Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, 1996715433, Iran


Fenton process, as one of the most conventional advanced oxidation processes, is widely used in the treatment of specific wastewaters, especially landfill leachate. In current study, the main target was to evaluate some neglected aspects of Fenton process in operational applications. Thus, three novel responses were introduced. Mass removal efficiency evaluates overall recalcitrant destruction by establishing organics mass balance pre- and post-Fenton treatment. This differentiates it from conventional chemical oxygen demand removal, since mass removal efficiency basically considers the whole mixture and not only the supernatant. The mass content ratio response provides a measure to evaluate the remaining organics in the sludge. Therefore, a borderline mode considering these limitations leads to best feasible field operations. It was found that mass content ratio for effluent reacted conversely to the sludge in response to coagulation. By increasing the coagulant dosage, coagulation improved and the sludge ratio increased in result. For the mass removal efficiency response, it seemed that appropriate balance of the oxidation/coagulation had considerable role through Fe2+ dosage and [H2O2]/[Fe2+] ratio. Finally, by including further conventional parameters such as sludge quantity, the best operational conditions (X1 = 5.7, X2 = 16, X3 = 207 mM) were optimized by response surface methodology to 27.4% and 14.4% for sludge and effluent mass content ratio, respectively, and 58.1% for mass removal efficiency. The results were in good agreement with determination coefficient (R2) of 0.94–0.97, prediction R2 of 0.80–0.93 and coefficient of variation less than 10.

Graphical Abstract

Polluting potential of post-Fenton products in landfill leachate treatment


  • Showing mass removal efficiency (MRE) as an overall measure of recalcitrant breakdown and  mass content ratio (MCR) for polluting potential of Fenton products
  • Application of response surface methodology for simultaneous optimization of responses
  • Investigation in relative importance of oxidation and coagulation in Fenton process
  • Establishment of mass balance in pre- and post-treatment of Fenton for pollutants


Amiri, A.; Sabour, M.R., (2014). Multi-response optimization of Fenton process for applicability assessment in landfill leachate treatment. Waste Manage., 34: 2528-2536 (9 pages).

Aravind, J.; Kanmani, P.; Sudha, G.; Balan, R., (2016). Optimization of chromium (VI) biosorption using gooseberry seeds by response surface methodology. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 2(1): 61-68 (8 pages).

Bashir, M.J.K.; Aziz, H.A.; Aziz, S.Q.; Abu Amr, S.S., (2012). An overview of electro-oxidation processes performance in stabilized landfill leachate treatment. Desalin. Water Treat., 51: 2170-2184 (15 pages).

Benatti, C.T.; Tavares, C.R.G.; Guedes, T.A., (2006). Optimization of Fenton's oxidation of chemical laboratory wastewaters using the response surface methodology. J. Environ. Manage., 80: 66-74 (9 pages).

Cañizares, P.; Paz, R.; Sáez, C.; Rodrigo, M.A.; (2009). Costs of the electrochemical oxidation of wastewaters: A comparison with ozonation and Fenton oxidation processes. J. Environ. Manage., 90: 410-420 (11 pages).

Ciotti, C.; Baciocchi, R.; Tuhkanen, T., (2009). Influence of the operating conditions on highly oxidative radicals generation in Fenton's systems. J. Hazard. Mater., 161: 402-408 (7 pages).

De, S.; Maiti, S.; Hazra, T.; Debsarkar, A.; Dutta, A., (2016). Leachate characterization and identification of dominant pollutants using leachate pollution index for an uncontrolled landfill site. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 2: 177-186 (10 pages).

Deng, Y.; Englehardt, J.D., (2006). Treatment of landfill leachate by the Fenton process. Water Res., 40: 3683-3694  (12 pages).

Emenike, C.U.; Fauziah, S.H.; Agamuthu, P., (2012). Characterization and toxicological evaluation of leachate from closed sanitary landfill. Waste Manage. Res., 30: 888-897 (10 pages).

Ghanbarzadeh Lak, M.; Sabour, M.R.; Amiri, A.; Rabbani, O., (2012). Application of quadratic regression model for Fenton treatment of municipal landfill leachate. Waste Manage., 32: 1895-1902 (8 pages).

Ghatak, H.R., (2013). Advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of biorecalcitrant organics in wastewater. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44: 1167-1219 (53 pages).

Kamaruddin, M.; Yusoff, M.S.; Aziz, H.; Hung, Y.-T., (2014). Sustainable treatment of landfill leachate. Applied Water Science, 1-14 (14 pages).

Kang, Y.W.; Hwang, K.-Y., (2000). Effects of reaction conditions on the oxidation efficiency in the Fenton process. Water Res., 34: 2786-2790 (15 pages).

Kilic, M.Y.; Yonar, T.; Mert, B.K., (2014). Landfill leachate treatment by Fenton and Fenton-like oxidation processes. Clean  Soil Air Water, 42: 586-593 (8 pages).

Li, H.; Zhou, S.; Sun, Y.; Lv, J., (2010). Application of response surface methodology to the advanced treatment of biologically stabilized landfill leachate using Fenton’s reagent. Waste Manage., 30: 2122-2129 (8 pages).

Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C.; Anderson-Cook, C.M., (2016). Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 4th ed, John Wiley & Sons.

Neyens, E.; Baeyens, J., (2003). A review of classic Fenton’s peroxidation as an advanced oxidation technique. J. Hazard. Mater. 98: 33-50 (18 pages).

Nidheesh, P.V.; Gandhimathi, R., (2012). Trends in electro-Fenton process for water and wastewater treatment: An overview. Desalin, 299: 1-15 (15 pages).

Pignatello, J.J.; Oliveros, E.; MacKay, A., (2006). Advanced oxidation processes for organic contaminant destruction based on the Fenton reaction and related chemistry. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 36: 1-84 (84 pages).

Pouran, S.R.; Aziz, A.A.; Daud, W.M.A.W., (2015). Review on the main advances in photo-Fenton oxidation system for recalcitrant wastewaters. J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 21: 53-69 (17 pages).

Umar, M.; Aziz, H.A.; Yusoff, M.S., (2010). Trends in the use of Fenton, electro-Fenton and photo-Fenton for the treatment of landfill leachate. Waste Manage., 30: 2113-2121 (9 pages).

Van Aken, P.; Lambert, N.; Degrève, J.; Liers, S.; Luyten, J., (2011). Comparison of different oxidation methods for recalcitrance removal of landfill leachate. Ozone Sci. Eng., 33: 294-300 (7 pages).

Wang, F.; Smith, D.W.; El-Din, M.G., (2003). Application of advanced oxidation methods for landfill leachate treatment – A review. J. Environ. Eng. Sci., 2: 413-427 (15 pages).

Wiszniowski, J.; Robert, D.; Surmacz-Gorska, J.; Miksch, K.; Weber, J.V., (2006). Landfill leachate treatment methods: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett., 4: 51-61 (11 pages).

Wu, Y.; Zhou, S.; Qin, F.; Peng, H.; Lai, Y.; Lin, Y., (2010a). Removal of humic substances from landfill leachate by Fenton oxidation and coagulation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 88: 276-284 (9 pages).

Wu, Y.; Zhou, S.; Qin, F.; Ye, X.; Zheng, K., (2010b). Modeling physical and oxidative removal properties of Fenton process for treatment of landfill leachate using response surface methodology (RSM). J. Hazard. Mater., 180: 456-465 (10 pages).

Zhang, H.; Choi, H.J.; Canazo, P.; Huang, C.-P., (2009). Multivariate approach to the Fenton process for the treatment of landfill leachate. J. Hazard. Mater., 161: 1306-1312 (7 pages).

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.