Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 7, pp 5729–5735 | Cite as

The effect of atmospheric pressure on CH4 and CO2 emission from a closed landfill site in Manchester, UK

  • A. N. Nwachukwu
  • D. Anonye
Article

Abstract

A time series study was conducted to ascertain the effect of barometric pressure on the variability of CH4 and CO2 concentrations in a closed landfill site. An in situ data of methane/carbon dioxide concentrations and environmental parameters were collected by means of an in-borehole gas monitor, the GasClam (Ion Science, UK). Linear regression analysis was used to determine the strength of the correlation between ground-gas concentrations and barometric pressure. The result shows CH4 and CO2 concentrations to be variable with weak negative correlations of 0.2691 and 0.2773, respectively, with barometric pressure over the entire monitoring period. Although the R 2 was slightly improved by considering their concentration over single periods of rising and falling pressure, single periods of rising pressure and single periods of falling pressure, their correlations remained insignificant at 95 % confidence level. The result revealed that atmospheric pressure—the acclaimed major control on the variability of ground-gas concentration—is not always so. A case was made for the determination of other possible controls such as changes in temperature, soil permeability, landfill water depth, season, and geology of the borehole and also how much of control each factor would have on the variability/migration of CH4 and CO2 concentrations from the studied landfill.

Keywords

Greenhouse gas Global warming potential Climate mitigation policies Explosive mixture Asphyxiant Risk prediction GasClam 

References

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR), (2001). Landfill gas primer. An overview for environmental health professionals [available online] URL: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/intro.html. Accessed 7 May 2009.
  2. Aitkenhead, N., Williams, G. M. (1986). Geological Evidence to the Public Inquiry into the Gas Explosion at Loscoe. British Geological Survey Report No FP/87/8/83AS.Google Scholar
  3. Boltze, U., & de Freitas, M. H. (1996). Changes in atmospheric pressure associated with dangerous emissions from gás generating disposal sites. The explosion risk threshold concept. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 119, 177–181.Google Scholar
  4. Boucher, O., Friedlingstein, P., Collins, B., & Shine, K. P. (2009). The indirect global warming potential and the global temperature change due to methane oxidation. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 044007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boult, S., Morris, P., & Talbot, S. (2011). Contaminated land application in real environment (CL:AIRE) bulletin, RB 13. [Available online] URL: http://www.ground-gassolutions.co.uk. Accessed Feb 2011.
  6. Environmental Agency. (2008). Methane http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/185.aspx. Accessed Sept 2008.
  7. Epron, D., Bosc, A., Bonal, D., & Freycon, V. (2006). Spatial variation of soil respiration across a topographic gradient in tropical rainforest in French Guiana. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Health and Safety Executive. (2003). Review of landfill gas: incidents and guidance. DIN TD5/030. London: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
  9. Katy, B., Helen, H., Lara, P., Don, B., & Cecilia, M. (2009). The VOCs handbook: investigation, assessing, and managing risks from inhalation of VOCs at land affected by contamination. Construction Industry Research Information Association (CIRIA) Report 766. London, UK: CIRIA.Google Scholar
  10. Landfill Gas Monitoring Guidance. (2010). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Section. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=da699f7e-8c13-4249-9012-16af8aefdc7b&groupId=38361. Accessed Nov 2010.
  11. New York Times. (1984). Ohio homes condemned by gas bring a fight over compensation. New York Times 11 November 1984.Google Scholar
  12. O’Riordan, N. J. and Milloy C.J. (1995). Risk assessment for methane and other gases from the ground. CIRIA Report 152, CIRIA, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Raich, J. W., & Schlesinger, W. H. (1992). The global carbon flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus, 44B, 81–91.Google Scholar
  14. Richard, B., & Peter, W. (2007). Guidance on evaluation of development proposals on sites where methane and carbon dioxide are present. The National House-Building Council (NHBC) Report Edition No.: 04, Accessed March 2007Google Scholar
  15. Schlesinger, W. H. (1997). Carbon balance in terrestrial detritus. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. USEPA. (1991). Air emissions from municipal solid waste landfills—background information for proposed standards and guidelines. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/3-90-011a (NTISPB91-197061).Google Scholar
  17. Wilson, S., Oliver, S., Mallett, H., Hutchings, H., & Card, G. (2007). Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases in buildings. CIRIA Report 665.Google Scholar
  18. Young, A. (1992). The effects of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure on landfill gas migration and composition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 64, 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Williamson Research Centre for Molecular Environmental Sciences School of EarthThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Atmospheric and Environmental SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations