WP 5 WasteQC Cebu

Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterization – Cebu (2009)
Introduction to Cebu (Philippines)
Brief Profile of Cebu City

Cebu City is located on the central eastern part of Cebu Province, the center island in
Central Visayas, Southern Philippines. It is bounded by Mandaue City in the North and
Talisay City in the South. On the East is Mactan Channel and on its West are the
Municipality of Balamban and the City of Toledo.1
It has a total land area of 326.10 square kilometres or 29,124.78 hectares. Its strategic
location makes it accessible by air and sea transport. By plane, it is only an hour away
from Manila and just a few hours to reach major cities in the Asia Pacific region. 2
It is composed of eighty barangays, thirty-six in the North District and thirty-four in the
South District. Of these barangays, fifty are classified as urban and thirty as rural
barangays.3
Geographical Area and Zoning
Of the city’s 29,124.78 hectares, only 5,598.53 hectares occupy the urban areas.
However, 5o of the 80 barangays are classified as urban, while only 30 are classified
rural scattered along some 23,526 hectares. The North district has 46 barangays while
South district has 34 barangays.
While only 28% of the city is within the 18% slope or less range, about 64% of the
city’s lands are classified by the national government as alienable and disposable. The
rest is classified as forest or timberland. Lands classified as timberland include areas
that are within the critical watersheds and other protected areas of the city.
Seventy-three percent of the city’s land is under the Nationally Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS). Twenty-three of the city’s barangays are totally or partially
located in the four watershed areas: Mananga, Kotkot, Lusaran and the Cebu Watershed
Reservation in Buhisan.
As shown in the city’s Zoning Map (Figure 1), the coastal area facing the Mactan Strait
is predominantly industrial. Commercial areas follow inward, followed by urban
residential areas. As the slope goes higher, the areas are rural residential, followed the
Sudlon National Park, as well as other open areas and parks. Pockets of institutional
areas are scattered throughout the narrow coastal flatland where the commercial and
industrial, as well as urban residential zones are found.4
1
Cebu, CPDO, City Profile, 2008.
2
“Solid Waste Management in Cebu City,” June 15,2009
<http://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/docs/sp/swm/3%20Cebu%20(Paper).pdf>
3
Barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines.
4
Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1:
Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study-A. Cebu City, Philippines”
Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office
Figure 1. Cebu City Zoning Map
Population Growth
As of August 2007, Cebu City had a total population of 798,809.5 Although trend shows
a slight decline in growth rate, at 2.19% (1990) 1.64% from 1995 to 20006, the city’s
weekday population is slightly bigger, since it houses the biggest commercial areas,
schools, hospitals and public offices that people from neighbouring towns and cities
come to during daytime and weekdays. These transients and commuters contribute to
the over-all waste generation of the city.
With the base figure of 798,809 for 2007 and growth rate at 1.77% (2000), current
population can be placed at 824,337.
Socio-Economic Patterns
Socio-economic events contribute to the fluctuation of waste generation in the City.
Tourism is a major contributing industry because Cebu is considered as one of the main
tourist destinations in the country. Tourism is at its peak from January to July. Both
locals and visitors from other countries participate in celebrating major events. During
this period, industrial and commercial establishments are busiest. Tourists go shopping,
buy souvenirs and eat out.7
Major events contribute a large volume of wastes. The first event of the year which
contributes to a lot of waste is New Year. Generated wastes usually spill off from the
Christmas week, wherein people engage in gift-giving and major shopping sprees.
However, the single biggest event which contributes the biggest waste generation is the
Sinulog Festival. During Sinulog, thousands of pilgrims and visitors join the celebration
for the feast of the Sto. Nino. The Festival features street dancing, face painting, party
events, show bands, fireworks, a Mardi Gras Parade and other activities.
During February, the Cebu X International Furniture & Furnishing Exhibition attracts
buyers from around the world. Although commonly featured in this annual exhibit are
indigenous materials such as rattan, bamboo, shells, and buri, the waste generated by
visitors include PET bottles and Styrofoam. The Chinese New Year, on the other hand,
is a vibrant Filipino-Chinese fanfare with dragon dances, fireworks. Valentines’ Day
gift giving has also become popular among urban residents.
The Lenten Season which falls on the last week of March to the first week of April is
observed with religious processions in every church in the city and Visita Iglesia or
church visits. A large volume of devotees visit the Sto. Nino during the week-long
observance.
April and May is summer time during which countryside fiestas are celebrated. People
take tours in mango and flower farms of Cebu City’s Hillylands where anyone can stop
along the roadside markets to buy fresh fruits and flowers. Flores de Mayo is celebrated
all over Cebu City where visitors can watch the Santacruzan Parade where chosen
women walk under floral arches in tiaras and ternos.
5
National Statistics Office, June 20, 2009 <www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html>
6
7
Calendar of Activities (Department of Tourism, 2008).
Classes start in June. Major waste generation includes packaging materials for school
supplies. It is also when the Annual Cebu Business Month is held. Cebuano retail
merchants take chunks off tags prices and many warehouses hold export overruns and
some of the biggest name brands in clothing. The Sugbayanihan, the longest barbecue
grill, is also celebrated in June.
July and August are usually lean months as tropical storms become more frequent. In
July, the Fruits and Vegetables Festival is held at the City Hall Ground. September, on
the other hand, signals the entry of the “ber” months before Christmas. Retailers offer a
lot of bargains to attract buyers. Restaurant rows hold a series of concerts and events
during the month-long Octoberfest. The Queen City International Run is held in
November. By this time, the second semester opens in colleges and universities and
more wastes are generated from packaging of schools supplies. Christmas in Cebu is
more than a month-long celebration. The Christmas Food Street Festival is held and the
traditional gift giving, shopping and parties render a surge in waste generation.
Economic Growth
Despite the global economic slowdown, Central Visayas showed economic resilience
during the second quarter and first half of 2008. For Cebu City, the sectors which
posted positive growth were the information and communication technology (ICT) and
tourism industries.
Demand for tourism-related services, building of accommodation establishments and

various services increased as the region becomes one the top destinations in Asia.
Business processes outsourcing (BPO) increased and expanded. At the Asiatown IT
Park alone in Lahug, the number of locators increased from 20 to 30 in 2008.
The upbeat tourism and ICT performance led to positive movements in other economic
sectors as well, made evident by the vibrant construction industry. This increased the
labor market in the region from 92.7% in 2006 to 93.8 in 2007. IT Park alone employed
4,000 more workers in the same period. This translated to growth in retail trade as more
disposable income is earned by BPO employees.
The ICT sector contributes to more power consumption leading to the development two
power reserve projects to add 100 megawatts of the Cebu-Negros-Panay (CNP) power
grid, both of which are targeted for completion by 2010.
The transportation sector grew as traffic and volume of passengers and cargo handled
increase. In particular, Cebu-based Cebu Pacific Air opened new routes national and
international, prompting others to follow. 8
Development Outlook
8
NEDA, Central Visayas Remains Tough Amidst Global Financial Turmoil, DevPulse, Vol. 12, No.
23,May 20,2009 <http://www.neda.gov.ph/devpulse/pdf_files/central visayas.pdf>
Because of international community recognition of Region 7 for its IT and tourism

potentials, the region expects sustained growth in these sectors. In fact, the London-
based Foreign Direct Investment magazine ranked Cebu City as eighth among 10 top
Asian Cities in the future, while a study by Global Services placed the city as one of the
favoured outsourcing destinations for global companies. Congruently, the region aims
to further expand its tourism industry not only through continuous promotion of its
ecotourism destinations, but also by penetrating new markets such as the Russians and
Indians who are now becoming frequent visitors. Their numbers are expected to
increase following moves by the Department of Tourism to streamline visa
requirements for Indian guests.9
9
Ibid.
Overview of Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City
National Solid Waste Profile and Projection
In 2001, World Bank projected waste generation increase in the Philippines from 10.67 million
tons/year in 2000 to 14.05 million tons/year in 2010.10 The figures registered more than 30%
increase in only ten years.
Table 1. National Waste Generation, 2000-2010

2000 2010
REGION % OF % OF
MIL. T/YR. MIL. T/YR.
TOTAL TOTAL
National Capital Region (NCR) 2.45 23.0
3.14 22.3
Cordillera Administrative Region
0.17 1.6 0.21 1.5
(CAR)
Ilocos 0.50 4.7 0.63 4.5
Cagayan Valley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8
Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4
Southern Tagalog 1.42 13.3 2.11 15
Bicol 0.54 5.1 0.65 4.6
Western Visayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1
Central Visayas 0.74 7.0 1.01 7.2
Eastern Visayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6
Western Mindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8
Northern Mindanao 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4
Southern Mindanao 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9
Central Mindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9
Autonomous Region of Muslim
0.26 2.5 0.39 2.7
Mindanao (ARMM)
Caraga 0.26 2.4 0.31 2.2
National 10.67 100 14.05 100
Assumptions: Waste production rates2:
National Capital Region: 0.71 kg/person/day urban population: 0.5 kg/person/day
rural population: 0.3 kg/person/day
It was assumed that the urban population would increase their waste production rate by 1
percent per year due to rising income levels (based on GHK/MRM International Report).
Urban and rural population and growth rates by region are based on National Statistical Office,
data for 2000.
Source: Philippine Environment Monitor, World Bank 2001
The National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) reports that the country’s solid
waste generation per day is at 30,000 tons. It is composed of 73% from households, 26% from
commercial establishments, industries, institutions and 1% from healthcare facilities.11
10
World Bank, Philippine Environment Monitor 2001 Solid Waste, 2001.
Based on RA 9003, LGUs are the lead implementing agency for SWM programs. The LGUs
operate under the National Solid Waste Management Framework that clearly defines the
Philippine 3R strategy as: Avoid, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Treat, and Dispose. Local policies,
programs and projects in managing solid waste revolve around this strategy.
Although RA 9003 requires the mainstreaming of waste recycling and recovery, these are
mainly taken up by the informal sector. For instance, only 6% of solid waste was recycled in
Metro Manila in 1997 which increased to only 25% in 2007. As of the second quarter of 2008,
only 2,361 Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) are established serving 2,634 barangays
nationwide, based on the NSWMC database. This is only .05% of the 42,000 barangays
nationwide that should have established their own facility.
As provided by the law, all open dumpsites and controlled disposal facilities should have been
closed by February 16, 2004 and February 16, 2006, respectively. Currently, more than 1,000
open dumpsites and controlled disposal facilities are still operating. Conversion of these
disposal sites to sanitary landfills encounters sitting and financing difficulties. 12
City Solid Waste Monitoring
In the North and South District of Cebu City the quantity of waste generation per
barangays was monitored by the Solid Waste Monitoring Division of Cebu City on a
monthly basis, as indicated on Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Blanks indicate that no data
was submitted by the barangays to the DPS at the given period. Because of this, the
totals given: 38,446,458 tons for the North District and 51,315,739 for the South
District do not completely reflect waste generation in the two areas.
Table 4 indicates that most barangays have their own waste collection trucks and that
only a few are being served by DPS collection. The table also shows that the DPS has
some Task Force trips for some common areas serving commercial establishments,
markets and major thoroughfares.
For 2008, the monthly comparative waste generation (Table 5) shows 25% reduction in
February (4,021.13) from January (5,061.92). It gained 6.14% by March and decreased
again by almost 5% in April. This monthly up-down fluctuation continued until an
increase in July. August to November shows continued decline in waste generation and
an increase of 7.8% in December.
Table 5 also shows no data of commercial and industrial sectors, as both sectors have
their own waste management collection and disposal. The sectors also do not report
their own solid waste monitoring to the concerned city offices.
11
Aguinaldo, E. 2008, “National and Local Initiatives on Solid Waste Management and Implementation of 3Rs in the
Philippines”, Environment and Livable Cities 08, Manila, Philippines.
12
Ibid.
Table 2. Volume of Garbage, North District, Cebu City

Brgy Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
2,267,40
Apas 179,170 160,242 145,053 173,822 235,016 215,395 150,375 180,780 172,110 183,310 245,645 226,485
3
Bacayan 74,880 56,525 55,679 74,515 67,521 76,296 86,075 74,555 74,650 77,510 81,830 800,036
Banilad 54,475 39,523 48,460 56,174 72,040 66,260 60,710 73,140 61,660 54,800 57,668 644,908
4,332,27
Bo. Luz 382,823 341,288 391,945 354,660 349,983 338,284 310,555 367,620 392,535 255,390 411,930 435,260
3
Budla-an 15,160 17,600 12,286 13,991 11,350 10,710 16,470 16,040 25,280 138,887
Busay 37,515 41,216 43,765 38,060 53,800 55,500 49,800 51,810 55,665 44,870 472,001
6,011,46
Capitol Site 561,213 451,146 410,080 409,963 563,346 408,218 547,106 589,473 581,365 543,830 430,545 515,175
0
1,208,43
Carreta 109,435 86,155 75,360 76,945 107,790 103,840 106,881 103,320 111,110 104,330 115,120 108,150
6
Co. Central 1,081,16
80,555 84,460 87,698 91,480 83,058 115,072 111,380 109,140 124,230 108,705 85,385
Ramos 3
Day-as 75,710 60,690 60,321 76,028 69,030 67,640 71,430 71,760 74,560 54,060 56,690 737,919
Hipodromo 145,455 62,910 74,150 67,960 65,065 415,540
Kalubihan 48,705 36,528 34,457 34,705 32,045 41,303 48,220 38,220 41,650 31,045 29,670 416,548
Kamagayan 54,777 79,254 74,942 66,533 72,895 72,961 76,520 68,940 69,090 635,912
2,872,83
Kamputhaw 220,115 184,006 237,043 260,688 228,799 310,090 324,790 321,020 330,200 254,785 201,295
1
Kasambagan 75,955 53,093 47,165 54,375 97,097 86,777 86.902 92,030 92,635 90,540 88,690 98,090 963,339
Lahug
Lorega San
127,895 74,335 41,465 104,580 101,245 128,460 99,310 60,545 737,835
Miguel
Mabolo 162,511 150,352 146,240 82,490 116,290 657,883
1,798,36
Pahina Central 137,565 148,080 148,106 127,340 150,966 142,233 147,152 155,388 167,270 158,540 156,455 159,270
5
Pari-an 59,600 55,915 43,300 30,932 55,832 48,679 56,790 58,590 52,430 48,860 37,680 45,240 593,848
Pit-os 52,790 48,090 52,790 66,290 54,915 61,198 71,535 73,600 69,400 70,310 65,820 686,738
Pulangbato 23,520 31,515 25,125 20,922 38,793 24,161 24,649 20,920 18,980 20,970 20,160 35,140 304,855
1,762,39
Sambag 1 234,393 36,210 169,286 252,675 235,535 233,260 208,234 234,080 158,725
8
2,201,77
Sambag 2 206,470 162,000 158,636 126,185 159,360 147,554 257,868 186,990 220,885 218,206 233,644 133,980
8
San Antonio 49,150 44,470 52,025 64,701 49,935 65,692 73,200 74,370 76,905 70,660 64,745 685,853
San Roque 72,270 59,895 59,155 58,973 70,840 71,364 67,200 70,690 63,200 66,290 57,390 60,565 777,832
1,050,98
Sto. Nino 101,390 82,285 84,690 80,285 99,150 94,858 87,244 70,690 92,945 91,090 79,905 86,900
2
Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1: Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study-A. Cebu
City, Philippines”
1,152,11
Sta. Cruz 93,755 71,520 77,644 121,612 98,767 123,000 138,740 107,360 123,750 102,910 93,060
8
1,287,20
T. Padilla 99,140 88,015 82,700 101,903 110,874 107,400 120,438 92,170 125,010 108,750 119,690 131,110
0
1,423,79
Talamban 55,716 55,029 78,327 160,389 174,436 185,710 180,185 189,540 171,080 173,380
2
1,803,25
Tejero 165,977 122,620 119,625 118,915 155,945 136,924 147,871 169,360 174,920 164,775 156,930 169,395
7
2,622,92 2,328,22 2,559,64 2,488,60 3,104,16 2,993,06 3,642,96 3,932,00 3,826,75 3,728,58 3,681,64 3,537,86 38,446,45
Grand Total
4 4 4 4 6 1 3 6 1 5 4 6 8
Source: Department of Public Services, Solid Waste Management Division, Cebu City, 2008
Table 3. Volume of Garbage South District, Cebu City

Barangay Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
2,318,91
Basak Pardo 184,415 198,415 159,574 166,592 203,801 155,940 226,958 204,790 202,080 205,350 209,662 201,335
2
1,000,80
Buhisan 87,670 68,352 70,599 73,659 90,536 77,738 90,065 100,708 88,428 96,809 75,480 80,760
4
2,936,49
Bulacao 286,880 240,500 232,459 228,318 296,191 280,973 293,102 331,855 321,326 268,650 75,480 80,760
4
2,373,40
Calamba 72,310 171,338 165,513 184,547 219,367 198,481 210,804 240,500 259,704 239,990 202,395 208,460
9
Cogon Pardo
2,560,14
Duljo Fatima 253,190 191,576 193,425 175,306 239,861 224,316 244,277 232,658 211,415 212,080 191,045 191,000
9
2,690,01
Ermita 281,480 265,873 319,888 285,346 321,304 294,050 310,745 253,180 209,090 149,055
1
9,140,48
Guadalupe 773,391 692,920 724,142 885,796 801,709 858,077 893,870 855,637 897,800 891,395 865,745
2
3,482,93
Inayawan 297,869 218,578 229,341 223,704 292,346 285,397 323,216 185,933 356,083 357,222 358,700 354,550
9
Kalunasan 89,965 74,780 74,840 72,405 89,468 80,339 84,189 89,210 84,325 86,570 81,895 84,410 992,426
1,676,04
Kinasang-an 122,981 120,540 125,628 161,452 139,431 154,824 180,970 177,385 155,635 166,835 170,360
1
3,255,69
Labanagon 432,250 428,164 188,555 239,492 235,966 281,540 321,112 286,500 300,070 267,495 274,550
4
3,332,01
Mambaling 458,673 259,664 299,845 273,573 344,131 332,130 597,140 467,870 298,990
6
1,259,47
Pasil 164,249 130,210 132,673 130,969 138,168 133,684 137,118 149,120 143,280
1
1,218,18
Pob. Pardo 281,455 208,156 202,194 189,510 239,728 97,142
5
Punta Princesa 25,526 16,963 48,733 18,367 20,522 130,111
2,634,55
Quiot 240,135 176,783 197,245 168,659 212,975 198,613 221,609 233,286 249,755 262,760 231,105 241,650
7
San Nicolas 1,975,28
145,405 130,385 127,570 133,630 186,245 150,065 206,833 204,550 195,996 164,985 173,165 156,460
Proper 9
Sapangdaku 64,940 44,167 35,182 40,793 47,455 43,301 49,242 58,540 47,680 49,490 40,750 53,730 575,270
1,742,03
Sawang Calero 161,950 119,790 121,880 182,570 146,505 144,391 155,677 156,785 147,520 149,655 121,380 133,935
8
1,8677,08
Suba 156,275 160,155 163,746 78,399 156,801 202,541 197,690 194,060 186,160 179,985 191,270
2
4,154,35
Tisa 328,683 294,600 297,115 325,204 390,493 378,990 333,985 360,817 359,217 367,410 334,115 383,730
9
3,891,18 3,238,80 4,248,27 4,054,34 4,871,03 4,419,12 5,013,02 4,904,29 4,790,12 4,253,81 3,809,97 3,821,76 51,315,73
Grand Total
0 0 0 6 0 0 3 6 6 6 2 0 9
Source: Department of Public Services, Solid Waste Management Division – Cebu City
Table 4. DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day)

South District Central District North District Task Force
Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total
1. Pahina 5.35 1. Task Force
1. Basak Pardo 5.234 5.234 5.358 1. Apas 5.98 5.72 11.7 3.47 3.47
Central 8 (S2)
2. Basak San 6.02 2.20
5.0 5.0 2. Bo. Luz 6.026 2. Banilad 5.41 7.615 C. Padilla, T. Padilla, San Roque,
Nicolas 6 5
Mambaling, Ermita, San Nicolas Prop,
18.0 2.03
3., Buhisan 2.03 2.03 3. Capitol Site 18.08 3. Bacayan 4.7 6.735 Pahina San Nicolas
8 5
2.46 1.35 2. Task Force
4. Bulacao 8.771 8.771 4. Carreta 2.825 5.29 4. Busay 1.352 3.51 3.51
5 2 (R3)
11.22 5. Cogon 5. 2.55
5. Calamba 5.25 5.974 2.9 2.9 3.93 6.487
4 Ramos Kasambagan 7 Ermita, Lorega, Kamagayan, Carreta,
6.30 11.35 Kamputhaw, Lahug
6. Cogon Pardo 2.489 2.489 6. Day-as 1.405 2.34 3.745 6. Mabolo 5.05
6 6
6.81 44.55
7. Duljo Fatima 5.205 5.205 7. Ermita 37.74 7. Talamban 5.34 4.79 10.13 3. Meto Aide 3.96 3.96
2 2
1.81
8. Guadalupe 20.16 20.16 8. Hipodromo 4.0 4.0 8. Pit-os 1.816
6
Mabolo, Carreta
1.86 9. 0.70
9. Inayawan 7.586 7.586 9. Kalubihan 3.415 5.281 0.708
6 Pulangbato 8
1.94
10. Kalunasan 2.486 2.486 10. Kamagayan 3.415 5.364 10. Lahug 7.98 14 21.98 4. Task Force III 3.76 3.76
9
11. Kinasang-an 4.781 4.781 11. Kamputhaw 6.62 8.65 15.27
San Roque, T. Padilla, Kamagayan,
12.77
12. Labangon 5.75 7.026 12. Loreta 1.695 3.33 5.025 LOrega
6
2.22
13. Mambaling 11.54 11.54 13. Pari-an 1.6 3.824 5. Task Force II 5.06 5.06
4
14. Pahina San 8.40
4.5 4.5 14. Sambag 1 8.409
Nicolas 9 Ramos, Market, Abattoir
6.34 Sports Complex, NRA, Suares Bros.
15. Pasil 4.128 4.128 15. Sambag 2 6.343
3
16. Pob. Pardo 9.33 9.33 16. San Antonio 1.94 1.94 6. Task Force I 5.08 5.08
12.7 1.85
17. Punta Princesa 12.71 17. San Roque 1.36 3.218
1 8 Tejero, Gen. Maxilom, Fuente, Ramos,
3.42 Tabo-an, San Roque, M.J. Cuenco
18. Quiot 6.213 6.213 18. Sta. Cruz 1.405 4.828
3
7. Heat of the
19. Sapangdaku 1.515 1.515 19. Sto. Nino 6.93 3.15 10.08 6.65 6.65
City
3.56
20. Sawang Calero 3.968 3.968 20. T. Padilla 3.568
8 Kalubihan, Pahina San Nicolas, Ermita,
21. San Nicolas 5.43 Sta. Cruz
4.538 4.538 21. Tejero 1.6 7.039
Prop. 9
8. Sup. Payloader
22. Suba 5.824 5.824 22. Tinago 2.0 4.35 4.35
Op.
10.44 10.44
23.Tisa 23. Zapatero 1.695
7 7 Mabolo, Carreta, Kalubihan, Kamputhaw
24. Hospital 4.91 4.91
25. Task Force
Source: DPS Cebu, 2009
Table 5. Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008
Comparativ Day Shift/South District Night Shift/North District

Volume of Garbage (Tons)
Month e (%) No. of Equip. Dispatched No. of Equip. Dispatched
Res Mkt Com Hos Ind Total ↑ ↓ Target Actual Condmn Target Actual Condmn
3770.3 1138.9 5061.9
January 152.63 614 614 350 340 10
4 5 2
2921.0 4021.1
February 981.99 118.05 25.88% ↓ 634 633 1 294 294
9 3
3157.3 1005.2 4284.2
March 121.65 6.14% ↑ 676 675 1 324 324
8 1 4
4091.9
April 3048.3 926.29 117.39 4.69%↓ 642 642 298 298
8
3657.4 1060.3 4883.6
May 165.82 16.2% ↑ 638 638 339 339
5 5 2
3595.3 4768.1
June 1034.3 138.49 2.42% ↓ 658 658 326 326
8 7
4089.1 5191.6
July 923.91 178.54 8.16% ↑ 645 645 356 356
9 4
3669.4 1227.9 5121.7
August 224.45 1.36% ↓ 601 601 368 368
1 3 9
3482.0 1219.5
September 168.97 4870.6 5.16% ↓ 585 585 368 368
4 9
3364.8 1176.7 4697.0
October 155.4 3.7% ↓ 595 595 366 366
9 8 7
3280.7 1109.6
November 143.17 4533.5 3.6% ↓ 568 568 359 358 1
1 2
1245.7 4915.1
December 3503.8 165.64 7.8% ↑ 609 609 363 363
4 8
56440. 13050. 56440.
TOTAL 0 1850.2 0 7465 7433 2 4111 4100 11
84 66 84
Source: Solid Waste Monitoring Division, Cebu City
Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterisation
METHODOLOGY
Waste Sectors
In the study, three major waste sectors were analyzed:
Commercial Sector - Wastes disposed by businesses, institutions and market
places that that are collected and transported by private and government haulers.
Residential Sector - Wastes disposed by households collected and transported by
private and government haulers.
Industrial Sector - Waste generated from industrial areas and transported by
private and government haulers.
Since there is only one transfer station in the city DPS Dispatching Area, waste source
and sectors are readily determined with each truck. Data such as these are captured in
the Truck Tag, Weight Master Form and the Hand Sort Form13. Because of this, sorting
can be done at the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill before dumping.
Population
With the base figure of 798,809 for 2007 and growth rate at 1.77% (2000), current
population can be placed at 824,337. These figures will be used for further population
and waste generation projection in this paper.
Sampling
Sampling Schedule
To be able to cover a whole period of the city’s waste cycle, the schedule for the
sampling activities was arranged as follows:
Table 6. Sampling Schedule

Sampling Day Date Day of the Shift
Week
Day 1 May 21, 2009 Thursday Night shift
Day 2 May 23, 2009 Saturday Day shift
Day 3 May 25, 2009 Monday Night shift
Day 4 May 27, 2009 Wednesday Day shift
Day 5 May 29, 2009 Friday Night shift
Day 6 May 31, 2009 Sunday Day shift
Day 7 June 2, 2009 Tuesday Day shift
13
Data Capture Forms are on Appendix 6.3 on page 42
Each of the seven days represents a day of the week to complete a week-long cycle.
Alternating shifts for sorting activities were schedule within the sampling period. The
intervening days were intended to allow drying of washed materials for the moisture
content analysis. During those times, the sorting area is free of other wastes to ensure
the integrity of the samples.
Collection of Samples
The number of samples was determined by computing the median based on the 80%
confidence level in the number of samples for plastic waste.
Table 7. Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence

Levels
C.L. 95% C.L 90% C.L 80% C.L 70%
Materia
Residen Comme Residen Comme Residen Comme Residen Comme
ls
t’l. r’l. t’l. r’l. t’l. r’l. t’l. r’l.
Newspr 224- 698- 58-600 170-991 16-150 48-223 9-58 21-101
int 2397 3563
Cardbo 899- 533-997 225-499 134-250 58-123 35-64 27-66 17-30
ard 1955
Alumin 275- 754- 70-350 191- 19-92 60-275 10-42 23-123
um 1437 4399 1100
Ferrous 194-554 552- 50-139 138-953 14-37 36-214 8-18 17-97
3411
Glass 145-619 596- 39-155 149-501 19-61 39-126 6-19 19-58
2002
Plastic 261- 422-783 67-275 107-195 18-70 28-61 10-32 14-24
1100
Organic 12-47 26-92 5-14 8-25 3-5 4-8 3-4 3-5
Source: Guidelines for Assessment of Waste Plastics, UNEP-DTIE-IETC, 2009
A total of 44 garbage truck samples within a period of seven days were distributed in a
way that represents all three districts of DPS and barangay waste collection, including
hospital waste. However, hospital waste was not included in the hand sorting
classification because of its hazardous content and instead only estimated visually. The
sample universe is 1.290 tons derived from 30 kilograms from 43 trucks (not including
the truck with hospital waste).
The study did not utilize a random numbers table to determine the truck samples. Since
there was no working truck scale at the landfill, trucks had to be pre-identified before
dispatching and sent to a private weight master for the net and gross weights. This
process had to be coordinated at three points: the dispatching area, where the truck
drivers were given a truck identification tag, the weighting area14 where the weight of
empty and loaded trucks were recorded, and the disposal area, where the identified
14
Private Weight Master is Ladisto Dausan of Rhine Marketing, Brgy. Tinago, Cebu City
trucks were intercepted before dumping for the team to be able to extract the required
amount of waste for each specific sample.
To determine the residential, commercial and industrial waste compositions, the

approach was to identify the DPS and barangay garbage collection site based on Cebu
City Zoning. Trucks were selected from the North and South Districts as well as the
Central Area. One truck was also taken from the DPS Task Force. Remarks on the
content of the load extracted were noted in the data capture form.
The Weight Master Summary, Table 35 can be found at Appendix D.
Actual Waste Characterization
At the side of the Inayawan Landfill, the PhilBio site was prepared and cleared to be
used as the sorting area. Designated spaces were properly labeled according to the type
and source of waste placed into them. Before the start of the first sample extraction,
needed equipments were prepared on site.15
Each identified truck, after finishing waste collection, went to the weight master to be
weighed before proceeding to the landfill.16 Upon entering the landfill, collection crew
extract a portion of the waste load from the truck. To facilitate immediate extraction of
required sample, wastes were taken from the upper, outer portion of the truck load.
Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck
Waste
A
Sample
Back of Front of
the truck the truck
Based on the Inayawan Waste Characterization in 2006, each garbage truck loads from
2,500 to 3,000 kg.17 During the study period, waste load range from 1,650 to 5,475 kg.
But to provide results consistent the latest WACS, the representative sample for each
truck load was pegged at 30 kilos. A 50-kilogram platform weighing scale was used to
weigh 30 kilograms of waste which were then brought to the sorting area for
characterization.
15
Appendix 6.6 on page 67 lists all the materials and equipment used during the actual characterization.
16
The truck goes back to the weight master after dumping of its load to get the net weight of the truck.
17
Cebu, MMT, CPDO and DPS, Inayawan Sanitary Landfill Waste Characterization Study, October 2006.
The waste samples were sorted into the prescribed material categories and recorded on
FORM No.4. Wastes are classified into ten material types, Plastics 1 to 7 based on the
Plastic Identification Code18, Wood, Paper and Other Wastes. Waste plastics which are
not identified in the first six types were placed in Other Plastics category. Aside from
Plastics, Wood and Paper were specifically sorted. This is because the objective of the
study is to provide baseline data for a possible demonstration project that will convert
waste plastics into fuel. P2F conversion technologies often require the mixing of waste
plastics with waste paper and waste wood as additional feedstock.19
Materials were sorted according to the ten material types and placed into separate
labeled containers. Before weighing, the materials were checked and verified against
the Waste Classification Guide provided to the sorting crew. These are then weighed on
a five-kilogram digital weighing scale.
The accuracy and operation of the scale were checked against a known reference
weight. And since the digital scale is very sensitive and registers weight two digits on
gram, it was place on a clean, flat surface and the level of scale was adjusted when
necessary. Weighting of each material samples was done inside the PhilBio site since
even a slight movement of the tray or container from strong wind affects the weight
registered by the scale.
The materials were weighed as is, but bottles, cans and containers were emptied of their
contents before weighing. The weight of each material (wet basis) was recorded on
FORM No.2.
Presentation of Data
Data is shown in pie graphs and tables. Presentation of data starts from Plastics
(material types 1 to 7) and Other Wastes (8 to 10). Tables present data by material types
1 to 10, total Plastic (Nos. 1-7), total Other Waste (8-10) and Total Waste (100%).
In the discussion of the key findings, the quantity of waste plastics is presented in four
ways: first, the proportion of the total plastic waste against total waste composition;
second, is the proportion of Plastics (material types 1 to 7) against the total waste
composition; third is the proportion of Plastics (1 to 7) against the total number of waste
plastics. Fourth, Plastics (1-7) on three sectors: residential, industrial, and commercial.
Detailed tables culled from raw data are placed in Appendix E.
18
The Plastic Identification Code, March 20, 2009 <http://www.plastics.org.nz/_attachments/docs/plasticscode-7.pdf>
19
UNEP-DTIE,IETC, Guidelines for Assessment of Waste Plastics, 2009.
FINDINGS
Quantities of Waste
A total of 129,055 kg (129.06 tons) with the average of 18,436 kg (18.44 tons) of
overall waste disposed at Inayawan Landfill were characterized during the seven-day
period of the study. The quantities associated with waste plastics disposed in the same
period based on the sample quantity which is 30 kg. (0.03 tons) per sample are over 159
kg (0.16 tons) and has the average of 23 kg (0.02 tons), a total of 1,290.10 kg sample
collected in the study period. Waste plastics represent approximately 12.36% (159.47
kg) while other wastes account 87.64% (1130.63 kg) for all sampling period.
Table 8 shows the aggregated data and the quantity of municipal solid waste and waste
plastics on daily samples.
Table 8. Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Cebu City
Daily Samples Aggregated Data

Day-Sample MSW Waste Plastics MSW Waste Plastics Percentage
Day
No. (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (%)
17905.0
1-1 3210.00 3.63 1 0 33.05 0.18
19640.0
1-2 2495.00 5.69 2 0 14.40 0.07
23260.0
1-3 3420.00 3.99 3 0 31.70 0.14
20260.0
1-4 2570.00 5.37 4 0 20.93 0.10
19045.0
1-5 2335.00 4.11 5 0 36.62 0.19
1-6 3875.00 10.26 6 7900.00 7.90 0.10
21045.0
2-1 2400.00 2.37 7 0 14.88 0.07
129055.
2-2 3130.00 2.84 TOTAL 00 159.47 0.12
AVER 18436.4
2-3 3400.00 0.20 AGE 3 22.78 0.12
2-4 2425.00 4.83
2-5 3060.00 1.41
2-6 2540.00 1.67
2-7 2685.00 1.08
3-1 3320.00 4.81
3-2 3400.00 3.49
3-3 2845.00 3.81
3-4 3300.00 4.07
3-5 3740.00 8.71
3-6 4015.00 2.72
3-7 2640.00 4.10

4-1 4320.00 3.29
4-2 2840.00 3.73
4-3 3450.00 3.00
4-4 3750.00 3.73
4-5 2285.00 4.00
4-6 3615.00 3.18
5-1 1650.00 2.04
5-2 2010.00 2.62
5-3 3100.00 5.14
5-4 2165.00 3.69
5-5 3395.00 11.26
5-6 2765.00 4.15
5-7 3960.00 7.71
6-1 3700.00 4.50
6-2 2150.00 0.61
6-3 2050.00 2.79
7-1 5475.00 3.98
7-2 2150.00 0.90
7-3 2225.00 1.11
7-4 4045.00 2.64
7-5 2310.00 3.46
7-6 1985.00 1.54
7-7 2855.00 1.26
Waste Composition
This report presents the results of overall waste disposed by three major waste sectors-
residential, commercial and industrial. A total of 1,290.10 kg from 43 garbage truck
samples were characterized. The results were presented in pie chart showing the
summary of waste composition and a table showing the waste type, by weight and the
precision levels at the 80% confidence level.
Due to rounding, numbers may not sum exactly to totals or subtotals.
As shown in Figure 3, comparing percentage of waste plastics (12.36%) against other

waste (87.64%) for the overall composition of waste disposed in the landfill.
Figure 3. Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from Total Samples
Plastics,
12.36%
Other
Wastes,
87.64%
Figure 4 shows the percent composition of each material type, Mixed Wastes (71.42%)
constitutes the largest amount disposed in the landfill. Some identified materials in
Mixed Wastes were organic, residues and other materials or individual materials that
are not included in the major categories. In addition, paper account for almost 14.55%
and wood (1.67%). For waste plastics against the total waste composition, PVC (5.11%)
constitutes the largest percentage for waste plastics.
In addition, paper account for almost 14.55% and wood (1.67%). For waste plastics
against the total waste composition, PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest amount being
disposed in Inayawan. This is followed by O or Other Plastics (3.29%) and HDPE
(2.64%). While the least kind of plastics observed is LDPE with approximately 0.04%.
Table 9 shows the result of overall waste composition which combines all sectors. The
detailed overall waste composition findings are shown in Table 26.
Figure 4. Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City
PET,0.35%
HDPE,2.64%
PVC,5.11%
LDPE,0.04%
PP,0.17%
PS,0.77%
M ixed
Waste, Paper,14.55% Other
71.42% Plastics,
3.29%
Wood,1.67%
Table 9. Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City
Percentage
Types of Waste (%) Variance +/-
1. PET 0.35 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 2.64 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 5.11 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.04 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.17 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 0.77 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other Plastics 3.29 13.88075913 4.78
8. Paper 14.55 225.1136841 19.23
9. Wood 1.67 16.43734224 5.20
10. Mixed Wastes 71.42 1251.139011 45.35
TOTAL PLASTIC 12.36 - -
TOTAL OTHER - -
WASTE 87.64
TOTAL WASTE 100.00 - -
For plastic wastes a total of 159.47 kg of sample for the overall waste stream which
combines all sectors, were characterized. In Figure 5, PVC (41.33%) commonly
represents the highest percentage disposed among other kinds of waste plastics. This is
followed by Other Plastics (26.61%) and HDPE (21.34%). Other kinds of plastics that
have significant numbers disposed were PS (6.23%), PET (2.82%), PP (1.39%), and
LDPE (0.28%), respectively.
Table 10 shows the result of overall waste plastics composition which combines all of
the sectors. The detailed findings of overall waste plastics composition are shown in
Table 27.
Figure 5. Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City
PET,2.82%
Other
Plastics, HDPE,21.34%
26.61%
PS,6.23%
PVC,41.33%
PP,1.39%
LDPE,0.28%
Table 10. Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City
Types of Waste Percentage

Plastics (%) Variance +/-
1. PET 2.82 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 21.34 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 41.33 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.28 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 1.39 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 6.23 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other Plastics 26.61 13.88075913 4.78
TOTAL 100.00 - -
Residential Sector
A total of 299.64 kg of waste sampled were disposed by the residential sector within the
study period. Figure 6 shows the amount of plastics that can be found in this sector
which is 19.70 kg. (6.57%) and 279.94 kg (93.43%) for other wastes.
Figure 6. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Residential Sector
Plastics,
6.57%
Other
Wastes,
93.43%
Figure 7 shows the percentage of each material type against total waste disposed in the
residential sector, Mixed Wastes (86.92%) are most common waste disposed by the
residential sector. The findings suggest that almost all of the waste being disposed in the
landfill by this sector is composed of individual materials that are included in Mixed
Wastes category. It is followed closely by Paper (3.46%) and Wood (3.05%),
respectively. For Waste Plastics against the total Plastic composition, Other Plastics
(2.14%) and HDPE (2.10%) are the two most prevalent kinds of waste plastics disposed
in this sector. The amount of LDPE (0.03%) in this sector shows lesser percentage.
Table 11 shows the result of waste characterization in the residential sector. The
detailed findings of waste characterization in the residential sector are shown in Table
28.
Figure 7. Overview of Waste Characterization, Residential
Com position ofWaste from the ResidentialSector
PET,0.22%
HDPE,2.10%
PVC,1.27%
LDPE,0.03%
M ixed Waste, PP,0.21%

86.92%
PS,0.61%
OtherPlastics,
2.14%
Paper,3.46%
Wood,3.05%
Table 11. Result of Waste Characterization, Residential
Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

(%)
1. PET 0.22 0.020830571 0.19
2. HDPE 2.10 1.121476238 1.36
3. PVC 1.27 0.280928333 0.68
4. LDPE 0.03 0.000594286 0.03
5. PP 0.21 0.011007 0.13
6. PS 0.61 0.182805571 0.55
7. Other Plastics 2.14 0.832453571 1.17
8. Paper 3.46 4.43143681 2.70
9. Wood 3.05 6.773364952 3.34
10. Mixed Wastes 86.92 1977.255361 57.01
TOTAL
PLASTICS 6.57 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 93.43 - -
TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -
Figure 8 shows the result of each type of waste plastics against the total plastics found
in this sector, Other Plastics (32.49%) and HDPE (31.96%) are the majority kinds of
waste plastics found in this sector. PVC (19.37%), PS (9.25%), PET (3.29%) and PP
(3.20%) also accounted greater percentage as shown in the graph. In lesser percentage,
LDPE contributes with approximately 0.45%.
Table 12 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector. The
detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector are shown in
Table 29.
Figure 8. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential
PS,9.25% Other
Plastics, PET,3.29%
32.49%
PP,3.20%
HDPE,
PVC,19.37% 31.96%
LDPE,0.45%
Table 12. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

Plastics (%)
1. PET 3.29 0.020830571 0.19
2. HDPE 31.96 1.121476238 1.36
3. PVC 19.37 0.280928333 0.68
4. LDPE 0.45 0.000594286 0.03
5. PP 3.20 0.011007 0.13
6. PS 9.25 0.182805571 0.55
7. Other Plastics 32.49 0.832453571 1.17
Commercial Sector
A total of 989.90 kg of wastes sample disposed in the commercial sector. As shown in

Figure 9, waste plastics in this sector approximately constitute 14.00% (138.56 kg.) and
86.00% (851.34 kg.) for Other Waste, respectively.
Figure 9. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Commercial sector
Plastics,
14.00%
Other
Wastes,
86.00%
The result shows the proportion of each material type against the total waste disposed in
commercially identified areas. Similar to residential, Figure 10 shows mixed wastes
contribute the largest percentage with 66.95%. Other materials such as Paper (17.52%)
and Wood (1.54%) also contribute to the waste disposed by the sector. For Waste
Plastics against the total waste composition, PVC (6.20%) shows highest percentage
among other kinds of plastics while Other Plastics was at 3.62%) and HDPE at 2.79%.
Table 13 shows the result of waste characterization in the commercial sector. The
detailed findings of waste characterization in the commercial sector are shown in Table
30.
Figure 10. Overview of Waste Characterization, Commercial
Com position of Disposed Waste from the Com m ercialSector

PET,0.38% HDPE,2.79%
PVC,6.20%
LDPE,0.05%
PP,0.17%
PS,0.78%
OtherPlastics,
3.62%
M ixed Waste,
66.95% Paper,17.52%
Wood,1.54%
Table 13. Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Plastics (%)
1. PET 0.38 0.137418143 0.48
2. HDPE 2.79 5.148719476 2.91
3. PVC 6.20 39.69295148 8.08
4. LDPE 0.05 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.17 0.057852667 0.31
6. PS 0.78 1.112313667 1.35
7. Other Plastics 3.62 16.50551131 5.21
8. Paper 17.52 260.1989228 20.68
9. Wood 1.54 5.366202571 2.97
10. Other Wastes 66.95 1290.594232 46.06
TOTAL PLASTIC 14.00 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 86.00 - -
TOTAL 100.00 - -
Unlike in the residential sector, it was observed that a larger volume of plastics are
disposed in the commercial sector with a total of 138.56 kg. Figure 11 shows that the
most abundant kinds of plastic found in commercial sector is PVC with 44.30%
approximately. This is followed by Other Plastics (25.89%) and HDPE (19.90%). Other
waste plastics in the sector are PS (5.61%), PET (2.73%), PP (1.23%) and LDPE
(0.33%).
Table 14 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the commercial sector.
The detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the commercial sector are
shown in Table 31.
Figure 11. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial
PET,2.73%
HDPE,19.90%
OtherPlastics,
25.89%
PS,5.61%
PVC,44.30%
PP,1.23%
LDPE,0.33%
Table 14. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

Plastics (%)
1. PET 2.73 0.137418143 0.48
2. HDPE 19.90 5.148719476 2.91
3. PVC 44.30 39.69295148 8.08
4. LDPE 0.33 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 1.23 0.057852667 0.31
6. PS 5.61 1.112313667 1.35
7. Other Plastics 25.89 16.50551131 5.21
Industrial Sector
A total of 249.06 kg of wastes are disposed in the industrial sector, based on the study
samples. Figure 12 shows 7.69% (18.47 kg) Waste Plastics disposed by this sector and
92.31% (221.59 kg) were Other Wastes.
Figure 12. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Industrial sector
Plastics,
7.69%
Other
Wastes,
92.31%
Similar results from residential and commercial sectors suggest that other wastes
(83.66%) contribute the highest percentage of waste disposed in the sector as shown in
Figure 13. Paper (7.37%) and wood (1.27%) also in significant amount of waste being
observed. For waste plastics against the total waste composition HDPE (2.49%), PVC
(2.30%) and Other Plastics (2.04%) can be considered as the three major contributors of
waste plastics in the sector. Similar to other sectors, LDPE contribute the least amount
with 0.01% approximately.
Table 15 shows the result of waste characterization in the industrial sector. The detailed
findings of waste characterization in the industrial sector are shown in Table 32.
Figure 13. Overview of Waste Characterization, Industrial
Composition of Waste from the Industrial Sector
PET,0.31%
HDPE,2.49%
PVC,2.30%
LDPE,0.01%
PP,0.08%
M ixed Waste, PS,0.47%
83.66% OtherPlastics,
2.04%
Paper,7.37%
Wood,1.27%
Table 15. Result of Waste Characterqization, Industrial

(%)
1. PET 0.31 0.019256143 0.18
2. HDPE 2.49 0.415169333 0.83
3. PVC 2.30 0.305913619 0.71
4. LDPE 0.01 0.000047 0.01
5. PP 0.08 0.001478286 0.05
6. PS 0.47 0.021305952 0.19
7. Other Plastics 2.04 0.414956571 0.84
8. Paper 7.37 4.132825333 2.61
9. Wood 1.27 0.354101571 0.76
10. Mixed
Wastes 83.66 554.5747431 30.19
TOTAL
PLASTICS 7.69 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 92.31 - -
TOTAL
SAMPLE 100.00 - -
For the industrial sector, a total of 18.47 kg of Waste Plastics was observed. The result
shows that HDPE (32.37%) has the highest percentage of waste plastics found in the
sector as shown in Figure 14. This was followed by PVC and other plastics with
29.85% and the latter 26.52%, respectively. Other waste plastics accounted for are PS
(6.05%), PET (3.97%), PP (1.08%) and LDPE (0.15%).
Table 16 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector. The
detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector are shown in
Table 33.
Figure 14. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial
PS,6.05% PET,3.97%
OtherPlastics,
26.52%
PP,1.08%
LDPE,0.15%
HDPE,32.37%
PVC,29.85%
Table 16. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

Plastics (%)
1. PET 3.97 0.019256143 0.18
2. HDPE 32.37 0.415169333 0.83
3. PVC 29.85 0.305913619 0.71
4. LDPE 0.15 0.000047 0.01
5. PP 1.08 0.001478286 0.05
6. PS 6.05 0.021305952 0.19
7. Other Plastics 26.52 0.414956571 0.84
Aggregate Data
Table 17 shows aggregated data on disposed waste of all sectors and the total amount of
sample which is 1,529.60 kg, 11.55% (176.73 kg) account for Plastic Wastes and
88.45% (1352.87 kg) for Other Wastes. The total amount for this data is higher than the
total amount of actual waste sample. This is because there are samples coming from
residential are also taken as sample for industrial and commercial since the sample areas
include two or all of the sectors.
Result shows that from three sectors, the highest amount of waste disposed was
contributed by the commercial sector. Moreover, large amount of waste plastics were
also observed in the commercial sector. In this sector, PVC is the highest waste plastics
found, followed by other plastics and HDPE. For residential sector, HDPE and other
plastics were commonly found. While in the residential sector, PVC and HDPE are the
majority of waste plastics found. LDPE was the kind of waste plastics being disposed in
a lesser amount found in all sectors. The most common waste plastics observed when
combining all sectors is PVC, followed by Other Plastics, HDPE and PS.
Table 17. Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors
Types of Waste Residential Commercial Industrial Total

1. PET 0.65 3.79 0.73 5.17
2. HDPE 6.30 27.58 5.98 39.85
3. PVC 3.82 61.38 5.51 70.71
4. LDPE 0.09 0.45 0.03 0.57
5. PP 0.63 1.71 0.20 2.54
6. PS 1.82 7.77 1.12 10.71
7. Other Plastics 6.40 35.88 4.90 47.17
8. Paper 10.37 173.40 17.70 201.46
9. Wood 9.14 15.24 3.05 27.44
10. Mixed
Wastes 260.44 662.70 200.84 1123.98
TOTAL
PLASTICS 19.70 138.56 18.47 176.73
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 279.94 851.34 221.59 1352.87
TOTAL
SAMPLE 299.64 989.90 240.06 1529.60
Similar results suggest that from commercial sector, relatively high amount of non-
hazardous waste and waste plastics were disposed in the landfill per day as shown in
Table 18. Industrial sector and the residential sector also contributed significant amount
of both non-hazardous and waste plastics being disposed everyday in the landfill.
Table 18. Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City
Estimated Ratio Estimated kg (per day)

Sector
(% kg) Non-Hazardous Waste Plastics
Residential 23.23 13.35 2.81
Commercial 76.73 121.62 19.79
Industrial 18.61 31.66 2.64
Moisture Content
The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. It is

essential to consider the factors contributed by collection sites and transportation as well
as weather conditions because these might affect moisture content of a given material.
Within the study period, rainy days were observed. Although there were no heavy rains
during the sampling period, still this factor was noted as it can lead to high moisture
content of waste plastics in a particular sampling day/s.
Table 19. Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City
Moisture Content,
Types of Waste Raw Weight (kg) Dry Weight (kg)
MC (%)
1. PET 4.51 1.76 4.43
2. HDPE 34.03 8.74 31.05
3. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.89
4. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.45
5. PP 2.22 1.70 2.18
6. PS 9.93 4.28 9.51
7. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.40
8. Paper 187.69 - -
9. Wood 21.51 - -
10. Mixed Wastes 921.43 - -
TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 1130.63 - -
The average moisture content of all plastics disposed during the sampling period is
4.10%. Figure 15 shows the result of moisture content analysis for seven types of waste
plastics during the study period.
HDPE (8.74%) shows highest moisture content among waste plastics. This is followed
by Other Plastics (7.15%), PVC (4.59%) and PS (4.28%). Moisture content of PET
(1.76%), PP (1.70%) and LDPE (0.46%) also shows relevant amount of moisture in a
waste plastic material. Table 20 shows the result of moisture content analysis of the
seven types of waste plastics.
Figure 15. Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics
10.0
8.74%
9.0
8.0 7.15%
7.0
% M oisture
6.0
4.59% 4.28%
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.76% 1.70%
2.0
1.0 0.46%
0.0
PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS Other
Plastics
Types ofWaste Plastics
Table 20. Results for Moisture Content Analysis
Types of Waste % Moisture

Average
Plastics Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
1. PET 1.73 0.23 2.75 0.80 2.47 2.55 1.80 1.76
2. HDPE 9.04 7.00 7.59 8.27 10.28 9.79 9.19 8.74
3. PVC 4.28 2.98 3.10 8.02 4.64 3.11 5.98 4.59
4. LDPE 1.19 0.00 0.40 1.09 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.46
5. PP 4.71 0.27 1.85 1.49 1.71 1.27 0.62 1.70
6. PS 5.72 0.82 4.47 5.27 6.16 3.04 4.47 4.28
7. Other Plastics 8.27 5.41 5.98 7.97 8.77 6.66 7.00 7.15
OVER-ALL
AVERAGE 4.99 2.39 3.73 4.70 4.94 3.77 4.15 4.10
Table 21. Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City
Moisture Content, Dry Weight

Types of Waste Raw Weight (kg)
MC (%) (kg)
1. PET 4.51 1.76 4.43
2. HDPE 34.03 8.74 31.05
3. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.89
4. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.45
5. PP 2.22 1.70 2.18
6. PS 9.93 4.28 9.51
7. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.40
8. Paper 187.69 - -
9. Wood 21.51 - -
10. Mixed Wastes 921.43 - -
TOTAL
PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 1130.63 - -
Waste Composition
Table 22 shows the waste composition based on Phyllis20: the composition of biomass
and waste. In addition, the weight of material while still wet was also recorded to
compare the weight of material after drying. The result suggests that PVC followed by
other plastics and HDPE were the kind of waste plastics with the highest moisture
content when disposed compared to other waste plastics.
20
ECN Phyllis, The Composition of Biomass and Waste, June 1, 2009, <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/>
Table 22. Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City
Wet Dry Composition

Types of Waste Weight Weight
C H O N S Ash
(kg) (kg)
1. PET 4.51 4.43 62.2 4.2 32.9 - - 0.7
2. HDPE 34.03 31.05 86.1 13 0.9 - - -
3. PVC 65.91 62.89 40.1 5.1 0.6 - - -
4. LDPE 0.45 0.45 85.7 14.2 0.1 0.05 - -
5. PP 2.22 2.18 85.5 14.3 0.2 - - 0.1
6. PS 9.93 9.51 92.7 7.9 - - - -
7. Other
Plastics 42.43 39.40 - - - - - -
8. Paper 187.69 - - - - - - -
9. Wood 21.51 - - - - - - -
10. Other
Waste 921.43 - - - - - - -
TOTAL
PLASTICS 159.47 149.91 - - - - - -
TOTAL
OTHER
WASTE 1130.63 - - - - - - -
TOTAL
SAMPLE 1290.10 - - - - - - -
Table 23. Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics
Types of Plastic Unclean, kg Clean, kg

1. PET 4.51 4.24
2. HDPE 34.03 31.03
3. PVC 65.91 63.61
4. LDPE 0.45 0.44
5. PP 2.22 2.16
6. PS 9.93 9.40
7. Other Plastic 42.43 38.54
TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 149.42
Waste Projection
For a given population in a particular year and the percentage annual average growth
rate, we can calculate the projection for the succeeding years. According to the City
Profile 2008, population grows at the rate of 1.77%. Using 2007 NSO data of 798, 809
population multiplied by the growth rate of 1.77% added to the population of the given
year will give the projected population for the next year. This process is repeated for the
succeeding years.
Based on the Inayawan Waste Characterization Study 2006, it is assumed that as of

2005 each person is generating 187.10 kg of waste in a year. World Bank’s Philippine
Environment Monitor 2001 assumed that the urban population would generate one
percent (1%) increase in waste generation per year. Based on these factors, waste
projection for the next year can be computed by multiplying 1% (.01) to the waste
generation and the product is added to the base waste generation for the given year.
Since that is the rate for each person per year, then we can simply multiply it to the total
population of its corresponding year.
Based on projections, Cebu City will reach the one million mark in population for year
2020 and by that time will generate 217,997 tons of waste per year, about 70% increase
from its 2007 waste generation.
Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020
Projected Projected Waste

Year
Populationa (T/Yr.)cd
b
2007 798, 809 152, 461
ab
2008 812, 948 156, 712
2009 827, 337 161, 083
2010 841, 981 165, 576
2011 856, 884 170, 194
2012 872, 051 174, 942
2013 887, 486 179, 822
2014 903, 195 184, 839
2015 919, 182 189, 995
2016 935, 452 195, 292
2017 952, 010 200, 736
2018 968, 861 206, 333
2019 986, 010 212, 085
2020 1, 003, 462 217, 997
a – Cebu City growth rate as of year 2000 is 1.77% based on
Cebu City Profile 2008
b - Cebu City population based on the NSO 2007 Census
c - 187.10 kg. waste generation/person/year according to the
Cebu Inayawan 2006
d - Waste generation increase at 1% per year based on the
Philippine Environment Monitor 2001
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The amount of waste plastics that the city currently disposes to the Inayawan Landfill is
at 12.36% of the total waste being disposed. If the city will generate a total 161,083 tons
of waste this year based on projection figures, the total waste plastics to be disposed for
the year will be approximately 19,910 tons. Wood at 2,690 tons (1.67%) and paper at
23,438 tons (14.55%) as additional feedstock for a P2F conversion facility. Total is
46,038 tons or approximately 3,837 tons of available materials a month.
Figure 16. Informal Waste Recovery in Cebu City
This old woman picks wastes on early mornings. Tri-sikad used for collected waste
plastics.
Average moisture for waste plastics content is at 4.10%, as opposed to the total
moisture content for all waste disposed at 38.57% based on the Inayawan Study.
According to the Inayawan Study, the disposed waste has an average loose density of
0.101 kg/L and average bulk density of 0.311 kg/L. The loose density figure indicates
that approximately 0.101 kg of incompact waste could be accommodated into a 1-liter
volume. This could be increased to 0.311 kg if compacted into the same volume. This
means that an additional of 0.21 kg of waste could be added to 0.101 kg of incompact
waste for every 1-liter volume.21 Although these figures are important for the Inayawan
Study in its objective to see how the landfill’s lifespan could be extended, these figures
are as significant in this plastic waste to fuels baseline study because transport and
recovery of wastes will be an important factor in implementing the demonstration
project.
Plastic waste recovery in the city is not included in the study. Based on observations,
there is no formal plastic waste recovery system in the city, except for several industries
21
Cebu, MMT, CPDO and DPS, Inayawan Sanitary Landfill Waste Characterization Study, October 2006.
and commercial establishments that manage their own waste. Informally, however,
there are several levels of recovery (Figure 16). This includes segregation at source
where recyclables are either bought by individual buyers, picked up by scavengers from
along the streets or at the disposal site, and the practice of waste collection crew to
separate materials they can sell. For a detailed discussion on these practices, please see
Activity II-2 Report on Plastic Wastes Management Systems and Practices for Cebu
City.
A further study focusing on waste recovery and diversion systems would further shed
light on how much waste plastics the city generates in different sectors. This study
should also include markets for plastics and costs of different plastic waste materials.
As for the City, a stricter enforcement of solid waste management laws and local
ordinances is needed so that recyclable waste plastics, as well as other materials, will be
diverted to environment-friendly projects such as a P2F facility.
(From the Appendix of the Cebu Waste Plastic Report) Detailed Waste Characterization Tables
Table 25. Characterization of the Overall Waste Stream.

Weight of Waste per Classification, kg Total Waste
Types of per Percentage
Variance +/-
Waste Classification, (%)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 kg
1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51 0.35 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03 2.64 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91 5.11 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.04 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22 0.17 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93 0.77 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other
Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43 3.29 13.88075913 4.78
TOTAL
PLASTICS 33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47 12.36 - -
8. Paper 31.95 20.14 54.27 15.90 35.53 10.00 19.89 187.69 14.55 225.1136841 19.23
9. Wood 2.05 0.43 2.58 11.90 1.31 0.03 3.22 21.51 1.67 16.43734224 5.20
10. Mixed
Wastes 113.10 175.03 121.46 131.27 136.30 72.27 172.01 921.43 71.42 1251.139011 45.35
TOTAL
OTHER
WASTES 147.1 195.6 178.31 159.07 173.13 82.3 195.12 1130.63 87.64 - -
TOTAL
SAMPLE 180.15 210.00 210.00 180.00 209.75 90.20 210.00 1290.10 100.00 - -
Table 26. Characterization of Waste Plastics of the Overall Waste Stream.

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste
Types of Waste per Percentage
Variance +/-
Plastics Classification, (%)
1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51 2.82 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03 21.34 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91 41.33 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.28 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22 1.39 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93 6.23 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other
Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43 26.61 13.88075913 4.78
TOTAL
33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47 100.00 - -
SAMPLE
Table 27. Residential Waste Characterization Result

per Percenta Varianc
Types of Waste +/-
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Classification ge (%) e
, kg
0.02083
1. PET 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.65 0.22 0.19
0571
1.12147
2. HDPE 0.00 2.79 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.59 1.54 6.30 2.10 1.36
6238
0.28092
3. PVC 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.68 1.06 3.82 1.27 0.68
8333
0.00059
4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.03
4286
0.01100
5. PP 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.63 0.21 0.13
7
0.18280
6. PS 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.16 0.33 1.82 0.61 0.55
5571
7. Other 0.83245
0.00 1.23 0.00 2.15 0.00 1.24 1.78 6.40 2.14 1.17
Plastics 3571
TOTAL
0.00 5.54 0.00 6.30 0.00 2.80 5.06 19.70 6.57 - -
PLASTICS
4.43143
8. Paper 0.00 0.34 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.34 5.69 10.37 3.46 2.70
681
6.77336
9. Wood 0.00 0.24 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.03 1.87 9.14 3.05 3.34
4952
10. MIxed 1977.25
0.00 113.89 0.00 44.70 0.00 24.48 77.37 260.44 86.92 57.01
Wastes 5361
TOTAL
OTHER 0.00 114.46 0.00 53.7 0.00 26.85 84.93 279.94 93.43 - -
WASTE
TOTAL
0.00 120.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 29.64 90.00 299.64 100.00 - -
SAMPLE
Table 28. Residential Waste Plastics Characterization Result.

Types of Waste per Percenta Varianc
+/-
Plastics Classification ge (%) e
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 , kg
0.02083
1. PET 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.65 3.29 0571 0.19
1.12147
2. HDPE 0.00 2.79 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.59 1.54 6.30 31.96 6238 1.36
0.28092
3. PVC 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.68 1.06 3.82 19.37 8333 0.68
0.00059
4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.45 4286 0.03
0.01100
5. PP 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.63 3.20 7 0.13
0.18280
6. PS 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.16 0.33 1.82 9.25 5571 0.55
0.83245
7. Other Plastics 0.00 1.23 0.00 2.15 0.00 1.24 1.78 6.40 32.49 3571 1.17
TOTAL
SAMPLE 0.00 5.54 0.00 6.30 0.00 2.79 5.07 19.70 100.00 - -
Table 29. Commercial Waste Characterization Result.

Types of Waste +/-
Classification ge (%) e
0.13741
1. PET 0.58 0.13 1.16 0.74 0.59 0.07 0.52 3.79 0.38 8143 0.48
5.14871
2. HDPE 5.86 2.89 7.28 3.78 4.84 0.50 2.43 27.58 2.79 9476 2.91
39.6929
3. PVC 18.60 5.70 9.79 3.52 16.12 3.28 4.38 61.38 6.20 5148 8.08
0.00240
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.05 2619 0.06
0.05785
5. PP 0.49 0.04 0.63 0.32 0.11 0.01 0.12 1.71 0.17 2667 0.31
1.11231
6. PS 1.50 0.06 1.27 0.66 3.14 0.07 1.07 7.77 0.78 3667 1.35
16.5055
7. Other Plastics 5.94 1.31 11.45 5.07 9.11 0.57 2.43 35.88 3.62 1131 5.21
TOTAL
PLASTICS 33.04 10.15 31.7 14.21 34.00 4.50 10.96 138.56 14.00 - -
260.198
8. Paper 31.95 20.14 54.27 13.60 32.04 6.00 15.40 173.40 17.52 9228 20.68
5.36620
9. Wood 2.05 0.20 2.58 6.90 1.17 0.00 2.35 15.24 1.54 2571 2.97
10. Mixed 1290.59
Wastes 113.10 119.52 121.46 85.30 112.55 19.50 91.28 662.70 66.95 4232 46.06
TOTAL
OTHER 147.10 139.86 178.30 105.80 145.75 25.5 109.03 851.34 86.00 - -
WASTES
TOTAL
SAMPLE 180.15 150.00 210.00 120.00 179.75 30.00 120.00 989.90 100.00 - -
Table 30. Commercial Waste Plastics Characterization Result

+/-
0.13741
1. PET 0.58 0.13 1.16 0.74 0.59 0.07 0.519 3.79 2.73 8143 0.48
5.14871
2. HDPE 5.86 2.89 7.28 3.78 4.84 0.50 2.425 27.58 19.90 9476 2.91
39.6929
3. PVC 18.60 5.70 9.79 3.52 16.12 3.28 4.383 61.38 44.30 5148 8.08
0.00240
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.024 0.45 0.33 2619 0.06
0.05785
5. PP 0.49 0.04 0.63 0.32 0.11 0.01 0.119 1.71 1.23 2667 0.31
1.11231
6. PS 1.50 0.06 1.27 0.66 3.14 0.07 1.068 7.77 5.61 3667 1.35
7. Other 16.5055
Plastics 5.94 1.31 11.45 5.07 9.11 0.57 2.429 35.88 25.89 1131 5.21
TOTAL
SAMPLE 33.05 10.15 31.70 14.20 33.99 4.50 10.967 138.56 100.00 - -
Table 31. Industrial Waste Characterization Result

Types of Waste +/-
Classification ge (%) e
0.01925
1. PET 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.73 0.31 6143 0.18
0.41516
2. HDPE 0.00 1.10 1.52 1.52 0.51 0.11 1.22 5.98 2.49 9333 0.83
0.30591
3. PVC 0.00 1.04 1.33 0.79 0.82 0.12 1.43 5.51 2.30 3619 0.71
0.00004
4. LDPE 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 7 0.01
0.00147
5. PP 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.08 8286 0.05
0.02130
6. PS 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.07 0.36 1.12 0.47 5952 0.19
0.41495
7. Other Plastics 0.00 0.19 0.79 1.28 0.93 0.05 1.66 4.90 2.04 6571 0.84
TOTAL
PLASTICS 0.00 2.37 4.07 3.72 2.63 0.68 5.00 18.47 7.69 - -
4.13282
8. Paper 0.00 1.30 4.00 1.90 3.49 1.10 5.90 17.70 7.37 5333 2.61
0.35410
9. Wood 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.40 0.14 0.00 1.50 3.05 1.27 1571 0.76
10. MIxed 554.574
Wastes 0.00 26.33 20.92 23.97 23.74 28.29 77.59 200.84 83.66 7431 30.19
TOTAL
OTHER 0.00 27.63 25.93 26.27 27.38 29.39 84.99 221.59 - -
WASTES
TOTAL
SAMPLE 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.06 90.00 240.06 100.00 - -
Table 32. Industrial Waste Plastics Characterization Result

+/-
0.01925
1. PET 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.73 3.97 6143 0.18
0.41516
2. HDPE 0.00 1.10 1.52 1.52 0.51 0.11 1.22 5.98 32.37 9333 0.83
0.30591
3. PVC 0.00 1.04 1.33 0.79 0.82 0.12 1.43 5.51 29.85 3619 0.71
0.00004
4. LDPE 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.15 7 0.01
0.00147
5. PP 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.20 1.08 8286 0.05
0.02130
6. PS 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.07 0.36 1.12 6.05 5952 0.19
0.41495
7. Other Plastics 0.00 0.19 0.79 1.28 0.93 0.05 1.66 4.90 26.52 6571 0.84
TOTAL
SAMPLE 0.00 2.37 4.07 3.73 2.62 0.67 5.01 18.47 100.00 - -
Table 33. Results of Unclean Waste Plastics

Types of Waste per Varianc
+/-
Plastics Classification, e
1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51
2. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03
3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45
5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22
6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93
7. Other Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43
TOTAL
33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47
SAMPLE
Table 34. Results of Clean Waste Plastics.

Types of Waste per Varianc
+/-
Plastics Classification, e
1. PET 0.42 0.14 1.12 0.81 0.57 0.35 0.82 4.24
2. HDPE 5.32 4.72 6.76 5.42 4.79 1.10 2.93 31.03
3. PVC 18.00 6.20 9.53 4.42 16.52 4.06 4.89 63.61
4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.44
5. PP 0.47 0.22 0.61 0.34 0.21 0.17 0.15 2.16
6. PS 1.40 0.20 1.22 1.75 3.23 0.22 1.37 9.40
7. Other Plastics 5.47 2.03 10.60 6.55 9.49 0.73 3.67 38.54
TOTAL
31.15 13.53 29.97 19.41 34.88 6.63 13.86 149.42
SAMPLE
Table 35. Weight Master Summary

Day-Sample
Barangay Truck Number Gross wt. Net Load
No.
1-1 Kasambagan SJC- 469 7740.00 3210.00
1-2 Sto. Niño SJC- 480 6945.00 2495.00
1-3 Kamputhaw SHM- 376 7910.00 3420.00
1-4 Lorega San SJC- 345 7190.00 2570.00
Miguel
1-5 Pari-an/ Day-as SHM- 377 6945.00 2335.00
1-6 Kalubihan SJC- 459 7920.00 3875.00
Total 44650.00 17905.00
2-1 Mabolo SHN- 415 7075.00 2400.00
2-2 Tisa SHC- 369 7205.00 3130.00
2-3 Lower Lahug SHM- 376 7930.00 3400.00
2-4 San Nicolas SGP- 290 5100.00 2425.00
Proper
2-5 Apas SHN- 435 7550.00 3060.00
2-6 Labangon SHM- 386 7160.00 2540.00
2-7 Upper Lahug SHW- 980 7210.00 2685.00
Total 49230.00 19640.00
3-1 Ermita SHN- 415 7870.00 3320.00
3-2 Hipodromo 4020.00 3400.00
3-3 Kasambagan 7370.00 2845.00
3-4 Tinago/ San 4010.00 3300.00
Roque
3-5 Kamagayan SJC- 459 8270.00 3740.00
3-6 Kamputhaw SHM- 376 8505.00 4015.00
3-7 Day-as/ Pari-an SHM- 377 7250.00 2640.00
Total 47295.00 23260.00
4-1 Guadalupe SGH- 500 13900.00 4320.00
4-2 Basak Pardo 7R-RP- 309 6050.00 2840.00
4-3 Bulacao SJC- 185 6525.00 3450.00
4-4 Sambag 1 SGH- 503 9575.00 3750.00
4-5 Capitol SEZ- 252 8010.00 2285.00
4-6 Sambag 2 SHD- 752 7990.00 3615.00
Total 52050.00 20260.00
Lorega/ San
5-1 Miguel GHU- 392 6150.00 1650.00
5-2 Tejero/ Carreta SHM- 396 6750.00 2010.00
5-3 Sto. Niño SJC- 480 7550.00 3100.00
5-4 Day-as/ Pari-an SHM- 377 6775.00 2165.00
5-5 Kamagayan SJC- 459 7925.00 3395.00
5-6 Task Force SHN- 425 7415.00 2765.00
5-7 Ermita SHN- 415 8510.00 3960.00
Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1: Plastic
Waste Analysis and Characterization Study-A. Cebu City, Philippines”
Total 51075.00 19045.00

6-1 Carbon 5045.00 3700.00
6-2 Suba 3210.00 2150.00
6-3 Pardo 3205.00 2050.00
6-4 Hospital 4015.00 3500.00
Total 11460.00 7900.00
7-1 Luz SHV- 793 11175.00 5475.00
7-2 Banilad 3210.00 2150.00
7-3 Sawang Calero GSP- 300 5275.00 2225.00
7-4 Talamban SJC- 459 8575.00 4045.00
7-5 Calamba 3210.00 2310.00
7-6 Punta Princesa 4885.00 1985.00
Basak San
7-7 Nicolas SGX- 793 5905.00 2855.00
TOTAL 42235.00 21045.00
6.5. Raw Data
Table 36. Day 1- Sample 1 Bargy. Kasambagan

NB: 0.969 kg.- weight of the container (bakat)
Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg
%
Types of Waste (Unclean) (Clean)
Moisture
wt. w/o container wt. w/o container
1. PET 0.018 0.018 0
2. HDPE 1.531 1.396 8.82
3. PVC 1.503 1.398 6.99
4. LDPE 0.027 0.026 3.70
5. PP 0.145 0.139 4.14
6. PS 0.145 0.136 6.21
7. Other Plastics 0.26 0.239 8.08
TOTAL Ave.
PLASTICS 3.629 3.352 5.42
8. Paper 3 - -
9. Wood 0.149 - -
10. Mixed waste 23.222 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 26.371 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 37. Day 1- Sample 2 Brgy. Sto Nino

NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.029 0.028 3.45
2. HDPE 0.844 0.766 9.24
3. PVC 2.987 2.851 4.55
4. LDPE 0.002 0.002 0
5. PP 0.049 0.046 6.12
6. PS 0.106 0.100 5.66
7. Other Plastics 1.677 1.515 9.66
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 5.694 5.308 5.53
8. Paper 3.5 - -
9. Wood 0.407 - -
10. Mixed waste 20.399 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 24.306 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 38. Day 1-Sample 3 Brgy. Kamputhaw

NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.11 0.107 2.73
2. HDPE 1.107 0.996 10.03
3. PVC 1.709 1.617 5.38
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.179 0.171 4.50
6. PS 0.092 0.086 6.52
7. Other Plastics 0.789 0.711 9.89
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.986 3.688 5.58
8. Paper 1.424 - -
9. Wood 19.037 - -
10. Mixed waste 26.014 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 26.014 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 39. Day 1-Sample 4 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel

NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.059 0.058 1.69
2. HDPE 1.184 1.070 9.63
3. PVC 2.447 2.407 1.63
4. LDPE 0.014 0.014 0
5. PP 0.013 0.012 7.69
6. PS 0.675 0.623 7.84
7. Other Plastics 0.979 0.893 8.74
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 5.371 5.077 5.32
8. Paper 0.484 - -
9. Wood 0.07 - -
10. Mixed waste 24.075 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 24.629 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 40. Day 1-Sample 5 Brgy. Day-as/ Pari-an

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.198 0.193 2.53
2. HDPE 0.769 0.698 9.23
3. PVC 2.506 2.354 6.07
4. LDPE 0.029 0.028 3.45
5. PP 0.103 0.097 5.83
6. PS 0.267 0.253 5.24
7. Other Plastics 0.241 0.222 7.88
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 4.113 3.845 5.75
8. Paper 9.447 - -
9. Wood 0.003 - -
10. Mixed Waste 16.437 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 25.887 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 41. Day 1-Sample 6 Brgy. Kalubihan

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.017 0.017 0
2. HDPE 0.425 0.394 7.29
3. PVC 7.447 7.369 1.05
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.005 0.005 0
6. PS 0.212 0.206 2.83
7. Other Plastics 1.996 1.889 5.36
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 10.102 9.880 2.36
8. Paper 9.97 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 9.928 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 19.898 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 42. Day 2-Sample 1 Brgy. Mabolo

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.019 0.019 0
2. HDPE 1.103 0.995 9.79
3. PVC 1.042 0.993 4.70
4. LDPE 0.015 0.015 0
5. PP 0.002 0.002 0
6. PS 0 0 0
7. Other Plastics 0.191 0.177 7.33
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.372 2.201 3.12
8. Paper 1.3 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 26.328 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 27.628 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 43. Day 2-Sample 2 Brgy. Tisa

NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.018 0.018 0
2. HDPE 1.919 1.716 10.58
3. PVC 0.235 0.230 2.13
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.107 0.105 1.87
6. PS 0.088 0.088 0
7. Other Plastics 0.476 0.438 7.98
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.843 2.595 3.22
8. Paper 0.001 - -
9. Wood 0.045 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 27.111 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 27.157 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 44. Day 2-Sample 3 Brgy. Lower Lahug

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.027 0.027 0
2. HDPE 0.021 0.021 0
3. PVC 0 0 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.003 0.003 0
6. PS 0 0 0
7. Other Plastics 0.152 0.150 1.32
TOTAL Ave
PLASTIC 0.203 0.201 0.19
8. Paper 0.085 - -
9. Wood 0.006 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 29.706 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 29.797 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 45. Day 2-Sample 4 Brgy. San Nicolas Proper

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.020 0.020 0
2. HDPE 0.951 0.838 11.88
3. PVC 3.166 3.029 4.33
4. LDPE 0.011 0.011 0
5. PP 0.006 0.006 0
6. PS 0.035 0.033 5.71
7. Other Plastics 0.636 0.584 8.18
TOTAL Ave
PLASTIC 4.825 4.521 4.30
8. Paper 15.999 - -
9. Wood 0.189 - -
10. Mixed wastes 8.987 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 25.175 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 46. Day 2-Sample 5 Brgy. Apas

%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.401 0.375 6.48
3. PVC 0.508 0.484 4.72
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.073 0.073 0
6. PS 0.047 0.047 0
7. Other Plastics 0.379 0.362 4.49
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.408 1.341 2.24
8. Paper 0.002 - -
9. Wood 0.187 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 28.592 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 47. Day 2-Sample 6 Brgy. Labangon

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.061 0.060 1.64
2. HDPE 0.371 0.358 3.50
3. PVC 1.079 1.078 0.09
4. LDPE 0 0 0.00
5. PP 0.026 0.026 0.00
6. PS 0.021 0.021 0.00
7. Other Plastics 0.112 0.109 2.68
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.67 1.652 1.13
8. Paper 2.5 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 28.33 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 48. Day 2-Sample 7 Brgy. Upper Lahug

%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.445 0.415 6.74
3. PVC 0.408 0.388 4.90
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.008 0.008 0
7. Other Plastics 0.222 0.209 5.86
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.083 1.02 2.50
8. Paper 0.251 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 28.917 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 49. Day 3-Sample 1 Brgy. Ermita

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.158 0.152 3.80
2. HDPE 0.703 0.639 9.10
3. PVC 2.634 2.567 2.54
4. LDPE 0 0 0.00
5. PP 0.1 0.1 0.00
6. PS 0.17 0.159 6.47
7. Other Plastics 1.04 0.962 7.68
TOTAL
PLASTICS 4.805 4.579 4.23
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 0.059 - -
10. Mixed waste 21.136 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 50. Day 3-Sample 2 Brgy. Hipodromo

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.257 0.249 3.11
2. HDPE 1.401 1.257 10.28
3. PVC 0.592 0.554 6.42
4. LDPE 0.036 0.035 2.78
5. PP 0.299 0.289 3.34
6. PS 0.088 0.083 5.68
7. Other Plastics 0.821 0.757 7.8
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.494 3.224 5.63
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 1.504 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTE 26.506 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 51. Day 3-Sample 3 Brgy. Kasambagan

NB: 0.942 kg - weight of the container (bakat)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.053 0.052 1.89
2. HDPE 1.867 1.769 5.25
3. PVC 1.403 1.347 3.99
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.038 0.038 0
6. PS 0.136 0.130 4.41
7. Other Plastics 0.312 0.298 4.49
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.809 3.634 2.86
8. Paper 1.701 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.191 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 52. Day 3-Sample 4 Brgy. Tinago/ San Roque

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.118 0.116 1.69
2. HDPE 1.515 1.469 3.04
3. PVC 1.326 1.285 2.11
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.032 0.031 3.13
6. PS 0.284 0.277 2.46
7. Other Plastics 0.793 0.767 3.28
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 4.068 3.945 2.24
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 1.012 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 25.932 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 53. Day 3-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.121 0.119 1.65
2. HDPE 0.392 0.359 8.42
3. PVC 0.009 0.009 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.008 0.008 0
6. PS 0.208 0.196 5.77
7. Other Plastics 7.970 7.337 7.94
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 8.708 8.028 3.40
8. Paper 14.392 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
wasteS 6.9 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 21.292 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 54. Day 3-Sample 6 Brgy. Kamputhaw

NB: 0.566 kg. - weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.376 0.359 4.52
2. HDPE 0.785 0.692 11.85
3. PVC 0.824 0.769 6.67
4. LDPE 0.035 0.035 0
5. PP 0.079 0.075 5.06
6. PS 0.33 0.32 3.03
7. Other Plastics 0.286 0.267 6.64
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.715 2.517 5.40
8. Paper 20.38 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
wasteS 6.905 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 27.285 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 55. Day 3-Sample 7 Brgy. Day-as/Pari-an

NB: 0.511 kgs- weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.078 0.076 2.56
2. HDPE 0.616 0.584 5.19
3. PVC 3 3 0
4. LDPE 0.05 0.05 0
5. PP 0.071 0.07 1.41
6. PS 0.058 0.056 3.45
7. Other Plastics 0.223 0.214 4.04
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 4.096 4.05 2.38
8. Paper 5.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 25.904 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 56. Day 4-Sample 1 Brgy. Guadalupe

Types of Waste Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg
%
(Unclean) (Clean)
Moisture
1. PET 0.237 0.236 0.42
2. HDPE 0.806 0.723 10.30
3. PVC 0.417 0.382 8.39
4. LDPE 0.064 0.062 3.13
5. PP 0.24 0.239 0.42
6. PS 0.101 0.094 6.93
7. Other Plastics 1.429 1.368 4.27
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.294 3.104 4.84
8. Paper 1.6 - -
9. Wood 2.4 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.706 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 57. Day 4-Sample 2 Brgy. Basak Pardo

NB: 0.657 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 1.523 1.423 6.57
3. PVC 0.785 0.752 4.20
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.14 0.134 0.429
7. Other Plastics 1.279 1.153 9.85
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.727 3.462 3.01
8. Paper 1.9 - -
9. Wood 0.4 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.273 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 58. Day 4-Sample 3 Brgy. Bulacao

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.084 0.084 0
2. HDPE 0.582 0.509 12.54
3. PVC 0.501 0.457 8.78
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.024 0.023 4.17
6. PS 1.089 0.997 8.45
7. Other Plastics 0.723 0.645 10.79
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.003 2.715 6.39
8. Paper 0.4 - -
9. Wood 4.6 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.997 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 59. Day 4-Sample 4 Brgy. Sambag 1

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.05 0.05 0
2. HDPE 1.093 1.006 7.96
3. PVC 1.374 1.262 8.15
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.046 0.044 4.35
6. PS 0.479 0.453 5.43
7. Other Plastics 0.687 0.627 8.73
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.729 3.442 4.95
8. Paper 6.9 - -
9. Wood 2.3 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.271 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 60. Day 4-Sample 5 Brgy. Capitol

NB: 0.630 kg - weight of the container (bakat)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.304 0.301 0.99
2. HDPE 0.824 0.801 2.79
3. PVC 0.879 0.801 8.87
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.017 0.017 0
6. PS 0.005 0.005 0
7. Other Plastics 1.97 1.864 5.38
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.999 3.789 2.58
8. Paper 4.8 - -
9. Wood 1.6 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.001 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 61. Day 4-Sample 6 Brgy. Sambag 2

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.148 0.143 3.38
2. HDPE 1.06 0.96 9.43
3. PVC 0.845 0.763 9.7
4. LDPE 0.059 0.057 3.39
5. PP 0.013 0.013 0
6. PS 0.077 0.069 10.39
7. Other Plastics 0.98 0.894 8.78
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.182 2.899 6.44
8. Paper 0.3 - -
9. Wood 0.6 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.818 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 62. Day 5-Sample 1 Brgy. Lorega/San Miguel

%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.912 0.797 12.61
3. PVC 0.93 0.873 6.13
4. LDPE 0.082 0.079 3.66
5. PP 0.023 0.022 4.35
6. PS 0.066 0.061 7.58
7. Other Plastics 0.261 0.241 7.66
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.274 2.073 6.00
8. Paper 1.16 - -
9. Wood 0.19 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 27.726 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 63. Day 5-Sample 2 Brgy. Tejero/Carreta

%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.505 0.454 10.10
3. PVC 0.815 0.742 8.96
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.109 0.104 4.59
6. PS 0.264 0.243 7.95
7. Other Plastics 0.928 0.847 8.73
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.621 2.39 5.76
8. Paper 3.494 - -
9. Wood 0.141 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 27.379 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 64. Day 5-Sample 3 Brgy. Sto Nino

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.1 0.1 0
2. HDPE 0.714 0.653 8.54
3. PVC 1.66 1.54 7.23
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.007 0.007 0
6. PS 1.538 1.473 4.23
7. Other Plastics 1.12 1.064 5
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 5.139 4.837 3.57
8. Paper 2.477 - -
9. Wood 0.944 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 24.861 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 65. Day 5-Sample 4 Brgy. Pari-an

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.128 0.121 5.47
2. HDPE 0.806 0.725 10.05
3. PVC 1.601 1.599 0.13
4. LDPE 0.004 0.004 0
5. PP 0.033 0.032 3.03
6. PS 0.748 0.708 5.35
7. Other Plastics 0.372 0.328 11.83
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.692 3.517 5.12
8. Paper 1.799 - -
9. Wood 0.034 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.308 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 66. Day 5-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.127 0.121 4.72
2. HDPE 0.751 0.657 12.52
3. PVC 8.6 8.6 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.014 0.014 0
6. PS 0.218 0.197 9.63
7. Other Plastics 1.552 1.426 8.12
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 11.262 11.015 5.00
8. Paper 9.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 8.938 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 18.738 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 67. Day 5-Sample 6 Task Force

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.093 0.089 4.30
2. HDPE 1.152 1.034 10.24
3. PVC 1.538 1.459 5.14
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.009 0.009 0
6. PS 0.495 0.472 4.65
7. Other Plastics 0.864 0.75 13.19
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 4.151 3.813 5.36
8. Paper 3.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 22.049 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 25.849 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 68. Day 5-Sample 7 Brgy. Ermita

NB: Note: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
%
Moisture
1. PET 0.143 0.139 2.80
2. HDPE 0.505 0.465 7.92
3. PVC 1.794 1.706 4.91
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.02 0.02 0
6. PS 0.081 0.078 3.70
7. Other Plastics 5.183 4.829 6.83
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 7.726 7.237 3.74
8. Paper 13 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 9.274 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 22.274 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 69. Day 6-Sample 1 Carbon

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.067 0.065 2.99
2. HDPE 0.501 0.450 10.18
3. PVC 3.281 3.281 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.009 0.009 0
6. PS 0.067 0.063 5.97
7. Other Plastics 0.571 0.529 7.36
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 4.496 4.397 3.79
8. Paper 6 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 19.504 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 25.504 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 70. Day 6-Sample 2 Brgy. Suba

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.301 0.287 4.65
2. HDPE 0.108 0.093 13.89
3. PVC 0.117 0.109 6.84
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.033 0.032 3.03
6. PS 0.006 0.006 0
7. Other Plastics 0.048 0.045 6.25
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 0.613 0.572 4.95
8. Paper 1.102 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 28.285 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 29.387 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 71. Day 6-Sample 3 Brgy. Pardo

%
Moisture
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.585 0.554 5.30
3. PVC 0.682 0.665 2.49
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.129 0.128 0.78
6. PS 0.158 0.153 3.16
7. Other Plastics 2.792 1.659 2.59
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.792 1.659 2.59
8. Paper 2.9 - -
9. Wood 0.026 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 24.282 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 27.208 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 72. Day 7-Sample 1 Brgy. Luz

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.188 0.186 1.07
2. HDPE 0.331 0.298 9.97
3. PVC 2.938 2.713 7.66
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.016 0.016 0
6. PS 0.38 0.361 5.00
7. Other Plastics 0.123 0.11 10.57
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.976 3.684 4.90
8. Paper 3.7 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 22.324 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.024 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 73. Day 7-Sample 2 Brgy. Banilad

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.161 0.156 3.11
2. HDPE 0.352 0.312 11.36
3. PVC 0.054 0.046 7.41
4. LDPE 0.011 0.011 0
5. PP 0.023 0.022 4.35
6. PS 0.17 0.159 6.47
7. Other Plastics 0.126 0.12 4.76
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 0.897 0.826 5.35
8. Paper 0.5 - -
9. Wood 0.067 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 28.536 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 29.103 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 74. Day 7-Sample 3 Brgy. Sawang Calero

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.078 0.078 0
2. HDPE 0.259 0.235 9.27
3. PVC 0.385 0.353 8.31
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.012 0.012 0
6. PS 0.136 0.132 2.94
7. Other Plastics 0.236 0.209 11.44
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.106 1.019 4.57
8. Paper 1.9 - -
9. Wood 0.282 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 26.712 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 28.894 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 75. Day 7-Sample 4 Brgy. Talamban

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.052 0.05 3.85
2. HDPE 0.792 0.708 10.61
3. PVC 0.776 0.719 7.35
4. LDPE 0.013 0.013 0
5. PP 0.011 0.011 0.00
6. PS 0.077 0.073 5.19
7. Other Plastics 0.916 0.855 6.66
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 2.637 2.429 4.81
8. Paper 3.3 - -
9. Wood 1.219 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 22.844 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 27.363 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 76. Day 7-Sample 5 Brgy. Calamba

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.118 0.115 2.54
2. HDPE 0.95 0.849 10.63
3. PVC 0.615 0.569 7.48
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.069 0.069 0
6. PS 0.441 0.417 5.44
7. Other Plastics 1.264 1.197 5.30
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 3.457 3.216 4.48
8. Paper 7.9 - -
9. Wood 1.067 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 17.576 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 26.543 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 77. Day 7-Sample 6 Brgy. Punta Princesa

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.07 0.069 1.43
2. HDPE 0.392 0.368 6.12
3. PVC 0.234 0.228 2.56
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.02 0.02 0
6. PS 0.084 0.081 3.57
7. Other Plastics 0.739 0.698 5.55
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.539 1.464 2.75
8. Paper 1.888 - -
9. Wood 0.588 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 25.985 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 28.461 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
Table 78. Day 7-sample 7 Brgy. San Nicolas

%
Moisture
1. PET 0.166 0.165 0.60
2. HDPE 0.173 0.162 6.36
3. PVC 0.267 0.264 1.12
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.15 0.146 2.67
7. Other Plastics 0.507 0.483 4.73
TOTAL Ave
PLASTICS 1.263 1.22 2.21
8. Paper 0.7 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed
Wastes 28.037 - -
TOTAL OTHER
WASTES 28.737 - -
OVER-ALL
TOTAL 30 - -
6.6. Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials
Table 79. List of Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials

Required Equipment Equipment per Member of Sorting
Crew*
Item Quantity Item Quantity
Large woven baskets 28 Pair of thick rubber 1 pair
(bakat) gloves
Plastic garbage bags 100 Surgical masks 1
Smaller containers 21 Work suit 1
Stiff broom 1 Waste Classification 1
Guide
Wide-mouth shovel 1 * With ready
replacements
Hand-held calculator 1 Other Materials
First-aid kit 1 Item Quantity
Sort area 1 Clipboard 1
Tarp 4'x 8' As needed Data forms As needed
Rags As needed Labels for samples As needed
Small, medium and large 3 Pens and markers As needed
scales
Wheelbarrow 1 Adhesive tape As needed
Straw strings As needed

WP 5 WasteQC Cebu

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

WP 5 WasteQC Cebu

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterization – Cebu (2009)

Introduction to Cebu (Philippines)

Brief Profile of Cebu City

Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office

Figure 1. Cebu City Zoning Map

Demand for tourism-related services, building of accommodation establishments and

Because of international community recognition of Region 7 for its IT and tourism

Overview of Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City

National Solid Waste Profile and Projection

Table 1. National Waste Generation, 2000-2010

City Solid Waste Monitoring

Table 2. Volume of Garbage, North District, Cebu City

Table 3. Volume of Garbage South District, Cebu City

Table 4. DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day)

Table 5. Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008

Comparativ Day Shift/South District Night Shift/North District

Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterisation

Table 6. Sampling Schedule

Table 7. Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence

To determine the residential, commercial and industrial waste compositions, the

The Weight Master Summary, Table 35 can be found at Appendix D.

Actual Waste Characterization

Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck

Detailed tables culled from raw data are placed in Appendix E.

Daily Samples Aggregated Data

3-7 2640.00 4.10

Due to rounding, numbers may not sum exactly to totals or subtotals.

As shown in Figure 3, comparing percentage of waste plastics (12.36%) against other

Figure 3. Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from Total Samples

Figure 4. Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

Table 9. Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

Figure 5. Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

Table 10. Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

Types of Waste Percentage

Figure 6. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Residential Sector

Com position ofWaste from the ResidentialSector

M ixed Waste, PP,0.21%

Table 11. Result of Waste Characterization, Residential

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

Figure 8. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

Table 12. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

A total of 989.90 kg of wastes sample disposed in the commercial sector. As shown in

Figure 9. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Commercial sector

Figure 10. Overview of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Com position of Disposed Waste from the Com m ercialSector

Table 13. Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

Figure 11. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

Table 14. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

Figure 12. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Industrial sector

Figure 13. Overview of Waste Characterization, Industrial

Composition of Waste from the Industrial Sector

Table 15. Result of Waste Characterqization, Industrial

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

Figure 14. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

Table 16. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

Types of Waste Percentage Variance +/-

Table 17. Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors

Types of Waste Residential Commercial Industrial Total

Table 18. Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City