EVALUATION OF CONTAMINATION
POTENTIAL OF SANITARY LANDFILL
LYSIMETER USING LEACHATE
POLLUTION INDEX
I.M. RAFIZUL, M. ALAMGIR AND M.M. ISLAM
Department of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology
(KUET), Bangladesh
SUMMARY: The dumping of municipal solid waste (MSW) in uncontrolled landfills can cause
significant adverse impacts on the environment and human health. The principal concern is
focused on the pollution potential due to migration of leachate generated from the landfill sites
into the groundwater, the surface water or the sea. In this study, the concept of leachate pollution
index (LPI), a tool for quantifying the leachate pollution potential of sanitary landfill lysimeter
constructed at KUET campus, Khulna, Bangladesh has been described and hence computed the
LPI based on the actual concentration of leachate pollution. Here, it is interesting to note that the
computed LPI then compared with the LPI estimated for treated leachate as per the Indian
Standards. Based on the results, it can be concluded that a single number index value which
reflect the composite influence of significant pollutant variables on leachate pollution is possible
and it can provide a meaningful, uniform method of assessing the leachate contamination
potential of landfill site at a particular time. Based on the experimental results, it can be depicted
that the LPI value for the sanitary landfill lysimeter is significantly high and proper treatment
will be necessary before discharge of lysimeter leachate.
1. THEORITICAL BACKGROUD OF THIS STUDY
Threats to groundwater from the unlined and uncontrolled landfills exist in many parts of the
world, particularly in the underdeveloped and developing countries where hazardous industrial
waste is also co-disposed with MSW and no provision of separate landfills for hazardous waste
exist (Alamgir et al. 2005; Rafizul et al. 2009c). A number of incidences have been reported in
the past, where leachate had contaminated the surrounding soil and polluted underlying ground
water aquifer or nearby surface water (Chian and DeWalle 1976; Kelley 1976; Kumar et al.
2002). However, the principal concerns regarding leachate are related to the pollution potential
of uncontrolled leachate migration into local surface water, groundwater or the sea (Lo 1996).
Many factors influence the leachate composition including the types of wastes deposited in
the landfill, composition of wastes, moisture content, the particle size, the degree of compaction,
the hydrology of the site, the climate, and age of the fill and other site-specific conditions
Proceedings Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 3 - 7 October 2011
 2011 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
including landfill design and type of liners used, if any (Rafizul et al. 2011c, Leckie et al. 1979;
Kouzeli-Katsiri et al. 1999).
A strong need has been felt to take appropriate remedial measures to avoid contamination of
the underlying soils and groundwater aquifers from the leachate generated from the landfills. The
state regulatory authorities in most of the countries around the world have framed regulations to
safe guard against the contamination of groundwater sources from the leachate generated from
the landfills (Chowdhury et al. 2008). However, the remedial and preventive measures cannot be
undertaken at all the existing closed and active landfill sites because of financial constraints.
Remedial and preventive measures need to be taken up in a phased manner. Thus, a system
needs to be developed to prioritize actions, and to establish which landfills need immediate
attention for remediation works. An index for easy comparison of leachate contamination
potential of different landfills in a given geographical area would be a useful tool in this regard.
Kumar and Alappat (2003) have developed a technique to quantify the leachate contamination
potential of different landfills on a comparative scale in terms of LPI. LPI has many potential
applications including ranking of landfill sites, resource allocation, trend analysis, enforcement
of standards, scientific research and public information.
To these attempted, 80 panelists consists of academicians in environmental science and
engineering; environmental regulatory authority officials and scientists; consulting engineers;
and members of International Solid Waste Association conducting the necessarysurvey around
the world, using multiple questionnaires to formulate LPI based on Rand Corporation’s Delphi
Technique (Dalkey 1968). Due to the simplicity and similarity of composition of MSW, the
develoed tool of LPI was used in this study to evaluate the contamination potential of sanitary
landfill lysimeter and hence discussed.
2. DESIGN AND OPERATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL LYSIMETER
The lysimeter test facilities were set-up at the backyard of Civil Engineering Building, KUET,
Khulna, Bangladesh. The test set-up consists of three lysimeters designated as A, B and C. It has
been intended to construct the lysimeters, a reference cell to represent three different conditions
was designed. Figure 1 represents a schematic diagram of lysimeter showing all the design
components in details. The each lysimeter was used to simulate different landfill concept and
operational condition. The amount of MSW deposited in each lysimeter is presented in Table 1.
