MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404995677 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2024.2435340

Estimating methane emissions from the waste sector in Southern Ontario using atmospheric measurements

2024· article· en· W4404995677 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lawson Gillespie, Sébastien Ars, Samantha Alkadri, Siyar Urya, Susan Fraser, Felix Vogel, Debra Wunch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersOffice of Energy Research and DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMethaneMunicipal solid wasteTonneGreenhouse gasAtmospheric methaneMegacityEmission inventoryMethane emissionsAERMODEnvironmental engineeringFugitive emissionsLandfill gasPlumeMetropolitan areaAir pollutionHydrology (agriculture)Waste managementAir quality indexAtmospheric dispersion modelingMeteorologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate methane emissions rates for urban waste treatment facilities from mobile in situ atmospheric concentration measurements using an inverse Gaussian plume methodology at facilities in Southern Ontario, Canada. We use these estimated emissions rates to investigate, update, and improve the existing high resolution methane inventories at the facility level for waste sources throughout the Greater Toronto Area and Southwestern Ontario. Our measurements encompass tens of thousands of kilometers worth of mobile survey data collected over 7 years, encompassing more than 650 downwind transects where we surveyed 14 active landfills, 11 closed landfills, 2 organic waste processing facilities, 3 open air windrow compost facilities, and 11 water resource recovery facilities across our study region. These sources account for 77% of the active landfills within Southern Ontario, which is estimated in inventories to be the largest source of methane emissions in the region. Within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) megacity, the measured facilities represent about 52% of the total inventoried non-wetland methane emissions. We find that emissions from closed landfills are lower than inventory estimates, with significant implications for the methane budget in the GTA. We update the Facility Level and Area Methane Emissions for the GTA inventory with our measured emissions rates, which results in a 54% decline in the solid waste emissions, effecting a 35% lower estimate for the total anthropogenic methane emissions in the region. We attribute the bulk of this difference to a single facility: the Keele Valley landfill. Our atmospheric measurements also serve as a novel metric for evaluating the discrepancies between four facility level, and two high resolution gridded methane emissions inventories. Based on linear regressions of our measured emissions versus inventoried values, we find that the facility level first order decay model maintained by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to be the most consistent with our measured emissions rates at landfills and the self-reported emissions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program of ECCC to be the least consistent with our measurements.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207