On-site assessment of methods to measure gaseous emissions from biological treatment of waste | Evaluation sur le terrain de méthodes de mesures des émissions gazeuses issus de procédé biologique de traitement des déchets

[Departement_IRSTEA]Ecotechnologies [TR1_IRSTEA]TED

International audience

英语. Landfilling of biodegradable waste must decrease to fulfil the Council Directive 99/31/EC on landfills, in order to reduce the emission of gaseous and liquid pollutants during the landfill lifetime. Therefore, pre-treatment of the organic fraction of municipal waste prior to landfilling is being developed in several countries. In France, the organic fraction is either separated and treated through selective collection of biowaste, or through mechanical sorting in the plant followed by biological treatments (anaerobic or aerobic), the refuses only being landfilled. Or the mixed waste is stabilized by an aerobic process before landfilling. These different processes emit gases which may be harmful for health or the environment (toxic, explosive, odorants, greenhouse gases...). Some of the emissions can be collected and treated through biofilters, while other gases are emitted by surfaces (typically, compost windrows) and cannot be collected unless they are enclosed. Also, the efficiency of the biofilters must be assessed. IRSTEA and INERIS have been working together for several years on the use, comparison and improvement of surface emission measurement methods, applied to biological treatment plants of solid waste. Gaseous emissions were studied on: composting process of pre-sorted organic matter from mixed waste, with a small or larger mesh and porosity, in either turned or aerated windrows, on biofilters, and on landfills which are located beside the composting plants. Depending on the ventilation air flux, different measurement methods were used: static (accumulation), dynamic or chimney type chambers, and a total cover of a biofilter with a plastic tarb. Several of these measurements were undertaken in order to evaluate the global gaseous emissions from those sites, to provide data to an environmental technology validation exercise (ETV). Measurement campaigns presented here comprise: comparison of fluxes measurement techniques, calculation of gas fluxes (CO2, CH4, NH3 and N2O) emitted from composting windrows and biofilters, calculation of biogas emission (methane + CO2) before and after a final cover was set on a landfill. Comparisons of the two first chambers have been made since 2007 on several sites (composting of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste or stabilization prior to landfilling). On the first site (non aerated windrows and small mesh) the difference between the measured fluxes was a factor of 2. This factor is rather small: differences between flux measurements using different devices can lead to differences as large as a factor of 100. More recent tests, presented here, show a better agreement: the difference between the two techniques lies within the measurement uncertainty. Comparison of surface air speed measured by two different chimney chambers lead to comparable results. During one experiment, the global air flow interpolated from chamber data was underestimated compared to input flow measurement, because of preferred pathways of the air flow along the wall of the biofilter. When the border effect is correctly taken into account, the total gas flow measured with the chimney chamber and the one measured by a total cover of the biofilter show a good agreement. Biogas surface emissions were measured with the static chamber, on a landfill which receives biologically stabilized waste. This landfill was partly uncovered, so only a part of the biogas was collected and flared. After the final cover was installed, the total biogas flow which was collected and flared was comparable to the sum of (the surface emissions + the collected biogas) without the total cover. The results presented here show that on different sites, different emission measurement methods were used, and that generally there is a good agreement between the methods, providing the care of use are respected. Advantages and care of use for the different methods, depending on the aeration conditions, have been established and some recommendations are given.