Environmental and socio-economic impacts of landfills


A modern landfill is an engineered method for depositing waste in specially constructed and protected cells on the land surface or in excavations into the land surface. Despite the fact that an increasing amount of waste is reused, recycled or energetically valorized, landfills still play an important role in waste management strategies. The degradation of wastes in the landfill results in the production of leachate and gases. These emissions are potentials threats to human health and to the quality of the environment. Landfill gas consists mainly of methane and carbon dioxide, both important greenhouse gases. Landfill sites contribute 20% of the global anthropogenic methane emissions. Furthermore, it usually contains a large number of other gases at low concentrations, some of which are toxic. Leachate can migrate to groundwater or even to surface water through the flaws in the liners and this poses a serious problem as aquifers require extensive time for rehabilitation. Construction and management of landfills have ecological effects that may lead to landscape changes, loss of habitats and displacement of fauna. Socio-economic impacts of landfills include risks for public health derived from surfaceor groundwater contamination by leachate, the diffusion of litter into the wider environment and inadequate on-site recycling activities. Nuisances such as flies, odors, smoke and noise are frequently cited among the reasons why people do not want to reside close to landfills. Various researches conclude that landfills likely have an adverse negative impact upon housing values depending upon the actual distance from the landfill. The present paper reviews the environmental and socio-economic impacts related to landfills and presents existing modeling approaches to assess these impacts. Furthermore, this review is complemented with suggestions to minimize the environmental burden of landfills and to re-introduce the buried resources to the material cycle.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
Maheshi Danthurebandara1,2
Steven Van Passel2,5
Dirk Nelen3
Yves Tielemans4,5
Karel Van Acker1,5
1Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium
2Centre for Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Business Economics,
UHasselt, Belgium
3VITO, Belgium
4Group Machiels, Belgium
5Enhanced Landfill Mining Consortium, Belgium
A modern landfill is an engineered method for depositing waste in specially constructed and
protected cells on the land surface or in excavations into the land surface. Despite the fact that
an increasing amount of waste is reused, recycled or energetically valorized, landfills still
play an important role in waste management strategies. The degradation of wastes in the
landfill results in the production of leachate and gases. These emissions are potential threats
to human health and to the quality of the environment. Landfill gas consists mainly of
methane and carbon dioxide, both important greenhouse gases. Landfill sites contribute 20%
of the global anthropogenic methane emissions. Furthermore, it usually contains a large
number of other gases at low concentrations, some of which are toxic. Leachate can migrate
to groundwater or even to surface water through the flaws in the liners and this poses a
serious problem as aquifers require extensive time for rehabilitation. Construction and
management of landfills have ecological effects that may lead to landscape changes, loss of
habitats and displacement of fauna. Socio-economic impacts of landfills include risks for
public health derived from surface or groundwater contamination by leachate, the diffusion of
litter into the wider environment and inadequate on-site recycling activities. Nuisances such
as flies, odors, smoke and noise are frequently cited among the reasons why people do not
want to reside close to landfills. Various researches conclude that landfills likely have an
adverse negative impact upon housing values depending upon the actual distance from the
landfill. The present paper reviews the environmental and socio-economic impacts related to
landfills and presents existing modeling approaches to assess these impacts. Furthermore, this
review is complemented with suggestions to minimize the environmental burden of landfills
and to re-introduce the buried resources to the material cycle.
Landfill, Landfill gas, Leachate, Environmental impacts, Socio-economic impacts, Bio
reactor, ELFM.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
Despite the fact that the EU waste hierarchy, as set by the Waste Framework Directive
(2008/98/EC) establishes the preference of reuse, recycling and recovery of waste above
landfilling, a significant amount of waste is still landfilled. It is a well-known fact that
landfilling has environmental effects, mainly due to the long term methane emission and
leachate production. Landfill gas consists mainly of methane and carbon dioxide and it can
also contain a large number of other gases at low concentrations some of which are toxic[1].
The substances that are present in landfill gas are known to contribute to several
environmental problems such as global warming, acidification, depletion of the quality of
ecosystem as well as social issues like human health [2-7]. Leachate production is also a
major concern as leachate can migrate to surface and groundwater. This is more serious than
river pollution because aquifers require extensive time for rehabilitation [1]. Landfill leachate
may present significant concentrations of trace metals, nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate,
ammonia and chlorides. Apart from the environmental burdens, occupation and requirement
of the enormous space for landfills generates the issue of land scarcity for the development of
human society and eco systems. Moreover, landfills decrease the market value of the
surrounding area [4, 5]. Different modeling approaches to quantify landfill emissions have
been developed. Most of the models concentrate on landfill gas and leachate and a few of
them address nuisances like odor, dust, noise and etc. In addition to the generation models, a
few studies have been performed to model the impacts of landfills. Landfill modeling in life
cycle analysis (LCA) is the most common approach.
The purpose of our research is to review the existing literature on environmental and socio-
economic impacts of landfills. An attention has been given to the available modeling
approaches to assess the landfill emissions and their impacts. Furthermore, this paper
highlights evolving landfill concepts such as landfill bio reactors and enhanced landfill
mining as to minimize the risk and environmental burdens of landfills and to re-introduce the
disposed resources to the material cycle.
A modern landfill is an engineered method for depositing waste in specially constructed and
protected cells on the land surface or in excavations into the land surface. Within the landfill,
biological, chemical and physical processes occur and they promote the degradation of wastes
and result in the production of leachate and gases. The landfill ecosystem is quite diverse due
to the heterogeneous nature of waste and the variety of landfill operating characteristics. The
diversity of the ecosystem promotes stability; however the system is strongly influenced by
environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, the presence of toxins, moisture content
and the oxidation reduction potential. The stabilization of wastes proceeds in five sequential
and distinct phases [8]:
1) Initial adjustment phase: This phase is associated with initial deposition of solid waste
and accumulation of moisture within landfills. An acclimatization period is observed
until sufficient moisture develops to support an active microbial community.
2) Transition phase: In the transition phase transformation from aerobic to anaerobic
environment occurs.
3) Acid formation phase: The continuous hydrolysis of solid waste followed by the
microbial conversion of biodegradable organic content results in the production of
intermediate volatile organic acids at high concentrations throughout this phase.
4) Methane fermentation phase: Intermediate acids are consumed by methanogenic
bacteria and converted into methane and carbon dioxide.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
5) Maturation phase: During the final state of landfill stabilization, nutrients and
available substrate become limiting, gas production dramatically drops and leachate
strength stays steady at much lower concentrations.
Apart from landfill gas and leachate emission, wind-blown litter, vermin and insects are also
identified as the minor emissions of the landfills. But the following discussion is limited to the
landfill gas and leachate as they are the most important causes for number of environmental
and socio economic impacts.
2.1 Landfill Gas
In theory the biological decomposition of one ton of municipal solid waste produces 442 m3
of landfill gas containing 55% methane and a calorific value of 15 - 21 MJ/m3 [9], which is
approximately half that of natural gas. The major components of landfill gas are methane
(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), with a large number of other constituents at low
concentrations such as ammonia, sulfide and non-methane volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) [1]. Chemical and biochemical transformations within the landfill create new organic
or inorganic substances; e.g. tri- and per-chlorethylene to vinylchloride; amino acids to
methyl- and ethyl-mercaptans; or sulphur compounds to hydrogen sulphide (H2S). For these
reasons, inclusion of large amounts of particular types of industrial waste in a landfill can
generate high quantities of other gaseous compounds. For example, a very large proportion of
plasterboard (i.e. gypsum, CaSO4) may cause the emission of H2S [10]. The US EPA [11]
listed 94 non-methane organic compounds found in air emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills, which included benzene, toluene, chloroform, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride,
and 1,1,1trichloroethane. Forty-one are halogenated compounds. Toluene, xylenes,
propylbenzenes, vinyl chloride, tetrachloroethylene, methanethiol and methanol have been
reported from landfills that received both municipal and industrial wastes [12]. CH4 and CO2
are greenhouse gases which were the main focus of the 1997 Kyoto Agreement and of
subsequent efforts at world-wide emission reduction. Landfill sites contribute 20% of the total
global anthropogenic methane emission [13].
Landfill gas is generally controlled by installing vertical or horizontal wells within the
landfill. These wells are either vented to the atmosphere or connected to a central blower
system that pulls gas to a flare or treatment process. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report that the landfill gas collection efficiencies ranging from 9-90% and
estimates an average of 20% [14]. The uncaptured gas can pose an environmental threat
because methane is a greenhouse gas and many of the VOCs are odorous and toxic. This issue
is discussed in the other sections of this paper.
2.2 Leachate
Leachate is defined as any liquid percolating through the deposited waste and emitted from or
contained within a landfill. As it percolates through the waste it picks up suspended and
soluble materials that originate from, or are products of the degradation of the waste. The
principal organic contents of leachate are formed during the breakdown process described
above and its organic strength is normally measured in terms of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), or total organic carbon (TOC) [1]. The municipal
solid waste leachate contains a wide variety of hazardous, toxic or carcinogenic chemical
contaminants [6]. Moreover, mining wastes, sewage sludge and residual solids from air
pollution control equipment contain high concentrations of trace metals, a range of acids and
even radioactive material. Under the acidic conditions hazardous trace metals such as copper,
cadmium, zinc and lead dissolve and travel with leachate [1].The characteristics of leachate
produced are highly variable depending on the composition of the waste, precipitation rates,
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
site hydrology, compaction, cover design, waste age, sampling procedures and interaction of
leachate with the environment and landfill design and operation.
It is important to control and manage the leachate production and discharge due to the
potential threat of it to both the environment, particularly groundwater, and human health. An
effective leachate collection and removal system is a prerequisite for all non-hazardous and
hazardous landfill sites and it must function over the landfill’s design lifetime.
Modeling landfill emissions and their impacts already exists for several decades. Many
researchers have conducted studies to evaluate the landfill emission management. Most of the
studies are mainly about landfill gas and leachate and a few of them address nuisances like
odor, dust and noise. This section summarizes the different modeling approaches available to
evaluate and quantify the landfill emission and their environmental and socio-economic
Attempts to model landfill gas formation stem from the early ‘80’s. The first landfill gas
formation models were made to help determine the size of landfill gas recovery projects. They
estimate the amount of formation and including future expectation and gas recovery. More
recent models quantify methane emission. As described in the review of Oonk H. [15],
modeling of methane emission generally requires modeling of methane generation, measuring
landfill gas recovery and assuming some methane oxidation. The emission equals the gas
generation minus the gas recovery minus the gas oxidation.
According to Oonk, the major issue when modeling methane emissions is the modeling of the
methane or landfill gas formation. Most of the models are based on a first order decay model
(a first order decay models have one half-time of biodegradation) or a multi-phase model
(multi-phase models consider 3 fractions: fast, moderate and slow degradation of waste, each
with their own half-time of biodegradation). Modeling oxidation has received less attention:
in most cases 10% of the methane flux through the top layer simply is assumed to be
oxidized. Nevertheless, more recent models are being developed for the evaluation of
methane oxidation as well. The most widely applied generation models are the IPCC model,
the TNO model, GasSim Lite, Landgem, the Afvalzorg-model, the French E-PRTR-model
and the Finnish E-PRTR-model [15]. The IPCC model is intended to give guidance to
national authorities in the quantification of methane emissions from all landfills in a country.
But the model itself can also be used for individual landfills. The choices exist between a first
order decay model and a multi-phase model. The IPCC model accommodates for 4 different
climate regions [16]. TNO is the first model in which model parameters were based on real
data of landfill gas generation in a larger group of landfills. Both a first order and a multi-
phase model were made, that describe landfill gas generation as a function of amount of waste
deposited from different origin ([17, 18]. GasSim Lite quantifies all landfill gas problems of a
landfill, ranging from methane emissions, effects of utilization of landfill gas on local air
quality to landfill gas migration via the subsoil to adjacent buildings [15]. Landgem is a first
order decay model, with separate default values for the rate constant of biodegradation for
conventional and arid regions [19]. The Afvalzorg model itself is a multi-phase model and is
intended to give a more realistic prognosis of methane generation at landfills with little or no
household waste deposited. The French E-PRTR-model is a simplified first order decay
model and the Finnish E-PRTR-model is a multi-phase model with model parameters for
different climatic regions [15]. In addition to these models, three dimensional models have
been developed for transport and reaction of gaseous mixtures in a landfill [20-24].
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
Successful prediction of the amount of landfill leachate generated and its composition is a
highly complex and difficult task. As discussed in previous sections, the amount of leachate
generated is primarily a function of water availability, waste characteristics and landfill
surface conditions. Similar to landfill gas, numerous leachate generation and transport
models have been developed. These models can be classified into two types: (1) models that
emphasized only the quantity of leachate generated; and (2) models that combined both
quantity and composition [25]. Among these models that can estimate the volume of leachate
generated from a landfill, the Water Balance Method (WBM) is the most commonly used [25-
27]. The WBM simply states that water infiltrating through the landfill cover and past the
depth influenced by evapotranspiration will eventually emanate from the landfill as leachate.
This is valid after the solid waste reaches absorptive capacity for holding water, which may
take several years. Although this method is theoretically correct and simple, a great degree of
uncertainty is associated with estimating its variables [28]. Demetracopoulos, Sehayek et al.
[29] built up a mathematical model for the generation and transport of solute contaminants
through a solid waste landfill. A three dimensional mathematical model has been developed
by Demirekler, Rowe et al. [30] to estimate the quality and quantity of the leachate produced.
The model takes the effects of changing hydraulic conductivity with overburden pressure and
time dependent landfill development into consideration. Laner, Fellner et al.[31] suggested a
methodology to estimate future emission levels, mainly leachate, for a closed municipal solid
waste landfill. The approach is based on an assessment of the state of the landfill including
detailed analysis of landfill monitoring data, investigations of the landfill waste and an
evaluation of engineered landfill facilities.
Apart from these gas and leachate generation models, many modeling approaches have been
developed for assessing the environmental and socio economic impact of the landfills.
Landfill modeling in life cycle analysis (LCA) is the most common approach. Obersteiner,
Binner et al. [32] introduce and discuss the different approaches concerning time horizon and
life cycle inventory data for landfills in Central Europe. Damgaard, Manfredi et al. [3]
performed an economic and environmental evaluation of landfill leachate and gas
technologies by using waste LCA model EASEWASTE. A methodology to estimate future
emission rates and evaluate the response of the affected environment based on the current
state of the landfill and its surroundings has been introduced by Laner, Fellner et al. [31].
They present a modeling approach to evaluate residual environmental impacts in view of
different post closure management strategies. In addition to that numerous LCA studies have
been conducted to compare the environmental impact of landfills with that of other waste
treatment technologies [33-35]. Furthermore, Úbeda, Ferrer et al.[36] developed a Gaussian
dispersion model to evaluate the odor impact from a landfill area. Apart from environmental
modeling a few studies report for economic models of landfills. Similar to the environmental
modeling, landfilling has been compared with the other waste management systems from an
economic point of view [7, 37]. Some studies have been performed to assess the social
impacts of landfills. Assessing the impact of landfills on residential property values is an
example [4, 5, 38].
As with any waste management activity, landfilling is also a potential threat to the quality of
the environment due to its gaseous and leachate emissions as well as wind-blown litter and
dust. There are also substantial environmental effects associated with waste transport and
collection. In this section the environmental effects of landfilling are discussed, making use of
the results of above mentioned modeling approaches towards landfill emission and their
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
impacts. Three major categories of environmental impacts are considered: (1) Landfill
construction (2) Landfill gas (3) Leachate.
4.1 Impact of landfill construction
Site selection of waste management facilities can be a major issue as all infrastructural
projects have the capacity to damage the ecology of the site on which they are developed,
causing landscape changes, loss of habitats and displacement of fauna. Such impacts are
generally site specific and need to be assessed on a case by case basis [1, 39-41].
The soils on selected sites tend to suffer from high levels of disturbances and their chemical
and physical properties differ from those of the surrounding areas due to the general removal
of topsoil as well as specific process related changes. Soil is an important resource which
supports a variety of ecological, economic and cultural functions. The factors like porosity,
density, water holding capacity and aggregate strength that operates the soil quality are best
developed in the top soil fraction, subsoil being more poorly developed and having a lower
ability to support plant growth. This quality can be disturbed during the construction
activities. The movements of heavy machinery can lead to excessive compaction of topsoil
and subsoil, and in deeper soil this may only be reversible over relatively longer time periods.
There is a considerable impact on flora and fauna during the construction phase of landfills
due to the removal of existing vegetation. But this damage could be recovered after the
closing phase of the landfills. The studies have shown that landfills are capable of supporting
a rich and varied fauna including exotic species during the operational and closing phase of
landfills [42].
4.2 Impact of landfill gas
The environmental impact of gaseous emission from landfills, which are of global or regional
significance, can be mainly grouped as contribution to the greenhouse effect and damage to
the eco system. Apart from that, risk of explosion and odor problem due to some trace gases
can also be identified as significant impacts.
As described in earlier sections of this paper, CO2 and CH4 are the primary constituents of
environmental importance in landfill gas. They act as greenhouse gases of global significance,
with CH4 being the most active but CO2 being produced in the greatest quantities [2]. The
LCA modeling performed by Damgaard, Manfredi et al. [3] shows that landfills are main
contributors for global warming and photochemical and stratospheric ozone formation.
According to Clarke [43], O'Neill [44] and Wellburn [45], CH4 reacts with hydroxyl radicals
and oxygen in the atmosphere to generate CO2 within a period of days to a few years, thereby
losing some of their greenhouse gas potential. Small amounts of methane are also consumed
after absorption by soil [46]. Nevertheless, control of these emissions at the source is
necessary from an environmental protection viewpoint and to address the obligations under
the Kyoto protocol.
Gaseous pollutants have significant effects on plants, animals and entire eco systems. The
lateral migration of gas through soil beyond landfill boundaries causes the displacement of
oxygen from soil. This results in a decline in soil faunal populations and burrowing animals
and causes vegetation dieback. Mainly the vegetation around the landfill and the newly
planted vegetation on a closed landfill can be damaged due to the suppression of air around
the roots by migrated landfill gas [1]. The acidic gaseous constituents contribute to the
phenomenon of acid rains and its secondary effects on the acidification of soils and
ecosystems. Ammonia is a major acidic constituent which can be found in the landfill gas. It
is a secondary acidifying agent following its atmospheric oxidation to nitric acid. It has
effects on plants, causing a loss of stomatal control, a reduction in photosynthesis, enzyme
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
inhibition, changes in synthetic pathways and depressed growth and yield. Hydrogen sulfide
is also having a considerable impact on ecosystem. It is an extremely biotoxic gas, effective at
a few parts per billion in mammals. Plants are far less sensitive to direct toxicity effects but
have a threshold of 1µg/g [45, 47]. The most severe impact on plants is inhibition and
destruction of root growth and vegetation cover due to the anaerobic soil conditions created
by high concentration of sulfides which laterally seepage from landfill sites. VOCs play a
significant role in formation of ground level ozone. High concentrations of ground level
ozone tend to inhibit the photosynthesis, reduce growth and depress the agricultural yields
[48, 49].
Gendebien, Pauwels et al.[50] say that the lateral migration of gas through soil has been the
cause of a number of hazardous explosions as methane is inflammable and explosive when it
mix with sufficient amount of air. Moreover, an unpleasant odor can be caused by the series
of trace elements present in the landfill gas especially organic fatty acids from the acid phase
and H2S and other sulfur containing compounds. These impacts are discussed further in this
paper under the section of socio- economic impacts of landfills.
4.3 Impact of leachate
The leachate production decreases very slowly and some parameters might be of
environmental relevance for many decades to centuries. The main constituents of landfill
leachate are dissolved methane, fatty acids, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, phosphates, calcium,
sodium, chloride, magnesium, potassium and trace metals like chromium, manganese, iron,
nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury and lead. Leachate can migrate through the soil to
groundwater or even to surface water due to the absence of proper liner system or damages of
the liners and this results a serious problem as aquifers require extensive time periods for
rehabilitation. Moreover, soil can retain the constituents of the leachate like metals and
nutrients and can cause adverse impacts on the eco system.
The metals retained by the soil uptake by plants and thereby provide a key route for entry of
metals into the food chain. Deposition of trace metals in the plants can affect crop growth and
productivity and also pose a greater threat to animal health. Those metals such as lead, zinc
and cadmium show differential mobility through the vegetation and invertebrate trophic levels
and must be assessed by case by case basis [1]. Uptake by plants is affected by soil pH and
salinity and also cadmium and lead uptake is enhanced by the chloride complexation of the
metals present in the leachate [51]. Eutrophication is the most extensive threat when the
leachate is mixed with the surface water with higher concentrations of nitrate and phosphates
[52]. Eutrophic conditions invariably cause excessive production of planktonic algae and
cyanobacteria in the open sectors of the lakes. This excessive production of algae results
adverse impacts on fish species in the lake by limiting the light penetration into the lake.
Ammonia generated from leachate within landfills will migrate through the soil horizons
where it is progressively nitrified to nitrite and nitrate and cause eutrophication problem. A
number of chemicals can disrupt the reproductive behavior in a range of species by acting as
oestrogen mimics. Dempsey and Costello [53] found the landfill leachate as a potential source
for these substances.
Above mentioned metals can be present in the leachate either in large or small concentrations
depending on the waste categories deposed in the landfills. Mercury is one of the best studied
contaminant. It is one of the most toxic metals within the food chain, being readily absorbed
by animals, fish and shellfish. Landfills are potential mercury emitters to the eco system due
to the disposal of batteries and paint residues in the landfills. Alloway [51] revealed that the
chromide to chromate conversion in the landfills is environmentally significant as chromate is
more toxic to plants than chromide.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
Apart from the environmental impacts, landfills are sources for several socio-economic
impacts like public health issues due to the exposure to landfill gas and to the ground and
surface water contaminated by landfill leachate. Although modern landfill sites are well
designed to reduce emissions, the emissions from landfills continue to give rise to concerns
about the health effects of living and working near these sites, both new and old. The
exposure to contaminants and emissions can be via direct contact, inhalation or ingestion of
contaminated food and water. Drinking water contamination has been identified as the source
of exposure to harmful substances in many studies [54-56]. Those studies revealed that
congenital malformations, birth weight, prematurity and child growth and cancers have a
significant impact on landfill emissions. In a multi- site study of residents of New York State,
a 12% increased risk of congenital malformations in children born to families within one mile
of hazardous waste sites were reported [57]. Fielder, Poon-King et al.[58] and Vrijheid, Dolk
et al. [59] also found an increased risk of congenital malformations in populations live near
landfill sites. A multi-site European study called EUROHAZCON discovered a 33% increase
in non- chromosomal birth defects among the residents living within 3 km of the 21
hazardous waste landfill sites studied [60]. This conclusion was confirmed by the study
conducted by Elliott, Briggs et al.[61]. A number of studies revealed that there is a higher risk
of developing cancer among the people near landfill sites and the elevated risks were
observed for cancers of the stomach, liver and intrahepatic bile ducts and trachea, bronchus,
lung, cervix and prostate [62, 63]
In addition to the health issues, landfills create considerable impacts on land value, land
degradation and land availability. Various researches conclude that landfills likely have an
adverse negative impact upon housing values depending upon the actual distance from the
landfill [4, 5, 38]. Potential hazards such as flies, odor, smoke, noise and threat to water
supplies are cited as reasons why the public do not want to reside close to the landfills.
Reichert, Small et al. [38] revealed that 40% of participants to their survey reported odor and
unattractiveness as the most severe nuisance while 35 % reported about the toxic water runoff
and methane gas emission. Their study concluded that landfills have a negative impact of 5.5-
7.3% of market value depending on the distance to landfills. Akinjare, Ayedun et al.[5] found
that all residential property values increased with the distance away from landfill sites at an
average of 6%. Ready [4] performed a meta-analysis that included all available hedonic price
studies of the impact of landfills on nearby property values. It showed that landfills that
accept high volumes of waste (500 tons per day or more) depresses the value of an adjacent
property by 12.9% while a low volume landfill depresses this value only by 2.5%.
Furthermore, occupation and requirement of the enormous space for landfills contribute to
land scarcity for the development of human society and eco systems.
Despite the landfilling has become the final option of the waste hierarchy defined by the EU
waste directive (2008/98/EC), it is still expected to be applied in several cases because of the
growing amount of solid wastes and a lack of suitable techniques to treat all kinds of wastes.
But it is very clear that the landfill concept should evolve to minimize the potential risks and
environmental burden of landfills and on the other hand to re-introduce the buried resources
to the material cycle. One approach is engineered bioreactor landfills in which a controlled
degradation is allowed in order to guarantee the long term stability of the landfill [64].
Another approach is the concept of enhanced landfill mining (ELFM) that reduces the
emission and potential hazard of landfills and valorize the resources contained in it. Several
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
studies have been conducted on ELFM both in environmental and economic point of view
6.1 Landfill as a reactor
Waste decomposing period of a MSW landfill is estimated as over fifty years. There is
considerable interest in techniques for shortening this time because it has the potential of
reducing overall costs and risks. One method is considering a landfill as a bio-reactor in
which the degradation processes is provocatively accelerated [1]. A bioreactor landfill is a
sanitary landfill site that uses enhanced microbiological processes to transform and stabilize
the readily and moderately decomposable organic waste constituents within 5 to 8 years of
bioreactor process implementation [64] . According to Warith’s study, the bioreactor landfill
significantly increases the extent of organic waste decomposition, conversion rates and
process effectiveness over those occur within the traditional landfill sites. The environmental
performance measurement parameters (landfill gas composition and generation rate, and
leachate constituent concentrations) remain at steady levels. A bioreactor landfill site requires
effective operation of liquid addition and management. Other than that waste shredding, pH
adjustment, nutrient addition and balance, waste pre-disposal and post-disposal conditioning,
and temperature management may also serve to optimize the bioreactor process. The
advantages of bio reactor landfills are: enhancement the landfill gas generation rates,
reduction of environmental impact, production of end product that does not need land filling,
overall reduction of land filling cost, reduction of leachate treatment operational cost,
reduction in post-closure care, maintenance and overall reduction of contaminating life span
of the landfill due to a decrease in contaminant concentrations during the operating period of
the bioreactor landfills.
6.2 Enhanced landfill mining (ELFM)
The previous sections of this paper highlighted that landfills have related implications such as
long term methane emissions, local pollution concerns, settling issues and limitation on urban
development. Landfill mining consisting of excavation, processing, treatment and/or recycling
of deposited materials has been suggested as a strategy to address such problems [67]. ELFM
includes the combined valorization of the historic waste streams as both materials and energy.
As mentioned in the review of Krook, Svensson et al. [67] massive amounts of important
materials such as metals have accumulated in landfills. On a global level, the amount of
copper situated in such deposits (393 million metric tons) has been estimated as comparable
in size to the present stock in use within the technosphere (330 milion metric tons). The same
study revealed that apart from metals, the amount of potential waste fuel situated in municipal
waste landfills is enough to cover the district heating demand in the country for 10 years.
Apart from old landfills, ELFM is also applicable to new landfills by considering them as
temporary storages. In that approach landfills become future mines for materials which could
not be recycled with existing technologies or show a clear potential to be recycled in a more
effective way in near future [69, 70]. Recently, Van Passel, Dubois et al.[66] address the
economics of ELFM both from private point of view as well as from a societal perspective.
Their analysis shows that there is a substantial economic potential for ELFM projects on the
wider regional level. Furthermore, the feasibility of ELFM is studied by synthesizing the
research on the Closing the Circle project, the first ELFM project targeting the 18 million
metric ton landfill in Houthalen-Helchteren in the East of Belgium [71]. They highlighted the
worldwide potential of ELFM in terms of climate gains, materials and energy utilization, job
creation and land reclamation. Nevertheless, for ELFM to reach its full potential, developing
standardized frameworks for evaluating critical factors for environmental and economic
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
performance is necessary. Moreover, strategic policy decisions and tailored support systems,
including combined incentives for material recycling, energy utilization and nature
restoration, are also required [67, 71].
Landfills mainly emit gas and contaminated water as well as wind-blown litter and dust.
Landfills are potential threat to the quality of the environment, although the full extent of this
threat has not always been scientifically validated. The main potential impacts are due to
landfill gas and leachate. Both are highly complex mixtures and vary from site to site and
with waste composition and age of the landfill. It is clear that enough attention has been given
to modeling of landfill emission in order to quantify the landfill gas and leachate production.
But on the other hand, studies that model the impacts of landfill emission are scarce. A few
LCA studies have been performed to compare landfilling with other waste management
technologies but by our knowledge an integrated assessment of the impacts of landfills has
not been addressed yet. Nevertheless, available literature highlights that the landfills create
significant impacts on global warming, eco system, ground and surface water, human health,
land value and land availability. In order to minimize the potential risk and environmental
burden of landfills and on the other hand to re-introduce the buried resources to the material
cycle the landfill concepts should be made operational in the future. Further development of
the concepts of landfill bioreactors and enhanced landfill mining can be seen as a promising
approach to reduce the environmental impact and the negative socio-economic impacts.
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding of the PhD study of M. Danthurebandara
by the IWT-O&O ELFM project ‘Closing the Circle & Enhanced Landfill Mining as part of
the Transition to Sustainable Materials Management’ and the valuable discussions with Group
Machiels (Belgium).
1. Crowley, D., et al., Health and environmental effects of landfilling and incineration of
waste- A literature review. 2003.
2. Krupa, S.V., The role of atmospheric chemistry in the assessment of crop growth and
productivity, in Plant response to air pollution, M. Yunus and M. Iqbal, Editors. 1996,
J. Wiley: Chichester.
3. Damgaard, A., et al., LCA and economic evaluation of landfill leachate and gas
technologies. Waste Management, 2011. 31(7): p. 1532-1541.
4. Ready, R.C., “Do landfills always depress nearby property values?”, 2005, The
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.
5. Akinjare, O.A., et al., Impact of sanitary landfills on urban residential property values
in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2011. 4(2): p. 48-60.
6. EEA, Dangerous substances in waste, 2000, European Environmental Agency,
7. Emery, A., et al., Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal
solid waste management scenarios in Wales. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
2007. 49: p. 244-263.
8. Vesilind, P.A., W. Worrell, and R. Reinhart, Solid Waste Engineering. 2002:
Brooks/Cole. 428.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
9. EPA, "Landfill Manuals, Landfill Site Design"2000.
10. Westlake, K., Landfill, in Waste treatment and disposal, R.E. Hester and R.M.
Harrison, Editors. 1995, Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge. p. 43-67.
11. EPA(US), "Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:Background
Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines". 1991. p. 544 pp.
12. O’Leary, P. and B. Tansel, Landfill gas movement, control and uses. Waste Age,
1986. 17(4): p. 104-116.
13. Hutchinson, D., R.E. Hester, and R.M. Harrison, Emission inventories, in Air quality
management. 1997, The Royal Society of Chemistry. p. 19-40.
14. IPCC, IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2006.
15. Oonk, H., “Literature review:Methane from landfills-Methods to quantify generations,
oxidation and emission”, 2010, OonKAY.
16. IPCC. IPCC Waste model 2010; Available from: http://www.ipcc-
17. Oonk, H. and T. Boom, "Landfill gas formation, recovery and emission", 1995, TNO,
Dutch Organization of Applied Scientific Research, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
18. Oonk, H., et al., "Validation of landfill gas formation models", 1994, TNO, Dutch
Organization of Applied Scientific Research, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
19. EPA. Landgem (Landfill gas emission model). 2000; Available from:
20. Sanchez, R., et al., Computer simulation of gas generation and transport in landfills
II: Dynamic conditions. Chemical Engineering Science, 2006. 61(14): p. 4750-4761.
21. Sanchez, R., T.T. Tsotsis, and M. Sahimi, Computer simulation of gas generation and
transport in landfills. III: Development of lanfills’ optimal model. Chemical
Engineering Science, 2007. 62(22): p. 6378-6390.
22. Sanchez, R., T.T. Tsotsis, and M. Sahimi, Computer simulation of gas generation and
transport in landfills. IV: Modeling of liquid–gas flow. Chemical Engineering
Science, 2010. 65(3): p. 1212-1226.
23. Hashemi, M., et al., Computer simulation of gas generation and transport in
landfills—I: quasi-steady-state condition. Chemical Engineering Science, 2002.
57(13): p. 2475-2501.
24. Li, H., et al., Computer simulation of gas generation and transport in landfills. V: Use
of artificial neural network and the genetic algorithm for short- and long-term
forecasting and planning. Chemical Engineering Science, 2011. 66(12): p. 2646-2659.
25. El-Fadel, M., A.N. Findikakis, and J.O. Leckie, Modeling Leachate Generation and
Transport in Solid Waste Landfills. Environmental Technology, 1997. 18(7): p. 669-
26. Baccini, P., et al., Water and element balances of municipal solid waste landfills.
Waste Manage. & Res., 1987. 5: p. 483-499.
27. Gee, J.R., "Predicting percolation at landfills: a direct method" in Environmental
Engineering conference proceedings1987: Orlando, Florida. p. 129-136.
28. El-Fadel, M. and R. Khoury, Modeling Settlement in MSW Landfills: a Critical
Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2000. 30(3): p.
29. Demetracopoulos, A., L. Sehayek, and H. Erdogan, ”Modeling Leachate Production
from Municipal Landfills.”. J. Environ. Eng., 1986. 112(5): p. 849-866.
30. Demirekler, E., R.K. Rowe, and K. Unlu, "Modeling leachate production from
muncipal solid waste landfills", in Seventh International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium1999: Cagliari, Italy. p. 17-24.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
31. Laner, D., J. Fellner, and P.H. Brunner, Future landfill emissions and the effect of final
cover installation - A case study. Waste Management, 2011. 31(7): p. 1522-1531.
