fenvs-12-1439128

TYPE Review
PUBLISHED 02 September 2024

DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1439128
A comprehensive review of
OPEN ACCESS landfill leachate treatment
EDITED BY
Vassilis Inglezakis,
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
technologies
REVIEWED BY
Alessandro Abbà, Jiachen Wang 1 and Zhen Qiao 2*
University of Brescia, Italy 1
Aleksandra Wdowczyk, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester,
Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life United Kingdom, 2Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Science and Biotechnology, Yonsei
Sciences, Poland University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Tumpa Hazra,
Jadavpur University, India
*CORRESPONDENCE
Zhen Qiao, The management of landfill leachate presents a significant environmental
[email protected]
challenge, necessitating a comprehensive and dynamic treatment approach.
RECEIVED 27 May 2024 This comprehensive review delves into the critical issue of landfill leachate
ACCEPTED 20 August 2024
PUBLISHED 02 September 2024
treatment, exploring its environmental impact, treatment technologies,
regulatory frameworks, and the path towards sustainable management
CITATION
Wang J and Qiao Z (2024) A comprehensive practices. This review explores the complexities of landfill leachate,
review of landfill leachate emphasizing the need for sustainable waste management practices to
treatment technologies. safeguard environmental health. Our analysis highlights the evolution of
Front. Environ. Sci. 12:1439128.
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1439128 conventional and advanced treatment technologies designed to mitigate
these risks, focusing on membrane technologies, advanced oxidation
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Wang and Qiao. This is an open-access processes, and the promising potential of emerging techniques such as
article distributed under the terms of the adsorption and biological nutrient removal. These technologies are evaluated
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). for their efficiency, cost implications, and sustainability impacts, underscoring the
The use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original challenges and opportunities within the current landscape of leachate treatment.
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are The review aims to provide insights into designing efficient and effective
credited and that the original publication in this treatment systems through a detailed analysis of conventional and advanced
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or treatment methods. By examining a case study in Changsha City, the
reproduction is permitted which does not effectiveness of a comprehensive treatment system integrating various
comply with these terms. technologies is demonstrated. The review underscores the
interconnectedness of human activities, environmental health, and waste
management, emphasizing the importance of a holistic approach. It stresses
the continuous improvement of leachate treatment technologies and the
adoption of sustainable practices to reduce the environmental footprint of
landfills. Ultimately, it calls for integrating multiple treatment processes,
economic considerations, and readiness to address future challenges in
landfill leachate treatment, contributing to the advancement of sustainable
waste management practices.
KEYWORDS
landfill leachate, treatment technologies, membrane technologies, advanced oxidation

processes, waste treatment
1 Introduction
Landfill leachate, a liquid byproduct of the decomposition process in landfills,
represents a significant environmental challenge that encapsulates the complexity of
modern waste management and the imperative of safeguarding environmental health
(Teng et al., 2021). As rainfall or other sources of moisture percolate through the waste
material accumulated in landfills, they dissolve and suspend a myriad of substances present
Frontiers in Environmental Science 01 frontiersin.org

Wang and Qiao 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1439128
in the waste, creating a potent mixture known as leachate (Mor and understanding of waste not merely as a byproduct to be disposed
Ravindra, 2023). This concoction’s composition can vary widely but of but as a potential source of pollution that must be managed with
typically includes dissolved organic matter, inorganic macro- foresight and responsibility. As such, the continuous improvement
components like salts and metals, and a range of xenobiotic of leachate treatment technologies, alongside adopting more
organic compounds, reflecting the diverse nature of disposed sustainable waste management practices, is essential to reducing
materials (Kumar et al., 2023). Organic components, measured in the environmental footprint of landfills. This includes the
terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen development of more efficient and cost-effective treatment
demand (COD), indicate the leachate’s potential impact on water solutions and the implementation of waste reduction, reuse, and
bodies, while inorganic macro-components, such as ammonia, recycling initiatives that can minimize leachate generation in the
chlorides, sulfates, and heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, first place (Kamaruddin et al., 2017).
chromium, lead, and mercury, underline the toxicological Ultimately, the comprehensive management and treatment of
concerns associated with leachate (Al-Yaqout and Hamoda, landfill leachate highlight the interconnectedness of human
2020). Furthermore, the presence of xenobiotic compounds, activities, environmental health, and the need for a holistic
which include pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and industrial approach to waste management (Torretta et al., 2017). This
chemicals, adds to the complexity of leachate, given their review aims to provides an integrated analysis of both
resistance to degradation and potential for bioaccumulation (de conventional and advanced treatment technologies, emphasizing
Oliveira et al., 2020). The environmental impacts of uncontrolled recent advancements and emerging techniques such as adsorption
landfill leachate are profound and far-reaching. Leachate can seep and biological nutrient removal. Unlike previous reviews that may
into groundwater and surface water, contaminating aquatic focus solely on specific technologies or methodologies, this review
ecosystems, wildlife, and human health (Essien et al., 2022). The evaluates a broad spectrum of treatment methods, offering a
infiltration of pollutants into water supplies can disrupt aquatic practical guidance for designing and optimizing treatment
habitats, harm species diversity, and bioaccumulate the food chain, systems by evaluating the efficiency, cost implications, and
presenting significant risks to public health through consuming sustainability impacts of various methods. Additionally, we
contaminated water and food (Sharma et al., 2023). Moreover, the incorporate a detailed case study from Changsha City,
heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants found in leachate are demonstrating the practical application and effectiveness of a
particularly concerning due to their toxicity, environmental comprehensive treatment system that integrates various
longevity, and potential to cause long-term ecological damage technologies. This real-world example bridges the gap between
(Hussein et al., 2021). theoretical discussions and practical implementation, providing
Recognizing the environmental hazards of landfill leachate, its actionable insights for practitioners and policymakers. By
treatment and management have become critical components of addressing the interconnectedness of human activities,
sustainable waste management practices (El-Saadony et al., 2023). environmental health, and waste management, our review
Effective leachate treatment aims to neutralize its harmful advocates for a holistic approach that emphasizes continuous
components, making it safe for discharge or further use (Kumar improvement of leachate treatment technologies and the
et al., 2023). This necessitates a multifaceted approach that combines adoption of sustainable practices. This comprehensive perspective
physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes tailored to the makes our review an invaluable resource for engineers,
specific composition of the leachate and local regulatory requirements environmental scientists, and waste management professionals
(Torretta et al., 2017). Physical treatments, such as sedimentation and seeking to implement effective and sustainable treatment
filtration, remove suspended solids and particulate matter (Siddiqi solutions in diverse contexts.
et al., 2022). Chemical treatments, including precipitation,
coagulation, and advanced oxidation, target dissolved pollutants,
reducing their concentration to safer levels (Kurniawan et al., 2 Characteristics of landfill leachate
2006). Biological aerobic and anaerobic treatments further degrade
organic substances, transforming them into less harmful compounds 2.1 Physical and chemical properties of
(Kurniawan et al., 2010). The importance of landfill leachate landfill leachate
treatment extends beyond the immediate goal of pollution control.
It embodies the broader principles of environmental protection and Leachate embodies a dynamic concoction of substances, each
sustainable waste management (Mukherjee et al., 2015). By mitigating contributing to its hazardous nature. Landfill leachate’s physical,
the adverse impacts of leachate on ecosystems and human health, chemical, and biological characteristics delineate a complex and
effective treatment practices contribute to the preservation of water multifaceted environmental challenge that requires a nuanced
quality, protect biodiversity, and ensure the wellbeing of communities understanding for effective management and treatment (Table 1)
(Senathirajah and Palanisami, 2023). Furthermore, advancements in (Andreottola and Cannas, 2024; Castrillón et al., 2010; Naveen et al.,
leachate treatment technologies offer opportunities for resource 2017; Luo et al., 2020; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2023).
recovery, such as the extraction of valuable materials or the reuse Physically, leachate is primarily a liquid matrix. However, its
of treated water, aligning with the principles of the circular economy appearance, viscosity, and other physical properties can vary greatly
and resource efficiency (Puyol et al., 2017). depending on the landfill’s age, the composition of waste, and the
Treating landfill leachate is not just a technical challenge but a amount of precipitation the landfill receives (Anjum et al., 2023).
fundamental aspect of environmental stewardship and public health Typically, young leachate is characterized by a high organic load,
protection (Nath and Debnath, 2022). It reflects the evolving evident in its dark color and strong odor (Wijekoon et al., 2022). In

TABLE 1 Characteristics of landfill leachate and implications for treatment (Andreottola and Cannas, 2024; Castrillón et al., 2010; Naveen et al., 2017; Luo
et al., 2020; Subiza-Pérez et al., 2023).
Aspect Characteristics Implications for treatment

Physical Liquid matrix, varying appearance and viscosity, pH, temperature, conductivity Influences treatment process selection, affects solubility and treatment
effectiveness
Chemical Dissolved organic/inorganic matter, heavy metals, xenobiotics (e.g., Requires targeted removal or neutralization of specific compounds, challenges
pharmaceuticals, pesticides), COD, BOD, ammonia due to persistence and toxicity of pollutants
Biological Microbial communities, biodegradation of organic matter, presence of Utilization of microbial activity for degradation, management of pathogenic or
pathogenic organisms harmful microorganisms
TABLE 2 Physical and chemical properties of landfill leachate across different continents (Abunama et al., 2021a).
Parameter Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania South America

Organic BOD (mg/L) 566.22 1305.85 1281.98 270.11 60.66 875.73
COD (mg/L) 3026.81 5,983.26 5,890.65 1628.52 1594.5 3117.69
Inorganic pH 7.72 7.72 8.03 7.95 7.81 8.13
TKN (mg/L) 26.485 34.55 42.66 26.485 28.33 34.55
AN (mg/L) 297.89 450.22 525.77 297.89 350.55 450.22
TDS (mg/L) 10,403.1 11,456.3 15,382.9 3077.1 17,487.5 4364.6
Heavy metals Cl (mg/L) 84.32 98.72 103.21 72.33 55.66 84.12
Fe (mg/L) 7.11 25.99 41 22.04 4.88 26.28
Cu (mg/L) 0.256 0.489 0.323 0.141 0.022 1.131
Ni (mg/L) 0.45 0.56 0.52 0.32 0.24 0.45
Zn (mg/L) 0.65 2.738 2.105 0.91 0.159 1.66
Pb (mg/L) 0.331 0.55 0.54 1.441 0.006 2.524
Cr (mg/L) 0.49 0.62 0.49 42.585 0.32 1.66
Hg (mg/L) 0.221 0.33 0.32 0.723 0.0003 3.783
As (mg/L) 0.0433 0.225 0.0525 33.8 0.1 0.221
Cy (mg/L) 0.261 0.216 0.075 0.025 0 0.055
contrast, older leachate may appear clearer but contain higher potential impact on receiving environments and treatment
concentrations of dissolved inorganic compounds (Abdel-Shafy systems (Naveen et al., 2017). Inorganic components include a
et al., 2024). The physical properties of leachate, such as pH, range of salts, metals, and nutrients, with ammonia being
temperature, and conductivity, are critical indicators of its overall particularly prevalent due to the nitrogenous decomposition of
composition and the potential challenges it presents for treatment organic waste (Borah et al., 2020). Heavy metals such as arsenic,
(Abdel-Shafy et al., 2024). For instance, high conductivity in leachate cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury are of significant concern
signifies a high concentration of dissolved ions such as chlorides, due to their toxicity and propensity to accumulate in ecosystems
sulfates, and ammonia, which can affect the efficiency of certain (Rahman and Singh, 2019). Moreover, the presence of
treatment processes. Similarly, pH levels can influence the solubility xenobiotics—synthetic chemicals like pharmaceuticals, pesticides,
of metals and the effectiveness of chemical treatments, with acidic or and industrial chemicals—poses a unique challenge, as these
alkaline conditions necessitating specific adjustments in the compounds often exhibit resistance to degradation and can
treatment strategy (Deng et al., 2020). disrupt biological processes in treatment systems and natural
Chemically, leachate is a cocktail of dissolved organic and environments (Priya et al., 2024). Table 2 presents a detailed
inorganic matter, heavy metals, and xenobiotic compounds (Sil analysis of the physical and chemical properties of landfill
and Kumar, 2017). The organic fraction is typically dominated leachate from various regions around the world, showing
by biodegradable substances like carbohydrates, fats, proteins, significant variability across different regions (Abunama et al.,
and persistent organic pollutants that resist natural degradation 2021a). These variations highlight the importance of regional
processes (Dignac et al., 2000). COD and BOD are key parameters assessments in understanding leachate pollution potential and
used to quantify the organic strength of leachate, reflecting its tailoring appropriate management strategies.

Biologically, leachate is a living, evolving entity, teeming with metals, may increase over time due to the continued degradation
microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi and protozoa, which are and leaching processes (Prieto-Espinoza et al., 2022). This temporal
adapted to its unique chemical milieu. The microbial communities evolution in leachate composition necessitates adaptable treatment
within leachate play a pivotal role in the biodegradation of organic approaches that effectively address the shifting balance between
matter, facilitating the natural attenuation of some pollutants (Qi organic and inorganic constituents (Saxena et al., 2022) (Table 3). In
et al., 2023). However, the diversity and activity of these microbial 2022, Liu et al. conducted a study on the molecular differences
populations can be both a boon and a bane for leachate treatment between young landfill leachate (YL) and mature landfill leachate
(Dave et al., 2020). Bacteria such as Pseudomonas and Clostridium (ML) (Liu J. et al., 2022). The results indicated that the COD of YL
spp., and fungi like Aspergillus and Penicillium spp., are integral to was 74,853 mg/L, while the COD of ML was 3,098 mg/L, suggesting
breaking down organic pollutants and transforming hazardous a higher concentration of organic matter in young leachate.
substances. While certain bacteria and fungi are harnessed in Regarding molecular composition, YL contained lower molecular
biological treatment processes to degrade organic pollutants, the weight organic compounds, primarily consisting of CHO
presence of pathogenic organisms or those capable of generating compounds and aliphatic compounds. In contrast, ML
harmful byproducts necessitates careful management to prevent predominantly contained CHON compounds and high oxygen
environmental and health risks (Mani et al., 2020). The highly unsaturated and phenolic compounds. The molecular
methanogenic archaea, including Methanobacterium and structure of YL was relatively simple, with higher bioavailability
Methanosarcina spp., also play a crucial role by converting waste and more straight-chain structures. ML, however, featured more
into methane, highlighting the importance of microbial activity in oxygen-containing functional groups and benzene-ring structures,
both waste reduction and potential energy recovery. indicating a more complex molecular structure. In terms of chemical
The interplay between the physical, chemical, and biological properties, YL exhibited lower nominal oxidation state of carbon
characteristics of leachate significantly influences the selection and and modified aromaticity index, indicating that its organic matter
design of treatment processes. Physical attributes like suspended was in a more reduced state. Conversely, ML’s organic matter had
solids and temperature necessitate pre-treatment steps such as higher oxidation states and aromaticity, reflecting that over time, the
sedimentation and filtration to prevent system clogging and organic matter in mature leachate had undergone extensive
optimize subsequent treatment stages. Chemical properties, biochemical reactions, leading to more complex structures (Table 4).
including pH, organic load, and the presence of toxic Moreover, the nature of the waste material disposed of in a
compounds, determine the need for neutralization, biological landfill is another critical determinant of leachate composition.
treatment, or advanced oxidation processes to ensure effective Landfills containing a high proportion of organic waste, such as
contaminant removal. Biological factors, such as microbial food scraps and yard waste, tend to produce leachate with high levels
content and biodegradability, guide the choice of biological of organic pollutants and a greater potential for biological activity
treatment methods, which might require nutrient (Kjeldsen et al., 2002). Conversely, landfills with significant
supplementation for optimal microbial activity. Consequently, industrial or hazardous waste may generate leachate with higher
tailored and integrated treatment strategies are developed to concentrations of toxic metals and xenobiotic organic compounds
address the specific challenges presented by leachate’s complex (El-Saadony et al., 2023). The diversity of waste types, including
composition, ensuring efficient and sustainable management to e-waste, pharmaceuticals, and plastics, contributes to the complexity
mitigate its environmental impact. of leachate, requiring targeted treatment solutions capable of
addressing a broad spectrum of contaminants (Srivastava
et al., 2021).
2.2 Factors on the composition of Also, climatic conditions, including precipitation,
landfill leachate temperature, and humidity, play a pivotal role in the
generation and composition of leachate. High rainfall areas
The composition of landfill leachate is influenced by a myriad of will likely produce larger volumes of leachate, potentially
factors, including the age of the landfill, the types of waste it diluting its contaminant concentrations but increasing the
contains, climatic conditions, and the specific landfill operating overall load of pollutants that must be managed (Wijekoon
technologies employed (Mor and Ravindra, 2023). Each of these et al., 2022). Temperature affects the rate of biochemical
factors plays a critical role in determining the leachate’s physical, reactions within the landfill, with warmer conditions typically
chemical, and biological characteristics, thus influencing its accelerating organic matter decomposition and, consequently,
potential environmental impact and the strategies required for its influencing the rate of leachate generation and its organic content
effective management and treatment (Table 2) (Cano et al., 2020; (Mohammad et al., 2022). Humidity can also impact the moisture
Golwala et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Abdel-Shafy et al., 2024). content within the landfill, affecting leachate production rates
The age of a landfill significantly affects the composition of the and composition (Abunama et al., 2021b).
leachate produced. In the initial stages of landfilling, leachate tends Finally, a landfill’s design and operational practices can
to have a high organic content, characterized by a high BOD and significantly influence leachate composition (Ma et al., 2022).
COD, due to the abundance of readily degradable organic matter Modern landfills equipped with engineered liners and leachate
(Lindamulla et al., 2022). As the landfill matures, the rate of organic collection systems are designed to minimize the direct contact of
matter decomposition decreases, leading to a reduction in BOD waste with groundwater, thereby reducing leachate generation and
levels (Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008). However, the concentration its potential contamination (Abdel-Shafy et al., 2024). Additionally,
of inorganic compounds, such as ammonia, chlorides, and heavy using daily covers can limit rainwater infiltration, further controlling

TABLE 3 Impact of various factors on the composition of landfill leachate (Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008; Lindamulla et al., 2022; Prieto-Espinoza et al.,
2022; Saxena et al., 2022).
Factors Options Leachate composition

Landfill Age Young Landfill (<10 years) High in volatile organic compounds, BOD, and COD due to active decomposition of organic matter
Middle-Aged Landfill (10–20 years) Reduced levels of BOD and COD as the rate of organic decomposition decreases, increase in
inorganic compounds such as ammonia
Old Landfill (>20 years) Lower BOD, higher concentrations of inorganic compounds, heavy metals, and stabilized organic
compounds
Type of Waste Material Organic Waste High levels of BOD, COD, and volatile organic compounds due to decomposition of organic matter
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Increased concentrations of toxic metals, xenobiotics, and specific industrial chemicals
Construction and Demolition Waste Elevated levels of inorganic compounds, such as salts and heavy metals, lower organic content
E-Waste Presence of heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) and potentially hazardous chemicals from
electronic components
Climatic Condition High Rainfall/High Humidity Diluted concentrations of contaminants due to increased volume, potential for higher leachate
production
Arid/Dry Concentrated leachate due to lower precipitation, reduced leachate volume but higher concentration
of contaminants
Cold Temperatures Slowed decomposition rates leading to lower BOD and COD in the short term, potential for seasonal
variation in leachate composition
Design or Operational Engineered Liners and Leachate Collection Minimizes the infiltration of external water, reducing leachate volume and potentially concentrating
Practice Systems contaminants
Daily Covers Reduces rainwater infiltration, controlling leachate production and influencing its composition by
limiting dilution
Landfill Gas Management Systems Affects the biochemical degradation processes within the landfill, potentially altering the organic
content of the leachate
TABLE 4 Comparative Molecular Characteristics of Young and Mature Landfill Leachates in the example landfills in southwest China (Liu J. et al., 2022).
Property Young landfill leachate Mature landfill leachate

Age New Landfill for temporary stockpile 27 years
COD 74,853 mg/L 3098 mg/L
DOM Species Count 1122 5,075
Main Compounds Aliphatic Compounds, LOHUPC HOHUPCs
Bioavailability Higher Lower
Nominal Oxidation State of Carbon −0.8010 −0.0692
Aromaticity (AImod) 0.1254 0.2464
Straight-chain Structures More Fewer
Benzene-ring Structures Fewer More
Proportion of different DOM classes Low O HUPC 417.96 (23.75%) 2881.86 (27.86%)
High O HUPC 0% 3863.53 (37.55%)
Polyphenols and Polycyclic Aromatics 1% 8%
Aliphatic Compounds 1320.62 (75.03%) 2767.64 (26.76%)
leachate volume and composition (Khasawneh et al., 2022). Landfill In sum, the composition of landfill leachate results from
gas management systems, which capture and treat or utilize the complex interactions between the age of the landfill, the types of
methane produced during organic decomposition, can also impact waste it contains, prevailing climatic conditions, and the
the biochemical processes within the landfill, indirectly affecting technologies employed in landfill operation. Understanding these
leachate composition (Japperi et al., 2021). factors is crucial for the development of effective leachate

management strategies, as they directly influence the environmental component of waste management and environmental protection.
impact of landfills and the technical and economic feasibility of The significant number of research publications on this topic,
leachate treatment solutions. particularly from nations with large populations, underscores
their commitment to addressing the challenges posed by waste
and pollutants. Figure 1 shows the research on “landfill leachate
2.3 Typical values of pollutants in leachate treatment” collected from the Scopus database from 2014 to 2023.
from different regions The top five countries are China (1,675 articles), India (500 articles),
the United States (498 articles), Malaysia (418 articles), and Brazil
To provide a global perspective, typical values for different (302 articles). These all reflect a positive stance in mitigating the
classes of contaminants in leachate reported from around the impact of rapid industrial and urban development on the
world are described below. These values highlight the variability environment, and countries have also invested heavily in research
in leachate composition and typical values for different classes of to develop efficient landfill leachate treatment technologies, further
contaminants in leachate from different regions are critical for highlighting the global recognition of the need for advanced and
designing effective treatment strategies. sustainable waste management practices. This joint effort is not only
Organic pollutants like BOD and COD are critical for assessing aimed at improving public health and environmental quality, but
the pollution levels. For instance, in tropical regions, average BOD also at promoting global sustainable development.
values reported were 2435.16 mg/L in Africa, 3455.77 mg/L in
America, and 2127.79 mg/L in Asia, while COD values were
7985.1 mg/L in Africa, 6185.17 mg/L in America, and 3.1 Global regulations on landfill leachate
7504.32 mg/L in Asia (Lindamulla et al., 2022). In China, BOD5 management
concentrations varied from 750 to 25,000 mg/L, with an average of
8,500 mg/L, and COD levels ranged from 2,000 to 62,000 mg/L, International and national regulations governing the disposal
averaging 19,250 mg/L (Ma et al., 2022). and treatment of landfill leachate are crucial for protecting the
Inorganic pollutants like Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and environment and public health from the potential hazards posed by
Ammonium Nitrogen (NH4+-N) also show significant variability. waste management practices (Daniel et al., 2021). These regulations
Polish landfills reported TDS values from 2,225 mg/L to 7,830 mg/L, are designed to set minimum standards for leachate management,
while NH4+-N concentrations in tropical regions varied widely, with ensure the safe handling of this potentially toxic byproduct, and
higher concentrations in younger leachates (Wdowczyk and encourage sustainable practices in the waste management industry
Szymańska-Pulikowska, 2021). China reported NH4+-N levels (Table 5) (Oakes and Shank, 1979; Directive, 2003; Protection, 2003;
ranging from 100 to 3,100 mg/L, with a mean of 1,300 mg/L Obradović et al., 2010; Pollutants, 2011; Gas, 2017; Bergesen et al.,
(Ma et al., 2022). Brazil’s ammonium nitrogen levels ranged 2018; Bhawan and Nagar, 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Santana et al., 2022).
between 0.4 and 1,800 mg/L, reflecting the diversity of landfill At the international level, the Basel Convention on the Control
conditions and waste compositions across the country of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
(Lindamulla et al., 2022). disposal is one of the most significant treaties (Ahmed, 2019). It
Heavy metals, another major pollutant category, had varied impacts leachate management by restricting the international
concentrations with iron ranging from 0.019 mg/L in inactive movement of hazardous wastes, which includes leachate, and
Polish landfills to 38.73 mg/L in active ones, and zinc reaching encouraging proper disposal (Amos et al., 2024). Another
up to 2,560 mg/L in Polish active landfills (Wdowczyk and important piece of international legislation is the Stockholm
Szymańska-Pulikowska, 2021). In Thailand, heavy metals like Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which addresses
cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc were the treatment and disposal of leachate due to its potential to
generally below 1 mg/L, though still posing potential ecological carry organic pollutants that can persist in the environment
and health risks (Ma et al., 2022). This highlights the need for careful (Omoto, 2014). The European Union (EU) has established
monitoring and tailored remediation strategies to address potential stringent directives for waste management, including the Landfill
environmental and health impacts. Directive (1999/31/EC), which sets the standards for waste disposal
The Leachate Pollution Index (LPI) further highlights the in landfills, including the collection and treatment of leachate
pollution potential of leachate, being higher in open dumps (Schiopu and Gavrilescu, 2010). It specifies that landfills must be
compared to engineered landfills (Lindamulla et al., 2022). Young designed and operated to collect and treat leachate to prevent
leachates typically show higher LPI values than older leachates, groundwater and environmental contamination. Furthermore, the
indicating a higher pollution potential in newer landfills. This global EU’s Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) also affects leachate
variability in leachate composition underscores the importance of management by setting out a framework for the protection of inland
site-specific assessments and tailored treatment approaches for surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater,
effective leachate management. requiring that leachate be treated to prevent the pollution of water
bodies (Kyriakopoulos, 2021).
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides
3 Regulations and standards the framework for properly managing solid and hazardous waste in
the United States (Hinds, 2022). Under Subtitle of RCRA, the
Countries around the world are increasingly recognizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established
importance of effective landfill leachate treatment as a critical regulations that require municipal solid waste landfills to use

FIGURE 1
Number of publications from the top 15 countries on the topic “Landfill leachate treatment” collected in the Scopus database from 2014 to 2023.
TABLE 5 Global laws and regulations on landfill leachate management (Oakes and Shank, 1979; Directive, 2003; Protection, 2003; Obradović et al., 2010;
Pollutants, 2011; Gas, 2017; Bergesen et al., 2018; Bhawan and Nagar, 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Santana et al., 2022).
Country Regulation/Law Key provisions

European Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) Sets standards for waste disposal in landfills, including leachate treatment to
Union prevent groundwater contamination
United States Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Requires municipal solid waste landfills to use liners and leachate collection
systems to protect groundwater
China Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of Municipal Solid Details requirements for leachate collection, treatment, and discharge, including
Waste (GB 16889–2008) limitations on contaminants
India Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Specifies criteria for handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste,
Movement) Rules, 2016 including leachate from landfills
Brazil National Solid Waste Policy (Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos - Emphasizes the treatment and environmentally sound disposal of waste,
PNRS, Law No. 12,305/2010) including leachate management
Canada Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Provides a framework for the safe management of hazardous waste and
substances, including leachate
Australia National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Establishes guidelines for the assessment and management of site contamination,
Measure 1999 including leachate
Germany Technical Instructions on Municipal Waste (TA Siedlungsabfall) Specifies technical requirements for waste treatment facilities, including leachate
management systems
Japan Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law Regulates waste disposal and cleaning operations, ensuring proper leachate
control and treatment
South Africa National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 Lays down waste management measures to protect health and the environment,
including leachate standards
composite liners and leachate collection systems to protect reduced to a concentration of 0.046 mg/L for wastewaters and
groundwater (Bonaparte et al., 2024). The National Pollutant 6.0 mg/kg for nonwastewaters. Characteristic wastes, such as
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), part of the Clean Water those exhibiting ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity,
Act, regulates the discharge of leachate into surface waters, requiring require deactivation of these characteristics and treatment of any
permits and setting treatment standards (Hudiburgh, 2020). The underlying hazardous constituents (UHCs) to meet universal
EPA’s treatment standards for hazardous wastes subject to land treatment standards (UTS). Ignitable wastes must be treated by
disposal restrictions include several key parameters that must be methods such as combustion or deactivation, depending on their
monitored under applicable regulations (Agency, 2024). These total organic carbon content, to remove the ignitability
standards specify regulated hazardous constituents, which are characteristic. Corrosive wastes need deactivation to eliminate
chemicals or compounds that need to be treated to meet specific corrosivity, with high-level radioactive corrosive wastes requiring
numerical limits before disposal. For instance, chloroform must be vitrification. Reactive wastes are generally treated by deactivation,

with reactive cyanide wastes having specific concentration-based The impact of regulatory standards on the choice of treatment
standards, such as 590 mg/kg total cyanide and 30 mg/kg amenable technology is multifaceted. Initially, these standards determine the
cyanide for nonwastewaters, and 0.86 mg/L amenable cyanide for permissible levels of various pollutants, such as organic matter,
wastewaters. Toxicity characteristic wastes must be treated to meet heavy metals, and nitrogen compounds, that can be present in the
numerical standards for metals, pesticides, and organics, as well as treated leachate (Salem et al., 2008). This directly affects the
the UTS for UHCs. Additionally, alternative treatment standards are technology selection, as different processes vary in their ability to
available for certain waste types like contaminated soil and debris, remove or neutralize specific contaminants (Ahmed et al., 2017). For
allowing for a reduction in hazardous constituent concentration by instance, high BOD and COD levels might necessitate biological
90% or to levels not exceeding 10 times the UTS. These parameters treatment processes, such as activated sludge systems (Haydar et al.,
ensure that hazardous wastes are adequately treated to minimize 2007). At the same time, the presence of heavy metals may require
their environmental impact before land disposal. chemical precipitation or ion exchange technologies (Saleh et al.,
In China, the Environmental Protection Ministry released the 2022). Furthermore, regulations often specify the methods that must
“Standard for Pollution Control on the Landfill Site of Municipal be used for testing and monitoring leachate quality (Brennan et al.,
Solid Waste” (GB 16889–2008), which sets out leachate collection, 2016). These requirements can influence the choice of technology by
treatment, and discharge requirements (Liu Q. et al., 2022). These necessitating systems that treat leachate effectively and allow for easy
include specific limitations on contaminants such as BOD, COD, sampling and monitoring. Technologies that offer more control and
ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, and heavy metals in the predictability in their operation, such as membrane bioreactors, can
discharged leachate (Shi et al., 2021). India has enacted the become preferred options under stringent monitoring requirements
Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary (Galinha et al., 2018). Advanced treatment technologies like reverse
Movement) Rules, 2016, which set forth the criteria for identifying osmosis, nanofiltration, and advanced oxidation processes become
hazardous waste and its handling, treatment, and disposal standards, more prevalent in jurisdictions with strict environmental standards
including leachate from landfills (Sadala et al., 2023). The Central (Valdés et al., 2021). These technologies can achieve the low
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India provides technical contaminant levels required for discharge into sensitive
guidelines for the secure landfill of hazardous waste, emphasizing environments or for meeting the high-quality standards necessary
the need for a comprehensive leachate management system (Kumar for leachate reuse in irrigation or industrial processes (Torretta
et al., 2007). In Brazil, the National Solid Waste Policy (Política et al. et al., 2017).
- PNRS) established under Law No. 12,305/2010 requires proper Moreover, regulations also impact the economic aspects of
leachate management and emphasizes the treatment and technology choice. Compliance with stringent standards often
environmentally sound disposal of waste (Galavote et al., 2022). comes with higher operational and maintenance costs (Siddiqi
These examples demonstrate the common goal across different et al., 2022). As a result, regulatory frameworks can indirectly
regulatory frameworks: minimizing environmental and health risks incentivize the development and adoption of more cost-effective
associated with leachate from landfills. National regulations often and energy-efficient technologies (Pan et al., 2015). For example, the
incorporate or build upon international guidelines, tailoring push to meet low nitrogen limits could encourage the adoption of
requirements to local conditions and available technologies. innovative nitrogen removal processes that consume less energy
However, the effectiveness of these regulations often depends on than traditional methods (Nourmohammadi et al., 2013).
the robustness of enforcement mechanisms and the commitment of Regulatory standards also influence the long-term planning and
local authorities to uphold standards. The significance of these scalability of treatment solutions. Facilities must consider current
regulations extends beyond environmental protection. They also regulations and potential future tightening of standards (Bunce
have profound economic and social implications. Strict regulatory et al., 2018). This foresight leads to the selection of technologies
standards drive innovation in the waste management sector, leading that are compliant now and adaptable to future regulatory changes,
to the development of new treatment technologies and practices that thereby protecting the investment in treatment infrastructure over
can reduce the volume and toxicity of leachate. Moreover, by time. Environmental policies and regulatory standards can also
requiring the safe disposal of leachate, regulations also prevent foster the integration of multiple treatment technologies. To meet
the long-term social costs associated with environmental cleanup comprehensive standards that cover a wide range of contaminants,
and healthcare for communities affected by pollution (Fang treatment plants may combine physical, chemical, and biological
et al., 2021). processes in a tiered treatment strategy. Such integration can achieve
higher levels of purification than standalone systems.
In addition to these factors, regulations may promote
3.2 Regulatory influence on landfill leachate sustainable practices by advocating for treatment technologies
treatment technology selection that minimize waste generation or allow for resource recovery
(Capodaglio, 2017). Techniques that enable the recovery of
Regulatory standards significantly influence the selection of byproducts, such as biogas production or the retrieval of precious
landfill leachate treatment technologies. These regulations protect metals, might be preferred in regions where sustainability is a
the environment and public health from the potential hazards posed regulatory goal (Chrispim et al., 2021).
by untreated or inadequately treated leachate (Tenodi et al., 2020). In conclusion, the impact of regulatory standards on the choice
As such, they set specific benchmarks that leachate must meet before of landfill leachate treatment technology is profound, driving
it can be released into the environment or treated further for innovation and influencing every aspect from the design phase to
potential reuse. operational strategy. By setting the bar for environmental

Frontiers in Environmental Science
Wang and Qiao

TABLE 6 Conventional landfill leachate treatment technologies (Torretta et al., 2017; Dogaris et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2021; Younas et al., 2021; Siddiqi et al., 2022).
Treatment Brief overview Advantages Limitations Applicability Representative Typical target Removal efficiency
technologies pollutants
Physical Involves the separation of — Low energy — Often requires — Preliminary treatment — Screening — Suspended solids — Sedimentation: 50%–70%
substances without a chemical requirement subsequent treatment — Suitable for large — Sedimentation — Particulate matter suspended solids
reaction, such as screening, — Simple operations — Limited effectiveness for suspended solids — Flotation — Colloidal particles — Filtration techniques: 85%–
sedimentation, and flotation dissolved contaminants 95% COD, 80%–90% BOD
Chemical Uses chemical reactions to — Effective for specific — Can produce secondary — Versatile, can treat a — Precipitation — Heavy metals — Coagulation-flocculation:
remove pollutants, including contaminants waste range of leachate types — Oxidation — Dissolved organics 60%–90% suspended solids
precipitation, oxidation, and ion — Can achieve high levels — Chemicals used can be — Used for heavy metals — Ion Exchange — Inorganic compounds and 50%–70% COD
exchange of purification hazardous — Precipitation:80%–95%
heavy metals
09
— Oxidation-reduction: 80%–
90% color and 70%–85%
COD
— Fenton’s reagent:75%–90%
COD and 80%–95% organic
pollutants
Biological Employs microorganisms to — Cost-effective — Sensitive to toxic — Ideal for organic-rich — Aerobic and Anaerobic — Organic matter (BOD, — Activated sludge: 70%–90%
degrade organic pollutants, — Environmentally compounds leachate Digestion COD) BOD and 60%–80% COD
categorized into aerobic and friendly — May require long — Commonly used in — Membrane Bioreactors — Nitrogen — Digesters: 80%–90% BOD
anaerobic processes treatment times municipal wastewater — Phosphorus and 70%–85% COD
— Constructed wetlands: 60%–
80% BOD, 50%–70% COD,
and 40%–60% ammonia
10.3389/fenvs.2024.1439128
frontiersin.org
compliance, regulations ensure that the selected technologies not nanofiltration is effective in removing 70%–90% of divalent ions
only mitigate the potential impact of leachate on the environment and 50%–70% of monovalent ions (Peng, 2017). Reverse osmosis
but also align with the broader goals of sustainability and public offers the highest removal efficiencies, capable of removing 95%–
health protection. 99% of dissolved solids, heavy metals, and organics (Peng, 2017).
The principal advantage of physical treatment methods lies in
their ability to achieve high levels of contaminant removal,
4 Conventional landfill leachate particularly for suspended solids and larger organic molecules
treatment technologies (Saravanan et al., 2021). These methods are often effective in
reducing turbidity and removing colloidal particles, thereby
Landfill leachate treatment is a crucial component of modern improving the treated leachate’s visual clarity and overall quality
waste management systems, aiming to mitigate the environmental (Zakaria et al., 2023). Additionally, physical treatment processes are
impact of leachate discharge from landfills. As leachate comprises a generally straightforward to implement and operate, requiring
complex mixture of dissolved and suspended contaminants, its minimal chemical additives and relatively low energy inputs
treatment requires a multifaceted approach involving various compared to some chemical and biological methods (Nyabadza
conventional technologies. These include physical, chemical, and et al., 2023). However, physical treatment methods also have certain
biological methods, each with principles, advantages, limitations, limitations and practical considerations. The potential for
and practical considerations (Table 6) (Torretta et al., 2017; Dogaris membrane fouling or clogging, particularly in membrane-based
et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2021; Younas et al., 2021; Siddiqi processes, can reduce treatment efficiency and increase
et al., 2022). operational costs (Asif and Zhang, 2021). Moreover, physical
methods may not effectively remove dissolved contaminants such
as heavy metals or organic compounds, which may require
4.1 Physical methods additional treatment steps (Saleh et al., 2022). Furthermore,
membrane technologies’ high capital and operational costs can
Physical methods for landfill leachate treatment involve limit their widespread adoption, particularly in regions with
processes that primarily rely on physical separation or filtration limited financial resources (Othman et al., 2022).
mechanisms to remove suspended solids and particulate matter
(Renou et al., 2008). These methods typically include sedimentation,
filtration, and membrane technologies (Bashir et al., 2016). 4.2 Chemical methods
Sedimentation involves allowing suspended solids to settle out of
the leachate under the influence of gravity, facilitating their removal Chemical methods for landfill leachate treatment involve the
from the liquid phase (Wang et al., 2021). Filtration techniques, such addition of chemical reagents or agents to facilitate the precipitation,
as sand or activated carbon filtration, employ porous media to trap coagulation, flocculation, oxidation, or neutralization of
suspended solids and organic compounds as the leachate passes contaminants present in the leachate (Aziz et al., 2022). These
through the filter bed (Loh et al., 2021). Membrane technologies, methods aim to enhance the removal of dissolved metals, organic
including microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse compounds, and other pollutants through chemical reactions that
osmosis, utilize semi-permeable membranes to remove transform them into insoluble precipitates or aggregates that can be
contaminants based on their molecular size and charge selectively separated from the liquid phase (El-Saadony et al., 2023; Chen et al.,
(Rai and Shrivastav, 2022). Air stripping is a physical treatment 2024). Common chemical treatment processes include coagulation-
process that removes volatile contaminants, such as VOCs and flocculation, precipitation, oxidation-reduction, and advanced
ammonia, from landfill leachate by passing air through the liquid oxidation processes (AOPs) (Sengupta and Pal, 2021).
(De et al., 2019a; 2022). The process relies on Henry’s Law to transfer Coagulation-flocculation involves the addition of coagulants,
contaminants from the liquid to the gas phase, using packed towers such as ferric chloride or aluminum sulfate, followed by the addition
or aeration tanks to maximize contact surface area. Air stripping is of flocculants, such as polymers, to promote the aggregation of
effective, simple to operate, and can achieve high removal suspended solids and colloidal particles into larger flocs that can be
efficiencies (up to 90% for ammonia). However, it produces off- easily separated from the leachate (Abujazar et al., 2022).
gas that requires further treatment to prevent air pollution and can Precipitation methods rely on adding chemicals that react with
be energy-intensive. Despite these challenges, air stripping is an dissolved contaminants to form insoluble precipitates, which can
essential part of leachate treatment, often used alongside other then be removed by sedimentation or filtration (Pohl, 2020).
technologies to improve overall performance. Oxidation-reduction processes, such as ozonation or chlorination,
In terms of efficiency, sedimentation can remove 50%–70% of involve adding oxidizing agents to degrade organic pollutants or
suspended solids. Filtration techniques, such as activated carbon reduce the concentration of toxic compounds (Wang and Chen,
filtration, can achieve removal efficiencies of 85%–95% for COD and 2020). AOPs utilize powerful oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide or
80%–90% for BOD (De et al., 2019b; Mojiri et al., 2019). Membrane ozone, combined with UV radiation or catalysts, to generate highly
technologies, including microfiltration, ultrafiltration, reactive hydroxyl radicals that can mineralize organic contaminants
nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis, utilize semi-permeable into simpler, less harmful compounds (Pandis et al., 2022).
membranes to selectively remove contaminants based on their Regarding removal efficiency, coagulation-flocculation can
molecular size and charge. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration can remove 60%–90% of suspended solids and 50%–70% of COD
remove 90%–99% of suspended solids and bacteria, while (Teh et al., 2016). Precipitation is highly effective in removing

