2014

Municipal Waste Characterization Study

LAHORE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

5/5/2014
1. INTRODUCTION

Solid waste characterization forms the basis of integrated solid waste management. It
varies according to social habits and income level by time. Since social changes have
accelerated in the globalizing world, the changes in waste characterization occur at shorter
periods.

For Lahore city, it is required to follow up solid waste content at least with annual periods
during the stage of establishing integrated waste management. In this scope, the solid waste
characterization for 2014 summer season was completed. Detailed trainings were delivered for
solid waste characterization. The trainings related to characterization study were repeated,
details were given with respect to working methodology and question marks were clarified.

In this study, it was aimed to monitor the urban solid waste characterization which will
serve as a basis to waste management to be established in Lahore. The opportunity to observe
the changes in waste characterization was obtained. In the study, data for comparing door -to
door compressing vehicle collection system with existing collection system were obtained.
Waste character was determined with a seriesof laboratory analysis conducted as well as item
group classification (waste characterization) conducted.

2. METHODOLOGIES

Field surveys were carried out in summer seasons (May) of 2014 in the scope of Lahore
solid waste characterization study. In the study conducted, waste characterization was
observed periodically. The previous methodology followed earlier by M/s. ISTAC was used in
the study, no change was required.

U.S. standard ASTM D5231 “Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of
Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste” and “European Commission-Methodology for the Analysis
of Solid Waste (SWA-Tool)” were taken as basis in characterization study.

In the characterization study, socio-economic structure was taken into consideration in

zoning. 3 different social welfare levels, low income, middle income and high income were
taken as basis in the areas where samples were collected. Besides, samples were collected
from Commercial Zones and Institutes (Table 1).
 Table 1: Area Classification for Sampling in Lahore Waste Characterization

Sr. No. Area

1 Low Income Areas
2 Middle Income Areas
3 High Income Areas
4 Commercial Areas
5 Institutions

The areas for collecting the samples were determined before starting the study and samples
were forwarded to the site according to working schedule determined. Routine collection
Processes were carried out in the areas of sampling without selecting wastes. The vehicles
loaded with waste were weighed before transportation to the site of study.

The details concerning area and amount of waste were taken and recorded from each vehicle
arriving. All of the wastes inside the vehicles were emptied for sampling (Photograph 1).

Photograph 1: Waste Sample from Determined Area

An effective mixing process could not be carried out due to ground problem. Use of quartering
method was not selected due to size of samples. Representative sampling was made using
shovel from each side of the waste which was homogenized.

In characterization sampling, 0.5 m3 open-top sampling scale container which was made of iron
and which has carrying handles was used. Scale container was filled without compression and
any gap during sampling (Photograph 2). 0.5 m3 sampling volume was preferred since it meets
the criteria of working in 91-136 kg samples as specified in ASTM standards.

Photograph 2: Representative Sample for Classification in Open Top Sampling Scale Container

Signboards indicating the sample code were used so that the samples taken for
characterization don’t get mixed up. Therefore, any confusion was avoided (Photograph 3).
 Photograph 3: Appearance of Sign Board near Waste Sample Stacks

Studies were conducted in 3 groups in waste characterization (Photograph). The employees to

carry out separation process were trained in order to carry out the separation process
properly (Photograph 4 and Photograph 5).

Photograph 4: Group of Workers for Characterization Process

 Photograph 5: Training of Employees to Carry out Separation Process

Different buckets were provided for each group of material and separated materials were put
inside those buckets. Weights of the buckets were determined prior to the study. It was
explained to workers in detail which group of material falls into which category. Municipal
wastes were classified under 14 categories for separation process (Table 2). Separation
process was followed by technical staff and it was ensured that process is carried out
properly (Photograph 6, Photograph 7). Firstly, biodegradable materials were separated
from the stack, then separation time was minimized by charging one employee for each
material so that separation process could be carried out more effectively. The separation
time is averagely 30 minutes.
 Photograph 6: Classification of Solid Waste

Photograph 7: Classification of Solid Waste

 Table 2: Solid Waste Characterization Material Groups

The samples which are separated are weighed on digital scale with a sensitivity of 10
gr. Formulation table was created in Microsoft Excel for weighing the samples. Characterization
percentage values were obtained automatically by entering the weight of each group into the
table (Photograph 11, Photograph 8, and Photograph 9).
 Photograph 8: Weighing the Segregated Waste

Photograph 9: Recording the Weighing Results in Computer

For laboratory analysis, 5 kg sample was taken from the samples whose material group
analysis was completed . Since representation is important, the percentage values
determined in taking laboratory samples were used. 5 kg laboratory samples were put
inside sample bags and labeled by writing the explanatory waste code.

