Next Article in Journal
Shifts in the Microbial Community of Activated Sludge with Different COD/N Ratios or Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Tibet, China
Previous Article in Journal
Accelerating Cities in an Unsustainable Landscape: Urban Expansion and Cropland Occupation in China, 1990–2030
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis

1
Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen 361021, China
4
Xiamen Key Lab of Urban Metabolism, Xiamen 361021, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(8), 2282; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082282
Submission received: 17 March 2019 / Revised: 12 April 2019 / Accepted: 12 April 2019 / Published: 16 April 2019

Abstract

:
The landfill is an important method of disposal of municipal solid waste. In particular, the landfill is especially vital in many developing countries, with it being the main biodegradable waste disposal method due to its simple management and ability for mass manipulation. Landfills have recently been shown to be an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by researchers in different countries. However, few reviews have been conducted within the related fields, which means that there is still a lack of comprehensive understanding related to relevant study achievements. In this study, a bibliometric analysis of articles published from 1999 to 2018 on landfill GHG emissions was presented to assess the current trends, using the Web of Science (WOS) database. The most productive countries/territories, authors and journals were analyzed. Moreover, the overall research structure was characterized based on co-cited references, emerging keywords and reference citations by means of bibliometric analysis. Due to the increasing amount of attention being paid to the GHG emissions and their mitigation methods, this study provided comprehensive bibliometric information on GHG emissions from landfills over the past two decades and highlighted the importance of the development and dissemination of updated knowledge frameworks.

1. Introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the simple dumpsite was the most common method for the disposal of solid waste. However, concomitant environmental problems have become increasingly serious. In the 1930s, the concept of a “sanitary landfill”, which originated from the United States of America, emerged [1]. Previous environmental problems that were associated with simple dumpsites seemed to be greatly eased as a result of this concept. However, with the explosion of the population and waste generation per capita, the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) increased dramatically, which created new problems [2]. Landfills became an important contributor to anthropogenic climate change, accounting for approximately 5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [3].
GHGs, such as CH4, N2O and CO2, are produced from the aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation of MSW. CH4 generated in a landfill is the largest source of GHGs, accounting for 1–2% of total GHG emissions [4]. The second largest sources are CH4 and N2O emissions produced in leachate treatment systems [5]. Extensive studies on GHG emissions from landfills have been conducted and aim to utilize CH4 and reduce other GHGs generated from landfills. Although barriers still exist, some achievements have been made with the development of innovative technologies and equipment [6]. Firstly, numerous field measurements and laboratory studies have been conducted, which revealed the factors that influence the characteristics of GHG emissions [7,8,9,10]. The quantity of GHG emissions from landfills is influenced by multiple factors, including landfill volume, organic content, moisture, temperature and the age of the waste. The major factors that influence GHG production differ in the different stabilization stages of MSW [11]. After focusing on the estimation of GHG emissions and their influential factors, the literature began to concentrate on the in-situ treatment of GHGs. Landfill gas (LFG) treatment systems vary with time and depend on the manner in which the landfills are designed, operated and regulated [12]. The majority of the current treatments fall into four categories: flaring, absorption, permeation and cryogenic treatments. The central treatments are physical adsorption, chemical adsorption, pressure swing adsorption, membrane separation and cryogenic separation [2]. Studies have summarized GHG generation from landfills from different perspectives and in different countries [13,14,15,16]. Due to the increasing interest in landfills environmental problems, numerous scientists have evaluated the research trends in this field [17]. However, there have only been a few attempts to gather data on scientific landfills research conducted worldwide using bibliometric analysis as introduced by Narin et al. [1]. Bibliometric analysis is a mathematical and statistical method to display up-to-date and on-going knowledge that has been applied in many disciplines of science and engineering [18,19,20,21,22]. This approach can evaluate the performance of each research topic and indicate the impact of authors or their contributions to their respective fields [23]. Researchers can select their fields of investigation more purposefully and feasibly through a bibliometric analysis. In addition, this approach is convenient to recognize academic collaborators and to identify appropriate institutes [6].
Although the research on the GHG emissions from landfills has covered many aspects, ranging from field measurements to emission reduction measures, it is still not systematic and detailed enough. In particular, no study has provided an overview of the relevant research outcomes in this field. In this study, the status and trends of studies on GHG emissions from landfills published during the period of 1999–2018 were analyzed. The review aims to help researchers to better understand the development of research in this area, identify the most cited scholars and papers and predict potential future research directions.

