Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
GeoloGy, ecoloGy, and landscapes, 2018 Vol . 2, no . 1, 45– 50 https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2018.1452463 INWASCON OPEN ACCESS Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from Muhammad wala open dumping site of Faisalabad, Pakistan a b a a a Adeel Rafiq , Adnan Rasheed , Chaudhry Arslan , Umair Tallat and Mubashar Siddique a b d epartment of structures and environmental engineering, University of agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, pakistan; d epartment of a gricultural engineering, Kyungpook national University, daegu, Republic of Korea ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 s eptember 2017 Landfills and open dumping sites around the world are adding to the global warming issue. This a ccepted 20 January 2018 is because of the existence of the main greenhouse gases in landfill gas (LFG); namely, methane (CH ) and carbon dioxide (CO ). The current study was focused on the determination of air 4 2 KEYWORDS emissions from the Muhammad wala dump site. This site was constructed in 1992 and expected landGeM; methane to have lifespan of 28 years. Utilizing LandGEM software, the landfill emissions were estimated generation potential with taking into consideration the 60% content of methane, the methane generation rate capacity; population; −1 3 constant of 0.02125 year , and methane generation potential capacity constant of 23.25 m / methane Mg. The outcomes of this study indicated that the maximum volume of emitted gas is at the next year after the site closure (2021). It was estimated that total volume of LFG, methane, carbon +08 +08 +07 dioxide, and non-methane organic compounds were 2.257 × 10 , 1.354 × 10 , 9.026 × 10 , +05 3 and 5.416 × 10 m /year, respectively. 1. Introduction In terms of global warming potential (GWP), methane has 25–30 times more effective than CO . It is also esti- es Th e days, one of the major environmental issue facing mated that the quantitative contribution of CH is about our world is climate change. In this regard, the devel- 18% and it has the second rank among GHGs (Aydi, oping nations are confronted with the most notewor- 2012; Georgaki et al., 2008; Nolasco, Lima, Hernández, & thy harm and dangers. Mismanagement of solid waste Pérez, 2008). The waste sector is a significant contributor is among the major reasons of climate change. Today, to GHG emissions, accountable for approximately 5% there is a worldwide attention to emission of greenhouse of the global greenhouse budget (Eggleston, Buendia, gases (GHG) from municipal solid waste treatment and Miwa, Ngara, & Tanabe, 2006). disposal processes as among the main sources of anthro- It is also estimated that 3.8% of the GWP in the pogenic emissions (Kreith & Tchobanoglous, 2002; Tian United States is related to methane emissions from et al., 2013). Developing countries were accountable landfill sites (Chalvatzaki & Lazaridis, 2010). In Europe, for 29% of GHGs emissions in 2000. This quantity is 30% of anthropogenic sources of methane emissions anticipated to be 64 and 76% in 2030 and 2050, respec- are from landfill sites (Georgaki et al., 2008). Anaerobic tively. Landfill sites are one of the main reasons of such decomposition of wastes in landfills by micro-organ- increase (Tian et al., 2013). Global warming is caused isms under suitable conditions leads to GHGs emission. mainly due to the increase in GHG concentration in the Measurement of the emission rate of GHGs from landfill atmosphere. Collectively, methane (CH ), carbon diox- is essential to reduce uncertainties in the inventory esti- ide (CO ), nitrous oxide (N O), and chlorouo fl rocar - 2 2 mates from this source. bons are called GHG (Hardy, 2003). Methane emission Gas production normally starts 2–6 months aer ft from landfills caused by degradation of organic matter internment of the wastes and continues as much as is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect (Schar, ff 100 years. Landfill gas (LFG) typically consists of Manfredi, Tonini, & Chris, 2009). Atmospheric meth- 45–60% methane (CH ) and 40–60% carbon dioxide ane concentration has been increasing in the range of (CO ). It also include small amounts of nitrogen (N ), 2 2 1–2% per year (Solomon et al., 2007). The quantity of oxygen (O ), ammonia (NH ), hydrogen sulphide (H S), 2 3 2 methane in the atmosphere has doubled during the last hydrogen (H ), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-meth- 200 years and this boom, keeps, despite the fact that at a ane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as trichloro- slower pace (Kamalan, Sabour, & Shariatmadari, 2011). ethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride (Aydi, 2012; Saral, CONTACT a deel Rafiq firstname.lastname@example.org © 2018 The a uthor(s). published by Informa UK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an open a ccess article distributed under the terms of the creative c ommons a ttribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 46 A. RAFIQ ET AL. Demir, & Yıldız, 2009). Several mathematical models methane generation capacity and the mass of waste have been evolved among which, LandGEM model is deposited. LandGEM is based on a first-order decom- the most bendy one (Bove & Lunghi, 2006). United State position rate equation given below by (1) (Alexander Environmental Protection Agency (Alexander, Burklin, et al., 2005). & Singleton, 2005) built-up this model; it provides a n 1 −kt ij completely specific estimation of methane quantity pro - Q = kL e (1) CH 0 i=1 j=0.1 duced over numerous years. This model is recognized as an automatic estimation tool for modelling LFG emis- where, Q = annual methane generation in the year CH sions from MSW. The LandGEM estimates the quantity of calculation (m /year); I = the yearly time increment; and composition of the generated gas throughout time N = the difference (year of the calculation) – (initial due to the degradation of organic matter in the landfill year of waste acceptance); J = the 0.1-year time incre- −1 (Alexander et al., 2005). The purpose of this study was ment; K = the methane generation constant (year ); L focused on the estimation of greenhouse gases emissions = the potential methane generation capacity (m /Mg); from Muhammad wala dumpsite over a 28-year time M = the mass of waste in the ith year (Mg); t = the age i ij frame using LandGEM, version 3.02. of the jth section of waste M accepted in the ith year (decimal years). To conduct our study, the required inputs for esti- 2. Methodology mating the amount of generated LFG are the landfill 2.1. Study area opening year, the landfill closure year, the annual waste acceptance rates from the opening to the closure year, e d Th umping site is located at Muhammad wala village the methane generation constant k, the potential meth- near Makkuana Jaranwala road geographically it is sit- ane generation capacity L , NMOC concentration, and uated at 31° 23′ 8″ northern latitude and 73° 14′ 26″ methane proportion in the biogas. eastern longitude at 182.93 m above sea level. This site was constructed in 1992 and its area is 50 acres. And this 2.2.1. Model parameters site is at distance of 15 km approximate from Faisalabad. 18.104.22.168. Methane generation constant (k). Organic e co Th llected waste is currently being disposed of at waste is composed primarily of cellulose, lignin, “Muhammad wala” dump site without any soil cover. hemicelluloses, and protein. These components (with This site has been used since last 25 years and the exception of lignin) are also the main components expected to close in 2020. The city is still deprived of a converted to methane via physical, chemical, and sanitary landfill. Waste remains uncovered and leachate biological processes (Reinhart & Barlaz, 2010). generated from this waste seeps through the soil and e deg Th radation rates of cellulose and lignin vary contaminates ground water. No gas collection system considerably under landfilling conditions; for example, and composting plant. For the purpose of waste trans- lignin is thought to be recalcitrant under anaerobic fer and transport tractor trolleys, dumper trucks, mini conditions. There are optimal ranges of temperature and tippers, arms rolls are used. Vehicles are dependent on pH for micro-organism activities in the waste (Mehta physical layout of roads and cost of manpower available. et al., 2002). Also, moisture content ae ff cts the methane es Th e vehicles are loaded both by manual loading and generation by providing better contact conditions among tractor loader. Use of tractor loader is an inec ffi ient, time micro-organisms (Barlaz, Staley, & de los Reyes III, 2009) consuming, and produces health concerns. k values in the open literature generally range from 0.01 −1 −1 to 0.21 year with 0.04 year being a commonly applied −1 2.2. Description of LandGEM value. But values of 0.3 and 0.5 year have also been reported under specific conditions such as for bioreactor e LFG emi Th ssions model is a modelling tool for quan- operating landfills or rapidly degradable fractions of tifying uncontrolled emissions of various compounds waste (Faour, Reinhart, & You, 2007). Default values present in the LFG over a time period, from municipal for k are shown in Table 1. Site-specific values can be solid waste Landfills (Paraskaki & Lazaridis, 2005). It introduced using the Equation (2). is developed by the Control Technology Centre of the American Environmental Protection Agency. e Th mode −5 k = 3.2 × 10 (annual mean rain fall) + 0.01 (2) determines the mass of methane generated using the Average annual rainfall is approximately 375 mm (14.8 in) and highly seasonal. It is usually at its highest Table 1. d efault values for k. in July and August (Asghar Cheema, Farooq, Rashid, −1 Emission type Landfill type k (year ) & Munir, 2006) during monsoon season, with a high- clean air a ct c onventional 0.05(default) est value of 264.2 mm (10.40 in) was recorded on 5 clean air a ct arid area 0.02 September 1961 (Pakistan Meteorological Department, Inventory c onventional 0.04 Inventory arid area 0.02 n.d.). Putting the average annual rainfall value into the Inventory Wet (bioreactor) 0.07 Equation (2) we get GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 47 is 50%. It is assumed as 0.6 for CH for Muhammad −5 −1 k = 3.2 × 10 (375) + 0.01 = 0.02125 year wala dump site. 22.214.171.124. Potential methane generation capacity (L ). e p Th otential methane generation capacity L 126.96.36.199. 16/12. Conversion of C to CH . 0 0 4 depends mainly on the nature of waste disposed in the 188.8.131.52. CH correction factor (MCF). It assumes that landfill. The L value will be greater for waste containing unmanaged SWDS yields less CH than the managed a lot of cellulose. The five L values given for household one. In the former, a large fraction of waste in the top waste are given in Table 2. layer undergoes aerobic decomposition and therefore, L can be calculated using the following Equation (3). MCF of solid SWDS varies with the site conditions L = DOC × DOC × MCF × F × 16∕12 (3) 0 F and management techniques used (Kumar, Mondal, Gaikwad, Devotta, & Singh, 2004). The MCF for Some assumptions and calculation for the parameters different category of SWDS is given in Table 4. Since in Equation (3) are discussed below. the Muhammad wala landfill is a shallow unmanaged 184.108.40.206. Degradable organic carbon (DOC). For site, the MCF is assumed as 0.4. The MCF for different the estimation of degradable organic carbon, IPCC category of SWDS is given in Table 4. These values are as Guidelines provide the following equation: per IPCC guideline for National Green House Inventory. Incorporating the above values with a unit mass of DOC =0.4 × (A) + 0.17 × (B) 1 Mg, L can be calculated using Equation (3). + 0.15 × (C) + 0.3 × (D) (4) Mg C Mg C decomp L =0.0836 × 0.623 × 0.4 × 0.6 where A: fraction of paper and textiles; B: fraction of 0 Mg MSW Mg C garden waste and park waste or other non-food organic 0.0166 Mg CH mol 4 putrescible; C: fraction of food wastes and D: fraction of × ⋅ = 12 Mg MSW MSW as wood or straw. Where values for DOC related mol to A, B, C, and D are as presented in Table 3. This raises an important issue regarding the calculation 220.127.116.11. DOC . This factor is based on a theoretical of LFG quantity. While IPCC has adopted a mass/mass model where the variation depends on the temperature definition of L , landfills continue to measure LFG in in the anaerobic zone of the landfill and can be calculated volume. Using the STP density of methane (0.714 kg/m ) as “EPA LandGEM Guide (2005)”: the mass of methane per mass of waste can be calculated as a volume per mass of waste. DOC = 0.014 × T + 0.28 (5) 0.0166 × 1000 23.25 m L = = where T is the temperature. The normal temperature 0.714 Mg in that area is 24.5 °C. Putting the normal temperature value into Equation (5) we get 18.104.22.168. NMOC concentration. e co Th ncentration of NMOC varies with the type of waste. Applying the Mg C decomp default values of the model, it can be 600 ppmv for DOC = 0.014 × 24.5 + 0.28 = 0.623 Mg C landfills containing only household waste and 2400 ppmv for those receiving both household waste and 22.214.171.124. F – Fraction of CH in LFG. LFG from 4 other types of waste (Alexander et al., 2005). Up until undisturbed solid waste disposal site (SWDS) zones in 2016, Muhammad wala open dump site received all the main anaerobic phase has a composition of mainly types of waste so we have chosen a NMOC concentration CH , CO and a large number of trace components, 4 2 of 2400 ppmv. normally accounting for less than 1% of volume. Various sources operate with a CH -content in LFG between 50 3. Result and discussion and 60%, and the default value in the IPCC Guidelines 3.1. Population and waste generation scenario of Faisalabad e p Th opulation growth rate of Faisalabad city was quite Table 2. The five L values given for household waste. high amid 1940s–1970s. That was the period amid which Emission type Landfill type L value (m /Mg) population was growing at a high rate, due to the exo- clean air a ct c onventional 170 (default) dus in movement from India following autonomy. The clean air a ct arid area 170 1981 Census demonstrates moderate growth which was Inventory c onventional 100 Inventory arid area 100 extremely astounding to numerous demographers and Inventory Wet (bioreactor) 96 48 A. RAFIQ ET AL. Table 3. physical composition of MsW, Faisalabad. e Th Ministry of Environment and Urban Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan undertook a study during 1996 Sr. No Items Percentage weight on “Data Collection for Preparation of National Study 1 plastic and rubber 4.8 2 Metals 0.2 on Privatization of Solid Waste Management in Eight 3 paper 2.1 Selected Cities of Pakistan.” e Th examination uncov- 4 c ardboard 1.6 5 Textile/rags 5.2 ered that the rate of waste generation by and large from 6 Glass 1.3 all kind of city controlled zones fluctuates from 0.283 7 Bone 2.9 8 Food 17.2 to 0.613 kg/capita/day. This study shows that the rate 9 animal 0.8 of waste generation in Faisalabad was 0.391 kg/capita/ 10 Green 15.6 day. Basic Survey of Municipal Solid Waste Management 11 Wood 0.7 12 Fines 43 in eight major cities of Pakistan shows that the rate of 13 s tones 4.6 waste generation is 0.45 kg/capita/day (JICA Report, 2010). The present populace of Faisalabad is 3.5 million and around 1600 tons of MSW is generated in the city Table 4. d efault values of McF for different dumping sites/ landfills. consistently. Faisalabad Waste Management Company (FWMC) is right now working at a collection rate of Management type Depth MFC default values 45–63% while before the foundation of FWMC, the City Managed site __ 1.0 Unmanaged deep ≥5 m 0.8 District Government Faisalabad was working at the col- Unmanaged shallow <5 m 0.4 lection rate of 40%. Annual waste Acceptance rate by Uncategorized __ 0.6 Muhammad wala open dump site is given in Table 5. the city authorities. Again amid 1985, the population 3.2. Estimation of LFG emissions was computed by the city government and growth rate e es Th timation via LandGem model is displayed in was found as 7.2%. As indicated by statistics 1998, the Figure 1. The landfill site has nearly achieved its maxi- population was recorded around 2 million demonstrat- mum capacity so it is normal that there will be no waste ing a development rate around 3%. According to some store aer 2020.Th ft e first year of waste deposit the model specialists, the number of inhabitants in Faisalabad city assumes that there is no biogas production. For sure, in is developing around 3.5%. Amid 2004, the number of the literature, it is stated that the methanogenesis step inhabitants in Faisalabad city was around 2.5 million. It begins at least 2–6 months aer t ft ipping of waste. Waste is normal that it would grow up to 4.5 million by 2020 degradation depends on many factors: type of waste, keeping populace development rate as 3% for every year. moisture in the waste, climatic conditions, material which covers the waste, etc. To simplify the computa- Table 5. annual waste acceptance rate by Muhammad wala tions, the LandGEM does not take into account all these dump site. parameters to establish the beginning of methanogenesis Input units Calculated units and considers that aer ft a year, all criteria are met for the Year (short tons/year) (Mg/year) start of this step. 1992 99,247 90,224 As per the model yields, the dumping site has pro- 1993 101,605 92,368 +04 3 1994 104,019 94,563 duced 7.359 × 10 m /year of biogas in 1993 incorpo- 1995 106,491 96,810 +4 3 +4 3 rating 4.415 × 10 m /year of CH and 2.944 × 10 m / 1996 109,021 99,110 1997 111,612 101,465 year of CO . Throughout the years, the production of 1998 114,678 104,253 biogas would develop until the point during 2021 when 1999 118,692 107,901 2000 122,993 111,812 we record the greatest biogas generation rate with 2001 127,052 115,502 +6 3 4.289 × 10 m /year. As saw in all investigations utiliz- 2002 131,244 119,313 2003 135,575 123,250 ing this model, the maximum production occur one year 2004 140,348 127,589 aer ft the closure of the landfill. Aer ft 2021, the generation 2005 144,559 131,417 of biogas decreases exponentially. This rapid reduction 2006 148,895 135,359 2007 217,992 198,175 in biogas production is clarified by the fact that there 2008 224,532 204,120 are lesser and lesser waste to degrade. As per LandGEM, 2009 231,267 210,243 2010 238,837 217,124 the site should have produced between 1992 and 2132 at 2011 246,002 223,638 4 3 least 4.415 × 10 m of CH . It was assessed that total vol- 2012 253,382 230,347 4 2013 355,006 322,733 ume of LFG, CH , CO , and NMOC were 2.257 × 10 , 4 2 2014 365,656 332,415 +08 +07 +05 3 1.354 × 10 , 9.026 × 10 , and 5.416 × 10 m /year, 2015 376,626 342,387 2016 486,445 442,223 respectively. Annual GHGs emission produced between 2017 507,381 461,255 1992 and 2024 calculated by LandGEM model is shown 2018 522,602 475,093 in Table 6. 2019 538,280 489,346 2020 554,429 504,026 GEOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND LANDSCAPES 49 Figure 1. Green house gas emission from Muhammad wala dumping site. +04 3 Table 6. annual greenhouse gases emission calculated by from 7.359 × 10 (m /year) in 1993, first year aer ft landGem model. waste acceptance while the greatest biogas generation Total landfill Carbon rate occurred during 2021 where show as the peak of gas Methane dioxide NMOC +06 3 generation by around 4.289 × 10 (m /year). On the 3 3 3 3 Year (m /year) (m /year) (m /year) (m /year) premise of data introduced above, it can be said that the 1992 0 0 0 0 volume biogas of produced from solid waste has signifi - 1993 7.359e + 04 4.415e + 04 2.944e + 04 1.766e + 02 cant effect on the climate of Faisalabad. 1994 1.474e + 05 8.843e + 04 5.895e + 04 3.537e + 02 1995 2.214e + 05 1.328e + 05 8.856e + 04 5.314e + 02 1996 2.957e + 05 1.774e + 05 1.183e + 05 7.097e + 02 1997 3.703e + 05 2.222e + 05 1.481e + 05 8.888e + 02 1998 4.453e + 05 2.672e + 05 1.781e + 05 1.069e + 03 Disclosure statement 1999 5.210e + 05 3.126e + 05 2.084e + 05 1.250e + 03 2000 5.980e + 05 3.588e + 05 2.392e + 05 1.435e + 03 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. 2001 6.766e + 05 4.060e + 05 2.707e + 05 1.624e + 03 2002 7.566e + 05 4.540e + 05 3.026e + 05 1.816e + 03 2003 8.380e + 05 5.028e + 05 3.352e + 05 2.011e + 03 2004 9.209e + 05 5.526e + 05 3.684e + 05 2.210e + 03 References 2005 1.006e + 06 6.034e + 05 4.023e + 05 2.414e + 03 2006 1.092e + 06 6.550e + 05 4.367e + 05 2.620e + 03 Alexander, A., Burklin, C., & Singleton, A. (2005). Landfill 2007 1.179e + 06 7.075e + 05 4.716e + 05 2.830e + 03 gas emissions model (LandGEM) version 3.02 user’s guide. 2008 1.316e + 06 7.896e + 05 5.264e + 05 3.158e + 03 Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009 1.455e + 06 8.729e + 05 5.819e + 05 3.491e + 03 Office of Research and Development. 2010 1.596e + 06 9.574e + 05 6.383e + 05 3.830e + 03 Asghar Cheema, M., Farooq, M., Rashid, A., & Munir, H. 2011 1.739e + 06 1.044e + 06 6.957e + 05 4.174e + 03 2012 1.885e + 06 1.131e + 06 7.540e + 05 4.524e + 03 (2006). Climatic trends in Faisalabad (Pakistan) over the 2013 2.033e + 06 1.220e + 06 8.133e + 05 4.880e + 03 last 60 years (1945–2004). Journal of Agriculture & Social 2014 2.254e + 06 1.352e + 06 9.015e + 05 5.409e + 03 Sciences, 2(1), 42–45. 2015 2.477e + 06 1.486e + 06 9.910e + 05 5.946e + 03 Aydi, A. (2012). Energy recovery from a municipal solid 2016 2.705e + 06 1.623e + 06 1.082e + 06 6.491e + 03 2017 3.008e + 06 1.805e + 06 1.203e + 06 7.220e + 03 waste (MSW) landfill gas: A Tunisian case study. 2018 3.321e + 06 1.993e + 06 1.329e + 06 7.971e + 03 Hydrology Current Research, 3(4), 1–3. doi:10.4172/2157- 2019 3.639e + 06 2.183e + 06 1.456e + 06 8.734e + 03 7587.1000137 2020 3.962e + 06 2.377e + 06 1.585e + 06 9.508e + 03 Barlaz, M.A., Staley, B.F., & de los Reyes III, F.L. (2009). 2021 4.289e + 06 2.574e + 06 1.716e + 06 1.029e + 04 Anaerobic biodegradation of solid waste. In Environmental 2022 4.199e + 06 2.520e + 06 1.680e + 06 1.008e + 04 2023 4.111e + 06 2.467e + 06 1.644e + 06 9.866e + 03 microbiology (2nd ed., pp. 281–299). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2024 4.025e + 06 2.415e + 06 1.610e + 06 9.659e + 03 Bove, R., & Lunghi, P. (2006). Electric power generation from landfill gas using traditional and innovative technologies. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(11–12), 1391– 1401. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2005.08.017 4. Conclusion Chalvatzaki, E., & Lazaridis, M. (2010). Estimation of e GH Th G emission from Muhammad wala dumping site greenhouse gas emissions from landfills: Application to has been assessed by utilizing LandGEM model. This the Akrotiri landfill site (Chania, Greece). Global NEST Journal, 12(1), 108–116. dumpsite begins operation at 1992 with the reason to get Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., & Tanabe, the generated solid waste at encompassed area. The vol- K. (2006). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas ume of biogas generation from dumping site computed 50 A. RAFIQ ET AL. inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Islands. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 48–56. 15(1), 51–60. Faour, A.A., Reinhart, D.R., & You, H. (2007). First-order Pakistan Meteorological Department. (n.d.). Historical kinetic gas generation model parameters for wet landfills. events. Lahore: Regional Meteorological Centre. Retrieved Waste Management, 27(7), 946–953. doi:10.1016/j. from http://rmcpunjab.pmd.gov.pk/P-historical.html wasman.2006.05.007 Paraskaki, I., & Lazaridis, M. (2005). Quantification of Georgaki, I., Soupios, P., Sakkas, N., Ververidis, F., Trantas, E., landfill emissions to air: A case study of the Ano Liosia Vallianatos, F., & Manios, T. (2008). Evaluating the use of landfill site in the greater Athens area. Waste Management electrical resistivity imaging technique for improving CH & Research, 23(3), 199–208. and CO emission rate estimations in landfills. Science of Reinhart, D.R., & Barlaz, M.A. (2010). Landfill gas e T Th otal Environment, 389(2–3), 522–531. management: A roadmap for EREF directed research. Hardy, J.T. (2003). Climate change: Causes, effects, and Saral, A., Demir, S., & Yıldız, Ş. (2009). Assessment of solutions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. odorous VOCs released from a main MSW landfill site JICA Report. (2010). Basic survey of municipal solid waste in Istanbul-Turkey via a modelling approach. Journal management in 8 major cities of Pakistan. of Hazardous Materials, 168(1), 338–345. doi:10.1016/j. Kamalan, H., Sabour, M., & Shariatmadari, N. (2011). jhazmat.2009.02.043 A review on available landfill gas models. Journal of Schar, H., M ff anfredi, S., Tonini, D., & Chris, T.H. (2009). Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), 79–92. Landfilling of waste: Accounting of greenhouse gases doi:10.3923/jest.2011.79.92 and global warming contributions. Waste Management & Kreith, F., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2002). Handbook of solid Research, 27, 825–836. doi:10.1177/0734242X09348529 waste management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Kumar, S., Mondal, A.N., Gaikwad, S.A., Devotta, S., & Singh, Averyt, K., … Miller, H.L. (2007). The physical science R.N. (2004). Qualitative assessment of methane emission basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth inventory from municipal solid waste disposal sites: A assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate case study. Atmospheric Environment, 38(29), 4921–4929. change (pp. 235–337). Cambridge: Cambridge University doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004 Press. Mehta, R., Barlaz, M.A., Yazdani, R., Augenstein, D., Bryars, Tian, H., Gao, J., Hao, J., Lu, L., Zhu, C., & Qiu, P. (2013). M., & Sinderson, L. (2002). Refuse decomposition in the Atmospheric pollution problems and control proposals presence and absence of leachate recirculation. Journal of associated with solid waste management in China: A Environmental Engineering, 128(3), 228–236. review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 252–253, 142–154. Nolasco, D., Lima, R.N., Hernández, P.A., & Pérez, N.M. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013 (2008). Non-controlled biogenic emissions to the atmosphere from Lazareto landfill, Tenerife, Canary
Geology Ecology and Landscapes – Taylor & Francis
Published: Jan 2, 2018
Keywords: LandGEM; methane generation potential capacity; population; methane
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.