Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Treatment of urban municipal landfill leachate utilizing garbage enzyme T

a,d b,d c d,⁎
Aishwarya Rani , Suraj Negi , Athar Hussain , Sunil Kumar
a
National Ilan University, Yilan City, Taiwan, ROC
b
National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
c
Ch Brahm Prakash Government Engineering College, New Delhi, India
d
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI), Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

Orange and Lemon waste Jaggery Water

1 ratio
3 ratio
10 ratio
Collection of Landfill Leachate

Fermentation (90 days) for Garbage Enzyme preparation

Garbage Enzyme + Landfill Leachate for contact time 28 days

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the present study, an attempt has been made to extend the application of garbage enzyme (GE) (fermented
Landfill leachate mixture of jaggery, organic waste, and water in the ratio 1:3:10) from the domestic wastewater to the urban
Garbage enzyme municipal landfill leachate of Ghazipur, Okhla and Bhalswa landfill sites of Delhi (India). The Leachate Pollution
Leachate pollution index Index (LPI) has been found to be 27.6, 25.4 and 29.2, respectively. The competence of GE was assessed by
Leachate treatment
comparing the initial and final LPIs. The GE was added to the leachate for the contact period of 7–28 days under
different mix proportions of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. The maximum final LPI reduction of 74.75% was observed
in the Okhla landfill leachate for mixing the proportion of 20% GE after 28 days. However, the mixing ratio of
5% GE showed significant reduction of 60.61% and 55.12% in the final LPI of Ghazipur and Bhalswa landfill
leachate, respectively.