However, the detailed about lysimeter design, construction and operational condition can be
obtained in Rafizul et al. (2009a; 2009b). The MSW deposited in lysimeter was collected from
Khulna city and the average composition and moderate compaction density was maintained
during the deposition of MSW in each lysimeter.
The deposited MSW mainly consists of 93% organic (food and vegetables), 3% of
plastic/polythene and 2% of leather/rubber and 2% of others. The organic and moisture content
of the deposited MSW were found 52% and 65%, respectively, and the total volume was 2.80m3
(height 1.6m) with a manual compaction to achieve the unit weight of 1,064kg/m3.
At the bottom of each lysimeter, a cement concrete layer of 125mm thick was provided then
the lysimeters were filled with stone chips (dia 5-20mm) and coarse sand (dia 0.4-.05mm) to the
height of 15cm of each to ensure uniform and uninterrupted drainage.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of reference cell for lysimeter design.
At the base of each lysimeter after placing the perforated leachate collection pipe, a geo-textile
blanket having 0.60m wide and 1.65m length was placed on the top to avoid rapid clogging of
the perforated pipe by the sediments from the lysimeters. In lysimeter-B and C, 38mm dia of gas
collection and 25mm dia of leachate recirculation pipe were installed. During the installation of
these pipes and penetration through the top cover, special arrangements i.e. disc shaped rubber
gasket having 3mm thickness and 300mm dia was used for the protection of any possible leakage
between the pipe and surrounding soil media.
Table 1. Operational conditions used in lysimeter to simulate different landfill conditions.
Lysimeter
A
B
C
Operating condition
Aerobic with leachate
detection (A1)
Aerobic with leachate
collection (A2)
Anaerobic with gas
collection and leachate
recirculation system
Refuse (kg)
Liner specification
Simulation
2860
400mm thick CCL as base liner
between leachate detection and
collection system
Present practice of open
dumping
2985
2800
Cap liner-I (300mm thick CCL)
Applicability of designed
Cap liner-II (900mm thick natural
top cover
top soil)
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
3. CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING OF SANITARY LANDFILL LYSIMETER
The construction, monitoring and the operation of lysimeter is presented by a line diagram in
Figure 2. After designing of reference cell, the construction of lysimeter to simulate the
controlled environment was started from January 2008 and completed in July 2008. Following
the construction of lysimeter, leachate generation and characteristics, settlement and gas
emission in terms of composition and flow rate have been monitored.
The sampling of leachate from leachate collection chamber, at regular interval of time for
laboratory characterization and monitoring of quantity and flow rate of leachate was started in 3 rd
week of June 2008 to until the end of this trial. The monitoring of daily rainfall data was started
for the first period of rainy season in from Aug. 2008 to Oct. 2008. From the beginning to up the
150th day of lysimeter operation in from July 2008 to Nov. 2008, the composition of landfill gas
was measured; however, the monitoring of flow rate was started after 50th day and continues to
150th day of lysimeter operation in from 3rd week of Aug. 2008 to Nov. 2008).
During the period of Oct. to Nov. 2008, leachate was recirculated in both the anaerobic
lysimeter-B and C. The leachate recycling has been considered as one of options for leachate
management. The benefits of leachate recycling are treatment of leachate, because high strength
of pollutants will be decomposed again by biological activities and other reactions, and recovery
of landfill gas which is the result of decomposition (Rafizul et al. 2011b).
Figure 2. Period of construction of landfill lysimeter operation and monitoring system
4. ANALYSIS OF CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL USING LEACHATE POLLUTION
INDEX
In this paper, the concept of LPI is described in brief and stepwise procedure to calculate the LPI
using the actual concentrations of leachate pollutant generated from MSW deposited in sanitary
landfill lysimeter, constructed at KUET campus, Khulna, Bangladesh. However, the stepwise
detailed of formulation of LPI is presented and hence discussed in the following articles.
4.1 Concept of leachate pollution index
In an effort to develop a system for comparing the leachate pollution potential of various landfill
sites in a given geographical area, 80 panelists consists of academicians in environmental science
and engineering; environmental regulatory authority officials and scientists; consulting
engineers; and members of International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) conducting the
necessary survey around the world as presented in Table 2. The survey was conducted using
multiple questionnaires to formulate LPI based on Rand Corporation’s Delphi Technique
(Dalkey 1968).
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Table 2. Professional fields of panelists for LPI formulation (after Kumar and Alappat 2003).
SL No.
01.
02.
03.
04.
Professional status of the panelists
Regulatory authorities and scientists
Consulting engineers
Academicians
Others including members of International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)
Total
No. of panelists
15
06
49
10
80
4.2 Pollutant variables selection
From literature, fifty (50) commonly reported leachate parameters were selected for their possible
inclusion in the LPI. In questionnaire 1, the panelists were introduced to the possibility of
preparing a tool in the form of LPI. Moreover, the panelists were also asked to consider fifty (50)
leachate parameters for their possible inclusion in the proposed LPI. Panelists were also
requested to add any variables to the list of fifty (50) parameters, which, they feel shall also be
included in the LPI. They were also asked to designate all the parameters as follows:(i) Do not
include (ii) Or undecided and (ii) Or include. Panelists were also requested to rate each
parameter marked ‘include’ according to the significance of its contribution to overall leachate
pollution. The rating was to be done on a scale of ‘1’ to ‘5’. The value ‘1’ was to be used for the
parameter that has lowest relative significance to the leachate contamination, while, the value ‘5’
was to be used for the parameter that has highest relative significance. Based on response from
panelists to questionnaire 1, and subsequent questionnaire 2 which aimed at arriving at a better
consensus, eighteen (18) leachate pollutants were selected. The eighteen (18) selected pollutants
and the significance obtained for them are given in Table 3. The leachate pollutants can be
divided in to the subgroups as (i) LPI organic (LPIor), (ii) LPI inorganic (LPIin) and (iii) LPI
heavy metals (LPIhm) and also is evident in Figure 3.
Table 3. Significance and weights of the pollutant parameters (after Kumar and Alappat 2003).
Sl. No.
Pollutant
Significance
Pollutant weight
1
Total Chromium
4.057
0.064
2
Lead
4.019
0.063
3
COD
3.963
0.062
4
Mercury
3.923
0.062
5
BOD5
3.902
0.061
6
Arsenic
3.885
0.061
7
Cyanide
3.694
0.058
8
Phenol Compound
3.627
0.057
9
Zinc
3.585
0.056
10
pH
3.509
0.055
11
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
3.367
0.053
12
Nickel
3.321
0.052
13
Total Coliform Bacteria
3.289
0.052
14
Ammonia Nitrogen
3.250
0.051
15
Total Dissolved Solids
3.196
0.050
16
Copper
3.170
0.050
17
Chlorides
3.078
0.049
18
Total Iron
2.830
0.045
TOTAL
63.165
1.000
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Figure 3. Three LPI subgroups and the pollutants in this subgroups with % weight factors (after
Kumar and Alappat 2003).
4.3 Development of pollutant variable rating curves
In the third questionnaire, a selected group of panelists was requested to develop rating curves
for all the eighteen (18) selected variables. This was done by providing graph sheets to the
panelists. On the graph sheets, levels of leachate pollution (sub index score) from ‘0’ to ‘100’
were indicated on the ordinate of each graph, while, various level of concentrations of particular
variable, up to the maximum limits reported in literature, were marked along the abscissa. The
panelists were requested to draw a curve on each graph, which, in their judgment, represented
the leachate pollution produced by the various concentrations of each pollutant variable.
The panelists were requested to start the curves for each pollutant variable with a minimum
value of ‘5’ of leachate pollution even if there is no contamination from the pollutant to the
overall leachate pollution. This was done to ensure that multiplicative aggregation function can
be used at the later stage, if required, and the minimum value of ‘5’ units of leachate pollution
will ensure that the LPI value does not result in zero even if some of the pollutants do not show
any pollution. Therefore, the theoretical range of LPI is from ‘0’ to ‘100’.
