Practical Report on Municipal Solid Waste

Study Case : Composition Analysis

Report by :
VELDA RIFKA ALMIRA
22098713
SQH7001 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

UNIVERSITI MALAYA
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
MASTER IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY
2023/2024
I. Introduction
Human activities generate municipal solid waste (MSW) due to the improper utilization of
energy and resources (Laohalidanond et al., 2015). MSW cannot be reused directly for the
welfare of society because some of them may be hazardous to human health (Upadhyay et
al., 2012). MSW contains organic waste (food scraps, yard leaves, grass, brush, wood,
process residues paper, etc.), paper waste (paper scraps, cardboard, newspapers,
magazines, bags, boxes, wrapping paper, telephone books, shredded paper, paper beverage
cups, etc. Strictly speaking, paper is organic but unless it is contaminated by food residue,
the paper is not classified as organic), plastic waste (PW) (bottles, packaging, containers,
bags, lids, and cups), glass waste (bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs, colored glass,
etc.), metal waste (cans, foil, tins, non-hazardous aerosol cans, railings, bicycles, etc.) and
other waste (textiles, leather, rubber, multi-laminates, e-waste, appliances, ash, other inert
materials, etc.). Act on Waste (2001) defines municipal waste as the refuse produced by
households and other sources, which due to its features or composition resembles
household waste. The other sources of municipal waste are, e.g. shops, offices, schools,
graveyards, municipal green areas, and infrastructure facilities.
It has been analyzed that the quantity of waste generation gives a positive correlation
with the economic growth of the nation, population explosion, urbanization, and
industrialization (Rana et al., 2015). As the countries grow from the lower-income level to
the middle and then high-income level, their solid waste management (SWM) conditions
also grow, but rapid urbanization and population growth make the collection, disposal, and
treatment of waste more and more difficult (Sharma et al., 2020). The factors affecting
waste generation are different in each area because in each region, local conditions such
as climate, the standard of living, technology, customs and culture, economic issues, and
other factors are different. According to Keser et al., (2011), the rate of waste generation
is affected by various factors such as geographical location, season, the cycle of using
kitchen food waste, collection repetition, features of regional services, on-site processing,
people’s food habits, economic conditions, recovery and reuse, laws on waste
management, local culture and beliefs, population growth, weather conditions and size of
households (Abdoli et al., 2012; Keser et al., 2012; Safari, 2013).
A practical analysis of municipal solid waste generation would be conducted in this
study. The aim of this analysis is to determine the impacts and significance of socio-
economic conditions and seasonal changes on both MSW mass and composition.
II. Content of report
Below were given the data on the seasonal generation of waste fractions at middle, high,
and low-income groups (kg/capita/day); and the demographic information of the study area
(in table 1).

Table 1. Demographic information of the study area

Table 2. Seasonal Generation of Waste Fractions at Middle, High, and Low-Income Groups (kg/capita/day)
In this discussion, we used these categories of waste components for our analysis :
• Organic waste
• Paper
• Tetra pack
• Plastic waste
• Diapers
• Textile
• Others (Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber)
• Glass
• Metals
• Other (Non-combustible)
Therefore, we had to count the subtotal of each category of the waste component from the data given in Table 2.
High Income Group (kg/capita/day) Middle Income Group (kg/capita/day) Low Income Group (kg/capita/day)
Waste Components
Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted
Vegetable Food Waste 0.845 0.459 0.260 0.524 0.495 0.311 0.374 0.338 0.429 0.376 0.192 0.197 0.183 0.163 0.183
Yard Waste, Flowers 0.093 0.040 0.040 0.056 0.052 0.009 0.004 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.003
Animal Food Waste(bones) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Organic News print 0.047 0.030 0.024 0.022 0.029 0.014 0.003 0.004 0.011 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.006
Waste Magazines 0.009 0.009 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Advertisements 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Books, Phone Books 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001
Office paper 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Subtotal 1.008 0.539 0.328 0.614 0.587 0.339 0.381 0.350 0.452 0.391 0.204 0.202 0.191 0.178 0.193
Other Clean Paper 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.002
Paper And Card Board 0.070 0.015 0.019 0.037 0.030 0.012 0.009 0.022 0.026 0.017 0.011 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.011
Kitchen Towels 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Paper Dirty Paper (Tissue) 0.015 0.000 0.006 0.020 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.002
Dirty Cardboard 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.002
Cigarette Butts 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other Clean Card Board 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Subtotal 0.107 0.034 0.027 0.068 0.054 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.035 0.024 0.014 0.007 0.019 0.028 0.017
Tetra Packs 0.062 0.034 0.018 0.044 0.038 0.011 0.012 0.020 0.020 0.016 0.009 0.008 0.011 0.012 0.010
Juice Carton (Carton/Plastic/Aluminum) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Tetra pack
Soft Plastic (Polythene. Gloves, Disposable Plates) 0.050 0.031 0.013 0.033 0.031 0.017 0.009 0.015 0.023 0.016 0.011 0.007 0.010 0.023 0.013
Plastic Bottles 0.037 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.010 0.004 0.001 0.006 0.014 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.004
Subtotal 0.149 0.072 0.033 0.084 0.079 0.032 0.022 0.041 0.057 0.039 0.023 0.020 0.023 0.038 0.027
Hard Plastics (Plates) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.002
Plastic Non Recyclable Plastic 0.011 0.014 0.003 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.002 0.002 0.011 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.005
Plastic Products (Toys, Hangers, Pens, Empty Tubes) 0.006 0.017 0.008 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.012 0.016 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.011 0.006
Subtotal 0.018 0.032 0.013 0.024 0.023 0.030 0.021 0.025 0.026 0.025 0.007 0.006 0.010 0.022 0.013
Diapers Diapers 0.131 0.026 0.042 0.051 0.052 0.058 0.064 0.060 0.078 0.067 0.062 0.055 0.038 0.112 0.071
Textile 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.027 0.013 0.031 0.006 0.018 0.002 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.010 0.011 0.007
Textile
Disposal Sanitary Clothes 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.003
Subtotal 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.014 0.034 0.007 0.018 0.006 0.012 0.004 0.006 0.012 0.016 0.010
Wood 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Others Shoes, Leather 0.013 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.001
Rubber 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001
Subtotal 0.020 0.008 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.002
Clear Glass 0.013 0.023 0.008 0.016 0.017 0.012 0.002 0.010 0.016 0.010 0.003 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.004
Green Glass 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
Glass
Brown Glass 0.031 0.003 0.006 0.000 0.007 0.009 0.006 0.001 0.016 0.008 0.006 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.003
Non-Recyclable Glass 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Subtotal 0.044 0.026 0.016 0.016 0.024 0.028 0.009 0.011 0.032 0.019 0.010 0.008 0.004 0.008 0.007
Beverage Cans 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aluminum Foil And Container 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Metals Food Cans (Tinplates/Steel) 0.015 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Plastic-Coated Aluminum Foil 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.001
Other Metals 0.007 0.015 0.001 0.011 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
Subtotal 0.042 0.019 0.006 0.032 0.023 0.002 0.009 0.015 0.014 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.001
Soil 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Stones, Concrete 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other Non- Ash, Coal 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Combustibles Ceramics 0.029 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.010 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.009 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.007 0.004
Batteries 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other Non-Combustibles 0.003 0.009 0.001 0.015 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.016 0.009 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.002
Subtotal 0.080 0.017 0.003 0.021 0.024 0.020 0.006 0.024 0.026 0.017 0.007 0.003 0.001 0.012 0.006
Total 1.608 0.776 0.475 0.949 0.890 0.556 0.550 0.568 0.733 0.612 0.335 0.310 0.306 0.416 0.346

Table 3. Subtotal of the Seasonal MSW rate in Middle, High, and Low-Income Groups (kg/capita/day)
A. The mass of waste generated based on income level
The first step before we analyzed the composition of municipal solid waste, we had to
calculate the amount of waste generated per day (ton/day). This report used the following
equation to obtain the amount of waste generated per day:
𝑴𝑺𝑾 𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒙 𝑷𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
Waste generated per day (ton/day) = 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎

*) MSW Generation Rate = kg/capita/day

*) Population = refer to Table 1. Demographic information of each area
By using the equation above, we obtained the amount of seasonal municipal solid waste
generated per day in Middle, High, and Low-Income Groups (ton/day). Below in Table 4
is the result of the data calculation:
High Income Group (ton/day) Middle Income Group (ton/day) Low Income Group (ton/day)
Waste Components
Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted Spring Summer Monson Winter Weighted
Vegetable Food Waste 102.69 55.78 31.60 63.68 60.16 53.52 64.36 58.17 73.83 64.71 12.09 12.41 11.53 10.27 11.53
Yard Waste, Flowers 11.30 4.86 4.86 6.81 6.32 1.55 0.69 1.38 0.52 0.86 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.19
Animal Food Waste(bones) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Organic News print 5.71 3.65 2.92 2.67 3.52 2.41 0.52 0.69 1.89 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.44 0.44 0.38
Waste Magazines 1.09 1.09 0.49 0.24 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Advertisements 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Books, Phone Books 1.70 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.34 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.06
Office paper 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 122.50 65.50 39.86 74.62 71.34 58.34 65.57 60.23 77.79 67.29 12.85 12.72 12.03 11.21 12.16
Other Clean Paper 0.97 0.12 0.24 1.34 0.61 0.17 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.13
Paper And Card Board 8.51 1.82 2.31 4.50 3.65 2.07 1.55 3.79 4.47 2.93 0.69 0.31 0.82 1.01 0.69
Kitchen Towels 1.22 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paper Dirty Paper (Tissue) 1.82 0.00 0.73 2.43 1.22 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.69 0.34 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.13
Dirty Cardboard 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.19 0.13
Cigarette Butts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Clean Card Board 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.52 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 13.00 4.13 3.28 8.26 6.56 2.75 3.27 3.96 6.02 4.13 0.88 0.44 1.20 1.76 1.07
Tetra Packs 7.53 4.13 2.19 5.35 4.62 1.89 2.07 3.44 3.44 2.75 0.57 0.50 0.69 0.76 0.63
Juice Carton
(Carton/Plastic/Aluminum) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tetra pack
Soft Plastic (Polythene. Gloves,
Disposable Plates) 6.08 3.77 1.58 4.01 3.77 2.93 1.55 2.58 3.96 2.75 0.69 0.44 0.63 1.45 0.82
Plastic Bottles 4.50 0.85 0.24 0.73 1.22 0.69 0.17 1.03 2.41 1.20 0.19 0.31 0.13 0.19 0.25
Subtotal 18.11 8.75 4.01 10.21 9.60 5.51 3.79 7.06 9.81 6.71 1.45 1.26 1.45 2.39 1.70
Hard Plastics (Plates) 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.52 0.17 0.69 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.13
Non Recyclable Plastic 1.34 1.70 0.36 0.97 1.09 1.89 0.34 0.34 1.89 1.03 0.38 0.13 0.25 0.44 0.31
Plastic
Plastic Products (Toys,
Hangers, Pens, Empty Tubes) 0.73 2.07 0.97 1.82 1.58 2.75 3.10 3.27 2.07 2.75 0.06 0.19 0.31 0.69 0.38
Subtotal 2.19 3.89 1.58 2.92 2.80 5.16 3.61 4.30 4.47 4.30 0.44 0.38 0.63 1.39 0.82
Diapers Diapers 15.92 3.16 5.10 6.20 6.32 9.98 11.01 10.33 13.42 11.53 3.90 3.46 2.39 7.05 4.47
Textile 1.82 0.61 0.61 3.28 1.58 5.33 1.03 3.10 0.34 1.72 0.25 0.19 0.63 0.69 0.44
Textile
Disposal Sanitary Clothes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.12 0.52 0.17 0.00 0.69 0.34 0.00 0.19 0.13 0.31 0.19
Subtotal 1.82 0.61 0.61 3.52 1.70 5.85 1.20 3.10 1.03 2.07 0.25 0.38 0.76 1.01 0.63
Wood 0.85 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00
Others
Shoes, Leather 1.58 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 2.07 0.00 1.38 1.20 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.00 0.06
Rubber 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.22 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06
Subtotal 2.43 0.97 0.24 1.22 1.22 0.00 2.07 0.00 1.38 1.20 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.06 0.13
Clear Glass 1.58 2.80 0.97 1.94 2.07 2.07 0.34 1.72 2.75 1.72 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.25 0.25
Glass Green Glass 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brown Glass 3.77 0.36 0.73 0.00 0.85 1.55 1.03 0.17 2.75 1.38 0.38 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.19
Non-Recyclable Glass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal 5.35 3.16 1.94 1.94 2.92 4.82 1.55 1.89 5.51 3.27 0.63 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.44
Beverage Cans 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum Foil And Container 0.85 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Metals Food Cans (Tinplates/Steel) 1.82 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.34 0.34 1.38 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Plastic-Coated Aluminum Foil 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.34 0.36 0.34 0.86 0.69 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.06
Other Metals 0.85 1.82 0.12 1.34 1.22 0.00 0.34 1.20 0.69 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00
Subtotal 5.10 2.31 0.73 3.89 2.80 0.34 1.55 2.58 2.41 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.06
Soil 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.52 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stones, Concrete 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non- Ash, Coal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Combustibles Ceramics 3.52 0.49 0.00 0.36 0.73 1.72 0.69 1.03 2.58 1.55 0.31 0.19 0.06 0.44 0.25
Batteries 0.85 0.49 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Combustibles 0.36 1.09 0.12 1.82 0.97 1.20 0.34 2.75 1.55 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.13
Subtotal 9.72 2.07 0.36 2.55 2.92 3.44 1.03 4.13 4.47 2.93 0.44 0.19 0.06 0.76 0.38
Total Total 195.42 94.30 57.73 115.33 108.16 95.68 94.65 97.75 126.14 105.32 21.10 19.52 19.27 26.20 21.79

Table 4. Total and subtotal of Seasonal MSW generated per day in Middle, High, and Low-Income Groups
(ton/day)
In this discussion, we used the weighted waste generated for our analysis based on the
income level, and the seasonal waste generated for our analysis based on the seasons.
Therefore, the mass amount of waste generated based on income level for each waste
component was as follows:
Weighted Waste Generated (ton/day)
Waste Component High Middle Low
Income Income Income
Organic Waste 71.34 67.29 12.16
Paper 6.56 4.13 1.07
Tetra pack 9.60 6.71 1.70
Plastic 2.80 4.30 0.82
Diapers 6.32 11.53 4.47
Textile 1.70 2.07 0.63
Others (Wood,
Shoes/Leather, Rubber) 1.22 1.20 0.13
Glass 2.92 3.27 0.44
Metals 2.80 1.72 0.06
Other Non-Combustibles 2.92 2.93 0.38
Total 108.16 105.32 21.79
Table 5. The weighted MSW generated per day in High, Middle, and Low-Income Groups (ton/day)
We used a graphical statistic to analyze the results of the computations in Table 5. The
bar graph below was the result, and it showed us how different is the amount of organic
waste generated compared to the other components.

Figure 1. Comparations of MSW Components in High, Middle, and Low-Income (ton/day)

Making use of Figure 1, we could analyze the shared and distinct characteristics of the
MSW generated by three income levels. The similarities in waste generated by all
socioeconomic levels were that organic waste contributed the most, and others (Wood,
Shoes/Leather, Rubber) waste contributed the least. The highest-income category
produced the most organic waste, 71.34 tons per day. Following that was the middle-
income group, which produced approximately 67.29 tons per day. At last, the low-income
level generated over 12.16 tons of organic waste daily. As for the others (Wood,
Shoes/Leather, Rubber) waste, the high-income and middle-income groups produced
roughly the same amount, 1.22 tons/day and 1.2 tons/day, respectively, whereas the low-
income group generated only 0.13 ton/day.
Overall, among the total waste generated by the socioeconomic groups listed in Table
5, the high-income area produced the most MSW per day, totaling 108.18 tons/day. The
middle-income households produced roughly 105.32 tons/day, whereas the low-income
households generated only 21.79 tons/day.
Further discussion on the percentage of MSW composition based on income level,
would be covered in section B.

B. Percentage of composition based on income level

In this study, the percentage of MSW composition for each income level is analyzed
individually and then compared by similarities and differences. First of all, an analysis of
waste composition was done for the high-income area, with the result of waste composition
shown in the following pie-chart graph:

Figure 2. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Generated by High-Income Area

Based on Figure 2 above, organic waste contributed to 66% of the total MSW
composition generated by the High-Income Area. Followed by the Tetra pack waste which
made up to 9% of the total composition; and then the paper waste and diapers, which each
accounted for 6% of the total composition. As for the lowest waste composition of MSW
generation in the high-income area was the others (Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) type of
waste, which contributed only 1% of the total composition.
 Subsequently, we looked at the review of MSW composition in the middle-income area.
Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of waste composition analysis for the middle-income
area, formed of a pie-chart graph.

Figure 3. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Generated by Middle-Income Area

Organic waste accounted for 64% of the total MSW composition generated by the
Middle-Income Area, which differed just 2% from the High-Income Area. Diapers were
the second most commonly produced waste in the middle-income area, which made up
11% of the total composition. The Tetra pack waste was the third contributor to the total
MSW created, accounting for 6% of the total MSW composition generated by the Middle-
Income Area. The least type of waste generated by the Middle-Income Area was the others
(Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) type of waste, which contributed only 1% of the total
composition.
Afterward, we analyzed the structure of municipal solid waste in areas with low
incomes. Figure 4 is a pie-chart graph depicting the result of the analysis done for the
percentage of waste composition in the low-income area.

Figure 4. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Generated by Low-Income Area

 Similar to the earlier analysis of MSW composition generated by high and middle-
income households, organic waste contributed the greatest MSW generation in low-
income areas, taking up around 56% of total generation. However, in low-income
communities, the amount percentage of organic waste did not reach 60%. Diapers came in
second, contributing to 20% of the total MSW generation. The tetra-pack was the third-
largest contributor, accounting for 8% of the total MSW generated in the Low-Income
area. The lowest category of waste generated in low-income areas was metal waste. Metal
waste made up only 0.3% of total waste produced in the low-income group.
When the MSW composition of all socioeconomic groups was compared, there were
several differences. The main differences are : the least type of waste generated in the
low-income group was metal waste, whereas in the high-income and middle-income
areas it was the others (Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) type of waste; and unlike in
middle-class and lower-class areas, where diaper waste was the second domination,
Tetra-pack waste was the second most common types of waste generated in the high-
income group. While organic waste was similarly dominating in all income groups; the
domination of organic waste was lower at 56% overall in the low-income group, compared
to the high-income and middle-income groups which reached 66% and 64% respectively.
Another factor that might affect the mass and composition of municipal solid waste is
the season. Therefore the next sections are focused on the analysis of the impact of seasonal
changes.

C. The mass of waste generated based on the seasons

The detailed calculation of the total and subtotal of seasonal municipal solid waste
(MSW) daily generation is given in Table 4. Analysis on the seasonal impacts were done
by using the total of waste generated on every season by all income groups. Result of
computational data on the seasonal waste generation of each component is given below, in
Table 6.
Seasonal Waste Generation (ton/day)
Waste Component
Spring Summer Monsoon Winter
Organic Waste 193.69 143.79 112.12 163.61
Paper 16.64 7.84 8.44 16.05
Tetra pack 25.06 13.80 12.51 22.41
Plastic 7.79 7.88 6.51 8.78
Diapers 29.81 17.64 17.82 26.68
Textile 7.93 2.19 4.46 5.56
 Others 2.56 3.16 0.56 2.65
Glass 10.80 5.21 4.09 7.96
Metals 5.45 3.86 3.50 6.36
Other Non-Combustibles 13.60 3.29 4.56 7.78
Total 312.20 208.48 174.75 267.67
Table 6. The total of seasonal MSW generated per day (ton/day)
We used the same method as the analysis of MSW generation based on income level,
which utilized graphical statistics to analyze the results of the computations. The difference
for this section, we used the line graph to highlight the difference of trends based on the
season. The result was as follows:

Figure 5. Comparations of Seasonal MSW Components (tons/day)

According to Figure 5, organic waste contributed the most to MSW generation
throughout all seasons, peaking at 193.69 tons/day in the Spring season, followed by
production in the Winter season, which was around 163.61 tons/day; then in the Summer
season, the organic waste generated was approximately 143.79 tons/day; and finally, in the
Monsoon season, the organic waste generated was only about 60% of the Spring
generation, which was 112.12 tons/day.
The figure 5 was also evident that, in comparison to other seasons, people seemed to
produce more waste in the Spring, with 312.20 tons of waste generated daily overall. On
the other hand, people tended to produce least amount of waste during the Monsoon
season, with only 174.75 tons/day generated in total. This phenomena was most likely
caused by heavy rains and moist weather during the Monsoon season, which might restrict
humans’ activities, resulting in less garbage generated.
Further discussion on the percentage of MSW composition based on the seasons, would
be covered in section D.

D. Percentage of composition based on the seasons

In this study, the proportion of MSW composition for each season is assessed and
contrasted to find resemblance and differences, while determining whether seasonal
variations have had an impact on waste creation. Firstly, an analysis of waste composition
was done for the Spring season, with the result of waste composition shown in the
following pie-chart graph:

Figure 6. Municipal Solid Waste Composition in Spring season

Organic waste accounted for 62% of the total MSW composition generated in the
Spring season. Diapers were the second most commonly produced waste, which made up
10% of the total composition. The Tetra pack waste was the third contributor to the total
MSW created, accounting for 6% of the total MSW composition generated in Spring. The
least type of waste generated in Spring was the others (Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) type
of waste, which contributed only 1% of the total composition.
Next, we looked at the analysis result on MSW composition in Summer season. Figure
7 illustrates the result, as follows :
 Figure 7. Municipal Solid Waste Composition in Summer season
According to Figure 7, organic waste made up 69% of the total MSW composition
generated in Summer. Then there was Diapers waste, which accounted for 8% of the whole
composition, and tetra pack, which each accounted for 7% of the total composition. Others
(Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) had the lowest waste content of MSW generation in
Summer, accounting for only 1% of the total composition.
Following that, we went over the review of MSW composition in the winter season.
Figure 8 depicts the Winter waste composition analysis by percentage (%).

Figure 8. Municipal Solid Waste Composition in Winter season

As illustrated in Figure 8, 61% of the MSW composition created throughout the winter
was composed of organic waste. Next came the waste from diapers, which made up 10%
of the composition overall, and the tetra pack, which made up 8% of the composition
overall. With only 1% of the total composition, Others (Wood, Shoes/Leather, Rubber) had
the lowest waste component of MSW generation in Winter season.
 The analytical result on MSW composition during the monsoon season was the last part
we examined into. The outcome can be seen in Figure 9 as follows:

Figure 9. Municipal Solid Waste Composition in Monsoon season

Of the MSW composition generated in the Monsoon season, 64% was made up of
organic waste. At 10% of the total composition, diapers were the second most frequently
produced waste. With 7% of the MSW composition generated in the Monsoon, Tetra pack
garbage was the third largest contributor to the total amount of MSW formed. The others
(wood, shoes/leather, rubber) waste type made up the least amount of garbage produced in
the monsoon, making up only 1% of the entire composition.
We were able to determine from the composition analysis as a whole that seasonal
variations had less of an impact on the composition (%) resulting from the formation of
municipal solid waste. Over the course of four seasons (without involving the socio-
economic aspect), the MSW composition was dominated by three types of waste: organic
waste, diaper waste, and tetra-pack waste.

III. Conclusion
The results from examining the dynamics of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation
reveals that socioeconomic factors and seasonal variations both play substantial parts in
affecting the quantity and composition of waste generated. The findings show an important
disparity in mass of MSW production between socioeconomic groups, with higher-income
communities typically producing more waste than middle-income and lower-income areas.
Furthermore, the influence of seasons on waste generation’s mass is also significant, with
spring having the highest mass of waste produced and the monsoon season having a
significant decrease in amount of waste production.
 Interestingly, the dominant proportion of organic waste in the community waste
generation remains constant, unaffected by socioeconomic situations or seasonal changes.
In essence, this study emphasizes the crucial role of socioeconomic determinants in MSW
composition, that these factors outweigh seasonal changes in defining MSW composition.
As communities seek for more sustainable waste management methods, these findings can
help to inform targeted policies that take into account socioeconomic disparities as well as
the persistence of organic waste in municipal solid waste generation.

IV. References
Abdoli, M., Falah Nezhad, M., Salehi, R., Behboudian, S. (2012). Long-term forecasting
of solid waste generation by the artificial neural network. Environ. Prog. Sustainable
Energy, 31: pp. 628–636.
Emilia den Boer, Jędrczak A., Kowalski Z., Kulczycka J., Szpadt R. (2009). A review of
municipal solid waste composition and quantities in Poland. Waste Management 30 (2010)
: pp. 369–377.
Keser, S., Duzgun, S., Aksoy, A. (2012). Application of spatial and non-spatial data
analysis in the determination of the factors that impact municipal solid waste generation
rates in Turkey. Waste Management, 32(3): pp. 359-371.
Laohalidanond, K., Chaiyawong, P. and Kerdsuwan, S. (2015). Municipal solid waste
characteristics and green and clean energy recovery in Asian megacities. Energy Procedia:
Vol. 79, pp. 391-396.
Rana, R., Ganguly, R. and Gupta, A.K. (2015). An assessment of solid waste management
system in Chandigarh City, India. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering: Vol. 20,
pp. 1547-1572.
Safari, A., (2013). Environmental risk analysis and strategies for waste management in
rural areas, Case Study: Central Ajarvd district in Germi County. J. Econ. space and Rural
Development., 3: 79-91.
Sharma, K. D., & Jain, S. (2020). Municipal solid waste generation, composition, and
management: the global scenario. Social Responsibility Journal: Emerald Publishing
Limited (ISSN 1747-1117).
Upadhyay, V., Jethoo, A.S. and Poonia, M.P. (2012). Solid waste collection and
segregation: a case study of MNIT campus, Jaipur. International Journal of Energy
Innovation Technology: Vol. 1, pp. 144-149.