• No results found

The choice of waste components in household waste composition studies

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "The choice of waste components in household waste composition studies"

Copied!
2
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

4th ICLRS, June 14-16, Gällivare, Sweden

Page 67

The choice of waste components in household waste composition studies

Lisa Dahlén [email protected], Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå Anders Lagerkvist [email protected], Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå

Results from waste component studies can hardly be compared if there are fundamental differences in the reported sorting categories. Most methods suggest a limited number of primary categories (also called main components), and a large number of secondary, tertiary, etc. categories. In general the statistical significance will decrease when the number of components increases. In 16 reviewed methods the number of primary categories varied between 2 and 47. When the outliers (2 and 47) were excluded, the average was 12 primary categories, with a variation between 9 and 20. Components commonly suggested as primary categories in the reviewed methods were: biodegradable waste, paper, plastics, glass, metals, wood, textiles, hazardous waste, other organics, other inorganics and fines. Less common components, suggested as primary categories, were: leather and rubber, composites, packaging, diapers, waste electric and electronic equipment, batteries, construction debris, inert materials, and miscellaneous.

Different terms are used to describe the same thing, or nearly the same thing, but even when the reported categories literally are the same, the sorting instructions may vary and the same category may be understood in different ways. There is not yet a European standard for household waste composition studies (European Commission, 2004). Always using the same primary categories would naturally facilitate comparisons, both over time and between regions/countries. A limited number of primary categories (not more than 10), as far as possible based on physical material and stringently defined as suggested in Table 1, would re- duce the risk of misunderstandings. The secondary categories suggested in Table 1 are mainly based on the present Swedish legislation (the Ordinance on Producer Responsibility), i.e. with regard to type of product.

The demand for composition data can be divided into three groups; concerning material quality information for waste treatment facilities, concerning the function of collection systems, or concerning more general assessments like e.g. international comparisons of waste characteristics. Waste composition data for planning, dimensioning and operating landfills is generally adequate in less than the nine categories suggested in Table 1. The primary categories can easily be aggregated to desired data resolution, e.g. to the following six categories relevant for landfill operation: biowaste, burnable recyclables, not burnable recyclables, other burnables, remaining inorganics, and hazardous waste.

Identified questions for further research

- Which components are most relevant to study and for which reasons? Is it possible to agree internationally about a few stringent primary categories, which fulfil all needs to subdivide (or merge) to desired components for any specific case?

- How to make corrections for errors because of moisture and food scraps? Is it a good idea to recommend general correction factors?

- Which components are most relevant to analyse chemically and physically (moisture content, density, heavy metals, energy value, etc.) and if so for which reasons?

(2)

4th ICLRS, June 14-16, Gällivare, Sweden

Page 68

Table 1 Suggested categories for household waste composition studies. Materials marked with * fall under the Producer Responsibility in Sweden.

primary category secondary category

- food waste - garden waste 1. Biowaste

- newsprint, journals, etc.*

- corrugated cardboard *

- paper packaging * (>50 weight-% paper) - other paper

2. Paper

- plastic film * - foamed plastic *

- dense plastic packaging * (>50 weight-%

plastic) - other plastic 3. Plastic

- glass packaging * - other glass 4. Glass

- metal packaging * (>50 weight-% metal) - other metal

5. Metal

6. Other inorganics

(e.g. porcelain, ashes, cat sand, fuses)

7. Hazardous waste (except electronics) note type of hazardous waste

8. WEEE *

(Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment)

note type of WEEE

- wood - textile fabric - diapers, napkins 9. Everything else

- everything else which does not fit in any other category (e.g. leather, shoes, soap, complex products)

References

Dahlén, L. (2005) To Evaluate Source Sorting Programs in Household Waste Collection Systems. Licentiate Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

European Commission (2004) Methodology for the Analysis of Solid Waste (SWA-tool), 5th Framework Program, www.swa-tool.net, Vienna, Austria

References

Related documents

Ett större urval skulle eventuellt vara önskvärt , men eftersom företagen skulle vara så pass stora att de hade ekonomiska förutsättningar att satsa på hälsofrämjande

The aims of the study were to (1) present a Swedish translation of the PISI, (2) examine the factor structure of the Swedish version of PISI, and test the reliability and validity

Att öka statusen och få fler att välja att utbilda sig inom de gröna näringarna höjer intresset för svenska livsmedel och viljan att jobba inom denna näring. Idag

Att öka statusen och få fler att välja att utbilda sig inom de gröna näringarna höjer intresset för svenska livsmedel och viljan att jobba inom denna näring. Idag

The analysis in this paper is general and can without difficulty be extended to any coupled system of partial differential equations posed as an initial boundary value problem

With the growing use of mobile money services and new use cases arising, it has become important to research into the security practices of mobile network

Based on the results of such studies, [12], [34], we propose a decision support system for selecting and prioritizing test cases dynamically at the level of integration

The distance-to-wall measure (a measure that gauges how much of the entry-ramp remains at the time of merge-completion) for the Vinsta ramp (0.5 km) with heavy traffic is