1. Introduction landfill is a more popular waste management option among composting

and incineration (Schiopu and Gavrilescu, 2010). In India, about
The living standard in the developing countries is getting amelio- 40–60% of the total MSW is organic in nature (CPHEEO-Manual II:
rated day-by-day that results in an increase of per capita solid waste Compendium, 2016). As per the Central Pollution Control Board report
generation. Surging municipal solid waste (MSW) generation leads to a (2016), about 80% of the collected solid waste i.e., 108,000 metric
rise in the level of the landfill. Segregation of the waste is an intrinsic tonnes per day is dumped at landfills on a daily basis. Various factors
task in the developing countries like India, which makes landfilling, a including physical, chemical, biochemical interactions, the high
regrettable but unavoidable option. Due to economic feasibility, the moisture content in the waste, rainwater percolation and contact of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s_kumar@neeri.res.in (S. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122437
Received 29 September 2019; Received in revised form 12 November 2019; Accepted 13 November 2019
Available online 18 November 2019
0960-8524/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Rani, et al.
water with solid waste are responsible for the generation of landfill
leachate. Landfill leachate is a mocktail of various pollutants, such as
ammonia, organic compounds, inorganic compounds, natural and
synthetic ligands, xenobiotics, xenophobic organic substances, biolo-
gical organisms, toxic and heavy metals. The leachate composition
varies with respect to the landfill hydrology, waste type, waste com-
position, climate and landfill age (Ahmed and Lan, 2012).
Insufficient treatment and poor management at landfill sites are the
major factors responsible for the percolation of landfill leachate into the
soil and groundwater. Leachate characteristics usually change over a
period of time; therefore, it is necessary to find an effective treatment
option (Naveen et al., 2017). Various biological systems, such as
anaerobic, aerobic, aerated lagoons and sequencing batch reactors were
used for the treatment of leachate (Zamri et al., 2017). However, these
conventional treatments are insufficient due to the presence of high
inorganic components in the leachate. The transportation expenses and
the unpredictable nature of leachate make it intricate to treat it along
with the wastewater in the treatment units.
The leachate pollution index (LPI) indicates the overall pollution
potential of leachate (Kumar and Alappat, 2005). On the basis of LPI, it
can be decided, whether the landfill leachate requires immediate at-
tention, followed by the level of the treatment. LPI value plays a sig-
nificant role in the ranking of landfill sites, scientific research, and al-
location of resources & enforcement of standards. LPI is an increasing
scale index; the higher is the LPI value, the worse would be the en-
vironmental conditions (Bhalla et al., 2014). The LPI value is based on
the composite concentration of 18 parameters which include, biological
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total coliform bacteria (TCB), ammoniacal
nitrogen (NH4+N), phenolic compounds, total dissolved solids (TDS),
chlorides, cyanide (CN−), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn),
chromium (Cr), Mercury (Hg), lead (Pb) and arsenic (As) (Kumar and
Alappat, 2005). Better insight is provided by LPI values on the strength
of the different pollutants which helps in reporting the leachate pollu-
tion in a qualitative manner.
Even with the advancement of technologies and a variety of treat-
ment technologies, researchers are still finding a new area of research
to valorize organic waste. Recently, studies are focusing on direct
processing of waste to generate value-based products, such as enzymes
(Martins and do Prado et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2013), bioethanol (Ma
et al., 2016a; Ma et al., 2016b), biohydrogen (Han et al., 2015; Han
et al., 2016), biopolymers (Ray and Ghangrekar, 2015; Lagoa-Costa
et al., 2017), biodiesel (Mohan et al., 2016; Maia and de Morais, 2016),
biobutanol (Khedkar et al.,2017; Qin et al., 2018) and citric acid
(Kamzolova et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2016). Garbage enzyme (GE) is a
mixture of jaggery, organic waste, and water in the ratio 1:3:10, re-
spectively (Arun and Sivashanmugam, 2017). It helps to achieve a
larger extent of degradation within a shorter time span. High removal
of solids and other pollutants, such as BOD5, COD, sulphate, nitrate, and
alkalinity were observed in the various industrial and domestic waste-
water (Pilla and George, 2017; Tang and Tong, 2011). GE has not been
reported to be applied yet for the treatment of leachate.
GE application is an inexpensive and simple operational technique;
it can prove to be a feasible option for the treatment of leachate.
Considering the literature reporting the successful application of GE in
the treatment of waste activated sludge (Arun and Sivashanmugam,
2015b) and domestic wastewater (Nazim and Meera, 2013); an attempt
was made to extend its application in treating urban municipal landfill
leachate and to find its best proportion for an effective treatment. The
LPI values were calculated to find the competence of GE in reducing the
pollution potential of leachate. Furthermore, the kinetics and hydrolytic
activity of GE was also evaluated in this study.
2
Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample collection
Landfill leachate was collected from 3 different urban municipal
landfill sites of Delhi, India i.e. Okhla, Bhalswa and Ghazipur landfill
site, and was stored at 4 °C in dark. In this study, pre-consumer organic
fruit wastes like orange and lemon peels was collected from the nearby
fruit market and stored at 5 °C to resist further decomposition. The size
of the fruit peel was reduced by grinding the sample with a mixer
grinder (Preethi Xpro Duo MG 198 1300-Watt, India) to make a
homogenous mixture.
2.2. GE preparation
GE was prepared in a plastic container of 20 L capacity in the la-
boratory as per the method prescribed by Arun and Sivashanmugam,
(2015b). It is prepared by mixing jaggery (1 kg), orange and lemon
peels (3 kg) with water (10 kg) in the ratio 1:3:10, respectively. A water
displacement assembly containing 1% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) so-
lution for absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) formed, installed with GE set
up to collect the methane gas formed. The preparation was carried out
under a controlled temperature of 28 °C.
2.3. Analysis of GE and leachate
The physico-chemical parameters of GE and leachate were de-
termined. Analysis for BOD5, COD, TKN, NH4+N, TDS, phenolic com-
pounds, chlorides, CN− and TCB was performed as per the standard
method (APHA, 1998) as illustrated in Table 1. The method of detection
of amalyse activity, lipase activity and protease activity for GE was
adopted from the Bernfeld method (Bernfeld, 1951), Pandey et al.,
1999, and Lowry et al., 1951, respectively. The pH was analyzed using
the AQUASOL digital probe AM-PH-01 (Rakiro Biotech Systems Private
Limited, India). The concentration of heavy metals including tin (Sn),
Zn, Fe, Hg, Cu, Ni, Pb, Cr, As, cadmium (Cd), cobalt (Co), selenium (Se)
along with magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn) and major cations (cal-
cium (Ca), potassium (K), sodium (Na)) was analyzed using ICP-OES,
iCAP 6000 SERIES (Thermo Scientific).
2.4. LPI
After performing the initial analysis of the aforementioned 18
background parameters of leachate, LPI was estimated using Eq. (1)
(Kumar and Alappat, 2005).
n
LPI = ∑ wipi
i= 1 (1)
where,
LPI = the weighted additive LPI
wi = the weight for the ith pollutant variable
pi = the sub-index score of the ith leachate pollutant variable
n = number of leachate pollutant variables
The GE was employed with the leachate for the contact period of
7–28 days under different mix proportions of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.
At the interval of 7 days, the leachate parameters were observed fol-
lowed by the LPI estimation. From an extensive literature review,
28 days were chosen as the total contact period (Tang and Tong, 2011;
Nazim and Meera, 2013; Pilla and George, 2017).
2.5. Kinetics of GE
Inverted assembly was used as per the method adopted by Kumar
A. Rani, et al. Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437

