Assessing the sustainability of composite liner systems for municipal solid waste landfills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal solid waste landfills require liner systems to prevent leachate migration into the environment. Liner selection typically focuses on engineering performance, cost, and ease of construction, with limited emphasis on sustainability. This study assessed the sustainability of four composite liner systems using the triple bottom line approach, considering environmental, economic, and social impacts, along with technical equivalence based on leachate infiltration rates. The four systems analyzed were: (1) geomembrane (GM) over compacted clay liner (CCL) (GM/CCL), (2) GM over geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) (GM/GCL), (3) GM over soil mixed with lime and cement (SA) (GM/SA), and (4) GM over fly ash mixed with bentonite (FAB) (GM/FAB). Life cycle stages–material extraction, construction, monitoring, and disposal–were evaluated. The study focused on DeKalb County Landfill in DeKalb, Illinois, USA, with environmental impacts quantified using the Eco-Indicator 99 and TRACI methods in SimaPro 8.0.1. Results showed that GM/FAB was the most sustainable liner in terms of environmental impact and second in economic and social considerations. However, GM/GCL was the most preferred based on economic and social impacts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".