CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND … ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ... Profile of the Ceramics Industry Respondents ... raw material has not changed its chemical …

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the findings of the study. The analysis and interpretation of

statistical results follow the order of presentation of the problem set forth in Chapter 1.

Profile of the Ceramics Industry Respondents

The profile of the ceramics industry includes the industry size, type of product,

budget of waste management (show in table 4.) and kind of ceramic waste.

64

Table 4.

Distribution of the Ceramic Industries’ Profile

Indicator Frequency Percentage Number of employees Less than 50 employees 50-99 employees 100-199 employees 200-299 employees More than 299 employees

26 32 10 6 26

26.0 32.0 10.0 6.0 26.0

Total 100 100.0 Capital Less than 5 million Bahts 5-25 million Bahts 26-50 million Bahts 51-100 million Bahts More than 100 million Bahts

24 35 14 6 21

24.0 35.0 14.0 6.0 21.0

Total 100 100.0 Type of product Ceramic tile Sanitary ware Tableware Giftware Construction brick

20 10 20 26 24

20.0 10.0 20.0 26.0 24.0

Total 100 100.0 Budget of waste management Less than 1,000 Bahts 1,000-5,000 Bahts 5,001-10,000 Bahts More than 10,000 Bahts

2 36 36 26

2.0 36.0 36.0 26.0

Total 100 100.0

65

Size of the Ceramics Industry

The size of the industry is indicated in this by the number of employees and the

capital of the industry in million Bahts.

Figure 5 shows that of 100 ceramics industries surveyed, 26 or 26 percent have less

than 50 employees. A greater 32 ceramics industries have 50 to 99 employees. The profile

still reveals that 26 ceramics industries employed more than 299 employees. There are 6

industries that employed 200 to 299 employees and 10 of the industries employed 100 to

199 employees.

Further analysis would show that 58% of the industries have employees of less than

100 and 42% have more than 100 employees.

Figure 5. Number of Employees of the Ceramics Industry

26.0%

6.0%

10.0%

32.0%

26.0%

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Less than 50employees

50-99employees

100-199employees

200-299employees

More than299 employees

Number of employees

%

66

Figure 6 shows the distribution of ceramics industries by capitalization in million

Bahts.

Figure 6. Capital of the Ceramics Industry

As it is shown, there are 35 industries whose capitalization ranges from 5-25 million

Bahts. This is followed by 24 industries with less than 5 million capitalization. The 3rd

group of 21 has more than 100 million capital. Another 14 industries indicated 26 to 50

million capitalization and 6 industries with 51-100 million Bahts capitalization.

24.0%

35.0%

14.0%

6.0%

21.0%

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.0

%

Less th

an 5 million Bahts

5-25 million Bahts

26-50 million Bahts

51-100 million Bahts

More than 100 millio

n Bahts

Capital

67

Type of Product

The next figure presents the profile of ceramics industries by the type of product they

specialize.

Figure 7. Type of Product

The distribution shows that more industries engage in manufacture of giftware

(26.0% or 26 out of 100). This is followed by 24 industries which concentrate on the

manufacture of bricks for building construction. The 3rd largest group of 20 industries is

specializing on the manufacture of ceramic tiles and the same number of 20 industries

specializes on the manufacture of tablewares. Only 10 out of 100 concentrate on the

production of sanitary wares.

Budget of Waste Management

Managing industry waste is a industry function that can be both beneficial to the

industry and the public. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the industries by budget

allocation for waste management in thousand Bahts.

24

20

10

20

26

Ceramic tile (20.0%)

Sanitary ware (10.0%)

Tableware (20.0%)

Giftware (26.0%)

Construction brick (24.0%)

68

Figure 8. Budget of Waste Management

The figure indicates bi-modal distribution. A group of 36 industries allocates 1,000-

5,000 Bahts for waste management. The same number of 36 industries allocate 5,001 to

10,000 Bahts annually. There are 26 industries that allocate more than 10,000 Bahts for

waste management; while 2 industries allocate less than 1,000 Bahts for waste management.

Kind of Ceramic Waste

Solid Waste

Waste can either be recycled or disposed of by the ceramics industries. The

following table shows the distribution of industries by solid waste.

26.0%

36.0%36.0%

2.0%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Less than 1,000 Bahts

1,000-5,000 Bahts

5,001-10,000 Bahts

More than 10,000 Bahts

Budget of waste management

%

69

Table 5.

Distribution of Ceramics Industries by Solid Waste

Number of industries 20 10 20 26 24 100

Type of industry

Kind of ceramic waste

Cer

amic

tile

Sani

tary

war

e

Tab

lew

are

Gift

war

e

Con

stru

ctio

n br

ick Total

Frequency

and

Percentage

Raw material

Green ware

Biscuit ware

Glost ware

Powder clay

Slip Clay

Plastic clay

Sediments

Other

18

20

15

20

18

18

11

20

0

10

10

4

10

4

10

6

10

1

20

20

20

20

6

19

18

19

2

26

26

26

26

10

26

24

25

3

24

24

21

7

0

10

19

13

0

98

100

86

83

38

83

78

87

6

Table 5 shows that 98 out of 100 ceramic industries have raw material waste. Only 2

industries from tile manufacturing claimed that they don’t have raw material waste. All

industries have waste arising from green wares. This refers to unfired wares which were

either broken or failed to pass quality control. In some tile industries, biscuit and glost firing

are only one unlike in other ceramic products like giftwares and dinnerwares which require

separate firing for biscuit and glost. If biscuit and glost are done only once, any identified

70

defect before firing will render the ware useless. The item is then discarded and is

considered waste.

Not all industries have biscuit waste. Only 86 out of 100 claimed they have this kind

of waste. This simply means that some are 100% efficient in firing green wares and

handling biscuit wares or the biscuit and glost firing are done only once (single firing).

On glost ware waste, 83 out of 100 indicate that they have glost ware waste. Of the

5 types of industries, it was only in the construction of bricks that indicated few waste

incurred. Only seven (7 out of 21) claimed they have waste on glost wares. On powder

clay, only 38 industries incurred such waste. The 62 percent are more efficient indicating no

powder clay waste. In slip clay, however, 83 out of 100 have this type of waste.

In plastic clay, however, 78 out of 100 industries indicate they have this kind of

waste; 22% don’t have this waste. Plastic clay is not totally wasted except in some instances

when plastic clay is used for modeling in producing master mold. In production of bricks,

nothing can be waste. If plastic clay is used such can still be recycled to transform into a

raw material again for production. Low waste of this kind is seen among sanitary, tiles, and

tableware industries.

Sediments as waste is common to 87 industries. Only 13 out of 100 claimed they

don’t have this type of waste.

Liquid Waste

The most common liquid waste among industries surveyed is washed water. All

industries have this (100%). Liquid glaze materials is the 2nd which is common to 76

71

industries out of 100 surveyed. Brick industries are not using glaze in the production with

these indicating no liquid glaze waste.

Other liquid waste is manageable with only one industry specializing in giftware

indicates waste on this. As gleaned from the table the liquid glaze materials carries a big

problem as glaze compounds are expensive.

Table 6.

Distribution of Ceramics Industries by Liquid Waste

Number of industries 20 10 20 26 24 100

Type of industry

Cer

amic

tile

Sani

tary

war

e

Tab

lew

are

Gift

war

e

Con

stru

ctio

n br

ick

Total

Frequency

and

Percentage

Washed water

Glaze

Other

20

20

0

10

10

0

20

20

0

26

26

1

24

0

0

100

76

1

Waste Management Technique

In this study, the respondent industry were asked what techniques they use given a

particular ceramics waste.

72

Treatment of Ceramic Solid Waste

Treatment of Raw Material

Majority of the ceramics industries recycle the raw material waste and use again with

the same purpose (77.0%). There are 9 industries that dispose of this waste material for

landfill and five industries recycle them and use for another purpose. A few (4.0%) consider

them both for the same and another purpose. Recycling is the most common because the

raw material has not changed its chemical composition. It can be dried again, milled and

use again for the same purpose. This treatment is very economical for the industry. This

simply means that nothing is wasted. It does not add to environmental pollution and it is a

useful waste reduction in the industry and a cost saving management technique that can

attribute to industry productivity.

Table 7.

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Industries by Kind of Treatment

Employed to Raw Material as Solid Waste

Treatment Frequency Percentage

A - Recycle and use for the same purpose

B - Recycle and use for another purpose

C - Dispose to landfill

AB

ABC

D – Other treatment

None

77

5

9

4

2

1

2

77.0

5.0

9.0

4.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

Total 100 100.0

73

Dealing with raw material wastes and green ware waste are almost the same because

the composition of the two are still in its natural form and no chemical changes have

occurred. Some ceramics industries may also recycle for reuse in the same and other

purpose.

Treatment of Green Ware

Table 8 reveals the process involved in the treatment of solid waste arising from

green ware waste. Green ware waste usually result from mishandling of the ceramic pieces

when it has just been formed or when it is already bone dry and are ready for firing. Some

pieces may have warped or cracked and will be discarded in stocking through quality

control.

In dealing with green ware waste, most ceramics industries recycle it again into a

raw material for the same purpose. As indicated 77 out of 100 do that but 9 industries

dispose some of it to landfill. Usually this is done when the green ware is applied with glaze

materials and when separation of glaze from clay body is costlier than using uncontaminated

raw material.

74

Table 8.


Employed to Green Ware as Solid Waste



B – Recycle and use for another purpose

C – Dispose to landfill

D – Repair

AB

AC

BC

ABC

77

6

9

2

1

2

1

2

77.0

6.0

9.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

Total 100 100.0

Dealing with raw material wastes and green ware waste are almost the same because

the composition of the two are still in its natural form and no chemical changes have

occurred. Some ceramics industries may also recycle for reuse in the same and other

purpose.

Treatment of Biscuit Ware

A biscuit is a ceramic ware that underwent firing from the green ware stage. At this

point the biscuit ware has undergone chemical changes by heat and cannot be recycled for

use like a raw material in its previous state. It can be recycled and use not for the same

purpose but for another. See Table 9.

75

Table 9.


Employed to Biscuit Ware as Solid Waste





D – Sell

E – Repair

AC

BC

BE

CE

ABC

BCE

F - Other treatment

None

14

12

43

2

3

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

14

14.0

12.0

43.0

2.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

14.0

Total 100 100.0

As shown in Table 9, 43 ceramics industries treat this waste by disposing it to

landfill. This waste material which is as hard as rock can well serve the purpose providing a

strong foundation in filling up low lands in the city or for reclamation purpose.

If it used as raw material again as viewed by 14 industries, it must be not as a plastic

component but as silica in clay body composition in a form of grog. Some 12 industries

view it as recycled waste for other purpose not anymore as a plastic component of a clay

body. As further revealed some will just consider it for multipurpose. That is, as grog in the

raw material and landfill to dispose this kind of waste.

76

The reason for disposing this as landfill is logical. If acquiring raw silica is cheaper

than grinding this material into grog, then landfill is the most effective.

Treatment of Glost Ware

Many industries (21 out of 100) decided to consider this as a production waste by

disposing it to landfill. There are 18 industries, however, that still consider for recycling and

use for the same purpose and are therefore more imaginable than other industries.

Some glost wares that have defects and are considered waste can still be repaired

because of slight defect and remedy is possible can mitigate the industry loss. Selling it at

low price is being resorted to by some industries. Donation is also another alternative that

can make others happy and put other people happy for such kindness. As practiced for

quality control of products, those with slight defects are being separated and not included.

Some of these products like tiles with little cracks, or craze, bare spots can still be sold in the

local market as seen and practiced in the Philippines. This practice which concerns ethics

and values in business continue if there is no public protest. The loss of the industry is

usually avoided by some clever managers. The mass are usually after for lower price and

will always continue to be. The issue on cost effectiveness versus industry image deals with

two opposing values that the managers have to deal with.

The economic condition or situation sometimes pushes the manager to the wall and

have to think of what is best for the industry under his leadership. Turning waste into gold

is a challenge that he has to face without damaging the image of the industry.

77

Table 10.


Employed to Glost Ware as Solid Waste


A – Recycle and use for the same purpose



D – Donate

E – Sell

F – Repair

AG

CD

CE

CF

ACF

BCD

CDE

CDEFG

G – Other treatment

None

18

5

21

1

6

6

1

3

8

5

2

1

4

1

1

17

18.0

5.0

21.0

1.0

6.0

6.0

1.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

2.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

1.0

17.0

Total 100 100.0

Treatment of Powder Clay

Powder clay as a waste can be avoided. This is the reason why 62 out of 100

industries have no waste of this kind.

78

Table 11.


Employed to Powder Clay as Solid Waste





AB

None

33

1

3

1

62

33.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

62.0

Total 100 100.0

As shown on the Table 11, among the 38 industries that encounter this waste, 33

considered recycling of the powder clay for raw materials. Only three considered this waste

for landfill.

The powder clay waste can be a clay body that was laid waste out of mishandling of

raw materials or excess from sanding green wares as part of final polishing before firing or

glaze application. This amount of waste, therefore, can be very negligible. Hence, a little

amount may just be collected as part of garbage which may go to landfill. Considerable

amount of this maybe mixed with unscreened slip clay and be part of the raw clay body in

liquid form for slip casting method of production.

Treatment to Slip Clay

Slip clay is usually used in slip casting of art wares or gift wares which can hardly be

done by mechanical pressing.

