4.8 Article

Estimation of the mass-balance of selected metals in four sanitary landfills in Western Norway, with emphasis on the heavy metal content of the deposited waste and the leachate

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 2851-2858

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.03.036

关键词

heavy metals; landfill leachate; mass-balance; total discharge; municipal solid waste

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A worst-case simulation of the mass-balance for metals in the waste deposited during I year and the levels of cadmium (U), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), chromium (Cr) and iron (Fe) in the leachate was calculated for four sanitary landfills in Western Norway. Estimates of the levels of metal content in mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) were found by using recent literature values calculated in a mass-balance study at a Norwegian waste incinerator plant. Leachate from the landfills were sampled and analyzed monthly during I year, and from these measurements the total annual discharge of the selected metals through the leachate was determined. The levels of the measured heavy metals in the leachate were low. For Cd less than 0.06%, for Ph less than 0.01% and for Hg less than 0.02% of the estimated year's deposited mass of metals were leached from the landfills during the year of investigation. The high retention of these metals are most likely due to sulfide precipitation, but also due to the immobile condition of the metals in their original deposited solid state (plastics, ceramics, etc.). The percentage of Cr leached was relatively higher, but less than 1.0% per year. The mass balance of Fe suggests that this element is more mobile under the prevailing conditions. The percentage of Fe leached varied and was estimated to be between 1.9% and 18%. The present study clearly supports the theory that MSW only to a small extent will lead to discharge of metals if deposited at well-constructed sanitary landfills with top layers. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据