Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enmm

Recent developments in landfill leachate treatment: Aerobic granular

reactor and its future prospects
Vikalp Saxena a, Susant Kumar Padhi a, *, Pritam Kumar Dikshit b, Lopa Pattanaik c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201314, India
b
Department of Biotechnology, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, Guntur 522502, Andhra Pradesh, India
c
Department of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, NIIT University, Neemrana, Rajasthan 301705, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Landfill leachate comprises highly toxic and hazardous compounds posing adverse health effects to the
Landfill leachate ecosystem and human populations. These leachates must be subjected to suitable treatment before discharging to
Biological process the environment. However, the higher operational cost and presence of recalcitrant matter in the leachate make
Aerobic granular reactor
the conventional physico-chemical processes incompetent for treatment. Recent advancements in biological
Integrated process
processes over physico-chemical processes result in the development of aerobic granular reactor (AGR) for
treating landfill leachate. Small footprint, less energy demand, high microbial activity, long-term operational
stability with better removal of organic pollutants, and resistance to high shock load make AGR a promising
technique for treating leachate. Longer granulation time and instability of aerobic granules are some of the major
shortcomings that limit its commercial application. Additionally, the single-stage treatment of landfill leachate
using AGR poses several difficulties, such as low organic and recalcitrant pollutant removal efficiency, which
needs post-treatment. Hence, an integrative approach is imperative for treating landfill leachate with a high
organic load to meet the effluent standard. The present study highlights an in-depth critical review of various
biological processes, recent developments in AGR, and the factors affecting its performance, mass balance, and
the kinetics involved during landfill leachate treatment. Subsequently, the integrated process for the treatment of
landfill leachate has been summarized along with the future prospects of AGR.

1. Introduction composition of wastes, which further impedes the functionality of con­

In developing countries, landfilling is one of the most economical
and commonly used methods adopted for dumping solid waste, which
generates leachate due to degradation of wastes and permeation of the
rainwater through the decomposed wastes (Sanguanpak et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the excessive moisture content in the landfill wastes tends
to overflow through the porous media resulting in leachate generation.
Leachates are the black color liquid mixture produced during landfill
stabilization, comprising biodegradable and non-biodegradable toxic
compounds (Ramalho et al., 2022; Bejgarn et al., 2015). Landfill
leachates are majorly composed of biodegradable organic matter, humic
and fulvic acids, heavy metals, nitrogenous matter, and chlorinated
organics (Shehzad et al., 2015). These contaminants pollute the surface
water, groundwater, soil, etc., causing severe threats to ecosystem and
animal life (Moody and Townsend, 2017).
The leachate characteristics vary widely concerning space, time, and
ventional sewage treatment processes to meet the desired discharge
limit (Syron et al., 2015). A separate treatment facility for leachate and
sewage in developing countries is not economically feasible. Therefore,
the co-treatment of leachate and sewage seems a viable option that can
meet effluent standards without installing separate treatment facilities
(Zhang et al., 2021a).
The physico-chemical process is widely used to remove the recalci­
trant organic compounds and nitrogen present in higher concentrations
in landfill leachate (Brasil et al., 2021). It is used as pre or post-treatment
to enhance the biological treatment efficiency of leachate by improving
its effluent quality (Rohers et al., 2021). However, these processes are
expensive and require high energy for operation and maintenance
(Farooq and Ahmad, 2017). Kurniawan et al. (2021) reported that sta­
bilized landfill leachate contains refractory pollutants with less biode­
gradable matter that can be removed by physico-chemical processes.
Landfill leachate also contains various heavy metals, such as Cd, Hg, Cu,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: susant.padhi@snu.edu.in (S. Kumar Padhi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2022.100689
Received 30 October 2021; Received in revised form 3 March 2022; Accepted 27 March 2022
Available online 30 March 2022
2215-1532/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V. Saxena et al.
Cr, Mn, Pb, and Zn, effectively removed by activated carbon (Budihardjo
et al., 2021). However, the major drawback is its short service life,
making it unsustainable for long-term applications. The heavy metals
are in soluble form in leachate, and due to their complex composition, it
is difficult to remove by sand filter (Kietlińska and Renman, 2005).
The urgent need of the hour is a sustainable leachate treatment
technique with low energy and chemicals consumption with maximum
treatment efficiency. Various innovative methods such as biological
techniques (Miao et al., 2019), and membrane separation techniques
such as microfiltration (Cheng et al., 2018), ultrafiltration (Dolar et al.,
2016), nanofiltration (Amaral et al., 2016), and reverse osmosis (Smol
et al., 2016) are used by researchers for the treatment of landfill
leachate. The biological treatment method is the most reliable, simple,
cost-effective, and widely applicable for treating emerging contaminants
in leachate (Tałałaj et al., 2019; Bove et al., 2015). Various process
parameters like solid analysis, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
organics or inorganic carbon (TOC/TIC), and total nitrogen (TN) are
some of the most relevant indicators, which substantiate the biological
treatment process. The biological treatment methods have lesser
removal efficiency for specific pollutants. However, it can be improved
in a controlled environment with optimized conditions (Miao et al.,
2019). These optimum conditions help to increase the microorganism
growth in the biological process, leading to higher COD, color, and other
pollutants removal from leachate (Tałałaj et al., 2019). However, the
major concern is the treatment of recalcitrant pollutants present in the
landfill leachate using conventional biological methods like the acti­
vated sludge process (ASP).
Aerobic granular reactor (AGR) is one of the most promising and
innovative biological techniques employed over the last few decades to
treat landfill leachate at higher efficiency (Ren et al., 2017a). The
spherical compact and dense microbial biomass is created over a period
of time in AGR operating in sequencing batch mode or continuous mode
(Adav et al., 2008). The sequencing batch mode is preferred in AGR for
developing aerobic granules with excellent biomass settleability, high
biomass retention, sustained high organic loading, and less sludge
generation (Sarma et al., 2017). Several factors like feeding time, star­
vation period, hydrodynamic shear effect, and organic loading rate
directly influence the formation as well as stability of aerobic granules in
the AGR (Di Bellaa & Torregrossa, 2014). So far, AGR is widely used on a
laboratory scale, except few studies that reported the application of AGR
in pilot-scale treatment (Pronk et al., 2015). The first full-scale AGR with
more than 40 plants operated across the Netherland was reported by
Pronk et al. (2017). The results showed a 25–75% reduction in land
footprints and a 20–50% reduction in energy with enhanced biological
nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal than the conventional ASP.
The AGR showed promising results, which can sustain a high shock load
(~14 kg COD/m3 d) compared to ASP when treating industrial waste­
water and landfill leachate (Zheng et al., 2020). However, a limited
investigation reported the stability of aerobic granules during large-
scale treatment. In addition, the effect of various operational parame­
ters for removing nutrients and its optimization during pilot-scale
treatment has a significant challenge that needs to be addressed to
promote this technology for an extensive application.
The primary issue of landfill leachate is its high degree of variability
in both quality and quantity (Bove et al., 2015). Leachate character­
ization and its risk assessment are also challenging to predict, which is
required for selecting an appropriate technique for leachate treatment
(Tałałaj et al., 2019). In addition, landfill leachate contains a high
concentration of NH3-N, which is of particular concern during the
treatment. The physico-chemical process effectively removes refractory
organic compounds, inorganic macro-components, and heavy metals
from leachate. In contrast, dissolved organics and nutrients in leachates
are efficiently removed by biological processes (Teng et al., 2021).
Therefore, an integrated approach involving biological with pre or post-
physico-chemical processes is a viable option that provides better
effluent quality (Huang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2019a).
2
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
This review summarizes the general characteristics of landfill
leachate and the biological techniques adopted for its treatment with a
major focus on AGR. It critically examines various factors affecting the
performance of AGR, mass balance, and the kinetics involved during
landfill leachate treatment. Further, the enhancement of leachate
treatment by integrating physico-chemical techniques with various
biological processes is highlighted. Afterward, the future prospects of
AGR by combining it with other post-treatment techniques for treating
landfill leachate are discussed. The elucidations of the present review
will be beneficial for the scientific community for further research on
AGR for landfill leachate treatment.
2. Characteristics of landfill leachate
In many developing countries, municipal solid waste (MSW) is pri­
marily disposed of in open dumps without liner, leachate collection, and
treatment facilities (Negi et al., 2020). This leads to the generation of
brown-colored concentrated leachate with high chemical oxygen de­
mand (COD) with low biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) to COD ratio
(Calabrò et al., 2010). The major pollutants found in the leachate are
categorically sub-divided into dissolved organic matter, inorganic
macro components, heavy metals, and xenobiotic organic compounds
(Christensen et al., 1994). The presence of organic substances, ammo­
niacal nitrogen, and heavy metals in the landfill leachates are of great
concern to the environment (Yusof et al., 2009). Additionally, the
composition of landfill leachates varies with the nature of solid waste,
the presence of different microbial populations, soil characteristics, and
landfill age (Baettker et al., 2020). The leachate that occurs in less than
five year is termed as young landfills leachate and the pH level of these
leachates lies in the neutral range. However, it might be acidic due to the
anoxic digestion of the organic waste present in it. The leachate is
classified as old if it is more than ten years aged, and pH is basic in
nature. Table 1a shows the characteristics of leachate based on its age.
The rainwater, chemical composition and moisture content in waste,
and landfill age are the most critical factors that govern leachate char­
acteristics (Abuabdou et al., 2020). It has been reported that the prin­
cipal pollutants in leachate are organics and ammonia; with the increase
in landfill age, the COD concentration decreased amidst an increase in
ammonia concentration (Kulikowska and Klimiuk 2008). In general,
young landfill leachates are easily treatable than the old ones. Thus,
leachate characterization is essential before designing/adopting any
treatment technique. The variation in the composition of landfill
leachates generated is summarized in Table 1b.
3. Treatment of landfill leachate
Three different processes, viz. (i) physico-chemical, (ii) biological,
and (iii) integrated, are usually adopted for the treatment of landfill
leachates, as shown in Fig. 1 (Luo et al., 2020). Coagulation-flocculation,
adsorption, chemical oxidation, advanced oxidation processes (photo­
chemical, fenton, and ozonation), electrochemical technique, and
Table 1a
Leachates characteristics based on its age (Abuabdou et al., 2020).
Parameters Young Intermediate Old
Age (years) <5 5–10 >10
COD (mg/L) >10000 4000–10000 <4000
NH3-N (mg/L) <400 – >400
BOD/COD >0.3 0.1–0.3 <0.1
pH 6.5–7.5
<6.5 >7.5
Organic 80% VFA 5–30% VFA, humic, and Humic, and
compounds fulvic acids fulvic acids
Biodegradability High Medium low
Heavy metals Low- low low
medium
VFA: Volatile fatty acid.
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Table 1b 4. Biological process for leachate treatment

