Dependency of Landfill Gas Generation Parameters on Waste Composition Based on Large-Size Laboratory Degradation Experiments

  • Sampurna DattaEmail author
  • Dimitrios Zekkos
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Landfill gas (LFG) is a product of the biodegradation of municipal solid waste (MSW) under anaerobic conditions. LFG primarily consists of methane (CH4) (40–60%) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (40–60%), both greenhouse gases. Methane has high energy potential that remains largely untapped as a national energy source. In order to recover LFG for energy generation purposes, a reliable estimate of gas generation at landfill sites is necessary. To that end, numerous LFG generation models have been developed with different assumptions made. In this study, three gas generation models – two first order decay (LandGEM and IPCC) and one sigmoidal model (Modified-Gompertz) are considered. The cumulative methane yield prediction of these models is fitted against three degradation experiments on well-characterized MSW specimens with significantly different waste composition ranging from “waste-rich” to “soil-rich”. The results indicate that the sigmoidal model better captures the evolution of methane yield compared to first order decay model and majority of the model parameters follow a systematic trend as a function of waste composition.


Municipal solid waste Biodegradation LFG generation model 



This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Computer and Communication Foundations under Grant No. 1442773 and Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF) Scholarship. ConeTec Investigations Ltd. and the ConeTec Education Foundation are acknowledged for their support to the Geotechnical Engineering Laboratories at the University of Michigan. Any opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or ConeTec.


  1. 1.
    Faour A, Reinhart D, You H (2007) First-order kinetic gas generation model parameters for wet landfills. Waste Manage 27:946–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fei X, Zekkos D, Raskin L (2014) An experimental setup for simultaneous physical, geotechnical, and biochemical characterization of municipal solid waste undergoing biodegradation in the laboratory. Geotech Test J 37(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fei X (2016) Experimental assessment of coupled physical-biochemical-mechanical-hydraulic processes of municipal solid waste undergoing biodegradation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fei X, Zekkos D (2018) Coupled experimental assessment of physico-biochemical characteristics of municipal solid waste undergoing enhanced biodegradation. Geotechnique, p 253.
  5. 5.
    Intergovernmental panel on climate change (2006) Solid waste disposal. In: Pipatti R, Svardal P (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol 5, waste. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SWANA (1998) Comparison of models for predicting landfill methane recovery. Publication no. GR-LG 0075. The Solid Waste Association of the North America (SWANA), DallasGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid waste management. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US EPA (2016) Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2014, EPA 430-R-16-002, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware A, Power N (2017) Modelling methane production kinetics of complex poultry slaughterhouse wastes using sigmoidal growth functions. Renew Energy 104:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zekkos D, Kavazanjian E, Bray JD, Matasovic N, Riemer MF (2010) Physical characterization of municipal solid waste for geotechnical purposes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:1231–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, Riet KV (1990) Modelling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:1875–1881Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations