Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s10661-010-1490-8
Received: 21 August 2009 / Accepted: 20 April 2010 / Published online: 20 May 2010
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Introduction
The rapid population growth and expanding urbanization have caused the increase of the waste
generation and the variety of waste composition. Many cities and towns in developing countries face serious environmental degradation and
health risks due to the weak solid waste management. For effective planning of waste management, the importance of elucidating reliable
information on both the quantity and the composition of municipal solid waste (MSW), especially of household solid waste (HSW), has been
recognized (Dennison et al. 1996a; McDougall
et al. 2001). Many previous studies have examined HSW generation and physical HSW composition. Ojeda-Benitez et al. (2003), Alhumoud
et al. (2007), and Qu et al. (2009) analyzed HSW
24
Methodology
Organization of samples
Classification of fraction
This study estimated the HSW generation, especially plastic waste of the capital city of the
Following the requirements of the studys objectives, the classification categories of waste were
generation to identify the potentials for compostable waste and recyclable waste.
Since the 1950s, one billion tons of plastic has
been discarded and may persist for hundreds or
even thousands of years (Weisman 2007); this has
become a common problem in the last decades.
There are many recycling and recovery routes
of plastic solid waste; chemical recycling (including pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrogenation)
through which plastics can be broken back down
to a feedstock state and energy recovery by plastic
waste combustion as other fuel sources (Al-Salem
et al. 2009). Recently, many studies have focused
on plastic waste; Subramanian (2000) studied on
the recycling and recovery routes of plastic waste
and Chung (2008) assessed the reliability of selfreported waste disposal data using plastic bag
waste. They also pointed out the considerable contribution of plastic fraction and the urgent need
for the proper management of waste plastics.
A national report (Worldbank et al. 2004) presented outline information related to MSW management in Vietnam; the plastic waste accounted
for the considerable portion of MSW. Besides,
open dumping is the main disposal method (Idris
et al. 2004). Moreover, the strategies for recycling
and disposal of plastic waste at local level and
central level have not been developed.
In this study, the authors estimated the HSW
generation rate and detailed composition in the
central city of the Mekong Delta region to identify
opportunities for waste recycling, especially for
plastic waste. The authors analyzed the current
status of plastic waste stream and the household
habits and behaviors related to plastic waste discharge. The relevant effect factors to plastic waste
generation were also carried out. Furthermore,
the potential for recycling plastic HSW, the aspects of energy recovery potential, environmental impacts, and resource consumption of plastic
waste disposal alternatives were also evaluated.
25
Survey framework
Sample collection was conducted in two stages of
surveys: the questionnaire survey and waste generation survey. The questionnaire survey carried
g/cap/day
SD
Plastic
Paper
Food waste
Rubber and leather
Grass and wood
Textile
Metal
Glass
Ceramic
Miscellaneous
Total
6.13
4.87
84.42
0.23
1.65
0.33
0.69
1.00
0.12
0.58
100
17.24
13.70
237.44
0.64
4.65
0.92
1.93
2.80
0.32
1.62
281.27
11.01
18.55
134.29
4.03
22.68
2.78
3.01
4.80
1.08
11.26
147.20
26
g/cap/day
SD
0.54
0.65
2.72
0.09
0.11
0.47
0.26
0.30
0.82
3.18
3.16
0.28
0.55
0.55
0.05
1.05
0.68
0.16
0.98
0.58
2.09
1.45
0.17
0.10
0.36
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.70
0.98
0.28
1.11
8.92
5.22
0.05
0.19
1.54
0.90
0.25
0.34
1.38
1.88
13.23
2.28
1.75
45.72
0.51
0.32
3.67
7.89
0.09
0.06
0.63
6.85
0.31
0.43
0.49
3.72
0.64
1.26
1.48
0.26
0.33
0.16
100
0.03
17.24
0.10
11.01
The target households were provided with colored transparent plastic bags of two kinds for
waste disposal. Households were requested to
keep and separate their waste into biodegradable wastes and non-biodegradable wastes.
Biodegradable wastes and non-biodegradable
wastes were collected, respectively, every day and
every week.
Regarding waste quantification, biodegradable
wastes were sorted and weighed at the households house. Meanwhile, non-biodegradable
wastes were sorted into appropriated items of
classification categories and weighed in the laboratory. The weights were recorded as wet weight
with a digital scale measuring a minimum of
1 gram (g).
Furthermore, a questionnaire survey was conducted with a face-to-face interview at households
to obtain data reflecting demographic characteristic, socio-economic information, habits of recyclable waste discharge, and household attitude.
A questionnaire survey of recyclable-junk buyers
and recycling depots was also conducted to collect
information about transaction price and recycling
potential of recyclable waste.
Analytical procedure
The authors calculated key statistics related to
plastic waste generation rates by subcategory. The
authors also assessed correlations between the
plastic waste generation rates of each subcategory,
in addition to relevant factors such as household
size, and income levels using ANOVA and rank
correlation analysis. Software (SPSS ver. 15.0;
SPSS Inc.) was applied for statistical analyses.
27
Durable
products
3.72%
Single-use
products
1.48%
Other plastics
0.16%
Plastic bottles
3.92%
PET bottles
6.62%
Other containers
and packaging
7.46%
Plastic
containers
3.55%
Plastic packaging
73.09%
tainers were the most numerous plastics generated, accounting for a high percentage (95.64%);
plastic packaging especially appropriated for the
most share of plastic waste (73.09%). The remaining consisted of plastic products with 5.20%
(including single-use products, 1.48%) and plastic
miscellaneous (0.16%).
For estimating the major component of plastic
waste generation in CTC, plastic packaging and
bags were chosen as the prior estimation. In this
study, plastic packaging was defined in many kinds
of plastic bags; (1) manufacturers plastic bags
which enclose the products from the manufacturers (in this study, it includes (a) plastic packaging
for food or beverage and (b) plastic packaging for
non-food and non-beverage); (2) plastic shopping
bags that are used very popularly in Vietnam,
given free of charge while purchasing at supermarkets, normal markets, self-owned shops, vendors,
etc.; and (3) plastic packaging for general purpose
which used to contain the goods or products that
are unprocessed or un-packagedthe distributors
or retailers distribute these goods and products
into smaller portions from the large containers or
packaging of the manufacturers by smaller plastic
packaging for easy retail.
The distribution of plastic waste by subcategories in plastic fraction and total waste, respectively, are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 3.
This shows the overview of discharge flow, detailed composition of plastic waste based on types,
purposes, functions, compostable, and recyclable
28
[5.80] Containers
[0.228] Durable
[0.091] Single-use
[0.646] Bottles
[0.095] Trays
[0.217] Containers
[0.085] Tubes
[0.010] Other
[4.442] Packaging
[0.315] Other
[0.195] Beverage
[0.194] Food
[0.406] PET
[0.017] Non-food
[0.240] Plastic
[0.033] Beverage
[0.040] Food
[0.167] Non-food
[0.128] Food
[0.089] Non-food
[0.547] Food
[0.320] Non-food
[0.811] Unspecified-purpose
[2.764] Shopping bags
0.00
0.12
2.34 2.88
1.46 0.92
1.38 0.7
1.09 0.85
2.94
0.06
0.91 1.13
0.6 0.51
1.37 3.02
0.41 0.25
1.64
0.41
3.67 2.59
2.49 1.28
1.66 1.54
1.18 0.83
9.12
0.34
10.7 6.19
9.17 8.09
5.34 4.59
5.19 5.28
4.72
1.72 0.97
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.21
0.05
0.27 0.51 0.55 0.85 1.36 1.76 0.09 0.25 0.53 0.69 0.45 0.85 2.32 2.95 1.83 3.29 3.2 2.54
2.85
1.59
0.08
0.89
0.89
1.02
0.58
2.72
3.29
0.07
1.1 1.89
0.66 1.28
0.52 0.97
0.17 0.22
1.52
Products
Durable
0.11
0.33 0.41
0.29 0.32
0.19 0.32
0.21 0.16
1.1
Single-use
0.36
25.17 12.9
18.55 11.28
13.51 7.66
9.62 6.72
8.26
Total plastic
0.38
1.71 1.1
1.23 0.66
0.8 0.43
0.66 0.38
10.71
Number
of Bag
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.15
10.38 6.86 1.32 0.71 1.08 1.97 0.39 0.47 24.5 13.9
1.35
1.14
1.22
1.78
3.67
6.32 4.24
0.05
0.36 0.72
0.32 1.4
0.17 0.38
0.02 0.03
0.45
0.21 0.37 0.45 0.84 0.92 1.05 0.06 0.23 0.19 0.26 0.1 0.28
0.05
0.20
0.76 1.48
0.29 0.37
0.34 0.49
0.08 0.08
3
7.3 5.47
7.8 8.26
0.14
0.03
0.12 0.27
0.01 0.05
0.06 0.19
0.04 0.07
2.56
1.9 1.86
1.15 1.2
0.79 1.36
0.53 0.6
3.79
0.31 0.49 0.44 0.69 0.83 0.98 0.03 0.07 0.44 1.12 0.16 0.27 1.26 0.76 0.47 0.44 2.41 2.3
0.13 0.27 0.47 0.88 1.23 1.57 0.04 0.11 0.34 0.52 0.3 1.39 1.41 0.67 0.59 0.91 2.15 1.17
0.8 1.16
0.59 0.92
0.27 0.43
0.09 0.2
3.28
0.52 0.61
0.13 0.29
0.19 0.36
0.05 0.05
6.26
a Rank
Household size
12 members
34 members
57 members
>8 members
ANOVA:
F value
Correlation
coefficienta
Income level
500,000
500, 001
1,000,000
1,000,001
1,500,000
>1,500 001
ANOVA:
F value
Correlation
coefficienta
Plastic bottle
PET bottle
Plastic container
Plastic packaging
Food/
Non Food/ Food/
Non Food/ Food/
Non Food/ Food/
Non Food/ Unspecified Shopping
beverage beverage beverage beverage beverage beverage beverage beverage purpose
bag
Table 3 Mean analysis, ANOVA analysis, and rank correlation analysis of plastic waste subcategories vs. various parameters
30
Income level
Regarding understanding the effect of plastic
waste generation rate and its detail components
by household income level, the authors analyzed
the correlation between the plastic waste generation rate and the income level. The income level
was defined into four categories based on the
quartile analysis of survey samples; lower than
500,000, 500,000 to lower than 1,000,000, 1,000,000
to lower than 1,500,000, and 1,500,000 and more
VND/cap/month.The exchange rate of VND in
USD was 17,500 VND/USD at the survey time.
Table 3 showed the average of plastic HSW
generation rate by the subcategory among the
income level and the results of ANOVA analysis and rank correlation analysis. The result of
ANOVA analysis indicated that significant average differences were found mainly on plastic packaging such as plastic packaging for nonfood/beverage, plastic packaging for unspecified
purpose, plastic shopping bag, number of packaging, and plastic durable product ( p < 0.05) by
the income level. Regarding the rank correlation
analysis, the results indicated that there were positive correlations between waste generation rates
of plastic packaging for non-food/beverage ( p <
0.01) and total plastic ( p < 0.05) and the income
level. This result was similar to other studies on
HSW by other authors, such as Bandara et al.
(2007) and Dennison et al. (1996a), presenting
that the household with higher income level generated larger amount of HSW.
Fig. 4 Household habits
of plastic waste discharge
Items
PET bottles
Plastic bottles
Durable products
Single-use products
Plastic bags (transparence)
Plastic shopping bags
Other plastics
22.5
202.5
24
2.53
0.81
0.50.7
11.5
Reuse
Containers
Packaging/bags
Bottles
Discharge
0%
28
61
27
20%
Burn
71
26
8
2.53
2.53
2.55
45
1.21.5
0.81
1.52
69
40%
60%
80%
100%
31
Table 5 Questionnaire contents on waste recycling activities and its response
Question
statements
15
13
54
13
18
59
20
16
16
30
27
34
32
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Kerosene
Gas oil
Heavy old
Household plastic waste mixture
Petroleum
43.346.5
46.50
41.90
46.50
45.20
42.50
31.8
42.3
Processes
Recycling vision Recycling
Recycling non- Pyrolysis (4) Incineration Landfilling (6)
or chemical
dissolvent
separation (3)
with heat
separation (1) separation (2)
recovery (5)
Global warming
Stratospheric ozone deletion
Acidification
Nutrient enrichment (nitrogen)
Nutrient enrichment (phosphor)
Photochemical ozone formation
Solid waste (volume)
Resource consumption
+++
Mlgaard (1995)
++
++
0
++
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
0
++
+ + ++
0
0
0
0
0
+++++
0
33
34
of 84.42% food waste materials. Thereby, plastic packaging and bags are difficult to separate
from the waste stream; it will be too polluted to
be recycled without modern infrastructure. This
status exposes the current burden and prospective challenge for treating plastic packaging and
bags in MSW. Otherwise, this waste contained
the potential for incineration within energy recovery, which seems a possible disposal alternative. However, the improper incinerators can yield
undesirable emissions, especially air pollutants.
Vietnam currently does not have independent
plastic waste treatment facilities that can meet
safety and environmental standards. Waste incineration has existed in few cities of Vietnam;
although it is applied for treating only healthcare
waste.
Conclusion
1. This survey, conducted at a Mekong Delta city
for 30 days, specially investigated 130 households. Results show that the average HSW
generation rate was 281.27 g/cap/day; in which
the average plastic waste was daily generated
17.24 g per capita.
2. The detailed composition of HSW was analyzed using ten categories; plastic waste was
especially sorted into 22 subcategories. Compostable HSW accounted for a high percentage of totals (around 80.74%). Results showed
the HSW in CTC also included a large share
of recyclable waste (approximately 11%). Regarding plastic waste, the total plastic accounted for about half of total recyclable
wastes (50%); plastic packaging, bags, and
plastic containers accounted for a high percentage (95.64%), especially plastic packaging
and bags appropriated for the most portions of
plastic waste (73.09%), including 45.72% for
plastic shopping bags.
3. Regarding the correlations between the plastic waste generation rate and relevant factors, the results indicated that there were negative correlations between waste generation
rates of plastic PET bottle for food/beverage,
plastic packaging for unspecified purpose,
plastic shopping bag, number of packaging,
References
Abu-Qudais, M., & Abu-Qdais, H. A. (2000). Energy
content of municipal solid waste in Jordan and its
potential utilization. Energy Conversion Manage, 41,
983991.
Alhumoud, J. M., Altawash, M., & Aljallal, L. (2007). Survey and evaluation of household solid waste generation and compositions in Kuwait. International Journal
of Environment and Health, 1(4), 517527.
Al-Salem, S. M., Lettieri, P., & Baeyens, J. (2009).
Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid
waste (PSW): A review. Waste Management.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.06.004.
Bandara, N. J. G. J., Hettiaratchi, J. P. A., Wirasinghe,
S. C., & Pilapiiya, S. (2007). Relation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic factors:
A case study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135, 3139.
35
McDougall, F. W. P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., & Procter,
Gamble (2001). Integrated solid waste management: A
life cycle inventory (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Mastellone, M. L. (1999). Thermal treatments of plastic
wastes by means of f luidized bed reactors. Ph.D. Thesis. Italy: Department of Chemical Engineering, Second University of Naples.
Mlgaard, C. (1995). Environmental impacts by disposal of
plastic from municipal solid waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 15(5), l63.
Ojeda-Benitez, S., Armijo de Vega, C., & RamrezBarreto, M. E. (2003). Characterization and quantification of household solid wastes in a Mexican city.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 39, 211222.
Osborn, P. D. (1985). Handbook of energy data and calculations. London: Butterworths.
Parizeau, K., Maclaren, V., & Chanthy, L. (2006). Waste
characterization as an element of waste management
planning: Lessons learned from a study in Siem Reap,
Cambodia. Resources Conservation & Recycling, 49,
110128.
Philippe, F., & Culot, M. (2009). Household solid waste
generation and characteristics in Cape Haitian city,
Republic of Haiti. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 7378.
Qu, X., Li, Z., Xie, X., Sui, Y., Yang, L., & Chen, Y.
(2009). Survey of composition and generation rate of
household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Management. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.014.
Subramanian, P. M. (2000). Plastics recycling and waste
management in the US. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 28, 253263.
Sujauddin, M. S., Huda, S. M. S., & Rafiqul Hoque, A. T.
M. (2007). Household solid waste characteristics and
management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Management. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.013.
Tadesse, T., Ruijs, A., & Hagos, F. (2007). Household
waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia.
Waste Management. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.015.
Tanikawa, N. (2000). A proposal to the testing method
for physical composition of waste. Waste Management
Research, 11(6), 405410.
URENCO (2008). Summary report on solid Waste
management of Can Tho City. Urban Environment
Company (Vietnamese).
Weisman, A. (2007). The World Without Us. New York:
St. Martins.
Worldbank, Vietnam Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, & Canadian International
Development Agency (2004). Vietnam environment
monitor: Solid waste.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.