Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas 

Emissions from Two Florida Landfills 

Final Report 

Prepared by: 

ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 

4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F 

Durham, North Carolina 27713 

Tel 919 544 4535 

EPA Contract No.: EP-C-04-023 

Work Assignment Number: 4-26 

Project No.: RN990234.0026 

Prepared for: 

EPA Project Officer 

Susan Alice Thorneloe 

Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

National Risk Management and Research Laboratory 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

February 2009 

EPA/600/R-09/046 

May 2009

Notice 

The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in fulfillment of Contract No. EP-C-04-023 to ARCADIS U.S., Inc. It has been subject 

to the Agency’s peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA 

document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

ii

Foreword 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the 

Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the 

Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between 

human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this 

mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving 

environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our 

ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce 

environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for 

investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks 

from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's 

research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of 

pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water 

systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control 

of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and 

private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate 

emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by: 

developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; 

advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and 

providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of 

environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. 

It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the 

user community and to link researchers with their clients. 

Sally Gutierrez, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... xiii 

Chapter 1 Project Description...................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Optical Remote Sensing Instrumentation .................................................................... 1-3 

1.3 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method ..................................................................... 1-5 

1.4 Total NMOC Measurements........................................................................................ 1-7 

1.5 Total and Organo-Mercury Measurements.................................................................. 1-7 

1.6 Elemental Mercury Measurements .............................................................................. 1-8 

1.7 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes ...................................................................................... 1-9 

1.8 Field Schedule.............................................................................................................. 1-9 

Chapter 2 Test Procedures ........................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #1 ........................................ 2-1 

2.1.1 Control Cell..........................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.2 Bioreactor Cell.....................................................................................................2-2 

2.1.3 Background Measurements.................................................................................. 2-3 

2.2 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #2 ........................................ 2-3 

2.2.1 Control Cell..........................................................................................................2-3 


2.2.3 Background Measurements.................................................................................. 2-6 

2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling....................................................................... 2-6 

2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling................................................................. 2-7 

2.5 Summa Canister Sampling........................................................................................... 2-7 

Chapter 3 Results and Discussion................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.1 Landfill Site #1 ............................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.1.1 Control Cell..........................................................................................................3-1 


3.1.2.1 February 22 ...................................................................................................... 3-5 

ii

3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions ...........................................................................3-10 

3.1.4 Summa Canister Sampling.................................................................................3-13 

3.1.5 Total Mercury Measurements............................................................................ 3-16 

3.1.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements .....................................................................3-17 

3.1.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements................................................................3-17 

3.1.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements ....................................................................3-18 

3.1.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes ............................................................................3-18 

3.2 Landfill Site #2 .......................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.2.1 Control Cell........................................................................................................3-20 

3.2.1.1 February 24 .................................................................................................... 3-20 

3.2.1.2 February 25 .................................................................................................... 3-24 

3.2.2 Bioreactor Cell...................................................................................................3-28 

3.2.2.1 February 23 .................................................................................................... 3-28 

3.2.2.2 February 24 .................................................................................................... 3-31 

3.2.3 Total Site Methane Emissions ...........................................................................3-33 

3.2.4 Summa Canister Sampling.................................................................................3-34 

3.2.5 Total Mercury Measurements............................................................................ 3-36 

3.2.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements .....................................................................3-37 

3.2.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements................................................................3-37 

3.2.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements ....................................................................3-38 

3.2.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes ............................................................................3-38 

3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Results from the October 2007 Field Campaign .......... 3-40 

3.3.1 Total Mercury Concentrations ...........................................................................3-40 

3.3.2 Gas Sampling Results ........................................................................................3-41 

Chapter 4 Conclusion................................................................................................................... 4-1 

Chapter 5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control............................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 Equipment Calibration................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals............................................................................................ 5-2 

5.2.1 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS ............................5-2 

5.2.2 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement with OP-FTIR..................................5-3 

5.2.3 Inter-comparison Study of OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS Instruments .................... 5-4 

5.2.4 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements .......5-5 

iii

5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements................5-6 

5.2.6 DQI Check for Lumex Mercury Analyzer........................................................... 5-6 

5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Samples ................................................................5-7 

5.2.8 DQI Check of Dimethyl Mercury Samples .........................................................5-7 

5.2.9 DQI Check of Monomethyl Mercury Samples.................................................... 5-8 

5.2.10 DQI Check of VOC Samples with SUMMA® Canisters.................................... 5-9 

5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance....................................................... 5-9 

Chapter 6 References ................................................................................................................... 6-1 

APPENDIX A Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) Algorithm .............................................1 

APPENDIX B Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates..............................................................1 

APPENDIX C Path-Averaged Methane Concentration Values Used for Emissions 

Calculations......................................................................................................................................1 

iv

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Target Compound List .................................................................................................1-8 

Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites..................................................................1-10 

Table 3-1. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured 

along the northern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1.......................3-4 


along the eastern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1.........................3-4 


along the western VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1........................3-4 

Table 3-4. Calculated methane flux and prevailing wind speed and direction measured on 

February 22 along the northern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of 

Site #1 ...........................................................................................................................3-7 


February 22 along the eastern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of Site 

#1...................................................................................................................................3-8 


February 22 along the southern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of 

Site #1 ...........................................................................................................................3-9 


February 22 along the western VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell of 

Site #1 .........................................................................................................................3-10 

Table 3-8. Summary of total site methane emissions calculations from Site #1 .......................3-12 

Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysis from Site #1.....................................................................3-14 

Table 3-10. Results of C1 to C6 and permanent gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #1 ...............3-16 

Table 3-11. Results of Method 25-C analysis from Site #1..........................................................3-16 

Table 3-12. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 ................................................3-17 

Table 3-13. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1..........................................3-17 

Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) from Site #1....................................3-18 

Table 3-15. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site #1 ..3-19 

v

Table 3-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction Measured 

on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-21 


on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-22 


on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-23 


on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-24 


on February 25 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-26 


on February 25 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-26 


on February 25 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-27 


on February 25 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-27 


on February 23 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-29 


on February 23 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-29 


on February 23 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-30 


on February 23 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-30 

vi


on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-32 


on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-32 


on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-32 


on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor Cell 

of Site #2.....................................................................................................................3-33 

Table 3-32. Summary of Total Site Methane Emissions Calculations from Site #2 ...................3-33 

Table 3-33. Results for TO-15 Analysis from Site #2 ..................................................................3-34 

Table 3-34. Results for C1 to C6 and Permanent Gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #2.............3-36 

Table 3-35. Results for Method 25-C Analysis from Site #2 .......................................................3-36 

Table 3-36. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2 ................................................3-37 

Table 3-37. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2..........................................3-37 

Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) from Site #2....................................3-38 

Table 3-39. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site #2 ..3-39 

Table 3-40. Total Mercury Concentrations Measured at Site #1 during the October 2007 

Field Campaign ..........................................................................................................3-40 


Field Campaign ..........................................................................................................3-41 

Table 3-42. Landfill Gas Composition Data Collected at Sites #1 and #2 during the October 

2007 Field Campaign .................................................................................................3-41 

Table 4-1. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Value From Each Landfill Cell ..................4-1 

Table 4-2. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, Monomethyl, and Elemental 

Mercury Measured at Each Site...................................................................................4-2 

Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description ............................................5-1 

Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation ....................................................................................5-2 

Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R 2 Value ............................5-3 

vii

Table 5-4. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 (February 

2007) .............................................................................................................................5-7 

Table 5-5. Precision Ranges for Total Mercury Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 (October 

2008) .............................................................................................................................5-7 

Table 5-6. Precision ranges for Dimethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2..............5-8 

Table 5-7. Precision Ranges for Monomethyl Mercury Measurements for Sites #1 and #2.......5-8 

Table 5-8. Precision ranges for Method 25-C Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 ........................5-9 

Table 5-9. Precision ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 .......................5-9 

Table B-1. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the 

Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1.............................B-1 


IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1. .............................B-1 

Table B-4 Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the 

IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1...........................B-2 


Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2.........................B-3 


IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2..........................B-3 


Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2............................B-4 


IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2. ............................B-4 

Table C-1. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Northern VRPM 

Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1 .............................................................C-1 

Table C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Eastern VRPM 


Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Western VRPM 


Table C-4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Southern Beam Path in the 

Control Cell of Site #1 ...............................................................................................C-4 

Table C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Northern 

VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1.............................................C-5 

viii

Table C-6. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Eastern 

VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1..............................................C-6 

Table C-7. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Southern 


Table C-8. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the Western 



VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2..................................................C-9 


VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2.................................................C-10 














VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #2............................................C-17 











ix





x

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Map of Site #1 detailing the location of the survey cells ............................................1-2 

Figure 1-2. Map of Site #2 detailing the location of the survey cells ............................................1-3 

Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFinder 2.0 instrument.................................................................1-4 

Figure 1-4. Scanning IMACC OP-FTIR instrument......................................................................1-5 

Figure 1-5. Schematic of the VRPM configuration used during this study...................................1-6 

Figure 2-1. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 .....................2-1 

Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 ............................2-2 


Figure 2-5. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 ......................2-4 


Figure 2-7. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 ......................2-5 

Figure 3-1. Summary of ORS measurements from the 4:00 pm survey of the control cell of 

Site #1 ...........................................................................................................................3-2 


Site #1 ...........................................................................................................................3-3 

Figure 3-3. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on February 22 in the bioreactor 

cell of Site #1................................................................................................................3-6 

Figure 3-4. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the control cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-20 

Figure 3-5. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 25 in the control cell of 

Site #2. ........................................................................................................................3-25 

Figure 3-6. Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 23 in bioreactor cell of Site 

#2.................................................................................................................................3-28 

Figure 3-7 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the bioreactor cell of 

Site #2 .........................................................................................................................3-31 

Figure 5-1. Results of the Methane Gasfinder Calibration Experiment ........................................5-5 

Figure A-1. Example of a VRPM Configuration Setup................................................................A-2 

xi

This page intentionally left blank. 

xii

Executive Summary 

Waste decomposition in a municipal landfill is a biological process which occurs over multiple 

decades from initial waste placement. Use of leachate recirculation is getting more widespread 

use in the U.S. because it results in accelerating waste decomposition and extending landfill air 

space (allowing more waste to be deposited in the landfill). Differences in how leachate and 

other liquids are added and how the site is designed and managed will lead to differences in the 

quantity of landfill gas that is not collected and controlled. Some landfills are designed and 

operated to minimize fugitive loss such as the landfill site in Yolo County, California where 

liquid is not added until synthetic liners are in place surrounding the waste mass including the 

top of the cell (http://www.yolocounty.org/). Other sites are operated to add liquid as soon as 

waste is placed in the landfill at the working face (U.S. EPA, 2005a). With this type of 

operation, there is no ability to collect and control fugitive loss. 

There are limited data on which to base the performance of wet landfills to traditional landfill 

operation (i.e., not leachate recirculation). The most extensive work to date was released in 2005 

and evaluated gas extraction data from twenty-nine wet landfill sites (U.S. EPA, 2005b; Faour et 

al., 2007). The data were used to develop inputs for gas generation using a first-order 

decomposition rate equation. For a few sites there were longer term data to evaluate trends over 

time. However, most of the data were from a single sampling event (only one point in time). 

None of the sites provided data on potential fugitive loss such as delays in gas collection from 

waste placement or leaks in the surface cover or landfill gas header pipes and extraction wells. 

The purpose of this study is to evaluate fugitive loss from two different municipal landfills which 

were reported to be operating as a wet or bioreactor landfill and have an area regarded as a 

“control” cell (where no additional liquid was added). Fugitive methane emissions were 

measured at both sites for the “wet” and “control” cells using optical remote sensing (ORS) 

technology. Two different instruments were used - an open-path tunable diode laser (OP 

TDLAS) instrument by Boreal, Inc (the Gas-Finder 2.0) and an open-path Fourier transform 

infrared (OP-FTIR) instrument by IMACC, Inc. The measurements were conducted using 

vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) to calculate net methane-flux emission values from the 

top and side slopes of each landfill cell. In addition to the ORS measurements, SUMMA canister 

samples were collected from the gas header pipes at the sites to obtain data on trace constituents 

in landfills gas including non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), hydrogen sulfide, mercury, 

and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

Problems were encountered during the field test. An intercomparison study was planned to 

ensure no bias in measurements when using two different ORS instruments (i.e., OP-FTIR and 

TDL). A regression analysis indicated that the TDL-AS instrument indicating a potential 40% 

bias. However, the very limited number of measurements (n = 7) and the poor regression 

coefficient (r 2 = 0.20), raise questions as to the validity of the intercomparison results. Previous 

xiii

experience with OP-FTIR and TDL instruments and in other projects has demonstrated that the 

two instrument exhibit good comparability. Therefore, methane flux results from the two 

instruments are assumed to be comparable. 

Ideally longer term data are desired than what was conducted for this study. Additionally, given 

the range in landfill design and operation, data from a wider variety sites are preferred to better 

account for differences in fugitive loss. For example, one of the sites added fresh layer of soil to 

the bioreactor cell immediately before the testing. How would emission results compare if field 

testing could have been conducted before the soil layer was added or six months later? As wider 

application of wet landfill operation is used, improvements will occur in design and operation. 

How will this affect fugitive loss? How do uncontrolled emissions compare for sites where 

liquid is added directly to the work face (where there is no ability to collect and control) versus 

landfills where leachate recirculation or other liquid addition is delayed until liners are in place 

surrounding the waste mass (including the top of the waste mass)? 

Using the OP-ORS data, methane emission flux rates were calculated for each cell. The methane 

flux results for landfill #1 indicate that fugitive methane emissions from the bioreactor cell were 

about twice that of the control cell (1,500 vs 3,800 kg/day). At landfill #2, methane emissions 

from the control cell were found to be about 5 times higher than the bioreactor cell (~6,000 vs 

1,200 kg/day). This is attributed to the fact that no liquid additions had been added to the 

bioreactor for several months because of heavy rainfall from a recent series of hurricanes. In 

addition, a fresh layer of soil had just been added to the surface of the bioreactor cell just prior to 

when the field measurements were conducted. An estimate of the total site emissions were 

calculated for Site #1 (5,300 kg/day) and site #2 (7,300 kg/day). 

This report provides the results from field tests for two landfills. Work is underway through 

EPA to develop additional guidance for the use of OTM-10 for landfill applications. It is hoped 

that, as additional tests are conducted, data will be available to better understand the amount of 

uncontrolled landfill gas and potential differences in fugitive loss between wet versus traditional 

landfill design and operation. For further information on EPA emission factors for landfill gas, 

please refer to EPA’s Section 2-4 in AP42 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/index.html, 

U.S. EPA, 2008). 

xiv


xv

1.1 Background 

Chapter 1 

Project Description 

Landfill gas emissions, if left uncontrolled, contribute to air toxics, climate change, tropospheric 

ozone, and urban smog. Measuring emissions from landfills presents unique challenges due to 

the large and variable source area, spatial and temporal variability of emissions, and the wide 

variety of target pollutants. Recent advancements have been made for improved quantification of 

uncontrolled emissions from area sources. This technology is referred to as radial plume 

mapping (RPM) using optical remote sensing (ORS) instrumentation to quantify uncontrolled 

emissions. The method has been applied to perform multiple emissions measurement campaigns 

at former landfill sites (U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2005c; U.S. EPA, 2005d). A summary of 

ORS measurements at landfills as well as an overview of this technology was published in an 

EPA report in 2007 [Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground-Based Optical Remote 

Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032), Feb 2007; available at 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/ 600r07032/600r07032.pdf]. This technology can be used at 

landfills to quantify uncontrolled emissions for: (1) input to obtaining Title V permits for landfill 

expansion; (2) establishing emission estimates for greenhouse gas inventories; (3) evaluating the 

suitability of a site for recreational use or development; and (4) evaluating the performance of 

technology changes such as use of alternative landfill cover materials or operation of 

wet/bioreactor landfills. 

For older sites, site-specific data on waste acceptance rates, waste composition, and other data 

needed for modeling landfill gas emissions are often not available. In EPA’s guidance for 

evaluating landfill gas emissions from older landfills being considered for Brownfield 

development or recreational use, radial plume mapping is suggested as a preferred approach to 

reliance on modeling landfill gas emissions. [Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions 

from Closed or Abandoned Facilities (EPA-600/R-05/123a). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123.pdf.]. 

At sites where new technology is being used in the design and operation of landfills, radial 

plume mapping can help to establish a comparison of emissions from different landfill practices. 

For this report, data were collected at two municipal sites in Florida that were operating landfills 

as a bioreactor to accelerate waste decomposition. This report provides results from 

measurements collected in the areas being operated as a bioreactor and at other areas that were 

considered by the site operator to be a control cell. 

ARCADIS and EPA conducted a measurement campaign at each site using one scanning 

GasFinder 2.0 methane OP-TDLAS instrument (Boreal, Inc) and one scanning OP-FTIR 

1-1

instrument (IMACC, Inc.). Figures 1-1 and 1-2 present the overall layout of Site #1 and Site #2, 

respectively, detailing the geographic location of each measurement cell. 

In addition to the ORS measurements, SUMMA® canister samples were collected from the gas 

header pipes at the sites to obtain data on volatile organic compound (VOC) constituents in the 

landfill gas. The primary goals of the study were to evaluate and compare emissions of methane 

and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from bioreactor and control cells at the sites and generate an 

estimate of total site methane emissions. The data collected at the sites were used to calculate an 

emission flux rate from the cells for each compound investigated. 

A second focus of this study was to quantify the level of mercury concentrations in landfill gas. 

Data on total, elemental and organo-mercury (including methyl and dimethyl mercury) were 

collected in the vicinity of the gas header pipes at the site. 

Figure 1-1. Map of Site #1 detailing the location of the survey cells 

1-2

Figure 1-2. Map of Site #2 detailing the location of the survey cells 

1.2 Optical Remote Sensing Instrumentation 

The current study used two optical remote sensing instruments to collect path-integrated 

concentration data at the sites. Each instrument was mounted on a scanner, and collected pathintegrated 

methane concentration data along multiple path lengths. 

The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS instrument is designed for area and fugitive source 

emission characterization. The infrared laser emits radiation at a particular wavelength in the 

infrared region when an electrical current is passed through it. The light wavelength depends on 

the current and therefore allows scanning over an absorption feature and analyzing for the target 

gas concentration, using Beer’s law. The laser signal is transmitted from a single telescope to a 

retro-reflecting mirror target, which is usually set up at a range of 100 to 1500 m. The returned 

light signal is received by the single telescope and directed to a detector. The instrument provides 

instantaneous, path-integrated methane concentration data. The single channel methane 

GasFinder 2.0 was used for the current campaign. Figure 1-3 presents a picture of the GasFinder 

2.0 instrument that was used for this study. 

1-3

Figure 1-3. Scanning Boreal GasFinder 2.0 instrument 

The IMACC OP-FTIR Spectrometer is designed for both fence-line monitoring applications, and 

real-time, on-site, remediation monitoring and source characterization. An infrared light beam, 

modulated by a Michelson interferometer, is transmitted from a single telescope to a mirror 

target, which is usually set up at a range of 100 to 500 meters. The returned light signal is 

received by the single telescope and directed to a detector. The light is absorbed by the 

molecules in the beam path as the light propagates to the mirror and again as the light is reflected 

back to the analyzer. Thus, the round-trip path of the light doubles the chemical absorption 

signal. One advantage of OP-FTIR monitoring is that the concentrations of a multitude of 

infrared absorbing gaseous chemicals can be detected and measured simultaneously, with high 

temporal resolution. Figure 1-4 presents a picture of the IMACC OP-FTIR used for the current 

study. 

1-4

Figure 1-4. Scanning IMACC OP-FTIR instrument 

1.3 Vertical Radial Plume Mapping Method 

The vertical radial plume mapping (VRPM) method maps pollutant concentrations in the vertical 

plane by scanning the ORS instrument in a vertical plane downwind from an area source. One 

can obtain the plane-integrated concentration from the reconstructed concentration maps. The 

downwind emissions flux is calculated by multiplying the plane-integrated concentration by the 

wind speed component perpendicular to the vertical plane. Thus, the VRPM method leads to a 

direct measurement-based determination of the upwind source emission rate (Hashmonay et al., 

1998; Hashmonay and Yost, 1999; Hashmonay et al., 2001; Hashmonay et al., 2008). Under the 

auspices of the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Environmental Security Technology 

Certification Program (ESTCP) and the U.S. EPA a radial plume mapping (RPM) methodology 

to directly characterize gaseous emissions from area sources has been demonstrated and 

validated, and a protocol has been developed and peer reviewed. This EPA “Other Test Method” 

was made available for use on the U.S. EPA website in July 2006, and can be found at 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html. 

The VRPM configuration consists of a scanning ORS instrument, a scissors jack or similar 

vertical structure (between 5 and 15 meters high) deployed between 50 and 300 meters from the 

instrument, and multiple mirrors. Typically, three mirrors are deployed along the ground 

between the ORS instrument and the vertical structure, one mirror is mounted midway up the 

vertical structure, and one mirror is mounted on top of the vertical structure. Wind speed and 

1-5

wind direction data are collected near the base of the vertical structure, and at the top of the 

vertical structure. 

During previous measurement projects, there have been questions about whether or not 

emissions from major hot spots in the landfill cells were being completely captured by the 

VRPM configuration. In the past, surface measurement surveys were done to locate the position 

of the emission hot spots in the landfill cells, and the VRPM configuration was deployed directly 

downwind of the hot spots. The exact location of the VRPM configuration was based on 

prevailing or forecasted wind directions. 

In order to address concerns related to emissions capture, an improved VRPM configuration was 

used for the current study. The improved configuration allowed the project team to collect data 

regardless of the prevailing wind direction and ensured that emissions from major surface hot 

spots in the cells were captured by the measurement configuration. The improved configuration 

also enabled the project team to characterize any emissions originating from the slopes of the 

landfill cells. 

The improved configuration consisted of deploying four separate VRPM configurations using 

two vertical structures and two scanning ORS systems. Figure 1-5 presents an overhead 

schematic of the improved VRPM configuration. 

Figure 1-5. Schematic of the VRPM configuration used during this study 

1-6

The two scanning ORS instruments were deployed on top of each measurement area, in opposite 

corners of the landfill cells. Each instrument was used to scan to two five-mirror VRPM 

configurations. Path-integrated concentration data were collected along each beam path in the 

configuration. These data were input into the VRPM algorithm with wind data (collected 

concurrently) to produce an emissions plume map and downwind emissions flux value. More 

information on the VRPM algorithm can be found in Appendix A of this document. 

1.4 Total NMOC Measurements 

Concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas collected from the gas 

header pipe at each site. The samples were collected using an adapted version of EPA Method 

0040 – Sampling of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from Combustion Sources Using 

Tedlar Bags. This modified Method 0040 used the same analytical technique detailed in the 

method, but used the samples collected in a Summa canister. Analysis of VOC concentrations 

was done by Research Triangle Park Laboratories, Inc. using EPA Method TO-15, 

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially-Prepared 

Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) as seen in the 

Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air, 

Second Edition (EPA 625/R-96/010b), and EPA Method 25-C, Determination of Nonmethane 

Organic Compounds in Landfill Gas. Landfill gases were also measured using a landfill gas 

monitor for the measurement of methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen 

sulfide. Table 1-1 presents a list of target compounds for the GC/MS analysis. The list includes 

compounds identified as landfill gas constituents in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, AP-42 (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

1.5 Total and Organo-Mercury Measurements 

Total and organo- mercury samples were collected at a location in the vicinity of a gas header 

pipe at each site. The total mercury samples were collected using an iodated charcoal trap as a 

sorbent. A backup tube was also present to assess any breakthrough. Additional samples were 

collected to analyze concentrations of organo-mercury (monomethyl and dimethyl). The 

methods, developed by Frontier Geosciences, involve drawing a measured volume of sample gas 

through different adsorbers, at a draw rate of approximately 400 L/min. The method used to 

collect samples for monomethylmercury (MMM) used a condenser train consisting of several 

water impingers in an ice bath. Dimethylmercury (DMM) is collected on a carbotrap cartridge. 

Samples were recovered, digested, and analyzed for mercury by cold-vapor atomic fluorescence 

spectroscopy (CVAFS). 

Total mercury sorbent tubes were also collected from the landfills and analyzed by a modified 

SW-846 Method 7473, “Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Mercury 

Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy” and CFR Part 60 Method 30B, 

“Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources 

Using Carbon Sorbent Tubes.” Samples were analyzed using the Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman 

spectrometer with a RP-M324 decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury 

amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of the instrument. The iodated carbon samples 

were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a decomposition furnace at 775 deg 

C. The mercury species are converted to elemental mercury and detected by the Zeeman atomic 

1-7

adsorption spectrometer. The analyzed is calibrated using NIST certified HgCl2 standards from 

SCP Sciences. Elemental mercury spiking of the carbon tubes were performed using an impinger 

containing a stannous chloride solution. The mercury standard is dispensed into the impinger and 

the elemental mercury is pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The 

elemental mercury spike is used to assess the recovery the mercury from the carbon tubes. 

1.6 Elemental Mercury Measurements 

Elemental mercury measurements were collected in the vicinity of a gas header pipe at both sites 

using a Lumex RA-915+ instrument. The Lumex instrument is considered to be ideally suited to 

quantify and screen landfill gas samples for elemental mercury. This instrument has been used 

by U.S. EPA, industry, and academic groups to quantify elemental mercury in indoor air and to 

estimate elemental mercury emissions in industrial process flue gases. 

The Lumex RA-915+ mercury analyzer produces real-time mercury concentration measurements 

by performing atomic absorption spectrometry (at 253.7 nm wavelength) on elemental mercury 

atoms in a continuously extracted gas stream. It achieves the low detection limit of 2 ng/m 3 by 

using a multi-path absorption cell, which has an effective optical path of approximately 10 

meters. Using the Zeeman Effect, selectivity is achieved using high frequency modulation of 

light polarization (ZAAS-HFM). For landfill gases, where mercury concentrations are expected 

to be high, it may be beneficial to use the shorter-path-length cell (6.25 cm) and at the lower 

sample flow rate (5.0 lpm), to take advantage of the detection limit of approximately 320 ng/m 3 

and higher linear calibration range. 

Table 1-1. Target Compound List 

Compound AP-42 Value a (ppmv) Compound AP-42 Value (ppmv) 

Benzene 1.91 Ethylene dichloride 0.41 

Butane 5.03 Hexane 6.57 

Carbonyl sulfide 0.49 Methane N/A 

Chloromethane 1.21 Methyl isobutyl ketone 1.87 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 15.7 Methylene chloride 14.3 

Ethane 889 Propylene dichloride 0.18 

Ethyl chloride 1.25 Tetrachloroethene 3.73 

Fluorotrichloromethane 0.76 Trichlorethylene 2.82 

Pentane 3.29 Vinyl chloride 7.34 

Propane 11.1 Vinylidene chloride 0.20 

Acetone 7.01 Ethanol 27.2 

Acrylonitrile 6.33 Methyl ethyl ketone 7.09 

Carbon disulfide 0.58 2-Propanol 50.1 

Carbon tetrachloride 0.004 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.21 

Chlorobenzene 0.25 Ethyl benzene 4.61 

Chloroform 0.03 Xylenes 12.1 

Dimethyl sulfide 7.82 Hydrogen sulfide 35.5 

Ethylene dibromide 

N/A = not available 

0.001 Methyl mercaptan 2.49 

a 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume 1: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5 th ed., Chapter 2.4, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, US EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1997. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf 

1-8

1.7 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 

As described previously, concentrations of NMOC were determined from samples of landfill gas 

collected at the gas header pipe at each site. The samples were analyzed for the target 

compounds listed in Table 1-1. Upon completion of the sample analysis, the concentration of the 

detected target compounds (obtained from the EPA Method TO-15 data) was ratioed to the 

concentration of the methane in the landfill gas samples (obtained from the EPA Method 25-C 

data). This ratio was used with the methane emissions data collected with the ORS 

instrumentation to calculate an estimated emissions flux value, from the top of the landfill cell 

for each of the target VOC compounds, using the following formula: 

Where 

Ft = [(Ct * Fo)/Co] [Mt/Mo] (1) 

Ft is the flux of the target compound (VOC) 

Ct is the measured concentration of the target compound 

Fo is the calculated methane flux 

Co is the measured methane concentration 

Mt is the molecular weight of the target compound 

Mo is the molecular weight of methane 

1.8 Field Schedule 

Two field campaigns were completed for this study at two separate sites during February and 

October 2007. During the February 2007 field campaign, methane concentration data were 

collected using the ORS instrumentation, and gas and mercury samples were collected near the 

landfill header pipes. Due to questionable gas and mercury data from the February 2007 

campaign, additional gas and mercury samples were collected during a second campaign 

conducted in October 2007. Table 1-2 presents the schedule of work that was performed. 

1-9

Table 1-2. Schedule of Work Performed at the Sites 

Day Site Detail of Work Performed 

Sunday, February 18 Site #1 Travel to Site #1 

Monday, February 19 Site #1 AM-Site Orientation 

PM-Deployment of ORS Equipment at Control Cell; gas and 

mercury sampling 

Tuesday, February 20 Site #1 ORS Data Collected at Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling 

Wednesday, February 21 Site #1 AM- Deployment of ORS Equipment at Bioreactor Cell 

PM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell; gas and mercury 

sampling 

Thursday, February 22 Site #1 AM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell 

PM- Travel to Site #2 

Friday, February 23 Site #2 AM- Site Orientation and Deployment of ORS Equipment at 

Bioreactor Cell 

PM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell; gas and mercury 

sampling 

Saturday, February 24 Site #2 AM- ORS Data Collected at Bioreactor Cell 

PM- Deployment of ORS Equipment and ORS Data Collected at 

Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling 

Sunday, February 25 Site #2 ORS Data Collected at Control Cell; gas and mercury sampling 

Sunday, October 21 Site #1 Travel to Site #1 

Monday, October 22 Site #1 Perform gas sampling / Travel to site #2 

Tuesday, October 23 Site #2 Perform gas and mercury sampling /. Travel to site #1 

Wednesday, October 24 Site #1 Perform gas and mercury sampling / Travel back to RTP 

1-10

Chapter 2 

Test Procedures 

The following subsections describe the test procedures used during the optical remote sensing 

measurements at each of the survey cells at the two sites. Refer to Figures 1-1 and 1-2 for the 

geographical orientation of each survey cell. For the ORS measurements, 10 mirrors were used 

with each ORS instrument for a total of 20 mirrors for each survey within each landfill cell. The 

coordinates of the mirrors used in each configuration are presented in Appendix B of this report. 

Additionally, the test procedures used to collect the mercury samples, Summa canister samples, 

and gas flow measurements, are described below. 

2.1 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #1 

2.1.1 Control Cell 

The control cell was located on the western side of landfill Site #1 (see Figure 1-1). ORS 

measurements were collected in this cell on February 20. The Control Cell was a closed cell, and 

a synthetic liner was installed over the surface of the cell in November 2001. The VRPM 

configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, 

and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the northwestern corner of the cell, 

the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of the cell, and the two vertical 

structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern corners of the cell, respectively. 

Figure 2-1 presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the control cell, 

showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed black lines depict the location of the four 

VRPM measurement planes. Figure 2-2 shows a photo of the measurement configuration. 

Figure 2-1. Schematic of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 

2-1

Figure 2-2. Detail of measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #1 

2.1.2 Bioreactor Cell 

The bioreactor cell was located on the eastern side of landfill Site #1 (see Figure 1-1). ORS 

measurements were collected in this cell on February 22. The bioreactor cell was accepting 

waste during the time of the measurements, so it was not possible to deploy the instrumentation 

over the entire footprint of the cell due to heavy machinery traffic associated with landfill 

operations. The VRPM configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning 

OP-TDLAS instrument, and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the 

northwestern corner of the cell, the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of the 

cell, and the two vertical structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern corners 

of the cell, respectively. The work face was located in the eastern portion of the landfill cell. 

Figure 2-3 presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the Bioreactor Cell, 

showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed black lines depict the location of the four 

VRPM measurement planes. The dashed yellow line indicates the configuration used to collect 

background measurements at the site. 

2-2


2.1.3 Background Measurements 

Background methane concentration measurements were collected at Site #1 on February 21 

using the OP-TDLAS instrument. The measurements were collected at a location south of the 

bioreactor cell, upwind of the landfill cells at the site. The data collected were used to establish 

an average background methane concentration at the site. 

2.2 Optical Remote Sensing Measurements at Landfill Site #2 


The control cell was located on the southern side of landfill Site #2 (see Figure 1-2). This cell 

was referred to as the “control cell” because it was not being operated as a bioreactor cell. 

However, the cell was still accepting waste during the time of the measurements. ORS 

measurements were collected in this cell on February 24 and 25. Since the control cell was 

accepting waste during the time of the measurements, it was not possible to deploy the 

instrumentation over the entire footprint of the cell due to heavy machinery traffic associated 

with landfill operations. The VRPM configuration consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, 

a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, and two vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in 

the northwestern corner of the cell, the OP-TDLAS was deployed in the southeastern corner of 

the cell, and the two vertical structures were deployed in the northeastern and southwestern 

2-3

corners of the cell, respectively. Figure 2-4 presents a schematic of the measurement 

configuration used in the control cell, showing the distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed 

yellow lines depict the location of the four VRPM measurement planes. Figure 2-5 shows a 

photo of the measurement configuration. 


Figure 2-5. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 

2-4


The bioreactor cell was located on the northern side of landfill Site #2 (see Figure 1-2). ORS 

measurements were collected in this cell on February 23 and 24. The bioreactor cell was an 

active cell, and a soil cover had been recently placed over the surface. Although this cell was 

classified as a bioreactor cell, according to the site operators, leachate had not been injected into 

the cell in several months due to excessive rainfall in the area. The VRPM configuration 

consisted of a scanning OP-FTIR instrument, a scanning OP-TDLAS instrument, and two 

vertical structures. The OP-FTIR was deployed in the northeastern corner of the cell, the OP 

TDLAS was deployed in the southwestern corner of the cell, and the two vertical structures were 

deployed in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the cell, respectively. Figure 2-6 

presents a schematic of the measurement configuration used in the bioreactor cell, showing the 

distances of the VRPM planes. The dashed yellow lines depict the location of the four VRPM 

measurement planes. The dashed red line indicates the location of the configuration used to 

collect background measurements at the site. Figure 2-7 shows a photo of the measurement 

configuration. 


Figure 2-7. Detail of the measurement configuration at the control cell of Site #2 

2-5

2.2.3 Background Measurements 

Background methane concentration measurements were collected at Site #2 on February 25 

using the OP-TDLAS instrument. The measurements were collected at a location south of the 

control cell, upwind of the landfill cells at the site. The data collected were used to establish an 

average background methane concentration at the site. 

2.3 Total and Speciated Mercury Sampling 

During the February 2007 field campaign, the total mercury samples (THg) were collected using 

an iodated charcoal trap as a sorbent. A backup tube was also present to assess any breakthrough. 

The sorbent tube was heated to above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on 

the sorbent. Water vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel 

impinger. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull sample through the train and collect the 

sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic 

sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.8 liters/minute for 37.5 

minutes, which equates to a total volume of approximately 30 liters. 

The traps were returned to the lab where the iodated carbon is leached of collected Hg using hotrefluxing 

HNO3/H2SO4 and then further oxidized by a 0.01 N BrCl solution. The digested and 

oxidized leachate sample was analyzed using the FGS-069 CVAFS total Hg analysis method 

(which served as the basis for U.S. EPA Method 1631, developed, authored, and validated by 

Frontier Geosciences). 

During the October 2007 field campaign, carbon tube samples taken from the landfills were 

analyzed by a modified SW-846 Method 7473, “Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal 

Decomposition, Mercury Amalgamation, and Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy” and CFR Part 

60 Method 30B, “Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired 

Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Tubes.” Samples were analyzed using a Lumex RA 

915+ Zeeman spectrometer with a RP-M324 decomposition furnace attachment cell. No mercury 

amalgamation was necessary due to the sensitivity of the instrument. The iodated carbon samples 

were loaded into a quartz combustion boat and inserted into a decomposition furnace at 775 °C. 

The mercury species were converted to elemental mercury and detected by the Zeeman atomic 

adsorption spectrometer. The analyzer was calibrated using NIST certified HgCl2 standards from 

SCP Sciences. Elemental mercury spiking of the carbon tubes was performed using an impinger 

containing a stannous chloride solution. The mercury standard was dispensed into the impinger 

and the elemental mercury is pulled through the glassware system onto the iodated carbon. The 

elemental mercury spike was used to assess the recovery the mercury from the carbon tubes. 

Dimethyl mercury (DMM) was sampled using a slightly different technique. A Carbotrap was 

used as a sorbent, with a backup tube to assess any breakthrough. A third iodated carbon trap 

was also present to collect any elemental mercury present. The sorbent tube was heated to a 

temperature above the dew point of the gas stream to prevent condensation on the sorbent. Water 

vapor from the stream was collected and quantified using a silica gel impinger. A diaphragm air 

pump was used to pull the sample through the train and collect the sample. The volume of gas 

sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile organic sampling train (VOST) box. The 

sample flow rate was nominally 0.35 liters/minute for a total volume of approximately 0.5 liters. 

2-6

An acidic neutralization tube was placed in front of the DMM sorbent to reduce the possibility of 

analyte degradation. 

The DMM content of the Carbotraps was determined by thermal-desorption, gas 

chromatography, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (TD-GC-CVAFS). The 

analytical system was calibrated by purging precise quantities of DMM in methanol (1 to 500 

pg) from deionized water onto Carbotraps and then thermally desorbing (45 seconds at a 25 to 

450 °C ramp) them directly into the isothermal GC (1 m 4 mm ID column of 15% OV-3 on 

Chromasorb WAW-DMCS 80/100 mesh) held at 80 °C. The output of the GC was passed 

through a pyrolytic cracking column held at 700 °C, converting the organomercury compounds 

to elemental form. DMM was identified by retention time and quantified by peak height. 

To collect the monomethyl mercury sample, a set of three impingers filled with 0.001 M HCl 

was used. An empty fourth impinger was used to remove any impinger solution carryover to the 

pump and meter system. A diaphragm air pump was used to pull sample through the train and 

collect the sample. The volume of gas sampled was monitored and quantified using a volatile 

organic sampling train (VOST) box. The sample flow rate was nominally 0.8 liters/minute for 

37.5 minutes, which equates to a total volume of approximately 30 liters. 

The analysis method uses distillation, ethylation, Carbotrap preconcentration, thermal 

desorption, gas-chromatography separation, thermal conversion, and CVAFS detection. 

2.4 Lumex Elemental Mercury Field Sampling 

The Lumex mercury analyzer was used to sample elemental mercury concentration of the landfill 

gas. The Lumex mercury analyzer was connected to a standard 500 ml 45/50 impinger using 

28/15 connections to knock out excessive moisture. The impinger was cooled using a standard 

Apex Instruments cold box with water and ice. Gas was forced through positive pressure through 

the impinger to the Lumex analyzer using an atmospheric vent to eliminate over pressurization of 

the Lumex sample cell. 

2.5 Summa Canister Sampling 

Summa canister samples were collected using an EPA Method 0040 VOST sample conditioning 

train connected to a 6 liter Summa canister sample container. A sample pump was used to pull 

the purge flow from the landfill gas header pipe through the VOC sampling system. Summa 

canister samples were analyzed using EPA Method TO-15 and EPA Method 25-C. 

2-7


2-8

Chapter 3 

Results and Discussion 

The results from the measurement campaign are presented in the following subsections, 

including the calculated methane flux values from each landfill cell, total site methane emission 

rates, data on VOC constituents in the landfill gas from each site, and data on total, elemental 

and organo-mercury (including methyl- and dimethylmercury) collected in the vicinity of the 

gas header pipes at the sites. The methane concentrations used to calculate methane flux values 

from each cell are presented in Appendix C of this document. 

As mentioned previously, background methane concentration measurements were collected at 

each site to establish a background methane concentration value. Although measurements were 

collected at Site #1 in an area upwind of the measurement cells, the measurement location was 

still within the boundaries of the landfill facility. The average methane concentration found from 

the background survey at Site #1 was 3.1 ± 1.68 ppm. The fact that the standard deviation of the 

measurement is high (almost equal to the expected atmospheric background value of 1.7 ppm) 

indicates that there were methane sources captured by the background measurement 

configuration. Therefore, the background data collected at Site #1 does not represent a true site 

background measurement. Due to this, we used an accepted global methane background value of 

1.7 ppm. The average methane concentration from the background survey performed at Site #2 

was 1.7 ± 0.376 ppm. The background values from each site were subtracted from all raw 

methane concentrations prior to calculating methane flux values from the sites. 

During the Site #1 measurement campaign, an inter-comparison study was performed between 

the OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments. The objective of the study was to assess the 

comparability of the two instruments by deploying them along the same optical path and 

comparing the measured path-averaged methane concentrations. Due to project time constraints, 

the inter-comparison study was not performed over an adequate period of time to obtain reliable 

data. Ideally this should have been done during the study at each site. However, for the 

reporting of this data and based on previous studies where both instruments were compared over 

adequate time periods, it is assumed that the two instruments provide identical results for 

methane concentration measurements. Further information is presented in Section 5. 

3.1 Landfill Site #1 


ORS measurements were collected in the control cell on February 20. A schematic of the ORS 

measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-1. Although measurements 

were collected in this cell for several hours, problems were encountered with the alignment of 

the OP-TDLAS beams on the retro-reflecting mirror targets, as the synthetic liner on the surface 

of the cell did not provide a firm surface to deploy the OP-TDLAS scanner. After the instrument 

3-1

was aligned on the mirror targets in the configuration, the scanner positions drifted after a short 

period of time due to slight movement of the scanner base, and eventually the instrument was 

completely misaligned on all mirrors. Consequently, it was necessary to stop data acquisition, 

and re-align the instrument on all mirrors in the configuration. This problem was especially 

evident along the long VRPM configuration, located along the southern boundary of the cell. 

Due to this problem, there are limited ORS data from this survey, especially data from the long 

OP-TDLAS configuration located along the southern boundary of the cell. In fact, data was 

collected along only the longest surface beam path of this configuration (mirror target located at 

the base of the vertical structure) in order to obtain enough information to estimate the methane 

flux value along this VRPM plane. Emissions data presented in this section are from two 

surveys. The flux values presented in the tables in this section represent a moving average of 

three measurement cycles, where a cycle is defined as data collected along each measurement 

path in the configuration. The time of the flux measurements presented in the tables represents 

the midpoint time of the averaging period, where the averaging period is approximately 15 

minutes. Figure 3-1 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the 

cell, as well as the measurement results from the first survey conducted at 4:00 p.m. Figure 3-2 

presents the measurement results from the second survey conducted at 5:00 p.m. The figures 

depict the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane during 

each survey. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the 

measurements. 


Site #1 

3-2

Figure 3-2 Summary of ORS measurements from the 5:00 pm survey of the control cell of 

Site #1 

The figures show that the prevailing winds were from the southwest during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and western VRPM planes 

are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, so flux values measured along these VRPM planes 

represent methane emissions from the southern and western slopes of the cell. The VRPM planes 

located along the northern and eastern boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell. 

The methane flux values measured during the 4:00 p.m. survey along the northern, eastern, 

southern, and western VRPM measurement planes were 3.8, 4.8, 0, and 3.3 grams per second, 

respectively (the value of 0 grams per second is used because the methane concentration 

measurements from the southern VRPM plane were below the atmospheric background value of 

1.7 ppm). The difference between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and eastern 

planes (8.6 g/s) and the southern and western planes (3.3 g/s), 5.3 grams per second, represents 

the calculated methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area 

where instrumentation was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the southern 

and western planes, 3.3 grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the 

southern and western slopes of the landfill cell. 

The methane flux values measured during the 5:00 p.m. survey along the northern, eastern, 

southern, and western VRPM measurement planes were 2.0, 12, 5.2, and 0.77 grams per second, 

respectively. The difference between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and 

eastern planes (14 g/s) and the southern and western planes (6.0 g/s), 8.0 grams per second, 

represents the calculated methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat 

surface area where instrumentation was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along 

the southern and western planes, 6.0 grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux 

value from the southern and western slopes of the landfill cell. 

As mentioned previously, due to problems with alignment of the OP-TDLAS instrument, data 

was collected along only one beam path of the southern VRPM plane. By comparing the 

3-3

methane concentrations measured along this beam path with the methane concentrations 

measured along the corresponding beam path of the eastern VRPM configuration, it was possible 

to estimate the methane flux value along the southern VRPM configuration, assuming similar 

source size and distance of the source (hotspot) from both VRPM planes. The following formula 

was used to estimate the methane flux value along the southern boundary of the cell. 

Where: 

F1 = [ M1/M2] [F2] (2) 

F1 = 

M1 = 

M2 = 

F2 = 

methane flux value along the southern VRPM configuration 

path-integrated methane concentration measured along longest surface beam path of 

the southern VRPM configuration 

path-integrated methane concentration measured along longest surface beam path of 

the eastern VRPM configuration 

calculated methane flux value along the eastern VRPM configuration 

Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, prevailing wind 

speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM measurements (4:00 p.m. and 

5:00 p.m. surveys) along the northern, eastern, and western VRPM configurations, respectively. 


along the northern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 

Survey Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 

Prevailing Wind Direction 

(degrees from North) 

Prevailing Wind Speed 

(m/s) 

4 p.m. 16:11:52 3.8 228 4.1 

5 p.m. 17:15:51 1.9 255 2.7 


along the eastern VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 

Survey Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

4 p.m. 15:59:30 7.1 220 5.3 

4 p.m. 16:04:48 2.6 228 4.7 

5 p.m. 17:17:04 12 258 2.7 


along the western VRPM configuration in the control cell of Site #1 

Survey Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

4 p.m. 16:08:37 3.3 227 4.4 

5 p.m. 17:12:38 0.77 253 3 

3-4


3.1.2.1 February 22 

ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell during the morning and early afternoon 

of February 22. A schematic of the ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found 

in Figure 2-3. Figure 3-3 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in 

the cell, as well as the measurement results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane 

flux values along each VRPM measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind 

values during the time of the measurements. 

The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the northwest during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the northern and western VRPM planes 

are located upwind of the actual landfill cell, and the VRPM planes located along the southern 

and eastern boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell. By convention of the 

measurement method, the sum of the flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the 

landfill cell is subtracted from the sum of the flux values from the downwind measurement 

planes to yield emissions from the cell of interest. Flux values measured along the northern and 

western upwind VRPM planes represent methane emissions from the northern and western 

slopes of the cell, respectively. 

The methane flux values measured along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM 

measurement planes were 15, 13, 9.1, and 0.76 grams per second, respectively. The difference 

between the sum of the fluxes measured along the southern and eastern planes (22 g/s) and the 

northern and western planes (16 g/s), 6.0 grams per second, represents the calculated methane 

flux value from the top of the landfill cell (defined as the flat surface area where instrumentation 

was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the northern and western planes, 16 

grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the northern and western 

slopes of the landfill cell. 

3-5

Figure 3-3 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on February 22 in the bioreactor 

cell of Site #1. 

Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, prevailing 

wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM measurements along the 

northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations, respectively. 

3-6


on February 22 along the northern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor 

cell of Site #1 

Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:16:52 18 315 3.6 

11:23:52 24 313 3.5 

11:30:51 19 311 3.2 

11:37:52 15 315 2.9 

11:44:52 16 322 2.8 

12:23:52 12 318 3.3 

12:30:51 15 332 3.5 

12:37:52 14 338 3.4 

13:13:52 5.1 313 3.2 

13:20:52 6.1 306 3.3 

13:59:52 17 306 2.8 

14:06:51 13 301 3.3 

Average = 15 

Standard Dev.= 5.24 

3-7


on February 22 along the eastern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell 

of Site #1 

Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:17:30 11 318 3.4 

11:23:09 9.9 315 3.7 

11:28:30 12 311 3.5 

11:33:50 19 309 3.1 

11:52:37 11 310 2.7 

11:58:59 11 310 2.7 

12:04:19 12 311 3.2 

12:09:39 12 308 3.4 

12:15:00 14 306 3.5 

12:20:19 12 309 3.4 

12:44:53 8.8 328 3.1 

12:50:14 14 317 2.7 

12:55:35 15 313 2.7 

13:03:43 13 318 2.7 

13:09:03 8.9 319 2.9 

13:14:24 12 311 3.3 

13:19:44 12 306 3.4 

13:25:04 14 307 3.6 

13:30:24 16 309 3.5 

13:35:44 16 312 3.4 

13:41:03 15 312 2.9 

13:46:23 16 307 3.7 

13:51:43 11 310 3.1 

13:57:03 13 309 3.1 

14:02:24 18 301 2.8 

14:07:44 23 300 3.1 

Average= 13 

Standard Dev.=3.23 

3-8


on February 22 along the southern VRPM configuration in the bioreactor 

cell of Site #1 

Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:20:29 15 319 3.5 

11:25:50 20 314 3.4 

11:31:10 18 308 3.3 

11:56:20 10 312 2.7 

12:01:39 9.7 309 2.9 

12:07:01 8.1 312 3.3 

12:12:20 7.2 307 3.5 

12:17:39 8.6 306 3.4 

12:23:00 14 317 3.5 

12:28:32 14 330 3.4 

12:33:52 9.9 340 3.8 

12:38:04 8.6 338 3.4 

13:01:04 6.1 316 2.6 

13:06:24 8.8 320 2.9 

13:11:44 6.8 313 2.9 

13:17:04 7.5 310 3.4 

13:22:23 6.1 306 3.5 

13:27:43 6.5 307 3.6 

13:33:03 7.4 311 3.2 

13:38:24 7.6 312 3.3 

13:43:44 5.6 308 3.1 

13:49:04 8.6 309 3.4 

13:54:24 7.8 308 3.4 

13:59:44 6.7 308 2.7 

14:05:04 4.3 299 3.1 

14:10:23 5.5 301 3.4 

14:16:01 8.6 316 3.4 

Average= 9.1 


3-9


on February 22 along the western VRPM configuration in the bioreactor cell 

of Site #1 

Time Methane Flux (g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:20:43 0.23 317 3.5 

11:27:38 1.4 312 3.5 

11:34:36 1.4 311 3.1 

11:41:53 0.45 319 2.9 

11:48:38 0.56 317 2.8 

12:20:43 1.1 314 3.5 

12:27:38 0.38 326 3.4 

12:34:36 2.8 339 3.5 

12:41:53 1.9 337 3.4 

12:48:38 0.28 320 2.8 

12:56:07 1.1 312 2.6 

13:03:26 0.48 318 2.8 

13:10:36 1.1 316 3 

13:17:42 2.4 310 3.3 

13:24:38 2.2 307 3.6 

13:57:01 1.5 307 3.3 

14:03:38 2.0 301 2.9 

14:10:36 3.7 306 3.3 

Average= 0.76 


3.1.3 Total Site Methane Emissions 

Total site methane emissions were estimated using the methane flux results from the VRPM 

measurements. The first step in estimating the total methane emissions is to estimate the total 

surface area of the control and bioreactor cells, including the surface areas of the corresponding 

slopes. This was done using distance measurements taken during the measurement surveys. The 

surface area of the slopes was estimated by multiplying the length of the corresponding VRPM 

measurement plane by 100 meters, which is the estimated distance from the top of the cell to the 

bottom of the landfill mound. 

The next step is to calculate methane emission factors for the top area of each cell, and the 

corresponding cell slopes. The methane emission factor for the top area of the cell is calculated 

by dividing the net methane flux from the top of the cell by the surface area of the cell, and then 

converting the value to units of grams per day per meter squared. The following calculation 

details how to calculate the methane emission factor for the top of the control area: 

3-10

[6.5 g/s CH4 / 8800 m 2 surface area] *3600 sec/hr *24 hr/day = 64 g/day/m 2 CH4 

The methane emission factor from the slopes is estimated by calculating the methane emission 

factor for each of the two source slope areas contributing to the methane emissions measured 

during the time of the VRPM surveys. For the control area, this is the southern and western 

slopes, based on the prevailing wind direction during the time of the measurements (see Section 

3.1.1). The total surface area of each slope was calculated. Because the prevailing wind 

direction was not perpendicular to the configuration plane of the survey area while the 

measurements were conducted, it is likely the measurements only capture a portion of the 

methane emissions. So the results will be biased low. 

Previous validation studies using trace gas released have been used to evaluate plume capture. If 

the trace gas is released up to 100 meters upwind of the configuration for a plane length of 200 

meters. This is under ideal wind conditions that are close to perpendicular to the configuration 

place (U.S. EPA, 2007). In order to more accurately estimate the methane emission factors from 

the slope areas, a slope area is defined as an area bounded by the distance of the VRPM 

configuration and a distance one-half the distance of the VRPM configuration. In the case of the 

control area, the distance of the southern VRPM configuration plane was 180 meters and the 

distance of the western VRPM plane was 51 meters. The following steps detail the calculation of 

the contributing emission surface areas from the southern and western slopes of the control cell: 

1) 180 meters * 90 meters = 16,200 m 2 , which is the contributing emission surface area from the 

southern slope of the cell 

2) 51 meters * 25.5 meters = 1,300 m 2 , which is the contributing emission surface area from the 

western slope 

These values were input into Equation 2 with the values of the methane flux values measured 

along each VRPM configuration to calculate the emission factors from the southern and western 

slopes. The calculated emission factors from the southern and western slopes were 14 g/day/m 2 

and 130 g/day/m 2 , respectively. 

The next step is to calculate the average measured methane emission factor from the two slopes. 

This was done using a weighted average calculation. According to the calculations above, the 

contributing emissions surface area from the western slope is approximately 7 percent of the total 

contributing emission surface area. The surface area from the southern slope is approximately 

93 percent of the total contributing emission surface area. The following details the calculation 

of the weighted average measured methane emission factor from the two slopes of the control 

cell: 

0.07 *130 g/day/m 2 methane western slope + 0.93 * 14 g/day/m 2 methane southern slope = 

22 g/day/m 2 from the slopes of control cell 

As mentioned previously, the total surface area of the top of the cell was 8800 m 2 . The total 

surface area of the slopes of the cell was estimated by multiplying the length of the VRPM 

configuration plane by 100 meters, which was the estimated distance from the top of the landfill 

3-11 

(2)

cell to the base. The following equation shows the calculation of the total surface area of the 

slopes: 

(180m *100m) + (160m *100m) + (52m * 100m) + (51m * 100m) = 44,300 m 2 

In order to calculate the total methane emission factor from the control cell, a weighted average 

calculation was used. According to the calculations above, the surface area of the slopes is 

approximately 84 percent of the total surface area of the cell. The surface area of the top is 

approximately 16 percent of the total surface area of the cell. The following details the 

calculation of the weighted average measured methane emission factor from the control cell: 

0.16 * 64 g/day/m 2 methane top of cell + 0.84 * 22 g/day/m 2 methane slopes = 

29 g/day/m 2 methane control cell 

This value is converted to kilograms of methane per day by multiplying by the total surface area 

of the cell, and dividing by 1000 to yield a cell emissions value of 1,500 kg/day. 

The total site methane emissions are found by adding the values of the total methane emissions 

from the control and bioreactor cells. 

Table 3-8 presents the results of these calculations for Site #1. 

Table 3-8. Summary of total site methane emissions calculations from Site #1 

Calculation Control Cell Bioreactor Cell 

Total Surface Area of Top of Cell 

2 

8,800 m 

2 

13,500 m 

Total Surface Area of Slopes 

2 

44,300 m 

2 

47,700 m 

Methane Emission Factor of Top of Cell 64 g/day/m 2 

40 g/day/m 2 

Methane Emission Factor of Slopes 22 g/day/m 2 68 g/day/m 2 

Total Methane Emission Factor of Cell 

2 

29 g/day/m 

2 

62 g/day/m 

Total Cell Methane Emissions 1,500 kg/day 3,800 kg/day 

Total Site Methane Emissions= 5,300 kg/day 

Based on the calculations presented in Table 3-8, the total methane emissions from Site #1 are 

estimated to be 5,300 kilograms per day. It should be noted that this estimated value is 

extrapolated from a limited amount of flux data, and does not take into account diurnal or 

seasonal trends in methane emissions. 

3-12

3.1.4 Summa Canister Sampling 

Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site 

#1. These samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected 

upstream of the vacuum pump to minimize loses and contamination. Blanks were also collected 

using a nitrogen gas stream to purge the VOST train condensers and glassware. Samples were 

analyzed using Methods TO-15, 25-C, a C1 through C6 alkane hydrocarbons analysis by 

GC/FID, and a permanent gases (O2, N2, CO2) analysis by GC/TCD. Results are presented in 

Tables 3-9 through 3-11. TO-15 results are qualified using results from the nitrogen blank. Any 

compounds reported in samples that are less than 5 times the concentration found in the blank are 

considered to be non-detects and qualified “UB”. As specified in the National Functional 

Guidelines for Organic Data Review (October 1999) compounds reported in samples that were 

less than 5 times the concentration found in the method blank were considered to be non-detects 

and qualified “UB”. In computing averages, when all measurements are ND, the average is 

reported as ND. When one or more measurement is above detection, the ND measurement is 

treated as 50% of the stated MDL. Though not applicable here, the method further specifies that 

If MDL is not reported, a ND measurement is treated as zero. 

The average gas concentration values shown in Table 3-9 were corrected for air infiltration that 

can occur from landfill gas sample dilution and air intrusion into the landfill. The corrections 

were performed on the following formula provided in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42,Volume 1: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, 5 th ed., Chapter 2.4 (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

where: 

C x (1x10 6 ) 

C P (corrected for air infiltration) = P 

C CO + C CH 

2 4 

CP = Concentration of pollutant P in LFG (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv; 

C CO2 

Q CH4 

= CO2 concentration in LFG, ppmv; 

= CH4 Concentration in LFG, ppmv; and 

1 x 10 6 = Constant used to correct concentration of P to units of ppmv. 

3-13

Table 3-9. Results of TO-15 analysis from Site #1 

Sample Type: Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Nitrogen 

Blank 

Can ID: Can F-2 Can F-3 Can F-4 Can F-5 

Average Landfill 

Gas 

Concentration 

Corrected 

Landfill Gas 

Concentration 

CAS NO. COMPOUND ppbv Ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv 

75-71-8 

76-14-2 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 

(Freon 12) 

1,2-Chloro-1,1,2,2 

Tetrafluoroethane 

74-87-3 Chloromethane 149.0 UB 

48.7 221.0 150.2 ND 139.9 

5.1 26.2 19.9 ND 17.1 

142.7 UB 

367.3 UB 

143.8 

17.6 

99.6 ND ND 

75-01-4 Vinyl chloride ND 119.7 ND ND 40.1 41.2 

106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

74-83-9 Bromomethane 1.7 3.4 ND ND 1.8 1.8 

75-00-3 Chloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

75-69-4 Trichloromonofluoromethane 2.0 11.8 ND ND 4.7 4.8 

75-35-4 1,1-dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

76-13-1 

1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2trifluoroethane 

64-17-5 Ethanol ND ND 121.2 UB 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

36.0 ND ND 

75-15-0 Carbon disulfide ND 99.8 ND ND 33.4 34.4 

67-63-0 Isopropyl alcohol 133.1 1773 489.7 19.4 798.6 820.8 

75-09-2 Methylene chloride ND 408.4 ND ND 136.3 140.1 

67-64-1 Acetone 395.2 2913 1926 19.4 1745 1793 

156-60-5 t-1,2-dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

11-05-3 Hexane 33.1 UB 

177.5 136.9 7.0 104.9 107.8 

1634-04-4 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 3.2 ND ND 1.2 1.3 

75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

108-05-4 Vinyl acetate 4.5 127.6 6.7 ND 46.2 47.5 

156-59-2 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 17.3 85.2 ND ND 34.3 35.2 

110-82-7 Cyclohexane 39.9 UB 

67-66-3 Chloroform 9.6 UB 

222.0 86.6 10.7 103.0 105.8 

32.6 UB 

62.9 8.6 31.6 32.4 

141-78-6 Ethyl Acetate 159.4 857.5 554.5 9.6 523.8 538.3 

109-99-9 Tetrahydrofuran 107.6 514.6 374.0 5.6 332.1 341.3 

71-55-6 1,1,1-trichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND ND 

78-93-3 2-Butanone 424.8 2353 1603 ND 1460 1501 

142-82-5 Heptane 19.7 UB 

ND ND 13.8 ND ND 

71-43-2 Benzene 90.8 447.3 319.6 12.5 285.9 293.8 

3-14

Sample Type: Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Nitrogen 

Blank 

Can ID: Can F-2 Can F-3 Can F-4 Can F-5 



Concentration 

Corrected 


Concentration 

CAS NO. COMPOUND ppbv Ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv 

107-06-2 1,2-dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 9.5 50.1 47.4 ND 35.7 36.7 

78-87-5 1,2-dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

123-91-1 1,4-dioxane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

10061-01-5 cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

108-88-3 Toluene 954.5 4259 3110 144.8 2775 2852 

108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 

(MIBK) 

61.1 295.7 193.1 6.8 183.3 188.4 

1006-02-6 t-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene 9.1 43.3 ND ND 17.5 18.0 


124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

591-78-6 2-Hexanone ND ND ND ND ND ND 

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 762.1 3281 2337 ND 2127 2186 

108-90-7 Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

1330-20-7 m/p-Xylene 1397 6005 4416 155.9 3939 4049 

95-47-6 o-Xylene 373.1 1679 1222 47.6 1091 1122 

100-42-5 Styrene 40.8 UB 

201.7 131.1 11.8 111.0 114.1 

75-25-2 Tribromomethane ND 26.1 ND ND 8.9 9.1 

79-34-5 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

622-96-8 1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

108-67-8 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 210.5 922.4 659.2 11.8 597.4 614.0 


541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 


100-44-7 Benzyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND ND 


87-68-3 

1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-1,3butadiene 


120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

UB = Sample concentration less than 5 times the blank concentration 

ND = Not detected 

3-15

Table 3-10. Results of C1 to C6 and permanent gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #1 

Analyte: Methane Ethane Propane Butane Pentane Hexane O2 N2 CO2 

Sample Type Sample ID (%) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (ppmv) (%) (%) (%) 

Landfill Gas F-2 6.1 8.6 3.5 3.4 ND ND 20.1 79 ND 

Landfill Gas F-3 33.2 9.5 11.7 5.5 7.5 12.6 10.6 39.1 25.7 

Landfill Gas F-4 15.5 5.9 6.1 4.4 7 ND 17.7 66.8 19.6 

Nitrogen Blank F-5 0.0032 ND ND ND ND ND 4 101 ND 

Table 3-11. Results of Method 25-C analysis from Site #1 

Analyte: Methane CO2 NMOC Mass Conc. 

Sample Type Sample ID (%) (%) (ppmv) (mg/m 3 ) 

Landfill Gas F-2 64.4 46.1 2576 1286 



Nitrogen Blank F-5 ND ND ND ND 

The results in Table 3-10 show a possible leak during the analysis, and should be considered as 

suspect data. Concentrations of O2, methane, and CO2, are not typical of a mature gas producing 

landfill, as O2 concentrations should be less than 2 percent, methane greater than 50 percent, and 

CO2 greater than 35 percent. The sum of the concentrations for methane, O2, N2, and CO2 also 

exceed 100% in all cases due to problems in the analysis. In response to these questionable 

results, additional landfill gas measurements were taken during the October 2007 field campaign. 

These results are presented in Section 3.3 of this document. 

The results shown in Table 3-11 appear to be the most valid results for methane and CO2 because 

this method was specifically designed for measuring landfill gas concentrations. With the 

exception sample F-2, the sum of the concentrations for methane and CO2 more closely balance 

to 100% than the results presented in Table 3-10. 

3.1.5 Total Mercury Measurements 

Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas from Site #1 ranged from 4958 to 5148 ng/m 3 

with an average of 5022 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Matrix spike recovery for the total mercury 

sample was 98.2 percent. Table 3-12 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site #1. 

3-16

Table 3-12. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 

Sample / Well Location 

Total Mercury Gas 

Concentration (ng/m 3 ) 

Spike Recovery 

(%) 

Gas Sample 1 5148 NA 

Gas Sample 2 4961 98.2 


Lab Spike NA 89.9 

Lab Spike Duplicate NA 97.6 

3.1.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements 

Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m 3 

with an average of 1.91 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 13.9 

percent. Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 

88.7 percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the 

acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown 

interfering compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For 

this reason, all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. 

Sampling was performed at approximately 10 times the estimated volume necessary to collect a 

valid sample. Table 3-13 presents the results of the dimethyl mercury concentration data from 

Site #1. 

Table 3-13. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #1 


Dimethyl Mercury Gas 



(%) 

Gas Sample 1 2.65 103.3 

Gas Sample 2 1.22 NA 

Gas Sample 3 1.86 81.1 

Spike Sample (front/back) NA 13.9 

2nd Source Standards (1490 ng/L) NA 87.4 


3.1.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements 

Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m 3 

with an average of 11.8 ng/m 3 . Matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl samples were 25.7 

percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to 90 percent with an 

average of 89 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with the 

shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike and cause these data points to 

be possibly under-reporting the true monomethyl mercury concentrations.. Table 3-14 presents 

the monomethyl mercury concentration data from Site #1. 

3-17

Table 3-14. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) from Site #1 


Monomethyl Mercury Gas 



(%) 




Spike Sample NA 25.7 

Analytical Spike NA 88.0 

Analytical Spike Duplicate NA 90.4 

3.1.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements 

Lumex elemental mercury continuous measurements at Site #1 ranged from 3094 to 3445 ng/m 3 

with an average of 3266±130 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. These samples were collected during 

a 1.25 hour period on 2/21/2007. Sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction 

with the total mercury samples at this site. The Lumex concentrations during total mercury Gas 

Sample 1 was 3277 ng/m 3 , Gas Sample 2 was 3495 ng/m 3 , and Gas Sample 3 was 3400 ng/m 3. 

3.1.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 

The emissions flux value of each compound presented in Table 3-9 was estimated using the 

method described in Section 1.7 of this document. The net measured methane flux values from 

each landfill cell were used to estimate the emissions flux value of each compound. In order to 

perform this calculation, the estimated methane emission values presented in Table 3-8 were 

used (1,500 kg/day for the control cell and 3,800 kg/day for the bioreactor cell). 

Table 3-15 presents the estimated flux of each compound (in units of grams per day) from the 

control and bioreactor cells of Site #1. 

3-18

Table 3-15. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site 

#1 

Compound 

Corrected Landfill 

Gas Concentration 

(ppbv) 

Estimated Flux 

Value from Control 

Cell 

(grams per day) 

Estimated Flux 

Value from 

Bioreactor Cell 


Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) 143.8 3.4 8.7 

1,2-Chloro-1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane 17.6 0.60 1.5 

Vinyl chloride 41.2 0.51 1.3 

Bromomethane 1.8 0.030 0.090 

Trichloromonofluoromethane 4.8 0.13 0.33 

Carbon disulfide 34.4 0.52 1.3 

Isopropyl alcohol 820.8 9.7 25 

Methylene chloride 140.1 2.4 6.0 

Acetone 1793 21 52 

Hexane 107.8 1.8 4.7 

Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 1.3 0.020 0.060 

Vinyl acetate 47.5 0.81 2.1 

cis-1,2-dichloroethene 35.2 0.68 1.7 

Cyclohexane 105.8 1.8 4.5 

Chloroform 32.4 0.76 1.9 

Ethyl Acetate 538.3 9.4 24 

Tetrahydrofuran 341.3 4.9 12 

2-Butanone 1501 21 54 

Benzene 293.8 4.5 11 

Trichloroethylene 36.7 0.95 2.4 

Toluene 2852 52 130 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 183.3 3.6 9.2 

Tetrachloroethylene 18.0 0.59 1.5 

Ethylbenzene 2186 46 120 

m/p-Xylene 4049 85 220 

o-Xylene 1122 24 60 

Styrene 114.1 2.4 6.0 

Tribromomethane 9.1 0.46 1.2 

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 614.0 15 37 


3-19

3.2 Landfill Site #2 



ORS measurements were collected in the control cell during the afternoon of February 24. A 

schematic of the ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-4. 

Figure 3-4 presents a summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well 

as the measurement results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along 

each VRPM measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the 

time of the measurements. 

Figure 3-4 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the control cell of Site 

#2 

The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southeast during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and eastern VRPM planes 


represent methane emissions from the southern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of 

the measurement method, flux values from measurement planes located upwind of the landfill 

cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and western 

boundaries of the cell are downwind of the landfill cell (by convention, flux values from 

measurement planes located downwind of the landfill cell are shown as positive values). 


measurement planes were 14, 7.8, 20, and 2.8 grams per second, respectively. The difference 

between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and western planes (17 g/s) and the 

3-20

southern and eastern planes (28 g/s), is a negative value. This is most likely due to the fact that 

the methane flux values measured along the northern and western VRPM planes (14 and 2.8 

grams per second, respectively) represent slight underestimations of the actual fluxes. The 

prevailing winds during the time of the measurements were from the southeast, directly towards 

the location of the OP-FTIR instrument, or convergence of the optical beams used in the OP 

FTIR measurements (see Figure 2-4). Flux values calculated with the VRPM method during 

these conditions often result in an underestimation of the flux values. Based on this information, 

the methane flux value from the top of the landfill cell is estimated to be negligible. This 

conclusion is supported by the results of the ORS measurements collected in the control cell on 

February 25, which are presented in section 3.2.1.2. 

The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and eastern planes, 28 grams per second, 

represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and eastern slopes of the landfill 

cell. 

Tables 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19 present the calculated methane flux, measurement time, 

prevailing wind speed, and prevailing wind direction during the time of the VRPM 

measurements along the northern, eastern, southern, and western VRPM configurations, 

respectively. The measurement time shown represents the midpoint of the averaging period, 

which lasts approximately 15 minutes. 

Table 3-16. Calculated Methane Flux and Prevailing Wind Speed and Direction 

Measured on February 24 along the Northern VRPM Configuration in the 

Control Cell of Site #2 

Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

15:11:22 8.2 127 5.1 

15:18:21 11 136 6.2 

15:24:51 19 147 7.6 

15:31:52 21 153 7.6 

15:38:52 17 151 7.1 

15:45:51 18 153 7.1 

15:52:52 15 147 6.2 

15:59:52 15 144 6.6 

16:06:51 14 148 6.2 

16:13:22 12 144 5.7 

16:20:22 14 143 6.3 

16:26:52 14 139 6.7 

16:33:51 17 142 7.2 

16:40:52 14 135 5.3 

16:47:52 12 132 5.8 

16:54:51 11 130 5.7 

17:01:52 9.8 

Average= 14 


131 6.1 

3-21


Measured on February 24 along the Eastern VRPM Configuration in the 


Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

15:17:40 7.4 134 6.1 

15:22:59 6.3 147 7.2 

15:29:08 5.6 151 7.8 

15:35:31 5.7 151 7.6 

15:40:51 5.1 154 6.9 

15:46:09 5.8 154 7.2 

15:52:33 6.4 147 6.7 

15:57:52 7.1 144 6.4 

16:03:11 7.4 146 6.3 

16:08:30 7.5 147 6.2 

16:13:50 7.5 145 5.8 

16:19:08 8.3 141 5.8 

16:24:28 9.6 143 7.5 

16:29:47 9.1 141 6.9 

16:35:06 9.9 141 6.8 

16:40:24 9.6 137 5.8 

16:45:43 9.3 134 5.6 

16:51:02 9.4 127 5.4 

16:56:21 10 131 6.3 

17:01:41 9.3 131 5.9 

Average= 7.8 


3-22


Measured on February 24 along the Southern VRPM Configuration in the 


Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

15:15:18 24 125 5.9 

15:20:19 28 139 6.2 

15:26:29 35 152 8.2 

15:31:48 26 148 7.1 

15:38:12 27 151 7.2 

15:43:31 26 156 7.2 

15:49:54 16 148 6.7 

15:55:13 22 142 6.2 

16:00:32 22 147 6.7 

16:05:51 18 146 6.2 

16:11:11 14 148 6.2 

16:16:30 19 144 5.9 

16:21:48 19 143 6.6 

16:27:07 23 142 7.2 

16:32:26 18 142 7.2 

16:37:45 14 137 5.8 

16:43:05 15 138 5.7 

16:48:23 13 129 5.5 

16:53:43 14 129 5.8 

16:59:01 18 130 5.9 

17:04:21 18 132 6.3 

Average= 20 


3-23


Measured on February 24 along the Western VRPM Configuration in the 


Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

15:08:07 2.7 136 5.1 

15:15:07 3.5 127 5.9 

15:21:38 2.7 143 6.6 

15:28:36 2.7 149 7.3 

15:35:51 2.5 153 7.9 

15:42:38 2.2 154 7 

15:49:36 2.4 150 6.9 

15:57:01 2.7 144 6.6 

16:03:38 2.3 147 6.3 

16:10:06 2.1 148 6.3 

16:17:11 2.5 143 5.8 

16:23:44 3.2 143 7.2 

16:30:38 3.4 141 6.9 

16:37:36 3.2 138 6.2 

16:44:55 3.2 135 5.9 

16:51:38 3.3 130 5.5 

16:58:36 3.4 131 6.3 


Average= 2.8 


ORS measurements were collected in the control cell during the morning and early afternoon of 

February 25. The ORS measurement configuration used on February 25 was identical to the 

configuration used on February 24 (see Figure 2-4). Figure 3-5 presents a summary of the actual 

measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement results. The figure 

depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane. The 

blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the measurements. 

The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southwest during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and western VRPM planes 


represent methane emissions from the southern and western slopes of the cell (by convention of 


cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and eastern 



3-24

Figure 3-5 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 25 in the control cell of 

Site #2. 


measurement planes were 13, 2.3, 13, and 3.3 grams per second, respectively. The difference 

between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and eastern planes (15 g/s) and the 

southern and western planes (16 g/s), is a negative value close to 0, and is within the uncertainty 

range of the measurement method. Based on this, the estimated methane flux value from the top 

of the landfill cell is negligible. 

The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and western planes, 16 grams per 

second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and western slopes of the 

landfill cell. 




respectively. 

3-25




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:57:21 15 199 4.2 

12:04:22 12 202 3.4 

12:11:52 5.3 179 1.4 

12:46:22 16 188 4.9 

13:18:51 14 215 5.6 

13:25:52 15 212 5.6 

13:32:52 15 216 5.4 

13:39:51 15 216 5.6 

13:46:52 13 

Average= 13 


222 5.3 








(m/s) 

11:59:07 3.1 204 4.4 

12:10:31 0.19 173 1.2 

12:15:50 0.07 179 2.9 

12:21:54 0.40 189 3.5 

12:27:12 0.39 190 3.1 

12:32:32 0.51 188 3.8 

12:39:05 0.17 182 4.5 

12:44:25 0.58 186 5 

12:49:44 0.51 189 5 

13:12:28 3.5 217 5.4 

13:18:10 3.0 215 5.6 

13:23:29 2.0 210 5.5 

13:28:48 3.1 216 5.7 

13:34:06 4.5 214 5.5 

13:39:26 4.9 215 5.5 

13:44:44 6.0 218 5.4 

13:50:35 6.8 

Average= 2.3 


226 5.3 

3-26




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

12:01:46 11 208 3.7 

12:07:51 3.8 162 1.1 

12:13:10 6.1 179 1.7 

12:18:29 14 178 4.1 

12:24:33 11 182 3.6 

12:29:53 11 187 3.4 

12:35:12 23 187 3.9 

12:47:04 19 187 5 

12:55:21 13 202 5 

13:01:55 12 208 5 

13:07:14 8.8 217 5.3 

13:15:30 12 214 5.5 

13:20:49 9.9 211 5.3 

13:26:08 19 213 5.5 

13:31:27 8.3 214 5.5 

13:36:46 14 216 5.6 

13:42:05 12 216 5.4 

13:47:24 12 

Average= 13 


219 5.3 




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

11:54:29 2.8 199 4.5 

12:01:07 1.7 203 3.7 

12:08:37 0.21 173 1.2 

12:43:06 0.58 186 5 

13:15:38 6.2 213 5.5 

13:22:36 4.9 212 5.3 

13:29:48 5.1 214 5.6 

13:36:38 4.5 215 5.5 

13:43:36 4.3 

Average= 3.3 


217 5.4 

3-27



ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell on February 23. A schematic of the 

ORS measurement configuration from this cell can be found in Figure 2-6. Figure 3-6 presents a 

summary of the actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement 

results. The figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM 

measurement plane. The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the 

measurements. 

Figure 3-6 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 23 in bioreactor cell of Site 

#2. 

The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the northeast during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the northern and eastern VRPM planes 


represent methane emissions from the northern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of 


cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the southern and western 




measurement planes were 3.7, 0.69, 5.0, and 5.1 grams per second, respectively. The difference 

between the sum of the fluxes measured along the southern and western planes (10 g/s) and the 

northern and eastern planes (4.4 g/s), 5.6 grams per second, represents the calculated methane 


was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the northern and eastern planes, 4.4 

grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the northern and eastern 




3-28


respectively. 



Bioreactor Cell of Site #2 

Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

16:08:52 2.8 51 4.2 

16:15:51 2.6 52 4.1 

16:22:52 2.6 55 4.4 

16:57:21 4.4 59 4 

17:04:22 4.8 57 4.2 

17:11:52 4.4 61 4.2 

17:18:51 4.2 65 4.5 

Average= 3.7 





Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

16:06:06 0.75 47 4.3 

16:12:38 0.77 51 4.1 

16:19:36 0.67 52 4.3 

16:26:46 0.57 52 4.4 

16:33:38 0.64 61 4.8 

16:40:06 0.81 65 5.1 

16:47:26 0.66 65 4.5 

16:54:29 0.71 60 4.1 

17:01:07 0.64 56 4.1 

17:08:37 0.67 58 4.2 

17:15:38 0.68 65 4.4 

Average= 0.69 


3-29




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

16:12:40 4.8 52 4.0 

16:18:30 5.4 53 4.3 

16:24:20 5.2 53 4.4 

16:30:15 5.2 56 4.6 

16:36:05 4.7 65 5.0 

16:41:26 4.8 66 5.2 

16:46:47 4.3 67 4.6 

16:52:10 4.6 62 4.2 

16:57:33 4.9 58 4.0 

17:02:54 5.6 55 4.1 

17:08:16 5.8 56 4.3 

17:13:38 5.2 63 4.3 

17:19:01 4.6 67 4.4 

Average= 5.0 





Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

16:10:29 16 49 3.8 

16:15:50 9.1 53 4.1 

16:38:45 2.6 66 5.2 

16:44:07 2.6 68 4.8 

16:49:30 2.8 63 4.4 

16:54:51 3.7 63 4.1 

17:00:12 3.1 54 4.1 

17:05:35 3.1 54 4.2 

17:10:58 3.8 60 4.3 

17:16:19 4.5 66 4.5 

17:21:42 4.9 66 4.3 

Average= 5.1 


3-30


ORS measurements were collected in the bioreactor cell during the morning hours of February 

24 using the same configuration used on February 23. Figure 3-7 presents a summary of the 

actual measurement configurations used in the cell, as well as the measurement results. The 

figure depicts the average calculated methane flux values along each VRPM measurement plane. 

The blue arrow depicts the prevailing wind values during the time of the measurements. 

Figure 3-7 Summary of ORS measurements conducted on Feb. 24 in the bioreactor cell of 

Site #2 

The figure shows that the prevailing winds were from the southeast during the time of the 

measurements. Based on the prevailing wind direction, the southern and eastern VRPM planes 


represent methane emissions from the southern and eastern slopes of the cell (by convention of 


cell are shown as negative values). The VRPM planes located along the northern and western 




measurement planes were 0.35, 0.83, 3.1, and 5.9 grams per second, respectively. The difference 

between the sum of the fluxes measured along the northern and western planes (6.3 g/s) and the 

southern and eastern planes (3.9 g/s), 2.4 grams per second, represents the calculated methane 


was deployed). The sum of the flux values measured along the southern and eastern planes, 3.9 

grams per second, represents the calculated methane flux value from the southern and eastern 





respectively. 

3-31




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

9:56:52 0.39 106 7.3 

10:03:51 0.66 111 7 

10:33:51 0.01 98 6.7 

Average= 0.35 





Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

9:54:54 0.87 104 7.3 

10:00:38 0.97 107 7.0 

10:30:38 0.65 97 6.8 

Average=0.83 









(m/s) 

9:57:37 2.5 106 7.2 

10:03:44 4.7 111 7.0 

10:12:18 2.7 107 7.1 

10:21:27 2.5 100 7.1 

Average= 3.1 


3-32




Time 

Methane Flux 

(g/s) 




(m/s) 

9:53:43 10 104 7.2 

10:01:03 6.1 107 6.9 

10:09:37 4.2 109 7.0 

10:16:18 3.2 104 6.9 

10:21:27 5.8 98 6.9 

Average= 5.9 


3.2.3 Total Site Methane Emissions 

The total site methane emissions for Site #2 were calculated using the methods described in 

Section 3.1.3 of this document. Table 3-32 presents the results of these calculations for Site #2: 

Table 3-32. Summary of Total Site Methane Emissions Calculations from Site #2 

Calculation Control Cell Bioreactor Cell 

Total Surface Area of Top of Cell 

Total Surface Area of Slopes 

Methane Emission Factor of Top of Cell 

Methane Emission Factor of Slopes 

Total Methane Emission Factor of Cell 

Total Cell Methane Emissions 

2 

19,000 m 

2 

78,600 m 

0 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

0 g/day/m 2 2/25/07 survey 

92 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

60 g/day/m 2 2/25/07 survey 

74 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

48 g/day/m 2 2/25/07 survey 

7,200 kg/day 2/24/07 survey 

4,700 kg/day 2/25/07 survey 

Total Site Methane Emissions= 7300 kg/day 

2 

7,900 m 

2 

50,700 m 

62 g/day/m 2 2/23/07 survey 

25 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

15 g/day/m 2 2/23/07 survey 

14 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

22 g/day/m 2 2/23/07 survey 

15 g/day/m 2 2/24/07 survey 

1,300 kg/day 2/23/07 survey 

900 kg/day 2/24/07 survey 

The results show that the total cell methane emission factors calculated from the two surveys of 

the Control Cell (74 g/day/m 2 and 48 g/day/m 2 , respectively) were much higher than the total 

cell methane emission factors calculated from the surveys of the bioreactor cell (22 g/day/m 2 

and 15 g/day/m 2 , respectively). This may be due to a fresh soil cover being added to the surface 

of the cell prior to the measurement campaign. In addition, because of high levels of moisture in 

the cell due to heavy rainfall, there were no additions of leachate or other liquids for several 

months. The exact moisture content of either cell was not provided during the field sampling 

campaign. 

3-33

Based on the calculations presented in Table 3-33, the total methane emissions from Site #2 are 

estimated by calculating the sum of the average of the total methane emissions from the 

bioreactor and control cells, which is 7,300 kilograms per day. It should be noted that this 

estimated value is extrapolated from a limited amount of flux data, and does not take into 

account diurnal or seasonal trends in methane emissions. 

3.2.4 Summa Canister Sampling 

Summa canister samples were collected from the gas collection header pipe in triplicate at Site 

#2. These samples represent a composite of LFG from the entire site. Samples were collected 

upstream of the vacuum pump to minimize loses and contamination. Blanks were also collected 

using a nitrogen gas stream to purge the VOST train condensers and glassware. Samples were 

analyzed using Methods TO-15, 25-C, a C1 through C6 alkane hydrocarbons analysis by 

GC/FID, and a permanent gases (O2, N2, CO2) analysis by GC/TCD. Results are presented in 

Tables 3-33 through 3-35. TO-15 results are qualified using results from the nitrogen blank. Any 

compounds reported in samples that are

CAS NO. 

Sample Type: Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Landfill Gas 

Can ID: Can G-1 Can G-2 Can G-3 

COMPOUND ppbv ppbv ppbv 

Nitrogen 

Blank 

Can G-4 

Ppbv 



Concentration 

ppbv 

Corrected 


Concentration 

156-59-2 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 107.4 79.1 73.6 ND 86.7 88.9 

110-82-7 Cyclohexane 447.1 314.0 218.2 10.1 326.4 334.8 

67-66-3 Chloroform 124.9 120.2 99.6 6.2 114.9 117.8 

141-78-6 Ethyl Acetate 204.3 114.2 159.1 5.8 159.2 163.3 

109-99-9 Tetrahydrofuran 195.1 119.4 144.2 3.5 152.9 156.8 


56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND ND 

78-93-3 2-Butanone ND ND ND 51.7 ND ND 

142-82-5 Heptane 141.0 122.7 112.3 ND 125.3 128.5 

71-43-2 Benzene 306.1 238.1 216.6 3.0 253.6 260.1 

107-06-2 1,2-dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

79-01-6 Trichloroethylene 45.0 61.4 80.7 ND 62.4 64.0 

78-87-5 1,2-dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

123-91-1 1,4-dioxane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

10061-01-5 cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

108-88-3 Toluene 2082 1505 1648 59.6 1745 1790 

108-10-1 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone 

(MIBK) 

86.5 ND 65.1 UB 13.3 29.0 29.7 

1006-02-6 t-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND 


124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

591-78-6 2-Hexanone ND ND ND ND ND ND 

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 1647 1677 ND 1108 1136 

108-90-7 Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

1330-20-7 m/p-Xylene 3593 2653 2782 71.9 3010 3086 

95-47-6 o-Xylene 129 1014 1037 19.5 1115 1143 

100-42-5 Styrene 269.0 240.9 211.5 4.0 240.4 246.6 

75-25-2 Tribromomethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

79-34-5 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND 

622-96-8 1-ethyl-4-methylbenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 



541-73-1 1,3-dichlorobenzene 411.2 345.0 ND ND 258.6 258.6 


100-44-7 Benzyl chloride ND ND ND ND ND ND 


87-68-3 

1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro 

1,3-butadiene 


120-82-1 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND 

UB = Sample concentration less than 5 times the blank concentration 

ND = Not detected 

3-35 

ppbv

Table 3-34. Results for C1 to C6 and Permanent Gases by GC/FID/TCD from Site #2 

Sample 

ID 

Methane 

(%) 

Ethane 

(ppmv) 

Propane 

(ppmv) 

Butane 

(ppmv) 

Pentane 

(ppmv) 

Hexane 

(ppmv) 

Oxygen 

(%) 

Nitrogen 

(%) 

Carbon Dioxide 

(%) 

Landfill Gas G-1 15.0 6.7 9.7 4.6 7.4 ND 13.3 57.7 19 

Landfill Gas G-2 15.2 5.9 10.6 4.4 7.0 11.8 13.8 60.0 18.9 

Landfill Gas G-3 15.6 6.0 9.8 4.5 7.2 ND 14.2 61.5 18.9 

Nitrogen Blank G-4 0.0238 ND 2.0 ND ND ND 2.5 97.1 ND 

Table 3-35. Results for Method 25-C Analysis from Site #2 

Sample 

ID 

Methane 

(%) 

CO2 

(%) 

NMOC 

ppmv 

Mass Conc 

mg/m 3 

Landfill Gas G-1 45.7 39.5 1922 960 



Nitrogen Blank G-4 ND ND 17.0 9.0 

The results presented in Table 3-34 show a possible leak during the analysis, and should be 

considered as suspect data. Concentrations of O2, methane, and CO2, are not typical of a mature 

gas producing landfill, as O2 concentrations should be less than 2 percent, methane greater than 

50 percent, and CO2 greater than 35 percent. In response to these questionable results, additional 

landfill gas measurements were taken during the October 2007 field campaign. These results are 

presented in Section 3.3 of this document. 

The results shown in Table 3-35 appear to be the most valid results for methane and CO2. 

3.2.5 Total Mercury Measurements 

Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 36 to 47 ng/m 3 , with an 

average of 43 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were 

89.9 and 97.6 percent. Table 3-36 presents the total mercury concentration data from Site #2. 

3-36

Table 3-36. Total Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2 

Sample / 

Well Location 

Total Mercury Gas 



(%) 




Lab Spike NA 89.9 

Lab Spike Duplicate NA 97.6 

3.2.6 Dimethyl Mercury Measurements 


with an average of 5.66 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury traps were 1.9 percent. 

Un-sampled spike traps had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 

percent. Recoveries for the spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance 

criteria of 50 to 150 percent. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering 

compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason, 

all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Sampling was 

performed at approximately 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample. Table 3-37 

presents the dimethyl mercury concentration data from Site #2. 

Table 3-37. Dimethyl Mercury Sample Concentrations from Site #2 


Dimethyl Mercury Gas 

Concentration( ng/m 3 ) 


(%) 




Spike Sample(front/back) NA 1.9 



3.2.7 Monomethyl Mercury Measurements 

Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.06 to 0.31 ng/m 3 

with an average of 0.16 ng/m 3 . The matrix spike recovery for the monomethyl sample was 62.6 

percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 91 to 102 percent with 

an average of 97 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a preservation issue with 

the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike. Table 3-38 presents the 

monomethyl mercury concentration and QA/QC data from Site #2. 

3-37

Table 3-38. Monomethyl Mercury Concentrations (ng/m 3 ) from Site #2 


Monomethyl Mercury Gas 



(%) 




Spike Sample NA 62.6 

Analytical Spike NA 90.9 

Analytical Spike Duplicate NA 102.4 

3.2.8 Elemental Mercury Measurements 

Lumex elemental mercury continuous sampling concentrations from Site #2 ranged from 22 to 

64 ng/m 3 with an average of 47±17 ng/m 3 . These samples were collected during a 4 hour period 

on 2/23/2007. The sampling with the Lumex was also performed in conjunction with the total 

mercury samples at this site. 

3.2.9 Calculation of NMOC Fluxes 

The emissions flux value of each compound presented in Table 3-34 was estimated using the 

method described in Section 1.7 of this document. The net measured methane flux values from 

each landfill cell were used to estimate the emissions flux value of each compound. In order to 

perform this calculation, the estimated methane emission values presented in Table 3-33 were 

used (5,950 kg/day for the control cell and 1,100 kg/day for the bioreactor cell). 

Tables 3-39 presents the estimated flux of each compound (in units of grams per day) from the 

control and bioreactor cells of Site #2. 

3-38

Table 3-39. Estimated NMOC Flux Values from the Control and Bioreactor Cells of Site 

#2 

Compound 

Corrected Landfill Gas 

Concentration (ppbv) 

Estimated Flux Value 

from Control Cell 


Estimated Flux Value 

from Bioreactor Cell 


Dichlorodifluoromethane 116.5 11 2.5 

1,2-Chloro-1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane 13.2 1.8 0.41 

Chloromethane 150.4 5.9 1.4 

Bromomethane 10.5 0.78 0.18 

Ethanol 111.3 4.0 0.92 

Carbon disulfide 83.9 5.0 1.2 

Methylene chloride 1569 100 24 

Acetone 2612 120 27 

Hexane 214.9 14 3.3 

cis-1,2-dicloroethene 88.9 6.7 1.6 

Cyclohexane 334.8 22 5.1 

Chloroform 117.8 11 2.5 

Ethyl Acetate 163.3 11 2.6 

Tetrahydrofuran 156.8 8.8 2.0 

Heptane 128.8 10 2.3 

Benzene 260.1 16 3.7 

Trichloroethylene 64.0 6.5 1.5 

Toluene 1790 130 30 

4-Methyl-2-pentanone 29.7 2.3 0.53 

Ethylbenzene 1136 94 22 

m/p-Xylene 3086 250 29 

o-Xylene 1143 94 22 

Styrene 246.6 20 4.6 



1,3-dichlorobenzene 258.6 30 6.8 

3-39

3.3 Gas and Mercury Sampling Results from the October 2007 Field Campaign 

As mentioned in previous sections, the dimethyl mercury data, methane, and permanent gas 

analysis data from the February 2007 field campaign were labeled as suspect. In response to 

these results, an additional field campaign was conducted during October 2007 at both sites to 

collect additional gas and mercury samples. Due to limited project resources, carbon tube 

samples were collected and analyzed only for total mercury concentrations using a thermal 

decomposition furnace attached to a cold-vapor atomic adsorption mercury analyzer 

manufactured by Ohio Lumex. 

In addition to the mercury data, landfill gas composition data was collected with a Landtec GEM 

2000+ landfill gas monitor. The results of the October 2007 campaign are presented in the 

following sections. 

3.3.1 Total Mercury Concentrations 

The total mercury concentrations measured at Site #1 and Site #2 are presented in Tables 3-40 

and 3-41, respectively. 


Field Campaign 

Tube # Spike Recovery (%) Conc (µg/m 3 ) Date 

1 25 10/24/2007 

2 22 10/24/2007 

3 102 26 10/24/2007 

4 25 10/24/2007 

CCV 104 Average=20 

Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged from 22 to 26 µg/m 3 , with an 

average of 25 µg/m 3 for all of the samples. Sampled matrix spike recovery for the total mercury 

samples were 102 percent, and continuous calibration verification (CCV) recoveries were 104 

percent. 

3-40


Field Campaign 

Tube # Spike Recovery (%) Conc (µg/m3) Date 

1 0.53 10/23/2007 

2 0.42 10/23/2007 

3 0.11 10/23/2007 

CCV 106 Average=0.35 

Total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 0.11 to 0.53 µg/m 3 , with 

an average of 0.35 µg/m 3 for all of the samples. Continuous calibration verification (CCV) 

recoveries were 106%. 

3.3.2 Gas Sampling Results 

Table 3-42 presents the results of the gas composition data collected at Sites #1 and #2 with the 

Landtec GEM 2000+ landfill gas monitor. Gas flowrates were measured using an Airfoil pitot 

probe with the Shortridge ADM-870 Airdata Multimeter to determine gas velocities. 

Table 3-42. Landfill Gas Composition Data Collected at Sites #1 and #2 during the 

October 2007 Field Campaign 

Site #1 Site #2 

Duct Diameter (inches) 11 9 

Area (square feet) 0.66 0.44 

Gas Velocity (feet/minute) 2880 1679 

Gas Flow Rate (CFM) 1901 742 

Methane (%) 47.4 36.5 

Carbon Dioxide (%) 36.2 34.8 

Oxygen (%) 2.6 2.4 

N2 Balance (%) 13.7 26.2 

Hydrogen Sulfide (ppmv) 83 Invalid Data 

Carbon Monoxide (ppmv) 0 to 3 0 

Gas sampling results from the landfill gas monitor were consistent with readings taken from 

other landfills of similar size and age. The Landtec landfill gas monitor was calibrated using a 

gas cylinder containing a mixture of 50-percent methane and 35-percent carbon dioxide in a 

balance of nitrogen. The landfill gas monitor has a manufacturer’s specified accuracy of ±3 

percent for methane and carbon dioxide, and an accuracy of ±1 percent for oxygen. 

A small amount of carbon monoxide was detected at Site #1 possibly due to a small fire present 

in the landfill. Carbon monoxide was not detected at Site #2. Hydrogen sulfide was detected at 

3-41

Site #1 with a level of 83 ppmv. The hydrogen sulfide levels at Site #2 were above the range of 

the instrument which had a range of 0 to 200 ppmv. The high levels of hydrogen sulfide at Site 

#2 may have been due to a large amount of construction and demolition debris disposed in the 

landfill and the conversion of sulfate to sulfide from gypsum in wallboard. 

3-42

Chapter 4 

Conclusion 

This report provides the results from two field campaigns conducted at two municipal landfill 

sites in Florida. The field project team collected methane fugitive emissions measurements using 

two optical remote sensing (ORS) instruments, one scanning GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS 

instrument (Boreal, Inc.) and one scanning OP-FTIR instrument (IMACC, Inc.). The data was 

then used with an improved vertical radial plume mapping configuration to calculate net methane 

flux emission values from the top of each landfill cell, and from the slopes of the cells. 

Measurements were collected in the bioreactor and control cells at each site (a control cell is 

defined as an area within the site operated as a conventional landfill, with no leachate or other 

liquid additions to accelerate waste decomposition). Table 4-1 presents the average calculated 

methane fluxes from the top and slopes of each landfill cell. 

Table 4-1. Average Calculated Methane Flux (g/s) Value From Each Landfill Cell 

Site Survey Area 

Methane Flux from 

Top of Landfill Cell 

Methane Flux from Slopes 1 

Site #1 Control Cell (2/20/07, 4:00pm) 5.3 2 3.3 2 

(Southern and Western Slopes) 

Site #1 Control Cell (2/20/07, 5:00pm) 7.6 2 6.0 2 

(Southern and Western Slopes) 

Site #1 Bioreactor Cell (2/22/07) 6.3 

16 

(Northern and Western Slopes) 

Site #2 Control Cell (2/24/07) 0 

28 

(Southern and Eastern Slopes) 

Site #2 Control Cell (2/25/07) 0 

16 

(Southern and Eastern Slopes) 


4.4 

(Northern and Eastern Slopes) 


3.9 

(Northern and Eastern Slopes) 

1 

The slopes from which the total methane flux values are calculated is dependent upon the prevailing wind direction 

during the time of the measurements 

2 

Due to problems with alignment of the OP-TDLAS instrument that prevented collection of a complete dataset, 

an alternate method was used to calculate the methane flux values from the Site #1 control cell. Therefore, the 

methane flux values presented from the Site #1 control cell are considered estimated values. Additional 

information is provided in Section 3. 

The surveys found that methane emissions from the top of the control and bioreactor cells of Site 

#1 were comparable. However, methane emissions from the top of the control cell of Site #2 

were negligible, while emissions from the top of the bioreactor cell of Site #2 were significant. 

4-1

The surveys also found significant methane emissions from the slopes of each landfill cell, 

especially from the bioreactor cell of Site #1, and the control cell of Site #2. In fact, total 

methane emissions from the slopes of each cell surveyed during the campaign were more 

significant than emissions from the top of the landfill cells when considering the much larger 

surface areas of the slopes compared to the tops of the cells. 

Overall, total methane emissions from the bioreactor cell of Site #1 were much greater than 

emissions from the control cell of Site #1, as expected. However, total methane emissions from 

the bioreactor cell of Site #2 were significantly lower than emissions from the control cell of Site 

#2. This may be due to the fact that leachate had not been injected into the bioreactor cell at the 

site in several months due to excessive rainfall. Another factor that may have contributed to the 

relatively lower emissions from the bioreactor cell of Site #2 was the presence of a fresh soil 

cover that had been added to the surface of the cell prior to the measurement campaign. Using 

the data presented in Table 4-1, the calculated total site methane emissions was 5,300 kg/day 

from Site #1 and 5,600 kg/day for Site #2. 

For each of the two sites, Summa® canister samples were collected at the gas header pipe 

upstream of any gas treatment. The header pipe samples were analyzed to provide data on gas 

composition (methane and carbon dioxide), NMOC, and trace organic constituents including 

HAPs, H2S, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Data were also obtained on mercury in the 

header pipe gas. Data were collected using header pipe gas measurements for total, elemental 

and organo-mercury (including methyl- and dimethyl-mercury). Table 4-2 presents a summary 

of the mercury results for both sites from sampling occurring in February and October 2007. 

Table 4-2. Average Concentrations of Total, Dimethyl, Monomethyl, and Elemental 

Mercury Measured at Each Site 1 

Compound 

Total Mercury- 

February 2007 

Total Mercury- 

October 2007 

Average 

Concentration 

(ng/m 3 ) 

Site #1 Site #2 

Range 

(ng/m 3 ) 

Average 

Concentrati 

on (ng/m 3 ) 

Range 

(ng/m 3 ) 

5,022 4,958 to 5,148 43 36 to 47 

24,495 21,689 to 25,770 270 109 to 526 

2 

Dimethyl Mercury 1.91 1.22 to 2.65 5.66 0.69 to 9.19 

Monomethyl 

Mercury 

11.8 11.1 to 12.4 0.16 0.06 to 0.31 

Elemental Mercury 3,266 3,094 to 3,445 47 22 to 64 

1 Total mercury measurements were repeated in the field sampling occurring in October 2007. Organo-mercury and 

elemental mercury analysis was not repeated. Although there were no observed differences in sampling between 

field campaigns, there was a difference in analytical methods for total mercury analysis. This is explained in the text 

supporting this table. 

2 Spike recoveries for the dimethyl mercury samples were significantly lower than the QAPP acceptance criteria. 

During the February 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site 

#1 ranged from 5,000to 5,200 ng/m 3 with an average of 5,000 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Spike 

4-2

ecoveries for the total mercury samples were 98.2 percent. Total mercury concentrations in the 

landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 36 to 47 ng/m 3 with an average of 43 ng/m 3 for all of the 

samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were not performed at Site #2. 

During the October 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site 

#1 ranged from 21,700 to 25,800 ng/m 3 with an average of 24,500 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. 

Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were 102 percent. Total mercury concentrations 

in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged from 109 to 526 ng/m 3 with an average of 352 ng/m 3 for all of 

the samples. 

There is almost 5 times difference in the total mercury results for Site 1 between the February 

and October sampling dates (5,022 in February versus 25,400 ng/m 3 in October). For site 2, the 

difference in total mercury results between February and October is about 6 times higher (43 

versus 270 ng/m 3 ). The collection technique and equipment were the same during both sampling 

campaigns. Spike recoveries for total mercury during both sampling periods were acceptable and 

showed no degradation or loss of mercury. 

There was a difference in the analytical method that was used to evaluate the samples between 

February and the October 2007. The February matrix spike analysis was performed by adding a 

known amount of mercury to the sample after sampling and leaching (i.e., Method 1631). This 

post-leaching type of spiking does not assess any potential losses of mercury from sampling, 

matrix interferences, or the wet leaching procedure. 

To account for potential mercury losses from sampling or matrix interferences, EPA developed 

EPA Method 30B, “Determination of Mercury from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources using 

Carbon Sorbent Traps”. This method requires additional replicates and QA/QC that helps to 

account for any potential losses of mercury from sampling and matrix interferences. Method 

30B is being used for power plants and other mercury sources to demonstrate performance of 

mercury continuous emission monitors. Therefore, in the October 2007 field sampling 

campaign, the thermal decomposition mercury analysis technique. Sampling included a prespiked 

iodated carbon tube traps spiked with elemental mercury and were used to assess matrix 

recovery at Site #1. Results for the thermal decomposition mercury analysis matrix spike 

recovery were 102%. The results for total mercury analysis from the October sampling are 

thought to be more reliable because of the additional QA/QC requirements to account for 

mercury loss during sampling and analysis. 


with an average of 1.91 ng/m 3 . Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2 

ranged from 0.69 to 9.19 ng/m 3 with an average of 5.66 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl 

mercury traps were 13.9 percent for Site #1 and 1.9 percent for Site #2. Un-sampled spike traps 

had recoveries from 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 percent. Recoveries for the 

spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent 

established in the project QAPP. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering 

compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason, 

all of the dimethyl mercury results from this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Oversampling 

was performed by the ARCADIS personnel performing the sampling. Sampling was 

performed at approximated 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample. 

4-3

Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #1 gas ranged from 11.2 to 12.4 ng/m 3 with an 

average of 11.8 ng/m 3 . Monomethyl mercury concentrations in the Site #2 gas ranged from 0.06 

to 0.31 ng/m 3 with an average of 0.16 ng/m 3 . Site #1 matrix spike recoveries for the monomethyl 

samples were 25.7 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 88 to 

90 percent with an average of 89 percent. The Site #2 matrix spike recovery for the monomethyl 

sample was 62.6 percent. Spike recoveries for un-sampled impinger solution ranged from 91 to 

102 percent with an average of 97 percent. The lower recoveries may have been due to a 

preservation issue with the shipping or possible matrix interference as seen in the matrix spike. 

Elemental mercury concentrations for Site #1 ranged from 3,090 to 3,440 ng/m 3 with an average 

of 3,270 ng/m 3 for all of the samples. Elemental mercury concentrations at Site #2 ranged from 

22 to 64 ng/m 3 with an average of 47 ng/m 3 . 

4-4


4-5

5.1 Equipment Calibration 

Chapter 5 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

All project instrumentation is calibrated annually or verified as part of standard operating 

procedures. Certificates of calibration are kept on file. Maintenance records are kept for any 

equipment adjustments or repairs in bound project notebooks that include the data and 

description of maintenance performed. Instrument calibration procedures and frequency are 

listed in Table 5-1 and further described in the text. 

Table 5-1. Instrumentation Calibration Frequency and Description 

Instrument Measurement Calibration Date Calibration Detail 

Boreal Methane GasFinder 2.0 Methane PIC Pre-deployment and in-field Reference cell calibration 

OP-TDLAS checks 

R.M. Young Wind Speed in meters per 7 June 2006 APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file 

Meteorological Head second 

R.M. Young Wind direction in degrees 14 July 2006 APPCD Metrology Lab Cal. Records on file 

Meteorological Head from North 

Lumex 915+ Mercury Analyzer Elemental Mercury Pre-deployment and in-field Insertion of test cell 

Concentration checks 

Landtec GEM2000+ Landfill Gas O2, CO2, CH4, CO, H2S, Pre-deployment and in-field Calibrated at rental location before testing 

Monitor and balance N2 checks and in-field checks using calibration gas 

cylinder 

Shortridge ADM-870 Airdata Header pipe gas velocity 8 July 2007 Yearly factory certified NIST traceable 

Multimeter calibration 

Environmental Supply VOST Gas sample volume for 3 October 2007 EPA Method 2A 

Meter Box sorbent tubes 

Topcon Model GTS-211D Distance Measurement 19 April 2006 Calibration of distance measurement. 

Theodolite Actual distance=19.6 m 

#1 Measured distance= 19.56 m 

#2 Measured distance= 19.55 m 

Topcon Model GTS-211D Angle Measurement 19 April 2006 Calibration of angle measurement. 

Theodolite Actual angle= 360º 

#1 Measured angle= 360º28’47” 

#2 Measured angle= 359º39’24” 

5-1

As part of the preparation for this project, a Category III Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

was prepared and approved for the field campaigns. In addition, standard operating procedures 

were in place during the field campaigns. 

5.2 Assessment of DQI Goals 

The critical measurements associated with this project and the established data quality indicator 

(DQI) goals in terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness are listed in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2. DQI Goals for Instrumentation 

Measurement 

Parameter 

Analysis Method Accuracy Precision 

Acceptance Criterion 

(%Bias/Recovery) 

Completeness 

(%) 

Methane PIC OP-TDLAS ±20% ±20% Not applicable 90 

Analyte PIC OP-FTIR: Nitrous Oxide 

Concentrations 

Ambient Wind 

Speed 

Ambient Wind 

Direction 

Distance 

Measurement 

R.M. Young Met heads postdeployment 

calibration in EPA 

Metrology Lab 

R.M. Young Met heads postdeployment 

calibration in EPA 

Metrology Lab 

±25%, ±15%, 10%* ±10% Not applicable 90 

±1 m/s ±1 m/s Not applicable 90 

±10º ±10º Not applicable 90 

Theodolite- Topcon ±1m ±1m Not applicable 100 

Beam angle Theodolite- Topcon ±0.1º ±0.1º Not applicable 100 

Mercury 

concentrations 

Lumex Mercury Analyzer ±25% ±25% Not applicable 90 

Total Mercury Frontier Geosciences Not applicable ±20% 50-150 90 

Organo- Mercury Frontier Geosciences Not applicable ±20% 50-150 90 

VOCs EPA Method TO-15 Not applicable ±20% 50-150 90 

* The accuracy acceptance criterion of ±25% is for pathlengths of less than 50m, ±15% is for pathlengths between 50 and 

100m, and ±10% is for pathlengths greater than 100m. 

5.2.1 DQI Check for Methane PIC Measurement with OP-TDLAS 

The Boreal GasFinder 2.0 OP-TDLAS provides an R 2 value for each concentration 

measurement. The R 2 value is calculated by the internal software of the instrument, and is an 

indication of the similarity between the waveform of the sample gas and the reference cell gas. 

When the instrument detector receives the returning laser signal after it has passed through the 

sample beam path, it converts the signal to the shape of a specific waveform (sample waveform). 

The instrument also receives a similar laser signal after the laser has passed through the reference 

cell in the instrument (reference waveform). The two waveforms are then digitized and compared 

as two numeric arrays. The instrument software then performs a Linear Least Squares Regression 

for each measurement, to evaluate the similarity (R 2 ) between the sample and reference 

waveforms. 

5-2

The R 2 value was used to assess the accuracy of each concentration measurement from this 

project. Table 5-3, taken from the Boreal Laser, Inc. GasFinder 2.0 Operation Manual, presents 

a range of R 2 values, and the corresponding accuracy of the measurement. 

Table 5-3. Accuracy of Concentration Measurements for Different R 2 Value 

R 2 

Measurement 

Accuracy (%) 

> 0.95 ± 2 

0.9 ± 5 

0.7 ± 10 

0.5 ± 15 

0.4 ± 20 

0.3 ± 25 

0.15 ± 50 

0.1 ± 70 

< 0.05 ± 100 

The R 2 value of each data point (measured methane concentration) was analyzed to assess 

whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±20 percent, which corresponds to an R 2 

value of greater than 0.4. A total of 21,467 data points were analyzed, and 16,509 met the DQI 

criteria for accuracy, for a total completeness of 77 percent. This value did not meet the project 

DQI criteria of 80-percent completeness. 

The precision of the OP-TDLAS methane concentration measurements was assessed by 

comparing consecutive methane concentration values measured along the same beam path. 

Methane path-averaged concentration data values were collected with the OP-TDLAS instrument 

and input into the VRPM algorithm 

5.2.2 DQI Check for Analyte PIC Measurement with OP-FTIR 

The precision and accuracy of the analyte path-integrated concentration (PIC) measurements 

collected with the OP-FTIR instrument was assessed by analyzing the measured nitrous oxide 

concentrations in the atmosphere. A typical background atmospheric concentration for nitrous 

oxide is about 315 ppb. However, this value may fluctuate due to seasonal variations in nitrous 

oxide concentrations or elevation of the site. 

The precision of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by calculating the relative 

standard deviation of each data subset. A subset is defined as the data collected along one 

particular path length during one particular survey in one survey sub-area. The number of data 

points in a data subset depends on the number of cycles used in a particular survey. 

The accuracy of the analyte PIC measurements was evaluated by comparing the calculated 

nitrous oxide concentrations from each data subsets to the typical background concentration of 

5-3

315 ppb. The number of calculated nitrous oxide concentrations that failed to meet the DQI 

accuracy criterion in each data subset was recorded. 

Overall, 180 data subsets were analyzed from this field campaign. Based on the DQI criterion set 

forth for precision of ±10 percent, all of the data subsets were found to be acceptable for a 

completeness of 100 percent. The range of calculated relative standard deviations for the data 

subsets from this field campaign was 0.36 to 17.4 ppb, which represents 0.11- to 5.5-percent 

RSD. 

Each data point (calculated nitrous oxide concentration) in the data subsets was analyzed to 

assess whether or not it met the DQI criterion for accuracy of ±25 percent (315 ± 79 ppb) for 

path lengths less than 50 meters, ±15 percent (315 ± 47 ppb) for path lengths between 50 and 

100 meters, and ±10 percent (315 ± 32 ppb) for path lengths greater than 100 meters. A total of 

1569 data points were analyzed, and 1482 met the DQI criteria for accuracy, for a total 

completeness of 94 percent. 

5.2.3 Inter-comparison Study of OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS Instruments 

Operational difficulties were encountered in the field that resulted in scaling back the study to 

the extent that the results are not considered reliable. Whenever two different types of 

instruments are used (i.e., OP-FTIR and OP-TDLAS), field interlaboratory comparison is 

recommended. This is to ensure that there is no potential bias between measurements. At each 

survey area, the instruments were to be located diagonally across the survey area and operated 

for ~30 minutes to collect methane concentration data across the same optical path. 

The study was performed for Site #1 using the same optical path with a distance of ~200 meters. 

Data were collected with the OP-FTIR for approximately 10 minutes and with the OP-TDLAS 

for about 20 minutes. Overlapping data for the comparison were available for only 7 minutes. If 

these data are fitted to a linear regression, the results indicated the OP-TDLAS is approximately 

40% greater than the concentrations measured with the OP-FTIR. The very limited number of 

measurements (n = 7) and the poor regression coefficient of determination (r 2 = 0.205) raise 

question as to the validity of the inter-comparison results. 

Although the instruments were deployed along an identical beam path, the difference in the 

concentrations measured with both instruments may be due to a difference in the height of the 

scanners, resulting in a difference in the height of the beam paths. The OP-FTIR scanner mount 

is higher than the OP-TDLAS scanner mount, resulting in the OP-FTIR optical beam path being 

higher than the OP-TDLAS beam path. The higher concentrations measured with the OP 

TDLAS may be due to the fact that the OP-TDLAS beam path was located closer to the surface 

of the landfill cell. The field team personnel have extensive experience with use of both OP 

FTIR and OP-TDLAS instruments and have observed and documented through other studies that 

the two instruments exhibit good comparability. (U.S. EPA, 2004; U. S. EPA, 2005a; U.S. EPA, 

2005c; U.S. EPA, 2005e, U.S. EPA, 2005f. U. S. EPA, 2007). 

Immediately prior to this field study, Boreal Laser, Inc. performed a bench top calibration 

experiment with the OP-TDLAS instrument in a laboratory environment. The experiment 

consisted of inserting a known concentration of methane into a calibration cell, and comparing 

5-4

the measured path-integrated methane concentration to the known path-integrated methane 

concentration in the calibration cell (9950 ppm-meter). Measurements were collected with the 

GasFinder OP-TDL instrument for approximately 3 minutes, and the results are shown in Figure 

5-1. The average measured path-integrated concentration was 9,926 ppm meter, which yielded a 

percent error of -0.2%. The certificate of calibration is presented as an appendix to this report. 

Therefore, it was decided since the intercomparison results for these particular tests were not 

reliable, to report the results assuming that there was agreement based on previous experience. 

However, future tests should allow enough time to conduct intercomparison studies when two 

different types of optical instruments are in use. 

Figure 5-1. Results of the Methane Gasfinder Calibration Experiment 

5.2.4 DQI Checks for Ambient Wind Speed and Wind Direction Measurements 

The meteorological head DQIs are checked annually as part of the routine calibration procedure. 

Before deployment to the field, the user is to verify the calibration date of the instrument by 

referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the instrument is in need of calibration, 

the proper procedure is to return it to the APPCD Metrology Laboratory before deployment to 

the field. The precision and accuracy of the heads is assessed by conducting a post-deployment 

calibration in the EPA Metrology Lab using the exhaust from a bench top wind tunnel. This 

5-5

calibration procedure differs from the procedure used to perform the annual calibration of the 

instruments. 

Additionally, a couple of reasonableness checks are performed in the field on the measured wind 

direction data. While data collection is occurring, the Field Team Leader compares wind 

direction measured with the heads to the forecasted wind direction for that particular day. 

The project team experienced some difficulties with collection of wind data on February 21 at 

Site #1. Due to problems with the data collection software, wind data were not collected on this 

day. However, this problem was corrected, and wind data were collected for the duration of the 

project. There was no indication that the problem experienced in collecting the wind data was 

caused by a malfunction of the instrumentation. 

5.2.5 DQI Check for Precision and Accuracy of Theodolite Measurements 

Calibration checks are not performed before each field campaign; however, the calibration date 

of the instrument is verified by referencing the calibration sticker. If the date indicates the 

instrument is in need of calibration, it should be returned to the manufacturer before use in the 

field. Before field deployment, ensure the battery packs are charged for this equipment. The 

following additional checks were made on April 19, 2006. The calibration of distance 

measurement was done at the ARCADIS facility using a tape measure. The actual distance was 

19.6 meters. The distances measured with the theodolite were 19.56 and 19.55 meters. The 

results indicate accuracy and precision fall well within the DQI goals. The calibration of angle 

measurement was also performed. The actual angle was 360°. The angles measured with the 

theodolite were 360°28’47” and 359°39’24”. The results indicate accuracy and precision fall 

well within the DQI goals, and completeness was 100 percent. 

Additionally, there are several internal checks in the theodolite software that prevent data 

collection from occurring if the instrument is not properly aligned on the object being measured, 

or if the instrument has not been balanced correctly. When this occurs, it is necessary to reinitialize 

the instrument to collect data. 

5.2.6 DQI Check for Lumex Mercury Analyzer 

The Lumex Mercury Analyzer DQIs of accuracy and precision are checked with a test cell, 

containing gas from the calibration standard. The cell is built into the instrument, and is accessed 

by setting the instrument to the “test” mode, and collecting measurements. If the measured value 

of the mercury vapor concentration in the test cell is within ±25 percent from that of the 

tabulated value and the standard deviation of the measurements is within ±25 percent, the 

accuracy and precision of the instrument are deemed acceptable. 

The Lumex mercury analyzer was zeroed using the internal carbon filter sample conditioner. 

Yearly calibrations are performed on this analyzer by factory personnel at Ohio Lumex. The 

precision criteria of ±25 percent established in the QAPP was met for samples collected at Site 

#1 (4.0% RSD), but not for samples collected at Site #2 (35.6% RSD). 

5-6

5.2.7 DQI Check of Total Mercury Samples 

Laboratory control spike recovery for the total mercury sampling during February 2007 was 

performed using a NIST 1641D (1.590 mg/kg mercury in water) reference standard. Two spike 

recoveries were performed with 89.9- and 97.6-percent recovery for an average of 93.8 percent. 

Analytical spikes were performed on gas sample two with recoveries of 97.4 and 98.9 percent 

with an average recovery of 98.2 percent. Recovery goals established in the QAPP of 50 to 150 

percent were met. 

Analytical duplicates were performed on gas sample two with values of 150.4 and 160.0 for an 

average of 155.2 and a relative percent difference of 6.2 percent. Blank values were less than 

0.07 ng per trap with an average of 0.02 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.12 ng per trap. 

The precision assessment was performed using data from duplicate or replicate samples and 

spikes (when available). Precision was expressed as %RPD for samples that were done in 

duplicate and as %RSD for samples performed in triplicate. Table 5-4 represents precision values 

calculated for total mercury of samples at each site. Precision goals established in the QAPP of 

ecoveries were performed with the LCS standard with 87.3- and 87.5-percent recovery for an 

average of 87.4 percent. Two spike recoveries were performed with the second standard with 

94.8- and 85.0-percent recovery for an average of 89.9 percent. The recovery criteria established 

in the QAPP of 50 to 150 percent was met. 

Laboratory matrix analytical spikes (sample + 2.000 ng) were performed on a batch QC sample 

with recoveries of 90.9 and 102.4 percent with an average recovery of 96.6 percent, which meets 

laboratory acceptance criteria for recovery. Blank values were less than 0.0014 ng per trap with 

an average of 0.0007 ng per trap and an MDL of 0.0030 ng per trap. 

Field spike recovery values for Site #1 was 25.7 and 62.6 percent for Site #2. The low spike 

recoveries were possibly due to an over sampling of the landfill gas and degradation of the 

matrix spike in the collection solution. Dimethyl mercury results may be higher than reported 

due to the reactive properties of the landfill gas on the analytes in the acid collection solution. 

Table 5-6 represents precision values calculated for dimethyl mercury of samples during Landfill 

F and G sampling campaign. Precision goals established in the QAPP of

Site #1 5.4 

Site #2 77.9 

Completeness goals for precision established in the QAPP were not met for monomethyl 

mercury sampling and analysis. 

5.2.10 DQI Check of VOC Samples with SUMMA® Canisters 

Summa® canister samples of the landfill gas were analyzed for the TO-15 list of volatile organic 

compounds. Triplicate gas samples and nitrogen sampling system blanks were collected at both 

sites. The reported method detection limits for the TO-15 target list was 0.5 ppbv. Data for the 

TO-15 gas samples required a flag to designate analytes reported at concentrations less than 5 

times the nitrogen blank values due to some background contamination present in the sampling 

system. The background contamination in the nitrogen blanks were probably due to carry over 

from previous landfill gas sampling using the same equipment. 

The Summa canister gas samples were also analyzed for methane, CO2, O2, C1 to C-6 alkanes, 

NMOC, and N2. The results from Methods 25-C appear to be the more consistent with the gas 

composition for municipal landfills (U.S. EPA, 2008. Tables 5-8 and 5-9 present the precision 

values of the Method 25-C and GC/FID/TCD datasets, respectively. 

Table 5-8. Precision ranges for Method 25-C Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 

RSD 

Methane 

(%) 

CO2 

(%) 

NMOC 

(%) 

Mass Conc. 

(%) 

Site #1 5.4 4.6 3.8 3.9 

Site #2 4.8 4.6 0.9 0.9 

Table 5-9. Precision ranges for GC/FID/TCD Measurements at Sites #1 and #2 

RSD 

Methane 

(%) 

Oxygen 

(%) 

Nitrogen 

(%) 

Carbon Dioxide 

(%) 

Site #1 75.3 30.6 33.2 19.0 

Site #2 2.0 3.3 3.2 0.3 

5.3 QC Checks of OP-FTIR Instrument Performance 

Several checks should be performed on the OP-FTIR instrumentation prior to deployment to the 

field, and during the duration of the field campaign. More information on these checks can be 

found in MOP 6802 and 6807 of the ECPD Optical Remote Sensing Facility Manual. Prior to 

deployment to the field, the baseline stability, NEA, random baseline noise, saturation, and 

single beam ratio tests were performed. The results of the tests indicated that the instrument was 

operating within the acceptable criteria range. 

5-9

On the first day of the field campaign (February 19), the single beam ratio, saturation, random 

baseline noise, stray light, and NEA tests were performed on the IMACC OP-FTIR. The results 

of the tests indicated that the instrument was operating within the acceptable criteria range. 

On each subsequent day of the field campaign, the single beam ratio test was performed on the 

IMACC OP-FTIR during the morning before data were collected. The results of these tests 

indicated that the instrument was operating within the acceptable criteria range. 

In addition to the QC checks performed on the OP-FTIR, the quality of the instrument signal 

(interferogram) was checked constantly during the field campaign. This was done by ensuring 

that the intensity of the signal is at least 5 times the intensity of the stray light signal (the stray 

light signal is collected as background data prior to actual data collection, and measures internal 

stray light from the instrument itself). In addition to checking the strength of the signal, checks 

were done constantly in the field to ensure that the data were being collected and stored to the 

data collection computer. During the campaign, a member of the field team constantly monitored 

the data collection computer to make sure these checks were completed. 

5-10


5-11

Chapter 6 

References 

Faour, A., D. Reinhart, H. You, First-order kinetic gas generation model parameters for wet 

landfills, Waste Management 27 (2007) 946-953. 

Hashmonay, R.A., and M.G. Yost, Innovative approach for estimating fugitive gaseous fluxes 

using computed tomography and remote optical sensing techniques, J. Air Waste Manage. 

Assoc., 49, 966-972, 1999. 

Hashmonay, R.A., D.F. Natschke, K.Wagoner, D.B. Harris, E.L.Thompson, and M.G. Yost, 

Field evaluation of a method for estimating gaseous fluxes from area sources using open-path 

Fourier transform infrared, Environ. Sci. Technol., 35, 2309-2313, 2001. 

Hashmonay, R.A., M.G. Yost, D.B. Harris, and E.L. Thompson, Simulation study for gaseous 

fluxes from an area source using computed tomography and optical remote sensing, presented at 

SPIE Conference on Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technologies, Boston, MA, 

Nov., 1998, in SPIE Vol. 3534, 405-410. 

Hashmonay, R.A., R.M. Varma, M.T. Modrak, R.H. Kagann, R.R. Segall, and P.D. Sullivan, 

Radial Plume Mapping: A US EPA Test Method for Area and Fugitive Source Emission 

Monitoring Using Optical Remote Sensing, Advanced Environmental Monitoring, 21-36, edited 

by Y.J. Kim and U. Platt, Springer, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5 th ed., Chapter 2.4, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1997. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at Region I 

Landfill (EPA-600/R-04-001,January 2004). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/EPA-600-R-04-001.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005a) Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a 

Bioreactor Landfill (EPA 600/R-05-Aug 2005); 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05096/600r05096.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005b), First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model 

Parameters for Wet Landfills (EPA-600/R 05/072); 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05072/600r05072.htm 

6-1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions 

from Closed or Abandoned Facilities (EPA-600/R-05/123b). Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005d) Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions 

from Closed or Abandoned Facilities: Appendix C - Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA 

600/R-05/123b), available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r05123/600r05123b.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005e) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Fort 

Collins, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/ 

42, April 2005). Available at: 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005f) Evaluation of Former Landfill Site in Colorado 

Springs, Colorado Using Ground-Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA-600/R-05/ 

41, April 2005). Available at: 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Evaluation of Fugitive Emissions Using Ground- 

Based Optical Remote Sensing Technology (EPA/600/R-07/032), Feb 2007; available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r07032/600r07032.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Background Information Document for Updating AP42 

Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (EPA/600/R-08-116, 

September 2008); Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08116/600r08116.htm . 

6-2

APPENDIX A 

Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) Algorithm 

The VRPM methodology is used to estimate the rate of fugitive gaseous emissions from an area 

source. A vertical scanning plane, downwind of the source, is used to directly measure the 

gaseous flux. Two different beam configurations of the VRPM methodology are recommended: 

the five-beam (or more) and the three-beam VRPM configuration. Figure A-1 illustrates the 

setup for these two VRPM beam configurations. In the five-beam (or more) configuration, the 

ORS instrument sequentially scans over five optical paths. Three paths are along the groundlevel 

crosswind direction (beams a, b, and c in Figure A-1), and the other two are elevated on a 

vertical structure (beams e and f in Figure A-1). The additional beam (d) in Figure A-1 is for 6beam 

configuration, which provides better spatial definition of the plume in the crosswind 

direction. In the three-beam configuration, the ORS instrument sequentially scans over three 

PDCs. Only one beam is along the ground level (beam c or d in Figure A-1) and the other two 

are elevated on a vertical structure (beams e and f in Figure A-1). 

A two-phase smooth basis function minimization (SBFM) approach is applied where there are 

three or more beams along the ground level (5-beam, or more, configuration). In the two-phase 

SBFM approach, a one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction procedure is first applied in order to 

reconstruct the smoothed ground level and crosswind concentration profile. The reconstructed 

parameters are then substituted into the bivariate Gaussian function when applying a twodimensional 

SBFM procedure. 

A one-dimensional SBFM reconstruction is applied to the ground level segmented beam paths 

(Figure A-1) of the same beam geometry to find the cross wind concentration profile. A 

univariate Gaussian function is fitted to measured PIC ground-level values. 

The error function for the minimization procedure is the Sum of Squared Errors (SSE) function 

and is defined in the one-dimensional SBFM approach as follows: 

Where: 

2 

⎛ 

r ⎞ 

i ⎡ ⎤ 

⎜ 

B ⎛ m − r ⎞ 

j 1 y ⎜ j ⎟ ⎟ 

SSE(B ⎢ 

⎥ 

j , m y , σ ) = ∑ ⎜ PICi −∑ ∫ exp − 

dr 

j y j ⎟ 

⎜ 

⎢ ⎜ σ ⎟ ⎥ 

i j 2πσ 2 

y j 0 

y 

⎢⎣ ⎝ j ⎠ ⎥⎦ 

⎟ 

⎝ ⎠ 

B = equal to the area under the one-dimensional Gaussian distribution (integrated 

concentration); 

ri = the pathlength of the i th beam; 

my = the mean (peak location); 

σy = the standard deviation of the j th Gaussian function; and 

PICi = the measured PIC value of the i th path 

A-1 

2 

(1)

d 

f 

e 

c 

b 

PDCs 

Y 

X 

a 

2 

12( y)( z) ( r⋅ sinθ − mz) ⎤⎫ ⎪ 

2ρ r⋅ cosθ − m r⋅ sinθ − m 

Gr (, ) = exp⎨− 

2 ⎢ 

A 

⎧ 

⎪ 1 ⎡ ( r⋅ cosθ− 

my) 

− + ⎥ 

2 2 ⎬ 

2 

θ 

2 

2πσ σ 1−ρ 21− ( ρ ⎢ σ σσ σ 12 ) y y z z ⎥ 

y z 12 ⎪⎩ ⎣ ⎦⎪⎭ Z 

Mean Wind Direction 

Figure A-1. Example of a VRPM Configuration Setup 

Fugitive Source/ 

Area of Interest 

PI-ORS 

Instrument 

The SSE function is minimized using the Simplex minimization procedure to solve for the 

unknown parameters (Press et al., 1992). When there are more than three beams at the ground 

level, two Gaussian functions are fitted to retrieve skewed and sometimes bi-modal 

concentration profiles. This is the reason for the index j in Equation 1. 

