The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Field Water Balance of Landfill Final Covers
Abstract
Landfill covers are critical to waste containment, yet field performance of specific cover designs has not been well documented and seldom been compared in side‐by‐side testing. A study was conducted to assess the ability of landfill final covers to control percolation into underlying waste. Conventional covers employing resistive barriers as well as alternative covers relying on water‐storage principles were monitored in large (10 × 20 m), instrumented drainage lysimeters over a range of climates at 11 field sites in the United States. Surface runoff was a small fraction of the water balance (0–10%, 4% on average) and was nearly insensitive to the cover slope, cover design, or climate. Lateral drainage from internal drainage layers was also a small fraction of the water balance (0–5.0%, 2.0% on average). Average percolation rates for the conventional covers with composite barriers (geomembrane over fine soil) typically were less than 12 mm/yr (1.4% of precipitation) at humid locations and 1.5 mm/yr (0.4% of precipitation) at arid, semiarid, and subhumid locations. Average percolation rates for conventional covers with soil barriers in humid climates were between 52 and 195 mm/yr (6–17% of precipitation), probably due to preferential flow through defects in the soil barrier. Average percolation rates for alternative covers ranged between 33 and 160 mm/yr (6 and 18% of precipitation) in humid climates and generally less than 2.2 mm/yr (0.4% of precipitation) in arid, semiarid, and subhumid climates. One‐half (five) of the alternative covers in arid, semiarid, and subhumid climates transmitted less than 0.1 mm of percolation, but two transmitted much more percolation (26.8 and 52 mm) than anticipated during design. The data collected support conclusions from other studies that detailed, site‐specific design procedures are very important for successful performance of alternative landfill covers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Modeling Soil Processes: Review, Key Challenges, and New Perspectives
Vereecken, H., Schnepf, A., Hopmans, J. W., Javaux, M., Or, D., Roose, T., Vanderborght, J., Young, M. H., Amelung, W., Aitkenhead, M., et al. (2016) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.2136/vzj2015.09.0131 · Cited by 833
Bussière, B. (2007) · Canadian Geotechnical Journal · doi:10.1139/t07-040 · Cited by 310
Padhye, L. P., Srivastava, P., Jasemizad, T., Bolan, S., Hou, D., Shaheen, S. M., Rinklebe, J., O’Connor, D., Lamb, D., Wang, H., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131575 · Cited by 198
Metadata
- Authors
- Albright, W. H., Benson, C. H., Gee, G. W., Roesler, A. C., Abichou, T., Apiwantragoon, P., Lyles, B. F., & Rock, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Quality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2317-2332
- ISSN
- 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2537
- OpenAlex
- W2069224703
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Field Water Balance of Landfill Final Covers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/jeq2004.2317
- The paper
- Albright, W. H., Benson, C. H., Gee, G. W., Roesler, A. C., Abichou, T., Apiwantragoon, P., Lyles, B. F., & Rock, S. A. (2004). Field Water Balance of Landfill Final Covers. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.2317
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.