B Y : C A R L O S Q U I R O Z & A L I M E H D A W I
I N S T R U C T O R : E L I Z A B E T H P I L O N – S M I T H S
N O V E M B E R , 2 0 1 0
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Basic concepts
Landfill
Leachate

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Recycling
Hazardous management
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Recycling
Hazardous management
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Recycling
Hazardous management
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Recycling
Hazardous management
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Fort Collins
Landfill
Background
Operation
Recycling
Hazardous management
Leachate
Management
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Background
 Scientific facts
• Che et al, (2006)
• Danha et al, (2006)
• El Gendy, (2008)
• Nagendran et al,
(2008)
• Jones et al, (2005)
• Justin et al, (2010)
• Kang et al, (2008)
• Zalesny et al, (2006)
• Zalesny et al, (2007)
• Using Popular Trees to Remove
Contaminants

Background
• Using Popular Trees to Remove
Contaminants
 Scientific facts
• Using
Popular Trees

Background
 Scientific facts
• (PRS)
• Passive Remediation Systems. (PRS)

Background
Scientific facts
• PRS irrigates hybrid poplar with the landfill leachate

Background
Scientific facts
Increasing of poplar trees biomass.









Method
 Topography, hydrogeology and Heavy
Metals in ground water.
Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Results
Geology & hydrogeology
Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Results
Geology & hydrogeology
Source: Larimer County Landfill.

Source: Larimer County Landfill.
Results
Geology & hydrogeology

Method
 Heavy metals in plant tissues.
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010
Native Plants (North)
Control
Samples
(South)

Method
 Heavy metals in plant tissues.
Sunflower
Cottonwood
Smooth brome
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Method
 Heavy metals in plant tissues.
Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010

Method
 Proposals to situation
- Buffer strip.
Remediation of groundwater through the irrigation of plants.
Licht & Isebrands (2005).

Cotton Wood Smoothbrome Sunflower
Metal
Arsenic
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0.00000
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0
PPM
0
Stand.
Desv
0
% Dry
Mass
0.00000
Cadmium
Results
5.10
0.12
4.16
0.12
Copper
Iron

Lead
4.63
Metals in plant tissues.
2.77
5.10
1.65
0.00051
0.00001
0.00046
0.00274
0.00022
0.15
0.20
5.67
51.06
1.55
0.19
0.000015
0.47
0.30
2.51
22.16
2.27
0.00002
0.39
0.00057
45.31
0.00511
128.07
106.77
0.01281
0.00015
2.59
0.33
0.88
41.15
0.73
0.00005
0.00004
0.00453
0.00026
Magnesium 3670.60
1001.48
0.36706
2357.01
558.61
0.23570
3330.80
604.23
0.33308
North Samples
Manganese 67.69
26.67
0.00677
33.88
15.48
0.00339
15.14
6.24
0.00151
Mercury
Molybdenium
Nickel
0.44
0.37
0.13
0.69
0.83
0.19
0.00004
0.00004
0.00001
0.00
1.42
0.09
0.00
1.40
0.20
0.00000
0.00
0.00014
1.47
0.00001
0.03
0.00
2.15
0.06
0.00000
0.00015
0.00000
Sulfur
Selenium
Tellurium
Vanadium
Tungsten
Zinc
11858.60 6014.05
1.18586
4255.66
1590.24
0.42557
7092.00
2457.91
0.70920
19.22
3.31
0.00192
18.54
13.28
0.00185
20.69
4.59
0.00207
50.86
0.00
56.76
0.00
0.00509
0.00000
78.49
6.62
134.63
13.58
0.00785
0.00066
94.84
0.41
56.21
0.91
0.00948
0.00004
1.23
2.70
0.00012
119.88
216.72
0.01199
0.33
0.00
0.74
3.3111E-05 1.84
0.00
0 88.06
1.62
173.49
0.00018
0.00881

Metal
PPM
Cotton Wood
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
PPM
Smoothbrome
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
PPM
Sunflower
Stand.
Desv
% Dry
Mass
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper

Iron
Lead
Results
0
0.32
0.00
Metals in
33.30
plant tissues.
0
0.17
0.00
0.66
4.76
1.53
0.00000
0.00003
0.00000
0.00046
0
0
0.32
8.07
0.00333
70.30
0.00017
3.97
0
0
0.45
6.12
0.00000
0
0.00000
0.25
0.00003
0.01
0.00081
41.33
0
0.09
0.01
24.77
13.46
0.00703
125.06
34.28
4.81
0.00040
2.44
2.30
0.00000
0.00003
0.00000
0.00413
0.01251
0.00024
South Samples
0.24570
2315.17
1365.92
0.23152
3009.00
427.98
0.30090
Manganese 4.45
0.00169
11.35
6.60
0.00114
6.62
1.59
0.00066
Mercury
(Control)
0.22
0.50
0.00002
3.00
3.82
0.00030
0.00
0.00
0.00000
Molybdenium
Nickel
Sulfur
Selenium
Tellurium
Vanadium
Tungsten
Zinc
1.09
1.13
0.00011
1.56
1.17
0.00016
0.20
0.42
0.00002
0.75
0.89
0.00008
0.08
0.18
0.00001
0.74
1.17
0.00007
5125.00
2651.79
0.51250
6126.73
3061.60
0.61267
10310.20 3316.54
1.03102
12.76
4.85
0.00128
23.14
14.77
0.00231
13.55
6.21
0.00135
107.43
29.04
0.01074
59.60
81.73
0.00596
33.53
43.64
0.00335
5.37
1.23
12.00
0.64
114.68
92.24
0.00054
0.00012
0.01147
0.35
0.85
2.85
0.78
1.90
6.38
0.00004
0.00
0.00009
0.55
0.00
0.81
0.00000
0.00006
0.00029
82.18
112.82
0.00822

Metal
Guideline Value
PPM*
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
0.02
0.01
0.70
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfur
Tellurium
Thallium
Tin
Vanadium
Tungsten
Zinc
Beryllium
Results
Calcium
0.003

Cobalt
Current 0.05
Iron
Remediation of
Groundwater
0.01
Lead by Native
Manganese
Plants
0.40
0.001
Molybdenium 0.07
0.02
0.01
215.842
0.021
0.011
0.014
14.766
0.014
282.263
NE
0.0002
NE
0.026
149.821
0.028
0.014
742.053
NE
NE
0.013
0.1
0.029
NE
0.06
Groundwater Plant Tissue
PPM** Stand. Desv.
PPM*** Stand. Desv.
0.020
0.025
NE
0.019
0.824
0.023
0.243
0
NE
0.001
0.001
0.0004
0.0003
NE
5.104
4.162
47.934
0.008
0.005
0.015
NE
0.394
NE
45.306
16.249
128.068
0.013
2.594
41.793
3670.6
67.688
0.014
72.167
0.034
0.021
205.658
0.442
1.47
0.126
NE
20.688
NE
NE
11858.6
0.010
94.84
NE
NE
6.617
0.047
1.840
0.198
119.876
0.881
41.152
106.766
0.73
1001.48
Plant with Highest
Concentration of Metal
Cottonwood
Sunflower
Sunflower
Sunflower
Sunflower
Cottonwood
26.667
0.692
Cottonwood
Cottonwood
2.151
Smoothbrome / Sunflower
0.194
Cottonwood
4.588
6014.05
56.21
13.581
1.619
216.717
Sunflower
Cottonwood
Sunflower
Smoothbrome
Sunflower
Cottonwood

Buffer strip Area
Results
 Proposals to situation
Option 1
Solution: Buffer strip.
Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome & vetiver.
Perimeter: 2.35 miles
Plantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et al. 2004)

Buffer strip Area
Results
 Proposals to situation
Option 2
Solution: Buffer strip plus irrigation system to remediate polluted groundwater.
Plants: Cottonwood, sunflower, smoothbrome, vetiver.
Perimeter: 2.35 miles
Plantation density: 10,000 plants / ha. (Sebastian et al. 2004)
Irrigation: Wells located on the landfill.

Conclusions
 Current Risk: Antimony, Arsenic,
Barium, Lead, Nickel, and Selenium are still over the guideline value.
 Current Phytoremediation: Cadmium and Mercury by Cottonwood. Chromium by
Sunflower.
0.17 Acres on the north side (0.09% of area)
0.57 Acres on the south side (0.32% of area)
 Suitable Options:
Buffer strip around the landfill perimeter to prevent pollution of water resources.
Determine the groundwater flow to evaluate the feasibility of plant’s irrigation with leachate.

Conclusions
 None of the plants evaluated showed absortion of As. Thus,
Vetiver could be applied. L.T. Danh et Al (2009)
 More researches are needed to remediate antimony and barium on leachate.
 The buffer strip around the landfill could reduce the concentration of lead, nickel and selenium.

Acknowledgments
 Steve Harem, Environmental
Specialist of Larimer County Landfill.
 Colin Quinn, Post-Doc, Biology
Department
 Elizabeth Pilon – Smiths,
Professor, Biology Department.











