WP 4 1 CebuCity PlasticWACS

8/7/2019 WP 4 1 CebuCity PlasticWACS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wp-4-1-cebucity-plasticwacs 1/67

AAccttiivviittyy IIII--11:: PPllaassttiicc WWaassttee AAnnaallyyssiiss aanndd CChhaarraacctteerriizzaattiioonn SSttuuddyy AA.. CCeebbuu CCiittyy,, PPhhiilliippppiinneess

United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

CCOONNVVEERRTTIINNGG WWAASSTTEE PPLLAASSTTIICCSS TTOO FFUUEELLSS Baseline Stud Pro ect



Activity II-1: Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study A. Cebu City, Philippines

3

CONTENTS

Tables 4Figures 5Forms 5Acronyms 6Local Terms 6

1. Summary of Findings 7

2. Background 92.1. Brief Profile of Cebu City 92.2. Geographical Area and Zoning 92.3. Population Growth 112.4. Socio-Economic Pattern 12

2.5. Economic Growth 132.6. Development Outlook 132.7. City Solid Waste Monitoring 14

3. Introduction 193.1. Waste Sectors 193.2. Methodology 19

3.2.1. Sampling Schedule 193.2.2. Collection of Samples 203.2.3. Actual Waste Characterization 21

3.3. Presentation of Data 22

4. Key Findings 224.1. Quantities of Waste 22

4.2. Waste Composition 234.3. Residential Sector 264.4. Commercial Sector 284.5. Industrial Sector 304.6. Aggregate Data 324.7. Moisture Content 324.8. Waste Composition 344.9. Waste Projection 35

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 36

6. Appendices 386.1. Definition of Material Types 386.2. Detailed Methodology 40

6.3. Data Capture Forms 426.4. Detailed Waste Characterization Tables 466.5. Raw Data 526.6. Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials 676.7. WACS Team 68




4

TABLES

Table 1 Table 1. Total Population by Cebu City and Barangay, as of August 1, 2007 11Table 2 North District 15Table 3 Volume of Garbage South District 16Table 4 DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day) 17Table 5 Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008 18Table 6 Sampling Schedule 19Table 7 Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence Levels 20Table 8 Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Cebu City 23Table 9 Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City 25Table 10 Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City 25Table 11 Result of Waste Characterization, Residential 27Table 12 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential 27Table 13 Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial 29Table 14 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial 29

Table 15 Result of Waste Characterization, Industrial 31Table 16 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial 31Table 17 Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors. 32Table 18 Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City 32Table 19 Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City 33Table 20 Results for Moisture Content Analysis 34Table 21 Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City 34Table 22 Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City 34Table 23 Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics 35Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020 35Table 25 Characterization of the Overall Waste Stream 46Table 26 Characterization of Waste Plastics of the Overall Waste Stream 46Table 27 Residential Waste Characterization Result 47Table 28 Residential Waste Plastics Characterization Result 47

Table 29 Commercial Waste Characterization Result 48Table 30 Commercial Waste Plastics Characterization Result 48Table 31 Industrial Waste Characterization Result 49Table 32 Industrial Waste Plastic Characterization Result 49Table 33 Results of Unclean Waste Plastics 50Table 34 Results of Clean Waste Plastics 50Table 35 Weight Master Summary 51Table 36 Day 1- Sample 1 Bargy. Kasambagan 52Table 37 Day 1- Sample 2 Brgy. Sto Nino 52Table 38 Day 1-Sample 3 Brgy. Kamputhaw 52Table 39 Day 1-Sample 4 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel 53Table 40 Day 1-Sample 5 Brgy. Day-as/ Pai-an 53Table 41 Day 1-Sample 6 Brgy. Kalubihan 53Table 42 Day 2-Sample 1 Brgy. Mabolo 54

Table 43 Day 2-Sample 2 Brgy. Tisa 54Table 44 Day 2-Sample 3 Brgy. Lower Lahug 54Table 45 Day 2-Sample 4 Brgy. San Nicolas Proper 55Table 46 Day 2-Sample 5 Brgy. Apas 55Table 47 Day 2-Sample 6 Brgy. Labangon 55Table 48 Day2-Sample 7 Brgy. Upper Lahug 56Table 49 Day 3-Sample 1 Brgy. Ermita 56Table 50 Day 3-Sample 2 Brgy. Hipodromo 56Table 51 Day 3-Sample 3 Brgy. Kasambagan 57Table 52 Day 3-Sample 4 Brgy. Tinago/ San Roque 57






6

ACRONYMS

LOCAL TERMS

CPDO City Planning and Development OfficeDPS Department of Public ServicesHDPE High Density Polyethylene. ICT Information and Communication TechnologyLDPE Low Density PolyethyleneMMT Mayor’s Management TeamMSW Municipal Solid WasteNIPAS Nationally Integrated Protected Areas SystemNSO National Statistics OfficeO Other PlasticsP2F Waste Plastics to FuelsPET or PETE, Polyethylene TerephthalatePP Polypropylene

PS Polystyrene. PVC Polyvinyl ChlorideSWMB Solid Waste Management BoardUNEP DTIE IETC United Nations Environment Programme - Division of Technology, Industry and Economics

- International Environmental Technology CenterWACS Waste Analysis and Characterization Study

Bakat A large woven basket commonly used in markets for fruits and vegetables

Barangay The smallest political unit in the PhilippinesBuriSinulog Feast of the Sto. Nino, the biggest event in Cebu CityStacruzan Mayflower FestivalSugbayanihan Seafood FestivalTernos Traditional Filipino dress

Trisikad Non-motorized tricycleVisita Iglesia Series of church visits done during the Christian Holy Week

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride










7

1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A baseline study to determine the waste plastics generation, characterization and projection isneeded before a facility for converting waste plastics to fuels (P2F) is set up. Quantification ofwaste plastics generated will help determine the feasibility of setting up a P2F conversiontechnology in the city. Likewise, characterization of waste plastics based on different materialstypes should be undertaken to be able to easily determine which technology is appropriatebased on the waste resource materials available. Projection, on the other hand, is also

significant as it will show if investing in a certain technology in viable in for a long-termoperation.

Based on the recently concluded Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (PlasticWACS) for Cebu City funded by UNEP-DTIE-IETC, it was found that the amount of waste plasticsthat the city currently disposes to the Inayawan Landfill is at 12.36% of the total waste beingdisposed. In the Inayawan Study conducted by the city government in 2006, waste plastics werefound at 16.87% of the total waste. It could be inferred that there was a certain degree of wasteplastics diversion to cause a 4.5% reduction of waste plastics being disposed at the landfill inless than 3 years.

If the city will generate a total 161,083 tons of waste this year based on projection figures, the

total waste plastics to be disposed for the year will be approximately 19,910 tons. Wood asadditional feedstock for a P2F conversion facility would give the total available material at46,038 tons or approximately 3,837 tons of available materials a month. This does not includewaste plastics diverted from source or from other levels. The quantity of waste plastics beingtraded within the city and transported to Valenzuela, Metro Manila for recycling or to someminor facilities in the Visayas should be determined. Local processing of waste plastics for a P2Ffacility might just prove to be more economically viable for the city and the differentsectors/actors in the waste management stream.

A total of 129,055 kg (129.06 tons) with the average of 18,436 kg (18.44 tons) per day of overallmunicipal solid waste disposed at the Inayawan Landfill during the seven-day period of the

study. The quantities associated with waste plastics disposed in the same period based on thesample quantity which is 30 kg. (0.03 tons) per sample are over 159 kg (0.16 tons) and has theaverage of 23 kg (0.02 tons) per day in the seven day period. In the total of 1,290.10 kg samplecollected in the study period, waste plastics represent approximately 12.36% (159.47 kg) whileother wastes account for 87.64% (1130.63 kg) for the sampling period.

For the total waste composition result per material type, No.10 or Mixed Wastes (71.42%)constitute the largest amount disposed in the landfill, paper account for almost 14.55% andwood approximately 1.67%. For waste plastics, No.3 or PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest

CCEEBBUU CCIITTYY PPLLAASSTTIICC WWAACCSS




8

amount being disposed in Inayawan. This is followed by No.7 or Other Plastics (3.29%) and No.2or HDPE (2.64%). While the least kind of plastics observed is No.4 or LDPE with approximately

0.04%.

Of the 1,529.6 kg of waste samples from all sectors were collected, approximately 11.55% arewaste plastics while 88.45% for Other Wastes. For different sectors, residential has 6.57% wasteplastics and 93.43% Other Wastes. The commercial sector has 14.00% waste plastics and 86.00%Other Waste while industrial waste plastics represent approximately 7.69% and Other Waste92.31%. For waste from different sectors, similar results suggest that No. 10 (Mixed waste)constitute the largest amount disposed at 86.92% for residential, 66.95% for commercial and83.66% for industrial sector.

For waste plastics result per sector against the total of plastic disposed, Other Plastics (32.49%)has the highest percentage for residential, PVC (44.30%) for commercial and HDPE (32.37%) for

industrial. Results show that from the three sectors, the highest amount of waste disposed wascontributed by the commercial sector. Moreover, large amount of waste plastics generated werealso observed in this sector.

The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. In determiningappropriate technology for P2F conversion, moisture content will be an important factor as itwill affect combustibility and other waste to energy conversion processes. It will also shed lighton how to be handle and transport of waste materials. During the study, the average moisturefor all plastic wastes was found at 4.10%. Average moisture for waste plastics content is at4.10%, as opposed to the total moisture content for all waste disposed at 38.57% based on theInayawan Study.

HDPE (8.74%) shows highest moisture content among waste plastics. This is followed by OtherPlastics (7.15%), PVC (4.59%) and PS (4.28%). PET (1.76%), PP (1.70%) and LDPE (0.46%), on theother hand, show very small percentage of moisture content.

The resulting figures were calculated at 80% confidence level. The formula and discussion onhow this is computed is fond at the detailed methodology.

Projection shows that Cebu City will generate approximately 1655,576 tons of waste in 2010,189,995 in 2015 at about 217,997 tons in 2020.

With a steady increase of waste generation for urban communities (1% per year)1

1Philippine Environment Monitor 2001 Solid Waste, (World Bank, 2001)

, it is certainly

important to utilize technologies that would directly address the escalating waste problem,especially of waste plastics.




9

2. BACKGROUND

Brief Profile of Cebu City

Cebu City is located on the central eastern part of Cebu Province, the center island in CentralVisayas, Southern Philippines. It is bounded by Mandaue City in the North and Talisay City inthe South. On the East is Mactan Channel and on its West are the Municipality of Balamban andthe City of Toledo.

2

It has a total land area of 326.10 square kilometres or 29,124.78 hectares. Its strategic locationmakes it accessible by air and sea transport. By plane, it is only an hour away from Manila andjust a few hours to reach major cities in the Asia Pacific region.

3

It is composed of eighty barangays

4

As shown in the city’s Zoning Map (Figure 1), the coastal area facing the Mactan Strait ispredominantly industrial. Commercial areas follow inward, followed by urban residential areas.As the slope goes higher, the areas are rural residential, followed the Sudlon National Park, aswell as other open areas and parks. Pockets of institutional areas are scattered throughout thenarrow coastal flatland where the commercial and industrial, as well as urban residential zones

are found.

, thirty-six in the North District and thirty-four in the South

District. Of these barangays, fifty are classified as urban and thirty as rural barangays.

Geographical Area and Zoning

Of the city’s 29,124.78 hectares, only 5,598.53 hectares occupy the urban areas. However, 5o ofthe 80 barangays are classified as urban, while only 30 are classified rural scattered along some23,526 hectares. The North district has 46 barangays while South district has 34 barangays.

While only 28% of the city is within the 18% slope or less range, about 64% of the city’s landsare classified by the national government as alienable and disposable. The rest is classified as

forest or timberland. Lands classified as timberland include areas that are within the criticalwatersheds and other protected areas of the city.

Seventy-three percent of the city’s land is under the Nationally Integrated Protected AreasSystem (NIPAS). Twenty-three of the city’s barangays are totally or partially located in the fourwatershed areas: Mananga, Kotkot, Lusaran and the Cebu Watershed Reservation in Buhisan.

5

2Cebu, CPDO, City Profile, 2008.

3“Solid Waste Management in Cebu City,” June 15,2009 <http://kitakyushu.iges.or.jp/docs/sp/swm/3%20Cebu%20(Paper).pdf>

4Barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines.





10

Figure 1. Cebu City Zoning Map

Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office




11

Population Growth

As of August 2007, Cebu City had a total population of 798,809.

6

Although trend shows a slightdecline in growth rate, at 2.19% (1990) 1.64% from 1995 to 20007, the city’s weekday population

is slightly bigger, since it houses the biggest commercial areas, schools, hospitals and publicoffices that people from neighbouring towns and cities come to during daytime and weekdays.These transients and commuters contribute to the over-all waste generation of the city.

Table 1. Total Population by Cebu City and Barangay, as of August 1, 2007Barangay Population Barangay Population

1. Adlaon 3,580 41. Mabini 1,6502. Agsungot 1,787 42. Mabolo 22,678 3. Apas 18,843 43. Malubog 1,927 4. Babag 3,455 44. Mambaling 26,839 5. Basak Pardo 16,322 45. Pahina Central (Pob.) 4,633

6.

Bacayan 12,340 46.

Pahina San Nicolas 3,399 7. Banilad 8,650 47. Pamutan 1,425 8. Basak San Nicolas 33,608 48. Pardo (Pob.) 10,693 9. Binaliw 2,871 49. Pari-an 2,413 10. Bonbon 4,514 50. Paril 1,363 11. Budla-an (Pob.) 3,860 51. Pasil 7,487 12. Buhisan 10,757 52. Pit-os 5,663 13. Bulacao 21,169 53. Pulangbato 4,060 14. Buot-Taup Pardo 1,918 54. Pung-ol-Sibugay 1,235 15. Busay (Pob.) 9,414 55. Punta Princesa 24,132 16. Calamba 11,465 56. Quiot Pardo 14,06917. Cambinocot 2,658 57. Sambag I (Pob.) 14,78418. Capitol Site (Pob.) 12,711 58. Sambag II (Pob.) 12,398 19. Carreta 10,148 59. San Antonio (Pob.) 2,599 20. Central (Pob.) 1,418 60. San Jose 3,739

21. Cogon Ramos (Pob.) 3,879 61. San Nicolas Central 5,407 22. Cogon Pardo 13,746 62. San Roque (Ciudad) 4,073 23. Day-as 4,759 63. Santa Cruz (Pob.) 2,398 24. Duljo (Pob.) 16,582 64. Sawang Calero (Pob.) 5,215 25. Ermita (Pob.) 8,309 65. Sinsin 2,303 26. Guadalupe 47,956 66. Sirao 3,618 27. Guba 4,716 67. Suba Pob. (Suba San Nicolas) 8,620 28. Hippodromo 9,938 68. Sudlon I 2,267 29. Inayawan 24,990 69. Sapangdaku 5,383 30. Kalubihan (Pob.) 698 70. T. Padilla 10,336 31. Kalunasan 16,213 71. Tabunan 1,467 32. Kamagayan (Pob.) 1,838 72. Tagbao 1,55333. Camputhaw (Pob.) 21,717 73. Talamban 24,888 34. Kasambagan 6,822 74. Taptap 1,740

35. Kinasang-an Pardo 15,893 75. Tejero (Villa Gonzalo) 16,729 36. Labangon 29,471 76. Tinago 8,650 37. Lahug (Pob.) 36,803 77. Tisa 32,059 38. Lorega (Lorega San Miguel) 11,375 78. To-ong Pardo 3,281 39. Lusaran 2,427 79. Zapatera 3,961 40. Luz 16,238 80. Sudlon II 1,814

CEBU CITY (Capital of Cebu Province) 798,809Source: NSO.gov.ph

6National Statistics Office, June 20, 2009 <www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html>


http://www.census.gov.ph/

http://www.census.gov.ph/




12

With the base figure of 798,809 for 2007 and growth rate at 1.77% (2000), current population canbe placed at 824,337. These figures will be used for further population and waste generation

projection in this paper.

Socio-Economic Patterns

Socio-economic events contribute to the fluctuation of waste generation in the City. Tourism is amajor contributing industry because Cebu is considered as one of the main tourist destinationsin the country. Tourism is at its peak from January to July. Both locals and visitors from othercountries participate in celebrating major events. During this period, industrial and commercialestablishments are busiest. Tourists go shopping, buy souvenirs and eat out.

8

8Calendar of Activities (Department of Tourism, 2008).

Major events contribute a large volume of wastes. The first event of the year which contributes

to a lot of waste is New Year. Generated wastes usually spill off from the Christmas week,wherein people engage in gift-giving and major shopping sprees. However, the single biggestevent which contributes the biggest waste generation is the Sinulog Festival. During Sinulog,thousands of pilgrims and visitors join the celebration for the feast of the Sto. Nino. The Festivalfeatures street dancing, face painting, party events, show bands, fireworks, a Mardi Gras Paradeand other activities.

During February, the Cebu X International Furniture & Furnishing Exhibition attracts buyers fromaround the world. Although commonly featured in this annual exhibit are indigenous materialssuch as rattan, bamboo, shells, and buri , the waste generated by visitors include PET bottlesand Styrofoam. The Chinese New Year, on the other hand, is a vibrant Filipino-Chinese fanfare

with dragon dances, fireworks. Valentines’ Day gift giving has also become popular amongurban residents.

The Lenten Season which falls on the last week of March to the first week of April is observedwith religious processions in every church in the city and Visita Iglesia or church visits. A largevolume of devotees visit the Sto. Nino during the week-long observance.

April and May is summer time during which countryside fiestas are celebrated. People taketoursin mango and flower farms of Cebu City’s Hillylands where anyone can stop along theroadside markets to buy fresh fruits and flowers. Flores de Mayo is celebrated all over Cebu Citywhere visitors can watch the Santacruzan Parade where chosen women walk under floral archesin tiaras and ternos .

Classes start in June. Major waste generation includes packaging materials for school supplies.It is also when the Annual Cebu Business Month is held. Cebuano retail merchants take chunksoff tags prices and many warehouses hold export overruns and some of the biggest namebrands in clothing. The Sugbayanihan, the longest barbecue grill, is also celebrated in June.




13

July and August are usually lean months as tropical storms become more frequent. In July, theFruits and Vegetables Festival is held at the City Hall Ground. September, on the other hand,

signals the entry of the “ber” months before Christmas. Retailers offer a lot of bargains toattract buyers. Restaurant rows hold a series of concerts and events during the month-longOctoberfest. The Queen City International Run is held in November. By this time, the secondsemester opens in colleges and universities and more wastes are generated from packaging ofschools supplies. Christmas in Cebu is more than a month-long celebration. The Christmas FoodStreet Festival is held and the traditional gift giving, shopping and parties render a surge inwaste generation.

Economic Growth

Despite the global economic slowdown, Central Visayas showed economic resilience during the

second quarter and first half of 2008. For Cebu City, the sectors which posted positive growthwere the information and communication technology (ICT) and tourism industries.

Demand for tourism-related services, building of accommodation establishments and variousservices increased as the region becomes one the top destinations in Asia. BPO outsourcingincreased and expanded. At the Asiatown IT Park alone in Lahug, the number locators increasedfrom 20 to 30 in 2008.

The upbeat tourism and ICT performance led to positive movements in other economic sectorsas well, made evident by the vibrant construction industry. This increased the labor market inthe region from 92.7% in 2006 to 93.8 in 2007. IT Park alone employed 4,000 more workers in thesame period. This translated in to growth in retail trade as more disposable income is earned byBPO employees.

The ICT sector contributes to more power consumption leading to the development two powerreserves projects to add 100 megawatts of the Cebu-Negros-Panay (CNP) power grid, both ofwhich are targeted for completion by 2010.

The transportation sector grew as traffic and volume of passengers and cargo handled increase.In particular, Cebu-based Cebu Pacific Air opened new routes, prompting others to follow.

9

Because of international community recognition of Region 7 for its IT and tourism potentials, theregion expects sustained growth in these sectors. In fact, the London-based Foreign DirectInvestment magazine ranked Cebu City as eighth among 10 top Asian Cities in the future, whilea study by Global Services placed the city as one of the favoured outsourcing destinations forglobal companies. Congruently, the region aims to further expand its tourism industry not only

Development Outlook

9NEDA, Central Visayas Remains Tough Amidst Global Financial Turmoil, DevPulse, Vol. 12, No. 23,May 20,2009

<http://www.neda.gov.ph/devpulse/pdf_files/central visayas.pdf>




14

through continuous promotion of its ecotourism destinations, but also by penetrating newmarkets such as the Russians and Indians who are now becoming frequent visitors. Their

numbers are expected to increase following moves by the Department of Tourism to streamlinevisa requirements for Indian guests.10

City Solid Waste Monitoring

North and South District monitoring on a monthly basis, as indicated on Tables 2 and 3,respectively, show the quantity of waste generation per barangays. Blanks indicate that no datawas submitted by the barangays to the DPS at the given period. Because of this, the totalsgiven: 38,446,458 tons for the North District and 51,315,739 for the South District do notcompletely reflect waste generation in the two areas.

Table 4 indicates that most barangays have their own waste collection trucks and that only afew are being served by DPS collection. The table also shows that the DPS has some Task Forcetrips for some common areas serving commercial establishments, markets and majorthoroughfares.

For 2008, the monthly comparative waste generation (Table 5) shows 25% reduction in February(4,021.13) from January (5,061.92). It gained 6.14% by March and decreased again by almost 5%in April. This monthly up-down fluctuation continued until an increase in July. August toNovember shows continued decline in waste generation and an increase of 7.8% in December.

Table 5 also shows no data of commercial and industrial sectors, as both sectors have their own

waste management collection and disposal. The sectors also do not report their own solid wastemonitoring to the concerned city offices.

10Ibid.




15

Table 2. Volume of Garbage, North District, Cebu CityBrgy Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

Apas 179,170 160,242 145,053 173,822 235,016 215,395 150,375 180,780 172,110 183,310 245,645 226,485 2,267,403Bacayan 74,880 56,525 55,679 74,515 67,521 76,296 86,075 74,555 74,650 77,510 81,830 800,036Banilad 54,475 39,523 48,460 56,174 72,040 66,260 60,710 73,140 61,660 54,800 57,668 644,908Bo. Luz 382,823 341,288 391,945 354,660 349,983 338,284 310,555 367,620 392,535 255,390 411,930 435,260 4,332,273Budla-an 15,160 17,600 12,286 13,991 11,350 10,710 16,470 16,040 25,280 138,887Busay 37,515 41,216 43,765 38,060 53,800 55,500 49,800 51,810 55,665 44,870 472,001Capitol Site 561,213 451,146 410,080 409,963 563,346 408,218 547,106 589,473 581,365 543,830 430,545 515,175 6,011,460Carreta 109,435 86,155 75,360 76,945 107,790 103,840 106,881 103,320 111,110 104,330 115,120 108,150 1,208,436Co. Central Ramos 80,555 84,460 87,698 91,480 83,058 115,072 111,380 109,140 124,230 108,705 85,385 1,081,163Day-as 75,710 60,690 60,321 76,028 69,030 67,640 71,430 71,760 74,560 54,060 56,690 737,919Hipodromo 145,455 62,910 74,150 67,960 65,065 415,540Kalubihan 48,705 36,528 34,457 34,705 32,045 41,303 48,220 38,220 41,650 31,045 29,670 416,548Kamagayan 54,777 79,254 74,942 66,533 72,895 72,961 76,520 68,940 69,090 635,912Kamputhaw 220,115 184,006 237,043 260,688 228,799 310,090 324,790 321,020 330,200 254,785 201,295 2,872,831Kasambagan 75,955 53,093 47,165 54,375 97,097 86,777 86.902 92,030 92,635 90,540 88,690 98,090 963,339LahugLorega San Miguel 127,895 74,335 41,465 104,580 101,245 128,460 99,310 60,545 737,835Mabolo 162,511 150,352 146,240 82,490 116,290 657,883Pahina Central 137,565 148,080 148,106 127,340 150,966 142,233 147,152 155,388 167,270 158,540 156,455 159,270 1,798,365Pari-an 59,600 55,915 43,300 30,932 55,832 48,679 56,790 58,590 52,430 48,860 37,680 45,240 593,848Pit-os 52,790 48,090 52,790 66,290 54,915 61,198 71,535 73,600 69,400 70,310 65,820 686,738Pulangbato 23,520 31,515 25,125 20,922 38,793 24,161 24,649 20,920 18,980 20,970 20,160 35,140 304,855Sambag 1 234,393 36,210 169,286 252,675 235,535 233,260 208,234 234,080 158,725 1,762,398Sambag 2 206,470 162,000 158,636 126,185 159,360 147,554 257,868 186,990 220,885 218,206 233,644 133,980 2,201,778San Antonio 49,150 44,470 52,025 64,701 49,935 65,692 73,200 74,370 76,905 70,660 64,745 685,853San Roque 72,270 59,895 59,155 58,973 70,840 71,364 67,200 70,690 63,200 66,290 57,390 60,565 777,832Sto. Nino 101,390 82,285 84,690 80,285 99,150 94,858 87,244 70,690 92,945 91,090 79,905 86,900 1,050,982

Sta. Cruz 93,755 71,520 77,644 121,612 98,767 123,000 138,740 107,360 123,750 102,910 93,060 1,152,118T. Padilla 99,140 88,015 82,700 101,903 110,874 107,400 120,438 92,170 125,010 108,750 119,690 131,110 1,287,200Talamban 55,716 55,029 78,327 160,389 174,436 185,710 180,185 189,540 171,080 173,380 1,423,792Tejero 165,977 122,620 119,625 118,915 155,945 136,924 147,871 169,360 174,920 164,775 156,930 169,395 1,803,257Grand Total 2,622,924 2,328,224 2,559,644 2,488,604 3,104,166 2,993,061 3,642,963 3,932,006 3,826,751 3,728,585 3,681,644 3,537,866 38,446,458

Source: Department of Public Services, Solid Waste Management Division, Cebu City, 2008




16

Table 3. Volume of Garbage South District, Cebu CityBarangay Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

Basak Pardo 184,415 198,415 159,574 166,592 203,801 155,940 226,958 204,790 202,080 205,350 209,662 201,335 2,318,912Buhisan 87,670 68,352 70,599 73,659 90,536 77,738 90,065 100,708 88,428 96,809 75,480 80,760 1,000,804Bulacao 286,880 240,500 232,459 228,318 296,191 280,973 293,102 331,855 321,326 268,650 75,480 80,760 2,936,494Calamba 72,310 171,338 165,513 184,547 219,367 198,481 210,804 240,500 259,704 239,990 202,395 208,460 2,373,409Cogon PardoDuljo Fatima 253,190 191,576 193,425 175,306 239,861 224,316 244,277 232,658 211,415 212,080 191,045 191,000 2,560,149Ermita 281,480 265,873 319,888 285,346 321,304 294,050 310,745 253,180 209,090 149,055 2,690,011Guadalupe 773,391 692,920 724,142 885,796 801,709 858,077 893,870 855,637 897,800 891,395 865,745 9,140,482Inayawan 297,869 218,578 229,341 223,704 292,346 285,397 323,216 185,933 356,083 357,222 358,700 354,550 3,482,939Kalunasan 89,965 74,780 74,840 72,405 89,468 80,339 84,189 89,210 84,325 86,570 81,895 84,410 992,426Kinasang-an 122,981 120,540 125,628 161,452 139,431 154,824 180,970 177,385 155,635 166,835 170,360 1,676,041Labanagon 432,250 428,164 188,555 239,492 235,966 281,540 321,112 286,500 300,070 267,495 274,550 3,255,694Mambaling 458,673 259,664 299,845 273,573 344,131 332,130 597,140 467,870 298,990 3,332,016Pasil 164,249 130,210 132,673 130,969 138,168 133,684 137,118 149,120 143,280 1,259,471Pob. Pardo 281,455 208,156 202,194 189,510 239,728 97,142 1,218,185Punta Princesa 25,526 16,963 48,733 18,367 20,522 130,111Quiot 240,135 176,783 197,245 168,659 212,975 198,613 221,609 233,286 249,755 262,760 231,105 241,650 2,634,557San Nicolas Proper 145,405 130,385 127,570 133,630 186,245 150,065 206,833 204,550 195,996 164,985 173,165 156,460 1,975,289Sapangdaku 64,940 44,167 35,182 40,793 47,455 43,301 49,242 58,540 47,680 49,490 40,750 53,730 575,270Sawang Calero 161,950 119,790 121,880 182,570 146,505 144,391 155,677 156,785 147,520 149,655 121,380 133,935 1,742,038Suba 156,275 160,155 163,746 78,399 156,801 202,541 197,690 194,060 186,160 179,985 191,270 1,8677,082Tisa 328,683 294,600 297,115 325,204 390,493 378,990 333,985 360,817 359,217 367,410 334,115 383,730 4,154,359Grand Total 3,891,180 3,238,800 4,248,270 4,054,346 4,871,030 4,419,120 5,013,023 4,904,296 4,790,126 4,253,816 3,809,972 3,821,760 51,315,739

Source: Department of Public Services, Solid Waste Management Division – Cebu City




17

Table 4. DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day)South District Central District North District Task Force

Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total Barangay DPS Brgy Total1. Basak Pardo 5.234 5.234 1. Pahina Central 5.358 5.358 1. Apas 5.98 5.72 11.7 1. Task Force (S2) 3.47 3.472. Basak San Nicolas 5.0 5.0 2. Bo. Luz 6.026 6.026 2. Banilad 5.41 2.205 7.615 C. Padilla, T. Padilla, San Roque, Mambaling,

Ermita, San Nicolas Prop, Pahina San Nicolas3., Buhisan 2.03 2.03 3. Capitol Site 18.08 18.08 3. Bacayan 4.7 2.035 6.7354. Bulacao 8.771 8.771 4. Carreta 2.825 2.465 5.29 4. Busay 1.352 1.352 2. Task Force (R3) 3.51 3.515. Calamba 5.25 5.974 11.224 5. Cogon Ramos 2.9 2.9 5. Kasambagan 3.93 2.557 6.487 Ermita, Lorega, Kamagayan, Carreta,

Kamputhaw, Lahug6. Cogon Pardo 2.489 2.489 6. Day-as 1.405 2.34 3.745 6. Mabolo 5.05 6.306 11.3567. Duljo Fatima 5.205 5.205 7. Ermita 37.74 6.812 44.552 7. Talamban 5.34 4.79 10.13 3. Meto Aide 3.96 3.968. Guadalupe 20.16 20.16 8. Hipodromo 4.0 4.0 8. Pit-os 1.816 1.816 Mabolo, Carreta9. Inayawan 7.586 7.586 9. Kalubihan 3.415 1.866 5.281 9. Pulangbato 0.708 0.70810. Kalunasan 2.486 2.486 10. Kamagayan 3.415 1.949 5.364 10. Lahug 7.98 14 21.98 4. Task Force III 3.76 3.7611. Kinasang-an 4.781 4.781 11. Kamputhaw 6.62 8.65 15.27 San Roque, T. Padilla, Kamagayan, LOrega12. Labangon 5.75 7.026 12.776 12. Loreta 1.695 3.33 5.02513. Mambaling 11.54 11.54 13. Pari-an 1.6 2.224 3.824 5. Task Force II 5.06 5.0614. Pahina San Nicolas 4.5 4.5 14. Sambag 1 8.409 8.409 Ramos, Market, Abattoir

Sports Complex, NRA, Suares Bros.15. Pasil 4.128 4.128 15. Sambag 2 6.343 6.34316. Pob. Pardo 9.33 9.33 16. San Antonio 1.94 1.94 6. Task Force I 5.08 5.0817. Punta Princesa 12.71 12.71 17. San Roque 1.36 1.858 3.218 Tejero, Gen. Maxilom, Fuente, Ramos, Tabo-

an, San Roque, M.J. Cuenco18. Quiot 6.213 6.213 18. Sta. Cruz 1.405 3.423 4.82819. Sapangdaku 1.515 1.515 19. Sto. Nino 6.93 3.15 10.08 7. Heat of the City 6.65 6.6520. Sawang Calero 3.968 3.968 20. T. Padilla 3.568 3.568 Kalubihan, Pahina San Nicolas, Ermita, Sta.

Cruz21. San Nicolas Prop. 4.538 4.538 21. Tejero 1.6 5.439 7.03922. Suba 5.824 5.824 22. Tinago 2.0 8. Sup. Payloader Op. 4.35 4.3523.Tisa 10.447 10.447 23. Zapatero 1.695 Mabolo, Carreta, Kalubihan, Kamputhaw24. Hospital 4.91 4.9125. Task Force

Source: DPS Cebu, 2009




18

Table 5. Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008

Source: Solid Waste Monitoring Division, Cebu City

MonthVolume of Garbage (Tons) Comparative

(%) ↑ ↓

Day Shift/South District Night Shift/North DistrictNo. of Equip. Dispatched No. of Equip. Dispatched

Res Mkt Com Hos Ind Total Target Actual Condmn Target Actual CondmnJanuary 3770.34 1138.95 152.63 5061.92 614 614 350 340 10February 2921.09 981.99 118.05 4021.13 25.88% ↓ 634 633 1 294 294March 3157.38 1005.21 121.65 4284.24 6.14% ↑ 676 675 1 324 324

April 3048.3 926.29 117.39 4091.98 4.69%↓ 642 642 298 298May 3657.45 1060.35 165.82 4883.62 16.2% ↑ 638 638 339 339June 3595.38 1034.3 138.49 4768.17 2.42% ↓ 658 658 326 326July 4089.19 923.91 178.54 5191.64 8.16% ↑ 645 645 356 356August 3669.41 1227.93 224.45 5121.79 1.36% ↓ 601 601 368 368September 3482.04 1219.59 168.97 4870.6 5.16% ↓ 585 585 368 368October 3364.89 1176.78 155.4 4697.07 3.7% ↓ 595 595 366 366November 3280.71 1109.62 143.17 4533.5 3.6% ↓ 568 568 359 358 1December 3503.8 1245.74 165.64 4915.18 7.8% ↑ 609 609 363 363TOTAL 56440.84 13050.66 0 1850.2 0 56440.84 7465 7433 2 4111 4100 11




19

3. INTRODUCTION

The Cebu City Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization (Plastic WACS) study is beingundertaken to determine the baseline data needed for a possible waste plastics to fuels(P2F) conversion project. It will also serve to complement the data being gathered by thecity on a regular basis to be able to establish a more efficient and ecological solid wastemanagement system, especially for waste plastics.

Waste Sectors

In the study, three major waste sectors were analyzed:

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

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

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

Since there is only one transfer station in the city DPS Dispatching Area, waste source and

sectors are readily determined with each truck. Data such as these are captured in the TruckTag, Weight Master Form and the Hand Sort Form11

Methodology

. Because of this, sorting can be done atthe Inayawan Sanitary Landfill before dumping.

Sampling Schedule

To be able to cover a whole period of the city’s waste cycle, the schedule for the samplingactivities was arranged as follows:

Table 6. Sampling ScheduleSampling Day Date Day of the Week Shift

Day 1 May 21, 2009 Thursday Night shiftDay 2 May 23, 2009 Saturday Day shiftDay 3 May 25, 2009 Monday Night shiftDay 4 May 27, 2009 Wednesday Day shiftDay 5 May 29, 2009 Friday Night shiftDay 6 May 31, 2009 Sunday Day shiftDay 7 June 2, 2009 Tuesday Day shift

11Data Capture Forms are on Appendix 6.3 on page 42




20

Each of the seven days represents a day of the week to complete a week-long cycle.Alternating shifts for sorting activities were schedule within the sampling period. The

intervening days were intended to allow drying of washed materials for the moisture contentanalysis. During those times, the sorting area is free of other wastes to ensure the integrityof the samples.

Collection of Samples

The number of samples was determined by computing the median based on the 80%confidence level in the number of samples for plastic waste.

Table 7. Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence Levels

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

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 21-101Cardboard 899-1955 533-997 225-499 134-250 58-123 35-64 27-66 17-30Aluminum 275-1437 754-4399 70-350 191-1100 19-92 60-275 10-42 23-123Ferrous 194-554 552-3411 50-139 138-953 14-37 36-214 8-18 17-97Glass 145-619 596-2002 39-155 149-501 19-61 39-126 6-19 19-58Plastic 261-1100 422-783 67-275 107-195 18-70 28-61 10-32 14-24Organic 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

A total of 44 garbage truck samples within a period of seven days were distributed in a way

that represents all three districts of DPS and barangay waste collection, including hospitalwaste. However, hospital waste was not included in the hand sorting classification becauseof its hazardous content and instead only estimated visually. The sample universe is 1.290tons derived from 30 kilograms from 43 trucks (not including the truck with hospital waste).

The study did not utilize a random numbers table to determine the truck samples. Sincethere was no working truck scale at the landfill, trucks had to be pre-identified beforedispatching and sent to a private weight master for the net and gross weights. This processhad to be coordinated at three points: the dispatching area, where the truck drivers weregiven a truck identification tag, the weighting area

12

12

Private Weight Master is Ladisto Dausan of Rhine Marketing, Brgy. Tinago, Cebu City

where the weight of empty and loadedtrucks 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 eachspecific sample.

To determine the residential, commercial and industrial waste compositions, the approachwas to identify the DPS and barangay garbage collection site based on Cebu City Zoning.Trucks were selected from the North and South Districts as well as the Central Area. Onetruck was also taken from the DPS Task Force. Remarks on the content of the load extractedwere noted in the data capture form.

The Weight Master Summary, Table 35can be found at Appendix D.




21

Actual Waste Characterization

At the side of the Inayawan Landfill, the PhilBio site was prepared and cleared to be used asthe sorting area. Designated spaces were properly labeled according to the type and sourceof waste placed into them. Before the start of the first sample extraction, neededequipments were prepared on site.

13

Each identified truck, after finishing waste collection, went to the weight master to beweighed before proceeding to the landfill.

14

Upon entering the landfill, collection crewextract a portion of the waste load from the truck. To facilitate immediate extraction ofrequired sample, wastes were taken from the upper, outer portion of the truck load.

Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck

Based on the Inayawan Waste Characterization in 2006, each garbage truck loads from 2,500to 3,000 kg.15

The waste samples were sorted into the prescribed material categories and recorded onFORM No.4. Wastes are classified into ten material types, Plastics 1 to 7 based on the PlasticIdentification Code

During the study period, waste load range from 1650 to 5475 kg But to provideresults consistent the latest WACS, the representative sample for each truck load waspegged at 30 kilos. A 50-kilogram platform weighing scale was used to weigh 30 kilograms ofwaste which were then brought to the sorting area for characterization.

16, Wood, Paper and Other Wastes. Waste plastics which are not identified

in the first six types were placed in Other Plastics category. Aside from Plastics, Wood andPaper were specifically sorted. This is because the objective of the study is to providebaseline 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 andwaste wood as additional feedstock.

17

13

Appendix 6.6 on page 67 lists all the materials and equipment used during the actual characterization.14

The truck goes back to the weight master after dumping of its load to get the net weight of the truck.15 Cebu, MMT, CPDO and DPS, Inayawan Sanitary Landfill Waste Characterization Study, October 2006.16

The Plastic Identification Code, March 20, 2009 <http://www.plastics.org.nz/_attachments/docs/plasticscode-7.pdf>17

UNEP-DTIE,IETC, Guidelines for Assessment of Waste Plastics, 2009.

Materials were sorted according to the ten material types and placed into separate labeledcontainers. Before weighing, the materials were checked and verified against the WasteClassification Guide provided to the sorting crew. These are then weighed on a five-kilogramdigital weighing scale.

Front ofthe truck

Back ofthe truck

WasteSample




22

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 two digits on gram, it was

place on a clean, flat surface and the level of scale was adjusted when necessary. Weightingof each material samples was done inside the PhilBio site since even movement of the trayor container from strong wind affects the weight registered by the scale.

The materials were weighed as is, but bottles, cans and containers were emptied of theircontents before weighing. The weight of each material (wet basis) was recorded on FORMNo.2.

Presentation of Data

Data is shown in pie graphs and tables. Presentation of data starts from Plastics (materialtypes 1 to 7) and Other Wastes (8 to 10). Tables present data by material types 1 to 10, totalPlastic (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 fourways: first, the proportion of the total plastic waste against total waste composition; second,is the proportion of Plastics (material types 1 to 7) against the total waste composition; thirdis the proportion of Plastics (1 to 7) against the total number of waste plastics. Fourth,Plastics (1-7) on three sectors: residential, industrial, and commercial.

Detailed tables culled from raw data are placed in Appendix E.

4. KEY FINDINGS

Quantities of Waste

A total of 129, 055 kg (129.06 tons) with the average of 18, 436 kg (18.44 tons) of overallwaste disposed at Inayawan Landfill during the seven days period of the study. Thequantities associated with waste plastics disposed in the same period based on the samplequantity which is 30 kg. (0.03 tons) per sample are over 159 kg (0.16 tons) and has theaverage of 23 kg (0.02 tons), a total of 1,290.10 kg sample collected in the study period.Waste plastics represent approximately 12.36% (159.47 kg) while other wastes account87.64% (1130.63 kg) for all sampling period.

Table 8 shows the aggregated data and the quantity of municipal solid waste and wasteplastics on daily samples.




23

Table 8. Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Cebu CityDaily Samples Aggregated Data

Day-Sample No. MSW (kg) Waste Plastics (kg) Day MSW (kg) Waste Plastics (kg) Percentage (%)1-1 3210.00 3.63 1 17905.00 33.05 0.181-2 2495.00 5.69 2 19640.00 14.40 0.071-3 3420.00 3.99 3 23260.00 31.70 0.141-4 2570.00 5.37 4 20260.00 20.93 0.101-5 2335.00 4.11 5 19045.00 36.62 0.191-6 3875.00 10.26 6 7900.00 7.90 0.102-1 2400.00 2.37 7 21045.00 14.88 0.072-2 3130.00 2.84 TOTAL 129055.00 159.47 0.122-3 3400.00 0.20 AVERAGE 18436.43 22.78 0.122-4 2425.00 4.832-5 3060.00 1.412-6 2540.00 1.672-7 2685.00 1.083-1 3320.00 4.813-2 3400.00 3.493-3 2845.00 3.813-4 3300.00 4.073-5 3740.00 8.713-6 4015.00 2.723-7 2640.00 4.104-1 4320.00 3.294-2 2840.00 3.734-3 3450.00 3.004-4 3750.00 3.734-5 2285.00 4.004-6 3615.00 3.185-1 1650.00 2.045-2 2010.00 2.625-3 3100.00 5.145-4 2165.00 3.695-5 3395.00 11.265-6 2765.00 4.155-7 3960.00 7.716-1 3700.00 4.506-2 2150.00 0.616-3 2050.00 2.797-1 5475.00 3.987-2 2150.00 0.907-3 2225.00 1.117-4 4045.00 2.647-5 2310.00 3.467-6 1985.00 1.547-7 2855.00 1.26

Waste Composition

This report presents the results of overall waste disposed by three major waste sectors-residential, commercial and industrial. A total of 1,290.10 kg from 43 garbage truck sampleswere characterized. The results were presented in pie chart showing the summary of wastecomposition and a table showing the waste type, by weight and the precision levels at the80% confidence level.

Due to rounding, numbers may not sum exactly to totals or subtotals.




24

As shown in Figure 3, comparing percentage of waste plastics (12.36%) against other waste(87.64%) for the overall composition of waste disposed in the landfill.

Figure 3. Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from Total Samples

Other

Wastes,

87.64%

Plastics,

12.36%

Figure 4 shows the percent composition of each material type, Mixed Wastes (71.42%)constitute the largest amount disposed in the landfill. Some identified materials in MixedWastes were organic, residues and other materials or individual materials that not includedin the major categories. In addition, paper account for almost 14.55% and wood (1.67%). Forwaste plastics against the total waste composition, PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largestpercentage for waste plastics.

In addition, paper account for almost 14.55% and wood (1.67%). For waste plastics againstthe total waste composition, PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest amount being disposed inInayawan. This is followed by O or Other Plastics (3.29%) and HDPE (2.64%). While the leastkind of plastics observed is LDPE with approximately 0.04%.

Table 9 shows the result of overall waste composition which combines all sectors. Thedetailed overall waste composition findings are shown in Table 26.

Figure 4. Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

PET, 0.35% HDPE, 2.64%

PVC, 5.11%

PP, 0.17%

LDPE, 0.04%

PS, 0.77%

Other

Plastics,

3.29%

Paper, 14.55%

Wood, 1.67%

Mixed

Waste,

71.42%




25

Table 9. Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu CityTypes of Waste Percentage (%) Variance +/-

1. PET 0.35 0.111105952 0.432. HDPE 2.64 4.05027381 2.583. PVC 5.11 36.14726181 7.714. LDPE 0.04 0.002402619 0.065. PP 0.17 0.032871952 0.236. PS 0.77 1.180381143 1.397. Other Plastics 3.29 13.88075913 4.788. Paper 14.55 225.1136841 19.239. Wood 1.67 16.43734224 5.2010. Mixed Wastes 71.42 1251.139011 45.35

TOTAL PLASTIC 12.36 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTE 87.64 - -

TOTAL WASTE 100.00 - -

For plastic wastes a total of 159.47 kgs of sample for the overall waste stream whichcombines all sectors were characterized. In Figure 5, PVC (41.33%) commonly and representsthe highest percentage disposed among other kinds of waste plastics. This is followed byOther Plastics (26.61%) and HDPE (21.34%). Other kinds of plastics that have significantnumbers disposed were PS (6.23%), PET (2.82%), PP (1.39%), and LDPE (0.28%), respectively.

Table 10 shows the result of overall waste plastics composition which combines all of thesectors. The detailed findings of overall waste plastics composition are shown in Table 27.

Figure 5. Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

PP, 1.39%

LDPE, 0.28%

PS, 6.23%

PET, 2.82%

Other

Plastics,

26.61%

HDPE, 21.34%

PVC, 41.33%

Table 10. Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu CityTypes of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-

1. PET 2.82 0.111105952 0.432. HDPE 21.34 4.05027381 2.583. PVC 41.33 36.14726181 7.714. LDPE 0.28 0.002402619 0.065. PP 1.39 0.032871952 0.236. PS 6.23 1.180381143 1.397. Other Plastics 26.61 13.88075913 4.78

TOTAL 100.00 - -




26

Residential Sector

A total of 299.64 kg of waste samples were disposed by the residential sector within thestudy period. Figure 6 shows the amount of plastics that can be found in this sector which is19.70 kg. (6.57%) and 279.94 kg (93.43%) for other wastes.

Figure 6. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Residential Sector

Plastics,

6.57%

Other

Wastes,

93.43%

Figure 7 shows the percentage of each material type against total waste disposed in theresidential sector, Mixed Wastes (86.92%) are most common waste disposed by theresidential sector. The findings suggest that almost all of the waste being disposed in the

landfill by this sector is composed of individual materials that are included in Mixed Wastescategory. It is followed but close to each other by Paper (3.46%) and Wood (3.05%),respectively. For Waste Plastics against the total Plastic composition, Other Plastics (2.14%)and HDPE (2.10%) are the two most prevalent kinds of waste plastics disposed in this sector.The amount of LDPE (0.03%) in this sector shows lesser percentage.

Table 11 shows the result of waste characterization in the residential sector. The detailedfindings of waste characterization in the residential sector are shown in Table 28.

Figure 7. Overview of Waste Characterization, Residential

Composition of Waste from the Residential Sector

Mixed Waste,

86.92%

Wood, 3.05%

Paper, 3.46%

Other Plastics,

2.14%

PS, 0.61%

PP, 0.21%

LDPE, 0.03%

PET, 0.22%

HDPE, 2.10%

PVC, 1.27%




27

Table 11. Result of Waste Characterization, ResidentialTypes of Waste Percentage (%) Variance +/-


TOTAL PLASTICS 6.57 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTES 93.43 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -

Figure 8 shows the result of each type of waste plastics against the total plastics found inthis sector, Other Plastics (32.49%) and HDPE (31.96%) are the majority kinds of wasteplastics found in this sector. PVC (19.37%), PS (9.25%), PET (3.29%) and PP (3.20%) alsoaccounted greater percentage as shown in the graph. In lesser percentage, LDPE contributeswith approximately 0.45%.

Table 12 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector. Thedetailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector are shown inTable 29.

Figure 8. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

PS, 9.25%

PP, 3.20%

LDPE, 0.45%

PVC, 19.37%

HDPE,

31.96%

PET, 3.29%

Other

Plastics,

32.49%

Table 12. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, ResidentialTypes of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-

1. PET 3.29 0.020830571 0.192. HDPE 31.96 1.121476238 1.363. PVC 19.37 0.280928333 0.684. LDPE 0.45 0.000594286 0.035. PP 3.20 0.011007 0.136. PS 9.25 0.182805571 0.55

7. Other Plastics 32.49 0.832453571 1.17TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -




28

Commercial Sector

A total of 989.90 kg. of wastes sample disposed in the commercial sector. As shown in Figure9, waste plastics in this sector approximately constitute 14.00% (138.56 kg.) and 86.00%(851.34 kg.) for Other Waste, respectively.

Figure 9. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Commercial sector

Plastics,

14.00%

Other

Wastes,

86.00%

The result shows the proportion of each material type against the total waste disposed incommercially identified areas. Similar to residential, Figure 10 shows mixed wastescontribute the largest percentage with 66.95%. Other materials such as Paper (17.52%) and

Wood (1.54%) also contribute to the waste disposed by the sector. For Waste Plastics againstthe total waste composition, PVC (6.20%) shows highest percentage among other kinds ofplastics while Other Plastics was at 3.62%) and HDPE at 2.79%.

Table 13 shows the result of waste characterization in the commercial sector. The detailedfindings of waste characterization in the commercial sector are shown in Table 30.

Figure 10. Overview of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Composition of Disposed Waste from the Commercial Sector

Mixed Waste,

66.95%

Wood, 1.54%

Paper, 17.52%

Other Plastics,

3.62%

PS, 0.78%

PP, 0.17%

LDPE, 0.05%PVC, 6.20%

HDPE, 2.79%PET, 0.38%




29

Table 13. Result of Waste Characterization, CommercialTypes of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-1. PET 0.38 0.137418143 0.482. HDPE 2.79 5.148719476 2.913. PVC 6.20 39.69295148 8.084. LDPE 0.05 0.002402619 0.065. PP 0.17 0.057852667 0.316. PS 0.78 1.112313667 1.357. Other Plastics 3.62 16.50551131 5.218. Paper 17.52 260.1989228 20.689. Wood 1.54 5.366202571 2.9710. Other Wastes 66.95 1290.594232 46.06

TOTAL PLASTIC 14.00 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTE 86.00 - -

TOTAL 100.00 - -

Unlike in the residential sector, it was observed that a larger volume of plastics disposed inthe commercial sector with a total of 138.56 kg. Figure 11 shows that the most abundantkinds of plastic found in commercial sector is PVC with 44.30% approximately. This isfollowed by Other Plastics (25.89%) and HDPE (19.90%). Other waste plastics in the sector arePS (5.61%), PET (2.73%), PP (1.23%) and LDPE (0.33%).

Table 14 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the commercial sector. Thedetailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the commercial sector are shown inTable 31.

Figure 11. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

HDPE, 19.90%

PVC, 44.30%

Other Plastics,

25.89%

PET, 2.73%

PS, 5.61%

PP, 1.23%

LDPE, 0.33%

Table 14. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, CommercialTypes of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-1. PET 2.73 0.137418143 0.482. HDPE 19.90 5.148719476 2.913. PVC 44.30 39.69295148 8.084. LDPE 0.33 0.002402619 0.065. PP 1.23 0.057852667 0.31

6. PS 5.61 1.112313667 1.357. Other Plastics 25.89 16.50551131 5.21





30

Industrial Sector

A total of 249.06 kg of wastes are disposed in the industrial sector, based on the studysamples. Figure 12 shows 7.69% (18.47 kg) Waste Plastics disposed by this sector and 92.31%(221.59 kg) were Other Wastes.

Figure 12. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Industrial sector

Plastics,

7.69%

Other

Wastes,

92.31%

Similar results from residential and commercial sectors suggest that other wastes (83.66%)contribute the highest percentage of waste disposed in the sector as shown in Figure 13.

Paper (7.37%) and wood (1.27%) also in significant amount of waste being observed. Forwaste plastics against the total waste composition HDPE (2.49%), PVC (2.30%) and otherplastics (2.04%) can be considered as the three major contributors of waste plastics in thesector. Similar to other sectors, LDPE contribute the least amount with 0.01% approximately.

Table 15 shows the result of waste characterization in the industrial sector. The detailedfindings of waste characterization in the industrial sector are shown in Table 32.

Figure 13. Overview of Waste Characterization, Industrial

Composition of Waste from the Industrial Sector

Mixed Waste,

83.66%

Wood, 1.27%

Paper, 7.37%

Other Plastics,

2.04%

PS, 0.47%

PP, 0.08%

LDPE, 0.01%

PVC, 2.30%

PET, 0.31%HDPE, 2.49%




31

Table 15. Result of Waste Characterqization, IndustrialTypes of Waste Percentage (%) Variance +/-


TOTAL PLASTICS 7.69 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTES 92.31 - -


For the industrial sector, a total of 18.47 kg of Waste Plastics was observed. The result showsthat HDPE (32.37%) is the highest percentage of waste plastics found in the sector as shownin Figure 14. This was followed by PVC and other plastics with 29.85% and the latter 26.52%respectively. Other waste plastics accounted for are PS (6.05%), PET (3.97%), PP (1.08%) andLDPE (0.15%).

Table 16 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector. Thedetailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector are shown inTable 33.

Figure 14. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

PS, 6.05%

PP, 1.08%

LDPE, 0.15%

PET, 3.97%

PVC, 29.85%

HDPE, 32.37%

Other Plastics,

26.52%

Table 16. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, IndustrialTypes of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-


7. Other Plastics 26.52 0.414956571 0.84TOTAL SAMPLE 100.00 - -




32

Aggregate Data

Table 17 shows aggregated data on disposed waste of all sectors and the total amount ofsample which is 1,529.60 kg, 11.55% (176.73 kg) account for Plastic Wastes and 88.45%(1352.87 kg) for Other Wastes. The total amount for this data is higher than the total amountof actual waste sample. This is because there are samples coming from residential are alsotaken as sample for industrial and commercial since within the sample areas includes allsectors or both sectors.

Result shows that from three sectors, highest amount of waste disposed was contributed bythe commercial sector. Moreover, large amount of waste plastics were also observed in thecommercial sector. In this sector, PVC is the highest waste plastics found, followed by otherplastics and HDPE. For residential sector, HDPE and other plastics were commonly found.

While in the residential sector, PVC and HDPE are the majority of waste plastics found. LDPEwas the kind of waste plastics being disposed in a lesser amount found in all sectors. Themost common waste plastics observed when combining all sectors is PVC, followed by OtherPlastics, HDPE and PS.

Table 17. Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All SectorsTypes of Waste Residential Commercial Industrial Total1. PET 0.65 3.79 0.73 5.172. HDPE 6.30 27.58 5.98 39.853. PVC 3.82 61.38 5.51 70.714. LDPE 0.09 0.45 0.03 0.575. PP 0.63 1.71 0.20 2.54

6. PS 1.82 7.77 1.12 10.717. Other Plastics 6.40 35.88 4.90 47.178. Paper 10.37 173.40 17.70 201.469. Wood 9.14 15.24 3.05 27.4410. Mixed Wastes 260.44 662.70 200.84 1123.98

TOTAL PLASTICS 19.70 138.56 18.47 176.73TOTAL OTHER WASTES 279.94 851.34 221.59 1352.87

TOTAL SAMPLE 299.64 989.90 240.06 1529.60

Similar results suggest that from commercial sector relatively high amount of non-hazardous waste and waste plastics were disposed in the landfill per day as shown in Table18. Industrial sector and the residential sector also contributed significant amount of both

non-hazardous and waste plastics being disposed everyday in the landfill.

Table 18. Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City

Sector Estimated Ratio

(% kg) Estimated kg (per day)

Non-Hazardous Waste PlasticsResidential 23.23 13.35 2.81Commercial 76.73 121.62 19.79Industrial 18.61 31.66 2.64

Moisture Content

The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. It isimportant to consider the factors contributed by collection sites and transportation as well




33

as weather conditions because these might affect moisture content of a given material.Within the study period, rainy days were observed although the condition is not heavy rain

still this factor can lead to high moisture content of waste plastics in a particular samplingday/s.

Table 19. Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City.Types of Waste Raw Weight (kg) Moisture Content, MC (%) Dry Weight (kg)

1. PET 4.51 1.76 4.432. HDPE 34.03 8.74 31.053. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.894. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.455. PP 2.22 1.70 2.186. PS 9.93 4.28 9.517. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.408. Paper 187.69 - -9. Wood 21.51 - -10. Mixed Wastes 921.43 - -

TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91TOTAL OTHER WASTES 1130.63 - -


The average moisture content of all plastics disposed during the sampling period is 4.10%.Figure 15 shows the result of moisture content analysis for seven types of waste plasticsduring the study period.

HDPE (8.74%) shows highest moisture content among other waste plastics. This is followed

by other plastics (7.15%), PVC (4.59%) and PS (4.28%). Moisture content of PET (1.76%), PP(1.70%) and LDPE (0.46%) also shows relevant amount of moisture in a waste plasticmaterial. Table 20 shows the result of moisture content analysis of the seven types of wasteplastics.

Figure 15. Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics

1.76%

8.74%

4.59%

0.46%

1.70%

4.28%

7.15%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS Other

PlasticsTypes of Waste Plastics

% Moisture




34

Table 20. Results for Moisture Content AnalysisTypes of Waste

Plastics % Moisture

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

1. PET 1.73 0.23 2.75 0.80 2.47 2.55 1.80 1.762. HDPE 9.04 7.00 7.59 8.27 10.28 9.79 9.19 8.743. PVC 4.28 2.98 3.10 8.02 4.64 3.11 5.98 4.594. LDPE 1.19 0.00 0.40 1.09 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.465. PP 4.71 0.27 1.85 1.49 1.71 1.27 0.62 1.706. PS 5.72 0.82 4.47 5.27 6.16 3.04 4.47 4.287. Other Plastics 8.27 5.41 5.98 7.97 8.77 6.66 7.00 7.15

OVER-ALL AVERAGE 4.99 2.39 3.73 4.70 4.94 3.77 4.15 4.10

Table 21. Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City.Types of Waste Raw Weight (kg) Moisture Content, MC (%) Dry Weight (kg)

1. PET 4.51 1.76 4.43

2. HDPE 34.03 8.74 31.053. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.894. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.455. PP 2.22 1.70 2.186. PS 9.93 4.28 9.517. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.408. Paper 187.69 - -9. Wood 21.51 - -10. Mixed Wastes 921.43 - -

TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91TOTAL OTHER WASTES 1130.63 - -


Waste Composition

Table 22 shows the waste composition based on Phyllis18: the composition of biomass and

waste. In addition, the weight of material while still wet was also taken to compare theweight of material when it’s already dry. The result suggests that PVC followed by otherplastics and HDPE were the kind of waste plastics with the highest moisture content whendisposed compared to other waste plastics.

Table 22. Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City

Types of WasteWet Weight

(kg)Dry Weight

(kg)Composition

C H O N S Ash

1. PET 4.51 4.43 62.2 4.2 32.9 - - 0.72. HDPE 34.03 31.05 86.1 13 0.9 - - -3. PVC 65.91 62.89 40.1 5.1 0.6 - - -4. LDPE 0.45 0.45 85.7 14.2 0.1 0.05 - -5. PP 2.22 2.18 85.5 14.3 0.2 - - 0.16. PS 9.93 9.51 92.7 7.9 - - - -7. Other Plastics 42.43 39.40 - - - - - -8. Paper 187.69 - - - - - - -9. Wood 21.51 - - - - - - -10. Other Waste 921.43 - - - - - - -

TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 149.91 - - - - - -TOTAL OTHER WASTE 1130.63 - - - - - - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 1290.10 - - - - - - -

18ECN Phyllis, The Composition of Biomass and Waste, June 1, 2009, <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/>




35

Table 23. Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics.Types of Plastic Unclean, kg Clean, kg

1. PET 4.51 4.242. HDPE 34.03 31.033. PVC 65.91 63.614. LDPE 0.45 0.445. PP 2.22 2.166. PS 9.93 9.407. Other Plastic 42.43 38.54

TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 149.42

Waste Projection

For a given population in a particular year and the percentage annual average growth rate,we can calculate the projection for the succeeding years. According to the City Profile 2008,population grows at the rate of 1.77%. Using 2007 NSO data of 798, 809 population multipliedby the growth rate of 1.77% added to the population of the given year will give the projectedpopulation for the next year. This process is repeated for the succeeding years.

Based on the Inayawan Waste Characterization Study 2006, it is assumed that as of 2005each person is generating 187.10 kg. of waste in a year. World Bank’s Philippine EnvironmentMonitor 2001 assumed that the urban population would generate one percent (1%) increasein waste generation per year. Based on these factors, waste projection for the next year canbe computed by multiplying 1% (.01%) to the waste generation and the product is added tothe base waste generation for the given year. Since that is the rate for each person per year,

then we can simply multiply it to the total population of its corresponding year.

Based on projections, Cebu City will reach the one million mark in population for year 2020and by that time will generate 217,997 tons of waste per year, about 70% increase from its2007 waste generation.

Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020Year Projected Population

aProjected Waste (T/Yr.)

c

2007 798, 809

152, 461

2008 812, 948a

156, 7122009 827, 337 161, 083

2010 841, 981 165, 5762011 856, 884 170, 1942012 872, 051 174, 9422013 887, 486 179, 8222014 903, 195 184, 8392015 919, 182 189, 9952016 935, 452 195, 2922017 952, 010 200, 7362018 968, 861 206, 3332019 986, 010 212, 0852020 1, 003, 462 217, 997

a – Cebu City growth rate as of year 2000 is 1.77% based on Cebu City Profile 2008b - Cebu City population based on the NSO 2007 Censusc - 187.10 kg. waste generation/person/year according to the Cebu Inayawan 2006d - Waste generation increase at 1% per year based on the Philippine EnvironmentMonitor 2001




36

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The amount of waste plastics that the city currently disposes to the Inayawan Landfill is at12.36% of the total waste being disposed. If the city will generate a total 161,083 tons ofwaste this year based on projection figures, the total waste plastics to be disposed for theyear will be approximately 19,910 tons. Wood at 2,690 tons (1.67%) and paper at 23,438 tons(14.55%) as additional feedstock for a P2F conversion facility. Total is 46,038 tons divided orapproximately 3,837 tons of available materials a month.

Average moisture for waste plastics content is at 4.10%, as opposed to the total moisturecontent for all waste disposed at 38.57% based on the Inayawan Study.

According to the Inayawan Study, the disposed waste has an average loose density of 0.101kg/L and average bulk density of 0.311 kg/L. The loose density figure indicates thatapproximately 0.101 kg of incompact waste could be accommodated into a 1-liter volume.This could be increased to 0.311 kg if compacted into the same volume. This means that anadditional of 0.21 kg of waste could be added to 0.101 kg of incompact waste for every 1-

Figure 16. Informal Waste Recovery in Cebu City

This old woman picks wastes on early mornings. Tri-sikad used for collected waste plastics.

Children picking waste at Inayawan. Bakat and sack at the side of truck for recyclables.




37

liter volume.19

19

Cebu, MMT, CPDO and DPS, Inayawan Sanitary Landfill Waste Characterization Study, October 2006.

Although these figures are important for the Inayawan Study in its objectiveto see how the landfill’s lifespan could be extended, these figures are as significant in this

plastic waste to fuels baseline study because transport and recovery of wastes will be animportant factor in implementing the demonstration project.

Plastic waste recovery in the city is not included in the study. Based on observations, thereis no formal plastic waste recovery system in the city, except for several industries andcommercial establishments that manage their own waste. Informally, however, there areseveral levels of recovery (Figure 16). This includes segregation at source where recyclablesare either bought by individual buyers, picked up from by scavengers along the streets or atthe disposal site and the practice of waste collection crew to separate materials they cansell. For a detailed discussion on these practices, please see Activity II-2 Report on PlasticWastes Management Systems and Practices for Cebu City.

A further study focusing on waste recovery and diversion systems would further shed lighton how much waste plastics the city generates in different sectors. This study should alsoinclude markets for plastics and costs of different plastic waste materials.

As for the City, a stricter enforcement of solid waste management laws and local ordinancesis needed so that recyclable waste plastics, as well as other materials will be diverted toenvironment-friendly projects such as a P2F facility.




38

6. APPENDICES

6.1. Definition of Material Types

There are two major categories of wastes used in classifying wastes for the Mandaue Waste Analysis andCharacterization Study composed of ten material types. These are the seven types of Plastics based on thePlastics Classification Code, Wood, Paper and Other Wastes.

Plastics:

1. PET - (or PETE) Polyethylene Terephthalate. Its characteristics include Clarity, strength, toughness, barrierto gas and moisture. These are commonly used as packaging for soft drink, water and salad dressingbottles; peanut butter and jam jars.

2.

HDPE - High Density Polyethylene. It can be identified by its properties: Stiffness, strength, toughness,resistance to moisture, permeability to gas. It is commonly used as packaging for milk, juice and waterbottles; trash and retail bags.

3. PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride. Its characteristics include versatility, clarity, ease of blending, strength,toughness. Its packaging applications include Juice bottles; cling films and PVC piping

4. LDPE - Low Density Polyethylene. Its characteristics are ease of processing, strength, toughness, flexibility,ease of sealing, barrier to moisture. Examples are frozen food bags; squeezable bottles, e.g. honey,mustard; cling films; flexible container lids.

5. PP - Polypropylene. Its properties include strength, toughness, and resistance to heat, chemicals, greaseand oil, versatile, barrier to moisture. Applications include reusable microwaveable ware; kitchenware;yogurt containers; margarine tubs; microwaveable disposable take-away containers; disposable cups andplates.

6. PS - Polystyrene. It is characterized by its versatility and clarity. Packaging applications are easily formed

egg cartons; packing peanuts; disposable cups, plates, trays and cutlery and disposable take-awaycontainers;

7. O – Other plastics (often polycarbonate or ABS). These are dependent on polymers or combination orpolymers such as beverage bottles; baby milk bottles and electronic casings. It also includes compositeItems that are predominantly plastic with other materials attached such as disposable razors, pens,lighters, toys, and binders.

Other Wastes:

8. Paper-a. Newspaper: Printed ground-wood newsprint. Advertising “slicks” (glossy paper), if found mixed with

newspaper.b. Plain OCC/Kraft Paper: Unwaxed/uncoated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, including large

brown or white paper checkout bags.

c. Waxed OCC/Kraft Paper: Waxed/coated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, and brown paperbags.d. High-Grade Paper: White and lightly colored bond, rag, or stationery-grade paper. This includes white

or lightly colored sulfite/sulfate bond, copy papers, notebook paper, envelopes, continuous feedsulfite/sulfate computer printouts, and forms of all types, excluding carbonless paper.

e. Mixed Low-Grade Paper: Mixed paper includes junk mail, magazines, colored papers, bleached Kraft,boxboard, mailing tubes, carbonless copy paper, ground-wood computer printouts, paperback books,and telephone directories. Includes large Kraft carryout bags and white shopping bags without asupermarket name, department stores, hardware stores, etc. with or without handles, paper fast-foodpackaging bags, paper lunch-size bags, etc.

f. Polycoated Paper: Bleached and unbleached paperboard coated with HDPE film. This includespolycoated milk, juice (including those with plastic spouts), and ice cream cartons, paper cups,takeout containers, and frozen/refrigerator packaging. Excludes juice concentrate cans.

g. Compostable/Soiled Paper: Paper towels, paper plates, waxed paper, tissues, and other papers thatwere soiled with food during use (e.g., pizza box inserts).







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styrene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styrene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate










39

h. Composite/Other Paper: Predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g., orange juice cansand spiral notebooks), and other difficult to recycle paper products such as carbon copy paper,hardcover books, photographs, and aseptic drink boxes.

9. Wood –a. Clean Wood: Including milled lumber commonly used in construction for framing and related uses,

including 2 x 4’s and 2 x 6’s, and sheets of plywood, strandboard, and particleboard.b. Pallets and Crates: Clean wood pallets (whole and broken), crates, pieces of crates, and other

packaging lumber and panel board.c. Stumps and Logs: Stumps or logs 4 feet or greater in length.d. Composite/Other Wood: Predominantly wood and lumber products that are mixed with other materials

in such a way that they cannot easily be separated. This includes wood with metal, gypsum, concrete,or other contaminants.

10. Mixed Wastes - means materials that are not classified in the first nine type or their subtypes. Theseinclude glass, metals, electronics or e-waste, organic wastes, construction materials except wood, special

waste, hazardous waste and residual wastes.

Sources:

The Plastic Identification Code was introduced by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

Cebu Inayawan Sanitary landfill Waste characterization study October 2006 Mayor’s Management Team

Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Waste Characterization Study Final Report November 2007 CascadiaConsulting Group In cooperation with Sky Valley Associates, Inc.




40

6.2 Detailed Methodology

Waste Composition Calculations

The composition estimates represented the ratio of the components’ weight to the total waste. It was derivedby summing each component’s weight across all of the records and divided by the sum of the total weight ofwaste, as shown in the following equation:

∑i mi,j

rj = ---------

∑i wi,j

The calculation should be repeated for each type of waste plastics.

Calculating the Error Range

For each mean estimate, r j , calculated as described above, the confidence interval (error range) surrounding

the mean estimate is calculated as follows. First, calculate the variance, Vr j, of the mean estimate.

1 1 ∑i (mi,j - rj wi)2

Vrj = --- X ---- X -----------------

n w2

n-1

∑i wi

Where n is the number of samples, and mean sample weight w = -------n

Confidence level is ± (t X √Vi,j), where t depends on the number of samples, n, and the desired confidencelevel. The value of t can be estimated from t-static.

Calculating the Average Values for Combined Waste Sectors

The mean estimate for a given material, j, in a combination of segments (1, 2, 3...) of the waste stream isfound as follows.

rj, combined = (p12

X Vrj1) + (p22

X Vrj2) + (p32

X Vrj3) + ….

Confidence level is ± (t X √Vj, combined).

Variables:S tonnage associated with a sector during a particular time periodQ quantity of waste encountered in the studyTPE tons per employeej designation of a particular materiali designation of a particular sampler ratio of material weight to total sample weight, for an individual samplem weight of a material in an individual samplew total weight of an individual sampleV the variance associated with the estimate for a material’s percent in a group of samples

n number of samples in the group




41

p a weighting factor given to a segment of the waste stream, where the sum of all the valuesof p is 1

G designation of a size subgroup within a segment of the waste stream – usually used forgenerator samples

Calculating Dry Weight

Dry weight= wet weight – (wet weight x amount of moisture)

Moisture Content Determination for Waste Plastics: (Air Dried Method)

1. Each classified waste plastics obtained from 30 kg. sample were washed and cleaned carefullyensuring that no sample materials are lost

2. The sample materials were placed on a open container for the air-drying process.

3. The wet materials were turned over at intervals during the drying process.4. The materials were allowed to dry and weighed until the weight became constant. The air-drying

process took several days depending on the moisture content of the waste and weather condition.5. In this method, there are two results that can be obtained: the weight of clean plastics (dry basis) and

the final weight of the each sample to determine moisture content.6. The weights of sample materials were recorded in FORM NO.3.7. Weather condition was also noted on the form.8. The percent moisture content was calculated by dividing the moisture loss by the wet weight of the

sample and multiplying by 100. The moisture content result of this study was calculated based onelectronic source.

Formula20

20http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpsolidwaste/solid_waste_equation_moisture_content.php

W-D% Moisture = 100 x W

Where:

W- Initial Weight of a sampleD- Final Weight of a sample




42

6.3 Data Capture Forms

IETC Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study, Cebu CityForm No.1 Vehicle Data Capture Form

Weather Condition:

Truck Driver: Truck No.

Date: Day:

Time:

Source:Location (Brgy):

Waste Sector: (Commercial, Residential, Market, Others)

Gross Weight: kg

Net weight: kg

Remarks:

Type of Truck:

Hauler (private/gov’t.):

Weight Master

Name

Signature




43

IETC Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study, Cebu CityForm No. 2 Waste Characterization Form

Date/Shift/Time: Remarks :Sample ID No.

Plate No.:Source Location (Barangays):Waste Sector:Weighing Date/Time: NOTE:Sample Weight + Container, kg:Weather Condition kg-weight of the container

Types of wasteWeight with

container, kgWeight w/o

container, kg% Wet basis (wt. ofsample/ tot. wt)*100

Moisture Content(%)

Dry weight, kg

1. PET2. HDPE3. PVC4. LDPE5. PP6. PS7. Other Plastics

TOTAL PLASTICS8. Paper9. Wood10. Mixed Wastes

TOTAL OTHER WASTESOVER-ALL TOTAL

Conducted by:

______________________________________Name and Signature




44

IETC Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study, Cebu CityForm No. 3 Moisture Content Determination Form

Date/Time

Control No.

Weather Condition:

SampleNo.

Type

Initial Weighing Final Weighing Amount of moisture, kg(final weight-initial

weight)

% Moisture (amount ofmoisutre/initial weight)*100

RemarksWeigh withcontainer, kg

Date/TimeWeigh with

container, kgDate/Time

1

2

34

5

6

7

NOTE: kg-weight of the container

ANALYST:




45

IETC Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study, Cebu CityForm No. 4 Hand Sort Tally Form

Day No./Sample ID No. Shift:Sample ID No: Route:

Date: Source:Dimension: _____x____x____ unit Weather:Volume: Plate No:Truck type: Tipping Fee:Type of Hauler:

Plastics: % Other Waste: ___________%

Types of waste Unclean, Kg Clean, Kg Estimated vol. (per day)

1. PET2. HDPE

3. PVC4. LDPE5. PP6. PS

7. OthersTOTAL PLASTICS

8. Paper9. Wood10. Mixed Wastes

TOTAL OTHER WASTES

OVER-ALL TOTALNote: kg - ______ weight of the container

Conducted by:

Remarks:

Name and Signature




46

6.4. Detailed Waste Characterization Tables

Table 25. Characterization of the Overall Waste Stream.

Types of WasteWeight of Waste per Classification, kg Total Waste per

Classification, kgPercentage

(%)Variance +/-

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

1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51 0.35 0.111105952 0.432. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03 2.64 4.05027381 2.58

3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91 5.11 36.14726181 7.71

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.04 0.002402619 0.06

5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22 0.17 0.032871952 0.23

6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93 0.77 1.180381143 1.39

7. Other Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43 3.29 13.88075913 4.78

TOTAL PLASTICS 33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47 12.36 - -

8. Paper 31.95 20.14 54.27 15.90 35.53 10.00 19.89 187.69 14.55 225.1136841 19.23

9. Wood 2.05 0.43 2.58 11.90 1.31 0.03 3.22 21.51 1.67 16.43734224 5.20

10. Mixed Wastes 113.10 175.03 121.46 131.27 136.30 72.27 172.01 921.43 71.42 1251.139011 45.35

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 147.1 195.6 178.31 159.07 173.13 82.3 195.12 1130.63 87.64 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 180.15 210.00 210.00 180.00 209.75 90.20 210.00 1290.10 100.00 - -

Table 26. Characterization of Waste Plastics of the Overall Waste Stream.Types of Waste

Plastics

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste perClassification, kg

Percentage(%)

Variance +/-Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51 2.82 0.111105952 0.43

2. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03 21.34 4.05027381 2.58

3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91 41.33 36.14726181 7.71

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.28 0.002402619 0.06

5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22 1.39 0.032871952 0.23

6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93 6.23 1.180381143 1.39

7. Other Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43 26.61 13.88075913 4.78

TOTAL SAMPLE 33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47 100.00 - -




47

Table 27. Residential Waste Characterization Result

Table 28. Residential Waste Plastics Characterization Result.

Types of WastePlastics


Percentage(%)


1. PET 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.65 3.29 0.020830571 0.19

2. HDPE 0.00 2.79 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.59 1.54 6.30 31.96 1.121476238 1.36

3. PVC 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.68 1.06 3.82 19.37 0.280928333 0.68

4. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.45 0.000594286 0.03

5. PP 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.63 3.20 0.011007 0.13

6. PS 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.16 0.33 1.82 9.25 0.182805571 0.55

7. Other Plastics 0.00 1.23 0.00 2.15 0.00 1.24 1.78 6.40 32.49 0.832453571 1.17

TOTAL SAMPLE 0.00 5.54 0.00 6.30 0.00 2.79 5.07 19.70 100.00 - -



(%)Variance +/-


1. PET 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.65 0.22 0.020830571 0.19

2. HDPE 0.00 2.79 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.59 1.54 6.30 2.10 1.121476238 1.36

3. PVC 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.68 1.06 3.82 1.27 0.280928333 0.684. LDPE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.000594286 0.03

5. PP 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.63 0.21 0.011007 0.13

6. PS 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.16 0.33 1.82 0.61 0.182805571 0.55

7. Other Plastics 0.00 1.23 0.00 2.15 0.00 1.24 1.78 6.40 2.14 0.832453571 1.17

TOTAL PLASTICS 0.00 5.54 0.00 6.30 0.00 2.80 5.06 19.70 6.57 - -

8. Paper 0.00 0.34 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.34 5.69 10.37 3.46 4.43143681 2.70

9. Wood 0.00 0.24 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.03 1.87 9.14 3.05 6.773364952 3.3410. MIxed Wastes 0.00 113.89 0.00 44.70 0.00 24.48 77.37 260.44 86.92 1977.255361 57.01

TOTAL OTHER WASTE 0.00 114.46 0.00 53.7 0.00 26.85 84.93 279.94 93.43 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 0.00 120.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 29.64 90.00 299.64 100.00 - -




48

Table 29. Commercial Waste Characterization Result.



(%)Variance +/-


1. PET 0.58 0.13 1.16 0.74 0.59 0.07 0.52 3.79 0.38 0.137418143 0.48

2. HDPE 5.86 2.89 7.28 3.78 4.84 0.50 2.43 27.58 2.79 5.148719476 2.91

3. PVC 18.60 5.70 9.79 3.52 16.12 3.28 4.38 61.38 6.20 39.69295148 8.08

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45 0.05 0.002402619 0.06

5. PP 0.49 0.04 0.63 0.32 0.11 0.01 0.12 1.71 0.17 0.057852667 0.31

6. PS 1.50 0.06 1.27 0.66 3.14 0.07 1.07 7.77 0.78 1.112313667 1.35

7. Other Plastics 5.94 1.31 11.45 5.07 9.11 0.57 2.43 35.88 3.62 16.50551131 5.21

TOTAL PLASTICS 33.04 10.15 31.7 14.21 34.00 4.50 10.96 138.56 14.00 - -

8. Paper 31.95 20.14 54.27 13.60 32.04 6.00 15.40 173.40 17.52 260.1989228 20.68

9. Wood 2.05 0.20 2.58 6.90 1.17 0.00 2.35 15.24 1.54 5.366202571 2.97

10. Mixed Wastes 113.10 119.52 121.46 85.30 112.55 19.50 91.28 662.70 66.95 1290.594232 46.06

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 147.10 139.86 178.30 105.80 145.75 25.5 109.03 851.34 86.00 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 180.15 150.00 210.00 120.00 179.75 30.00 120.00 989.90 100.00 - -

Table 30. Commercial Waste Plastics Characterization Result



Percentage(%)

Variance +/-

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 71. PET 0.58 0.13 1.16 0.74 0.59 0.07 0.519 3.79 2.73 0.137418143 0.48

2. HDPE 5.86 2.89 7.28 3.78 4.84 0.50 2.425 27.58 19.90 5.148719476 2.91

3. PVC 18.60 5.70 9.79 3.52 16.12 3.28 4.383 61.38 44.30 39.69295148 8.08

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.024 0.45 0.33 0.002402619 0.06

5. PP 0.49 0.04 0.63 0.32 0.11 0.01 0.119 1.71 1.23 0.057852667 0.31

6. PS 1.50 0.06 1.27 0.66 3.14 0.07 1.068 7.77 5.61 1.112313667 1.35

7. Other Plastics 5.94 1.31 11.45 5.07 9.11 0.57 2.429 35.88 25.89 16.50551131 5.21

TOTAL SAMPLE 33.05 10.15 31.70 14.20 33.99 4.50 10.967 138.56 100.00 - -




49

Table 31. Industrial Waste Characterization Result



(%)Variance +/-


1. PET 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.73 0.31 0.019256143 0.18

2. HDPE 0.00 1.10 1.52 1.52 0.51 0.11 1.22 5.98 2.49 0.415169333 0.83

3. PVC 0.00 1.04 1.33 0.79 0.82 0.12 1.43 5.51 2.30 0.305913619 0.71

4. LDPE 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.000047 0.015. PP 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.001478286 0.05

6. PS 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.07 0.36 1.12 0.47 0.021305952 0.19

7. Other Plastics 0.00 0.19 0.79 1.28 0.93 0.05 1.66 4.90 2.04 0.414956571 0.84

TOTAL PLASTICS 0.00 2.37 4.07 3.72 2.63 0.68 5.00 18.47 7.69 - -

8. Paper 0.00 1.30 4.00 1.90 3.49 1.10 5.90 17.70 7.37 4.132825333 2.61

9. Wood 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.40 0.14 0.00 1.50 3.05 1.27 0.354101571 0.76

10. MIxed Wastes 0.00 26.33 20.92 23.97 23.74 28.29 77.59 200.84 83.66 554.5747431 30.19

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 0.00 27.63 25.93 26.27 27.38 29.39 84.99 221.59 - -

TOTAL SAMPLE 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.06 90.00 240.06 100.00 - -

Table 32. Industrial Waste Plastics Characterization Result



Percentage(%)


1. PET 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.73 3.97 0.019256143 0.18

2. HDPE 0.00 1.10 1.52 1.52 0.51 0.11 1.22 5.98 32.37 0.415169333 0.83

3. PVC 0.00 1.04 1.33 0.79 0.82 0.12 1.43 5.51 29.85 0.305913619 0.71

4. LDPE 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.000047 0.01

5. PP 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.20 1.08 0.001478286 0.05

6. PS 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.26 0.07 0.36 1.12 6.05 0.021305952 0.19

7. Other Plastics 0.00 0.19 0.79 1.28 0.93 0.05 1.66 4.90 26.52 0.414956571 0.84

TOTAL SAMPLE 0.00 2.37 4.07 3.73 2.62 0.67 5.01 18.47 100.00 - -




50

Table 33. Results of Unclean Waste Plastics

Types of Waste PlasticsWeight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste per

Classification, kgVariance +/-


1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51

2. HDPE 5.86 5.21 7.28 5.89 5.35 1.19 3.25 34.03

3. PVC 18.60 6.44 9.79 4.80 16.94 4.08 5.27 65.91

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.45

5. PP 0.49 0.22 0.63 0.34 0.22 0.17 0.15 2.22

6. PS 1.50 0.20 1.27 1.89 3.40 0.23 1.44 9.93

7. Other Plastics 5.94 2.17 11.45 7.07 10.04 1.86 3.91 42.43

TOTAL SAMPLE 33.05 14.40 31.70 20.93 36.62 7.90 14.88 159.47

Table 34. Results of Clean Waste Plastics.

Types of Waste PlasticsWeight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste per

Classification, kgVariance +/-


1. PET 0.42 0.14 1.12 0.81 0.57 0.35 0.82 4.24

2. HDPE 5.32 4.72 6.76 5.42 4.79 1.10 2.93 31.03

3. PVC 18.00 6.20 9.53 4.42 16.52 4.06 4.89 63.61

4. LDPE 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.44

5. PP 0.47 0.22 0.61 0.34 0.21 0.17 0.15 2.16

6. PS 1.40 0.20 1.22 1.75 3.23 0.22 1.37 9.40

7. Other Plastics 5.47 2.03 10.60 6.55 9.49 0.73 3.67 38.54

TOTAL SAMPLE 31.15 13.53 29.97 19.41 34.88 6.63 13.86 149.42




51

Table 35. Weight Master SummaryDay-Sample No. Barangay Truck Number Gross wt. Net Load1-1 Kasambagan SJC- 469 7740.00 3210.00

1-2 Sto. Niño SJC- 480 6945.00 2495.001-3 Kamputhaw SHM- 376 7910.00 3420.00

1-4 Lorega San Miguel SJC- 345 7190.00 2570.00

1-5 Pari-an/ Day-as SHM- 377 6945.00 2335.00

1-6 Kalubihan SJC- 459 7920.00 3875.00

Total 44650.00 17905.00

2-1 Mabolo SHN- 415 7075.00 2400.00

2-2 Tisa SHC- 369 7205.00 3130.00

2-3 Lower Lahug SHM- 376 7930.00 3400.00

2-4 San Nicolas Proper SGP- 290 5100.00 2425.00

2-5 Apas SHN- 435 7550.00 3060.00

2-6 Labangon SHM- 386 7160.00 2540.00

2-7 Upper Lahug SHW- 980 7210.00 2685.00

Total 49230.00 19640.00

3-1 Ermita SHN- 415 7870.00 3320.00

3-2 Hipodromo 4020.00 3400.00

3-3 Kasambagan 7370.00 2845.00

3-4 Tinago/ San Roque 4010.00 3300.00

3-5 Kamagayan SJC- 459 8270.00 3740.00

3-6 Kamputhaw SHM- 376 8505.00 4015.00

3-7 Day-as/ Pari-an SHM- 377 7250.00 2640.00

Total 47295.00 23260.00

4-1 Guadalupe SGH- 500 13900.00 4320.00

4-2 Basak Pardo 7R-RP- 309 6050.00 2840.00

4-3 Bulacao SJC- 185 6525.00 3450.00

4-4 Sambag 1 SGH- 503 9575.00 3750.00

4-5 Capitol SEZ- 252 8010.00 2285.00

4-6 Sambag 2 SHD- 752 7990.00 3615.00Total 52050.00 20260.00

5-1 Lorega/ San Miguel GHU- 392 6150.00 1650.00

5-2 Tejero/ Carreta SHM- 396 6750.00 2010.00

5-3 Sto. Niño SJC- 480 7550.00 3100.00

5-4 Day-as/ Pari-an SHM- 377 6775.00 2165.00

5-5 Kamagayan SJC- 459 7925.00 3395.00

5-6 Task Force SHN- 425 7415.00 2765.00

5-7 Ermita SHN- 415 8510.00 3960.00

Total 51075.00 19045.00

6-1 Carbon 5045.00 3700.00

6-2 Suba 3210.00 2150.00

6-3 Pardo 3205.00 2050.00

6-4 Hospital 4015.00 3500.00

Total 11460.00 7900.007-1 Luz SHV- 793 11175.00 5475.00

7-2 Banilad 3210.00 2150.00

7-3 Sawang Calero GSP- 300 5275.00 2225.00

7-4 Talamban SJC- 459 8575.00 4045.00

7-5 Calamba 3210.00 2310.00

7-6 Punta Princesa 4885.00 1985.00

7-7 Basak San Nicolas SGX- 793 5905.00 2855.00

TOTAL 42235.00 21045.00




52

6.5. Raw Data

Table 36. Day 1- Sample 1 Bargy. Kasambagan NB: 0.969 kg.- weight of the container (bakat)

Table 37. Day 1- Sample 2 Brgy. Sto Nino NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)

Table 38. Day 1-Sample 3 Brgy. Kamputhaw NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)

Types of WasteInitial weight, kg (Unclean)

wt. w/o containerFinal weight, kg (Clean)

wt. w/o container% Moisture

1. PET 0.018 0.018 02. HDPE 1.531 1.396 8.823. PVC 1.503 1.398 6.994. LDPE 0.027 0.026 3.705. PP 0.145 0.139 4.146. PS 0.145 0.136 6.217. Other Plastics 0.26 0.239 8.08

TOTAL PLASTICS 3.629 3.352 Ave. 5.428. Paper 3 - -9. Wood 0.149 - -

10. Mixed waste 23.222 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTE 26.371 - -

OVER-ALL TOTAL 30 - -




1. PET 0.029 0.028 3.452. HDPE 0.844 0.766 9.243. PVC 2.987 2.851 4.554. LDPE 0.002 0.002 05. PP 0.049 0.046 6.126. PS 0.106 0.100 5.667. Other Plastics 1.677 1.515 9.66

TOTAL PLASTICS 5.694 5.308 Ave 5.538. Paper 3.5 - -9. Wood 0.407 - -10. Mixed waste 20.399 - -

TOTAL OTHER WASTE 24.306 - -OVER-ALL TOTAL 30 - -




1. PET 0.11 0.107 2.732. HDPE 1.107 0.996 10.033. PVC 1.709 1.617 5.38

4. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.179 0.171 4.506. PS 0.092 0.086 6.527. Other Plastics 0.789 0.711 9.89






53

Table 39. Day 1-Sample 4 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 40. Day 1-Sample 5 Brgy. Day-as/ Pari-an NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 41. Day 1-Sample 6 Brgy. Kalubihan NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)











TOTAL PLASTICS 4.113 3.845 Ave 5.758. Paper 9.447 - -9. Wood 0.003 - -10. Mixed Waste 16.437 - -

TOTAL OTHER WASTES 25.887 - -OVER-ALL TOTAL 30 - -




1. PET 0.017 0.017 02. HDPE 0.425 0.394 7.293. PVC 7.447 7.369 1.054. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.005 0.005 06. PS 0.212 0.206 2.837. Other Plastics 1.996 1.889 5.36

TOTAL PLASTICS 10.102 9.880 Ave 2.368. Paper 9.97 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed Wastes 9.928 - -





54

Table 42. Day 2-Sample 1 Brgy. Mabolo NB: 0.156 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 43. Day 2-Sample 2 Brgy. Tisa NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)

Table 44. Day 2-Sample 3 Brgy. Lower Lahug NB: 0.156 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0.019 0.019 02. HDPE 1.103 0.995 9.793. PVC 1.042 0.993 4.704. LDPE 0.015 0.015 05. PP 0.002 0.002 06. PS 0 0 07. Other Plastics 0.191 0.177 7.33






1. PET 0.018 0.018 02. HDPE 1.919 1.716 10.583. PVC 0.235 0.230 2.134. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.107 0.105 1.876. PS 0.088 0.088 07. Other Plastics 0.476 0.438 7.98

TOTAL PLASTICS 2.843 2.595 Ave 3.228. Paper 0.001 - -9. Wood 0.045 - -

10. Mixed Wastes 27.111 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTE 27.157 - -





1. PET 0.027 0.027 02. HDPE 0.021 0.021 03. PVC 0 0 04. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.003 0.003 06. PS 0 0 07. Other Plastics 0.152 0.150 1.32

TOTAL PLASTIC 0.203 0.201 Ave 0.198. Paper 0.085 - -9. Wood 0.006 - -10. Mixed Wastes 29.706 - -





55

Table 45. Day 2-Sample 4 Brgy. San Nicolas Proper NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)

Table 46. Day 2-Sample 5 Brgy. Apas NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)

Table 47. Day 2-Sample 6 Brgy. Labangon NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)




1. PET 0.020 0.020 02. HDPE 0.951 0.838 11.883. PVC 3.166 3.029 4.334. LDPE 0.011 0.011 05. PP 0.006 0.006 06. PS 0.035 0.033 5.717. Other Plastics 0.636 0.584 8.18

TOTAL PLASTIC 4.825 4.521 Ave 4.308. Paper 15.999 - -9. Wood 0.189 - -10. Mixed wastes 8.987 - -





1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 0.401 0.375 6.483. PVC 0.508 0.484 4.724. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.073 0.073 06. PS 0.047 0.047 07. Other Plastics 0.379 0.362 4.49

TOTAL PLASTICS 1.408 1.341 Ave 2.248. Paper 0.002 - -9. Wood 0.187 - -10. Mixed wastes 28.403 - -





1. PET 0.061 0.060 1.642. HDPE 0.371 0.358 3.503. PVC 1.079 1.078 0.094. LDPE 0 0 0.005. PP 0.026 0.026 0.006. PS 0.021 0.021 0.007. Other Plastics 0.112 0.109 2.68

TOTAL PLASTICS 1.67 1.652 Ave 1.138. Paper 2.5 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed wastes 25.83 - -





56

Table 48. Day 2-Sample 7 Brgy. Upper Lahug NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)

Table 49. Day 3-Sample 1 Brgy. Ermita NB: 0.521 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 50. Day 3-Sample 2 Brgy. Hipodromo NB: 0.513 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 0.445 0.415 6.743. PVC 0.408 0.388 4.904. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0 0 06. PS 0.008 0.008 07. Other Plastics 0.222 0.209 5.86






1. PET 0.158 0.152 3.802. HDPE 0.703 0.639 9.103. PVC 2.634 2.567 2.544. LDPE 0 0 0.005. PP 0.1 0.1 0.006. PS 0.17 0.159 6.477. Other Plastics 1.04 0.962 7.68

TOTAL PLASTICS 4.805 4.579 4.238. Paper 4 - -9. Wood 0.059 - -10. Mixed waste 21.136 - -

TOTAL OTHER WASTE - -OVER-ALL TOTAL 30 - -





TOTAL PLASTICS 3.494 3.224 Ave 5.638. Paper 4 - -9. Wood 1.504 - -10. Mixed wastes 21.002 - -





57

Table 51. Day 3-Sample 3 Brgy. Kasambagan NB: 0.942 kg - weight of the container (bakat)

Table 52. Day 3-Sample 4 Brgy. Tinago/ San Roque NB: 0.512 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 53. Day 3-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan NB: 0.518 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0.053 0.052 1.892. HDPE 1.867 1.769 5.253. PVC 1.403 1.347 3.994. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.038 0.038 06. PS 0.136 0.130 4.417. Other Plastics 0.312 0.298 4.49






1. PET 0.118 0.116 1.692. HDPE 1.515 1.469 3.043. PVC 1.326 1.285 2.114. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.032 0.031 3.136. PS 0.284 0.277 2.467. Other Plastics 0.793 0.767 3.28

TOTAL PLASTICS 4.068 3.945 Ave 2.248. Paper 4 - -9. Wood 1.012 - -10. Mixed wastes 20.92 - -





1. PET 0.121 0.119 1.652. HDPE 0.392 0.359 8.423. PVC 0.009 0.009 04. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.008 0.008 06. PS 0.208 0.196 5.777. Other Plastics 7.970 7.337 7.94

TOTAL PLASTICS 8.708 8.028 Ave 3.408. Paper 14.392 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed wasteS 6.9 - -





58

Table 54. Day 3-Sample 6 Brgy. Kamputhaw NB: 0.566 kg. - weight of the container (tray)

Table 55. Day 3-Sample 7 Brgy. Day-as/Pari-an NB: 0.511 kgs- weight of the container (tray)

Table 56. Day 4-Sample 1 Brgy. Guadalupe NB: 0.515 kg - weight of the container (tray)





TOTAL PLASTICS 2.715 2.517 Ave 5.408. Paper 20.38 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed wasteS 6.905 - -





1. PET 0.078 0.076 2.562. HDPE 0.616 0.584 5.193. PVC 3 3 04. LDPE 0.05 0.05 05. PP 0.071 0.07 1.416. PS 0.058 0.056 3.457. Other Plastics 0.223 0.214 4.04







7. Other Plastics 1.429 1.368 4.27TOTAL PLASTICS 3.294 3.104 Ave 4.84

8. Paper 1.6 - -9. Wood 2.4 - -10. Mixed wastes 22.706 - -





59

Table 57. Day 4-Sample 2 Brgy. Basak Pardo NB: 0.657 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)

Table 58. Day 4-Sample 3 Brgy. Bulacao NB: 0.611 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)

Table 59. Day 4-Sample 4 Brgy. Sambag 1 NB: 0.613 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)




1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 1.523 1.423 6.573. PVC 0.785 0.752 4.204. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0 0 06. PS 0.14 0.134 0.4297. Other Plastics 1.279 1.153 9.85






1. PET 0.084 0.084 02. HDPE 0.582 0.509 12.543. PVC 0.501 0.457 8.784. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.024 0.023 4.176. PS 1.089 0.997 8.457. Other Plastics 0.723 0.645 10.79


10. Mixed wastes 21.997 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTES 26.997 - -





1. PET 0.05 0.05 02. HDPE 1.093 1.006 7.963. PVC 1.374 1.262 8.154. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.046 0.044 4.356. PS 0.479 0.453 5.43







60

Table 60. Day 4-Sample 5 Brgy. Capitol NB: 0.630 kg - weight of the container (bakat)

Table 61. Day 4-Sample 6 Brgy. Sambag 2 NB: 0.4 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 62. Day 5-Sample 1 Brgy. Lorega/San Miguel NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0.304 0.301 0.992. HDPE 0.824 0.801 2.793. PVC 0.879 0.801 8.874. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.017 0.017 06. PS 0.005 0.005 07. Other Plastics 1.97 1.864 5.38






1. PET 0.148 0.143 3.382. HDPE 1.06 0.96 9.433. PVC 0.845 0.763 9.74. LDPE 0.059 0.057 3.395. PP 0.013 0.013 06. PS 0.077 0.069 10.397. Other Plastics 0.98 0.894 8.78






1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 0.912 0.797 12.613. PVC 0.93 0.873 6.134. LDPE 0.082 0.079 3.665. PP 0.023 0.022 4.356. PS 0.066 0.061 7.587. Other Plastics 0.261 0.241 7.66






61

Table 63. Day 5-Sample 2 Brgy. Tejero/Carreta NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 64. Day 5-Sample 3 Brgy. Sto Nino NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 65. Day 5-Sample 4 Brgy. Pari-an NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 0.505 0.454 10.103. PVC 0.815 0.742 8.964. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.109 0.104 4.596. PS 0.264 0.243 7.957. Other Plastics 0.928 0.847 8.73






1. PET 0.1 0.1 02. HDPE 0.714 0.653 8.543. PVC 1.66 1.54 7.234. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.007 0.007 06. PS 1.538 1.473 4.237. Other Plastics 1.12 1.064 5


10. Mixed wastes 21.44 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTES 24.861 - -





1. PET 0.128 0.121 5.472. HDPE 0.806 0.725 10.053. PVC 1.601 1.599 0.134. LDPE 0.004 0.004 05. PP 0.033 0.032 3.036. PS 0.748 0.708 5.35







62

Table 66. Day 5-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 67. Day 5-Sample 6 Task Force NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 68. Day 5-Sample 7 Brgy. Ermita NB: Note: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)











TOTAL PLASTICS 4.151 3.813 Ave 5.368. Paper 3.8 - -9. Wood 0 - -

10. Mixed Wastes 22.049 - -TOTAL OTHER WASTES 25.849 - -





1. PET 0.143 0.139 2.802. HDPE 0.505 0.465 7.923. PVC 1.794 1.706 4.914. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.02 0.02 06. PS 0.081 0.078 3.70


8. Paper 13 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed Wastes 9.274 - -





63

Table 69. Day 6-Sample 1 Carbon NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 70. Day 6-Sample 2 Brgy. Suba NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 71. Day 6-Sample 3 Brgy. Pardo NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)





TOTAL PLASTICS 4.496 4.397 Ave 3.798. Paper 6 - -9. Wood 0 - -10. Mixed Wastes 19.504 - -





1. PET 0.301 0.287 4.652. HDPE 0.108 0.093 13.893. PVC 0.117 0.109 6.844. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.033 0.032 3.036. PS 0.006 0.006 07. Other Plastics 0.048 0.045 6.25

TOTAL PLASTICS 0.613 0.572 Ave 4.958. Paper 1.102 - -9. Wood 0 - -






1. PET 0 0 02. HDPE 0.585 0.554 5.303. PVC 0.682 0.665 2.494. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.129 0.128 0.786. PS 0.158 0.153 3.16


8. Paper 2.9 - -9. Wood 0.026 - -10. Mixed Wastes 24.282 - -





64

Table 72. Day 7-Sample 1 Brgy. Luz NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 73. Day 7-Sample 2 Brgy. Banilad NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 74. Day 7-Sample 3 Brgy. Sawang Calero NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

















1. PET 0.078 0.078 02. HDPE 0.259 0.235 9.273. PVC 0.385 0.353 8.314. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.012 0.012 06. PS 0.136 0.132 2.94







65

Table 75. Day 7-Sample 4 Brgy. Talamban NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 76. Day 7-Sample 5 Brgy. Calamba NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)

Table 77. Day 7-Sample 6 Brgy. Punta Princesa NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)





TOTAL PLASTICS 2.637 2.429 Ave 4.818. Paper 3.3 - -9. Wood 1.219 - -10. Mixed Wastes 22.844 - -












1. PET 0.07 0.069 1.432. HDPE 0.392 0.368 6.123. PVC 0.234 0.228 2.564. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0.02 0.02 06. PS 0.084 0.081 3.57







66

Table 78. Day 7-sample 7 Brgy. San Nicolas NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)




1. PET 0.166 0.165 0.602. HDPE 0.173 0.162 6.363. PVC 0.267 0.264 1.124. LDPE 0 0 05. PP 0 0 06. PS 0.15 0.146 2.677. Other Plastics 0.507 0.483 4.73






67

6.6. Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials

Table 79. List of Waste Sorting Equipment and MaterialsRequired Equipment Equipment per Member of Sorting Crew*Item Quantity Item Quantity

Large woven baskets (bakat) 28 Pair of thick rubber gloves 1 pairPlastic garbage bags 100 Surgical masks 1Smaller containers 21 Work suit 1Stiff broom 1 Waste Classification Guide 1Wide-mouth shovel 1 * With ready replacementsHand-held calculator 1 Other MaterialsFirst-aid kit 1 Item QuantitySort area 1 Clipboard 1Tarp 4'x 8' As needed Data forms As neededRags As needed Labels for samples As neededSmall, medium and large scales 3 Pens and markers As needed

Wheelbarrow 1 Adhesive tape As neededStraw strings As needed




6.7. WACS Team

Project Head - Ms. Shiela R. Castillo-TiangcoResearchers - Mr. Bobeth Laguting

- Mr. Jimmy Anthony Siennes IIIProject Assistant - Jhu Elno P. Rubio

Waste Sorters - Mr. Orlie Cañeban- Mr. Leslie Cañeban- Mr. Efren Campo- Mr. Alex Cortes- Mr. Ronie Bastona

Validator - Prof. Rene ArgenalStatistician, University of San Carlos, Math Department

Cebu City Counterpart Team:

City Planning and Development OfficeEngr. Paul Nigel Villarete - Head, CPDOMs. Maricon Encabo - Head, Zoning DepartmentMs. Misty Magistrado - MMT - CPDO

Department of Public ServicesEngr. Dionisio Gualiza - Head, DPSEngr. Eduardo Potot - Officer In-Charge, LandfillEngr. Randy Navarro - PSO III

Documents

WP 4 1 CebuCity PlasticWACS