Gd(q
be),
Ld the
and qfollowing
Gd), (2)
calculated the as
following
sL $qL þ sG $qG (3)
applies: i¼1

ishing the fractions of landfill gas and leachate

qL ¼collected
qLc þ qLd(qLc
andand ¼) qfrom
qG qGc Gc þ qthe
Gd fraction (4)
aste streams of
¼ different
qL mannerqLc þ q typologies
and q Q
“i”;qGc
¼ þi, qflow rate of), the individual waste (4)
n uncontrolled OUT ¼ sL $qL þ sG $qG
through
Ld the landfill
G barrier systems (q
Gd Ld and q Gd the following (3)
ncentration of Themobile fraction
term “reacted” in Eq. of (1) contaminant
represents the in mass waste
of organictypology substance (g/t).is mineralized/
“i”which
stabilized and can be expressed as follows:
Eq.
in (1) represents
Eq. (1) represents the mass the released
mass from
of landfillsubstance
organic associatedwhich with emission is rates
mineralized/
he fractions ofqLlandfill ¼ qLc þgas
3
qLd and and qleachateG ¼ qGc þcollected qGd (qLc and qGc) from(4)the fraction
d leachate (q , m /year). Taking carbon as contaminant
Reacted ¼ rV and denoting the con- (5)
xpressed
trolled manner as follows:
L through the landfill barrier systems (qLd and qGd), the following
esent, in Eq.
“reacted”respectively, (1) r,represents
where: in landfill
overall the mass
reaction gas
rate (mg/m of organic
(CO 3
, substance
methane,
V, landfill which
etc.) and
reactive isvolume
mineralized/
leachate (m 3
). (TOC) as
2$year);
can be expressedThe
g/L), the released
as follows:
term mass Reacted
associated
“accumulation” rVwithascarbon
¼expressed dS/dt represents
emissions can beofFigure
the variation the contaminant
calculated (5)
2.2.1asGraphical
mass (S) representation of mass balance terms, considering carbon as a co
within the landfill versus time (t). an(5)municipal(4) solid waste landfill reactor.
qL ¼ qLc þ qReacted Ld and ¼ qrV G ¼ qGc þ qGd
3
According to the previous equations, “accumulation” can 3be described by the following relationship:
on rate (mg/m $year); 3
V, landfill reactive volume 3
(m ).
all reaction rate (mg/m $year);
X n V, landfill reactive volume X ).
(mn
”tion”
in expressed
Eq. (1) OUT
as
ds
represents ¼ ¼ Qsthe
dS/dt Lrepresents
s $q # Lmass
s þL #sGsGof
q $qq the
G# rVvariation
organic ¼ substance
Q s of
# s the
q contaminant
which
# s q # is
s q By mass
moving
mineralized/
# s q (3)
# rV (S)
to the
(6) first part of Eq. (6), the terms expressing the uncontrolled emissi
accumulation” expressed dt as i dS/dt
i represents the variation of the contaminant mass (S)
si L G i si L Lc L Ld G Gc G Gd

us time
expressed
dfill (t).
versus time as (t).
follows:
¼1
Things we eliminate
i¼1
carbon, the following expression is obtained:
What
fractions
previous of landfill
evious equations, “accumulation”
to the equations,
S(t) represents gas
the and
residual
“accumulation”
enter leachate
in the landfillcollected (q
amountcancan beofbe described
described
mobile by the
carbon byand
Lcfollowing
still theqGc
present in )thefrom
following
relationship: therelationship:
landfilled fraction
waste at a given time
and is indicativeReacted emission potential of the system. For this reason, as (5) dS Xn
olled
n manner through the X of the mobile
landfill
n
¼ rV
carbon
barrier systems (q Ld and qGd ), thethat following long as the
sL qLd þ sG qGd þ ¼ Qi ssi # sL qLc # sG qGc # rV
X emission potential remains high the landfill should be protected, implying the barrier system
Qi ssi # sL qcomprising
L # s G qG # rV ¼ X n Q s # s q # s q # s q # s q # rV
i si L Lc L Ld G Gc G Gd (6) dt i¼1
impermeable lining and drainage systems should be efficiently active.
i ¼ 1 sL qL # sG qG #
#
ion rate (mg/m 3 rV ¼ i ¼ 1 Q s # s q # s q
$year); V, landfill i si reactive
L
A graphical representation of the carbon balance terms is Lc volume
L Ld #
(m s
3 q #s q
G).given
Gc in Fig. G Gd # rV
2.2.1.
(6)
i¼1
ation”
the residual expressed
¼ qLcofasþ
qLamount dS/dt
mobile and
qLd carbon representsqstill ¼ qthe
G present Gc in þvariation
qGdlandfilledofwaste
the the atcontaminant
a given timeThemass terms (S)comprised in the first part of the equations are those which should be m
(4)
Minimization of environmental impact of a landfill:
Concept of modern landfill
The accumulation over time of mobile contaminants in the landfilled waste, as described mathemati-
cally in Eq. (6), follows the trend illustrated in Fig. 2.2.2. TKN Full-scale landfill 1e2530 70 (D) DecadeseCenturies Krüempelbeck

Minimization of environmental impact

200e2100 of a70 landfill:
The accumulated mobile contaminant mass, St, represents the emission potential and may be
TKN organic degradable
expressed, for instance, in tonne of residual mobile carbon when taking into account (D) Lysimeter
120e450 Heyer (20
Concept of modern landfill
waste. St reaches a peak during landfill operation and then decreases as a consequence of degradation
52e8700 Cl 100 (D) Full-scale
25e60 landfill Krüempelbeck
processes and generation of gas and leachate. Peaks and trends of the accumulation curves will depend
on the adopted landfill technologies.
Curves illustrating accumulation of mobile mass of contaminantsCl
(St) Lysimeter 340e2950 100 (D) 90e250 Heyer (20
throughout the life span of two different kinds of landfills.

AOX Full-scale landfill 0.058e6.2 0.5 (D) 40e100 Krüempelbeck

sGqGc Curves illustrating contaminant load sL*$qLc associated
sGqGc
sLqLc with uncontrolled emissions of leachate throughout the life
sLqLc AOX Lysimeter 0.39e2.38
span of an open 0.5 (D)and two different30e210
dump types of landfills Heyer (20
rV
rV sL0 is the concentration of the considered leachate at the start of the simulation time (t ¼ 0). FSL, full-scale landfill; LSR, landfill si
rV reactor; O-FRG, old waste from German landfills.
SStt St rV
SSt
t
barrier damaged
barrier
Smax
(sLqLd)max Open dump
Traditional landfill
Sustainable landfill
Traditional
landfill
S30 Sustainable
andfill
(sLqLd)sust
Ssust

OPERATION
0 30
AFTERCARE
? Time (years) 0 30 Time (years)

OPERATION AFTERCARE
Figure 2.2.2 Curves illustrating accumulation of mobile mass of contaminants (St) throughout the life
span of two different kinds of landfills. The figure also provides a graphical 2.2.3 Curves
representation
Figure of mass illustrating contaminant load s $q
L* Lc associated with uncontrolled emis
balance terms (Eq. 6) at different times. When the barriers lose their efficacy, the lower the St, the
leachate throughout
lower the potential emissions of contaminant. sL, concentration of mobile carbon (TOC) in leachate, the life span of an open dump and two different
22 types of landfills, (sL*
representing
mg/L; qLc, flow rate of collected leachate, m3/year; sG, concentration of mobile the sustainable
carbon in landfill gas target for contaminant load.
(CO2, methane, etc.), mg/Nm3; qGc, flow rate of collected landfill gas, Nm3/year; rV, mass of stabilized
msdsuch as cracking, tears, aging, clogging, etc., (see Chapter
nts will no longer beMinimization
contained and ofuncontrolled
Table 2.2.2 Estimation environmental emissions
of the time (T ) required for impact
municipal ofof
solid waste
L aparameters
leachate landfill:to
s L Þ established by national regulations for discharging wastewater into
reach limit concentrations ðb
Concept of modern landfill
surface water bodies in Germany (D) and Switzerland (CH), according to different experiences

over time, reflecting the trend of residual concentration of con-

P sL0 (mg/L) s L (mg/L)
b TL (year) References

a first-order reaction kinetics (dsL/dt ¼ "ksL), the concentration

COD Old FRG waste 1800e8400 200 (D) 120e220 Andreas (2013)

will be as follows: COD Old FRG waste 1800e8400 60 (D) 200e300 Andreas (2013)

COD Full-scale landfill 22e22500 200 (D) 65e320 Krüempelbeck (2000)

COD Lysimeter 500e12700 200 (D) 80e360 Heyer (2003)

"kt
sLt ¼ sL0 e TKN Old FRG waste 1100e3600 70 (D) 120e300 Andreas (2013)

TKN Old FRG waste 1100e3600 5 (CH) 280e580 Andreas (2013)

ntaminant in the leachate; t, observation time; k, reaction rate

TKN Full-scale landfill 1e2530 70 (D) DecadeseCenturies Krüempelbeck (2000)

TKN Lysimeter 200e2100 70 (D) 120e450 Heyer (2003)

Cl Full-scale landfill 52e8700 100 (D) 25e60 Krüempelbeck (2000)

-term behavior of landfill emissions have enabled calculations to
Cl Lysimeter 340e2950 100 (D) 90e250 Heyer (2003)

minants in municipal solid waste (MSW) leachate with regard to

AOX Full-scale landfill 0.058e6.2 0.5 (D) 40e100 Krüempelbeck (2000)
! "
AOX Lysimeter 0.39e2.38 0.5 (D) 30e210 Heyer (2003)
_
ons which comply with standard limits S L set by national
sL0 is the concentration of the considered leachate at the start of the simulation time (t ¼ 0). FSL, full-scale landfill; LSR, landfill simulation
reactor; O-FRG, old waste from German landfills.

ters in surface water bodies. The results are summarized in

(s q ) L Ld max Open dump
Traditional landfill
h as TKN, a period of several centuries may be necessary. Sustainable landfill
 Minimization of environmental impact of a landfill:
Concept of modern landfill
Table 2.2.3 Qualitative influence of a range of technical options on mass balance terms in a
municipal solid waste landfill (þþþ ¼ high, þþ ¼ medium, þ ¼ fair)

Options sSi Qi sL qLc sG qGc rV St

Waste avoidance DDD

Separate collection/sorting D DD D
If you remove plastic,
the reaction will go faster Mechanical pretreatment D D D

Biological pretreatment DD D D DD

Thermal treatment DDD DD DD DDD

Leachate recirculation D D D

In situ aeration DD DD D DD

Watering D DD D D D

Physical bottom barrier DD

SSi, concentration of mobile fraction of contaminant in waste typology “I,” g/kg; Qi, flow rate of the individual waste typology “i,” t/year; SL,
concentration of mobile carbon (TOC) in leachate, mg/l; qLc, flow rate of collected leachate, m3/year; SG, concentration of mobile carbon in
landfill gas (CO2, methane, etc.), mg/Nm3; qGc, flow rate of collected landfill gas, Nm3/year; rV, mass of stabilized contaminant (r, reaction
rate, mg/m3$year; V, landfill reactive volume, m3); St, amount of mobile carbon accumulated within the lining system, t/year.

24
At variance with the majority of landfill regulations which aim to control waste quality at the gate,
the objective of environmental sustainability, as illustrated earlier, may be achieved by means of com-
bined measures, including pretreatment, in situ treatment, and aftercare interventions. Therefore,
 Minimization of environmental impact of a landfill:
Concept of modern landfill
a. PRETREATMENT b. IN SITU OPTIONS c. AFTERCARE

(A) MECHANICAL ANAEROBIC FORCED

TREATMENT PROCESSING AERATION

(B) NATURAL
MBP WATERING
AERATION

(C) THERMAL TOP

WATERING
TREATMENT SEALING

(D) CLOSED LANDFILL

WASHING
SYSTEMS MINING

Figure 2.2.4 Combination of a series of operational alternatives capable of influencing mass balance in a
landfill and promoting sustainability. The proposed combinations are theoretical and indicative, being
dependent on the waste characteristics (degradability, combustibility, leachability, etc.) and not
reflecting necessarily current practice.
25

system in semiaerobic landfills differs significantly from that adopted in anaerobic landfills (see Chapter
 Biochemical processes in landfill
• organic waste is largely degraded under anaerobic conditions
• aerobic degradation processes take place in specific areas and at
specific times
• oxygen comes into contact with the waste and even after depo- sition
may still be trapped in the pores and voids of the waste. Anaerobic
processes start once all the oxygen has been consumed.
• Biological processes that take place in a landfill are not homogeneous;
they occur in microenviron- ments and may therefore vary at short
intervals
• Degradation of organics is of a longer duration in the solid phase than
in the liquid phase, as the organic compounds need to migrate from
the solid phase into the liquid phase by means of diffusion and
dissolution. When the landfill is not water-saturated, processes take
place in thin water films surrounding the particles
• if there is no movement of water through the landfill body, organic
Figure 3.1.1 Different transport processes in landfills under unsaturated conditions. acids in the film or pores may accumulate and methanogenesis may
be inhibited. In the presence of water movement, organic acids and
Although the processes involved are highly complex, several attempts have been made to model other poten- tially inhibiting compounds are diluted and transported to
fill biochemistry by subdividing the waste mass into three interacting phases: gaseous, liquid,
other areas in which appropriate conditions for methanogenic
solid. Each phase contributes toward and influences not only the biochemical processes considered
his chapter but also the physical and inorganic processes (Heimovaara et al., 2013).
processes are present.
n addition to hydrocarbons, a series of other, potentially toxic, compounds are introduced into the •
fill, including chlorinated, bromated and fluorinated hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds, organic
ogen, and sulfurous compounds. Due to the increasing use of a wide range of new chemicals and
gs, both microcontaminants and nanoparticles, which tend to accumulate inside the waste, may also
ntroduced into landfills (Pivnenko and Astrup, 2016). Some of these compounds are completely or
ly degradable and may end up in the landfill gas and/or leachate (see Chapters 9.2 and 10.2). In
 Biochemical processes in landfill
Table 3.1.1 Energetic behavior of the main biochemical redox reactions

Biochemical Redox Reaction Name Oxidation Formula Energy Yield (kcal/mol)

Aerobic respiration O2 O2 / CO2 686

Denitrification NO3 % NO3 % þ Hþ /N2 649

Iron reduction Feþ

3 Fe2 ðOHÞ3 þ 2Hþ /Feþ
2 300

Sulfate reduction SO4 2% SO4 2% þ 2Hþ /HS% 190

Methanogenesis CO2 H2 þ CO2 / CH4 8.3

Modified from Anonymous (2017).

Due to the heterogeneity of the waste and the different conditions present in a landfill, all the re-
actions (Table 3.1.1) may take place in parallel (Berge et al., 2013). For the sake of simplicity, the
• Putrescible organic compounds are used
biochemical processes can beas a source
subdivided of carbon
into aerobic and energy
and anaerobic by heterotrophic
processes (Fig. 3.1.2). microorgan- isms (bacteria,
fungi). Some heterotrophicUnder
and anaerobic conditions biodegradable
chemoautotrophic organics are
bacteria hydrolyzed and
(nitrifying and finally converted mainly
methano- genicinto
bacteria) use hydrocarbons solely
methane and carbon dioxide. Generation of biological heatdalthough lowdallows the waste body to
as a source of energy and carbon dioxide as a source of! carbon.
reach and maintain mesophilic conditions (35e45 C or even higher) also due to the fact that the waste
• Bacteria obtain energy needed for growth (anabolism) by means of redox processes (catabo- lism); the amount of energy
acts as an insulation material. The biomass generated is less than 5% compared to the carbon metab-
yielded depends on theolized.
typeOnofthereaction involved; aerobic respiration processes provide a much higher energy yield than
one hand this implies a high reduction of carbon compounds, whereas on the otherd
methanogenesis and anaerobic processes
compared to aerobic in general.
degradationda considerably slower kinetic of metabolism. The reactions below
illustrate the general formula for the aerobic (1) and anaerobic degradation (2) of glucose:

C6 H12 O6 ð1 kgÞ þ O2 ð0:64 kgÞ / CO2 ð0:88 kgÞ þ H2 Oð0:34 kgÞ þ Biomassð0:4 kgÞ
(1)
þ Heatð9300 kJÞ

C6 H12 O6 ð1 kgÞ / CH4 ð0:25 kgÞ þ CO2 ð0:69 kgÞ þ Biomassð0:056 kgÞ þ Heatð632 kJÞ (2)

Due to the relatively fast growth of bacteria in the presence of oxygen, biochemical reactions are
 Due to the heterogeneity of the waste and the different conditions present in a landfill, all the re-
Biochemical processes in landfill
actions (Table 3.1.1) may take place in parallel (Berge et al., 2013). For the sake of simplicity, the
biochemical processes can be subdivided into aerobic and anaerobic processes (Fig. 3.1.2).
Under anaerobic conditions biodegradable organics are hydrolyzed and finally converted mainly into
methane and carbon dioxide. Generation of biological heatdalthough lowdallows the waste body to
• reach
Underandanaerobic conditions biodegradable organics are hydrolyzed and finally converted mainly
maintain mesophilic conditions (35e45 C or even higher) also due to the fact that the waste
!
into methane and carbon dioxide. Generation of biological heatd although low allows the waste
acts
bodyastoanreach
insulation material.mesophilic
and maintain The biomass generated
conditions is less than
(35-45°C 5% higher)
or even compared
alsotodue
the to
carbon metab-
the fact that
olized. On acts
the waste the one hand
as an this implies
insulation a high reduction of carbon compounds, whereas on the otherd
material.
compared to aerobic degradationda considerably slower kinetic of metabolism. The reactions below
illustrate the general formula for the aerobic (1) and anaerobic degradation (2) of glucose:

C6 H12 O6 ð1 kgÞ þ O2 ð0:64 kgÞ / CO2 ð0:88 kgÞ þ H2 Oð0:34 kgÞ þ Biomassð0:4 kgÞ
(1)
þ Heatð9300 kJÞ

C6 H12 O6 ð1 kgÞ / CH4 ð0:25 kgÞ þ CO2 ð0:69 kgÞ þ Biomassð0:056 kgÞ þ Heatð632 kJÞ (2)

Due to the relatively fast growth of bacteria in the presence of oxygen, biochemical reactions are
enhanced; in addition, some recalcitrant complex organic polymers may be hydrolyzed (cometabolism)
and ammoniaenitrogen nitrified. Oxygen does not reach all parts of the landfill and/or may not diffuse
Biochemical processes in landfill
Table 3.1.2 Key bacterial groups involved in the biochemical processes of landfills indicating their
main activity

Bacterial Group Main Biochemical Activity

Amylolytic bacteria Hydrolysis and degradation of starch

Proteolytic bacteria Hydrolysis and degradation of proteins

Cellulolytic bacteria Hydrolysis and degradation of cellulose

Hemicellulolytic bacteria Hydrolysis and degradation of hemicellulose

Hydrogen-oxidizing Methane production from hydrogen and carbon dioxide

methanogenic bacteria

Acetoclastic methanogenic Ethane and carbon dioxide production from acetic acid
bacteria

Sulfate-reducing bacteria Sulfate reduction to sulfite through acetic acid

Nitrosomonas Converts ammonia nitrogen into nitrite

Nitrobacter Converts nitrite into nitrate

Thiobacillus denitrificans Uses inorganic sulfur to reduce nitrates in autotrophic denitrification

Planctomycetales Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox), capable of oxidizing ammonia

nitrogen in anaerobic conditions.

Anaerobic degradation and methane production

The anaerobic process is subdivided into four phases by different kinds of microorganism, although the
Biochemical processes in landfill

Faculta!ve Acetogenic Methanogenic

anaerobic bacteria bacteria bacteria

H2

CO2
Biogas
acetic acid
fractions and CH4, CO2
Biomass
solved polymeres
H2
alcohol
CO2
protein amino acids,
carbohydrate saccharid, glycerin, organic acids
fat fatty acids acetic acid

propionic acid,
butyric acid

Acetogenic
Hydrolysis Acidification phase Methane formation

Figure 3.1.4 Scheme of the anaerobic degradation process.

These formulas allow all products to be evaluated and reagents required for the process to be calcu-
lated, based solely on knowledge of the precise composition of the initial substrate. However, this initial
composition is generally unknown and is very hard to estimate with precision. Therefore, the formula
will be used for theoretical applications rather than for practical use (Christensen and Kjeldsen, 1989).
tion, which may compete with the last three processes in substrate utilization (Fig. 3.1.4).(Fig. 3.1.5) (see Chapters 9.2 and 10.2).

Acidogenesis fermentation
Hydrolysis Biochemical processes in landfill: hydrolysis/acidogenesis
During acidogenesis, the products of fermentative bacteria are VFAs, alcohols, ammoniaenitrogen,
The first phase of biochemical degradation is enzymatic hydrolysis, required to reduce complex poly-
hydrogen, and carbon dioxide (Fig. 3.1.5). The most significant reactions, considering as an example
mers into compounds that are small enough to penetrate the cellular membrane. For this purpose, some
glucose, are as follows:
species of fermentative microorganisms produce extracellular enzymesdmainly cellulose, amylase,
lipase, and proteasedto catalyze the hydrolytic processes. This process is mainly relevant for the reduc- C6 H12 O6 þ H2 O / 2CH3 COOH þ H2 þ 2CO2 ðacidic acidÞ
tion of fats, carbohydrates, and proteins into fatty acids, glycerin, sugars, and amino acids (Fig. 3.1.4).
C6 H12 O6 / C3 H7 COOH þ 2H2 þ 2CO2 ðbutyric acidÞ
Fats þ nH2 O / C3 H5 ðOHÞ3 þ R $ COOH
C6 H12 O6 / 2CH3 CH2 OH þ 2CO2 ðethanolÞ
Carbohydrates þ nH2 O / C6 H12 O6

Proteins þ nH2 O / nR $ CHNH2 $ COOH / nRCOO$ þ nNH4 þ

CHAPTER 3 j Biochemical Processes in Landfill 97

Figure 3.1.5 Variation of leachate composition versus time, during the different anaerobic degradation
phases.
 ydrogen gas is also produced, although, as a general rule, methanogenic bacteria
me this.
Biochemical processes in landfill: acetogenesis/methanogenesis
mentation
nic phase, all intermediate products resulting from acidogenesis are converted into
n, and carbon dioxide. Acidogenic bacteria do not convert aromatic hydrocarbons
ess they contain oxygen (Christensen and Kjeldsen, 1989).

C2 H5 COOH þ 2H2 O / CH3 COOH þ 3H2 þ CO2

C3 H7 COOH þ 2H2 O / 2CH3 COOH þ 2H2

Figure 3.1.6 General biogas percentage composition, biogas flow rate, and leachate biochemical
characterization during anaerobic landfill life. Behavior of concentration trend modified from
CH3 CH2 OH þ H2 O / CH3 COOH þ 2H2 Christensen and Kjeldsen (1989), Cossu et al. (2003), and Cossu et al. (2015). I: Hydrolysis,
II: Acidogenesis, III: Acetogenesis, IV: Methanogenesis, V: Long-term aftercare.
genesis is fully developed, conversion of all hydrolytic compounds into acetic acid
acetotrophic methanogens use acetic acid. Indeed, some bacteria even use formic acid and ethanol for
e of pH into acid conditions and thus slow down the methanogenic processes.
methane production (Christensen and Kjeldsen, 1989). The conversion of acetic acid into methane and
ncentrations of organic acids at a neutral pH (buffered system) may inhibit
CO2 is themeth-
most important methanogenic reaction, and the largest amount of methane is generated by
rocesses all develop throughout the diverse microenvironments presentthis
in reaction.
a landfill.
onsists mainly of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Due to the presenceFigure
of energized CH3 COOH
3.1.6 General biogas percentage / CH4biogas
composition, þ CO2flow rate, and leachate biochemical
characterization during anaerobic landfill life. Behavior of concentration trend modified from
s can only take place at a low hydrogen concentration. When the system is in equi-
Christensen and Kjeldsen (1989), CO Cossu et 2al./(2003),
2 þ 4H and2 OCossu et al. (2015). I: Hydrolysis,
CH4 þ 2H
nogenesis, the hydrogen produced is immediately used by methanogenic bacteria toIII: Acetogenesis, IV: Methanogenesis, V: Long-term aftercare.
II: Acidogenesis,
HCOOH þ 3H2 / CH4 þ 2H2 O
sing CO2 as a carbon source. Accordingly, acetogenic and methanogenic bacteria
acetotrophic methanogens use acetic acid. Indeed, some bacteria even use formic acid and ethanol for
symbiosis. When hydrogen is not consumed, it can be measured in the landfill
methane gas (Christensen and
production 3 OH þ H1989).
CHKjeldsen, 2 / CH The 2H2 O
4 þconversion of acetic acid into methane and
EU directives
EU directives
EU directives