Waste Lab Report Sheet

Running Head: Proper and Improper Waste Disposal Analysis of Several Stockton Students
Proper and Improper Waste Disposal Analysis of Several Stockton Students
Michael Moore, Samantha Dimacale, Kathryn Homewood, Edward Dolton

Richard Stockton University <Environmental Issues>
09/16/2020
Proper and Improper Waste Disposal Analysis of Several Stockton Students 1
INTRODUCTION
It has become a near automatic reaction to place our waste into bins and send them out to the curb
to be taken away without knowledge or worry of where it is going or what it costs. This inconsideration is
leading to an increasing waste problem not just in the United States, but globally. Marine debris
consisting of plastic, toxic, and other non-compostable waste is washing up on Indonesia’s shoreline by
the ton decimating local ecosystems and fishing economies (Purba et al. 2019). New Jersey and other
states have attempted to reduce this pollution by implementing long term goals with one goal being to
reach a 50% recycling rate (Otegbeye et al 2009). Recycling methods have improved through the years as
more materials are recycled every year including aluminum. Of all aluminum consumed by the global
economy since 1950, about seventy percent is still in use today which is a testament to the improvement
of recycling methods (Chen 2013). The Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) has specifically
defined a system that aids in sorting solid waste. The ACUA has established that anything can be placed
into a trash bin as long as it is not toxic or hazardous (Keeper 2020). More than half of all materials
disposed into the trash end up in landfills. Landfill air quality has been tested and results show that these
areas emit methane which is a greenhouse gas (Mønster et al 2019). Moving on, the ACUA defines
hazardous or toxic waste as cleaning products, insecticid, any fuels, pool cleaners and products,
automobile waste, chemical materials, photographic chemicals, oil based paint, fluorescent light bulbs,
items that contain any mercury, non-rechargeable fire extinguishers, and rechargeable batteries (Keeper
2020). It can be noted that sometimes these hazardous materials can be used in the production of plastic
thus being recycled with the plastic and used over and over again by consumers (Erikson et al. 2018).
Lastly, the ACUA allows items such as paper, cardboard, beverage cartons, flattened cardboard,
newspapers, magazines, plastic bottles and containers with necks smaller than their base and their lids
removed as trash, glass bottles and jars, all aluminum, tin, and steel can be recycled (Keeper 2020). We
plan to use these ACUA guidelines to complete our analysis of waste both on and off Stockton
University’s campus since Stockton uses the ACUA for it’s waste removal. Stockton University pays the
ACUA $4.50 per 100 pounds ($0.045 per pound) to remove trash and no charge for removing recycling
waste (Keeper 2020). Trash removed from Stockton by the ACUA is moved to the ACUA landfill located
about ten miles south of Stockton in Egg Harbor Township.
Figure X-1. - This chart goes over the regulations in place for recycling at the ACUA. Stockton
University uses the ACUA to do their recycling. However not everything can be recycled on campus and
that is what the right-most column specifies. Also the data collected in this lab follows the recycling
guidelines of the ACUA, so if the group members lived on the Stockton campus, the recycling regulations
would be the same.
METHODS & RESULTS

To understand if waste contents varied by location, each student in our research study emptied the
contents of their personal trash and recycle bins and organized the contents by category. The categories
that were concentrated on for the trash bins were true trash, compostable, recyclable, and toxic. For the
recycling bins, contents were graphed via material type. Please see Exhibit 1.1-1.8 for pictures of the
contents of every student's trash. Exhibit 2.1-2.8 displays each student’s waste contents in table form
showing each item and its classification. The material types for the recycle bins would include but would
not be limited to, cardboard, plastic single use containers (ie. bottles), metal products such as cans, and
glass. The categories that organized the trash contents chosen based on the ACUA’s standard of trash and
hazardous products. Every person in this small focus group has made graphs and lists of their trash and
recycle contents in the appendix of this report. Based on these graphics, it can be said that the source of
the majority of the trash disposed of was single use plastics, containers, and other products.
An important step in our analysis would examine the exact location of everyone’s waste contents.
The location of the group's waste containers have been mapped and can be seen in Figure X. This is
important to analyze because each location has its own regulations for recycling. We chose to standardize
the data using the ACUA regulations because three out of four group members collected their trash from
Atlantic County. An example of how an ACUA regulation impacted the group data is for the data point of
plastic bags. While plastic bags are indeed plastic, according to the ACUA, plastic bags should not be
recycled. Also note that all cardboard that was disposed of was dry as wet cardboard cannot be recycled
according to the ACUA. Based on the data collected, the group can develop a hypothesis on the amount
of trash and recycling that is not properly sorted both at home and on Stockton Universitys’ campus, the
environmental impact of this error, and the effect it has on the world.
Figure X. This map contains the locations of each trash and recycling bins that were collected and
analyzed. Three of the locations were in Atlantic county and one of them is in Ocean county. One trash
bag and one recycling bag were taken from each location.
Figure 1.1- Michael Moore’s Recycle Bin Contents
Figure 1.2- Michael Moore’s Trash Bag Contents

Figure1.3-Edward Dolton’s Trash Content
Figure 1.4 Edward Dolton’s Recycling Bin

Figure 1.5 Katie Homewood’s Trash Bin contents
Figure 1.6 Katie Homewood’s Recycling Bin Contents

Figure 1.7 Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents
Figure 1.8 Sam Dimacale’s Recycling Bin Contents

Table 1.1 - Michael Moore’s Trash Contents by Category
Table 1.2 - Michael Moore’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Table 1.3 - Edward Dolton’s Trash Contents by Category
Table 1.4 - Edward Dolton’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Table 1.5 - Katie Homewood’s Trash Contents by Category
Table 1.6- Katie Homewood’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Figure 1.9 (Left) Katie Homewood’s Recycling Content by Category and Figure 2.0 Katie Homewood’s
Recycling Content by Material (Right)
Figure 2.1 Katie Homewood’s Trash Content

Table 1.7 - Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents by Category
Table 1.8 - Sam Dimacale’s Recycling Contents by Percentage
Figure 2.2 - Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents

Figure 2.3 - Sam Dimacale Recycling Contents
Figure 2.4 - Total Group Trash Type
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

According to the group data at least 34% of the trash that was disposed of is recyclable. Throwing
away objects that could have been recycled creates many negative environmental impacts, like
unnecessary addition to landfills which negatively impacts the environment through the release of
emissions. Trash is also eliminated by incineration, which has negative impacts on the environment.
Incinerators release toxic metals and other air pollutants into the air such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur
oxides; however, even equipped with pollution control systems, incinerators still release some harmful
oxides and metals into the air (Tan & Khoo 2006). When trash gets disposed of it either ends up in a
landfill or an incinerator, which is why throwing an object away that could be recycled is a needless way
to damage the environment. One group member has a father who saves all cardboard products until he has
enough to have a large bonfire in the backyard. This loss of cardboard waste on a large scale can be costly
as cardboard has been studied and proven as a fuel that can be burned and reach a temperature of 700-900
degrees celsius (Salvador et al 2004). The fact of this material never reaching a recycling plant means that
it never has the chance to be productive and is instead burned for recreation which pollutes the
atmosphere needlessly.
A notable detail derived from the group data is that at least 6% of the material found in the trash
was compostable. Compostable items were thrown in the trash most likely because of a lack of designated
compost facility or area. The ACUA does not accept compost so it would be up to the individual to
compost or ensure compostable materials are given to a farm or garden that does compost. One change in
the recycling policy that could be made is to create a designated compost area or promote the donation of
compostable materials to local farms. This promotes a communal relationship between the consumer and
the farmer where the consumer helps the farmer produce local foods that the consumer can enjoy. This
has been tested also in Europe
A way to cut back on trash and increase recycling in the Atlantic County area is to put the
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) policy into effect. The PAYT policy is when people are charged for the
removal of their trash while incentivizing recycling by making it’s removal free. This method compared
to other methods has been shown to be the most consistent at increasing recycling while decreasing the
amount of trash in landfills. It was found that a PAYT policy increased the amount of recycling by
19.356% (Starr & Nicolson 2015). In Atlantic County, the ACUA charges no fee to remove recycling.
This has proven to be useful as it forces the general population to find more productive ways to recycle
perishables, such as composting, to save money. Home compost would create a safer, cheaper, and more
beneficial way for garbage to be removed.
One more benefit to this is a decrease in local taxes as the money spent on garbage removal
would be paid by each individual. This means people will save or lose money based on how willing they
are to be more sustainable and not be affected by others who are more wasteful. In one instance, this
system did show a decrease in garbage by about 20% but most of this was a result of people finding ways
to remove their garbage in negative ways. Some of these ways included burning of garbage and throwing
out garbage in recycling. (Dahlén & Lagerkvist 2010). Even with these problems there is still a major
upside to the increase of recycling and composting. From the results of the lab this policy would have a
positive effect as it could lower the amount of recycling and compostable material that was found in the
trash.
Another way to improve recycling in Atlantic County is by increasing the overall education of
sustainable waste removal strategies. A study in Minnesota found that every dollar per person spent every
year spent towards recycling education would increase recycling by around 2% (Sidique et al 2010). This
can be done by having schools teach kids about recycling. The other way this could be done is by having
simple signs in public places about what to and what not to recycle. It was observed that a sign with a
strong message focused on recycling bins and their proper usage showed an increase in correct recycling
practices (Werner et al 2009). This shows that with a little extra education and reminders about recycling,
we can reduce the amount of non-trash items finding their way to landfills.
INTERVIEW WITH A PROFESSIONAL

Call to Patricia Keeper; Assistant Board Secretary; ACUA Main Office (609 272 6950) :
Approximately how much does it cost Stockton to remove trash per pound? How about recycling waste?
It costs ACUA users $4.50 per 100 pounds ($0.045 per pound) for us to remove their trash and there is no
charge for removing recycling waste
What items can be disposed of in a Stockton trash can?

Any item can be disposed of in a trash can besides hazardous or toxic materials.
What items can be disposed of in a Stockton recycle bin?

Items such as paper, cardboard, beverage cartons, flattened cardboard, newspapers, magazines, plastic
bottles and containers with necks smaller than their base and their lids removed as trash, glass bottles and
jars, all aluminum, tin, and steel can be recycled.
Are any materials considered “toxic” and cannot be placed in normal waste bins?
Cleaning products, insecticid, any fuels, pool cleaners and products, automobile waste, chemistry
materials, photographic chemicals, oil based paint, fluorescent light bulbs, items that contain any
mercury, non-rechargeable fire extinguishers, and rechargeable batteries are considered hazardous and
cannot be trashed or recycled.
REFERENCES
Chen, W. (2013). Recycling Rates of Aluminum in the United States. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
17(6), 926–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12070
Dahlén, L., & Lagerkvist, A. (2010). Pay as you throw. Waste Management (Elmsford), 30(1), 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.022
Eriksen, M., Pivnenko, K., Olsson, M., & Astrup, T. (2018). Contamination in plastic recycling:
Influence of metals on the quality of reprocessed plastic. Waste Management
(Elmsford), 79, 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.007
Mønster, J., Kjeldsen, P., & Scheutz, C. (2019). Methodologies for measuring fugitive methane emissions
from landfills – A review. Waste Management (Elmsford), 87, 835–859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.12.047
Otegbeye, M., Abdel-Malek, L., Hsieh, H., & Meegoda, J. (2009). On achieving the state’s
household recycling target: A case study of Northern New Jersey, USA. Waste Management
(Elmsford), 29(2), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.041
Purba, N., Handyman, D., Pribadi, T., Syakti, A., Pranowo, W., Harvey, A., & Ihsan, Y. (2019). Marine
debris in Indonesia: A review of research and status. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 146, 134–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.057
Salvador, S., Quintard, M., & David, C. (2004). Combustion of a substitution fuel made of cardboard
and polyethylene: influence of the mix characteristics—experimental approach. Fuel
(Guildford), 83( 4), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2003.10.004
Sidique, S., Joshi, S., & Lupi, F. (2010). Factors influencing the rate of recycling: An analysis of
Minnesota counties. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(4), 242–249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.08.006
Starr, J., & Nicolson, C. (2015). Patterns in trash: Factors driving municipal recycling in Massachusetts.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 99, 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.009
Tan, R., & Khoo, H. (2006). Impact Assessment of Waste Management Options in Singapore. Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Association, 56(3), 244–254.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464463
Werner, C., White, P., Byerly, S., & Stoll, R. (2009). Signs that encourage internalized recycling:
Clinical validation, weak messages and “creative elaboration.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.003

Waste Lab Report Sheet

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Waste Lab Report Sheet

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running Head: Proper and Improper Waste Disposal Analysis of Several Stockton Students

Proper and Improper Waste Disposal Analysis of Several Stockton Students

Michael Moore, Samantha Dimacale, Kathryn Homewood, Edward Dolton

METHODS & RESULTS

Figure 1.1- Michael Moore’s Recycle Bin Contents

Figure 1.2- Michael Moore’s Trash Bag Contents

Figure1.3-Edward Dolton’s Trash Content

Figure 1.4 Edward Dolton’s Recycling Bin

Figure 1.5 Katie Homewood’s Trash Bin contents

Figure 1.6 Katie Homewood’s Recycling Bin Contents

Figure 1.7 Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents

Figure 1.8 Sam Dimacale’s Recycling Bin Contents

Table 1.1 - Michael Moore’s Trash Contents by Category

Table 1.2 - Michael Moore’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Table 1.3 - Edward Dolton’s Trash Contents by Category

Table 1.4 - Edward Dolton’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Table 1.5 - Katie Homewood’s Trash Contents by Category

Table 1.6- Katie Homewood’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Figure 2.1 Katie Homewood’s Trash Content

Table 1.7 - Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents by Category

Table 1.8 - Sam Dimacale’s Recycling Contents by Percentage

Figure 2.2 - Sam Dimacale’s Trash Contents

Figure 2.3 - Sam Dimacale Recycling Contents

Figure 2.4 - Total Group Trash Type

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

INTERVIEW WITH A PROFESSIONAL

What items can be disposed of in a Stockton trash can?

What items can be disposed of in a Stockton recycle bin?

Potrebbero piacerti anche