Table 1 the experimental and calculated values using a Ky plot software 5.0
Physico-chemical and kinetic parameters of GE. (version: 5.0.3) to determine the value of ‘k’.
S. No. Parameters GE
3. Results and Discussion
Present Arun and Nazim and
Study Sivashanmugam, Meera, 2013 3.1. Characteristics of GE
2015a

1 pH 3.0 3.60 2.91 The low pH was detected at room temperature (i.e. 27 °C). Low pH
2 Temperature (oC) 27.0 – – (i.e., 3.0) was detected at a temperature of 28 °C. High total solids (TS)
3 Electrical 1550.0 – – and TDS were observed in GE. The high COD value (i.e., 17320 mg/L)
conductivity (µS/
and low BOD5 value (i.e., 134 mg/L) was found in GE. The TCB was
cm)
4 TDS (mg/L) 1021.0 3910.0 2210.0 observed to be less than 3 CFU/100 mL. Heavy metals (Cd, Co, Mg, Mn,
5 TS (mg/L) 9812.0 8753.0 – Se, Fe, Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr, As) were in the considerable range except for Sn.
6 Sulphate (mg/L) 0.59 – – Table 1 can be comparable to the values obtained by Nazim and Meera
7 Phosphate (mg/L) 3.75 – BDL*
(2013) and Arun and Sivashanmugam (2015a). After three months of
8 TKN (mg/L) 241.0 – –
9 BOD5 (mg/L) 134.0 – 1300.0 fermentation, GE was filtered and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 30 min
10 COD (mg/L) 17320.0 21321.0 48200.0 and the purified solution was stored separately in the refrigerator at
11 TCB (CFU/ <3 9.4 × 107 <3 4 °C as per the method adopted from Arun and Sivashanmugam
100 mL) (2015b). The hydrolytic activity at pH 3 and pH 7 has also been de-
12 Heavy Metals (mg/L)
termined in the study and it can be deduced that the hydrolytic activity
a As BDL* – –
b Cd 0.001 – – is more in the neutral pH range.
c Co BDL* – –
d Cr 0.013 – – 3.2. Kinetics of GE
e Cu 0.091 – –
f Fe 3.801 – –
g Mg 3.671 – –
The kinetic study was performed for the GE. Yo and k value was
h Mn 0.092 – – determined using the Quasi-Newton algorithm in the ky plot software.
i Ni BDL* – – About 3299 mL of CH4 was generated during 90 days of preparation of
j Pb 0.086 – – GE. The k-value and maximum CH4 obtained were found to be 0.17 d−1
k Se 8.710 – –
and 3302 mL, respectively. The biochemical CH4 potential value (BMP)
l Sn 3,353 – –
m Zn 0.367 – – (µb) was obtained by the ratio CH4-COD and CODfed. The µb value
13 Cations (mg/L) equals to 0.95 CH4-COD/CODfed is equivalent to 100% sludge activity
a Ca 12.530 – – (Negi et al., 2018). The jaggery was used for the fermentation of or-
b K 14.430 – –
ganic waste instead of inoculum, and therefore, it is modified in the
c Na 6.2890 – –
present study as jaggery activity. The kinetic parameters of biogas
*BDL: Below Detection Limit. generated during GE production are corresponding to the values ob-
tained from the studies of Negi et al. (2018).
et al., (2016) to measure the methane (CH4) produced during the GE
preparation. The inverted assembly was attached with the water dis- 3.3. Initial leachate parameters
placement assembly containing 1% NaOH solution, which dissolves
CO2 and the water displaced is equivalent to CH4 production. The k- 3.3.1. pH
value was determined by the experimental CH4 data. The experimental The 18 initial parameters are used in the estimation of LPI values for
time period ‘t’ begins after the completion of the lag phase. The cu- the three different urban municipal leachates (Kumar and Alappat,
mulative CH4 curve obtained replicates the nature of the exponential 2005) are presented in Table 2. The pH of the three leachates was found
growth curve (Kumar et al., 2016). After blank error correction, the in the range 7.5 to 9.5. Generally, the pH of the leachates falls in the
initial biogas production (Y1) is equivalent to 0.1 mL. The fermentation range 4.5 and 9.0 (Christensen et al., 2001). The obtained pH reflects
of biomass affects the rate of CH4 production. Eq. (2) plays a significant that the leachates are either young or medium-aged (Naveen et al.,
role in evaluating the kinetics involved in the production of CH4. 2017). A large amount of percolated rainwater declines the con-
centration of volatile fatty acids with time (Bohdziewicz and Kwarciak,
dY/dt = k (Ymax−Y) (2) 2008). The organic materials degrade to produce a small amount of
ammonia and carbon dioxide in large proportion followed by the for-
where,
mation of ammonium ions and carbonic acid (Naveen et al., 2017). The
hydrogen cations and bicarbonate ions production due to disassociation
Ymax = Maximum yield of CH4 (L)
of carbonic acid influence the pH of the municipal landfill leachate. The
Y = Cumulative yield of CH4 (L)
higher pH also takes the attention towards the decreased solubility of
k = Rate constant expressed in day−1 (d−1)
heavy metals due to the precipitate formation as sulphides, carbonates,
t = Time in days
and hydroxides.

By integrating Eq. (2) from time‘t’ = 0 to t = t, Eq. (2) was obtained

Y= Yo (1 − e−kt)
Eqs. (2) and (3) provide the experimental data used to determine
the k-value. The Quasi-Newton algorithm was used to obtain the best fit
to the curve formed using the obtained experimental data. Eqs. (2) and
(3) demonstrate the CH4 generation and the rate of change of organic
substrate. The non-linear regression was used to calculate the model
parameters values by reducing the sum of squared differences between
3.3.2. TDS
(3) The TDS values were found to be 9235.3 mg/L, 5629.5 mg/L and
10000.6 mg/L for Bhalswa, Okhla, and Ghazipur landfill sites, respec-
tively. TDS is an important parameter used as a discharging standard
for landfill leachate in many countries (Koshy et al., 2008). The higher
concentration of dissolved organic and inorganic salts in leachates can
deteriorate the physical and chemical characteristics of receiving water
if discharged untreated; it reduces water quality, limits light and pho-
tosynthesis (Umar et al., 2010; Al-Yaqout and Hamoda, 2003). The high

3
A. Rani, et al. Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437

Table 2 are responsible for reducing the organic strength of the leachate during
Initial background parameters of three different urban municipal leachate. the methanogenic phase; as a result, the volatile fatty acids are reduced
Sl. No. Parameters Bhalswa Okhla Ghazipur (Kurniawan et al., 2006; Rivas et al., 2004). The BOD5 and COD de-
Landfill Landfill Landfill crease with the increase in the age of landfill (Umar et al., 2010). The
age of the landfill waste is indicated by the BOD5/COD ratio (Hui,
1. pH 8.2 7.9 9.2
2005). Over the years, the physico-chemical characteristics of the lea-
2. TDS 9235.3 5629.5 10000.6
3. BOD5 2948.7 3994.9 7455.2
chate highly vary; the landfill life significantly affects the composition
4. COD 5216.5 5927.4 7692.7 of leachate. Bhalswa and Okhla landfill leachate were young leachates
5. TKN 1990.2 1913.7 1673.8 with BOD5/COD ratio 0.69 and 0.67, respectively; indicating high
6. NH4+N 1997.3 721.2 829.4 concentrations of biodegradable organic matter (Chian and Dewalle,
7. Fe 10.78 9.51 7.19
1976).
8. Cu 0.54 0.23 0.46
9. Ni 0.5 0.45 0.6
10. Zn 5.3 10.32 8.13 3.3.5. Heavy metals
11. Pb 0.2 0.35 0.84 The heavy metals are found in the permissible range as per the
12. Cr 0.78 1.1 1.2
disposal standards for inland surface water and land according to MSW
13. Hg 0.02 0.045 0.013
14. As 1.53 2.23 1.79 (Management and Handling) Rules (2013); except for Pb. Over the
15. Phenolic 1.6 2.1 1.91 years, with the pH variation of the leachate, the heavy metals con-
Compounds centration except for Pb, decreases. The heavy metals are known to
16. Chlorides 9853.0 8573.6 9269.3 form highly insoluble metal sulphides after reacting to hydrogen sul-
17. CN− 0.45 0.23 0.49
18. TCB 20,000 6000 1000
phide; get accumulated in soils (Mahapatra, 2015). Heavy metals are
19. Initial LPI 29.28 25.35 27.52 lesser found in leachate due to application of physical forces such as
settling, flocculation, and sedimentation (ITRC, 2003); chemical pro-
*All the values are in mg/L except pH and TCB (TCB unit CFU/100 mL). cesses, such as oxidation, adsorption, precipitation, hydrolysis of me-
tals, co-precipitation and by the electrostatic attraction in leachate
overall pollutant load and strength of the leachate is reflected by the among the heavy metals, clay and organic matter (Patrick and Verloo,
high TDS value. 1998). With humic acids, Pb produces heavy complexes, which resists
its rapid decrease in concentration (Harmsen, 1983; Umar et al., 2010).
3.3.3. Chlorides
The chlorides were found in high concentrations 9853.0 mg/L, 3.3.6. Initial LPI
8753.6 mg/L and 9269.3 mg/L for Bhalswa, Okhla, and Ghazipur The initial LPI values were calculated as 29.2, 25.4 and 27.6 for
landfill sites, respectively as the soil might have not attenuated the Bhalswa, Okhla, and Ghazipur landfill sites, respectively. This predicts
chlorides. Chlorides generally show extremely mobile nature in all the the overall pollution potential of the leachates. It can be clearly pre-
conditions. The high chlorides in the leachate are reflecting the pre- dicted that these leachates would cause irreparable harm to ground-
sence of a high concentration of soluble salts. water and soil strata.

3.3.4. BOD5 and COD 3.4. Treated leachate parameters

The low BOD5, COD, and NH4-N+ show that the leachate studied
are produced in the methanogenic phase. The methanogenic bacteria GE was applied in varying proportions (5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%) to

Fig. 1. Variation in NH4+N and TKN concentration of leachate in 28 days at the interval of 7 days for Bhalswa, Okhla and Ghazipur landfill leachate.

4
A. Rani, et al.
Fig. 2. Variation in BOD5 and COD concentration of leachate in 28 days at the interval of 7 days for Bhalswa, Okhla and Ghazipur landfill leachate.
the leachate for the duration of 7–28 days. The 18 parameters were
analyzed and the final LPIs were calculated in the interval of the contact
period of 7, 14, 21 and 28 days. The variation in NH4+N and TKN of the
leachate in 28 days at the interval of 7 days is shown in Fig. 1 for the
Bhalswa, Okhla and Ghazipur landfill leachate. From day 1 to day 28,
concentrations of the aforementioned parameters were observed to be
decreased in Figs. 1 and 2. A decreasing trend was observed for all the
GE proportions in both the NH4+N and TKN concentrations of the
leachate with the passing days (Nazim and Meera, 2013). The COD and
BOD5 values were increased in the initial days of application of GE but
decreased thereafter as illustrated in Fig. 2. The NH4+N, TKN, COD and
BOD5 concentration values showed a significant reduction to the re-
spective initial concentrations. The BOD5 and COD observed downfall
as after the 3 months fermentation of GE, the enzyme activity increases
significantly. The 5% proportion of GE showed more reduction in all the
three leachates. This happened because at higher dilution proportions
of GE, the pH increased; and low pH suppresses the activity of the
enzyme.
The characteristics of leachate after the contact period of 28 days
with GE are presented in Table 3. The final concentrations of the lea-
chate were compared against the disposal standards for inland surface
water and land according to MSW (Management and Handling) Rules
(2013). When leachate was mixed with GE, the pH of the leachate-GE
system increased to the nearly neutral range for the low dilution pro-
portions of 5% and 10%. In the case of Bhalswa and Ghazipur landfill
leachate, the 5% mixing proportion of GE showed better reduction at
the end of 28 days. On the other hand, for Okhla landfill leachate, a
20% mixing proportion of GE at the end of 28 days showed a better
reduction in terms of LPI value.
A significant reduction was observed in TDS, TKN, NH4-N+and
chlorides at the end of 28 days as presented in Tables 2 and 3. The GE
enhances the COD solubilization, can solubilize complex and insoluble
organics (Arun and Sivashanmugam, 2015b). The TKN is reduced due
to the increased solubilization caused by the organic acid and hydro-
lytic enzyme of GE. A minimal reduction was noted in the concentration
of heavy metals, which may be due to the dilution. The GE had possibly
no impact on heavy metals concentration. The TCB values were reduced
up to an appreciable extent. This makes clear that the GE has pathogen
5
Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437
inhibiting property. It can be derived from Tables 2 and 3 that about
55.12% and 60.61% reduction was observed in the final LPI values of
leachate with 5% mixing ratio for Bhalswa and Ghazipur landfill lea-
chate, respectively; and 74.75% was observed in the final LPI of Okhla
landfill leachate for mixing proportion of 20% GE after 28 days. The
obtained results showed a different trend than the literature available
for domestic wastewater treatment with GE.
The unpredicted nature of landfill leachate makes it intrinsic to treat
it along with the wastewater in the wastewater treatment plants. The
water consumption and so the wastewater generation is increasing with
the population. The limited wastewater treatment units and plants,
space and treatment facility constraints limit the leachate treatment. As
per the results of the present study, GE can be employed for the pre-
treatment of leachate. It can be an inexpensive and in-situ treatment
option for treating the leachate as compared to the other conventional
expensive treatment methods (Tang and Tong, 2011).
4. Conclusion
An attempt was made in this direction to extend the use of GE from
the field of domestic wastewater to the treatment of urban municipal
landfill leachate. In the present study, about 55–74% reduction was
observed in the final LPI values of leachate with a 5% mixing ratio for
Bhalswa and Ghazipur landfill leachate and with a 20% mixing ratio for
Okhla landfill leachate, respectively after 28 days. The concentrations
were reduced to a significant extent, but not meeting the disposal
standards. Further studies can be performed by varying the exposure
duration and the mixing proportions of GE to provide effective results.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Authors want to acknowledge every direct or indirect effort from
A. Rani, et al. Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437

Table 3
Characteristics of Leachate after the contact period of 28 days with GE.
S. No. Parameters Bhalswa Landfill Okhla Landfill Ghazipur Landfill

5% 10% 15% 20% 5% 10% 15% 20% 5% 10% 15% 20% a* b*

pH 8.7 8.5 6.4 5.7 7.6 6.14 5.34 5.26 8.4 7.8 6.4 6.12 5.5–9.0 5.5–9.0
TDS 4513.6 5948.4 9050.3 8233.9 2578.4 3124.4 2109.6 1998.63 4573.1 6591.76 7528.3 9873.6 2100 2100
BOD5 561.35 1029.58 1842.5 1591.22 700.69 1159.4 301.46 254.85 518.42 1273.91 2485.6 4659.38 30 100
COD 1005.6 2156.9 4481.6 3648.7 726.45 1203.94 416.91 394.24 748.25 2177.63 4229.4 817.6 250 –
TKN 378.45 486.12 696.5 512.33 517.9 751.96 356.1 312.6 345.84 442.69 486.55 552.09 100 –
NH4+N 351.75 419.49 659.1 572.39 250.18 364.82 175.59 148.7 223.45 244.96 251.3 273.72 50 –
Fe 9.6 9.1 8.4 7.5 9.50 8.87 8.64 8.35 7.17 7.15 7.13 7.09 – –
Cu 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.22 0.21 0.189 0.17 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.38 3 –
Ni 0.4 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.31 0.57 0.55 0.52 0.47 3 –
Zn 5.1 5.09 4.96 4.73 10.31 10.28 10.23 10.19 8.12 8.07 8.01 7.97 5 –
Pb 0.17 0.155 0.153 0.151 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.1 –
Cr 0.72 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.99 0.87 0.82 0.78 1.18 1.17 1.12 1.08 2 –
Hg – – – – 0.043 0.042 0.041 0.038 0.012 0.011 0.009 0.008 – –
As 1.51 1.89 1.89 1.83 1.81 1.76 – –
Phenolic Compounds 0.7 0.9 1.2 1 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.95 1.01 1.32 1.56 1 –
Chlorides 5004.98 7513.6 9163.8 8166 2996.4 3865.6 2206.19 1007.4 4503.6 6507.8 7746.9 8620.17 1000 600
CN− 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.32 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.41 – –
TCB <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 – –
Final LPI 13.14 15.73 24.08 16.63 10.45 13.17 6.86 6.4 10.84 15.4 16.66 21.53 – –

a* Leachate disposal standard for inland surface water and b* Leachate disposal standard for land according to MSW (Management and Handling) Rules (2013).
* All the values are in mg/L except pH and TCB (TCB unit: CFU/100 mL).

each individual who was involved in this project.
References
Ahmed, F.N., Lan, C.Q., 2012. Treatment of landfill leachate using membrane bioreactors:
a review. Desal. 287, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.012.
Ali, S.R., Anwar, Z., Irshad, M., Mukhtar, S., Warraich, N.T., 2016. Bio-synthesis of citric
acid from single and co-culture-based fermentation technology using agro-wastes. J.
Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 9 (1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2015.09.003.
Al-Yaqout, A.F., Hamoda, M.F., 2003. Evaluation of landfill leachate in arid climate-a
case study. Environ. Int. 29 (5), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-4120(03)
00018-7.
APHA, A.W.W.A., 1998. WEF (American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Environment Federation) 1998. Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater, 1998.
Arun, C., Sivashanmugam, P., 2015a. Identification and optimization of parameters for
the semi-continuous production of garbage enzyme from pre-consumer organic waste
by green RP-HPLC method. Waste Manag. 44, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.07.010.
Arun, C., Sivashanmugam, P., 2015b. Solubilization of waste activated sludge using a
garbage enzyme produced from different pre-consumer organic waste. RSC Adv. 5
(63), 51421–51427. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA07959D.
Arun, C., Sivashanmugam, P., 2017. Study on optimization of process parameters for
enhancing the multi-hydrolytic enzyme activity in garbage enzyme produced from
preconsumer organic waste. Bioresour. Technol. 226, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2016.12.029.
Bernfeld, P., 1951. Enzymes of starch degradation and synthesis. Adv. Enzymol. 12,
379–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470122570.ch7.
Bhalla, B., Saini, M.S., Jha, M.K., 2014. Assessment of municipal solid waste landfill
leachate treatment efficiency by leachate pollution index. Assessment 3 (1),
8447–8454.
Bohdziewicz, J., Kwarciak, A., 2008. The application of hybrid system UASB reactor-RO
in landfill leachate treatment. Desalination 222 (1–3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2007.01.137.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2016. Consolidated Annual Review Report on
implementation of Solid. Waste Management Rules.
Chian, E.S.K., Dewalle, F.B., 1976. Sanitary landfill leachates and their treatment. J.
Environ. Eng. Div. ASCE 102 (EE2), 411–431.
Christensen, T.H., Kjeldsen, P., Bjerg, P.L., Jensen, D.L., Christensen, J.B., Baun, A.,
Albrechtsen, H.J., Heron, G., 2001. Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes.
Appl. Geochem. 16 (7–8), 659–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-2927(00)
00082-2.
CPHEEO-Manual II: Compodium, 2016. CPHEEO (Central Public Health and
Environmental Engineering Organisation), Swachh Bharat Mission- Municipal Solid
Waste Management Manual II: Compodium. Minist. Urban Dev.
Han, W., Fang, J., Liu, Z., Tang, J., 2016. Techno-economic evaluation of a combined
bioprocess for fermentative hydrogen production from food waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 202, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.072.
Han, W., Ye, M., Zhu, A.J., Zhao, H.T., Li, Y.F., 2015. Batch dark fermentation from
enzymatic hydrolyzed food waste for hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 191,
24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.120.
Harmsen, J., 1983. Identification of organic compounds in leachate from a waste tip.
Water Res. 17 (6), 699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(83)90239-7.
Hui, T.S., 2005. Leachate Treatment by Floating Plants in Constructed Wetland. Master’s
Thesis. University Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
ITRC, 2003. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document for Constructed Treatment
Wetlands. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council Wetlands Team, 128.
Kamzolova, S.V., Vinokurova, N.G., Lunina, J.N., Zelenkova, N.F., Morgunov, I.G., 2015.
Production of technical-grade sodium citrate from glycerol-containing biodiesel
waste by Yarrowialipolytica. Bioresour. Technol. 193, 250–255. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2015.06.092.
Khedkar, M.A., Nimbalkar, P.R., Gaikwad, S.G., Chavan, P.V., Bankar, S.B., 2017.
Sustainable biobutanol production from pineapple waste by using Clostridium acet-
obutylicum B 527: Drying kinetics study. Bioresour. Technol. 225, 359–366. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.058.
Koshy, L., Jones, T., BéruBé, K., 2008. Bioreactivity of municipal solid waste landfill
leachates—Hormesis and DNA damage. Water res. 42 (8–9), 2177–2183. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.11.030.
Kumar, D., Alappat, B.J., 2005. Evaluating leachate contamination potential of landfill
sites using leachate pollution index. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 7 (3), 190–197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-004-0269-4.
Kumar, P., Hussain, A., Dubey, S.K., 2016. Methane formation from food waste by
anaerobic digestion. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 6, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13399-015-0186-2.
Kurniawan, T.A., Lo, W.H., Chan, G.Y., 2006. Physico-chemical treatments for removal of
recalcitrant contaminants from landfill leachate. J. Hazard. Mater. 129 (1–3),
80–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.010.
Lagoa-Costa, B., Abubackar, H.N., Fernández-Romasanta, M., Kennes, C., Veiga, M.C.,
2017. Integrated bioconversion of syngas into bioethanol and biopolymers. Bioresour
Technol. 239, 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.019.
Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., Randall, R.J., 1951. Protein measurement with
the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275.
Ma, H., Yang, J., Jia, Y., Wang, Q., Tashiro, Y., Sonomoto, K., 2016a. Stillage reflux in
food waste ethanol fermentation and its by-product accumulation. Bioresour.
Technol. 209, 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.127.
Ma, K., Ruan, Z., Shui, Z., Wang, Y., Hu, G., He, M., 2016b. Open fermentative production
of fuel ethanol from food waste by an acid-tolerant mutant strain of
Zymomonasmobilis. Bioresour. Technol. 203, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.12.054.
Mahapatra, D.M., 2015. Algal bioprocess development for sustainable wastewater treat-
ment and biofuel production. Ph. D. Thesis. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India.
Maia, A.A.D., de Morais, L.C., 2016. Kinetic parameters of red pepper waste as biomass to
solid biofuel. Bioresour Technol. 204, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2015.12.055.
Martins, D.A.B., do Prado, H.F.A., Leite, R.S.R., Ferreira, H., de Souza Moretti, M.M., da
Silva, R., Gomes, E., 2011. Agroindustrial wastes as substrates for microbial enzymes
production and source of sugar for bioethanol production. In Integrated Waste
Management-Volume II. IntechOpen.
Mohan, S.V., Nikhil, G.N., Chiranjeevi, P., Reddy, C.N., Rohit, M.V., Kumar, A.N., Sarkar,
O., 2016. Waste biorefinery models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: critical
review and future perspectives. Bioresour Technol. 215, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biortech.2016.03.130.
MSW (Management and Handling) Rules, 2013. Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi.

6
A. Rani, et al.
Naveen, B.P., Mahapatra, D.M., Sitharam, T.G., Sivapullaiah, P.V., Ramachandra, T.V.,
2017. Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal landfill
leachate. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.002.
Nazim, F., Meera, V., 2013. Treatment of synthetic greywater using 5% and 10% garbage
enzyme solution. Bonfring Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Sci. 3, 111–117. https://doi.org/
10.9756/BIJIEMS.4733.
Negi, S., Dhar, H., Hussain, A., Kumar, S., 2018. Biomethanation potential for co-diges-
tion of municipal solid waste and rice straw: a batch study. Bioresour. Technol. 254,
139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.070.
Pandey, A., Benjamin, S., Soccol, C., Nigam, P., Krieger, N., Soccol, V., 1999. The realm of
microbial lipases in biotechnology: a review. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 29,
119–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-8744.1999.tb00541.x.
Patrick Jr., W.H., Verloo, M., 1998. Distribution of soluble heavy metals between ionic
and complexed forms in saturated sediment as affected by pH and redox conditions.
Water Sci. Technol. 37 (6–7), 165–172.
Pilla, G.J., George, D., 2017. Fruit peel enzyme solution for synthetic sewage treatment.
Int. J. Res. Technol. Stud. 4, 70–73. https://doi.org/10.9756/BIJIEMS.4733.
Qin, Z., Duns, G.J., Pan, T., Xin, F., 2018. Consolidated processing of biobutanol pro-
duction from food wastes by solventogenic Clostridium sp. strain HN4. Bioresour
Technol. 264, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.076.
Ray, S.G., Ghangrekar, M.M., 2015. Enhancing organic matter removal, biopolymer
Bioresource Technology 297 (2020) 122437
recovery and electricity generation from distillery wastewater by combining fungal
fermentation and microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol. 176, 8–14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.158.
Rivas, F.J., Beltrán, F., Carvalho, F., Acedo, B., Gimeno, O., 2004. Stabilized leachates:
sequential coagulation–flocculation+ chemical oxidation process. J. Hazard. Mater.
116 (1–2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.07.022.
Schiopu, A.-M., Gavrilescu, M., 2010. Options for the treatment and management of
municipal landfill leachate: common and specific issues. CLEAN – Soil, Air, Water 38,
1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900184.
Silva, C.A.D.A., Lacerda, M.P.F., Leite, R.S.R., Fonseca, G.G., 2013. Production of en-
zymes from Lichtheimiaramosa using Brazilian savannah fruit wastes as substrate on
solid statebioprocessess. Electron J Biotechnol. 16 (5). https://doi.org/10.2225/
vol16-issue5-fulltext-7. 9–9.
Tang, F.E., Tong, C.W., 2011. A study of the garbage enzyme’s effects in domestic was-
tewater. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 60, 1143–1148.
Umar, M., Aziz, H.A., Yusoff, M.S., 2010. Variability of parameters involved in leachate
pollution index and determination of LPI from four landfills in Malaysia. Int. J. Chem.
Eng. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/747953.
Zamri, M.F., Kamaruddin, M.A., Yusoff, M.S., Aziz, H.A., Foo, K.Y., 2017. Semi-aerobic
stabilized landfill leachate treatment by ion exchange resin: isotherm and kinetic
study. Appl. Water Sci. 7, 581–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-015-0266-2.