Introduction to Mandaue (Philippines) - · PDF fileBrief Profile of Mandaue City Mandaue City...

Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterization – Mandaue (2009)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1: Plastic

Waste Analysis and Characterization Study- B. Mandaue City, Philippines”

Brief Profile of Mandaue City Mandaue City is located on the coastal plains of Cebu Province as shown in Figure 1. It is bounded on the north by the Municipality of Consolacion, on the east by the Mactan Channel, on the southwest by Barangay Banilad (Cebu City), on the northwest by Barangay Talamban (Cebu City), and on the south by Cebu North Reclamation.11 Mandaue became a Chartered City on June 21, 1969. It is a highly urbanized and industrialized city which is home to about 10,000 industrial and commercial establishments. It is home to two major ports, Pier 7 Gothong and Pier 8 Shuttle. The city’s location is very strategic as it connects two other major cities in Metro Cebu, Cebu and Lapu-Lapu. It is ten minutes away from the Mactan-Cebu International Airport in Lapu-Lapu City and another ten minutes from the Cebu International Port. Geographical Area Zoning Mandaue has a land area of 3,487 hectares comprising 27 barangays, all of which are classified as urban. The most dominant existing land use is industrial followed by residential, agricultural and commercial users. However, according to the City Planning and Development Office, small agricultural areas are usually parts of bigger stretches of industrial areas and classified as such since Mandaue City is the most highly industrialized city in Metro Cebu and the whole of the province. The city is predominantly a lowland area and extremely flat. It is about 77.37% within the 0-8% slope category. Its entire territorial span includes 15% highlands marked by rugged hills and precipices that form part of the land features of Mandaue’s three rural barangays. Of the city’s 27 barangays, the biggest barangay in terms of land area is Barangay Banilad, while the smallest is Barangay Mantuyong. The following table shows the land area of each barangay and the stretch of land each occupies. On the southernmost area of the city facing the Mactan Strait is the newly reclaimed Mandaue 2000, a 192-hectare industrial area.2 1 Socio-Economic Profile of Mandaue City 2009, CPDO 2 Ibid.

Introduction to Mandaue (Philippines)


__________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 1. Land Area and Distance of Barangays, Mandaue

Name of Barangay

Land Area (has.) Distance (km.)

1. Alang-alang 94.94 0.400 2. Bakilid 36.00 1.220 3. Banilad 281.57 2.410 4. Basak 254.35 3.310 5. Cabancalan 163.56 2.950 6. Cambaro 33.00 0.520 7. Canduman 156.17 5.420 8. Casili 121.15 5.080 9. Casuntingan 224.12 2.620 10. Centro 36.24 0.150 11. Cubacub 72.82 5.100 12. Guizo 40.34 0.780 13. Ibabao-Estancia

62.78 0.410

14. Jagobiao 112.00 4.800 15. Labogon 141.35 3.100 16. Looc 135.26 0.700 17. Maguikay 151.56 1.700 18. Mantuyong 14.75 0.450 19. Opao 108.91 2.150 20. Pagsabungan 88.00 4.400 21. Pakna-an 168.12 2.950 22. Subangdako 113.49 2.650 23. Tabok 156.16 2.880 24. Tawason 180.11 6.200 25. Tingub 124.20 3.680 26. Tipolo 148.25 1.350 27. Umapad 76.00 2.00 Mandaue 2000 192.00

Source: Socio-Economic Profile of Mandaue City 2009, City Planning & Development Office


______________________________________________________________________________________________

Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1: Plastic Waste

Analysis and Characterization Study- B. Mandaue City, Philippines”

Figure 1. Mandaue City Zoning Map

Source: Mandaue CPDO


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Population Data The city’s population growth rate is steadily increasing. The latest national census conducted in 2007 places Mandaue population at 318,575 (Table 2). Table 2. Total Population Mandaue City and Barangays as of August 1, 2007

Source: nso.gov.ph

Barangay Population 1. Alang-alang 12,691 2. Bakilid 6,387 3. Banilad 19,505 4. Basak 9,383 5. Cabancalan 10,598 6. Cambaro 8,105 7. Canduman 14,276 8. Casili 3,569 9. Casuntingan 13,472 10. Centro (Pob.) 3,498 11. Cubacub 9,048 12. Guizo 8,303 13. Ibabao-

Estancia 9,624

14. Jagobiao 10,481 15. Labogon 17,326 16. Looc 15,250 17. Maguikay 17,980 18. Mantuyong 6,461 19. Opao 10,569 20. Pakna-an 19,546 21. Pagsabungan 15,485 22. Subangdaku 21,223 23. Tabok 13,902 24. Tawason 3,949 25. Tingub 4,668 26. Tipolo 17,952 27. Umapad 15,326

MANDAUE CITY 318,575


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Socio and Seasonal Variations Understanding seasonal variations is essential to determine some factors that affect the overall solid waste and consequently waste plastics generation due to events and other business activities. Unlike in Cebu City where most major provincial events are held, Mandaue City as a small city is limited only to local city events. However, these events contribute largely to waste generation at certain dates or times of year. The City Tourism Office of Mandaue lists major events in the area which impacts solid waste generation particularly of waste plastics. The two major events that falls on the month of January is the celebration of New Year and the Feast of Sto. Niño. These major events contribute to massive generation of waste because people from other places visit the Province of Cebu to participate in the activities of both occasions. During the months of March and April, Lenten Season and the Founding Anniversary of Mandaue City are celebrated. The activities of the first event include religious processions participated by a large number of devotees while the event of the latter celebration, activities such as concerts and parties are commonly observed in the city. The biggest event in Mandaue City is the celebration of The Mantawi Festival which happens every 6th day of May. Locals and visitors alike participate in parades and street dancing. And also during this month the Feast of St. Joseph, patron saint of Mandaue is celebrated in the entire city. The Charter Day, another major celebration, is celebrated every 30th day of August. Prior to the Charter, there are at least two weeks of different activities, trade fairs and exhibits. There are road races, concerts, sports competitions and food fairs.3 The All Saints and All Souls Day (November 1 & 2) are also celebrated everywhere in the city. The Christmas season starts in September highlighted by gift giving, shopping, and parties. The kinds of waste that are commonly observed during these days include plastic packaging materials, plastics shopping bags and kitchen waste which are food remains from parties. Economy About 40 percent of Cebu’s export companies are found in Mandaue. The city is dubbed as the industrial hub of Region VII and hosts about 10,000 industrial and commercial businesses, making it a “little rich city” in the country. It is home to some of the world’s biggest companies such as San Miguel Corp., Coca-cola Bottling Corp. and Shemberg, the number one exporter of carrageenan. Mandaue City also accounts for 75 percent of the country’s total exports in the furniture sector, making the city the furniture capital of the country.4

3 Department of Tourism, Calendar of Activities 2009 4 Mandaue City, Socio Economic Profile, CPDO 2009


______________________________________________________________________________________________



National Solid Waste Profile and Projection In 2001, World Bank projected waste generation increase in the Philippines from 10.67 million tons/year in 2000 to 14.05 million tons/year in 2010.5 The figures registered more than 30% increase in only ten years. Table 2. National Waste Generation, 2000-2010

2000 2010 REGION MIL. T/YR. % OF

TOTAL MIL. T/YR. % OF

TOTAL National Capital Region (NCR) 2.45 23.0 3.14 22.3 Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)

0.17 1.6 0.21 1.5

Ilocos 0.50 4.7 0.63 4.5 Cagayan Valley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8 Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4 Southern Tagalog 1.42 13.3 2.11 15 Bicol 0.54 5.1 0.65 4.6 Western Visayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1 Central Visayas 0.74 7.0 1.01 7.2 Eastern Visayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6 Western Mindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8 Northern Mindanao 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4 Southern Mindanao 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9 Central Mindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9 Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)

0.26 2.5 0.39 2.7

Caraga 0.26 2.4 0.31 2.2 National 10.67 100 14.05 100 Assumptions: Waste production rates2: National Capital Region: 0.71 kg/person/day urban population: 0.5 kg/person/day rural population: 0.3 kg/person/day It was assumed that the urban population would increase their waste production rate by 1 percent per year due to rising income levels (based on GHK/MRM International Report). Urban and rural population and growth rates by region are based on National Statistical Office, data for 2000.

Source: Philippine Environment Monitor, World Bank 2001

5 World Bank, Philippine Environment Monitor 2001 Solid Waste, 2001.

Overview of Solid Waste Generation in Mandaue City


______________________________________________________________________________________________



The National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) reports that the country’s solid waste generation per day is at 30,000 tons. It is composed of 73% from households, 26% from commercial establishments, industries, institutions and 1% from healthcare facilities.6 Based on RA 9003, LGUs are the lead implementing agency for SWM programs. The LGUs operate under the National Solid Waste Management Framework that clearly defines the Philippine 3R strategy as: Avoid, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Treat, and Dispose. Local policies, programs and projects in managing solid waste revolve around this strategy. Although RA 9003 requires the mainstreaming of waste recycling and recovery, these are mainly taken up by the informal sector. For instance, only 6% of solid waste was recycled in Metro Manila in 1997 which increased to only 25% in 2007. As of the second quarter of 2008, only 2,361 Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) are established serving 2,634 barangays nationwide, based on the NSWMC database. This is only .05% of the 42,000 barangays nationwide that should have established their own facility. As provided by the law, all open dumpsites and controlled disposal facilities should have been closed by February 16, 2004 and February 16, 2006, respectively. Currently, more than 1,000 open dumpsites and controlled disposal facilities are still operating. Conversion of these disposal sites to sanitary landfills encounter sitting and financing difficulties. 7 City Solid Waste Profile According to the City Profile 2009, the total volume of garbage disposed is 195 tons per day. It also places the total volume of waste being composted to 80 tons and being recycled and reused to 70 tons. Although there is no data directly coming from the city or barangays, this figure could be attributed to the few barangays practicing community-based waste management such as Subangdaku and Canduman. The dumping site is a five-hectare area in Barangay Umapad which has been closed recently to un-segregated load of barangay trucks. Currently only five city-owned trucks are operating since the closure of the dumpsites. Most of the mobile garbage bins which used to total 2,502 have been removed from street corners. There are 712 industries with functional pollution control facilities according to the city profile. Still, common garbage disposal practices include dumping, burning, burying in individual pits, throwing in rivers and esteros and vacant lots.8

6 Aguinaldo, E. 2008, “National and Local Initiatives on Solid Waste Management and Implementation of 3Rs in the Philippines”, Environment and Livable Cities 08, Manila, Philippines. 7 Ibid. 8 Mandaue City, Socio-Economic Profile 2009


______________________________________________________________________________________________



METHODOLOGY Waste Sectors In the study, three major waste sectors were analyzed:

� Commercial Sector - Wastes disposed by businesses, institutions and market places that that are collected and transported by private and government haulers.

� Residential Sector - Wastes disposed by households collected and transported by private and government haulers.

� Industrial Sector - Waste generated from industrial areas and transported by private and government haulers.

Some limitations and difficulties The WACS team encountered several difficulties and limitations in the conduct of the study. These consequently affected how the study was conducted and the extent of data gathered throughout the study. The city mayor Jonas Cortes has already recognized the solid waste problem in the city: first is because the five hectares Umapad Dumpsite has already exceeded its capacity. Because of this, the mayor looked into the possibility of rehabilitating the site. Due to this consideration, actual waste characterization was rescheduled several times. To address the concern, the team considered doing barangay-level WACS. However, the DGS officers advised the research team to wait a few weeks more since only five out of 27 barangays are practicing solid waste management and the mayor would like the barangays to engage first in barangays-led SWM before any activities initiated by outside groups are conducted. Eventually, in response to E.O. 774, the mayor closed the dumpsite to barangay trucks with un-segregated waste load. DGS collection was stopped for one week and continued after with only five trucks operating the service following the revised routes. Barangay officials were busy addressing the temporary disposal crisis and WACS at source was simply impossible to conduct. After the operation of the DGS garbage trucks and the new route assignments were normalized, the team was able to conduct the WACS at the Umapad Dumpsite.

Plastic Waste Quantification and Characterization


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Sampling

� Sampling Schedule To be able to cover a whole period of the city’s waste cycle, the schedule for the sampling activities was arranged as follows:

Table 4. Sampling Schedule Sampling Day Date Day of the

Week Shift

Day 1 June 19, 2009 Friday Day shift Day 2 June 20, 2009 Saturday Day shift Day 3 June 21, 2009 Monday Day shift Day 4 June 22, 2009 Tuesday Day shift Day 5 June 23, 2009 Wednesday Day shift Day 6 June 24, 2009 Thursday Day shift Day 7 June 25, 2009 Friday Day shift

No nightshift was scheduled since the changes resulting from the closure of the dumpsite included reduction of dumping trips, reduction in the number of operating collection trucks. The sampling was also done daily since separate and smaller samples were gathered for the moisture content analysis. Drying lasted only a couple of days finishing the landfill activities two days after the last sorting day.

� Collection of Samples A total of 36 garbage trucks set as samples within a period of 7 days were distributed that represented all areas covered by DGS waste collection. The study did not utilize a random numbers table to determine the truck samples, since there were only five DGS trucks operating at that time. Since there was no working truck scale at the landfill, trucks had to go to the private weight master9 for the net and gross weights. This process had to be coordinated at three points: the dispatching area at the DGS Office, where the truck drivers were given instruction by the DGS In-charge, the weighting area of a private weight master, where the weight of loaded and eventually unloaded trucks were recorded, and the disposal area, where the identified trucks were intercepted before dumping for the team to be able to extract the required amount of waste for each specific sample. The summary of the truck samples with their corresponding weights can be found at Appendix 6.4, Table 22 on page 44.

9 Weight Master from Tinguan Enterprises is Mr. Arturo Ardo


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Actual Waste Characterization At the side of the Umapad Landfill, the site was prepared and cleared to be used as the sorting area. Designated spaces were properly labeled according to the type and source of waste placed into them. Before the start of the first sample extraction, needed equipments were prepared on site.10 Each identified truck, after finishing waste collection in their designated areas, goes to the weight master to be weighed before proceeding to the landfill. 11 Upon entering the landfill, the collection crew extract a portion of the waste load from the truck. To facilitate immediate extraction of required sample, wastes were taken from the upper, outer portion of the truck load. Extraction of sample which is 30 kilos for each truck load was obtained based on the same study conducted in Cebu City. A 50-kilogram weighing scale was used to weigh 30 kilograms of waste which were then brought to the sorting area for characterization. The waste samples were sorted into the prescribed material categories and recorded on FORM No.4. Wastes are classified into seventeen material types since there was no previous study conducted for waste characterization in the city. Plastics 1 to 7 based on the Plastic Identification Code12, Wood, Paper, Glass, Metal, Electronics, Organic, Hazardous Waste, Construction material, Special waste, and Mixed Residue is the other waste categories. For waste plastics which are not identified in the first six types were placed in Other Plastics category.

Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck Aside from Plastics, Wood and Paper were specifically sorted. This is because the objective of the study is to provide baseline data for a possible demonstration project that will convert waste plastics into fuel. P2F conversion technologies often require the mixing of waste plastics with waste paper and waste wood as additional resource material.13

10 Appendix 6.7 on lists all the materials and equipment used during the actual characterization. 11 The truck goes back to the weight master after dumping of its load to get the net weight of the truck. 12 The Plastic Identification Code, March 20, 2009 <http://www.plastics.org.nz/_attachments/docs/plasticscode-7.pdf> 13 Guidelines for Assessment of Waste Plastics, UNEP-DTIE,IETC, 2009

AFront of the truck

Back of the truck

Waste Sample


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Materials were sorted according to the seventeen material types and placed into separate labeled containers.14 Before weighing, the materials were checked and verified against the Waste Classification Guide provided to the sorting crew. These are then weighed on a five-kilogram digital weighing scale. The accuracy and operation of the scale were checked against a known reference weight. And since the digital scale is very sensitive and registers weight per single gram, it was place on a clean, flat surface and the level of scale was adjusted when necessary. The materials were weighed as is, but bottles, cans and containers were emptied of their contents before weighing. The weight of each material (wet basis) was recorded on FORM No.2. Presentation of Data Data is shown in pie graphs and tables. Presentation of data starts from Plastics (material types 1 to 7) and Other Wastes (8 to 17). Tables present data by material types 1 to 17, total Plastic (Nos. 1-7), total Other Waste (8-10) and Total Waste (100%). In the discussion of the key findings, the quantity of waste plastics is presented in three ways: first, the proportion of the total waste plastic against total waste composition; second, is the proportion of Plastics (material types 1 to 7) against the total waste composition; third is the proportion of Plastics (Material types 1 to 7) against the total number of waste plastics. Since the dumpsite was closed to barangay trucks with un-segregated waste load only DGS trucks were selected as samples. During the conduct of the study, only five DGS trucks were plying the major thoroughfares collecting mixed wastes from non-point residential and commercial sources (and probably minimal industrial wastes as well) in any or all of the areas. Because of this, specific sector-based data is not established. However, waste profile as well as quantities and projection were determined from the results of the study and would still serve its purpose for the minimum requirement of waste profiling, quantification and projection. 14 See Appendix 6.4 for data capture forms


______________________________________________________________________________________________



FINDINGS

Quantities of Waste A total of 187,205 kg (187.21 tons) with the average of 26,744 kg (26.74 tons) garbage wastes were collected by the DGS in Mandaue City within the study period. The quantities associated with waste plastics disposed in the same period based on the sample quantity of 30 kg (0.03 tons) per sample are 206 kg (0.21 tons) and has the average of 51 kg (0.05 tons). A total of 1,080.17 kg sample collected in the study period. Waste plastics represent approximately 19.06% (205.87 kg) while other wastes account to 80.94% (874.30 kg) during the sampling period. Table 5 shows the aggregated data and the quantity of municipal solid waste and waste plastics on daily samples. Table 5. Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Mandaue City

Daily Samples Aggregated Data Day-

Sample No. MSW (kg)

Waste Plastics (kg)

Day MSW (kg)

Waste Plastics (kg)

Percentage (%)

1-1 4810.00 4.34 1 31280.00 31.58 0.10 1-2 4640.00 5.00 2 20225.00 22.55 0.11 1-3 6620.00 4.56 3 30560.00 28.85 0.09 1-4 2360.00 4.66 4 26740.00 29.07 0.11 1-5 6970.00 6.71 5 23700.00 35.97 0.15 1-6 5880.00 6.32 6 25970.00 30.78 0.12 2-1 4610.00 4.14 7 28730.00 27.06 0.09

2-2 4860.00 3.16 Total 187205.0

0 205.87 0.11

2-3 2685.00 4.50 Averag

e 26743.57 51.47 0.19 2-4 3160.00 4.98 2-5 4910.00 5.78 3-1 4100.00 7.38 3-2 6770.00 10.70 3-3 4840.00 3.68 3-4 6820.00 3.46 3-5 8030.00 3.63 4-1 6950.00 5.98 4-2 6300.00 6.13 4-3 4830.00 4.55 4-4 4800.00 6.07 4-5 3860.00 6.34 5-1 4090.00 7.82 5-2 7390.00 7.52


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Daily Samples Aggregated Data Day-

Sample No. MSW (kg)

Waste Plastics (kg)

Day MSW (kg)

Waste Plastics (kg)

Percentage (%)

5-3 4760.00 5.93 5-4 4100.00 8.10 5-5 3360.00 6.60 6-1 3110.00 7.10 6-2 4590.00 8.20 6-3 5280.00 4.23 6-4 8150.00 8.05 6-5 4840.00 3.21 7-1 6020.00 6.66 7-2 6170.00 7.06 7-3 8480.00 5.65 7-4 4850.00 5.74 7-5 3210.00 1.97

Waste Composition This report presents the result of the garbage collected by DGS trucks. A total of 1,080.17 kg from 36 garbage truck samples were characterized. The results are presented in pie charts showing the summary of waste composition and a table showing the waste type, by weight and precision levels at 80% confidence level. Table 6. Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence Levels

C.L. 95% C.L 90% C.L 80% C.L 70% Material

s Resident’l.

Commer’l.

Resident’l.

Commer’l.

Resident’l.

Commer’l.

Resident’l.

Commer’l.

Newsprint

224-2397

698-3563

58-600 170-991 16-150 48-223 9-58 21-101

Cardboard

899-1955

533-997 225-499 134-250 58-123 35-64 27-66 17-30

Aluminum

275-1437

754-4399

70-350 191-1100

19-92 60-275 10-42 23-123

Ferrous 194-554 552-3411

50-139 138-953 14-37 36-214 8-18 17-97

Glass 145-619 596-2002

39-155 149-501 19-61 39-126 6-19 19-58

Plastic 261-1100

422-783 67-275 107-195 18-70 28-61 10-32 14-24

Organic 12-47 26-92 5-14 8-25 3-5 4-8 3-4 3-5 Source: Guidelines for Assessment of Waste Plastics, UNEP-DTIE-IETC, 2009


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Due to rounding, numbers may not sum exactly to totals or subtotals. In this report, waste plastics were presented in three presentations as mentioned in the presentation of data. However, waste per sectors could not be presented due to some limitations and difficulties as discussed above. More categories were used in classifying materials in Mandaue City since no previous study was conducted on waste characterization. Figure 3 shows the percentage of waste plastics against the total amount of other wastes disposed in the landfill. Aggregate Data

Figure 3. Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from total waste disposed

Other wastes, 80.94%

Plastics, 19.06%

Figure 4 shows the result of each material type, 60.93% of waste disposed is organics, followed by paper (14.61%). The next most common material is plastic (HDPE) with approximately 10.64%. Other categories such as Glass (2.04%), Mixed Residue (1.92%), Metal (0.70%), Wood (0.51%), Electronics (0.19%) and Hazardous Waste (0.05%) were also noted and found with minimal amount of moisture. No special waste was recorded during the sampling period. Table 7 shows the result of overall waste characterization in Mandaue City. The detailed overall waste characterization findings are shown in Table 9.


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 4. Overview of Overall Waste Characterization, Mandaue City

Special Waste,

0.00%

Hazardous Waste,

0.05%

Mixed Residue,

1.92%

PET, 0.12%

HDPE, 10.64% PVC, 3.23%

LDPE, 0.02%

PP, 0.06%

PS, 0.58%

Other Plastics,

4.41%Paper, 14.61%

Glass, 2.04%

Wood, 0.51%

Metal, 0.70%Electronics, 0.19%

Organic, 60.93%

Table 7. Result of Overall Waste Characterization, Mandaue City

Types of Waste Percentage (%)

Variance +/-

1. PET 0.12 0.034953619 0.24 2. HDPE 10.64 20.85662924 5.85 3. PVC 3.23 2.757887905 2.13 4. LDPE 0.02 0.001320333 0.05 5. PP 0.06 0.002542476 0.07 6. PS 0.58 0.055182952 0.30 7. Other Plastics 4.41 1.190198905 1.40 8. Paper 14.61 48.78240095 8.95 9. Wood 0.51 0.462450333 0.87 10. Glass 2.04 4.950573286 2.85 11. Metal 0.70 0.64796581 1.03 12. Electronics 0.19 0.117495952 0.44 13. Organic 60.93 185.4310468 17.44 14. Hazardous

Waste 0.05 0.006507667 0.10 15. Construction

Material 0.00 0 0 16. Special Waste 0.00 0 0 17. Mixed Residue 1.92 2.854793238 2.17 TOTAL PLASTICS 19.06 - -

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 80.94

- -

TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________



A total of 205.87 kg of sample waste were characterized. Findings on waste plastics reveal that more than half of waste plastics found are HDPE with the highest percentage of 55.82% disposed (Figure 5). Moreover, Other Plastics (23.14%) and PVC (16.95%) were also abundantly observed. PS (3.07%), PET (0.65%), PP (0.30%) and LDPE (0.08%), were found to be minimal. Table 8 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in Mandaue City. The detailed findings of waste plastics characterization are shown in Table 9.

Figure 5. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Mandaue City

PVC, 16.95% LDPE, 0.08%

PP, 0.30%

PS, 3.07%Other Plastics, 23.14%

PET, 0.65%

HDPE, 55.82%

Table 8. Results of Waste Plastics Characterization, Mandaue City

Types of Waste Plastics

Percentage (%)

Variance

+/-

1. PET 0.65 0.034953

619 0.24

2. HDPE 55.82 20.85662

924 5.85

3. PVC 16.95 2.757887

905 2.13

4. LDPE 0.08 0.001320

333 0.05

5. PP 0.30 0.002542

476 0.07

6. PS 3.07 0.055182

952 0.30

7. Other Plastics 23.14 1.190198

905 1.40 TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________

Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1: Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study- B.

Mandaue City, Philippines”

Table 9. Characterization of Overall Waste Compositions Weight of Waste per Classification, kg

Types of Waste

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Total Waste per

Classification, kg

Percentage (%)

Variance +/-

1. PET 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.58 0.08 0.24 0.18 1.33 0.12 0.034953

619 0.24

2. HDPE 16.85 9.71 14.60 15.42 25.10 16.90 16.34 114.92 10.64 20.85662

924 5.85

3. PVC 5.81 3.57 8.11 4.50 3.90 5.54 3.45 34.89 3.23 2.757887

905 2.13

4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.02 0.001320

333 0.05

5. PP 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.62 0.06 0.002542

476 0.07

6. PS 0.65 0.86 0.57 1.25 0.95 1.06 0.99 6.31 0.58 0.055182

952 0.30

7. Other Plastics 8.03 8.24 5.51 7.20 5.90 6.90 5.85 47.63 4.41 1.190198

905 1.40 TOTAL

PLASTICS 31.58 22.55 28.85 29.07 35.97 30.78 27.06 205.87 19.06 - -

8. Paper 18.48 16.38 33.90 16.59 19.94 30.70 21.80 157.80 14.61 48.78240

095 8.95

9. Wood 1.87 0.89 0.88 1.39 0.00 0.23 0.26 5.52 0.51 0.462450

333 0.87

10. Glass 1.42 2.90 1.58 7.75 2.05 4.14 2.22 22.05 2.04 4.950573

286 2.85

11. Metal 0.58 0.90 0.41 2.81 0.72 0.93 1.22 7.58 0.70 0.647965

81 1.03


______________________________________________________________________________________________



12. Electronics 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.79 0.63 2.05 0.19 0.117495

952 0.44

13. Organic 120.7

6 100.9

9 82.87 89.21 87.97 81.22 95.04 658.06 60.93 185.4310

468 17.44 14. Hazardous Waste 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.51 0.05

0.006507667 0.10

15. Construction Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 16. Special Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0

17. Mixed Residue 5.16 5.38 1.43 1.91 3.33 1.75 1.77 20.74 1.92 2.854793

238 2.17 TOTAL OTHER

WASTES 148.4

2 127.4

5 121.1

5 120.4

0 114.0

3 119.9

1 122.9

4 874.30 80.94 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 180.0

0 150.0

0 150.0

0 149.4

7 150.0

0 150.6

9 150.0

0 1080.17 100.00 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________

Extracted from the report “Converting Waste Plastics to Fuels – Baseline Study Project. Activity II-1:

Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study- B. Mandaue City, Philippines”

Moisture Content Table 10. Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Mandaue City

Types of Waste Raw Weight (kg)

Moisture Content, MC (%)

Dry Weight (kg)

1. PET 1.33 1.92 1.31 2. HDPE 114.92 15.97 96.56 3. PVC 34.89 9.64 31.52 4. LDPE 0.17 0.40 0.17 5. PP 0.62 2.79 0.60 6. PS 6.31 7.86 5.81 7. Other Plastics 47.63 12.18 41.83 TOTAL PLASTICS 205.87 - 177.8

8. Paper 157.80 26.40 116.14 9. Wood 5.52 10.72 4.92 10. Glass 22.05 2.32 21.53 11. Metal 7.58 3.87 7.28 12. Electronics 2.05 0.53 2.04 13. Organic 658.06 44.36 366.14 14. Hazardous Waste 0.51 1.44 0.50 15. Construction Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 20.74 13.03 18.04

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 874.30 - 536.59

TOTAL 1080.17 - 714.39 Figure 6, shows the moisture content analysis of waste plastics. The amount of moisture is high for almost all waste plastics considering the heavy rains experienced during the study period. The highest moisture is HDPE (15.97%), which is commonly observed as waste plastics from wet market. For other plastics (12.18%), PVC (9.64%) and PS (7.86%) it shows high amount of moisture. Other types of waste plastics such as PP (2.79%), PET (1.92%) and LDPE (0.40%) also shows significant moisture content. This reflects the fact that waste plastics disposed has high moisture content that turns into leachate that could contaminate to ground water. Table 12 shows the result for moisture content analysis of waste plastics.


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 6. Moisture Content of Plastics and Other Wastes Table 11. Result for Moisture Content of Plastics and Other Wastes

Types of wastes

Wet wt. Dry wt.

Amount of Moisture, kg

(Initial weight-Final weight)

% Moisture (amount of moisture/initial

weight)*100

Plastics 205.87 177.8 28.07 13.63 Other wastes 874.3 536.59 337.71 38.63 Total 1, 080.17 714.39 365.78 33.86

Figure 7. Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics

12.18%

7.86%

2.79%

0.40%

9.64%

15.97%

1.92%

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS OtherPlastics


% Moisture

P lastics,

13.63%

O ther

w astes,

38.63%

0

10

20

30

40

50

Types of Wastes

% Moisture


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 12. Results for Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics

% Moisture Types of Waste

Plastics Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Average %

1. PET 1.09 2.93 0.00 3.40 1.94 2.40 1.67 1.92 2. HDPE 15.21 16.57 16.78 16.77 16.90 15.29 14.26 15.97 3. PVC 9.66 9.32 10.98 8.81 11.00 8.57 9.12 9.64 4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.89 0.40 5. PP 4.66 0.95 1.96 4.93 1.11 3.33 2.56 2.79 6. PS 8.44 8.89 7.19 7.99 6.13 8.69 7.72 7.86 7. Other

Plastics 12.37 11.62 12.21 12.64 11.31 12.32 12.79 12.18 Figure 8 shows the result of moisture content for other wastes. Organic materials have the highest moisture content at 44.36%. Paper (26.40%), Mixed Residue (13.03%) and Wood (10.72%) found also to have high moisture content. As with the other materials such as Metal (3.87%), Glass (2.32%), Hazardous Waste (1.44%) and Electronics (0.53%), there is minimal amount of moisture content observed. Table 13 shows the result of moisture content analysis of other wastes. Figure 8. Moisture Content Analysis of the Other Wastes Categories

13.03%

0.00%0.00%1.44%

44.36%

0.53%3.87%2.32%

10.72%

26.40%

0.05.010.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

Paper

W ood

Glass

M etal

Electronics

Organic

Hazardous Waste

Construction Material

Special Waste

M ixed Residue


% M

oisture


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 13. Result of Moisture Content Analysis of the other Wastes Categories % Moisture

Types of Waste Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Average %

8. Paper 26.31 26.57 24.36 26.55 28.59 26.56 25.88 26.40 9. Wood 14.44 9.74 12.18 14.94 0.00 6.54 17.23 10.72 10. Glass 1.57 0.70 1.41 3.33 2.85 3.45 2.91 2.32 11. Metal 4.02 1.66 3.14 5.57 3.93 5.01 3.79 3.87 12. Electronics 0.48 0.00 1.43 1.47 0.00 0.26 0.06 0.53 13. Organic 47.08 48.10 45.90 45.55 45.13 41.45 37.31 44.36 14. Hazardous Waste 1.13 0.00 1.05 2.31 1.54 4.05 0.00 1.44 15. Construction Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 17.25 14.22 14.66 14.60 10.33 10.13 10.04 13.03

For Table 14, wet weight is also compared to the weight of dry material. In addition, the table shows the composition of waste plastics based on Phyllis, a website database on the composition of biomass and other wastes15. Table 14. Waste Composition for Mandaue City

Composition Types of Waste

Wet Weight

(kg)

Dry Weight

(kg) C H O N S Ash

1. PET 1.33 1.31 62.2 4.2 32.9 - - 0.7 2. HDPE 114.92 96.56 86.1 13 0.9 - - - 3. PVC 34.89 31.52 40.1 5.1 0.6 - - - 4. LDPE 0.17 0.17 85.7 14.2 0.1 0.05 - - 5. PP 0.62 0.60 85.5 14.3 0.2 - - 0.1 6. PS 6.31 5.81 92.7 7.9 - - - - 7. Other Plastics 47.63 41.83 - - - - - -

TOTAL PLASTICS 205.87 177.8

8. Paper 157.80 116.14 - - - - - - 9. Wood 5.52 4.92 - - - - - - 10. Glass 22.05 21.53 - - - - - - 11. Metal 7.58 7.28 - - - - - - 12. Electronics 2.05 2.04 - - - - - -

15 ECN Phyllis, The Composition of Biomass and Waste, June 1, 2009, <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/>


______________________________________________________________________________________________



13. Organic 658.06 366.14 - - - - - - 14. Hazardous Waste 0.51 0.50 - - - - - - 15. Construction Material 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - 16. Special Waste 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - 17. Mixed Residue 20.74 18.04 - - - - - -

TOTAL OTHER

WASTES 874.30 536.59 TOTAL 1080.17 714.39 - - - - - -

Waste Projection The factors and formula used in computing population and waste projection can be found on Table 16 on page 35 and Table 17 on page 36. Waste generation projection shows that the city will generate approximately 67,251 tons of waste in 2009. With the population growth of 2.84% the city population will arrive at almost half a million in 2020. By this time the city will generate approximately 102,108 tons of waste per year. Table 15. Projected Population and Waste Generation 2009-2020

Year Projected Population Tons, per year 2009 336, 927 67, 251 2010 346, 496 69, 854 2011 356, 336 72, 557 2012 366, 456 75, 365 2013 376, 863 78, 282 2014 387, 566 81, 311 2015 398, 573 84, 458 2016 409, 892 87, 725 2017 421, 533 91, 119 2018 433, 505 94, 643 2019 445, 817 98, 303 2020 458, 478 102,108


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Conclusion and Recommendations The amount of waste plastics that the city currently disposes to the Umapad Landfill is at 19.06% of the total waste being disposed. If the city will generate a total 67,251 tons of waste in 2009, based on projection figures, the total waste plastics to be disposed for the year will be approximately 12,818 tons. Wood at 343 tons (0.51%) and Paper at 9,825 tons (14.61%) as additional feedstock to a waste to energy or specifically for a P2F conversion facility. Total is 22,986 tons or approximately 1,916 tons of available materials a month. Average moisture for waste plastics content is at 13.63%, as opposed to other wastes at 38.63%. Total average of moisture is at 33.86%. This could be attributed to the weather condition during the characterization phase which was conducted in June, the start of the rainy season. Only recently, a city-government initiated waste recovery from the dumpsite was started. The recovery was especially focused on waste plastics. The city government hired 60 waste sorters. In additional to this, there are also several levels of informal waste recovery in the entire waste flow. The percentage of recovery should be documented to shed light on the actual plastic waste generation in the city. This will also give a more thorough understanding of the waste management systems and practices. For a detailed discussion on current systems and practices, please see Activity II-2 Report on Plastic Wastes Management Systems and Practices for Mandaue City. A further study focusing on waste recovery and diversion systems would further shed light on how much waste plastics the city generates in different sectors. This study should also include markets for plastics and costs of different plastic waste materials. As for the City, a stricter enforcement of solid waste management laws and local ordinances is needed so that recyclable waste plastics, as well as other materials will be diverted to environment-friendly projects such as a P2F facility.


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Detailed Waste Characterization Tables and Data Table 18. Characterization of Overall Waste Composition

Weight of Waste per Classification, kg

Types of Waste

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Total Waste per

Classification, kg

Percentage (%)

Variance +/-

1. PET 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.58 0.08 0.24 0.18 1.33 0.12 0.034953

619 0.24

2. HDPE 16.85 9.71 14.60 15.42 25.10 16.90 16.34 114.92 10.64 20.85662

924 5.85

3. PVC 5.81 3.57 8.11 4.50 3.90 5.54 3.45 34.89 3.23 2.757887

905 2.13

4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.02 0.001320

333 0.05

5. PP 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.62 0.06 0.002542

476 0.07

6. PS 0.65 0.86 0.57 1.25 0.95 1.06 0.99 6.31 0.58 0.055182

952 0.30

7. Other Plastics 8.03 8.24 5.51 7.20 5.90 6.90 5.85 47.63 4.41 1.190198

905 1.40 TOTAL

PLASTICS 31.58 22.55 28.85 29.07 35.97 30.78 27.06 205.87 19.06 - -

8. Paper 18.48 16.38 33.90 16.59 19.94 30.70 21.80 157.80 14.61 48.78240

095 8.95

9. Wood 1.87 0.89 0.88 1.39 0.00 0.23 0.26 5.52 0.51 0.462450

333 0.87 10. Glass 1.42 2.90 1.58 7.75 2.05 4.14 2.22 22.05 2.04 4.950573 2.85


______________________________________________________________________________________________



286

11. Metal 0.58 0.90 0.41 2.81 0.72 0.93 1.22 7.58 0.70 0.647965

81 1.03

12. Electronics 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.79 0.63 2.05 0.19 0.117495

952 0.44

13. Organic 120.7

6 100.9

9 82.87 89.21 87.97 81.22 95.04 658.06 60.93 185.4310

468 17.44 14. Hazardous Waste 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.51 0.05

0.006507667 0.10

15. Construction Material 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 16. Special Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0

17. Mixed Residue 5.16 5.38 1.43 1.91 3.33 1.75 1.77 20.74 1.92 2.854793

238 2.17 TOTAL OTHER

WASTES 148.4

2 127.4

5 121.1

5 120.4

0 114.0

3 119.9

1 122.9

4 874.30 80.94 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 180.0

0 150.0

0 150.0

0 149.4

7 150.0

0 150.6

9 150.0

0 1080.17 100.00 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 19. Result of Wet (unclean) Waste Plastics

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Types of

Waste Plastics Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Total Waste per

Classification, kg

Variance

+/-

1. PET 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.58 0.08 0.24 0.18 1.33 0.03495

3619 0.24

2. HDPE 16.85 9.71 14.60 15.42 25.10 16.90 16.34 114.92 20.8566

2924 5.85

3. PVC 5.81 3.57 8.11 4.50 3.90 5.54 3.45 34.89 2.75788

7905 2.13

4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.00132

0333 0.05

5. PP 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.62 0.00254

2476 0.07

6. PS 0.65 0.86 0.57 1.25 0.95 1.06 0.99 6.31 0.05518

2952 0.30 7. Other

Plastics 8.03 8.24 5.51 7.20 5.90 6.90 5.85 47.63 1.19019

8905 1.40 Total Sample 31.58 22.56 28.86 29.07 35.98 30.78 27.06 205.87 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 20. Results of dry (clean) Waste Plastics

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Types of

Waste Plastics Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Total Waste per

Classification, kg

Variance +/-

8. PET 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.56 0.08 0.23 0.19 1.31 0.0321571

43 0.23

9. HDPE 14.27 8.09 12.15 12.82 20.88 14.32 14.11 96.56 14.500095

24 4.88

10. PVC 5.21 3.23 6.83 4.11 3.48 5.05 3.14 31.52 1.8102619

05 1.72

11. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.17 0.0011904

76 0.04

12. PP 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.60 0.0025619

05 0.06

13. PS 0.60 0.78 0.53 1.15 0.89 0.97 0.90 5.81 0.0459809

52 0.27 14. Other

Plastics 7.02 7.06 4.83 6.33 5.23 6.01 5.14 41.83 0.8256285

71 1.16 Total Sample 27.34 19.33 24.40 25.08 30.60 26.72 23.73 177.80 - -


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 21. Overview of Sample Collection Routes of the DPS, Mandaue City

Day-Sample

No. Barangay/ Route

1-1 From 2nd Bridge to U.N. Ave.,Brgy. Umapad, Alang-alang, Ibabao, Estancia, Maguikay, Tipolo and Subangdaku

1-2 Brgy. Alang-Alang

1-3 Brgy. Lo-oc, UC School, Alang-Alang, Ibabao, Estancia, Maguikay, Casuntingan, and Cabancalan

1-4 Brgy. Umapad 1-5 Mandaue City Public Market 1-6 SB Cabahug St., Rizal St. to Jagobiao

2-1 A. del Rosario Ave, Brgy. Mantuyong, Guizo, Tipolo to AS Fortuna St., Brgy. Bakilid and Banilad.


2-3 Public Cemetery to Subangdaku, Sitio Panagdait and Reclamation area.

2-4 Mandaue City Central School, City Plaza to Reclamation area, CICC, Cebu Doctors Hospital, Ceres Bus Liner, Quest, ABB and inside Brgy. Jagobiao.





3-4 Mandaue City Public Market

3-5 From Pier area to Brgy. Pagsabungan, Canduman, Casili, Tawason, Cubacub, Hermag Village and Jagobiao upper







5-2 Mandaue City Public Market 5-3 From 2nd Bridge to U.N. Ave.,Brgy. Umapad, Alang-alang, Ibabao, Estancia,

Maguikay, Tipolo and Subangdaku


______________________________________________________________________________________________






6-2 Mandaue City Public Market 6-3 SB Cabahug St., Rizal St. to Jagobiao








Table 22. Weight Master Summary

Day-Sample No.

Truck Number

Gross Weight Net Load

1-1 SPG- 231 8690.00 4810.00 1-2 SGU- 849 8560.00 4640.00 1-3 SGP- 232 8900.00 6620.00 1-4 SHN- 529 7750.00 2360.00 1-5 SGP- 242 9860.00 6970.00 1-6 SGP- 241 9050.00 5880.00 TOTAL 52810.00 31280.00 2-1 SGP- 251 10020.00 4610.00 2-2 SGP- 231 8730.00 4860.00 2-3 SEZ- 647- D2 8210.00 2685.00 2-4 SEZ- 617 8190.00 3160.00 2-5 SGP- 231 8790.00 4910.00 TOTAL 43940.00 20225.00 3-1 SGP- 251 9990.00 4100.00 3-2 SGP- 232 8850.00 6770.00 3-3 SGP- 231 8720.00 4840.00 3-4 SGP- 242 9910.00 6820.00 3-5 SGP- 210 8710.00 8030.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________



TOTAL 46180.00 30560.00 4-1 SGP- 242 9880.00 6950.00 4-2 SGP- 232 8930.00 6300.00 4-3 SGP- 251 9930.00 4830.00 4-4 SGP- 231 8680.00 4800.00 4-5 SEZ- 617 8450.00 3860.00 TOTAL 45870.00 26740.00 5-1 SGP- 251 9980.00 4090.00 5-2 SGP- 242 9870.00 7390.00 5-3 SGP- 231 8650.00 4760.00 5-4 SGP- 232 8970.00 4100.00 5-5 SEZ- 617 8090.00 3360.00 TOTAL 45560.00 23700.00 6-1 SGP- 232 8940.00 3110.00 6-2 SGP- 242 9810.00 4590.00 6-3 SGP- 241 8980.00 5280.00 6-4 SGP- 231 8700.00 8150.00 6-5 SGP- 251 9940.00 4840.00 TOTAL 46370.00 25970.00 7-1 SGP- 242 9890.00 6020.00 7-2 SGP- 232 8910.00 6170.00 7-3 SGP- 231 8760.00 8480.00 7-4 SGP- 251 10060.00 4850.00 7-5 SEZ- 617 7950.00 3210.00

TOTAL 45570.00 28730.00 OVER- ALL TOTAL 326300.00 187205.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Raw Data Throughout the waste characterization, the container used for weighing is constant at 0.522 kg- weight of the container (tray). Table 23. Day 1-Sample 1 [Truck No.: SGP-231]

Table 24. Day 1-Sample 2 [Truck No.: SGU-849]

Types of Waste Initial weight, kg

(Unclean) wt. w/o container

Final weight, kg (Clean)

wt. w/o container

% Moisture

1. PET 0.000 0.000 0.00 2. HDPE 3.329 2.792 16.13 3. PVC 0.207 0.188 9.18 4. LDPE 0.000 0.000 0.00 5. PP 0.044 0.041 6.82 6. PS 0.050 0.045 10.00 7. Other Plastics 0.708 0.619 12.57

TOTAL 4.34 3.69 Ave 7.81 8. Paper 1.071 0.829 22.60 9. Wood 0.011 0.009 18.18 10. Glass 0.141 0.139 1.42 11. Metal 0.185 0.178 3.78 12. Electronics 0.035 0.034 2.86 13. Organic 23.780 13.040 45.16 14. Hazardous Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 15. Construction Material 0.000 0.000 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 0.438 0.367 16.21

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 25.66 14.596 Ave 11.02

OVER-ALL TOTAL 30.00 18.286 -




wt. w/o container

% Moisture



______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 25. Day 1-Sample 3 [Truck No.: SGP-232]

TOTAL PLASTICS 5.00 4.37 Ave 7.26







wt. w/o container

% Moisture





______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 26. Day 1-Sample 4 [Truck No.: SHN-529]







wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture

1. PET 0.045 0.043 4.44 2. HDPE 3.800 3.196 15.89 3. PVC 1.620 1.442 10.99 4. LDPE 0.000 0.000 0.00 5. PP 0.009 0.009 0.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________




6. PS 0.162 0.147 9.26 7. Other Plastics 1.072 0.935 12.78








wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 4.370 3.290 24.71 9. Wood 0.085 0.072 15.29 10. Glass 0.078 0.076 2.56 11. Metal 0.072 0.069 4.17 12. Electronics 0.000 0.000 0.00 13. Organic 17.600 9.440 46.36 14. Hazardous Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 15. Construction Material 0.000 0.000 0.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 30. Day 2-Sample 2 [Truck No.: SGP- 231]

16. Special Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 1.472 1.209 17.87






wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture

1. PET 0.100 0.096 4.00 2. HDPE 2.064 1.721 16.62 3. PVC 0.313 0.289 7.67


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 31. Day 2-Sample 3 [Truck No.: SEZ-647 D2]

4. LDPE 0.000 0.000 0.00 5. PP 0.011 0.011 0.00 6. PS 0.113 0.101 10.62 7. Other Plastics 0.558 0.480 13.98








wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 1.900 1.403 26.16 9. Wood 0.037 0.031 16.22 10. Glass 2.821 2.760 2.16 11. Metal 0.271 0.266 1.85 12. Electronics 0.014 0.014 0.00 13. Organic 20.020 10.098 49.56 14. Hazardous Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 32. Day 2-Sample 4 [Truck No.: SEZ-617 D2]

15. Construction Material 0.000 0.000 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 0.435 0.357 17.93






wt. w/o container

% Moisture




TOTAL OTHER PLASTICS 25.02 12.47 Ave 8.16



______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 6.400 4.900 23.44 9. Wood 0.600 0.436 27.33


______________________________________________________________________________________________




10. Glass 0.258 0.255 1.16 11. Metal 0.055 0.054 1.82 12. Electronics 0.000 0.000 0.00 13. Organic 14.890 8.459 43.19 14. Hazardous Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 15. Construction Material 0.000 0.000 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 0.417 0.366 12.23






wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 15.600 11.301 27.56 9. Wood 0.162 0.133 17.90


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture





OVER-ALL TOTAL 30.00 20 -




wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 3.800 2.752 27.58 9. Wood 0.223 0.182 18.39


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 43. Day 4-Sample 5 [Truck N0.: SEZ-617]




wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 2.600 1.879 27.73 9. Wood 0.320 0.275 14.06


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 2.500 1.750 30.00 9. Wood 0.000 0.000 0.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________



Table 48. Day 5-Sample 5 [Truck No.: SEZ-617]





wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 2.000 1.512 24.40 9. Wood 0.015 0.012 20.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 10.500 7.580 27.81 9. Wood 0.000 0.000 0.00


______________________________________________________________________________________________










wt. w/o container

% Moisture




TOTAL OTHER WASTES 26.79 17.51

Ave 10.355



______________________________________________________________________________________________








wt. w/o container

% Moisture





Ave 10.871





wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 6.000 4.429 26.18 9. Wood 0.123 0.095 22.76


______________________________________________________________________________________________




10. Glass 0.227 0.224 1.32 11. Metal 0.070 0.067 4.29 12. Electronics 0.032 0.032 0.00 13. Organic 15.790 10.118 35.92 14. Hazardous Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 15. Construction Material 0.000 0.000 0.00 16. Special Waste 0.000 0.000 0.00 17. Mixed Residue 0.697 0.648 7.03 TOTAL OTHER WASTES 22.94 15.61 Ave 9.75

OVER-ALL TOTAL 30.00 -




wt. w/o container

% Moisture







______________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 58. Day 7-Sample 5 [Truck No.: SEZ-617]




wt. w/o container

% Moisture









wt. w/o container

% Moisture



8. Paper 1.600 1.168 27.00 9. Wood 0.055 0.046 16.36


______________________________________________________________________________________________





Ave 9.465


Date post:	16-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	votuong
View:	246 times
Download:	3 times

Introduction to Mandaue (Philippines) - · PDF fileBrief Profile of Mandaue City Mandaue City...

Documents