- Permanent Link:
- Municipal Solid Waste Composition Study at the University of Florida
- Gustitus, Sarah
- Publication Date:
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Food ( jstor )
Housing ( jstor )
Landfills ( jstor )
Liquids ( jstor )
Organic waste ( jstor )
Paper products ( jstor )
Recyclable materials ( jstor )
Recycling ( jstor )
Waste paper ( jstor )
Writing assignments ( jstor )
- The University of Florida has stated a goal to divert 90% of its municipal solid waste (MSW) stream from landfilling or incineration. To understand waste being landfilled, MSW was sorted in two phases during the spring 2014 semester. Waste was sorted on campus from select dumpsters (Phase I) and at the Leveda Brown Transfer Station from waste collection trucks (Phase 2). Waste composition of the UF MSW stream has changed since the previous study, conducted in 2009. Waste composition data, including categorical analyses are presented here. Large portions of the waste stream are currently recyclable or compostable. Some waste materials are not currently recyclable through Alachua County but vendors for such materials are available nationally. Observations and recommendations are also provided. ( en )
- Source Institution:
- University of Florida
- Holding Location:
- University of Florida
- Rights Management:
- Copyright Sarah Gustitus. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EXC6PL76M_2XO2ON INGEST_TIME 2017-07-11T21:25:39Z PACKAGE AA00037398_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
Municipal Solid Waste Composition Study at the University of Florida Sarah A. Gustitus This report contains large excerpts from the report of the same title presented to the UF Office of Sustainability, written by Sarah A. Gustitus, Max J. Krause and Ashley Walsh under the guidance of Dr. Timothy G. Townsend.
Abstract The University of Florida has stated a goal to divert 90% of its municipal solid waste (MSW) stream from landfilling or incineration. To understand waste being landfilled, MSW was sorted in two phases during the spring 2014 semester. Waste was sorted on campus from selected dumpsters (Phase 1) and at the Leveda Brown Transfer Station from waste collection trucks (Phase 2). Waste composition of the UF MSW stream has changed since the previous study, conducted in 2009. Waste composition data, including categorical analyses, are presented here. Large portions of the waste stream are currently recyclable or compostable. Some waste materials are not currently recyclable through Alachua County but vendors for such materials are available nationally. Observations and recommendations are also provided. The figure below incorporates all UF waste fractions to indicate how each fraction (or portions of fractions) a re currently being managed. Information for recycling and hazardous waste was provided by the Physical Plant Division (Dale Morris, PPD), and information on MSW constituents was gained from the MSW study discussed in this report. !"# !"#$#%&'( !"#$ !"#$%& !"#"$%&'( !"# !"#$%& ''(& )*+,$--".$/0+& '(& 1,%"#&)$2"-& 3(& )"+/.%4& 5(& 6".+&7&8/22-$+& '(& 9"%:&;"+2$& <<(& 1-0:=$& '(& >-$,2%/.*,+& '(& ?//:&;"+2$& '@(& 9"%:& ;"+2$& '(& )$2"-+& <(& !"#$%& 'A(& B-"++& <(& !-"+2*,+& ''(& !%/:0,2+& C(& D$+*:0"-+& E)1;F& G(& )$:*,"-& <(& H"I"%:/0+& '(& 67J& '(&
1 Introduction The dive rsity of services, opportunities, and people on the University of Florida campus results in an equally diverse waste stream. The purpose of this study is to give a summary of the current waste generation on UF's campus. Trends in waste generation over the past decade will be analyzed and the results of a municipal solid waste (MSW) composition study carried out for this audit will also be discussed. These insights into the current waste stream generated at UF will help to guide future efforts for waste redu ction on campus. UF's campus is defined for the purpose of this audit as the areas serviced by the UF Physical Plant Department (PPD). This includes the main campus as bounded by 34 th Street, Archer Road, University Drive, and 13 th Street, as well the vete rinary school, UF Health (formerly Shands) facilities, and agricultural and recreational facilities south of the main campus. No UF owned facilities outside of the main campus in Gainesville were included in this study. In the MSW composition study, only r efuse disposed in MSW dumpsters was examined. No samples were collected from recycling, medical waste, or construction and demolition (C&D) debris receptacles. All of the samples were collected during the latter half of the spring, 2014 semester. The compo sition study was completed in two phases; in Phase 1 , individual dumpsters were sa mpled on campus, and in Phase 2 loads from garbage trucks were sampled at the Leveda Brown transfer station. 2 Methods and materials KL$&/MN$,2*O$&/P&2L*+&Q"+2$&,/R#/+*2*/.&+20 :4&Q"+&2/&,L"%",2$%*I$&2L$&Q"+2$& ,/R#/.$.2+&P/0.:&*.&2L$&)1;&+2%$"RS& & T.-4&)1;&Q"+&+"R#-$:&*.&2L*+&+20:4S& & U/& L"I"%:/0+V&M*/R$:*,"-V&67JV&%$,4,-*.=V&/%&P//:&Q"+2$&+2%$"R+&Q$%$&$W"R*.$:&*.&2L*+& +20:4S& ;"+2$&Q"+&+/%2$:&*.&2Q/&+$#"%"2$L"+$+&E!L"+$&'&".:&!L "+$&
All sorters were required to wear safety goggles and two layers of gloves. A rubber and textile glove was worn over nitrile waterproof gloves to protect sorters from liquids and sharp objects. Dust masks and 3M full body suits were available for sorters as desired. 2.2 Phase 1 Methodology The MSW sorts carried ou t in Phase 1 were completed by the members of the undergraduate research team. Only MSW dumpsters located on the University of Florida campus were sampled during this composition study. No recycling, C&D, or medical waste receptacles were sampled during th is study, and no MSW receptacles smaller than a dumpster were sampled . The methodology and safety guidelines for these sorts was developed and strictly adhered to by the members of the undergraduate research team. In order to determine which dumpsters to s ample, the buildings and areas on campus were divided into seven major categories: academic, administration, housing, dining, recreational, medical and miscellaneous. The contribution of each category to the waste stream was estimated based on the number a nd size of waste containers primarily receiving waste from each category. Data provided by PPD regarding location, volume, and pickup schedule of dumpsters, compactors, and roll off containers was used in determining the contribution of each source. The es timation was done assuming a maximum load collected from each container on each pickup day. It is assumed that since collection bins are placed based on need, that this estimate is a reasonable representation of the MSW stream on campus. Using this estimat e, the collection bins to be sampled were chosen. The size of the sample collected from each dumpster was determined by weight. A standard size of 100 lbs was used for Phase 1 samples; any dumpster with less than 100 lbs of MSW was not sampled until it con tained the necessary amount of waste. The waste collected was sampled to be representative of the entire contents of the dumpster; for example, if half of the waste in a dumpster was bagged, and half was loose, the 100 lb sample would have the same charact eristics. Weights were determined with the use of a hanging weight. Samples were brought back to a sorting area equipped with a sorting table on top of a tarp, and several bins to sort the waste into. Bags were opened onto a sorting table, and the contents were visually inspected for any hazardous materials. If hazardous materials were present, that sample was discarded. Once it was established that no hazards were present, members of the research team sorted the contents of the sample into bins labeled wit h the names of pre determined categories identified in section 3 . Fine materials that fell through the screen of the table to the tarp below were collected as miscellaneous solid waste. Liquids were also collected in a bucket and weighed. Once the sample w as completely sorted, the full bins for each category were weighed and the weights were recorded. A digital scale with precision to a tenth of a pound was used for weighing each category. Team members estimated and recorded the volume of each category by d etermining what fraction of the bin the waste filled.
