Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb

Omkar Aphale, Krista L. Thyberg and David J. Tonjes

Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2015, vol. 99, issue C, 19-28

Abstract: Six tonnes of discards and recyclables from three waste districts in a New York suburb were sorted in 2012. The districts were chosen because one had a higher recycling percentage, one had median performance, and one was a low performing district. ASTM standards were followed for the waste composition sorting. The results showed, as expected, that the waste district with the highest recycling rate appeared to have the highest separation efficiencies, leading to greater amounts of recyclable materials being source separated. The waste districts also had different overall waste generation, both in terms of the amounts of wastes generated, and their composition. The better recycling district generated less waste, but had a higher percentage of recyclables in the waste stream. Therefore, in some sense, its waste stream was enriched in recyclables. Thus, although the residents of that district recovered materials at a higher rate, they also left large amounts of recyclables in their discards – as did the residents of the other districts. In fact, the districts only recycled between one quarter and less than half of all available recyclables, so that their discards were comprised of up to one third recyclable materials. This level of performance does not appear to be unique to this Town; therefore, we believe that additional recovery efforts through post-collection sorting for recyclables may be warranted.

Keywords: Curbside collection; Waste sorts; Paper; Containers; Household recycling rates; Recycling percents (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344915000531
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:recore:v:99:y:2015:i:c:p:19-28

DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.008

Access Statistics for this article

Resources, Conservation & Recycling is currently edited by Ming Xu

More articles in Resources, Conservation & Recycling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kai Meng ().