32. Obersteiner, G., et al., Landfill modelling in LCA – A contribution based on empirical
data. Waste management, 2007. 27: p. S58-S74.
33. Finnveden, G., et al., Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste—part 1:
general methodology and results. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005. 13(3): p. 213-
34. Moberg, Å., et al., Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste—part 2:
landfilling compared to other treatment methods. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005.
13(3): p. 231-240.
35. Clift, R., A. Doig, and G. Finnveden, The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to
Integrated Solid Waste Management: Part 1—Methodology. Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, 2000. 78(4): p. 279-287.
36. Úbeda, Y., et al. "Evaluation of odour impact from a landfill area and a waste
treatment facility through the application of two approaches of a Gaussian dispersion
model". in 2010 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software
Modelling for Environment’s Sake, Fifth Biennial Meeting. 2010. Ottawa, Canada.
37. Reich, M., Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case
studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing
(LCC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005. 13: p. 253-263.
38. Reichert, A.K., M. Small, and S. Mohanty, The Impact of Landfills on Residential
Property Values, in Journal of Real Estate Research1992, American Real Estate
Society. p. 297.
39. EPA, Draft guidelines for the information on the information to be contained in
Environmental Impact Statements, 1995a, Environmental Protection Agency,
40. EPA, Advice notes on current practice (In the preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements), 1995b, Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.
41. Treweek, J., Ecological impact assessment. 1999: Oxford.
42. Mellanby, K., Waste and Pollution: The problem for Britain. 1992: Harper Collins:
Somerset, UK.
43. Clarke, A.G., The Air, in Understanding our environment, R.E. Hester, Editor. 1986,
Royal Society of Chemistry: London. p. 71-118.
44. O'Neill, P., Environmental Chemistry. 2 ed. 1993: Chapmen and Hall : London
45. Wellburn, A., Air pollution and climate change: The biological impact. 1994:
Pearson/Longman: Harlow, UK.
46. Leggett, J., Global Warming: The Greenpeace report, 1990, Oxford University, UK
47. Finnecy, E.E. and K.W. Pearce, Land contamination and reclamation, in
Understanding our environment, R.E. Hester, Editor. 1986, Royal Society of
Chemistry: London. p. 172-225.
48. Agrawal, S.B. and M.A. Agrawal, Environmental pollution and plant responses. 1999:
Lewis publishers, Florida
49. Yunus, M. and M. Iqbal, Plant response to air pollution. 1996: J. Wiley: Chichester.
50. Gendebien, A., M. Pauwels, and M.J. Ledrut-Damanet, Landfill gas from environment
to energy, 1992, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
51. Alloway, B.J., Heavy metals in soils. 2nd Ed. ed. 1995: Blackie Academic &
Professional: London.
52. Lehane, M., Environment in Focus: A discussion on key national environmental
indicators., 1999, Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford.
Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012
Kalmar, Sweden, November 26-28, 2012
53. Dempsey, S. and M.J. Costello, A review of oestrogen mimicking chemicals in relation
to water quality in Ireland, 1998, Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford.
54. Griffith, J., et al., Cancer mortality in U.S. counties with hazardous waste sites and
ground water pollution. Archives of Environmental Health, 1989. 44: p. 69-74.
55. Berry, M. and F. Bove, Birth weight reduction associated withresidence near
hazardous waste landfill. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1997. 105(8): p. 856-
56. Adami, G., et al., Case study of groundwater pollution in a critical area of the
Southern Friuli exposed to agricultural and landfill pressures. Ann. Chim., 2001. 91:
p. 531-540.
57. Geschwind, S.A., J.A. Stolwijk, and M. Bracken, Risk of congenital malformations
associated with proximity to hazardous waste sites. Am. J. Epidemiol., 1992. 135(11):
p. 1197-207.
58. Fielder, H.M.P., et al., Assessment of impact on health of residents near the Nant-y-
Gwyddon landfill site: retrospective analysis. BMJ, 2000. 320(7226): p. 19-22.
59. Vrijheid, M., et al., Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near hazardous
landfill sites. Lancet, 2002. 359: p. 320-322.
60. Dolk, H., et al., Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous waste landfill sites in
Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet, 1998. 352(9126): p. 423-427.
61. Elliott, P., et al., Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill
sites. BMJ, 2001. 323(7309): p. 363-368.
62. Goldberg, M.S., et al., Incidence of cancer among persons living near municipal solid
waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec. Archives of Environmental Health, 1995.
50(6): p. 416-424.
63. Goldberg, M.S., et al., Risks of developing cancer relative to living near a municipal
solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Archives of Environmental
Health, 1999. 54(4): p. 291-296.
64. Warith, M., Solid waste management: new trends in landfill design. Emirates Journal
for Engineering Research, 2003. 8(1): p. 61-70.
65. Van Passel, S., et al. Exploring the socio- economics of enhanced landfill mining. in
International academinc symposium on enhanced landfill mining, Houthalen-
Helchteren, Belgium2010.
66. Van Passel, S., et al., The economics of enhanced landfill mining: private and societal
performance drivers. Journal of Cleaner Production, in Press.
67. Krook, J., N. Svensson, and M. Eklund, Landfill mining: A critical review of two
decades of research. Waste Management, 2012. 32(3): p. 513-520.
68. Van Acker, K., et al. From end-of-pipe to industrial ecology: What is the role of
Enhanced Landfill Mining? in International Academic Symposium on Enhanced
Landfill Mining, Houthalen-Helchteren, Belgium. 2010.
69. Hogland, W., M. Hogland, and M. Marques. Enhanced Landfill Mining: Material
recovery, energy utilisation and economics in the EU (Directive) perspective in
International academinc symposium on enhanced landfill mining, Houthalen-
Helchteren, Belgium2010.
70. Jones, T.P., et al. Enhanced landfill mining and enhanced waste management:
Essential components for the transition towards sustainable materials management. in
International academinc symposium on enhanced landfill mining, Houthalen-
Helchteren, Belgium. 2010.
71. Jones, P.T., et al., Enhanced Land!ll Mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a
critical review. Journal of cleaner production, In Press.
... The dumped waste of landfills produces toxic LFG and landfill leachate that contaminates the ground water resulting in severe health risks and environmental pollution. The contaminated water is highly carcinogenic and can cause cancer in the bronchus, stomach, liver, etc., and congenital disabilities in children [105]. The significant components of LFG are CH 4 and CO 2 . ...
... Another challenging project is sanitary landfills. Chemical reactions in the landfill can generate tertiary pollutants, e.g., vinyl chloride, methyl-mercaptans, ethyl-mercaptans, hydrogen sulfide, and so on [105]. 94 additional non-methane organic pollutants are present in the emission of landfills identified by the US EPA. ...
... The workers handling and transporting the MSW are at high health risk but have no or minimal personal protective kits. The workers working directly in landfills are at even higher health risks due to numerous toxic and carcinogenic gases [105]. Inefficient incinerators produce toxic NOx gases that can cause countless respiratory diseases among workers and the surrounding neighborhood [29]. ...
Full-text available
Municipal solid waste (MSW) management has become a major concern for developing countries. The physical and chemical aspects of MSW management and infrastructure need to be analyzed critically to solve the existing socio-economic problem. Currently, MSW production is 2.01 billion tonnes/yr. In developing countries, improper management of MSW poses serious environmental and public health risks. Depending on the socio-economic framework of a country, several MSW management procedures have been established, including landfilling, thermal treatment, and chemical treatment. Most of the MSW produced in underdeveloped and developing countries such as Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan is dumped into open landfills, severely affecting the environment. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) projects based on thermal treatments, e.g., incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification, can be feasible alternatives to conventional technologies. This research has explored a comprehensive method to evaluate MSW characteristics and management strategies from a global and Bangladesh perspective. The benefits, challenges, economic analysis, and comparison of MSW-based WTE projects have been analyzed concisely. Implementing the WTE project in developing countries can reduce unsupervised landfill and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Alternative solutions and innovations have been discussed to overcome the high capital costs and infrastructural deficiencies. By 2050, Bangladesh can establish a total revenue (electricity sales and carbon credit revenue) of USD 751 million per year in Dhaka and Chittagong only. The landfill gas (LFG) recovery, waste recycling. and pyrolysis for energy production, syngas generation, and metal recovery are possible future directions of MSW management. The MSW management scenario in developing countries can be upgraded by improving waste treatment policies and working with government, academicians, and environmentalists together.
... Landfills are great contributors to global warming. Globally, 20% of anthropogenic methane emissions are originated in landfills (Damgaard et al., 2011;Danthurebandara et al., 2012). In Jordan, according to the Ministry of Environment, the waste sector contributes to more than 10% of the total greenhouse gas emissions (Qdais et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
Yard waste consist of garden waste, generated by public parks and private gardens routine maintenance such as grass clippings, leaves from deciduous trees, flowers, fallen fruits, branches, twigs and logs and its composition vary greatly depending on the original location due to climate and other environmental conditions. Yard waste may represent a problem to Municipal Solid Waste Management Programs due to its large volume thus, it is necessary to incentivize local composting programs. In this study we show a brief disposal cost estimation from different cities from United States of America and Canada and we discuss how this biowaste can be managed in order to reduce costs with storage, transportation and disposal fees, encouraging the utilization of the final product as a soil amendment, stimulating and reinforcing the circular economy concept. The composted yard waste may not substitute the use of commercial products but it can reduce the cost of acquisition of this soil conditioner as well costs waste management. Update in environmental public policies is essential to foment sustainable economy in this context.
... Landfilling is the most abundant waste management method that involves depositing waste in compacted layers in excavated land or on land surfaces (Vaverková, 2019). It has been adopted globally due to the availability of undeveloped land, and remains the most economical form of short-term waste disposal (Danthurebandara, Passel, Nelen, Tielemans, & Van Acker, 2013). Up to 95% of solid waste worldwide is disposed through landfilling with other types of waste (Assamoi & Lawryshyn, 2012;Vaverková et al., 2018). ...
... Among the methods of municipal solid waste management such as landfilling, incineration, composting etc., the sanitary landfill option or open dumping is popular in most countries (Vaverková, 2019). However, landfills generate a large amount of leachate with a complex composition, easily fluctuating with weather, difficult to handle and potentially polluting surface water, groundwater and the soil environment (Danthurebandara, 2012). Many methods of leachate treatment have been proposed, but some of the available techniques are still complicated, expensive and often require certain adaptations in the implementation process (Kamaruddin et al., 2014). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The study focused on 3 objectives: (1) determining the composition and structure of the dry powder and mucilage of the Nopal Cactus; (2) determine the optimal values: pH, dosage, stirring speed; and (3) evaluate the ability to remove turbidity, color, COD, total nitrogen, heavy metals (As, Cd, Pb, Zn, Cr, Hg) on leachate samples collected at Toc Tien landfill. The leachate treatment efficiency of natural coagulants from Nopal Cactus (in dry powder and mucilage) was performed by Jartest experiment. The maximum values: pH = 6.5, coagulant dosage is 1.5 g dry powder and 15.5 g mucilage, respectively, stirring speed is 30 rpm with stirring time of 30 minutes. Turbidity removal efficiency is at 72-73%, for COD it is at 50-54%. Conduct experimental optimization, in the dry powder: pH = 6.48; powder dosage used is 1.42 g; stirring speed is 26.78 rpm; under the assumed conditions then, the desired optimal turbidity removal efficiency is 73.29% and the desired optimal COD removal efficiency is 54.64%. In the mucilage form: pH = 6.55; the dosage used is 15.18g; hair stirrer 29.99 rpm; under that assumed condition, the desired optimal turbidity removal efficiency is 73.47% and the desired optimal COD removal efficiency is 51.51%.
... These findings are supported by a South Africa-focused study (Njoku et al. 2019) that revealed some dwellers near the landfill regularly kept the doors and windows of their houses closed to prevent the entry of mosquitoes and rodents. Danthurebandara et al. (2012) also found that due to the disturbance of the flies, odour, smoke and noise, people do not want to reside close to landfills. ...
Full-text available
Two Dhaka, Bangladesh, landfills are explored to understand how management practices impact environmental quality and public health in the surrounding areas. A combination of research methods is used, such as geospatial buffer zone analysis, semi-structured observation checklist and qualitative interviews, to gain an understanding of the waste transportation, leachate percolation, and adverse health and environmental effects. A multi-ring buffer zone and ground truth method were applied through ArcMap for the spatial distribution of landfill-adjacent environmental features. Qualitative interviews were conducted with landfill officials and nearby residents. Findings reveal that landfills are situated very close to residential areas, water bodies and agricultural lands, exposing them to various health and environmental hazards. Improper solid waste management practices of the landfills cause adverse environmental effects by leachate percolation, waste incineration and vector breeding. Adjacent dwellers suffer from bronchial diseases, pneumonia, diarrhoea, itching problems, headache and appetite loss. The existing solid waste management system requires managerial and technical modifications to reduce the associated environmental pollution and health hazards. Keywords: Bangladesh; Dhaka; cities; environmental health; hazard; landfill; pollution; public health; urban; waste management.
Full-text available
Global environmental concerns, as well as the rapid depletion of non-renewable fossil fuel-based resources, have prompted research into the development of sustainable, environmentally friendly, and biodegradable materials for use in a variety of high-end applications. To mitigate the environmental setbacks caused by nonbiodegradable materials, the development of biocomposites with improved mechanical performance is gradually gaining momentum. Natural fibers such as hemp, flax, and sisal have been well incorporated into biocomposite development. Nonetheless, the impact of functional moieties in their life cycle cannot be underestimated. In this review paper, a detailed discussion of the characteristics and components of biocomposites is presented. The treatment of composite materials (alkali and acetylation), as well as several manufacturing processes (hand layup, 3D printing, extrusion, etc.) and the applications of biocomposites, which are not limited to the aerospace industry, packaging, biomedicine, etc., are presented. Biocomposites with excellent durability, performance, serviceability, and reliability must be produced to expand their applications.
Open dumping and landfilling are the most widely used practices for municipal solid waste (MSW) management due to low costs and less treatment efforts. MSW comprises of metals/metalloids, organic compounds, micropollutants, inorganic macro-components, xenobiotic compounds, and dioxins. The vertical and lateral transmission of toxin-laden leachates, emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), and generation of odor and dust from open dumping and landfilling result in the contamination of water and soil resources globally. To be in line with the circular economy, the impacts of open dumping and landfilling of MSW on the environment need to be explored in detail. Therefore, the composition of MSW and its leachates, as well as the hazardous impacts of MSW landfills and open dumps on water, soil, air, and human beings are discussed in this chapter. The concentration of potentially hazardous pollutants in soil and water resources after releasing from MSW landfills and open dumps is presented. Further, the extent of GHG emissions from various waste types is presented. Mining landfills could be used to reduce the hazardous environmental impacts of open dumping and landfilling of MSW. However, the majority of landfill mining practices require higher costs and energy which are emitting ample amounts of CO2 into the environment. The development of modern closed-loop systems such as enhanced landfill mining could be used as an option to transform waste into energy and useful materials for a sustainable environment and circular economy.
The problem of the emergence of illegal dumps in rural areas is considered in the article on the example of the Tashkent region of the Republic of Uzbekistan. It was revealed that the sizes of illegal disposal fields vary from 1.0 to 18,895 m ² , there are dumps for building materials from construction sites, agricultural, household waste, as well as mixed landfills. The continuity of the layer of illegal dumps ranges from 60 to 100%. The roadsides also present long stretched illegal dumps with a continuity of the waste layer from 10 to 42%. For a full-scale assessment of the location, size and composition of illegal dumps, it is recommended to develop a GIS monitoring system.
Full-text available
Landfilling is one of the most common waste management methods employed in all countries alike, irrespective of their developmental status. The most commonly used types of landfills are (a) municipal solid waste landfill, (b) industrial waste landfill, and (c) hazardous waste landfill. There is, also, an emerging landfill type called “green waste landfill” that is, occasionally, being used. Most landfills, including those discussed in this review article, are controlled and engineered establishments, wherein the waste ought to abide with certain regulations regarding their quality and quantity. However, illegal and uncontrolled “landfills” (mostly known as open dumpsites) are, unfortunately, prevalent in many developing countries. Due to the widespread use of landfilling, even as of today, it is imperative to examine any environmental- and/or health-related issues that have emerged. The present study seeks to determine the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling by adopting a desk review design. It is revealed that landfilling is associated with various environmental pollution problems, namely, (a) underground water pollution due to the leaching of organic, inorganic, and various other substances of concern (SoC) contained in the waste, (b) air pollution due to suspension of particles, (c) odor pollution from the deposition of municipal solid waste (MSW), and (d) even marine pollution from any potential run-offs. Furthermore, health impacts may occur through the pollution of the underground water and the emissions of gases, leading to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects of the exposed population living in their vicinity. Graphical abstract
In terms of solid waste management, landfills are the favored disposal strategy. Before an area is established as a landfill, certain crucial things must be focused on and acted upon. In its most basic form, a landfill is a location where trash is “thrown” or “dumped.” However, developing a landfill necessitates a great deal of engineering expertise. A sanitary landfill is an engineered technique for disposing of solid waste on land that is designed to cause the least amount of environmental harm and inconvenience. As a result, the sanitary landfill design includes a detailed description and plan that ensures the safe and effective disposal of solid waste. This chapter goes through the types of sanitary landfills and the critical design requirements. Site selection, landfill liners, landfilling technology, and landfill cover system up to closure stage are all part of the sanitary landfill design. Every part must be properly designed; otherwise, the ecosystem will suffer. Because a sanitary landfill is a site where solid waste is disposed of in an engineered manner, the environmental effect is reduced or eliminated.
Full-text available
A large portion of the carbohydrates that a plant assimilates each day are expended in respiration in the same period (Table 1). If we seek to explain the carbon balance of a plant and to understand plant performance and growth in different environments, it is imperative to obtain a good understanding of respiration. Dark respiration is needed to produce the energy and carbon skeletons to sustain plant growth; however, a significant part of respiration may proceed via a nonphosphorylating pathway that is cyanide resistant and generates less ATP than the cytochrome pathway, which is the primary energy-producing pathway in both plants and animals. We present several hypotheses in this chapter to explore why plants have a respiratory pathway that is not linked to ATP production.
Landfills are one of the main sources of methane in The Netherlands. Methane emissions from landfills are estimated to be about 180–580 ktonnes (Gg) per year at a total of 760–1730 ktonnes. Landfill gas recovery and utilization is recognized as a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At this moment 17 landfill gas projects are operational in The Netherlands. In 1992 89.6 million m3 of landfill gas was recovered of which 71.0 million m3 was utilized. Recovery resulted in a methane emission reduction of 34,8 ktonnes and utilization brought about a carbon dioxide emission reduction of 66.5 ktonnes. The efficiency of landfill gas recovery as a means for greenhouse gas emission reduction is related to its integral efficiency. High integral efficiencies imply landfill gas recovery during the exploitation period. This is technologically possible and will be cheap, if one takes into consideration landfill gas formation and recovery when the landfill is designed.
Some topics discussed are the following: trace constituents of landfill gas; safety practices; why gas control is needed; the mechanics of gas movement; the effect of caps; probes and other devices; passive engineered solutions; active gas recovery systems; construction details; collecting for recovery; handling the collected gas; and energy recovery method.
Methane production from the decomposition of municipal refuse is well documented. However, there is little information on the extent to which the chemical constituents of refuse degrade. Decomposition of shredded municipal refuse was studied under laboratory conditions with leachate recycle and neutralization. Containers were destructively sampled weekly for solids analysis. Cellulose and hemicellulose accounted for 91% of the methane potential of municipal refuse. Mineralization of 71 % of the cellulose and 77% of the hemicellulose was measured in a container sampled after 111 days. The average carbon recovery obtained from mass balances on the decomposed refuse was 88.4% with a range of 64-111%. The measured methane yield was between 77 L and 107 L CH4 per dry kg of refuse. Mass balances suggested that the yield may be as high as 152 L CH4 per dry kg of refuse. Mass balances also showed an imbalance between the soluble sugar concentration of fresh refuse and the mass of terminal electron acceptors (oxygen and nitrate) available for sugar oxidation to carbon dioxide. This imbalance explained an observed decrease in refuse pH and the accumulation of carboxylic acids shortly after the initial incubation.