Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Methane emissions from Icelandic landfills – A comparison between

measured and modelled emissions
C. Scheutz a, *, A. Kjeld b, A.M. Fredenslund a
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet, Building 115, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
b
Efla Consulting Engineers, Iceland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study compares methane (CH4) emissions from five Icelandic landfills, quantified using tracer gas dispersion
Tracer gas dispersion to modelled emission rates using the IPCC FOD model. The average CH4 emission rates measured from the
Methane oxidation investigated landfills were 475.4 kg CH4 h− 1 (Álfsnes landfill), 32.5 kg CH4 h− 1 (Fíflholt), 40.8 kg CH4 h− 1
Landfill gas generation
(Gufunes), 9.8 kg CH4 h− 1 (Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga) and 78.4 kg CH4 h− 1 (Stekkjarvík). At three of the landfills
Gas collection
FOD model
(Álfsnes, Fíflholt and Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga), the modelled emission was higher than the measured emission by
factors ranging from 1.1 to 4.8, neglecting any CH4 oxidation in the cover soils. Even though CH4 oxidation might
play a role at some of the investigated landfills, and thus reduce the gap between modelled and measured
emissions, it is likely that the model overestimated CH4 generation due to uncertainties in input model pa­
rameters. Assuming that the measured emissions at the five landfills are representative of all the waste disposed
in Iceland from 2007 to 2016, the measured emission should be extrapolated to 817 kg CH4 h− 1, which is
relatively close to the modelled national emission of 936 kg CH4 h− 1 in 2017. This study showed that the
application of the IPCC FOD model at national level is appropriate for estimating landfill CH4 emissions in
Iceland. CH4 emissions from landfills in Iceland can be reduced by expanding or implementing gas collection or
biocover systems for optimised microbial oxidation.

1. Introduction
The anaerobic decomposition of waste in landfills produces landfill
gas consisting mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). The
global warming potential of CH4 over a 100-year period is 28 times
higher than that of CO2 (not considering climate feedback) (Myhre et al.,
2013). CH4 produced and then released into the atmosphere thus con­
tributes to global warming, and so emissions need to be estimated and
reported in national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories under the United
Nations’ Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). The CO2
produced in landfills originates from biogenic sources (e.g. food, garden,
paper and wood waste), whereby these emissions need not be consid­
ered in national inventories. On a global scale, CH4 emissions from
landfills are estimated to account for about 8% of global anthropogenic
CH4 emissions (Blanco et al., 2014). In Europe, landfills are the second
largest anthropogenic CH4 emission source (accounting for 20% of the
total) (European Environment Agency, 2016).
Total GHG emissions from Iceland were estimated at 4755 kt CO2eq
in 2017 (not considering emissions and removals from land use, land use
change and forestry (LULUCF)), where the waste sector was responsible
for 5% of the total GHG emissions in 2017 (Environment Agency of
Iceland, 2019). Approximately 90% of the waste sector’s emissions were
CH4 emissions from land-based solid waste disposal, with the remaining
emissions arising from wastewater treatment, waste incineration and
the biological treatment of waste, i.e. composting. CH4 emissions from
solid waste disposal make up 35% of the total anthropogenic CH4
emission in Island. Between 1990 and 2017, GHG emissions from solid
waste disposal increased from 158 to 205 kt CO2eq, corresponding to an
increase of 30%, which was caused by the accumulation of degradable
organic carbon in recently established managed, anaerobic solid waste
disposal sites, characterised by higher CH4 production potential than the
unmanaged solid waste disposal sites they succeeded. However, since
2006, emissions from waste disposal have decreased, due to a rapidly
decreasing share of landfilled waste since 2003, aligned with an increase
in CH4 recovery at the largest solid waste disposal site in operation,
serving the capital region of Iceland.
Following the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) guide­
lines for emission reporting, and by applying the first-order degradation

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chas@env.dtu.dk (C. Scheutz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.12.028
Received 13 September 2021; Received in revised form 15 December 2021; Accepted 16 December 2021
Available online 28 December 2021
0956-053X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C. Scheutz et al.
(FOD) model (IPCC, 2006), the emission of landfill CH4 in 2017 was
calculated at 8.2 Gg, corresponding to an emission rate of 936 kg CH4
h− 1 from Icelandic landfills (Environment Agency of Iceland, 2019).
The IPCC FOD model estimates landfill CH4 generation based on
disposed waste amounts and compositions, thus suggesting default
values for degradable organic carbon (DOC) and the CH4 generation rate
constants (k-values) of various waste categories (IPCC, 2006). Landfill
CH4 emissions are estimated by reducing CH4 generation by the fraction
of the CH4 that is collected and the fraction of uncollected CH4 that is
oxidised in the landfill cover soil (Eq. (1)) (IPCC, 2006).
CH4 emitted = CH4 generated − CH4 collected − CH4 oxidised (1)
This approach can lead to considerable errors, due to uncertainties
related to CH4 generation, time collection efficiency variance and the
fraction being oxidised. While CH4 collected at a specific site is often
well-known as collected landfill flow and concentrations are easily
measured, CH4 oxidised in the landfill cover or surrounding soil is un­
known, and estimates in this regard vary widely. For many years, the
IPCC has assumed zero CH4 oxidation, or that 10% of uncollected CH4
was oxidised (IPCC, 2006). Based on a critical literature review of CH4
oxidation rates by Chanton and co-workers (2009), the U.S. EPA
recently updated the GHG Inventory, allowing for an oxidation rate of
up to 35% of the CH4 load to the soil cover, depending on the site-
specific flux of CH4 passing through the soil cover (US EPA, 2013).
An alternative to model-based landfill CH4 emission estimations is to
measure actual CH4 emissions, for which several measuring methods are
available (Mønster et al., 2019). Historically, surface flux chambers have
been used widely, but they are likely to underestimate whole landfill
emission rates, due to the heterogeneous nature of most landfill covers
resulting in sporadic and localised CH4 emission hotspots being the
dominant emission routes. Furthermore, emissions from wells, vents,
etc. are not captured by surface flux chambers; instead whole-site CH4
emission quantifications should be done using methods measuring
downwind of the landfill, such as tracer gas dispersion and differential
absorption LiDAR (DiAL) (Mønster et al., 2019). Both the DiAL and the
tracer gas dispersion methods have been used successfully in a number
of landfill studies (Bourn et al., 2019; Mønster et al., 2014; 2015; Fre­
denslund et al., 2019a). The DiAL method utilises very complicated and
expensive equipment, resulting in relatively high costs, which is a po­
tential barrier for routine measurements (Bourn et al., 2019; Innocenti
et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2011). The tracer gas dispersion method,
which uses more affordable apparatus, has been tested and validated in a
number of studies reported in the scientific literature, and guidelines on
application, data processing and uncertainty assessments have been
presented (Scheutz et al., 2019; Fredenslund et al., 2019b; Mønster et al.,
2014). The Danish Environmental Protection Agency is currently lead­
ing a project to reduce landfill gas emissions in Denmark, involving the
construction of up to 100 biocover systems. Here, the tracer gas
dispersion method is the method of choice for assessing total landfill gas
emissions from each landfill, which requires designing each individual
biocover system and then documenting emission reduction (Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, 2016; Scheutz and Kjeldsen, 2019;
Scheutz et al., 2014; 2011a). Bourne et al. (2019) suggested the landfill
gas collection index approach as a mean for regulating landfill gas
emissions, which uses the ratio of the CH4 collection rate to the sum of
the collection and measured emission rates. In spite of recent de­
velopments, tests and validations of measurement methods, emission
regulations and reporting will in many countries continue to be based on
landfill gas generation and emission modelling. An important aspect of
landfill emission measurements is their use in validating current gas
generation and emission models. To date, only a few studies have
compared modelled landfill emissions with measured emissions, and in
most cases modelled emissions tend to be overestimated (Aghdam et al.,
2018; Cambaliza et al., 2017; De la Cruz et al., 2016; Mou et al., 2015;
Spokas et al., 2015; 2021; Bogner et al., 2014; Scheutz et al., 2011b;
2011c; Scharff and Jacobs, 2006).
137
Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145
The primary objective of this project was to quantify CH4 emissions
from five landfills located in the western part of Iceland: Álfsnes, Fíf­
lholt, Gufunes, Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga and Stekkjarvík. Landfill CH4 emis­
sion rates were quantified using the tracer gas dispersion method and
then compared to modelled emissions, using the FOD model suggested
by the IPCC, which is also used in emission reporting in the National
Inventory Report for Iceland (Environment Agency of Iceland, 2019).
Interestingly, waste landfilled at four of the five sites combined (Álfsnes,
Fíflholt, Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga and Stekkjarvík) comprised approximately
78% of all traditionally landfilled waste in Iceland (considering the
period of 2007–2016) (Table A1 in Supporting Information (SI)),
therefore offering a unique opportunity to compare nationally reported
landfill CH4 emissions with the combined measured CH4 emission rate.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Landfill site descriptions
CH4 emissions were quantified from five landfills located in the
western part of Iceland: Álfsnes, Fíflholt, Gufunes, Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga
and Stekkjarvík landfills (Fig. 1). The five landfills varied in terms of
size, type of disposed waste, age and other factors (Table 1). In the
following, the landfills are described briefly.
Álfsnes. The Álfsnes landfill (64◦ 11′ 19.37′′ N, 21◦ 44′ 34.53′′ W) has
been in operation since 1991 and serves primarily municipalities in the
capital area. Since 1997 the site has had a gas recovery system in place,
and the collected gas is sold as fuel for vehicles. The landfill cover layer
is 2–3 m and is composed of silt, sand and gravel (0.002–4 mm), while
waste thickness is mostly 20 ± 10 m but less at the peripheries. Between
1991 and the end of 2016, approximately 2,500,000 tonnes of waste has
been landfilled.
Fíflholt. The Fíflholt landfill has been in operation since 1999 and is
located in western Iceland (64◦ 41′ 36.74′′ N, 22◦ 8′ 46.86′′ W), just south
of the Snæfellsnes peninsula. The surrounding area is lowland and
covered with rivers, wetlands and small lakes. The landfill area is
approximately 40 ha in size, of which landfill cells occupy about 11 ha,
and a total of 8 ha had been filled by the end of 2017. Since late 2012
and up to the current day, cell no. 4 has been in the process of being
filled. Before that, three cells (1–3) were filled, 4–7 m deep. The
currently active cell is approximately 8 m deep. Between 1999 and end
of 2016, a total of 177,000 tonnes of waste has been landfilled. A gas
collection system was installed in 2018 after the completion of this
study.
Gufunes. The landfill at Gufunes (64◦ 8′ 45.52′′ N, 21◦ 48′ 46.37′′ W)
was in use from 1967 to 1991, and it received waste from the capital
area, including municipal and commercial waste, scrap vehicles, wood,
concrete, scrap metal, soil, waste from the food industry and hazardous
Fig. 1. Locations of the five investigated landfills.
C. Scheutz et al. Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145

Table 1
Landfill site characteristics, including total waste landfilled (by end of year 2016).
Landfill Disposal Amount of waste Waste composition or waste categories Area of Filling Cover soil (type and Gas
period disposed until the received landfill height height) collection
end of 2016 (Gg) (ha) (m) (yes/no)

Álfsnes 1991- 2476 Municipal waste, commercial waste, ~ 25 ha 10–30 2–3 m gravel, sand Yes (~205 kg
slaughterhouse waste, sludge and peat CH4 h− 1)c
Fíflholt 1999- 177 Municipal waste, commercial waste, wood, ~ 8 ha 4–8 1 m local soil Nob
slaughterhouse waste, sludge, building
waste
Gufunes 1967–1991 Unknown – Municipal waste, commercial waste, scrap ~ 60 ha 4–12 North part: up to No
estimated at 1000 ± vehicles, wood, concrete, scrap metal, soil, 10–15 m local soil,
500 waste from food industry and hazardous south part ~ 2–5 m
waste local soil
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga 1996–2009 366 Municipal waste, commercial waste, garden 6.6 5–10 1 m local soil No
waste, wood, slaughterhouse waste, fish
waste, building waste, upholstery waste
Stekkjarvík 2011- 90 Municipal waste, commercial waste, 5-6a 10–20 1 m local soil Nob
slaughterhouse waste, wood, building waste,
sludge, inert waste
a
Around one third of the designated landfill area has been used. b Landfill gas extraction began in 2018. c The CH4 collection rate recorded on August 9th and 11th,
2017.

waste. There is no available information on either the amount of waste
landfilled during this time or the waste composition of municipal or
commercial waste from this period. A best guess is that about 1,000,000
tonnes of waste has been landfilled at Gufunes over the years. The
northern part of the landfill was in use from 1967 to 1978, while the
southern part was in use from 1978 to 1991. Oil and other hazardous
waste was landfilled along with general waste; however, special pits
were designated for this type of hazardous waste from 1984 until
closure. The landfill has no leachate collection system, and no gas
collection system, and is situated at the coast. The disposed waste is
expected to be influenced by tidal water flowing in and out of the waste
mass. An increase in CH4 emission is expected as water enters the landfill
and replaces landfill gas in the waste mass, and a decrease in CH4
emission is expected when water withdraws. The difference between
high and low tide is approximately 3–4 m in the Reykjavik area. Landfill
gas measurements from boreholes, conducted in 2008 and repeated in
2017, indicate that the landfill is still in the methanogenic phase.
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga. The Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga landfill is located in
the south of Iceland (63◦ 56′ 23.03′′ N, 21◦ 8′ 8.31′′ W) and was in use
between 1996 and 2009. The total area of the site is approximately 31
ha, about 6.6 ha of which is occupied by nine landfill cells. Waste density
is estimated to be 750–900 kg m− 3. A synthetic liner and a leachate pipe
collection system sit at the bottom of every cell. The final cover is made
of an approximately 20 cm-thick layer of gravel and sand overlain by an
approximately 80 cm-thick layer of local soil. Between 1996 and 2009, a
total of 366,430 tonnes of waste was landfilled, with all waste dumped
and compacted on site. A daily cover consisted of local soil and uphol­
stery waste. Of the nine cells, seven have widths of 25–30 m, lengths of
160–180 m and two are 50 m-wide and 240–260 m-long. Cell depths are
5–10 m. No gas collection system is installed.
Stekkjarvík. Stekkjarvík landfill is situated in the north of Iceland
(65◦ 42′ 58.91′′ N, 20◦ 16′ 12.06′′ W), and the site has been in operation
since 2011 and it is still in operation today. All waste is dumped in a
designated cell and compacted, before being covered with soil on a daily
basis. The total area of the landfill site is approximately 30 ha, and a
landfill cell of 5–6 ha is currently one-third filled. Between 2011 and end
of 2016, a total of 88,000 tonnes of waste has been landfilled. A gas
collection system was installed in 2018 after the completion of this
study.
2.2. Methane generation and emission modelling
CH4 emissions from each landfill site were modelled following the
IPCC Guideline, using the first-order decay (FOD) method, which takes
into account the time factors of the degradation process and produces
annual CH4 emission estimates that reflect this process. Emission factors
and parameters used to calculate CH4 generation are provided in the SI
(Tables A2-A4). CH4 generation was estimated for four of the five
landfills registering waste amounts and categories, i.e. for the Álfsnes,
Fíflholt, Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga and Stekkjarvík sites. CH4 generation and
emissions were also modelled for the Gufunes landfill. The modelled
emission is highly uncertain as there is no registered information on
waste amounts or waste types placed into the landfill during its opera­
tion. A best guess of the disposed waste amount of 1,000,000 tonnes and
a waste composition assumed to equal the average waste composition of
the four landfills was used in the model. Table 2 shows the total amount
of waste disposed in each landfill, as well as distribution by waste
category. Annual disposed waste amounts and compositions are shown
in SI (Tables A9-12). The model assumed that waste is deposited at the
beginning of the year with an average lag of six months and that the
landfill is strictly anaerobic, so all decomposition occurs under anaer­
obic conditions. At all sites, the IPCC default value of 0 for CH4 oxidation
was assumed, due to a lack of information about cover conditions. For
Álfsnes (the only site with a gas collection facility), CH4 emissions were
calculated by subtracting the collected gas from the generated CH4,
whereas for the three other sites CH4 emitted equalled CH4 generated.
2.3. Landfill emission measurements
CH4 emissions were measured using the tracer gas dispersion
method, which is a ground-based remote-sensing method based on the
assumption that a tracer gas released at an emission source such as a
landfill will disperse into the atmosphere in the same way as the gas that
needs to be measured. To simulate the emission source, tracer gas is
continuously released at the site at a constant rate, while the downwind
plume is traversed several times, to reduce any uncertainty in the
measurement. The measured emission is reported as an average value
calculated from the plume traverses. The variability on a quantification
was estimated as the standard error of the mean. To accurately simulate
the source of the target gas emission, each measurement includes an
initial screening of the site, in order to determine the area(s) from where
the target gas will be emitted. The tracer gas used for the measurements
in this study was acetylene (C2H2), each supplied in 21L gas bottles
containing about 3.2 kg acetylene. Flow from the bottles were controlled
using calibrated flow meters (Sho-Rate, Brooks Instruments, Holland),
while the flow rate was controlled by weighing the gas bottles before
and after tracer gas release. A flow rate of around 1.0 kg C2H2 h− 1 from
each bottle was used, and the number of tracer gas release points varied
from one to three. Concentrations of CH4 and tracer gas were measured
using a cavity ring-down spectrometer (G2203, Picarro Inc., USA),

138
C. Scheutz et al. Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145

Table 2
Total amount of disposed waste distributed by waste category, considering the whole disposal period.
Landfill Total amount of disposed waste until the Distribution by waste category (%)
end of 2016 (Gg)
Food Garden Paper Wood and Textile Nappies Sewage sludge Inert Industrial
waste straw

Álfsnes 2476 12.3 0.2 10.3 0.2 1.2 1.7 2.9 11.6 59.3
Fíflholt 177 22.4 0.7 23.9 15.3 2.6 3.2 1.7 19.2 11.0
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga 366 22.7 0.5 12.5 0.5 1.4 4.2 0.0 31.6 26.8
Stekkjarvík 90 22.6 0.3 9.4 2.9 1.0 1.3 0.6 11.5 50.4
Gufunesa 1000 20.0 0.4 14.1 4.7 1.6 2.6 1.3 18.5 36.9
a
As no information about waste composition was available for Gufunes, the waste composition was assumed to equal the average waste composition of the four
landfills.

which was installed in a small van, from where atmospheric gas was
pumped into the analyser, with the intake placed on the roof approxi­
mately 2 m above ground level. The measurement frequency of the in­
strument was approximately 2 Hz, and the precisions of the CH4 and
acetylene measurements were 0.48 ppb and 0.04 ppb, respectively, thus
enabling the detection of quite small variations in atmospheric con­
centrations of these gasses. A GNSS system was used to log the position
of the measurements (R330 GNSS receiver and A43 antenna, Hemi­
sphere, Canada). The method and instrumentation used are described in
more detail in Mønster et al. (2015; 2014).
All campaigns were performed in the period July 28th to August
15th, 2017. Table 3 lists the dates and times of the measurements, tracer
gas release details, measurement distances and atmospheric conditions.
The atmospheric pressure tendency is described as increasing,
decreasing or stable, whereby the rate of increase or decrease is calcu­
lated as the average change in the 12-hour period leading up to the end
of the measurement campaign. For each landfill, screenings of ambient
concentrations of CH4 were performed at the sites, to evaluate the main
CH4 emission areas, using the mobile analytical platform on drivable
roads/tracks. Also, similar screenings were done in the surrounding
areas, to assess if any other nearby sources of CH4 emission were pre­
sent, which could affect measurement at the landfills. In each campaign,
the downwind plume was traversed 20 times. The number of plume
traverses included in the calculations differed for each measurement
(Table 3). The reasons for discarding plume traverses were typically
overly small concentration differences in either the CH4 or the C2H2
tracer in the downwind plume compared to background values (signal to
noise ratio < ~3), incomplete plume traverses, improper mixing of the
tracer and CH4 gases, due to the tracer gas not being released or fully
developed, changing wind direction, etc.
The uncertainty of a quantification consists of the uncertainty of the
measurement method as well as the variability of the individual quan­
tification and was calculated as the square root of the sum of the squares
of the uncertainty of the method and the variability of a quantification
(Fredenslund et al. 2019b). The uncertainty of the measurement method
was previously assessed to be 14.9% by establishment of an error budget
(Fredenslund et al. 2019b). Considering the average variability of all
quantifications, the average uncertainty of the quantifications per­
formed in Iceland was 18.2% and thus we applied this uncertainty to the
data.

Table 3
Details on the measurement campaigns and measured CH4 emission rates.
Landfill Date and time of Wind Atmospheric Atmospheric Avg. tracer Distance from Number of Measured Average
measurement speed (m pressure pressure gas release landfill to transects CH4 CH4
(first to last s− 1), (mbar), tendency rate (kg C2H2 measuring included in emission ± emission
plume traverse) direction temperature (mbar h− 1) h− 1), transect (km) calculation SEMa (kg (kg CH4
(◦ C) (number of CH4 h− 1) h− 1)
release
points)

Álfsnes Aug. 9, 2017, 5, WNW 1017, 10 Increase, 0.4 1.8 (2) 3.0 12 384.5 ± 21.0 475.4
12:33–13:53b
Aug. 11, 2017, 5, NW 1009, 10 Increase, 0.2 2.5 (2) 2.7 15 566.3 ± 31.2
21:48–22:38
Fíflholt Jul. 31, 2017, 4, SW 1014, 12 Increase, 0.2 0.7 (1) 1.5 18 31.5 ± 1.0 32.5
20:12–21:10
Aug. 3, 2017, 3, SW 1008, 11 Decrease, − 0.2 0.8 (1) 1.0 17 33.6 ± 1.1
21:58–22:38
Gufunes Jul. 30, 2017, 2, NE 1011, 14 Increase, 0.3 2.7 (3) 2.0 5 14.8 ± 1.6 40.8
20:46–21:10c
Aug. 1, 2017, 4, NW 1014, 12 Stable, 0 0.9 (1) 1.1 14 45.4 ± 9.4
19:56–20:42c
Aug. 3, 2017, 3, NW 1009, 11 Decrease, − 0.2 2.0 (3) 1.1 15 62.2 ± 7.6
16:43–18:14d
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga Aug. 11, 2017, 8, NW 1010, 12 Increase, 0.3 0.9 (1) 2.6 13 7.3 ± 0.7 9.8
18:30–19:33
Aug. 12, 2017, 3, NW 1011, 9 Stable, 0 1.2 1) 2.6 7 12.4 ± 0.9
22:43–23:09
Stekkjarvík Aug. 14, 2017, 3, NE 1006, 11 Stable, 0 1.0 (1) 0.7 8 102.3 ± 15.8 78.4
15:31–16:07b
Aug. 15, 2017, 3, N 1003, 14 Stable, 0 1.2 (1) 0.7 15 54.5 ± 6.0
14:43–15:16b
a b
SEM = Standard error of the mean (sample standard deviation of observed emission rates divided by the square root of the number of plume traverses). Mea­
surement performed during operation. c Midway to high tide. d Low tide.

139
C. Scheutz et al.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Landfill methane emission rates
Table 3 summarises the results of the measurements of total CH4
emission rates from the five landfills. Figures showing the results of
measurements of atmospheric CH4 concentrations at the landfills, and
examples of cross-plume measurements of atmospheric concentrations
of CH4 are included in SI (Figure A1-A11). Average CH4 emissions from
the five investigated landfills were between 9.8 and 475.4 kg CH4 h− 1.
Some variation was seen in CH4 emission rates when repeating mea­
surements at the same landfill. Landfill emissions can be highly dynamic
and are influenced by weather conditions, especially changes in atmo­
spheric pressure, wind, precipitation and temperature (controlling CH4
oxidation) (Scheutz et al., 2009). Furthermore, emission dynamics are
expected to be site-specific, depending on landfill design (e.g. deposited
waste amounts, cover conditions, etc.), and operation (e.g. waste filling,
compaction, etc.) (Scheutz et al., 2009). Temporal variability of landfill
CH4 emissions is often caused by changes in atmospheric conditions, and
it has been reported how both pressure changes and absolute pressure
within a few hours can lead to fluctuations (e.g. Christophersen et al.,
2001; Czepiel et al., 2003; Fredenslund et al., 2010; Gebert and
Groengroeft, 2006; Rachor et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2014). Most of the
studies reporting on temporal emission variation were carried out at
landfills without active gas collection, or even at sites with landfill gas
venting (intended or unintended). However, also at landfills with active
gas collection, emissions have been found to vary significantly over time
and to be related to changes in atmospheric conditions such as baro­
metric pressure changes and changes in wind speed and direction (Rees-
White et al., 2019; Aghdam et al., 2019; Fjelsted, et al., 2019). In gen­
eral, the temporal variations observed at the five investigated landfills
were in line with what has seen at sites in previous studies, where
decreasing atmospheric pressure can lead to increases in gas emissions
and vice versa.
Álfsnes. Álfsnes landfill, which serves the capital region of Iceland,
was found to be the largest source of CH4 emission (in average 475 kg
CH4 h− 1) among the investigated landfills. At Álfsnes, on-site measure­
ment of atmospheric CH4 concentrations suggested that most of the
landfill gas was emitted from the central area of the site (Fig. A1 in SI),
where air sampled from 2 m above ground was found to contain up to 96
ppm CH4 above background level (1.88 ppm). Screenings of CH4 con­
centrations at the landfill and in the surrounding area indicated that the
landfill constituted the dominant source of CH4 emission, whereby the
measurements were likely unaffected by nearby sources of the same gas
discharge, such as farms (Fig. A2 in SI). Correlation between measured
CH4 and tracer gas concentrations downwind from the landfill was
another strong indicator that the observed CH4 plume originated from
the landfill (Fig. A3 in SI). At Álfsnes landfill, both measurements were
performed under increasing atmospheric pressure. The highest recorded
emission (566.3 kg CH4 h− 1) was observed when the rate of increase in
pressure was the lowest (0.2 mbar h− 1), while the lowest emission
(384.5 kg CH4 h− 1) was observed when the rate of increase in pressure
was highest (0.4 mbar h− 1) (Table 3). At both measurement campaigns,
the landfill gas collection system at Álfsnes collected approximately 205
kg CH4 h− 1 (average daily rate), which corresponded to a CH4 recovery
efficiency of 30%, assuming that CH4 generation (680 kg CH4 h− 1)
equalled the measured average CH4 emission (475 kg CH4 h− 1) plus
recorded CH4 collected (205 kg CH4 h− 1), thus neglecting any CH4
oxidation.
Fíflholt. The main source of CH4 emissions at Fíflholt landfill was the
active filling area at the site (Fig. A4 in SI). Atmospheric concentrations
of CH4 of up to 10 ppm were observed near the filling area. Even though
the two measurements at Fíflholt were performed under quite different
conditions with regards to rises and falls in atmospheric pressure, the
two measured emission rates were quite similar at 31.5 and 33.6 kg CH4
h− 1, respectively. An explanation for this finding may be that emissions
140
Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145
from this site occur mainly from the uncovered, active part, which
causes the emission rate to be less sensitive to atmospheric pressure
changes. No other sources of CH4 emission were observed in the vicinity
of the landfill.
Gufunes. At Gufunes landfill, the lowest emission (14.8 kg CH4 h− 1)
was seen when pressure increased, and the highest emission (62.2 kg
CH4 h− 1) was seen in decreasing pressure conditions. Under stable
pressure, the emission rate (40.8 kg CH4 h− 1) was near to the average
value of the three measurement campaigns (45.4 kg CH4 h− 1). Of the
five landfills in this study, the measured CH4 emission rates at Gufunes
were found to vary the most between measurement campaigns. An
explanation for this variation may be that the emissions at Gufunes were
relatively low compared to the size of the site (Table 4), indicating a low
gas generation probably due to the age of the waste at the site. A low gas
generation combined with a shallow waste mass may increase the
impact of barometric pressure changes on gas emissions as landfill gas
accumulated in the waste body is more quickly emptied and more slowly
regenerated. As an example, a drop in the barometric pressure may
result in an immediate increase in emitted CH4, however, if the gas
generation is low it will take longer time before the gas pressure inside
the waste body increases and surpasses the pressure of the surroundings
and emissions bounce back up to the same level as before the pressure
drop. Another factor that could also influence temporal variations in
emissions and thus may impose further complexity is the variation in
tidal water flowing in and out of the waste as explained in section 2.1.
The highest CH4 emission was measured at low tides and during a
decreasing barometric pressure, whereas the two others were measured
during mid-level to high tidal water events and increasing or stable
pressure conditions. It is unknown to which extent the tidal flows have
influenced the emission at the exact time of our measurements.
Elevated atmospheric CH4 concentrations were measured at many
locations on the landfill, including an area used for composting garden
waste (Fig. A6 in SI). It was not possible to separate CH4 emitted from
the compost from landfill CH4, and so the emission rates for Gufunes
listed in Table 3 should be considered as the sum of the landfill’s CH4
and CH4 resulting from garden waste composting. It is well known that
composting can generate and emit CH4 (Mønster et al., 2015, Andersen
et al., 2010), and in this regard CH4 emissions between 2.9 and 28.0 CH4
h− 1 from Danish composting plants treating garden waste have been
observed (Aghdam et al., 2018; Mønster et al., 2015; Andersen et al.,
2010). Danish composting plants mainly treat garden waste in open
windrows, but a few plants also receive sludge and kitchen waste.
Composting plants co-composting garden waste with sludge and kitchen
waste could expect to have higher emissions in comparison to plants
only treating garden waste. The amount of material, the size of the
compost windrows and the turning frequency will also influence CH4
generation and emission.
There are two composting areas at Gufunes. At the one located on-
site, <500 tonnes of compost is generated annually, and this is made
primarily from grass material (50%), wood chips and manure (primarily
deep litter) (Skipulagsstofnun, 2018). The other composting site, located
north of the landfill (delineated by the blue line in Fig. A6 in SI), used
1,720 tonnes of biodegradable waste, i.e. food waste, manure and wood
material, for the production of compost in 2017 (Íslenska gámafélagið,
2017). The composting process takes approximately 6 months, with a
turning frequency of about one month, so at any given time approxi­
mately 1,000 tonnes is being composted at these two sites combined.
Based on observations, CH4 emissions from the composting activities at
the composting area located on site Gufunes would be expected to be in
the low end of the range of emission rates measured at Danish com­
posting plants. This assessment is based on the CH4 concentrations
recorded in the composting area and the type (mainly woody material,
grass and straw) and amount of material, as well as the size of the
windows (max. 1 m high) at the site. A best guess is that the CH4
emission from the on-site composting area is < 5 kg h− 1. The composting
site north of Gufunes landfill was not inspected, as it was not accessible
C. Scheutz et al. Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145

Table 4
Measured average total CH4 emissions, normalised according to area and waste amounts.
1
Landfill Landfill area Waste amount Average, measured CH4 Normalised CH4 emission, Normalised CH4 emission, amount (g CH4 h− tonne
(ha) (Gg) emission area waste-1)
(kg CH4 h− 1) (g CH4 h− 1 m− 2)

Álfsnes 25 2476 475.4 1.90 0.19

Fíflholt 8 177 32.5 0.41 0.18
Gufunes 60 ~1000 40.8 0.07 0.04
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga 6.6 366 9.8 0.15 0.03
Stekkjarvík 2 90 78.4 3.92 0.87

during the designated measurement periods. No significant emission

Table 5
was observed from this area during screenings of its surroundings. An
Landfill CH4 emission rates (measured by the tracer gas dispersion method or the
estimation of CH4 emissions can be made based on the amount of ma­
differential absorption lidar (DiAL) technique), normalised according to area
terial treated at the two sites. According to the National Inventory and waste amounts reported in the literature.
Report for Iceland, 21.7 kt of waste was composted in 2017, resulting in
Reference Country Number Range of Range of Range of
an estimated CH4 emission of 0.087 kt CH4 or 9.9 kg h− 1 for the entire
of measured normalised normalised
country (Environment Agency of Iceland, 2019). The two sites at landfills CH4 CH4 CH4
Gufunes handle about 2.0–2.5 kt of material per year, which is about emissions emission, emission,
10% of all composted waste in Iceland. Using the national emission (kg CH4 area amount
h− 1) (g CH4 h− 1 (g CH4 h− 1
estimate, the CH4 emission is thus about 1 kg h− 1 at the two sites
m− 2) tonne waste-
combined, which is in line with the best guess above. Based on these 1
)
considerations, it is evident that the CH4 emission from the composting
Mønster Denmark 15 2.6–60.8 0.74–13.2 0.18–1.19
made up only a small fraction (<2%) of the total CH4 emission measured
et al.,
from the landfill. 2015;
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga. Most of the Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga landfill was not Scheutz
accessible for atmospheric CH4 screening at the time of measurement, et al.,
2011b;
and as a result insights into the distribution of emissions at the site are
2011c
limited. The measured emission rates from Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga varied Aghdam Denmark 2 29.1–49.6 0.93–1.58 0.07–0.12
between 7.4 and 12.3 kg CH4 h− 1, with the highest rate measured during et al.,
stable atmospheric pressure and the lowest rate during an increase in 2018
atmospheric pressure. Börjesson Sweden 8 20–357 3.65–20.6 1.69–10.9
et al.,
Stekkjarvík. The measured emission rates from Stekkjarvik were
2009
between 102.3 and 54.5 kg CH4 h− 1. The relatively large difference in Bourn UK 15 11–721 – –
CH4 emissions between the two measurements at Stekkjarvik landfill et al.,
was probably not caused by changes in barometric pressure, since both 2019
measurements were performed under stable pressure conditions. The Mosher US 5 170–1289 23–130 1.56–8.85
et al.,
difference may partly be due to variations in activities at the site (e.g. 1999
waste filling, compaction and daily covering), since it is currently in This study Iceland 5 9.8–475.4 0.07–1.90 0.03–0.89
operation and the screening of ambient CH4 concentrations suggested
that majority of the emissions occurred from the active section of the site
(in particularly the filling area), located in the north-western part were seen at four of the UK sites. Mosher et al. (1999) reported CH4
(Fig. A10 in SI). Landfill gas pump tests showed a collection rate of ~ emission rates of 170 to 1289 kg CH4 h− 1 from five U.S. landfills, while
30–50 kg CH4 h− 1 (EFLA, 2018) clearly indicating a significant gas Börjesson et al. (2009) reported landfill emissions of 20 to 357 kg CH4
generation as also indicated by the measured emission rates. h− 1 from eight Swedish landfills.
At the three landfill sites in operation on-site CH4 screenings Normalising the measured emissions per area of the landfill and per
(Álfsnes, Fíflholt and Stekkjarvík) indicated significant emissions from disposed waste mass in this study resulted in normalised emission rates
uncovered and/or active areas (filling area), which is in line with find­ of 0.07–3.92 g CH4 h− 1 m− 2 and 0.03–0.89 g CH4 h− 1 tonne waste-1,
ings by Cambaliza et al. (2017) and Cusworth et al. (2020). Table 5 which are comparable to the range of Danish emission rates (0.74–13.2 g
compiles landfill CH4 emission rates measured by the tracer gas CH4 h− 1 m− 2, and 0.07–1.19 g CH4 h− 1 tonne waste-1) but lower than the
dispersion method or the differential absorption lidar (DiAL) technique. Swedish emission rates (3.65–20.6 g CH4 h− 1 m− 2, and 1.69–10.9 g CH4
Similar to the tracer gas dispersion method, DiAL provides whole landfill h− 1 tonne waste-1) and the US emissions rates (23–130 g CH4 h− 1 m− 2,
site emission rates. The CH4 emissions measured at Fíflholt, Gufunes and and 1.54–8.88 g CH4 h− 1 tonne waste-1) (Table 4).
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga were within the range of emissions measured at
Danish landfills (>20 sites) (2.6 to 60.8 kg CH4 h− 1) (Aghdam et al., 3.2. Comparison of measured and modelled methane emission rates
2018; Mønster et al., 2015; Scheutz et al. 2011b; 2011c) (Table 5).
Emissions from Danish landfills are expected to be lower than for The combined average CH4 emission from the five investigated
landfills in many other countries due to a national ban on landfilling of landfills was 637.0 kg CH4 h− 1, approximately 75% of which was made
organic waste dating back to 1997. In addition, Danish landfills are often up by Álfsnes. The combined measured emission compares well with the
relatively small and shallow. national reported landfill CH4 emission, especially when considering
CH4 emissions measured at 15 landfills in the UK showed an emission that the landfilled waste at four of the five investigated sites (Álfsnes,
range of 11 to 721 kg CH4 h− 1 (Bourn et al., 2019). Out of the 15 Fíflholt, Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga and Stekkjarvík) comprised approximately
investigated landfills, seven had emissions below 100 kg CH4 h− 1, while 78% on average of all traditionally landfilled waste in Iceland (excluding
two had emissions between 100 and 200 kg CH4 h− 1 and six had emis­ seashore deposition of inert industrial waste) when considering the
sions from 200 kg CH4 h− 1 and above (Bourn et al., 2019). CH4 emis­ period 2007–2016, or about 45–50% of accumulated waste landfilled in
sions (400 to 600 kg CH4 h− 1) comparable to those measured at Álfsnes Iceland from 1991 to 2016 (Table A1 in SI). Assuming that the measured

141
C. Scheutz et al.
combined emission at the five landfills is representative of all of the
waste disposed in Iceland in the period 2007–2016, the emission would
be 817 kg CH4 h− 1 (=637/0.78), which is relatively close to the
modelled national figure of 936 kg CH4 h− 1.
At three of the landfills (Álfsnes, Fíflholt and Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga) the
estimated emission was higher than the measured average emission. The
largest difference between the estimate (46.8 kg CH4 h− 1) and mea­
surement (9.8 kg CH4 h− 1) was observed for Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga, where
the estimate was 4.8 times higher than the average measured CH4
emission. This landfill contains a higher fraction of inert waste
compared to the other landfills and used shredder waste for the daily
cover (Table 2). It is possible that the higher fraction of inorganic waste
increased uncertainty in gas generation modelling. Local weather con­
ditions, e.g. high levels of annual precipitation (>1000 mm) at Kirkju­
ferjuhjáleiga (and also at Álfsnes), may also possibly have led to a
shorter half-life for different waste categories, which in turn could affect
emission rates (waste degrades faster than predicted in the modelling).
In addition, the low level of CH4 generation relative to surface area
could result in a higher fraction of oxidised CH4. For Álfsnes and Fíflholt,
the estimated CH4 emissions were about 1.1 and 1.8 times higher than
the measured emissions, respectively (Fig. 2). Had default national pa­
rameters been used to model the emissions at Álfsnes (Table A6 in SI),
the estimated result would have been lower than the measured emis­
sions (by a factor of 1.3).
At Stekkjarvík, the estimated emission was lower (a factor of 1.9)
than the measured emission, and here as well as at Álfsnes, the ratio of
the waste category “Industrial waste” to total waste was relatively high,
sitting at between 50 and 70% for the past years. This waste category,
classified locally as “mixed commercial waste from industry,” is very
heterogeneous by nature and can sometimes not be differentiated from
mixed municipal waste (Environment Agency of Iceland, 2019). Using
default parameters for this waste category to model emissions, partic­
ularly at these sites, may lead to an underestimation of emissions. In
addition, Stekkjarvík has received significant amounts of slaughterhouse
waste, which might have a higher CH4 potential than what was used in
the model, where it was characterised as food waste. Consequently,
better input model parameters for the above waste categories may lead
to better estimations.
The measured emission at Gufunes compared reasonably well with
the modelled emission considering that both numbers were associated
with high uncertainty - the modelled rate due to limited waste infor­
mation and the measured rate due to high emission variation between
the three measuring days.
In summary, the divergence between the measured emissions and
model predictions may be caused by uncertainty in 1) model para­
metrisation or 2) the measured emission rates. Uncertainties in modelled
gas emissions are related to deposited waste amounts and compositions,
800
Emission (kg CH4 h-1)
475.4 545.0
600
400
200
78.4
32.5 58.2 40.8 33.1 9.8
46.8
0 are obtained, corresponding to oxidised CH4 fractions of 0.13, 0.44 and
Average, measured emission Estimated emission 2017
Fig. 2. Comparisons of measured and estimated CH4 emissions, using the IPCC
FOD model. The average uncertainty of the measured CH4 quantitation was
18.2% this included the method uncertainty and the average variability on the
measurements.
Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145
organic waste content, CH4 generation potential and degradation ki­
netics, CH4 oxidation in the landfill cover or surrounding soil (assumed
to be zero in the modelled estimates), etc. Very few studies have
compared measured CH4 emissions (using whole-site emission mea­
surement methods such as the tracer gas dispersion method) to modelled
emissions (Aghdam et al., 2018; Cambaliza et al., 2017; De la Cruz et al.,
2016; Mou et al., 2015; Spokas et al., 2015; Bogner et al. 2014; Scheutz
et al., 2011b; 2011c; Scharff and Jacobs, 2006). In general, though, it is
not uncommon that CH4 generation and emissions based on IPCC
modelling tend to overestimate emissions (e.g. De la Cruz et al., 2016;
Scheutz et al., 2011b; 2011c, Mou et al., 2015), not only because the
IPCC uses a conservative estimation approach intended for consistent
national emission reporting, but also because waste compositions have
changed in many Western countries due to increased incineration and
recycling. This is particularly the case for Danish landfills, where the
composition has changed significantly to mainly non-combustible, low-
organic waste being landfilled today, such as shredder waste, street-
cleaning waste, soils, etc. Moreover, since 1997, there has been a ban
on the disposal of organic household waste in Denmark. Mou et al.
(2015) estimated the CH4 generated from low-organic waste degrada­
tion at four Danish landfills, using three first-order decay (FOD) landfill
gas (LFG) generation models (LandGEM, IPCC and Afvalzorg). In gen­
eral, the single-phase model LandGEM resulted in significant over­
estimation, because its default biochemical CH4 potential (BMP) and
CH4 generation rate constant (k) values were too high to handle low
organic waste scenarios. In addition, all three models significantly
overestimated CH4 generation and emissions in comparison to emissions
measured using a tracer dispersion method, especially the LandGEM and
the IPCC models. However, the results also showed that using a multi-
phase model (Afvalzorg) and site-specific input parameters instead of
default values significantly improved the models’ estimated gas gener­
ation results (Mou et al., 2015). A similar conclusion was drawn by
Aghdam et al. (2018), who found good agreement between measured
and modelled emissions when using site-specific input model parame­
ters. De la Cruz et al. (2016) compared modelled emissions using four
GHG emission reporting protocols, including the IPCC model with
measured emission datasets collected over three calendar years from a
young landfill with no gas collection system. The models consistently
overestimated annual CH4 emissions by a factor ranging from 4 − 31.
Mønster et al. (2015) showed that for 15 Danish landfills, model-
predicted emissions, on average, were a factor of five greater than the
measured emissions. Similarly, Green et al. (2012) conducted emission
measurements at four closed U.S. landfills and reported that model-
predicted emissions were greater than the measurements by a factor
ranging from two to seven.
3.3. The potential influence of methane oxidation
So far, we assumed that CH4 oxidation in the landfill cover is
724.2
637.0 negligible (CH4 generation = CH4 emitted + CH4 recovered). Some of
the discrepancy between measured and modelled emissions could
potentially be caused by CH4 oxidation. Assuming that the modelled CH4
generation and measured emission rates are both valid, CH4 oxidation
can be estimated (CH4 oxidised = CH4 generatedmodelled – CH4 recov­
eredmeasured – CH4 emittedmeasured). For the landfills Álfsnes, Fíflholt and
41.1 Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga, CH4 oxidation rates of 69.6, 25.7 and 37.0 kg h− 1
0.79 (=CH4 oxidised / (CH4 emitted + CH4 oxidised)) (Table A7 in SI).
The IPCC has suggested a default CH4 oxidation fraction of 10%, and in
comparison to this the CH4 oxidation fractions required to close the CH4
balances are significantly higher, with the exception of Álfsnes, for
which it is comparable. The USEPA recently revised the default value for
CH4 oxidation in the landfill cover to graduate oxidation efficiency,
depending on the loading of CH4 to the cover (USEPA, 2013). For
landfills that have a soil cover of at least 24 in. for a majority of the
landfill area containing waste, and for which the CH4 flux rate (at the
142
C. Scheutz et al. Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145

base of the soil cover prior to any oxidation) is < 10 g CH4 m− 2 d-1, a situ CH4 oxidation in landfill cover soils, and the only available method
landfill oxidation fraction of 35% can be assumed, while at higher fluxes involves using stable carbon isotopes (e.g. Chanton et al., 1999). The
(>70 g CH4 m− 2 d-1) oxidation efficiency is recommended at 10%. For method, however, is associated with large uncertainties and unresolved
medium CH4 fluxes between 10 and 70 g CH4 m− 2 d-1, an oxidation issues (Bourn et al. 2019), which is why CH4 oxidation is often neglec­
fraction of 25% can be assumed (USEPA, 2013). The suggested oxidation ted. Furthermore, including CH4 oxidation would decrease recovery
efficiencies are based on a compilation of CH4 oxidation rates and effi­ efficiency, due to higher CH4 generation (sum of CH4 recovered, emitted
ciencies obtained in laboratory and field studies, which showed oxida­ and oxidised). Table 6 presents an overview of previous studies that
tion fractions ranging from 11% to 89%, depending on loading etc. (e.g. have determined gas recovery efficiencies by field measurements,
Chanton et al., 2009). Following the USEPA guideline and using the illustrating a wide range of gas recovery efficiencies (14–94%). The gas
modelled CH4 generation to calculate the cover load, an oxidation recovery efficiency of 30% obtained for Álfsnes landfill is relatively low
fraction of 25% would be valid for Álfsnes, Fíflholt and Kirkju­ in comparison to most other landfill studies, thus indicating a potential
ferjuhjáleiga (Table A8 in SI). However, using these higher CH4 oxida­ for increasing gas collection at the site.
tion factions would not be sufficient to close the CH4 mass balance for
Fíflholt and Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga, whereas CH4 oxidation for Álfsnes 4. Conclusion and perspectives
would be overestimated.
At Fíflholt, CH4 oxidation efficiency in the cover soil has been Average methane (CH4) emissions from five Icelandic landfills were
investigated (Kjeld et al., 2014) using vertical soil gas concentration quantified, using the tracer gas dispersion method, between 9.8 and
profiles (Gebert et al., 2011). According to measurements in 2012–2013, 475.4 kg CH4 h− 1. Variations in CH4 emission rates when repeating
mean oxidation efficiencies of two measurement plots were found to measurements at the same landfill could be explained by changes in
range between 59% and 77%, suggesting substantial year-long oxidation atmospheric pressure, whereby a decrease in pressure leads to an in­
in the top cover. This notion is in line with the oxidation fraction of 0.44, crease in gas emission, and vice versa.
which is needed to close the CH4 mass balance for Fíflholt. Only very For three landfill sites the modelled CH4 emission rate using the IPCC
limited site investigations of CH4 oxidation have been carried out at FOD model was higher (up to a factor of 4.8) than the measured average
Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga (Meyvantsdóttir, 2017) and Álfsnes (Quickel, 2018), emission rate, whereas the opposite was the case for two of the sites
indicating oxidation at some level at measuring points, but no site in­ (measured emissions were a up to a factor of 1.9 higher than modelled).
vestigations of CH4 oxidation have been carried out at Gufunes or However, at two of the sites the measured average CH4 emission rates
Stekkjarvík. However, a fractional CH4 oxidation of 13% at Álfsnes is not were comparable to the modelled rates when considering the uncer­
unrealistic, whereas a fractional CH4 oxidation of 79% at Kirkju­ tainty of the measurements.
ferjuhjáleiga would be very high in comparison to literature values and Combined, the CH4 emissions from all five sites totalled 637.0 kg CH4
would require uniform gas distribution and a homogenous and porous h− 1, which compares relatively well with the national reported emission
soil cover. of 936 kg CH4 h− 1, especially when considering that the landfilled waste
Finally, landfill emissions are associated with high temporal varia­ at four of the five investigated sites comprised such a large share
tion including both short term (hourly and daily) and seasonal variation. (~78%) of all traditionally landfilled waste in Iceland. Assuming that
CH4 oxidation in landfill cover soils is influenced by temperature and the measured emissions at the five landfills are representative of all
thus it could be expected that CH4 oxidation is limited during the winter waste disposed in Iceland during the period from 2007 to 2016, the
season in Iceland with temperatures close to zero degrees. In this study, measured emission would be extrapolated to 817 kg CH4 h− 1, which is
all measurements were performed during summer, where CH4 oxidation relatively close to the national reported emission. This study showed
is likely to be higher than average. This may have caused the measured
emission rates to be somewhat lower than the annual average. However,
CH4 oxidation at landfill sites in Iceland is probably in general relatively Table 6
low due to the cold climate. Obviously, repeated annual emission Overview of reported landfill gas collection efficiencies reported in the
measurements and emission time series would strengthen the compari­ literature.
son of measured and modelled emission rates. Since two to three mea­ Reference Gas recovery Landfill(s) and the type of their top cover
surements were performed at each landfill, the validity of extrapolating efficiency (%)
short-term monitoring to estimate annual emission rates can be assessed. Aghdam et al. 59–76 Two Danish landfills (Stigø and Odense)
The sum of emissions from the sites calculated using average emission (2018) located next to each other. Stigø is finally
rates was 637.0 kg CH4 h− 1 (Fig. 2). In comparison, the sum of emissions covered, whereas some waste cells at Odense
are still being filled; some have been
from the first measurement at each site was 540.4 kg CH4 h− 1, and the
temporarily covered and some finally
sum of emission from the last measurement at each site was 729.0 kg covered.
CH4 h− 1. The main reason for emission variation was the difference in Bourn et al. 28–90 Fifteen biodegradable waste landfills in the
measured emission rates at Álfsnes landfill, which had the highest (2019) UK. The modern operational landfills had gas
emissions of the five sites. recovery efficiencies between 64 and 90%
with an average of 76%.
Mønster et al. 41–81 Five active and closed Danish landfills; no
3.4. Gas recovery efficiency (2015) information about the type of top cover.
Börjesson et al. 14–78 Seven active and closed Swedish landfills
In general, relatively few studies have reported the gas collection (2009) with different types of top cover: clay,
mixture of sewage sludge and soil and
efficiency of landfills. At sites with gas collection facilities, the recovered mixture of wood chips and sludge.
gas is often known as “landfill flow,” and concentrations going into the Lohila et al. 69–79 An active Finnish landfill with a temporary
gas engine are continuously measured or can be calculated accurately (2007) soil top cover; furthermore, compost soil on
based on recorded and sold electricity. However, to obtain a figure for top of a diamicton and clay layer on the
slopes.
gas recovery efficiency, a complete landfill CH4 balance needs to be
Spokas et al. 41–94 Three active and closed French landfills with
established (Scheutz et al., 2009; Aghdam et al., 2019), which requires (2006) different types of top cover: clay cover,
that CH4 emitted into the atmosphere, as well as oxidised CH4, is geosynthetic clay liner and geomembrane
determined. In fact, emitted CH4 should be quantified using a method cover.
that measures total CH4 emissions from the landfill, such as the tracer Mosher et al. 90 A U.S. closed landfill with a geomembrane
(1999) and a soil top cover.
gas dispersion method. It is far from a trivial undertaking to quantify in-

143
C. Scheutz et al.
that the application of the IPCC FOD model at national level is appro­
priate for estimating landfill CH4 emissions in Iceland. At individual
landfill sites, the application of the FOD model may result in significant
over- or underestimations of the emissions. Site specific CH4 emission
assessment, implementation and documentation of mitigation actions
should thus be based on emission measurements rather than modelling.
Based on the measured emission, there is a potential for reducing
CH4 emissions from landfills in Iceland. For example, emissions at
Álfsnes are significant (475.4 kg CH4 h− 1), and the gas recovery system
currently operates at an efficiency of only 30%, which most likely could
be increased through effective optimisation. Moreover, at both Fíflholt
and Stekkjarvík, a gas collection and recovery system is a feasible option
to mitigate landfill emissions. The optimisation of CH4 oxidation in
landfill biocovers is also a potential mitigation strategy, which could be
considered not only at landfills with lower emissions, but also at sites
with gas collection systems, in order to mitigate fugitive emissions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.12.028.
References
Aghdam, E.F., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2019. Impact of meteorological parameters on
extracted landfill gas composition and flow. Waste Manage. 87, 905–914.
Aghdam, E.F., Fredenslund, A.M., Chanton, J., Kjeldsen, P., Scheutz, C., 2018.
Determination of gas recovery efficiency at two Danish landfills by performing
downwind plume methane measurements and stable carbon isotope isotopic
analysis. Waste Manage. 73, 220–229.
Andersen, J.K., Boldrin, A., Samuelsson, J., Christensen, T.H., Scheutz, C., 2010.
Quantification of GHG emissions from windrow composting of garden waste.
J. Environ. Qual. 39, 713–724.
Blanco G., Gerlagh, R., Suh, S., Barrett, J., de Coninck, H.C., Diaz Morejon, C.F., Mathur,
R., Nakicenovic, N., Ofosu Ahenkora, A., Pan, J., Pathak, H., Rice, J., Richels, R.,
Smith, S.J., Stern, D.I., Toth, F.L., Zhou, P., 2014. Drivers, Trends and Mitigation. In:
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K.,
Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J.,
Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Börjesson, G., Samuelsson, J., Chanton, J., Adolfsson, R., Galle, B.o., Svensson, B.H.,
2009. A national landfill methane budget for Sweden based on field measurements,
and an evaluation of IPCC models. Tellus, Ser. B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 61 (2),
424–435.
Bourn, M., Robinson, R., Innocenti, F., Scheutz, C., 2019. Regulating landfills using
measured methane emissions: an English perspective. Waste Manage. 87, 860–869.
Cambaliza, M. O. L., Bogner, J. E., Green, R. B., Shepson, P. B., Harvey, T. A., Spokas, K.
A., … Corcoran, M., 2017. Field measurements and modeling to resolve m2 to km2
CH4 emissions for a complex urban source: An Indiana landfill study. Elementa:
Science of the Anthropocene, 5, 36.
Chanton, J.P., Powelson, D.K., Green, R.B., 2009. Methane oxidation in landfill cover
soils, is a 10% default value reasonable? J. Environ. Qual. 38 (2), 654–663.
Christophersen, M., Kjeldsen, P., Holst, H., Chanton, J., 2001. Lateral gas transport in soil
adjacent to an old landfill: factors governing emissions and methane oxidation.
Waste Manage. Res. 19 (6), 595–612.
Cusworth, D.H., Duren, R.M., Thorpe, A.K., Tseng, E., Thompson, D., Guha, A.,
Newman, S., Foster, K.T., Miller, C.E., 2020. Using remote sensing to detect, validate,
and quantify methane emissions from California solid waste operations. Environ.
Res. Lett. 15, 054012.
Czepiel, P.M., Shorter, J.H., Mosher, B., Allwine, E., McManus, J.B., Harriss, R.C.,
Kolb, C.E., Lamb, B.K., 2003. The influence of atmospheric pressure on landfill
methane emissions. Waste Manage. 23 (7), 593–598.
De la Cruz, F.B., Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., Chanton, J.P., Thoma, E.D., Harvey, T.A.,
Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Comparison of field measurements to methane emissions models
at a new landfill. Environ. Sci. & Techno. 50 (17), 9432–9441.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Tilskudsordning for biocover [WWW
Document]. URL http://mst.dk/virksomhed-myndighed/affald/deponering/
biocover-tilskudsordning/ (Accessed July 2019).
144
Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145
EFLA, 2018. Minnisblað, 19.01.2018. Stekkjarvík urðunarstaður – vöktun og mælingar.
Niðurstöður gas- og afkastamælinga í Stekkjarvík október-nóvember 2017.
European Environment Agency, 2016. Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas
Inventory 1990–2014 and Inventory Report 2016. Submission to the UNFCCC
Secretariat. EEA Technical report, no. 15. 2016.
Environment Agency of Iceland, 2019. National Inventory Report - Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in Iceland from 1990 to 2017. April, 2019. https://ust.is/library/
Skrar/Atvinnulif/Loftslagsbreytingar/NIR%202019%20Iceland%2015%20April%
20final_submitted%20to%20UNFCCC.pdf. Accessed July 2019.
Fjelsted, L., Christensen, A.G., Larsen, J.E., Kjeldsen, P., Scheutz, C., 2019. Assessment of
a landfill methane emission screening method using an unmanned aerial vehicle
mounted thermal infrared camera – a field study. Waste Manage. 87, 893–904.
Fredenslund, A.M., Mønster, J., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2019a. Development and
implementation of a screening method to categorize greenhouse gas mitigation
potential of 91 landfills. Waste Manage. 87, 915–923.
Fredenslund, A.M., Rees-White, T.C., Beaven, R.P., Delre, A., Finlayson, A., Helmore, J.,
Allen, G., Scheutz, C., 2019b. Validation and error assessment of the mobile tracer
gas dispersion method for measurement of fugitive emissions from area sources.
Waste Manage. 83, 68–78.
Fredenslund, A.M., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2010. Tracer method to measure landfill gas
emissions from leachate collection systems. Waste Manage. 30 (11), 2146–2152.
Gebert, J., Röwer, I.U., Scharff, H., Roncato, C.D.L., Cabral, A.R., 2011. Can soil gas
profiles be used to assess microbial CH4 oxidation in landfill covers? Waste Manage.
31 (5), 987–994.
Gebert, J., Groengroeft, A., 2006. Passive landfill gas emission – influence of atmospheric
pressure and implications for the operation of methane-oxidising biofilters. Waste
Manage. 26 (3), 245–251.
Green, R.B., Swan, N.D., Thoma, E.D., Footer, T.L., Chanton, J., Hater, G.R., 2012.
Measured and Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills without Gas
Collection. In Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium.
Innocenti, F., Robinson, R., Gardiner, T., Finlayson, A., Connor, A., 2017. Differential
absorption lidar (DIAL) measurements of landfill methane emissions. Remote
Sensing 9 (9), 953.
Íslenska gámafélagið, 2017. “Grænt bókhald 2017” https://ust.is/library/Skrar/
Einstaklingar/Mengandi-Starfssemi/Urgangur-og-efnamottaka/Gr%C3%A6nt%20b
%C3%B3khald%202017%20undirskrifa%C3%B0.pdf. Accessed July 2019.
Kjeld, A., Cabral, A.R., Gústafsson, L.E., Andradóttir, H.Ó., Bjarnadóttir, H.J., 2014.
Microbial Methane Oxidation at the Fíflholt landfill in Iceland. Verktækni. Tímarit
VFÍ / TFÍ., 20, (1), 31-36. https://www.vfi.is/media/utgafa/Microbial_methane_
oxidation_at_the_fiflholt_landfill_in_iceland.pdf. Accessed July 2019.
IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by
the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. In: Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Miwa.
Published: IGES, Japan.
Lohila, A., Laurila, T., Tuovinen, J.-P., Aurela, M., Hatakka, J., Thum, T., Pihlatie, M.,
Rinne, J., Vesala, T., 2007. Micrometeorological measurements of methane and
carbon dioxide fluxes at a municipal landfill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (8),
2717–2722.
Meyvantsdóttir, G., 2017. Methane Emissions from Icelandic Landfills. Master’s thesis,
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland, pp. 90.
https://skemman.is/handle/1946/18690?locale=en. Accessed July 2019.
Mosher, B.W., Czepiel, P.M., Harriss, R.C., Shorter, J.H., Kolb, C.E., McManus, J.B.,
Allwine, E., Lamb, B.K., 1999. Methane Emissions at Nine Landfill Sites in the
Northeastern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 (12), 2088–2094.
Mou, Z.S., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2015. Evaluation and application of site-specific data
to revise the first-order decay model for estimating landfill gas generation and
emissions at Danish landfills. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 65, 686–698.
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,
Takemura, T., Zhang, H., 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Clim.
Chang. 2013 Phys. Sci. Basis. Contrib. Work. Gr. I to Fifth Assess. Rep. Intergov.
Panel Clim. Chang. 659–740. doi:10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.018.
Mønster, J., Kjeldsen, P., Scheutz, C., 2019. Methodologies for measuring fugitive
methane emissions from landfills – a review. Waste Manage. 87, 835–859.
Mønster, J., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P., Scheutz, C., 2015. Quantification of methane
emissions from 15 Danish landfills using the mobile tracer dispersion method. Waste
Manage. 35, 177–186.
Mønster, J.G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P., Rella, C.W., Scheutz, C., 2014. Quantifying
methane emission from fugitive sources by combining tracer release and downwind
measurements - A sensitivity analysis based on multiple field surveys. Waste
Manage. 34 (8), 1416–1428.
Quickel, L., 2018. Using the soil gas-profile method to assess methane oxidation at
Álfsnes landfill in Reykjavík, Iceland. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection.
SIT Study Abroad.
Rachor, I.M., Gebert, J., Gröngröft, A., Pfeiffer, E.-M., 2013. Variability of methane
emissions from an old landfill over different time-scales. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 64 (1),
16–26.
Rees-White, T.C., Mønster, J., Beaven, R.P., Scheutz, C., 2019. Measuring methane
emissions from a UK landfill using the tracer dispersion method and the influence of
operational and environmental factors. Waste Manage. 87, 870–882.
Robinson, R., Gardiner, T., Innocenti, F., Woods, P., Coleman, M., 2011. Infrared
differential absorption Lidar (DIAL) measurements of hydrocarbon emissions.
J. Environ. Monit. 13 (8), 2213–2220.
Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2019. Guidelines for landfill gas emission monitoring using the
tracer gas dispersion method. Waste Manage. 85, 351–360.
Scheutz, C., Pedersen, R.B., Petersen, P.H., Jørgensen, J.H.B., Ucendo, I.M.B., Mønster, J.
G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P., 2014. Mitigation of methane emission from an old
C. Scheutz et al.
unlined landfill in Klintholm, Denmark using a passive biocover system. Waste
Manage. 34 (7), 1179–1190.
Scheutz, C., Fredenslund, A.M., Chanton, J., Pedersen, G.B., Kjeldsen, P., 2011a.
Mitigation of methane emission from Fakse landfill using a biowindow system.
Waste Manage. 31 (5), 1018–1028.
Scheutz, C., Fredenslund, A.M., Nedenskov, J., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P., 2011b. Gas
production, composition and emission at a modern disposal site receiving waste with
a low organic content. Waste Manage. 31 (5), 946–955.
Scheutz, C., Samuelsson, J., Fredenslund, A.M., Kjeldsen, P., 2011c. Quantification of
multiple methane emission sources at landfills using a double tracer approach. Waste
Manage. 31, 1009–1017.
Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., Bogner, J.E., De Visscher, A., Gebert, J., Hilger, H.A., Huber-
Humer, M., Spokas, K., 2009. Microbial methane oxidation processes and
technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 (5),
409–455.
Scharff, H., Jacobs, J., 2006. Applying guidance for methane emission estimation for
landfills. Waste Manage. 26 (4), 417–429.
145
Waste Management 139 (2022) 136–145
Skipulagsstofnun, 2018. “Jarðgerð Moldarblöndunarinnar í Gufunesi. Ákvörðun um
matsskyldu” http://www.skipulag.is/media/attachments/Umhverfismat/1296/
201803017.pdf.
Spokas, K., Bogner, J., Corcoran, M., 2021. Modeling landfill CH4 emissions: CALMIM
international field validation, using CALMIM to simulate management strategies,
current and future climate scenarios. Elem. Sci. Anth. 9 (1), 00050.
Spokas, K., Bogner, J., Corcoran, M., Walker, S., 2015. From California dreaming to
California data: Challenging historic models for landfill CH4 emissions. Elem. Sci.
Anth. 3, 51.
Spokas, K., Bogner, J., Chanton, J.P., Morcet, M., Aran, C., Graff, C., Moreau-Le
Golvan, Y., Hebe, I., 2006. Waste Manage. 26, 516–525.
US EPA, 2013. Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality
Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements; Final Rule. Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 98, Title 40, 2013; Fed. Regist. 2013, 78, 71968.
Xu, L., Lin, X., Amen, J., Welding, K., McDermitt, D., 2014. Impact of changes in
barometric pressure on landfill methane emission, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 28 (7),
679–695.