/   Реферати  
 ДОКУМЕНТІВ 
20298
    КАТЕГОРІЙ 
30
Бібліотека   Портфель   Замовлення  
Mobile  Mac  Linux  Windows  Партнерам і рекламодавцям  Зона зареєстрованих користувачів  Результати пошуку  Форум  Новини  Новини  Події  Куплю/продам  Кlubніка  МегаДОСТУП  Новини сайту  Про проект  Зворотній зв`язок  Рекламодавцям  Контакт 

Municipal Solid Waste Management, Детальна інформація

Тема: Municipal Solid Waste Management
Тип документу: Реферат
Предмет: Менеджмент
Автор: Євген Гроза
Розмір: 0
Скачувань: 1700
Скачати "Реферат на тему Municipal Solid Waste Management"
Сторінки 1  
РПаЎ±б>юя dfюяяяchьvРяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяяямҐБY їZ6bjbjуWуW эµ‘=‘=¶12qяяяяяя]ЂЂЂЂ<<<шшшш80Dш¶ЊЊўўо7ЖэDA $ЫЭЭЭЭЭЭ$МфАє<e »|7e e  ЂЂўоНЊ e ~Ђ†ўL<оЫPT¤TЂЂЂЂe Ы О Ы6<ЫоHD sўЯоЋАшшг*ЫMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementReport on individual domestic waste auditYevgen GrozaIntroductionAfter the collapse of communism the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has experienced enormous economical changes. The attitudes towards the environment has changed in the region. Economic development in many transitional countries has lead to the destruction of some good practices developed in the socialist system of waste management/recycling. At the same time the amount of waste enormously increased due to the package industry development and massive imports from the West. This report on waste streams in Ukraine and Hungary will provide analysis of waste composition and volume as well as options used for reuse or recycle in both cases. MethodologyDuring the audit domestic waste was recorded for a period of one week at three locations in Ukraine and Hungary. These locations include Central European University dormitory (Hungary), Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory (Ukraine) and a flat in Cherkasy (Ukraine). In each case the waste data was obtained for the different number of people: one in Hungary, four in Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory, and a family of three people in Cherkasy. The final data, which is presented in this paper, is an average amount of waste per one person. The waste was basically recorded each time anything was thrown into the waste bin. However, in the CEU dormitory some garbage is being collected through the dormitory canteen - this part of waste was recorded as well. However, the whole waste stream connected to food preparation at the CEU facilities cannot be recorded. This fact explains big discrepancy between the amount of waste in Hungary and in Ukraine.The methodology of classification was developed according to the records of waste stream (see Annex 1). The categories include plastics - high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polystyrene (PS). In cases when the package or product made of plastic was not labeled, it was recorded to the category 'other plastic'. The rest of categories include paper, glass, organic (food waste) and non-recyclable materials (products made of different materials in such way that reuse/recycle is impossible, e.g. teabags). To estimate the total mass and volume of the recorded waste, the common assumptions were developed for the entire working group (see Table 1).NameVolumeMassPlasticPlastic water bottle (HDPE)1.5 l70 gPlastic bag (LDPE)0.1 l30 gCanteen jam pack (PS+metal)0.015 l3 gCanteen butter pack (PS+metal)0.01 l2 gYogurt pack (PS)0.125 l20 gPaperA napkin (paper)0.02 l2 gWashing powder pack (paper)0.5 l100 gA4 sheet (paper)0.05 l4 gGlassWine bottle0.7 l400 gOther (non-recyclable)‘Tetra pak’ 0.5 l100 gTea bag0.01 l5 gTable 1. Assumptions.Using the assumptions all recorded waste was summed up for each category, including reused/recycled products. Comparing waste streams in the dormitories in Ukraine and Hungary could be the most interesting result of the present study. Such comparison could highlight differences in consumption level in the same social group (students) in two countries. At the same time results for the dormitories will be compared to the waste data for a Ukrainian family. ResultsThe composition of three waste streams is presented in Figure 1. The diagrams were obtained from basic records data (Annex 1). Percentage in the diagrams presents the share in the total volume of total waste stream. This evaluating approach was chosen because at households the domestic waste is usually estimated by volume (e.g. by waste bins).The biggest difference between the three charts is the huge share of HDPE in Kerepesi dormitory, which is much higher than in other two cases. This can be explained by the fact that no food is prepared by students in the CEU dormitory. It is very hard to estimate the amount of food waste generated by the university canteen. High amount of different plastics is a result of rather poor practices in the university restaurants. Most of the plastic is Figure 1. Waste composition.coming from different packaging used to serve butter or jam. This waste could be easily avoided if the food was served in saucers/plates instead of single-use package. The similar chart for the Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory in Ukraine shows completely different situation. Almost 50% of the whole garbage is food waste and paper. More paper is wasted due to less availability of computers and therefore less opportunity to write academic assignments in electronic form. Since the students prepare food in the dormitory, organic waste takes a significant part of the whole stream. The share of plastic is rather low (except of polystyrene, which will be discussed later) because of rather low welfare of students and, therefore, lower consumption of expensive products packed with plastic. The consumed products are mostly raw food either purchased at marketplaces or brought directly from home in the countryside. The third part of Figure 1 represents the case of a typical Ukrainian family. Food and other goods comes mostly from supermarkets with a lot of plastic package. Different kinds of plastic (mostly packaging) possess about the half of the garbage composition. Another reason for a big amount of package in the waste is that the record was kept during the Christmas holidays. Therefore, the level of consumption was much higher than usually. Packages of cakes, candies etc., which were composed of different materials, contributed to a large amount of non-recyclable waste,. Organic waste takes slightly less percentage comparing to the Kyiv dormitory. Again, this can be explained by the fact that food was mostly not prepared at that time, but processed food was purchased. Generally, the waste composition recorded for Cherkasy is not typical due to a high consumption level during Christmas holidays.Though the composition of waste is very different for Kyiv, Cherkasy and Budapest, the amount of waste per one person for the case of family (Cherkasy) is higher than for the students living in dormitory – this can be explained by the Figure 2. Recycled/reused waste volumedifferent living standards and differences in products which are consumed. Zero amount of recycling at CEU dormitory is rather the result of poor university policies. Since the university canteen is the primary source of waste, students who live in the dormitory are largely dependent on the canteen’s waste policy. Single-use package from the restaurant is a significant contribution to the waste stream. Other possibilities for recycle (e.g. paper recycling) cannot be employed by students themselves because of language barrier. Thus, the only thing that could be done to reduce the amount of garbage by an individual student at CEU dormitory is to reduce consumption in general. The university is responsible for the lack of reuse/recycle options. Though the volume of recycled waste is higher in Cherkasy than in Kyiv, the same data for the mass is slightly different (Table 2). The mass of recycled materials in Cherkasy is Recycled/reused massRecycled/reused volumeKerepesi0%0%Kyiv9.51%21.36%Cherkasy3.12%32.30%Table 2. Volume and mass of recycled/reused waste.actually ten times lower than its volume. This fact is a consequence of different materials reuse/recycle in two cases. In Kyiv dormitory almost 100% of paper was collected for recycling, or in the case of magazines, donated to the student library. At the same time the yogurt packs were collected to be used later to raise crops in the countryside. Since plastics are not recycled in Ukraine and composting the biodegradable waste is not possible in the city, the opportunity for reuse and recycle was almost fully employed in the Kyiv dormitory. However, in the case of Cherkasy plastic bottles from sparkling water were reused – this technique was not used in Kyiv. On the other hand, paper waste was not collected in Cherkasy and yogurt packs were not reused. The comparison of two cases (Kyiv and Cherkasy) shows that different techniques are possible for different living conditions. Though some education programs might be necessary to raise the reuse/recycle rates in Ukraine, the plastic recycling facilities are necessary for significant improvements in the waste management. Conclusion The highest amount of waste was recorded in Cherkasy and the lowest at Kerepesi dormitory. This data correlates with the living standards in all cases. However, the amount of recycled/reused waste was higher in Kyiv dormitory. Thus, some improvements and environmental education might be necessary to increase reuse/recycle rate in Ukraine. The introduction of plastic recycling could help to significantly decrease the amount of plastic waste in Ukraine. In the case of CEU changes in university policies are crucial for waste minimization at Kerepesi dormitory.Annex 1Waste recordsCEU dormitory 4.12.00-10.12.00.Name VolumemassMaterialcommentsMineral water bottles – 23 l140 gHDPEA4 sheet0.05 l4 gPaperPlastic bag0.1 l30 gLDPEBanana waste –20.18 l110 gOrganicApple waste – 10.025 l40 gOrganicJam packs – 50.075 l5 gPS+metalButter packs – 120.12 l12 gPS+metalSoap package0.05 l10 gPaperNapkins – 180.36 l36 gPaperTea bags – 100.1 l50 gPaper+food+metal+organic(rope)Orange waste0.02 l30 gOrganicToothpaste tube0.09 l50 gplasticTotalNameVol (litres)Mass (grams)HDPE3 140 LDPE0.1 30 Paper0.46 50 Organic0.225180 Non-recyclable (composed waste)0.29567Other plastic0.0950Kyiv Shevchenko University dormitory (4 persons), 17.12.00-23.12.00Vol (litres)Mass (grams)Sausage packs.120PlasticSpoiled bread rolls – 4.2100OrganicCereal shells.240OrganicApples waste – 10.5400OrganicSpoiled meat.15200OrganicPotatoes waste (3x4pers).45300OrganicPlastic bag – 3.390LDPEMilk pack – 2.130LDPETea pack (plastic) – 2.013LDPETea pack (boxes) – 2.440PaperTea bags – 40.4200Paper+organicFlour pack250PaperSpoiled rice.3500OrganicRice pack.023LDPEOrange waste – 16.32480OrganicWashing powder pack.5100CardboardCoffee pack.120HDPESpoiled potatoes.2300OrganicOnion shells – 2.0230OrganicCarrot waste.0350OrganicCakes pack – 2 .5100CardboardPlastic bottle1.570HDPEWine bottle.7400GlassChocolate bars packs – 12.2412LDPESweet corn can.450Metal+paperMayonnaise packs – 2.5440LDPECompressableCrab sticks pack.315LDPECompressableA4 sheet.054PaperShampoo packs – 2.011LDPEToothpaste tube.0740PlasticMagazine.2108PaperRe-used (library)Yogurt packs – 202.5200PSRe-usedNewspaper.1880PaperrecycledTotalNameVol – litres (recycled/reused)Mass – grams (recycled/reused)HDPE1.6 90LDPE1.52 194PS(2.5)(200)Paper3.83 (0.38) 484 (188)Organic2.372400Non-recyclable (composed waste)0.8250glass.7400Other plastic0.1760Cherkasy/Ukraine (3 persons), 31.12.00-6.01.01.Vol – litresMass - gramsPlastic bags – 3.390LDPELabels – 6.0115CardboardNewspaper.116PaperTea pack.051.5LDPEChicken pack.130LDPEChocolate bars pack - 6.126LDPETea bags – 14.1470Paper+organicChocolate pack – 2.1220Paper+metalCandies pack.240Paper+LDPECoffee pack.250Cardboard+LDPE+metalPen.025Pastic+metalSpoiled flour1.51OrganicSalt’s pack150CardboardOranges waste – 5.1150OrganicGarlic shells.0230OrganicChampagne bottle.71000GlassChicken bones.15300OrganicApple waste – 5.1200OrganicPills pack.021Plastic+metalDuster – 2.170OrganicToothpaste pack.0950PlasticPost-it notes – 2.011PaperPotatoes waste – 3.12150OrganicYogurt packs – 3.37530PSSingle use razor.0210Plastic+metalCake pack1.5100PlasticCandies packs – 9.022LDPEWashing powder pack.5100CardboardYogurt pack.5100Tetra pakCake pack.350LDPE+cardboardA4 sheet.054PaperJuice pack1200Tetra pakNapkin.022PaperMushrooms&onions waste.150OrganicSoap pack.0510PaperMedicine packs – 2.150GlassOld slippers.7600Organic+rubberMineral water bottle5150HDPERe-usedTotalNameVol – litres (recycled/reused)Mass – grams (recycled/reused)HDPE(5)(150)LDPE0.59 129.5PS.37530Paper1.74 198Organic2.191950Non-recyclable (composed waste)3.221146glass0.81050Other plastic1.59150Domestic waste audit. Yevgen Groza.  PAGE 8 EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 Yfцm~‡BH¬ІМг'(чя]^&BjkZЂ' ( T U ^ e j x Ѓ Џ Г %%E'[''|' 'g)m)Њ)*V*Д.К.ј/м/Е4Л4µ5¶5Ы5Ь5ыхтхтрнннйретхатататЬтаттртТЗТЗТЗТЗТртхтхДеДйеДтДйДтДѕДт¶§j0J5ЃCJOJQJU5ЃCJOJQJ5Ѓ6ЃCJCJ5ЃB*OJQJhnH B*OJQJhnH 5ЃCJ jU5ЃCJ5Ѓ6ЃCJ5ЃCJ5Ѓ6ЃCJ5ЃCJA!KXYfgхц$ % БВlmry~‡?ъъъъъъъъъъъъъъъъхххЪ$ЧЅ $$–l4ЦЦ”я$$$–lЦЦ”я†Ѓ
Сторінки 1  
Коментарі до даного документу
Додати коментар