Municipal waste composition at disposal sites

Geneve, Dec 5-7,2007

“Hazardous Substances from Open Burning of

Waste in Developing Countries “

Beatriz Cárdenas, CENICA-INE

MEXICO

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Participants

• INE-SEMARNAT

– Waste: Gustavo Solórzano, Gabor Kish, Alejandro de la Rosa

– Atmospheric pollutants: Beatriz Cárdenas, Salvador Blanco, Henry Worhschimmel, Claudia Márquez

• Contractor for waste sampling and characterization

– Ingeniería y Desarrollo Sustentable

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Site selection

• Site selection according to the following criteria:

– Urban-Rural type:• site receiving household

waste from rural- urban populations

– Rural type:• Site receiving household

waste from rural populations

– Rural-Industry type:• Site receiving light

industry and household waste from rural populations with some industries

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

SoyaniquilpanTizayuca

Tolcayuca

Pre selected to D&F sampling

Garbage Burning

Currently burning

Possibly burning

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Site selection

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Soyaniquilpan site

•Receives 42 to 48 tons per week

•Scavenging permitted, recovery of nearly

3 ton/month of PET,

3 ton/month of cardboard,

600 kg/month of glass,

60 kg of aluminum.

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Temascalapa site

•Receives 60 to 65 tons per week

•Scavenging permitted, recovery of nearly

2 ton/month of HDPE and PET (each),

1 ton/month of cardboard and glass (each),

500 kg/month of tin cans.

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

San Martín de las Pirámides site

•Receives near 185 tons per week

•Scavenging permitted, recovery of nearly

800 kg/month of HDPE,

1 ton/month of PET,

3 ton/month of cardboard,

1200 kg/month of glass.

N O R T E

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Sampling points number determination

• It was necessary to pre-sample at one site in order to determine the final number of samples according to the variation of each material

• The initial number of samples were 6 (3/uncovered waste, 3/covered waste)

•Due to earth/cover material bias the covered samples were eliminated

•The confidence approach was 95%

•Result: five to six samples per site, 2m3 each

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Sampling points selection

• A random number table was used to select the sampling points

• A 100 m2 square grid was traced over a plane of the disposal site

• With selected points of the random number table, the sampling points are located on the grid

• If a number falls out of the site, a new one is selected (next in the generated list)

N O R T E

D

A

B

C

E

211,5

220,

5

82,3

173,45

50

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Sampling points selection

• A random number table was used to select the sampling points

• A 100 m2 square grid was traced over a plane of the disposal site

• With selected points of the random number table, the sampling points are located on the grid

• If a number falls out of the site, a new one is selected (next in the generated list)

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Materials classification

• Each 2m3 sample was mixed and divided in 4 equal quarters, according to Mexican guide NOM-015-ECOL-1985

• 2 opposite quarters are rejected, and the accepted are mixed and divided in quarters again

• 2 opposite quarters are rejected, and the accepted (at least 50 kg) are classified

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Waste Caracterization

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Materials

MATERIAL Temascalapa San Martín Soyaniquilpan

% Confident approach 95%

Range %Confident approach 95%

Range %Confident approach 95%

Range

Cotton 0 0 0.04 0.23 0 1.02 0.2 0.02 0.59

Cardboard 2.9 0.22 8.48 4.01 1.39 7.9 8.04 3.01 15.21

Leather 0.02 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small waste 4.51 2.42 7.2 0.81 0 5.83 1.31 1.07 1.57

Multifoilcardboard 0.82 0.29 1.61 0.76 0.07 2.19 1.28 1.11 1.47

Hard vegetable fiber 1.89 0 7.3 0.17 0 1.12 0.9 0.43 1.55

Synthetic fiber 0.87 0.29 1.77 3.42 0.17 10.59 0.75 0.17 1.76

Bone 0.01 0 0.08 0.09 0 0.7 0.01 0 0.07

Rubber 0.49 0.01 1.75 1.42 0 10.79 1.8 0.23 4.81

Tin cans 0.58 0.24 1.07 0.96 0.4 1.74 1.53 0.9 2.32

Ceramic 0.03 0 0.25 0.03 0 0.26 0.85 0.1 2.32

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Materials

Wood 0.51 0.03 1.55 0.29 0 1.4 0.75 0.46 1.12

Demolitionwaste 0.32 0 1.37 1.6 0 12.05 1.46 0.81 2.3

Iron and steel 0.04 0 0.29 0.04 0 0.4 0.07 0 0.29

Non ferrous metals 0.13 0.01 0.37 0.17 0 1.17 0.71 0 3.28

Paper 4.32 1.13 9.44 2.39 0.69 5.07 2.18 0.53 4.93

Toilet paper 2.51 1.36 3.99 1.58 0.11 4.72 3.62 1.57 6.48

Disposablediapers 17.38 11.31 24.43 10.32 7.06 14.1 10.42 5.44 16.77

Plastics 14.23 12.37 16.19 18.91 12.01 26.96 16.68 13.28 20.38

Other plastics 1.36 0.35 3.03 2.83 1.03 5.5 1.9 0.19 5.36

Kitchen waste 24.73 17.73 32.48 12.27 5.17 21.84 18.59 14.82 22.68

Garden waste 5.46 1.11 12.84 9.73 6.2 13.95 10.97 8.23 14.05

Feminine napkins 0.04 -0.01 0.27 0.09 0 0.6 0.1 0 0.72

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Materials

Cloth 3.61 0.4 9.86 5.08 2.82 7.96 4.21 2.72 6.02

Glass 1.36 0.64 2.35 1.79 1.29 2.37 3.81 1.58 6.94

Shoes 0.51 0 2.23 1.4 1.01 1.86 0.15 0 1.18

Hospitalwaste 0 0 0 0.09 0 0.61 0 0 0.02

Toner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Batteries 0.01 0 0.1 0.01 0 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.27

Solvents andpaints 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.21 0 0 0

Others 3.55 0.57 8.93 4.65 0.15 14.85 1.67 0 6.34

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Waste composition

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dis

trib

utio

n

Temazcalapa San Martín Soyaniquilpan

Disposal sites

Wastes ditribution by site

Others

Shoes

Glass

Cloth

Feminine tow els

Garden Wastes

Food w astes

Other plastics

Plastics

Disposable diapers

Paper

Non ferous metals

Iron and steel

Demolition w astes

Wood

Ceramic

Cans

Rubber

Synthetic f iber

Hard vegetable f iber

Multifoil cardboard

Small w aste

Leather

Cardboard

Cotton

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Other findings

• Main subproducts– Paper, diapers, plastic bags, food waste, yard waste and cloth

• Temascalapa: 63.4%

• San Martin 52.5%

• Soyaniquilpan: 64.3%

• .items with less than 1%– Bones, aluminum cans, iron, color glass, glass sheets, no alcaline bateries

• Items not found in any of the three sites– Cupper

– tonners

• Items only found in all sites: – San Martin: poliuretane, biological-infectious residues, solvents

– Soyaniquilpan: non ferric metals

• Non alcaline bateries– Only in two of the sites (San Martin y Soyaniquilpan)

• Alcaline bateries– In all sites

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Other findings

• Significant differences among sites:

– Aluminum cans:

• Soyaniquilpan=SanMartin>Temascalapa

– Ceramic

• Soyaniquilpan>Temascalapa=San Martin

– Food waste

• Temascalapa=Soyaniquilpan>San Martin

– Glass

• Soyaniquilpan>Temascalapa=San Martin

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries No. Subproducto Porcentaje

promedio

1 Algodón 0.16

2 Cartón 5.67

3 Cuero 0.01

4 Polvo (residuos < 2mm) 2.52

5 Papel multicapa 1.09

Con aluminioSin aluminio

0.180.91

6 Fibra dura vegetal 1.12

7 Fibra sintética 1.91

8 Hueso 0.4

9 Látex (caucho) 1.41

10 Latas 1.16

HierroAluminio

1.130.03

11 Cerámica 0.35

12 Madera 0.59

13 Escombro 1.28

14 Hierro (chatarra) 0.06

15 Metales no ferrosos 0.38

Aluminio (trastes, papel, perfil)CobreBronce, zinc, plomo

0.250.00.13

16 Papel 3.37

Papel tisuePapel bond

2.930.44

17 Pañales desechables 14.46

18 Plásticos 21.21

PET 2 27

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Limitations and future work……………….

• Only disposal sites near MCMA were characterized

– Differences considering markets for recycling products

– Collection (recycling)

– Industrial and small commercial activities

• Raining conditions in some samplings

• Electronics were observed in the sites (toys, bulbs, printers…) although not quantified in the sampling

• To develop a methodology to characterize and quantify products in regards of D&F emissions when burning

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Future work……………….

• Next months………

– Shipping of waste to EPA

– Burning at EPA laboratory

– Emissions analysis

• D&F determination at site by EPA group next year

• Correlation with previous works in open burning……….

– subrogates?

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

• 2006: MILAGRO measurements campaign (Megacity Initiative: Local and Global Research Observations)

– Key findings: contribution of diffusive air pollution sources such as biomass burning and others

• 2007 MILAGRO:– Biomass burning emissions measurement

• Focused on real time trace gases of low molecular weight, carbon and fine fraction of particulate matter and laboratory analysis of particles elemental composition and C2-C9 volatile organic compounds, CO2, CO

• FTIAR, Gas Hg monitor, Total PAH monitor, Nephelometer, Data RAM, temperature monitor, SPM-minivol samplers and VOC-canister samples

• University of Montana-Misoula (Dr. Yokelson, Dr. Christen); University of Washington-Seatle (Dr. Alvarado) INE-CENICA, Molina Center for Energy and Environment

• Sources measured:

– Charcoal kilns

– Brick Kilns

– Wood combustion to cooking

– Open dump garbage burning

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

Charcoal production and use

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

Wood for cooking

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

Agricultural residues open burning

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

Emissions from biomass burning: 2007 measurements

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

s fr

om O

pen

Bur

ning

of W

aste

in D

evel

opin

g C

ount

ries

2007 and 2008

• 2007– Workshop on emissions from metal and cement industry (CEC)

– NIP main draft

– Update on D&F emission inventory

– National monitoring and evaluation program (first meetings)

• 2008– NIP submission

– National POPs monitoring and evaluation program implementation and publication of emission inventory• Open dump burning attention

• Some implementation activities at state level

– Dioxin and furans air monitoring network operation

– National monitoring and evaluation program • Biomonitoring follow up

• Analytical capacity

– Workshop on analytical and sources (CEC)• Brick kiln project (TBD)

– Analysis from biomass burning measurements• Emissions

• Temperature, burning process