They were delivered to laboratory employees with international certificate for carrying out the
laboratory analysis.

3. Results

Characterization Results

Urban waste was evaluated in 5 categories in characterization study and a total of 65

samples were studied. While waste categories are listed as Low Income, Middle Income,
High Income, Commercial and Institutions, the number of samples of each sub-group are 15,
15, 16, 10 and 10 respectively.

Weighted values of totally 65 waste characterizations are given in Figure 1. Results are
consistent with typical developing country characteristics. They include important components
i.e. Biodegradable and Nylon, Textile, Diaper, Paper-Cardboard, Non-Combustibles,
Combustibles in weight.

0.03 Combustibles
1.14
0.74 Diaper
0.59 5.42 3.52 2.88
0.15 2.14 Elec.-Electronic W.
1.67 9.76 Glass
5.39 Hazerdous W
0.08 Bıodegredable W.
Metals
Non-Combustibles
66.49 Paper-Cardboard
Pet
Nylon
Plastics
Tetrapak
Textile

Figure 1: Weighted Average Values of Lahore City Waste Characterization

Results of 2011 winter, 2011 summer, 2012 summer and 2014 summer urban solid waste
characterization study conducted for Lahore are given in Table 3. When the studies are
compared, a general consistency is seen. There are not high inconsistencies between seasonal
differences. There is an increase trend for non-combustibles and tetrapak components. The
wastes are rich in biodegradable waste content, however poor in recyclable material content.
The hazardous waste which is not desired among the urban wastes in terms of waste
management is mostly from hospital and at a significant level.

Table 3: Comparison of Solid Waste Characterization Results of 2011, 2012 and 2014

TYPE OF AREA 2011 2011 2012 2014

No Components Winter Summer Summer Summer Overall
1 Combustibles 3.83 3.69 2.12 3.52 3.29
2 Diaper 5.35 6.76 3.11 2.88 4.53
3 Elec.-Electronic W. 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.03 0.09
4 Glass 0.43 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.70
5 Hazerdous W 0.18 0.91 1.52 2.14 1.19
6 Bıodegredable W. 72.76 63.46 64.85 66.49 66.89
7 Metals 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.07
8 Non-Combustibles 3.42 1.82 2.26 5.39 3.22
9 Paper-Cardboard 2.34 3.84 2.43 1.67 2.57
10 Pet 0.08 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14
11 Nylon 5.58 9.77 11.62 9.76 9.18
12 Plastics 0.45 0.66 0.72 0.59 0.61
13 Tetrapak 0.77 0.94 0.98 1.14 0.96
14 Textile 4.71 7.05 9.09 5.42 6.57
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100.00
 70 Summer 2012
60 Summer 2014
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 2: Comparison of Percent by Weight Values of Waste Components of Summer 2012 and
2014

Evaluation According to Classes

The results obtained for each income level, commercial and institutes are given in graphics.

Low Income Areas

The results from low income areas are given in Figure 3. The most prominent waste type in the
results is biodegradable wastes with a percentage of 60.63%. Higher biodegradable waste
content in low income regions as compared to other income levels is an expected result
due to consumption habits and low food consumption. Other important components are Nylon,
Textile, Diaper, and Combustibles and their percentage in weight are 11.87%, 8.58%,
2.27% and 2.57% respectively. Textile is component expected with high percentages in low-
income areas. Use of diaper seems widespread according to each level group. This value is
directly related to child population in the area. Nylon consumption is widespread in the whole
world. This value constitutes a significant percentage within waste and is found over 9.2% in all
income groups.
 Table 4: Weighted Average of Low Income Areas

No COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Average
1 Combustibles 3.00 1.77 1.32 2.78 3.98 2.57
2 Diaper 1.20 2.87 2.41 2.62 2.25 2.27
3 Elec.-Electronic W. 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.04
4 Glass 0.62 0.49 0.50 0.94 0.45 0.60
5 Hazerdous W 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.11
6 Bıodegredable W. 62.28 65.44 72.67 31.23 71.54 60.63
7 Metals 0.24 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.07
8 Non-Combustibles 17.40 8.25 4.98 23.26 4.17 11.61
9 Paper-Cardboard 0.81 0.51 0.53 0.43 0.46 0.55
10 Pet 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.06
11 Nylon 7.02 9.47 8.44 25.17 9.23 11.87
12 Plastics 0.29 0.55 0.54 0.68 0.46 0.50
13 Tetrapak 0.47 0.62 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.55
14 Textile 6.36 9.95 7.83 11.96 6.81 8.58
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100.00

Low Income Areas

70 60.63
60
50
40
30
20 11.61 11.87 8.58
10 2.57 2.27 0.04 0.60 0.11 0.07 0.55 0.06 0.50 0.55
0

Figure 3: Weighted Average of Low Income Areas

Middle Income Areas

The results from middle income areas are given in Figure 4. As it has in other groups, the
biodegradable level has the highest ratio with 72.35 %. It is en expected result, for this ratioto be
lower than the biodegradable percentage in the low income areas. Other significant waste
elements are Diaper 4.12%, Nylon 8%, Textile 5.16%, Non-Combustibles 4.47 %, Paper-
Cardboard 0.79% and Combustibles 2.90%. The paper-cardboard amount has a
considerable percent in comparison to the low income areas.

Table 5: Weighted Average of Middle Income Areas

NO COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Average
1 Combustibles 5.35 1.50 0.99 3.17 3.51 2.90
2 Diaper 3.83 0.73 5.10 4.56 6.37 4.12
Elec.-Electronic
3 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.02
W.
4 Glass 0.21 1.75 0.43 0.27 1.11 0.76
5 Hazerdous W 0.14 0.00 0.20 0.09 0.38 0.16
6 Bıodegredable W. 71.12 77.59 74.55 73.53 64.99 72.35
7 Metals 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.04 0.16 0.11
Non-
8 7.37 6.61 4.67 1.20 2.48 4.47
Combustibles
9 Paper-Cardboard 0.49 1.22 0.70 0.39 1.14 0.79
10 Pet 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.03
11 Nylon 6.84 4.87 8.76 10.07 9.48 8.00
12 Plastics 0.15 0.30 0.26 0.16 0.65 0.30
13 Tetrapak 0.81 0.73 0.68 0.92 0.90 0.81
14 Textile 3.57 4.68 3.20 5.60 8.76 5.16
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100.00
 Middle Income Area
80 72.35
70
60
50
40
30
20
2.90 4.12 8.00
10 0.02
0.76 0.16
0.11 4.47 0.79 0.03 0.30 0.81 5.16
0

Figure 4: Weighted Average of Middle Income Areas

High Income Areas

The biodegradable amount is higher than other groups (Figure 5). The level of packaging
wastes is higher as a result of the high ratios of packed product consumption that
comes with high wealth level. Thus it is an expected result in the high income areas, for
the biodegradable levels to decrease in percentage. The high biodegradable waste amount in
these results is stemmed from the wastes collected from parks and gardens. Other
significant waste elements in the high income area are; Nylon 7.69%, Textile 4.84%, Diaper
2.58%, Combustibles 2.83% and Paper-Cardboard 0.95%.
Table 6: Weighted Average of High Income Areas

NO COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Average
1 Combustibles 1.35 1.87 3.57 4.44 2.94 2.83
2 Diaper 1.51 3.58 4.62 0.94 2.25 2.58
Elec.-Electronic
3
W. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.04
4 Glass 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.35 0.33
5 Hazerdous W 0.02 0.00 0.29 0.15 0.11 0.11
6 Bıodegredable W. 72.06 78.91 69.39 69.14 78.32 73.56
7 Metals 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.05 0.11
8 Non-Combustibles 10.62 2.69 4.21 5.27 1.57 4.87
9 Paper-Cardboard 0.45 0.73 0.79 1.80 0.98 0.95
 10 Pet 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03
11 Nylon 7.66 7.20 7.87 7.78 7.96 7.69
12 Plastics 0.35 0.37 0.24 5.15 0.18 1.26
13 Tetrapak 0.51 0.87 0.96 1.07 0.49 0.78
14 Textile 4.93 3.44 7.65 3.49 4.70 4.84
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

High Income Areas

80 73.56
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2.83 2.58
0.04 0.33 0.11 0.11 4.87 0.95 0.03 7.69 1.26 0.78 4.84
0

Figure 5: Weighted Average of High Income Area

Commercial and Institutions

The samples collected from commercial areas display the typical characteristics of the
domestic wastes (Figure 5). That the commercial areas are concentrated in certain areas will
create advantages in terms of management in comparison to domestic areas. The presence of
different industries will create important differences in the waste composition. The ratio of
biodegradable shows similarity to other areas with 71.80%. Nylon has the higher rate with
9.45%, followed by Textile with 5.66%.

Table 7: Weighted Average of Commercial Areas

NO COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 average
1 Combustibles 0.30 1.88 3.44 16.50 2.39 4.90
2 Diaper 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.00 0.12
3 Elec.-Electronic W. 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.03
 4 Glass 1.09 0.46 1.72 1.46 0.57 1.06
5 Hazerdous W 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02
6 Bıodegredable W. 77.97 81.45 78.31 41.90 79.37 71.80
7 Metals 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.08
8 Non-Combustibles 3.06 0.76 0.76 5.57 0.00 2.03
9 Paper-Cardboard 1.44 2.14 1.81 8.94 2.98 3.46
10 Pet 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.20 0.03 0.11
11 Nylon 8.21 8.47 9.66 10.98 9.94 9.45
12 Plastics 0.18 0.23 0.37 0.69 0.78 0.45
13 Tetrapak 0.76 0.85 0.79 1.16 0.58 0.83
14 Textile 6.72 3.36 2.73 12.33 3.18 5.66
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100.00

Commercial Areas
80 71.80

60

40

20 4.90 1.06 9.45

0.12 0.03 0.02 0.08 2.03 3.46 0.11 0.450.83 5.66
0

Figure 6: Weighted Average of Commercial Areas

When compared to other areas the institutional wastes has a lower percentage of
biodegradable, which to a great extent is resulted from kitchen wastes. Institutional waste
samples are collected only from hospital for the time period. For these reason hazardous
wastes has the second highest ratio after biodegradables. The mixing of medical wastes with
domestic/ municipal wastes is caused by the lack of proper medical waste disposal
management system. It is suggested that the packaging wastes will increase with the
implementation of a biodegradable and hazardous waste management system (Figure 6). It will
be a good choice to start recycling efforts from institutional areas.
 Table 8: Weighted Average of Institutions

NO COMPONENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Average
1 Combustibles 0.30 20.53 2.23 1.68 3.29 5.61
2 Diaper 2.03 0.58 10.45 5.96 6.86 5.18
Elec.-Electronic
3 W. 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.05
4 Glass 2.45 0.64 0.00 2.89 0.40 1.27
5 Hazerdous W 4.45 20.09 12.21 5.26 24.79 13.36
6 Bıodegredable W. 72.39 37.39 47.31 55.08 39.86 50.40
7 Metals 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Non-
8 Combustibles 0.00 1.07 2.84 3.10 0.00 1.40
9 Paper-Cardboard 4.45 3.44 3.50 2.34 6.56 4.06
10 Pet 0.93 1.51 0.95 0.00 0.11 0.70
11 Nylon 9.55 10.61 15.64 14.10 13.36 12.65
12 Plastics 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 1.24 0.28
13 Tetrapak 2.73 2.47 3.13 5.12 3.52 3.39
14 Textile 0.65 1.56 1.49 4.48 0.00 1.63
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Institutions
60.00 50.40

40.00

20.00 13.36 12.65

5.61 4.06
5.18 0.05 1.27 1.40 3.39 1.63
0.00 0.70 0.28
0.00

Figure 7: Weighted Average of Institutions