4.7 Article

Scaling methane oxidation: From laboratory incubation experiments to landfill cover field conditions

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 978-986

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating field-scale methane oxidation in landfill cover soils using numerical models is gaining interest in the solid waste industry as research has made it clear that methane oxidation in the field is a complex function of climatic conditions, soil type, cover design, and incoming flux of landfill gas from the waste mass. Numerical models can account for these parameters as they change with time and space under field conditions. In this study, we developed temperature, and water content correction factors for methane oxidation parameters. We also introduced a possible correction to account for the different soil structure under field conditions. These parameters were defined in laboratory incubation experiments performed on homogenized soil specimens and were used to predict the actual methane oxidation rates to be expected under field conditions. Water content and temperature corrections factors were obtained for the methane oxidation rate parameter to be used when modeling methane oxidation in the field. To predict in situ measured rates of methane with the model it was necessary to set the half saturation constant of methane and oxygen. K-m, to 5%, approximately five times larger than laboratory measured values. We hypothesize that this discrepancy reflects differences in soil structure between homogenized soil conditions in the lab and actual aggregated soil structure in the field. When all of these correction factors were re-introduced into the oxidation module of our model, it was able to reproduce surface emissions (as measured by static flux chambers) and percent oxidation (as measured by stable isotope techniques) within the range measured in the field. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据