DOCSLIB.ORG

Leachate Ecotoxicity - Characterization and Risk Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leachate Ecotoxicity - Characterization and Risk Assessment Leachate ecotoxicity - characterization and risk assessment Olof Berglund Chemical Ecology & Ecotoxicology Department of Ecology Lund University Leachate ecotoxicity • To compare toxic potency of different leachates, and effects of treatment methods - combine chemical and toxicological characterization • For environmental risk assessments -use ecotoxicological approaches with endpoints on population, community or ecosystem level Source • How do you estimate leachate toxicity? • How do you assess impact on recipient? Leachate Recipient • Chemical and toxicological characterization • Environmental risk assessments Landfill leachates • Complex mixture of organic and inorganic constituents • Characterization of leachates • Information needed for: – selection of treatment methods – risk assessments of landfill emissions Xenobiotic organic compounds Baun et al. 2004 Pesticides Phtalates Baun et al. 2004 What information? • Information on compounds present and concentrations • Limitations in traditional chemical analyses - time, money and detection limits • Biological effects - toxicity and environmental impact Leachate toxicity • To predict leachate toxicity both toxicological and chemical characterization required • Toxicological - we cannot analyze and detect everything • Chemical - toxicity tests do not reveal the identity of the potential problematic compounds Battery-of-tests approach Exposure Test Organism Endpoint time MicrotoxTM bacteria 15 min luminescence Selenastrum algae 96h growth mortality Daphnia zooplankton 48h (immobility) LC50 test 48 h + + Daphnia magna Dead or Alive? 100 Landfill 1 Landfill 2 50 % response Concentration of leachate LC50 LC50 Battery-of-tests approach Exposure Test Organism Endpoint time MicrotoxTM bacteria 15 min luminescence Daphnia zooplankton 48h immobility Selenastrum algae 96h growth • Several tests - differences in sensitivity Mode of operation • Combine chemical and toxicity characterization to attribute toxicity to specific compounds • Concentration addition (toxic units) – measured concentrations – literature EC50 values – leachate toxicity tests • Rank analysis between leachate toxicity and compound concentrations Contribution to toxicity 4-chlorphenol 4-chlor-o/m- cresol Landfill 6 Camphor • Identify problematic Naphtalene Other compounds • Concentration addition Unknown 4-chlor-o/m- cresol 1. Determine concentrations Landfill 8 Camphor of compounds Naphtalene 2. EC50 values from literature 3. Compare with leachate toxicity tests Unknown 1-Methylnaph 2-Methylnaph Other Baun et al. 2004 Rank analysis Leachate Benzene toxicity NH conc Cd conc 4 conc test 6 Landfill 1 5 1 5 3 5 4 Landfill 2 3 5 3 1 NH4 conc 3 Cd conc Benzene conc Landfill 3 2 2 1 5 2 Landfill 4 1 4 2 4 1 Landfill 5 4 3 4 2 0 0123456 Leachate toxicity test Benefits and drawbacks - chemical and toxicological characterization • Quick, simple and • pH, ammonium, inexpensive chloride (buffering and extraction can partially solve problem) • Compare toxic potency of different leachates • Misses chronic effects (e.g. Bisphenol A) • Identify problematic compounds • Limited relevance to environmental risk assessments Ecotoxicology Ecosystems Responses at different Community organizational levels composition Population changes Whole organism responses Biochemical/physiological changes Pollutant Increasing importance Compare exposure and organizational level 48h months, years, decades single species ecosystems What do we want to protect? • Acute, single species tests, few endpoints - problems with extrapolations to ecosystems • For environmental risk assessments (ERAs) population growth is the first relevant endpoint – community composition, ecosystem structure and function are the ultimate • In ERAs we don’t care about individuals! • Few links between standardized endpoints and population growth How do (should) we assess risks for recipient ecosystems? • Multi-species toxicity testing in mesocoms or in situ – Chronic – Direct and indirect effects Direct and indirect effects • Direct – Acting directly on sites of action in and on the organism + -- + -- • Indirect – Result of changes in the chemical, physical and/or biological environment – Could be both positive and + + negative - - – Trophic cascades How do (should) we assess risks for recipient ecosystems? • Multi-species toxicity testing and in situ or in mesocoms – Chronic – Direct and indirect effects • Population- and community ecology theory Putting ecology into toxicity testing • Life-history traits and population growth (Euler-Lotka equation) – EC50 s for relevant endpoints (life-history traits) – Calculate effect on population growth Individual-level vs population growth rate (λ) sensitivity Polychaete exposed to nonylphenol (174 µg/g) -tj -ta 1 = n Sj λ + Sa λ change relative to control trait (%) juvenile survival (Sj ) 0 adult survival (Sa ) 0 time to first reproduction (tj) +17 time between broods (ta) +25 total number of offspring per -78 individual (n) population growth rate (λ) -24 Forbes & Calow 2002 Individuals versus ecosystems • In many cases population growth less sensitive than individual life history variables Density depending factors -1 0.3 density 0.2 K 0.1 0.0 -0.1 Population growth rate, r, day Log population density (# L-1) time Individuals versus ecosystems • In many cases population growth less sensitive than individual life history variables • But, in several cases toxicity will increase in population and community context 6.5 mg/L 100 75 no predator Community predator 50 25 context 0 1.6 mg/L • Presence of a predator 100 75 no predator predator increases the toxicity of 50 pesticides 25 – Green frogs 0 – Predator cue 100 0.3 mg/L Survival (%) 75 – Carbaryl (insecticide) no predator predator 50 25 0 • Carbaryl 50 times more 100 0 mg/L toxic in combination with 75 no predator predator predation stress! 50 25 0 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 1 1 1 Day Reylea 2003 Putting ecology into toxicity testing • Life-history traits and population growth – EC50 s for relevant endpoints (life-history traits) – Calculate effect on population growth • Species interactions and community ecology -direct and indirect effects • Environmental risk assessments on recipient ecosystems Summary - Leachate ecotoxicity • To compare toxic potency of different leachates, and effects of treatment methods - combine chemical and toxicological characterization • For environmental risk assessments -use ecotoxicological approaches with endpoints on population, community or ecosystem level .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recipe 2016 V1.1 a Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization
    ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization RIVM Report 2016-0104a RIVM Report 2016-0104 Colophon © RIVM 2017 Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, along with the title and year of publication. M.A.J. Huijbregts (author), Radboud University Nijmegen Z.J.N. Steinmann (author), Radboud University Nijmegen P.M.F. Elshout (author), Radboud University Nijmegen G. Stam (author), Radboud University Nijmegen F. Verones (author), NTNU Trondheim M.D.M. Vieira (author), Radboud University Nijmegen, Pré Consultants A. Hollander (author), RIVM M. Zijp (author), RIVM R. van Zelm (author), Radboud University Nijmegen Contact: Anne Hollander RIVM/DMG [email protected] This investigation has been performed by order and for the account of Ministerie IenM, within the framework of Van Afval naar Grondstof This is a publication of: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment P.O. Box 1 | 3720 BA Bilthoven The Netherlands www.rivm.nl/en Page 2 of 201 RIVM Report 2016-0104 Synopsis ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization Life cycle assessment (LCA) enables the assessment of the pressure a certain (production) process places on the environment. The assessment comprises all phases needed to produce and use a product, from the initial development to the treatment of waste (the total life cycle). The goal of LCA is, for example, to compare alternatives or to identify phases in the production process that place a relatively high level of pressure on the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Leachate Quantities After Closure of a Landfill
    Leachate Quantities after Closure of a Landfill Ali Khatami, Ph.D., P.E., The leachate quantities for SCS Engineers the period of 2010 through 2014 were obtained and Criteria for the solid waste analyzed. The data clearly landfills (40 CFR Part 258 shows a downward trend of or the Subtitle D Federal) leachate quantities following have been around for over 30 closure, as would be years and many municipal expected. Leachate collected solid waste (MSW) landfills from the landfill during have been constructed 2010 was reported on a with lining systems in monthly basis when leachate accordance with the Subtitle quantities after closure were D requirements. However, still high and needed to be very few Subtitle D landfills removed from the facility have been entirely closed for disposal every month. with final covers that include However, leachate quantities a geomembrane barrier layer. rapidly decreased and The significance of the final Glades County Landfill after closing. monthly shipment of leachate covers with geomembrane was no longer necessary; is that percolation of rain Since the landfill was closed in one single construction event, rain water instead, leachate was removed when water into the landfill essentially the storage tank reached a point that stops following completion of the percolation was essentially eliminated almost instantaneously considering the leachate had to be removed and final cover. Assuming the final cover quantities reported. Therefore, the the 20-year time frame the landfill was system remains intact, leachate that data did not have monthly values, but continues to be generated after closure open. It is important to note that the maximum thickness of waste in the clusters of several-months data.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Leachate Recirculation at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
    Guidance for Leachate Recirculation at Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Waste/Solid Waste #5.08 • June 2009 Introduction leachate generation, and thus, potential groundwater quality impacts. This Guidance has been developed to meet three goals: Of the waste in landfills at Minnesota Contents MSWLFs in 2006, approximately 77 1. Provide municipal solid waste percent went to facilities that currently Introduction ............... 1 landfill (MSWLF) owners with the have active gas collection systems History ....................... 1 minimum standards to implement Benefits ..................... 2 (Burnsville, Clay, Crow Wing, East Goals......................... 2 leachate recirculation as a tool in Central, Elk River, Pine Bend, and Spruce Design ....................... 3 managing leachate on-site and Ridge). Also in 2006, 43 percent of the Operation .................. 4 minimizing the long-term impact of waste stream went to facilities that Landfill gas the disposed waste to human health recirculate their leachate (Crow Wing, East management ............. 5 and the environment. Monitoring ................. 5 Central, Elk River, Lyon, Morrison, and Physical monitoring 2. Encourage the control of greenhouse Spruce Ridge). parameters ................ 6 Leachate monitoring gas (GHG) emissions at MSWLFs. parameters ................ 6 3. Encourage the production of energy Gas monitoring parameters ................ 7 from landfill gas as an alternative Reporting................... 8 renewable energy source. Closure...................... 9 Long-term care.......... 9 It is the intention of the Minnesota Contact information ... 9 Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to approve leachate recirculation through permit reissuance or major permit modification at MSWLFs that meet the minimum guidelines outlined herein. This guidance supersedes any previous policy or guidance on leachate recirculation. Current MSWLF design and operation does not promote the degradation of History disposed organic wastes within a In 2006, almost 1.5 million tons of waste reasonable timeframe.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Waste Leachate Toxicity Evaluation and Hazard Quotient Derivation by Allium Assay
    Current World Enviroment Vol. 2(2), 221-224 (2007) Pesticide waste leachate toxicity evaluation and hazard quotient derivation by Allium assay SARVESH and PRABHAKAR P. SINGH Department of Environmental Sciences, Dr. R.M.L. Avadh University, Faizabad - 2244 001 (India) (Received: November 12, 2007; Accepted: December 23, 2007) ABSTRACT This study was envisaged to explore the impact of pesticide solid waste leachate to Allium cepa (common onion) bulbs. Bulbs exposed to the leachate showed hampered root growth and morphological deformities. At 15% and higher concentrations of leachate after 5 days, gall like swellings were noticed around the mitotic zone (zone of root growth). From the dose response th th th th curve, the EC50 values for the 5 , 10 , 15 and 20 day were calculated and the highest EC50 value, th th 24.9%, was for the 5 day while the lowest EC50 value, 20%, was for the 20 day. The EC50 decreases th th th from 5 to the 20 day successively. The 5 day EC50 was used to determine the hazard quotient (HQ) of the pesticide waste leachate from the dumping site. A value of 4.49 as HQ suggests that that there is considerable risk, as any value of HQ above one (>1) is environmentally unacceptable. The response in root growth pattern, residue analysis and the HQ indicates that the leachate is toxic to rot growth of onion and steps for proper management of hazardous waste and leachate are urgently required. Keywords: Allium cepa; bioassay; pesticide waste; leachate; EC50; hazard quotient INTRODUCTION studies6,7 and risk characterization is the estimation of the incidence and severity of the effects likelihood According to a 1997 market estimate, to occur in an environmental compartment due to approximately 5684 million pounds of pesticide actual or predicted exposure to a chemical.
    [Show full text]
  • FULLTEXT01.Pdf
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Science of the Total Environment. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Arp, H P., Morin, N A., Andersson, P L., Hale, S E., Wania, F. et al. (2020) The presence, emission and partitioning behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls in waste, leachate and aerosols from Norwegian waste-handling facilities Science of the Total Environment, 715: 1-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136824 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-169377 Science of the Total Environment 715 (2020) 136824 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv The presence, emission and partitioning behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls in waste, leachate and aerosols from Norwegian waste- handling facilities Hans Peter H. Arp a,b,⁎, Nicolas A.O. Morin a,c,PatrikL.Anderssond, Sarah E. Hale a, Frank Wania e, Knut Breivik f,g, Gijs D. Breedveld a,h a Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), P.O. Box 3930, Ullevål Stadion, N-0806 Oslo, Norway b Department of Chemistry, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), N-7491 Trondheim, Norway c Environmental and Food Laboratory of Vendée (LEAV), Department of Chemistry, Rond-point Georges Duval CS 80802, 85021 La Roche-sur-Yon, France d Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden e Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada f Norwegian Institute for Air Research, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectively Managing Landfill Leachate Odor Control With
    Leachate Management As Seen In Effectively Managing Landfill Leachate Odor Control with Permanganate Oxidizing agents can be introduced to landfill leachate during wastewater treatment to kill the offending bacteria and reduce odor emissions to zero. Permanganate application successfully controls obnoxious odors that are released when storing and transferring landfill leachate. n By John Boll Leachate is formed when liquid passes through a landfill and odor emissions to zero. In the cases described in this article, mixes with degraded waste, picking up dissolved and suspended oxidizers such as hydrogen peroxide and chlorine were tested material. This nasty liquid contains organic and inorganic but not suitable for elimination of the offending odor. However, contaminants as well as heavy metals and pathogens. permanganate application successfully controlled obnoxious odors High levels of odor causing compounds are also found in leachate. that were released when storing and transferring landfill leachate. The primary odorant is volatile hydrogen sulfide (H2S) which When sodium permanganate is injected into leachate, in accumulates to very high levels in closed wet wells, junction boxes minutes, it reacts with dissolved hydrogen sulfide, reducing odor and pipes of collection systems. Hydrogen sulfide is generated by emissions to zero. the conversion of dissolved sulfate by anaerobic bacteria. It has an easily recognizable unpleasant, rotten egg characteristic. It Site #1 Background is detected by the human nose at very low threshold levels, but A landfill in the Northeastern U.S. operates one open cell and can also desensitize the nose after short-term exposure. Hydrogen accepts construction and demolition waste, including wall board. sulfide is a dense, heavier-than-air gas and it accumulates in Numerous neighbor complaints about odors associated with the confined spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL HEALTH AND CONSUMER PROTECTION Directorate C – Scientific Opinions on Health Matters Unit C2 – Management of Scientific Committees I Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment Brussels, C2/JCD/csteeop/Ter91100/D(0) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON TOXICITY, ECOTOXICITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CSTEE) Opinion on THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RISK OF CHEMICALS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS Opinion expressed at the 19th CSTEE plenary meeting Brussels, 9 November 2000 CSTEE OPINION ON THE AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND RISK OF CHEMICALS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS FOREWORD AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT The concept "terrestrial environment" cannot be easily defined. It is characterised as the part of the biosphere that is not covered by water, less than one third of the total surface. From a geological viewpoint it just represents a thin line (a few meters wide) of the interface between both the solid (soil) and the gaseous (atmosphere) phases of the Earth, several orders of magnitude wider than this line. However, from the biological point of view, this thin line concentrates all non-aquatic living organisms, including human beings. Humans use the terrestrial environment for living and developing most of their activities, which include the commercial production of other species by agriculture and farming. Human activities deeply modify the terrestrial environment. Particularly in developed areas such as Europe, the landscape has been intensively modified by agricultural, mining, industrial and urban activities and only in a small proportion (mostly in extreme conditions such as high mountains, Northern latitudes, wetlands or semi-desert areas) of the European surface the landscape still resembles naive conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential for Using Constructed Wetlands to Treat Landfill Leachate: Literature Review and Pilot Study Design
    Potential for Using Constructed Wetlands to Treat Landfill Leachate: Literature Review and Pilot Study Design Sarah K. Liehr and G. Michael Sloop Department of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695 Special Report Series No. 17 January 1996 The research on which this report is based was financed by the Water Resources Research Institute of The University of North Carolina. Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Water Resources Research Institute nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the Institute or the State of North Carolina. WRRI Project No. 70125 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Ray Church, Dennis Burks, Sam Hawes, Tim Heistand, and Glenn Walker of New Hanover County Environmental Management for compiling data and assisting in all aspects of construction and operation of the pilot wetland study at the New Hanover County Landfill near Wilmington, North Carolina. We would also like to thank Barbara Doll, Halford House, and Dr. Bob Rubin for their participation in planning the design for the pilot wetland study. We appreciate valuable input from Robert Mackey of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. during the design of the pilot study. Finally, we would like to thank Jeff Masters for his input in compiling this report. ii ABSTRACf All municipal landfills are susceptible to infiltration by precipitation and runoff. As this water infiltrates the landfill, many substances leach from the fill including oxygen demanding organic compounds, suspended solids, nitrogen compounds, phosphorus, metals, and toxic organics. The composition of the leachate varies tremendously among landfills, but concentrations of several of these components may be quite high.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Palm Oil Mill Effluent
    processes Article Treatment of Landfill Leachate Using Palm Oil Mill Effluent Tawfiq J. H. Banch 1, Marlia M. Hanafiah 1,2,*, Salem S. Abu Amr 3, Abbas F. M. Alkarkhi 3 and Mohammed Hasan 1 1 Department of Earth Sciences and Environment, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia; [email protected] (T.J.H.B.); [email protected] (M.H.) 2 Centre for Tropical Climate Change System, Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia 3 Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School (Unikl bis), Kuala Lumpur 50250, Malaysia; [email protected] (S.S.A.A.); [email protected] (A.F.M.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 18 April 2020; Accepted: 14 May 2020; Published: 18 May 2020 Abstract: Sanitary landfilling is the most common method of removing urban solid waste in developing countries. Landfills contain high levels of organic materials, ammonia, and heavy metals, thereby producing leachate which causes a possible future pollution of ground and surface water. Recently, agricultural waste was considered a co-substratum to promote the biodegradation of organics in industrial wastewater. The use of low-cost and natural materials for wastewater treatment is now being considered by many researchers. In this study, palm oil mill effluent (POME) was used for treating stabilized leachate from old landfill. A set of preliminary experiments using different POME/leachate ratios and aeration times was performed to identify the setting of experimental design and optimize the effect of employing POME on four responses: chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), color, and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N).
    [Show full text]
  • Persistent Organic Pollutants (Pops): State of the Science
    Environmental Pollution 100 (1999) 209±221 www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol Persistent organic pollutants (POPs): state of the science K.C. Jones a,*, P. de Voogt b aEnvironmental Science Department, Institute of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK bDepartment of Environmental and Toxicological Chemistry, Amsterdam Research Institute for Substances in Ecosystems (ARISE), University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, Netherlands Received 15 November 1998; accepted 22 March 1999 Abstract The environmental chemistry and ecotoxicology of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are fascinating areas of scienti®c research. Our objective in this paper is to provide a brief, focussed overview of what constitutes a POP, highlight the harmful eects they may have on biota, make some comments on their environmental sources and analysis, their environmental trends and pro- cesses, their movement through foodchains and highlight some important regional-and global-scale environmental transport issues. Finally, we oer some personal thoughts on some current and future areas of scienti®c enquiry on POPs. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Persistent organic pollutant, POP; Sources; Air±surface exchange; Biota; Foodchains 1. What are Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and They also partition into lipids in organisms rather than their properties? entering the aqueous milieu of cells and become stored in fatty tissue. This confers persistence on the chemical There are many thousands of POP chemicals, often in biota since metabolism is slow and POPs may there- coming from certain series or `families' of chemicals (e.g fore accumulate in foodchains. there are theoretically 209 dierent polychlorinated Importantly, POPs have the propensity to enter the biphenyls, diering from each other by level of chlor- gas phase under environmental temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Differences in the Composition of Leachate from Active and Non
    water Article Differences in the Composition of Leachate from Active and Non-Operational Municipal Waste Landfills in Poland Aleksandra Wdowczyk * and Agata Szyma ´nska-Pulikowska Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, pl. Grunwaldzki 24, 50-363 Wrocław, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-71-320-5544 Received: 27 September 2020; Accepted: 5 November 2020; Published: 8 November 2020 Abstract: Leachate formation is one of the many environmental hazards associated with landfilling. The leachate may migrate from the landfill to surface water and groundwater, posing a potential threat to aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, its harmful effect on human health and life has been proven. Due to the risks that landfill leachates may pose, it is necessary to control the state of the environment in their surroundings. The paper presents an example of the application of selected statistical methods (basic statistics, statistical tests, principal component analysis) to assess the impact of individual pollution indicators on the quality of landfill leachates. The conducted analysis showed the existence of significant differences between the surveyed active (Legnica, Jawor) and non-operational (Wrocław, Bielawa) landfills in Poland. These differences were especially visible in the cases of the following: electric conductivity (EC) (non-operational landfills 1915–5075 µS/cm, active 5093–11,370 µS/cm), concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) (non-operational landfills 0.18–294.5 mg N/dm3, active 167.56–907.4 mg N/dm3), chemical oxygen demand (COD), organic nitrogen (ON), ammonium nitrogen (AN), total solids (TS), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), sulfates, chlorides, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and nickel.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms
    Evaluation of Silage Leachate and Runoff Collection Systems on Three Wisconsin Dairy Farms Aaron Wunderlin1, Eric Cooley1, Becky Larson2, Callie Herron1, Dennis Frame1, Amber Radatz1, Kevan Klingberg1, Tim Radatz1 and Michael Holly2 1University of Wisconsin – Discovery Farms® Program 2University of Wisconsin – Biological Systems Engineering Department 4/11/2016 (Revised 5/31/16) Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Material and methods ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1. Study design and implementation .................................................................................... 7 2.2. Site descriptions ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1. Farm A leachate collection system .......................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Farm B leachate collection system ........................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Farm C Leachate collection system ........................................................................ 13 2.3. Instrumentation .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]