&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%
------- |