4.7 Article

Evaluation of methane oxidation activity in waste biocover soil during landfill stabilization

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 89, 期 6, 页码 672-679

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.06.008

关键词

Landfill; Waste biocover soil; Landfill gas; Methane oxidation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41001148, 51178411]
  2. Zhejiang Province Natural Science Foundation [Y5080154]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2012QNA6006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biocover soil has been demonstrated to have high CH4 oxidation capacity and is considered as a good alternative cover material to mitigate CH4 emission from landfills, yet the response of CH4 oxidation activity of biocover soils to the variation of CH4 loading during landfill stabilization is poorly understood. Compared with a landfill cover soil (LCS) collected from Hangzhou Tianziling landfill cell, the development of CH4 oxidation activity of waste biocover soil (WBS) was investigated using simulated landfill systems in this study. Although a fluctuation of influent CH4 flux occurred during landfill stabilization, the WBS covers showed a high CH4 removal efficiency of 94-96% during the entire experiment. In the LCS covers, the CH4 removal efficiencies varied with the fluctuation of CH4 influent flux, even negative ones occurred due to the storage of CH4 in the soil porosities after the high CH4 influent flux of 137 g m(-2) d(-1). The lower concentrations of O-2 and CH4 as well as the higher concentration of CO2 were observed in the WBS covers than those in the LCS covers. The highest CH4 oxidation rates of the two types of soil covers both occurred in the bottom layer (20-30 cm). Compared to the LCS, the WBS showed higher CH4 oxidation activity and methane monooxygenase activity over the course of the experiment. Overall, this study indicated the WBS worked well for the fluctuation of CH4 influent flux during landfill stabilization. (C) 2012 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