BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING

METHANE EMISSIONS

HELENE HILGER1∗ and MARION HUMER2

1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, North
Carolina, U.S.A.; 2 Department of Waste Management, University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna,
Vienna, Austria
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: hhilger@uncc.edu)

Abstract. Landfill methane (CH4 ) emissions have been cited as one of the anthropogenic gas
releases that can and should be controlled to reduce global climate change. This article reviews
recent research that identifies ways to enhance microbial consumption of the gas in the aerobic
portion of a landfill cover. Use of these methods can augment CH4 emission reductions achieved
by gas collection or provide a sole means to consume CH4 at small landfills that do not have active
gas collection systems. Field studies indicate that high levels of CH4 removal can be achieved by
optimizing natural soil microbial processes. Further, during biotic conversion, not all of the CH4
carbon is converted to carbon dioxide (CO2 ) gas and released to the atmosphere; some of it will be
sequestered in microbial biomass. Because biotic covers can employ residuals from other municipal
processes, financial benefits can also accrue from avoided costs for residuals disposal.

Keywords: compost, landfills, landfill biocover, methane oxidation, methanotrophs

1. Introduction

Solid waste management options have expanded over the last several decades, but
landfilling remains the dominant practice in many parts of the world (USEPA,
1997). A number of design advances have reduced the environmental impacts of
new landfills and concomitant public concerns, but landfills continue to require
technical and regulatory attention. This paper describes some innovative and low-
cost biological methods to mitigate emissions associated with the gases produced
in landfills. First the source and pollutional effects of some landfill gases are de-
scribed, then the key features of biological control are presented, and finally results
from an ongoing field test are described and discussed in the context of technology
options and policy decisions.

2. Landfill Gases and Pollution

When organic wastes are degraded, carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and methane (CH4 ) are
produced. Although these originate deep in the landfill, they can readily migrate

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 84: 71–84, 2003.

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
72 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

to the surface and enter the atmosphere. The biochemical reactions that produce
them typically continue long after a landfill is capped, so that even after clos-
ure, emissions can continue (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). Since both of these
gases contribute to global climate change, gas collection systems are recommended
and sometimes required at landfills. While some of the gas escapes capture, gas
collection systems can significantly reduce landfill gas emissions.
Although CO2 and CH4 are produced in about equal amounts during waste de-
gradation, the CH4 is of greater concern. The reason relates to the relative climate
change potential of CO2 and CH4 . Carbon dioxide, present in the atmosphere at
360 parts per million by volume (ppmv), is a well-known greenhouse gas, and con-
tinued anthropogenic additions are expected to enhance climate change by about
55%. However, contributions from the major anthropogenic sources of CO2 (fuel
and biomass burning) are so large as to make those from landfills insignificant
(McKinney and Schoch, 1998).
Methane, on the other hand, exists in the atmosphere at only 1.7 ppmv. Yet
even at this trace level, human additions to existing concentrations are expected
to be responsible for 17% of enhanced climate change, second only to CO2 in its
global warming impacts (IPCC, 1996). The potency of CH4 additions relates to
their greenhouse warming potential (GWP). GWP is an index used to compare the
relative tendency of different gases to cause climate change, and over a 100 yr span,
the GWP of one gram of CH4 is 21-fold greater than an equal mass of CO2 (IPCC,
1995). Based on 1997 measures, landfills are estimated to be the largest source
(37%) of anthropogenic CH4 emissions in the U.S.(which is the 4th largest emitter
behind China, Russia, and India) (USEPA, 1999a; USEPA, 1994).
When mitigation strategies for global climate change were first considered,
CH4 sources and emission rates were poorly characterized. National and global
source estimates were imprecise and predictions varied widely. Subsequent re-
search and analysis have clarified some of the major global CH4 sources and sinks
and helped to identify why atmospheric CH4 levels have doubled in the last two
centuries after having been stable for the previous several thousand years (Graedel
and Crutzen, 1989). It is now estimated that as much as 70% of the global CH4
emissions are anthropogenic, and as much as 19% of the increase can be attributed
to landfill emissions (IPCC, 1996). Further, economic analyses show that in some
cases, methane reductions can be accomplished for less cost than equivalent CO2
reductions (Reilly, 1999).
In countries where solid waste landfilling is highly regulated, several initiat-
ives have been undertaken to reduce landfill CH4 emissions. In the U.S., landfills
have been singled out among the major CH4 sources (natural gas systems, coal
mining, and agriculture) for emission reduction requirements. The Clean Air Act
was amended to include the Landfill Rule (U.S. Federal Register, 1996), which
took effect in 1997 and addressed both CH4 and other volatile compounds (non-
methane organic compounds, NMOCs) emitted from landfills. According to the
rule, requirements for gas collection at new and existing landfills are based on
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 73

size and emission test results, so that not all of the approximately 2200 landfills
nationwide will be affected (USEPA, 1999; Goldstein and Madtes, 2000). If, as
predicted, some of the collected gas is put to direct use as fuel or converted to
electricity and the remainder flared, this rule is expected to result in a decline of
landfill CH4 emissions from their 1997 level of 11.6 Tg to 9.1 Tg by 2010 (USEPA
1999).
In Europe, similar steps are being taken to curtail emissions. In the U.K. and
the European Union, landfills are the first (48%) and second (31%) largest sources
of anthropogenic CH4 respectively (NETC, 1999; CEC, 1996). Both entities have
adopted the approach of increasing landfill gas collection and making systematic
reductions in the quantity of biodegradable wastes that is buried. Other European
countries like Germany and Austria have set quantitative limits on the allowable
total organic carbon (TOC) of landfilled wastes to minimize landfill CH4 genera-
tion potential. Compliance with these more stringent regulations will require that
some form of thermal or biological pretreatment of wastes occurs before land-
filling. While all of these steps will likely be effective, they will require time to
plan, implement, and gain public support. Once underway, their success will be
constrained by economics, program management and public compliance.
In contrast to the tighter landfill controls appearing in the U.S. and Europe,
other countries are making only modest use of landfills. Many urban centers in
the developing world still rely on open dumps for solid waste disposal (World
Resources Institute, 1997). Methane production may be lower at these sites because
more aeration is possible, but such piles present health and safety problems and
with time will likely be replaced with sanitary landfills that produce CH4 . Thus, in
the absence of gas collection, the improvement from dumps to landfills will likely
add to the CH4 burden in the atmosphere. Total global CH4 emissions from landfills
are expected to increase by 2025, with contributions from Asia and Eastern Europe
rising to equal those of the U.S. and Western Europe (Meadows, 1997).
The expected rise in global landfill CH4 emissions would appear to justify the
promotion of cost-effective methods for mitigating anthropogenic CH4 releases
into the atmosphere. Certainly, gas collection in the U.S. will reduce overall emis-
sions, but some of the gas will escape capture, and there are many existing sites
where new regulations will have little impact. Despite the Landfill Rule, the U.S.
expects its landfill CH4 emissions to fall by little more than 20% from 1997 levels.
In some parts of the globe, solid waste management practices are likely to increase
rather than decrease CH4 emission rates, because improved sanitation will first lead
to waste coverage and only later to gas collection.

3. Biological Mitigation of Landfill Methane Emissions

Microbial CH4 consumption is one of only a few biogeochemical sinks for re-
moving CH4 from the atmosphere (Topp and Hanson, 1991). It generally occurs
74 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

at an interface of aerobic and anaerobic zones, because while CH4 is generated in

anaerobic regions, most of its uptake is performed by aerobes. It has been detec-
ted throughout the upper portion of landfill cover soil (Jones and Nedwell, 1993;
Whalen et al., 1990), and it could be optimized and exploited to mitigate landfill
CH4 emissions.
It is typically accomplished by methanotrophs, a subset of a highly diverse
group of bacteria called methylotrophs that can metabolize C-1 compounds such as
methane, methanol, and methylamines (Hanson and Hanson, 1996). There are also
a number of other bacteria, most notably ammonia oxidizers (Jones and Morita,
1983; Bedard and Knowles, 1989), and even some yeast that can oxidize CH4 (Wolf
and Hanson, 1978; Large, 1983).
Microbial CH4 uptake occurs readily in a variety of ecosystems (Hanson and
Hanson, 1996), and methanotrophs have been found in tropical, temperate, arctic,
and desert soils (Keller et al., 1986; Born et al., 1990; Whalen and Reeburgh,
1990; Striegl et al., 1992; Adamsen and King, 1993). Their diversity (Whittenbury
et al., 1970; Hanson and Hanson, 1996) and biochemistry (Large, 1983; Bedard
and Knowles, 1989; Anthony, 1991) have been extensively reviewed. Some of the
CH4 consumed by methanotrophs is oxidized to CO2 and water for energy yield,
while another fraction is incorporated into biomass.
Two pathways have been identified among methanotrophs for conversion of
methane to energy and biomass: the ribulose monophosphate path (RuMP) and the
serine path (Anthony 1982). The stoichiometric equations summarizing the oxygen
and nitrogen demands of the RuMP and serine paths are shown in Equations 1 and
2, respectively, where C4 H8 O2 N represents microbial biomass.
CH4 + 1.50 O2 + 0.118 NH4 + →
(1)
→ 0.118(C4 H8 O2 N) + 0.529 CO2 + 1.71 H2 O + 0.118 H+
CH4 + 1.57 O2 + 0.102 NH4 + →
(2)
→ 0.102(C4 H8 O2 N) + 0.593 CO2 + 1.75 H2 O + 0.102 H+
Both paths are initiated with the conversion of CH4 to methanol (CH3 OH), a re-
action that is mediated by the methane monooxygenase enzyme (MMO). Although
the RuMP path is theoretically more efficient (Brock and Madigan, 1991), efforts
to demonstrate this prediction have been inconclusive. Evidently, the relative meta-
bolic efficiency depends not only on the path but also on the enzymatic process
common to both paths that converts CH4 methane to CH3 OH (Leak and Dalton,
1986). While all methanotrophs can synthesize a particulate or membrane-bound
form (pMMO) of the enzyme, some can also produce a soluble form (sMMO)
whose synthesis is linked to low copper concentrations. High copper availability
results in the expression of pMMO, which yields higher growth efficiency than
sMMO.
Methanotrophs capable of producing sMMO are particularly valuable in landfill
covers because the enzyme is sufficiently non-specific to catalyze the addition of
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 75

oxygen to other substrates such as trichloroethylene, chloroform, and dichloro-

methane and transform them into compounds that can be degraded by other mi-
croorganisms (Dalton and Sterling, 1982). In landfill soil, this process leads to
degradation of some volatile organic compounds that rise from the waste layers
(Kjeldsen et al., 1997; Humer and Lechner, 2001).
Initial investigations of microbial landfill CH4 uptake were conducted to docu-
ment its occurrence and explore the conditions that enhanced it. One early report
indicated that soil microbes removed 10% of the CH4 gas fed continuously to a
laboratory column filled with landfill soil (Mancinelli and McKay, 1985). Sub-
sequent studies have shown that much higher uptake rates are possible in landfill
soil (Williams et al., 1993; Kightley et al., 1995; Czepiel, 1996; Borjesson and
Svensson, 1997; Hilger et al., 2000).
Field studies have shown that there is wide variation in CH4 consumption rates
both within and between landfill sites, and the variability has been largely attributed
to seasonal climate change, physical heterogeneities in the cover, and CH4 concen-
trations (Czepiel et al., 1996; Borjesson and Svensson, 1997; Liptay et al., 1998;
Chanton and Liptay, 2000; Borjesson et al., 2001). Literature values for whole
landfill CH4 removal rates range from 10 to almost 100% (Whalen et al., 1990,
Czepiel et al., 1996; Bergamaschi et al., 1998; Liptay et al., 1998; Chanton and
Liptay, 2000). Where potential emissions are low due to gas collection systems,
landfill covers have actually been reported to act as a net sink for atmospheric CH4 ,
taking up more CH4 than is emitted from the landfill (Bogner et al., 1997). Such
field studies have led to the addition of microbial CH4 uptake as a factor in cli-
mate prediction models, where the phenomenon had previously been disregarded.
Updated models estimate that about 10% of the landfill CH4 generated is removed
biotically and not released to the atmosphere (USEPA, 1999b), although there is
still uncertainty about the exact percentage to use in the models.
In addition to improving model precision, experiments to determine the factors
that influence microbial CH4 uptake efficiency have been aimed at finding a biosys-
tem design that could supplement gas collection or replace leaking caps and mitig-
ate landfill CH4 emissions. Field and laboratory studies have been used to invest-
igate the role of climate conditions such as moisture content and temperature, soil
nutrient content, and pH; soil properties such as texture and soil gas composition;
and soil cover management.
Moisture contents reported to be optimum for CH4 uptake in landfill cover soils
range from 10–20% (Whalen et al., 1990; Boeckx and VanCleemput, 1996; Czepiel
et al., 1996). The critical factor appears to be the amount of soil pore volume
available for gas exchange at different moisture contents. Under high moisture con-
ditions, CH4 must reach the microbes by aqueous diffusion, which is much slower
than gaseous diffusion. Jones and Nedwell (1993) speculated that the capacity of
cover soil to sustain substantial moisture content throughout its depth is likely
to promote more uniform methanotroph distribution and greater opportunity for
CH4 removal throughout the cover depth. Recent laboratory incubations showed
76 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

that composted municipal solid waste (MSW) used as landfill cover at moisture
contents as high as 45% exceeded performance of soil covers at 17% moisture.
These results suggest that high performance can be maintained at high moisture
levels, depending on the characteristics of the cover material (Humer and Lechner,
1999).
Not surprisingly, microbial CH4 uptake also shows seasonal temperature de-
pendence, with an optimum temperature in the range of 30–36 C (Whalen et al.,
1990; Boeckx and VanCleemput, 1996; Czepiel et al., 1996, Chanton and Liptay,
2000). In laboratory incubations of landfill soil under high headspace CH4 , the
maximum gas was consumed at a rate as high as 9.1 × 10−5 L/(g-d) in soil at
the lowest trial temperature of 2 C, although the response was significantly less
than the maximum at 15 C, which was 6.2 × 10−4 /(g-d) (Chistophersen et al.,
2000). The degree of responsiveness to temperature varied among the four landfill
soils tested, and the soil with the least organic matter and the lowest gravel content
showed the smallest response to temperature change. When microbial CH4 removal
was estimated using field comparisons of 13 C to 12 C isotope ratios, trials at 0 C
showed no evidence of microbial CH4 consumption (Borjesson et al., 2001). There
is evidence that the sensitivity to temperature change may be muted when the soil
is at optimum moisture content (Boeckx, et al., 1996).
Experiments with compost-filled columns in a climate-controlled chamber show-
ed that constant and high CH4 removal was obtained across a temperature range of
5 C to 30 C (Humer and Lechner, 2001). The tests started at a temperature of 18
C, and after an adaptation time of about 6 days, all of the supplied CH4 (approxim-
ately 150 L CH4 m−2 -day) could be removed. When the temperature was reduced
to approximately 4 C, the removal rates were 70–80% of those measured at 18
C, and rates increased immediately when the higher temperature was resumed. A
highly active and diverse microbial community (Methylococcus sp., Methylomonas
sp., Methylobacter sp. and Methylosinus sp.) was detected, which may explain the
good temperature adaptability observed. Also, the influence of organic matter on
moisture holding capacity may account for differences in temperature effects on
soil and compost media.
Although some nutrients enhance CH4 uptake in short-term incubation studies,
few have been studied in longer incubations. Of the latter (phosphate, lime, sewage
sludge, and ammonium), only lime (Hilger et al., 2000) and sewage sludge (Kight-
ley et al., 1995) were stimulatory. Short-term incubations have shown that nitrate,
lime (Hilger et al., 2000), ground wheat (high C:N) and sugar beet leaf amendment
(low C:N) (Boeckx and VanCleemput, 1996), added to fresh soil enhance CH4
uptake; but when amendments of KNO3, vitamins, EDTA or FeSO4 were added to
landfill soil after the soil had been incubated for several thousand hours with CH4 ,
no stimulation was observed over 2–3 day incubation periods (Hilger et al., 2000).
Ammonium addition enhanced CH4 uptake in short-term incubations (Bender and
Conrad, 1995; DeVisschner, 1999), while in long-term incubations it inhibited CH4
consumption in bare soil columns, and had no sustained inhibitory effect when the
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 77

column surfaces were grass-covered (Hilger et al., 2000). Methane emissions at

a reclaimed golf course were greater in regions of low soil pH (Williams et al.,
1993), suggesting that less CH4 removal was occurring there. Lime addition to
soil column simulations of landfill cover raised the soil pH from 6.3 to 7.4 and
stimulated CH4 uptake (Hilger et al., 2000).
Soil texture, particle size, and soil gas concentrations affect microbial CH4
consumption, with higher rates occurring in coarse sand (61%) than in fine sand
or clay (40–41%) (Kightley, et al., 1995), and on larger sized particles diameters
of mineral soils such as clay, silt, and fine sand (0.5–2 mm) (Bender and Conrad,
1994; Borjesson et al., 1998). Methane uptake in laboratory incubations of com-
post from municipal solid waste (MSW) and fully matured sewage sludge compost
was superior to that in topsoil and humic garden soil (Humer and Lechner, 1999;
Humer and Lechner, 2001). The more porous compost media permitted good gas
penetration, so that a 60 cm column of MSW compost was able to remove a CH4
flux equivalent to 400–550 L CH4 (m−2 -d). Removal rates are sensitive to CH4
concentration (Bender and Conrad, 1995; Czepiel et al., 1996; Bogner et al., 1997)
but not to O2 concentration until it falls to about 3% by volume (Czepiel et al.,
1996).
Microbial CH4 uptake in landfill cover soil occurs readily and is a natural and
integral link in the microbial ecology of the landfill. By applying knowledge about
the factors that influence this process, it can be optimized as a tool for reducing
landfill CH4 emissions. A porous medium for good air penetration should allow
almost the full cover depth to support methane oxidizers. Proper moisture content,
neutral pH, and the presence of a rhizosphere will all contribute to maintenance of
a diverse methanotroph population and high CH4 consumption.

4. Field Trials with Compost Covers

The first major field trial of landfill covers designed to optimize biotic CH4 removal
is ongoing at a 14 ha operating landfill in Austria (Humer and Lechner, 1999;
Humer and Lechner, 2001). Although a gas collection system is in place, CH4
emissions as high of 800 L (m−2 -d) have been detected. Four 25 × 25 m test covers
are being monitored and compared to a 25 × 25 m control site with no cover
material. The test cell covers were constructed in spring 1999 over fill that was
actively producing CH4 . All cells contain 15 m of waste that was deposited during
1975 to 1995, overlain by 3–5 m of organic waste that was deposited between
summer and winter of 1998. Geosynthetic clay liners were placed around each
cell so that lateral CH4 escape is prohibited and the test areas are isolated from one
another. Trial cover designs include sewage sludge composted with woodchips (pH
7.2) that was (1) layered 0.4 m deep on top of the waste; (2) layered 0.3 m deep and
underlain by 0.3 m compacted loam, or (3) layered 0.9 m deep and underlain by 0.3
m coarse gravel; or (4) well-composted MSW (pH 7.8) that was underlain by 0.3 m
78 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

Figure 1. Gas profiles in sewage sludge compost underlain by gravel, summer.

coarse gravel. The compost layers were placed without compaction, and vegetation
was permitted to colonize the cover material over the course of the trials.
Methane concentrations of 50–70% vol/vol (remainder carbon dioxide) were
measured in probes in the uncovered control site as well as in probes reaching
about 0.5–1 m into the waste beneath the different covers. Surface emissions were
measured with a portable flame ionization detector the first year and with an open
wind tunnel device since winter 2000. While CH4 is emitted from the surface of the
control cell and the cells with compost but without gravel (test plots 1 and 2), no
CH4 emissions (but rather high carbon dioxide emissions) have been detected from
tests plots 3 and 4 where compost covers are underlain by gravel (Figures 1 and
2). During the first year (1999), probe readings showed CH4 oxidation occurring
near mid-level in the summer and moving lower into the cover in winter. Since the
first winter, no CH4 has been detected above the bottommost gravel layers. Oxygen
penetration was detected through much of the cover at the onset of the trials, and it
has routinely been detected at the 90 cm depth since winter 1999.
On the control site, high CH4 fluxes were emitted constantly during the first year
of monitoring, after which broad CH4 emissions declined and were replaced by a
few regions of high emissions where fissures formed paths within the waste. Wind
tunnel flux measurements on the control site revealed emission rates of about 840
LCH4 m−2 -d. Occasionally CH4 emissions also appear at the surrounding slopes
of the covers in connection with wind direction and velocity.
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 79

Figure 2. Gas profiles in sewage sludge compost underlain by gravel, winter.

The landfill receives about 650 mm of precipitation annually, and water accu-
mulation is being monitored in 300 L lysimeters constructed next to the test cells.
The lysimeters contain cover materials layered to simulate the test cell covers.
During the first year, when volunteer vegetation sparsely covered the lysimeter
surfaces, about 130 mm of leachate were measured in the bins with compost cover.
During the second year of monitoring, more vegetation has become established and
with increased transpiration, less leachate accumulation is anticipated.
The gas-filled pore volume of the composted sewage sludge cover is greater
with depth than that of the MSW compost, which allows CH4 oxidation to proceed
deeper into the cover. The greater depth penetration is advantageous, because it
allows oxidation to proceed in regions where the compost layers can maintain more
stable moisture and temperature conditions. Layers closer to the surface are subject
to drying from wind or solar radiation. Also, the heat generated from the oxidation
reaction is more likely to be retained if oxidation is occurring at greater depth, and
in the deeper test covers, weekly temperatures never fell below 10 ◦ C.
The first U.S. demonstration and data collection site for biocovers was de-
veloped recently at the Outer Loop landfill in Louisville, Kentucky. Waste Man-
agement, Inc. has undertaken the project as part of a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) with the USEPA. The Outerloop biocovers
consist of 1.0–1.5 m of yard waste compost underlain by 15–20 cm of tire chips
and approximately 15 cm of clay. They are located over cells that are known to be
actively producing CH4 . Static chambers will be used to compare emissions from
the approximately two acres of compost-covered cells to those with a soil cover.
The aim of these trials is to evaluate the longevity and performance of a biocover on
80 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

flat and sloped surfaces for the mitigation of CH4 , NMOCs and hazardous air pol-
lutants (HAPs) emissions. Vertical gas profiles and measures of CH4 uptake in soil
from core samples will be combined with climate models to predict a hypothetical
whole landfill CH4 oxidation rate for a biocover.
In summary, the Austrian field tests are confirming that a biological CH4 re-
moval system can be an effective tool for reducing landfill CH4 emissions. The
greater air penetration, better temperature modulation, and nutrient supply offered
by compost is resulting in 100% CH4 capture compared to 10–50% estimates of
CH4 uptake efficiency measured in traditional soil landfill covers. The importance
of a gravel support layer is evident, presumably because it functions to accumulate
and distribute the gas into the compost. The data also indicate that the surface area
and depth of compost over a biocovered landfill cell interact to influence the effects
of climate on temperature, moisture content, and gas penetration into the compost
at various depths. Therefore, the cover configuration, the compost properties, and
local climate conditions should be considered on a site-by-site basis for optimum
cover design.
Monitoring data from Waste Management’s Outerloop Landfill will allow ex-
amination of some of the key interacting variables in a different biocover design
in a southern U.S. climate. It will also provide much needed information about the
potential for NMOC and HAP uptake in biocovers.

5. Discussion

U.S. policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions appropriately emphasizes the
collection and oxidation of landfill CH4 . When energy is recovered from the CH4 ,
the conversion reduces the GWP of each CH4 molecule to that of one molecule of
CO2 . On a mass basis, the combustion reaction converts one gram of CH4 with a
100 yr GWP of 21 into 2.75 g of CO2 , with a GWP of 1. The net result is an 87%
reduction in GWP, and the CO2 emissions associated with producing an equivalent
amount of fossil fuel energy are avoided.
When energy capture is not economically feasible, flaring is recommended. It
has been argued that it is the removal of CH4 during the burn rather than the energy
recovered that is the more critical goal; 95% of the benefit is related to climate
change and 5% to the energy gain (CEC, 1996). Biotic CH4 removal systems
offer the same CH4 conversion to CO2 as flaring. However, unlike combustion, not
every molecule of CH4 consumed biotically is converted to CO2 . As much as 85%
(mole/mole) of the CH4 carbon may be incorporated into biomass and not released
to the environment (Borjesson et al., 2001). Therefore, any management technique
or technology that can optimize this conversion is economically valuable.
Composted organics foster good microbial growth and appear to make an effect-
ive medium for landfill cover. Long used as a biofiltration medium, compost offers
a good mix of porosity, water-holding capacity, pH, and nutrient supply. When used
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 81

as a thick layer of cover material, it provides the added benefit of avoiding disposal
costs for former waste products, such as sewage sludge, MSW, and yard waste.
Compost covers can be a polishing tool when paired with active gas collec-
tion systems. They can serve to capture CH4 that escapes collection, cometabolize
NMOCs, and provide an activated sink for atmospheric CH4 removal. Alternat-
ively, compost covers offer an inexpensive cover material where none exists, so that
sanitation conditions can be improved even when elaborate caps are not required
or are prohibitively expensive.
Subsequent investigations of biotic covers will need to address the durability
and active life of the cover material. This may depend, in part, on the nature and
source of the composted material and the depth at which maximum CH4 uptake
occurs. Factors such as temperature, moisture and gas ratios may influence the
optimum depth, which may even shift over time as the porosity and other character-
istics change as the compost degrades. Identification of the types of methanotrophs
selected by current systems may suggest other ways to optimize CH4 uptake.
Elucidation of the media characteristics that enhance success will also provide
valuable information. Higher microbial CH4 consumption in compost relative to
soil could be related to nutritional factors provided by the compost or to changes
in the microbial ecology and predator-prey relationships that develop. On the other
hand, physical factors such as the increased porosity, water-holding capacity, or
thermal mass of compost could be responsible for much of the observed effect,
so that synthetic materials with similar properties but greater durability could be
substituted.
Finally, the impacts of combining biotic compost covers with operational factors
known to improve microbial CH4 uptake have yet to be investigated. The mainten-
ance of vegetation on the compost could increase rhizosphere-related microbial
activity, and through shading, provide some additional temperature and moisture
modulation. On the other hand, vegetation could compete with CH4 -consuming
microbes for nutrients and water, so that overall CH4 consumption is decreased.

References

Adamsen, A. P. S. and King, G. M.: 1993, ‘Methane consumption in temperate and subarctic forest
soils: rates, vertical zonation, and responses to water and nitrogen’, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59,
485–490.
Anthony, C.: 1982, The Biochemistry of Methylotrophs, Academic Press, Inc. New York.
Anthony, C.: 1991, ‘Assimilation of Carbon by Methylotrophs’, in I. Goldberg and J. S. Roken (eds),
Biology of Methylotrophs. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, Mass., pp. 79–109,
Bedard, C. and Knowles, R.: 1989, ‘Physiology, biochemistry and specific inhibitors of CH4 , NH+ 4
and CO oxidation by methylotrophs and nitrifiers’, Microbiol. Rev. 53, 58–84.
Bender, M. and Conrad, R.: 1994, ‘Methane oxidation activity in various soils and freshwater sed-
iments: occurrence, characteristics, vertical profiles, and distribution on grain size fractions’, J.
Geophys. Res. 99, 16531–16540.
82 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

Bender, M. and Conrad, R.: 1995, ‘Effect of CH4 concentrations and soil conditions on the induction
of CH4 oxidation activity’, Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 1517–1527.
Bergamaschi, P. Lubina, C., Konigstedt, R., Fischer, H., Veltkamp, A.C. and Zwaagstra, O.:
1998, ‘Stable isotopic signatures (δ13C, δD) of methane from European landfill sites’, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles 103, 8251–8266.
Boeckx, P. and Van Cleemput, O. V.: 1996, ‘Methane oxidation in a neutral landfill cover
soil: influence of moisture content, temperature, and nitrogen-turnover’, J. Environ. Qual. 25,
178–183.
Boeckx, P., Van Cleemput, O. and Villaralvo, I.: 1996, ‘Methane emission from a landfill and the
methane oxidation capacity of its covering soil’, Soil Biol. Biochem. 28, 1397–1405.
Bogner, J. E., Spokas, K. A. and Burton, E. A.: 1997, ‘Kinetics of methane oxidation in a landfill
cover soil: temporal variations, a whole-landfill oxidation experiment, and modeling of net CH4
emissions’, Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 2504–2514.
Borjesson, G. and Svensson, G. H.: 1997, ‘Seasonal and diurnal methane emissions from a landfill
and their regulation by methane oxidation’, Waste Manage. Res. 15, 33–54.
Borjesson, G., Sundh, I., Tunlid, A. and Svensson, B. H.: 1998, ‘Methane oxidation in landfill cover
soils as revealed by potential oxidation measurements and phospholipid fatty acid analyses’, Soil
Biol. Biochem. 30, 1423–1433.
Borjesson, G., Chanton, J. and Svensson, B. H.: 2001, ‘Methane oxidation in two Swedish landfill
covers measured with carbon-13 to carbon-12 isotope ratios’, J. Environ. Qual. 30, 369–376.
Born, M. Dorr, H. and Levin, I.: 1990, ‘Methane consumption in aerated soils of the temperate zone’,
Tellus 42B, 2–8.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities): 1996, ‘Strategy Paper for Reducing Meth-
ane Emissions (Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European
Parliament)’ 15.11.1996 COM (96) 557, Belgian Federal Department for the Environment.
Chanton, J. and Liptay, K.: 2000, ‘Seasonal variation in methane oxidation in a landfill cover soil as
determined by an in situ stable isotope technique’, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 51–60.
Christophersen, M. Linderod, L., Jensen, P. E. and Kjeldsen, P.: 2000, ‘Methane oxidation at low
temperatures in soil exposed to landfill gas’, J. Environ. Qual. 29, 1989–1997.
Czepiel, P. M., Mosher, B., Crill, P. M. and Harriss, R. C.: 1996, ‘Quantifying the effect of oxidation
on landfill methane emissions’, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 16721–16729.
Dalton, H. and Stirling, D. I.: 1982, ‘Co-metabolism’, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London Ser. B. Biol.
Sci. 197, 481–496.
De Visscher, A., Thomas, D., Boeckx, P. and Van Cleemput, O.: 1999, ‘Methane oxidation in
simulated landfill cover soil environments’, Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 1854–1859.
Goldstein, N. and Madtes, C.: 2000, ‘The state of garbage in America’, Biocycle 41, 40–48.
Graedel, T. E. and Crutzen, P. J.: 1989, ‘The changing atmosphere’, Sci. Amer. 261, 136–143.
Hanson, R. S. and Hanson, T. E.: 1996, ‘Methanotrophic bacteria’, Microbiol. Rev. 60, 439–471.
Hilger, H., Barlaz, M. and Wollum, A.: 2000, ‘Landfill methane oxidation response to vegetation,
fertilization, and liming’, J. Environ. Qual. 29, 324–334.
Humer, M. and Lechner, P: 1999, ‘Methane Oxidation in Compost Cover Layers on Landfills’,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Vol. 3,
pp. 403–410, (4–8 October 1999) S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Humer, M. and Lechner, P.: 2001, ‘Microorganisms Against the Greenhouse Effect – Suitable Cover
Layers for the Elimination of Methane Emissions from Landfills’, in Proceedings from the Solid
Waste Association of North America’s 6th Annual Landfill Symposium, June 2001, SWANA, San
Diego, CA, pp. 305–309.
IPCC: 1995, Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
IPCC: 1996, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
 BIOTIC LANDFILL COVER TREATMENTS FOR MITIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS 83

Jones, R. D. and Morita, R. Y.: 1983, ‘Methane oxidation by Nitrosococcus oceanus and Nitrosomo-
nas europaea’, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 45, 401–410.
Jones, H. A. and Nedwell, D. B.: 1993, ‘Methane emission and methane oxidation in landfill cover
soil’, FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 102, 185–195.
Keller, M., Kaplan, W. A. and Wofsy, S. C.: 1986, ‘Emissions of N2 O, CH4 , and CO2 from tropical
forest soils’, J. Geophys. Res. 19, 791–802.
Kightley, D., Nedwell, D. B. and Cooper, M.: 1995: ‘Capacity for methane oxidation in landfill cover
soils measured in laboratory-scale soil microcosms’, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61, 592–601.
Kjeldsen, P., Dalager, A. and Broholm, K.: 1997, ‘Attenuation of methane and nonmethane organic
compounds in landfill gas affected soils’, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 47, 1268–1275.
Large, P.: 1983, Methylotrophy and Methanogenesis, Van Nostrand Reinhold (UK) Co., Ltd.,
Berkshire, England.
Liptay, K., Chanton, J., Czepiel, P. and Mosher, B.: 1998, ‘Use of stable isotopes to determine
methane oxidation in landfill cover soils’, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 8243–8250.
Mancinelli, R. L. and McKay, C. P.: 1985, ‘Methane-Oxidizing Bacteria in Sanitary Landfills’, in
A. Antonopoulos (ed.), Proceedings of the First Symposium on Biotechnological Advances in
Processing Municipal Wastes for Fuels and Chemicals. August 1984, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
U.S.A., Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/CNSV-TM-167.
McKinney, M. L. and Schoch, R. M.: 1998, Environmental Science, Jones and Bartlett Publishers
Intl., Sudbury, MA.
Meadows, M., Franklin, C., Campbell, D. and Reimer, P.: 1997, ‘Global Methane Emissions from
Solid Waste Disposal Sites’, Proceedings Sardinia 93, Sixth International Landfill Symposium,
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, CISA, pp. 3–10.
NETC: 1999, National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 1970–1998, National Environmental Tech-
nology Centre, The U.K. National Air Quality Information Archive, U.K. Department of the
Environment.
Reilly, I., Prinn, R. G, Uarnisch, J., Fitzmaurice, J., Jacoby, H. D., Kickligher, D., Stone, P. H.,
Sokolov, A. P. and Want, C.: 1999, ‘Multi-Gas Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol’, Report No.
45, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Boston, MA, January.
Striegl, R. G., McConnaughey, T. A., Thorstenson, D. C., Weeks, E. P. and Woodward, J. C.: 1992,
‘Consumption of atmospheric methane by desert soils’, Nature 357, 145–147.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S.: 1993, Integrated Solid Waste Management, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Topp, E. and Hanson, R. S.: 1991, ‘Metabolism of Radiatively Important Trace Gases by Methane-
Oxidizing Bacteria’, in J. E. Rogers and W. B. Whitman (eds), Microbial Production and
Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides, and Halomethanes. American
Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C., pp. 71–89.
USEPA: 1994, ‘International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990, Report to
Congress’, Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 230-R-93-010.
USEPA: 1997, MSW Factbook. URL: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/factbook/internet/
index.htm
USEPA: 1999a, ‘Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–1997’, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; EPA 236-R-
99-003, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/inventory/1999–inv.html
USEPA: 1999b, ‘U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2020: Inventories, Projections and Opportunities for
Reductions’, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 430-R-99-013.
U. S. Federal Register: 1996, Section 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 60.
Whalen, S. C. and Reeburgh, W. S.: 1990, ‘Consumption of atmospheric methane by tundra soils’,
Nature (London) 346, 160–162.
84 H. HILGER AND M. HUMER

Whalen, S. C., Reeburgh, W. S. and Sandbeck, K. A.: 1990, ‘Rapid methane oxidation in a landfill
cover soil’, Appl. Environ. Microbio. 56, 3405–3411.
Whittenbury, R. K., Phillips, C. and Wilkinson, J. F.: 1970, ‘Enrichment, isolation and some
properties of methane-utilizing bacteria’ J. Gen. Microbiol. 61, 205–218.
Williams, C. F., Terry, R. E., Buckner, G. R. and Hughes, D. F.: 1993, ‘Understanding biogas effects’,
Golf Course Manage., February.
Wolf, H. J. and Hanson, R. S.: 1978, ‘Alcohol dehydrogenase from Methylobacterium organophi-
lum’, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 36, 105–114.
WRI (World Resources Institute), United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Devel-
opment Programme and the World Bank: 1996, ‘World Resources 1996–97’, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.