Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Gas production, composition and emission at a modern disposal site receiving


waste with a low-organic content
Charlotte Scheutz a,, Anders M. Fredenslund a, Jonas Nedenskov c, Jerker Samuelsson b, Peter Kjeldsen a
a

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljvej Building 113, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Chalmers University of Technology/FluxSense AB, SE-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden
c
AV Milj, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 31 May 2010
Accepted 23 October 2010
Available online 24 December 2010

a b s t r a c t
AV Milj is a modern waste disposal site receiving non-combustible waste with a low-organic content.
The objective of the current project was to determine the gas generation, composition, emission, and oxidation in top covers on selected waste cells as well as the total methane (CH4) emission from the disposal
site. The investigations focused particularly on three waste disposal cells containing shredder waste (cell
1.5.1), mixed industrial waste (cell 2.2.2), and mixed combustible waste (cell 1.3). Laboratory waste incubation experiments as well as gas modeling showed that signicant gas generation was occurring in all
three cells. Field analysis showed that the gas generated in the cell with mixed combustible waste consisted of mainly CH4 (70%) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (29%) whereas the gas generated within the shredder
waste, primarily consisted of CH4 (27%) and nitrogen (N2) (71%), containing no CO2. The results indicated
that the gas composition in the shredder waste was governed by chemical reactions as well as microbial
reactions. CH4 mass balances from three individual waste cells showed that a signicant part (between
15% and 67%) of the CH4 generated in cell 1.3 and 2.2.2 was emitted through leachate collection wells,
as a result of the relatively impermeable covers in place at these two cells preventing vertical migration
of the gas. At cell 1.5.1, which is un-covered, the CH4 emission through the leachate system was low due
to the high gas permeability of the shredder waste. Instead the gas was emitted through the waste resulting in some hotspot observations on the shredder surface with higher emission rates. The remaining gas
that was not emitted through surfaces or the leachate collection system could potentially be oxidized as
the measured oxidation capacity exceeded the potential emission rate. The whole CH4 emission from the
disposal site was found to be 820 202 kg CH4 d1. The total emission rate through the leachate collection system at AV Milj was found to be 211 kg CH4 d1. This showed that approximately 1=4 of the emitted gas was emitted through the leachate collections system making the leachate collection system an
important source controlling the overall gas migration from the site. The emission pathway for the
remaining part of the gas was more uncertain, but emission from open cells where waste is being disposed of or being excavated for incineration, or from horizontal leachate drainage pipes placed in permeable gravel layers in the bottom of empty cells was likely.
2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
During the last 1015 years, the waste hierarchy has been the
main principle in waste management in Denmark as well as
Europe. The waste hierarchy aims to encourage the management
of waste materials in order to reduce the amount of waste materials produced, and to recover maximum value from the wastes
that are produced. The waste hierarchy is applied as a guide; it
encourages the prevention of waste, followed by the reuse and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 45 25 16 07; fax: +45 45 93 28 50.
E-mail addresses: chs@env.dtu.dk (C. Scheutz), amf@env.dtu.dk (A.M. Fredenslund), jne@amfor.dk (J. Nedenskov), jerker.samuelsson@uxsense.se (J. Samuelsson), pk@env.dtu.dk (P. Kjeldsen).
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.021

refurbishment of goods, then value recovery through recycling


and composting. The next option is energy recovery, an important
level in the hierarchy as many materials have signicant embedded energy that can be recovered. Finally, any waste which is not
recycled or composted and from which no further value can be
recovered is disposed of to landll. Landlling thus represents
the least desirable option for the waste within the hierarchy and
should only be used when no option further up the hierarchy is
possible. The Council Directive 1999/31/EC aims to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landll of waste on the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and
human health (CEC, 1999). Consequently, there will be a signicant
reduction in the amount of waste directed to landll and, in particular, the biodegradable component of waste one of the main

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

947

contributors to the production of methane (CH4) (Bogner et al.,


2007), which is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential
21 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) (IPCC, 2007).
In 1997, the use of landlls for disposal of combustible waste
was forbidden in Denmark. Therefore Danish landlls mostly deals
with non-combustible waste, i.e., waste with low-organic content
such as, e.g., shredder waste, asbestos waste, contaminated soils,
construction waste, street cleaning residues, slag, PVC material,
impregnated wood, etc. Many Danish landlls also receive dry
combustible waste for temporary storage (covered bulk with
clay/plastic liner) during periods with insufcient incineration
capacity at the waste-to-energy plants or during seasons where
there is no need for the generated heat. Implementation of waste
incineration with energy recovery, composting and mechanical
biological treatment in still more European countries will signicantly change the composition of the remaining waste fractions
going to landlls in the future. Landll gas (LFG) production at
modern Danish landlls and resulting environmental impacts has
often been neglected due to an expected low-organic content of
the non-combustible waste types going to disposal today. The production of CH4 depends on several factors: the landlled waste volume, content of organic waste fractions and the degradability of
these fractions, waste age and environmental factors (temperature,
water content, nutrients, inhibiting compounds etc.). Very little is
known about the LFG generation potentials of non-combustible
wastes and the environmental conditions within the disposed
waste. The use of reliable prediction models for LFG generation
and emission from landlls are crucial components on greenhouse
gas budgeting such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) reporting (IPCC, 2007), the newly established Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) reporting required for all
landlls in the EU (CEC, 2006), and green accounting tools. Most of
currently available LFG generation models are based on experiences obtained from more traditional waste management where
a major fraction of biodegradable waste is disposed at landlls
(examples includes models like LandGEM, IPCCs LFG model, and
GasSim). Thus, using the currently available models in more recent
waste management scenarios where only waste containing lower
content of biodegradable waste going to landlls, is expected to
be highly uncertain.
The objective of this study was to determine the gas generation,
composition, emission, and oxidation in top covers on selected
waste cells as well as the total CH4 emission from the disposal site.

capacity of 2 million m3 divided into 22 disposal cells. The landll


receives municipal, commercial and industrial waste from approximately 1.2 million people and 80,000 larger and smaller enterprises. The disposal site is established on reclaimed land in Kge
Bay, which results in small amounts of sea- and ground water
seeping into the disposal site. This water and the leachate are
collected by a leachate collection system and pre-treated on-site
before it is treated at the local wastewater treatment facility.
Leachate is collected in the drainage pipes situated in a layer of
sand between the deposited waste and a natural bottom liner of
underlying clay. The network of drainage pipes covers all area intended for waste disposal. At each cell the network of drainage
pipes are connected at two points. At these points so-called inspection wells and collection wells provide access to the leachate collection pipes. Water collected in the drainage pipes ows toward
the collection wells from where water ows via transport pipes toward one of two underground pumping stations.
AV Milj receives combustible waste, which is temporarily
stored at the site before being utilized for energy recovery at waste
incineration facilities. Main waste types nally disposed of at AV
Milj include shredder waste, asbestos, street sweepings, contaminated soil not suitable for remediation, ashes from sludge incineration, slags, and y ash. Disposal of y ash ceased in 1999. The
largest fraction of the industrial waste was of unspecied origin
(Industrial waste) and smaller quantities originate from Plastic
and rubber industry and Paper and graphical industry. Household waste is not landlled at the site. From 1989, when AV Milj
was established, through 2005 a total of 2,400,000 tons of waste
was received at AV Milj, whereof 1,300,000 tons were landlled.
The disposal site is divided into disposal cells of varying size.
Through the weigh-in records, an inventory on how much waste
divided into waste types is available for each disposal cell. This
investigation focused on three waste disposal cells containing
shredder waste (1.5.1), mixed industrial waste (2.2.2), and mixed
combustible waste (1.3). The three cells were lled to capacity;
however only cell 1.3 and cell 2.2.2 were nally covered (see
Table 1). Finally covering was done with a 20 cm layer of root
blocking gravel and 100 cm of soil above the gravel layer. There
is no gas collection system installed at AV Milj as the gas generation was expected to be insignicant due to the low-organic content of the waste.

2. Materials and methods

Two gas production models; GasSim (Golder Associates, 2002)


and Afvalzorg Multi Phase Model (Scharff and Jacobs, 2006) were
applied to estimate the production of LFG at the three cells (1.3,
1.5.1, and 2.2.2) at AV Milj landll in terms of production rates,
and CH4 potentials. Both models describe the waste degradation
using rst order kinetics and require waste input data on an annual
basis. They are so-called multiphase models that operate with

2.1. Site description of AV Milj


AV Milj is a modern waste disposal site situated in Avedre
Holme, approximately 10 km south of Copenhagen, Denmark.
The disposal site was established in 1989 and has a total disposal

2.2. Gas production modeling

Table 1
Description of the waste disposal cells 1.3, 1.5.1, and 2.2.2 at AV Milj.
Cell

Cell area
(m2)

Waste amount
(tons)

Active period

Main waste types

Final top covering

1.3

24,000

94,000

19972001

Industrial waste

20 cm top soil, 100 cm clayey material on top of 20 cm


coarse gravel (2001)

1.5.1

7200

47,000

19902000

2.2.2

10,500

41,000

19922000 (Main period:


19982000)

Combustible waste
Construction waste
Shredder waste
30 cm bottom layer of ash from
sludge incineration
Industrial waste
Sand from sand traps

No cover

100 cm clayey material on top of 20 cm coarse gravel


(2003)

948

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

three grades of degradability of the biodegradable waste (slow,


moderate and fast). The waste types deposited at the landll had
to be assigned to waste categories used in the models. The models
calculate the gas production in cubic meter LFG, which was converted to mass of CH4 assuming a volumetric CH4 content of 50%
v/v in the generated LFG. Further details and comparison of the
models can be found in Scharff and Jacobs (2006) and Scheutz
et al. (2007). Finally, LFG production simulations were performed
for the whole site using the Avfalzorg Multi Phase Model (Scharff
and Jacobs, 2006). The main input waste categories used in the
modeling were commercial waste (41%), shredder waste (22%),
contaminated soil (21%), and street cleansing waste (15%). The
modeled LFG production was expressed as kg CH4 d1 in the year
2006 and 2007.

1.3 and 2.2.2) or in the top of the waste (cell 1.5.1). The gas probes
consisted of steel tubes, which were closed at the bottom and provided with slits over the lower 3 cm. The steel probes were hammered into the ground at different depths. In general, samples of
the main components (CH4, CO2, O2, and N2) were taken at 10,
20, 30, 40, 60, 80, and 100-cm depth. Samples of 5 mL were
withdrawn with a syringe and stored in vacuumed glass bottles
(Exetainer Vial 819W, 6 mL, Labco Ltd., UK). The probes were
purged before sampling by redrawing three times the volume of
the probes using a 250 mL syringe. Between sampling the probes
were capped. Two sets of gas probes were installed on each cell.
Gas samples from both deep and shallow probes were collected
14 times approximately once a month between February 2005 and
June 2006.

2.3. Waste sampling and experimental setup for determination of gas


production rates

2.5. Batch experiment for determination of CH4 oxidation capacity

The current gas production rate in the disposed waste was


determined in laboratory experiments. Waste material from three
randomly selected locations on each of the disposal cells were dug
out between 1 and 1.5 m below surface. At each location a large
grab sample (9 samples in total varying between 75 and 188 kg)
were taken in an effort to reduce sampling error caused by heterogeneity of the waste and stored in 218 L steel drums with airtight
lids closed upon sampling. The samples were then transported to
the laboratory immediately after sampling and each drum was
ushed with 0.5 m3 nitrogen (N2) and sealed to reestablish anaerobic conditions in the waste material. Lids were tted with sampling ports with Teon covered septa for gas sampling and
ttings for attachment of gas collection bags. The sealed drums
were kept in the laboratory for a period of 140 days while monitoring gas production. Excess gas from the drums was collected in 5 L
or 20 L SKC Tedlar sample bags (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA). Gas
samples (5 mL) were extracted using a syringe from the headspace
of each drum and injecting into evacuated glass vials tted with
pierceable rubber septa (Exetainer Vial 819 W, 6 mL, Labco Ltd.,
UK), which subsequently were analyzed for concentrations of main
components (Oxygen (O2), N2, CH4, and CO2). Volume of excess gas
from the drums were determined by timing the emptying of gas
sample bags using a Fluid Metering Inc. laboratory pump set
(FMI Lab Pump, model QG, Fluid Metering Inc., Syosset, NY) and
tested at a constant ow rate of 0.5 L min1. The ow rate of the
pump was tested approximately ten times during the experiment.
Gas sampling was done 27 times in the period of the experiment,
while measurements of excess volume were done 14 times. The
production rate was calculated by the total CH4 production from
start to end divided by the time period and the waste mass.
2.4. Installation of gas probes for analysis of the LFG composition and
shallow gas proles
In order to analyze the composition of the gas generated within
the three waste cells two deep gas probes were installed in the
centre of each cell. At the cells with shredder waste (cell 1.5.1) each
probe had two individual screens ranging from 23 m to 45 m below the surface. The gas probes used at the two other cells had only
one 15 cm-screen and were all inserted to a depth of approximately 2 m below the surface. Prior to gas sampling the probes
were purged corresponding to three times the internal volume of
the probes. Gas samples were redrawn through a gas tight tting
equipped with a septum using a syringe and injected into vacuumed sampling vials (Exetainer Vial 819W, 6 mL, Labco Ltd., UK).
With the purpose of describing the gas transport and CH4 oxidation in the installed covers shallow gas proles were determined
by installing gas probes at different depths in the soil cover (cell

The CH4 oxidation capacity of the cover soils and of the shredder waste was studied by incubation of cover soil and shredder
material sampled at 1020 cm intervals from the surface to
100 cm depth. Material was sampled in 10 cm intervals from the
surface to 60 cm depth below the surface at the cell with shredder
residue. The texture of the shredder waste prevented sampling at
deeper depths than 5060 cm. Samples were collected at two different locations at each cell; an area with CH4 emissions below
detection and a hotspot area, where higher CH4 emissions previously had been measured. A xed amount of soil or shredder material (20 g moist material) was added to a 117 mL batch container
with an initial mixture of CH4 (15% v/v), O2 (35% v/v) and N2
(50% v/v). In order to check if any disappearance could be due to
non-microbial processes (abiotic degradation, sorption and volatilization) control batches with sterilized soil or shredder residues
were conducted. All batch experiments were carried out in duplicates. The experimental set-up as well as the data analysis is described in detail in Scheutz et al. (2004).
2.6. Surface screening of CH4 and ux chamber measurements
An initial surface screening of CH4 at the waste cell was performed, since high spatial variations in surface gas emissions from
landlls are often observed (Scheutz et al., 2003, 2008, 2009). To
provide basis for a qualitative analysis on the spatial variability
of CH4 emission through the soil cover, a grid of locations for measurements of CH4 concentrations were planned. The number of
grid points and the average grid spacing was chosen adopting a
strategy described in Guidance for Monitoring Landll Gas Surface
Emissions (UK Environment Agency, 2004). In total 82 measuring
points were planned, placed in a grid with an average spacing of
1015 m. All grid points were agged and surveyed using GPS
(Trimble 5700 RTK GPS with TSC1 controller, Trimble Navigation
Limited, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The cell was rst visually inspected
to observe ssures, cracks or other irregularities, which could have
higher gas emissions. Measurements were taken in all grid points
and along the fence and borders of the cells. A small funnel was attached to the inlet tube of the analyzer and placed directly on the
surface during analysis. In total three surface screenings were conducted at each cell.
Surface emission rates of CH4 were determined using static ux
chambers. The ux chambers were constructed of the top of a
drum, which was pushed 3.5 cm into the ground. The removable
top of the chamber was equipped with several sampling ports
and a fan securing that the air inside the chamber was totally
mixed during sampling. The bases of the ux chambers were
sealed with bentonite. When installed, the ux chamber had a
height of approximately 20 cm and an inner diameter of 57 cm
(giving a total chamber volume was 51,035 cm3 over an enclosed

949

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

surface area of 2552 cm2 equivalent to a volume/area ratio


(cm3 cm2) of 20. The emission rates of CH4 were measured by taking a time series of gas samples from the chambers. A minimum of
seven gas samples of 5 mL were withdrawn using gas-tight syringes and stored in pre-evacuated glass bottles (Exetainer Vial
819W, 6 mL, Labco Ltd., UK). In general, the CH4 concentration
vs. time curves showed good linear ts (r2 > 0.9) without any
change in slope for the nal sampling times. Fluxes were calculated
from the product of the change in concentration over time (dC/dt)
and the chamber volume/chamber area ratio (Scheutz et al., 2003,
2008). Emission measurements were conducted 14 times approximately once a month between February 2005 and June 2006.
2.7. Emission measurements from leachate collection wells
The CH4 emission rates from the leachate collection and inspection wells were determined using a continuous tracer release
method. The principle of this method was to continuously release
a gaseous tracer (CO) at a known rate near the source of the CH4
emission (in the bottom of the collection wells), and subsequently
measure the concentrations of tracer and CH4 downwind the wells
after background concentrations of tracer and CH4 were determined. The tracer method and the analytical set-up used at AV
Milj are described in detail in Fredenslund et al. (2010).
2.8. Whole disposal site emission measurements
The whole CH4 emission from the disposal site was measured
using a tracer technique, combining controlled tracer gas release
(N2O) from the landll with time-resolved concentration measurements downwind the landll using FTIR absorption spectroscopy).
Two campaigns were conducted during 2006 and 2007. The tracer
method and the analytical equipment is described in detail in
Scheutz et al. (2011), Galle et al. (2001) and Brjesson et al.
(2007).
2.9. Gas analysis
The main gas components (CH4, CO2, O2, and N2) were analyzed
on a Chrompack Micro GC CP-2002P gas chromatograph equipped
with a thermal conductivity detector and two columns. O2 and N2
were quantied on a 4 m long Molsieve 5A column and CH4 and
CO2 on a 10 m long Poraplot Q column. Carrier gas was helium,
and the column temperature was 40 C. Gas standards produced
by MicroLab, Aarhus, Denmark ranging from 0.02% to 50% v/v were
used for calibration.
CH4 in the low concentration range was determined using a
portable Photovac MicroFID-gas analyzer. Specially produced gas
mixtures were used for calibration (100 ppm) produced by Air
Liquide, Calgaz, Cheshire, UK). The detection limit was 0.5 ppm.
3. Results and discussion

Table 2
Average gas concentrations (% v/v) of selected LFG components in three different
waste cells (1.3, 1.5.1, and 2.2.2) based on 14 samples sampled approximately once a
month between February 2005 and June 2006.
LFG components

Methane (CH4)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Oxygen (O2)
Nitrogen (N2)

Measured gas concentrations


1.3

1.5.1

2.2.2

70 4
29 5
11
33

27 6
00
11
71 5

64 13
84
34
24 13

27% CH4, 71% N2, and only traces of CO2. During anaerobic fermentation of organic material CO2 is always formed together with CH4.
The lack of CO2 in cell 1.5.1 and 2.2.2 in comparison with cell 1.3
could be due to dissolution of CO2 in inltrating water, precipitation of different carbonates or microbial methanogenesis by
hydrogenophilic bacteria in combination with a low gas generation
rate. Laboratory experiments and gas modeling showed that waste
types deposited in cells 1.5.1 and 2.2.2 produced less LFG than
waste from cell 1.3 (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3). The shredder waste
disposed in cell 1.5.1 had a metal content of 3% (determined by
hand sorting of the waste), which might corrode under anaerobic
conditions resulting in hydrogen production (Reardon, 1995). The
hydrogen produced can be used for microbial methanogenesis by
hydrogenophilic bacteria (Belay and Daniels, 1990; Lorowitz
et al., 1992).
3.2. Gas production based on waste incubation experiments
Fig. 1 shows accumulated CH4 productions in the three waste
types. In all waste samples a lag phase of approximately ten days
was observed. After the initial lag phase of low or no CH4 production, relatively constant production rates were seen. Due to the initial lag phase of CH4 production, all production rates were
calculated using data measured after 45 days. The CH4 production
rates relative to waste mass shown in Fig. 2 were seen to vary between samples taken at different locations at the same cells. This
was likely due to heterogeneity of the waste deposited in the three
cells with regards to content of degradable organic matter. The
highest CH4 production rate was found for the cell with mixed
combustible waste (2.02 mg CH4 kg waste1 d1) where much
lower rates were obtained for the cells with shredder waste and
mixed industrial waste (0.75 and 0.52 mg CH4 kg waste1 d1,
respectively) (Table 3). Compared to landlled MSW, of which production rates between 0.7 and 9.5 mg CH4 kg waste1 d1 can be
expected (El-Fadel et al., 1997), the production rates measured
were in the lower range. As expected, the more inorganic waste
types deposited in cells 1.5.1 and 2.2.2 produced less CH4 than
waste from cell 1.3. The total average CH4 production rate for the
three cells were estimated by multiplying average CH4 production
rates with the total waste amount deposited known from records
of waste deposited at the landll (Table 3).

3.1. Gas composition


3.3. Gas production based on modeling
The average gas composition in three different waste cells is
shown in Table 2. The gas generated in the three individual waste
cells showed differences in composition. The gas composition in
waste cell 1.3 containing combustible waste consisted of almost
70% CH4 and 30% CO2 resembling the composition of LFG often
seen in municipal solid waste (MSW). The gas generated in the
two other cells 1.5.1 and 2.2.2 also contained CH4 (2764%) indicating that methanogenesis was occurring, but only low concentrations of CO2 (<8%). This was most signicant for cell 1.5.1
containing shredder waste, which showed a gas composition of

The production of LFG was simulated using the gas production


models GasSim and Afvalzorg. The resulting gas production at cell
1.3, 1.5.1 and 2.2.2, respectively in m3 LFG per year is illustrated in
Fig. 3. The results show, that the highest gas production was
expected at cell 1.3. Overall, the agreement between the results
obtained using the GasSim and the Afvalzorg model was fair. However, the result for cell 1.5.1 was an exception, since the GasSim result here was signicantly higher than the Afvalzorg result.
Assuming a CH4 content of 50% v/v the simulated gas production

950

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955


Table 3
CH4 production rates for the cells 1.3, 1.5.1, and 2.2.2 determined by waste incubation
experiments.
Cell

1.3
1.5.1
2.2.2

Experimentally based CH4 generation


Average observed CH4 production
rate
mg CH4 kg waste1 d1

Total CH4 production rate for the


cell
kg CH4 d1

2.02 0.24
0.75 0.59
0.52 0.53

190
35
21

Fig. 1. Accumulated CH4 productions measured in sampled waste from three


different waste cells at AV Milj. At each cell waste was sampled at three different
places referred to as South, Middle and North.

Fig. 3. Model simulated production of LFG at cells 1.3, 1.5.1 and 2.2.2 at AV Milj
Landll.

Table 4
LFG production (m3 year1) and CH4 generation (kg d1) in 2006 determined by
modeling. The Afvalzorg values are average values.
LFG production m3 LFG year1
Fig. 2. Observed CH4 production rates related to sampled waste mass.

for 2006 was converted to kg CH4 produced per day. Results are
listed in Table 3.

Cell 1.3
Cell 1.5.1
Cell 2.2.2

CH4 generation kg CH4 d1

Afvalzorg

GasSim

Afvalzorg

GasSim

112,000
27,000
67,000

88,000
85,000
65,000

109
27
65

86
84
63

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

The experimentally determined total CH4 production rates for


the three test cells can be compared to results of CH4 production
modeling (Table 4). For the cell containing shredder waste
(1.5.1), the average experimentally determined total CH4 production (35 kg CH4 d1) was measured to be much closer to the results
of the Afvalzorg model (27 kg CH4 d1) than the GasSim model
(84 kg CH4 d1). The average experimentally determined total
CH4 production for cell 1.3 (190 kg CH4 d1) was much higher than
results from both models (86109 kg CH4 d1), whereas the measured production rate for cell 2.2.2 (21 kg CH4 d1) was lower than
the model results (6365 kg CH4 d1). These discrepancies can be
explained by error caused by the translation of waste data into
the models, model limitation in describing the organic contents
and biodegradability in different waste fractions, and by heterogeneity of the waste causing average production rates measured from
the sampled waste to differ from the average production at the
three test cells.

951

shredded waste incubated with CH4. Maximal oxidation rates


were calculated by applying zero-order kinetics to the data
describing 90% of the mass transformation, which gave regression

3.4. Surface emissions and emission from leachate collection wells


An initial screening showed that all surface CH4 concentrations
were below 1.7 ppm except for a few hotspots primarily along
fences and on slopes. This was conrmed by ux chamber measurements, which showed that the surface emission in general
was below detection (<0.1 g m2 d1) and limited to a few hot
spots exhibiting high CH4 uxes (up to 78 g m2 d1). At covered
cells (cell 1.3 and 2.2.2), the low surface emission was most likely
due to the very low gas permeability of the cover material as the
cover was often water saturated and water often tended to accumulate on the surface. At the un-covered cells with shredder waste
(cell 1.5.1) a signicant part of the CH4 was oxidized in the top
layer of the waste before being emitted into the atmosphere, which
was most likely due to the high gas diffusivity of the shredder
waste allowing O2 transportation into the shredder material supporting CH4 oxidation (Scheutz et al., 2010a,b). To estimate the
emission through the surface of the three cells it was assumed that
hot spots with high emission take up 1% of the surface area at cell
1.3 and cell 2.2.2. At the cell with shredder waste hot spots were
assumed to make up 5% of the area, mainly a result of that the cell
was un-covered. Table 5 shows the estimated amount of CH4 emitted through the surface of the cells.
The initial surface screening of leachate collection wells showed
very high CH4 concentrations (up to 26,000 ppm) indicating that a
signicant part of the generated gas migrated through the leachate
collection system and emits through the leachate collection/
inspection wells. The total emission from the leachate collecting
wells at the three individual cells was measured to be 27.6, 0.2
and 14.9 kg CH4 d1 from cell 1.3, 1.5.1 and 2.2.2, respectively
(Fredenslund et al., 2010).

Fig. 4. Headspace concentration of CH4, O2 and CO2 as function of time, showing


CH4 oxidation in a batch experiment containing 20 g shredder residue sampled at
20 cm below the soil surface. (A) Active batch experiment and (B) control
experiment.

3.5. CH4 oxidation activity


The variation of CH4 oxidation potential of the shredder waste
vs. depth was determined in microcosms containing cover soil or

Table 5
Estimation of the total amount of CH4 emitted through cell surfaces.
Cell

1.3
1.5.1
2.2.2

Total
area

28,420
8748
12,227

m2

Maximum
measured
surface
emission rate
g CH4 m2 d1

Total amount of
CH4 emitted
through cell
surfaces
kg CH4 d1

284
437
122

0.01
23.0
0.04

0.003
10.060
0.005

Estimated
hotspot
area

Estimated
hotspot
area

%
1
5
1

Fig. 5. CH4 oxidation rates vs. sampling depth below surface at two locations with
different gas emissions: A represents an area with CH4 emissions below detection
whereas B represents a hot spot with higher CH4 emissions.

952

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

coefcients often higher than 0.90. In general, very good reproducibility was obtained and results from duplicate batches were
almost identical.
The shredder waste placed in cell 1.5.1 showed a relatively high
capacity for CH4 oxidation with maximum oxidation rates up to
17 lg CH4 g1 h1, which are comparable to rates obtained for
landll cover soils (Scheutz et al., 2009). Fig. 4A shows the CH4,
O2 and CO2 concentrations measured in headspace vs. time, in a
batch experiment containing shredder waste. CH4 oxidation followed zero-order kinetics, indicating that the oxidation was not
CH4-limited. The oxidation was microbially mediated as seen from
comparison with the sterilized control batch (Fig. 4B). Maximal
oxidation activity occurred at 40 cm below the surface (Fig. 5A),
which corresponds to the depth with CH4 oxidation indicated by
gas proles (Fig. 6). The CH4 oxidation activity was signicantly
lower in the upper 20 cm of the prole and at 50 cm depth
(Fig. 5A). Incubation of shredder samples taken at the hot spot
showed a different oxidation potential prole as the maximum oxidation capacity was found in the upper 30 cm of the prole and decreased signicantly at 40 cm depth (Fig. 5B). However, this agrees
well with the measured gas concentrations proles showing a very
shallow oxidation zone between 10 and 20 cm depth (results not
shown).
The cover soil placed at cell 1.3 also showed a high capacity
for CH4 oxidation with maximum oxidation rates up to 13 lg
CH4 g1 h1 (Fig. 5A). The zone with the highest oxidation capacity
was found between 80 and 100 cm.b.s., which is lower than the
zone identied in the shredder prole. This is most likely a result
of the low ux of CH4 through the cover due to its low gas permeability. The small ux of CH4 that is entering the lower part of the
soil cover is relatively rapidly oxidized due to the aerobic conditions also in the deeper part of the cover (Fig. 6). Thus the lower
CH4 oxidation activity is a result of CH4 limitation and thereby a
low number of CH4 oxidizing bacteria. The oxidation prole taken
close to a CH4 leaking area shows a higher oxidation capacity in the
upper prole as a result of a higher CH4 ux at this location
(Fig. 5B). Gas concentrations proles taken at this location showed
elevated CH4 concentrations and reduced O2 concentrations in the
lower part of the cover around 80 cm depth indicating CH4 oxidation (results not shown).
The cover placed at cell 2.2.2 showed a relatively low capacity
for CH4 oxidation throughout the whole prole (Fig. 5A). This is
coherent with the gas proles and the ux measurements either
indicating very low or no CH4 emission through the cover
(Fig. 6). Even the soil prole taken at a leaking area close to the border of cell 2.2.2 showed no CH4 oxidation capacity (Fig. 5B).
The depth integrated CH4 oxidation rate, K0 (g m2 d1), was
calculated using the formula:

K 0 k0  da  qb
where k0 is the CH4 oxidation rate (lg g1 d1) obtained from the
incubation experiments showed in Fig. 5A, da is the oxidation zone
(m) and qb is the soil bulk density (metric tons m3). Table 6 lists
the calculated CH4 oxidation rates. The highest CH4 oxidation
capacity was found for cell 1.3 and 1.5.1, which gave a depth integrated CH4 oxidation capacity of 108 and 101 g m2 d1, respectively. In comparison the capacity for cell 2.2.2 was much lower;
10 g m2 d1. The soil covers at AV Milj were not designed with
the purpose to optimize methane oxidation and it is therefore likely
that higher oxidation efciencies could be obtained if more permeable materials like composts or sandy soils were used as cover
materials (Scheutz et al., 2009). At Danish landlls low permeable
materials like clayey soils are often used in order to minimize leachate generation.

3.6. CH4 mass balances for the individual cells


The total CH4 mass balance for the individual waste cells at AV
Milj can be written as:

CH4 Production CH4 Recovered CH4 Emitted through surfaces


CH4 Emitted through leachate collection wells
CH4 Oxidized DCH4 Storage all units
mass t1
The total CH4 mass balances from each individual cell are
shown in Table 7. The highest CH4 production rate was seen in cell
1.3, which was also expected as the cell contained combustible
waste with a higher organic content in comparison with the other
two cells. At cell 1.3 and 2.2.2, 15% to 67% of the CH4 generated was
emitted through the leachate wells, which most likely was due to
the relatively impermeable covers in place at these two cells preventing gas migration through the soil covers. Shallow gas proles
from cell 1.3 and 2.2.2 showed a similar composition to atmospheric air indicating that LFG generated in the two cells was not
emitted through the cover (Fig. 6). Instead the gas was migrating
through the leachate drainage systems and collection wells. At cell
1.5.1, the CH4 emission through the leachate system was low due
to the high permeability of the shredder waste. Instead the gas
was emitted through the waste resulting in some hotspot observations on the shredder surface with higher emission rates.
For each cell the amount of CH4 that was not accounted for in the
investigations was calculated. This amount of CH4 can potentially
be oxidized in the cover soils or in the top of the shredder waste.
In order to assess whether this is likely, the depth integrated CH4
oxidation rate for the three cells based on the conducted batch incubation experiments were compared to the CH4 that was not emitted
(Table 7). Incubation experiments with shredder material showed a
high potential of CH4 oxidation in the upper 40 cm of the shredder
waste, which was supported by gas proles showing an zone of
40 cm below the surface with signicant CH4 oxidation. CH4 oxidation in the lower part of the covers at cell 1.3 and 2.2.2 are possible
as CH4 incubation experiments showed a tendency to increasing
oxidation rates with increasing cover depth. This was especially
the case at cell 1.3. The highest CH4 oxidation capacity was found
for cell 1.3 and 1.5.1, which gave a depth integrated CH4 oxidation
capacity of 108 and 101 g m2 d1, respectively. In comparison the
capacity for cell 2.2.2 was much lower; 10 g m2 d1. At all three
cells, the oxidation capacity was signicant larger (factor 1030)
than the amount of CH4 that was not accounted for, suggesting that
the CH4 that was not emitted through leachate collection wells or
cracks in the cover could be oxidized before emitted to the atmosphere. Even if the highest CH4 production based on the gas generation models were used this did not change the results. If the CH4 is
not oxidized in cover layers, it is possible that the gas is transported
through the leachate collection system to other cells (of which
some were empty) where it is then emitted from collections wells
or drainage pipes placed in permeable gravel layers in the bottom
of the cells.
Temporarily CH4 storage in the individual cells was not expected to be signicant. During seasons with high precipitation
the cover permeability might decrease generating a gas pressure
building up within the landlled waste. This could potentially result in temporary storage of CH4 in the landll. Changes in barometric pressure may lead to similar processes on a much shorter
time frame. However, since the lling height is only 7 m and as a
signicant part of the CH4 was found to emit through the leachate
collection system pressure build up and thereby CH4 storage was
expected to be insignicant on a longer time frame in the three
investigated cells at AV Milj. On a shorter time frame changes

953

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

Fig. 6. Vertical gas proles of main components vs. depth below surface at cell 1.3, 2.2.2 and 1.5.1.

Table 6
Depth integrated CH4 oxidation capacity at cell 1.3, 1.5.1, and 2.2.2 base on CH4 incubation experiments conducted with material sampled at an area with CH4 emissions below
detection (Fig. 5A).
1.3
Cover depth 100 cm

1.5.1
Depth of oxidative zone 50 cm

2.2.2
Cover depth 100 cm

Depth interval (da)


cm.b.s.

k0
lg g1 d1

K0
g m2 d1

Depth interval (da)


cm.b.s.

k0
lg g1 d1

K0
g m2 d1

Depth interval (da)


cm.b.s.

k0
lg g1 d1

K0
g m2 d1

015
1530
3050
5070
7090
90100
Total

24
11
11
11
218
144

6
3
3
4
70
23
108

015
1525
2535
3545
4555

42
38
223
284
24

10
6
36
46
4

015
1530
3050
5070
7090
90100
Total

6
2
1
0
18
15

1
0
0
0
6
2
10

Total

101

Table 7
Total CH4 mass balances from each individual cell. Last column lists the depth integrated CH4 oxidation rate based on batch experiments.
Cell

1.3
1.5.1
2.2.2

Production

Emitted

Potentially oxidized

Total CH4 production rate


kg CH4 d1

Through wells
kg CH4 d1

Through cover
kg CH4 d1

Amount of CH4 that is not accounted for


kg CH4 d1
g m2 d2

Depth integrated CH4 oxidation rate


g m2 d2

190
35
21

28
0
15

0
10
0

163
25
7

108
101
10

in barometric pressure can have an impact on the gas emission


through the leachate collections system.
3.7. Whole site CH4 emissions
The average whole site CH4 emission from the disposal site was
measured to 820 202 kg CH4 d1 based on two eld campaigns
(Table 8). In comparison, AV Milj has in their green accounting
for 2006 estimated the total CH4 emission to 96,495 m3 CH4 corresponding to 182 kg CH4 d1, which is only approximately 1=4 of the
amount of CH4 emitted from the site determined by the tracer
method.
The total emission rate through the leachate collection system
at AV Milj was found to be 211 kg CH4 d1 (Fredenslund et al.,
2010). This show that approximately 1=4 of the gas is emitted
through the leachate collections system making the leachate

6
3
1

collection system an important source controlling the overall gas


emission from the site. At cells covered with an impermeable cover
as on cell 1.3 and 2.2.2, the gas emission through the leachate collection system might be even more important (Table 7). The emission pathway for the remaining part of the gas is more uncertain. It
is most likely that the gas is emitted from open cells where waste
is being disposed of or being excavated for incineration. Also it is
possible that gas generated within specic waste lled cells
migrates through the leachate system and emits through the horizontal leachate drainage pipes placed in permeable gravel layers
in the bottom of other cells without waste. If the later is the case,
the surface from where gas can be emitted can be rather large.
The total gas production from the whole site varied between
approximately 23002900 kg CH4 d1 using the Avfalzorg Multi
Phase Model for 2006/2007 (Fig. 7). The modeled gas production is
about three times higher than the measured average CH4 emission

954

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955

Table 8
Whole site CH4 emission measured by dynamic plume measurements combined with tracer release.
Campaign

Emission
kg h

October 2006
October 2007
Average 2006 and 2007

1

33.1 7.8
35.2 3.2
34.2 8.4

Emission (kg h1)

Distribution (%)
kg d

1

794 187
845 77
820 202

Part A

Part B

Part C

Part A

Part B

Part C

20
22
21

44
48
46

36
30
33

7
8
7

3
2
2

9
3
6

Fig. 7. Modeled gas production at AV Milj.

(820 kg CH4 d1) for 2006/2007. The difference between the modeled gas production and the measured gas emission can be due to
CH4 oxidation and/or uncertainties in the modeled gas production.
As most of the cells at the landll are un-covered it is believed that
the overall CH4 oxidation of the whole site is limited. Most of the difference between the modeled gas production and the measured gas
emission is most likely rater a result of uncertainties associated with
the gas production modeling indicating that the model is not
describing the waste types disposed at the landll. However, further
investigations are needed to conclude on this issue.
4. Conclusion and perspectives
Overall the gas analyses of the main components indicated that
LFG containing CH4 was produced in all three cells investigated in
this study. However, the gas generated in the investigated waste
cells showed very different compositions, as the gas generated in
the cell with mixed combustible waste consisted of mainly CH4
(70%) and CO2 (29%) in opposition to the composition of the gas
generated within the shredder waste, which primarily consisted
of CH4 (27%) and N2 (71%), containing no CO2. The results indicated
that the gas composition in the shredder waste was governed by
chemical reactions as well as microbial reactions.
CH4 production rates determined experimentally using waste
sampled at the three cells showed signicant gas production rates
(0.522.02 kg CH4 kg waste1 d1). The modeled CH4 production
rates using the GasSim model and the Afvalzorg Multiphase Model
were 86109 kg CH4 d1 (cell 1.3), 2783 kg CH4 d1 (cell 1.5.1)
and 6365 kg CH4 d1 (cell 2.2.2). For the shredder cell (1.5.1)
and the cell with mixed industrial waste (cell 2.2.2), the gas production models seemed to overestimate the production rates,
which was especially the case using the GasSim Model.
The surface CH4 emission from all three cells was very low and
limited to a few hot spots on slopes, edges, and around leachate
collection wells. The low emission was due to placement of a low
permeable clay cover at two of the cells (cell 1.3 and cell 2.2.2).
At the cell with shredder waste, the waste showed a very high
CH4 oxidation capacity reducing the surface emission from the cell.
Shallow gas proles from the cell with shredder waste showed an
oxidation zone of 40 cm below the surface with signicant CH4 oxi-

dation. This was supported by incubation experiments with shredder material, which showed a high potential of CH4 oxidation in
the upper 40 cm of the shredder waste. Shallow gas proles from
cell 1.3 and 2.2.2 showed a similar gas composition to atmospheric
air indicating that LFG generated in the two cells was not emitted
through the cover. CH4 oxidation in the lower part of the covers
were possible as CH4 incubation experiments showed a tendency
to increasing oxidation rates with increasing cover depth.
A signicant amount of the gas was emitted through the leachate collection system. Mass balances for the two covered cells 1.3
and 2.2.2 indicated that up to 67% of the generated gas was emitted
through leachate collection wells. At the un-covered shredder
cell the emission through the leachate collection wells were
insignicant.
The whole CH4 emission was from the disposal site was found
to be 820 202 kg CH4 d1. The total emission rate through the
leachate collection system at AV Milj was found to be
211 kg CH4 d1. These results indicate that approximately 1=4 of
the emitted gas was emitted through the leachate collections system making the leachate collection system an important source
controlling the overall gas migration from the site. The emission
pathway for the remaining part of the gas was more uncertain,
but emission from open cells where waste was being disposed of
or being excavated for incineration, or from horizontal leachate
drainage pipes placed in permeable gravel layers in the bottom
of empty cells was likely. The modeled gas production for the
whole site (23002900 kg CH4 d1) was about three times higher
than the measured emission again indicating that the model overestimates the gas production and emission as it is believed that the
CH4 oxidation for the whole site is limited.
Overall this study showed that CH4 production and emissions
from landlls receiving non-combustible waste with low organic
carbon content are not negligible. The study also showed that
gas productions models like GasSim seemed to overestimate the
production rates especially for cells with low-organic waste like
shredder waste. However, more work is needed to validate existing
models especially when used on landlls containing waste fractions with a low-organic content. In addition, the emission patterns may be very complicated due to the presence of a leachate
collection system acting as a major gas escaping route and the
use of clay cover soils leading to a very heterogeneous surface
emission pattern. In the future using the leachate collection system
for gas collection followed by treatment in biolters optimized for
CH4 may be a potential technology to reduce the CH4 emission
from the site.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by AV Milj, Denmark. We thank the
technical staff of AV Milj for their co-operation, comments on
technical issues, eld assistance and arrangements making the
eld campaigns possible.
References
Belay, N., Daniels, L., 1990. Elemental metals as electron sources for biological
methane formation from CO2. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 57, 17.

C. Scheutz et al. / Waste Management 31 (2011) 946955


Bogner, J., Abdelrae Ahmed, M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S.,
Mareckova, K., Pipatti, R., Zhang. T., 2007. Waste Management. In: Metz, B.,
Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007:
Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 34 p.
Brjesson, G., Samuelsson, J., Chanton, J., 2007. Methane oxidation in Swedish
landlls quantied with the stable carbon isotope technique in combination
with an optical method for emitted methane. Environmental Science and
Technology 41, 66846690.
CEC (Council of the European Communities), 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landll of waste. Ofcial Journal of the European
Communities No. L 182/1-19. Available at: <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:182:0001:0019:EN:PDF>
(Accessed
October 2010).
CEC (Council of the European Communities), 2006. REGULATION (No. 166/2006) of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the
establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and
amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC, 4 February 2006,
Brussels, Belgium.
El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A.N., Leckie, J.O., 1997. Environmental impacts of solid
waste landlling. Journal of Environmental Management 50, 125.
Fredenslund, A.M., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2010. A new tracer method to measure
landll gas emissions from leachate collection systems. Waste Management 30,
21462152.
Galle, B., Samuelsson, J., Svensson, B.H., Borjesson, G., 2001. Measurements of
methane emissions from landlls using a time correlation tracer method based
on FTIR absorption spectroscopy. Environmental Science and Technology 35 (1),
2125.
Golder Associates, 2002. GasSim Manuael Version 1.0. Available from:
www.gassim.co.uk. Stanton-on-the-Worlds, nothinghamshire, England, UK.
IPCC, 2007. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.),
Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
Lorowitz, W.H., Nagle, D.P., Tanner, R.S., 1992. Anaerobic oxidation of elemental
metals coupled to methanogenesis by Methanobacerium thermoautotrophicum.
Environmental Science and Technology 26 (8), 16061610.

955

Reardon, E.J., 1995. Anaerobic corrosion of granular iron: measurement and


interpretation of hydrogen evolution rates. Environmental Science and
Technology 29 (12), 29362945.
Scharff, H., Jacobs, J., 2006. Applying guidance for methane emission estimation.
Waste Management 26 (4), 417429.
Scheutz, C., Samuelsson, J., Fredenslund, A.M., Kjeldsen, P., 2011. Quantication of
multiple methane emission sources at landlls using a double tracer approach.
Waste Management 31 (5), 10091017.
Scheutz, C., Fredenslund, A.M., Nedenskov, J., Kjeldsen, P., 2010a. Release and fate of
uorocarbons in an automotive shredder residue landll cell: 1. Laboratory
experiments. Waste Management 30, 21532162.
Scheutz, C., Fredenslund, A.M., Nedenskov, J., Kjeldsen, P., 2010b. Release and fate of
uorocarbons in an automotive shredder residue landll cell: 2. Field
investigations. Waste Management 30, 21632169.
Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., Bogner, J., De Visscher, A., Gebert, J., Hilger, H., HuberHumer, M., Spokas, K., 2009. Microbial methane oxidation processes and
technologies for mitigation of landll gas emissions. Waste Management and
Research 27, 409455.
Scheutz, C., Bogner, J., Chanton, J.P., Blake, D., Morcet, M., Aran, C., Kjeldsen, P.,
2008. Atmospheric emissions and attenuation of non-methane organic
compounds in cover soils at a French landll. Waste Management 28,
18921908.
Scheutz, C., Fredenslund, A.M., Lemming, G., Kjeldsen, P. Investigation of emissions
from the AV Milj Landll-1. Gas quantity, quality and attenuation properties.
Technical report. Institute of Environment and Resources, Technical University
of Denmark, March 2007. Report available from <http://www.er.dtu.dk/
Publikationer.aspx> (Accessed October 2010).
Scheutz, C., Mosbk, H., Kjeldsen, P., 2004. Attenuation of methane and volatile
organic compounds in landll soil covers. Journal of Environmental Quality 33
(1), 6171.
Scheutz, C., Bogner, J., Chanton, J., Blake, D., Kjeldsen, P., 2003. Comparative
oxidation and net emissions of CH4 and selected non-methane organic
compounds in landll cover soils. Environmental Science and Technology 37
(22), 51505158.
UK Environment Agency, 2004. Guidance on monitoring landll gas surface
emissions. Report published by the Environment Agency, UK.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen