Influence of operations on leachate characteristics in the Aerobic-Anaerobic Landfill Method

摘要

Landfill aeration is an effective technique for the controlled and sustainable conversion of conventional anaerobic landfills into a biologically stabilized state associated with a significantly lowered or the near elimination of the landfill gas emission potential. For in-situ leachate treatment recycling back the generated leachate in the bioreactor is also a promising technique for reducing pollutants and cost of ex-situ treatment as well. This research has been conducted to ascertain the in-situ treatment of leachate in Aerobic Anaerobic Landfill Method (AALM) compared with aerobic landfill and evaluated the impacts of various leachate recirculation regimes on MSW degradation and to provide data for successful operation in landfill sites. The experiment was conducted using six Plexiglass (R) landfill simulation reactors with a height of 100 cm and a diameter of 15 cm. Air was injected at the rates of 1.6 I/kg DM/h (Low aeration rate) for reactors R-LA, R-LAA (recirculatory) and LAA (non-recirculatory) and 4.81/kg DM/h (High aeration rate) in R-HA, R-HAA (recirculatory), and HAA (non-recirculatory) until day 242. It has been evaluated that R-HAA at high aeration rate achieved higher leachate quantity reduction (36.9%) than low aeration rate reactor R-LAA (19.6%) and AALM provides a better solution to control the temperature within the landfill body. The final NH4+-N concentration in R-HA (214.5 mg/I) was eight times lower than in the R-LA (1741.0 mg/I) reactor, and R-HAA (842.5 mg/I) was about three times lower than R-LAA (2315.4 mg/1) reactor on day 242. The change in leachate recirculation amount at varying moisture content positively affected the stabilization process and in-situ leachate treatment efficiency. The combination of both technologies (intermittent aeration and leachate recirculation) is a feasible way for in-situ leachate treatment, decrease the cost of further ex-situ leachate treatment as well as a viable and cost-saving alternative to continuous aeration. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.