753532

review-article2018
WMR0010.1177/0734242X17753532Waste Management & ResearchPark et al.

Review Article

Waste Management & Research

Methods for determining the methane

1­–21
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
generation potential and methane sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X17753532
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17753532

generation rate constant for the FOD journals.sagepub.com/home/wmr

model: a review

Jin-Kyu Park1 , Yong-Gil Chong2, Kazuo Tameda3 and Nam-Hoon Lee4

Abstract
In the first order decay (FOD) model of landfill methane generation, the methane generation potential (L0) and methane generation
rate constant (k) for both bulk municipal solid waste (MSW) and individual waste components have been determined by a variety
of approaches throughout various literature. Differences in the determination methods for L0 and k are related to differences in our
understanding of the waste decomposition dynamics. A thorough understanding of the various available methods for determining L0
and k values is critical for comparative study and the drawing of valid conclusions. The aim of this paper is to review the literature
on the available determining methods and the ranges for L0 and k values of both bulk MSW and individual waste components, while
focusing on understanding the decomposition of waste, including the role of lignin. L0 estimates in the literature are highly variable
and have been derived from theoretical stoichiometric calculations, laboratory experiments, or actual field measurements. The lignin
concentration in waste is correlated with the fraction of total degradable organic carbon (DOCf) that will actually anaerobically
degrade in the landfill. The k value has been determined by precipitation rates, laboratory simulations, aged-defined waste sample,
and model fitting or regression analysis using actual gas data. However, the lignin concentration does not correlate well with the k
value, presumably due to the impact of lignin arrangement and structure on cellulose bioavailability and degradation rate. In sum, this
review summarizes the literature on the measurement of L0 and k values, including the dynamics and decomposition of bulk MSW
and individual waste components within landfills.

Keywords
Landfill, municipal solid waste, first-order decay model, methane generation potential, methane generation rate constant

Received 19th April 2017, accepted 16th December 2017 by Associate Editor Rodrigo Navia.

Introduction
Landfills that are managed to minimize environmental impact
and promote waste degradation can be integrated with technolo-
gies that include energy recovery systems. Many of the technolo-
gies that have been used to promote more sustainable landfills
focus on the methods to foster waste treatment. Sustainable land-
fill practices address how best to manage the landfill, including
leachate and landfill gas (LFG). Landfills are usually considered
to be anthropogenic sources of methane (CH4), which has histori-
cally been the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from the waste sector (Bogner et al., 2008). Time dependent
quantitative estimation of LFG production is the primary crite-
rion that should determine the choice of method of gas utiliza-
tion. Due to the difficulties in precisely monitoring CH4 emissions
of whole landfill sites, modeling approaches are applied. These
approaches include first-order decay (FOD) LFG generation
models, including the US EPA’s LFG emissions model
(LandGEM), e-pollutants release and transfer registers (E-PRTR)
(Fr) model, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
model, and Afvalzorg model (Kamalan et al., 2011; Mou et al.,
2014). The E-PRTR (Fr) and LandGEM models are single-phase
models, whereas the IPCC and Afvalzorg models are multi-phase
models, which operate with a number of more detailed waste cat-
egories (Mou et al., 2014). The effect of the age of waste on CH4
production is incorporated into the first-order model. For each
unit amount of waste, the FOD models consider that the CH4
1Ecowillplus Co., Ltd., Anyang, Republic of Korea
2Dreampark Establishment Department, Sudokwon Landfill Site
Management Corporation, Incheon, Republic of Korea
3Graduate School of Engineering, Fukuoka University, Japan
4Department of Environmental and Energy Engineering, Anyang
University, Republic of Korea
Corresponding author:
Nam-Hoon Lee, Department of Environmental and Energy
Engineering, Anyang University, Samdeok-ro 37 beon-gil, Manan-gu,
Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Email: nhlee@anyang.ac.kr
2 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
generation rate decays exponentially with time (Rajaram et al.,
2012):
G = WL0 ke-kt (1)
where G is the CH4 generation rate in volume per time, W is the
mass of waste in place, L0 is the CH4 generation potential in vol-
ume per mass, k is the first-order rate constant in reciprocal time,
and t is the time elapsed after disposal of the waste.
The basic condition to obtain modeling results that are as
suited as possible to the actual production of gas is the right
choice of assumption, with regard to the constants of the CH4
generation potential (L0) and CH4 generation rate (k). L0 repre-
sents the total volume of CH4 generated from a specified quantity
of disposed waste. The k value controls the predicted time over
which CH4 is generated from the specified waste stream (Amini
et al., 2012). These parameters are strongly dependent on the
chemical composition, properties of waste, and the condition of
the process (e.g., waste density, pH, and moisture content). For
this reason, the examination and critical estimation of the bio-
chemical properties of wastes that take into consideration the
controlling LFG emissions are of substantial importance for
determining the L0 and k values. As essential parameters, L0 and
k values for both bulk municipal solid waste (MSW) and indi-
vidual waste components are widely studied and reported in the
literature. Furthermore, various review studies have been per-
formed on anaerobic decomposition, the methane generation
potential of MSW, biogas generation processes, LFG generation
models, and CH4 oxidation processes (Abushammala et al., 2014;
Barlaz, 2006; Fei et al., 2016; Gunaseelan, 1997; Kamalan et al.,
2011; Krause et al., 2016a; Mao et al., 2015; Micales and Skog,
1997; Oonk, 2010; Scheutz et al., 2009).
The aim of this paper is to review the literature on the availa-
ble determining methods and the ranges for L0 and k values of
both bulk MSW and individual waste components, with the
review focusing on understanding the decomposition of waste,
including the role of lignin. The following section reviews a wide
range of L0 values and their determining methods, and provides a
brief description of L0 in a landfill definition and discussion of
the relationship between lignin and the extent of decomposition
for individual waste components. The last section of the paper
provides a summary and analysis of the literature on the degrada-
tion rate of both bulk MSW and individual waste components in
both landfills, and laboratory- and field-scale simulations thereof.
Methods for determining L0
Overview of L0 values from the literature
The L0 of wastes is defined as the volume of CH4 that can be
produced per unit mass of waste under idealized conditions for
CH4 formation (Krause et al., 2016a). The L0 is often used to refer
to the ultimate CH4 yield, i.e., the maximum amount of CH4 pro-
duced per unit mass of waste under anaerobic conditions. It
should be noted that it is misleading to refer to L0 as the CH4
generation potential in the landfill, because the value of L0
includes a number of physical and environmental factors (e.g.,
moisture, temperature, and particle size) that influence CH4 gen-
eration (Wang et al., 2013a). The CH4 generation potentials in
field settings are lower, because landfills do not function as effi-
ciently as anaerobic digesters or laboratory experiments (Bogner
and Matthews, 2003; Fei et al., 2016).
In the literature, various methods are used to measure the L0 of
solid waste. Table 1 presents a range of L0 values from solid
waste landfill, and methods for determining L0. As observed in
these studies, L0 values vary greatly among the different landfills,
which are mainly due to differences between their waste compo-
sitions (Fei et al., 2016). In general, L0 values have been deter-
mined by a number of methods: the stoichiometric method
(Machado et al., 2009; Mor et al., 2006; Sanderson et al., 2008);
experimental methods (Cho et al., 2012; Jeon et al., 2007;
Tolaymat et al., 2010); model fitting or regression analysis using
gas data (Amini et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013a); and the IPCC
model (Govindan and Agamuthu, 2014; Kumar et al., 2004;
Thompson et al., 2009).
Table 2 presents a range of L0 values for individual waste
components. Food waste with high moisture content has a low L0,
whereas paper wastes have a high L0. Over the lifetime of the
landfill, the slowly degrading components, especially paper and
card waste, make the most significant overall contribution to CH4
emissions (Donovan et al., 2011). Therefore to achieve signifi-
cant reduction in LFG generation, the reduction and sorting of
paper, card, and green waste should be prioritized (Pan and
Voulvoulis, 2007).
Another possible solution for the reduction of LFG generation
is mechanical biological treatment (MBT; Di Maria et al., 2013).
MBT leads to a significant reduction of LFG generation from
landfills as compared to the raw waste. De Gioannis et al. (2009)
reported that 91% reduction of the LFG generation potential was
achieved after 8 weeks of aerobic treatment. In addition, there is
a concept of anaerobic bioreactor landfill. In comparison with the
traditional dry sanitary landfill, this method allows for better use
of the energy potential of biogas and reduces the risk of uncon-
trolled LFG emissions.
Stoichiometric method
The CH4 yield (B0) can be calculated by assuming the total stoi-
chiometric conversion of the organic matter to CH4 and carbon
dioxide (CO2) using Buswell’s equation (Raposo et al., 2011):
[(a / 2) + (b / 8) − (c / 4)] × 22400
B0 = (2)
(12a + b + 16c)
Empirical formulae (CaHbOc) can be designed from experimental
elemental analysis determination. However, a limitation of this
equation is associated with the stoichiometric estimates of waste
fractions, which are not biodegradable, the moisture limitations,
and also toxins, some fraction of the waste that is not accessible.
Table 1. L0 values at landfill level taken from the literature, and corresponding determination methods (DOC: degradable organic carbon, DOCf: fraction of DOC that can
decompose, MCF: CH4 correction factor for aerobic decomposition).

Landfill site DOC DOCf MCF L0a Method References

Park et al.

(m3 CH4 Mg−1)

Metropolitan center landfill, Salvador, 0.273 0.263 1 67.0 Stoichiometric equations with Machado et al.
Brazil biodegradable fraction (2009)
Loma Los Colorados landfill, Montenegro, – - - 105.0 Sanderson et al.
Chile (2008)
Gazipur landfill, Delhi, India 0.0835 0.580 1 45.2 Carbon content Mor et al. (2006)
India 0.11–0.16 0.77 0.4 31.6–46.0 Waste composition with the IPCC Kumar et al. (2004)
Jeram landfill, Bulk waste approach 0.12 0.5 0.8 44.8 model Govindan and
Selangor, Waste composition 0.08 0.5 0.8 29.9 Agamuthu (2014)
Malaysia approach
Canada Ontario 0.176–0.205 0.77 1 126–147 Thompson et al.
Nova Scotia 0.175–0.227 126–147 (2009)
Quebec 0.249–0.283 179–203
Alberta 0.195–0.228 140–164
British Columbia 0.212–0.261 153–188
Korea Sudokwon landfill site 1 0.18–0.30 0.57–0.63 1 56–88 Waste composition with waste- Jeon et al. (2007)
Sudokwon landfill site 2 0.13–0.21 0.55–0.60 1 37–58 component specific CH4 generation
Outer Loop landfill, USA – – – 54.8 potential Tolaymat et al.
(2010)
Landfills in Florida, USA – – – 67 Amini et al. (2012)
(traditional landfills)
70
(wet cell)
23 metro cities, India – – – 30.2–52.1 Kumar and Sharma
(2014)
USA National average waste – – – 59.1 Staley and Barlaz
composition (2009)
State average waste – – – 63.9
composition
Outer Loop landfill – – – 48.4±14
USA – – – 46 Kaplan et al. (2009)
4 landfills, Afvalzorg – – – 22–31 Krause et al.
Denmark IPCC 63–89 (2016b)
Landfills, USA A – – – 140 Waste composition with waste- Amini et al. (2013)
B – – – 74 component specific CH4 generation
C – – – 93 potential and calibration
USA 10 landfills – – – 100 Waste composition with waste- Wang et al. (2013)
T landfill – – – 85 component specific CH4 generation
potential and minimizing the SSE
3

(Continued)
4 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Organic matter can be fractionated into easily biodegradable

Park et al. (2012b)

Faour et al. (2007)
compounds (carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins), and poorly bio-

Maciel and Jucá

Cho et al. (2012)

Sormunen et al.
degradable compounds (fibers, humic, and fulvic acids) (Batstone
References

et al., 2002; Lesteur et al., 2010). If the organic fraction composi-

tion (lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates) is known, the CH4 yield

(2013)

(2011)
can be estimated using the following general equation (Raposo
et al., 2011):
component specific CH4 generation

B0 = 415 × %Carbohydrates +

Nonlinear regression using field

potential and a correction factor

(3)
Waste composition and waste-

496 × %Proteins + 1014 × %Lipid

Model fitting using field data

The coefficients in this equation are derived from stoichiometric

conversion of model compounds representing average formulae
for carbohydrates (C6H10O5), proteins (C5H7O2N), and lipids
(C57H104O6) (Angelidaki and Sanders, 2004; Raposo et al., 2011).
However, in practice, not all of the organic matter in waste is
Method

subject to microbial degradation. This makes the production of

data

LFG much lower than the theoretical value. The elemental com-
position value therefore overestimates the biochemical methane
potential (BMP) value (Lesteur et al., 2010). It is important to
note that the theoretical CH4 potential must be adjusted by a bio-
degradability factor.
(m3 CH4 Mg−1)

L0 values for waste can be calculated using the theoretical

CH4 potential and the biodegradable portion (BF) of the waste, as
56–69

18–20
123.9

shown in (Machado et al., 2009):

100

115

100
76

95
87
L0a

B0 × BF
L0 = (4)
1+ w

The water content, w, is used to consider only the dry mass of

MCF

potentially degradable organic matter. The BF value can be cal-

–

–
–

culated using the ratio between the BMP value and the values
predicted by stoichiometric equation (equation (2)). For example,
the BF value at the Metropolitan Landfill, Salvador, Brazil is
F value of 0.5 is used, and the density of CH4 is assumed to be 0.714 kg/m3.

found to be 0.263, excluding plastic and rubber content (Machado

DOCf

et al., 2009).
–

–
–

The linear relationship between BF and lignin has been mod-

elled by Chandler et al. (1980). Several kinds of substrate, such
as manure, newspaper, straw, leaves, and other agricultural mate-
rials, were used to develop the model, predicting the effect of
lignin content on BF (Lesteur et al., 2010). Chandler’s model is
DOC

as follows:
–

–
–

BF = 0.83 − (0.028 × lignin ) (5)

where lignin (0 < lignin < 20%) is the VS lignin content.

Sudokwon landfill site 2, Korea

Sudokwon landfill site 1, Korea

LFG is formed as a result of the biodegradation of organic

Ämmässuo landfill, Finland

carbon in the waste: stoichiometry shows that per kilogram of

Muribeca landfill, Brazil

organic carbon (= 83.3 mol) that anaerobically degrades, about

Table 1. (Continued)

1.87 m3 of LFG normalized to 1 atm and 0°C (= 83.3 mol × 22.4

L/mol) is produced (Scharff and Jacobs, 2006). Anaerobic
Three landfills

decomposition can be hindered in specific microenvironments,

Landfill site

21 landfills
Landfill A

due to unsuitable environmental conditions, and the heteroge-

CSWMC
SSWMC

neity of the waste composition. This is accounted for by assum-

aAn

ing that only a fraction (ζ) of the waste is converted into LFG.
Park et al. 5

Table 2. L0 values for individual waste components taken from the literature.

Country Component DOC DOCf MCF L0 (m3 CH4 Mg-1) References

USA Leaves Source: Eleazer et al. (1997) 30.6 Kaplan et al.
Grass 136.0 (2009)
Branches 62.6
Old newsprint 74.3
Cardboard 152.3
Office paper 217.3
Phone books 74.3
Books 217.3
Old magazines 84.4
3rd Class mail 150.8
Mixed paper 103.7
Food waste 300.7
USA Household waste 0.16-0.20 0.50 0.5 74.7-93.4 Manfredi et al.
Kitchen organics 0.10-0.12 0.64 59.8-71.7 (2009)
Newspapers 0.36-0.44 0.20 67.2-82.2
Office paper 0.30-0.36 0.88 246.5-295.8
Cardboard 0.30-0.38 0.45 126.1-159.7
Wood 0.40-0.45 0.23 85.9-96.6
Hokkaido, Japan Paper BMP test 214.4 Ishii and
Kitchen waste 126.7 Furuichi (2013)
Thailand Food waste 0.15 0.5 0.65 45.5 Wangyao et al.
Papers 0.40 121.4 (2010)
Wood 0.43 130.5
Textiles 0.24 72.8
Denmark Shredder Laboratory test 6.2-9.1 Mou et al.
Street cleaning 7.2-7.4 (2014)
Mixed bulky 5.4-7.0
Sludge 52.0-70.0
USA Yard waste BMP test 49.0 Yazdani et al.
(2012)
Korea Food wastes Stoichiometric 0.36 0.68 1.0 117.1 Jeon et al.
Organic carbon 0.33 0.73 (2007)
Paper Stoichiometric 0.72 0.70 239.1
Organic carbon 0.79 0.63
Wood Stoichiometric 0.56 0.44 116.0
Organic carbon 0.57 0.43
Textile Stoichiometric 1.00 0.45 215.8
Organic carbon 0.89 0.51
Misc. Stoichiometric 0.39 0.59 109.3
organics Organic carbon 0.40 0.58
Sludge Stoichiometric 0.14 0.29 19.1
Organic carbon 0.12 0.33
Italy Mechanically sorted organic Laboratory test 115.1±4.2 De Gioannis
residues et al. (2009)
Mechanically-aerobically 9.2±1.5
pretreated waste
Italy Mechanically-aerobically 12 Di Maria et al.
pretreated waste (2013)
England Mechanically-aerobically 49.5 Siddiqui et al.
pretreated waste (2013)
Germany Mechanically-anaerobically- 17.7
aerobically pretreated waste

