Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Geotechnical characterization of peat-based landfill cover materials

Afshin Khoshand a, Mamadou Fall b, *
a
Faculty of Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa K1N 6N5, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Natural methane (CH4) oxidation that is carried out through the use of landfill covers (biocovers) is a
Received 3 March 2016 promising method for reducing CH4 emissions from landfills. Previous studies on peat-based landfill
Received in revised form covers have mainly focused on their biochemical properties (e.g. CH4 oxidation capacity). However, the
5 May 2016
utilization of peat as a cover material also requires a solid understanding of its geotechnical properties
Accepted 17 May 2016
Available online 4 August 2016
(thermal, hydraulic, and mechanical), which are critical to the performance of any biocover. Therefore,
the objective of this context is to investigate and assess the geotechnical properties of peat-based cover
materials (peat, peatesand mixture), including compaction, consolidation, and hydraulic and thermal
Keywords:
Landfill
conductivities. The studied materials show high compressibility to the increase of vertical stress, with
Geotechnical engineering compression index (Cc) values ranging from 0.16 to 0.358. The compressibility is a function of sand
Landfill cover content such that the peatesand mixture (1:3) has the lowest Cc value. Both the thermal and hydraulic
Peat conductivities are functions of moisture content, dry density, and sand content. The hydraulic conduc-
Compaction tivity varies from 1.74
109 m/s to 7.35
109 m/s, and increases with the increase in sand content. The
Compressibility thermal conductivity of the studied samples varies between 0.54 W/(m K) and 1.41 W/(m K) and it in-
Hydraulic and thermal conductivity creases with the increases in moisture and sand contents. Increases in sand content generally increase
the mechanical behavior of peat-based covers; however, they also cause relatively high hydraulic and
thermal conductivities which are not favored properties for biocovers.
Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction anaerobic biodegradation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) reabsorb infrared radiation which is
reflected from the Earth and retain heat in the lower level of the
atmosphere. GHGs have both natural and anthropogenic sources,
but human induced GHG emissions have increased, more than
emissions from most natural sinks, particularly after the Industrial
Revolution (Albanna et al., 2011). The continuous increase in con-
centration of GHGs has caused an increase of over 0.5  C in the
global surface temperature in the last 150 years (Wuebbles and
Hayhoe, 2002), a phenomenon known as global warming. Global
warming is one of the greatest environmental challenges in the
21st century, which has caused global and regional climate changes
(Peixoto and Oort, 1992; Albanna et al., 2010).
Methane (CH4) is a potent GHG with a global warming potential
that is 25 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) (IPCC, 2007). The
* Corresponding author. Fax: þ1 613 562 5173.
E-mail address: mfall@uottawa.ca (M. Fall).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
landfills is one of significant global sources of anthropogenic CH4
emissions. The total global CH4 emissions from landfills almost
doubled during the period from 1970 to 2010. It has also been
estimated that 627.34 tonnes CO2e (CO2e or equivalent CO2 is the
concentration of CO2 that causes the same level of radiative forcing
as a given type and concentration of GHG) per year is generated in
landfills worldwide, of which more than 85% is emitted into the
atmosphere (IPCC, 2014). Therefore, mitigation actions are urgently
required in light of the significant levels of CH4 found in the at-
mosphere (Stern and Kaufmann, 1996).
The extraction and utilization of landfill gas (LFG) are commonly
used to control CH4 emissions from landfills. However, there is
evidence that a large amount of CH4 escapes from sites despite the
use of extraction and utilization systems (Börjesson et al., 2007).
Therefore, one of the most promising methods that would
actually reduce CH4 emissions from landfills is the natural pro-
cessing of microbial CH4 oxidation through active biological soil
covers or biocovers (Scheutz et al., 2009a, 2011). This oxidation
process principally relies on the activity of a group of bacteria
known as methanotrophs, which are able to use molecular oxygen

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.05.007
1674-7755 Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604
(O2) to oxidize CH4 into CO2. Biocovers are an alternative effective
option for the mitigation of CH4 emissions where the imple-
mentation of LFG extraction and utilization systems is not techni-
cally or economically feasible (Scheutz et al., 2011).
Previous studies have demonstrated that various organic soils
(e.g. compost, peat, loam soil) can support the growth and activity
of methanotrophic bacteria (Watson et al., 1997; Humer and
Lechner, 1999; Stein and Hettiaratchi, 2001; Wilshusen et al.,
2004; Einola, 2010; Gupta, 2011; He et al., 2012; Abushammala
et al., 2014; Zainal and Buyong, 2015), and are suitable for prac-
tical applications in mitigating CH4 emissions. Peat is one of the
more promising biocover materials. Indeed, peat is able to provide
environmental conditions suitable for the proliferation and activity
of methanotrophic bacteria (Stein and Hettiaratchi, 2001; Streese
and Stegmann, 2003; Einola, 2010; Lu et al., 2011; Zainal and
Buyong, 2015). Furthermore, many researchers (e.g. Stein and
Hettiaratchi, 2001; Einola et al., 2009) have experimentally
demonstrated that peat materials show a high CH4 oxidation rate
(up to 90%) as illustrated in Table 1, which provides a summary of
the CH4 oxidation rates of various biocover materials. It can be
observed that the CH4 oxidation rate of peat (up to 90%) is close to
that of compost (up to 100%) and much higher than that observed
in other types of biocover materials (loam soil, topsoil, agricultural
soil, and sand). However, for the peat biocover material to be of
interest, aside from a high CH4 oxidation rate (Table 1), the material
should demonstrate its geotechnical properties that are compara-
ble to or better than those of existing biocover materials (particu-
larly compost) used in construction practices.
The geotechnical properties (mechanical, hydraulic, and ther-
mal) of biocover materials are of prime importance for design,
construction and maintenance of any biocover as will be discussed
later. Absence of a proper understanding of the geotechnical
properties of cover materials may lead to inaccurate biocover
design and consequently, construction of inefficient biocovers.
However, to date, the geotechnical characteristics of peat-based
biocover material are not well understood. Therefore, the goal of
this paper is to provide insight into the geotechnical properties of
peat-based biocover materials and assess their suitability for use as
biocover media from a geotechnical point of view.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material selection and characterization
Mixing potential biocover materials with sand minimizes the
settlement and compaction of biocovers (Powelson et al., 2006;
Philopoulos et al., 2009; Scheutz et al., 2009a; Khoshand and Fall,
Table 1
Summary of CH4 oxidation rates of different organic soils.
Biocover material CH4 oxidation Reference
rate (%)
Loam soil 50 Stein and Hettiaratchi (2001)
65 Scheutz et al. (2003)
65 De Visscher et al. (1999)
Topsoil 40 Kightley et al. (1995)
37 Humer and Lechner (1999)
Sand 41 Kightley et al. (1995)
63 Powelson et al. (2006)
Peat 85 Stein and Hettiaratchi (2001)
90 Einola et al. (2009)
Agricultural soil 32 Stein and Hettiaratchi (2001)
45 De Visscher et al. (1999)
Compost 53 Humer and Lechner (2001)
96 Haubrichs and Widmann (2006)
100 Philopoulos et al. (2009)
597
2014). Compaction is especially important when consideration is
given to any field installations, as there will be some traffic on the
surface of the medium (e.g. maintenance) (Philopoulos et al., 2009).
Therefore, laboratory investigations have been conducted in this
study on peat and peatesand mixture samples with ratios of 1:3,
1:1 and 3:1 (w/w). The aforementioned ratios are recommended in
Pokhrel et al. (2011), a study on the CH4 oxidation capacity of
different mixtures of potential biocover materials.
Ottawa sand, obtained from Unimin Canada Ltd. is used in this
study. The sand was oven-dried prior to use in the experiments in
order to eliminate any methanotrophic bacteria that may be pre-
sent in the sand. Also, the sand was free of organic content based on
the results of laboratory tests performed in accordance with ASTM
D2974-14 (2014). The peat soil samples were collected from the
Moose Creek Bog in Moose Creek, Canada, which is owned and
operated by Lafleche Environmental Inc. The peat samples were
transported to a laboratory and stored at a temperature of 3  C
before further characterization.
The mineralogical compositions of the peat material and peate
sand mixtures were determined by X-ray diffraction analyses and
the results are presented in Table 2. The selected geotechnical
properties of all the samples were determined in accordance with
the procedures described by ASTM standards. A grain size analysis
was performed in accordance with ASTM D422-63(1998) (1998). It
can be seen in Fig. 1 that all of the samples have a grain size that
ranges from 0.07 mm to 5 mm and the grain size distribution be-
comes coarser as the sand ratio is increased.
The grain size distribution of the peat samples indicates that the
percentage of grains that pass through the sieves Nos. 10, 40 and
100 is 79%, 22% and 7%, respectively. The pure peat sample in this
study is classified as organic SW (well graded sand) and the rest of
samples are organic SP (poorly graded sand) based on the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). However, this classification sys-
tem is not suited for organic soils because samples are only
considered as peat when the organic content is more than 75%.
Therefore, a classification system proposed by Wüst et al. (2003),
based on the ash and organic contents of peats, is also used in this
study. Based on this classification, peat and peatesand mixture
with a mix ratio of 3:1 are considered as peat, while peatesand
mixtures with mix ratios of 1:1 and 1:3 are considered as muck. A
summary of the properties and pH value of the samples are shown
in Table 3. The pH value of the peat sample is 6.72, which falls
within the range quoted by Cola and Cortellazzo (2005).
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Compaction test
In order to experimentally determine the values of the optimum
moisture content and corresponding maximum dry density of the
studied materials, standard Proctor compaction tests were per-
formed in accordance with ASTM D698-12 (2012).
2.2.2. Consolidation test
Conventional consolidation tests were performed on the sam-
ples at the dry side of the optimum moisture content and the op-
timum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D2435/
D2435M-11 (2011) to determine the consolidation characteristics
of the peat and its mixture samples. The dried samples were
moistened and compacted to reach the desired densities for specific
moisture contents that correspond to standard Proctor compaction
test results. Each test consisted of five increments of loading (5 kPa,
10 kPa, 20 kPa, 40 kPa and 80 kPa) and the duration of each loading
was 24 h to ensure that the long-term compressibility of the
samples was properly simulated (Moo-Young and Zimmie, 1996).
Each test was repeated twice.
598 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604

Table 2
Chemical compositions of peat and its mixtures used in this study.

Material Contents (%) LOI (%)

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 Na2O MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO V2O5

Peat 11.7 2.49 1.04 0.62 0.85 5.13 0.68 0.09 0.3 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 76.1
Peatesand (3:1 w/w) 31.51 3.25 0.8 0.65 0.66 3.96 1.15 0.07 0.22 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 57.16
Peatesand (1:1 w/w) 51.2 3.97 0.57 0.67 0.45 2.76 1.61 0.06 0.15 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 38.21
Peatesand (1:3 w/w) 70.79 4.71 0.35 0.69 0.24 1.56 2.08 0.04 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 19.27

Note: LOI is the loss in ignition (%).

100
3. Results and discussion
90
Percentage of finer by weight (%)

80 3.1. Compaction characteristics

Peat
70 Peat-sand (3:1 w/w)
60 Peat-sand (1:1 w/w) Fig. 2 illustrates the compaction curves of peat and its mixtures.
50
Peat-sand (1:3 w/w) The maximum dry density of the peat and peatesand mixtures
with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3 is 402 kg/m3, 570 kg/m3, 709 kg/
40
m3 and 1004 kg/m3, and the corresponding optimum moisture
30 content is 96%, 82%, 77% and 64%, respectively. The maximum dry
20 density value of the peat is approximately 42%, 76% and 150% lower
10 than that of the peatesand mixtures with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and
0 1:3, respectively. Said and Taib (2009) also reported similar
0.01 0.1 1 10 compaction behavior (similar ranges of maximum dry density and
Grain size (mm) optimum moisture content) for peaty soils.
Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of peat and its mixtures.
The maximum dry density increases when the sand content in
the mixtures is increased. Pure peat has the lowest maximum dry

2.2.3. Hydraulic conductivity test

Hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on all of the sam-
1050
ples in accordance with the procedures that are outlined in ASTM 1000 Peat
D5084-10 (2010). Hydraulic conductivity was measured by using a
950 Peat-sand (3:1 w/w)
flexible wall permeameter on the samples (with dimensions of
115 mm in height and 50 mm in diameter) at the optimum, dry side 900 Peat-sand (1:1 w/w)
of the optimum, and wet side of the optimum moisture contents and
850 Peat-sand (1:3 w/w)
related densities based on the compaction curves. In order to pre-
Dry density (kg/m3)

vent anomalies during the flow rate measurements, a low hydraulic 800
gradient (approximately 10) was maintained in all of the tests 750
(Benson and Othman, 1993). Also, for each sample, hydraulic con-
ductivity tests were repeated until three values were derived which 700
fell within 10% of each other (minimum three and maximum five 650
replicates for each sample). The average value was considered as the
saturated hydraulic conductivity of the sample tested. 600
550
2.2.4. Thermal conductivity test 500
The materials were first air-dried and then kept dry for 10 d to
reach thermal equilibrium. Afterwards, the samples were moist- 450
ened and compacted to reach the desired densities in accordance 400
with the compaction curves. The thermal conductivity of the
350
samples was determined based on the non-steady state method
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
under isothermal conditions by using the KD2 device (Decagon
Devices, Inc., 2006). Each thermal conductivity test was per- Water content (%)
formed two to four times to ensure the repeatability of the results. Fig. 2. Compaction curves of peat and peatesand mixtures.

Table 3
Properties and pH value of peat and its mixtures.

Material Initial moisture Organic content (%) pH (in H2O) Specific gravity, Gs Dry bulk density (kg/m3) WHC (%)
content, w (%)

Peat 195.48 69.73 6.72 1.65 375.4 218.86

Peatesand (3:1 w/w) 145.43 51.92 6.75 1.9 659.5 166.67
Peatesand (1:1 w/w) 98.63 35.35 6.81 2.15 943.7 137.08
Peatesand (1:3 w/w) 48.93 19.12 6.91 2.4 1227.8 94.41

Note: WHC is the water holding capacity.

 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604 599

density value in comparison to the other mixtures which can be
attributed to its lower specific gravity (1.65). During the compac-
tion process, samples with lower sand content required the addi-
tion of more water but were still compactable while those with
higher sand content required less water and were less compactable.
Compared to pure peat, the peatesand mixtures have lower opti-
mum moisture contents and are less compactable (Stone and
Ekwue, 1993).
In biocovers, the CH4 oxidation rate is significantly influenced
by oxygen penetration. The parameters that can control oxygen
penetration and therefore the CH4 oxidation rate are related to
the free air space (FAS) and the degree of saturation (Sr) of bio-
cover media. The diffusivity of biocover media is regulated by the
degree of saturation (Sr) (Gebert et al., 2011) because saturation
creates water menisci which cause discontinuous diffusion
pathways (Moldrup et al., 2001). Therefore, by varying the FAS
and Sr with moisture content for the studied materials, the sig-
nificance of these parameters is taken into account, as shown in
Fig. 3. This figure shows that increases in moisture content
reduce the FAS to a value close to zero at the wet side of the
optimum moisture content. Consequently, the air phase in the
pores becomes occluded (Nagaraj et al., 2006) and the gases have
to diffuse in the liquid phase. The gaseous diffusion in the liquid
phase is much less than that in air (Gebert et al., 2011), which
slows the diffusive migration of oxygen through the biocover
media and greatly reduces the CH4 oxidation rate. The O2 con-
sumption rate reaches the maximum value when the FAS is be-
tween 20% and 35% (Haug, 1993). So, it can be concluded from
Fig. 3 that the maximum O2 consumption rate (and thereby the
highest CH4 oxidation rate) in the peat and peatesand samples
with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3 should be expected when the
moisture content is 85%e110%, 70%e85%, 80%e95% and 65%e
75%, respectively. It can be clearly observed that the range of
moisture content associated with the maximum rate of O2 con-
sumption in the studied samples generally decreases with the
increase in sand content.
3.2. Consolidation characteristics
Consolidation can significantly change the porosity of biocovers.
The gas transport process in biocovers (e.g. advection flux of CH4
(upward) and diffusion flux of oxygen (downward) into the CH4
oxidation zone) and consequently the performance (CH4 oxidation
capacity) of biocovers is strongly affected by their porosity
(Pedersen et al., 2011). Moreover, the strain due to consolidation
could also translate into crack development in the biocovers which
can affect their physical stability (Bajwa, 2012) as well as the amount
of CH4 emitted into the atmosphere. These cracks may provide
the preferential pathways for the escape of CH4 into the atmosphere.
Thus, there is a need to understand the consolidation characteristics
of peat-based biocover materials. Here, the compressibility of
the studied materials is categorized as primary consolidation and
secondary consolidation (Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007).
3.2.1. Primary consolidation
Primary consolidation is defined by the variation of the void
ratio and a logarithm of the consolidation pressure as shown in
Fig. 4. It is clear from Fig. 4 that the void ratio of samples is reduced
when there is an increase in the moisture content and consolida-
tion pressure. The lowest void ratio values (2.57, 1.87, 1.61 and 1.11
for peat and peatesand mixtures with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3,
respectively) can be observed at higher moisture contents and a
consolidation pressure of 80 kPa.
The calculation of the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) was carried
out based on the square root of time (Taylor’s) method. It is evident
from Table 4 that there is a significant reduction in the Cv value of the
samples with an increase in consolidation pressure, and this
reduction is more pronounced in the samples with less sand content.
The compression index (Cc) and recompression index (Cr) values are
presented in Table 5. The Cc value, which reflects the compressibility
of the materials, ranges from 0.358 to 0.134 in this study. This is a
lower range compared with those obtained by Kazemian et al. (2011)
and Ulusay et al. (2010) because the pre-compaction of the studied

1 80 1 70
(a) (b)
0.9 70 60
0.8 0.8
60
0.7 50
0.6 50
FAS (%)

0.6
FAS (%)

40
0.5 40
Sr

Sr

0.4 0.4 30
30
0.3 20
20 Sr
0.2 Sr 0.2
FAS 10 FAS 10
0.1
0 0 0 0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Water content (%) Water content (%)
1 100 1 90
(d)
0.9 (c) 90 80
0.8 80 0.8 70
0.7 70 60
0.6
FAS (%)

0.6 60
FAS (%)

50
Sr

0.5 50
Sr

40
0.4 40 0.4
30
0.3 Sr 30 Sr
0.2 20 0.2 20
FAS FAS
0.1 10 10
0 0 0 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Water content (%) Water content (%)

Fig. 3. Relationship between degree of saturation, free air space and moisture content: (a) peat; (b) peatesand (3:1 w/w); (c) peatesand (1:1 w/w); and (d) peatesand (1:3 w/w).
600 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604

3.00 2.25
(a) w=70% (b) w=62%
2.95 2.20 w=82%
w=96%
2.90 2.15
2.85
2.10
Void ratio, e

Void ratio, e
2.80
2.05
2.75
2.00
2.70
2.65 1.95

2.60 1.90
2.55 1.85
1 10 100 1 10 100
Consolidation pressure (kPa) Consolidation pressure (kPa)

2.00 1.35
(c) w=59% (d) w=50%
1.95
w=77% w=64%
1.90 1.30

1.85

Void ratio, e
Void ratio, e

1.25
1.80
1.75
1.20
1.70
1.65 1.15
1.60
1.55 1.10
1 10 100 1 10 100
Consolidation pressure (kPa) Consolidation pressure (kPa)

Fig. 4. Consolidation curves of (a) peat, (b) peatesand (3:1 w/w), (c) peatesand (1:1 w/w), and (d) peatesand (1:3 w/w).

peat material to the dry side of the optimum moisture content has The primary consolidation and associated settlement can be
significantly reduced its initial void ratio, which is significantly explained in terms of the Cc value, in that a higher Cc value results in
lower than that of the peat material investigated in previous studies larger primary settlement. It can be clearly observed from Table 5
(e.g. Ulusay et al., 2010; Kazemian et al., 2011). that there is a general trend of Cc decreasing with increasing sand
content. The Cc value of the peat samples is the highest among all of
Table 4 the studied materials (Cc of the peat samples is up to 124% higher
Coefficients of consolidation of peat and its mixtures. than that of peatesand samples) (Table 5) and subsequently, the
Consolidation Peat Peatesand Peatesand Peatesand peat samples experience larger primary settlement that could in-
pressure (kPa) (3:1) (1:1) (1:3) crease the risk of crack formation and/or significantly reduce the
w Cv w Cv w Cv w Cv FAS, and thereby reduce the efficiency of CH4 oxidation. It is clear
(%) (m2/yr) (%) (m2/yr) (%) (m2/yr) (%) (m2/yr) from Table 5 that the Cc values generally increase with an increase
5 70 3.34 62 3.09 59 2.92 50 2.64
in initial moisture content because the high moisture content of
96 3.24 82 3.01 77 2.83 64 2.52 peat is related to more water in the pores (Huat et al., 2011).
10 70 3.06 62 2.75 59 2.71 50 2.40 However, the pore water can be easily dissipated during consoli-
96 2.89 82 2.69 77 2.54 64 2.26 dation due to the increase in vertical stress. As shown in Table 5, the
20 70 2.79 62 2.59 59 2.55 50 2.15
Cr values of the samples show that the swelling potential of the
96 2.70 82 2.52 77 2.42 64 2.10
40 70 2.65 62 2.42 59 2.31 50 2.01 materials is low for the studied materials. These Cr values are also
96 2.50 82 2.34 77 2.23 64 1.95 consistent with those reported by Mesri and Ajlouni (2007). It is
80 70 2.34 62 2.28 59 2.17 50 1.91 also clear that the Cr value decreases as the sand content is
96 2.25 82 2.19 77 2.06 64 1.83 increased, which means that the samples with a higher sand con-
tent have less swelling potential.
Table 5
Compression and recompression indices of peat and its mixtures.
3.2.2. Secondary consolidation
Sample w (%) Cc Cr
Secondary consolidation is the ratio of the coefficient of the
Peat 70 0.308 0.034 secondary consolidation (Ca) to Cc (Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007). The
96 0.358 0.063
variations in Ca/Cc for peat and peatesand mixtures at different
Peatesand (3:1) 62 0.312 0.053
82 0.249 0.056 stress levels (5e80 kPa) are shown in Fig. 5, which indicates that
Peaesand (1:1) 59 0.231 0.044 the values of Ca/Cc for the studied samples decrease when the
77 0.272 0.048 consolidation pressure is increased. Ulusay et al. (2010) also re-
Peatesand (1:3) 50 0.134 0.029 ported similar observations for peat materials. However, most of
64 0.16 0.021
the previous studies obtained Ca/Cc values of 0.06  0.01 or even
 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604 601

0.065
Peat - w=70%
0.060
Peat - w=96%
0.055
Peat-sand (3:1) - w=62%
0.050
Peat-sand (3:1) - w=82%
0.045
Cα /Cc

0.040 Peat-sand (1:1) - w=59%

0.035 Peat-sand (1:1) - w=77%

0.030 Peat-sand (1:3) - w=50%

0.025
Peat-sand (1:3) - w=64%
0.020
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Consolidation pressure (kPa)

Fig. 5. Variations in Ca/Cc with consolidation pressure for the studied peat and peatesand mixtures.

higher (up to 0.1) for peat materials (Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007;
Ulusay et al., 2010). Duraisamy et al. (2007) reported even lower
values of Ca/Cc (0.027 and 0.038) for some of their peat samples. In
the current study, the values of Ca/Cc for the peat samples range
from 0.048 to 0.061, so the obtained values are close to those of
Mesri and Ajlouni (2007). The values of Ca/Cc for different
geotechnical materials vary in a narrow range of 0.01e0.1 (Ulusay
et al., 2010). The magnitude of Ca/Cc can be used to explain the
deformability and compressibility of soils (Mesri and Ajlouni,
2007). In the current study, the peat samples consist of deform-
able grains and thereby are highly compressible and have the
highest values of Ca/Cc. Increases in the sand content result in a
lower range of Ca/Cc values because granular sand materials such as
sands are less deformable, with Ca/Cc ¼ 0.02  0.01 (Mesri and
Vardhanabhuti, 2009).
Secondary compression not only has a negative effect on the gas
exchange process and thereby the CH4 oxidation potential of bio-
covers, but also affects the pore structure (Bajwa, 2012) and conse-
quently the physical stability of biocovers. Based on the obtained
values of Ca/Cc in the current study, the peat experiences more
secondary settlement among the studied materials which could
increase the risk of the physical failure of peat biocovers mainly due
to crack development and changes in the pore structure.

3.3. Hydraulic conductivity Fig. 6. Hydraulic conductivity versus moisture content.

Biocovers should also have an appropriate hydraulic conductivity

to minimize rainfall infiltration and subsequent biocover saturation,
which can result in a drastic reduction in the CH4 oxidation rate
(Pokhrel, 2006; Scheutz et al., 2009a,b; Khoshand and Fall, 2014).
Therefore, changes in the hydraulic conductivity of biocovers have
important effects on the CH4 oxidation rate and water intrusion.
Fig. 6 shows the test results of saturated hydraulic conductivity for
peat and its mixtures in the current study. It can be observed that the
hydraulic conductivity values range from 1.74
109 m/s to
7.35
109 m/s while the moisture contents vary in an approximate
range of 45%e132%. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of the specimens is reduced when the moisture content and
dry density are increased until reaching the optimum moisture
content and the maximum dry density. Afterward, the hydraulic
conductivity is increased for moisture contents that exceed the op-
timum one. The minimum hydraulic conductivities (1.74
109 m/s,
2.62
109 m/s, 4.45
109 m/s and 6.26
109 m/s for peat and
peatesand mixtures with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3, respectively)
were achieved at the optimum moisture content. Moo-Young and
Zimmie (1996) studied the geotechnical behavior of potential
landfill covers and reported a similar trend in the variation of the
hydraulic conductivity with moisture content. The hydraulic con-
ductivity of peat is a function of the void ratio and the size and shape
of the flow channels (Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007). The grains of peat are
naturally porous and subsequently have a large pore size which
results in a high initial hydraulic conductivity at low dry density
(Huat et al., 2011). The dry density is increased due to compaction
until the maximum dry density is obtained. This causes smaller
pores and tortuous flow channels through the samples which
eventually result in a significant reduction in the hydraulic con-
ductivity to a comparable value of clay soils (Huat et al., 2011).
The hydraulic conductivity of peat varies in the range of
1.74
109e2.33
109 m/s while the hydraulic conductivity of
602 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604

peatesand mixture with a mix ratio of 1:3 ranges from respectively) are obtained at the minimum moisture contents
6.29
109 m/s to 7.35
109 m/s. The hydraulic conductivity of because the thermal conductivity of water (0.59 W/(m K)) is more
peat is controlled by the physical and structural arrangement of the than 20 times greater than that of air (0.025 W/(m K)) (Holman,
constituent grains (Edil, 2003), which can affect the pore size dis- 2002). By increasing the moisture content, the volume fraction of
tribution and the size and shape of the flow channels. Increasing air is decreased and the proportion of the pore spaces filled with
the sand content of the samples causes larger void ratios, pores and water is increased (Ahn et al., 2009). So the water films completely
straight flow channels through the samples, which result in higher surround the soil grains and improve the contact between them
hydraulic conductivity. The interlinked fibrous structure of pure which results in increases in thermal conductivity (Abu-Hamdeh
peat, which has a clogging effect (Edil, 2003), is another possible and Reeder, 2000). A similar trend in the variation of the thermal
reason accounting for the lower hydraulic conductivity of peat in conductivity with moisture content has been reported in previous
comparison to that of peatesand mixtures. However, an increase in studies (Ahn et al., 2009; Chandrakanthi et al., 2005).
sand content increases the hydraulic conductivity and conse- Furthermore, Fig. 7 shows that the thermal conductivity in-
quently promotes the gas exchange process within peat-based creases with the increases in the dry density of the samples
biocovers. Nevertheless, the hydraulic conductivity of biocovers because generally, when the density of the soil samples increases
needs to be low enough to prevent water infiltration. to the maximum dry density due to compaction, the degree of
inter-particle contact increases and contact between the individ-
3.4. Thermal conductivity ual grains becomes more intimate (Al Nakshabandi and Kohnke,
1965), which facilitates heat movement through the soil and re-
Knowledge of the thermal conductivity of the biocover material sults in an increase in thermal conductivity. After the maximum
is essential for assessing and predicting the evolution and distri- density is reached, the excess water causes higher pore water
bution of temperature in biocovers. The simultaneous variation of pressure that results in less compactability and subsequently a
thermal conductivity and dry density with moisture content is reduction in density (Ekwue et al., 2011). However, as the density
shown in Fig. 7. The thermal conductivity of the peat samples varies is reduced, the moisture contents still increase and there is less
from 0.54 W/(m K) to 0.71 W/(m K) when the moisture content contact between the individual grains due to the presence of
ranges from 60% to 132% (Fig. 7). The obtained results are close to water between the soil grains. Whereas water has a thermal
those reported by Dissanayaka et al. (2012) for pure peat in wet conductivity greater than that of air and considerably lower than
conditions (0.1e0.6 W/(m K)). It can be seen in Fig. 7 that the that of mineral soil particles (e.g. 2.9 W/(m K) for silt and clay,
thermal conductivity of the studied peat-based materials is influ- 3 W/(m K) for sandstone, and 3.8 W/(m K) for dolostone (Ramires
enced by the moisture content such that the thermal conductivity et al., 1995; Côté and Konrad, 2005)), so the thermal conductivity
consistently increases as the moisture content increases. It can also continues to increase slightly after the optimum moisture content
be seen from Fig. 7 that the minimum thermal conductivities is reached (Fig. 7). Ekwue et al. (2011) also reported that the effect
(0.54 W/(m K), 0.7 W/(m K), 0.87 W/(m K) and 1.17 W/(m K) for peat of density variation on the thermal conductivity is considerably
and peatesand mixtures with mix ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3, less than that of moisture variation.

405 0.8 575 0.9

(b)
Thermal conductivity, k (W/(m K))

Thermal conductivity, k (W/(m K))

(a)
400 0.7 570
0.8
Dry density (kg/m3)

Dry density (kg/m3)

395 565
0.6
390 560 0.7
0.5
385 Dry density 555 Dry density
Thermal conductivity 0.6
0.4 Thermal conductivity
380 550

375 0.3 545 0.5

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 40 60 80 100 120
Water content (%) Water content (%)

715 1.2 1010 1.7

(d)
Thermal conductivity, k (W/(m K))

(c)
Thermal conductivity, k (W/(m K))

1000 1.6
710 1.1
1.5
Dry density (kg/m3)

990
Dry density (kg/m3)

705 1
1.4
700 0.9 980 1.3
695 0.8 970 1.2
1.1
690 Dry density 0.7 960
1
Thermal conductivity Dry density
685 0.6 950 0.9
Thermal conductivity
680 0.5 940 0.8
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Water content (%) Water content (%)

Fig. 7. Changes in thermal conductivity and dry density with water content: (a) peat; (b) peatesand (3:1 w/w); (c) peatesand (1:1 w/w); and (d) peatesand (1:3 w/w).
 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604
1.6
Peat
Peat-sand (3:1 w/w)
1.4
Peat-sand (1:1 w/w)
Thermal conductivity, k (W/(m K))
Peat-sand (1:3 w/w)
1.2
1 0.061e0.03. This parameter is a function of the consolidation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2 0.4
Degree of saturation, Sr
Fig. 8. Changes in thermal conductivity with degree of saturation.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of thermal conductivity as a function
of Sr. It can be seen that in peat-based biocovers, the thermal
conductivity increases with the increase in Sr. As mentioned above,
the thermal conductivity of water is significantly greater than that
of air. At a low value of Sr, there are insufficient water molecules to
fill the air gaps between the grains and the thermal conductivity is
low. However, by increasing Sr, the air gaps are filled with water
and the contact between the grains is increased and subsequently
the thermal conductivity is increased (Al Nakshabandi and
Kohnke, 1965).
The obtained results indicate that the thermal conductivity of
the studied materials is strongly influenced by the sand content
such that the thermal conductivity significantly increases with
increasing sand content. This is caused by the lower thermal con-
ductivity of peat materials in comparison to that of mineral soils
(e.g. 0.05e0.6 W/(m K) (Dissanayaka et al., 2012), and 0.2e0.52 W/
(m K) (Kujala et al., 2008) for peat versus 2.9 W/(m K) for silt and
clay, 3 W/(m K) for sandstone, and 3.8 W/(m K) for dolostone (Côté
and Konrad, 2005)).
It can be concluded that the peat material as opposed to peate
sand mixtures conducts less heat and thereby provides better
temperature insulation, which can ensure an appropriate and sta-
ble temperature for methanotrophic bacteria within the biocover,
an especially important factor for cold climates when the atmo-
spheric temperature is low.
4. Conclusions
In this context, a comprehensive assessment and comparison of
compaction and consolidation behaviors, and hydraulic and ther-
mal conductivities of peat-based materials, i.e. peat and peatesand
mixtures with a mix ratio of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1, respectively, for
biocovers are made. The key conclusions based on the analyses of
the obtained results are drawn as follows.
The optimum moisture content of the peat-based materials
varies from 64% to 96% while the maximum dry density ranges
from 402 kg/m3 to 1004 kg/m3. The maximum dry density and
compactability decrease with increasing sand content. Moreover,
the variations in FAS with moisture content suggests that the
maximum O2 consumption rate (thereby the highest CH4 oxidation
potential) in the peat and peatesand samples with mix ratios of 3:1,
1:1 and 1:3 can be realized when the moisture content is 85%e
110%, 70%e85%, 80%e95% and 65%e75%, respectively.
603
The studied peat-based materials are compressible. The samples
show high compressibility to the increase in consolidation pres-
sure, and higher initial moisture contents and organic contents
result in higher compressibility. It should be noted that after
loading, the primary consolidation of the studied samples is
completed in a relatively short time, followed by secondary
consolidation. The value of Ca/Cc of the samples is in the range of
pressure and organic content. The obtained values of Ca/Cc suggest
that pure peat has the largest secondary settlement among the
studied materials (peatesand mixtures) which results in higher
potential of failure of the pure peat-based biocovers due to the
development of cracks or changes in the pore structure. However,
this can be mitigated by increasing the sand content.
The hydraulic conductivity values range from 1.74
109 m/s to
7.35
109 m/s while the moisture contents vary in an approxi-
mate range of 45%e132%. The minimum hydraulic conductivity is
0.6 0.8 1
achieved at the optimum moisture content and decreases when the
moisture content is increased to the wet side of the optimum
moisture content.
The thermal conductivity increases with increasing bulk den-
sity, and moisture and sand contents. However, the effect of the
variation in bulk density on thermal conductivity is considerably
less than that of the moisture content variation. It is found that pure
peat materials can provide better temperature insulation and
consequently a more stable temperature within biocovers than the
peatesand biocover materials due to their low thermal conduc-
tivity which is particularly important in cold climates.
Conflict of interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
References
Abu-Hamdeh NH, Reeder RC. Soil thermal conductivity: effects of density, moisture,
salt concentration, and organic matter. Soil Science Society of America Journal
2000;64(4):1285e90.
Abushammala MFM, Basri NEA, Irwan D, Younes MK. Methane oxidation in
landfill cover soils: a review. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment
2014;8(1):1e14.
Ahn HK, Sauer TJ, Richard TL, Glanville TD. Determination of thermal properties of
composting bulking materials. Bioresource Technology 2009;100(17):3974e81.
Al Nakshabandi G, Kohnke H. Thermal conductivity and diffusivity of soils as related
to moisture tension and other physical properties. Agricultural Meteorology
1965;2(4):271e9.
Albanna M, Warith M, Fernandes L. Kinetics of biological methane oxidation in the
presence of non-methane organic compounds in landfill bio-covers. Waste
Management 2010;30(2):219e27.
Albanna M, Warith M, Fernandes L. The application of artificial neural networks for
simulation of biological CH4 oxidation in landfill biocovers. International Jour-
nal of Sustainable Water and Environmental Systems 2011;3(1):37e44.
ASTM D2435/D2435M-11. Standard test methods for one-dimensional consolida-
tion properties of soils using incremental loading. West Conshohocken, USA:
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) International; 2011.
ASTM D2974-14. Standard test methods for moisture, ash, and organic matter
of peat and other organic soils. West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM Interna-
tional; 2014.
ASTM D422-63(1998). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. West
Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International; 1998.
ASTM D5084-10. Standard test methods for measurement of hydraulic conductivity
of saturated porous materials using a flexible wall permeameter. West Con-
shohocken, USA: ASTM International; 2010.
ASTM D698-12. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of
soil using standard effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). West Con-
shohocken, USA: ASTM International; 2012.
Bajwa TM. Experimental characterization of the thermal, hydraulic and mechanical
(THM) properties of compost based landfill covers. MS Thesis. Ottawa, Canada:
University of Ottawa; 2012. p. 47e101.
604 A. Khoshand, M. Fall / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 596e604
Benson CH, Othman MA. Hydraulic and mechanical characteristics of a compacted
municipal solid waste compost. Waste Management and Research 1993;11(2):
127e42.
Börjesson G, Samuelsson J, Chanton J. Methane oxidation in Swedish landfills
quantified with the stable carbon isotope technique in combination with an
optical method for emitted methane. Environmental Science and Technology
2007;41(19):6684e90.
Chandrakanthi M, Mehrotra AK, Hettiaratchi JPA. Thermal conductivity of leaf
compost used in biofilters: an experimental and theoretical investigation.
Environmental Pollution 2005;136(1):167e74.
Cola S, Cortellazzo G. The shear strength behavior of two peaty soils. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 2005;23(6):679e95.
Côté J, Konrad JM. A generalized thermal conductivity model for soils and con-
struction materials. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2005;42(2):443e58.
De Visscher A, Thomas D, Boeckx P, Van Cleemput O. Methane oxidation in simu-
lated landfill cover soil environments. Environmental Science and Technology
1999;33(11):1854e9.
Decagon Devices, Inc.. KD2 pro thermal properties analyzer: operator’s manual,
version 4. Pullman, WA, USA: Decagon Devices, Inc.; 2006.
Dissanayaka SH, Hamamoto S, Kawamoto K, Komatsu T, Moldrup P. Thermal
properties of peaty soils: effects of liquid-phase impedance factor and
shrinkage. Vadose Zone Journal 2012;11(1):31e43.
Duraisamy Y, Huat BBK, Aziz AA. Engineering properties and compressibility
behavior of tropical peat soil. American Journal of Applied Sciences 2007;4(10):
768e73.
Edil TB. Recent advances in geotechnical characterization and construction
over peats and organic soils. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology. Putrajaya,
Malaysia; 2003. p. 3e25.
Einola J, Sormunen K, Lensu A, Leiskallio A, Ettala M, Rintala J. Methane oxidation at
a surface-sealed boreal landfill. Waste Management 2009;29(7):2105e20.
Einola J. Biotic oxidation of methane in landfills in boreal climatic conditions. PhD
Thesis. University of Jyväskylä; 2010. p. 49e84.
Ekwue EI, Stone RJ, Bhagwat D. Thermal conductivities of some common soils in
Trinidad. West Indian Journal of Engineering 2011;33:4e11.
Gebert J, Groengroeft A, Pfeiffe EM. Relevance of soil physical properties for the
microbial oxidation of methane in landfill covers. Soil Biology and Biochemistry
2011;43(9):1759e67.
Gupta V. Anaerobic oxidation of methane in Northern Peatlands. MS Thesis. Tor-
onto, Canada: University of Toronto; 2011.
Haubrichs R, Widmann R. Evaluation of aerated biofilter systems for microbial
methane oxidation of poor landfill gas. Waste Management 2006;26(4):
408e16.
Haug RT. The practical handbook of compost engineering. CRC Press; 1993.
He R, Wang J, Xia FF, Mao LJ, Shen DS. Evaluation of methane oxidation activity
in waste biocover soil during landfill stabilization. Chemosphere 2012;89(6):
672e9.
Holman JP. Heat transfer. 9th ed. New York: MacGraw-Hill; 2002.
Huat BBK, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Barghchi M. State of art review of peat: general
perspective. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 2011;6(8):1988e96.
Humer M, Lechner P. Alternative approach to the elimination of greenhouse gases
from old landfills. Waste Management and Research 1999;17(6):443e52.
Humer M, Lechner P. Microorganisms against the greenhouse effect e suitable
cover layers for the elimination of methane emissions from landfills. In:
Proceedings of the Solid Waste Association of North America’s 6th Annual
Landfill Symposium. San Diego, USA: Solid Waste Association of North America;
2001. p. 305e9.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth assessment report:
climate change 2007 (AR4). IPCC; 2007.
IPCC. Fifth assessment report: climate change 2014 (AR5). IPCC; 2014.
Kazemian S, Huat BBK, Prasad A, Barghchi M. A state of art review of peat:
geotechnical engineering perspective. International Journal of the Physical
Sciences 2011;6(8):1974e81.
Khoshand A, Fall M. Geotechnical characterization of compost based biocover
materials. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2014;32(2):489e503.
Kightley D, Nedwell DB, Cooper M. Capacity for methane oxidation in landfill cover
soils measured in laboratory-scale soil microcosms. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 1995;61(2):592e601.
Kujala K, Seppälä M, Holappa T. Physical properties of peat and palsa formation.
Cold Regions Science and Technology 2008;52(3):408e14.
Lu WJ, Chi ZF, Mou ZS, Long YY, Wang HT, Zhu Y. Can a breathing biocover system
enhance methane emission reduction from landfill? Journal of Hazardous
Materials 2011;191(1e3):228e33.
Mesri G, Ajlouni M. Engineering properties of fibrous peats. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2007;133(7):850e66.
Mesri G, Vardhanabhuti B. Compression of granular materials. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal 2009;46(4):369e92.
Moldrup P, Olesen T, Komatsu T, Schjønning P, Rolston RE. Tortuosity, diffusivity,
and permeability in the soil liquid and gaseous phases. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 2001;65(3):613e23.
Moo-Young HK, Zimmie TF. Geotechnical properties of paper mill sludges for use in
landfill covers. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1996;122(9):768e75.
Nagaraj TS, Lutenegger AJ, Pandian NS, Manoj M. Rapid estimation of compac-
tion parameters for field control. Geotechnical Testing Journal 2006;29(6):
497e506.
Pedersen GB, Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P. Availability and properties of materials for the
Fakse Landfill biocover. Waste Management 2011;31(5):884e94.
Peixoto JP, Oort AH. Physics of climate. New York, USA: Springer; 1992.
Philopoulos A, Ruck J, McCartney D, Felske C. A laboratory-scale comparison of
compost and sandecomposteperlite as methane-oxidizing biofilter media.
Waste Management and Research 2009;27(2):138e46.
Pokhrel D, Hettiaratchi P, Kumar S. Methane diffusion coefficient in compost and
soilecompost mixtures in gas phase biofilter. Chemical Engineering Journal
2011;169(1e3):200e6.
Pokhrel D. Compost based biocap performance. PhD Thesis. Calgary, Canada: Uni-
versity of Calgary; 2006.
Powelson DK, Chanton J, Abichou T, Morales J. Methane oxidation in water-
spreading and compost biofilters. Waste Management and Research
2006;24(6):528e36.
Ramires MLV, Nieto de Castro CA, Nagasaka Y, Nagashima A, Assael MJ,
Wakeham WA. Standard reference data for the thermal conductivity of water.
Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 1995;24(3):1377e81.
Said JM, Taib SNL. Peat stabilization with carbide lime. UNIMAS E e Journal of Civil
Engineering 2009;1(1):29e35.
Scheutz C, Bogner J, Chanton J, Blake D, Morcet M, Kjeldsen P. Comparative
oxidation and net emissions of methane and selected non-methane organic
compounds in landfill cover soils. Environmental Science and Technology
2003;37(22):5150e8.
Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P, Bogner JE, De Visscher A, Gebert J, Hilger HA, Huber-
Humer M, Spokas K. Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies
for mitigation of landfill gas emission. Waste Management and Research
2009a;27(5):409e55.
Scheutz C, Pedersen GB, Costa G, Kjeldsen P. Biodegradation of methane and hal-
ocarbons in simulated landfill biocover systems containing compost materials.
Journal of Environmental Quality 2009b;38(4):1363e71.
Scheutz C, Pedicone A, Pedersen GB, Kjeldsen P. Evaluation of respiration in
compost landfill biocovers intended for methane oxidation. Waste Manage-
ment 2011;31(5):895e902.
Stein VB, Hettiaratchi JPA. Methane oxidation in three Alberta soils: influence of soil
parameters and methane flux rates. Environmental Technology 2001;22(1):
101e11.
Stern DI, Kaufmann RK. Estimates of global anthropogenic methane emission
1860e1993. Chemosphere 1996;33(1):159e76.
Stone RJ, Ekwue EI. Maximum bulk density achieved during soil compaction as
affected by the incorporation of three organic materials. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1993;36(6):1713e9.
Streese J, Stegmann R. Microbial oxidation of CH4 from old landfills in biofilters.
Waste Management 2003;23(7):573e80.
Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Hasancebi N. Geo-engineering properties and settlement of
peaty soils at an industrial site (Turkey). Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
the Environment 2010;69(3):397e410.
Watson A, Stephen KD, Nedwell DB, Arah JRM. Oxidation of methane in peat: ki-
netics of CH4 and O2 removal and the role of plant roots. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 1997;29(8):1257e67.
Wilshusen JH, Hettiaratchi JP, Stein VB. Long-term behaviour of passively aerated
compost methanotrophic biofilter columns. Waste Management 2004;24(7):
643e53.
Wuebbles DJ, Hayhoe K. Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth-Science
Reviews 2002;57(3e4):177e210.
Wüst RAJ, Bustin RM, Lavkulich LM. New classification systems for tropical organic-
rich deposits based on studies of the Tasek Bera Basin, Malaysia. CATENA
2003;53(2):133e63.
Zainal MS, Buyong F. Effects of organic matter addition to landfill soil cover to
enhance methane oxidation. Journal of Scientific Research and Development
2015;2(12):48e55.
Dr. Mamadou Fall is a Full Professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Ottawa (Canada) and
the Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Environ-
mental Engineering. He obtained his PhD degree in
Geotechnical Engineering from the Freiberg University in
Germany. He was the Coordinator of the German Research
Chair of Environmental Geosciences and Geotechnics. Dr.
Fall has over 20 years’ experience on fundamental and
applied research in geotechnical engineering. He has
been leading several major research projects that are
related to mine waste management, geotechnical hazards
and risks, underground disposal of nuclear wastes, carbon
sequestration and engineered landfill technology. He is
currently supervising a large research team of postdoctoral
researchers and graduate students (PhD and Masters). His team is performing leading
edge research in the geotechnical and geoenvironmental fields in close collaboration
with the industry, major federal and provincial governmental institutions, and interna-
tional partners. Dr. Fall has over 150 publications to his credit. He has been involved in
the organization of numerous workshops, seminars, and national and international
conferences. He has been repeatedly invited as keynote speaker or lecturer, and regu-
larly acts as a consultant as well as a reviewer for several scientific committees, peer
review journals, and funding agencies. He also serves on the editorial board of several
international journals.