See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260054611

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in Istanbul, Turkey

Article  in  Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy · October 2013

DOI: 10.1002/ep.11640

CITATIONS READS
9 839

8 authors, including:

Cevat Yaman Goksel Demir

Imam Adulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia Kirklareli University
40 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   807 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aslı Çoban Hatice Eser Ökten

Izmir University of Economics Izmir Institute of Technology
16 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Greenhouse gas contribution of municipal solid waste collection: A case study in the city of Istanbul, Turkey View project

Landfill Stability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cevat Yaman on 03 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
in Istanbul, Turkey
Senol Yildiz,a Cevat Yaman,b Goksel Demir,c H. Kurtulus Ozcan,d Asli Coban,c
Hatice Eser Okten,c Kadir Sezer,a and Sami Gorene
a
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Directorate of Waste Management, Istanbul-Turkey ISTAÇ, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Directorate of Environmental Protection, 34169 Merter, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bahcesehir University, 34353 Besiktas,
Istanbul-Turkey; eser.okten@bahcesehir.edu.tr (for correspondence)
d
Department of Environmental Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University, 34320 Avcilar, Istanbul-Turkey
e
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Fatih University, 34500 Buyukcekmece, Istanbul-Turkey
Published online 19 April 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.11640

Solid waste management was one of the most significant
environmental issues encountered in developing countries.
Quantity of produced waste as well as its composition was
known to vary by general consumption patterns that were
affected by socio-economic status, household size, or even by
seasons. Due to the dynamic nature of waste quantity and
composition, the handling and disposal of waste in an eco-
nomically and environmentally feasible way presented itself
as a challenge. Therefore, in order to conduct a successful
decision-making process to determine the feasible and sus-
tainable processes in the disposal of waste, priority should be
given to the statement of the problem at hand. The aim of
this study is to achieve a characterization of municipal solid
waste of Istanbul, Turkey. Waste samples were collected from
the transfer stations servicing certain zones of the city and
consequently substance group, moisture content and calorific
value analyses were performed over these samples. Results
indicated that approximately 54% of the municipal solid
waste composition was of organic nature. The paper/card-
board group was coming next in ranking with a proportion
of 15.57%. Average moisture content of samples was calcu-
lated to be 62.41% and 1435 kcal kg21 was calculated to
represent the average calorific value. Ó 2012 American Institute
of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 32: 734–739, 2013
Keywords: calorific value, characterization, moisture con-
tent, municipal solid waste
INTRODUCTION
Quantity and the composition variability of municipal
solid wastes (MSW) that were produced as a result of daily
life activities showed close correlation with increasing popu-
lation, changing socio-economic standards, and technological
developments. Most commonly, solid wastes were classified
considering their source and such an approach yielded to
classifications such as domestic, industrial, and commercial
solid wastes. Quantity and characteristics of solid wastes var-
ied by country, as well as by region within the same country,
and even variations by neighborhood could be observed
within the same city. This variation originated from socio-
economic structures of the communities while depending
Ó 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
also on income levels and consumption patterns. MSW can
cause air, water, and soil pollution unless they were regularly
collected and appropriately disposed of. Solid wastes not
only caused air, water, and soil pollution and thus posed a
risk to environmental health; they also caused aesthetic prob-
lems and malodorous uncontrolled waste piles especially in
developing countries, which were insufficient and ineffective
at solid waste management [1, 2]. In the past, economic cost
of a waste management system was the major limiting step in
the decision-making process. More recently, as the public
awareness in the environmental issues gained an impetus,
environmental concerns started to play a more important role
in this process. Since financial and environmental feasibility
were both important factors, an integrated approach to solid
waste management could deliver sustainability for both.
In an emerging economy such as Turkey, rapid popula-
tion growth had further added to the intensity of waste gen-
eration. The most commonly employed MSW removal
method in Turkey was dumping to uncontrolled sites or seas.
There were more than 2000 locations where solid wastes
were being dumped to uncontrolled sites [3]. Economic insuf-
ficiency and transferring limited financial resources to other
investments could be suggested as the leading cause of
uncontrolled waste dumping. However, inefficiently and
inaccurately structured waste management plans were the
other reason [4]. First step of eliminating inaccuracies of solid
waste management and minimizing the respective environ-
mental damage was conducting a waste characterization.
There were numerous approaches for conducting waste char-
acterization in the world such as based on the socio-eco-
nomic residential groups [5], temporal composition [6, 7],
projections applied by the life-cycle assessment methodology
[8], and seasonal variations along with urbanization level [9].
Istanbul was located at the northwest of Turkey, function-
ing as a bridge between Europe and Asia, with a population
of approximately 13.5 million [10]. Over 14,000 tons of solid
waste was produced per day in Istanbul [4]. The origins of
waste were residences, industrial, and commercial facilities.
In addition, waste sludge that was produced at wastewater
treatment plants were also discharged to landfills. Solid waste
had been dumped to unsanitary disposal sites in various
zones of the city until 1995. Uncontrolled storage ended in
1995 by the establishment of two landfill facilities, both to

734 October 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep
Figure 1. Current waste collection system for the city of
Istanbul.
the north of the city yet one on the Asian side and the other
on the European side of the city. Currently, collection and
transfer of waste and operation of landfills at both sides of
the city were managed by Istanbul Environmental Manage-
ment Industry and Trade Co. (ISTAC Co.) that was owned by
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Collected solid waste was
brought to transfer stations located at various regions of the
city and then were transported to final storage areas. MSW
collection organization in Istanbul is illustrated in Figure 1. A
significant fraction of the solid waste removal cost, 70–90%
of it, was incurred by collection and transportation of waste.
Therefore, determination of solid waste characterization was
highly critical for developing waste collection and transporta-
tion strategies and ultimately executing a sustainable waste
management plan.
The first waste characterization practice for Istanbul was con-
ducted in 1979 [11]. The first most comprehensive solid waste
characterization was performed in 1980 with the financial sup-
port of World Health Organization [12]. Thereafter, another
study has been carried out between the years 1991 and 1993 for
planning management of domestic, industrial, and hospital
wastes [13]. The latest comprehensive characterization study for
Istanbul’s waste was performed in 2005 by Istanbul Metropoli-
tan Municipality Directorate of Waste Management [4].
In order to align the utilized waste management
approaches with European Union directives for landfilling
[14], packaging waste [15], and waste framework [16], a strate-
gic plan was prepared over the specific and rather compli-
cated case of Istanbul [17]. Within the context of waste man-
agement, the current status for the city of Istanbul was estab-
lished initially and then subsequent to population
projections, solid waste production projections were done.
Once the quantity of waste was predicted, three sustainable
integration scenarios (A, B, and C) were prepared with com-
ponents of sorting at source, collection, recycling, and treat-
ment/disposal. Years 2015, 2020, and 2025 were determined
to be the evaluation periods for set European Union targets
for all scenarios. In addition, temporal comparisons in terms
of quantity were conducted by taking the values for the year
1995 as reference. A comparison of these three scenarios
resulted in selection of sustainable integration Scenario A,
which stated to dispose 75%, 50%, and 35% of biodegradable
waste by landfilling, in target years 2015, 2020, and 2025,
respectively. Integration Scenario A also set recycling targets
at 40% and 60% improvement for years 2015 and 2020,
respectively. Quantity of waste that was directed to incinera-
tion facilities was expected to constitute 50% and 90% of the
collected waste in years 2010 and 2025, respectively. Tempo-
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep
Figure 2. Quantity projections for waste management system
components in sustainable integration scenario A.
ral projections for handling, treatment, and disposal of waste
in integration Scenario A are depicted in Figure 2.
The strategic plan that aimed at establishing milestones for
improving waste management plans for Istanbul stated that
current classification of collected waste was solely based on
the origin of waste such as domestic, industrial, construction-
sourced, and commercial. However, in a sustainable waste
management system, composition and analytical characteriza-
tion of waste were the inputs to the model, for which the out-
put was environmentally and economically feasible treatment
and disposal processes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to
establish the MSW characterization for the city of Istanbul,
where samples were collected from six transfer stations servic-
ing certain zones of the city and were analyzed for main group,
moisture content, and calorific value.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling Procedure
Forty-two samples were collected from three solid waste
transfer stations located at European and Asian regions for a
period of 1 week during winter 2009. In addition, two samples
were collected from vehicles bringing waste directly to a com-
posting plant from TS1 service region (Fig. 3). In total, charac-
terization study was carried out over 44 samples. Sampling
process was conducted during day-time and night-time in
order to enhance the representative quality of the collected
waste. Accordingly, during the first three days, samples were
taken from transfer stations at Asian side in the mornings and
from transfer stations at European side at nights. For the sub-
sequent 4 days, the order of sampling has been reversed and
the stations to be used for sampling in mornings and evenings
were switched. Actual capacities of transfer stations, respective
quantities of waste, and the municipalities bringing wastes
were taken into consideration while deciding the regions to
be used for sampling and the relative frequency. Accordingly,
service regions for the transfer stations, where sampling were
conducted were shown in Figure 3. Collected samples repre-
sented 95% of the municipal waste produced in Istanbul on
the basis of regions used for sampling.
Sampling Process
MSW Composition Analysis
About 0.4–0.5 m3 of solid waste samples in average repre-
senting the waste in the vehicle were taken into high-density
polyethylene containers. Then samples were transferred into
October 2013 735
 Table 2. Municipal solid waste composition for Asian region
transfer stations.

TA1 TA2 TA3 Average

Waste components (%) (%) (%) (%)
Paper/cardboard 17.08 17.88 15.30 16.75
Glass 1.89 4.01 3.03 2.98
PET bottles 0.59 1.27 1.38 1.08
Plastic bags 9.22 9.56 10.33 9.70
Plastics 1.69 2.28 2.32 2.10
Metals (Iron) 0.29 1.03 0.81 0.71
Aluminum 0.27 0.64 0.41 0.44
Figure 3. Service regions for the transfer stations that repre- Other metals 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.04
sent Asian region (TA1, TA2, and TA3) and European region Organic 56.39 51.01 53.78 53.73
(TE1, TE2, TE3, and TS1) for Istanbul. Electrical equipments 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.04
Hazardous wastes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tetra-Pak 0.62 0.72 0.66 0.67
Textile 3.24 1.54 1.96 2.25
Diapers 5.86 7.60 4.77 6.08
Table 1. Waste constituents for solid waste characterization. Garden waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other combustibles 2.59 1.51 2.58 2.23
Waste Non-Combustible 0.25 0.94 2.48 1.22
Number components Contents TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
1 Paper/cardboard Newspaper, magazines,
cardboards
2 Glass Jars, colorful and colorless with the method specified in TS 10459/1992 ‘‘Moisture Deter-
glasses mination in Solid Wastes’’ by using 3 kg of samples [20]. Prior
3 PET bottles Water and other drinking to the analysis, waste samples were shredded in coarse and
bottles fine grinders in order to prepare them for the following calo-
4 Plastic bags All kind of plastic bags rific value analyses. The DIN 51900 standard of German Stand-
5 Plastics Other plastic ardization Institute [21], which was based on the principle of
6 Metals (Iron) Iron materials measuring the calorific value of solid fuels by bomb calorime-
(electro-magnetic ter, was utilized for calorific value determination.
separable)
7 Aluminum Cans and other RESULTS
aluminum materials
8 Other metals – MSW Composition
9 Organic Food wastes Composition of MSW samples collected from six transfer
10 Electrical equipments Phones, radios, stations, three at the Asian side of the city and three at the
pc equipments European side of the city, are given in Tables 2 and 3,
11 Hazardous wastes Batteries and accumulators, respectively. Waste component values obtained by averaging
paint boxes the components of the wastes collected from the transfer sta-
12 Tetra-Pak – tions in Asian and European sides are illustrated in Figure 4.
13 Textile Textile wastes The most remarkable aspect of the municipal solid waste
14 Diapers – composition was the rather high organic matter content of
15 Garden waste Wood and other garden 54.09%. The paper/board group was next in ranking with a pro-
wastes portion of 15.57%. The paper/board and the organic substance
16 Other combustibles Combustible materials groups comprised 69.66% of the total waste composition.
17 Non-Combustible Ash, stone, rock etc. Another remarkable result derived from waste composi-
tion was the low percentage of metal group components.
Ferrous metals, aluminum, and the other metals comprised
volume-stable sampling bins. So, a unique volume of waste 0.66%, 0.44%, and 0.02% of total waste composition, respec-
was studied for each sample. ASTM D5231 (Standard Test tively. In total, metal group made up of only 1.12% of the
Method for Determination of the Composition of Unpro- total waste composition. The total proportion of combustible
cessed Municipal Solid Waste) method developed by Ameri- matter content such as paper/board, nylons bags, plastics,
can Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for waste char- packages, textiles, diapers/pads, and others was 41.10% for
acterization was utilized in this study [18]. Solid waste com- Istanbul. This proportion conveyed quite similar results for
ponents were classified in accordance with the ASTM D5231 Asian side and European side of the city with 40.86% and
standard and with the respective regulation of the Ministry of 41.33%, respectively.
Environment and Forestry [19] (Table 1). Accordingly, wastes
were sorted into 17 main groups and were weighed for anal- Moisture Content of MSW
ysis. Percentages for each waste group in terms of weight Moisture content of the solid wastes was determined in
were determined. accordance with the TS10459 standard by using homoge-
nized samples [20]. Following equation was employed to cal-
Moisture Content and Calorific Value Analyses culate moisture content based on the ‘‘weight before–weight
Moisture content and calorific value information deter- after’’ method. Moisture contents of samples collected from
mined the suitability of waste for composting and incineration, various points of Istanbul city were calculated according to
respectively. Moisture content was determined in accordance the Eq. 1 is shown in Table 4.

736 October 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep
Table 3. Municipal solid waste composition for European Table 4. Moisture content of municipal solid waste.
region transfer stations.
Wet Dry Moisture
TE1 TE2 TE3 Average weight (g) weight (g) content (%)
Waste components (%) (%) (%) (%) TA1 17671.5 6701.5 62.0
Paper/cardboard 13.90 17.26 12.02 14.39 TA2 18415.5 6573.0 64.3
Glass 3.86 3.15 2.21 3.08 TA3 16834.5 6653.0 60.4
PET bottles 1.44 0.89 1.23 1.19 TE1 14876.0 5082.0 65.8
Plastic bags 9.54 9.35 11.73 10.21 TE2 16528.5 6556.5 60.3
Plastics 2.85 4.33 2.22 3.14 TE3 14427.5 5278.5 63.4
Metals (Iron) 0.60 0.38 0.84 0.61 TS1 3422.5 1827.5 46.6
Aluminum 0.70 0.42 0.22 0.45
Other metals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Organic 55.28 51.67 56.41 54.45
Electrical equipments 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.03
Hazardous wastes 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02
Tetra-Pak 0.87 0.77 1.49 1.04
Textile 4.19 6.15 3.44 4.59
Diapers 4.73 3.71 6.01 4.82
Garden waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other combustibles 1.82 1.85 2.18 1.95
Non-combustible 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.04
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Figure 5. Distribution of municipal solid waste bottom calo-

rific values for corresponding transfer stations.

Bottom calorific values of waste samples collected from

transfer stations were shown in Figure 5.
As it could be seen in Figure 5, the highest calorific value
of 2273 kcal kg21 was obtained from TS1 samples, where the
lowest calorific value of 1258 kcal kg21 was obtained from
TA1 samples. Average calorific value of 44 samples used in
the study was calculated to be 1435 kcal kg21.

DISCUSSION
Figure 4. Municipal solid waste components for Istanbul. Determination of waste characterization was crucial for
structuring and executing waste management programs. The
aim of this study within this context was to conduct characteri-
  zation of waste collected in the city of Istanbul. As a result of
ðw
dÞ the examination of municipal solid waste composition, the pa-
M¼ 3100 (1) per/cardboard and nylon bag appeared to constitute a high
w
proportion within the total waste collected in Istanbul. The
where w: Initial weight of sample, (kg); d: Weight after being high amount of paper/board waste was especially remarkable
dried under 1058C, (kg); M: Moisture content. while considering the on-going practice of sorting-at-origin
Average moisture content of solid waste of Istanbul city and scavengers. Easily recyclables such as paper, glass, and
was calculated as 62.41% as shown in Table 4. Maximum metals composed 19.72% of total waste. Implementation of
moisture content was achieved for samples from TE1 service waste management policies such as individual collection of
area (65.84%). On the other hand, minimum moisture con- these components especially at their origins was suggested in
tent value was observed for waste samples from TS1 service order to decrease their proportion in municipal solid waste.
area (59.49%). Thus, it would take a longer time for these recyclables to com-
plete their life cycle, while reducing the solid waste removal
Calorific Value of MSW costs due to decreased amount of solid waste. Organic matter
The following equation was used for calculating the calo- amount was found to be 54.09% within collected samples.
rific value of solid wastes (Eq. 2). The representative amount of organic matter value of Istan-
    bul’s solid waste was known to be around 50–55%. Organic
100
w
Hu ¼ H0 3
ð5:85 3 wÞ (2) matter proportions found in this study was in agreement with
100 the literature [4, 22].
where Hu 5 Bottom calorific value (kcal kg21); Ho 5 Upper Moisture content was known to vary by solid waste com-
calorific value (kcal kg21); w 5 Water content (%). position, seasons, socio-economic status of the community,

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep October 2013 737
Table 5. Moisture contents and calorific values for municipal waste samples reported in literature.
Moisture
Location content (%)
Lower Rio Grande Valley, sp;Texas, USA 17.5
Chongqing, China 64.1
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 55
Kharagpur, India 42.05 6 10.25
Cape Haitian, Republic of Haiti 55.6
and consumption patterns. Moisture content values for devel-
oped countries were around 15–40% for urban waste, while
the respective proportion varied between 10 and 35% for
industrial waste [23]. Moisture content of Istanbul’s municipal
solid waste was calculated as 59.49% in this study. This value
is a little bit high with regard to the literature. However, the
reported organic matter proportion (54.09%) within munici-
pal solid waste composition shown in Figure 4 had suggested
an increase in the moisture content as well. Additionally it
should be noted that this study was conducted in winter,
which helped explaining the high water content of municipal
solid waste.
Average calorific value for collected waste was 1435 kcal
kg21 for the city of Istanbul. In order to dispose of solid
waste by means of thermal methods, minimum waste calo-
rific value should be around 2000–2500 kcal kg21 for obtain-
ing energy from the thermal process [24]. In the case of self-
burning without additional fuels this value decreases to
1500–1600 kcal kg21 [25]. According to derived results, aver-
age waste calorific value of collected waste samples was not
suitable for employing a thermal process. It could be con-
cluded that high moisture content and organic content were
decreasing the calorific value of collected waste. As depicted
in Table 5, the negative correlation between moisture content
and obtained calorific value for waste samples was supported
through studies reported in literature.
Ineffective and insufficient solid waste management was
one of the most prominent environmental issues for develop-
ing countries. Determining the appropriate treatment proc-
esses based on the composition of waste, diversification of
waste streams among these processes, and evaluating ultimate
disposal options considering the corresponding European
Union directives were the components that constituted a com-
prehensive waste management strategy. Such an effort was
made in 2005 [17], however it was our impression and the pol-
icy-makers’ evaluation that the targets were missed. In a recent
study, authors presented a waste management model that
stated raw material, energy, and water as the model inputs
while airborne emissions, solid emissions, waterborne emis-
sions, and residuals were given as the model outputs [29]. Fea-
sibility of waste handling processes in terms of utilized energy,
water, and raw material resources and accordingly diversifica-
tion of waste among these processes were studied. Yet, the
most significant aspect of that study was that it also included
the environmental concerns surrounding any waste manage-
ment plan. Nevertheless, as a preliminary step to construct a
sustainable solid waste management plan, determining the
composition and conducting waste characterization were in-
dispensable. Therefore, results from this study were expected
to contribute to determination of sustainable solid waste man-
agement systems in the long run.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors gratefully thank ISTAC Co. (Istanbul Environmen-
tal Management Industry and Trade Co.) for their technical
support.
738 October 2013 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep
Calorific
value (kcal kg21) Reference
4142.4 Chang and Davila 2008 [26]
891 Hui et al. 2006 [27]
1500–2600 Kathirvale et al. 2003 [24]
2391.16 6 264.58 Kumar and Goel 2009 [28]
1395 Philippe and Culot 2009 [5]
LITERATURE CITED
1. Ozcan, H.K., Balkaya, N., Bilgili, E., Demir, G. Ucan,
O.N., & Bayat, C. (2006). Modeling of methane distribu-
tion in a landfill using genetic algorithms, Environmental
Engineering Science, 26, 441–449.
2. Mor, S., Ravindra, K., De Visscher, A., Dahiya, R.P., &
Chandra, A. (2006). Municipal solid waste characterization
and its assessment for potential methane generation: A
case study, Science of the Total Environment, 371, 1–10.
3. Turan, N.G., Coruh, S., Akdemir, A., & Ergun, O.N.
(2009). Municipal solid waste management strategies in
Turkey, Waste Management, 29, 465–469.
4. Kanat G. (2010). Municipal solid waste management in
Istanbul, Waste Management, 30, 1737–1745.
5. Philippe, F. & Culot, M. (2009). Household solid waste
generation and characteristics in Cape Haitian City, Republic
of Haiti, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 73–78.
6. Nas, S.S. & Bayram, A., (2008). municipal solid waste
characteristics and management in Gumushane, Turkey,
Waste Management, 28, 2435–2442.
7. Agdag, O.N. (2009). Comparison of old and new munici-
pal solid waste management systems in Denizli, Turkey,
Waste Management, 29, 456–464.
8. Banar, M., Cokaygil, Z., & Ozkan, A., (2009). Life cycle
assessment of solid waste management options for Eski-
sehir, Turkey, Waste Management, 29, 54–62.
9. Thanh, P.N., Matsui, Y., & Fujiwara, T. (2010). House-
hold solid waste generation and characteristic in a
Mekong Delta City, Vietnam, Journal of Environmental
Management, 91, 2307–2321.
10. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2010). Prime Ministry, Repub-
lic of Turkey; Press Release; Address Based Population
Registration System Results of 2010.
11. Basturk, A. (1979). Investigation on solid waste disposal
technologies for Istanbul. TUBITAK CAG-Project Report
(in Turkish), TUBI_TAK, Ankara, Turkey.
12. WHO (World Health Organization). (1981). Solid waste
management in the metropolitan area of Istanbul, Feasi-
bility Study Final Project Report. World Health Organiza-
tion Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
13. CH2M Hill-Antel. (1993). Feasibility study on solid waste
management in the metropolitan Istanbul Municipality;
Final Report, CH2M Hill-Antel, CO USA.
14. Council Directive. (1999/31/EC). On the Landfill of
Waste. The Council of the European Union, Official Jour-
nal, L182, 1–19.
15. European Parliament and Council. (1994). Directive 94/
62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packag-
ing waste, Brussels, Belgium.
16. European Parliament and Council. (2008). Directive 2008/
98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain
Directives Text with EEA relevance, Brussels, Belgium.
17. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Directorate of Waste
Management. (2005). ISTAC Co. Directorate; Solid Waste
Management Strategic Plan Aligned with European
Union Directives for Istanbul (in Turkish), IStanbul, Tur-
key.
 18. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM).
(1998). Standard Test Method for Determination of the
Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste,
ASTM Standard D 5231–92 (Reapproved 1998), West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
19. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and
Forestry, (2007). Update on Solid Waste Characterization
and Solid Waste Disposal Facilities (in Turkish), 2007/10-
COB-CYGM, Ankara, Turkey.
20. Turkish Standards Institution (TSE). (1992). Moisture
Determination at Wastes-Solid Wastes (in Turkish).
Ankara: TS 10459.
21. DIN 51900-1. Determining the gross calorific value of solid
and liquid fuels using the bomb calorimeter, and calculation
of net calorific value—Part 1: General information.
Deutsches Institut Fur Normung E.V., Berlin, Germany.
22. Berkun, M., Aras, E., & Nemlioglu, S. (2005). Disposal of
solid waste in istanbul and along the Black Sea Coast of
Turkey, Waste Management, 25, 847–855.
23. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., & Vigil, S. (1993).
Integrated solid waste management: engineering princi-
ples and management issues. McGraw-Hill Science
Engineering, OH USA.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.32, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep
View publication stats
24. Kathirvale, S., Muhd Yunus, M.N., Sopian, K., & Samsud-
din, A.H. (2003). Energy potential from municipal solid
waste in Malaysia, Renewable energy, 26, 559–567.
25. Menikpura, S.N.M. & Basnayake, B.F.A. (2009). New
applications of ‘Hess Law’ and comparisons with models
for determining calorific values of municipal solid wastes
in the Sri Lankan context, Renewable energy, 34, 1587–
1594.
26. Chang, N.B. & Davila, E. (2008). Municipal solid waste
characterizations and management strategies for the
Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas, Waste Management, 28,
776–794.
27. Hui, Y., Li’ao, W., Fenwei, S., & Gang, H. (2006). Urban
solid waste management in Chongqing: Challenges and
opportunities, Waste Management, 26, 1052–1062.
28. Kumar, K. N. & Goel, S. (2009). Characterization of mu-
nicipal solid waste (MSW) and a proposed management
plan for Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, Resources, Con-
servation and Recycling, 53, 166–174.
29. Bovea, M.D., Ibáñez-Forés, V., Gallardo, A., & Colomer-
Mendoza, F.J. (2010). Environmental assessment of alter-
native municipal solid waste management strategies. A
Spanish case study, Waste Management, 30, 2383–2395.
October 2013 739