heavy metals, achieving removal efficiencies of 80%–95% for metals improving its quality (Bakhshoodeh et al., 2020). Additionally,
such as lead, cadmium, and chromium (Fu and Wang, 2011). constructed wetlands can enhance nutrient removal and promote
Oxidation-reduction processes like ozonation can remove 80%– groundwater recharge by facilitating water infiltration and retention
90% of color and 70%–85% of COD (Miklos et al., 2018). in the soil (Chand et al., 2022).
Advanced oxidation processes, such as the use of Fenton’s When it comes to biological methods for landfill leachate
reagent, can remove 75%–90% of COD and 80%–95% of organic treatment, aerobic treatment processes, such as activated sludge,
pollutants (Babuponnusami and Muthukumar, 2014). can remove 70%–90% of BOD and 60%–80% of COD (Peng, 2017).
The primary advantage of chemical treatment methods lies in Anaerobic treatment using digesters can achieve removal efficiencies
their versatility and effectiveness in targeting a wide range of of 80%–90% of BOD and 70%–85% of COD, with the added benefit
contaminants present in leachate (Pisharody et al., 2022). of producing biogas as a byproduct (Mukherjee et al., 2015).
Chemical processes can achieve high removal efficiencies for Constructed wetlands offer another effective solution, capable of
dissolved metals, organic compounds, and recalcitrant pollutants removing 60%–80% of BOD, 50%–70% of COD, and 40%–60% of
that may not be effectively treated by physical or biological methods ammonia (Wu S. et al., 2015).
alone (Nidheesh et al., 2022). Additionally, chemical treatment Here we need to mention a mature biological treatment
processes can often be tailored to specific leachate compositions technology that has been widely used in the field of wastewater
and treatment objectives by adjusting the type and dosage of treatment for many years, biological nutrient removal (BNR). BNR
chemical additives used (Khoo et al., 2020). One of the common harnesses the metabolism of microorganisms to remove nutrients,
disadvantages of chemical treatment methods, particularly notably nitrogen and phosphorus, from wastewater (Deng et al.,
coagulation-flocculation and precipitation, is the generation of 2023). BNR is crucial for preventing eutrophication in aquatic
sludge. This sludge, a byproduct of the treatment process, environments caused by nutrient overloads (Kabuba et al., 2022).
consists of the aggregated contaminants and excess chemical BNR operates through various biological mechanisms, including
reagents, posing a significant disposal challenge (Sharma et al., nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorus uptake by specific
2022). Using chemical reagents can also increase operational bacteria, under different operational conditions to remove these
costs and pose health and safety risks to operators if improperly nutrients (Rout et al., 2021a). Factors influencing the efficiency of
handled. The management of this sludge is crucial as it requires BNR include biomass concentration, hydraulic retention time,
appropriate handling, treatment, and disposal to avoid secondary temperature, and pH, which need to be optimized to enhance
pollution. Chemical sludge typically needs to be dewatered and may microorganism activity and nutrient removal (Mishra et al., 2022).
require further stabilization or treatment before disposal in landfills The complexity of BNR systems, which can include multiple tanks
or use in other applications. The disposal costs and environmental and stages for different phases of nutrient removal, requires careful
impacts associated with sludge management must be considered design and operation to achieve the desired outcomes (Al-Hazmi
when evaluating the overall feasibility and sustainability of chemical et al., 2022). BNR offers a cost-effective and environmentally friendly
treatment methods (Hou et al., 2023). approach to nutrient removal, avoiding using chemicals and
leveraging natural biological processes (Al-Hazmi et al., 2024).
This technology requires for a large footprint due to the extensive
4.3 Biological methods infrastructure needed and the complexity of operation and
maintenance, which demands skilled personnel and continuous
Biological methods for landfill leachate treatment harness the monitoring (Abyar and Nowrouzi, 2023).
metabolic activity of microorganisms to degrade organic pollutants Biological treatment methods can achieve sustainable and cost-
and remove nutrients from the leachate (Wu D. et al., 2015). These effective leachate treatment through natural processes (Chand et al.,
methods typically involve aerobic treatment, anaerobic treatment, 2022). Biological processes are highly efficient in removing organic
and constructed wetlands, which utilize different microbial pollutants and nutrients from the leachate, often achieving high
communities and environmental conditions to facilitate the removal efficiencies under favorable environmental conditions (Li
leachate’s biodegradation and transformation of contaminants et al., 2021). Moreover, biological treatment methods are generally
(Kurniawan et al., 2010). Aerobic treatment involves exposing the environmentally friendly and produce minimal secondary waste or
leachate to oxygen-rich conditions, allowing aerobic bacteria to harmful byproducts compared to chemical or physical methods
metabolize organic compounds and oxidize them into simpler, (Sathya et al., 2023). Nevertheless, compared with chemical or
less harmful substances (Bhambore and Suresh Kumar, 2022). physical methods, the required processing time is longer because
On the other hand, anaerobic treatment processes operate under the microbial degradation process can be relatively slow, especially
oxygen-free conditions and rely on anaerobic bacteria to degrade under certain environmental conditions (Sharma, 2020).
organic matter through fermentation and methanogenesis, Additionally, biological treatment systems may be sensitive to
producing methane gas as a byproduct (Zamri et al., 2021). fluctuations in temperature, pH, and other environmental
Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that mimic natural parameters, which can affect treatment performance and
wetland ecosystems and utilize wetland vegetation, soil, and reliability (Sundui et al., 2021). Moreover, toxic or inhibitory
microbial communities to remove contaminants from the substances in the leachate, such as heavy metals or recalcitrant
leachate through physical, chemical, and biological processes organic compounds, may limit the effectiveness of biological
(Hassan et al., 2021). These systems provide an ideal habitat for treatment processes and require additional pre-treatment or post-
the growth of wetland plants and microorganisms, which can treatment steps to achieve desired treatment objectives (Ilmasari
absorb, adsorb, and metabolize pollutants in the leachate, et al., 2022).

TABLE 7 Membrane technology in landfill leachate treatment (de Almeida et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2020; Yusuf et al., 2020; El Batouti et al., 2022).
Process Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

pollutants efficiency affecting
removal
efficiency
RO RO is a high-efficiency Solution/ Dissolved salts, Remove Membrane High removal High energy
filtration process that diffusion; Size metals, organics, exceeding 99% fouling level, feed efficiencies for a wide consumption;
removes contaminants exclusion and some for various water quality, range of Generates
by applying pressure to microorganisms contaminants operating contaminants; concentrated waste
push water through a pressure Produces high-quality stream
semi-permeable effluent
membrane
NF NF is a selective Size exclusion; Hardness ions Up to 99.62% Membrane Lower pressure and Less effective for
filtration technology Electrostatic (e.g., Ca, Mg), removal of PFAS. fouling level, feed energy requirements monovalent ions;
that removes specific exclusion heavy metals, composition, than RO; Can Still produces a
ions and small certain organic operating selectively remove waste concentrate
molecules from water compounds pressure contaminants
UF UF uses a semi- Size exclusion Suspended solids, Remove 90%– Membrane Low energy Limited in
permeable membrane to bacteria, viruses, 99% of fouling level, pore requirement; Effective removing
remove suspended macromolecules suspended solids size of the pre-treatment for RO/ dissolved ions and
solids, bacteria, viruses, and bacteria membrane, feed NF; High removal of small molecules
and large molecules water turbidity particulates and
microorganisms
MBR MBR combines Biological Organic High removal Biomass High-quality effluent; Higher operational
biological treatment degradation; Size pollutants, rates for BOD concentration, Compact design; High and maintenance
with membrane exclusion nutrients (N, P), (85%–95%) and membrane organic and nutrient costs due to
filtration to degrade suspended solids COD fouling level, removal efficiency fouling; Energy-
organic pollutants and (70%–85%) hydraulic intensive
remove solids retention time
In conclusion, conventional landfill leachate treatment including dissolved salts, heavy metals, organic compounds, and
technologies encompass diverse physical, chemical, and biological particulates (El Batouti et al., 2021). The application of membrane
methods, each offering unique advantages, limitations, and practical technology in leachate treatment primarily involves reverse osmosis,
considerations. Physical methods rely on separation or filtration nanofiltration, ultrafiltration, and membrane bioreactors, each
mechanisms to remove suspended solids and colloidal particles from serving unique roles in the purification process (Table 7) (de
the leachate. In contrast, chemical methods involve the addition of Almeida et al., 2020; Magalhães et al., 2020; Yusuf et al., 2020; El
chemical reagents to facilitate the precipitation, coagulation, or Batouti et al., 2022).
oxidation of contaminants. Biological methods harness the
metabolic activity of microorganisms to degrade organic 5.1.2 Reverse osmosis (RO)
pollutants and remove nutrients from the leachate through Reverse osmosis is a cornerstone of membrane technology for
natural processes. While each treatment method has its strengths leachate treatment, renowned for its ability to remove a wide array of
and weaknesses, selecting an appropriate treatment technology contaminants, including dissolved salts and organic molecules
depends on factors such as leachate composition, treatment (Feria-Díaz et al., 2021). The principle of RO involves applying
objectives, regulatory requirements, and site-specific pressure to the leachate across a semi-permeable membrane, which
considerations. By understanding each treatment method’s allows water molecules to pass while retaining the majority of
principles, advantages, limitations, and practicality, stakeholders dissolved solids (Mengesha and Sahu, 2022). This process is
can make informed decisions to design and implement effective particularly effective in reducing leachate conductivity, making it
leachate treatment systems that meet environmental standards and a critical step in compliance with stringent discharge regulations
protect human health and the environment. (Keyikoglu et al., 2021). RO systems can achieve removal efficiencies
exceeding 99% for various contaminants, rendering them
indispensable in scenarios requiring high-quality effluent
5 Advanced landfill leachate treatment (Srivastava et al., 2022). However, the performance of RO
technologies systems is significantly influenced by factors such as membrane
fouling, feed water quality, and operating pressure (Odabaşı et al.,
5.1 Common technology 2022). Membrane fouling, caused by the accumulation of particles
and microorganisms on the membrane surface, can lead to
5.1.1 Membrane technology decreased efficiency and increased operational costs (Sengar and
Membrane technology has emerged as a pivotal solution in Vijayanandan, 2022). To mitigate these effects, pre-treatment
treating landfill leachate (Chen et al., 2021). This technology offers a processes and regular maintenance are crucial. Additionally,
versatile and efficient approach to removing contaminants, generates a concentrated brine that requires further management

or treatment, presenting an environmental and operational system, a bioreactor degrades organic pollutants through
challenge (Sengar and Vijayanandan, 2022). RO is particularly microbial activity, while a membrane filtration unit separates
suitable for final polishing of treated leachate to meet treated water from biomass and suspended solids (Deng et al.,
discharge standards. 2022). MBRs can achieve high levels of organic and nutrient
removal, with the added benefit of producing a clarified,
5.1.3 Nanofiltration (NF) disinfected effluent (Hai et al., 2014). Integrating biological
Nanofiltration occupies a niche between reverse osmosis and treatment and membrane separation enhances system stability
ultrafiltration, with a pore size that allows it to selectively remove and reduces the footprint compared to conventional treatment
divalent and multivalent ions, some monovalent ions, and organic setups (Waqas et al., 2020). MBRs are suitable for leachate with
molecules (Zhao et al., 2021). NF is particularly valued for its ability high organic loads and in locations where space is limited. They
to soften water by removing hardness ions, such as calcium and can achieve high removal rates for BOD (85%–95%) and COD
magnesium, alongside a significant reduction in organic content and (70%–85%), along with effective solids separation. The
color (Patel et al., 2023). NF’s selectivity allows it to target pollutants performance of MBRs is influenced by factors such as biomass
with lower pressure and energy requirements than RO, making it a concentration, membrane fouling, and hydraulic retention time.
cost-effective option for many treatment scenarios (Yadav et al., Despite the challenges of operational and maintenance costs
2022). The process is well-suited for pre-treatment in RO systems or associated with fouling and energy consumption, MBRs
as a standalone treatment for leachates with moderate provide significant advantages, including high-quality effluent,
contamination levels (Ali, 2021). Like RO, NF also produces compact design, and efficient removal of organic matter and
concentrate streams that require careful disposal or further nutrients (Meng et al., 2007).
treatment (Song et al., 2020). The efficiency of NF is contingent
upon membrane fouling, feed composition, and operating pressure
(Yang et al., 2024). Similar to RO, the presence of pre-treatment 5.2 Advanced oxidation processes
processes is vital to prevent fouling and ensure consistent
performance. While NF offers the advantage of selective The treatment of landfill leachate using AOPs has garnered
contaminant removal with reduced energy consumption, its significant attention due to the complexity and variability of leachate
limitations include less effectiveness for monovalent ions and the composition (Fang et al., 2021). AOPs are characterized by their
production of a waste concentrate that requires further treatment ability to generate highly reactive species, particularly hydroxyl
(Tian et al., 2021). radicals, which can non-selectively degrade a wide range of
pollutants (Anandan et al., 2020). Usually there are four primary
5.1.4 Ultrafiltration (UF) AOPs: the Fenton process, ozonation, photocatalysis, and
Ultrafiltration is a membrane filtration process employing electrochemical oxidation (Table 8) (Rekhate and Srivastava,
larger pore sizes than NF and RO, making it ideal for removing 2020; Wang and Zhuan, 2020; Pandis et al., 2022).
suspended solids, bacteria, viruses, and high molecular weight
solutes (Urošević and Trivunac, 2020). Factors like membrane 5.2.1 Fenton process
fouling, pore size, and feed water turbidity can impact UF’s The Fenton process is a chemical treatment method that
removal efficiency (Peters et al., 2021). Nonetheless, UF involves the reaction of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) with ferrous
systems require lower energy to operate and serve as an iron (Fe2+) to produce hydroxyl radicals (·OH·) (Benassi et al., 2021).
excellent pre-treatment step for RO and NF processes by These radicals are extremely reactive and can break down various
reducing the load of suspended solids and microbial content, organic pollutants, including dyes, pharmaceuticals, and other
thereby extending the lifespan of downstream membranes (El complex organic compounds in landfill leachate (Ateş and
Batouti et al., 2022). UF is often used as a pre-treatment step to Argun, 2021). The mechanism of action in the Fenton process is
protect downstream RO or NF systems from fouling. It can homogeneous catalysis, where the reaction occurs in solution,
typically remove 90%–99% of suspended solids and bacteria. allowing for the widespread generation of hydroxyl radicals (Liu
The primary advantage of UF lies in its ability to operate at et al., 2021). This process is particularly effective for treating
lower pressures, thereby reducing energy costs (Fan et al., 2020). organic-rich leachate, offering several advantages, such as high
It is also less susceptible to chemical damage, allowing for a efficiency in degrading organic pollutants and operating under
broader range of chemical cleaning agents. Although UF is highly ambient conditions (Soltani et al., 2022). The Fenton process is
effective in removing particulates and microorganisms, its effective for treating leachate with high concentrations of refractory
limitations lie in its inability to address dissolved ions and organic compounds. It can remove 75%–90% of COD and 80%–95%
small molecules, underscoring the need for a comprehensive of organic pollutants. However, the process is highly sensitive to
treatment approach that may include subsequent NF or RO operational conditions such as pH, temperature, and the ratios of Fe
stages (Castro-Muñoz, 2020). to H2O2 and reaction time (O’Dowd and Pillai, 2020). A major
limitation of the Fenton process is sludge production from iron salts,
5.1.5 Membrane bioreactors (MBR) necessitating further treatment steps (Ziembowicz and Kida, 2022).
The membrane bioreactor technology integrates biological Additionally, precise control over the reaction conditions is crucial
treatment processes with membrane filtration, offering a to prevent the consumption of hydrogen peroxide by excessive iron,
compact and efficient solution for degrading organic which would otherwise reduce the efficiency of pollutant
pollutants and removing solids (Neoh et al., 2016). In an MBR degradation (Liu et al., 2024).

TABLE 8 AOPs in landfill leachate treatment (Rekhate and Srivastava, 2020; Wang and Zhuan, 2020; Pandis et al., 2022).
Process Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

of action pollutants efficiency affecting
removal
efficiency
Fenton Process A chemical process Homogeneous Organic Remove 35%–90% pH, Highly efficient in Production of
using hydrogen catalysis pollutants, dyes, of COD and 80%– temperature, Fe degrading organic sludge; Requires
peroxide (H2O2) and pharmaceuticals 95% of organic and H2O2 ratio, pollutants; Can post-treatment to
iron (Fe) catalysts to pollutants reaction time operate at ambient remove iron;
produce hydroxyl conditions Sensitive to
radicals for the operational
oxidation of pollutants conditions
Ozonation The application of Direct oxidation Color, odor, Remove 80%–90% Ozone dosage, Effective for color High energy
ozone (O3), a strong microorganisms, of color and 70%– contact time, and odor removal; consumption for
oxidizing agent, to some organic 85% COD. water quality Can disinfect; No ozone generation;
break down organic compounds sludge production May form by-
and inorganic products
materials
Photocatalysis Uses light to activate a Heterogeneous Organic achieved up to Light intensity, Can be powered by Catalyst recovery
catalyst (typically catalysis pollutants, 86.14% removal of catalyst type and solar energy; Low and reuse; May
TiO2), generating bacteria, viruses endosulfan, 96.2% concentration, energy cost; No require UV light
reactive species that of methylene blue, pH sludge
degrade contaminants 97.3% of
rhodamine B, and
84.67% of crystal
violet dye
Electrochemical An electrochemical Direct and indirect Dyes, Remove 75%–95% Electrode No chemical High energy
Oxidation reaction where oxidation pharmaceuticals, of COD and up to material, current addition needed; consumption;
pollutants are oxidized complex organic 90% of ammonia density, Precise control over Electrode
at the anode surface or molecules conductivity, process degradation;
in the bulk solution pH Sludge generation;
Management
5.2.2 Ozonation effective against many contaminants, including organic pollutants,

Ozonation employs ozone (O3), a potent oxidizing agent, to bacteria, and viruses, making it an attractive option for treating
oxidize pollutants directly (Tripathi and Hussain, 2022). This landfill leachate (Han et al., 2020). Factors affecting the efficiency of
process is highly effective for removing color, odor, and photocatalysis include light intensity, catalyst type and
microorganisms from landfill leachate and degrading some concentration, and the pH of the solution (Gusain et al., 2020).
organic compounds (Yang C. et al., 2021). The direct oxidation Photocatalysis offers the potential for low energy costs, especially
mechanism of ozonation allows for rapid reaction rates, making it a when powered by solar energy, and the absence of sludge production
valuable option for enhancing the biodegradability of recalcitrant (Ahmad et al., 2020). Catalyst recovery and reuse and dependence
organic compounds in leachate (Yang Y. et al., 2021). Ozonation can on UV light for optimal performance limit its widespread
remove 80%–90% of color and 70%–85% of COD. The efficiency of application (Kefeni and Mamba, 2020). Despite these challenges,
ozonation is influenced by ozone dosage, contact time, and the photocatalysis presents a sustainable option for leachate treatment,
quality of water being treated. Its advantages include effective color especially in sunny climates where solar radiation can be
and odor removal, disinfection capabilities, and the absence of effectively harnessed.
sludge production (Hussain et al., 2022). However, ozonation
requires significant energy to generate ozone gas, and the 5.2.4 Electrochemical oxidation
potential formation of by-products during the oxidation of Electrochemical oxidation utilizes an electrical current to
certain pollutants can be a concern (Wang and Chen, 2020). facilitate the oxidation of pollutants at an electrode surface or
Despite these limitations, ozonation remains a favored choice for within the bulk solution (Fitch et al., 2022). Through direct and
specific applications within leachate treatment, particularly when indirect oxidation mechanisms, this method can target a broad
targeting pollutants susceptible to oxidation by ozone. spectrum of pollutants, including dyes, pharmaceuticals, and
complex organic molecules (da Silva et al., 2021). This process is
5.2.3 Photocatalysis effective for treating leachate with a high load of organic pollutants
Photocatalysis involves using light (typically UV) and a catalyst and ammonia. Electrochemical oxidation can remove 75%–95% of
(commonly titanium dioxide, TiO2) to produce reactive species COD and up to 90% of ammonia. One of the primary advantages of
capable of degrading pollutants (Gopinath et al., 2020). This electrochemical oxidation is the absence of chemical additives
process is governed by heterogeneous catalysis, where the catalyst coupled with precise control over the treatment process (Yang L.
remains in a solid phase, distinct from the liquid phase in which the et al., 2021). This method offers an environmentally friendly
pollutants are dissolved (Iervolino et al., 2020). Photocatalysis is approach to leachate treatment, albeit with considerations for

TABLE 9 Emerging technologies in landfill leachate treatment (Bhambri and Karn, 2020; Deng et al., 2020; Hasan et al., 2021; Rajesh Banu et al., 2021).
Technology Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

of action pollutants efficiency affecting
removal
efficiency
Adsorption A process where Surface adsorption; Organic Achieve up to Adsorbent Low cost; Limited capacity;
pollutants are Physical and compounds, 99% removal of material, contact Simplicity of Requires
captured on the chemical metals, dyes emerging time, design; No harmful regeneration or
surface of a material adsorption contaminants and concentration of by-products disposal of
95.1% for pollutants, adsorbents
strontium temperature
Ion Exchange Involves the exchange Electrostatic Heavy metals, Remove nutrients Ion exchange High specificity; Regeneration of
of ions between a solid exclusion hardness, up to 98% for capacity, flow Efficient for resins needed;
phase and a liquid radionuclides ammonium, rate, water targeted Sensitive to
phase to remove 91.38% for chemistry contaminants competing ions
dissolved ions arsenic, and over
99% colorants
Simultaneous Partial An innovative Partial Ammonia SNAD achieves Dissolved Oxygen Cost-effective; Complex Control;
Nitrification, biological process Nitrification, (NH4+) nitrogen removal Levels, High Efficiency; Environmental
Anammox, and integrating partial Anammox, and Nitrite (NO2-) efficiencies of Temperature, pH, Low Sludge Sensitivity;
Denitrification nitrification, Denitrification Nitrate (NO3-) 80%–94.56% for Organic Carbon Production; Startup Time;
anammox, and total inorganic Availability, Sustainable Monitoring
denitrification to treat nitrogen and over ammonia and Needs
high-strength 90% for total Nitrite
nitrogenous leachate nitrogen Concentrations
efficiently
high energy consumption and potential electrode degradation over adsorbents due to its high surface area and porosity, although other
time (Deng et al., 2020). materials like biochar, zeolites, and engineered nanomaterials are
also employed (Sharma et al., 2022). The primary advantages of
adsorption include its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and the absence
5.3 Other technologies of harmful by-products. The finite adsorption capacity of materials,
which necessitates their periodic regeneration or replacement
As environmental standards become increasingly stringent, (Sharma et al., 2024). Similar to coagulation-flocculation, the
adopting innovative and efficient treatment technologies is adsorption method also generates sludge, which consists of spent
essential. Emerging technologies for treating landfill leachate are adsorbent materials saturated with contaminants (Kurniawan et al.,
pivotal in addressing the environmental challenges posed by the 2021a). The management of this adsorption sludge is a critical issue,
complex and variable composition. These technologies, including as it involves the disposal or regeneration of spent adsorbents.
adsorption, ion exchange, and biological nutrient removal (BNR), Regeneration can often be achieved through thermal, chemical,
offer innovative solutions to remove many pollutants, from organic or biological methods to restore the adsorbent’s capacity for
compounds and heavy metals to nitrogen and phosphorus (Table 9) reuse. However, these processes can be energy-intensive and
(Bhambri and Karn, 2020; Deng et al., 2020; Hasan et al., 2021; costly, and not all adsorbents can be regenerated effectively.
Rajesh Banu et al., 2021). Disposal of non-regenerable adsorbents must be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner, often requiring landfilling or
5.3.1 Adsorption incineration, which introduces additional costs and
Adsorption is a versatile and widely implemented method for environmental concerns. The environmental impact and cost of
contaminant removal, characterized by the adherence of pollutants managing adsorption sludge are important factors in assessing the
onto the surface of an adsorbent material (Shen et al., 2023). This overall sustainability of the adsorption process.
process can occur through physical adsorption, driven by weak van
der Waals forces, or chemical adsorption, involving stronger 5.3.2 Ion exchange
covalent bonds (Rathi and Kumar, 2021). The mechanism is Ion exchange is a specialized technique designed for removing
influenced by the surface area, porosity, and chemical nature of dissolved ions from wastewater, functioning through the reversible
the adsorbent, as well as the properties of the pollutants (Ambaye exchange of ions between a liquid and a solid phase (Liu et al., 2023).
et al., 2021). Adsorption is particularly effective for removing Ion exchange relies on electrostatic interactions between charged
organic compounds, heavy metals, and dyes from leachate, particles, making it particularly suitable for targeting specific ionic
making it a valuable tool for improving water quality (Saravanan contaminants such as heavy metals, hardness-causing ions (e.g.,
et al., 2021). The adsorption efficiency is determined by factors such calcium and magnesium), and radionuclides (Liu et al., 2023). The
as the type and concentration of pollutants, contact time, adsorbent performance of ion exchange systems is influenced by the resin or
material, and environmental conditions like temperature (Rathi and medium’s ion exchange capacity, the leachate’s flow rate, and the
Kumar, 2021). Activated carbon is among the most commonly used water’s chemical composition, including the presence of competing

ions (Xu et al., 2024). Factors such as resin specificity, regeneration solution, particularly for degrading resistant organic compounds
requirements, and operational parameters must be carefully and pathogens. Nevertheless, they come with high operational costs,
managed to optimize performance (Clark et al., 2024). Ion mainly due to the chemical inputs and energy demands, such as for
exchange resins, synthetic or natural, are chosen based on their ozone generation or UV lamps. These factors also contribute to
selectivity for certain ions, offering high specificity and efficiency in moderate sustainability concerns, especially regarding potential
contaminant removal (Wang et al., 2024). Ion exchange offers the secondary pollution. Emerging technologies provide a more cost-
advantage of high specificity and efficiency for targeted effective and sustainable approach. While their efficiency varies
contaminants, providing a tailored approach to leachate depending on the materials and infrastructure used, they excel in
treatment (Aziz et al., 2023). The need for regular resin targeting specific contaminants like heavy metals and nutrients.
regeneration with chemicals like brine, which can generate These technologies emphasize the use of recyclable materials and
secondary waste streams (Sahu, 2021). It is sensitive to natural processes, thereby enhancing environmental friendliness.
competing ions, which can reduce the efficiency of targeted ion The choice of leachate treatment technology should be guided by
removal, requiring careful water chemistry management (Chen specific treatment goals, regulatory requirements, and sustainability
et al., 2023). objectives, balancing efficiency with environmental and economic
considerations to achieve effective and responsible leachate
5.3.3 Simultaneous partial nitrification, anammox, management.
and denitrification (SNAD)
SNAD is an emerging biological treatment technology that
integrates partial nitritation, anaerobic ammonium oxidation 6 Comprehensive treatment system
(anammox), and denitrification processes within a single reactor
(Singh et al., 2022). This integrated approach shows great potential The cornerstone of addressing the leachate challenge lies in
for treating landfill leachate with high ammonia concentrations. The implementing a comprehensive treatment system that
SNAD process involves three main steps: partial nitritation, which synergistically combines various treatment methodologies to
converts part of the ammonia into nitrite; anammox, which utilizes remove contaminants effectively and meet or exceed regulatory
the remaining ammonia and the produced nitrite to generate discharge standards (Abdelfattah and El-Shamy, 2024). These
nitrogen gas; and denitrification, which reduces any remaining systems are designed not only to mitigate the adverse
nitrate to nitrogen gas. These processes occur simultaneously in environmental impacts of leachate but also to contribute to the
the same reactor, achieving efficient nitrogen removal. SNAD sustainability of landfill operations by enabling the possibility of
achieves nitrogen removal efficiencies of 80%–94.56% for total resource recovery and reuse of treated water (Mojiri et al., 2020).
inorganic nitrogen and over 90% for total nitrogen, while also
reducing oxygen demand and sludge production compared to
conventional methods (Zheng et al., 2016). SNAD technology 6.1 Comprehensive treatment system
offers several advantages for landfill leachate treatment, including
high nitrogen removal efficiency, energy savings due to lower A comprehensive landfill leachate treatment system is a multi-
oxygen and organic carbon requirements compared to traditional faceted and dynamic approach that mitigates leachate contaminants’
nitrification-denitrification processes, reduced operational costs, environmental impacts through a well-orchestrated sequence of
smaller footprint due to the integration of three processes in one processes (Figure 2) (Britz, 2020; Babaei et al., 2021; Fang et al.,
reactor, and less sludge production, which lowers sludge handling 2021; Righetto et al., 2021; Teng et al., 2021; Nath and Debnath,
costs (Su et al., 2022). Despite its promising prospects, SNAD 2022). Initiating with pretreatment, the system begins by addressing
technology faces challenges such as the need for precise control the more tangible aspects of leachate—easily separable solids are
of parameters like dissolved oxygen and pH, long startup times due removed, and the pH is carefully adjusted. This foundational step is
to the slow growth of anammox bacteria, and sensitivity to about preparing the leachate for the complex journey ahead and
temperature. Future research will focus on optimizing operational safeguarding the intricate mechanisms of downstream processes
parameters, enhancing system stability, and exploring innovative from potential abrasion, blockages, and harmful chemical
reactor designs to further improve the application of SNAD interactions. As the leachate advances, it encounters the primary
technology in landfill leachate treatment. treatment phase, a sophisticated interplay between biology and
In summary, when selecting an appropriate landfill leachate chemistry. Here, living microbes engage in a digestive ballet,
treatment technology, it is essential to consider the balance between utilizing both aerobic and anaerobic pathways to metabolize
efficiency, cost, and sustainability (Özdemir et al., 2020; Cherni et al., organic pollutants, thereby reducing the load of substances that
2021; Dereli et al., 2021; Saadatlu et al., 2023). Membrane demand oxygen in the water. Concurrently, a suite of physical-
technologies are highly effective, capable of removing up to 99% chemical treatments, each a targeted strike—coagulation,
of dissolved salts and other specific pollutants. However, their flocculation, and flotation—work in concert to clear out
application involves significant capital and operational costs, suspended solids, strip away color, and separate particulate
particularly with RO, due to the expenses associated with energy organic matter. This systematic approach continues into the
use, membrane replacement, and maintenance. Despite these costs, secondary treatment, where a more refined attack is launched on
advancements in technology are gradually improving the dissolved organic compounds that have eluded the grasp of
sustainability of membrane processes, although energy use and biological processes. This stage employs the precision of AOPs,
membrane disposal remain concerns. AOPs offer another robust the fine sieve of membrane filtration technologies like reverse

FIGURE 2
Components of a comprehensive treatment system.
osmosis, and the binding affinities of adsorption techniques, each surface waters, safeguarding the aquatic ecosystems and public health
method meticulously selected to ensure no contaminant is left against the potential onslaught of toxic substances (Ravindiran et al.,
unchallenged. Nearing the end, the leachate undergoes tertiary 2023). By utilizing progressively targeted treatments that include
treatment—an exemplary display of purification, where the biological degradation, chemical transformation, and physical
effluent is polished to meet stringent quality standards. Further, separation, these systems adeptly reduce the concentrations of
membrane filtration stands sentinel against the minutest of organic and inorganic pollutants, heavy metals, and pathogens to
pollutants, disinfection processes wage war on pathogenic meet stringent regulatory standards (Rathod et al., 2024). Beyond
microorganisms, and additional specific treatments meticulously the immediate environmental benefits, these systems embrace the
remove any lingering traces of heavy metals or nitrogen compounds. principles of a circular economy, often allowing for the recovery of
The comprehensive landfill leachate treatment system’s resources such as biogas, which can be converted to energy, and treated
responsibility does not end with the effluent; sludge management water, which can be repurposed for industrial or agricultural use (Zarei,
remains a testament to the ethos of sustainability that underpins the 2020). This contributes to the conservation of natural resources and
entire operation (Torretta et al., 2017). This critical phase manages offers economic advantages by offsetting operational costs and
the solid byproducts of the leachate’s treatment to minimize further generating revenue (Ekins and Zenghelis, 2021). Comprehensive
environmental impact, reclaim valuable resources, and embody the treatment systems are committed to sustainable development as they
cyclic nature of waste transformed into worth (Remmas et al., 2023). adapt to the ever-changing waste composition and emerging
Implementing a comprehensive landfill leachate treatment system is contaminants, ensuring resilience against future environmental
a paragon of environmental responsibility and technological challenges. Thus, these systems’ significance lies in their immediate
ingenuity, offering multifarious benefits that resonate far beyond the efficacy in pollution control and their strategic contribution to long-
confines of waste management. Such systems are critical in preventing term environmental sustainability and economic viability (Mojiri
the percolation of hazardous contaminants into the groundwater and et al., 2020).

FIGURE 3
Comprehensive wastewater treatment system by Welle Group Co., Ltd, addressing high-concentration landfill leachate and domestic/low-
concentration sewage through advanced multi-stage processes for effective contaminant removal and safe discharge or reuse.
6.2 Example of comprehensive treatment MBR” process. In contrast, the low-concentration inorganic sewage is
system for landfill leachate treated through “coagulation and air flotation + multi-media filtration
+ RO.” These processes are designed to efficiently handle the varied
In the bustling urban environment of Changsha City, the capital of waste streams entering the facility, ensuring that all forms of
Hunan Province, China (28.2282°N, 112.9388°E), located 35 km north in wastewater are effectively managed. The landfill leachate treatment,
Qiaoyi Town, Wangcheng District, the Changsha Municipal Solid Waste in particular, employs an “external MBR + NF + RO” process. This
Treatment Site stands as a pivotal solution to the city’s waste management specific treatment path is crucial for dealing with the highly
challenges. Operated by Welle Environmental Protection Technology contaminated leachate from the landfill, effectively reducing its
Group Co., Ltd., this project exemplifies a cutting-edge approach to pollutant load before release or reuse. The concentrated liquid
handling landfill leachate treatment (Welle Environmental Protection produced from these treatment processes undergoes advanced
Technology Group Co.L, 2024). As the sole comprehensive co-processing oxidation/reduction treatment, showcasing the facility’s
site for municipal solid waste in Changsha, it is responsible for commitment to minimizing environmental impact. This liquid is
managing domestic waste from the city’s expansive area, municipal then cleverly returned to the factory for consumption, embodying
sludge from 13 sewage treatment plants, and all leachate in the the principles of sustainability and resource recovery. The
reservoir area. The facility is ingeniously divided into two achievements of this project are both tangible and impactful. After
functional units: landfill and incineration plant, with 80% of undergoing the comprehensive treatment processes, the landfill
domestic waste processed through incineration for electricity leachate meets the stringent emission standards outlined in Table 2
generation and the remaining 20% allocated for landfilling. The of the “Pollution Control Standards for Domestic Waste Landfills”
core challenge in managing landfill leachate stems from its highly (GB16889-2008) (Table 10). Similarly, the effluent from the three
concentrated and variable composition, which can severely impact sewage systems at the incineration plant complies with the “Water
local water sources and the broader environment. Quality for Industrial Water for Recycling of Urban Wastewater” (GB/
To tackle this, Welle Group Co., Ltd has designed a T19923-2005), which sets the water quality standards for
comprehensive leachate treatment system addressing both landfill supplementary water in open circulating water systems. The project
leachate and domestic/low-concentration sewage (Figure 3). The addresses the immediate need for waste and leachate treatment and
process for high-concentration leachate regeneration is a testament contributes to resource conservation and pollution reduction goals. It
to engineering excellence, employing a sophisticated combination of stands as a testament to the power of technology and strategic planning
“pretreatment + up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) + external in solving the complex environmental challenges of our time.
membrane bioreactors (MBR) + nanofiltration (NF) + reverse
osmosis (RO). This multi-stage approach ensures the thorough
removal of contaminants, making the leachate safe for discharge or 6.3 Optimizing integrated landfill leachate
reuse. In addition to the high-concentration leachate treatment, the treatment systems
facility also addresses the treatment of domestic and low-concentration
inorganic sewage. The domestic sewage treatment follows a “mixed In environmental management, optimizing and modeling an
coagulation and sedimentation + anaerobic-aerobic (A/O) + built-in integrated system for landfill leachate treatment serve as

TABLE 10 Emission standards in Table 2 of the ‘pollution control standards

for municipal solid waste landfills’ (GB16889-2008).
7 Challenges and future
Pollutant control item Emission concentration In addressing the complex challenges of landfill leachate
limit treatment, it is crucial to consider the economic, operational, and
Color (Dilution times) 40
emerging contaminant-related hurdles that impede the efficacy of
current systems. This section delves into the multifaceted issues
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD_Cr) 100 faced by waste management facilities, highlighting the significant
(mg/L)
financial burdens, operational difficulties due to leachate variability,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD_5) 30 and the rising threat of emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals
(mg/L)
and microplastics. These challenges necessitate innovative solutions
Suspended Solids (SS) (mg/L) 30 and strategic approaches to ensure effective, sustainable leachate
management in the future.
Total Nitrogen (TN) (mg/L) 30
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH₃-N) (mg/L) 25
Total Phosphorus (TP) (mg/L) 3 7.1 Comprehensive challenges in landfill

leachate treatment: Economic, operational,
Fecal Coliform Group (CFU/L) 10,000
and emerging contaminant
Total Mercury (Hg) (mg/L) 0.001
The foremost economic challenge in landfill leachate treatment
Total Cadmium (Cd) (mg/L) 0.01
lies in the high capital and operational costs associated with
Total Chromium (Cr) (mg/L) 0.1 advanced treatment systems (El-Saadony et al., 2023).
6+
Hexavalent Chromium (Cr ) (mg/L) 0.05 Technologies such as RO, NF, and MBRs are effective in
removing a wide range of contaminants but require substantial
Total Arsenic (As) (mg/L) 0.1
financial investment. These systems are not only expensive to install
Total Lead (Pb) (mg/L) 0.1 but also incur ongoing costs related to energy consumption,
maintenance, and the need for skilled personnel to operate and
monitor the processes. The financial burden is further amplified by
cornerstones for enhancing system efficiency, curbing the variability in leachate composition, which demands adaptable
expenditures, and adhering to environmental norms systems capable of handling fluctuations in pollutant
(Awewomom et al., 2024). The essence of this optimization concentrations. This variability necessitates continuous system
lies in crafting a flexible treatment architecture that optimization, leading to additional costs associated with adaptive
proficiently manages the intricate and diverse makeup of management and process upgrades (Yadav et al., 2021). Table 11,
leachate while remaining nimble to fluctuations in waste which outlines the costs of various representative leachate treatment
inputs and legislative edicts. A synergy of suitable treatment technologies, underscores the financial strain on waste management
modalities—such as UASB, MBR, NF, and RO—complements the facilities (Gerald et al., 1998; Randall and Ubay Cokgor, 2000;
specific leachate profile, ensuring that downstream processing is Mahamuni and Adewuyi, 2010; Ju-Chang Huang, 2017; Ighalo
primed for optimal treatment (Huang et al., 2024). Operational et al., 2022; Pérez et al., 2022; Kurniawan et al., 2023). Moreover,
parameters like retention time, aeration rate, and chemical the costs are not merely limited to initial capital outlays but extend to
dosing are meticulously fine-tuned to bolster the removal of operational expenses that accumulate over the system’s lifecycle
pollutants, and real-time monitoring systems are deployed for (Abdelfattah and El-Shamy, 2024). As such, the economic challenges
on-the-fly adjustments. The model’s sophistication extends to of landfill leachate treatment call for innovative approaches to
embodying resource recovery, advocating for repurposing reduce costs while maintaining treatment efficacy.
byproducts like biogas into energy and advocating for the Operationally, the treatment of landfill leachate is fraught with
reuse of treated water. difficulties due to the high variability of leachate quality. This
The modeling facet delves into the assimilation of variability is influenced by factors such as seasonal changes,
comprehensive data, which informs the simulation of the waste composition, and the age of the landfill, all of which affect
system’s multifaceted treatment dynamics through advanced the concentration and types of pollutants present in the leachate.
mathematical constructs (Ergene et al., 2022). These models are The dynamic nature of leachate composition requires continuous
enriched with predictive analytics and scenario simulations, monitoring and adjustment of treatment processes to ensure
courtesy of machine learning algorithms, paving the way for a consistent performance (Upadhyay et al., 2023). Operators must
thorough understanding of potential operational outcomes. continuously monitor and adjust treatment processes, requiring
Validation through empirical data ensures the model’s fidelity, skilled personnel and sophisticated control systems. The potential
while optimization algorithms distill the operational sweet spot for system failure or suboptimal performance poses significant
that marries environmental efficacy with economic prudence environmental risks, including groundwater contamination and
(Podlasek, 2023). This ongoing, iterative process is honed by non-compliance with discharge regulations, leading to potential
real-world performance feedback and shifting regulatory fines and reputational damage. Addressing these operational
frameworks, propelling landfill leachate treatment toward challenges requires a holistic approach that integrates cost-
unparalleled operational finesse. effective treatment technologies with operational efficiency and

TABLE 11 Costs of representative leachate treatment technologies (Gerald organic pollutants and altering the microbial community structure
et al., 1998; Randall and Ubay Cokgor, 2000; Mahamuni and Adewuyi, 2010;
Huang, 2017; Ighalo et al., 2022; Pérez et al., 2022; Kurniawan et al., 2023). (Aragaw, 2021). For example, antibiotics in wastewater can inhibit
the growth of bacteria critical to the biological treatment processes,
Treatment method Approximate cost (/m³ of treated leading to a decrease in overall treatment efficiency (Zhu et al.,
wastewater)
2021). Moreover, some ECs can form complex compounds with
Adsorption 0.038–51,120 USD other elements in the wastewater, making them more difficult to
The main cost is depended on the adsorbent remove and requiring additional treatment stages or more
Adsorbent Cost Performance:
- Very cheap: <1 $/mol chemical species advanced treatment technologies (Shahid et al., 2021). Notably,
- Most adsorbents: 1–200 $/mol chemical species based on the environmental risks and regulatory status of
- Very expensive: >200 $/mol chemical species chemicals, and following technical feasibility and socioeconomic
Air-stripping 0.0134 USD assessments, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China
published the latest list of key controlled emerging contaminants
Reverse osmosis 0.5 USD
in 2023 (Table 12) (China, 2022). The newly listed contaminants
Biological nutrient removal 0.615USD are now subject to environmental risk management measures,
Ultrafiltration 0.69 USD
including those related to their manufacture, use, import, or
export. Some contaminants have transition periods or
Advanced oxidation US/UV/O3: 23.717 USDUS/UV/H2O2: exemptions. This initiative highlights the government’s
processes 17.216 USDUS/UV: 6.821 USD
commitment to addressing emerging contaminants and urges
relevant departments to take action to prevent environmental
environmental stewardship (Kundariya et al., 2021). The and public health risks. For landfill leachate treatment, the
development of more energy-efficient membrane technologies or presence of these new pollutants complicates the process, often
the adoption of natural treatment solutions, such as constructed requiring upgrades or advanced technologies to effectively manage
wetlands, offers promising avenues for reducing operational them. Proactively addressing these contaminants can improve
difficulties and associated costs (Kataki et al., 2021). For instance, treatment efficiency and reduce environmental contamination
the development of more energy-efficient membrane technologies risks. It is worth mentioning that, Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
or the adoption of natural treatment solutions, such as constructed substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals widely used for their
wetlands, offers promising avenues for reducing operational water- and grease-resistant properties, found in various consumer
difficulties and associated costs. Moreover, embracing circular products and industrial applications (Venkatesh Reddy et al.,
economy principles, where treated leachate is reused for 2024). Their strong carbon-fluorine bonds make them highly
industrial or agricultural purposes, can help mitigate operational persistent and resistant to conventional water treatment
challenges while contributing to sustainability goals. (Bakan et al., methods, posing significant challenges for removal (Jin et al.,
2022; Das et al., 2023). 2021). Traditional processes like coagulation, sedimentation,
The emergence of new contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, and standard filtration are largely ineffective against PFAS,
personal care products, microplastics, and other micropollutants, necessitating the use of advanced technologies (Nguyen and Le
presents a significant challenge to traditional wastewater and Tran, 2024). Methods such as granular activated carbon
landfill leachate treatment systems (Kumar et al., 2023). These adsorption, ion exchange, and high-pressure membrane
substances, often called emerging contaminants (ECs), have filtration (nanofiltration and reverse osmosis) show varying
become a focal point for environmental scientists and engineers degrees of success but often involve high operational costs and
due to their potential to bypass conventional treatment processes complex waste management (Lee et al., 2022). Emerging
and enter the aquatic environment, posing risks to wildlife and technologies like electrochemical treatment, plasma-based
human health (Ahmed et al., 2021; Morin-Crini et al., 2021). processes, and combined treatment approaches offer potential
Traditional wastewater and landfill leachate treatment systems but require further development and investment (Blotevogel
were designed to remove organic matter, nutrients, and major et al., 2023). The inclusion of PFAS-specific treatments
pollutants (Lindamulla et al., 2022). However, these systems often increases operational complexity and costs for water treatment
lack the specificity to capture and degrade ECs effectively, many of facilities, which must adapt to stringent regulatory standards.
which are designed to be biologically active and resistant to Research continues to focus on more efficient and cost-effective
degradation (Teng and Chen, 2023). Pharmaceuticals, for removal technologies to address the persistent nature of PFAS and
example, are engineered to resist metabolic breakdown to protect public health and the environment.
ensure their efficacy, making them persistent in the The impact of emerging contaminants on the efficiency of
environment (González-González et al., 2022). Microplastics, wastewater and landfill leachate treatment systems presents a
conversely, are resistant to biodegradation due to their synthetic complex challenge that requires immediate and sustained
polymer composition, accumulating in water bodies and attention. While these contaminants pose significant
potentially entering the food chain (Huang et al., 2021). The environmental and public health risks, they also provide an
presence of ECs in water and leachate streams can significantly impetus for innovation in treatment technologies and strategies.
reduce the treatment efficiency of these systems (Rout et al., Addressing this challenge will require a combination of
2021b). Certain contaminants can inhibit microbial activity in technological advancement, regulatory action, public education,
biological treatment processes, reducing the degradation rate of and international cooperation to ensure the safety and

TABLE 12 2023 List of Key Controlled New Pollutants posted by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (China, 2022).
No. New pollutant name CAS no. Main environmental risk control measures
1 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and its salts and perfluorooctane 1763–23–1 1. Prohibit production.
sulfonyl fluoride 307–35–7 2. Prohibit processing and use (except for certain uses such as firefighting
2795–39–3 foam until 31 Dec 2023).
29,457–72–5 3. Conduct mandatory clean production audits for companies using PFOS
29,081–56–9 for firefighting foam.
70,225–14–8 4. Require environmental management clearance for import/export until
56,773–42–3 1 Jan 2024.
251,099–16–8 5. Manage as hazardous waste if no longer in use or declared as waste
6. Establish soil pollution prevention measures for enterprises involving
PFOS.
2 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its salts and related compounds — 1. Prohibit new production facilities.
2. Prohibit production and use (except for certain uses in semiconductor
manufacturing, photography coatings, protective textiles, invasive
medical devices, and other specified uses).
3. Conduct mandatory clean production audits for companies using
PFOA.
4. Require environmental management clearance for import/export.
5. Manage as hazardous waste if no longer in use or declared as waste
PFOA.
3 Decabromodiphenyl ether 1163–19–5 1. Prohibit production and use (except for certain uses in textiles, plastic
casings, polyurethane foam until 31 Dec 2023).
2. Conduct mandatory clean production audits for companies using
decabromodiphenyl ether.
3. Require environmental management clearance for import/export until
1 Jan 2024.
decabromodiphenyl ether
4 Short-chain chlorinated paraffins 85,535–84–8 1. Prohibit production and use (except for certain uses in rubber, leather,
68,920–70–7 lubricants, decorative lights, paints, adhesives, metal processing, and
71,011–12–6 flexible PVC until 31 Dec 2023).
85,536–22–7 2. Conduct mandatory clean production audits for companies using short-
85,681–73–8 chain chlorinated paraffins.
108,171–26–2 3. Require environmental management clearance for import/export until
1 Jan 2024.
short-chain chlorinated paraffins
5 Hexachlorobutadiene 87–68–3 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export.

2. Ensure compliance with emission standards for related enterprises.
hexachlorobutadiene
6 Pentachlorophenol and its salts and esters 87–86–5 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export
131–52–2 2. Manage as hazardous waste if no longer in use or declared as waste
27,735–64–4 3. Establish soil pollution prevention measures for enterprises involving
3772–94–9 pentachlorophenol
1825–21–4
7 Trifluralin 115–32–2 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export.

8 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and its salts and related compounds — 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export.
9 Dechlorane Plus and its isomers 13,560–89–9 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export from 1 Jan 2024
135,821–74–8
10 Dichloromethane 75–09–2 1. Prohibit production of paint removers containing dichloromethane

2. Prohibit use in cosmetics
3. Ensure compliance with volatile organic compounds content limits and
emission standards.
4. Conduct regular environmental risk assessments.
dichloromethane.
6. Strictly control soil pollution risks
(Continued on following page)

TABLE 12 (Continued) 2023 List of Key Controlled New Pollutants posted by Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (China,
2022).
No. New pollutant name CAS no. Main environmental risk control measures
11 Chloroform 67–66–3 1. Prohibit production of paint removers containing chloroform
2. Ensure compliance with volatile organic compounds content limits and
emission standards.
3. Conduct regular environmental risk assessments.
chloroform.
5. Strictly control soil pollution risks
12 Nonylphenol 25,154–52–3 1. Prohibit use as pesticide adjuvants.

84,852–15–3 2. Prohibit use in the production of nonylphenol ethoxylates.
3. Prohibit use in cosmetics
13 Antibiotics — 1. Strictly enforce prescription requirements for antibacterial drugs.

2. Manage antibiotic residues as hazardous waste.
3. Ensure compliance with emission standards for pharmaceutical
industries
14 Phased-out group (hexabromocyclododecane, chlordane, mirex, — 1. Prohibit production, use, and import/export.
hexachlorobenzene, DDT, α-hexachlorocyclohexane, β- 2. Manage as hazardous waste if no longer in use or declared as waste.
hexachlorocyclohexane, lindane, endosulfan as a raw material and its 3. Strictly control soil pollution risks according to soil pollution risk
isomers, and polychlorinated biphenyls) management standards
sustainability of water resources in the face of emerging process (Ahmed et al., 2021). Research also focuses on the
environmental threats. regeneration and reuse of these materials to ensure the
sustainability of the treatment processes (Baskar et al., 2022).
Innovative approaches to regenerate spent adsorbents and
7.2 Future research catalysts, such as thermal, chemical, and ultrasonic methods, are
being studied to extend their life and reduce operational costs
Embracing the future of landfill leachate treatment demands a (Ferella, 2020). Overall, exploring new materials for adsorption
multi-faceted approach: pioneering new materials for adsorption and catalysis represents a dynamic and promising area of landfill
and catalysis, harnessing microbial genetic engineering for targeted leachate treatment, offering potential breakthroughs in efficiency,
bioremediation, and committing to process intensification for sustainability, and tackling a broader spectrum of pollutants.
enhanced efficiency. These innovative pathways herald a new era
of sustainability and effectiveness in managing complex waste 7.2.2 Microbial genetic engineering
challenges. Microbial genetic engineering stands at the forefront of
biotechnological innovations in landfill leachate treatment (Saeed
7.2.1 New materials for adsorption and catalysis et al., 2022). The natural biodegradation processes employed by
Future research in landfill leachate treatment increasingly microorganisms offer a sustainable and efficient means of removing
focuses on developing new materials for adsorption and catalysis, organic pollutants from leachate (Pisharody et al., 2022). However,
driven by the need for more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable leachate’s complex and toxic nature often limits the effectiveness of
treatment solutions. These materials are at the forefront of native microbial communities (Nimonkar et al., 2022). Genetic
addressing complex pollutants, including emerging contaminants engineering presents an opportunity to overcome these
that traditional treatment methods struggle to remove. Advanced limitations by enhancing the metabolic capabilities of
adsorbents, such as modified biochars, nanocomposites, and metal- microorganisms, enabling them to degrade a wider array of
organic frameworks (MOFs), are being explored for their high contaminants, including recalcitrant and emerging pollutants
surface area, porosity, and tunable surface chemistry, which can (Haripriyan et al., 2022). The manipulation of microbial genomes
significantly enhance the adsorption of pollutants (Zango et al., involves introducing genes responsible for producing specific
2020). For instance, biochars produced from agricultural waste can enzymes that can break down complex molecules or modifying
be engineered at the nano-scale to improve their adsorption capacity existing metabolic pathways to increase their efficiency and
for specific contaminants like pharmaceuticals and heavy metals specificity (Michalska et al., 2020). This can lead to the creation
(Bhandari et al., 2023). Catalytic materials are equally crucial for of microbial strains capable of rapid pollutant degradation, reduced
breaking down pollutants through AOPs. New photocatalysts, biomass production, and enhanced tolerance to high pollutant
including quantum dots and graphitic carbon nitride (g-C3N4), concentrations and toxic substances (Maqsood et al., 2023).
offer the potential for more efficient light absorption and Ongoing research focuses on identifying key enzymatic pathways
utilization, enabling the degradation of contaminants under for the degradation of specific contaminants, developing genetic
visible light and thus reducing energy consumption (Wang et al., tools for efficient genome editing, and integrating genetically
2020). The development of these materials aims to enhance the engineered microbes into existing treatment processes (Saravanan
efficiency and specificity of contaminant removal and minimize et al., 2022). Additionally, the ecological safety of releasing
secondary pollution and the use of harsh chemicals in the treatment genetically modified organisms into environmental treatment

systems is a critical consideration, necessitating rigorous Similarly, advanced treatment processes can recover water for
containment strategies and risk assessments. irrigation or industrial applications, contributing to water
conservation and reducing the demand for freshwater resources
7.2.3 Process enhancement (Meese et al., 2022). The recovery of energy in the form of biogas
Process intensification in landfill leachate treatment aims to enhance from the anaerobic treatment of leachate further underscores the
the efficiency and effectiveness of treatment processes by integrating and potential of these technologies to contribute to a more sustainable
optimizing physical, chemical, and biological methods. The goal is to and energy-efficient waste management system (An et al., 2023). The
achieve more with less—reducing the footprint, energy consumption, circular economy encourages a systemic view of waste management,
and operational costs of treatment systems while maximizing pollutant promoting the integration of leachate treatment technologies within
removal efficiency (Cardoso et al., 2021). This can involve the broader waste and water management systems (Smol et al., 2020).
development of novel reactor designs that facilitate enhanced contact Future technologies will likely be characterized by their ability to
between the leachate and treatment agents, using AOPs to break down integrate with other treatment and recovery processes, creating
complex organic molecules, and integrating membrane technologies for synergies that enhance overall efficiency and sustainability (Kehrein
selective pollutant removal and water recovery (Titchou et al., 2021). et al., 2020). For example, integrating leachate treatment with solid
Process intensification can leverage the synergies between different waste management processes can facilitate the co-treatment of organic
treatment modalities, such as combining adsorption processes with waste and leachate, optimizing resource recovery and minimizing
biodegradation to handle a broader range of contaminants more environmental impacts (Mishra et al., 2023).
effectively. Collectively, the influence of circular economy and sustainability
Future research directions include exploring hybrid treatment principles on the future of landfill leachate treatment technologies is
systems that integrate emerging materials for adsorption and transformative, driving innovation towards solutions that are
catalysis with genetically engineered microbial processes, effective in treating leachate and minimizing waste, recovering
developing energy-efficient AOPs, and optimizing process resources, and integrating seamlessly into a circular and
parameters through advanced modeling and control strategies. sustainable waste management framework. As these principles
The aim is to develop compact, modular treatment systems that continue to gain traction, they will undoubtedly shape the
can be easily adapted to varying leachate compositions and volumes, development of more sustainable, efficient, and integrated
ensuring robust and sustainable leachate management strategies for leachate treatment technologies, aligning waste management
the future. practices with the broader goals of environmental sustainability
and resource conservation.
7.2.4 Circular economy and sustainability in future
landfill leachate treatment
The circular economy and sustainability principles are 8 Conclusion
increasingly influencing the development and adoption of future
landfill leachate treatment technologies, steering them towards more The environmental impact of untreated leachate is significant,
environmentally friendly and resource-efficient solutions (Bandala with potential contamination of groundwater, surface water, and
et al., 2021). This shift is a response to the growing awareness of the overall ecosystem health, necessitating robust and dynamic
environmental impacts of waste management practices and the treatment solutions.
urgent need to transition towards more sustainable models of This comprehensive review of landfill leachate treatment
production and consumption. The role of circular economy technologies presents a global perspective, focusing on the
concepts in shaping future leachate treatment technologies is physicochemical properties of leachate, regulatory frameworks, and
profound, focusing on waste minimization, resource recovery, specific country examples. The study highlights the complex
and the closed-loop reuse of materials and water (Yusuf et al., 2020). composition of landfill leachate, which includes a mix of organic and
At the heart of the circular economy is reducing waste and inorganic pollutants, heavy metals, and xenobiotic compounds. The
preventing pollution (Dincă et al., 2022). Future landfill leachate review also underscores the importance of global regulatory frameworks
treatment technologies are being designed with a preventative in shaping landfill leachate management practices. International
approach, aiming to minimize the generation of leachate and its agreements, such as the Basel Convention and the Stockholm
associated contaminants at the source (Bandala et al., 2021). This Convention, along with national regulations from countries like the
can be achieved through better landfill design, including United States, China, India, and Brazil, are setting standards and
impermeable liners and covers and waste pre-treatment to reduce its encouraging the adoption of advanced treatment technologies.
leachate-generating potential. By addressing the problem at its source, Key findings emphasize the evolution of conventional and
these technologies contribute to a more sustainable and less resource- advanced treatment technologies. Traditional methods such as
intensive waste management system. Another cornerstone of the physical, chemical, and biological treatments remain
circular economy is the recovery and reuse of resources, which plays fundamental. Physical methods, including sedimentation and
a significant role in shaping leachate treatment technologies (Puntillo membrane filtration, effectively remove suspended solids and
et al., 2021). Emerging technologies are not only aimed at treating larger organic molecules. Chemical treatments like coagulation-
leachate to meet environmental discharge standards but also at flocculation and advanced oxidation processes are crucial for
recovering valuable resources from it (Li and Liu, 2021). Nutrient targeting dissolved pollutants and heavy metals. Biological
recovery, for example, can transform leachate into a source of nitrogen treatments utilize microbial processes to degrade organic
and phosphorus for agricultural use (Kurniawan et al., 2021b). pollutants and are particularly effective for nutrient removal.

Advanced treatment technologies, including MBRs, NF, RO, and Author contributions
AOPs), provide higher efficiency and are essential for meeting
stringent regulatory standards. These technologies can remove a JW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis,
broader range of contaminants, including emerging pollutants such Resources, Software, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and
as pharmaceuticals and microplastics, which traditional methods editing. ZQ: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision,
may not adequately address. Economic considerations are also Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
crucial in the treatment process. The high capital and operational
costs of advanced leachate treatment systems pose significant
challenges. Technologies such as RO, NF, and MBR are effective Funding
but require substantial investment in equipment, maintenance, and
energy consumption. Addressing these economic challenges The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
necessitates the development of cost-effective, energy-efficient the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
solutions and the integrating of resource recovery practices, such
as biogas production and water reuse, to offset operational costs. A
case study from Changsha City illustrates the practical application Conflict of interest
and effectiveness of a comprehensive treatment system that
integrates various technologies. This example provides valuable The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
insights into designing integrated systems capable of meeting absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
diverse regulatory requirements and addressing complex construed as a potential conflict of interest.
environmental challenges.
In conclusion, the continuous improvement of landfill leachate
treatment technologies is vital. Adopting innovative and sustainable Publisher’s note
practices is essential to reduce the environmental footprint of
landfills. Future research should focus on developing cost- All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
effective, energy-efficient solutions and exploring emerging and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
technologies for better pollutant removal. By emphasizing a organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
global perspective and integrating multiple treatment processes, reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
this review significantly contributes to advancing sustainable claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
waste management practices and protecting environmental health. endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdelfattah, I., and El-Shamy, A. M. (2024). Review on the escalating imperative of Ahmed, M. B., Zhou, J. L., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Thomaidis, N. S., and Xu, J. (2017).
zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technology for sustainable water management and Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging
environmental resilience. J. Environ. Manag. 351, 119614. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. contaminant removal from wastewater: a critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 323,
2023.119614 274–298. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.045
Abdel-Shafy, H. I., Ibrahim, A. M., Al-Sulaiman, A. M., and Okasha, R. A. (2024). Ahmed, S. F., Mofijur, M., Nuzhat, S., Chowdhury, A. T., Rafa, N., Uddin, M. A., et al.
Landfill leachate: sources, nature, organic composition, and treatment: an (2021). Recent developments in physical, biological, chemical, and hybrid treatment
environmental overview. Ain Shams Eng. J. 15, 102293. doi:10.1016/j.asej.2023.102293 techniques for removing emerging contaminants from wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater.
416, 125912. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125912
Abujazar, M. S. S., Karaağaç, S. U., Abu Amr, S. S., Alazaiza, M. Y. D., and Bashir, M.
J. K. (2022). Recent advancement in the application of hybrid coagulants in coagulation- Al-Hazmi, H. E., Hassan, G. K., Kurniawan, T. A., Śniatała, B., Joseph, T. M., Majtacz,
flocculation of wastewater: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 345, 131133. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro. J., et al. (2024). Technological solutions to landfill management: towards recovery of
2022.131133 biomethane and carbon neutrality. J. Environ. Manag. 354, 120414. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2024.120414
Abunama, T., Moodley, T., Abualqumboz, M., Kumari, S., and Bux, F. (2021a).
Variability of leachate quality and polluting potentials in light of leachate pollution Al-Hazmi, H. E., Hassan, G. K., Maktabifard, M., Grubba, D., Majtacz, J., and
index (LPI) – a global perspective. Chemosphere 282, 131119. doi:10.1016/j. Mąkinia, J. (2022). Integrating conventional nitrogen removal with anammox in
chemosphere.2021.131119 wastewater treatment systems: microbial metabolism, sustainability and challenges.
Environ. Res. 215, 114432. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114432
Abunama, T., Othman, F., and Nilam, T. I. T. (2021b). Comparison of landfill leachate
generation and pollution potentials in humid and semi-arid climates. Int. J. Environ. Ali, M. E. A. (2021). Nanofiltration process for enhanced treatment of RO brine
Waste Manag. 27, 79–92. doi:10.1504/ijewm.2021.111906 discharge. Membranes 11, 212. doi:10.3390/membranes11030212
Abyar, H., and Nowrouzi, M. (2023). A comprehensive framework for eco- Al-Yaqout, A., and Hamoda, M. F. (2020). Long-term temporal variations in
environmental impact evaluation of wastewater treatment plants: integrating carbon characteristics of leachates from a closed landfill in an arid region. Water, Air, and
footprint, energy footprint, toxicity, and economic assessments. J. Environ. Manag. 348, Soil Pollut. 231, 319. doi:10.1007/s11270-020-04688-7
119255. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119255
Ambaye, T. G., Vaccari, M., Van Hullebusch, E. D., Amrane, A., and Rtimi, S. (2021).
Agency, U. S. E. P. (2024). Treatment standards for hazardous wastes subject to land Mechanisms and adsorption capacities of biochar for the removal of organic and
disposal restrictions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/hw/treatment-standards- inorganic pollutants from industrial wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18,
hazardous-wastes-subject-land-disposal-restrictions. 3273–3294. doi:10.1007/s13762-020-03060-w
Ahmad, K., Ghatak, H. R., and Ahuja, S. M. (2020). A review on photocatalytic Amos, O., Abiodun, O. A., Olalekan, O., Opeodu, O. T., and Ademola, A. (2024).
remediation of environmental pollutants and H2 production through water splitting: a Investigation of efforts and problems in implementing the Basel convention on the
sustainable approach. Environ. Technol. and Innovation 19, 100893. doi:10.1016/j.eti. control of transboundary movements of wastes and their disposal in Nigeria. Asian
2020.100893 J. Geogr. Res. 7, 69–84. doi:10.9734/ajgr/2024/v7i1216
Ahmed, I. (2019). The Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements An, Z., Zhu, J., Zhang, M., Zhou, Y., Su, X., Lin, H., et al. (2023). Anaerobic membrane
of hazardous wastes and their disposal: a legal misfit in global ship recycling bioreactor for the treatment of high-strength waste/wastewater: a critical review and
jurisprudence. Wash. Int’l LJ 29, 411. update. Chem. Eng. J. 470, 144322. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2023.144322

