See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325982505

Investigations on fine fraction of aged municipal solid waste recovered

through landfill mining: Case study of three dumpsites from India

Article  in  Waste Management & Research · June 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X18782393

CITATIONS READS

17 790

4 authors, including:

Mohit Somani Manoj Datta

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
11 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    185 PUBLICATIONS   643 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

R. Gunturi
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
125 PUBLICATIONS   1,070 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Closure of Old Waste Dumps in India View project

ground response and liquefaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohit Somani on 25 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

782393
research-article2018
WMR0010.1177/0734242X18782393Waste Management & ResearchSomani et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Investigations on fine fraction of aged

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
municipal solid waste recovered through sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X18782393
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18782393

landfill mining: Case study of three journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

dumpsites from India

Mohit Somani1, Manoj Datta1, GV Ramana1 and TR Sreekrishnan2

Abstract
Reclamation of the dumps/landfills having huge quantities of decades-old garbage (aged waste or legacy waste) in an environmentally
sound manner is one of the major challenges faced by the developing nations in general and in particular by urban local bodies in
India. The article presents the feasibility of landfill mining operation specifically to recover soil-like material at old dumpsites of India
for re-use in geotechnical applications. Aged municipal solid waste was collected from three dumpsites of India and initial tests were
conducted on the soil-like material of the municipal solid waste. Initial tests results of grain size distribution, compositional analysis,
organic content, total dissolved solids, elemental analysis, heavy metal analysis and colour of the leached water from finer fraction
of aged municipal solid waste are presented. From the preliminary investigation, it was found that organic content in 15–20-year-old
dumpsites varies between 5%–12%. The total dissolved solids ranges between 1.2%–1.5%. The dark coloured water leaching out from
aged waste, with reference to local soil, is one of the objectionable parameters and depends on the organic content. The concentration
of heavy metals of the finer fraction were compared with the standards. It was found that copper, chromium and cadmium are present
at elevated levels in all the three dumpsites. The study concluded that the bulk of the soil-like material from aged municipal solid
waste landfills can be used as cover material for landfills at the same site. However, some treatment in terms of washing, thermal
treatment, blending with local soil, biological treatment, etc., is required before it can be re-used in other geotechnical applications.

Keywords
Aged municipal solid waste, critical parameters, fine fraction, landfill mining, open dumps, reuse

Received 22nd March 2018, accepted 15th May 2018 by Associate Editor Mario Grosso.

Introduction
The basic principle of sustainable solid waste management is to
maximise the utility of material to the greatest possible extent
with disposal as the least preferred option (Directive, 2008;
Wagner and Raymond, 2015). In contrast to this, waste per capita
is rising as economies develop. Globally, around 2 billion tonnes
per year of municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated annually
(Wilson et al., 2015). In 2008, India produced 48 million tonnes
of solid waste as per one estimate. By 2016, this had risen to 52
million tonnes (Kumar et al., 2017).
Open dumps pose numerous health, safety and environmental
threats. Some of these threats are: fire, contamination of streams,
rivers and lakes, soil and groundwater, drinking water owing to
the migration of leachate into subsoil, inhalation of toxic gases,
disease carried by mosquitoes, flies and rodents, damage to plant
and wildlife habitats, decrease in the quality of life of nearby resi-
dents and the local community. In developing countries open
dumpsites are common owing to the low budget for waste dis-
posal and non-availability of skilled manpower (Ali et al., 2014).
A total of 40% of the world’s waste directly goes to dumpsites; 38
out of 50 biggest dumpsites directly threaten marine and coastal
areas. The 50 biggest dumpsites directly affect daily lives of 64
million people. More than 750 people died in the first half of
2016 because of improper management of waste at dumpsites
(ISWA, 2017). There are thousands of unscientific and ill-
managed open dumpsites in India today, which are being noticed
owing to the various short and long-term issues and impacts they
can potentially cause (Kumar et al., 2017). Until 2011, about 59
landfills (basically open dumps) exist in the country, 376 landfills
were under planning and 1305 landfill sites were identified for
future use (Central Pollution Control Board, 2012).
1Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, New Delhi, India
2Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, IIT
Delhi, New Delhi, India
Corresponding author:
Mohit Somani, Department of Civil Engineering, Block IV/116, IIT
Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India.
Email: msomani02@gmail.com
2 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Table 1.  ‘Fine fraction’ as adopted in literature.
S.No. Reference Sieve size (mm)
1 Prechthai et al., 2008 50
2 Jain et al., 2005 0.475
3 Monkare et al., 2016 20
4 Wolfsberger et al., 2014 40
5 Masi et al., 2014 4 10
Landfill mining is the process of recovering valuable
materials from landfilled MSW. The process involves excava-
tion, pre-processing, trommeling/screening, post-treatment
and reuse of landfilled materials with the objectives of con-
servation of landfill space; reuse of materials; reduction of
landfill footprint; and elimination of potential contamination
source and rehabilitation of dumpsite (Rosendal et al., 2009).
Landfill mining can be defined as a process for extracting
minerals or other solid natural resources from waste materials
that previously have been disposed of by burying them in the
ground (Krook et al., 2012). The recoverable fractions from
landfill mining primarily includes metals, combustibles and
possibly soil-like material, which requires extensive study,
not only about the overall composition, but also about the
pretreatment before use (Kaartinen et al., 2013). Previous
studies/projects have shown that different landfill sites have
different potential for mining depending upon the age of
landfill, type of waste, location of the landfill, hydrological
and meteorological conditions, etc. The characterisation of
mined waste from landfill has been done by screening the
waste into different particle size fractions and subsequent
analysis on screened fractions (Hogland, 2002; Hull
et al.,2005; Kurian et al., 2003; Prechthai et al., 2008;
Quaghebeur et al., 2013). One of the most critical aspects of
landfill mining is the end term utility of the mined product
(Masi et al., 2014). One of the major hurdles in the success of
landfill mining operations is the difference between resource
potential and technical potential, that is for technical, eco-
nomical and ecological reasons, it is not possible to convert
the complete deposited resources into marketable recyclables
(Frandegard et al., 2013).
The high soil-like content in the aged MSW is likely the result
of daily covering soil, street sweepings, drain silt and construc-
tion and demolition (C&D) waste along with the humification of
organic matter in the fresh MSW (Parrodi et al., 2017). Several
definitions for ‘finer fractions’ are available in the literature
depending upon the sieve size adopted. Fine fractions (often
defined as size <10 mm to <60 mm) have been identified as 40%–
80% of the mined materials in previous studies (Hogland, 2002;
Hull et al., 2005; Kaartinen et al., 2013; Kurian et al, 2003;
Monkare et al., 2016). The sieve size used in various studies are
shown in Table 1.
In the present study, fine fraction reclaimed from waste has
been defined as the fraction of aged MSW finer than 4.75 mm in
size. Material finer than 4.75 mm comprises of clay, silt and sand
as per geotechnical application (IS 2720-4 (1985)).
S.No. Reference Sieve size (mm)
6 Kurian et al., 2003 10
7 Hull et al., 2005 25
8 Quaghebeur et al., 2013 10
9 Hogland 2002 50
Zhao et al., 2007 40
In the present study, aged MSW was collected from three
dumpsites located at Kadapa, Hyderabad and Delhi. Aged
waste may be defined as the MSW that has been disposed of in
an unlined dumpsite (with nominal or no soil cover) more than
10 years ago. The present study is aimed at assessing the feasi-
bility of using fine fraction of mined material as earthfill. In
this article, attention is focused on fraction finer than 4 mm.
The composition of aged MSW was examined through on-site
grain size distribution (GSD) with a set of sieves. The objec-
tives of the present study are to: (a) review landfill mining
studies/projects and compile the properties of soil-like material
mined from aged waste on the basis of available literature; (b)
report the results of some initial tests on finer fraction (<4 mm)
obtained from aged waste of three Indian dumpsites; (c) iden-
tify critical aspects that need to be monitored for re-use of aged
MSW.
Literature review
Savage (1993) reported that the initial efforts for landfill mining
was attempted in Tel Aviv, Israel as long back as 1953 for obtain-
ing fertilisers for orchards. Landfill mining is still an evolving
subject and is being improved in terms of utility of mined materi-
als (Gaintanarou et al., 2014).
Table 2 presents the summary of several landfill mining pro-
jects carried out in several parts of world. It can concluded that at
almost all the landfill sites the material after reclamation was
used as cover at the site itself. A total of 60%–70% reclaimed
material has been reported as soil-like material. However, only at
Edinburg landfill the reuse has been mentioned as construction
material, but details about its geochemical and geotechnical
properties are not given.
The reviewed articles contain conceptual discussion about the
properties of aged MSW, simulating it as a soil material. They
include discussion on how the material recovered from the land-
fill can be blended with the local soil to be used for different
purposes to increase the strength and reduce the compressibility.
Table 3 presents the comparison of the investigations done on the
suitability of MSW soils as an earthfill material.
Recent landfill mining initiatives in India
Kurian et al. (2003) reported the reuse of decomposed waste
from the solid waste dumpsite in Deonar, near Mumbai, India.
However, as the topic of landfill mining has been raised in India
recently, limited data about the real onsite composition and
Somani et al. 3

Table 2.  Summary of landfill mining projects reported in literature.

S.No. Name of landfill Reference Main objectives Particle Soil-like Suggested use of
site size (mm) material (%) reclaimed soil
1 Naples landfill, Kurian et al., Groundwater protection, 75 40–60 Cover material
USA 2003 recovery of landfill volume
2 Filbornia landfill, Hogland et al., Technical feasibility study 18 55–70 Covering material
Sweden 1997
3 Frey farm Kurian et al., Recovery of waste fuel to 25 41 Cover material
landfill, Canada 2003 fully exploit the capacity of
a waste incineration plant
4 Maung Pathum Joseph et al., Potential rehabilitation and 2 69–75 Landfill cover
Dumpsite, 2004 material recovery material, compost
Thailand after supplying P & K
5 Burghof landfill, Joseph et al., Environmental remediation N.A. 70.5 Fine material was
Germany 2004 and construction of new reused at landfill site
landfill
6 Perdido landfill, Dhar, 2015 Increased capacity, 25 70.4 Daily cover, reuse
USA reduced footprint and outside the landfill is
addressing groundwater also possible
problems
7 Edinburg landfill, Dhar, 2015 Technical and economic 25 75 Cover and off-site
UK feasibility study beneficial use
8 Clovis landfill, Dhar, 2015 groundwater contamination 50 60 Not reported
USA mitigation, airspace
recovery, and soil recovery
9 Kuopio landfill, Monkare et al., Feasibility study to analyse 20 45–50 Not reported
Finland 2016 the content of fine fraction
10 Lohja landfill, Monkare et al., Feasibility study to analyse 20 60–70 Not reported
Finland 2016 the content of fine fraction
11 REMO landfill, Quaghebeur Assessment of volarisation 10 40–60 Not reported
Belgium et al., 2013 potential of material stored
in landfill

P & K: Phosphorous and Potassium; N.A.: Not available.

condition of Indian landfill sites (e.g. Singh et al., 2017) are
available.
As presented in Table 4, the recent studies on landfill mining
shows that around 50%–60% of the total material looks as soil-
like material from geotechnical point of view. However, from the
limited test data, it was observed that a high amount of organic
content, chloride, sulphate and salts are the critical issues to be
consider before using it in earthworks. Detailed characterisation
on aged waste has not been reported in the above mentioned
studies.
developed before current regulations (MoEF (2000) and MoEF
(2016)) were in place. Table 5 presents the general information
about all three dump sites.
The samples were collected between December 2016 and
February 2017 from the location as shown in Figure 1. Samples
were taken from a depth of 4–5 m from Delhi and Hyderabad
dump sites as presented in Figure 2. However, at Kadapa dump-
site capping was underway. So, samples were collected from
stockpiles of mined waste. All the collected samples were sealed
in separated pre-cleaned polythene bags and stored in cooling
cabinets.

Materials and methods

In the course of this work, the recovery potential of soil-like
material from three selected open dump sites in India was inves-
tigated. The scope of this investigation contained the steps of
excavation, sampling procedure and some preliminary field and
laboratory analysis.
Site description and sampling details
The material used in the current research originates from the old
dumpsites located at Okhla, Jawaharnagar and Ukkayyapalli in
Delhi, Hyderabad and Kadapa, respectively. All these sites were
On-site GSD and compositional analysis
At the Delhi landfill site, after excavating the samples and partial
air drying for 7–8 days, on-site studies about GSD and composi-
tional analysis were carried out as shown in Figure 3. The age of
waste was confirmed through newspaper clippings, food packets,
etc., as shown in Figure 4. The water content at the time of per-
forming GSD and compositional analysis was 10%–12% and the
lumps present in the samples were broken up using a wooden
hammer. GSD was performed as per the availability of sieve
sizes at the site. At the Kadapa landfill, 30 mm, 8 mm and 4 mm
trommel was available. Hence, GSD was performed accordingly.
4 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Table 3.  Some characteristics of material recovered from landfill mining from literature.

Location Southern Seoul city, Korea Deonar landfill, Kodungaiyur Perungudi

California, USA India landfill, India landfill, India
Age of waste 60 years 25 years 4–12 year 15 years 15 years
Grain size Passing 75 µ sieve Not reported % passing 8 mm Fine soil less than Fine soil less than
distribution (35.5–28.9)% (soil-like sieve − 63.5% 2 mm − 56%–68% 2 mm − 33%–41%
material) % greater than
25 mm sieve −
31.5%
Specific gravity Not reported 2.58–2.44 Not reported Not reported Not reported
Liquid limit 48%–62% Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Plastic limit 24%–32% Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Maximum dry 16.5–15.2 15.5–6.77 9.41 8.8–11.77 9.4–9.7
density (kN m-3)
Optimum 10.9%–18.8% 7.4%–13.9% 14% 30%–40% 23%–30%
moisture content
Organic content 6.3%–12.4% 6.06%–12.45% 14.5% 8.9%–20.7% 8.9%–15.8%
Remarks From stability and If organic content Fine material Fine fraction can be  
compressibility is more than 8%, blended with applied as compost
criteria, waste can it can not be used dolomite, to non-edible crops
be blended with as sub-grade gypsum, neem or as cover material
soil and can be material cake and was after determining
used in fill sold as fertiliser the geotechnical
suitability
References Oettle et al., 2010 Song et al., 2003 Kurian et al., 2003  

Table 4.  Recent initiatives on landfill mining in India.

Location Pirana landfill, Ghazipur landfill, New Delhi

Ahmedabad
Age of waste N.A. 5 years 10 years 15 years
Grain size 0–4 mm 15–20 29 27 34
distribution 4–16 mm 16–17 18 17 14
analysis (%) >16 mm 44–55 53 56 52
Moisture content (%) 17–19 1.3 0.8 1.1
Organic content (%) 9.79–10.21 5.17 2.93 3.3
Carbon (%) 1.66–4.83 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Hydrogen (%) 0–0.62 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Nitrogen (%) 0–0.46 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sulphur (%) 0–0.12 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Plasticity N.A. Non-plastic
Maximum dry density (kN m-3) N.A. 16.7 16 15.5
pH 7.8–9.2 7.4 7.6 7.6
Sulphate (mg kg-1) N.A. 15430 9003.7 10485
Chloride (mg kg-1) N.A. 2563 1590 1843
Reference Singh et al., 2017 Vasant, 2017

Table 5.  General information about the landfill sites.

S.No. Landfill Started in Total area (acre) Height (m) Total quantity of waste (MT) Present condition
1 Okhla landfill, Delhi 1994 40 65–70 6 millions Open dumping
2 Jawaharagr landfill, Hyderabad 1999 350 N.A. N.A. Engineered landfill
3 Ukkayyapalli landfill, Kadapa 1965 10 10–12 0.2 millions Closed

MT: Metric ton; N.A.: Not available.

Somani et al. 5

Figure 1.  Site location and sampling points from the dumps.

At the Hyderabad landfill, only 20 mm and 4 mm trommels were Composition analysis of MSW in this study was carried out as
available and GSD was performed without air drying. At the per the procedure outlined by Zekkos et al. (2010a). As the col-
Delhi landfill, GSD was performed manually by using sieve of lected MSW samples were wet, the composition of all the sam-
200 mm, 80 mm, 35 mm, 16 mm and 4 mm. ples was determined after air drying them in an open space under
6 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Figure 2.  Excavation of aged MSW.
Figure 3.  Screening of aged MSW.
sunlight until a constant dry weight was obtained. The air dried
MSW samples were first sieved through a large size sieve having
20 mm square openings for separating the sample into the <20 mm
(soil-like or soil-sized) and the >20 mm (fibrous) fractions.
Fraction >20 mm was then manually sorted into different con-
stituents, such as gravel, textile, plastic, paper, wood and wood-
like, glass and miscellaneous items. The quantity of dry MSW
sample used for the compositional analysis varied between 120
and 140 kg. This is in conformation to the minimum quantity
(91–136 kg) recommended in ASTM D5231-92 (2016) for the
determination of the composition of unprocessed MSW.
Preliminary laboratory analysis
The lab tests carried out includes determination of moisture con-
tent, organic content, Total dissolved solid (TDS) heavy metal
analysis, elemental analysis (CHNS) and release of colour leached
through the soil-like material from aged MSW. TDS in the present
study represent total soluble solids in the soil matrix of the aged
MSW. The standard procedure used in geotechnical practice to
evaluate moisture content and organic content of organic soils
ASTM D2974-14 involves drying the material at 105 °C and then
at 440 °C/750 °C to a constant mass. However, drying at 105 °C
may volatilise some portion of the organic material in the MSW. To
compensate for the potential for volatilisation of organic matter,
many investigators recommend measuring the initial moisture con-
tent and dry weight of MSW at a temperature below 105 °C.
However, there is no agreement upon the standardised temperature
at which to do this. In the present study, moisture content was
determined by drying waste at 60 °C to a constant mass and organic
content is determined by heating the dried waste at 550 (±50 °C),
which is in accordance with Monkare et al. (2016) and Zekkos
et al. (2010b). TDS was determined as per IS 2720-21 (1997).
Heavy metals analysis was also carried out. One gram of the oven
dried sample (dried at 60 °C till constant weight and passed through
1 mm sieve) was digested with HNO3 and HCl in a 1:3 ratio as
mentioned by Wagland et al. (2017). After digestion, all the sam-
ples were set aside to cool and were diluted with 1 N nitric acid.
The mixture was filtered through an acid-washed Whattman No.42
filter paper into a 50 ml volumetric flask and diluted to the required
volume. All the digested samples were aspirated into a double
beam atomic absorption spectrophotometer (ECIL 4141, India) for
the analysis of selected heavy metals. Elemental analysis was per-
formed using a Vario EL cube CHNS analyser.
Concerns about the colour of the water leached through from
soil-like aged waste used in earthfill has not been reported in the
literature. However, if the soil used in the road subgrade leaches
out coloured water may contaminate the surrounding water bodies
and also may have some aesthetic issues. A colour test was per-
formed in the present study to address the same concern. Soil-like
material from the aged waste was mixed with ultrapure water in a
1:3 ratio and was shaken for 30 min at 200 r min-1 in a rotary
shaker. Then, it was allowed to settle down for 12–15 h. After 24 h,
it was decanted through a Whattman filter paper No. 42, the inten-
sity of colour was measured through the Lovibond Tintometer.
Results and discussions
Grain size distribution
At Hyderabad landfill GSD analysis was carried out without air
drying. Therefore, the fraction of soil-like material was found to
Somani et al. 7

be less. The results of GSD reveals that the significant fraction of
soil-like material was observed in aged MSW at all the landfills,
which can be further considered for its geotechnical suitability.
Laboratory grain size analysis of MSW samples (<4 mm) was
carried out after drying at 60 °C as presented in Table 6. Both dry
and wet sieve analyses were carried out on MSW sample from all
the landfills. The fine fraction was found higher in wet sieve
analysis in comparison with dry sieve analysis. The higher finer
fraction from wet sieve analysis is owing to better break down of
lumps of waste particles. This is consistent with the observations
of Monkare et al. (2016), Kaartinen et al. (2013), Quaghebeur
et al. (2013) and Ramaiah et al. (2017). Hence, the wet sieving
method was adopted for all the three MSW samples and obtained
grain size distribution curves of MSW samples from this study.
GSD analysis of aged MSW (<4 mm) from the Delhi landfill
shows that the fraction below 0.0075 mm was 8% on a dry basis,
while after washing (i.e. wet basis) it becomes 43%. Similarly,
GSD analysis of aged MSW (<4 mm) from the Hyderabad land-
fill shows that the fraction below 0.075 mm in the dry sample was
2%, while after washing it becomes 25%. GSD analysis of aged
MSW from the Kadapa landfill also revealed that the fraction
below 0.0075 mm in the dry sample was 12%, while after
Figure 4.  Newspaper clipping confirming age of waste.
washing it becomes 35%. The complete GSD analysis including
hydrometer analysis for all the three landfills is presented in
Figure 5.
Compositional analysis
Table 7 presents the results of compositional analysis carried out
at the landfill sites. It can be observed that the maximum amount
of soil-like material was found in Kadapa landfill site. This site is
the oldest among these three landfill sites and dumping has
stopped. The concentration of inert waste (significantly construc-
tion and demolition waste) was found to be maximum in the
Delhi landfill waste, while it was found the least in the Hyderabad
landfill. The percentage of paper was found to be almost negligi-
ble in all the landfills, as the waste considered for compositional
analysis was very old and paper-like material would have decom-
posed owing to environmental factors.
Moisture content and organic content
Significant moisture and organic matter contents are normally to
be expected in the fine fractions. These interrelated parameters
are of critical relevance, since processing routes and possible end
uses for these fractions will depend on their quantities (Parrodi
et al., 2017). The moisture content and organic content in finer
fraction of MSW were found to be least at the Kadapa site, while
at the Hyderabad landfill these were found to be higher. Organic
content at the Delhi landfill ranges between 6.8%–7.4%. From
Table 8 it can been observed that the inert waste is present in
maximum concentration at the Delhi landfill of around 25%.
Therefore, organic content was also found less in aged waste
from the Delhi landfill.
Table 9 shows the results obtained for moisture content and
organic content from various landfill mining studies. The mois-
ture content and organic content obtained in the present study are
observed to be less than that reported in the literature. The waste
was dried for 7–8 days before performing the sieve analysis and
the values reported are determined after performing the sieving
except in the case of Hyderabad landfill where the waste as trom-
meled without air drying.

Table 6.  Grain size distributions at the three sites on partially air-dried/wet samples.

Sieve size (mm) Kadapa landfill Hyderabad landfill Delhi landfill

0–4 26.5 14.9 33.2
4–8 12.7 Not available Not available
8–30 15.6 Not available Not available
>30 26.7 Not available Not available
4–16 Not available Not available 20.4
4–20 Not available 15.5 Not available
>20 Not available 74.2 Not available
16–35 Not available Not available 14
35–80 Not available Not available 10
80–200 Not available Not available 11
>200 Not available Not available 3
8 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
The organic content observed in mined soil-like material var-
ies between 5%–15%, whereas the organic content in local soil
(Delhi silt) was found to vary between 0.6% and 0.9%. Table 10
depicts the tolerance limit for organic content of the soil to be
used in earthfill/subgrade given by various regulatory authorities.
The permissible limit is 5% or less.
TDS
TDS were determined as per IS 2720-21 (1997) (1:10 dilution).
The sample for TDS was prepared as per IS 2720-21 (1997); 20 g
of soil-like material was mixed with 200 ml water (1:10 dilution)
and then it was shaken for 15 h at 200 r min-1. After that, it was
allowed to settle down for 24 h and then it was decanted through
a Whatman filter paper 42. The filtrate was further centrifuged
for 15 min at 10,000 r min-1, then 100 ml of filtrate was kept at
105 °C in a thermostatically controlled oven and hence TDS was
determined by gravimetrical analysis.
Sulphate and chloride were also determined on the water ali-
quot (1:10 dilution) of aged waste from all the landfills as per
APHA (American Public Health Association, 1995). A high con-
tent of dissolved solids, including sulphate and chloride, were
observed in the present study as shown in Table 11. For the
Kadapa landfill, TDS was found lower in comparison with the
Delhi and Hyderabad landfills.
In comparison with local soil (Delhi silt) these results are
significantly higher. The TDS in the Delhi silt was found to be
Figure 5.  Wet GSD on <4 mm portion of aged MSW.
Table 7.  Compositional analysis of aged MSW.
Components Percentage
  Delhi landfill
Soil like material 71.9
C&D waste 23.4
Plastics 3.3
Textiles 0.8
Glass 0.2
Wood 0.2
Others 0.5
Total 100
C&D: construction and demolition.
0.3%–0.4%, chloride was 0.1%–0.15%, while sulphate was
0.08%–0.09%.
Heavy metal analysis
The results of heavy metal analysis for all the three landfills in
comparison with the local soil (Delhi silt) and global standards
(Canadian, Dutch and Continental crust) are presented in Table 12.
On comparing the concentration of heavy metal in the present
study with the various standards. It was found that copper, chro-
mium and cadmium were found to be high in almost all the
landfills.
Table 13 shows the comparison of metal concentrations in the
finer fraction of solid waste collected from all the three landfills
with results of similar studies reported in literature. Table 13
shows that the copper concentration appear to be considerably
higher than those reported from the other contaminated waste
dump sites. Heavy metal concentrations reported by Karim et al.
(2017) in Bangladesh landfills are much lower than what has
been observed in this study. Kurian et al. (2003) reported that in
soil-like material from MSW, mercury, chromium and lead
exceeded the permissible limit for compost as per Indian stand-
ards. However as per United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) standards, all are within the standard limits.
Elemental analysis
Elemental analysis of compost samples was also carried out as
shown in Table 14.
It can be observed that the soil-like material falls in between
the range for local soil and compost. However, it can neither be
classified as compost nor as soil.
Release of colour
Concerns about the colour of the water that leached out through
soil-like material mined from dumps has not been reported in the
literature. However, if the soil is used in filling low lying areas or
in embankment/subgrade, the leaching of coloured water may
cause contamination of the surrounding water bodies and may
Hyderabad landfill Kadapa landfill
73.1 75.2
15.4 16.2
2.7 3.7
1.4 1.01
2.6 1.73
1.5 1.30
0.5 1.5
100 100
Somani et al. 9

Table 8.  Moisture content and organic content after partial also have aesthetic issues. The colour of the leached water was
air-drying and screening. observed to be dark brown in the case of the Hyderabad landfill,
Landfill site MC (%) OC (%) while for the Delhi landfill it was comparatively lighter, as shown
in Figure 6. The colour of the water leached out from local soil
Kadapa 6–8 6.5–6.7 appears to be clean and transparent, while the mined materials a
Hyderabad 16–18 11–12
have darker and objectionable colour.
Delhi 10–11 6.8–7.4
The intensity of colour is presented in Table 15. It can be
MC: moisture content; OC: organic content. observed that the intensity of colour coming out from the

Table 9.  Moisture content and organic content reported in literature from landfill mining projects.

S.No. Landfill site Reference Particle size MC (%) OC (%)

1 Perungudi, India Kurian et al., 2003 <20 mm 21.4–52 8.9–15.8
2 Kodungaiyur, India Kurian et al., 2003 <20 mm 15.5–46 8.9–20.7
3 Hogbytorp, Sweden Jani et al., 2016 <10 mm 23.5 16.6
4 Deonar, India Kurian et al., <8 mm 14 14.50
2003
5 4 landfill sites, UK Gutierrez et al., <19 mm 25-41 58–79
2015

MC: moisture content; OC: organic content.

Table 10.  Permissible organic content in soil to be used in subgrade/earthfill.