Variation in the composition of landfill leachates.
COD BOD BOD/ pH Total NH3-N References In biological treatment processes, microorganisms play an essential
(mg/L) (mg/ COD nitrogen (mg/L) role in the biodegradation of organic contaminants, which are simple,
L) ratio (TN) (mg/ economical, attractive, and eco-friendly in nature (Padhi and Gokhale
L)
2014). The biological treatment method efficiently treats landfill
720 590 0.82 6.7 1030 910 (Tałałaj et al., leachate with a high concentration of organic matter and NH3-N while
2021) producing carbon dioxide (CO2) and sludge as the end product. How­
2180 135 0.06 7.84 450 400 (Tałałaj et al.,
2021)
ever, biological treatment efficiency depends on the optimum operating
3960 372 0.09 7.8 – 2323 (Collado et al., conditions required for the maximal growth of microorganisms. Various
2020) biological methods are used for the aerobic treatment of landfill
5548 3077 0.55 8.7 – 3247 (Collado et al., leachate, which includes (i) activated sludge process, (ii) aerated la­
2020)
goons, (iii) rotating biological contactors (RBC), (iv) trickling filters, (v)
9765 3027 0.3 7.1 1923 1810 (Zhang et al.,
2019a) moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), (vi) hybrid bioreactor (HBR), and
2235 192.5 0.08 8 618.7 511.8 (Hu et al.,
2018) Table 2
2194 45 0.02 8.2 – 2980 (da Costa et al.,
The advantages and disadvantages of various physico-chemical processes (Far­
2018)
1931 863 0.44 7.8 – 2185 (da Costa et al.,
ooq and Ahmad, 2017).
2018) Physico-chemical Advantages Disadvantages
5650 2640 0.46 8.2 – 1680 (Maiti et al., treatment
2016) methods
2848 150 0.05 7.9 1480 1319 (Amaral et al.,
2015) Coagulation- • Simple and eco-friendly • A huge amount of sludge is
6560 3320 0.5 8.2 2020 1740 (Müller et al., Flocculation produced and not
(TKN) 2015) (C/F) economic
4290 2080 0.48 7.9 1980 1750 (Huang et al., Adsorption • Good removal of a variety • Short service life
2014) of pollutants • Not efficient to remove
5890 2050 0.34 8 1170 1030 (Wang et al., heavy metals, Na+, NO3-,
2013) and F
2390 420 0.17 8 1420 1210 (Ferraz et al., Chemical • Fast and adaptable process • High energy requirement
2013) oxidation and costly
3847.7 388 0.11 8.1 5236 3158.98 (Boumechhour Photo-chemical • Less or no sludge and odour • Secondary pollutants are
(TKN) et al., 2013) oxidation free process generated
Electrolysis • Highly effective for • Large amount of by-
removal of colour from products are generated, so
leachate not applied on full scale
membrane separation are widely used physico-chemical processes
Ozonation • Powerful oxidant able to • The cost of treatment is
adopted for leachate treatment (Luo et al., 2020). These techniques are degrade the COD efficiently very high and ozone is
mainly used to remove contaminants, primarily refractory organics, highly corrosive in nature
non-biodegradable organics, and heavy metals. However, these tech­ Fenton process • Soluble and insoluble • Produced a significant
niques are quite outrageous and responsible for generating secondary colouring agents can be amount of sludge
removed effectively
pollutants (Silva et al., 2013). The advantages and disadvantages of Membrane • Effective for • Expensive and huge
physico-chemical treatment process are summarized in Table 2. separation decolourization of leachate amount of sludge is
generated

Fig. 1. Processes for landfill leachate treatment.

3
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

(vii) sequence batch reactor (SBR). The characteristics, advantages, and
disadvantages of these biological treatment methods are summarized in
Table 3.
4.1. Activated sludge process
The activated sludge process (ASP) is the most common and highly
effective method in treating leachate. This process consists of an aera­
tion chamber for efficient mixing and better contact of microorganisms
with the pollutants in influents while transforming it to new active
biomass along with water, nutrients, and carbon dioxide (Fig. 2a) (Luo
et al., 2020). Webler et al. (2019) treated tannery landfill leachate using
a modified continuous flow anoxic/aerobic ASP operated at an optimum
temperature (20–26 ◦ C), pH (6.5–8.5), dissolved oxygen (5–8 mg/L),
and food microorganism (F/M) ratio (0.09–0.21 g BOD5/g MLVSS d) to
promote oxidation of organics and nitrification. Approximately 100% of
BOD and 87% of COD removal were observed under these optimized
conditions in this process. Çeçen & Gürsoy (2001) reported the
adsorption of heavy metals from the landfill leachate onto activated
sludge and the results of this study indicated higher biosorption capacity
at a shorter duration. Another study that used ozonation in the pre-
treatment process decreased COD/BOD ratio of leachate from 16 to 6,
which was later co-treated with municipal sewage in the ASP (Geenens
et al., 2001). This method was found to be economical and efficient for
landfill leachate treatment. Furthermore, the ASP associated with
microfiltration successfully treated landfill leachate, resulting in 52%,
94%, and 75% removal of COD, BOD, and NH3-N, respectively (Setiadi
& Fairus, 2003). Co-treatment of sanitary landfill leachate with domestic
wastewater in a bench-scale ASP containing powdered activated carbon
(PAC) revealed a positive effect on treatment during shock loading
(Cecen and Aktas, 2004). In another study, response surface methodol­
ogy (RSM) was adopted to evaluate the effect of PAC augmented ASP to
treat semi-aerobic leachate at different hydraulic retention times (HRTs)
(0.92, 1.57, and 2.22 d) and COD concentrations (700–3000 mg/L)
(Aghamohammadi et al., 2007). The addition of PAC in ASP enhanced
two-fold higher removal of COD along with color and NH3–N. In order to
treat leachate with high COD concentration (48,000–62,000 mg/L), the
combination of anaerobic and aerobic ASP was found to be more suit­
able than single-stage operation (Kheradmand et al., 2010). In aerobic
ASP, 94% of COD, 48–64% of NH3–N, and 49–60% of alkalinity removal
were achieved. However, no alkalinity and NH3–N removal were
observed in the anaerobic ASP. The study by Xia et al. (2017) focused on
the inhibitory effects of calcium over the biological treatment of landfill
leachate using an ASP. The study revealed that increased calcium con­
centration of more than 4500 mg/L in leachate significantly reduced the
total organic carbon removal. In contrast, the total nitrogen and NH3–N
removal efficiencies were increased with increased calcium concentra­
tion in the leachate. In a recent study, ASP integrated with a fungal
bioreactor containing Penicillium sp. was used to treat mature landfill
leachate, unveiling good potential for removing COD (41%) and nutri­
ents at optimal conditions (Islam et al., 2020). The ASP is a promising
technology for treating landfill leachate, except for removing nitrogen,
which is low compared to other processes (Wang et al., 2018). In
addition, excessive sludge generation, huge electricity requirement for
operation, and microbial inhibition at high NH3-N concentration are
some added limitations of ASP while treating leachate (Torretta et al.,
2017).
4.2. Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons or stabilization ponds used for on-site treatment of
landfill leachates are user-friendly, cost-competitive, and effective at
various environmental conditions (aerobic/anaerobic/facultative) over
the period of time (Luo et al., 2019). A schematic of aerated lagoon used
for landfill leachate treatment is shown in Fig. 2b (Martins et al., 2013).
The temperature plays an essential role in microbial activity, which
further regulates the biological oxidation of leachate in lagoons. How­
ever, it requires a large footprint despite no external energy consump­
tion and less construction cost (Frascari et al., 2004). Optimization of
HRTs also plays a crucial role in the full-scale applications of the aerated
lagoons used for leachate treatment (Mehmood et al., 2009). The COD
removal efficiency varies by the leachate type (young or old) and can be
as high as 95% for young leachate (Renou et al., 2008). A two-stage
process, an anaerobic lagoon (HRT: 2 days) followed by a facultative
system (HRT: 240 days) at 22.8 ◦ C, achieved up to 40% COD, 64% BOD,
77% NH3-N, and 63% NO3-N reduction (Renou et al., 2008). In another
study, Mehmood et al. (2009) achieved 75% average COD removal and
80% nitrogen removal using an aerated lagoon with varying HRTs
(11–254 days). This study further revealed that longer HRT enhances the
performance of the aerobic lagoon. A study performed using series of
shallow (~0.5 m deep) waste stabilization ponds showed good removal
of NH3-N (99%) and COD (67%) at 39.5 days HRT with the initial
loading of 364 kg/ha/d NH3-N and 3676 kg/ha/d COD, respectively
(Leite et al., 2011). A pilot-scale system, consisting of three ponds in
series operated for 111 weeks to treat landfill leachate showed good
removal of NH3-N with 75–99% efficiency and 35–82% removal of COD
at an initial soluble COD concentrations of 1230 to 4020 mg/L (Martins
et al., 2013). In order to evaluate the symbiotic relationship between
microalgae and bacteria during landfill leachate treatment, stabilization
ponds are integrated in series and operated for 43 weeks (Costa et al.,

Table 3
Characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the various biological treatment methods.
Biological Methods Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages References

Activated sludge • Suspended growth process • High organic removal • Huge sludge generation (Wang et al., 2018)
process • Odour free treatment • Poor biomass settle ability
Aerated lagoons • Suspended growth process • Easy operation and • Difficult to treat recalcitrant (Britz 2020; Leite et al., 2011)
• Symbiotic interactions exist between maintenance compounds
microalgae and bacteria • Low-cost investment with good • Require large footprint
removal efficiency
Rotating biological • Both attached and suspended growth • High contact time resulting in • Require continuous electricity (Padhi and Gokhale 2017; Bove
contactors (RBC) process high effluent quality supply et al., 2015)
• Partially submerged in leachate • High stability at shock loading • High investment, operation, and
maintenance costs
Trickling filters • Attached growth process • Low power requirement • High clogging problem and (Luo et al., 2020; Bressani-
• Highly effective for removal of generates the odour Ribeiro et al., 2018)
ammonia (NH3-N)
Moving-Bed biofilm • Both attached and suspended growth • No clogging problem • Periodic monitoring required (di Biase et al., 2019; Bassin &
reactor (MBBR) process • No sludge recycling required • Skilled experts required for Dezotti, 2018)
operation and maintenance
Sequence batch reactor • Suspended growth process • High biomass settle ability • Required skilled labour for (Jagaba et al., 2021; Tomar &
(SBR) • Fill and draw process by maintaining • Low sludge generation operation Chakraborty 2019)
the different cycle • Sustain high shock load • Sophisticated operating procedure

4
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Fig. 2. Schematic of (a) ASP (Luo et al., 2020), (b) stabilization pond (Martins et al., 2013), (c) RBC (Bove et al., 2015), (d) trickling filter (Matthews et al., 2009), (e)
MBBR (Ødegaard, 2006), (f) HBR (Saxena et al., 2021), and (g) SBR (Islam et al., 2020) used for leachate treatment.

5
V. Saxena et al.
2014). These ponds are sub-divided in three stages based on varying
aeration periods (12 h and 18 h), resulting in approximately 75% BOD
and NH3-N removal efficiency. A good balance of the microbial diversity
and efficient leachate treatment was found in the stabilization pond
mainly due to phytoplankton, nitrifying bacteria, and Ciliate organisms.
Natural treatment techniques such as stabilization pond and its opera­
tion achieve higher nitrogen removal than other biological processes
(Jinadasa et al., 2018).
4.3. Rotating biological contactor
Rotating biological contactor (RBC) mainly consists of a closely
packed series of large flat surfaces or perforated drums with bio-support
medium for biofilm growth connected to a horizontal shaft (Cortez et al.,
2008; Padhi and Gokhale 2014). The RBC with microorganisms in the
form of biofilm is partially or fully submerged in wastewater or leachate
to be treated (Fig. 2c). Several operating parameters such as rotation
speed, HRT, types of support media used for biofilm development,
loading rates, oxygen demand, and recirculation of solids, etc., influence
the performance of RBC (Cortez et al., 2008; Padhi and Gokhale 2017).
The geared motor is generally used for rotating the shaft at a uniform
speed, allowing consistent growth of biofilm over the surface of the
supporting medium, imparting better oxygen and mass transfer, result­
ing in efficient removal of organic matter present in the waste streams
(Rodgers and Zhan, 2003). Cortez et al. (2011) reported high removal
efficiencies (~100%) for NO3-N from mature landfill leachate using a
RBC. Kurniawan et al. (2010) indicated that RBC is not efficient for
treating high-strength landfill leachate as it clogs the media due to
excessive biomass growth. An integrated process consists of an anaer­
obic filter followed by RBC was used to treat high strength NH3-N in
landfill leachate, which indicated more than 95% NH3-N removal at an
initial concentration of 2140 mg/L along with 49% overall COD removal
(Henderson and Atwater, 1995). A comparative study on NH3-N removal
from landfill leachate using a pilot-scale RBC and SBR operated for 14
months indicated better performance of SBR than RBC with ~100%
NH3-N removal at 400 g/m3 d NH3-N loading (Henderson et al., 1997).
Siegrist et al. (1998) reported about 70% nitrogen removal from
ammonium-rich landfill leachate using a RBC and negligible organic
carbon removal using coagulation and flocculation as a pre-treatment.
An integrative approach (nitrification, Anammox, and denitrification)
for removing total inorganic nitrogen in a RBC resulted in a maximum
removal rate of 3 g N/m2 d and 3.9 g N/m2 d for NH3-N and NO2–,
respectively (Cema et al., 2007). Feasibility of leachate treatment using
a RBC compared with up-flow anaerobic sludge bed reactor operated at
different HRTs showed a maximum of 52% COD removal in RBC (HRT:
24 h and rotation speed: 6 rpm) at a hydraulic organic loading of 24.7 g
COD/m2 d and 62% COD removal in the anaerobic reactor (HRT: 54 h)
at a volumetric organic loading of 3273 g COD/m3 d (Castillo et al.,
2007). An anoxic RBC is recommended for achieving 95% landfill
leachate denitrification with a high concentration of NO3-N (up to 100
mg/L) and carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N) of<2 (Cortez et al., 2011).
However, high effluent COD required further treatment to remove the
organic content. A two-stage RBC treated landfill leachate with an NH3-
N load of 3.6 g/m2 d showed complete nitrification. However, the
further increase in NH3-N load up to 6.63 g/m2 d decreased the nitrifi­
cation efficiency up to 71%, which also changed the microbial popula­
tion in RBC (Kulikowska et al., 2010). A pilot-scale anoxic RBC was
operated for 88 days to treat landfill leachate, which removed COD
(2278–7695 mg/L) and NH3-N (366–1444 mg/L) of 85 and 99%,
respectively (Song et al., 2020). RBC alone may not be efficient for
treating landfill leachate. Hence, combining physico-chemical and bio­
logical processes with RBC is required for effective treatment (Castillo
et al., 2007; Cortez et al., 2008).
6
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
4.4. Trickling filters
A trickling filter or biofilter is a type of biological fixed bed reactor
that contains inert packing material for the growth of microorganisms,
which is opened from the top to maintain aerobic conditions. The
leachate is trickled from the top comes in contact with the packing
material forming a biofilm layer over the media, as shown in Fig. 2d
(Matthews et al., 2009). A trickling filter is generally adopted to treat
landfill leachate with low organic strength (Torretta et al., 2017). A low-
cost nitrification process was performed in a lab-scale biofilter at low
temperature, achieved 90% nitrification of leachate, followed by deni­
trification (Jokela et al., 2002). Another study evaluated the perfor­
mance of landfill leachate treatment in a trickling filter with shredded
tire chips and tire crumbs as packing media. The results showed better
removal of COD (70–90%) and NH3-N (15–68%) for the tire crumb
packed filter, which is also economical for small-scale treatment
(Mondal et al., 2007). The effect of operating parameters such as
leachate characteristics (organic carbon and ammonia) and temperature
(3–30 ◦ C) over the treatment efficiency and process dynamics of trick­
ling filters confirmed that the NH3-N removal was unaffected by these
parameters. In contrast, organic carbon removal increases with
increasing temperature (Mattews et al., 2009). In comparison between
the performance of lab-scale trickling filter and SBR, a significant
reduction of suspended solids (73%), turbidity (72%), COD (49%), BOD
(77%), and NH3-N (60%) was observed for trickling filter (Aluko and
Sridhar, 2013). Conversely, effluent quality was better in SBR with 76%
COD, 84% BOD, and 65% NH3-N removal. Aged refuse-based biofilter
(ABR), a modified trickling filter, is a promising technology resulting in
less sludge generation with 64–99% COD, 90% BOD5, and 66 to 99%
NH3-N removal (Hassan & Xie, 2014). Ferraz et al. (2014) performed co-
treatment of domestic sewage with landfill leachate using a submerged
aerobic bio-filter, which resulted in better removal of BOD (~98%),
COD (~80%), suspended solids (~90%), and NH3-N (~90%). A com­
posite biological trickle reactor was used to treat mature landfill
leachate at optimum conditions (temperature: 30 ◦ C and hydraulic
loading: 40 L/m3d), where the removal of COD, TN, NH3-N, and PO4-P
were 85, 76, 99, and 96%, respectively (Zhu et al., 2021). It can be
concluded from these studies that the trickling filter shows better per­
formance for treating landfill leachate with high strength NH3-N con­
centration, but its performance is limited for COD removal.
4.5. Moving bed biofilm reactor
The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) is a modified form of ASP
consisting of a moving bed such as plastics or sponges in the aeration
tank to enhance biofilm growth (Fig. 2e) (Ødegaard, 2006). Welander
et al. (1997) used suspended-carrier biofilm technology to treat
municipal landfill leachate by nitrifying a maximum up to 40 g NH3-N/
m3 h at 14 h HRT and 20 ◦ C with 10% carrier fraction with respect to
reactor volume. The MBBR is suitable for treating leachate with a high
nitrogen removal efficiency of up to 90% but incompetent for treating
COD (20%) (Welander et al., 1998). Loukidou and Zouboulis (2001)
used activated carbon in MBBR for landfill leachate treatment and
achieved 60–80% COD and 85–90% NH3-N removal for influent COD
and NH3-N at concentrations of 5000 mg/L and 1800 mg/L, respec­
tively. Simultaneous removal of COD and NH3-N was investigated using
a MBBR with both aerobic and anaerobic environments for landfill
leachate treatment (Chen et al., 2008). Methanogenesis in anaerobic
MBBR leads to the removal of COD, whereas aerobic MBBR plays as a
polishing treatment for the removal of both COD and NH3-N. The
maximum COD removal of 91% was observed in anaerobic MBBR,
which decreased to 86% with an increase in loading rate. However, in
aerobic MBBR, only 3–12% of COD removal was observed, but a sig­
nificant amount of NH3-N was removed with more than 97% efficiency
at an HRT of 1.25 days.
A combination of MBBR and membrane bioreactor was used for
V. Saxena et al.
oxidation of NH3-N (initial concentration: ~50 mg/L) to nitrite,
achieving more than 90% removal efficiency during this process (Can­
ziani et al., 2006). In another study, an anoxic MBBR is coupled with a
membrane bioreactor used to treat landfill leachate, in which the
maximum removal of COD, NH3-N, and NO3-N were 74, 99, and 89%,
respectively, at the optimum conditions (NO3-N concentration: 1000
mg/L, HRT: 48 h, and SRT: 90 d) (Duyar et al., 2021). The high meta­
bolic activity of microorganisms attached to the supporting media pro­
vides a stable performance to the MBBR. Also, the small footprint of
MBBR has the competencies for reducing volume up to 70% without
compromising its effectiveness for treatment. The MBBR does not consist
of a fixed filter media, which results in no clogging while removing
organic and nitrogen matter from leachate. The only major disadvantage
of using this process is the high energy requirement in aeration for the
smooth operation of MBBR.
4.6. Hybrid bioreactor
The hybrid bioreactor (HBR) consists of both aerobic and anaerobic
systems that are efficient for treating high-strength landfill leachate
(Saxena et al., 2021). The HBR is one of the popular systems comprised
of both suspended and attached growth microorganisms to treat
leachate wastewater (Fig. 2f) (Saxena et al., 2021). In the suspended
system, the microbial colonies in the form of flocs tend to move freely in
the mixed liquor due to the continuous aeration in the reactor (Lippi
et al., 2018). Alternatively, in the attached growth system, inert sup­
porting media consisting of rock or plastic is used to retain bacteria,
wastes, and extracellular polymers (Shah et al., 2017). The small and
porous carriers help in retaining more biomass allowing the reactor to
operate at shorter hydraulic retention times (HRTs) (Chen et al., 2019).
According to the study conducted by Zhang et al. (2017), polyurethane
foams are considered an ideal media for the attached growth of micro­
organisms because of their high porosity, which allows the biomass to
grow over the surface as well as inside pores. This study also revealed
that polyurethane foams are used to obtain a quicker reactor start-up
while offering higher removal of COD and NH3-N, by improving the
overall performances as compared to other bio-carriers such as poly­
ethylene. Song et al. (2019) reported that polyurethane sponge is an
ideal choice of bio-carrier due to simultaneous nitrification and deni­
trification properties.
Loukidou & Zouboulis (2001) used a lab-scale SBR with different bio-
carriers (polyurethane sponge and granular activated carbon) operating
as a hybrid system to treat sanitary landfill leachate. High nitrogen
removal from landfill leachate was observed by using granular activated
carbon (GAC) as bio-carrier in addition to the removal of biodegradable
organics. Moreover, it generates a large amount of residual suspended
solids, which tends to increase the operational costs of the process. In
contrast, the highly porous polyurethane sponge aids in more biomass
accumulation leading to an extended operation period than GAC. Mir­
ghorayshi et al. (2021) used a hybrid airlift bioreactor (HAB) to remove
carbon and nitrogen simultaneously from composting leachate. At the
optimum conditions (HRT: 28–30 h and air flow rate 1.7–2 L/min), the
COD (3600 mg/L) and NH3-N (598 mg/L) removal were 90% and 80%,
respectively, which shows the feasibility of HAB for leachate treatment.
4.7. Sequencing batch reactor
The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is the modified version of ASP
capable of removing various pollutants while treating landfill leachate.
Aerobic granular reactor (AGR) is one such type of SBR consisting of
mainly four steps: (i) feeding, (ii) aeration, (iii) settling, and (iv)
decanting (Jagaba et al., 2021). The schematic of SBR for landfill
leachate treatment is shown in Fig. 2g. It has various advantages over
the conventional ASP, like good sludge settleability, high biomass
retention, and compact microbial granules that can resist high shock
loading (Hamza et al., 2018). In contrast, the formation of granules and
7
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
up-gradation for its large-scale continuous applications are the major
challenges of this process. Wei et al. (2012) used SBR to treat leachate,
confirmed that high influent NH3-N concentration has a detrimental
effect on COD removal. Miao et al. (2015) used SBR under anaero­
bic–aerobic-anoxic conditions for a period of 70 days and achieved high
nitrogen removal of more than 98% at the C/N ratio of 4. A recent study
on the treatment of mature urban leachate using coagulation/sedi­
mentation followed by advanced oxidation and SBR was performed,
which resulted in up to 98% COD and 85% total nitrogen removal
(Gomes et al., 2019). Leachate treatment using SBR confirmed an
effective reduction of COD by 76%, BOD5 as high as 84%, NH3-N
removal of about 64%, and more than 60% removal of the metals
(cadmium, iron, and zinc) (Aluko and Sridhar, 2013). A summary of
different biological methods adopted to remove COD and NH3-N from
landfill leachate is given in Table 4.
4.8. Aerobic granular reactor
The aerobic granular reactor (AGR) is a type of SBR that has evolved
to replace the conventional waste treatment approach in the past two
decades. Landfill leachate treatment using the conventional ASP is
incompetent in achieving the desired removal of organic matter and
total nitrogen (TN) (Wang et al., 2018). The schematic of AGR and the
conversion process in aerobic granules during leachate treatment is
shown in Fig. 3 (Wei et al., 2012; Wilén et al., 2018). The aerobic
granules in AGR consists of a multilayer sphere with decreasing oxygen
and substrate gradients from the periphery towards the core of the
granule (Fig. 3). Generally, nitrifiers and heterotrophic bacteria are
located in the oxygen penetrated outer layers (Wilén et al., 2018). In
contrast, denitrifiers and phosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) are
found in the inner layers.
AGR operated at low HRT with simultaneous anaerobic/aerobic
environment to treat landfill leachate with varying waste loads. It is
efficient in terms of performance and granule stability in lab-scale
studies. However, the full-scale application is still in the developing
stage, which needs further investigation (Wilén et al., 2018). The
knowledge gap needs to be satisfied to widespread this technique
commercially. Granule inhibition due to certain factors such as the hy­
drodynamic pattern in the pilot-scale reactor can lead to operational
failure, which is successfully applied to lab-scale reactor counterpart if
the process is not appropriately optimized (Pishgar et al., 2018). The
summary of various AGRs used for the treatment of landfill leachate is
shown in Table 5.
4.8.1. Aerobic granules formation
The AGR has more advantages over the conventional ASP, such as
high settleability, high retention of biomass, denser, compact, and ho­
mogenized microbial structure, but it needs a longer start-up period for
its formation and maturation (Hamza et al., 2018). Zhang et al. (2016)
proposed four-step granulation mechanism (Fig. 4a), which involves (i)
initial adhesion of cells to start granulation, (ii) micro aggregates for­
mation, (iii) extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) biosynthesis by
accumulated microbes, and (iv) granule maturation.
4.8.2. Factors affecting granulation
Various factors such as inoculum type, substrate composition,
organic loading rate, settling duration and cycle time, HRT, superficial
up-flow air velocity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature affect granu­
lation and performance of AGR (Fig. 4b) (Awang and Shaaban, 2016;
Lee et al., 2010). Upgrading the hydrodynamic shear force, changing the
operating conditions, inoculum, anaerobic/aerobic starvation period,
and settling time reduce the granulation time and enhance granulation
(Long et al., 2015).
4.8.2.1. Inoculum. During the start-up phase, active biomass, usually
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Table 4
Summary of different biological methods for removal of COD & NH3-N from landfill leachate.
Biological methods Operating conditions COD NH3-N Remarks References
removal removal (%)
(%)

Hybrid bioreactor • COD: 150-1200 mg/L • 77-80 • 60-94 • Resist high shock load at short HRT (Saxena et al.,
(HBR) • NH3-N: 2-49 mg/L • Retains high biomass 2021)
• PO4-P: 97-281 mg/L
• HRT: 3-48 h
Moving-bed biofilm • NH3-N: 50-1500 mg/L • - • 60-85 • Inoculating the MBBR with bio-carriers obtained from municipal (Xiong et al.,
reactor (MBBR) (sequencing batch mode) wastewater treatment plant showed great potential to mitigate the 2018)
• NH3-N: 900-1500 mg/L • 50-80 secondary landfill leachate
(continuous mode)
• HRT: 10-20 days
Activated sludge • COD: 811±75 mg/L • 52-83 • 60-80% • TAN removal of ~99% was observed at 300 mg/L concentration (Ren et al.,
process (ASP) • Total ammoniacal (TAN) • A relative decreasing COD removal due to a lower COD/TAN ratio 2017b)
nitrogen (TAN): 131-454
mg/L
• Operated for 3 cycles for
day
SBR • COD: 4950-5331 mg/L • 82-84 • 44-92 • COD removal decreased with an increase in NH3-N concentration (Wei et al.,
• NH3-N: 366-1105 mg/L • NH3-N removal depends upon its influent concentration in leachate 2012)
• SRT: 25-35 d
• DO: 0.76-4 mg/L
Lagoons • COD: 1740 mg/L • 75 • 80 • Longer HRT enhanced the performance of the aerobic lagoon (Mehmood
• NH3-N: 1241 mg/L et al., 2009)
• HRT: 11-254 days
• Aeration: 6-8 h/day
Rotating biological • COD: 2500-9000 mg/L • 52 • - • HRT, rotation speed, submergence of discs, and temperature mainly (Castillo et al.,
contactors (RBC) • HRT: 14-34 h influence the performance of RBC 2007)
• Rotation per minute: 3-9
Trickling filters • Hydraulic loading: 2.25- • 76-90 • 15-68 • Tire chips used in trickling filter showed better organics removal but (Mondal &
4.5 m3/m2 d required steady and proper aeration for enhancing the growth of Warith 2008)
• Organic loading: 0.28- biofilm
1.12 kg BOD5/m3 d

TAN: Total ammoniacal nitrogen, SRT: Sludge retention time, DO: Dissolved oxygen.

Fig. 3. Schematic of AGR and the conversion process in aerobic granules during leachate treatment (Wei et al., 2012; Wilén et al., 2018).

floccular or activated sludge, is collected from the landfill site or the
oxidation ditch of the landfill leachate treatment plant with an MLSS
concentration of 3–4 g/L and inoculated in the AGR (Wang et al., 2013).
Pishgar et al. (2019) utilized return activated sludge from a wastewater
treatment plant with MLSS concentration of 2.8 g/L, ensuring the
presence of diverse microbial communities for enhancing granulation.
On the other hand, Verawaty et al. (2012) used mixed inoculum con­
sisting of crushed granules and floccular sludge to accelerate granula­
tion. In most of the research, floccular sludge was collected from
municipal wastewater treatment plants as the seed inoculum in AGR
(Ivanov et al., 2006). Interestingly, aerobic granules can also be formed
by seeding anaerobic granules in SBRs (Linlin et al., 2005). The presence
of various bacteria in seed sludge such as Paracoccus, Devosia, Pseudox­
anthomonas, and Acinetobacter are effective in self-aggregation, resulting
in the formation of granules (Adav et al., 2008).
4.8.2.2. Substrate composition. Substrate concentration directly in­
fluences the microbial growth and synthesis of EPS (Liu and Liu, 2006).

8
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Table 5
AGR for landfill leachate treatment.
Operating conditions COD removal (%) TANa/ TNb PO4-P removal Findings References
removal (%) (%)

• Organic loading rate: 4651-19100 mg/L • 39-80 • 45-74a • 41-66 • The removal of COD, TN, and PO4-P was (Seid-mohammadi
• TAN: 286-596 mg/L higher during longer HRT et al., 2022)
• HRT: 2.1-6 h
• Lechate diluted with wastewater at 20% and
50% volumetric ratio
• COD: 5300±78 mg/L • 87-89 • 98b • 37-64 • High nitrogen removal is due to diverse (Bueno et al., 2021)
• Total Nitrogen (TN): 2630±355 mg/L microbial communities in aerobic
• Leachate diluted with wastewater at granules
volumetric ratios 5-20%
• Phosphorus load: 0.02-0.03 g/d
• COD: ~1000-5500 mg/L • 70-90 • 35-90a • - • TAN removal inhibited at high nitrogen (Wei et al., 2021)
• TAN: ~100-1200 mg/L loading rate (NLR)
• Operated for 220 days (leachate diluted with • Granular sludge increases the microbial
tap water for cultivation of granules for diversity but decreases with increase in
initial 54 days) NLR
• COD: ~500-1300 mg/L • 31 (volumetric • 99.7a • Negligible • The granular sludge in AGR is resistant to (Ren et al., 2018)
• TAN: 1200 mg/L ratio: 50-90%) toxicity of ammonia
• Leachate diluted with wastewater at 10- • 14 (volumetric • Poor PO4-P removal could be associated
100% volumetric ratio ratio: 40-65%) with competition between denitrifiers
• Phosphorus: 3-6 mg/L and PAOs
• Leachate diluted with primary effluent (10- • 64 • 95-100a • 84 • High TAN removal efficiency (Ren et al., 2017a)
90% volumetric ratio) • Simultaneous nitrification-denitrification
• COD: 2.2-3 kg COD/m3 day play a significant role in nitrogen removal
• TAN: 0.31-1.8 kg N/m3 day
• COD: 810±83 mg/L • 67-87 • 99a • ~49 • AGR showed better removal of TAN from (Ren et al., 2017b)
• TAN: 128-494 mg/L leachate than the ASP
• Phosphorus: 2-6 mg/L

TAN: Total ammoniacal nitrogen and TN: Total nitrogen.

Fig. 4. (a) Mechanism of aerobic granulation (Zhang et al., 2016) and (b) the factors affecting granulation and performance of AGR.

The performance of AGR was investigated with various carbon sources
such as glucose, acetate, ethanol, and phenol. The formation of more
filamentous granules with low settling properties was observed in the
presence of glucose in the medium. Conversely, acetate in the medium
produces dense and stable granules; phenol and propionate generate
strong granules but require a long cultivating period (Lee et al., 2010; de
Sousa Rollemberg et al., 2018). Pijuan et al. (2011) reported the use of
pre-cultivated granular sludge as inoculum in AGR for landfill leachate
treatment (Pijuan et al., 2011).

9
V. Saxena et al.
4.8.2.3. Organic loading rate. The organic loading rate (OLR) plays a
significant role in forming and characterizing granules while regulating
their morphological properties and microbial communities. The OLR is
directly proportional to the size of the granules and inversely propor­
tional to the degree of the granules formed. In addition, AGR with the
highest OLR shows the lowest biological diversity (Adav et al., 2008).
Moderate OLR ranging between 1 and 3 kg COD/m3 d tends to form
stable aerobic granules (Tay et al., 2004). However, a recent study
shows the stability of aerobic granules up to an OLR of 15 kg COD/m3 d,
but the disintegration of granules was observed with an increase in OLR
of 18 kg COD/m3 d, which led to the failure of the AGR (Long et al.,
2015). Activated sludge growing at OLR decreasing from 5.5 to 3.5 kg
COD/m3 d form complete granulation with size up to 438 μm and EPS to
protein ratio over 2 (Zhang et al., 2019b). Anaerobic feeding, followed
by the aerobic phase, shows a fast granulation. In contrast, the granules
formed in a fully aerobic environment have higher stability but take
longer duration at varying organic loading rates (1.8–6.65 kg COD/m3
d) (Carrera et al., 2019).
4.8.2.4. Settling duration and cycle time. The AGR operates at a shorter
settling time (2–10 min), allowing rapid settling of microbial aggregates,
enabling the washout of sludge with poor settling quality (Sepúlveda-
Mardones et al., 2019). By repeating the same process, dense granules
formation occurs with a highly active microbial community. A high
exchange ratio with a short duration of decanting leads to increase
granulation. Wilén et al. (2018) reported faster granulation by short­
ening the settling time from 15 to 5 min in 11 days. AGR is more
economical as the treatment and sedimentation happen in the same
system (Nancharaiah et al., 2018). The settling period, volumetric ex­
change ratio, and discharge time coupled together to settle the sludge
faster is termed as minimum settling velocity (Vs), which must be above
4 m/h to form aerobic granules (Liu et al., 2005). The Vs is a function of
concentration of sludge (X). The Vs decreases with increase in X. The
relationship between Vs and X is represented by Eq. (1) (Bueno et al.,
2021):
Vs = V m e − kX
(1)
where, Vs is settling velocity of sludge (m/h), Vm the maximum
settling rate of sludge (m/h), X the suspended solid concentration in
sludge (g/L), and k the empirical settling parameter (L/g).
During the feeding in AGR, the cycle time between 4 and 12 h is
usually maintained (Adav et al., 2008). Shorter cycle time led to the loss
of the biomass, while a longer cycle time of more than 24 h fails in
forming nitrifying granulation (Liu and Tay, 2004). In order to get better
performance and stability in AGR, the cycle time should comprise a
short anoxic phase (10% of total cycle time) and medium aerobic phase
(55% of total cycle time), which is indispensable to promote fast bio-
granulation and high-rate of pollutant removal (de Sousa Rollemberg
et al., 2020).
4.8.2.5. Hydraulic retention time. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) is
one of the critical design parameters for forming aerobic granules and
treating landfill leachate. However, limited studies were conducted on
the optimization of HRT during the operation of AGR. Muda et al. (2011)
investigated the influence of different HRTs (6, 12 h, and 24 h) on
characteristics, microbial activities, and kinetic properties of aerobic
granules. This study observed that reducing granular biomass and
granule size with increasing HRTs is due to the prolonged aeration
imparting granules disintegration. Another study with varying HRTs (4,
6, 8, 12, and 16 h) observed similar results, with a stable microbial
community and better performance obtained at 8 h HRT in AGR (Wang
et al., 2021). In contrast, Liu et al. (2016) reported that granulation is
independent of HRT, although sludge retention time and sludge for­
mation are directly affected by HRT.
10
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
4.8.2.6. Superficial up-flow air velocity. Superficial up-flow air velocity
(air flow divided by the cross-sectional area of the reactor), also known
as the hydrodynamic shear force effect, is one of the significant factors in
aerobic granules formation. The compactness and denseness of granules
are directly proportional to the shear force applied (Chen et al., 2007).
Granules from the flocculant sludge were successful for low hydrody­
namic shear at a lower strength of COD (340 mg/L) (Devlin et al., 2016).
Typically, in the AGR, the superficial up-flow air velocity is maintained
in the range of 1–2 cm/s. At low superficial up-flow air velocity (0.8 cm/
s), loose microbial structure and unstable granules with poor settling
properties were reported, but an increased nitrogen removal rate was
observed (Lochmatter and Holliger, 2014).
4.8.2.7. Dissolved oxygen and temperature. Aerobic granules in AGR can
be formed in a wide range of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations (1–7
mg/L) (Winkler et al., 2018). But DO lower than 5 mg/L causes granule
instability (Wilén et al., 2018). Due to the strong diffusion limitations of
DO in granules, it plays a vital role in the simultaneous removal of
organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. High DO increases the
nitrification rate, whereas low DO increases the denitrification rate. DO
concentrations can be controlled during the cycle in AGR to achieve high
effluent quality (Pronk et al., 2015).
AGR successfully operated at a temperature range of 8–30 ◦ C. The
aerobic granules are irregular in shape and unstable at a lower tem­
perature with low nutrient removal efficiency. At low temperatures, the
microbial activity is low, so DO can penetrate the inner anoxic layer of
granules, hampering the denitrification process (De Kreuk et al., 2005).
Although, AGR operated with a high removal efficiency of organic
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus at a lower temperature range of
10–12 ◦ C (Jiang et al., 2016). However, at higher temperatures
(20–30 ◦ C), a decrease in biological phosphorus removal was observed
due to favourable growth conditions for glycogen accumulating organ­
isms (GAOs) than the PAOs (Lopez-Vazquez et al., 2009).
4.8.3. Mass balance of COD, nitrogen, and phosphorus in AGR
Microorganisms in the aerobic granules utilize the nutrients in the
form of COD, nitrogen, and phosphorus present in the landfill leachate.
The COD mass balance in the AGR can be determined by using Eqs. (2)-
(4) (Lee et al., 2008):
CODin (gCOD/d) = CODOut (gCOD/d) + CODremoved (gCOD/d) (2)
CODremoved (gCOD/d) = CODbiomass (gCOD/d) + CODoxidised (gCOD/d) (3)
CODbiomass (gCOD/d) = 1.42xVSSwasted xLeachateflowrate (4)
where, 1.42 represents the COD of biomass (gCOD/gVSS) (Tchoba­
noglous et al., 2003). The CODoxidized can be determined by subtracting
the CODbiomass from CODremoved.
NH3-N transforms to NO2-N, which is finally converted into NO3-N.
The nitrogen mass balance in the AGR can be computed by using Eq. (5)
(Tomar et al., 2022):
NH 3 − Nin = [NH 3 − Nout + NO2 − Nout + NO3 − Nout ]
(5)
+[Nitrogenbiomass ]
Nitrogen used for biomass growth (Nitrogenbiomass) can be calculated
using Eq. (6) (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003):
0.12VSSwasted
Nitrogenbiomass = (6)
Q
0.12 is the nitrogen fraction of sludge and Q the leachate flow rate
(L/d)
The amount of phosphorus removed (PO4-Premoved) in the AGR can
be determined using Eqs. (7) (Lee et al., 2008):
PO4 − Premoved = (PO4 − Pin ) − (PO4 − Pout ) (7)
where, Q is the leachate flow per cycles (L/cycle), PO4-Pin and PO4-
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Pout are the inlet and oulet concentrations of PO4-P in leachate,
respectively.
4.8.4. Kinetic models
Kinetic studies are essential to determine the factors influencing the
reaction rate. The Monod model is widely used to determine the kinetic
coefficients in various biological reactors besides the correlation be­
tween bacterial growth and limiting substrate concentration. In addi­
tion, the changes in COD removal rate in the reactors can be evaluated
by using the Monod model. Leachate consists of toxic and recalcitrant
compounds; its COD concentration is also very high, which shows the
inhibition effect on microbial growth represented by the substrate
inhibitory models like Haldane. These models and their modified form
can be applied to predict the performance of AGR as well as optimize the
process on laboratory scale (Seid-mohammadi et al., 2021).
4.8.4.1. Monod and Haldane model. The Monod (Eq. (8)) and Haldane
model (Eq. (9)) are usually applied to understand the kinetics of the
degradation of pollutants during leachate treatment. These models can
be simplified as (Wei et al., 2012):
dS μ
rs = − = max XS (8)
dt Ks + S
or
dS μmax
rs = − = XS (9)
dt Ks + S + SK2
i organic and nitrogenous compounds (Miao et al., 2019). However,
where, rs is the substrate degradation rate (mg/L h), S the limiting
substrate concentration (mg/L), X the biomass concentration (mg/L),
µmax the maximum specific growth rate (1/h); Ks the half-saturation
constant (mg/L); Ki the inhibition constant (mg/L). When COD is
determined as the total amount of biodegradable organic matter, Ks can
be relatively large, resulting in less S value than Ks (Wei et al., 2012).
Both the Monod model and Haldane model become (Eq. (10)):
dS μmax
rs = = XS = KXS (10)
dt Ks
By integrating Eq. (10), it yields:
S = S0 e− KXt
(11)
Considering that the influent COD of leachate in AGR is composed of
toxic inhibitors and inert or recalcitrant organic matter (Sn), S and S0 in
the Eq. (11) can be replaced with (S-Sn) and (S0-Sn), respectively. Eq.
(11) is further simplified as:
S = (S0 − Sn )e− KXt
+ Sn (12)
Sn in the model gives the biodegradation of landfill leachate and the
final COD concentration remains after the biodegradation. The modified
model considers the biodegradability of landfill leachate and inhibition
of pollutants and makes it more direct to be utilized.
4.8.4.2. Modified Monod model. The kinetic coefficients that describe
the kinetic behavior of AGR can be determined from the steady-state
outlet concentrations for various inlet concentrations of COD using a
modified Monod model. The assumptions are oxygen limitation is not
present in AGR, and at a steady state, the growth rate of the microor­
ganism is in equilibrium with its decay rate. Hence, the kinetic co­
efficients were considered to be constant over the period. The kinetic
coefficients can be determined using the plug flow model at steady-state
using the Eq. (13) (Padhi and Gokhale 2016).
dC
= − Q
dC
+r (13)
dt dv
where, C is the COD concentration (mg/L), Q the flow rate of leachate
(L/h), t the time (h), V the working volume (L) of AGR, and r the
biodegradation rate (mg/L h) as shown in Eq. (14).
rmax C
r= (14)
Ks + C
where, rmax is the maximum biodegradation rate (mg/L h) and Ks the
half-saturation constant (mg/L).
At steady sate, the accumulation term dC/dt equals zero. Integrating
Eq. (13) under the given conditions from Ci to Co and solving equations
(13) and (14), resulting Eq. (15) (Saxena et al., 2021):
V/Q
=
Ks 1
+
1
(15)
Ci − Co rmax Cln rmax
where, Ci is the inlet and Co the outlet COD concentrations (mg/L), Cln
the log mean concentration [(Ci − Co)/ln(Ci/Co)], rmax the maximum
biodegradation rate (mg/L h), and Ks the half-saturation constant (mg/
L). The kinetic coefficients rmax and Ks can be estimated from a plot
between (1/Cln) and [(V/Q)/(Ci − Co)].
4.9. Integrated process for landfill leachate treatment
Owing to the high organic strength of landfill leachate, it needs post-
treatment in addition to the biological process as it is promising due to
its operational simplicity and highly cost-effective concerning removal
efficiency. Young landfill leachate with a high BOD/COD ratio (0.5–1)
can be readily biodegradable, providing higher removal efficiency for
mature landfill leachate contains a low BOD/COD ratio with high NH3-N
concentrations, which causes severe pollution, imparting detrimental
effects to biological processes by reducing the removal efficiency.
Hence, the biological process solely cannot be efficient, which needs
other advanced oxidation processes in combination with the biological
process to enhance the treatment.
Integrating ASP and reverse osmosis (RO) efficiently treats landfill
leachate by completely removing COD and NH3-N (Babaei et al., 2021).
The ASP helps degrade the organic matters present in leachate and af­
terward, the leachate enters the RO process to separate the residual
particles present in it (Fig. 5a). In a recent study, integrating reverse
osmosis (RO) with ASP and RBC separately was very efficient for
treating landfill leachate (Tałałaj et al., 2019). The ASP followed by RO
successfully removed ~99% of COD and NH3-N. Similarly, the combi­
nation of RBC-RO removed 99% of COD, BOD, and NH3-N. Kargi and
Pamukoglu (2003) used pre-treatment for landfill leachate by chemical
precipitation with lime to reduce the COD and air stripping for ammonia
removal. Subsequently, the final treatment was performed in a fed-batch
reactor with 76% COD and 23% NH3-N removal at 30 h HRT. A pilot-
scale anoxic RBC integrated with an aeration tank was used to treat
landfill leachate for 88 d, which resulted in the maximum removals of
85, 99, and 84% for COD, NH3-N, and total nitrogen (TN), respectively
(Song et al., 2020). da Costa et al. (2018) used the solar photo-fenton
process during pre-treatment to enhance the biodegradation of young
and mature leachate by reducing its toxicity. Nitrogen removal using
Anammox is an efficient and reliable technique from old and stabilized
landfill leachate, whereas conventional nitrification–denitrification
processes are preferred for young landfill leachate (Miao et al., 2019).
The effectiveness of coagulation/ultrafiltration (UF) and adsorption/UF
as a pre-treatment for stabilized landfill leachate, followed by nano­
filtration (NF) and RO was studied by Dolar et al. (2016). Coagulation
was better than adsorption to remove the COD (65%), TOC (86%), and
turbidity (87%), followed by ultrafiltration, which is primarily used to
reduce the membrane fouling. In the post-treatment using NF-RO, more
than 80% COD and TOC removal were observed, showing its effective­
ness for treating landfill leachate. Tałałaj et al. (2021) investigated the
effectiveness of SBR-RO for treating young and stabilized landfill
leachate. For young landfill leachate, the COD, BOD, and NH3-N
removal were 97.4, 99.8, and 99.9%, respectively. The removal

11
V. Saxena et al. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689

Fig. 5. Integrated process (a) ASP-RO (Babaei et al., 2021) and (b) of AGR-MBR for leachate treatment (Zhang et al., 2021).

efficiencies for both the leachates were almost similar. However, a very
high NH3-N removal (>99%) was observed using the integrated SBR-RO
process. Table 6 represents the various integrated process used for
landfill leachate treatment.
4.10. Future prospects of AGR
Slow granulation and low granule stability have restricted the
commercial application of AGR (Lin et al., 2020). However, an inte­
grated process enhanced the performance of AGR while treating landfill
leachate (Dai et al., 2020). Very limited research is available for inte­
grating AGR with other treatment processes for treating landfill
leachate. Liébana et al. (2018) used a hybrid reactor by integrating AGR
with MBR to increase the treatment efficiency, which is also energy-
efficient and requires a small footprint. Aerobic granules cultivated in
a MBR along with moving bio-carriers with a 10% filling ratio show the
stability of granules for more than two months (Dai et al., 2020). It has
been reported that a significant reduction in membrane fouling was
achieved by using AGR as pre-treatment followed by MBRs (Truong
et al., 2018). Wang et al. (2020) reported that ferrous-assisted AGR in­
tegrated with MBR and RO produced high-grade treated effluent,
removing more than 99.9% of dissolved organics, 99.7% of NH3-N, and
100% of total phosphorus. Although integrating AGR with MBR seems
beneficial for achieving desirable effluent quality, the membrane fouling

Table 6
Integrated process for treatment of landfill leachate.
Integrated treatment methods Influent COD concentration COD removal Influent NH3-N concentration NH3-N removal References
(mg/L) efficiency (%) (mg/L) efficiency (%)

SBR-adsorption 3200 43 1800 96 (Babaei et al., 2021)

SBR-RO 2180 96 910 99.9 (Tałałaj et al., 2021)
ASP-RO 1153 99 6440 99 (Luo et al., 2020)
CW-adsorption 2301 86 627 99 (Luo et al., 2020)
RBC-RO 3176 99 884 99 (Tałałaj et al., 2019)
Membrane bioreactor-RO 400–1500 97 200–1400 96 (Tałałaj et al., 2019)
SAMBR-AMBR 1730 96 44 ~100 (Trzcinski & Stuckey
2016)
Trickling filters- 765 53 342 94 (Oumar et al., 2016)
electrocoagulation

SAMBR: Submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor, AMBR: Aerobic membrane bioreactor.

12
V. Saxena et al.
in MBR remained a major drawback for its further application. The
integration of AGR with MBR for mitigation of membrane fouling is
shown in Fig. 5b. Zhang and Jiang (2019) suggested that the granule size
of about 1–1.2 mm could effectively improve flux and reduce membrane
fouling in MBR. Recent advances in AGR-MBR suggested that the
scouring of aerobic granules has significant contribution rates (39.9%)
for mitigating membrane fouling as compared to the structure of gran­
ules and hydraulic shear (Zhang et al., 2021b).
5. Conclusions
The landfill becomes an integral part of many developing countries,
resulting in the production of harmful leachate, posing a severe threat to
the environment. Diverse approaches and techniques are used for
treating landfill leachate. Age of the leachate, COD concentration, and
BOD/COD ratio are the significant parameters considered while adopt­
ing any treatment processes. This study critically reviewed landfill
leachate treatment using different biological processes and the recent
developments in AGR to enhance its treatment. After a detailed discus­
sion, the AGR found a promising single-stage technology with a small
footprint, which can resist the high shock load of leachate. A very few
studies have reported the treatment of landfill leachate using an inte­
grated process highlighted in this study. Integrating AGR with other
post-treatment techniques like MBR could be a promising solution by
retaining the suspended solids to increase the overall performance
during landfill leachate treatment. Despite the advantages offered by
AGR for treating landfill leachate, the full-scale application is still very
limited, which needs more detailed investigation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Vikalp Saxena: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing-original
draft. Susant Kumar Padhi: Conceptualization, Supervision, Valida­
tion, Visualization, Writing-review & editing. Pritam Kumar Dikshit:
Visualization, Writing-review & editing. Lopa Pattanaik: Writing-
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abuabdou, S.M.A., Ahmad, W., Aun, N.C., Bashir, M.J.K., 2020. A review of anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for the treatment of highly contaminated landfill
leachate and biogas production: effectiveness, limitations and future perspectives.
J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120215.
Adav, S.S., Lee, D.-J., Show, K.-Y., Tay, J.-H., 2008. Aerobic granular sludge: recent
advances. Biotechnol. Adv. 26 (5), 411–423.
Aghamohammadi, N., Aziz, H., Isa, M., Zinatizadeh, A., 2007. Powdered activated
carbon augmented activated sludge process for treatment of semi-aerobic landfill
leachate using response surface methodology. Bioresour. Technol. 98 (18),
3570–3578.
Aluko, O.O., Sridhar, M.KC., 2013. Evaluation of leachate treatment by trickling filter
and sequencing batch reactor processes in Ibadan. Nigeria. Waste Manag. Res. 31
(7), 700–705.
Amaral, M.C., Moravia, W.G., Lange, L.C., Zico, M.R., Magalhães, N.C., Ricci, B.C.,
Reis, B.G., 2016. Pilot aerobic membrane bioreactor and nanofiltration for municipal
landfill leachate treatment. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 51, 640–649.
Amaral, M.C.S., Pereira, H.V., Nani, E., Lange, L.C., 2015. Treatment of landfill leachate
by hybrid precipitation/microfiltration/nanofiltration process. Water Sci. Technol.
72, 269–276.
Awang, N.A., Shaaban, M.G., 2016. Effect of reactor height/diameter ratio and organic
loading rate on formation of aerobic granular sludge in sewage treatment. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 112, 1–11.
Babaei, S., Sabour, M.R., Moftakhari Anasori Movahed, S., 2021. Combined landfill
leachate treatment methods: an overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–14.
Baettker, E.C., Kozak, C., Knapik, H.G., Aisse, M.M., 2020. Applicability of conventional
and non-conventional parameters for municipal landfill leachate characterization.
Chemosphere 251, 126414.
13
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
Bassin, J.P., Dezotti, M., 2018. Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). In: Dezotti, M.,
Lippel, G., Bassin, J.P. (Eds.), Advanced Biological Processes for Wastewater
Treatment. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 37–74.
Bejgarn, S., MacLeod, M., Bogdal, C., Breitholtz, M., 2015. Toxicity of leachate from
weathering plastics: an exploratory screening study with Nitocra spinipes.
Chemosphere 132, 114–119.
Boumechhour, F., Rabah, K., Lamine, C., Said, B.M., 2013. Treatment of landfill leachate
using Fenton process and coagulation/flocculation. Water Environ. J. 27 (1),
114–119.
Bove, D., Merello, S., Frumento, D., Arni, S.A., Aliakbarian, B., Converti, A., 2015.
A critical review of biological processes and technologies for landfill leachate
treatment. Chem. Eng. Technol. 38 (12), 2115–2126.
Brasil, Y.L., Silva, A.F., Gomes, R.F., Amaral, M.C., 2021. Technical and economic
evaluation of the integration of membrane bioreactor and air-stripping/absorption
processes in the treatment of landfill leachate. Waste Manage. 134, 110–119.
Bressani-Ribeiro, T., Almeida, P.G.S., Volcke, E.I.P., Chernicharo, C.A.L., 2018. Trickling
filters following anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the art and perspectives.
Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 4 (11), 1721–1738.
Britz, T.J., 2020. Landfill leachate treatment. In: Microbiology of Landfill Sites. CRC
Press, pp. 131–164.
Budihardjo, M.A., Wibowo, Y.G., Ramadan, B.S., Serunting, M.A., Yohana, E., 2021.
Mercury removal using modified activated carbon of peat soil and coal in simulated
landfill leachate. Environ. Technol. Innov. 24, 102022.
Bueno, R.D.F., Faria, J.K., Uliana, D.P., Liduino, V.S., 2021. Simultaneous removal of
organic matter and nitrogen compounds from landfill leachate by aerobic granular
sludge. Environ. Technol. 1–15.
Calabrò, P.S., Sbaffoni, S., Orsi, S., Gentili, E., Meoni, C., 2010. The landfill reinjection of
concentrated leachate: Findings from a monitoring study at an Italian site. J. Hazard.
Mater. 181 (1-3), 962–968.
Canziani, R., Emondi, V., Garavaglia, M., Malpei, F., Pasinetti, E., Buttiglieri, G., 2006.
Effect of oxygen concentration on biological nitrification and microbial kinetics in a
cross-flow membrane bioreactor (MBR) and moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
treating old landfill leachate. J. Membr. Sci. 286 (1-2), 202–212.
Carrera, P., Campo, R., Méndez, R., Di Bella, G., Campos, J.L., Mosquera-Corral, A., Del
Rio, A.V., 2019. Does the feeding strategy enhance the aerobic granular sludge
stability treating saline effluents? Chemosphere 226, 865–873.
Castillo, E., Vergara, M., Moreno, Y., 2007. Landfill leachate treatment using a rotating
biological contactor and an upward-flow anaerobic sludge bed reactor. Waste
Manage. 27 (5), 720–726.
Çeçen, F., Aktaş, Ö., 2004. Aerobic co-treatment of landfill leachate with domestic
wastewater. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21 (3), 303–312.
Çeçen, F., Gürsoy, G., 2001. Biosorption of heavy metals from landfill leachate onto
activated sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 36 (6), 987–998.
Cema, G., Wiszniowski, J., Żabczyński, S., Zabłocka-Godlewska, E., Raszka, A., Surmacz-
Górska, J., 2007. Biological nitrogen removal from landfill leachate by
deammonification assisted by heterotrophic denitrification in a rotating biological
contactor (RBC). Water Sci. Technol. 55, 35–42.
Chen, S., Sun, D., Chung, J.S., 2008. Simultaneous removal of COD and ammonium from
landfill leachate using an anaerobic–aerobic moving-bed biofilm reactor system.
Waste Manage. 28, 339–346.
Chen, W.H., Tsai, C.Y., Chen, S.Y., Sung, S., Lin, J.G., 2019. Treatment of campus
domestic wastewater using ambient-temperature anaerobic fluidized membrane
bioreactors with zeolites as carriers. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 136, 49–54.
Chen, Y., Jiang, W., Liang, D.T., Tay, J.H., 2007. Structure and stability of aerobic
granules cultivated under different shear force in sequencing batch reactors. Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 76, 1199–1208.
Cheng, W., Quan, X., Huang, X., Cheng, C., Yang, L., Cheng, Z., 2018. Enhancement of
micro-filtration performance for biologically-treated leachate from municipal solid
waste by ozonation in a micro bubble reactor. Sep. Purif. Technol. 207, 535–542.
Christensen, T.H., Kjeldsen, P., Albrechtsen, H.J.R., Heron, G., Nielsen, P.H., Bjerg, P.L.,
Holm, P.E., 1994. Attenuation of landfill leachate pollutants in aquifers. Crit. Rev.
Env. Sci. Technol. 24, 119–202.
Collado, S., Nunez, D., Oulego, P., Riera, F.A., Diaz, M., 2020. Effect of landfill leachate
ageing on ultrafiltration performance and membrane fouling behavior. J. Water
Process Eng. 36, 101291.
Cortez, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., Mota, M., 2008. Rotating biological contactors: A
review on main factors affecting performance. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7,
155–172.
Cortez, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., Mota, M., 2011. Denitrification of a landfill leachate
with high nitrate concentration in an anoxic rotating biological contactor.
Biodegradation 22, 661–671.
Costa, R.H.R., Martins, C.L., Fernandes, H., Velho, V.F., 2014. Consortia of microalgae
and bacteria in the performance of a stabilization pond system treating landfill
leachate. Water Sci. Technol. 70, 486–494.
da Costa, F.M., Daflon, S.D.A., Bila, D.M., da Fonseca, F.V., Campos, J.C., 2018.
Evaluation of the biodegradability and toxicity of landfill leachates after
pretreatment using advanced oxidative processes. Waste Manage. 76, 606–613.
Dai, C., Bin, L., Tang, B., Li, P., Huang, S., Fu, F., Yin, Q., 2020. Promoting the
granulation process of aerobic granular sludge in an integrated moving bed biofilm-
membrane bioreactor under a continuous-flowing mode. Sci. Total Environ. 703,
135482.
De Kreuk, M.K., Pronk, M., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2005. Formation of aerobic granules
and conversion processes in an aerobic granular sludge reactor at moderate and low
temperatures. Water Res. 39, 4476–4484.
V. Saxena et al.
de Rollemberg, S.L., Barros, A.R.M., Firmino, P.I.M., Santos, A.B.D., 2018. Aerobic
granular sludge: cultivation parameters and removal mechanisms. Bioresour.
Technol. 270, 678–688.
de Sousa Rollemberg, S.L., Ferreira, T.J.T., Firmino, P.I.M., Dos Santos, A.B., 2020.
Impact of cycle type on aerobic granular sludge formation, stability, removal
mechanisms and system performance. J. Environ. Manage. 256, 109970.
De, S., Maiti, S., Hazra, T., Debsarkar, A., Dutta, A., 2016. Leachate characterization and
identification of dominant pollutants using leachate pollution index for an
uncontrolled landfill site. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2, 177–186.
Devlin, T.R., Di Biase, A., Kowalski, M., Oleszkiewicz, J.A., 2017. Granulation of
activated sludge under low hydrodynamic shear and different wastewater
characteristics. Bioresour. Technol. 224, 229–235.
Di Bellaa, G., Torregrossa, M., 2014. Aerobic granular sludge for leachate treatment.
Chem. Eng. 38.
di Biase, A., Kowalski, M.S., Devlin, T.R., Oleszkiewicz, J.A., 2019. Moving bed biofilm
reactor technology in municipal wastewater treatment: A review. J. Environ.
Manage. 247, 849–866.
Dolar, D., Košutić, K., Strmecky, T., 2016. Hybrid processes for treatment of landfill
leachate: Coagulation/UF/ NF-RO and adsorption/UF/NF-RO. Sep. Purif. Technol.
168, 39–46.
Duyar, A., Ciftcioglu, V., Cirik, K., Civelekoglu, G., Uruş, S., 2021. Treatment of landfill
leachate using single-stage anoxic moving bed biofilm reactor and aerobic
membrane reactor. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145919.
Farooq, R., Ahmad, Z., 2017. Physico-Chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource
Recovery. InTech Open.
Ferraz, F.D.M., Povinelli, J., Pozzi, E., Vieira, E.M., Trofino, J.C., 2014. Co-treatment of
landfill leachate and domestic wastewater using a submerged aerobic biofilter.
J. Environ. Manage. 141, 9–15.
Ferraz, F.M., Povinelli, J., Vieira, E.M., 2013. Ammonia removal from landfill leachate by
air stripping and absorption. Environ. Technol. 34, 2317–2326.
Frascari, D., Bronzini, F., Giordano, G., Tedioli, G., Nocentini, M., 2004. Long-term
characterization, lagoon treatment and migration potential of landfill leachate: a
case study in an active Italian landfill. Chemosphere 54, 335–343.
Geenens, D., Bixio, B., Thoeye, C., 2001. Combined ozone-activated sludge treatment of
landfill leachate. Water Sci. Technol. 44, 359–365.
Gomes, A.I., Foco, M.L., Vieira, E., Cassidy, J., Silva, T.F., Fonseca, A., Saraiva, I.,
Boaventura, R.A.R., Vilar, V.J., 2019. Multistage treatment technology for leachate
from mature urban landfill: full scale operation performance and challenges. Chem.
Eng. J. 376, 120573.
Hamza, R.A., Iorhemen, O.T., Zaghloul, M.S., Tay, J.H., 2018. Rapid formation and
characterization of aerobic granules in pilot-scale sequential batch reactor for high-
strength organic wastewater treatment. J. Water Process Eng. 22, 27–33.
Hassan, M., Xie, B., 2014. Use of aged refuse-based bioreactor/biofilter for landfill
leachate treatment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 98, 6543–6553.
Henderson, J.P., Atwater, J.W., 1995. High ammonia landfill leachate treatment using
anaerobic filter and rotating biological contactor. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 22, 992–1000.
Henderson, J.P., Besler, D.A., Atwater, J.A., Mavinic, D.S., 1997. Treatment of
methanogenic landfill leachate to remove ammonia using a rotating biological
contactor (RBC) and a sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Environ. Technol. 18,
687–698.
Hu, W., Zhou, Y., Min, X., Liu, J., Li, X., Luo, L., Zhang, J., Mao, Q., Chai, L., Zhou, Y.Y.,
2018. The study of a pilot-scale aerobic / Fenton / anoxic / aerobic process system
for the treatment of landfill leachate. Environ. Technol. 39, 1926–1936.
Huang, H., Xiao, D., Zhang, Q., Ding, L., 2014. Removal of ammonia from landfill
leachate by struvite precipitation with the use of low-cost phosphate and magnesium
sources. J. Environ. Manage. 145, 191–198.
Huang, J., Chen, J., Xie, Z., Xu, X., 2015. Treatment of nanofiltration concentrates of
mature landfill leachate by a coupled process of coagulation and internal micro-
electrolysis adding hydrogen peroxide. Environ. Technol. 36, 1001–1007.
Islam, M., Xu, Q., Yuan, Q., 2020. Advanced biological sequential treatment of mature
landfill leachate using aerobic activated sludge SBR and fungal bioreactor.
J. Environ. Health Sci. 18, 285–295.
Ivanov, V., Wang, X.H., Tay, S.T.L., Tay, J.H., 2006. Bioaugmentation and enhanced
formation of microbial granules used in aerobic wastewater treatment. Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 70, 374–381.
Jagaba, A.H., Kutty, S.R.M., Lawal, I.M., Abubakar, S., Hassan, I., Zubairu, I.,
Abdurrasheed, A.S., Adam, A.A., Ghaleb, A.A.S., Almahbashi, N.M.Y., Al-dhawi, B.N.
S., Noor, A., 2021. Sequencing batch reactor technology for landfill leachate
treatment: A state-of-the-art review. J. Environ. Manage. 282, 111946.
Jiang, Y., Shang, Y., Wang, H., Yang, K., 2016. Rapid formation and pollutant removal
ability of aerobic granules in a sequencing batch airlift reactor at low temperature.
Environ. Technol. 37, 3078–3085.
Jinadasa, K.B.S.N., Meetiyagoda, T.A.O.K., Ng, W.J., 2018. Solid Waste (SW) Leachate
Treatment using Constructed Wetland Systems. In: Constructed Wetlands for
Industrial Wastewater Treatment, pp. 263–282.
Jokela, J.P.Y., Kettunen, R.H., Sormunen, K.M., Rintala, J.A., 2002. Biological nitrogen
removal from municipal landfill leachate: low-cost nitrification in biofilters and
laboratory scale in-situ denitrification. Water Res. 36, 4079–4087.
Kargi, F., Pamukoglu, M.Y., 2003. Aerobic biological treatment of pre-treated landfill
leachate by fed-batch operation. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 33, 588–595.
Kheradmand, S., Karimi-Jashni, A., Sartaj, M., 2010. Treatment of municipal landfill
leachate using a combined anaerobic digester and activated sludge system. Waste
Manage. 30, 1025–1031.
Kietlińska, A., Renman, G., 2005. An evaluation of reactive filter media for treating
landfill leachate. Chemosphere 61, 933–940.
14
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
Kulikowska, D., Jóźwiak, T., Kowal, P., Ciesielski, S., 2010. Municipal landfill leachate
nitrification in RBC biofilm–Process efficiency and molecular analysis of microbial
structure. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 3400–3405.
Kulikowska, D., Klimiuk, E., 2008. The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate
composition. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 5981–5985.
Kurniawan, T.A., Lo, W., Chan, G., Sillanpää, M.E., 2010. Biological processes for
treatment of landfill leachate. J. Environ. Monit. 12, 2032–2047.
Kurniawan, T.A., Singh, D., Avtar, R., Othman, M.H.D., Hwang, G.H., Albadarin, A.B.,
Rezakazemi, M., Setiadi, T., Shirazian, S., 2021. Resource recovery from landfill
leachate: An experimental investigation and perspectives. Chemosphere 274,
129986.
Lee, D.J., Chen, Y.Y., Show, K.Y., Whiteley, C.G., Tay, J.H., 2010. Advances in aerobic
granule formation and granule stability in the course of storage and reactor
operation. Biotechnol. Adv. 28, 919–934.
Lee, J.K., Choi, C.K., Lee, K.H., Yim, S.B., 2008. Mass balance of nitrogen, and estimates
of COD, nitrogen and phosphorus used in microbial synthesis as a function of sludge
retention time in a sequencing batch reactor system. Bioresour. Technol. 99,
7788–7796.
Leite, V.D., Pearson, H.W., De Sousa, J.T., Lopes, W.S., De Luna, M.L.D., 2011. The
removal of ammonia from sanitary landfill leachate using a series of shallow waste
stabilization ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 63, 666–670.
Liébana, R., Modin, O., Persson, F., Wilén, B.M., 2018. Integration of aerobic granular
sludge and membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.
38, 801–816.
Lin, H., Ma, R., Hu, Y., Lin, J., Sun, S., Jiang, J., Lia, T., Liao, Q., Luo, J., 2020. Reviewing
bottlenecks in aerobic granular sludge technology: Slow granulation and low
granular stability. Environ. Pollut. 114638.
Linlin, H., Jianlong, W., Xianghua, W., Yi, Q., 2005. The formation and characteristics of
aerobic granules in sequencing batch reactor (SBR) by seeding anaerobic granules.
Process Biochem. 40, 5–11.
Lippi, M., Ley, M.B.R.G., Mendez, G.P., Junior, R.A.F.C., 2018. State of art of landfill
leachate treatment: literature review and critical evaluation. C. e. N. 40, 78.
Liu, Y., Liu, Q.S., 2006. Causes and control of filamentous growth in aerobic granular
sludge sequencing batch reactors. Biotechnol. Adv. 24, 115–127.
Liu, Y., Tay, J.H., 2004. State of the art of biogranulation technology for wastewater
treatment. Biotechnol. Adv. 22, 533–563.
Liu, Y., Wang, Z.W., Qin, L., Liu, Y.Q., Tay, J.H., 2005. Selection pressure-driven aerobic
granulation in a sequencing batch reactor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 67, 26–32.
Liu, Y.Q., Zhang, X., Zhang, R., Liu, W.T., Tay, J.H., 2016. Effects of hydraulic retention
time on aerobic granulation and granule growth kinetics at steady state with a fast
start-up strategy. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100, 469–477.
Lochmatter, S., Holliger, C., 2014. Optimization of operation conditions for the startup of
aerobic granular sludge reactors biologically removing carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorous. Water Res. 59, 58–70.
Long, B., Yang, C.Z., Pu, W.H., Yang, J.K., Liu, F.B., Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Cheng, K., 2015.
Tolerance to organic loading rate by aerobic granular sludge in a cyclic aerobic
granular reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 182, 314–322.
Lopez-Vazquez, C.M., Hooijmans, C.M., Brdjanovic, D., Gijzen, H.J., van Loosdrecht, M.
C., 2009. Temperature effects on glycogen accumulating organisms. Water Res. 43,
2852–2864.
Loukidou, M.X., Zouboulis, A.I., 2001. Comparison of two biological treatment processes
using attached-growth biomass for sanitary landfill leachate treatment. Environ.
Pollut. 111, 273–281.
Luo, H., Zeng, Y., Cheng, Y., He, D., Pan, X., 2020. Recent advances in municipal landfill
leachate: A review focusing on its characteristics, treatment, and toxicity assessment.
Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135468.
Martins, C.L., Fernandes, H., Costa, R.H.R., 2013. Landfill leachate treatment as
measured by nitrogen transformations in stabilization ponds. Bioresour. Technol.
147, 562–568.
Matthews, R., Winson, M., Scullion, J., 2009. Treating landfill leachate using passive
aeration trickling filters; effects of leachate characteristics and temperature on rates
and process dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 2557–2564.
Mehmood, M.K., Adetutu, E., Nedwell, D.B., Ball, A.S., 2009. In situ microbial treatment
of landfill leachate using aerated lagoons. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2741–2744.
Miao, L., Wang, S., Li, B., Cao, T., Xue, T., Peng, Y., 2015. Advanced nitrogen removal via
nitrite using stored polymers in a modified sequencing batch reactor treating landfill
leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 192, 354–360.
Miao, L., Yang, G., Tao, T., Peng, Y., 2019. Recent advances in nitrogen removal from
landfill leachate using biological treatments–A review. J. Environ. Manage. 235,
178–185.
Mirghorayshi, M., Zinatizadeh, A.A., van Loosdrecht, M., 2021. Simultaneous
biodegradability enhancement and high-efficient nitrogen removal in an innovative
single stage anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic hybrid airlift bioreactor (HALBR) for
composting leachate treatment: Process modeling and optimization. Chem. Eng. J.
407, 127019.
Mondal, B., Warith, M.A., 2008. Use of shredded tire chips and tire crumbs as packing
media in trickling filter systems for landfill leachate treatment. Environ. Technol. 29,
827–836.
Moody, C.M., Townsend, T.G., 2017. A comparison of landfill leachates based on waste
composition. Waste Manage. 63, 267–274.
Muda, K., Aris, A., Salim, M.R., Ibrahim, Z., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ahmad, A.,
Nawahwi, M.Z., 2011. The effect of hydraulic retention time on granular sludge
biomass in treating textile wastewater. Water Res. 45, 4711–4721.
Müller, G.T., Giacobbo, A., dos Santos Chiaramonte, E.A., Rodrigues, M.A.S.,
Meneguzzi, A., Bernardes, A.M., 2015. The effect of sanitary landfill leachate aging
V. Saxena et al.
on the biological treatment and assessment of photoelectrooxidation as a pre-
treatment process. Waste Manage. 36, 177–183.
Nancharaiah, Y.V., Reddy, G.K.K., 2018. Aerobic granular sludge technology:
Mechanisms of granulation and biotechnological applications. Bioresour. Technol.
247, 1128–1143.
Negi, P., Mor, S., Ravindra, K., 2020. Impact of landfill leachate on the groundwater
quality in three cities of North India and health risk assessment. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 22, 1455–1474.
Ødegaard, H., 2006. Innovations in wastewater treatment–the moving bed biofilm
process. Water Sci. Technol. 53, 17–33.
Oumar, D., Patrick, D., Gerardo, B., Rino, D., Ihsen, B.S., 2016. Coupling biofiltration
process and electrocoagulation using magnesium-based anode for the treatment of
landfill leachate. J. Environ. Manage. 181, 477–483.
Padhi, S.K., Gokhale, S., 2014. Biological oxidation of gaseous VOCs–rotating biological
contactor a promising and eco-friendly technique. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2,
2085–2102.
Padhi, S.K., Gokhale, S., 2016. Benzene control from waste gas streams with a sponge-
medium based rotating biological contactor. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 109,
96–103.
Padhi, S.K., Gokhale, S., 2017. Treatment of gaseous volatile organic compounds using a
rotating biological filter. Bioresour. Technol. 244, 270–280.
Pijuan, M., Werner, U., Yuan, Z., 2011. Reducing the startup time of aerobic granular
sludge reactors through seeding floccular sludge with crushed aerobic granules.
Water Res. 45, 5075–5083.
Pishgar, R., Dominic, J.A., Sheng, Z., Tay, J.H., 2019. Influence of operation mode and
wastewater strength on aerobic granulation at pilot scale: Startup period, granular
sludge characteristics, and effluent quality. Water Res. 160, 81–96.
Pishgar, R., Kanda, A., Gress, G.R., Gong, H., Dominic, J.A., Tay, J.H., 2018. Effect of
aeration pattern and gas distribution during scale-up of bubble column reactor for
aerobic granulation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 6, 6431–6443.
Pronk, M., De Kreuk, M.K., De Bruin, B., Kamminga, P., Kleerebezem, R.V., Van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2015. Full scale performance of the aerobic granular sludge
process for sewage treatment. Water Res. 84, 207–217.
Pronk, M., Giesen, A., Thompson, A., Robertson, S., Van Loosdrecht, M., 2017. Aerobic
granular biomass technology: advancements in design, applications and further
developments. Water Pract. Technol. 12, 987–996.
Ramalho, M., Jovanović, T., Afonso, A., Baía, A., Lopes, A., Fernandes, A., Almeida, A.,
Carvalho, F., 2022. Landfill leachate treatment by immediate one-step lime
precipitation, carbonation, and phytoremediation fine-tuning. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 1–10.
Ren, Y., Ferraz, F., Lashkarizadeh, M., Yuan, Q., 2017a. Comparing young landfill
leachate treatment efficiency and process stability using aerobic granular sludge and
suspended growth activated sludge. J. Water Process Eng. 17, 161–167.
Ren, Y., Ferraz, F.M., Yuan, Q., 2017b. Landfill Leachate Treatment Using Aerobic
Granular Sludge. J. Environ. Eng. 143, 1–7.
Ren, Y., Ferraz, F.M., Yuan, Q., 2018. Biological leachate treatment using anaerobic/
aerobic process: suspended growth-activated sludge versus aerobic granular sludge.
Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15, 2295–2302.
Renou, S., Givaudan, J.G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F., Moulin, P., 2008. Landfill
leachate treatment: Review and opportunity. J. Hazard. Mater. 150, 468–493.
Rodgers, M., Zhan, X.M., 2003. Moving-medium biofilm reactors. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 2, 213–224.
Rohers, F., Dalsasso, R.L., Nadaleti, W.C., Matias, M.S., de Castilhos Júnior, A.B., 2021.
Physical–chemical pre-treatment of sanitary landfill raw leachate by direct
ascending filtration. Chemosphere 285, 131362.
Sanguanpak, S., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Yamamoto, K., 2015. Effects of
mixed liquor pH on membrane fouling and micro-pollutant removals in membrane
bioreactors for municipal landfill leachate treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 72,
770–778.
Sarma, S.J., Tay, J.H., Chu, A., 2017. Finding Knowledge Gaps in Aerobic Granulation
Technology. Trends Biotechnol. 35, 66–78.
Saxena, V., Padhi, S.K., Jhunjhunwala, U., 2021. Treatment of domestic sewage and
leachate using a moving bed hybrid bioreactor. Environ. Technol. Innov. 101998.
Seid-mohammadi, A., Asgari, G., Asadi, F., 2022. The biological nutrient removal (BNR)
process in Aerobic granular sludge systems treating real landfill leachate of a West
Metropolis in Iran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1–12.
Seid-mohammadi, A., Asgari, G., Rafiee, M., Samadi, M.T., Nouri, F., Pirsaheb, M.,
Asadi, F., 2021. Kinetic study of real landfill leachate treated by non-thermal plasma
(NTP) and granular sequential batch reactors (GSBR). J. Water Process Eng. 43,
102245.
Sepúlveda-Mardones, M., Campos, J.L., Magrí, A., Vidal, G., 2019. Moving forward in the
use of aerobic granular sludge for municipal wastewater treatment: an overview.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 18, 741–769.
Setiadi, T., Fairus, S., 2003. Hazardous waste landfill leachate treatment using an
activated sludge-membrane system. Water Sci. Technol. 48, 111–117.
Shah, T.M., Ramaswami, S., Behrendt, J., Otterpohl, R., 2017. Simultaneous removal of
organics and ammonium-nitrogen from reverse osmosis concentrate of mature
landfill leachate. J. Water Process Eng. 19, 126–132.
Shehzad, A., Bashir, M.J., Sethupathi, S., Lim, J.W., 2015. An overview of heavily
polluted landfill leachate treatment using food waste as an alternative and
renewable source of activated carbon. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 98, 309–318.
Siegrist, H., Reithaar, S., Lais, P., 1998. Nitrogen loss in a nitrifying rotating contactor
treating ammonium rich leachate without organic carbon. Water Sci. Technol. 37,
589–591.
Silva, T.F., Fonseca, A., Saraiva, I., Vilar, V.J., Boaventura, R.A., 2013. Biodegradability
enhancement of a leachate after biological lagooning using a solar driven photo-
15
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
Fenton reaction, and further combination with an activated sludge biological
process, at pre-industrial scale. Water Res. 47, 3543–3557.
Smol, M., Włodarczyk-Makuła, M., Mielczarek, K., Bohdziewicz, J., Włóka, D., 2016. The
use of reverse osmosis in the removal of PAHs from municipal landfill leachate.
Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 20–39.
Song, J., Zhang, W., Gao, J., Hu, X., Zhang, C., He, Q., Zhan, X., 2020. A pilot-scale study
on the treatment of landfill leachate by a composite biological system under low
dissolved oxygen conditions: Performance and microbial community. Bioresour.
Technol. 296, 122344.
Song, Z., Zhang, X., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Song, P., Zhang, Y., Wen, H., Guo, J., 2019.
Zeolite powder based polyurethane sponges as biocarriers in moving bed biofilm
reactor for improving nitrogen removal of municipal wastewater. Sci. Total Environ.
651, 1078–1086.
Syron, E., Semmens, M.J., Casey, E., 2015. Performance analysis of a pilot-scale
membrane aerated biofilm reactor for the treatment of landfill leachate. Chem. Eng.
J. 273, 120–129.
Tałałaj, I.A., Bartkowska, I., Biedka, P., 2021. Treatment of young and stabilized landfill
leachate by integrated sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and reverse osmosis (RO)
process. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manage. 100502.
Tałałaj, I.A., Biedka, P., Bartkowska, I., 2019. Treatment of landfill leachates with
biological pretreatments and reverse osmosis. Environ. Chem. Lett. 17, 1177–1193.
Tay, J.H., Pan, S., He, Y., Tay, S.T.L., 2004. Effect of organic loading rate on aerobic
granulation. II: Characterisctics of aerobic granules. J. Environ. Eng. 130,
1102–1109.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2003. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw Hill Education, India.
Teng, C., Zhou, K., Peng, C., Chen, W., 2021. Characterization and treatment of landfill
leachate: A review. Water Res. 203, 117525.
Tomar, S.K., Chakraborty, S., 2019. Comparison of rapid granulation developed from the
same industrial sludge with two different substrates. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.
142, 218–226.
Tomar, S.K., Kumar, R., Chakraborty, S., 2022. Simultaneous biodegradation of pyridine,
indole, and ammonium along with phenol and thiocyanate by aerobic granular
sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 422, 126861.
Torretta, V., Ferronato, N., Katsoyiannis, I.A., Tolkou, A.K., Airoldi, M., 2017. Novel and
conventional technologies for landfill leachates treatment: a review. Sustainability 9,
9.
Truong, H.T.B., Thanh Nguyen, P.T., Bui, H.M., 2018. Integration of aerobic granular
sludge and membrane filtration for tapioca processing wastewater treatment: fouling
mechanism and granular stability. J. Water Supply: Res. Technol.–Aqua 67,
846–857.
Trzcinski, A.P., Stuckey, D.C., 2016. Inorganic fouling of an anaerobic membrane
bioreactor treating leachate from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW) and a polishing aerobic membrane bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 204,
17–25.
Verawaty, M., Pijuan, M., Yuan, Z., Bond, P.L., 2012. Determining the mechanisms for
aerobic granulation from mixed seed of floccular and crushed granules in activated
sludge wastewater treatment. Water Res. 46, 761–771.
Wang, K., Li, L., Tan, F., Wu, D., 2018. Treatment of landfill leachate using activated
sludge technology: A review. Archaea.
Wang, K., Wang, S., Zhu, R., Miao, L., Peng, Y., 2013. Advanced nitrogen removal from
landfill leachate without addition of external carbon using a novel system coupling
ASBR and modified SBR. Bioresour. Technol. 134, 212–218.
Wang, S., Chew, J.W., Liu, Y., 2020. Development of an integrated aerobic granular
sludge MBR and reverse osmosis process for municipal wastewater reclamation. Sci.
Total Environ. 748, 141309.
Wang, X., Li, J., Zhang, X., Chen, Z., Shen, J., Kang, J., 2021. Impact of hydraulic
retention time on swine wastewater treatment by aerobic granular sludge
sequencing batch reactor. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 5927–5937.
Webler, A.D., Moreira, F.C., Dezotti, M.W.C., Mahler, C.F., Segundo, I.D.B.,
Boaventura, R.A.R., Vilar, V.J.P., 2019. Development of an integrated treatment
strategy for a leather tannery landfill leachate. Waste Manage. 89, 114–128.
Wei, Y., Ji, M., Li, R., Qin, F., 2012. Organic and nitrogen removal from landfill leachate
in aerobic granular sludge sequencing batch reactors. Waste Manage. 32, 448–455.
Wei, Y., Ye, Y., Ji, M., Peng, S., Qin, F., Guo, W., Ngo, H.H., 2021. Microbial analysis for
the ammonium removal from landfill leachate in an aerobic granular sludge
sequencing batch reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 324, 124639.
Welander, U., Henrysson, T., Welander, T., 1997. Nitrification of landfill leachate using
suspended-carrier biofilm technology. Water Res. 31, 2351–2355.
Welander, U., Henrysson, T., Welander, T., 1998. Biological nitrogen removal from
municipal landfill leachate in a pilot scale suspended carrier biofilm process. Water
Res. 32, 1564–1570.
Wilén, B.M., Liébana, R., Persson, F., Modin, O., Hermansson, M., 2018. The mechanisms
of granulation of activated sludge in wastewater treatment, its optimization, and
impact on effluent quality. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 102, 5005–5020.
Winkler, M.K.H., Meunier, C., Henriet, O., Mahillon, J., Suárez-Ojeda, M.E., Del
Moro, G., Weissbrodt, D.G., 2018. An integrative review of granular sludge for the
biological removal of nutrients and recalcitrant organic matter from wastewater.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 336, 489–502.
Xia, Y., He, P.J., Pu, H.X., Lü, F., Shao, L.M., Zhang, H., 2017. Inhibitory effect of high
calcium concentration on municipal solid waste leachate treatment by the activated
sludge process. Waste Manag. Res. 35, 508–514.
Xiong, J., Zheng, Z., Yang, X., He, J., Luo, X., Gao, B., 2018. Mature landfill leachate
treatment by the MBBR inoculated with biocarriers from a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 119, 304–310.
V. Saxena et al.
Yusof, N., Haraguchi, A., Hassan, M.A., Othman, M.R., Wakisaka, M., Shirai, Y., 2009.
Measuring organic carbon, nutrients and heavy metals in rivers receiving leachate
from controlled and uncontrolled municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. Waste
Manage. 29, 2666–2680.
Zhang, F., Peng, Y., Wang, Z., Jiang, H., Ren, S., Qiu, J., 2021a. New insights into co-
treatment of mature landfill leachate with municipal sewage via integrated partial
nitrification, Anammox and denitratation. J. Hazard. Mater. 415, 125506.
Zhang, J., Wu, X., Qiu, D., Mao, J., Zhang, H., 2019a. Pilot-scale in situ treatment of
landfill leachate using combined coagulation–flocculation, hydrolysis acidification,
SBR and electro-Fenton oxidation. Environ. Technol. 40, 2191–2200.
Zhang, Q., Hu, J., Lee, D.J., 2016. Aerobic granular processes: current research trends.
Bioresour. Technol. 210, 74–80.
Zhang, W., Jiang, F., 2019. Membrane fouling in aerobic granular sludge (AGS)
membrane bioreactor (MBR): Effect of AGS size. Water Res. 157, 445–453.
16
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 18 (2022) 100689
Zhang, W., Liang, W., Zhang, Z., Hao, T., 2021b. Aerobic granular sludge (AGS) scouring
to mitigate membrane fouling: Performance, hydrodynamic mechanism and
contribution quantification model. Water Res. 188, 116518.
Zhang, X., Song, Z., Guo, W., Lu, Y., Qi, L., Wen, H., Ngo, H.H., 2017. Behavior of
nitrogen removal in an aerobic sponge based moving bed biofilm reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 245, 1282–1285.
Zhang, Z., Qiu, J., Xiang, R., Yu, H., Xu, X., Zhu, L., 2019b. Organic loading rate (OLR)
regulation for enhancement of aerobic sludge granulation: role of key
microorganism and their function. Sci. Total Environ. 653, 630–637.
Zheng, S., Lu, H., Zhang, G., 2020. The recent development of the aerobic granular
sludge for industrial wastewater treatment: a mini review. Environ. Technol. Rev. 9,
55–66.
Zhu, Z., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Y., Zhang, M., Yu, Y., Guo, Y., Zhou, T., 2021. Efficient treatment
of mature landfill leachate with a novel composite biological trickle reactor
developed using refractory domestic waste and aged refuse. J. Clean. Prod. 305,
127194.