2. Data Sources and Methods

Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher should both map and assess the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question that can be used to further develop the knowledge base [24]. Structured literature reviews are typically completed through an iterative cycle of defining appropriate search keywords, searching the literature and completing the analysis [25]. In this study, a sequence of steps was taken for literature selection and a thorough assessment of landfill GHG emissions, with the aim of providing a general picture of the field [26]: (1) definition of the search criteria, keywords and time period; (2) selection of the Web of Science database; (3) adjustment and refinement of research criteria; (4) full export of results; (5) analysis of the information and discussion of the results. The academic publications on GHG emissions from landfills were collected in December 2018, using the Science Citation Index (SCI) of the Web of Science (WOS) database maintained by Clarivate Analytics. The topic search, which was referred to as the core dataset, was used and subsequently expanded through citation links. The keywords used were ‘greenhouse gas’ and ‘landfill’, and all literature was retrieved from the period of 1999–2018. To investigate the quality and quantity of articles in the relevant field, it is first necessary to establish which measurement index should be used in the bibliometric analysis [27]. The total number of articles and the percentage of articles in the dataset were first determined. Moreover, it was found that citation index counting would help to reduce the bias toward highly referenced fields, such as biomedicine and biochemistry, and to increase the range of subject matters covered by clusters [28,29]. Thus, the total citations (TC) and the average number of citations per paper (TC/P) were used in the assessment of source countries, key authors and productive journals. The h-index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published h papers that have each been cited at least h times [30]. It is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar [31]. As a complement, this index was used in this paper to improve upon the simple investigations of the total number of citations and publications.
The key findings related to the core dataset were first highlighted before a more detailed study of the expanded dataset was conducted using various visual analytic functions implemented in CiteSpace [32,33]. CiteSpace, a Java-based software for visualization in science, was used to extract and identify the information on related literature before visualizing this information in the form of a co-citation network, which draws on article citations to reveal the structure of a field or fields [34]. Many software programs have been developed to visualize knowledge domains in recent decades, but CiteSpace is one of the most balanced and powerful packages [35]. The resultant network can be divided into clusters (i.e., groups of entities) such that entities within the same group are more similar to each other than they are to entities from different groups [32]. In this study, the co-occurrence networks of keywords and subject categories and co-citation networks of references and journals were produced and analyzed using CiteSpace [36].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Performance of Article Output

During 1999–2018, 1007 papers were identified as relevant literature, among which there were 785 articles (77.95% of the total) and 192 proceedings. The rest included reviews (7.35%), conference abstracts, editorial materials, news items, etc. Only the articles were taken into account because they usually provided more original research findings and included more information on authors and their affiliations. Moreover, to ensure the universality and authenticity of the data obtained, non-English writing publications were excluded [6]. After this screening process, 770 papers remained, which were subsequently used for bibliometric analysis by CiteSpace. The total number of citations was 12,860 over the period selected (1999–2018), and the average number of citations per publication was 17.29. The trends in the quantity of articles and citations identified by WOS that were related to GHG emissions from landfills in the last 20 years are shown in Figure 1. Due to increasing concern about climate change and the effects of global warming, GHG emissions have also emerged as a hot topic in research on source identification and management [37,38]. Hence, it is obvious that the numbers of published articles and citations about GHG emission from landfills clearly increased from 1999 to 2018, with two remarkable leaps in publications in 2008 and 2017, which reflects that more attention was devoted to this area during the past decade.
The GHG emissions were partially due to landfilling, which remains an effective primary treatment method for waste disposal in parts of developed countries and most developing countries. Thus, countries with the ability among them have dedicated themselves to undertaking frontier research in this field [39]. An analysis of the source countries of the articles shows that the USA had the most publications and had more substantial contributions to the quantity of publications and total citations (Table 1). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), landfills remain the mainstream technology for the disposal of waste in the USA [5]. The USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and numerous American scholars have estimated the amount of GHG emissions produced from waste treatment [40,41,42,43] and have developed new mitigation technologies, such as energy recovery [44], gas capture [45], biologically active cover [46] and microbial methane oxidation technology [47]. As one of the major developing countries, China had the second highest number of publications. In developing countries, such as China, due to the advantages of low costs and easy operation, 80% of MSW is landfilled or dumped [48]. Hence, the environmental impacts of GHG emissions from landfills have been highlighted, which was aided by the Kyoto mechanisms [49]. However, the TC and TC/P for China were relatively low, with high-quality articles remaining scarce. This is possibly due to the relative lack of scientific research capability compared with developed countries. Considering other indices, such as the TC/P and the h-index, the list appears to be more mixed, with other countries, such as Denmark, Australia, England and Canada, also playing a leading role in addition to the US. The striking case of Denmark, with a TC/P of 30.04, was partially due to a large number of citations of two articles, one on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management systems [50] and the other determining the greenhouse gases and global warming contributions [51]. The high TC/P value of Australia was the result of multiple high-quality articles. Figure 2 shows the distribution of citations by country.
Analysis of the country/territory information based on authors’ affiliations could contribute to a better understanding of the distribution of countries studying the GHG emissions from landfills [36]. In this study, a total of 2484 different authors were identified, and they each published between one and 15 papers. Table 2 displays the top ten most productive authors, who published 10% of the total publications. According to the data, Mortan Barlaz and Peter Kjeldsen dominated the list of publications and citations. There are other relevant authors in this field, such as Charlotte Scheutz (7 h-index, 9 articles), Haslenda Hashim (6 h-index, 8 articles) and Martin Schroth (6 h-index, 8 articles) among others. Moreover, it should be noted that Peter Kjeldsen and Charlotte Scheutz were co-authors on many articles. Similarly, Hashim, Ho, Lee and Lim were also co-authors of a number of relevant articles. However, compared with other fields, there is still a lack of transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations. Most of the collaborations were between the scholars from the same country or from the same laboratory based on the data analysis from WOS.
The 770 selected articles on landfill GHG emissions appeared in 202 journals. Generally speaking, the number of citations for a paper could reflect its influence, although errors in counting may sometimes occur [6]. As a journal’s impact may vary between research fields, the TC/P in relevant research, which only considers citations within one field, is a relatively suitable measure of a journal’s relative importance in a specific field [20]. Thus, the available surrogate parameters of TC and TC/P between 1999 and 2018 are also shown in Table 3. Moreover, the influential factor (IF), Scimago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) and h-index of these journals are also shown to measure their value according to their roles and statuses in scientific communication. As indicated by journal performance, there was a greater concentration of articles within the major journals. The top ten (4.95% out of the 202) journals published 343 (44.56%) of the total of 770 articles and received 7158 (53.75%) of the total 13316 citations. Waste Management had the highest output, with a total of 101 papers, followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (69 papers) and Waste Management Research (51 papers). Energy Policy had the highest TC/P score (59.90), followed by Environmental Science & Technology (38.85) and Science of the Total Environment (21.56).

3.2. Emerging Trends and Developments

As previously analyzed by Bogner et al., there has been rapid progress in the work on GHG emissions from landfills around the world, and the growth of this field might be related to the advanced understanding of waste management and the dynamic processes of the formation, transfer and consumption of greenhouse gases [52]. Therefore, the interdisciplinary study normally involves numerous disciplinary areas but also demonstrates shifts in the intensity of publications in terms of abrupt changes in subject categories, keywords and their citations [34]. The disciplines involving landfill GHG emissions included a total of 48 unique subject categories of WOS, with the top ten subject categories being displayed in Figure 3. Among them, environmental sciences ranked first and accounted for 69.35% of all articles, followed by engineering environmental (47.53%) and green sustainable science technology (14.55%). The publications related to energy fuels, atmospheric sciences and meteorology and engineering chemical were also important components of all publications.
The shift in keywords over time can also indicate the most active fields of publications on landfill GHG emissions. A total of 204 unique keywords appeared in the selected articles. The keywords with the strongest burst strength are shown in Figure 4; this time interval is depicted as a blue line. The period in which a keyword was found to exhibit a strong increase is shown as a red line, which indicates the beginning and the end year of the burst [34]. As shown in Figure 4, a large number of keywords with high citations burst in 1999. Initially, methane, waste disposal and greenhouse gases were the strongest keywords, while mitigation was the source of the most recent burst of keywords. The g m is the unit of the GHG emissions, namely g GHG m2. But the CiteSpace cannot identify superscript. So, the Figure 4 showed g m as a keyword with the strongest strength citation burst.

