Present and Long-term Composition of Msw Landfill Leachate a Review

Introduction

In many countries landfilling is yet a popular method of municipal waste disposal due to the fact that information technology is considered easy and toll-constructive (Nagarajan et al., 2012; Rana et al., 2018). Poland belongs to the European union countries, and according to HDI (Man Evolution Alphabetize) is classified as a highly adult country (United Nations, 2019). Despite this, a large function of municipal waste still ends up in landfills. According to Eurostat, on average, 38.7% of municipal waste went to landfills in the European Union countries in 2018. The largest amount of municipal waste (among European union countries) in 2022 was collected in Federal republic of germany and it was more than than 50 1000000 tons, of which but 1% of waste material went to landfills. Similarly in Kingdom of belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, where 1% of the collected municipal waste went to landfill in 2018. In Switzerland, on the other hand, municipal waste was not landfilled at all (Eurostat, 2014). In Poland, nigh 12 million tons of municipal waste was collected in 2018, of which 43% went to landfills. In that location were also EU countries where the majority of waste matter in 2022 was landfilled. These included: Malta-83%, Greece-78%, and Romania-74% (Eurostat, 2014).Landfills can pose a serious threat to the environment, especially when they are improperly secured and agile (Tałałaj et al., 2016). The formation of leachate is i of the inevitable consequences associated with the functioning of landfills. Leachates are generated both during operation and many years afterward the closure of the landfill as a result of seepage of rainwater through waste layers (Aziz et al., 2010). Leachate germination is one of the most important factors that is considered in the operation and long-term management of municipal landfills (Tränkler et al., 2005)

Leachates incorporate large amounts of organic pollutants (expressed by chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and ammonia content, among others) and inorganic pollutants such as calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron, sulfates, chlorides, and heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) (Christensen et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2016). They may contain many other substances and their composition for each landfill may be different (Öman and Junestedt, 2008). This causes difficulties in assessing the bodily degree of threat to the surroundings and selecting an appropriate method of leachate disposal (Gao et al., 2014; Bove et al., 2015). Leachate water quality studies are conducted all over the globe, merely oftentimes the analysis ranges differ, which significantly hinders the comparison of results. I solution to this trouble may be the use of leachate pollution alphabetize (LPI), proposed by Kumar and Alappat (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a). The LPI makes it possible to make up one's mind the degree of leachate contamination from different sites (with different size, age, and waste product composition) and to compare them with each other. LPI can likewise exist used to appraise the toxicity potential of leachates (Rana et al., 2018), only the significance of the index in assessing their phytotoxic effects is not known (Guerrero-Rodríguez et al., 2014).

The LPI is adamant based on eighteen variables (parameters), selected past expert judgment. The selected parameters are pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Biological Oxygen Need (BOD), Chemic Oxygen Need (COD), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Ammonium Nitrogen (AN), Atomic number 26, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb, Cr, Hg, Every bit, Phenolic Compounds (PC), Cl, Cyanide (CN), and Total Coliform Bacteria (TCB). Each of the selected parameters was assigned weights, which were calculated based on the mean scores given by the experts in the questionnaires on a calibration of 1–five. A value of "ane" indicated the parameter that had the lowest relative importance for leachate contagion, while a value of "v" was assigned to the parameter that had the highest relative importance (Kumar and Alappat, 2004; Kumar and Alappat, 2005b). Weights were determined for the selected variables and relationships were formulated between the concentration ranges most frequently observed during the report and the corresponding individual pollution sub-alphabetize (Kumar and Alappat, 2004). When the results of analyses of all xviii pollution indices are available, the LPI is calculated using the formula:

where: LPI-leachate pollution index, wi-weight of the i-th parameter, pi-individual pollution index, read from the curve, made on the footing of experts' evaluations, due north-number of studied variables for eighteen ${\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^{\mathrm{northward}}{w}_i$ = 1) (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a).

In addition to the study of physicochemical composition, toxicity is an of import parameter taken into account, amidst others because of the need to subject leachate to treatment earlier discharge into the surround. Leachate from landfills can be treated by diverse methods. I possibility is the apply of phytoremediation. This is a technique that uses plants and associated rhizospheric microorganisms to remove, transform, or retain toxic substances from soil, water, sludge, or landfill leachate (Liao and Chang, 2004). Phytoremediation is used to remove petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, or heavy metals, among others (McCutcheon et al., 2002). It is a promising technique due to its low price, self-sufficiency, and ability to remove contaminants at the site of leachate generation, among others (Singer et al., 2007; Akinbile et al., 2012). Phytoremediation has many advantages, just landfill leachate can adversely touch plants and crusade leaf damage, reduced photosynthesis, necrosis, and even mortality (Zalesny et al., 2008; Kalčíková et al., 2012). The ability of plants to tolerate the stress acquired past leachate and the selection and maintenance of advisable concentrations within the limits of non-toxic furnishings on plants determines the effectiveness of phytoremediation (Kalčíková et al., 2012). Phytotoxicity tests are usually performed at the early germination stage due to brusque elapsing, ease of execution and low cost (Šourková et al., 2020). Pop parameters considered for phytotoxicity determination are seed germination, root, and shoot length increment (Maiorana et al., 2019), and therefore were used in the present study.

The aim of the report was to decide the degree of leachate contamination using LPI and toxic effect. An analysis of the relationship betwixt the toxic effect on plants and the calculated LPI values was also carried out to assess whether they could provide a measure of leachate toxicity when selecting a handling method.

Materials and Methods

Landfills Site Characterization

The written report was conducted at four landfills located in southwestern Poland (Figure 1). 2 sites are inactive: landfill in Wrocław (Northward 51° x′ 23.784″ Eastward sixteen° 55′ twoscore.74″'), landfill in Bielawa (Due north 51° 9′ 21.485'' E 17° 14′ xviii.03″). The landfill in Wrocław was in functioning from 1966 to 2000. The total capacity of the landfill is about ii million m³, and the total area of its quarters is 11.7 ha. The 2nd inactive landfill is located in Bielawa; the landfill was in operation from 2001 to 2011, its full chapters is 37.vi one thousand 1000³ and the surface area of its quarters is 0.86 ha.

Figure 1. Landfills location and placement of h2o sampling points, Poland.