It may be said that BF and ζ have a similar meaning. ζ is typi- degradable organic carbon may be dissimilated (Bingemer and
cally of the order of 0.5 (Bogner and Matthews, 2003), and Mor Crutzen, 1987). However, this value was obtained in ideal con-
et al. (2006) suggested a value of 0.58. ζ increases with tem- ditions, so it is not likely that the value in real landfills exceeds
perature, and can be as high as 0.8. At 35°C, almost 80% of the 0.7 (Mor et al., 2006):
6 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
α t = ζ 1.87AC0 ke-kt
(6)
where αt is the LFG formation at a certain time (m3 yr−1), ζ is the
dissimilation factor, k is the degradation rate constant (yr−1), A is
the amount of waste deposited (Mg), C0 is the amount of degra-
dable organic carbon in the waste (kg Mg−1) at the time of deposi-
tion, t is the time elapsed in years since deposition (yr), and the
factor 1.87 has the dimensions m3 kg−1.
Measuring the elemental composition and organic carbon is
very fast, taking only a few hours. But, it should be noted that the
application of results obtained from these methods to a full-scale
landfill remains difficult, because the methods simulate only
average landfill conditions, and do not account for variations
brought about by climatic and operational events.
Experimental methods
L0 values have been measured by BMP test, lysimetry, and field-
scale experiments. The L0 value from full-scale landfills would
be the best indicator. However, such data are very limited, if not
non-existent, and are difficult to acquire, given the complexity of
biochemical interactions within a landfill, the lack of uniform
and reliable data collection protocols, the inherent uncertainty of
gas collection methods employed at various sites, and the matu-
ration stage at which a landfill might be during a monitoring
period (El-Fadel et al., 1997). In contrast, laboratory experiments
are better controlled, and employ operating procedures to enhance
microbial activity. For these reasons, laboratory experiments pro-
duce more predictable result, compared to field monitoring stud-
ies (Fei et al., 2016).
In order to determine L0, several authors have used the BMP
value of mixed waste based on the weighted average of waste
components (Cho et al., 2012; Jeon et al., 2007; Tolaymat et al.,
2010). BMP assay is described by Owen et al. (1979), and has
been modified by some researchers (Shelton and Tiedje, 1984;
Strömberg et al., 2014). The L0 from landfill depends on the com-
position of waste (Cho et al., 2012). It should be noted that it is
not possible to predict L0 for landfills with inaccurate waste com-
position data (Amini et al., 2013).
The BMP value can be used as an index of the anaerobic bio-
degradation potential. The BMP is the experimental value of the
maximum quantity of CH4 produced per gram of volatile solid.
For this reason, BMP test also involves certain problems related
to obtaining acceptable data for determining the L0.
Firstly, DOC and BMP values are closely related (Machado
et al., 2009). DOC is the organic carbon in wastes that is accessible
to biochemical decomposition under anaerobic conditions, which
includes the biochemical processes in a cell or organism. In other
words, DOC is the amount of organic carbon that is ultimately
degraded under optimal anaerobic conditions. Similarly, the BMP
assay measures the quantity of anaerobically degradable organic
carbon present in a sample under optimal conditions (Lesteur et al.,
2010; Mou et al., 2015a, 2015b; Wang et al., 1994).
Secondly, there are many international and national standards
available on how to perform a BMP test, but they differ in the
experiment set-up, and are frequently modified and adapted to
the specific researcher’s purpose (Raposo et al., 2011). Due to
this, it is often difficult to evaluate results from different studies,
as the values and level of information can substantially differ.
Many studies demonstrate the importance of considering the
temperature, pressure, particle size, origin of inoculum, inocu-
lum-to-substrate ratio, and mixing rate when performing BMP
test (Angelidaki et al., 2009; Strömberg et al., 2014; Walker et al.,
2009).
Finally, the L0 value obtained via the BMP test is greater than
that obtained from a lysimeter experiment and full-scale data. A
lysimeter is a simulate form of sanitary landfill in the sense of
control device (Rafizul et al., 2012). Generally, lysimeters are
smaller, more self-contained and better monitored than landfills.
Their small scale allows their location in a laboratory, where it is
convenient to perform extensive monitoring (Stessel and Murphy,
1992).
The lysimeter experiments use a few kilograms of sample.
Therefore in contrast to the BMP test, the lysimeter experiment
uses sample amounts that are more representative of the mixed
waste without segregation, and so provides more reliable and
valid data. However, the lysimeter experiments are limited, since
a very long time is required (e.g., a number of years) to collect
acceptable data (Cho et al., 2012).
The CH4 generation for wastes in the lysimeter would be low,
due to the larger size of the tested sample, and restricted mass
transfer of the substrate and nutrients in the lysimeter, compared
with those in the case of the BMP test (Cho et al., 2012). Thus,
Cho et al. (2012) suggested
n
L0,landfill = f × ∑ (L
i =1
0 ,i , BMP × ( wt. fraction)i ) (7)
which means that the L0 obtained from BMP test (L0,i,BMP) needs
to be corrected using a correction factor (f), based on the BMP
assay and lysimeter study.
Sil et al. (2014) published correction factors to estimate CH4
emission using the LandGEM model. The correction factors are
0.94, 0.13, and 0.74 for food waste, mixed un-segregated MSW,
and vegetable wastes, respectively.
With respect to hydraulic conductivity, the disadvantage of
the lysimeter test is the hydraulic retention time (HRT). The HRT
of a lysimeter may not allow for sufficient residence time for
carbon degradation in leachate (Park et al., 2012a). In contrast,
previous studies reported that less than 4% of the total input car-
bon is emitted through leachate in landfills (IPCC, 2006; Lornage
et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2011; Manfredi et al., 2009; Valencia
et al., 2009). The low proportion of DOC emitted through lea-
chate can be explained by the low hydraulic conductivities of
compacted MSW, which impedes water flow. The literature
review shows that the hydraulic conductivities of waste at land-
fills range from 1.36 × 10−3 to 1.03 × 10−7 cm s−1 (Petrovic, 2016).
Park et al.
It should be noted that carbon emitted via leachate needs to be
considered to determine L0 using a lysimeter.
Model fitting and regression analysis
The LFG generation models may rely on some site-specific data
on CH4 recovery, emission, and oxidation, which are all impor-
tant to calibrate or validate the LFG models. Thus, L0 and k can
be determined on the basis of the experimentally determined val-
ues in the landfill, and their feasibility can be determined by com-
parison of the modelled CH4 generation with the CH4 recovery or
CH4 generation (Sormunen et al., 2013). This methodology ena-
bles more precise CH4 generation estimates compared with mod-
els based only on the recovered CH4.
Generally, the Gompertz and logistic models fit better than
the first-order equation for experimental values (Nielfa et al.,
2015). Ware and Power (2017) argued that when actual experi-
mental data of a CH4 production are available, sigmoidal mod-
els (Gompertz, Richards, Stannard, and logistic models) should
be applied in order to determine the model of best fit. Park et al.
(2012b) developed two models obtained by differentiating the
Modified Gompertz and Logistic models to determine L0 and k
values. The L0 and k values can be determined by regression
analysis using the two models and actual LFG collection data.
However, the models need long-term LFG data from landfill to
determine the L0 and k values. Faour et al. (2007) argued that
the exponential rise in the gas volume curve is often delayed,
perhaps as a result of the acclimation of microorganisms, non-
optimal gas recovery, or lack of landfill cover. Therefore, the
mixed-effects model is developed to account for this lag. There
are three parameters in the mixed-effects model, k, L0, and the
specific volume of CH4 collected at the end of the lag phase.
However, it should be noted that if collected gas data with
changing gas collection efficiency over time, rather than gener-
ated gas data, is used to perform regression analysis, different
L0 values can be reached. Furthermore, CH4 emission model-
ling has been carried out using LFG extraction data and assump-
tions for extraction efficiency and CH4 oxidation, resulting in
major uncertainties being introduced (Scharff and Jacobs,
2006).
IPCC method
The IPCC (2006) model uses characteristics of the waste (DOC
and DOCf) and the landfill site (MCF and F) to prediction CH4
generation. In the IPCC (2006) model, L0 can be calculated using
DDOCm = DOC × DOCf × MCF
(8)
16
DDOCm × F ×
12 (9)
L0 =
0.714
7
Decomposable degradable organic carbon (DDOCm) is the part
of the organic carbon that will degrade under the anaerobic con-
ditions in landfill. DOC is the organic carbon in waste that is
accessible to biochemical decomposition. DOCf is the fraction of
DOC that can decompose. MCF is the CH4 correction factor for
aerobic decomposition. F is the CH4 volume concentration in the
gas, 16/12 is the molecular weight ratio of CH4 and C, and 0.714
is the CH4 density (0°C, 1 atm)
DOC. Previously research reported that DOC in MSW ranges from
8% to 30% (Bingemer and Crutzen, 1987). It is interesting to note
that for the CH4 emission source of landfill in Japan, tsunami sedi-
ment is included in that of landfill. Part of the tsunami sediment
generated by the Great East Japan Earthquake, which occurred on
11 March 2011, is finally disposed of. Since disposed tsunami sedi-
ment includes organic matters, CH4 emissions from this source are
estimated using the emission factor for wood by expert judgement.
The carbon content of tsunami sediment (4.5%) is calculated by
multiplying the fraction of organic matter in tsunami sediment by
the fraction of carbon contents in the organic matter; assuming the
fraction of organic matter in tsunami sediment finally disposed of is
10%, and 45.2% of the fraction of carbon content for wood is sub-
stituted for tsunami sediment (GIO et al., 2016).
Total carbon can be measured with a CHN analyzer. Götze
et al. (2016) present an overview of physicochemical waste char-
acterization data for individual waste material fractions available
in the literature. Figure 1 shows box–whisker plots and the cor-
responding quantiles for carbon content (Götze et al., 2016). The
largest data variation for carbon content is found in combustibles
(textiles, rubber, leather, sanitary products, and wood), plastic,
and food waste.
To measure organic carbon in total carbon, it is necessary to
distinguish between organic carbon and inorganic carbon. Thus,
sample should be acid washed to eliminate inorganic carbon prior
to analysis (Wang et al., 2015a). This is particularly important for
paper samples, because some paper products (e.g., copy paper)
contain inorganic carbon in the form of CaCO3 as fillers (Wang
et al., 2015a). Mou et al. (2014) used the assumption that 2 mL of
sulfurous acid (5% H2SO3 solution) was added to approximately
0.5 g of powder to remove inorganic carbon. An alternative
method for determining organic carbon is the total organic car-
bon (TOC) analyzer. There are numerous methods and variations
of the alternative methods for the quantitation of TOC. The wet
oxidation method is a commonly used approach to determine
TOC content. Among the low-cost and easy-to-use alternative
TOC determinations, spectroscopic techniques such as near-
infrared (NIR) and mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy are very
attractive (Wang et al., 2012). In addition, it is necessary to dis-
tinguish between fossil carbon and biogenic carbon to measure
the DOC. The fossil carbon comes from petroleum-derived prod-
ucts such as plastics and synthetic textiles. Biogenic (biodegrad-
able) carbon originates from vegetative and animal matter (e.g.,
food and yard waste, paper, and wood) (De la Cruz et al., 2013;
8 Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Figure 1. Box–whisker plots and data points for carbon
contents in different waste material fractions reported in the
literature (Götze et al., 2016) (C: carbon, TS: total solid).
Moora et al., 2017). The biogenic carbon that is not degraded is
stored within the landfill.
Theoretically, the DOC value of waste fractions must be lower
than the TOC value because some organic carbon, such as fossil
carbon, is non-degradable (De la Cruz et al., 2013). Recently, two
different approaches have been established to determine the frac-
tion of biogenic carbon. One of the approaches derives the frac-
tion of biogenic carbon from the BMP result (Mou et al., 2014;
Puyuelo et al., 2011). The DOC can be calculated using (Mou
et al., 2014):
CH 4 recovery = (BMP ×10−3 ) /
(10)
(TOC × F ×16 / 12) ×100%
where BMP is determined via batch tests and presented as kg-CH4
Mg−1 waste, TOC is presented as % (kg-OC kg−1 waste), F is the
volume fraction of CH4 in generated gas, and 16 and 12 are the
molar masses of CH4 and carbon, respectively, and
DOC = CH 4 recovery × TOC (11)
where DOC is presented as % (kg-C kg−1 waste, wet weight).
The other approach is a modern carbon analysis method that
uses the decay of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 (14C, half-
life: 5370 years). Biogenic carbon is that which has been recently
derived from CO2 in the atmosphere via photosynthesis. Because
14C is present in the atmosphere as a result of the cosmic ray
bombardment of nitrogen, photosynthesis results in the incorpo-
ration of some 14C into organic matter. While fossil fuel derived
organic materials contained 14C at the time of their formation, it
has decayed to negligible levels over time. Fellner and Rechberger
(2009) suggest a method to determine the 14C content of biogenic
matter in waste, resulting in the radiocarbon content of MSW of
115.2±3.5 pMC (percent modern carbon). Thus, De la Cruz et al.
(2013) carried out a modern carbon analysis method to calculate
the fraction of biogenic carbon. The fraction of biogenic carbon
is calculated by equation (11), which assumes that waste is a two-
component mixture of modern biogenic carbon with a 14C value
of 115.2±3.5 pMC, and a fossil contribution of 0 pMC. It is based
on fossil fuels having zero radiocarbon, whereas biogenic materi-
als are enriched in 14C, and reflect the 14CO2 abundance of the
ambient atmosphere. The fraction of carbon can be determined
by carbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry, after convert-
ing the organic carbon in the samples to graphite. The DOC can
be calculated using the following equations:
Fbc ×115.2 + Ff ( 0 ) = Measured pMC value (12)
DOC = TOC × Fraction of biogenic C (13)
where Fbc represents the fraction of biogenic carbon, Ff repre-
sents the fraction of fossil carbon, and Fbc + Ff = 1.
It should be noted that the 14C contents calculated from Fellner
and Rechberger (2009) are only used for biogenic waste fractions
in 2009. In the future, the radiocarbon content of biogenic matter
will decline, due to a steady decrease of the atmospheric 14CO2
level. Thus, the 14C contents of biogenic waste fractions gener-
ated in the future should be calculated.
DOCf
Methods for determining DOCf. The parameter DOCf is the
fraction of DOC that will actually degrade in the landfill. With
respect to the DOCf, IPCC (2006) recommends 0.5 of DOCf as
a default value including lignin, indicating that 50% of the DOC
in the waste is released as gases. In contrast, laboratory studies
of solid waste decomposition from the United States, Germany,
and Italy have shown that the DOCf ranges from negligible to
a maximum of 0.17–0.47 (Bogner and Matthews, 2003; Bogner
and Spokas, 1993; Lornage et al., 2007).
The DOCf value is dependent on many factors, such as tem-
perature, moisture, pH, and composition of waste. It should be
noted that for laboratory experiments, there are certain difficul-
ties in reproducing the real conditions of landfilling (Machado
et al., 2009).
Two different approaches have been established to determine
the DOCf. In one of the approaches, the extent of decomposition
is the measured CH4 yield divided by the yield calculated assum-
ing 100% conversion of the cellulose (Cel) and hemicellulose
(H) (and protein in the case of food waste) to CH4 and CO2
(Eleazer et al., 1997). The content of cellulose and hemi-cellu-
lose of waste is well correlated with L0 (Fei et al., 2016).
According to Wang et al. (2015a), the extent of carbon conver-
sion can be calculated based on carbon loss through the anaero-
bic experiment test. The extent of carbon conversion is defined
as the fraction of the organic carbon converted to CH4 and CO2,
which is equivalent to the DOCf as used by the IPCC. The other
approach can be quantified using the ratio of cellulose plus
hemicellulose to lignin (L). Typically, cellulose and hemicellu-
lose are the major degradable components of MSW (Baldwin
Park et al.
et al., 1998). This indicator of decomposition decreases as mate-
rials degrade, due to the biodegradation of cellulose and hemi-
cellulose, and the recalcitrance of lignin under anaerobic
conditions. Lignin is known to be non-degradable in anaerobic
environments, since its initial fragmentation requires molecular
oxygen (Komilis and Ham, 2003). Equation (14) is based on the
assumption that lignin is recalcitrant under anaerobic condi-
tions, thus the amount of lignin is constant over time, i.e.,
MinitialLinitial = MfinalLfinal (Wang et al., 2013b):
DOCf = (M initial Xinitial − M final X final ) / ( M initial Xinitial )
where Minitial or final is the weight of the initial or final sample and
Xinitial or final represents the ratio of cellulose plus hemicellulose
content (%) in the initial or final excavated sample.
De la Cruz et al. (2013) argued that when normalized to the
initial sample mass, the amount of biogenic C decreases with
decreasing (Cel+H)/L, as shown in Figure 2. A higher (Cel+H)/L
indicates waste with relatively more biodegradable carbon, and
also represents fresher waste. As (Cel+H)/L decreases, more of
the biogenic carbon is present as lignin, whereas at high
(Cel+H)/L, more of the biogenic carbon is cellulose and hemicel-
lulose. This is because lignin is recalcitrant under anaerobic con-
ditions that exist in landfills, and therefore limits the bioavailability
of cellulose and hemicellulose, which are structurally associated
with lignin (De la Cruz et al., 2014).
The cellulose and hemicellulose can be measured based on
enzymatic neutral detergent fiber (ENDF) and acid detergent
fiber (ADF). ENDF and ADF are gravimetric techniques that
have been used to characterize fiber from a nutritional perspec-
tive (Barlaz, 2006). The sum of cellulose, hemicellulose, and
lignin can be determined in accordance with ENDF. The sum of
cellulose and lignin fraction can be determined by ADF (Ximenes
et al., 2008). However, the gravimetric technique is likely to
include some non-cellulosic material as cellulose, and thus may
give artificially high results (Barlaz, 2006). A technique is devel-
oped using high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). The
basic procedure is hydrolysis of a solid sample in 72% (w/v)
H2SO4, followed by a secondary hydrolysis in 3% (w/v) H2SO4.
The hydrolyses convert cellulose and hemicellulose to their
respective monomeric sugars, glucose, xylose, mannose, arab-
inose, and galactose, which are quantified by HPLC equipped
with a pulsed electrochemical detector. The eluents are water, and
a solution containing 200 mM sodium hydroxide and 60 mM
sodium acetate (Wang et al., 2013b, 2015a). Klason lignin is the
most common method utilized to determine lignin. Klason lignin
is determined by loss on ignition (2 h, 550°C) of the solids
remaining after the acid hydrolysis. In the Klason lignin method,
any organic material that does not dissolve in sulfuric acid will be
counted as lignin. However, this method assumes that all non-
cellulosic organic material is lignin, which is not perfectly accu-
rate. Plastics and rubber are likely to be counted as lignin in this
method (Barlaz, 2006).
9
(14)
Figure 2. Biogenic carbon content and biogenic carbon
decomposition normalized to sample weight as a function of
(Cel+H)/L (data replotted from De la Cruz et al., 2013) (Cel:
cellulose, H: hemicellulose, L: lignin).
DOCf in relation with lignin and moisture. Table 3 pre-
sents a literature overview of the DOCf values for individual
components of MSW. Food waste and grass have a high DOCf,
whereas paper, and in particular wood, have a low DOCf within
the landfill. CH4 generation occurs predominantly from cellulose
and hemicellulose (Bareither et al., 2012). In contrast, lignin is
not easily degraded under anaerobic conditions. Several studies
have demonstrated that lignin inhibits cellulose decomposition in
waste, and lignin concentration has been related to both the rate
and extent of cellulose plus hemicellulose degradation (Baldwin
et al., 1998; Barlaz, 2006; De la Cruz et al., 2014; Eleazer et al.,
1997; Wang et al., 1994). The higher lignin content in newsprint,
which is generally made from mechanical pulp, resulted in the
lowest CH4 yield (Wang et al., 2015a). Greater decomposition
of copy paper with lower lignin content relative to newsprint has
also been reported in field study (Wang et al., 2013b). Lignin
interferes with the digestion of cell-wall polysaccharides by act-
ing as a physical barrier to microbial enzymes (Moore and Jung,
2001).
Figure 3 shows that there is a relationship between lignin and
DOCf, although the lignin may be more inhibitory in other compo-
nents than grass (Barlaz, 2006). For grass, lignified grass tissues
can be digested to leave only thin-walled indigestible residues
(Moore and Jung, 2001). Jung and Vogel (1986) demonstrated that
the relationship of lignin with forage digestibility is curvilinear,
and the inhibiting effect of lignin declined at higher lignin concen-
tration. Additionally, it has been reported that there is an inverse
relationship between (Cel+L) and the biodegradability of several
organic wastes (Buffiere et al., 2006). As a consequence, although
it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion, the lignin content
could be used as an abatement indicator for the DOCf of individual
MSW components.
Most studies have concluded that the most critical factor
in landfill decomposition is the amount of moisture in the
waste; if sufficient moisture is not available, then gas forma-
tion will not proceed, and in some cases will not start at all
10 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Table 3. Literature overview of the DOCf value of each waste.

Reference Wang et al. Wang et al. (2013b) Wang et al. Wang and Eleazer Ximenes
(2011) (2015a) Barlaz (2016) et al. (1997) et al. (2008)
Method The ratio of cellulose plus The ratio of carbon loss from cellulose and hemicellulose
hemicellulose to lignin
MSW – – – – 0.58 –
Grass – – – – 0.76–0.94 –
Leaves – – – – 0.28 –
Branch – – – – 0.28 –
Food – – – – 0.84 –
Hardwood 0.19 0.08–0.19 0.02 – 0.171–0.285 – 0.00–0.17
Softwood 0.05 0.00–0.02 0.12 – 0.000–0.095 – 0.00–0.18
Oriented strand board 0.50 0.08–0.39 0.08–0.38 – – –
Plywood 0.00 0.15–0.19 0.00–0.08 – – –
Particleboard 0.02 0.00–0.14 0.00–0.18 – – –
Medium-density fiberboard 0.00 0.00–0.19 0.00–0.21 – – –
Newsprint – 0.59–0.81 0.69–0.81 0.21–0.29 0.31 –
Corrugated containers – 0.70–0.96 – – 0.54 –
Coated paper – – – – 0.39 –
Copy paper – 0.71–0.95 – (eucalyptus fiber) 0.55 –
0.24
(acacia fiber) 0.96
Magazine Chemical pulp – – – 0.82 – –
Mechanical fiber 0.28

(Baldwin et al., 1998; Hartz and Ham, 1983; Meima et al.,

2008; Micales and Skog, 1997). At low moisture content, which
means below 16%, the biological activities will decrease to zero
(Hartz and Ham, 1983; Meima et al., 2008). Thus, Meima et al.
(2008) presented that the water function is defined as a straight
line, with a water factor (f(w)) of 0.0 at 16%, and a water fac-
tor of 1.0 at complete saturation, which is usually at a water
content (w) of approximately 50%. The water factor can be
calculated using

f ( w ) = 2.76w - 0.44 (15)

The CH4 production rate and maximal cumulative CH4 pro-

duction appear to be linearly correlated to the moisture content Figure 3. Relationship between lignin and DOCf for individual
(Mora-Naranjo et al., 2004; Pommier et al., 2007). Consequently, components of MSW (data replotted from De la Cruz and
there is a linear relationship between the moisture content and Barlaz (2010), Wang and Barlaz (2016), and Wang et al.
(2015a)).
cumulative CH4 production, and the CH4 production has been
predicted based on this linear relationship. Therefore, in order to
This relation is valid up to Tw = 324.6 K, which is the optimum
evaluate DOCf, equation (14) can be used to translate an equation
temperature value for anaerobic thermophilic bacteria. For higher
that is given by DOCf = 2.76w − 0.44 (Chong et al., 2016).
values of up to Tw = 353.15 K, ω is the biodegradable carbon con-
The biogas production depends on the waste temperature.
tent, which practically coincides with the TOC content (Manna
Manna et al. (1999) applied an equation whereby the relation
et al., 1999). However, not considered in detail are the nutrient
between the organic carbon fraction and the total available organic
and inhibitor concentrations, which may also be significant.
carbon fraction is strictly linked to temperature values, as follows:
Inhibitors and nutrients would accumulate and continuously affect
the biochemical reaction processes, causing their effect on the
ω = [0.014 × ( Tw − 273.15 ) + 0.28]ωt (16)
CH4 generation to be overestimated.

where Tw is the absolute temperature value (K), ω is the biode- MCF and F. MCF is defined as the portion of organic materials
gradable carbon content of the waste, and ωt is the TOC content that decompose anaerobically. The default value of MCF for
of the waste. semi-aerobic landfills is set as 0.5, which implies that 50% of
Park et al.
organic matter is decomposed aerobically and the remaining 50%
is decomposed anaerobically. This means that a semi-aerobic
landfill emits just one-half of CH4, compared to an equal size
anaerobic landfill. Matsufuji et al. (1997) carried out a compari-
son of solid waste stabilization between semi-aerobic landfill and
anaerobic landfill. The results gave the ratio of generated gases to
leached contaminants of 8:2 for the semi-aerobic, and 4:6 for the
anaerobic. Thus based on this result, IPCC (2006) recommend
MCF of 0.5 as a default value.
Matsuto et al. (2015) emphasized that when considering a
semi-aerobic landfill as an aerobic landfill technology, the layout
of the pipe network should be designed with respect to the pos-
sible air flow paths. Both the leachate collection pipe and the
passive gas vents are key elements in a semi-aerobic landfill,
because the former functions as a conduit supplying air to the
landfill, while the latter functions as an exit for the heated air.
Thus, it is not necessary to connect the gas vents to the leachate
collection pipe, because the connection only increases the air
flow through the pipe, and this has little effect on aeration. Jeong
et al. (2015) insist that validation of the MCF default value using
field measurement is necessary. A semi-aerobic landfill site can
be in an anaerobic condition when the outflow port of the lea-
chate collection system is swamped, the system is full of water, it
holds retention of leachate, or the leachate collection/gas extrac-
tion system is not properly extended (GIO et al., 2016).
The MCF accounts for the factor whereby an unmanaged
landfill produces less CH4 from a given amount of waste than an
anaerobic landfill (IPCC, 2006). The MCF ranges from 0.4 to
1.0, depending on the landfill condition. Wangyao et al. (2010)
established that the best fitting values of the CH4 correction fac-
tor are 0.65, 0.20, 0.15, and 0.1 for deep landfills, shallow land-
fills, deep dumpsites, and shallow dumpsites, respectively. The
MCF values are thus lower than the IPCC default values.
Govindan and Agamuthu (2014) use 0.8 of MCF, because a study
landfill is categorized as unmanaged landfill with an amount of
deep buried waste (more than 5 m depth), and with high water
content within the waste.
Most landfill generates a gas with approximately 50% CH4.
Thus, IPCC (2006) suggests that the parameter F refers to the
fraction of CH4 in generated LFG. However, the fraction of CH4
in generated LFG should not be confused with the measured CH4
in gas emitted from the landfill. Losses of CO2 by leachate have
to be considered, because CO2 is much more soluble in water
than CH4 (IPCC, 2006, Kjeldsen and Fisher, 1995). Absorbed
CO2 might have deposited as carbonates in the drainage layer,
since carbonate concentrations in solid, liquid or gas phases are
dependent on the chemical equilibrium governed by the pH of the
system (Rittmann et al., 2003; Valencia et al., 2009; VanGulck
et al., 2003).
Semi-aerobic landfill does not provide the waste body with an
adequate delivery of oxygen, which results in only a partial reduc-
tion of methanogenesis. CH4 concentration in LFG from semi-
aerobic landfills decreases to 10–30% (Matsufuji et al.,1993;
Huang et al., 2008), which means that F for semi-aerobic landfill
11
should be considered to be lower than 0.5. In contrast, Jeong et al.
(2015) emphasized that the actual meaning of F is the fraction of
CH4 in the generated gas by the breakdown of organic matter in
the absence of oxygen, which implies that the F value for semi-
aerobic landfill is 0.5.
Methods for determining k
Characteristics of the k value
The k value is the biodegradation half-life value in years−1 for
landfilled waste. There have been efforts to estimate k value, as
this parameter governs the rate at which CH4 is produced.
Although the organic part of each waste type is considered to
have different decay rates (Thompson et al., 2009), most models
assume a single overall value for k.
The k value is found to increase with higher moisture contents
and higher temperature (Baldwin et al., 1998; Ishii and Furuichi,
2013). However, Amini et al. (2012) reported similar k values for
the wet cell (0.10 yr−1) and traditional landfill (0.08 yr−1), because
all the study landfills were located in Florida, which has rela-
tively high annual precipitation rates. Barlaz et al. (2010) showed
that there is no apparent relationship between k and the wet
weight water content. This is likely due to the heterogeneity of
water content in the varying material fractions of waste, as well
as uneven wetting due to channelized flow, resulting in a wide
range of water contents over the lateral and vertical dimensions
of a landfill.
The value of k reflects the rate of degradation, and is affected
by waste depth, density, pH, climate, and moisture content (Levis
and Barlaz, 2011; Machado et al., 2009; Sormunen et al., 2013).
The DOCf is also affected by these conditions. Figure 4 shows
the k values associated with DOCf for each waste. The labora-
tory-scale k values of MSW components translate into field-scale
k values (Wang and Barlaz, 2016). The field-scale k values are
average rates estimated for a traditional landfill scenario (k =
0.04 yr−1). There is no relationship between k and DOCf.
However, it is interesting to note that grass, which is highly ligni-
fied, has a high k value and DOCf, whereas office paper with the
lowest lignin has a low k value. This suggests that the lignin con-
centration does not correlate well with the decay rate, presuma-
bly due to the impact of lignin arrangement and structure on
cellulose bioavailability. This phenomenon can be explained by
the moisture content of waste. For example, the moisture con-
tents for food waste and grass are 70% and 60%, respectively (De
la Cruz and Barlaz, 2010), indicating that high moisture content
may promote the biodegradation process. Moisture provides the
basis for the hydrolysis of organic carbon. According to the pro-
cesses of degradation and solubilization of organic compounds,
hydrolysis can be regarded as the rate-limiting step within the
bio-degradation processes (El-Fadel et al. 1989; Sanders et al.,
2000; Trzcinski and Stuckey, 2012).
Another possibility is that the high contents of slowly hydro-
lysable compounds may delay the whole biodegradation process,
12
Figure 4. Relationship between k and DOCf for individual
components of MSW (data replotted from De la Cruz and
Barlaz (2010) and Wang and Barlaz (2016)).
consequently reducing the k value (Haarstrick et al., 2001). Grass
does not contain a slowly hydrolysable carbon fraction, whereas
the slowly hydrolysable carbon fractions are approximately 31%,
45%, and 82% of the total solid carbon in food waste, mixed
paper, and branches (Komilis, 2006). Barlaz (2006) referenced
that newspaper ink covered cellulose fiber, and reduced its
bioavailability.
Classification of methods for
determining k
The literature describes various methods to measure the k value of
solid waste. Table 4 presents ranges of k values from solid waste
landfill, and methods for determining k. In general, k values have
been determined by a number of methods: determination of decay
rates based on precipitation rates (Kumar and Shama, 2014;
Thompson et al., 2009; US EPA, 2004); laboratory simulations
(De La Cruz and Barlaz, 2010; Mou et al., 2015; Wang and Barlaz,
2016); samples excavated from landfills (Ishii and Furuichi, 2013;
Kim and Townsend, 2012); and model fitting or regression analy-
sis using actual gas data (Amini et al., 2012, 2013; Machado et al.,
2009; Tolaymat et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013a).
Table 5 presents k values for individual components of MSW.
Grass and food waste showed a high k value, whereas paper,
wood, and low-organic wastes showed a low k. In particular, the
low-organic wastes showed lower k values in comparison to the
default k values in the IPCC (Mou et al., 2015). Thus, long-term
emissions from landfills are probably attributable to the slowly
degrading paper and wood fraction (Donovan et al., 2010; Pan
and Voulvoulis, 2007).
Precipitation rates. Garg et al. (2006) indicate that precipitation
is the most important parameter to estimate the k value. Thus, the
k value for a bulk waste can be calculated based on precipitation
rates (US EPA, 2004):
( )
k = 3.2 ×10−5 × annual precipitation in mm + 0.01 (17)
Waste Management & Research 00(0)
The US EPA (2004) provides default values based on an
emission factor, which is a k of 0.04 yr−1 above 25 inches (635
mm) of precipitation for emission inventories that are consid-
ered more representative of MSW landfills where no leachate
recirculation is occurring (Faour et al., 2007). On the other
hand, research in some cases has found the US EPA (2004)
default decay rate to be substantially lower (Amini et al. 2012;
Wang et al., 2013a, 2015b). Wang et al. (2013a) maintained
that there is no relationship between annual precipitation and
k value.
Laboratory simulations. Several studies have presented CH4
yield measurements for individual components of MSW to deter-
mine their k values (De la Cruz and Barlaz, 2010; Mou et al.,
2015; Wang and Barlaz, 2016). Mou et al. (2015) suggest that
assuming the organic carbon in the waste follows the FOD
equation,
N t = N0 × e− kt (18)
the k value can be calculated by
k = − ln ( N t / N0 ) / t (19)
where Nt is the quantity (g) of degraded organic carbon (DOC)
after a period of time (t), N0 is the initial quantity (g) of DOC, and
t is the organic carbon degradation time (yr).
Laboratory k values are orders of magnitudes higher than
field k values because laboratory conditions are more ideal
(Lamborn, 2012; Fei et al., 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to
develop a correction factor that can be used to adjust lab-scale
k values to match field-scale values (De la Cruz and Barlaz,
2010; Karanjekar et al., 2015). De la Cruz and Barlaz (2010)
presented a correction factor (f) to translate the laboratory-
scale decay rates (klab,i) of MSW components into field-scale
rates (kfield,i). It is assumed that the weighted average decay rate
for a waste mixture is equal to the bulk MSW decay rate. The k
value of waste (kfield,MSW) can be calculated from the weighted
average of the k of each biodegradable component (klab,i), as
described in
n
k field , MSW = f × ∑k
i =1
lab ,i × ( wt. fraction)i (20)
k field ,i = f × klab,i (21)
where i is the ith waste component.
Karanjekar et al. (2015) published a multiple linear regres-
sion (MLR) equation from laboratory data for estimating a cor-
rection factor. The MLR equation is considered the effect of
annual rainfall and ambient temperature for estimating the k
value.
Park et al. 13

Table 4. k values at landfill level taken from the literature, and corresponding determination methods.

Landfill site Method k (yr−1) References

Metropolitan center landfill in Salvador, Model fitting with 0.200 Machado et al.
Brazil calculated L0 (2009)
Outer Loop landfill, USA 0.060 (traditional landfill) Tolaymat et al.
0.110 (bioreactor) (2010)
Jeram landfill, Bulk waste approach 0.080 Govindan and
Selangor, Waste composition 0.090 Agamuthu (2014)
Malaysia approach
USA 9 landfills Model fitting with SSE 0.090–0.170 Wang et al. (2013a)
2 landfills minimization at varied 0.040
L0
USA 9 landfills Model fitting with SSE 0.070–0.190 Wang et al. (2015b)
2 landfills minimization 0.040
USA 3 landfills Model fitting with 0.050–0.350 Barlaz et al. (2010)
Smiths Creek Septage bioreactor assumed L0 0.296 Zhao et al. (2013)
landfill in Leachate bioreactor 0.082
Michigan, USA
Landfills in Florida, USA Model fitting with 0.080 (traditional landfill) Amini et al. (2012)
R2 maximization at 0.100 (bioreactor)
Landfills, USA A calculated L0 0.060 Amini et al. (2013)
B 0.090
C 0.040
Shanghai landfill, China Aged-defined 0.060 Youcai et al. (2001)
North Central Alachua County waste samples and 0.470 Kim and Townsend
Florida, USA Southwest landfill regression (bioreactor) (2012)
New River Regional 0.210
landfill (bioreactor)
Sudokwon landfill site 1, Korea Nonlinear regression 0.100–0.140 Park et al. (2012b)
Wet landfills Three landfills using field data 0.280 Faour et al. (2007)
SSWMC 0.210
Landfill A 0.110
CSWMC 0.120
21 landfills 0.300
Canada British Columbia Annual precipitation 0.048 Thompson et al.
Alberta rate 0.023 (2009)
Ontario 0.037
Quebec 0.042
Nova Scotia 0.056
23 metro cities, India 0.030–0.080 Kumar and
Sharma (2014)

Aged-defined waste samples and regression. This approach is
to collect samples of landfilled waste, and then measure their bio-
degradability of waste as a function of waste age (Ishii and
Furuichi, 2013; Kim and Townsend, 2012). As biodegradability
is a surrogate for landfilling age, lower biodegradability would
be expected in older samples. The biodegradability of waste is
typically evaluated using the BMP. An advantage to this approach
compared to using gas collection data is that the efficiency of the
in-place gas collection system does not influence the results (Kim
and Townsend, 2012). This approach consists of three steps, as
shown in Figure 5.
First, working reports of the landfill site are investigated to
predict the composition of the landfilled waste, the annual
amount of landfilled waste, and the distribution of landfilled
waste over space and time (Ishii and Furuichi, 2013). Sample
age can be estimated from landfill waste placement records
(Kim and Townsend, 2012). Second, sampling of age-defined
wastes from the study landfill site is conducted. The waste com-
position, moisture, volatile matter and ash contents, and meth-
ane generation potential are analyzed, as shown in Figure 6. In
the third step, the k values for each type of wastes are estimated
using time series data on the methane generation potential (Ishii
and Furuichi, 2013). The methane generation potential of waste
is Pt at t years after landfilling, which means that the remaining
methane generation potential of waste can be described by the
FOD equation:
Pt = P0e− kt (22)
where Pt is the methane generation potential of waste at t years
after landfilling, P0 is the methane generation potential of waste
at 0 years after landfilling, and k is the methane generation rate
14 Waste Management & Research 00(0)

Table 5. k values for individual waste components taken from the literature.

Country Component Method k (yr−1) References

Hokkaido, Paper Aged-defined waste samples 0.050 Ishii and
Japan Kitchen waste and regression 0.062 Furuichi (2013)
France Paper-cardboards 0.110 Francois et al.
(2006)
4 landfills, Combustible Half-life time using lab test 0.024–0.025 Mou et al.
Denmark Shredder 0.016–0.017 (2015)
Sludge 0.16–0.19
Mixed bulky 0.013–0.014
Street cleansing 0.070
USA Textile Multiplying the laboratory- 0.015–0.088 De la Cruz and
Wood scale rates with a correction 0.007–0.045 Barlaz (2010)
Food waste factor 0.072–0.432
Leaves 0.085–0.512
Grass 0.149–0.895
Branches 0.007–0.045
Miscellaneous organics 0.066–0.393
Newspaper 0.017–0.099
Office paper 0.015–0.088
Coated paper 0.061–0.365
Corrugated containers/ 0.010–0.059
Kraft bags
Mixed paper 0.016–0.094
USA Hardwood 0.027–0.048 Wang and
Softwood 0.000–0.127 Barlaz (2016)
USA Yard waste Model fitting with calculated L0 0.082 Yazdani et al.
by minimizing the SSE (2012)
France Paper and cardboard Evolutions of organic fractions 0.200 Lefebvre et al.
with age (2007)
Thailand Food waste Model calibration with 0.347 Wangyao et al.
Papers calculated L0 using IPCC 0.069 (2010)
Wood default values 0.035
Textiles 0.069
Italy Mechanically-biologically Linear regression using a two- 0.039 De Gioannis
pretreated waste stage model et al. (2009)
Italy Mechanically-biologically Linear regression using a two- 0.308 Di Maria et al.
pretreated waste stage model (2013)

constant (year−1). Figure 7 shows the curve-fitted lines obtained
using equation (22) to determine the k value.
A disadvantage of this approach is the relatively heterogene-
ous nature of MSW samples collected in the field. Furthermore,
given that biodegradable waste components (e.g., food waste,
paper) typically become reduced in size as waste stabilization
progresses, simple separation of the fine fraction to remove soil
prior to the BMP may be problematic (Kim and Townsend,
2012). For this reason, Kim and Townsend (2012) suggest the
procedure presented in Figure 8. Identifiable biodegradable
components can be processed and analyzed separately from
large, non-biodegradable components and soil, thus providing a
more accurate and repeatable measurement of this important
fraction. The intermediate fraction (0.042–0.475 cm), often rich
in degraded organic wastes (similar to compost), can similarly
be homogenized without the interference of soil or other non-
biodegradable wastes. Finally, the fine fraction (<0.042 cm) can
be tested, and although the CH4 yields are typically low because
it is predominantly soil, this fraction’s contribution to overall
CH4 yield can be considered.
Biodegradability-test methods that are based on the use of
aerobic respiration indices have been recently reviewed for
waste biodegradability assessment. In contrast to the BMP test,
the aerobic biodegradability tests do not assess the ultimate
methane yield of a sample, but rather its activity. Thus, these
aerobic biodegradability tests could not determine the L0 value
of a sample. The basic principle of the test for the biodegradabil-
ity estimation is the amount of carbon that can be mineralized.
Accordingly, aerobic biodegradability tests have been proposed
to overcome the limits of anaerobic biodegradability tests. These
aerobic biodegradability tests measure the respiration activity
using the oxygen (O2) consumption or the amount of carbon
dioxide (CO2) that is released under aerobic conditions. Although
these tests are conducted under aerobic conditions, they are cur-
rently used to assess the methane production potential of waste
under anaerobic conditions. A good correlation has been found
Park et al.
Figure 5. Schematic of aged-defined waste samples and
regression.
Figure 6. Changes in the methane generation potential (Ishii
and Furuichi, 2013).
between the anaerobic and aerobic tests for the characterization
of the biodegradability of solid wastes (Binner and Zach, 1999).
The aerobic tests offer the advantage of lesser time consumption
compared with the anaerobic tests, and they can be implemented
with all kinds of waste (Kallel et al., 2003; Lesteur et al., 2010).
However, complex organic matter including cellulose is not
taken into account in the aerobic tests (Lesteur et al., 2010).
The (Cel+H)/L ratio is often used to assess refuse decomposi-
tion. This ratio is unaffected by the presence of inert material
(e.g., soil, ceramic, and glass), does not depend on visual identi-
fication of waste materials, and decreases as waste degrades
(Bareither et al., 2012; Mehta et al., 2002; Wang et al., 1994;
Wang et al., 2013b). Fresh waste typically has a (Cel+H)/L ratio
of between about 3 and 4 (Barlaz, 2006). Figure 9 shows that the
amount of biogenic carbon increases with increasing (Cel+H)/L.
A regression analysis of the (Cel+H)/L with waste age has a coef-
ficient of determination (R2) of 0.55, and the R2 of biogenic car-
bon is 0.67. In addition, the degradation coefficient for waste
sample is approximately 0.16 yr−1.
15
Figure 7. Curve fittings for the methane generation potential
(Ishii and Furuichi, 2013).
Model fitting or regression analysis using actual gas data. The
k value can be determined on the basis of the experimentally
determined values in the landfill, and the feasibility of these val-
ues can be determined by comparison of the modelled CH4 gen-
eration with the measured CH4 recovery or CH4 generation
(Sormunen et al., 2013). Garg et al. (2006) suggest a fuzzy model
to estimate the k value. Four major parameters, of precipitation,
temperature, waste biodegradability, and landfill depth, are used
as inputs to the model. The model indicates that precipitation is
the most weighted parameter. However, the model does not con-
sider differences in waste composition.
Mathematical models are normally built to fit a wide range
of data and circumstances. These models need to be validated
with measured or observed data to verify the results generated.
For this reason, calibration of numerical values for k by site-
specific data is reported to be essential when applying FOD
models to estimate whole-site LFG generations (Amini et al.
2012; Scharff and Jacobs, 2006; Sormunen et al., 2013). To find
the optimal set of gas generation parameters, error function
analysis is used. This entails the minimization of the difference
between the calculated gas generation rates and the actual rates
to determine the optimal set of gas generation parameters, using
error function for statistical analysis (Wangyao et al., 2010).
Estimation of k for a landfill can be carried out by the estimated
L0 in conjunction with k value by curve fitting of the collected
LFG data with minimizing the sum of squared errors (SSE) or
R2 near one for the modeled vs. measured data (Amini et al.,
2012, 2013; Tolaymat et al. 2010; Wang et al., 2013a, 2015b). It
should be noted that when the k value is estimated using field
data, errors in the used L0 can significantly affect the estimates
of k, as shown in Figure 10.
Summary and conclusion
This review highlights current approaches for determining L0
and k values with their wide ranges from detailed experiments
conducted within bulk MSW and individual waste components.
Tables 6 and 7 compare different methods for determining L0
and k.
16
Figure 8. Schematic of the sample preparation process prior to BMP test (Kim and Townsend, 2012).
Figure 9. (Cel+H)/L ratio and biogenic carbon content for
samples excavated from Outer Loop landfill (data replotted
from De la Cruz et al., 2013).
The L0 values in field settings are lower, because landfills do
not function as efficiently as anaerobic digesters or laboratory
experiments. Thus, the L0 should be used to refer to the CH4 yield,
i.e., the amount of CH4 produced per unit mass of waste under
actual anaerobic conditions within a landfill. L0 estimates in the
literature are highly varied, and have been derived from theoreti-
cal stoichiometric calculations, laboratory experiments, or actual
field measurements from landfill. Theoretical stoichiometric
Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Figure 10. Effect of the assumed L0 on the estimated k value
(Tolaymat et al., 2010).
calculations are very fast, taking only a few hours, whereas the
application of results obtained from these methods to a full-scale
landfill remains difficult, because they do not account for varia-
tions brought about by climatic and operational events.
Laboratory experiments are better controlled, and employ
operating procedures to enhance microbial activity. For these rea-
sons, laboratory experiments produce more predictable results,
compared to field monitoring studies. However, the BMP test
Park et al. 17

Table 6. Comparison of different methods for determining L0..

Method Description Advantages Drawbacks

Stoichiometric - use a stoichiometric - simple and easy to analyze -n o distinction between biodegradable and
methods equation based on the - take only a few hours non-biodegradable matter
chemical composition of -d o not account for variations brought about
the waste by climatic and operational events
- overestimate CH4 potential
Experimental -u
 se BMP value of mixed - provide a more predictable - BMP value is similar to DOC
methods waste based on the result, compared to field - overestimate CH4 potential compared to
weighted average of waste monitoring studies full-scale data
components - can determine L0 - require a correction factor
for individual waste - limited in reproducing the real conditions
components of landfilling
Model fitting -u
 se site-specific data - can determine accurate - need long-term LFG data
or regression on CH4 recovery and site-specific L0 - need assumptions for CH4 oxidation
analysis emission
IPCC method -u
 ses characteristics of the - s imple and easy to - needs to distinguish between fossil carbon
waste (DOC and DOCf) and determine L0 and biogenic carbon to measure DOC
landfill site (MCF and F) - needs to analyze DOCf for individual waste
components

Table 7. Comparison of different methods for determining k.

Method Description Advantages Drawbacks

Precipitation rate -u
 ses US EPA equation based
on precipitation rates
Laboratory simulations -u se regression analysis of
obtained laboratory biogas
data
Aged-defined waste -u ses time series data on the
sample and regression biodegradability of waste
Model fitting or - use curve fitting of collected
regression analysis LFG data
using actual gas data
- simple and easy to - does not account for differences
determine k value in landfill conditions (waste
composition, temperature, cover soil)
- can determine k values - overestimates k values compared to
for individual waste field k values
components - need to adjust lab-scale k values
- can determine site- - heterogeneous nature of MSW
specific k value samples
- more accurate site- - need long-term LFG data
specific k value -e  rrors in the used L0 can significantly
- can be validated with affect the estimates of k
measured LFG data

could not provide direct estimation of L0. The BMP value can be
assumed equal to the DOC, because the BMP value generally
represents the ultimate amount of CH4 produced under optimal
anaerobic conditions.
The FOD model parameters are highly dependent on environ-
mental conditions and the capture efficiency. Significant differ-
ences exist between the conditions in the laboratory experiments,
and the landfills. For this reason, if LFG collection data are avail-
able, calculating site-specific L0 from model fitting or regression
analysis is recommended as the best approach. However, most
authors in the literature associate the problem with the lack of
long-term LFG data. Thus, more data from full-scale landfills are
needed with complete data sets that provide descriptions of gas
collection systems, gas quality and quantity, waste placement
rates, and moisture conditions. Moreover, data from the analyzed
sites should be updated, since currently very few sites have such
data available.
The IPCC model uses characteristics of the waste (DOC and
DOCf) and the landfill site to predict CH4 generation. Determination
of DOC needs to distinguish between organic carbon and inorganic
carbon, resulting from acid washed to eliminate inorganic carbon
prior to analysis. BMP or modern carbon analysis methods of
waste components may be the most direct estimations of DOC.
The DOCf is the measured CH4 yield divided by the yield calcu-
lated assuming conversion of 100% of the cellulose and hemicel-
lulose (and protein in the case of food waste) to CH4 and CO2. In
addition, the (Cel+H)/L ratio is often used to assess DOCf.
Although the content of lignin of waste is correlated with DOCf,
further studies are required to assess the relationship between
lignin and DOCf for individual waste components.
In the literature, the k value has been determined by precipi-
tation rates, laboratory simulations, aged-defined waste sam-
ple, and model fitting or regression analysis using actual gas
data. Precipitation is the most important parameter to estimate
the k value. Thus, the k value for a bulk waste can be calculated
using the US EPA equation based on precipitation rates.
However, this equation does not account for differences in
landfill conditions.
18
Laboratory simulations can determine k values for individual
waste components. It should be noted that this approach is likely
the upper limit of the rates in landfills, as these laboratory-scale
rates are measured under optimal conditions. Thus, it is necessary
to develop a correction factor that can be used to adjust lab-scale
k values to match field-scale values.
The aged-defined waste sample method is to collect samples
of landfilled waste, and then measure their biodegradability of
waste as a function of waste age. However, it may be difficult to
accurately characterize heterogeneous wastes.
When the k value is estimated using field data, errors in the
used L0 can significantly affect estimates of k. Thus, L0 is fixed
within a plausible range, and k should be optimized by curve fit-
ting of the collected LFG data with minimizing the SSE or R2
near one for the modelled vs. measured data.
Many countries have banned the landfilling of organic waste
(Manfredi et al., 2010; Mou et al., 2014). Due to this trend, the
composition of disposed waste at landfills in these countries is
expected to change, as it is expected that organic waste will be
recycled or incinerated. Thus, CH4 emission from landfills must
be accurately quantified to establish appropriate CH4 reduction.
Site-specific input parameters, in place of default values, signifi-
cantly improve the model-estimated gas-generation results (Mou
et al., 2015a).
Considering the recognition given to using the model in the
literature, model fitting or regression analysis to estimate L0 and
k is recommended as the optimum method if LFG data are avail-
able. When such data are not available, k can be determined by
aged-defined waste sample and regression analysis using the
first-order model. Additionally, L0 can be selected using disposed
MSW composition, laboratory component specific methane
potential values, and a correction factor based on site conditions
(Amini et al., 2012).
To further the knowledge base on waste decomposition pro-
cesses and rates, expanded efforts will be needed to accurately
quantify L0 and k values for both bulk MSW and individual waste
components, and a reliable representation of their decomposition
dynamics through time. In particular, there is currently insuffi-
cient field evidence to determine the proportions of carbon from
each waste that are potentially lost through degradation through
emission as CO2, and as CH4.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (grant number
2016R1A2B4011548).
ORCID iD
Jin-Kyu Park https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6831-1054
Waste Management & Research 00(0)
References
Abushammala MFM, Basri NEA, Irwan D, et al. (2014) Methane oxidation in
landfill cover soils: a review. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment
8: 1–14.
Amini HR, Reinhart DR and Mackie KR (2012) Determination of first-order
landfill gas modelling parameters and uncertainties. Waste Management
32: 305–316.
Amini HR, Reinhart DR and Niskanen A (2013) Comparison of first-order-
decay modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill
methane data. Waste Management 33: 2720–2728.
Angelidaki I and Sanders W (2004) Assessment of the anaerobic biodegra-
dability of macropollutants. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/
Technology 3: 117–129.
Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, et al. (2009) Defining the biomethane
potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed
protocol for batch assays. Water Science & Technology 59: 927–934.
Baldwin TD, Stinson J and Ham RK (1998) Decomposition of specific
materials buried within sanitary landfills. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 124: 1193–1202.
Bareither CA, Breitmeyer RJ, Benson CH, et al. (2012) Deer track biore-
actor experiment: field-scale evaluation of municipal solid waste bio-
reactor performance. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 138: 658–670.
Barlaz MA (2006) Forest products decomposition in municipal solid waste
landfills. Waste Management 26: 321–333.
Barlaz MA, Bareither CA, Hossain A, et al. (2010) Performance of north
American bioreactor landfills. II. Chemical and biological characteristics.
Journal of Environmental Engineering 136: 839–853.
Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, et al. (2002) The IWA anaerobic diges-
tion model No 1 (ADM1). Water Science and Technology 45: 65–73.
Bingemer HG and Crutzen PJ (1987) The production of methane from solid
wastes. Journal of Geophysical Research 92: 2181–2187.
Binner E and Zach A (1999) Biological reactivity of residual wastes and
dependence on the duration of pretreatment. Waste Management &
Research 17: 543–554.
Bogner J and Matthews E (2003) Global methane emissions from landfills: new
methodology and annual estimates 1980–1996. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 17: 34-1–34-18.
Bogner J and Spokas K (1993) Landfill CH4: rates, fates, and role in global
carbon cycle. Chemosphere 26: 366–386.
Bogner J, Pipatti P, Hashimoto S, et al. (2008) Mitigation of global green-
house gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report. Working Group III (Mitigation). Waste Management & Research
26: 11–32.
Buffiere P, Loisel D, Bernet N, et al. (2006) Towards new indicators for the
prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Science &
Technology 53: 233–241.
Chandler JA, Jewell WJ, Gossett JM, et al. (1980) Predicting methane
fermentation biodegradability. Biotechnology and Bioengineering
Symposium 10: 93–107.
Cho HS, Moon HS and Kim JY (2012) Effect of quantity and composition
of waste on the prediction of annual methane potential from landfills.
Bioresource Technology 109: 86–92.
Chong YG, Park JK, Kim IH, et al. (2016) A study on the determination
methodologies of fraction of degradable organic carbon (DOC) and frac-
tion of DOC decomposed (DOCF) for estimating methane emissions from
solid waste landfills. Journal of Korea Society of Waste Management 33:
38–45.
De Gioannis G, Muntoni A, Cappai G, et al. (2009) Landfill gas generation
after mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste: estima-
tion of gas generation rate constants. Waste Management 29: 1026–1034.
De la Cruz FB and Barlaz MA (2010) Estimation of waste component-
specific landfill decay rates using laboratory-scale decomposition data.
Environmental Science & Technology 44: 4722–4728.
De la Cruz FB, Chanton JP and Barlaz MA (2013) Measurement of carbon
storage in landfills from the biogenic carbon content of excavated waste
samples. Waste Management 33: 2001–2005.
De la Cruz FB, Yelle DJ, Gracz HS, et al. (2014) Chemical changes dur-
ing anaerobic decomposition of hardwood, softwood, and old newsprint
Park et al.
under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 62: 6362–6374.
Di Maria F, Sordi A and Micale C (2013) Experimental and life cycle assess-
ment analysis of gas emission from mechanically-biologically pretreated
waste in a landfill with energy recovery. Waste Management 33: 2557–
2567.
Donovan SM, Bateson T, Gronow JR, et al. (2010) Modelling the behavior
of mechanical biological treatment outputs in landfills using the GasSim
model. Science of the Total Environment 408: 1979–1984
Donovan SM, Pan J, Bateson T, et al. (2011) Gas emissions from biodegrad-
able waste in United Kingdom landfills. Waste Management & Research
29: 69–76.
Eleazer WE, Odle WS, Wang YS, et al. (1997) Biodegradability of munici-
pal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Environmental
Science & Technology 31: 911–917.
Faour AA, Reinhart DR and Huaxin Y (2007) First-order kinetic gas gen-
eration model parameters for wet landfills. Waste Management 27:
946–953.
Fei X, Zekkos D and Raskin L (2016) Quantification of parameters influenc-
ing methane generation due to biodegradation of municipal solid waste in
landfills and laboratory experiments. Waste Management 55: 276–287.
El-Fadel M, Findikakis AN and Leckie JO (1989) A numerical model for
methane production in managed sanitary landfills. Waste Management &
Research 7: 31–42.
El-Fadel M, Findikakis ANF and Leckie JO (1997) Environmental impacts of
solid waste landfilling. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 1–25.
Fellner J and Rechberger H (2009) Abundance of 14C in biomass fractions
of wastes and solid recovered fuels. Waste Management 29: 1495–1503.
Francois V, Feuillade G, Skhiri N, et al. (2006) Indicating the parameters of
the state of degradation of municipal solid waste. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 137: 1008–1015.
Garg A, Achari G and Joshi RC (2006) A model to estimate the methane gen-
eration rate constant in sanitary landfills using fuzzy synthetic evaluation.
Waste Management & Research 24: 363–375.
*GIO, CGER and NIES (2016) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
of Japan. Japan: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan, Center for
Global Environmental Research, and National Institute for Environmental
Studies.
Götze R, Boldrin A, Scheutz C, et al. (2016) Physico-chemical characterisa-
tion of material fractions in household waste: overview of data in litera-
ture. Waste Management 49: 3–14.
Govindan SS and Agamuthu P (2014) Quantification of landfill methane
using modified Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s waste
model and error function analysis. Waste Management & Research 32:
1005–1014.
Gunaseelan VN (1997) Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane produc-
tion: a review. Biomass and Bioenergy 13: 83–114.
Haarstrick A, Hempel DC, Ostermann L, et al. (2001) Modelling of the bio-
degradation of organic matter in municipal landfills. Waste Management
& Research 19: 320–331.
Hartz KE and Ham RK (1983) Moisture level and movement effects on meth-
ane production rates in landfill samples. Waste Management & Research
1: 139–145.
Huang Q, Yang Y, Pang X, et al. (2008) Evolution on qualities of leachate
and landfill gas in the semi-aerobic landfill. Journal of Environmental
Sciences 20: 499–504.
IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Vol. 5. Waste. Japan:
IGES.
Ishii K and Furuichi T (2013) Estimation of methane emission rate changes
using age-defined waste in a landfill site. Waste Management 33: 1861–
1869.
Jeon EJ, Bae SJ, Lee DH, et al. (2007) Methane generation potential and
biodegradability of MSW components. In: Eleventh international waste
management and landfill symposium, Sardinia, Italy, 1–5 October 2007.
St. Margherita di Pula, Italy: CISA.
Jeong S, Nam A, Yi S-M, et al. (2015) Field assessment of semi-aerobic
condition and the methane correction factor for the semi-aerobic landfills
provided by IPCC guidelines. Waste Management 36: 197–203.
Jung HG and Vogel KP (1986) Influence of lignin on digestibility of forage
cell wall material. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1703–1712.
19
Kallel A, Matsuto T and Tanaka N (2003) Determination of oxygen con-
sumption for landfilled municipal solid wastes. Waste Management &
Research 21: 346–355.
Kamalan H, Sabour M and Shariatmadari N (2011) A review on available
landfill gas models. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
4: 79–92.
Kaplan P, Decarolis J and Thorneloe S (2009) Is it better to burn or bury waste
for clean electricity generation? Environmental Science & Technology
43: 1711–1717.
Karanjekar RV, Bhatt A, Altouqui S, et al. (2015) Estimating methane emis-
sions from landfills based on rainfall, ambient temperature, and waste
composition: the CLEEN model. Waste Management 46: 389–398.
Kim H and Townsend TG (2012) Wet landfill decomposition rate determi-
nation using methane yield results for excavated waste samples. Waste
Management 32: 1427–1433.
Kim HJ, Matsuto T and Tojo Y (2011) An investigation of carbon release rate
via leachate from an industrial solid waste landfill. Waste Management &
Research 29: 612–621.
Kjeldsen P and Fisher EV (1995) Landfill gas migration: field investigations
at Skellingsted landfill, Denmark. Waste Management & Research 13:
467–484.
Komilis DP (2006) A kinetic analysis of solid waste composting at optimal
conditions. Waste Management 26: 82–91.
Komilis DP and Ham RK (2003) The effect of lignin and sugars to the aerobic
decomposition of solid wastes Waste Management 23: 419–423.
Krause MJ, Chickering GW, Townsend TG, et al. (2016a) Critical review
of the methane generation potential of municipal solid waste. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 46: 1117–1182.
Krause MJ, Chickering GW and Townsend TG. (2016b) Translating landfill
methane generation parameters among first-order decay models. Journal
of the Air & Waste Management Association 66: 1084–1097.
Kumar A and Sharma MP (2014) GHG emission and carbon sequestration
potential from MSW of Indian metro cities. Urban Climate 8: 30–41.
Kumar S, Gaikwad SA, Shekdar AV, et al. (2004) Estimation method for
national methane emission from solid waste landfills. Atmospheric
Environment 38: 3481–3487.
Lamborn J (2012) Observations from using models to fit the gas production of
varying volume test cells and landfills. Waste Management 32: 2353–2363.
Lefebvre X, Pommier S, Åkerman A, et al. (2007) Analysis of the waste
mass degradation degree in the context of functional stability of closed
landfills. In: Eleventh international waste management and landfill sym-
posium, Sardinia, Italy, 1–5 October 2007. St. Margherita di Pula, Italy:
CISA.
Lesteur M, Bellon-Maurel V, Gonzalez C, et al. (2010) Alternative meth-
ods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process
Biochemistry 45: 431–440.
Levis JW and Barlas MA (2011) Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for
discarded solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill greenhouse
gas inventory model. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 5470–
5476.
Lornage R, Redon E and Lagier T (2007) Mass balance of three municipal
solid waste landfilling schemes. In: Eleventh international waste man-
agement and landfill symposium, Sardinia, Italy, 1–5 October 2007. St.
Margherita di Pula, Italy: CISA.
Machado SL, Carvalho MF, Gourc JP, et al. (2009) Methane genera-
tion in tropical landfills: simplified methods and field results. Waste
Management 29: 153–161.
Maciel FJ and Jucá JFT (2011) Evaluation of landfill gas production and
emissions in a MSW large-scale experimental cell in Brazil. Waste
Management 31: 966–977.
Manfredi S, Tonini D, Christensen TH, et al. (2009) Landfilling of waste:
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste
Management & Research 27: 825–836.
Manna L, Zanetti MC and Genon G (1999) Modeling biogas production at
landfill site. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26: 1–14.
Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, et al. (2015) Review on research achievements
of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 45: 540–555.
Matsufuji Y, Hanashima M, Nagano S, et al. (1993) Generation of green-
house effect gases from different landfill types. Engineering Geology 34:
181–187.
20
Matsufuji Y, Tanaka A and Hanashima M (1997) Biodegradation process of
municipal solid waste by semi-aerobic landfill type. Proceedings of the
first Korea-Japan Society of Solid Waste Management 87–94.
Matsuto T, Zhang X, Matsuo T, et al. (2015) Onsite survey on the mechanism
of passive aeration and air flow path in a semi-aerobic landfill. Waste
Management 36: 204–212.
Mehta R, Barlaz MA, Yazdani R, et al. (2002) Refuse decomposition in the
presence and absence of leachate recirculation. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 128: 228–236.
Meima JA, Mora Naranjo N and Haarstrick A (2008) Sensitivity analysis and
literature review of parameters controlling local biodegradation processes
in municipal solid waste landfills. Waste Management 28: 904–918.
Micales JA and Skog KE (1997) The decomposition of forest products
in landfills. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 39:
145–158.
Moora H, Roos I, Kask U, et al. (2017) Determination of biomass content
in combusted municipal waste and associated CO2 emissions in Estonia.
Energy Procedia 128: 222–229.
Moore KJ and Jung HJG (2001) Lignin and fiber digestion. Journal of Range
Management Archives 54: 420–430.
Mor S, Ravindra K, De Visscher A, et al. (2006) Municipal solid waste char-
acterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: a case
study. Science of The Total Environment 371: 1–10.
Mora-Naranjo N, Meima JA, Haarstrick A, et al. (2004) Modelling and
experimental investigation of environmental influences on the acetate
and methane formation in solid waste. Waste Management 24: 763–773.
Mou Z, Scheutz C and Kjeldsen P (2014) Evaluating the biochemical meth-
ane potential (BMP) of low-organic waste at Danish landfills. Waste
Management 34: 2251–2259.
Mou Z, Scheutz C and Kjeldsen P (2015a) Evaluation and application of site-
specific data to revise the first-order decay model for estimating landfill
gas generation and emissions at Danish landfills. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association 65: 686–698.
Mou Z, Scheutz C and Kjeldsen P (2015b) Evaluating the methane generation
rate constant (k value) of low-organic waste at Danish landfills. Waste
Management 35: 170–176.
Nielfa A, Cano R and Fdz-Polanco M (2015) Theoretical methane production
generated by the co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste
and biological sludge. Biotechnology Reports 5: 14–21.
Oonk H (2010) Literature review: methane from landfills. Sustainable
Landfill Foundation.
Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB Jr, et al. (1979) Bioassay for monitoring
biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Research
13: 485–492.
Pan J and Voulvoulis N (2007) The role of mechanical and biological treat-
ment in reducing methane emissions from landfill disposal of munici-
pal solid waste in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association 57: 155–163.
Park JK, Kang JH, Chong YG, et al. (2012a) A study on mass balance
of carbon in a solid waste landfill, Journal of Korea Society of Waste
Management 29: 348–355.
Park JK, Kang JH, Ban JK, et al. (2012b) Developments of greenhouse gas
generation model and estimation method of their parameters for solid
waste landfills. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers 32:
339–406.
Petrovic I (2016) Mini-review of the geotechnical parameters of municipal
solid waste: Mechanical and biological pre-treated versus raw untreated
waste. Waste Management & Research 34: 840–850.
Pommier S, Chenu D, Quintard M, et al. (2007) A logistic model for the
prediction of the influence of water on the solid waste methanization in
landfills. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 97: 473–482.
Puyuelo B, Ponsá S, Gea T, et al. (2011) Determining C/N ratios for typical
organic wastes using biodegradable fractions. Chemosphere 85: 653–659.
Rafizul IM, Howlader MK and Alamgir M (2012) Construction and evalu-
ation of simulated pilot scale landfill lysimeter in Bangladesh. Waste
Management 32: 2068–2079.
Rajaram V, Siddiqui FZ and Khan ME (2012) From landfill gas to energy
– technologies and challenges. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press/
Balkema, pp.77–119.
Waste Management & Research 00(0)
Raposo F, Fernández-Cegrí V, De la Rubia MA, et al. (2011) Biochemical
methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaer-
obic biodegradability using from an international interlaboratory study.
Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology. 86: 1088–1098.
Reddy RK, Hettiarachchi H, Parakalla N, et al. (2009) Hydraulic conduc-
tivity of MSW in landfills. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135:
677–683.
Rittmann BE, Banaszak JE, Cooke A, et al. (2003) Biogeochemical evalu-
ation of mechanisms controlling CaCO3(s) precipitation in landfill lea-
chate-collection system. Journal of Environmental Engineering 129:
723–730.
Sanders WTM, Geerink M, Zeeman G, et al. (2000) Anaerobic hydrolysis
kinetics of particulate substrates. Water Science and Technology 41:
17–24.
Sanderson J, Hettiaratchi P, Hunte C, et al. (2008) Methane balance of a bio-
reactor landfill in Latin America. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association 58: 620–628.
Scharff H and Jacobs J (2006) Applying guidance for methane emission esti-
mation for landfills. Waste Management 26: 417–429.
Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P, Bogner JE, et al. (2009) Microbial methane oxidation
processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste
Management & Research 27: 409–455.
Shelton DR and Tideje JM (1984) General method for determining anaerobic
biodegradation potential. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 47:
850–857.
Siddiqui AA, Richards DJ and Powrie (2013) Biodegradation and flushing of
MBT wastes. Waste Management 33: 2257–2266.
Sil A, Kumar S and Wong JWC (2014) Development of correction factors
for landfill gas emission model using Indian condition to predict methane
emission from landfills. Bioresource Technology 168: 97–99.
Sormunen K, Laurila T and Rintala J (2013) Determination of waste decay
rate for a large Finnish landfill by calibrating methane generation models
on the basis of methane recovery and emissions. Waste Management &
Research 31: 979–985.
Staley BF and Barlaz MA (2009) Composition of municipal solid waste in
the United States and implications for carbon sequestration and methane
yield. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135: 901–909.
Stessel RI and Murphy RJ (1992) A lysimeter study of the aerobic landfill
concept. Waste Management & Research 10: 485–503.
Strömberg S, Nistor M and Liu J (2014) Towards eliminating systematic
errors caused by the experimental conditions in biochemical methane
potential (BMP) tests. Waste Management 34: 1939–1948.
Thompson S, Sawyer J, Bonam R, et al. (2009) Building a better methane
generation model: validating models with methane recovery rates from 35
Canadian landfills. Waste Management 29: 2085–2091.
Tolaymat TM, Green RB, Hater GR, et al. (2010) Evaluation of landfill gas
decay constant for municipal solid waste landfills operated as bioreactors.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 60: 91–97.
Trzcinski AP and Stuckey DC (2012) Determination of the hydrolysis con-
stant in the biochemical methane potential test of municipal solid waste.
Environmental Engineering Science 29: 848–854.
US EPA (2004) Quantification for Exposure: Development of the Emissions
Inventory for the Inhalation Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Valencia R, van der Zon W, Woelders H, et al. (2009) Achieving “Final
Storage Quality” of municipal solid waste in pilot scale bioreactor land-
fills. Waste Management 29: 78–85.
VanGulck JF, Rowe RK, Rittmann BE, et al. (2003) Predicting biogeo-
chemical calcium precipitation in landfill leachate collection systems.
Biodegradation 14: 331–346.
Walker M, Zhang Y, Heaven S, et al. (2009) Potential errors in the quan-
titative evaluation of biogas production in anaerobic digestion process.
Bioresource Technology 100: 6339–6346.
Wang J, Zhu L, Wang Y, et al. (2012) A comparison of different methods for
determining the organic and inorganic carbon content of lake sediment from
two lakes on the Tibetan Plateau. Quaternary International 250: 49–54.
Wang X and Barlaz MA (2016) Decomposition and carbon storage of hard-
wood and softwood branches in laboratory-scale landfills. Science of the
Total Environment 557–558: 355–362.
Park et al.
Wang X, De la Cruz FB, Ximenes F, et al. (2015a) Decomposition and carbon
storage of selected paper products in laboratory-scale landfills. Science of
the Total Environment 532: 70–79.
Wang X, Nagpure AS, DeCarolis JF, et al. (2013a) Using observed data
to improve estimated methane collection from select U.S. landfills.
Environmental Science & Technology 47: 3251–3257.
Wang X, Nagpure AS, DeCarolis JF, et al. (2015b) Characterization of
uncertainty in estimation of methane collection from select US landfills.
Environmental Science & Technology 49: 1545–1551.
Wang X, Padgett JM, Powell JS, et al. (2013b) Decomposition of forest prod-
ucts buried in landfills. Waste Management 33: 2267–2276.
Wang YS, Byrd CS and Barlaz MA (1994) Anaerobic biodegradability of
cellulose and hemicellulose in excavated refuse samples using a bio-
chemical methane potential assay. Journal of Industrial Microbiology 13:
147–153.
Wangyao K, Towprayoon S, Chiemchaisri C, et al. (2010) Application of
the IPCC waste model to solid waste disposal sites in tropical countries:
21
case study of Thailand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 164:
249–261.
Ware A and Power N (2017) Modelling methane production kinetics of com-
plex poultry slaughterhouse wastes using sigmoidal growth functions.
Renewable Energy 104: 50–59.
Ximenes FA, Gardner WD and Cowie AL (2008) The decomposition of
wood products in landfill in Sydney, Australia. Waste Management 28:
2344–2354.
Yazdani R, Barlaz MA, Augenstein D, et al. (2012) Performance evalua-
tion of an anaerobic/aerobic landfill-based digester using yard waste for
energy and compost production. Waste Management 32: 912–919.
Youcai Z, Zhugen C, Qingwen S, et al. (2001) Monitoring and long-term
prediction of refuse compositions and settlement in large-scale landfill.
Waste Management & Research 19: 160–168.
Zhao X, Soong TY, Subbarayan M, et al. (2013) Full-scale field research
and demonstration of septage bioreactor landfill technology. Journal of
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 17: 295–306.