Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
OF
LANDFILL
LEACHATE
AND
AMIN MOJIRI
2014
by
AMIN MOJIRI
December 2014
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to express my profound gratitude to God (Allah); the Allah gave me the ability
and patience to accomplish my education.
I would like to appreciate my supervisor, Professor Hamidi Bin Abdul Aziz,
who has inspired and accompanied me throughout the stage of my study to the
smallest details. His constant guidance, subjective criticism, continuous support, and
great inspiration throughout the duration of my research are most valued. Also, I
would like to appreciate my co-supervisor, Dr. Nastaein Q. Zaman.
I also want to thank all technicians of Environmental Lab at School of Civil
Engineering. They have helped me a lot during the experiments. I also appreciate
Institute of Postgraduate Studies (IPS), USM because they provided funding and
fellowship during my education. And I would like to express my gratitude to the
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) for providing the research grant (Grant no.
1001/PAWAM/8045052) for this study and all their support.
Finally, this thesis is dedicated to my family. I really appreciate my father
Engr. Abdolkhalegh Mojiri, mother Masoumeh Khosravinejad, and my brother Engr.
Ehsan Mojiri. I sincerely thank you because of all your understanding, trust,
encouragement, and faith during the years of study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
xvi
LIST OF PLATES
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xxii
ABSTRAK
xxiii
ABSTRACT
xxv
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
Problem statement
1.3
Objectives
1.4
1.5
Thesis organization
Introduction
2.2
Sanitary landfill
2.2.1
11
iii
2.2.2
12
2.3
Landfill leachate
13
2.4
16
2.5
Biological methods
16
2.5.1
Anaerobic method
16
2.5.2
Aerobic method
18
2.5.3
18
2.6
18
18
2.5.3.3
19
2.5.3.4
Membrane bioreactor
19
2.5.3.5
19
2.5.3.6
21
A.
22
B.
23
Physical/chemical methods
24
2.6.1
Chemical precipitation
24
2.6.2
Chemical oxidation
25
2.6.2.1
2.6.3
Fenton treatment
25
Coagulationflocculation or flocculationprecipitation
iv
25
2.6.4
Membrane filtration
26
2.6.4.1
Microfiltration
26
2.6.4.2
Ultrafiltration
26
2.6.4.3
Nanofiltration
27
2.6.4.4
27
2.6.5
Electrochemical treatment
2.6.5.1
27
Electrooxidation
28
2.6.6
Ion exchange
28
2.6.6
Adsorption
29
30
2.7.1
Langmuir isotherm
31
2.7.2
Freundlich isotherm
32
2.7.3
33
treatment
2.8 Wastewater treatment by ion exchanges and adsorbents
34
2.9
37
38
41
41
42
43
43
44
2.13 Summary
46
Introduction
48
3.2
48
3.2.1
48
3.2.1.1
Site description
48
3.2.1.2
Sampling procedures
50
3.2.2
51
3.2.2.1
Site description
51
3.2.2.2
Sampling procedures
52
3.3
Analytical methods
53
3.4
54
3.5
56
3.6
57
SBR experiments
3.7
Pre-SBR experiments
58
3.7.1
58
Batch/shaking experiments
3.7.1.1 PZ dosage
59
vi
59
59
3.7.2
3.8
60
64
3.8.1
Normal-SBR
65
3.8.2
PZ-SBR
65
3.8.3
PAC-SBR
65
3.8.4
PZE-SBR
66
4.1
Introduction
67
4.2
67
4.3
70
4.4
Pre-SBR experiments
72
4.4.1
72
Batch/shaking experiments
73
75
A. PZ Production
75
B.
75
C.
Adsorption isotherm
76
vii
D.
Langmuir isotherm
77
E.
Freundlich isotherm
81
4.4.2
85
4.4.3
Batch/optimization experiments
92
92
methodology
4.4.3.2 Operation and performance of the reactors
92
98
i)
Colour removal
98
98
99
99
v)
99
Iron removal
100
100
100
Colour removal
109
109
109
109
viii
110
v)
110
Iron removal
110
111
111
Colour removal
120
120
120
120
121
v)
121
Iron removal
121
122
122
131
SBR)
i)
Colour removal
131
131
131
132
ix
v)
4.4.4
Iron removal
132
132
133
133
142
142
143
4.4.4.3
A)
Colour removal
144
B)
COD removal
145
C)
Ammonia removal
145
D)
Phenols removal
146
148
condition by RSM
4.5
A)
Fe removal
149
B)
Mn removal
150
C)
Ni removal
151
D)
Cd removal
152
153
4.6
4.5.1
154
4.5.2
156
158
4.6.1
158
Statistical analysis
4.8
169
169
170
171
172
172
174
4.8.1.1
174
removal
4.8.1.2 Fe, Mn, Ni, Cd and Cr (VI) removal
175
176
A)
Nitrification
177
B)
Denitrification
177
Conclusions
179
5.2
Recommendations
180
xi
REFERENCE
181
198
199
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
204
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1
11
Table 2-2
12
Table 2-3
12
Table 2-4
13
Table 2-5
15
Table 2-6
15
Table 2-7
22
Table 2-8
Time for fill, settle, draw and idle phases in SBR studies
22
Table 2-9
38
Table 3-1
Analytical methods
54
Table 3-2
57
Table 3-3
Coded and actual values of variables for normal-SBR, PZSBR, PAC-SBR, and PZE-SBR
63
Table 3-4
64
Table 3-5
66
Table 4-1
69
Table 4-2
41
xiii
Table 4-3
78
Table 4-4
78
Table 4-5
81
Table 4-6
82
Table 4-7
85
Table 4-8
86
Table 4-9
86
Table 4-10
89
Table 4-11
94
Table 4-12
95
Table 4-13
96
Table 4-14
97
Table 4-15
142
Table 4-16
160
Table 4-17
161
Table 4-18
170
Table 4-19
170
Table 4-20
171
Table 4-21
172
xiv
Table 4-22
173
Table 4-23
173
Table 4-24
175
Table 4-25
175
Table 4-26
175
Table 4-27
176
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2-1
11
Figure 2-2
14
Figure 2-3
17
Figure 2-4
20
Figure 3-1
49
Figure 3-2
50
Figure 3-3
Leachate collection
51
Figure 3-4
52
Figure 3-5
53
Figure 3-6
55
Figure 3-7
Sludge acclimatization
57
Figure 3-8
Pre-SBR experiments
58
Figure 4-1
74
Figure 4-2
74
Figure 4-3
76
xvi
Figure 4-4
79
Figure 4-5
80
Figure 4-6
83
Figure 4-7
84
Figure 4-8
87
Figure 4-9
88
Figure 4-10
90
Figure 4-11
91
Figure 4-12
101
Figure 4-13
102
Figure 4-14
103
Figure 4-15
104
Figure 4-16
105
Figure 4-17
106
Figure 4-18
107
Figure 4-19
108
Figure 4-20
112
Figure 4-21
113
Figure 4-22
114
Figure 4-23
115
xvii
Figure 4-24
116
Figure 4-25
117
Figure 4-26
118
Figure 4-27
119
Figure 4-28
123
Figure 4-29
124
Figure 4-30
125
Figure 4-31
126
Figure 4-32
127
Figure 4-33
128
Figure 4-34
129
Figure 4-35
130
Figure 4-36
134
Figure 4-37
135
Figure 4-38
136
Figure 4-39
137
Figure 4-40
138
Figure 4-41
139
Figure 4-42
140
Figure 4-43
141
Figure 4-44
142
Figure 4-45
143
xviii
Figure 4-46
143
Figure 4-47
144
Figure 4-48
145
Figure 4-49
146
Figure 4-50
147
Figure 4-51
150
Figure 4-52
151
Figure 4-53
152
Figure 4-54
153
Figure 4-55
155
Figure 4-56
155
Figure 4-57
156
Figure 4-58
157
Figure 4-59
157
Figure 4-60
158
xix
Figure 4-61
162
Figure 4-62
163
Figure 4-63
164
Figure 4-64
165
Figure 4-65
166
Figure 4-66
167
Figure 4-67
168
Figure 4-68
169
Figure 4-69
171
Figure 4-70
178
xx
LIST OF PLATES
Page
Plate 3-1: Powdered ZELIAC
61
61
61
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PZ
Powdered ZELIAC;
PAC
PZE
Powdered Zeolite;
SBR
HRT
OLR
XRF
X- ray fluorescence;
XRD
X-ray diffraction;
SEM
xxii
ABSTRAK
Reaktor kelompok berturutan (SBR) merupakan satu daripada sistem olahan
biologi yang digunakan dalam olahan air sisa. Kajian ini menyelidiki olahan bersama
larut lesapan kambus tanah Semeling, Sg. Petani dan air sisa domestik Bayan Baru,
dengan menambah bahan penjerap baru (ZELIAC serbuk, PZ), karbon teraktif
serbuk (PAC) dan zeolite serbuk (PZE) ke dalam sistem SBR. Beberapa parameter
seperti BOD, COD, ammonia, phenol dan logam dalam larut lesapan kambus tanah
Semeling melepasi standard pelepasan efluen yang dibenarkan semasa kajian ini.
ZELIAC dibentuk oleh zeolite, karbon teraktif, batu kapus, debu sekam padi dan
simen Portland. Unsur dan kompaun utama ZELIAC adalah SO2, CaO, dan C. Dalam
kajian ini, saiz penjerap adalah dalam julat 75 m ke 150 m. Kaedah Tindak Balas
Permukaan (RSM) dan Reka bentuk Komposit Tengah (CCD) digunakan dalam
penentuan keadaan optimum parameter tak bertindakbalas termasuk kadar
pengudaraan (L/min), masa sentuhan (h) dan nisbah campuran larut lesapan ke air
sisa (%; v/v). Untuk analisis proses aerobik, lapan parameter boleh-ubah diukur, iaitu
Keperluan Oksigen Kimia (COD), warna, nitrogen-ammonia (NH3-N), phenol, Fe,
Mn, Ni dan Cd. Parameter-parameter ini dipilih berdasarkan sorotan literatur serta
kepekatan bahan cemar ini melebihi yang lain dalam larut lesapan. Pada keadaan
optimum kadar pengudaraan (4.32 L/min), nisbah larut lesapan ke air sisa (20%), dan
masa sentuhan (12.68 jam) untuk SBR, kecekapan penyingkiran warna, NH3-N,
COD, phenol, Fe, Mn, Ni dan Cd adalah masing-masing 55.95%, 45.81%, 98.42%,
xxiii
33.83%, 45.03%, 38.85%, 44.64% dan 43.79%. Ini berbanding dengan pada keadaan
optimum kadar pengudaraan (4.21 L/min), nisbah larut lesapan ke air sisa (20%), dan
masa sentuhan (11.65 jam) untuk PZ-SBR, kecekapan penyingkiran warna, NH3-N,
COD, phenol, Fe, Mn, Ni dan Cd adalah masing-masing 84.74%, 72.35%, 99.54%,
61.93%, 79.58%, 73.32%, 79.28%, dan 76.94%. Berdasarkan parameter-parameter
optimum, eksperimen diulangi sebanyak lima kali dan nisbah F/M, masa tahanan
hidraulik (HRT), Kadar Beban Organik (OLR), dan oksigen terlarut (DO) diukur
dalam reaktor. Dalam eksperimen berterusan, keputusan menunjukkan PZ-SBR
memberikan kecekapan penyingkiran yang lebih baik bagi semua parameter yang
dikaji berbanding PAC-SBR, PZE-SBR dan SBR. PZ-SBR juga berpotensi lebih
baik dalam penyingkiran warna dan logam berat.
xxiv
Mn, Ni, and Cd were 84.74%, 72.35%, 99.54%, 61.93%, 79.58%, 73.32%, 79.28%,
and 76.94%, respectively. The experiments were run five times using the optimum
parameters (continues SBR experiment). F/M Ratio, hydraulic retention time,
organic loading rate, and DO were monitored in the reactors. In continues
experiments, the results indicated that the PZ-SBR showed higher efficiencies in
reducing all parametric values under investigation compared with PAC-SBR, PZESBR, and SBR. The PZ-SBR also has a higher potential for reducing color and
removing heavy metals.
xxvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
In the majority of countries, sanitary landfills are the prevalent way of solid
waste disposal. This method has benefits; however, its main drawbacks is leachate
production, that should be managed well. Malaysia currently has 296 landfills
(National Solid Waste Management Department, 2014). Unfortunately, most of these
landfills are old dumpsites with no environmental control. The leachate is mostly
released directly into water sources without any treatment. This act poses a threat to
neighboring ecosystems, especially places in which landfills are situated upstream of
water systems (Aziz et al., 2011a). Without proper treatment, a landfill leachate
greatly increases water pollution because it penetrates through the soil and subsoil,
therefore, hazardous components should comply with discharge standards (Aziz et
al., 2011a).
Landfill
leachates
are
wastewater
products
that
have
considerable
age, hydrology of the site, landfill operations, and landfill type. High concentrations
of suspended solids, BOD5, COD, ammonic-nitrogen, and metals are commonly
present in leachate (Foul et al., 2009).
As the landfill age increases, the biodegradable portion of organic
contaminants in the leachate decreases because of anaerobic disintegration.
Therefore, developed leachate normally includes more resistant organics than young
leachate. A young landfill leachate (age < 5 years) is usually characterized by high
COD (30000 mgL-1to 60000 mgL-1) and BOD (4000 mgL-1to 13000 mgL-1), high
ratio of BOD5/COD (0.4 to 0.7), relatively high amounts of ammonia (< 400 mgL-1),
and pH < 6.50. Mature landfill leachate (age > 10 years) is usually characterized by
high amounts of ammonia (>400 mgL-1), mildly high COD (< 4000 mgL-1), and a
low BOD5/COD ratio of less than 0.1 (Aziz et al., 2011b). In the first year of landfill
operations, free volatile fatty acids represent the most abundant group of organic
materials, and their rapid reduction occurs as the landfill ages. Ammonium nitrogen
levels increase in leachate over time. The level in mature landfill leachate is between
2000 and 3000 mg NNH4/dm3 (Klimiuk and Kulikowska, 2004). The group with the
highest integrity with increasing age resembles a fulvic material with its relatively
high carboxyl and aromatic hydroxyl group densities. Particular organic compounds
recognized in leachate are phthalates, pesticides, furans, halogenated aromatics,
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
and
napthalensulfonates
(Klimiuk
and
Anaerobic and aerobic processes have been shown effective in treating landfill
leachate (Klimiuk and Kulikowska, 2004; Aziz et al., 2014). The activated sludge
system is one of the most common aerobic systems employed in leachate treatment
(Amirossadat, 2014). The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is common in the
treatment of domestic, urban, dairy, industrial, synthetic, and slaughterhouse
wastewaters, as well as landfill leachates (Aziz et al., 2011a).
The fill, react, settle, draw, and idle phases in the SBR process occur in a single
tank. Recent modifications have been made to the original SBR design. SBR has
been employed to treat leachates with the low BOD5/COD ratio of 0.09 to 0.37 (Guo
et al., 2010). Aziz et al. (2011b) reported that SBRs are less effective in treating
landfill leachate than in treating urban and industrial wastes because of the low
BOD5/COD ratio and the high ammonia concentration of leachates. Therefore,
adsorption methods are employed as supplements in a SBR to increase the efficiency
in the removal of organic matter, ammonia, heavy metals, and other pollutants (Aziz
et al., 2011a, b). Aziz et al. (2011c) used a powdered activated carbon (PAC)supplemented SBR process to increase leachate-treatment efficiency. PAC-SBR
performed better in removing the main contaminants (e.g., COD, colour, ammonia,
phenols, and iron) from the landfill leachate.
Previous studies (Bashir et al., 2010; Aziz, 2011) indicate that adsorption is an
effective method for leachate treatment. A landfill leachate containing mixtures of
inorganic and organic species require adsorbents that can eliminate a variety of
contaminants (Renou et al., 2008). Activated carbon, zeolite, and activated alumina
are examples of adsorbents. Low-cost adsorbents include peat, limestone, and rice
husk ash. Activated carbon provides an attachment surface for microorganisms for
bioregeneration (Halim et al., 2012; Halim et al., 2013). Activated carbons are
al., 2010; Aziz, 2011; Aziz et al. 2011a), the main contaminants in leachate are COD,
colour, ammonia, phenols, and metals; these contaminants can be removed using
biological and physicalchemical methods.
The treatment of domestic wastewater is well established. The SBR system has
been well accepted worldwide, including Malaysia. Channeling landfill leachates
into domestic wastewater treatment plants has been practiced for many years
(Capodici et al., 2014). However, limited information on the co-treatment of landfill
leachates with urban wastewater is available to date.The use of the SBR for this cotreatment has been very limited. A SBR augmented by activated carbon has been
investigated for leachate treatment (Aziz, 2011). The USM team developed a new
composite medium called ZELIAC as a landfill leachate treatment. ZELIAC was
prepared using different types of low-cost materials (e.g., limestone, zeolite,
activated carbon, burnt rice husk, and Portland cement as a binder) (Halim et al.,
2010). The team used ZELIAC to reduce levels of certain parameters and remove
contaminants (e.g., COD and ammonia) from semi-anaerobic landfill leachates.
ZELIAC is a favorable alternative to the expensive activated carbon. In the
present research, ZELIAC was investigated as a supplement in the SBR for the cotreatment of domestic wastewater and landfill leachates. Powdered ZELIAC-SBR
(PZ-SBR) for landfill leachates and domestic wastewater treatment has the
characteristics of all adsorbents used in previous studies. A comparison of the
performances of PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR, and powdered zeolite-SBR (PZE-SBR) has not
been reported. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap in the SBR process.
One of the most important properties in the SBR is the settling time. Before the
effluent is withdrawn, settling of biomass takes place. Sludge that has not settled
within the given settling time could be washed out of the reactor (Tay et al., 2006). In
literature, different settling times have been suggested. In some studies, several
researchers have suggested a settling time of 2 h (Jian, 2008; Chan et al., 2011),
whereas Bu et al (2010) and Aziz et al. (2011a) suggested 1.5 h. Others suggested
between 30 min and 18 h of settling (Qin et al., 2004; Kumar and Subramanian,
2014). Some researchers showed that the settling time can be reduced by adding
adsorbents in the reactors (Lee and Lim, 2003; Aziz, 2011). Thus, in the current
study, shorter settling hours were used to optimize the SBR process.
1.3 Objectives
The objectives of this study include the following:
1. To characterize leachate at the Semeling Landfill Site in Sg. Petani, Kedah,
Malaysia and domestic wastewater from the Bayan Baru Sewage Treatment Plant.
2. To optimize the settling time and dosage of PZ in batch/shaking experiments
of fixed ratios of leachatedomestic wastewater samples, which are used in pre-SBR
experiments for co-treatment;
3. To determine the optimum parameters [i.e., contact time, leachate to
wastewater mixing ratio (L/W), and aeration rate] via pre-SBR experiments and
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) using different configurations of SBR
systems (SBR, PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR, and PZE-SBR) and to test their performance on
removal of colour, COD, ammonia, phenols, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cd; and
4. To compare the performance of the different SBRs (SBR, PZ-SBR, PACSBR, and PZE-SBR) at the optimum conditions pre-determined in (2) and (3) on the
removal of colour, COD, ammonia, phenols, sulfide, Fe, Mn, Ni, Cd, and Cr tested.
preparation,
Pre-SBR
experiments
(batch/shaking
experiments,
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter includes sections that are useful in designing and conducting
experiments. The first section describes a sanitary landfill. The second focuses on
landfill leachate and wastewater treatment technologies, including biological
methods and physicalchemical methods. Furthermore, important equations related
to biological design are presented and discussed. The third section reviews studies on
ion-exchange and adsorption methods for wastewater treatment and adsorption
isotherms. In the fourth section, studies on the co-treatment of landfill leachates and
domestic wastewaters are summarized. The design of experiments by RSM to
optimize operational parameters is examined in the final section.
designed cell advance; extensive site preparation; full leachate management; daily
and final cover; full gas management; compaction; fence and gate; maintained record
of waste volume, type, and resource; and absence of scavenging and trading. A main
component of isolation is the management and treatment of leachates. Several
methods can be employed to attain isolation of leachates from the surrounding
environment depending on available resources. The methods range from prevention
of leachate generation to sophisticated leachate treatment systems and controlled
release of leachates to the environment (Liermann, 2009).
In the design of a the sanitary landfill, a dumping site should meet the
following basic criteria: (1) compaction of wastes, (2) daily covering of wastes with
soil or other materials to minimize their impact on the outside environment, and (3)
control and prevention of negative effects on the health of the community and
environment (e.g., odors, polluted water supplies, and so on) (UNEP, 2005). The
basic design and operating aspects of a sanitary landfill in terms of routes of impact
outside the fill and the three basic conditions are shown in Figure 2.1. The
advantages and disadvantages of sanitary landfills are shown in Table 2.1.
Malaysia has approximately 296 landfills (Table 2.2) as of this writing, and the
majority are old dumpsites (National Solid Waste Management Department, 2014).
Most of these landfills are only disposal grounds without environmental treatment
facilities. Leachates are released straight into water resources, which threatens the
neighboring ecosystems, particularly in places where landfills are situated upstream
of water systems (Aziz et al., 2011a). The two classification systems for landfills in
Malaysia are as follows:
10
Disadvantages
Low cost
Figure 2.1: Schematic of basic aspects of a sanitary landfill (Source: UNEP, 2005)
11
Still Operating
Closed Landfills
Total
Johor
14
23
37
Kedah
15
Kelantan
13
19
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
11
18
Pahang
16
16
32
Perak
17
12
29
Perlis
Pulau Pinang
Sabah
19
21
Sarawak
49
14
63
Selangor
14
22
Terengganu
12
20
WP Kuala Lumpur
WP Labuan
Total
165
131
296
Details
Controlled disposal
12
13
14
Urban landfill leachates consist of contaminants that can be classified into four
main groups as follows: (1) dissolved organic matter; (2) inorganic compounds such
as calcium, potassium, sodium, ammonium, calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and
chlorides; (3) iron and heavy metals such as nickel, lead, copper, chromium,
cadmium, and zinc; and (4) xenobiotic organic materials (Aziz et al., 2011a; Tengrui
et al., 2007). Tables 2.5 and 2.6 list the characteristics of leachates generated from
disintegration of MSW in developing countries and landfill leachate classification
versus age, respectively.
Parameter
4.5 to 9
300 to 11,500
20 to 40,000
500 to 60,000
10 to 250
100 to 5,000
10 to 2,500
50 to 4,000
40 to 1,150
0 to 42,300
6 to 2,700
0 to 22,800
Organic N
Ammonia NH3
Nitrite nitrogen NO2
Nitrate nitrogen NO3
Total nitrogen
Total phosphate
Sulphate (SO42)
Manganese
Total iron
Copper
Lead
Zinc
pH
Alkalinity (CaCO3)
BOD5
COD
Calcium
Chloride (Cl)
Potassium
Sodium
Magnesium
TDS
Total SS
Hardness
Source: UNEP (2005)
Range of values
(mg/L)
10 to 4,250
30 to 3,000
0 to 25
0.1 to 50
50 to 5,000
0.1 to 30
20 to 1,750
0.03 to 65
3 to 2,100
4 to 1,400
8 to 1,020
0.03 to 120
Young
<5
<6.5
>10,000
>0.3
80% volatile fatty
acids (VFA)
Heavy metals
Biodegradability
Low to medium
Important
Intermediate
5 to 10
6.5 to 7.5
4,000 to 10,000
0.1 to 0.3
5% to 30% VFA +
humic and fulvic
acids
Low
Medium
15
Old
>10
>7.5
<4,000
<0.1
Humic and fulvic
acids
Low
Low
16
Figure 2.3: Diagram of landfill leachate treatment techniques (based on Abbas et al.,
2009 and Renou et al., 2008)
17
18
membrane
bioreactor
technique
employs
activated
sludge
and
from a secondary clarifying tank, which becomes a product called mixed liquor. This
mixture is stirred and injected with large quantities of air to provide oxygen and keep
solids in suspension. After a certain period, the mixed liquor flows to a clarifier,
where it is allowed to settle. A portion of the bacteria is eliminated as it settles, and
the partially treated water flows for further treatment (Pipeline, 2013).
The activated sludge method is extensively applied around the world for
treatment of domestic and industrial wastewaters in situations where high effluent is
necessary and space is limited. However, the activated sludge system is heavily
mechanized in contrast to the other systems; thus, involving more complex operating
procedures. Another disadvantage is the consumption of electrical energy for
aeration (Sperling, 2007). Figure 2.4 shows the main units in the biological stage of
the activated sludge system.
Figure 2.4: Representation of the main units in the biological stage of the activated
sludge system (Source: Sperling, 2007)
20
21
Table 2-7: Treatment of different types of wastewaters by using the SBR process
No.
Type
Contaminants
Landfill leachate
2
3
Landfill leachate
Municipal wastewater
Dairy wastewater
Textile effluent
Slaughterhouse wastewater
Abattoir effluent
Tannery wastewater
10
Synthetic wastewater
COD
Ammonium
Phosphate
COD
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total SS
Ammonia
COD
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total nitrogen
Total organic carbon
Colour
COD
Biochemical oxygen demand
COD
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
COD
Ammonia
Biochemical oxygen demand
COD
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Removal
(%)
75
44
44
<83
98
90
89
80.2
63.4
66.3
38.3
66
94
79 to 91
91 to 99
96
96
99
85.5
90
80 to 82
83 to 89
97.7
94.9
71.4
55.9
Table 2-8: Time for fill, settle, draw and idle phases in SBR studies
Type of Wastewater
Fill
Settle
Reference
(min)
(min)
(min)
Leachate
20
90
10
Aziz (2011)
Synthetic Wastewater
20
105
12
Leachate
10
70
10
Leachate
25
15
Leachate
30
90
30
Bu et al. (2010)
22
requires regular-shaped sites, (4) fewer channels and pipe work, (5) easily scalable,
and (6) can be adapted for nitrification and denitrification.
The main disadvantages of the SBR methods are as follows (Mace and
Alvarez, 2002; USEPA, 1999): (1) a higher level of complexity is required
(compared with conventional systems), especially for larger structures, for timing
units and controls; (2) a higher level of maintenance (compared with conventional
systems) associated with more complex controls, automated switches, and automated
valves is required; (3) the potential to discharge floating or settled sludge during the
draw or decant phase with certain SBR configurations; (4) the potential requirement
for equalization after the SBR, depending on the downstream processes; and (5)
batch feeding from storage or bio-selectors required to control bulking.
23
In many investigations, the SBR has been applied for the treatment of leachates
with low BOD5/COD ratios of 0.09 to 0.37. The capability of the SBR in treating
leachates is lower than in treating municipal and industrial wastes because leachates
have low biodegradability ratio and high concentration of heavy metals, COD, and
NH3N. In the reported studies, an adsorption method was supplemented to the SBR
process to increase the elimination efficiencies of organic matter, heavy metals,
NH3N, and other pollutants. Aziz et al. (2011b) investigated landfill leachate
treatment by PACSBR method and optimization by RSM. Results indicated that the
PACSBR showed superior performance over the SBR in terms of removal
efficiencies.
24
dissolved ions in the solution are converted to the insoluble solid phase via chemical
reactions.
2.6.4.1 Microfiltration
MF with pore sizes of 0.05 microns to 10 microns is used to capture microbial
cells, small particles, and large colloidal particles. This method is not suitable as a
stand-alone treatment for leachates. MF is recommended as a pretreatment process
with other membrane processes (i.e., UF, NF, or RO) or in combination with ten
chemical treatment processes to remove suspended matter and colloids. Piatkiewicz
et al. (2001) employed this method in the pre-filtration stage and obtained COD
reduction rates of 25% to 35%.
2.6.4.2 Ultrafiltration
UF is a selective method that uses pressures of up to 10 bar. This technique
efficiently removes suspended matter either by direct filtration or biological
treatment to replace the sedimentation unit. UF is significantly dependent on the
material of the membrane. Syzdek and Ahlert (1984) proposed that this process
might prove useful as a pretreatment method in RO. UF can be used to eliminate
leachate components with larger molecular weight that tend to foul RO membranes
(Rautenbach et al., 1997; Bohdziewicz et al., 2001).
26
2.6.4.3 Nanofiltration
NF has been used in removing recalcitrant organic compounds and heavy
metals from landfill leachate because of its unique properties between UF and RO
membranes. NF also has the capability to remove particles with a molecular weight
greater than 300 Da and inorganic substances through electrostatic interactions
between ions and membranes. The action of this membrane lies in its surface charges
that permit charged solutes smaller than the membrane pores to be rejected along
with larger neutral solutes and salts (Kurniawan et al., 2006).
27
2.6.5.1 Electrooxidation
Electrochemical oxidation has become promising in wastewater treatment
primarily because of its effectiveness and ease of operation. This process has
significant efficacy in degrading refractory pollutants, such as cyanide, EDTA, and
aniline, as well as in reducing colour (Chiang et al., 1995).
2.6.6 Ion-exchange
Ion-exchange is a reversible interchange of ions between the solid and fluid
phases without changing the structure of the solid. This treatment can effectively
eliminate traces of metal impurities to meet the increasingly strict discharge
standards in developed countries. Prior to ion-exchange, the leachate should be
subjected to biological treatment (Kurniawan et al., 2006).
Solid ion exchange particles can be classified as natural inorganic particles
(zeolites) and synthetic organic resins fabricated from high-molecular-weight
polyelectrolytes (Bashir et al., 2010). Development of ion exchange resins and
characterization of naturally occurring ion exchange materials have demonstrated
numerous possible applications of the technology in water and wastewater treatment
(Wang and Peng, 2010).
The ion-exchange technique offers such benefits as the capability to handle
shock loadings and operate over a wide range of temperatures. Some of the most
popular and widely available natural ion exchangers are zeolites, which consist of an
aluminosilicate molecular structure with weak cationic bonding sites. The use of
28
natural zeolites has been avoided in processes that require high purity or consistency
because of the irregularities and impurities. Zeolites are hydrated aluminosilicates
comprising silica and aluminum tetrahedra that are mutually bound by chemical
covalent bonds of common oxygen atoms (Mojiri, 2011).
2.6.7 Adsorption
Adsorption is the most widely used technique for the removal of recalcitrant
organic compounds from landfill leachates. Adsorption is a mass transfer process by
which a substance is transferred from the liquid phase to the surface of a solid and
then bound by physical or chemical interactions or both (Kurniawan et al., 2006).
Regardless of the initial concentration of organic matter, adsorption of contaminants
on the activated carbon column or powder results in better reduction in COD than
that by chemical methods. However, adsorption requires frequent regeneration of
columns or an equivalently high consumption of PAC. Adsorption by activated
carbon has been used with biological methods for effective treatment of landfill
leachates. Non-biodegradable organics, inert COD, and colour may be reduced to
acceptable levels for biologically treated landfill leachates (Renou et al., 2008).
The adsorption technique is an efficient and a promising fundamental approach
in wastewater treatment processes (Foo and Hameed, 2009). This technique is
employed as a phase of integrated chemicalphysicalbiological method for leachate
treatment, or simultaneously with a biological process. The most commonly applied
adsorbent is granular-activated carbon (GAC) or PAC (Mojiri, 2011).
Adsorption using GAC or PAC has been widely considered for the removal of
organic and inorganic contaminants from polluted wastewater because of its inherent
29
30
(Eq. 2-1)
where Co and Ce (mg/L) are the initial and equilibrium liquid-phase concentrations of
the adsorbate, respectively; V is the volume of the solution (L); and W is the mass of
the adsorbent used (g).
The Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms are two of the best-known adsorption
isotherms. These isotherms have been originally derived for the adsorption of gases
by solids (Aydin et al., 1996).
31
(Eq. 2-2)
where x/m is the mass of adsorbate adsorbed/unit mass of adsorbent (mg adsorbate
per g adsorbent), a and b is the empirical constants, and Ce is the equilibrium
concentration of the adsorbate in solution following adsorption (mg/L).
32
(Eq. 2-4)
where C0 is the primary concentration of the solute in the bulk solution (mg L1) and
qm is the Freundlich maximum adsorption capacity (mgg1).
33
34
and 48% of ammoniacal nitrogen were reduced by the mixture in the batch study,
whereas the reductions in the colour and COD, iron, and ammoniacal nitrogen were
70%, 80%, and 90%, respectively, in the column study.
Thornton et al. (2007) investigated ammonium removal from a solution by ion
exchange onto MesoLite. Results indicated that a maximum equilibrium volume of
49 g NH4+Nkg1 media is achievable under experimental conditions. A detailed
examination of the data reveals that increasing the solution concentration and contact
time results in the best performance at an optimum pH between 6 and 7.
Sarioglu (2005) investigated the removal of ammonium from municipal
wastewater using natural Turkish (Dogantepe) zeolite. Results showed that the cation
exchange capacity of Dogantepe zeolite was 164.62 meq/100 g. These findings
showed that Dogantepe zeolite can be used to remove ammonium from wastewater.
Rahmani and Mahvi (2008) investigated the use of ion exchange for the
removal of ammonium by biological regeneration of zeolite. They demonstrated that
the cation exchange capacity was 10.06 (in the breakthrough point), and 18.38 mg
NH4+g-1 zeolite is the total capacity. Results showed that nitrification was
accelerated by increasing MLVSS concentration while maintaining nitrate
concentration in the solution. The results achieved by bioregeneration of zeolite
exhibited an efficiency of 87.7% to 99.8% for 3.5 h to 5.5 h. Nitrifying sludge can be
used for several cycles because regeneration was achieved with high nitrate
concentrations, and the system can be an economical method of removing NH4+ from
effluents.
Chang et al. (2009) studied the characteristics of zeolite media in NH 4+N
removal in a biological aerated filter (BAF) for the treatment of textile wastewater.
35
Results showed that the use of natural zeolites in a BAF for the treatment of textile
wastewater is feasible.
Wang et al. (2007) studied the removal of low-concentration ammonia in water
by ion-exchange using Namordenite. They showed that ammonia uptake by Na
mordenite was minimally influenced by the operating temperature in the range of
278333 K and the coexistence of K+ and Na+ in the water. By contrast, coexistent
Ca2+ and Mg2+ significantly lowered the efficiency of the Namordenite for ammonia
removal.
Samad et al. (2004) investigated phosphate removal from municipal
wastewater using different adsorbents. They showed that calcium carbonate is more
suitable for the phosphate removal from wastewater, and low pH values and high
temperatures enhance the removal of phosphate.
Bashir et al. (2010) investigated the application of RSM to optimize NH3N
removal from semi-aerobic landfill leachate using ion exchange resin. They
demonstrated that ion exchange resins can be used to remove NH3N efficiently
from semi-aerobic stabilized landfill leachate.
Sarudji and Mangkoedihardjo (2007) investigated cement and clay treatment
for organic-matter-containing leachates. The efficiency of clay in removing organic
matter was approximately 50% of the cement efficiency. However, clay increased the
biodegradability of treated leachate up to 20%, whereas cement decreased the
leachate biodegradability to the same degree.
These studies showed that low-cost adsorbents, such as activated carbon,
zeolite, rice husk ash, calcium carbonate, and limestone, have been used in landfill
leachate treatment. The current study focuses on a new adsorbent composed of all the
aforementioned adsorbents.
36
37
Type of Adsorbent
Reference
Ok et al. (2007)
wastewater
cement
Wastewater
wastewater
MEng (2012)
Zeolite
Municipal wastewater
Activated carbon
Azhari (2010)
Municipal wastewater
Activated carbon
Municipal wastewater
Activated carbon
Salman (2009)
Husk Ash
Hegazi (2013)
Dhas (2008)
wastewater
wastewater
Heavy metals removal from
wastewater
Phenols removal from
wastewater
Textile wastewater
carbon
Municipal wastewater
Limestone
Efendy (2010)
Removal of ammoniacal
ZELIAC
38
with sewage in urban wastewater treatment plants. However, the demand for separate
treatment and disposal of landfill leachates has increased because of stricter
regulations on nitrogen discharge and problems with the potential effects of
recalcitrant leachate constituents in the biological treatment phase.(Diamadopoulos et
al., 1997; Nesaj et al., 2008). (3) The co-treatment process has been preferred
because of low maintenance and low operating costs. (Abbas et al., 2009).
Co-treatment was mainly conducted using aerobic-based processes. Under
these conditions, the reported reductions in COD and TA were approximately 90 %
(Ceen and Akta, 2004; Ferraz et al., 2014; Fudal Ksiazek et al., 2011; Yu et al.,
2010).
Swierxzynska et al. (2012) investigated the co-treatment of landfill leachate
with municipal wastewater in MSBR through the following methods. The process
was conducted in an MSBR fitted with an inner capillary microfiltration PVDF
membrane. The feed was pumped from the storage tank into the MSBR with a
volume of 15 L. The treated effluent was then COD into the capillaries and pumped
into an effluent storage tank. The feed of the reactor comprised synthetic wastewater
and 5% (by volume) landfill leachate. Results showed that the co-treatment of
landfill leachates and domestic wastewater can significantly enhance the efficiency
in the reduction of COD, total nitrogen, NO3, and total phosphorus.
Kalka (2012) studied the reduction of landfill leachate toxicity in a combined
treatment with municipal wastewater. In the study, the leachate and wastewater were
mixed using different ratios ranging from 1% to 10% (v/v), and the activated sludge
in reactors I and II were adjusted according to the increase in the concentration of
landfill leachate in the influent (1% and 10%). Significant declines in COD, BOD5,
and ammonia were observed during biological treatment.
39
Litas et al. (2012) examined the use of a submerged membrane batch reactor
for the co-treatment of landfill leachates and domestic wastewater. COD reduction
efficiencies of up to 98% were observed. Similarly, NH4+N removal efficiencies
reached up to 99%.
Yu et al. (2010) investigated the combined treatment of domestic wastewater
with landfill leachate by using the A2/O process. The average reduction efficiencies
of NH4+N, TN, and COD were 96.5%, 61.0%, and 81.7%, respectively.
Ferraz et al. (2014) investigated the co-treatment of landfill leachate and
domestic wastewater by using a submerged aerobic biofilter. The reduction
efficiencies of COD and BOD were 98% and 80%, respectively.
Neczaj et al. (2008) investigated the SBR system for the co-treatment of
landfill leachate and dairy wastewater through the following process. Two laboratory
scale reactors were used to examine leachate and dairy co-treatment efficiency. The
reactors were constructed with plexiglass; each reactor had a height 30 cm height,
diameter of15 cm, and a total volume of 5 L. The reactors were supplied with oxygen
from a fine bubble air diffuser to maintain a dissolved oxygen concentration above
3 mg/L in the oxic phase. Magnetic stirrers were employed for mixing. A set of two
peristaltic pumps was used to feed and discharge the effluent in both reactors. The
reactors were operated at room temperature (1820 C). The cycle time of the
reactors was 24 h and consisted of five distinct stages: aerobic fill, aerobic react,
anoxic react, settle, and draw. Various operating stages were investigated to increase
treatment efficiency. The second SBR (SBR 2) system was operated at feeding
condition of leachate dilution of 25% by volume with a dairy wastewater and with
4 g/L sludge concentration, whereas the first reactor (SBR 1) was seeded with raw
dairy wastewater. Both systems were inoculated with sludge collected from the
40
41
the biomass concentration in the digester. In addition, the efficiency can be enhanced
by decreasing the loading for any given biomass concentration. F/M can be
calculated as follows (Latif, 2011):
(Eq. 2-5)
where organic loading rate is the COD of the influent stream (kg COD/Lday),
volatile solid is the volatile suspended solid concentration in the reactor (kg-VSS/L),
and F/M is expressed as kg COD/kg VSSday.
(Eq. 2-6)
where Q is wastewater flow(m3/d), BOD is wastewater BOD(g/m3), V is the
liquid volume in the aeration tank (m3), and MLSS is the mixed liquor-suspended
solids (g/m3.
(Eq. 2-7)
where HRT is the hydraulic retention time (d), OLR is the organic loading rate i
(kg COD/Lday), and CODin is the influent COD (kg COD/L).
42
(Eq. 2-8)
where V is the reactor volume (L) and Q is the total daily flow (L/d).
(Eq. 2-9)
where Q is the wastewater flow (m3/day), BOD is the wastewater BOD (g/m3),
V is the liquid volume of the aeration tank, and MLSS is the mixed liquor suspended
solids (g/m3).
(Eq. 2-10)
where Q is the flow rate of the influent (L/d), Vw is the working volume of the reactor
(L), and HRT is the hydraulic retention time (d).
the amount of readily degradable organic matter in sewage. The first stage in
calculating organic loading is the conversion of BOD5 in mg/L to pounds/gal.
OLRs for fine media fixed-film systems, such as septic leach fields, mounds,
and sand bioreactors, range from 0.00025 lbs BOD5/ft2/d to 0.0012 lbs BOD5/ft2/d
(Zhou and Mancl, 2007).
(Eq. 2-11)
where OLR is the organic loading rate (kg/m3d), total COD is the total
chemical oxygen demand (kg/m3); and HRT is the hydraulic retention time (d).
44
statistical techniques that are useful for modeling and analyzing problems. This
method aims to optimize response by determining the best operating conditions of
the input variables (independent variables) that influence the response. Optimization
is a procedure that determines the best target output for a process, which is conducted
with a series of experiments testing a range of values and combinations of all factors.
Optimization may involve maximizing, minimizing, and maintaining the target
within the range depending on the objective (Lim et al., 2014).
The RSM and Central Composite Design (CCD) were used to demonstrate the
nature of the response surface in the experimental design and clarify the optimum
conditions of the independent variables. CCD was established using the Design
Expert Software (6.0.7). Eq. (2-12), an empirical second-order polynomial model,
accounts for the behavior of the system, which is expressed as follows:
k
i 1
i 1
ii j
o i .X i i i X i 2
ij
X i X j ... e
(Eq. 2-12)
2.13 Summary
The sanitary landfill is the most widely used USW management method (Aziz,
2011). Currently, approximately 296 landfills are located in Malaysia, most of which
are old dumpsites without environmental treatment facilities. Leachate is generated
when moisture enters the refuse in a landfill, and the pollutants are dissolved into the
liquid phase that eventually flows (Visvanathan et al., 2000). Landfill leachates have
been shown to contain a wide variety of toxic and polluting components. The
leachate generated from a landfill site will vary in volume and composition
depending on the age of the site and the stages of biodegradation attained.
There are many treatment methods for leachate and wastewater. The main
applicable methods of landfill leachate treatment include physicalchemical,
biological, and membrane separation techniques. Biological methods for treating of
wastewater, such as SBR, are common. In literature, SBR has been used to treat
landfill leachates and wastewater; however, the capability of the SBR in treating
landfill leachate was lower compared to treating urban wastes because of the low
BOD5/COD ratio and the high concentration of NH3N in landfill leachates. Previous
studies reported that adsorption methods can be used to supplement the SBR process
to increase the removal efficiencies of organic matter, heavy metals, NH3N, and
other pollutants. On the basis these studies, low-cost adsorbents, such as activated
carbon, zeolite, rice husk ash, calcium carbonate, and limestone have been used in
landfill leachate treatment. However, research on the use of an adsorbent that has all
the properties of these low cost materials is lacking. Therefore, the current study
46
47
CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Introduction
This chapter contains four main parts. The first part presents the collection and
characterization of leachate samples from Semeling Landfill (Sungai Petani),
domestic wastewater, and returned activated sludge from Bayan Baru Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The second part presents pre-SBR experiments, including
batch/shaking experiments to optimize the settling time and dosage of powdered
ZELIAC
(PZ)
(fixed
leachatedomestic
wastewater
ratio
sample)
and
collected from Semeling Landfill (Figure 3.2) from May 2012 to March 2013.
48
49
50
51
Figure 3-4: Aerial view of BBSTP and its various units (source: Aziz, 2011; Penang,
Bayan Lepas; 05 18' 58"N, 100 17' 38"E)
52
Figure 3-5: Aeration tank and sampling of return activated sludge at the site
3.3 Analytical methods
All tests were conducted in accordance with the Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, 2005). YSI 556 Multiprobe System
(YSI Incorporated, USA) was utilized to record the pH, temperature (C), electrical
conductivity (ms/cm), salinity (g/L), TDS (%), and oxidation reduction potential
(mV) values. A spectrophotometer (DR/2500 and DR/2800 HACH) was employed to
measure the contents of phenols (mg/L), colour (Pt. Co), total phosphorus
(PO43 mg/L), ammonia NH3N (mg/L), total nitrogen (mg/L), nitrite (mg/L),
chemical oxygen demand (COD, mg/L), sulfide (mg/L S2), total organic carbon
53
(mg/L TOC), total iron (mg/L Fe), copper (mg/L Cu), manganese (mg/L Mn),
aluminum (mg/L Al), zinc (mg/L Zn), chromium (mg/L Cr), and nickel (mg/L Ni).
ICP (ICP Varian, OES 715) was utilized to measure the levels of cadmium (mg/L
Cd), molybdenum (mg/L Mo), cobalt (mg/L Co), magnesium (mg/L), lithium (mg/L
Li), and calcium (mg/L CaCO3). The leachate parameters that were characterized are
shown in Table 3.1.
Methods
4-Aminontipyrine method, DR/2800 HACH spectrometer, Method
8047
Method 2540B [8]
Ammonia nitrogen-Nessler method, HACH DR/2800 spectrometer,
Method 8038
Phos Ver 3 with Acid persulfate digestion method, HACH DR/2800
spectrometer, Method 8190
Sulfide, Methylene Blue method, HACH DR/2800 spectrometer,
Method 8131
Method 2120C [8], HACH DR/2800 spectrometer, Method 8025
Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) (mg/L)
Iron (mg/L)
Zinc (mg/L)
pH
Temperature ()
EC (ms/cm)
Salinity (g/L)
TDS
54
55
56
Table 3-2: The values of raw materials to prepare one ton of ZELIAC
Raw Materials
Value (Ton)
Zeolite
Limestone
Activated carbon
Rice husk ash
Portland cement
Water
ZELIAC
459.40
153.20
43.80
43.80
300.00
30.00
-
Unit Price
(RM)
2297
15.32
284.70
96.00
2693.02
57
58
3.7.1.1 PZ dosage
Selection of the optimum PZ dosage was conducted with 2000 mL beakers
(working value of 1200 mL). Different amounts (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 20 g/L) of
PZ were added to the beakers. Selection of the optimum PZ dosage was based on the
optimum removal of colour, NH3N, and COD in the beakers.
59
60
61
Removal (%) =
(Eq. 3-1)
where Ci and Cf are the initial and final concentrations of the parameters,
respectively.
Central composite design (CCD) and response surface methodology (RSM)
were applied to design the experiments and data analysis. CCD was implemented
with Design Expert Software Version 6.0.7. RSM was employed to control the
optimum process parameters. RSM involves mathematical and statistical methods
suitable for the modeling and analysis of problems, in which responses of interest are
affected by several variables; the goal is to optimize these responses (Aziz et al.,
2011b). The total number of experiments for the three factors was determined to be
20 (=2k+2k+6), where k is the number of factors (k = 3). Each factor only has three
levels; thus, the appropriate model is the quadratic model shown in Eq. (2).
k
i 1
i 1
i j
Y i X i i X i 2 ij X i X j e
(Eq. 3-2)
62
and 22 h), aeration rates (0.5, 4, and 7.5 L/min), and leachate-to-wastewater ratios
(80, 50, and 20 v/v %) were used in four reactors. The leachate-to-wastewater ratio
was 20% to 80% (v/v) in the SBRs. A similar range was used in previous studies
(Qasim and Chiang, 1994; een and akroglu, 2001; Cecen and Aktas, 2001;
Cecen et al., 2003; Neszaj et al., 2007; Neszaj et al., 2008; Litas et al., 2012; Cecen
et al., 2013; Capodici et al., 2014).
To conduct an adequate analysis of the aerobic process, the removal of the
eight dependent parameters (colour, COD, ammonia, phenols, Fe, Cd, Ni, and Mn)
was measured as responses. 3D plots with respective contour plots were obtained
from the experimental results. The effects of the interaction of the three factors on
the responses were then analyzed (Tables 3.3 to 3.4).
Table 3-3: Coded and actual values of variables for normal-SBR, PZ-SBR, PACSBR, and PZE-SBR
Factors
Unit
Levels of variables
-1
Aeration Rate
L/min
0.5
4.0
7.5
12
22
20
50
80
Time)
Wastewater Mixing
Ratio
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Aeration
Rate
(L/min)
4.0
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Contact
Time (h)
12
22
22
22
12
2
12
12
2
22
22
12
2
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
Leachate to
Wastewater
Ratio (%)
80
20
80
20
50
20
50
50
50
50
80
50
80
50
80
20
50
50
20
50
64
and wastewater (90% of the working volume). The reactors were divided into four
groups, namely, normal-SBR, PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR, and PZE-SBR.
The continuous SBR experiments were performed based on optimum
parameters (settling time, adsorbents dosage, contact time, aeration rate, and
leachate-to-wastewater mixing ratio). The hydraulic retention time, organic loading
rate, food-to-microorganism ratio, and DO were monitored in the continuous SBR
experiments.
3.8.1 Normal-SBR
The reactors were filled with 120 mL of the returned sludge (10% of the
working volume) and 1080 mL of mixed leachate and wastewater (90% of the
working volume). The details of the continuous SBR experiments are shown in Table
3.5.
3.8.2 PZ-SBR
The reactors were filled with 120 mL of the returned sludge (10% of the
working volume) and 1080 mL of mixed leachate and wastewater (90% of the
working volume). In accordance with the batch experiments, 3.24 g of PZ (i.e., PZ
dosage = 3 g/L) was added to the PZ-SBR reactor before aeration. The details of the
continuous SBR experiments are shown in Table 3.5.
3.8.3 PAC-SBR
The reactors were filled with 120 mL of the returned sludge (10% of the
working volume) and 1080 mL of mixed leachate and wastewater (90% of the
working volume). In accordance with the preliminary experiments, 3.24 g of PAC
65
(i.e., PAC dosage = 3 g/L) was added to the PAC-SBR reactor before aeration. The
details of the continuous SBR experiments are shown in Table 3.5.
3.8.4 PZE-SBR
In the current research, the source of zeolite is from Indonesia (Supplier:
TANGKAS LAKSANA SDN BHD (837809-V; No. 29, Tingkar 2, Jalan Permatang
Rawa 1, Kawasan Perniagaan Permatang Rawa, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau
Pinang). The reactors were filled with 120 mL of the returned sludge (10% of the
working volume) and 1080 mL of mixed leachate and wastewater (90% of the
working volume). In accordance with the batch experiments, 3.24 g of PZE (i.e., PZE
dosage = 3 g/L) was added to the PZE-SBR reactor before aeration. The details of
the continuous SBR experiments are shown in Table 3.5. These details are based on
the optimum parameters determined in the pre-SBR and RSM experiments.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Parameter
NormalSBR
90
12.68
4.32
20
15.5
1.00
0.72
1510
66
Value
PZPAC-SBR
SBR
90
90
3
3
11.65
12.82
2.41
3.07
20
20
PZESBR
90
3
12.60
1.82
20
15.5
1.00
0.72
7613
15.5
1.00
0.72
6205
15.5
1.00
0.72
6516
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is composed of five sections. The characteristics of Semeling
landfill leachate are presented in the first section. The characteristics of domestic
wastewater and returned activated sludge are discussed in the second section. The
pre-SBR experiments, which include the batch/shaking and batch/optimization
experiments (experiments were designed by RSM to optimize operational parameters
in SBR process), are described in the third and fourth sections. The continuous
experiments in this study are shown in the fifth section.
68
Parameter
Leachate
Leachate
Leachate
Standard
minimum
maximum
average value
discharge limit
value
value
for leachate a
Temperature (C)
26.9
30.0
28.7
40
pH
6.75
8.92
8.25
6-9
EC (ms/cm)
3.18
9.92
4.94
Salinity (g/L)
2.00
4.27
3.10
1743
9641
5723
113
1218
710
50
742
2411
1912
CaCO3)
8
1017
2432
1690
100
BOD5 (mg/L)
137
931
269.0
20
10
COD (mg/L)
714
2993
1301
400
11
BOD5/COD
0.19
0.37
0.20
0.05
12
TDS (%)
3.11
6.18
5.72
13
ORP (mV)
5.0
13.9
11.6
14
MLVSS/MLSS
16
13.00
139.8
54.1
17
9.3
129.7
17.8
3-
PO4 )
18
NH3-N (mg/L)
291.0
984.0
532.0
5.0
19
19.3
67.1
44.2
TOC)
20
Sulfide (mg/L)
0.19
0.53
0.30
0.5
21
4.32
9.18
6.03
5.0
22
1.00
2.39
1.98
0.20
23
1.00
2.67
1.89
2.0
24
0.88
2.09
1.17
0.20
25
0.020
0.10
0.034
26
3.13
6.27
4.94
0.20
27
0.09
0.47
0.21
0.20
28
0.13
0.97
0.81
29
0.09
0.89
0.64
30
0.16
0.91
0.78
31
1.17
3.89
2.71
0.01
32
89.13
159.31
121.45
33
16.11
39.14
25.34
34
Phenols (mg/L)
1.11
1.91
1.69
0.001
a Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations 2009, under the
Laws of MalaysiaMalaysia Environmental Quality Act 1974
69
70
Table 4-2: Bayan Baru, Penang, Domestic Wastewater and Activated Sludge
Characteristics
No.
Parameter
Temperature
wastewater
wastewater
wastewater
Standard discharge
Activated
minimum
maximum
average
Sludge
value
value
value
Standard
Standard
value
25.9
29.2
28.6
40.0
40.0
28.6
(C)
2
pH
6.00
7.29
6.87
6.0-9.0
5.5-9.0
6.60
EC (ms/cm)
0.76
2.10
1.00
1.09
Salinity (g/L)
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
Total solids
10711
50.0
100.0
9234
(mg/L)
6
Suspended
solids (mg/L)
Total Hardness
(mg/L CaCO3)
6.00
BOD5 (mg/L)
51.23
102
59.2
20.0
50.0
87.5
10
COD (mg/L)
79.0
239
149
50.0
100.0
218
11
BOD5/COD
0.36
0.42
0.39
0.40
12
TDS (%)
0.91
1.39
1.03
1.44
13
ORP (mV)
-126.0
14
MLVSS/MLSS
0.82
16
Nitrite (mg/L
7.39
19.24
10.1
56.17
118.61
81.13
5.0
10.0
NO2-N-HR)
17
Total
phosphorus
(mg/L PO43-)
18
NH3-N (mg/L)
100.1
192.0
149.0
5.0
5.0
160.0
19
Total organic
19.29
47.3
29.0
36.0
carbon (mg/L
TOC)
20
Sulfide (mg/L)
0.390
0.810
0.600
0.50
0.50
0.654
21
Total iron
0.79
4.32
1.21
1.0
5.0
1.95
(mg/L)
71
Continue of Table 4-2: Bayan Baru, Penang, Domestic Wastewater and Activated
Sludge Characteristics
No.
Parameter
wastewater
minimum
value
wastewater
maximum
value
wastewater
average
value
22
Total
manganese
(mg/L)
Total Zinc
(mg/L)
Total copper
(mg/L)
Total
aluminum
(mg/L)
Total nickel
(mg/L)
chromium
Hexavalent
(mg/L)
chromium
Trivalent
(mg/L)
Total cobalt
(mg/L)
Total lithium
(mg/L)
Total
molybdenum
(mg/L)
Total cadmium
(mg/L)
Total calcium
(mg/L)
0.34
2.17
0.67
0.91
2.91
1.71
1.0
1.0
1.89
0.32
2.17
1.11
0.20
1.0
1.82
0.01
0.12
0.031
0.047
0.32
0.81
0.51
0.20
1.0
0.78
0.07
0.23
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.06
0.42
0.23
0.20
1.0
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.06
0.57
0.51
0.52
0.06
0.42
0.30
0.33
0.12
0.56
0.39
0.01
0.02
0.39
18.31
45.12
25.11
102.0
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Standard discharge
limit for wastewater
Standard Standard
A
B
0.20
1.0
Activated
Sludge
average
value
0.91
72
73
DO (mg/L)
7
DO (mg/L)
6
5
4
3
DO (mg/L)
2
1
0
1
The settling time uses a major hydraulic selection pressure on the microbial
community. In fact, at a long settling time, poorly settling sludge flows cannot be
effectively withdrawn, and they may outcompete granule-forming bioparticles. As a
result, aerobic granulation could fail in an SBR run at longer settling times (Arrojo,
2007). As shown in Table 2.8, the settling time in many investigations was around 90
min.
74
75
The NH3N and COD removal efficiencies were increased by increasing the
PZ dosage from 0 mg/L to 3 mg/L. When PZ dosage exceeded 3 mg/L, the removal
efficiency of NH3N and COD became fixed.
50
1200
45
Removal (%)
35
800
30
600
25
20
400
15
200
10
Concentration (mg/L)
1000
40
Ammonia Removal
(%)
COD Removal (%)
Color (Pt. CO)
Ammonia (mg/L)
-200
0
10
15
PZ dosage (g/L)
20
25
COD (mg/L)
C. Adsorption isotherm
Adsorption refers to the adhesion of atoms, ions, biomolecules, or molecules of
gas, liquid, or dissolved solids to a surface (Aziz et al., 2012):
(Eq. 4-1)
where qe is the quantity of solute adsorbed per unit weight of adsorbent (mg/g),
Co is the initial adsorbate concentration, Ce is the equilibrium adsorbate
concentration (mg/L), V is the volume of solution (L), and M is the mass of the
adsorbent (g).
Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms were used in this study to show the
characteristics of PZ adsorption.
76
D. Langmuir isotherm
Surface adsorption onto a solid is classified into two broad categories:
physisorption and chemisorption. Physisorption is a non-specific loose binding of the
adsorbate to the solid through van der Waalstype interactions. Multilayered
adsorption is possible, and it is easily disrupted by increasing temperatures.
Chemisorption involves a more specific binding of the adsorbate onto the solid
(Altig, 2013).
(Eq. 4-2)
where x/m is the mass of the adsorbate adsorbed per unit mass of adsorbent
(mg adsorbate per g activated carbon), a and b are the empirical constants, and Ce is
the equilibrium concentration of adsorbate in the solution after adsorption (mg/L).
Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 show the Langmuir isotherm regression for (a)
colour, (b) COD, and (c) NH3N and (a) Fe, (b) Mn, and (c) Ni. Tables 4.3 and 4.4
show the constants and correlation coefficients, the R2 values attained from the
Langmuir isotherm for colour, as well as the concentration of COD, NH3N, Fe, Mn,
and Ni. The dimensionless equilibrium parameters RL can be used to express the
characteristics of the Langmuir isotherm (Isa et al., 2007). RL is shown in Tables 4.3
and 4.4. The adsorption of colour, COD, and NH3N by ZELIAC follows the
Langmuir adsorption isotherm based on R2.
The R2, b, and Q for colour were 0.8992, 3.99, and 128.2, respectively. R2 =
0.938 colour removal from leachate with activated carbon was reported by Aziz et al.
(2012). Kamaruddin et al. (2013) reported Q = 100 for colour removal from textile
wastewater by activated carbon.
The R2, b, and Q for COD were 0.9476, 0.16, and 67.65, respectively.
Kamaruddin et al. (2013) reported R2 = 0.800, Q = 61.72, and b = 0.001 for COD
77
removal from wastewater by activated carbon. Aziz (2011) reported R2 = 0.902 and b
= 0.18 for COD removal by activated carbon.
The R2, b, and Q for NH3N were 0.9923, 0.19, and 36.49, respectively. Aziz
(2013) reported R2 = 0.995 and Q = 19.36 for NH3N removal from aqueous
solution.
Q (mg/g)
R2
Colour
COD
NH3-N
128.20
67.56
36.49
3.99
0.16
-0.19
0.8992
0.9476
0.9923
Isotherm
Type
2.6(10-4)
7.7(10-3)
-0.019
Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
The R2, b, and Q for Fe were 0.8177, 8.15, and 0.700, respectively.
Abdulrasaq and Basiru (2010) reported R2 = 0.882 and Q = 0.09 for Fe removal by
coconut husk.
The R2, b, and Q for Mn were 0.9743, 3.18, and 0.198, respectively. The R2, b,
and Q for Ni were 0.9824, 5.52, and 0.386, respectively. Desta (2013) reported R2 =
0.998 and b = 0.189 for Ni removal from wastewater by activated carbon.
Q (mg/g)
R2
Fe
Mn
Ni
0.700
0.198
0.386
-8.15
3.18
-5.52
0.8177
0.9743
0.9824
78
Isotherm
Type
-0.19
0.13
-0.04
Unfavorable
favorable
Unfavorable
1/(x/m)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
y = 0.2614x + 0.0078
R = 0.8992
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
1/(Ce)
(a)
0.0164
0.0162
0.016
0.0158
0.0156
0.0154
0.0152
0.015
y = 0.0911x + 0.0148
R = 0.9476
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
1/(x/m)
(b)
0.0265
0.026
0.0255
0.025
0.0245 y = -0.1469x + 0.0274
0.024
R = 0.9923
0.0235
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
1(Ce)
(c)
Figure 4-4: Langmuir isotherm regression for (a) colour, (b) COD and (c) NH3-N
79
1.4
1/(x/m)
1.35
1.3
1.25
y = -0.1921x + 1.4267
R = 0.8177
1.2
1.15
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1/(Ce)
(a)
1/(x/m)
4.8
4.6
4.4
y = -0.203x + 5.0464
R = 0.9743
4.2
4
0
1/(Ce)
(b)
2.5
1/(x/m)
2
1.5
1
y = -0.4694x + 2.5898
R = 0.9824
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
1(Ce)
(c)
Figure 4-5: Langmuir isotherm regression for (a) Fe, (b) Mn and (c) Ni
80
E. Freundlich isotherm
The Freundlich equation or Freundlich adsorption isotherm, an adsorption
isotherm, is a curve that relates the concentration of a solute on the surface of an
adsorbent to the concentration of the solute in the liquid with which it is in contact
(Aziz et al., 2012). The Freundlich equation can be written as follows (Hamdaoui
and Naffrechoux, 2007):
(Eq. 4-3)
Kf (mg/g (L/mg)1/n)
43.48
47.20
56.87
1/n
0.174
0.062
-0.084
81
n
5.76
16.08
-11.90
R2
0.9602
0.9916
0.9799
Kf (mg/g (L/mg)1/n)
0.23
0.49
0.48
1/n
-0.116
-0.0868
-0.2756
N
-8.57
-11.52
-3.62
R2
0.9219
0.9599
0.9292
The R2, 1/n, and Kf for Fe were 0.9219, 0.116, and 0.23, respectively. Akl et
al. (2013) reported Kf = 0.28 and R2 = 0.99 for Fe adsorption by activated carbon.
The R2, 1/n, and Kf for Mn were 0.9599, 0.0868, and 0.49, respectively. Akl et
al. (2013) reported Kf = 0.35 and R2 = 0.95 for Mn adsorption by activated carbon.
The R2, 1/n, and Kf for Ni were 0.9292, 0.2756, and 0.48, respectively. Kaur
et al. (2012) reported Kf = 0.66 and R2= 0.91 for Ni adsorption by some activated
carbon that was produced by agriculture residues. Al Dwairi and Al-Rawajfeh (2012)
reported Kf = 0.54 and R2 = 0.967 for Ni adsorption by zeolite.
Table 4.7 shows the Langmuir and Freundlich equations for the present study.
Tables 4-4 to 4-6 show that the adsorption of colour, COD, NH3N, Fe, Mn, and Ni
follows the Langmuir and Freundlich isotherms because of high R2.
82
2.1
log (x/m)
2.08
y = 0.1736x + 1.6333
R = 0.9602
2.06
2.04
2.02
2
1.98
1.96
0.5
1.5
2.5
log (Ce)
log (x/m)
(a)
y = 0.0622x + 1.6736
R = 0.9916
1.82
1.815
1.81
1.805
1.8
1.795
1.79
1.785
1.78
0.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
log (Ce)
(b)
log (x/m)
1.61
1.6
1.59
1.58
0
0.5
log (Ce)
(c)
Figure 4-6: Freundlich isotherm regression for (a) colour, (b) COD and (c) NH3-N
83
0
-0.1 -0.02 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
y = -0.1166x - 0.0875
R = 0.9219
-0.04
log (x/m)
-0.2
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
log (Ce)
(a)
-0.63
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.64
log (x/m)
y = -0.0868x - 0.6921
R = 0.9599
-0.65
-0.66
-0.67
-0.68
log (Ce)
(b)
0
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
log (x/m)
-0.1
0.1
0.2
y = -0.2756x - 0.3186
R = 0.9292
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
log (Ce)
(c)
Figure 4-7: Freundlich isotherm regression for (a) Fe, (b) Mn and (c) Ni
84
Langmuir equation
Freundlich equation
Colour
COD
Ammonia
Fe
Mn
Ni
85
PZ
PAC
Value
PZE
67.60
132.80
9.638
10.19
34.21
33.38
115.30
585.70
960.70
18.32
19.38
86.81
498.90
930.30
49.36
94.80
6.404
6.770
24.20
25.17
83.05
0.0402
0.3283
0.0289
0.0099
0.0101
0.0180
0.0188
0.0192
0.2714
0.0663
0.0675
0.0132
0.0409
0.0317
0.0322
0.3306
0.3051
0.3071
0.0295
0.0228
0.0232
2.384
3.652
3.652
1.760
0.3675
0.4532
2.242
3.374
3.374
1.180
36.75
45.32
2.348
3.666
3.666
1.740
0.3675
0.4523
Parameter
Composition (%)
14.350
32.401
42.002
7.300
1.502
1.005
1.000
0.100
0.030
0.030
0.280
The XRF and XRD results indicate the compounds and elements that exist in
ZELIAC. Table 4.9 and Figure 4.3 show that the major compounds and elements in
ZELIAC are SiO2 (42.0%), CaO (32.4%), and C (14.3%). Co is found in ZELIAC
because of the presence of limestone, whereas, SiO2 is found in ZELIAC because of
the presence of cement and zeolite. Based on some researches, SiO2 is one of the
86
most elements in the Portland cement (Ali et al., 2008; Stefanidou and Papayianni,
2012; Collodetti et al., 2014). Also the zeolite has a high amount of SiO2 based on
Table 4.10.
87
88
The SEM images show that numerous pores exist on the surface of ZELIAC.
These pores increase the surface area of ZELIAC. Kopac and Bozgeyik et al. (2010)
reported that the adsorption capacity of adsorbents increased by increasing surface
area.
Zeolite and activated carbon characteristics are shown in Table 4.8. Table 4.10
shows the XRF testing for zeolite.
Composition (%)
67.39
10.41
5.17
4.16
3.92
1.18
1.18
0.45
0.10
6.04
Most compounds in the zeolite are Al2O3 and SiO2 this is in line with findings
of Mustain et al. (2014). Zeolite consist of an aluminosilicate molecular structure
with weak cationic bonding sites (Mojiri, 2011) so the most elements in the zeolite
are Al and Si. The aluminosilicate molecular structure with weak cationic bonding
sites of zeolite are shown by Figure 4.10. This structure is useful for ion exchange.
Activated carbon is commonly used to adsorb natural organic compounds, taste
and odor compounds, and synthetic organic chemicals in drinking water treatment
(Devorak, 2013; Lin et al., 2010). Figure 4.11 shows the SEM image from surface of
powdered activated carbon. This figure shows the pores on the surface of activated
carbon.
89
90
91
aeration rate (L/min), leachate to wastewater mixing ratio (%; v/v), and their
responses include different contact times (2, 12, and 22 h), aeration rates (0.5, 4, and
7.5 L/min), and leachate to wastewater mixing ratios (80, 50, and 20 v/v %) which
were used in the SBR and PZSBR methods. To perform an adequate analysis of the
aerobic procedure, eight dependent parameters (COD, NH3N, colour, phenols, total
Fe, total Mn, total Ni, and total Cd) were selected as responses. Mojiri et al.
(2013a,b), Aziz et al. (2012), Umar et al. (2011), Adlan et al. (2011), Bashir et al.
(2010), Ghafari et al. (2009), and Aghamohammadi et al. (2007) used RSM for
optimization parameters.
(passing sieve no. 100 and retained on sieve no. 200). Table 4.3 shows the features of
the ZELIAC, activated carbon and zeolite with the autosorb (Quantachrome
AS1wintm, version 2.02) test. The beakers (reactors) were filled with 120 mL (10%)
of adjusted sludge and 1080 mL (90%) of domestic wastewater and Sungai Petani
landfill leachate (in different ratios), with a mixing ratio of 20% to 80% (v/v). To
increase the biodegradability ratio, channeling method can be used via mixing
landfill leachate with wastewater and sludge. The aerobic co-treatment of landfill
leachate and domestic wastewater was studied by een and Akta (2004). Also the
joint treatment of landfill leachate with municipal wastewater using submerged
membrane bioreactor was studied Hasar et al. (2009). Neszaj et al. (2008) studied the
sequencing batch reactor system for the co-treatment of landfill leachate and dairy
wastewater. In this study, the researchers mixed landfill leachate and dairy
wastewater with sludge.
Some studies reported the addition of adsorbents, such as activated carbon, to
activate sludge and SBR at the end of the enhancement of the biological treatment of
landfill leachate (Foo and Hameed, 2009; Aziz et al., 2011b; Aziz et al., 2011c).
The removal efficiencies were observed by measuring the target parameters
before and after the treatment process. The removal efficiency was calculated based
on the following equation (Eq. 2)
Removal (%) =
(Eq. 4-4)
where Ci and Cf are the initial and final concentrations of the parameters,
respectively. Table 4.11, Table 4.12, Table 4.13 and Table 4.14 show the
experiments results of Normal-SBR, PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR and PZE-SBR.
93
94
Aeration
rate
(L/min)
4.0
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
22
22
22
12
2
12
12
2
22
22
12
2
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
Contact
time (h)
80
20
80
20
50
20
50
50
50
50
80
50
80
50
80
20
50
50
20
50
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
38.11
55.46
35.13
52.30
52.49
47.29
46.29
48.31
44.11
49.10
30.00
46.00
27.43
47.21
29.10
49.10
45.91
45.25
58.26
44.98
Colour
rem.
(%)
38.73
40.17
25.64
41.29
40.14
43.19
41.18
39.40
44.24
40.66
25.65
42.11
32.45
41.18
30.70
46.29
40.71
40.84
43.29
40.63
COD rm.
(%)
82.13
92.29
71.26
90.18
79.73
87.49
96.04
89.18
79.44
94.11
79.48
96.03
90.00
95.14
76.11
90.50
95.17
94.13
96.11
95.61
Ammonia
rem.
(%)
21.95
30.19
14.97
30.91
26.95
29.33
29.76
26.13
24.43
30.98
16.11
30.98
13.93
29.42
16.98
23.28
30.18
28.91
33.17
30.23
Phenols
rem.
(%)
19.71
43.14
18.22
42.61
36.97
40.83
38.91
35.51
38.03
36.04
16.70
37.78
16.82
38.91
16.97
40.71
37.99
37.88
45.59
36.58
Fe rem.
(%)
18.64
35.11
17.20
36.80
30.25
36.62
32.59
28.53
29.19
29.69
15.93
32.93
15.68
31.78
16.83
35.91
32.61
32.24
37.96
31.72
Mn rem.
(%)
19.44
42.81
17.93
43.77
32.22
42.43
32.91
31.92
32.68
32.89
15.62
32.43
14.94
32.98
17.22
42.01
32.87
31.99
44.62
32.78
Ni rem.
(%)
18.42
41.69
17.71
42.31
31.97
42.73
32.41
30.72
30.77
31.63
15.22
31.92
14.77
32.22
17.71
41.83
32.11
32.41
43.48
32.62
Cd rem.
(%)
95
Aeration
rate
(L/min)
4.0
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
22
22
22
12
2
12
12
2
22
22
12
2
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
Contact
time (h)
80
20
80
20
50
20
50
50
50
50
80
50
80
50
80
20
50
50
20
50
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
68.15
78.57
62.39
82.31
74.31
78.85
77.11
74.31
75.59
75.26
65.47
77.84
65.53
79.31
66.61
79.59
78.60
75.31
86.46
75.58
Colour
rem.
(%)
52.34
67.94
50.22
69.40
67.38
73.30
66.52
63.07
65.30
63.52
56.29
66.06
53.22
66.40
48.72
69.53
68.22
66.29
71.18
67.12
COD rm.
(%)
89.06
95.21
79.42
96.89
90.88
96.11
95.98
93.10
96.04
91.13
82.74
94.89
79.52
95.97
80.67
97.00
92.11
92.00
98.27
91.09
Ammonia
rem.
(%)
46.29
61.63
48.17
63.71
55.13
62.34
53.25
52.89
55.13
55.13
47.29
52.18
45.23
52.88
46.01
60.61
52.37
52.64
62.23
51.93
Phenols
rem.
(%)
43.59
76.48
44.27
78.21
72.33
78.88
72.53
71.49
71.77
71.77
37.76
71.58
43.51
71.94
45.69
76.48
74.51
73.66
80.06
72.32
Fe rem.
(%)
43.51
70.39
44.56
71.58
59.77
73.21
61.85
60.58
60.92
61.06
39.31
63.69
42.29
62.60
45.67
71.63
59.81
62.89
73.38
62.86
Mn rem.
(%)
41.31
76.74
38.55
77.30
56.78
79.09
60.83
58.79
58.79
58.89
36.58
61.24
37.02
57.78
38.88
75.19
58.81
60.58
78.11
60.41
Ni rem.
(%)
39.59
72.10
38.11
74.31
56.24
76.57
59.38
56.24
57.20
57.89
36.06
57.57
36.17
57.71
39.57
74.74
59.99
60.48
76.37
59.60
Cd rem.
(%)
96
Aeration
rate
(L/min)
4.0
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
22
22
22
12
2
12
12
2
22
22
12
2
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
Contact
time (h)
80
20
80
20
50
20
50
50
50
50
80
50
80
50
80
20
50
50
20
50
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
51.53
70.65
50.98
72.64
53.98
73.23
55.91
55.19
56.31
54.37
48.98
56.77
50.23
54.87
51.93
72.19
53.11
55.31
75.30
57.09
Colour
rem.
(%)
45.93
62.41
43.73
64.91
55.23
63.17
58.03
57.11
56.59
55.01
42.03
57.63
41.13
55.03
42.42
62.41
54.41
56.03
67.43
56.03
COD rm.
(%)
78.96
95.72
78.21
97.41
92.93
97.73
93.43
87.96
93.18
90.88
76.06
91.19
77.44
89.63
79.41
96.78
91.29
90.46
97.69
90.40
Ammonia
rem.
(%)
23.91
44.08
22.89
48.31
36.25
45.63
36.17
34.30
34.93
36.43
21.47
36.72
20.89
34.02
22.19
45.01
36.60
34.98
47.82
35.64
Phenols
rem.
(%)
31.49
51.13
30.96
52.11
37.04
57.91
43.75
39.17
41.04
42.42
29.04
43.43
29.97
43.06
30.39
46.86
43.99
43.75
60.06
43.91
Fe rem.
(%)
26.11
49.06
23.98
49.27
32.70
51.19
40.49
34.94
31.70
37.22
21.31
40.13
22.24
39.71
23.13
43.24
39.89
39.98
52.55
41.82
Mn rem.
(%)
23.96
47.21
22.90
47.61
32.10
51.09
40.91
36.15
30.10
39.16
20.74
39.96
21.21
40.93
21.76
41.51
40.91
39.88
55.40
40.44
Ni rem.
(%)
26.00
48.74
24.13
49.94
32.16
51.73
40.15
35.17
31.16
39.19
22.02
40.14
23.43
40.02
23.00
43.63
41.02
40.41
56.53
42.00
Cd rem.
(%)
97
Aeration
rate
(L/min)
4.0
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
22
22
22
12
2
12
12
2
22
22
12
2
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
Contact
time (h)
80
20
80
20
50
20
50
50
50
50
80
50
80
50
80
20
50
50
20
50
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
54.13
71.42
51.93
74.88
61.93
73.09
62.61
60.04
61.17
62.11
50.00
64.13
49.23
63.81
52.21
70.00
62.82
63.00
75.91
62.79
Colour
rem.
(%)
42.11
60.09
39.91
61.72
56.93
62.00
57.77
56.11
56.14
55.63
39.90
56.81
40.16
57.93
41.13
59.41
57.18
57.03
63.13
57.42
COD rm.
(%)
78.72
88.94
77.92
92.74
84.93
96.13
84.13
83.61
84.17
84.31
77.37
84.47
79.11
83.64
79.43
89.01
84.13
83.97
94.93
84.03
Ammonia
rem.
(%)
24.27
41.76
23.87
45.13
34.67
42.14
36.91
35.32
36.13
35.47
21.49
36.00
23.17
37.18
23.07
42.84
36.43
36.43
43.63
35.88
Phenols
rem.
(%)
31.96
59.11
31.01
63.03
47.18
61.70
52.96
45.00
49.19
49.13
29.90
52.84
30.02
53.11
31.90
56.18
53.44
53.11
65.08
53.04
Fe rem.
(%)
33.13
54.76
31.72
57.09
41.19
55.76
49.13
39.00
42.99
42.09
28.74
47.79
27.31
49.00
28.94
51.56
48.06
47.91
59.93
47.91
Mn rem.
(%)
32.17
58.38
30.43
61.27
47.83
60.00
50.14
46.40
47.13
46.11
25.14
48.09
26.19
47.11
27.77
47.97
49.01
49.92
63.18
48.71
Ni rem.
(%)
30.91
56.11
28.89
57.24
44.73
56.26
46.81
41.97
44.12
44.64
28.04
46.74
27.17
46.99
27.99
52.93
47.13
47.27
60.41
48.00
Cd rem.
(%)
i) Colour removal
In this study, the minimum and maximum colour removal efficiencies obtained
by the SBR reactors were 27.43% (contact time = 2 h, aeration rate = 7.50 L/min,
and leachate to wastewater ratio = 80%) and 58.26% (contact time = 12 h, aeration
rate = 4.0 L/min, and leachate to wastewater ratio = 20%), respectively, as shown in
Table 4.11. In the Normal-SBR method, an optimal colour removal efficiency of
56.88% was obtained at 15.29 h contact time, an aeration ratio of 7.50 L/min, and
20.00% leachate to wastewater ratio. Figure 4.12 shows the colour removal by
Normal-SBR.
98
v) Iron removal
Figure 4.16 shows the iron removal by Normal-SBR. The removal
effectiveness of Normal-SBR varied from 16.70% (aeration rate = 7.5 L/min, contact
time = 22 h, and leachate to wastewater ratio = 80%) to 45.59% (aeration rate = 4.0
L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to sewerage ratio = 20%) (Table 4.11). The
99
wastewater ratio = 80%) and 43.48% (aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12h,
leachate to wastewater ratio = 20%), respectively (Table 4.11). The optimum Cd
removal of Normal-SBR (43.52%) was attained at an aeration rate of 1.57 L/min,
contact time of 7.99 h, and leachate to wastewater ratio of 20.12%.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
i) Colour removal
The minimum and maximum colour removal efficiencies obtained by the PZSBR reactors were 62.39% (contact time = 22 h, aeration rate = 0.50 L/min, and
leachate to wastewater ratio = 80%) and 86.46% (contact time = 12 h, aeration rate =
4.0 L/min, and leachate to wastewater ratio = 20%), respectively (Table 4.12). In the
PZ-SBR method, an optimal colour removal efficiency of 85.15% was obtained at
contact time of 13.65 h, aeration ratio of 3.58 L/min, and 20.00% leachate to
wastewater ratio.
leachate to wastewater ratio = 20%) (Table 4.12). In the PZ-SBR method, an optimal
ammonia removal efficiency of 98.63% was obtained at 7.24 h contact time, an
aeration ratio of 2.64 L/min, and 26.54% leachate to wastewater ratio.
v) Iron removal
The removal effectiveness of PZ-SBR varied from 37.76% (aeration rate = 7.5
L/min, contact time = 22 h, and leachate to wastewater ratio = 80%) to 80.06%
(aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to wastewater ratio = 20%)
(Table 4.12). The optimum Fe removal of PZ-SBR (80.06%) was attained at an
aeration rate of 1.71 L/min, contact time of 12.87 h, and leachate to sewerage ratio of
25.73%.
SBR (73.38%) was attained at an aeration rate of 3.92 L/min, contact time of 7.71 h,
and leachate to wastewater ratio of 20.69%.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
i) Colour removal
The removal effectiveness of PAC-SBR varied from 48.98% (aeration rate =
7.5 L/min, contact time = 22 h, and leachate to wastewater proportion= 80 %) to
75.30% (aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to wastewater
proportion= 20 %) (Table 4.13). In PAC-SBR, the optimum colour removal
effectiveness of 74.39% was attained at the aeration proportion of 3.55 L/min, 4.94 h
contact time, and 20.00% leachate to wastewater proportion.
effectiveness of 58.57% was attained at the aeration proportion of 3.84 L/min, 2.35 h
contact time, and 22.34% leachate to wastewater proportion.
v) Iron removal
The removal effectiveness of PAC-SBR varied from 20.04% (aeration rate =
7.5 L/min, contact time = 2 h, and leachate to wastewater proportion= 80 %) to
60.06% (aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to wastewater
proportion= 20 %) (Table 4.13). In PAC-SBR, the best possible Fe removal
effectiveness of 58.38% was attained at the aeration proportion of 2.94 L/min, 9.18 h
contact time, and 20.00% leachate to wastewater proportion.
attained at the aeration proportion of 4.31 L/min, 15.82 h contact time, and 20.34%
leachate to wastewater proportion.
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
i) Colour removal
The removal effectiveness of PZE-SBR varied from 49.23% (aeration rate =
7.5 L/min, contact time = 2 h, and leachate to wastewater proportion= 80 %) to
75.91% (aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to wastewater
proportion= 20 %) (Table 4.14). In PZE-SBR, the optimum colour removal
effectiveness of 75.95% was attained at the aeration proportion of 2.17 L/min, 18.89
h contact time, and 20.00% leachate to wastewater proportion.
effectiveness of 95.76% was attained at the aeration proportion of 0.50 L/min, 3.05 h
contact time, and 20.00% leachate to wastewater proportion.
v) Iron removal
The removal effectiveness of PZE-SBR varied from 29.90% (aeration rate =
7.5 L/min, contact time = 22 h, and leachate to wastewater proportion= 80 %) to
65.08% (aeration rate = 4.0 L/min, contact time = 12 h, leachate to wastewater
proportion= 20 %) (Table 4.14). In PZE-SBR, the optimum Fe removal effectiveness
of 65.11% was attained at the aeration proportion of 3.63 L/min, 13.63 h contact
time, and 21.14% leachate to wastewater proportion.
aeration proportion of 2.57 L/min, 8.77 h contact time, and 20.14% leachate to
wastewater proportion.
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
NormalSBR
PZSBR
PACSBR
PZESBR
Aeration
Rate
(L/min)
4.32
Factors
Contact Leachate to
Time
Wastewater
(h)
Ratio (%)
12.68
20.00
Colour
Rem.
(%)
55.95
COD
Rem.
(%)
45.81
Ammonia
Rem.
(%)
98.42
Responses
Phenols
Fe
Rem.
Rem.
(%)
(%)
33.83
45.03
Mn
Rem.
(%)
38.85
Ni
Rem.
(%)
44.64
Cd
Rem.
(%)
43.79
2.41
11.65
20.00
84.74
72.35
99.54
61.93
79.58
73.32
79.28
76.94
3.07
12.82
20.00
74.16
66.47
97.71
47.75
58.27
54.28
54.66
56.23
1.82
12.60
20.00
76.06
63.30
94.60
44.09
65.08
60.67
63.52
59.97
Figure 4-44: Comparing contact time (h) in the reactors in optimum condition
142
5
4
3
2
1
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-45: comparing aeration rate (L/min) in the four reactors in optimum
condition
20
15
10
5
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-46: Comparing leachate to wastewater mixing ration (%) in the four
reactors in optimum condition
4.4.4.2 Comparing the removal of colour, COD, ammonia and phenols in
optimum condition by RSM
Table 4.1 shows that the Semeling leachate contained high-intensity colour
(1690 Pt. Co), and high concentrations of COD (1301 mg/L) and NH3N (532
mg/L). An average of 269 mg/L was recorded for the BOD5 value (Table 4.1),
providing a low biodegradability ratio (BOD5/COD) of 0.20 (age >15 years). And
also the concentration of phenols was 1.92 mg/L.
Some studies (Aziz, 2011; Dhas, 2008) showed the adding some adsorbent into
bioreactors could increase the contaminants removal efficiency. So PZ-SBR, PAC-
143
A) Colour removal
As Aziz et al. (2011) explained, colour is a common contaminant in landfill
leachate. The decomposition of some organic matters like humic acid may cause the
water to be yellow, brown or black. Different techniques are employed for colour
removal. They include chemical precipitation, adsorption via granular activated
carbon, radiation, nanoltration, ozonation, UV photolysis, chemical coagulation,
anaerobic process, and biological treatment with different additives, uidized biofilm
process, and advanced oxidation with UV/H2O (Aziz et al., 2007).
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.47, the colour removal was 84.74%,
76.06%, 74.16% and 55.95% in PZ-SBR, PZE-SBR, PAC-SBR and Normal-SBR,
respectively. PZ-SBR is more efficiency in colour removal.
Colour removal
100
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-47: Comparing colour removal (%) in the reactors in optimum condition
144
B) COD removal
COD is defined as the amount of oxygen required to completely oxidize
organic constituents to carbon dioxide and water (Tchobanoglous et al., 1991). The
decrease in BOD5/COD ratio results also in the decrease in treatment efficacy
(Kulikowska and Kliminuk, 2004). Dhas (2008) reported that the mixture of
activated carbon and limestone provides an alternative for COD removal.
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.48, the COD removal was 84.74, 72.35%,
63.30% and 45.81% in PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR, PZE-SBR and Normal-SBR,
respectively. PZ-SBR is more efficiency in COD removal.
COD removal
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-48: Comparing COD removal (%) in the reactors in optimum condition
C) Ammonia removal
Leachates with high NH4+-N content are generally difficult to treat in a
conventional biological treatment process (Li et al., 1999). The presence of high
levels of NH3N in landfill leachate over a long period is one of the most significant
problems faced by landfill operators. This high amount of unprocessed NH3N can
lead to the reduction of the performance efficiency of the biological treatment
methods, acceleration of eutrophication, and increase of dissolved oxygen reduction.
145
Ammonia removal
Ammonia rem. (%)
100
98
96
94
92
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-49: Comparing ammonia removal (%) in the four reactors in optimum
condition
D) Phenols removal
Landfill leachate contains a large number of dangerous compounds, such as
aromatics, halogenated compounds, heavy metals, phenols, pesticides, and
ammonium, which are considered dangerous even in small amounts. The harmful
effects of these compounds are often caused by multiple and synergistic effects.
Phenolic compounds released into the environment are particularly of high concern
because of their potential toxicity. These compounds detected in the leachate include
146
cresols, phenol, and substituted as well as chlorinated phenols. Cresols and phenol,
which are short-chain phenols previously reported by Benfenati et al. (1999) in
leachates of urban and industrial landfills, originate from various types of wastes.
Phenol and its substitutes are commonly produced by the transformation of several
pesticides (Varank et al., 2011). Kurata et al. (2008) measured 41 kinds of phenols in
three landfill sites in Japan. The results achieved in the present study agree well with
the literature (Kurata et al., 2008; Aziz et al., 2011). In this study, the 4aminoantipyrine method was used to measure phenols and determine all orthosubstituted and meta-substituted phenols or napthols, but not the para-substituted
phenols.
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.50, the phenols removal was 61.93%,
47.75%, 44.09% and 33.83% in PZ-SBR, PAC-SBR, PZE-SBR and Normal-SBR,
respectively. PZ-SBR is more efficiency in phenols removal.
Phenols removal
Phenols rem. (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Figure 4-50: Comparing phenols removal (%) in the four reactors in optimum
condition
147
148
A) Fe removal
Iron is a typical component of the Earths surface, and its concentration in the
ecosystem varies. Iron is a constant pollutant because it cannot be destroyed or
eliminated. Human activities have considerably altered biogeochemical cycles and
equilibrium of many metals. Primary anthropogenic resources of iron are different
industrial sources, such as current and past mining activities, steel manufacturing,
smelters and foundries, and various resources such as piping, components of goods,
and combustion side effects (Mojiri et al., 2011).
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.51, the Fe removal was 79.58%, 65.08%,
58.27% and 45.03% in PZ-SBR, PZE, PAC-SBR and Normal-SBR, respectively.
PZ-SBR is more efficiency in Fe removal.
149
Fe removal
Fe rem. (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
B) Mn removal
Manganese (Mn) ions are released in wastewaters by numerous industries, such
as pyrolusite (MnO2) treatment, ink and dyes, glass and ceramics, paint and varnish,
steel alloy dry cell batteries, fireworks and match manufacturing, and galvanized
metal waste processing plants (Taffarel and Rubio, 2009). Taffarel and Rubio (2009)
investigated Mn2+ ion removal through adsorption onto natural and activated Chilean
zeolites. This procedure was able to remove Mn efficiently.
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.52, the Mn removal was 73.32%, 60.67%,
54.28% and 38.85% in PZ-SBR, PZE, PAC-SBR and Normal-SBR, respectively.
PZ-SBR is more efficiency in Mn removal.
150
Mn removal
Mn rem. (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
C) Ni removal
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.53, the Ni removal was 79.28%, 63.52%,
54.66% and 44.64% in PZ-SBR, PZE, PAC-SBR and Normal-SBR, respectively.
PZ-SBR is more efficiency in Ni removal.
Nickel is a toxic heavy metal that occurs naturally and is used in many
industrial applications. In addition, nickel is an embryotoxin and teratogen. High Ni
levels affect human health and cause headache, dry cough, nausea, tightness of the
chest, dizziness, vomiting, rapid respiration, shortness of breath, chest pain, extreme
weakness, and cyanosis (Pandey et al., 2007). Al-Dwairi and Al-Rawajfeh (2012)
investigated the elimination of cobalt and nickel from wastewater by using
inexpensive Jordan bentonite and zeolite. Their findings indicate that zeolite can be
used to remove cobalt and nickel from wastewater.
151
Ni removal
Ni rem. (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
D) Cd removal
Cadmium pollution is mainly caused by the following: (i) Ni/Cd battery
manufacturing that might release Cd++ and Ni++ into groundwater through
unprocessed aqueous wastes or unmanaged disposal of consumed batteries; (ii)
cadmium plating, which releases cyanide; and (iii) cadmium that is released directly
to the ground and then to groundwater sources in a cultivated region in which
cadmium-rich phosphate-based fertilizers are used. Non-ferrous metal mines are
another major contributor of cadmium to the marine ecosystem. Pollution can result
from mine drainage water, ore processing wastewater, leachate, tailing pond
overflow, and flow of rainfall from a mining area (Nosier, 2003). Bai and
Bartkiewicz (2009) studied elimination of cadmium from sewerage by using ion
exchange resin
Base on the Table 4.15 and Figure 4.54, the Cd removal was 76.94%, 59.97%,
56.23% and 43.79% in PZ-SBR, PZE, PAC-SBR and Normal-SBR, respectively.
PZ-SBR is more efficiency in Cd removal.
152
Cd removal
Cd rem. (%)
80
60
40
20
0
Normal-SBR
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
153
On the other hand, an excessively high DO, which requires a high airflow rate, leads
to a high energy consumption and may also deteriorate the sludge quality. A high DO
in the internally recirculated water also makes the denitrification less efficient.
Hence, both for economical and process reasons, it is of interest to control the DO
(Holenda et al., 2008).
The DO (mg/L) concentration at the beginning and ending of SBR process
were less than 1 mg/L which is in line with findings of Aziz (2011) and Li et al.
(2008). Two different concentration of DO (greater than 2 mg/L and less than 1
mg/L) are mandatory (Aziz, 2011; Surampalli et al., 1997). So the DO concentration
in the all reactors was suitable for occurring both nitrification and denitrification
process. A quick increase of DO curves in the reactors was because of beginning of
react phase. Also, rapid decrease of DO curves for aeration rate process and start
settling phase in the SBRs. Figures 4.55 to 4.60 show DO variation inside the
reactors. The DO concentration was in order PZ-SBR> PAC-SBR> PZE-SBR>
Normal-SBR. The DO concentration in PZ-SBR was higher than others. PZ assisted
in decreasing the pollutants in the leachate. The adsorbents could reduce a part of
SBR operational cost due to saving DO (Aziz, 2011).
154
12
SBR-a
SBR-b
10
SBR-c
PZ-SBR-a
DO (mg/L)
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
4-55: Effect of contact time on DO in the reactors (aeration rate 0.5 L/min; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 2.0h; b= 12h and c= 22h of contact time
14
SBR-a
12
SBR-b
SBR-c
10
DO (mg/L)
PZ-SBR-a
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
4-56: Effect of contact time on DO in the reactors (aeration rate 4.0 L/min; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 2.0h; b= 12h and c= 22h of contact time
155
16
14
SBR-a
SBR-b
12
SBR-c
PZ-SBR-a
DO (mg/L)
10
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
6
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
4-57: Effect of contact time on DO in the reactors (aeration rate 7.5 L/min; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 2.0h; b= 12h and c= 22h of contact time
156
14
12
SBR-a
SBR-b
10
SBR-c
DO (mg/L)
PZ-SBR-a
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
4-58: Effect of aeration rate on DO in the reactors (contact time 2h; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 0.5 L/min; b= 4 L/min and c= 7.5 L/min
16
SBR-a
14
SBR-b
12
SBR-c
PZ-SBR-a
DO (mg/L)
10
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
6
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
10
15
4-59: Effect of aeration rate on DO in the reactors (contact time 12h; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 0.5 L/min; b= 4 L/min and c= 7.5 L/min
157
16
SBR-a
14
SBR-b
12
SBR-c
PZ-SBR-a
DO (mg/L)
10
PZ-SBR-b
PZ-SBR-c
PAC-SBR-a
6
PAC-SBR-b
PAC-SBR-c
PZE-SBR-a
PZE-SBR-b
PZE-SBR-C
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
4-60: Effect of aeration rate on DO in the reactors (contact time 22h; combined
leachate to wastewater; 50%)
a= 0.5 L/min; b= 4 L/min and c= 7.5 L/min
158
data. The Adequate precision (Adeq P) compares the range of predicted values at the
design points to the mean prediction error. Adeq. P greater than 4 shows adequate
model inequity (Aziz, 2011). All Adeq P were more than 4 authorizing that all
predicted models could be used to navigate the design space defined by the CCD.
Figures 61 to 68 displayed the predicted versus actual value plots of response
parameters for all reactors. These plots signify sufficient agreement between real
data and the ones achieved from the models. The coefficient of variance (CV) is the
ratio of the standard error of estimate to the average of observed response defined by
the reproducibility of the model. If the CV is more than 10%, then it is considered
reproducible (Aziz, 2011; Bashir et al., 2010).
159
160
Response
R2
Adj. R2 Adec. P.
SD
CV
Table 4-16: ANOVA results for response parameter (about colour, COD, ammonia and phenols)
PRESS
Colour
SBR
Type
variance;
0.1991
0.0014
0.9235
0.8519
0.7440
0.6550
0.3897
0.7093
0.1797
0.2913
0.0369
0.4616
0.0866
0.0161
0.0007
0.0015
Prob.
LOF
161
Response
R2
Adj. R2 Adec. P.
CV
PRESS
Fe
SBR
Type
variance;
0;0351
0.0398
0.0016
0.0010
0.6629
0.8661
0.5953
0.8607
0.4969
0.4122
0.4511
0.3834
0.2108
0.0722
0.0424
0.2994
Prob.
LOF
Figure 4-61: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for colour
162
Figure 4-62: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for COD
163
Figure 4-63: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for ammonia
164
Figure 4-64: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for phenols
165
Figure 4-65: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for Fe
166
Figure 4-66: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for Mn
167
Figure 4-67: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for Ni
168
Figure 4-68: Design-expert plot; predicted vs. actual values plot for Cd
HRT of this study were 0.18 to 1.11d and they are in the ranges which were
mentioned in above. HRT values were determined by the following equation:
where, OLR= organic loading rate, kg/m3.d; Total COD= total chemical
oxygen demand, kg/m3; HRT= hydraulic retention time, d
Minimum and maximum OLR are shown in Table 4.19. The 6, 12, 24, 48 and 96
g/m3d of OLR were used by Aygun et al. (2008). Babaee and Shayegan (2011) used
1.4, 2 and 2.75 kg/m3d in their study. So in current study, OLR is in the range.
170
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Normal-SBR
8000
7000
MLSS (mg/L)
6000
5000
Min
4000
Max
3000
2000
1000
0
PZ-SBR
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
Normal-SBR
171
F/M concentrations
Minimum
6809
6152
5842
1205
Maximum
7923
7010
6804
1969
172
Parameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Normal-SBR
90
760
(12.68h)
4.32
20
930
(15.5h)
30
49
1.00
0.72
1510
0.25
Value
PZ-SBR PAC-SBR
90
90
3
3
699
769
(11.65h) (12.82h)
2.41
3.07
20
20
930
930
(15.5h)
(15.5h)
30
30
111
10
1.00
1.00
0.72
0.72
7613
6516
0.05
0.06
PZE-SBR
90
3
756
(12.60h)
1.82
20
930
(15.5h)
30
24
1.00
0.72
6105
0.06
Parameter
Temperature (C)
pH
EC (ms/cm)
Colour (Pt. Co)
BOD5 (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
Nitrite (mg/L NO2-N-HR)
Total phosphorus (mg/L PO43-)
NH3-N (mg/L)
Sulfide (mg/L)
Total iron (mg/L)
Total manganese (mg/L)
Total nickel (mg/L)
chromium VI (mg/L)
Total cadmium (mg/L)
Phenols (mg/L)
Leachate
28.5
7.65
3.73
1261
269.0
726
50.18
22.11
417.0
0.300
7.23
1.18
5.44
0.21
3.11
1.84
Wastewater
27.9
6.91
1.13
6.00
64.2
116
9.26
98.18
149.0
0.600
2.65
0.65
0.31
0.17
0.32
0.10
Based on Table 4.22, the settling time was 90 min in the continuous SBR
experiments; the same range was used by Wang et al., 2009; Li et al., 2008; Aziz
(2011), and Trabelsi et al. (2013).
Based on Table 4.22, the cycle time was 15.5 h in the continuous SBR
experiments; the various ranges were used by researchers. Aziz (2011) used 8h of
cycle time; Neczaj et al. (2007) used 24h of cycle time; and Swierczynska et al.
173
(2012) used 12h of cycle time. The 16h of cycle time is in the ranges which were
used by researchers.
Based on Table 4.22, the HRT was 0.72 d in the continuous SBR experiments;
the various ranges were used by researchers. Aziz et al. (2011a) used 3.34 d; the 1 d,
0.5 d, 0.33 d and 0.25 d of HRT were used by Fabregas (2004); Andreottola et al.
(2001), and Dangcong et al. (2001). Also different HRT from 19.17d to 2.7h was
reported by Chan et al. (2009). The HRT of this study was 0.74 d is in the ranges
which were used by researchers.
Based on Table 4.22, the OLR was 1.00 kg/m3.d in the continuous SBR
experiments. The 6, 12, 24, 48 and 96 g/m2d of OLR were used by Aygun et al.
(2008). Babaee and Shayegan (2011) used 1.4, 2 and 2.75 kg/m3d in their study. So
OLR in current research is in the range.
174
Table 4-24: Removal efficiency of color, COD, ammonia, phenols and sulfide
Types
NormalSBR
PZSBR
PACSBR
PZESBR
Colour
removal
(%)
47.78
COD
removal
(%)
44.29
Ammonia
removal
(%)
88.41
Phenols
removal
(%)
32.56
Sulfide
removal
(%)
39.28
87.18
73.84
97.69
67.71
74.13
69.23
62.19
92.37
45.29
61.32
71.14
58.24
90.89
43.31
56.39
Table 4-25: Concentrations of colour, COD, ammonia, phenols and sulfide after
treatment
Types
NormalSBR
PZSBR
PACSBR
PZESBR
Colour
intensity
(Pt. Co)
658
COD
concentration
(mg/L)
404.5
Ammonia
concentration
(mg/L)
48.3
Phenols
concentration
(mg/L)
1.24
Sulfide
concentration
(mg/L)
0.18
162
194.7
9.6
0.59
0.07
388
274.5
31.8
1.00
0.11
364
303.0
37.9
1.04
0.13
Table 4-26: Average removal efficiency of Fe, Mn, Ni, Cd and Cr (VI)
Types
NormalSBR
PZSBR
PACSBR
PZESBR
Fe
removal
(%)
39.24
Mn
removal
(%)
38.17
Ni
removal
(%)
38.91
Cd
removal
(%)
39.18
Cr (VI)
removal
(%)
38.15
82.25
78.71
82.13
80.18
79.24
58.92
55.28
54.29
56.18
55.24
68.18
62.19
64.32
66.23
66.37
175
Table 4-27: Average concentrations of Fe, Mn, Ni, Cd and Cr (VI) after treatment
Types
NormalSBR
PZSBR
PACSBR
PZESBR
Fe
concentration
(mg/L)
4.39
Mn
concentration
(mg/L)
0.72
Ni
concentration
(mg/L)
3.23
Cd
concentration
(mg/L)
1.89
Cr (VI)
concentration
(mg/L)
0.13
1.28
0.25
0.97
0.61
0.04
2.97
0.52
2.49
1.36
0.09
2.30
0.44
1.94
1.05
0.07
A. Nitrification
Nitrification is a microbial process by which ammonia is sequentially oxidized
to nitrite and then to nitrate. In the first phase of nitrification, ammonia-oxidizing
bacteria oxidize ammonia to nitrite according to equation (1), Nitrosomonas is the
most commonly identified genus associated with this step (EPA, 2007).
NH3 + O2
NO2 + 3H++ 2e
B. Denitrification
Denitrification is the process by which nitrates are reduced to gaseous nitrogen
by facultative anaerobes. Facultative anaerobes, such as fungi, can flourish under
anoxic conditions because they break down oxygen-containing compounds (e.g.,
NO3-) to obtain oxygen. The organisms that perform this process are called
denitrifiers. In general, they are heterotrophic bacteria that metabolize readily
biodegradable substrate under anoxic conditions by using nitrate as the electron
acceptor. If oxygen is available, these bacteria consume it for metabolism before they
use the nitrate. Therefore, dissolved oxygen concentrations must be minimized for
the denitrification process to function professionally (EPA, 2007).
The concentration of NO2N in raw leachate was 54 mg/L (Figure 4.70). The
oxidation of NH3N was confirmed by increasing the NO2N concentrations during
the treatment process in the reactors.
177
Concentration (mg/L)
1000
800
Raw Leachate
Normal-SBR
600
PZ-SBR
400
PAC-SBR
PZE-SBR
200
0
NH3-N
NO2-N
NO3-N
Figure 4-70: The concentration of NH3-N, NO2-N and NO3-N in raw leachate and
reactors
The oxidation of ammonia to NO2-N and oxidation of NO2-N to NO3-N for
leachate sample collected from SBRs is clear in Fig. 4.70. Normally, a part of NO2-N
and NO3-N was removed by Adsorbents-SBR in comparing with SBR.This is in line
with findings of Aziz (2011); Aktas and Cecen, (2001) and Surampalli et al. (1997).
178
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The characteristics of the wastewater (from Bayan Baru Wastewater Treatment
Plant) and Semeling landfill leachates were studied. The average levels of different
parameters, such as colour, COD, NH3N, phenols, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cd, exceeded
the levels prescribed by the 2009 Regulations of the Malaysian Environmental
Quality Act of 1974 (2009).
ZELIAC was produced in the concrete laboratory of the School of Civil
Engineering, USM. ZELIAC consists of zeolite, activated carbon, limestone, rice
husk ash, and Portland cement. The optimum settling time and dosage of powdered
ZELIAC (PZ) in batch/shaking experiments of fixed leachatedomestic wastewater
ratio samples were monitored. According to the batch/shaking experiments, the
optimum settling time and PZ were 90 min and 3 g/L, respectively.
RSM and CCD were used to elucidate the nature of the response surface in the
experimental plan and determine the optimum settings of the independent variables
[aeration rate (L/min), contact time (h), and leachate to wastewater ratio (%; v/v)]
and their reactions. To study the aerobic process, eight dependent factors (COD,
ammonia, colour, phenols, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cd) were evaluated. The results indicated
that PZSBR removed pollutants more efficiently than SBR, PACSBR, and PZE
SBR. Under optimal conditions of aeration rate (2.41 L/min), leachate to wastewater
ratio (20%), and contact time (11.65 h) for PZSBR, the reduction efficiencies for
colour, NH3N, COD, phenols, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Cd were 84.74%, 72.35%, 99.54%,
61.93%, 79.58%, 73.32%, 79.28%, and 76.94%, respectively.
179
5.2 Recommendations
Finally, the following points are suggested for other researchers:
1) ZELIAC is a new low-cost adsorbent that has been used in leachate and
wastewater treatment. Thus, many investigations should be carried out to explore its
performance in pollutant removal. The researchers can use it in other wastewater
treatment systems and methods.
2) In this study, ZELIAC showed a good performance in removing pollutants
that are distinct in colour and in removing metals. As such, strongly recommend
performing further studies to increase the performance of this adsorbent such as
adding new materials like powdered shell into ZELIAC.
3) Other operation factors should be investigated such as organic loading rate,
F/M ratio, solid retention time for leachate treatment by using sequencing batch
reactors. Moreover, also recommend more responses from molybdenum, copper,
calcium, cobalt, chromium, aluminum and sulfide to be investigated by other
researchers.
180
REFERENCES
Abbas, M. N., Husain, A. A., and Abbas, F. S. (2013) phenol removal from
wastewater using rice husk. Diyala Journal for Pure Sciences, 9(4), 51-60.
Abbas, A. A., Jingsong, G., Ping, L. Z., Ya, P. Y., and Al-Rekabi, W. S. (2009).
Review on landfill leachate treatments. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5(5):
534545.
Abdullah, S. B. (2010) Heavy Metals Removal from Industries Wastewater by Using
Seaweed through Biosorption Process. BSc Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering &
Earth Resources, University Malaysia Pahang.
Abdulrasaq, O. O., and Basiru, O. G. (2010) Removal of copper (II), iron (III) and
lead (II) ions from Mono-component Simulated Waste Effluent by Adsorption on
Coconut Husk. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(6),
382-387.
Adlan M. N., Palaniandy, P., and Aziz, H. A. (2011) Optimization of coagulation and
dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment of semi-aerobic landfill leachate using
response surface methodology (RSM). Desalination, 277(1-3): 7482.
Aghamohammadi, N., Aziz, H. A., Isa, M. H., and Zinatizadeh, A. A. (2007)
Powdered activated carbon augmented activated sludge process for treatment of
semi-aerobic landfill leachate using response surface methodology. Bioresource
Technology, 98: 35703578.
Akl, M. A., Yousef, A. M., and AbdElnasser, S. (2013) Removal of Iron and
Manganese in Water Samples Using Activated Carbon Derived from Local AgroResidues. Journal of Chemical Engineering & Process Technology, 4, 1-10.
Al-Dwairi, R. A., and Al-Rawajfeh, A. E. (2012) Removal of cobalt and nickel from
wastewater by using Jordan low-cost zeolite and bentonite. Journal of the University
of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 47, 69-76.
Ali, M. S., Khan, I. A., Hossain, M. I. (2008) chemical analysis of ordinary Portland
cement of Bangladesh. Chemical Engineering Research Bulletin, 12, 7 -10
Alkhaddar, R. M., Phipps, D. A., and Cheng, C. (2005) Today and Tomorrow!
Research Prospects for Aerobic Biological Liquid Waste Treatment for Reduction of
Carbon Load. Official Publication of the European Water Association (EWA), pp:18.
181
182
Bai, Y., and Bartkiewicz, B. (2009) Removal of Cadmium from Wastewater Using
Ion Exchange Resin Amberjet 1200H Columns. Polish Journal of Environmental
Studies, 18, 1191-1195.
Bashir, M. J. K., Aziz, H. A., Yusoff, M. S., and Adlan, M. N. (2010) Application of
response surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal nitrogen
removal from semi-aerobic landfill leachate using ion exchange resin. Desalination,
254, 154-161.
Battilani, A., Steiner, M., Andersen, M., Back, S. N., Lorenzen, J., Schweitzer, A.,
Dalsgaard, A., Forslund, A., Gola, S., Klopmann, W., Plauborg, F., and Andersen,
M. N. (2010) Decentralised water and wastewater treatment technologies to produce
functional water for irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 385402.
Benfenati, E., Pierucci, P., Fanelli, R., Preiss, A., Godejohann, M., and Astratov, M.
(1999) Comparative studies of the leachates of an industrial landfill by gas
chromatographymass spectrometry, liquid chromatographynuclear magnetic
resonance and liquid chromatographymass spectrometry. J. Cromatogr, 831, 243
56.
Boehler, M., Zwickenpflug, B., Hollender, J., Ternes, T., Joss, A., and Siegrist, H.
(2012) Removal of micropollutants in municipal wastewater treatment plants by
powder-activated carbon. Water Science and Technology, 66(10), 2115-2121.
Bohdziewicz, J., Bodzek, M., and Gorska, J. (2001) Application of pressure-driven
membrane techniques to biological treatment of landfill leachate. Process
Biochemistry, 36, 641-646.
Bu, L., Wang, K., Zhao, O. L., Wei, L. L., Zhang, J., and Yang, J. C. (2010)
Characterization of dissolved organic matter during landfill leachate treatment by
sequencing batch reactor, aeration corrosive cell-Fenton, and granular activated
carbon in series. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 179, 1096-1105.
Capodici, M., Di Trapani, D. and Viviani, G. (2014) Co-treatment of landfill leachate
in lab scale sequencing batch reactors: analysis of system performance and biomass
activity by means of respirometric techniques. Water Science & Technology,
doi:10.2166/wst.2014.005.
een F., and Akta, O. (2004) Aerobic Co-Treatment of Landfill Leachate with
Domestic Wastewater. Environmental Engineering Science, 21(3), 303-312.
Cecen, F., and Aktas, O. (2001) Effect of PAC addition in combined treatment of
landfill leachate and domestic wastewater in semi-continuously fed batch and
continuous-flow reactors. Water SA., 27 (2), 177.
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
Liermann, T. A. (2009) Fiji Islands Naboro Landfill Leachate Quality Analysis and
the Applicability of Developed versus Small Island Developing State Discharge
Standards. MSc Thesis of Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological
University.
Lim, P. E., Lim, S. P., Seng, C. E., and Noor, A. M. (2010) Treatment of landfill
leachate in sequencing batch reactor supplemented with activated rice husk ash as
adsorbent. Chemical Engineering Journal, 159, 123-128.
Lim, Y. L., Ho, Y. C., and Alkarkhi, A. F. M. (2014) Application of Optimization in
Wastewater Treatment. Wastewater Engineering: Types, Characteristics and
Treatment Technologies, IJSR Publications, Malaysia.
Litas, G. C., Zouboulis, A. I., Zaboulis, D., and Samaras, P. (2012) The use of a
submerged membrane batch reactor (S.M.B.R) for co-treatment of landfi ll leachates
and domestic wastewater. Desalination and Water Treatment, 39, 284-290.
Mace, S., and Alvarez, J. M. (2002) Utilization of SBR Technology for Wastewater
Treatment: An Overview. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41, 5539-5553.
Mahvi, A. H. (2008) Sequencing Batch Reactor: A Promising Technology in
Wastewater Treatment. Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng., 5(2), 79-90.
Mahvi, A. H., Brown, P., Vaezi, F., and Karakani, F. (2005) Feasibility of
Continuous Flow Sequencing Batch Reactor in Synthetic Wastewater Treatment.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 5 (1), 172-176.
Mai, H. N. P. (2006) Integrated Treatment of Tapioca Processing Industrial
Wastewater: Based on Environmental Bio-Technology. PhD Thesis Wageningen
University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Malakahmad, A., Hasania, A., Eisakhanib, M., and Isa, M. H. (2011) Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR) for the removal of Hg2+ and Cd2+ from synthetic
petrochemical factory wastewater. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 191, 118125.
MEng, J. L. (2012) Removal of phosphorus from water using treated Acid Mine
Drainage solids and pellets made thereof. PhD Thesis, School of Engineering,
Cardiff University.
Mittal, A. (2011) Biological Wastewater Treatment. Water Today, 32-44.
191
Mohajeri, S., Aziz, H. A., Isa, M. H., Zahed, M. A., and Adlan, M. N. (2010)
Statistical optimization of process parameters for landfill leachate treatment using
electro-Fenton technique. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 176, 749-758.
Mohan, S., and Gandhimathi, R. (2009) Removal of heavy metal ions from
municipal solid waste leachate using coal fly ash as an adsorbent. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 169, 351359.
Mojiri, A. (2011) Review on Membrane Bioreactor, Ion Exchange and adsorption
Methods for Landfill Leachate Treatment. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 5(12), 1365-1370.
Mojiri, A., Aziz, H. A., Aziz, S. Q., Selamat, M. R. B., Gholami, A., and Aboutorab,
M. (2013a) Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with nickel by Lepidium sativum;
optimization by response surface methodology. Global NEST Journal, 15, 69-75.
Mojiri, A., Aziz, H. A., Zahed, M., Aziz, S. Q., and Selamat, M. R. B. (2013b)
Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals from Urban Waste Leachate by Southern Cattail
(Typha domingensis). International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental
Sciences, 1(4), 63-70.
Moncls, H., Puig, S., Coma, M., Bosch, A., Balaguer, M. D., and Colprim, J. (2009)
Nitrogen removal from landfill leachate using the SBR technology. Environ
Technology, 30(3): 283-90.
Motsi, T., Rowson, N. A., and Simmons, M. J. H. (2009) Adsorption of heavy metals
from acid mine drainage by natural zeolite. Int. J. Miner. Process, 92, 42-48.
Mustain, A., Wibawa, G., Nais, M. F., and Falah, M. (2014) synthesis of zeolite naa
from low grade (high impurities) indonesian natural zeolite. Indo. J. Chem., 14 (2),
138142.
National Solid Waste Management Department. (2014) ringkasan tapak pelupusan
sisa pepejal di Malaysia. http://www.kpkt.gov.my/jpspn_2013/
Neczaj, E., Kacprzak, M., Kamizela, T., Lach, J., and Okoniewska E. (2008)
Sequencing batch reactor system for the co-treatment of landfill leachate and dairy
wastewater. Desalination, 222, 404409
Neczaj, E., Kacprzak, M., Lach, J., and Okoniewska, E. (2007) Effect of sonication
on combined treatment of landfill leachate and domestic sewage in SBR reactor.
Desalination, 204, 227233
192
Ngo, H. H., Guo, W. and Xing, W. (2008) Applied technologies in municipal solid
waste landfill leachate treatment. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS),
pp: 17.
Nosier, S. A. (2003) Removal of Cadmium Ions from Industrial Wastewater by
Cementation. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q., 17, 219224.
Ok, Y. S., Yang, J.E., Zhang, Y. S., Kim, S. J., and Chung, D. Y. (2007) Heavy
metal adsorption by a formulated zeolite-Portland cement mixture. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 147, 9196.
Ostroski, I.C., Barros, M.A.S.D., Silvab, E.A., Dantas, J.H., Arroyo, P.A., and Lima,
O.C.M. (2009) A comparative study for the ion exchange of Fe(III) and Zn(II) on
zeolite NaY. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161, 1404-1412.
Palanisamy, K., and Nomanbhay, S.M. (2005) removal of heavy metal from
industrial wastewater using chitosan coated oil palm shell charcoal. Electronic
Journal of Biotechnology, 8, 43-53.
Pandey, P. K., Choubey, S., Verma, Y., Pandey, M., Kamal, S. S. K., and
Chandrashekhar, K. (2007) Biosorptive Removal of Ni(Ii) from Wastewater and
Industrial Effluent. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal., 4, 332-339.
Piatkiewicz, W., Biemacka, E., and Suchecka, T. (2001) A Polish Study: Treating
Landfill leachate with membranes. In: Filtration and Separation, vol 38, 6th edn, pp.
22-23.
Pipeline. (2013) Phosphorus and Onsite Wastewater Systems. Small Community
Wastewater Issues Explained to the Public, Vol. 23.
Pelivanoski, P., Donevska, K., and Sofronievska, D. (2009) Wastewater and Landfill
Leachate Treatment Plant for the Municipality of Centar upa. International
Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering Ohrid/Macedonia, 15 SeptembeR.
Qasim, B. R., and Chiang, W. (1994) Sanitary Landfill Leachate: Generation,
Control and Treatment. CRC Press. USA
Qin L., Liu, Y., Tay J. H. (2004) Effect of settling time on aerobic granulation in
sequencing batch reactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 21(1), 47-62.
193
Rahmani, A. R., and Mahvi, A. H. (2008) Use of Ion Exchange for Removal of
Ammonium: A Biological Regeneration of Zeolite. Global NEST Journal, 8(2), 146150.
Rautenbach, R., Vossenkaul, K., Linn, T., and Katz, T. (1997) Waste water treatment
by membrane processes-New development in ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and
reverse osmosis. Desalination, 108(13), 247253.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J. G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., and Moulin, P. (2008)
Landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 150, 468493.
Risnawati, I., Damanhuri, T. P. (2010) Institute Technology Bandung. Faculty Civil
and Environmental Engineering, SW5-1 to SW5-11.
Rodriguez, J., Castrillon, L., Maranon, E., Sastre, H., and Fernandez, E. (2004)
Removal of non-biodegradable organic matter from landfill leachates by adsorption.
Water Research, 38, 32973303.
Rong, Q., Kun, Y., and Zhao-xiang, Y. (2007) Treatment of coke plant wastewater
by SND fixed biofilm hybrid system. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 19, 153
159.
Samad, H. Y., Mustafa, S., Naila, B., Naeem, A., Hamid A., and Dilara, B. (2004)
Phosphate removal from municipal wastewater by different adsorbents. Jour. Chem.
Soc. Pak., 26(3), 286-287.
Salam, O. E., Reiad, N. A., and ElShafei, M. M. (2011) A study of the removal
characteristics of heavy metals from wastewater by low-cost adsorbents. Journal of
Advanced Research, 2, 297303.
Sarudji, D., and Mangkoedihardjo S. (2007) Cement and clay treatment for organic
matter containing leachate. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(4), 387389.
Sarioglu, M. (2005) Removal of ammonium from municipal wastewater using
natural Turkish (Dogantepe) zeolite. Separation and Purification Technology, 41(1),
1-11.
Sewvandi, G. A., and Adikary, S. U. (2011) Removal of Heavy Metals from
Wastewater
Using
Chitosan.
http://management.kochitech.ac.jp/ssms_papers/sms11-5519_f7ef9ac7c0fc35b5704c4fdba8c7e34a.pdf.
194
195
Timur, H., and Ozturk, I. (1999) Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treatment of
landfill leachate. Water Research, 33 (15): 32253230.
Tortora A (2010). Microbial Growth. Biol 3400, Course Notes, 12 April, University
of Lethbridge, Canada.
Trabelsi I., Salah, S., and Ounaeis, F. (2013) Coupling short-time sequencing batch
reactor and coagulationsettling process for co-treatment of landfill leachate with
raw municipal wastewater. Arab Jounal of Geoscience, 6, 20712079.
Umar, M., Aziz, H. A., and Yusoff, M. S. (2011) Assessing the chlorine disinfection
of landfill leachate and optimization by response surface methodology (RSM).
Desalination, 274(1-3), 278283.
UNEP. (2009) Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Volume 1:
Waste Characterization and Quantication with Projections for Future. pp 73.
UNEP. (2005) Solid Waste Management. (Volume I). pp 524.
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/solid_waste_management/index.asp
[Accessed March 3, 2013]
USEPA. (1999) Wastewater, Technology Fact Sheet: Sequencing Batch Reactors.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., EPA
932-F-99-073.
Uygur, A., and Kargi, F. (2004) Biologicaol nutrient removal from pre-treated
landfill leachate in a sequencing batch reactor. Journal of Environ Management, 71,
914.
Varank, G., Demir, A., Yetilmezsoy K., Bilgili, M. S., Top, S., and Sekman, E.
(2011) Estimation of transport parameters of phenolic compounds and inorganic
contaminants through composite landll liners using one-dimensional mass transport
model. Waste Management, 31: 22632274.
Vignesawarna, S., Sundaravadivel, M., and Chaudhary, D. S. (2004) Sequencing
batch reactor: principles, design/operation and case study. Water and Wastewater
Treatment Technology, Encyclopedia of life support systems
Visvanathan, C., Ben Aim, R., and Parameshwaran, K. (2000) Membrane Separation
Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science
and Technology, 30(1), 1-48.
196
197
Leachate (%)
50
20 to 50
25
10 to 50
5 to 25
5 to 20
Wastewater (%)
50
80 to 50
75
90 to 50
95 to 75
95 to 80
Type of wastewater
Domestic wastewater
Domestic wastewater
Dairy wastewater
Synthetic wastewater
Domestic wastewater
Domestic wastewater
7
8
9
6.7 to 20
50
< 55
93.3 to 80
50
> 55
Domestic wastewater
Domestic Wastewater
Domestic wastewater
Reference
Litas et al. (2012)
Neczaj et al. (2007)
Neczaj et al. (2008)
Capodici et al. (2014)
Cecen et al. (2003)
een and akroglu
(2001)
een and Aktas (2001)
Uygur and Kargi (2004)
Qasim and Chiang (1994)
DO (mg/L)
5.82
2.11
0.98
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.48
Color
Removal
(%)
0
10.07
22.01
37.90
36.97
36.34
36.34
33.43
33.95
Ammonia
Removal
(%)
0
15.37
28.86
42.39
45.25
45.25
45.25
45.47
45.47
COD
Removal
(%)
0
7.54
15.70
24.35
26.94
28.31
26.94
28.06
28.06
198
PZ
ZELIAC
(g/L)
0
1
2
3
5
7
10
15
20
Color
(Pt. Co)
Ammonia
(mg/L)
COD
(mg/L)
963
867
751
598
607
613
613
641
634
272.0
230.2
193.5
156.7
149.1
148.9
148.9
148.3
148.3
809
748
682
612
591
580
591
582
582
Color
(Pt. Co)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (Pt. Co)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
963
867
751
598
0
96
212
365
1
1
1
1
PZ dosage
(g/L)
COD
(mg/L)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (mg/L)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
809
748
682
612
0
61
127
197
1
1
1
1
PZ dosage
(g/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (mg/L)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
272.0
230.2
193.5
156.7
0.0
41.8
78.5
115.3
1
1
1
1
PZ dosage
(g/L)
Fe
(mg/L)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (mg/L)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
6.34
5.51
4.76
4.13
0.00
0.83
1.58
2.21
1
1
1
1
PZ dosage
(g/L)
Mn
(mg/L)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (mg/L)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
2.09
1.86
1.64
1.46
0.00
0.23
0.45
0.63
1
1
1
1
PZ dosage
(g/L)
Ni
(mg/L)
Adsorbate (Ce) by
PZ (mg/L)
Volume
(L)
0
1
2
3
4.31
3.74
3.37
2.94
0.00
0.57
0.94
1.37
1
1
1
1
qe (mg/g)
or
x/m (mg/g)
96.00
106.00
121.67
199
qe (mg/g)
or
x/m (mg/g)
0.57
0.47
0.45
200
12
2
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
22
12
12
22
22
22
12
4.5
Run
Contact time
(h)
Aeration rate
(L/min)
50
20
50
50
20
80
50
80
50
80
50
50
50
50
20
50
20
80
20
80
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
930
705
925
914
860
1198
892
1226
913
1183
860
944
874
907
891
803
806
1096
752
1046
Colour
rem.
(Pt. Co)
772.4
737.8
769.7
771.3
698.7
901.5
765.2
878.8
753.1
967.3
772.0
725.4
788.4
765.2
739.0
778.7
763.8
967.4
778.4
797.1
COD rm.
(mg/L)
23.3
20.7
31.2
25.7
50.5
127.0
25.8
53.2
21.1
109.2
31.3
109.3
57.5
21.0
66.5
107.8
52.2
152.8
41.0
95.0
Ammonia
rem.
(mg/L)
1.17
1.12
1.20
1.17
1.29
1.40
1.19
1.45
1.16
1.41
1.16
1.27
1.24
1.18
1.19
1.23
1.16
1.43
1.16
1.31
Phenols
rem.
(mg/L)
3.82
3.28
3.74
3.73
3.57
5.00
3.68
5.01
3.75
5.02
3.85
3.73
3.88
3.68
3.56
3.80
3.46
4.93
3.42
4.84
Fe rem.
(mg/L)
1.35
1.22
1.34
1.33
1.26
1.64
1.35
1.66
1.32
1.66
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.33
1.24
1.38
1.25
1.63
1.28
1.61
Mn rem.
(mg/L)
3.32
2.73
3.35
3.31
2.86
4.12
3.31
4.20
3.33
4.16
3.31
3.32
3.36
3.31
2.84
3.34
2.77
4.05
2.82
3.97
Ni rem.
(mg/L)
1.82
1.53
1.83
1.83
1.57
2.23
1.83
2.30
1.84
2.29
1.85
1.87
1.87
1.83
1.55
1.84
1.56
2.23
1.58
2.21
Cd rem.
(mg/L)
201
12
2
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
22
12
12
22
22
22
12
4.5
Run
Contact time
(h)
Aeration rate
(L/min)
50
20
50
50
20
80
50
80
50
80
50
50
50
50
20
50
20
80
20
80
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
413
229
417
362
345
564
350
582
374
583
418
412
434
387
365
434
299
635
362
538
Colour
rem.
(Pt. Co)
427.7
374.9
438.5
413.4
396.4
667.1
437.1
608.6
441.5
568.6
474.6
451.4
480.4
435.5
347.3
424.3
398.1
647.6
417.1
620.0
COD rm.
(mg/L)
47.4
9.2
42.5
41.9
15.9
102.8
21.4
108.9
27.1
91.8
47.1
21.0
36.7
21.3
20.6
48.5
16.5
109.4
25.4
58.2
Ammonia
rem.
(mg/L)
0.81
0.63
0.80
0.81
0.66
0.91
0.79
0.92
0.80
0.89
0.75
0.75
0.79
0.78
0.63
0.75
0.61
0.87
0.64
0.90
Phenols
rem.
(mg/L)
1.26
1.20
1.58
1.53
1.41
3.27
1.69
3.40
1.71
3.75
1.70
1.70
1.71
1.65
1.27
1.66
1.31
3.36
1.41
3.40
Fe rem.
(mg/L)
0.73
0.53
0.73
0.79
0.56
1.07
0.74
1.14
0.71
1.20
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.75
0.53
0.79
0.56
1.09
0.58
1.11
Mn rem.
(mg/L)
1.95
1.08
1.94
2.03
1.22
3.01
2.08
3.11
1.91
3.13
2.02
2.03
2.03
1.93
1.03
2.13
1.12
3.03
1.14
2.89
Ni rem.
(mg/L)
1.09
0.64
1.07
1.08
0.68
1.63
1.14
1.72
1.14
1.73
1.14
1.15
1.18
1.10
0.63
1.18
0.69
1.67
0.75
1.63
Cd rem.
(mg/L)
202
12
2
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
22
12
12
22
22
22
12
4.5
Run
Contact time
(h)
Aeration rate
(L/min)
50
20
50
50
20
80
50
80
50
80
50
50
50
50
20
50
20
80
20
80
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
725
417
755
792
470
812
762
841
730
862
771
738
757
745
452
778
462
828
496
819
Colour
rem.
(Pt. Co)
572.0
423.7
572.0
593.1
489.0
749.1
585.0
765.8
551.2
754.1
585.3
564.7
557.9
546.0
479.1
582.4
456.5
732.0
489.0
703.4
COD rm.
(mg/L)
51.0
10.8
50.7
46.3
17.1
109.5
55.1
120.0
46.8
127.3
48.5
36.2
64.0
34.9
12.0
37.6
13.7
115.9
22.76
111.9
Ammonia
rem.
(mg/L)
1.08
0.88
1.09
1.07
0.92
1.31
1.11
1.33
1.06
1.32
1.07
1.10
1.11
1.07
0.91
1.07
0.87
1.30
0.94
1.28
Phenols
rem.
(mg/L)
3.38
2.40
3.39
3.37
3.20
4.19
3.43
4.22
3.41
4.27
3.47
3.55
3.66
3.39
2.53
3.79
2.88
4.16
2.94
4.13
Fe rem.
(mg/L)
1.15
0.93
1.18
1.19
1.12
1.52
1.19
1.53
1.18
1.55
1.24
1.35
1.28
1.17
0.96
1.33
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.46
Mn rem.
(mg/L)
2.94
2.20
2.96
2.91
2.88
3.86
2.91
3.89
2.96
3.91
3.00
3.45
3.15
2.91
2.41
3.35
2.58
3.80
2.60
3.75
Ni rem.
(mg/L)
1.57
1.17
1.61
1.59
1.52
2.08
1.51
2.07
1.62
2.11
1.64
1.86
1.75
1.62
1.30
1.83
1.35
2.05
1.38
2.00
Cd rem.
(mg/L)
203
Aeration rate
(L/min)
4.5
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
4.0
7.5
4.0
7.5
4.0
0.5
7.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Run
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
`8
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
22
12
12
12
22
22
22
12
Contact time
(h)
50
20
50
50
20
80
50
80
50
80
50
50
50
50
20
50
20
80
20
80
Leachate to
wastewater
mixing ratio
(%; v/v)
629
407
625
628
507
808
612
858
606
845
640
656
675
632
455
643
424
812
483
775
Colour
rem.
(Pt. Co)
553.9
479.6
559.0
557.0
528.0
765.8
547.3
778.5
561.9
781.9
577.2
570.6
571.0
549.4
494.3
560.3
498.0
781.7
519.2
753.1
COD rm.
(mg/L)
84.9
26.9
85.2
84.4
58.4
109.4
87.0
111.1
82.6
120.3
83.4
84.2
87.1
84.4
20.5
80.1
38.6
117.4
58.8
113.2
Ammonia
rem.
(mg/L)
1.08
0.95
1.07
1.07
0.96
1.30
1.06
1.29
1.08
1.32
1.09
1.07
1.09
1.06
0.97
1.10
0.92
1.28
0.98
1.27
Phenols
rem.
(mg/L)
2.82
2.10
2.82
2.80
2.64
4.10
2.82
4.21
2.84
4.22
3.06
3.06
3.31
2.83
2.30
3.18
2.22
4.16
2.46
4.10
Fe rem.
(mg/L)
1.03
0.79
1.03
1.02
0.95
1.40
1.00
1.43
1.03
1.41
1.14
1.12
1.20
1.00
0.87
1.16
0.84
1.35
0.89
1.32
Mn rem.
(mg/L)
2.53
1.81
2.47
2.51
2.57
3.56
2.61
3.64
2.56
3.69
2.66
2.61
2.64
2.46
1.97
2.57
1.91
3.43
2.05
3.35
Ni rem.
(mg/L)
1.40
1.07
1.42
1.43
1.27
1.95
1.43
1.97
1.44
1.95
1.50
1.51
1.57
1.44
1.18
1.49
1.15
1.92
1.18
1.87
Cd rem.
(mg/L)
PUBLICATIONS
Journals
1) Mojiri A., Aziz H.A., Zaman N.Q, Aziz S.Q., Zahed M.A. (2014). Powdered
ZELIAC augmented SBR process for co-treatment of landfill leachate and
domestic wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management, 139: 1-14
(Elsevier; IF= 3.18).
2) Mojiri A., Aziz H.A., Zaman N.Q, Aziz S.Q., Zahed M.A. (2014). Metals
Removal from Municipal Landfill Leachate and Wastewater Using Adsorbents
Combined with Biological Method. Desalination and Water Treatment, In
Press (Taylor & Francis; IF=0.987).
3) Mojiri A., Aziz H.A., Zaman N.Q., Aziz S.Q. (2012). A Review on Anaerobic
Digestion, Bio-reactor and Nitrogen Removal from Wastewater and Landfill
Leachate by Bio-reactor. Advances in Environmental Biology, 6(7): 21432150. (ISI and SCOPUS)
4) Mojiri A., Aziz H.A, Aziz S.Q. (2013). Trends in Physical-Chemical Methods for
Landfill Leachate Treatment. International Journal of Scientific Research in
Environmental Sciences, 1(2): 16-25.
Book
1) Mojiri A., Aziz H.A. (2014). Wastewater Engineering: Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Systems. Publisher: IJSR Publications, Malaysia
Book Chapter
1) Mojiri A., Ramli S.F.B. (2015). Introduction to Leachate Treatment. Control and
Treatment of Landfill Leachate for Sanitary Waste Disposal, IGI Global. In
Press.
204
International Conferences
1) Mojiri, A., Aziz, H.A., Zaman, N.Q., Aziz, S.Q. (2013). Landfill Leachate and
Urban Wastewater Treatment by Powdered Zeliac Augmented Sequencing
Batch Reactor Process. The Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Solid
Waste Technology and Management, March 10-13, 2013, Philadelphia, PA,
USA.
205