Review on COD and ammoniacal nitrogen removal from landfill leachate using low-cost adsorbent

Figures & data

Table 1. Landfill stability according to BOD₅/COD ratio (Lim et al. 2016; Nor Nazrieza et al. 2015)

Soluble types	Young	Mid	Stable
Age of landfill (years)	<1	1–5	˃5
pH	<6.5	6.5–7.5	˃7.5
COD (mg/L)	˃15,000	3000–15,000	<3000
BOD5/COD	0.5–1.0	0.1–0.55	<0.1
TOC/COD	<0.3	0.3–0.5	<0.5
NH3-N (mg/L)	<400	400	˃400
Nitrogen ammonia, (mg/L)	100–2000	T.D	T.D
Heavy metal (mg/L)	˃2	<2	<2
Organic compounds	80% VFA	5 – 30% VFA + HA + FA	HA + FA only

Table 2. Summary of wastewater treatment and leachate using peat soils by previous researchers

Researchers	Sample	Parameter	Working range					Removal efficiency
			pH	Contact time	Dosage	Speed	Particle size	COD	NH3-N	Heavy metals	Others
Rosli et al. (2017b)	Leachate	Color & Iron			0:4						74.4% & 79.6%.
Champagne and Khalekuzzaman (2014)	Leachate	COD	5.88––7.43	2–5 day	-	-	-	80%	86%	-	-
		NH3-N
Kalmykova et al. (2014)	Leachate	PHCs	-	20–30 min	-	-	-	-	-	-	35%
		PAHs									63%
Heavey (2003)	Leachate	COD	-	-	-	-	-	88.1%	99.9%	-	-
		NH3-N
Bartczak et al. (2015)	Water	Nikel	1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (5–7)	1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, (60), 90, 120, 180 and 240 min	(0.5), 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 g	-	-	-	-	61.27 mg/g	-
		Lead								82.31 mg/g
Zehra, Lim, and Priyantha (2015)	Water	Lead	3.1, 4, 5.1 and (6.1)	30, 60, 90, (120), 150, 180, 210 and 240 min	0.05 g	250 rpm	-	-	-	15 mg/g	-
Na et al. (2016)	wastewater	Phosphorus	7–8	0.5, 1, 1.5, 4, 8, 12 and 24	6 g	150 rpm	0.5, 2 and 4 mm	-	89.23–97.08%	-	88.04–95.32%
		NH3-N
Mohamed et al. (2014)	Grey water	BOD	3.8–6.1	7, 14, 28 day	-	-	-	-	-	-	52–74%

Table 3. Summary of wastewater treatment and leachate using activated carbon by previous researchers

