Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Municipal solid waste characterizations and management strategies

for the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas
a,* b
Ni-Bin Chang , Eric Davila
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
b
Llano Grande Center for Research and Development, Elsa, TX, USA

Accepted 10 April 2007

Available online 5 June 2007

Abstract

The Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV or Valley) in Texas, facing the big waste management challenge along the US–Mexico border
today, is at the crossroads as a result of the rapid population growth, the scarcity of landfill space, the bi-nation’s trade impacts, and the
illusive goal of environmental sustainability. This paper offers a unique municipal solid waste investigation with regard to both physical
and chemical characteristics leading to illuminate the necessary management policies with greater regional relevancy. With multiple sam-
pling campaigns conducted during the spring of 2005, this study holistically summarizes the composition of solid waste, the statistical
distribution patterns of key recyclable items, and the heating value in an uncertain environment. Research findings indicate that high
fractions of plastics and paper in the waste stream imply a strong potential for energy recovery. Incineration options are thus bolstered
by mildly high heating values across 10 cities in this region, which may lead to save land resources required for final disposal and increase
electricity generation in the long run. Additional regression analyses further identify the correlation between recyclable items and heating
value, which show that current recycling programs permit no obvious negative impacts on the incineration option. Final statistical
hypothesis tests for both the Brownsville–Harlingen–San Benito and the McAllen–Edinburg–Mission metropolitan regions help foster
consistent management strategies across the Valley regardless of the trivial differences of waste characteristics in between.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (MSW) stream, composting facilities would be favored.

An integrated solid waste management system normally
requires many management options. They may include
source reduction, curbside recycling, material recovery,
waste-to-energy (WTE), landfilling, and composting. A
reliable waste characteristics database may provide an all-
inclusive resource for comprehensive and informative eval-
uation of management options in all waste management
programs. It may aid in the quantification of pollution pre-
vention impacts on one hand and support the planning and
design of waste management facilities, such as composting
and incineration plants, on the other hand. If organic mate-
rials make up the bulk of the local municipal solid waste
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 407 754 7521.
E-mail address: nchang@mail.ucf.edu (N.-B. Chang).
However, high fractions of plastics and paper in the waste
stream could indicate that choosing the incineration option
may be bolstered by mildly high heating values. Such judg-
ment may not only provide important advice about strate-
gic choices for local waste management decision makers
but also help examine the management strategies and pol-
icies at federal, state, and local levels for MSW manage-
ment. It also enables private sectors to reach a large,
multifaceted, solid waste management (SWM) market cre-
ating both operational value for the end-users and share-
holder value for communities. Such demand facilitates a
sustained value for waste characterization efforts.
Gay et al. (1993) indicated that the results of such MSW
characterization studies for metropolitan regions have
large standard errors, and individual results often fall
within the error bounds of reported national average val-

0956-053X/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.04.002
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
ues. Yet the waste characteristics in association with local
dynamics are often blurred by national and state averages
in such a way that SWM solutions are difficult to tailor to
actual community needs. As a consequence, the promotion
of physical and chemical characterization of the MSW
stream becomes one of the highest priorities in the waste
management regulatory regime (US EPA, 1994, 1995,
1999, 2002). Research linking local waste characteristics
with reuse, recycling, and recovery potential focuses on
both raw MSW (Savage et al., 1985; Ojeda-Benitez et al.,
2003; Kathirvale et al., 2003; Gidarakos, in press; Garcı́a
et al., 2005; Lau et al., 2005) and its byproducts, such as
synthesized fuel and energy (Chang et al., 1998; Thipse
et al., 2002; Sørum et al., 2001; Frey et al., 2003;
Islam et al., 2004; Lo Mastro and Mistretta, 2004; Ruppert
et al., 2004), incineration ash (Ibáñez et al., 2000; Forteza
et al., 2004; Li et al., 2004), and compost (Hervas et al.,
1989; Senesi et al., 1992; Villar et al., 1993; Schwab et al.,
1994; Pascual et al., 1997; Hassen et al., 2001). Even the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) for protecting
human health and the environment from the potential haz-
ards of waste reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment, and dis-
posal needs the support of a waste characterization
database (Pascual et al., 1997; Ibáñez et al., 2000; Forteza
et al., 2004). Such a database is also supportive in advanced
studies for systems analysis, which are designed to explore
and screen deliberate interactions among countless man-
agement alternatives in many integrated SWM systems
(Baetz et al., 1989; Chang and Wang, 1996; Chang and
Chang, 1998, 2001, 2003; Huang et al., 2001).
The Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV or Valley) in
Texas, facing the big waste management challenge along
the US–Mexico border today, is at the crossroads as a
result of the rapid population growth, the scarcity of land-
fill space, the bi-nation’s trade impacts, and the illusive
goal of environmental sustainability. Decision makers in
the Valley are considering management alternatives for
the final waste disposal, which requires an understanding
of the make-up of the MSW stream. Successful decision-
making is inherently subject to risks and uncertainties.
Waste characteristics can help capture much-needed trends
in treatment and disposal based on material and energy
recovery potentials. The aim of this study is thus to per-
form a thorough waste characterization study in the Val-
ley. The tests included in this study cover physical
composition, ultimate, and thermal analyses across 10
major cities. The study also generates short-term and
long-term management strategies with respect to the waste
characteristics with greater regional relevancy of two
metropolitan regions, including the Brownsville–Harlin-
gen–San Benito and the McAllen–Edinburg–Mission
regions. Based on current expectations and assumptions,
the database created for the Valley may be applied for gen-
erating cost-effective, forward-looking, and risk-informed
waste management strategies leading to the solution of
pressing SWM concerns along the US–Mexico border in
the long run.
777
2. Background
2.1. Overview of the study area
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
that was enacted in 1994 has increased trade throughout
America. The Lower Rio Grande Valley is located in the
southernmost tip of Texas along the US–Mexico border.
It includes Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties.
Under the NAFTA impact, the Valley, with a total area
of 9216 km2 (3600 mi2), has emerged as a warehouse and
transportation center between Central America and the
US (TSHA, 2003). The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) ranks Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)
according to their population and economic growth. Cam-
eron County, at the tip of Texas, comprises 3266 km2
(1276 mi2) and includes the 28th MSA, Brownsville–Har-
lingen–San Benito (MSA1 hereafter in this paper). Hidalgo
County, the largest of the three Valley counties, covers the
western half of the region with an area of 3963 km2
(1548 mi2). This county is mostly urbanized, containing
the McAllen–Edinburg–Mission MSA, the 4th fastest
growing area in Texas (MSA2 hereafter in this paper).
Both of the Valley’s MSAs are experiencing a developmen-
tal change due to their strategic location and economic ties
with the US–Mexico borderland. However, with much less
population, Willacy County shares emphasis in waste man-
agement regime by providing some candidate sites for
waste treatment and disposal.
Increasing numbers of ‘‘maquiladoras’’ (twin plants),
having manufacturing industries both in the MSAs of the
Valley and in nearby Reynosa and Matamoros, Mexico,
are positively influencing the economic development in
the region. This has been a catalyst for further growth in
other Valley cities located in between these two MSAs.
The area’s population has increased by 39.8% in the last
10 years due to the economic impact of NAFTA. It is
expected to continue growing at an estimated rate of 4%
per yr in the coming years. The population is projected
to be over 1.7 million people in 2022 (TCEQ, 2002;
LRGVDC, 2002). Consequently, solid waste generation,
including domestic waste, yard waste, food waste, and
biosolids, is increasing over time. Fig. 1 indicates the study
area, along with the waste disposal sites. At present, land-
fills satisfy almost all waste disposal needs, handling about
410,000 tons per year of waste for 16 major cities (Davila
et al., 2005). In addition to a few permitted landfills, the
Lower Rio Grande Development Council (LRGVDC)
has also inventoried closed and unauthorized landfills
within the three-county area as part of a contract with
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
(LRGVDC, 2006). Yet there have been some small-scale
composting and recycling programs in the Valley.
Within the MSA1, Brownsville’s composting operation
is the only full-scale municipal composting operation in
the Valley. It aims at minimizing waste that needs to be
sent to the City’s active landfill area, thereby preserving
778 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
Fig. 1. LRGV study area.
landfill space and extending the life of the landfill in com-
pliance with the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan,
while producing high quality compost, mulch, and wood
chips as viable end products. Established in 1995, the com-
posting program, located at the Brownsville Municipal
Landfill, began as a way to divert the large amount of
brush entering the landfill due to Brownsville’s year-round
growing season. During its first year of operation, approx-
imately 5000 tons of brush were diverted. In 2005, over
20,000 tons of brush and compostable materials have been
diverted. This increase in waste diversion is due in large
part to citywide clean brush pick-ups by the local residen-
tial waste hauler, BFI. In addition to municipally collected
brush, the composting facility receives animal manure from
the Gladys Porter Zoo and fish packaging remains from
local fish processing companies. The City of Brownsville
currently sells compost and mulch at the landfill. The com-
post, Tierra del Cielo, is available at a bulk rate of US$45
per ton, Mulch produced by this plant can be purchased at
a bulk rate of US$25 per ton in the Valley (Brownsville,
2006).
The city of Harlingen has both a transfer station and a
recycling center. The Public Works Department in Harlin-
gen is responsible for the operation of the city’s solid waste
disposal system and recycling center. All refuse generated
in the city and surrounding communities is disposed of at
the Transfer Station facility in compliance with the rules
and regulations of the TCEQ. Solid waste streams deliv-
ered to the Harlingen Transfer Station are routinely loaded
into large aluminum transfer trailers and transported to a
landfill in Donna. In addition, Harlingen has a volunteer
recycling program. The recycling center is constantly open
to the public to expand and implements programs that help
divert the solid waste stream away from the landfill/trans-
fer station to improve the quality of life (Harlingen, 2006).
Recyclables that citizens drop off include newspaper, office
paper, white paper, cardboard, steel, plastics, used engine
oil, car batteries, household batteries, etc. The current
prices of recyclables in the secondary material market are
US$90/ton for newspaper, US$85/ton for office paper,
and US$75/ton for cardboard (Nading, 2006).
Besides, there are several small-scale recycling activities
in the Valley. McAllen has a mandated curbside recycling
program using 246 l (65-gal) containers for recyclables
pickup from households. Yet it was found that 65% of
the pickup is trash rather than recyclables. Brownsville
has set up several drop-off sites having similar operation
as McAllen. La Feria has two trailers for newspaper recy-
cling in local communities. Edinburgh and Weslaco have
new recycling centers in place in 2005 (Nading, 2006). All
of the cities involving recycling programs look for markets
to sell recyclable materials; but the chance of success is slim
except for recycled papers. Recyclers normally have to ship
recyclables to Houston or somewhere else geographically
far away from the Valley, for selling.
Synonymous with the economic development in the Val-
ley is an alarming rise in the solid waste generation that
leaves the area with only 12 more years of landfill life
(LRGVDC, 2002; Pierson, 2004). Most waste management
issues stem from the difficulty in selecting new landfill sites.
As the population explosion drains the existing landfill
space available in the region, and with the introduction
of Subtitle D regulations in the Resources Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), landfill facilities have become
costly to construct. With receding landfill space and limited
agents capable of meeting the SWM demands, public and
private landfills compete for municipal clients to ensure
capital to extend landfill life or apply for new permits.
On the other hand, some city officials would like to con-
sider recycling options if waste composition can be investi-
gated and a secondary material market can be fostered.
Some private sectors were trying to bring in other options,
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794 779

such as incineration with or without prior processing Textiles, 7%

through material recovery facilities (MRFs). As the avail- Glass, 6%
Other, 3%
able landfill space in the Valley becomes a limited commod- Plastic, 11%
ity, future management strategies must be configured with Wood, 6%
respect to a complete compilation of waste characterization
data in order to stay ahead of the issues (US EPA, 1995).
Food, 11%
2.2. The needs for waste characterization and policy analysis
in the Valley

In 1997, 217 million tons of MSW were generated in the Metal, 8%

US, or 2 kg (4.4 lb) kg/cap-day. Paper and yard trimmings
account for over 51% of total generation. Of the total of
217 million tons of MSW generated, 28% was recycled
(including composting), 55% was landfilled, and 17% was
incinerated (US EPA, 1999). However, a recent study sheds
light on the differences in MSW composition among states
and regions in the US. It shows 28% was recycled, 58% was
landfilled, and 14% was incinerated in the New England
region; 27% was recycled, 39% was landfilled, and 34%
was incinerated in the Mid-Atlantic region; 19% was recy-
cled, 69% was landfilled, and 12% was incinerated in the
South region; 27% was recycled, 68% was landfilled, and
5% was incinerated in the Great Lakes region; 25% was
recycled, 75% was landfilled, and 1% was incinerated in
the Midwest region; 9% was recycled, 90% was landfilled,
and 1% was incinerated in the Rocky Mountain region;
and 38% was recycled, 59% was landfilled, and 3% was
incinerated in the West region (Kaufman et al., 2004). Still,
the overwhelming majority of cities lean towards landfilling
MSW in lieu of incineration, composting, and recycling at
present in the United States. So does the Valley in Texas. In
any circumstance, these statistics, revealing a heteroge-
neous mixture of waste disposal options over the regions,
reflect the actual needs for a local waste characterization
study.
Overall, the bottleneck in preliminary planning is a lack
of clarity about the MSW underpinnings in the Valley.
While the US government and the State of Texas publish
their own MSW characterization data (see Figs. 2 and 3),
differences in socio-economics, geographic location, and
population growth in the Valley compared to the rest of
the State make the Valley a prime location to study
MSW characteristics (US EPA, 1994, 2002; TNRCC,
2000; LRGVDC, 2002). Thus, the primary impetus for
the solid waste characterization comes from a lack of local
data to provide public decision makers with the best infor-
mation on waste management options (Pierson, 2004). The
need to build a regional waste characterization database
becomes desirable. Without a database outlining important
engineering parameters, such as the physical composition,
moisture content, and the heating value of the solid waste,
it will take longer to initiate engineering alternatives before
the planning and design processes can be performed. To
address these regional concerns, the major questions in
decision-making to be answered in this study include: (1)
would the heating values of MSW be high enough in this
Paper, 37%
Yard, 12%
Fig. 2. US EPA estimated components in the US MSW stream by weight
(2002).
Other, 11% Glass, 5%
Plastic, 8%
Wood, 6%
Food, 9%
Metal, 5%
Paper, 36%
Yard, 20%
Fig. 3. TCEQ estimated components in the Texas (USA) MSW stream by
weight (2000).
region to sustain a WTE program? (2) would the heating
values of MSW be affected by concurrent recycling pro-
grams region wide? and (3) would it be necessary to distin-
guish management strategies between MSA1 and MSA2?
The following sections are thus prepared to answer these
questions.
3. Materials and methods
This study employs a three-stage analysis to achieve the
study goal. The first-stage analysis involves physically sort-
ing and classifying the heterogeneous mixture of solid waste
samples collected from 10 cities in the Valley separately and
summarizing the physical composition across the region.
The second-stage analysis entails ultimate and thermal
analyses for the same 10 cities using a certified laboratory
in Texas. Two samples were collected and analyzed in each
city in both stages to address the uncertainty across the Val-
ley. Hence, the total sample size was 20. All analyses follow
through ASTM and US EPA methods. To achieve the study
goal, this study fully investigated high and low heating val-
780 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794

ues (HHV and LHV); eight parameters in physical compo- Table 1

sition analysis; and six elements, including carbon, hydro- Ten cities within the study area selected for physical and chemical
composition of their MSW
gen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine, in ultimate
analysis for waste characterization across 10 cities in the City County Populationa Site Typeb Destination
Valley. While a physical composition analysis may help sort Alamo Hidalgo 14,760 WWTP BFI LF
through the larger-level questions related to material recov- Brownsville Cameron 139,722 LF Brownsville LF
Edinburg Hidalgo 48,465 LF Edinburg LF
ery potential, an ultimate analysis connected with the phys- Harlingen Cameron 57,564 TS BFI LF
ical composition analysis may focus on relating the energy McAllen Hidalgo 106,414 LF Edinburg LF
content to physical composition in the MSW stream. Mak- Mission Hidalgo 45,408 LF Edinburg LF
ing such connections can help system designers to correlate Pharr Hidalgo 46,660 LF Edinburg LF
reliable material flows to separate treatment processes that San Benito Cameron 23,444 WWTP BFI LF
San Juan Hidalgo 26,229 LF Edinburg LF
are sensitive to composition, moisture, and energy content. Weslaco Hidalgo 26,935 REC BFI LF
It also may help examine possible recycling impacts on a
US Census, 2005.
treatment options, such as incineration. In the end, the b
Site type: WWTP-wastewater treatment plant, LF-landfill, TS-transfer
third-stage analysis has to connect the important heating station, REC-recycling center.
values to physical components and the chemical profile of
the MSW stream for advanced engineering analyses. To
achieve this goal, a series of rigorous statistical analyses eral spots where they would allow the vehicles to download
were performed. While physical composition might suffice the mixed waste streams being collected in the different tar-
for certain concerns of MSW recycling, the ultimate and get cities for analysis. In summary, the sites for processing
thermal analyses can yield important parameter values for the physical composition analysis are located at the Edin-
planning waste-to-energy facilities. The statistical analyses burg and Brownsville landfills, the backyard of wastewater
in the third-stage magnify such accomplishment. treatment plants in San Benito and Alamo, the open site of
With multiple sampling campaigns conducted during the the recycling center in Harlingen, and the front gate of the
spring of 2005, the percentage values of solid waste compo- Harlingen transfer station.
sition collected, the statistical distribution patterns of key Within the sampling campaign, the garbage trucks were
recyclable items (e.g., recyclables) identified, and the heat- selected from all routes in each of the 10 cities and directed
ing value analyzed may provide operational expectations. to drop their loads at the designated sorting sites. Coordina-
Of course, when two samples are included in the analysis, tion with various public works directors over the sampling
another factor was involved (error in sampling). But the schedule was a crucial step in providing readily available
stratified random sampling scheme as required by the samples. This assured that the incoming waste originates
ASTM would help avoid this type of error. The interval val- from randomly selected residential/commercial trucks
ues based on samples collected across 10 cities in the Valley because waste from only commercial trucks may lead to a
therefore highlight the variations of main components and disproportionate amount of food and paper. In other
heating values in an uncertain environment, which lie in words, sampling from commercial/residential trucks helped
making more flexible connections between the waste char- give the most representative cut of the heterogeneous mix-
acterization and waste management strategies for the ture without a bias to commercial sources if only commer-
region. They are described sequentially as below. cial trucks were examined. The effect of seasonality is not
deemed influential on solid waste characterization in this
3.1. Field survey: MSW physical composition analysis subtropical region because the annual precipitation is nor-
mally smaller than the evaporation in LRGV. One should
The cities selected for the analysis in the LRGV region not expect that there are some points during the year rainier
should exhibit a diverse background of the area’s popula- or cooler than others resulting in higher moisture content or
tion, economic growth, and geographic location. In the less yard waste in waste streams. In general, sampling peri-
LRGV, Hidalgo County houses the largest population, ods close to holidays such as Thanksgiving or Christmas
but Cameron County is equally important to SWM as it were avoided because packaging waste might be higher than
holds the largest city, Brownsville. After an initial screening normal in those times, and thus not be representative.
with respect to the demographic data, 10 out of 46 cities All baseline characterizations were performed according
selected for this study include Alamo, Brownsville, Edin- to the ASTM 5231-92 Standard Test Method for Determi-
burg, Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Pharr, San Benito, nation of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid
San Juan, and Weslaco. San Juan, Pharr, Alamo, Weslaco Waste (ASTM, 2003). While conducting the macro-scale
are major cities scattered in between these two MSAs. characterization at these sampling sites, a 20 by 9.1 m
Because of their population, they stand out of the 46 cities (30 ft), 6 mil plastic sheet was placed in an area close to
in the pool. Table 1 shows the locale and the 2000 US Cen- the working face of the landfill, or, otherwise, the most con-
sus population estimates to give an idea of the sampling venient places on site. The working face is the open end of a
conditions encountered by the sampling team. The MSW landfill cell where dump trucks discard their loads and top-
characterization in the LRGV region was performed at sev- soil is applied throughout the day. Through the use of a
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
front-loader, public works employees moved about 450 kg
of MSW onto the 6 mil plastic sheet. Ripping and opening
of the plastic bags and containers ensued with Exacto kni-
ves, and mixing was achieved with shovels and rakes. Then
the large sample was quartered so that approximately one-
fifth of the sample (91–136 kg, 200–300 lb) was left to form
a representative sample. Finally, manual sorting of the
waste was done according to ASTM categories, and differ-
ent types of samples were placed into properly labeled 19 l
(5-gal) buckets. Minor modifications were made to the stan-
dard categories (i.e., ASTM is flexible in this regard) to
include clothing and foam since they were present in a sig-
nificant fraction by weight (clothing) or occurrence (foam).
The ensuing sampling process was basically set up to exert
great care in weighing the sample, including that the sam-
ples were weighed out of the wind and waiting until the
Ohaus scale stabilized the quantity. A field log was made
for every sample. However, the ASTM classification, which
is internationally acceptable, is not fully equivalent to the
method US EPA used to apply previously (US EPA,
2002). For example, the US EPA study is based on a mate-
rials flow methodology rather than the sample and sort
methodology applied in this study (Kaufman et al., 2004).
In addition, the US EPA study has a separate category
for yard waste alone while the present study includes dia-
pers and other organics in a combined organic category
reflecting the unique situation in the Valley.
3.2. Laboratory work: MSW ultimate analysis
After 450 kg of waste was sampled, the sample for the
ultimate and heating value analyses was taken at the same
time as the sample for the composition analysis. About
1 kg of representative MSW was removed for ultimate
analysis according to the physical composition without
any bias. The laboratory analyses were performed only
on certain combustible material categories (e.g., the mate-
rials that could be size reduced to the sizes required for lab-
oratory analyses) rather than the entire mixture of
materials of each sample. In other words, non-combustible
components were removed from the collected sample of
waste prior to grinding. The chemical inventory was per-
formed by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in
San Antonio, Texas. The samples collected for ultimate
analysis were held in sealable air-tight paint buckets, main-
tained in a freezer at 20 C, and then transported on ice to
maintain similar conditions until they reached the SwRI in
San Antonio, Texas. Then the lab was in charge of per-
forming moisture content, as well measuring the content
of carbon, chlorine, sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen,
and heating value. The samples were dried while conduct-
ing the moisture content test, and then they were ground
to a fine particle size so that ultimate and thermal analyses
could be performed. The study follows the methods of
ASTM D5291 for carbon analysis, US EPA 351.2M for
nitrogen analysis, ASTM D5291 for hydrogen analysis,
US EPA 300M for chlorine analysis, and ASTM D5291
781
for sulfur analysis. Oxygen content can then be determined
using an indirect calculation with respect to the other
chemical elements. High heating value is determined from
a bomb calorimeter test (ASTM D240), moisture content
ASTM D2216 M, and ash content ASTM E830.
3.3. Statistical analyses
Probability distribution of the waste composition per-
centage is important to recycling programs. It reflects the
distribution of waste components in an uncertain environ-
ment. Twenty samples collected for addressing the uncer-
tainty would be available in LRGV for the identification
of the probability distribution associated with each waste
component of concern. While paper and plastic fractions
are two components connected to waste recycling, the
organic fraction is connected to composting. At this stage,
exploring whether the waste components may display a
normal or other distributions, such as lognormal distribu-
tion, using a goodness-of-fit test would become necessary.
Within the goodness-of-fit test for continuous distribution,
many test statistics, such as v2 , can be used for statistical
inference (Devore, 1995). In statistics, based on the empir-
ical distribution function (ECDF), the Kolmogorov–Smir-
nov goodness-of-fit test (often called K–S test) is often used
to determine whether two underlying probability distribu-
tions differ, or whether an underlying probability distribu-
tion differs from a hypothesized distribution, based on
finite samples. The K–S test has the advantage of making
no assumption about the distribution of data (i.e., it is
non-parametric and distribution free). The K–S test there-
fore was conducted to determine if one can reject the null
hypothesis that there is no relationship between the ideal-
ized probability distribution and the assumed probability
distribution (Boes et al., 1974). This study particularly
reports if the data seem normal or lognormal for waste
components of concern.
To access the impact of recycling on incineration, a mul-
tiple linear regression (MLR) model, which relates the
heating value (response variable) to essential waste compo-
nents (regressor variables), is required. Coefficient of deter-
mination (R2) is a much-used measure of the fit of the
regression, which was employed in this study. Yet the basic
assumption made in a simple linear regression model is
revolved around the nature of the regressor variable, which
is deemed as a fixed value (non-random) (Myers, 1990). In
this study, it is noteworthy that all repressor variables
(waste components) should also be random variables.
The identification of probability density function (PDF)
with respect to waste components involved in regression
practice would be supportive for model formulation and
calibration. If repressors are random variables, the least
squares procedure under the condition that errors are
Gaussian can no longer hold. Thus, the maximum likeli-
hood estimator should be applied (Roussas, 1973). An
important unified approach to linear models, in which
the emphasis placed on a general family of error distribu-
782 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
tions for fitting linear regression model, is the generalized
linear model (GLM) (Nelder and Wedderburn, 1972). It
is known that the maximum likelihood estimator is one
of the well known estimators in the GLM regime.
Finally, the waste component averages for MSA1 and
MSA2 might appear quite different in many cases. Are
these differences statistically significant? If they are, is there
a policy implication with respect to different choices of
waste management strategies for the two MSAs? This con-
sideration necessitates the conduct of a statistical inference
test associated with waste components of concern leading
to identification of a difference in means between MSA1
and MSA2 statistically.
4. Physical and chemical data analysis
Physical and chemical data can be analyzed to acquire
the physical make-up and the chemical content of the
MSW stream sequentially, providing important informa-
tion for both the planning and the design of solid waste
management systems. The field work in the first stage, con-
ducted via multiple sampling campaigns during the spring
of 2005, helped amass the physical characterization data.
The ensuing laboratory analysis in the second stage com-
pleted the chemical and thermal analyses. Data obtained
and insights gained are described as below.
4.1. Physical characteristics and composition
Table 2 displays average values and other descriptive sta-
tistics for the physical characterization. The eight major cat-
egories, including paper, plastic, glass, metal, food, wood,
textile, and organics, were deemed sufficient to describe
the majority of the waste materials in the stream. It also
shows that some waste categories can be classified into
sub-categories for the purpose of applications. This implies
that, for example, breaking down plastics by type into those
that have a market for recycling and those that do not may
gain further insight in source reduction and recycling pro-
grams. This would apply also to glass. In Table 2, ‘‘avg’’
stands for the average value of a specific label. The standard
deviation (stdev) represents variation in the values of a var-
iable, whereas the standard error of the mean (SEM) repre-
sents the spread that the mean of a sample of the values
would have if one kept taking samples. So the ‘‘SEM’’ gives
us an idea of the accuracy of the mean, and the ‘‘stdev’’
gives us an idea of the variability of single observations.
The two are related: SEM = stdev/(square root of sample
size); ‘‘n’’ is the sample size associated with each category
or component. Descriptive statistics, such as t-test statistics,
may help show the 95% confidence interval of the incidence
of a particular waste component in the stream as shown in
Table 2. The column containing [–, +] represents the 95%
confidence interval that is comprised of both lower and
upper bounds of each corresponding component.
Inert materials like glass and metals occur over a small
interval across the physically sorted samples. Ferrous cans
and other ferrous material (e.g., discarded appliances) pre-
vail in the metal category. Textiles, on the other hand, form
a wide range of interval numbers indicative of the uncer-
tainties. It can be further evidenced that certain samples
contained significant amounts of textiles in some instances,
while it was scant in others. Plastic, paper, and food account
for a substantial portion of the MSW in the Valley. Mixed
paper ranged from moist food containers to shredded
unclassifiable tidbits, while other plastics accounted for
wet containers that had no material designation like HDPE
or PET. Organic material accounts for about 20% of the
waste stream composition, on average, and is comprised
of brush and grass clippings, diapers, and other miscella-
neous items. A surprising amount of brush was found after
a few of the characterizations. This was an unexpected find-
ing since brush collection should occur at the municipal
level or through a private collector, but the data points
stand out abruptly showing an excess amount of brush
due to the year-round growing season and/or lack of brush
pickup. In general, municipal SWM programs typically
support roll-off trucks rather than conventional residen-
tial/commercial garbage trucks for picking up yard waste.
Also, diapers were included in the organic category as
opposed to foam since the standard method allows for the
material to be classified according to the majority weight.
Figs. 2 and 3 recall national and state averages of phys-
ical composition of waste streams on a wet basis, respec-
tively. Fig. 4 showcases how the component percentage
intervals shift in comparison to national and state averages.
The areas within a pie chart indicate their relative contribu-
tion to a specific category such as glass, plastic, paper, and
metals on average. Each waste category in Fig. 4 is further
split into its components (sub-categories) on a wet basis to
provide a more indepth insight of recycling potential. The
relative percentages of all categories are further expressed
as interval numbers based on upper and lower bounds of
all MSW samples collectively. The LRGV interval value
for paper, for instance, is [20.4, 40.2]%. When comparing
and evaluating the Texas waste composition percentages
in Fig. 3 with the LRGV percentages in Fig. 4, all of the
percentages of the state average, except plastics, fall within
the confidence intervals associated with the matching waste
categories in the LRGV. The higher plastic content permits
both the recycling potential and incineration option such
that the trade-off in between needs to be examined further.
It can be summarized that the average values of waste com-
position percentages in the Valley have quite a different
waste profile when compared with those in the national
and state-by-state estimates even though the interval values
in the Valley encompass both national and state averages.
Furthermore, the organics category in Table 2, which
unfortunately did not have its own exclusive category from
the onset, except yard waste, is not comparable with the
other national, state, and local values. Yard waste seemed
to make a significant contribution to the organics category
for the Valley, indicating inadequate brush collection at the
municipal level. As a result, the percentage interval of the
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794 783

Table 2
Summary statistics for the physical MSW characterization (%) except n (Unitless)
Component Lower Rio Grande Valley area MSA2b MSA1a
Average Standard deviation n SEM t-Stat [–, +] Average Average
Glass 7.7 4 11.3 8.85 4.82
Clear 2.4 2.2 16 0.6 2.13 1.2 3.6 2.79 0.93
Brown 4.2 3.8 17 0.9 2.12 2.3 6.1 4.86 2.89
Green 1.1 0.5 6 0.2 2.57 0.5 1.6 1.20 1.00
Plastic 19.3 13.2 25.3 20.87 16.6
HDPE 3.7 1.6 20 0.4 2.09 2.3 3.9 4.00 1.85
PET 3.1 3.4 19 0.8 2.10 2.0 5.3 3.43 5.35
Foam 2.4 2.5 20 0.6 2.09 1.2 3.6 1.72 1.59
Other 10.1 5.0 20 1.1 2.09 7.7 12.5 11.72 7.81
Paper 30.3 20.4 40.1 25.8 29.87
Mixed paper 12.7 5.0 20 1.1 2.09 10.4 15.0 13.31 10.08
Computer print 2.2 1.7 9 0.6 2.31 0.9 3.5 0.93 1.23
Office paper 2.5 1.9 7 0.7 2.45 0.7 4.2 0.40 0.97
Newsprint 4.9 3.3 20 0.7 2.09 3.4 6.5 5.95 5.40
Corrugated 8.0 6.3 20 1.4 2.09 5.0 10.9 5.21 12.19
Metal 7.5 3.8 11.2 11.52 6.61
Ferrous cans 2.0 1.3 20 0.3 2.09 1.4 2.6 3.00 1.44
Other ferrous 3.2 3.1 15 0.8 2.14 1.5 4.9 5.38 3.25
Aluminum cans 1.5 1.3 20 0.3 2.09 0.9 2.1 2.01 1.34
Aluminum foil 0.3 0.5 7 0.2 2.45 0.0 0.7 0.44 –
Other aluminum 0.5 0.4 6 0.2 2.57 0.0 0.9 0.69 0.58
Food 10.3 6.0 20 1.3 2.09 7.5 13.2 6.88 7.73
Wood 3.9 5.1 17 1.2 2.12 1.3 6.5 5.46 3.68
Textiles 8.6 8.0 20 1.8 2.09 4.8 12.3 4.97 11.57
Organics 19.6 12.1 19 2.8 2.10 13.8 25.4 18.90 23.29
a
MSA1 – Brownsville, Harlingen, and San Benito.
b
MSA2 – McAllen, Mission, and Edinburg.

organics fraction is [13.8, 29.0]% in the Valley reflecting
yard waste production at the local level, which shares sim-
ilar percentages with national and state averages, which are
is 12% and 20%, respectively. As the management options
or technology metrics have extended from landfilling
toward incineration, recycling, and composting at the local
scale, the differences in plastic content and organics frac-
tion among local cities, state, and national averages are
important enough to warrant the costs associated with
the conduct of a local waste characterization study.
4.2. Chemical characteristics and profile
The chemical characterization study was performed on a
dry basis since the samples involved measuring moisture
content. It was therefore necessary to adjust the percent-
ages back to the corresponding levels on a wet basis since
all MSW treatment and disposal processes should consider
its moist natural state. As seen in Tables 3 and 4, the ulti-
mate analysis covers six elements, including carbon (C),
hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), chlorine (Cl), sulfur (S), and
oxygen (O). Information on moisture content and C/N
ratio may contribute to the assessment of composting
potential, while the ash content and LHV may be used to
assess the appropriateness of incineration. High heating
value can then be estimated based on the measurements
of LHV and moisture content.
Tables 3 and 4 also show some dissonance in the chem-
ical content, moisture, and heating value among the 10 cit-
ies, as well as between the MSA1 and MSA2. Because a
great portion of the waste stream is combustible, it is no
surprise that the largest elements found are carbon and
oxygen, at 45.4% and 32.7%, respectively. Sulfur, chlorine,
and nitrogen form approximately 2% of the sub-sample on
a wet basis in totality. Applying the t-statistic with respect
to the ultimate analysis data would enable us to develop a
95% confidence interval for the average values. Both tables
also portray the 95% confidence intervals. They include
moisture [14.7, 21.6]%, ash [4.9, 7.1]%, C[37.9, 43.3]%,
H[5.4, 5.9]%, S[0.5, 0.6]%, N[0.2, 0.5]%, Cl[0.3, 0.9]%,
and O[30.1, 36.0]% in this analysis. Lastly, LHV ranges
from 3257 to 5846 kcal/kg, with an average of
4142.4 kcal/kg. Moisture content is slightly lower than
the national average, and significantly lower than what
can be seen in Asia and some European countries (Chang
et al., 1998). This could result from the long-term drought
conditions that prevail in the South Texas region.
Tables 3 and 4 also list an important design parameter –
heating value. The laboratory data was originally reported
on a dry basis, meaning the energy content entailed a
HHV since it represents the energy content that is available
for extraction after the samples were dried. It is worthwhile
mentioning that the waste stream in MSA2 has a relatively
higher energy content than that in MSA1. On average, the
784 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794

Fig. 4. MSW characterization 95% confidence interval material percentages of 10 LRGV cities.

Table 3
Laboratory results for the cities of San Juan, Pharr, Edinburg, McAllen, and Mission (%) except LHV (kcal/kg) on a wet basis
Analysis San Juan Pharr Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
McAllen Edinburg Mission Avgerage
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 –
a
Carbon 42.38 33.98 40.93 42.44 43.31 39.49 40.70 45.60 38.16 43.60 41.81
Hydrogenb 6.18 5.02 5.92 5.88 6.27 5.62 5.92 5.99 5.79 5.67 5.88
Nitrogenc 0.80 0.15 0.16 0.63 0.60 0.09 0.54 0.25 0.26 0.15 0.31
Chlorined 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.77 0.25 0.10 0.66 0.42 0.86 1.58 0.65
Sulfure 0.62 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.58 0.58 0.59
Oxygenf 32.71 34.25 30.48 38.22 22.25 29.58 26.84 27.38 26.04 26.47 26.43
Moistureg 9.82 16.50 15.60 5.48 18.90 17.90 20.20 12.30 20.00 16.80 17.68
Ashh 7.31 9.50 5.95 5.98 7.77 6.66 4.56 7.45 8.30 5.15 6.65
LHVi 4393 3470 3808 3910 4724 3257 4461 4667 3648 3580 4056
a
ASTM D5291.
b
ASTM D5291.
c
US EPA 351.2 M.
d
US EPA 300 M.
e
ASTM D5291.
f
Calculation.
g
ASTM D2216 M
h
ASTM E830.
i
ASTM D240.
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794 785

Table 4
Laboratory results for the cities of Harlingen, Alamo, San Benito, Brownsville, and Weslaco (%) except LHV (kcal/kg) on a wet basis
Analysis Alamo Weslaco Metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
Brownsville Harlingen San Benito Avgerage
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 –
a
Carbon 37.90 54.34 46.30 39.76 39.71 30.39 42.49 41.58 41.87 26.79 37.14
Hydrogenb 5.76 5.74 6.05 5.41 5.81 4.51 5.67 5.90 5.80 4.00 5.28
Nitrogenc 0.23 0.16 1.08 0.59 0.08 0.77 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.31 0.27
Chlorined 0.16 0.13 0.06 0.59 0.10 0.46 2.89 0.22 0.67 1.74 1.01
Sulfure 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.52 0.59 0.45 0.56 0.61 0.54 0.37 0.52
Oxygenf 25.53 22.75 24.77 25.23 25.89 24.46 31.71 28.04 35.24 23.33 28.11
Moistureg 26.40 12.50 17.90 22.50 22.90 26.60 11.30 16.50 13.50 39.80 21.77
Ashh 3.43 3.80 3.26 5.40 4.93 12.37 5.27 6.89 2.27 3.66 5.90
LHVi 3902 5294 4676 5846 4481 3201 3932 4384 3621 3590 3868
a
ASTM D5291.
b
ASTM D5291.
c
US EPA 351.2 M.
d
US EPA 300 M.
e
ASTM D5291.
f
calculation.
g
ASTM D2216 M.
h
ASTM E830.
i
ASTM D240.

MSW moisture content in MSA1 is 4% higher than that in
MSA2. Hence, the difference in moisture content might par-
tially account for the difference in HHV (i.e., 190 kcal/kg)
between these two MSAs. The implication here is that
Hidalgo County might benefit the most from an incineration
plant if the trends of low moisture and slightly higher paper
content hold consistently. Under typical operating condi-
tions, an incinerator or a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) combus-
tion plant would be faced with a moist MSW feedstock in the
sense that LHV should be used for both the planning and the
design of the engineering processes. Thus, there is a need to
convert HHV into LHV by the means of a calculation that
can be found in Rhyner et al. (1995). It states below:
LHVc ¼ HHV ðMJ=kgÞ
 0:0244 ðMoisture þ 9 HydrogenÞ MJ=kg
In Eq. (1), Moisture and Hydrogen are two parameters
representing percentages of the water and elemental hydro-
gen on a dry basis, respectively. LHVc represents the LHV
of combustible material by carrying a subscript ‘‘c’’. Con-
verting Eq. (1) into kcal/kg requires 239 kcal per 1 MJ,
and the final step is to adjust its value to the original sam-
ple that held inert material. The key assumption is that
inert material will not add or remove heat in the combus-
tion process. Eq. (2) was thus used to normalize its value
to the sample weight and obtain a more accurate represen-
tation of LHV in the waste stream as follows:
LHV ¼ ðLHVc Þð%CombustibleÞ þ ðLHVI Þ
 ð%InertÞ=100% kcal=kg
where ‘‘%Combustible’’ stands for the fraction that is not
inert, while ‘‘%Inert’’ stands for the fraction of inert mate-
rials, such as glass and metal, present in the waste stream.
By using the aforementioned assumption that inert materi-
als do not provide any energy content (LHVI = 0), the
LHV is reduced by the total fraction of combustible mate-
rial available in each sample. The laboratory analysis also
conforms to the fact that the inert materials would not
yield any heating value since temperatures in a bomb calo-
rimeter could be insufficient to oxidize the inert materials.
In fact, inert materials represent items that would prove
difficult to be ground into a powder-like substance for
lab analysis. As a consequence, the HHV was attained
from a mass representing the combustibles in the sample
only. Following a rigorous laboratory analysis, the HHV
and LHV averages for the LRGV were 4551.5 and
4142.4 kcal/kg, respectively. However, the national average
places the heating value of MSW around 3100 kcal/kg,
although it is not specified whether it is HHV or LHV
ð1Þ (GAA, 1997). If it is the LHV, the final LHV average in
the Valley is 1000 kcal/kg, which is higher than the national
average. These differences of energy content among local
cities, state, and national averages also show the impor-
tance of conducting a local waste characterization study.
In order to test the validity of the LHV data, alternate
empirical formulae were utilized to generate HHVs and
LHVs for comparison (Khan and Abu Ghrarah, 1991).
They are as below:
HHV ¼ 0:399 Carbon þ 1:44 Hydrogen
 0:139 Oxygen þ 0:105 Sulfur ð3Þ
HHV ¼ 0:3279 Carbon þ 1:504 Hydrogen
 0:1383 Oxygen  0:1484 Chlorine
ð2Þ þ 0:09262 Sulfur þ 0:02419 Nitrogen ð4Þ
where HHV is in MJ/kg and total Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxy-
gen, Chlorine, Sulfur, and Nitrogen represent percentage
values on a dry basis. When Eqs. (3) and (4) were derived,
elemental composition and thermochemical principles were
786 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
used to isolate possible lab instrumentation error (Rhyner
et al., 1995). This increases credibility of these formulae.
According to Eqs. (3) and (4), the LHV averages in the
Valley are 4191.5 and 4121.8 kcal/kg, respectively, when
using the ultimate analysis data obtained in the laboratory
analysis as the statistical model inputs. This implies that
there were no measurement errors of bomb calorimeter
operation in this ultimate analysis, and it reflects a physical
reason, such as low moisture and high plastic content, for
the presence of such high LHVs in the Valley. This finding
leads to an answer to the question: ‘‘would the heating val-
ues of MSW be high enough in this region to sustain a
WTE program?’’ In general, WTE plants receiving a waste
stream with an LHV of 2390 kcal/kg, can produce approx-
imately 550 kWh per ton of waste, which is equivalent to a
saving of 190 l (50 gal) of gasoline per ton of waste (Chang,
2000). As a consequence, the incineration option is there-
fore favored in the Valley.
5. Statistical analysis
More statistical analyses may be performed to answer
the rest of the questions: ‘‘would the heating values of
MSW be affected by concurrent recycling programs region
wide?’’ and ‘‘would it be necessary to distinguish manage-
ment strategies between MSA1 and MSA2?’’ The following
statistical regression analyses exploring correlations
between the heating values, the physical composition, and
the chemical content would provide a firm basis to answer
the above two questions.
5.1. PDF identification with K–S test
When dealing with the uncertainty, it would be worth-
while to know, once and for all, the probability density
function (PDF) for some waste components with recycling
potential, such as paper, plastic, and food waste. This
may help characterize the patterns of waste components
individually in the MSW stream region wide. In essence,
whether or not a particular waste component may exhibit
a normal, lognormal, or other distribution by way of good-
ness-of-fit procedures, such as the Kolmogorov–Smirnov
goodness-of-fit test (K–S test), may be important for waste
management in several aspects. They may aid in a simula-
tion analysis, such as Monte Carlo simulation, leading to
support some engineering designs of waste management
facilities, such as MRFs, with respect to its reliability on
one hand. They may be used to formulate a meaningful
source reduction and household recycling program with
respect to the inherent uncertainty on the other hand. It
may affect all of the regression practices down the road if
the repressors in relation to these three recyclables are
proved statistically different.
Environmental data is often found to be lognormally
distributed (Powers et al., 2003). The focus now is whether
the solid waste data is lognormal or normal distribution.
Fig. 5 shows the log transformation of the percentage value
of plastic, paper, and food plotted against an assumed nor-
mal distribution. The null hypothesis is that the lognor-
mally transformed food, paper, and plastic data do not
follow the normal distribution. In the goodness-of fit test
for the identification of PDF, the K–S test was conducted
to determine if one can reject the null hypothesis that there
is no relationship between the idealized normal distribution
and the lognormally transformed solid waste data set. This
implies if the log transformations of the data were used in
the K–S test, and if a non-significant test result was found,
then the log-transformed data would not have a normal
distribution and the original data would not have a lognor-
mal distribution. This rationale would be consistent when
using different assumed probability distribution for trans-
formation (i.e., other than lognormal distribution).
The field data showed a skewed-to-the-left tendency that
gave the first indication that the data was lognormal. After
running the K–S test, the critical D-statistic was used to
determine how closely related the data was to a normal dis-
tribution. The critical D statistic for n = 20 is 0.294. Since
all D-statistics for the datasets are below the value, all
appear to adhere to a normal distribution based on a log-
normal transformation of the original dataset (Sheskin,
2000). Table 5 suggests that while all D-statistics reject
the null hypothesis, the probability p suggests that the plas-
tic and paper are lognormally distributed. But the food
borders between normal and lognormal distributions since
the D-statistics shows relatively weak evidence in full sup-
port of the lognormal distribution.
Uncertainty surrounding the food parameter can be
attributed to the fact that the log-food parameter has a lar-
ger standard deviation and hence a higher variance than
the other log-parameters. However, since the food closely
exhibits lognormal tendencies, it will be considered to have
a lognormal distribution along with the plastic and paper,
which exhibit strong lognormal tendencies. The fact that
p > 0:05 suggests that the results are not statistically signif-
icant, meaning the larger the probability the less the null
hypothesis might be true. Overall, in comparison to other
solid waste characterization studies in the literature, the
current study shares the finding that lognormal distribu-
tions prevail for some physical solid waste characterization
parameters (Chang et al., 1998).
5.2. Multiple linear regression analyses-LHV model
derivation
A multiple linear regression (MLR) model using plastic,
paper, and food as independent variables (regressors) and
low heating value (LHV) as a dependent variable helps
determine the component contribution towards predicting
the LHV of the LRGV solid waste. In order to fully under-
stand and appreciate the regression model, one must con-
centrate on what properties of the estimators are
dependent on which assumptions. In the simple or multiple
linear regression models, the random error term must be a
random variable, assumed to be normally distributed with
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794 787

Fig. 5. Histogram and normal curve used for determination of (a) plastic, (b) paper, (c) food random variable distributions.

Table 5
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results for the plastic, paper, and food parameters in the LRGV
Var Normal parameters Most extreme differences z-Stat p
Mean r D-Stat Positive Negative
Plastic 19.1 6.7 0.158 0.158 0.088 0.707 0.700
Paper 27.5 10.5 0.145 0.145 0.065 0.650 0.793
Food 10.3 6.0 0.132 0.132 0.078 0.589 0.878
ln plastic 2.90 0.341 0.127 0.127 0.082 0.568 0.903
ln paper 3.25 0.379 0.111 0.072 0.111 0.495 0.967
ln food 2.17 0.637 0.135 0.079 0.135 0.602 0.862
n (number of samples) = 20.

an expected value of zero and homogeneous variance. Tra-
ditional linear regression models assume that all of the inde-
pendent variables are non-random so that least square
estimators are unbiased when performing the minimization
of the residual sum of squares. As a result, the maximum
likelihood estimators of the regression coefficients are the
least squares estimators if one is willing to make the normal
theory assumption. The findings through PDF identifica-
tion for three designated independent variables, however,
would affect regression analysis. The PDF identification,
to which we eluded in advance, outlines all independent
variables (regressors) as random variables rather than fixed
values, and thus the error terms should not be random vari-
ables with normal distribution in the regression analysis. It
is noteworthy that the properties of the least squares estima-
tors are stronger (uniformly minimum variance unbiased)
when the errors are normal than when they are not normal.
If the independent variables in this study do not follow the
distributional properties in normal theory, then non-stan-
dard conditions have to be taken into account. An impor-
788 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794

tant unified approach to the linear model, and hence regres-
sion, was introduced by Nelder and Wedderburn (1972).
The emphasis was placed on a general family of error distri-
butions for fitting linear regression models, such as the
GLM, which would allow for considerable ease in identify-
ing unbiased estimators. Since the presence of outliers might
result in the failure of the normality assumption, outlier
detection could be influential. While heterogeneous vari-
ance and multicollinearity are highly unlikely to occur in
this regression practice, measurement errors in the repressor
variables are not considered owing to the rigorous Quality
Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures in
both the sampling and laboratory analysis. In summary,
further investigation of the selection of estimators and out-
liers detection is therefore needed.
Although the physical composition analysis may directly
support the assessment of material recovery, curbside recy-
cling, and composting, the energy content (i.e., heating
value) derived from bomb calorimeter tests may greatly
support the investigation of incineration potential. Because
the energy content is affected by moisture and component
composition of the MSW, the general question becomes
‘‘how does one inform the other.’’ Finding the functional
relationship between energy content and physical composi-
tion, especially for recyclables, is crucial from an operating
standpoint since it connects the thermal content to the
recycling operation of the waste. To answer this question,
MLR analysis is used to determine how energy content
and waste components are related.
The process begins with the detection of outlier points in
the data. As previously stated, the HHV (and thus LHV as
well) in the Valley is higher than the US average MSW heat
value This gives an indication that some points might exert a
strong influence towards the high end of the energy content
scale. Given that the MLR analysis attempts to connect the
LHV to a number of regressors, such as plastic, paper, and
food content, the 20 LHV values are evaluated for outlier
detection using the box approach. Table 6 lays out the pro-
cess by which the box diagram is built in order to set up
fences within suspected outliers. This exercise leads to
Fig. 6, which allows for a graphical insight of the location
of the LHV outliers. By referencing Table 6 and Fig. 6
together, two values (3200.7 and 5846.4 kcal/kg) are identi-
fied as suspect outliers and none of them are highly suspect
outliers. While the tabular data identifies the values and the
box diagram shows the relationship of the data to the fence
values, it takes a scatter plot to pinpoint and eliminate
another two likely outliers. The spread in Fig. 7 shows a gen-
eral trend toward a gradual increase in LHV as plastic con-
tent increases in the samples. Following the general trend
line and its 95% confidence interval bands, one can confirm
that the points corresponding to LHVs of 3257.4 and
5294.1 kcal/kg can be eliminated possibly by inspection.
Finally, we would like to explore the recycling impacts
of paper, plastics, and food on LHV. The effect of the
remaining items, which are not included as regressors, will
have a synergistic effect on the intercept term in such a
regression analyses. The final dataset prepared for regres-
sion practice is summarized in Appendix B. The maximum
likelihood procedure can be generalized to cover all of the
distributions that fall into the exponential family of distri-
butions. The software package SPSS was used as a com-
puter solver. The final MLR models used to predict LHV
in the LRGV waste stream is as follows:
LHV ¼ 4809:5 Plastic  568:4 Paper  2205:9 Food
þ 3510:7 kcal=kg ð5Þ
where Plastic, Paper, and Food refer to their respective
fraction in the MSW stream. Table 7 summarizes the fitting
of the model parameters alongside analysis of variance

Table 6
Box and whisker approach for detection of outliers in LHV dependent variable
n LHV n LHV Var Name Equation Value
1 3200.7 11 3932.4 Median 3921.4
2 3257.3 12 4384.4 LQ Lower quartile Median N = 1–10 3605.9
3 3469.8 13 4393.0 UQ Upper quartile Median N = 10–20 4573.8
4 3579.7 14 4460.6 IQR Inter quartile range LQ  IQ 967.9
5 3590.3 15 4480.8 LIF L. inner fence IQR  1.5 · LQ 2154.0
6 3621.4 16 4666.7 UIF U. inner fence IQR + 1.5 · UQ 6025.6
7 3648.3 17 4676.5 LOF L. outer fence IQR  3 · LQ 702.2
8 3808.0 18 4724.2 UOF U. outer fence IQR+3 · UQ 7477.4
9 3902.2 19 5294.1 LW L. whisker 1st Val above LIF 3200.7
10 3910.4 20 5846.4 UW U. whisker 1st Val below UIF 5846.4

Fig. 6. Box and whisker plot for LHV outlier detection.

 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
Fig. 7. Scatter plot approach to outlier detection verification on plastic
independent variable.
(ANOVA) and associated significance of regressors on
these MLR models. The R2 value (=0.545) shows a moder-
ate correlation among the parameters, and the adjusted R2
value (=0.568) shows that approximately 56.8% of the var-
iation is explained by the model. Using the significance for
the predictor column values, the most striking observation
is that the plastic regressor plays a more significant role in
the final model while the paper regressor holds the least sig-
nificance to the model. Overall, the variance in the MLR
model is largely attributed to plastic content. From an
operations standpoint, the plastics component offers a
dry fuel when compared to paper and food. Food by virtue
has a moisture level near or above 50%, while paper would
likely absorb or retain more water on its surface than plas-
tics. Yet the negative sign of paper cannot be justified
appropriately in the model. The sign convention in MLR
models is inherently a long-standing issue in statistical the-
ory so that the paper content had better be treated as an
average value in the analysis. If we plug in the correspond-
ing average value of paper content (i.e., 22.95%), making
the predictive capacity of paper collapse back to the inter-
cept term, the modified model would become:
LHV ¼ 4809:5 Plastic  2205:9 Food
þ 3380:2 kcal=kg
By the same token, the following equation may be used for
the assessment of recycling impact with respect to plastic
Table 7
Multiple linear regression analysis results
Model review Unstandardized
R2 Adjusted R2 Predictor Coefficients, b
0.545 0.432 Constant 3510.65
ANOVA Plastic 4809.47
F Significance Paper 568.40
4.80 0.020 Food 2205.86
789
content only given that the average value of food content
(i.e., 9.83%) in the waste stream can be used.
LHV ¼ 4809:5 Plastic þ 3163:4 kcal=kg ð7Þ
5.3. Recycling impact assessment
Plastic products may be accessed by employing all ele-
ments of resource conservation through their entire life cycle
to optimize their utility. Yet plastic recycling is still a rela-
tively new and developing field of recycling. For instance,
cities may develop, promote, and implement the original
use and subsequent recovery, reuse, and recycling of poly-
styrene loose fill, commonly known as ‘‘packing peanuts.’’
Cities may also foster a variety of opportunities for post-
industrial Low Density Poly Ethylene (LDPE), High Den-
sity Poly Ethylene (HDPE), and Polypropylene (PP) plastics
reprocessing. Recyclers can buy clean scrap in all forms
(bales, film, regrind, parts, etc.), then repelletize, post-blend
pellets, package in lined gaylords, and sell to manufacturers
of plastic products. For instance, HDPE #2 plastic used to
make milk jugs and detergent bottles can be recycled by a
pretty simple process. The bales are broken apart and the
material is ground into small flakes about 1 cm; these flakes
are then washed and floated to remove any heavy contami-
nants which are sinkable. This cleaned flake is then dried in a
stream of hot air, and may be boxed and sold in that form.
More sophisticated plastic plants may reheat these flakes,
add pigment to change the color, and run the material
through a pelletizer to form little beads of plastic that can
then be reused in injection molding presses to create new
plastic products. If the plastic recycling program can be pro-
moted and implemented in the Valley, the recycling impact
on heating value would be of concern.
But the question left is, ‘‘would the heating values of
MSW be affected by concurrent recycling programs region
wide?’’ Without new equations derived and tailored to fit in
the local situation n the Valley, such as Eqs. (6) and (7),
however, an impasse in quantitative recycling assessment
looms. Based on Appendix B in this paper, it is known that
the average plastic content in the waste stream is around
20% of the total in the Valley. Assume that the inorganic
fraction increases and all the other percentages of combus-
tible fractions remain when recycling of plastic takes place.
With the aid of Eq. (7), Table 8 lists the simulation outputs
ð6Þ
that compare the increasing recycling effort against the
decreasing trend of LHV. Pushing further into the mind
is that the recycling efforts would not diminish the potential
Standardized
Standard error Coefficients, b t-Stat Significance
329.56 10.65 0.000
1296.78 0.767 3.71 0.003
805.70 0.146 0.71 0.494
1532.96 0.291 1.44 0.176
790 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
Table 8
Impact of recycling on heating value
Scenario Recycling Resultant recycling content LHV (kcal/
effort (%) kg)
1 10 18 4029.1
2 20 16 3932.9
3 30 14 3836.7
4 40 12 3740.5
5 50 10 3644.3
of incineration option significantly since the lowest LHV
might still be up to 3644.3 kcal/kg.
With the prior knowledge of C/N ratio between 86 and
189 based on the 95% confidence interval statistically, a
composting program would also become a feasible option.
On the other hand, recycling of food content can be prac-
ticed by a simulation approach using the equations above
with the inclusion of food content. This is also true for
the other recyclables, such as plastics. Recycled food waste
can be delivered to the existing compost plant in Browns-
ville if a MRF or an independent household and/or com-
mercial food waste recycling channel can be properly
designed and operated to support this activity. Such recy-
cling projects by nature weaken the waste disposal crisis
in the long run, albeit there is a long way to go.
6. Management strategies
At present, almost 100% of waste is landfilled, while a
small portion of the waste stream is recycled (preferably
by material type) and composted in the Valley. If there
are no recycling programs in place in the LRGV cities, then
it is important for waste managers to know what percent-
age of recyclables is in the waste stream and what percent-
age of these recyclables is marketable – this might mean
breaking down plastics, for example, by type into those
that have a market for recycling and those that do not.
The breakdown in Table 2 with respect to glass, plastic,
and paper would help in designing a new recycling program
and estimating costs and revenues for those cities which are
not yet involved in recycling. If cities, such as Harlingen
and McAllen, have had recycling programs in place
already, such a waste characterization study could provide
valuable information by identifying the capture rates in
recycling centers (e.g., the amount of recyclable paper that
is left in the mixed waste stream compared to the amount
of paper being collected for recycling). This will help in
determining whether education campaigns or other mea-
sures are needed to improve the capture rates in the Valley.
Given that regionalization may be a cost-effective man-
agement policy, the waste characterization study for both
MSAs groupwise may contribute to the generation of
insightful management strategies on a regional scale (Baetz
et al., 1989; Chang and Wang, 1996; Huang et al., 2001).
The MSAs in Cameron and Hidalgo counties are used as
reference points for discussing specific differences in the
waste stream characteristics. Table 2 also shows the com-
ponent average in each of the MSAs in question. Compar-
isons between the local MSW database built from the
physical characterization and data provided by higher lev-
els of government show that the local data falls around
established trends. While this provides a much needed ver-
ification of the findings, regional planners would hope to
contrast neighboring trends. Variations of some waste
materials, such as paper, glass, metal, and plastics between
these two MSAs in the Valley are significant when compar-
ing those average values. This reflects the difference in
terms of recycling potential at least. Yet the power of devel-
oping interval numbers at the local sub-category level to
describe the general regional patterns in this study shapes
the notion that there are no major differences between
the metropolitan areas in terms of composition, except
when it comes to corrugated cardboard and textiles. Cloth-
ing, however, was more prevalent in the MSA1, than the
MSA2. This is indicative of the local second hand clothing
market that exports large volumes of used clothing to ready
markets in Mexico and deposits the residues in the local
waste stream. This process involves bringing bales of cloth-
ing from distributors across the US to warehouses where
distribution occurs. As a byproduct of stagnant inventory,
some of this used clothing finds its way into landfills. In
fact, field operators in the Brownsville landfill expressed a
deep concern that many municipal trucks with routes in
the metropolitan downtown area carry a noticeable volume
of textiles that end up in the landfill. The question left is,
‘‘are these differences statistically significant among these
two MSAs?’’ If they are, is there a policy implication with
respect to different choices for the two MSAs in their selec-
tion of waste management strategies?
Accordingly, the z statistical inference test was con-
ducted with regard to paper, plastic, and food content
across these two MSAs for answering the above questions.
The hypothesis-testing procedure involves the means, pro-
portions, and variances of two different population distri-
butions. Suppose both sample population distributions
are normal after log transformation and that the values
of both corresponding variances after log transformation
are known, the z test procedure can be applied. Because
the sample population distributions after log transforma-
tion are normal, both log X and log Y have normal distri-
butions (i.e., X and Y could be paper, plastic, or food
content in the waste stream). This implies that
log X  log Y is normally distributed, with expected value
log l1  log l2 (i.e., an unbiased estimator of ffilog X 
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r21 r2
log Y Þ and standard deviation rlog X log Y ¼ m þ n2 where
m and n are sample size of log X and log Y and r21 and r22
are variances of log X and log Y . Table 9 lists the informa-
tion and outputs of the z test for all waste contents
involved. In the hypothesis-testing problem, the null
hypothesis is, ‘‘there is no difference of solid waste streams
in these two MSAs.’’ In the end, the hypothesis-test shows
there is no strong evidence to support a separate treatment
of waste streams in the MSA1 and the MSA2.
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
Table 9
Impact of recycling on heating value
Paper (%) Plastic (%)
MSA1 (X ) MSA2 (Y ) MSA1 (X )
Mean value 29.87 25.8 16.60
log (Mean value) 1.47 1.41 1.22
log X  log Y 0.06 0.10
Variance of logðX Þ and logðY Þ r1 = 0.18 r2 = 0.16 r1 = 0.52
Sample size m n m n
6 6 6 6
rlog X log Y 0.09 0.21
z-Test statistic value 0.61 0.46
Reject null hypothesis at level 0.01 no no
7. Policy analysis
The analysis indicates that the incineration option is bol-
stered by mildly high heating values across 10 cities in this
region, which may lead to save landfill space required for
final disposal and increase net electricity generation in such
a rapidly-expanding region. Waste incineration programs
may be configured for the MSA1 and the MSA2 separately
because of the shipping distance in between. The stand alone
incinerator in each MSA can be used to directly support any
local industry that needs less costly electricity because of the
rising energy prices. The physical and ultimate analyses can
provide better information for alternate disposal options
such as MRFs and composting facilities, while the WTE
potential becomes evidently clear due to mildly high heating
values of MSW in the LRGV. However, overall technical
and economic feasibility needs to be further analyzed in
future research. This means the ‘‘potential’’ of WTE would
not be limited to the HHV/LLV and ash content analyses
and their effect on combustion. Due to the economy of scale,
however, a common MRF shared by these two MSAs could
be encouraged in the future if more mandatory recycling
programs and drop-off centers are sited across the Valley.
Yet education campaigns or other measures are needed to
improve the capture rate. Although various forms of incin-
eration are widely used for waste management, there has
been increased public debate in the last several decades over
the expected benefits mentioned above and the potential risk
to human health that might result from the emission of pol-
lutants generated by the incineration process. A compatibil-
ity assessment between recycling and incineration must be
performed in the future if both alternatives are to be
included in the integrated solid waste management system
(Chang and Chang, 2003). Advanced analyses of the
expected benefits and the potential health risk of waste
incineration through such compatibility studies may lead
to avoid substantial polarization of opinions with respect
to regulatory decisions about incineration facilities. Some
might be concerned that the chemical characterization study
did not include a breakdown of heavy metals in the waste
stream (mercury, lead, etc.) since these are known to be
some of the most serious pollution problems associated with
incinerators. The drop-off station in Harlingen, however,
has a battery recovery program that can be enlarged to meet
the battery recovery needs throughout the Valley and pre-
791
Food (%) LHV (kcal/kg)
MSA2 (Y ) MSA1 (X ) MSA2 (Y ) MSA1 (X ) MSA2 (Y )
20.87 7.73 6.88 3,868 4,056
1.32 0.88 0.84 3.59 3.61
0.04 0.02
r2 = 0.11 r1 = 0.33 r2 = 0.12 r1 = 0.05 r2 = 0.06
m n m n
6 6 6 6
0.14 0.03
0.28 0.63
no no
vent the sources of heavy metals from entering the waste
stream directly. Nowadays, the semi-dry plus fabric filter
process for air pollution control is able to remove most of
the mercury in the flue gas. Advanced gasification processes
for waste management may even help reduce the pollution
impact and increase energy recovery potential simulta-
neously (Björklund et al., 2001; Malkow, 2004).
Besides, operation of municipal solid waste landfills as
bioreactors offers significant economic, environmental, and
societal benefits (Price et al., 2003; He et al., 2005; Berge
et al., 2006; Olivier and Gourc, in press). However, guide-
lines for the design, operation, and monitoring of bioreactor
landfills are scant. When this option becomes mature, future
option should include this alternative to conserve more land-
fill space over time. Bioenergy production, considering input
materials such as solid and liquid residuals from domestic,
industrial, or agricultural origin, may be encouraged to pro-
mote environmental sustainability. Research to examine and
advance both fundamental process understanding and engi-
neering applications of bioenergy production and bioreactor
landfill systems should be promoted in the future. The solid
waste database created will be beneficial to many companion
studies in the Valley (Chang and Davila, 2006). It will also
make this region a logical place for a scientific examination
of the linkages between waste management, the regional
population growth, and the policies that might govern them
in the future.
8. Conclusion
This analysis provides local decision makers with an
opportunity to weigh alternate MSW options alongside
important solid waste management strategies and policies
for the LRGV region. For the first time in the South Texas
region, local governments have the results of a critical anal-
ysis of the MSW properties at their disposal sites. The reli-
ance of national and state data can skew local dynamics,
which can be best captured by site-specific solid waste char-
acterization studies. This was made possible by providing
the necessary field survey data with an effective sampling
campaign and laboratory analysis to build a fundamental
understanding of the physical and chemical properties in
the waste stream. A series of models describing the linear
correlation between plastic, paper, and food indicators
and predicted heating value of the MSW stream were dem-
792 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794

onstrated to be helpful for the assessment of the impact of
recycling on incineration projects. In the end, the hypothe-
sis-test shows that there is no strong evidence to support a
separate treatment of waste streams in the MSA1 and the
MSA2. With such a thorough waste characterization and
systems analysis, planners and decision makers would be
able to relate waste composition to cost and benefit trade-
offs supporting situation assessment, conducting short-term
and long-term planning, and creating effective management
strategies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support from the Cities of Edinburg, Harlingen and Mis-
sion who made this study possible. We would also like to
thank the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San
Antonio, Texas for its chemical analysis and data report-
ing, especially Mike Dammon and Radonna Spies. The
physical characterization would also not be possible with-
out the intense effort put forth by: Annette Hernandez, Ja-
vier Guerrero, Gomathishanker Parvathinathan,
Srilakshmi Kanth Ramaraju, Preetham Thotakuri, Surya
Phalaguna, Aloke Mohanlal, Andi Setiady Ko, Rajendra
Kondapalli, and William Prasad Arya. The authors also
thank the seven other cities and their public work staffs
in the Valley for their support in coordinating this great
undertaking. The authors also are grateful for the invalu-
able comments presented by anonymous referees of this
paper.

Appendix A. Sample characterization log for the city of San Juan, Texas (USA)

Day/Date: 4/15/2005 Collection Co: San Juan

Day/Date: 4/13/2005 Collection Co: San Juan Site: Ed LF Vehicle type: Automatic residential
Site: Ed LF Vehicle type: Automatic residential Weather: Hot/Windy Route No: Truck 12
Weather: Hot Route No: N/A Recorded By: Eric Davila
Recorded By: Ahernandez
Component Weight in lbs Percent of total (%)
Component Weight in lbs Percent of total (%)
Gross Tare
Gross Tare
Mixed paper 53.9 4.7 21.83
Mixed paper 58 37 17.90
High grade paper
High grade paper Computer printout 6.0 4.3 2.15
Computer printout 11.8 8.8 4.26 Other office paper
Other office paper 5.8 2.8 1.35
Newsprint 11.3 8.3 4.15
Newsprint 6.6 3.6 1.74
Corrugated 30.0 21.5 10.74
Corrugated 62.2 41.2 19.93
Plastic
Plastic PET bottles 11.4 6.3 3.15
PET bottles 11.2 5.2 2.52 HDPE bottles 4.0 2.3 1.15
HDPE bottles 5.4 2.4 1.16
Foam 9.7 4.6 2.30
Foam 43.6 22.6 10.93 Other plastic 19.7 13.7 6.84
Other plastic 61.2 43.2 20.90
Food waste 28.5 25.5 12.74
Food waste 38.2 32.2 15.58
Wood 1.8 0.3 0.15
Wood
Other organics 41.5 35.5 17.73
Other organics
Ferrous
Ferrous Cans 4.2 2.27 1.35
Cans 0.97 0.47 Other ferrous 4.2 2.7 1.35
Other ferrous 3 1.45
Aluminum
Aluminum Cans 6.7 2.2 1.10
Cans 0.37 0.18 Foil
Foil 0.00 Other aluminum
Other aluminum 0.37 0.18
Glass Glass
Clear Clear 5.0 2.0 1.00
Brown 0.81 0.40 Brown 4.9 1.9 0.95
Green Green

Clothing 5.2 2.2 1.06 Clothing 25.7 22.7 11.34

Totals 309.2 206.73 Totals 268.5 200.2

Notes: Lab sample taken? Yes: X______ No: _____. Notes: Lab sample taken? Yes: X______ No: _____.
 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794 793

Appendix B. Dataset for regression practice Chang, N.B., Davila, E., 2006. Siting and routing assessment for solid
waste management under uncertainty using the grey minimax regret
criterion. Environmental Management 38, 654–672.
Set Cities Paper Plastic Food Wood LHV Chang, N.B., Wang, S.F., 1996. Solid waste management system analysis
(%) (%) (%) (%) (kcal/ by multi-objective mixed integer programming model. Journal of
kg) Environmental Management 48, 17–43.
Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.B., Chen, W.C., 1998. Systematic evaluation
1 San Juan 45.15 35.49 15.51 0 4393 and uncertainty analysis of the refuse derived fuel process in
2 San Juan 38.83 13.41 12.73 0.15 3470 Taiwan. Journal Air and Waste Management Association 48, 537–
3 Pharr 23.46 19.09 9.59 3.44 3808 544.
Davila, E., Chang, N.B., Diwakaluni, S., 2005. Dynamic landfill space
4 Pharr 24.08 15.47 13.66 3.54 3910 consumption assessment in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, South Texas
5 McAllen 27.23 27.12 4.94 3.93 4724 by GIP-based game theory. Journal of Environmental Management 75
6a McAllen 27.58 22.7 7.97 0.95 3257 (4), 353–366.
7 Edinburg 20.30 13.60 4.72 4.97 4461 Devore, J.L., 1995. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the
8 Edinburg 36.87 21.06 7.80 0.99 4667 Science. Duxbury Press, New York.
Forteza, R., Far, M., Segu, C., Cerda’, V., 2004. Characterization of
9 Mission 31.20 21.80 5.69 0.13 3648 bottom ash in municipal solid waste incinerators for its use in road
10 Mission 11.56 15.41 10.15 21.78 3580 base. Waste Management 24, 899–909.
11 Alamo 14.53 16.89 25.3 0.00 3902 Frey, H.H., Peters, B., Hunsinger, H., Vehlow, J., 2003. Characterization
12a Alamo 23.76 13.21 21.92 0.13 5294 of municipal solid waste combustion in a grate furnace. Waste
13 Weslaco 19.14 27.63 8.33 2.56 4676 Management 23, 689–701.
Government Advisory Associates, Inc. (GAA), 1997. The Municipal
14 Weslaco 25.65 20.04 12.12 5.28 5846 Waste Combustion Industry in the United States: 1997–98 Resource
15 Brownsville 34.58 28.64 15.58 0.00 4481 Recovery Yearbook & Directory. Westport, CT, USA.
16 Brownsville 19.02 14.05 11.73 0.31 3201 Garcı́a, A.J., Esteban, M.B., Márquez, M.C., Ramos, P., 2005. Biode-
17 Harlingen 53.78 15.12 3.25 5.29 3932 gradable municipal solid waste: characterization and potential use as
18 Harlingen 23.93 20.87 1.86 2.85 4384 animal feedstuffs. Waste Management 25, 780–787.
Gay, A.E., Beam, T.G., Mar, B.W., 1993. Cost effective solid waste
19 San Benito 31.03 9.56 5.60 7.99 3621 characterization methodology. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
20 San Benito 16.84 11.25 8.32 1.96 3590 ASCE 119 (4), 631–644.
a
These two dataset are deemed outliers that could be excluded for the Gidarakos, E., Havas, G., Ntzamilis, P., in press. Municipal solid waste
regression practice. composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste
management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management,
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.018.
Harlingen, 2006. <http://www.myharlingen.us/harlinge.htm>.
Hassen, A., Belguith, K., Jedidi, N., Cherif, A., Cherif, M., Boudabous,
References A., 2001. Microbial characterization during composting of municipal
solid waste. Bioresource Technology 80, 217–225.
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials), 2003. Standard Test He, R., Shen, D.S., Wang, J.Q., He, Y.H., Zhu, Y.M., 2005. Biological
Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed degradation of MSW in a methanogenic reactor using treated leachate
Municipal Solid Waste. Designation: D, pp. 5231–5292. recirculation. Process Biochemistry 40 (12), 3660–3666.
Baetz, B.W., Pas, E.I., Neebe, A.W., 1989. Trash management: sizing and Hervas, L., Mazuelos, C., Senesi, N., Saiz-Jimenez, C., 1989. Chemical
timing decisions for incineration and landfill facilities. Interfaces 19 (6), and physico-chemical characterization of vermicomposts and their
52–61. humic acid fractions. The Science of the Total Environment, 543–
Berge, N.D., Reinhart, D.R., Dietz, J., Townsend, T., 2006. In situ 550.
ammonia removal in bioreactor landfill leachate. Waste Management Huang, G.H., Sae-Lim, N., Liu, L., Chen, Z., 2001. An interval-parameter
26 (4), 334–343. fuzzy-stochastic programming approach for municipal solid waste
Björklund, A., Melaina, M., Keoleian, G., 2001. Hydrogen as a management and planning. Environmental Modeling and Assessment
transportation fuel produced from thermal gasification of municipal 6, 271–283.
solid waste: an examination of two integrated technologies. Interna- Ibáñez, R., Andrés, A., Viguri, J.R., Ortiz, I., Irabien, J.A., 2000.
tional Journal of Hydrogen Energy 26 (11), 1209–1221. Characterisation and management of incinerator wastes. Journal of
Boes, D.C., Graybill, F.A., Mood, A.M., 1974. Introduction to the Hazardous Materials A 79, 215–227.
Theory of Statistics, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Islam, M.N., Islam, M.N., Alam Beg, M.R., Islam, M.R., 2004. Pyrolytic
Brownsville, 2006. <http://publicworks.cob.us/composting.asp>. oil from fixed bed pyrolysis of municipal solid waste and its
Chang, N.B., 2000. Municipal Waste-to-Energy Process Design. second characterization. Renewable Energy 30, 413–420.
ed. Prosperity Bookstore, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese). Kathirvale, S., Yunus, M.N.M., Sopian, K., Samsuddin, A.H., 2003.
Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.B., 1998. Optimization analysis for the develop- Energy potential from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renewable
ment of short-term solid waste management strategies using presorting Energy 29, 559–567.
process prior to incinerator. Resources Conservation and Recycling Kaufman, S.M., Goldstein, N., Millrath, K., Themelis, N.J., 2004. The
24, 7–32. state of garbage in America. BioCycle 45 (1), 31.
Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.B., 2001. Regional shipping strategy assess- Khan, A.M.Z., Abu Ghrarah, Z.H., 1991. New approach for estimating
ment based on installing a refuse-derived-fuel process in a energy content of municipal solid waste. Journal of Environmental
municipal incinerator. Waste Management and Research 19, 504– Engineering, ASCE 117 (3), 376–380.
517. Lau, S.T., Cheung, W.H., Kwong, C.K., Wan, C.P., Choy, K.K.H.,
Chang, Y.H., Chang, N.B., 2003. Compatibility analysis of material and Leung, C.C., Porter, J.F., Huia, C.W., McKay, G., 2005. Removal of
energy recovery in a regional solid waste management system. Journal batteries from solid waste using trommel separation. Waste Manage-
Air and Waste Management Association 53, 32–40. ment 25, 1004–1012.
794 N.-B. Chang, E. Davila / Waste Management 28 (2008) 776–794
Li, M., Xiang, J., Hu, S., Sun, L.S., Su, S., Li, P.S., Sun, X.X., 2004.
Characterization of solid residues from municipal solid waste incin-
erator. Fuel 83, 1397–1405.
Lo Mastro, F., Mistretta, M., 2004. Cogeneration from thermal treatment
of selected municipal solid wastes. A stoichiometric model building for
the case study on Palermo. Waste Management 24 (3), 309–317.
Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council (LRGVDC), 2002.
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment 2002–2020. June
30, 2003.
Lower Rio Grande Development Council (LRGVDC), 2006. <http://
www.lrgvdc.org/solid_waste.html>, accessed by March 2006.
Malkow, T., 2004. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification
technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW
disposal. Waste Management 24 (1), 53–79.
Myers, R.H., 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications,
second ed. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston.
Nading, C., 2006. Personal communication.
Nelder, J.A., Wedderburn, R.W.M., 1972. Generalized linear models.
Journal of the Royal statistical Society, Series A 153, 370–384.
Ojeda-Benitez, S., de Vega, C.A., Ramirez-Barreto, M.E., 2003. Charac-
terization and quantification of household solid wastes in a Mexican
city. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 39, 211–222.
Olivier, F., Gourc, J.P., in press. Hydro-mechanical behavior of Municipal
Solid Waste subject to leachate recirculation in a large-scale compression
reactor cell. Waste Management, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.01.025.
Pascual, J.A., Ayuso, M., Garcia, C., Herna’ndez, T., 1997. Character-
ization of urban wastes according to fertility and phytotoxicity
parameters. Waste Management and Research 15, 103–112.
Pierson, E., 2004. Valley Could Run Out of Landfill Space in Coming
Decades, Reports Say. The Brownsville Herald.
Powers, S.E., Hurum, D., Peters, C., 2003. AEESP Environmental
Engineering Laboratory Manual. AEESP, Champaign, IL.
Price, G.A., Barlaz, M.A., Hater, G.R., 2003. Nitrogen management in
bioreactor landfills. Waste Management 23 (7), 675–688.
Rhyner, C.R., Schwartz, L.J., Wenger, R.B., Kohrell, M.G., 1995. Waste
Management and Resource Recovery. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
FL, USA.
Roussas, G., 1973. A First Course in Mathematical Statistics. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Ruppert, W.H., Bush, T.A., Verdonik, D.P., Geiman, J.A., 2004.
Harrison, MA Force Provider Solid Waste Characterization Study.
Hughes Associates Inc., Baltimore, MD. Aug 2004. 136p. Report:
NATICKTR-04/017.
Savage, G.M., Diaz, L.F., Golueke, C.G., 1985. Solid waste character-
ization. Biocycle 26 (8), 35–37.
Schwab, B.S., Ritchie, C.J., Kain, D.J., Dobrin, G.C., King, L.W.,
Palmisano, A.C., 1994. Characterization of compost from a pilot
plant-scale composter utilizing simulated soil waste. Waste Manage-
ment and Research 12, 289–303.
Senesi, N., Saiz-Jiminez, C., Miano, T.M., 1992. Spectroscopic charac-
terization of metal-humic acid-like complexes of earthworm-com-
posted organic. The Science of the Total Environment 117, 111–120.
Sheskin, D.J., 2000. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statis-
tical Procedures, second ed. Chapman & Hall CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Sørum, L., Grønli, M.G., Hustad, J.E., 2001. Pyrolysis characteristics and
kinetics of municipal solid waste. Fuel 80, 1217–1227.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2002. Regional
Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment 2002–2020. <www.lrgvdc.
org/Planning/HTM%20Folder/DOWNLOADS/2002%20LRGV%20
Regional%20Plan%20Amendment%20-%2027%20Aug%2002.pdf>,
accessed July 15, 2005.
Thipse, S.S., Sheng, C., Booty, M.R., Magee, R.S., Bozzelli, J.W., 2002.
Chemical makeup and physical characterization of a synthetic fuel and
methods of heat content evaluation for studies on MSW incineration.
Fuel 81 (2), 211–217.
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Committee (TNRCC), 2000. Solid
Waste Management in Texas; Strategic Plan 2001–2005. Austin, Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
TSHA Online, 2003. The Handbook of Texas Online – Rio Grande
Valley, available at <http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/
articles/view/RR/ryr1.html>, accessed on September 12.
United States Census Bureau, 2005. Census Data. Retrieved from <http://
www.census.gov>.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1994.
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1994 Update (EPA530-R-94-042) (November).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1995.
Decision Maker’s Guide to Solid Waste Management, vol. II (EPA
530-R-95-023).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1999.
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1998 Update (EPA 530-R-98-099).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2002.
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA530-S-03-011),
p. 34.
Villar, M.C., Beloso, M.C., Acea, M.J., Cabaneiro, A., González-Prieto,
S.J., Carballas, M., Dı́az-Raviña, M., Carballas, T., 1993. Physical and
chemical characterization of four composted urban refuses. Biore-
source Technology 45 (2), 105–113.