Two other sites (landfill in Legnica site: N 51° 14′ 21.317″ E 16° eleven′ 0.251″ and landfill in Jawor: North 51° 3′ 56.112″ E 16° 12′ 38.927″) are still in operation. The landfill in Legnica was opened in 1977, its total chapters is about ii.3 million m³ and the full area of the quarters is 14.ii ha. The second exploited landfill in Jawor has been functioning since 1997, its total capacity is virtually 231 thousand grand³ and the total surface area of the quarters is 3.37 ha. Effigy 1 presents the location of the research facilities and marks the places where samples were taken for testing. At sites 1, 2, and 3 leachate was collected from tanks, while at site 4 leachate was collected from wells.

Physicochemical Composition of Leachate

Landfill leachate quality studies were conducted in September and December 2019. The leachates were tested for pH, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonium nitrogen (AN), total dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides (Cl), iron (Atomic number 26), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), lead (Atomic number 82), and nickel (Ni). Immediately after sampling, the samples were transported in refrigerated conditions to the Environmental Research Laboratory of the Institute of Environmental Engineering, Wroclaw University of Life Sciences. Determinations of parameters were performed according to the methodology presented in ISO standards. Laboratory analyses that did not crave mineralization of the samples were performed within 24 h of their drove (Tomczyk, 2021). At the same time, mineralization was carried out, and then analyses requiring mineralization were also carried out.

Leachate Pollution Index Adding

Due to the fact that in this written report, selected parameters, which are part of the LPI index, were analyzed, a modified equation, described by Kumar and Alappat (2005a), was used for cases when the full range of enquiry results is not bachelor:

where: LPI-leachate pollution alphabetize, westward_i-weight of the i-th parameter, p_i-private pollution alphabetize, read from the curve, made on the footing of experts' evaluations, g-number of studied variables (for m < eighteen ${\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^m{w}_i$ < i).

The weight (due west_i) of the pollutant indicates the importance of each parameter in the overall level of leachate contamination. With the full range of tests, the sum of the weights of all 18 parameters is 1. An individual pollutant index of the sub-index value (p_i), is read from the curves showing the relationships between the concentrations of the analyzed parameters and the values of the respective sub-indexes (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a).

Overall LPI-Sub-indices of Leachate Pollution Index

The LPI has been divided into three sub-indices. The 3 fractional indices are based on the leachate characteristics and indicate the dominant contamination present in the leachate. The eighteen variable pollutants in the leachates selected for the LPI are grouped into 3 components: organic compounds-LPI_or (i.e.,: COD, BOD, Phenolic compounds, Total coliform leaner), inorganic components of leachate-LPI_in (i.eastward.,: pH, TKN, AN, TDS, Chloride), and heavy metals-LPI_hm (Total Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, Cyanide, Zinc, Nickel, Copper, Fe) (Kumar and Alappat, 2005b).

When calculating the overall LPI, the m values shown in Eq. 2 correspond to the number of pollutants included in the sub-LPI. The three sub-LPIs have their ain singled-out meanings which are specially of import in making decisions related to the treatment of leachate.

An individual pollutant index of the sub-index value (p_i), is read from the curves showing the relationships between the concentrations of the analyzed parameters and the values of the corresponding sub-indexes (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a). The three sub-LPI values (LPI_or, LPI_hm, LPI_in) were calculated using the new weighting factors provided by Kumar and Alappat (2005c) and according to a modified equation in the absence of the full range of test results Eq. ii.

The following equation was derived by Kumar and Alappat (2005c) S based on the new weighting factors for the xviii parameters in the LPI standard and their contribution to each sub-LPI.

$\text{Overall LPI}=\text{ 0}{\text{.}232\text{ LPI}}_{\text{or}}+\text{ 0}{\text{.}257\text{ LPI}}_{\text{in}}+\text{ 0}{\text{.}511\text{ LPI}}_{\text{hm}}(3)$

where: Overall LPI-leachate pollution index, LPI_or-sub-leachate pollution alphabetize organic component value, LPI_in-sub-leachate pollution alphabetize inorganic component value, LPI_hm-sub-leachate pollution index heavy metallic component value.

Acute Toxicity Tests

The analyzed leachate samples were subjected to three-days acute toxicity tests using white mustard seed (Sinapis alba L.) based on Phytotoxkit^TM methodology. White mustard was called for this study due to its sensitivity to a number of substances and its frequent use in toxicity testing (Zloch et al., 2018; Vaverková et al., 2020). The exam was performed twice (in September and December 2019). The tests were conducted in containers lined with cream pads and paper filters, which were wetted with 20 ml of leachate at unlike concentrations. The final dilution range for each examination sample was selected based on previously conducted analyses: 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25% (except for leachate from the landfill in Wrocław where the concentration range in September 2022 was 100 and 50% and in Dec 2022 it was 100, 50, and 25%). Dechlorinated tap water was used for dilutions and too served every bit a control sample.

Dried white mustard seeds of equal size and weight were placed on previously leachate-soaked exam plates. Ten seeds were placed on each plate. The prepared boxes were inactive and placed in a rack in an upright position. The experiment was conducted at room temperature (approximately 25°C), in the darkness, for a period of 3 days. After 3 days, the number of germinated seeds and root and shoot length increments were recorded. Calculation of the toxic issue of leachate, manifested by inhibition of root and shoot growth, was washed according to the formula:

${\mathrm{Et}}_{\mathrm{Fifty}}\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\frac{L\left(a\right)-\mathrm{Fifty}\left(b\right)}{\mathrm{Fifty}\left(a\right)}\times 100(4)$

where: Et_L-toxic effect [inhibition of root and shoot growth (%)], L(a)-mean root or shoot length in the control trial (mm), and L(b)-hateful root or shoot length in the examination trial (mm) (Based on Phytotoxkit^TM methodology).

Data Handling and Statistical Assay

The obtained results of leachate properties and phytotoxicity tests were subjected to statistical analysis using Statistica 13.i software (StatSoft Poland, StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, United States). Two types of tests were used to evaluate the differences betwixt the obtained phytotoxicity exam results: the Educatee'southward t test for dependent samples was used to notice statistically significant differences betwixt leachate dilutions, while the Pupil'due south t exam for independent samples was used to notice statistically significant differences between the command sample (containing dechlorinated tap water) and samples containing leachate at different concentrations. The evaluation of the relationship between the calculated LPI values and the toxic consequence obtained for the different leachate concentrations is presented in the form of correlation coefficient.

Results and Word

Physicochemical Composition of Leachate

The quality of leachate depends on many factors, including the composition of waste material, age of a landfill, extent of waste material bed processes, location or local climate. Consequently, leachate composition is variable and site-specific. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the physicochemical composition of the analyzed leachates from iv landfills.

TABLE 1. Characteristics of analyzed landfill leachates

pH

Leachates generated during the initial period of landfill operation (up to five years) are characterized by pH values in the range of 3.7–half dozen.5. The low pH value of leachates from immature landfills is associated with the presence of carboxylic acids and bicarbonate ions. Every bit landfills age, the pH of leachates changes from values corresponding to acidic to alkaline solutions. Information technology is usually in the range of 8–viii.v pH, which is associated with the formation of alkaline compounds (Słomczyńska and Słomczyński, 2004). The pH values of the studied leachates, from agile and inactive landfills were in the range of vii.four–eight.7, which is typical of leachates from older and mature landfills (Jorstad et al., 2004).

The pH value of leachate affects seed germination process. It was found that it tin can negatively affect establish formation, both in very acidic (pH < two) and strongly element of group i environment (pH > xiii) provided that heavy metals are present in the leachate. The evolution and growth of roots and shoots is most favorably affected by pH to a higher place seven but not higher than 13, which is determined, among other things, by the ability to transport more solutes (Phoungthong et al., 2016; Naveen et al., 2017). In the example of the tested leachates, pH should not adversely bear upon formation and root and shoot growth.

TDS

TDS values in inactive landfills ranged from ii,225 mg/l (Wroclaw, September serial) to 2,970 mg/l (Bielawa, September series). In agile landfills the values varied more, from three,975 mg/l (Jawor, September series) to seven,830 mg/l (Legnica, September series). Based on the study, it tin can be concluded that the TDS value was related to the historic period of the landfills, which could be adamant by a subtract in the concentration of organic and inorganic dissolved substances (Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002), confirmed by the conducted report. Higher TDS concentrations were found in leachate from active landfills.

COD

The COD values of the leachates from the two landfills remained stable: the lowest values characterized the samples nerveless at the landfill in Wroclaw (inactive) and the highest values occurred in the case of leachates from the landfill in Legnica (active). These are the biggest of the investigated landfills and accumulation of large amounts of waste matter with stabilized decomposition processes (Wrocław) and fresh waste product (Legnica) might accept influenced the stable level of COD values. In instance of the remaining landfills (inactive in Bielawa, active in Jawor), the December series of studies showed an increment of COD value in comparing with the September serial. The studies showed similar level of COD values in leachates from these landfills. It should be noted that the landfills were put into operation at a similar time (1997–2001) and the results of the investigations may confirm a like grapheme of the decomposition processes taking place in the deposits of the deposited wastes.All COD values obtained in the conducted studies were within the ranges reported also by other authors (Kjeldsen et al., 2002; Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002; Wdowczyk and Szymańska-Pulikowska, 2020), confirming that one of the primary factors affecting their values is the age of the landfill site (or rather the age of the deposited waste product), considering with the passage of time the susceptibility of waste product to biological and chemical deposition processes decreases.

TKN, AN

Among the nitrogen forms that brand TKN up, AN is the most abundant in landfill leachate. This relationship was confirmed by studies carried out in the landfills in Legnica, Jawor, and Bielawa. Only the results of the studies on leachates from the landfill in Wrocław did non confirm this human relationship.

AN concentrations in leachates from agile landfills usually range from 10 to 100 mg/l, simply college values take also been reported, reaching even above 10,000 mg/l (Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002). In leachates from active landfills, AN concentrations were higher than in inactive facilities. The lowest AN values (< i mg/l) were recorded at the landfill in Wrocław. Much higher values were observed in the leachates from the 2nd inactive landfill (in Bielawa), where this value exceeded 100 mg/l during ii serial of studies. Nonetheless, in agile landfills the values were fifty-fifty iv times college, exceeding 460 mg/l. Other authors in their works likewise emphasized that ammonium nitrogen belongs to the main pollutants occurring in landfill leachates (Kjeldsen et al., 2002; Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002).

Cl-

All samples collected in September 2022 were characterized by high chloride concentrations, and a clear variation in the results obtained was likewise evident: leachate samples from active landfills contained from 853 mg Cl/l (Jawor) to 2,670 mg Cl/l in Legnica. At the aforementioned time, the leachate samples from the inactive landfills contained from 110 mg Cl/l in Wrocław to 674 mg Cl/fifty in Bielawa. In leachate samples collected in December 2019, a marked decrease in chloride concentrations was observed, only differences between agile and inactive landfills were still evident. Significantly higher concentrations of chloride in the leachate could have been caused past high precipitation in September 2019, exceeding the 1971–2000 norm for that month (115.4% of the norm). They could cause increased leaching of pollutant components from the waste (Meteorological Yearbook, 2019)

Leachates from agile landfills independent from 11.5 mg Cl/l (Jawor) to 21.95 mg Cl/50 (Legnica) and leachates from inactive landfills contained from 0.82 mg Cl/50 (Wrocław) to 5.5 mg Cl/l (Bielawa).

According to the data presented in literature, usually in middle-aged landfills (i.e., more than 5 years one-time) chloride content in leachates decreases significantly, ranging from 100 to 400 mg Cl/50 (Deng and Englehardt, 2007), which is confirmed past the results obtained during the 2nd series of studies, both in active and inactive landfills. The results obtained in the first series of studies were clearly exterior this range, yet, such high concentrations were too observed by other authors, e.thou., during studies of leachates from the landfill in Sydney carried out by Bowman et al. (2002) values reaching up to 8,000 mg Cl/50 were observed.

Fe, Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb, Cr

Atomic number 26 content in leachates from inactive landfills ranged from 0.019 mg/l (Wroclaw 12.2019) to eight.66 mg/50 (Bielawa 09.2019), while in active landfills the values were college, ranging from two.6 mg/l (Legnica 12.2019) to 38.73 mg/l (Jawor 12.2019).

In both serial of studies, in leachates from active and inactive landfills, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Cr contents did not exceed the value of i mg/L. Low contents of heavy metals (< 1 mg/fifty) in leachates from agile landfills may indicate that the landfilled waste is mainly municipal waste, not containing these components (Naveen et al., 2017). Also in other studies, the authors reported low concentrations of heavy metals in leachates, emphasizing that their presence is not a major concern at nowadays (Öman and Junestedt, 2008; Bożym et al., 2020). The conspicuously higher concentrations of chromium in the leachate (except for the landfill in Jawor) could have been acquired (as in the case of chromium) by high atmospheric precipitation in September 2019.

The zinc content in leachates from inactive landfills ranged from 0.554 mg/l at the landfill in Wrocław to 1.572 mg/l at the landfill in Bielawa. However, in active landfills, the value reached two,560 mg/l (Jawor 12.2019).

Metals, such as Zn, Fe, Cu, Cr, Ni, deed as micronutrients, needed for plant development. Therefore, in certain concentrations they are necessary for their proper functioning, they can stimulate growth, but subsequently exceeding threshold values they become toxic for them. Metals in besides loftier concentrations tin can lead to germination stopping and inhibition of root or shoot growth. For some heavy metals, such as Cd or Pb, toxic effects to plants can occur even at low concentrations (Umar et al., 2010; Kranner and Colville, 2011).

Leachate Pollution Alphabetize

The LPI is a tool that allows the obtained results to be standardized and compared with each other (Naveen et al., 2017). The characteristics of the selected leachate serial for one of the four sites where the study was conducted, i.e., Jawor landfill (December 2022 series), and the method of calculating the LPI value forth with the parameters used for its adding, i.e.,: weight parameter (w_i), contaminant concentration and sub-index value (p_i) are presented in Tabular array 2.

Tabular array two. Leachate pollution index (LPI) calculation results-Jawor landfill 12.2019.

12 out of the eighteen parameters selected for LPI adding were adamant in the leachate samples. The calculated LPI values for the four landfills along with the shares of each parameter are presented in Figure 2.

Effigy 2. LPI values and shares of item parameters in calculated values for the investigated active (L-Legnica, J-Jawor) and inactive (West-Wrocław, B-Bielawa) landfills.

LPI values in active landfills ranged from 11.9 (Jawor 09.2019) to 15.i (Jawor 12.2019). In inactive landfills, the values were lower and ranged from 5.2 (09.2019) in Wrocław, to 10.nine in Bielawa (12.2019).

The age of the landfill and the stage of performance influence the composition of leachate and thus the value of LPI (Singh et al., 2016), which is confirmed by the analyses performed. In inactive landfills, the value of LPI was lower than in agile landfills, which indicates the stabilization of decomposition processes and is consistent with the results obtained by other authors (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a; Ahmed and Lan, 2012).

The smallest variation in the LPI value was recorded at the landfill in Wrocław. Such low values may result from the fact that the landfill was inactive in 2000 and the waste decomposition processes are stabilized.

The calculated LPI values were influenced past, amid other things, low concentration of heavy metals in the leachate, which is related to the age of the landfills. With the passage of time, the amount of heavy metals in leachates decreases due to the change of reaction from acidic to basic, which is a result of organic acids consumption by methane leaner and formation of hardly soluble forms of metals (Šourková et al., 2020). In the analyzed landfills (except for the landfill in Wrocław), higher contaminant values were recorded for COD, AN, and TKN, which influenced higher LPI values.

Calculated LPI values indicate that leachates from inactive landfills are contaminated to a lesser extent than from active sites. In the study performed, the LPI values did not exceed 16, and according to literature, but LPI > 35 indicates a poor environmental condition (Kumar and Alappat, 2005a). Such high values (at 34.8) were recorded at a landfill site in Mexico, as well as in leachates from Chandigarh, Republic of india (LPI = 33.2) and Bhalswa, New Delhi, Republic of india (LPI = 31.5), and Panchkula, Republic of india (LPI = 21.9). LPI values recorded in other studies ranged from 11.5 in Pajam 2, Malaysia, to xviii.5 in leachates from Toluca (TOL), Mexico. In our written report, like LPI values were obtained (ranging from 11.1 to 15.9), only at the landfill in Wrocław the LPI value was much lower than reported in the literature and was vii.4 (Table 3).

Table iii. List of parameters used to calculate LPI in various studies.

The LPI does not show the influence of the dissimilar groups of pollutants in the leachate. Therefore, Kumar and Alappat take formulated sub-indices of LPI: LPI_in, LPI_or and LPI_hm.

The three sub-LPIs were calculated using the process explained in Eq. 2 and are shown in Table four.

TABLE 4. Sub-indices of LPI and overall LPI for leachate from active and closed landfills.

The overall LPI was calculated using the process explained in Eq. three.

At the airtight landfill in Wrocław, the overall LPI value ranged from 5.43 (series 09.2019) to six.03 (series 12.2019). The ascendant pollutants were heavy metals-LPI_hm was 42.four(series 12.2019)–48.8 % (series 09.2019). A high content of organic substances was also noted, LPI_or ranged from 25.vi (series 09.2019) to 34.6 % (serial 12.2019). Inorganic substances had a smaller share, LPI_in ranged from 23 to 25.5%.

In the remaining iii landfills, organic substances were the dominant grouping of pollutants. The corresponding LP_Ior values at the closed landfill in Bielawa were from 74.1% (series 09.2019) to 76.4% (series 12.2019). At an active landfill in Legnica, the LPIor values were from 66.97 % (series 09.2019) to 65.5% (series 12.2019At the 2d active landfill in Jawor, the LPIor was in the range from 65.9% (series 12.2019) to 69.2% (serial 09.2019).

LPI_hm values, reflecting the content of heavy metals in the leachate from the closed landfill in Bielawa, were from 14 (series 12.2019) to xvi% (series 09.2019). For an active landfill in Legnica, LPI_hm was from 12.2% (series 12.2019) to 21.6 (series 09.2019), for the 2d active landfill in Jawor LPI_hm was in the range 12.3 (series 12.2019) to 15.five % (series 09.2019)

Values LPI_in, representing the content of inorganic substances in the Bielawa leachate, ranged from 9.6 (series 12.2019) to ix.9% (series 09.2019). For an active landfill in Legnica, these values were higher, the LPI_in was xi.45 (series 09.2019) to 22.31% (serial 12.2019). At the second active landfill in Jawor, LPI_in was in the range 15.three (series 09.2019) to 21.74% (serial 12.2019).

The LPI sub-alphabetize calculations showed a depression content of heavy metals in the analyzed leachates, therefore they should not adversely bear upon the biological handling process. The exception is the oldest, closed landfill in Wrocław, where heavy metals were the dominant group of pollutants, but they too remained at a low level.

The obtained results bear witness that the presence of heavy metals in the leachate should non disturb their biological handling. Additionally, the leachate has a loftier content of organic substances (LPI_or), which ways that biological treatment will be a good method of their purification.

Effect of Leachate on Seed Formation

The percentage of germinated seeds of mustard Sinapis alba L. at different concentrations of leachate from 4 landfills is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Upshot of increasing landfill leachate concentrations on seed formation of Sinapis alba Fifty.

A high percentage of germinated seeds was found in the inactive landfills. The lowest values among inactive landfills were recorded in Bielawa, where the percentage of germinated seeds ranged from xc% (in leachate concentration: 6.25, 50, 100%) to 100% (in leachate concentration: 12.5%, 25%). For the landfill in Wroclaw, simply in September 2022 at 50% leachate concentration xc% of the seeds germinated. The other trials showed no effect on the germination of Sinapis alba L.

For agile landfills, a greater effect of leachate concentration on seed formation tin be observed. Peculiarly for the landfill in Jawor, where at 100% leachate concentration the proportion of germinated seeds was 0% (Dec 2022 serial) and 10% (September 2022 series). The meaning inhibition of germination may have been due to a damage to the establish defence force system (Gupta and Rajamani, 2015). For the 2nd agile landfill (in Legnica), a higher percentage of germinated seeds was observed: in the raw leachate it was xx% (December 2022 series) and l% (September 2022 series).

Studies conducted for four landfills testify that a articulate human relationship between seed germination and leachate composition cannot ever be observed. Simply in the instance of the landfill in Jawor the December series of tests showed unequivocally the influence of increasing leachate concentration on the decrease of germinating seeds. In the remaining cases there were deviations from this trend, despite the fact that single dilutions (e.g., 12.5 and 100% in Legnica in December, 25 and 100% in Jawor in September) caused a meaning subtract in the germination capacity of the seeds of Sinapis alba L. Other researchers came to similar conclusions. During leachate toxicity tests on three species i.e., lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), arugula (Eruca sativa Manufacturing plant.) and onion (Allium cepa L.), seed germination test was establish to be insensitive to leachate toxicity (Klauck et al., 2015). The aforementioned was establish during the study conducted by Vaisi and Žaltauskaitė (2010) on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), which showed no articulate human relationship between seed germination and leachate concentration. Like conclusions were besides reached by Guerrero-Rodríguez et al. (2014) conducting a study on common bean, during which a negligible toxic effect on the seed stage was found.

Effects of Leachate on Root and Shoot Growth

Figures 3–half dozen bear witness the results of tests of differences between samples (Student's t tests), performed for the control sample (0), and leachate dilutions. The graphs testify the basic characteristics (hateful, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum) of the empirical root (Figures 3, 4) and shoot (Figures 5, 6) length distributions for the four landfills where the study was conducted. Letters "a" and "b" indicate examination results for independent groups, i.e., dilutions (samples) that significantly differed from the control sample in root or shoot length: "a" indicates root or shoot lengths significantly greater than those obtained for the control sample, "b" are lengths significantly less than those obtained for the control sample. Additionally, symbol "10" denotes the dilutions (trials) that significantly differed from the other dilutions (without the control trial), which was confirmed by the results of the exam conducted for dependent trials. The marked differences are pregnant with p < 0.05.

FIGURE iii. Characteristic values (hateful, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for root length measurement results-series 09.2019.

FIGURE 4. Characteristic values (hateful, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for root length measurement results-series 12.2019.

FIGURE 5. Characteristic values (hateful, standard deviation, minimum, maximum) for shoot length measurements results-series 09.2019.

Figure 6. Characteristic values (mean, standard divergence, minimum, maximum) for the results of shoot length measurements-series 12.2019.

Roots

Many studies have pointed out that the root length test performs ameliorate than the seed formation test in phytotoxicity assessment, which is related, amidst other things, to its greater sensitivity to contaminants (Galbraith et al., 1995; Fuentes et al., 2004; Kummerová and Kmentová, 2004; Vaisi and Žaltauskaitė, 2010; Kranner and Colville, 2011). The analyses performed confirmed that seed formation is not as sensitive to increasing leachate concentrations as root growth. This is most likely due to the increased sensitivity of the root creative tissue, which straight affects permeability, growth hormone production, and prison cell differentiation (Arunbabu et al., 2017). Figures 3, 4 show the event of leachate concentrations on root growth of Sinapis alba 50.

In the start series of tests conducted in September 2019, information technology was observed that at a leachate concentration of half dozen.25%, root length was greater than for the control sample (Figure 3). Farther increase in leachate concentrations resulted in inhibition of root development. In the active landfills (Legnica, Jawor) information technology can be observed that at the highest concentration (100%), the root length increments were significantly smaller than for the control sample.

In each of the analyzed cases ameliorate root growth was observed at low concentrations (compared to the control sample). The results presented hither indicate that diluted leachate tin have a positive issue on establish growth. This may be due to the high concentration of nitrogen and the presence of other nutrients necessary for growth (Calabrese and Blain, 2005; Jones et al., 2006; Vaisi and Žaltauskaitė, 2010; Guerrero-Rodríguez et al., 2014). Other authors, on the other hand, explain the increment in root or shoot length at low leachate concentrations by hormonal activity and stimulation of defense force reactions in plants, which atomic number 82 to a general activation of metabolism (Cargnelutti et al., 2006; Klauck et al., 2015)

During the 2nd series of tests, conducted in December 2019, in most cases information technology was observed (with the exception of the landfill in Wrocław) that at 100% leachate concentrations root lengths were significantly smaller than those obtained for the control sample (Figure 4). In the active landfills (Legnica, Jawor) it was observed that even at lower concentrations leachate had an inhibitory effect on root growth and their lengths were smaller than for the control sample. Like conclusions were reached by Vaverková et al. (2020) who observed during a study conducted on white mustard Sinapis alba L. that regardless of the concentration, leachates caused root growth inhibition.

Shoots

The analyzed leachate samples in both series showed furnishings on shoot growth (Figures 5, 6). The effects vary between series and depend on the dose selected. In both series, significant differences in shoot length increments can be observed depending on the origin of the leachate (from active or inactive landfills). In the case of active landfills (Jawor, Legnica), at high leachate doses (in a higher place 50%), shoot length increments were smaller.

During the series performed in September (Figure five) in the active landfills, at high leachate concentrations (l and 100%) a significant decrease in shoot length increments was observed in comparing with the control sample. However, at lower concentrations shoot lengths remained at a similar level or were slightly larger than for the control sample (Legnica and Jawor). At the inactive landfills (Bielawa, Wrocław) such a pronounced decrease in shoot length increment was not observed with increasing doses of leachate in comparison with the control sample, and larger differences occurred but at 100% concentration.

The results of the 2d series of shoot growth tests (Figure half-dozen), conducted in Dec, evidence much greater differences betwixt active and inactive landfills, compared to the September series. Raw leachate in all cases showed an inhibitory outcome on shoot growth, compared to the control sample. In active landfills, shoot growth in raw leachate was completely stopped. At low doses, leachates showed footling stimulating effect on shoot growth-except at the landfill in Legnica, where even depression leachate concentration (six.25%) resulted in less shoot growth compared to the control sample. Besides Gupta and Rajamani in their study on Vicia faba found that high leachate concentrations significantly reduced shoot growth (in relation to the command sample), which may be due to the organism's power to defend itself against stress. The plant could show stress resistance with low leachate concentrations but not with loftier concentrations (Klauck et al., 2015).

Correlations Between LPI and Toxic Effect

Table six shows the magnitudes of the toxic effect (calculated from the inhibition of root and shoot growth) and the correlation coefficient between the toxic outcome and LPI values. The toxic effect and the correlation coefficient were calculated for leachates from the landfills in Legnica, Jawor, and Bielawa. The results of the studies on leachate from the landfill in Wrocław were not taken into account because due to the low level of contamination less dilutions were performed for them, which resulted in rejection of the series differing in numbers during the calculations.

TABLE 6. Toxic result values (calculated from inhibition of root and shoot growth) and correlations between toxic effect values and LPI for analyzed leachate dilutions (marked values are significant for p < 0.05, Due north = 12).

Statistically significant correlations, ranging from 0.592 to 0.785, occurred for dilutions from 25 to 100%. Testing of leachate samples from iii landfills showed that the toxic upshot at college concentrations results in inhibition of root and shoot growth, which correlates with high LPI contaminant alphabetize values. From the higher up results, information technology can be concluded that leachate toxicity is related to contaminant concentration. It should be remembered that information technology is also influenced by other factors such every bit persistence and bioavailability in the environment. The results obtained confirmed the existence of a relationship between institute toxic effect and LPI values.

Conclusion

1. The use of LPI as a tool for assessing the quality of leachate water from different landfills significantly facilitates their rapid comparison with each other, even with a dissimilar range of analyses performed. Thus, it is possible to have quicker actions to reduce the negative impact on the surroundings. The application of LPI can besides be helpful in the selection of leachate treatment technologies.

2. The division into LPI index subgroups immune for a improve definition and grouping of pollutants present in the leachate and turned out to be more useful in selecting the method of their treatment.

3. In the case of the 3 analyzed landfills, the sub-LPI indexes allowed to classify the leachate as rich in organic substances and characterized by a depression content of heavy metals. This classification indicates that the biological handling method may be the best possible treatment option for the analyzed effluents. Merely in the case of the airtight landfill in Wrocław, it was observed that heavy metals found the dominant group of pollutants, but the content of organic substances remained only at a slightly lower level.

4. Calculated values of the leachate pollution alphabetize showed that leachates from selected Polish landfills are characterized past low and medium levels of LPI values. The variation in index values obtained was peculiarly axiomatic between active and inactive landfills and was related to the physicochemical composition of leachates.

5. Phytotoxicity tests showed that leachate at low concentrations can promote plant growth. At higher concentrations (fifty and 100%), leachates caused inhibition of root and shoot growth, which correlated with loftier LPI values. The results confirmed the human relationship between the toxic effect on plants and the LPI values, and then it tin can be considered every bit a reliable indicator of leachate toxicity.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the written report are included in the article/Supplementary Textile, farther inquiries can be directed to the respective writer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization AW, Equally-P. Methodology AW, AS-P. Validation AS-P Formal analysis AW, As-P. Investigation AW. Resource AW, AS-P. Data Curation AW, AS-P. Writing-AW. Writing-Review and Editing AS-P. Visualization AW and AS-P. Supervision AS-P. Project administration AW.

Funding

B010/0004/xx UTRZYMANIE I ROZWÓJ POTENCJAŁU BADAWCZEGO KATEDR I INSTYTUTÓW-SUBWENCJA 2020-IKŚIG-INSTYTUT INŻYNIERII ŚRODOWISKA.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the inquiry was conducted in the absenteeism of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can exist found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ten.3389/fenvs.2021.693112/full#supplementary-material

References

Ahmed, F. N., and Lan, C. Q. (2012). Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Membrane Bioreactors: A Review. Desalination 287, 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.012

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Akinbile, C. O., Yusoff, Grand. S., and Shian, L. M. (2012). Leachate Label and Phytoremediation Using Water Hyacinth (Eichorrnia Crassipes) in Pulau Burung, Malaysia. Bioremediation J. xvi, 9–18. doi:10.1080/10889868.2011.628350

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arunbabu, Five., Indu, K. South., and Ramasamy, East. V. (2017). Leachate Pollution index as an Constructive Tool in Determining the Phytotoxicity of Municipal Solid Waste product Leachate. Waste matter Manag. 68, 329–336. doi:ten.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aziz, H. A., Umar, 1000., and Yusoff, M. Southward. (2010). Variability of Parameters Involved in Leachate Pollution index and Determination of LPI from Four Landfills in Malaysia. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2010, 3. doi:ten.1155/2010/747953

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Bove, D., Merello, S., Frumento, D., Arni, Southward. A., Aliakbarian, B., and Converti, A. (2015). A Critical Review of Biological Processes and Technologies for Landfill Leachate Treatment. Chem. Eng. Technol. 38, 2115–2126. doi:10.1002/ceat.201500257

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Bowman, M. S., Clune, T. South., and Sutton, B. G. (2002). Sustainable Management of Landfill Leachate by Irrigation. Water. Air Soil Pollut. 134, 81–96. doi:10.1023/A:1014114500269

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bożym, 1000., Król, A., and Mizerna, K. (2020). Leachate and Contact Test with Lepidium Sativum L. To Assess the Phytotoxicity of Waste material. International journal of Environmental Scientific discipline and Technology. doi:10.1007/s13762-020-02980-x

CrossRef Full Text

Calabrese, East., and Blain, R. (2005). The Occurrence of Hormetic Dose Responses in the Toxicological Literature, the Hormesis Database: An Overview. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 202, 289–301. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2004.06.023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cargnelutti, D., Tabaldi, 50. A., Spanevello, R. M., de Oliveira Jucoski, G., Battisti, V., Redin, Yard., et al. (2006). Mercury Toxicity Induces Oxidative Stress in Growing Cucumber Seedlings. Chemosphere 65, 999–1006. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.03.037

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Christensen, T. H., Kjeldsen, P., Bjerg, P. L., Jensen, D. L., Christensen, J. B., Baun, A., et al. (2001). Biogeochemistry of Landfill Leachate Plumes. Appl. Geochem. 16, 659–718. doi:10.1016/S0883-2927(00)00082-ii

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fuentes, A., Lloréns, Yard., Sáez, J., Aguilar, Grand. I., Ortuño, J. F., and Meseguer, V. F. (2004). Phytotoxicity and Heavy Metals Speciation of Stabilised Sewage Sludges. J. Run a risk. Mater. 108, 161–169. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Galbraith, H., Lejeune, K., and Lipton, J. (1995). Metal and Arsenic Impacts to Soils, Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitat in Southwest Montana Uplands Contaminated by Smelter Emissions: I. Field Evaluation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 1895–1903. doi:x.1002/etc.5620141111

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, J., Oloibiri, V., Chys, M., Audenaert, Due west., Decostere, B., He, Y., et al. (2014). The Present Condition of Landfill Leachate Treatment and its Development Tendency from a Technological point of View. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14, 93–122. doi:10.1007/s11157-014-9349-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guerrero-Rodríguez, D., Sánchez-Yáñez, J. 1000., Buenrostro-Delgado, O., and Márquez-Benavides, L. (2014). Phytotoxic Issue of Landfill Leachate with Dissimilar Pollution Indexes on Common Bean. Water Air Soil Pollut. 225. doi:10.1007/s11270-014-2002-i

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, A., and Rajamani, P. (2015). Toxicity Cess of Municipal Solid Waste matter Landfill Leachate Collected in Different Seasons from Okhala Landfill Site of Delhi. JBiSE 08, 357–369. doi:10.4236/jbise.2015.86034

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hussein, Grand., Yoneda, G., Zaki, Z. M., Othman, Northward. A., and Amir, A. (2019). Leachate Characterizations and Pollution Indices of Active and Closed Unlined Landfills in Malaysia. Environ. Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag. 12, 100232. doi:ten.1016/j.enmm.2019.100232

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jorstad, L. B., Jankowski, J., and Acworth, R. I. (2004). Analysis of the Distribution of Inorganic Constituents in a Landfill Leachate-Contaminated Aquifer: Astrolabe Park, Sydney, Commonwealth of australia. Env Geol. 46, 263–272. doi:10.1007/s00254-004-0978-3

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Kalčíková, Grand., Zagorc-Končan, J., Zupančič, Chiliad., and Gotvajn, A. Ž. (2012). Variation of Landfill Leachate Phytotoxicity Due to Landfill Ageing. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 87, 1349–1353. doi:10.1002/jctb.3776

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Baun, A., Ledin, A., and Christensen, T. H. (2002). Present and Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Tech. 32, 297–336. doi:10.1080/10643380290813462

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Klauck, C., Rodrigues, M., and Silva, L. (2015). Evaluation of Phytotoxicity of Municipal Landfill Leachate earlier and after Biological Treatment. Braz. J. Biol. 75, 57–62. doi:x.1590/1519-6984.1813

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Kranner, I., and Colville, L. (2011). Metals and Seeds: Biochemical and Molecular Implications and Their Significance for Seed Germination. Environ. Exp. Bot. 72, 93–105. doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.05.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, D., and Alappat, B. J. (2005b). Analysis of Leachate Pollution index and Formulation of Sub-leachate Pollution Indices. Waste Manag. Res. 23, 230–239. doi:ten.1177/0734242X05054875

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, D., and Alappat, B. J. (2005c). Analysis of Leachate Pollution index and Formulation of Sub-leachate Pollution Indices. Waste Manag. Res. 23, 230–239. doi:x.1177/0734242X05054875

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, D., and Alappat, B. J. (2005a). Evaluating Leachate Contamination Potential of Landfill Sites Using Leachate Pollution index. Make clean. Techn Environ. Politician. 7, 190–197. doi:10.1007/s10098-004-0269-four

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, D., and Alappat, B. J. (2004). Selection of the Appropriate Aggregation Function for Calculating Leachate Pollution Index. Pract. Periodical Chance. Tox. Radioactive Waste matter Manag. 8, 253–264. doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-025x(2004)eight:4(253)

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kummerová, M., and Kmentová, E. (2004). Photoinduced Toxicity of Fluoranthene on Germination and Early Development of Plant Seedling. Chemosphere 56, 387–393. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.01.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liao, S. W., and Chang, W. L. (2004). Heavy Metallic Phytoremediation by H2o Hyacinth at Constructed Wetlands in Taiwan. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 42, 60–68.

Google Scholar

Maiorana, Southward., Teoldi, F., Silvani, S., Mancini, A., Sanguineti, A., Mariani, F., et al. (2019). Phytotoxicity of Article of clothing Debris from Traditional and Innovative Brake Pads. Environ. Int. 123, 156–163. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

McCutcheon, S. C., Susarla, S., and Medina, V. F. (2002). Phytoremediation: An Ecological Solution to Organic Chemic Contamination. Ecol. Eng. 18, 647–658. doi:10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00026-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meteorological Yearbook (2019). Institute of Meteorology and Water Management -National Inquiry Institute. Warsaw: Instituts für Meteorologie und Wasserwirtschaft, 358. (in Shine).

Mohammad-pajooh, E., Weichgrebe, D., and Cuff, G. (2017). Municipal Landfill Leachate Characteristics and Feasibility of Retrofitting Existing Treatment Systems with Deammonification - A Full Scale Survey. J. Environ. Manage. 187, 354–364. doi:ten.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.061

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mor, South., Negi, P., and Khaiwal, R. (2018). Assessment of Groundwater Pollution by Landfills in India Using Leachate Pollution alphabetize and Estimation of Mistake. Environ. Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag. 10, 467–476. doi:ten.1016/j.enmm.2018.09.002

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Nagarajan, R., Thirumalaisamy, South., and Lakshumanan, Eastward. (2012). Impact of Leachate on Groundwater Pollution Due to Not-engineered Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites of Erode Urban center, Tamil Nadu, India. J. Environ. Wellness Sci. Engineer 9. doi:10.1186/1735-2746-9-35

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Naveen, B. P., Mahapatra, D. Thou., Sitharam, T. Thou., Sivapullaiah, P. V., and Ramachandra, T. Five. (2017). Physico-chemical and Biological Characterization of Urban Municipal Landfill Leachate. Environ. Pollut. 220, 1–12. doi:x.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phoungthong, 1000., Zhang, H., Shao, L.-G., and He, P.-J. (2016). Variation of the Phytotoxicity of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash on Wheat (Triticum aestivum 50.) Seed Germination with Leaching Conditions. Chemosphere 146, 547–554. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Rana, R., Ganguly, R., and Gupta, A. Thou. (2018). Indexing Method for Assessment of Pollution Potential of Leachate from Non-engineered Landfill Sites and its Outcome on Footing H2o Quality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190. doi:10.1007/s10661-017-6417-one

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Singer, A. C., Bong, T., Heywood, C. A., Smith, J. A. C., and Thompson, I. P. (2007). Phytoremediation of Mixed-Contaminated Soil Using the Hyperaccumulator Plant Alyssum Lesbiacum: Bear witness of Histidine as a Mensurate of Phytoextractable Nickel. Environ. Pollut. 147, 74–82. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2006.08.029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, South., Raju, N. J., Gossel, W., and Wycisk, P. (2016). Assessment of Pollution Potential of Leachate from the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site and its Impact on Groundwater Quality, Varanasi Environs, India. Arab. J. Geosci. 9, one–12. doi:10.1007/s12517-015-2131-10

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Šourková, Thousand., Adamcová, D., Zloch, J., Skutnik, Z., and Vaverková, Grand. D. (2020). Evaluation of the Phytotoxicity of Leachate from a Municipal Solid Waste product Landfill: The Example Report of Bukov Landfill. Environ. - MDPI 7, 1–14. doi:x.3390/environments7120111

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Słomczyńska, B., and Słomczyński, T. (2004). Physico-chemical and Toxicological Characteristics of Leachates from MSW Landfills. Polish J. Environ. Stud. thirteen, 627–637.

Google Scholar

Tatsi, A. A., and Zouboulis, A. I. U. (2002). A FIeld Investigation of the Quantity and Quality of Leachate from a Municipal Solid Waste product Landfill in a Mediterranean Climate (Thessaloniki, Greece). Adv. Environ. Res. 6, 207–219. doi:x.1016/S1093-0191(01)00052-i

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Tałałaj, I. A., Biedka, P., Walery, Chiliad. J., and Leszczyński, J. (2016). Monitoring of Leachate Quality at a Selected Municipal Landfill Site in Podlasie, Poland. J. Ecol. Eng. 17, 175–184. doi:ten.12911/22998993/63477

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tomczyk, P. (2021). The Effects of Hydropower Plants on the Physicochemical Parameters of the Bystrzyca River in Poland. Energies 14, 2075. doi:x.1007/s10639-021-10539-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tränkler, J., Visvanathan, C., Kuruparan, P., and Tubtimthai, O. (2005). Influence of Tropical Seasonal Variations on Landfill Leachate Characteristics-Results from Lysimeter Studies. Waste product Manag. 25, 1013–1020. doi:ten.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Umar, M., Aziz, H. A., and Yusoff, M. S. (2010). Trends in the Use of Fenton, Electro-Fenton and Photograph-Fenton for the Handling of Landfill Leachate. Waste product Manag. 30, 2113–2121. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.07.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

United nations (2019). 2019 Human Evolution Index Ranking | Human being Development Reports. United Nations Dev. Program.

Vaisi, R., and Žaltauskaitė, J. (2010). Evaluation of Municipal Effluent Toxicity Using Higher Plants and Invertebrates. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. iii, 17–23.

Google Scholar

Vaverková, M. D., Elbl, J., Koda, E., Adamcová, D., Bilgin, A., Lukas, 5., et al. (2020). Chemical Composition and Hazardous Furnishings of Leachate from the Agile Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Surrounded past Farmlands. Sustainability 12, 4531. doi:ten.3390/su12114531

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Wdowczyk, A., and Szymańska-Pulikowska, A. (2020). Differences in the Composition of Leachate from Agile and Non-operational Municipal Waste Landfills in Poland. Water 12, 3129. doi:10.3390/w12113129

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Zalesny, J. A., Zalesny, R. S., Wiese, A. H., Sexton, B., and Hall, R. B. (2008). Sodium and Chloride Accumulation in Leaf, Woody, and Root Tissue of Populus after Irrigation with Landfill Leachate. Environ. Pollut. 155, 72–80. doi:x.1016/j.envpol.2007.x.032

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zloch, J., Vaverková, M. D., Adamcová, D., Radziemska, K., Vyhnánek, T., Trojan, V., et al. (2018). Seasonal Changes and Toxic Potency of Landfill Leachate for White Mustard (Sinapis alba 50.). Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 66, 235–242. doi:10.11118/actaun201866010235

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

tinklebacee1968.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.693112/full

Share this post