Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 2593–2609 | Cite as

Elements of Design of Passive Methane Oxidation Biosystems: Fundamental and Practical Considerations About Compaction and Hydraulic Characteristics on Biogas Migration

  • Bahar Ahoughalandari
  • Alexandre R. Cabral
  • Serge Leroueil
Original paper
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Passive methane oxidation biosystems (PMOBs) are often proposed as a means to reduce fugitive landfill CH4 emissions, i.e. emissions not captured by gas collection systems. However, current designs may lead to the formation of a capillary barrier along the interface between the two main layers constituting passive biosystems, namely the methane oxidation layer and gas distribution layer. The formation of a capillary barrier may result in restricted upward flow of biogas at the base of methane oxidation layer, thereby leading to concentrated biogas emissions in regions known as hotpots, where passive oxidation of biotic methane is failing, if not absent. In this study, design criteria are introduced to assess the ease of biogas flow across the gas distribution-methane oxidation layers’ interface. Laboratory experiments were conducted to obtain the water retention curve, air permeability function and line of optima (on Standard Proctor curve) of the materials used to construct the methane oxidation layer of two experimental PMOBs at the St-Nicephore (Quebec, Canada) landfill. In addition, the main characteristics for other materials were obtained from the literature. Design criteria were then defined based on the degree of water saturation at the lines of optima and the pattern of air permeability functions and water retention curves. Considering these criteria in the design of PMOBs is fundamental to reduce the risk of creating hotspots when implementing PMOBs.

Keywords

Passive methane oxidation biosystems Gas flow behaviour Capillary barrier effect Water retention curve Standard Proctor curve 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study received financial support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Waste Management (WM Quebec Inc.), under the collaborative research and development Grant # CRD 379885-08 and from Discovery Grant #170226. The invaluable help of Jean-Guy Lemelin, technician, must also be acknowledged.

References

  1. Ahoughalandari B, Cabral AR (2016) Influence of capillary barrier effect on biogas distribution at the base of passive methane oxidation biosystems: parametric study. Waste Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.026 Google Scholar
  2. Ait-Benichou S, Jugnia L-B, Greer CW, Cabral AR (2009) Methanotrophs and methanotrophic activity in engineered landfill biocovers. Waste Manag 29(9):2509–2517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM-D698 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Ba-Te B, Zhang, L, Fredlund D (2005) A general air-phase permeability function for airflow through unsaturated soils. In: Slopes and retaining structures under seismic and static conditions, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  5. Ball BC, O’Sullivan MF, Hunter R (1988) Gas diffusion, fluid flow and derived pore continuity indices in relation to vehicle traffic and tillage. J Soil Sci 39:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger J, Fornés LV, Ott C, Jager J, Wawra B, Zanke U (2005) Methane oxidation in a landfill cover with capillary barrier. Waste Manag 25:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackwell PS, Ringrose-Voase AJ, Jayawardane NS, Olssons KA, Mckenzie DC, Mason WK (1990) The use of air-filled porosity and intrinsic permeability to air to characterize structure of macropore space and saturated hydraulic conductivity of clay soils. J Soil Sci 41:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohn S, Jager J (2011) Low gas emissions of mechanically and biologically treated waste and microbial methane oxidation as an adapted method for mitigation of emissions. In: XIII international waste management and landfill symposium. CISA Publisher S. Margherita di Pula, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bussière B, Aubertin M, Chapuis RP (2003) The behavior of inclined covers used as oxygen barriers. Can Geotech J 40:512–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabral A, Racine I, Burnotte F, Lefebvre G (2000) Diffusion of oxygen through a pulp and paper residue barrier. Can Geotech J 37:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabral AR, Létourneau M, Yanful E, Song Q, McCartney JS, Parks J (2010a) Geotechnical issues in the design and construction of PMOBs. In: UNSAT 2010, Barcelona, pp 1361–1367Google Scholar
  12. Cabral AR, Moreina JFV, Jungia LB (2010b) Biocover performance of landfill methane oxidation: experimental results. J Environ Eng 136:785–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capanema MA, Cabral AR (2012) Evaluating methane oxidation efficiencies in experimental landfill biocovers by mass balance and carbon stable isotopes. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(9):5623–5635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassini F, Scheutz C, Skov BH, Mou Z, Kjeldsen P (2017) Mitigation of methane emissions in a pilot-scale biocover system at the AV Miljø Landfill, Denmark: 1. System design and gas distribution. Waste Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.013 Google Scholar
  15. Chi ZF, Lu WJ, Li H, Wang HT (2012) Dynamics of CH4 oxidation in landfill biocover soil: effect of O2/CH4 ratio on CH4 metabolism. Environ Pollut 170:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Einola J-KM, Kettunen RH, Rintala JA (2007) Responses of methane oxidation to temperature and water content in cover soil of a boreal landfill. Soil Biol Biochem 39:1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredenslund AM, Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P (2010) tracer method to measure landfill gas emissions from leachate collection systems. Waste Manag 30:2146–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H (1993) Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H, Fredlund MD (2012) Unsaturated soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, Hoboken, p 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gebert J, Groengroeft A, Pfeiffer EM (2011) Relevance of soil physical properties for the microbial oxidation of methane in landfill covers. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1759–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. He R, Wang J, Xia F, Mao L, Shen D (2012) Evaluation of methane oxidation activity in waste biocover soil during landfill stabilization. Chemosphere 89:672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber-Humer M, Röder S, Lechner P (2009) Approaches to assess biocover performance on landfills. Waste Manag 29:2092–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jucá J, Maciel F (2006) Gas permeability of a compacted soil used in a landfill cover layer. In: Miller GA, Zapata CE, Houston SL, Fredlund DG (eds) Fourth international conference on unsaturated soils. American Society of Civil Engineers, Carefree, pp 1535–1546Google Scholar
  24. Kamiya K, Bakrie R, Honjo Y (2006) A new method for the measurement of air permeability coefficient of unsaturated soil. In: Miller GA, Zapata CE, Houston SL, Fredlund DG (eds) Fourth international conference on unsaturated soils. American Society of Civil Engineers, Carefree, pp 1741–1752Google Scholar
  25. Langfelder LJ, Chen CF, Justice JA (1968) Air permeability of compacted cohesive soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 94(4):981–1002Google Scholar
  26. Leroueil S, Hight DW (2013) Compacted soils: from physics to hydraulic and mechanical behaviour. In: Caicedo B, Murillo C, Hoyos L, Colmenares JE, Berdugo IR (eds) First Pan-American conference on unsaturated soils. Cartagena, Colombia, pp 41–59Google Scholar
  27. Lu N, Likos WJ (2004) Unsaturated soil mechanics. Wiley, Hoboken, p 556Google Scholar
  28. Maciel F, Jucá J (2000) Laboratory and field tests for studying gas flow through MSW landfill cover. In: Shackelford CD, Houston SL, Chang NY (eds) Geo-denver. American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, pp 569–585Google Scholar
  29. Maqsoud A, Bussière B, Aubertin M, Chouteau M, Mbonimpa M (2011) Field investigation of a suction break designed to control slope-induced desaturation in an oxygen barrier. Can Geotech J 48:53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marinho FAM, Andrade MCJ, Jucá JFT (2001) Air and water permeability of a compacted soil used in a solid waste landfill in Recife, Brazil. In: The third BGA geoenvironmental engineering conference. Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd., Edinburg, Scotland, pp 437–442Google Scholar
  31. Mbonimpa M, Aubertin M, Aachib M, Bussière B (2003) Diffusion and consumption of oxygen in unsaturated cover materials. Can Geotech J 40:916–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ndanga ÉM, Bradley RL, Cabral AR (2015) Does vegetation affect the methane oxidation efficiency of passive biosystems? Waste Manag 38:240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roncato CDL, Cabral AR (2012) Evaluation of methane oxidation efficiency of two biocovers: field and laboratory results. J Environ Eng 138(2):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Röwer IU, Gebert J, Streese-Kleeberg J, Kleinschmidt V, Melchior S, Scharff H, Pfeiffer E-M (2012) Heterogeneous emission from a biocover designed for methane oxidation. In: 7th intercontinental landfill research symposium (ICLRS). Poster presentation, Luleä, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P, Bogner JE, De Visscher A, Gebert J, Hilger HA, Huber-Humer M, Spokas K (2009) Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste Manag Res 27(5):409–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheutz C, Fredenslund AM, Chanton J, Pedersen GB, Kjeldsen P (2011) Mitigation of methane emission from Fakse landfill using a biowindow system. Waste Manag 31:1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Springer DS, Loaiciga HA, Cullen SJ, Everett LG (1998) Air permeability of porous materials under controlled laboratory conditions. Groundwater 36(4):558–565.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02829.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tang AM, Cui Y-J, Richard G, Défossez P (2011) A study on the air permeability as affected by compression of three French soils. Geoderma 162:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tate KR (2015) Soil methane oxidation and land-use change—from process to mitigation. Soil Biol Biochem 80:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tétreault P, Cabral AR, Abdolahzadeh AM (2013) Non-uniform distribution of biogas under a biocover due to capillary barrier effect: case studies. In: GEOMontreal, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  41. UMS (2013). HYPROP-UMS user’s manual. In: Art. no. HYPROP version 02. UMS GmbH MünchenGoogle Scholar
  42. Vaughan PR (2003) Observations on the behaviour of clay fill containing occluded air bubbles. Géotechnique 53(2):265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wind GP (1968) Capillary conductivity data estimated by a simple method. In: Rijtema RE, Wassink H (ed) Water in the unsaturated zone: proceedings of UNESCO/IASH symposium, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp 181–191Google Scholar
  44. Yanful EK (1993) Oxygen diffusion through soil covers on sulphidic mine tailings. J Geotech Eng 119(8):1207–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geoenvironmental Group, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Water EngineeringUniversité LavalQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations