Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Solid Waste
Management
Learning Outcome
At the end of the lecture, students should be
able :
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
MSW AT LANDFILL
Industrial waste
Industrial waste
Steel slag
Press mud
Hazardous waste
Hazardous waste
Waste Composition
Percentage
(%)
Organic material
40
Paper
25
Plastic
15
Wood
10
Metal
Textiles
Others
Country
Organi
c
Waste
Paper
Plastic
China
35.8
3.7
3.8
Hong Kong
37.2
21.6
Indonesia
70.2
Japan
Metal
Other
2.0
0.3
54.3
15.7
3.9
3.9
17.6
10.9
8.7
1.7
1.8
6.2
17
40
20
10
Laos
54.3
3.3
7.8
8.5
3.8
22.5
Malaysia
43.2
23.7
11.2
3.2
4.2
14.5
Myanmar
80
14
Philippine
41.6
19.5
13.8
2.5
4.8
6.6
Singapore
44.4
28.3
11.8
4.1
4.8
6.6
31
27
23
48.6
14.6
13.9
5.1
3.6
14.2
South Korea
Thailand
Glass
Petaling
Jaya
Kuala
Lumpur
Shah Alam
Bangi
Garbage
36.5
45.7
47.8
40
Plastic
16.4
14
15
Bottle / glass
3.1
3.9
4.3
Paper
27
29.9
20.6
18
Metal
3.9
5.1
6.9
Fabric
3.1
2.1
2.4
Miscellaneou
s
10
4.3
Moisture, %
Range
Food Waste
Typical
50 80
70
4 10
Cardboard
48
Plastics
14
Textile
6 15
10
Rubber
14
8 12
10
Garden Trimming
30 80
60
Wood
15 40
20
Misc Organics
10 60
25
Glass
14
Tin Cans
24
Dirt, Ashes
6 - 12
Paper
Leathers
Moisture
Definition : The moisture in a sample is expressed as percentage
of the wet weight of the MSW material
Significant
1.
It is useful for estimating heat content, landfill sizing, and transports requirements
2.
It can be expressed either as a % of the wet weight or as a % of the dry weight of the material.
3.
The wet-weight method is more commonly used and is expressed as follows :
M = (w-d)/w X 100
W = initial weight of sample as delivered (kg)
d = weight of sample after drying at 105oC (kg)
3. Particle size
lw
Sc
2
l w h
Sc
3
Sc l w1/ 2
Sc l w h 1/ 3
Definition : Amount of moisture retained by mixed solids against the force gravity. Field
capacity varies with the degree of pressure applied to the waste and the state of decomposition
of the waste.
This parameter is very critical because (1) aerobic microbial activity is optimized at/or
slightly below the field capacity (2) to predict leachate formation in landfills, compost piles,
or storage piles.
Field capacity
Significant of Field capacity parameter
Densities of solid
waste vary
markedly with
geographical
location, season
of the year and
length of time in
storage.
Components
Range
Typical
120 480
290
30 130
85
30 80
50
Plastics
30 130
65
Textile
30 100
65
Rubber
90 200
130
Leathers
90 260
160
Garden Trimming
60 225
105
120 320
240
90 360
240
160 480
195
45 160
90
320 960
480
Food Waste
Paper
Cardboard
Wood
Misc Organics
Glass
Tin Cans
Dirt, Ashes
WASTE GENERATION
Chemical
properties
of
MSW
Chemical properties of MSW
Proximate analysis
Fusing point of ash
Ultimate analysis (major elements)
Energy content
Food waste
Volatile solids
(VS), % of total
solids (TS)
Lignin content
(LC), % of VS
Biodegradable
fraction (BF)
7-15
0.4
0.82
94
21.9
0.22
96.4
0.4
0.82
Cardboard
94
12.9
0.47
Yard wastes
50-90
4.1
0.72
Paper
Newsprint
Office paper
sulfate
acetate
sulfide ion
Soil Contaminant
Waste generation
On-site handling, storage, and processing
Collection
Transfer and transport
Processing and recovery
Disposal
Waste Stream
1970
tonnes /
day
1980
tonnes
/ day
1990
tonnes /
day
2000
tonnes
/ day
Generation Rate
(kg / capita /
day)
Kuala
Lumpur
98.8
310.5
586.8
2257
1.62
Johor Bahru
41.1
99.5
174.8
550
1.29
Kuala
Terengganu
8.7
61.8
121.0
250
0.89
Kota Bahru
9.1
56.5
102.9
220
0.80
dumping truck.
Factors that must be considered in the onsite
storage of solid wastes include;
1. The effects of storage on the waste components
2. The type of container to be used
3. The container location
4. Public health and aesthetics
Truck from
Dispatch station, t1
Haul, h
Truck to
Dispatch station,
t2
Stationary Container
System
Pickup
Location
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Waste quantities
Truck body or container capacity
Location of container
Physical characteristics of the collection
routes
Residential, commercial or industrial: HCS for
large buildings (e.g. apt., industries, etc.)
Safety and comfort - to minimize danger to
crews.
Sitting
Management of emissions
Public health
economics
Avoid
1.
2.
3.
Reduction
1.
2.
3.
Incineration
Combustible waste burn at 900 10000C
Leave ash and non-combustible behind
Can reduce waste volume by 75-95% but
usually 50%reduction to fuel burning for
electric power
Air pollutant concern
Acid rain
Global warming
3.
4.
5.
6.
Conclusion
Exercise:
Estimate the unit waste generation rate per week for
a resident area consists of 2500 homes. The
observation location is a local transfer station that
receive all the waste collected. The observation
period was 1 week.
* Assume one house equal to 3.5 person
1. No of compactor truck = 8 , size = 20 m 3 and
mass-volume = 250 kg/m3
2. No of pick up truck = 3 , size = 2.5 m 3 and massvolume = 105 kg/m3
3. No load from individual resident private car = 15 ,
size = 0.32 m3 and mass-volume = 84 kg/m3
Exercise
During a sampling event at a tipping floor of a MRF, MSW is
found to contain the following components:
Component
Density (kg/m3)
Food waste
290
22
Mixed plastics
60
12
Glass
200
200
12
Textiles
60
Dust, dirt
500
28
THANK
YOU