TABLE 3-4 Typical physical composition of residential MSW excluding recycled materials and food wastes discharged with wastewater (1990) Percent by weight Component Organic Food wastes Paper Cardboard Plastics Textiles Rubber Leather Yard wastes Wood Misc. organics Inorganic Glass Tin cans Aluminum Other metal Dirt, ash, etc. Total United Statesª Range 6-18 25-40 3-10 4-10 0-4 0-2 0-2 5-20 1-4 1 4-12 2-8 0-1 1-4 0-6 Typical' 9.0 34.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 18.5 2.0 8.0 8603 олоо 6.0 0.5 3.0 3.0 100.0 Packaging materials 50-60 12-16 111191 4-8 20-30 6-8 2-4 - Davis, Californiad 6.0 33.1 7.9 10.7 2.4 2.5 0.1 17.7 5.0 0.4 5.8 8546 ၉ က ဝ က ဝ 3.9 0.4 3.6 0.5 100.0 Adapted in part from Refs. 2, 3, 9, and 14-16. Reported percentage distributions are exclusive of special and hazardous wastes. Twenty percent of the households in the United States are assumed to have food waste grinders. Additionally, it is assumed that the percentage of food waste ground up and discharged with wastewater is 25 percent. Current (1990) recycling rate for the United States assumed to be 11 percent. Adapted in part from Ref. 10. Based on measurements made over a five-year period (1985 to 1990) during the first two weeks of October (see Table 3-9).
TABLE 3-4 Typical physical composition of residential MSW excluding recycled materials and food wastes discharged with wastewater (1990) Percent by weight Component Organic Food wastes Paper Cardboard Plastics Textiles Rubber Leather Yard wastes Wood Misc. organics Inorganic Glass Tin cans Aluminum Other metal Dirt, ash, etc. Total United Statesª Range 6-18 25-40 3-10 4-10 0-4 0-2 0-2 5-20 1-4 1 4-12 2-8 0-1 1-4 0-6 Typical' 9.0 34.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 18.5 2.0 8.0 8603 олоо 6.0 0.5 3.0 3.0 100.0 Packaging materials 50-60 12-16 111191 4-8 20-30 6-8 2-4 - Davis, Californiad 6.0 33.1 7.9 10.7 2.4 2.5 0.1 17.7 5.0 0.4 5.8 8546 ၉ က ဝ က ဝ 3.9 0.4 3.6 0.5 100.0 Adapted in part from Refs. 2, 3, 9, and 14-16. Reported percentage distributions are exclusive of special and hazardous wastes. Twenty percent of the households in the United States are assumed to have food waste grinders. Additionally, it is assumed that the percentage of food waste ground up and discharged with wastewater is 25 percent. Current (1990) recycling rate for the United States assumed to be 11 percent. Adapted in part from Ref. 10. Based on measurements made over a five-year period (1985 to 1990) during the first two weeks of October (see Table 3-9).
Chapter2: Loads On Structures
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1P
Related questions
Question
7-2. Estimate the maximum amount (by weight) of material that could be separated for recycling from residential MSW using a two-container system. What should be the size of the two containers? Use the waste composition given in Table 3-4, and assume that there are 3.1 residents per residence.
Make the answer as detailed as possible.
Transcribed Image Text:TABLE 3-4
Typical physical composition of residential MSW excluding recycled
materials and food wastes discharged with wastewater (1990)
Percent by weight
Component
Organic
Food wastes
Paper
Cardboard
Plastics
Textiles
Rubber
Leather
Yard wastes
Wood
Misc. organics
Inorganic
Glass
Tin cans
Aluminum
Other metal
Dirt, ash, etc.
Total
United Statesª
Range Typical'
6-18
25-40
3-10
4-10
0-4
0-2
0-2
5-20
1-4
4-12
2-8
0-1
1-4
0-6
9.0
34.0
6.0
7.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
18.5
2.0
8.0
000
6.0
0.5
3.0
3.0
100.0
Packaging materials
50-60
12-16
4-8
20-30
6-8
2-4
Davis, Californiad
6.0
33.1
7.9
10.7
2.4
2.5
0.1
17.7
5.0
0.4
5.8
3.9
0.4
3.6
0.5
100.0
Adapted in part from Refs. 2, 3, 9, and 14-16. Reported percentage distributions are exclusive of special and
hazardous wastes.
Twenty percent of the households in the United States are assumed to have food waste grinders. Additionally,
it is assumed that the percentage of food waste ground up and discharged with wastewater is 25 percent.
Current (1990) recycling rate for the United States assumed to be 11 percent.
Adapted in part from Ref. 10.
Based on measurements made over a five-year period (1985 to 1990) during the first two weeks of October
(see Table 3-9).
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 5 steps with 5 images
Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, civil-engineering and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Recommended textbooks for you
Structural Analysis (10th Edition)
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9780134610672
Author:
Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:
PEARSON
Principles of Foundation Engineering (MindTap Cou…
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9781337705028
Author:
Braja M. Das, Nagaratnam Sivakugan
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Structural Analysis (10th Edition)
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9780134610672
Author:
Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:
PEARSON
Principles of Foundation Engineering (MindTap Cou…
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9781337705028
Author:
Braja M. Das, Nagaratnam Sivakugan
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Fundamentals of Structural Analysis
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9780073398006
Author:
Kenneth M. Leet Emeritus, Chia-Ming Uang, Joel Lanning
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Traffic and Highway Engineering
Civil Engineering
ISBN:
9781305156241
Author:
Garber, Nicholas J.
Publisher:
Cengage Learning