Barazani, O., Sathiyamoorthy, P., Manandhar, U., Vulkan, R. & Golan-Goldhirsh, A., 2004. Heavy metal accumulation by nicotiana glauca graham in a solid waste disposal site. Chemosphere, 54 (7), 867-872.
Che, D., Meagher, R.B., Heaton, A.C.P., Lima, A., Rugh, C.L. & Merkle, S.A., 2003. Blackwell publishing ltd. Expression of mercuric ion reductase in eastern cottonwood (populus deltoides) confers mercuric ion reduction and resistance. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 1, 311-319.
Danh, L.T., Truong, P., Mammucari, R., Tran, T. & Foster, N., 2009. Vetiver grass, vetiveria zizanioides: A choice plant for phytoremediation of heavy metals and organic wastes. International Journal of
Phytoremediation, 11 (8), 664-691.
Dimitriou, I., Aronsson, P. & Weih, M., 2006. Stress tolerance of five willow clones after irrigation with different amounts of landfill leachate. Bioresource Technology, 97 (1), 150-157.
Eberts, S.M. & Shalk, C.W., 1999. Hydrologic effects of cottonwood trees on a shallow aquifer containing trichloroethene. U.S. Geological Survey.
El-Gendy, A., 2008. Modeling of heavy metals removal from municipal landfill leachate using living biomass of water hyacinth. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 10 (1), 14-30.
Jones, D., Williamson, K. & Owen, A., 2006. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Waste Management, 26
(8), 825-837.
Justin, M.Z., Pajk, N., Zupanc, V. & Zupančič, M., 2010. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate and compost wastewater by irrigation of populus and salix: Biomass and growth response. Waste Management, 30 (6),
1032-1042.
Justin, M.Z. & Zupančič, M., 2009. Combined purification and reuse of landfill leachate by constructed wetland and irrigation of grass and willows. Desalination, 246 (1-3), 157-168.
Kang, D.-H., Tsao, D., Wang-Cahill, F., Rock, S., Schwab, A.P. & Banks, M.K., 2008. Assessment of landfill leachate volume and concentrations of cyanide and fluoride during phytoremediation. Bioremediation
Journal, 12 (1), 32-45.













Kim, K.-R. & Owens, G., 2010. Potential for enhanced phytoremediation of landfills using biosolids – a review. Journal of
Environmental Management, 91 (4), 791-797.
Lee, R.W., Jones, S.A., Kuniansky, E.L., Harvey, G., Lollar, B.S. & Slater, G.F., 2000. Phreatophyte influence on reductive dechlorination in a shallow aquifer contaminated with trichloroethene (tce). International Journal of Phytoremediation, 2
(3), 193-211.
Nagendran, R., Selvam, A., Joseph, K. & Chiemchaisri, C., 2006. Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal solid waste landfills and dumpsites: A brief review. Waste Management, 26 (12), 1357-1369.
Sang, N., Han, M., Li, G. & Huang, M., 2010. Landfill leachate affects metabolic responses of zea mays l. Seedlings. Waste
Management, 30 (5), 856-862.
Sebastiani, L., 2004. Heavy metal accumulation and growth responses in poplar clones eridano (populus deltoides $times; maximowiczii) and i-214 (p. $times; euramericana) exposed to industrial waste. Environmental and Experimental Botany,
52 (1), 79-88.
Shen, C., Tang, X., Cheema, S.A., Zhang, C., Khan, M.I., Liang, F., Chen, X., Zhu, Y., Lin, Q. & Chen, Y., 2009. Enhanced phytoremediation potential of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil from e-waste recycling area in the presence of randomly methylated-β-cyclodextrins. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 172 (2-3), 1671-1676.
Zalesny, J., Zalesny, R., Wiese, A. & Hall, R., 2007. Choosing tree genotypes for phytoremediation of landfill leachate using phyto-recurrent selection. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (6), 513-530.
Zalesny, R. & Bauer, E., 2007. Selecting and utilizing populus and salix for landfill covers: Implications for leachate irrigation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (6), 497-511.
Zalesny, R.S. & Bauer, E.O., 2007. Evaluation of populus and salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate i.
Genotype-specific elemental phytoremediation. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (4), 281-306.
Zalesny, R.S. & Bauer, E.O., 2007. Evaluation of populus and salix continuously irrigated with landfill leachate ii. Soils and early tree development. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9 (4), 307-323.
Zalesnyjr, R., Wiese, A., Bauer, E. & Riemenschneider, D., 2006. Sapflow of hybrid poplar (populus nigra l.×p.
Maximowiczii a. Henry ‘nm6’) during phytoremediation of landfill leachate. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30 (8-9), 784-793.
Zalesnyjr, R., Wiese, A., Bauer, E. & Riemenschneider, D., 2009. Ex situ growth and biomass of populus bioenergy crops irrigated and fertilized with landfill leachate. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33 (1), 62-69.

Photographic credit: Quiroz, 2010