Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Characterization of landfilled materials: screening of the enhanced

landfill mining potential
Mieke Quaghebeur a, *, Ben Laenen a, Daneel Geysen b, Peter Nielsen a,
Yiannis Pontikes b, Tom Van Gerven c, Jeroen Spooren a
a
Separation and Conversion Technology, VITO, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium
b
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, K.U. Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 44, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, K.U. Leuven, de Croylaan 46, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main objective of “Enhanced landfill mining” is the valorization of the excavated waste materials that
Received 30 May 2011 have been stored in the landfill. Previous landfill mining projects have shown that each landfill site has
Received in revised form its own potential with regard to landfill mining. Factors such as the age of the landfill, type of landfill and
8 June 2012
the country or region where the landfill is located might have an impact on the type of materials stored
Accepted 19 June 2012
Available online 3 July 2012
in the landfill and their valorization potential. In the present article, the valorization options for the
materials stored at the REMO site in Houthalen (Belgium) are assessed based on excavation tests done at
locations containing either municipal solid waste (MSW) or industrial waste (IW). The results reveal
Keywords:
Enhanced landfill mining
differences in the composition and the characteristics of the waste materials with regard to type of waste
Resource recovery (MSW versus IW) and the period during which the waste was stored. Based on the characteristics of the
Recycling of mixed waste streams different fractions, an initial assessment was made with regard to their valorization potential. For the
plastics, paper/cardboard, wood and textile recovered in this study, waste-to-energy is the most suitable
valorization route since the level of contamination was too high to allow high quality material recycling.
For metals, glass/ceramics, stones and other inerts in the waste, material valorization might be possible
when the materials can adequately be separated. The amount of combustible in the excavated waste
varied between 23 and 50% (w/w) with a calorific value of around 18 MJ kg
1 dw and confirm the large
potential of waste-to-energy for landfill mining. All waste samples recovered from the landfill contained
a large amount (40e60% (w/w)) of a fine grained (<10 mm) mainly mineral waste material. Especially for
industrial waste (mainly shredder from ELV), the fines contained high concentrations of heavy metals
(Cu, Cr, Ni and Zn) and offer opportunities for metal extraction and recovery. The development of
a treatment plant that enables maximum resource recovery remains however one of the technological
challenges for further development of enhanced landfill mining.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the last decade new technologies and processes have
emerged that enable more efficient recycling of materials from
often complex and heterogeneous waste streams (Simonds, 1999;
Archer et al., 2005; Cossu and Gadia, 2007). The principal drivers for
these developments are the local and EU legislation on waste
(Directive 2008/98/EC), as well as the growing demand for metals,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 14335646; fax: þ32 14321186.
E-mail addresses: mieke.quaghebeur@vito.be (M. Quaghebeur), ben.laenen@
vito.be (B. Laenen), daneel.geysen@mtm.kuleuven.be (D. Geysen), peter.nielsen@
vito.be (P. Nielsen), yiannis.pontikes@mtm.kuleuven.be (Y. Pontikes),
tom.vangerven@cit.kuleuven.be (T. Van Gerven), jeroen.spooren@vito.be (J. Spooren).
high quality recycled aggregates and waste derived fuels. Both the
legislative framework and increasing market prices for the recycled
materials create conditions that justify the development of new
waste recycling and separation technologies (Archer et al., 2005;
Forton et al., 2006; Tachwali et al., 2007).
Recently, the concept of Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM) has
been proposed as an improved practice of landfill mining. Essen-
tially, ELFM includes the combined and integrated valorization of
(historic and future) waste streams as both materials (Waste-to-
Material, WtM) and energy (Waste-to-Energy, WtE), while
respecting stringent ecological and social criteria (Jones et al.,
accepted for publication). One of the main drivers of “Enhanced
landfill mining” (ELFM) is the valorization of waste materials
excavated from landfills. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.012
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83
waste streams in landfills, separation and treatment of the different
waste streams are required to enable the generation of valuable
(recycled) materials. Specific treatment and separation schemes are
available for the treatment of various specific (often) heterogeneous
waste streams such as shredder residue, bottom ash, C&D waste and
contaminated soil. Most of these schemes make use of a combina-
tion of dry and/or wet mechanical separation techniques including
crushing, milling, sieving, magnetic and eddy current separation of
ferrous and non-ferrous metals, density separation based on air
flow, water based density separation techniques, jigging, etc. In
case of ELFM, the treatment plant should be able to recover high
quality waste fuel and materials (e.g., ferro and non-ferro metals)
from a mixture of heterogeneous waste streams of which the
composition and hence the physical and chemical properties are
influenced by the age of the waste and the degradation of the waste
over time. Part of the waste streams are even residues from mixtures
of the residual waste originating from elaborated treatment
schemes that were designed in the past to recover and recycle
materials from specific waste streams. The development of a sepa-
ration plant that enables maximum resource recovery is one of the
technological challenges of enhanced landfill mining.
Previous pilot and pre-feasibility studies around the world as
well as completed landfill mining projects have shown that
different landfill sites have different potential with regard to
landfill mining. Factors such as the age of the landfill, type of
landfill, meteorological, hydrological conditions and the country or
region where the landfill is located might have an impact on the
type of materials stored in the landfill and their valorization
potential. To determine the recycling potential for a specific landfill,
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the waste streams stored
are essential (Prechthai et al., 2008).
The Closing the Circle project (CtC) in Houthalen-Helchteren
(Belgium) is the first ELFM case study. The feasibility of the CtC/
ELFM was investigated through several studies and analysis. The
impact on biodiversity and recovery of natural land is described by
De Vocht and Descamps (2011). The economic feasibility of ELFM
was explored and special attention was given to the environmental
impact through the calculation of the carbon footprint (Van Passel
et al., accepted for publication). Although it is clear that all these
aspects are important, the feasibility of ELFM will also be deter-
mined by the quality of the materials retained in the landfill and the
WtM and WtE technologies available for valorization. Therefore,
this paper focuses on the characteristics and the valorization
potential of the waste streams stored at the REMO site in
Houthalen-Helchteren (Belgium) obtained during an exploratory
field test (EFRO-project 475, 2010e2011). At the REMO site around
15 million tons of waste have been landfilled since the beginning of
the 1970s. Both household and industrial wastes have been land-
filled. Records are available specifying the amount, the type and the
location of the different waste streams within the landfill. Since the
Table 1
Description of the waste samples taken at the selected sampling locationsof the field test.
Number Year of storage Type of waste Top liner
1 1980e1985 MSW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
2 1985e1990 MSW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
3 1990e1995 MSW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
4 1995e2000 IW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
5 1985e1990 IW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
6 1995e2000 MSW 1 m clay þ 1 m soil
73
records provide no detailed information with regard to the physico-
chemical properties of the waste necessary to assess the valoriza-
tion potential, an exploratory field test was carried out at the REMO
site. The objectives of the field test were to:
 Evaluate differences in composition of the waste with regard to
the type of waste stored (household versus industrial waste);
 Assess the variation in composition for each specific waste
type;
 Investigate the impact of storage time on the composition and
characteristics of the waste;
 Compare the composition of the waste with data available in
the records and in literature;
 Make an assessment of the valorization potential of the
materials stored in the landfill.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
The REMO landfill has been in operation since the start of the
1970s and is located in Houthalen-Helchteren in the province of
Limburg in Belgium. The total area of the landfill containing non-
hazardous waste that is considered for enhanced landfill mining
is about 1.286.200 m2. The landfill has been divided into sections
based on the type of waste stored, the period during which the
section was in operation and the location in the landfill. For each
section information is available with regard to the type and amount
of waste stored. Roughly half of the 16.5 million tons that have been
landfilled at REMO is household waste. The other half comprises
industrial waste such as shredder material from the ELV recycling,
metallurgical slags, pyrite containing slags, dried sludge, etc.
Leachate collection and treatment, soil protection measurements
and methane recovery are in place and comply with the Flemish
and European legislation (VLAREM, landfill Directive/1999/31/EC).
2.2. Excavation and sampling procedure
An important aspect of the field test was the design of the
sampling procedure. Several sampling methods were considered,
however, due to the high costs related to the excavation and analysis
of the samples a more practical approach was followed taking into
account the information available with regard to the different
sections in the landfill. It was therefore decided to test 6 different
locations in detail during the field test. An overview of the type of
waste and the time of disposal at a specific location is given in Table 1.
The selection of the test locations was based on the type of waste and
the period during which the waste was stored. For municipal solid
waste (MSW), the aim was to select 4 locations that varied with
regard to the period during which the waste was generated. The
Bottom liner Description of waste Depth of landfill (m)
Clay Municipal solid waste originating from both 11
households, businesses and industrial companies
Clay þ 2 mm foil Municipal solid waste originating from 13
businesses and industrial companies
Clay þ 2.5 mm foil Municipal solid waste originating from 11
businesses and industrial companies
Clay þ 2.5 mm foil Industrial waste rich in shredder and fine 9
residues such as sludge
Clay þ 2 mm foil Industrial waste 8
Clay þ 2.5 mm foil Municipal solid waste originating from 13
businesses and industrial companies
74 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83

maximum storage time of the MSW varied between 14 and 29 years
and the locations were chosen to collect data that are representative
for the majority of the municipal solid wastes stored at the REMO
site. For industrial waste only 2 locations were investigated of which
the maximum storage time of the waste varied between 14 and 24
years. Since a variety of industrial waste materials have been stored
at the REMO site, it was decided to focus on the locations rich in old
and more recent shredder-like waste. Locations rich in metallurgical
slag, pyrite containing slag, MSWI-bottom ash, sludge, etc.were
therefore not investigated in this study. It is clear that for IW the
exploratory field test was carried out to get a first impression of the
variability of the landfill but that more research is needed to ensure
a complete characterization of the landfill.
A cactus grab crane was used to collect the waste samples up to
the maximum depth of the landfill (Fig. 1). A shaft of about 1  1 m
and up to 15 m deep was excavated at each location where waste
samples were collected at each depth interval (0e1 m, 1e2 m,.) in
the bucket of a wheel loader. This sample was subsequently loaded
into a container in which the sample was mixed and spread out in
a thin layer at the bottom of the container. Oversized (>200 mm)
objects such as boulders, metal bars and very large sheets of plastic
were separated from the bulk sample and their volume/mass
percentage was estimated and recorded. To collect a representative
sample from each container, a grid was placed on top of the waste
layer. The composition of the waste samples from two grid cells (see
Fig. 1) was described by visual inspection without detailed sorting.
The waste samples were then stored in closed plastic buckets (30 L).
During the field excavation tests around 130 samples were collected
of which 38 samples were investigated in detail.
2.3. Composition and characterization of the waste
For most environmental analysis, soil and waste samples need
to be dried at low temperature (<40  C) to avoid changes in
composition (e.g., volatilization of organic compounds or melting of
plastics retained in the waste). Initial tests, however, showed that
a drying temperature of 40  C resulted in very long drying periods
(7e10 days) for the large samples (20e30 L) of excavated waste.
Since the temperature inside a landfill is known to increase up
90  C (Klein et al., 2001) it was decided to determine the moisture
content of the waste samples by drying the samples in a ventilated
oven at 70  C for 48 h. Each of the dried samples was then screened
with a sieve mesh of 10 mm. Subsequently, the composition of the
oversized fraction was determined by manual sorting into 8 sub-
fractions (plastics, textile, wood, paper/cardboard, metal, glass/
ceramics, stone and an undefined fraction). The weight of the
different sub-fractions was determined and the physical and
chemical composition of a number of representative samples were
analyzed after size reduction. An overview of the sample treatment
scheme is presented in Fig. 2. In addition to the analysis of the
individual separated fractions, the chemical and physical properties
of some of the non-sorted waste samples were also determined. For
waste-to-energy applications characteristics such as moisture
content, ash content, calorific value and amount of organic carbon,
total carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) are needed to assess
the efficiency. In addition the amount of sulfur (S), chlorine (Cl),
fluorine (F) and bromine (Br) of the waste is needed to control the
amount of emission levels during thermal conversion. The inor-
ganic composition of certain fractions was analyzed to evaluate the
waste-to-material valorization options.
The dry weight of the samples was analyzed according to CEN/
TS 15414:2006. The ash content was determined at 550  C and
815  C according to CEN/TS 15403: 2006. The gross and net caloric
values were analyzed at constant pressure according to CEN/TS
15400:2006. Carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) were
determined using CEN/TS 15407:2006 while sulfur (S), chlorine
(Cl), fluorine (F) and bromine (Br) were analyzed using CEN/TS
15408:2006. TOC was determined with the Ströhlein TOC-analyzer

