4.7 Article

Evaluation of alternative landfill cover soils for attenuating hydrogen sulfide from construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages 314-322

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.001

Keywords

construction and demolition debris landfills; hydrogen sulfide; cover soil emission rate; landfill gas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) generated from C&D debris landfills has emerged as a major environmental concern due to odor problems and possible health impacts to landfill employees and surrounding residents. Research was performed to evaluate the performance of various cover materials as control measures for H2S emissions from C&D debris landfills. Twelve laboratory-scale simulated landfill columns containing gypsum drywall were operated under anaerobic conditions to promote H2S production. Five different cover materials were placed on top of the waste inside duplicate columns: (1) sandy soil, (2) sandy soil amended with lime, (3) clayey soil, (4) fine concrete (particle size less than 2.5 cm), and (5) coarse concrete (particle size greater than 2.5 cm). No cover was placed on two of the columns, which were used as controls. H2S concentrations measured from the middle of the waste layer ranged from 50,000 to 150,000 ppm. The different cover materials demonstrated varying H2S removal efficiencies. The sandy soil amended with lime and the fine concrete were the most effective for the control of H2S emissions. Both materials exhibited reduction efficiencies greater than 99%. The clayey and sandy soils exhibited lower reduction efficiencies, with average removal efficiencies of 65% and 30%, respectively. The coarse concrete was found to be the least efficient material as a result of its large particle size. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available