779
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Technical Paper

Comparison of modeling with empirical calculation of diffuse and fugitive methane emissions in a Spanish landfill

ORCID Icon, , , &
Pages 362-372 | Received 18 Jun 2018, Accepted 22 Oct 2018, Published online: 28 Jan 2019

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) Geographic location of the region of Madrid. (b) Landfill cell distribution.

Figure 1. (a) Geographic location of the region of Madrid. (b) Landfill cell distribution.

Figure 2. (a) Diagram of flux box components. (b) Flux box during a landfill measurement.

Figure 2. (a) Diagram of flux box components. (b) Flux box during a landfill measurement.

Figure 3. Variogram of the log-transformed above-zero emissions. The horizontal line evidences data independence.

Figure 3. Variogram of the log-transformed above-zero emissions. The horizontal line evidences data independence.

Table 1. Input parameters of waste composition used in models for estimating methane emissions.

Table 2. Tons of methane extracted by the degassing system each year reported by the company that manages the landfill.

Table 3. Default parameters for DOC, DOCf, k, MCF, and F for each landfill category.

Figure 4. (a) Walkover survey results. (b) Interpolation of walkover survey results using the weighted inverse distance method.

Figure 4. (a) Walkover survey results. (b) Interpolation of walkover survey results using the weighted inverse distance method.

Table 4. Summary of walkover survey methane concentrations in ppm.

Figure 5. Locations of sampling points for the flux box campaign.

Figure 5. Locations of sampling points for the flux box campaign.

Table 5. Methane emissions (mg/m2·hr) at each sampling point.

Figure 6. (a) Q-Q diagram for nonzero data population. (b) Histogram of frequencies and cumulative frequency graph for walkover survey results.

Figure 6. (a) Q-Q diagram for nonzero data population. (b) Histogram of frequencies and cumulative frequency graph for walkover survey results.

Figure 7. Comparison between modeled and measured annual emissions.

Figure 7. Comparison between modeled and measured annual emissions.

Table 6. Meteorological conditions during the measurement campaign.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.