This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Philopoulos, A. Articles by Felske, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Philopoulos, A. Articles by Felske, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A laboratory-scale comparison of compost and sand—compost—perlite as methane-oxidizing biofilter media

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Juliane Ruck

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Daryl McCartney

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, daryl.mccartney{at}ualberta.ca

Christian Felske

Environmental Technologies, Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Municipal solid waste landfills produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. A treatment approach is to passively vent landfill gas through a methane-oxidizing biofilter medium, a porous substrate that facilitates the growth of methanotrophic bacteria. Two substrates, compost and a sand—compost—perlite (SCP) mixture, were evaluated in a laboratory-scale experiment for their suitability as biofilter media. The SCP mixture was investigated to minimize settlement and was based on a particle size distribution specification used for turf grass. The long-term (218 days) methane removal rates showed that both compost and SCP were capable of removing 100% of the methane influent flux (134 g CH₄ m ^—2 day^—1). The post-experiment analysis showed that compost had compacted more than SCP. This did not affect the results; however, in a field installation, traffic on the biofilter surface (e.g. maintenance) could cause further compaction and negatively affect performance. Exopolymeric substance produced by the methanotrophic bacteria, attributed by others for declining removal rates due to bio-clogging, was not observed to affect the results. The maximum exopolymeric substance values measured were 23.9 and 7.8 mg D-glucose g^—1 (dry basis) for compost and SCP, respectively.

Key Words: Biofilter • landfill cover • landfill gas • methane oxidation • methanotrophs • wmr 1168—2

Waste Management & Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, 138-146 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X08091555


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?