CONVERTING PLASTIC WASTE TO FUELS IN CEBU CITY

CONVERTING WASTE PLASTICS TO FUELS
Baseline Study Project

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

Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
CONTENTS
Tables 4
Figures 5
Forms 5
Acronyms 6
Local Terms 6
1. Summary of Findings 7
2. Background 9
2.1. Brief Profile of Cebu City 9
2.2. Geographical Area and Zoning 9
2.3. Population Growth 11
2.4. Socio-Economic Pattern 12
2.5. Economic Growth 13
2.6. Development Outlook 13
2.7. City Solid Waste Monitoring 14
3. Introduction 19
3.1. Waste Sectors 19
3.2. Methodology 19
3.2.1. Sampling Schedule 19
3.2.2. Collection of Samples 20
3.2.3. Actual Waste Characterization 21
3.3. Presentation of Data 22
4. Key Findings 22
4.1. Quantities of Waste 22
4.2. Waste Composition 23
4.3. Residential Sector 26
4.4. Commercial Sector 28
4.5. Industrial Sector 30
4.6. Aggregate Data 32
4.7. Moisture Content 32
4.8. Waste Composition 34
4.9. Waste Projection 35
5. Conclusion and Recommendations 36
6. Appendices 38
6.1. Definition of Material Types 38
6.2. Detailed Methodology 40
6.3. Data Capture Forms 42
6.4. Detailed Waste Characterization Tables 46
6.5. Raw Data 52
6.6. Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials 67
6.7. WACS Team 68
3
TABLES
Table 1 Table 1. Total Population by Cebu City and Barangay, as of August 1, 2007 11
Table 2 North District 15
Table 3 Volume of Garbage South District 16
Table 4 DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day) 17
Table 5 Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008 18
Table 6 Sampling Schedule 19
Table 7 Number of Samples for Waste Composition for Selected Confidence Levels 20
Table 8 Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Cebu City 23
Table 9 Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City 25
Table 10 Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City 25
Table 11 Result of Waste Characterization, Residential 27
Table 12 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential 27
Table 13 Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial 29
Table 14 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial 29
Table 15 Result of Waste Characterization, Industrial 31
Table 16 Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial 31
Table 17 Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors. 32
Table 18 Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City 32
Table 19 Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City 33
Table 20 Results for Moisture Content Analysis 34
Table 21 Raw Weight and Moisture Content of Collected MSW in Cebu City 34
Table 22 Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City 34
Table 23 Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics 35
Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020 35
Table 25 Characterization of the Overall Waste Stream 46
Table 26 Characterization of Waste Plastics of the Overall Waste Stream 46
Table 27 Residential Waste Characterization Result 47
Table 28 Residential Waste Plastics Characterization Result 47
Table 29 Commercial Waste Characterization Result 48
Table 30 Commercial Waste Plastics Characterization Result 48
Table 31 Industrial Waste Characterization Result 49
Table 32 Industrial Waste Plastic Characterization Result 49
Table 33 Results of Unclean Waste Plastics 50
Table 34 Results of Clean Waste Plastics 50
Table 35 Weight Master Summary 51
Table 36 Day 1- Sample 1 Bargy. Kasambagan 52
Table 37 Day 1- Sample 2 Brgy. Sto Nino 52
Table 38 Day 1-Sample 3 Brgy. Kamputhaw 52
Table 39 Day 1-Sample 4 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel 53
Table 40 Day 1-Sample 5 Brgy. Day-as/ Pai-an 53
Table 41 Day 1-Sample 6 Brgy. Kalubihan 53
Table 42 Day 2-Sample 1 Brgy. Mabolo 54
Table 43 Day 2-Sample 2 Brgy. Tisa 54
Table 44 Day 2-Sample 3 Brgy. Lower Lahug 54
Table 45 Day 2-Sample 4 Brgy. San Nicolas Proper 55
Table 46 Day 2-Sample 5 Brgy. Apas 55
Table 47 Day 2-Sample 6 Brgy. Labangon 55
Table 48 Day2-Sample 7 Brgy. Upper Lahug 56
Table 49 Day 3-Sample 1 Brgy. Ermita 56
Table 50 Day 3-Sample 2 Brgy. Hipodromo 56
Table 51 Day 3-Sample 3 Brgy. Kasambagan 57
Table 52 Day 3-Sample 4 Brgy. Tinago/ San Roque 57
4
Table 53 Day 3-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan 57

Table 54 Day 3-Sample 6 Brgy. Kamputhaw 58
Table 55 Day 3-Sample 7 Brgy. Day-as/ Parian 58
Table 56 Day 4-Sample 1 Brgy. Guadalupe 58
Table 57 Day 4-Sample 2 Brgy. Basak Pardo 59
Table 58 Day 4-Sample 3 Brgy. Bulacao 59
Table 59 Day 4-Sample 4 Brgy. Sambag 1 59
Table 60 Day 4-Sample 5 Brgy. Capitol 60
Table 61 Day 4-Sample 6 Brgy. Sambag 2 60
Table 62 Day 5-Sample 1 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel 60
Table 63 Day 5-Sample 2 Brgy. Tejero/Carreta 61
Table 64 Day 5-Sample 3 Brgy. Sto. Nino 61
Table 65 Day 5-Sample 4 Brgy. Pari-an 61
Table 66 Day 5-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan 62
Table 67 Day 5-Sample 6 Task Force 62
Table 68 Day 5-Sample 7 Brgy. Ermita 62
Table 69. Day 6-Sample 1 Carbon 63
Table 70 Day 6-Sample 2 Brgy. Suba 63
Table 71 Day 6-Sample 3 Brgy. Pardo 63
Table 72 Day 7-Sample 1 Brgy. Luz 64
Table 73 Day 7-Sample 2 Brgy. Banilad 64
Table 74 Day 7-Sample 3 Brgy. Sawang Calero 64
Table 75 Day 7-Sample 4 Brgy. Talamban 65
Table 76 Day 7-Sample 5 Brgy. Calamba 65
Table 77 Day 7-Sample 6 Brgy. Punta Princesa 65
Table 78 Day 7-Sample 7 Brgy. San Nicolas 66
FIGURES
Figure 1 Cebu City Zoning Map 10
Figure 2 Position of the representative sample extracted per truck 21
Figure 3 Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from Total Samples 24
Figure 4 Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City 24
Figure 5 Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City 25
Figure 6 Percentage of Waste Plastics from Residential Sector 26
Figure 7 Overview of Waste Characterization, Residential 26
Figure 8 Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential 27
Figure 9 Percentage of Waste Plastics from Commercial sector 28
Figure 10 Overview of Waste Characterization, Commercial 28
Figure 11 Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial 29
Figure 12 Percentage of Waste Plastics from Industrial sector 30
Figure 13 Overview of Waste Characterization, Industrial 30
Figure 14 Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial 31
Figure 15 Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastic 33
Figure 16 Informal Waste Recovery in Cebu City 36
FORMS
Form 1 Vehicle Data Capture Form 42

Form 2 Waste Characterization Form 43
Form 3 Moisture Content Determination Form 44
Form 4 Hand Sort Tally Form
5
ACRONYMS
CPDO City Planning and Development Office

DPS Department of Public Services
HDPE High Density Polyethylene.
ICT Information and Communication Technology
LDPE Low Density Polyethylene
MMT Mayor’s Management Team
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NIPAS Nationally Integrated Protected Areas System
NSO National Statistics Office
O Other Plastics
P2F Waste Plastics to Fuels
PET or PETE, Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene.
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
SWMB Solid Waste Management Board
UNEP DTIE IETC United Nations Environment Programme - Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
- International Environmental Technology Center
WACS Waste Analysis and Characterization Study
LOCAL TERMS
Bakat A large woven basket commonly used in markets for fruits and vegetables
Barangay The smallest political unit in the Philippines
Buri
Sinulog Feast of the Sto. Nino, the biggest event in Cebu City
Stacruzan Mayflower Festival
Sugbayanihan Seafood Festival
Ternos Traditional Filipino dress
Trisikad Non-motorized tricycle
Visita Iglesia Series of church visits done during the Christian Holy Week
6
CEBU CITY PLASTIC WACS
1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A baseline study to determine the waste plastics generation, characterization and projection is
needed before a facility for converting waste plastics to fuels (P2F) is set up. Quantification of
waste plastics generated will help determine the feasibility of setting up a P2F conversion
technology in the city. Likewise, characterization of waste plastics based on different materials
types should be undertaken to be able to easily determine which technology is appropriate
based 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-term
operation.
Based on the recently concluded Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (Plastic
WACS) for Cebu City funded by UNEP-DTIE-IETC, it was found that the amount of waste plastics
that the city currently disposes to the Inayawan Landfill is at 12.36% of the total waste being
disposed. In the Inayawan Study conducted by the city government in 2006, waste plastics were
found at 16.87% of the total waste. It could be inferred that there was a certain degree of waste
plastics diversion to cause a 4.5% reduction of waste plastics being disposed at the landfill in
less 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 as
additional feedstock for a P2F conversion facility would give the total available material at
46,038 tons or approximately 3,837 tons of available materials a month. This does not include
waste plastics diverted from source or from other levels. The quantity of waste plastics being
traded within the city and transported to Valenzuela, Metro Manila for recycling or to some
minor facilities in the Visayas should be determined. Local processing of waste plastics for a P2F
facility might just prove to be more economically viable for the city and the different
sectors/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 overall
municipal 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 the
sample quantity which is 30 kg. (0.03 tons) per sample are over 159 kg (0.16 tons) and has the
average of 23 kg (0.02 tons) per day in the seven day period. In the total of 1,290.10 kg sample
collected in the study period, waste plastics represent approximately 12.36% (159.47 kg) while
other 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% and
wood approximately 1.67%. For waste plastics, No.3 or PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest
7
amount being disposed in Inayawan. This is followed by No.7 or Other Plastics (3.29%) and No.2
or 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% are
waste plastics while 88.45% for Other Wastes. For different sectors, residential has 6.57% waste
plastics 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 Waste
92.31%. 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 and
83.66% 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 was
contributed by the commercial sector. Moreover, large amount of waste plastics generated were
also observed in this sector.
The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. In determining
appropriate technology for P2F conversion, moisture content will be an important factor as it
will affect combustibility and other waste to energy conversion processes. It will also shed light
on how to be handle and transport of waste materials. During the study, the average moisture
for all plastic wastes was found at 4.10%. Average moisture for waste plastics content is at
4.10%, as opposed to the total moisture content for all waste disposed at 38.57% based on the
Inayawan Study.
HDPE (8.74%) shows highest moisture content among waste plastics. This is followed by Other
Plastics (7.15%), PVC (4.59%) and PS (4.28%). PET (1.76%), PP (1.70%) and LDPE (0.46%), on the
other hand, show very small percentage of moisture content.
The resulting figures were calculated at 80% confidence level. The formula and discussion on
how 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, it is certainly
important to utilize technologies that would directly address the escalating waste problem,
especially of waste plastics.
1
Philippine Environment Monitor 2001 Solid Waste, (World Bank, 2001)
8
2. BACKGROUND
Brief Profile of Cebu City
Cebu City is located on the central eastern part of Cebu Province, the center island in Central
Visayas, Southern Philippines. It is bounded by Mandaue City in the North and Talisay City in
the South. On the East is Mactan Channel and on its West are the Municipality of Balamban and
the City of Toledo. 2
It has a total land area of 326.10 square kilometres or 29,124.78 hectares. Its strategic location
makes it accessible by air and sea transport. By plane, it is only an hour away from Manila and
just a few hours to reach major cities in the Asia Pacific region. 3
It is composed of eighty barangays4, 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 of
the 80 barangays are classified as urban, while only 30 are classified rural scattered along some
23,526 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 lands
are 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 critical
watersheds and other protected areas of the city.
Seventy-three percent of the city’s land is under the Nationally Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS). Twenty-three of the city’s barangays are totally or partially located in the four
watershed areas: Mananga, Kotkot, Lusaran and the Cebu Watershed Reservation in Buhisan.
As shown in the city’s Zoning Map (Figure 1), the coastal area facing the Mactan Strait is
predominantly 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, as
well as other open areas and parks. Pockets of institutional areas are scattered throughout the
narrow coastal flatland where the commercial and industrial, as well as urban residential zones
are found. 5
2
Cebu, 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>
4
Barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines.
5
9
Figure 1. Cebu City Zoning Map
Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office
10
Population Growth
As of August 2007, Cebu City had a total population of 798,809. 6 Although trend shows a slight
decline in growth rate, at 2.19% (1990) 1.64% from 1995 to 2000 7, the city’s weekday population
is slightly bigger, since it houses the biggest commercial areas, schools, hospitals and public
offices 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, 2007

Barangay Population Barangay Population
1. Adlaon 3,580 41. Mabini 1,650
2. 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 14,069
17. Cambinocot 2,658 57. Sambag I (Pob.) 14,784
18. 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 1,553
33. 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) 798,809
Source: NSO.gov.ph
6
National Statistics Office, June 20, 2009 <www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html>
7
11
With the base figure of 798,809 for 2007 and growth rate at 1.77% (2000), current population can
be 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 a
major contributing industry because Cebu is considered as one of the main tourist destinations
in the country. Tourism is at its peak from January to July. Both locals and visitors from other
countries participate in celebrating major events. During this period, industrial and commercial
establishments are busiest. Tourists go shopping, buy souvenirs and eat out. 8
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 biggest
event 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 Festival
features street dancing, face painting, party events, show bands, fireworks, a Mardi Gras Parade
and other activities.
During February, the Cebu X International Furniture & Furnishing Exhibition attracts buyers from
around the world. Although commonly featured in this annual exhibit are indigenous materials
such as rattan, bamboo, shells, and buri, the waste generated by visitors include PET bottles
and 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 among
urban residents.
The Lenten Season which falls on the last week of March to the first week of April is observed
with religious processions in every church in the city and Visita Iglesia or church visits. A large
volume of devotees visit the Sto. Nino during the week-long observance.
April and May is summer time during which countryside fiestas are celebrated. People take
toursin mango and flower farms of Cebu City’s Hillylands where anyone can stop along the
roadside markets to buy fresh fruits and flowers. Flores de Mayo is celebrated all over Cebu City
where visitors can watch the Santacruzan Parade where chosen women walk under floral arches
in 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 chunks
off tags prices and many warehouses hold export overruns and some of the biggest name
brands in clothing. The Sugbayanihan, the longest barbecue grill, is also celebrated in June.
8
Calendar of Activities (Department of Tourism, 2008).
12
July and August are usually lean months as tropical storms become more frequent. In July, the
Fruits 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 to
attract buyers. Restaurant rows hold a series of concerts and events during the month-long
Octoberfest. The Queen City International Run is held in November. By this time, the second
semester opens in colleges and universities and more wastes are generated from packaging of
schools supplies. Christmas in Cebu is more than a month-long celebration. The Christmas Food
Street Festival is held and the traditional gift giving, shopping and parties render a surge in
waste 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 growth
were the information and communication technology (ICT) and tourism industries.
Demand for tourism-related services, building of accommodation establishments and various

services increased as the region becomes one the top destinations in Asia. BPO outsourcing
increased and expanded. At the Asiatown IT Park alone in Lahug, the number locators increased
from 20 to 30 in 2008.
The upbeat tourism and ICT performance led to positive movements in other economic sectors
as well, made evident by the vibrant construction industry. This increased the labor market in
the region from 92.7% in 2006 to 93.8 in 2007. IT Park alone employed 4,000 more workers in the
same period. This translated in to growth in retail trade as more disposable income is earned by
BPO employees.
The ICT sector contributes to more power consumption leading to the development two power
reserves projects to add 100 megawatts of the Cebu-Negros-Panay (CNP) power grid, both of
which are targeted for completion by 2010.
The transportation sector grew as traffic and volume of passengers and cargo handled increase.
9
In particular, Cebu-based Cebu Pacific Air opened new routes, prompting others to follow.
Development Outlook
Because of international community recognition of Region 7 for its IT and tourism potentials, the
region expects sustained growth in these sectors. In fact, the London-based Foreign Direct
Investment magazine ranked Cebu City as eighth among 10 top Asian Cities in the future, while
a study by Global Services placed the city as one of the favoured outsourcing destinations for
global companies. Congruently, the region aims to further expand its tourism industry not only
9
NEDA, 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>
13
through continuous promotion of its ecotourism destinations, but also by penetrating new
markets 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 streamline
visa 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 data
was submitted by the barangays to the DPS at the given period. Because of this, the totals
given: 38,446,458 tons for the North District and 51,315,739 for the South District do not
completely reflect waste generation in the two areas.
Table 4 indicates that most barangays have their own waste collection trucks and that only a
few are being served by DPS collection. The table also shows that the DPS has some Task Force
trips for some common areas serving commercial establishments, markets and major
thoroughfares.
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 to
November 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 waste
monitoring to the concerned city offices.
10
Ibid.
14
Table 2. Volume of Garbage, North District, Cebu City

Brgy 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 2,267,403
Bacayan 74,880 56,525 55,679 74,515 67,521 76,296 86,075 74,555 74,650 77,510 81,830 800,036
Banilad 54,475 39,523 48,460 56,174 72,040 66,260 60,710 73,140 61,660 54,800 57,668 644,908
Bo. 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 4,332,273
Budla-an 15,160 17,600 12,286 13,991 11,350 10,710 16,470 16,040 25,280 138,887
Busay 37,515 41,216 43,765 38,060 53,800 55,500 49,800 51,810 55,665 44,870 472,001
Capitol 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 6,011,460
Carreta 109,435 86,155 75,360 76,945 107,790 103,840 106,881 103,320 111,110 104,330 115,120 108,150 1,208,436
Co. Central Ramos 80,555 84,460 87,698 91,480 83,058 115,072 111,380 109,140 124,230 108,705 85,385 1,081,163
Day-as 75,710 60,690 60,321 76,028 69,030 67,640 71,430 71,760 74,560 54,060 56,690 737,919
Hipodromo 145,455 62,910 74,150 67,960 65,065 415,540
Kalubihan 48,705 36,528 34,457 34,705 32,045 41,303 48,220 38,220 41,650 31,045 29,670 416,548
Kamagayan 54,777 79,254 74,942 66,533 72,895 72,961 76,520 68,940 69,090 635,912
Kamputhaw 220,115 184,006 237,043 260,688 228,799 310,090 324,790 321,020 330,200 254,785 201,295 2,872,831
Kasambagan 75,955 53,093 47,165 54,375 97,097 86,777 86.902 92,030 92,635 90,540 88,690 98,090 963,339
Lahug
Lorega San Miguel 127,895 74,335 41,465 104,580 101,245 128,460 99,310 60,545 737,835
Mabolo 162,511 150,352 146,240 82,490 116,290 657,883
Pahina 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 1,798,365
Pari-an 59,600 55,915 43,300 30,932 55,832 48,679 56,790 58,590 52,430 48,860 37,680 45,240 593,848
Pit-os 52,790 48,090 52,790 66,290 54,915 61,198 71,535 73,600 69,400 70,310 65,820 686,738
Pulangbato 23,520 31,515 25,125 20,922 38,793 24,161 24,649 20,920 18,980 20,970 20,160 35,140 304,855
Sambag 1 234,393 36,210 169,286 252,675 235,535 233,260 208,234 234,080 158,725 1,762,398
Sambag 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 2,201,778
San Antonio 49,150 44,470 52,025 64,701 49,935 65,692 73,200 74,370 76,905 70,660 64,745 685,853
San Roque 72,270 59,895 59,155 58,973 70,840 71,364 67,200 70,690 63,200 66,290 57,390 60,565 777,832
Sto. 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 1,152,118
T. 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 1,287,200
Talamban 55,716 55,029 78,327 160,389 174,436 185,710 180,185 189,540 171,080 173,380 1,423,792
Tejero 165,977 122,620 119,625 118,915 155,945 136,924 147,871 169,360 174,920 164,775 156,930 169,395 1,803,257
Grand 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
15
Table 3. Volume of Garbage South District, Cebu City

Barangay 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 2,318,912
Buhisan 87,670 68,352 70,599 73,659 90,536 77,738 90,065 100,708 88,428 96,809 75,480 80,760 1,000,804
Bulacao 286,880 240,500 232,459 228,318 296,191 280,973 293,102 331,855 321,326 268,650 75,480 80,760 2,936,494
Calamba 72,310 171,338 165,513 184,547 219,367 198,481 210,804 240,500 259,704 239,990 202,395 208,460 2,373,409
Cogon Pardo
Duljo 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 2,560,149
Ermita 281,480 265,873 319,888 285,346 321,304 294,050 310,745 253,180 209,090 149,055 2,690,011
Guadalupe 773,391 692,920 724,142 885,796 801,709 858,077 893,870 855,637 897,800 891,395 865,745 9,140,482
Inayawan 297,869 218,578 229,341 223,704 292,346 285,397 323,216 185,933 356,083 357,222 358,700 354,550 3,482,939
Kalunasan 89,965 74,780 74,840 72,405 89,468 80,339 84,189 89,210 84,325 86,570 81,895 84,410 992,426
Kinasang-an 122,981 120,540 125,628 161,452 139,431 154,824 180,970 177,385 155,635 166,835 170,360 1,676,041
Labanagon 432,250 428,164 188,555 239,492 235,966 281,540 321,112 286,500 300,070 267,495 274,550 3,255,694
Mambaling 458,673 259,664 299,845 273,573 344,131 332,130 597,140 467,870 298,990 3,332,016
Pasil 164,249 130,210 132,673 130,969 138,168 133,684 137,118 149,120 143,280 1,259,471
Pob. Pardo 281,455 208,156 202,194 189,510 239,728 97,142 1,218,185
Punta Princesa 25,526 16,963 48,733 18,367 20,522 130,111
Quiot 240,135 176,783 197,245 168,659 212,975 198,613 221,609 233,286 249,755 262,760 231,105 241,650 2,634,557
San 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 1,975,289
Sapangdaku 64,940 44,167 35,182 40,793 47,455 43,301 49,242 58,540 47,680 49,490 40,750 53,730 575,270
Sawang 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 1,742,038
Suba 156,275 160,155 163,746 78,399 156,801 202,541 197,690 194,060 186,160 179,985 191,270 1,8677,082
Tisa 328,683 294,600 297,115 325,204 390,493 378,990 333,985 360,817 359,217 367,410 334,115 383,730 4,154,359
Grand 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
16
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 Total
1. 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 3.47
2. 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,
3., Buhisan 2.03 2.03 3. Capitol Site 18.08 18.08 3. Bacayan 4.7 2.035 6.735 Ermita, San Nicolas Prop, Pahina San Nicolas
4. 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 3.51
5. 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,
6. Cogon Pardo 2.489 2.489 6. Day-as 1.405 2.34 3.745 6. Mabolo 5.05 6.306 11.356 Kamputhaw, Lahug
7. 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 3.96
8. Guadalupe 20.16 20.16 8. Hipodromo 4.0 4.0 8. Pit-os 1.816 1.816 Mabolo, Carreta
9. Inayawan 7.586 7.586 9. Kalubihan 3.415 1.866 5.281 9. Pulangbato 0.708 0.708
10. 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 3.76
11. Kinasang-an 4.781 4.781 11. Kamputhaw 6.62 8.65 15.27 San Roque, T. Padilla, Kamagayan, LOrega
12. Labangon 5.75 7.026 12.776 12. Loreta 1.695 3.33 5.025
13. Mambaling 11.54 11.54 13. Pari-an 1.6 2.224 3.824 5. Task Force II 5.06 5.06
14. Pahina San Nicolas 4.5 4.5 14. Sambag 1 8.409 8.409 Ramos, Market, Abattoir
15. Pasil 4.128 4.128 15. Sambag 2 6.343 6.343 Sports Complex, NRA, Suares Bros.
16. Pob. Pardo 9.33 9.33 16. San Antonio 1.94 1.94 6. Task Force I 5.08 5.08
17. Punta Princesa 12.71 12.71 17. San Roque 1.36 1.858 3.218 Tejero, Gen. Maxilom, Fuente, Ramos, Tabo-
18. Quiot 6.213 6.213 18. Sta. Cruz 1.405 3.423 4.828 an, San Roque, M.J. Cuenco
19. Sapangdaku 1.515 1.515 19. Sto. Nino 6.93 3.15 10.08 7. Heat of the City 6.65 6.65
20. Sawang Calero 3.968 3.968 20. T. Padilla 3.568 3.568 Kalubihan, Pahina San Nicolas, Ermita, Sta.
21. San Nicolas Prop. 4.538 4.538 21. Tejero 1.6 5.439 7.039 Cruz
22. Suba 5.824 5.824 22. Tinago 2.0 8. Sup. Payloader Op. 4.35 4.35
23.Tisa 10.447 10.447 23. Zapatero 1.695 Mabolo, Carreta, Kalubihan, Kamputhaw
24. Hospital 4.91 4.91
25. Task Force
Source: DPS Cebu, 2009
17
Table 5. Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008
Day Shift/South District Night Shift/North District

Volume of Garbage (Tons) Comparative
Month No. of Equip. Dispatched No. of Equip. Dispatched
(%) ↑ ↓
Res Mkt Com Hos Ind Total Target Actual Condmn Target Actual Condmn
January 3770.34 1138.95 152.63 5061.92 614 614 350 340 10
February 2921.09 981.99 118.05 4021.13 25.88% ↓ 634 633 1 294 294
March 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%↓ 642 642 298 298
May 3657.45 1060.35 165.82 4883.62 16.2% ↑ 638 638 339 339
June 3595.38 1034.3 138.49 4768.17 2.42% ↓ 658 658 326 326
July 4089.19 923.91 178.54 5191.64 8.16% ↑ 645 645 356 356
August 3669.41 1227.93 224.45 5121.79 1.36% ↓ 601 601 368 368
September 3482.04 1219.59 168.97 4870.6 5.16% ↓ 585 585 368 368
October 3364.89 1176.78 155.4 4697.07 3.7% ↓ 595 595 366 366
November 3280.71 1109.62 143.17 4533.5 3.6% ↓ 568 568 359 358 1
December 3503.8 1245.74 165.64 4915.18 7.8% ↑ 609 609 363 363
TOTAL 56440.84 13050.66 0 1850.2 0 56440.84 7465 7433 2 4111 4100 11
Source: Solid Waste Monitoring Division, Cebu City
18
3. INTRODUCTION
The Cebu City Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization (Plastic WACS) study is being
undertaken 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 the
city on a regular basis to be able to establish a more efficient and ecological solid waste
management 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 that
are collected and transported by private and government haulers.
Residential Sector - Wastes disposed by households collected and transported by private and
government haulers.
Industrial Sector - Waste generated from industrial areas and transported by private and
government 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 Truck
11
Tag, Weight Master Form and the Hand Sort Form . Because of this, sorting can be done at
the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill before dumping.
Methodology
Sampling Schedule
To be able to cover a whole period of the city’s waste cycle, the schedule for the sampling
activities was arranged as follows:
Table 6. Sampling Schedule

Sampling Day Date Day of the Week Shift
Day 1 May 21, 2009 Thursday Night shift
Day 2 May 23, 2009 Saturday Day shift
Day 3 May 25, 2009 Monday Night shift
Day 4 May 27, 2009 Wednesday Day shift
Day 5 May 29, 2009 Friday Night shift
Day 6 May 31, 2009 Sunday Day shift
Day 7 June 2, 2009 Tuesday Day shift
11
Data Capture Forms are on Appendix 6.3 on page 42
19
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 content
analysis. During those times, the sorting area is free of other wastes to ensure the integrity
of 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
C.L. 95% C.L 90% C.L 80% C.L 70%
Materials
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 21-101
Cardboard 899-1955 533-997 225-499 134-250 58-123 35-64 27-66 17-30
Aluminum 275-1437 754-4399 70-350 191-1100 19-92 60-275 10-42 23-123
Ferrous 194-554 552-3411 50-139 138-953 14-37 36-214 8-18 17-97
Glass 145-619 596-2002 39-155 149-501 19-61 39-126 6-19 19-58
Plastic 261-1100 422-783 67-275 107-195 18-70 28-61 10-32 14-24
Organic 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 hospital
waste. However, hospital waste was not included in the hand sorting classification because
of its hazardous content and instead only estimated visually. The sample universe is 1.290
tons 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. Since
there was no working truck scale at the landfill, trucks had to be pre-identified before
dispatching and sent to a private weight master for the net and gross weights. This process
had to be coordinated at three points: the dispatching area, where the truck drivers were
given a truck identification tag, the weighting area 12 where the weight of empty and loaded
trucks 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 each
specific sample.
To determine the residential, commercial and industrial waste compositions, the approach
was 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. One
truck was also taken from the DPS Task Force. Remarks on the content of the load extracted
were noted in the data capture form.
The Weight Master Summary, Table 35can be found at Appendix D.
12
Private Weight Master is Ladisto Dausan of Rhine Marketing, Brgy. Tinago, Cebu City
20
Actual Waste Characterization
At the side of the Inayawan Landfill, the PhilBio site was prepared and cleared to be used as
the sorting area. Designated spaces were properly labeled according to the type and source
of waste placed into them. Before the start of the first sample extraction, needed
equipments were prepared on site. 13
Each identified truck, after finishing waste collection, went to the weight master to be
weighed before proceeding to the landfill. 14 Upon entering the landfill, collection crew
extract a portion of the waste load from the truck. To facilitate immediate extraction of
required sample, wastes were taken from the upper, outer portion of the truck load.
Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck
Waste
A
Sample
Back of Front of
the truck the truck
Based on the Inayawan Waste Characterization in 2006, each garbage truck loads from 2,500
to 3,000 kg. 15 During the study period, waste load range from 1650 to 5475 kg But to provide
results consistent the latest WACS, the representative sample for each truck load was
pegged at 30 kilos. A 50-kilogram platform weighing scale was used to weigh 30 kilograms of
waste which were then brought to the sorting area for characterization.
The waste samples were sorted into the prescribed material categories and recorded on
FORM No.4. Wastes are classified into ten material types, Plastics 1 to 7 based on the Plastic
Identification Code 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 and
Paper were specifically sorted. This is because the objective of the study is to provide
baseline 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 and
17
waste wood as additional feedstock.
Materials were sorted according to the ten material types and placed into separate labeled
containers. Before weighing, the materials were checked and verified against the Waste
Classification Guide provided to the sorting crew. These are then weighed on a five-kilogram
digital weighing scale.
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.
21
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. Weighting
of each material samples was done inside the PhilBio site since even movement of the tray
or 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 their
contents before weighing. The weight of each material (wet basis) was recorded on FORM
No.2.
Presentation of Data
Data is shown in pie graphs and tables. Presentation of data starts from Plastics (material
types 1 to 7) and Other Wastes (8 to 10). Tables present data by material types 1 to 10, total
Plastic (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 four
ways: 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; third
is 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 overall
waste disposed at Inayawan Landfill during the seven days period of the study. The
quantities associated with waste plastics disposed in the same period based on the sample
quantity which is 30 kg. (0.03 tons) per sample are over 159 kg (0.16 tons) and has the
average 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 account
87.64% (1130.63 kg) for all sampling period.
Table 8 shows the aggregated data and the quantity of municipal solid waste and waste
plastics on daily samples.
22
Table 8. Quantity of Municipal Waste and Waste Plastics for Cebu City
Daily 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 0.18
1-2 2495.00 5.69 2 19640.00 14.40 0.07
1-3 3420.00 3.99 3 23260.00 31.70 0.14
1-4 2570.00 5.37 4 20260.00 20.93 0.10
1-5 2335.00 4.11 5 19045.00 36.62 0.19
1-6 3875.00 10.26 6 7900.00 7.90 0.10
2-1 2400.00 2.37 7 21045.00 14.88 0.07
2-2 3130.00 2.84 TOTAL 129055.00 159.47 0.12
2-3 3400.00 0.20 AVERAGE 18436.43 22.78 0.12
2-4 2425.00 4.83
2-5 3060.00 1.41
2-6 2540.00 1.67
2-7 2685.00 1.08
3-1 3320.00 4.81
3-2 3400.00 3.49
3-3 2845.00 3.81
3-4 3300.00 4.07
3-5 3740.00 8.71
3-6 4015.00 2.72
3-7 2640.00 4.10
4-1 4320.00 3.29
4-2 2840.00 3.73
4-3 3450.00 3.00
4-4 3750.00 3.73
4-5 2285.00 4.00
4-6 3615.00 3.18
5-1 1650.00 2.04
5-2 2010.00 2.62
5-3 3100.00 5.14
5-4 2165.00 3.69
5-5 3395.00 11.26
5-6 2765.00 4.15
5-7 3960.00 7.71
6-1 3700.00 4.50
6-2 2150.00 0.61
6-3 2050.00 2.79
7-1 5475.00 3.98
7-2 2150.00 0.90
7-3 2225.00 1.11
7-4 4045.00 2.64
7-5 2310.00 3.46
7-6 1985.00 1.54
7-7 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 samples
were characterized. The results were presented in pie chart showing the summary of waste
composition and a table showing the waste type, by weight and the precision levels at the
80% confidence level.
Due to rounding, numbers may not sum exactly to totals or subtotals.
23
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

Plastics,
12.36%
Other
Wastes,
87.64%
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 Mixed
Wastes were organic, residues and other materials or individual materials that not included
in the major categories. In addition, paper account for almost 14.55% and wood (1.67%). For
waste plastics against the total waste composition, PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest
percentage for waste plastics.
In addition, paper account for almost 14.55% and wood (1.67%). For waste plastics against
the total waste composition, PVC (5.11%) constitutes the largest amount being disposed in
Inayawan. This is followed by O or Other Plastics (3.29%) and HDPE (2.64%). While the least
kind of plastics observed is LDPE with approximately 0.04%.
Table 9 shows the result of overall waste composition which combines all sectors. The
detailed 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%
LDPE, 0.04%
PP, 0.17%
PS, 0.77%
Mixed
Waste, Paper, 14.55% Other
71.42% Plastics,
3.29%
Wood, 1.67%
24
Table 9. Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

Types of Waste Percentage (%) Variance +/-
1. PET 0.35 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 2.64 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 5.11 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.04 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.17 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 0.77 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other Plastics 3.29 13.88075913 4.78
8. Paper 14.55 225.1136841 19.23
9. Wood 1.67 16.43734224 5.20
10. 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 which
combines all sectors were characterized. In Figure 5, PVC (41.33%) commonly and represents
the highest percentage disposed among other kinds of waste plastics. This is followed by
Other Plastics (26.61%) and HDPE (21.34%). Other kinds of plastics that have significant
numbers 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 the
sectors. The detailed findings of overall waste plastics composition are shown in Table 27.
Figure 5. Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City
PET, 2.82%
Other
Plastics, HDPE, 21.34%
26.61%
PS, 6.23%
PVC, 41.33%
PP, 1.39%
LDPE, 0.28%
Table 10. Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

Types of Waste Plastics Percentage (%) Variance +/-
1. PET 2.82 0.111105952 0.43
2. HDPE 21.34 4.05027381 2.58
3. PVC 41.33 36.14726181 7.71
4. LDPE 0.28 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 1.39 0.032871952 0.23
6. PS 6.23 1.180381143 1.39
7. Other Plastics 26.61 13.88075913 4.78
TOTAL 100.00 - -
25
Residential Sector
A total of 299.64 kg of waste samples were disposed by the residential sector within the
study period. Figure 6 shows the amount of plastics that can be found in this sector which is
19.70 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 the
residential sector, Mixed Wastes (86.92%) are most common waste disposed by the
residential 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 Wastes
category. 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 detailed
findings 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
PET, 0.22%
HDPE, 2.10%
PVC, 1.27%
LDPE, 0.03%
Mixed Waste, PP, 0.21%

86.92%
PS, 0.61%
Other Plastics,
2.14%
Paper, 3.46%
Wood, 3.05%
26
Table 11. Result of Waste Characterization, Residential

1. PET 0.22 0.020830571 0.19
2. HDPE 2.10 1.121476238 1.36
3. PVC 1.27 0.280928333 0.68
4. LDPE 0.03 0.000594286 0.03
5. PP 0.21 0.011007 0.13
6. PS 0.61 0.182805571 0.55
7. Other Plastics 2.14 0.832453571 1.17
8. Paper 3.46 4.43143681 2.70
9. Wood 3.05 6.773364952 3.34
10. Mixed Wastes 86.92 1977.255361 57.01
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 in
this sector, Other Plastics (32.49%) and HDPE (31.96%) are the majority kinds of waste
plastics found in this sector. PVC (19.37%), PS (9.25%), PET (3.29%) and PP (3.20%) also
accounted greater percentage as shown in the graph. In lesser percentage, LDPE contributes
with approximately 0.45%.
Table 12 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector. The
detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the residential sector are shown in
Table 29.
Figure 8. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential
PS, 9.25% Other

Plastics, PET, 3.29%
32.49%
PP, 3.20%
HDPE,
PVC, 19.37% 31.96%
LDPE, 0.45%
Table 12. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

1. PET 3.29 0.020830571 0.19
2. HDPE 31.96 1.121476238 1.36
3. PVC 19.37 0.280928333 0.68
4. LDPE 0.45 0.000594286 0.03
5. PP 3.20 0.011007 0.13
6. PS 9.25 0.182805571 0.55
7. Other Plastics 32.49 0.832453571 1.17
27
Commercial Sector
A total of 989.90 kg. of wastes sample disposed in the commercial sector. As shown in Figure
9, 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 in
commercially identified areas. Similar to residential, Figure 10 shows mixed wastes
contribute 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 against
the total waste composition, PVC (6.20%) shows highest percentage among other kinds of
plastics 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 detailed
findings 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
PET, 0.38% HDPE, 2.79%
PVC, 6.20%
LDPE, 0.05%
PP, 0.17%
PS, 0.78%
Other Plastics,
3.62%
Mixed Waste,
66.95% Paper, 17.52%
Wood, 1.54%
28
Table 13. Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial

1. PET 0.38 0.137418143 0.48
2. HDPE 2.79 5.148719476 2.91
3. PVC 6.20 39.69295148 8.08
4. LDPE 0.05 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 0.17 0.057852667 0.31
6. PS 0.78 1.112313667 1.35
7. Other Plastics 3.62 16.50551131 5.21
8. Paper 17.52 260.1989228 20.68
9. Wood 1.54 5.366202571 2.97
10. Other Wastes 66.95 1290.594232 46.06
TOTAL PLASTIC 14.00 - -
TOTAL 100.00 - -
Unlike in the residential sector, it was observed that a larger volume of plastics disposed in
the commercial sector with a total of 138.56 kg. Figure 11 shows that the most abundant
kinds of plastic found in commercial sector is PVC with 44.30% approximately. This is
followed by Other Plastics (25.89%) and HDPE (19.90%). Other waste plastics in the sector are
PS (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. The
detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the commercial sector are shown in
Table 31.
Figure 11. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial
PET, 2.73%
HDPE, 19.90%
Other Plastics,
25.89%
PS, 5.61%
PVC, 44.30%
PP, 1.23%
LDPE, 0.33%
Table 14. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

1. PET 2.73 0.137418143 0.48
2. HDPE 19.90 5.148719476 2.91
3. PVC 44.30 39.69295148 8.08
4. LDPE 0.33 0.002402619 0.06
5. PP 1.23 0.057852667 0.31
6. PS 5.61 1.112313667 1.35
7. Other Plastics 25.89 16.50551131 5.21
29
Industrial Sector
A total of 249.06 kg of wastes are disposed in the industrial sector, based on the study
samples. 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. For
waste plastics against the total waste composition HDPE (2.49%), PVC (2.30%) and other
plastics (2.04%) can be considered as the three major contributors of waste plastics in the
sector. 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 detailed
findings 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
PET, 0.31%
HDPE, 2.49%
PVC, 2.30%
LDPE, 0.01%
PP, 0.08%
Mixed Waste, PS, 0.47%
83.66% Other Plastics,
2.04%
Paper, 7.37%
Wood, 1.27%
30
Table 15. Result of Waste Characterqization, Industrial

1. PET 0.31 0.019256143 0.18
2. HDPE 2.49 0.415169333 0.83
3. PVC 2.30 0.305913619 0.71
4. LDPE 0.01 0.000047 0.01
5. PP 0.08 0.001478286 0.05
6. PS 0.47 0.021305952 0.19
7. Other Plastics 2.04 0.414956571 0.84
8. Paper 7.37 4.132825333 2.61
9. Wood 1.27 0.354101571 0.76
10. Mixed Wastes 83.66 554.5747431 30.19
TOTAL PLASTICS 7.69 - -
For the industrial sector, a total of 18.47 kg of Waste Plastics was observed. The result shows
that HDPE (32.37%) is the highest percentage of waste plastics found in the sector as shown
in 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%) and
LDPE (0.15%).
Table 16 shows the result of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector. The
detailed findings of waste plastics characterization in the industrial sector are shown in
Table 33.
Figure 14. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial
PS, 6.05% PET, 3.97%

Other Plastics,
26.52%
PP, 1.08%
LDPE, 0.15%
HDPE, 32.37%
PVC, 29.85%
Table 16. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

1. PET 3.97 0.019256143 0.18
2. HDPE 32.37 0.415169333 0.83
3. PVC 29.85 0.305913619 0.71
4. LDPE 0.15 0.000047 0.01
5. PP 1.08 0.001478286 0.05
6. PS 6.05 0.021305952 0.19
7. Other Plastics 26.52 0.414956571 0.84
31
Aggregate Data
Table 17 shows aggregated data on disposed waste of all sectors and the total amount of
sample 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 amount
of actual waste sample. This is because there are samples coming from residential are also
taken as sample for industrial and commercial since within the sample areas includes all
sectors or both sectors.
Result shows that from three sectors, highest amount of waste disposed was contributed by
the commercial sector. Moreover, large amount of waste plastics were also observed in the
commercial sector. In this sector, PVC is the highest waste plastics found, followed by other
plastics 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. LDPE
was the kind of waste plastics being disposed in a lesser amount found in all sectors. The
most common waste plastics observed when combining all sectors is PVC, followed by Other
Plastics, HDPE and PS.
Table 17. Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors

Types of Waste Residential Commercial Industrial Total
1. PET 0.65 3.79 0.73 5.17
2. HDPE 6.30 27.58 5.98 39.85
3. PVC 3.82 61.38 5.51 70.71
4. LDPE 0.09 0.45 0.03 0.57
5. PP 0.63 1.71 0.20 2.54
6. PS 1.82 7.77 1.12 10.71
7. Other Plastics 6.40 35.88 4.90 47.17
8. Paper 10.37 173.40 17.70 201.46
9. Wood 9.14 15.24 3.05 27.44
10. Mixed Wastes 260.44 662.70 200.84 1123.98
TOTAL PLASTICS 19.70 138.56 18.47 176.73
TOTAL 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 Table
18. 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

Estimated Ratio Estimated kg (per day)
Sector
(% kg) Non-Hazardous Waste Plastics
Residential 23.23 13.35 2.81
Commercial 76.73 121.62 19.79
Industrial 18.61 31.66 2.64
Moisture Content
The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. It is

important to consider the factors contributed by collection sites and transportation as well
32
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 sampling
day/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 4.43
2. HDPE 34.03 8.74 31.05
3. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.89
4. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.45
5. PP 2.22 1.70 2.18
6. PS 9.93 4.28 9.51
7. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.40
8. Paper 187.69 - -
9. Wood 21.51 - -
10. Mixed Wastes 921.43 - -
TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91
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 plastics
during 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 plastic
material. Table 20 shows the result of moisture content analysis of the seven types of waste
plastics.
Figure 15. Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics
10.0
8.74%
9.0
8.0 7.15%
7.0
% Moisture
6.0
4.59% 4.28%
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.76% 1.70%
2.0
1.0 0.46%
0.0
PET HDPE PVC LDPE PP PS Other
Plastics
Types of Waste Plastics
33
Table 20. Results for Moisture Content Analysis

Types of Waste % Moisture
Average
Plastics 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 1.76
2. HDPE 9.04 7.00 7.59 8.27 10.28 9.79 9.19 8.74
3. PVC 4.28 2.98 3.10 8.02 4.64 3.11 5.98 4.59
4. LDPE 1.19 0.00 0.40 1.09 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.46
5. PP 4.71 0.27 1.85 1.49 1.71 1.27 0.62 1.70
6. PS 5.72 0.82 4.47 5.27 6.16 3.04 4.47 4.28
7. 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 31.05
3. PVC 65.91 4.59 62.89
4. LDPE 0.45 0.46 0.45
5. PP 2.22 1.70 2.18
6. PS 9.93 4.28 9.51
7. Other Plastics 42.43 7.15 39.40
8. Paper 187.69 - -
9. Wood 21.51 - -
TOTAL PLASTICS 159.47 - 149.91
Waste Composition
Table 22 shows the waste composition based on Phyllis 18: the composition of biomass and
waste. In addition, the weight of material while still wet was also taken to compare the
weight of material when it’s already dry. The result suggests that PVC followed by other
plastics and HDPE were the kind of waste plastics with the highest moisture content when
disposed compared to other waste plastics.
Table 22. Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City

Wet Weight Dry Weight Composition
Types of Waste
(kg) (kg) C H O N S Ash
1. PET 4.51 4.43 62.2 4.2 32.9 - - 0.7
2. 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 - - 0.1
6. 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 - - - - - - -
18
ECN Phyllis, The Composition of Biomass and Waste, June 1, 2009, <http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/>
34
Table 23. Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics.

Types of Plastic Unclean, kg Clean, kg
1. PET 4.51 4.24
2. HDPE 34.03 31.03
3. PVC 65.91 63.61
4. LDPE 0.45 0.44
5. PP 2.22 2.16
6. PS 9.93 9.40
7. 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 multiplied
by the growth rate of 1.77% added to the population of the given year will give the projected
population 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 2005
each person is generating 187.10 kg. of waste in a year. World Bank’s Philippine Environment
Monitor 2001 assumed that the urban population would generate one percent (1%) increase
in waste generation per year. Based on these factors, waste projection for the next year can
be computed by multiplying 1% (.01%) to the waste generation and the product is added to
the 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 2020
and by that time will generate 217,997 tons of waste per year, about 70% increase from its
2007 waste generation.
Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020

a cd
Year Projected Population Projected Waste (T/Yr.)
b
2007 798, 809 152, 461
ab
2008 812, 948 156, 712
2009 827, 337 161, 083
2010 841, 981 165, 576
2011 856, 884 170, 194
2012 872, 051 174, 942
2013 887, 486 179, 822
2014 903, 195 184, 839
2015 919, 182 189, 995
2016 935, 452 195, 292
2017 952, 010 200, 736
2018 968, 861 206, 333
2019 986, 010 212, 085
2020 1, 003, 462 217, 997
a – Cebu City growth rate as of year 2000 is 1.77% based on Cebu City Profile 2008
b - Cebu City population based on the NSO 2007 Census
c - 187.10 kg. waste generation/person/year according to the Cebu Inayawan 2006
d - Waste generation increase at 1% per year based on the Philippine Environment
Monitor 2001
35
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
The amount of waste plastics that the city currently disposes to the Inayawan Landfill is at
12.36% of the total waste being disposed. 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 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 or
approximately 3,837 tons of available materials a month.
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.
Average moisture for waste plastics content is at 4.10%, as opposed to the total moisture
content 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 0.101
kg/L and average bulk density of 0.311 kg/L. The loose density figure indicates that
approximately 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 an
additional of 0.21 kg of waste could be added to 0.101 kg of incompact waste for every 1-
36
liter volume. 19 Although these figures are important for the Inayawan Study in its objective
to 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 an
important factor in implementing the demonstration project.
Plastic waste recovery in the city is not included in the study. Based on observations, there
is no formal plastic waste recovery system in the city, except for several industries and
commercial establishments that manage their own waste. Informally, however, there are
several levels of recovery (Figure 16). This includes segregation at source where recyclables
are either bought by individual buyers, picked up from by scavengers along the streets or at
the disposal site and the practice of waste collection crew to separate materials they can
sell. For a detailed discussion on these practices, please see Activity II-2 Report on Plastic
Wastes Management Systems and Practices for Cebu City.
A further study focusing on waste recovery and diversion systems would further shed light
on how much waste plastics the city generates in different sectors. This study should also
include markets for plastics and costs of different plastic waste materials.
As for the City, a stricter enforcement of solid waste management laws and local ordinances
is needed so that recyclable waste plastics, as well as other materials will be diverted to
environment-friendly projects such as a P2F facility.
19
Cebu, MMT, CPDO and DPS, Inayawan Sanitary Landfill Waste Characterization Study, October 2006.
37
6. APPENDICES
6.1. Definition of Material Types
There are two major categories of wastes used in classifying wastes for the Mandaue Waste Analysis and
Characterization Study composed of ten material types. These are the seven types of Plastics based on the
Plastics Classification Code, Wood, Paper and Other Wastes.
Plastics:
1. PET - (or PETE) Polyethylene Terephthalate. Its characteristics include Clarity, strength, toughness, barrier
to gas and moisture. These are commonly used as packaging for soft drink, water and salad dressing
bottles; 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 water
bottles; 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, grease
and oil, versatile, barrier to moisture. Applications include reusable microwaveable ware; kitchenware;
yogurt containers; margarine tubs; microwaveable disposable take-away containers; disposable cups and
plates.
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-away
containers;
7. O – Other plastics (often polycarbonate or ABS). These are dependent on polymers or combination or
polymers such as beverage bottles; baby milk bottles and electronic casings. It also includes composite
Items 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 paper
bags.
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 feed
sulfite/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 a
supermarket name, department stores, hardware stores, etc. with or without handles, paper fast-food
packaging bags, paper lunch-size bags, etc.
f. Polycoated Paper: Bleached and unbleached paperboard coated with HDPE film. This includes
polycoated 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 that
were soiled with food during use (e.g., pizza box inserts).
38
h. Composite/Other Paper: Predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g., orange juice cans
and 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. These
include 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 Cascadia
Consulting Group In cooperation with Sky Valley Associates, Inc.
39
6.2 Detailed Methodology
Waste Composition Calculations
The composition estimates represented the ratio of the components’ weight to the total waste. It was derived
by summing each component’s weight across all of the records and divided by the sum of the total weight of
waste, 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, Vrj, 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 confidence
level. 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 is
found 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 period
Q quantity of waste encountered in the study
TPE tons per employee
j designation of a particular material
i designation of a particular sample
r ratio of material weight to total sample weight, for an individual sample
m weight of a material in an individual sample
w total weight of an individual sample
V the variance associated with the estimate for a material’s percent in a group of samples
n number of samples in the group
40
p a weighting factor given to a segment of the waste stream, where the sum of all the values
of p is 1
G designation of a size subgroup within a segment of the waste stream – usually used for
generator 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 carefully
ensuring 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 on
electronic source.
20
Formula
W-D
% Moisture = 100 x W
Where:
W- Initial Weight of a sample

D- Final Weight of a sample
20
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpsolidwaste/solid_waste_equation_moisture_content.php
41
6.3 Data Capture Forms
IETC Plastic Waste Analysis and Characterization Study, Cebu City

Form 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
42

Form 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
Weight with Weight w/o % Wet basis (wt. of Moisture Content

Types of waste Dry weight, kg
container, kg container, kg sample/ tot. wt)*100 (%)
1. PET
2. HDPE
3. PVC
4. LDPE
5. PP
6. PS
7. Other Plastics
TOTAL PLASTICS
8. Paper
9. Wood
10. Mixed Wastes
TOTAL OTHER WASTES
OVER-ALL TOTAL
Conducted by:
______________________________________
Name and Signature
43

Form No. 3 Moisture Content Determination Form
Date/Time
Control No.
Weather Condition:
Initial Weighing Final Weighing Amount of moisture, kg

Sample % Moisture (amount of
Type Weigh with Weigh with (final weight-initial Remarks
No. Date/Time Date/Time moisutre/initial weight)*100
container, kg container, kg weight)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NOTE: kg-weight of the container
ANALYST:
44

Form 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. PET
2. HDPE
3. PVC
4. LDPE
5. PP
6. PS
7. Others
TOTAL PLASTICS
8. Paper
9. Wood
10. Mixed Wastes
TOTAL OTHER WASTES
OVER-ALL TOTAL
Note: kg - ______ weight of the container
Conducted by:
Remarks:
Name and Signature
45
6.4. Detailed Waste Characterization Tables
Table 25. Characterization of the Overall Waste Stream.

Weight of Waste per Classification, kg Total Waste per Percentage
Types of Waste Variance +/-
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Classification, kg (%)
1. PET 0.58 0.15 1.16 0.82 0.59 0.37 0.83 4.51 0.35 0.111105952 0.43
2. 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 Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste per Percentage
Variance +/-
Plastics Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Classification, kg (%)
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 - -
46
Table 27. Residential Waste Characterization Result

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 0.68
4. 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 3.34
10. 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 - -
Table 28. Residential Waste Plastics Characterization Result.

Variance +/-
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 - -
47
Table 29. Commercial Waste Characterization Result.

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

Variance +/-
1. 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 - -
48
Table 31. Industrial Waste Characterization Result

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 0.01
5. 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

Variance +/-
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 - -
49
Table 33. Results of Unclean Waste Plastics

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste per
Types of Waste Plastics Variance +/-
Classification, kg
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. 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.

Weight of Waste Plastics per Classification, kg Total Waste per
Types of Waste Plastics Variance +/-
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Classification, kg
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
50
Table 35. Weight Master Summary

Day-Sample No. Barangay Truck Number Gross wt. Net Load
1-1 Kasambagan SJC- 469 7740.00 3210.00
1-2 Sto. Niño SJC- 480 6945.00 2495.00
1-3 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 3615.00
Total 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 7900.00
7-1 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
51
6.5. Raw Data
Table 36. Day 1- Sample 1 Bargy. Kasambagan NB: 0.969 kg.- weight of the container (bakat)
Initial weight, kg (Unclean) Final weight, kg (Clean)
wt. w/o container wt. w/o container
1. PET 0.018 0.018 0
2. HDPE 1.531 1.396 8.82
3. PVC 1.503 1.398 6.99
4. LDPE 0.027 0.026 3.70
5. PP 0.145 0.139 4.14
6. PS 0.145 0.136 6.21
7. Other Plastics 0.26 0.239 8.08
TOTAL PLASTICS 3.629 3.352 Ave. 5.42
8. Paper 3 - -
9. Wood 0.149 - -
10. Mixed waste 23.222 - -
OVER-ALL TOTAL 30 - -
Table 37. Day 1- Sample 2 Brgy. Sto Nino NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.029 0.028 3.45
2. HDPE 0.844 0.766 9.24
3. PVC 2.987 2.851 4.55
4. LDPE 0.002 0.002 0
5. PP 0.049 0.046 6.12
6. PS 0.106 0.100 5.66
7. Other Plastics 1.677 1.515 9.66
TOTAL PLASTICS 5.694 5.308 Ave 5.53
8. Paper 3.5 - -
9. Wood 0.407 - -
10. Mixed waste 20.399 - -
Table 38. Day 1-Sample 3 Brgy. Kamputhaw NB: 0.053 kg.- weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.11 0.107 2.73
2. HDPE 1.107 0.996 10.03
3. PVC 1.709 1.617 5.38
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.179 0.171 4.50
6. PS 0.092 0.086 6.52
7. Other Plastics 0.789 0.711 9.89
8. Paper 1.424 - -
9. Wood 19.037 - -
10. Mixed waste 26.014 - -
52
Table 39. Day 1-Sample 4 Brgy. Lorega San Miguel NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.059 0.058 1.69
2. HDPE 1.184 1.070 9.63
3. PVC 2.447 2.407 1.63
4. LDPE 0.014 0.014 0
5. PP 0.013 0.012 7.69
6. PS 0.675 0.623 7.84
7. Other Plastics 0.979 0.893 8.74
8. Paper 0.484 - -
9. Wood 0.07 - -
10. Mixed waste 24.075 - -
Table 40. Day 1-Sample 5 Brgy. Day-as/ Pari-an NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.198 0.193 2.53
2. HDPE 0.769 0.698 9.23
3. PVC 2.506 2.354 6.07
4. LDPE 0.029 0.028 3.45
5. PP 0.103 0.097 5.83
6. PS 0.267 0.253 5.24
7. Other Plastics 0.241 0.222 7.88
8. Paper 9.447 - -
9. Wood 0.003 - -
10. Mixed Waste 16.437 - -
Table 41. Day 1-Sample 6 Brgy. Kalubihan NB: 0.053 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.017 0.017 0
2. HDPE 0.425 0.394 7.29
3. PVC 7.447 7.369 1.05
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.005 0.005 0
6. PS 0.212 0.206 2.83
7. Other Plastics 1.996 1.889 5.36
8. Paper 9.97 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
53
Table 42. Day 2-Sample 1 Brgy. Mabolo NB: 0.156 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.019 0.019 0
2. HDPE 1.103 0.995 9.79
3. PVC 1.042 0.993 4.70
4. LDPE 0.015 0.015 0
5. PP 0.002 0.002 0
6. PS 0 0 0
7. Other Plastics 0.191 0.177 7.33
8. Paper 1.3 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 43. Day 2-Sample 2 Brgy. Tisa NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
1. PET 0.018 0.018 0
2. HDPE 1.919 1.716 10.58
3. PVC 0.235 0.230 2.13
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.107 0.105 1.87
6. PS 0.088 0.088 0
7. Other Plastics 0.476 0.438 7.98
8. Paper 0.001 - -
9. Wood 0.045 - -
Table 44. Day 2-Sample 3 Brgy. Lower Lahug NB: 0.156 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.027 0.027 0
2. HDPE 0.021 0.021 0
3. PVC 0 0 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.003 0.003 0
6. PS 0 0 0
7. Other Plastics 0.152 0.150 1.32
TOTAL PLASTIC 0.203 0.201 Ave 0.19
8. Paper 0.085 - -
9. Wood 0.006 - -
54
Table 45. Day 2-Sample 4 Brgy. San Nicolas Proper NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
1. PET 0.020 0.020 0
2. HDPE 0.951 0.838 11.88
3. PVC 3.166 3.029 4.33
4. LDPE 0.011 0.011 0
5. PP 0.006 0.006 0
6. PS 0.035 0.033 5.71
7. Other Plastics 0.636 0.584 8.18
TOTAL PLASTIC 4.825 4.521 Ave 4.30
8. Paper 15.999 - -
9. Wood 0.189 - -
10. Mixed wastes 8.987 - -
Table 46. Day 2-Sample 5 Brgy. Apas NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.401 0.375 6.48
3. PVC 0.508 0.484 4.72
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.073 0.073 0
6. PS 0.047 0.047 0
7. Other Plastics 0.379 0.362 4.49
8. Paper 0.002 - -
9. Wood 0.187 - -
Table 47. Day 2-Sample 6 Brgy. Labangon NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
1. PET 0.061 0.060 1.64
2. HDPE 0.371 0.358 3.50
3. PVC 1.079 1.078 0.09
4. LDPE 0 0 0.00
5. PP 0.026 0.026 0.00
6. PS 0.021 0.021 0.00
7. Other Plastics 0.112 0.109 2.68
8. Paper 2.5 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
55
Table 48. Day 2-Sample 7 Brgy. Upper Lahug NB: 0.021 kg - weight of the container (plastic bag)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.445 0.415 6.74
3. PVC 0.408 0.388 4.90
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.008 0.008 0
7. Other Plastics 0.222 0.209 5.86
8. Paper 0.251 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 49. Day 3-Sample 1 Brgy. Ermita NB: 0.521 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.158 0.152 3.80
2. HDPE 0.703 0.639 9.10
3. PVC 2.634 2.567 2.54
4. LDPE 0 0 0.00
5. PP 0.1 0.1 0.00
6. PS 0.17 0.159 6.47
7. Other Plastics 1.04 0.962 7.68
TOTAL PLASTICS 4.805 4.579 4.23
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 0.059 - -
10. Mixed waste 21.136 - -
TOTAL OTHER WASTE - -
Table 50. Day 3-Sample 2 Brgy. Hipodromo NB: 0.513 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.257 0.249 3.11
2. HDPE 1.401 1.257 10.28
3. PVC 0.592 0.554 6.42
4. LDPE 0.036 0.035 2.78
5. PP 0.299 0.289 3.34
6. PS 0.088 0.083 5.68
7. Other Plastics 0.821 0.757 7.8
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 1.504 - -
56
Table 51. Day 3-Sample 3 Brgy. Kasambagan NB: 0.942 kg - weight of the container (bakat)
1. PET 0.053 0.052 1.89
2. HDPE 1.867 1.769 5.25
3. PVC 1.403 1.347 3.99
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.038 0.038 0
6. PS 0.136 0.130 4.41
7. Other Plastics 0.312 0.298 4.49
8. Paper 1.701 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 52. Day 3-Sample 4 Brgy. Tinago/ San Roque NB: 0.512 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.118 0.116 1.69
2. HDPE 1.515 1.469 3.04
3. PVC 1.326 1.285 2.11
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.032 0.031 3.13
6. PS 0.284 0.277 2.46
7. Other Plastics 0.793 0.767 3.28
8. Paper 4 - -
9. Wood 1.012 - -
Table 53. Day 3-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan NB: 0.518 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.121 0.119 1.65
2. HDPE 0.392 0.359 8.42
3. PVC 0.009 0.009 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.008 0.008 0
6. PS 0.208 0.196 5.77
7. Other Plastics 7.970 7.337 7.94
8. Paper 14.392 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed wasteS 6.9 - -
57
Table 54. Day 3-Sample 6 Brgy. Kamputhaw NB: 0.566 kg. - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.376 0.359 4.52
2. HDPE 0.785 0.692 11.85
3. PVC 0.824 0.769 6.67
4. LDPE 0.035 0.035 0
5. PP 0.079 0.075 5.06
6. PS 0.33 0.32 3.03
7. Other Plastics 0.286 0.267 6.64
8. Paper 20.38 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
10. Mixed wasteS 6.905 - -
Table 55. Day 3-Sample 7 Brgy. Day-as/Pari-an NB: 0.511 kgs- weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.078 0.076 2.56
2. HDPE 0.616 0.584 5.19
3. PVC 3 3 0
4. LDPE 0.05 0.05 0
5. PP 0.071 0.07 1.41
6. PS 0.058 0.056 3.45
7. Other Plastics 0.223 0.214 4.04
8. Paper 5.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 56. Day 4-Sample 1 Brgy. Guadalupe NB: 0.515 kg - weight of the container (tray)
Types of Waste
% Moisture
1. PET 0.237 0.236 0.42
2. HDPE 0.806 0.723 10.30
3. PVC 0.417 0.382 8.39
4. LDPE 0.064 0.062 3.13
5. PP 0.24 0.239 0.42
6. PS 0.101 0.094 6.93
7. Other Plastics 1.429 1.368 4.27
8. Paper 1.6 - -
9. Wood 2.4 - -
58
Table 57. Day 4-Sample 2 Brgy. Basak Pardo NB: 0.657 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 1.523 1.423 6.57
3. PVC 0.785 0.752 4.20
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.14 0.134 0.429
7. Other Plastics 1.279 1.153 9.85
8. Paper 1.9 - -
9. Wood 0.4 - -
Table 58. Day 4-Sample 3 Brgy. Bulacao NB: 0.611 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)
1. PET 0.084 0.084 0
2. HDPE 0.582 0.509 12.54
3. PVC 0.501 0.457 8.78
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.024 0.023 4.17
6. PS 1.089 0.997 8.45
7. Other Plastics 0.723 0.645 10.79
8. Paper 0.4 - -
9. Wood 4.6 - -
Table 59. Day 4-Sample 4 Brgy. Sambag 1 NB: 0.613 kgs- weight of the container (bakat)
1. PET 0.05 0.05 0
2. HDPE 1.093 1.006 7.96
3. PVC 1.374 1.262 8.15
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.046 0.044 4.35
6. PS 0.479 0.453 5.43
7. Other Plastics 0.687 0.627 8.73
8. Paper 6.9 - -
9. Wood 2.3 - -
59
Table 60. Day 4-Sample 5 Brgy. Capitol NB: 0.630 kg - weight of the container (bakat)
1. PET 0.304 0.301 0.99
2. HDPE 0.824 0.801 2.79
3. PVC 0.879 0.801 8.87
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.017 0.017 0
6. PS 0.005 0.005 0
7. Other Plastics 1.97 1.864 5.38
8. Paper 4.8 - -
9. Wood 1.6 - -
Table 61. Day 4-Sample 6 Brgy. Sambag 2 NB: 0.4 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.148 0.143 3.38
2. HDPE 1.06 0.96 9.43
3. PVC 0.845 0.763 9.7
4. LDPE 0.059 0.057 3.39
5. PP 0.013 0.013 0
6. PS 0.077 0.069 10.39
7. Other Plastics 0.98 0.894 8.78
8. Paper 0.3 - -
9. Wood 0.6 - -
Table 62. Day 5-Sample 1 Brgy. Lorega/San Miguel NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.912 0.797 12.61
3. PVC 0.93 0.873 6.13
4. LDPE 0.082 0.079 3.66
5. PP 0.023 0.022 4.35
6. PS 0.066 0.061 7.58
7. Other Plastics 0.261 0.241 7.66
8. Paper 1.16 - -
9. Wood 0.19 - -
60
Table 63. Day 5-Sample 2 Brgy. Tejero/Carreta NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.505 0.454 10.10
3. PVC 0.815 0.742 8.96
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.109 0.104 4.59
6. PS 0.264 0.243 7.95
7. Other Plastics 0.928 0.847 8.73
8. Paper 3.494 - -
9. Wood 0.141 - -
Table 64. Day 5-Sample 3 Brgy. Sto Nino NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.1 0.1 0
2. HDPE 0.714 0.653 8.54
3. PVC 1.66 1.54 7.23
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.007 0.007 0
6. PS 1.538 1.473 4.23
7. Other Plastics 1.12 1.064 5
8. Paper 2.477 - -
9. Wood 0.944 - -
Table 65. Day 5-Sample 4 Brgy. Pari-an NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.128 0.121 5.47
2. HDPE 0.806 0.725 10.05
3. PVC 1.601 1.599 0.13
4. LDPE 0.004 0.004 0
5. PP 0.033 0.032 3.03
6. PS 0.748 0.708 5.35
7. Other Plastics 0.372 0.328 11.83
8. Paper 1.799 - -
9. Wood 0.034 - -
61
Table 66. Day 5-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.127 0.121 4.72
2. HDPE 0.751 0.657 12.52
3. PVC 8.6 8.6 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.014 0.014 0
6. PS 0.218 0.197 9.63
7. Other Plastics 1.552 1.426 8.12
8. Paper 9.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 67. Day 5-Sample 6 Task Force NB: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.093 0.089 4.30
2. HDPE 1.152 1.034 10.24
3. PVC 1.538 1.459 5.14
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.009 0.009 0
6. PS 0.495 0.472 4.65
7. Other Plastics 0.864 0.75 13.19
8. Paper 3.8 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 68. Day 5-Sample 7 Brgy. Ermita NB: Note: 0.530 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.143 0.139 2.80
2. HDPE 0.505 0.465 7.92
3. PVC 1.794 1.706 4.91
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.02 0.02 0
6. PS 0.081 0.078 3.70
7. Other Plastics 5.183 4.829 6.83
8. Paper 13 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
62
Table 69. Day 6-Sample 1 Carbon NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.067 0.065 2.99
2. HDPE 0.501 0.450 10.18
3. PVC 3.281 3.281 0
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.009 0.009 0
6. PS 0.067 0.063 5.97
7. Other Plastics 0.571 0.529 7.36
8. Paper 6 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 70. Day 6-Sample 2 Brgy. Suba NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.301 0.287 4.65
2. HDPE 0.108 0.093 13.89
3. PVC 0.117 0.109 6.84
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.033 0.032 3.03
6. PS 0.006 0.006 0
7. Other Plastics 0.048 0.045 6.25
8. Paper 1.102 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 71. Day 6-Sample 3 Brgy. Pardo NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0 0 0
2. HDPE 0.585 0.554 5.30
3. PVC 0.682 0.665 2.49
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.129 0.128 0.78
6. PS 0.158 0.153 3.16
7. Other Plastics 2.792 1.659 2.59
8. Paper 2.9 - -
9. Wood 0.026 - -
63
Table 72. Day 7-Sample 1 Brgy. Luz NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.188 0.186 1.07
2. HDPE 0.331 0.298 9.97
3. PVC 2.938 2.713 7.66
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.016 0.016 0
6. PS 0.38 0.361 5.00
7. Other Plastics 0.123 0.11 10.57
8. Paper 3.7 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
Table 73. Day 7-Sample 2 Brgy. Banilad NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.161 0.156 3.11
2. HDPE 0.352 0.312 11.36
3. PVC 0.054 0.046 7.41
4. LDPE 0.011 0.011 0
5. PP 0.023 0.022 4.35
6. PS 0.17 0.159 6.47
7. Other Plastics 0.126 0.12 4.76
8. Paper 0.5 - -
9. Wood 0.067 - -
Table 74. Day 7-Sample 3 Brgy. Sawang Calero NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.078 0.078 0
2. HDPE 0.259 0.235 9.27
3. PVC 0.385 0.353 8.31
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.012 0.012 0
6. PS 0.136 0.132 2.94
7. Other Plastics 0.236 0.209 11.44
8. Paper 1.9 - -
9. Wood 0.282 - -
64
Table 75. Day 7-Sample 4 Brgy. Talamban NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.052 0.05 3.85
2. HDPE 0.792 0.708 10.61
3. PVC 0.776 0.719 7.35
4. LDPE 0.013 0.013 0
5. PP 0.011 0.011 0.00
6. PS 0.077 0.073 5.19
7. Other Plastics 0.916 0.855 6.66
8. Paper 3.3 - -
9. Wood 1.219 - -
Table 76. Day 7-Sample 5 Brgy. Calamba NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.118 0.115 2.54
2. HDPE 0.95 0.849 10.63
3. PVC 0.615 0.569 7.48
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.069 0.069 0
6. PS 0.441 0.417 5.44
7. Other Plastics 1.264 1.197 5.30
8. Paper 7.9 - -
9. Wood 1.067 - -
Table 77. Day 7-Sample 6 Brgy. Punta Princesa NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.07 0.069 1.43
2. HDPE 0.392 0.368 6.12
3. PVC 0.234 0.228 2.56
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0.02 0.02 0
6. PS 0.084 0.081 3.57
7. Other Plastics 0.739 0.698 5.55
8. Paper 1.888 - -
9. Wood 0.588 - -
65
Table 78. Day 7-sample 7 Brgy. San Nicolas NB: 0.524 kg - weight of the container (tray)
1. PET 0.166 0.165 0.60
2. HDPE 0.173 0.162 6.36
3. PVC 0.267 0.264 1.12
4. LDPE 0 0 0
5. PP 0 0 0
6. PS 0.15 0.146 2.67
7. Other Plastics 0.507 0.483 4.73
8. Paper 0.7 - -
9. Wood 0 - -
66
6.6. Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials
Table 79. List of Waste Sorting Equipment and Materials

Required Equipment Equipment per Member of Sorting Crew*
Item Quantity Item Quantity
Large woven baskets (bakat) 28 Pair of thick rubber gloves 1 pair
Plastic garbage bags 100 Surgical masks 1
Smaller containers 21 Work suit 1
Stiff broom 1 Waste Classification Guide 1
Wide-mouth shovel 1 * With ready replacements
Hand-held calculator 1 Other Materials
First-aid kit 1 Item Quantity
Sort area 1 Clipboard 1
Tarp 4'x 8' As needed Data forms As needed
Rags As needed Labels for samples As needed
Small, medium and large scales 3 Pens and markers As needed
Wheelbarrow 1 Adhesive tape As needed
Straw strings As needed
67
6.7. WACS Team
Project Head - Ms. Shiela R. Castillo-Tiangco

Researchers - Mr. Bobeth Laguting
- Mr. Jimmy Anthony Siennes III
Project 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 Argenal

Statistician, University of San Carlos, Math Department
Cebu City Counterpart Team:
City Planning and Development Office

Engr. Paul Nigel Villarete - Head, CPDO
Ms. Maricon Encabo - Head, Zoning Department
Ms. Misty Magistrado - MMT - CPDO
Department of Public Services

Engr. Dionisio Gualiza - Head, DPS
Engr. Eduardo Potot - Officer In-Charge, Landfill
Engr. Randy Navarro - PSO III
68

CONVERTING PLASTIC WASTE TO FUELS IN CEBU CITY

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CONVERTING PLASTIC WASTE TO FUELS IN CEBU CITY

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CONVERTING WASTE PLASTICS TO FUELS

Baseline Study Project

United Nations Environment Programme

5. Conclusion and Recommendations 36

Table 53 Day 3-Sample 5 Brgy. Kamagayan 57

Form 1 Vehicle Data Capture Form 42

CPDO City Planning and Development Office

CEBU CITY PLASTIC WACS

Brief Profile of Cebu City

Geographical Area and Zoning

Figure 1. Cebu City Zoning Map

Source: Cebu City Planning and Development Office

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

Demand for tourism-related services, building of accommodation establishments and various

City Solid Waste Monitoring

Table 2. Volume of Garbage, North District, Cebu City

Table 3. Volume of Garbage South District, Cebu City

Table 4. DPS and Barangay Collection (Ton/Day)

Table 5. Monthly Monitoring Table CY 2008

Day Shift/South District Night Shift/North District

In the study, three major waste sectors were analyzed:

Table 6. Sampling Schedule

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

Actual Waste Characterization

Figure 2. Position of the representative sample extracted per truck

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

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

Figure 3. Overall Percentage of Waste Plastics from Total Samples

Figure 4. Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

Table 9. Result of Overall Waste Composition, Cebu City

Figure 5. Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

Table 10. Result of Overall Waste Plastics Composition, Cebu City

Figure 6. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Residential Sector

Figure 7. Overview of Waste Characterization, Residential

Mixed Waste, PP, 0.21%

Table 11. Result of Waste Characterization, Residential

Figure 8. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

PS, 9.25% Other

Table 12. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Residential

Figure 9. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Commercial sector

Figure 10. Overview of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Table 13. Result of Waste Characterization, Commercial

Figure 11. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

Table 14. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Commercial

Figure 12. Percentage of Waste Plastics from Industrial sector

Figure 13. Overview of Waste Characterization, Industrial

Table 15. Result of Waste Characterqization, Industrial

Figure 14. Overview of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

PS, 6.05% PET, 3.97%

Table 16. Result of Waste Plastics Characterization, Industrial

Table 17. Aggregated Data on Disposed Waste of All Sectors

Table 18. Solid Waste Generation in Cebu City

The moisture content analysis is important in converting waste plastics to fuel. It is

Figure 15. Moisture Content Analysis of Waste Plastics

Table 20. Results for Moisture Content Analysis

Table 22. Typical Data of Waste Composition for Cebu City

Table 23. Difference between Clean and Unclean Waste Plastics.

Table 24 Projected Population and Waste Generation 2007-2020

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Figure 16. Informal Waste Recovery in Cebu City

6.1. Definition of Material Types

Cebu Inayawan Sanitary landfill Waste characterization study