4.7 Article

Scrutinizing compost properties and their impact on methane oxidation efficiency

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 871-883

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methane emissions from active or closed landfills can be reduced by means of microbial methane oxidation enhanced by properly designed landfill covers and engineered biocovers. Composts produced using different waste materials have already been proven to support methane oxidation, and may represent a low-cost alternative to other suitable substrates such as sandy or humic-rich soils, which are frequently not available in sufficient amounts or are too costly. In the present study a data set of 30 different compost materials (different age and input materials) and mixtures, as well as seven soils and mineral substrates were tested to assess methane oxidation rate under similar conditions in a laboratory column set-up. Multivariate data analysis (discriminant analysis) was applied to predict the influence of 21 different parameters (chemical, maturation and physical) on methane oxidation rate in a PLS-DA model. The results show that bulk density, total nutrient content (nitrogen and phosphorus), as well as the quantity and quality (with respect to maturity) of organic matter determined methane oxidation rate in this data set. The model explained 50% of the data variation, indicating how characterisation of oxidation rate by single, even diverse conventional parameters was limited. Thus for the first time, Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy was applied to a series of samples to better determine the characteristics of methane-oxidising materials. The initial data obtained in this study appear to be most promising. The prediction of specific methane oxidation rate of a potential biocover material from FUR spectra and multivariate data analyses is a target to be focused on in the future. (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