4.7 Article

Ecotoxicological evaluation of electrochemical oxidation for the treatment of sanitary landfill leachates

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 24-33

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2650-6

Keywords

Sanitary landfill leachate; Electrochemical oxidation; Boron-doped diamond anode; Daphnia magna; Acute toxicity

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, FCT [UID/Multi/00195/2013, UID/Multi/00709/2013, SFRH/BPD/103615/2014, SFRH/BD/109901/2015, SFRH/BD/132436/2017]
  2. FEDER funds through the POCI-COMPETE 2020-Operational Programme Competitiveness and Internationalisation in Axis I-Strengthening research, technological development and innovation [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007491]
  3. Santander Totta Universidades, project BID/ICI-UID FC/Santander Totta Universidades-UBI/2016
  4. CNRS LabEx DRIIHM
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/103615/2014, SFRH/BD/109901/2015, SFRH/BD/132436/2017] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the efficiency of electrochemical oxidation to treat a sanitary landfill leachate was evaluated by the reduction in physico-chemical parameters and in ecotoxicity. The acute toxicity of the sanitary landfill leachates, before and after treatment, was assessed with the model organism Daphnia magna. Electrochemical oxidation treatment was effective in the removal of organic load and ammonium nitrogen and in the reduction of metal ions concentrations. Furthermore, a reduction of 2.5-fold in the acute toxicity towards D. magna after 36h of treatment was noticed. Nevertheless, the toxicity of the treated leachate is still very high, and further treatments are necessary in order to obtain a non-toxic effluent to this aquatic organism. Toxicity results were also compared with others described in the literature for different leachate treatments and test organisms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available