Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 873–885 | Cite as

Hybrid method for selection of the optimal process of leachate treatment in waste treatment and valorization plants or landfills

  • Manuel Martin-Utrillas
  • Manuel Reyes-Medina
  • Jorge Curiel-Esparza
  • Julian Canto-Perello
Original paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Leachate from waste landfill or treatment plants is a very complex and highly contaminated liquid effluent. In its composition, it is found dissolved organic matter, inorganic salts, heavy metals, and other xenobiotic organic compounds, so it can be toxic, carcinogenic, and capable of inducing a potential risk to biota and humans. European law does not allow such leachate to leave the premises without being depolluted. There are many procedures that enable debugging, always combining different techniques. Choosing the best method to use in each case is a complex decision, as it depends on many tangible and intangible factors that must be weighed to achieve a balance between technical, cost, and environmental sustainability. It is presenting a hybrid method for choosing the optimal combination of techniques to apply in each case, by combining a multicriteria hierarchical analysis based on expert data obtained by the Delphi method with an analysis by the method of VIKOR to reach a consensus solution.

Keywords

Leachate treatment Waste treatment Valorization plants Analytical hierarchy process Delphi method VIKOR technique 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abbas AA, Guo J, Ping LZ, Ya PY, Al-Rekabi WS (2009) Review on landfill leachate treatments. AJAS 6(4):672–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abood AR, Bao J, Abudi Z, Zheng D, Gao C (2013) Pretreatment of nonbiodegradable landfill leachate by air stripping coupled with agitation as ammonia stripping and coagulation–flocculation processes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(6):1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahn WY, Kang MS, Yim SK, Choi KH (2002) Advanced landfill leachate treatment using an integrated membrane process. Desalination 149(1–3):109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Subhi Al-Harbi KM (2001) Application of the AHP in project management. Int J Proj Manag 19:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernasconi M, Choirat C, Seri R (2014) Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: theory and evidence. Eur J Oper Res 232(3):584–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boopathy R, Karthikeyan S, Mandal AB, Sekaran G (2013) Characterization and recovery of sodium chloride from salt-laden solid waste generated from leather industry. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(1):117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brechet T, Tulkens H (2009) Beyond BAT: selecting optimal combinations of available techniques, with an example from the limestone industry. J Environ Manag 90:1790–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canto-Perello J, Curiel-Esparza J, Calvo V (2013) Criticality and threat analysis on utility tunnels for planning security policies of utilities in urban underground space. Expert Syst Appl 40(11):4707–4714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Y, Liu C, Nie J, Wu S, Wang D (2014) Removal of COD and decolorizing from landfill leachate by Fenton’s reagent advanced oxidation. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(1):189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiochetta CG, Goetten LC, Almeida SM, Quaranta G, Cotelle S, Radetski CM (2014) Leachates from solid wastes: chemical and eco(geno)toxicological differences between leachates obtained from fresh and stabilized industrial organic sludge. Environ Sci Pollut R 21:1090–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiumenti A, da Borso F, Chiumenti R, Teri F, Segantin P (2013) Treatment of digestate from a co-digestion biogas plant by means of vacuum evaporation: tests for process optimization and environmental sustainability. Waste Manag 33(6):1339–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1999) April 26th 1999, on the landfill of waste. European Union Council, Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999 P. 0001–0019Google Scholar
  13. Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J (2012) Understanding the major drivers for implementation of municipal sustainable policies in underground space. Int J Sust Dev World 19(6):506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J (2013) Selecting utilities placement techniques in urban underground engineering. Arch Civ Mech Eng 13(2):276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curiel-Esparza J, Canto-Perello J, Calvo MA (2004) Establishing sustainable strategies in urban underground engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 10(3):523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dong Y, Zhang G, Hong WC, Xu Y (2010) Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decis Support Syst 49:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duckstein L, Opricovic S (1980) Multiobjective Optimization in River Basin Development. Water Resour Res 16(1):14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, van Lier JB (2013) Effect of support material properties on dynamic membrane filtration performance. Separ Sci Technol 48(15):2263–2269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gracht HA (2012) Consensus measurement in Delphi studies, review and implications for future quality assurance. Forecast Soc Chang 79(8):1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grisey E, Laffray X, Contoz O, Cavalli E, Mudry J, Aleya L (2012) The bioaccumulation performance of reeds and cattails in a constructed treatment wetland for removal of heavy metals in landfill leachate treatment (Etueffont, France). Water Air Soil Pollut 223:1723–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guoliang Z, Lei Q, Qin M, Zheng F, Dexin W (2013) Aerobic SMBR/reverse osmosis system enhanced by Fenton oxidation for advanced treatment of old municipal landfill leachate. Bioresour Technol 142:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta SK, Singh G (2007) Assessment of the Efficiency and Economic Viability of Various Methods of Treatment of Sanitary Landfill Leachate. Environ Monit Assess 135:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heyer KU, Stegmann R (2005) Landfill systems, sanitary landfilling of solid wastes, and long-term problems with leachate. In: Jördening HJ, Winter J (eds) Environmental Biotechnology. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, p 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu CC, Sandord BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. PARE 12(10):1–7Google Scholar
  25. Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH (2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32(4):297–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee WS (2013) Merger and acquisition evaluation and decision making model. Serv Ind J 33(15–16):1473–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee GKL, Chan EHW (2008) The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc Indic Res 89(1):155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li G, Wang W, Du Q (2010) Applicability of nanofiltration for the advanced treatment of landfill leachate. J Appl Polym Sci 116(4):2343–2347Google Scholar
  29. Mela K, Tiainen T, Heinisuo M (2012) Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Adv Eng Inform 26:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozdemir MS, Saaty TL (2006) The unknown in decision making, what to do about it. Eur J Oper Res 174(1):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renou S, Givaudan JG, Poulain S, Dirassouyan F, Moulin P (2008) Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard Mater 150(3):468–493Google Scholar
  32. Ritzkowski M, Stegmann R (2012) Landfill aeration worldwide: concepts, indications and findings. Waste Manag 32(7):1411–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romero C, Ramos P, Costa C, Marquez MC (2013) Raw and digested municipal waste compost leachate as potential fertilizer: comparison with a commercial fertilizer. J Clean Prod 59:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roubelat F (2011) The Delphi method as a ritual: inquiring the Delphi Oracle. Forecast Soc Chang 78(9):1491–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. Mc Graw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  37. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Google Scholar
  38. Saaty TL (2012) Decision making for leaders. The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, 3rd edn. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  39. San Cristobal J (2012) Contractor selection using multicriteria decision-making methods. J Constr Eng M 138(6):751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sayadi MK, Heydari M, Shahanaghi K (2009) Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Appl Math Model 33:2257–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statnikova RB, Bordetskya A, Statnikov A (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of real-life engineering optimization problems: statement and solution. Nonlinear Anal 63:685–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syamsuddin J (2010) The use of AHP in security policy decision making: an open office calc application. JSW 5(10):1162–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thapa RB, Murayama Y (2010) Drivers of urban growth in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal: examining the efficacy of the analytic hierarchy process. App Geogr 30(1):70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Praagh M, Heerenklage J, Smidt E, Modin H, Stegmann R, Persson KM (2009) Potential emissions from two mechanically–biologically pretreated (MBT) wastes. Waste Manag 29(2):859–868Google Scholar
  45. Vedaraman N, Shamshath BS, Srinivasan SV (2013) Response surface methodology for decolourisation of leather dye using ozonation in a packed bed reactor. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(4):607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang Q, Matsufuji Y, Dong L, Huang Q, Hirano F, Tanaka A (2006) Research on leachate recirculation from different types of landfills. Waste Manag 26:815–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xing W, Lu W, Zhao Y (2013) Environmental impact assessment of leachate recirculation in landfill of municipal solid waste by comparing with evaporation and discharge (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag 33(2):382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang W, Zhang KN, Chen YG, Zhou XZ, Jin FX (2013) Prediction on contaminant migration in aquifer of fractured granite substrata of landfill. J Cent South Univ 20(11):3193–3201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Tamosaitiene J (2011) Selection of construction enterprises management strategy based on SWOT and multi-criteria analysis. ACME 11(4):1063–1082Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Martin-Utrillas
    • 1
  • Manuel Reyes-Medina
    • 2
  • Jorge Curiel-Esparza
    • 1
  • Julian Canto-Perello
    • 3
  1. 1.Physical Technologies CenterUniversitat Politecnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Applied PhysicsUniversitat Politecnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Construction Engineering and Civil Engineering ProjectsUniversitat Politecnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations