&EPA
EPA 600/R-18/087 May 2018 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Determination of As-Discarded Methane Potential in
Residential and Commercial Municipal Solid Waste

SORTING AREA	SORTING BINS
TIP FLOOR

Office of Research and Development

-------
&EPA
Determination of As-Discarded Methane
Potential in Residential and Commercial
Municipal Solid Waste
Report
By Timothy G. Townsend, Giles W. Chickering, and Max J. Krause
Jacobs Technology and
Department of Environmental
Engineering Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Prepared for:
Susan A. Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air & Energy Management Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
Jacobs Technology Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Contract EP-C-15-008
Work Assignment No: 3-007
November 2018

-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
funded and managed the study described here under Contract EP-D-11-006 to Eastern
Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative
review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
1

-------
Abstract
Methane generation potential, Lo, is a primary parameter of the first-order decay (FOD)
model used to predict municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill gas (LFG) generation. Previously
reported Lo values in the literature span a wide range, including estimates substantially lower
than the current United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) AP-42 default value
of 100 m3 CHVMg MSW. Most previous estimates were developed from waste composition
studies and default component Lo values or best-fit analysis based on measured landfill gas
collection and default collection efficiencies. This work took a waste compositional approach,
paired with individually measured methane generation potentials for each sample collected. This
study also addressed the fines fraction of MSW, which is frequently omitted in other studies. The
objective of this research was to measure methane potential in MSW samples obtained directly
from waste collection vehicles at the point of disposal to provide an updated sense of how
current residential and commercial MSW compares to the AP-42 value used in estimating
methane emissions for use in Clean Air Act emissions inventories.
Four sites were selected in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina for this study. Ten-to-
twelve collection vehicles were selected and sorted at each site and the biodegradable fractions
were transported to the University of Florida Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (SHWM)
research laboratories for further analysis. A unique Lo value was determined for each of the 39
representative loads of waste studied, based on the physical properties and methane yields
assessed in the SHWM lab. The values were normally distributed with means expected to fall in
a 95% confidence interval between 74-86 m3 CHi/Mg MSW as-discarded. The overall mean Lo
in this study was 80 m3 CHi/Mg MSW and while there was not a statistically significant
difference between the two groups, commercial MSW yields (95% CI of 77-92 m3 CHi/Mg
MSW) showed a higher average Lo than residential MSW (95% CI of 67-85 m3 CHi/Mg MSW).
"Fines" fractions were found to contribute an average of 19% of the total methane yield for each
load of MSW studied. In one load the fines contributed over 50% of the total methane generated.
If fines were omitted from this study completely, the average Lo calculated would have been 65
m3 CH4/Mg MSW as opposed to 80. These yields were paired with a total carbon analysis to
reveal that MSW has an average carbon content of 34% (dry mass C/dry mass total) with a 54:46
ratio of biogenic to fossil carbon in dry samples. On average 43% of biogenic carbon evolved to
carbon in CH4 or CO2 among all biodegradable waste under anaerobic conditions. These findings
showed residential and commercial MSW produced an average Lo lower than existing default
value but higher than estimates in some recent studies. Several loads of waste in this study
produced methane in excess of the current AP-42 value which suggests that the current value
may under estimate methane emissions.
11

-------
Foreword
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged by Congress
with protecting the nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) within the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and
management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's
research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering
information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the
national, state, and community levels.
This publication was produced in support of ORD's Air, Climate, and Energy FY16-19
Strategic Research Action Plan. EPA, along with other federal partners, is working in
collaboration with the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to conduct research and provide
tools to inform decisions about clean cookstoves and fuels in developing countries. EPA
previously completed a life cycle assessment (LC A) comparing the environmental footprint of
current and potential fuels and fuel mixes used for cooking within India and China (Cashman et
al. 2016). This study furthers the initial work by expanding the LCA methodology to include
new cooking mix and electrical grid scenarios, additional sensitivity analyses, uncertainty
analyses, and includes a normalized presentation of results. This phase of work also expands the
geographic scope of the study to include both Kenya and Ghana. Study results will allow
researchers and policy-makers to quantify sustainability-related metrics from a systems
perspective.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
111

-------
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
the direction of Susan Thorneloe. The contract was managed by Jacobs Technology, Inc.; the
University of Florida served as a sub-contractor to Jacobs Technology, Inc. The authors thank
each of the host facilities and the many on-site employees who assisted with coordinating the
waste composition studies. Many thanks to all waste sorters (paid and volunteer) who made the
waste composition studies possible. The authors would like to recognize all undergraduate
research assistants that worked tirelessly in the laboratory to process and analyze more than 400
samples and run over 1,400 methane potential assays.
iv

-------
Table of Contents
Abstract	ii
Foreword	iii
Acknowledgments	iv
Table of Contents	v
List of Figures	vii
List of Tables	viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations	ix
Introduction	1
Materials and Methods	3
1.1	Experimental Approach	3
1.2	Site Descriptions	3
1.2.1	Lee County, Florida	3
1.2.2	A1 achua C ounty, FL	4
1.2.3	Athens-Clarke County, Georgia	5
1.2.4	Durham County, North Carolina	5
1.3	Sample Collection and Categorization Procedures	6
1.3.1	Collection of Representative Samples	6
1.3.2	Safety Protocols	8
1.3.3	MSW Composition Studies	9
1.4	Laboratory Procedures	13
1.4.1	Laboratory Sample Processing	13
1.4.2	Biochemical Methane Potential Assay	14
1.5	Methane Generation Potential	15
1.6	Total Carbon Analysis	16
1.7	Biogenic and Fossil Carbon Analysis	16
1.8	Degradable Carbon Fraction	17
Results and Discussion	17
1.9	Waste Composition Studies	17
1.10	Moisture Content and Volatile Solids Content of MSW Components	20
1.11	Volatile Solids Analysis of the Fines Fractions	21
1.12	Ultimate Methane Yields of MSW Components by BMP	23
1.13	Methane Generation Potential, Lo, by Representative Sample	30
1.14	Carbon Content in MSW Fractions	33
1.15	Biogenic and Fossil Carbon	35
1.16	Degradable Carbon Fraction	37
Conclusions	41
References	45
Appendices	49
Appendix A. Waste Composition Data Sheet Template	49
v

-------
Appendix B. Moisture Content and Volatile Solids Content Data	50
Appendix C. Fines Composition Data	58
Appendix D. Distributions of Methane Yields by MSW Component	60
Appendix E. Waste Composition and Lo of Representative Samples	68
Appendix F. Carbon Content in 39 Waste Collection Vehicles	107
vi

-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Lee County, Highlighted in Red, is Located in Southwest Florida	4
Figure 1-2. Alachua County is Highlighted in Red	4
Figure 1-3. Athens-Clarke County is Highlighted in Red	5
Figure 1-4. Durham County, North Carolina is Highlighted in Red	6
Figure 1-5. Rear-Loading (a), Side-Loading (b), Front-Loading Vehicles (c), and Compacting
Bins (d)	7
Figure 1-6. Plan View of a Typical Waste Composition Study Site Arrangement	7
Figure 1-7. The UF SHWM Sorting Table Constructed to Increase Sorting Efficiency Using
Screens Instead of a Solid Surface	8
Figure 1-8. Materials that Passed the 4 in2 Screen and were Retained on the 1 in2 Mesh	10
Figure 1-9. Material that Passed the 1 in2 Screen; a Mix of Biodegradable and Non-
Biodegradable Items	11
Figure 1-10. Field Sampling Technique	12
Figure 1-11. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in All Studied MSW Streams	18
Figure 1-12. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in Residential MSW Streams	19
Figure 1-13. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in Commercial MSW Streams	20
Figure 1-14. Average Moisture Content of MSW Components Collected During WCS	21
Figure 1-15. Average VS/TS of MSW Components Collected During WCS	21
Figure 1-16. Composition of all Fines <2" Fractions	22
Figure 1-17. Composition of all Fines <1" Fractions	23
Figure 1-18. Modified Box and Whisker Plots Represent Median Methane Yield From all
Residential and Commercial MSW, 1st and 3rd Quartiles, and the Minimum and
Maximum Values Measured	24
Figure 1-19. Yield Frequencies for All Pasteboard Samples	26
Figure 1-20. Yield Frequencies of Food and Soiled Paper	26
Figure -1-21. Distribution of Load Lo Values Measured in this Study	31
Figure 1-22. Frequency and Range of all Lo Values Measured from Commercial Samples	32
Figure 1-23. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Measured from Residential Samples	32
Figure 1-24. Total Carbon Content (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Material) by Fraction. Boxes
Show Median, 1st and 3rd Quartiles of the Data for Each Fraction (Whiskers Represent
Minimum and Maximum Values)	34
Figure 1-25 Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads	35
Figure 1-26. Comparison of Lo and Biogenic Carbon Content for each Load, Dur-Com 3
Excluded	36
Figure 1-27. Carbon Studied in this Research	38
Figure 1-28. Percent of Total Carbon Evolved to Both CH4 and CO2 by Component. Boxes Show
Median, 1st and 3rd Quartiles of the Data for Each Fraction. Whiskers Represent
Minimum and Maximum Values. Values Represent % of Dry Mass of Total Biogenic
Carbon that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2	39
Figure 1-29. Comparison of Past Studies of Lo	42
vii

-------
Figure 1-30. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields for each
Individual Organic Fraction	43
List of Tables
Table 1-1. General Description of the Components of Interest	13
Table 1-2. Gas standards used for GC-TCD Calibration and QC Checks	15
Table 1-3. Locations and Details of WCS Sites	18
Table 1-4. Summarized Composition of Fines Fractions by Mass	22
Table 1-5. Range of Methane Yields by OFMSW Component (mL CH 4/ g VS)	25
Table 1-6. Comparison of Methane Yields in Dry and As-Discarded Form	27
Table 1-7. Methane Generation Parameters of Wood Products and Yard Waste	29
Table 1-8. Methane Generation Parameters of Textiles and Diapers	30
Table 1-9. Summary of All Lo Values Calculated by Representative Sample	31
Table 1-10: Significance of Fines on Lo	33
Table 1-11. Total Carbon Content by Fraction (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Sample)	34
Table 1-12. Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads. Based on Dry Mass
Carbon/Dry Mass Waste Composition	36
Table 1-13. Biogenic Carbon Content in Dry, Ground, Sorted Biodegradable Fines Fractions ...37
Table 1-14. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Location. Values Represent % of Dry Mass
of Total Biogenic Carbon that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2	38
Table 1-15. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Fraction. Values Represent Average % of
Total Carbon (Mass) in Dry Samples that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2	40
Table 1-16. Comparison of Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields and Individualized
Yields for Each Individual Organic Fraction	43
viii

-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AD - anaerobic digester
ANSI - American National Standards Institute
AP-42 - Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, published by US EPA
ASTM - American Society for Testing Materials
BF - biodegradable fraction
BMP - biochemical methane potential
C&D/C&DD - construction and demolition debris
C AA - Clean Air Act
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FINE - fines fraction in MSW
FOD - first-order decay (model)
GCCS - gas collection and control system
GC-TCD - gas chromatograph with thermal conductivity detector
HHW - household hazardous waste
HRT - hydraulic retention time
IF - inert fraction
INT - intermediate fines fraction in MSW
k - waste decay constant, or, gas generation rate constant for MSW landfills
Lo - methane generation potential
LFG- landfill gas
MC- moisture content of sample in percent water by mass
MRF - materials recovery facility
MSW - municipal solid waste
NIOSH -National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NSPS -New Source Performance Standards, published by US EPA
OFMSW - organic fraction of municipal solid waste
OMB - organic matter (boxboard) in MSW
OMC - organic matter (cardboard) in MSW
OMF - organic matter (food) in MSW
OMP - organic matter (paper) in MSW
OMSP - organic matter (soiled paper) in MSW
IX

-------
OMT - organic matter (textiles) in MSW
OMY - organic matter (yard waste) in MSW
PPE - personal protective equipment
SHWM - solid and hazardous waste management
UF - University of Florida
US - United States of America
VS - volatile solids content of sample in percent VS by mass
VS/TS - volatile solids/total solids content
WCS - waste composition study
WTE - waste to energy (facility)
x

-------
Introduction
Methane generation potential, Lo, is a primary parameter of the first-order decay (FOD)
model used for the regulation and prediction of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill gas (LFG)
generation. In the United States (U.S.), there are currently two default regulatory values
attributed to Lo. The first is the Clean Air Act (CAA) default, Lo = 170 m3 CTL/Mg MSW. This
value was promulgated under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) of the CAA and is
used by MSW containment facilities (landfills) to determine if a site requires a gas collection and
control system (GCCS) (U.S. EPA 1998). The second default value is the AP-42 Lo = 100
m3/Mg MSW. This value was determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
use in air emission inventories (U.S. EPA 2008). EPA also suggests this value for sizing a GCCS
along with expected receiving tonnages for the site.
As specified in NSPS, landfills cannot identify their own Lo for regulatory purposes,
though researchers have previously investigated this aspect in laboratory and field-scale
experiments (Bentley, Smith, and Schrauf 2005; Tolaymat et al. 2010). One experimental
method for determining the methane potential of a material is the biochemical methane potential
(BMP) assay, first developed by (Owen et al. 1979). Typically, MSW samples have been
collected before disposal (Eleazer et al. 1997) or excavated from landfills and transported to a
laboratory for further physical and chemical analyses (Kim, Jang, and Townsend 2011). There is
some concern that the existing protocols used to calculate Lo in this manner may yield inaccurate
results because of a limited sample size or the potential for sample contamination with soil or
other materials found within landfills.
Several studies report Lo values based on an average of different methodologies. Krause
et al. (2016) reported Lo values to vary from 20-223 m3 CIL/Mg MSW. While some more recent
studies support methane potential values similar to 100 m3 CTL/Mg MSW (Amini, Reinhart, and
Niskanen 2013; Wang et al. 2013), others suggest Lo may be as low as 60 m3 CIL/Mg MSW
(Eleazer et al. 1997; Staley and Barlaz 2009; Tolaymat et al. 2010). As many of these previous
studies are based on partially-degraded landfilled waste or waste composition studies with non-
uniform sampling and reporting methods, they may not necessarily reflect residential and
commercial waste entering landfills today. As an example, MSW landfills often accept materials
inherently low in methane yield (e.g., building materials and debris, soil, and/or exhausted
sludge). Additionally, some fractions of residential and commercial MSW (such as the fines
content) may be poorly represented in methane potential when applying standard waste
composition data to undefined materials.
To better characterize today's waste streams for methane generation potential, a
methodology to determine Lo from as-discarded waste was developed for this study. This
methodology included the use of waste composition studies (WCSs) to categorize and collect the
biodegradable fractions of MSW.1 These same fractions were then analyzed by BMP assay and
paired with results of the WCS to calculate Lo for the waste stream. Physical characteristics
including moisture, volatile solids, and total carbon content were also determined throughout the
1 This report may use the term "organic" interchangeably with biodegradable. The authors recognize that within the
solid waste industry this is common practice, though technically a misnomer as many types of non-biodegradable
plastics are chemically organic (petroleum-based).
1

-------
course of analysis to better understand the materials being tested. By measuring methane
potential in MSW samples obtained directly from waste collection vehicles at the point of
disposal, this investigation provided a detailed assessment of how current residential and
commercial MSW at the study sites compares to the EPA default value used in developing
emission inventories for the Clean Air Act.
2

-------
Materials and Methods
1.1	Experimental Approach
Accurately determining Lo required multiple waste samples to form a representative
stream of MSW at each facility. This was achieved by selecting collection vehicles as they
arrived at waste disposal facilities and mixing the entire vehicle load with heavy machinery
before collecting a representative sample. Sample loads were separated on-site into
approximately 50 types of biodegradable and inert fractions (see Appendix A. Waste
Composition Data Sheet Template for full list). After categorization and weighing, the inert
materials were discarded on site while the biodegradable fractions were transported to the
University of Florida Solid SHWM research labs in Gainesville, Florida.
Biodegradable waste components were analyzed for moisture content and volatile solids
content based on standard methods described in Section 1.4.1. The BMP assay, used extensively
in this study, subjects a known quantity of biodegradable material to ideal anaerobic conditions
that would predict the ultimate methane generation potential of a material. Samples were
incubated and periodically measured for biogas generation and composition. The amount of
methane yielded from the known mass of material was used to back-calculate an Lo for each
individual waste material (Loi). Methane yields of each fraction were summed to determine the
Lo of each representative sample. These values were compared to previously reported values in
the literature and to the current U.S. regulatory defaults.
1.2	Site Descriptions
Four waste disposal facilities hosted the collection and waste sorting portions of this
study. Waste composition studies were performed on site in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina
through 2014 and 2015. These facilities were required to have a covered tipping floor or suitable
sorting area for sorting actives. Sites were selected in an effort to sample from the widest
geographic range for this investigation and detailed in Table 1-1.
1.2.1 Lee County, Florida
Lee County is located in southwest Florida and has 618,000 residents (Figure 1-1). The
county is listed as having an overall recycling rate of 46%, with 37% recycling rates for glass,
94% for aluminum cans, 66% for plastic bottles, and 92% for steel cans (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection 2014). MSW is collected and hauled to the Lee County Resource
Recovery Facility, which includes an 1,800 ton per day waste-to-energy facility, a materials
recovery facility, yard waste composting operation, and construction and demolition debris
(C&DD) recycling facility. Twelve representative samples of residential and commercial MSW
were sorted and the biodegradable fraction was collected from the Lee County Resource
Recovery Facility in January 2014.
3

-------
Figure 1-1. Lee County, Highlighted in Red, is Located in Southwest Florida
1.2.2 Alachua County, FL
Alachua County is located in north central Florida and has approximately 250,000
residents (Figure 1-2). The county is listed as having an overall recycling rate of 31%, with 43%
recycling rates for glass, 40% for aluminum cans, 44% for plastic bottles, and 28% for steel cans
(FDEP 2014). The dual stream collection system and relatively efficient MRF in Gainesville pair
with the University of Florida to hold a relatively high recycling rate relative to other counties in
North Florida. Alachua County Solid Waste Management operates the Leveda Brown
Environmental Park in Gainesville, FL, which includes a transfer station, a materials recovery
facility, a yard waste mulching operation, and a household hazardous waste (HHW) collection
center. MSW is collected from the county and hauled to New River Regional Landfill in Raiford,
FL. Five samples were sorted and collected in May 2014. All samples that originated at the
University of Florida and were considered commercial MSW.
Figure 1-2. Alachua County is Highlighted in Red
4

-------
1.2.3 Athens-Clarke County, Georgia
Athens-Clarke County has a population of 115,000 and is located in northeastern Georgia
(Figure 1-3). A 2014 report by the county Solid Waste Department's Recycling Division states
that over 20,500 tons of material was recovered through dual stream and single stream recycling
in Athens that year. An additional 22,873 tons of biosolids, yard waste, scrap metals and
electronic/hazardous wastes were also diverted from landfills. With these weights all being
reported as recycled ("diverted" technically a more appropriate label) by the county, the
calculated diversion rate was 44% relative to the 55,250 tons of waste disposed (Athens-Clarke
County 2014). The Athens-Clarke County Landfill is a lined, Subtitle D landfill comprised of
approximately 400 acres, accepts approximately 300 tpd of MSW and has an active gas
collection system and flare. A yard waste/biosolids composting system is also operated on site
and C&D wastes are diverted to the Oglethorpe County C&D landfill. The county-operated site
receives MSW from both public and private collection vehicles as well as residential drop-off A
WCS was performed on site March 4 - 6, 2015.
Figure 1-3. Athens-Clarke County is Highlighted in Red
1.2.4 Durham County, North Carolina
Durham County has approximately 223,000 residents (Figure 1-4). The City of Durham
Solid Waste Management Department operates a transfer station at the Solid Waste Disposal
Facility. The waste generation rate is reported to be similar to the state average of approximately
0.98 tons of waste per person annually (State of North Carolina 2012). The overall recycling rate,
including composted organics, is 16% of the total measured MSW stream. The site also includes
a yard waste management facility, wastewater treatment plant, and a closed MSW landfill. The
transfer station accepts MSW from Durham County and some surrounding counties (e.g., Orange
County). Waste is hauled to the Brunswick Waste Management Facility in Lawrenceville,
Virginia. As of 2008, Durham recycled approximately 22% of its residential waste (Durham
County 2009). A WCS was performed on site March 23 - 26, 2015.
5