2.3 Phase 2 Methodology A more typical methodology for sorting solid waste was employed in the second phase of research. This was to ensure the previous methodology did not have any unforeseen bias. ASTM D 5321 standardizes waste sorting of representative samples directly from waste hauling trucks (ASTM In ternational, 2008) . These samples were sorted at the Leveda Brown Transfer Station. Z&Q"+2$&,/--$,2*/.&2%0,\&$R#2*$:&*2+&Q"+2$&/.2/&2L$&2%".+P$%&+2"2*/.&2*##*.=& P-//%S& & Z&P%/.2 ] $.:&-/":$%&R*W$:&2L$&-/":&/P&Q"+2$S& & T.,$&2L$&-/":&Q"+&Q$-] R*W$:V&"& %$#%$+$.2 "2*O$&+"R#-$&E=$.$%"--4&M$2Q$$.&<5A& ^ & 35A&-M+F&Q"+&,/--$,2$:&".:-",$:& *.&2L$&+/%2*.=&"%$"S& & KL$&$.2*%$&+"R#-$&Q"+&,"2$=/%*I$:&",,/%:*.=&2/&2L$&Q"+2$& ,/R#/.$.2+&*:$.2*P*$: in section 3.
3 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste at University of Florida As th e largest fraction of the waste stream, MSW is of primary interest, but is not characterized on a regular basis. Characterizing the MSW stream by its components is key to identifying ways to reduce waste on campus and achieve UF's zero waste initiative. Of the five waste categories, MSW is the most feasible to alter because it is composed of non hazardous materials and is likely to contain material that could be recycled, reused, or othe rwise diverted from a landfill. 3.1 Phase 1: Source selected samples The f irst phase of the MSW composition study was carried out on campus, using samples from pre selected dumpsters from around the university. The number of samples pulled from each category was based on the estimate for each source's contribution to the total M SW stream, such that the proportion of samples was representative of the estimated source contributions to the MSW stream. Table 3 .1 summarizes the sample sources Samples collected were approximately 100 lbs each. If a dumpster did not contain at least 100 lbs of waste when the team initially visited it, it was revisited in the future and only sampled when it contained the necessary amount of waste. Though samples were not selected based on their volume, the volume of each sample was recorde d along with the weight. Table 3 . 1 . Type and number of waste samples collected during Phase 1. !"#$%&'( ) *+,-"#$%&'( ) .+/,$') &0) *"/12$3 ) 4-"5$/6) Z.*R"-&_"M & < & !-".2&_"M & ' & _*M%"%4 & ' & )*W$: & @ & 45/6763#'"#6&7 ) & & 3 & 8&+367% ) B% $$\ & C & J/%R & 'A & ?"R*-4&".:&B%":0"2$ & C & 96767% ) & & ' & :$-'$"#6&7"2 ) & & < & ;63-$22"7$&+3 ) & & 5 & ;$56-"2 ) & & ' & <"2= ) & & >? )
3.2 Phase 1 Results The goal of Phase 1 was to sort the MSW into specific categories to understand how type of waste varied based on its source. In total, there were 7 primary categories and 21 subcategories. The categories, subcategories, and their respective weights and volumes found during Phase 1 are summarized in Table 3 .2. Note that compostable and soiled papers were included as organic mate rials instead of paper, due to the frequent saturation of these papers with organic materials such as foods and liquids. By weight, organics (40%) is the largest portion of the MSW stream, followed by plastic (19%), paper (18%), products (8%), miscellaneou s (7%), glass (4%) and metal (3%). By volume, plastic (40%), was the largest portion of the waste stream, followed by paper (26%), organics (23%), metal (3%), products (4%), miscellaneous (2%), and glass (1%). It is important to note that, of the subcatego ries, compostable/soiled paper (14%) and food waste (22%) are the largest contributors to the waste stream by weight. By volume, compostable paper (16%) is also the largest contributor, though food waste (5%) contributes less volume than other less dense m aterials. While the composting program has removed a large amount of the compostable materials from the waste produced by the dining halls, composting is not yet readily available for organic waste produced in campus housing, academic and administrative bu ildings, medical and recreational facilities, or other miscellaneous buildings around campus. It is also important to note that recyclable materials such as #1 7 pourable spout plastics (8%), old corrugated cardboard (OCC) (7%), boxboard (6%), high grade p aper (4%), aluminum and tins cans (2%), mixed recyclable paper (2%), and newspaper (1%) make up a total of 30% of the volume of the MSW stream. By weight, these same recyclable categories make up 19% of the MSW stream. All of these materials could be diver ted from landfilling through recycling or reduction efforts.
Table 3 . 2 . Results of the Phase 1 waste audit. !"#$%&'( ) *+,-"#$%&'( ) @$6%A#) B2,3C ) @$6%A#) D ) E&2+/$) B%"2C ) E&2+/$) D ) F"1$' ) U$Q+#"#$% & <@ & '( & 5CS` & '( & 6/%%0="2$:&6"%:M/"%: & 'C@S' & 3( & G`'S< & a( & H*=L&B%":$ & !1 & 3CS` & '( & <`'S@ & 3( & ?*-R+ & 33'S` & @( & '5<5S5 & '5( & D*=*:&!-"+2*,bT2L$% & 'AGS5 & <( & '``S@ & <( & !"#$% & @3GS< & '`( & CA
Figure 3.1 compares the contributions of each category to the MSW stream by weight versus by volume. While organics make up over 40% of the weight of the MSW stream , this category contributes less than a quarter of the volume of the waste stream. Conversely, while plastic comprises less than a quarter of the weight of the waste st ream, this category makes up of 40% of the total volume. Weights were determined by weighing the waste on a scale with precision to one tenth of a pound. Volumes were determined by filling 18 gallon recycling bins and 5 gallon buckets with each waste to es timate a total volume in gallons. Empty containers such as bottles and cans were neither collapsed or crushed before determining volume, but rather, were left in the state in which they were found. & Figure 3 1 : (A) Contribution by weight of each MSW category as determined during Phase 1. (B) Contribution by volume of each MSW category as determined during Phase 1. ! 3.3 Phase 2: Aggregated MSW Samples Phase 2 waste composition analyses occurred at the Leveda Brow n Transfer Station in Gainesville, FL. There were 43 subcategori es used during the Phase 2 sorts, twice the amount used in Phase 1 sorts. The w eight of the samples in Phase 2 ranged from 219 lbs to 330 lbs, as opposed to the approxi mately 100 lb samples i n Phase 1 . The samples in this phase were collected and sorted at the Leveda Brown transfer station in Gainesville. Only weight was determined during this sort. To gather samples for Phase 2 , selected trucks which service campus routes unloaded their waste on the tipping floor. Truck number, substream, and approximate route location were recorde d on the data collection sheet. The sample was visually inspected for hazardous materials and then mixed with a front end loader. A representative fraction of 200 Ã 300 lbs was obtained for waste composition analysis. !"#$%& '`(& !-"+2*,& '`(& )$2"-& 3(& B-"++& C(& T%=".*,+& CA(& !%/:0,2+& @(& )*+,& aSC@(& B4C) !"#$%&
3.4 Phase 2 Results In the Phase 2 sorts, organics (29%) comprised the largest fraction of MSW, followed by plastics (23%), paper products (20%), other (16%), C&D (4%), metal (4%), glass (2%), durable (2%) , and hazardous waste (0.04%). The results of Phas e 2 are summarized in Table 3.3 . Organic waste made the largest contribution by weig ht to the MSW stream in Phase 2, just as it did in Phase 1 . Food and soiled paper made up 94% of this category; this amoun ts to 28% of the total sampled waste stream. Plastic and paper followed organics with the second and third largest contributions by weight, respectively, in both phases. Table 3 . 3 . Results of Phase 2 waste au dit. !"#$%&'( ) *+,-"#$%&'( ) @$6%A#) B2,3C ) @$6%A#) BDC ) F"1$') F'&5+-#3 ) 6"%:M/"%:& & aaSC & 5 & U$Q+#"#$% & 3KV&HJ!> & GASC & C & !h6b_J!>b!!b!1bT2L$% & `AS< & G & !-"+2*,&?*-R & 'aCSC & '' & 6/R#/+*2$ & 'aSC & ' &
T2L$%&D*=*:&!-"+2*, & 3ASG & < & K/2"& 3a3 & <3 & !J9)9$,'63 ) 6"%#$2 & <5SG & < & 6/.,%$2$&7&D/,\ & A & A & B4#+0R & A & A & Z+#L"-2&1L*.=-$+ & A & A & J*R$.+*/."-&_0RM$% & A & A & ;//: & 35S3 & < & 6/R#/+*2$&;//: & A & A & D0MM$% & A & A & ?*M$%=-"++&[.+0-"2*/. & 3Sa & AS< & T2L$%&6&7&J&J$M%*+ &
more widely available and encouraged in these areas, a la rge amount of the MSW currently produced at UF could be diverted from landfills. Table 3 . 4 UF MSW generation by generator type !"#$%&'( ) *+,-"#$%&'( ) F"1$' ) F2"3#6) ;$#"2 ) G2"33 ) H'%"76-3 ) F'&5+-#3 ) ;63M ) 8&+367% & H /0+*.=&K/2"& '5 ( & '5( & C( & G( & C5( & a( & a( & i.:$%=%":0"2$& D$+*:$.,$ & '@( & 'a( & <( & 5( & C<( & `( & @( & B%$$\&H/0+*.= & `( & 'C( & `( & @( & C`( & 5( & 5( & ?"R*-4&7& B%":0"2$& H/0+*.= & '3( & '<( & 3( & a( & 5'( & G( & a( & 4-"5$/6) Z,":$R*,&K/2"& <<( & <'( & <( & 3( & CA( & 5( & @( & Z.*R"-&_"M & 3@( & ''( & <( & 3( & 3< ( & '<( & <( & !-".2&_"M & '@( & '3( & '( & <( & 5`( & 3( & C( & _*M%"%4 & 'A( &
Figure 3 2 : Comp rehensive diagram of the waste stream generated by the University of Florida. Details on MSW composition were determined through the MSW study discussed in this section, while information on recycling, medical waste, hazardous waste, and C&D were furnished by UF PPD 4 Implications and Opportunities 4.1 By Waste Type 4.1.1 Organic Waste Organic waste was the most prominent category by weight found in both Phase 1 and 2 of the MSW composition study. While a sizeable portion of organic waste is now diverted from landfillin g through composting at dining halls, large amounts are still produced in nearly all other buildings around campus. This organic waste often includes scraps from meals eaten outside of dining halls, coffee grounds and tea bags, expired food from vendors, a nd compostable napkins and paper towels largely because it was oversaturated with organics and could not be put into a different category. Whole packages of unopened, unspoiled, and sometimes non perishable, food are regularly disposed of. Pre consumer c omposting has been successful at dining halls, where staff separate compostable and non compostable wastes. A challenge to instituting composting receptacles campus wide would be educating the campus population about what should be placed in these contain ers. It would also be beneficial to institute some kind of collection system throughout large buildings, similar to what is done now with small
paper or plastic recycling bins. These small bins reside in rooms throughout buildings with its contents dispose d of in larger recycling dumpsters, aiding in encouraging recycling by making it more accessible. If emptied daily to avoid malodor, such bins may have similar effects on composting. Another way to reduce the organic waste stream would be to encourage dona tion of unwanted, unspoiled foods and beverages. Packages of non perishable food could be donated to a local food pantry. Perishable, but unspoiled, food can also be donated at several locations throughout Gainesville. For instance, several unopened, unspo iled, packaged meals were found in one load of trash from a vendor on campus, which could have easily been donated. By donating instead of disposing food, UF would not only be one step closer to its zero waste goal, but would be doing a service to the surr ounding community as well. 4.1.2 Plastic The second largest category by weight, campus wide, was plastic waste. Although there are large amounts of recycling receptacles around campus, recyclable plastic was sti ll a common find in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 waste sorts. This suggests that the campus population is either uneducated about current recycling programs or is unmotivated to recycle. Bottles, jugs, jars and tubs with the resin identification code numbers 1 7 are recyclable in the city of Gainesville. Howe ver, it must be remembered that other plastic items which are #1 7 are not. Plastic cups (RIC #6) are currently not recycled within the city, though they are commonly used on campus. Motivating the campus population about both recycling and reduction is ke y. Many food vendors around campus offer discounts on fountain drinks when a customer uses a reusable bottle instead of a disposable cup from the vendor. Unfortunately, lines at food vendors tend to grow very long at peak times of the day, such as breaks b etween classes, or during special events such as orientation. Due to this, students may gravitate towards vending machines, which are placed throughout campus and typically have far shorter wait times. Advertising recycling at or around these vending machi nes may be beneficial. The University is also looking into adding take back pr ovisions in upcoming contracts. 4.1.3 Paper Products Paper products was the third largest category by weight in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 , as well as the second largest category by vol ume in Phase 1 . Most types of uncontaminated paper are recyclable on campus, making this category an easy target for reduction in the MSW stream. Paper products found during waste composition studies included class notes, fliers, magazines, office and fax paper, junk mail, boxboard, and corrugated cardboard, among other items such as laminated advertisements and business cards. One way to reduce the amount of paper needed on campus is to encourage online submission of assignments and documents. While online submissions are accepted in many classes, there are still many that require assignments to be submitted either on
paper, or both on paper and online. For annotated assignment returns, there are many programs that allow professors and TAs to make these not es digitally. Online submission has been successful with regards to teacher evaluations, eliminating 850 lbs. of paper and saving approximately $6,500 for the fall 2014 semester alone. Paper that cannot be eliminated from the MSW stream by reduction should be recycled whenever possible. Many classroom buildings are already equipped with one or more paper recycling bins within the buildings. Paper recycling bins should be expanded to large classrooms. Similarly, rooms in residence halls typically come with one trash bin and one recycling bin, though this does not necessarily mean that students use the two bins for their intended separate purposes. Education on what types of paper are recyclable could aid in motivating people to make the most of these bins. A ny office or classroom areas found to be lacking in paper recycling bins should be provided with them, especially the larger lecture halls. 4.1.4 Other Recyclables While aluminum cans do not weigh much individually, large amounts may contribute a significant am ount of weight and can take up large volumes in MSW if not crushed. These cans are valuable, making them a ready target to remove from the waste stream. Alternatively, glass is very heavy, though it may not take up much volume. However, this stream only ma de up 4% of the waste in Phase 1 by volume and 2% of the waste in Phase 2 by weight. Therefore, it may not be a priority over other more common waste streams. 4.1.5 Residuals Fine materials that fell through the screen of the table to the tarp below were collected as mis cellaneous solid waste. Liquids were also collected in a bucket and weighed. These two were categorized as either solid or liquid residuals. The liquids were primarily separated from their containers to avoid skewing the weight data with a full container. The recovery options for solid residuals are limited due to the variety of components found in this category. Items found in solid residuals covered practically every larger waste category, containing items such as bits of food, shreds of paper, small plas tic wrappers, nails and other small metal hardware, and glass shards. Separating the residuals category would take more time, money and energy than any recovery of these materials would be worth. Similarly, there are few options for the recovery of liquids . Typically, once waste is compacted, the liquid containers are crushed, releasing the liquid into the surrounding waste. The only viable option for reduction of this category is source reduction .
4.2 By Waste Source 4.2.1 Housing While a large amount of organic wa ste was found in all three of the housing categories, organic was particularly high in family & graduate housing and Fraternity and Sorority housing. Family & graduate housing options typically include kitchens in each apartment, which make cooking at home more appealing than in it is in community style undergraduate residence halls, where many residents opt to eat their meals at dining halls. Similarly, it is traditional for members of fraternities and sororities to dine at their organization's house. Ther efore, food scraps from meal preparation and unwanted leftovers are generated and disposed of at the house, instead of the individual members' homes. Fraternity and Sorority social and service events where food is served may also generate large amounts of food waste. Making composting more readily available at these locations could make a large impact on the MSW stream. Furthermore, Greek housing generated the largest proportions of metal and glass of any category examined in this study. A majority of this metal consisted of aluminum cans which could easily be recycled and therefore diverted from the landfill. Similarly, virtually all of the glass consisted of recyclable glass bottles. When the research team visited dumpsters at Greek housing to collect wast e samples, fewer container receptacles were available than paper recycling bins or waste containers. Increased availability of these receptacles could help eliminate the recyclable materials from the MSW stream. Programs similar to current water conservati on challenges between Greek houses could be expanded to include recycling as well. 4.2.2 Academic The MSW sampled from plant labs and the library contained the largest and second largest proportions, respectively, of organic waste of all of the categories exami ned. It should be noted that Library West, which contains a 24 hour Starbucks, was sampled for the library category. With the construction of a new Starbucks at Marston Science Library currently underway, it can be assumed that the sample taken at Library West likely represents what the Marston waste stream will look like in coming years. A large amount of the organic waste produced at the library consisted of coffee grounds and pre packaged meals from the Starbucks. Some diversion of this waste could be ac hieved if the coffee grounds could be used as fertilizer in local gardens, while any unspoiled pre packaged meals could be donated to local shelters. While some composting was noted at IFAS greenhouses, more widespread composting efforts could be made at p lant and animal labs throughout campus. It is noteworthy that the library sample had the second smallest proportion of paper waste of any of the categories sampled. This can likely be attributed to the widespread availability of paper recycling receptacles throughout the library. However, animal labs had the largest proportion of paper waste of any category sorted. A large amount of this waste was derived from old corrugated cardboard (OCC) contaminated with animal blood found when the research team sampled the IFAS Meat Lab & Retail Sales unit. Due to contamination, this OCC is not viable for traditional cardboard recycling, and therefore was correctly disposed of in MSW.
5 Conclusion The 2014 UF Waste Composition study was performed to understand how the M SW stream has changed since the previous study, conducted in 2009. UF has since implemented several new recycling programs, now has a single waste hauler for MSW, and has expanded public access to recycling bins throughout campus. Overall recycling rates have increased since 2009, with UF currently diverting 44% of MSW from the landfill. The MSW stream still contains significant fractions of compostable and recyclable materials. Food waste and soiled paper are the largest categories of waste generation b y weight. Expanded composting efforts would significantly decrease the amount of waste sent to the landfill. Paper constitutes 20% of the current MSW stream, much of which is currently recyclable in Alachua County. Educating students, faculty, and staff to recycle these materials would increase diversion from the landfill, and can be accomplished with the current recycling bins. Plastics represent a large fraction of MSW by volume, but less so by weight. Polystyrene products (Styrofoam TM ) and other pla stic bags and films consume large amounts of space but do not add considerable weight. PET and HDPE bottles (soda bottles, and detergent bottles) are recyclable but are found throughout the waste stream. Other plastics are less commonly recycled and will be more challenging to find vendors for these materials. Small durable goods or mixed material products (microwaves, irons, etc.) are not common in the waste stream, but are generated in large quantities during dorm move outs. Collection events could ca pture these bulky, dense items and divert them from the waste stream. Small amounts of glass and metals were found in the waste stream and are currently recyclable in Alachua County. The screen sorting table used in this study created two fractions of res idual materials that contained a mix of biodegradable (food scraps and paper) and non biodegradable materials. This residual fraction of waste has little value for recycling and would be too contaminated with other debris for composting. Residuals curren tly make up 11% of the MSW stream but will decrease every time a waste component is removed from the waste stream. Education and expanded recycling efforts would divert large fractions of the current MSW stream from the landfill. Examining purchasing poli cies and packaging materials could help to decrease generation of items that currently have no recycling potential. With these tactics, UF can achieve its zero waste goal. 6 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the many people involved in this projec t. The guidance of Dr. Timothy Townsend and Max Krause, the help and assistance of Joseph Floyd, Dale Morris, Liz Storn and Taylor Cremo, and the dedication and work of the undergraduate team were vital to the success of this study. Additional thanks to t he UF Waste Stakeholders Committee for reviewing the report, providing comments and feedback, and furthering the zero waste initiative at UF. Thanks also go to David Woods and Sally Palmi who provided use of the Leveda Brown Transfer Station tipping floor and personnel to conduct the Phase 2 study.
7 References ASTM International. (2008). D5231 92(2008) Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. doi:10.1520/D5231 9 2R08 UF Office of Sustainability. (2014a). Policies and Directives. Sustainability at UF. Retrieved from http://sustainable.ufl.edu/about/policies and directives/ UF Office of Sustainability. (2014b). Zero Waste. Zero Waste. Retrieved from http://sustainable .ufl.edu/zero waste/ UF PPD. (2013). UF PPD Waste Tonnage. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.