MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009159571 · doi:10.31025/2611-4135/2020.13909

Use of Alternative Cover Materials to Control Surface Emissions (H2S and VOCs) at an Engineered Landfill

2020· article· en· W3009159571 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yann Le Bihan, David Loranger-King, Nicolás Turgeon, Nadine Pouliot, Nicolas Moreau, Daniel Deschênes, Guy Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueDetritus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsEnGlobe (Canada)Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLandfill gasWaste managementCompostIncinerationMunicipal solid wasteEnvironmental engineeringBiogasBiofilterMethaneEnvironmental chemistryEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 2010 and 2015, the Bellechasse Regional County Municipality (Bellechasse RCM) was affected by particularly noxious odors issuing from its Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Bellechasse RCM MSWL) in Armagh, Canada. A study carried out in 2015-2016 by Centre de recherche industrielle du Québec (CRIQ) confirmed that it was still possible for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions to cause odor issues in and around the site. The experimental project carried out by CRIQ in cooperation with Bellechasse RCM, Englobe, Quebec City and the Regroupement des récupérateurs et des recycleurs de matériaux de construction et de démolition du Québec (represented by AIM Éco-centre) made it possible to test three (3) different industrial residue as an alternative cover materials on site and study how they controlled H2S emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and odors at the Bellechasse RCM’s landfill. The site was monitored from November 2016 to September 2017 to confirm the effectiveness of alternative biofiltration cover materials (soil + compost), domestic waste incineration bottom ash and 0 to 2.5-inch concrete residues and to compare the results with the sand cover currently used as the cover material. Effectiveness was determined by measuring the Area Source Emission Rate (ASER) with a 3 m x 3 m static flux chamber developed for the project. Methane measurements were concomitantly taken to confirm that the biogas could escape through the cover materials. The monitoring results made it possible to demonstrate that domestic waste incineration bottom ash as well as 0-2.5 in. concrete received the highest load of H2S and showed an H2S capture performance of greater than 83ϿFor volatile organic compounds, materials such as 0-2.5 in. concrete and the alternative biofiltration cover materials were most effective for capture (greater than 73Ͽfor the highest loads. The lowest content of CH4 after covering was measured for the alternative cover materials. The site where the incineration bottom ash was used managed to decrease odors by ±200 odor units. Overall, we have demonstrated in this project, the capacity of different alternative cover materials under real condition for the control of gas emissions from landfill.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDetritusSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207