Once the one-dimensional phase is completed, the two-dimensional phase of the two-phase 

process is applied. To derive the bivariate Gaussian function used in the second phase, it is 

convenient to express the generic bivariate function G in polar coordinates r and θ: 

A-2 

(2)

The bivariate Gaussian has six unknown independent parameters: 

A = normalizing coefficient which adjusts for the peak value of the bivariate surface; 

ρ12 = correlation coefficient which defines the direction of the distributionindependent 

variations in relation to the Cartesian directions y and z (ρ12=0 

means that the distribution variations overlap the Cartesian coordinates); 

my and mz = peak locations in Cartesian coordinates; and 

σy and σz = standard deviations in Cartesian coordinates. 

Six independent beam paths are sufficient to determine one bivariate Gaussian that has six 

independent unknown parameters. Some reasonable assumptions are made when applying the 

VRPM methodology to this problem, to reduce the number of unknown parameters. The first is 

setting the correlation parameter ρ12 equal to zero. This assumes that the reconstructed bivariate 

Gaussian is limited only to changes in the vertical and crosswind directions. Secondly, when 

ground level emissions are known to exist, the ground level PIC is expected to be the largest of 

the vertical beams. Therefore, the peak location in the vertical direction can be fixed to the 

ground level. In the above ground-level scenario, Equation 2 reduces into Equation 3: 

A ⎧⎪ 1 ⎡(r ⋅ cosθ − m y ) 2 

(r ⋅ sin θ ) 2 ⎤⎫⎪ G(r,θ ) = exp⎨− ⎢ + 2 2 ⎥⎬ 

2πσ yσ z ⎩ 

2 σ σ 

⎪ ⎢⎣ y z ⎥⎦⎭ ⎪ 

The standard deviation and peak location retrieved in the one-dimensional SBFM procedure are 

substituted in Equation 3 to yield: 

Where: 

A ⎧⎪ 1 ⎡(r ⋅cosθ − my−1D ) 2 

(r ⋅sinθ ) 2 ⎤⎫⎪ G(A,σ z ) = exp⎨− ⎢ + 2 2 ⎥⎬ 

2πσ y−1Dσ 

z ⎩⎪ 2 ⎢⎣ σ y−1D σ z ⎦⎥ ⎭⎪ σy-1D = standard deviation along the crosswind direction (found in the one-dimensional 

SBFM procedure); 

my-1D = peak location along the crosswind direction (found in the one-dimensional 

SBFM procedure); 

A and σz are the unknown parameters to be retrieved in the second phase of the fitting procedure. 

An error function (SSE) for minimization is defined for this phase in a similar manner. The SSE 

function for the second phase is defined as: 

r i ⎛ ⎞ 2 

SSE(A,σ z ) = ∑⎜ PIC 

⎜ i − ∫G(r i ,θ i , A,σ z )dr ⎟ i ⎝ 0 ⎠ 

Where PIC is the measured PIC value for the i th beam. The SSE function is minimized using the 

Simplex method to solve for the two unknown parameters. 

A-3 

(3) 

(4) 

(5)

When the VRPM configuration consists only of three beam paths—one at the ground level and 

the other two elevated—the one-dimensional phase can be skipped, assuming that the plume is 

very wide. In this scenario, peak location can be arbitrarily assigned to be in the middle of the 

configuration. Therefore, the three-beam VRPM configuration is most suitable for area sources 

or for sources with a series of point and fugitive sources that are known to be distributed across 

the upwind area. In this case, the bivariate Gaussian has the same two unknown parameters as in 

the second phase (Equation 4), but information about the plume width or location is not known. 

The standard deviation in the crosswind direction is typically assumed to be about 10 times that 

of the ground level beam path (length of vertical plane). If r1 represents the length of the vertical 

plane, the bivariate Gaussian would be as follows: 

A ⎧⎪ 1 ⎡(r ⋅ cosθ − 1 r ) 2 (r ⋅sinθ ) 2 ⎤⎫ 

2 1 ⎪ 

+ 2 ⎥⎬ 

2π (10r1)σ z ⎪ 2 ⎣ (10r1 ) σ z ⎦⎪ 

G(A,σ z ) = exp⎨− ⎢ 2 

⎩ ⎭ 

This process is for determining the vertical gradient in concentration. It allows an accurate 

integration of concentrations across the vertical plane as the long-beam ground-level PIC 

provides a direct integration of concentration at the lowest level. 

Once the parameters of the function are found for a specific run, the VRPM procedure calculates 

the concentration values for every square elementary unit in a vertical plane. Then, the VRPM 

procedure integrates the values, incorporating wind speed data at each height level to compute 

the flux. The concentration values are converted from parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 

grams per cubic meter (g/m 3 ), taking into consideration the molecular weight of the target gas. 

This enables the direct calculation of the flux in grams per second (g/s), using wind speed data in 

meters per second (m/s). 

As described in earlier studies (Hashmonay et al., 2001), the Concordance Correlation Factor 

(CCF) was used to represent the level of fit for the reconstruction in the path-integrated domain 

(predicted versus measured PIC). CCF is defined as the product of two components: 

CCF = rA (7) 

Where: 

r = the Pearson correlation coefficient; 

A = a correction factor for the shift in population and location. 

This shift is a function of the relationship between the averages and standard deviations of the 

measured and predicted PIC vectors: 

⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤ −1 

⎛ ⎞ 2 

⎢1 ⎜ σ σ PICP PICM ⎜ PICP − PICM ⎟ ⎟⎥ 

A = ⎜ + + 

⎢2 σ σ ⎜ σ σ ⎟ ⎟ 

⎜ ⎥ 

PICM PIC P PIC PIC ⎟ 

P M ⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎝ 

⎠ ⎠⎥⎦ 

A-4 

(6) 

(8)

Where: 

σ PICP = standard deviation of the predicted PIC vector; 

σ PICM = standard deviation of the measured PIC vector; 

PIC P = the mean of the predicted PIC vector; and 

PIC M = the mean of the measured PIC vector. 

The Pearson correlation coefficient is a good indicator of the quality of fit to the Gaussian 

mathematical function. In this procedure, typically an r close to 1 will be followed by an A very 

close to 1. This means that the averages and standard deviations in the two concentration vectors 

are very similar and the mass is conserved (good flux value). However, when a poor CCF is 

reported (CCF0.90). However, when both r and A are low one 

can assume that the flux calculation is inaccurate. 

A-5


A-6

APPENDIX B 

Open Path Instrument Mirror Coordinates 


Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 

Horizontal Angle from 

North (deg) 

Vertical Angle* 

(deg) 

1 61.2 270° 41’ 0° 00’ 

2 118.9 269° 14’ 0° 00’ 

3 180.4 273° 19’ 0° 00’ 

4 180.4 273° 05’ 1° 17’ 

5 179.7 272° 53’ 2° 33’ 

6 17.4 346° 56’ 0° 00’ 

7 35.5 347° 15’ 0° 00’ 

8 51.0 354° 22’ 0° 00’ 

9 52.6 353° 24’ 7° 26’ 

10 52.5 354° 26’ 12° 41’ 

*Vertical angle shown is the angle from horizontal (positive values indicate elevation from the horizontal, 

negative values indicate descent from the horizontal). 


IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #1. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 19.6 209° 28’ 0° 00’ 

2 35.9 203° 35’ 0° 00’ 

3 51.3 196° 35’ 0° 00’ 

4 52.2 196° 35’ 3° 53’ 

5 51.3 196° 29’ 6° 48’ 

6 53.1 94° 27’ 0° 00’ 

7 106.0 98° 19’ 0° 00’ 

8 159.4 99° 15’ 0° 00’ 

9 159.8 99° 18’ 2° 02’ 

10 159.5 99° 08’ 3° 25’ 



B-1

Table B-3. Distance, and Horizontal and Vertical Coordinates of Mirrors Used by the Boreal 

OP-TDLAS in the bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 30.7 3° 07’ 0° 00’ 

2 58.9 4° 55’ 0° 00’ 

3 82.4 6° 13’ 0° 00’ 

4 84.0 5° 06’ 4° 14’ 

5 83.7 5° 51’ 7° 28’ 

6 40.1 278° 23’ 0° 00’ 

7 79.6 281° 00’ 0° 00’ 

8 119.4 282° 09’ 0° 00’ 

9 119.7 281° 34’ 2° 26’ 

10 118.8 281° 29’ 4° 43’ 




IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #1. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 34.3 151° 14’ 0° 00’ 

2 69.0 144° 19’ 0° 00’ 

3 103.0 143° 19’ 0° 00’ 

4 102.8 143° 21’ 2° 01’ 

5 102.5 143° 47’ 4° 02’ 

6 47.6 76° 43’ 0° 00’ 

7 96.8 80° 37’ 0° 00’ 

8 172.4 87° 50’ 0° 00’ 

9 172.3 87° 55’ 1° 33’ 

10 172.1 87° 40’ 2° 45’ 



B-2


Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 9.8 354° 52’ 0° 00’ 

2 19.7 359° 49’ 0° 00’ 

3 29.0 4° 37’ 0° 00’ 

4 29.9 4° 48’ 11° 14’ 

5 30.4 6° 49’ 20° 21’ 

6 73.5 88° 46’ 0° 00’ 

7 146.2 89° 31’ 0° 00’ 

8 217.1 93° 27’ 0° 00’ 

9 217.2 93° 17’ 0° 49’ 

10 216.5 93° 37’ 2° 02’ 




IMACC OP-FTIR in the Bioreactor cell VRPM Survey at Site #2. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 16.7 199° 59’ 0° 00’ 

2 29.5 200° 06’ 0° 00’ 

3 43.0 196° 22’ 0° 00’ 

4 43.1 194° 27’ 5° 59’ 

5 43.5 194° 01’ 10° 57’ 

6 76.2 278° 38’ 0° 00’ 

7 148.9 280° 12’ 0° 00’ 

8 218.1 280° 20’ 0° 00’ 

9 218.7 280° 36’ 1° 56’ 

10 218.6 280° 47’ 2° 53’ 



B-3


Boreal OP-TDLAS in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 66.8 271° 03’ 0° 00’ 

2 135.2 269° 52’ 0° 00’ 

3 203.4 270° 54’ 0° 00’ 

4 203.2 271° 12’ 1° 06’ 

5 202.9 271° 27’ 2° 29’ 

6 35.4 358° 07’ 0° 00’ 

7 70.1 357° 19’ 0° 00’ 

8 105.4 0° 52’ 0° 00’ 

9 105.6 0° 34’ 2° 52’ 

10 104.9 359° 52’ 5° 29’ 




IMACC OP-FTIR in the Control Cell VRPM Survey at Site #2. 

Mirror 

Number 

Distance 

(meters) 


North (deg) 


(deg) 

1 26.2 176° 52’ 0° 00’ 

2 52.8 178° 27’ 0° 00’ 

3 78.9 175° 44’ 0° 00’ 

4 79.1 177° 02’ 3° 52’ 

5 79.2 177° 27’ 6° 33’ 

6 69.6 75° 45’ 0° 00’ 

7 139.9 80° 06’ 0° 00’ 

8 208.7 82° 19’ 0° 00’ 

9 208.7 82° 21’ 1° 57’ 

10 208.6 82° 37’ 2° 55’ 



B-4


B-5

APPENDIX C 

Path-Averaged Methane Concentration Values Used for Emissions 

Calculations 

Table C-1. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Northern VRPM 

Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #1 

Cycle Mirror 1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 

1 16.41 16.60 14.71 4.47 5.24 

2 4.80 5.32 18.17 3.73 3.43 

3 12.26 9.35 8.81 5.45 5.29 

4 18.65 11.48 5.90 8.57 3.85 

5 4.43 3.21 29.75 12.09 3.08 

6 6.02 4.06 28.50 5.59 3.56 

7 9.18 9.85 4.97 3.23 3.43 

8 9.63 9.26 10.79 8.48 3.85 

9 5.18 2.90 2.91 4.00 5.60 

10 10.05 29.61 29.82 7.54 6.18 

11 4.52 3.49 4.14 3.06 2.61 

12 5.03 6.26 4.48 3.81 2.24 

13 23.49 17.30 24.07 6.43 4.77 

14 4.86 7.61 33.59 11.60 5.21 

15 10.44 25.69 25.17 3.27 7.08 

16 6.04 4.78 8.21 2.62 2.93 

17 4.66 4.50 3.56 1.98 2.00 

18 5.75 3.99 4.26 3.25 2.65 

19 4.96 4.21 3.64 2.45 2.34 

20 19.96 4.49 15.14 2.23 2.47 

21 7.91 3.83 10.63 2.22 2.60 

C-1

Table C-2. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Eastern VRPM 



1 23.23 0.00 7.24 3.84 2.58 

2 5.69 11.43 6.11 3.26 2.16 

3 15.43 4.22 4.97 1.97 0.00 

4 20.14 7.02 5.59 2.73 0.00 

5 21.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 

6 24.13 4.54 7.80 3.99 3.43 

7 35.02 8.35 7.37 3.16 2.14 

8 22.53 69.07 11.39 4.44 4.68 

9 20.86 4.18 7.35 4.38 3.52 

10 24.45 9.04 8.86 4.19 3.14 

11 34.57 40.21 17.16 12.02 6.83 

12 15.19 5.05 7.23 3.62 2.93 

13 21.29 6.18 6.61 2.67 2.97 

14 23.14 6.41 5.16 2.24 2.65 

15 23.70 13.83 12.82 5.17 4.05 

16 22.68 9.89 8.54 3.76 3.87 

17 18.47 7.27 6.32 2.72 3.61 

18 32.10 10.00 9.29 3.27 2.67 

19 35.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

20 4.08 2.25 12.20 86.32 2.29 

21 3.38 2.00 4.33 50.39 0.00 

22 5.96 5.17 8.06 57.72 0.02 

23 7.21 5.63 6.02 38.35 0.78 

24 3.35 2.70 1.64 23.45 0.01 

25 3.96 4.10 0.88 27.44 2.86 

26 2.84 4.22 0.67 35.46 5.94 

27 4.85 3.76 0.96 27.14 5.39 

28 4.77 5.69 1.62 15.48 7.52 

29 3.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

C-2

Table C-3. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Western VRPM 


Cycle Mirror1 Mirror 2 Mirror 3 Mirror 4 Mirror 5 

1 14.50 10.16 7.48 4.69 5.93 

2 12.15 6.32 4.50 4.00 5.27 

3 17.23 7.45 6.48 5.72 5.52 

4 14.73 10.46 6.69 4.49 3.44 

5 10.73 7.78 5.65 5.00 4.72 

6 7.84 6.72 6.35 5.10 5.41 

7 4.36 3.27 3.76 5.40 4.66 

8 7.18 2.30 4.60 3.49 2.55 

9 10.54 10.64 6.48 3.33 5.36 

10 10.80 7.00 5.47 3.47 4.15 

11 4.62 3.65 4.46 3.28 4.15 

12 9.53 6.96 2.56 4.51 4.20 

13 8.85 5.49 4.74 3.49 3.98 

14 -- -- -- -- -- 

15 8.26 5.44 4.15 2.96 2.67 

16 5.89 2.78 2.37 1.92 2.03 

17 2.68 3.15 2.62 2.84 2.73 

18 3.01 4.19 3.65 2.47 3.20 

19 9.20 4.10 4.63 3.85 4.41 

20 9.69 4.73 4.62 3.45 4.01 

21 4.45 5.71 3.63 2.95 3.61 

C-3

Table C-4. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found Along the Southern Beam Path in 

the Control Cell of Site #1 

Cycle Mirror1 

1 10.76 

2 11.69 

3 11.06 

4 8.45 

5 8.29 

6 10.14 

7 5.98 

8 6.27 

9 7.95 

C-4

Table C-5. Methane Concentrations (in PPM) Found on February 22 along the 

Northern VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 


1 7.31 7.89 4.24 3.36 5.05 

2 5.63 9.56 5.22 3.17 3.19 

3 4.49 8.63 5.18 4.07 2.45 

4 6.07 7.96 3.67 2.94 6.01 

5 15.26 9.97 10.69 6.19 9.69 

6 5.05 4.68 6.96 6.03 3.01 

7 16.13 10.01 9.51 5.28 5.88 

8 5.57 6.44 6.07 2.94 2.51 

9 5.94 7.65 4.83 5.10 3.25 

10 7.15 6.04 9.01 3.24 3.82 

11 6.04 10.98 8.13 5.03 3.19 

12 9.46 6.96 9.28 5.48 8.19 

13 12.08 8.14 9.35 8.34 8.13 

14 5.78 8.82 8.77 4.12 2.95 

15 4.73 7.19 6.16 5.62 4.55 

16 7.72 5.46 12.16 8.64 6.85 

17 5.61 6.86 5.31 4.75 6.43 

18 8.55 14.71 10.44 5.46 4.21 

19 8.43 7.26 10.39 10.17 6.94 

20 7.18 8.66 7.54 5.43 6.74 

21 7.56 10.63 6.68 5.01 4.58 

22 12.63 10.41 8.69 5.48 8.64 

23 19.15 12.61 9.13 4.65 5.64 

24 10.02 10.16 10.81 8.59 5.44 

25 16.03 17.9 8.46 7.81 5.68 

26 6.27 8.53 9.35 4.37 3.19 

27 8.55 14.41 8.51 7.92 2.56 

28 6.05 6.94 6.52 7.63 11.73 

29 6.07 11.58 11.34 6.63 4.75 

30 7.53 11.25 9.63 5.53 4.83 

31 7.21 10.36 9.31 3.35 4.19 

32 6.99 10.77 9.72 4.85 4.57 

33 6.21 8.89 9.49 4.98 3.98 

34 16.09 16.97 9.17 4.84 5.47 

35 15.06 11.16 11.61 4.65 2.86 

36 8.57 12.41 10.13 6.08 7.02 

37 6.03 16.59 12.71 11.06 15.88 

38 8.71 12.97 12.93 7.72 3.84 

39 5.86 7.45 11.46 8.59 14.79 

40 10.86 7.11 5.22 3.67 5.41 

41 9.85 16.57 10.68 3.95 2.44 

42 5.33 8.74 9.33 5.65 4.61 

C-5


VRPM Configuration in the Bioreactor cell of Site #1 


1 9.35 17.56 2.32 11.65 11.60 

2 1.58 20.75 0.19 7.26 4.37 

3 7.07 15.48 4.62 6.13 5.31 

4 2.22 16.79 1.90 11.30 15.27 

5 0.37 26.90 9.27 17.02 10.36 

6 0.27 18.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 

7 6.65 17.39 8.71 9.69 6.72 

8 18.68 24.03 23.82 8.58 6.76 

9 8.34 18.79 15.96 13.36 8.10 

10 5.24 15.24 19.77 13.97 6.13 

11 12.83 24.17 11.39 9.70 5.52 

12 11.97 19.40 8.20 7.94 8.36 

13 14.93 24.24 14.01 18.95 5.81 

14 6.64 23.86 7.63 6.69 5.10 

15 5.43 22.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 

16 4.61 18.60 13.65 10.02 5.79 

17 7.55 41.28 28.06 12.68 6.94 

18 3.13 22.83 14.21 10.52 8.43 

19 4.17 21.99 12.26 23.65 17.07 

20 6.36 19.13 17.12 13.59 4.98 

21 5.99 22.77 24.40 11.67 8.43 

22 19.51 20.39 17.68 6.70 9.19 

23 11.43 20.24 13.25 12.53 7.82 

24 9.96 16.30 6.58 8.08 10.16 

25 13.77 19.01 8.14 11.87 7.70 

26 13.43 20.07 10.69 14.28 12.12 

27 12.11 26.32 18.61 12.76 8.93 

28 16.33 30.16 16.27 16.22 8.48 

29 7.72 20.95 3.58 10.68 3.72 

30 15.93 21.83 16.56 10.95 8.33 

31 17.13 17.34 4.39 25.35 10.13 

32 8.37 31.60 15.74 20.41 12.35 

33 8.50 21.64 5.62 13.93 8.87 

34 15.22 20.86 17.42 9.78 5.54 

35 9.86 15.85 5.90 12.55 9.35 

36 17.16 31.96 10.04 16.61 12.23 

37 5.41 19.51 2.97 10.59 3.78 

38 13.44 27.61 4.21 13.13 5.65 

39 7.56 19.53 14.70 6.21 5.70 

40 11.68 22.98 15.56 10.85 8.14 

41 12.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

C-6




1 22.97 22.84 18.78 8.66 9.96 

2 14.06 23.03 20.72 10.13 9.12 

3 5.57 17.37 53.90 31.85 9.46 

4 13.95 23.35 22.24 11.04 6.35 

5 5.55 16.83 14.40 13.00 4.86 

6 1.32 14.73 21.59 7.47 4.18 

7 30.95 18.71 39.85 16.44 9.30 

8 10.51 12.78 22.66 9.76 7.68 

9 3.01 13.22 23.18 6.94 3.76 

10 1.95 11.33 25.30 5.18 4.08 

11 6.98 10.42 25.60 8.01 6.25 

12 0.33 4.19 22.26 8.05 18.87 

13 6.71 7.39 24.93 9.50 9.32 

14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.02 

15 146.53 12.44 0.00 6.33 3.56 

16 91.91 11.05 0.00 7.59 0.00 

17 3.01 12.45 17.52 8.57 3.90 

18 31.30 41.16 28.48 8.92 7.15 

19 5.17 13.04 18.92 5.46 2.45 

20 7.78 7.73 24.25 10.64 8.12 

21 5.08 3.59 20.20 8.03 5.39 

22 7.85 5.48 17.75 6.19 4.44 

23 9.24 5.57 22.91 9.04 4.50 

24 5.99 0.46 19.51 6.57 3.89 

25 17.38 8.23 27.18 6.60 3.60 

26 3.55 0.49 18.55 7.02 6.86 

27 5.65 0.00 16.30 5.46 2.36 

28 13.97 1.07 19.81 15.28 9.85 

29 44.29 39.55 24.65 8.45 3.19 

30 23.26 0.00 17.11 5.05 8.79 

31 11.59 0.42 21.96 8.11 4.12 

32 2.86 0.00 16.44 9.74 0.00 

33 6.03 0.92 13.85 6.44 4.44 

34 5.39 5.66 16.34 6.64 8.57 

35 64.13 7.09 9.41 5.97 4.28 

36 11.51 4.90 12.26 6.42 5.54 

37 4.82 0.02 10.98 5.26 5.60 

38 3.79 0.41 12.95 8.17 8.23 

39 3.85 2.56 16.36 8.48 6.98 

C-7




1 16.71 16.62 8.28 7.56 5.97 

2 9.43 10.71 9.18 7.54 5.75 

3 17.88 12.3e 8.57 5.7 6.15 

4 20.28 12.67 8.67 6.57 6.07 

5 14.82 11.11 7.61 5.85 5.68 

6 17.18 14.12 13.92 7.98 8.38 

7 15.35 8.17 9.26 7.26 4.18 

8 13.35 13.95 11.19 6.45 7.56 

9 8.75 8.73 8.08 5.88 4.19 

10 16.33 11.81 9.61 5.41 6.86 

11 13.31 17.72 10.72 7.16 8.34 

12 12.46 10.87 9.65 6.59 8.54 

13 14.16 14.15 9.35 9.23 6.95 

14 11.98 6.88 9.87 7.84 8.08 

15 15.88 16.11 10.63 8.35 7.71 

16 20.88 9.85 8.97 6.14 5.96 

17 15.63 12.43 11.81 10.7 7.05 

18 10.84 17.33 12.43 8.59 6.44 

19 -- -- -- -- -- 

20 17.23 15.38 8.89 6.98 8.37 

21 8.42 10.51 9.85 7.62 6.57 

22 23.28 16.43 12.88 6.54 5.78 

23 24.51 14.43 9.05 6.73 7.69 

24 14.98 13.83 10.3 8.26 7.13 

25 11.44 5.21 4.46 4.83 6.31 

26 -- -- -- -- -- 

27 25.63 12.36 7.77 6.55 7.51 

28 23.56 11.61 6.92 4.95 6.38 

29 17.89 12.68 13.25 7.32 4.54 

30 21.57 16.84 9.79 8.08 4.73 

31 13.83 14.97 12.04 8.94 8.95 

32 -- -- -- -- -- 

33 16.27 18.22 13.75 8.89 12.25 

34 8.49 15.24 9.25 10.09 6.71 

35 9.44 6.54 10.86 8.20 7.69 

36 16.57 15.51 12.44 3.49 8.16 

37 29.33 20.34 13.23 7.56 7.58 

38 14.28 13.67 9.88 6.44 6.71 

39 -- -- -- -- -- 

40 15.47 11.28 8.53 5.95 5.72 

41 8.39 8.84 4.75 3.99 3.25 

42 17.53 13.95 8.99 7.83 4.69 

C-8


Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 


1 27.99 14.63 10.74 6.67 4.25 

2 26.89 14.87 10.56 5.24 5.93 

3 21.69 11.64 12.81 6.88 5.30 

4 20.93 12.03 9.37 6.39 5.27 

5 26.80 13.91 10.49 7.80 5.97 

6 28.82 14.71 9.84 7.22 6.18 

7 26.86 14.54 10.22 6.06 5.97 

8 30.25 14.64 11.63 7.41 5.67 

9 24.11 13.23 11.05 7.60 6.23 

10 27.46 12.22 8.75 6.78 5.49 

11 22.48 11.82 10.25 6.92 5.00 

12 19.48 13.77 10.08 5.78 5.08 

13 18.85 13.65 10.46 7.04 5.29 

C-9


VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 


1 14.06 5.45 5.22 6.43 7.03 

2 14.77 10.80 5.75 1.88 11.50 

3 20.94 9.97 6.53 12.97 14.69 

4 10.93 5.70 4.39 12.19 10.49 

5 15.13 10.84 13.51 6.75 2.82 

6 6.41 7.66 17.30 7.43 3.44 

7 3.31 11.85 17.46 6.74 5.60 

8 13.68 14.13 13.91 4.36 4.05 

9 4.95 12.53 13.95 5.07 2.79 

10 15.22 15.34 16.17 5.91 4.43 

11 13.25 11.05 12.54 4.56 2.94 

12 16.16 12.56 17.60 5.11 2.59 

13 11.86 13.51 14.78 5.53 2.21 

14 7.85 12.00 12.28 3.86 4.01 

15 20.42 13.02 12.94 3.80 4.34 

16 22.73 11.59 13.37 5.60 4.07 

17 18.21 14.74 12.58 4.35 4.22 

18 15.17 12.87 15.03 4.63 4.59 

19 18.38 12.90 12.84 4.77 5.03 

20 20.09 16.07 15.81 5.45 4.57 

21 27.06 14.07 16.20 5.20 4.25 

22 27.63 16.49 16.48 5.52 5.42 

23 24.82 16.19 16.88 6.37 7.35 

24 24.85 12.80 16.89 8.36 5.46 

25 22.08 14.41 14.51 5.37 3.83 

26 22.40 13.56 16.01 4.98 5.01 

27 21.50 12.47 16.14 5.04 4.05 

28 26.08 10.47 13.07 6.04 4.45 

29 26.58 16.54 14.28 4.89 4.41 

C-10




1 4.37 6.87 5.02 4.88 3.82 

2 0.00 4.67 4.28 3.94 2.88 

3 7.24 16.31 0.00 4.32 3.18 

4 4.36 14.17 0.00 5.30 2.71 

5 6.56 16.84 0.00 4.56 2.56 

6 6.12 11.39 0.00 4.69 2.45 

7 6.89 12.11 0.00 4.74 3.36 

8 6.65 11.48 10.91 5.48 3.45 

9 6.79 13.96 10.68 4.23 3.67 

10 7.28 15.04 7.99 4.46 3.73 

11 6.37 12.88 6.22 5.06 3.14 

12 7.32 16.93 13.51 5.25 2.47 

13 8.10 15.88 15.93 5.26 3.54 

14 6.78 18.23 10.96 5.37 2.81 

15 6.94 18.91 11.63 5.16 3.83 

16 8.29 16.74 10.64 5.47 3.37 

17 7.64 14.39 5.17 5.35 2.93 

18 7.30 12.63 16.70 5.06 4.25 

19 8.33 16.08 20.23 5.71 2.87 

20 7.95 16.42 4.65 6.05 3.51 

21 9.10 18.56 3.49 6.21 3.45 

22 8.57 17.26 3.24 5.09 2.15 

23 9.40 17.54 4.24 5.72 2.88 

24 8.08 18.27 7.19 5.91 3.13 

25 8.85 17.45 7.62 5.12 2.93 

26 8.66 18.07 13.18 6.35 2.87 

C-11




1 14.04 10.61 7.90 5.14 4.68 

2 15.41 10.04 7.61 5.36 4.67 

3 14.67 10.65 8.15 5.74 5.13 

4 16.85 10.88 7.83 5.24 4.96 

5 15.18 10.50 7.93 5.58 5.04 

6 13.36 11.15 7.68 5.22 4.17 

7 13.89 10.99 8.63 5.74 4.49 

8 13.91 11.94 8.59 4.91 5.35 

9 15.45 10.14 7.74 5.48 4.36 

10 17.02 10.16 8.05 5.96 5.42 

11 17.24 10.71 7.75 5.92 4.63 

12 17.52 10.04 8.51 5.79 4.51 

13 16.84 10.05 8.12 5.59 5.64 

C-12


Northern VRPM Configuration in the Control Cell of Site #2 


1 23.42 13.24 9.85 6.32 5.56 

2 20.66 10.32 6.39 4.49 3.48 

3 23.68 9.23 7.08 3.64 3.97 

4 26.67 12.16 8.33 4.93 3.74 

5 18.44 10.96 11.88 7.34 7.82 

6 20.79 10.33 8.22 9.51 4.81 

7 16.27 12.12 8.32 5.95 3.87 

8 31.3 11.41 8.02 4.43 3.60 

9 22.66 12.54 6.75 5.96 5.12 

10 24.49 8.29 8.36 6.31 3.47 

11 17.8 13.15 10.46 5.69 3.56 

12 25.47 12.15 8.61 6.22 6.55 

13 21.45 13.04 11.48 5.21 4.65 

14 25.56 11.79 8.05 6.05 4.86 

15 24.31 16.79 13.33 10.15 4.48 

16 29.34 9.88 13.22 8.14 3.91 

17 20.91 15.33 10.52 8.16 4.16 

18 24.23 15.28 11.57 6.92 4.15 

19 24.06 16.34 9.54 7.73 3.85 

20 30.65 13.26 11.35 6.03 4.36 

21 30.24 12.93 10.86 5.38 3.97 

22 24.95 8.94 7.42 4.27 3.46 

23 27.35 11.95 8.48 4.37 3.27 

C-13




1 7.88 11.79 5.71 4.39 2.11 

2 6.07 8.82 5.93 5.14 2.73 

3 6.10 6.00 2.84 6.48 3.79 

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 

5 5.21 5.75 6.74 2.72 2.19 

6 8.35 6.52 6.46 2.72 0.98 

7 4.41 5.04 4.19 3.72 2.92 

8 4.38 4.52 3.55 3.19 1.10 

9 2.74 1.47 1.52 5.65 4.26 

10 6.56 3.87 6.37 3.00 1.62 

11 5.66 0.00 3.83 2.67 1.92 

12 3.15 0.00 3.21 1.93 4.35 

13 4.88 4.04 4.57 3.80 2.03 

14 5.47 7.62 9.66 5.39 0.00 

15 8.61 5.95 8.47 2.26 2.04 

16 4.32 5.09 2.84 2.44 3.04 

17 8.89 5.25 3.72 5.20 3.81 

18 4.17 4.10 5.69 6.32 6.25 

19 4.00 6.17 2.30 3.67 5.85 

20 7.22 4.27 7.47 3.56 3.64 

21 3.26 5.30 5.11 3.40 5.95 

22 6.58 6.71 11.05 4.04 5.29 

23 4.50 6.19 8.47 3.76 4.15 

24 3.16 4.36 6.81 3.88 5.13 

25 3.04 4.31 5.51 2.25 3.11 

26 5.15 4.50 7.66 5.62 5.01 

27 4.50 8.16 10.64 3.01 3.07 

28 4.94 7.76 12.52 6.41 6.03 

29 14.65 13.00 9.67 3.83 4.13 

30 9.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

C-14




1 17.72 9.67 12.76 5.82 2.91 

2 0.16 12.88 12.01 5.04 2.93 

3 1.79 14.36 13.70 4.62 4.22 

4 0.76 9.31 13.24 5.97 5.40 

5 0.00 9.88 11.18 4.17 4.83 

6 0.00 9.14 12.37 3.75 3.15 

7 0.00 7.40 12.87 4.96 4.09 

8 0.00 10.28 14.69 4.98 3.76 

9 0.60 13.05 12.48 5.48 2.39 

10 5.28 8.10 9.07 3.83 4.02 

11 7.43 7.30 9.88 3.43 4.00 

12 7.18 8.92 10.18 4.77 4.67 

13 5.98 7.45 9.96 3.44 3.54 

14 20.30 11.50 12.07 4.04 4.70 

15 5.48 6.27 10.07 4.28 3.27 

16 10.25 11.16 12.17 4.56 4.60 

17 8.46 11.41 14.17 5.01 4.22 

18 7.34 7.64 9.58 4.10 3.56 

19 9.70 7.49 8.92 4.17 3.43 

20 7.33 9.60 8.66 3.34 2.68 

21 13.51 11.19 11.91 5.02 3.97 

22 19.51 13.12 12.23 3.60 2.96 

23 13.96 12.24 11.21 4.09 4.06 

24 10.33 10.86 13.99 6.33 4.03 

25 11.34 9.42 13.38 5.86 5.39 

26 10.85 14.51 14.71 6.85 4.26 

27 12.37 11.12 13.11 5.12 2.58 

28 20.55 9.28 21.09 7.41 5.16 

29 14.13 12.82 13.82 5.31 4.78 

C-15




1 11.33 8.97 8.62 5.24 4.57 

2 11.43 10.12 9.25 4.48 5.21 

3 12.56 9.69 9.33 5.45 5.57 

4 11.48 10.17 8.66 5.33 4.24 

5 12.79 10.66 7.93 5.12 4.34 

6 14.22 10.81 9.87 6.67 4.85 

7 11.31 9.68 9.88 6.46 6.49 

8 13.16 9.97 8.82 5.31 4.53 

9 12.36 10.59 8.85 5.42 5.78 

10 14.86 11.57 8.56 4.77 4.52 

11 12.52 10.74 9.99 7.05 4.69 

12 14.49 12.73 9.48 5.35 4.56 

13 12.82 11.68 8.71 5.22 4.71 

14 14.52 10.13 9.48 5.93 5.31 

15 13.29 10.13 9.41 5.49 4.61 

16 15.16 10.35 8.48 5.84 4.35 

17 12.96 10.34 8.96 6.22 5.76 

18 15.42 10.80 9.58 6.28 4.84 

19 12.15 10.28 9.72 6.63 6.26 

20 14.23 10.68 9.85 5.86 4.98 

21 13.97 9.77 8.96 6.27 4.97 

22 13.07 9.54 9.23 5.77 5.34 

23 13.31 9.05 9.21 6.09 5.50 

C-16




1 4.44 4.25 4.34 2.25 3.18 

2 3.75 3.23 5.97 2.61 2.54 

3 4.73 6.37 3.96 2.81 2.48 

4 3.44 4.54 3.57 2.62 2.36 

5 4.36 3.55 4.19 2.57 3.12 

6 4.67 5.47 2.68 2.17 2.15 

7 3.52 3.61 3.99 2.16 2.15 

8 4.49 5.95 3.08 2.42 2.44 

9 3.02 7.27 4.65 2.72 2.63 

10 4.52 9.98 5.13 2.33 1.93 

11 3.27 5.01 4.66 2.72 2.08 

12 3.56 3.77 4.05 2.58 1.94 

13 3.55 7.03 3.77 2.17 2.54 

14 3.55 4.91 2.68 1.91 1.64 

15 2.66 6.42 3.15 1.97 1.67 

16 2.99 5.71 3.13 2.17 1.92 

17 3.15 6.07 3.78 2.74 2.47 

18 2.69 5.71 3.72 2.14 1.81 

19 3.16 5.72 2.78 2.17 1.56 

20 2.89 5.67 2.62 1.95 0.26 

21 3.73 4.92 2.72 2.02 0.23 

22 3.39 4.87 2.65 1.95 0.23 

C-17




1 3.13 3.85 3.92 2.32 2.39 

2 3.54 3.58 3.58 2.27 2.18 

3 3.52 3.54 3.78 2.13 2.15 

4 3.19 3.48 3.87 1.93 2.13 

5 3.62 3.44 3.81 2.17 2.08 

6 3.73 3.35 3.52 1.95 1.99 

7 3.19 3.52 3.63 2.16 2.05 

8 3.45 3.88 4.33 2.14 2.11 

9 3.22 3.63 4.22 2.14 1.98 

10 3.86 4.26 4.91 2.37 2.07 

11 3.18 3.67 3.94 2.04 1.99 

12 3.33 3.74 4.14 2.09 2.07 

13 2.95 3.34 3.79 2.12 1.98 

14 -- -- -- -- -- 

15 3.44 3.46 3.75 2.04 3.74 

16 3.78 3.68 3.95 2.12 4.23 

17 3.48 3.53 3.81 2.07 3.79 

18 3.66 4.05 3.77 1.97 3.76 

19 3.73 3.63 4.06 2.13 3.96 

20 3.04 3.55 3.69 2.09 4.14 

21 2.97 3.03 3.54 1.91 3.64 

22 3.06 3.48 3.63 1.94 3.74 

C-18




1 10.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2 15.74 9.49 14.15 15.31 19.04 

3 13.36 5.83 16.30 15.48 22.35 

4 15.25 7.51 6.33 20.07 10.35 

5 9.82 6.24 5.13 425.52 10.49 

6 11.93 6.41 3.52 8.24 0.14 

7 14.95 8.85 6.26 7.46 0.49 

8 10.59 10.92 4.46 8.52 0.01 

9 3.13 9.04 7.58 7.72 3.52 

10 13.33 9.24 10.18 7.94 5.37 

11 9.82 14.95 12.66 5.31 11.66 

12 3.72 9.05 9.81 6.36 4.22 

13 5.45 8.14 9.98 9.60 2.46 

14 12.14 11.60 13.74 11.97 7.96 

15 7.03 12.85 14.37 10.42 2.93 

16 17.39 8.61 14.10 10.47 5.74 

17 21.89 6.72 14.25 5.05 2.74 

18 21.53 7.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 




1 0.00 8.08 5.23 2.71 2.04 

2 11.95 8.58 7.39 4.42 2.71 

3 13.79 6.64 6.10 4.53 2.59 

4 12.58 7.49 6.19 4.52 2.75 

5 10.78 7.39 5.65 4.48 2.69 

6 10.76 6.14 4.98 4.59 2.78 

7 8.89 6.07 5.28 4.72 3.60 

8 11.82 7.53 5.39 5.11 2.79 

9 13.91 7.08 5.81 5.42 2.80 

10 10.77 6.86 5.96 4.53 3.28 

11 12.73 8.03 5.04 4.70 2.93 

12 11.55 8.16 7.24 5.01 3.85 

13 10.24 6.84 5.37 4.63 3.64 

14 10.29 7.51 3.44 4.82 3.65 

15 8.26 6.59 5.83 4.43 3.78 

16 12.61 7.10 5.71 4.55 3.15 

17 12.33 6.37 4.75 3.93 3.02 

C-19




1 26.08 15.92 12.46 6.61 5.15 

2 25.17 13.78 8.15 7.27 5.50 

3 28.15 16.19 11.04 6.73 6.77 

4 24.46 13.13 13.16 7.76 6.65 

5 20.43 9.65 10.17 7.49 4.45 

6 24.30 15.14 11.17 7.90 6.20 

7 24.93 11.40 9.26 4.57 6.04 

8 26.33 12.58 8.76 6.80 6.91 

9 27.97 13.52 10.51 5.47 5.30 

10 23.21 11.89 10.46 7.55 5.03 




1 12.26 10.69 7.57 5.12 5.63 

2 15.01 10.15 7.88 6.61 5.88 

3 13.72 11.70 9.06 5.85 5.19 

4 20.14 11.80 7.38 4.00 6.28 

5 17.17 8.38 8.25 5.70 5.28 

6 13.15 11.24 8.39 5.99 5.09 

7 13.10 9.81 7.34 4.97 4.17 

8 12.96 10.16 8.52 5.80 5.21 

9 15.50 11.31 8.23 5.34 4.67 

10 13.12 10.07 7.14 5.75 4.19 

C-20




1 25.61 13.41 5.14 11.35 9.18 

2 32.16 11.26 6.58 11.37 9.75 

3 23.27 10.21 8.50 0.78 8.29 

4 19.48 10.01 8.22 1.19 8.09 

5 24.91 9.81 7.18 1.71 3.35 

6 11.70 7.06 4.46 0.00 2.49 

7 13.68 6.65 5.58 7.97 7.86 

8 16.27 7.55 3.84 7.62 0.35 

9 20.54 10.27 6.41 8.09 0.08 

10 13.03 8.11 5.00 9.79 0.44 




1 4.61 7.59 2.92 2.98 3.03 

2 0.00 6.23 2.56 2.44 2.85 

3 18.32 5.91 3.02 4.38 3.43 

4 8.21 5.79 3.52 2.59 2.30 

5 1.54 5.54 4.01 4.03 3.33 

6 4.18 5.01 2.08 2.24 3.25 

7 0.08 5.45 2.46 3.21 3.70 

8 7.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

9 0.00 5.20 4.14 3.74 3.61 

10 0.19 5.05 4.11 4.16 3.75 

C-21


C-22

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?