Building a better methane generation model: Validating models with methane recovery rates from 35 Canadian landfills

The German EPER, TNO, Belgium, LandGEM, and Scholl Canyon models for estimating methane production were compared to methane recovery rates for 35 Canadian landfills, assuming that 20% of emissions were not recovered. Two different fractions of degradable organic carbon (DOC(f)) were applied in all models. Most models performed better when the DOC(f) was 0.5 compared to 0.77. The Belgium, Scholl Canyon, and LandGEM version 2.01 models produced the best results of the existing models with respective mean absolute errors compared to methane generation rates (recovery rates + 20%) of 91%, 71%, and 89% at 0.50 DOC(f) and 171%, 115%, and 81% at 0.77 DOC(f). The Scholl Canyon model typically overestimated methane recovery rates and the LandGEM version 2.01 model, which modifies the Scholl Canyon model by dividing waste by 10, consistently underestimated methane recovery rates; this comparison suggested that modifying the divisor for waste in the Scholl Canyon model between one and ten could improve its accuracy. At 0.50 DOC(f) and 0.77 DOC(f) the modified model had the lowest absolute mean error when divided by 1.5 yielding 63 +/- 45% and 2.3 yielding 57 +/- 47%, respectively. These modified models reduced error and variability substantially and both have a strong correlation of r = 0.92.