Waste Characterization

7/30/2019 Waste Characterization

1/35

Solid Waste Management

Department of

Geologyand

Environmentscience

at Islamic University of Gaza

(IUG)

-represent-

-March 2007-

Presented by

Prof. Dr. Samir Afifi


2/35

1/34

2- Waste Characterization

2-Waste Characterization

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Waste Generation Rates2.3 Waste Composition

2.4 Waste Trends


3/35

2/34


Main elements of waste characterization:

Waste sources and types

Waste generation rate Waste composition


4/35

3/34


Important of waste characterization:

It is necessary to mon i tor and con tro l

exist ing waste management sys tems and tomake regulatory, f inanc ial , and inst i tu t ional

decis ions.


5/35

4/34


2.1 Waste sources and types

There are eight major classifications of

solid waste generators based on waste

source:

Resident ial , Industr ial , Commercial ,

Ins t i tut ional , cons truc t ion and Demo l i tion ,

Mun icipal services, Process , andAgr icul tura l .


6/35

5/34


Types of solid wastesTypical wastegenerators

Source

Food wastes, paper, cardboard,

plastics, textiles, leather, yard

wastes, wood, glass, metals, ashes,

special wastes (e.g., bulky items,consumer electronics, white goods,

batteries, oil, tires), and household

hazardous wastes

Single and multifamily

dwellings

Residential

Housekeeping wastes, packaging,

food wastes, construction anddemolition materials, hazardous

wastes, ashes, special wastes

Light and heavy

manufacturing,fabrication, construction

sites, power and

chemical plants

Industrial

Table 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes

All of the above should be included as municipal solid waste.


7/356/34



Source

Paper, cardboard, plastics,

wood, food wastes, glass,

metals, special wastes,

hazardous wastes

Stores, hotels,

restaurants, markets,

office buildings, etc.

Commercial

Same as commercialSchools, hospitals,

prisons, government

centers

Institutional

Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc.New constructionsites, road repair,

renovation sites,

demolition of

buildings

Constructionand Demolition

ContinueTable 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes



8/357/34



Source

Street sweepings; landscape

and tree trimmings; general

wastes from parks, beaches, and

other recreational areas; sludge

Street cleaning,

landscaping, parks,

beaches, other

recreational areas,

water and wastewater

treatment plants

Municipal

services

Industrial process wastes, scrap

materials, off-specificationproducts, slag, tailings

Heavy and light

manufacturing,refineries, chemical

plants, power plants,

mineral extraction and

processing

Process

Continue Table 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes



9/358/34


Spoiled food wastes,

agricultural wastes,

hazardous wastes (e.g.,

pesticides)

Crops, orchards,

vineyards, dairies,

feedlots, farms

Agriculture

ContinueTable 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes


10/359/34


MSW includes:

Residential, commercial, industrial,

institutional, construction, demolition,process, and municipal services.


11/3510/34


Some sources are common ly exc luded,

such as indus tr ial , construct ion and

demol i t ion, and mun icipal services.

In h igh income coun tr ies, on ly 25

percent to 35 percent o f the overal l waste

stream is from resident ial sou rces.


12/3511/34


If mun icipal waste stream includes

cons truct ion and demol i t ion waste, the

quant i ty of waste is doub led.


13/3512/34


2.2Waste Generation Rates

Factors Influence Waste Generation

Rates: Socioeconomic development,

Degree of industrialization,

Climate.


14/3513/34


Greater the econom ic wealth and the

higher percentage of urban popu lat ion ,

the greater the amount o f so l id wasteproduced

Low income coun tr ies have the lowest

percentage of urban populat ions and thelowest waste generat ion rates,


15/35

14/34


As GNP increases toward the m idd le

income range, the per capita waste

generat ion rates also inc rease,


16/35

15/34


Current UrbanGNP Per

Capita

Country

MSW

Generation

(kg/capita/day)

(1995 US $)

0.64490Low Income

0.50200Nepal

0.49240Bangladesh

0.45240Myanmar

0.55240Vietnam

0.60310Mongolia

0.46340India

0.69350Lao PDR

0.79620China

0.89700Sri Lanka

MSWGeneration

(kg/capita/day)

GNP PerCapita

Country

0.731,410Middle

Income

0.76980Indonesia

0.521,050Philippines

1.102,740Thailand

0.813,890Malaysia

1.6430,990High Income

1.599,700Korea,

Republic of

5.07*22,990Hong Kong

1.1026,730Singapore

1.4739,640Japan*Enorm ous qu ant i t ies of con struct ion anddemol i t ion waste

Table 2: Current Urban Municipal Solid Waste Generation


17/35


18/35

17/34


Percentages based on a weightedaverage of the compositions for individual

countries

Compositions for municipal solid waste

based on wet weight

Different definitions and methodologiesfor determining composition


19/35

18/34


Figure 1: Waste Composition of Low, Middle, and High

Income Countries


20/35

19/34


Conclusion Low and middle income countries have

a high percentage of compostable

organic matter (40 to 85%)

Percentage of consumer packaging

wastes increases relative to the

populations degree of wealth andurbanization.


21/35

20/34


Continue Conclusion

Presence of paper, plastic, glass, and

metal becomes more prevalent in the

waste stream of middle and high income

countries.


22/35

21/34


Figure 2: Variations in Waste Generation and Composition


23/35

22/34


2.4 Waste Trends

Figure 3: United StatesMaterial Consumption Trends,

1900-89 (millions of tones)


24/35

23/34


Japanhas experienced waste trendscomparable to the United States. Waste

quantities were rising until 1970, declined

temporarily after the 1973 energy crisis,and then rose again slightly.

Since 1990, generation rates have

stabilized due to an economic slow-downand the implementation of waste

reduction policies.


25/35

24/34


Figure 4: China City Waste Composition


26/35

25/34


Chinais also experiencing rapid

population and economic growth.

Consequently, municipal solid waste is

increasing in excess of 10 percent per year.


27/35

26/34


MSW quantities have increased from

1.19 million tones in 1985 to 1.50 million

tones in 1993

Composition shifting towards plastic

and paper packaging a reflection of

improved living standards.


28/35

27/34


2025 Urban

MSW

Generation

(kg/capita/day)

2025

Urban

Populati

on(% of

Total)

GNP

Per

Capita

in

2025

( US $)

Country

0.6-1.048.81,050Low

Income

0.634.3360Nepal

0.640.0440Bangladesh

0.647.3580Myanmar

0.739.0580Vietnam

0.976.5560Mongolia

0.745.2620India

0.844.5850Lao PDR

0.954.51,500China

1.042.61,300Sri Lanka

0.8-1.561.13,390MiddleIncome

1.060.72,400Indonesia

0.874.32,500Philippines

1.539.16,650Thailand

1.472.79,400Malaysia

1.1-4.588.241,14

0

High

Income

1.493.717,60

0

Korea,

Republic of

4.597.331,00

0

Hong Kong

1.1100.036,00

0

Singapore

1.384.953,50

0

Japan

Table 3: 2025 Urban Per Capita MunicipalSolid Waste Generation


29/35

28/34


Waste generation rate forlow incomecountries increase by approximately 0.2 kg

per day

Packaging wastes, such as paper, plastic,

and glass, will increase as economies

increase


30/35

29/34


Middle income countries should anticipate

increase of about 0.3 kg/c.d

Overall, waste composition is predicted tobecome even more variable as the

percentage of compostable matter

declines, and packaging wastes, especially

paper and plastic, increase.


31/35

30/34


Figure 5: Total Waste Quantities and Volumes Generated by Low, Middle and HighIncome Countries (per day)


32/35

31/34


MSW Status By 2025:Urban populations from low and middle

income countries will triple their current

rate of MSW generationLow income countries will generate more

than twice as much MSW than all of the

middle and high income countries


33/35

32/34


Continue MSW Status By 2025:Such a dramatic increase will place

enormous stress on limited financial

resources and inadequate wastemanagement systems.

Per capita MSW generation rate in high

income countries is expected to remainstable or even decrease slightly due to the

strengthening of waste minimization

programs.


34/35

33/34


Continue MSW Status By 2025:

Overall MSW composition for high income

countries is predicted to be relatively

stable;

A different trend when comparing waste

volume; Average waste densities of 500

kg/m3, 300 kg/m3, and 150 kg/m3 were used

to calculate the volume of waste generated

for low, medium, and high income


35/35

/


Continue MSW Status By 2025:

Low income countries currently produce

the highest quantity of waste on mass

basis; high income countries generate the

most waste on volumetric basis.

Increase in volume result of paper,

plastics, bulky wastes, and other multi-

material packaging in high incomecountries. Low and middle income

countries have a larger percentage of high

d it i tt d h id

Waste Characterization

Documents

Transcript of Waste Characterization