79

Table 12.


Employed to Slip Clay as Solid Waste





D – Sell

AB

AC

None

65

1

4

1

3

9

17

65.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

9.0

17.0

Total 100 100.0

The table 12 shows that of the 83 ceramics industries that encountered this waste

problem, 65 recycled this for use in the same purpose. Some will simply dispose it for

landfill as part of the daily industry garbage – if the amount is insignificant. In case of error

in the composition, recycling by either adding more clay body and water if the sodium

silicate is in excess in the composition. Slip clay which still retains the natural composition

of raw materials before heat treatment is easy to recycle and use for the same purpose. Any

combination of treatment may depend on the situation.

Treatment of Plastic Clay

Plastic clay has many uses. The most important use is in modeling or sculpturing in

freehand forming particularly in figurines. Waste occur usually when it becomes too stiff to

yield to pressure in forming or when it is considered excess, and when error is committed in

80

its formulation and cannot be used for the purpose. The table shows that only 22 out of 100

did not encounter such waste as gleaned from Table 13.

Table 13.


Employed to Plastic Clay as Solid Waste





AB

AC

None

56

7

7

1

7

22

56.0

7.0

7.0

1.0

7.0

22.0

Total 100 100.0

Of the 78 ceramics industries that product this waste, 56 of them recycle the plastic

clay waste for the same purpose. Some industries (7 out of 100) recycle this waste but for

another purpose such as using it as clay bedding in mold making. Still 7 of them would

simply dispose it to landfill.

The rest would use combination of recycling and landfill. Landfill should be the last

resort, since landfill is cheaper than recycling the plastic clay body.

Treatment of Sediments

Sediments may refer to course particles of clay and sand that settles down in a slurry.

Of the 100 ceramics industry surveyed 13 do not produce this waste.

81

Table 14.


Employed to Sediments as Solid Waste





D - Other treatment

AC

BC

ABC

None

26

4

50

1

3

1

2

13

26.0

4.0

50.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

13.0

Total 100 100.0

There are 87 industries therefore that produce sediments as solid waste. Among these

industries, 26 treated this waste by recycling and use for the same purpose. But 50 of the

industries treated this by disposing to landfill which is most practical as this waste has the

least value among solid wastes. There are 4 of them that recycle this waste for other purpose

and some attempts to recycle it again and those that cannot be used are dumped for landfill.

Sediments are derived from many sources. Some sediments of value are those that

settle down due to improper grinding of glaze particles. This particles can still be ground to

its finest particles to complete the glaze compound for specific purpose. If they are thrown

away the formulated glaze will not obtain its desired results. Kaolin if imported should be

ground properly to get the maximum composition. If the particles are course, the Kaolin

should be milled very well to reduce the particle size and make use of the vital ingredients

that could have been lost to landfill.

82

Generally, it is observed from the preliminary findings that the ceramics industry in

Thailand maximize the utilization of its raw materials and industrial waste by giving the

appropriate treatment per solid waste classification.

Treatment of Ceramic Liquid Waste

Treatment of Washed Water

Liquid wastes in this study has been limited to water waste from washing raw

materials, tools and equipment and those water wasted from industrial processes.

The table reveals that 100 percent of the ceramics industries produce water waste.

Table 15.


Employed to Washed Water as Liquid Waste


A – Recycle by screening / filtration

B – Recycle by sedimentation

C – Recycle by flocculate

D – Dispose to sewer system

E – Other disposal means

AC

AD

BC

ABC

20

19

4

48

2

2

1

2

2

20.0

19.0

4.0

48.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

Total 100 100.0

83

As indicated 20 of the industries recycle the waste water by filtration. A group of 19

industries do it by sedimentation, that is allowing the particles in water to settle at the

bottom and siphon the water on top. Only four industries recycle water by flocculation. The

greatest number of 48 industries dispose the waste water to the sewerage system. The

remaining 9 industries do it by combination of recycling by filtration and sedimentation,

utilizing flocculation and some by disposal to sewerage system.

Close to the majority of the industries dispose the waste water through the sewerage

system. This is so because of the abundance of water supply from industrial waste. While

supply of water is not a problem, the probability of polluting the rivers is high.

It is, however, important to note that majority of the industries conserve the water

they use by recycling and use them again for industrial processes.

Treatment of Glaze

Table 16 shows that 24 out of 100 industries do not produce waste from liquid

glazes. If ever they use glaze their system of glaze application is so efficient to allow no

waste at all.

84

Table 16.


Employed to Glaze as Liquid Waste


A – Recycle by screening / filtration

B – Recycle by sedimentation

C – Recycle by flocculate

D – Dispose to sewer system

AB

AD

BD

ABC

None

26

15

5

24

1

3

1

1

24

26.0

15.0

5.0

24.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.0

24.0

Total 100 100.0

But a total count, there are 76 ceramics industries that produce liquid waste from

glaze applications. Of that number, 15 recycle the waste by sedimentation. If it is done the

glaze compound that settles at the bottom is never wasted. Water on top can be reused for

industrial processes. There are 26 industries that recycle this liquid waste by filtration. This

method would produce clear water for immediate use but allow the glaze particles to stick to

the layer of filter. This method would give rise to a new problem when filters get clogged.

Five industries use flocculation, while a big number of 24 industries dispose this waste to

the sewerage system. A big number of ceramics industries therefore is contributor to the

pollution of Thai rivers, considering the composition of glazes which are made of poisonous

compound except when the glaze compounds are made of frits. The remaining six industries

85

employ combination of two or three approaches in recycling and disposing liquid waste

from glaze solutions.

Level of Technology Used in the Treatment of Solid Waste

The data in table 17 reveals that majority of the industry use high technology in the

treatment of solid waste.

Table 17.

Mean Perception on the Level of Technology Used in the Treatment of Solid Waste

Indicator Weighted

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Interpretation

Level of technology used in the treatment of

solid waste:

Raw material

Green ware

Biscuit ware

Glost ware

Powder clay

Slip clay

Plastic clay

Sediments

Other

1.71

1.74

1.66

1.70

1.66

1.70

1.67

1.67

1.60

0.59

0.61

0.59

0.66

0.58

0.64

0.68

0.62

0.55

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Average 1.6789 0.4535 High

Legend: Very high = 2.51-3.00

High = 1.51-2.50 Low = 1.00-1.50

86

The treatment of green ware waste obtained a mean of 1.74 which means that close

to 75 percent of the industries employ higher level of technology in treating waste green

wares. This is followed by raw material waste which more ceramics industries employed

high technology. Slip clay waste and glost ware waste are the 3rd waste being treated with

high technology method. The lowest mean is in treating other solid waste followed by

biscuit waste and powder clay. Plastic clay and sediments obtained 1.67 mean rating each

which also means that high technology is employed in waste treatment.

The average of 1.68 indicates that greater majority employed high technology while

a few of about 30 percent employed the low technology in the treatment of solid waste.

Level of Technology Used in the Treatment of Liquid Waste

Similarly the ceramics industry use generally high level of technology in the

treatment of liquid waste.

87

Table 18.

Mean Perception on the Level of Technology Used in the Treatment of Liquid Waste

Indicator Weighted

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Interpretation

Level of technology used in the treatment of

liquid waste:

Washed water

Glaze

Other

1.69

1.70

1.00

0.63

0.63

0.00

High

High

Low

Average 1.4633 0.4355 Low

Legend: 2.51 - 3.00 Very high

1.51 - 2.50 High 1.00 - 1.50 Low

Of the two categories of liquid waste, glaze liquid waste is treated with higher

technology (x = 1.70) than the washed water (x = 1.69). This is due to the value of glaze

liquid waste which can be reused if carefully saved. Glaze materials are very dear. Its

higher cost is a factor that the industry considered. Glaze sediments or particles saved can

very much outweigh in cost saving value than saving a plain water for reuse.

Nevertheless, high technology in liquid waste treatment is employed by the ceramics

industries.

Waste Management-Related Factors

Management of waste in ceramics industries starts with a goal and objectives which

are spelled out in the Policy on Waste Management. Plans are formulated and implemented

to achieve the objectives which can be beneficial to both the industry and society.

88

Table 19 reveals the assessment of people in the industry on the management of

industrial waste with regard to policy formed plan in the management of waste and

implementation of such plan.

Table 19. Mean Evaluation of Waste Management in Terms of

Policy Instrument, Plan, and Implementation

Factors Weighted Mean Standard Deviation Interpretation

Policy instrument 4.02 .6521 Good

Plan 3.90 .7644 Good

Implementation 4.00 .6755 Good

Average 3.97 .6412 Good

Legend: 4.51 – 5.00 Very Good 3.51 – 4.50 Good

2.51 – 3.50 Fair 1.51 – 2.50 Poor

1.00 – 1.50 Very Poor

As far as the policy instrument is concerned in waste management, the employees in

the industry perceives the policy to be good (x = 4.02). This means that the policy is based

on legislative and regulatory provisions and is carried out on a commercial and competitive

basis. This also means that the policy stresses waste reduction, enforce the development

plan for was disposal, promotes good environmental waste disposal and produces

information on the sources, types and volumes of waste.

The waste management plan is perceived to be good (x = 3.90). This means that the

plan encompasses the entire program and characterizes all waste; identifies and evaluates

89

minimization options; obtains commitment of top management in setting goals, budgeting

and staffing, prepares schedules, worksheets and other necessary tools.

The implementation is also rated good. This means that the industry conducts

regular maintenance of all equipment; purchase materials that are easy to handle; buys

materials in bulk to minimize cost and demands quality control from suppliers. This also

means that the industry monitors program to check emissions and waste from operation,

documents results of plans and prepares progress report that includes a summary of waste

generated.

Effectiveness of Machines in the Treatment of Waste of Ceramics Industries

Success in dealing with industrial waste can also be affected by the process related

factor. The efficiency and effectiveness of machines used can be a factor. Table 20 shows

the level of effectiveness of machines used in the study.

90

Table 20. Mean Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Machines in Treating Solid Waste

Indicator Weighted

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Interpretation

Effective of machine used in treatment of

solid waste:

Raw material

Green ware

Biscuit ware

Glost ware

Powder clay

Slip clay

Plastic clay

Sediments

Other

2.15

2.19

1.95

2.11

2.18

2.16

2.10

2.07

1.60

0.62

0.60

0.63

0.62

0.65

0.67

0.57

0.64

0.55

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Effective

Average 2.0567 0.4510 Effective

Legend: 2.51 - 3.00 Very effective

1.51 - 2.50 Effective 1.00 - 1.50 Ineffective

As perceived by the industry respondents, effective machines were used in the

treatment of solid waste particularly in dealing with green wares (x = 2.19). This is followed

by the machine used in the treatment of powder clay waste (x = 2.18); slip clay (x = 2.16)

and solid raw material waste with x = 2.15. The lowest effectiveness of machine is in the

treatment of biscuit wares with 1.95 mean effectiveness. This is indicated by the decision of

industry to dispose biscuit wares to landfill. The lack of more effective machine to recycle

the product with lesser cost is a deterrent factor in the recycling of biscuits. All of these

machines used in the treatment of solid waste, however, are all considered effective as

91

indicated by the mean rating of 2.114 in a scale of 3 with 1 as ineffective, 2 as effective, and

3 as very effective.

Table 21. Mean Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Machines in Treating Liquid Waste

Indicator Weighted

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Interpretation

Effective of machine that used in treatment

of liquid waste:

Washed water

Glaze

Other

2.06

2.03

1.00

0.58

0.63

0.00

Effective

Effective

Ineffective

Average 1.6967 0.4365 Effective

Legend: Very effective = 2.51-3.00

Effective = 1.51-2.50 Ineffective = 1.00-1.50

As gleaned from the table 21, the machines used in treating the liquid waste have

been perceived to be effective. Machine used in treating waste water from washing is rated

2.06 which means “effective”. Machines for treating waste from liquid glazes is similarly

considered effective (x = 2.03). The lower rating is affected by the practice of a few

ceramics industries of disposing liquid waste from glazes directly to the sewerage system.

Waste from liquid glaze however, is not as destructive and dangerous as those hazardous

waste of other industries. The technology development in ceramics have converted the use

of poisonous lead in its raw state to fritz which is non-poisonous and is considered

environment and workers friendly. Ceramics industry has come of age when workers’

safety has come to the fore of management and employed technology in reducing the hazard

92

in dealing with raw materials for glaze composition and application. Effluent in ceramics

industry does not contain mercury and hazardous chemical that will contaminate rivers and

sea water and imperil human and aquatic lives. Most of its effluent generally contain mud

that will settle down at the river banks to be mixed with soil.

Waste Management Performance

The waste management performance of the industry is evaluated in terms of cost-

saving effectiveness, environmental protection, and compliance to government regulations.

Table 22. Mean Perception on the Waste Management Performance of the Ceramics Industries

in Terms of Cost-saving Effectiveness, Environmental Protection and Compliance to Government Regulations

Solid Waste Liquid Waste Performance

Indicators x S.D. Interpretation x S.D. Interpretation

Cost-saving Effectiveness 3.01 .65 Effective 2.98 .65 Effective

Environmental Protection 2.97 .62 Effective 2.68 .63 Effective

Compliance to

Government Regulation

3.29 .58 Compliant 2.50 .63 Compliant

Legend: 3.51 – 4.00 Very Effective / Very compliant 2.51 – 3.50 Effective / Compliant

1.51 – 2.50 Ineffective / Less compliant 1.00 - 1.50 Very Ineffective / Not compliant

The data revealed that the performance of the waste management of ceramics

industries is good. The cost-saving effect of dealing with solid waste is rated 3.01 which is

interpreted as effective. This means that much has been saved from recycling of waste

93

particularly in dealing with raw materials, green wares, powder clay, slip clay, plastic clay

and sediments.

Cost-saving in dealing with liquid waste is rated 2.98 lower than solid waste. This

rating however is still within the effective adjectival range which means that in treating

liquid waste the industry still save on cost particularly on glaze compound in liquid form.

As rated by industry owners, managers, and head of departments (x = 2.97 of solid

waste, x = 2.68 of liquid waste), the waste treatment employed by the ceramics industries

are effective in protecting the environment. As perceived by industry employees and

residents in the neighborhood in table 23, the mean rating of 3.88 suggests that the industry

exercise control in preventing environmental pollution in its operation in terms of managing

their industrial solid and liquid waste. As revealed earlier, much of its solid waste are

recycled and those that are less useful are disposed to landfill. Ceramic waste are generally

odorless since most raw materials are inorganic in its physical composition.

Congruent to this finding is the assessment given as far as compliance to government

regulations is concerned. The respondents rated the waste management performance

favorably for both solid (x = 3.29) and liquid waste (x = 2.50). The lower mean rating given

to liquid can be explained by the fact that most ceramics industries dispose their liquid waste

to sewerage system without much treatment given. It is only in liquid glaze waste that high

technology treatment is given to conserve some expensive glaze compounds for reuse. The

overall rating indicates that generally the ceramics industries are compliant to government

rules and regulations as far as industrial waste and environment protection is concerned as

contained in government regulations.

94

Table 23. Mean Perception of Workers and Neighbors on the Waste Management Performance

of the Ceramics Industries

Performance Indicator Weighted

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Interpretation

1. Believes in protecting the environment

2. Follows environmental regulations

3. Cleans up emissions to help in the solution

of environmental problems

4. Informs employees/neighbors about

environmental issues so that they will adopt

a positive approach in solving

environmental problems

5. Involves itself in controlling environmental

pollution

6. Does not produces pollution in the

neighborhood

7. Adheres to society's legal and ethical

standards

8. Takes into account the needs of the

community

9. is accountable for the effects of

manufacturing ceramics

4.00

3.81

3.84

3.80

3.86

3.85

3.92

3.85

3.98

0.82

0.91

0.84

0.91

0.85

0.98

0.87

0.86

0.92

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Average 3.8781 0.6808 Good

Legend: 4.51 – 5.00 Very Good 3.51 – 4.50 Good

2.51 – 3.50 Fair 1.51 – 2.50 Poor

1.00 – 1.50 Very Poor

95

Predictors of Waste Management Performance

In this study, waste management performance is indicated by cost-saving

effectiveness of the waste treatment, environmental protection and compliance to

government regulations.

Predictors of Cost-saving Effectiveness

The stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that among the independent

variables treated, only 2 predictors come out for the cost-saving effectiveness of waste

treatment as indicator of waste management performance.

Table 24. Regression of Cost-saving Effectiveness on Independent Variables

Predictor Beta t Sig.

Kind of Ceramic Waste .462 4.036 .000

Level of Technology .334 2.917 .005

Adjusted R Square = .427 F Value = 20.390 Sig. = .000

The kind of ceramic waste predicts the cost-saving effectiveness of waste treatment.

The beta coefficient of .462 with 4.036 t-value is highly significant with .000 exact

probability. This finding means that treatment of solid waste is more cost-saving effective

than the treatment of liquid waste. This implies that treating solid waste by recycling for

original purpose gives more benefit than treating liquid waste for whatever purpose.

96

Spending for more valuable returns is economically beneficial than spending for

lesser benefits. Water is more abundant in Thailand and cheaper in terms of service. Solid

waste if recycled can approximate in per unit value with the raw material purchased from

suppliers. This realistic valuation can explain for this statistical finding that recycling solid

waste is more cost effective than recycling liquid waste.

Another predictor of cost-saving effectiveness is the level of technology. The higher

the level of technology is the higher in the cost-saving effectiveness of the waste treatment.

The beta coefficient indicates that for every standard deviation unit increase in the level of

technology for waste treatment there is .334 standard deviation unit increase in cost benefit

of such waste treatment. This simply means that application of higher technology is more

cost beneficial than employing lower technology in both solid and liquid waste treatment.

More benefits then is enjoyed by ceramics industries that employ higher technology in waste

management.

The adjusted R square indicates that the kind of waste treated in combination with

the level of technology accounts for 42.7 percent of any change in cost benefit of treating

industry waste. The F value of 20.390 is significant at the .000 indicating the strength of the

identified predictors of waste management performance.

Predictors of Environmental Protection

Another indicator of waste management performance is its ability to protect the

physical environment. It is a social responsibility of business organization. It should not

only be concerned with what it can get but what good it can do to society. Factors that

predict such indicator of waste management performance is shown in Table 25 below.

97

Table 25. Regression of Environmental Protection on Independent Variables

Predictors Beta t Sig.




The level of technology and kind of ceramic waste stood up to be strong predictors

of environmental protection. The beta coefficient indicates that for every standard deviation

unit increase in technology level, there is a .397 increase in environmental protection.

Application of higher technology in the management of ceramic waste is always beneficial

to both. Lesser discharge of solid waste, lesser environmental problem. As explained

earlier ceramics industries are more economical in the use of their material resources.

Recycling of materials reduces production costs and at the same time reducing waste for

disposal to landfill. There are only two ways of waste disposal for ceramics industry. One

for landfill and the second is integration of its water waste to the sewerage system to the

bigger body of water. The kind of waste predict the environmental protection performance

of waste management. The beta coefficient indicates that for every standard deviation unit

increase in recycling of solid waste there is an equivalent .364 standard deviation unit

increase in environmental protection. Liquid effluents somehow contribute to water

pollution but such pollution is not as hazardous as compared to food manufacturing

industries. More recycling of solid waste means no negative contribution to the natural

environment. Ceramic waste in reality is a good material for landfill particularly in

98

reclamation areas where dense materials such as sediments of clay and sand or pebbles as

well as rejected biscuit and glost ware are very useful. Unlike other industrial waste ceramic

waste is odorless inorganic and therefore does not contribute to the growth of bacteria both

airborne, in land or in water.

The adjusted R square indicates that the level of technology in combination with the

treatment of solid waste account for 38.3 percent of the variance in environmental protection

as indicative performance of waste management among ceramics industries in Thailand.

Predictors of Compliance to Government Regulations

Akin to environmental protection is the industries’ compliance to government

regulation in dealing with industrial waste. Example of this is the treatment of solid waste

before dumping to designated site and the treatment of liquid waste before disposal to the

sewerage system and into the river. Table 26 shows the same predictor of this waste

management performance indicator.

Table 26. Regression of Compliance to Government Regulation on Independent Variables

Predictors Beta t Sig.




99

Again the level of technology employed and the kind of ceramic waste predicts the

waste management performance of the ceramics industries as indicated by the industries’

compliance with government regulation on waste disposal.

The beta coefficient indicates that for every unit increase in the level of technology

used in the treatment of ceramic waste there is a corresponding .398 standard deviation unit

increase in compliance with government regulations. This finding is logical. Ceramics

industries have to strive to meet government standard on the level of pollutants in industrial

waste for disposal. To meet such regulation, the management has to acquire higher

technology for the purpose. Such more does not only increase the benefit to the industry by

cost cutting by recycling waste and use for the same purpose but also for compliance to

government regulation which in effect contribute to the preservation of the environment.

Similarly, the type of waste predict the compliance to government regulation. For

every standard deviation unit increase in the treatment of solid waste, there is a

corresponding .334 standard deviation unit increase in the industries’ compliance to

government regulation on waste management. The initial findings indeed indicate that

ceramics industries can manage their industrial waste more efficiently and effectively. They

are effective in dealing with their industrial waste in terms of cost-saving effectiveness,

environmental protection and compliance to government regulations. The adjusted R square

indicates that the level of technology in combination with the kind of industrial waste

account for 35.10 percent of the variance in compliance to government regulation on

industrial waste disposal and management. The F value of 15.053 is significant at the .000

level.

100

This finding reveals the responsiveness of the ceramics industries to government

policies and regulations in dealing with industrial waste. While other industrial sectors pose

a big headache to the government, the ceramics industry is not. The use of electric kilns and

efficient utilization of gas fuel kilns does not contribute to air pollution as in the case of

other industries that belch thick smoke and smog that contribute to the air pollution.

Although industrial pollution is the trade off for technology development and productivity of

industries which relate to economic development of the country, the ceramics industries

show that they are environment friendly and are more efficient and effective in the

management of their industrial waste.

Documents

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND … ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA ... Profile of the Ceramics Industry Respondents ... raw material has not changed its chemical …