3.3. Cluster Analysis of Citations by CiteSpace

CiteSpace represents the literature in terms of a network synthesized from a series of integrated individual networks before forming an overview of how a scientific field has evolved over time [53]. The structure of the research field on landfill GHG emissions was characterized in this study by a synthesized network of 770 references co-cited during 1999–2018 according to the top 50 most-cited articles. Every single node represents the references cited by each article in this field, and the connectivity between these nodes indicates how often they are referenced in the same article. The networks in this form have been proven to have the ability to capture the research emphases of the potential scientific community [34,53,54,55]. As shown in Figure 5, the landmark articles with citation bursts were all depicted as large citation rings in yellow. The thickness of the ring indicates the degree of its betweenness centrality, which is a measure associated with the transformative potential of a scientific contribution [53]. In addition, CiteSpace divides the co-citation network into a number of clusters of co-cited references such that the references are tightly connected within the same clusters but loosely connected between different clusters [53]. Table 4 lists all clusters shown in Figure 5 and sorts them by reference numbers in terms of their size. Each cluster is labelled by the noun phrases from keywords of the cited articles in the cluster [55]. CiteSpace provides three algorithms of label extraction, namely, LSI, LLR and MI. Among them, the cluster labels provided by LLR will be much more consistent with the actual situation and have less repetition [56]. However, it should be noted that the consistency of generated labels and the actual literature need to be reconfirmed irrespective of the algorithm used [57]. In order to more accurately measure the quality of a cluster, the silhouette score was also used. The silhouette values of every cluster in Table 4 are close to one, which means that all clusters are highly homogeneous.
As shown in Figure 5, the largest cluster was the #0 Fakse landfill biocover, which contained 63 member-references. The homogeneity of the cluster that was measured by the silhouette score was 0.845, which was close to the highest value of 1.00 and suggests reliable quality [32]. Optimum environmental conditions are provided to microorganisms that exist in interim or long-term biocovers for methane mitigation [58]. Biocovers have been widely adopted as a method to counteract the rise in methane emissions due to their efficient capability in terms of methane capture and high energy recovery efficiency from captured gas [59]. The #0 Fakse landfill biocover cluster located in the center of the visualization also means that it has a high concentration of references and was significant in the study of landfill GHG emissions. The #1 life cycle assessment (LCA) cluster also attracted a large number of references (size: 53). The methodological development in LCA has been strong, and LCA has been broadly applied in practice in recent years to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of waste treatment [60,61,62]. Falcone and Imbert suggested that LCAs represent a valuable framework whose transdisciplinary nature clearly demonstrated the importance of integrating economic models as well as ecological and social theories [63].
As supplementary information, the references with the strongest citation bursts during 1999–2018 are shown in Figure 6. Specific growth areas in the field are characterized by articles that experienced citation bursts [34]. As shown, the article by Spokas K in 2006 with the burst strength of 5.8655 had the strongest citation burst. Moreover, the top five articles with the strongest citation bursts are displayed in Table 5. Apart from Reference 2, all articles started their citation bursts in or after 2009.

3.4. Achievements and Prospects

During the past twenty years, GHG emissions have been a hot topic along with the aggravation of the global greenhouse effect. Furthermore, GHG emissions from landfills have also received widespread attention. In some ways, the research on GHG emissions from landfills has covered many mainstream aspects in this field. More importantly, governments in a similar way to scholars have become increasingly aware of GHG emissions and have realized that the control of waste treatment sectors is not only a scientific issue but also a strategy to partially alleviate the increasingly worsening impacts of global warming and to potentially promote sustainable development. Most governments are improving the level of waste management and are enforcing new policies to restrict GHG emissions that occur along the entire waste life cycle [67].
Being different from the incineration and the treatment of domestic and industrial wastewater, the main component of the GHG released from landfills is CH4, which accounts for 40–50% of the total emissions [5]. Hence, the studies on landfill GHG emissions mostly focused on model calculation, in-situ monitoring and emission reduction measures of CH4 [68,69]. With respect to in-situ monitoring, most studies concentrated primarily on CH4 emissions from the waste with different landfill ages and soil covering properties [66,70,71]. Moreover, the relationship between the environmental factors and CH4 emission has also been a research focus [72]. However, compared to CH4, the N2O generated from landfills seems to have been relatively ignored and subsequently, landfills have long been considered to be a negligible release source of N2O. Furthermore, the calculation methods of N2O emissions from landfills are not provided in the emission inventory of IPCC [73]. However, there have been reports of high emissions of N2O from some landfills, especially from the working face of landfills [4,74]. Similarly, GHG emissions from the leachate treatment system are not regarded as significant, so there are only a few relevant studies [75,76]. In addition, along with the technical enhancement of the covering materials, the covering soil is gradually replaced to increase the capacity and to extend the use time of landfills. However, GHG emissions from the surfaces of these covering materials have not been adequately studied. Finally, most of the existing articles use sanitary landfills as the target of the survey. However, it has been found that a considerable amount of GHGs is also generated from simple landfills [77]. Scholars have been less concerned about GHG emissions from simple landfills.

4. Conclusions

For the foreseeable future, landfills will remain as one of the main methods for solid waste disposal. Therefore, systematic and in-depth research on GHG emissions from landfill is needed. To comprehensively evaluate the articles related to GHG emissions from landfills and to provide a scientific basis and reference for GHG reduction, a bibliometric analysis was carried out, which focused on the publication country; the number of annual publications and citations; the most productive journals and key authors; and the major areas of research that the related articles were involved in. In addition, the historical evolution of the primary performance was presented. Based on the hot research topics, eighteen major clusters were identified using CiteSpace. The citation mode was determined in this research field for the past twenty years. Finally, the existing limitations in this field were discussed, aiming to provide relevant information and to assist future studies.

Author Contributions

C.Z., T.X. and S.C. conceived and designed the methodologies; C.Z. and H.F. collected and analyzed the data; C.Z. and T.X. wrote the paper; S.C and T.X reviewed and edited the paper; S.C. provided the funding.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41475130) and (71874174), the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC0704703), and the Pilot Project of Science and Technology Program of Fujian Province (2019Y0075).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Yu Zhao for excellent support in the cartographic drawing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, J.; Chen, Z.; Yang, L.; Xi, S. Study on trends and performance of landfill research from 1999 to 2013 by using bibliometric analysis. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2015, 34, 1349–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Omar, H.; Rohani, S. Treatment of landfill waste, leachate and landfill gas: A review. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2015, 9, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stocker, T. IPCC, 2013: Technical Summary. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 159–254. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bogner, J.E.; Spokas, K.A.; Chanton, J.P. Seasonal greenhouse gas emissions (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide) from engineered landfills: Daily, intermediate, and final California cover soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 1010–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bogner, J.; Ahmed, M.A.; Diaz, C.; Gao, Q.; Faaij, A.; Hashimoto, S.; Mareckova, K.; Pipatti, R.; Zhang, T. Waste Management in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 585–618. [Google Scholar]
  6. Geng, Y.; Chen, W.; Liu, Z.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Han, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhong, S.; Qian, Y.; You, W.; Cui, X. A bibliometric review: Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 301–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, X.; Jia, M.; Zhang, H.; Pan, S.; Kao, C.M.; Chen, S. Quantifying N2O emissions and production pathways from fresh waste during the initial stage of disposal to a landfill. Waste Manag. 2017, 63, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rinne, J.; Pihlatie, M.; Lohila, A.; Thum, T.; Aurela, M.; Tuovinen, J.P.; Laurila, T.; Vesala, T. Nitrous oxide emissions from a municipal landfill. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tecle, D.; Lee, J.; Hasan, S. Quantitative analysis of physical and geotechnical factors affecting methane emission in municipal solid waste landfill. Environ. Geol. 2009, 56, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nikiema, J.; Brzezinski, R.; Heitz, M. Elimination of methane generated from landfills by biofiltration: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2007, 6, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.N.; Sun, X.; Wu, H.; Zhang, H. Production characteristics of N 2 O during stabilization of municipal solid waste in an intermittent aerated semi-aerobic bioreactor landfill. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2729–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barlaz, M.A.; Chanton, J.P.; Green, R.B. Controls on landfill gas collection efficiency: Instantaneous and lifetime performance. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2009, 59, 1399–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Börjesson, G.; Bo, H.S. Nitrous oxide emissions from landfill cover soils in Sweden. Tellus Ser. B-Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 1997, 49, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jha, A.K.; Sharma, C.; Singh, N.; Ramesh, R.; Purvaja, R.; Gupta, P.K. Greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management in Indian mega-cities: A case study of Chennai landfill sites. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Watzinger, A.; Reichenauer, T.G.; Blum, W.E.H.; Gerzabek, M.H.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. The effect of landfill leachate irrigation on soil gas composition: Methane oxidation and nitrous oxide formation. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 164, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bogner, J.E.; Spokas, K.A.; Burton, E.A. Temporal Variations in Greenhouse Gas Emissions at a Midlatitude Landfill. J. Environ. Qual. 1999, 28, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Narin, F.; Pinski, G.; Gee, H.H. Structure of the Biomedical Literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 27, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. van Raan, A.F.J. For Your Citations Only? Hot Topics in Bibliometric Analysis. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 2005, 3, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, W.; Qian, W.; Ho, Y.S. A bibliometric analysis of research related to ocean circulation. Scientometrics 2009, 80, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ji, Q.; Pang, X.; Zhao, X. A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 1993–2012. Scientometrics 2014, 101, 1925–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Abejón, R.; Garea, A. A bibliometric analysis of research on arsenic in drinking water during the 1992–2012 period: An outlook to treatment alternatives for arsenic removal. J. Water Process Eng. 2015, 6, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, L.; Chen, Z.; Gong, Z.; Yu, Y.; Wang, J. Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2013, 96, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chiu, W.T.; Ho, Y.S. Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics 2007, 73, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J.; Davarzani, H. Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 162, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Valenciano, J.D.P.; Gazquez-Abad, J.C. Worldwide Research on Circular Economy and Environment: A Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Martin, M.; Royne, F.; Ekvall, T.; Moberg, A. Life Cycle Sustainability Evaluations of Bio-based Value Chains: Reviewing the Indicators from a Swedish Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Small, H.; Sweeney, E. Clustering the science citation index® using co-citations. Scientometrics 1985, 7, 391–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garfield, E. “Science Citation Index”—A New Dimension in Indexing. Science 1964, 144, 649–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hirsch, J. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research out-put. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 16569–16572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jacsó, P. Google Scholar Metrics for Publications. Online Inf. Rev. 2013, 36, 604–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, C.M.; Dubin, R.; Kim, M.C. Orphan drugs and rare diseases: A scientometric review (2000–2014). Exp. Opin. Orphan Drugs 2014, 2, 709–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. University, D.; Yue, U.C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chaomei, C.; Rachael, D.; Meen Chul, K. Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: A scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2014, 14, 1295. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wei, F.; Grubesic, T.H.; Bishop, B.W. Exploring the GIS Knowledge Domain Using CiteSpace. Prof. Geogr. 2015, 67, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Xiang, C.Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, H.W. A scientometrics review on nonpoint source pollution research. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 99, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mor, S.; Ravindra, K.; Visscher, A.D.; Dahiya, R.P.; Chandra, A. Municipal solid waste characterization and its assessment for potential methane generation: A case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 371, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Siddiqui, F.Z.; Khan, M.E.; Rajaram, R. From Landfill Gas to Energy: Technologies and Challenges; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lou, X.F.; Nair, J. The impact of landfilling and composting on greenhouse gas emissions—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 99, 3792–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse gas Emissions: 1990–2020. Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/epa_global_nonco2_projections_dec2012.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  41. Miller, S.M.; Wofsy, S.C.; Michalak, A.M.; Kort, E.A.; Andrews, A.E.; Biraud, S.C.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Janusz, E.; Fischer, M.L.; Greet, J.M. Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20018–20022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Greenblatt, J.B.; Wei, M. Assessment of the climate commitments and additional mitigation policies of the United States. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Weitz, K.A.; Thorneloe, S.A.; Nishtala, S.R.; Yarkosky, S.; Zannes, M. The impact of municipal solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2002, 52, 1000–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spokas, K.; Bogner, J.; Chanton, J.P.; Morcet, M.; Aran, C.; Graff, C.; Moreau-Le Golvan, Y.; Hebe, I. Methane mass balance at three landfill sites: What is the efficiency of capture by gas collection systems? Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yuan, B.; Wu, X.F.; Chen, Y.X.; Huang, J.H.; Luo, H.M.; Deng, S.G. Adsorption of CO2, CH4, and N-2 on Ordered Mesoporous Carbon: Approach for Greenhouse Gases Capture and Biogas Upgrading. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5474–5480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Barlaz, M.A.; Green, R.B.; Chanton, J.P.; Goldsmith, C.D.; Hater, G.R. Evaluation of a biologically active cover for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4891–4899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scheutz, C.; Kjeldsen, P.; Bogner, J.E.; De Visscher, A.; Gebert, J.; Hilger, H.A.; Huber-Humer, M.; Spokas, K. Microbial methane oxidation processes and technologies for mitigation of landfill gas emissions. Waste Manag. Res. 2009, 27, 409–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, N.; Zhang, H.; Shao, L.M.; Fan, L.; He, P.J. Greenhouse gas emissions during MSW landfilling in China: Influence of waste characteristics and LFG treatment measures. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, W.; Van Der Voet, E.; Zhang, Y.; Huppes, G. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: Case study of Tianjin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1517–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Christensen, T.H.; Gentil, E.; Boldrin, A.; Larsen, A.W.; Weidema, B.P.; Hauschild, M. C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming potentials in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag. Res. 2009, 27, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Manfredi, S.; Tonini, D.; Christensen, T.H.; Scharff, H. Landfilling of waste: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 2009, 27, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bogner, J.; Pipatti, R.; Hashimoto, S.; Diaz, C.; Mareckova, K.; Diaz, L.; Kjeldsen, P.; Monni, S.; Faaij, A.; Gao, Q.X.; et al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: Conclusions and strategies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation). Waste Manag. Res. 2008, 26, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Chaomei, C.; Zhigang, H.; Shengbo, L.; Hung, T. Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2012, 12, 593–608. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chen, C. Predictive Effects of Structural Variation on Citation Counts. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 63, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, C.; Ibekwesanjuan, F.; Hou, J. The Structure and Dynamics of Co-Citation Clusters: A Multiple-Perspective Co-Citation Analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 61, 1386–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, C.; Chen, Y. Searching for clinical evidence in CiteSpace. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2005, 2005, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
  57. Chen, H.; Zhao, G.; Xu, N. The Analysis of Research Hotspots and Fronts of Knowledge Visualization Based on CiteSpace II. In Hybrid Learning. ICHL 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 7411. [Google Scholar]
  58. Huber-Humer, M.; Gebert, J.; Hilger, H. Biotic systems to mitigate landfill methane emissions. Waste Manag. Res. 2008, 26, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sadasivam, B.Y.; Reddy, K.R. Landfill methane oxidation in soil and bio-based cover systems: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio-Technol. 2014, 13, 79–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinee, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Bernstad, A.; Jansen, J.L. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems—Current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 2439–2455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tian, H.Z.; Gao, J.J.; Hao, J.M.; Lu, L.; Zhu, C.Y.; Qiu, P.P. Atmospheric pollution problems and control proposals associated with solid waste management in China: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 252, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Falcone, P.M.; Imbert, E. Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ma, J.; Rixey, W.G.; Devaull, G.E.; Stafford, B.P.; Alvarez, P.J.J. Methane Bioattenuation and Implications for Explosion Risk Reduction along the Groundwater to Soil Surface Pathway above a Plume of Dissolved Ethanol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 6013–6019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Kennedy, C. Waste production must peak this century. Nature 2013, 502, 615–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abichou, T.; Lei, Y.; Chanton, J.P.; Stern, J.C.; Powelson, D.; Escoriaza, S.; Fleiger, J. Methane flux and oxidation at two types of intermediate landfill covers. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Streets, D.G.; Jiang, K.; Hu, X.; Sinton, J.E.; Zhang, X.Q.; Xu, D.; Jacobson, M.Z.; Hansen, J.E. Climate change. Recent reductions in China’s greenhouse gas emissions. Science 2001, 294, 1835–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Trapani, D.D.; Bella, G.D.; Viviani, G. Uncontrolled methane emissions from a MSW landfill surface: Influence of landfill features and side slopes. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2108–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Capaccioni, B.; Caramiello, C.; Tatàno, F.; Viscione, A. Effects of a temporary HDPE cover on landfill gas emissions: Multiyear evaluation with the static chamber approach at an Italian landfill. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ishigaki, T.; Chu, V.C.; Sang, N.N.; Ike, M.; Otsuka, K.; Yamada, M.; Inoue, Y. Estimation and field measurement of methane emission from waste landfills in Hanoi, Vietnam. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2008, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, H.; Shao, H.L. Methane emissions from MSW landfill with sandy soil covers under leachate recirculation and subsurface irrigation. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 5579–5588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chai, X.; Lou, Z.; Takayuki, S.; Hirofumi, N.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, X.; Teppei, K.; Toshio, I.; Zhao, Y. Characteristics of environmental factors and their effects on CH4 and CO2 emissions from a closed landfill: An ecological case study of Shanghai. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 446–451. [Google Scholar]
  73. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Comput. Geom. 2007, 18, 95–123. [Google Scholar]
  74. Harborth, P.; Fuss, R.; Münnich, K.; Flessa, H.; Fricke, K. Spatial variability of nitrous oxide and methane emissions from an MBT landfill in operation: Strong N2O hotspots at the working face. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2099–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Czepiel, P.; Crill, P.; Harriss, R. Nitrous oxide emissions from municipal wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1995, 29, 2352–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kampschreur, M.J.; Temmink, H.; Kleerebezem, R.; Jetten, M.S.M.; Loosdrecht, M.C.M.V. Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2009, 43, 4093–4103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Flux measurements of greenhouse gases from an abandoned open dumping site of solid waste in Sri Lanka. Available online: http://dl.lib.mrt.ac.lk/handle/123/9097 (accessed on 12 April 2019).
Figure 1. Trends in the quantity of articles and citations identified by Web of Science (WOS) that are related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills from 1999 to 2018.
Figure 1. Trends in the quantity of articles and citations identified by Web of Science (WOS) that are related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills from 1999 to 2018.
Sustainability 11 02282 g001
Figure 2. Total citations per country.
Figure 2. Total citations per country.
Sustainability 11 02282 g002
Figure 3. Top ten subject categories with the most articles over the twenty-year period.
Figure 3. Top ten subject categories with the most articles over the twenty-year period.
Sustainability 11 02282 g003
Figure 4. Top 20 keywords with the strongest strength citation burst.
Figure 4. Top 20 keywords with the strongest strength citation burst.
Sustainability 11 02282 g004
Figure 5. Map based on co-occurrence on the author topics from 1999 to 2018.
Figure 5. Map based on co-occurrence on the author topics from 1999 to 2018.
Sustainability 11 02282 g005
Figure 6. References with the strongest citation bursts (1999–2018).
Figure 6. References with the strongest citation bursts (1999–2018).
Sustainability 11 02282 g006
Table 1. Top ten most productive countries in terms of relevant articles from 1999 to 2018.
Table 1. Top ten most productive countries in terms of relevant articles from 1999 to 2018.
CountryPubs a% bTC cTC/P dh-index
1USA18323.77348219.0333
2China10713.9136312.7421
3Canada638.18121119.2219
4England516.62130225.5322
5Australia465.97131428.5717
6Italy374.8163717.2215
7Japan354.5552715.0613
8Spain283.6449517.6812
9Denmark263.3878130.0417
10South Korea253.2531012.48
Note: Pubs a (Publication): total number of publications related to GHG emissions from landfills. % b (Percentage): percentage of publications relative to the total dataset of 770 papers. TC c: the total citations for a country. TC/P d: average number of citations per paper for a country.
Table 2. Key authors reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills.
Table 2. Key authors reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills.
AuthorPubs a% bTC cTC/P dh-index
1Mortan Barlaz151.9543729.139
2Peter Kjeldsen91.1724126.787
3Charlotte Scheutz91.1721724.117
4Haslenda Hashim81.0420125.136
5Martin Schroth81.0411714.636
6Wai Shin Ho70.9119227.435
7Thomas Christensen60.7831552.505
8Chew-Tin Lee60.7818831.335
9Jeng-Shiun Lim60.78138235
10Mika Horttanainen60.7860104
Note: Pubs a (Publication): total number of publications related to GHG emissions from landfills. % b (Percentage): percentage of publications relative to the total dataset of 770 papers. TC c: the total citations for a country. TC/P d: average number of citations per paper for a country.
Table 3. Top ten productive journals in terms of related studies.
Table 3. Top ten productive journals in terms of related studies.
JournalsPubs a% bTC cTC/P dh-indexIFSJR
Waste Management10113.12208020.59244.7231.456
Journal of Cleaner Production698.96134019.42215.6511.467
Waste Management Research516.6285216.71151.6310.519
Resources Conservation and Recycling283.6449217.57145.1201.462
Environmental Science & Technology263.38101038.85186.6532.535
Journal of the Air Waste Management Association182.341558.5161.7420.744
Science of the Total Environment162.0834521.5694.6101.546
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management131.69876.6951.6930.491
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment111.4319818.00104.1951.268
Energy Policy101.3059959.90104.0391.994
Note: Pubs a (Publication): total number of publications related to GHG emissions from landfills. % b (Percentage): percentage of publications relative to the total dataset of 770 papers. TC c: the total citations for a country. TC/P d: average number of citations per paper for a country.
Table 4. Clusters of co-cited references.
Table 4. Clusters of co-cited references.
Cluster IDSizeSilhouetteLabel (LSI)Label (LLR)Label (MI)Year Ave.
0630.845methaneFakse landfill biocovergreenhouse gas effect2006
1530.733life cycle assessmentlife cycle assessmentgreenhouse gas effect2009
2520.821greenhouse gas emissionsdifferent municipal solid waste management scenariosgreenhouse gas effect2013
3510.715greenhouse gas emissionsorganic waste management optiongreenhouse gas effect2007
4500.763greenhouse gas emissionsmaterial flow indicatorgreenhouse gas effect2008
5410.749assessmentresearch statusgreenhouse gas effect2011
6300.903life cycle assessmentMSW accountinggreenhouse gas effect2005
7270.963methane oxidationtemporal variationgreenhouse gas effect1997
8160.893effectsgas transport parametergreenhouse gas emission2006
9140.976Tibetan plateaumethanotrophic communitiesgreenhouse gas emission2008
11110.998production;final cover reviewgreenhouse gas emission2011
10110.944wood productswood productsgreenhouse gas emission2010
1380.968resourceglobal waste management systemgreenhouse gas emission2012
1470.972situ quantificationusing Voronoi diagramgreenhouse gas emission2004
1660.963emissionsmitigating greenhouse gas emissionsgreenhouse gas emission1995
1760.996landfill-cover soillandfill-cover soilgreenhouse gas emission2007
Table 5. Top five references with the strongest citation bursts during 1999–2018.
Table 5. Top five references with the strongest citation bursts during 1999–2018.
RankReferencesCitation Burst
StrengthBeginEnd
1Spokas [44]5.865520102013
2DeVaull [64]5.287620022007
3Hoornweg [65]5.035420162018
4USA EPA [40]4.861520092014
5Abichou [66]4.750320112013

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, C.; Xu, T.; Feng, H.; Chen, S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082282

AMA Style

Zhang C, Xu T, Feng H, Chen S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2019; 11(8):2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082282

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Chengliang, Tong Xu, Hualiang Feng, and Shaohua Chen. 2019. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 11, no. 8: 2282. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082282

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop