SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
AT THE ATLANTA STATE
FARMERS' MARKET
A solid waste management
open-file report (SW-3tg)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
-------
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
AT THE ATLANTA STATE FARMERS' MARKET
This open-file report (SW-3tg) on work performed under solid waste management
training grant no. EC-00033 to Georgia Institute of Technology
was written under the direction of F. G. POHLAND
and has been reproduced as received from the grantee.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-3tg).
-------
FOREWORD
This Nation is facing the ever-growing problem of how best to
manage its solid wastes. Not only are present practices of solid
waste storage, collection, processing, and disposal becoming inadequate,
but the United States also faces a shortage of trained professional
workers in the field who are equipped to deal with the problem.
To help alleviate this shortage, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, under authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law
89-272), administers a program of grants-in-aid which supports
graduate-level training programs at 13 universities for approximately
65 masters' degree candidates each year. These students receive
specific training in the many aspects of modern-day solid waste tech-
nology and management. Some of these training programs are located at
large urban universities and center their instruction on solid wastes
in the urban environment, while other programs are at schools in
agricultural regions and may place their emphasis on food-processing and
farm waste problems. To date, over 100 engineers have been trained at the
graduate level in universities receiving support from the Federal solid
waste management program.
One phase of the graduate students' training is to conduct a research
project dealing with a specific aspect of solid waste management. This
document reports on the results of one such research project and provides
information which should be useful to others concerned with better solid
waste management practices.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The information presented herein was assembled
by the following graduate students in Solid Waste
Technology:
C. N. Battle W. T. Manasco
G. D. Drew J. C. Meredith
J. Hudson E. Ortiz
W. W. Liberick L. E. Smith
Greatful appreciation is extended to Mr. Steele and
Mr. Leverett of the Atlanta State Farmers' Market
for their cooperation and assistance and to the Solid
Wastes Office, Environmental Protection Agency for
financial support under training grant No. EC 00033-05.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
General Perspective 1
Solid Waste Generation, Collection and Disposal 4
Sampling Procedures and Analytical Techniques 4
Presentation of Data 8
Discussion of Data 15
Density and Composition of Wastes 15
Moisture Content 15
Volatile Solids 1?
Calorific Value 17
Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Content 17
Summary and Conclusions 18
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Location Map of Atlanta State Farmers'
Market 2
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Atlanta State Farmers'
Market 3
Figure 3- Monthly Generation of Solid Wastes by the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1968 5
Figure U. Bulk Container 6
Figure 5. Compactor Collection Truck 6
Figure 6. Mechanical Sweeper 6
Figure J. Incinerator 6
Figure 8. Cannery 7
Figure 9- Canning Operation 7
Figure 10. Entrance to Landfill Site 7
Figure 11. Landfill Site Operation 7
Figure 12. Winter and Summer Variations in Major
Fractions of Solid Waste Collected at the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1969 l6
Figure 13. Winter and Summer Variations of Composition
of Solid Waste Samples Collected from the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1969. 20
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table I. Volume, Density and Total Weights of Solid
Waste Samples Collected from the Atlanta
State Farmers' Market in 1969
Table II. Component Fractions of Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta State Farmers'
Market in 1969
Table III. Major and Minor Sub -components of Fruit and
Vegetable Fractions of Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta State Farmers'
Market in 1969
Table IV. Moisture Content of Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta State Farmers'
Market in 1969
Table V. Volatile Solids Content of Solid Waste
Samples Collected from the Atlanta State
Farmers' Market in 1969
Table VI. Calorific Values for Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta State Farmers'
Market in 1969
Table VII. Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Content of
Solid Waste Samples Collected from the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1969
Table VIII. Statistical Variance of Analyses of Solid
Waste Samples Collected from the Atlanta
State Farmers' Market in 1969
Table IX. Statistical Variance of Analyses of Solid
Waste Samples Collected from the Atlanta
State Farmers' Market in 1969
Table X. Composite Characteristics of Solid Waste
Samples Collected from the Atlanta State
Farmers' Market in
10
11
11
12
13
19
Table XI. Summary of Composite Characteristics of
Solid Waste Samples Collected from the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1969
19
Vll
-------
-------
Introduction
This study provided an opportunity to apply existing methods for charac-
terizing and analyzing solid wastes generated from a commercial activity. The
Atlanta State Farmers' Market was chosen because of its convenience for survey
and because it provided its own collection service which simplified sample
analysis and data acquisition. Since the study was coordinated with the grad-
uate training program at Georgia Tech, samples were collected and analyzed
during the winter and summer quarters of 1969 or a once-weekly basis.
General Perspective
The Atlanta State Farmers' Market is located approximately two miles
south of Atlanta on Highway 133 (Thomas Road) just east of Interstate 75-
(See Figure 1 and Figure ?) The present Market was constructed on a 1^6-acre
site in 1959 at a cost of about ten million dollars. At the time of survey,
it included the following equipment and facilities:
1. Thirty-two farmer's sheds providing 102,hOO square feet of
covered dock area and 389,120 square feet of covered load-
ing and unloading space. There were 32 truck parking spaces
under each shed.
2. Nine dealer's buildings, each 585 feet long by 100 feet
wide, providing a total of 510,750 square feet of en-
closed space and covered dock area including offices, modern
refrigeration and storage areas.
3- Support facilities including an administration building, a
barber shop, a service station and cafeteria.
U A cannery for processing and preserving fresh fruits and
vegetables
5- Rail facilities for six of the dealer's buildings.
6. Solid waste storage and collection equipment including three
compactor trucks, bulk refuse storage containers and three
street sweepers.
7- A gas fired incinerator
The major commodities handled at the Market include vegetables, fruits,
nuts and meat products such as chickens and hams. The quantity of produce
varies seasonally for the individual items. Approximately 175,000 square
feet of cold storage area in the dealer's building permits a limited amount
of product handling in the non-growing seasons. During 1967, $5^-5 million
worth of the above products were handled.
-1-
-------
LOCATION MAP
Atlanta State Farmers' Market
Figure 1.
-------
P |:\ ! 5 5' - ; f 'V- i "
ft *'^> '^^^$'₯^-^"^'S' ''" v'";" T% "^^ ? i *"
", ! S^t.'^KiV-.-'«^T'-'*'^'- f ' *'
« -v ;-'.;;--V, ;
^- ,s';-^ ;- >A^.%; , «
*' '^'-'^f- ..' - :: ';***;;; '*
-p
0)
-------
Solid Waste Generation,Collection and Disposal
Associated with the products handled at the Market are considerable quan-
tities of solid wastes including unsalable products, packing materials, car-
tons and wastes from the support facilities (offices, cafeterias, service sta-
tions, cannery, etc.)- The 1968 records indicated that approximately 3580
tons or 15,876 cubic yards of wastes were generated and disposed of at a
nearby landfill. Monthly fluctuations in waste quantities during 1968 are
illustrated in Figure 3- It is apparent from this figure that larger quan-
tities of wastes were handled during the local growing season when the largest
quantities of produce were made available.
All wastes at the Market are collected with a modern collection system.
Wastes are stored at their origin in bulk containers of which there were 90,
3--cubic yard containers and 10, 7-cubic yard containers located throughout
the area during the survey period. An example of a typical container is
shown in Figure h. The containers are emptied at least once a day by Market
personnel using two LoDal compactor trucks. (See Figure 5)- These trucks
have capacities of 25 and 18 cubic yards respectively. In addition, three
Wayne, Model 970, mechanical sweepers (See Figure 6) are employed to clean
the parking areas when required.
Although a gas fired incinerator is available at the Market, it is not used
except to burn large wooden pallets when they are discarded. The incinerator
illustrated in Figure 7 is a one ton per hour, double chamber, dual furnace,
batch feed, Morse Boulger Destructor. It was installed in 1959 with the con-
struction of the Market but was never placed into full-time operation due to
mechanical control problems associated with the burning of the type of wastes
generated at the Market. No plans for extended use of the incinerator had
been formulated at the time of the survey.
The cannery (See Figure 8 and Figure 9) is operated as a service to Market
customers. Assistance is provided by Market personnel in the operation of
the processing equipment which is generally scheduled for 8-hour periods daily
during the months of June through September. During 1968, approximately
76i,000 No. 2\ cans of produce were processed. The wastes from the cannery are
collected along with the other Market wastes.
Essentially all solid wastes generated at the Market were disposed of at
a privately owned and operated landfill located approximately three miles
from the Market as illustrated by the photographs (Figure 10 and Figure 11)
taken during the survey. Payment for disposal services was charged at a rate
of $U.DO per load.
Sampling Procedures and Analytical Techniques
In order to obtain the necessary data to characterize the Markets'
solid wastes, a routine sampling procedure was established for each seasonal
period. Weekly samples were collected during a 6-weeks period in the winter
-k-
-------
UJ
I
I-
>
m
ui
H
05 0>
s<°
^ 0)
9 ""
ds
CO
z a:
0<
o:"co
m ttl
Z^
UJ 5
CD IT
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 t
ooooooooooo
OOJCON-tDintrOCvJ
-, rO
o>
o»
u.
savon
-5-
-------
SH
EH
a
o
H
-p
o
o
o
O
-P
O
ci
O
o
hO
H
O
-P
a
H
O
a>
fn
OJ
e
H
a
-p
a
o
o
a
pq
ho
H
ft
OJ
ft
(LI
O)
CO
cd
o
H
a
cd
H
fin
-6-
-------
fl
o
H
0)
ft
o
bO
fl
H
a
a
cd
o
ON
pi
bO
H
(in
MHWSB*^^.
o
H
-p
cd
0)
-p
H
CO
H
t)
a
cd
0)
§
cd
o
CO
bD
OJ
-P
H
CO
O
-p
a
d
cd
-p
a
o
H
hD
H
-T-
-------
(January 23, 19^9 to March 2, 1969) and a 4-weeks period in the summer (July
1, 1969 to July 30, 1969)- The winter samples were collected on Thursdays
and the summer samples collected on Wednesday of the respective periods.
These dates were chosen to allow for coordination with the training activi-
ties at Georgia Tech.
The following procedure was followed during both sampling periods:
1. Weather conditions were recorded.
2. A compactor truck with wastes was weighed at the truck scale
located at the Market.
3- The truck load was dumped at the disposal site and the load
was spread with a bulldozer for sampling.
4. Visual estimates were made for fraction composition on the basis
of percent volume of the major waste categories.
5- Samples by fraction were separated and returned to the laboratory
at Georgia Tech for analysis.
The samples collected were analyzed in accordance with methods prescribed
by Standard Methods1 and Municipal Refuse Disposal2. Upon receipt of the sample
fractions at the laboratory, each fraction was course ground in a Wiley Mill
to a maximum size of 6 mm. after which moisture content determinations were
performed using an Ohaus Moisture Determination Balance. Each fraction was
then dried in a drying oven at 60°C for a period equal to or in excess of U.8
hours.
After drying, volatile solids were determined on each individual fraction
by ashing in a muffle furnace at 600°C. Portions of the dried course ground
se_mple fractions were also finely ground to a particle size not greater than
0.5 mm., placed in sealed containers, indentified and stored for subsequent
determinations of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content (F & M CHN Analyzer)
and calorific value (Parr Oxygen Bomb Calorimeter).
Presentation of Data
The basic data for the samples collected during the two survey periods
are presented in Tables I through IX. Table I indicates the volume, density
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, Twelfth
Edition, APHA, 1965.
2. Municipal Refuse Disposal, Second Edition, APWA, 1966.
-------
Table I
Volume, Density and Total Weights of Solid Waste Samples Collected
from the Atlanta State Farmers' Market in
Sample
No.
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
Date
Collected
1/23/69
1/30/69
2/6/69
2/13/69
2/20/69
2/27/69
7/9 /69
7/16/69
7/23/69
7/30/69
Truck
Capacity
(cu.yds)
25
18
25
18
18
18
18
25
25
25
18
Density of
Refuse
(ibs/cu yd)
635
5^5
U26
hh7
322
^83
299
910
910
991
800
Total
Weight
(Ibs)
15,900
9,820
10,630
8,050
5,800
8,700
5,360
22,730
22,730
214,780
ik,hoo
Table II
Component Fractions of Solid Waste Samples Collected from the Atlanta
State Farmers' Market in 1969
Fraction
Fruit
Vegetables
Paper
Wood
Bur lap
Straw
Misc .
Fish
Winter
(Estimated
1
10
15
70
2
3
--
2
10
15
70
2
3
--
--
3
5
15
75
3
--
--
2
h
1
8
85
5
1
--
--
Samples
% by Volume )
5
2
5
83 8U
--
--
10
-- 0
6
3
5
12
--
5
Total
Avg.
U.7
10.2
78.0
U.o
1.1
1.6
o U
100.0
Summer
Samples
(Estimated f0 by
7
30
35
30
1
--
-_
U
--
8 9
5 Uo
50 35
39 20
5 5
__
__
1 --
10
5
75
20
--
--
--
--
Total
Volume)
Avg.
20.0
U8.7
27.2
2.8
--
1.0
0.3
100.0
-------
H
IH
cu
iH
'cd
w
T3
H
H
O
CD
H -
co
CU fn
H CD
o g
cd ^H
-P cd
CD PH
bO
CU CU
> -P OA
cd vo
T3 -P ON
S3 CD H
cd
cd S3
-P -P -H
H S3
pi cd -p
fn rH CD
PH -p ,M
ft ^H
£ CD
cd co
CD f>
o
t~4
CD H
i ^
1 ^
P CQ
CD -H
[>
£
' ^>
£j
O
H
W -p
CD cd
H >
ft £H
£3 CD
cd CQ
CD rQ
O
fn
CD H
-P cd
S3 P>
H CQ
£>3
,0"
O
1 1
OA
co
t-
^o
LfA
J-
cn
OJ
H
-P
d
1 CD
pi O
CD ft
a
0
0
S3
O
H
-P
0
cd
CO
CU 1 CQ CO
H Sn S3 CU
?H CD O H
JH -p H ft
CD Cd CD ft
^ £ S cd
CJ
1 CQ
1 CQ Cd CU
M S3 -P ft
CD O S3 3
-P rH Cd O
cd 0) OH
s a
co
I co CD
rH S3 .S3
cu o o
-P H cd
cd cu cu
£ 6 ft
*> CQ ^ CQ
1 CQ 1 CQ CD CQ CU
JH S3 cd CD ^3 S3 b£
CD O -P ft O O S3
-P H s3 pi cd g cd
cd CD cd O CU CD ?H
IS a O H ft H O
CQ CQ CO
CU S3 CU
H O H
ft S ft
ft CU ft
cd H cd
-p
H
pi
fn CO
Vn CO CU
CD CD bD
ft H (3
cd ft cd
SH ft ^H
bO cd O
CO
CU CO
bD cu co
S3 H cd
cd ft CD
rH ft ft
O cd
CO
CD CO
bD CD
S3 H
cd ft
fH ft
O cd
^
CD
*^ i 1
CO ft
cu ft
bD cd
S3 cu
cd f3
M -H
0 ft
£-* ?H
0 0
*r~^ rH
cd -H
2 2
-p
H
1
CU
O CQ
-P S3
cd O CQ
-P -H Cd
o a cu
ft O ft
CU
CO O ,C
I S3 pi co
cd CQ o -p cd
-P CU -H ~p 2
O O (3 CD C71 1)
ft-PO Hco~"bO
CQ CQ cd
1 S3 S3 rO
cd co i cu O cd fi
-p cu -P o -H cu cd
O O CD pi S3 £1 O
ft -p H -p O
^ CD ^ CQ
CQ -N O iz| J>, !H
S3 CO rj W ^| CD
O J3 -P cd S3 0) ft
H cd -P pi ?H M ft
S3 cu cu cr1 o cu cu
O rQ H CQ O O ft
CQ
CU 0)
ft CQ O O
H S3 2 -P
S3 cu -P cd S3
JH CD -P -p SH
P1 rH , o
H S3 S3 FH -P
S3 CU O CU cd
fn CD -H H -p
P1 !H S3 (DO
-P bD O O ft
CQ
cu
rH
bO
^
CQ CQ cz|
S3 S3 S3 CQ
CD O CD cd
CD -H CD 2
?H S3 ?H C7^
bD O bD co
fH ^
0 0
ro Jlj
Cd -H
S 2
CQ
CU
H
cd
CD
bO
cu
-10-
-------
cd
EH
cd
-p
a
cd
rH
-p
CD
-p
s
0
rl
CH
CU
-p
o
(U
H
! |
O
o
w
CU
H
ft
§
ra
-p
ra ON
cd vo
|S ON
""Ci
H a
H -H
O
ra -p
cu
CH rM
O ^1
cd
P S
CD -
-p ra
£ rH
o cu
o g
cu cd
^ ^
-p cu
ra -p
H cd
0 -p
S ra
w
a>
rH - -
ft cu
S rl
S 2
ra -p
ra
rH -H
0) O
s £3
3
3138-
ra ^ '
ra
0)
1 1 ^ ^
ft cu
S rH
cd 2
ra -p
ra
rH -H
0) O
-P B
H "T3^
Is - '
.
tiD
j>
^
o
rH
ON
CO
t--
.
M
f>
1
ro ro
J- OO LTN
» .
ro t co
CM H H
LTN O
i
VD CO 1
ON i i
i i
ON
OO ON CM
J- O CO
H H
ON, H
i
O CO 1
CM rH
O rH VD
O C-- LTN
_=r H CM
H VD CO
. .
ON ,4- rH
J- oo c\J
ft
rH Cd
CU T3 i 1
ft O rH
03 0 p
PH |3 m
^
1
| £^-_
£-
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 |
D-
1
1 [>-
1 1
1 1
O
1
00 1
rH
1 1
O 1
1
oo
H
1 1
I 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
^
03 f!
f~t W
-p -H
ra F"H
^,
cu
rH
^
03
^_4
ctj
-P
C
03
H
-P
m
ra
CD
H
ft
cd
ra
^
0)
^
3
rj
ra
w
(D
H
ft
cd
CO
t
M
CD
-p
£j
H
Is
£
0
H
P
O
cd
,H
3n
ra
T3
H
H
O
W
CU
H
rH
-P
cd
H
O
£>
5D
' *
ra
T3
H
H
0
m
0)
1 1
H
-P
cd
rH
0
TS^-
^ ^
t}
J>
<
o
1
ON
CO
£-^_
*
ttC
J>
^
VD
LTN
-4"
ro
CM
H
CO
VD
O
OS
O
ro
^j-
ON
LTN
rH
CM
ON
O
rH
H
ON
CO
H
LTN
00
O
ON
LTN
ON
|
1
O
VD
£^
ON
O
H
[^_
ON
oo
t-
VD
O\
LTN
VD
CM
ON
LTN
OO
LCN
ON
-P
H
^
F"H
r-(
t
rH
ON
O
VD
rH
ON
LCN
O
ro
ON
O
O
_^
ON
oo
rH
CO
CO
O
LTN
_j-
co
LTN
ON
ON
co
o
CM
CXJ
ON
LTN
-4
CM
CO
ro
CO
OO
CO
o
-^3"
CO
t^-
ON
t
j-
CO
ra
cu
H
o
cd
-p
cu
M
CU
!>
ON
oo
VD
OS
o
ON
LTN
ON
LTN
CO
CO
ON
CM
co
ON
ON
CO
ON
CO
CO
co
_ZT
£
ON
LTN
CM
ON
ON
0
rH
CO
ON
LTN
O
co
ON
ON
00
£
ON
O
-3"
^j-
ON
O
CM
[^
ON
£H
CU
ft
cd
PH
CM
CM
1
00 1
ON
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 i
O
co
1
CO 1
ON
LTN
VD
i
^ i
ON,
o oo
ro CM
O, O-
ON ON
LTN
ro i
1
ON
ON
i i
i i
LTN LTN
VD H
ON co
ON O\
CM
LTN
r
ON 1
ON
O LTN
H D-
ON \D
ON ON
O O
ON CO
*
CO t^
ON ON
ft
cd
T3 i '
O M
O p
Is PQ
r^_
ro
i
1 O
os
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
t
ro
i
I O
ON
i i
i i
O
1
^j- 1
ON
1 1
1 1
o
_jj-
1
-4- 1
ON
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 i
1 I
1 1
1 1
^
a3 £1
M ra
-p -H
m h
-11-
-------
>
0)
H
§
EH
CO
-p
05
H
-P
^
CD
CD
p-
o £
H CO
rH
?H CD
0 -P
H 05
n5 -P
o co
CO
CD
H
ft
e
CO
CO
CD
3
p3
CO
w
0)
rH
ft
^
o5
CO
!H
CD
rf
1
CO
fl
o
H
-P
O
o5
^_i
P^i
- X
CO
H
W
05
£>
-P
CJ
bo
H
0)
>3
£_,
T3
fl
o
.
f>
H
^
[~~i
Es
m
.
w
H
CQ
05
-p
,C
H
Q)
[5
K*i
^j
r^J
fl
O
.
o
H
"^^
| i
EH
S-
bO
^>
<^
O
rH
ON
OO
£
1
bD
c-^J
vo
u~\
^-j-
00
CM
H
O
CM
ON
vo
-[
CM
H
LfN
t-
H
t-
ro
t
_-j-
vo
co
O
ON
VO
0
co
ON
VO
1
1
LfN
CM
O
r-
o
LfN
-3-
l>-
-)-
[>
CM
t-
H
o
vo
OO
CO
C--
vo
-p
H
pj
^
F^H
VO
CM
H
r-
o
oo
H
c-
oo
oo
CM
t-
oo
o
CM
CM
CO
CO
VD
O
LTN
LTN
VO
O
LfN
H
£
O
ON
VO
LfN
OO
VD
VO
rH
CO
CM
VD
OO
OO
£
LfN
D-
H
LTN
VD
co
CD
H
^o
05
-P
CD
bD
CD
>>
CO
CM
VO
£
LTN
CM
vo
t-
__J.
^j-
O
f*^-
CM
-^t*
CO
£>_
CM
I^
O
t
OO
L~-
o
rH
£
[^
O
rH
[^_
O
vo
OO
£
CVJ
OO
oo
vo
vo
o
L--
OO
co
CM
t--
^j
CD
ft
co
PH
CO
LfN
N^
N
i
i
i
i
vo
H
oo
t-
o
o
£-~
t^
o
LfN
OO
co
o
CM
CM
CO
|
|
O
CM
CM
CO
H
LfN
VD
co
LfN
oo
oo
CO
CM
t-
oo
CO
a
o
o
js
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CM
O
OO
b-
I
1
i
i
O
ON
OO
r-
[
1
-d~
t^~
ON
vo
oo
J-
LfN
t-
ft
CO
iH
£_(
^
W
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
l
O
o
o
co
1
1
o
o
o
CO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J5
OJ
-p
CO
o
H
H
r>
O
H
1
1
1
1
O
H
H
r>
O
rH
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
1
1
C~]
co
H
P=H
-12-
-------
H
H
X
cd
0)
-P
O
CD
O
o
m
0)
H
ft
-P
w
cd
!3
T3 OA
H VD
rH OA
O rH
CO
O
-P
-P CD
Pi ,M
-P cd
§S
O -
w
fi rH
CD 0)
bO p
O fi
Pi cd
-P PH
H
^ OJ
-P
Ti Cd
cd co
Pi cd
CD -p
bo pi
o cd
Pi H
T3 -P
ffi "^
OJ
I"
P O
O CH
CO
H
W W
CjJ c$
H rQ
S -p
cd , "M
co bO
H
JH 0)
1
| ^
CO T5
fl
s
_
w
H
W
w cd
CD ,0
ft -P
a &
cd bD
CO -H
OJ
P [5
CD
-P !>,
Pi Pi
H T3
^ JH
o
v '
ra
H
W
t>}
rH
cd
Pi
Pi
O
H
-P
CJ
cd
P)
PH
bO
!>
VO
UA
,4-
CO
r\ i
I.VJ
H
O CO VD
OJ VO -4
O UA OJ
-4
O H VO
O OA H
H UA H
CO CO VO
OA VO OA
OJ VD -4
,4
UA CO rH
UA _3- H
OA UA OJ
CO
OA \D CM
OJ VD VD
0- .4- H
CO
O _4 CO
UA OA O
O UA OJ
.4
1 1 1
1 1 1
O OA CO
t- co co
...
O .4- rH
-4
O VD OA
OA CO OA
CO VO CO
-4
O OA OA
CO O OA
. .
H VD O
-4-
O O VD
OJ CO OA
t- VQ O
CO
O VO OA
oj o co
OA VD OJ
CO
Pi Pi
0) CD
Pi bO bO
O 0 O
£l £_j Pi
P< ^ -P
Cd £>} "H
u zt f?,
-p
H
[3
Pi
[in
VO OA OJ
CO CO O
H UA OJ
-4"
UA O OJ
O OJ OJ
...
CO VO OJ
t- OA J-
CO UA (Y~
co vo CM
j-
O .4- OJ
CO -4- OA
O UA H
_^j-
OJ OJ OJ
t- CO VO
OA UA rH
CO
O VD O
tr- CO CO
l>- UA CO
CO
O t- O
CM t t>-
. *
rH UA OA
-^
O UA i>-
...
t- UA OJ
CO
O CO OJ
CO OJ C
...
OA UA CO
CO
O CO l>-
H co cr\
. .
OA UA CO
CO H
O OA OJ
-4 _4 t-
-4 -4 OA
CO
o r- co
CO [^ OA
-4 UA OA
CO
Pi p
(D CD
Pi bD bO
O O C
_("> p £-,
P T3 -P
Cd J>i -H
0 X &
w
0)
rH
_o
cd
-p
OJ
bO
OJ
!>
O rH OA
VO -4 -4
CO VO O
_4
UA CO UA
_4- rH H
> *
H \D O
CO CO ,4
_4 CO -4
UA \O O
-j-
LfA OA H
-4 VD UA
-4 VD O
-4
-4 -4 CO
O -4 CO
CO vO O
-^
O CO CO
co oj co
VD VD O
J-
O H OJ
UA OJ UA
...
t-- VD H
-4
O H VO
CO CO t
. >
t vO O
-4
O H VD
CO CO C~-
.
l>- vo O
-4
O O O
CO VO t^
. .
t- VO O
__^-
O OA CO
CO H .4
-4 VO O
O [-- CO
OA O CO
OJ VO O
-4
a pi
0) OJ
Pi bO bO
O O O
tO ^j ^}
fn T3 -P
cd >i -H
U K ,25
r<
OJ
ft
cd
PH
OA ro J-
OJ UA H
VD UA O
,4
1 1 I
I I I
i 1 I
I 1 i
O O H
.4 CO H
UA UA O
-4
OA VD VO
rH OJ rH
t- LT\ O
O OA _4
t- O C-
OO VO O
-4
O H OJ
UA CM -4
[>- VO H
-4
1 1 1
1 1 1
O !>- VD
CO CO t~-
...
VO UA O
^4~
o co i>-
CO VD OJ
OA VO O
-4
O O OA
OJ rH CO
H VO O
UA
O UA
oj vo
CO UA 1
-*
G E 1
CD 0)
Pi bO bO
O O O
:C> ^_j ^
IH T3 -P
cd >3 -H
o W Is;
r^J
o
o
^s
1 1 1
i 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
t \ 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 I
1 1 1
O H t-
UA J- OJ
UA VO rH
-4-
1 1 1
1 I I
1 1 1
1 | |
o oj co
OJ CO H
.
D-- UA c\J
j~
1 1 1
1 1 1
O CO OA
O VD UA
UA VO O
,4
O O O
CO CO rH
-4 VO rH
,4
Pi pi
OJ OJ
Pi bO bD
O O O
P Pi Pi
S-t T3 -P
cd >j -H
O W 13
ft
cd
H
IM
rj
W
i 1 !
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
O OA _j-
rH O rH
VD VD H
-4
1 1 1
1 1 1
O OA .4-
H O H
VO VO H
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
Pi Pi
OJ CD
Pi bO bD
o o o
_Q £_, fa
IH T3 +}
Cd >s -H
o K S
*5
cti
PI
-p
CO
O t- OJ
t O _4
H l>- -4
UA H
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
O t- OJ
t^- O _4
H t- _4-
UA H
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
P Pi
OJ OJ
Pi bO bD
0 O O
P PI PI
Pi rO -P
cd >, .H
o K S
^
ra
H
PM
-13-
-------
Table VIII
Statistical Variance of Analyses of Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta State Farmers' Market in 1969
Fraction
Frxiit
Vegetables
Paper
Wood
Burlap
Sample
Group
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
Group Average with Variance
% Composition
4.7 + 4.5
20.0 + 17.8
10.2 + 5.6
48.7 + 18.9
78.0 + 7.1
27-3 ± 9-1
4.0 + 4.2
2.8 + 2.6
l.l + 1.6
--
%Volatile Solids BTU/lb.(dry)
95-9 + 2.05
90.68 +3.91
84.50 + 6.58
91.71 + 2.55
97.48 + 1.65
96.39 ± 4.9
99.30 + 1.92
98.22 + 0.67
97.23 + 0.84
--
6980 +316
6920 + 320
6550 + 462
7126 + 166
7370 + 281
7628 + 575
8350 + 96
7758 + 68
7302 + 240
--
Table IX
Statistical Variance of Analyses of Solid Waste Samples
Collected from the Atlanta Farmers' Market in 1969
Fraction
Fruit
Vegetables
Paper
Wood
Burlap
Sample
Group
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
1-6
7-10
Group Average with Variance
io Carbon (dry)
40.50 + 2.23
40.20 + 2.4
37.70 + 2.45
41.86 + 1.92
46.30 + 1.93
U3.60 + 1.75
U8.70 + 1.6
46.29 + 1.27
45.50 + 1.47
--
% Hydrogen (dry)
5.94 + 0.54
5.68 + 0.84
5.36 + 0.43
5.89 + o.8U
6.28 + 0.02
6.41 + 0.22
6.09 + 0.33
5-53 + 0.38
6.41 + 0.43
--
% Nitrogen (dry)
2.03 + 1-21
2.46 + 1.71
8.30 + 418
2.02 + 0.32
0.83 + 0.33
0.49 + 0.30
0.74 + 0.64
0.14 + 0.04
1.27 + 0.64
--
-14-
-------
and total weight of each truck sample evaluated. Table II and Figure 12 pro-
vide a comparison of the individual samples with respect to component fractions,
Table III presents a breakdown of the component fractions with respect to major
and minor sub-components, and Tables IV through VII indicate the chemical and
physical analyses of these component fractions. Table VIII and IX provide
analytical values obtained for the fractions based upon statistical analysis of
variance.
Discussion of Data
Density and Composition of Wastes- Analyses indicated an average sample
density of it-51 + 118 and 903 + 78 pounds/cu. yd. for the winter and summer
periods respectively. As indicated in Table I, there were substantial differ-
ences in weight per truck load. Since daily weighings were not available, the
average weights were therefore determined on a limited number of observations.
The inconsistencies noted were probably due to differences in compaction pro-
vided by the various trucks, differences in moisture content and the possibility
that the trucks were not filled completely to capacity at the time of weighing.
Visual examinations and statistical calculations of the volumes of major
fractions by percent of the total samples indicated considerable variance in
all fractions for and between both winter and summer sampling periods. This
variance was demonstrated in Table III and Table VIII and in Table II and
Figure 12 on a weekly basis. As a consequence of these seasonal variations as
well as normal and characteristic fluctuations in availability of all produce
types, both collection and analysis of truly representative samples from the
Market were somewhat hampered.
Moisture Content - As indicated in Table IV, the moisture content of the
fruit and vegetable fractions was relatively consistent when the averages for
the two sampling periods were compared. This could be anticipated since the
water content of these fractions would not be greatly influenced by changes in
meteorological conditions. The difference observed between the winter and
summer averages (8U.5$ vs. ^0.2%} could probably be attributed to changes in
types of fruit and vegetables during the two sampling periods as shown in
Table III and on Figure 12. The higher moisture content of watermelons and
cantaloupes probably accounted for the majority of increase for the summer
samples.
The moisture content of the paper, wood and burlap fractions (Table IV)
varied primarily according to weather conditions at the time of sampling and
to some extent with the types of produce with which these fractions had come
into contact either during shipment, storage or compaction in the collection
vehicles. For example, the first three winter samples (1,2 & 3) were col-
lected during either light or relatively heavy rainfall. Sample 4 was obtained
during relatively dry weather but with a heavy cloud cover with high humidity.
The remaining winter samples (5 & 6) were obtained during fair and dry
weather. Similarly, the first three summer samples (7, 8 & 9) were collected in
cloudy and rainy weather whereas Sample 10 was obtained on a hot and dry day.
-15-
-------
80
TO
60
LJ
:E
13
-J
o
_a
50
o
H-
CJ
-------
It appeared that the moisture contents of these latter samples were also in-
fluenced by the type of produce associated with these fractions during ship-
ment and storage.
Volatile Solids - The volatile solids content of the fruit and vegetable
fractions of each sample obtained during the winter and summer sampling per-
iods were relatively consistent (Table V and Table VIII). The small variance
noted could probably be attributed to some finite quantity of non-combustible
matter such as sand or silt which may have been collected with the sample
fractions . These materials would also influence the analysis of vegetable
fractions of certain produce grown on or in the ground such as lettuce, tur-
nips, etc. which were more prevalent during the winter sampling period than
the summer (Table III),
The volatile content of the paper, wood and burlap fractions were even
more consistent during both the winter and summer sampling periods. The
only exception was Sample 7 collected during the summer when the landfill area
was particularly muddy. As a consequence, some of the mud or other non-com-
bustibles were probably collected with these fractions after the load had been
spread for inspection and sampling at the landfill site. This effect was more
noticeable for those fractions which constituted the larger portion of the
total sample collected, i.e. paper, fruit and vegetables (Table II).
Calorific Value - As indicated in Table VI, the calorific values of all
fractions were determined on a moisture free basis . There was not a signifi-
cant difference in the average values for the fruit and vegetable fractions
collected either in the winter or the summer and the variance noted (Table
VIII) could probably be attributed to some difficulty in obtaining represen-
tative samples for analysis, the presence of small quantities of non-combus-
tibles and the changes in components of the individual fractions (Table II).
The calorific values for the paper, wood and burlap fractions were also
relatively consistent with somewhat higher values for the wood in the winter
than in the summer. It is possible that a different type of wood packing
material was used each season which could have accounted for this variation.
A slight increase in calorific values for the paper fractions during the summer
could also have reflected the greater amount of non-combustibles which may have
been unintentionally collected with the paper fractions during wet weather par-
ticularly associated with the winter sampling period.
Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen Content - A review of the data presented in
Table VII indicated that the CHN content of each sample fraction was relatively
constant during both the winter and summer sampling periods as were the average
percent variance as shown in Table IX with the exception of a higher nitrogen
content exhibited by the vegetable fraction during the winter. This exception
could probably be attributed to the differences in types of vegetables handled in
each season of the year. For example, the principle types of vegetables handled
-17-
-------
daring the winter, particularly for Samples 3 and 6 of Table VII, were the
green leafy variety such as greens and cabbage in addition to green onions
in which the collective nitrogen content was determined to be relatively
high. Conversely, the vegetables handled during the summer periods included
potatoes and starchy vegetables in which the nitrogen content was collec-
tively lower. Moreover, as shown in Table III, the green leafy types of
vegetables were not present in significant quantities in any of the summer
samples.
A less dramatic increase in carbon content of the vegetable fractions
during the summer was also noted. This increase corresponded to the in-
crease in calorific value of the vegetable fraction (Table VI) as well as
its volatile content (Table V) in the summer. As noted previously, these
increases were probably associated with the differences in types of vege-
tables handled during each season (Table III).
Summary and Conclusions
The data reported herein provides some insight into the quantity and
characteristics of the solid wastes generated at the Atlanta State Farmers'
Market during two seasons of the year . Division of the sample collected dur-
ing each week of the respective sampling periods into major fractions also
provided additional information concerning relative quantities and physical
and chemical characteristics of these fractions.
Although it would have been desirable to have collected samples each
day rather than once a week, some estimate of the nature of the entire
quantity of solid waste generated during the two sampling periods could be
made with the data available. Accordingly, composite figures for each sam-
pling period were determined as recorded in Table X and Table XI. These
determinations were made by taking the ratios of the moisture content and
correlating them with the estimated volumes, calculated densities and the
truck load weights to yield the weight of moisture in each sample fraction.
The dry weight was then calculated and correlated with the volatile solids,
the carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen content and the calorific value determin-
ations. The moisture content for each sample was determined on a gross
weight basis and tabulated in Table X together with the volatile solids con-
tent. The CHN values for each sample were corrected for ash content and re-
corded on a moisture and ash free (MAF) basis.
The volatile solids content for each survey period was then calculated
on a gross weight basis from the data in Table X and recorded in Table XI
together with the other analyses as indicative of the composite samples col-
lected during the winter and summer sampling periods. These data are also
illustrated graphically in Figure 13 and could be considered representative
of the probable characteristics of solid wastes generated at the Atlanta
State Farmers' Market or a similar operation during the winter and summer
seasons .
-18-
-------
CD
-P
s
B
SH
CD
-P
O
CD
rH
H
0
O
CQ
CD
H
ft
g
cd
CO
CD
S^j 1 ->
CQ
CD cd OA
rH |2 VD
£> OA
cd ^ i 1
EH -H
H d
O -rl
ra
-P
CH CD
O ^
CQ cd
0 S
H
-P -
W CQ
H SH
SH CD
CD S
-P E
0 cd
Cd PH
cd CD
rd -p
O cd
-p
CD ra
-p
H cd
CQ -p
o d
ft cd
S i-H
0 -P
o <
CQ
CD
rH
ft
Cd
CO
fa
CD
cj
g
P
ra
CQ
CD
rH
ft
ro
ra
l^
CD
-P
H
l~^
CD
-P
*H
CQ
O
ft
g
8
a
o
rH
OA
CO
£
CD
-P
H
CQ
O
ft
O
0
VD
UA
^
OO
CM
H
CQ
CD -H
bO CQ
cd |>5
SH H
CD cd
> d
CM
rH
OA
UA
VO
CM
co
t
VD
CO
LT\
LP\
Er
VD
CO
o
co
o
o-
CM
UA
UA
O
o
ro
(O
co
o
-^!~
0
CV
-^
_j-
O
oo
£~~--
VD
O
OA
UA
UA
C--
.
ro
vo - -
-p
,d
bfl
rl
CD
^5
CD
SH CQ
pi CQ
P O
CQ SH
H bC
0
^ r
^-'1
^ '
0
UA
.
OO
GA
xO
CO
CM
Q"\
LT\
ir\
^j-
ON
O
[?
t-
OA
.
UA
CO
O
o
VD
OA
O
OA
CO
OA
t^~
CO
UA
OA
O
CM
.
£
o\
o
_^J-
VD
CT\
0
c
oo
OA
co
OA
~d~
CA
CO -^~^
T3 -p
H ,^"!
H bD
O -H
CO 0)
|5
CD
H >>
H ?H
-P T3
QJ
r~\ >
0 -69.
t> '- '
CM
ro
H
00
o
t-
00
L
o
CM
r^-
I>-
O
OA
H
CO
O
O
UA
co
OO
( |
VD
O
CO
CO
O
vo
OA
t-
O
^f-
UA
r-
o
VD
OA
[^
0
LT\
OO
t
O
UA
UA
£
CD
pi^
H PL,
cd <;
p> s
o *>
H
Cf_j n
H H
SH ^^
o p
I i EH
cd FQ
o -
VD vo ro
UA ro UA
...
VO VO CM
LfA t tr
O UA CM
...
UA VD H
J-
UA CM CO
rH VO O
t-- VO CM
_^f
UA _j- O
ro CM OA
UA vo ro
O ro UA
co ro CM
...
CO VD H
_^(-
t~- J- vo
rH J- C-O
t>- VD H
C-- VO
OA CM OA
l>- VD H
CM ro
VD ^r o
...
CO VO H
-^t"
OO UA
UA J- OA
CO VD O
_^j-
o r-
H t~- OA
CO VD H
_j-
-cr J- OA
LT\ CO
vo
J- VD O
OA VO
CM ro UA
...
UA VO rH
-^J"
* C ' £H '
P- ^
, K
-P
bO
H
CD
CD &
H CQ
H T3 CQ
-p -H CQ
cd H O
rH 0 SH
O ra bO
r\
-^
^
, ^
-p
_C"|
be
rl
CD CD
rH -P ^
Hp CD CQ
CQ -p CQ
H a o
O O SH
S 0 bD
r.
-69.
CD
pi
H
cd
> ^
CJ .d
H H
c^_j -^^
H p
SH EH
O ffl
H --
cd
TU
CD
rH
ft
CO
CQ
-------
I- UJ
Z I-
UJ
H
z
o
CJ
o
o z
UJ
Z 15
o o
CD
V.
O>
u.
o"
or
ro
o'
CM
O'
% '1N31NOD N390dllN PUD N390dQAH '
-20-
-------
Based upon the results of these analyses and experiences associated with
the surveys conducted in the winter and summer of 1969? it can be concluded
that:
1. The major source of difficulty in obtaining representative
samples for analysis and characterization was establishing
an adequate collection and fraction identification method.
Visual estimation of volumes of fractions of weighted quan-
tities was probably less than desirable but yielded calcu-
lated densities which were comparable to sample values with
similar moisture contents recorded elsewhere.
2. Changes in meteorological conditions coupled with the types
of produce in contact with the paper and other rubbish frac-
tions during shipment, storage and handling will greatly in-
fluence moisture content. Identification of the sub-compo-
nents of the product (particularly of the fruit and vege-
table fractions) to be handled as well as prevailing weather
c -nditions is important for proper interpretation of moisture
content determinations.
3- Changes in type and character of produce handled during dif-
ferent seasons of the year must be included during evaluation
of physical and chemical analyses of both composite and in-
dividual fractions . Such changes will not only be reflected
in the moisture, volatile solids, calorific value and CHN con-
tent of the product fractions but also in the analyses per-
formed on the paper and other rubbish fractions. Variability
in character of individual fractions will often be masked in
composite analysis through averaging of effects.
h. The variations in character of solid wastes originating from the
Atlanta State Farmers' Market can be described on the basis of
routine analytical procedures. The wastes are relatively high
in organic (combustible) and moisture content which would allow
for their disposal either by incineration after some preliminary
drying or by biological treatment in a sanitary landfill or
composting operation. Sanitary landfill disposal was considered
to be the most applicable procedure under the circumstances pre-
vailing during the survey periods.
597
-21-
-------
-------
-------
------- |