Fig. 1. Overview of sampling method used at the REMO closed landfill site. A cactus grab crane was used to collect the waste samples up to the maximum depth of the landfill (A). A
shaft of about 1  1 m and up to 15 m deep was excavated at each location during which waste samples were collected at each depth interval (0e1 m, 1e2 m,.) in the bucket of
a wheel loader (B). This sample was subsequently loaded into a container (C) in which the sample was mixed and spread out in a thin layer at the bottom of the container (D).
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the sample pretreatment procedure to determine the composition and physical and chemical characteristics of the excavated samples.
C-mat 5500 according to EN13137: 2001.EOX was determined
according to the local CMA procedure CMA/3/N (based on NEN
5735), while the inorganic composition of the samples (Al, Ca, P, Fe,
Mg, Mn, Na, Si, Ti, As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Cu, Hg, Pb, Zn, Te, Sn, Ba, Mn, Mo,
Se, Sr and V) was analyzed using microwave assisted digestion
with acid (HF/HNO3/HCl) with subsequent analysis by ICP-AES or
ICP-OES (EN13656: 2002).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Composition of the waste material
3.1.1. Influence between type of waste material and composition
In Fig. 3 an overview is given of the composition of the waste
excavated at each location. Since no trend could be observed in the
composition of the waste with increasing depth of the landfill (data
not shown), average values and standard deviations are presented in
Fig. 3. Significant differences in composition could be observed
between the MSW and the IW. Although the main fraction in both
the MSW and the IW was a fine soil type waste fraction, the amount
present in the IW (64  16% (w/w)) was significantly higher than that
in the MSW (44  12% (w/w)) based on dry sieving with a mesh of
10 mm. The composition of the fine fraction could not be described in
detail without further analysis. It is however clear that for the MSW,
part of the fine fraction is composed of degraded garden and food
materials. The amount of plastic, paper/cardboard and textile was
higher in the MSW compared to the IW. It is clear that the compo-
sition of MSW is significantly different compared to the shredder-
like IW examined in this study. During the manual separation test
both MSW and IW contained respectively 4  4% (w/w) and 8  6%
(w/w) of an unknown fraction of which the origin could not be
determined by visual inspection. Chemical analysis revealed that the
unknown fraction was most likely a mixture of degraded organic
materials and sand (further results not included in this study). No
unexpected hazardous materials were excavated in this study.
3.1.2. Influence of storage time in the landfill and composition of the
waste
For MSW, information on the composition of waste samples
stored during a period of 14, 19, 24, 29 year is available. Although the
standard deviation of the average content of the individual fractions
is large, trends can be observed for some fractions with regard to
changes over time. These changes can be attributed to degradation/
decomposition of the waste over time or due to differences in the
75
composition of the initially landfilled waste resulting from differ-
ences in waste management procedures, legislation or changes in
the type of goods produced and consumed during a specific period.
Due to the large standard deviation, confirmation of the trend is
needed by comparison with independent data. In the Flemish region
of Belgium data on the composition of fresh municipal solid waste
have been gathered since 1993 (OVAM, 2003). In the OVAM study,
the average composition of municipal solid waste collected was
typically based on the analyses of up to 2000 samples (total weight
equals to 13 ton) collected all across the Flemish region (Table 2). At
the REMO site, the amount of plastic increased from 10 to 25% (w/w)
for MSW initially landfilled between 1980 and 2000. This increase
probably reflects an increase in production and consumption of
plastic during this period. Analysis of the composition of fresh
household waste sampled between 1993 and 2000 also showed an
increase in the amount of plastic (from 17 to 24% (w/w)) (OVAM,
2003) (Table 2). The decrease in metal content (4.3e2.2% (w/w))
and the content of glass/ceramic (1.7e0.5% (w/w)) over time in
MSW is most likely also caused by changes in the composition of
the fresh waste as confirmed by the Flemish records (OVAM,
2003). For the paper/cardboard content, the difference from 4 to
14% (w/w) between waste landfilled in 1980 and 2000 can most
likely be attributed to degradation of the material in the landfill over
time. Especially since based on the Flemish records, the content of
paper/cardboard in fresh household waste seems to decrease
slightly in more recent years (Table 2). Since only two locations were
investigated for IW, no detailed analysis could be carried out with
regard to changes in the composition of IW over time.
Few studies exist in which the influence of storage time on the
composition of excavated waste is examined. The results in this
study show that for most fractions (metals, plastics, glass/ceramics,
stones and textile) the amount found in excavated waste is
comparable to the amount originally present in the waste when it
was initially landfilled (Table 2). For MSW, records with regard to
the composition of fresh waste over time are therefore a good
source of information to estimate the composition of landfilled
waste. The organic waste (food, vegetables, garden waste,.)
cannot be distinguished after 15 years of landfilling. The material
degrades and is transformed into a fine soil like fraction. Also
paper/cardboard seems to degrade over time. The exploratory field
test in the REMO site also revealed that the composition of exca-
vated MSW changed with regard to the period (1980e2000) during
which the waste was landfilled. Especially the changes in amount of
plastics and metals over time (and to a lesser degree also changes in
76 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83

Fig. 3. Average composition and moisture content of municipal solid waste and industrial waste that had been stored in the REMO landfill for between 9 and 29 years. For each
weight percentage a standard deviation is indicated by an error bar.

organic waste, paper/cardboard and textile) might have an impact
on the materials and amount of energy that can be recovered from
excavated MSW.
3.1.3. Influence of geographic origin on composition of the waste
It is known that the composition of MSW will change according
to the geographic region where the waste is generated (UNEP,
2004). This has been explained by differences in waste legislation,
recycling practices, cultural and consumer habits, standard of
living, etc. (Thitame et al., 2010; Abu-Qudais and Abu-Qdais,
2000). Few studies have however investigated the composition of
excavated MSW after landfilling (Hogland et al., 2004; Kurian et al.,
2004; Prechthai et al., 2008). Variations in the composition of
excavated waste can be observed between waste excavated from
a landfill in Sweden, Thailand and Belgium (Table 3). The amount of
combustibles (plastics, textile, wood and paper) varied between 21
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83 77

Table 2
Average composition of fresh MSW sampled in the Flemish region of Belgium in the period 1993e2001 (OVAM, 2003). The composition at each period is based on manual
separation of up to 2000 fresh MSW samples collected in the Flemish region. The average composition of fresh MSW in the period 1994e2001 was compared with the average
composition of excavated MSW at location 6 of the REMO landfill as analyzed in this study. For the fresh waste the composition is based on the analysis of 6 samples. The
standard deviation is given between parentheses.

Fresh MSW (OVAM, 2003) Excavated MSW (location 6, REMO)

2000e2001 1995e1996 1994e1995 1993e1994 1994e2001 1995e2000

Organic waste 43 48 48 49 47 (3) e
Soil e e e e e 45 (18)
Wood e e e e e 4.1 (4)
Paper/cardboard 14 18 18 16 17 (2) 14 (8)
Glass 2.4 3.2 4.1 3.8 3 (0.8) 0.5 (
)
Metals 3.2 3.9 4.1 3.7 4 (0.4) 2.2 (2)
Plastics 24 17 17.0 17 16 (7) 25 (13)
Textile 2.9 2.2 2.4 3.0 3 (0.4) 3.1 (5)
Hazardeous waste 0.68 0.87 0.55 0.55 1 (0.2) e
Inert fraction 3.3 3.6 2.2 4.4 3 (0.9) 2.0 (6)
Rest 5.9 3.6 2.8 2.0 4 (2) 4.1 (4)

and 50% (w/w). The content of inerts (glass/ceramics and stones)
varied between 10 and 17% (w/w) while the amount of soil type
material ranged between 34 and 60% (w/w). For metals the content
varied between 3 and 6% (w/w).
The average moisture content of the waste samples excavated at
one location at the REMO landfill varied between 48 and 66% (w/w)
and is comparable to previous reported values (Hogland et al.,
2004; Prechthai et al., 2008). During the excavation test it was
observed that the moisture content in the landfill varied signifi-
cantly due to the presence of poor-draining or impervious layers in
the landfill. Some layers were saturated with water, while other
regions in the near vicinity were dry. For each location large
difference in moisture content were indeed observed with regard
to the depth of the landfill (standard deviation between 10 and
48%). The water balance of the landfill and hence the moisture
content of the excavated waste can vary significantly and need to be
taken into consideration when evaluating the valorization and
treatment options for enhanced landfill mining.
3.2. Degradation of the waste material: changes in calorific value
and total amount of waste
For MSW the average calorific value and the average TOC content
of the waste excavated at the 4 locations were calculated using the
individual material fractions (<10 mm, plastic, paper/cardboard,
wood, textile, glass/ceramic, metal and stone) at each location
(Fig. 3) and the calorific value and the TOC content of the individual
material fractions. For plastic, paper/cardboard, wood fractions and
the fines (<10 mm), measured TOC and calorific values were used
(see paragraph 3.4). For textile values from literature were used
(TOC-content 55% (w/w) (UNEP, 2009), calorific value
18.8 MJ kg
1 dw (UNEP, 2009)). For glass/ceramic, metal and stone
the calorific value and the TOC content were neglected.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, the calorific value and the TOC concen-
trations in MSW decreased respectively from 11.8 to 6.7 MJ kg
1 dw
and 28 to 19% (w/w) with increasing storage time in the landfill.
This decrease is most likely the result of decomposition of C-rich
material into landfill gas over time. Landfill gas is the mixture of
carbon dioxide and methane, and other trace components, gener-
ated by biological decomposition of organic waste. At the REMO
landfill, methane gas is collected in the landfill and converted to
electrical energy. The most important factors that affect methane
generation include waste composition, moisture content, temper-
ature, waste nutrient level, and the presence or absence of buffering
agents (which may be provided from sources such as cover soils). It
is therefore clear that the degradation varies significantly between
different landfills as well as inside each landfill. In this study, the
average degradation could be described reasonably well with a first
order decay curve [C(t) ¼ C0 e
kt; R2 ¼ 0.98, C0 ¼ 42%;
k ¼ 0.0269 year
1] (Fig. 3). The factor ‘k’ is the first order rate
constant and reflects the rate at which the degradation of carbon-
rich material occurs. The estimated value can be compared to the
first order rate constant often used in models to predict methane
recovery from landfills. Although various types of models are
available (Vogt and Augenstein, 1997), simple first order models
have been used successfully to describe and predict landfill gas
generation (Vroonhof and Croezen, 2006) with k-values ranging
between 0.02 year
1 en 0.10 year
1. The factor ‘C0’ represents the
concentration of TOC in the MSW at the time of burial. Despite the
heterogeneity of the organic matter content of fresh organic MSW,
several studies have shown that in Europe the average TOC is
constant around 43e44% (w/w) (Baky and Eriksson, 2003; Jiménez

Table 3
Comparison of the average composition of excavated MSW from this field test with that of other landfill mining studies. For Sweden the average composition of the waste from
the Masalycke and Gladsax landfill were used as reported by Hogland et al. (2004). For Thailand the average composition of excavated waste from the Nonthaburi dump was
used as reported by Prechthai et al. (2008). The standard deviation is given between parentheses. The number of samples (N) analyzed during each study is indicated.

Country (age) Reference Thailand (3e5 years old) Sweden (17e25 year old) Belgium (14e29 years old)
Number of samples (N) Prechthai et al. (2008) Hogland et al. (2004) This study

12 6 23
Glass 6.5 0.5 (1) 1.3 (0.8)
Inert fraction (stone) 3.3 16 (9) 10 (6)
Metal 6.4 1.6 (0.4) 2.8 (1)
Textile 7.6 1.8 (2) 6.8 (6)
Wood 8 7.2 (5) 6.7 (5)
Paper/cardboard 3.3 7.2 (7) 7.5 (6)
Plastic/rubber/foam 31 4.4 (3) 17 (10)
Soil 34 60 (13) 44 (12)
78 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83

fine fraction separated from waste by Hogland et al. (2004). The

Fig. 4. Relation between average TOC concentration and maximum storage time of the
“soil type” waste fraction separated from MSW at the REMO landfill (left axis).
Correlation between the calorific value (right axis) and the average TOC concentration
for the “soil type” waste fractions separated from excavated MSW and IW landfilled
between 1980 and 2000 at the REMO site.
and Garcia (1992)). The fact that the value for C0 obtained in this
study (42% (w/w)) is similar to the reported values in literature
suggests that the methodology and the sampling procedures used
for MSW in this exploratory field test were adequate and
representative.
The decay curve was subsequently used to calculate the amount
of MSW waste that was lost during degradation. Data available with
regard to type, amount and period during which the waste was
landfilled at a specific location in the REMO landfill was used as
input. Calculations predict that from the 7.5 million ton dry MSW
(10.2 million ton wet) initially landfilled, approximately 1.5 million
ton dry organic matter (or 20% (w/w)) was lost during landfilling.
3.3. Characterization of fraction <10 mm
The fraction <10 mm is the major fraction in both MSW and IW
and is composed of all the waste materials that pass through a sieve
with a mesh size of 10 mm. Due to the unknown and heterogeneous
nature of the material, this fine, soil type fraction was analyzed in
detail. The results of the properties relevant for energy recovery
and material valorization are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
The ash content for MSW seems generally lower than the ash
content for IW and is comparable to the ash content reported for the
calorific value and the TOC concentration for the soil like MSW
seem higher than those for the fine fraction IW. In addition, the
calorific value (2.2e4.8 MJ kg
1 dw) and the TOC concentration
(7.6e12% (w/w)) decreased with increasing storage time of the
MSW. A large portion of the organic carbon in the soil like fraction
has been converted and recovered as landfill gas during storage in
the REMO landfill. Further stabilization of the organic matter by
composting the soil type fraction after excavation was therefore
not considered in this study. In Sweden lower calorific values
(0.4e0.9 MJ kg
1) were reported for fines screened from waste that
had been landfilled for a period of 14 years (Hogland et al., 2004).
The concentrations of major and minor elements determined in
the fine, soil type fraction are presented in Table 5. The average
chemical composition of the fine fraction separated from IW clearly
contains more Ca, Fe and metals such as Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn
compared to the soil type fraction originating from MSW. For MSW,
a decrease in the concentration of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn
with decreasing storage time could be observed and can most likely
be attributed to an improved initial quality of the fresh MSW that
has been landfilled over time. The concentrations of heavy metals
in the fine fraction of MSW investigated in this study are generally
higher compared to the values reported for a landfill mining study
in Sweden (Hogland et al., 1995) but are in agreement with values
reported for a landfill site in Thailand (Prechthai et al., 2008). A
magnet was subsequently used to determine the amount of ferrous
metals in the soil type fraction. The magnetic fraction in the fine
fraction from IW was significantly higher (25e29% (w/w)) than the
magnetic fraction from MSW (0.5e5.3% (w/w)).
For MSW, an increase in the amount of magnetic material was
observed with increasing age of the waste. Since the magnetic
fraction separated from the soil type fraction was still a mixture of
metals, oxides and other minerals, XRF analysis after ignition
combined with microscopic analyses was used to determine the
amount and speciation of the metals present in the magnetic frac-
tion (data not presented). The amount of metallic iron in the
magnetic fraction was estimated to be between 8 and 9% (w/w) with
the metallic iron often embedded in an oxide-rich matrix (Fig. 5).
3.4. Characteristics of plastics
The plastic fraction is characterized by an elevated ash content
(20e35% (w/w)) and a lower calorific value (19e28 MJ kg
1)
compared to the ash content and calorific value of mixed plastic
streams reported in literature (Phyllis database) (ash content: 1%;

Table 4
Average characteristics of the soil type waste fraction (<10 mm) separated from waste samples excavated at the REMO site during the field test. The standard deviation is given
between parentheses. The number of samples (N) on which each result is based is indicated.

Location 1 2 3 6 5 4

Type MSW MSW MSW MSW IW IW

Age 1980e1985 1985e1990 1990e1995 1995e2000 1985e1990 1995e2000

Number of samples (N) 2 2 1 2 1 2

Ashcontent (815  C) 85 (7) 77 (2) 64.4 80.9 (5) 87.50 85.2 (2)
Total carbon (%) 7.8 (5) 11 (0.8) 14.7 11.3 (5) 5.93 7.1 (5)
TOC (%) 7.6 (3) 9.5 (0.4) 12 12.4 (5) 4.60 5.4 (3)
Hydrogen (H) (%) 0.88 (0) 1.2 (0.1) 1.7 1.1 (0.1) 0.81 1.2 (0.2)
Nitrogen (N) (%) 0.39 (0.2) 0.53 (0.0) 0.66 0.39 (0.1) 0.30 0.28 (0.1)
Net calorific value (MJ kg
1 dw) 2.2 (0.7) 3.2 (0.5) 4.7 4.8 (2) 1.30 2.0 (2)
Bruto calorific value (MJ kg
1 dw) 2.4 (0.8) 3.4 (0.6) 5.7 5.0 (2) 2.30 2.1 (2)
Bromide (%) 0.03 (0) 0.03 (0.0) 0.03 0.03 (0.0) 0.03 0.03 (0)
Chloride (%) 0.15 (0.02) 0.41 (0.2) 0.26 0.26 (0.2) 0.17 0.36 (0.09)
Fluoride (%) 0.009 (0.005) 0.01 (0.0) 0.01 0.02 (0.0) 0.30 0.38 (0.5)
Sulfur (%) 0.19 (0.1) 0.26 (0.1) 0.23 0.22 (0.1) 0.31 1.5 (2)
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83 79

Table 5
Average concentrations of major and minor elements of the soil type waste fraction (<10 mm) separated from MSW and IW waste samples excavated at the REMO site during
the field test. In the bottom rows the limit values of the Flemish regulations VLAREA and VLAREBO for the heavy metals are given for comparison. The standard deviation is
given between parentheses. The number of samples (N) on which each result is based is indicated.

Nr Type Year N Si g/kg Ca g/kg Fe g/kg EOX als As mg/kg Cd mg/kg Cr mg/kg Cu mg/kg Hg mg/kg Ni mg/kg Pb mg/kg Zn mg/kg
Cl mg/kg
1 MSW 1980e1985 2 260 (57) 31 (17) 34 (23) 715 (686) 61 (30) 8.5 (8) 770 (325) 285 (78) 2.0 (2) 335 (134) 500 (396) 670 (297)
2 MSW 1985e1990 2 235 (35) 35 (1) 39 (4) 960 (481) 31 (28) 8.4 (5) 380 (141) 205 (106) 0.50 (0.1) 164 (107) 310 (184) 735 (219)
3 MSW 1990e1995 1 220 (
) 33 (
) 18 (
) 670 (
) 7.2 (
) 3.3 (
) 720 (
) 760 (
) 0.27 (
) 160 (
) 180 (
) 800 (
)
6 MSW 1995e2000 2 243 (6) 14 (7) 17 (3) 1787 (2872) 9.1 (2) 3.3 (2) 113 (6) 107 (37) 0.19 (0.1) 46 (2) 172 (89) 463 (329)
5 IW 1985e1990 1 230 (
) 73 (
) 53 (
) 410 (
) 19 (
) 15 (
) 3800 (
) 1200 (
) 2.4 (
) 2200 (
) 1100 (
) 2600 (
)
4 IW 1995e2000 2 181 (126) 78 (88) 54 (8) 284 (334) 22 (6) 19 (1) 5730 (7453) 5750 (6010) 0.99 (1) 4640 (6166) 2640 (2489) 5600 (849)

VLAREBO limit values unrestricted use of soil (mg/kg)a 19 2.6 91 135 1.7 56 120 529
VLAREBO limit values for contaminated soil (type III) (mg/kg)a 103 6 240 396 4.8 95 560 881
VLAREBO limit values for use of soil in or as 250 10 880 375 5 250 1250 1250
construction material (mg/kg)
VLAREA limit values for use of waste as soil 150 6 250 375 5 50 300 900
fertilizer and compost (mg/kg)
VLAREA guidance value for use of waste in or 250 10 1250 375 5 250 1250 1250
as construction materials (mg/kg)
a
Calculated with 2% clay, 10% OM and pH 7.

calorific value: 35 MJ kg
1 (Table 6). Since the plastics were sepa-
rated from the waste by handpicking without further washing or
treatment it is likely that some dust or sand particles sticking to the
plastics influenced the measurements. The chloride concentration
varied between 0.5 and 7.3% (w/w).
In this study, no differences could be observed in TOC concen-
tration and calorific value between the plastic fraction separated
from IW versus MSW. The amount of TOC compares well with the
values reported for plastics in MSW in the Netherlands (59% (w/w))
(Agentschap NL, 2010). The plastic fraction separated from IW,
seems to contain higher concentrations of metals such as Ba, Cd, Cr,
Cu, Pb and Zn compared to the plastic fraction from MSW (Table 7).
The concentrations of heavy metals in the plastics recovered from
MSW in this study were up to factor 10 high compared to the values
reported in other studies (Prechthai et al., 2008; He et al., 2006;
Riber et al., 2005). No indication was found that the calorific value
of the plastic waste is influenced by degradation of the plastic
during storage since no change in calorific value with increasing
storage time of the plastic waste could be observed. It is known that
plastics are very durable and degrade little during landfilling (Shah
et al., 2008).
3.5. Characterization of paper/cardboard
(Table 8). The TOC concentration varies between 25 and 34% (w/w)
and is comparable to the TOC concentration reported for paper in
MSW (27% (w/w)) (Agentschap NL, 2010). The net calorific value
varied between 6,7 and 12 MJ kg
1 dw and is slightly lower than the
caloric value reported for mixed paper streams (15 MJ kg
1 dw).
The metal concentration is generally lower than the concentration
reported for the plastic fraction (Table 9).
3.6. Valorization options
Based on the characteristics of the individual fractions separated
from the waste, the valorization options were assessed. It should
however be taken into account that handpicking was used in this
study to separate individual fractions from the original waste
samples. During full scale excavation of the landfill, a specific
treatment plant will be designed to treat and separate the waste
which could result in different characteristics (ash content, chem-
ical composition,.) or level of contamination compared to the
fractions obtained during this study by handpicking. Although
a variety of industrial waste materials have been stored at the
REMO site, only locations rich in shredder type waste were inves-
tigated in the field test. For IW only the valorization options for
shredder type waste material will therefore be evaluated.

Only the paper/cardboard fractions separated from MSW were 3.6.1. Fine soil type fraction
analyzed in this study. The paper/cardboard fraction was charac- For both IW and MSW more than 40% (w/w) of the waste
terized by a high and variable ash content (25e61% (w/w)) material was classified as a “fine soil type fraction”. Since this

Fig. 5. Photomicrographs of thin-sections from the magnetic fraction of the soil type waste fractions showing details of a metallic Fe particle embedded by iron-oxide from IW
landfilled in 1995e2000 (left) and IW landfilled in 1985e1990 (right).
80 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83

Table 6
Average characteristics with standard deviation (between parentheses) of the plastics separated from waste samples excavated at the REMO site during the field test. The
number of samples (N) on which each result is based is indicated.

Location 1 2 3 6 5 4

Type MSW MSW MSW MSW IW IW

Age 1980e1985 1985e1990 1990e1995 1995e2000 1985e1990 1995e2000

Number of samples (N) 3 1 1 2 1 1

Ashcontent (815  C) 25 (2) 32 38 20 23 35 (2)
Total carbon (%) 50 (2) 44 41 59 57 39 (7)
TOC (%) 57 (4) 51 53 67 58 37 (16)
Hydrogen (H) (%) 6.7 (1) 7 6.0 8.1 6.9 5.4 (0.2)
Nitrogen (N) (%) 0.7 (0) 1 0.59 0.2 0.7 0.75 (0.5)
Net calorific value (MJ kg
1 dw) 24 (3) 21 18 27 26 21 (4)
Bruto calorific value (MJ kg
1 dw) 25 (3) 23 19 28 28 22.1 (4)
Bromide (%) <0.025 (
) <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 (
)
Chloride (%) 7.3 (3) 0 1.8 5.5 3.9 1.6 (1)
Fluoride (%) 0.01 (0) 0 0.006 0.0 0.056 0.061 (0.03)
Sulfur (%) 0.2 (0) 0 0.27 0.2 0.47 0.42 (0.01)

fraction is a combination of all the materials that pass through
a 10 mm sieve further treatment and fractionation will be
required to optimize the valorization of the materials contained
in this fraction. Three valorization options can be considered: i.e.
Waste-to-Energy, reuse as soil or construction material and metal
recovery. Waste-to-Energy is based on the large amount of
organic material (>10% for MSW; >8% for IW) present in this
fraction. When the organic material is removed, the remaining
material might be recycled as filler or construction material. It is,
however, clear that the quality of the fine fraction may not always
be suitable for material recovery because of elevated metal
concentrations (Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn), especially in the fine
fraction from IW. One of the options is to reduce the concentra-
tion (and later on recover) metals such as Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, from the
fine fraction. Although only preliminary results are available,
removal of the magnetic fraction could result in a reduction of the
concentration of metals by more than 50% (w/w). This can be
explained by the high amount of metal-oxides associated with
metallic iron (see Fig. 5). More research with regard to metal
recovery will be done in the future. For MSW, a decrease in the
concentration of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn can be observed
with decreasing storage time of the waste. For the most recent
landfilled MSW (1995e2000), the fine fraction might even be
valorized directly as soil fertilizer or compost without further
treatment. The metal concentrations in this fraction is below the
Flemish limit values for use as soil fertilizer and compost
(VLAREA) and approach the Flemish limit values for unrestricted
reuse of excavated soil (VLAREBO, 2008) (Table 5). Further
research including leaching tests and determination of the
concentrations of organic contaminants will be conducted on sub
fractions of the treated soil type fraction to further assess the
valorization options. For the older MSW fines the concentrations
of Cd, Cr, Ni and Pb exceed the limit values for compost and hence
further treatment is needed.
3.6.2. Metals, glass/ceramic and stone
Although the characteristics of these fractions have not been
presented in this paper, large part of these materials might be
suitable for material valorization. Further research including
leaching tests and determination of organic contaminants will be
required to further assess and confirm the valorization routes. For
MSW, the metal fraction consists mainly of ferrous metals (75e84%
(w/w)) while the remaining non-ferrous is mainly aluminum (>90%
(w/w)) (OVAM, 2003). For IW, more variation can be expected.
3.6.3. Paper/cardboard, textile, wood and plastic
For the plastic, textile, paper/cardboard and wood excavated
from the landfill “Waste-to-Energy” with valorization of the resi-
dues (e.g., slag, bottom ash) seems the most feasible valorization
route. The quality and state of the textiles recovered from the
landfill, makes direct reuse as textile not an option. Also the paper/
cardboard, wood and plastic fractions are too heterogeneous or
contaminated to make the fractions suitable for direct material
valorization. Technology to produce new paper/cardboard based on
recycled paper is available and well established (Miranda and
Blanco, 2010). Recycling of post-consumer paper is, however,
known to be problematic in paper pulping due to the high level of
contamination (food, glass,.). In addition it is likely that the
degradation of the paper during storage in the landfill makes the
paper unsuitable for production of new paper since the fiber length
is important in paper to paper recycling. Other material recycling
options include recycling as cellulosic insulation material (patent
US7758719) or the use of paper pulp as pore forming agent in the
brick production (Huybrechts et al., 2008). The efficiency of the
separation plant will determine to what extent material to material
routes might be feasible for paper/cardboard in the future.
With regard to material recycling of plastic, distinction can be
made between primary, secondary and tertiary recycling (ASTM
D5033). Primary recycling is also called “closed-loop recycling” and

Table 7
Average concentrations of major and minor elements of the plastic fraction separated from MSW and IW waste samples excavated at the REMO site during the field test.

Nr Type Year Si g/kg Ca g/kg Fe g/kg EOX Cl As mg/kg Ba mg/kg Cd mg/kg Cr mg/kg Cu mg/kg Hg mg/kg Ni mg/kg Pb mg/kg Zn mg/kg
mg/kg
1 MSW 1980e1985 68 13 18 53,333 33 430 51 490 1767 0.6 327 550 1063
2 MSW 1985e1990 110 20 26 380 6.9 540 18 320 150 0.36 86 280 620
3 MSW 1990e1995 100 15 13 9600 6.2 600 19 280 690 0.46 73 230 1700
6 MSW 1995e2000 41 7.8 10 39,000 7.6 110 18 270 270 0.1 740 160 470
5 IW 1985e1990 72 26 23 3800 9.9 2300 47 780 10,000 2.0 640 1300 5500
4 IW 1995e2000 74 17.5 38 1860 12 3600 41 530 2405 1.1 275 1900 3800
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83 81

Table 8 3.6.4. Resource mining: material and energy recuperation

Average characteristics of the paper/cardboard separated from waste samples It is well known that waste can be turned into valuable raw
excavated at the REMO site during the field test.
materials providing both environmental and economic benefits. In
Location 1 2 3 6 enhanced landfill mining the objective is to combine and integrate
Type MSW MSW MSW MSW the valorization of waste streams as both materials (Waste-to-
Material, WtM) and energy (Waste-to-Energy, WtE), while
Age 1980e1985 1985e1990 1990e1995 1995e2000
respecting stringent ecological and social criteria (Jones et al.,
Ashcontent (815  C) 43 61 25 35
Total carbon (%) 32 23 34 33
submitted for publication).
TOC (%) 34 25 33 31 Based on the characteristics of the individual fraction and
Hydrogen (H) (%) 3.9 2.6 4.0 3.7 the composition of the excavated MSW, the amount of combus-
Nitrogen (N) (%) 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 tibles (paper, textile, plastic and wood) varied between 34 and
Net calorific 11 6.7 12 12
50% (w/w) depending on the period during which the MSW was
value (MJ kg
1 dw)
Bruto calorific 12 7.3 13 13 landfilled. The more recent the waste, the more combustible
value (MJ kg
1 dw) materials it contained mainly due to the higher content of plastic
Bromide (%) <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 in the fresh waste that was initially landfilled. The average
Chloride (%) 0.50 0.43 0.17 0.28
calorific value of the combustible fraction recovered from MSW
Fluoride (%) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Sulfur (%) 0.31 0.19 0.31 0.90
was 18.2  0.6 MJ kg
1 dw and varied little between the locations
studied. The average ash content was 29  3% (w/w). It is
however possible that during full scale excavation of the landfill,
it can be described as mechanical recycling during which no a specific treatment plant will be used that is able to separate the
modifications occur in the chemical properties of the polymers. The combustibles more efficiently resulting in higher calorific values
plastic can therefore be used for the production of new products and lower ash contents. The other dominant fraction in excavated
without quality loss. Primary recycling is often limited to thermo- MSW is the soil like fraction which varied between 41 and 45%.
plastic polymers (PE, PP, PS,.) (melting and re-extrusion is often Although some further treatment might be required, this mate-
used) and post-industrial packaging waste. Post-consumer plastic rial might be reused as soil or construction material. In addition
is seldom recycled through re-extrusions because the level of the MSW contained an average content of 10  6% (w/w) stones,
contamination is mostly too high and the logistics involved in 1.3  0.8% (w/w) glass and 2.8  1% (w/w) metals that can be
collection/separation is challenging. Secondary recycling is also recycled as raw materials.
called “mechanical recycling with downgrading” and it involves Although a variety of industrial waste materials have been
a thorough washing, separation and mechanical treatment to be stored at the REMO site, only locations rich in shredder type
able to use the waste for the production of new plastic consumers waste were investigated in the field test. It is therefore only
goods such as piping, plastic bags, plastic chairs,.. Although possible to evaluate the valorization options for shredder type
secondary recycling might technically be feasible for some of the waste. The amount of combustibles in the shredder type waste
plastic recovered from the landfill it will be a challenge to make the (23  8% (w/w)) was rather low compared to that of MSW. The
process economically feasible taking into account the heteroge- calorific value of the combustibles was 18  2 MJ kg
1 dw and the
neity and the quality of the plastic fraction recovered from the ash content was 35  5% (w/w). Most of the shredder type waste
landfill (Table 6). It should also be mentioned that a limit value of consisted of a soil like material (64  16% (w/w)) which contained
100 mg kg
1 for heavy metals such as Pb, Cd, Hg and Cr(VI) is elevated concentrations of heavy metals like Cu, Cr, Ni and Zn.
stipulated in Europe for packaging material according to the Recovery of the metals combined with valorization of the mineral
Council Directive 94/62/EC with regard to packaging and packaging material as construction material will be investigated in the
waste. It is well known that elevated metal concentrations (e.g., Cd) future. In addition the shredder type waste contained an average
can be present in plastic recovered from landfill due to the type of content of 10  10% (w/w) stones, 0.05  0.04% (w/w) glass and
softeners, stabilizers and pigments used in plastic in the past 3.2  3% (w/w) metals that can be recycled as raw materials. It
(Prudent et al., 1996; Rotter et al., 2004). Taking into account the should however be mentioned that for the shredder type waste
elevated metal concentrations measured in the plastic recovered only 2 locations were investigated in detail so future research is
from the landfill (Table 7) it is unlikely that the excavated plastic recommended to confirm the data and obtain a more represen-
will be suitable for primary or secondary material recycling. tative assessment of the valorization potential of this waste
Tertiary or feedstock recycling of plastic uses depolymerization stream.
reactions to break up the polymers into smaller molecules, mostly Even though landfills are a potential for both energy and
gasses and liquids, that can be used as feedstock for the production material valorization, few landfills have been mined on commer-
of new plastics or petrochemical products (Al-Salem et al., 2009). cial basis so far. It is clear that both technological, economical and
Although, from a technical point of view, tertiary recycling might be legislative challenges exist in order to start full scale recovery of
a good option for plastic recovered from landfills, the number of resources from landfills (Van Passel et al., accepted for
industrial plants able to process plastic waste is still very limited in publication; Jones et al., accepted for publication; Krook et al.,
Europe. 2012).

Table 9
Average concentrations of major and minor elements of the paper/cardboard fraction separated from MSW waste samples excavated at the REMO site during the field test.

Nr Type Year Si g/kg Ca g/kg Fe g/kg EOX als Cl mg/kg As mg/kg Ba mg/kg Cd mg/kg Cr mg/kg Cu mg/kg Hg mg/kg Ni mg/kg Pb mg/kg Zn mg/kg
1 MSW 1980e1985 100 17 26 1300 39 240 1.4 310 150 0.45 120 440 900
2 MSW 1985e1990 130 32 29 640 9.7 480 16 200 210 0.27 56 330 560
3 MSW 1990e1995 88 27 6.5 270 4.9 180 <0.40 140 570 0.38 45 54 520
6 MSW 1995e2000 91 33 30 260 5.5 280 2.7 160 100 0.35 86 380 1900
82 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83
4. Conclusions
In this paper an overview is given of the composition and the
characteristics of the waste materials stored at the REMO site based
on data obtained during a field excavation study. The results reveal
differences in the composition and the characteristics of the waste
materials with regard to type of waste (municipal solid waste
(MSW) versus industrial waste (IW)) and the period during which
the waste was stored. The study showed that for MSW changes in
the amount of plastics and metals over time were mainly influ-
enced by changes in the composition of fresh MSW initially land-
filled over time. For organic waste and paper/cardboard changes
over time were mainly governed by degradation of the material
during landfilling. Decomposition of C-rich materials into landfill
gas resulted in a significant decrease in calorific value
(11.8e6.7 MJ kg
1 dw) for MSW with increasing storage time (from
14 to 29 years) in the landfill. For the REMO landfill, the degradation
of MSW could be described reasonably well with a first order decay
curve [C(t) ¼ C0 e
kt; R2 ¼ 0.98, C0 ¼ 42%; k ¼ 0.0269 year
1]. Based
on the characteristics of the different fractions, an initial
assessment was made with regard to their valorization potential.
For the plastics, paper/cardboard, wood and textile recovered in
this study, waste-to-energy is the most suitable valorization route
since the level of contamination was too high to allow high quality
material recycling. For metals, glass/ceramics, stones and
other inerts in the waste, material valorization might be
possible when the materials can be separated adequately. The
amount of combustible in the excavated waste varied between 23
and 50% (w/w) with a calorific value of around 18 MJ kg
1 dw and
confirm the large potential of waste-to-energy for landfill mining.
All waste samples recovered from the landfill contained a large
amount (40e60% (w/w)) of a fine grained (<10 mm) mainly
mineral waste material. Especially for industrial waste (mainly
shredder from ELV), the fines contained high concentrations of
heavy metals (Cu, Cr, Ni and Zn) and offer opportunities for metal
extraction and recovery. Even though landfills are a potential for
both energy and material valorization, the development of
a treatment plant that enables maximum resource recovery
remains one of the technological challenges for further
development of enhanced landfill mining.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the European and Flemish authorities
for the funding of, respectively, the EFRO project proposal ‘Closing
the Circle, a demonstration of Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM)’
(with additional support from VEA) and the IWT O&O Project
100517 ‘Closing the Circle & Enhanced Landfill Mining as part of the
transition to SMM’.
References
Abu-Qudais, M., Abu-Qdais, H.A., 2000. Energy content of municipal solid waste in
Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Conversion and Management 41,
983e991.
Al-Salem, S.M., Lettieri, P., Baeyens, J., 2009. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic
solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Management 29, 2625e2643.
Archer, E., Baddeley, A., Klein, A., Schwager, J., Whiting, K., 2005. Mechanical-Bio-
logical-Treatment: A Guide for Decision Makers. Processes, Policies and
Markets. Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd.
Baky, A., Eriksson, O., 2003. Systems Analysis of Organic Waste Management in
Denmark. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project no.
822.
Cossu, R., Gadia, R., 2007. Car fluff management. In: Proceedings Sardinia 2007.
Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
De Vocht, A., Descamps, S., 2011. Biodiversity and enhanced landfill mining:
weighting local and global impacts. In: Jones, P.T., Tielemans, Y. (Eds.), Enhanced
Landfill Mining and the transition to Sustainable Materials Management:
Proceedings of the International Academic Symposium on Enhanced Landfill
Mining (Extended Edition). Houthalen-Helchteren, pp. 275e290. 2010.
EFRO-project 475, 2010. Closing the Circle, a Demonstration of Enhanced Landfill
Mining (ELFM) (Project supported y the European commission with additional
support from VEA).
Forton, O.T., Harder, M.K., Moles, N.R., 2006. Value from shredder waste: ongoing
limitations in the UK. Resources, Conversation and Recycling 46, 104e113.
He, P.J., Xia, Z., Shao, L.M., Lee, D.J., 2006. In situ distribution and characteristics of
heavy metals in full-scale landfill layers. Journal of Hazardous Materials B137,
1385e1394.
Hogland, K.H.W., Jagodzinski, K., Meyer, J.E., 1995. Landfill mining tests in Sweden.
In: Procs. Sardinia 95, Fifth International landfill symposium, 2e6 October 1995,
Cagliary, Italy.
Hogland, W., Marques, M., Nimmermark, S., 2004. Landfill mining and waste
characterization: a strategy for remediation of contaminated areas. Journal of
Material Cycles and Waste Management 6, 119e124.
Huybrechts, D., Meynaerts, E., Van Hoof, V., Hooyberghs, E., Vrancken, K., 2008.
Beste Beschikbare Technieken (BBT) voor de kleiverwerkende nijverheid.
Academia Press, Gent (in Dutch).
Jiménez, E.I., Garcia, V.P., 1992. Relationships between organic carbon and total
organic matter in municipal solid wastes and city refuse composts. Bioresource
Technology 41, 265e272.
Jones, P.T., Laevers, P., Geysen, D., Tielemans, Y., Van Acker, K., Van Passel, S., Rossy,
A., Quaghebeur, M., Laenen B., Craps, M., Devocht, A., Eyckmans, J., Dubois, M.,
Sips, K., Umans, L., Ballards, M., Helsen, L., Bosmans, A., Blanpain, B. Enhanced
Landill Mining (ELFM) and Enhanced Waste Management (EWM): from revo-
lutionary concepts to feasible practices. Journal of Cleaner Production. accepted
for publication.
Kurian, Joseph, Nagendran, R., Palanivelu, K., Thanasekaran, K., Visvanathan, C.,
2004. Dumpsite Rehabilitation and Landfill Mining. CES, Anna University,
Chennai 600 025, India.
Klein, R., Baumann, T., Kahapka, E., Niessener, R., 2001. Temperature development in
a modern municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) bottom ash landfill with
regard to sustainable waste management. Journal of Hazardous Materials 83
(3), 265e280.
Krook, J., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., 2012. Landfill mining: a critical review of two
decades of reearch. Waste Management 32 (3), 513e520.
Methodiekrapport werkveld 66, AVI’s lucht IPCC, Agentschap NL, 2010.
Miranda, R., Blanco, A., 2010. Environmental awareness and paper recycling.
Cellulose Chemistry and Technology 44 (10), 431e449.
Huishoudelijk afval sorteeranalyse-onderzoek 2000e2001, 2003. De Openbare
Afvalstoffenmaatschappij voor het Vlaamse Gewest (OVAM). Publication
number: D/2003/524/20, (in Dutch).
Phyllis, database for biomass and waste, http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis, Energy research
Centre of the Netherlands.
Prechthai, T., Padmasri, M., Visvanathan, C., 2008. Quality assessment of mined
MSW from an open dumpsite for recycling potential. Resource, Conservation
and Recycling 53, 70e78.
Prudent, P., Domeizel, M., Massiani, C., 1996. Chemical sequential extraction as
decision-making tool: application to municipal solid waste and its individual
constituents. Science of the Total Environment 178, 55e61.
Riber, C., Fredriksen, G.S., Christensen, T.H., 2005. Heavy metal content of
combustable municipal solid waste in Denmark. Waste Management Resources
23, 126e132.
Rotter, V.S., Kost, T., Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2004. Material flow analysis of RDF-
production process. Waste Management 24, 1005e1021.
Shah, A.A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., Ahmed, S., 2008. Biological degradation of plas-
tics: A comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances 26, 246e265.
Simonds, 1999. Report to DGXI, European Commission e Construction and Demo-
lition Waste Management Practices, and Their Economic Impacts e Report by
Symonds, in Association with ARGUS. COWI and PRC Bouwcentrum.
Tachwali, Y., Al-Assaf, Y., Al-Ali, A.R., 2007. Automatic multistage classification
system for plastic bottles recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52,
266e285.
Thitame, S.N., Pondhe, G.M., Meshram, D.C., 2010. Characterisation and composition
of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in Sangamner city, District
Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
170 (1e4), 1e5.
UNEP, 2009. Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. In: Waste
Characterization and Quantification with Projections for Future, vol. 1. United
Nations Environmental Programme.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2004. Municipal Solid Waste Composition: For 7 OECD
Countries and 7 Asian Cities. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library.
Available at: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/municipal_solid_waste_
composition_for_7_oecd_countries_and_7_asian_cities (accessed 29.01.12.).
Van Passel, S., Dubois M., Eyckmans J, de Gheldere S., Ang F., Jones P.T., Van Acker K.
Exploring the economics of enhanced landfill mining. Journal of Cleaner
Production, accepted for publication.
VLAREA, Besluit van de Vlaamse regering tot vaststelling van het Vlaams reglement
inzake afvalvoorkoming en ebeheer (VLAREA), 2009. Order of the Flemish
Government for the Establishment of the Flemish Regulation Relating to Waste
Prevention and Management. Version ratified 13 february 2009. Published 1
may 2009.
VLAREBO, Vlaams Regelment Bodemsanering, 2008. Flemish Soil Remediation
Decree Ratified 14 December 2007. Published 22 April 2008.
 M. Quaghebeur et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 72e83 83

VLAREM II, Besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 1 juni 1995 houdende algemene
en sectorale bepalingen inzake milieuhygiëne. Order of the Flemish
government of 1 June 1995 concerning General and Sectoral provisions
Relating to Environmental safety. Version ratified 14 January 2011. Published
23 February 2011.
Vogt, G., Augenstein, D., 1997. Comparison of Models for Predicting Landfill
Methane Recovery. solid waste association of North America (SWANA). File No.
0295028.
Vroonhof, J., Croezen, H., 2006. Afvalverwerking en CO2: quickscan van de broei-
kasgasemissies van de afvalverwerkingssector in Nederland 1990e2004.