The responses received on the graph sheets have been used to produce a set of ‘average
curves’, one for each pollutant variable (Robinson et al. 1995). The resulting curves are shown in
Figure 4. As all the curves are obtained from the survey, they are implicit non-linear functions
for which no mathematical equations can be given. In each figure, the bold line shows the
arithmetic mean of all the panelists’ curves, while, the x axis error bars indicate the 90%
confidence limit. Approximately 75% of the panelists’ curves fall within this area.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
4.4 Variable aggregation
The weighted sum linear aggregation function was used to sum up the behavior of all the
leachate pollutant variables. The various possible aggregation functions were evaluated by
Kumar and Alappat (2003b) to select the best possible aggregation function. The sensitivity
analysis of the six short-listed aggregation function was performed to arrive at the best possible
aggregation function. The LPI can be calculated using the equation:
Where, LPI = the weighted additive leachate pollution index, wi = the weight for the Ith pollutant
variable, pi = the sub index value of the I th leachate pollutant variable, n = number of leachate
pollutant variables used in calculating LPI . And,
However, when the data for all the pollutant variables included in LPI is not available, the LPI
can be calculated using data set of the available pollutants. In that case, the LPI can be calculated
by the equation:
Where, m is number of pollutant parameters for which data is available, but in that case, m<18
and ∑ wi <1.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Figure 4. The averaged sub index curves of pollutant (a) pH (b) TDS (c) BOD 5 (d) COD (e)
TKN (f) ammonia nitrogen (g) iron (h) copper (i) nickel (j) zinc (k) lead (l) chromium
(m) mercury (n) arsenic (o) phenol (p) chlorides (q) cyanide (r) TCB (after Kumar and
Alappat 2003).
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
5. CALCULTING LEACHATE POLLUTION INDEX- A CASE STUDY
The leachate characteristics of sanitary landfill lysimeter varies with the variation of lysimeter
operation and also with age of MSW deposited in the landfill lysimeter (Rafizul et al. 2011a).
Therefore, the LPI will be representing the leachate quality of landfill for which the data is used.
It would be prudent to use the leachate samples from leachate collection chamber accomplished
of four different leachate collection pipe to get the representative information about leachate
characteristics of landfill lysimeter. The stepwise procedure to calculate LPI is given below.
 Step 1: Testing of leachate pollutants
For laboratory investigations, standards tests were performed on the collected leachate samples
to find out the concentrations in terms of chromium, lead, COD, BOD5, arsenic, zinc, pH, TKN,
nickel, TCB, TDS, copper, chlorides and total iron as presented in Table 4. The detailed about
the concentrations of lysimeter leachate can be obtained in Rafizul et al. (2009c) and a
companion paper of Rafizul et al. (2011b). It should be noted that the LPI would be
representative the leachate data used and will provide the index corresponding to the particular
time for which the data is used.
 Step 2: Calculating sub-index values
To calculate the LPI , computed the ‘p' values or sub-index values (Table 4; Column 4) for the
fourteen (14) parameters stated earlier from the sub-index curves (Figure 4) based on the
concentration of the leachate pollutants stated earlier. The ‘p’ values were obtained by locating
the concentration of leachate pollutant on the horizontal axis of the sub index curve for that
pollutant and noting the leachate pollution sub-index value where it intersects the curve.
 Step 3: Aggregation of sub-index values
The ‘p’ values obtained for the fourteen (14) parameters were multiplied with the respective
weights (Table 4; Column 2) assigned to each parameter. The weighted sum of all the parameters
indicates the overall LPI (Table 4; Column 5). However, Panelists suggested that if the
concentrations of the eighteen (18) selected variables are known, the following equation (1) is
used . Otherwise, equation (2) is used. In the present study, as the evaluated leachate pollutant
was fourteen (14), then, equation (2) was used. The true value of LPI is obtained when the
concentrations of all the eighteen (18) variables included in LPI are known.
Where, LPI = the weighted additive leachate pollution index, wi = the weight for the Ith pollutant
variable, pi = the sub index value of the I th leachate pollutant variable, n = 18 and ∑ wi =1.
However, when the data for all the pollutant variables included in LPI is not available, the LPI
can be calculated using data set of the available pollutants by the equation:
Where pollutant parameter for which data is available in this study as, m < 18 (14) and ∑ wi <1
(0.773) (Table 4, Column 2).
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Table 4. Calculating of LPI at 60 days after filling of MSW in sanitary landfill lysimeter
Leachate
pollutant
variable
(1)
Chromium
Variable
weight, wi
(from Table 2)
(2)
0.064
0.063
0.062
-0.061
0.061
--0.056
0.055
0.053
0.052
0.052
-0.05
0.05
0.049
0.045
0.773
Lead
COD
Mercury*
BOD5
Arsenic
Cyanide*
Phenol*
Zinc
pH
TKN
Nickel
TCB
NH3 amm*
TDS
Copper
Chlorides
Total Iron
TOTAL
LPI Value using equation 2
Pollutant concentration,ci
(3)
A1
0.07
0.18
896
NA
920
0.01
NA
NA
0.88
6.49
540
0.075
6310
NA
4490
0.09
1120
30.80
A2
0.056
0.392
9360
NA
1160
0.01
NA
NA
B
0.03
0.78
3042
NA
950
0.01
NA
NA
C
0.025
0.29
34480
NA
990
0.01
NA
NA
0.23
6.33
1470
0.045
6780
NA
0.17
8.5
1020
0.058
5500
NA
0.29
7.12
1135
0.045
4980
NA
15740
0.05
1270
51.60
10610
0.06
580
53.20
13160
0.05
150
8.67
Pollutant sub-index
value, pi (from Figure 4)
(4)
A1
5
6
36
27
5
5
6
16
6
87
12
5.5
9
5.5
A2
5
7
78
31
5
5
6.5
49
5.5
87
38
5.5
10
6
B
5
9
62
27
5
5
5
31
5.5
86
24
5.5
7
6
C
5
6.5
87
28
5
5
5
37
5.5
85
27
5.5
5.5
5
Overall pollutant rating wi.pi
(5)
A1
0.32
0.378
2.232
1.647
0.305
0.28
0.33
0.848
0.312
4.524
0.6
0.275
0.441
0.2475
12.74
16.48
A2
0.32
0.441
4.836
1.891
0.305
0.28
0.3575
2.597
0.286
4.524
1.9
0.275
0.49
0.27
18.77
24.29
B
0.32
0.567
3.844
1.647
0.305
0.28
0.275
1.643
0.286
4.472
1.2
0.275
0.343
0.27
15.73
20.35
C
0.32
0.41
5.394
1.708
0.305
0.28
0.275
1.961
0.286
4.42
1.35
0.275
0.270
0.225
17.48
22.61
Leachate
disposal
standards, ct
(6)
Treated
leachate
sub-index, pt
(7)
Treated
leachate
pollutant
rating wi.pt
(8)
2.0
9
0.58
0.10
250
0.01
30
0.20
0.20
1.0
5.0
5.5-9.0
100
3.0
No standard
50
2100
3.0
100
No standard
5
10
6
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
10
7
7
18
8
-
0.32
0.62
0.37
0.37
0.31
0.35
0.29
0.34
0.28
0.32
0.52
0.36
0.35
0.90
0.39
6.67
7.378
Note: All values in mg/L, except pH and total coliform bacteria unit (cfu/ml) , * Leachate pollutant concentration for the variables Not Available
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
6. INTERPETATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY
The standards for the disposal of treated leachate to inland surface water as per the Management
and Handling Rules (The Gazette of India, 2000) for the various parameters are presented in
(Table 4; Column 6). The concentrations of all the leachate pollutants, except chromium, nickel,
copper, arsenic and zinc, exceed the permissible limits of treated leachate discharing into inland
surface water. The COD values exceed almost 135 times the permissible limits. Moreover, the
LPI value of the standards for the treated leachate is calculated and reported in (Table 4; Column
8) and also in Figure 5. The LPI value of the treated leachate shall not exceed 7.38. The
comparison of the leachate characteristics with the standards set for the disposal of treated
leachate verifies the fact that the leachate generated from the landfill lysimeter is highly
contaminated and will have to be treated before discharge (so that the LPI comes below 7.38).
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
(f)
(e)
Figure 5. The Variation of LPI at different operational condition of landfill lysimeter and with
the increasing of elapsed period of (a) 30 days (b) 60 days (c) 120 days (d) 160 days
(e) 300 days and (f) 380 days.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 4 illustrates the calculation of LPI values at a particular elapsed period of 60 days from
MSW deposition in sanitary landfill lysimeter at different operational conditions such as
leachate detection (A1) and collection (A2) system of aerobic lysimeter-A as well as the leachate
collection system of anaerobic lysimeter-B and C. Since the data for all the parameters included
in LPI are not available, the LPI has been calculated on the basis of the available data.
The comparison of LPI values at different operational condition of sanitary landfill lysimeter
is evident in Figure 5. Based on the evaluated results, the LPI was found 21.46, 16.48, 13.98,
16.40, 14.03 and 12.88 for leachate detection system (A1); 26.83, 24.29, 22.21, 21.58, 19.43 and
18.10 for collection system (A2) of lysimeter-A; 23.63, 20.35, 18.02, 18.07, 15.24 and 13.84 for
lysimeter-B; as well as 25.34, 22.61, 20.20, 19.48, 17.18 and 15.41 for lysimeter-C, for 30, 60,
120, 160, 300 and 380 days, respectively, after filling of MSW in lysimeter.
It can be seen that the LPI value for the leachate collection system of aerobic landfill
lysimeter-A was the highest, while, the LPI value for the leachate detection system of aerobic
landfill lysimeter-A was found to be the lowest until the end of this trial (Figure 5). The high LPI
value (26.83) for the leachate collection system of lysimeter-A further indicates that the MSW
deposited in lysimeter-A has not yet stabilized. This is also evident from the high BOD 5 and
COD values reported by Rafizul et al. (2011a). The comparison of the leachate characteristics
with the standards set for the disposal of treated leachate verifies the fact that the leachate
generated from the landfill lysimeter is highly contaminated and the values of LPI for all the
operational condition of landfill lysimeter exceed the LPI of treated leachate of 7.38. The high
LPI demands that leachate generated from the landfill lysimeter should be treated.
The low value of LPI (12.88) for the leachate detection system lysimeter-A indicates the
relatively lower contaminant potential. However, the individual contaminants shall meet the
state discharge standards before discharge of leachate into any surface water body. Moreover,
the relatively highest value of LPI of 23.63 and 25.34, of the two anaerobic lysimeter operation,
lysimeter-B and C, respectively, are comparable and indicates that the leachate should be treated
before discharging. Moreover, it can be depicted that the comparatively lower values of LPI for
the landfill lysimeter sites are attributable to low concentrations of heavy metals in the Leachate
(Table 4; Column 3). Landfill age also plays an important role in the leachate characteristics and
hence, influences the LPI value (Lo 1996).
Figure 6. Variation of LPI with in relation to the variation of days after filling of MSW in
lysimeter
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
The decreasing trend of LPI at different operational condition of landfill lysimeter with in
relation to the increaing of days after filling of MSW in lysimeter is evident in Figure 6. Based
on Figure 6, it can be seen that in case of collection system of aerobic lysimeter-A, the LPI was
found higher than that of other operational condition. The results indicate that the aerobic
landfill lysimeter-A has high LPI value in comparison with the two anaerobic landfill lysimeterB and C, and therefore, it has relatively more contamination potential.
A researcher named Truett (1975) postulated that LPI is a planning index, specifically for
decision-making, may be further generated, as one used by United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) for planning MSW treatment projects.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The LPI provides a meaningful method of evaluating the contamination potential of different
landfill sites at a particular time. It can serve as an important information tool for the policy
makers and public about the leachate pollution threat from the landfills.
The experimental results reveals that the LPI has decreased with in relation to the increasing
of elapsed period of MSW deposited in landfill lysimeter untill the end of this trial. Moreover,
the concentrations of all the leachate pollutants, except chromium, nickel, arsenic, copper and
zinc, exceed the permissible limits of treated leachate discharing into inland surface water.
The comparison of the leachate characteristics with the standards set for the disposal of
treated leachate verifies the fact that the leachate generated from the landfill lysimeter is highly
contaminated and the the value of LPI exceed the LPI value 7.38 of treated leachate and proper
treatment will have to be ensured before discharging the lysimeter leachate.
Finally, it can be concluded that the sanitary landfill lysimeter-A can therefore pose threat to
the environment and human health and hence, appropriate remedial actions and monitoring must
be ensured.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledged the financial support provided by European Commission
through the project of EU- Asia Pro Eco II Programme (ASIE/2006/122-432). Furthermore, the
authors would like to acknowledge to Syeb Ahammad Kabir, Senior Bio-chemist, Department of
Environment (DoE), Khulna Division, Sayed Ahsan Ali, Assistant Technical Officer and Sarder
Shahidul Alam, Principal Lab Assistant, Environmental Engg. Lab, Dept. of CE, KUET, Kawser
Alam Mia, Geoenvironmental Engineering Lab, Dept. of CE, KUET, for their effective service
during the period of this study.
REFERENCES
Alamgir M., Ahsan A., McDonald C.P., Upreti B.N. and Rafizul I. M. (2005). Present Status
of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Bangladesh, Waste-The Social Context,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp.16:1-10.
Chian E.S.K and DeWalle F.B. (1976). Sanitary Landfill Leachates and their Treatment. J
Environ Eng Division, American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)102(EE2):411–431.
Chowdhury K.H, Rafizul I. M., J. Akter and Alamgir M. (2008). Present Status of Municipal
Solid Waste Management in Barisal City Corporation. National Seminar on Solid Waste
Management, KUET, 9 -10 February 2008, Khulna, Bangladesh, pp.95-102.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Dalkey N.C. (1968), DELPHI. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica.
Government of India (ed.) (20000). Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling)
Rules. The Gazette of India, Ministry of Env. and Forests, Gov. of India, Delhi, India.
Kelley WE (1976). Ground-water pollution near a landfill. J Environ Eng Division, American
Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) 102(EE6):1189–1199.
Kouzeli-Katsiri A., Bodogianni A. and Christoulas D. (1999). Prediction of Leachate Quality
from Sanitary Landfills. J Environ Eng Division ASCE 125 (EE10):950–957.
Kumar D. and Alappat B.J. (2003b). A Technique to Quantify Landfill Leachate Pollution. In:
Proceedings of the 9th international landfill symposium. Cagliari, Sardinia, Paper No. 400.
Kumar D., and Alappat B.J. (2003c). Monitoring Leachate Composition at a Municipal
Landfill Site in New Delhi, India. International Journal of Env. and Pollution ( in Press).
Kumar D., Khare M. and Alappat, B.J. (2002). Threat to Groundwater from the Municipal
Landfills in Delhi, India. In: Proceedings of the 28th WEDC Conference on sustainable
environmental sanitation and water services. Kolkata (Calcutta), pp 377 -380.
Leckie J.O., Pacey J.G. and Halvadakis C. (1979). Landfill Management with Moisture
Control, J Environ Eng Division, American Society of Civil Engg. (ASCE) 105 (EE2):337–
355.
Lo I.M.C. (1996). Characteristics and Treatment of Leachate from Domestic Landfills. Env.
Int.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M., Howlader M.K. Kraft E. and Haedrich G. (2009a). Construction
and Evaluation of Sanitary Landfill Lysimeter in Bangladesh. International Conference on
Solid Waste Management, Technical, Environment and Socio-Economical Contexts,
November 9-10, 2009, WasteSafe 2009, Dept. of CE, KUET, Khulna, Bangladesh, pp.475484.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M., and Howlader M.K. (2009b). Laboratory Investigations and Small
Scale Biological Treatment of Leachate. International Conference on Solid Waste
Management, Technical, Environment and Socio-Economical Contexts, November 9-10,
2009, WasteSafe 2009, Dept. of CE, KUET, Khulna, Bangladesh, pp.485-493.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M. Kraft E. and Haedrich G. (2009c). Characterization of Leachate
Generated from Municipal Solid Waste in Sanitary Landfill Lysimeter. Proceedings
SARDINIA 2009, Twelfth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 5-9
October 2009, S. Margherita Di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, pp. 441-442.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M., Kraft E. and Haedrich G. (2011a). Metals Concentration in
Leachate of Sanitry Landfill Lysimeter, 2nd Int. Conf. on Solid Waste Management in
Developing Asian Countries, February 13-15, 2011, WasteSafe 2011, KUET, Bangladesh,
pp. 166-167.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M., Kraft E. and Haedrich G. (2011b). Monitoring of Leachate
Characteristics of Sanitary Landfill Lysimeter under Tropical Conditions, 2nd International
Conference on Solid Waste Management in Developing Asian Countries, Feb. 13-15, 2011,
WasteSafe 2011, KUET, Bangladesh, pp. 183-184.
Rafizul I.M., Alamgir M., Kraft E. and Haedrich G. (2011c). Bio-treatment of Leachate
Generated from Municipal Solid Waste in Sanitary Landfill Lysimeter, 2nd International
Conference on Solid Waste Management in Developing Asian Countries, Feb.13-15, 2011,
WasteSafe 2011, KUET, Bangladesh, pp. 191-193.
Sardinia 2011, Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
Robinson et al. (1995). Treatment of Leachates from Hong Kong Landfills with Full
Nitrification and Denitrification. International Proceedings of the fifth International
Landfill Symposium. Cagliari, Italy.
Truett J.B., Johnson A.C., Rowe W.D., Feigner K.D. and Manning L.J. (1975). Development
of Water Quality Management Indices, Water Resource Bull 11(3):436–448.