-------
Figure 1-4. Durham County, North Carolina is Highlighted in Red
1.3 Sample Collection and Categorization Procedures
An abridged 3-4 day execution of the ASTM D5231-92 protocol was used during the
waste composition studies (ASTM International 2016). The word "sample" appears many times
in the following sections with several contextual meanings. A "representative sample" is the
quartered, mixed-MSW selected from the waste collection vehicle for sorting (ASTM
International 2016). A "component sample" or "laboratory sample" is one of the many different
biodegradable waste components that were collected after sorting and retained for physical and
methane potential analyses in the laboratory.
Sorting was performed in enclosed areas to prevent errors in data collection such as the
potential for increases in weight and moisture content from precipitation or winds that may cause
lightweight objects to leave the sorting area. Sorters wore personal protective equipment (PPE) at
all times during the WCS.
1.3.1 Collection of Representative Samples
WCS were performed to collect MSW component samples on an as-discarded basis (wet
weight). Waste collection vehicles were selected based on the source being residential or
commercial. Residential waste streams originate from single-family households and are typically
collected in rear-loading or side-loading waste collection vehicles. Commercial waste streams
may include multifamily residences and places of business. Only vehicles utilizing a compacting
mechanism (either on the truck or within the hauled container) were selected to avoid bulky
wastes that are large, heavy, and difficult to characterize as a single material type (e.g.,
mattresses made of metal, plastic, and textile). Figure 1-5 displays an example of each of these
vehicles that were selected in this study.
Selected trucks unloaded compacted MSW onto a tipping floor upon arrival. The hauling
company (or organization), vehicle number, source (residential or commercial), total waste
weight, and approximate route location were recorded on the data collection sheet (see Appendix
A. Waste Composition Data Sheet Template). To obtain a sufficient amount of organic fraction
samples (OFMSW), 10 - 12 vehicles were selected per facility. In the context of this report,
"organic" is meant to describe a biodegradable material found in MSW that is expected to
decompose under aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
6

-------
(C)	(d)
Figure 1-5. Rear-Loading (a), Side-Loading (b), Front-Loading Vehicles (c),
and Compacting Bins (d)
From the collection vehicle, MSW was mixed and quartered using equipment available
on site. Equipment included large front-end loaders or smaller skid-steers with bucket
attachments. Representative samples, approximately 90 to 136 kg each, were obtained from each
truck sorted (ASTM International 2016). The entire sample was transported to the sorting area
(Figure 1-6) adjacent to a sorting table (Figure 1-7).
FLOOR SLOPE
REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE
SORTING TABLE
SORTING AREA	^— SORTING BINS
TIP FLOOR
Figure 1-6. Plan View of a Typical Waste Composition Study Site Arrangement
7

-------
Figure 1-7. The UF SHWM Sorting Table Constructed to Increase Sorting Efficiency Using Screens
Instead of a Solid Surface
The representative sample was then sorted categorized by material type, referred to as
"fractions" in this report. The weights of each fraction were recorded once the 90-136 kg sample
had been completely categorized to develop a waste composition specific to each representative
sample (each vehicle). Small 1-2 kg samples of each organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) that
would contribute to methane generation in a landfill were recovered from each sorting event and
were transported in plastic bags to the SHWM labs for further analysis.
1.3.2 Safety Protocols
Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn by researchers at all times. Nitrile gloves
were worn under a thicker rubber/cotton glove to give workers protection from sharp objects and
liquids. Additionally, workers were required to wear American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Z87 approved safety glasses to protect the eyes and face. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved N95 respirators were made available to
protect workers from particulate matter. Boots and full-length pants were required. Full-body
Tyvek suits were also available for those that preferred greater protection.
Before sorting, representative samples were visually inspected for the presence of any
hazardous or medical wastes. Biomedical wastes (red bags or wastes improperly disposed in the
MSW stream) were reported to the host facility and discarded as per state regulations. Items to
scan for and remove without weighing were:
•	Sharps
¦	Needles
¦	Razors
•	Hazardous Waste
8

-------
¦	Flammable
¦	Corrosive
¦	Reactive
¦	Toxic
•	Infectious Waste
¦	Biomedical Bags (usually red bags)
¦	Syringes
¦	Items that may transfer diseases or infections to another person (bloody items)
Potentially biohazardous materials were detected in samples at Lee County and Durham
County. While the biohazardous material may have been disposed of within the technical
allowances of the law, sorting the material by hand posed too high of a risk. In Lee County, bags
were isolated and set aside for proper disposal. In Durham County, the entire representative
sample was deemed contaminated and that sample was abandoned for a substitute load. The
hauling company was notified and asked to properly dispose of the material at another site.
1.3.3 MSW Composition Studies
After the sample was deemed to be free of hazards, the waste was placed on the table top;
a 2 x 2" wire mesh screen that supported most items. Bags were opened and materials sorted into
the following categories:
•	Paper
•	Cardboard
•	Plastic
•	Textile
•	Glass
•	Metal
•	Organics
•	Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris
•	Durable goods (including electronic wastes)
•	Household hazardous waste (HHW; e.g., batteries, mercury-containing products)
Categories were further divided into approximately 50 total specific subcategories as
shown in the Waste Composition Data Form (see Appendix A. Waste Composition Data Sheet
Template). Containers for each subcategory were placed around the sorting table for easy access
to workers. The weight of each container was recorded before and after filling with each fraction
of the waste using a digital scale with maximum measurable weight 74 kg with +/- 0.05 kg
resolution (Measuretek).
The sorting table was equipped with two screens of different mesh sizes, shown in
Figure 1-8. Hand sorting occurred only on the top screen. This unique design allowed for faster,
more efficient sorting by removing lightweight and hard to identify materials from the sorting
area (by falling through to the second screen). The screen alleviated sorters from making difficult
categorical decisions for smaller objects, especially materials that were severely contaminated.
9

-------
Many past studies have not implemented this screen system and require significantly more
sorting time for small components or left this fraction of waste unstudied.
Figure 1-8. Materials that Passed the 4 in2 Screen and were Retained on the 1 in2 Mesh
The waste captured by the bottom screen (referred to as Fines < 2") and the waste that
falls to the tarp below (Fines <1") were weighed and collected for further laboratory analysis.
Examples of the Fines are shown in Figure 1-9 and Figure 1-10.
10

-------
Figure 1-9. Material that Passed the 1 in2 Screen;
a Mix of Biodegradable and Non-Biodegradable Items
The organic components of interest (OFMSW) were transported to the SHWM labs. The
subcategories expected to yield methane are specified in Table 1-1. The inert inorganic
substances, which were not expected to yield biogas, were weighed and discarded at the facility.
Figure 1-10 illustrates this process.
n

-------
Record
weight
Collect < 1'
residuals
Move 200 -
300 lb
sample to
table
Manually
sort waste
ori 2"
screen
Discard
Mix and
Quarter
waste
Collect < 2'
residuals
Waste from
truck to tipping
floor
Record weight of
each fraction
Collect subtraction,
label, store and
transport to UF lab
Glass
Metal,
Plastic,
Durable
Goods,
Inert C&D
Food
waste,
paper
products,
organic
textiles,
yard waste,
degradable
C&D
Figure 1-10. Field Sampling Technique
12

-------
Table 1-1. General Description of the Components of Interest
Components Sent to Abbreviation
SHWM Laboratory
Food waste	OMF
Paper
Soiled Paper
Organic textiles
Boxboard
Cardboard
Yard waste
C&D
Intermediates
Fines
OMP
OMSP
OMT
OMB
OMC
OMY
C&D
INT
FINE
Description
Any waste that appears to have originated from
kitchen scraps
Products made out of office paper, misc paper,
newsprint, junk mail etc.
Paper products intended to be soiled such as tissue,
paper towels, etc.
Textiles composed of organic fibers (cotton)
Thin and rigid, used in folding cartons like cereal
and shoe boxes
Thick, rigid, used in making boxes and signs
Grass clippings, leaves, tree branches, etc.
Construction and Demolition debris which are
biodegradable such as composite wood or
dimensional lumber
Fraction of waste sampled retained on the 1"
screen. Also referred to as "Fines <2 inches"
Fraction of waste sampled that passed through the
1" screen. Also referred to as "Fines <1 inch"
After sorting, samples were sealed in an insulated container and transported to the UF
laboratory to be frozen as quickly as possible, or processed for analysis immediately. Samples
were held in containers for no more than 72 hours between the time of sorting and freezing.
1.4 Laboratory Procedures
After collecting the biodegradable fractions from the waste composition studies, the
laboratory samples were transported to the UF SHWM labs for physical and chemical analysis.
All analyses were performed in triplicate unless otherwise noted. Moisture content and volatile
solids content were determined according to (ASTM International 2009). BMP assays were
performed using a protocol based on ASTM El 196-92 (ASTM International 1992). Total carbon
content in the samples was determined in an external department at the University of Florida via
elemental analysis.
1.4.1 Laboratory Sample Processing
Samples collected in the field were bagged and held in coolers before being transported
to the UF SHWM laboratories. Samples were moved to chest freezers and held at <-4 °C until
ready for laboratory analyses. Frozen bagged samples were thawed for 24 hours in fume hoods
before wet-weight was recorded. Moisture content (MC) and volatile solids (VS) content were
analyzed using ASTM D2974-07a methods (ASTM International 2009).
Moisture content was determined by heating laboratory samples at 105 °C for 24 hours
and measuring the final mass. Dried samples were size-reduced to pass a U.S. No. 10 sieve in a
13

-------
mill (Fritsch Pulverisette 25, Germany) or industrial blender (Blendtec Designer 675, USA). The
dried ground material was collected in glass jars and stored at room temperature (approximately
20 °C). VS content was subsequently determined by heating the dried sample to 550 °C for four
hours. The difference between the post-ignition sample and the dry sample, divided by the dry
weight (the total solids), is calculated to be the VS content as a fraction of total solids (VS/TS).
VS content was used to determine the amount of material required for the BMP assay.
Prior to other physical analysis, the intermediate and the fine component samples were further
separated into biodegradable fines fractions and inert fines fractions (BFF and IFF, respectively)
by manual hand sorting and identification of non-methane-generating materials (e.g., glass,
plastics, metals, soil, etc.). The IFF, which consisted only of items that were clearly non-
biodegradable, was weighed and discarded. The BFF, which contained organic materials and
anything that was presumed biodegradable (e.g., used coffee grounds and filters, soil, sawdust,
etc.) was weighed and evaluated for MC and VS content as previously identified. The yields of
the individual fractions presented in the Results and Discussion section are representative of the
BFF itself, though the yields of the dry combined fractions are presented in
14

-------
Appendix C. Fines Composition Data. The overall Lo values of each load factor in the IFF and
MC to provide an appropriate overall methane yield.
1.4.2 Biochemical Methane Potential Assay
The biochemical methane potential (BMP) assay used in this study was developed by and
adopted as a standard method (ASTM El 196-92, later withdrawn but still widely used) to
measure the quantity and composition of biogas. Many research groups still base their studies on
this method, though some have opted for larger reactors to incorporate a larger sample (Eleazer
et al. 1997; Wang and Barlaz 2016). This research follows Owen's original method, requiring 0.2
g of ground and homogenized VS added to each 250-mL serum bottle. A nutrient broth,
anaerobic inoculum, and an oxygen indicator were added to the bottle while flushed with ultra-
pure nitrogen gas (Airgas, Gainesville FL) (Owen et al. 1979). Bottles were flushed for
approximately three minutes and sealed with a rubber septum and aluminum crimp closure.
Samples were incubated in an incubator (Fisher Scientific Isotemp, USA) at 35 °C.
Biogas samples were measured on the 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, 42nd, and 56th day after
incubation using a gas-tight graduated syringe. Gas volume was measured by displacement of the
syringe barrel. The samples were analyzed in a gas chromatograph equipped with a thermal
conductivity detector (GC8A-TCD by Shimadzu, Japan). Column temperature was 100 °C and
oven temperature was 110 °C. The column used was a ShinCarbon ST Packed 2 m General
Column (Restek, USA). The carrier gas was ultra-high purity helium (Airgas, Gainesville FL).
Gas standards were used as calibration standards as well as quality control standards. A
50% or 15% methane standard, identified in Table 1-2, was analyzed every 9-12 samples as a
QC check. If the percent deviation was greater than 20%, the GC-TCD was recalibrated.
15

-------
Table 1-2. Gas standards used for GC-TCD Calibration and QC Checks
Standard
% CH4
% CO2
% O2
% Ni
Source
High Methane
50
35
0
Balance
Landtec North America, USA
Low Methane
15
15
0
Balance
Landtec North America, USA
Oxygen
0
0
4
Balance
Landtec North America, USA
A 12-liter anaerobic digester (AD) is maintained in the SHWM laboratory for several
years. The AD is the source of anaerobic inoculum for each BMP assay. The fed-batch digester
is housed in an incubator (Fisher Scientific Isotemp, USA). The digester is fed 1 g feed stock for
each 500 mL of reactor volume per day to achieve a hydraulic residence time (HRT) of 30 days.
The feedstock is ground dog food from the local supermarket, used in anaerobic digestion
experiments by other researchers because it is a cost-effective, degradable feedstock composed
of protein, carbohydrate, and sugars suitable for anaerobic microorganisms (Duran and Speece
1999; Lee et al. 2009). The pH of the digestate was measured and recorded in the AD logbook
regularly.
1.5 Methane Generation Potential
Methane generation potential (Lo) describes the maximum amount of methane that can be
produced in a landfill from mixed MSW. Generation depends on the type of waste deposited and
can range from 6 and 270 m3 CTL/Mg MSW (U.S. EPA 2004). To determine this value
accurately, the ultimate methane yields measured in the BMP assays were applied to the physical
parameters (MC and VS) of the waste material to determine a material-specific methane
potential, Loi, as shown in equation 1.
.	mL CHa. g 1/5,- (. MC,\ mL CHa. m3 CHa	_ . 1.
Loi =	1 X -—l- X 1	M =	± =	—	(Equation 1)
gVSi gTSi \ 100/	gt	Mg MSWi	v 1	'
With this information, the amount of potential methane generation of a specific waste
stream can be predicted. The individual Lo values were summed to determine the total methane
generation potential of the representative sample. The one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for
normality using a = 0.05 was used to assess the normality for collections of yields calculated for
each fraction and the overall Lo values determined for residential, commercial, and combined
data sets.
L0 = Yi L0i	(Equation 2)
The CH4 produced (mL per g of VS) was compared with the fraction of VS/total solids in
each sample, along with each respective MC to determine the mL of CH4 yielded from each g of
sample as-discarded. This value is equal to the m3 CTL/Mg MSW. The methane yield measured
in each bottle was converted to STP (0 °C and 1 atm) for comparison to other studies. Equation 3
shows how each bottle was converted to STP after being measured at 35 °C. All bottles were
16

-------
assumed to remain at 35 °C during measurement, and the gas was assumed to be fully saturated
with water vapor, which has a partial pressure of 42 mm Hg. The partial pressure was subtracted
from the atmospheric pressure in the room at the time of measurement to obtain the volume of
dry gas measured. Finally, the volume of dry CH4 contributed by the inoculum was removed by
subtracting the average yield of the triplicate blanks created for each bottling session, leaving
only the methane contribution from the substrate itself.
Normalized yield of dry CH4 @ STP (0 °C and 1 atrri) =
mlCH.@35°C ! 273K \ /Pressure in room — 42 mmHq\	_
*(35g + 273gM		) _ CH* yield- from blanks @ STP	(Equation 3)
Once the yield of each sample was determined, the Lo of each truck sorted was
calculated. The individual Lo values for each component were weight-averaged based on waste
composition to determine the total methane generation potential of each load of waste sorted on a
tipping floor. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for normality using a = 0.05 were used to assess the
normality for the series of yields calculated for each fraction (e.g., all cardboard samples, all
newspaper, etc.) and the overall Lo values determined for residential, commercial, and combined
data sets. A 95% confidence interval was calculated for the full population of 39 Lo values by
applying a bootstrap sampling method with replacement, drawing from the total population of Lo
values. Additional confidence intervals were calculated for the groups of residential and
commercial loads. After calculating Lo for each load of MSW sorted, 95% confidence intervals
were determined for all loads together as one set (n = 39) as well as confidence intervals for the
separated residential (n =19) and commercial loads (// = 20). Standard deviations were
calculated for each set of values and before calculating confidence intervals with alpha of 0.05.
1.6	Total Carbon Analysis
The total carbon content of the dried, ground samples was determined through elemental
CNS macro analysis via a vario MACRO cube (Elementar) in the Extension Soil Testing Lab at
the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IF AS). Samples between
1-2 g were assessed for total carbon content. IF AS ran standard samples through the instrument
every 10-15 samples as an internal QC throughout the analysis of all samples. The total carbon
analysis results were used to determine an average total carbon content of each combined waste
sample; this process is described in the Section 2.7.
1.7	Biogenic and Fossil Carbon Analysis
The total carbon content determined by IF AS was applied to the waste composition data
from each load to determine the total amount of carbon available from biogenic sources. None of
the non-biodegradable materials sorted were analyzed as these fractions were discarded after
each waste composition study. To determine a total carbon content of each waste load sorted, the
waste composition data was paired with the carbon content of each biodegradable fraction.
17

-------
Carbon contents were assumed for non-biodegradable fractions. Plastics were assumed to consist
of 75% fossil carbon with the exception of composite plastics that were approximated to be
composed of 50% fossil carbons to account for non-plastic components. These values were based
on the presence and general chemical composition of the most prevalent forms of plastic (PET
with 63% carbon, HPDE with 86%, Polystyrene with 97%) and the assumption that all carbon in
plastics is fossil carbon. All non-plastic and non-biodegradable materials were assumed to
contain no fossil carbon or biogenic carbon. A weighted average carbon content for each truck
sorted was determined by multiplying the mass fraction of each category by the measured or
assumed carbon content of the respective category to account for the effect of waste
composition.
The heterogeneity of the fines fractions called for additional analysis beyond total carbon
content. These samples contained materials so small that even after sorting by hand as described
in Section 1.4.1 the material still had an undetermined amount of biogenic and fossil carbon. Six
total samples of sorted, dried, ground fines samples were analyzed by Beta Analytic (Miami, FL)
for biogenic/fossil carbon content via ASTM D6866 protocol. Samples between 20-25 g were
analyzed and selected based on relative methane yield. Three samples of fines <1" and three
fines <2" were analyzed, with a high, mid, and low methane yielding sample from each of the
two fractions selected. The samples chosen because they produced yields closest to the median,
25% and 75% quartile in the methane yield data set of fines.
1.8 Degradable Carbon Fraction
The total carbon content was determined for all biodegradable fractions returned to the
UF SHWM laboratory by IF AS via CNS macro analysis with a vario MACRO cube (elementar).
The carbon content of each sample was paired with the yields of methane and carbon dioxide,
determined via BMP as described in Section 2.5. Carbon dioxide yields were calculated using the
same equation described for methane with the same gas composition data obtained on the gas
chromatograph. The fraction of carbon evolved to CH4 and CO2 were combined to determine the
degradable carbon fraction. Equation 3 shows how the fraction of CH4 evolved was determined
at STP (0 °C and 1 atm).
Results and Discussion
Data from the waste composition studies and laboratory analyses are reported in the
following sections. The results are presented for each representative sample and are also shown
in comparison to the same components.
1.9 Waste Composition Studies
As shown in Table 1-3, waste composition studies were conducted at four facilities from
2014 - 2015, where representative samples of MSW were sorted in accordance with an abridged
execution of the ASTM 5231-92 protocol. Unique aspects of the studies, such as the sorting table
design and some waste categories, are detailed in the Methods Section 1.3.3. Commercial and
g 75 added to BMP *
L CHA: @ STP 0.716 g CH4 @ STP 12 g Carbon in CH4
1 kgVS * 1 L CH4 @ STP * 16.05 g CH4
g C Evolved to CH4
g Sample Mass added to BMP * % total Carbon
g Total Carbon
(Equation 3)
18

-------
residential samples were sorted and Figures 1-11 through 1-13 offer a comparison by percentage
of the waste fractions within the locations' streams.
Table 1-3. Locations and Details of WCS Sites
Site Name
City State Date of WCS MSW Samples Sorted
Residential Commercial
Lee County Resource Fort Myers
Recovery Facility
Leveda Brown Gainesville
Environmental Park
Athens-Clarke County	Athens
Landfill
Waste Disposal and	Durham
Recycling Center
FL	January 2014	6
FL	March 2014	0
GA March 2015	6
NC	March 2015	6
6
4
6
5
Although the laboratory samples were analyzed with respect to the corresponding
representative samples from which they were taken, a comparison of the waste composition is
helpful to qualitatively predict the methane generation potential of the waste streams. As
previously mentioned, Lo is an intrinsic property of MSW (Wang et al. 2013). Therefore, waste
streams of similar composition would be expected to have similar methane potentials.
Durham
2% 4%
Athens
20%
23%
4% 4%
19%
U'/o





0%
16%
23%
2% 5%
24%
4%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Paper ¦ Organic ¦ Glass ¦ Metals ¦ Residuals ¦ Textiles aplastics ¦ C&D BHHW ¦ Durables
Figure 1-11. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in All Studied MSW Streams
The average compositions of all loads (residential and commercial) are summarized in
Figure 1-11. All paper products (cardboard, newspaper, office, etc.) are combined into one
fraction for ease of comparison. The organic fraction depicted includes food, soiled paper, and
yard waste, generally occupying about 20% of the waste stream by mass. In many previous
19

-------
studies, the 20-25% of mass made up by the fines fractions was generally not investigated; the
time required to sort everything by hand in the field is substantial. The massive scale of landfills
and the large items found in MSW can make this fraction appear unimportant. The relatively
high methane potential of this material shows that this component is important to study. The
residuals fraction shown in Figure 1-11 includes both fines fractions, human and animal wastes,
and free liquids as collected, which ASTM D5231-92 would otherwise have roughly sorted into
"Other Organics" or "Other Inorganics" fractions that are indeterminable while sorting in the
field. The same data are shown in Figure 1-12 and Figure 1-13 with the results for residential and
commercial data, respectively.
The distribution of the fractions among sample sites is generally consistent, especially in
fractions with lower frequencies (glass, C&D, textiles). While plastic films only accounted for a
small fraction of the mass, in most loads this fraction occupied a large percentage of the volume.
C&D often accounted for a small fraction of the mass due to the truck selection method and the
presence of C&D facilities at or near the sampling locations. Even with the presence of C&D
facilities and electronic waste collection facilities, the relative mass of these materials (such as
wood, bricks, and metal) did account for some visible atypical values such as the larger C&D
fraction of Durham commercial waste and durables in Lee county, in which a few improperly
disposed heavy items changed the overall average.








%
Durham
16%
15%
3%
15%
27%
5%

1%
Athens
20%
24%	3% 5%
21%	3'
Lee
12%
27%	2% 6%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Paper ¦ Organic ¦ Glass Metals ¦ Residuals ¦ Textiles aplastics BC&D BHHW ¦ Durables
Figure 1-12. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in Residential MSW Streams
20

-------
UF
20%
28%

2% 4°/
14%
3%l



Durham
23%
16%
1% 9%
11% 5% 18% 1%


Athens
20%
21%
4%
3%

18%
|3%l
70/ no/ 5%
Ifb U/o


Lee
20%
19%
1%4%


24%
3%l
vP
0s"
r-.
NO
0s"
i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Paper ¦ Organic ¦ Glass I Metals ¦ Residuals ¦ Textiles aplastics ¦ C&D BHHW ¦ Durables
Figure 1-13. Comparison of Average Waste Composition in Commercial MSW Streams
1.10 Moisture Content and Volatile Solids Content of MSW Components
The moisture content and volatile solids content for each biodegradable component from
each representative sample was determined gravimetrically as described in Section 1.4.1. The
average values for each fraction are depicted in Figure 1-14 and Figure 1-15 for a visual
comparison to the other waste streams. Consistency among fractions from different sources, even
among samples that were collected under varying weather conditions, suggests sample sets were
large enough and the methodology was able to gather reproducible results.
Fractions such as textiles, wood, and yard waste showed more variation in average
moisture content, likely due to the reduced presence of these fractions among the selected loads
of MSW and the influence that individual samples can have (Appendix B. Moisture Content and
Volatile Solids Content Data). Note that composite wood was only sorted separately from
general wood (such as dimensional lumber) during the Lee County sort. The inconsistent
presence of each material led to the combination of both fractions in all future sorts. No wood of
any kind was found during the UF sorts at the Alachua Transfer Station. Additional spread in the
textile fractions could be attributed to the differences in natural and synthetic fibers as they were
sorted. Similar results are displayed for the volatile solids content (Figure 1-15). The
comparatively similar moisture content of the fines fractions was unexpected as these samples
should show the most heterogeneity of all fractions. The average moisture content of the Fines <
2" from Lee, Athens, and Alachua were all within a range of 5%.
21

-------
Moisture Content
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nflji
ldrilllid.
<6 ..<£

-------
and combustion in a muffle furnace to determine the volatile solids (the "Volatile Organic
Fraction") and non-volatile solids (the "Unremoved Inorganic Fraction").
When reviewing the figures, it is evident that all 3 subfractions varied among the different
samples due to the inherent heterogeneous nature of the fines. Values of the Volatile Organic
Fraction range from as low as 5% to higher than 80% of the mass. The differences are due
mostly to the inability to perceive organic/inorganic components of soil-like materials that make
up a large mass of the fines fractions when hand sorting. The average composition of each
fraction is also presented in Table 1-4. It is important to note that the subsequent methane yield
experiments were performed only on the material that was perceived to be potentially
biodegradable during the benchtop sorting. The mass of the "Removed Inorganic Fraction" is
taken into calculation with the organic fraction yields when deriving the overall component
yields and determining Lo. All yields for various fines composition data are listed in
23

-------
Appendix C. Fines Composition Data.
Table 1-4. Summarized Composition of Fines Fractions by Mass
Fines < 2"	Fines < 1"
Average Std. Dev	Average Std. Dev
Volatile Organic Fraction 58% 13%	49% 19%
Unremoved Inorganic Fraction 15% 8%	22% 12%
Removed Inorganic Fraction 27% 14%	30% 23%
60% ~
50% =
T—I
CM
ro
^r
LO
to
^—I
CM
ro
^r
LO
to
T—I
CM
ro
^r
LO
to
CO

-------
T—1
CM
m
<3"
LO
to
T—1
CM
m
<3-
LO
to
1
CM
m

LO
to
CO
 cd aj
H	fN|	ffl	L/l	ID rl
I/)	1/1	W	1/1	V)	1/1
dJ	dJ	dJ	dJ	dJ	dJ
Cd	Cd	Cd	Cd	Cd	Cd
E	E	E	E	E	E
fU	fU	fU	fD	fU	fU
(N	m	"st
E E	E	E
o o o	o
u u	u	u
E E	E	E
fU fU fU	(U
<<<<<
-------
600

500

400
Q_

1—

on



CuO

^r
X
200
u

	1

£


100

0







J
l 1
T 1






L ^
7
L
J








i










j
J
L
1 J

. _

rsS

& $
w .!>	r$- <5
V s#

^ 4? 4? ^ # <$y & <-r a?
* * * *~ s/ y . j> & * .*
<$
&
* <& •$*"
4


4>
r
.- j? *
<# O
Figure 1-18. Modified Box and Whisker Plots Represent Median Methane Yield From all Residential
and Commercial MSW, 1st and 3rd Quartiles, and the Minimum and Maximum Values Measured
Accounting for non-gas-producing biological activity leads to confirmation that these
series produced reliable data. The low values of methane yield and tight spread of the blank
controls (those with no substrate added) further indicate successful repeatability and minimal
interference from the residual organic matter carried over from the anaerobic digester used to
culture methanogens. A summary of methane yield by fraction is shown in Table 1-5.
When reviewing these values in detail it can appear as if some values fall outside the
expected range. One newspaper sample from Durham produced a yield over three times the
average for other newspaper samples, while some food waste samples produced 25%-165% of
the mean yield for all food waste. Causes vary from paper products being saturated in grease to
high concentrations of dense indigestible fibers present in food waste. Similarly, inhibitory
substances can exist in products such as office paper that produce unexpectedly low yields. The
use of 450 samples run in triplicate during experimentation, paired with the minimum four times
that a sample was physically handled and inspected before making its way into a BMP bottle
reduced the margin of error when determining yields. The spread of values for more
heterogeneous samples such as food waste and the fines fractions is anticipated and the
consistency in previous MC and VS characterization lends support to the consistency and
accuracy of these methods.
26

-------
Table 1-5. Range of Methane Yields by OFMSW Component (mL CH4/ g VS)
Fraction
Average Methane Yield, 95%
Std.
Min.
Max.
Median

Conf. Interval
Dev.



Cardboard
216 ± 10
33
158
308
158
Newspaper
84 ±21
62
18
322
18
Office Paper
293 ± 13
41
148
369
148
Pasteboard
233 ± 15
47
119
347
119
Junk Mail
281 ± 18
52
140
366
140
Aseptic Paper
255 ± 14
43
130
364
130
Misc. Paper
260 ± 19
60
98
367
98
Food and Soiled
328 ± 24
80
73
538
73
Paper





Yard Waste
137 ±28
70
35
345
35
BF Fines <2"
318 ± 20
64
70
452
70
BF Fines <1"
322 ± 26
83
142
471
142
Textiles
214 ±40
105
4
365
4
Wood
51 ± 15
40
9
171
9
Comp Wood
53 ±23
37
16
132
16
Cellulose
332 ±7
23
271
387
271
Blanks
7 ± 1
3
1
14
1
Note most the values in Table 1-5 are in proportion with past studies (e.g., office paper
yield > cardboard yield > newspaper yield) (Krause et al. 2016). These values were calculated
using the BMP data summarized in. An important finding is the high yield of the fines fractions,
which contributed between 19-26% of the average waste stream and averaged among the highest
yielding components. While the averages are comparable to past studies, the large number of
samples collected and analyzed for methane yield provided a broad range for some fractions. For
an example of this spread, refer to Figure 1-19 and Figure 1-20 or see all fractions depicted in
Appendix D. Distributions of Methane Yields by MSW Component.
27

-------
7
6
5
>
u
= 4
a) ^
3
a- o
QJ o
LL.
2
1
0
105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
Figure 1-19. Yield Frequencies for All Pasteboard Samples
6
5
> 4

£ 2
1
0













° ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
mL CH4 @STP/g VS
ftQ aO
{y & t>p v v ^
Figure 1-20. Yield Frequencies of Food and Soiled Paper
Each of these individual BMP yields shown in the histograms represents a triplicate
series of bottles that were run simultaneously. The distributions also account for the methane
generation of the residual AD substrate by subtracting the yield of the blank controls on each day
of measurement, leaving only the yield attributed to the substrate undergoing degradation.
Methane yields were corrected to standard temperature and pressure (0 °C and 1 atm) for the
purposes of comparison to other data. The limited spread of yields from pure granulated
cellulose indicate consistent conditions and repeatability among trials, which were broken into
several sessions of bottling and measurements due to the length of this research. The median
value of 331 mL CHVg VS cellulose attests to successful experimental conditions, as the
maximum stoichiometric yield is 415 mL/g VS (De la Cruz and Barlaz 2010).
28

-------
Note that the spread of yield for pasteboard follows a relatively normal shape and has a
mean yield of 234 mL CFU/g VS and a median of 232. While the shape of the histograms for
some fractions does not appear bell-shaped every fraction passed a one sample Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test for normality using a = 0.05. For fractions like food and soiled paper (Figure 1-20)
that are substantially more heterogeneous, the distribution is much wider, though the data still
manage to form a mostly normal shape with only three points that appear abnormal (two high,
one low) of the 39 collected food and soiled paper samples. No data were excluded in this report
under the assumption that consistent yields in triplicate samples (which all these samples
showed) was indicative of successful experimentation. Comparatively high or low yields were
checked for clerical errors prior to reporting and all values presented are authentic
measurements.
For the purpose of comparing the yields of the individual components of MSW with
different models of assessing methane yield in landfills,
Table 1-6. Comparison of Methane Yields in Dry and As-Discarded Form 1-6 shows the
comparison of the yields determined for the dry samples and the respective yields expected per
mass unit of each fraction as it arrives at a waste disposal site. These values were calculated by
applying the average moisture content and volatile solids content to the mean yield of each
fraction. The difference in yield when factoring in moisture content reduces the yield per unit
mass for food and yard waste by approximately 50% and highlights how much moisture
contamination can reduce the yield of materials such as office paper.
Table 1-6. Comparison of Methane Yields in Dry and As-Discarded Form
Fraction	MC	VS	Dry Yield (mL As-Discarded
Cardboard
22%
88%
CH4/g VS)
216
Yield (m3
CH4/Mg MSW)
148
Newspaper
25%
90%
84
57
Office Paper
19%
81%
293
194
Pasteboard
17%
77%
233
148
Junk Mail
22%
85%
281
186
Aseptic Paper
20%
80%
255
163
Misc. Paper
23%
95%
260
191
Food and Soiled
Paper
50%
91%
328
149
29

-------
Yard Waste
45%
83%
137
63
BF Fines <2"
54%
84%
318
124
BF Fines <1"
47%
67%
322
115
Textiles
16%
96%
213
172
Wood
8%
52%
51
24
Comp Wood
4%
30%
52
15
Some fractions, despite having numerous samples, produced such a broad range of yields
that the distributions are more flat. Textiles (see Figure A-0-12, Appendix D) and less so Wood
(Figure A-0-13, Appendix D) show a broad range that is partially attributable to the variety of
substrates that fit this category. A natural cotton fiber shirt was often sorted in the same bin as a
synthetic blend fabric and the mixed pile of materials was analyzed to give a fully representative
look at textiles in landfills. Previously reported values listed in Table 1-7 and Table 1-8
encompass the range of values determined in this study (Krause et al. 2016). Examples include
Zheng's values for cotton (419 mL CHVg) and "Fabrics" (36 mL CHVg) (Zheng et al. 2013).
The variety of both material types and yields of yard waste described in Table 1-7 also confirm
that the yields determined in this study are reasonable and our triplicate replicates lend further to
the accuracy of the yields (Krause et al. 2016).
Both the fines fractions are represented as the biodegradable fines fraction (BFF): the
amount of identified organic material that is presumed biologically volatile during hand sorting
in the SHWM laboratory as defined in Section 1.4.1. All methane yield data from BMPs is
represented in terms of dry volatile solids for fines. The inorganic fraction and moisture content
was added back to this mass for calculation of Lo.
30

-------
Table 1-7. Methane Generation Parameters of Wood Products and Yard Waste
Yard waste and
wood products
Branch
Branches
Garden waste
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass-2
Hardwoods
Leaves
Leaves
Medium-
density
Fiberboard
Oriented strand
board
Particleboard
Plywood
Softwoods
Wood
Moisture Volatile
Content Solids
(% w/w) (% of TS)
96.6
68.9
86
85.0
87.8
90.2
Methane Yield
mL/g m3/Mg
VS dry
134
114
388
209
123
63
100
193
334*
144
128
0-
32.5
31
4.6
0-
84.5
5.6
6.3
0.5 -
7.5
193
Methane
Generation
Potential
Lo
(m3 CH4/ Mg
wet)
Reference
Yard waste
Yard waste
5-9
143
104*
(Eleazer et al. 1997)
(Owens and
Chynoweth 1993)
(Trzcinski and
Stuckey 2011)
(Buffiere et al.
2006)
(Owens and
Chynoweth 1993)
(Eleazer et al. 1997)
(Eleazer et al. 1997)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Owens and
Chynoweth 1993)
(Eleazer et al. 1997)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Wang etal. 2011)
(Cho, Moon, and
Kim 2012)
(O'Keefe et al. 1993)
(Owens and
Chynoweth 1993)
¦"Calculated based on reported characterization data including moisture content, total solids, or volatile solids content.
31

-------
Waste
Component
Table 1-8. Methane Generation Parameters of Textiles and Diapers
Moisture Volatile Solids Methane Yield Methane
(% of TS)	Generation
Cotton
Fabric
Textiles
Textile
Leather
Textiles
Content
(% w/w)
99.4
89.7
92
Potential
mL/g VS m3/Mg dry Lo
(m3 CH4/
Mg waste)
92
230.8
150.1
216
421
36
228
229
135
189
414*
36*
210
191s
Reference
(Zheng et al.
2013)
(Zheng et al.
2013)
(Jokela,
Vavilin, and
Rintala 2005)
(Jeon et al.
2007)
(Cho, Moon,
and Kim 2012)
Diapers	62	76	204	158	60 (Jokela,
Vavilin, and
Rintala 2005)
*Calculated based on reported characterization data including moisture content, total solids, or
volatile solids content.
1.13 Methane Generation Potential, Lo, by Representative Sample
The data gathered through waste composition sorts and laboratory experimentation were
combined into one final value; the ultimate methane yield per mass unit of MSW as-discarded at
a waste collection facility. Every individual fraction mass, moisture and volatile solids content,
and methane generation potential via BMP assay was used to calculate Lo for each representative
sample (each load sorted). All distributions (combined, residential, and commercial) passed a
one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality using a = 0.05 without any data exclusion.
The values ranged from 42-166 m3 CLL/Mg MSW as received at the facility and are depicted in
Figure 1-21 through 1-23.
32

-------
Appendix E. Waste Composition and Lo of Representative Samples includes the final
calculation of Lo based on the composition for each representative sample while Table 1-9 shows
the final summary of calculated methane yields. A total of 39 loads were sorted and used to
determine the ultimate methane yield per unit mass of MSW as received at solid waste facilities.
The mean Lo = 83 m3 CTL/Mg MSW was determined for the all loads sorted. The highest Lo =
166 m3 CH4/Mg MSW and the lowest L0 = 42 m3 CH4/Mg MSW.
Table 1-9. Summary of All Lo Values Calculated by Representative Sample
All Residential and Commercial Lo Values	Commercial Residential
(m3 CH4/Mg MSW)
Mean
80
85
75
Median
76
88
71
Std. Dev
24.1
22.0
25.9
Min
46
46
48
Max
162
129
162
6
5
s-4	I ¦	¦
c

  • -------
    distributions (combined, residential, and commercial) passed a one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
    test for normality using a = 0.05 and were considered acceptable without any data exclusion.
    5
    4
    >
    u o
    £ 3
    a>
    3
    a- _
    £ 2
    LL.
    1
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    50
    60
    70
    80
    90 100
    L0 (m3 CH^/Mg MSW)
    110
    120 130 140
    Figure 1-22. Frequency and Range of all Lo Values Measured from Commercial Samples
    Figure 1-22 is a histogram of the Lo values determined for commercial loads only. The
    data mildly skew left while illustrating data with a mean value of 85 m3 CH4/Mg MSW and a
    median value of 88. Calculating a 95% confidence interval provides the range of 77-92 m3 CH4
    /Mg MSW for all commercial loads. These values are relatively proportional in opposition to the
    residential data in Figure 1-23 which shows data skewing to the right and a lower mean Lo = 75
    m3 CFL/Mg MSW and median 71, as well as a 95% confidence interval provides the range of
    67-85 m3 CFL/Mg MSW. With the exception of the single high value (due to the uncommonly-
    high amount of methane-generating food waste in the sample) the residential data hold a more
    concentrated spread than the commercial loads. While the histograms suggest a difference
    between the two groups, a two-sample t test with alpha = 0.05 showed no significant difference
    between commercial and residential Lo values. Similar t tests between different counties showed
    no significant difference in Lo related to source region.
    3
    cr
    a>
    *_
    LL.
    1
    0
    45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170
    L0 (m3 CH^/Mg MSW)
    Figure 1-23. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Measured from Residential Samples
    34
    

    -------
    The Fines fractions received special focus in this research because this fraction was often
    omitted or under studied in previous investigations of Lo. Table 1-10 shows that the average
    contribution of methane yield in each of the 39 waste collection vehicles was approximately 19%
    of the overall Lo. The heterogeneous nature of the Fines allows this material to contribute over
    50% of the overall methane measured for one truck while inert materials such as soil can pool in
    fines fractions that contribute little to the overall yield of MSW. In this study the average Lo for
    all vehicles would have been 65 m3 CFL/Mg MSW if these fractions were omitted.
    Table 1-10: Significance of Fines on Lo
    Lo	Fines<2" CELt Fines
    -------
    Figure 1-24. Total Carbon Content (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Material) by Fraction. Boxes Show
    Median, 1st and 3rd Quartiles of the Data for Each Fraction (Whiskers Represent Minimum and
    Maximum Values)
    Table 1-11. Total Carbon Content by Fraction (Dry Mass Carbon/Dry Mass Sample)
    
    Average Carbon Content
    Std. Dev
    Min
    Max
    Cardboard
    42%
    2%
    35%
    45%
    Newspaper
    45%
    3%
    36%
    53%
    Office Paper
    38%
    2%
    35%
    45%
    Pasteboard
    40%
    1%
    37%
    45%
    Junk Mail
    36%
    3%
    29%
    45%
    Aseptic Paper
    45%
    2%
    42%
    49%
    Misc. Paper
    38%
    3%
    32%
    45%
    Food and Soiled Paper
    43%
    5%
    30%
    62%
    Yard Waste
    42%
    5%
    26%
    47%
    BF Fines <2"
    40%
    4%
    33%
    50%
    BF Fines <1"
    37%
    8%
    15%
    54%
    Textiles
    47%
    10%
    40%
    92%
    Wood
    44%
    2%
    39%
    46%
    Comp. Wood
    41%
    2%
    38%
    44%
    36
    

    -------
    1.15 Biogenic and Fossil Carbon
    The analysis of total carbon in biodegradable samples allowed for a determination of the
    biogenic/fossil carbon split among waste. This metric is determined in waste-to-energy facilities
    using radiocarbon analysis via ASTM D6866 of stack samples collected over a 24-hour period in
    accordance with the requirements of the mandatory GHG reporting rule. In this study, the total
    carbon content in biodegradable fractions was assumed to be biogenic while plastics fractions
    were assumed to be about 75% fossil carbon, based on the chemical formulas of the most
    prevalent materials such as HDPE, PET, PP, etc. The waste composition of each load was paired
    with the biogenic/fossil carbon content values for each fraction and combined to calculate the
    average values depicted in Figure 1-25 and Table 1-12. With these calculations and assumptions,
    the overall biogenic/fossil carbon split was determined to be 54/46 for all MSW in this study.
    The ratio of biogenic and fossil carbon was determined based on the total mass of carbon present
    in each collection vehicle, which was combined with moisture content data to calculate the total
    mass of carbon per mass of wet MSW (as-discarded) and dry MSW. A summary of these values
    is shown in Table 1-12 and the full list of carbon and moisture content by vehicle is presented in
    Appendix F.
    100%
    90%
    80%
    70%
    60%
    50%
    40%
    30%
    20%
    10%
    lillili
    
    Dur
    Comrr
    nam Durham Ath
    lercial Residential Comrr
    ens Ath
    lercial Resid
    ¦ Biogenic
    ens Lee Con
    ential
    - Fossil
    lmercial Lee Res
    idential UF Com
    mercial
    Figure 1-25 Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads
    37
    

    -------
    Table 1-12. Average Biogenic/Fossil Carbon Split for All Loads. Based on Dry Mass Carbon/Dry
    Mass Waste Composition
    Biogenic Carbon Fossil Carbon Total Carbon (g Total Carbon (g
    
    
    
    C/g dry MSW)
    C/g wet MSW)
    Durham Commercial
    54%
    46%
    45%
    33%
    Durham Residential
    49%
    51%
    37%
    27%
    Athens Commercial
    56%
    44%
    33%
    27%
    Athens Residential
    56%
    44%
    33%
    26%
    Lee Commercial
    51%
    49%
    30%
    25%
    Lee Residential
    58%
    42%
    26%
    22%
    UF Commercial
    50%
    50%
    41%
    31%
    Average
    54%
    46%
    34%
    27%
    
    180
    
    160
    ~o
    
    -7"
    ,4 V
    y = 480.39x +12.352
    R2 = 0.366
    0.050	0.100	0.150	0.200
    Biogenic Carbon Content- Wet (g biogenic C /g wet waste)
    0.250
    Figure 1-26. Comparison of Lo and Biogenic Carbon Content for each Load, Dur-Com 3 Excluded
    Total carbon content for each sample was applied with the waste composition data to
    determine the biogenic/fossil carbon content. Figure 1-26 shows a comparison of the methane
    yield (Lo) of each load sorted and the biogenic carbon content (wet weight) for each respective
    load. This figure's regression line excludes the Lo value for Durham Commercial 2 (shown in
    red), which was relatively low (46 m3 CIL/Mg MSW) as a result of uncommonly-high presence
    38
    

    -------
    of wood (52% of as-discarded mass) in the load. Excluding this Lo value increased the
    percentage of variation explained by the linear model from about 20% to nearly 37%. Regression
    analysis based on 95% confidence intervals revealed a statistically significant relationship
    between biogenic carbon content (wet weight) and Lo for the data sets inclusive (P-value = 5.7 x
    10"5) and excluding (P-value = 4 x 10"3) of Durham Commercial 2. A table of these values is
    located in Appendix F.
    The fines fractions received specific interest because of the difficulty in characterizing
    the material. Table 1-13 lists the samples used and shows that no correlation between yield and
    biogenic carbon content was defined for the fines fractions. The carbon in these samples was
    almost completely biogenic. The fractions analyzed by Beta Analytic had been hand sorted to
    remove items that were perceived as non-biodegradable (the Inert Fines Fraction described in
    Section 2.4.1) which accounted for between 13% and 59% of the mass. A small amount of
    plastic films were removed in this process- less than 10% of the removed mass. The majority of
    IFF material removed was glass shards, rocks/pebbles, cigarettes, and clay cat litter. The plastics
    that could have contributed fossil carbon to the samples were minimal in mass relative to heavy
    items such as soil and food waste that made up a majority of the composition. See Appendix C
    for more composition data of the fines fractions. No correlation between BFF size and biogenic
    carbon content was observed in the samples studied.
    Table 1-13. Biogenic Carbon Content in Dry, Ground, Sorted Biodegradable Fines Fractions
    County
    Load
    F raction
    CH4 Yield
    Biogenic Carbon
    Biodegradable Fines Fraction
    
    
    
    (mL/g
    Content in Dry
    (wet mass of fines sample
    
    
    
    VS)
    Samples (percent
    kept/wet mass of total fines
    
    
    
    
    modern carbon)
    sample before sorting)
    Lee
    Res 6
    BF<2"
    289
    99%
    61%
    Lee
    Com 6
    BF<2"
    318
    100%
    41%
    Durham
    Com 3
    BF<2"
    353
    99%
    75%
    Athens
    Com 3
    BF<1"
    283
    100%
    87%
    Athens
    Res 2
    BF<1"
    324
    100%
    65%
    Durham
    Res 5
    BF<1"
    366
    100%
    75%
    1.16 Degradable Carbon Fraction
    By calculating each yield of methane and carbon dioxide at STP, the density of each gas
    under standard conditions was used to determine the fraction of carbon in each sample that
    evolved to either gas. Figure 1-27 portrays how carbon was studied and described in this research
    with total carbon assessed as described in Section 3.6. The biogenic/fossil carbon split detailed in
    Section 3.7 is describing the physical makeup of the total carbon content. The amount of
    biogenic carbon that evolved into carbon in CO2 or CH4 was determined by assessing the yields
    of gas and comparing the respective yield for each sample to the amount of biogenic carbon
    present prior to digestion under anaerobic conditions. In all waste samples studied the average
    fraction of biogenic carbon mass that evolved to carbon in CO2 and CH4 was 43%. Commercial
    carbon averaged 47% and residential carbon averaged 51%. Individual sites are listed in
    Table 1-14 and range from 38-53%. The biogenic carbon mass fractions determined for
    residential and commercial fractions of MSW from Lee County of 52% and 50% for commercial
    39
    

    -------
    and residential waste respectively. These values are less than those reported to the U.S. EPA by
    the Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility (RRF), which were reported to be
    64.3% when measured in facility's emissions stream (U.S. EPA 2013). The RRF collects
    quarterly 24-hour stack samples for radiocarbon analysis to ascertain the fraction of carbon that
    is biogenic in origin to meet EPA requirements. From 2014 to 2016, these quarterly samples
    ranged from 59% to 63% biogenic carbon (U.S. EPA 2016).
    Non-Carbon
    Biogenic Carbon 	
    Fossil Carbon
    — Carbon Evolved to C02 & CH4
    Figure 1-27. Carbon Studied in this Research
    Table 1-14. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Location. Values Represent % of Dry Mass of
    Total Biogenic Carbon that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2
    Location	Average Fraction of Biogenic
    Carbon Evolved to Carbon
    in Biogas (CELt and CO2)
    Durham Commercial
    38%
    Durham Residential
    50%
    Athens Commercial
    48%
    Athens Residential
    53%
    Lee Commercial
    50%
    Lee Residential
    52%
    UF Commercial
    52%
    The average content of degradable carbon was determined after the values were
    determined for each individual sample. Figure 1-28 shows the spread of all degradable carbon
    40
    

    -------
    percentages, grouped by fraction. Similar to the methane yields show in shown in Figure 1-28,
    increased heterogeneity in the sample results in a wider spread of values. High lignin content in
    fibrous materials such as newspaper, wood, and yard waste is known to reduce methane yields
    under anaerobic conditions, as the carbon is not easily available to these organisms without prior
    hydrolysis. While wood and newspaper both have average carbon contents of 45%, only 9% and
    5%, respectively, of that carbon was able to convert to both CO2 and CH4 in the BMP assays.
    The maximum value for newspaper, illustrated with the whiskers in Figure 1-28 is likely due to
    contamination such as oil or sugar saturating the newspaper prior to study.
    Table 1-15 presents the mean values of this degradable carbon by fraction and displays the
    average fraction of carbon that evolved to CO2 and CH4 for comparison. The ratio of C evolved to
    CH4 to C evolved to CO2 ranged from 1.1 (office paper) to 2.4 (newspaper). Typical anaerobic
    landfill gas exhibits CH4 to CO2 ratios in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 (anaerobic bioconversion of
    cellulose results in a theoretical ratio of 1.0). As some CO2 will dissolve into solution in the BMP
    bottle, the amount of CO2 measured is expected to be less than that produced. This effect is
    magnified for those constituents with lower methane yields (e.g., wood, newspaper). In addition,
    those constituents with greater amounts on non-cellulosic biodegradable organic matter (e.g., food
    waste, fines), also results in higher CH4 to CO2 ratios, not surprising, as fats and lipids yield a
    greater percentage of CH4 compared to cellulosic materials.
    o
    u
    o3
    x
    u
    o
    o
    -Q
    100%
    90%
    80%
    70%
    60%
    50%
    40%
    30%
    20%
    10%
    0%
    cT
    4?
    & c*
    
    
    J
    
    
    
    
    
    
    E
    3 1
    PF
    
    
    F
    p e]
    T
    —1 _
    x
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    ¦¦
    
    3
    J
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    &
    
    4>"
    
    <£>
    
    &
    
    *
    
    &
    
    £
    
    -------
    Table 1-15. Average Degradable Carbon Fraction by Fraction. Values Represent Average % of
    Total Carbon (Mass) in Dry Samples that Evolved to Carbon in CH4 or CO2
    Fraction Average Fraction	Average Fraction	Ratio of fraction C
    of Carbon that	of Carbon that	evolved to C in
    Evolved to C in	Evolved to C in	CH4: fraction C
    CH4	CO2	evolved to C in
    
    
    
    CO2
    Cardboard
    25%
    14%
    1.8
    Newspaper
    10%
    4%
    2.4
    Office Paper
    29%
    27%
    1.1
    Pasteboard
    29%
    22%
    1.3
    Junk Mail
    36%
    30%
    1.2
    Aseptic Paper
    29%
    21%
    1.4
    Misc. Paper
    29%
    23%
    1.3
    Food and Soiled Paper
    35%
    22%
    1.6
    Yard Waste
    15%
    9%
    1.7
    BF Fines <2"
    32%
    18%
    1.8
    BF Fines <1"
    31%
    17%
    1.8
    Textiles
    25%
    19%
    1.4
    Wood
    5%
    3%
    1.8
    Comp Wood
    7%
    4%
    2.0
    42
    

    -------
    Conclusions
    Waste composition studies were employed to capture MSW from waste collection
    vehicles at the point of disposal to ensure that the maximum amount of degradable materials
    remained intact for laboratory analysis. Representative samples were identified and sorted
    following ASTM D5231-92 and organic fractions were returned to the UF Environmental
    Engineering Laboratories for further study. Laboratory analyses were used to characterize the
    biodegradable components with respect to methane generation via BMP assay. Methane
    generation data were then attributed to the weight-fraction of the component determined in the
    WCS and Lo for each representative sample was determined.
    Lo values were found to range from 46-162 m3 CTL/Mg MSW, with an average value of
    80 m3/Mg MSW (Table 1-9). While the geographic range covered by the samples does not
    represent the entire U.S. it does provide insight on Lo based on the analysis of as-discarded
    commercial and residential MSW. The Lo values for the 39 MSW collection vehicle samples
    gathered during this study were normal in distribution as tested by a one sample Kolmogorov-
    Smirnov test for normality using a = 0.05. This suggested that waste composition and laboratory
    analysis yielded consistent results among samples obtained from different locations with the
    process developed for this study.
    This average value is 20% lower than the current 100 m3 CIL/Mg MSW value for Lo
    suggested by the USEPA in AP-42; however, the range of values does not exclude a value of 100
    m3 CTL/Mg MSW from the range of possibilities. Of the 39 trucks sorted, six resulted in Lo
    values higher than 100, one of which produced a calculated 162 m3 CTL/Mg MSW-nearly as
    much as the potential to emit factor of 170 m3 CTL/Mg MSW required for use by the landfill new
    source performance standards and emissions guidelines promulgated under the Clean Air Act.
    Twelve of the 39 trucks sorted produced Lo values between the average 80 and 100 m3 CTL/Mg
    MSW.
    The methane evolved from these samples originated from biogenic carbon found in the
    waste. The solid waste in this study showed an average total carbon content on a dry basis of
    34%. Of that total carbon, 54% was estimated to be biogenic carbon and 46% was estimated to
    be fossil carbon. The average fraction of biogenic carbon that evolved to CH4 or CO2 is 43%. If
    100 kg of waste with an average composition is placed in one of the landfills that hosted a waste
    sort in this study, 11.8 kg of carbon is expected to be converted to biogas at STP.
    The range of Lo values found in this study can be attributed to the 450 samples, the
    heterogeneous nature of the MSW, and the need to categorize waste samples into manageable
    categories for study. The clear differences between residential and commercial waste yields and
    the varying proportions in which they could be received leads one to conclude that the source of
    waste and the varying compositions will have a significant impact on the ultimate yield of
    landfilled materials. Since these wastes are all managed the same way in landfills the results
    were combined as presented in this work. The results from this study do fall within the range
    reported with similar BMP studies; Figure 1-29 depicts these values, all of which were
    determined using different methods, reactor sizes, and substantially smaller sample sets.
    43
    

    -------
    200
    180
    _ 160
    § 140
    fn 120
    txo
    _P ^ 100
    3? 80
    u
    60
    — 40
    20
    0
    ¦ nil
    1
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <# ^
    	:3>	.>S
    ^ ~ 
    -------
    7
    6
    > 5
    £ 4
    §¦ 3
    a)
    £ 2
    1
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    45 50 55 60
    65
    70
    75
    80
    
    85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
    (m3 CH^Mg MSW)
    Figure 1-30. Frequency and Range of All Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields for each
    Individual Organic Fraction
    The visual representation is slightly misleading in this case as the average values vary
    little between the individual Lo values and those determined with average yields for each organic
    fraction. These values are compared in Table 1-16. While the histograms suggest a difference
    between the Lo values of the two groups, a two-sample t test with alpha = 0.05 showed no
    significant difference.
    Table 1-16. Comparison of Lo Values Calculated Using Average Yields and Individualized Yields
    for Each Individual Organic Fraction
    Lo Values Determined with	Lo Values Determined with
    Individual Yields (Figure 1-21)	Average Yields (Figure 1-30)
    Mean
    80
    84
    Median
    76
    81
    Std. Dev
    24.1
    18.7
    Min
    46
    48
    Max
    162
    131
    While the range of methane yields for each fraction of MSW could vary, much of the
    variation could be attributed to heterogeneity in the fraction (e.g., food wastes, fines), unique
    characteristics of different manufactured products (e.g., lignin content in newspaper and
    cardboard), or unavoidable contamination of liquids on dry materials. From the 39 representative
    samples collected in this study, over 1,400 BMPs were performed on the 14 biodegradable waste
    fractions, analyzed in triplicate.
    In addition to determining them methane potential for these samples, further investigation
    into the physical characteristics provides us with a better understanding of waste today. For each
    45
    

    -------
    sample studied in one contained research effort, we know its source, prevalence relative to the
    truck from which it was pulled, the county in which it originated, and how its presence rates
    relative to other samples from three different states. We also know the moisture and volatile
    solids content of that specific sample, as well as the total carbon content. The methane and
    carbon dioxide potentials were determined on that same mass of waste that was sorted hundreds
    of miles away. After determining the carbon content of that sample, the fraction of molecules
    that are capable of changing phases from solid to gas under anaerobic conditions was also
    determined. This same chain of investigation was carried out 450 times in this research. A
    comparison of the biogenic carbon content and Lo values revealed that the biogenic carbon
    content/wet mass of as-discarded MSW can account for approximately 37% of the variation in
    measured methane potential.
    The objective of this research was to measure the Lo of both residential and commercial
    MSW in the condition and composition at the point of disposal. This work was motivated by
    recent studies that suggest the actual MSW Lo values are substantially lower than the current AP-
    42 default values of 100 m3 CFU/Mg MSW. Lo values were found in this work resulted in a range
    from 46-162 m3 CFU/Mg MSW, with an average value of 80 m3/Mg MSW. While the average
    value found here is less than the AP-42 default value, the AP-42 default was within the range of
    values determined in this study. Differences between the results found in this study and other
    work stems from the contribution of waste materials outside the typical stream of household and
    commercial MSW going to landfills (some of which are accounted for in waste composition
    studies) and include items such as soil, sludge, and building debris. This study also measured
    methane potential of all biodegradable waste components including the miscellaneous, or
    "Fines" fractions were found to contribute an average of 19% of the total methane yield for each
    load of MSW studied. In one load the fines contributed over 50% of the total methane generated.
    If fines were omitted from this study completely, the average Lo calculated would have been 65
    m3 CFU/Mg MSW as opposed to 80. While the limited geographic extent covered here precludes
    describing these results as representative of nationwide MSW, they should provide context to
    those utilizing Lo in FOD projections.
    46
    

    -------
    References
    Amini H, Reinhart D, Niskanen A. 2013. "Comparison of first-order-decay modeled and actual
    field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data." Waste Management,
    Elsevier Ltd. 33(12):2720-2728.
    Amini H, Reinhart D, Mackie K. 2012. "Determination of first-order landfill gas modeling
    parameters and uncertainties." Waste Management, Elsevier Ltd. 32(2):305-316.
    APHA. 1999. "2540 SOLIDS." Standard Methods for The Examination of Water and
    Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
    Water Environment Federation.
    ASTM International. 2016. "ASTM D5231-92(2016) Standard Test Method for Determination of
    the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste." ASTM International, West
    Conshohocken, PA, USA.
    ASTM International. 2009. "ASTM D2974-07a Standard Test Method for Moisture, Ash, and
    Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils." ASTM International, West
    Conshohocken, PA, USA.
    ASTM International. 2003. "ASTM D5231-92 (2003) Standard Test Method for Determination
    of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste." ASTM International, West
    Conshohocken, PA, USA.
    ASTM International. 1992. "ASTM El 196-92 (withdrawn) Test Method for Determining the
    Anaerobic Biodegradation Potential of Organic Chemicals." ASTM International, West
    Conshohocken, PA, USA.
    Athens-Clarke County. 2014. "Annual Report Fiscal Year 2014." Athens, GA: Athens-Clarke
    County Solid Waste Department Recycling Division. Athens, GA.
    Bentley HW, Smith SJ and Schrauf T. 2005. "Baro-pneumatic estimation of landfill gas
    generation rates at four landfills in the southeastern United States." Proceedings from the
    SWAN A 28th annual landfill gas symposium, 1-16.
    Buffiere P, Loisel D, Bernet N, Delgenes J. 2006. "Towards new indicators for the prediction of
    solid waste anaerobic digestion properties." Water Science and Technology, 53(8):233-
    241.
    Caldas A, Machado S, Karimpour-Fard M, Carvalho M. 2014. "MSW characteristics and landfill
    gas generation performance in tropical regions." Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
    Engineering t 19:8545-8560.
    Cho H, Moon H, Kim J. 2012. "Effect of quantity and composition of waste on the prediction of
    annual methane potential from landfills." Bioresource Technology, 109:86-92.
    De la Cruz F and Barlaz M. 2010. "Estimation of waste component-specific landfill decay rates
    using laboratory-scale decomposition data." Environmental Science & Technology,
    44(12):4722-8.
    De la Cruz F, Chanton J, Barlaz M. 2013. "Measurement of carbon storage in landfills from the
    biogenic carbon content of excavated waste samples." Waste Management, 33(10):2001-
    2005.
    47
    

    -------
    Demir A, Bilgili M, Ozkaya B. 2004. "Effect of leachate recirculation on refuse decomposition
    rates at landfill site: A case study." International Journal of Environmental Pollution,
    21(2):175-190.
    Demirel B and Scherer P. 2008. "The roles of acetotrophic and hydrogenotrophic methanogens
    during anaerobic conversion of biomass to methane: A review." Reviews in
    Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 7(2): 173-90.
    Duran M and Speece R. 1999. "Biodegradability of residual organics in the effluent of anaerobic
    processes." Environ Technology, 20(6):597-605.
    Durham County. 2009. Durham County 10 Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
    Durham, NC: North Carolina Division of Waste Management, 53.
    Eleazer W, Odle W, Wang Y, Barlaz M. 1997. "Biodegradability of municipal solid waste
    components in laboratory-scale landfills." Environmental Science & Technology,
    31 (3):911 -7.
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. "Solid Waste Management in Florida
    2014 Annual Report." Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
    Jeon EJ, Bae SJ, Lee DH, Seo DC, Chun SK, Lee NH and Kim JY. 2007. "Methane generation
    potential and biodegradability of MSW components." Sardinia 2007Eleventh
    International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
    Jokela JPY, Vavilin VA, Rintala JA. 2005. "Hydrolysis rates, methane production and nitrogen
    solubilisation of grey waste components during anaerobic degradation." Bioresource
    Technology, 96(4):501-8.
    Kim H and Townsend T. 2012. "Wet landfill decomposition rate determination using methane
    yield results for excavated waste samples." Waste Management, 32(7): 1427-33.
    Krause MJ and Townsend TG. 2014. "Rapid waste composition studies for the assessment of
    solid waste management systems in developing countries." International Journal of
    Waste Resources, 4:145.
    Krause M, Chickering G, Townsend T, Reinhart D. 2016. "Critical review of the methane
    generation potential of municipal solid waste." Critical Reviews in Environmental
    Science & Technology, 46(13): 1117-1182.
    Lee M, Suh C, Ahn Y, Shin H. 2009. "Variation of ADM1 by using temperature-phased
    anaerobic digestion (TPAD) operation." Bioresource Technology, 100(11):2816-2822.
    Lesteur M, Latrille E, Maurel VB, Roger JM, Gonzalez C, Junqua G, Steyer JP. 2011. "First step
    towards a fast analytical method for the determination of biochemical methane potential
    of solid wastes by near infrared spectroscopy." Bioresource Technology, 102(3):2280-
    2288.
    Lesteur M, Bellon-Maurel V, Gonzalez C, Latrille E, Roger JM, Junqua G, Steyer JP. 2010;
    2009. "Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: A review."
    Process Biochemistry, 45(4):431-440.
    48
    

    -------
    Machado SL, Carvalho MF, Gourc J, Vilar OM, do Nascimento JCF. 2009. "Methane generation
    in tropical landfills: Simplified methods and field results." Waste Management,
    29(1): 153-161.
    O'Keefe D, Cynoweth D, Barkdoll A, Nordstet R, Owens J, Sifontes J. 1993. "Sequential batch
    anaerobic composting of municipal solid-waste (msw) and yard waste." Water Science
    and Technology, 27(2):77-86.
    Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB, Young LY, McCarty PL. 1979. "Bioassay for monitoring
    biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity." Water Resources, 13(6):485-492.
    Owens J and Chynoweth D. 1993. "Biochemical methane potential of municipal solid-waste
    (msw) components." Water Science and Technology, 27(2): 1-14.
    ReinhartD. 1996. "Full-scale experiences with leachate recirculating landfills: Case studies."
    Waste Manage Resources, 14(4):347-365.
    Sandip M, Kanchan K, Ashok B. 2012. "Enhancement of methane production and bio-
    stabilisation of municipal solid waste in anaerobic bioreactor landfill." Bioresource
    Technology, 110:10-7.
    Scharff H and Jacobs J. 2006. "Applying guidance for methane emission estimation for
    landfills." Waste Management, 26(4):417-29.
    Schumacher MM. 1983. "Landfill methane recovery." Energy Technology Review no. 84. Ridge,
    NJ: Noyes Data Corporation.
    Shanmugam P and Horan NJ. 2009. "Simple and rapid methods to evaluate methane potential
    and biomass yield for a range of mixed solid wastes." Bioresource Technology,
    100(l):471-474.
    Staley B and Barlaz M. 2009. "Composition of municipal solid waste in the united states and
    implications for carbon sequestration and methane yield." Journal of Environmental
    Engineering, 13 5(10): 901-9.
    State of North Carolina. 2012. "North Carolina Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual
    Report FY 2011-2012." N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
    Tolaymat TM, Green RB, Hater GR, Barlaz MA, Black P, Bronson D, Powell J. 2010.
    "Evaluation of landfill gas decay constant for municipal solid waste landfills operated as
    bioreactors." Journal of Air Waste Management Association, 60(l):91-97.
    Trzcinski AP and Stuckey DC. 2011. "Parameters affecting the stability of the digestate from a
    two-stage anaerobic process treating the organic fraction of municipal solid waste."
    Waste Management, 31(7): 1480-1487.
    U.S. EPA. 2016. Standards of performance for municipal solidwaste landfills. 40 C.F.R. § 60
    2016.
    U.S. EPA. 2016. "Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility." Facility Level
    Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool. U.S. EPA, 2016. Web. 30 Mar. 2018.
    U.S. EPA. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2013 Revisions and Proposed Confidentiality
    Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements. Comp. U.S. EPA.
    Regulations.gov, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2018.
    49
    

    -------
    U.S. EPA. 2004. Criteria for municipal solid waste landfills subpart D - design criteria. 40
    C.F.R. § 258
    U.S. EPA. 2001. Supplement A to volume I: Stationary point and area sources: Compilation of
    air pollutant emission factors, fifth edition;2001 ASI 9198-13.4;AP-42 vol. I, supp. A.
    U.S. EPA. 1998. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, volume I: Stationary point and
    area sources: Chapter 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. U.S. EPA Office of Research
    and Development. Washington, DC.
    Valencia R, van der Zon W, Woelders H, Lubberding HJ, Gijzen HJ. 2009. "Achieving 'Final
    storage quality' of municipal solid waste in pilot scale bioreactor landfills." Waste
    Management, 29(l):78-85.
    Wang X. 2015. "Biodegradability of forest products in laboratory- and field- scale municipal
    solid waste (MSW) landfills." ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
    Wang X and Barlaz MA. 2016. "Decomposition and carbon storage of hardwood and softwood
    branches in laboratory-scale landfills." Science of The Total Environment, 557-558, 355-
    362.
    Wang X, Padgett JM, Powell JS, Barlaz MA. 2013. "Decomposition of forest products buried in
    landfills." Waste Management, 33(11):2267-76.
    Wang X, Padgett J, De la Cruz F, Barlaz M. 2011. "Wood biodegradation in laboratory-scale
    landfills." Environmental Science & Technology, 45(16):6864-6871.
    Wang Y, Byrd C, Barlaz M. 1994. "Anaerobic biodegradability of cellulose and hemicellulose in
    excavated refuse samples using a biochemical methane potential assay." Journal of
    Industrial Microbiology, 13, 147-153.
    Zheng W, Phoungthong K, Lu F, Shao L, He P. 2013. "Evaluation of a classification method for
    biodegradable solid wastes using anaerobic degradation parameters." Waste
    Management, 33(12):2632-4260.
    50
    

    -------
    Appendices
    Appendix A. Waste Composition Data Sheet Template
    Waste Composition Study
    Name
    QA/QC Signature
    Date
    Truck information
    
    
    Gross (lbs)
    Bin (lbs)
    Driver Name
    
    
    Cardboard
    
    
    Truck type
    
    
    Newspaper
    
    
    Truck Number
    
    
    Office paper
    
    
    Truck weight
    
    QJ
    CL
    <13
    Junk mail
    
    
    Truck volume
    
    
    pasteboard
    
    
    Load total weight
    
    
    miscellaneous paper
    
    
    „ „ Clrde One
    Collection type
    Substream Res Com Indust
    
    
    aseptic cartons
    
    
    
    
    
    
    u_
    Food & Soiled Paper
    
    
    Notes and Comments
    
    CD
    Yard
    
    
    Date
    
    
    Time
    
    glass
    Clear glass
    
    
    Temp (°F)
    
    Other glass
    
    
    Humidity
    
    
    Sample ID
    
    
    aluminum cans
    
    
    Comments
    
    fD
    tin and steel cans
    
    
    
    
    E
    non ferrous metals
    
    
    
    
    
    ferrous metals
    
    
    1
    o
    intermed. <2"
    
    
    fines <1"
    
    
    Free Liquid
    
    
    Human and Animal
    
    
    Natural textiles
    
    
    Synthetic textiles
    
    
    Leather
    
    
    
    Gross (lbs)
    Bin (lbs)
    
    PET, HOPE (#1-2)
    
    
    
    PVC, LDPE, PP, PS,
    
    
    (A
    U
    "t7>
    ro
    Other(#3-7)
    
    
    Q-
    Plastic film
    
    
    
    Composite
    
    
    
    Other rigid
    
    
    C&P Debris
    carpet
    
    
    concrete and rock
    
    
    gypsum
    
    
    asphalt shingles
    
    
    dimensional lumber
    
    
    wood
    
    
    Composite Wood
    
    
    rubber
    
    
    fiberglass insulation
    
    
    other C&D debris
    
    
    5
    X
    X
    Pharmaceuticals
    
    
    HHW
    
    
    mercury wastes
    
    
    Z
    <0
    a
    13
    large appliances
    
    
    small appliances
    
    
    UF
    Environmental Engineering Sciences
    SOLID and HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
    51
    

    -------
    Appendix B. Moisture Content and Volatile Solids Content Data
    Note: Values of 0 (zero) indicate the MSW component was not present in the representative sample.
    TableB-0-1. Lee County, FL Moisture Content by Fraction
    MSW
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Com
    Com
    Component
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5
    6
    Cardboard
    0%
    14%
    24%
    15%
    10%
    32%
    27%
    49%
    15%
    9%
    19%
    9%
    Newspaper
    10%
    24%
    16%
    16%
    25%
    15%
    10%
    35%
    16%
    40%
    39%
    0%
    Office Paper
    9%
    11%
    14%
    7%
    0%
    10%
    21%
    30%
    15%
    11%
    12%
    7%
    Junk Mail
    0%
    0%
    8%
    10%
    36%
    7%
    13%
    6%
    31%
    15%
    9%
    13%
    Pasteboard
    22%
    25%
    23%
    16%
    31%
    14%
    26%
    41%
    12%
    22%
    11%
    14%
    Misc. Paper
    12%
    20%
    17%
    7%
    20%
    14%
    34%
    15%
    18%
    21%
    49%
    11%
    Aseptic
    0%
    19%
    33%
    14%
    21%
    18%
    35%
    32%
    19%
    20%
    26%
    17%
    Cartons
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Food &
    51%
    69%
    52%
    51%
    38%
    54%
    43%
    56%
    46%
    62%
    45%
    48%
    Soiled Paper
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Yard Trash
    0%
    29%
    53%
    38%
    0%
    34%
    0%
    0%
    60%
    0%
    0%
    44%
    <2" Fines
    61%
    57%
    55%
    48%
    53%
    52%
    58%
    58%
    51%
    42%
    54%
    54%
    <1" Fines
    59%
    45%
    42%
    45%
    54%
    50%
    61%
    54%
    51%
    51%
    60%
    67%
    Textiles
    1%
    10%
    8%
    25%
    22%
    16%
    43%
    19%
    32%
    34%
    0%
    7%
    Wood
    7%
    15%
    18%
    11%
    13%
    28%
    12%
    14%
    23%
    9%
    0%
    9%
    Comp Wood
    9%
    18%
    11%
    10%
    11%
    17%
    7%
    12%
    22%
    8%
    13%
    0%
    52
    

    -------
    Table B-0-2. Lee County, FL Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
    MSW
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com
    Com 4
    Com
    Com
    Component
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3
    
    5
    6
    Cardboard
    0%
    84%
    81%
    84%
    87%
    81%
    93%
    87%
    94%
    82%
    89%
    91%
    Newspaper
    94%
    84%
    83%
    93%
    89%
    92%
    98%
    92%
    86%
    91%
    91%
    0%
    Office Paper
    84%
    84%
    82%
    85%
    0%
    78%
    82%
    83%
    80%
    81%
    79%
    80%
    Junk Mail
    0%
    0%
    74%
    77%
    79%
    75%
    69%
    53%
    74%
    85%
    87%
    86%
    Pasteboard
    86%
    83%
    88%
    89%
    90%
    79%
    81%
    87%
    86%
    88%
    73%
    86%
    Misc. Paper
    69%
    69%
    76%
    67%
    78%
    83%
    81%
    78%
    89%
    80%
    84%
    74%
    Aseptic
    0%
    91%
    89%
    95%
    92%
    96%
    97%
    83%
    97%
    94%
    97%
    99%
    Cartons
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Food &
    82%
    91%
    88%
    88%
    74%
    89%
    91%
    88%
    87%
    92%
    86%
    94%
    Soiled Paper
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Yard Trash
    0%
    83%
    34%
    89%
    0%
    76%
    0%
    0%
    76%
    0%
    0%
    85%
    <2" Fines
    72%
    79%
    75%
    78%
    73%
    76%
    71%
    78%
    74%
    63%
    69%
    92%
    <1" Fines
    60%
    55%
    49%
    77%
    59%
    68%
    76%
    70%
    72%
    75%
    83%
    84%
    Textiles
    99%
    85%
    98%
    90%
    91%
    98%
    87%
    99%
    95%
    92%
    0%
    98%
    Wood
    80%
    83%
    91%
    86%
    94%
    89%
    96%
    89%
    98%
    98%
    0%
    98%
    Comp Wood
    89%
    83%
    87%
    92%
    94%
    92%
    88%
    89%
    89%
    87%
    92%
    0%
    53
    

    -------
    Table B-0-3. Alachua County, FL Moisture Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Com 5
    Mean
    Std. Dev.
    Cardboard
    18%
    25%
    13%
    17%
    29%
    20%
    6%
    Newspaper
    33%
    14%
    53%
    25%
    17%
    28%
    16%
    Office Paper
    22%
    0%
    35%
    14%
    35%
    26%
    15%
    Junk Mail
    19%
    14%
    7%
    18%
    15%
    15%
    5%
    Pasteboard
    16%
    8%
    11%
    25%
    21%
    16%
    7%
    Misc. Paper
    18%
    9%
    0%
    37%
    16%
    20%
    14%
    Aseptic Cartons
    21%
    26%
    26%
    26%
    27%
    25%
    2%
    Food & Soiled Paper
    47%
    72%
    36%
    64%
    34%
    51%
    17%
    Yard Trash
    24%
    0%
    0%
    63%
    0%
    44%
    27%
    <2" Fines
    55%
    48%
    51%
    51%
    52%
    51%
    2%
    <1" Fines
    38%
    48%
    49%
    39%
    48%
    44%
    6%
    Textiles
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    2%
    2%
    1%
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    Comp Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    54
    

    -------
    Table B-0-4. Alachua County, FL Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Com 5
    Mean
    Std Dev.
    Cardboard
    92%
    81%
    82%
    84%
    90%
    86%
    5%
    Newspaper
    87%
    84%
    98%
    92%
    93%
    91%
    5%
    Office Paper
    75%
    0%
    76%
    75%
    87%
    78%
    3%
    Junk Mail
    76%
    82%
    69%
    71%
    74%
    74%
    5%
    Pasteboard
    90%
    82%
    74%
    82%
    76%
    81%
    6%
    Misc. Paper
    86%
    82%
    0%
    73%
    92%
    83%
    8%
    Aseptic Cartons
    93%
    99%
    98%
    98%
    100%
    98%
    3%
    Food & Soiled Paper
    96%
    97%
    100%
    94%
    88%
    95%
    4%
    Yard Trash
    88%
    0%
    0%
    90%
    0%
    89%
    1%
    <2" Fines
    77%
    93%
    89%
    93%
    85%
    87%
    7%
    <1" Fines
    50%
    72%
    73%
    31%
    90%
    63%
    23%
    Textiles
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    98%
    98%
    0%
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    Comp Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    55
    

    -------
    Table B-0-5. Athens-Clarke County, GA Moisture Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Com 5
    Com 6
    Cardboard
    28%
    48%
    23%
    15%
    33%
    10%
    42%
    52%
    16%
    11%
    8%
    22%
    Newspaper
    0%
    61%
    29%
    19%
    32%
    24%
    24%
    24%
    16%
    45%
    9%
    8%
    Office Paper
    28%
    12%
    8%
    7%
    22%
    36%
    18%
    12%
    5%
    26%
    10%
    17%
    Junk Mail
    32%
    10%
    31%
    22%
    27%
    10%
    6%
    19%
    42%
    23%
    22%
    18%
    Pasteboard
    32%
    27%
    28%
    27%
    41%
    17%
    21%
    20%
    27%
    41%
    14%
    28%
    Misc. Paper
    26%
    31%
    19%
    21%
    19%
    16%
    15%
    32%
    23%
    7%
    20%
    23%
    Aseptic Cartons
    15%
    32%
    15%
    19%
    14%
    17%
    25%
    41%
    22%
    19%
    10%
    20%
    Food & Soiled Paper
    56%
    34%
    33%
    42%
    59%
    80%
    41%
    67%
    31%
    38%
    57%
    37%
    Yard Trash
    50%
    26%
    87%
    29%
    75%
    78%
    0%
    77%
    49%
    66%
    0%
    31%
    <2" Fines
    58%
    54%
    50%
    47%
    60%
    47%
    53%
    73%
    65%
    58%
    53%
    50%
    <1" Fines
    45%
    45%
    54%
    52%
    35%
    28%
    45%
    41%
    57%
    53%
    27%
    42%
    Textiles
    7%
    24%
    27%
    27%
    21%
    6%
    8%
    47%
    62%
    46%
    18%
    25%
    Wood
    35%
    14%
    13%
    0%
    0%
    10%
    0%
    12%
    14%
    12%
    0%
    9%
    56
    

    -------
    Table B-0-6. Athens-Clarke County, GA Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Com 5
    Com 6
    Cardboard
    95%
    91%
    98%
    88%
    100%
    85%
    87%
    93%
    91%
    96%
    94%
    74%
    Newspaper
    0%
    100%
    98%
    96%
    90%
    98%
    94%
    98%
    98%
    98%
    96%
    96%
    Office Paper
    84%
    88%
    80%
    85%
    92%
    87%
    83%
    83%
    81%
    87%
    87%
    85%
    Junk Mail
    84%
    83%
    90%
    86%
    67%
    85%
    78%
    76%
    74%
    77%
    76%
    87%
    Pasteboard
    85%
    87%
    89%
    83%
    86%
    87%
    91%
    91%
    87%
    84%
    93%
    94%
    Misc. Paper
    84%
    91%
    80%
    77%
    73%
    91%
    79%
    97%
    70%
    62%
    82%
    75%
    Aseptic Cartons
    95%
    87%
    93%
    94%
    93%
    98%
    95%
    93%
    93%
    99%
    95%
    100%
    Food & Soiled
    96%
    91%
    96%
    98%
    96%
    36%
    98%
    98%
    79%
    97%
    97%
    96%
    Paper
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Yard Trash
    100%
    83%
    90%
    89%
    93%
    82%
    0%
    91%
    78%
    91%
    0%
    96%
    <2" Fines
    93%
    93%
    86%
    91%
    86%
    92%
    88%
    86%
    87%
    98%
    85%
    98%
    <1" Fines
    76%
    69%
    76%
    70%
    71%
    56%
    80%
    76%
    83%
    80%
    22%
    74%
    Textiles
    97%
    100%
    97%
    88%
    93%
    100%
    100%
    97%
    94%
    95%
    93%
    100%
    Wood
    91%
    97%
    86%
    0%
    0%
    85%
    0%
    100%
    84%
    84%
    0%
    84%
    57
    

    -------
    Table B-0-7. Durham County, NC Sample Moisture Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Cardboard
    12%
    39%
    20%
    41%
    23%
    27%
    28%
    19%
    29%
    13%
    Newspaper
    18%
    16%
    50%
    45%
    32%
    7%
    67%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    Office Paper
    18%
    6%
    71%
    24%
    18%
    8%
    28%
    24%
    21%
    38%
    Junk Mail
    24%
    14%
    10%
    0%
    23%
    5%
    21%
    0%
    13%
    0%
    Pasteboard
    29%
    31%
    29%
    36%
    34%
    28%
    30%
    38%
    26%
    36%
    Misc. Paper
    48%
    32%
    9%
    50%
    44%
    23%
    31%
    52%
    26%
    42%
    Aseptic Cartons
    29%
    36%
    27%
    39%
    26%
    22%
    32%
    0%
    0%
    46%
    Food & Soiled Paper
    55%
    57%
    63%
    51%
    56%
    45%
    56%
    87%
    64%
    60%
    Yard Trash
    31%
    49%
    70%
    31%
    0%
    37%
    0%
    0%
    39%
    0%
    <2" Fines
    76%
    52%
    63%
    62%
    50%
    57%
    59%
    56%
    23%
    66%
    <1" Fines
    59%
    30%
    47%
    52%
    49%
    50%
    55%
    68%
    49%
    65%
    Textiles
    49%
    91%
    43%
    37%
    36%
    9%
    40%
    0%
    25%
    6%
    Wood
    10%
    20%
    15%
    25%
    16%
    29%
    15%
    59%
    21%
    0%
    58
    

    -------
    Table B-0-8. Durham County, NC Sample Volatile Solids Content by Fraction
    MSW Component
    Res 1
    Res 2
    Res 3
    Res 4
    Res 5
    Res 6
    Com 1
    Com 2
    Com 3
    Com 4
    Cardboard
    94%
    87%
    82%
    98%
    98%
    83%
    89%
    95%
    74%
    78%
    Newspaper
    95%
    78%
    100%
    87%
    88%
    82%
    84%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    Office Paper
    53%
    40%
    45%
    71%
    20%
    50%
    85%
    63%
    56%
    77%
    Junk Mail
    52%
    81%
    84%
    0%
    81%
    79%
    71%
    0%
    65%
    0%
    Pasteboard
    93%
    75%
    75%
    81%
    93%
    93%
    93%
    79%
    91%
    90%
    Misc. Paper
    78%
    95%
    84%
    94%
    87%
    88%
    91%
    94%
    82%
    92%
    Aseptic Cartons
    84%
    91%
    91%
    81%
    81%
    81%
    90%
    0%
    0%
    96%
    Food & Soiled
    90%
    77%
    82%
    94%
    84%
    89%
    89%
    86%
    91%
    100%
    Paper
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Yard Trash
    83%
    80%
    66%
    14%
    0%
    77%
    0%
    0%
    66%
    0%
    <2" Fines
    79%
    61%
    74%
    76%
    76%
    80%
    61%
    68%
    68%
    75%
    <1" Fines
    70%
    60%
    77%
    59%
    74%
    74%
    47%
    68%
    58%
    84%
    Textiles
    95%
    72%
    96%
    97%
    100%
    94%
    100%
    0%
    100%
    100%
    Wood
    84%
    84%
    92%
    94%
    80%
    87%
    87%
    96%
    89%
    0%
    59
    

    -------
    Appendix C. Fines Composition Data
    Fines <2"	Fines <1"
    Fraction
    mL CH4
    @STP/g BF
    Biodegradable
    Fraction
    mL CH4
    @STP/g
    Unsorted Fines
    mL CH4
    @STP/g BF
    Organic
    Fraction
    mL CH4
    @STP/g
    Unsorted Fines
    Lee Res 1
    305
    61%
    188
    278
    82%
    229
    Lee Res 2
    208
    80%
    165
    200
    78%
    157
    Lee Res 3
    317
    46%
    147
    270
    11%
    29
    Lee Res 4
    283
    75%
    211
    216
    67%
    145
    Lee Res 5
    268
    71%
    190
    314
    48%
    150
    Lee Res 6
    295
    61%
    181
    321
    41%
    132
    Lee Com 1
    363
    77%
    280
    431
    93%
    399
    Lee Com 2
    416
    77%
    322
    439
    79%
    345
    Lee Com 3
    365
    72%
    262
    388
    92%
    356
    Lee Com 4
    319
    50%
    159
    288
    85%
    244
    Lee Com 5
    322
    87%
    280
    396
    96%
    382
    Lee Com 6
    318
    41%
    129
    425
    80%
    342
    Athens Res 1
    319
    47%
    151
    363
    26%
    94
    Athens Res 2
    317
    65%
    207
    324
    88%
    286
    Athens Res 3
    70
    76%
    54
    353
    78%
    275
    Athens Res 4
    356
    91%
    325
    331
    81%
    268
    Athens Res 5
    237
    83%
    197
    301
    84%
    253
    Athens Res 6
    423
    76%
    321
    324
    62%
    199
    Athens Com 1
    317
    58%
    185
    278
    89%
    246
    60
    

    -------
    Athens Com 2
    319
    68%
    216
    Athens Com 3
    324
    87%
    283
    Athens Com 4
    321
    93%
    297
    Athens Com 5
    378
    67%
    255
    Athens Com 6
    317
    80%
    Fines <2"
    254
    Fraction
    mL CH4
    @STP/g BF
    Biodegradable
    Fraction
    mL CH4
    @STP/g
    Unsorted Fines
    Durham Res 1
    330
    83%
    273
    Durham Res 2
    328
    88%
    288
    Durham Res 3
    313
    85%
    266
    Durham Res 4
    359
    70%
    250
    Durham Res 5
    334
    75%
    249
    Durham Res 6
    349
    80%
    278
    Durham Com 1
    294
    81%
    238
    Durham Com 2
    453
    96%
    436
    Durham Com 3
    401
    75%
    301
    Durham Com 4
    353
    66%
    235
    310
    80%
    248
    471
    83%
    393
    283
    86%
    242
    426
    98%
    418
    324
    77%
    249
    
    Fines <1"
    
    mL CH4
    Organic
    mL CH4
    @STP/g BF
    Fraction
    @STP/g
    
    
    Unsorted Fines
    383
    62%
    236
    384
    36%
    138
    327
    82%
    270
    345
    66%
    228
    366
    18%
    67
    393
    55%
    216
    248
    47%
    117
    376
    84%
    317
    349
    87%
    305
    363
    75%
    274
    

    -------
    Appendix D. Distributions of Methane Yields by MSW Component
    12
    	1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1		1	1		1	
    165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-1. Yield Frequencies of Cardboard Samples
    7
    6
    5
    1
    0
    30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-2. Yield Frequencies of Newspaper Samples
    >
    U
    a-
    
    -------
    14
    12
    10
    >
    4
    2
    0
    135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-3. Yield Frequencies of Office Paper
    7
    6
    5
    1
    0
    105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-4. Yield Frequencies of Pasteboard
    63
    

    -------
    135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-5. Yield Frequencies of Junk Mail
    10
    >
    u
    cr
    a; 4
    120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-6. Yield Frequencies of Aseptic Paper
    64
    

    -------
    9
    8
    7
    > 6
    u
    5 5
    3
    u- 4
    a) ^
    *_
    3
    2
    1
    0
    105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-7. Yield Frequencies of Miscellaneous Paper
    6
    5
    > 4
    u
    £
    3 3
    cr
    a>
    k.
    u- 2
    1
    0
    60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-8. Yield Frequencies of Food and Soiled Paper
    65
    

    -------
    4.5
    4
    3.5
    > 3
    U
    £ 2.5
    3
    ST 2
    ^ 1.5
    1
    0.5
    0
    30 45 60 75 90 105120135 150165180195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-9. Yield Frequencies of Yard Waste
    12
    10
    > 8
    U
    c
    
    -------
    4.5
    4
    3.5
    > 3
    U
    £ 2.5
    3
    a) z-
    ^ 1.5
    1
    0.5
    0
    135150165180195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450 465 480 495
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-11. Yield Frequencies of Biodegradable Fraction of Fines <1" After Removal of Non-biodegradable Materials
    3.5
    3
    2.5
    >
    U
    c 2
    
    -------
    8
    7
    6
    > c
    u 5
    c
     c
    y 5
    15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    150 165 180 195
    Figure A-0-14. Yield Frequencies of Composite Wood
    68
    

    -------
    14
    12
    10
    >
    4
    2
    0
    270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405
    mL CH4 @STP/g VS
    Figure A-0-15. Yield Frequencies of Cellulose Controls
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    mL CH4 @STP/(no VS added)
    Figure A-0-16. Yield Frequencies of Blank Controls
    69
    

    -------
    Appendix E. Waste Composition and Lo of Representative Samples
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
    Sample ID
    LEE988-JAN22
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    988
    24340
    01/22/14
    10:12 AM
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. L0
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) L°
    
    
    Cardboard
    10%
    27%
    93%
    255
    17.7
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    10%
    98%
    79
    1.7
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    21%
    82%
    369
    0.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    13%
    69%
    307
    0.6
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    26%
    81%
    200
    2.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    34%
    81%
    219
    2.1
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    35%
    97%
    299
    2.0
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    21%
    43%
    91%
    387
    42
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    16%
    7%
    58%
    61%
    71%
    76%
    336
    336
    15.9
    7.4
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    5%
    0%
    43%
    0%
    87%
    0%
    212
    0
    4.9
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    4%
    2%
    96%
    49
    1.8
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    21%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    3%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Inorganic
    All Metals, 3%	Materials, 1%
    All Glass, 3% \—ii-
    Ca rd board, 10%
    All Plastics, 21%
    Wood
    Leather, 0% Textiles
    <1 Fines, 7%
    <2 Fines, 16%
    Newspaper, 2%
    Office Paper, 0%
    Junk Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 2%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    —Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 21%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    LDiapers, 0%
    Figure A-0-17. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN22
    LEE988-JAN22
    Total SampleWeight(lbs)
    290
    Organic Fraction
    68%
    Inorganic Fraction
    32%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    99
    70
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck FM882
    Sample ID
    LEEFM882-JAN22
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    FM882
    22580
    01/22/14
    8:02 AM
    Inorganic
    All Metals, 5% Materials, 0% -Cardboard 7 5%
    Newspaper, 1%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) L°
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    49%
    87%
    169
    3.9
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    35%
    92%
    82
    0.3
    
    Office Paper
    7%
    30%
    83%
    317
    12.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    6%
    53%
    328
    2.1
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    41%
    87%
    263
    5.3
    
    Misc. Paper
    5%
    15%
    78%
    303
    9.7
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    2%
    32%
    83%
    286
    3.1
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    24%
    56%
    88%
    304
    28
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    66%
    70%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    2%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    16%
    5%
    58%
    54%
    78%
    70%
    331
    340
    17.2
    5.2
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    19%
    0%
    99%
    0%
    212
    0
    1.4
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    14%
    89%
    46
    0.3
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    AM Glass, 2%
    Wood
    AM Plastics, 20%
    Leather
    <1 Fines. 5
    Junk Mail, 1%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 2%
    Textiles, 1%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 24%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Diapers, 2%
    LEEFM882-JAN22
    Total SampleWeight(lbs)
    313
    Organic Fraction
    72%
    Inorganic Fraction
    28%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    89
    Figure A-0-18. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN22
    71
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
    Sample ID
    LEE988-JAN23
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    988
    24340
    01/23/14
    7:42 AM
    All Metals, 3%
    All Glass, 1%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    11%
    15%
    94%
    175
    15.7
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    16%
    86%
    43
    0.3
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    15%
    80%
    315
    2.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    31%
    74%
    267
    0.3
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    12%
    86%
    240
    3.4
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    18%
    89%
    106
    1.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    19%
    97%
    260
    2.7
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    18%
    46%
    87%
    333
    28
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    60%
    76%
    175
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    12%
    10%
    2%
    2%
    74%
    72%
    335
    281
    29.4
    20.4
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    9%
    0%
    2%
    0%
    95%
    0%
    287
    0
    23.9
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    2%
    98%
    82
    0.3
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    18%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Cardboard, 11%
    P a sties
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 18%
    Wood, 0%
    Textiles
    Leather,
    <1" Fines, 10%
    Fines
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, 1%
    Junk Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 2%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    _Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    \Yard Trash, 0%
    Diapers, 1%
    LEE988-JAN23
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    224
    Organic Fraction
    70%
    Inorganic Fraction
    30%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    129
    Figure A-0-19. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN23
    72
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck FM 882
    Sample ID
    LEEFM882-JAN23
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    FM 882
    21160
    01/23/14
    8:59 AM
    All Metals, 3%
    All Glass, 1% "
    Newspaper, 3%
    / Office Paper, 1%
    * Junk Mail, 2%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    7%
    9%
    82%
    187
    9.7
    
    Newspaper
    3%
    40%
    91%
    73
    1.3
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    11%
    81%
    313
    1.7
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    15%
    85%
    250
    4.1
    
    Pasteboard
    3%
    22%
    88%
    267
    4.6
    
    Misc. Paper
    4%
    21%
    80%
    179
    4.4
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    20%
    94%
    300
    1.0
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    12%
    62%
    92%
    318
    14
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    18%
    6%
    42%
    51%
    63%
    75%
    265
    142
    17.7
    3.1
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    34%
    0%
    92%
    0%
    193
    0
    1.6
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    3%
    9%
    98%
    72
    2.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    10%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Cardboard
    7%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 10%
    All Plastics, 17%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 12%
    Wood, 3%
    Leather, 0%
    <1 Fines
    6%
    Textiles, 1%
    Fines
    Pasteboard, 3%
    Misc. Paper,4%
    ^Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Yard Trash, 1%
    LEEFM882-JAN23
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    328
    Organic Fraction
    67%
    Inorganic Fraction
    33%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    65
    Figure A-0-20. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN23
    73
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 882
    Sample ID
    LEE-882-JAN24
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    882
    25260
    01/24/14
    7:27 AM
    Ca rd board
    Inorganic 3%
    Materials, 1%,
    All Glass, 1%
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, 2%
    Pasteboard,
    2%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 4%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    	Wood, 0%
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    Leather,
    no/.
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    19%
    89%
    167
    4.1 Textiles,/"
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    39%
    91%
    22
    0.2 1%
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    12%
    79%
    349
    3.8
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    9%
    87%
    285
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    11%
    73%
    300
    4.0
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    49%
    84%
    164
    1.7
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    4%
    26%
    97%
    282
    7.2
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    33%
    45%
    86%
    374
    59
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    0%
    70%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    11%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    10%
    9%
    54%
    60%
    69%
    83%
    299
    336
    9.6
    10.2
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0
    0 0
    0 0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    92%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    AM Metals, 2%,
    AM Plastics, 20%
    <1 Fines, 9%
    <2 Fines, 10%
    Diapers, 11%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 33%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Figure A-0-21. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE882-JAN24
    LEE-882-JAN24
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    260
    Organic Fraction
    77%
    Inorganic Fraction
    23%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    100
    74
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 988
    Sample ID	LEE988-JAN24
    WasteType	Commercial
    Truck Number	988
    Total Load Weight (lbs)	29500
    Date	01/24/14
    Time	7:24 AM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    9%
    91%
    166
    6.6
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    6%
    7%
    80%
    229
    10.8
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    13%
    86%
    318
    0.9
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    14%
    86%
    261
    4.7
    
    Misc. Paper
    6%
    11%
    74%
    303
    12.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    17%
    99%
    272
    1.3
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    8%
    48%
    94%
    293
    11
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    44%
    85%
    97
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    4%
    4%
    54%
    67%
    92%
    84%
    256
    168
    3.9
    1.8
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    5%
    0%
    7%
    0%
    94%
    0%
    143
    0
    5.8
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    9%
    91%
    36
    0.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    0%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    6%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    19%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-22. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE988-JAN24
    Cardboard, 5%
    Newspaper, 0%
    Junk Mail, 0%
    k Pasteboard, 2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    All Metals, 6%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 8%
    .Yard Trash, 0%
    All Plastics, 17%
    <1" Fines, 4%
    |\_Leather, 0%
    Wood, 0%
    LEE988-JAN24
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    212
    Organic Fraction
    49%
    Inorganic Fraction
    51%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    60
    75
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck C61108
    Sample ID
    LEEC61108-JAN22
    Inorganic
    Materials,=
    1%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    C61108
    14940
    01/22/14
    10:16 AM
    All Metals, 4%.
    Newspaper, 0%.
    Cardboard
    0%
    Office Paper, 0%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    10%
    94%
    84
    0.3
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    9%
    84%
    287
    0.8
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    12%
    69%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    3%
    22%
    86%
    175
    3.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    9%
    12%
    69%
    132
    7.4
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    19%
    91%
    0
    0.0
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    25%
    51%
    82%
    322
    32
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    7%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    15%
    3%
    61%
    59%
    72%
    60%
    232
    154
    9.5
    1.3
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    6%
    0%
    1%
    2%
    99%
    20
    1.1
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    2%
    7%
    80%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    5%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Leather, 0%
    <1" Fines
    Junk Mail,
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Textiles
    Fines
    Pasteboard, 3%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 25%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Figure A-0-23. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE61108-JAN22
    LEEC61108-JAN22
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    267
    Organic Fraction
    70%
    Inorganic Fraction
    30%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    56
    76
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck V4023
    Sample ID
    Office Paper, TO
    LEEV4023-JAN22
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    V4023
    6580
    01/22/14
    10:26 AM
    All Metals, 5%
    All Glass, 2%
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    2%
    14%
    84%
    224
    3.9
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    24%
    84%
    184
    0.8
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    11%
    84%
    294
    0.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    20%
    69%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    0%
    25%
    83%
    246
    0.7
    
    Misc. Paper
    6%
    20%
    69%
    209
    6.9
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    19%
    91%
    208
    0.6
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    9%
    69%
    91%
    272
    7
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    30%
    29%
    83%
    134
    23.7
    
    Diapers
    3%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    11%
    6%
    57%
    45%
    79%
    55%
    163
    159
    5.8
    2.8
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    6%
    0%
    10%
    0%
    85%
    0%
    3
    0
    0.1
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    2%
    15%
    83%
    44
    0.7
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    15%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Ca rd board
    norganic
    Materials, 1%
    paper, 1%
    nk
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    & Soiled
    Paper, 9%
    All Plastics, 15%
    Leather, Wood, 2%
    Textiles, 6%
    <1 Fines, 6%
    <2 Fines, 11%
    Pasteboard, 0%
    Diapers, 3%
    Figure A-0-24. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4023-JAN22
    LEEV4023-JAN22
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    252
    Organic Fraction
    75%
    Inorganic Fraction
    25%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    54
    77
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck P406
    Sample ID
    LEEP406-JAN22
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, TO
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    P406
    26040
    01/22/14
    4:00 PM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    24%
    81%
    217
    4.2
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    16%
    83%
    149
    0.7
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    14%
    82%
    289
    0.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    8%
    74%
    311
    0.4
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    23%
    88%
    246
    2.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    7%
    17%
    76%
    290
    12.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    33%
    89%
    252
    0.5
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    8%
    52%
    88%
    294
    10
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    53%
    34%
    61
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    15%
    9%
    55%
    42%
    75%
    49%
    34
    118
    1.7
    3.1
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    4%
    0%
    8%
    0%
    98%
    0%
    299
    0
    10.8
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    6%
    18%
    91%
    26
    1.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    19%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    8%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    11%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-25. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE406-JAN22
    Junk Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 2%
    Aeseptic
    Misc. ^ Cartons, 0%
    All Glass, All Metals, 8%
    1%
    Cardboard, 3%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 11%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 8%
    Trash, 0%
    P a sties
    Fines
    Leather, 0%
    Textiles, 4%
    LEEP406-JAN22
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    276
    Organic Fraction
    59%
    Inorganic Fraction
    41%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    48
    78
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 4023
    Sample ID
    LEE4023-JAN23
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    4023
    24340
    01/23/14
    11:40 AM
    Newspaper, 1%_
    inorganic
    Materials, 6%
    All Gl
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    7%
    15%
    84%
    235
    11.8
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    16%
    93%
    111
    0.9
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    7%
    85%
    338
    4.2
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    10%
    77%
    319
    3.5
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    16%
    89%
    269
    1.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    7%
    67%
    279
    4.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    14%
    95%
    264
    0.8
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    11%
    51%
    88%
    375
    18
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    26%
    38%
    89%
    105
    15.2
    
    Diapers
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    6%
    2%
    48%
    45%
    78%
    77%
    190
    162
    4.7
    1.3
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    5%
    0%
    25%
    0%
    90%
    0%
    207
    0
    6.9
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    9%
    11%
    86%
    16
    1.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    6%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    6%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    aboard
    P a sties
    Soiled
    11%
    Wood
    Leather.
    0% Textiles, 5%
    <1" Fines, 2% i <2" Fines|
    6%
    Office Paper, 2%
    Junk Mail, 2%
    Pasteboard, 1%
    Misc. Paper,3%
    	Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Figure A-0-26. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4023-JAN23
    LEE4023-JAN23
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    407
    Organic Fraction
    79%
    Inorganic Fraction
    21%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    75
    79
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck 4001
    Sample ID
    LEE4001-JAN23
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    4001
    16460
    01/23/14
    12:01 PM
    Office Paper, TO jUnkMail,TO
    Newspaper, 2%
    Cardboard, 0%
    All
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized Metals,
    Alftzftass,
    2%
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    0%
    10%
    87%
    249
    0.5
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    25%
    89%
    126
    1.9
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    36%
    79%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    31%
    90%
    242
    2.9
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    20%
    78%
    273
    2.9
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    21%
    92%
    248
    0.3
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    22%
    38%
    74%
    333
    35
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    5%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    12%
    5%
    53%
    54%
    73%
    59%
    127
    226
    5.1
    3.2
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    22%
    0%
    91%
    0%
    177
    0
    0.3
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    12%
    13%
    94%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    14%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    16%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-27. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE4001-JAN23
    All Plastics
    Wood, 12%
    Pasteboard, _Misc. Paper,2%
    2%
    , /	Aeseptic
    Ca
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 22%
    ^^Yard Trash, 0%
    Leather, 0% 
    -------
    Waste Composition of Lee County Truck P388
    Sample ID
    LEEP388-JAN23
    Newspaper, 1%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    P388
    26180
    01/23/14
    2:56 PM
    Cardboard, 1%
    All Glass, 2%
    unk Mail, 1% Pasteboardj 2./o
    Misc. Paper,5%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    1%
    32%
    81%
    170
    1.3
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    15%
    92%
    92
    0.9
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    10%
    78%
    335
    0.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    7%
    75%
    310
    2.4
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    14%
    79%
    232
    3.4
    
    Misc. Paper
    5%
    14%
    83%
    222
    7.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    18%
    96%
    262
    1.8
    
    Food & Soiled Paper
    22%
    54%
    89%
    347
    31
    ORGANICS
    Yard Trash
    0%
    34%
    76%
    72
    0.0
    
    Diapers
    11%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    16%
    4%
    52%
    50%
    76%
    68%
    121
    196
    7.0
    2.7
    TEXTILES
    Textiles
    Leather
    3%
    0%
    16%
    0%
    98%
    0%
    207
    0
    5.4
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    5%
    28%
    89%
    34
    1.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    14%
    2%
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    2%
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    2%
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Office
    AM
    Metals
    5%
    Plastics
    Food & Soi ed
    Paper, 22%
    Wood
    <2 Fines, 16%
    Textiles, 3%
    <1" Fines, 4%
    Figure A-0-28. Waste Composition and Lo of LEE388-JAN23
    Yard Trash, 0%
    LEEP388-JAN23
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    353
    Organic Fraction
    71%
    Inorganic Fraction
    29%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    64
    81
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 3510
    Sample ID
    UF COM 1
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    3510
    04/23/14
    10:12 AM
    Organic Textiles,
    2%
    .Cardboard, 6%
    Inorganic
    Materials, nof All Glass, 1%
    All Metals,4%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    6%
    18%
    92%
    227
    9.8
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    33%
    87%
    55
    0.7
    
    Office Paper
    6%
    22%
    75%
    275
    8.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    19%
    76%
    240
    3.0
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    16%
    90%
    297
    9.2
    
    Misc. Paper
    1%
    18%
    86%
    213
    1.5
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    2%
    21%
    93%
    232
    2.9
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    30%
    1%
    47%
    24%
    96%
    88%
    257
    172
    38.6
    1.4
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    9%
    4%
    55%
    38%
    77%
    50%
    173
    188
    5.3
    2.3
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    2%
    98%
    212
    4.1
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    21%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    5%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    <1" Fines,
    4%
    <2" Fines, 9%
    Yard Trash, 1%
    Newspaper, 2%
    Office
    Paper, 6%
    AM Plastics, 21%
    Junk Mail, 2%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Misc. Paper
    Ca rton
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 30%
    UF COM 1
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    219
    Organic Fraction
    73%
    Inorganic Fraction
    27%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    88
    Figure A-0-29. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-1
    82
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
    Sample ID	UF COM 2
    WasteType	Commercial
    Truck Number	4538
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date	04/23/14
    Time	12:00 AM
    Mass Moisture Volatile Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    25%
    81%
    225
    7.1
    
    Newspaper
    5%
    14%
    84%
    83
    2.9
    
    Office Paper
    5%
    0%
    0%
    275
    0.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    14%
    82%
    298
    2.6
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    8%
    82%
    226
    2.1
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    9%
    82%
    324
    5.1
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    2%
    26%
    99%
    286
    4.8
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    26%
    1%
    72%
    24%
    97%
    88%
    262
    172
    18.8
    1.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    12%
    2%
    48%
    48%
    93%
    72%
    176
    187
    9.7
    1.6
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    2%
    98%
    212
    2.6
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    27%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    6%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-30. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-2
    Inorganic
    Materials, 2%
    Cardboard, 5%
    Newspaper, 5%
    Office Paper, 5%
    Junk Mail, 1%
    t Pasteboard, 1%
    Misc. Paper,
    2l 2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 2%
    All Plastics, 27%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 26%
    Wood, 0%
    Leather, 0%.
    Organic.
    Textiles, 1%
    Yard Trash, 1%
    <1" Fines, 2%
    UF COM 2
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    330
    Organic Fraction
    65%
    Inorganic Fraction
    35%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    58
    83
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
    Sample ID
    UF COM3
    Newspaper, 1%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    4538
    04/23/14
    11:10 AM
    All Metals, 3
    All Glass, 1%
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. L0
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    13%
    82%
    280
    11.0
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    53%
    98%
    78
    0.3
    
    Office Paper
    3%
    35%
    76%
    304
    5.2
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    7%
    69%
    224
    0.8
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    11%
    74%
    221
    1.5
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    0%
    0%
    213
    0.0
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    3%
    26%
    98%
    255
    5.9
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    26%
    0%
    36%
    0%
    100%
    0%
    271
    0
    45.0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    6%
    2%
    51%
    49%
    89%
    73%
    182
    101
    5.2
    0.7
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    21%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    14%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    2%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Cardboard
    Inorga
    Material
    AM Plastics, 21%
    Food & Soi ed
    Paper, 26%
    Wood, 8%
    Leather, 0%
    Organic
    Textiles, 0%
    Office Paper, 3%
    k Mail, 1%
    Pasteboard, 1%
    . Pa per, 2%
    	Aeseptic
    Cartons, 3%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    <1" Fines, 2%
    UF COM 3
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    330
    Organic Fraction
    61%
    Inorganic Fraction
    39%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    76
    Figure A-0-31. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-3
    84
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
    Sample ID
    UF COM4
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Commercial
    4538
    04/24/14
    11:00 AM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    17%
    84%
    194
    4.2
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    25%
    92%
    116
    0.4
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    14%
    75%
    289
    3.6
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    18%
    71%
    218
    1.7
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    25%
    82%
    252
    3.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    37%
    73%
    274
    3.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    26%
    98%
    260
    2.7
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    23%
    1%
    64%
    63%
    94%
    90%
    258
    115
    20.0
    0.3
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    11%
    3%
    51%
    39%
    93%
    31%
    146
    106
    7.5
    0.6
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    9%
    2%
    98%
    212
    17.5
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    28%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    4%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Inorganic Cardboard ,3%
    Materials, 0%_
    All Metals, 2%.
    Junk Mail, 1%
    Misc. Paper,3%
    .Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Newspaper,
    Office Paper, 2%
    All Glass, 1%
    Pasteboard, 2%
    All Plastics, 28%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 23%
    Organic Textiles,
    9%
    Wood
    Leather
    <2 F
    Yard Trash, 1%
    <1" Fines, 3%
    UF COM 4
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    68%
    Inorganic Fraction
    32%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    65
    Figure A-0-32. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-4
    85
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of UF Waste Truck 4538
    Sample ID
    UF COM 5
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    4538
    04/25/14
    2:22 PM
    All Metals, 3% lnorganic
    All Glass, 1%	| Materials, 1%
    Newspaper, 2%
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. L0
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    6%
    29%
    90%
    199
    8.2
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    17%
    93%
    38
    0.6
    
    Office Paper
    9%
    35%
    87%
    148
    7.2
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    15%
    74%
    273
    3.5
    
    Pasteboard
    3%
    21%
    76%
    218
    4.1
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    16%
    92%
    219
    5.4
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    2%
    27%
    100%
    242
    3.7
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    30%
    0%
    34%
    0%
    88%
    0%
    347
    0
    61.8
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    8%
    2%
    52%
    48%
    85%
    90%
    182
    177
    5.8
    1.4
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    7%
    2%
    98%
    212
    13.9
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Wood,
    0% I
    Orga
    <1" Fines, 2%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    nk Mail, 2%
    dboard
    Office
    AM Plastics, 20%
    Pasteboard
    Texties
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 30%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 2%
    UF COM 5
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    75%
    Inorganic Fraction
    25%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    116
    Figure A-0-33. Waste Composition and Lo of UF Transfer Station Com-5
    86
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-503
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 1
    Inorganic
    Materials, 2%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    30-40-503
    16380
    March 4 2015
    8:00 AM
    All Metals, 2%
    All Glass, 1%
    Newspaper, 1%
    4%
    I, 2%
    Pasteboard, 2%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    6%
    42%
    87%
    234
    6.8
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    24%
    94%
    116
    0.6
    
    Office Paper
    4%
    18%
    83%
    314
    8.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    6%
    78%
    283
    3.6
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    21%
    91%
    249
    4.1
    
    Misc. Paper
    4%
    15%
    79%
    301
    8.5
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    25%
    95%
    273
    2.6
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    24%
    11%
    41%
    49%
    98%
    78%
    310
    0
    43.5
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    10%
    5%
    53%
    45%
    88%
    80%
    189
    417
    8.1
    9.0
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    3%
    8%
    100%
    266
    7.4
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Wood, 0%
    Leather,
    0%
    Organic
    Cardboard , 6%
    Office
    P astics
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 24%
    Figure A-0-34. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Coml
    Misc. Paper,4%
    _Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    ATH COM 1
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    268
    Organic Fraction
    78%
    Inorganic Fraction
    22%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    102
    87
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-503
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 2
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    30-40-503
    30520
    March 4 2015
    3:00 PM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    52%
    93%
    232
    5.5
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    24%
    98%
    77
    0.5
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    12%
    83%
    311
    3.6
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    19%
    76%
    333
    1.2
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    20%
    91%
    231
    2.5
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    32%
    97%
    212
    4.3
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    3%
    41%
    93%
    273
    3.8
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    22%
    0%
    67%
    77%
    98%
    91%
    216
    226
    15.0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    1%
    1%
    73%
    41%
    86%
    76%
    217
    227
    0.5
    0.6
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    47%
    97%
    324
    2.4
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    11%
    12%
    100%
    171
    16.5
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    24%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    1%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    1%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    17%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    4%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, 2%
    Junk Mail, 1%
    Pasteboard, 1%
    Misc. Paper,3%
    All
    Metals,
    All fc°1ass,
    1%
    Figure A-0-35. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com2
    Cardboard, 5%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 17%
    i
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 22%
    _Aeseptic
    Cartons, 3%
    Wood, 11%
    Leath
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Fines, 1%
    " Fines, 1%
    Organic
    Textiles, 1%
    ATH COM 2
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    57%
    Inorganic Fraction
    43%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    57
    88
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 160-30-40-503
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 3
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    160-30-40-503
    26800
    March 6 2015
    7:30 AM
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    16%
    91%
    239
    9.5
    
    Newspaper
    4%
    16%
    98%
    40
    1.2
    
    Office Paper
    5%
    5%
    81%
    306
    10.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    42%
    74%
    303
    1.3
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    27%
    87%
    218
    5.3
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    23%
    70%
    315
    4.1
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    22%
    93%
    244
    0.9
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    24%
    0%
    31%
    49%
    79%
    78%
    393
    124
    50.4
    0.2
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    9%
    4%
    65%
    57%
    87%
    83%
    331
    356
    9.5
    5.4
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    62%
    94%
    365
    0.3
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    2%
    14%
    84%
    46
    0.8
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    6%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    6%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    3%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    lnor&anic Cardboard, 5%
    Materials, 2% r
    Newspaper, 4%
    Office Paper, 5%
    Junk Mail, 1%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Misc.
    Paper, 2%
    ^Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Soi ed
    Wood, 2%
    Leather, 0%
    Organic
    Textiles, 0%
    <1" Fines, 4%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    ATH COM 3
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    69%
    Inorganic Fraction
    31%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    100
    Figure A-0-36. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com3
    89
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck MR06 (706-769-1700)
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 4
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    MR06 (706-769-170C
    22640
    March 6 2015
    9:00 AM
    Newspaper, 2%
    Cardboard, 3%
    Office Paper,
    0%
    Junk Mail, TO
    Pasteboard, 2%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    11%
    96%
    224
    5.9
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    45%
    98%
    73
    0.9
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    26%
    87%
    281
    0.3
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    23%
    77%
    351
    0.5
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    41%
    84%
    228
    1.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    17%
    7%
    62%
    327
    32.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    19%
    99%
    303
    3.3
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    16%
    0%
    38%
    66%
    97%
    91%
    401
    144
    37.8
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    10%
    2%
    58%
    53%
    98%
    80%
    322
    363
    13.6
    3.4
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    46%
    95%
    246
    0.3
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    3%
    12%
    84%
    17
    0.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    15%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    21%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    All Glass,
    2%
    
    Inorganic
    to
    Materials, 21%
    y
    
    1/
    Misc. Paper,
    
    y/m 17%
    All Metals, 4%
    r ,
    All Plastics, 15% i
    k ™
    j
    Paper, 16%
    Wood, 3%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    LeatherA \
    0% <1" Fines, 2%
    _ Organic
    Textiles, 0%
    Figure A-0-37. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com4
    ATH COM4
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    58%
    Inorganic Fraction
    42%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    100
    90
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AA 156
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 5
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    AA 156
    11540
    March 6 2015
    12:00 PM
    Inorganic Cardboard,/
    Materials, TO
    All Metals,
    -
    Newspaper, 0%
    Office
    Paper, 0%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    1%
    8%
    94%
    227
    1.8
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    9%
    96%
    40
    0.2
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    10%
    87%
    281
    0.3
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    10%
    22%
    76%
    140
    8.6
    
    Pasteboard
    7%
    14%
    93%
    214
    11.2
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    20%
    82%
    234
    4.3
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    10%
    95%
    293
    2.5
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    16%
    1%
    57%
    0%
    97%
    0%
    351
    0
    23.5
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    6%
    9%
    53%
    53%
    85%
    80%
    218
    363
    5.5
    12.8
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    18%
    93%
    337
    0.9
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    16%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    10%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    11%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Junk Mail, 10%
    Pasteboard, 7%
    Misc. Pa per, 3%
    AN Plastics, 16%
    Soi ed
    Wood, 0%
    Leather, 0%
    Organic
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Textiles, 0%
    Yard Trash, 1%
    Figure A-0-38. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC Com5
    ATH COM 5
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    70%
    Inorganic Fraction
    30%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    72
    91
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-40-502
    Sample ID
    ATH COM 6
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    30-40-502
    March 6 2015
    3:00 PM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    5%
    22%
    74%
    263
    7.7
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    8%
    96%
    38
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    17%
    85%
    303
    1.8
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    18%
    87%
    194
    2.2
    
    Pasteboard
    5%
    28%
    94%
    194
    6.7
    
    Misc. Paper
    4%
    23%
    75%
    281
    5.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    20%
    100%
    283
    1.9
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    13%
    0%
    37%
    31%
    96%
    96%
    326
    87
    26.0
    0.1
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    7%
    2%
    50%
    42%
    98%
    74%
    271
    321
    9.1
    3.3
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    25%
    100%
    302
    2.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    9%
    9%
    84%
    20
    1.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    21%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    8%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    3%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    3%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    3%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-39. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-COM6
    Inorganic
    Materials, 3%,
    All Metals, 3%
    Newspaper, 0%
    Office Paper, 1%
    Junk Mail, 2%
    Pasteboard, 5%
    Cardboard, 5%
    Soi ed
    Plastics
    Wood
    Misc. Paper,4%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Leather, 0% <1" Fines, 2^
    '/«
    Organic Textiles,
    1%
    
    ATH COM 6
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    65%
    Inorganic Fraction
    35%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    68
    92
    

    -------
    Sample ID
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-30-516
    Cardboard, 1%.
    ATH RES 1
    Newspaper, 0%
    Office
    Paper, 1%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    30-30-516
    17100
    March 4 2015
    11:00 AM
    Inorganic
    Materials,
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    1%
    28%
    95%
    175
    1.1
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    28%
    84%
    276
    0.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    32%
    84%
    289
    2.0
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    32%
    85%
    177
    1.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    26%
    84%
    196
    2.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    15%
    95%
    259
    2.1
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    28%
    0%
    56%
    50%
    96%
    100%
    336
    174
    39.1
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    14%
    6%
    58%
    45%
    93%
    76%
    151
    94
    8.2
    2.3
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    3%
    7%
    97%
    309
    7.3
    
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    35%
    91%
    57
    0.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    15%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Organic.
    Textiles, 3'
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Pasteboard
    Misc. Pa per, 2 ^
    AM Glass, 2%
    AM
    Metals
    4%
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 28%
    Wood
    Leather
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Figure A-0-40. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-1
    ATH RES 1
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    76%
    Inorganic Fraction
    24%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    68
    93
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 30-31-530
    Sample ID
    ATH RES 2
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    30-31-530
    17180
    March 5 2015
    8:00 AM
    Cardboard, 1%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    1%
    48%
    91%
    243
    0.9
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    61%
    100%
    32
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    12%
    88%
    314
    2.7
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    8%
    10%
    83%
    235
    14.7
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    27%
    87%
    347
    9.8
    
    Misc. Paper
    7%
    31%
    91%
    280
    13.0
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    32%
    87%
    285
    1.3
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    36%
    0%
    34%
    26%
    91%
    83%
    538
    134
    116.1
    0.2
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    0%
    0%
    54%
    45%
    93%
    69%
    46
    312
    q o
    d o
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    24%
    100%
    212
    3.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    14%
    97%
    66
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    6%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    3%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    2%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Inorganic
    Materials, 3%.
    
    All Metals, 5%.
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Misc. Paper,7%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    All Plastics, 20%
    Wood, 0%.
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 36%
    <1" Fines, Op
    Organic J
    Textiles, 2% I
    <2" Fines, 0%.
    All Glass,
    6%
    All F
    , 20%
    <2" Fines, 0%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Food El S
    Paper, 36%
    Figure A-0-41. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-2
    ATH RES 2
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    67%
    Inorganic Fraction
    33%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    162
    94
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck F4-191
    Sample ID
    ATH RES 3
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    F4-191
    9400
    March 5 2015
    11:30 AM
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    23%
    98%
    194
    4.5
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    29%
    98%
    18
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    8%
    80%
    308
    5.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    31%
    90%
    226
    2.9
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    28%
    89%
    208
    5.3
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    19%
    80%
    310
    3.7
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    15%
    93%
    364
    2.7
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    24%
    0%
    33%
    87%
    96%
    90%
    338
    345
    53.0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    13%
    2%
    50%
    54%
    86%
    76%
    271
    258
    15.0
    1.9
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    27%
    97%
    238
    0.7
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    4%
    13%
    86%
    27
    0.8
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    18%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    3%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    9%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    5%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Newspaper, 0%
    Cardboard, 3%
    All Glass, 3%
    Figure A-0-42. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-3
    Leather, 0%.
    Organic Textiles,
    0%
    <1" Fines, 2%
    Office Paper, 2%
    .Junk Mail, 2%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    >ard, 4%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 9%
    A P a sties
    Soiled
    Wood
    Yard Trash, 0%
    ATH RES 3
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    65%
    Inorganic Fraction
    35%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    96
    95
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AAA 14
    Sample ID
    ATH RES 4
    Cardboard, 1%
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Category
    PAPER
    Residential
    AAA 14
    15800
    March 5 2015
    2:00 PM
    Inorganic
    Materials, 2%
    A Newspaper,
    1%
    All Glass, 2%
    Junk Mail, 3%
    Pasteboard, 5%
    Subcategory
    Mass
    Percent
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Content Solids
    (M3/Mg)
    Normalized
    Lo
    Cardboard
    Newspaper
    Office Paper
    Junk Mail
    Pasteboard
    Misc. Paper
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    1%
    6%
    3%
    5%
    6%
    1%
    15%
    19%
    7%
    22%
    27%
    21%
    19%
    88%
    96%
    85%
    86%
    83%
    77%
    94%
    233
    56
    276
    288
    184
    232
    273
    1.9
    Wood,
    0.3 0%
    12.6
    Leather,
    6.3 o%
    5.9
    8.1
    2.1
    Office
    Paper, 6%
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 23%
    Organic Textiles,
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    23%
    4%
    42%
    29%
    98%
    89%
    315
    62
    41.6
    1.6
    Yard Trash, 4%
    
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    10%
    4%
    47%
    52%
    91%
    70%
    216
    244
    10.0
    3.6
    
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    27%
    88%
    298
    0.3
    
    
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    
    WOOD
    Wood
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    ATH RES 4
    
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    
    
    
    
    Organic Fraction
    74%
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    
    
    
    
    Inorganic Fraction
    26%
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    95
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    
    Figure A-0-43. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-4
    96
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck AAA 2
    Sample ID
    ATH RES 5
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    AAA 2
    9320
    March 5 2015
    12:18 PM
    Newspaper, 0%
    Office
    Cardboard, 14% . Paper TO
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    14%
    33%
    100%
    226
    20.5
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    32%
    90%
    56
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    22%
    92%
    312
    0.3
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    2%
    27%
    67%
    194
    2.1
    
    Pasteboard
    6%
    41%
    86%
    319
    8.9
    
    Misc. Paper
    11%
    19%
    73%
    185
    12.3
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    14%
    93%
    275
    1.7
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    18%
    0%
    59%
    75%
    96%
    93%
    144
    237
    10.3
    0.2
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    0%
    0%
    60%
    35%
    86%
    71%
    351
    233
    q o
    d o
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    21%
    93%
    346
    2.9
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    3%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    11%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-44. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-5
    Inorganic
    Materials, 11%
    A Meta
    A G ass. 3
    Pasteboard, 69
    All Plastics, 20%
    Soi ed
    Wood
    Leather, 0%
    Fines
    Trash, 0%
    unk Mail, 2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Organic.
    Textiles, 1%
    ATH RES 5
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    61%
    Inorganic Fraction
    39%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    59
    97
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Athens County Truck 94757
    Sample ID
    ATH RES 6
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    94757
    4300
    March 5 2015
    1:03 PM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    0%
    10%
    85%
    178
    0.4
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    24%
    98%
    73
    0.5
    
    Office Paper
    2%
    36%
    87%
    295
    2.9
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    3%
    10%
    85%
    319
    6.1
    
    Pasteboard
    6%
    17%
    87%
    256
    10.9
    
    Misc. Paper
    4%
    16%
    91%
    367
    10.7
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    17%
    98%
    280
    1.4
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    14%
    0%
    80%
    78%
    36%
    82%
    73
    161
    0.7
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    13%
    6%
    47%
    28%
    92%
    56%
    242
    190
    15.2
    4.7
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    6%
    100%
    325
    3.6
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    10%
    85%
    20
    0.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    15%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    5%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    6%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    4%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    19%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-45. Waste Composition and Lo of ACC-RES-6
    Cardboard, 0%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 4%
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, 2%
    j Junk Mail, 3%
    Pasteboard
    6%
    AM Plastics, 15%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 14%
    Wood, 1%
    Leather
    Misc. Paper,4%
    _Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Organic.
    Textiles, 1%
    ATH RES 6
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    
    Organic Fraction
    71%
    Inorganic Fraction
    29%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    57
    98
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM-210510
    Sample ID
    DURCOM 1
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    WM-210510
    1313
    March 24 2015
    9:00 AM
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    14%
    28%
    89%
    215
    19.6
    
    Newspaper
    4%
    67%
    84%
    183
    48.8
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    28%
    87%
    203
    1.2
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    21%
    85%
    366
    0.5
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    30%
    93%
    299
    2.9
    
    Misc. Paper
    6%
    31%
    91%
    281
    11.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    32%
    90%
    243
    0.4
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    6%
    0%
    56%
    0%
    89%
    0%
    364
    0
    8.4
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    7%
    4%
    59%
    55%
    61%
    47%
    291
    248
    5.1
    2.2
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    40%
    100%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    10%
    15%
    87%
    69
    5.1
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    22%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    0%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    7%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    5%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    3%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-46. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-1
    Inorganic
    Materials, 5%
    All Glass, 0%
    Cardboard, 14%
    AN Metals, 7%
    All Plastics, 22%
    Soi ed
    Wood, 10%
    Newspaper, 4%
    Office Paper,
    i%
    /junk
    Mail,
    l\faste board,
    1%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Leather,
    .« I v. <1" Fines, 4%
    Organic
    Textiles, 1%
    DURCOM 1
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    303
    Organic Fraction
    65%
    Inorganic Fraction
    35%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    105
    99
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 3472 (Waste Ind)
    Sample ID
    DUR COM 2
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    3472 (Waste Ind)
    8120
    March 25 2015
    7:30 AM
    All Glass, 2%
    All Metals, 1%
    Inorganic
    Materials, TO
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    31%
    19%
    95%
    241
    58.3
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    24%
    82%
    253
    0.8
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    0%
    38%
    79%
    206
    0.1
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    52%
    94%
    305
    2.6
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    27%
    0%
    87%
    0%
    86%
    0%
    295
    0
    9.2
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    6%
    2%
    56%
    68%
    68%
    68%
    452
    373
    r-»
    CO r-i
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    3%
    59%
    96%
    108
    1.2
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    25%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    1%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    All Plastics, 25%
    Cardboard,31%
    Soi ed
    Paper, 2%
    Leather,
    0%
    Organic
    Yard Trash, TO
    Figure A-0-47. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-2
    •ffice Paper, 0%
    Newspaper, 0%
    ^JU.,kMail,0%
    asteboard, 0%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    DUR COM 2
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    520
    Organic Fraction
    72%
    Inorganic Fraction
    28%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    82
    100
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM 210500
    Sample ID
    DUR COM 3
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    WM 210500
    22320
    March 25 2015
    10:00 AM
    Inorganic
    Materials, 2%
    All Metals, 2%
    All Glass, 0%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    4%
    29%
    74%
    193
    4.0
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    21%
    75%
    215
    0.3
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    13%
    91%
    361
    1.3
    
    Pasteboard
    1%
    26%
    91%
    201
    1.7
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    26%
    82%
    292
    3.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    5%
    0%
    64%
    39%
    91%
    66%
    334
    216
    6.0
    0.1
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    4%
    2%
    23%
    49%
    68%
    58%
    401
    349
    9.5
    1.9
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    25%
    100%
    216
    3.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    52%
    21%
    89%
    40
    14.6
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    18%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    0%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Office Paper, TO
    Newspaper, 0%
    Cardboard, 4%
    Figure A-0-48. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-3
    o%
    Pasteboard, 1%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    Aeseptic Food &
    _Cartons, 0% Soiled
    	Paper, 5%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    <2" Fines, 4%
    <1" Fines, 2%
    	Organic
    Textiles, 2%
    AM Plastics, 18%
    Wood, 52%
    Leather,
    0%
    DUR COM 3
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    431
    Organic Fraction
    77%
    Inorganic Fraction
    23%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    46
    101
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck WM 210570
    Sample ID
    DUR COM 4
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Commercial
    WM 210570
    22960
    March 26 2015
    9:10 AM
    All Glass, 3%
    All Metals, 2%
    Inorganic
    Materials, 1%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    12%
    42%
    92%
    234
    15.3
    
    Newspaper
    2%
    30%
    90%
    0
    0.0
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    26%
    89%
    280
    2.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    34%
    96%
    265
    6.2
    
    Misc. Paper
    5%
    43%
    86%
    312
    7.6
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    3%
    31%
    99%
    198
    3.7
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    27%
    0%
    35%
    0%
    91%
    0%
    311
    0
    50.6
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    7%
    2%
    66%
    65%
    75%
    84%
    353
    362
    6.5
    2.2
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    3%
    31%
    94%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    6%
    6%
    90%
    45
    2.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    3%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    1%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Leather, 0%
    Orga
    Textiles, 3%
    n
    Cardboard, 129
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Wood
    Soiled
    <1" Fines, 2%
    Yard Trash, 0%J
    Newspaper, 2%
    Office Paper, 1%
    k Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 3%
    Figure A-0-49. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Com-4
    DUR COM 4
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    307
    Organic Fraction
    77%
    Inorganic Fraction
    23%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    97
    102
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34376 (City SWM)
    Sample ID
    DUR RES 1
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    34376 (City SWM)
    March 24 2015
    10:30 AM
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    3%
    12%
    94%
    189
    4.4
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    18%
    95%
    49
    0.5
    
    Office Paper
    1%
    18%
    83%
    305
    1.3
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    24%
    83%
    308
    0.7
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    29%
    93%
    293
    7.9
    
    Misc. Paper
    6%
    48%
    78%
    349
    8.2
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    29%
    84%
    260
    1.0
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    22%
    1%
    55%
    31%
    90%
    83%
    461
    80
    40.9
    0.3
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    11%
    3%
    76%
    59%
    79%
    70%
    330
    383
    6.9
    3.8
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    49%
    95%
    80
    0.6
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    10%
    84%
    51
    0.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    5%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    12%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-50. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-1
    Inorganic Newspaper, 1%
    Materials, 2%.
    All Metals, 4%
    Wood, 1%
    Leather, 0%
    Organic.
    Textiles, 2%
    <1" Fines, 3%
    Office Paper, 1%
    Junk Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    Cardboard
    P a sties
    Soi ed
    Aeseptic
    .Cartons, 1%
    Yard Trash, 1%
    DUR RES 1
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    282
    Organic Fraction
    68%
    Inorganic Fraction
    32%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    77
    103
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34325 (City SWM)
    Sample ID	PUR RES 5	
    WasteType	Residential
    Truck Number	34325 (City SWM)
    Total Load Weight (lbs)	16120
    Date	March 25 2015
    Time	11:11AM
    Mass Moisture Volatile Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) L°
    
    
    Cardboard
    4%
    23%
    98%
    236
    6.8
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    32%
    88%
    322
    2.0
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    18%
    86%
    293
    0.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    23%
    80%
    302
    1.8
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    34%
    93%
    281
    3.6
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    44%
    87%
    291
    2.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    26%
    81%
    130
    0.2
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    11%
    0%
    56%
    0%
    84%
    0%
    322
    0
    12.9
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    18%
    6%
    50%
    49%
    76%
    74%
    334
    366
    23.1
    8.9
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    36%
    100%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    5%
    16%
    80%
    11
    0.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    4%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    5%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-51. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-2
    Newspaper, 1%
    Inorganic Cardboard, 4%
    Materials, 5%
    Office Paper, 0%
    Junk Mail, 1%
    /pasteboard, 2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 11%
    Yard
    Trash, 0%
    All Plastics, 20%
    Wood, 5'
    Leather, 0%
    Organic Textiles,
    2%
    DUR RES 5
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    342
    Organic Fraction
    66%
    Inorganic Fraction
    34%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    63
    104
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34439 (City SWM)
    Sample ID
    DUR RES 3
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Category
    PAPER
    ORGANICS
    FINES
    TEXTILES
    Residential
    34439 (City SWM)
    36460
    March 24 2015
    3:00 PM
    lnorganicCardbooard
    Materials, TO 2%
    All Metals, 2%
    Subcategory
    Mass
    Percent
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Content Solids
    (M3/Mg)
    Normalized
    Lo
    Cardboard
    Newspaper
    Office Paper
    Junk Mail
    Pasteboard
    Misc. Paper
    Aeseptic Cartons
    2%
    1%
    2%
    5%
    5%
    11%
    0%
    20%
    50%
    71%
    10%
    29%
    9%
    27%
    82%
    100%
    81%
    86%
    75%
    84%
    91%
    198
    59
    323
    308
    145
    298
    245
    11.4 Organi
    c
    3-6 Textile
    24.9 s' 10/°
    <1" Fines,
    Food & Soiled Paper	19% 63% 82%	377
    Yard Trash	0% 70% 73%	171
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    11%
    3%
    63%
    47%
    74%
    77%
    313
    327
    9.5
    3.4
    Yard Trash, TO
    Organic Textiles
    Leather
    1%
    0%
    43%
    0%
    96%
    0%
    171
    0
    1.4
    0.0
    Newspaper, 1%
    Office Paper, 2%
    All Glass, 2%
    Wood
    AM Plastics, 17%
    Leather
    Soi ed
    Pasteboard, 5%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    15%
    92%
    9
    0.1
    DUR RES 3
    
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    17%
    
    
    
    
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    291
    GLASS
    All Glass
    2%
    
    
    
    
    Organic Fraction
    79%
    METALS
    All Metals
    2%
    
    
    
    
    Inorganic Fraction
    21%
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    0%
    
    
    
    
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    81
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    17%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    
    Figure A-0-52. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-3
    105
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34355 (City SWM)
    Sample ID
    DUR RES 4
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    34355 (City SWM)
    25080
    March 25 2015
    11:00 AM
    All
    Metals,
    4%
    Cardboard, 1%
    News
    Office Paper, 0%
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. L0
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    1%
    41%
    98%
    218
    1.2
    
    Newspaper
    0%
    45%
    87%
    122
    0.1
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    24%
    73%
    295
    0.2
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    
    Pasteboard
    4%
    36%
    81%
    119
    2.5
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    50%
    94%
    272
    2.5
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    1%
    39%
    81%
    163
    0.5
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    20%
    0%
    51%
    31%
    94%
    18%
    489
    35
    45.0
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    19%
    5%
    62%
    52%
    76%
    59%
    359
    345
    19.4
    4.9
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    11%
    37%
    97%
    35
    2.4
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    2%
    25%
    94%
    142
    1.8
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    19%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    3%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    1%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    6%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Wood, 2%
    Leather, 0%
    paper
    Inorganic
    Materials, 1%
    Junk Mail, 0%
    Pasteboard, 4%
    All Glass, 3%
    Food & Soiled
    Paper, 20%
    All Plastics, 19%
    Organic Textiles
    11%
    Misc. Paper,2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 1%
    Yard Trash, 0%
    Figure A-0-53. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res-4
    DUR RES 4
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    374
    Organic Fraction
    72%
    Inorganic Fraction
    28%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    81
    106
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34325 (City SWM)
    Sample ID
    DUR RES 5
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Time
    Residential
    34325 (City SWM)
    16120
    March 25 2015
    11:11 AM
    Mass
    Moisture Volatile Est. Ln
    Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    4%
    23%
    98%
    236
    6.8
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    32%
    88%
    322
    2.0
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    18%
    86%
    293
    0.4
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    23%
    80%
    302
    1.8
    
    Pasteboard
    2%
    34%
    93%
    281
    3.6
    
    Misc. Paper
    2%
    44%
    87%
    291
    2.8
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    26%
    81%
    130
    0.2
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    11%
    0%
    56%
    0%
    84%
    0%
    322
    0
    12.9
    0.0
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    18%
    6%
    50%
    49%
    76%
    74%
    334
    366
    23.1
    8.9
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    2%
    36%
    100%
    0
    0.0
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    5%
    16%
    80%
    11
    0.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    20%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    4%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    5%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    5%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    8%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Figure A-0-54. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res 5
    Inorganic
    Materials, 5%,
    Newspaper, 1%_
    Cardboard, 4%\
    Office Paper, 0%
    unk Mail, 1%
    asteboard, 2%
    All Glass, 4%
    Misc. Pa per, 2%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    Soi ed
    All Plastics, 20%
    Wood
    Leather, 0%
    Organic Textiles,
    2%
    Yard
    Trash, 0%
    DUR RES 5
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    342
    Organic Fraction
    66%
    Inorganic Fraction
    34%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    63
    107
    

    -------
    Waste Composition of Durham County Truck 34379 (City SWM)
    Sample ID
    DUR RES 6
    Waste Type
    Truck Number
    Total Load Weight (lbs)
    Date
    Ti me
    Residential
    34379 (City SWM)
    13420
    March 25 2015
    1:50 PM
    Inorganic
    Materials, 2%
    All Metals, 4%
    
    
    Mass
    Moisture
    Volatile
    Est. L0 Normalized
    Category
    Subcategory
    Percent
    Content
    Solids
    (M3/Mg) Lo
    
    
    Cardboard
    20%
    27%
    83%
    206
    25.6
    
    Newspaper
    1%
    7%
    82%
    28
    0.2
    
    Office Paper
    0%
    8%
    79%
    317
    1.0
    PAPER
    Junk Mail
    1%
    5%
    84%
    238
    1.7
    
    Pasteboard
    3%
    28%
    93%
    191
    4.1
    
    Misc. Paper
    3%
    23%
    88%
    282
    5.0
    
    Aeseptic Cartons
    0%
    22%
    81%
    160
    0.3
    ORGANICS
    Food & Soiled Paper
    Yard Trash
    15%
    0%
    45%
    37%
    89%
    77%
    386
    80
    28.9
    0.2
    FINES
    <2" Fines
    <1" Fines
    9%
    3%
    57%
    50%
    80%
    74%
    349
    381
    10.9
    4.3
    TEXTILES
    Organic Textiles
    1%
    9%
    94%
    80
    0.8
    
    Leather
    0%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    WOOD
    Wood
    1%
    29%
    87%
    109
    0.4
    PLASTICS
    All Plastics
    18%
    
    
    
    
    GLASS
    All Glass
    5%
    
    
    
    
    METALS
    All Metals
    4%
    
    
    
    
    OTHER
    Inorganic Materials
    2%
    
    
    
    
    
    Human & Animal Waste
    11%
    0%
    0%
    0
    0.0
    Newspaper,
    1%
    Wood, 1%.
    Leather, 09
    Organic.
    Textiles, 1%
    <1" Fines, 3%
    Cardboard , 20%
    Office
    AM Plastics, 18%
    Paper, 0%
    Pasteboard
    Soi ed
    i\lunk
    Mail,
    1%
    Misc.
    Paper, 3%
    Aeseptic
    Cartons, 0%
    i Trash
    Figure A-0-55. Waste Composition and Lo of DUR Res 6
    DUR RES 6
    Total Sample Weight (lbs)
    381
    Organic Fraction
    70%
    Inorganic Fraction
    30%
    Calculated L0 (m3/Mg)
    83
    108
    

    -------
    Appendix F. Carbon Content in 39 Waste Collection Vehicles
    
    Dry Biogenic Carbon
    (g dry biogenic
    carbon/g total dry
    carbon)
    Fossil Carbon (g dry
    fossil carbon/g dry
    total carbon)
    (Assumed MC = 0)
    Durham Com-1
    49%
    51%
    Durham Com-2
    45%
    55%
    Durham Com-3
    62%
    38%
    Durham Com-4
    61%
    39%
    Durham Res-1
    44%
    56%
    Durham Res-2
    48%
    52%
    Durham Res-3
    53%
    47%
    Durham Res-4
    51%
    49%
    Durham Res-5
    46%
    54%
    Durham Res-6
    52%
    48%
    Athens Com-1
    61%
    39%
    Athens Com-2
    46%
    54%
    Athens Com-3
    61%
    39%
    Athens Com-4
    64%
    36%
    Athens Com-5
    56%
    44%
    Athens Com-6
    52%
    48%
    Athens Res-1
    55%
    45%
    Athens Res-2
    60%
    40%
    Athens Res-3
    58%
    42%
    Athens Res-4
    58%
    42%
    Athens Res-6
    54%
    46%
    Lee Com-1
    53%
    47%
    109
    Total Carbon Wet
    (g dry C/g wet
    waste)
    Total Carbon Dry (g
    dry C/g dry waste)
    Total Moisture Content
    (g EhO/g total waste)
    31%
    39%
    21%
    34%
    54%
    37%
    36%
    44%
    19%
    33%
    43%
    23%
    27%
    37%
    28%
    26%
    34%
    22%
    26%
    35%
    26%
    28%
    42%
    32%
    27%
    36%
    23%
    29%
    36%
    21%
    27%
    35%
    23%
    27%
    36%
    23%
    27%
    34%
    20%
    24%
    30%
    17%
    25%
    30%
    19%
    29%
    33%
    14%
    23%
    32%
    28%
    33%
    40%
    18%
    28%
    34%
    20%
    25%
    32%
    22%
    22%
    28%
    22%
    27%
    32%
    18%
    

    -------
    
    Dry Biogenic Carbon
    (g dry biogenic
    carbon/g total dry
    carbon)
    Fossil Carbon (g dry
    fossil carbon/g dry
    total carbon)
    (Assumed MC = 0)
    Lee Com-2
    48%
    52%
    Lee Com-3
    55%
    45%
    Lee Com-4
    48%
    52%
    Lee Com-5
    52%
    48%
    Lee Com-6
    52%
    48%
    Lee Res-1
    57%
    43%
    Lee Res-2
    64%
    36%
    Lee Res-3
    42%
    58%
    Lee Res-4
    81%
    19%
    Lee Res-5
    50%
    50%
    Lee Res-6
    52%
    48%
    UF Com-1
    58%
    42%
    UF Com-2
    43%
    57%
    UF Com-3
    41%
    59%
    UF Com-4
    45%
    55%
    UF Com-5
    65%
    35%
    Average of All Vehicles 54%	46%
    Min	41%	19%
    Max	81%	59%
    110
    Total Carbon Wet Total Carbon Dry (g Total Moisture Content
    (g dry C/g wet dry C/g dry waste) (g EhO/g total waste)
    waste)
    24%
    25%
    21%
    23%
    28%
    25%
    27%
    21%
    22%
    16%
    20%
    30%
    29%
    31%
    31%
    35%
    27%
    16%
    36%
    31%
    30%
    24%
    29%
    32%
    29%
    34%
    23%
    27%
    18%
    23%
    40%
    40%
    38%
    42%
    45%
    34%
    18%
    54%
    22%
    15%
    12%
    18%
    11%
    16%
    19%
    10%
    21%
    12%
    15%
    25%
    29%
    17%
    25%
    22%
    21%
    10%
    37%
    

    -------