Anandan, S., Kumar Ponnusamy, V., and Ashokkumar, M. (2020). A review on environmental remediation. Front. Microbiol. 14, 1214870. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.
hybrid techniques for the degradation of organic pollutants in aqueous environment. 1214870
Ultrason. Sonochemistry 67, 105130. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105130
Bhawan, P., and Nagar, E. A. (2020). Central pollution control board. Tech. Rep.,
Andreottola, G., and Cannas, P. (2024). in Chemical and biological characteristics of 20–21.
landfill leachate. Editor R. C. R. S. T. H. Christensen (Elsevier Applied Science), 65–88.
Blotevogel, J., Thagard, S. M., and Mahendra, S. (2023). Scaling up water treatment
Anjum, M., Anees, M., Qadeer, S., Khalid, A., Kumar, R., and Barakat, M. A. (2023). A technologies for PFAS destruction: current status and potential for fit-for-purpose
recent progress in the leachate pretreatment methods coupled with anaerobic digestion application. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 41, 100944. doi:10.1016/j.coche.2023.100944
for enhanced biogas production: feasibility, trends, and techno-economic evaluation.
Bonaparte, R., Gross Beth, A., Gupta, R., Beech John, F., Griffin Leslie, M., and Phillips
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24, 763. doi:10.3390/ijms24010763
David, K. (2024). Twenty-year performance of a mixed LLRW/RCRA waste disposal
Aragaw, T. A. (2021). Functions of various bacteria for specific pollutants degradation facility.
and their application in wastewater treatment: a review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18,
Borah, P., Kumar, M., and Devi, P. (2020). “Chapter 2 - types of inorganic pollutants:
2063–2076. doi:10.1007/s13762-020-03022-2
metals/metalloids, acids, and organic forms,” in Inorganic pollutants in water. Editors
Asif, M. B., and Zhang, Z. (2021). Ceramic membrane technology for water and P. Devi, P. Singh, and S. K. Kansal (Elsevier), 17–31.
wastewater treatment: a critical review of performance, full-scale applications,
Brennan, R. B., Healy, M. G., Morrison, L., Hynes, S., Norton, D., and Clifford, E.
membrane fouling and prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 418, 129481. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2021.
(2016). Management of landfill leachate: the legacy of European Union Directives.
129481
Waste Manag. 55, 355–363. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.010
Ateş, H., and Argun, M. E. (2021). Advanced oxidation of landfill leachate: removal of
Britz, T. J. (2020). “Landfill leachate treatment,” in Microbiology of landfill sites (Boca
micropollutants and identification of by-products. J. Hazard. Mater. 413, 125326.
Raton, FL: CRC Press), 131–164. doi:10.1201/9780367813475-5
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125326
Bunce, J. T., Ndam, E., Ofiteru, I. D., Moore, A., and Graham, D. W. (2018). A review
Awewomom, J., Dzeble, F., Takyi, Y. D., Ashie, W. B., Ettey, E. N. Y. O., Afua, P. E.,
of phosphorus removal technologies and their applicability to small-scale domestic
et al. (2024). Addressing global environmental pollution using environmental control
wastewater treatment systems. Front. Environ. Sci. 6. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2018.00008
techniques: a focus on environmental policy and preventive environmental
management. Discov. Environ. 2, 8. doi:10.1007/s44274-024-00033-5 Cano, V., Vich, D. V., Andrade, H. H. B., Salinas, D. T. P., and Nolasco, M. A. (2020).
Nitrification in multistage horizontal flow treatment wetlands for landfill leachate
Aziz, H. A., Zahari, M. S. M., Ahmed, Z., Ismail, S., Jaafar, I., Yusoff, M. S., et al.
treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135376. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135376
(2022). “Landfill leachate treatment,” in Solid waste engineering and management.
Editors L. K. Wang, M.-H. S. Wang, and Y.-T. Hung (Cham: Springer International Capodaglio, A. G. (2017). Integrated, decentralized wastewater management for
Publishing), 3, 435–548. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96989-9_8 resource recovery in rural and peri-urban areas. Resources 6, 22. doi:10.3390/
resources6020022
Aziz, K. H. H., Mustafa, F. S., Omer, K. M., Hama, S., Hamarawf, R. F., and Rahman,
K. O. (2023). Heavy metal pollution in the aquatic environment: efficient and low-cost Cardoso, B. J., Rodrigues, E., Gaspar, A. R., and Gomes, Á. (2021). Energy
removal approaches to eliminate their toxicity: a review. RSC Adv. 13, 17595–17610. performance factors in wastewater treatment plants: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 322,
doi:10.1039/d3ra00723e 129107. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129107
Babaei, S., Sabour, M. R., and Moftakhari Anasori Movahed, S. (2021). Combined Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Ulmanu, M., Anger, I., and Marañón, E. (2010).
landfill leachate treatment methods: an overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, Physico-chemical and biological treatment of MSW landfill leachate. Waste Manag. 30,
59594–59607. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-16358-0 228–235. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.013
Babuponnusami, A., and Muthukumar, K. (2014). A review on Fenton and Castro-Muñoz, R. (2020). The strategy of nanomaterials in polymeric membranes for
improvements to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. water treatment: nanocomposite membranes. Tecnol. ciencias del agua 11, 410–436.
Eng. 2, 557–572. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2013.10.011 doi:10.24850/j-tyca-2020-01-11
Bakan, B., Bernet, N., Bouchez, T., Boutrou, R., Choubert, J.-M., Dabert, P., et al. Chand, N., Kumar, K., and Suthar, S. (2022). Enhanced wastewater nutrients removal
(2022). Circular economy applied to organic residues and wastewater: research in vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland: effect of biochar addition and tidal flow
challenges. Waste Biomass Valorization 13, 1267–1276. doi:10.1007/s12649-021- operation. Chemosphere 286, 131742. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131742
01549-0
Chen, H., Rose, M., Fleming, M., Souizi, S., Shashvatt, U., and Blaney, L. (2023). Recent
Bakhshoodeh, R., Alavi, N., Oldham, C., Santos, R. M., Babaei, A. A., Vymazal, J., et al. advances in Donnan dialysis processes for water/wastewater treatment and resource recovery: a
(2020). Constructed wetlands for landfill leachate treatment: a review. Ecol. Eng. 146, critical review. Chem. Eng. J. 455, 140522. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2022.140522
105725. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105725
Chen, H., Xu, H., Zhong, C., Liu, M., Yang, L., He, J., et al. (2024). Treatment of
Bandala, E. R., Liu, A., Wijesiri, B., Zeidman, A. B., and Goonetilleke, A. (2021). landfill leachate by coagulation: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 912, 169294. doi:10.1016/j.
Emerging materials and technologies for landfill leachate treatment: a critical review. scitotenv.2023.169294
Environ. Pollut. 291, 118133. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118133
Chen, W., Gu, Z., Ran, G., and Li, Q. (2021). Application of membrane separation
Bashir, M. J. K., Ibrahim, N., Ismail, M. N., and Jaya, M. A. (2016). Physical treatment technology in the treatment of leachate in China: a review. Waste Manag. 121, 127–140.
technologies for landfill leachate: performance and limitation, in Control and Treatment doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.12.002
of Landfill Leachate for Sanitary Waste Disposal. H. Aziz & S. Amr (Eds.), IGI Glob.,
Cherni, Y., Elleuch, L., Messaoud, M., Kasmi, M., Chatti, A., and Trabelsi, I. (2021).
250–285. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9610-5.ch011
Recent technologies for leachate treatment: a review. Euro-Mediterranean J. Environ.
Baskar, A. V., Bolan, N., Hoang, S. A., Sooriyakumar, P., Kumar, M., Singh, L., et al. Integration 6, 79. doi:10.1007/s41207-021-00286-z
(2022). Recovery, regeneration and sustainable management of spent adsorbents from
China, M. (2022). 2023 list of key controlled new pollutants. Available at: https://
wastewater treatment streams: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 822, 153555. doi:10.1016/j.
www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk02/202212/t20221230_1009167.html.
scitotenv.2022.153555
Chrispim, M. C., Scholz, M., and Nolasco, M. A. (2021). Biogas recovery for
Benassi, J. C., Sánchez, A. a.C., Da Costa, S. A., and Da Costa, S. M. (2021). Evaluation
sustainable cities: a critical review of enhancement techniques and key local
of color removal efficiencies and kinetic parameters of Fenton (H2O2/Fe2+) and photo-
conditions for implementation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 72, 103033. doi:10.1016/j.scs.
Fenton (H2O2/Fe2+/UV) processes in the treatment of a textile wastewater containing
2021.103033
indigo blue/Avaliação da eficiência de remoção de cor e parâmetros cinéticos dos
processos de Fenton (H2O2/Fe2+) e foto-Fenton (H2O2/Fe2+/UV) no tratamento de Clark, B., Sharma, N., Apraku, E., Dong, H., and Tarpeh, W. A. (2024). Ligand
um efluente têxtil contendo corante azul índigo. Braz. J. Dev. 7, 102327–102347. doi:10. exchange adsorbents for selective phosphate and total ammonia nitrogen recovery from
34117/bjdv7n11-044 wastewaters. Accounts Mater. Res. 5, 492–504. doi:10.1021/accountsmr.3c00290
Bergesen, H. O., Parmann, G., and Thommessen, Ø. B. (2018). “Convention on the Daniel, A. N., Ekeleme, I. K., Onuigbo, C. M., Ikpeazu, V. O., and Obiekezie, S. O.
control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (Basel (2021). Review on effect of dumpsite leachate to the environmental and public health
convention),” in Year book of international Co-operation on environment and implication. GSC Adv. Res. Rev. 7, 051–060. doi:10.30574/gscarr.2021.7.2.0097
development (Oxfordshire: Routledge), 87–89. doi:10.4324/9781315066547-15
Das, S., Singh, C. K., Sodhi, K. K., and Singh, V. K. (2023). Circular economy
Bhambore, N., and Suresh Kumar, M. (2022). Municipal solid waste generation, approaches for water reuse and emerging contaminant mitigation: innovations in water
management scenarios, and leachate treatment using sequencing batch biofilter treatment. Environ. Dev. Sustain. doi:10.1007/s10668-023-04183-z
granular reactor. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 167, 454–468. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2022.
Da Silva, S. W., Welter, J. B., Albornoz, L. L., Heberle, A. N. A., Ferreira, J. Z., and
09.027
Bernardes, A. M. (2021). Advanced electrochemical oxidation processes in the
Bhambri, A., and Karn, S. K. (2020). Biotechnique for nitrogen and phosphorus treatment of pharmaceutical containing water and wastewater: a review. Curr.
removal: a possible insight. Chem. Ecol. 36, 785–809. doi:10.1080/02757540.2020. Pollut. Rep. 7, 146–159. doi:10.1007/s40726-021-00176-6
1777991
Dave, D., Sarma, S., Parmar, P., Shukla, A., Goswami, D., Shukla, A., et al. (2020).
Bhandari, G., Gangola, S., Dhasmana, A., Rajput, V., Gupta, S., Malik, S., et al. (2023). Microbes as a boon for the bane of heavy metals. Environ. Sustain. 3, 233–255. doi:10.
Nano-biochar: recent progress, challenges, and opportunities for sustainable 1007/s42398-020-00112-2

De, S., Hazra, T., and Dutta, A. (2019a). Sustainable treatment of municipal landfill Fitch, A., Balderas-Hernandez, P., and Ibanez, J. G. (2022). Electrochemical
leachate by combined association of air stripping, Fenton oxidation, and enhanced technologies combined with physical, biological, and chemical processes for the
coagulation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 49. doi:10.1007/s10661-018-7171-8 treatment of pollutants and wastes: a review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 107810.
doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.107810
De, S., Hazra, T., and Dutta, A. (2019b). Treatment of landfill leachate by integrated
sequence of air stripping, coagulation–flocculation and adsorption. Environ. Dev. Fu, F., and Wang, Q. (2011). Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewaters: a review.
Sustain. 21, 657–677. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-0053-3 J. Environ. Manag. 92, 407–418. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.011
De, S., Hazra, T., and Dutta, A. (2022). Application of integrated sequence of air Galavote, T., Cerqueira, A. F., Alves, R. B., Ramalho, J. C. M., Yamane, L. H., and
stripping, coagulation flocculation, electrocoagulation and adsorption for sustainable Siman, R. R. (2022). Energy recovery technologies from municipal solid waste:
treatment of municipal landfill leachate. Clean. Waste Syst. 3, 100033. doi:10.1016/j. enhancing Solid Waste Brazilian Policy. Rev. Bras.28. doi:10.47168/rbe.v28i1.652
clwas.2022.100033
Galinha, C. F., Sanches, S., and Crespo, J. G. (2018). “Chapter 6 - membrane
De Almeida, R., De Souza Couto, J. M., Gouvea, R. M., De Almeida Oroski, F., Bila, D. bioreactors,” in Fundamental modelling of membrane systems. Editor P. Luis
M., Quintaes, B. R., et al. (2020). Nanofiltration applied to the landfill leachate treatment (Elsevier), 209–249.
and preliminary cost estimation. Waste Manag. Res. 38, 1119–1128. doi:10.1177/
Gas, N. (2017). National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES). Springer.
0734242x20933333
Gerald, W., Foess, P. S., Williams, K., and Garrett, G. S. (1998). Cost and performance
Deng, L., Guo, W., Ngo, H. H., Zhang, X., Chen, C., Chen, Z., et al. (2022). Recent
evaluation of BNR processes. Fla. WATER Resour. J.
advances in attached growth membrane bioreactor systems for wastewater treatment.
Sci. Total Environ. 808, 152123. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152123 Golwala, H., Saha, B., Zhang, X., Bolyard, S. C., He, Z., Novak, J. T., et al. (2022).
Advancement and challenges in municipal landfill leachate treatment–the path forward.
Deng, S., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., You, N., and Peng, S. (2023). “Chapter 15 - biological
ACS ES&T Water 2, 1289–1300. doi:10.1021/acsestwater.2c00216
nutrient recovery from wastewater for circular economy,” in Current developments in
biotechnology and bioengineering. Editors G. Mannina, A. Pandey, and R. Sirohi González-González, R. B., Sharma, P., Singh, S. P., Américo-Pinheiro, J. H. P., Parra-
(Elsevier), 355–412. Saldívar, R., Bilal, M., et al. (2022). Persistence, environmental hazards, and mitigation
of pharmaceutically active residual contaminants from water matrices. Sci. Total
Deng, Y., Zhu, X., Chen, N., Feng, C., Wang, H., Kuang, P., et al. (2020). Review on
Environ. 821, 153329. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153329
electrochemical system for landfill leachate treatment: performance, mechanism,
application, shortcoming, and improvement scheme. Sci. Total Environ. 745, Gopinath, K. P., Madhav, N. V., Krishnan, A., Malolan, R., and Rangarajan, G. (2020).
140768. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140768 Present applications of titanium dioxide for the photocatalytic removal of pollutants
from water: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 270, 110906. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.
De Oliveira, M., Frihling, B. E. F., Velasques, J., Filho, F. J. C. M., Cavalheri, P. S., and
110906
Migliolo, L. (2020). Pharmaceuticals residues and xenobiotics contaminants:
occurrence, analytical techniques and sustainable alternatives for wastewater Gusain, R., Kumar, N., and Ray, S. S. (2020). Factors influencing the photocatalytic
treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135568. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135568 activity of photocatalysts in wastewater treatment. Photocatal. Adv. Oxid. Process.
wastewater Treat., 229–270. doi:10.1002/9781119631422.ch8
Dereli, R. K., Clifford, E., and Casey, E. (2021). Co-treatment of leachate in municipal
wastewater treatment plants: critical issues and emerging technologies. Crit. Rev. Hai, F. I., Riley, T., Shawkat, S., Magram, S. F., and Yamamoto, K. (2014). Removal of
Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 1079–1128. doi:10.1080/10643389.2020.1745014 pathogens by membrane bioreactors: a review of the mechanisms, influencing factors
and reduction in chemical disinfectant dosing. Water 6, 3603–3630. doi:10.3390/
Dignac, M. F., Ginestet, P., Rybacki, D., Bruchet, A., Urbain, V., and Scribe, P. (2000).
w6123603
Fate of wastewater organic pollution during activated sludge treatment: nature of
residual organic matter. Water Res. 34, 4185–4194. doi:10.1016/s0043-1354(00)00195-0 Han, M., Duan, X., Cao, G., Zhu, S., and Ho, S.-H. (2020). Graphitic nitride-catalyzed
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for landfill leachate treatment: a mini review.
Dincă, G., Milan, A.-A., Andronic, M. L., Pasztori, A.-M., and Dincă, D. (2022). Does
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 139, 230–240. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.04.046
circular economy contribute to smart cities’ sustainable development? Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 19, 7627. doi:10.3390/ijerph19137627 Haripriyan, U., Gopinath, K. P., Arun, J., and Govarthanan, M. (2022).
Bioremediation of organic pollutants: a mini review on current and critical
Directive, W. F. (2003). Common implementation strategy for the water framework
strategies for wastewater treatment. Archives Microbiol. 204, 286. doi:10.1007/
directive (2000/60/EC). Guid. Doc. 7.
s00203-022-02907-9
Dogaris, I., Ammar, E., and Philippidis, G. P. (2020). Prospects of integrating algae
Hasan, M. N., Altaf, M. M., Khan, N. A., Khan, A. H., Khan, A. A., Ahmed, S., et al.
technologies into landfill leachate treatment. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36, 39.
(2021). Recent technologies for nutrient removal and recovery from wastewaters: a
doi:10.1007/s11274-020-2810-y
review. Chemosphere 277, 130328. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130328
Ekins, P., and Zenghelis, D. (2021). The costs and benefits of environmental
Hassan, I., Chowdhury, S. R., Prihartato, P. K., and Razzak, S. A. (2021). Wastewater
sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 16, 949–965. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00910-5
treatment using constructed wetland: current trends and future potential. Processes 9,
El Batouti, M., Al-Harby, N. F., and Elewa, M. M. (2021). A review on promising 1917. doi:10.3390/pr9111917
membrane technology approaches for heavy metal removal from water and wastewater
Haydar, S., Aziz, J. A., and Ahmad, M. S. (2007). Biological treatment of tannery
to solve water crisis. Water 13, 3241. doi:10.3390/w13223241
wastewater using activated sludge process. Pak. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 1, 61–66.
El Batouti, M., Alharby, N. F., and Elewa, M. M. (2022). Review of new approaches for
Hinds, R. D. (2022). “Summary and analysis of the resource conservation and
fouling mitigation in membrane separation processes in water treatment applications.
recovery Act of 1976, as amended,” in Hazardous waste management (Boca Raton,
Separations 9, 1. doi:10.3390/separations9010001
FL: CRC Press), 79–97. doi:10.1201/9780429291050-5
El-Saadony, M. T., Saad, A. M., El-Wafai, N. A., Abou-Aly, H. E., Salem, H. M.,
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., O’connor, D., Hu, Q., Zhu, Y.-G., Wang, L., et al. (2023).
Soliman, S. M., et al. (2023). Hazardous wastes and management strategies of landfill
Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Nat. Rev. Earth and
leachates: a comprehensive review. Environ. Technol. and Innovation 31, 103150. doi:10.
Environ. 4, 271–286. doi:10.1038/s43017-023-00404-1
1016/j.eti.2023.103150
Huang, W., Song, B., Liang, J., Niu, Q., Zeng, G., Shen, M., et al. (2021). Microplastics
Ergene, D., Aksoy, A., and Dilek Sanin, F. (2022). Comprehensive analysis and
and associated contaminants in the aquatic environment: a review on their
modeling of landfill leachate. Waste Manag. 145, 48–59. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2022.
ecotoxicological effects, trophic transfer, and potential impacts to human health.
04.030
J. Hazard. Mater. 405, 124187. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124187
Essien, J. P., Ikpe, D. I., Inam, E. D., Okon, A. O., Ebong, G. A., and Benson, N. U.
Huang, Y., Jeffrey, P., and Pidou, M. (2024). Municipal wastewater treatment with
(2022). Occurrence and spatial distribution of heavy metals in landfill leachates and
anaerobic membrane Bioreactors for non-potable reuse: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
impacted freshwater ecosystem: an environmental and human health threat. PLOS ONE
Technol. 54, 817–839. doi:10.1080/10643389.2023.2279886
17, e0263279. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263279
Hudiburgh, G. W. (2020). “The clean water Act,” in Fundamentals of aquatic
Fan, G., Li, Z., Yan, Z., Wei, Z., Xiao, Y., Chen, S., et al. (2020). Operating parameters
toxicology (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 717–733. doi:10.1201/9781003075363-28
optimization of combined UF/NF dual-membrane process for brackish water treatment
and its application performance in municipal drinking water treatment plant. J. Water Hussain, K., Khan, N. A., Vambol, V., Vambol, S., Yeremenko, S., and Sydorenko, V.
Process Eng. 38, 101547. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101547 (2022). Advancement in Ozone base wastewater treatment technologies: brief review.
Ecol. Quest. 33, 1–23. doi:10.12775/eq.2022.010
Fang, D., Wang, J., Cui, D., Dong, X., Tang, C., Zhang, L., et al. (2021). Recent
advances of landfill leachate treatment. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 101, 685–724. doi:10.1007/ Hussein, M., Yoneda, K., Mohd-Zaki, Z., Amir, A., and Othman, N. (2021). Heavy
s41745-021-00262-0 metals in leachate, impacted soils and natural soils of different landfills in Malaysia: an
alarming threat. Chemosphere 267, 128874. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128874
Ferella, F. (2020). A review on management and recycling of spent selective catalytic
reduction catalysts. J. Clean. Prod. 246, 118990. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118990 Iervolino, G., Zammit, I., Vaiano, V., and Rizzo, L. (2020). “Limitations and prospects
for wastewater treatment by UV and visible-light-active heterogeneous photocatalysis: a
Feria-Díaz, J. J., Correa-Mahecha, F., López-Méndez, M. C., Rodríguez-Miranda, J. P.,
critical review,” in Heterogeneous photocatalysis: recent advances. Editors M. J. Muñoz-
and Barrera-Rojas, J. (2021). Recent desalination technologies by hybridization and
Batista, A. Navarrete Muñoz, and R. Luque (Cham: Springer International Publishing),
integration with reverse osmosis: a review. Water 13, 1369. doi:10.3390/w13101369
225–264.

Ighalo, J. O., Omoarukhe, F. O., Ojukwu, V. E., Iwuozor, K. O., and Igwegbe, C. A. Kurniawan, T. A., Singh, D., Xue, W., Avtar, R., Othman, M. H. D., Hwang, G. H.,
(2022). Cost of adsorbent preparation and usage in wastewater treatment: a review. et al. (2021b). Resource recovery toward sustainability through nutrient removal from
Clean. Chem. Eng. 3, 100042. doi:10.1016/j.clce.2022.100042 landfill leachate. J. Environ. Manag. 287, 112265. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112265
Ilmasari, D., Kamyab, H., Yuzir, A., Riyadi, F. A., Khademi, T., Al-Qaim, F. F., et al. Kyriakopoulos, G. L. (2021). “The effect of immediate treatment for water quality:
(2022). A review of the biological treatment of leachate: available technologies and policies and protection perspectives,” in Chemical Lake restoration: technologies,
future requirements for the circular economy implementation. Biochem. Eng. J. 187, innovations and economic perspectives. Editors M. G. Zamparas and
108605. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2022.108605 G. L. Kyriakopoulos (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 49–67.
Japperi, N. S., Mohd Asri, Z. Z., Wan Bakar, W. Z., Dollah, A., Ahmad Fuad, M. F. I., Lee, T., Speth, T. F., and Nadagouda, M. N. (2022). High-pressure membrane
and Che Mohamed Hussein, S. N. (2021). Review on landfill gas formation from filtration processes for separation of Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
leachate biodegradation. Malays. J. Chem. Eng. Technol. (MJCET) 4, 39–49. doi:10. Chem. Eng. J. 431, 134023. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2021.134023
24191/mjcet.v4i1.12719
Li, H., and Liu, H. (2021). Treatment and recovery methods for leachate concentrate
Jin, T., Peydayesh, M., and Mezzenga, R. (2021). Membrane-based technologies for from landfill and incineration: a state-of-the-art review. J. Clean. Prod. 329, 129720.
per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) removal from water: removal doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129720
mechanisms, applications, challenges and perspectives. Environ. Int. 157, 106876.
Li, Y., Tang, F., Xu, D., and Xie, B. (2021). Advances in biological nitrogen removal of
doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106876
landfill leachate. Sustainability 13, 6236. doi:10.3390/su13116236
Ju-Chang Huang, C. S. (2017). Handbook of environemtnal engineering air stripping.
Lin, X., Ma, Y., Chen, T., Wang, L., Takaoka, M., Pan, S., et al. (2022). PCDD/Fs and
Kabuba, J., Lephallo, J., and Rutto, H. (2022). Comparison of various technologies heavy metals in the vicinity of landfill used for MSWI fly ash disposal: pollutant
used to eliminate nitrogen from wastewater: a review. J. Water Process Eng. 48, 102885. distribution and environmental impact assessment. Environ. Pollut. 312, 120083. doi:10.
doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102885 1016/j.envpol.2022.120083
Kamaruddin, M. A., Yusoff, M. S., Rui, L. M., Isa, A. M., Zawawi, M. H., and Alrozi, R. Lindamulla, L., Nanayakkara, N., Othman, M., Jinadasa, S., Herath, G., and
(2017). An overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill leachate Jegatheesan, V. (2022). Municipal solid waste landfill leachate characteristics and
treatment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, their treatment options in tropical countries. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 8, 273–287. doi:10.
26988–27020. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0303-9 1007/s40726-022-00222-x
Kataki, S., Chatterjee, S., Vairale, M. G., Sharma, S., Dwivedi, S. K., and Gupta, D. K. Liu, J., Gu, Z., Wang, X., and Li, Q. (2022a). The molecular differences of young and
(2021). Constructed wetland, an eco-technology for wastewater treatment: a review on mature landfill leachates: molecular composition, chemical property, and structural
various aspects of microbial fuel cell integration, low temperature strategies and life characteristic. Chemosphere 287, 132215. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132215
cycle impact of the technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 148, 111261. doi:10.1016/j.
Liu, Q., Wang, X., Gao, M., Guan, Y., Wu, C., Wang, Q., et al. (2022b). Heavy metal
rser.2021.111261
leaching behaviour and long-term environmental risk assessment of cement-solidified
Kefeni, K. K., and Mamba, B. B. (2020). Photocatalytic application of spinel ferrite municipal solid waste incineration fly ash in sanitary landfill. Chemosphere 300, 134571.
nanoparticles and nanocomposites in wastewater treatment: review. Sustain. Mater. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134571
Technol. 23, e00140. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2019.e00140
Liu, Y., Wang, H., Cui, Y., and Chen, N. (2023). Removal of copper ions from
Kehrein, P., Van Loosdrecht, M., Osseweijer, P., Garfí, M., Dewulf, J., and Posada, J. wastewater: a review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 3885. doi:10.3390/
(2020). A critical review of resource recovery from municipal wastewater treatment ijerph20053885
plants–market supply potentials, technologies and bottlenecks. Environ. Sci. Water Res.
Liu, Y., Yuan, Y., Wang, Y., Ngo, H. H., and Wang, J. (2024). Research and application
and Technol. 6, 877–910. doi:10.1039/c9ew00905a
of active species based on high-valent iron for the degradation of pollutants: a critical
Keyikoglu, R., Karatas, O., Rezania, H., Kobya, M., Vatanpour, V., and Khataee, A. review. Sci. Total Environ. 924, 171430. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171430
(2021). A review on treatment of membrane concentrates generated from landfill
Liu, Y., Zhao, Y., and Wang, J. (2021). Fenton/Fenton-like processes with in-situ
leachate treatment processes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 259, 118182. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.
production of hydrogen peroxide/hydroxyl radical for degradation of emerging
2020.118182
contaminants: advances and prospects. J. Hazard. Mater. 404, 124191. doi:10.1016/j.
Khasawneh, O. F. S., Palaniandy, P., Kamaruddin, M. A., Aziz, H. A., and Hung, Y.-T. jhazmat.2020.124191
(2022). “Landfill leachate collection and characterization,” in Solid waste engineering
Loh, Z. Z., Zaidi, N. S., Syafiuddin, A., Yong, E. L., Boopathy, R., Hong Kueh, A. B.,
and management. Editors L. K. Wang, M.-H. S. Wang, and Y.-T. Hung (Cham: Springer
et al. (2021). Shifting from conventional to organic filter media in wastewater
International Publishing), 2, 599–657. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-89336-1_9
biofiltration treatment: a review. Appl. Sci. 11, 8650. doi:10.3390/app11188650
Khoo, K. S., Tan, X., Show, P. L., Pal, P., Juan, J. C., Ling, T. C., et al. (2020). Treatment
Luo, H., Zeng, Y., Cheng, Y., He, D., and Pan, X. (2020). Recent advances in municipal
for landfill leachate via physicochemical approaches: an overview. Chem. Biochem. Eng.
landfill leachate: a review focusing on its characteristics, treatment, and toxicity
Q. 34, 1–24. doi:10.15255/cabeq.2019.1703
assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135468. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135468
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., and Christensen, T. H.
Ma, S., Zhou, C., Pan, J., Yang, G., Sun, C., Liu, Y., et al. (2022). Leachate from
(2002). Present and long-term composition of msw landfill leachate: a review. Crit. Rev.
municipal solid waste landfills in a global perspective: characteristics, influential factors
Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 297–336. doi:10.1080/10643380290813462
and environmental risks. J. Clean. Prod. 333, 130234. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130234
Kulikowska, D., and Klimiuk, E. (2008). The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate
Magalhães, N. C., Silva, A. F. R., Cunha, P. V. M., Drewes, J. E., and Amaral, M. C.
composition. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 5981–5985. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.10.015
S. (2020). Role of nanofiltration or reverse osmosis integrated to ultrafiltration-
Kumar, S., Mukherjee, S., Chakrabarti, T., and Devotta, S. (2007). Hazardous waste anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating vinasse for the conservation of water and
management system in India: an overview. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 43–71. nutrients in the ethanol industry. J. Water Process Eng. 36, 101338. doi:10.1016/j.
doi:10.1080/10643380701590356 jwpe.2020.101338
Kumar, V., Sharma, N., Umesh, M., Chakraborty, P., Kaur, K., Duhan, L., et al. (2023). Mahamuni, N. N., and Adewuyi, Y. G. (2010). Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs)
Micropollutants characteristics, fate, and sustainable removal technologies for landfill involving ultrasound for waste water treatment: a review with emphasis on cost
leachate: a technical perspective. J. Water Process Eng. 53, 103649. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe. estimation. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 17, 990–1003. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2009.09.005
2023.103649
Mani, S., Chowdhary, P., and Zainith, S. (2020). 2 - microbes mediated approaches for
Kundariya, N., Mohanty, S. S., Varjani, S., Hao Ngo, H., Wong, J., Taherzadeh, M. J., et al. environmental waste management,” in Microorganisms for sustainable environment and
(2021). A review on integrated approaches for municipal solid waste for environmental and health. Editors P. Chowdhary, A. Raj, D. Verma, and Y. Akhter (Elsevier), 17–36.
economical relevance: monitoring tools, technologies, and strategic innovations. Bioresour.
Maqsood, Q., Sumrin, A., Waseem, R., Hussain, M., Imtiaz, M., and Hussain, N.
Technol. 342, 125982. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125982
(2023). Bioengineered microbial strains for detoxification of toxic environmental
Kurniawan, S. B., Ahmad, A., Imron, M. F., Abdullah, S. R. S., Hasan, H. A., Othman, pollutants. Environ. Res. 227, 115665. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.115665
A. R., et al. (2023). Performance of chemical-based vs bio-based coagulants in treating
Meese, A. F., Kim, D. J., Wu, X., Le, L., Napier, C., Hernandez, M. T., et al. (2022).
aquaculture wastewater and cost-benefit analysis. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 32, 1177–1187.
Opportunities and challenges for industrial water treatment and reuse. ACS ES&T Eng.
doi:10.15244/pjoes/156419
2, 465–488. doi:10.1021/acsestengg.1c00282
Kurniawan, T. A., Lo, W., Chan, G., and Sillanpää, M. E. T. (2010). Biological
Meng, F., Shi, B., Yang, F., and Zhang, H. (2007). Effect of hydraulic retention time on
processes for treatment of landfill leachate. J. Environ. Monit. 12, 2032–2047. doi:10.
membrane fouling and biomass characteristics in submerged membrane bioreactors.
1039/c0em00076k
Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 30, 359–367. doi:10.1007/s00449-007-0132-1
Kurniawan, T. A., Lo, W.-H., and Chan, G. Y. S. (2006). Physico-chemical treatments
Mengesha, A., and Sahu, O. (2022). Sustainability of membrane separation
for removal of recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J. Hazard. Mater. 129,
technology on groundwater reverse osmosis process. Clean. Eng. Technol. 7, 100457.
80–100. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.010
doi:10.1016/j.clet.2022.100457
Kurniawan, T. A., Singh, D., Avtar, R., Othman, M. H. D., Hwang, G. H., Albadarin,
Michalska, J., Piński, A., Żur, J., and Mrozik, A. (2020). Selecting bacteria candidates
A. B., et al. (2021a). Resource recovery from landfill leachate: an experimental
for the bioaugmentation of activated sludge to improve the aerobic treatment of landfill
investigation and perspectives. Chemosphere 274, 129986. doi:10.1016/j.
leachate. Water 12, 140. doi:10.3390/w12010140
chemosphere.2021.129986

Miklos, D. B., Remy, C., Jekel, M., Linden, K. G., Drewes, J. E., and Hübner, U. (2018). Omoto, F. O. (2014). National implementation plan for the Stockholm convention on
Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment – a persistent organic pollutants.
critical review. Water Res. 139, 118–131. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.042
Othman, N. H., Alias, N. H., Fuzil, N. S., Marpani, F., Shahruddin, M. Z., Chew, C. M.,
Mishra, S., Singh, V., Cheng, L., Hussain, A., and Ormeci, B. (2022). Nitrogen removal et al. (2022). A review on the use of membrane technology systems in developing
from wastewater: a comprehensive review of biological nitrogen removal processes, countries. Membranes 12, 30. doi:10.3390/membranes12010030
critical operation parameters and bioreactor design. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 107387.
Özdemir, A., Özkan, A., Günkaya, Z., and Banar, M. (2020). Decision-making for the
doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.107387
selection of different leachate treatment/management methods: the ANP and
Mishra, S., Singh, V., Ormeci, B., Hussain, A., Cheng, L., and Venkiteshwaran, K. PROMETHEE approaches. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 19798–19809. doi:10.1007/
(2023). Anaerobic–aerobic treatment of wastewater and leachate: a review of process s11356-020-08524-7
integration, system design, performance and associated energy revenue. J. Environ.
Pan, S.-Y., Du, M. A., Huang, I. T., Liu, I. H., Chang, E. E., and Chiang, P.-C. (2015).
Manag. 327, 116898. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116898
Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular
Mohammad, A., Singh, D. N., Podlasek, A., Osinski, P., and Koda, E. (2022). Leachate economy system: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 409–421. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.
characteristics: potential indicators for monitoring various phases of municipal solid 06.124
waste decomposition in a bioreactor landfill. J. Environ. Manag. 309, 114683. doi:10.
Pandis, P. K., Kalogirou, C., Kanellou, E., Vaitsis, C., Savvidou, M. G., Sourkouni, G.,
1016/j.jenvman.2022.114683
et al. (2022). Key points of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for wastewater,
Mojiri, A., Zhou, J. L., Ohashi, A., Ozaki, N., and Kindaichi, T. (2019). Comprehensive organic pollutants and pharmaceutical waste treatment: a mini review.
review of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water sources, their effects and ChemEngineering 6, 8. doi:10.3390/chemengineering6010008
treatments. Sci. Total Environ. 696, 133971. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133971
Patel, N., Dhasmana, A., Kumari, S., Sharma, R., Nayanam, S., and Malik, S. (2023).
Mojiri, A., Zhou, J. L., Ratnaweera, H., Ohashi, A., Ozaki, N., Kindaichi, T., et al. “Nanofiltration applications for potable water, treatment, and reuse,” in Advanced and
(2020). Treatment of landfill leachate with different techniques: an overview. Water innovative approaches of environmental biotechnology in industrial wastewater
Reuse 11, 66–96. doi:10.2166/wrd.2020.079 treatment. Editor M. P. Shah (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 135–146.
Mor, S., and Ravindra, K. (2023). Municipal solid waste landfills in lower- and Peng, Y. (2017). Perspectives on technology for landfill leachate treatment. Arabian
middle-income countries: environmental impacts, challenges and sustainable J. Chem. 10, S2567–S2574. doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.09.031
management practices. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 174, 510–530. doi:10.1016/j.psep.
Pérez, G., Gómez, P., Ortiz, I., and Urtiaga, A. (2022). Techno-economic assessment
2023.04.014
of a membrane-based wastewater reclamation process. Desalination 522, 115409.
Morin-Crini, N., Lichtfouse, E., Liu, G., Balaram, V., Ribeiro, A. R. L., Lu, Z., et al. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2021.115409
(2021). “Emerging contaminants: analysis, aquatic compartments and water pollution,”
Peters, C. D., Rantissi, T., Gitis, V., and Hankins, N. P. (2021). Retention of natural
in Emerging contaminants vol. 1: occurrence and impact. Editors N. Morin-Crini,
organic matter by ultrafiltration and the mitigation of membrane fouling through pre-
E. Lichtfouse, and G. Crini (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–111.
treatment, membrane enhancement, and cleaning - a review. J. Water Process Eng. 44,
Mukherjee, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., Hashim, M. A., and Sen Gupta, B. (2015). 102374. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102374
Contemporary environmental issues of landfill leachate: assessment and remedies.
Pisharody, L., Gopinath, A., Malhotra, M., Nidheesh, P. V., and Kumar, M. S. (2022).
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 472–590. doi:10.1080/10643389.2013.876524
Occurrence of organic micropollutants in municipal landfill leachate and its effective
Nath, A., and Debnath, A. (2022). A short review on landfill leachate treatment treatment by advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere 287, 132216. doi:10.1016/j.
technologies. Mater. Today Proc. 67, 1290–1297. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.109 chemosphere.2021.132216
Naveen, B. P., Mahapatra, D. M., Sitharam, T. G., Sivapullaiah, P. V., and Podlasek, A. (2023). Modeling leachate generation: practical scenarios for municipal
Ramachandra, T. V. (2017). Physico-chemical and biological characterization of solid waste landfills in Poland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 13256–13269. doi:10.1007/
urban municipal landfill leachate. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.envpol. s11356-022-23092-8
2016.09.002
Pohl, A. (2020). Removal of heavy metal ions from water and wastewaters by sulfur-
Neoh, C. H., Noor, Z. Z., Mutamim, N. S. A., and Lim, C. K. (2016). Green technology containing precipitation agents. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 231, 503. doi:10.1007/
in wastewater treatment technologies: integration of membrane bioreactor with various s11270-020-04863-w
wastewater treatment systems. Chem. Eng. J. 283, 582–594. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.
Pollutants, P. O. (2011). Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.
07.060
Geneva.
Nguyen, A. T., and Le Tran, L. (2024). A review about the occurrence and
Prieto-Espinoza, M., Susset, B., and Grathwohl, P. (2022). Long-term leaching
effectiveness of conventional and advanced treatment technologies of persistent
behavior of organic and inorganic pollutants after wet processing of solid waste
organic pollutants in surface water. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 262, 11. doi:10.
materials. Mater. (Basel) 15, 858. doi:10.3390/ma15030858
1007/s44169-024-00062-4
Priya, A. K., Muruganandam, M., Kumar, A., Senthilkumar, N., Shkir, M., Pandit, B.,
Nidheesh, P. V., Couras, C., Karim, A. V., and Nadais, H. (2022). A review of
et al. (2024). Recent advances in microbial-assisted degradation and remediation of
integrated advanced oxidation processes and biological processes for organic pollutant
xenobiotic contaminants; challenges and future prospects. J. Water Process Eng. 60,
removal. Chem. Eng. Commun. 209, 390–432. doi:10.1080/00986445.2020.1864626
105106. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.105106
Nimonkar, Y. S., Kajale, S., Dake, M., Ranade, D. R., Yadav, K. K., Kumar, R., et al.
Protection, E. (2003). Environmental protection agency (EPA).
(2022). A culture-based and culture-independent approach to the study of landfill
leachate bacterial and archaeal communities. Anaerobe 77, 102626. doi:10.1016/j. Puntillo, P., Gulluscio, C., Huisingh, D., and Veltri, S. (2021). Reevaluating waste as a
anaerobe.2022.102626 resource under a circular economy approach from a system perspective: findings from a
case study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 30, 968–984. doi:10.1002/bse.2664
Nourmohammadi, D., Esmaeeli, M. B., Akbarian, H., and Ghasemian, M. (2013).
Nitrogen removal in a full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plant with Puyol, D., Batstone, D. J., Hülsen, T., Astals, S., Peces, M., and Krömer, J. O. (2017).
activated sludge and trickling filter. J. Environ. Public Health 2013, 1–6. doi:10. Resource recovery from wastewater by biological technologies: opportunities,
1155/2013/504705 challenges, and prospects. Front. Microbiol. 7, 2106. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.02106
Nyabadza, A., Mccarthy, É., Makhesana, M., Heidarinassab, S., Plouze, A., Vazquez, Qi, Y., Qiu, J., Tao, J., Zeng, J., Liu, R., Liu, H., et al. (2023). Temporal evolution of
M., et al. (2023). A review of physical, chemical and biological synthesis methods of biogeochemical parameters and microbial communities in a landfill leachate pollution
bimetallic nanoparticles and applications in sensing, water treatment, biomedicine, plume. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 234, 720. doi:10.1007/s11270-023-06747-1
catalysis and hydrogen storage. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 321, 103010. doi:10.1016/j.cis.
Rahman, Z., and Singh, V. P. (2019). The relative impact of toxic heavy metals
2023.103010
(THMs) (arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr)(VI), mercury (Hg), and lead
Oakes, T. W., and Shank, K. E. (1979). Brief review of the resource conservation and (Pb)) on the total environment: an overview. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 419. doi:10.
recovery Act (RCRA) 1976. 1007/s10661-019-7528-7
Obradović, L., Bugarin, M., Stevanović, Z., Ljubojev, M., and Milijić, Z. (2010). Rai, B., and Shrivastav, A. (2022). “Chapter 26 - removal of emerging contaminants in
Disposal of hazardous waste on the landfill in accordance with the Council Directive of water treatment by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis,” in Development in wastewater
the European Union on the landfill of waste no. 1999/31/EC. Co-Editor, (Bor, Serbia: treatment research and processes. Editors M. Shah, S. Rodriguez-Couto, and J. Biswas
irmbor.co.rs), 133. (Elsevier), 605–628.
Odabaşı, Ç., Dologlu, P., Gülmez, F., Kuşoğlu, G., and Çağlar, Ö. (2022). Investigation Rajesh Banu, J., Merrylin, J., Kavitha, S., Yukesh Kannah, R., Selvakumar, P.,
of the factors affecting reverse osmosis membrane performance using machine-learning Gopikumar, S., et al. (2021). Trends in biological nutrient removal for the treatment
techniques. Comput. and Chem. Eng. 159, 107669. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2022. of low strength organic wastewaters. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 7, 1–30. doi:10.1007/s40726-020-
107669 00169-x
O’dowd, K., and Pillai, S. C. (2020). Photo-Fenton disinfection at near neutral pH: Randall, C. W., and Ubay Cokgor, E. (2000). Performance and economics of BNR
process, parameter optimization and recent advances. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104063. plants in the chesapeake bay watershed, USA. Water Sci. Technol. 41, 21–28. doi:10.
doi:10.1016/j.jece.2020.104063 2166/wst.2000.0160

Rathi, B. S., and Kumar, P. S. (2021). Application of adsorption process for effective Sengar, A., and Vijayanandan, A. (2022). Effects of pharmaceuticals on membrane
removal of emerging contaminants from water and wastewater. Environ. Pollut. 280, bioreactor: review on membrane fouling mechanisms and fouling control strategies. Sci.
116995. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116995 Total Environ. 808, 152132. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152132
Rathod, S., Preetam, S., Pandey, C., and Bera, S. P. (2024). Exploring synthesis and Sengupta, S., and Pal, C. K. (2021). “Chemistry in wastewater treatment,” in Advanced
applications of green nanoparticles and the role of nanotechnology in wastewater materials and technologies for wastewater treatment (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press),
treatment. Biotechnol. Rep. 41, e00830. doi:10.1016/j.btre.2024.e00830 129–152. doi:10.1201/9781003138303-7
Ravindiran, G., Rajamanickam, S., Sivarethinamohan, S., Karupaiya Sathaiah, B., Shahid, M. K., Kashif, A., Fuwad, A., and Choi, Y. (2021). Current advances in
Ravindran, G., Muniasamy, S. K., et al. (2023). A review of the status, effects, prevention, treatment technologies for removal of emerging contaminants from water – a critical
and remediation of groundwater contamination for sustainable environment. Water 15, review. Coord. Chem. Rev. 442, 213993. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2021.213993
3662. doi:10.3390/w15203662
Sharma, A., Grewal, A. S., Sharma, D., and Srivastav, A. L. (2023). “Chapter 3 - heavy
Rekhate, C. V., and Srivastava, J. K. (2020). Recent advances in ozone-based advanced metal contamination in water: consequences on human health and environment,” in
oxidation processes for treatment of wastewater- A review. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 3, 100031. Metals in water. Editors S. K. Shukla, S. Kumar, S. Madhav, and P. K. Mishra
doi:10.1016/j.ceja.2020.100031 (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 39–52. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-95919-3.00015-X
Remmas, N., Manfe, N., Zerva, I., Melidis, P., Raga, R., and Ntougias, S. (2023). A Sharma, G., Sharma, S., Kumar, A., Lai, C. W., Naushad, M., Iqbal, J., et al. (2022).
critical review on the microbial Ecology of landfill leachate treatment systems. Activated carbon as superadsorbent and sustainable material for diverse applications.
Sustainability 15, 949. doi:10.3390/su15020949 Adsorpt. Sci. and Technol. 2022, 4184809. doi:10.1155/2022/4184809
Renou, S., Givaudan, J. G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., and Moulin, P. (2008). Landfill Sharma, I. (2020). “Bioremediation techniques for polluted environment: concept,
leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J. Hazard. Mater. 150, 468–493. doi:10. advantages, limitations, and prospects,” in Trace metals in the environment-new
1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.077 approaches and recent advances (IntechOpen).
Righetto, I., Al-Juboori, R. A., Kaljunen, J. U., and Mikola, A. (2021). Multipurpose Sharma, M., Dhiware, P., Laddha, H., Janu, V. C., and Gupta, R. (2024). Harnessing
treatment of landfill leachate using natural coagulants – pretreatment for nutrient magnetically separable iron based adsorbents for enhanced uranium adsorption. Coord.
recovery and removal of heavy metals and micropollutants. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, Chem. Rev. 508, 215766. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2024.215766
105213. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2021.105213
Shen, Z., Kuang, Y., Zhou, S., Zheng, J., and Ouyang, G. (2023). Preparation of
Rout, P. R., Shahid, M. K., Dash, R. R., Bhunia, P., Liu, D., Varjani, S., et al. (2021a). magnetic adsorbent and its adsorption removal of pollutants: an overview. TrAC Trends
Nutrient removal from domestic wastewater: a comprehensive review on conventional Anal. Chem. 167, 117241. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2023.117241
and advanced technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 296, 113246. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.
Shi, L., Chen, H., Meng, H., Cheng, R., Dai, J., Zheng, X., et al. (2021). How
2021.113246
environmental policy impacts technology adoption: a case of landfill leachate.
Rout, P. R., Zhang, T. C., Bhunia, P., and Surampalli, R. Y. (2021b). Treatment J. Clean. Prod. 310, 127484. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127484
technologies for emerging contaminants in wastewater treatment plants: a review. Sci.
Siddiqi, S. A., Al-Mamun, A., Baawain, M. S., and Sana, A. (2022). A critical review of the
Total Environ. 753, 141990. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141990
recently developed laboratory-scale municipal solid waste landfill leachate treatment
Saadatlu, E. A., Barzinpour, F., and Yaghoubi, S. (2023). A sustainable municipal solid technologies. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 52, 102011. doi:10.1016/j.seta.2022.102011
waste system under leachate treatment impact along with leakage control and source
Sil, A., and Kumar, S. (2017). “17 - landfill leachate treatment,” in Current
separation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 169, 982–998. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2022.11.065
developments in biotechnology and bioengineering. Editors J. W. C. Wong,
Sadala, S., Chakradhar, B., and Lakshmi, T. V. (2023). A review on treatment storage R. D. Tyagi, and A. Pandey (Elsevier), 391–406.
and disposal facilities (TSDFS) for effective management of hazardous wastes in India.
Singh, V., Ormeci, B., Mishra, S., and Hussain, A. (2022). Simultaneous partial
J. Appl. Geochem. 25, 72–84.
Nitrification, ANAMMOX and denitrification (SNAD) – a review of critical operating
Saeed, M. U., Hussain, N., Sumrin, A., Shahbaz, A., Noor, S., Bilal, M., et al. (2022). parameters and reactor configurations. Chem. Eng. J. 433, 133677. doi:10.1016/j.cej.
Microbial bioremediation strategies with wastewater treatment potentialities – a review. 2021.133677
Sci. Total Environ. 818, 151754. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151754
Smol, M., Adam, C., and Preisner, M. (2020). Circular economy model framework in
Sahu, P. (2021). A comprehensive review of saline effluent disposal and treatment: the European water and wastewater sector. J. Material Cycles Waste Manag. 22,
conventional practices, emerging technologies, and future potential. Water Reuse 11, 682–697. doi:10.1007/s10163-019-00960-z
33–65. doi:10.2166/wrd.2020.065
Soltani, F., Navidjouy, N., and Rahimnejad, M. (2022). A review on bio-electro-
Saleh, T. A., Mustaqeem, M., and Khaled, M. (2022). Water treatment technologies in Fenton systems as environmentally friendly methods for degradation of
removing heavy metal ions from wastewater: a review. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. environmental organic pollutants in wastewater. RSC Adv. 12, 5184–5213.
and Manag. 17, 100617. doi:10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100617 doi:10.1039/d1ra08825d
Salem, Z., Hamouri, K., Djemaa, R., and Allia, K. (2008). Evaluation of landfill Song, W., Lee, L. Y., and Ng, H. Y. (2020). “Chapter 21 - nanofiltration and reverse
leachate pollution and treatment. Desalination 220, 108–114. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007. osmosis processes for the removal of micro-pollutants,” in Current developments in
01.026 biotechnology and bioengineering. Editors S. Varjani, A. Pandey, R. D. Tyagi, H. H. Ngo,
and C. Larroche (Elsevier), 527–552.
Santana, L. R. B., Walchhütter, S., Slavov, T. N. B., and Russo, P. T. (2022). Municipal
solid waste management: analysing the principles of the Brazilian National Solid Waste Srivastava, A., Dutta, S., Ahuja, S., and Sharma, R. K. (2021). “Chapter 15 - green
Policy. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 29, 391–405. doi:10.1504/ijewm.2022.124687 chemistry: key to reducing waste and improving water quality,” in Handbook of water
purity and quality. Editor S. Ahuja 2nd Edn (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 359–407.
Saravanan, A., Kumar, P. S., Ramesh, B., and Srinivasan, S. (2022). Removal of toxic
heavy metals using genetically engineered microbes: molecular tools, risk assessment Srivastava, A., Singh, R., Rajput, V. D., Minkina, T., Agarwal, S., and Garg, M. C.
and management strategies. Chemosphere 298, 134341. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere. (2022). A systematic approach towards optimization of brackish groundwater treatment
2022.134341 using nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) hybrid membrane filtration system.
Chemosphere 303, 135230. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135230
Saravanan, A., Senthil Kumar, P., Jeevanantham, S., Karishma, S., Tajsabreen, B.,
Yaashikaa, P. R., et al. (2021). Effective water/wastewater treatment methodologies for Su, B., Liu, Q., Liang, H., Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, G., et al. (2022). Simultaneous
toxic pollutants removal: processes and applications towards sustainable development. partial nitrification, anammox, and denitrification in an upflow microaerobic
Chemosphere 280, 130595. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130595 membrane bioreactor treating middle concentration of ammonia nitrogen
wastewater with low COD/TN ratio. Chemosphere 295, 133832. doi:10.1016/j.
Sathya, R., Arasu, M. V., Al-Dhabi, N. A., Vijayaraghavan, P., Ilavenil, S., and
chemosphere.2022.133832
Rejiniemon, T. S. (2023). Towards sustainable wastewater treatment by biological
methods – a challenges and advantages of recent technologies. Urban Clim. 47, Subiza-Pérez, M., Zabala, A., Groten, D., Vozmediano, L., Juan, C. S., and Ibarluzea, J.
101378. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101378 (2023). Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics and environmental
impacts. J. Risk Res. 26, 1101–1118. doi:10.1080/13669877.2023.2259402
Saxena, V., Kumar Padhi, S., Kumar Dikshit, P., and Pattanaik, L. (2022). Recent
developments in landfill leachate treatment: aerobic granular reactor and its future Sundui, B., Ramirez Calderon, O. A., Abdeldayem, O. M., Lázaro-Gil, J., Rene, E. R.,
prospects. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. and Manag. 18, 100689. doi:10.1016/j.enmm. and Sambuu, U. (2021). Applications of machine learning algorithms for biological
2022.100689 wastewater treatment: updates and perspectives. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 23,
127–143. doi:10.1007/s10098-020-01993-x
Schiopu, A.-M., and Gavrilescu, M. (2010). Municipal solid waste landfilling and
treatment of resulting liquid effluents. Environ. Eng. and Manag. J. (EEMJ) 9, 993–1019. Teh, C. Y., Budiman, P. M., Shak, K. P. Y., and Wu, T. Y. (2016). Recent advancement
doi:10.30638/eemj.2010.133 of coagulation–flocculation and its application in wastewater treatment. Industrial and
Eng. Chem. Res. 55, 4363–4389. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04703
Senathirajah, K., and Palanisami, T. (2023). Strategies to reduce risk and mitigate
impacts of disaster: increasing water quality resilience from microplastics in the Teng, C., and Chen, W. (2023). Technologies for the treatment of emerging
water supply system. ACS ES&T Water 3, 2816–2834. doi:10.1021/acsestwater. contaminants in landfill leachate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. and Health 31, 100409.
3c00206 doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2022.100409

Teng, C., Zhou, K., Peng, C., and Chen, W. (2021). Characterization and treatment of Wu, S., Wallace, S., Brix, H., Kuschk, P., Kirui, W. K., Masi, F., et al. (2015b).
landfill leachate: a review. Water Res. 203, 117525. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.117525 Treatment of industrial effluents in constructed wetlands: challenges, operational
strategies and overall performance. Environ. Pollut. 201, 107–120. doi:10.1016/j.
Tenodi, S., Krčmar, D., Agbaba, J., Zrnić, K., Radenović, M., Ubavin, D., et al. (2020).
envpol.2015.03.006
Assessment of the environmental impact of sanitary and unsanitary parts of a municipal
solid waste landfill. J. Environ. Manag. 258, 110019. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110019 Xu, X., Chen, G., Wei, J., Qin, Y., Tang, R., Wang, L., et al. (2024). Effects of
competitive cations and dissolved organic matter on ammonium exchange and up-
Tian, J., Zhao, X., Gao, S., Wang, X., and Zhang, R. (2021). Progress in research and
concentration properties of ion exchangers from domestic wastewater under multicycle
application of nanofiltration (NF) technology for brackish water treatment. Membranes
exchange - regeneration operation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 345, 127274. doi:10.1016/j.
11, 662. doi:10.3390/membranes11090662
seppur.2024.127274
Titchou, F. E., Zazou, H., Afanga, H., El Gaayda, J., Ait Akbour, R., Nidheesh, P. V.,
Yadav, D., Karki, S., and Ingole, P. G. (2022). Current advances and opportunities in
et al. (2021). Removal of organic pollutants from wastewater by advanced oxidation
the development of nanofiltration (NF) membranes in the area of wastewater treatment,
processes and its combination with membrane processes. Chem. Eng. Process. - Process
water desalination, biotechnological and pharmaceutical applications. J. Environ. Chem.
Intensif. 169, 108631. doi:10.1016/j.cep.2021.108631
Eng. 10, 108109. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2022.108109
Torretta, V., Ferronato, N., Katsoyiannis, I. A., Tolkou, A. K., and Airoldi, M. (2017).
Yadav, G., Mishra, A., Ghosh, P., Sindhu, R., Vinayak, V., and Pugazhendhi, A.
Novel and conventional technologies for landfill leachates treatment: a review.
(2021). Technical, economic and environmental feasibility of resource recovery
Sustainability 9, 9. doi:10.3390/su9010009
technologies from wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 796, 149022. doi:10.1016/j.
Tripathi, S., and Hussain, T. (2022). “Chapter 7 - water and wastewater treatment scitotenv.2021.149022
through ozone-based technologies,” in Development in wastewater treatment research
Yang, C., Fu, T., Wang, H., Chen, R., Wang, B., He, T., et al. (2021a). Removal of
and processes. Editors M. Shah, S. Rodriguez-Couto, and J. Biswas (Elsevier), 139–172.
organic pollutants by effluent recirculation constructed wetlands system treating
Upadhyay, A., Singh, R., Talwar, P., Verma, N., Ahire, P. D., Khatri, H., et al. (2023). landfill leachate. Environ. Technol. and Innovation 24, 101843. doi:10.1016/j.eti.
Insights into sustainable resource and energy recovery from leachate towards emission 2021.101843
mitigation for environmental management: a critical approach. J. Environ. Manag. 343,
Yang, L., Hu, W., Chang, Z., Liu, T., Fang, D., Shao, P., et al. (2021b). Electrochemical
118219. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118219
recovery and high value-added reutilization of heavy metal ions from wastewater: recent
Urošević, T., and Trivunac, K. (2020). “Chapter 3 - achievements in low-pressure advances and future trends. Environ. Int. 152, 106512. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106512
membrane processes microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) for wastewater and
Yang, Y., Demeestere, K., and Van Hulle, S. (2021c). Ozone-based advanced oxidation
water treatment,” in Current trends and future developments on (bio-) membranes.
of biologically treated landfill leachate: oxidation efficiency, mechanisms, and surrogate-
Editors A. Basile and K. Ghasemzadeh (Elsevier), 67–107.
based monitoring for bulk organics. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106459. doi:10.1016/j.jece.
Valdés, H., Saavedra, A., Flores, M., Vera-Puerto, I., Aviña, H., and Belmonte, M. 2021.106459
(2021). Reverse osmosis concentrate: physicochemical characteristics, environmental
Yang, Z., Lin, S., Ye, L., Qu, D., Yang, H., Chang, H., et al. (2024). Landfill leachate
impact, and technologies. Membranes 11, 753. doi:10.3390/membranes11100753
treatment by direct contact membrane distillation: impacts of landfill age on
Venkatesh Reddy, C., Kumar, R., Chakrabortty, P., Karmakar, B., Pottipati, S., Kundu, contaminant removal performance, membrane fouling and scaling. Desalination
A., et al. (2024). A critical science mapping approach on removal mechanism and 577, 117407. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2024.117407
pathways of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water and wastewater: a
Younas, F., Mustafa, A., Farooqi, Z. U., Wang, X., Younas, S., Mohy-Ud-Din, W., et al.
comprehensive review. Chem. Eng. J. 492, 152272. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2024.152272
(2021). Current and emerging adsorbent technologies for wastewater treatment: trends,
Wang, D., Zhang, Y., Dong, H., Chen, H., and Sengupta, A. (2024). Ion exchange limitations, and environmental implications. Water 13, 215. doi:10.3390/w13020215
enabled selective separation from decontamination to desalination to decarbonization:
Yusuf, A., Sodiq, A., Giwa, A., Eke, J., Pikuda, O., De Luca, G., et al. (2020). A review of
recent advances and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Water Res. and Technol. 10,
emerging trends in membrane science and technology for sustainable water treatment.
1319–1334. doi:10.1039/d4ew00125g
J. Clean. Prod. 266, 121867. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121867
Wang, J., and Chen, H. (2020). Catalytic ozonation for water and wastewater
Zakaria, S. N. F., Aziz, H. A., Hung, Y.-T., Wang, M.-H. S., and Wang, L. K. (2023).
treatment: recent advances and perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 704, 135249. doi:10.
“Treatment of hazardous sludge from water and wastewater treatment plants,” in
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135249
Industrial waste engineering. Editors L. K. Wang, M.-H. S. Wang, and Y.-T. Hung
Wang, J., and Zhuan, R. (2020). Degradation of antibiotics by advanced oxidation (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–41.
processes: an overview. Sci. Total Environ. 701, 135023. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135023
Zamri, M. F. M. A., Hasmady, S., Akhiar, A., Ideris, F., Shamsuddin, A. H., Mofijur, M.,
Wang, L. K., Wang, M.-H. S., Shammas, N. K., and Hahn, H. H. (2021). et al. (2021). A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal
“Physicochemical treatment consisting of chemical coagulation, precipitation, solid waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137, 110637. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110637
sedimentation, and flotation,” in Integrated natural resources research. Editors
Zango, Z. U., Jumbri, K., Sambudi, N. S., Ramli, A., Abu Bakar, N. H., Saad, B., et al.
L. K. Wang, M.-H. S. Wang, and Y.-T. Hung (Cham: Springer International
(2020). A critical review on metal-organic frameworks and their composites as
Publishing), 265–397.
advanced materials for adsorption and photocatalytic degradation of emerging
Wang, T., Nie, C., Ao, Z., Wang, S., and An, T. (2020). Recent progress in gC 3 N organic pollutants from wastewater. Polymers 12, 2648. doi:10.3390/polym12112648
4 quantum dots: synthesis, properties and applications in photocatalytic degradation of
Zarei, M. (2020). Wastewater resources management for energy recovery from
organic pollutants. J. Mater. Chem. A 8, 485–502. doi:10.1039/c9ta11368a
circular economy perspective. Water-Energy Nexus 3, 170–185. doi:10.1016/j.wen.
Waqas, S., Bilad, M. R., Man, Z. B., Klaysom, C., Jaafar, J., and Khan, A. L. (2020). An 2020.11.001
integrated rotating biological contactor and membrane separation process for domestic
Zhao, Y., Tong, T., Wang, X., Lin, S., Reid, E. M., and Chen, Y. (2021). Differentiating
wastewater treatment. Alexandria Eng. J. 59, 4257–4265. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.029
solutes with precise nanofiltration for next generation environmental separations: a
Wdowczyk, A., and Szymańska-Pulikowska, A. (2021). Comparison of landfill review. Environ. Sci. and Technol. 55, 1359–1376. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c04593
leachate properties by LPI and phytotoxicity-A case study. Front. Environ. Sci. 9.
Zheng, Z., Li, J., Ma, J., Du, J., Bian, W., Li, Y., et al. (2016). Nitrogen removal via
doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.693112
simultaneous partial nitrification, anammox and denitrification (SNAD) process
Welle Environmental Protection Technology Group Co., L (2024). Changsha MSW under high DO condition. Biodegradation 27, 195–208. doi:10.1007/s10532-016-
plant leachate treatment project cluster. Available at: https://www.wellegroup.com/ 9766-5
cases/detail?id=234.
Zhu, T.-T., Su, Z.-X., Lai, W.-X., Zhang, Y.-B., and Liu, Y.-W. (2021). Insights into the
Wijekoon, P., Koliyabandara, P. A., Cooray, A. T., Lam, S. S., Athapattu, B. C. L., and fate and removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes using biological
Vithanage, M. (2022). Progress and prospects in mitigation of landfill leachate pollution: wastewater treatment technology. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145906. doi:10.1016/j.
risk, pollution potential, treatment and challenges. J. Hazard. Mater. 421, 126627. scitotenv.2021.145906
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126627
Ziembowicz, S., and Kida, M. (2022). Limitations and future directions of application
Wu, D., Wang, T., Huang, X., Dolfing, J., and Xie, B. (2015a). Perspective of harnessing of the Fenton-like process in micropollutants degradation in water and wastewater
energy from landfill leachate via microbial fuel cells: novel biofuels and electrogenic treatment: a critical review. Chemosphere 296, 134041. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.
physiologies. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 99, 7827–7836. doi:10.1007/s00253-015-6857-x 2022.134041

fenvs-12-1439128

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

fenvs-12-1439128

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

fenvs-12-1439128

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPE Review

PUBLISHED 02 September 2024

landﬁll leachate, treatment technologies, membrane technologies, advanced oxidation

Frontiers in Environmental Science 01 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 02 frontiersin.org

Aspect Characteristics Implications for treatment

Parameter Africa Asia Europe North America Oceania South America

COD (mg/L) 3026.81 5,983.26 5,890.65 1628.52 1594.5 3117.69

Inorganic pH 7.72 7.72 8.03 7.95 7.81 8.13

TKN (mg/L) 26.485 34.55 42.66 26.485 28.33 34.55

AN (mg/L) 297.89 450.22 525.77 297.89 350.55 450.22

TDS (mg/L) 10,403.1 11,456.3 15,382.9 3077.1 17,487.5 4364.6

Heavy metals Cl (mg/L) 84.32 98.72 103.21 72.33 55.66 84.12

Fe (mg/L) 7.11 25.99 41 22.04 4.88 26.28

Cu (mg/L) 0.256 0.489 0.323 0.141 0.022 1.131

Ni (mg/L) 0.45 0.56 0.52 0.32 0.24 0.45

Zn (mg/L) 0.65 2.738 2.105 0.91 0.159 1.66

Pb (mg/L) 0.331 0.55 0.54 1.441 0.006 2.524

Cr (mg/L) 0.49 0.62 0.49 42.585 0.32 1.66

Hg (mg/L) 0.221 0.33 0.32 0.723 0.0003 3.783

As (mg/L) 0.0433 0.225 0.0525 33.8 0.1 0.221

Cy (mg/L) 0.261 0.216 0.075 0.025 0 0.055

Frontiers in Environmental Science 03 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 04 frontiersin.org

Factors Options Leachate composition

Property Young landﬁll leachate Mature landﬁll leachate

COD 74,853 mg/L 3098 mg/L

DOM Species Count 1122 5,075

Main Compounds Aliphatic Compounds, LOHUPC HOHUPCs

Bioavailability Higher Lower

Nominal Oxidation State of Carbon −0.8010 −0.0692

Aromaticity (AImod) 0.1254 0.2464

Straight-chain Structures More Fewer

Benzene-ring Structures Fewer More

High O HUPC 0% 3863.53 (37.55%)

Polyphenols and Polycyclic Aromatics 1% 8%

Aliphatic Compounds 1320.62 (75.03%) 2767.64 (26.76%)

Frontiers in Environmental Science 05 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 06 frontiersin.org

Country Regulation/Law Key provisions

Frontiers in Environmental Science 07 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 08 frontiersin.org

Wang and Qiao

Frontiers in Environmental Science 10 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 11 frontiersin.org

Process Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

Frontiers in Environmental Science 12 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 13 frontiersin.org

Process Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

5.2.2 Ozonation effective against many contaminants, including organic pollutants,

Frontiers in Environmental Science 14 frontiersin.org

Technology Introduction Mechanism Target Removal Factors Advantages Limitations

Frontiers in Environmental Science 15 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 16 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 17 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Environmental Science 18 frontiersin.org

TABLE 10 Emission standards in Table 2 of the ‘pollution control standards

Ammonia Nitrogen (NH₃-N) (mg/L) 25

Total Phosphorus (TP) (mg/L) 3 7.1 Comprehensive challenges in landﬁll

Frontiers in Environmental Science 19 frontiersin.org