Landfill leachate and concentrates from nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) processes pose potential environmental threats. This study investigates the seasonal variations in the physicochemical properties and acute toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrates from Shenyang, Liaoning, China. The hydrophilic matter (HyI) constituted the major component of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in landfill leachate (68.18% on average). Humic substances were enriched in NF and RO concentrates, accounting for 86.92 and 62.78%, respectively. Landfill leachate exhibited strong toxicity to Artemia salina, particularly in summer. Although biotreatment processes reduced toxicity, the concentrates remained toxic. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed significant correlations between physicochemical variables and toxicity. Discriminant analysis indicated that certain variables could predict acute toxicity. This study highlights the need for effective management of landfill leachate and concentrates on mitigating environmental risks.

  • Examined the seasonal changes of landfill leachate and concentrates for the first time.

  • Principal component analysis and discriminant analysis (DA) were utilized to explore correlations between physicochemical variables and acute toxicity.

  • Providing an innovative and straightforward bioassay method.

  • Offering detailed quantification across different treatment processes.

  • Offering targeted management recommendations for specific contaminants.

Intensive production and modern lifestyles have contributed to the rapid development of the economy. However, some environmental problems result from development. One of the most serious is the production of a large amount of municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW is a term used to describe everyday items that are discarded by households and businesses. In China, the dumping of MSW has been found to generate a large amount of MSW leachate. This is thought to be due to the improper siting of landfills, which may be a result of urban planning and traffic conditions (Nanda & Berruti 2021). Landfill leachate is a type of wastewater containing high concentrations of pollutants that generally fall into the categories of dissolved organic matter (DOM), trace materials, heavy metals, and inorganic macro-components. However, existing research on landfill leachate tends to focus on general treatment processes and effluent quality, with limited attention given to the seasonal fluctuations of both raw landfill leachate and its membrane concentrates – particularly regarding acute toxicity. Recent studies on landfill leachate toxicity have highlighted knowledge gaps in how temperature, rainfall, and waste composition shifts affect toxicity drivers such as heavy metals and recalcitrant organics. Therefore, this study aims to bridge these gaps by systematically characterizing and comparing landfill leachate and its concentrates across multiple seasons, linking physicochemical changes to acute toxicity. This approach offers novel insights into how seasonal factors can exacerbate or mitigate environmental risks, thereby advancing the current understanding of leachate management (Ergene et al. 2022; Abdel-Shafy et al. 2024; Zhou et al. 2024).

Landfill leachate has been verified to pose serious risks to natural resources such as surface water and groundwater, soil, and ecology (Ma et al. 2022; Wijekoon et al. 2022). Due to these serious environmental risks, landfill leachate must be treated to meet strict emission standards before discharge into a sewer or receiving water body. There are four major categories of the conventional treatment processes for landfill leachate: (1) reinjection into landfill; (2) biological processes; (3) chemical methods; and (4) physical methods (Teng et al. 2021; De Almeida et al. 2023; Chen et al. 2024). Although membrane processes may require significant initial capital investment, their high removal efficiency and long-term operational cost-effectiveness make them competitive with traditional treatment methods (De Almeida et al. 2020). Membrane processes, including microfiltration, ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO), in combination with other treatment technologies, have been extensively employed in the treatment of landfill leachate (Nanda & Berruti 2021; Teng et al. 2021; De Almeida et al. 2023).

However, the concentrates generated through the membrane separation processes account for approximately 15–30% of total leachate (Li et al. 2023b). The concentrates can be described as brown water containing a large number of refractory organic compounds such as humic acid (HA) and fulvic acid (FA), resulting in a low ratio of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) to chemical oxygen demand (COD). An appropriate method to treat these concentrates remains elusive due to the wide variety of components. A number of studies have previously been conducted on these concentrates, with a particular focus on treatment processes such as reinjection, advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), and evaporation technology (Li et al. 2023a); however, reports on the variability of concentrates in landfill leachate remain limited. The selection of the optimal technology for treating concentrates relies heavily on their precise characterization. To date, limited research has focused on the seasonal variations in the physicochemical properties, DOM composition, and acute toxicity of landfill leachate.

This study aims to comprehensively characterize the physicochemical parameters and acute toxicity of landfill leachate, as well as the concentrates obtained from NF and RO processes across different seasons, to facilitate the effective management of this type of wastewater. Furthermore, the results of acute toxicity tests – potentially influenced by physicochemical parameters – were analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant analysis to determine the presence or absence of toxicity. Notably, while extensive studies have been conducted on desalination and wastewater treatment membrane concentrates, research specifically addressing the toxicity assessment of landfill leachate concentrates remains scarce.

Sampling

Samples of landfill leachate and concentrates were collected from the MSW landfill leachate treatment plant located in Liaoning Province, China, from March 2020 (March, May, July, September, November, and December) to August 2021 (February, April, June, and August). The landfill was established in 2003 and was used for the disposal of approximately 2,200–2,600 tons of MSW and generated 500–550 tons of leachate per day. Disk tubular RO was used for the initial landfill treatment and was found to be unsuitable. To meet the increasingly stringent discharge standard, the process was upgraded (Figure 1). The landfill leachate samples were collected from the collection pool at the landfill. Concentrates generated from both the NF and RO processes were collected. All samples were stored in a refrigerator at 4 °C before analysis. Physicochemical variables were measured immediately after all samples were collected.
Figure 1

Landfill leachate treatment flow chart in this study.

Figure 1

Landfill leachate treatment flow chart in this study.

Close modal

Analysis of leachate and concentrates

Relevant water quality variables of landfill leachate and concentrates, such as pH, BOD5, COD, total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia nitrogen (Amm.N), nitrate nitrogen (Nit.N), and nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N) were measured according to the standard methods recommended by UAEPA. The total organic carbon (TOC) measurement was performed using a Shimadzu TOC-VCPH analyzer. The metals (Cu, Fe, Zn, Ga, Cr, Cd, Hg, Pb) were first digested with nitric-perchloric acid, following which concentrations were determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Agilent 7500cx, USA).

DOM in the landfill leachate and concentrates were distributed into HA, FA, and HyI fractions as per the method shown in Figure 2 and described by Christensen et al. (1998).
Figure 2

Separation procedures to fractionate DOM in leachate and concentrates.

Figure 2

Separation procedures to fractionate DOM in leachate and concentrates.

Close modal

Toxicity testing

Artemia salina (brine shrimp) has gained popularity as a toxicity test organism because of its ease of culture, short generation time, cosmopolitan distribution, and the commercial availability of its dormant eggs (cysts) (Zani et al. 1995). Acute toxicity tests were conducted using A. salina according to Bortolotto (Bortolotto et al. 2009) with some modifications. Artemia was chosen due to its ease of culture, rapid hatching from cysts, and short life cycle, which make it ideal for acute toxicity tests. This method has been widely validated in previous studies (Tsarpali et al. 2012). Future studies may include additional organisms such as Daphnia or fish to further assess toxicity.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that relying on a single test organism may not fully capture the ecological impacts of landfill leachate and its concentrates. Future work will consider additional bioassays (e.g., with Daphnia magna or fish species) to validate and broaden the toxicological assessment, thus providing a more comprehensive ecological risk evaluation.

A solution of standard artificial seawater of 35 ± 1‰ was used as the incubation medium for the cysts of A. salina. Instar ∼II–III larvae (n = 10) were exposed to 50 mL breakers by filling each beaker with 10 mL of each concentration (∼5–100%) or the control medium and illuminating the beaker, replicating each experiment five times. The salinity of all the dilutions was corrected to be the same as that of the incubation medium with the direct addition of synthetic sea salt. After 24 h of exposure, the number of dead organisms was observed and noted, and the mean lethal concentration (LC50) was calculated by the probability unit method.

Data analysis

Toxicity results of the three wastewaters were converted to toxic unit (TU) using the formula:
(1)

The correlation between TU and physicochemical indices of leachate and concentrates from PCA and discriminant analysis were analyzed with SPSS 1.5 software.

Physicochemical characteristics of landfill leachate and concentrates

Seasonal characteristics of physicochemical variables of landfill leachate and concentrates are summarized in Table 1. The landfill leachates were neutral or weakly alkaline with pH values ranging from 7.44 to 8.36 in each sample. The decrease in leachate pH during summer and fall, driven by the accelerated degradation of waste under higher temperatures, facilitated the transition of the landfill into the methanogenesis phase (Ni et al. 2023). The pH values of nanofiltration concentrate (NFC) and reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) were lower than those of the leachate. Alkalinity is consumed during the process of ammonia oxidation (7.14 g alkalinity per gram of ammonia), and the membrane retained some alkali organic and inorganic contaminats in the concentrates (De Almeida et al. 2023).

Table 1

Chemical characteristics of landfill leachate and concentrates at various months (mg L−1 except for pH)

WastewaterSampleTimepHBODCODAmm.NTNNit.NNitriteTPTOCSuspended solid
Leachate Spring Mar 8.12 2,516 6,045.32 1,405.15 1,441.21 13.44 0.23 3.86 2,006 320 
May 8.36 3,513 12,262.5 1,120.94 1,149.43 10.38 0.31 8.57 4,562 678 
Apr 8.24 1,730 5,944.33 1,422.17 1,491.04 28.56 0.82 8.62 2,036 497 
Summer Jul 7.44 3,866 14,526.67 1,106.11 1,290.31 25.77 0.57 12.01 5,865 1,004 
Jun 7.85 3,644 10,736.94 1,150.19 1,201.82 29.09 0.89 12.58 4,020 836 
Aug 7.86 3,502 9,550.52 1,256.81 1,307.37 25.15 0.88 12.02 4,013 812 
Fall Sep 7.66 3,563 8,651.21 1,309.67 1,486.29 30.04 0.5 10.11 3,332 976 
Nov 7.91 1,755 6,755.12 1,388.5 1,476.65 53.66 0.69 2.59 2,048 410 
Winter Oct 8.05 1,720 4,982.48 1,464.72 1,552.77 40.17 0.87 1.06 1,677 365 
Feb 8.21 1,336 3,012.54 1,451.02 1,543.87 35.58 0.73 3.4 1,848 552 
NF concentrate Spring Mar 6.42 10.3 5,295.51 55.93 321.83 228.05 15.44 14.74 1,148 0.05 
May 6.87 14.8 5,375.42 34.06 217.93 134.59 11.87 18.26 1,253 0.04 
Apr 7.08 13.3 5,395.67 53.09 310.05 234.33 9.66 18.05 1,351 0.03 
Summer Jul 7.08 14.6 5,642.38 35.43 196.32 125.46 7.36 24.18 1,595 0.04 
Jun 7.05 16.4 5,811.68 31.93 201.72 136.72 9.12 25.58 1,673 0.01 
Aug 7.17 11.1 5,410.26 30.53 185.86 112.42 7.52 21.73 1,410 0.04 
Fall Sep 7.12 16.2 5,448.01 34.77 184.2 120.53 9.88 21.57 1,468 0.02 
Nov 6.56 12.2 5,244.6 41.64 323.23 243.23 10.51 7.59 1,304 0.09 
Winter Oct 6.54 9.6 5,155.39 63.46 395.23 303.64 13.31 2.61 1,255 0.1 
Feb 6.25 10.5 5,003.17 61.21 404.39 311.21 11.09 10.26 1,210 0.14 
RO concentrate Spring Mar 6.39 18.2 1,487.85 7.76 1,029.62 1,004.59 1.52 4.02 565 ND 
May 6.15 37.3 1,645.02 4.97 750.03 645.88 0.66 11.63 712 ND 
Apr 6.41 11.5 1,480.67 13.55 1,054.27 982.35 2.02 10.19 605 ND 
Summer Jul 6.24 21.7 1,451.67 5.26 811.11 781.62 0.53 10.39 762 ND 
Jun 6.43 21.8 1,742.4 10.05 414.52 404.51 0.32 15.24 736 ND 
Aug 6.24 19.2 1,620 10.72 424.3 401.76 0.62 11.51 740 ND 
Fall Sep 6.5 29.4 1,791.76 6.28 609.85 600.37 0.81 3.11 724 ND 
Nov 6.01 13.6 1,241.68 19.35 900.81 880.14 1.94 1.48 620 ND 
Winter Oct 5.67 8.7 955.59 27.8 1,213.77 1,168.56 2.08 1.36 586 ND 
Feb 5.52 9.4 1,077.24 23.65 1,413.06 1,437.42 1.73 4.63 530 ND 
WastewaterSampleTimepHBODCODAmm.NTNNit.NNitriteTPTOCSuspended solid
Leachate Spring Mar 8.12 2,516 6,045.32 1,405.15 1,441.21 13.44 0.23 3.86 2,006 320 
May 8.36 3,513 12,262.5 1,120.94 1,149.43 10.38 0.31 8.57 4,562 678 
Apr 8.24 1,730 5,944.33 1,422.17 1,491.04 28.56 0.82 8.62 2,036 497 
Summer Jul 7.44 3,866 14,526.67 1,106.11 1,290.31 25.77 0.57 12.01 5,865 1,004 
Jun 7.85 3,644 10,736.94 1,150.19 1,201.82 29.09 0.89 12.58 4,020 836 
Aug 7.86 3,502 9,550.52 1,256.81 1,307.37 25.15 0.88 12.02 4,013 812 
Fall Sep 7.66 3,563 8,651.21 1,309.67 1,486.29 30.04 0.5 10.11 3,332 976 
Nov 7.91 1,755 6,755.12 1,388.5 1,476.65 53.66 0.69 2.59 2,048 410 
Winter Oct 8.05 1,720 4,982.48 1,464.72 1,552.77 40.17 0.87 1.06 1,677 365 
Feb 8.21 1,336 3,012.54 1,451.02 1,543.87 35.58 0.73 3.4 1,848 552 
NF concentrate Spring Mar 6.42 10.3 5,295.51 55.93 321.83 228.05 15.44 14.74 1,148 0.05 
May 6.87 14.8 5,375.42 34.06 217.93 134.59 11.87 18.26 1,253 0.04 
Apr 7.08 13.3 5,395.67 53.09 310.05 234.33 9.66 18.05 1,351 0.03 
Summer Jul 7.08 14.6 5,642.38 35.43 196.32 125.46 7.36 24.18 1,595 0.04 
Jun 7.05 16.4 5,811.68 31.93 201.72 136.72 9.12 25.58 1,673 0.01 
Aug 7.17 11.1 5,410.26 30.53 185.86 112.42 7.52 21.73 1,410 0.04 
Fall Sep 7.12 16.2 5,448.01 34.77 184.2 120.53 9.88 21.57 1,468 0.02 
Nov 6.56 12.2 5,244.6 41.64 323.23 243.23 10.51 7.59 1,304 0.09 
Winter Oct 6.54 9.6 5,155.39 63.46 395.23 303.64 13.31 2.61 1,255 0.1 
Feb 6.25 10.5 5,003.17 61.21 404.39 311.21 11.09 10.26 1,210 0.14 
RO concentrate Spring Mar 6.39 18.2 1,487.85 7.76 1,029.62 1,004.59 1.52 4.02 565 ND 
May 6.15 37.3 1,645.02 4.97 750.03 645.88 0.66 11.63 712 ND 
Apr 6.41 11.5 1,480.67 13.55 1,054.27 982.35 2.02 10.19 605 ND 
Summer Jul 6.24 21.7 1,451.67 5.26 811.11 781.62 0.53 10.39 762 ND 
Jun 6.43 21.8 1,742.4 10.05 414.52 404.51 0.32 15.24 736 ND 
Aug 6.24 19.2 1,620 10.72 424.3 401.76 0.62 11.51 740 ND 
Fall Sep 6.5 29.4 1,791.76 6.28 609.85 600.37 0.81 3.11 724 ND 
Nov 6.01 13.6 1,241.68 19.35 900.81 880.14 1.94 1.48 620 ND 
Winter Oct 5.67 8.7 955.59 27.8 1,213.77 1,168.56 2.08 1.36 586 ND 
Feb 5.52 9.4 1,077.24 23.65 1,413.06 1,437.42 1.73 4.63 530 ND 

Note. ND, Not detected.

The concentration of COD in landfill leachate varied from 3,012.54 to 14,526.67 mg L−1, which showed dramatic seasonal variability. During summer and fall, the rapid degradation of surface fresh waste produced organic-rich leachate, which mixed with rainfall and percolated through the landfill mass. The ranges of ratios of BOD5 landfill leachate to COD, NFC, and ROC were 0.25–0.46, 0.0007–0.004, and 0.006–0.08, respectively. The high biodegradability of leachate observed during spring and winter can be primarily attributed to the decomposition of biodegradable fractions into CO2 and H2O or their utilization for microbial growth within biological treatment reactors (Moravia et al. 2021). Compared to the rainy season, leachate exhibited greater biodegradability in these seasons due to the interplay between biological activity and rainfall. While low temperatures generally reduce microbial activity, the limited rainfall during spring and winter minimized dilution effects, allowing organic matter concentrations to remain high and promoting more effective biodegradation.

Phosphorus adheres mainly to suspended particles and coarse colloids, which affects removal efficiency by aerobic/anaerobic treatment (N'Goran et al. 2019). The residues could be further removed by membrane processes and captured into concentrates. It is worth noting that the concentration of TP in summer and fall was more than 10-fold higher than that in winter and spring, which showed a close correlation between phosphorus concentrations and rainfall.

TN in landfill leachate varied from 1,211.04 to 1,801.82 mg L−1. The change in concentration of TN in leachate with season was not obvious. Amm.N comprised the major nitrogenous compound in raw leachate, accounting for 87–98% of TN. Compared to the single-stage anaerobic-aerobic system reported by Zhang et al. (2013), the two-stage nitrification–denitrification system had higher nitrogen removal ability. The concentrations of nitrite and Nit.N were lower (10.3–53.66 mg L−1 and 0.23–0.89 mg L−1, respectively) in landfill leachate but were higher in NFC (358.46–1,384.11 mg L−1 and 3.87–14.31 mg L−1, respectively) and ROC (81.62–1,637.42 mg L−1 and 0.32–2.08 mg L−1, respectively).

Metal content in landfill leachate and concentrates

The concentrations of metals in landfill leachate and concentrates varied according to the composition of the waste mass and the prevailing phase of stabilization in the landfill (Slack et al. 2005). The results for seven metals (Cr, Cd, Pb, Hg, Fe, Zn, and Cu) are listed in Table 2, which shows the distribution of concentrations in landfill leachate treatment processing. The concentration of Fe was the highest, ranging from 6.03 to 27.19 mg L−1. Extracellular activated sludge polymeric substances retain the strong biosorption capacity of metals (Miao et al. 2016) and the UF process allowed the separation of slurry and the metal-rich sludge to a biological reaction tank. Therefore, the excess sludge generated from landfill leachate treatment processes should be given sufficient attention. The seasonal variation in the concentrations of heavy metals was characterized. Cr, Fe, and Zn showed higher concentrations in summer and fall. Negligible heavy metals are leached in spring and winter because of the relatively higher pH, which also explains why fresh leachates, contain more heavy metals than old leachate (Kiddee et al. 2014). Samples collected during spring and winter showed high values due to the higher dissolution rate affected by a higher pH (Jia et al. 2007).

Table 2

Metal characteristics of landfill leachate and concentrates at various months (mg L−1)

WastewaterSampleTimeCrCdPbHgAsCuFeZn
Landfill leachate Spring Mar 0.4652 0.0025 0.1255 0.0477 0.1848 0.0642 8.0106 0.2144 
May 0.8531 0.0013 0.1216 0.0572 0.1026 0.0914 13.9035 0.5318 
Apr 1.4276 ND 0.121 0.0316 0.0559 0.1169 16.0788 0.4338 
Summer Jul 1.204 ND 0.1644 0.0616 0.0516 0.135 21.8266 0.6981 
Jun 1.2288 ND 0.157 0.0364 0.0763 0.031 20.4982 0.6047 
Aug 1.069 0.0017 0.1469 0.0402 0.0708 0.1009 27.1931 0.7937 
Fall Sep 1.0678 ND 0.1456 0.0416 0.0916 0.0827 20.5514 0.2645 
Nov 0.7506 0.0018 0.1438 0.0352 0.1232 0.0089 6.0315 0.1983 
Winter Oct 0.5491 0.0025 0.1052 0.0231 0.2282 0.0056 6.146 0.1478 
Feb 0.2512 0.019 0.1211 0.021 0.1785 0.0394 10.2509 0.4419 
NF concentrate Spring Mar ND 0.18 0.06 0.1 0.012 3.07 1.05 0.88 
May 0.001 0.29 0.07 0.21 0.025 9.15 2.02 1.32 
Apr 0.002 0.27 0.05 0.34 0.034 12.72 2.47 1.91 
Summer Jul 0.003 0.34 0.07 0.29 0.022 11.3 2.01 1.36 
Jun 0.003 0.23 0.07 0.72 0.042 15.13 2.01 1.73 
Aug 0.002 0.35 0.08 0.66 0.043 19.14 1.67 1.27 
Fall Sep 0.003 0.21 0.08 0.2 0.015 10.69 2.14 1.05 
Nov 0.002 0.17 0.05 0.22 0.009 8.95 1.13 0.92 
Winter Oct ND 0.15 0.05 0.17 0.008 5.84 0.82 0.56 
Feb 0.002 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.018 4.39 1.83 
RO concentrate Spring Mar 0.06 ND 0.13 ND 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.03 
May 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.31 0.04 
Apr 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.28 0.02 0.38 0.06 
Summer Jul 0.35 0.06 0.28 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.51 0.07 
Jun 0.1 0.06 0.2 0.02 0.44 0.01 0.66 0.13 
Aug 0.1 0.03 0.31 0.02 0.57 0.02 0.51 0.08 
Fall Sep 0.42 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.6 0.01 
Nov 0.26 ND 0.11 ND 0.04 ND 0.2 ND 
Winter Oct 0.05 ND 0.13 0.02 0.07 ND 0.11 ND 
Feb 0.1 0.01 0.14 ND 0.14 ND 0.16 0.07 
WastewaterSampleTimeCrCdPbHgAsCuFeZn
Landfill leachate Spring Mar 0.4652 0.0025 0.1255 0.0477 0.1848 0.0642 8.0106 0.2144 
May 0.8531 0.0013 0.1216 0.0572 0.1026 0.0914 13.9035 0.5318 
Apr 1.4276 ND 0.121 0.0316 0.0559 0.1169 16.0788 0.4338 
Summer Jul 1.204 ND 0.1644 0.0616 0.0516 0.135 21.8266 0.6981 
Jun 1.2288 ND 0.157 0.0364 0.0763 0.031 20.4982 0.6047 
Aug 1.069 0.0017 0.1469 0.0402 0.0708 0.1009 27.1931 0.7937 
Fall Sep 1.0678 ND 0.1456 0.0416 0.0916 0.0827 20.5514 0.2645 
Nov 0.7506 0.0018 0.1438 0.0352 0.1232 0.0089 6.0315 0.1983 
Winter Oct 0.5491 0.0025 0.1052 0.0231 0.2282 0.0056 6.146 0.1478 
Feb 0.2512 0.019 0.1211 0.021 0.1785 0.0394 10.2509 0.4419 
NF concentrate Spring Mar ND 0.18 0.06 0.1 0.012 3.07 1.05 0.88 
May 0.001 0.29 0.07 0.21 0.025 9.15 2.02 1.32 
Apr 0.002 0.27 0.05 0.34 0.034 12.72 2.47 1.91 
Summer Jul 0.003 0.34 0.07 0.29 0.022 11.3 2.01 1.36 
Jun 0.003 0.23 0.07 0.72 0.042 15.13 2.01 1.73 
Aug 0.002 0.35 0.08 0.66 0.043 19.14 1.67 1.27 
Fall Sep 0.003 0.21 0.08 0.2 0.015 10.69 2.14 1.05 
Nov 0.002 0.17 0.05 0.22 0.009 8.95 1.13 0.92 
Winter Oct ND 0.15 0.05 0.17 0.008 5.84 0.82 0.56 
Feb 0.002 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.018 4.39 1.83 
RO concentrate Spring Mar 0.06 ND 0.13 ND 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.03 
May 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.31 0.04 
Apr 0.15 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.28 0.02 0.38 0.06 
Summer Jul 0.35 0.06 0.28 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.51 0.07 
Jun 0.1 0.06 0.2 0.02 0.44 0.01 0.66 0.13 
Aug 0.1 0.03 0.31 0.02 0.57 0.02 0.51 0.08 
Fall Sep 0.42 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.6 0.01 
Nov 0.26 ND 0.11 ND 0.04 ND 0.2 ND 
Winter Oct 0.05 ND 0.13 0.02 0.07 ND 0.11 ND 
Feb 0.1 0.01 0.14 ND 0.14 ND 0.16 0.07 

Note. ND, Not detected.

The concentrations of metals in landfill leachate differed from those of NF and RO concentrates. Cr, Pb, Hg, As, and Zn were higher in NF concentrate than in landfill leachate, particularly Zn (0.52–4.01 mg L−1). The concentration of Cd (0.06–0.002 mg L−1) was higher in ROC than in landfill leachate and NFC. However, the accumulating concentrations of metals in the present study were weaker than those reported by Zhang et al. (2013). We presume that possible reasons to explain this discrepancy include (1) less rainfall and precipitation intensity decrease the leaching effect in northeast China; (2) relatively low temperature (annual average temperature of 6.8–8.0 °C) inhibits biological activity and chemical action; (3) HA adsorbed heavy metals, which were removed by the NF concentrate reduction system; and (4) the ‘old’ leachate collected from landfill that had operated over 10 years contained lower metals than ‘recent’ and ‘intermediate’ leachate (Renou et al. 2008).

Notably, Cr, Cd, and Pb showed peak concentrations during summer and fall (Table 2), which coincided with lower LC50 values (i.e., higher toxicity) in these same seasons (Table 4). This finding suggests that elevated levels of these metals may play a significant role in the acute toxicity observed, in agreement with previous reports indicating that heavy metals can accumulate in leachates and exert detrimental effects on aquatic organisms. Furthermore, higher temperatures and increased rainfall in summer might enhance metal solubility and mobility, thereby intensifying the overall toxicity.

Composition of DOM in landfill leachate and concentrates

DOM fractions of mature leachate and biologically pretreated leachate consist of major refractory organic components (Ren et al. 2018; Li et al. 2023b). The selection of the appropriate treatment requires the exploration of the distribution and transformation of HA, FA, and HyI in leachate and concentrates. The fractionation of leachate and concentrates is presented in Table 3. The proportion of HA was higher in winter (8.43%). Lower temperatures and less rainfall preclude an environment for anaerobic fermentation, which benefits the generation of HA (Ye et al. 2019). The percentage contribution of HyI to DOM is consistently large over all seasons (68.2% on average), especially in summer and fall. During these seasons, the higher temperature promotes waste degradation, and abundant rainwater results in leachate generation. A large number of volatile fatty acids increase the proportion of HyI. HyI is preferentially degraded through the biotreatment process. The NF membrane performs poorly at intercepting these low-molecular organics. Hence, interception was lower in NFC, ranging from 8.8 to 18.7%. Finally, the remaining HyI was accumulated in ROC (accounting for 25.3–49.4%). Macromolecular organic matter (HA and FA) was mostly intercepted by the NF membrane. However, the macromolecular organic matter passed through the NF membrane and accumulated in ROC, which resulted in higher biodegradability of ROC compared to NFC. FA changed slightly in both leachate and concentrates over all seasons. According to the discriminating analysis described by Huo et al. (2008) and He et al. (2006), it is worth noting that leachate in this landfill was similar to aged leachate in summer and medium-aged leachate in winter.

Table 3

Characteristics of DOM fractions in landfill leachate and concentrates

Var.SampleSpringSummerFallWinter
Mean (mg L−1)
HA Landfill leachate 100.44 ± 14.22 72.55 ± 10.61 92.17 ± 12.78 117.5 ± 10.78 
NFC 293.89 ± 14.61 347.78 ± 7.72 330.34 ± 15.11 283.83 ± 3.67 
ROC 10.67 ± 1.99 14.78 ± 3.95 9.17 ± 1.16 8.34 ± 0.89 
FA Landfill leachate 452.78 ± 11.72 553.89 ± 7.89 390 ± 26.22 389.5 ± 12.55 
NFC 781.56 ± 38.06 912.67 ± 25 913.17 ± 20.78 737.83 ± 15.67 
ROC 406.55 ± 47.22 458.44 ± 13.56 428.33 ± 45.33 291.83 ± 3.67 
HyI Landfill leachate 1,158 ± 51.17 1,446.33 ± 28.67 1,201.17 ± 80.44 885.83 ± 16.33 
NFC 163.89 ± 5.89 252.78 ± 33.72 138.67 ± 16.44 148.5 ± 2.11 
ROC 237.89 ± 8.72 230.67 ± 25.5 208.33 ± 25.33 274 ± 8 
Var.SampleSpringSummerFallWinter
Mean (mg L−1)
HA Landfill leachate 100.44 ± 14.22 72.55 ± 10.61 92.17 ± 12.78 117.5 ± 10.78 
NFC 293.89 ± 14.61 347.78 ± 7.72 330.34 ± 15.11 283.83 ± 3.67 
ROC 10.67 ± 1.99 14.78 ± 3.95 9.17 ± 1.16 8.34 ± 0.89 
FA Landfill leachate 452.78 ± 11.72 553.89 ± 7.89 390 ± 26.22 389.5 ± 12.55 
NFC 781.56 ± 38.06 912.67 ± 25 913.17 ± 20.78 737.83 ± 15.67 
ROC 406.55 ± 47.22 458.44 ± 13.56 428.33 ± 45.33 291.83 ± 3.67 
HyI Landfill leachate 1,158 ± 51.17 1,446.33 ± 28.67 1,201.17 ± 80.44 885.83 ± 16.33 
NFC 163.89 ± 5.89 252.78 ± 33.72 138.67 ± 16.44 148.5 ± 2.11 
ROC 237.89 ± 8.72 230.67 ± 25.5 208.33 ± 25.33 274 ± 8 
Table 4

Acute toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrates

MonthLandfill leachate
NFC
ROC
24 h-LC50TU24 h-LC50TU24 h-LC50TU
Mar 30.82 3.24 74.92 1.33 65.09 1.54 
May 15.13 6.61 53.97 1.85 93.84 1.07 
Jul 8.94 11.19 55.4 1.81 200 0.50 
Sep 25.95 3.85 67.11 1.49 98.45 1.02 
Nov 38.31 2.61 73.56 1.36 73.81 1.35 
Dec 39.28 2.55 80.5 1.24 61.98 1.61 
Feb 35.55 2.81 78.06 1.28 57.01 1.75 
Apr 28.09 3.56 71.43 1.40 72.18 1.39 
Jun 9.11 10.98 47.38 2.11 200 0.50 
Aug 11.04 9.06 53.52 1.87 200 0.50 
MonthLandfill leachate
NFC
ROC
24 h-LC50TU24 h-LC50TU24 h-LC50TU
Mar 30.82 3.24 74.92 1.33 65.09 1.54 
May 15.13 6.61 53.97 1.85 93.84 1.07 
Jul 8.94 11.19 55.4 1.81 200 0.50 
Sep 25.95 3.85 67.11 1.49 98.45 1.02 
Nov 38.31 2.61 73.56 1.36 73.81 1.35 
Dec 39.28 2.55 80.5 1.24 61.98 1.61 
Feb 35.55 2.81 78.06 1.28 57.01 1.75 
Apr 28.09 3.56 71.43 1.40 72.18 1.39 
Jun 9.11 10.98 47.38 2.11 200 0.50 
Aug 11.04 9.06 53.52 1.87 200 0.50 

Acute toxicity test

The acute toxicity of landfill leachate, NFC, and ROC was evaluated using Artemia salina, with 24 h-LC50 values serving as the primary toxicity endpoint (Table 4). Overall, the results revealed that all three wastewater types posed a certain degree of acute toxicity to A. salina, although the severity and seasonal variation differed among samples (Ribé et al. 2012).

Specifically, landfill leachate exhibited the highest toxicity, particularly during the summer months (24 h-LC50 as low as 9.11% in June and 8.94% in July), suggesting that increased temperatures and microbial activity could intensify the production or release of toxic compounds. This observation is consistent with previous findings indicating that high ammonia concentrations and alkalinity can significantly contribute to the acute toxicity of leachates (Costa et al. 2019). In addition, certain organic pollutants such as phenols, which are often detected in landfill leachate, may further exacerbate toxicity (Kurata et al. 2008). Conversely, the leachate collected in winter and spring showed higher 24 h-LC50 values, indicating relatively lower toxicity during these seasons.

For the NFC, the 24 h-LC50 values ranged from 47.32 to 80.5% and exhibited notable seasonal variability. Although the biological treatment processes preceding NF helped to reduce some of the biodegradable fractions, humic substances, heavy metals, and other refractory compounds could still concentrate within the NFC, influencing its toxicity profile. The toxicity of the ROC also displayed discernible temporal fluctuations, with the highest toxicity observed in February (24 h-LC50 at 57.01%), whereas little to no significant toxicity was detected during the summer. One possible explanation is that smaller molecular weight organics and nitrogenous compounds (e.g., nitrite and nitrate) may accumulate more in ROC, potentially impacting A. salina at higher concentrations during cooler seasons. In contrast, lower apparent toxicity in summer might be associated with additional factors such as temperature-mediated volatilization or microbial transformation of certain toxicants.

When samples showed no measurable toxicity within tested concentrations, the 24 h-LC50 dilution was assigned as 200% to standardize data presentation and classification. This approach ensures that ‘non-toxic’ samples are still quantitatively accounted for in comparative analyses.

From an environmental perspective, these findings underscore the importance of seasonal monitoring and management strategies for landfill leachate treatment. Summer conditions may promote the formation or release of more toxic constituents, posing a greater risk to aquatic life if leachate or concentrates are inadequately treated prior to discharge. Conversely, winter and spring data suggest that certain biological or chemical processes might temporarily reduce acute toxicity. Overall, the observed fluctuations highlight the need for adaptive, seasonally informed treatment approaches. In particular, advanced or supplementary treatment steps – capable of further removing ammonia, phenols, and other refractory organics – may be required to mitigate the acute toxicity risk posed to local ecosystems.

Multivariate analysis of physicochemical variables and acute toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrates

The advantage of PCA is that every measured object and variable can be studied simultaneously and that the most important information about a dataset is captured in the first components (Ribé et al. 2012). Bernard et al. (1996) and (1997) found that ammonia and alkalinity contributed to the toxicity of leachate in a study of the characteristics of 22 landfill leachates in which relationships between measured physicochemical variables and acute toxicity were analyzed by PCA and regression. Ribé et al. (2012) used PCA to assess the toxicity of five landfill leachates before and after treatment by pink dark biosorbent. The increases in metal and phenol concentrations were correlated with an increase in toxicity.

In the present study, a PCA was developed to reduce the number of variables used for identifying the relationship between physicochemical variables and acute toxicity. The PCA of landfill leachate, NFC, and ROC showed that they account for 83.34, 83.54, and 80.43% of the variability of the original data, respectively. Figure 3 shows the three-dimensional graphic for the PCA that represents the relationship between each variable. The first principal component (PC1) is dominated by COD, NH4+, and heavy metals, which also show a strong inverse relationship with LC50 (r = −0.82, p < 0.05). This suggests that higher concentrations of these key pollutants contribute significantly to increased acute toxicity, particularly in summer samples.
Figure 3

Three-dimensional plot of PCA for the chemical analysis of landfill leachate and concentrates: (a) landfill leachate; (b) NFC – nanofiltration concentrate; (c) ROC – reverse osmosis concentrate. PC1 and PC2 explain 83.34% of the total variance in the leachate samples, with strong loadings from COD, NH4+, heavy metals (Cr, Cd), and LC50 values of A. salina. The negative correlation between PC1 scores and LC50 highlights the potential role of these parameters in driving toxicity.

Figure 3

Three-dimensional plot of PCA for the chemical analysis of landfill leachate and concentrates: (a) landfill leachate; (b) NFC – nanofiltration concentrate; (c) ROC – reverse osmosis concentrate. PC1 and PC2 explain 83.34% of the total variance in the leachate samples, with strong loadings from COD, NH4+, heavy metals (Cr, Cd), and LC50 values of A. salina. The negative correlation between PC1 scores and LC50 highlights the potential role of these parameters in driving toxicity.

Close modal
Figure 4

Fitting relationship between TUs and first component scores of landfill leachate and concentrates: (a) landfill leachate; (b) NFC; and (c) ROC.

Figure 4

Fitting relationship between TUs and first component scores of landfill leachate and concentrates: (a) landfill leachate; (b) NFC; and (c) ROC.

Close modal

The relationships between 21 variables of landfill leachate are shown in Figure 3(a). The first axis is characterized by the variables of BOD5, COD, Amm.N, TOC, Fe, FA, and HyI. It is worth noting that most of the metals had no obvious correlations with other physicochemical indices. It can be seen that Cu, Cd, Zn, Fe, Pb, and pH are linked. These metals were mainly identified in dissolved and exchangeable states, and lower pH would promote their release (Xie et al. 2015). Moreover, the properties of most metals are closer to those of humic substances, which will facilitate the migration of metals (Lee et al. 2023). The results of the PCA for NFC and ROC are represented graphically (Figure 2(b)). COD, TP, TOC, TN, Nit.N, Fe, FA, and HA comprise the first axis of PCA results of NF. In addition, the variables with larger weights for the first axis component of ROC were FA, COD, TN, Nit.N, nitrite, Cd, and Fe (Figure 3(c)).

In the factor load matrix, each load represents the correlation coefficient between the principal component and the corresponding variable. The feature vectors of different principal components were calculated according to the load values. The pollution levels of the three wastewaters were assessed based on scores that form the product of the principal component scores and the corresponding contribution rate (Table 5). The water quality statuses of landfill leachate, NFC, and ROC were lowest in July, September, and May, respectively, with composite scores of 3.36, 3.97, and 3.37, respectively. The quality of landfill leachate did not affect the quality of concentrates directly.

Table 5

Principal component scores and composite score for evaluation of water quality

MonthScore
Landfill leachate
NF concentrate
RO concentrate
F1F2F3TotalF1F2F3TotalF1F2F3Total
Feb −2.53 −0.7 −0.46 −1.71 −7.54 −0.09 −0.2 −5.22 −4.65 1.3 −0.72 −2.43 
Mar −1.44 −2.16 1.55 −1.1 1.74 −2.26 −1.07 −0.8 1.74 −1.13 −1.74 0.64 
Apr −6.85 2.8 0.8 −3.82 −3.18 −0.45 0.74 −2.49 −0.4 0.18 −1.8 −0.34 
May 3.21 −1.29 1.75 1.94 4.1 −1.6 −0.42 1.41 6.06 −0.35 0.62 3.37 
Jun 3.71 1.6 −1.4 2.44 1.0 1.64 0.75 2.12 0.66 3.53 0.06 0.96 
Jul 5.17 0.74 0.46 3.36 2.13 1.35 −0.14 2.58 0.15 2.07 0.67 0.48 
Sep 1.85 1.58 0.24 1.39 2.98 −0.45 2.8 1.84 −0.64 −0.22 2.14 −0.22 
Oct 0.03 0.76 −0.09 0.12 4.22 1.42 −1.58 3.97 3.52 −1.52 0.2 1.72 
Nov −0.27 −1.5 −1.89 −0.51 −2.43 1.04 −0.52 −0.81 −1.5 −1.81 −0.4 −1.17 
Dec −2.88 −1.83 −0.97 −2.12 −3.02 −0.6 −0.35 −2.59 −4.93 −2.05 0.98 −3.01 
MonthScore
Landfill leachate
NF concentrate
RO concentrate
F1F2F3TotalF1F2F3TotalF1F2F3Total
Feb −2.53 −0.7 −0.46 −1.71 −7.54 −0.09 −0.2 −5.22 −4.65 1.3 −0.72 −2.43 
Mar −1.44 −2.16 1.55 −1.1 1.74 −2.26 −1.07 −0.8 1.74 −1.13 −1.74 0.64 
Apr −6.85 2.8 0.8 −3.82 −3.18 −0.45 0.74 −2.49 −0.4 0.18 −1.8 −0.34 
May 3.21 −1.29 1.75 1.94 4.1 −1.6 −0.42 1.41 6.06 −0.35 0.62 3.37 
Jun 3.71 1.6 −1.4 2.44 1.0 1.64 0.75 2.12 0.66 3.53 0.06 0.96 
Jul 5.17 0.74 0.46 3.36 2.13 1.35 −0.14 2.58 0.15 2.07 0.67 0.48 
Sep 1.85 1.58 0.24 1.39 2.98 −0.45 2.8 1.84 −0.64 −0.22 2.14 −0.22 
Oct 0.03 0.76 −0.09 0.12 4.22 1.42 −1.58 3.97 3.52 −1.52 0.2 1.72 
Nov −0.27 −1.5 −1.89 −0.51 −2.43 1.04 −0.52 −0.81 −1.5 −1.81 −0.4 −1.17 
Dec −2.88 −1.83 −0.97 −2.12 −3.02 −0.6 −0.35 −2.59 −4.93 −2.05 0.98 −3.01 

The correlation between TU and the scores of the standardized first component was studied through a regression analysis. The results (Figure 4) showed a moderate to strong relationship between physicochemical variables and the TUs of the three wastewater variables (P < 0.01). A positive correlation was obtained for landfill leachate (r = 0.89) as well as NFC (r = 0.85). Therefore, the high-occupancy factors in Component 1 significantly influenced the level of acute toxicity. It is worth noting the negative effect of Amm.N on acute toxicity in landfill leachate. We propose that the concentration of un-ionized ammonia changes with pH via Equation (2) during different seasons. A relatively lower pH reduces the toxicity of Amm.N (Emerson et al. 1975).
(2)

It is widely known that humic substances can decrease the toxicity of heavy metals (Borůvka & Drábek 2004; Hussain & Saeed 2024). However, the presence of HA might result in additional toxicity for some organic matter. Moreover, the high aromaticity of HA and high content of organic halogens in HA might have direct toxic effects on organisms (Oikari et al. 1992). Conventional biotreatment is not able to sufficiently degrade highly toxic organic compounds such as aromatic compounds and halohydrocarbons.

However, a negative relationship between scores of component 1 and TU was found for ROC (r = −0.93). The major contaminants changed with the degradation and separation of landfill leachate that was responsible for the variability of acute toxicity to A. salina. The same separation of groups cannot be observed for ROC. Nitrogen was the main contributor to ROC toxicity observed in the aquatic ecotoxicity test. Moreover, some studies have recognized the toxicity of Nit.N to aquatic organisms, and the sensitivity priority has been estimated by Moore & Bringolf (2020). The high concentration of Nit.N in ROC would result in the oxidization of hemoglobin to methemoglobin, thereby resulting in the loss of capability to carry oxygen. It is worth noting that there was a significant contribution from Amm.N in both NFC and ROC, which was different from leachate.

The scores of the first components of each wastewater sample could be used to predict the rate by discriminant functions (Pablos et al. 2011). The results listed in Table 6 show that the physicochemical variables can offer a good initial categorization of the predicted toxicity of the three wastewater variables. The toxicity categorizations based on physicochemical variables and bioassays were observed (90% for landfill leachate, 100% for NFC, and 80% for ROC). The false negative (toxic sample classified as ‘not toxic’) result was obtained for ROC (28.6%). However, the correlation was not based on a real cause-effect relationship but on a simple association between the toxicity and the characteristics of the three wastewater variables. The false negatives should be considered relatively low, as the toxicity classification of landfill leachate and concentrates will be seriously affected by some factors (toxic chemicals and serving age). However, the results from discriminant analysis indicate that these variables could be used as a preliminary screening of the acute toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrations on organisms.

Table 6

Discriminant analysis regarding predictive toxicity based on the first component

Actual classificationMeasured valuePredicted classification of highly acute toxicityPredicted classification of acute toxicity
High acute toxicity 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 
Acute toxicity 
Acute toxicity 10 10 
Acute toxicity 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 
Slight acute toxicity 
Actual classificationMeasured valuePredicted classification of highly acute toxicityPredicted classification of acute toxicity
High acute toxicity 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 
Acute toxicity 
Acute toxicity 10 10 
Acute toxicity 5 (71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 
Slight acute toxicity 

The current study revealed seasonal variability in the composition of landfill leachate and concentrates. Although biotreatment could reduce the pollutants in landfill leachate, toxicity components were accumulated in concentrates. Owing to the degradation of biodegradable organic components in landfill leachate in the biological process, concentrates showed lower biodegradability than landfill leachate. The A. salina test indicated that the landfill leachate and concentrates were highly acutely toxic. Landfill leachate and NFC showed higher toxicity in summer and fall. In contrast, ROC was found to be more toxic in winter and spring. The PCA and discriminant analysis methods showed that physicochemical variables could be used as a low-cost and effective method for estimating the quality and toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrates. The main contributors to the toxicity of landfill leachate and concentrates varied; however, the toxic effect on other organisms should be studied further to better understand the most appropriate toxicity testing organism for these wastewater variables. These findings underscore the importance of seasonally adaptive management strategies in landfill leachate treatment. For instance, enhanced metal removal or AOPs could be prioritized during summer months when toxicity peaks. Additionally, monitoring protocols should incorporate multi-species bioassays to capture a broader spectrum of ecological risks. By integrating these approaches, landfill operators and regulators can more effectively mitigate the environmental impact of landfill leachate and concentrates across different seasons.

This research was supported by Liaoning Provincial Science and Technology Project (2022JH2/101300112).

Special thanks are due to the instrumental or data analysis from Analytical and Testing Center, Northeastern University, China and Shiyanjia Lab (http://www.shiyanjia.com).

Conceptualized by X.R., X.H., and F.W.; methodology was developed by X.R., F.W., X.H., and D.K.; support was rendered in formal analysis and investigated by X.R., X.H., and D.K.; the original draft was written and prepared by X.R. and X.H.; written, reviewed and edited by X.R. and X.H.; funding acquired by F.W.; resources contributed by F.W.; supervised by F.W.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abdel-Shafy
H. I.
,
Ibrahim
A. M.
,
Al-Sulaiman
A. M.
&
Okasha
R. A.
(
2024
)
Landfill leachate: sources, nature, organic composition, and treatment: an environmental overview
,
Ain Shams Engineering Journal
,
15
(
1
),
102293
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102293
.
Bernard
C.
,
Guido
P.
,
Colin
J.
&
Le Dû-Delepierre
A.
(
1996
)
Estimation of the hazard of landfills through toxicity testing of leachates – I. Determination of leachate toxicity with a battery of acute tests
,
Chemosphere
,
33
(
11
),
2303
2320
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(96)00322-0
.
Bernard
C.
,
Colin
J. R.
&
Anne
L. D.-D.
(
1997
)
Estimation of the hazard of landfills through toxicity testing of leachates
,
Chemosphere
,
35
(
11
),
2783
2796
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00332-9
.
Bortolotto
T.
,
Bertoldo
J. B.
,
Silveira
F. Z. D.
,
Defaveri
T. M.
,
Silvano
J.
&
Pich
C. T.
(
2009
)
Evaluation of the toxic and genotoxic potential of landfill leachates using bioassays
,
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology
,
28
(
2
),
288
293
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2009.05.007
.
Borůvka
L.
&
Drábek
O.
(
2004
)
Heavy metal distribution between fractions of humic substances in heavily polluted soils
,
Plant, Soil and Environment
,
50
(
8
),
339
345
.
https://doi.org/10.17221/4041-PSE
.
Chen
H.
,
Xu
H.
,
Zhong
C.
,
Liu
M.
,
Yang
L.
,
He
J.
,
Sun
Y.
,
Zhao
C.
&
Wang
D.
(
2024
)
Treatment of landfill leachate by coagulation: a review
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
912
,
169294
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169294
.
Christensen
J. B.
,
Jensen
D. L.
,
Grøn
C.
,
Filip
Z.
&
Christensen
T. H.
(
1998
)
Characterization of the dissolved organic carbon in landfill leachate-polluted groundwater
,
Water Research
,
32
(
1
),
125
135
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00202-9
.
Costa
A. M.
,
Da Costa E Silva
C. A. M.
,
Alves Daflon
S. D.
,
Quintaes
B. R.
,
Ferreira
J. A.
&
Campos
J. C.
(
2019
)
Evaluation of toxic potential of leachate originating from experimental landfill cells containing household waste and healthcare waste
,
Waste Management & Research
,
37
(
10
),
1003
1011
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19843159
.
De Almeida
R.
,
Bila
D. M.
,
Quintaes
B. R.
&
Campos
J. C.
(
2020
)
Cost estimation of landfill leachate treatment by reverse osmosis in a Brazilian landfill
,
Waste Management & Research: The Journal for A Sustainable Circular Economy
,
38
(
10
),
1087
1092
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20928411
.
De Almeida
R.
,
Porto
R. F.
,
Quintaes
B. R.
,
Bila
D. M.
,
Lavagnolo
M. C.
&
Campos
J. C.
(
2023
)
A review on membrane concentrate management from landfill leachate treatment plants: the relevance of resource recovery to close the leachate treatment loop
,
Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy
,
41
(
2
),
264
284
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221116212
.
Emerson
K.
,
Russo
R. C.
,
Lund
R. E.
&
Thurston
R. V.
(
1975
)
Aqueous ammonia equilibrium calculations: effect of pH and temperature
,
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada
,
32
(
12
),
2379
2383
.
https://doi.org/10.1139/f75-274
.
Ergene
D.
,
Aksoy
A.
&
Dilek Sanin
F.
(
2022
)
Comprehensive analysis and modeling of landfill leachate
,
Waste Management
,
145
,
48
59
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.04.030
.
He
P.
,
Xue
J.
,
Shao
L.
,
Li
G.
&
Lee
D.-J.
(
2006
)
Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in recycled leachate of bioreactor landfill
,
Water Research
,
40
(
7
),
1465
1473
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.01.048
.
Huo
S.
,
Xi
B.
,
Yu
H.
,
He
L.
,
Fan
S.
&
Liu
H.
(
2008
)
Characteristics of dissolved organic matter (DOM) in leachate with different landfill ages
,
Journal of Environmental Sciences
,
20
(
4
),
492
498
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62085-9
.
Hussain
A.
&
Saeed
A.
(
2024
)
Hazardous or advantageous: uncovering the roles of heavy metals and humic substances in Shilajit (Phyto-mineral) with emphasis on heavy metals toxicity and their detoxification mechanisms
,
Biological Trace Element Research
,
202 (12), 5794–5814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-024-04109-4
.
Jia
Y.
,
Xu
L.
,
Wang
X.
&
Demopoulos
G. P.
(
2007
)
Infrared spectroscopic and x-ray diffraction characterization of the nature of adsorbed arsenate on ferrihydrite
,
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
,
71
(
7
),
1643
1654
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2006.12.021
.
Kiddee
P.
,
Naidu
R.
,
Wong
M. H.
,
Hearn
L.
&
Muller
J. F.
(
2014
)
Field investigation of the quality of fresh and aged leachates from selected landfills receiving e-waste in an arid climate
,
Waste Management
,
34
(
11
),
2292
2304
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.018
.
Kurata
Y.
,
Ono
Y.
&
Ono
Y.
(
2008
)
Occurrence of phenols in leachates from municipal solid waste landfill sites in Japan
,
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
,
10
(
2
),
144
152
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-008-0200-x
.
Lee
H.
,
Coulon
F.
&
Wagland
S. T.
(
2023
)
The influence of humic acid on metal(loid)s leaching in landfill leachate for enhancing landfill mining
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
896
,
165250
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165250
.
Li
Q.
,
Cui
H.
,
Li
Y.
,
Song
X.
,
Liu
W.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Hou
H.
,
Zhang
H.
,
Li
Y.
,
Wang
F.
,
Song
J.
,
Ye
H.
,
Song
S.
,
Che
T.
,
Shao
S.
,
Kong
D.
&
Liang
B.
(
2023a
)
Challenges and engineering application of landfill leachate concentrate treatment
,
Environmental Research
,
231
,
116028
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116028
.
Li
T.
,
F.
,
Qiu
J.
,
Zhang
H.
&
He
P.
(
2023b
)
Substance flow analysis on the leachate DOM molecules along five typical membrane advanced treatment processes
,
Water Research
,
228
,
119348
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119348
.
Ma
S.
,
Zhou
C.
,
Pan
J.
,
Yang
G.
,
Sun
C.
,
Liu
Y.
,
Chen
X.
&
Zhao
Z.
(
2022
)
Leachate from municipal solid waste landfills in a global perspective: characteristics, influential factors and environmental risks
,
Journal of Cleaner Production
,
333
,
130234
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130234
.
Miao
L.
,
Wang
C.
,
Hou
J.
,
Wang
P.
,
Ao
Y.
,
Li
Y.
,
Lv
B.
,
Xu
Y.
&
You
G.
(
2016
)
Contributions of different fractions of extracellular polymeric substances from waste-activated sludge to Cu(II) biosorption
,
Desalination and Water Treatment
,
57
(
45
),
21405
21416
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1120686
.
Moore
A. P.
&
Bringolf
R. B.
(
2020
)
Comparative toxicity of nitrate to common and imperiled freshwater Mussel Glochidia and larval fishes
,
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
,
78
(
4
),
536
544
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-020-00708-z
.
Moravia
W. G.
,
Moreira
V. R.
,
Lebron
Y. A. R.
,
Lange
L. C.
&
Santos Amaral
M. C.
(
2021
)
Influence of humic substances on the landfill leachate biodegradability with a focus on temporal seasonality
,
Water Science and Technology
,
84
(
12
),
3780
3790
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2021.499
.
N'Goran
K. M.
,
Yao
K. M.
,
Kouassi
N. L. B.
&
Trokourey
A.
(
2019
)
Phosphorus and nitrogen speciation in waters and sediments highly contaminated by an illicit urban landfill: the Akouedo landfill, Côte d'Ivoire
,
Regional Studies in Marine Science
,
31
,
100805
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100805
.
Nanda
S.
&
Berruti
F.
(
2021
)
Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: a review
,
Environmental Chemistry Letters
,
19
(
2
),
1433
1456
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01100-y
.
Ni
R.
,
Wang
S.
,
Lin
X.
&
Song
L.
(
2023
)
Antibiotics inhibit methanogenesis during municipal solid waste decomposition
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
905
,
167397
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167397
.
Oikari
A.
,
Kukkonen
J.
&
Virtanen
V.
(
1992
)
Acute toxicity of chemicals to Daphnia magna in humic waters
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
117–118
,
367
377
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(92)90103-Y
.
Pablos
M. V.
,
Martini
F.
,
Fernández
C.
,
Babín
M. M.
,
Herraez
I.
,
Miranda
J.
,
Martínez
J.
,
Carbonell
G.
,
San-Segundo
L.
,
García-Hortigüela
P.
&
Tarazona
J.
(
2011
)
Correlation between physicochemical and ecotoxicological approaches to estimate landfill leachates toxicity
,
Waste Management
,
31
(
8
),
1841
1847
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.022
.
Ren
X.
,
Liu
D.
,
Chen
W.
,
Jiang
G.
,
Wu
Z.
&
Song
K.
(
2018
)
Investigation of the characteristics of concentrated leachate from six municipal solid waste incineration power plants in China
,
RSC Advances
,
8
(
24
),
13159
13166
.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA13259J
.
Renou
S.
,
Givaudan
J. G.
,
Poulain
S.
,
Dirassouyan
F.
&
Moulin
P.
(
2008
)
Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity
,
Journal of Hazardous Materials
,
150
(
3
),
468
493
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.077
.
Ribé
V.
,
Nehrenheim
E.
,
Odlare
M.
,
Gustavsson
L.
,
Berglind
R.
&
Forsberg
Å
. (
2012
)
Ecotoxicological assessment and evaluation of a pine bark biosorbent treatment of five landfill leachates
,
Waste Management
,
32
(
10
),
1886
1894
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.011
.
Slack
R. J.
,
Gronow
J. R.
&
Voulvoulis
N.
(
2005
)
Household hazardous waste in municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
337
(
1–3
),
119
137
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.07.002
.
Teng
C.
,
Zhou
K.
,
Peng
C.
&
Chen
W.
(
2021
)
Characterization and treatment of landfill leachate: a review
,
Water Research
,
203
,
117525
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117525
.
Tsarpali
V.
,
Kamilari
M.
&
Dailianis
S.
(
2012
)
Seasonal alterations of landfill leachate composition and toxic potency in semi-arid regions
,
Journal of Hazardous Materials
,
233–234
,
163
171
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.07.007
.
Wijekoon
P.
,
Koliyabandara
P. A.
,
Cooray
A. T.
,
Lam
S. S.
,
Athapattu
B. C. L.
&
Vithanage
M.
(
2022
)
Progress and prospects in mitigation of landfill leachate pollution: risk, pollution potential, treatment and challenges
,
Journal of Hazardous Materials
,
421
,
126627
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126627
.
Ye
W.
,
Liu
H.
,
Jiang
M.
,
Lin
J.
,
Ye
K.
,
Fang
S.
,
Xu
Y.
,
Zhao
S.
,
van der Bruggen
B.
&
He
Z.
(
2019
)
Sustainable management of landfill leachate concentrate through recovering humic substance as liquid fertilizer by loose nanofiltration
,
Water Research
,
157
,
555
563
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.060
.
Zani
C. L.
,
Chaves
P. P. G.
,
Queiroz
R.
,
De Oliveira
A. B.
,
Cardoso
J. E.
,
Anjos
A. M. G.
&
Grandi
T. S. M.
(
1995
)
Brine shrimp lethality assay as a prescreening system for anti-Trypanosoma cruzi activity
,
Phytomedicine
,
2
(
1
),
47
50
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0944-7113(11)80048-6
.
Zhang
Q.-Q.
,
Tian
B.-H.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Ghulam
A.
,
Fang
C.-R.
&
He
R.
(
2013
)
Investigation on characteristics of leachate and concentrated leachate in three landfill leachate treatment plants
,
Waste Management
,
33
(
11
),
2277
2286
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.021
.
Zhou
W.
,
Chai
J.
,
Xu
Z.
,
Qin
Y.
,
Cao
J.
&
Zhang
P.
(
2024
)
A review of existing methods for predicting leachate production from municipal solid waste landfills
,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
,
31
(
11
),
16131
16149
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32289-y
.

Author notes

These authors contributed equally to this study.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).