Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products.

This functionality is provided solely for your

convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Academic OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine
generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the
machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Recycling potential of urban solid waste destined for sanitary

landfills: the case of Indaiatuba, SP, Brazil
Authors: Sandro Donnini Mancini, Alex Rodrigues Nogueira, Dennis Akira Kagohara, Jonas Age Saide Schwartzman and Tania de
Mattos
Date: Dec. 2007
From: Waste Management and Research(Vol. 25, Issue 6)
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)
Document Type: Article
Length: 4,509 words
Lexile Measure: 1510L
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07082113

Full Text:
The urban solid waste of the city of Indaiatuba (pop. 175 000), located in the state of Sao Paulo, was characterized, focusing on the
recycling potential. For this purpose, collected waste was subdivided into 27 items, classified by mass and volume. About 90% of this
waste was found to be potentially recyclable and only 10% requiring landfilling. The compostable organic matter, in the form of food
and garden waste, both with high moisture content (51 and 41%, respectively), represents 54% in mass and 21% in volume. The
most common type of plastic in this waste is high density polyethylene, whose estimated disposal is about 5000 kg [day.sup.-1]. A
socio-economic analysis of the waste generation indicates that low-income neighbourhoods discard relatively less packaging and
more food waste, shoes and construction debris than middle and high income ones, which may be due to low purchasing power and
schooling. Our findings indicate that more aluminium and uncoloured polyethylene terephthalate is discarded in the warmest months
of the year, probably due to a greater consumption of canned and bottled drinks.

Keywords: Waste composition, food waste, recycling, municipal solid waste, wmr 997--8

Introduction

According to the latest official survey of 2000 by the IBGE--Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Brazil has 5507
municipalities, 5471 of which regularly collect garbage, totalling 83 million tons [year.sup.-1] (IBGE 2002). According to CEMPRE
(Business Commitment to Recycling), only 237 municipalities had selective garbage collection programs in 2004 (CEMPRE 2000). Of
the total waste collected in 2005, 40.5% was destined correctly, from the environmental and public health standpoints, to sanitary
landfills (36.2%), composting (2.9%), sorting (1.0%) and incineration (0.4%).

The rest (approx 20%) was disposed of, sometimes soil covered, on unprotected land or even in water bodies (IBGE 2002).

In 2004, Brazil is estimated to have recycled about 95% of aluminium cans, 33% of paper, 46% of glass containers, 16.5% of plastics
and 47% of steel cans (CEMPRE 2005), mainly due to unofficial collection carried out by thousands of individuals, who supply
recycling plants with separated material. A study conducted in Sao Carlos (pop. 200 000) concluded that, were it not for this activity,
the waste generated by the city would be 39% greater by weight (Mancini 1999).

Six recent papers were consulted concerning more detailed characterizations than those traditionally presented (metal, glass, plastic,
organic matter and others) and hence, more interesting for recycling studies. Each of them used a different methodology, which
ultimately led to different characterizations. One of these studies was carried out in the Brazilian city of Botucatu (pop. 120 000),
involving collected waste that reached the local landfill. The researchers used eight samples of 2 [m.sup.3] each, obtained from April
to June 1997, dividing the waste into 15 items (Oliveira et al. 1999). A study conducted in Guangzhou, China (pop. 4 million) used
160 samples of about 100 kg each, collected in January, May, October and December 1999. The separation of the waste into 17
items also took place at a landfill (Chung & Poon 2001). Zeng et al. (2005) divided the solid waste of the sanitary landfill of Columbia,
USA into 22 items based on four samples of about 140 kg each, one for each season of the year.

The other three studies were similarly concerned with the exact origin of the waste, leading their authors to collect waste directly at
households and then separate it. In a study in metropolitan Guadalajara, Mexico (pop. 3 400 000) from June to August 1997, the
weekly waste from 300 households was collected and separated into 53 items (Bernache-Perez et al. 2001). A study in Morelia,
Mexico (pop. 510 000) collected and separated into 30 items 298 bags previously distributed by the city, totalling 697 kg of sample
(Buenrostro et al. 2001). In Gaborone, Botswana (pop. 250 000), a study divided 893 samples (each consisting of two bags
containing wet and dry garbage), collected from 47 households during 21 days in July 2001, into seven items (Bolaane & Ali 2004).

It should also be noted that none of these studies divided the waste items according to volume, restricting their analyses to the
gravimetric potential. The reason for this is probably because volumetric characterization involves a relatively intrinsic subjectivity of
the results, mainly because of the degree of compaction applied after separation. Their results are poorly applicable for estimates of
the increased service life of landfills in the event these wastes are recovered, since landfills are usually subject to compaction even if
only by the weight of the layers of waste dumped in them. These factors, as well as the composition and time in the landfill (and
hence of decomposition) affect the specific weight of landfilled wastes and thus, the landfill's capacity and structural stability.
However, for recycling, it is important to know how much space each type of waste occupies after it is separated in order to establish
guidelines for its storage, the eventual need for compaction, transportation, area needed for aerobic composting, etc.

This paper reports on a physical characterization of the mass and volume of urban solid waste from the city of Indaiatuba (pop. 175
000) in Brazil, carried out at the local sanitary landfill, with emphasis on waste recovery and recycling.

Objectives

This study aims specifically to: (1) present the gravimetric composition of the urban solid waste of Indaiatuba, based on a division of
the waste into 27 items, chosen according to their relative presence and each material's recycling principles and potential; (2) present
the concomitant volumetric characterization of those 27 items; (3) correlate the social classes of the waste-generating
neighbourhoods with the waste produced; (4) present gravimetric estimate of how much is landfilled per day in the city and the
potential for recovery of materials; and (5) present results for moisture contents of some waste fractions and discuss the significance
for the recycling industry.

Methodology

Except for the garbage from street sweeping, tree pruning and industrial waste, Indaiatuba destines 100% of its urban solid wastes to
the local sanitary landfill where the waste was separated. In Indaiatuba it is not mandatory (nor is there any significant voluntary
scheme) to discard some types of waste, such as bottles or cans, separately from the rest of the waste. In this city, as in practically
the entire country, intensive and informal collection of discarded material occurs in parallel to the official collection system, driven by
the recycling market.

After examining the literature, it was found that at least 91 kg of waste per sample should be considered (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993,
Martin et al. 1995, Chung & Poon 2001). However, there is no consensus about the maximum amount, although it has been
established that from 140 kg up, the variance is much smaller than below 91 kg (Klee 1980, ASTM 2003, Zeng et al. 2005).

This study involved 10 samplings collected (from the garbage truck) from September 2004 to July 2005. The choice of each sampling
took into account the geographical location of the city area, the season of the year and the income level of the neighbourhood. Of the
ten samplings, one came from an upper-class neighborhood, six from a middle-class neighborhood, and three from a poor
neighborhood. The reason for this division was that, according to official data, Indaiatuba's upper class corresponds to about 11% of
the population, while the middle class represents 55% and the lower class 34% (IBGE 2001).

From selected trucks, approximately 7 [m.sup.3] of garbage was dumped and spread on the ground, forming a pile about 1 m high.
Closed garbage bags were randomly chosen from every point in the pile, opened, and their contents separated into: food waste,
garden waste, bathroom trash (toilet paper, sanitary napkins and ear swabs) disposable nappies, packaging consisting of more than
one material (including metallized plastics and plasticized papers), long-life packaging, fabrics, glass, paper in good condition, paper
in poor condition, steel, aluminium, batteries, shoes, complete and reusable (if unusable, separated by material), low-density
polyethylene (LDPE; rigid and film), high density polyethylene (HDPE; rigid and film), polypropylene (PP; rigid and film), polystyrene
(PS; rigid and expanded (styrofoam), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET; uncoloured and coloured),
construction waste (debris) and others.

We decided to separate the paper into paper in good condition and paper in poor condition, the latter visually presenting more
impurities and humidity. The idea for this division was based on that fact that recycling plants evaluate the humidity of the material
they receive from suppliers and may reject a lot or lower the purchase price depending on the moisture content.

Plastics were separated according to well established recycling plant criteria, which are defined mainly due to the impossibility of
recycling plastics of dissimilar chemical compositions. The distinction between films (less than 250 |Jm thick, like plastic bags) and
rigid plastics (the other plastics) is necessary because the recycling of films is slightly different (Zanin & Mancini 2004).

The PET was divided into uncoloured and coloured because recycling plants prefer purchasing it that way and may pay up to 20%
more for uncoloured material than for coloured.

The item others comprised all the materials and products that did not fit into any of the subdivisions studied, such as rubbers, foams,
etc.

After the items were separated, each type of waste was weighed (wet weight) and placed in a container of known volume, thus
identifying the composition in terms of mass and volume.

When the container for food waste weighed at least 70 kg, the separation of all the items was considered complete. This quantity was
established based on the fact that various characterizations of Brazilian cities, such as that by Oliveira et al. (1999), indicate that
about half the weight of household wastes is organic matter. The minimum quantity separated in the ten samplings was 144 kg, which
is congruent with the literature to provide samplings with only minor variances.

Samples of the paper in good and poor condition, food waste and garden waste were taken to the laboratory to measure their
moisture content. The samples, of about 300 g, were obtained after breaking up the last three samplings and were placed in a
furnace at a temperature of 130[degrees]C. The test conditions (mass and temperature) were based on standards required by a
major paper recycling plant of the region, which establishes a furnace time of 30-35 min. In the case of food and garden waste, this
time was 2 h, since with less time the mass still presented variations greater than 4%. Bathroom trash and nappies also contain
considerable moisture, but they were not tested because of their remote chances of being recycled. The remaining types of waste
absorb little water, so their moisture content is less inconvenient than the tested wastes.

Results and discussion

Table 1 presents the mean results of the ten measurements in terms of mass and volume, as well as the error of each item. It also
shows an estimate of daily landfilling of each type of waste, based on information from the company managing the landfill, which
receives about 135 tonnes [day.sup.-1] of urban solid waste. The estimate of the total daily volume was based on the separate
volume to mass ratio in the ten measurements. It should be noted that this is the volume occupied by the wastes after sorting, and
should not be used to extract information about the volume occupied in the case of landfilling.

The mean values listed in Table 1 were calculated from values that, for some items, varied considerable from one month to another,
as indicated by the high error. This may be due to the intrinsic heterogeneity of the wastes or differences due to variations in the
income of the neighbourhood, the region and the weather. However, the confidence interval (mean value [+ or -] error) provides a
good safety margin. For example, the results allow us to state, with 95% confidence, that the content of steel cans discarded in the
municipality in the period of this survey lay between 1 and 2%.

The variations in the discard percentages along the months make it difficult to identify trends resulting from weather patterns.
However, some correlations could be established for aluminium, uncoloured PET and shoes. In terms of PET waste (mostly soda
bottles) and aluminium (mainly beer and soda cans), the greater consumption of beverages is reflected in the waste, since most of
the packaging is disposable. Although Table 1 does not indicate it, discards of uncoloured PET showed low percentages only in the
cooler months (samplings 1 and 10), and furthermore, less discarded aluminium was found in samplings 1, 2 and 10. No plausible
explanation could be found for the greater discard of shoes in the cooler time of the year.

Table 1 shows a predominance, in terms of mass, of organic matter in the form of food and garden waste (53.7%). This material is
aerobically and anaerobically compostable. The volumes of 10.7% for food waste and 10.6% for garden waste provide useful
information for the design of composting

undoubtedly be interesting to have edible food waste distributed to the needy. Such a distribution system, which would have to
operate after consumption and before disposal, could include fabrics, shoes and construction material, whose mass in the samplings
represented 6.1, 1.5 and 3.7%, respectively. Obviously the potential reuse of these wastes depends on the criteria for their utilization,
but at maximum Indaiatuba could distribute 54 000 kg of food, 8200 kg of fabrics, 5000 kg of construction debris and almost 2000 kg
of shoes daily. Despite the quantity of reusable material in the solid waste there are very few initiatives in Brazil involving its
redistribution to the needy. Food waste may also be utilized as animal fodder after proper treatment.

Of the community's total collected solid waste, the items that actually require dumping in landfills are nappies, bath room trash,
batteries and others, i.e., about 9% of the total. The remainder, just over 90% (about 123 000 kg [day.sup.-1]), can potentially be
recycled or reused. Despite its small percentage, the fraction of waste to be dumped daily includes about 4900 kg [day.sup.-1] each
for nappies and bathroom trash.

The number of batteries in each sampling varied from zero to 27. The total number found in the ten samplings was 58. Although
impossible to define, all the batteries appeared to have been manufactured after 2001, i.e., according to the Brazilian law stipulating
that batteries be manufactured with minimal amounts of heavy metals to render them disposable in landfills (CONAMA 1999). The
samplings did not contain rechargeable batteries, which must be returned to the manufacturer and/or importer after use. According to
the estimate in Table 1, approximately 100 kg of discarded batteries are dumped in the city's landfill daily.

Table 1 also show a considerable amount of packaging comprising more than one material, which, added to the long-life packaging
(made of layers of LDPE, paper and aluminium), amounts to 2.1% in mass, 5.6% in volume and about 2800 kg [day.sup.-1], whose
components must be separated before eventual recycling, which is normally not a simple task.

Table 1 indicated that the content of the two types of paper (in good condition and poor condition) were equal in mass (4.6%), with
paper in good condition representing a higher volume. Indaiatuba dumps a daily average of 2000 kg of steel and 600 kg of aluminium
(representing, respectively, 1.5 and 0.5% of the waste) into its sanitary landfill. These relatively low quantities and the absence of
other metals (e.g., copper and copper alloys) confirm the suitability of such materials for highly profitable recycling.

Table 1 show discarded plastics in much higher volume (totalling 36.5%) than mass (10.7%), due to this material's low density. In
terms of mass, Indaiatuba could supply 3000 kg [day.sup.-1] of high and low density polyethylene film, enough to supply relatively
large recycling plants. Rigid high density polyethylene, polypropylene films, rigid polystyrene and uncoloured PET, each of which can
be collected in quantities exceeding 1000 kg [day.sup.-1], which is sufficient to supply medium-sized recycling plants. The amounts of
PVC, PP, expanded PS and coloured PET discarded, amounting to less than 1000 kg [day.sup.-1] could supply small recycling
plants.

About 26% in mass of discarded uncoloured PET is cooking oil packaging. This finding was obtained only in the last three samplings,
and was not included in Table 1. Recycling plants normally pay very little for this waste compared with PET water and soda bottles
because they require the use of chemicals (e.g., detergents) to remove rests of oil or else the end product risks losing transparency.

The volume percentages of each type of waste provide information for the design and operation of organic matter recycling plants or
for the temporary storage of waste materials that could be sold to recyclers (such as plastics, paper, metals, etc.). In the case of
storage, the information may also help establish the need for periodic compacting of each type of material for sale in bales. For
instance, a composting plant processing the organic matter discarded in Indaiatuba would receive about 250 [m.sup.3] [d.sup.-1] of
not compacted material per day, comprising approximately 50% of food wastes and 50% of garden waste. The accumulated volume
would also comprise 420 [m.sup.3] [day.sup.-1] of plastics, 30 [m.sup.3] [day.sup.-1] of metals, 165 [m.sup.3] [day.sup.-1] of paper,
and 35 [m.sup.3] [day.sup.-1] of long-life packaging, among others.

Socio-economic evaluation

Figures 1 to 3 make comparisons between the production of certain types of waste (in terms of mass) and the economic class of the
population producing them. The city's downtown district is considered middle class, but it was subdivided in Figures 1 to 3 because it
contains few homes and many commercial establishments. It is estimated that the upper-, middle- and low-income classes in
Indaiatuba respectively produce 15, 74 and 46 tonnes [day.sup.-1] of all the wastes. The average weight of collected solid was found
to be the same for all income classes, approximately 0.77 kg [day.sup.-1] capita-1.

Figure 1 compares packaging, paper and other items. Packaging comprises the sum of the metals, plastics, long-life and packaging
comprising more than one material (although not all plastics and metals found in the waste were packaging).

and Figure 3 shows the percentage of discards of food waste, debris, fabrics and shoes.

Figures 1 to 3 show interesting tendencies that vary according to the social class generating the wastes. The upper class generates
more packaging waste (paper, metals, plastics or total) than the middle class, and the lower class generates the least of this type of
waste. However, this tendency is reversed in terms of food wastes, fabrics, shoes and building debris, which is generated in the
largest quantity by the lower class and least by the upper class. The only exception to this trend is building debris, which the upper
class generates in greater quantities than the middle class, although both generate less than the lower class. Waste generation in the
downtown area is generally intermediary between the middle and lower classes.

The highest percentage of packaging waste generated by the high income population (Figures 1 and 2) indicates its greater
purchasing power, reflected in its consumption. In Figure 1, note the higher discard of paper in commercial districts (downtown), as
expected for such regions. In Figure 2, also note that plastic packaging is the type most commonly discarded. The lowest production
of metal, plastic and paper waste in the low-income neighbourhoods is indicative of two factors: (1) lower consumption, given the
lower purchasing power; and (2) greater inclination to profitable recycling, given the population's greater need for supplementary
income. The fact that the low-income population discards more food waste, shoes and debris is probably due to the lower level of
schooling, which contributes to wastefulness.

Moisture content

Table 2 shows results for the moisture content of food and garden waste and paper in good and poor condition. It indicates that the
items food waste and garden waste present a high intrinsic moisture content. Although this moisture is useful in composting, the
moisture in organic matter impregnates other wastes when mixed, i.e., when garbage is not collected selectively, as in the case of
Indaiatuba. Although it does not necessarily make recycling of the other materials infeasible, this impregnated moisture obviously
makes it difficult to obtain good quality products, especially plastics and paper. A simple alternative would be to separate dry waste
from wet before discarding it.

As for paper, we found that the subjective separation of paper in good condition and in poor condition was successful. The material
classified as in good condition, containing on average less than 17% of moisture, could have been approved by the raw materials
quality control of recycling plants, since the moisture content normally admitted by them is lower than 20% (although the paper
contained in sampling 10 would not have been approved). However, the paper in poor condition, which contained an average of more
than 35% humidity, would not have been approved (none of the three samplings), leading to low price, or outright rejection.

Considering only the moisture content of organic matter and paper, Indaiatuba landfilled more than 38 tons of water daily (28% of the
total mass dumped per day).

Conclusions

The average of the characterizations indicated that a little over 9% of the waste (disposable nappies, bathroom trash, batteries and
others) from the city of Indaiatuba should be destined to the landfill, while the rest (subdivided into 23 other items) could potentially be
reused and recycled. This will require that the waste management focuses on the creation and development of mechanisms
favouring recycling and reuse. The first of these mechanisms would be selective waste collection.

Depending on the conditions of each type of waste, up to 54 000 kg of food items, 8200 kg of fabrics, 5000 kg of construction debris,
and almost 2000 kg of shoes could be distributed daily to those interested in their reuse.

In terms of recycling of solid waste, 53.7% of mass and 21.3% of volume is compostable organic matter. The moisture content found
in the food waste was approximately 51% and that of the garden waste was 41%. These high moisture contents facilitate the
impregnation of organic matter in other waste components, hampering their possible commercial reuse or recycling.
The most commonly found plastic was high density polyethylene, with an estimated discard of over 3200 kg [day.sup.-1] of film and
1800 kg [day.sup.-1] of rigid HDPE. Gravimetric and volumetric percentages were also obtained for packaging comprising more than
one material, long-life packaging, glass, paper and metals, with an estimated daily landfilling for each (1300; 1500; 2500; 12 400 and
2600 kg, respectively).

A socio-economic analysis of the waste in relation to the waste-generating source indicates that low-income neighbourhoods discard
less packaging and more food waste, shoes and debris, reflecting the low income and schooling levels of this segment of the
population.

The collection and final destination of solid wastes in Indaiatuba follows a pattern very similar to that of most Brazilian municipalities,
and the results of this study allow us to conclude that relatively obvious measures could significantly improve the situation of solid
wastes in the municipality and, hence, in the entire country. The adoption of selective waste collection allied to environmental
education programs for all social classes would contribute for the municipality to adopt the 3R policy (reduce, reuse and recycle).
Although this may mean an increase in costs in comparison with the current collection scheme, the possibility of returning
approximately 90% of the wastes to the productive cycle in the form of recycled materials would undoubtedly represent direct benefits
for the municipality, such as the saving of public resources for landfilling wastes, increased service life of the landfill, increase in the
offer of recyclable materials and the resulting reinforcement of recycling as an economic activity.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPESP (Proc. # 04/08718-9) for their funding of this work, Corpus Engenharia
e Obras Ltda. and Eng. Wilton A. R. da Cunha for providing access to the landfill under study and Profs Maria Zanin and Sati
Manrich. We would also like to thank the students of UNESP-Sorocaba's Environmental Engineering course who helped take the
measurements in the landfill.

Accepted in revised form 30 June 2007

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X07082113

References

ASTM International (2003) ASTM Standard D 531-92 (2003) Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of
Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. www.astm.org (Accessed: 30 June 2007).

Bernache-Perez, G., Sanchez-Colon, S., Garmendia, A.M., Davila-Villarreal, A. & Sanchez-Salazar, M.E. (2001) Solid waste
characterisation study in the Guadalajara Metropolitan Zone, Mexico. Waste Management & Research, 19, 413-424.

Bolaane, B. & Ali, M. (2004) Sampling household waste at source: lessons learnt in Gaborone. Waste Management & Research, 22,
142-148.

Buenrostro, O., Bocco, G. & Bernache, G. (2001) Urban solid waste generation and disposal in Mexico: a case study. Waste
Management & Research, 19, 169-176.

CEMPRE (2005)--Compromisso Empresarial para a Reciclagem (Business Commitment to Recycling): http://www.cempre.org.br

(Accessed: 22 December 2006).

Chung, S. & Poon, C. (2001) Characterisation of municipal solid waste and its recyclable contents of Guangzhou. Waste
Management & Research, 19,473-485.

CONAMA--Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente (Environmental National Council) (1999) Resolucao no 257 (Law no 257).
http://www.mma.gov.br (Accessed: 15 December 2006).

IBGE--Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (2001) Banco de Dados: Cidade.
(Data Bank: Cities) http://www.ibge.gov.br (Accessed: 21 December 2006).

IBGE--Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (2002) Pesquisa Nacional de
Saneamento Basico: 2000. (National Research of Basic Sanitation) IBGE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Klee, A.J. (1980) Quantitative Decision Making, Design & Management for Resource[R] Recovery Series, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science,
Michigan, USA.

Mancini, P.J.P. (1999) Uma avaliafao do Sistema de Coleta Informal de Residuos Solidos Reciclaveis do Municipio de Sao Carlos-
SP (Evaluation of the informal system of Recyclable Waste Collection at Sao Carlos-SP). MSc Thesis. Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Sao Carlos, Brazil.

Martin, J.H.; Collins, A.R. & Diener, R.G. (1995) A sampling protocol for composting, recycling and re-use of municipal solid waste.
Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 45, 864-870.

Oliveira, A.S., Pasqual, A., Barreira, L.P., Salazar, V.P., Toledo, A.A.G. & Leao, A.L. (1999) Caracterizacao Fisica dos Residuos
Domesticos da Cidade de Botucatu/SP (Physical Characterisation of Domestic Wastes of Botucatu). Engenharia Sanitaria e
Ambiental, 4, 113-116.

Tchobanoglous, G., Theinsen, H. & Vigil, S. (1993) Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management
Issues. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.

Zanin, M. & Mancini, S.D. (2004) Residuos Plasticos e Reciclagem: Aspectos Gerais e Tecnologia (Plastics Wastes and Recycling:
General Aspects and Technology). Editora da UFSCar, Sao Carlos, Brazil.

Zeng, Y., Trauth, K.M., Peyton, R.L. & Banerji, S.K. (2005) Characterization of solid waste disposed at Columbia Sanitary Landfill in
Missouri. Waste Management & Research, 23, 62-71.

Sandro Donnini Mancini

Alex Rodrigues Nogueira

Dennis Akira Kagohara

Jonas Age Saide Schwartzman

Tania de Mattos

Environmental Engineering, Universidade Estadual

Paulista-UNESP, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil

Corresponding author: S. D. Mancini, Universidade Estadual Paulista-UNESP, Environmental Engineering, Av. 3 de Marfo, 511,
Sorocaba 18087-180, SP, Brazil.

Tel: +55 15 3238 3417; fax: +55 15 3228 2842; e-mail: mancini@sorocaba.unesp.br

Table 1: Ten samplings of waste from the sanitary landfill of Indaiatuba, averaged for mass and volume (not compacted),
the calculated error, and the estimated landfill needs per day. Estimated need Material % Mass Error * +/- (kg
[day.sup.-1]) Food waste 40.1 4.9 54000 Garden waste 13.6 4.5 18500 Nappies 3.6 1.7 4900 Bathroom trash 3.6 2.1 4900
Packaging with more 1.0 0.5 1300 than one material Long-life packaging 1.1 0.3 1500 Fabrics 6.1 3.5 8200 Glass 1.9 1.1
2500 Paper in good condition 4.6 2.5 6200 Paper in poor condition 4.6 1.4 6200 Steel 1.5 0.5 2000 Aluminium 0.5 0.3 600
Batteries 0.1 0.1 100 Debris 3.7 2.7 5000 Shoes 1.5 1.4 2000 LDPE (film) 2.3 0.9 3200 LDPE (rigid) 0.1 0.0 100 HDPE
(film) 2.4 0.7 3300 HDPE (rigid) 1.4 0.6 1800 PP (film) 0.9 0.7 1250 PP (rigid) 0.4 0.1 500 PS Expanded 0.5 0.3 700 PS
(rigid) 0.9 0.6 1250 PVC 0.7 0.8 950 PET (uncoloured) 0.8 0.3 1100 PET (coloured) 0.3 0.1 400 Others 1.8 0.7 2,450 Total
100.0 -- 135000 Material % Volume Error * +/- Food waste 10.7 2.6 Garden waste 10.6 3.3 Nappies 2.0 0.7 Bathroom trash
5.1 2.1 Packaging with more 2.5 0.6 than one material Long-life packaging 3.1 1.4 Fabrics 5.9 3.6 Glass 1.0 0.7 Paper in
good condition 8.7 4.2 Paper in poor condition 5.8 1.3 Steel 1.8 0.6 Aluminium 0.9 0.5 Batteries 0.0 0.0 Debris 2.1 1.6
Shoes 1.0 1.1 LDPE (film) 8.7 2.8 LDPE (rigid) 0.1 0.0 HDPE (film) 7.0 1.5 HDPE (rigid) 3.1 0.9 PP (film) 3.9 0.8 PP
(rigid) 1.5 0.6 PS Expanded 3.4 1.7 PS (rigid) 3.0 1.8 PVC 0.8 0.8 PET (uncoloured) 3.4 0.8 PET (coloured) 1.6 0.8 Others
2.3 0.8 Total 100.0 -- Estimated need Material ([m.sup.3] [day.sup.-1]) Food waste 125 Garden waste 125 Nappies 25
Bathroom trash 60 Packaging with more 30 than one material Long-life packaging 35 Fabrics 70 Glass 10 Paper in good
condition 100 Paper in poor condition 65 Steel 20 Aluminium 10 Batteries 0 Debris 25 Shoes 10 LDPE (film) 100 LDPE
(rigid) 0 HDPE (film) 80 HDPE (rigid) 35 PP (film) 45 PP (rigid) 15 PS Expanded 40 PS (rigid) 35 PVC 10 PET (uncoloured)
40 PET (coloured) 20 Others 25 Total 1155 * Error = ([[dagger].sub.[alpha]/2] x SD)/ [summation over (n)], where
[[dagger].sub.[alpha]/2] = [[dagger].sub.0,05] = 2262; SD = standard deviation found; n = 10. Table 2: Average calculated
moisture content (%) and the content found for the three samplings of food and garden waste, and paper in good and poor
condition, sampled at the sanitary landfill of Indaiatuba. Material Sampling 8 Sampling 9 Sampling 10 Food waste 29.3
61.1 62.5 Garden waste 34.2 38.2 51.9 Paper in good condition 8.1 10.8 31.8 Paper in poor condition 31.6 25.9 48.6
Material Average Error +/- Food waste 51.0 24.5 Garden waste 41.4 12.4 Paper in good condition 16.9 17.0 Paper in poor
condition 35.4 15.4

----------

Please note: Some tables or figures were omitted from this article.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2007 Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)

http://wmr.sagepub.com/
Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)
Mancini, Sandro Donnini, et al. "Recycling potential of urban solid waste destined for sanitary landfills: the case of Indaiatuba, SP,
Brazil." Waste Management and Research, vol. 25, no. 6, Dec. 2007, p. 517. Gale Academic OneFile,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A271289792/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=abf4895d. Accessed 12 Sept. 2023.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A271289792