S.No. Name of country Maximum limit for organic content Regulatory organisation
1 USA Indiana 3% for road subgrade Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)
(El Howayek et al., 2012)
Louisiana 5% Louisiana Standard Specification for Road and
Bridges (2016)
Texas 1% Texas Department of Transportation (2005)
California If organic content is up to 1% Department of Transportation, California (Jones D
then soil can be used without any and Jones D (2010))
treatment. Maximum limit is 5%
2 Australia 1% Department of Transport and Main Roads
3 India 3% Ministry of Road Transport and Highway (2002)
4 UK 2% UK Department of Transportation (1991)

Table 11.  Total dissolved solids from all the landfills.

S.No. Landfill TDS (%) Chloride (%) Sulphate (%)

1 Delhi landfill 1.4–1.5 0.7–0.75 0.4–0.45
2 Hyderabad landfill 1.80–1.85 0.5–0.55 0.8–0.85
3 Kadapa landfill 0.50–0.55 0.36–0.38 0.09–0.10

TDS: total dissolved solids.

Table 12.  Metal concentrations in finer fraction from all the landfills.

Landfill sites Heavy metals concentration (mg kg-1 dry weight)

Co Ni Cr Fe Mn Pb Zn Cu Cd
Kadapa 6.16 25.15 68.59 6660 253.5 85.58 115.05 148.34 7.66
Hyderabad 5.09 20.48 88.75 5750 134.8 81.46 129.95 329.28 8.53
Delhi 14.96 66.06 135 9282 319.8 81.01 63.98 271.31 1.89
Local soil (Delhi silt) 10.8 28 11.2 3800 105 30.85 55.32 233.35 1.7
Canadian standards (Canadian 40 50 64 — — 70 200 63 1.4
Council of Ministers of the
Environment, 1999)
Dutch standards, (VROM, 2001) 190 100 — — — 530 720 190 13
Continental crust (Wedephol, 1995) 19 5.59 25.4 45,000 105 15.1 30.5 14.5 0.1
 10

Table 13.  Comparison of metal concentrations in fine fraction of solid waste of present study with similar studies.
Landfill location Conc. (mg kg-1 on dry basis)

Hg As Cd Ni Pb Cu Cr Zn Mn Co Fe

Perungudi, India (Joseph et al., 2004) 0.29 0.57 1.29 ±0.31 32 ±8 86 ±16 113 ±42 140 ±40 284 ±111 — — —
Shanghai, China (Zhang et al., 2008) — — 1.5–2.8 30–51 98–173 78–221 143–229 228–323 — — —
Matuali, Bangladesh (Karim et al., 2017) — — N.D. 0.84–9.89 5.66–87.89 14.41–137.70 10.10–81.19 19.41–163.80 9.66–82.89 —
Khulna, Bangladesh (Karim et al., 2017) — — N.D. 0.42–0.90 11.18–69.6 4.72–14.66 1.72–2.96 12.46–29.4 16.28–24.26 —
Kano, Nigeria (Anake et al., 2009) — — 22.3 ±19.3 6.0 ±8.72 2917 ±538 — 81.2 ±61.3 — — — —
Kaduna, Nigeria (Anake et al., 2009) — — 1.17 ±0.71 0.67 ±0.3 84.3 ±41.3 — 10.8 ±1.15 — — — —
Gboko dump site, Nigeria (Benjamin et al., 2012) — 0.145 0.499 0.445 1.063 — 0.278 —  
Fiborna landfill, Sweden (Joseph et al., 2004) 1.6 12 88 53 0.39 500  
Shanghai landfill, China (Xiaoli et al., 2007) 1–3 44–61 280–440 300–540 110–160 970–1360  
Madurai dump site (Anjanapriya and Lalitha, 2015) 2.55–4.28 32.1–41.2 19.9–22.3 53–85.3 290–300 298–310 98–206 303–380  
Kudjape landfill, Estonia (Kaczala et al., 2017) 4–6.4 1.12–1.21 29–44 128–477 191–362 54–123 1300–2000 313–383 5.6–8.1 29,600–53,900
Kuopio landfill, Finland (Kaartinen et al., 2013) <100 100 100–200 75–217 100–200 600–1100 700–1300 — 37,000–41,000
Hogbytorp landfill, Sweden (Jani et al., 2016) 0.7 (0.2) 5.1 (1.7) 2.1 (0.6) 111.4 (33.7) 240 (65.3) 1460 (684) 254 (54) 1848 (488) — 23.3 (5.8) 28,724 (8108)
Present Kadapa — — 7.66 25.15 85.58 148.34 68.59 115.05 253.45 6.16 6660.0
study Hyderabad — — 8.53 20.48 81.46 329.28 88.75 129.61 134.88 5.09 5750.0
Delhi — — 1.89 66.06 81.01 271.31 135.95 63.81 319.75 14.96 9282.5
Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Somani et al. 11

Table 14.  Elemental analysis of finer fraction of aged MSW. Table 15.  Colour of water released from soil reclaimed in
comparison with local soil.
Sample N (%) C (%) H (%) S (%) O (%)
Landfill site Colour (Pt-Co unit)
Delhi landfill 0.2 3.7 0.3 0.3 2.2
Hyderabad landfill 0.7 8.5 0.7 0.3 3.7 Kadapa 440–480
Kadapa landfill 0.3 4.1 0.4 0.1 1.5 Hyderabad 1500–1800
Local soil (Delhi silt) 0.01 0.97 0.23 0.05 0.08 Delhi 320–340
Compost (Bawana plant, 0.53 8.42 0.85 0.40 6.19 Local soil 25–35
Delhi)

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figure 6.  Colour of the leached through aged MSW.
Left to Right: Kadapa landfill, Hyderabad landfill, Delhi landfill and
local soil sample.
Delhi landfill is 12–15 times higher than the local soil,
whereas for the Hyderbad landfill it is 50–60 times higher. A
small amount of soil-like fraction requires a large amount of
pore fluid throughput to become colourless, thereby having a
significant impact especially on ground water wells. For col-
our to be washed out of the soil, it may take several years as
a large quantity of water is require to dilute/remove the
colour.
Conclusions
Following are the conclusions drawn after carrying out the litera-
ture review and performing initial tests on aged MSW.
•• Literature says that 60%–70% of the mined material from
landfills appears to be soil-like material. However, in most of
the reported cases, the use of soil-like fraction of aged MSW
has been reported as daily cover and intermediate cover only
at the same site. Wide use of MSW as earthfill/construction
fill has not been reported.
•• Initial testing results shows that organic content was found to
be 10%–12% in waste from the Hyderabad landfill, while in
the Kadapa and Delhi landfills it ranges between 6%–8%.
TDS, sulphate and chlorides were found high in aged MSW
in comparison with the soil.
•• Release of dark coloured water, high TDS and organic con-
tent were identified as critical parameters in using aged
MSW for earthfill/embankment. These critical parameters
require intensive monitoring or treatment before re-using
aged MSW.
•• Some treatment in terms of washing, thermal treatment,
blending with local soil, biological treatment, etc., is required
before one can re-use aged MSW.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial
support provided by IIT Delhi (under Faculty Interdisciplinary
Research Project scheme) and logistic support provided by Ramky
Enviro Engineers Ltd (REEL) and South Delhi Municipal
Corporation (SDMC) is greatly acknowledged.
References
Ali SM, Pervaiz A, Afzal B, et al. (2014) Open dumping of municipal solid
waste and its hazardous impacts on soil and vegetation diversity at waste
dumping sites of Islamabad city. Journal of King Saud University-Science
26: 59–65.
American Public Health Association (1995) American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard methods
for the examination of water, sewage, and industrial wastes.
Anake WU, Adie GU and Osibanjo O (2009) Heavy metals pollution at
municipal solid waste dumpsites in Kano and Kaduna states in Nigeria.
Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia 23: 281–289.
Anjanapriya S and Lalitha S (2015) Preliminary Assessment of heavy met-
als in municipal solid waste open dump sites around Madurai District.
Discovery 52: 160–165.
ASTM D2974–14. Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic
Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils.
ASTM D5231–92 (2016) Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste.
Benjamin A, Asemave K, Leke L, et al. (2012) Determination of Heavy
Metals in Some Selected Waste Dumpsites in Gboko Metropolis, Benue
State, Nigeria. International Journal of Current Research 4: 278–280.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1999) Canadian soil qual-
ity guidelines for the environmental and human health, Summary Tables
in Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg in Manitoba,
Canada: CCME Publication.
Central Pollution Control Board (2012) From CPCB Annual reports. Available
at: http://cpcb.nic.in/annual-report.php (accessed 10 March 2018).
Dhar A (2015) Landfill Mining—A Comprehensive Review. University of
Texas at Arlington.
Directive (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Official Journal of
the European Union 312: 3–30.
El Howayek A, Bobet A, Dawood S, et al. (2012) Project Implementation:
Classification of Organic Soils and Classification of Marls—Training of
INDOT Personnel. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrpsuppm/1/
(accessed 25 November 2016).
Frandegard P, Krook J, Svensson N, et al. (2013) Resource and climate impli-
cations of landfill mining. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17: 742–755.
Gaitanarou Z, Tentes G and Katselis Y (2014) Landfill mining: An empirical
review on past and state-of-the-art applications. Available at: http://www.
athens2014.biowaste.gr
Gutierrez-Gutierrez SC, Coulon F, Jiang Y, et al. (2015) Rare earth elements
and critical metal content of extracted landfilled material and potential
recovery opportunities. Waste Management 42: 128–136.
12 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Hogland W (2002) Remediation of an old landfill site. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research 9: 49–54.
Hogland W, Gomes MM and Thorney L (1997) Landfill mining: Space sav-
ing, material recovery and energy use. In: Proceedings of the Seminar on
Waste Management and the Environment, 5–7 November 1997, Kalmar,
Sweden, pp.1–14.
Hull RM, Krogmann U and Strom PF (2005) Composition and character-
istics of excavated materials from a New Jersey landfill. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 131: 478–490.
IS 2720-21 (1997) Methods of test for soils, Part XXI: Determination of Total
Soluble Solids. Bureau of Indian Standards.
IS 2720-4 (1985) Methods of test for soils, Part IV: Grain Size Analysis.
Bureau of Indian Standards.
ISWA (2017) Brochure. Available at: http://www.iswa.org/media/publica-
tions/iswa-annual-reports/ (accessed 10 March 2018).
Jain P, Kim H and Townsend TG (2005) Heavy metal content in soil reclaimed
from a municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Management 25: 25–35.
Jani Y, Kaczala F, Marchand C, et al. (2016) Characterization of excavated
fine fraction and waste composition from a Swedish landfill. Waste
Management & Research 34: 1292–1299.
Jones D and Jones D (2010) Guidelines for the stabilization of subgrade soils
in California. Subgrade Soil Stabiliztion Guide. UCPRC-GL-2010-01.
University of California Pavement Research Center.
Joseph K, Nagendran R, Palanivelu K, et al. (2004) Dumpsite rehabilitation
and landfill mining. CES, Anna University, Chennai, India.