Adsorbent	Sample	Researcher	Parameter	Working range					Removal efficiency
				pH	Contact time	Dosage	Speed	Particle size	COD	NH3-N
Granular Activated Carbon and green mussel shell	Stabilized Leachate	Daud et al. (2020)	COD NH3-N	7	120 minutes	2.5:1.5 g	120 rpm	75 to 150 μm	83%	63%
Granular Activated Carbon and Cockle Shells	Stabilized Leachate	Daud et al. (2017a)	COD NH3-N	1–10	50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350 and 400 min	0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 g	40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, 180, 200 and 220 rpm	2.00–3.35 mm	-	-
Activated cow dung ash	Stablized leachate	Kaur, Mor, and Ravindra (2016)	COD	2, 4, (6), and 8	60, (120), 150, 180 and 210 min	0.5, (1), 2 and 5 g	-	45 mm	79%	-
Activated carbon of sugar cane (SCAC)	Stablized leachate	Azmi et al. (2016)	COD NH3-N	3, 4, 5, 6, (7), 8, 9, 10 and 11	30, 60, 90, 120, 150, (180), 210, 240, 270, 300, 330 and 360 min	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and (7) g	50, 100, 150, (200), 250 and 300 rpm	-	83.61%/126.58 mg/g	46.65%/14.62 mg/g
Trade activated carbon	Leachate	Motling, Mukherjee, and Dutta (2014)	COD	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (8) and 9	10, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, (180) and 210 min	0.1, 0.2, 0.3, (0.4) and 0.5 g/L	50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and (300) rpm	-	92%	-
Activated carbon granular (oven heating)	Stablize leachate	Foo, Lee, and Hameed (2013)	COD Color	2, 4, (6), 8 and 10	0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and (2.67) min	2, 4, (6), 8, 10, 12 and 14 g	120 rpm	1–2 mm	-	79.93% 91.23%
Activated carbon (coconut)	Stablize leachate	Halim et al. (2010)	COD NH3-N	4, 5, 6, (7), 8, 9 and 10	5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, (105) and 120 min	3, 5, 8, 12, 17, 23, 30, 38, 47, 57 g	200 rpm	1.18–2.36 mm	37.88 mg/g	6.0790 mg/g
Activated carbon (coconut)	Stablized leachate	Aziz et al. (2010)	COD NH3-N	2–12	0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 24 min	0–40 cm^3	50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300, (350) and 400 rpm	2.00–3.35 mm	256.41 mg/g	14.71 mg/g
Activated carbon (coconut)	Sewage wastewater	Kulkarni (2013)	COD	3, 4, 5, (6), 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11	30, 60, (90), 120, 150 and 180 min	0.5, 1, (2), 3, 4 and 5 g	200 rpm	-	75–80%	-
Activated carbon & limestone	Leachate	Aziz et al. (2004)	NH3-N	5, 5.5,6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5 & 10	-	5,10,15,20, 25,30,35 & 40	-	-	-	40%

Table 4. Summary of wastewater treatment and leachate using zeolite by previous researchers

Researcher	Wastewater	Parameter	Working Range				Efficiency
			pH	Contact time (min)	Agitation speed (rpm)	Dose (g)
(Rida, Bouraoui, and Hadnine 2013) Algeria	Synthetic wastewater	Methylene blue (MB),	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (5)	5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 65, 70, 80, 90, 110, 120 (110)	200, 800	0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 (1)	95% dye was absorb
(Kehinde and Aziz 2015) Penang, Malaysia	Textile wastewater	Color, SS, COD	2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (2–3)	5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 (100)	50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400 (150)	1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 (8)	Removal of 89% of color, 90% of SS 79% of COD
(Huang et al. 2010) Guangzhou, China	Synthetic wastewater	NH3-N	4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(8)	10 −300 (180)	-	8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 (64)	Remove 96% NH3-N
(Kehinde and Aziz 2015) Penang, Malaysia	Textile wastewater	Color, SS, COD	3	100	150	16	91, 96, and 62% removal of color, SS and COD
(Aydm and Kuleyin 2011) Turkey	Leachate	NH3-N	-	0–1400 (60)	-	30, 40, 60, 80,100 150 (100)	48%, removal NH3-N
(Lakdawala and Patel 2015) Gujarat, India	Sugar industry wastewater	BOD, COD	-	-	-	5, 10, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200 (160)	30.77% and 26.68% BOD and COD
(Aydm Temel and Kuleyin 2016) Giresun, Turkey	Leachate	NH3-N	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (7)	5–1440 (60)	100, 200, and 300 (200)	30, 40, 60, 80,100 150 (100)	Adsorption capacity of 9.07 mg/g
(Zhao et al. 2016) Beijing, China	Synthetic wastewater	NH3-N	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (6)	-	200	0.5 to 25.0 (5)	Adsorption capacity 17.5 mg/g
(Wijesinghe et al. 2016) Victoria, Australia	Synthetic wastewater	NH3-N	3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (6)	15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, 480, 540, 600, 660, 720, 840, 960, 1080, 1200, 1320, 1440 (60)	100	2	44% removal of NH3-N
(Mashal et al. 2014) Belfast, UK	Synthetic wastewater	NH3-N	5.5, 7, 9 (7)	-	-	-	Adsorption capacity 32 mg/g
(Khosravi, Esmhosseini, and Khezri 2014) Tehran, Iran	Synthetic wastewater	NH3-N	4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (7)	1 −120 (45)	150	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (6)	Adsorption capacity 43.47 mg/g

Notes. The optimum value in bracket.

Table 5. Summary of wastewater treatment and leachate using limestone by previous researchers

Adsorbent	Sample	Researchers	Parameter	Working range					Removal efficiency
				pH	Contact time	Dosage	Speed	Particle size	NH3-N	COD	Others
Limestone and activated carbon	Synthetic residual water	Kanawade (2016)	NH3-N	7	30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240 and 270 min	0–40 cm^3	350 rpm	2.36–4.75 mm (BK), 0.65–2.36 mm (KT)	58%	-	-
Activated carbon, zeolite, limestone and rice husk	Water	Alias, Halim, and Wahab (2011)	Boron	2, 3, 4, (5), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13	5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, (120) and 150 min	0.5, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 g (280 g/L)	200 rpm	-	-	-	50.49%/1.8985 mg/g
Limestone	Synthetic residual water	Halim and Ahmad (2013)	Boron	2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 (6–8)	5–120 min (90)	2–14 g (240 g/L)	-	-	-	-	40%
Limestone and activated carbon	Synthetic residual water	Hussain et al. (2007)	NH3-N	2, 5, (7), 11 and 13	30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240 and 270 min	0–40 cm^3	350 rpm	0.65–1.14, (1.14–2.0) and 2.36–4.75 mm	58%	-	-
Limestone and activated carbon	Leachate	Aziz et al. (2004)	NH3-N	2–13	60 min	0–40 cm^3	350 rpm	2.36–4.75 mm	40%	-	-
Limestone and activated carbon	Leachate	Foul et al. (2009)	NH3-N		0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, (3.0), 4.0, 6.0, 12.0 and 24.0 j	0–40 cm^3	50–400 rpm (350)	2.0–3.35 mm	48%/10.83 mg/g	86%/370 mg/g	-
			COD
Limestone and activated carbon	Leachate	Aziz et al. (2011)	Color	-	10–120 min (60)	0–40 cm^3	50–350 rpm (350)	-	-	-	88%

Lim, C. K., T. W. Seow, C. H. Neoh, M. H. M. Nor, Z. Ibrahim, I. Ware, and S. H. M. Sarip. 2016. Treatment of landfill leachate using ASBR combined with zeolite adsorption technology. 3 Biotech 6 (195):1–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0513-8.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Nor Nazrieza, M. S., M. Y. Siti Rohana, K. Subramaniam, H. Hazilia, and A. Amir Herberd. 2015. Characterization of leachate from Panchang Bedena landfill, Batang Padang landfill and Matang landfill: A comparative study. Malaysian J. Sci. 34 (1):69–77. doi:https://doi.org/10.22452/mjs.vol34no1.7.

 Google Scholar

Rosli, M. A., Z. Daud, S. E. A. Rahman, A. A. Oyekanmi, A. Zainorabidin, H. Awang, and A. A. Halim. 2017b. The effectiveness of Peat-AC composite adsorbent in removing color and Fe from landfill leachate. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 9 (3):35–38.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Champagne, P., and M. Khalekuzzaman. 2014. A semi-passive peat biofilter system for the treatment of landfill leachate. J. Water Sustainability 4 (2):63–76.

 Google Scholar

Kalmykova, Y., N. Moona, A. M. Stromvall, and K. Bjorklund. 2014. Sorption and degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, alkylphenols, bisphenol A and phthalates in landfill leachate using sand, activated carbon and peat filters. Water Res. 1 (56):246–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.011.

 Google Scholar

Heavey, M. 2003. Low-cost treatment of landfill leachate using peat. Waste Manage. 23 (5):447–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00064-3.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bartczak, P., M. Norman, L. Klapiszewski, N. Karwańska, M. Kawalec, M. Baczyńska, M. Wysokowski, J. Zdarta, F. Ciesielczyk, and T. Jesionowski. 2015. Removal of nickel (II) and lead (II) ions from aqueous solution using peat as a low-cost adsorbent: A kinetic and equilibrium study. Arabian J. Chem. 2015:1–14.

 Google Scholar

Zehra, T., L. B. L. Lim, and N. Priyantha. 2015. Removal behavior of peat collected from Brunei Darussalam for Pb (II) ions from aqueous solution: Equilibrium isotherm, thermodynamics, kinetics and regeneration studies. Environ. Earth Sci. 74 (3):2541–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4273-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Na, Q., S. Xiangyang, Q. Xinhui, and Y. Zhou. 2016. Effects of peat and mushroom residues on removing ammonia-nitrogen and total phosphorus in wastewater. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 15 (4):1373–80.

 Google Scholar

Mohamed, R. M. S. R., C. M. Chan, H. Senin, and A. H. M. Kassim. 2014. Feasibility of the direct filtration over peat filter media for bathroom greywater treatment. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 5 (6):2021–29.

 Google Scholar

Daud, Z., A. Detho, M. A. Rosli, M. H. Abubakar, K. A. Samo, N. F. M. Rais, H. A. Tajarudin, and H. A. Tajarudin. 2020. Ammoniacal nitrogen and COD removal from stabilized landfill leachate using granular activated carbon and green mussel (Perna viridis) shell powder as a composite adsorbent. Desalin. Water Treat. 192:111–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.25470.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daud, Z., M. H. Abubakar, A. A. Kadir, A. A. A. Latiff, H. Awang, A. A. Halim, and A. Marto. 2017a. Batch study on cod and ammonia nitrogen removal using granular activated carbon and cockle shells. IJE Trans. A Basics 30:937–44.

 Google Scholar

Kaur, K., S. Mor, and K. Ravindra. 2016. Removal of chemical oxygen demand from landfill leachate using cow-dung ash as a low-cost adsorbent. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 469 (1):338–43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.02.025.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Azmi, N., M. J. K. Bashir, S. Sethupathi, and C. A. Ng. 2016. Anaerobic stabilized landfill leachate treatment using chemically activated sugarcane bagasse activated carbon: Kinetic and equilibrium study. Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (9):3916–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.988660.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Motling, S., S. N. Mukherjee, and A. Dutta. 2014. Removal of phenolic compound and cod from landfill leach ate by commercial activated carbon. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 3 (2):2880–88.

 Google Scholar

Foo, K. Y., L. K. Lee, and B. H. Hameed. 2013. Batch adsorption of semi-aerobic landfill leachate by granular activated carbon prepared by microwave heating. Chem. Eng. J. 222:259–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.02.032.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halim, A. A., H. A. Aziz, M. A. Megat Johari, and K. S. Ariffin. 2010. Comparison study of ammonia and COD adsorption on zeolite, activated carbon and composite materials in landfill leachate treatment. Desalination 262 (1–3):31–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.05.036.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aziz, H. A., A. A. Foul, M. H. Isa, and Y. T. Hung. 2010. Physico-chemical treatment of anaerobic landfill leachate using activated carbon and zeolite-batch and column studies. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manage. 5 (3/4):269–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2010.032008.

 Google Scholar

Kulkarni, S. J. 2013. Removal of organic matter from domestic waste water by adsorption. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2 (10):1836–39.

 Google Scholar

Aziz, H. A., M. N. Adlan, M. S. M. Zahari, and S. Alias. 2004. Removal of ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N) from municipal solid waste leachate by using activated carbon and limestone. Waste Manage. Res. 22 (5):371–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X04047661.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rida, K., S. Bouraoui, and S. Hadnine. 2013. Adsorption of methylene blue from aqueous solution by kaolin and zeolite. Appl. Clay Sci. 83:99–105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2013.08.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kehinde, F., and H. A. Aziz. 2015. Classical optimization of process variables in the treatment of real textile wastewater using clinoptilolite. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 4 (1):1242–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.08.019.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, H., X. Xiao, B. Yan, and L. Yang. 2010. Ammonium removal from aqueous solutions by using natural Chinese (Chende) zeolite as adsorbent. J. Hazard. Mater. 175 (1–3):247–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.156.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aydm, F., and A. Kuleyin. 2011. The effect of modification and initial concentration on ammonia removal from leachate by zeolite. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5 (6):226–29.

 Google Scholar

Lakdawala, M. M., and Y. S. Patel. 2015. Studies on adsorption capacity of zeolite for removal of chemical and bio-chemical oxygen demands. Chem. J. 1 (4):139–43.

 Google Scholar

Aydın Temel, F., and A. Kuleyin. 2016. Ammonium removal from landfill leachate using natural zeolite: Kinetic, equilibrium, and thermodynamic studies. Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (50):23873–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1136964.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, Y., Y. Niu, X. Hu, B. Xi, X. Peng, W. Liu, and L. Wang. 2016. Removal of ammonium ions from aqueous solutions using zeolite synthesized from red mud. Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (10):4720–31.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wijesinghe, D. T. N., K. B. Dassanayake, S. G. Sommer, G. Y. Jayasinghe, J. Scales, and D. Chen. 2016. Ammonium removal from high-strength aqueous solutions by Australian zeolite. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A Toxic Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 51 (8):614–25.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mashal, A., J. Abu-Dahrieh, A. A. Ahmed, L. Oyedele, N. Haimour, A. Al-Haj-Ali, and D. Rooney. 2014. Fixed-bed study of ammonia removal from aqueous solutions using natural zeolite. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustainable Dev. 11 (2):144–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2013-0022.

 Google Scholar

Khosravi, A., M. Esmhosseini, and S. Khezri. 2014. Removal of ammonium ion from aqueous solutions using natural zeolite: Kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies. Res. Chem. Intermed. 40 (8):2905–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11164-013-1137-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kanawade, S. M. 2016. Treatment on synthetic effluent by using limestone and granular activated carbon for removal of ammoniacal nitrogen. Int. J. Adv. Res. Dev. 1 (3):55–63.

 Google Scholar

Alias, N. H. M., A. A. Halim, and M. I. A. Wahab. 2011. Penyingkiran boron daripada larutan berair menggunakan penjerap komposit berasaskan karbon-mineral. Sains Malaysiana 40 (11):1271–76.

 Google Scholar

Halim, A. A., and M. F. Ahmad. 2013. Isoterma dan kinetik penjerapan boron oleh batu kapur sebagai penjerap berkos rendah. Sains Malaysiana 42 (12):1689–96.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hussain, S., H. A. Aziz,M. H. Isa, M. N. Adlan, and F. A. Asaari. 2007. Physico-chemical method for ammonia removal from synthetic wastewater using limestone and GAC in batch and column studies. Bioresour. Technol. 98(4):874–880.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Foul, A. A., H. A. Aziz, M. H. Isa, and Y.-T. Hung. 2009. Primary treatment of anaerobic landfill leachate using activated carbon and limestone: Batch and column studies. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manage. 4 (3/4):282–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2009.027397.

 Google Scholar

Aziz, H. A., L. T. Hin,M. N. Adlan, M. S. Zahari, S. Alias, Ahmed, A. A. M. A. Foul, M. R. Selamat, M. J. K. Bashir, M. S. Yusoff, et al. 2011. Removal of high-strength colour from semi-aerobic stabilized landfill leachate via adsorption on limestone and activated carbon mixture. Res. J. Chem. Sci. 1(6):1–7.

 Google Scholar