Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management—assessment of quantification methods

Of the many sources of urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, solid waste is the only one for which management decisions are undertaken primarily by municipal governments themselves and is hence often the largest component of cities’ corporate inventories. It is essential that decision-makers select an appropriate quantification methodology and have an appreciation of methodological strengths and shortcomings. This work compares four different waste emissions quantification methods, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 guidelines, IPCC 2006 guidelines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities- Partners for Climate Protection (FCM-PCP) quantification tool. Waste disposal data for the greater Toronto area (GTA) in 2005 are used for all methodologies; treatment options (including landfill, incineration, compost, and anaerobic digestion) are examined where available in methodologies. Landfill was shown to be the greatest source of GHG emissions, contributing more than three-quarters of total emissions associated with waste management. Results from the different landfill gas (LFG) quantification approaches ranged from an emissions source of 557 kt carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) (FCM-PCP) to a carbon sink of −53 kt CO2e (EPA WARM). Similar values were obtained between IPCC approaches. The IPCC 2006 method was found to be more appropriate for inventorying applications because it uses a waste-in-place (WIP) approach, rather than a methane commitment (MC) approach, despite perceived onerous data requirements for WIP. MC approaches were found to be useful from a planning standpoint; however, uncertainty associated with their projections of future parameter values limits their applicability for GHG inventorying. MC and WIP methods provided similar results in this case study; however, this is case specific because of similarity in assumptions of present and future landfill parameters and quantities of annual waste deposited in recent years being relatively consistent.

Does fertilizer type and method of application cause significant differences in essential oil yield and composition in rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)?

Organic fertilizers based on seaweed extract potentially have beneficial effects on many crop plants. Herewe investigate the impact of organic fertilizer on Rosmarinus officinalis measured by both yield and oilquality. Plants grown in a temperature-controlled greenhouse with a natural photoperiod and a controlledirrigation system were treated with seaweed fertilizer and an inorganic fertilizer of matching mineralcomposition but with no organic content. Treatments were either by spraying on to the foliage or wateringdirect to the compost. The essential oil was extracted by hydro-distillation with a Clevenger apparatusand analysed by gas-chromatography mass-spectrometry (GC–MS) and NMR. The chemical composi-tions of the plants were compared, and qualitative differences were found between fertilizer treatmentsand application methods. Thus sprayed seaweed fertilizer showed a significantly higher percentage of�-pinene, �-phellandrene, �-terpinene (monoterpenes) and 3-methylenecycloheptene than other treat-ments. Italicene, �-bisabolol (sesquiterpenes), �-thujene, and E-isocitral (monoterpenes) occurred insignificantly higher percentages for plants watered with the seaweed extract. Each was significantly dif-ferent to the inorganic fertilizer and to controls. The seaweed treatments caused a significant increasein oil amount and leaf area as compared with both inorganic treatments and the control regardless ofapplication method.

Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emission from ruminants

Ruminant husbandry is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). Filling knowledge gaps and providing expert recommendation are important for defining future research priorities, improving methodologies and establishing science-based GHG mitigation solutions to government and non-governmental organisations, advisory/extension networks, and the ruminant livestock sector. The objectives of this review is to summarize published literature to provide a detailed assessment of the methodologies currently in use for measuring enteric methane (CH4) emission from individual animals under specific conditions, and give recommendations regarding their application. The methods described include respiration chambers and enclosures, sulphur hexafluoride tracer (SF6) technique, and techniques based on short-term measurements of gas concentrations in samples of exhaled air. This includes automated head chambers (e.g. the GreenFeed system), the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a marker, and (handheld) laser CH4 detection. Each of the techniques are compared and assessed on their capability and limitations, followed by methodology recommendations. It is concluded that there is no ‘one size fits all’ method for measuring CH4 emission by individual animals. Ultimately, the decision as to which method to use should be based on the experimental objectives and resources available. However, the need for high throughput methodology e.g. for screening large numbers of animals for genomic studies, does not justify the use of methods that are inaccurate. All CH4 measurement techniques are subject to experimental variation and random errors. Many sources of variation must be considered when measuring CH4 concentration in exhaled air samples without a quantitative or at least regular collection rate, or use of a marker to indicate (or adjust) for the proportion of exhaled CH4 sampled. Consideration of the number and timing of measurements relative to diurnal patterns of CH4 emission and respiratory exchange are important, as well as consideration of feeding patterns and associated patterns of rumen fermentation rate and other aspects of animal behaviour. Regardless of the method chosen, appropriate calibrations and recovery tests are required for both method establishment and routine operation. Successful and correct use of methods requires careful attention to detail, rigour, and routine self-assessment of the quality of the data they provide.