Kaartinen T, Sormunen K and Rintala J (2013) Case study on sampling, pro-
cessing and characterization of landfilled municipal solid waste in the
view of landfill mining. Journal of Cleaner Production 55: 56–66.
Kaczala F, Mehdinejad MH, Laane A, et al. (2017) Leaching characteristics
of the fine fraction from an excavated landfill: physico-chemical char-
acterization. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 19:
294–304.
Karim MR, Kuraoka M, Higuchi T, et al. (2017) Assessment of heavy
metal contamination from municipal solid waste open dumping sites
in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environment and Waste
Management 19: 191–202.
Krook J, Svensson N and Eklund M (2012) Landfill mining: A critical review
of two decades of research. Waste Management 32: 513–520.
Kumar S, Smith SR, Fowler G, et al. (2017) Challenges and opportunities associ-
ated with waste management in India. Royal Society Open Science 4: 160764.
Kurian J, Esakku S, Palanivelu K, et al. (2003) Studies on landfill mining
at solid waste dumpsites in India. In: Proceedings Ninth International
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, 6–10 October,
Vol. 3, pp.248–255, Italy.
Louisiana Standard Specification for Roads and Bridges (2016) Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development.
Masi S, Caniani D, Grieco E, et al. (2014) Assessment of the possible reuse
of MSW coming from landfill mining of old open dumpsites. Waste
Management 34: 702–710.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2002) Government of India.
Specification for roads and bridges. Indian Roads Congress Publication.
MoEF (2000) Municipal solid waste (Handling and Management) Rules,
2000. Government of India. Available at: http://www.moef.nic.in/legis/
hsm/mswmhr.html (accessed 15 December 2017).
MoEF (2016) Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. Government
of India. Available at: http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/
SWM%202016_0.pdf (accessed 15 December 2017).
Monkare TJ, Palmroth MR and Rintala JA (2016) Characterization of fine
fraction mined from two Finnish landfills. Waste Management 47: 34–39.
Oettle NK, Matasovic N, Kavazanjian E, et al. (2010) Characterization and
placement of municipal solid waste as engineered fill. In: Global Waste
Management Symposium, 3–6 October, 2010, San Antonio, Texas.
View publication stats
Parrodi JC, Hollen D and Pomberger R (2017) Characterization of fine frac-
tions from landfill mining: A review of previous landfill mining inves-
tigations. In: Proceeding of Sixteenth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, 2–6 October, Sardinia, Italy: CISA.
Prechthai T, Parkpian P and Visvanathan C (2008) Assessment of heavy
metal contamination and its mobilization from municipal solid waste
open dumping site. Journal of Hazardous Materials 156: 86–94.
Quaghebeur M, Laenen B, Geysen D, et al. (2013) Characterization of lan-
dilled materials: screening of the enhanced landfill mining potential.
Journal of Cleaner Production 55: 72–83.
Ramaiah BJ, Ramana GV and Datta M (2017) Mechanical characterization
of municipal solid waste from two waste dumps at Delhi, India. Waste
Management 68: 275–291.
Rosendal R (2009) Landfill Mining-Process, Feasibility, Economy, Benefits
and Limitations. Copenhagen: RenoSam.
Savage GM (1993) Landfill mining: Past and present. Biocycle 34: 58–61.
Singh R, Vivek JM, Vishwakarma N, et al. (2017) Management of a dump
site with mounds of legacy wastes: A proposal for land recovery and
material recovery at Pirana dumpsite. In: International Conference on
Integrated Solid Waste Management Practices in Developing Countries,
11–12 April, NEERI, Nagpur, India. Nagpur, India: NEERI.
Song YS, Yun JM, Hong WP, et al. (2003) Investigation of solid waste soil as
road construction material. Environmental Geology 44: 203–209.
Texas Department of Transportation (2005) Guidelines for Modification and
Stabilization of Soils and Base for Use in Pavement Structures.
UK Department of Transportation (1991) Manual of Contract Documents for
Highway Works – Design and Preparation of Contract Documents 14.
Vasant H (2017) Use of municipal solid waste in embankment. In: Workshop
on Geoenvironment: Landfills and Waste-to-Resources, 19 April, IIT
Delhi, India.
VROM (2001) The New Dutch List. Intervention Values and Target Values:
Soil Quality Standards, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and Environment, Department of Soil Protection, The Hague,
Netherlands.
Wagland ST, Coulon F and Canopoli L (2017) The UK case for enhanced land-
fill mining. In: Proceeding of Sixteenth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, 2–6 October, Sardinia, Italy: CISA.
Wagner TP and Raymond T (2015) Landfill mining: Case study of a success-
ful metals recovery project. Waste Management 45: 448–457.
Wedepohl KH (1995) The composition of the continental crust. Geochimica
et cosmochimica Acta 59: 1217–1232.
Wilson DC, Rodic L, Modak P, et al. (2015) Global Waste Management
Outlook, UNEP.
Wolfsberger T, Hollen D, Sarc R, et al. (2014) Landfill mining-case study:
Characterization and treatment of excavated waste from Austrian sanitary
landfill sites and estimation of the resource potential. In: ISWA World
Congress, 8–10 September, Sau Paulo, Brazil.
Xiaoli C, Shimaoka T, Xianyan C, et al. (2007) Characteristics and mobility
of heavy metals in an MSW landfill: Implications in risk assessment and
reclamation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 144: 485–491.
Zekkos D, Athanasopoulos GA, Bray JD, et al. (2010a) Large-scale
direct shear testing of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 30:
1544–1555.
Zekkos D, Kavazanjian E, Bray JD, et al. (2010b) Physical characterization of
municipal solid waste for geotechnical purposes. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136: 1231–1241.
Zhang H, He PJ, Shao LM, et al. (2008) Source analysis of heavy met-
als and arsenic in organic fractions of municipal solid waste in a
mega-city (Shanghai). Environmental Science & Technology 42:
1586–1593.
Zhao Y, Song L, Huang R, et al. (2007) Recycling of aged refuse from a
closed landfill. Waste Management & Research 25: 130–138.